6—
Clarity
An essential requirement for clarity is that the narrator shall inform his listeners, in
good time and completely, of the presuppositions which underlie his narrative; in
other words, that he give an adequate exposition of the separate parts of the action
and of the characters. An illustration of this from the Aeneid is in Book 2 where
Aeneas anticipates something which he himself only learned later, so that the fol-
lowing events will be completely clear to the listener (above p. 14f.). We shall see
later that Virgil likes to weave such exposition into the action by having one person
being told the necessary information by another, e.g. Dido's story told by Venus,
Mezentius' history by Evander, Camilla's childhood by Diana. Only rarely does the
poet himself provide the exposition, because this holds up the narrative; he was
unable to avoid explaining the metamorphosis of the ships; less uncertain and
equally necessary was the exposition of the situation in Latium; this acts as a kind of
prologue to the second part of the epic and marks a strong division in the narrative.
Similarly, at the beginning of the whole work, Virgil explains Juno's attitude in an
introductory passage (1.12-33) which one may compare with the prologue to a
drama, while the attitude of the friendly gods, Venus and Jupiter, is explained in a
conversation inserted after the first act of the narrative (223-96). In comparison, the
exposition of the human side of the action at the beginning of the work seems, at
first glance, to have been neglected. The proem (1-7) informs us about the subject;
from the account of the reasons for Juno's anger we learn that the Trojans are still
engaged on the voyage to Latium; at the beginning of the actual narrative we hear
that they have just left Sicily, in good heart, and are on the open sea. That is all – but
it is perfectly adequate: what they had experienced in Sicily and beforehand, how
long they have already been wandering, in fact all further information would only
have weighed down the exposition, without furthering the comprehension of what
follows; it would also have anticipated things which are to be told in their proper
376 context later. The first of these pieces of information is presented as the result of
Juno's hatred, the second gives us the setting of Juno's monologue; this gives the
poet the advantage that he can remain with Juno, who conducts the first part of the
action, without having to jump about to follow the story: an advantage which he
prized greatly, as we shall see. He has the further advantage that he can begin
straightaway with the story, go straight in medias res [into the midst of events],
without delaying the narrative with any introductory remarks: this was an advantage
which was already admired in Homer. The Iliad achieves it by presuming that
everybody already knows the circumstances at the beginning of the story.[22] Apollo-
nius was imitating this when he started his poem by narrating why Pelias sent Jason
out; he does mention the fleece, but gives no further details about this fleece or the
purpose of the voyage: the listener already knows all this. Virgil makes similar
presuppositions about the familiarity of his material in that he narrates nothing specifi-
cally about the Trojan War, Aeneas' flight etc., but he does allude to it all, partly in the
proem, partly in the prologue about Juno's intentions; the little that is required in order
to understand the special situation at the beginning is similarly mentioned only in
passing, apparently by chance.
It is even clearer in the case of the characters that Virgil is consciously imitating
Homeric usage. Naturally it does not occur to Homer to say who Achilles or Aga-
memnon was; that the Menoitiades who enters in Iliad 4.307 is Patroclus, the reader
knows: the poet 'is only following the tradition'.[23] This is how it happens that the
poet who wrote the prologue to the Odyssey does not even name his hero at first; it is
only after 'he' has been mentioned several times that the name Odysseus comes in,
as if accidentally ( Od . 1.21); who the
did not need to be spelt out to any listener. Similarly, in Virgil's opinion, every
Roman would know who the man was, 'who came from Troy to the Lavinian shore
and brought the Trojan gods to Latium'; for the rest, he only mentions the Trojans
377 (30), the king of the Teucrians (38), the race hated by Juno: it is only when Aeneas
himself enters as protagonist that his name appears, in line 92.
This late naming of names occurs so frequently in the case of less important
figures that it cannot be mere chance. Latinus' 'daughter' (7.52) is not named
Lavinia until she takes part in the action; his 'wife' (56) is not called Amata until
Allecto comes to her (343); Juturna is introduced as Turnus' alma soror [guardian-
sister] when she is as it were working from a distance (10.439); her name is only
given by Juno when the nymph herself appears on the stage (12.146); the Sibyl has
been mentioned several times in general terms (3.443; 5.735; 6.10) before we meet
Deiphobe, Glaucus' daughter, at the moment that Aeneas catches sight of her (6.35).
