Was Aeneas, the mythical survivor of the Trojan War and founder of Rome, a hero of civilization or an apologist for imperialism? Edward Rothstein of the New York Times examines the question on the occasion of Robert Fagles new translation of the Aeneid.

“But in recent decades, when even the notion of civilization has come under challenge for its claims of ethical and social superiority, Aeneas has sometimes been portrayed as a kind of patsy for imperialism, mouthing higher goals while succumbing to reckless fury as he spills the bowels of his enemies on the earth. The argument has been made that Virgil’s project was actually ironic, anti-Augustan: he showed how civilization itself is drenched in blood, with self-celebratory history being written by the victors.”

In the end, after weighing the case, Rothstein agrees with translator Robert Fagles’s assessment. That the story of the Aeneid (in the hands of Virgil) is something of a cautionary tale.

“The Aeneid, he has suggested (thinking, he had said, of contemporary events), exhorts empires to behave. But it does not dismiss the ideal of civilization or the labors demanded or the persistent dangers faced; it offers a realist prophecy of war and peace, heralding civilization along with its discontents.”

Was Virgil trying to flatter Rome (and Augustus) while at the same time trying to warn of the excesses of empire? It seems a likely scenario, Virgil, though a supporter of Augustus, was reluctant to take on the writing of a “national epic” and was pressed into the service by Augustus. One thing is certain, the influence and relevance of Virgil and his Aeneid remain vital to our present day understandings of power and civilization.