By AoM, in 'Aeneid', Sep 24, 2017.
Haha, that pic on the wikipedia article.
"I've made a huge mistake."
Well, that is indeed a reading.
"An important aspect of the celestial light is that it is exceedingly brief in appearance (cf. the seven days of Caesar’s comet); any association with the celebrated portent of 44 must take into consideration the emphasis on the ephemerality of the Virgilian wonder: Caesar did die, after all, the same as Venus’ bird in the present contest. If Troy’s death was announced during the boxing match (the first of two contests where a Sicilian would emerge supreme), then in the Sicilian-dominated archery match we see the death of Caesar and the inauguration of Octavian’s rise to supremacy, succession crisis and all. If the arrow’s shortlived fiery trace = the forthcoming death of Pallas, whose premature end the old will be left to mourn, then appropriately enough we shall soon meet the youth of Troy ante ora parentum, whose mimicry of war is itself a prefigurement of the all too real combat in which Pallas et al. will soon be slaughtered. In the Trojan decision to have a contest where Venus’ bird is the intended victim, we may see a Virgilian comment on the rightness of the decision of Romans to slay Caesar; this may also explain something of Neptune’s insistence that one must die: a reading of 5 as Virgilian commentary for the death of Caesar ante ora parentum, i.e., of the conspiring senators."
Anglo-Saxon (and especially American) scholars tried to read a political message into the Aeneid that doesn't really seem to be there.
Well, there was a political message in the Aeneid, but maybe not this one...
I sometimes think modern scholars must be reincarnations of medieval Bible commentators. I have some experience with the latter and, believe me, they were pretty good at interpreting things in far-fetched ways.
What I mean is that there is an overt pro-Augustean message, and there is a theory that Vergil 'hid' a contrary message underneath the overt one by writing in two different voices. I think that's too much of a modern reading, though.
There are no extant classical sculptures. All forgeries.
I have sometimes wondered, “if Vergil’s work is secretly anti-Augustus, it must not have been very effective since no one in antiquity seemed to discern this hidden message”
I always thought that Augustus actually commissioned the work.
Probably, but nothing definitive, I think.
Really? I thought that was one of the less disputed issues of history. I.e. I've never heard anyone doubt that Augustus commissioned it.
I guess I meant that it's all still an assumption. A very, very likely assumption, but one nonetheless.
I haven't looked into it that thoroughly, but I'd be curious to see if there was anything more substantial.
Regarding the Caesar/Augustus stuff, they cited this article a little later.
Brill commentary was great overall, and definitely worth it at that price.
Just could've used a little editing here and there.
Curious to see what book they plan to do next, if any.
Our Latin forum is a community for discussion of all topics relating to Latin language, ancient and medieval world.
Separate names with a comma.