Dido Meets Aeneas: Anachronism, Alternative History, Counterfactual Thinking and the Idea of Fiction

IF 0.6 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM
Françoise Lavocat
{"title":"Dido Meets Aeneas: Anachronism, Alternative History, Counterfactual Thinking and the Idea of Fiction","authors":"Françoise Lavocat","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2020-2009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The anachronistic character of the loving relationship between Dido and Aeneas was widely and commonly discussed among commentators, critics, and writers in the early modern period. From the 16th century onwards, when the word »anachronism« appeared in vernacular languages, its definition was even inseparable from the example borrowed from the Aeneid. The purpose of this article is to interrelate early modern debates on anachronism, reflections on the status of fiction and the history of fiction. Starting with the hypothesis that anachronism is a form of counterfactual, the questions posed in this article are: did forms of counterfactuals exist before the 19th century, to what extent did they differ from contemporary alternative histories and, if so, why? The story of Dido and Aeneas in the Aeneid can be considered »counterfactual«, because this version of the narrative about the queen of Carthage was opposed to another, which was considered to be historical and which made Dido a privileged embodiment of female virtue and value. Several important shifts are highlighted in this article. With the exception of St. Augustine (who saw in Vergil’s anachronism confirmation of the inanity of fiction), before the 16th century indifference towards anachronism prevailed: the two versions of Dido’s story were often juxtaposed or combined. If Vergil’s version of Dido’s story was condemned, it was for moral reasons: the exemplary version, considered more historically accurate, was favored throughout the Middle Ages, notably by Petrarch and Boccaccio. From the 16th century onwards, however, increased acquaintance with Aristotle’s Poetics promoted greater demand for rationality and plausibility in fables. This coincided with the appearance of the word »chronology« and its development, which led to a new understanding of historical time. Anachronism then appeared to be a fault against verisimilitude, and as such was strongly condemned, for example by the commentator on Aristotle, Lodovico Castelvetro. At the same time, the argument of poetic license was also often invoked: it actually became the most common position on this issue. Vergil’s literary canonization, moreover, meant that the version of Dido’s life in the Aeneid was the only story that was known and cited, and from the 17th century onwards it totally supplanted the exemplary version. Strangely enough, permissiveness towards anachronism in treatises, prefaces, or comments on literary works was not accompanied by any development of counterfactual literature in early modern period. Indeed, in both narrative and theatrical genres fiction owed its development and legitimization to the triumph of the criterion of plausibility. This article, however, discusses several examples that illustrate how the affirmation of fiction in the early modern period was expressed through minor variations on anachronism: the counterfictional form of Ronsard’s epic, La Franciade, which represents an explicit deviation from the Iliad; the metaleptic meeting of Vergil and Dido in the Underworld in Fontenelle’s Le dialogue des morts; and the provocative proposal for a completely different version of Dido’s life, which was made in an early 17th century Venetian operatic work by an author who claimed to be anti-Aristotelian. This study thus intends to provide an aspect of the story of fiction. The change of perspective on anachronism marks a retreat from moral argument, with privilege given to aesthetic criteria and relative independence with regard to history – while still moderated by the criterion of verisimilitude, as underlined by the abbé d’Aubignac, as well as Corneille.","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jlt-2020-2009","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Literary Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2020-2009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The anachronistic character of the loving relationship between Dido and Aeneas was widely and commonly discussed among commentators, critics, and writers in the early modern period. From the 16th century onwards, when the word »anachronism« appeared in