The Aeneid

All the time on here, I see people praising the Iliad and the Odyssey as great epic poems (they are), but rarely does the Aeneid get any appreciation. Why is this, Veeky Forums?

>Arms, and the man I sing, who, forc'd by fate,
And haughty Juno's unrelenting hate,
Expell'd and exil'd, left the Trojan shore.
Long labors, both by sea and land, he bore,
And in the doubtful war, before he won
The Latian realm, and built the destin'd town;
His banish'd gods restor'd to rites divine,
And settled sure succession in his line,
From whence the race of Alban fathers come,
And the long glories of majestic Rome.


Actually pretty good isn't it, what is the best translation

Aeneid is better planned than Illiad, and doesn't have as many boring fillers
as either of the two
So it's good, but i guess people are too caught up in the Start With The Greeks meme

It depends on what you want out of the translation. Fagles' is the best in terms of following Vergil while still remaining poetic imo. Dryden's is better poetry, but it strays from the original a bit

I agree! Of course reading the Iliad and Odyssey add to one's understanding of the Aeneid a lot, but not to read the Aeneid is to miss one of the great works of Western literature (the best in my opinion)

I've only read the Iliad, however when I get to the Aeneid, i'm sure i'll enjoy it more since I am more fond of the Romans then the Greeks. I kinda want to learn Latin and read this in the original language.

Turnus or Aeneas lads?

It's worth doing. The Aeneid in the original is beautiful.
Aeneas, no question

Veeky Forums only reads memes.

The Iliad was a foundation for morality in the Hellenic world. It was the founding document for how a man should act, much like how the Bible has been for the modern Western world. In that respect it focused much more on content and moral judgements.

In contrast The Aeneid is more renowned for its style, which is something that can only be admired when read in Latin. It's easier to understand the value of The Iliad without knowing Greek than it is to understand the value of The Aeneid without knowing Latin. Reading The Aeneid in English was much less interesting for myself until I learned Latin and read segments of it in its original form. The sound, the meter, the absolute brutality with the underlying notion of redemption through beauty (something that reflects the Roman Empire according to Augustus [a lineage from Mars and Venus]) all add up to a stunning read in Latin that is absolutely lost in translation to English.

It's literally Iliad "muh Romans win" fanfic

Like holy fuck is Virgil jerking a fatty to Homer

The standards of art were just supreme back then so even shitty fuckboys like Virgil seem godtier next to the likes of any modern author.

So, to answer your question in a less inflammatory way:
The Aeneid is a masterpiece, but Virgil is half the poet that Homer was and he provided absolutely no new insight for poetic invention. Therefore, it is not as worth talking about as the Epic Cycle.

Mezentius

I disagree with the false dichotomy of Iliad= moral compass, Aeneid= no moral compass. In fact, I think Virgil fails in that he intended the Aeneid to be a moral compass for Rome as the Iliad was for the Greeks (this can be exemplified in subtle ways such as the focus on Hektor as the hero rather than Achilles who is depicted as cruel and wrathful, and the image of Aeneas carrying the totem of his god, his father on his back, and the hand of his child onward out of the flames of Troy exemplifying both bravery, compassion, family, piety, etc. etc. etc.), but, because his theme was that of war, ultimately Aeneas descends into the same brutality of Achilles (e.g. thinking of when he fucking wrecks Turnus) in the name of founding a country. So, tl;dr, I disagree, I think Virgil just did a shit job at balancing Roman idealism with the realism of war, let alone imperialistic war.

>Virgil is half the poet that Homer was and he provided absolutely no new insight for poetic invention

I've got to call bullshit on this. "Homer" (possibly an unknown amalgamation of various poets) did set the standard for what a GREEK epic should look like. But Virgil (who we know for a fact was a single individual) created a Roman equivalent for epic that built on the Hellenic tradition. He does tamper with the style though, in a dramatic way. Virgil's tampering with the Latin language far surpasses that of Homer's tampering with the early Hellenic dialect. Virgil's writing is what set the standard for modern "poetics".

I disagree entirely Homer and Virgil are incomparable in importance, there is very little across all of literature that Homer has not already done. There's a reason Pound obsesses over Homer and completely discounts Virgil, in importance to poetry Homer is everything.
i prefer Virgil

First I just wanna say that I want to suck your cock badly.

