Arma virumque canō, Trōiae quī prīmus ab ōrīs
Ītaliam, fātō profugus, Lāvīniaque vēnit
lītora, multum ille et terrīs iactātus et altō
vī superum saevae memorem Iūnōnis ob īram;
I sing of arms and the man, he who, exiled by fate,
first came from the coast of Troy to Italy, and to
Lavinian shores – hurled about endlessly by land and sea,
by the will of the gods, by cruel Juno’s remorseless anger;
(Translation A. S. Kline)
Arma virumque canō, Trōiae quī prīmus ab ōrīs
arma “Arms”: Many people differ widely on why Vergil
began from “arms”. Still it is clear that everyone thinks ridiculous things,
since it is agreed that he took it up this incipit from somewhere, just as has
been shown in his previous life. Now, with “arms” he indicates “war” using metonymy,
for arms, which are used in warfare, just as a toga, which is used in peace can
indicate “peace” metonymically, as Cicero says “arms yield to the toga”[1];
that means war yields to peace. Others assert that “arms” was placed in an
emphatic position firstly because they are victorious, second that they are
divine, and third because they are frequently found collocated to “man (virum)”
as in “bearing a man and arms”[2]
and “arms must be fashioned for a fierce man”[3].
arma virumque “Arms and the man”: the technique is
very common, that we do not present topics in the order in which we treat them.
Consider that first Vergil narrates the wandering of Aeneas and then the
warfare. We even use this technique in prose, as Cicero does in the Verrines,
saying “for, supplying us with hides, with tunics, and with corn, it clothed,
armed, and fed our most numerous armies, without any expense at all to us.”[4]
Several people think that this is hyperbaton, as if in a certain sense “Arms
and the man I sing, whence the Latin nation and the Alban fathers and the walls
of high Rome” and then you would narrate “who first from the Trojan shore” and
in this way the purpose of the work would be declared, why he came to Latium at
the fates’ compulsion. The poetic preface has been divided into theme: “Arms
and the man I sing”, then an invocation: “tell me of the causes, Muse”, and
then his narrative: “there was an ancient city”. The theme has brought up four
topics: the leader (“Arms and the man I sing”), the journey (“who first from
the Trojan shores”), the war (“who suffered much also in war”) and future
generations (“whence the Latin race”).
virum “the man”: he does not name him but he
indicates Aeneas by the context. It was a good decision to add “the man” after “arms”
as one can use “arma” to refer to tools for any skill, such as “the tools of Ceres
(cerealiaque arma)”[5].
cano “I sing”: his verbal choice is polysemous, as it
can indicate three things: praise (“and they were praising (canebant)
the king”[6]),
divinity (“I beg that you sing these things”[7]),
and music, as in this case. The best interpretation is that it indicates music
because poems are sung.
Troiae “of Troy”: Troy is a region in Asia Minor and
Ilium is a city of the region of Troy. Many authors make use of these names as
they wish and instead of the name of the city use the region or the province in
its place, as does Juvenal “and Asia falling by flame and sword”[8].
Probus said that “Troia”, “Graii” and “Aiax” should not be spelled with one “i".
qui primus “who first”: Many people have wondered why
Vergil said Aeneas first came to Italy, when a later he says that Antenor
founded a city before Aeneas’ arrival. It is generally agreed that Vergil wrote
very skillfully using the definition of Italy at the time of Aeneas. For at the
time when Aeneas came to Italy, the border of Italy ended at the Rubicon River,
as Lucan recalls that “this specific boundary separates the Gallic territory
from the Roman colonies”[9].
So it is clear that Antenor did not come to Italy but to Cisalpine Gaul where
Venetia is. Later, when the borders of Italy were extended to the Alps, this
change created confusion. Still many prefer that this question be solved by the
following narrative, and they argue that because of this ambiguity, Vergil
added “to the Lavinian shores” so that it was clear he did not refer to
Antenor. My previous explanation is better than this latter explanation.
primus “first”: First does not mean before whom no
one came, but after whom no one came. As we can see in “O you to whom first the
earth brought forth a horse struck by a great trident, and first gave this
reply to me”[10].
