Alessandro Barchiesi in his essay, "Virgilian Narrative: Ecphrasis" (9/29/12) asserts that ecphrasis is used in the Aeneid to enhance the story, and also examines the ways that it is used and interpreted. The author uses specific examples from the story, especially Aeneas's shield to portray how ecphrasis is used within the epic, and also to compare it to the works of other poets. He also gives the reader information about how ecphrasis is interpreted differently today than it was in ancient Rome, which helps explain how the viewer might interpret it, but also how and why Virgil put it in the Aeneid. The author tries to explain to the reader the importance of ecphrasis in the epic, and also the pros and cons of including it, in order to allow the reader to be aware of it and understand its relevance. The author intends to present this information to all readers of ancient Roman and Greek text, but for us, it is relevant to our project on the Aeneid.
I think that this essay was really convincing. The author presented a good argument that captured my attention, and explained something that I didn't know much about. Now, I have a reason to pay attention to the description of artistic details within the epic, and I understand more about why Virgil has included them. I thought that the concept of ecphrasis was interesting, especially because it is something that I see in a lot of books that I read still today, but never knew had an actual name.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Precis for "Virgilian Narrative - Story-Telling"
Don Fowler in his essay, "Virgilian Narrative - Story-Telling", (9/22/12) argues that The Aeneid "has much to say about story-telling itself" (259). The author does this by breaking down parts of a story into different sections: narrators, oppositions, plot, story, book, point of view, and singing and writing, and explaining the different parts and their relevance to The Aeneid. The author does this in order to break down the epic and give a deeper insight and more information to the reader so that they can examine these individual aspects better as they read. The author intends to give this information to people reading Virgil's works, especially the Aeneid, to help them get more out of their reading.
This essay was the most boring of all those that I've read so far. I did not think that it was overly persuasive at all, and really didn't gain, what I would consider, a ton of useful information. I wish the author would have had a little bit better of an introduction and conclusion to bring the whole paper together and really explain his purpose; however, I did like that he was concise and to the point. Overall, not the greatest source of information on how to examine the Aeneid, but still somewhat helpful.
This essay was the most boring of all those that I've read so far. I did not think that it was overly persuasive at all, and really didn't gain, what I would consider, a ton of useful information. I wish the author would have had a little bit better of an introduction and conclusion to bring the whole paper together and really explain his purpose; however, I did like that he was concise and to the point. Overall, not the greatest source of information on how to examine the Aeneid, but still somewhat helpful.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Reflection on lines 65-91
This section was Juno pleading for help from Aeolus and his response to her. She tells him about how she despises Aeneas and needs his help to wreak havoc on him while in return promising him beautiful nymphs (especially Deiopea) as a reward. Aeolus agrees to help her (although he really shouldn't because it's against the rules of his job) and what he does is also described within this passage.
Some vocabulary I had trouble with:
- agmine
- litora
- gens
- puppes
- victosque
Grammar:
- There are imperatives in line 69!
- I was confused as to what 'bis' agrees with in line 90
- I couldn't find the direct object in line 79
- I wasn't sure about the ablative absolute in line 81
- or the case of 'nubes' in line 88
Some vocabulary I had trouble with:
- agmine
- litora
- gens
- puppes
- victosque
Grammar:
- There are imperatives in line 69!
- I was confused as to what 'bis' agrees with in line 90
- I couldn't find the direct object in line 79
- I wasn't sure about the ablative absolute in line 81
- or the case of 'nubes' in line 88
Monday, September 17, 2012
Lines 34-64 Reflection
The section that I've just translated continues the introduction the the epic and explains more about Juno's savage anger. She targets Aeneas and his crew with fire, and even kills a man by impaling him on a rock. Finally she seeks out Aeolus and the readers discover what his powers are and what he does (as designated by Jupiter).
The vocabulary I found difficult in this chapter was:
- ignem
- aequora
- aris
- talia
- auras
and
- atris
The grammar I found difficult in this chapter was:
- The agreement of 'una' in line 47 to a noun
and
- The sentence structure of line 50 (I had trouble with that line in general)
The vocabulary I found difficult in this chapter was:
- ignem
- aequora
- aris
- talia
- auras
and
- atris
The grammar I found difficult in this chapter was:
- The agreement of 'una' in line 47 to a noun
and
- The sentence structure of line 50 (I had trouble with that line in general)
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Precis for "Virgil's Style"
James J. O'Hara, in his essay, Virgil's Style, (9/16/12) suggests that the awareness of stylistic poetic devices in Virgil's writing gives his poems a deeper meaning, and can lead researchers to a whole new understanding of his intentions while writing. He uses examples from Virgil’s Eclogues, Georgics, and Aeneid, and also the work of other researchers to convey this idea. O'Hara aims "to 'prove', as many have before, that much is lost when Virgil is read only in translation or with insufficient attention to style" in order to allow readers of Virgil to better interpret Virgil (242). Furthermore, O'Hara provides "a thorough introduction to Virgil's style" by showing the reader some of the mechanisms he uses (242). The author intends to give this knowledge to people reading anything by Virgil, to express.
This essay was convincing because there was a lot of evidence to support O'Hara's points. By introducing readers to the style of Virgil, it gives them a good knowledge to start looking out for the devices he uses on their own. Everything O'Hara writes about could really help the reader look deeper into Virgil's writing, and understand that reading just the translation only gives you a one-dimensional view of what the Aeneid actually is. Also, the study of Virgil's poetic language can go on and on and continue to always be interpreted and analyzed, leading the way for future research and development. I liked this essay because style is something that I can really examine in my studies of the Aeneid, and I will pay attention to during my translation.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Lines 1-33 Reflection
The section we read was an introduction to the epic. It gave a history of the founding of Rome and predicted some the struggles Aeneas and his men would go through. Furthermore, it questions the wrath of the gods, especially Juno's, which could be argued as the main question throughout the epic. The passage also shows why Juno will feel such a strong hatred towards Rome, seeing as they will destroy her dearest city. Some vocabulary I found difficult in this section was:
- numine
- vi
- fertur
- arces
- alta
and
- acti
I didn't have much trouble with grammar in this section.
Overall, the passage was not too bad to read, and I think it's really cool to read the English and now have the Latin to compare to it.
- numine
- vi
- fertur
- arces
- alta
and
- acti
I didn't have much trouble with grammar in this section.
Overall, the passage was not too bad to read, and I think it's really cool to read the English and now have the Latin to compare to it.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Precis for "The Virgilian Intertext"
Joseph
Farrell in his essay, “The Virgilian Intertext”, (9/9/12) argues that intertextuality
is a tool that Virgil uses to enhance the interpretation of his works. He uses
examples from Virgil’s Eclogues,
Georgics, and Aeneid with references to other authors’, and Homer’s works
such as the Iliad and Odyssey to convey this. “Intertextuality is one of Virgil’s most powerfully
evocative tools for communicating ideas,” and by bringing this information to
the reader, it gives them an opportunity to look deeper into Virgil’s work and
interpret it in new ways (Farrell 222). Furthermore, this intertextuality
“greatly enriches (and often complicates)” the reader’s understanding of
Virgil’s works, giving them a whole new dimension of analysis while reading
(228). The author intends to present this knowledge to those reading anything
of Virgil’s, to express its importance and relevance.
The
essay was convincing, as it gave me a new understanding of the Aeneid and how much intertextuality
plays a role in it. It also gives reasons for why Virgil might have done this,
and how it enhances the text. It shows how widely read Virgil was when writing
his works, and how creatively he thought to include all of these allusions in
his work. However, this information is pretty useless to a reader, such as
myself, who has not read many of the works, which Virgil refers to in his
intertextuality. Without prior knowledge of those works, this information tells
me that these references exist, but I have no tools to find them and analyze
them unless I read the texts that Virgil acquired them from.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Summer Reading Reflection
I think instead of ending with my top 1-3 topics, I'll start with them. I'm going to chose love and morals. After reading the book, they just ended up being the topics that intrigued me the most (women is my third choice and fate comes next, but I'm just not as crazy as I once was about them). I don't really have a good reason except that I really think I can find a lot of really interesting ideas in the Aeneid about these two topics. "Love is the closest thing we have to magic" on Earth, and I guess I've always been intrigued by it. There are so many examples of so many different types of love in the Aeneid and what it does to people, that it seems like a topic I could pursue endlessly. Morals and ethics are so unexplainable that I'm intrigued to delve deeper into how they are perceived and how the effect the characters Aeneid. It is a topic that really relates to everyone's lives, and instead of debating over what is right and wrong, I could look more into the psyche of characters and understand what drove them to make the choices they make and why. That might help me understand better how they influence people today, and also how people apply them.
My other topics, what happened to them? I guess they just fizzled out over time. I still put effort into researching them, but I thought about love and morals a whole lot more. They also seemed to be the more popular topics within the group and I'll admit it, I wanted to be different. Fate and divine intervention I still have a lot of questions about, and I'm hoping to bring them up in the socratic seminar because I think so much better when I talk to other people about ideas. Aeneid in Augustan Rome, well I actually still have an interest in that, but it's changed a little. I really like Reader Response literary criticism, and it'd be really cool to look at the reception of the Aeneid throughout history, but I don't know enough about history in general to pursue this, and to be honest, I don't feel like doing the research on my own. I feel like when I first chose my topics, I didn't know enough about the book to really chose what I wanted to do. I mean, I had a stable introduction, but I feel like I thought about a lot of new topics after I finished the book. I forgot to mention the women topic. I still do like that topic a lot, and maybe I can incorporate it into my research somehow like Mr. V. suggested in the beginning. However, I'm going to admit, I'm actually excited to do this project with the topics I have, I just have one small request: PLEASE give us due dates for steps in the process, so I don't put it all off until the end and scramble to get it done. PLEASE I'M BEGGING YOU MR. V. I'M MUCH TO GREAT OF A PROCRASTINATOR FOR YOU TO DO OTHERWISE.
