Aeneid Book 6

My fellow classmates,

"There are two Gates of Sleep. One, they say, is horn and offers easy exit for true shades. The other is finished with gleaming ivory, but through it the Spirits send false dreams to the world above. Anchises escorted his son as he talked, then sent him with the Sibyl through the Gate of Ivory."
This quote, found at the very end of book 6, pages 160-161 to be specific, makes me think heavily back to the plenary lecture where the idea of Virgil taking subtle digs at Augustus during the writing of the Aeneid was brought up. The passage quoted occurs as Aeneas and the Sybil are coming back from the underworld, and are returning to the ships. When reading the books assigned for today, this is the area that stood out to me the most. Why would Virgil have the hero, the ancestor of Augustus, return to the world through the gates designated for spirits to send false dreams?  Perhaps it is just because the plenary was recent and its message is partly in my mind, but I see this as Virgil hinting that this bloodline that Augustus claims is not actually intact. Aeneas continues his quest and his adventures, but never fully returns from the underworld, and in that way, Virgil is showing that there is no real relation between Augustus, the man who at one time took his land away, and now is telling him to write the epic depicting his lineage as related to the gods, and Aeneas, the hero and the son of a god. I know this could maybe be seen as a bit of a stretch, so I would love to hear all of your ideas, what do you think the purpose or outcome of Virgil's inclusion of this is on the story, or in the world in which he was writing?

The Aeneid Books 1-3

Since most of us are familiar with Greek and Roman literature from our Search classes last semester, I thought it might be interesting to compare and contrast the Romans’ views of the gods with one of the philosophies we more recently discussed—Epicureanism. The Epicurean philosophy rejects the idea of an afterlife, and because of this, emphasizes that humans need not live to please the gods. The gods are described as materialistic and imperfect, and “Nature” is noted as a more influential force on humans than the gods. One similarity between the two beliefs is that the gods are very human in their downfalls, and can at times act selfishly and imperfectly. However, as demonstrated in the opening books of The Aeneid, the Romans hold very different beliefs about the overall importance of the gods. The Roman gods play an essential role in the lives of the mortals. They are known to meddle in the lives of the people for pure entertainment and sometimes even use them as pawns in their own personal vendettas. Even so, the Romans believe it is to their benefit to live a life that pleases the gods, and they practice numerous rituals and celebrations in their honor, so that they may be in favor with them. The Aeneid opens with Virgil calling on a muse to explain why Juno, the queen of the gods, is so angry with Aeneas. The fact that this is how the epic begins shows the importance of the gods in the lives of the Romans, which contrasts with their lack of importance in the lives of the Epicureans. Rather than living by the order of nature, the Romans live by the order of the gods, who they believe control nature and everything else. It will be interesting to see how the different philosophies differ and agree in their views of different subjects, such as the gods.  

The Aeneid Book 1

The Aeneid begins with the quote, "Arms and a man I sing, the first from Troy, a fated exile to Lavinian shores In Italy. On land and sea, divine will-- And Juno's unforgetting rage-- harassed him...There his Latin race rose." This quote gives the reader an idea of what this story will be about: an epic journey of a man, Aeneas, searching for a new home after his, Troy, has been decimated by the Trojan wars. This quote also indicates to the reader that this is a piece that is meant to be performed, not just read silently.  It shows that the gods will play an important role in this story, as Aeneas and his fugitives are being battered due to Juno's anger. As this is a Roman epic, Juno is the Roman version of Athena, the Greek goddess of wisdom and war, who helped the Greeks throughout the Trojan war in the Iliad and the Odyssey. It is also believed that this is all happening due to fate, which today is not a typical viewpoint, because people like to think that they are in charge of their own destinies, and able to work toward anything. There are many different techniques for starting a piece of literature, but this one makes sense because it gives the reader an idea of what they will be hearing with a dramatic flair to keep them interested. Most importantly, it indicates the overall purpose of the story, portraying the beginning of Rome's glory.

Letter 5

In Seneca’s passage on Moderation in Letter 5, he addressed the importance of a philosopher living a life of moderation. I found this philosophical reasoning for moderation to be impressively shallow. Seneca explains the necessity of moderation not as a mean to soul making but purely for its utility in maintaining a commendable appearance in the “common man’s” eyes. Through living a life of moderation, the philosopher rejects any extremism, denying themselves both luxury and affliction. The common man thus can look to the philosopher and feel that their life is reasonable and attainable. “Our endeavor must be to make our way of life better than the crowd’s, not contrary to it; else we shall turn from us and repel the people we wish to improve.” (P. 170) I felt that this passage ultimately was Seneca explaining how a philosopher can maintain successful relations with the public. When Seneca says, “Anyone who enters our home will admire us rather than our furniture” he is revealing the ultimate superficiality of his argument; his primary concern is what the public thinks when they interact with him, notably, on a very shallow level (P. 171). The bulk of the letter is concerned with how he, and other philosophers, are viewed in other peoples eyes. At no point does Seneca explain how a life of moderation is vital to humans as individuals, beyond its use in maintaining public relations. A possible explanation for this shallowness is that Seneca is attempting to protect himself and other philosophers from persecution of the state and to avoid a similar fate as Socrates. By living his proposed life of moderation, and avoiding extremes, the public as well as the state will not feel threatened by philosophers. However, isn’t the basis of Seneca’s Stoic philosophy to not fear dying a noble death? (Hannah Porter)

Letter 3

In Letter 3, Seneca talks about friendship. He says, "But if you think a man you do not trust as fully as yourself is a friend, you are grievously mistaken and do not understand the meaning of true friendship." I agree with Seneca. Many people have acquaintances and "friends", but true friendship should be someone that you can tell everything to and trust that they will keep it a secret. Seneca also says that before you think of someone as a friend, you must be skeptical of them: "After friendship there must be full trust, but before it, discretion." Before you go telling someone all of your secrets, you must know that they are trustworthy and and reliable. Seneca also speaks about the types of people that disclose all of their stories and secrets to anyone that will listen and those that tell no one anything. He says both of these are incorrect. Seneca asks these questions, "Why should I watch my words in the presence of my friend? Why should I not consider myself alone in his presence?" Everyone should have a friend that they can trust as much as they trust themselves, and based on everything that Seneca has said and the questions he asks, he understood the true meaning of friendship.

Dear fellow searchers, 

Seneca’s main argument in On Providence is to answer the long sought question of theodicy. He goes on to state that the evil, through the pain it causes, is used as a test from god to strengthen the righteous – “He does not treat the good man like a toy, but tries him” (29). He goes on to further bolster his point in saying that all adversity is for the good of the man, “All adversity [a stalwart man] regards as exercise” (30). My argument is that all pain is not for the better. We coexist with pain in a mutualistic and parasitic relationship. We sometimes gain knowledge and power as a result from pain, but at other times, pain causes irreparable harm to our bodies such as blindness. We gain nothing from blindness. Our other senses may enhance, but as a whole, the sense of sight is worth far more than what you could gain from minuscule other sensory enhancements. Seneca also tries to demonstrate that pain makes you better by using other notable people as examples, but by doing this, he uses the logical fallacy of hypothesis contrary to fact. He states, “Because the hand burned routed the king whom his hand armed could not” (34), referring to Mucius’s burned hand. What stipulates that Mucius’s pain results in him being the king he was?  There is no discernable truth to that fact, and there is no way possible to begin trying to prove the fact. We cannot assume that all adversity brings out the good in man. While you can specify that some hardship may help us in the end, we cannot conclude that all hardship will improve the man in the end.

-Brad B.