Fratantuono on Aeneid, Book Two

Fratantuono's commentary (Madness Unchained) has been good so far: unlike some other Aeneid commentaries I've looked at, he is everywhere concerned with the literary interpretation of the poem, bringing his considerable knowledge of the classical and Virgilian tradition to bear on the work's own inner trajectory. One small regret is that he does not spend any time trying to interpret the scene, early in Book Two, where the two Trojans, Capys and Thymoetes, argue about whether the Horse ought to be brought within the walls of the city. I (with my small Latin and less Greek) have been inclined to interpret their names as etymological hints: "Capys," which seems to hint at caput--the head--is arguing against bringing the horse in, while "Thymoetes"--pretty clearly drawn from the Greek thumos, for spiritedness or heart--urges that the colossus be brought within the city walls. The heart wins out over the head and the thing happens, to their downfall. This interpretation seems to jive with the Aeneid's general emphasis on rational rule over spiritedness and the passions, but is there a more-than-apparent connection in the Latin? I'm not the one to ask...

Meanwhile I hear the voice of my old Greek professor echoing in my ears: "etymology by sound does not make for sound etymology."

MacIntyre, and on to Virgil

Finished the review of Mong Ih-Ren a few days back (it was horrible--plagiarism on top of poor style), and finished re-reading a good part of After Virtue, but unfortunately I need to put off Whose Justice? Which Rationality? for now--the imperative of getting through a few classroom texts is gaining force. Maybe I'll still get to WJWR before the end of the summer...

One smaller thing: I re-read MacIntyre's very sharp essay from a few years ago, "Transformations of Enlightenment: Plato, Rosen and the Postmodern" (in Logos and Eros, ed. Nalin Ranasinghe (St. Augustine's P, 2006), which appreciates and critiques the thought of the Straussian philosopher Stanley Rosen. I don't know of any other place where MacIntyre actually confronts Straussianism, other than a review he wrote a few years back of a book by Thomas Pangle (but M. didn't seem to understand what was going on in that book). His critique of Rosen is thoughtful and illuminating, and basically turns on the claim that Rosen's Platonism and modified liberalism rely upon a version of Nature he is unwilling to credit as existent.

Now, as part of a class prep, I'm reading through Robert Fagles' translation of the Aeneid for the first time (I've usually read Fitzgerald before now), and I'm going through Lee Fratantuono's commentary, Madness Unchained: A Reading of Virgil's Aeneid (Lexington, 2007), at the same time. Fagles is pleasurable, though I find myself second-guessing his florid renderings from time to time. Fratantuono seems solid and very interesting so far, displaying some of the reading habits of his erstwhile mentor, the late Seth Benardete, but without descending into the maddening fog of Benardete's obscurantist prose.