Customer Reviews

The Aeneid of Virgil

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I have read 4 different translations of the Aeneid. This is the best by far. It is not a literal, line for line translation, which often comes off the wrong way. It is a more free translation, to convey the meaning, not the same structure as the original latin work. Allen Mandelbaum does an amazing job and his writing is very beautiful. Even from the very first page this book jumps out at you.
The reason why Virgil wanted this book destroyed after his death was because he felt it was unfinished. But there is very little that should be added. There are a couple of very minor plot holes (such as how did the Trojans built their fortress in Italy so quickly?) that Virgil had not fully polished yet, but who cares? The story is amazing, and unlike the Iliad or the Odyssey, the gods don't interfere in each and every small thing that happens, which was annoying in those books.
If you liked the Iliad and Odyssey, you will love the Aeneid. Consider it like a sequel. You find out what happened to certain characters like Andromache, Helenus or Diomedes after the Trojan war. I just can't recommend this book enough, and it's impossible to put its greatness into a few words. Why a movie version has never been made, I will never know, but maybe that's a blessing, because I shudder to think of the damage a Hollywood version would do to the image of the book.

Roman society was enamoured of Greek culture -- many of the best 'Roman' things were Greek; the major gods were derivative of the Greek pantheon; philosophy, literature, science, political ideals, architecture -- all this was adopted from the Greeks. It makes sense that, at the point of their ascendancy in the world, they would long for an epic history similar to the Homeric legends; the Iliad and the Odyssey, written some 500 years after the actual events they depict, tell of the heroism of the Greeks in their battle against Troy (Ilium). The Aeneid, written by Vergil 700 years after Homer, at the commission of Augustus (himself in the process of consolidating his authority over Rome), turns the heroic victory of the much-admired Greeks on its head by postulating a survivor from Troy, Aeneas, who undergoes as journey akin to the Odyssey, even further afield.

Vergil constructs Aeneas, a very minor character in the Iliad, as the princely survivor and pilgrim from Troy, on a journey through the Mediterranean in search of a new home. According to Fitzgerald, who wrote a brief postscript to the poem, Vergil created a Homeric hero set in a Homeric age, purposefully following the Iliad and Odyssey as if they were formula, in the way that many a Hollywood director follows the formulaic pattern of past successful films. Vergil did not create the Trojan legend of Roman origins, but his poem solidified the notion in popular and scholarly sentiment.

Vergil sets the seeds for future animosity between Carthage and Rome in the Aeneid, too -- the curse of queen Dido on the descendants of Aeneas of never-ending strife played into then-recent recollections of war in the Roman mind. Books I through VI are much more studied than VII through XII, but the whole of the Aeneid is a spectacular tale.

Mandelbaum's translation is poetic and stately, giving grace and life to the epic poem. Sometimes long-form poetry can become overblown in self-indulgence; Mandelbaum's translation avoids this by writing in free verse for the most part. There are no forced rhymes and schemes that detract from the story line. Word choice is contemporary and engaging.

Vergil died before he could complete the story. He wished it to be burned; fortunately, Augustus had other ideas. Still, there are incomplete lines and thoughts, and occasional conflicts in the storyline that one assumes might have been worked out in the end, had more editing time been available. Despite these, the Aeneid remains a masterpiece, and Mandelbaum's translation will likely be a companion for students and other readers for a long time to come.

I was never extremely taken with the Aeneid even though I had read it in Latin years ago. I also felt that translations I would sample out of curiosity only reinforced any negative feelings I had - adding the inadequacy of translation to what I felt was a lack in the original.

I could admire Vergil's skill in various passages in Latin but to me, as in the tag line of Mark Van Doren that Mandelbaum quotes in his Introduction (and that his translation is a good antidote to), whereas 'Homer is a world; Virgil [only - my addition] a style'.

Mandelbaum has helped free me from my prejudice. His translation moves me to go back to the Latin again but also is something I want to have in my library to read because it itself is interesting and helps remind me to open the 'combination lock' of my mind to the wonder of what the Aeneid is, instead of just resenting that it is not Homer. I have been so impressed that I have ordered his translation of the Inferno also.

