Search

I examine a dialogue between the Renaissance Supplements to Virgil’s Aeneid by Pier Candido Decembrio and Maffeo Vegio. I argue that Decembrio’s short poem is not unfinished but instead provides the Iliadic ending to the Aeneid that Virgil withholds, namely a lament over Turnus’s body to match the lament over Hector at the end of Iliad 24. I then argue that Decembrio’s poem presents us with a dangerously unstable situation in Italy, dominated by commemorations of Turnus in such heroic terms that they threaten to displace Virgil’s hero Aeneas from primacy in his own story. Vegio’s response “corrects” this portrayal of Turnus in favour of a more orthodox Virgilian narrative in which Turnus is a tragically misguided enemy of Aeneas’s divine mission to Italy. I conclude with a new edition and translation of Decembrio’s Supplement, drawing on both of the extant manuscripts and addressing several textual difficulties., Nous examinons un dialogue entre les Suppléments à l’Énéide de Virgile composés par Pier Candido Decembrio et par Maffeo Vegio. Nous avançons que le bref poème de Decembrio n’est pas inachevé, mais qu’il fournit plutôt la fin iliadique à l’Énéide retenue par Virgile, à savoir une complainte sur le corps de Turnus qui correspond à la complainte sur Hector à la fin du chant 24 de l’Iliade. Nous suggérons ensuite que le poème de Decembrio met en scène une situation dangereusement instable en Italie, dominée par les commémorations de Turnus en des termes si héroïques qu’elles menacent de destituer le héros virgilien, Énée, de sa primauté dans son propre récit. La réponse de Vegio « corrige » ce portrait de Turnus en faveur d’un récit virgilien plus orthodoxe dans lequel Turnus, tragiquement dans l’erreur, est un ennemi de la mission divine d’Énée en Italie. Nous concluons en proposant une nouvelle édition et traduction du Supplément de Decembrio, en nous appuyant sur les deux manuscrits existants et en abordant plusieurs difficultés textuelles.

Venus and Vulcan, Venus and Aeneas, Pallas and Aeneas, Aeneas and Evander, Evander and Pallas: all of these pairs are seen embracing one another in Aeneid 8. Alongside these emotive scenes of embrace, the book is peppered with embrace-related vocabulary, imagery, and metaphor, often in surprising contexts. This article weaves together these embraces in Aeneid 8 in relation to the thematics of the book as a whole. It is proposed that, when read together, the embraces in Aeneid 8 tell a story about the possibilities of knowledge in relation to the senses. Vision is the supreme sense-modality of truth in epic, as embodied in the shield of Aeneas; and yet, in book 8, embrace emerges as a way of knowing that runs counter to optical discourses of knowledge. This leads to an exploratory reconsideration of hermeneutic principles in light of Aeneas’ much-puzzled-over response to the shield.

Il contributo considererà le versioni parziali dall’Eneide realizzate da Zanzotto (Aen. III 1-72; VI 637-702) e Pasolini (Aen. I 1-301). La ricerca indagherà come le differenti scelte traduttive compiute dai due poeti comportino ricadute sullo stile e la lingua del poema virgiliano. Dall’analisi della traduzione di Zanzotto emergerà una profonda aderenza del traduttore alle strutture epiche del modello, ricercata all’interno di una generale tendenza ad anticare il testo di partenza. Differentemente, dalla valutazione della resa pasoliniana si evincerà un’Eneide restituita dal traduttore in forme prosastiche e in toni civili., This paper will consider the partial translations of Aeneid, made by Zanzotto (Aen. III 1-72; VI 637-702) and Pasolini (Aen. I 1-301). The aim of this essay is to highlight how the different translation choices, made by the two poets, imply chains of repercussions on the style and the language of Virgilian poem. The analysis of Zanzotto’s translation will reveal a deep adherence to the epic structures of the model, sought within a general tendency to age the original text. On the other hand, the evaluation of Pasolini’s translation will disclose an Aeneid returned by the translator in prosastic forms and in civil tones.

