To what extent, in your opinion, would contemporaries of Virgil have admired his portrayal of
Aeneas? Explain your views and support them with details from the books of the Aeneid which
you have read. (40 marks)
On the face of it Aeneas is a perfect Roman leader. Pius Aeneas carries his father and walks his son
out of Troy leading the Trojan people on their journey to become Roman. In this reading Aeneas is
the ideal man. He is a model of filial devotion. He is a stoic following the fates, showing his courage
in adversity and ready to scorn temptation when required by the gods. And yet, there are also some
notes of uncertainty in the face of this unremitting ode to the hero. Careless during the attack on
Troy, unable to control his own feelings, unsympathetic to suffering in others; these other views of
the hero paint him to be less successful even by the Stoic ideals that a Roman audience would have
valued. How far does this Aeneas live up to the values held by Virgil’s readership? Is he a saint or a
sinner? One solution might be to see Virgil’s hero, as Augustine sees him, approaching virtue but
only through trial. Indeed, Aeneas is not perfect and this allows him some interest to an age which
places such value on incompletion and charisma over conscience.
There is no questioning the courage of Aeneas in adversity. A man who can look on as his
companions in the ship of his faithful companion Orontes are tossed carelessly by the storm into the
sea and still hold course is one who deserves our admiration. Time and again Aeneas shows himself
as a good leader, whether by picking himself up from the sand as his followers are gathering bread
and climbing a rock to get a view over the sea and the land. As a leader should, Aeneas looks back to
his lost companions and forward to the troubles ahead as he prepares to journey into Libya to find
what kind of land he and his people have come to. Time and again, Aeneas in his relationship with
his son and his meeting with his father in the underworld as he watches the future generations of
Rome takes on the mantle of future Roman greatness. Indeed, nowhere is his pietas shown more
clearly than when he replicates his earlier journey from Troy with his walk through the future site of
Rome with Evander and his son Pallas. This self-subjecting walk towards pietas reaches its
apotheosis in his raising of the Shield that literally carries the images of Rome’s August future. The
image of this Herculean hero’s self-effacing leadership occurs time and again through the poem as a
kind of religious mantra which Romans were only too happy to follow and admire.
And yet, Aeneas’ very aloofness, his ability to separate himself from feeling mark him as at times
cold and even cruel. Rarely in the poem does our hero engage in meaningful dialogue with his
companions and it is clear that there is much that he wishes to speak and cannot. He calls after his
mother as she guides him in the Libyan forest but she has already left. Again he speaks as the shade
of Creusa vanishes in the Underworld. He fails to comfort Dido and has even deceived her in his rush
to leave Carthage. Certainly all this silence strikes a bitter sweet note. For Rome, it is better that
Aeneas holds his tongue but for softer, kinder voices such as Catullus his very inability to
communicate show a failure of the personal, private, emotional individual to adequately interact
with his fellows. Necessary, perhaps, but flawed nonetheless.
There are, of course, more clear transgressions by Aeneas of the Roman Stoic ideal that was
prevalent in the Rome of Virgil’s day. Our hero is, too often given to unbridled rage (furor) and his
inability to control his emotions would have struck contemporary Romans as particularly disturbing.
Aeneas’ killing of Turnus is attributable to just this rage and not the fulfilment of the honour that
Evander requested in Book 10. Likewise, his frenzied assault through Troy at the moment of
destruction, disguised in Greek clothing and killing indiscriminately showed a distinct lack of the selfcontrol admired amongst true heroes. Certainly the Aeneid does show a clear character
development towards Stoic principles but even at the end of the poem the rage still remains.
Such martial anger would have been alien to the Stoics but this does not necessarily make him
completely unknowable or even unforgiven by Roman audiences. Certainly, Augustus the statesman
was formally Octavian the merciless avenger of Julius Caesar’s death. At Philippi and also Perugia
Augustus was violent in his hatred of his enemies. A hatred that is echoed in Aeneas’ own refusal of
burial to Tarquitus in Book 10. After all, in Aeneas Virgil has created a warrior and it is not farfetched to presume that he was indeed modelled on the most famous and most successful Roman
general of his day. Certainly, clemency was a Roman value and one that Julius Caesar himself had
used to great affect but attitudes towards it were ambiguous to say the least. Certainly Horace,
praises Augustus’ ‘gentleness’ towards his enemies. Pity should be felt as it is in Aeneas’ burial of
Pallas and as he stands over the dying Lausus, thinking of a father’s love for his son. But it should
never stand in the way of cold decisive action.
Aeneas’ journey towards ideal Stoicism and Romanness is pronounced and would have pleased
Roman listeners. The Aeneas of the war in Latium is far distanced from the raging, hopeless man of
Troy. Stoics argued that peace was only justifiable when peace was the desired end and it is clear
from Aeneas’ attitude that he is careful of future plans and always troubled by the prospect of war.
Nowhere is this clearer than the simile of light dancing on water to describe his thoughts in the run
up to war in Book 7. Aeneas keeps the rules of war while the Latins break them. The Latins are
inspired by raging Allecto, Turnus is led by a mere desire for war and his loss of face over Lavinia and
Drances’ taunts. The Latins break the peace in book 12 and this broken promise serves to put Aeneas
on the side of the righteous.
Aeneas to contemporary Romans emerges therefore as an admirable figure, certainly. Of course, he
is not to be compared with the barbaric ferocity of Achilles but this savagery is key to understanding
his portrayal in the Aeneid. A small amount cruelty was valued as the necessary quality of greatness
and it would have been all the more fascinating to a Roman audience that his gentleness was never
quite at home with his heroic savage side. However, if we look closer at the recurring image of
Roman-ness that starts with Aeneas’ heavy hearted walk out of Troy we see that he is never perfect
but always setting and never achieving perfection. Yes he carries his father and leads his son. But still
we see the spots of blood from his furor as in disguise he murdered Greeks in his former city. All the
assurances of his phantom wife Creusa who has been left behind cannot hide the fact that Aeneas is
a hero who never achieves perfection but is always approaching it. He wins the spoils from Turnus
but is unable to control himself. To what extent the spots of blood on the white statue would have
pleased a Roman audience is open to debate but they certainly added colour to the hero.