|
The Aeneid
Book by Book:
Book 1
Book 1 is very important: it sets the scene, the time and place
of the tale;
most of the main characters are introduced: Juno and Aeneas first, then
Venus, Jupiter, and Dido;
the plot is indicated: Aeneas is supposed to be travelling to Italy
but it is not at all certain as far as he is concerned that he will make
it;
the main theme is explicitly stated: Aeneas' divine mission, that he
is driven by Fate to establish in Italy the race which will found Rome
and rule the world;
the poem can be read on different levels: at its simplest it is the
tale of the exploits of Aeneas but it has messages about life in Augustan
Rome - politics, religion, ethics;
the three worlds of the poem are introduced: most of the poem is legend
- the story of Aeneas - but it moves from time to time into the supernatural
worId of the gods and into the realm of history;
the concepts of furor (uncontrolled passion) and pietas (dedication
to one's duty - to the gods, to the state or one's followers and to one's
family) can be explained.
So with all that to take on board, you really need to spend quite some
time on Book 1. Most of the necessary points are outlined in Divine
Quest.
Another way of looking at Book 1 is to imagine you are members of Virgil's
Roman audience, listening to a reading of the book for the first time.
On the side of reality you know the current political situation in Rome
where Octavian has become Augustus, you have probably fought or lost relatives
in the recently ended civil wars, and you can still get cold shivers down
their spines at the mention of Carthage, destroyed only 120 years ago.
On the unreal side, you know the story of Troy from the Greeks, and you
also know vague legends about the travels of Aeneas, which probably didn't
connect him with Dido. There were tales that Trojans had reached Italy,
several Roman families from the second century onwards had claimed Trojan
ancestors, and as Virgil's audience you knew that Julius Caesar had claimed
Aeneas himself as an ancestor. But you don't know what Virgil is going
to do with all this.
What would the Roman audience have got from the first book? What would
they have thought of Aeneas? To a Roman what was the significance of the
forced landing in Africa near Carthage? What would they have thought of
Dido? What is Virgil saying to them about Augustus and Rome, their Rome?
And so on and so on - this can be a fascinating analysis. For example,
Jupiter's prophecy is aimed, like the reconciliation of Jupiter and Juno
in Book 12, at the audience, not the characters in the book, and the audience
almost immediately know far more about Aeneas' mission and its almost cosmic
importance than poor Aeneas himself. He has to wait till Book 6 for equivalent
revelations. And imagine the implications of Virgil's claim that all events
in the ancient world, including the fall of Troy, were actually only leading
up to the Roman empire, that this empire had divine sanction and was part
of a very long term divine plan, spanning over 1,200 years, and that Augustus
himself was included in this divine plan. Not to mention the promise of
everlasting power and glory. Wouldn't the Romans have found this both reassuring
and inspiring?
Look also at the irony of Aeneas and his crew being rescued by the queen
of Carthage. As well as the horrors of Hannibal, Antony and Cleopatra spring
to mind. By the end of Book 1 it's obvious Aeneas will be tempted to stay
there. What are the implications of this?
One final point for Book 1: do look carefully at the characters of Aeneas
and Dido as they appear in this book, to balance the unfavourable impression
both give in Book 4.
Book 2
As well as being a Roman and not a Greek account of the fall of Troy,
this book is unusual in that it is a defeat told by the defeated. It's
a good source of examples for your furor/pietas discussions, and
you might like to ask students what they think the reactions of modern
men and women would be to finding their city invaded and draw comparisons.
Point out that Aeneas was told to flee by no less a person than the greatest
Trojan hero. As Hector says, with the lack of modesty usual among the ancients,
things were hopeless, because, if he couldn't save Troy no one could. So
Aeneas had permission from the highest authority. Why then didn't he obey?
The whole ethos of the Homeric hero needs clarifying here. Why was Aeneas
prepared to sacrifice his wife and son just because his father was obstinate?
The Roman respect for and obedience to the paterfamilias needs explaining,
especially in an age where fathers are largely regarded by teenagers as
irrelevant bores.
You could mention that earlier traditions had hinted that Aeneas, whose
ancestral domain was in fact some distance from Troy itself, had left without
helping enough in Troy's defence, that he'd come to a private agreement
with the Greeks and even that he'd had a hand in the betrayal of the city.
