[The Unofficial 7A Web Page]

FEATURE ARTICLE

Home
 
Archives
 
Articles
 
Chronicle
 
Overachievers
 
Photo Gallery
 
Guestbook
 
Links
 
AGS
The Grand Debate (11/9/1999) - Part 1

Aeneas...God or Gimp?

In response to an ongoing disagreement over the evaluation of Aeneas' character, we will be initiating a series of brief dissertations outlining the justifications for both sides.
Our aim is to enlighten the ignorant and bring literary salvation to the foolish.

The rules are:
(1) anyone is eligible to enter
(2) entries must be named (so that we can mock you mercilessly) and be no longer than about 300 words
(3) entries must be handed to me personally, either at school or by e-mail.

Entries will be posted up on this section of the 7A web-page, the latest entries being posted at the top, along with a voting-poll which can be found at http://www.freevote.com/booth/aeneas.

E3) The Third Installment - submitted by Jesse.

Some poorly educated classical studies students (like Isaac Hikaka & co.) fail to recognise the sophistication of Aeneas as a character. They expect convenient "cardboard-cutout" Homeric-style heroes to admire. Consequently they are mortified by the complexity of the situations that Aeneas finds himself confronted with. It is not my place to doubt the sincerity of these views, but I hope to make it clear exactly what it is they are admiring. Greek epic warriors such as Odysseus and Achilles are (emotionally speaking) merely passionate boys in comparison to Aeneas. Odysseus simply has to find his way home, having lots of adventures along the way. Achilles must simply fight and defeat Hector. There is no indecision, everyone expects him to kill Hector and he does so. Imagine the horror that simple admirers of this form of heroism (read: Isaac Hikaka & co.) experience when they see that this is no longer a meaningful form of leadership. Aeneas' challenge is to try to rise above this Homeric simplicity and become a true prototype for a nation.

If you are looking for Homeric bravado in Aeneas, read Book II. Aeneas rages appropriately in the style of an Achilles or an Odysseus:

'it is for us to plunge amid the spears and die.'
'I only remembered that death in battle is glorious.'

Aeneas' valour in battle cannot be doubted, he is perfectly ready to throw away his life in the "sublime grandeur" that critics like Shelley admire so much in figures such as Satan. Aeneas descend to the blood-thirsty level of a 'wolf out for prey in a thick mist, forced blindly onwards by hunger's incessant torment.'

So all the fans of childish sword-and-sorcery can revel in the furor of Book II:
'it will be joy to have glutted my desire for the vengeance of the fire and satisfied the ashes of all that ever were dear to me.'
But this mind-set is utterly anachronistic in the Virgilian world.

Aeneas willingness to die in battle is meaningless, he must endure the 'heavy toil' of going on and leading his people to a new land.

If you are looking for "a man" I suggest that the Virgilian sense of vocation is a maturing process in epic poetry. That is to say that under Virgil, the epic hero "grew up" and assumed a much more onerous and draining responsibility than fighting mythical "scary creatures":

In Book 3 he expresses this eloquently when giving a farewell speech to a group of warriors:
'Live, and prosper, for all your adventures are past. We are called ever onwards from destiny to destiny. For you your rest is won.'

So far then we have established 3 points:
(1) Aeneas begins as an "Achilles-style" hero
(2) The Homeric hero is irrelevant to the world of the Aeneid (the Trojan refugees need a leader and a true hero, not a self-congratulatory matyr)
(3) Aeneas rises to the challenge (in the process evolving out of the Homeric mindset)and takes on an unprecedented duty.

I will rest my case here for the meantime, to allow Isaac to respond to these 3 fundamental points.
Stay tuned for my next installment, when I explain the full implications (in terms of "manliness") of his mission.

P.S. Isaac (like the stuck-up snob he is) has attempted to deter you from voicing your opinions. I (as the People's Champion) respect your opinions and encourage you to participate (since Isaac has done a pretty poor job himself).

E2) The Reply - submitted by Isaac.

To whom it may concern,

This is not a full scale response to the banal criticisms of Mr Wilson and others. Before beginning to open the defensive of my position several points must be noted.

