Shane Black Agent of Homeric Closure: Mercury in Aeneid 4

The divine intervention of Mercury in Vergil’s Aeneid, however brief, challenges

the naturalistic reading of Dido’s ill-fated love and stands as so unwieldy a narrative

nuisance that “generations of readers and scholars have come up with more or less

ingenious techniques for writing the disruptive Mercury out of the story.”1 Whereas this

limited attention has almost entirely written Vergil’s contribution to the epic herald

tradition out of the critical record, this paper will address Mercury in Book 4 of the

Aeneid in light of his capacity as an agent of Homeric closure, that is, a force which

signals an end to Homeric precedent.

Previous scholarship has focused almost exclusively on the parallels between

Odyssey 5 and the Mercury episode in Aeneid 4 in accordance with E.L. Harrison’s

evaluation; “It is clear that this is Vergil’s model for Mercury’s first mission to Aeneas.”2

A closer look at Iliad 24 will demonstrate a clearer narrative connection between the

Homeric and Vergilian epics in terms of content and structure since, within each poem,

two characters receive divine assistance from Mercury at pivotal moments; Priam in Iliad

24 when he barters for Hector’s body and Aeneas in Aeneid 4 when he leaves Dido in

Carthage. This Iliadic comparison will also necessitate an analysis of Priam and Aeneas

themselves in terms of their relationship to Mercury who functions more as a guide than

messenger in this context.3

This analysis follows a similar methodology to that of D.C. Feeney in his article

‘Reconciliations of Juno’. Here Feeney demonstrates the force Juno asserts upon the

narrative of epic poetry:

1 Feeney 1998, 105.2 Harrison 1982, 16.3 Harrison 1982, 13.

1

Shane Black Agent of Homeric Closure: Mercury in Aeneid 4

“Anxiety about the validity of the state may be expressed, in the conventions of

epic or lyric, as an apprehension concerning the goodwill of heaven, the divine

sanction. This uncertainty is incorporated by the poets in the perennial and potent

shape of Juno.”4

Just as Juno functions as a structural placeholder for divine anxiety, so in part Mercury

fulfills the poetic function of reshaping the Homeric precedent by embodying a sense of

closure.

To address Mercury as an agent of Homeric closure it is necessary to

analyze his three appearances within the narrative. In Aeneid 1 Mercury arrives

in physical form to establish the goodwill of the Carthaginians: utque novae

pateant Karthaginis arces / hospitio Teucris (“so that the country and

strongholds of this new Carthage would open to the Trojans, as guests,” 1.298-

299).5 In Aeneid 4 he delivers Jupiter’s mandate that Aeneas leave the African

city (4.219-278). In the final episode (4.553-570), Mercury in a vision, Mercurio

similis (“similar to Mercury,” 4.558) shakes Aeneas from his sleep. The tragic

death of Dido and the Trojans’ departure from Carthage frame a larger episode

around these appearances that has been treated as a set piece lifted from Odyssey

5.

The first appearance bears the least resemblance to any kind of Homeric

antecedent. Harrison attributes this to a deficiency of critical attention and provides his

own explanation, namely that, “The well established model for Aeneas’ arrival at

4 Feeney 1984, 1935 All citations are to the Aeneid unless otherwise noted and English translations from A.S. Kline.

2

Shane Black Agent of Homeric Closure: Mercury in Aeneid 4

Carthage is the arrival of Odysseus on the island of Scheria.”6 Here it is not Mercury, but

Athena who tells Odysseus that she spread feelings of hospitality among a hostile people:

οὐδὲ σύ γ᾽ ἔγνως

Παλλάδ᾽ Ἀθηναίην, κούρην Διός, ἥ τέ τοι αἰεὶ

ἐν πάντεσσι πόνοισι παρίσταμαι ἠδὲ φυλάσσω,

καὶ δέ σε Φαιήκεσσι φίλον πάντεσσιν ἔθηκα

(“Still you failed to know me, Pallas Athene, Zeus’ daughter: she who is ever by

your side to protect you in all your adventures. It was I who made the Phaeacians

kind to you,” Od.13.299-302).