Or it means regarded as the first, as in “who founded the first city on laws,
small Cures”[11].
ab oris “from shores”: This is a specific for a
general. We generally understand that “shores” refers to “land”. The
preposition is intentionally altered, since it would have been more normal if
he had written “ex oris (out of the shores)” rather than “ab oris (away from
the shores)”.
Ītaliam, fātō profugus, Lāvīniaque vēnit
Italiam “Italy”: This (absence of a preposition) is
an example of artistic literary usage, given that we add prepositions before
the names of provinces but never before the names of cities. Still this has
often been read as violating grammatical rules, since he removes the
preposition before the province, saying “Italiam venit” instead of “ad Italiam
venit”. Cicero in the Verrines says “Verres came to Messana (ad
Messanam)”[12]
rather than “he came to Messana (venit Messanam) as would be expected
with the name of a city. It is well known that this technique is used by
authors, either of adding or removing prepositions against the rules. Vergil
says “in forests (silvis), Etruscan, did you think you were hunting wild
animals?”[13]
instead of “in forests (in silvis)” which would be expected. In that
example he removes a preposition that should be there, and so he does when
mentioning a province here. This is a stylistic feature. Now Italy is a part of
Europe, and Italus, a Sicilian king, left Sicily and came to lands near the
Tiber River, and so Italy was named after him. It is clear that Sicilians
inhabited the area where Laurolavinium is since Vergil says in another place “the
Sicilians and the old Sicanians and the Sicanian tribes came”[14].
The i in Italiam is scanned long against its nature, since by nature it is a
short vowel.
fato profugus “a fugitive by fate”: “Fate” applies to
two actions, why he fled and why he came to Italy. And it was smart of Vergil
to add “fate” so that it not appear that Aeneas deserted his homeland because
of crime but because of a desire for a new empire. He is appropriately termed a
fugitive (profugus) because he was wandering far away from his home as a
fugitive far away. But many people define “fugitive” this way, saying that a fugitive
is compelled by necessity to wander far away from their home, and as soon as
they find a new home they are no longer called fugitives but exiles. On both
counts this is incorrect. For Lucan says: “And Celts who, exiled from their
ancient home, had joined 'Hiberus' to their former name”.[15]
And Sallust says “who wanders in no sure exile”.[16]
So, exile is wandering. Some people want “fugitive” to be a participle rather
than a noun. But Vergil did not say that Aeneas was pointlessly made a fugitive
by fate, but by the teachings of the Etruscans. For in the Etruscan legal texts
written by Tages “he who descends from a family of false oaths, he should be
banished by fate and ought to be a fugitive”. Aeneas is distantly descended
from Laomedon who swore a false oath, and as Vergil says elsewhere “long enough
have we paid for the false oaths of Laomedontian Troy with our blood”.[17]
Lavinaque venit litora “and he came to the Lavinan shores”:
This city has three names. First it is called Lavinum from Lavinus the
brother of Latinus; later it was called Laurentum from the laurel found by Latinus
and after its power was reduced after the death of her brother it augmented the
city. Finally it was called Lavinium from Lavinia, the wife of Aeneas. That’s
why we read “Lavina” here and not “Lavinia” and it did not get the name
Lavinium until after Aeneas’ arrival. Thus it is appropriate to call it
Lavinum, as Vergil does here, or Laurentum. Some people prefer to argue
unnecessarily that this is prolepsis (foreshadowing). It was a good
decision to write “Lavina” because it shows to which part of Italy Aeneas came,
since many others at that time also came to Italy, like Capys, who founded
Capua, and Polites, who founded Politorium.
lītora, multum ille et terrīs iactātus et altō
litora “shores”: It is generally agreed that Laurolavinium
was eight miles from the sea. We should not be confused that he wrote “Lavinan
shores” since shore (litus) applies to all the adjoining land as Vergil
says in Book 4: “whose shore is to be plowed”[18]
although nature does not allow a shore to be plowed. And we surely ought to
know this, namely that “shore” refers to “land” as Fabius Maximus in the first
book of his Annales says: “then Aeneas was suffering illness, and he had
arrived at a very meager and very shore-like field”.
multum ille “much he”: It is pronounced multille
by the elision of the “-um”. The use of “ille” (he) is overkill in this line.
