From onoma@earthlink.net Sun Mar 25 00:48:43 2001 Received: from mxu1.u.washington.edu (mxu1.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.8]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.05/8.9.3+UW00.12) with ESMTP id AAA58030 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 00:48:38 -0800 Received: from swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mxu1.u.washington.edu (8.11.2+UW01.01/8.11.2+UW01.03) with ESMTP id f2P8mcU16002 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 00:48:38 -0800 Received: from earthlink.net (sdn-ar-009casfrMP117.dialsprint.net [158.252.240.119]) by swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA19953 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 00:48:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3ABDB3A8.9CDA4094@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 01:00:24 -0800 From: "Thomas R. Walsh" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en,de,es,fr,it,ga MIME-Version: 1.0 To: classics@u.washington.edu Subject: Re: Vergilian archetecture (was: Dryden and Richard Thomas) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit First, a few comments on Robbins' thoughtful discussion: Shades of Tycho von Wilamowitz! "The text is the way it is because that's the most effective way it can be affective." BTW: The circle works as well if you go around it the other way, too: "The most effective way the text can be affective is the way the text is." There, now that that's settled, we can dispense with all that silly literature stuff and get on to more serious matters. (But the children who still want to play with literature can do so, so long as they don't bother the grownups.) Second, some child's play: I can't resist the observation that neither Dido nor Aeneas would have seen the "wedding" as organized by Juno, be that wedding real, deceptive, or anything else. That is to say, the controversy we have been exploring here depends on the perspective of the audience. So Thomas' interpretation is even more suggestive than it at first seemed to many of us, when we realize that the ambiguity so introduced is created *for us*: Aeneas has his interpretation of the event, as has Dido. But "our" interpretation is colored by having "seen" Juno perform her ritual. (I believe this makes it impossible to merely "agree" with Dido or Aeneas--we have some information that they do not.) What is missing in Juno's ritual is the earthly reference point, which most marriages have through traditional cultural activity, such as torches, processions, rice, drunk relatives, and the like; and that difference makes all the difference. (It is significant that the absence of such a ritual marker is exactly what Aeneas points to in his defense.) Moreover, it would have been just as easy to have the "imperial" text without this striking piece of divine apparatus; the "imperial" interpretation needs to account for the text--I'm afraid Robbins' strategy leads to mere circularity, unless I have misunderstood. In essence, the passage to which Thomas draws our attention is precisely the kind of thing Virgil, panygerist though he be, so often does: he makes us uncomfortable, where we could have been comforted, yes, quite easily comforted by a less thoughtful poet whose only wish to was to kiss Augustus' ... ring. In the history of praise-poetry, it must be said, this is not unheard of. It is called "dark-foil" in Pindaric studies, and is appropriate when the laudandus has, in the course of things, something negative which the honest and skillful laudator must take account of. And accounting for those things marks the difference between the poetry of praise and mere flattery. Christopher Robbins wrote: > > Though it was I who inaugurated the Dido and Aeneas thread, thinking it > spent, it is command not desire that returns me to it now among such as > David Lupher, whose erudition and common sense I have found over some five > years to be a near unimpeachable combination, or Professor Thomas, whom I am > not privileged to yet know, apart, of course, from the extensive commentary > on the _Georgics_ and the anthology of articles on Vergilian intertextuality > gathered as _Reading Virgil and his Texts_. > > This latter work brings much to mind these recent exchanges. In its nature > it is an enterprise I applaud and respect, knowing its offer of perspective > and insight viz the literary record of antiquity, magisterial and quotidian > alike, and believing that it may offer yet more than I know. > > Though wishing neither to foreshorten nor to narrow that particular pathway, > I would respectfully suggest that some harvest may be more readily gathered > along an alternative course, however collateral in some measure it may be. > Let us take the "marriage", for example. > > What purpose does the marriage and its attendant controversies serve in this > epic? A day or so ago I had mentioned that... > > "Unlike Homer, (the _Aeneid_) is a single work composed by a single author > in a single lifetime with a single purpose. And that purpose ultimately > defines everything." However rich the vein of antecedent sources Vergil had > available to draw upon and however wide the scope for his own invention, it > was every and all of it subsumed to the overarching purpose of creating a > justifying imperial panegyric. > > To this end all else was no less subsumed. And it was finely