With some delay I began reading book 2. First questions:
#130: adsensere omnes et, quae sibi quisque timebat,
unius in miseri exitium conversa tulere.
quae and conversa are neuter plural accusative and go together, right?
‘They all agreed and these things (namely death) each feared for himself they endured when turned (conversa) into the ruin of one miserable man.’
You are right that “quae” and “conuersa” go together as you showed in your translation of the sentence, but the vagueness of the word “tulere” tripped you up. It has the same meaning of “ferre” that is found in “ferre auxilium,” to bring help. “They all agreed, and what each had feared, they brought to the ruin of one miserable man.”
The answer to your general question is “yes.” Oh, Virgil has sources! We have some of them, such as Homer and Apollonius Rhodius, and we don’t have others, such as the “Cyclic” epics, which told the full story of which the Iliad and the Oddysey are only parts. (See the Wikipedia article, “Epic Cycle”.) Virgil also sometimes varies the stories with his own details. We can see this in his borrowings from Homer, but we also learn about such things from Servius, an ancient commentator. – I wrote the above before I saw the answer of mwh. I am intrigued by mwh’s statement that “What he leaves out is more notable than anything he adds.” I would like to know more about that!
The introduction to the second book of the Iliad in what is called the Connington-Nettleship commentary has a lot to say about the sources. It is in the second volume of the commentary, which covers the first half of the Aeneid. It is available online. Look for the fourth edition, published in 1884.
Thanks.
Mmm, I think both translations are possible. I actually quite like mine. The Loeb translation has “they bore with patience”, which is just another way of saying " they endured".
Pelagius wrote:
they brought to the ruin of one miserable man.
This is not a view supported by Austin.
“typical crowd behaviour; as individuals they each feared doom for themselves, but they all without compunction (tulere) were ready to to see another’s fear come true. The interpretation “turned and directed” for conversa tulere (so Mackail and others) is surely wrong; timebat and tulere are in strong anthithesis, and the whole clause quae…tulere is a variation and expansion of adsensere, with the perfect tense marking instantaneous reaction. The rough rhythm of the line, with the elision in miseri and the delayed caesura gives it a ruthless effect.”
Pharr says “the Greeks were content to let Sinon suffer.” Ganiban says "they tolerated (tulere).
I think Bart’s translation captures the sense.
I’m struggling a bit with Sinon’s speech
#141-144: quod te per superos et conscia numina ueri,
per si qua est quae restet adhuc mortalibus usquam
intemerata fides, oro, miserere laborum
tantorum, miserere animi non digna ferentis.’
Especially the part:
per si qua est quae restet adhuc mortalibus usquam
intemera fides.
Austin takes the entire clause as an accussative parellel with superos and numina. So am I right in rewriting it as: per intemeratam fidem si qua est quae restet usquam mortalibus?
I take qua as meaning ‘to some degree’ here.
Restet → this is a ‘characteristic subjunctive’, right?
#163-170: ’ impius ex quo
Tydides sed enim scelerumque inuentor Vlixes,
fatale adgressi sacrato auellere templo
Palladium caesis summae custodibus arcis,
corripuere sacram effigiem manibusque cruentis
uirgineas ausi diuae contingere uittas,
ex illo fluere ac retro sublapsa referri
spes Danaum, fractae uires, auersa deae mens.’
Most of it is clear, but I’m wondering about ‘avellere’. It seems to hang in midair. I guess it’s dependent on adgressi (sunt) and could be replaced by an ut-clause → impius Tydeus and Odysseus inventor of misdeeds went forth to tear away from the sacred temple etcetera. I haven’t seens this use of the infinitive before, I think.
#176-182: extemplo temptanda fuga canit aequora Calchas,
nec posse Argolicis exscindi Pergama telis
omina ni repetant Argis numenque reducant
(quod pelago et curuis secum auexere carinis.
et nunc quod patrias uento petiere Mycenas,
arma deosque parant comites pelagoque remenso
improuisi aderunt): ita digerit omina Colchis.