That, I think, is high praise about a translation, that it and the notes help me avoid the kind of biassed mindset, something like a somewhat toxic culture shock, that kept me from really being open to the power of this work. [In other words it is not enough just to 'know what the words mean' (dangerous illusion that) but to feel through to the nuance of how the spirit of the language flows through its words - something I certainly did not have for non theological/ philosophical Latin before]. Allen Mandelbaum, scholar and poet, is someone I acknowledge with awe as a benefactor in giving this translation.

For anyone interested in looking at the Latin for this and other classics, I would suggest the website for the amazing Perseus project (the Latin words are hypertext pointers to dictionary entries) at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cache/perscoll_Greco-Roman.html
(as you go down the page this pointer gets you to, you will see all their classical authors listed by name under the heading 'texts' - clicking on the author's name will get you to their work)

IN looking for Virgil in their list of Greco-Roman authors it is important to know he is listed by his Latin name, P. Vergilius Maro, but under 'V', just after the Greek historian Thucydides and before Vetruvius Pollio. That would be an interesting supplement to this magnificent translation, for those with enough Latin to try wading a bit in the original.

Unlike Homer or many who came before him, Virgil didn't believe in the myths like the ancient Greeks did. So where the "Iliad" was probably based on some real event, the "Aeneid" is completly made up. That dose not mean that it is bad, it isn't. It's like the best parts of "Iliad" and "Odyssey" put into this one poem. Aeneas and a small band of Trojans escape the carnage of Troy and eventually land in what would become Rome. There is adventure, action, drama, and a little romance. It has the makings of a great story, and sometimes it is. Oh, how do you trash a classic? You don't, but still there is too much national pride and propaganda of "future" Roman heros for my taste. Still worth it's reading, if you can get it cheap, or more likely, get it at the library.

What pleased me was Aeneas' journey up the river in search of allies. This whole section struck me as original writing, and was very well done. It also added a twist to the Achilles parallel; because this time our hero was missing for a good, even an important, reason. On this quest for allies the reader gets another chance to watch as Aeneas tells his story. It is now less about "poor me" and more about his people and what he can do for the surrounding kingdoms. He has stopped whining! Not only that, but Aeneas begins to take on some of the characteristics one might expect of a real hero. He picks up a friend, the son of Evander, named Pallas, and is a protective and guiding figure for him. (Every hero needs a sidekick. Achilles had Patroclus, Hercules had Aeolus, and Batman had Robin.) Aeneus return to the camp, with allies, led to the Trojans winning the battle and the enemy retreating.
Then comes the moment we have been awaiting! Virgil becomes original! He takes the Trojans out of their walled camp and has them attack the enemy city. From there ensues a battle that, while similar to The Iliad (as any battle story is bound to be), is made entirely up of original material. From Turnus' nymph sister driving his chariot to the queen hanging herself in her grief it is only Virgil speaking. From this point forward the references to people and things are mostly original, and the trials and situations that the characters go through have few parallels with Homeric poems.
As for Aeneas, we see him in a new light. Gone is "Father Aeneas." Now we have a bloodthirsty Aeneas, who slashes and kills with vigor, and who is referred to as "a giant." Fear not, fans of whiny Aeneas, some part of him is still there. As I mentioned above, Aeneas kills a boy named Lausus, son of the king Mezentius. He then realizes that Lausus might mean as much to Mezentius as his own son does to him. The sorrow over what he has done keeps him from plundering the boy's body, and he says a sort of prayer to Lausus' shade, admitting that allowing the body to remain undefiled is a worthless act to one already dead, but it is the best he can do. And then, like any good hero, he proceeds to kill the father.
If we are going to take a look at the person Aeneas becomes, we need to look at the last scene in the book. Turnus and Aeneas are fighting it out, one on one, and Turnus loses his sword, putting him at Aeneas' mercy. Upon realizing he is beaten, Turnus asks for his life to be spared. He is beaten, and everyone knows it. Killing him, he says, would serve no purpose. Aeneas considers sparing him, and seems about to do it, when he notes a belt taken from his friend Pallas. Then, with hardly another thought, Aeneas strikes him dead, saying, "How can you who wear the spoils of my dear comrade now escape me? It is Pallas who strikes, who sacrifices you, who takes this payment from your shameless blood." (XII:1265-1268)
The question now is: did Aeneas take Turnus' life out of anger, or grief, or did he think it truly the right thing to do, for Pallas? And if he did it for Pallas, was it in the name of some universal justice, or simply to satisfy the ghost of Pallas? To answer this question for sure is impossible, and I am sure Virgil intended it that way. I feel there are few things that one can get from the Aeneid that one couldn't get from Homer's epics, but the thoughts provoked by this question are the most valuable of those few things. In Homer, the hero killed the enemy because that was what was done. Here, though, there is a reason. We aren't sure what the reason is, and that is what we are to meditate on, upon leaving this book.
Conclusion:
They say that imitation is the best form of flattery. If Virgil was trying to emulate Homer, he flattered, but he failed. If he was trying to be original, he also failed. If he was trying to put a new spin on the tales Homer told, he may well have succeeded. I am not at all sure that that is what he was trying to do, but it may be. Regardless, he produced an enjoyable story, even if I had heard it before.

