The Recycled Hero:
A discussion of epic influences on Virgil’s characterisation of Aeneas
The
Introduction
What makes a hero last forever? Why are some heroic characteristics attributed to a nation or a culture for all time? What makes Aeneas’ character desirable to be studied year on year by academic scholars? It is arguably impossible for any author to divorce himself and his writing from the cultural expectations that are around at its inception. Everything from literary heritage and philosophical ideals to political pressure and historical precedents weigh down on the author’s shoulders when creating a volume. From my studies I have formed the opinion that epic verse must represent the times and the civilization that it is written for. Virgil, in choosing Aeneas as his hero, made a conscious decision to incorporate his interpretation of the Aeneas cult into the foundation story of Rome.[1] The Aeneas myth is a complicated one and attempting to find one version that can categorically be declared as the version that Virgil’s Aeneas is based on is surely a hopeless task. My interests lie in the other literary influences on his treatment of the popular character of Aeneas. How much of the original named myth did he use? What parts did he ignore and to what point and purpose? What other popular heroes were amalgamated into the mixture from which eventually evolved Virgil’s Aeneas? From comparing the characteristics of Virgil’s Aeneas to several other famous epic heroes, I hope to illustrate the psychology of heroism that was present at the Aeneid’s conception and how these preconceived expectations of what it means to be a Roman hero would have played with Virgil’s narrative structure and ultimately the nature of this most Roman of epics.
The political world during the writing of The Aeneid was one that was dramatically changing for the Roman people. Virgil had his hands tied by recent historical events and was forced, both politically and socially, into writing a new ancestor tale to mark the occasion of the end of the civil war, a war that Virgil’s audience and the generation before had had the horror of living through. Reconstruction of the country and a boost to the national morale was one of the top priorities of the political regime. The Augustan building program and the moral reforms demonstrate strongly the princeps intentions. [2] High on the political agenda was the notion of Roman-ness or what it was to be to be a true Roman citizen. Virgil had no choice but to incorporate a discussion of the Roman national character into the epic and thus it became one of the most important themes within The Aeneid.[3] This in turn would have a dramatic knock-on effect on the personality of the main protagonist and his reactions to the situations that he would encounter within the epic. If Augustus was the political unifier of Italy then Virgil, through his literature, was writing an emotional mandate to unify his countrymen.[4]
This essay does not attempt to comprehensively charter the internal workings of Virgil’s thought processes; such an exercise would take a lifetime of research and extrapolation and would inevitably remain conjectural. I aim to merely illuminate some of the many similarities in the personality traits of several key epic heroes whose fame precedes that of The Aeneid and the influence that they had on Aeneas’ characterisation through Virgil’s familiarity with said works. I begin, chronologically, at the beginning with a hero from Homer’s Iliad, Achilles.
Chapter 1
Achilles – The Iliad
‘If any right hand could have saved Troy then, mine would have saved it. Into your care she now commends her sacraments and her household gods. Take them to share your fate. Look for a great city to establish for them after long wanderings across the sea.’
- Book 2.292-296, The Aeneid
The momentum of The Aeneid relies largely on one divine concept: fate. By introducing the concept from the very beginning of the work, Virgil is setting a dangerous route for his hero to take emotionally on his journey. The notion of fate and the various reactions that one could imagine an epic hero experiencing as a result of knowing about said fate creates a wholly different atmosphere in the epic. If Aeneas had not known of his destiny, then The Aeneid would not have been as interesting! But, as I will establish over the course of this discussion, Aeneas is not an original epic hero in any way. Virgil enjoyed manipulating the mythology of ‘the hero’ by pitting his poetic skills against his predecessor’s fame.[5]
Achilles too was well known by Virgil’s audience to be dominated by the Moirae since birth and this, coupled with his maternal connection to the goddess Thetis, should highlight an instantly recognisable comparison between Achilles and Aeneas, with his own divine heritage from Venus. Without the assistance of their respective parents, the characters simply would not have developed enough personally to ensure an exciting continuation of the plotline. The god-like status of the two characters forms a pivotal part of the development of the character – in The Iliad, Achilles is one of only two human beings who are ‘god-like’, the other being Helen.[6] The entire relationship between Hector and Achilles is always weighted in favour of the latter as the former is entirely human; he is most closely associated with the imperfections of the audience.[7] Achilles is distant, a divine figure that cuts the shape of a true hero – after all, what human can achieve the awe-inspiring feats of Achilles? Virgil knew this. His audience wanted the founder of Rome and Roman-ness to be above the flaws that are inherent in humanity. Divinity was necessary for the imitation of Homeric tradition and to complete the Roman adaptation of Achilles.
But here we encounter a problem: Achilles is undeniably flawed. Divine relationships can only be beneficial in certain situations, such as in epic battle. When human interactions take place, divine status fails to help and the weakness of their humanity emerges in the characters.[8] An example of this stems from Achilles relationship with the Greek king Agamemnon. Constant verbal jousting demonstrates a distinct lack of respect for superiors and elders[9], a trait that would not have been popular to transmit in the model hero that was to become Aeneas. However, despite Virgil being able to select the prime heroic attributes, he does choose to make Aeneas more flawed. It has been argued that his flaws make him less impressive that the Homeric heroes[10] but it is, in my view, these small failures to conform to the expected formulae that illustrate Virgil’s creative superiority to Homer.
We find, similar to Achilles, that Aeneas loves to rebel. In the ‘Iliadic’ first half of The Aeneid, there are many instances of Aeneas not wanting to accept his fate.[11] In fact our hero’s first words are not ones of confidence with an aim to boost morale, but ones of fear:
Groaning, he lifted his hands palms upward to the stars and cried: ‘Those whose fate it was to die beneath the high walls of Troy with their fathers looking down on them were many, many times more fortunate than I…’
Book 1.93-96, The Aeneid
It is this attitude that pervades his actions throughout the epic and displays Virgil’s development of the Greek epic hero to the Roman style. It is not until after the katabasis in Aeneid 6[12] that this becomes patently obvious when the character finally accepts his destiny and responsibility to the future of Rome.
However, despite emerging from the underworld with a fresh and honourable perspective, Aeneas reverts back to the Homeric reactions of Achilles in the final scenes of Aeneid 12 with the unrestrained slaying of the defeated Turnus. The similarity to Achilles again rears its ugly head and prompts the question: why does Virgil include it? Heroic philosophical doctrine comments on Achilles unrestrained thumos with Plato commenting on how bad a role model he is[13] yet in having such a powerfully unexpected reaction to the death of Pallas, Aeneas is given a new level of humanity. Achilles’ rampage for Patroclus and the eventual death of Hector are painted as being incredibly selfish and, as Socrates points out, may even verge on the criminal.[14] Following his ‘rebirth’ in medias res, Aeneas has been cleansed of his Greek-ness thus making his own rampage all the more potent. His innocence and the inherent furor in defending the honour of his comrade cannot be deemed to be out of character for a Roman with remarkable parallels to Achilles.[15]
Within the characterisation of Aeneas, Virgil has imitated the fatalistic elements and divine heritage directly from the Homeric model of Achilles. MacKay comments that, like Patroclus, Aeneas as a character suffers from the weight of the obligation to follow in the footsteps of Achilles.[16] But Virgil has successfully used the context of his narrative to ensure that the negative connotations attached to incorporating Achilles’ furor into ‘Roman Aeneas’ do not prove detrimental to the audience’s empathy towards his hero.