tuned indeed, > in my view, by Vergil. Long close to the court or at least its future > occupants, long years in the drafting, closely familiar with the corpus of > values and the accessible range of emotional affect at this seminal point in > the so-called Roman Renaissance and the early Principate, he knew with > precision how far to trace the limits for each battle, each storm, each > divine intervention, each betrayal et alia, so as to not explode the balance > of the work as a whole and to thereby gather from the work in its entirety > the near absolute maximum net total of the psychological, intellectual, > emotional, and ultimately political subscription on the part of his Roman > target audience to his magisterial epic of teleology. > > The marriage, as indeed all else as regards Aeneas, Dido, and Carthage, is > in the final analysis simply one part of this grander architecture. There > is fascination in the detail, to be sure, and more yet to be uncovered no > doubt. > > Yet these nuts and bolts are no less themselves also a part of the > supporting construction. Juno nee Hera has her hated Trojans blown from > their course to the rocks of North Africa, smashed and near drowned. It is > she too with the plan for Aeneas and Dido to be joined, that of > thunderstorms, downpours, and scatterings - and a cave. And who shall be > there to validate this conjoining but she again, now Nuptial Juno, _conubio > iungam stabili propiamque dicabo_. Right. > > One wonders if an Augustan audience would now find its blood boiling with > fury at this treacherous and conniving deity, or perhaps conniving female > deity, for this incessant scheming to block the great Roman destiny from > unfolding. Or would something akin to what we call romantic sentiment have > been evoked, the great destiny placed for the moment in a sort of vague > suspension to allow one to hope that Aeneas and Dido will live happily ever > after. Or a bit of both? > > If we may scour for evidence and pour over extant sources so as to be able > to at least speculate on the likes of this, we should consider that Vergil > knew precisely what the effect would be and that he tailored his text to > draw out that effect to as close to its limit as the framework of balance > required for the work as a whole would allow. > > We return now to Aeneas, Dido and the "marriage", this being originally > posited by myself and, finding myself surprised that there was interest in > the matter, it is here selected as a single but apt illustrative example. > > There is surely, as I have noted, merit to a close textual analysis of those > critical passages in Book IV and to their rendition and translation by > Dryden and other subsequent interpreters. For there is in their conjunction > at least the purpose of resolving with some increased precision what those > passages say, what the Latin says, and what, in turn, does that mean. > > As to what the behavior itself, once understood, would mean in the context > of law, fault, and moral standard (e.g., Did cohabitation constitute a > binding marriage? Why should Dido's night in the cave have caused _fama_ to > become the _monstrum horrendum_ that it did?, etc.), Professor Butrica's > post on Friday suggested that this measure could only be properly taken vis > a vis the extant law and normative standards of Rome in Vergil's own time. > > In an extract I cited Friday, a more individually challenging alternative > was proposed in that: "For Vergil, certainty is a lure: all readers must > weave the events in the cave... into a coherent narrative with a usable > moral." Whatever one's opinion of this proposal may be, it serves the > purpose of bringing us to the final point. > > That Aeneas will proceed to fulfill his mission and with it the destiny of > Rome is undeniable from the outset. It makes absolutely no difference > whether or not a marriage to Dido was consummated or bona fide in any > context whatsoever. > > We may rightly wish to refine for our own understanding what the text itself > reports, in part for knowing, as we do, that reduction to text leaves always > open the possibility for authorially-unintended ambiguities. > > But we are well served by an approach that apprehends both the precision and > the ambiguity of the text as the deliberate constructions of Vergil designed > to elicit from a particular Roman audience the maximum affective response > vis a vis the risks, the costs, the sacrifices, the dangers, etc., that > attended the mission of Aeneas and thereby to mold in that audience a > particular cognition of the history and destiny of Rome as served the needs > of the early Augustan Principate at this critical and delicate historical > watershed. > > The matter of Aeneas and Dido, her decision, demise, and immolation, may > well be one the most tragic and emotionally wrenching stories in the epic or > even in the literature of classical antiquity. But every detail of it, as > with all the others as well, was carefully calculated and constructed by > Vergil to achieve precisely this effect in the audience of address. > > Nor was it effect for its own sake alone. Service to the imperial panegyric > required the deployment of effect in the context of the symbology of > Augustan discourse and to the purpose of embracing an extant body of values > while simultaneously reinforcing them and in some measure transforming