Title: The Aeneid of Virgil
Author: Virgil
Translator: Rolfe Humphries
Release date: March 11, 2020 [eBook #61596]
Most recently updated: October 17, 2024
Language: English
Credits: Produced by Tim Lindell, Chuck Greif and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
book was produced from images made available by the
HathiTrust Digital Library.)
Contents Appendix Virgil’s Life and Times Cast of Characters |
THE
AENEID
OF
VIRGIL
POETRY BY ROLFE HUMPHRIES
THE AENEID OF VIRGIL: A VERSE TRANSLATION
THE WIND OF TIME
FORBID THY RAVENS
THE SUMMER LANDSCAPE
OUT OF THE JEWEL
THE POET IN NEW YORK (TRANSLATION FROM LORCA)
AND SPAIN SINGS (WITH M. J. Benardete)
EUROPA, AND OTHER POEMS, AND SONNETS
POEMS, COLLECTED AND NEW
GREEN ARMOR ON GREEN GROUND
A VERSE
TRANSLATION
BY
ROLFE HUMPHRIES
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS, NEW YORK
This translation is dedicated to the memory
of my first and best Latin teacher, my father,
John Henry Humphries.
laus illi debetur et a me gratia maior{vii}{vi}
VIRGIL’S AENEID IS, of course, a major poem; it is also a great and beautiful one. The scope of an epic requires, in the writing, a designed variety, a calculated unevenness, now and then some easy-going carelessness. So the reader win find, here and there, transitional passages, the stock epithet, the conventional phrase, a few lines of vamping, and, in this or that line, what the Spanish call ripios. Over and above these matters of small detail, in the large panorama the reader will find valleys as well as peaks, dry ravines as well as upland meadows: the landscape is not always the same height above sea level, and its flora and fauna vary more than a little. The epic terrain of the Odyssey differs greatly from that of the Iliad, and both Iliad and Odyssey differ from the Aeneid, but there is nothing obtrusive in Virgil’s relatively studied concern with composition. Less wild and “natural,” the demesnes of the Aeneid have their full measure of more than pleasant countryside, loftiness also, majesty, grandeur.
Virgil, we have been told, wanted to burn the Aeneid; he was not satisfied with it. This attitude, it seems to{viii} me, reflects fatigue and exhaustion of spirit rather than considered literary judgment. The last revisions are always the most enervating, and Virgil, one can well believe, having worked on the poem for over a decade, had reached the point where he felt he would rather do anything, including die, than go over the poem one more time. If we had never known the poem was believed incomplete, we would, I think, find it difficult to decide which were the unsatisfactory portions. Who wants an epic poem absolutely perfect, anyway? and how could the Aeneid be improved, really?
A charge is brought against the Aeneid that it is propaganda. I do not know when this criticism first came to be brought; I suspect it is only our own time, with its persistent devotion to all the aspects of advertising and sloganeering, that feels sufficiently guilty about these activities to project the accusation across twenty centuries. Virgil, with whatever cheerfulness his nature was capable of, would readily have agreed that the Aeneid was propaganda; but then he did not know the invidious connotations of the word,—he would have taken it to mean only “things that ought to be propagated.” An institute of propaganda analysis would be completely baffled by the Aeneid; the conclusion might be that the poem was either the best or the worst propaganda that had ever been written. What kind of propaganda is it to begin a nationalist epic with the sorrowful sigh, “It was such a great burden,—a millstone around the neck—to found the Roman race”? What kind of propaganda is it to make the enemies, by and large, more interesting and sympathetic and colorful fellows than our own side? Lausus and Mezen{ix}tius, for example, are a far more engaging father-and-son combination than Aeneas-Anchises, Aeneas-Ascanius, or Evander-Pallas. Dido and Camilla command our admiration much more than the blushing Lavinia or the fading Creusa. We respond to Turnus, and are at best coldly respectful to Aeneas. What goes on here, anyway? Shouldn’t some patriotic organization investigate this subversive writer, secretly in the pay of a foreign power? On the other hand, it is just possible that this is the very best form which national propaganda can take, the implicit and pervasive doctrine that great and good as our enemies may be, we can admire them, surpass them, be just to them, and not be afraid of them, either.
