RE: VIRGIL: teaching Aeneid in translation

[Francis Browne]

As a new member of this list I have followed this discussion from the beginning  with interest. David Wilson-Okamura raised the problem : “.... that my students don't know the first thing about Roman history. They've heard of Julius Caesar, and maybe -- but maybe -- they've heard of Augustus. Basic terms like "Republic" and "Empire" have no meaning to them. Granted, most of these students shouldn't be in college in the first place. Prior to coming to North Carolina, I had a lot of students who were lazy, but in general they were curious. Where I teach now, a lot of them aren't even curious.”.   Leofranc Holford-Strevens commented that “Vergil didn't leave out the history, or the politics, even if people can't agree what to make of them, or even whether they're *meant* to agree. It is surely a legitimate question to ask whether Aeneas' abandonment of Dido, at divine behest, for his higher destiny, is to be read not merely as a fusion of the Calypso and Circe episodes (or even in relation to Naevius, if we think we know enough about him to debate Horsfall's account of the matter), but as a pointed comment on Antony's adherence to the national enemy Cleopatra; at least that [is] how I reacted to it at school.”    Such an informed and  perceptive comment assumes both the historical knowledge that  such students lack and the literary sophistication to apply this knowledge to a reading of the poem , and so makes the problem more acute : what magic wand can transform the lazy, incurious students, the functionally and culturally illiterate, into readers who can appreciate such an insight ?   Teaching Virgil today  may often seem a matter of margaritas ante porcos, but I am confident that in each generation Virgil will find his readers.’Tale tuum carmen nobis, divine poeta, quale....’may be completed variously , but Virgil’s poetry will always evoke the passionate admiration of some readers. This list, which I was delighted to discover, bears witness to Virgil’s continuing and varied appeal. Among the seemingly unresponsive students some surely  will gain an appreciation of Virgil’s achievement by reading the Aeneid in translation, and there will  always be a few who are then  inspired to learn Latin properly . But will teaching about the historical background of the poem help to achieve such goals?   I am sure that my own experience is that of many. It is delight in poetry and music that has often led me to learn about the historical background rather than historical study leading to enjoyment of a work of art. Delight in the poetry of Dante leads to exploration of Italian history and medieval philosophy ( and incidentally  a different approach to the narrative skills of Virgil, Ovid, Lucan and Statius). Delight in Bach leads to a study of the Germany of his time and the Lutheran tradition. It is of course a question of emphasis . Background knowledge gained leads to deeper appreciation , but delight in the poetry remains primary and the inspiration for further study. But what delight is possible for those reading the Aeneid in translation ?   A number of contributors have suggested that the Aeneid in translation lacks the narrative power of other texts that students may read. Alas, I fear that in some ways this is true. I enjoyed the Iliad and the Odyssey long before I learned Greek, but it was only through reading the Aeneid in Latin that I come to appreciate Virgil’s poetry. The complexity and richness of Virgil’s style take less kindly to translation than the formulaic language of the Greek epics. And yet the Aeneid contains some marvelous narrative: Books 2, 4 and 6 – those which Virgil himself read to Augustus and his circle – can surely be moving as stories at the simplest level read in translation, while still repaying the closest linguistic study. Other episodes – the boat race, Nisus and Euryalus, the deaths of Pallas and Turnus  - also come to mind. How much historical background should be provided for students and whether it should be given all at once or , in David’s phrase, ‘dribbled’ are not easy questions to answer. The course of study outlined by Vicenzo Crupi is impressive and worthwhile, but I wonder how often such a thorough approach is possible in the circumstances in which Virgil is  often taught today.   In many ways I find myself  more inclined to follow Samuel Johnson’s advice for reading Shakespeare ( with the necessary  changes for Virgil and epic) : “Let him who is unacquainted with the powers of Shakespeare(Virgil), and who desires to feel the highest pleasure that the drama (epic) can give, read every play (book) from the first scene to the last, with utter negligence of all his commentators. When his fancy is  once on the wing, let it not stoop at correction or explanation. When his attention is strongly engaged, let it disdain alike to turn aside to the name of Theobald and Pope (Norden, Austin?). Let him read on through brightness and obscurity, through integrity and corruption; let him preserve his comprehension of the dialogue and his interest in the fable. And when the pleasures of novelty have ceased, let him attempt exactness and read the commentators.”   But perhaps such advice is not likely to be followed by the lazy students lacking curiosity with whom the discussion began.   The topic changed to a discussion of the relative merits of English translations. I would like to argue in support of both David West’s translation and the marvelous version of Dryden. But iam satis est.   Francis Browne