In the same breath, blazing with wrath he plants
his iron sword hilt-deep in his enemy’s heart.
Turnus’ limbs went limp in the chill of death.
His life breath fled with a groan of outrage
down to the shades below.
While doing background research on The Aeneid I found commentators listing the same pros and cons:
Cons: Work of nationalistic propaganda for a long-dead empire; facsimile of Homer
Pros: Introspective and ambivalent feelings on said empire; shocking ending scene
Where
does that leave a reviewer like me? Should I celebrate the pros so as
to entice you of its merit? Or recognize the cons make the venture
probably not worthwhile? My conundrum is not so different from Virgil,
who lived during Augustus' reign and whose life was warped by the Roman
Civil War. It's essential to understand that Virgil appreciated Augustus
for ending civil strife and restoring stability to the nation (as well
as property rights). But this gratitude--though it extended to writing a
painstaking national epic of Rome and her newfound empire--did not go
so far as to ignore the cost and foundational violence that the empire
was built upon. Though Virgil died before The Aeneid's final
draft was complete, Augustus was happy enough with the work to have it
celebrated, and it's not clear if he, or subsequent generations (recall
who Dante choose as is cosmic guide) tasted the subtle nagging doubt
that our reflective author nursed about his homeland. A concoction of
chauvinism and moral unease, this is probably the most self-conscious
epic out there.
The Aeneid is twelve books long, with the first half mirroring the Odyssey, and the second half mirroring the Iliad.
Aeneas, a hero of fallen Troy, travels to Italy with his men in search
of a new home after the Trojan War. He gets bounced around the
Mediterranean a bit, has a mad love affair with Dido (the founder of
Carthage), and even visits the underworld to see his Roman descendants
waiting to be born via a radical theory about rebirth. In book 7 he
finally lands in Italy and gets into it with the natives, led by
Turnus--who represents both Achilles and Hector--and after some
back-and-forth defeats Turnus in a duel. The shocking ending scene has
Turnus on his knees asking Aeneas for mercy: either to be spared or to
have his corpse returned to his father's homeland for burial. Now,
repeatedly throughout the epic a lesson promulgated to Aeneas and the
audience is to have mercy on the vanquished, and Aeneas' core attribute
has been the Roman concept of piety, which encapsulates faith,
tradition, and devotion to the Gods. Everything has led to the rather
predictable conclusion that Aeneas will show mercy on Turnus and heal
the wound of civil strife he has brought to Italy, a la Augustus.
Instead Aeneas, in a fit of rage, buries his sword to its hilt in
Turnus' chest, and the epic abruptly ends on that gruesome note.
The Aeneid
is a long story that I've amputated to get to this juicy ending, to
consider its implications. Why did Aeneas do that? Why did Virgil
meticulously write this highly organized epic just to have the hero go
apeshit in its closing lines? One key is in Aeneas' character, and how
different he is from Homeric heroes. The latter are supremely
self-confident, even in defeat, and it was jarring reading Virgil's work
because his heroes express self-doubt and mixed feelings about their
destiny. The opening scene with Aeneas has him wishing he was dead
before he has to act as leader (and inspiration) to his men; he receives
and misinterprets many visions from the gods about his destiny; he
engages in a love affair with his enemy who he regrets leaving to
satisfy fate; he visits his father in the afterlife and learns--without
saying a word--that his Trojans will be eradicated to create the Roman
empire; he comes to Italy intending to be a friend to the locals but
instead butchers them in war; he discovers he will die before his new
"Troy" is founded (reminiscent of Moses); he has to marry a woman who
does not love him; and his best friend in this new land is killed by
Turnus during conflict. In short, Virgil sets the price for the Roman
founding so high as to make the audience--and protagonist-- question if
its worth going through at all. Augustus probably saw it as the steep
price he had to pay to heal a war-torn nation, but he likely was obtuse
to the cost it inflicted on the Roman people.
This isn't just a
specific complaint Virgil has about Rome's history, but a generalized
comment on the nature of empire itself. Violence seems a necessary
ingredient for its formation, and warps irresistibly the character of
any people who bring it about. Here I'm reminded of Homer's ability to
both celebrate and condemn--sometimes in a single breath--notions of
war, divinity, and human choice. Likewise I don't think Virgil is lamely
saying "imperialism is bad." I think he recognizes the
prosperity it brings Romans, just as it infects their character with
moral contradictions that manifest themselves in frightful ways.
One
such way--and of course I had to end on this--is Aeneas' action in the
closing lines of the poem. The sacrifices Aeneas made in fulfilling his
destiny cost him his people, his love, his friends, his future;
everything in short that made him human. That his humanity was therefore
absent in the closing lines is appropriate to everything that came
before. It doesn't leave a positive picture of the Augustinian
regime--who ironically wanted to stop conquering and consolidate
territorial gains--but it does serve as a somber parting comment for the
Roman people. Virgil was a student of Homer and would have noticed how
both the Iliad and Odyssey ended with positive lineaments:
Achilles returning Hector's body, and Odysseus fixing his marriage bed.
Yet our Roman poet discarded such symbols, and took a story
fundamentally about building one's home and chose to end it with our
hero murdering a surrendered enemy. We're forced to ask if the Roman
empire--or any empire--has the tools necessary to build a sustaining
community, or if it's only lasting fame is the blood it bleaches enemy
lands.