A word or two about the character of Aeneas. It may be that the trouble with him is really the trouble with us. We are not mature enough to accept, as epic hero, a man who is imaginative, sensitive, compassionate (everywhere except in parts of Books IV and X), and, in short, civilized; in other words, a paradox. There seems to be almost no aggression at all in the character of Aeneas: even in his dreams he wants to get out of trouble and avoid fighting. We don’t like this; we find most satisfactory those moments when he is telling Dido off, or making bitter sarcastic speeches at Lucagus and Liger. We object, further, that when he does fight, he knows very well that he is protected by the gods and by magic armor. (Yet we do not mind the latter in the case of, for instance, Superman; and would we rather have our hero sponsored by devils?) In the matter of invulnerability we are, I think, a little unjust: Virgil takes some pains to show that he can be hurt:{x} he rushes in, unarmed, to preserve the truce; he is grievously wounded by the death of Pallas. In any event, we need not feel too guilty if we are not crazy about Aeneas; there is little in the record to show that the Romans left enthusiastic encomia, either.
As between Virgil and Homer, there can be no real comparison. Judged by any standard, Homer is the greater writer; judged by our own, Virgil is sometimes the better one. His immediate audience consisted of men much more like ourselves than did Homer’s; and Virgil is considerate of their special sensitivities in a way that Homer did not have to bother to be. What he thought he might require of Homer, of course he went and took; it seems to me that in the taking he always modifies, often, from our point of view, improves. He will, for one thing, always design and order more carefully: Book VI, for example, is much more artistically worked out than the descent to the dead in the Odyssey. And the games in Book V, though many details are lifted entire from the Iliad, have quite their own quality, a light-heartedness in the horseplay, a humor and gaiety entirely different from the uncouth bragging and brawling of the Homeric competitors. I think it is only literary scholars who could possibly look down their noses at this book. And in his scenes and stories of battle Virgil, it seems to me, is far more respectful to the modern reader’s sense of credulity than Homer is; no student of a work rather current in 1917, Small Problems of Infantry, would have any difficulty in understanding what went wrong with the mission of Nisus and Euryalus in Book IX.
It is too bad that the Aeneid, as a whole, is not better{xi} known in America. The general practice in our secondary schools has come to be that of reading Books I, II, IV, and VI, and that’s all. This seems to me a peculiar way to deal with a work of art, like looking at selected portions of the Venus of Milo. I do not see how any intelligent American boys or girls can go this slowly, unless they stop to scan every line, note every example of synecdoche or synizesis, and parse all the grammatical constructions, with special attention to the poetical dative of agent and the Greek middle voice accusative of respect. And where the impression grew that the last six books are inferior in interest to the first I do not understand. Virgil, for one, did not think so. Maius opus moveo.
It is a peculiar, paradoxical kind of great poem, this Aeneid. For us, I think, its greatness can be found in ways that may have had less appeal to the Roman mind. Its references may mean less, its music more. Not only the music of the lines, but the music of the whole: this is a composition, and the pleasure comes in listening to it as one would to a great symphony (and not too much attention, please, to the program notes). This is a composition, the Aeneid, beautifully wrought, beautifully balanced. Professor Conway has written an illuminating essay dealing with the poem in terms of its architecture; in detail, his analysis is excellent, but the central metaphor is a little unhappy if it leads you to envisage the Aeneid as an impressive pile, frozen and static. The poem moves, in more senses than one: the thing to do is to feel it and listen to it. Hear how the themes vary and recur; how the tone lightens and darkens, the volume swells or dies, the{xii} tempo rushes or lingers. Take in the poem with the mind, to be sure; take it in with the eye as well; but above all, hearken to it with the ear.