Chapter 2
Hector – The Iliad
In imitating The Iliad, Virgil came across a predicament. It is one thing to express fanaticism for Homer but it is another to fall victim to the weaknesses inherent in adhering too closely to the famed formulae. Arguably the trickiest and most important facet of any work is the conclusion. How to end a treatise that echoes the greatest of epics (and attempts to better them), without boring the audience with a finale that was foreseen several hundred lines in advance, requires both skill and audacity. The poetically calculated death of Turnus is testament to this.
The passing of Turnus is the very last thing that Virgil’s narrative depicts; yet Hector’s death in Iliad 22 is not. The lingering pause at the end of The Aeneid, as is the case in the conclusion of Aeneid 3,[17] provides what at first appears to be a darkly confusing insight into Aeneas’ psyche. Hector is an old epic hero; he honours the old traditions of the Greek world and attempts to defend the old customs of Troy. With the death of Hector, Aeneas is appointed chief defender of Troy, or more poetically, the protector of Trojan values. The despair that Aeneas displays when we first meet him and the avoidance of his fate[18], illuminate the struggle between the Roman narrative requirements of the ‘new’ epic and the old style of Greek heroism when depicting his internal thought processes. Following the trip to the Underworld in Aeneid 6, Aeneas emerges fully embracing his responsibility to Rome and having discarded his previous Greek epic nature. [19] Comparisons are often made between Achilles’ emotions and Aeneas’ concluding furor, and to deny such similarities would be foolish, but there are striking similarities between Hector and Aeneas. The demise of Turnus can be seen to act as a death knell to the Greek heroic code. Virgil, and thus Aeneas, must defeat the ghosts of expectation which haunt them. As Achilles must defeat Hector to fulfil his destiny, Aeneas must defeat Turnus to fulfil his. Despite the blood relationship, Hector is called upon to metaphorically facilitate the founding of a new Troy in Italy.
As Hector’s heir, clementia cannot be offered by Aeneas to Turnus. Instead of a Homeric rampage and moral ambiguity[20], Virgil enhances the humanisation of the final scene to ensure that the dynasty continues.[21] Hector died ‘at the hands of his relentless Achilles’, but Aeneas claims victory over his very own Achilles, in the shape of Turnus.[22] Troy may have fallen after the death of Hector, but his divinely supported successor redeemed the cause by slaying another Achilles in another land.[23] Troy needed to fall for Rome to rise; Hector needed to die for Rome to live.
Throughout The Iliad and The Aeneid, the positive characteristics of Aeneas and Hector and often aligned together.[24] Iapyx[25] and Andromache[26] both on separate instances make direct references to the two as being together, models of manly virtue for the young Ascanius. And although both heroes are comparable in honour, it is their personal interactions with women to which both epic authors devote large portions of their work. The parting of Hector from Andromache induces in a modern audience strong sympathies for the tragedy and the romance that is interlinked in their relationship.[27] The situation develops when Hector returns from battle to visit his wife for what appears to be the last time[28] and expresses his regret at having to fight for his kingdom. The Trojan hero tells us that he is fighting more for the love and safety of her than for his father, mother, brothers or countrymen.[29] This highly emotional scene captures a glimpse into the mindset of the Homeric hero – it is not about destiny or fighting for the honour of one’s country, it is about something much simpler than that: self-preservation.[30], [31] Hector comments in this scene that he has trained himself to be a good warrior and to win battles for his father and his own glory. He regards his wife with what can be undoubtedly described as love, but ultimately ignores her tears of anguish in order to fulfill his own call of duty. This duty is shared by all individual men in Ilium but is not labeled as divine destiny as is the case in The Aeneid. Individually, Hector tells us, the men must protect their own spheres of comfort, which ultimately combine to form the collective armed forces of Troy.[32] Virgil takes this model of how a hero interacts with women and adapts it to suit the Roman purpose of his epic. Whereas Hector openly faces his wife’s fears about the battle, Aeneas runs back into the fire in an emotional frenzy attempting to find the missing Creusa. [33] When the ghost of Creusa appears, it is her spirit that tells ‘Greek’ Aeneas that he must forsake the search for her body and focus on the needs of his men and thus the greater good. Hector convinces Andromache, but the roles are reversed here with Creusa calming Aeneas. In both these scenes, utter chaos surrounds the characters, and their interactions with their respective partners displays how the authors view them. For Homer, Andromache gives Hector the opportunity to develop as a family man concerned for the safety of his loved ones and not simply the warrior-prince of Troy. For Virgil, Creusa offers guidance and closure to Aeneas in a book that has otherwise seen him behaving erratically. But despite offering different methods, both poets achieve the same goal in proclaiming that the ultimate missions are more important than the women to whom their heroes are married. Andromache is not as important as the honour of Troy; and mourning Creusa is not as important as leading the exodus to Rome. The emotions exhibited by Aeneas show a hero who is not yet ready and who, at this early stage, grudgingly accepts his fate. But here we categorically that the Roman nation is more important than the Roman self.[34]
Chapter 3
Aeneas - The Iliad
The Aeneas whom we stumble across in The Iliad is a far cry from the developed and sensitive character that we find in the epic of Virgil. He is touted as being the prime Roman example of a pater familias[35], a man who truly thinks of his family and his state over his own material desires. This highly desirable trait however has been forged on the back of several key assumptions that can be argued to have developed from the Homeric characterisation of Aeneas.[36]
The role that Anchises plays in The Aeneid is one of old morality and guidance for his young and inexperienced son. The images portrayed by Virgil in the escape from the sack of Troy in Book 2 paint a vivid image of a son’s love for his elderly father. What Roman reader could not feel morally inspired with by poetic notion of the national hero, the ancestor of Augustus, carrying his father on his back through the burning ruins and leading the future (in the shape of his son Iulus) literally by the hand to freedom?[37] As we have established in previous chapters, Virgil is attempting to reconcile the two different worlds of Greek and Roman literary expectation – these are characterised not only in the events that charter Aeneas’ development but also through his relationship with Anchises. His father is resistant to the notion of escape and it is only with divine intervention that Virgil is eventually able to coerce Anchises into joining the mission to Rome.[38] But Aeneas in The Iliad provides Virgil with limited blueprints from which to build and to manipulate their relationship. The evidence that Homer provides for this lies largely in the stock epithets so common in his work. Aeneas is constantly referred to in varying forms as the ‘son of Anchises’ and he uses this epithet when introducing himself several times during the course of the epic. However, he only once uses a positive adjective (‘I claim great-hearted Anchises as my father’[39]) when taunting Achilles in preparation for single combat. It is slightly disconcerting to note that it takes imminent battle with a legendary hero for Aeneas to verbally extol, albeit briefly, the kind nature of his pater. This shows a distinct lack of importance in the mind of Homer to the paternal relationship between Aeneas and Anchises. Aeneas is not the focus of this battle and, given the lack of evidence of their relationship, we should turn to other examples for a better defined picture of the kind of relationship that is demonstrated between Anchises and Aeneas in The Aeneid.
For his epic, Virgil still needs an example of the Homeric Aeneas truly caring for a father figure in order to attain his Augustan purpose. Other than Anchises, the Trojan king Priam ranks high in honour and as a model for paternal behaviour. Unlike the crippled Anchises, Priam’s relationship with his son Hector is well defined. Aeneas’ interaction with Priam however does not seem to be one of equality, despite Aeneas’ status as a Trojan prince. Gantz believes that Aeneas’ interaction with Priam in Iliad 13 is one of bitter resentment over his lack of status in Troy[40]:
Deciding that he [Deiphobus] had better look for help, he went after Aeneas and found him standing idle behind the lines: Aeneas always bore godlike Priam a grudge because Priam gave him such little respect, though he was as good a man as any.