Although these lines reflect a similar situation, Vergil’s description of the mission in

Aeneid 1 little resembles this passing remark from Athena. Here Athena boasts of her

great service to Odysseus to shame him into recognizing her efforts as emphasized by the

three indicative verbs in the first person in quick succession at the end of lines 301 and

302: παρίσταμαι, φυλάσσω, and ἔθηκα (“I support (you), “I protect (you), “I

made (you dear to them).” The intent is clearly to make her actions known to Odysseus.

The comparable episode in the Aeneid bears no such self-aggrandizement. In fact, Jupiter

sends Mercury in secret to prevent fati nescia Dido (“Dido, unaware of fate” 1.299) from

interfering with Aeneas’ final purpose of founding Lavinium. The adjective nescia

(“unaware, ignorant”) reinforces the overall tone of secrecy. Apart from the reader, no

other characters are aware of the gods’ intervention in this way.6 Harrison 1982, 8.

3

Shane Black Agent of Homeric Closure: Mercury in Aeneid 4

Here Mercury is very clearly acting upon the mandate of Jupiter in present time.

Vergil stresses the immediacy of Jupiter’s judgment by marking the passage with an

extensive use of the present tense: demittit (“he sends”), pateant (“they open”), volat (“he

flies”), facit (“he makes”), ponunt (“they put”), accipit (“she receives”) (1.297-304). The

present tense invests the scene with concern for Aeneas by heightening the imminent

danger and hostility of the Carthaginians. In Odyssey 13, Athena refers to her

intervention with the Phaeacians in the aorist to express completed aspect since the

danger has been averted. Even if “Vergil in fact provides eight lines to reproduce an

effect that in Homer occupies just one,”7 as Harrison suggests, Vergil shifts the focus of

that effect so radically that another explanation must be sought for the placement of

Mercury here in relation to his other two appearances in Book 4.

Before we can begin to address the placement of this passage in relation to

Mercury’s role in the Aeneid, a closer look at the language of his first appearance will

help to define his role as intermediary between the heavens and the Earth:

Haec ait, et Maia genitum demittit ab alto,

ut terrae, utque novae pateant Karthaginis arces

hospitio Teucris, ne fati nescia Dido

finibus arceret: volat ille per aera magnum               

remigio alarum, ac Libyae citus adstitit oris.

(“Saying this, he sends Mercury, Maia’s son, down from heaven, so that

the country and strongholds of this new Carthage would open to the

7 Harrison 1982, 8.

4

Shane Black Agent of Homeric Closure: Mercury in Aeneid 4

Trojans, as guests, and Dido, unaware of fate, would not keep them from

her territory. He flies through the air with a beating of mighty wings and

quickly lands on Libyan shore,” 1.297-301).

Mercury is not once mentioned in Book 1 by name or by epithet, but as Maia genitum

(“Maia’s son” 1.297). This distinction is significant in that “it was commonly supposed

she [Maia] was an earth-goddess.”8 It then follows that the ‘Earth-born’ Mercury is sent

ab alto, / ut terrae…pateant (“down from heaven so that the country…would open,”

1.298-299). Kline translates terrae as country, but it would be more fitting in this context

to use the literal meaning of terrae, “lands,” to fully appreciate the word play between

alto and terrae especially given their close proximity. Mercury then flies through the air,

volat ille per aera (1.300), to finally land on the shores, oris, of Libya. Here again Vergil

plays with the defined boundaries of the heavens and the earth by demonstrating

Mercury’s ability to navigate both. In the end, Mercury prevents Dido from closing off

the finibus (1.300), (“borders, end, limit”) of Carthage, which, in a larger context,

represents his function as an intermediary god who governs boundaries and liminal states.

This will prove to be of supreme importance when we examine Vergil’s choice of

Mercury to deliver Jupiter’s mandate In Book 4.

When we encounter Mercury in Book 4, Fama (“Rumor,” 4.173-197) has already

begun spreading rumors of the love affair between Dido and Aeneas, and Iarbas has also

pleaded to Jupiter to punish ille Paris (“That Paris,” 4.215) who has stolen Dido and her

kingdoms from him. In this context Jupiter orders Mercury to deliver his message to

Aeneas: naviget (“Let him sail,” 4.237). What follows is “a repeated Homeric prototype

8 Rose 1933, 56.

5

Shane Black Agent of Homeric Closure: Mercury in Aeneid 4

(Iliad XXIV.339-45 = Odyssey V.43-9)”9 in which Mercury’s sandals and wand are

described as he prepares to complete his assignment. There is little doubt that these

passages serve as Vergil’s model since the imagery and structure of the episode is nearly

identical. The scenes in question are literally identical in the Homeric sources: εἵλετο