A difficult passage acording to Austin. He interprets ‘numen’ as meaning the Paladium instead of ‘divine favour’. He also brackets the second part of the sentence as a ‘footnote’ by Sinon, having nothing to do with Calchas’ prophecy. This may well be so, but I’m not sure how to translate
-et nunc quod patrias vento petiere Mycenas,
arma deosque parant comites pelagoque remenso
improvisi aderunt:
→ and now that with the wind they seek their homeland Mycenae
and they prepare arms and friendly gods (?) and when they have recrossed the sea
they will be here suddenly.
Does this more or less convey the meaning? And what are ‘deos comites’?
Austin takes the entire clause as an accussative parelel with superos and numina. So am I right in rewriting it as: per intemeratam fidem si qua est quae restet usquam mortalibus?
I take qua as meaning ‘to some degree’ here.
Restet → this is a ‘characteristic subjunctive’, right?
Looks about right except that qua is aliqua (after Si etc ali takes a holiday, that memorable jingle). You are right on quae restet, a relative clause of characteristic.
Most of it is clear, but I’m wondering about ‘avellere’. It seems to hang in midair. I guess it’s dependent on adgressi (sunt) and could be replaced by an ut-clause → impius Tydeus and Odysseus inventor of misdeeds went forth to tear away from the sacred temple etcetera. I haven’t seens this use of the infinitive before, I think.
adgredior is here “undertake”. "C. To go to or set about an act or employment, to undertake, begin (so esp. often in Cic.); constr. with inf., ad, or acc. " Lewis and Short.
→ and now that with the wind they seek their homeland Mycenae
and they prepare arms and friendly gods (?) and when they have recrossed the sea
they will be here suddenly.Does this more or less convey the meaning? And what are ‘deos comites’?
I think Paro here is obtain. “II. Transf., to procure, acquire, get, obtain (freq. and class.).” Lewis and Short.
Isnt “comes” more accompanying or attendant? The suggestion is that the gods have abandoned the Greeks so they must go home not only to get arms but to re-enlist their gods in their support.
I dont think suddenly is quite right for improvisus. Unforseen seems better or the Loeb’s “unlooked for”. Both convey the ironic force of improvisus as the greeks are really un(for)seen in the horse! Although of course Aeneas as narrator and we know this too.
Thank you, I appreciate your help.
You’re right about improvisus: unforseen is much better.
More questions
#217-219: et iam
bis medium amplexi, bis collo squamea circum
terga dati, superant capite et cervicibus altis.
→ circum…dati: is this kind of tmesis a conscious imitation of Homer or is it just one of the tools in the toolbox of the Roman poet?
#268-269: Tempus erat, quo prima quies mortalibus aegris
incipit, et dono divum gratissima serpit.
→ ..dono divum: dative of purpose? → and steals/ creeps (on the mortals) most pleasantly as a gift of the gods
#347-350: Iuvenes, fortissima frustra
pectora, si vobis audentem extrema cupido
certa sequi, quae sit rebus fortuna videtis:
I read it as:-> si vobis cupido certa (me) audentem extrema sequi
(me) audentem: direct object of sequi
extrema: direct object of audentem
Is that correct?
Mm, I notice only know that Austin’s text has instead: ‘si vobis audendi extrema cupido certa sequi’, which makes more sense.
#420-422: Illi etiam, si quos obscura nocte per umbram
fudimus insidiis totaque agitavimus urbe,
apparent;
→ what does ‘si’ mean here? Something like ‘as far as’?
#Oak, fir, pine or maple: Vergil really should make up his mind about what the famous horse is made of!
Book 2 is quite something so far, Vergil in great form. Those snakes catching Laocoon and his sons made my hair stand on end. Hector’s appearance, Troy’s destruction, Cassandra dragged from the temple: it is heartbreaking. Urbs antiqua ruit.
circum…dati: is this kind of tmesis a conscious imitation of Homer or is it just one of the tools in the toolbox of the Roman poet?