It is a particle that has been inserted for metrical needs, so that the verse
has metrical integrity. Now if you took away “ille” then the syntactical
subject would remain from “who first” since we can apply that subject to this
whole sentence. Vergil does the same thing elsewhere “now groaning and stricken
with his right hand, he with his left (ille sinistra)”[19].
This stylistic device is an archaism. He certainly used “ille” because this
word in archaic usage creates a noble and grandiose tone, as in “just as he of
dogs, and he wounded”.
et terris iactatus “and tossed about on lands”: He
was worn out by the bloody portent in Thrace, which appeared from the tomb of
Polydorus, by the plague in Crete, at the Strophades Islands by the Harpies,
and by the storms in Books 1 and 3. When we are tossed about on the waves of
the sea, we are worn out on land. Vergil joined the evil effects of two
different elements in one expression well.
et alto “and on the sea”: This means by way of the
sea. In his navigation he escaped the Scylla and Polyphemus, but Orontes was
lost, as well as Palinurus and Misenus. “Altum” can be understood as referring
to height, as in “and he sent the son of Maia from the sky (ab alto)”[20],
but it can also indicate depth. This is why we call measurements “altitude”
regardless of whether it is height or depth.
vī superum saevae memorem Iūnōnis ob īram;
vi superum “the power of the gods”: This is the
violence of the gods, and Vergil follows Homer who says that Juno begged the
gods to hate the Trojans. Vergil references this when he says: “You too with
justice can spare the Trojan race, and all you gods and goddesses”[21].
Vergil subtly defends the Trojans with this explanation, that the gods did not
pursue the Trojans by their own will, but at the demand of Juno. Many people
think that “power of the gods” can be understood to refer to Iris, Aeolus,
Juturna, and Juno, but a better reading is that it just refers to the power
which the gods have.
saevae “savage”: Since this agrees grammatically with
Juno, many people have wondered why he calls Juno “savage” and they propose
that it is an epithet appropriate for that specific time, since at that time
she was savage toward the Trojans, but they are ignorant that among ancient
writers “savage” actually means “great”. So Ennius uses it this way “she put on
a saeva stola” and Vergil does the same whenever he describes pious
Aeneas, where he says “Aeneas, savage in his maternal weapons”[22].
There he means that Aeneas was “great”.
memorem Iunonis ob iram “because of the mindful anger of
Juno”: Everyone agrees that in writers we can find expressions that are a
reversal of expected grammar, for instance a passive verb instead of an active
verb: “the Amazons made war (bellantur) with painted weapons”[23],
or an active verb instead of a passive: “and weevils infest (populat)
vast heaps of grain”[24].
This variety, or rather usage contrary to expectations, can be found in other
parts of speech, as in using one adverb in place of another, such as “then (hoc)
the firestrong god descends from the sky”[25]
where he uses hoc instead of huc, or with a participle, as in “where
Abas was carried (vectus)” rather than where he was carried (vehebatur),
and also replacing a verb with a noun, as in “the mindful anger of Juno”, not
the anger which remembered, but which was in her mind. On this matter let us
place aside what we have read and not gather more examples. Well our ancient
authors used “memor” not only to indicate “ho memnemenos” the one who is
remembering, but also “ho mnemon” the mindful one. They did this through
the confusion of verb and noun, since “memorem” is a verbal expression, and is
not based on a noun.
[1]
Cic. Off. 1.77
[2] 11.747
[3]
8.441
[4]
Cic. Verr. 2.2
[5]
1.177
[6]
7.698
[7]
6.76
[8]
Juv. 10.266
[9]
Lucan 1.215-6
[10] uncertain
[11]
6.810-11
[12]
Cic. Verr. 5.62 though this differs from some of our manuscripts.
[13]
11.686
[14]
7.795
[15]
Lucan 4.9
[16]
Sall. uncertain
[17] Verg.
G. 1.501-3.
[18]
4.212
[19]
5.457
[20]
1.301
[21]
6.63-4.
[22] 12.81-2.
[23] 11.660
[24]
Verg. G. 1.185.
[25]
8.423
No comments:
Post a Comment