Pietas and Furor Functioning as Keywords of Thematic, Imagistic Complexes in the Aeneid
seditio saevitque animis ignobile uulgus
iamque faces et saxa uolant, furor arma ministrat;
tum pietate grauem ac meritis si forte uirum quem
conspexere, silent arrectisque auribus astant;
ille regit dictis animos et pectora mulcet:
sic cunctus pelagi cecidit fragor, aequora postquam
prospiciens genitor caeloque inuectus aperto
flectit equos curruque uolans dat lora secundo.
a rebellion, and the low-born populace rages in their minds,
and now torches and rocks fly, furor supplies weapons;
then if, by chance, some man laden with pietas and well-deserved rewards
they spy, they grow silent and stand still, ears erect;
he rules their minds with his words and soothes their breasts:
so all the roaring of the sea subsided, once its expanse
was surveyed by the father, as borne along under a clear sky
he steers his horses, and flying in the chariot that they draw, he gives them free rein.
So we witness for the first time the conflicting forces interacting on a divine level that collaterally afflict mortals with their destructive consequences. These forces are then reflected in a microcosmic, metaphorical, embedded narrative that actually turns into the focus of the poem’s narrative, the story of a man laden with pietas struggling with his own inner forces of furor as well as its external expressions in divine, individual, and communal forms.
The Rule of Exclusivity in the Functional Opposition between Pietas and Furor
fas erat, idque omnes diuique hominesque canebant.
uictus amore tui, cognato sanguine  uictus
30coniugis et maestae lacrimis, uincla omnia rupi;
promissam eripui genero, arma inpia sumpsi.
ex illo qui me casus, qua, Turne, sequantur
bella, uides, quantos primus patiare labores.
bis magna uicti pugna uix urbe tuemur
35spes Italas; recalent nostro Thybrina fluenta
sanguine adhuc campique ingentes ossibus albent.
quo referor totiens? quae mentem insania mutat?
si Turno exstincto socios sum ascire paratus,
cur non incolumi potius certamina tollo?
40quid consanguinei Rutuli, quid cetera dicet
Italia, ad mortem si te (fors dicta refutet!)
prodiderim, natam et conubia nostra petentem?
respice res bello uarias, miserere parentis
longaeui, quem nunc maestum patria Ardea longe
was ordained, so all gods and men foretold.
But overcome by my love of you, overcome by our ties of blood
and the tears of my mourning wife, I broke all bonds;
I ripped his betrothed from my [prospective] son-in-law, I took up impious arms.
From that day, Turnus, you see what disasters, what wars
pursue me, what great tasks you above all take on.
Our city twice conquered in battle, we can barely protect
the hopes of the Italians; the Tiber’s streams are warm with our
blood still, and the great fields are white with our bones.
What am I slipping back to so often? What madness changes my mind?
If I am prepared to accept them as allies with Turnus dead,
why not instead end the struggle with him safe and sound?
What will your kinsmen, the Rutuli, what will the rest
of Italy say, if — may chance refute these words — I should hand you over
to death as you seek my daughter in marriage?
Consider the ups and downs of war, take pity on your parent,
aged as he is, mourning as he is, afar in Ardea?”
flectitur; exsuperat magis aegrescitque medendo.
deflected; it takes command even more and grows ill for the healing.
As noted earlier, the exceptionally strong word uiolentia is used only of Turnus, and the oxymoron aegrescit medendo iconifies the impossibility of synthesis or mitigation. 
A Poetic Etymology of Furor
Proposal for a Poetic Etymology of Pietas
saepius occurrens haec limina tendere adegit;
stant sale Tyrrheno classes. da iungere dextram
da, genitor, teque amplexu ne subtrahe nostro.’
sic memorans largo fletu simul ora rigabat.
ter conatus ibi collo dare bracchia circum;
ter frustra comprensa manus effugit imago,
par leuibus uentis uolucrique simillima somno.
coming to mind so often drove me to attain this gateway;
the fleet is at anchor in the Tyrhenian sea. Give me your right hand to join to mine,
give it, father, do not withdraw from my embrace.”
So speaking he drenched his face in a flood of tears.
Three times he tried to put his arms around his neck;
three times the image vainly grasped fled his hands,
so much like light winds and a fleeting dream.
