Written 10-1-2022
Before reading the Aeneid my inclination is that it would be a continuation of the stories found in the Iliad and Odyssey. Of course these books are written hundreds of years apart and in entirely different contexts, but Virgil, being one of the great Roman poets and closely familiar with both the Greek epics and Roman history and politics, produces something that is both less and more than a sequel or extension to these popular books. Virgil, with a little help from Robert Fitzgerald, is sometimes strikingly beautiful with genuine poetic invention of his own and in some cases beats Homer at his own game. In comparison to Homer’s poems, Virgil hasn’t created the third piece of some ancient trilogy, though he may have been aiming at it, and instead creates some really out there political fiction, which at worst could be taken as disingenuous propaganda or, at best, could be seen as a deep insight into the condition of Roman’s identity, a universal message.
I can only imagine that many of the Romans who read this book either put it off as an artistic venture or weren’t familiar with Homer. The Aeneid has no desire to try to differentiate its set pieces from those in either the Iliad or Odyssey. The first half of the book more closely matches the tone of the Odyssey and the second half the Iliad, though various motifs can be found throughout the narrative that were undoubtedly pulled straight from Homer. However, having read Homer in no way prepares you for some of the strangeness to be found in the Iliad.
In particular, the underworld portions are striking in their portrait of pagan heaven and hell. Virgil portrays a less Greek way of looking at the afterlife with a strikingly Christian portrait of a heaven, hell, and purgatory equivalent, each with their own rules and pedantic divine red tape. We also get a reunion of Aeneas and his father and other Homeric heroes which mirrors Odysseus’ journey. This time the underworld is painted more exactly and with more of a sense of place, doing credit to Dante’s election of Virgil as his guide through the inferno. I also was reminded of Lucian’s “A True Story”, which I just recently read, which is much sillier (though maybe more accurate).
The Aeneid’s elephant in the room is, as mentioned previously, its explicit political agenda. It’s state sponsored and being created during a very pivotal time in human history, and thus serves to realign the Roman identity with the newly founded Roman Empire. This is an entirely cynical direction to be starting from and any book written today in a similar manner I would almost immediately dismiss at a waste of my time. I could very easily see someone describing this book as political propaganda draped over epic poetry’s skeleton, but I don’t think that the situation is quite as dire. I think that the book has moments of subversive ambiguity, which someone reading the book casually might not catch. Aeneas as a character is in most dimensions flat besides a few exceptions, one being his strict duty to the gods and willingness to be killed if it is the gods’ will. This could maybe be taken as a plea of public passivity to the new empire, but Aeneas isn’t passive, he remains forward faced, a theme which reinforces the open ended history of the Roman empire and Italy. For more on this see: LINK
All said and done, the Aeneid is a classic which I have now read once. And while I don’t see myself coming back as soon as I will return to Homer, I can see why it’s still studied and referenced to this day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wMI9JSmSoU