Aeneas' character throughout the epic was ever learning. He went
through much to get to the point where he is at during the battle. He fought
the walls that Juno put up throughout his journey and became a stronger man at
the end. Aeneas deals with Turnus in a bad way but this should not totally
dishonor him. He did make it to his destination and sacrificed much to get
there. Although Aeneas did make it to found Rome. Juno also is a victor in the
epic. The root of Juno's anger was that the prophecies proclaimed that Aeneas
would take over Carthage and he is Trojan. But now that Aeneas is no longer
Trojan but Roman and Rome will love Juno more than Carthage ever did.
The third problem that appears in the final act of Aeneas is that his
actions are really not like him at all and is not consistent with the character
which is shown in the rest of the epic. I feel that for the founding of Rome to
occur Turnus had to die but Turnus did not have to die the way he did. If
Turnus did live he would have been a constant nuisance and a trouble maker. He
would have also posed a constant threat to the life of Aeneas. The fact that he
stole the sword belt of Pallas and killed him with such dishonor does somewhat
justify the act of Aeneas but it goes back to the question of who is the better
man out of the two. Aeneas let his emotions overcome him and this in turns
shows weakness. On the other hand Turnus showed strength in accepting his
defeat and making a last request.
Where is a clear tendency in American conservation to relegate to government all necessary jobs that private land owners fail to perform. Government ownership, operation subsidy, or regulation is now widely prevalent in forestry range management, soil and watershed management, park and wilderness conservation, fisheries management, and migratory bird management, with more to come. Most of this growth in governmental conservation is proper and logical, some of it is inevitable. That I imply no disapproval of it is implicit in the fact that I have spent most of my life working for it. Nevertheless the question arises: What is the ultimate magnitude of the enterprise? Will the tax base carry its eventual ramifications? At what point will governmental conservation, like the mastodon, become handicapped by its own dimensions? The answer, if there is any, seems to be in a land ethic, or some other force which assigns more obligation to the private landowner.
Some species of trees have been 'read out of the party' by economics-minded foresters because they grow too slowly, or have too low a sale value to pay as timber crops: white cedar, tamarack, cypress, beech, and hemlock are examples. In Europe, where forestry is ecologically more advanced, the non-commercial tree species are recognized as members of the native forest community, to be preserved as such, within reason. Moreover some (like beech) have seen found to have a valuable function in building up soil fertility. The interdependence of the forest and its constituent tree species, ground flora, and fauna is taken for granted.
When the private landowner is asked to perform some unprofitable act for the good of the community, he today assents only with outstretched palm. If the act costs him cash this is fair and proper, but when it costs only forethought, open-mindedness, or time, the issue is at least debatable. The overwhelming growth of land-use subsidies in recent years must be ascribed, in large part, to the government's own agencies for conservation education: the land bureaus, the agricultural colleges, and the extension services. As far as I can detect, no ethical obligation toward land is taught in these institutions.
The character of Aeneas was modeled after Augustus and the book agreed
that Augustus was a strong leader. The book actually helped his image and the
love for him grew threw Rome after the publication of the book. For that
society in that time the epic was written perfectly to suit the need of the
In my opinion the last scene insinuates that Rome was founded in
violence. This in not necessary bad, roman people were very proud of their
heritage and the way that the city was founded. The Romans fell in love with
Virgil's Aeneid and so did Augustus. The book was praised by Romans as it
showed Rome as strong and powerful.
Consider, for example, the settlement of the Mississippi valley. In the years following the Revolution, three groups were contending for its control: the native Indian, the French and English traders, and the American settlers. Historians wonder what would have happened if the English at Detroit had thrown a little more weight into the Indian side of those tipsy scales which decided the outcome of the colonial migration into the cane-lands of Kentucky. It is time now to ponder the fact that the cane-lands, when subjected to the particular mixture of forces represented by the cow plow, fire, and axe of the pioneer, became bluegrass. What if the plant succession inherent in this dark and bloody ground had, under the impact of these forces given us some worthless sedge, shrub, or weed? Would Boone and Kenton have held out? Would there have been any overflow into Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri? Any Louisiana Purchase? Any transcontinental union of new states? Any Civil war?
Another point is that the prophecies stated that Aeneas would have to fight many
battles to found Rome the fact remains that if he had gotten there sooner there
would still have been some sort of war awaiting his arrival. On the other hand
in the last book Jupiter did make a statement that suggested that it was
possible for him to interfere with fate if he wished and change the prophecies.
The Greek philosopher and scholar Aristotle (384-322 BC) is the first great representative of the constructive school of thought. His (the surviving fragment of which is limited to an analysis of tragedy and epic poetry) has sometimes been dismissed as a recipe book for the writing of potboilers. Certainly, Aristotle is primarily interested in the theoretical construction of tragedy, much as an architect might analyze the construction of a temple, but he is not exclusively objective and matter of fact. He does, however, regard the expressive elements in literature as of secondary importance, and the terms he uses to describe them have been open to interpretation and a matter of controversy ever since.
If Aeneas had stuck to stoicism in the story could he have accomplished
his mission without resorting to such violence? Obviously the Stoic way would
have been much better and much quicker. If he had not let his emotions get the
better of him he would not have spent seven years with Dido and her death would
not have happened. Also if he would have gone straight to Italy he would have
arrived long before Turnus was engaged to the princess and there would have been
no war. Although there is a strong argument that the events throughout the book
built the character Aeneas needed to be the founder of Rome and become a God.
Written somewhere between 29 and 19 BC, consisting of twelve books (although never completely finished), The Aeneid takes us through the turbulent journeys and prophesied triumphs of Aeneas, a warrior and man bound by piety and destiny....