vernacular languages, its definition was even inseparable from the example borrowed from the Aeneid. The purpose of this article is to interrelate early modern debates on anachronism, reflections on the status of fiction and the history of fiction. Starting with the hypothesis that anachronism is a form of counterfactual, the questions posed in this article are: did forms of counterfactuals exist before the 19th century, to what extent did they differ from contemporary alternative histories and, if so, why? The story of Dido and Aeneas in the Aeneid can be considered »counterfactual«, because this version of the narrative about the queen of Carthage was opposed to another, which was considered to be historical and which made Dido a privileged embodiment of female virtue and value. Several important shifts are highlighted in this article. With the exception of St. Augustine (who saw in Vergil’s anachronism confirmation of the inanity of fiction), before the 16th century indifference towards anachronism prevailed: the two versions of Dido’s story were often juxtaposed or combined. If Vergil’s version of Dido’s story was condemned, it was for moral reasons: the exemplary version, considered more historically accurate, was favored throughout the Middle Ages, notably by Petrarch and Boccaccio. From the 16th century onwards, however, increased acquaintance with Aristotle’s Poetics promoted greater demand for rationality and plausibility in fables. This coincided with the appearance of the word »chronology« and its development, which led to a new understanding of historical time. Anachronism then appeared to be a fault against verisimilitude, and as such was strongly condemned, for example by the commentator on Aristotle, Lodovico Castelvetro. At the same time, the argument of poetic license was also often invoked: it actually became the most common position on this issue. Vergil’s literary canonization, moreover, meant that the version of Dido’s life in the Aeneid was the only story that was known and cited, and from the 17th century onwards it totally supplanted the exemplary version. Strangely enough, permissiveness towards anachronism in treatises, prefaces, or comments on literary works was not accompanied by any development of counterfactual literature in early modern period. Indeed, in both narrative and theatrical genres fiction owed its development and legitimization to the triumph of the criterion of plausibility. This article, however, discusses several examples that illustrate how the affirmation of fiction in the early modern period was expressed through minor variations on anachronism: the counterfictional form of Ronsard’s epic, La Franciade, which represents an explicit deviation from the Iliad; the metaleptic meeting of Vergil and Dido in the Underworld in Fontenelle’s Le dialogue des morts; and the provocative proposal for a completely different version of Dido’s life, which was made in an early 17th century Venetian operatic work by an author who claimed to be anti-Aristotelian. This study thus intends to provide an aspect of the story of fiction. The change of perspective on anachronism marks a retreat from moral argument, with privilege given to aesthetic criteria and relative independence with regard to history – while still moderated by the criterion of verisimilitude, as underlined by the abbé d’Aubignac, as well as Corneille.
狄多遇见埃涅阿斯:时代错误、另类历史、反事实思维与虚构观念
现代早期评论家、评论家和作家广泛讨论了狄多和埃涅阿斯爱情关系的时代错误特征。从16世纪开始,当“时代错误”这个词出现在当地语言中时,它的定义甚至与《埃涅阿斯纪》中的例子密不可分。本文的目的是将早期现代关于时代错误的争论、对小说地位的反思和小说史联系起来。从时代错误是一种反事实形式的假设开始,本文提出的问题是:反事实形式在19世纪之前存在吗?它们与当代另类历史在多大程度上不同?如果存在,为什么?《埃涅伊德》中关于狄多和埃涅阿斯的故事可以被认为是“反事实的”,因为这个关于迦太基女王的叙述版本与另一个版本相反,后者被认为是历史性的,这使得狄多成为女性美德和价值的特权体现。本文强调了几个重要的转变。除了圣奥古斯丁(他在维吉尔的时代错误中看到了小说的空洞),在16世纪之前,对时代错误的漠不关心盛行:两个版本的蒂朵的故事经常被并列或合并。如果维吉尔对狄多故事的版本受到谴责,那是出于道德原因:被认为更符合历史的典范版本在整个中世纪都受到青睐,尤其是彼特拉克和薄伽丘。然而,从16世纪开始,随着人们对亚里士多德《诗学》的了解越来越多,人们对寓言的合理性和合理性提出了更大的要求。这与“年代学”一词的出现及其发展相吻合,这导致了对历史时间的新理解。当时,时代错误似乎是对真实性的一种错误,因此受到了强烈的谴责,例如亚里士多德的评论家洛多维科·卡斯特维特罗。与此同时,诗性许可的论点也经常被引用,它实际上成为这个问题上最常见的立场。此外,维吉尔的文学册封,意味着埃涅阿斯纪中狄多的生活版本是唯一已知和引用的故事,从17世纪开始,它完全取代了典范版本。奇怪的是,在论文、序言或对文学作品的评论中,对时代错误的宽容并没有伴随着近代早期反事实文学的发展。事实上,在叙事和戏剧类型中,小说的发展和合法化都归功于合理性标准的胜利。然而,本文讨论了几个例子,这些例子说明了现代早期对小说的肯定是如何通过时代错误的微小变化来表达的:朗萨德史诗《法兰西》的反小说形式,它明显偏离了《伊利亚特》;丰特奈尔的《死亡对话》中维吉尔和狄多在冥界的幻觉相遇;以及对蒂朵生活的一个完全不同版本的挑衅性建议,这是在17世纪早期的威尼斯歌剧作品中由一位自称反亚里士多德的作者提出的。因此,本研究旨在提供小说故事的一个方面。对时代错误的看法的改变标志着道德争论的退却,赋予了美学标准和相对独立的历史特权,同时仍然受到真实性标准的约束,正如修道院院长德·奥比尼亚克和高乃依所强调的那样。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Literary Theory
Journal of Literary Theory LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信