Helenus, whom he meets in Book 3, had also been accused of betraying the
city, because he hadn't been given Helen after Paris' death. She'd been
given to Deiphobos instead, and we find out what happened to him in Book
6, so Helenus was actually well out of that one. But the stories portraying
the Roman and Julian ancestor as a coward or traitor had to be laid to
rest, hence the irrational courage.
Remember too that Dido is listening to all this. Aeneas' concern for
his family must have made her think this rugged hero might also make a
sensitive caring lover. Particularly, of course, his concern for his wife.
We might think this came a little late but it wouldn't have worried Dido.
Even in this first book, chronologically speaking, Aeneas is an isolated
figure. He wakes alone, he is alone after the death of Priam, he alone
sees the vision of the gods destroying his city like modern demolition
experts, he alone is protected from the weapons and flames as he returns
home, he rushes back into Troy alone to seek Creusa, and the natural end
result of all this is that he is singled out for the lonely position of
leader at the end of the book. This isolation becomes even more complete
when Anchises dies at the end of Book 3.
Also while on Book 2 note the comparisons which can be drawn between
Aeneas and Sinon. Both are foreigners telling sad stories about losing
their homes. Both win complete trust. Both cause immense destruction in
the cities which welcome them. Their motives, of course, are quite different,
but the end result is the same, and both Priam and Dido would have been
much better off had they been nasty and barbaric and exterminated all strangers.
There are numerous other points you can make from this book. The scene
of Helen lurking at the altar doesn't fit in with the other accounts of
her waiting outside her bedroom and inviting Menelaos in to mutilate Deiphobos,
as a gift to calm his wrath when he meets her. The episode is obviously
put in to tell us things about Aeneas' state of mind rather than the fate
of Helen.
Latin students used to really enjoy the description of Pyrrhus/Neoptolemos
wrecking the doors of Priam's palace as an example of overkill. They were
also intrigued by the irony of the Trojans, including Aeneas, going to
bed at night thinking the war was over: they woke up and found it was,
but they'd lost! Is the parallel between Priam and Pompey, the huge headless
trunk rolling on the shore a flash of Virgil's conscious or subconscious
mind? I've never been able to forgive Aeneas for being so brutal in telling
Creusa about the death of her father and the fate of her family. Does Virgil
actually forget that she is Priam and Hecuba's daughter?
What was the wooden horse? Was it a siege machine? Relief pictures show
that such machines were used by the Egyptians early in the second millenium,
and by Assyrians, Hittites and other middle eastern peoples in the middle
bronze age. It is possible that mercenaries or traders saw such things
in use and brought back stories in time for them to be added to the epics
of the eighth century. Or it is possible the Greeks learned to use them
from their eastern allies during the years they were camped outside the
walls of Troy. Boxes on wheels, covered in something tough like leather
to protect those inside, were pushed close to walls and gates, and battering
rams applied. Pictures show some machines which have a distinct resemblance
to animals, and it has been pointed out that, though horses don't butt,
they kick instead. The Trojans were well known for rearing beautiful horses,
and horse-taming is an epithet applied by Homer both to the city of Troy
and to its heroes. Did the Greeks with savage irony create a machine in
the form of a horse to tame the horse-taming city?
Another highly ingenious theory is that an earthquake damaged the walls
and allowed the invaders to gain access, and the horse of legend represented
Poseidon in his role as earthquake god. Poseidon was, of course, associated
with horses and liked taking their shape. Further theories include the
Greek ships being called horses of the sea, so the city was taken by the
men from these horses. Or the Greek soldiers being smuggled into the city
in jars on wagons drawn by horses, and so on and so on.
Lastly, the alleged blood connection between the Trojans and future
Romans is emphasised several times, particularly in Book 6. Don't forget
also the spiritual connection, considered very important in the ancient
world. What exactly did Anchises carry out of Troy? In the circumstances
it could only have been his little household gods, and the references are
all vague - sacred objects and Vesta's fire in Book 2, the Penates in Book
3. Of course there was no real connection, but at Rome in the time of Augustus
there were sacred objects in the temple of Vesta which were supposed to
have come from Troy, including the little wooden Palladium of Athene/Minerva.
