The Rossettis @ Tate Britain

This is a spectacular exhibition, by turns absorbing, inspiring, fascinating and deeply educational about the individuals, their lives and their times. Not all the work on display is good, some is positively poor, but there are good things throughout, and it’s huge – featuring over 150 paintings and drawings as well as photography, design, wallpapers, furniture, rare books, printed and spoken poetry and more. And then, in the last few rooms, it turns into a spectacular celebration of Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s huge, sumptuous paintings of stunning pre-Raphaelite women, an orgy of masterpieces to leave you reeling. More than just an exhibition it feels like a sustained immersion in their lives and times.

I thought the exhibition might disintegrate into a general splurge about the extended network of artists and models which made up the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood – surely, the most written-about subject in British art – the gift shop is heaving with books about the Pre-Raphaelites.

But I was wrong. The exhibition remains very, very focused on the Rossetti family and, above all, on the favoured son, Gabriel. (Only in adult life did Gabriel move his middle name, Dante, to the front of his three names – maybe partly to catch up with triple-barrelled friends like John Everett Millais and William Holman Hunt – but the curators refer to him as Gabriel throughout and so shall I.)

Firsts

Tate owns a lot of Pre-Raphaelite paintings and drawings so it’s surprising to learn that this is the first retrospective of Rossetti ever held at Tate, and the largest exhibition of his iconic pictures in two decades. Less surprising to learn that this is also the most comprehensive exhibition of Elizabeth Siddal’s work for 30 years, featuring rare watercolours and important drawings, because most of us have never hear of her.

The rooms devoted to them show how Gabriel and Elizabeth’s relationship and works intertwined and reflected each other. If you like reading about the lives of great artists, then this deep dive into biographical minutiae will be right up your street.

Immigrants

First of all, they were immigrants. Gabriele Rossetti (1783 to 1854) arrived in London in 1824, as a political refugee from Italy. More than that he was an Italian nobleman, poet, constitutionalist, scholar, and founder of the secret society, the Carbonari. A noted Dante scholar he secured the post of Professor of Italian at King’s College London from 1831 as well as teaching Italian at King’s College School. He and his wife Frances Polidori Rossetti had four children, two sons and two daughters. Raised in a home drenched in poetry and literature, all four children went on to become artists or writers in their own right. They were: the writer Maria Francesca Rossetti (1827 to 76); poet, artist and designer Gabriel Charles Dante Rossetti (1828 to 1882); artist and critic William Michael Rossetti (1829 to 1919); and poet Christina Rossetti (1830 to 1894).

The curators add into this gang of four the figure of Elizabeth Siddal, model, artist and poet, who posed for many of the Pre-Raphaelites (most famously as Ophelia in the classic painting by John Everett Millais) but who enjoyed a lengthy relationship with Gabriel, in which they drew and painted the same subjects, copying and learning from each other. They married in 1860 at which point she became Elizabeth Rossetti and this, from a naming point of view, justifies her inclusion in the exhibition.

Christina Rossetti

The curators do something genuinely bold and interesting which is to start a major art exhibition with a room devoted almost entirely to poetry. Never seen that before. They are mostly by Christina Rossetti and are not only printed directly onto the walls in very large font size but, if you stand in places marked by signs on the floor, you can hear the poems being recited by what must be very cleverly focused loudspeakers, which seem to be addressing you and you alone.

Installation view of ‘The Rossettis’ at Tate Britain, showing Room One which features just three paintings because it is devoted to the poetry of Christina Rossetti, which are reproduced on all the walls. Photo by Madeleine Buddo © Tate

All four Rossetti children were artistic and wrote and drew from early ages, but it was Christina who had the earliest success, having a volume of 42 poems published when she was just 16, some of which were written when she was as young as 11!

Remember by Christina Rossetti

Remember me when I am gone away,
Gone far away into the silent land;
When you can no more hold me by the hand,
Nor I half turn to go yet turning stay.
Remember me when no more day by day
You tell me of our future that you plann’d:
Only remember me; you understand
It will be late to counsel then or pray.
Yet if you should forget me for a while
And afterwards remember, do not grieve:
For if the darkness and corruption leave
A vestige of the thoughts that once I had,
Better by far you should forget and smile
Than that you should remember and be sad.

This bold start does two things. One, it fulfils Tate’s feminist aims of promoting women, bringing women out from the shadow of more famous men, giving women more of a voice etc (as the promotion of Elizabeth Siddal later in the show also does). Two, it vividly demonstrates the extraordinary combination of sensitivity and sensuality which, arguably, were to be distinguishing features of the family, and especially the arch-sensualist, Gabriel.

Christina’s talent peaked with the volume containing her most famous poem, Goblin Market, of 1859. During her career she published over 900 poems, a phenomenal output. Taking five minutes to read all the works written on the walls here, and let them alter and direct your thoughts towards her strange combination of Victorian piety, with astonishing sensuality, is a rare and lovely experience.

Early sketches

The narrow but scholarly depth of the exhibition’s focus is established in the second room which contains 30 or so very early drawings and sketches by the boy Gabriel, alongside some by his sister, and two by his brother William. They demonstrate his precocious skill and his enthusiasm for original voices like William Blake and Edgar Allan Poe. Gabriel was an early devotee of the small cult of Blake, who didn’t become widely known until the 1860s. And he did numerous illustrations of Edgar Allen Poe stories and poems, notably The Raven.

The Raven by Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1848) © Victoria and Albert Museum, London

These are very uneven: some have great verve but many of them are cranky and cramped. So I suppose the idea of a progression of beautiful young girl ghosts, on the left, is well done, but nothing about the figure on the right is good, his tangled legs, the odd posture of his hands. But they’re all very interesting in a dry, scholarly way. You rarely get to see the early beginnings of a major painter in such detail and for this reason alone I found myself taking the time to study each of the sketches. I liked two sketches drawn with thick black lines which reminded me of Goya, but these were exceptions.

Man with a Woman Wearing Trousers by Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1844)

To buck the curators a bit, possibly the best things in this room are two marvellous charcoal and white chalk drawings by brother William, studies of Yarmouth beach. These far exceed in sophistication, depth and technique anything by Gabriel. And they are outdoors, giving them an airiness and lightness unlike anything by brother Gabriel. I can’t find them anywhere on the internet 😦

Gabriel’s unevenness

Maybe it’s worth making the point now, early on, that Gabriel Rossetti is strangely patchy or uneven as an artist. Many of these sketches are positively poor. What I mean is their depiction of the human frame is awkward and cranky. Gabriel’s figures are often bent at improbable or at least uncomfortable angles. His faces are sometimes smooth and angelic but sometimes angular and amateurish.

Later on there’s a room devoted to the period he spent living and working with Elizabeth Siddal, originally a model but, as this exhibition goes to great lengths to demonstrate, an artist in her own right. The curators place sketches, drawings and small paintings by Gabriel and Siddal alongside each other but I had the same experience as in Room 2 i.e. a lot of both of their work seemed to me poor, amateurish, ungainly, badly modeled figures and badly drawn faces.

The sketches introduce another theme which is how cramped and confined so much of Gabriel’s art is. At one point the curators point out that The Artist In His Study was a recurring theme of Gabriel’s work, but it’s not just the artist trapped indoors. In sketch after drawing after painting, the subject (always people, never landscapes or still lifes) has to bend over, lean in, wry their neck into the claustrophobic confines of the framing space. Almost all of his people are indoors and in a very cluttered, cramped and confined indoors at that.

All these qualities are on display in Ecce Ancilla Domini. It’s indoors; in a very cramped narrow room, emphasised by the vertical line of the narrow bed and, of course, the standing figure. Look how tightly frame it is with the picture edge right up against the left side of the angel’s gown and the red stand on the right, and the terrified woman pressed up tight against the hard cold whitewashed wall. I can barely breathe.