This article aims to cast light on the magical colour in the description of Cupid causing Dido to fall in love with Aeneas in Aeneid 1. It is proposed that Cupid’s actions are represented in a way that recalls a ritual for erotic magic, mirroring the dynamics of Eros seducing Medea in Argonautica 3. Dido’s subsequent frenzy in Aeneid 4 may thus be seen as the consequence of this “love-charm”.

In the Aeneid, Ancient Rome’s seminal epic poem and Vergil’s greatest work, a queen falls in love and later commits suicide. This queen’s name is Dido, and her story contains some of Vergil’s best poetry, but it has also long been a source of interpretive debate by translators. This paper seeks to illuminate how popular, modern, English translations of the Aeneid have depicted this dynamic, tragic character. These translations (i.e. Ruben, Fitzgerald, Lewis, and others) are the ones read in classrooms and disseminated to the wider public. This paper will attempt to understand them by examining how a translator’s personality and philosophy affect their decisions about the translation’s fidelity, cadence, and expressiveness. It is a comprehensive outline of Dido’s journey through the modern age and how that journey may change as more translators come to the fore who have their own distinct, diverse stories. The Aeneid lives through its translators; it grows as the translators do, and it falters too when they do. Dido is the perfect case study for that.

This article investigates Irene Vallejo's 2015 novel El silbido del arquero, a narrative in the Virgilian tradition mostly inspired by Book IV of the Aeneid. We show how Vallejo reinterprets Dido and Aeneas's tragic love story by foregrounding minor characters, developing the setting, integrating popular subgenres and exploring communicative anxieties and gender issues. It is argued that patterns of dissatisfaction, self-delusion and disillusionment with human affairs ultimately collide with a message of hope voiced by the fictionalised Virgil., Universidad Pablo de Olavide

Przedstawioną w Eneidzie podziemną krainę zwaną Orcus porastają dwa wielkie drzewostany: las mirtowy i gaj wawrzynów. Celem artykułu jest ustalenie, jakie ukryte znaczenia można dostrzec pod postacią owych drzew i jakie treści przekazuje za ich pośrednictwem Wergiliusz. Badanie symboliki mirtu wskazuje na powiązanie go z boginią Venus Genetrix, którą poeci przedstawiali jako „matkę Eneadów” i z którą pokrewieństwo przypisywał sobie Juliusz Cezar. Analiza znaczenia wawrzynu odsyła natomiast do Apollina, a w konsekwencji do Oktawiana, który popularyzował nadzwyczajną przychylność owego boga dla swojej osoby. Wergiliusz, dzięki wykorzystaniu owych czytelnych w świadomości społecznej symboli, stworzył z nich spójny obraz w VI księdze opowieści o powstawaniu państwa rzymskiego. Umieszczając bowiem w krainie Orku dwa wielkie gaje: mirtu, rosnącego na Polach Żalu, czyli na początku drogi wiodącej przez Podziemie, i lauru na jej etapie końcowym w Elizjum, nakreślił obraz drogi, jaką rozpoczęło państwo rzymskie wraz z rządami Juliusza Cezara i której uwieńczeniem stał się okres panowania Augusta. Dzięki temu, że oba lasy umiejscowił w krainie, gdzie przebywają Sny, Wergiliusz w poetycki sposób nadał owej scenie także charakter proroczej wizji, która ma się spełnić. The underground land called Orcus presented in the Aeneid is covered by two great woodlands: a myrtle forest and a laurel grove. The aim of this article is to establish what hidden meanings these types of trees can have and what Virgil communicated through them. A study of the symbolism of the myrtle shows its links with the goddess Venus Genetrix, whom poets presented as “the mother of the Aeneads” and with whom Julius Caesar credited his kinship. An analysis of the meaning of the laurel points to Apollo, and consequently to Octavian, who popularized the idea of this god’s particular endorsement of his person. The use of these symbols recognized in the social consciousness helped Virgil create their coherent image in Book VI of the story about the formation of the Roman State. By placing the two great groves in the land of Orcus, first the myrtle growing in the Fields of Sorrow, i.e. at the beginning of the road which crossed the Underground, and then the laurel at its final stage in Elisium, he portrayed the path which the Roman State went through, starting with the regime of Julius Caesar and culminating with the reign of Augustus. In view of the fact that Virgil placed both forests in the land of Dreams, in a poetic way he gave this scene the character of a prophetic vision which is about to be realized.