Book 13.458-62, The Iliad
This display of resentment to the king shows a blatant disrespect to his nobility.[41] The ‘godlike’ description that precedes Priam’s name elevates him to the same status that Aeneas accords his own father, the ‘king of men’[42] and ‘great-hearted’[43] Anchises. The exact reasons that Priam has for viewing Homeric Aeneas in this way are not explicitly stated, but Aeneas’ resentment of this otherwise highly-thought-of leader is of detriment to his heroic character. But in The Aeneid, when reporting the death of Priam at the hands of Neoptolemus to the audience in Carthage, Aeneas presents one of the ‘most moving episodes of the poem’ with what can only be described as a revered sense of respect for the fallen king, slowly bringing the audience closer to Priam’s emotional perspective.[44] Virgil has ignored the Homeric contempt that was shown by Aeneas to Priam in characterising his Roman hero. The quest to show that Romans should care and respect each other can only be achieved if the model hero in Aeneas demonstrates this behaviour.[45] Aeneas has shown that he has loyalty to his familial roots within The Iliad. Still in Book 13 we see Deiphobus plead with Aeneas to avenge the death of his brother-in-law Alcathous, which he does not hesitate doing.[46] Deiphobus uses the same Greek argument as Hector[47] to woo Aeneas to the fray: by asking him to fight not for the honour of Troy but to save the body of Alcathous because he helped to raise Aeneas as a child – a matter of self-preservation.
One trait that does not illustrate a nature solely concerned with self-preservation is the facet of Virgilian Aeneas that becomes visible when we compare him to the Homeric Aeneas: the use of pietas as a core personality trait. Before The Aeneid, the term pietas had not been the outstanding characteristic of Aeneas, who appears in the legends and in Homer largely as a great warrior.[48] In his epic though, Virgil redefines pietas which links his hero to the divine concept of fate[49], thus ensuring that his narrative continues to its conclusion no matter what hurdles are erected, a homage to the invocation to Homer’s all-knowing Muses.[50] But there is no real evidence of this trait existing in the Aeneas of Homer. Not once in the entire Iliad is Aeneas described as being pius, although on several different occasions the gods refer to his divine fate and proceed to protect him by removing him from the course of battle.[51] The most notable example in Homer is the intervention of Poseidon in the single combat between Aeneas and Achilles.[52] In conference with the gods, Poseidon exclaims his dismay at the imminent death of Aeneas and cites the following reasons to argue for his survival. Firstly, Apollo has innocently manipulated Aeneas into a fight that he could not survive. Secondly, he has ‘always given the most gratifying offerings to the gods’, an indirect reference by Homer to his religious piety. Finally, although Zeus now ‘hates Priam’s line’, he also cared deeply for his son Dardanus, a direct ancestor of Aeneas. It is in this final reason where Poseidon refers to Aeneas’ fate that we can see a clear progression from the human to the divine levels of concern.[53] Aeneas was tricked by Apollo disguised as Lycaon, a son of Priam, into fighting Achilles; this is then taken to the next sphere of religious innocence and generosity in sacrifices before being taken closer to the divine with direct references to his familial relationship with Zeus with an ending on the highest divine level: that of the fates. Galinsky believes that Virgil was the first poet to dub Aeneas as pius[54] under the watchful gaze of his ‘descendant’ Augustus.[55] However, other sources tell us that this may not necessarily have been the case with other sources of influence on our hero’s characterisation.[56] Aeneas’ piety is not explicitly stated by Homer, but the references to fate and his religious behaviour clearly show an acknowledged reverence to the deities that Virgil could have adopted.[57]
Chapter 4
Odysseus - The Odyssey
For those reading Book 2 of The Aeneid with no experience of The Iliad and The Odyssey, the way that Odysseus/Ulixes is characterised by Virgil would quite easily be perceived as one of abject disapproval of his crafty nature. If we look closer however, using a sophistic style of analysis, it becomes apparent that Virgil disguises his own opinions on one of Homer’s chief protagonists by describing him using the oratorical talents of only two characters: those of the Greek Sinon and his very own hero, Aeneas.
In this book, Aeneas is telling Dido’s assembly of the defeat of the Trojans by the Greeks and emphasises the underhanded way that this was accomplished. In doing so, Aeneas describes Ulixes as ‘devious’[58] and ‘a man not open to pity’[59]. These epithets are understandable when viewed as the language used by a defeated refugee about his enemy.[60] Following this, we are introduced to Sinon’s speech where we read his complete denunciation of the Greeks and in particular the smooth tongued and ‘impious’ Ulixes.[61] Here Aeneas leaves the narrative for a short time as the descriptions flow from the mouth of Sinon. Virgil is here writing as Aeneas who is telling the story through the point of view of Sinon’s rhetoric, thus removing any definitive opinions that he has on Homer by voicing it through his characters instead of himself as narrator. So it is unclear what Virgil actually thought of Odysseus given the tricky way that he manoeuvers his narrative. Stanford is of the opinion that there is a sense of ‘literary pietas’ at work here where the reverence displayed by openly imitating Homer should not be blackened by a cheap shot designed to make his own hero appear superior[62]. Such a display would be detrimental to Virgil’s reputation and so may be a device to please his Roman audience, whilst at the same time not insulting the model of his work.[63]
When we look at specific examples of their behaviours, it is striking how similar the characterisation of both characters is. On washing up on the shores of Scherie, and following his encounter with Nausicaa, Athene enhances Odysseus’ appearance and shrouds him in a ‘thick mist’[64] to protect him on his journey to supplicate King Alcinous via Queen Arete. Hidden by the mist, Odysseus throws his arms around Arete’s knees before the mist is dispersed and, with the banqueters staring, they listen to his petition. Aeneas is similarly covered by Venus’ divine mist for protection[65] as he ventures towards the palace of Dido in Carthage. The removal of the mist in Homer occurs moments before the act of supplication is about to commence. Here Virgil chooses to clear the cloud after Dido has already offered the Trojan men sanctuary. Homer marks the verbal act of supplication with a distinct style of body language suitable to a lower class of being begging for assistance. This shows a level of respect for the laws of xenia which are a crucial theme throughout The Odyssey – but this is not the case with Aeneas. A typically stoic characterisation with the Roman hero standing back behind his men, waiting for the group to be saved before revealing himself to the doomed Queen. Odysseus has no men and is looking out for his own self-interest and thus surely has no need to appear strong[66]. He can and will do anything to get home to Ithaca. Aeneas has a different agenda; he must remain a firm leader to his men and cannot be seen to physically beg for assistance from a woman, even if she does happen to be the sole ruler of a kingdom.[67] The different cultural mindsets of the authors here synchronise perfectly with the narrative demands of the characters.
