Aeneid Book I Discussion Thread

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

I’ve started a new thread for our discussion of Book I of the Aeneid because the other thread was getting a bit long in the tooth. Each of you is more than wlecome to post here, even if you haven’t previously posted. No comment will be ignored.

Useful links:
on-line version of Aeneid
Maeglin’s website with background
prior thread about this reading group

To start the discussion, let’s ask whether we can construct a Roman soldier’s code, a sort of ancient chivalry, out of various bits of Book I. There’s a neat passage in Dido’s palace where Aeneas weeps over the mural of the Trojan War, including his past self, the “worthy” Priam, the compass of human fortunes and the common lot of the world. Thus, we see that Roman men are permitted to weep, reflect on their past and appreciate art. Since the mural is in Carthage, the “values” reflected in the mural can be seen as universal. Earlier passages talk about how a man who has won respect is able to calm a mob with argument. Aeneas urges his men to endure in the face of hardship (Stoicism?), hides the terrible boding in his heart, and puts off fear–his very fame will bring him means of safety. He sets lookouts, conceals his ships, provides game for his hungry men and shows a father’s love for his son. He meets Dido’s very high level of courtesy with generosity. Consider these actions as the actions of a leader and founder of an empire.

Aeneas works no miracles; he does not have superhuman abilities or priestly powers. On the contrary, he is terrified in the storm and, in Book I, has little effectual control over his ultimate fate.

Do Aeneas’ actions make him an exceptional Roman leader? Is he an archetype for the steadfast Roman common soldier? Is he an “everyman” Roman–could everyone live by Aeneas’ code (if indeed we can identify one)? Can Aeneas? Could this code realistically be kept in the face of the violence/abasement Aeneas saw at Troy?

Is there a instinctive (perhaps conservative) impulse to attempt to construct a warrrior’s code in the face of the chaos of war/fate? Or is this simply the wrong question to be asking because Book I has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue? Let’s hear from you!

(Note that any and all comments on Book I are welcome–if you don’t want to discuss this question, go ahead and post something else. :))

2

Also, can anyone help me with this passage (Aeneas is speaking with Venus); “I bear my peoples’ gods snatched from the foe, They are here with me in our ships.” Is he talking about idols, holy objects, his knowledge of the gods?

3

He is talking about the penates, or family idols placed by the hearth in a traditional Roman house.

My analysis of your above post will follow.

MR

4

As Maeglin says, Aeneas is carrying the Penates of his people.

The Encyclopedia Brittanica (1957 edition), in the entry on Penates, states that “The penates had a temple of their own at Rome…In this and many other temples the penates were represented by two images of youths seated holding spears.” There follows a discussion of the traditional beliefs about how Aeneas brought them from Troy.

Besides the public Penates, each household had its own private ones. The same article says of these that “A little offering of food was made at each meal and on such occasions as birthdays, marriages and safe returns from journeys, the images were crowned and offerings made to them of cakes, honey, wine, incense and sometimes a pig (see ROMAN RELIGION).” It doesn’t say what the public ones got, but I imagine they didn’t go hungry.

[ref. line 378 in Book I]

I think I need another day or so for the essay question in the OP.

5

I went and looked up penates on google (they seem to be typically classed with lares and genius, other homely-type deities) and I found some neat pictures:

penates 1
penates 2
penates 3
picture 4–scroll down–not penates but a picture of Aeneas and his son making a sacrifice to the penates–another version of the sacrifice Aeneas made to Juno in Book VIII

6

Drat–I also meant to say to Peregrine that the essay must be at least 10 pages, double spaced with reasonable margins, proper grammar and spelling, submitted no later than noon sharp on the 17th, and that points will be deducted for lateness and smudges–NOT. Please don’t think that you have to do actual work for this–toss off any old ideas that you want and we’ll see what’s interesting. Of course some of us may find writing essays interesting, and if so, more power to us!

7

I would just like to publically damn my recent lack of ethernet. Especially because I was only now able to read the discussion. There are very few things more annoying than wanting to post and not being able to.

If you all dont hear from me in a few days, call in the hounds. And thanks for the welcome, Humble Servant.

8

The first book of Vergil’s Aeneid is filled with commentary on the behavior of its characters. An examination of its heroes and villains provides, if not a warrior’s code, at least a fair picture of the Romans’ ideas of right conduct.

