It is too bad that the Aeneid, as a whole, is not better known in America. The general practice in our secondary schools has come to be that of reading Books I, II, IV, and VI, and that’s all. This seems to me a peculiar way to deal with a work of art, like looking at selected portions of the Venus of Milo. I do not see how any intelligent American boys or girls can go this slowly, unless they stop to scan every line, note every example of synecdoche or synizesis, and parse all the grammatical constructions, with special attention to the poetical dative of agent and the Greek middle voice accusative of respect. And where the impression grew that the last six books are inferior in interest to the first I do not understand. Virgil, for one, did not think so. _Maius opus moveo._ It is a peculiar, paradoxical kind of great poem, this Aeneid. For us, I think, its greatness can be found in ways that may have had less appeal to the Roman mind. Its references may mean less, its music more. Not only the music of the lines, but the music of the whole: this is a composition, and the pleasure comes in listening to it as one would to a great symphony (and not too much attention, please, to the program notes). This is a composition, the Aeneid, beautifully wrought, beautifully balanced. Professor Conway has written an illuminating essay dealing with the poem in terms of its architecture; in detail, his analysis is excellent, but the central metaphor is a little unhappy if it leads you to envisage the Aeneid as an impressive pile, frozen and static. The poem _moves_, in more senses than one: the thing to do is to feel it and listen to it. Hear how the themes vary and recur; how the tone lightens and darkens, the volume swells or dies, the tempo rushes or lingers. Take in the poem with the mind, to be sure; take it in with the eye as well; but above all, hearken to it with the ear.