It is commonly noted that Virgil moulded the first half of his epic on The Odyssey and the second on The Iliad[68] and, with the personal interactions that both Odysseus and Aeneas have in common, it can be argued that a large part of Aeneas’ character has been poetically lifted from the personality of Odysseus. The concept of the journey is something typical to storytelling[69] and is used in both epics, but the reasons that our heroes have for their travels are different. For Odysseus, he is travelling to his homeland after many years at war; he is going back to his past glory. Aeneas on the other hand is going forward, to find a new and as yet undiscovered home for his people. But despite the differences in their motivation, an example of a scene that stands open to comparison is their dual visits to the Underworld. For Odysseus’ nekyia, he must consult the soul of the prophet Teiresias to discover how he should return home. Aeneas must emerge from his katabasis with the guidance of the Sibyl of Cumae to discover what his father Anchises prophesies for his future in Italy. Both are visiting the underworld for guidance, and a superficial analysis displays an obvious comparison between the support offered by both the aged Teiresias and Anchises to their respective heroes. But it is the behaviours of the heroes that are of interest here. On seeing the shade of Ajax, Odysseus directly confronts him about the hostility that is displayed, claiming that it was the ‘gods that made them a curse to us Argives’[70] and that Zeus in particular should be blamed for his death. The conclusion to this arrogant display of remorselessness is evident from his closing spoken words to Ajax:
“Draw near, my lord, and hear what I have to say, curb your anger and conquer your obstinate pride.” ‘So I spoke. He made no reply but went away into Erebus to join the souls of the other dead. There, for all his bitterness, he might yet have spoken to me, or I to him, had not the wish to see the souls of other dead men filled my heart.’
Book 11.560-66, The Odyssey
In this rhetorical performance to the Phaeacian court, Odysseus portrays the ending of this one-sided conversation as being largely his own decision. Ajax left because he was bitter, but Odysseus was planning to do so anyway because he saw other ghosts that he wanted to speak to – arguably a childish way to behave given the situation.[71]
Aeneas on his silent encounter with the spurned lover Dido acts in a similar vein. In this instance though, it is the narrator that holds the narrative of the scene rather than the first person description of the hero. In speaking ‘sweet words of love’ to Dido coupled with the emotive language that follows, Virgil is attempting to re-establish the heroic credentials of an Aeneas who, until this point, did not have complete forgiveness[72] for his contribution towards the death of Dido. Like Odysseus, Aeneas attempts to shifts the blame for his actions. But instead of crafty verbal techniques, Aeneas pleads ignorance:
“I could not have believed that my leaving would cause you such sorrow. Do not move away. Do not leave my sight. Who are you running from? Fate has decreed that I shall not speak to you again.” With these words, Aeneas, shedding tears, tried to comfort that burning spirit, but grim-faced she kept her eyes upon the ground and did not look at him.’
Book 6.464-70, The Aeneid
It is Dido’s ideal status as an una vira that ensures the outcome of this interaction, as she runs into the arms of her first husband Sychaeus. Ajax represents the one unresolved relationship for Odysseus, and Dido stands silent in her refusal to respond to Aeneas’ advances.[73] The two heroes both attempt to manipulate their victims. Both can be said to have died indirectly because of those attempting to placate them, but the difference in the approach from each hero heroes can be clearly seen. Where Odysseus fails at the human interaction with Ajax, Aeneas seems to be genuinely attempting to reconcile his ignorance with his role in the suicide of Dido. The Greek hero blames godly interference; the Roman hero (who has a more direct case for divine intervention[74]) also takes this route.[75] Both are attempting to remove a stain from their character, with Odysseus aiming to improve his chances of receiving aid from the listening Alcinous, and with Virgil attempting to reiterate the fated nature of the incidents that occur in Book 4 to induce audience sympathy towards his recycled hero. Scholars have noted that registers such as the Virgilian link with Ajax are constantly used throughout the epic. When alluded to, as in this case, then the primary text that is being read seems to be an all-encompassing survey of greatness.[76]
Chapter 5
Jason - The Argonautica
Venturing away from Homer, Apollonius of Rhodes offers us Jason as a suitably epic individual to continue the search for heroic influences on the characteristics of Virgil’s Aeneas. The Argonautica is not a typical epic, but in being different mirrors a set of core themes which are inherent within The Aeneid. It exploits the collective memory of the readers and pays great regard to the places that the characters visit, with each location triggering a vast array of bonus details. Nelis argues that the themes of ethnicity, space, colonisation, and representations of alien cultures are more clearly visible here than in any Homeric work.[77] Whilst it has been commented that Jason lacks the dignity of a traditional epic hero[78], the arguments tend to revolve around his lack of impressiveness as a solitary leader. As has been commented previously, Aeneas is also seen as being ‘less impressive’ than the Homeric heroes[79], which prompts the question – why are Jason and Aeneas lacking in impressiveness?
A harsh argument to answer this is supplied by Hadas with a discussion of Jason’s lack of independence as a leader, leading him to be perceived as being imbecilic.[80] Both Aeneas and Jason rely on the direct actions of other characters to propel the narrative forward in their stories, with very few events occurring because of the decisions of the individual. Whereas in The Odyssey we can see a level of divine intervention that is seen to only sporadically prod the narrative along, Apollonius instead uses the various characters and in particular gods to consistently energise huge segments of the story arc. At the start of Book 3, Athena and Hera decide amongst themselves how they will return the Golden Fleece back to Hellas.[81] There is no mention of Jason and there is no mention of an all-controlling Virgilian style of fate; the two goddesses merely decide everything. They even go so far as to describe the mortal Argonauts as being incapable of completing the task by themselves.[82] This level of interference is even displayed by Aeneas’ mother Aphrodite when she enchants the sorceress Medea into falling in love with Jason in order to aide him in ‘his’ quest.[83] Without Athena helping to build the Argo, and without the actions of these goddesses in their manipulations of the mortals, the story would simply collapse. Virgil takes the notion of godlike interference, especially with the actions of Venus, and reuses them for his own epic. Comparable scenes must include analysis of the two ‘cave marriages’ that occur in both The Aeneid and The Argonautica. After discussion with Alcinous, Jason is told by Queen Arete that the only way for Medea not to be sent back to her father was to ensure that she ‘shared a husband’s bed’ in order for a ‘love-sanctioned marriage’ to be recognised.[84] In a ritualised fashion involving sacrifices and libations, the Argonauts start to prepare the marriage bed of Medea and Jason in a nearby cave linked to Dionysian Macris. A similar agreement is made between Venus and Juno who in The Aeneid take the roles of Alcinous and Arete. With both parties assenting to the union of Aeneas and Dido, a storm forces the pair into a cave whilst out hunting.[85] With Dido ‘no longer keeping her love as a secret’ the two are witnessed as being married by Juno. Both scenes accentuate the change in weather alongside the involvement of nymphs in the ceremony. Whereas Apollonius refers to ‘ambrosial rays’ and the nymphs ‘gathering flowers’ in honour of the marriage, Virgil chooses to emphasise the chaotic storm and the ‘wailing on the mountain tops’. The humanity is taken away from our male heroes, with the narrative commentary focusing on the external events that surround their actions. The arguably ‘grotesque’ way that these marriages are depicted[86] are stylistically similar in narrative goals. This scene does not explicitly give us an insight into the characters of Jason and Aeneas but, by taking the attention of the readership away from the first person perspectives, we see a distinct lack of autonomy. We are privy to how the characters are truly being manipulated – with the authors directing our gaze to the theme over the individual. Apollonius shows us that Jason is coerced into marriage by the dictums of the Phaeacians, Colchians; thus mortal law and his own safety ensure his cave-marriage to Medea. Virgil’s overarching Roman theme of fate is consciously used by Venus to ensure that Aeneas is too kept safe until Jupiter’s prophecy[87] is carried out with his inevitable departure from Carthage.
