![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
audentior_itoI'm working on Chapter II of my thesis (Flaws) and I've already hit a snag. On my to-do list for this chapter, the first item is actually 2 items: 1) Fix some awkward stuff about Jason, which I've put aside because I'm not sure how awkward it in fact is; and 2) Deal with some awkward phrasing about Aeneas' humanity.
I clearly see what the problem is. The wording is confusing and just weird. Mom's suggestion for resolving the weirdness brings up a new problem, though. She suggests: "Aeneas is a hero when the story is done, but he is not constructed from the outset as a hero. He is a human who faces challenges heroically." But Virgil does construct Aeneas as a hero from the outset--in fact, he is already established as a hero in the tradition, so this is an even more confusing statement. I am now asking myself what I mean, exactly. What am I trying to tell my reader, and readers of the Aeneid?
Yes, Aeneas is a hero. We know that, and my thesis is an attempt to analyze some aspects of why (or how?) he is heroic. Virgil is working within the framework of established traditions--both the epic tradition of Homer and Roman tradition, particularly the tradition surrounding the establishment of Rome. In these frameworks, Aeneas is already an established hero, possibly with his own (now lost) epic tradition. Nor does he have a monopoly on humanity: heroes must be humanized in order not to drift so far away from us that they are no longer of value to us, or serve whatever purpose a hero serves. Odysseus' desire for home and family is a perfect example, but even Achilles has kernels of humanity which anchor him to the audience. These other heroes, however, have identifiable flaws. Odysseus' is the famous hubris and Achilles, for all that it sounds very Biblical, is probably a combination of pride (hubris) and wrath. And Jason's just a moron, but there's nothing that can be done about that.
Aeneas is flawed, but not with a single identifiable "heroic" flaw as the tradition would normally call for. He is often indecisive, he struggles with the role he has to play in his own story. These flaws are heavily influenced by Jason's character in the Argonautica, indecisive to the point of incompetence. But Aeneas' story, like Jason's, ends before his flaw can cause his downfall. Odysseus' flaw is a problem at the beginning of his epic causing his wanderings, but it plays its part. The same might be said of Achilles. So where does Aeneas' flaw fit into the story? Or have I, once again, misidentified his flaw? If I look to the beginning of the epic, will I find a facet of his character which can be said to have started the chain of events that make up the story?
[thinking...]
I don't think so. The chronological "beginning" of the story can either be said to be the Iliad, which I feel is technically true but utterly unhelpful, or Book 2 when Aeneas tells Dido his story. So. Book 2, the fall of Troy. Aeneas has a dream of Hector warning him to flee with his family and gods. He wakes, arms up, and dives into the fighting. Hector's warning (or command?) is forgotten in the rush of battle, recalled when Priam is slaughtered and Venus appears and echoes Hector's injunction to flee Troy. After some false starts, Aeneas does. Where's the flaw? (Feels like a very abstract "where's Waldo?" game). As far as I can tell, Aeneas' flaws play no part in getting the ball rolling (so to speak), nor do they pop up at the end to bring about his ruin. I suppose another possible take on the issue, one I have skirted around thus far, is that his flaw is in fact his pietas--or at least the extent to which he is pius, to the exclusion of other values and considerations. If he were less pius would he do all of the things he does? Are any of his actions under the name of pieta bad? Well, leaving Dido isn't exactly a shining moment, but is it avoidable? I don't think so. I don't know. I may be confusing myself more.
I am going to come back to this later and see if I can make other changes instead, or if Rohrbacher or Zhang has some comments that might clarify my thoughts somewhat.
This was fun, though.
I clearly see what the problem is. The wording is confusing and just weird. Mom's suggestion for resolving the weirdness brings up a new problem, though. She suggests: "Aeneas is a hero when the story is done, but he is not constructed from the outset as a hero. He is a human who faces challenges heroically." But Virgil does construct Aeneas as a hero from the outset--in fact, he is already established as a hero in the tradition, so this is an even more confusing statement. I am now asking myself what I mean, exactly. What am I trying to tell my reader, and readers of the Aeneid?
Yes, Aeneas is a hero. We know that, and my thesis is an attempt to analyze some aspects of why (or how?) he is heroic. Virgil is working within the framework of established traditions--both the epic tradition of Homer and Roman tradition, particularly the tradition surrounding the establishment of Rome. In these frameworks, Aeneas is already an established hero, possibly with his own (now lost) epic tradition. Nor does he have a monopoly on humanity: heroes must be humanized in order not to drift so far away from us that they are no longer of value to us, or serve whatever purpose a hero serves. Odysseus' desire for home and family is a perfect example, but even Achilles has kernels of humanity which anchor him to the audience. These other heroes, however, have identifiable flaws. Odysseus' is the famous hubris and Achilles, for all that it sounds very Biblical, is probably a combination of pride (hubris) and wrath. And Jason's just a moron, but there's nothing that can be done about that.
Aeneas is flawed, but not with a single identifiable "heroic" flaw as the tradition would normally call for. He is often indecisive, he struggles with the role he has to play in his own story. These flaws are heavily influenced by Jason's character in the Argonautica, indecisive to the point of incompetence. But Aeneas' story, like Jason's, ends before his flaw can cause his downfall. Odysseus' flaw is a problem at the beginning of his epic causing his wanderings, but it plays its part. The same might be said of Achilles. So where does Aeneas' flaw fit into the story? Or have I, once again, misidentified his flaw? If I look to the beginning of the epic, will I find a facet of his character which can be said to have started the chain of events that make up the story?
[thinking...]
I don't think so. The chronological "beginning" of the story can either be said to be the Iliad, which I feel is technically true but utterly unhelpful, or Book 2 when Aeneas tells Dido his story. So. Book 2, the fall of Troy. Aeneas has a dream of Hector warning him to flee with his family and gods. He wakes, arms up, and dives into the fighting. Hector's warning (or command?) is forgotten in the rush of battle, recalled when Priam is slaughtered and Venus appears and echoes Hector's injunction to flee Troy. After some false starts, Aeneas does. Where's the flaw? (Feels like a very abstract "where's Waldo?" game). As far as I can tell, Aeneas' flaws play no part in getting the ball rolling (so to speak), nor do they pop up at the end to bring about his ruin. I suppose another possible take on the issue, one I have skirted around thus far, is that his flaw is in fact his pietas--or at least the extent to which he is pius, to the exclusion of other values and considerations. If he were less pius would he do all of the things he does? Are any of his actions under the name of pieta bad? Well, leaving Dido isn't exactly a shining moment, but is it avoidable? I don't think so. I don't know. I may be confusing myself more.
I am going to come back to this later and see if I can make other changes instead, or if Rohrbacher or Zhang has some comments that might clarify my thoughts somewhat.
This was fun, though.