Their genuineness doesn't matter - the belief that there was a connection
does.
Book 4
It is hard to say anything new about Book 4, but it's a good idea to
do a thorough review of the first three books to refresh student memories,
or Dido's sudden passion seems a bit strange. I suggest you revise:
the plot: what has actually happened so far;
the characters of Dido and Aeneas: up to now they are competent and
balanced people, which contrasts with the weaknesses soon to be revealed;
their misfortunes, which will make their love affair psychologically
possible and even probable. The death of Anchises in particular was important,
as he would not have allowed the affair if he had been alive. It is partly
Aeneas' grief and loss of support after his death that made him turn to
Dido;
the part played by the gods, their general role in people's lives, and
their particular roles in Book 1, leading to the nasty roles they will
all play in Book 4. The destruction of Troy makes it quite clear that they
all have their own agendas, and virtue doesn't bring any just reward, so
we can be sure that Dido won't be rewarded for her kindnesses, as Aeneas
prayed she might be in Book 1.
Mercury's contempt for Dido raises an interesting point. He deliberately
insults her at each appearance, for turning Aeneas into a "husband", and
for being fickle: "Women were ever things of many changing moods". (The
literal translation is "a fickle and changeable thing always, woman".)
And yet it is Aeneas who has just left her. Is this to spur on the hero
by reminding him that he must not be subject to a mere female? Is it the
gods' general contempt for women? Or is it their contempt for all humans,
which goes a long way to explaining why they can treat them so badly? Look
at the revelations to date about Aeneas' mission and his degree of success.
What has he been told? Compare this with what readers have been told. How
much help has he had from the gods? Very little, which is not lost on Dido.
She has been told his story, so she knows as much about his mission as
he does, but she comes to quite a different conclusion. She believes, with
considerable justification, that his mission is a delusion because the
gods have allowed so many delays and dangers, culminating in the shipwreck.
Again, think in a modern context: if you found someone washed up in a storm
who said they were favoured by the gods, would you be inclined to believe
them? Or would you think they were slightly crazy?
Notice how Aeneas has a largely background role in this book, and compare
this with how he is in the background in the first third of Book 2. There
it's to minimise his part in the folly of the Trojans, while here it's
to minimise the fact that he's being a little less pious than Aeneas should
be. In both books he takes centre stage again when he's taking decisive
action which excuses or blots out his failings.
And Dido? A wonderfully developed and rounded character, whose roles
and tragic end can be used to pose questions for today's women. Dido is
a queen, but like Elizabeth I she can only remain a real queen if she is
celibate. As soon as she succumbs to passion, she loses her power to act
independently because she must subordinate herself to her lover. To what
extent is this view that a woman is always inferior in a love relationship
still around today? Don't confuse this with the romantic notion that a
woman can call the shots during courtship. In public perception as soon
as she allows or endures or even enjoys the act of lovemaking she has submitted.
As convention requires her to be married to enjoy lovemaking and children,
Dido thinks she has to choose between remaining queen or enjoying "the
love of children and all that Venus gives". In fact she loses out all round
because a woman, even a queen, cannot force a man to marry her. Compare
the lot of poor Lavinia who had no say in the matter. Dido's affair with
Aeneas cheapens her to the extent that she appears a mere courtesan, used
and abandoned. How free are modern women to enter on love affairs on an
equal basis?
Secondly, many women today find it hard to reconcile the roles of mother/wife/housekeeper
with the demands of a responsible job. So poor Dido stops announcing new
laws and statutes and allocating work, and takes up spinning and weaving,
because she can't reconcile them either. Dido is much used to initiate
discussions of the conflict between duty and passion, but she can be used
equally to initiate discussions on the roles society allocates women, ancient
and modern.
I think that the role of Anna is much overlooked. She is more than the
traditional confidante of Greek drama, and plays a small but vital role
in her sister's tragedy. She gives us a window into Dido's mind, so we
know what Dido is thinking and feeling. On hearing of Dido's love for Aeneas,
Anna urges her to marry, thinking only of her sister's happiness, and her
arguments are eminently sensible. She too knows that Aeneas intends to
move on but thinks it wouldn't be too hard to seduce him from any such
ideas. When she is sent to try to persuade him to stay, it is stated that
she and Aeneas had been close friends, that she enjoyed his confidence
and trust and had shown she knew how to manipulate him, an interesting
insight. Anna grieves for her sister but assumes she'll get over it as
she did Sychaeus. It is very unkind of Dido to involve Anna in her suicide
by asking her to build the funeral pyre. Was this because she knew she
could rely on her? Or is it to punish Anna for encouraging her in her own
folly? The distraught younger sister will bear an immense burden of guilt.