Ecce Ancilla Domini (The Annunciation) by Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1850)
© Tate

What’s so odd as to be barely believable is that the artist who produced these small cramped images, up to and beyond his Pre-Raphaelite phase in the late 1840s and 50s, then blossomed into the artist of the big, lush, sensual masterpieces of the 1870s and 1880s. It’s as if they were two completely different people.

The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (the PRBs)

The exhibition has to cover Gabriel’s involvement with the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood which he founded in 1848 along with soul mates William Holman Hunt, John Everett Millais, James Collinson, Frederic George Stephens and Thomas Woolner, but it keeps it under control, as it were, not splurging but maintaining its focus on Gabriel (and to a lesser extent Christina).

This room is the one place where the curators bring in other works, by Millais and Hunt in particular, in order to explain the shared aims of the group. The idea was to reject the shadowy forms and stylised poses of the Italian Mannerist artists who succeeded Raphael and Michelangelo. The PRBs believed the classical poses and elegant compositions of Raphael, in particular, had been a corrupting influence on the academic teaching of art, hence their ambition to go back before Raphael to recapture the clean, detailed and precise style of artists who preceded the High Renaissance.

This led to a kind of super-realism where you can make out every hair on the head of the figures, where the background isn’t shady and blurred to indicate distance, but everything is seen in full detail, sparkling with a kind of universal light. This is one of the 3 or 4 paintings that the curators include as examples of the early, radical style of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, a typical selection of a medieval subject by William Holman Hunt. Note the hallucinatory clarity of every detail, of the flowers at bottom centre, the hair of the horseman on the right, the loving detail of the light reflecting on all the armour.

Rienzi vowing to obtain justice for the death of his young brother, slain in a skirmish between the Colonna and the Orsini factions by William Holman Hunt (1849) Private collection of Mrs E. M. Clarke

Realists and rebels – or inventors of a new form of escapism

A comment on the wall caption made me smile. The curators state that ‘The men and women in the Pre-Raphaelites’ circle wanted to express themselves authentically, with art and poetry based on lived experience and nature.’ Elsewhere they talk about the PRB’s commitment to depict the life of their times, and imply that this or that painting is a piercing critique of Victorian sexism, social inequality, poverty and so on. And indeed some, a very small number of paintings and drawings, can be interpreted in this way.

But a wider truth is conveyed in the wall label’s very next sentence: ‘Their paintings and writings explored stories from the Bible and medieval books that resonated with their modern lives.’ That’s closer to the mark because what comes over is the PRB’s commitment to flee the social realities of their time. The curators themselves point out how Gabriel, his family and friends sought inspiration in anything but their own time, in stories from the Bible, fairy tales, folk tales, Greek myths and legends and, above all, by escaping into a beautifully rendered and idealised version of the Middle Ages.

The Decameron, The Canterbury Tales, The Roman de la Rose, the Arthurian legends and, above all of them, a lifelong obsession the 14th century Dante Alighieri – all this was about as far away as you could possibly get from the political, economic or social life of their times.

The PRB’s speciality was escapism, and in this they followed the other poets of their day who mined John Keats’s lush sensuality to produce the medievalising monologues of Robert Browning but above all the tremulous emissions of the presiding poet of the era, Alfred Lord Tennyson. Take Browning’s poem ‘Pippa Passes’, allegedly written ‘to speak for the masses … cuffed and huffed from morn to midnight’. but whose subject, Pippa, is a silkworker who walks through the medieval Italian town of Asolo, singing and inspiring good. Or Tennyson’s log work the ‘Idylls of the King’, the king in question being King Arthur. While the British army subjugated more and more parts of the world, Britain’s poets vapoured about knights and damsels. And the Rossettis? Well, could they have made more drawings, sketches and paintings of knights in armour and damsels in distress?

Arthur’s Tomb by Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1860) © Tate

No, for actual lived experience of the mid-Victorian period the Rossettis and Pre-Raphaelites are the very last source you would consult. You would look in the novelists – the poet laureate of London, Dickens, to a lesser extent Thackeray, or the gritty novels of Mrs Gaskell with their harrowing accounts of working class life.

So taken at face value the notion that the PRBs were radicals who sought ‘authenticity’ and to depict life  with a new realism in defiance of the conventions of the society around them and of the artistic establishment represented by the Royal Academy seems nonsensical.

But maybe I’m missing the point. I think PRB fans would point out that the realism and authenticity they were seeking was an emotional and psychological realism. In the subjects of their art they fled the reality of their times to Greek legends and medieval stories in order to capture complex, fleeting, intense and evanescent emotions which the banality of day-to-day living in industrialising London seemed to crush and stifle.

Thus Gabriel’s very strange painting of Arthur’s Tomb, above, is radical in the sense that it rejects the entire tradition of Salon art, of the huge Grand Historical or Mythological Subjects promoted by the founder of the Royal Academy, Sir Joshua Reynolds, with their grand gestures and beautiful finish. Instead the characteristically cramped and claustrophobic composition, the sense that both figures are being squashed by the tee above, the awkward bending of Lancelot, Guinevere’s hand fending him off – the cramped awkwardness of the entire thing conveys a very modern, complex psychological moment, fraught with tensions.

So the flight into the Middle Ages which is enacted in painting after painting, was it a flight from contemporary reality – or was it the adoption of distant subjects the more easily to convey complex modern psychological states? Discuss.

Elizabeth Siddal

Following new research, Elizabeth Siddal’s surviving watercolours are shown in a two-way dialogue with contemporary works by Gabriel, exploring modern love in jewel-like medieval settings. As a working­ class artist who was largely self-taught, Elizabeth’s work was highly original and inventive, but has often been overshadowed by her mythologisation as a tragic muse (see, for example, this BBC article, The tragedy of art’s greatest supermodel).

According to the curators Siddal and Gabriel’s work together marks a turning point from Pre-Raphaelitism to the new, more imaginative and expressive Aesthetic style which emerged in the 1870s.

Lady Affixing Pennant to a Knight’s Spear by Elizabeth Eleanor Siddal (1856) © Tate

Aestheticism – Gabriel’s second revolution

There’s such a huge difference between Gabriel’s often clunky, cramped compositions of the 1850s and the huge, gorgeous flowing masterpieces of the 1870s that it’s as if they’re by two completely different people. The curators clarify that, a generation after helping found the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, Rossetti was at the epicentre of a second great artistic revolution, this time the Aesthetic Movement with its credo ‘Art for Art’s Sake’.

He went on to lead a new avant-garde group even more influential than the Pre-Raphaelites: the aesthetic movement. This would change ideas, art and design around the world.

Already in 1864 the hazy light, colour and heavy symbolism of Beata Beatrix looked forward to the Aestheticism and the international Symbolist movement later in the century.

Gabriel’s portraits [in the later 1860s and 1870s] reflected the aesthetic movement’s ideals of ‘art for art’s sake’ and a new modern beauty. He adapted the likenesses of working-class women of unconventional appearance, notably model Alexa Wilding, into fantasies of enchanting femininity. Inspired by Renaissance portraiture and mythological texts, these sensual portraits suggested touch, sound and scent as well as vision. They emphasised the pleasure of form and colour, looking ahead to the abstract art of the following century.

This is the thinking behind the final two rooms which amount to an orgy of spectacular Rossetti classics.

Installation view of ‘The Rossettis’ at Tate Britain, showing Room Seven which features ten stunning paintings from Rossetti’s sensual prime. Photo by Madeleine Buddo © Tate

We learn about the art collector Frederick Leyland who owned the three paintings in the photo above plus two more which are hanging nearby. He displayed all five in the drawing room of his mansion at Princes Gate, London, and the exhibition features a contemporary photograph to prove it. Apparently it’s the first time all five paintings have been reunited in one space since Leyland’s heyday in the 1880s.

