I sing of warfare and a man at war.

From the sea-coast of Troy in early days, he came to Italy by destiny.

To our Lavinian western shore, a fugitive, this captain, buffeted cruelly on land as on the sea by blows from powers of the air - behind them, baleful Juno in her sleepless rage.

And cruel losses were his lot in war, till he could found a city and bring home his gods to Latium, land of the Latin race, the Alban lords, and the high walls of Rome.

Tell me the cause now, O Muse, how galled in her divine pride, and how sore at heart from her old wound, the queen of gods compelled him - a man apart, devoted to his mission - to undergo so many perilous days and enter on so many trials.

Years after finally reading The Illiad and The Odyssey (one of my high school classes went over the important bits of The Odyssey, but that was pretty much the beginning and end of my classical education), I got around to reading the Roman side of the story, at last.

Is it blasphemy to say that I like Virgil's version more? Granted, Odysseus is probably a more compelling character, since he's at least morally complex in comparison to Aeneas's bland nobility and piety. However, I kind of preferred reading the adventures of a guy who manages to be a hero without also having to be a self-centered, cheating dickbag. Even though I prefer the Greeks to the Romans overall, I'm Team Aeneas on this one, because man, Odysseus sucks. (I have this whole theory that everything that happens in the Odyssey is actually one huge lie concocted by Odysseus to explain why he didn't come home for ten years after the Trojan War).

As in Homer's epics, some of the best parts of this book are the battle descriptions, which are exciting, detailed, and appropriately gory. There's also a lengthy description of the armor that the gods give one of the characters, and even though that sounds boring, it's actually beautiful. And I liked the supporting characters a lot more than I liked Homer's, especially Queen Dido and Camilla the warrior girl. Also, Aeneas travels to the Underworld, which is always a fun time. It's like a whole new world of mystery and adventure awaits him there, filled with the spirits of the dead and the unknown.

Oh, Aeneid, it isn't you... it's me!

I tried so hard to like you, Aeneid. I truly did. And we did have some pleasant moments together, didn't we? But I must confess that I think I was still somewhat fixated on Iliad, and I was attempting to mold you into something you're not. This isn't fair to you, nor is it fair to me.

Your language is so beautiful. It's filled with such poetry! I'm certain that someone will come along shortly who can appreciate you for who you are. You truly deserve it. You're a wonderful story; it's just that you're not the right fit for me.

I finally had to accept it when you went on and on about those STUPID BOAT RACES. Oh! I'm sorry! I apologize! No, really, that wasn't fair of me. No, no, you should definitely enjoy your boat races. They're great, and I'm sure they're interesting to many people. They're part of what makes you unique, which is wonderful. But I just couldn't get interested. My mind kept wandering.

Oh, of course I'm aware that you have other aspects. I realize that you were just concluding the boat races when I said this, but it's not just that. I'd been pondering this for a while. And I think I should invest my time in a book that I enjoy more. And you'll find a reader who's interested in you. I truly wish you all the best, and I'm sorry I had to stop reading you so early.

The Romans took over from the Greeks as the dominant Mediterranean power after Alexander of Macedon died in 323 BCE. Then, in 49 BCE, Caesar crossed the Rubicon, which was essentially a military coup that led to him installing himself as dictator. The Roman Empire then thrived for about 800 years until around 500 AD, when it was finally overrun by various groups with fearsome names like the Visigoths and Attila the Hun.

Rome was actually founded even earlier, in the 700s BCE, by Aeneas, a Trojan from the Trojan War. Like Odysseus, Aeneas had a long and arduous journey from Troy. He wasn't going home but rather trying to find a prophesied new home, as Odysseus had burned his old one with the famous Trojan Horse.

This founding story is told in Virgil's Aeneid, written around 20 BCE. The story of the Carthaginian queen Dido is a notable part, where she falls in love with Aeneas, they sleep together, and then he abandons her to found Rome, causing her to commit suicide. This leads to a feud with Carthage that has significant consequences later on.

TS Eliot called The Aeneid "our classic, the classic of all Europe." It has been continuously read since its writing, unlike Homer who lost popularity for a time in the Middle Ages. It's an imperialist work that canonizes Rome as a great civilization and explores the meaning of being a superpower. Virgil himself was not entirely comfortable with it and never finished it, even asking for it to be burned after his death.