The overall idea seems to be that happiness ensues when leaders are strong, generous, caring, and just, while the people are courageous, hard-working and law-abiding. Piety is valued above all other virtues.

We can suppose that a civilization surrounded by enemies would need to cultivate some friends. Friends can be recognized by their piety, since a shared religion suggests a shared morality. A tradition of generous hospitality insures that friends thrive, supporting each other in times of trouble. Love of family and comrades has the same effect on a personal scale.

To deal with all those enemies, it’s important to develop a strong military tradition. Courage and good cheer in the face of calamity are valuable assets in wartime. A well-established work ethic makes for an efficient state.

A puzzle arises in the matter of the bargain between the Tyrians and the Libyans, hinted at in lines 367-8: “…of land they bought – called Byrsa from their bargaining – so much as with a bull’s hide they might compass round.” (Verse translation by James Rhoades) In the commentary by Charles Knapp (Scott, Foresman and Company, 1929), we learn of the story that the Tyrians cut the hide into very thin strips in order to acquire more land that was intended in the agreement. Could it be that the tight-fistedness of the Libyans was seen as sufficient cause for equivocation by the Tyrians? Is this consistent with the values expressed throughout the rest of the story? Could a Roman audience be expected to have a generally negative opinion of the Libyans for reasons not clear to us? Surely such a questionable gesture towards a neighboring people warrants some explanation. Perhaps one of our classicist Dopers can shed some light on this matter.

                                              ::smudge::

Okay, that was my essay. Tomorrow I’m posting my favorite bits of Book I.

9

Oooh, interesting response, Peregrine.You make a number of excellent points. Let’s discuss and expand on some of my favorites.

Who do you see as the villains of Book I? The Greeks? The Libyans? The Carthaginians? I think the most powerful villain of Book I is Juno. This is impious, but where there is a set of gods which have human qualities and who interfere in human activities, why shouldn’t we judge the gods by Aeneas’ standards? Vergil calls Juno wrathful and she sneaks around behind Jupiter’s back. I see a tension between the fatalistic approach of piety to the gods no matter what and Vergil’s desire to build a Roman code of conduct which, if followed, makes humans more “noble” than the gods. Of course, Vergil would see this too, but I am struggling to find his resolution.

I have the picture of the “noble centurian” in my mind. As you also note, a strong “work ethic” or “single-mindedness” does seem to be characteristic of, and a reason for the success of, the Roman army. Maybe piety is a code word for respect for the past and loyalty to tradition; otherwise I’m still not getting why Vergil makes it such an important pillar of Roman behavior. Does it have something to do with emperor worship?

This is a most interesting point. Did the Rome of Augustus have any friends? It was the 800-pound gorilla and I think it’s fair to say that it tended to conquer rather than negotiate treaties of mutual assistance. Just how loyal can you be to your friends when you have an empire to run (Augustus brought peace to the empire through some actions that were personally quite disloyal–Machiavellian actions serve the state, not individuals)? Just how loyal can Aeneas be to Dido? Loyalty to the state is another story, of course.

I can’t comment on the historical references here, but I will say that purchased land still has to be held by military might–since an empire has to have might to hold its land, why shouldn’t it just conquer land in the first place instead of purchasing it? We always want to talk about what states or governments are moral and how they can act morally in specific circumstances, and I do indeed think we need to have standards for deciding this–some states ARE more just than others. Machiavelli’s best idea is to point out that indiviudal morality CANNOT be extrapolated to collective morality–we somehow need to come to terms (in a way not based on individual morality) with the need to preserve the state and the need to wage war (even if solely in defense). Dido’s state may have been praiseworthy for purchasing its land (with stolen money, of course) and for its hospitality, but the failure of its leader (surrounded even now by bodyguards) ultimately means that the state fails and its people suffer individual consequences. Why shoule Aeneas weep over the outrage of Hector’s body being dragged around Troy? Wouldn’t Rome do the same to maintain its empire? BTW, I think that dragging a body in this way IS an outrage, as were many of the acts of the Roman army, but I don’t have the answer as to how to condemn these acts if the survival of the state is taken to be the ultimate good.

Ok, I’ve gotta deduct 5 points for that–students today, geesh!

