<\/p>\n
How does Virgil integrate myth and history in<\/strong> The Aeneid<\/em><\/strong>? Discuss with reference to specific passages.<\/strong><\/p>\n Written as Rome faced a new era, and as its politics and society rapidly evolved, The Aeneid<\/em> is essentially Virgil\u2019s own reflection on these transformations. The narrative, interwoven with numerous historical and mythological elements, highlights his political and moral concerns regarding the new empire, his blurring of boundaries, between past and present, and myth and reality, bookmarking this exploration. As these worlds collide and blend throughout the narrative, our reading of Aeneas\u2019 journey is expanded; this epic foundation myth can be read as Virgil questioning the new empire, how it would affect the Roman identity and its traditional values, whether Rome was truly free from the violence and corruption of the Civil Wars, and his hope for peace under Augustus\u2019 rule. By analysing the text we may infer the extent to which he integrates myth and history in his political commentary.<\/p>\n This interweaving of reality and fiction for such effect is seen instantly in Jupiter\u2019s prophecy in Book 1 where the very real figure of Augustus is linked to the mythological figure of Aeneas. This link, as mapped out by Jupiter, passes from Aeneas, the first founder of Rome, through the legendary twins Romulus and Remus, central characters in Rome\u2019s foundation legend, and onto \u2018a Trojan Caesar\u2019(1.287), Augustus\u2019 own uncle and adopted father, Julius Caesar. Commonly seen in Julian propaganda of the 1st century BC, this association highlights the link between the \u2018gens Iulia\u2019<\/em> and the \u2018eponymous figure of Iulus-Ascanius\u2019[1]<\/a>, Aeneas\u2019 son, and explicitly places Augustus in the line of \u2018noble stock\u2019 \u2018the rulers of the world\u2019 (1.282-286) originated from. Decreed to be a direct descendent of these two legendary characters by the father of the gods, Augustus is instantly cemented as the rightful ruler and depicted as the next piece in Rome\u2019s foundation myth; that he too is a legendary figure. Furthermore, these characters themselves embody the blurring between myth and reality. For example each is of both divine and mortal descent: Aeneas is the son of Venus and Anchises, Romulus the son of Mars and Ilia the priestess queen and Augustus too, according to Jupiter\u2019s prophecy, can trace his lineage to both these legendary figures, and a \u2018Caesar\u2019, Rome\u2019s first imperial figure. This not only gives Augustus further gravitas and legitimacy as a ruler, but also suggests that he is re-establishing the Rome as it was prophesised, and the Roman identity as it should be. Also it suggests that Rome\u2019s foundations are equally legendary, born from the combination of myth and reality, and equally endorsed by the gods.<\/p>\n While Aeneas\u2019 overall journey in The Aeneid<\/em> also sees this close relationship between myth and reality, we may also see it as mirroring Rome\u2019s own growth as a nation.[2]<\/a> For example, Aeneas\u2019 time in Carthage, between Books 1 and 4, represents the Punic Wars, a series of wars fought between Rome and Carthage between 264 BC and 146 BC which saw more than a century of conflict, thousands of deaths, and Rome succeeding Carthage as the most powerful state in the Western Mediterranean. This section is steeped in historical allegory: Dido\u2019s suicide and Carthage seemingly burning with \u2018the flames of poor Dido\u2019s pyre\u2019 (5.3-4) represents Carthage\u2019s own defeat at the hands of Rome, and its decline as Rome\u2019s power grew. Following this Aeneas\u2019 progress encapsulates the narrative and in Books 5 to 8 we see him get gradually closer to Italy. This part of his journey however also sees many allusions to the Odysseus myth and is littered with Homeric motifs as Aeneas encounters a number of supernatural creatures, such as journeying to the Underworld, contact with the Harpies and Cyclops, close encounters with the sea monsters Scylla and Charybdis and with the lands of the Sirens and Circe. By translating a Homeric and mythological world onto the well-charted, and well-traversed, Mediterranean, Virgil continues to interweave