δὲ ῥάβδον, τῇ τ᾽ ἀνδρῶν ὄμματα θέλγει, / ὧν ἐθέλει, τοὺς δ᾽ αὖτε καὶ

ὑπνώοντας ἐγείρει (“He took with him that wand with which he lulls to sleep or

rouses from slumber whomsoever he will”).10 However, it is worth noting the difference

in emphasis Vergil places on the description of the virgam (“wand” 4.242) in the

comparable passage from Aeneid 4.

tum uirgam capit: hac animas ille euocat Orco

pallentis, alias sub Tartara tristia mittit,

dat somnos adimitque, et lumina morte resignat.

(“Then he took up his wand: he calls pale ghosts from Orcus with it,

sending others down to grim Tartarus, gives and takes away sleep, and

opens the eyes of the dead.” 4.242-244).

Here, although keeping with the Homeric precedent of the sleep granting powers

of the wand, Vergil adds a death function to the description. Feeney takes

especial note of these lines to argue that, unlike Homer, Vergil, “by introducing

Mercury’s power over the dead, alludes to the chthonic dimension of Hermes’

9 Feeney 1998, 113.10 Odyssey 5.47-48; Iliad 24.343-344.

6

Shane Black Agent of Homeric Closure: Mercury in Aeneid 4

personality, as the Psychopompos (‘Escorter of souls’).”11 We will see that

Vergil’s use of Mercury as an agent of Homeric closure requires this function to

be established.

Fully adorned, Mercury descends to the Earth, but not before stopping to

observe Atlas, caelum qui uertice fulcit (“who holds the heavens on his head,”

4.247). This passage echoes the descent of Mercury in Book 1 because the play

between the heavenly and earthly is the focal point of the scene. Vergil embeds

the contrast between the upper and lower spheres in his description of Atlas.

Here “Vergil skillfully mingles the conception of Atlas as a god and as a

mountain.”12 As a god, Atlas is distinguished by the descriptions of his body

parts, caput (“head,” 4.249), umeros (“shoulders,” 4.250), and barba (“beard,”

4.251), but each part is likened to a corresponding natural phenomenon such as

vento (“wind,” 4.249), imbri (“rain,” 4.249), nix (“snow,” 4.250), flumina

(“rivers,” 4.250) and glacie (“ice,” 4.251). These descriptions reinforce the fact

that Atlas is entrenched in the Earth. This close association with the Earth is not

surprising given that Atlas is Mercury’s grandfather and Maia’s father, a point

which Vergil reinforces in 4.258, materno ueniens ab auo Cyllenia proles

(“coming from Atlas, his mother Maia’s father”). The mountain imagery

continues as Mercury is identified solely by his epithet, Cyllenius, “the

Cylenean, of Mt. Cyllene in Arcadia, birthplace of Mercury,”13 at 4.252, 4.258

and 4.276.

11 Feeney 1998, 113.12 Pharr 2009, 215.13 Pharr 2009, 216.

7

Shane Black Agent of Homeric Closure: Mercury in Aeneid 4

Most significantly, the description of Atlas’ head as piniferum (“pine-covered,”

4.249) recalls pinifer…Maenalus (“pine-clad Maenalus,” Ecl.10.14-15) of Eclogue 10 in

which Gallus reflects upon his love for the unfaithful Lycoris. The use of this rare

adjective14 in first position reinforces the thematic similarities between Aeneid 4 and

Eclogue 10 because “Mount Maenalus is in Arcadia,” the birthplace of Hermes, and “the

sorrows of love are an Arcadian theme”.15 The relationship between love and death

implied by the allusion to Eclogue 10 is most evident in the description of Gallus:

indigno cum Gallus amore peribat (“When Gallus was dying of unrequited love”

Ecl.10.10).