Originally from a modest background, Leyland rose to run one of the largest transatlantic shipping companies of his day. Because they see it as their job to take every opportunity to remind us of woke and feminist issues, the curators tell us that much of Leyland’s trade was based on the cotton that fed textile manufacturing in northern British towns and that the cotton came from the American South where exploitative labour continued long after the abolition of slavery.

Leyland used the money he made from his business to become a key figure in the aesthetic movement, transforming his Liverpool and London homes into palaces of modern art. It was Leyland who commissioned The Beguiling of Merlin by the Pre-Raphaelite painter Edward Burne-Jones and commissioned the architect Thomas Jeckyll and the American ‘aesthetic’ painter James McNeill Whistler to decorate his dining room, a commission which resulted in the Peacock Room, considered one of Whistler’s greatest works. A really key figure, then, and purchaser of some of Gabriel’s most stunning and sensuous portraits of beautiful, strong-jawed, thick-necked, frizzy-haired aesthetic beauties.

Monna Vanna by Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1866) © Tate

The femme fatale

Uneasy with these lush and opulent depictions of sensual, semi-erotic women, the curators take refuge in a familiar feminist trope. This is the notion that some of Gabriel’s paintings in his mature late style are of femmes fatales. This allows the curators to take refuge in familiar tropes about sexual objectifying of women and gender stereotyping and male anxiety about female sexuality, the usual shopping list.

Gabriel engaged with the idea of the dangerous, sexualised ‘fatal woman’ or the ‘femme fatale’. This usually negative figure of feminine power responded to Victorian anxieties about social change. It became a popular fantasy figure towards the end of the century, and persists in literature and art today.

Persists in literature and art today? Tut tut. And despite all the brave attempts of feminist curators to change the world. Shame. Sometimes I wonder how old art curators think their readers are. 10?

The kind of painting we’re talking about is Gabriel’s depiction of Lady Lilith. The ancient story has it that Lilith was Adam’s independent-minded first wife who he put away and replaced with Eve. In revenge, Lilith seduced and persuaded the serpent to tempt Eve which led to Adam and Eve’s expulsion from Eden’s bower and the fall of mankind. Naughty Lilith.

Lady Lilith by Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1866 to 1868) Delaware Art Museum, Samuel and Mary R. Bancroft Memorial, 1935

If you allow yourself to get worked up about millennia-old stories this is obviously a sexist trope designed to demean and blacken independent women everywhere. For those not so easily upset, it’s a pretext for a staggeringly sensual painting, rich in details of fabric, hair and flowers. Doesn’t look much like a denizen of prehistoric Mesopotamia, does she? Desert, snake, tree? The picture could, frankly, be given the name of almost any woman from myth and legend and make as much sense.

In fact, my view would be that this is a painting about money and luxury. These are the kind of extraordinarily richly coloured, beautifully detailed, dreamily luxurious images of extremely attractive women which Gabriel sold by the cartload to mega-rich patrons like Leyland. It is a luxurious depiction of luxury for those rich enough to live in luxury.

The magic of exhibitions like this is that we poor peasants, for the hour or so that we spend strolling round masterpieces like this, are also lifted into a realm of luxury, beauty, sensuality that has never existed with this kind of other-worldly perfection but which we, for a tenner, can for fleeting moments, enter and inhabit. The scent of the roses! The texture of that silk dress! The luxury of those endless tresses!

Lilith poem

As we’ve learned, Gabriel and many of his friends and lovers often wrote poems about the subjects they were painting or painted their poems, the two art forms interpenetrating. Thus next to this amazing painting there’s a striking sonnet by Gabriel. If you stand in the right spot (on one of the signs on the carpet) you magically trigger a reading of the poem in the lugubrious tones of actor Bill Nighy.

Lilith by Dante Gabriel Rossetti

Of Adam’s first wife, Lilith, it is told
(The witch he loved before the gift of Eve,)
That, ere the snake’s, her sweet tongue could deceive,
And her enchanted hair was the first gold.

And still she sits, young while the earth is old,
And, subtly of herself contemplative,
Draws men to watch the bright web she can weave,
Till heart and body and life are in its hold.

The rose and poppy are her flowers; for where
Is he not found, O Lilith, whom shed scent
And soft-shed kisses and soft sleep shall snare?

Lo! as that youth’s eyes burned at thine, so went
Thy spell through him, and left his straight neck bent
And round his heart one strangling golden hair.

The slightly knotty syntax takes a couple of readings to get quite straight (it took me a couple of goes to understand the importance od ‘not found in the 9th line) but then, wow. You could argue the slight entanglement of the lines deliberately mimics the strangling effect of Lilith’s golden hair.  Maybe. Presumably Lilith’s hair is golden in the poem because ‘golden’ sounds good, but orange-auburn in the painting because orange is such a dramatic and deeply luxurious colour as, for example, in Frederick Leighton’s famous painting, Flaming June.

Special attractions

Curators not only need a theme or pretext with which to concoct an art exhibitions but score extra points if they can come up with rare or unique or special features that make the show extra-special. The curators of this exhibition have excelled themselves with four or five of these ‘special features’ to look out for / be impressed by.

1. The wallpaper

Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s previously unrealised work as a designer is brought to life in The Rossettis. A wallpaper he designed 160 years ago has been created for the first time especially for Tate Britain’s exhibition. Intended to decorate the home that Dante Gabriel shared with Elizabeth Siddal after their marriage, the artist sketched and described the design for this unusual wallpaper in close detail but ever, it was never put into production and only existed as a drawing until now.

Now Tate Britain has worked with illustrator and designer llyanna Kerr to bring Rossetti’s design to life. The design depicts a grove of apple trees at dusk, with stars appearing in the deep blue sky above, in a style that looks forward to the Art Nouveau movement at the end of the 19th century.

Installation view of ‘The Rossettis’ at Tate Britain, showing Room Five which showcases a wallpaper designed by Gabriel but never produced in his lifetime. Photo by Madeleine Buddo © Tate

And it’s not just wallpaper. This room also includes some big bits of furniture, namely a Rossetti-related cabinet, chair, and sofa.

Installation view of ‘The Rossettis’ at Tate Britain, showing King René’s Honeymoon Cabinet (photo by the author)

King René’s Honeymoon Cabinet (1861)

J.P. Seddon (1827 to 1906) designed this architect’s desk, including the metalwork and inlay, in 1861 for his own use. Seddon had the desk made at his father’s cabinet-making firm. He also commissioned ten painted panels depicting the Fine and Applied Arts from Morris, Marshall, Faulkner & Co. Ford Madox Brown, who also designed the panel representing ‘Architecture’, suggested the overall theme. The ‘Painting’ and ‘Sculpture’ panels were by Edward Burne-Jones, while Gabriel was responsible for ‘Music’ and ‘Gardening’. Morris designed the decorative background for each panel. (Text from the V&A article about the cabinet.)

Installation view of ‘The Rossettis’ at Tate Britain, showing chair and sofa designed and decorated by Gabriel (photo by the author)

The chair and sofa

The conspicuous consumption that characterised fashionable Victorian interior design did not suit Elizabeth and Gabriel’s ideal of a more authentic life. They sought out and adapted furniture that was basic and true to its materials and methods of making. They found beauty in handcraft rather than elaborate ornamentation and liked open, gracefully turned wood.

Gabriel collaborated with William Morris’s design firm to create rush-seated chairs like the one on display here, and this early-19th-century style sofa for his and Elizabeth’s home. On the sofa backrests are insets representing Love, the Loving or Lover, and the Beloved, painted by Gabriel.