BTW, my favorite passage of Book I is where Aeneas looks at the mural of the battle of Troy. I read it as Vergil’s reaction to the art of Homer which stopped him in his tracks and was known throughout the world–Vergil is to Homer just as Aeneas is to Odysseus. It’s an homage and a connection to the art of the past (as well as the history of the past–oops, that’s a tautology:)).

10

I’m going to ponder all that for a bit. Meanwhile, as promised, my favorite lines:

lines 199 to 210 – Aeneas tries to rally the crew’s spirits.

 "This too with joy will be remembered yet." I couldn't help reading this as, "Someday we'll look back on all this and laugh."

 "So spake his lips, while, sick with extreme woe, hope's mask he wears, and chokes the anguish down." It was hard to be detached after that.

lines 405 to 409 – Aeneas pines for his mother.

 "Why may I never clasp thy hand in mine, or hear unfeigned accents and reply?" I actually got a little misty.

Humble Servant, in the mural scene, can’t you just picture the movie in your head? Bedraggled heroes making their way into the city, score building as they marvel at the grandeur. Arrival at the mural, which we can hardly see because the camera is busy recording looks of wondering inquiry. Now astonished faces of Aeneas and Achates, big swelling main theme with a crashing downbeat as we suddenly cut to a depiction of Achilles, slow pan across the famous scenes alternating with weeping overwhelmed reaction of the exhausted good guys. The anachronistic Roman audience is buzzing because they are all pointing out the scenes they recognize.

Has there been a movie?

11

I’m not much of a movie buff, but I don’t recall any. Unfortunately, your question has made me think of the Odyssey starring Armand Assante–got a brain scar from that one. If they make a movie of the Aeneid, Charleton Heston must of course play Aeneas.:smiley:

12

Dunno about that. In the introduction to John Conington’s Commentary on the Aenid, there is reference to Vergil being pressured by Augustus to finish it. Which may explain why he wanted it burned - nobody likes a nag. Especially when they have the power of life and breath over you.

Anyways, according to this link, the cult of the divine emperor was relatively new to Rome, having been introduced by Julius Caesar. Wonder if he was convinced of the utility of the concept by Cleopatra and the Egyptians? Anyways, I can’t really see Vergil really, fully buying into that. Either that, or he was one of the first hard-line communist-types, “All For the Good of the State”, and in on the deification scheme. Given his reluctance to publish, I wonder if his heart was truly into that part of it.
:tisiphone returns to her void, desperately trying to remember where in the hell she read that:

13

This, to be sure, is not the usual explanation. As any reader can tell from the Alexandrian perfection of his verses, Vergil was a real stickler. It is usually argued that he wanted the Aeneid burned because he hadn’t finished revising it. Since there are over 40 imperfect lines and a wholly ambiguous ending, this is certainly true.

Alternatively, it has been proposed that Vergil wanted his work destroyed because it represented a gross betrayal of his Alexandrian principles. This idea is bizarre yet strangely compelling.

MR

14

40 imperfect lines in the whole shebang?? Horrors! I need another education here–“Alexandrian” seems to refer to a certain set of works by Alexandrian authors writing just prior to Vergil, but I can’t figure out what the unifying “Alexandrian principles” would be in this context–I take it it does not merely refer to perfect meter?

Artists wanting their work, complete or incomplete, destroyed at their deaths seems to be a continuing theme in history. I wonder if there is a common psychological reason, or if every reason is unique.

15

…or so my favorite Latin teacher used to say. This is a great and deep subject, so any brief explanation will do it no justice.

Alexandrianism is a self-conscious Greek “school” of poetry which flourished, unsurprisingly, in the city of Alexandria (Egypt) during the Hellenistic period (3rd century BC). The center of Alexandrianism was undoubtedly the great library, whose caretakers were almost always scholars, critics, and poets in their own right.

Their beliefs can be summed up in a few words: no epic poet will ever even come close to equalling, let alone surpassing, Homer. Since writing such extraordinary epic is impossible, they chose to eschew it all together. Let other men tell the long stories of gods, monsters, and heroes. Alexandrian writers, on the other hand, will compose little, short, painfully learned, and technically perfect pieces not about impersonal great deeds, but about love, about the hearts and feelings of men and women, etc. They avoid rough, hirsutus versus of the weighty epic poets in favor of effervescence.