The deliberate allusion to pinifer and the Arcadian theme of lost love from

Eclogue 10 in Aeneid 4 suggests that Vergil was mindful of the tension caused by this

kind of love and the need for closure when a relationship has ended. In both instances, the

mortal lovers submit to the authority of higher powers that shoulder the responsibility for

the painful consequences. In the case of Gallus he declares, Omnia vincit Amor (“Love

conquers all” Ecl.10.69, the personified deity), therefore how can anyone resist his

power? Gallus concludes, nos cedamus Amori (“let us give way to Love” Ecl.10.69),

since Love’s influence is inescapable. Closure arises out of Gallus’ submission because

the issue of agency/blame for the ill-fated love has been applied successfully to forces

beyond mortal comprehension. In this way, the Eclogues end with the sentiment that we

should not avoid love, but embrace it. Similarly, Aeneas must acquiesce to the mandate

of Jupiter by means of Mercury who absolves Aeneas of blame for abandoning the

inceptos hymenaeos (“the marriage begun” 4.316). While Mercury is not present in

14 Found only in Ecl.10.14, A.4.249, A.10.708 (not in first position). 15 Coleman 1977, 232.

8

Shane Black Agent of Homeric Closure: Mercury in Aeneid 4

Eclogue 10, the overwhelming influence of the Arcadian setting on the thematic content

of the poem links the Cylenean to this concept and demonstrates how submission to

divine power represents a kind of narrative closure. Naturally, it is appropriate that

Eclogue 10 is the last poem of the collection.

It is worth taking a moment to reflect upon the similarities between Mercury’s

descent and Rumor’s (4.173-197). Feeney notes that Mercury descends “traversing the

opposite direction from that of his opponent, Fama, acting out his function as one who

mediates between realms,”16 but Rumor’s function is not so different. Rumor, like

Mercury, also navigates between the heavens and the Earth: nocte uolat caeli medio

terraeque per umbram / stridens (“She flies, screeching, by night through the shadows

between earth and sky,” 4.184-185). Compared to Mercury, haud aliter terras inter

caelumque uolabat / litus harenosum ad Libyae (“So the Cyllenian-born flew between

heaven and earth to Libya’s sandy shore,” 4.256-257), the difference between the

messengers is a matter of tone since, based on word order, the emphasis lies with per

umbram with Rumor. Rumor is not so much the adversary of Mercury, but an example of

the adulteration of his function.

Finally we come to the first of Mercury’s two admonishments of Aeneas.

Harrison writes that the model for this episode must be Odyssey 5 because,

In each case the hero of the epic is to be sent on his destined way after an heroic

interlude; in each case the god puts on magic sandals and takes up his wand

before leaving; and finally the journey in each case is punctuated by a halt on a

16 Feeney 1998, 113.

9

Shane Black Agent of Homeric Closure: Mercury in Aeneid 4

mountain, followed by a swift flight over the sea that is illustrated by a bird

simile.17

While the circumstances of Mercury’s descent are strikingly similar, these parallels do

little to connect the content of Hermes’ and Mercury’s speeches. As we have seen,

Mercury’s descent comprises a stock epic scene that is present in Aeneid 4, Odyssey 5

and Iliad 24 so its inclusion here does not necessitate that we refer to the Odyssey alone.

Harrison even concedes,

Of course differences abound as well. Above all, in the Odyssey it is the detaining

female, Calypso, who is approached by Hermes and reluctantly agrees to let

Odysseus go, whereas in the Aeneid it is the hero who receives the order and

reluctantly leaves.18

Vergil may have had both Homeric accounts in mind when constructing this passage, but

the differences force us to look deeper into the relation of Hermes to the delayed hero. In

the Odyssey Hermes visits Calypso οὐκ ἐθέλοντα (“unwillingly” Od.5.99) and as an

equal who dines on ἀμβροσίης (“ambrosia” Od.5.93) as an honored guest; αὐτὰρ

ὁ πῖνε καὶ ἦσθε διάκτορος ἀργεϊφόντης (“So the messenger-god, the slayer of

Argus, ate and drank” Od.5.94). Nothing here suggests the urgency and condemnation of

Mercury’s admonishment of Aeneas in Aeneid 4. After all, Aeneas was not being held

against his will as was Odysseus.