So overall, I really liked the book. I'm actually seriously considering reading it again, only this time, straight through. It was a really great read because it explored soo many ideas and really made me think, you know? At times, yes, I wanted to put it down because it got a little boring, but in general, it kept my interest the whole time. The blogs weren't even that bad. Just a little time consuming. I'd MUCH rather do these than an essay, because I can feel like I'm talking, and I'm a much better talker than I am writer. I know this may be childish to discuss, but my favorite characters are Dido and Camilla, and my favorite part was when Aeneas and Sibyl visited the underworld. I admire strong, independent women and Dido and Camilla really portrayed them for me. I never really felt any connection to any males in the novel, except, I know they're random, Pallas, Nisus, and Euryalus. Their brave last acts really moved me, and to me, that's what glory is about. It's not always about winning, it's about failing with style (that might be too optimistic). Anyway, the only times that the epic was hard to follow was when I wasn't familiar with all of the names he used (especially during the war). The language wasn't too difficult, but sometimes I had to reread parts just to make sure I got it. I'm glad this book was chosen as the summer reading assignment because this was probably the subject (out of all of the ones that I had summer work in) that I was most optimistic about finishing.
My further questions: What on earth is the research project that we will be doing? Are we doing it as a class, and if not, can we at least have some time to discuss with other classmates? Really, I think other people's opinions are very important, especially when discussing topics that are very opinionated. Can topics be opinionated? I don't think I used the right word there... Also, do we know how Aeneas dies? I don't know why, but I'm curious to find out. Also, when did the beliefs in Roman/Greek mythology fizzle out? People don't still believe in/worship the gods now, but they did in the past, so what happened there? Also, this is unrelated, but will we use Edmodo for anything other than reminders? Also, can we do more work on mythology this year? I think that wraps up all of my questions. I'm sorry that so few of them were book related, I've done a lot of work on it and my mind needs a little break.
I'M ON MY LAST PARAGRAPH OF MY LAST BLOGPOST. It's a little depressing actually. I'd never admit it, but they were actually kind of fun (see what I did there??). I like blogging. Okay, now down to business. I'd just like to wrap it up with how this epic effected my summer. First, I totally connected it to all of the other reading I did. Also, since I'm taking psychology next year, I started to examine some of the characters in the epic from a psychologist's point of view. This really helped me read a little closer into the book, and think of things that I might not have thought of otherwise. Furthermore, the epic really got me thinking about a lot of aspects of life in general. Love, morals, religion, fate vs. free will, war, gender roles, and death are just a few of them. I really wish that I could sit down and talk to Virgil about what he was thinking about during the writing of the Aeneid, because I think I'd unlock so many more secrets and pick up on so many more ideas that the epic has to offer. I wonder if the finished product would have been dramatically different from what he left when he died. It's a shame that we'll never know. I wish I had the capability to just know everything. I really like to learn, I just go about it in a very lazy way.
Well, I guess I've said everything I have to now. It's over...onto my english essay and gov/pol....
How do I wrap up a blog I'll never use again? I feel like 'bye' is too informal...
Vale?
Eh..
Now is the time that I wish I could think of something utterly clever that would impress everyone.
Eh I'll just stick to this:
Hope you've enjoyed my blogposts! Seee you tomorrow!!
My other topics, what happened to them? I guess they just fizzled out over time. I still put effort into researching them, but I thought about love and morals a whole lot more. They also seemed to be the more popular topics within the group and I'll admit it, I wanted to be different. Fate and divine intervention I still have a lot of questions about, and I'm hoping to bring them up in the socratic seminar because I think so much better when I talk to other people about ideas. Aeneid in Augustan Rome, well I actually still have an interest in that, but it's changed a little. I really like Reader Response literary criticism, and it'd be really cool to look at the reception of the Aeneid throughout history, but I don't know enough about history in general to pursue this, and to be honest, I don't feel like doing the research on my own. I feel like when I first chose my topics, I didn't know enough about the book to really chose what I wanted to do. I mean, I had a stable introduction, but I feel like I thought about a lot of new topics after I finished the book. I forgot to mention the women topic. I still do like that topic a lot, and maybe I can incorporate it into my research somehow like Mr. V. suggested in the beginning. However, I'm going to admit, I'm actually excited to do this project with the topics I have, I just have one small request: PLEASE give us due dates for steps in the process, so I don't put it all off until the end and scramble to get it done. PLEASE I'M BEGGING YOU MR. V. I'M MUCH TO GREAT OF A PROCRASTINATOR FOR YOU TO DO OTHERWISE.
So overall, I really liked the book. I'm actually seriously considering reading it again, only this time, straight through. It was a really great read because it explored soo many ideas and really made me think, you know? At times, yes, I wanted to put it down because it got a little boring, but in general, it kept my interest the whole time. The blogs weren't even that bad. Just a little time consuming. I'd MUCH rather do these than an essay, because I can feel like I'm talking, and I'm a much better talker than I am writer. I know this may be childish to discuss, but my favorite characters are Dido and Camilla, and my favorite part was when Aeneas and Sibyl visited the underworld. I admire strong, independent women and Dido and Camilla really portrayed them for me. I never really felt any connection to any males in the novel, except, I know they're random, Pallas, Nisus, and Euryalus. Their brave last acts really moved me, and to me, that's what glory is about. It's not always about winning, it's about failing with style (that might be too optimistic). Anyway, the only times that the epic was hard to follow was when I wasn't familiar with all of the names he used (especially during the war). The language wasn't too difficult, but sometimes I had to reread parts just to make sure I got it. I'm glad this book was chosen as the summer reading assignment because this was probably the subject (out of all of the ones that I had summer work in) that I was most optimistic about finishing.
My further questions: What on earth is the research project that we will be doing? Are we doing it as a class, and if not, can we at least have some time to discuss with other classmates? Really, I think other people's opinions are very important, especially when discussing topics that are very opinionated. Can topics be opinionated? I don't think I used the right word there... Also, do we know how Aeneas dies? I don't know why, but I'm curious to find out. Also, when did the beliefs in Roman/Greek mythology fizzle out? People don't still believe in/worship the gods now, but they did in the past, so what happened there? Also, this is unrelated, but will we use Edmodo for anything other than reminders? Also, can we do more work on mythology this year? I think that wraps up all of my questions. I'm sorry that so few of them were book related, I've done a lot of work on it and my mind needs a little break.
I'M ON MY LAST PARAGRAPH OF MY LAST BLOGPOST. It's a little depressing actually. I'd never admit it, but they were actually kind of fun (see what I did there??). I like blogging. Okay, now down to business. I'd just like to wrap it up with how this epic effected my summer. First, I totally connected it to all of the other reading I did. Also, since I'm taking psychology next year, I started to examine some of the characters in the epic from a psychologist's point of view. This really helped me read a little closer into the book, and think of things that I might not have thought of otherwise. Furthermore, the epic really got me thinking about a lot of aspects of life in general. Love, morals, religion, fate vs. free will, war, gender roles, and death are just a few of them. I really wish that I could sit down and talk to Virgil about what he was thinking about during the writing of the Aeneid, because I think I'd unlock so many more secrets and pick up on so many more ideas that the epic has to offer. I wonder if the finished product would have been dramatically different from what he left when he died. It's a shame that we'll never know. I wish I had the capability to just know everything. I really like to learn, I just go about it in a very lazy way.
Well, I guess I've said everything I have to now. It's over...onto my english essay and gov/pol....
How do I wrap up a blog I'll never use again? I feel like 'bye' is too informal...
Vale?
Eh..
Now is the time that I wish I could think of something utterly clever that would impress everyone.
Eh I'll just stick to this:
Hope you've enjoyed my blogposts! Seee you tomorrow!!
Book 12 Reflection
So close. I think it's interesting that Virgil ends the book with the murder of Turnus. It's very abrupt and does not give the reader a pleasant image in their mind as they set it down, but the reader assumes that after that, the war is won, and Rome is finally established. It's funny that the event that the whole epic led up to was not even included in it. It took my by surprise a little bit.
"What madness is warping my reason?" is a quote that Dido also used back in book 4 (37). Virgil repeats this quote to emphasize...da da da da (think of trumpets) LOVE. (Sorry, it's late and I'm starting to get stressed over all of the work that I've put off). But I've worn out how the topic of love totally changes a person, so I'll move onto other subjects. Love is so hard to find in war, and when it does come out, it just makes it all the more better because it's surrounded by its foil, hate. Although Turnus does not seem appreciative of what his sister risks for him, it is a display of what sibling love can do. Although everything she does is very moving, Turnus is unappreciative because he knows he must accept his fate and nothing she will do can change it. The rejection of love is always sad, but this one struck me because it was by a blood relative. For some reason, that seems much worse to me than any other rejection of love. I think that's all I found in this book, although it did have some of my favorite quotes in the whole epic that I don't think I pointed out. I have them marked in my book if I ever need to find them so no worries!
Fate totally revolves around the idea of Turnus's death in this book, and I've come to the conclusion that Jupiter does control fate, even if it is only partially. Lines 725-727 have convinced me of that as well as the compromise scene between Jupiter and Juno. I think it's interesting that, although his wife and his (in some stories) daughter take opposite sides of the conflict, he remains impartial the entire time, equally giving a little to both of the goddesses. However, what confuses me is when Virgil talks about "destiny's sisters," because they have not been identified in the book, and the only thing I can pull my knowledge about them from is Hercules the Disney movie (which I'm well aware is completely inaccurate) (147). Therefore, I hope this topic comes up in our socratic seminar, so that I can gain a better understanding of it.
