Short Assignment 2

            In the style of the great spoken epics of old, The Aeneid uses plenty of repetition.  Epithets and phrases are repeated word for word, ideas and motifs echo throughout.  Some are typical to the genre, like similes and epithets, while others are unique to The Aeneid (the unbinding of women’s hair, the motif of fire).  One such example is the use of ekphrasis.  Ekphrasis is an epic figure of speech, in which one form of art is used to describe another, like a book describing a picture, or a picture describing a book.  It is likely the result of oral tradition, which depended on repetitive speech patterns to increase the ability of bards to memorize songs, as well as to make it easier for audiences to remember what has happened and who is who.  Ekphrasis increases the enjoyment of the audience by giving them rich visual descriptions, and in turn allowing them to appreciate the great beauty of art works even without being able to see the art themselves.  In The Aeneid, ekphrasis is used in two powerful ways, in describing the door to Juno’s temple that tells the story of the fall of Troy, and in describing the shield of Aeneas.

            The description of the door is rather short, starting on line 540 of book one, and continuing only to line 598.  It is at the beginning of Aeneas’ journey – Troy has only just fallen, and the Trojans have escaped the threat of death by storm to land on Carthage shores.  He really hasn’t been very far, in the story and in the broader historical sense, before he stumbles upon this temple.  The doors describe the fall of Troy – “/the fame of the Trojan War now known throughout the world/” (Bk. 1, 552).  To see these painful events so soon is cutting to Aeneas, and forces him to cry out, “/…is there anywhere, any place on earth/ not filled with our ordeals?.../…/even here, the world is a world of tears/and the burdens of morality touch the heart/” (Bk. 1, 555-559).  This is his history, bound in the unforgiving medium of bronze.  It illustrates an ending, but symbolizes a beginning. 

            The shield, in contrast, illustrates a beginning but symbolizes an ending.  The shield shows the future triumphs of Rome, but is given to Aeneas at such a time in the story that it is associated with an end.  The instance occurs at the very end of the eighth of twelve books, and just before the epic deciding battle.  However, Venus herself states, “/just forged to perfection by all my husband’s skill:/the gifts I promised!  There’s no need now, my son,/ to flinch from fighting swaggering Latin ranks/or challenging savage Turnus to a duel!/”, thus indicating that now it is the Trojans who have gods behind them, supporting their cause (Bk. 8, 721-724).  At this point, it is clear that though there will be hardship, the Trojans will be victorious and finally the Roman race can settle.  The description begins around line 720 and continues to line 859 – a considerably longer description.  Perhaps the difference in length is a hint at the historical significance of both events.  The fall of Troy is inconsequential when stacked against the greatness of the Roman Empire.  In the historical context, Virgil wrote The Aeneid as a propaganda piece for Caesar Augustus, the ruler of Rome at the time.  It makes sense that Virgil would spend a greater amount of time expounding the future victories of the Romans (where military glory is a community virtue) than focusing on the unfortunate circumstances that brought on the need to found Rome.  Within the story, it is an opportunity to show Aeneas that his toil will come to something, that all his efforts will be worth it due to the great nation that is to come.  It is fated this way. 

The examples of ekphrasis in The Aeneid bring up a comparison between history and fate.  In both cases, the events described were fated to be, and in the broader historical context, both sets of events were history.  How inevitable, then, is history?  Is fate?  In story, it seems both are inescapable – certainly in the epics, where actions are controlled by the whims of the gods.  It would be curious to compare the happenings of The Aeneid and The Odyssey with other epics where the gods (and therefore fate) play a lesser role.  Do such epics exist? Interference by gods is a trope of epic, but it seems the trope could be satisfied with god’s playing a lesser role.  In other genres, it seems the trope is that fate is escapable, that the characters have the ability to be whomever they desire.  Why did the omnipotent gods take a place of importance in these ancient epics, but not in more modern genres? 

History is a little more cut and dry – once something happens, it is truly inescapable.  That series of events occurred; nothing can be done to undo them.  However, how history is passed down could have an effect on “what happened”.  The phrase, “History is written by the victors,” is not without truth.  Those who have control over the oral tradition decide what is important to pass down and what can be swept away.  Consider the case of the treatment of Native Americans by the United States federal government.  The harsh, cruel, and unconstitutional actions of the government against Native Americans have been documented, but are still not taught to the population at large.  It has been deemed by the government (“the victors”) a piece of history we do not need to acknowledge, and as such that portion of history is falling away.  The government, for example, has yet to offer an official apology to the Native Americans, nor reimbursed their people for the land and goods effectively stolen from them as a result of the government ignoring treaties and agreements.  In The Aeneid, the fall of Troy, in all its glory, is entrenched in a bronze door.  The rise of Rome is embossed in a golden shield.  The story of the victors, told once again.