Honeysuckle wallpaper

The big blue wallpaper isn’t the only one created specially for this exhibition. Room 8 has a wall covered in honeysuckle wallpaper made specially for this exhibition. It’s based on an embroidered hanging designed by William Morris and sewn by Jane Morris. Jane, her sister Bessie and her daughters May and Jenny played a key creative role in the making of textiles and embroideries for the family firm Morris & Co. This collective approach makes it difficult to identify individuals’ work. We know Jane was embroidering Honeysuckle around the end of Gabriel’s life. The finished embroidery was exhibited at the first Arts and Crafts exhibition in 1888.

Installation view of ‘The Rossettis’ at Tate Britain, showing the honeysuckle wallpaper in Room Eight. Photo by Madeleine Buddo © Tate

The blue wallpaper, the closet and the sofa had one overwhelming impact on me which was to get rid of them. ‘Chuck out your chintz’ as the old Ikea ad had it. This was precisely the kind of heavy, dark, wooden, over-decorated clutter which the Modernist designers of the Bauhaus had to reject in order to create the modern, clean, simple design aesthetic of the twentieth century. It has great historical interest, and kudos to Tate for recreating it, but I cordially disliked all of it.

2. A handwritten poem

A handwritten poem by Gabriel is exhibited for the first time, on loan from the University of Delaware Library, Museums and Press. Entitled The Portrait, this is believed to be one of the pages which were buried with Elizabeth Siddal’s body in Highgate Cemetery in 1862. The coffin was later exhumed in October 1869 to retrieve the pages when Gabriel was preparing to publish his first collection of poetry. The manuscript shows his frantic revisions ahead of its publication, including editing out some of the more sensual lines like ‘our hair had to be untangled when we rose’.

The poem describes the ability of a portrait painting to inspire memories of an absent lover and bring her to life. It is closely associated with Gabriel’s iconic painting of Elizabeth, Beata Beatrix, which was created at the time of the poem’s retrieval, seven years after her death. The two are now brought together in this show, and their paring is typical of the way both Gabriel and Elizabeth conceived of poems accompanying paintings and paintings made to accompany poems.

Beata Beatrix by Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1864) © Tate

3. Three Proserpines brought together

Tate’s famous Rossetti painting of Jane Morris as the mythological figure Proserpine has been brought together with two later paintings of the same subject, both on loan from private collections. They reveal the artist’s obsessive attention to detail and his fondness for revision and experimentation, developed over multiple versions spanning many years. The languid yet studied pose, and the amazing finish of the dress, went on to influence many modern artists who wanted to express emotion in art through colour and shape.

Proserpine by Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1874) © Tate

Gabriel first began depicting Jane as Proserpine around the time they became lovers in 1870. Her sadness and longing for the summer months is perhaps intended to evoke the time Jane and Dante Gabriel are not able to be together. The painting is also a study in melancholy, a subject the two often spoke about. The exhibition includes a book on the subject, Robert Burton’s famous ‘Anatomy of Melancholy’, which Dante Gabriel gave to Jane as a Christmas present in 1873. An ink drawing of her, intended for her eyes only, was hidden inside.

4. Portrait of Fanny Eaton

The exhibition is a rare opportunity to see one of Gabriel’s finest drawings. On loan from Stanford University in California, this portrait of Fanny Eaton is one of a series of portrait studies of working-class professional models whose likenesses reappear in paintings throughout the exhibition. Eaton was one of the most successful and sought-after of these models, often shown by other artists in expressive and dramatic roles, but Rossetti here depicts her in a private moment of quiet thought. It is one of the finest images in the show.

Born in 1835 in Surrey, Jamaica, probably the daughter of an enslaved mother, Eaton came to Britain after abolition and set up home with James Eaton, a coach driver. She bore him 10 children who she continued to provide for on her own after James died in his 40s. Her grave in Margravine Cemetery, Hammersmith, was finally marked with a headstone 6 months ago, followed by a blue plaque on her last home near Shepherd’s Bush.

Head of a Young Woman [Mrs. Eaton?] by Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1863 to 1865) © Cantor Arts Center, Stanford University

The Eaton study appears in a fascinating room, Room Six, which is devoted to just one painting, The Beloved.

The Beloved (‘The Bride’) by Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1866) © Tate

To quote the curators:

Gabriel’s composition for ‘The Beloved’ was inspired by Renaissance artist Titian’s painting ‘Woman with a Mirror’ (1515) conceived as a Venus figure surrounded by many mirrors. He adapted this into an image inspired by the biblical ‘Song of Solomon’, about a young woman meeting her bridegroom, surrounded by attendants. In his eyes, the seven figures represented a universal vision of female beauty’. Created at a time when Britain was more connected to the globe through travel and colonial expansion, ‘The Beloved’ is Gabriel’s only oil painting to include models of colour. The work was conceived during the American Civil War (1861 to 1865) when newspapers debated universal freedom and the liberation of Black people enslaved in the Southern US states. The figures, flowers and accessories in the painting are appropriated from cultures around the world, particularly those from Asia and North Africa. They represent an ‘orientalist’ fantasy which mis-imagined these areas as archaic, exotic and interchangeable.

There you have a good example of the censorious, scolding tone of modern art scholarship. The purpose of devoting a room to this one painting is that the curators have assembled Gabriel’s preparatory sketches for each of the six heads which appear in the finished painting. It’s in this context that the stunning Head of a Young Woman appears a study of Mrs Eaton who appears in the final work as the third head from the left, with a completely different expression.

Thus there’s also a study of the black boy at the front of the painting. We don’t know his name but, as you can imagine, the Tate curators are super-alert to all the possible negative implications of his appearance:

Little is known of this boy, a visitor to London. Gabriel met him outside a hotel. Children had few rights in Victorian times. In this case, Gabriel negotiated the boy’s modelling work with an American described as his ‘master’, suggesting he was a student, servant or born into slavery. His gaze engages the viewer strongly, but Gabriel’s main intention was aesthetic. He wanted a model with what he described as ‘pure’ African heritage to add a different skin tone to the composition [giving him a] decorative and dehumanising role…

They go on to say something which slightly puzzled me:

Little is known of the boy’s experience of sitting. Gabriel is believed to have said he was both playful and tearful, and wondered whether he missed his mother. Where the girl models were drawn clothed, the boy was required to pose partly undressed. This may have contributed to his discomfort, expressed, perhaps, in the serious gaze. For the artist, the nudity objectified his appearance, displayed his dark skin and removed him from the present to the archaic fantasy space.

The bit that puzzles me is the idea that just this one boy, because he is black, has suffered a unique and grievous crime in being removed ‘from the present to the archaic fantasy space.’ Hang on. Haven’t the other four models been just as removed ‘from the present to the archaic fantasy space’? In fact, a moment’s reflection suggests that pretty much every model who ever posed for Gabriel and his friends was removed from the gritty realities of 1860s London and magically recreated in, the generally medieval, ‘fantasy space’.

I was genuinely puzzled why this ‘removal to fantasy space’ is absolutely fine and not worthy of comment on the hundreds and hundreds of occasions when it happens to white models, but troubles the curators so much that they comment on it in two separate captions, when the subject is black.

5. Rarely seen photographs of Elizabeth Siddal’s lost drawings

After Elizabeth Siddal’s death, Gabriel collected her drawings, had them photographed, printed and pasted into albums. Three pages of these albums are on display for the first time in this exhibition, on loan from the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford. Many of the original drawings have since been lost, such as her evocative depictions of the knight’s enchantment with the femme fatale from Keats’ poem ‘La Belle Dame Sans Merci’. New research into these drawings has revealed the ‘call and response’ of ideas between Elizabeth and Gabriel, with poses she used in her work reappearing in his later work.