Venus saves her son. Juno encourages Juturna to save her brother. Jupiter controls fate. Jupiter and Juno have a nice little compromise scene, which is a nice little way to show what will happen in the future and give some closure to the book. The Gods intervene right up until the end, and in fact, they are the way we find out the ending to the story. My favorite quote about gods in this chapter is "gods alarm me, and Jupiter. He is my real foe" (895). I think that Turnus understands that the gods have some say in his fate, or death, and that Aeneas is not to blame for delivering the death blow, because fate commanded it. It is interesting for Turnus to look at the gods as his foe, because Juno has been on his side the whole time, but he realizes that the enemy is not the Trojans, but whoever condemns humans to this type of brutal fate. However, just the page before, Virgil refers to Jupiter as "great-hearted," showing that it is all relative, depending on how the gods have effected you in life (877).
When Aeneas kills Turnus, his duty/fate must be fulfilled, and he is breaking no moral codes in killing him. Morals vary from person to person, because what is considered "right" for one person, another may consider "wrong". Everything is relative, and this makes the world extremely complicated, but also a lot more interesting. Sometimes, moral codes have to be broken in order for something better to come out of it; however, excuses are not always acceptable and sometimes a person needs to own up to and suffer the consequences for the wrong choices they make. I truly believe in karma, (both good and bad) and that all of the choices someone makes come back to haunt them someday. Turnus got what he deserved, the righteous Aeneas has a bright future ahead of him, although the road there wasn't always fair, the resolution always is.
I'm sick of looking at women in the Aeneid to be quite honest. I'm a woman, and I got plenty of girls in my life if I feel like examining the female psyche. I should have look at men in the Aeneid, not that I'm lacking men in my life, but I feel like an interpretation of the opposite gender would come out much more interesting than one of the same gender. Anyway, I'll look at Amata as the last woman I'll encounter in the epic. She kills herself for no reason at all. Well not no reason, she kills herself because she thinks the war is lost and she does not want to live with the grief of seeing her city fall and daughter married off to Aeneas. It's a very impulsive and rash decision, especially because her speculation is incorrect, but women are stereotypically (at least nowadays) known for acting on impulse. Why is it only women in the Aeneid that kill themselves? Why don't any of the men? I'm not including those who've perished for glory in battle. Does it show emotional weakness, or maybe lack of the will to live and fight? Okay, maybe I lied, I'm just going to write about Lavinia really fast. Why is she portrayed as an object, a prize to be won? She doesn't speak throughout the whole book, so the reader never gets her opinions or feelings, she just sits there and remains passive. The only time we get real emotion from her is when her mother dies and she "rips her own golden tresses and tears at her rose-coloured cheeks" (605-606). Virgil really shows a lot of various personalities of females, and I might have lied before, my interest might just be renewed.
So I know I haven't really been keeping up with the Aeneid in Augustan Rome topic, but I'm going to address that in my synthesis I promise.
"What madness is warping my reason?" is a quote that Dido also used back in book 4 (37). Virgil repeats this quote to emphasize...da da da da (think of trumpets) LOVE. (Sorry, it's late and I'm starting to get stressed over all of the work that I've put off). But I've worn out how the topic of love totally changes a person, so I'll move onto other subjects. Love is so hard to find in war, and when it does come out, it just makes it all the more better because it's surrounded by its foil, hate. Although Turnus does not seem appreciative of what his sister risks for him, it is a display of what sibling love can do. Although everything she does is very moving, Turnus is unappreciative because he knows he must accept his fate and nothing she will do can change it. The rejection of love is always sad, but this one struck me because it was by a blood relative. For some reason, that seems much worse to me than any other rejection of love. I think that's all I found in this book, although it did have some of my favorite quotes in the whole epic that I don't think I pointed out. I have them marked in my book if I ever need to find them so no worries!
Fate totally revolves around the idea of Turnus's death in this book, and I've come to the conclusion that Jupiter does control fate, even if it is only partially. Lines 725-727 have convinced me of that as well as the compromise scene between Jupiter and Juno. I think it's interesting that, although his wife and his (in some stories) daughter take opposite sides of the conflict, he remains impartial the entire time, equally giving a little to both of the goddesses. However, what confuses me is when Virgil talks about "destiny's sisters," because they have not been identified in the book, and the only thing I can pull my knowledge about them from is Hercules the Disney movie (which I'm well aware is completely inaccurate) (147). Therefore, I hope this topic comes up in our socratic seminar, so that I can gain a better understanding of it.
Venus saves her son. Juno encourages Juturna to save her brother. Jupiter controls fate. Jupiter and Juno have a nice little compromise scene, which is a nice little way to show what will happen in the future and give some closure to the book. The Gods intervene right up until the end, and in fact, they are the way we find out the ending to the story. My favorite quote about gods in this chapter is "gods alarm me, and Jupiter. He is my real foe" (895). I think that Turnus understands that the gods have some say in his fate, or death, and that Aeneas is not to blame for delivering the death blow, because fate commanded it. It is interesting for Turnus to look at the gods as his foe, because Juno has been on his side the whole time, but he realizes that the enemy is not the Trojans, but whoever condemns humans to this type of brutal fate. However, just the page before, Virgil refers to Jupiter as "great-hearted," showing that it is all relative, depending on how the gods have effected you in life (877).
When Aeneas kills Turnus, his duty/fate must be fulfilled, and he is breaking no moral codes in killing him. Morals vary from person to person, because what is considered "right" for one person, another may consider "wrong". Everything is relative, and this makes the world extremely complicated, but also a lot more interesting. Sometimes, moral codes have to be broken in order for something better to come out of it; however, excuses are not always acceptable and sometimes a person needs to own up to and suffer the consequences for the wrong choices they make. I truly believe in karma, (both good and bad) and that all of the choices someone makes come back to haunt them someday. Turnus got what he deserved, the righteous Aeneas has a bright future ahead of him, although the road there wasn't always fair, the resolution always is.
I'm sick of looking at women in the Aeneid to be quite honest. I'm a woman, and I got plenty of girls in my life if I feel like examining the female psyche. I should have look at men in the Aeneid, not that I'm lacking men in my life, but I feel like an interpretation of the opposite gender would come out much more interesting than one of the same gender. Anyway, I'll look at Amata as the last woman I'll encounter in the epic. She kills herself for no reason at all. Well not no reason, she kills herself because she thinks the war is lost and she does not want to live with the grief of seeing her city fall and daughter married off to Aeneas. It's a very impulsive and rash decision, especially because her speculation is incorrect, but women are stereotypically (at least nowadays) known for acting on impulse. Why is it only women in the Aeneid that kill themselves? Why don't any of the men? I'm not including those who've perished for glory in battle. Does it show emotional weakness, or maybe lack of the will to live and fight? Okay, maybe I lied, I'm just going to write about Lavinia really fast. Why is she portrayed as an object, a prize to be won? She doesn't speak throughout the whole book, so the reader never gets her opinions or feelings, she just sits there and remains passive. The only time we get real emotion from her is when her mother dies and she "rips her own golden tresses and tears at her rose-coloured cheeks" (605-606). Virgil really shows a lot of various personalities of females, and I might have lied before, my interest might just be renewed.
So I know I haven't really been keeping up with the Aeneid in Augustan Rome topic, but I'm going to address that in my synthesis I promise.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Book 11 Reflection
I'm so close to being done. Just three more blog posts!!
I haven't had much to say about women for a few books, so I'll start my blogpost with them. Camilla finally appears for battle. She is fierce. So are the women of her squad. Camilla is different from most women in the novel, because she has no desire to marry whatsoever. She has "[fosters] eternal love for her weapons and for her chastity," a lifestyle very different from that of most women (583-584). She was brought up by a man, and now finds herself equal among men. This to me says a lot about gender roles. Because Camilla grew up outside of the social world, she had no concept of what a woman was supposed to be like, so she just went with what her father taught her. Her story also shows that women could be as strong as men, but because they are not brought up like men (it's against social customs), they do not get a chance to prove it. Nowadays, this has changed dramatically and you find a lot more Camilla's in the world than you had before. Although Camilla is a truly inspirational and magnificent woman, she is killed at the hands of a man after killing many more. However, this only makes her story all the more memorable and moving to the reader.
I don't think I've ever addressed how Virgil puts a lot of emphasis on Aeneas "being a good man," but his moral character in the book is something Virgil makes an example of (106). He is called "righteous Aeneas" many times throughout the epic, and is praised by all for his just actions. I wonder if he was born righteous, and therefore fate selected him to be the father of Rome, or if he was created righteous by fate because she already knew he was going to found Rome. An example of Aeneas's goodness is when he agrees to the terms of the treaty, giving his foes a chance to think without fear of attack. However, when this is broken, it's also another moral issue within the book. It is no doubt looked at as making the wrong choice, but Turnus tends to do that a lot. Although he has great courage, he is too bold and does not know when it is appropriate to fight, and when it is not. However, Turnus is not driven to make this decision all on his own. He is tempted by Drances, who allows his jealously to get the better of him and bothers Turnus. Latinus is the last character that I would like to explore in morals and this is why: he is king, and he should be able to stop the fighting. Possibly, he is not brave enough to stand up to Turnus, but it takes bravery to portray good morality, especially when society is doing the opposite. Although the king knows the fighting is wrong, and it saddens him deeply, he cannot control it and therefore, appears to lack moral character.
P.S. Are human sacrifices okay? Is that even legal? Aeneas sends them, so I feel like that makes it okay, but it's another morals question that I'm having trouble answering.
I think the tragedy of a parent outliving their child is a sadness that no parent is equipped to or expects to live with. When Evander is given back the body of Pallas, his grief is so obvious and heartbreaking, and that was a really difficult part to read. (However, I think that Aeneas, by respectfully sending him a funeral parade shows great moral character and love for his ally). Furthermore, I wonder if Turnus actually loves Lavinia. He doesn't seem overly capable of loving anything but glory, and it makes sense that he would have he king's daughter to be his bride, because that would only bring him further glory. Love of a person's status and love of a person themselves are two very different types of love and seem to be mixed up here in the joining of Lavinia and Turnus, (and in all arranged marriages for that matter) but I suppose it's not their fault. My last comment about love is also about jealousy. Jealousy is love for something someone else has, but loathing for them because you do not have it yourself. Drances is jealous of Turnus's glory in war because he has never gotten that himself, and he hates Turnus, because Turnus has; therefore, he tempts Turnus during the king's meeting, and makes him look like the bad guy.