A millenary tradition of commentators of the Aeneid has demonstrated that Book IV contains elements from many genres other than the epic-heroic, and that Dido’s episode is like a tragedy within an epic. This article’s goal is to bring back into discussion some of the elements that make up Dido’s character and episode, and subsequently address the function of this “tragedy” in the entirety of the poem in terms of generic mixture. The analysis of passages from books I and IV has shown that the representation of Dido’s individual and tragic destiny contributes to the imperialist argument of the Aeneid, in the sense that it reveals the inevitability of the marching of Fate toward the foundation of Rome, against which opposers such as Dido cannot succeed. The concluding session will help to clarify that this interpretation is not incompatible with the so-called “polyphony” of the Aeneid. Uma tradição milenar de comentadores da Eneida demonstrou que o Livro IV contém elementos de outros gêneros que não o épico-heroico e que episódio de Dido é como uma tragédia dentro de uma epopeia. O intuito deste artigo é rediscutir alguns dos elementos trágicos que caracterizam a personagem e o episódio de Dido e posteriormente tratar, em termos de mistura genérica, da função dessa “tragédia” na totalidade do poema. A análise de trechos dos livros I e IV mostrou que a representação do destino individual e trágico de Dido contribui para o argumento imperialista da Eneida no sentido em que revela a inevitabilidade do curso dos Fados em direção à fundação de Roma, contra o qual os opositores, como Dido, não podem obter sucesso. Finalmente, esclarecer-se-á que esta leitura não é incompatível com a assim chamada “polifonia” da Eneida.

This review article of Joseph Farrell’s 2021 monograph on Virgil’s Aeneid (Juno’s Aeneid: A Battle for Heroic Identity, Princeton and Oxford) takes the cue from Farrell’s analysis of Virgil’s intertextuality with the Homeric epics and provides a methodological re-assessment of intertextuality in Virgilian studies and Latin literature more broadly. It attempts to retrace the theoretical history and some of the main applications of Latin intertextual studies and suggests some possible ways for Latinists to engage more profoundly with deconstructive criticism and post-critique.

This article focuses on Seamus Heaney’s posthumously published translation of Virgil’s Aeneid, Book VI. It does so through the lens of what the post-structuralist thinker Jacques Derrida terms hauntology. In this sense the repetition and return of the past is discussed in relation to the translation in a political and social sense, but also in the context of how Heaney’s earlier works often haunt the later works in terms of imagery, thematic output, and word choice. The article examines how the poet pluralises notions of identity through this translation and how this text is one that is haunted by the past in both a historical and literary sense. Cet article s’intéresse à la traduction par Seamus Heaney du livre VI de l’Énéide de Virgile, publiée de manière posthume. Le prisme adopté est celui de l’hantologie de Jacques Derrida. La répétition et le retour du passé sont analysés en lien avec la traduction au sens politique et social, mais également à travers la manière dont les œuvres antérieures de Heaney hantent souvent les œuvres les plus récentes s’agissant des images poétiques, des thématiques et des choix lexicaux. L’article examine la pluralisation des identités par le poète dans cette traduction et analyse la manière dont ce texte est hanté par le passé à la fois historique et littéraire.

In this paper I analyze some principles (and their practice) that guide the Portuguese translator Lima Leitão, who translated all works of Vergil before the publication of the famous Virgilio Brasileiro (1858) by the Brazilian Manuel Odorico Mendes. In order to illustrate Leitão’s general practice, I focus on a passage of his translation of the Aeneid, whose edition goes back to 1819, before the first edition of Mendes’ Eneida Brasileira (1854). I analyze briefly, in the translation of the Laocoon episode, Lima Leitão’s vocabulary and the way he deals with the sounds and the expressive word-order of the original. As both translations mentioned have much in common, I compare them occasionally, by pointing out similitudes and differences between them. As final thoughts, I express the hope that Vergil’s translations by Lima Leitão may receive the same critical and editorial attention that Mendes’s ones have received in recent times.

