The Aeneid of Virgil part 1: can you read an ancient text?

I was leafing through some of my favorite passages of Virgil's Aeneid and thought I would begin in a rather roundabout way.  Can a contemporary person read an ancient text?  I mean, of course, read it in the sense that one can still find its basic message and meaning?  Stripped of such notions as "author's intent", with a limited knowledge of the ancient world (let alone the transition from Republic to Empire), and in a language other than the original?

I believe I have discovered at least part of why a series on the Aeneid intrigues me.  Such an exercise is, to my mind, related to another exercise which I deem profitable:  the reading of the Bible.  You see, I tend to believe that one can read the Aeneid with much profit if guided by the insights and learning of others, but one can also read the Aeneid and get the basic sense of the poet's text and message.  There may be a number of reasons for this.  You might say that because many of us are heirs to the Western tradition, the ideas found in Virgil's work are in some sense familiar.  He writes about humanity, about destiny, about fate, about the gods and the hand of the divine in human affairs.  He writes about warfare, about anger, about lust and also about love (and he doesn't confuse the two).  He writes about things which are, well, universal to being human.  Yes, a few notes about this particular goddess or that particular geography are helpful, but in the end all one needs to be is human in order to read the Aeneid. 

Now I don't intend to add any biblical commentary or insight into my postings on the Aeneid, except at this beginning point.  I believe that we may have come to a point where we can no longer read a text (or a Text) with confidence, unless we are guided by an expertise beyond our own.  And at the same time, we might become bogged down under the weight of an "expertise" which removes from us the mere confidence that we can read and grasp the basic message of a text simply because we are human. 

A few minor things:  there are particular passages which may, in any edition of the Aeneid, thought to be in the wrong place, or at least in a contested place.  A critical edition will have plenty of room for footnotes. The overall story is really unaffected by such things, however much fuss one might make.  The large themes are still clear;  the main characters are still who they are;  the actions of gods and men are largely unaffected.  I am not going to get too worked up over it.  Might the same principle apply elsewhere?

Then there is the question of the main themes of the story.  It will probably become clear as you read the text what the author wanted us to hear.  If we think we need to have a clear picture of Virgil's "authorial intent" before we begin the story, then I think we underestimate the genius of the poet.  Enduring texts don't entirely work that way:  when the text elicits in us a certain response - when we "get it" - then the author's intention becomes much clearer.

Virgil's themes are grander than the mere politics of Augustus, although the politics of Augustus are not indifferent to the time and place of the Aeneid.  So it is, in a sense, with Scripture.  The intentions of the individual authors are born out of particular times and places and concerns, but the grand themes are universal.  Sometimes the intention of authors transcends the limited range of their own particular community in geography and history.  Their intentions are larger than we think.

Well, with all of that behind us, off we go.  I will be using Robert Fitzgerald's verse translation.

View entire post series on the Aeneid here.

Comments

[Tim]

Any particular reason why that translation, Joe?

[joseph]

Tim, I find Fitgerald's translation to be accurate and 'poetic' in the larger sense of the word. I think he does the best job of rendering into English poetry the flow of the original and its spirit. There are other good translations out there, both in prose and verse. A useful summary and comaprison can be found here: http://mysite.verizon.net/joepye1/Vergil/index.htm

[Tim]

What do you think of Robert Fagles' translation?

[joseph]

I thnk Fagles' translation is pretty good; a few classics lists I've read have given him top billing, and others have said he'll be 2nd to Fitzgerald after a few years, once the novelty of a new translation (2006) wears off. I dont' think you'll go wrong with Fagles' text.