|
Post by Dominique Martin on Sept 22, 2016 1:31:47 GMT
The characters in this work are interesting in the sense that there really isn't anyone to root for. Originally you think that Aeneas is a good, kind man, but reading further you encounter his rage and lack of mercy. Slaughtering two begging men doesn't exactly scream kindness, even if done for avenging a friend. He could have spared Turnus as well, which he did not.
You also begin to realize that Turnus, who was originally fighting for the hand of Lavinia, was really just trying to uphold his own pride. As many times as he could've prevented war, he had to show his strength and try to beat the Trojans. You maybe see a glimmer of humility in him as he is begging for his life, but obviously, it doesn't last long.
Juno, who is moved throughout this story by hatred, eventually sees reason in the end. But it takes her that long to get there! I think her place in this book really showed that if it's destiny it can't be prevented. She tried so hard to stop Aeneas, using Turnus to do it, but at the end she sees that it was all in vain. Nothing could've stopped him reaching his goal.
|
|
artsykat
Junior Member
Hello, I'm Kateri, nice to meet you~!
Posts: 51
|
Post by artsykat on Sept 22, 2016 19:07:54 GMT
I totally agree. It really makes you question what things are "good" and "bad" in this world. Is Aeneas the hero simply because the gods are on his side(save Juno)? Since they are the most powerful beings, does that make what he's doing good? Not that he really has and option though. I think it's safe to say that Turnus is doing the more noble thing, despite him being the antagonist. I think this shows Plato said pretty well. You can't have messed up gods if you want just world.
|
|
|
Post by Christopher Martin on Sept 23, 2016 13:20:44 GMT
Nobody to root for??!!! How can you say that! OK, let's all take a deep breath and imagine we're living in Virgil's time (circa 70 BC), under the emperor Augustus. Does it make any more sense now? Or shall I have to give a brief, "flash-forward" type of historical context lecture? But here's the hint: both in the underworld and in the forging of Aeneas' shield, Virgil is forecasting Aeneas to have a very noteworthy descendant . . . why is that guy, and what is the significance as relating to the descendant's identity?
|
|
|
Post by Dominique Martin on Sept 24, 2016 2:30:52 GMT
Digging deeper into Aeneas' character has made me realize my error in calling him merciless. All his acts were justified. Yet I still don't see him as a very inspirational person, even taking into account his descendants. Granted the stuff that came from him was amazing, i found him as a person not so much. Maybe that is just me and my finding more honor in hardships and martyrdom, as opposed to merciful killing and already having a great destiny laid out for you.
|
|
|
Post by Christopher Martin on Sept 25, 2016 17:12:57 GMT
If we're looking carefully, especially at the CONTEXT of Virgil's text, we realize that Virgil lived in a very tumultuous time: the Roman Republic had been usurped by Julius Caesar, and though eventually assassinated and replaced by Caesar Augustus, the legality of Julius Caesar's coup was still very much up for debate. Many Romans, for example, sympathized with Julius Caesar's assassin, Marcus Brutus.
So then what is Virgil doing in relating Aeneas to his supposed descendant, Julius Caesar? Well, he's attempting to both justify and glorify the history of a strong, authoritarian ruler in Rome's history. In short: long before Julius Caesar took power for himself, our greatest ancestor Aeneas was himself a strong authoritarian Ruler. This does two things:
First, it suggests that Julius Caesar was NOT a tyrant, but rather a man divinely justified (and destined) to rule Rome with a firm hand. We see this with several pointed comments in Virgil where he points out that Aeneas made his own destiny when the gods ceased to intervene.
Second, it also suggests that Rome's tradition is NOT one of Republican virtue, but rather of individual rule by an authoritarian. One of the most powerful arguments by Brutus' sympathizers was that Rome had been a Republic for nearly 500 years: THAT was her secret to success, power, virtue, and nature. Virgil is attempting to rebuke this argument by saying: "No, before Rome was a republic, it's very founder, Aeneas, was an individual, authoritarian ruler. THAT, not the Republic, is what make's Rome's history great, and therefore, it is just and right that Aeneas' descendant (Julius Caesar)has made a similar bid to restore Rome's glory."
Make of it what you will, then, but you can make a strong argument that, although an epic poem in the vein of Homer, Virgil is simply utilizing a number of stories, legends, and literary techniques for the sole purpose building a propaganda campaign to justify the ascent of the Caesars in Rome. Clever? Absolutely! Subtle? Yes. And perhaps most importantly, it frames both Julius Caesar and Aeneas as parallel heroes for whom we shoot root.
|
|