1) A three hundred word limit on all submissions is not acceptable. If the debate which is to ensue on this topic is to be of a high standard then the limit must be abolished. Any submissions which are made by Mr Hikaka will be ignoring the limit. It is blatantly obvious that the only reason this limit is in place is because Mr Wilson only knows three-hundred words.

2) As I sit here Mr Wilson is typing up a long diatribe about Aeneas, probably seeking to work in pre-emptive rebuttal. It must again be noted that I will not be launching a full defense of my position until I have:
(a) Established what my position is. Because the arguement was started by Mr Wilson in the negative, he has caused confusion in his own mind about who is actually the advocate of the traditional (read: unrevised and wrong) position about Aeneas. Also two separate questions have been asked; the first as to whether or not Aeneas is a gimp. Please may it be noted that Mr Hikaka never said that Aeneas was a gimp, he only maintained that he was a pansy. Secondly the question arises as to whether or not Achilles could defeat Aeneas in battle. The answer to this is a resounding "of course."
(b) Have full access to the relevant material. Unlike Mr Wilson, I did not envision having to spend my off-line periods responding to his rants. As such, I did not come prepared with an adequate translation of the book upon which most of my case will rest, and that is Homer's Iliad.

Be thankful that I have chosen to respond to this criticism and are taking part in this debate. My enlightening discourse will no doubt be one of the highlights of your years. Those who are not directly involved in the debate (ie are not either me or Mr Wilson) please do not attempt to get involved. Just sit back and watch two masters go to work at ripping each other to shreds.

Isaac Hikaka

E1) "Episode 1 - Phantom Menace" submitted by Jesse.

The Aeneid is recognised by literary icons as being one of the great epic works of all time. It synthesised and adapted earlier works while providing a spark of genius that would inspire future works (Milton's "Paradise Lost" for instance draws a great deal of influence from Virgil).

The work's greatness lies not simply in its stylistic flourish but also in its thematic and emotional depth. The central character of Aeneas is the most prominent expression of this. The works revolves around Aeneas ('This is a tale of arms and of a man') whose enormous heroic responsibility it is to lay the foundations for a new race in Italy.

It is generally assumed that open-minded and intelligent readers of the poem are sensitive enough to realise the complexity and greatness of Aeneas as a man/ warrior/ father/ husband/ son/ lover/ leader/ general/ ruler. However, this year, a dark threat emerged from that cess-pool of academic backwardness (Epsom) and declared outlandishly to the off-line Post-Bursary Nothing class that "Aeneas is nothing but a hyped-up gimp. Achilles could kick his ass any day of the week". This foul cretin was none other than Isaac Hikaka himself. He is "the Phantom Menace". With the minimal acting skills of whomever it was that played Darth Maul, he quickly established a group of acolytes whom agree with him. It is for the eternal souls of these pathetic flunkies that the few of us who remain loyal to the true faith engage in this debate.

I challenge him to rise above his child-like argumentative skills and explain to us all the basis on which he believes this to be the case. Until he does so, I just advise you to read the Aeneid with an open mind and will leave you with a quote which sums up the relative worthlessness of Aeneas compared to Achilles:

"Fated to be an exile, he was the first to sail from the land of Troy to reach Italy ... He met many tribulations on his way both by land and on the ocean, high heaven willed it ... But at last he succeeded in founding his city and installing the gods of his race in the Latin Land: and that was the origin of the Latin nation, the Lords of Alba, and the proud battlements of Rome ... The Queen of Heaven forced a man famed for his true-heartedness to tread that long path of adventure, and to face so many trials. It is hard to believe Gods in heaven capable of such rancour ... And so it was that the Trojan remnant, whom the Greeks, EVEN PITILESS ACHILLES, COULD NOT KILL were tossed in storm over all the ocean; and still she kept them from Latinum wandering for years at the mercy of fate from sea to sea about the world. Such was the cost in heavy toil of beginning the life of Rome."

 

 

Author: Ken Ginn, 7A 1999

Email: kenginn@hotmail.com

1