Only when we look beyond the style and technique of the writing can we begin to give Virgil some of the credit he does actually deserve. In building his character, Aeneas, he seems to have been fairly original. Aeneas is different from any of the Greek heroes we have seen thus far in our readings. He is a compassionate character, but he is also whiny, wimpy, and even a little effeminate. In the beginning of the book Aeneas tells everyone he meets just how awful all the things he has gone through were. He meets a goddess in the woods (who, unbeknownst to him, is his mother), and spends the next twenty-five lines telling her or his sorrows, until she gets tired of it. Again, when he meets Dido, he tells of the sorrows he has had to experience. When he approaches the Sibyl to ask her to guide him into hell, he begins by telling of his troubles, and asks her to pity him as her reason to help. Certainly, these are not the qualities of a Homeric hero.
The whining Aeneas has no excuse for, but he is also full of compassion. His father and his son may go a long way to explain this, and in the process clear Virgil of some of the accusations of unoriginality. While Homeric heroes definitely had families, only one of them seemed overly concerned with them. That was Odysseus, and his concern was getting to his family. Aeneas, on the other hand, travels with his family. He is constantly aware of them. Although his father dies in the early stages of the journey, Aeneas continues to commune with his ghost. He places great care in looking after Ascanius, his son. Whenever we see an act of compassion in Aeneas it stems from his familial understanding. When Dido dies, he is saddened because he loved her like a wife. When Pallas falls in battle, Aeneas grieves first for Evander's loss, and then he grieves over for Pallas' death. Again, when he kills Lausus Aeneas' guilt comes when he realizes that Lausus and Mezentius have a relationship similar to his own relationship with his son.
Looking further into the plot, the reader can see a host of examples where Virgil borrowed directly from Homer. In fact, The Aeneid breaks down into two halves. The first half is The Odyssey, and the second is The Iliad. In the Odyssey half the plagiarism is shameful. I have mentioned the Scylla and the Cyclops that Aeneas ran into, but there are more. Aeneas' crew picks up a Greek sailor left behind from Odysseus' crew, who then proceeds to take them along exactly the route that Odysseus took. Then Aeneas lands in a far away land, where a beautiful and powerful woman tempts him to stay there and refuse his fate. Both Calypso and Circe did this to Odysseus. And let us not forget that when he comes to Dido, Aeneas comes in secret hoping to observe whether the people are friendly to him or not. A goddess disguises him so that he can approach unseen. This sounded a little familiar to me when I read it, and it turned out that it was familiar. That is just the way Odysseus came home.
Also, Odysseus went to Hell, so why not have Aeneas go there? It matters little that there is actually no point to his going there, and that the entire chapter about it could be taken out, and no one would know. If Homer wrote a part like that, then so can Virgil.
There is one copied part that, in my mind, is somewhat justified, because Virgil actually uses it to construct something original. The Odyssey contained a chapter full of Olympic-style gaming, which gave Odysseus a chance to tell his story, and which Homer used as a device in which to show growth in Odysseus. Virgil includes in his poem a chapter of games as well. He shows the competitors in these games to be what we would consider brutish and violent, but I don't believe that is what he had in mind. What interpret as violence and disregard for the safety of others I believe Virgil intended to be nobility. That is, putting honor in the eyes of the gods before any concern for self or others. Aeneas was not directly involved in any of the games, and while some would say that this is because he is compassionate and would not do that to another human being, I say that it is because he is not yet a "noble" man. He has yet to attain that.
The second half of the book, which mimics The Iliad rather closely, is where we see both Aeneas and Virgil grow. It is here that Aeneas achieves the nobility we see him suffering for lack of for in the first half. It is also here that Virgil begins to assert some originality.
We begin the second half right away with an innovative idea. Aeneas lands in Italy and is welcomed by the Latins, until the gods interfere. Why is this innovative? Because the gods are the only antagonists. The mortals do nothing wrong, on either side. It is simply that the gods (Juno, specifically) stir up hatred in their hearts, and war ensues.
Sadly from there the originality drops off for a while. Virgil places the Trojans inside a walled camp, being besieged by the enemy. They have heroes, who are fighting well, but their true hero (Aeneas) is missing, and they cannot win without him. This is nothing more than a combination of the situation Troy was originally in and the story of Achilles in The Iliad.