This translation is a quick and unscrupulous job. I am not being modest: a modest man would never have started, and a scrupulous one never finished. I have, nevertheless, been not entirely without principles. I have been trying to translate the poem, rather than transliterate its words. In doing so, I have transposed lines, cut some proper names and allusions where I thought they would excessively slow down reader interest, substituted the general for the specific or the specific for the general, and in short taken all kinds of liberties, such as no pure scholar could possibly approve. But I doubt if there is any such thing as an absolutely pure scholar, anyhow. A loose iambic pentameter has seemed to me the most convenient medium, though in some passages, where the tempo runs faster, you might not recognize it; and I have, by no means faithfully following Virgil, occasionally used his device of the half-line. I have preferred solecisms to archaisms: thus I have never used the second person singular pronoun. I know I have committed anachronisms, but, then, I know Virgil did too, and I have, in my opinion heroically, resisted one or two obvious temptations in this regard. What I have tried to be faithful to is the meaning of the poem as I understand it, to make it sound to you, wherever I can, the way it feels to me. Working on it, I have been impressed, more than ever through the thirty-odd years I have read it, by its richness and variety: to mention only one point, the famous Virgilian melancholy, the tone of Sunt lacrimae rerum,{xiii} is, I begin to notice, a recurring, not a sustained, theme. There is much more rugged and rough, harsh and bitter, music in Virgil than you might suspect if you have only read about him. A recent essay by Mark Van Doren has given me considerable heart in offering this new translation: there is a kind of scholastic snobbishness, he points out, in the insistence that no man knows anything who has not read the classics in the original. It is better, no doubt, to read Virgil in his own Latin, but still—I hope some people may have some pleasure of him, some idea of how good he was, through this English arrangement.
Rolfe Humphries
New York City,
January, 1951
BOOK I | |
---|---|
The Landing near Carthage | 3 |
BOOK II | |
The Fall of Troy | 31 |
BOOK III | |
The Wanderings of Aeneas | 61 |
BOOK IV | |
Aeneas and Dido | 87 |
BOOK V | |
The Funeral Games for Anchises | 113 |
BOOK VI | |
The Lower World | 143 |
BOOK VII | |
Italy: the Outbreak of War | 177 |
BOOK VIII | |
Aeneas at the Site of Rome | 207 |
BOOK IX | |
In the Absence of Aeneas | 233 |
BOOK X | |
Arms and the Man | 263 |
BOOK XI | |
The Despair of the Latins | 299 |
BOOK XII | |
The Final Combat | 335 |
Appendix | 371 |
THE
AENEID
OF
VIRGIL
Publius Vergilius Maro, whom we call Virgil, was born up north in Italy, somewhere in the vicinity of Mantua, in the year 70 B.C. Julius Caesar, that year, was a man of thirty. The poet’s father was a landholder, sufficiently affluent to afford his son a pretty extensive course of education. Virgil grew up to be tall, dark, perhaps a little rawboned and loose-jointed, never very robust, quiet, no doubt, but with more fun in him, and malice, too, if the ascription of the minor poems is correct, than we sometimes think. As a youth, he studied first at Cremona, then at Milan, and in this he was fortunate, for the scholars of the north seemed to have laid more emphasis on the humanistic side of education, on arts, letters, and philosophy, than did the materialist-minded rhetoricians of Rome. To Rome, in his late teens, Virgil did go for pre-legal study, for him a not very congenial experience; it is on record, according to Donatus, that he pleaded exactly one case, and that unsuccessfully. He was twenty-one when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, and the Civil War flared up between Caesar and Pompey, and it seems probable that he was pressed into service with Caesar’s forces, not too much against his political sympathies, however distasteful to his temperament. His service was not long: the state of his health may have brought him early leave or discharge; in his younger twenties he turned to the study of philosophy at Naples.
He found good teachers there, Siro, Philodemus, highly{374} trained men of the Epicurean school, versed not only in Greek thought but familiar, also, with the wisdom of the East. He found good fellow-students, too, a remarkable list of influential Romans, men who were to be his lifelong friends, as Naples was to be made his permanent home, in spite of traveling, later, and the honor of an official residence at Rome. Naples was a pleasant place to be during those years, above the battles that broke and raged not only up and down the peninsula, but to east and west, in Spain, in Gaul, in Thessaly, in Africa. The republican institutions which had sufficed an agrarian economy were breaking down under the pressures of the new rising mercantile and almost industrial society; there had even been something like a primitive proletarian revolution under Spartacus; no Epicurean scorn for political ambitions could keep men’s consciences from being deeply troubled. Virgil, conservative at heart, yet with a great admiration for Julius Caesar the man, seems not to have been too bitter about the imminence of a dictatorship; he would have preferred it not to be so called, and he hoped, with all his soul and spirit, that it would be wisely and mercifully administered, and he said so. He was twenty-six when Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March in 44 B.C., and the shock of that event was enough to drive from his mind the ideas he had formed, in a groping and immature wishfulness, of writing a national epic.
