Literature Humanities 07-08

Virgil v. Homer

This thread will focus on Virgil's larger motivations, purposes, and style as a writer in relation to Homer.

We talked in class about how Virgil was well-versed in the Homeric texts, which had become common knowledge by his time. A lot of us found Virgil to be a worse "director" than Homer in placing and delineating scenes--they are more confusing. We also pointed out that Homer's description of gore is more poetic, while Virgil's is just that--gore. Heck, even Allen Mandelbaum the translator in his introduction points out "the theme of Homer versus Virgil, using the father to club the son, coupled at times with some variations on the theme of Dante versus Virgil, using hte son to club the father. Whichever way one turned in the line of affiliation (Homer-Virgil-Dante)...the middleman Virgil lost" (vi).

In all of the above, Virgil seems to get short shrift. But the Aeneid is after all a so-called masterpiece that we are required to read for our class; Virgil's name IS inscribed on the outide of Butler. So let's find out what the deal is about this guy Virgil, and what is so good about him. Having structured the Aeneid similar to the Odyssey, was Virgil's motivation not to build on the great Homeric work and to surpass it? Did he do a good job at this? What are some specific instances of direct references to Homeric texts, and how do these references in your opinion supplement or take away from the Aeneid's depth? What are the stylistic differences between Homer and Virgil? Can you maybe compare them using references to modern film directors (e.g. "I think Odyssey v. Aeneid is like American Psycho v. Kill Bill")? Can Mr. Eric Rosenberg elaborate on his parallel Trojan Horse idea that Jeff didn't like too much and how it might fit into this discussion of what Virgil is borrowing from Homer and why?

In short, elaborate on your opinion on Virgil v. Homer.

Cheers,

Bryan

I'm Just Not Sure

Seriously. I've held on to the idea that The Aeneid is a "schizophrenic" work, torn between mythologizing Rome and mourning the cost of its founding, but I am ultimately unsatisfied by it. The grandiloquence of some of the lines ("I give them empire without end," "Rome will make her boundaries as broad as the earth itself, will make her spirit the equal of Olympus") seem to support the claims of The Aeneid's harshest contemporary critics; the Aeneid is a "self-empowering myth of origins, a celebration of empire as a divinely sanctioned triumph."

Then there are the heart-breaking moments:  Aeneas pleading with Dido in the underworld, Turnus wondering why Jupiter has abandoned him ("Where am I carried? Where have I come from? What can bring me back? And how? What will they say--the warriors who followed me and my arms?" X.916-920), Virgil himself lamenting the deaths of Nisus and Euryalus, Diana coming down onto the battlefield herself to avenge Camilla, and most troubling of all, watching the mercy, maybe even the humanity, drain from Aeneas when he kills Turnus.

So where do you come down on the work? Is this critique or coronation? What moment seems to you the most telling?

-Jeff

"The fire in our minds"

After discussing the relationship of Euryalus and Nisus and their role within the Aeneid in class, it now seems there may be more to their story than we first presumed. In Book IX, Virgil describes Euryalus as handsome and youthful and both as being of the same mind and heart.  With these descriptions it appears their relationship spans beyond mere companionship.  Virgil also devises an important dialogue between them that takes place in the gripping scene just before their deaths (IX. 243-248) in which a contemplative Nisus asks Euryalas:  'Is it the gods who put this fire in our minds or is it that each man's relentless longing becomes a god to him? Long has my heart been keen for battle or some mighty act; it cannot be content with peace or rest.'  The war of Italy results in tremendous loss of lives for both Latins and Trojans.  Virgil takes care to describe those who sacrificed for so-called fate, including the lives of Euryalus and Nisus.  My question is: why do you think Virgil chooses to incorporate the story of Nisus and Euryalys, and all of small stories like theirs (Dido) into the story of Aeneas? fate? Can it be their purpose is to exemplify the great cost for Aeneas fate requires others to pay for?   Lastly, how might Nisus' question to Euryalas relate to Aeneas? Is Aeneas driven by a fate ordained for the gods, or one that has become a 'relentless longing,' a fate he cannot escape and that has perhaps become his god?
-Elisabeth

If you see a snake, just kill it; don’t appoint a committee on snakes---Ross Perot

I'll try to be as succinct as possible. Here are a couple of questions/topics. Pick and choose as you wish.

