Owen Forbes
Word Count: 1034
How is heroism explored in Aeneid 10?
Virgil’s Aeneid was composed in a context of political fragility and fragmentation,
described by Hardie as the ‘Augustan moment’1, wherein a need was felt for a
stronger sense of unity and patriotic identity during the formation of the Roman
principate from the remnants of the Republic2. Thus, this epic acts as an espousal of
a return to the mos maiorum and traditional values of the Roman people3, as
epitomised in the heroism of the protagonist. Aeneid 10 explores the complexity
inherent in notions of heroism and virtue, detailing the glorious origins of the
Augustan principles4 as exempla for all Roman citizens to aspire to.
In the Iliadic structure of Book 10 of the Aeneid5 6, Virgil presents a ‘new hero’7, the
‘Augustan hero’8, as counterpart to the egotistic individualism of the Homeric
archetype9, with great emphasis on pietas loyalty to the gods, to family and to
patriotic duty10 as central to the socially minded11 nature of Aeneas’ heroism.
Throughout the book, sequences of the aristeia of a number of key characters act as
Hardie, P., 2007, “Virgil’s Aeneid”, A Companion to Latin Literature, Blackwell
Publishing, Australia, p. 85
2 Ibid. p. 85
3 Ibid. p. 86
4 “virtutis clementiaeque et iustitiae et pietatis”, the Augustan principles as
appearing in Res Gestae Divi Augusti
5 Stahl, H.P., 1981, “Aeneas – An ‘Unheroic” Hero?”, Arethusa, Vol. 14, p. 161
6 Feeney, D., 1999, “Epic Violence, Epic Order: Killings, Catalogues and the Role of
the Reader in Aeneid 10”, Reading Vergil’s Aeneid: An Interpretive Guide, University
of Oklahoma Press, USA, p. 186
7 Williams, R.D., 2003, Aeneas and the Roman Hero, Bristol Classical Press, United
Kingdom, p. 28
8 Stahl, Op Cit, p. 159
9 Williams, Op Cit, p. 29
10 Sowerby, R., 2001, Virgil The Aeneid, York Press, United Kingdom, p. 56
11 Williams, Op Cit, p.30
1
a medium for examining Augustan, as opposing Homeric heroism12. The depiction of
Mezentius, as a Homeric figure, is one that is distinctly individualist and selfconcerned. The repetition and enjambment of “uni” in “omnibus uni / uni odiisque
viro... instant” (10.691-692) highlights his arrogance and egotism in standing alone
against his own race, from which he has alienated himself through self-importance
and cruelty13. Virgil emphasises the just nature of the Etruscans’ hatred and
violentia against Mezentius, in “iustae quibus est Mezentius irae” (10.714),
presenting a negative depiction of Mezentius as traitor and enemy to these Trojan
allies. Here the framing of “iustae... irae” correspondingly heightens Mezentius’
portrayal as morally inferior in a self-seeking role, conveying Virgil’s appreciation of
Homeric attitudes towards battle and heroism as archaic and appalling.
Virgil ostensibly does, however, describe both Mezentius and Turnus as great
warriors, connecting them through similar animal imagery in descriptions of their
aristeia, an aspect of any great Roman hero14. Turnus is described in the simile
“utque leo, specula cum vidit ab alta... advolat” (10.454-456), with the symbolism of
a lion connoting predatory power and formidable physicality15, while Mezentius is
likened to a boar, “ac velut ille... aper... infremuitque ferox” (10.711), suggesting
fierceness16. However, underlying these parallel descriptions recognising battle
prowess, we may infer a sense of Mezentius’ and Turnus’ brutal acts as scelerata
insania belli17, deliberately enacted to achieve destruction, slaughter and personal
gain as shaped by an individualistic sense of Homeric heroism. This is reflected in
Mezentius’ arrogance as he prays to his own right hand, in “dextra mihi deus et
telum... nunc adsint!” (10.773-774), usurping roles of divinity and establishing
Harrison, S.J., 1991, Vergil Aeneid 10, Oxford University Press, United Kingdom, p.
xxxii
13 Stephenson, L., 2010, Aeneid Book X, Australia, p. 60
14 Harrison, Op Cit, p. xxvii
15 Stephenson, Op Cit, p. 8
16 Ibid., p. 48
17 Stahl, Op Cit, p. 167
12
himself as a contemptor deum18. Using harsh ‘d’ and ‘t’ alliteration, this foreshadows
Mezentius’ eventual downfall, and reinforces these Homeric portrayals as negative
and unheroic in Virgil’s context of Augustan values.