The inclusion of these dozen or so photos of Siddal drawings is important to the curators because it furthers their deep aim of boosting women in art, in this particular instance adding just that bit more evidence to their case for the importance of Elizabeth Siddal, as an artist in her own right, and as a creative partner with Gabriel. They’re not, to be honest, anything special, but I appreciate where the curators are coming from.

Summary

I’m not a particular fan of the PRBs nor of Rossetti but, even as a semi-sceptic, I was blown away. This is a lovingly assembled, deeply intelligent and learned exhibition, beautifully designed and laid out, which includes many fascinating digressions and diversions, before leading up to the final rooms packed with staggering masterpieces. Wonderful. Amazing.

The video


Related links

Merchandise

More Tate Britain reviews

An introduction to Virgil’s Aeneid by W.A. Camps (1969)

sunt lacrimae rerum et mentem mortalia tangunt.
(‘There are tears of things and mortal things touch the mind’)
(Aeneid Book 1, line 462)

The Aeneid’s structure

The first six books describe wandering, the second six books describe war.

The first six books are set on or near the sea, the second six books are set on land.

The first six books copy a lot from Homer’s Odyssey, the second six books copy a lot from Homer’s Iliad.

The first half focuses on Carthage, leading to the death of Dido, the second half focuses on Latium, leading to the death of Turnus. (In fact, it’s not quite as neat as that because Dido dies at the end of book 4, leaving book 5 to describe the funeral games for Anchises and book 6 the journey to the underworld, so the deaths of Dido and Turnus don’t perfectly bookend each half.)

Historical background

Virgil lived through stormy and decisive political times. He was born in 70 BC only 15 or so years after the end of the Social War, a 4-year-long bitter and needless fight between Rome and various tribes and peoples of Italy who demanded full Roman citizenship. In the end Rome acquiesced and gave it them. The precise relationship between Rome and the other local tribes is implicit in the whole idea of Aeneas coming as an immigrant and stirring up a huge ruinous war between its existing inhabitants, and then is specifically addressed right at the end of the Aeneid when Juno demands equal rights for the Latins vis-à-vis the newcomers from her husband Jupiter, as a condition of giving up her vicious vendetta against the Trojans.

Then Virgil was 21 when civil war broke out in 49 BC between Caesar and Pompey. He saw what it was like for the Roman ruling class to be split right down the middle and many men die pointlessly, as, arguably, all the terrible deaths in the second half of the Aeneid are, ultimately, pointless and unnecessary.

Then Virgil was 26 when Caesar was assassinated and Rome plunged into a further 15 years of instability and recurring civil wars, before Octavian finally brought peace by defeating Antony in 31 BC, as Virgil turned 40.

The price of peace

Virgil composed the Aeneid over the 10 or so years from 29 BC to his premature death in 19 BC. After a life lived against a backdrop of unending civil strife you can see why Virgil would desperately have wanted peace and order to be restored and pinned his hopes for that outcome on the new rule of Augustus. But you can also see why one of the Aeneid‘s main themes is the price that has to be paid for the final arrival of peace and order, and it is a very, very high price in tragedy and bloodshed. Hecatombs of the dead. So many brave young lives cut short. Aeneas wins his place in the promised land of Hesperia, but my God what a trail of death and destruction he leaves behind him.

Aspects of patriotism

All elements in the poem are multi-levelled and dense with allusiveness. Thus the poem’s patriotism is plain for everyone to see, and yet is effective because it works at so many levels. Central is the plot itself, Aeneas’s journey to Italy to found a new city and new people. The gods repeatedly reassure him of the future greatness of the Roman people. He sees a procession of eminent Romans in the underworld at the end of book 6. The figure of Augustus appears here, and as the central figure on the shield his mother gives him at the end of book 8, as well as being invoked several other times, crystallising the hopes of the world.

But it also works in a host of other ways. Most poignantly and hauntingly when we discover that King Evander’s little township is built on the site of the future Rome and that he and Aeneas are walking through the landmarks of the greatness that is to come. But also in the mention throughout the poem of beliefs and customs which first came with the Trojans or, conversely, are already practiced by the Arcadians or the Latins:

  • they Latins are referred to as ‘the people of the Roman gown’
  • the Roman custom of covering the head at sacrifice is enjoined on Aeneas by the seer Helenus before his arrival in Italy (3.403)
  • the exhibition of horse drill known to the Romans as lusus Troiae is demonstrated by Ascanius and the young horsemen during the funeral games for Anchises (5.596)
  • Aeneas promises to inaugurate the tradition of the Sibylline Books (6.71)
  • the practice of opening or closing the doors of the temple of Janus in times of war already exists in Latium (7.601)
  • the worship of Hercules at the great altar in the cattle market which existed in Virgil’s time is said to already exist when Aeneas arrives in Latium (8.268)

So the poem’s patriotism is shouted from the rooftops in the shape of the plot and in the multiple predictions but also threaded subtly into a fabric of hints and allusions.

A political poem?

Camps surprises me by claiming the Aeneid is not a political poem. He deploys the kind of sentimental humanism found throughout post-war Anglophone literary criticism, deflecting analysis off into fancy fondling about morality or spirituality:

The Aeneid is in no sense political propaganda, for it is not in its nature a political poem. The Rome that is its inspiration is not conceived in terms of a political system; and the background against which the humans in the story act and suffer is provided not by contrasting political ideas but by the working of the historical process and the conflict of spiritual powers. (p.2)

This is plain wrong, isn’t it? It’s as if someone who wrote a long poem in praise of Nazi rule over occupied Europe claimed that it wasn’t a political poem because the Nazi rule it praises ‘is not conceived in terms of a political system’. Well, it doesn’t need to be. If politics in the broadest sense is defined as how a society chooses to run itself, then this poem explicitly says that Rome will reach its height when it is ruled by the enlightened dictator Augustus, and that the Roman people are destined to rule the entire known world – and are justified in doing so because of their unique skill at ruling justly.

Roman, remember by your strength to rule
Earth’s peoples — for your arts are to be these:
To pacify, to impose the rule of law,
To spare the conquered, battle down the proud.
(6.1,151 to 1,154)

This prophecy of Anchises is only the most famous of several passages which justify Roman conquest and rule over the entire world. The Aeneid is a hymn to Roman hegemony. Nothing could be more political. Claiming it is ‘not in its nature a political poem’ because it doesn’t go into the nitty-gritty of the constitution or describe any particular ‘political system’ or discuss political parties is being disingenuous or naive. Try telling any of the peoples Rome had conquered, whose towns they had destroyed and populations they’d sold into slavery (read Caesar’s Gallic Wars) that writing an elaborate poem justifying Rome’s eternal rule over the entire known world was not a political statement and watch them laugh in your face.

Clearly your answer to the question, ‘Is the Aeneid a political poem?’ depends on how you define ‘politics’, but there’s also another level or type of definition of politics in play here: this is the issue of taking sides during a civil war. This, also, is a glaring ‘political issue’: whether one is on the side of, say, the nationalists or the republicans during the Spanish Civil War could hardly be a more political and politicised decision.

Well, in the civil war with Antony, Virgil hugely comes down on the side of Augustus and writes it into his poem. In the epic scene where Vulcan forges a mighty shield for Aeneas he depicts on it the Battle of Actium where Augustus defeated Antony and Cleopatra, and the narrator throws in criticisms of the doomed lovers. And the shield then goes on to celebrate Augustus’s unprecedented three triumphs over his political and military opponents.

It beggars belief that Camps thinks that this hugely committed work of propaganda is ‘in no sense political propaganda’ solely because it ‘is not conceived in terms of a political system.’ As I’ve been writing this I’ve realised I myself am missing another way to argue against him, which is to point out that he is wrong even on his own terms: that the entire poem is ‘conceived in terms of a political system’, namely – the imperial rule of Augustus. Rule by an emperor emphatically is a political system and this poem consistently and repeatedly predicts and celebrates this political system.