One question, why do women let their hair down when they are grieving? I've seen that a couple times in the book and was wondering what the significance of that was.
Instead of looking at how the gods intervene in this book, I'm going to talk about the meaning of their intervention. Religion has always been a tool that humans use to fill in a gap about the unknown (in my opinion), and because it explains things that people don't understand, they cling to it like spider monkeys. Humans do unexpected things sometimes, and I'm not sure quite why, but when people can't explain things, they generally always find a way to. I don't know why, sometimes they just like having an explanation, no matter how feeble it is. This is where the gods come in. Whether Virgil portrays them as real beings or as literary devices, the story wouldn't make sense without them, so he had to put them in there. Moreover, The gods in the epic are so much like humans, it's almost humorous, because under all of their divine powers, they are just average. Virgil portrays them very human-like and makes them very relatable to the reader, giving them another reason to connect with the book even deeper. The Divine Intervention topic is wearing out on me a little bit, but I'll write about it for my last blog just for poop and laughter.
Well, the epic is ending, and I still don't have good conclusions about fate. I do think however that Aeneas's acquiescence to fate is somehow related to his righteousness. I mean, he knows that his life would not have turned out the way it did if fate hadn't swayed him to do her bidding, but he goes with it anyway, even if he doesn't want to (112). That's a really hard thing to do, especially because he isn't getting a direct reward, just a promise that his posterity will succeed. Of course he gets glory and the promise of a good life for his son, but Aeneas wanted to spend his life differently. Maybe Virgil is saying that fate controls our lives for a reason. Free will is good to have, and we are given it somewhat, but fate ultimately controls the outcome, because it has a plan for all life. I just wonder what the plan is, and why it is the way it is. In line 725, Jupiter is described as the "Sower of Life for gods and for humans," and that could be interpreted as Jupiter being the master of fate, although it is never directly said in the epic. I bet that Virgil leaves us with a lot of questions unanswered on purpose. Smart people tend to do that...:)
I haven't had much to say about women for a few books, so I'll start my blogpost with them. Camilla finally appears for battle. She is fierce. So are the women of her squad. Camilla is different from most women in the novel, because she has no desire to marry whatsoever. She has "[fosters] eternal love for her weapons and for her chastity," a lifestyle very different from that of most women (583-584). She was brought up by a man, and now finds herself equal among men. This to me says a lot about gender roles. Because Camilla grew up outside of the social world, she had no concept of what a woman was supposed to be like, so she just went with what her father taught her. Her story also shows that women could be as strong as men, but because they are not brought up like men (it's against social customs), they do not get a chance to prove it. Nowadays, this has changed dramatically and you find a lot more Camilla's in the world than you had before. Although Camilla is a truly inspirational and magnificent woman, she is killed at the hands of a man after killing many more. However, this only makes her story all the more memorable and moving to the reader.
I don't think I've ever addressed how Virgil puts a lot of emphasis on Aeneas "being a good man," but his moral character in the book is something Virgil makes an example of (106). He is called "righteous Aeneas" many times throughout the epic, and is praised by all for his just actions. I wonder if he was born righteous, and therefore fate selected him to be the father of Rome, or if he was created righteous by fate because she already knew he was going to found Rome. An example of Aeneas's goodness is when he agrees to the terms of the treaty, giving his foes a chance to think without fear of attack. However, when this is broken, it's also another moral issue within the book. It is no doubt looked at as making the wrong choice, but Turnus tends to do that a lot. Although he has great courage, he is too bold and does not know when it is appropriate to fight, and when it is not. However, Turnus is not driven to make this decision all on his own. He is tempted by Drances, who allows his jealously to get the better of him and bothers Turnus. Latinus is the last character that I would like to explore in morals and this is why: he is king, and he should be able to stop the fighting. Possibly, he is not brave enough to stand up to Turnus, but it takes bravery to portray good morality, especially when society is doing the opposite. Although the king knows the fighting is wrong, and it saddens him deeply, he cannot control it and therefore, appears to lack moral character.
P.S. Are human sacrifices okay? Is that even legal? Aeneas sends them, so I feel like that makes it okay, but it's another morals question that I'm having trouble answering.
I think the tragedy of a parent outliving their child is a sadness that no parent is equipped to or expects to live with. When Evander is given back the body of Pallas, his grief is so obvious and heartbreaking, and that was a really difficult part to read. (However, I think that Aeneas, by respectfully sending him a funeral parade shows great moral character and love for his ally). Furthermore, I wonder if Turnus actually loves Lavinia. He doesn't seem overly capable of loving anything but glory, and it makes sense that he would have he king's daughter to be his bride, because that would only bring him further glory. Love of a person's status and love of a person themselves are two very different types of love and seem to be mixed up here in the joining of Lavinia and Turnus, (and in all arranged marriages for that matter) but I suppose it's not their fault. My last comment about love is also about jealousy. Jealousy is love for something someone else has, but loathing for them because you do not have it yourself. Drances is jealous of Turnus's glory in war because he has never gotten that himself, and he hates Turnus, because Turnus has; therefore, he tempts Turnus during the king's meeting, and makes him look like the bad guy.
One question, why do women let their hair down when they are grieving? I've seen that a couple times in the book and was wondering what the significance of that was.
Instead of looking at how the gods intervene in this book, I'm going to talk about the meaning of their intervention. Religion has always been a tool that humans use to fill in a gap about the unknown (in my opinion), and because it explains things that people don't understand, they cling to it like spider monkeys. Humans do unexpected things sometimes, and I'm not sure quite why, but when people can't explain things, they generally always find a way to. I don't know why, sometimes they just like having an explanation, no matter how feeble it is. This is where the gods come in. Whether Virgil portrays them as real beings or as literary devices, the story wouldn't make sense without them, so he had to put them in there. Moreover, The gods in the epic are so much like humans, it's almost humorous, because under all of their divine powers, they are just average. Virgil portrays them very human-like and makes them very relatable to the reader, giving them another reason to connect with the book even deeper. The Divine Intervention topic is wearing out on me a little bit, but I'll write about it for my last blog just for poop and laughter.
Well, the epic is ending, and I still don't have good conclusions about fate. I do think however that Aeneas's acquiescence to fate is somehow related to his righteousness. I mean, he knows that his life would not have turned out the way it did if fate hadn't swayed him to do her bidding, but he goes with it anyway, even if he doesn't want to (112). That's a really hard thing to do, especially because he isn't getting a direct reward, just a promise that his posterity will succeed. Of course he gets glory and the promise of a good life for his son, but Aeneas wanted to spend his life differently. Maybe Virgil is saying that fate controls our lives for a reason. Free will is good to have, and we are given it somewhat, but fate ultimately controls the outcome, because it has a plan for all life. I just wonder what the plan is, and why it is the way it is. In line 725, Jupiter is described as the "Sower of Life for gods and for humans," and that could be interpreted as Jupiter being the master of fate, although it is never directly said in the epic. I bet that Virgil leaves us with a lot of questions unanswered on purpose. Smart people tend to do that...:)
Book 10 Reflection
There are so many names. They're so confusing, and there is no way I'm keeping track of all of them.
Does Jupiter himself control fate? Or at least have a say in it? I've started to get the inkling for a few books, but this book made me take it seriously and think hard about it. Is it possible that all of the gods have a say in the fate of what they are patron god of? For example, Mars, "dealing out grief and destruction on both sides," seems to be controlling what goes on during the battle (755-756). Also, there are times in the epic that Jupiter hints that he has a say in, or controls fate itself, such as during his individual conversations with Venus and Juno. In line 100, he is described as "the omnipotent Father, who wields prime power over nature," and that gives him a lot of power, even though he does not imply that he has any power over fate in the group meeting. If Jupiter does indeed control fate, that means that divine will and fate are the same thing, as long as the divine will is Jupiter's plan. Another interesting quote I found was "fortune favors the bold," which is left as an incomplete line for reasons only Virgil can be positive about (284). However, Pallas acts very bold in taking on Turnus and still ends up suffering the ultimate ending. The last thing I would like to mention is that every once in a while, Virgil refers to fate as "the Fates," such as in line 814, throwing another wrench into the whole fate situation. Maybe fate is a lot of forces combined to create one destiny.
Mars may be the power in a hero's hands, but love is the fire in their hearts that keeps them fighting (280). Love of glory, love of fighting, love of a country, love of a friend, love of a family, love of a partner, all of these are the forces that keep the men fighting on in war. It's unreasonable to fight for no purpose, and human instinct goes against risking your life for no reason; therefore, love seems to be an appropriate answer, especially when "love [lashes] to mindless rage" and fuels a battle so much stronger than any other (872). Furthermore, the reader can see Jupiter's love for Juno as he sits down for the first time to talk to her one on one. I thought about what Mr. V. said about men being less sensitive, but being careful not to stereotype, and I've come to the conclusion that Jupiter is man supreme, and therefore, not overly sensitive, but still capable of feeling love. I believe everyone is capable of feeling love, but how it is felt and expressed varies from person to person.
So I've established that morality is different when involved in war, and any life-or-death situation for that matter, but couldn't choosing war and choosing how to fight be looked at as moral issues? Choosing to fight in general is a choice that the answer seems so clear to, but when under the pressure of external forces, a person's opinion must be swayed. Furthermore, there is a difference in fighting and killing to get it done and do the job, and brutally murdering everyone you encounter. Maybe men with more rage and less sense of morality make better soldiers, but there needs to be balance, because outside of war, what is life without some sort of moral code? A person isn't fighting their whole life, so when all is said and done, and the war is lost and won, how does a person make that transition? (I know it's a little early to be addressing this because I have two more books left, but I figured I'd do it). My last question on morals is, how do they define a person? A lot of factors go into personality and demeanor, but where is morality assessed and how?
