Chapter 19 Closer Look 7: The Flight of Aeneas from Troy

Morford 11e Chapter 19 Image 19.15

The Flight of Aeneas from Troy

The Flight of Aeneas from Troy, by Federico Barocci (1535–1612); oil on canvas, 1598, 17 ½ 3 101 in. Barocci faithfully represents Vergil’s narrative. The central group of Aeneas, Ascanius, and Anchises (who is clutching the household gods of Troy) is separated from Creusa, who falls behind. In the foreground are Aeneas’ shield and spear, now useless, while in the background is a round temple, the Tempietto of the Roman church of San Pietro in Montorio, in the portico and gallery of which men are fighting. Beside the temple is the column of Marcus Aurelius, and in the flames behind are the figures of the gods hostile to Troy. Barocci’s signature is on the base of the newel-post on the left.

Source: Alinari/Art Resource, NY

Questions to Consider

1.Look at the arrangement of the four main figures here. How is the grouping of the three male figures, as well as what each of them is holding, emblematic not only of the structure of (male) Roman authority but also of the obligations and duties of each member of the triad? (Hint: think vertically!) On the other side, how does Barocci’s representation of Creusa foreshadow her fate in the Aeneid? (Keep in mind that the exact details of Creusa’s posture, stance, and so on were carefully considered by the artist; there are no “accidents” here.)

2.Vergil’s Aeneid fuses both the mythological past and the Rome of Vergil’s own day—the geography, the civic and religious institutions, and the political upheavals that defined the first century AD—into a sweeping, coherent vision of ancient Roman values and power. Reread the caption, and then explain how Barocci’s painting similarly combines past and future, mythology and history in its depiction of Troy. If the Aeneid imagines Roman power enduring without end through the centuries, how does this painting, given its depiction of this particular “Troy,” update that optimistic imperial vision for viewers in the late sixteenth century—and for us in the twenty-first?