To open his thoughtful study, S. writes, ‘the Aeneid begins and ends with deeds provoked by memory’ (p. 1). Aeneas, in particular, finds ‘an abiding cultural and moral value in his history’ (p. 64), though he ‘is acutely aware of the tenuous nature of memory’ (p. 93). Juno's memory is less tenuous, and its pertinacity (Aen. 1.4) forms a well-known ring (saevae memorem Iunonis, 1.4 with saevi monimenta doloris, 12.945). Aeneas and Juno, in particular, are deeply committed ‘to their respective mnemonic goals’ (p. 94).
Virgil writes during the Augustan milieu, just when a new ruler instantiates Roman memory. Nevertheless, the Aeneid is not a ‘veiled endorsement or critique of Augustus' mnemonic policy' (p. 20). For his analysis, S. takes a broadly philological approach (close reading) to show how Virgil constructs a ‘vast social memory’, ‘integrating traumatic past with uncertain future’ and exploring ‘movement between past and future’ (pp. 2–4). S.'s mnemonic lexicon (nine key words) distinguishes between temporal and non-temporal recollection.
Memory assists the Trojans in their movement towards Italy. As leader, Aeneas employs memory to transition his people from the past, even if that means Aeneas must manipulate memory, as in his interpretation of the Celaeno prophecy, of which S. offers a rich discussion (pp. 28ff.). Aeneas deliberately attributes that prophecy to his father (cf. p. 198) ‘to convince the Trojans’ (p. 43). Controlling memory in this way, Aeneas forges ahead.
The future that Aeneas orchestrates repeats earlier patterns that provide solace (p. 33). Thus, the Sibyl instructs Aeneas ‘how to move forward by remembering’ (p. 40) and, in Aeneas' meeting Evander at Pallanteum, (alliteratively) the ‘past is a potential paradigm’ (p. 52), something evident, too, in the Heldenschau of Aeneid 6. Yet memory is not perfect: Anchises sometimes recalls less, Latinus more clearly, while Diomedes strikingly, does not wish to remember. Aeneas, however, cannot forget, nor does he want to; rather, he intentionally cultivates painful memories (p. 60).
Chapter 2 focuses on Aeneas' recollection of Troy, a memory that encourages the new Roman enterprise. Aeneas' first words amidst the sea storm (1.95ff.) demonstrate his negotiation with his own memory, as he fears lest all recollection of him be lost. The preservation of both his memory and that of the Trojans provides a basis for hope (pp. 79–80). Aeneas is similarly contemplative when he inspects Juno's temple in Carthage (1.450ff.). Though he may be deluding himself (p. 86), Aeneas interprets the record positively. The famous description of Juno's ire as memorem may play upon the goddess' Capitoline designation, Juno Moneta, who later protects the Romans. Her wrath, driven by past wrongs (cf. the ‘wrath’ reference at Agamemnon 155), leads Aeneas to engage in ‘a series of attempts to harness the recollection … of past sufferings’ (p. 75).
S. also considers Aeneas' affair with Dido, the complexity of which is reflected in the ambiguous genitive of Chapter 3's title (‘Memories of Dido’). Though S. might have done even more with his discussion of Dido's attempts not to forget Sychaeus (pp. 99–100), his discussion of Cupid enforcing forgetfulness is interesting. S. also addresses Aeneas' manipulation of memory in Aen. 2: Aeneas' self-representation and apostrophes evoke pathos in his audience (pp. 104–5), while Sinon, whose false memories and bold mendacity lead to Troy's fall, is himself a part of Aeneas' constructed memory.
Chapter 4 considers how the narrator appropriates memory from Memory's daughters, the Muses; they may help with ‘specific facts and … lengthy lists’ (p. 130), but memory lies within the narrator's bailiwick. There is also mnemonic tension between narrator and character: Mezentius envisions Lausus as a ‘living reminder of his father's victory over a brigand’. Yet, through his death, Lausus enhances his father's memory, demonstrating valour that, paradoxically, Aeneas will commemorate at Book 11's opening. Camilla, on the other hand, fulfils too well both her own wish to be remembered (cf. 11.778–80) and Arruns' prayer not to be (pp. 134–5).