Copying the Greeks

Virgil wrote three great works. In each of them he copied Greek originals. The Eclogues copy the Idylls of Theocritus, the Georgics copy the Work and Days of Hesiod, the Aeneid very closely copies the Iliad and Odyssey of Homer. Camps claims Virgil is not stealing – he is reconciling the two cultures.

Camps lists some of the major plot devices he is indebted to Homer for:

  • an extended sea journey packed with adventures – the Odyssey
  • enmity of a god who hates the hero drawing out the journey to extended length – the Odyssey
  • councils of the gods in heaven – both Odyssey and Iliad
  • descent to the underworld – the Odyssey
  • funeral games – the Iliad
  • massive, sustained war featuring a siege and many detailed battle scenes – the Iliad
  • the aristeia in which a warrior reaches the peak of their excellence before being cut down – the Iliad
  • the blacksmith god creating a suit of armour and a shield decorated with emblematic events for the hero – the Iliad
  • strong female warrior (Camilla) – the Iliad
  • a foray into the enemy camp by night – the Iliad
  • retirement of the protagonist in whose absence the other army comes right up to the allies’ base and threatens to storm it and win the war – the Iliad
  • hero’s beautiful young friend killed by the main antagonist, a loss which drives the hero to psychopathic vengeance – the Iliad
  • climactic single combat between two epic heroes – the Iliad

(Camps gives a much longer list of direct copying on page 81.) Camps says that Virgil used Homer to supply ‘a deficiency in the possibilities of his own imagination’ (p.9) but it’s bigger than that: the Aeneid doesn’t borrow elements from Homer’s epics, it couldn’t have existed without them. They provide the entire historical background, the entire worldview of gods interfering in the lives of mortals, the entire concept of a long poem focusing on an epic hero, and almost all the significant events. ‘Borrowing’ or ‘copying’ aren’t adequate enough words for the wholesale reincarnation of Homer’s epics in Virgil’s work, and in a later chapter Camps seems to acknowledge this:

To a very large extent the story told in the Aeneid is made by remoulding Homeric materials, as well as owing to Homer the broad motifs which govern its design. (p.82)

The process of composition

Camps devotes an appendix to describing some of the short biographies of Virgil which were written after his death. Suetonius wrote one, now, unfortunately, lost. The best early one which survives is by Aelius Donatus and Camps presents a translation of the full text (6 pages long).

Donatus and fragments from other biographies tell us that Virgil’s method in composing poetry was to make a complete prose summary of the entire story before he began writing any verse. Donatus says that every morning Virgil dictated some verses to a secretary for as long as inspiration lasted, then, after lunch, spent the afternoon working over what he had dictated, sometimes whittling a mass of verses down to just a handful of lines, sometimes just one. Apparently, Virgil compared the process to the ancient folklore notion that a mother bear gave birth to formless lumps of life and then literally licked them into shape (p.117).

(In fact, Donatus describes this as Virgil’s method in writing the Georgics but everyone has silently agreed that this is probably how he composed the Aeneid as well.)

Crucially, Donatus says that Virgil did not compose the poem by starting at the beginning and working through. Instead, he was inspired to versify particular ad hoc scenes as the inspiration took him, sometimes composing later scenes years before earlier ones. This explains all sorts of discrepancies which a close reading of the poem brings to light, notably the lack of linking and smoothing passages, for example the abrupt ending of the famous book 6, and the even more abrupt ending of the entire poem.

Moreover, Donatus tells us that the poem contains many lines of poor quality, as well as lines which are metrically incomplete which Virgil deliberately left in because he needed the padding and structure to get onto the more finished sections, but would have returned to improve had he lived.

The violence

I think my view of the poem has been very strongly skewed by the hyper violence of the second part of the poem. The orgies of testosterone-fuelled slaughter which it describes with such relish strongly affect my impression of the first half, so that I remember mainly the violence – for example, the extended description of the fighting at the sack of Troy. Camps wants us to feel soft and sentimental about the book-long love affair with Dido but what I mainly remember from book 4 is:

  • the murder of Dido’s husband and the unhappiness of his ghost
  • the self slaughter of Dido, who does it in the Roman way, falling on her sword
  • Dido’s extended curse on the Romans and getting her people to swear eternal enmity, an enmity which will lead to three ruinous wars and then the eventual sack of Carthage, the killing of tens of thousands of soldiers and the selling of her entire people into slavery

Similarly, I take the point that the journey to the underworld is genuinely weird and spooky, and Aeneas encounters many strange sights, that his pity for suffering humanity especially aroused by the sight of the pitiful shades waiting to be ferried across the river Styx and then his doleful reunion with the shade of his father.

But for me this all tends to be eclipsed by the shiny vision of the procession of his Roman descendants and, when you look at this list of Great Romans, what are they famous for? What all Romans are famous for, their military victories. David West in his 1991 Penguin edition has a handy little appendix which lists the figures Aeneas sees in the procession of Great Romans:

  • Silvius the warrior king
  • Brutus, famous for expelling the last kings and executing his two sons when they tried to restore them
  • the Decii, father and son, famous for giving their lives to win victory in two wars
  • Torquatus, led an army against the Gauls and executed his own son for disobeying orders
  • Lucius Mummius who not only sacked Corinth in 146 but utterly destroyed it as an example of Roman power
  • Aemilius Paullus credited with the conquest of Greece for defeating Pyrrhus king of Epirus
  • Cornelius Cossus defeated a foreign king in single combat
  • Tiberius Gracchus and Gaius Gracchus, the reforming tribunes, both of whom were murdered in the streets of Rome along, in the latter case, with thousands of their supporters
  • Scipio Africanus Maior defeated Hannibal at the Battle of Zama
  • Scipio Africanus Minor leading the army which sacked, utterly destroyed Carthage and sold its 50,000 inhabitants into slavery
  • Fabricius who led an army against Pyrrhus
  • Fabius Maximus Cunctator, the general who delayed and delayed confronting Hannibal in Italy
  • M. Claudius Marcellus killed a Gaulish chieftain in single combat

This is (not quite all) the people who feature in Aeneas’s vision of his glorious descendants, and what do they all have in common? Violence and killing. Slaughter. Rome was hyper-violent state, engaged in almost non-stop war (the Gallic Wars) and when they weren’t destroying other peoples’ cities (Corinth, Carthage, Gaul) they fought with terrible ferocity among themselves (Pharsalis, Philippi, Actium).

If any contemporary Roman set out a pageant of their glorious history, what would it consist of? Except a litany of wars and battles. It was a phenomenally militaristic state. Even the humanist’s favourite, Cicero, not only went to serve as governor on Cilicia but led his army in a siege and battles. Even the sternly principled Cato sided with Pompey in the civil war and was made governor of north Africa where he managed the military campaigns. Holding a senior magistracy at any time in Roman history almost inevitably entailed leading a Roman army.

Camps’s attempts at a moral interpretation undermined by the violence

Maybe I’m getting this way wrong, but I read Camps’s introduction from end to end and I think it gives a deeply misleading impression of the Aeneid. He devotes a chapter to Aeneas, then one to Dido and Turnus, and these overflow with sensitive empathy for their sufferings and the deeply ‘moral’ choices which they face.

But the poem I read venerates power, might, military strength, masculinity, supreme ability in battle and its centre stand two awesome killing machines, terminator-figures, Aeneas and Turnus who rampage across the battlefield beheading, belimbing, skewering and butchering anyone who stands in their way.