I dont think it is imitation of Homer but it has resonance for you so why not?
→ ..dono divum: dative of purpose? → and steals/ creeps (on the mortals) most pleasantly as a gift of the gods
Doesnt ablative make more sense? I see that the loeb has “by the grace of the gods”. “with a gift of the gods” seems better than “as a gift”. I dont see what a dative of purpose would be here.
#347-350: Iuvenes, fortissima frustra
pectora, si vobis audentem extrema cupido
certa sequi, quae sit rebus fortuna videtis:
You have seen Austen’s note on this line. M reads audendi and P auden. Servius suggested audentem. Some accept this as an easier to construe reading. Audentem is the object of sequi it takes Extrema as its direct object. Austen seems to think that audendi is sound and makes sequi dependent on certa.
→ what does ‘si’ mean here? Something like ‘as far as’?
Those men, if any.. Those whom. Si quos is an indefinite.
Glad you are enjoying it. have you seen the Laocoon in the Vatican? Snakes writhing in a very Virgilian fashion.
circum…dati: If I’m not mistaken, this is tmesis, and I think Ennius was the first to break apart Latin prefixes and verbs like this, in imitation of Homer. Lucretius does this too, if I remember correctly. Perhaps there’s an Ennian echo here–but in most cases, ancient commentaries identify Ennian verses echoed by Vergil. Maybe there is word painting here, with the two parts of the verb tangling with the noun and adjective around the noun, like the serpents.
Si quos is an indefinite.
Yes. Si quos is equivalent to “anyone”. Illi si quos – “any of them whom”
audentem seems better to me (as it does to Mynors). extrema is the object of audentem, and doesn’t modify cupido: "if you have a firm desire to follow someone who dares the utmost . . . " Servius recognizes audendi as a variant, as well as audenti.
Vergil is at pains to show Aeneas (who doesn’t cut a particularly dashing figure in the Iliad) as a courageous warrior, only abandoning Troy when there is absolutely no hope left and when bidden to do so by his divine mother.
Yes, I did, great piece of art. But…does he roar like a bull as Vergil tells us?
Winckelmann says he struggles and dies in serene silence. Bull roaring is not compatible with ‘die edle Einfalt und stille Grösse’ of the Greeks.
According to Lessing he groans.
And Charles Bell, the famous Scottisch surgeon, thinks it’s anatomically impossible for a man struggling for his life to roar like a cow, sorry, bull.
‘that most terrible silence in human conflict, when the outcry of terror or pain is stifled in exertion; for during the struggle with the arms, the chest must be expanded or in the act of rising; and therefore the voice, which consists of the expulsion of the breath by the falling or compression of the chest, is suppressed. The first sound of fear is in drawing, not expelling, the breath.’
He holds that ‘Vergil has debased the character and robbed it of all its sublimity and grandeur of expression by making Laocoon roar like a bull.’
The man was at Waterloo after all so should know a thing or two about the physical expression of human suffering. Though I wonder how many giant sea snakes were present on the battlefield that day.
He holds that ‘Vergil has debased the character and robbed it of all its sublimity and grandeur of expression by making Laocoon roar like a bull.’
All fascinating stuff thank you.Its interesting to see how the past has been constructed in this varied way, each age imposing its own norms and expectations. In particular its interesting to see the essentially moral approach of Winckelmann contrasting with Bell’s expectations of realism.
Mugitus can mean either lowing or bellowing and so the former sense would be more in line with Lessing’s expectations.
βρυχάομαι is according to L&S “in Il. mostly of the death-cry of wounded men, “κεῖτο τανυσθείς, βεβρυχώς” 13.393;” I was also reminded of Herakles in Trachiniae “βρυχώμενον σπασμοῖσι, S.Tr.805” which is mentioned next in L&S. I think this is illustrative of (some of) the influences on Virgil.
Austin draws attention to the striking image of Laocoon as sacrificer transformed into victim, something which is difficult to express in sculpture. Perhaps Winckelmann misses this transformation in his insistence on noble struggle.