Monday, September 3, 2012
Book 9 Reflection
I teared up a little during this book. I don't like war and I don't know if I could handle the stress of one of my loved ones being sent to endure it, no matter how much of an honor it is to serve your country.
The first thing I don't understand is: why would the Tiber river god carry Turnus away to safety if he wants Aeneas to win? I thought he was on Aeneas's side, but I'm assuming he probably wanted Aeneas to kill Turnus instead (it's a more entertaining fight that way...just kidding). Juno seems to be withdrawing at this point. She still intervenes, but much less, and I think she's realizing that she's not really making too much of a difference. She still protects and fuels Turnus while he fights in a last ditch attempt to knock out as many Trojans as possible, and make Turnus's last few days as worthwhile as possible (my guess). Furthermore, she still relies on Iris to do some of her work, and I can't figure out why she chooses Iris instead of another god or goddess. Every time war is referred to, Mars is usually in there somewhere, however he does not really chose one side or the other, or even get involved all that much. Apollo also appears again in this chapter as the god of archery (he's the god of a lot of things) and keeps Ascanius from fighting because of his youth (or possibly his jealousy of his talent, even though he denies it, gods have a history of being jealous of talented mortals). An interesting quote from Nisus: "Is it, Euryalus, gods who implant these obsessions, deep in our minds?... Or do each individual's passions become god?" (184-185). As unlikely as it seems, this quote helped me understand what the gods signify to the people, but it also made me think deeper into it. Virgil is asking does belief create the beings that lead us, or are they created before we are made and give us our beliefs. That's a really hard question to answer, because it all depends on how you want to look at it and what you believe in.
So throughout the novel the characters talk about omens, but I haven't addressed those yet. This book was the first time I actually noted them, and how they typically are correct. Most of the humans in this epic are pretty intuitive, being able to understand these omens, almost giving them a way to foresee the future. This made me think that humans are actually a lot like the gods. They feel the same emotions and can somewhat do the same things, the gods can just do them with supreme power. Back to fate, I'm starting to wonder if fate predicts the outcome of events, but not the buildup. It shows the end result, but leaves the in between events to chance and free will. Therefore, both fate and free will govern our lives and there is a somewhat equal balance. The quote that helped me come to this conclusion is "How can Aeneas complete a predicted journey whose dangers can't be predicted?" (97). That part also made me consider another idea, but I'm going to address that in a later blog, because I need some more information.
The story of Nisus and Euryalus I'm familiar with. I remember hearing about it before I read the Aeneid, I just don't remember how. I really like Nisus and Euryalus's kind of love because "they were as one in their love" and "charged as a pair into battle" (182). They are presented more as equals than any other couple in the book, and I admire that. They are also stronger together than they are separately because a group can almost always win out against an individual, and their love makes them a stronger group than others. When they split up (Nisus leaves Euryalus behind similar to the way Aeneas leaves Creusa earlier in the epic), is when it all goes south for them. However, Nisus risks his life to save the one he loves because it is greater than his love for glory and rewards. The love for glory however, is also a very powerful love, although much more greedy and selfish than a love for another would be. In line 445, Virgil talks about "release from anguish" in death, because the lovers are joined in the afterlife, but it's interesting that although life on Earth may be a living hell after losing a loved one, many people tough it out because the love of their own life is just that littlest bit greater, or their natural will to survive is just too strong. Euryalus's mother may be "wholly destroyed," but the reader never hears about her taking her own life to deal with the pain (477). It's a sad topic to think about, but it's also one that a lot of people deal with even today.
I know I've already mentioned the "all's fair in love and war" thing, but this time, I'd like to look at the morality of vengeance and rewards. Nisus and Euryalus make their journey to send Aeneas the message that battle has broken out, but on their way, they slaughter many of their foes. Nisus eventually calls off their slaughter, showing that there is a time for "full battle fury" to end, and also showing that he retains good reason and does not let war completely destroy his morals (342). The task that Nisus and Euryalus were sent out to do was righteous, but also cruel. However, Ascanius offers immense rewards and glory to the two of them, reinforcing the idea that they were making a good choice. Killing is expected during war, and even justified, but the absolutely awful methods chosen seem repulsive to me, who has never even had to think about going to war. Morals really take a backseat, because they have to. If a person were not to kill, they would probably die themselves. It's almost like living two totally different lives with totally different norms and values in one lifetime, but Virgil never shows in the epic the effect it has on a person.
The first thing I don't understand is: why would the Tiber river god carry Turnus away to safety if he wants Aeneas to win? I thought he was on Aeneas's side, but I'm assuming he probably wanted Aeneas to kill Turnus instead (it's a more entertaining fight that way...just kidding). Juno seems to be withdrawing at this point. She still intervenes, but much less, and I think she's realizing that she's not really making too much of a difference. She still protects and fuels Turnus while he fights in a last ditch attempt to knock out as many Trojans as possible, and make Turnus's last few days as worthwhile as possible (my guess). Furthermore, she still relies on Iris to do some of her work, and I can't figure out why she chooses Iris instead of another god or goddess. Every time war is referred to, Mars is usually in there somewhere, however he does not really chose one side or the other, or even get involved all that much. Apollo also appears again in this chapter as the god of archery (he's the god of a lot of things) and keeps Ascanius from fighting because of his youth (or possibly his jealousy of his talent, even though he denies it, gods have a history of being jealous of talented mortals). An interesting quote from Nisus: "Is it, Euryalus, gods who implant these obsessions, deep in our minds?... Or do each individual's passions become god?" (184-185). As unlikely as it seems, this quote helped me understand what the gods signify to the people, but it also made me think deeper into it. Virgil is asking does belief create the beings that lead us, or are they created before we are made and give us our beliefs. That's a really hard question to answer, because it all depends on how you want to look at it and what you believe in.
So throughout the novel the characters talk about omens, but I haven't addressed those yet. This book was the first time I actually noted them, and how they typically are correct. Most of the humans in this epic are pretty intuitive, being able to understand these omens, almost giving them a way to foresee the future. This made me think that humans are actually a lot like the gods. They feel the same emotions and can somewhat do the same things, the gods can just do them with supreme power. Back to fate, I'm starting to wonder if fate predicts the outcome of events, but not the buildup. It shows the end result, but leaves the in between events to chance and free will. Therefore, both fate and free will govern our lives and there is a somewhat equal balance. The quote that helped me come to this conclusion is "How can Aeneas complete a predicted journey whose dangers can't be predicted?" (97). That part also made me consider another idea, but I'm going to address that in a later blog, because I need some more information.
The story of Nisus and Euryalus I'm familiar with. I remember hearing about it before I read the Aeneid, I just don't remember how. I really like Nisus and Euryalus's kind of love because "they were as one in their love" and "charged as a pair into battle" (182). They are presented more as equals than any other couple in the book, and I admire that. They are also stronger together than they are separately because a group can almost always win out against an individual, and their love makes them a stronger group than others. When they split up (Nisus leaves Euryalus behind similar to the way Aeneas leaves Creusa earlier in the epic), is when it all goes south for them. However, Nisus risks his life to save the one he loves because it is greater than his love for glory and rewards. The love for glory however, is also a very powerful love, although much more greedy and selfish than a love for another would be. In line 445, Virgil talks about "release from anguish" in death, because the lovers are joined in the afterlife, but it's interesting that although life on Earth may be a living hell after losing a loved one, many people tough it out because the love of their own life is just that littlest bit greater, or their natural will to survive is just too strong. Euryalus's mother may be "wholly destroyed," but the reader never hears about her taking her own life to deal with the pain (477). It's a sad topic to think about, but it's also one that a lot of people deal with even today.
I know I've already mentioned the "all's fair in love and war" thing, but this time, I'd like to look at the morality of vengeance and rewards. Nisus and Euryalus make their journey to send Aeneas the message that battle has broken out, but on their way, they slaughter many of their foes. Nisus eventually calls off their slaughter, showing that there is a time for "full battle fury" to end, and also showing that he retains good reason and does not let war completely destroy his morals (342). The task that Nisus and Euryalus were sent out to do was righteous, but also cruel. However, Ascanius offers immense rewards and glory to the two of them, reinforcing the idea that they were making a good choice. Killing is expected during war, and even justified, but the absolutely awful methods chosen seem repulsive to me, who has never even had to think about going to war. Morals really take a backseat, because they have to. If a person were not to kill, they would probably die themselves. It's almost like living two totally different lives with totally different norms and values in one lifetime, but Virgil never shows in the epic the effect it has on a person.
Book 8 Reflection
I'm going to start off with a question. Why is Aeneas the founder of Rome? Why isn't credit given to Anchises or even Ascanius, who are both in his direct line? Is it simply because he was a hero who led the survivors out of Troy alive? Anchises and Ascanius have both lived worthy lives, why does the Roman story start with Aeneas's instead of Ascanius, who actually establishes Alba?
So because my fate paragraph was a little lacking last blog, I'll start with fate. I'm curious as to how the gods know everything about fate, even though they don't control it. Vulcan portrays Rome's future on Aeneas's shield, and they all make prophecies and seem well aware of what they are talking about. I guess being all-knowing gives them insight into the force that controls all of our lives, and that is one reason why they are supreme beings. But does fate predict their futures as well as humans' futures? And do they know what "unavoidable fate and omnipotent fortune" has in store for them (333)? Surely fate foresees how they will intervene, because it has such a huge influence on the mortal world. Without the gods, fate probably wouldn't have the outcomes it does in the book, and the world wouldn't be the way it is because they play a part in almost everything that happens in the epic. I'm realizing that as I go along, I'm connecting all of the topics I'm following. They all seem to have something to do with one another and I can't seem to write about one without incorporating another one into it. Maybe that's not a bad thing though, because by breaking them down, I can't get a full picture, but when I look at them together, I have a lot more to think about.