The physical expression of affection is inadmissible in a relationship marked for pietas, as we have seen in Aeneas’ ‘kissing’ of Ascanius on the helmet. More movingly and more generally, the trajectory of the hero in the poem is a tale of pathos, of death, separation, and loss, because the hero of pietas, the son of Venus herself, must be trained to acquire an absence of affect in his relations to others whom he holds most dear.
Να ᾿άλω γιώ τημ μάνναμ-μου, πού θά ᾿βρω άλλη μάννα;
Να ᾿άλω γιώ το τσύρημ-μου, πού θά ᾿βρω άλλο τσύρη;
Να ᾿άλω απού τ᾿ αέρμφια-μου, πού θά ᾿βρω άλλα αέρφια;
Να ᾿άλω τηγ γυναίκαμ-μου, τσ᾿ άλληγ γυναίκα βρίσκω.
And he sat down and bethought himself whom he should choose:
“Should I offer my mother, where can I find another mother?
Should I offer my father, where can I find another father?
Should I offer one of my brothers, where can I find another brother?
I shall offer my wife, since I can find another wife.” 
Concluding: More on Relations of Affection vs. Relations of Blood in Iliad and Aeneid
9.629 ἄγριον ἐν στήθεσσι θέτο μεγαλήτορα θυμὸν
9.630 σχέτλιος, οὐδὲ μετατρέπεται φιλότητος ἑταίρων
9.631 τῆς ᾗ μιν παρὰ νηυσὶν ἐτίομεν ἔξοχον ἄλλων
9.632 νηλής· καὶ μέν τίς τε κασιγνήτοιο φονῆος
9.633 ποινὴν ἢ οὗ παιδὸς ἐδέξατο τεθνηῶτος·
9.634 καί ῥ’ ὃ μὲν ἐν δήμῳ μένει αὐτοῦ πόλλ’ ἀποτίσας,
9.635 τοῦ δέ τ’ ἐρητύεται κραδίη καὶ θυμὸς ἀγήνωρ
9.636 ποινὴν δεξαμένῳ· σοὶ δ’ ἄλληκτόν τε κακόν τε
9.637 θυμὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσι θεοὶ θέσαν εἵνεκα κούρης
9.638 οἴης· νῦν δέ τοι ἑπτὰ παρίσχομεν ἔξοχ’ ἀρίστας,
9.639 ἄλλά τε πόλλ’ ἐπὶ τῇσι· σὺ δ’ ἵλαον ἔνθεο θυμόν,
9.640 αἴδεσσαι δὲ μέλαθρον· ὑπωρόφιοι δέ τοί εἰμεν
9.641 πληθύος ἐκ Δαναῶν, μέμαμεν δέ τοι ἔξοχον ἄλλων
9.642 κήδιστοί τ’ ἔμεναι καὶ φίλτατοι ὅσσοι Ἀχαιοί.
he has made the generous spirit in his chest savage,
cruel man, nor does he turn his attention to the philotēs of his companions,
the very philotēs with which we honor him beyond all others beside the ships,
pitiless man. Even someone whose brother has been killed
or his very own child accepts compensation for the dead person;
the one [the murderer] remains there in the district after paying much in exchange,
and the other, his heart and proud spirit are restrained
when he accepts the compensation. But unstoppable and bad
the gods have made your spirit because of a girl,
just a girl; and now we are offering you seven of them who are by far the best,
and lots of other things beside them. So make your spirit appeasable,
and show respect for the roof: we are in fact under your roof,
of all of the Danaans, and beyond all the others we are eager
to be the most cherished and dearest to you as many as there are Achaeans.”
