The Trojan horse and the sack of Troy are among the most famous events in classical myth, in no small part because of the second book of the Aeneid. Reading Vergil’s treatment of these stories in the original is the type of opportunity that can attract students to Latin. It is important, therefore, to continue to produce commentaries that support new generations of students as they read the Aeneid in Latin, often for the first time. Although other recent commentaries have answered this call, there is still room for additional contributions. Dominic Jones’ commentary focuses on the aforementioned famous sections of Vergil’s epic, covering Aeneid 2.40–249, 268–317, and 370–558 (i.e., the Sinon and Laocoon episodes, Aeneas’ dream of Hector, and the sack of Troy through the slaying of Priam). Jones’ target audience is students preparing for British A Level and AS Level Latin examinations in 2025 and 2026. I shall leave it to others who are more familiar with A Levels to gauge how well the volume does at meeting its primary goal. Instead, the present review will concentrate on evaluating the text with an eye toward what it could bring to other pedagogical contexts, particularly an undergraduate intermediate Latin course.
The volume includes an introduction, a commentary, and a glossary of every Latin word that appears in the selected verses.[1] The Latin text is based on Mynors’ OCT.[2] The introduction begins with a summary of Vergil’s life and career, as well as offering an overview of the epic genre and the Aeneid. Jones does a nice job here situating the Aeneid within broader literary traditions, mentioning Vergil’s engagement with Homer, Ennius, Naevius, Caesar, Livy, and others. The second part of the introduction focuses on Aeneid 2, with discussions of narratorial standpoint, Sinon and Laocoon, and a consideration of snake and fire imagery. The latter is a high point of the introduction that models how one might trace a theme within Vergil’s epic. The last section covers technical elements, such as scansion and literary terms, concluding with a brief selection of further reading.
Although an introduction of this sort must be selective, there are some striking omissions. Jones does not mention the scholarly debate about “optimistic” and “pessimistic” readings of the Aeneid, a debate that has sparked interest in Vergil for many students (and scholars). In addition, in his discussion of intertextuality (pp. 18–19), Jones points to parallels between Aeneas’ narration of Aeneid 2 and messenger speeches in Greek tragedy. Yet he does not mention Odysseus recounting his wanderings to the Phaeacians in Odyssey 9–12 as a model. Despite these shortcomings, the introduction is clearly written overall, and feels appropriately calibrated for intermediate students, even when it discusses complex topics.
Jones’ commentary likewise has its strengths and weaknesses. His notes tend to be brief, focusing primarily on forms, syntax, and stylistic elements, as well as explaining names and places. The minimal literary interpretation seems intended to allow students to concentrate on getting through the Latin. This is a laudable aim. At the same time, it would have been helpful to cross-reference some of the interpretative points that are made in the introduction. For instance, Jones observes on p. 7 that Vergil’s description of the Greeks wielding a testudo-ram as they besiege Priam’s house at Aen. 2.441 may resonate with Caesar’s description of using war-engines at Massilia (B. Civ. 2.2). The commentary’s note on Aen. 2.441, however, does not refer the reader back to the discussion in the introduction. Instead, in the note Jones points out something not mentioned in the introduction: that critics are unsure whether Vergil uses testudo in this verse to refer to the battering ram or the shield-formation.
On the whole, Jones has produced a text that would be serviceable in an intermediate undergraduate course. The volume does, however, contain some errors and infelicities.[3] In addition, as noted earlier, an instructor has several other relatively recent commentaries aimed at students from which to choose, such as the Focus Aeneid series,[4] Barbara Weiden Boyd’s updated and expanded versions of Clyde Pharr’s edition,[5] Christopher Francese and Meghan Reedy’s selections for the Dickinson College Commentaries series,[6] and Peter Jones’ commentary for intermediate students on Aeneid 1 and 2.[7] Outside the context of A-Level preparation, one of these other options may well be preferable.
Notes
[1] The volume is complemented by online resources that I was not able to access fully and so am not including in my review.
[2] I noted, however, that Jones includes in his text 2.76, a verse that Mynors does not print. In 2.75 Jones also prints quid-ve for quidve.
[3] In his brief discussion of the Georgics, Jones writes that: “…Augustus figures prominently throughout the poem, although never by name” (p. 2). (This quotation comes in the same paragraph in which Jones notes that Octavian received the name Augustus in 27 BCE, two years prior to the publication of the Georgics.) Vergil, of course, repeatedly refers to Octavian in the Georgics using the name “Caesar,” including at 3.46–48, verses that Jones quotes on p. 3. In addition, the statement “Aeneas’ epitaph for Priam (554-8) recalls Cassius Dio…” (p. 7) may mislead students who are unfamiliar with the relative chronology of Vergil and Dio. On p. 12 read “Book 2’s” for “the poem’s” in the sentence: “The switch to a more subjective narrative for the poem’s middle third differentiates the earlier, more ‘collective’ narrative of the Sinon episode.” The final line of Latin in the text, Aen. 2.558, is printed in a larger font than the rest of the text. At p. 66 culpam is partially bolded. The entry on Achilles in the glossary refers readers to 109n.; Achilles is discussed in 108n.
[4] The Focus series currently covers Aeneid 1–8, with the remaining books in preparation. N.B. Randall Ganiban’s 2008 commentary on Aeneid 2: BMCR 2009.05.42.
[5] BMCR 2013.02.47.
[6] https://dcc.dickinson.edu/vergil-aeneid/preface
[7] BMCR 2012.01.12.