them. > > And also transmitting them. Reason v. emotion. Duty v. laxity. Success v. > failure. Progress v. stasis or regression. Order v. disorder. > Self-control v. the lack thereof. The greater good v. the lesser. And of > these and others, perhaps paramount was the subordination of the individual > to a larger, greater, more glorious and in all events collective purpose, > for which Aeneas was so salient an example and symbol. > > In such a frame, the technicalities of whether Dido was "married" or not > seem rather small indeed. That issue is, of course, a worthy and indeed > fascinating pursuit for all manner of scholarly, linguistic, and other > reasons. But the question itself is ultimately the product of a mere > temporal coincidence: that at that particular time and for the values and > conceptualizations held by that particular audience, the casting of the > marriage issue in the _Aeneid_ was the way that Vergil perceived would > create the greatest affective response. > > Nothing more. > > CRR > > -----Original Message----- > From: CLASSICS-owner@u.washington.edu > [mailto:CLASSICS-owner@u.washington.edu]On Behalf Of Richard Thomas > Sent: Sat, March 24, 2001 12:27 AM > To: classics@u.washington.edu > Subject: Re: Dryden and Richard Thomas > > I don't think I said this is an "an unproblematically bona fide wedding > ceremony," simply that those saying exclusively that Dido calls it a > "coniugium" need (as none of the posters have) also to note that Virgil > calls it "conubia". Unlike David Lupher, I find Austin's note ("Virgil > thus makes the wedding ritually corrrect, as one would expect him to > [Why?]. But it remains a supernatural ceremony, and an uncanny one at > that.") evasive, though honest in admitting there is ritual here, and > ritual from the point of view of Dido -- ritual which Dryden denies, which > is the point we are discussing, no, not what we all think of Dido? > > > Juno is there first and foremost in order to further her own devious > > project of derailing the future foundation of Rome. While it *may* be > > illuminating to adduce a passage in another Vergilian poem, it does not > > make sense to ignore the passage's context in *this* poem. > > > But they (if "aether" is indeed to be capitalized, though I don't > > find the echo of Geo. 2.325 as unmistakable here as Prof. Thomas does) are > > acting as agents of Juno for her own very specific, disruptive purposes. > > The denial of an intertext (or intratext, as here) is as much a critical > act as the positing of one. When the same poet has two, and only two, > adaptations of the hieros gamos he knews so well from Homer, I would stand > by my suggestion. > > > > Juno is also there in her capacity as the bride's escort to the > > >marriage chamber (pronuba). > > > > Juno is there first and foremost in order to further her own devious > > project of derailing the future foundation of Rome. While it *may* be > > illuminating to adduce a passage in another Vergilian poem, it does not > > make sense to ignore the passage's context in *this* poem. > > I don't understand this, I guess (I adduced a passaage from Aeneid 4). > Obviously Juno is there for her own devious purposes; my > point had to do with why Virgil calls her "pronuba" and (especially in the > context of this post) why Dryden omitted the epithet. > > > But Vergil does not simply say that she "calls it marriage (coniugium > > vocat); he adds that she did so in order to hide her culpa (hoc praetexit > > nomine culpam). > > > > What I would like to know is: if this is indeed an unproblematically > > bona fide wedding ceremony, in what, exactly, does Dido's "culpa" consist? > > I don't see that Prof. Thomas has addressed this issue. Is it just that > > she has reneged on her oath to remain a univira after the death of > > Sychaeus? > > I think the "culpa" has to do with the sexual act, as it clearly did > the last time she used the word, at 4.19 > huic uni forsan potui succumbere culpae > And again, to remind of my original point, I think Dryden is over the top > with his > > No longer made a secret of her love, > But called it marriage; by that specious name > To veil the crime, and sanctify the shame. > > > For one thing, it is an odd wedding in which the groom is blissfully > > unaware that he is getting married. His words at 338f (nec coniugis > > umquam / praetendi taedas aut haec in foedera veni) may strike us as > > insensitive, but it isn't plausible to consider them a bare-faced lie. > > True enough, Dido had a different perception of the matter (per conubia > > nostra, per inceptos hymenaeos, 316), but her perceptions are distorted > > by passion throughout Book 4. > > He's right, and so's she. That's the point. It depends whose point of > view you want to take; the whole reason we're having this discusion after > more than 2000 years lies in Virgil's giving us conubiis along with > coniugium. Note she calls it conubia, as Virgil had. > I would confine my judgement as to "bare-faced lying" to the following: > > 4.290-1 (Aeneas) > "arma parent et quae rebus sit causa novandis > dissimulent" > 4. 305-6 (Dido) > "dissimulare etiam sperasti, perfide, tantum > posse nefas . . . ?" > 4. 337-8 (Aeneas) > neque ego hanc abscondere furto/ speravi (ne finge) fugam" > > Yeah, right. -- Thomas R. Walsh Associate Professor onoma@oxy.edu Occidental College 510 848 3286 Los Angeles, CA. 90041 .