Three Faces Of Aeneas

Dependence on literary tradition established by the textual legacy of prestigious Latin authors characterized the period of the composition of the House of Fame, one of Geoffrey Chaucer’s early works. Authoritative Latin writers—auctores—provided the works of medieval writers with invaluable ‘truths’, which contributed to the credibility of medieval texts, though robbing them of certain amount of originality. However, in authorizing their works by utilizing the material produced by auctores, medieval writers faced a dilemma—they discovered that the authoritative literary material that comprised the invaluable truths was often contradictory, confusing and inaccurate, as reflected in Book III of the House of Fame: “Oon seyde Omere made lyes, / feynynge in hys poetries” (ll. 1477-78). Consequently, the credibility of the truths and the credibility of those who uttered them were questioned by those aware of the problem. The House of Fame reveals Chaucer’s awareness of the problem. Chaucer’s revision of the Aeneas and Dido episode depicted in Book I of the House of Fame represents a product of the divergent and confli

Hyr lyfe, hir love, hir luste, hir lorde—

Divergent and conflicting traditions established by revered auctores may have created a dilemma for a number of medieval writers, but Chaucer seems to have taken advantage of this divergence and conflict. By his skilful and ambitious juxtaposition of contradictory truths, the ‘makere’ transcended the choice between traditions , thus avoiding the damage that a direct choice between the truths would do not only to the pillars of fame but also to the entire house of Fame. Aeneas with three faces represents the product of this juxtaposition. In the House of Fame, he appears at the same time as the Virgilian hero, the Ovidian traitor and the healed victim of heterosexual desire. Since the pillars and the house of Fame still stands, one may assume that the three-faced Aeneas was produced by a ‘peaceful cooperation’ of Virgil and Ovid rather than by a ‘gladiatorial combat’ of both auctores in the House of Fame.

For Virgil in the Aeneid, Aeneas ceases to be pius Aeneas when dwelling in Dido’s citadel. The hero resumes his epithet only after abandoning Dido, having the poet’s overt approval for his desertion. For Chaucer, prior to Dido’s lament, Aeneas “was [only] good, for he suche semed”, yet, at this point, still retains the heroic face of the pius Aeneas.

Aeneas’ encounter with Dido in Chaucer’s narrative brings changes into the character of the Hero. Unlike Book IV of the Aeneid that treats Aeneas’ relationship with Dido as a minor transgression of the pious leader of Troy, Book I of the House of Fame throws a dark shadow on Aeneas’ heroic face. The hysterical, irrational, and vindictive Dido of the Aeneid is transformed into the sentimental, loving, and tender Dido of the Ovidian tradition in the House of Fame, and by the side of this new Dido Aeneas becomes a treacherous wretch. At this point the narrator and the reader are given two options: either to dismiss the subsequent lament and accusations of “woful Dido” directed against Aeneas as mere lies or to trust her character and the Ovidian truth she utters in her self-defence. In the case of the former, Aeneas retains his heroic face; in the latter, he becomes a despicable “traytour”.

Some topics in this essay:
House Fame, Aeneas Dido, Queen Carthage, Epistulae Heroidum, Dido Aeneas, Legend Women, Virgilian Ovidian, Virgil Ovid, Ovidian Dido, Aeneas Hero, house fame, aeneas hero, aeneas dido, queen carthage, virgil ovid, heterosexual desire, book house fame, aeneas traitor, book house, virgilian ovidian, dido episode, victim heterosexual desire, house fame aeneas, aeneas dido episode, aeneas hero aeneas,