reality and fiction, and, in doing so, blurs what is true and what is false. This also creates tension between the two as contemporary readers, recognising the places Aeneas visits and passes, sees these familiar lands as the homes of legendary creatures. While on one hand this section can be seen as portraying Aeneas as an equal hero to Odysseus, it can also be seen as reflecting Rome\u2019s journey and growth, from Trojan foundations to an identity of its own. Virgil continues this tension in Books 9 to 12 as Aeneas\u2019 battles with the Latins closely reflect the recent Civil Wars, and Aeneas and Turnus\u2019 one-to-one combat represents the Battle of Actium where Augustus defeated his last rival, Mark Antony. While gradually reflecting Rome\u2019s past with Aeneas\u2019 journey, Virgil strives to remind Rome of the destruction it has faced, externally such as in Carthage, and internally such as during the civil wars, and in doing so he attempts to show Romans that they must learn from their past. Like many other historical epics, both Greek and Roman, The Aeneid<\/em> is used to define a national identity in opposition to an \u2018other\u2019, as evidenced by the vast historical skeleton the narrative is built upon.As J. D. Reed suggests, it aims to present Rome as distinct to all other nations: from \u2018the Trojans with whom it originated, the Greeks whom the Trojans had fought and [who] the Romans were to conquer\u2019 by distancing Aeneas from the Homeric and Greek world; \u2018the Carthaginians who threaten Roman ascendancy\u2019 with the death of Dido; and \u2018the Italian peoples among whom Rome arose\u2019 with Aeneas\u2019 war with the Latins.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n Virgil continues to merge the past and present in Book 8 and, in Aeneas\u2019 visit to Pallanteum, images of Virgil\u2019s contemporary Rome bleed into the descriptions of Evander\u2019s archaic settlement. For example, as Evander guides Aeneas, we see \u2018cattle\u2026 lowing in the Roman forum\u2019, and the \u2018Capitol, now all gold\u2019 now \u2018bristling with rough scrub\u2019 (8.349-362). Also, throughout the description, many landmarks recognisable to Virgil\u2019s contemporary readers, such the \u2018Alter of Carmentis and the Carmental Gate\u2019 (8.338) are seen. These images appear to transcend time itself, and by warping the familiar with the historical, Virgil\u2019s narrative continues to run on underlying tension. However these images are also accompanied by those of a bucolic paradise: the site is described as the \u2018haunt of native fauns and nymphs \u2019and Saturn\u2019s first \u2018Golden Age\u2019 (8.315-325). Hence, with this blurring of past and present, and by translating images of contemporary Rome onto those of pastoral peace, Virgil is linking Aeneas\u2019 coming, and therefore Augustus\u2019, with Saturn\u2019s; he hopes that Augustus is bringing the second Golden Age of \u2018peace and serenity\u2019 (8.326). However, Evander\u2019s account is also greatly pessimistic, detailing a \u2018worser age of base material\u2019 as the time of peace disintegrated and the \u2018madness of war\u2019 and \u2018the lust for possessions\u2019 (8.327-328) consumed all. While this is clearly representing the recent civil wars that tore apart Rome, it also reveals Virgil\u2019s own hopelessness for the future of Rome; like Evander he views the Golden Age, and the empire, as \u2018only an intermission from continuous fighting and invasions\u2019.[4]<\/a> This hopelessness for the future appears to stem from Virgil\u2019s own cynical view of human nature, as can be seen in the myth of Hercules and Cacus. In essence a tale of a hero and a monster, and of archetypal good and bad, Virgil\u2019s description casts an unnerving similarity between the two as both are described as incredibly violent and rabid with furor. This, therefore, causes us to question whether Virgil truly endorses Aeneas, who is also seen as incredibly violent in battle, and the new emperor he represents. Supporting this is the description of Aeneas and Mezentius\u2019 battle in Book 10 where the tale of Hercules and Cacus is literally mirrored as \u2018Mezentius rode around [Aeneas] three times\u2019 (10.886), recalling Hercules\u2019 three trips around Mount Aventine in anger (8.231-232). This similarity disturbingly places Aeneas, our supposed hero, in the place of the monster Cacus and contradicts the many positive descriptions of Aeneas, causing us to believe that Virgil had mixed opinions about Augustus and the new empire: this use of myth shows he had hopes for the peace one ruler could bring, yet was cynical of the destruction human nature could cause.