The Tiber god is the first to intervene in this book, by telling Aeneas how Ascanius will found Alba and also how to win the war. Personally, of his speech, I think the best part is when he tells Aeneas to slaughter the sow to conquer Juno's "anger and menace," because it's not possible (186). If he is destined to rule the city that will conquer hers, she will always partially hate him. Should I stop talking about the gods as if they are real beings and refer to them more in a literary device kind of way? How you look at them makes a big impact on the epic as a whole, but I'm not sure what the correct way to look at them is. I feel like I remember someone telling me that the gods were created (by the ancient Greeks and Romans) to explain the world and its functions, and that is how they are portrayed in the epic. However, in this book, Venus brings a material gift from the gods (the shield with Rome's future), which is somewhat deconstructing the theory that they are literary devices, right? The shield could not just have popped out of nowhere, so the gods have to have some type of substance. I'm spinning myself in circles...I'll take a break from the gods now because I'm real confused.
First off, I like that everyone Aeneas seeks agrees to send allies, and welcomes him warmly. That hospitality is something you don't see much today (although the world has changed dramatically in other ways as well), and it's something that I think shows great kindness and good character. So I've been talking more and more about how morals are so hard to uphold because of the blurry line between right and wrong, and how justifications skew ethical guidelines. I hear all the time from my parents, "Make good choices!" but I've never realized how hard it actually is to make good choices when you're put in a a really tough situation. Especially when it comes to putting yours or someone else's life at stake. For example, although it was very kind for Evander to send reinforcements for Aeneas, he is sending them with knowledge that some of his men will die in the war. So did he make the wrong or the right choice? Sending men away from their families (possibly to never return) and helping out a hero in desperate need, or not helping the desperate hero, but saving his men from the evils of war is the choice Evander must make. What do you do there??? What's considered the right or wrong choice? Both sides have pros and cons. In the end, love wins out. Ironic isn't it? Evander's love for Anchises sways him to help Aeneas without any real hesitation. Hercules's situation works the same way. Killing a man to avenge his evil crimes? Which do you chose? Love for his cattle wins! It's all perspective I guess, different people would make different choices because of their character and values, morality is tough.
So, I've already stated that love can skew morals and make a person do some crazy things. But love is't a bad thing and I'm not sure if I've put a lot of emphasis on this (I'm not even sure if Virgil has for that matter). Love can make a person a hero, like Hercules; it can drive a person to help someone in need, like Anchises or Vulcan; and it makes life worth living in general. Love sometimes leads to heartbreak, yes, but it is a wonderful thing as well and I should probably try to focus on the positive as well as the negative here. I wonder if gods can feel love (and hate) more deeply since they are greater beings than humans. Vulcan's "undying love and its passion," make him put his wife before all other priorities he has, even if the passion is not always present (394). The father-son love that Virgil displays throughout the epic is again seen here as Evander lets his son go, not knowing that he'll never return. I wonder why Virgil doesn't ever show mother-daughter love in the epic. I'm pretty sure he covers every other type of love relation besides mother-daughter, and I wonder why that is.
I finished the book this morning!!! I just have to catch up on my blogposts now:D
So because my fate paragraph was a little lacking last blog, I'll start with fate. I'm curious as to how the gods know everything about fate, even though they don't control it. Vulcan portrays Rome's future on Aeneas's shield, and they all make prophecies and seem well aware of what they are talking about. I guess being all-knowing gives them insight into the force that controls all of our lives, and that is one reason why they are supreme beings. But does fate predict their futures as well as humans' futures? And do they know what "unavoidable fate and omnipotent fortune" has in store for them (333)? Surely fate foresees how they will intervene, because it has such a huge influence on the mortal world. Without the gods, fate probably wouldn't have the outcomes it does in the book, and the world wouldn't be the way it is because they play a part in almost everything that happens in the epic. I'm realizing that as I go along, I'm connecting all of the topics I'm following. They all seem to have something to do with one another and I can't seem to write about one without incorporating another one into it. Maybe that's not a bad thing though, because by breaking them down, I can't get a full picture, but when I look at them together, I have a lot more to think about.
The Tiber god is the first to intervene in this book, by telling Aeneas how Ascanius will found Alba and also how to win the war. Personally, of his speech, I think the best part is when he tells Aeneas to slaughter the sow to conquer Juno's "anger and menace," because it's not possible (186). If he is destined to rule the city that will conquer hers, she will always partially hate him. Should I stop talking about the gods as if they are real beings and refer to them more in a literary device kind of way? How you look at them makes a big impact on the epic as a whole, but I'm not sure what the correct way to look at them is. I feel like I remember someone telling me that the gods were created (by the ancient Greeks and Romans) to explain the world and its functions, and that is how they are portrayed in the epic. However, in this book, Venus brings a material gift from the gods (the shield with Rome's future), which is somewhat deconstructing the theory that they are literary devices, right? The shield could not just have popped out of nowhere, so the gods have to have some type of substance. I'm spinning myself in circles...I'll take a break from the gods now because I'm real confused.
First off, I like that everyone Aeneas seeks agrees to send allies, and welcomes him warmly. That hospitality is something you don't see much today (although the world has changed dramatically in other ways as well), and it's something that I think shows great kindness and good character. So I've been talking more and more about how morals are so hard to uphold because of the blurry line between right and wrong, and how justifications skew ethical guidelines. I hear all the time from my parents, "Make good choices!" but I've never realized how hard it actually is to make good choices when you're put in a a really tough situation. Especially when it comes to putting yours or someone else's life at stake. For example, although it was very kind for Evander to send reinforcements for Aeneas, he is sending them with knowledge that some of his men will die in the war. So did he make the wrong or the right choice? Sending men away from their families (possibly to never return) and helping out a hero in desperate need, or not helping the desperate hero, but saving his men from the evils of war is the choice Evander must make. What do you do there??? What's considered the right or wrong choice? Both sides have pros and cons. In the end, love wins out. Ironic isn't it? Evander's love for Anchises sways him to help Aeneas without any real hesitation. Hercules's situation works the same way. Killing a man to avenge his evil crimes? Which do you chose? Love for his cattle wins! It's all perspective I guess, different people would make different choices because of their character and values, morality is tough.
So, I've already stated that love can skew morals and make a person do some crazy things. But love is't a bad thing and I'm not sure if I've put a lot of emphasis on this (I'm not even sure if Virgil has for that matter). Love can make a person a hero, like Hercules; it can drive a person to help someone in need, like Anchises or Vulcan; and it makes life worth living in general. Love sometimes leads to heartbreak, yes, but it is a wonderful thing as well and I should probably try to focus on the positive as well as the negative here. I wonder if gods can feel love (and hate) more deeply since they are greater beings than humans. Vulcan's "undying love and its passion," make him put his wife before all other priorities he has, even if the passion is not always present (394). The father-son love that Virgil displays throughout the epic is again seen here as Evander lets his son go, not knowing that he'll never return. I wonder why Virgil doesn't ever show mother-daughter love in the epic. I'm pretty sure he covers every other type of love relation besides mother-daughter, and I wonder why that is.
I finished the book this morning!!! I just have to catch up on my blogposts now:D
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Book 7 Reflection
To be completely honest, I didn't much like book 7. I don't even know why.
My favorite part of the book was Allecto, so I suppose I'll start with divine intervention. Juno once again recruits another being to do her dirty work, but she's disappointed when it's not done the way she wanted it. Allecto, as "the bringer of grief," hated by even those of Tartarus, is arguably the cruelest being that we've encountered in the novel up until now; she is probably worse than Juno herself, and that's saying a lot (325). I think Juno has recently brought other gods into the situation because she is doubting her own power (as seen on page 167) and wants to see if other immortals can exert any more power than she can (asking others could be seen as a moment of weakness for Juno because she's doubting her own power while asking beings that have lesser power than her to intervene). Juno at this point seems to be at her lowest state, but nevertheless still trying to stop Aeneas at all costs. Juno pushes open the gates signifying war, even though she knows very well that she can do all of the damage she wants, and still will not stop Aeneas. She doesn't give up even though she knows it's futile, which I suppose could reinforce the idea of the strength of love, and show how desperate it makes you. (At this point, the persistence of Juno is a little annoying. Just give up. It's hopeless).
Love has nothing to do with the marriage arrangements of Aeneas (once Turnus) and Lavinia. At one point it's about money and status (Turnus), and another, what fate tells Latinus to do (Aeneas). This is very different from Dido and Aeneas's marriage, because it says that marriage is not always a love affair. Sometimes duty must come before pleasure, and love must be disregarded for the sake of obligation. Latinus's wife understands this, and tries to throw it in her husbands face by saying he is obligated to marry her off to Turnus. She also tries to guilt him into letting their daughter by marrying Turnus by challenging his love and devotion to his family (although the way she acts towards him doesn't show much family love on her part). Love is also used in this book to act as a driving force behind different actions. For example, Ascanius's "love of distinguished approval" drives him to shoot the horse, and Turnus's"love of the sword" drives him to quickly prepare for war (496, 461). However, that really isn't anything new to us as we've seen this in other books, but during this book I started to wonder if love is perceived the same way now as it was back when the Aeneid was written. I mean I'm sure it isn't, but I wonder in what ways its different.