17 Harrison 1982, 16.18 Harrison 1982, 16.

10

Shane Black Agent of Homeric Closure: Mercury in Aeneid 4

When Mercury finds Aeneas he is wearing Tyrioque ardebat murice laena /

demissa ex umeris, diues quae munera Dido / fecerat (“the cloak that hung from his

shoulder blazed with Tyrian purple, a gift that rich Dido had made” 4.262-264) while

building up the walls of Carthage. Mercury then challenges Aeneas (invadit “to make an

attack on, set on” 4.265).19 The description of Aeneas’ attire fuels Mercury’s

condemnation of uxorius (“Fondly or excessively attached to one’s wife; marked or

caused by such fondness,” 4.266).20 The insult conveys that Aeneas has been dominated

by a woman, and in the process, he has forsaken not only Jupiter’s divine mandate that

genus alto a sanguine Teucri / proderet, ac totum sub leges mitteret orbem (“he’d

produce a people of Teucer’s high blood, and bring the whole world under the rule of

law” 4.230-231), but also his duties as a man and father.

Familial associations pervade Mercury’s descent. Vergil emphasized Atlas’

relation to his grandson as well as on the naming of Mercury as Cyllenius, but this theme

begins with Jupiter’s speech to Mercury (4.223-237). Jupiter addresses Mercury as nate

(“son” 4.223) and goes on to mention Venus’ designs for Aeneas, her son, to found

Rome; non illum nobis genetrix pulcherrima talem promisit (“This is not what his

loveliest of mothers suggested to me” 4.227-228). Jupiter also sets the precedent for

Mercury to cite abandonment of Ascanius as evidence of Aeneas’ wrongdoing when he

relates this message:

si nulla accendit tantarum gloria rerum

nec super ipse sua molitur laude laborem,

19 OLD entry.20 Oxford Latin Dictionary entry. Kline’s translation, “For love of a wife” does not do the word justice.

11

Shane Black Agent of Homeric Closure: Mercury in Aeneid 4

Ascanione pater Romanas inuidet arces?

(“If the glory of such things doesn’t inflame him, and he doesn’t exert himself for

his own honour, does he begrudge the citadels of Rome to Ascanius?” 2.232-234)

This admonition provides the basis for Mercury’s harshest criticism of Aeneas after he

accosts the hero and explains that Jupiter sent him to deliver a mandate.

si te nulla mouet tantarum gloria rerum

[nec super ipse tua moliris laude laborem,]

Ascanium surgentem et spes heredis Iuli

respice, cui regnum Italiae Romanaque tellus

debetur.

(“If you’re not stirred by the glory of destiny, and won’t exert yourself for your

own fame, think of your growing Ascanius, and the expectations of him, as Iulus

your heir, to whom will be owed the kingdom of Italy, and the Roman lands.”

4.272-276)

Mercury elects to shame Aeneas who is forgetful of his kingdom and affairs, regni

rerumque oblite tuarum (4.267), but unlike Iris,21 the Homeric messenger, Mercury is

21 In the Iliad, “the dominant feature is always the block repetition of the text of the message. Iris is the ancient equivalent of the tape-recorder,” Harrison 1982, 10.

12

Shane Black Agent of Homeric Closure: Mercury in Aeneid 4

allowed some license with Jupiter’s words. Feeney notes that in this address Mercury “is

not so much Peitho, ‘persuasion’, as Logos, ‘rationality’ – though ‘rationality’ of a very

particular kind, namely, the rationality and vision of Jupiter as interpreted by a partial and

energetic witness.”22 Here Mercury, unlike Aeneas, acts in full accordance and with due

respect for his father. This fact heightens the tension brought about by Aeneas’ delay

since Mercury is a good son and Aeneas a bad father.

Vergil’s concern for paternal fidelity in Aeneid 4 echoes another Homeric father,

the Priam of Iliad 24. In fact Hermes’ guidance of Priam through the Greek camp to

retrieve Hector’s body from Achilles provides the template for Mercury’s role in Aeneid

4, and in the process, draws a distinct parallel between the two fathers. Though seemingly

different in content, Vergil perverts and inverts the circumstances of Priam’s encounter in

an effort to surpass the Homeric precedent and reinvent the role of Mercury.

Unlike in the Odyssey, Hermes takes a more active role in the plot of the Iliad and

leaves the task of simple message-delivery to Iris, “the mouthpiece of Zeus.”23 As

Harrison notes, “Hermes, then, is brought in to act as escort, and, far from giving him any

text to transmit, Zeus actually stresses his role as companion and listener”24 as evident in

Zeus’ commands:

Ἑρμεία, σοὶ γάρ τε μάλιστά γε φίλτατόν ἐστιν

ἀνδρὶ ἑταιρίσσαι, καί τ᾽ ἔκλυες ᾧ κ᾽ ἐθέλῃσθα,

βάσκ᾽ ἴθι καὶ Πρίαμον κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας Ἀχαιῶν

22 Feeney 1998, 115. 23 Feeney 1998, 107.24 Harrison 1982, 13.

13

Shane Black Agent of Homeric Closure: Mercury in Aeneid 4

(“You love to guide travellers, and give ear to whomever you wish, so go and

escort Priam to the hollow ships of the Greeks” Il.24.334-336).