This similarity does contain an element of despair in both characters – they seem to have no control over their lives. While Aeneas has no real choice but to obey his fate (no matter how much he attempts to rebel), Jason is seen to openly accept and abuse his reliance on others. Both heroes however are written as acknowledging the inherent frustration present, a trait not readily displayed by other epic heroes. Consistent examples from Apollonius use the different forms of the epithet ‘despair’ to refer to Jason throughout The Argonautica.[88] Aeneas also demonstrates this trait when he refuses to accept his fate and openly ignores it[89] alongside his first words, which are ones of weakness. After the storm in Aeneid 1, Aeneas delivers a morale-boosting speech to his shipwrecked people with Virgil writing soon after that, although he spoke words of encouragement, ‘he was sick with all his cares. He showed them the face of hope and kept his misery deep in his heart’[90]. Was this detail entirely necessary? Fränkel argues that Jason was not depressed, he just looked like it. [91] If we follow this argument, then Apollonius has consciously left out the narrative details that ensure the audience comprehend the difference between that which is vocally expressed by the characters and their internalised thoughts. Virgil has taken the psychologically flawed nature of Jason[92] and adapted it with narrative explicitness for ease of interpretation and ease of acceptance of the Roman ideals that he is trying to express elsewhere in the poem.
Despair and helplessness are unworthy traits for any epic hero, writes Virgil commentator Servius, who claims that he does not understand why an author would ever write such weaknesses into the makeup of his hero.[93] De Grummond argues that Virgil was undoubtedly influenced by Apollonius’ characterisation on this front[94]; to create a more complex and flawed hero is to move away from the idealised warriors of Homeric epic and into a more unique form of analysis of the Roman national identity. Servius makes the mistake of thinking that Odysseus is the only heroic model for Aeneas; something that hopefully I have demonstrated is far from likely in my discussion thus far.
Summary and
Conclusion
The goal of this essay is to illuminate some of the many similarities in the personality traits of several key epic heroes whose fame precedes that of The Aeneid and to look at the influence they had on Aeneas’ characterisation. By comparing and contrasting select scenes from each of the pre-Virgilian heroes, we have been able to discover the similarities and differences between them and Aeneas.
Aeneas is far from the perfect hero with his inherent character flaws and argued inconsistency of his articulated values[95] being far from that of the idealised heroes preceding his creation. In the first chapter I looked at Aeneas against Homer’s Achilles and his relationship with divine fate and anger in battle, here acknowledging Virgil’s conformity to the expected norms of epic convention before adapting them to suit his own literary purpose. The fatalistic elements and divine heritage of Aeneas have been commented on, as being directly lifted from Achilles in order to be incorporated into the best of the Roman qualities. Chapter 2 continued on in The Iliad to look at the flawed human leader Hector. By moving on from the anger of Achilles to Aeneas’ part in the death of Turnus[96] and similarities between this poetic situation with the death of Hector, I was able to look at the symbolism which Virgil derived from this comparison to ground his epic story in the Homeric past. Examining definitions of Greek and Roman heroism and both heroes’ relationships with the place of women in their lives displayed a clear division between the importance of the state over the individual in the Augustan epic. Lessons in old morality and the conflict between the two cultures were explored in the analysis of Homeric Aeneas in Chapter 3. How both figures of Aeneas react to their familial pressures and the different role that piety plays in both epics were central to understanding the changes made to and similarities that Virgil lifted from Homer. Chapter 5 followed the conscious ability of assessing one’s place and image in the story in comparing Aeneas to Odysseus in The Odyssey, by looking at the physical behaviours and rhetorical devices exhibited when acting as ambassadors to foreign kingdoms and when journeying through the Underworld. The differences in approach display a sense of Roman pride in culture that shows dominance over Greek nature where we see Virgil enhancing the Homeric code for the benefit of his character. The final chapter used Jason from Apollonius’ Argonautica to demonstrate that the perception of a flawed nature in Aeneas was also lifted from another source. By focusing on the lack of expression and emotional maturity demonstrated here, evidence was provided to show the wide range of sources that Virgil used as a heroic model for Aeneas.
By using all of these underlying registers, Virgil is attempting to pay homage to the works that he is alluding to. By advancing their popularity he is advertising his own superior skill of imitatio.[97] A symbiotic relationship of poetic pietas is on show here in honour of the literary discussion of Roman-ness. But Virgil does not use these registers one at a time; he uses them all at once. Aeneas is not an original hero; he is not based on one typical ‘model’. His personality and behavioural traits appear to be lacking in impressiveness not because of his failure to conform to epic convention but because it does conform – but only in parts. Aeneas does not display heroic characteristics constantly; he acts in certain ways in certain situations. He is a Frankenstein of Virgilian interpretation. His character is amalgamated from every influence imaginable, so that his personality is so complexly layered that it is insulting to identify his model as being derived from one sole character, philosophical treatise or political purpose at any one time.
On one hand Virgil has been insulted by Graves for being simplistic and pliable, with a stubborn lack of imaginative freedom because of the extent of his incorporation of external heroes.[98] On the other end of the spectrum he has been praised for reconciling the social demands of his Roman audience with the epic expectations from previous texts. The Iliad and The Odyssey especially have been declared as epics of human life, with the Aeneid being the epic of national glory.[99] Whatever the opinion, it can be universally agreed that every reader, according to his/her ideological situation, will configure the characteristics of Aeneas in a different way.[100] What is important is that the timelessness of the The Aeneid is found in these different configurations. By including references to previous heroic incarnations in the characterisation of Aeneas, we may not have the most impressive epic hero but we definitely have the most entertaining. The integration of Achilles, Hector, Odysseus and Jason into the idea of Rome[101] into the shell of the Aeneas myth gives us true literary value. All of the entertaining facets of the epic hero have been rolled into one national tale, a pleasure not seen before the emergence of Virgil’s recycled hero.
The
Bibliography
Bonjour, M. (1975) ‘Terre Natale: etude sur une composante affective du patriotisme Romain.’ Paris.
Booker, C. (2009) The Seven Basic Plots, Continuum Ltd., London.
Brunt, P. A. & Moore, J. M. eds. (1967) Res Gestae Divi Augusti: The Achievements of the Divine Augustus. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Galinsky, G. K. (1969) “Pius Aeneas” in ‘Aeneas, Sicily and Rome’, Princeton Monologues in Art and Archaeology, 40, 3-61.
______________ (1988) ‘The Anger of Aeneas’, The American Journal of Philology, 109, 3, 321-348.
Gantz, T. (1993) Early Greek Myth – Volume 2. The Johns Hopkins University Press, London.
Gill, C. (1998) Personality in Greek Epic, Tragedy, and Philosophy – the Self in Dialogue, Clarendon Paperbacks, Oxford.
Grant, M. (1971) Roman Myths, Penguin Books Ltd., London.
Gross, N. P. (2004) ‘Mantles Woven with Gold: Pallas’ Shroud and the End of The Aeneid’, The Classical Journal, 99, 2, 135-156.
de Grummond, W. W. (1977) ‘Aeneas Despairing’, Hermes, 105, 2, 224-234.
Hadas, M. (1936) ‘The Tradition of a Feeble Jason’, Classical Philology, 31, 2, 166- 168.
Hardie, P (1998) ‘Virgil’, Greece & Rome – New Surveys in the Classics, The Classical Association, Oxford University Press.