My favorite woman in the book, although she is in it only for a half of a page, is Camilla. I think it helped that I have a background knowledge of her from the introduction, but I think she's awesome because she is totally out of the stereotypical woman image. She brings a new, and totally different image to women in the book, unlike Lavinia, who does not show any independence and relies completely on men to make her decisions. Circe is pretty cool too because she takes all of her anger out on men, even though she's pretty cruel. Latinus's wife is used by Allecto and Juno to stir up anger in the women of Latinum, similar to the way Juno uses the women to burn the ships, previously. Amata and her group of women are described as "dancing for Bacchus,"inciting that they've gone completely crazy (from what I know about Bacchus's effect on women), and it's funny that the women are always the ones to lose their minds (580). I guess in a way, we are crazier, but it's only because men drive us crazy. They're the reasons we are everything we are (even though Juno takes the blame for inciting our anger at men), and men are one day going to realize this.
So as I was reading this book, I thought of the quote, "all's fair in love and war," and I related it to the epic and morals within it. Virgil seems to be a real big supporter of it anyway. Is it right, or fair, of Latinus to break his promise to Turnus and marry his daughter off to a foreigner? Probably not, though you could argue that he didn't have a choice because it is commanded of him. Is it right, or fair, of Allecto to bring grief the way she does? Probably not, but she does because it's what she was made for, and probably all she knows how to do. Is it right, or fair, for Tyrrhus's family to start a war over a pet being killed? Probably not, but Allecto can be blamed for inciting the fury that started the war. There's always an excuse to make for not making the right choice, and if you'd rather not call it an excuse, a reason or justification (however insignificant) behind certain actions. So with all of these excuses, who is to tell what is the right choice and what is the wrong choice? How can morals be studied when they are so many shades of grey instead of black and white? I think Virgil is really trying to portray this in his epic, and show the reader that choosing between the right and wrong choice may not always be clear, nor will it always bring you to the resolution you desire.
Aeneas marrying Lavinia is fate's plan. Latinus knows it, and Juno knows it. The difference between them is that one encourages it and one discourages it. Juno thinks she's all high and mighty trying to challenge what she calls "powers above," but it just makes her look more naive and powerless than humans (312). Juno and Venus are funny when it comes to fate. They both are aware of what eventually will happen, but they worry and intervene for the sake of what they want to happen anyway. It's something I don't completely understand. If gods are supposed to be these all-knowing, immortal, great beings, why do they act like children sometimes? I don't really feel like writing any more about fate. I'll try to put in more effort for the next blog, but I still have a lot of questions that I want to figure out and it's frustrating me that I don't know the answers.
My favorite part of the book was Allecto, so I suppose I'll start with divine intervention. Juno once again recruits another being to do her dirty work, but she's disappointed when it's not done the way she wanted it. Allecto, as "the bringer of grief," hated by even those of Tartarus, is arguably the cruelest being that we've encountered in the novel up until now; she is probably worse than Juno herself, and that's saying a lot (325). I think Juno has recently brought other gods into the situation because she is doubting her own power (as seen on page 167) and wants to see if other immortals can exert any more power than she can (asking others could be seen as a moment of weakness for Juno because she's doubting her own power while asking beings that have lesser power than her to intervene). Juno at this point seems to be at her lowest state, but nevertheless still trying to stop Aeneas at all costs. Juno pushes open the gates signifying war, even though she knows very well that she can do all of the damage she wants, and still will not stop Aeneas. She doesn't give up even though she knows it's futile, which I suppose could reinforce the idea of the strength of love, and show how desperate it makes you. (At this point, the persistence of Juno is a little annoying. Just give up. It's hopeless).
Love has nothing to do with the marriage arrangements of Aeneas (once Turnus) and Lavinia. At one point it's about money and status (Turnus), and another, what fate tells Latinus to do (Aeneas). This is very different from Dido and Aeneas's marriage, because it says that marriage is not always a love affair. Sometimes duty must come before pleasure, and love must be disregarded for the sake of obligation. Latinus's wife understands this, and tries to throw it in her husbands face by saying he is obligated to marry her off to Turnus. She also tries to guilt him into letting their daughter by marrying Turnus by challenging his love and devotion to his family (although the way she acts towards him doesn't show much family love on her part). Love is also used in this book to act as a driving force behind different actions. For example, Ascanius's "love of distinguished approval" drives him to shoot the horse, and Turnus's"love of the sword" drives him to quickly prepare for war (496, 461). However, that really isn't anything new to us as we've seen this in other books, but during this book I started to wonder if love is perceived the same way now as it was back when the Aeneid was written. I mean I'm sure it isn't, but I wonder in what ways its different.
My favorite woman in the book, although she is in it only for a half of a page, is Camilla. I think it helped that I have a background knowledge of her from the introduction, but I think she's awesome because she is totally out of the stereotypical woman image. She brings a new, and totally different image to women in the book, unlike Lavinia, who does not show any independence and relies completely on men to make her decisions. Circe is pretty cool too because she takes all of her anger out on men, even though she's pretty cruel. Latinus's wife is used by Allecto and Juno to stir up anger in the women of Latinum, similar to the way Juno uses the women to burn the ships, previously. Amata and her group of women are described as "dancing for Bacchus,"inciting that they've gone completely crazy (from what I know about Bacchus's effect on women), and it's funny that the women are always the ones to lose their minds (580). I guess in a way, we are crazier, but it's only because men drive us crazy. They're the reasons we are everything we are (even though Juno takes the blame for inciting our anger at men), and men are one day going to realize this.
So as I was reading this book, I thought of the quote, "all's fair in love and war," and I related it to the epic and morals within it. Virgil seems to be a real big supporter of it anyway. Is it right, or fair, of Latinus to break his promise to Turnus and marry his daughter off to a foreigner? Probably not, though you could argue that he didn't have a choice because it is commanded of him. Is it right, or fair, of Allecto to bring grief the way she does? Probably not, but she does because it's what she was made for, and probably all she knows how to do. Is it right, or fair, for Tyrrhus's family to start a war over a pet being killed? Probably not, but Allecto can be blamed for inciting the fury that started the war. There's always an excuse to make for not making the right choice, and if you'd rather not call it an excuse, a reason or justification (however insignificant) behind certain actions. So with all of these excuses, who is to tell what is the right choice and what is the wrong choice? How can morals be studied when they are so many shades of grey instead of black and white? I think Virgil is really trying to portray this in his epic, and show the reader that choosing between the right and wrong choice may not always be clear, nor will it always bring you to the resolution you desire.
Aeneas marrying Lavinia is fate's plan. Latinus knows it, and Juno knows it. The difference between them is that one encourages it and one discourages it. Juno thinks she's all high and mighty trying to challenge what she calls "powers above," but it just makes her look more naive and powerless than humans (312). Juno and Venus are funny when it comes to fate. They both are aware of what eventually will happen, but they worry and intervene for the sake of what they want to happen anyway. It's something I don't completely understand. If gods are supposed to be these all-knowing, immortal, great beings, why do they act like children sometimes? I don't really feel like writing any more about fate. I'll try to put in more effort for the next blog, but I still have a lot of questions that I want to figure out and it's frustrating me that I don't know the answers.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Book 6 Reflection
I'm almost halfway through!! Just have to finish this blogpost:D
When Aeneas and Sibyl first get to the underworld, they encounter monsters. These monsters, such as heartbreak, sorrow, terror, hunger, senility, and diseases are all things that ruin lives. I thought about them and what they meant, and I realized, all of these monsters could blur the lines of morality. They are all terrible things to encounter in life, but they are a part of it, meant to test us at out weakest. Morals don't seem to exist in the afterlife, and my guess is because it's the place of judgement. Humans get their chance to chose right from wrong on Earth, and where they reside in the underworld depends on how they have lived their lives. Although it is unfair to doom someone to suffering for eternity (and maybe not moral for the person doing the dooming), it's a consequence for bad choices on Earth. The rules of the underworld make me wonder also whether the force that created it had any morals. Leaving unburied souls to just stand around and wait for judgement is unjust and borderline cruel, but I suppose it makes sense because their lives in a new place cannot begin until their lives in the old place end. This is why I like the topic of morals so much. It's all based on opinion, and sometimes, very difficult to understand.
Fate is integrated into so many parts of the book, it's actually getting hard to keep track of all of them. The first thing I noticed and thought was the most interesting was the golden bough incident. Although Sibyl says that it will come away easily if fate permits, Aeneas struggles with it before it comes loose. What I made of this was that Aeneas took the bough too early. He was fated to get the bough, but because he took it earlier than fate expected, the bough struggled against him, but still gave way to him. Possibly because the burial of Misenus was not complete yet. A question I had about fate was, is it the "violent but random force that ripped" Palinurus away from the ship (349)? It was not fair that he had to die so quickly, but fate doesn't always work in fair ways, and Palinurus states that it was not an action of the gods. Speaking of gods, the statement Sibyl makes on page 140, about fate being once spoken by gods, I wonder what that means. But she also says that it cannot be altered by prayer, which shows that fate is set in stone before life begins and is stronger than the god's power. When Anchises is showing Aeneas the future of Rome, the reader can see there also that fate is set before life begins because Anchises knows what the men will do before they are even bodies on Earth. I am starting to wonder what Virgil believes determines fate, and also what force has the ultimate power over every being. I hope that the rest of the book can give me a hint to those answers, because without them, there is only so much you can understand about fate.
Apollo, or Phoebus is the first god we encounter in this book, because he is the god of prophecy (along with other things as well). His seer, Sibyl, has the ability, through him, to reveal what fate has planned for the future to help whomever seeks her. He is a big name throughout the epic because he is the god of prophecy, and can foresee what fate has planned for them, which could help big-time with their journey. Venus, Aeneas's mother again steps in to help him in a time of need by sending her two doves to lead Aeneas to the bough. In a way, her actions might seem small and useless, but she saved Aeneas a lot of time in searching for the bough, and she never hurt anyone while intervening on Earth (different from other gods we've encountered). Although Venus is portrayed as a very kind-hearted goddess, when I read about Tartarus, and how gods punish wrongdoers, I couldn't help but wonder if she simply covers up her wrath for her son's sake. Certainly, the goddess of love must be capable of extreme hatred as well (seeing as the emotions are so deeply connected)? Tartarus serves as a way of reminding the reader that although fate may control the gods, gods are still in control of humans and can damn them to eternal suffering. However, I suppose it could be looked at differently based on the viewpoint. The people in Tartarus probably have committed awful crimes, and deserve to be punished, making the gods act as peacekeepers. It's all perception. Everything is perception.