MA (Ancient Languages with Latin), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus This study examines female agency in the Aeneid to determine to what extent women are characterized as strategists. Since this study discusses the political agency of women, the emphasis is on the elite, non-divine women in the Aeneid, who also seem to count amongst the primary plot drivers in this epic.1 The focus will therefore be on Dido, Anna, Camilla, and Amata. The effectiveness of their strategizing is also examined, i.e., to what extent their decisions affected the course of events. In the public sphere of patriarchal Augustan Rome, one finds that women and their political activity were largely relegated to the background. Certain aristocratic women were able to play political roles (Maclachlan, 2013:85), but political participation per se was an activity that was deemed to be reserved exclusively for men. Women were expected to concern themselves with domestic matters and to bear children – all to realize male success. Even the aristocratic women, who partook in high politics (Pomeroy, 1995:149), were expected to act according to the domestically orientated life that the Augustan ideology prescribed. Yet, the Aeneid, Rome’s national epic, puts a number of politically active women in the foreground of the narrative. Even domestic matters, such as bearing children, seem to be described in terms of assets for their own gain, not only for that of their husbands. The political activity portrayed in the Aeneid does not seem to portray politics in terms of activities reserved for men but in terms of activities that are equally performed by women. An extensive comparison of female political activity in the Aeneid and historic female political activity is beyond the scope of this dissertation, but certain historical figures and events are referred to and compared to their literary Vergilian counterparts where necessary. The characterization of the women in the Aeneid includes the dialogues that take place amongst the elite non-divine female characters who are also portrayed in the epic as plot drivers in their own right. Their attributes that are revealed through indirect discourse or dialogue with other characters will also be considered. The sections in the Aeneid where women converse with other women reveal that the female mind is, in fact, not occupied primarily with either domestic trifles or men, but rather with their own political ambitions. This especially pertains to securing the survival of their lineage to preserve their honour and to realize their own glory. Masters

In his treatise The Exposition of the Content of Virgil according to Moral Philosophy, Fabius Fulgentius allegorically interpreted the contents of Virgil's epic the Aeneid. The aim of our paper is to explain the main principles of Fulgentius' allegorization by analysing the first verse of Virgil's Aeneid. In Fulgentius' view, the 12 books of the epic depicted the three main stages of a human life as they follow the “natural order”: childhood, adolescence and adulthood. In his prologue (Fulg. Cont. 87. 4–6; 87. 11–89. 3; 89. 19–90. 17), the author supports his claim by presenting an allegorical interpretation of the first line of Virgil's epic (Verg. A. 1. 1), which contains three famous words: arma (“arms”), vir (“man”) and primus (“first”). According to Fulgentius, the first term arma (“arms”) represents virtus (“manliness”) in the sense of characteristics that are available to all human individuals during childhood. The second term vir (“man”) refers to sapientia (“wisdom”), which is related to the development of the ingenium (“mind”) during adolescence. The third term primus (“first”) symbolises the adult ability ornare (“to ornament”) what we have learnt in the first phases of our life. With life experience in childhood and adolescence, a person can gradually become princeps (“a ruler”). In other words, they can be “first” within a given society and thus conclude their personal development towards perfection. As such, the contents of Virgil's Aeneid correspond to these three terms: Books 1–3 to childhood, Books 4–6 to adolescence, and Books 7–12 to adulthood.

This paper argues that, contrary to what has recently been proposed, exsequiis is at home in Aeneid 7.5 as an elegiac and Gallan term which footnotes the elegiac ethos and Gallan language of Caieta’s preceding epitaph (1-4). The paper also suggests that, in addition to its other recognised liminal aspects, the Gallan epitaph may show Virgil reflecting on his move from the Gallus-sponsored Eclogues via the Georgics to the Aeneid, sponsored by Augustus, and thus pay a discreet tribute to his former patron.

Since a problematic passage in Virgil's Aeneid (10.366–7) shows the same influence of Sallust (Cat. 58–60) as do the dozen lines preceding and following, it should not be deleted, as has been suggested.