Hinds, S. (1998) Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry, Cambridge University Press.
Hobbs, A. (2000) Plato and the Hero: Courage, Manliness and the Impersonal Good. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Holloway, R. R. & Putnam, M. C. J. (1971) Review of ‘Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome’ by Galinsky, G. K., Classical Philology, 66, 4, 280-284.
Hunter, R. L. (1988) ‘Short on Heroics: Jason in the Argonautica’, The Classical Quarterly, 38, 2, 436-453.
Hunter, R. (1993) Apollonius of Rhodes’ Jason and the Golden Fleece, Oxford World’s Classics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kallendorf, C. (2007) The Other Virgil: ‘Pessimistic’ Readings of the Aeneid in Early Modern Culture, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Knox, B. (1990) ‘Achilles’, Grand Street, Ben Sonnenberg (pub.), 9, 3, 129-150.
Laird, A. (1997) ‘Approaching Characterisation in Virgil’ in The Cambridge Companion to Virgil, Martindale, C. (ed.), Cambridge University Press.
Ledbetter, G. M (1993) ‘Achilles’ Self-Address: Iliad 16.7-19’, The American Journal of Philology, 114, 4, 481-491.
Levin, S. (1949) ‘Love and the Hero of The Aeneid’, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 80, 37-49.
Lloyd, R. B. (1957) ‘The Character of Anchises in The Aeneid’, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 88, 44-55.
MacKay, L. A. (1957) ‘Achilles as a model for Aeneas’, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 88, 11-16.
Mackenzie, M. M. (1978) ‘The tears of Chryses: retaliation in The Iliad’, Philosophy and literature, 2, 3-22.
Mackie, C. J. (1988) ‘The Characterisation of Aeneas’, Scottish Academic Press,
Edinburgh.
Mills, D. H. (1978) ‘Vergil’s Tragic Vision: The Death of Priam’, The Classical World, 72, 3, 159-166.
Moseley, N. (1925) ‘Pius Aeneas’, The Classical Journal, 20, 7, 387-400.
Murray, A. T. (1924) Homer’s Iliad, Loeb Classical Library Volumes, Harvard University Press, William Heinemann Ltd., London.
Nellis, D. (2001) Virgil’s Aeneid & Argonautica of Apollonius, Francis Cairns Publications.
van Nortwick, T. (1974) ‘Aeneas, Turnus, and Achilles’, Transactions of the American Philological Association, 110, 303-314.
Oiliensis, E. (1997) ‘Sons and lovers: sexuality and gender in Virgil’s poetry’ in The Cambridge Companion to Virgil, Martindale, C. (ed.), Cambridge University Press.
Panoussi, V. (2002) ‘Vergil’s Ajax: Allusion, Tragedy, and Heroic Identity in the “Aeneid”, Classical Antiquity, 21, 1, 95-134.
Pedrick, V. (1982) ‘Supplication in the Iliad and the Odyssey’, Transactions of the American Philological Association, 112, 125-140.
Spence, S. (1999) ‘Varium et Mutabile: Voices of Authority in Aeneid 4’ in Reading Virgil’s “Aeneid”: An Interpretive Guide, Perkell, C. (ed.), University of Oklahoma Press.
Rieu, E. V. (1950) Homer’s Iliad, Penguin Classics, London.
Rieu, D. C. H (1991) Homer’s Odyssey, Penguin Classics, London
Sage, E. T. (1920) ‘The Non-Virgilian Aeneas’, The Classical Journal, 15, 6, 350-357.
Scott, J. A. (1914) ‘The Parting of Hector and Andromache’, The Classical Journal, 9, 6, 274-277.
Sellar, W. Y. (1965) The Roman Poets of the Republic: Virgil, Kessinger Publishing.
____________ (1970) Roman Poets of the Augustan Age, Clarendon Press.
Shelton, K. J. (1983) ‘The Consular Muse of Flavius Constantius’, The Art Bulletin, 65, 1, 7-23.
Spaeth Jr. J. W. (1951) ‘Hector’s Successor in the “Aeneid”, The Classical Journal, 46, 6, 277-280.
Stanford, W. B. (1968) ‘Virgil’s Ulysses’ in The Ulysses Theme, Ann Arbor Paperbacks, 128-137.
Stewart, D. J. (1972) ‘Morality, Mortality, and the Public Life: Aeneas the Politician’, The Antioch Review, i32, 4, 649-664.
Syed, Y. (2008) Virgil’s Aeneid and the Roman Self – Subject and Nation in Literary Discourse. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Toll, K (1997) ‘Making Roman-ness and the Aeneid’, Classical Antiquity, University of California Press, 16, 1, 34-56.
Wassermann F. M. (1952) Review of ‘Die Dichtkunst Virgils: Bild und Symbol in der Aeneis’ by Pˆschl, V., The Classical Weekly, 45, 10, 150-151.
Weber, C. (2002) ‘The Dionysus in Aeneas’, Classical Philology, 97, 4, 322-343.
West, D. (1974) ‘The Deaths of Hector and Turnus’, Greece & Rome, Second
Series, 21, 1, 21-31.
________ (1991) Virgil’s Aeneid, Penguin Classics, London.
Williams, R. D. (1964) ‘The Sixth Book of ‘The Aeneid’, Greece & Rome, Second Series, 11, 1, 48-63.
Wofford, S. L. (1992) The Choice of Achilles – The Ideology of Figure in The Epic. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Yeames, H. H. (1913) ‘The Tragedy of Dido. Part 1’, The Classical Journal, 8, 4, 139- 150.
[1] Gantz, T. (1993) ‘Virtually all the Black-Figure examples were found in Italy, and while that is not a highly unusual situation, it may indicate already at this time [6th and 5th centuries] a special interest in Aineias on the part of the Etruscans, possibly as a founder hero who came to their land.’ p. 716
[2] Brunt, P. A. & Moore, J M. (1967) Res Gestae Divi Augusti 6, 19-21
[3] Toll, K. (1997) ‘I believe that Vergil thought the evolution of his people’s national identity was going through a particularly crucial formative phase, in which he aspired to make his poem participate. Thus he designed the Aeneid strategically to help the Romans meditate on the duties, problems, dangers, and possibilities of a new national identity. In what sense was it new, and why was Aeneas the right instrument to engage with it?’ p. 34
[4] Bonjour (1975) ‘There was then a general need to reconstitute the Roman patriotism tattered by the partisans, to reunify Italian interests and Roman civic affairs. That was the political task of Augustus. But reintegration on the level of feelings? In the literary area, despite the noble efforts of Livy, that was the work of Vergil.’ p. 475
[6] Knox. B (1990) p. 129
[7] Levin, S. (1949) ‘The Greeks of the Golden age were less touched by some parts of The Iliad than by others. They could and did slight one of the two leading personages – Hector- who moves most modern readers and even scholars far more than Achilles’ p. 37
[8] Ledbetter, G. M. (1993) ‘In a scene of extraordinary force and complexity (Iliad 16.7-19), the poet articulates the volatile emotions of both men in language that is rich with underlying tensions and associations. Achilles greets him with a simile that only ambiguously expresses the frame of mind from which the narrator tells us it springs. By comparing Patroclus to a little girl clinging to her mother's dress, Achilles mocks him, and yet the narrator tells us that Achilles' response is a gesture of pity.’ p. 481
[9] Rieu, E. V. (1950) ‘His words infuriated Achilles. In his manly chest, his heart was torn whether to draw the sharp sword from his side, thrust his way through the crowd and disembowel Agamemnon… he was just drawing his great sword from his sheath, when Athene came down from the skies.’ 1.189-195
[10] Stanford, W. B. (1968) ‘Aeneas is less impressive in personality; more impressive in destiny than Ulysses.’ p.136
[11] In Aeneid 2 we see several consecutive examples of Aeneas refusing to accept his fate. Instead of leaving Troy on Hectors request he joins the fight (2.315-317); he is then reminded by Panthus that Troy is lost (2.324); despite knowing of Cassandra’s prophecy of the fall of Troy he continues to fight (2.345); Hecuba’s plea on the futility of fighting after the death of Hector is stated (2.520); it is not until the death of Priam that Aeneas realises the futility of fight [not the same as acceptance of his fate] and is reminded of Anchises (2.560); he yet again gets distracted by his furor towards Helen only to be told to escape by his mother, Venus (2.620).