In both epics, Hermes urges the two fathers onward to facilitate the advancement of the

plot from a state of stagnation into a state of narrative closure by fulfilling his role as

“archetypically πολύτροπος (‘of many turns’, ‘shifty’), the crosser of boundaries.”25

Priam moves from the safety of the Trojan city into hostile territory with Hermes’

blessing and Aeneas crosses from the defined boundaries of Carthage toward Italy, but he

also moves from a state of impiety back onto the path of the fate established for him by

Jupiter. The importance of movement is highlighted by Hermes’/Mercury’s first

encounter with both fathers since in each instance he asks them a question about their

spatial position: πῇ πάτερ ὧδ᾽ ἵππους τε καὶ ἡμιόνους ἰθύνεις / νύκτα δι᾽

ἀμβροσίην, ὅτε θ᾽ εὕδουσι βροτοὶ ἄλλοι; (“Father, where are you off to, with

your mules and horses, through the sacred night, when ordinary mortals sleep?”

Il.24.362-363), and

tu nunc Karthaginis altae               

fundamenta locas pulchramque uxorius urbem

exstruis?

(“For love of a wife are you now building the foundations of high

Carthage and a pleasing city?” 4.265-267).

25 Feeney 1998, 105.

14

Shane Black Agent of Homeric Closure: Mercury in Aeneid 4

A subtle difference marks each of these questions, however, in that Priam ἰθύνεις

(“guides, directs”) in the present tense because his action is ongoing and Hermes’ task is

to help that movement along, while Aeneas exstruis, in the process of building the walls

of Carthage, is standing still and Mercury’s task is to make him move along.

Vergil also inverts the tone of the Priam episode. When Priam happens upon

Hermes he is in the process of risking harm piously for the sake of his son. This fact is

attested by Hermes’ concern for Priam’s wellbeing: οὐδὲ σύ γ᾽ ἔδεισας μένεα

πνείοντας Ἀχαιούς, / οἵ τοι δυσμενέες καὶ ἀνάρσιοι ἐγγὺς ἔασι; (“Do

you not fear the Greeks and their fury, an enemy without shame, close by?” Il.24.364-

365). With Aeneas we instead find that he has neglected his responsibilities and has put

his son at risk unknowingly. This dynamic explains the respect Hermes shows to Priam

and the distain with which Mercury carries out his business in Aeneid 4. Priam represents

the paragon of fatherliness as he is compared to Jupiter when Hermes first addresses him

as πάτερ (“father” Il.24.362) and later when he states that in carrying out his mission he

will protect Priam because φίλῳ δέ σε πατρὶ ἐΐσκω (“you are the very image of my

own father” Il.24.371). Priam goes so far as to refer to Hermes as ὦ τέκος (“child”

Il.24.425). To call attention to this disparity Vergil casts Mercury as the upset father

scolding the disobedient child, Aeneas.

The parallels of Priam’s journey continue to govern Aeneas’ relationship to

Mercury when the divine guide once again visits the delaying hero at 4.556-570 in a

dream. Though Mercury ordered that Aeneas leave immediately at 4.265 a second

intervention is necessary before Aeneas finally resolves to flee. In Mercury’s second

speech to Aeneas in a dream (4.560-570), the god implores Aeneas to leave on account of

15

Shane Black Agent of Homeric Closure: Mercury in Aeneid 4

imminent danger; nec quae te circum stent deinde pericula cernis (“can’t you see the

danger of it that surrounds you?” 4.561). The danger is highly personalized this time and

made all the more real by Mercury’s claims that Dido illa dolos dirumque nefas in

pectore uersat / certa mori, uariosque irarum concitat aestus (“Determined to die, she

broods on mortal deceit and sin, and is tossed about on anger’s volatile flood” 4.563-

564). The specific naming of the enemy serves as another successful inversion of the

depersonalized danger for Priam of the Greek camps.