One of the less appreciated literary influences on the Virgilian depiction of Aeneas' decision to slay Turnus at the end of the Aeneid is the first battle supplication scene in Homer's Iliad, the encounter of Adrestus with Menelaus and Agamemnon. Close consideration of Virgil's response to the Homeric scene sheds light on the poet's concerns in his presentation of the choice his Trojan hero Aeneas confronts in light of Turnus' appeal. Acrostics at the end of the Aeneid invite further reflection.

This article puts the spotlight upon the neglected 1632 translation of the entire Aeneid by the poet, puritan, and parliamentarian John Vicars, which, as the first complete translation of the Aeneid by an Englishman, should be more prominent in literary history. The article’s central argument is that the neglect of Vicars’ translation was, both at the time and thereafter, a manifestation of the class warfare that has long pervaded English society. This argument complements the view expressed by other scholars that the dismissal of Vicars was grounded in his radical puritanism and anti-Catholicism. The article analyses the paratextual materials that introduce the translation, including the dedicatory epistle, the address to the reader, and the poems of endorsement, as well as the poem itself, for signs of class struggle. By offering a close textual analysis, it argues that it is far from obvious that the quality of Vicars’ version is inferior. It concludes that the patent early hostility towards Vicars is more closely related to the person of the translator than the qualities of the translation; specifically, it attributes the failure of Vicars’ translation to dislike for the translator’s extremely humble origins, alongside his unfashionable religious and political views.

This book explores how Virgil in his Aeneid incorporates the ancient Stoics' thinking about how humans can exercise moral responsibility and how this can affect providential world fate. The third-century BC philosopher Chrysippus of Soli located this freedom in the way we can assent to courses of action, and Graham Zanker innovatively demonstrates how Virgil appropriates this concept in the way that Jupiter and Aeneas can assent to the world fate in which they have discovered they must play a part, or Juno and Dido can withhold their assent to it. Indeed, Virgil even offers the model to no-one less than Augustus: the emperor is invited to give his assent to ruling what was believed to be his 'world-wide' empire justly. The book is accessible to both students and professional scholars of the Aeneid, with all Greek and Latin translated into idiomatic English.

The translation of the Aeneid by a leading Symbolist poet Valerii Briusov, on which he worked most of his life, failed to gain favor with Russian readers because of its literalism. Combining various theoretical approaches with a close analysis of the text this essay explores why Briusov’s translation failed in the context of the cultural and aesthetic demands of the era in which it was composed.

A major aspect of Fascist manipulation of classical culture is the tendentious practice of translating texts in order to emphasize the points apparently consistent with the regime’s ideology: this process goes so far as to distort the meaning of the texts, which are used as means of political propaganda. This happened to the Aeneid, the most translated and probably the most misinterpreted poem in Italy during the Fascist period. I outline an overview of the translations made by Giuseppe Albini (1921), Francesco Vivona (1926), Giuseppe Lipparini (1928), Emilio Pratellesi (1930), and Guido Vitali (1930). I describe and illustrate with some examples the criteria followed by each author, with respect to lexical choice, sentence structure, and stylistic devices. Thus, I show how these translations (with the sole exception of that by Albini) are enslaved to their political purpose and betray the deep and complex message of the poem.

The composition of translations of Classical texts in the nineteenth-century Greek state was a complex issue entwined with politics, ideology, and the cultural identity of the new nation that sought to construct its identity by looking back towards its glorious Classical Greek past. It is, moreover, an issue tied to the so-called ‘language question’, the ardent debate on the type of the national Greek language (archaizing Greek, katharevousa, or demotiki). The intellectual elite of the new nation-state, led by the professoriate of the newly founded Ottonian University and a number of influential Greek intellectuals of the Diaspora tried to acquaint the newly-liberated Greeks with the classical writers of antiquity primarily through education. Since these elites favoured the katharevousa, a conservative construct of the spoken Greek language fashioned as a compromise between Classical Greek and the spoken vernacular of the time, the produced translations of the ancient authors had limited appeal across time, and they never aspired to address an audience beyond academia. Thus, all translations of the Aeneid published in Greece during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were literary failures. They were never meant to be read independently from the original Latin, and, inevitably, were largely forgotten following the death of their authors.

