Latin poetry, with its rich tapestry of mythological and historical narratives, often presents characters in a manner that invites readers to classify them as either villains or heroes. This binary perspective, while appealing in its simplicity, may oversimplify the nuanced portrayals crafted by poets such as Ovid and Virgil. This essay explores the extent to which characters in Latin poetry can be strictly categorised as villains or heroes, focusing on Ovid’s Heroides, specifically Epistula VII (Dido to Aeneas), and Virgil’s Aeneid, Book 2. Through a detailed examination of these texts, I argue that while certain actions may align with heroic or villainous traits, the complexity of human emotion and moral ambiguity often blurs these distinctions. By situating these works within their cultural and literary contexts, and incorporating perspectives from academic sources, this essay will analyse how textual features and authorial choices shape meaning and challenge a simplistic categorisation of characters. Ultimately, it seeks to demonstrate that Latin poetry often transcends binary labels, presenting characters as multifaceted individuals driven by conflicting desires and destinies.
Ovid’s Dido: A Victimised Heroine or a Vengeful Villain?
Because Ovid’s portrayal of Dido in Heroides Epistula VII encapsulates both heroic vulnerability and a latent villainous bitterness, her character resists a singular classification. In this fictional letter from Dido to Aeneas, Ovid crafts a narrative voice that is deeply personal and emotionally charged. Dido recounts her selfless hospitality towards Aeneas after his shipwreck, highlighting her role as a protector and benefactor who provided him with safety and resources in Carthage. Her tone is one of profound sorrow as she reflects on her abandonment, portraying herself as a tragic heroine whose love and trust have been betrayed by a man driven by divine mission over personal loyalty. However, alongside this victimhood, there is an undercurrent of bitterness that borders on the villainous; Dido curses Aeneas, expressing a desire for his suffering and invoking the gods for retribution as she contemplates her own death. This duality—between a noble, self-sacrificing queen and a scorned woman seeking vengeance—demonstrates Ovid’s skill in presenting a character who embodies both admirable and darker qualities. Scholars such as Knox argue that Ovid’s focus on the psychological depth of female figures in the Heroides challenges traditional epic heroism, suggesting a more introspective and emotionally complex portrayal (Knox, 1995). Thus, Dido’s character underscores the limitations of a binary villain-hero framework, as her actions and emotions reflect a profound moral ambiguity shaped by personal loss and cultural expectations of loyalty and honour.
Virgil’s Aeneas in Aeneid Book 2: Heroic Duty or Villainous Destruction?
Because Virgil’s depiction of Aeneas in Aeneid Book 2 reveals a tension between heroic duty and actions that could be perceived as villainous, his character similarly defies straightforward categorisation. In this book, Aeneas narrates the fall of Troy, positioning himself as a reluctant witness to the city’s destruction while also taking on the role of a protector to his family. His determination to save his father Anchises, his son Ascanius, and the household gods exemplifies pietas—a core Roman virtue that marks him as a hero driven by duty to family and divine will. Indeed, his escape from the burning city, carrying Anchises on his shoulders, is an iconic image of filial devotion. Yet, this heroic image is complicated by Aeneas’ involvement in the violence of war and his initial resistance to leaving Troy, which could be interpreted as a failure to prioritise the broader divine mission over personal attachment. Furthermore, his recounting of the Trojan Horse and the subsequent massacre indirectly implicates him in a narrative of deceit and destruction, even if he is not the instigator. As Anderson notes, Virgil often portrays Aeneas as a figure burdened by the conflict between personal desire and public duty, a theme that humanises him but also muddies his heroic status (Anderson, 1969). Therefore, Aeneas in Book 2 emerges as a character whose heroism is tempered by moments of doubt and complicity in tragedy, suggesting that Virgil intentionally crafts a protagonist whose moral standing is open to interpretation.
Cultural and Literary Contexts: Beyond Binary Classifications
Because the broader cultural and literary contexts of Latin poetry illuminate the complexity of character portrayals in both Ovid and Virgil, they reinforce the argument against a rigid villain-hero dichotomy. In Roman society, notions of heroism were intricately tied to virtues such as pietas, virtus (courage), and fides (loyalty), yet these ideals often clashed with personal emotions and political realities, as seen in both texts. For instance, Aeneas’ duty to found a new Troy aligns with Roman ideals of destiny and empire, but his abandonment of Dido in Heroides—and by extension in the Aeneid—raises questions about the cost of such heroism to others. Similarly, Dido’s emotional outpouring in Ovid’s work reflects the Hellenistic influence on Roman literature, where individual passion and subjectivity often took precedence over stoic restraint, thereby complicating her role as a mere villain or victim. Moreover, as Galinsky argues, Roman epic poetry frequently engages with moral ambiguity to reflect the complexities of human experience, a trend that both Ovid and Virgil exploit to great effect (Galinsky, 1996). This cultural backdrop, combined with the poets’ innovative use of narrative voice—first-person in Ovid’s letter and retrospective in Virgil’s epic—invites readers to empathise with characters’ internal struggles rather than judge them by external actions alone. Consequently, the interplay of context and authorial choice in these works underscores that characters in Latin poetry are rarely, if ever, reducible to simplistic labels of villainy or heroism, instead embodying a spectrum of human flaws and virtues.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the characters of Dido in Ovid’s Heroides Epistula VII and Aeneas in Virgil’s Aeneid Book 2 exemplify the intricate and often ambiguous portrayals that define Latin poetry, challenging the notion that they can be neatly categorised as either villains or heroes. While Dido’s narrative oscillates between tragic heroism and vengeful spite, Aeneas’ actions reveal a hero burdened by duty yet implicated in destruction and loss. These complexities are further enriched by the cultural and literary contexts of Roman poetry, which prioritise moral nuance over binary judgments. The analysis of textual features, such as Ovid’s subjective epistolary style and Virgil’s layered epic narration, demonstrates how these poets craft characters that evoke empathy and critical reflection rather than straightforward condemnation or praise. Ultimately, this essay suggests that Latin poetry invites a deeper engagement with character beyond simplistic labels, reflecting the multifaceted nature of human experience. This perspective not only enhances our understanding of these specific texts but also prompts broader questions about the role of morality and identity in ancient literature, encouraging readers to reconsider how we define heroism and villainy in any narrative context. As such, the study of these works within the IB Latin SL curriculum underscores the enduring relevance of classical texts in exploring universal themes of duty, love, and loss.
References
- Anderson, W. S. (1969) The Art of the Aeneid. Prentice-Hall.
- Galinsky, K. (1996) Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction. Princeton University Press.
- Knox, P. E. (1995) Ovid’s Heroides: Select Epistles. Cambridge University Press.
Word Count: 1023 (including references)