Love and death are brought together in this book, as we can see that it is still present, even in the underworld. This shows that love (or hate) is so strong, it continues beyond death. The heartbreak area in the afterlife was funny to me, because it wasn't something that I expected. It reminded me of a never-ending sleepover where girls cry over all of their boy troubles (even though I know that's a funny picture). I wonder why all of the heartbroken souls are placed together, and I also wonder if they are ever allowed to leave their section. Wounds heal over time, but are these souls damned to be in pain forever? That's awful. Dido, still "fresh from her wound" absolutely refuses to acknowledge Aeneas, proving how strong her loathing for him is (451). I figured I should take about hate in this paragraph as well, because love and hate are as close to brother and sister as words get (which is funny because I used to think they were opposites, and I guess in a way I think they still are). Love and hate can inspire a person to do a lot of things they might not do without the presence of these emotions, and they are the best examples of passion the world has. For example, Aeneas journeying to the underworld alone was quite a feat, and he may not have had the courage to go through with it without the love he has for his father. Anchises recognizes what love can do, and by "[kindling] love for the glory to come"in Aeneas's life, he has further excited Aeneas's passion to follow his fate (889). This book really shows how strong love is and how it's burning passion can drive a person to do almost anything.
Sibyl and Dido are the only two women that I will mention from this book, and I'll start with Sibyl. She's pretty inspirational and simply radiating independence. She is also very matter-of-fact and no-nonsense, and shows no fear at entering the underworld Furthermore, Sibyl acting "monstrous" when Apollo is within her almost seems as if she is rejecting his control and fighting him; however, that doesn't make any sense because she does not show any signs of contempt towards Apollo when it is over (77). Maybe it is overwhelming for her body to be possessed by a god, even for such a short time. That makes a little more sense. Oh my goodness! It's like Apollo and Daphne! I'm sure it'd probably be more obvious in the latin text, but Apollo being inside of Sibyl as she acts like that seems to me like rape. I wonder if it's described that way in the latin. Okay, onto Dido. Her hate/love obviously goes with her even into her afterlife, making her treat Aeneas so cruelly even when "fate gives [him] this last chance to address" her (466). This just shows that Virgil understands how strong a woman's will can be and what great grudge holders they are! I don't think I'm liking the women topic as much as I originally was, and I'm not sure why, but I'll keep examining them to see if my interest returns again.
Now, I know I haven't been writing about this one for every book, but I feel like the Aeneid in Augustan Rome is a little too obvious in this book not to mention. Virgil takes the reader through the history of Rome, putting special emphasis on Octavian (or Augustus). This isn't any kind of discreet message to Rome. He's praising Augustus as ruler of Rome. Virgil also mentions the Alba kings and the story of Romulus and Remus, giving a nice little summary of how Rome came to be. Of course the history is somewhat glorified, Virgil is probably giving his audience a reason to be proud of where they come from and how their city came to be. He also sneaks in a few patriotic sayings such as "other loves yield before love of one's homeland," and "you, who are Roman, recall how to govern mankind with your power," (823, 851). A reader would understand why this was such a cherished book in Roman literature, and why Augustus praised it so much.
When Aeneas and Sibyl first get to the underworld, they encounter monsters. These monsters, such as heartbreak, sorrow, terror, hunger, senility, and diseases are all things that ruin lives. I thought about them and what they meant, and I realized, all of these monsters could blur the lines of morality. They are all terrible things to encounter in life, but they are a part of it, meant to test us at out weakest. Morals don't seem to exist in the afterlife, and my guess is because it's the place of judgement. Humans get their chance to chose right from wrong on Earth, and where they reside in the underworld depends on how they have lived their lives. Although it is unfair to doom someone to suffering for eternity (and maybe not moral for the person doing the dooming), it's a consequence for bad choices on Earth. The rules of the underworld make me wonder also whether the force that created it had any morals. Leaving unburied souls to just stand around and wait for judgement is unjust and borderline cruel, but I suppose it makes sense because their lives in a new place cannot begin until their lives in the old place end. This is why I like the topic of morals so much. It's all based on opinion, and sometimes, very difficult to understand.
Fate is integrated into so many parts of the book, it's actually getting hard to keep track of all of them. The first thing I noticed and thought was the most interesting was the golden bough incident. Although Sibyl says that it will come away easily if fate permits, Aeneas struggles with it before it comes loose. What I made of this was that Aeneas took the bough too early. He was fated to get the bough, but because he took it earlier than fate expected, the bough struggled against him, but still gave way to him. Possibly because the burial of Misenus was not complete yet. A question I had about fate was, is it the "violent but random force that ripped" Palinurus away from the ship (349)? It was not fair that he had to die so quickly, but fate doesn't always work in fair ways, and Palinurus states that it was not an action of the gods. Speaking of gods, the statement Sibyl makes on page 140, about fate being once spoken by gods, I wonder what that means. But she also says that it cannot be altered by prayer, which shows that fate is set in stone before life begins and is stronger than the god's power. When Anchises is showing Aeneas the future of Rome, the reader can see there also that fate is set before life begins because Anchises knows what the men will do before they are even bodies on Earth. I am starting to wonder what Virgil believes determines fate, and also what force has the ultimate power over every being. I hope that the rest of the book can give me a hint to those answers, because without them, there is only so much you can understand about fate.
Apollo, or Phoebus is the first god we encounter in this book, because he is the god of prophecy (along with other things as well). His seer, Sibyl, has the ability, through him, to reveal what fate has planned for the future to help whomever seeks her. He is a big name throughout the epic because he is the god of prophecy, and can foresee what fate has planned for them, which could help big-time with their journey. Venus, Aeneas's mother again steps in to help him in a time of need by sending her two doves to lead Aeneas to the bough. In a way, her actions might seem small and useless, but she saved Aeneas a lot of time in searching for the bough, and she never hurt anyone while intervening on Earth (different from other gods we've encountered). Although Venus is portrayed as a very kind-hearted goddess, when I read about Tartarus, and how gods punish wrongdoers, I couldn't help but wonder if she simply covers up her wrath for her son's sake. Certainly, the goddess of love must be capable of extreme hatred as well (seeing as the emotions are so deeply connected)? Tartarus serves as a way of reminding the reader that although fate may control the gods, gods are still in control of humans and can damn them to eternal suffering. However, I suppose it could be looked at differently based on the viewpoint. The people in Tartarus probably have committed awful crimes, and deserve to be punished, making the gods act as peacekeepers. It's all perception. Everything is perception.
Love and death are brought together in this book, as we can see that it is still present, even in the underworld. This shows that love (or hate) is so strong, it continues beyond death. The heartbreak area in the afterlife was funny to me, because it wasn't something that I expected. It reminded me of a never-ending sleepover where girls cry over all of their boy troubles (even though I know that's a funny picture). I wonder why all of the heartbroken souls are placed together, and I also wonder if they are ever allowed to leave their section. Wounds heal over time, but are these souls damned to be in pain forever? That's awful. Dido, still "fresh from her wound" absolutely refuses to acknowledge Aeneas, proving how strong her loathing for him is (451). I figured I should take about hate in this paragraph as well, because love and hate are as close to brother and sister as words get (which is funny because I used to think they were opposites, and I guess in a way I think they still are). Love and hate can inspire a person to do a lot of things they might not do without the presence of these emotions, and they are the best examples of passion the world has. For example, Aeneas journeying to the underworld alone was quite a feat, and he may not have had the courage to go through with it without the love he has for his father. Anchises recognizes what love can do, and by "[kindling] love for the glory to come"in Aeneas's life, he has further excited Aeneas's passion to follow his fate (889). This book really shows how strong love is and how it's burning passion can drive a person to do almost anything.
Sibyl and Dido are the only two women that I will mention from this book, and I'll start with Sibyl. She's pretty inspirational and simply radiating independence. She is also very matter-of-fact and no-nonsense, and shows no fear at entering the underworld Furthermore, Sibyl acting "monstrous" when Apollo is within her almost seems as if she is rejecting his control and fighting him; however, that doesn't make any sense because she does not show any signs of contempt towards Apollo when it is over (77). Maybe it is overwhelming for her body to be possessed by a god, even for such a short time. That makes a little more sense. Oh my goodness! It's like Apollo and Daphne! I'm sure it'd probably be more obvious in the latin text, but Apollo being inside of Sibyl as she acts like that seems to me like rape. I wonder if it's described that way in the latin. Okay, onto Dido. Her hate/love obviously goes with her even into her afterlife, making her treat Aeneas so cruelly even when "fate gives [him] this last chance to address" her (466). This just shows that Virgil understands how strong a woman's will can be and what great grudge holders they are! I don't think I'm liking the women topic as much as I originally was, and I'm not sure why, but I'll keep examining them to see if my interest returns again.
Now, I know I haven't been writing about this one for every book, but I feel like the Aeneid in Augustan Rome is a little too obvious in this book not to mention. Virgil takes the reader through the history of Rome, putting special emphasis on Octavian (or Augustus). This isn't any kind of discreet message to Rome. He's praising Augustus as ruler of Rome. Virgil also mentions the Alba kings and the story of Romulus and Remus, giving a nice little summary of how Rome came to be. Of course the history is somewhat glorified, Virgil is probably giving his audience a reason to be proud of where they come from and how their city came to be. He also sneaks in a few patriotic sayings such as "other loves yield before love of one's homeland," and "you, who are Roman, recall how to govern mankind with your power," (823, 851). A reader would understand why this was such a cherished book in Roman literature, and why Augustus praised it so much.