If the question of Mercury’s visit represents a narrative nuisance then what are we

to make of the fact that he visits twice? Harrison cites a careful balance of piety and

tragic love as the culprit since “On the one hand he [Vergil] had to depict Aeneas being

called back to his duty by the god, and responding to that call without hesitation: and on

the other Aeneas could not actually leave at once because the Dido tragedy had still to

run its course.”26 In this case Mercury absorbs the blame for Dido’s death while Aeneas

maintains a lack of culpability on account of the influence of high powers. On this issue

Feeney interprets the presence of Mercury as a progression from external agency to

internal (psychological) agency: “The divine communication that so terrified Aeneas and

so revolted Dido has now become an integral part of Aeneas’ world.”27 Here, the second

visitation represents the culmination of Aeneas’ internal struggle to understand Jupiter’s

command. Once Aeneas digests the gravity of his situation he no longer requires the

guidance of Mercury because that guidance becomes a part of his being.

If we continue to explore the vein of this internalization another dream sequence

comes into focus, that of Ennius’ Homer in the proem of the Annales. The fragmentary

26 Harrison 1982, 23.27 Feeney 1998, 123.

16

Shane Black Agent of Homeric Closure: Mercury in Aeneid 4

nature of the text of the Annales does not allow for an in-depth analysis of its tropes, but

certain scenes have been preserved in the literary record. Ennius’ dream of Homer is one

such account, and “This dream, which has fascinated ancients and moderns alike, is still

the subject of much dispute, primarily centered on the extent of its original content and

on the constitution of its remaining fragments.”28 However, if we accept Skutsch’s outline

of extant verses from the epic certain similarities to the Vergil’s Mercury come to the

fore. The proem begins:

Musae, quae pedibus magnum pulsatis Olympum

somno leni placidoque reuinctus

uisus Homerus adesse poeta29

(“Muses, who with your feet beat mighty Olympus; Fettered in soft calm sleep

Homer the poet appeared at my side” 1.1-3)30

Two aspects of this proem link the content of the Annales to Mercury in the Aeneid: the

mountain imagery and the dream. The Muses’ beating, pulsatis (1.1), at the mountain

prefigures the winds lashing the mountain during Mercury’s descent in Aeneid 4.249:

piniferum caput et uento pulsatur et imbri (“pine-covered crown is always wreathed in

dark clouds and lashed by the wind and rain”). Remember that pinifer in Aeneid 4 recalls

pinifer…Maenalus in Eclogue 10.14-15, which evokes a sense of closure. The

combination of mountain imagery and the verb pulsare (“to beat, pulsate”) in the same

28 Aicher 1989, 227. 29 Skutsch 1985, 7030 Translation by E.H. Warmington.

17

Shane Black Agent of Homeric Closure: Mercury in Aeneid 4

metrical position unites the theme of both works. Here, Vergil has employed the imagery

of Ennius’ proem, but shifted an inaugural moment to one of closure.

Though Ennius’ intent was clearly to describe the Muses exclusively, Vergil was

able to integrate Mercury, the giver of sleep, into the context of Aeneas’ dream because

of the agency of sleep that conquers (revinctus 1.2)31 Ennius in this passage from the

Annales. In Ennius’ dream Homer speaks about reincarnation and recalls his previous life

as a peacock before being reborn within Ennius.32 Aicher observes that “the dream of

Homer that prefaced the epic was in part designed and included to render the innovative

and experimental qualities of Ennius’ style more immediately acceptable and plausible to

his Roman audience,”33 because, after all, “Ennius is not imitating Homer- he is

Homer!”34 Vergil, by reinventing this scene, absorbs both the legacy of Ennius, but also

that of Homer by way of this reincarnation. Vergil’s novel construction of Mercury as an

agent of closure then binds the authors’ works together. This becomes clearer as the

subject matter of the Annales shifts to the Trojan War with an image of dying Priam:

Quom ueter occubuit Priamus sub Marte Pelasgo (“When aged Priamus was laid low

beneath the warring Pelasgian” 1.14). The death of Priam transcends both works and acts

as a marker of closure as Bowie observes, “descriptions of the fall of cities from tragedy

and epic all serve to mark the finality of Priam's death. It is the last individual death in the

sack of Troy, and the fact that it is also the nastiest in Book 2 (if not in the whole Aeneid)

also gives it an element of finality; we may compare the death of Turnus.”35 Of course

31 Skutsch reads as, “‘bound’, as ann.470, and regularly in classical poetry; for the metaphor compare e.g. Lucr.4.1027 somno devincti,” 153. 32 Aicher 1989, 227.33 Aicher 1989, 229.34 Aicher 1989, 231.35 Bowie 1990, 473.