This paper presents a translation of the beginning of Aeneid's Book IV along with notes and comments. In the excerpt, Dido tells her sister that she fell in love with Aeneas, and Anna encourages her into a marriage bond with the Trojan hero. The translation follows a metric parameter of proportionality that was adopted for the transposition of the hexameters into decasyllables.

The first complete translation of Vergil’s Aeneid into Turkish was published in 1935–36, during the first decades of the Turkish Republic. The translator Ahmed Reşid (1870–1955) was an intellectual and statesman who not only witnessed but also played active roles in arguably the most radical sociocultural turn in the country’s long history. As Reşid did not know Latin, he used an intermediary French translation as his source text. If this alone might seem from a normative viewpoint an obstacle to success, a broader perspective that considers various approaches in current translation criticism reveals a more complete and nuanced image of Reşid's translation project. My aim here is to contextualize historically and to critically discuss this carefully made but too soon forgotten Vergil translation, by using a case-specific plurality of methods. I argue that Antoine Berman's hermeneutical model is especially useful for studies on classical reception including Vergil translations.

The Roman poet Virgil recounted this legend in his classical epic poem the Aeneid, where the Trojan prince Aeneas is destined by the gods to found a new Troy. In the epic, the women also refuse to go back to the sea, but they were not left on the Tiber. After reaching Italy, Aeneas, who wanted to marry Lavinia, was forced to wage war with her former suitor, Turnus. According to the poem, the Alban kings were descended from Aeneas, and thus Romulus, the founder of Rome, was his descendant.

The paper presents fresh reflections on the role played by Etruscans and Trojans in the dramaturgy of Virgil’s Aeneid, seeking to define the civilisational values common to the two peoples – the peoples that were to form the foundations of a nascent Roman Empire both in Augustus’ political programme and in Virgil’s literary concept. Foregrounded is the thesis that Virgil’s conception and structure of the Aeneid juxtapose the historical fate of the Etruscans with the myth of the Trojans: both peoples are the bearers of new civilisational values, which are manifested in military fortitudo, in the monarchic constitution of the empire, and in religious pietas.

The article examines the reception of the Homeric formula ἐπ’ εὐρέα νῶτα θαλάσσης “on the broad back of the sea” in Greek and Latin poetry, and reconstructs (on the basis of scholia and lexical glosses) how Alexandrian exegesis evaluated this expression. Special attention is given to Vergil’s adaptation of this formula in the Aeneid: in one context Vergil translates the expression neutrally, reproducing Homer’s usage of εὐρέα νῶτα θαλάσσης to speak of the open sea, but omitting the metaphor of the sea’s back (Aen. 7, К рецепции гомеровской формулы ἐπ’ εὐρέα νῶτα θαλάσσης… 47 808–811); in another context, he faithfully reproduces the image, but applies it to the ridge of rocks on which Trojan ships were nearly wrecked (Aen. 1, 108–110).

I: A. 4.436 has caused commentators and interpreters serious worries and have done so for two millennia: (1) Which reading is correct, dederit or dederis? (2) Which varia lectio is preferable, cumulatam or cumulatā? (3) What does morte refer to? (4) What is meant by (veniam) remittere? These issues are constantly seeking some form of unified solution. The 19th century made several attempts at conjectures none of which gained ground. After discussing the best among these at length (Philip Wagner’s 1832 proposal) the time has come to move outside the well-trodden paths and make a new try at a solution. II: Taking his point of departure from an error in Hirtzel’s Vergil edition (OCT 1900) the author advocates a new text at A. 12.423, nullā for nullo, finding the resulting

This article aims to investigate the poetic appropriations of the theme of heroic childhood from the construction of the characters Ascanius-Iulus and the Volscian queen, Camila, in Aeneid Although projected in the heroic age, or in the pre-foundational past, the Virgilian epic reveals important aspects of the Roman perception about the formative phases known as infantia, pueritia and pubertas and about the respective gender roles. In this way, we seek to investigate in which terms the Virgilian heroes perform or transgress these stages, either by excellence or by deviation. O presente artigo tem por objetivo investigar as apropriações poéticas do tema da infância heroica a partir da construção dos personagens Ascânio-Iulo e da rainha volsca, Camila, na Eneida. Embora projetada na idade heroica, ou no passado pré-fundacional, a epopeia virgiliana revela importantes aspectos da percepção romana sobre as fases formativas conhecidas como infantia, pueritia e pubertas e sobre os respectivos papéis de gênero. Busca-se questionar em quais termos os heróis virgilianos performam ou transgridem essas etapas, seja pela excelência ou pelo desvio.