<\/p>\n Book 8 also sees the pinnacle of Virgil\u2019s use of myth and history in the description of Aeneas\u2019 resplendent shield. Crafted by the fire god Vulcan it is a clear echo of Achilles\u2019 own shield from The Iliad<\/em> and another allusion to Homer. However, on one hand, while Homer chooses to depict the entire world, including the earth, oceans, heavens, stars, and human life; Hephaestus engraves Achilles\u2019 shield with the pleasures of peace as Homer strives to remind his hero of what he is fighting for. Virgil, on the other hand, chooses to engrave Aeneas\u2019 shield with a memorialization of Rome\u2019s military victory, and her success in conflict as well as peace, as he prophesises Rome\u2019s history.[5]<\/sup><\/a> This is due to the context of The Aeneid<\/em>. Written soon after the Battle of Actium where Augustus put an end to the strife of civil war in Rome, becoming the first emperor, The Aeneid<\/em> reflects this recent shift in power; the description of Aeneas\u2019 shield in particular. Primarily, Virgil\u2019s language choice, namely in characterisation, is important in establishing this Homeric relation and political undercurrent. For example, his description of Augustus sees the new emperor\u2019s association with the divine increasingly emphasised; the gods themselves are listed in the description of his followers, indicating that he has the divine right to rule, and his recent success at Actium as determined by the gods. Also, Augustus is physically elevated in this image, and is therefore physically closer to Olympus. Similarly he is described as wearing a \u2018double flame\u2019 and \u2018his father\u2019s star\u2019 (8.682). On one hand this associates him with Ascanius who, in Book 2, is blessed by the gods with a halo of holy fire, this portent followed by a second: a star sent by the gods. This similarity, while supporting Jupiter\u2019s prophecy in Book 1 that Ascanius will establish the seeds of a power that, eventually, will become Rome, further emphasises Augustus\u2019 right to rule. Also, the inclusion of \u2018his father\u2019s star\u2019 alludes to his adoption of Julius Caesar\u2019s name, and emphasises his legitimacy. Essentially, the description of Augustus is steeped in social and political context with the intention of establishing his sovereignty, suggesting that there was possible unrest in his early years of power. This description, notably Augustus\u2019 relationship to the gods, sees Virgil\u2019s focussing on highlighting Augustus\u2019 power, and the legitimacy of that power.<\/p>\n Similarly, Virgil\u2019s description of Antony informs us of the social and political background of The Aeneid<\/em>. Introduced as \u2018in triumph from the shores of the Red Sea\u2019 (8.688-689), Antony is portrayed positively, which, as Augustus\u2019 rival, is peculiar. Also, he describes their conflict as \u2018mountains were colliding with mountains\u2019 (8.694), associating both with the seemingly-immortal strength of Homeric heroes, and indicating that they are equals in power. Also, contextually, there was no honour in fighting a fellow Roman, and Virgil avoids this in his glorification of Augustus by undermining Antony\u2019s involvement. Virgil achieves this by using active verbs to describe Cleopatra, and while she is described as \u2018summon[ing] her warships\u2019 and \u2018calling for winds\u2019 (8.698-708), her role in the battle eclipses Antony\u2019s. This has the effect of giving Rome a common enemy: the woman and the foreigner. This in itself associates Cleopatra with Dido, also a foreign queen, who, throughout her relationship with Aeneas, is portrayed as deterring his progress, and therefore, deterring the progress of Rome. Furthermore, Cleopatra\u2019s description echoes that of Dido. Called \u2018his Egyptian wife\u2019 or the \u2018queen\u2019 (8.689-698), she is denied a name, and the autonomy of self, just as Dido, who is defined by her relationship with Aeneas so much so as to take her own life when he leaves. By giving the Romans a common enemy, the civil war is instead turned into that with a foreign power, and creates a sense of Roman unity, unity that perhaps was not as assured in reality, and notably, unity brought by Augustus\u2019 success. The gods too are purposely characterised for effect. While on one hand, the Roman gods are named and recognisable, the Egyptian gods are described as \u2018monstrous\u2019, Virgil even highlights the dog form of Anubis who \u2018barked\u2026 at Neptune and Venus\u2019 (8.699-700). This emphasis on the animalistic qualities of the Egyptian gods serves the purpose of establishing a divine hierarchy; the Roman gods, as human in shape, naturally come before the \u2018dog god\u2019, an animal typically obedient to man. This hierarchy serves to assert Roman superiority, culturally and spiritually, as well as militarily.<\/p>\n Virgil\u2019s description of the shield in itself is important too; throughout the passage, there is fluidity between narrative and object. This is achieved by the subtle blurring of the mythical world, as depicted on the shield, and the \u2018real\u2019: Aeneas\u2019 story. For example, as the passage flows through the narrative, certain words and phrases alluding to the material of the shield, how it\u2019s made and the maker, such as \u2018the God of Fire\u2019 who had \u2018fashioned the Nile\u2026 with every fold of drapery beckoning\u2019 (8.709-714), disrupt the flow and pull the reader sharply to reality. Also, there is a prevalent dichotomy of senses; we are told that Anubis \u2018barked\u2019 while the Roman gods \u2018swooped\u2019 and \u2018strode\u2019 (8.699-703). This sense of motion and sound brings a still image and object alive, and reflects the power of well-crafted art; just as Aeneas\u2019 shield seems to come to life in his hands, the poem does in the reader\u2019s mind.<\/p>\n Ultimately, through his integration of myth and history, Virgil is able to blur truth and fiction, transforming The Aeneid<\/em> into accepted fact. This not only establishes his account into the foundation myth of the Roman identity, but also establishes Augustus into the pantheon of Rome\u2019s mythological founders. On a deeper level though it also allows him to explore complex issues such as the effect the civil wars had on the Roman identity, his hopes for Augustus\u2019 rule, and his fears that human nature, greed and violence will plague the new empire. Essentially, through the merging of the two worlds, whether this be between the mythological and realistic, classical allusion and historical context, or narrative and material object, he achieves the ultimate contrast; between a piece of literature, and a political message.<\/p>\n Bibliography<\/strong><\/p>\n Bell, K. K. 2008. \u2018\u201cTranslatio\u201d and the Constructs of a Roman Nation in Virgil’s \u201cAeneid\u201d\u2019, Rocky Mountain Review 62: 11-24.<\/p>\n J. D. Reed, \u2018Vergil\u2019s Roman\u2019, in J. Farrell and M. C. J. Putnam (ed.), A Companion to Vergil\u2019s Aeneid and its Tradition<\/em>. Oxford 2010: 66-79.<\/p>\n J. E. G. Zetzel, \u2018Rome and its Traditions\u2019, in C. Martindale (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Virgil.<\/em> Cambridge 1997: 188-203.<\/p>\n Johnson, W. R. 2005. \u2018Introduction\u2019, in S. Lombardo (Trans.), Aeneid,<\/em> Indianapolis. lxi-lxxi.<\/p>\n R. D. Williams, \u2018The Purpose of The Aeneid\u2019, in S. J. Harrison (ed.), Oxford Readings in Vergil\u2019s Aeneid<\/em>. Oxford 1990: 21-36.<\/p>\n S. Casali, \u2018The Development of the Aeneas Legend\u2019, in J. Farrell and M. C. J. Putnam (ed.), A Companion to Vergil\u2019s Aeneid and its Tradition<\/em>. Oxford 2010: 37-51.<\/p>\n Virgil, The Aeneid,<\/em> trans. D. West [Penguin Classics] (London: Penguin Books, 2003)<\/p>\n Williams, R. D. 1965. \u2018The Mythology of the \u201cAeneid\u201d\u2019, Vergilius 11, 11-15.<\/p>\n ID number: 1335307Words: 2,426<\/p>\n [1]<\/a>Casali 2010: 49.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a>Zetzel 1997: 189.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a>Reed 2010: 66 -76.<\/p>\n
\n