This is one of the reasons I dislike the moralising tone of humanist literary criticism, because it distorts the facts, it deceives and lies. You can read Camps’s book from end to end and get no sense of the piles of bodies, bloody gore and funeral pyres which clot the poem, and end up thinking it’s a Henry James novel making sensitive discriminations about moral scruples. It really isn’t.

At the end of Camps’s chapter about Aeneas, he does, eventually, concede, that there is a bit of fighting, and, OK, Aeneas is a bit brutal. He lists some examples. On the battlefield at the height of his rage Aeneas taunts a victim with the thought that his body will lie unburied; he consigns some of the prisoners they’ve taken to be executed in cold blood to adorn Pallas’s funeral.

There’s more like this but Camps deliberately omits it. Instead he goes out of his way to exonerate his vision of a caring, sharing, sensitive hero, these brutalities:

are altogether at variance with the hero’s usual humanity, and indeed with the standards of the poet’s civilised contemporaries.

Rubbish. A quick checklist of Augustus’ behaviour refutes this, not to mention a scan of Caesar’s record in Gaul, Roman behaviour in Carthage or Corinth or in the Wild East of Asia Minor. Camps limply goes on to concede that ‘the Roman world was not a gentle one’ [sic], and then devotes a paragraph to trying to justify Aeneas’s brutal, bloody execution of an unarmed prisoner on his knees at the end of the poem. He claims that this execution ‘would seem to Virgil’s readers poetically just’. Right at the end of his introduction, he returns to the fact that the entire poem builds up to this ominous and disturbing conclusion, the enraged murder of Turnus, and finds it:

strangely discordant with the normally disciplined humanity of Aeneas (p.142)

But reading Camps’s efforts to explain away this glaring, brutal event I thought: ‘But what if…what if the brutal killing, maiming and taunting, the sending for execution and murderous mayhem Aeneas enacts at the end of the Aeneid is NOT the temporary aberration Camps tries to explain away? What if it is the real Aeneas coming through and showing his “civilised contemporaries” what the real Rome is really like and it is – a killing machine?’

To be really crude, Camps is an apologist for a poem glorifying a mass killer and a violent empire.

The animal sacrifices

You don’t have to be a vegetarian to be disgusted by the vast number of animals who are ritually slaughtered on almost every page of the Aeneid, led to the place of sacrifice and having their throats cut so their hot blood splashes over the altar by the gallon. Thousands and thousands of animals are butchered in the name of religion, in fact, in practical terms, animal butchery is their religion, both Trojans and Latins.

You know the line they’ve been putting on movie credits for decades, ‘No animals were harmed in the making of this movie’? Well, thousands of animals were slaughtered, had their throats slashed while they were alive and fully conscious, in the making of this poem.

Two points. 1. Again, this is the kind of really obvious in-your-face aspect of the text which a ‘moralising’ critic like Camps completely ignores. It’s just not there for him, because his ideology that literature must be about humanistic morality and sensibility simply prevents him from registering what is in front of him. As soon as I see a critic (of literature or art or film or whatever) mention the words ‘moral’, ‘morality’, ‘moral choices’ etc I know they are going to give a distorted and inaccurate account of the work under consideration, because their obsession with ‘moral values’ restricts them to just one narrow aspect of the characters and the text and blinds them, like the blinkers on a carthorse, to everything else which is going on around them, to the totality of the work.

Anyway, Camps doesn’t have the ‘moral’ awareness to even register that the cruel slaughter of thousands of sentient animals might be wrong.

But 2. The relentless animal slaughter plays a really important role in the fabric of the poem by making the human slaughter seem natural. It desensitises you. If you’ve already waded through lakes of animal blood, spurting from slashed throats, it makes the butchery of human beings just that bit more assimilable. The entire poem becomes a welter of blood and gore.

As I said, I’m aware that this is also a biased and partial view and that there are plenty of passages of delightful description, Aeneas’s sensitivity and sea nymphs frolicking in the waves etc. I am just pointing out what Camps’s supposedly thorough introduction to the poem completely omits from its account.

Virgil’s multi-levelled and holey theology

Christian theology has spent 2,000 years trying to reconcile the paradox that, while on the one hand God is all-knowing and so knows the future as well as the past, on the other hand, the theology of reward and punishment only makes sense if humans have free will. If everything is foreordained, then I have no free will, and therefore cannot be guilty or innocent of my actions. Therefore cannot be sent to hell or heaven. Whereas Christian theologians and hierarchies and organisations, very much do want to emphasise our free will precisely in order to threaten us with punishment in the afterlife and keep us in line.

Now the same problem is raised by the Aeneid only in a much more intense form because at every step of the way, at almost every decisive moment, it is the gods’ intervention which makes things happen. Venus makes Dido fall in love with Aeneas, going to some lengths to do so, luring Aeneas’s son into a copse where she puts him asleep and replacing him at Dido’s reception feast for Aeneas with her other son, Eros god of love, assuming the form of Eros entirely to soften her spinsterhood and make her fall for the Trojan. And then it is Venus who, at the end of their affair, comes to Aeneas in a dream and tells him he must get up and rouse his companions and load his ships and leave Carthage right now.

Similarly, the entire action of the second half of the book, the entire war between the Trojans and the Latins, with the enormous destruction and loss of life on both sides, only takes place solely because Juno makes it happen, commissioning the Fury Allecto to fire up the Latins against the peace treaty with the Trojans.

And yet, throughout the poem, the narrator also assigns praise and blame to individual actors, and they themselves debate their guilt and responsibility. For example, Aeneas tells Dido it is not his fault that he is running off and abandoning her: sed me iusa deum – the nasty god made me do it.

It would be interesting to read a clever analysis which explained what we know of Roman theology and sets Virgil’s depiction of the issue within that framework of belief. Camps sketches out the issues in his chapter 5 but doesn’t tell us anything which wasn’t already obvious from the poem.

For me the key to thinking about this problem is suggested by something Camps explains at the start of his book, which is to do with Virgil’s method of composition. Namely, it was episodic. (Camps uses the Latin word particulatim which means ‘piecemeal’, p.125). According to Donatus’s Life of Virgil, the poet first wrote out a prose version of his story but then chose not to work through it in order, but to work up particular ad hoc scenes from different parts of the narrative into verse.

And in doing so, he focused on producing as intense and vivid a scene as possible for the scene’s sake and we know that this sometimes led to discrepancies between episodes; characters behave inconsistently or say one thing in one scene, another in another; characters are introduced who we have already met and so on.

(Camps mentions the two apparently different deaths of Palinurus, who, at the end of book 5, plunges down into the sea, drowning, but in book 6 is said to have swim to shore, p.125. Or there are the two completely different versions of how Helen reacts to the sacking of Troy a) hiding in terror 2.567, or b) out confidently leading the Greeks around the city in book 6. He gives more examples of this kind of contradiction in appendix 4.)

Well, Virgil’s theology can be thought about in the same way as his method of composition, namely that he is not expounding a consistent and thought-through theology in the manner of Tertullian or Augustine; rather he is writing a dramatic poem and all that matters is the intensity of particular episodes. The momentary impact is the thing. Therefore it creates a great dramatic effect to show Juno or Venus interfering almost all the way through the narrative. But at other moments, on the human plane, mortals may discuss their decisions and implications in human terms of agency and responsibility. And because Virgil is concerned with creating whatever is most effective at any particular point, he isn’t concerned with trying to reconcile the theological contradictions thrown up by these different approaches.

In fact there are at least three levels at work in the poem, because above the continual interfering of the gods, which is continually described, sits another force – this is the power of fate or the Fates. This isn’t described but referred to at various points, mainly by the gods themselves. Nothing at all, not even Jupiter, can change what is destined and fated. He and the other gods can only interfere with what, in the end, are details, but the overall Fate and Destiny of everyone is fixed and unalterable.