The champion of this school was the poet Callimachus, who outlines the fundamental principles of the Alexandrian (or Callimachean) school in his prologue to the Aetia:

Vergil’s inspiration is the musa levis, the Slender Muse of Callimachus. He adheres to these principles strongly in his Liber Bucolicon (Eclogues) and equally strongly in the Georgics. The Aeneid, however, is an exception. His lines have the technical perfection of a Callimachean nightingale but the subject of a Green-Eyed Monster.

Hence scholars conjecture that Vergil did not want to be remembered for annihilating the poetic principles that he adhered to so strongly. So when he knew he was dying, he ordered the manuscript burnt.

MR

16

I am simply dumbfounded by this stuff, and I especially love the mix of anachronism and modern slang in the translation–humor me while I give my reactions.

**I get it! They’re doing intellectual haiku!

**Clearly anticipating flapper culture (those ladies sipping champagne and trying to look like boys would be in their element).

**Give that translator 20 points for using parasang and snoop in the same stanza.

Well, as long as it’s in a yellow wood.

**And there we have an image that would do Alfred Hitchcock proud.

Not only have I been amused, I’ve been edjumacated too.

17

I know your tone is purposefully levis, but I would urge you not to underestimate the Callimachean technique. For a particularly impressive Callimachean quasi-epic, check out Apollonius of Rhodes’ Argonautica.

MR

18

Yeah, I’m just kidding around;)–I have an extremely healthy respect for ancient authors.

Help me again though on this “quasi-epic” idea–isn’t that exactly what the Alexandrian School didn’t do, making Apollonius an anti-Alexandrian? Was Vergil flirting with the Apollonian apostacy, only to regret it on his deathbed?

19

No, Apollonius was not an anti-Alexandrian, and the importance of this “feud” is overestimated.

More important than the narrative length, the crux of Alexandrianism is the internality of the subject and the refined perfection of the verse. The Argonautica is this more about Jason’s foibles, indiscretions, loves, and weaknesses than about the “deeds of gods and heroes,” the meat and potato for the traditional epic.

As for Vergil, well, I just don’t know. In all things he appears to us as conservative and serious minded: an innovator rather than a “flirter.” There can, of course, be no real substantiation for our estimations of what was going on in the Prince of Poets’ mind.

20

Yes. One of Vergil’s best aspects, and one of the aspects that is not necessarily diminished by translation (as turns of language and perfection of meter necessarily are), is his “character development.” In the lines that Peregrine noted, we see human emotion, realistically managed. The greatest English authors (I’m thinking particularly of Shakespeare and Austen), were also great at least in part because they portrayed human nature so well. Where Vergil perhaps falls short of Homer, IMHO of course, is in not being quite as sensitive to human frailty, in not giving Aeneas enough internal inherent flaws. (Aeneas’ problems with Dido, for instance, are not his fault–he is excused by the imperatives of the gods/fate.) Compare the biblical story of King David, who sins but recognizes it, giving us an imperfect human we in turn recognize. Similarly, Oddyseus is more human in this way than Aeneas.

These are comparative quibbles only; Vergil clearly understands and portrays human nature and emotion very well, even if he is perhaps reluctant to ground imperfection in the nature of his founding hero.

Returning briefly to my original question: chivalry had more legs as an idea expressed in the arts than it had success as a method of war–in the Arthurian legends, chivalry was something for the knights to do so that they wouldn’t fight when there weren’t real battles to be fought. The Roman soldier’s code (perseverance, hard-work, loyalty) engendered a similar expression in the ideas of the noble centurian and similarly provided discipline (through public works projects/training) between battles. Nonetheless, the Roman code was useful in battle in a way that chivalry was not; further, I’m not sure how much of the “code” we can find in Book I alone. Hard work, perseverance, loyalty between commanders and soldiers and vice versa seem to be there (as is that pesky idea of piety); but I would argue that the ideas of generosity and courtesy are actually out of place in the centurian’s code–he’s a soldier, not a host. Certainly what we can find of a code of action in Book I differs from ideas appreciated by the Egyptians and Cleopatra (no luxury for Aeneas on his voyages–except to the extent he is distracted temporarily by Dido)–but, as tisiphone mentions, we do see Rome adopting the eastern concept of emperor worship. Therefore, to try to answer my own question, I would say that there are some interesting similarities between soldiers’/rulers’ codes throughout history, but also important differences.