Andkon's Daily Rightings

Andkon is the shining bacon of the 21^st century, single-handedly leading humanity out of the uncertain present. Apart from managing the world's best arcade, he writes daily to cultivate the ignorant masses

Adolf's Apologia: The Aeneid (Or Why I Am Right and How Right I Am)

It seems a rather arduous task to prove the accuracy of my speech in which I argued three things: Aeneas is guilty, Aeneas is not guilty, and finally, that the reasons for neither matter in light of history.

My speech on the Aeneid, which cast the work as nothing more than propaganda, was not met with favor, as my abundant use of historical context "is against the rules." Since no explained what this means and I was not allowed to question those who objected, I was forced to proceed to the library and inquire as to the validity of this aforementioned rule. The librarian on duty looked rather confused but told me that historical revisionism had corrected previously erroneous notions of Columbus' discovery of America, thereby allowing other ignored truths (for example, mistreatment of Native Americans) to come to light. Perhaps the Aeneid is long overdue its own reevaluation.

In order to prove that the Aeneid absolutely needs historical context to be correctly interpreted, let's begin with just a single established fact which is beyond dispute: Augustus funded Virgil's Aeneid. Hence, the underlying subtle themes of nationalism, morality, and fortitude serve for Augustus a purpose. While hard to figure out for contemporary readers, this subtlety is evident in Aeneas' refusal to stay with Dido, an African queen, who is a rather curious stand-in for a real African queen, the then present-day Cleopatra, who seduced Anthony to stay with her in Egypt. This clear contrast in the Aeneid indirectly rebukes Anthony by arranging that a virtuous warrior leaves the fictitious Queen, a man who never places love over his duty and nation. (Also noteworthy are the manner of death of both Dido and Cleopatra, suicide.) The point being: it is more than obvious to anyone who has bothered to open a history book that this and other examples are indictments against Anthony, the last important political rival of Augustus (then known as Octavian).

The duel between Aeneas and Turnus provides an even more striking example of the Aeneid propagandizing Augustus, in that the duel represents the fight for the control of the Roman Empire between Augustus and Anthony. It's obvious the good guy is Aeneas because he brings stability through the death of Turnus who proudly defies the will of the gods. By proxy, Augustus brings peace through divine mandate when he defeats Anthony (though in history the defeat is more drawn out). How then can anyone even try to prove that Aeneas is guilty by using the text alone? To say that text proves Aeneas guilty of either Dido's suicide or Turnus' death would be to say that Anthony was right, Augustus wrong, which flies in the face of the established fact. Thus, it is textually impossible to prove Aeneas' guilt.

And that's why arguing along these lines is "excruciatingly boring," a phrase that is not indicative of a sophomoric style but of a literary technique that should point to the deterministic outcome in that the text leads to one and only one outcome: Aeneas is not guilty because he is the literary incarnation of Augustus. It's not the pointlessness of this that bothers me as much as the senseless promotion of propaganda.

Even if we take away the historical context and just ignore the fact that Augustus had to kill thousands to secure his rule, we are faced with the dangers of moral relativism. If the cry of propaganda cannot be a reasonable objection to the Aeneid, then we must conclude that Hitler was heroic like Aeneas because as the former says, "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Thus, Hitler too brings peace through divine mandate! Apart from skinheads, there isn't a single person who would agree, so why is there a double standard for another illegitimate dictator? Augustus and Hitler are fraternal twins sprung from the same vine of violence, except the former's atrocities were painted over because he, unlike the latter, ultimately won and established the peace required to erase his faults.

As a concluding side note, it is rather odd that I have in my possession timelines, maps, definition lists, and other context-providing handouts furnished to me by the same people who oppose my historical revisionism. This seems to indicate not complete hypocrisy, but that history for them is only marginally important. However, the Aeneid is nothing more than the character assassination of Augustus' rival (as the Queen Dido example shows) and the justification of Augustus's continued rule (as the duel example shows) that, like Hitler's autobiography, should be carefully interpreted using history to arrive at the ultimate truth.

[On an unrelated sidenote, if you like reading long stuff like this, read this week's JREF newsletter.]

Ashley on Feb 19, 2005 @ 19:49 wrote

Jon on Feb 19, 2005 @ 22:39 wrote

D S on Feb 20, 2005 @ 03:05 wrote

Leo on Mar 09, 2005 @ 10:35 wrote

Leo on Mar 09, 2005 @ 11:14 wrote

andkon on Mar 09, 2005 @ 11:19 wrote

stephan on Mar 09, 2005 @ 11:36 wrote