Her very different character is brought out by her reproach that Dido didn't
invite her to join her in committing suicide together. In fact there is
nothing to stop Anna picking up the sword and killing herself, but we know
she won't. This would be out of character. Does she become the next ruler
of Carthage? This, like the fate of Pliny's friends under Vesuvius, is
one of those questions I'd like answered.
Another point: why did Virgil keep the Sychaeus part of the legend when
he changed other parts? Originally Dido killed herself on her funeral pyre
to avoid marrying Iarbas. I think it is to make Dido partly responsible
for her own death. If she were totally a victim of the gods and Aeneas,
it would provoke quite a different reaction in us, but she did break a
vow, she did encourage instead of controlling her passion, and she did
neglect her duties as a leader. She may not have deserved her fate, but
she contributed towards it.
The detail and scope of Book 4 make it very similar to a Greek tragedy
and one exercise could be to write it and act it out - if only one had
time. For those who also teach the Odyssey, point out to students
the difference between the heroes of the Odyssey and the Aeneid
in their attitudes to women. Odysseus is noted for his unusual courtesy
towards women, but still has casual affairs while on his way home to the
faithful Penelope. The Roman poet tells of no love affairs for his pious
hero between the death of Creusa and this major passion years later, and
we can assume that after this unpleasant experience Aeneas wouldn't risk
anyone between Dido and poor Lavinia. It's not just because Aeneas tells
the story, as Odysseus had no hesitation in describing his affairs with
the goddesses. Is it the Roman attitude? Or is it the poet's attitude?
Aeneas leaves with regret, and instead of patting him on the back the
gods at once send another storm. Certainly there was little reward for
virtue, and Dido's belief that he wasn't divinely favoured seems fairly
justified.
Book 6
This is my favourite book from the days when I took a year to translate
it with senior Latin students. I always found my imaginative students liked
this book the best and suspect that my own enthusiam was a major reason.
Virgil takes the underworld of Greek myth but uses his special talents
to make it unique. His underworld is not only dark, gloomy and terrifying
but is full of the sadness and bewilderment he felt at the pathos of human
existence. He also makes it so detailed you can easily draw a map and many
teachers use this as an exercise. It's the most religious of all the books.
Other books mostly portray the acts of divine individuals but this one
places all humanity in a religious context.
In Book 6 Virgil attempts to justify in some degree the human tragedies
dictated by fate. Eventually, says Anchises, pure souls will gain their
rewards in the afterlife. When Anchises displays the glory and special
gifts of Rome, it does show Aeneas why he has been expected to go through
so much and has still more trials ahead, but this optimism is tempered
by uncertainty - the appearance of Brutus, the juxtaposition of Caesar
and Pompey, the placing of Marcellus at the end, and the emergence by the
gates of false dreams. These suggest that even the pursuit of glory might
be hollow. Before this semioptimistic ending Aeneas has to relive his past
life against the desolation of Hades, as he meets Palinurus, Dido and Deiphobos.
All make him feel guilty, with good reason, and Deiphobos' message to press
on is very timely, as Aeneas seems on the point of total collapse. This
catharsis can be compared with the painful retelling of the whole fall
of Troy to Dido in Book 4.
As well as being the turning point of the poem, when Aeneas begins to
look forward instead of back and changes from vagrant to warrior, this
book contributes a great deal to the beauty of the poem, gives us a hint
of Virgil's own view of life, tells us much about Aeneas' character, shows
that the most difficult part of his mission has been accomplished, and
expands the second major theme of Rome's mission and Augustus' part in
it.