The article deals with the formation of historical memory in the era of the Augustan Principate. It is shown that for the first time in the history of antiquity literature is consciously and thoughtfully used as a means of official ideology. It demonstrates the reflection of the events of the historical era by Virgil, a contemporary and participant of which he was. It is concluded that the use of high art tools for political propaganda is connected with the formation of images of the past in the historical consciousness of society. For citation: Kotova, A. V. (2020). «Eneida» Vergiliya v politike i kul’ture epokhi printsipata Avgusta [Virgil’s “Aeneid” in Politics and Culture of the Augustan Principate]. Tempus et Memoria, 1, 1–2, 97–102.Submitted: 31.08.2020Accepted: 30.10.2020, DOI 10.15826/tetm.2020.1-2.011В статье рассматривается вопрос формирования исторической памяти в эпоху принципата Августа. Показано, что впервые в истории Античности литература сознательно и продуманно используется как средство официальной идеологии. Демонстрируется отражение событий исторической эпохи Вергилием, современником и участником которой он был. Делается вывод о связи использования средств высокого искусства в целях политической пропаганды с формированием образов прошлого в историческом сознании общества.Для цитирования: Котова А. В. «Энеида» Вергилия в политике и культуре эпохи принципата Августа // Tempus et Memoria. 2020. Т. 1. № 1–2. С. 97–102.Поступила в редакцию: 31.08.2020Принята к печати: 30.10.2020

Augustus also promoted the ideal of a superior Roman civilization with a task of ruling the world (to the extent to which the Romans knew it), a sentiment embodied in words that the contemporary poet Virgil attributes to a legendary ancestor of Augustus: tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento—"Roman, remember by your strength to rule the Earth's peoples!"[175] The impulse for expansionism was apparently prominent among all classes at Rome, and it is accorded divine sanction by Virgil's Jupiter in Book 1 of the Aeneid, where Jupiter promises Rome imperium sine fine, "sovereignty without end".[198]

Chapter 6 reconsiders the Earl of Surrey’s reputation as an exemplar of English humanist translation. His translations of Books II and IV of the Aeneid reveal an idiosyncratic, highly experimental translator. Although often and rightly praised for his concise, scrupulously faithful rendering of the Aeneid, Surrey achieved this concision by selectively omitting words from Virgil’s original Latin. His compression of Virgil’s text was driven by his experiments to capture the formal effects of Latin metre. In certain passages, he sought exact line-for-line translations between his English pentameters and Virgil’s hexameters. However, his experiments in poetic form were not taken up by later English translators. Surrey represents only a modern ideal of English humanism, and is unrepresentative of wider sixteenth-century translation practice.

Homer’s The Iliad and Virgil's The Aeneid portray historical events of the Trojan War, and later the foundation of the Roman Empire. Both the Epics are works of great literary complexity that contain profound insights and a wide-ranging account of the human condition. A majority of epics and fiction written during the classical ages have been written in response to historical movements or events such as the Trojan War, and the establishment of the Roman Empire. The heroic effort to destroy Troy and get Helen back to Greece was an epic of struggle and theme covering the first half of the classical ages in Europe. Historians and literary artists have traditionally played a significant role in portraying the great wars and revolutions of the world. Not only, do they reach the minds of the people through their writings, but they also subject every institution of the society to a specific political philosophy. Herodotus and Thucydides two great historians have tried their best to write a history of their times, but Iliad and Aeneid are monumental epics that make specific use of history of the same period, painting deftly a moving saga of the whole Greek and Roman empires. The paper attempts to study the same in the light of the postmodernist theory as a work of Historiographic Metafiction in which historical sense and reality enter into the sphere of art imperceptibly

[No abstract available] Peer reviewed 2021-09-07