Virgil was not much over thirty when his first substantial work was given publication. This consisted of the Eclogues, or Bucolics, ten longish poems, ostensibly pastoral, modelled, to a certain extent, on the Greek poet Theocritus. These poems were by no means purely escapist{375} literature; they were full of allusions to recent political events, sympathy for the victims of civil war, appeals to the victors for compassion, gratitude that the patrimonial estates had suffered less severely than some others under the policy of rewarding the veterans with places on the land. The young Octavian, victor, with Mark Antony, over the Caesaricides Brutus and Cassius at Philippi, was impressionable enough to be guided in decent ways, following his great-uncle’s tradition of clemency; and Octavian, on his part, was sufficiently tactful, as well as shrewd, to want to have the poets on his side. The great success of the Eclogues rendered it highly desirable that Virgil, along with other poets, be given something like official status; the wealthy counsellor Maecenas, patron of the arts and member of the inner circle, put a villa in his own gardens at the poet’s disposal. Here Virgil found new friends, notably the poet Horace, five years his junior—it lay much to the credit of Octavian’s decency that place could be made for a young satirist who had fought against him at Philippi (probably not very hard, if we can believe Horace’s own account) and whose published work had been caustic about the government. So Virgil had security, recognition, freedom to travel with the distinguished on official journeys, or to come and go as he pleased, with the privilege of staying, whenever he was so minded, in his quieter gardens near Naples.
It was nearly a decade before the publication of his next major work, the Georgics, a long poem, in four books, on the subject of husbandry. Those returned veterans, settled by tens of thousands on the land, knew, it seemed, little of farming, and, for that matter, probably cared less. It was Virgil’s responsibility, under Octavian’s sanc{376}tion, to instruct them, to see to it that they should both know and care, have practical information as to what must be done with crops and cattle and bees, and at the same time develop faith and pride in what they were doing, return to the simple virtues of the fathers, the good old republican ways. For all its official status, however, the poem was just a little too honest to be what we should consider ideal propaganda. There is no sentimental rapture in the Georgics, no idolization, idealization, or idyllization of what life on a farm is like; the sober-minded citizen, in fact, might easily be dissuaded from agriculture entirely by the accurate description of the various kinds of hell farming would put him through.
By the time Virgil was putting the finishing touches to this book, the unsettled condition of the Roman state had begun to change for the better. A decade’s opposition to Octavian, led by the sons of Pompey and his old partner Antony, had come to an end with the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra at the battle of Actium in 31 B.C. The East and West could join again; there could now be one world, under the tempered principate of the man who had matured from the young Octavian into Caesar Augustus. And Virgil could turn to the project he had never forgotten, fulfill the longings that, as allusions in both Eclogues and Georgics had shown, still occupied at least his unconscious mind, the composition of an epic poem that should justify this great nation, remind her citizens of all she had cost, inspire them to be worthy of their tradition. To this work, the Aeneid, Virgil devoted the rest of his life. He did not ever consider it finished; he had still three years’ work ahead of him, he estimated, when he went to Greece, at the age of fifty, to study more carefully the{377} scenes of the book in which he described the wanderings of Aeneas. There he fell ill, was brought back to Brundisium, on the heel of Italy, where he died in 19 B.C. In his dissatisfaction with the unfinished state of his work, he left instructions that the manuscript of the Aeneid should be burned; Augustus, however, in the words of Tenny Frank, “interposed the supreme authority of the state to annul that clause of the will.” No dictator, ever, has exercised a happier veto.