[12] Williams, R. D. (1964) ‘If the statement is to have any meaning, it is this: that the poetic requirement of the journey (for Aeneas to live again through his past) and the poetic requirement of the doctrine of rebirth (to reveal the future) are each more important to Virgil than the consistency of a single standpoint… at this point in Book vi Virgil has brought Aeneas right away from the ideas of the Homeric world of Troy to the spiritual climate of his own Rome.’ p.58
[13] Hobbs, A. (2000) ‘Socrates wants to emphasise that Achilles is often wretched as well as unjust, a profoundly disturbed man whom no sensible person would want to emulate.’ p.207
[14] Mackenzie, M. M. (1978) believes that the criminal nature of Achilles’ actions may not have been condemned in The Iliad but other subsequent societies clearly viewed it as such, as demonstrated by Plato.
[15] Gross, N. P. (2004) ‘Similarly allusions to Homer both reinforce the degree of esteem in which Aeneas held Pallas and the association of the young man with Aeneas' past losses. Lines 45-8 also evoke Achilles' lament for Patroclus (11. 18. 324-7) thereby establishing a parallel between the grief of Achilles and Aeneas' own.’ p.144
[16] MacKay, L. A. (1957) p.16
[17] Lloyd, R. B. (1957) ‘The emotional strain which Aeneas feels in recalling Anchises' death brings his narrative to Dido to a natural close and nicely avoids the necessity of detail as to the circumstances.’ p.50. Rather than an Odyssean/Greek interpretation of grief, the Roman stoicism displayed by Aeneas acts as another characteristic difference between Homeric and Virgilian heroes.
[18] See footnote n.10 above
[19] See footnote n.11 above
[20] West, D. (1974) ‘The psychological element on the other hand is explicit and important. Homer states what was seen; Virgil what was felt. The hesitation of Aeneas, his inclination towards mercy is a vital manifestation of the character of his prototype of Augustus.’ p.29
[21] Galinsky, K. (1988) p.324
[22] Spaeth Jr., J. W. (1951) p.280
[23] West, D. (1991) ‘A second Achilles is already born in Latium, and he too is the son of a goddess.’ 6.90-91
[24] e.g. Murray, A. T. (1924) 6.72; 11.56; 17.333.
[25] West, D. (1991) ‘I charge you, when in due course your years ripen and you become a man, do not forget, but as you go over in your mind the examples of your kinsman, let your spirit rise at the thought of your father Aeneas and your uncle Hector.’ 12.438-441
[26] West, D. (1991) ‘What about your boy Ascanius? Does the old courage and manliness ever rise in him at the thought of his father Aeneas and his uncle Hector?’ 3.339-343.
[27] Levin, S. (1949) ‘We would rather be like Hector; but are we as close to the feelings of the poet and his Achaean audience as their descendants were, who saw in Achilles alone the great hero of the Iliad?’ p.37
[28] Scott, J. A. (1914) ‘Hector is slain on the twenty-seventh day of the action of the Iliad, or five days after the scene of parting. Of the five intervening nights three seem to have been spent in the city, presumably with his wife and son, and two outside the walls not far from the camp of the Greeks.’ p. 274
[29] Rieu, E. V. (1950) ‘What distresses me is not only the thought of what the Trojans will suffer, or Hecabe herself, or lord Priam, or my brothers who, for all their numbers and bravery, will be brought down in the dust at enemy hands, but much more the thought of you, when you are dragged off in tears by some bronze-armoured Greek, your freedom gone.’ 6.448-456
[30] This view permeates all Greek heroes, including Odysseus: Stanford, W. B. (1968) ‘Ulysses’s ultimate loyalty was to his own interests in the wide sense, his family, his kingdom, his companions, and, while reluctantly engaged in the Trojan campaign, to the Greek cause.’ p.136
[31] Rieu, E. V. (1950) 6.440-447
[32] Rieu, E. V. (1950) ‘War is men’s business; and this war will be the business of every man in Ilium, myself above all.’ 6.492-494
[33] Gantz, T. (1996) ‘Homer says nothing of such a person, while both the Kypria (fr 31 PEG) and The Little Iliad (fr 22 PEG) appear to have called her Eurydike… Apollodorus knows of a Kreousa, daughter of Priam and Hecabe, yet here too there is nothing about Aieneias’ wife. Only in the Aeneid is she firmly assigned that status.’ p. 610
[34] Syed, Y. (2008) ‘In its political and cultural dimensions the Roman identity of The Aeneid is an ethnically inclusive concept of group identity that bears most resemblance to the modern concept of nationhood.’ p.227
[35] Mackie, C. J. (1988) ‘The nature of the relationship between Aeneas and his men is emphasised in Vergil’s use of pater (5.348) and pueri (5.349). Pater is used of Aeneas nine times in Book 5…The stress given to Aeneas’ paternal role… seems to be underlying the fact that Aeneas now has the role of pater familias.’ p.103-4
[36] Sage, E. T. (1920) ‘In the list of Trojan aces, Aeneas, with 28 victories… Of the 28, Homer mentions only 6, but the period of the greatest martial activity on Aeneas’ part lies after the death of Achilles and so outside of Homer’s sphere.’ p.351
[37] West. D. (2003) ‘Come then, dear father, up on my back. I shall take you on my shoulders. Your weight will be nothing to me. Whatever may come, danger or safety, it will be the same for both of us. Young Iulus can walk by my side and my wife can follow in my footsteps at a distance.’ 2.709-713
[38] West. D. (2003) 2.637-649.
[39] Rieu, E. V. (2003) 20.209
[40] Gantz, T. (1993) p.561
[41] It is worth pointing out here the similarity between ‘Achilles versus Agamemnon.’ See footnote no. 9 above
[42] Murray, A. T. (1924) 5.251
[43] Rieu, E. V. (1993) 5.467
[44] Mills, D. H. (1978) ‘Not only does he invite his audience to visualize the scene, he also suggests the impact it had upon the emotions of the aged king. Each of the three phrases is longer than the one preceding, and each focuses on an aspect that brings one closer and closer to the very center of Priam's palace: first the city; then the portals of the palace; and then finally the innermost chambers.’ p.159
[45] Gill, C. (1998) ‘The full moral development involves a certain understanding of ‘self-realisation’: namely, the realisation of that ‘self’ which is disposed to the benefit of others.’ p.326
[46] Rieu, E. V. (1993) 13.463
[47] See footnote n.30 above
[48] Galinsky, G. K. (1969) “Pius Aeneas”
[49] Wofford, S. L. (1992) ‘In The Aeneid, pietas becomes the term of value used to indicate Aeneas’ (not always willing) submission to the structure of events ordained by fate for reasons he cannot understand.’p.102
[50] Shelton, K. J. (1983) p.17-18. Virgil is depicted several times in mosaics alongside Homer as a companion to the Muses.