This translation of Virgil's masterpiece is the perfect choice for a reader who wishes to experience the original form of this Augustine work of art. It is written in easy flowing and accessible blank verse, unlike the rather cloggy and unattractive prose translations. After all The Aeneid was written to be read as an epic poem: not the post Renaissance format of a novel, and Lewis's translation is as close to capturing the originally intended delivery as you can get without the lengthy process of learning Latin .

This classic epic poem was commissioned by Augustus Caesar in 31BC, a task which was reluctantly accepted by Virgil. Ten years of writing followed, and unfortunately the poet died, by contracting a disease, whilst returning from a trip to Athens. The epic was not fully revised by then, yet the contents of all twelve books are complete except for a rather abrupt ending.

However, just before his death Virgil left strict instructions for The Aeneid to be burnt: lost to the world for all time. Yet this commanded was counteracted by Caesar. Why was this? Why didn't Virgil want the greatest poem in Latin to be discovered for its prominence?

These are questions which will truly interest any reader. When you hold this book in your hands you cannot help thinking that Virgil did not want you to read this - if it had not been for the Imperial arm of Caesar we would be forever lacking this great Latin work. Thus a guilty feeling pervades when reading The Aeneid, moreover, those of you already well versed in Greek mythology will know that Actaeon paid very highly for his antlers, a lesson hard to forget whilst perusing prohibited splendour.

When commissioned to write an epic with the sole purpose of portraying an almighty Augustus in 31 BC it is difficult to capture the magic of Homeric Hymns. To have the inclusion of gods and mystical powers in ordered Roman society would have been simply laughed at. Therefore Virgil chose the legendary founder of Rome - Aeneas of Troy - as the protagonist of his epic. This poem documents the various adventures of Aphrodite's son: whose quest is to find his destined homeland - Italy. Jupiter has ordained that Aeneas's ancestors will become the great masters of Rome, and it is here that Virgil can cleverly celebrate Augustus's magnificent achievements.

But what is the underlying meaning to Virgil's epic? What you can witness in The Aeneid is Homer's similar appreciation of acts of bravery; yet what you will observe for the first time is the dreadful price that Imperialism exacts. Aeneas is forced to reject his passionate love, experience the death of his father, and kill the noble sons of people he is destined to rule.

Therefore a fundamental enigma in Virgil's work must be to endeavour whether this is a work that supports Imperialism or refutes it. Did Virgil advocate Augustus's omnipotence? If yes, why did the poet wish the epic to be destroyed? The price of blood for the fellowship of freedom is one continual theme that pervades not only archaic history, but also that of the modern day; and in Virgil's masterpiece it is portrayed no less effectively than in all great works of literature.

If you like the works of Homer then you will thoroughly enjoy The Aeneid. The story begins right after the fall of Troy and tells of the travels of the Trojans as they search for their destined land. Virgil writes very much in the style of Homer and anyone who is a fan of the Iliad and Odyssey will really enjoy this book.

The Aeneid is definetly a great book and Mandelbaum is a great translator. I had to read the Aeneid for my Latin class this year. My teacher has used this version for quite a few years. It is easy to understand, flows well, and captures the original essence of the poem. The Aeneid is a incredible poem with just about everything in it. I most definetly reccomend this book.

This is an excellent example of classical literature. Mandelbaum excites his readers with his creative translating abilities. He really captures the essence of the classical genre. Virgil's masterpiece is indeed the very work that inspired Dante in his Divine Comedy trilogy. It is existential, authentic, and inspirational. Virgil's epic focuses on the historical vicissitudes of imperial Rome. The epic format is perhaps the only credible characterization that could possibly re-enact for the reader the empire that was Rome. An incredible read, a must for all classical enthusiasts, and the student alike.