Long before the Harvard School, the earliest audiences of Vergil’s Aeneid were conditioned to hear “two voices” in the epic. Vergil’s Eclogues had already illustrated and evoked dialogic interpretations; the epic’s ekphrases, including the Trojan War frieze at Carthage, show the subjective nature of all aesthetic response; and the ancient vita tradition framed the text of the Aeneid, like Pallas’ baldric, as an object of political contestation. In tying the epic’s publication to the death of its author, the Aeneid’s object history continues to implicate all readers, from Augustus to the designers of the 9/11 Memorial in New York, in a struggle for interpretive control. About fifty years ago, a group of scholars now known collectively if somewhat arbitrarily as the Harvard School began identifying in the Aeneid voices of ambivalence and critique in addition to praise for Augustus and his new regime. This mode of interpretation continues to exert a strong gravitational pull over Vergilian scholarship and crystallized an almost ineluctable binary between “pessimistic” and “optimistic” readings of the Aeneid, the former the norm in Anglophone scholarship, the latter still popular on the Continent.1 Some have questioned whether this debate has been constructive or innovative when viewed over the longue durée. Classicists on both sides of the aisle have more in common This paper stems from a panel on the Harvard School’s fiftieth anniversary sponsored by the Vergilian Society at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Society for Classical Studies in San Francisco. For comments and questions that enriched the argument, I warmly thank panel organizer/editor Julia Hejduk, respondent Jim O’Hara, my fellow panelists and audience members; Shadi Bartsch and other contributors to a lively Academia.edu session; and CW’s co-editor Lee Pearcy. Any errors that remain are mine alone. 1 For an overview, see Harrison 1990a and Schmidt 2001.

中文翻译：

---

播下战争的种子：埃涅阿斯纪的史前解释争论和挪用

早在哈佛之前，维吉尔的《埃涅阿斯纪》的最早观众就习惯于听到史诗中的“两种声音”。Vergil 的 Ecogues 已经说明并引发了对话式解释；史诗的 ekphrases，包括迦太基的特洛伊战争楣，显示了所有审美反应的主观性；古老的生命传统将埃涅阿斯纪的文本框定为政治争论的对象，就像帕拉斯的头饰一样。将史诗的出版与其作者的死亡联系起来，埃涅阿斯纪的物体历史继续暗示所有读者，从奥古斯都到纽约 9/11 纪念馆的设计者，都在为解释控制而斗争。大约五十年前，一群现在被统称为哈佛学院的学者，除了赞扬奥古斯都和他的新政权之外，开始在埃涅阿斯纪的声音中识别出矛盾和批评的声音。这种解释模式继续对维吉尔的学术产生强大的引力，并在埃涅阿斯纪的“悲观”和“乐观”解读之间形成了几乎不可避免的二元论，前者是英语学术界的规范，后者在欧洲大陆仍然很受欢迎。 1一些人质疑，从长期来看，这场辩论是否具有建设性或创新性。过道两边的古典主义者有更多的共同点 本文出自在旧金山古典研究学会 2016 年年会上由 Vergilian Society 赞助的哈佛学院 50 周年小组讨论。对于丰富了论点的评论和问题，我热烈感谢小组组织者/编辑 Julia Hejduk、受访者 Jim O'Hara、我的小组成员和听众成员；Shadi Bartsch 和其他活跃的 Academia.edu 会议的贡献者；和 CW 的联合编辑 Lee Pearcy。剩下的任何错误都是我一个人。1 有关概述，请参见 Harrison 1990a 和 Schmidt 2001。Shadi Bartsch 和其他活跃的 Academia.edu 会议的贡献者；和 CW 的联合编辑 Lee Pearcy。剩下的任何错误都是我一个人。1 有关概述，请参见 Harrison 1990a 和 Schmidt 2001。Shadi Bartsch 和其他活跃的 Academia.edu 会议的贡献者；和 CW 的联合编辑 Lee Pearcy。剩下的任何错误都是我一个人。1 有关概述，请参见 Harrison 1990a 和 Schmidt 2001。