Virgil therefore clearly presents a damning indictment of the qualities in a Homeric
conception of heroism, and compares this with his depiction of the quintessentially
Augustan motivations of his protagonist19. The animal imagery of Turnus and
Mezentius, representing their intentionally brutal and self-serving Homeric
characters, contrasts the imagery of storms and nature associated with Aeneas’
furor in “torrentis aquae vel turbinis atri more furens” (10.603-604). Through this,
Virgil depicts his Augustan hero’s actions as uncontrollable, driven by his loss of self
to a cause, to the overwhelming loyalty and duty that are central to his pietas20. This
profound, deep sense of pietas, that provokes Aeneas’ sequence of aristeia, is both a
powerful filial connection to Pallas, in the paternal role that Aeneas adopts in
protecting Evander’s son, and also one of fraternal pietas to Pallas as a comrade21.
Virgil clearly and emotively describes these sentiments felt by Aeneas at news of
Pallas’ slaughter, with sibilance in “ardens... Pallas, Evander, in ipsis omnia sunt
oculis” (10.515-516, emphasis mine), providing a clear basis for Aeneas retaining
his pietas through the violentia to follow, as not a ‘moral deficiency’22, but as furor
pius incited by iustus dolor23.
Nowhere in Aeneid 10 is the contrast between the shortcomings of the Homeric and
the magnificence of the Augustan seen more clearly, than in the parallel deaths of
Pallas and Lausus “maiore sub hoste”(10.438), at the hands of Turnus and Aeneas.
Turnus’ lack of heroism is introduced as he is portrayed as a contemptor deum,
Stephenson, Op Cit, p. 60
Williams, Op Cit, p. 30
20 Sowerby, Op Cit, p. 56
21 Ibid., p. 57
22 Aeneas’ violentia has been interpreted by some critics as a flaw in his character
and a ‘moral deficiency’, as in: Anderson, W.S., 1989, The Art of the Aeneid, Bristol
Classical Press, United Kingdom, p. 84
23 Stahl, Op Cit, p. 167
18
19
violating religious and military custom24 as he seeks individual gain while “rapiens...
pondera baltei” (10.496), failing to create a trophaeum with the arms of Pallas, but
instead “ovat spolio gaudetque potitus” (10.500). This act of greed and impietas
contrasts Aeneas’ reverent treatment of Lausus’ body and arms, as he “ultro... terra
sublevat ipsum” (10.831), directly opposing Turnus’ nefas25 in mistreatment of
Pallas’ corpse. Turnus similarly violates the sanctity of filial pietas, which Sowerby
articulates as the “closest bond in [The Aeneid]”26, as he taunts Pallas and his father
with contempt, in “’cuperem ipse parens spectator adesset’” (10.443), adding to his
depiction as sacrilegious, disrespectful and unheroic. This is again directly
contrasted with the scene of Lausus’ death, seen as Aeneas “mentem patriae subiit
pietatis imago,” (10.824) recognising even in his enemy and the subject of his furor,
the pietas patriae which he values so strongly. Aeneas mourns as he realises Lausus’
loyalty and love for his father, seeing his own filial piety reflected in Lausus27, and
through this contrast to Turnus, Virgil presents a rousing assertion of pietas as vital
to the virtus of heroic figures. This direct contrast between the Homeric figure
Turnus, and the Augustan hero Aeneas, serves to demonstrate Virgil’s appreciation
of heroic archetypes, and provides an examination of the complex qualities of
heroism.
Thus, through Virgil’s mastery of the epic mode, and his manipulation of a variety of
devices including negative and positive exempla, Book 10 of The Aeneid presents a
detailed exploration of the complex qualities of heroism, creating the ideal of a ‘new
heroism’ with the distinctive characteristic of pietas, crafted to inspire Roman
citizens in an age of political and social uncertainty to emulate the virtues and the
greatness of their founding ancestors.
Stephenson, Op Cit, p. 16
Anderson, Op Cit, p. 83
26 Sowerby, Op Cit, p. 57
27 Harrison, Op Cit, p. xxxi
24
25
Bibliography
Anderson, W.S., 1989, The Art of the Aeneid, Bristol Classical Press, United Kingdom
Colaizzi, R., 2002, “Homer, Pietas, and the Cycle of Duels in Aeneid 10 and 12”,
Approaches to Teaching Vergil’s Aeneid, pp. 99-111, The Modern Language
Association of America, USA
Feeney, D., 1999, “Epic Violence, Epic Order: Killings, Catalogues and the Role of the
Reader in Aeneid 10”, Reading Vergil’s Aeneid: An Interpretive Guide, pp. 178-195,
University of Oklahoma Press, USA
Hardie, P., 2007, “Virgil’s Aeneid”, A Companion to Latin Literature, pp. 85-90,
Blackwell Publishing, Australia
Harrison, S.J., 1991, Vergil Aeneid 10, Oxford University Press, United Kingdom
Sowerby, R., 2001, Virgil The Aeneid, York Press, United Kingdom
Stahl, H.P., 1981, “Aeneas – An ‘Unheroic” Hero?”, Arethusa, Vol. 14, pp. 157-186
Stephenson, L., 2010, Aeneid Book X, Australia
Williams, R.D., 2003, Aeneas and the Roman Hero, Bristol Classical Press, United
Kingdom