The Character of Aeneas
Now a little more on the character of Aeneas. Firstly, despite the fact
that Virgil melds the macho Homeric hero with the sensitive caring new-age
Roman, Aeneas has never had a good press. From Ovid onwards both males
and females have wept for Dido, found Turnus less complicated and more
understandable, and dismissed Aeneas as a pious and tedious bore. Critics
claim that Virgil in fact made a colossal blunder with this unlikeable
hero, but the poet did not have an easy job. He was familiar with Homer's
epics, those songs of a poet emerging from a dark age which recorded past
heroic deeds and disasters but the Augustan age was quite different: it
was the height of empire, when nothing seemed impossible for a Roman to
accomplish. Augustan society was urban and very sophisticated, where man
needed much more than brute strength and woman was better educated and
had a higher status than at any other time in the ancient world. It was
a literary society, demanding very polished works to read and be listened
to. Augustus wanted his Homer, but it was no easy task linking Aeneas and
Augustus, Lavinium and Actium, across 1,200 years of change.
So Aeneas had to be a Homeric hero in the sense of being a courageous
and skilful warrior, but he also had to show Augustan qualities of leadership
(remember that only Odysseus got home) and put his duty of caring for his
own people before his own wishes (when did either Odysseus or Achilles
do that?). I wonder if most of his faults might have been forgiven if he
hadn't hurt Dido so badly. Aeneas had to be Homeric in winning the battle
against Turnus and his alliance, but Augustan in organising the state after
the victory and in reconciling his former enemies. Whatever romantics like
Ovid might have thought, putting his duty ahead of his private wishes was
the Roman ideal.
Aeneas had also to be a man of destiny, chosen by Fate to carry out
divine purposes, a man who could accept the massive burdens of leadership,
symbolised at the end of Book 2 when he lifted Troy's past, in the form
of Anchises, on to his shoulders, and at the end of Book 8 where his shield
represented Rome's future. Here the poet broke new ground with his hero,
creating a model for the new ruler Augustus, but it is also possible that
Virgil took Octavian/Augustus as a model for Aeneas. Was Aeneas' cruelty
in Books 10 and 12 based on Octavian's documented cruelty during the proscriptions
and after battles? Was Virgil reminding Augustus that such deeds might
have to occur in war but were inexcusable elsewhere? Aeneas is a lonely
man, with sadness resulting from that isolation and great pity for the
sufferings of humankind. Augustus too was a lonely man, isolated by the
colossal burden of heading the Roman state. Did Virgil perceive this and
use it for his hero? Augustus felt the guilt of the civil wars and the
need for expiation and the restoration of old values. Aeneas feels guilt
at what he has done and has still to do. You may compare Homer's calm acceptance
of the sacking of cities by the strong, and his heroes' callous disregard
of the agony of anyone not intimately connected to them.
The traces of Stoic doctrine seen in the development of Aeneas' character
may also have been derived from Augustus, who favoured the Roman interpretation
of this particular philosophy. Its strong emphasis on duty and self-control
created men who kept the laws, served the state and people, and were ready
both to obey and to suffer. I have always found irony in the insertion
in Book 6 of Brutus, the man who executed his sons for patriotic reasons,
regardless of what later generations might think of the deed. In a few
years time Augustus would exile his daughter and granddaughter, and be
condemned by posterity for his harshness.
The early Aeneas is angry, uncontrolled, occasionally panic-stricken,
prone to fear and tears and, worst of all, succumbs to Dido's temptation.
Slowly he is tested, refined and made into an instrument of destiny worthy
of eventual divinity. Despite his burdens and trials he becomes a living
definition of pietas and this too was a powerful message to Augustus.
I suggest, therefore, that Virgil had more in mind than creating a likeable
hero. His complex character was conceived as a model for the current ruler
of Rome, and was in part modelled on him. To people who find Aeneas unattractive,
Augustus too would probably not have appealed.
Conclusion
Finally, why do you think we enjoy the Aeneid so much? Here are
some of my thoughts:
the characters are human, lifelike yet fallible;
I enjoy sword and sorcery, and this is the first and perhaps the best
example;
it contains lasting ideas about human values: courage needs ideals;
the famous Virgilian pity: that human beings feel so much, know so much,
achieve so much - for such a short time. The tragedy of the individual
is only acceptable if you postulate some form of common good.
Marion Findlay teaches Classical Studies and Latin at the Correspondence
School and is the author of Divine Quest in the Addison Wesley Longman
series.
|