[51] Murray, A. T. (1924) e.g. 5.311
[52] Rieu, E. V. (1993) 20.293-352
[53] Grant, M. (1971) ‘This shows why some divine intervention in the conflict, to put an end to his duel with Achilles, was a mythical and literary necessity. Homer knew that Aeneas was destined to escape, and so he had to protect him from fatal involvement in battle. Aeneas was unique among that Trojans in that he had a future as well as a past.’ p.68
[54] Galinsky, G. K. (1969) ‘... the Augustan poet created the truly pius Aeneas’ p.20; ‘It was Vergil who finally created the truly pius Aeneas’ p.50; ‘The poet gave this pietas infinitely more connotations than originally it had had… Pius Aeneas is essentially his creation.’ p.61.
[55] Galinsky, G. K. (1969) ‘…the programmatic quality of the first citizen, Augustus, and the ideal Roman citizen, Aeneas.’ p.58.
[56] Holloway, R. R. & Putnam, M. C. J. (1971) ‘The Rhetorica (dated by Caplan c. 86-82 B.C.) gives, as an example of allegory ex contrario, "si quem impium qui patrem verberarit Aeneam vocemus." The anonymous auctor reveals two significant facts: that in a Roman rhetorical handbook dating from the 80s, Aeneas was already proverbial for piety, and that this piety was specifically connected with kindness toward his father, not only with his carrying of the sacra from Troy.’ p.281
[57] Moseley, N. (1925) ‘Later Greek writers went even farther in this direction than Homer had, and were perhaps even more important in determining Vergil's choice of an epithet, for there is little in Homer about Aeneas and of course nothing in the Iliad about his escape from Troy or his later wanderings.’ p.392.
[58] West. D. (2003) 2.45
[59] West. D. (2003) 2.8-10
[60] Stanford, W. B. (1968) p.132
[61] Hardie, P. (1998) p.70
[62] Stanford, W. B. (1968) ‘Though Virgil never explicitly states any veneration for the father of epic, his mind was obviously steeped in homer’s poetry. Plagiarism was not regarded as a crime in those days. But a poet who with one hand borrowed and adapted a predecessor’s best lines and scenes and with the other blackened his most characteristic hero would be going, one feels, just too far. Pietas has its place in literature as well as in patriotism; and Virgil was the least likely of the Roman poets to violate it.’ p.131.
[63] Sellar, W. Y. (1970) ‘The bitterness of national animosity is apparent in his exhibition of Ulysses and Helen… They full truth of Homer’s delineations of character was apparently not recognized by the most cultivated of his Roman readers.’ p.334
[64] Rieu, D. C. H. (1991) 7.15
[65] West. D. (2003) 1.411
[66] Pedrick, V. (1982) ‘The Phaeacians prove to be even more hospitable than the princess once they recover from the surprise of Odysseus' appearance, but still the hero must undergo an elaborate humiliation at Arete's knees.’ p.138
[67] Oiliensis (1997) ‘Virgil associates the feminine with unruly passion, the masculine with reasoned (self-) mastery. In narrative terms, this tends to mean that women make trouble and men restore order.’ p.303
[68] Stewart, D. J. (1972) ‘the Aeneid is modeled, superficially, on both Iliad and Odyssey, and at a deeper level, follows the Odyssey in being the story of a man forced to introspection in order to find out who he is through the agency of his experience.’ p.25
[69] Booker, C. (2009) p.89
[70] Rieu, D. C. H. (1991) 11.555
[71] Yeames, H. H. (1913) p.146
[72] Permission to ‘pursue Dido’ was provided by the shade of Creusa (see Chapter 2). Clemency for his contributions to the death of Dido had not yet occurred.
[73] Spence, S. (1999) p.94
[74] West. D. (2003) ‘The ruler of the gods above, send me…you owe him the land of Rome and the kingdom of Italy.’ 4.270-278
[75] West. D. (2003) ‘It was the stern authority of the commands of the gods that drove me on.’ 6.461
[76] Panoussi, V. (2002) ‘I argue that Vergil's allusive annotation to Ajax both as a tragic persona and as a Homeric hero has important repercussions for the intertextual program of the poem, since it reveals the presence of a tragic register in the Aeneid which operates in dialogue with the Homeric allusive register.’ P. 102
[78] de Grummond (1977) cites several scholars objecting to Jason as an epic hero. George W. Mooney (1912); F. A. Wright (1932); E. A. Barber (1949).
[79] See footnote n.5 above
[80] Hadas, M. (1936) ‘When vigor or decision is required, Jason is imbecile; his success comes only from the help of women, in the Argonautica from the intervention of Hypsipyle, Medea, Arete.’ p.167
[81] Hunter, R. (1993) ‘What must we do? Can you devise a trick by which they might take Aietes’ golden fleece back to Hellas?’ 3.11-13
[82] Hunter, R. (1993) 3.14-16
[83] Hunter, R. (1993) 3.170
[84] Hunter, R. (1993) 4.1152
[85] West, D. (1991) 4.160174
[86] Weber, C. (2002) ‘The similarity between Aeneas… is further enhanced when the Trojan king withdraws to a cave and there takes part in a grotesque wedding… the self-indulgence and lewd behavior of Dido and Aeneas.’ p.335
[87] West, D. (1991) ‘You can be sure that the destiny o your descendants remains unchanged. You will see the city of Lavinium and its promised walls.’ 1.256-296
[88] Hadas, M. (1936) p.167 e.g. 1.460-62; 2.408-10; 3.422-25; 4.1316-18.
[89] See footnote n.11 above
[90] West, D. (1991) 1.207-209
[91] Hunter, R. L. (1988) ‘Just as in life actions do not necessarily reveal motives, so in literature we may need privileged, authorial information to help us to interpret action or, in Jason's case, non-action. If a poet refuses to provide that information, he places us in the position of viewers of a painted scene and forces us to confront the very fragile basis upon which interpretations of mood and motive are made.’ p.443
[92] de Grummond (1977) ‘Thereafter almost any appearance of Jason, chosen at random, will serve as an illustration of the despairing and helpless hero; despair and helplessness are constant characteristics in his makeup, ever near the surface and ready to reveal themselves: they are essential to the poet's concept of his hero.’ p.230
[93] de Grummond (1977) p.228
[94] de Grummond (1977) ‘Virgil was influenced, of course, by the ideas of Callimachus, Theocritus, and other Alexandrians, but his reexamination of the narrative and psychological possibilities of the epic hero was inevitably stimulated chiefly by Apollonius.’ p.228
[95] Kallendorf. C. (2007) p.vi
[96] van Nortwick, T. (1974) ‘Thus in killing Turnus Aeneas may be said to be putting to rest in Turnus and in himself that anachronistic Achillean heroism which is to be replaced by pietas, the corner- stone of the new civilization of Rome.’ p.313
[97] Hinds, S. (1998) p.34
[98] Stewart, D. J. (1972) p. 649
[99] Sellar, W. Y. (1919) p.50
[100] Laird, A. (1997) p.289
[101] Wassermann, F. M. (1952) p.288