Secondly let me try to negotiate through your objections.

>false dichotomy of Iliad= moral compass, Aeneid= no moral compass.

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough, but I never meant to set that dichotomy forward. Obviously there is a notion of moral direction in Virgil; all of the writers sanctioned by Augustus had a socio-political moral foundation to them as Augustus was trying to redefine Roman culture.

>the image of Aeneas carrying the totem of his god, his father on his back, and the hand of his child onward out of the flames of Troy exemplifying both bravery, compassion, family, piety, etc. etc. etc

Yes, piety is always central to the image of Aeneas; that is what constantly defines him, like in his prophecy from Venus.

>because his theme was that of war

That's half of it. What I see is the importance of the duality of Venus (through Aeneas) and Mars (through Romulus). I see what Virgil does in his scansion (war-like [Mars]) and poetic imagery (excessive and gorgeous [Venus]) as the same sort of balance, all while telling the story of a war.

>I think Virgil just did a shit job at balancing Roman idealism with the realism of war, let alone imperialistic war.

It may be because I'm a bit drunk, but I fail to see how you make this jump from what you're saying before it.

>There's a reason Pound obsesses over Homer and completely discounts Virgil

Yes, because for a native English speaker Homer is more difficult to read. And Pound placed more importance in difficulty than in relevance.

>i prefer Virgil

I'm curious why, based on your statement.

I bet you don't even read Greek, let alone Latin.
Also,
>pointing out Homer probs didn't exist
Can't come up with anything more innovative than this now, can we?

>And Pound placed more importance in difficulty than in relevance.
Did you ever stop to think why?

Also, HOLY FUCKING SHIT YOU ARE DUMB

Crude
Crude

When did Veeky Forums become an extension of /pol/? Why can't you two just discuss literature with someone else reasonably? What caused all this hate?

I'd also like to say that you didn't explain why you prefer Virgil (obviously you didn't explain why you're so hostile towards me, but that goes unsaid).

Thanks, mate. Re Romulus v. Aeneas, that's an interesting lens I've never considered before. Definitely going to mull that over a bit. I guess my latter "jump" is based on my initial reading of the Aeneid as essentially a project of Virgil to surpass Homer by emulating him (to prove that his mastery of poetic craft was on par with the Grecian Bard) and then one-upping Homer by presenting Roman values as inherently superior (both morally and as concerns power). But, I think Virgil fails in that, like Homer, his theme is ultimately that of war (e.g. the famous opening line says it all and presents the tension of "Man" [as an idealistically compassionate, pious, and brave soul] and "War" [that which requires inhumanity]). Whereas Homer can excuse war as not particularly amoral, just a mere fact of life that allows more for an exemplification of Honor than anything, he gets away and Grecian values are saved. But for Virgil's hero, Aeneas, war is the ultimate test of Roman values which tried to fuse compassion, piety, bravery, etc. with glory which can only come from essentially being a fucking animal on the battlefield. I think Virgil fails in that he goes overboard and loses that balance between the idealistic Roman Man and the inherent, demanding brutality of War. Thus, Just my conclusion as concerns the canon and intention and all that. I still think Virgil is a godtier storyteller.

yo why does the golden bough resist aeneas' draw at first? thought he was 'da chosen one'.

this is lit yo. nut up or shut up.

Why is Achates so based?

What were those two gay dudes called again?

Looking back, the AP latin class I took in high school was so much more satisfying than any comparative literature course I took in all my years at college, since all we did for a whole year was translate by hand 10 lines of the aeneid a day and analyze the figures of speech, grammatical structures and rhythmic verse that were vergil was utilizing. my teacher was a true patrician in this regard and threw us a post-exam party where we recited the entire fagles translation together in one sitting while eating bagels.

Because he went through the wrong gate of sleep. Books 7-12 are all a dream
I'm envious. My AP Latin class was pretty terrible (still pulled a 5 though).

That guy wasn't me, I think I just prefer Virgil because it felt more refined and maybe even because it felt less real. Homer felt quite close to the action and his following of Odysseus is almost over his shoulder or even first person when he tells his own story. Whereas in the Aeneid even when Aeneas tells his own story I feel like theres this distance, as if you are looking at a scene carved in a wall or looking at each scene of Bayeaux tapestry.
Idk i havent explained it very well and dont know why I prefer it myself that much.