There are several translations of The Aeneid. I read the Fagles translation, which was excellent. Fagles is like the Pevear & Volokhonsky of antiquity, having done well-regarded translations of many ancient works. Mandelbaum also has a translation, and there are other options like Fitzgerald and Lombardo. There is an excellent but lengthy piece that discusses the different translations and favors Fagles.

The Aeneid is widely regarded as a classic today, yet it has faced critics and detractors over the centuries. One common criticism was Virgil's obvious debt to Homer. However, Virgil used Homer as a starting point for his own story. Aeneas was an interesting character in the Iliad, and there was a strong indication that he was an important figure in later Trojan history. Apparently, the Romans saw Aeneas as their progenitor. Works like the Aeneid promoted this tradition and served as Roman political propaganda.

Aside from questions of Aeneas' historicity, Homer made him an important mythological figure who seemed to require further literary development. Virgil and others took up this literary task, which ultimately benefited Roman political interests. Similar examples can be seen in other regions and traditions. For instance, Islam borrowed the Jewish Abrahamic tradition regarding Ishmael as a divine justification for Muhammad, Islam, and Arab expansionism. More recent mythological borrowings can be found in esoteric traditions like Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism.

Borrowing or creating a prehistory for a people or organization provides mythological fuel for claims of historical precedence and superiority. Since human beings seem to be inclined towards religion and mythology, these attempts often succeed. Nationalism and patriotism would not exist otherwise, nor would the belief that works composed centuries or even millennia ago are still relevant today. Mythology is so powerful that even modern movies like Star Wars, which borrow ancient themes, can elicit a positive response from people, sometimes even to the point of fanaticism.

I am not condemning this aspect of human behavior; I am simply pointing it out. The potential positive or negative aspects of a myth or story often depend on how the particular tradition is used. Virgil may not have necessarily seen his work as political. He was undoubtedly a proud Roman who sought to align the Roman people with popular literary tradition. After all, the tradition that Aeneas was connected to Roman civilization predated Virgil. He simply tapped into it and created a work that became somewhat canonical.

The process of mythological continuity seems to progress naturally in some ways. It takes on a life of its own and often depends on factors that are not entirely contrived by any one person or group. Like a planted seed, much depends on external factors for its survival and growth. I also do not want to downplay the role of spiritual factors in these processes. When an idea is spiritually poignant, human beings tend to respond positively. This is true even when only an element of a tradition is spiritually powerful.

Virgil was a product of his time, as was Homer. Both saw battle and victory as glorious, rather than a necessary evil as we do today. Like Homer, Virgil is vivid and detailed in his descriptions of battle, which can be taxing for someone with my temperament. However, there are parts of the Aeneid that I found extremely interesting. As with Pindar, it seems that philosophical tradition influenced Virgil's poetry. In Book 6 of the Aeneid, there are some profound ideas. While these ideas were not novel at the time, they do indicate a tendency, influenced by philosophy, to look beyond the physical world. This suggests that people were already interested in a glory beyond that achieved through battle and tales of valor alone. It also implies that behavior was important and would have consequences in the afterlife.

I believe the Aeneid is a classic, but it is also a bit of a mixed bag. Compared to the Iliad, I find more to like in the Aeneid, but it also has some of the elements that I disliked in the Iliad. I will not repeat what I said in my review of the Iliad. Suffice it to say that after Plato and others, better elements were influencing Hellenistic and Roman society. Although these elements were often mixed with less savory ones, there were undoubtedly some positive tendencies. I will not digress on the notions of purgatory and reincarnation hinted at in the passage from the Aeneid that Virgil likely took from Plato. I think the idea of an afterlife and the nuanced view of requital for misdeeds alone is a significant progression from Homer and值得称赞and值得在当时的文学作品中单独研究.

I had compared the passage I cited above with another translation by J. W. Mackail. The overall sense was not essentially different, but I prefer the translation by Mandelbaum. I am now reading the other works of Virgil in the Mackail edition since they were not included in the Mandelbaum edition I read. I am also in the process of reading the Saturnalia, which includes an extended discussion of the Aeneid and Virgil. I recommend Virgil's Aeneid as a worthy classic, but I must emphasize that the most profound ideas are found in Book 6. This book is the most fruitful for repeated readings and study.