The expectation of realism in art is something that often puzzles me when I go the opera, where characters are often obliged to perform medically impossible acts. In the current production of La traviata at Covent Garden, Violetta is required to run round the stage three times before finally expiring from the “consumption” which she has been suffering from throughout the opera. Some critics have been very severe about this impossibility. Yet it responds exactly to the music and the text :
Cessarono
Gli spasmi del dolore.
In me rinasce m’agita
Insolito vigore!
Ah! io ritorno a vivere
(trasalendo)
Oh gioia!
(Ricade sul canape’.)
Surely we ask for the impossible if we demand strict realism and emotional truth?
Finished book II. It makes me think of the first book of the Iliad in its perfection: composition, drama, diction, all in perfect balance. There are so many great lines here, but the most memorable (and terrifying) to me is this:
Apparent dirae facies inimicaque Trojae
numina magna deum.
So, what is the deal with Creusa? She is dead (or is she?), but then why the allusion to the gods keeping her in Troy? (sed me magna deum gentrix his detinet oris)? Or does she mean that she will be burried there?
She’s presumably lost and dead at Troy–but her ghost absolves Aeneas of responsibility for her disappearance. Vergil needs to get her out of the way without burdening Aeneas with too much guilt, so that he can eventually marry Lavinia (after a liaison with Dido, who has to be discarded in her turn).
but then why the allusion to the gods keeping her in Troy? (sed me magna deum gentrix his detinet oris)? Or does she mean that she will be buried there?
magna deum gentrix is Cybele, especially connected with Troy . “His… oris” “in these regions” a vague mysterious phrase for Creusa’s new, unearthly “shore”, where she is to be presumably , Cybele’s priestess. (So Austin).
Seems to me a poetic way of saying she is dead safe in the arms of Cybele the mother of all the gods. 787 is incomplete so there maybe something missing which we will never know.
Eduard Norden in Virgils epische Technik thinks ‘his detinet oris’ indicates Creusa is not dead, but probably ‘zu höherem, unsterblichen Dasein entrückt’, which would also be confirmed by the use of ‘nota maior imago’. Although he concedes Vergil is -deliberately- vague about her fate.
https://archive.org/stream/virgilsepischet00heingoog#page/n71/mode/2up
‘zu höherem, unsterblichen Dasein entrückt’ – this sounds a little too much like Christianity.
Vergil leaves her fate vague and mystical because he needs to get rid of her so that Aeneas can marry Lavinia, but at the same time, Vergil doesn’t want to kill her off explicitly because Aeneas’ failure to prevent her death would discredit him.
The problem is that Aeneas obviously needs to survive the fall of Troy–and to go on to contract a non-bigamous marriage to an Italian princess–but Vergil can’t allow Aeneas to be dishonored by cowardly or even negligent behavior in the process. Vergil needs to raise Aeneas to heroic stature, and he is trying to do so against the background of the Iliad, in which Aeneas plays a somewhat less than heroic role.
Virgils epische Technik – by Richard Heinze, not Eduard Norden.
Makes one wonder why he made him married at all. Why not just have him a bachelor, childlessly sailing to the new Italian Troy? After all, Ascanius’ identity is in itself a problem, since he needs to be an icon and a son of both Trojan Creusa and of Latin Lavinia, and his double name (Ascanius/Iulus) as far as I can imagine must reflect a double identity and a collusion of two legends. The pathos achieved from flight from burning Troy could be adequately (as it is) conveyed by his attempt to rescue Anchises, and Iulius’ significance in the poem seems to be limited to the Carthage scene, where I don’t doubt another device could have been imagined to explain the seduction of Dido.
It is obviously by large an idle question, but one that gives emphasis precisely to that which Hylander is pointing out, namely that his absurd failure to rescue Creusa does not put him in that heroic a light.
Well, he is retelling a well known story: maybe his audience expected Aeneas to be married + child?
@Hylander: doh, yes, Heinze, not Norden. A thought-provoking book, thanks for recommending it.