It is as if the listener is not interested in learning someone's name until they appear
in person in front of him. Strangely enough, we find the same thing in Homer on
occasions. In Odyssey 6 Alcinous' wife is often referred to as such and as Nausicaa's
mother; it is only when Odysseus is about to meet her that he (and with him the
listener) learns the name Arete. Odysseus' swineherd is introduced in Odyssey
13.404 and often mentioned thereafter; it is only when he is about to speak himself
(Od . 14.55) that the poet feels the urge to address him as Eumaeus.
However, in Virgil this phenomenon is not restricted to the simple naming of
names; it is almost the general rule that no details are given about a person until they
themselves 'appear', or until they have their main scene to play. One might be
tempted to attribute this to the fact that Virgil did not write his books in order and so
had already given details about a person in later books so that, writing earlier books
afterwards, he thought he only had to mention them briefly. But let us start with an
example where this cannot have happened. In Book 11 when the Latin delegation is
asking Aeneas for an armistice in order to bury the dead, Drances is introduced as
their spokesman, an 'elderly man, sworn enemy of Turnus': we need to know that
much to understand what he says at this point (122). We are further told (220) that
saevus Drances [fierce Drances] stirs up rebellion against Turnus in Laurentium; but
it not until the subsequent assembly that he has his main scene. It is only immedi-
378 ately before his great speech against Turnus that we hear further details about him:
he envies Turnus' fame, because he himself, although rich and articulate, is militar-
ily unfit; his word is respected in the assembly, and he has a large party behind him;
on his mother's side he comes from a distinguished family, but not on his father's
side. We see that the details are meted out to the listener in the measure that suits the
amount of interest aroused by each appearance; without a doubt, this is much better
than if the poet were to empty his whole sack of information at the first mention, so
that the listener would have nothing to wait for. We should bear this in mind when
judging analogous cases. Iarbas is mentioned in Anna's speech only as an unsuc-
cessful suitor of Dido's (4.36); we are told more about him when his prayer to
Jupiter has an important effect on the action (198). In the Harpy adventure (3.239),
Misenus gives the trumpet-signal to attack: to go into his family, his skills, his
earlier life, would have been as out of place here as it is fitting during the narrative
of his death and burial (6.164ff.): Virgil could not have done anything different here,
even if he had written Book 3 before Book 6. Acestes was known to every educated
person as a Sicilian of Trojan descent and first ruler of Segesta; but even someone
who knew nothing about him would learn enough from the two lines when he is first
named in 1.195: vina bonus quae deinde cadis onerarat Acestes litore Trinacrio
dederatque abeuntibus heros [the cargo of wine-casks which with a hero's generos-
ity the kindly Acestes had given them on the beach in Sicily as they embarked]: he
had given the Trojans hospitality in Sicily. In Ilioneus' speech to Dido the situation
gives rise to the mention that Acestes is of Trojan stock and rules over Sicilian cities
(549). It is not until Book 5, when he meets Aeneas, that we see him as a person,
with exact information about his descent, his external appearance etc. Virgil deals in
exactly the same way with Nisus and Euryalus (Books 5 and 9), with Evander, and
many others. For the war-heroes in the second part, the catalogues in Books 7 and
10 supplied a convenient opportunity to introduce them; but here too Virgil wisely
restricted himself, and said no more about the most important characters (Mezentius,
Camilla) than suited the style of the catalogue: we learn more soon enough, later,
when it can have its full effect.
The consistent carrying through of this principle, of which the effect can also be
seen in other aspects of the narrative, does not necessarily go back to theoretical
379 considerations; but it is reminiscent of Horace's rule about lucidus ordo [lucid
arrangement]: the poet iam nunc dicat iam nunc debentia dici , pleraque differat et
praesens in tempus omittat [he should say at present what requires to be said at
present: he should defer much and leave it out for the time being] ( Ars Poetica 43).