The Underworld excursion in the Aeneid is much more extreme than that in the Odyssey. While Odysseus mainly talked to ghosts, Aeneas and the Sibyl actually have to make a journey - which is a lot more interesting to read about.
It does make me wonder why Virgil would add so much to the journey. If he was mimicking Homer, why not just leave the Underworld episode as brief as Homer's? Why not let Aeneas simply talk to his father over a sacrificial carcass, instead of making the journey into the actual deeps of the Underworld? Disparate social/religious/traditional ideas about the Underworld and how to talk to the dead?
Did Virgil just really want to take Aeneas through the different parts of the Underworld? Since he knew people in various destinations in the Underworld, maybe he had to make the journey to encounter them - to tie up loose ends, as in Dido's case. It's an interesting decision, anyway. The structure of Virgil's underworld is fun to examine.
PS I commented on Brydon's post.
Do you think the difference between the two are because of the diversity of which the Greeks and Romans wanted to perceive it? The souls of The Odyssey seem much more tormented than the majority of The Aeneid.
ReplyDelete