He characterizes Briseis as a ‘girl’ (κούρης, 9.637-638), contrasting her with someone whose blood relative, a brother or a child, has died. Such a person accepts compensation and ‘[his] heart and proud thumos are restrained’ (ἐρητύεται κραδίη καὶ θυμὸς ἀγήνωρ, 9.635); whereas Achilles has rejected compensation for a “girl.” This same comparandum, of a person accepting poinē ‘compensation’ for a dead person, seems to be the one invoked in the courtoom scene on the Shield of Achilles, where a figure is staunchly refusing to accept any compensation for an andros apophthimenou ‘a man who has perished’ (18.499). The courtroom scene on the Shield of Achilles sets up, by way of analogy to this speech of Ajax’s, a clear parallel to the conduct of the bearer of the shield himself.  But there is also a revealing contradiction in Ajax’s use of the analogy in the first place. Posing the acceptability of compensation for the loss of a blood relative as a belittling parallel to Achilles’ refusal to accept compensation for ‘only a girl’ (κούρης 9.638-639) relies on the notion that blood relatives are more philos than friends, even though the overarching point of Ajax’s speech is that he and others of those offering Achilles compensation are, as he puts it in his last line, κήδιστοί τ’…καὶ φίλτατοι ‘most treasured and dearest’ (9.642). And the notion that Achilles should accept the seven other women as fair compensation for Briseis participates in the same idea that we see in the Bridge of Arta tradition, that a preferred woman is easily replaceable by another (a fortiori, seven others!). It is clear, however, that Ajax makes his comparison to the compensation of a dead blood-relative not because he considers blood-relatives more dear than the philoi who are present, but because the comparison relies on a culturally-resonant contrast that belittles the importance of the woman Achilles loves in order to promote, by contrast with her, the philotēs of the men present: it is Achilles’ philotēs for them that he is seeking to activate. After all, the two opposed variants in the folklore motif would not exist or survive in the same cultural context if a preference for the claims of blood-relatives did not resonate in that context as much as the preference for relationships based on affection. An awareness of the possible contradiction between this appeal and the strong Iliadic preference for bonds of affection over bonds of blood perhaps explains why, in the parallel scene on Achilles’ shield, the murdered person is described in neutral (as well as masculine) terms as andros apophthimenou ‘a man who had perished’ (18.499) — that victim could be either a blood relative or a friend.
ἄκμηνον πόσιος καὶ ἐδητύος ἔνδον ἐόντων
σῇ ποθῇ· οὐ μὲν γάρ τι κακώτερον ἄλλο πάθοιμι,
οὐδ’ εἴ κεν τοῦ πατρὸς ἀποφθιμένοιο πυθοίμην,
ὅς που νῦν Φθίηφι τέρεν κατὰ δάκρυον εἴβει
χήτεϊ τοιοῦδ’ υἷος· ὃ δ’ ἀλλοδαπῷ ἐνὶ δήμῳ
εἵνεκα ῥιγεδανῆς Ἑλένης Τρωσὶν πολεμίζω·
ἠὲ τὸν ὃς Σκύρῳ μοι ἔνι τρέφεται φίλος υἱός,
εἴ που ἔτι ζώει γε Νεοπτόλεμος θεοειδής.
In this moving passage Achilles is negatively equating (οὐ τι κακώτερον ‘in no way worse’) the grief he feels for Patroklos with that he would feel if he were to hear that his own father died, or that which his own father is at that very moment feeling about his own (Achilles’) death, or still further what Achilles himself would feel if he heard that his own son, Neoptolemos, were dead. In other words, the two variants about who is the most important of the philoi are coalescing into an ever wider whole in Achilles’ grief for Patroklos, where the sadness their death would bring is indistinguishable from what he now feels for the lost of his dearest friend. So here it is the reciprocal bond along the whole male line of Peleus, Achilles, and Neoptolemos that is equated to the bond of grief between Patroklos and Achilles. 
ἁψάμενος δ’ ἄρα χειρὸς ἀπώσατο ἦκα γέροντα. 
τὼ δὲ μνησαμένω ὃ μὲν Ἕκτορος ἀνδροφόνοιο
κλαῖ’ ἁδινὰ προπάροιθε ποδῶν Ἀχιλῆος ἐλυσθείς,
αὐτὰρ Ἀχιλλεὺς κλαῖεν ἑὸν πατέρ’, ἄλλοτε δ’ αὖτε
Πάτροκλον· τῶν δὲ στοναχὴ κατὰ δώματ’ ὀρώρει.
then grasping him by the hand, he pushed the old man away a little bit;
and the pair of them brought to mind, the one man-slaying Hector,
weeping uncontrollably, huddled before the feet of Achilles,
and then Achilles weeping for his own father, and again at other times
for Patroklos: their wailing rose up all along the dwellings.
One can imagine Virgil responding here to what he could have felt as an association of pietas and philotēs, of bonds between fathers and sons and the hero’s love for his friend, which may have been the spark that turned Iliadic philotēs into Virgilian pietas, two ingredients that are transformed in order to portray elements of both overarching forces in the life of Aeneas. Perhaps this is also the point to close a dutiful and affectionate tribute to a most generous teacher and a most treasured friend, philos to me as to a multitude of grateful colleagues, students, and family members who have also taken this opportunity to express their gratitude and affection.