18

Shane Black Agent of Homeric Closure: Mercury in Aeneid 4

problems of closure are not limited to the outcome of Turnus’ final duel, but are evident

as early as Aeneid 4 with Mercury. The critical annoyance with Mercury is more a

problem of closure than of appearance.

Hardie’s contention that historical allusions to Roman history create a literary

landscape in which “the question of an ending is thus complicated by the presence within

the poem of more than one ending”36 in fact supports the notion that closure is possible

within the epic, albeit within a much smaller framework. We may view the content of

Aeneid 4 as one such ending that is bounded by the appearances of Mercury in Book 1

and Book 4. In this instance it is not the historical, but the literary allusion that marks a

distinct episode. Within the span of these appearances Vergil not only composes his own

ending to the Iliad in Aeneid 2, but he unites the figures and content of his predecessors’

works in Aeneid 4 as an inversion of their narrative legacies. These devices banish any

need or expectation on the reader’s part that Vergil follow in meek imitation. Vergil,

unlike Ennius, does not beg our permission to renovate the epic genre; he instead

assimilates and subsequently transcends our preconceptions of poetry while Mercury, in

his quintessential capacity, guides us beyond each threshold.

Bibliography:

Aicher, Peter. "Ennius' Dream of Homer." The American Journal of Philology 110.2 (1989): 227-32.

Austin, R.G. Aeneid IV. Oxford: Oxford UP. 1973.

Bowie, A. M. "The Death of Priam: Allegory and History in the Aeneid." The Classical Quarterly 40.2 (1990): 470-81.

Feeney, D. C. "The Reconciliations of Juno." The Classical Quarterly 34.1 (1984): 179-94.

36 Hardie 1997, 142.

19

Shane Black Agent of Homeric Closure: Mercury in Aeneid 4

Feeney, D. C. The Gods in Epic: Poets and Critics of the Classical Tradition. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991.

Feeney, D. C. "Leaving Dido: The Appearance(s) of Mercury and the Motivations of Aeneas." A Woman Scorn’d: Responses to the Dido Myth. Faber and Faber, 1998. 105-27.

Ganiban, Randall Toth. Vergil, Aeneid 2. Newburyport, MA: Focus, 2008.

Ganiban, Randall Toth. Vergil, Aeneid 1. Newburyport, MA: Focus, 2009.

Hardie, W. R. "The Dream of Ennius." The Classical Quarterly 7.3 (1913): 188-95.

Harrison, E. L. “Vergil’s Mercury.” Vergilius, supp. Vol. 2 “Vergilian Bimillenary Lectures” (1982): 1-47.

Jenkyns, Richard. Classical Epic: Homer and Virgil. London: Bristol Classical, 1992.

Johnson, W. R. Darkness Visible: A Study of Vergil's Aeneid. Berkeley: University of California, 1979. 49-75.

Kirk, Geoffrey Stephen. The Iliad: a Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1990.

Kline, A. S. Poetry In Translation. 01 Dec. 2011. Web. 06 Dec. 2011. <http://www.poetryintranslation.com/>.

Macleod, C. W. Iliad: Book XXIV. Cambridge: Univ. Pr., 1982.

Nagy, Gregory. "Homer the Classic in the Age of Virgil." Homer: The Classic. Cambridge, Mass., 2009. 73-187.

Richardson, Nicolas. The Iliad: A Commentary. Books 21-24 ed. Vol. VI. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993.

Rose, H. J. "The Cult of Volkanus at Rome." The Journal of Roman Studies 23 (1933): 46-63.

Sklenar, Robert. "The Death of Priam: 'Aeneid' 2.506-558." Hermes 118.1 (1990): 67-75.

Skutsch, Otto. The Annals of Q. Ennius. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985.

Warmington, E. H. Remains of Old Latin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1988. Print.

Willcock, M. M., ed. The Iliad of Homer: Books XIII-XXIV. Hong Kong: St. Martin's, 1984.

20

Shane Black Agent of Homeric Closure: Mercury in Aeneid 4

21