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