1) Is there an association between Evander and Pallas of the Aeneid and Priam and Hector of Homer's Iliad. If so, how? Does that somehow affect the ending (or the absence of one)?

2) Consider Rome's relationship with Carthage and the Punic Wars. Now, why is it that Virgil included divine interference (Cupid) with Dido? Also, on the pyre, she exclaims she "dies unavenged". What is this saying about Carthage, Rome, and especially the Punic Wars if a) the whole thing was caused by Venus or b) she becomes angry and stabs herself crying out to Jupiter and feeling "unavenged"? Essentially, do the gods---or lack of gods---help or harm the case for Carthage? Does this interpretation change if Dido and her people are considered to be the "Greek tradition"? (Book IV, lines 808 to the end)

3) (My favorite question…not that that really matters…) In Book II, Laocoön and his kids are strangled and eaten by sea-serpents (lines 282-316). That's pretty brutal. Now, Laocoön was dead right in his skepticism towards the Greeks, but serpents were sent supposedly by Minerva/Athena to both silence him and offer the Trojans a false sign. Does this remind anyone of Thersites in Homer's Iliad and how he was shut up and beaten by Odysseus, who happens to be Athena's patsy? Excuse my obsession with Thersites, but what could this mean about opposition, the Trojan cause, Rome, etc? Consider the sons of Laocoön, the appearance of Thersites, etc… I'm keeping it general so you may comment about anything. Think---Athena is the goddess of wisdom…coincidence?

Thersites (Book II.211-277)

PS: There's an impressive sculpture at the Vatican inspired by Laocoön and his sons. http://www.brynmawr.edu/gradgroup/historyofart/images/GSEM679images/Laocoon.jpg

Otherwise, just type Laocoon in Google images.

Also, apropos the above quote: it's written in bylaws that neither I nor the Core Curriculum may be held responsible for "snake bias incidents" or Ross Perot…blame the Old Testament and Texas businessmen…

In Juno's Temple

In a remarkable scene in Book I, Aeneid stumbles into Dido's temple for Juno and finds there a depiction of the Trojan War. Tears streaming down his face, Aeneas remembers his fallen comrades, his hardships, and his lost home. It is a moving image:one that both recalls a similar cathartic moment in the Odyssey when Odysseus asks the singer Demodokos to tell of Troy and also humanizes the sometime-automaton Aeneas.

If we look closely, however, there are some odd elements here.
First, this is a temple of Juno, adversary of Troy and now Aeneas. The images themselves are replete with images of fallen Trojans: King Rheseus' slaughter, the lament of the Trojan women, and Achilles dragging a young Trojan behind his chariot.

Second, the narration describes Aeneas' reaction: "With many tears and sighs, he feeds his soul on what is nothing but a picture" (658-659). Two things here: first, what is happening that "feeds his soul? What is Aeneas getting from these images? Second, strange that Virgil, an artist himself, would seemingly belittle this work as "nothing but a picture."

What do you think Virgil is doing here, both in this scene and in this passing comment on art?

My Kingdom for a Horse...

The image and story of the Trojan Horse is probably the best-known scene from the Trojan War. The general idea, as you probably knew before reading Book II of the Aeneid, is that the Greeks leave the horse as an offering to the gods as they finally abandon Troy. The Trojans, for whatever reason, decide to wheel the thing inside the walls. As night falls, presto, a brigade of Greek warriors, including crowd favorites Achilles and Odysseus, jump out and open the gates for the rest of the Greeks, who have been hiding around the bend in their ships.

So while the Trojan Horse scene (II.20-37) probably came as no surprise, Virgil's version of the events very well might have. Despite the Trojans' initial (and ultimately prescient) belief that the horse is Greek treachery ("Do you really think the enemy has sailed away? Or that any Grecian gifts are free of craft? Is this how Ulysses acts? II.60-62) events lead them to bring the horse into Troy.

So my question here is how does Virgil "spin" this story for the Trojans? What do you make of the engaging lies of Sinon (107-275) or the false sign of the snakes (281-305) as reasons/explanations for the acceptance of the horse? Was their decision unreasonable? Or maybe understandable? What does this deception and decision tell us about the Trojans that a straight telling of the story maybe wouldn't?