Prompted by a colleague's remarks about the difference between resentment and indignation, I looked again at Mackail's note on the final line of the Aeneid - 'vitaque cum gemitu fugit indignata sub umbras' - used both here when Turnus dies and earlier when Camilla falls victim to Arruns (xi,831). Mackail compares the death of Lausus (x,819) where 'vita per auras concessit maesta ad manis' and mentions Servius' rahter wooden comment that the souls of the young always leave this life with great distress. M goes on 'There is more to it than that. They die indignant because their death means the wreckage of the cause for which they had fought and the sense that all their heroism had been unavailing. The final cadence of the Aeneid is touched with indignation that the Powers that control life should be so pitiless'.
I think that different characters point up the difference between many forms of distress. Nisus and Euryalus have a troubling relationship, militaristic and erotic, though deeply committed. Euryalus' bloodstained writhing is read by Nisus as a last appeal for help after Volcens has delivered a mortal wound. Nisus' irresistible fury means that the apparently well-guarded Volcens doesn't stand a chance - and neither does Nisus when Volcens' men recover from their shock and close in. This is passionate resentment, beyond reason. But if Nisus feels moral indignation, it is not against Volcens but agaist himself for not looking after Euryalus as the Hellenistic code demanded. Pallas and Lausus die 'maiore sub hoste', facing Turnus and Aeneas, who outclass and overwhelm them. Pallas just ceases to exist. As for Lausus, the line quoted by Mackail, where his eagerness and uncomplicated loyalty to Mezentius vanish into a little wisp of sadness captures the logic of his character extraordinarily well. He never really had an adult understanding of the battle and he cannot muster either resentment or indigation. The atheist tyrant Mezentius starts out to do the voodoo that he usually does so well, only to find that he is at last making some kind of peace with himself. His last words to Aeneas, who asks where his fiery spirit has gone, seem to rule out moral indignation. The phrase 'nullum in caede nefas', presumably delivered with a rueful smile, means something like 'I never had much objection to killing'. This does not mean that he abandons personal resentment against Aeneas, even though he asks for burial. He still uses the words 'My bitter enemy' and anyone would resent a bitter enemy about to wield a sword. This seems to be resentment without indignation. Camilla, by contrast, is on the battlefield solely for political and unselfish reasons. Mackail's comment about indignation because the cause is lost seems to apply best to her. She never saw Arruns' sneaky approach and would probably disdain to resent him. This seems to be indignation without resentment. In the last scene there is more of a union between the personal and the political, which maybe Mackail's comment does not fully recognise. Aeneas drives his sword through Turnus as if he were laying a foundation - the 'ferrum condit' of the end of the poem recalls the 'condere gentem' of the beginning. But he could not have struck this great political blow unless he also remembered on the personal side how Turnus had obliterated little Pallas. From Turnus' point of view the act is both personally unmerciful and an indication that his cause is lost and that victory has gone to a terrifying form of imperialism, on fire with belief in a divine mission that he cannot understand. Resentment and indignation unite - the kind of sentiment that is so active in our day. - Martin Hughes ----------------------------------------------------------------------- To leave the Mantovano mailing list at any time, do NOT hit reply. Instead, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message "unsubscribe mantovano" in the body (omitting the quotation marks). You can also unsubscribe at http://virgil.org/mantovano/mantovano.htm#unsub
