The Aeneid of Virgil (Bantam Classics)

Rating:
Summary: An excellent translation by Mendelbaum
Review: To date, I have read three different translations of Virgil's Aeneid, and this one is definitely the best. As another reviewer pointed out, Mendelbaum did not translate the Latin into English word for word--his style was more loose and abstract. This makes for some excellent reading.

Like Homer's Iliad, The Aeneid makes strong use of ekphrasis, or using an object to tell the reader about what society was like back in ancient Greece/Rome (example: The Shield of Achilles--Scroll 18 of The Iliad is devoted almost exclusively to it). The epic also tells the reader what happened to certain characters (i.e. Diomedes) after the Trojan War ended.

This epic is a great read as a stand-alone, but having read the Iliad and the Odyssey will only enrich the experience. Be warned, this is a much more difficult read than Homer's two epics, even in English. The Latin text is extremely tough to stomach.

Rating:
Summary: Aeneid (Story of Aeneas)
Review: Unlike Homer or many who came before him, Virgil didn't believe in the myths like the ancient Greeks did. So where the "Iliad" was probably based on some real event, the "Aeneid" is completly made up. That dose not mean that it is bad, it isn't. It's like the best parts of "Iliad" and "Odyssey" put into this one poem. Aeneas and a small band of Trojans escape the carnage of Troy and eventually land in what would become Rome. There is adventure, action, drama, and a little romance. It has the makings of a great story, and sometimes it is. Oh, how do you trash a classic? You don't, but still there is too much national pride and propaganda of "future" Roman heros for my taste. Still worth it's reading, if you can get it cheap, or more likely, get it at the library.

Rating:
Summary: Aeneid (Story of Aeneas)
Review: Unlike Homer or many who came before him, Virgil didn't believe in the myths like the ancient Greeks did. So where the "Iliad" was probably based on some real event, the "Aeneid" is completly made up. That dose not mean that it is bad, it isn't. It's like the best parts of "Iliad" and "Odyssey" put into this one poem. Aeneas and a small band of Trojans escape the carnage of Troy and eventually land in what would become Rome. There is adventure, action, drama, and a little romance. It has the makings of a great story, and sometimes it is. Oh, how do you trash a classic? You don't, but still there is too much national pride and propaganda of "future" Roman heros for my taste. Still worth it's reading, if you can get it cheap, or more likely, get it at the library.

Rating:
Summary: The Odyliad (Part III)
Review: What pleased me was Aeneas' journey up the river in search of allies. This whole section struck me as original writing, and was very well done. It also added a twist to the Achilles parallel; because this time our hero was missing for a good, even an important, reason. On this quest for allies the reader gets another chance to watch as Aeneas tells his story. It is now less about "poor me" and more about his people and what he can do for the surrounding kingdoms. He has stopped whining! Not only that, but Aeneas begins to take on some of the characteristics one might expect of a real hero. He picks up a friend, the son of Evander, named Pallas, and is a protective and guiding figure for him. (Every hero needs a sidekick. Achilles had Patroclus, Hercules had Aeolus, and Batman had Robin.) Aeneus return to the camp, with allies, led to the Trojans winning the battle and the enemy retreating.
Then comes the moment we have been awaiting! Virgil becomes original! He takes the Trojans out of their walled camp and has them attack the enemy city. From there ensues a battle that, while similar to The Iliad (as any battle story is bound to be), is made entirely up of original material. From Turnus' nymph sister driving his chariot to the queen hanging herself in her grief it is only Virgil speaking. From this point forward the references to people and things are mostly original, and the trials and situations that the characters go through have few parallels with Homeric poems.
As for Aeneas, we see him in a new light. Gone is "Father Aeneas." Now we have a bloodthirsty Aeneas, who slashes and kills with vigor, and who is referred to as "a giant." Fear not, fans of whiny Aeneas, some part of him is still there. As I mentioned above, Aeneas kills a boy named Lausus, son of the king Mezentius. He then realizes that Lausus might mean as much to Mezentius as his own son does to him. The sorrow over what he has done keeps him from plundering the boy's body, and he says a sort of prayer to Lausus' shade, admitting that allowing the body to remain undefiled is a worthless act to one already dead, but it is the best he can do. And then, like any good hero, he proceeds to kill the father.
If we are going to take a look at the person Aeneas becomes, we need to look at the last scene in the book. Turnus and Aeneas are fighting it out, one on one, and Turnus loses his sword, putting him at Aeneas' mercy. Upon realizing he is beaten, Turnus asks for his life to be spared. He is beaten, and everyone knows it. Killing him, he says, would serve no purpose. Aeneas considers sparing him, and seems about to do it, when he notes a belt taken from his friend Pallas. Then, with hardly another thought, Aeneas strikes him dead, saying, "How can you who wear the spoils of my dear comrade now escape me? It is Pallas who strikes, who sacrifices you, who takes this payment from your shameless blood." (XII:1265-1268)
The question now is: did Aeneas take Turnus' life out of anger, or grief, or did he think it truly the right thing to do, for Pallas? And if he did it for Pallas, was it in the name of some universal justice, or simply to satisfy the ghost of Pallas? To answer this question for sure is impossible, and I am sure Virgil intended it that way. I feel there are few things that one can get from the Aeneid that one couldn't get from Homer's epics, but the thoughts provoked by this question are the most valuable of those few things. In Homer, the hero killed the enemy because that was what was done. Here, though, there is a reason. We aren't sure what the reason is, and that is what we are to meditate on, upon leaving this book.
Conclusion:
They say that imitation is the best form of flattery. If Virgil was trying to emulate Homer, he flattered, but he failed. If he was trying to be original, he also failed. If he was trying to put a new spin on the tales Homer told, he may well have succeeded. I am not at all sure that that is what he was trying to do, but it may be. Regardless, he produced an enjoyable story, even if I had heard it before.