The Aeneid is an epic that chronicles the journey of Aeneas, a survivor of Troy's fall, as he endeavors to found the Roman peoples. It is a story that you should explore on your own, similar to the Greek Iliad and Odyssey (from which Virgil borrowed extensively - as any Roman writer would have in 19 BCE).

It is filled with gods and goddesses, war, lust, and anger, making it one of the great classic tales. Everyone should take the time to read it at least once. I highly recommend reading it in the original Latin, as the phrases translate more effectively than in modern translations. For example, the elegance of the original Latin in the phrase "..tantaene animis caelestibus irae?" ("Can such great anger dwell in heavenly breasts?") is truly remarkable.

I will leave the detailed analysis of the story to English majors and Classics scholars. My focus is on history, and the historical background of Virgil is quite fascinating.

Virgil was a friend of Maecenas, a close advisor to Octavian Caesar. Octavian, not yet Augustus, decided after decades of civil conflicts to strive for peace throughout the Empire. He tightened laws on Roman morality and one way he did this was by enlisting the writers and poets of the day. Virgil's Aeneas is the perfect Roman. He is a devoted son, a great warrior, and faithful to the gods.

If we closely examine the basic character of Aeneas (patriotism, filial devotion, parental love, conformity to the will of heaven, and a scrupulousness in carrying out the honors due the gods) - they are precisely the same virtues Caesar was promoting. That is why Aeneas is the epitome of the Roman ideal. He never loses his self-control, never blasphemes, is never unjust, deceitful, or careless in fulfilling any of his obligations. There is no flaw in his character; he is never guilty of sin and, although a great warrior, he prefers peace.

Not to mention that throughout the story, the gods and other peoples often comment on the future potential of the peoples of the Tiber River - a clear nod to flattering the Romans about their own creation myths. It is a truly magnificent work - not just as a work of storytelling, but also in the subtle influence it exerted throughout the Empire. Like Homer's great work, this one is Virgil's magnum opus (taking over a decade to write) and should be read by all well-rounded individuals everywhere.

Though I read this primarily because I’m professionally interested in the history of literary fiction, I truly enjoyed this two-thousand-year-old story. It was compelling, with moments that were imagistic and even gory.

There is a scene four pages long where Aeneas is lost in the details of an exquisitely carved shield. The imagery is so captivating that, as an author, I found it to be an interesting literary tool.

I like how Vergil switches mid-paragraph from past to present tense. This is something I do in my own writing, yet have had editors fault it. Well, I and Vergil happen to like that, heh—vindicated.

Some of the writing is simply beautiful. For example, “Darkness falls. Through the land, weary creatures wallow in sweet slumber; a hush is on the woods and restless seas. The stars have circled halfway through their path and every field is still. The beasts and bright-hued birds who lie among the clear lakes or nest in thorny shrubs sleep in the silent night.”

I’m always striving to improve as a writer and as a reader. I catch myself sometimes trying to finish a novel just for the small dopamine release a completionist feels when turning the final page. It’s something worth correcting. We should read not just to finish a book but to appreciate, if not luxuriate in, the writing, to be moved and to grow. My favorite books, I often turn the pages backwards.

It’s always interesting to find the source of common expressions. For instance, “Fortune favours the bold” comes from Book 10 of The Aeneid.

I’ve also thought the specific verb used by McCarthy, “the screaming horses,” was interesting. Now I see it in Vergil too, as in “The march of men and screams of horses grew hot.”

I’m glad I bought the hardcover. I’ll definitely be revisiting passages.

***

Friends, on the first Tuesday of the month, I send out a short newsletter with updates on my novel-in-progress, a glimpse of one writer's life in small-town coastal Tofino, and a link to the month's free eBooks of various authors. It’s my privilege to stay connected to those who appreciate my work. If you're interested and want to receive a free copy of Immortal North by Tom Stewart, please sign up here: www.luckydollarmedia.com.

Edit October 14, 2018

Okay, I must admit that I read this book way back in March. However, the more I reflect upon it, the stronger my hatred for it grows. So, yes, I have downgraded it to a one-star rating.

~

FINALLY, I AM DONE WITH THIS ROMAN PROPAGANDA!

Yay! My first two-star read. Whoop de doo. But seriously, this book was not only blatantly propaganda, but it was also a shameless ripoff of the Iliad and the Odyssey. And it wasn't even a good one at that. I won't deny the historical significance of the Aeneid, but from a personal perspective, I'll pass.