S.'s consideration of aetiological memory is excellent, particularly his delicate observation about the apostrophe to Caieta, where S. shows how the narrator positions himself between the Trojan past and Roman present (pp. 139–40). S. might have expanded on the notion that competing memories give rise to varying perspectives, problematising ‘a standardized version of the past’ (p. 142). After a fruitful comparison of the commemorations of Euryalus and Lausus to that of Pallas (pp. 142–54), the chapter concludes with consideration of direct address as a bridge between narrator and audience. Apostrophe offers a preserved memory that is not mere emotional variation but competition for the reader's memory (p. 157).
Chapter 4 discusses the ‘imperatives’ of memory in the Aeneid's final book, whose features ‘threaten to obscure just how close Turnus comes to saving his life’ (p. 159). Turnus' appeal to memory is effective but not effectual – perhaps fittingly so, as the way that memory is employed in Aen. 12 is uneven. Aeneas' instruction to Ascanius to recall wistfully the Trojan past (12.439–40), complete with Homeric intertext (Il. 6.479–80), points up the ‘yearning for continuity between … generations’ (p. 164).
Memory is also important for the narrator's consideration of the poem's opening theological issue (memorem … iram). Because for Virgil ‘there is no muse’ (p. 171; cf. Hesiod, Th. 98–103), the narrator will, at 12.500ff., himself anticipate Juno and Jupiter's reconciliation. Juno requests that the memory of Troy fall into oblivion: ‘the Trojans’ martial victory … come[s] at the expense of their mnemonic defeat' (p. 178).
For S., the concluding scene is fecund ground: Turnus' appeal offers two mnemonic perspectives, future memory of the closing duel and past memories of fathers. Turnus expects Aeneas to collate maudlin thoughts of Anchises with the possibility of a bereft Daunus (cf. Priam/Achilles, Il. 24.486–7). Though the analysis waxes, if not pedantic, obscure when S. ponders (p. 181) what Aeneas knew about the ransom of Hector's body (an act recognisable in Aen. 1's ekphrasis), the connection of Daunus and Anchises through memory is spot on. Though he brushstrokes it, I would like to have seen S. draw out further for the final scene (p. 182) the tension inherent in Anchises' twofold admonition, ‘Remember … to spare the subject and war down the proud’ (6.851–53): Turnus is both.
S. demonstrates well the ‘astounding’ (p. 183) nature of Turnus' plea, which offers Aeneas the possibility of Turnus' memory being forever vile and thus ‘no need for his body to stand as a monument to Aeneas’ supremacy' (p. 184). But recollection of Pallas, evoked by the saevi monimenta doloris, trumps that plea. ‘Aeneas' memory overpowers … Turnus' request, just as Daedalus' memory of Icarus had stopped him from carving’ (p. 189). Aeneas, however, does not stop: rage drives him, like Odysseus, to slay (cf. pp. 191–2). ‘Aeneas' killing of Turnus will prompt a new set of commemorations’ leaving ‘no easy route to follow’ (p. 204). S. considers condere amidst this swirl of memories (pp. 193–4), referring to its opening prominent position (Aen. 1.33). Memory is sometimes ‘harnessed’ (p. 201), but no one, whether a character or the narrator, has a monopoly on memory.
The book is well researched and well written. What might have been avoided are phrases like this one, occasional infelicitous confluences such as ‘Quint's essential claim’, or certain sentences with amusing alliteration. S. shilly-shallies a bit (as do I) between an Aeneas who uses his selective recollection to shape audience response and one whose memories move the Trojans forward. Thus, on the same page (p. 122), S. suggests Aeneas is heroic, ‘discovering how to turn a weakness into strength’ and yet manipulative (‘Aeneas possesses a deeply held belief that he can control how people engage with memory’). Yet I do not criticise S. for this: simply put, his Aeneas, like Virgil's, is an imperfect, and therefore memorable, leader.
This book is a gem, and with it S. presents a learned work that will enjoy lasting memory in Virgilian scholarship.