R. H.
{378}
In the fighting between the Greeks and Trojans around Troy, Virgil calls both sides by tribal names as well as national names, and sometimes uses patronymics: thus the Greeks are also called Achaeans, Argives, Danaans, Dolopes, Ithacans, Myrmidons, and so on; and the Trojans are called Dardanians, Ilians, Teucrians, Phrygians. I have used these terms much less than Virgil did, and tried, for the sake of avoiding confusion and clutter, to stick to the terms Greek and Trojan, wherever possible.
Likewise, in the wars between the Trojans and Latins in Italy, we find the enemies of Aeneas described as Italians, Latins, Rutulians, and Etruscans. But there were also some Etruscans on his side; these were led by Tarchon, the anti-Aeneas faction by Mezentius. His other principal allies were the Arcadians, whose king was Evander.
The principal Greek warriors were Agamemnon, Menelaus, Ulysses, Diomedes, and Ajax; the most conspicuous on the Trojan side Aeneas, Hector, and possibly Paris.
Of the gods and goddesses, Juno, in the Aeneid, is actively opposed to Aeneas, and Venus equally active on his behalf. Apollo gives the Trojans considerable help with counsel, especially in the course of their wanderings; Vulcan makes armor for Aeneas when he arrives in Italy, and Neptune helps put down a storm that all but wrecked the Trojan fleet. Jupiter maintains neutrality, in so far as the pressure applied by Venus and Juno will permit.
A list of the important characters in the narrative follows:—
Aenéas, son of Anchises and Venus, leader of the Trojans, hero of the poem.{379}
Amáta, wife of king Latinus, mother of Lavinia; favors Turnus, opposes Aeneas as suitor for her daughter.
Anchíses, son of Capys, father of Aeneas.
Andrómache, widow of Hector, subsequently wife of Helenus, settler, after the fall of Troy, at Buthrotum in Epirus.
Anna, sister of Dido, queen of Carthage.
Ascánius, or Iúlus, son of Aeneas and Creusa.
Camílla, daughter of Metabus and Casmilla, a Latin warrior-maid, ally of Turnus in the fight against Aeneas in Italy.
Creúsa, daughter of Priam, wife of Aeneas, mother of Ascanius, lost in the confusion following the last night of Troy.
Deíphobe, a Sibyl, priestess of Apollo and guide to Aeneas during his visit to the Lower World.
Dído, queen of Carthage.
Diomede, or Diomédes, an important Greek warrior, founder, after the fall of Troy, of Arpi in Italy; declines to help the Latins in their warfare against Aeneas.
Dránçes, an eloquent Latin orator, opposed to Turnus.
Euryalus, son of Opheltes, a young Trojan athlete and warrior, boon companion of Nisus.
Evánder, king of Pallanteum, father of Pallas, ally of Aeneas in the fighting in Italy.{380}
Helenus, son of Priam, husband of Andromache, ruler of Buthrotum in Epirus, priest and prophet of Apollo.
Ilionéus, a Trojan, responsible spokesman for his people on missions to Dido and Latinus.
Iúlus, also known as Ascanius, son of Aeneas and Creusa.
Jutúrna, a nymph, sister of Turnus.
Latínus, king of Latium, husband of Amata, father of Lavinia, favors Aeneas as his daughter’s suitor.
Laúsus, a young Etruscan warrior, son of the exiled king Mezentius.
Lavínia, daughter of king Latinus and Amata, sought in marriage by both Turnus and Aeneas.
Mezéntius, an Etruscan king, exiled by his people for barbarity, despiser of the gods, ally of Turnus against the Trojans.
Neoptólemus, or Pyrrhus, a son of Achilles, killer of King Priam, war-lord of Hector’s widow Andromache.
Nísus, a young Trojan athlete and warrior, son of Hyrtacus, boon companion of the younger Euryalus.
Palinúrus, pilot of the fleet of Aeneas.
Pállas, son of king Evander, ally of Aeneas in the Latin wars, slain by Turnus.{381}
Sinon, a Greek, principal agent in the scheme to bring the wooden horse inside the walls of Troy.
Tárchon, an Etruscan prince, ally of Aeneas against Turnus and Mezentius.
Túrnus, son of Daunus and the nymph Venilia, prince of the Rutulians, principal enemy of Aeneas in Italy.
Vénulus, an Italian leader, sent by the Latins on a fruitless mission for the help of Diomede.