The only redeeming factor for me in this book was finally getting to read about Dido and Aeneas' son. Other than that, I absolutely loathe this book.

Well, at least I finally found a book that I don't like. So, I guess that's something?

The best part of this recent version of The Aeneid is not the story Vergil gave us (definitely not).

It is the truly impressive translation by Shadi Bartsch. She has managed to honor the original dactylic hexameter, which is an incredible feat in itself.

Bartsch also skillfully captures the historical sensibilities and tone of the original without resorting to kitschy rhyming schemes or language that feels "old-timey" to modern readers.

Nor does she attempt to make it seem especially fresh for today's students by incorporating 21st-century terminology and idioms. The textual notes are highly illuminating, and the introduction (best read as an afterword unless you already know what lies ahead) is very, very good.

Unfortunately, for all her enthusiasm and obvious talent, Bartsch could not convey her love for the original text. I find it interesting from a historical perspective but not nearly as good as the Homeric classics that inspired it.

Both The Odyssey and The Iliad are superior journeys. The Aeneid is only required for its account of Carthaginian Queen Dido's tragic tale and for those scholars interested in studying how Octavian transformed into Augustus through the revisionist manipulation of Art, Literature, and Politics.

5 stars for Shadi Bartsch and far fewer for Vergil.

The book contains several great episodes such as the destruction of Troy, the story of Dido, the portrayal of Hades, the character of Camilla, and the death of Turnus. However, when considering the book as a whole, it can only be regarded as mediocre. It places excessive emphasis on detailed depictions and linguistic techniques, yet it lacks the tragic power that Homer's works possess or the melancholic sobriety found in Aeschylus' plays. The characters in the book are pleasant to read about, but there is very little depth to them for the reader to delve into. There is a certain superficiality in the way the characters are presented, which prevents a more profound exploration of their motives, emotions, and inner lives. As a result, the book fails to truly engage the reader on a deeper level and leaves one with a sense of dissatisfaction.

Finally! I read The Aeneid for the first time.

It is indeed beneficial to have read the Iliad and Odyssey beforehand. The first part of this book was particularly enjoyable as it filled in those stories.

Virgil does a great job of imitating Homer, and I don't criticize him for it. However, in the end, it is a bit less epic, yet generally easy to follow.

I will now attempt to read it in print instead of audio, using a different translation. I have always enjoyed Charlton Griffin's narration.

Perhaps reading it in print will provide a different perspective and allow me to better appreciate the details and nuances of the text.

I look forward to delving deeper into The Aeneid and uncovering its many layers of meaning.

It is a classic work of literature that has stood the test of time, and I am excited to explore it further.

Not prose, though apparently with ease. Glad some still find it a joy; I read it in Rolfe Humphries' own class, Freshman Humanities at Amherst College in the 60s. Fagles, too, may have studied with Humphries, since he graduated from the same college. His translation appears to use a loose hexameter (like Virgil), a six-beat line, while Humphries (like Dryden 300 years before) opted for the more English pentameters. Compare, and note the analepsis or anadiplosis of repetition in the first example:

1) Help me, O Muse, recall the reasons: Why,
Why did the queen of heaven drive a man...

2) Tell me,
Muse, how it all began. Why was Juno outraged?

Not obvious, in its force, that the six-beat line is the second passage, Fagles'. I have enjoyed hearing Fagles read papers featuring his translations at conferences, and I have read in his Homeric translations, though I still prefer, slightly, Fitzgerald's. Maybe for the same reason the Etonians favor the boys they met at school, simple, and literal, priority.

Humphries would make impersonal critiques: "The translator has here taken liberties..." I recall his liberties on "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentis..." (I fear the Greeks and [their] bearing gifts) RH has it, "I fear the Greeks, even when bearing gifts." Laocoön says this, summing his warning just before throwing his spear.