Thus Juno herself is made to admit that she cannot change Aeneas’s ultimate destiny to settle in Italy and found the Roman race; she can only delay it. Which she does, at the cost of thousands of needless deaths including, ironically, that of her own favourite, Turnus.

On this view, you can pray to the gods, and the gods are depicted answering some (though not all) prayers (mortals can never be sure which ones will be answered and which ones won’t). But no prayers can alter the fixed outlines of Fate.

Fate has built the matrix with bands of steel. Nothing can change or alter them. But within the matrix, individual gods are free to mess about with details, to delay, to alter, to bend – but never to change the fundamental ends.

It’s in this context that Camps makes the shrewd point that the gods themselves pursue their own ends. The gods are as selfish as mortals, maybe more so. Only Jupiter rises above their endless squabbles and tries to adjudicate fairly but, as many readers have observed, he is only an intermittent presence in the poem: Juno and Venus are much more prominent, Juno most of all. The Aeneid could accurately be called the Book of Juno, or The Book of Juno’s Anger.

To anyone who takes this mirage, ‘morality’, seriously, the gods in Virgil are quite demonstrably monsters of immorality, cruel, thoughtless, heartless, irresponsible – like children. Any real consideration of the pagan gods of antiquity eventually suggests why they had to be superseded by the Christian god. They were just not worthy of serious intellectual consideration. And they are fundamentally indifferent to human life, breath-takingly callous. Serious consideration of the pagan gods led philosophers to sets of beliefs like Epicureanism or Stoicism, very different ideologies but alike in their aim of trying to eliminate the role of the gods in human life. Paganism tends towards a brutal indifference to human existence.

Compare and contrast that with the intense feeling of personal salvation which Christianity offered its believers. As Camps puts it, ‘the promise of the new kind of religion is evidence of the terrors of the old’ (p.49).

Anyway, the existence of these three levels of action allows Virgil to switch between them as it suits his narrative ends. Jupiter apologises to Juno, saying his hands are tied by Fate. Aeneas apologises to Dido, saying his hands are tied by the gods, and so on.

How are humans meant to know what the devil is going on? Via the welter of omens, signs and prophecies which the text is full of. These are the channel of communication between the three levels.

Sometimes a god personally explains something to Aeneas, but far more often it is the shade of a dead mortal (Hector or Anchises) who can explain things up to a point but not the full picture. This up-to-a-pointness is really striking: ghosts and spirits are continually telling Aeneas just so much of his future and, when he wants to know more, fading into smoke.

At other times it is the mute symbolism of some sign or portent like a comet in the skies or a swarm of bees or the eagle carrying off a swan who is beaten off by all the other birds – in other words, portents which mortals are forced to interpret and guess at.

My position is that none of this amounts to a worked-out theology on the analogy of Christian theologies. The opposite. Although these elements fill the text to bursting, they don’t indicate a coherent worldview, but one that is cheerfully incoherent: one which is ragged and flexible enough for the characters and narrator to switch between at least 3 levels of belief: belief in a Fixed and Unchangeable Fate, belief in the continual intervention of the gods, and belief in man’s free will which is sufficient to allow him to carry out free actions which can, accordingly, be judged within a ‘moral’ framework.

The overlap and interplay of the different systems is one of the things which keeps the poem dynamic and varied, keeps the reader in a continual sense of flux and uncertainty.

Furens

Alongside the multiple levels of destiny, goes a kind of dualistic theory of human nature. Dido and Turnus have two modes of being: their ‘normal’ selves and themselves possessed. In their states of possession they are associated with a range of frenetic adjectives, to wit: amens, turbidus, fervidus, ardens, furens, trepidans, in a state of inania, furor and violentia.

Furor in particular is applied to Dido a dozen times and Turnus half a dozen times. And Aeneas, after the death of Pallas, becomes a man ‘possessed’ on the battlefield. If you felt so inclined you could read the entire poem through the vector of frenzied possession just as much as by Camps’s limp metric of ‘morality’.

The poetry

It’s difficult to follow Camps’s chapter about the verse itself (chapter 7) unless you can not only read Latin but have a good feel for it as a medium of expression. I did Latin GCSE but have nowhere near the ability to judge it as poetry. Some key points which come over from Camps’s account are:

Vocabulary Virgil used a consciously ‘poetic’ diction, on the model of Milton in Paradise Lost or Tennyson in Idylls of the King, with a sprinkling of words from earlier poetry and archaic forms to give it sonority and authority.

Syntax Flexible, sometimes an adjective whose meaning attaches to one noun is grammatically attached to another; two nouns related by a verb have their normal relationship inverted; a phrase is compressed by omitting a term of meaning, letting the reader supply it; sometimes grammar as well as meaning is understated or omitted and the reader needs to supply it, too. These and other tactics create:

  • flexibility in writing lines and passages
  • compactness

But Camps says that, more distinctive than either of these is Virgil’s coining of highly expressive original phrases out of very basic words. Alongside their power goes a certain ambiguity. This has meant that many phrases of Virgil’s can be extracted from their original context and acquire new, more powerful meanings. Take lacrimae rerum.

Aeneas has been washed up on the coast of Africa and welcomed into the new city of Carthage and now he is looking at a mural in a Carthaginian temple dedicated to Juno that depicts battles of the Trojan War and the deaths of his friends and countrymen. He is moved to tears and says ‘sunt lacrimae rerum et mentem mortalia tangunt’.

Apparently, even in the original Latin, this phrase is grammatically ambiguous and can equally mean, ‘There are tears for things and mortal things touch the mind’ or, ‘There are tears of things and mortal things touch the mind.’

Either way, the phrase went on to have a tremendous afterlife, being widely quoted in later writers as pithily summing up the sadness of human existence. Then, in the early twentieth century, it began to be used on Great War memorials, thus entering wider consciousness. It’s one example of the way Virgil’s just-so selection of very ordinary words was done in such a way as to pack an eerily powerful – and enduring – punch.

Pederast

The single most striking thing in Camps’s book is not by him but is in Aelius Donatus’s short Life of Virgil which Camps includes in its entirety in an appendix. In the early section about his appearance and nature, Donatus writes:

He was somewhat inclined to pederasty, [his particular favourites being Cebes and Alexander, whom he calls Alexis in the second Eclogue. Alexander was given to him by Asinius Pollio. Both of them were well-educated and Cebes wrote poetry himself.] (p.115)

Donatus then goes on to report the rumour that Virgil had a relationship with an apparently notable woman named Plotia Hieria, but that she denied it in later life. Apart from that ‘his conduct and demeanour were so respectable’ that at Naples he acquired the nickname Parthenias, an adjective applied to Athena and meaning chaste and virginal.

Three points. 1. This entirely chimes with several of the Eclogues which describe passionate love between  some of the poems’ idealised young shepherds and are plainly homoerotic. 2. The fact that ‘Alexander’ was a gift shows that the young men in question were slaves. Virgil had gay relationships with his male slaves. Slavery.

3. It’s interesting how Donatus’s description moves easily from describing his fondness for male slaves to his rumoured affair with a Roman matron. I.e. the homosexuality had the same kind of value or scandal value as a rumoured ‘straight’ affair i.e. merited a sentence or two, but not worth making any fuss over.

It’s a demonstration of the point made in M.I. Finley’s essay about women and marriage in ancient Rome, that what mattered more than anything else was the legal integrity of the official family, and in particular the legal status of sons and daughters to ensure the efficient heritance of property, titles and lineage. As long as these legal forms were observed, then there was considerable leeway in how citizens (mostly men) (mis)behaved.


Credit

An Introduction to Virgil’s Aeneid by W.A. Camps was published by Oxford University Press in 1969. All references are to the 1984 paperback edition.

Roman reviews