I still have my Scribners paperback with notes from Humphries' class, including end of Bk I, the Queen asks her guest to tell them his story from the fall of Troy: I note "how big Achilles was" a faux pas, which I misspelled. The famous beginning,

Arma virumque cano, Troiae qui primus ab oris
Italiam fato profugus Laviniaque venit/ litora... (Loeb)

I make a post-graduate school correction of Fairclough's Loeb translation, where in Bk II.84 he omits a phrase about Palamedes, innocent, but killed "quia bella vetabat," because he shunned war. First published in 1916, I wonder if WWI played into this omission, particularly the U.S. staying out of the War for years. If not, the editor and translator from Stanford U. does speak of corrections from MSS in the 1932 edition.

Halfway through, in Bk VI, on the Underworld, Aeneas enters from the cave on Lago Averno near Cuma, where I spent a summer NEH seminar at Villa Vergiliana. My notes from Humphries say, "great stigma was attached to the unburied." Charon the boatman only takes the buried across the River Styx. Couple pages later, "A thousand years pass over/ And the god calls the countless host to Lethe/ Where memory is annulled, and souls are willing/ Once more to enter into mortal bodies." Humphries note: the repetitivity, cyclical concept of history.

In the next book, Camilla the warrior leads troops from horseback, "a soldieress,/ A woman whose hands were never trained to weaving,/ To the use of wool, to basketry, a girl/ As tough in war as any, in speed afoot/ Swifter than the wind. She could go flying over/ The ears of wheat and never bruise them" (Humphries 205).

My professor loaned me a couple of his myriad Loeb Classics, Seneca's Thyestes being one. Since that time I have thought reading Caesar in Latin II a waste, when at the same level students could read Seneca or possibly Erasmus's Colloquiae.

*Unlike Dryden, Humphries' pentameters did not rhyme in couplets.

Humphries, Rolfe. "The Aeneid of Virgil." New York: Scribner's, 1951.

3 Stars, Completed April 4, 2016

I had high hopes for this piece. When I took Latin in high school, we occasionally translated/read excerpts from it. However, it was too daunting to go on to AP Latin, which focuses on The Aeneid for the entire course. Alas, I guess I'm still not scholarly enough to say that I fully enjoyed it.

As I reviewed The Iliad, instead of recapping events or sharing what I liked or didn't like, I will mention elements that I noticed or learned from reading this text with my Greek mythology class.

I've always known that many Roman and Greek classics parallel each other in many ways. But it wasn't until after reading The Aeneid and attending my Greek mythology lectures that I discovered a lot was not exactly interchangeable. The gods and goddesses may have different names between the two groups but are still used identically to represent the same beings. For this reason, many people, like I did, have the misconception that their cultures and stories are as well. The Romans did take some inspiration from the Greeks, but they had a lot of unique traditions and lore themselves. One example I can think of that we see in The Aeneid is how Mars is regarded more and plays a greater role in epic poetry than Ares did.

But, as I mentioned, there are still many similarities as there are differences. In Virgil’s The Aeneid, we see evident parallels between The Odyssey and The Iliad. The beginning of The Aeneid is very similar to The Odyssey in that Aeneas is lost at sea like Odysseus and he must take this journey before he reaches his ultimate destination to fulfill his fate. The latter half resembles The Iliad in that the main arc of the plot is driven by a woman. In this case, instead of Helen starting the Trojan war and Briseis' abduction that leads to Achilles' ongoing rage, we have Lavinia to thank for the dispute between Aeneas and Turnus.

I also found it fascinating that Aeneas is supposed to fulfill his fate by reaching Italy and helping set the foundations for the future Rome (or Roma in Latin), but to do this he has to turn his back on love, or amor, which is Roma coincidently spelled backwards. We see him do this time and time again. First, he tells Dido about him leaving behind his wife, Creusa, during his family's escape from Troy, and once again when he leaves Dido to set off for his true destination (Italy).

Another interesting aspect to consider is how the horrors of war and the Greeks are portrayed in this epic poem compared to Homer’s. With The Aeneid (I have the scene of Priam’s death by Neoptolemus, Achilles' son, in mind), we see just how brutal and ruthless the Greeks are. And it’s interesting to see this paradoxical reflection because of the poet’s background. After all, Virgil was Roman.

To wrap this review up, I enjoyed parts of the story, but other times it was difficult to read or too dull to keep my attention for long. However, I'm glad to say I've finally read it in its entirety. And I'm infinitely relieved that it was in English and not in Latin. (Good move, Summer, for not taking AP Latin.)

---

More reviews at Xingsings

Blog @xingsings | Instagram @readxings | Twitter @xingsings