Myth in the Ylias and Alexandreis

Evidence drawn from Bernard Silvestris, Servius, and others shows that myth (fabula), specifically in the form of the divine apparatus, was believed to be an essential component of the Aeneid in the twelfth century. Yet, most medieval Latin epics did not have a divine apparatus, so the allegiance of the Ylias and Alexandreis to the Aeneid stands out even more starkly by comparison. What is more, evidence is presented that the divine apparatus of the Alexandreis and Ylias function in a similar way to the twelfth-century interpretation of the Virgilian divine apparatus—through allegory as personification. The chapter closes with an argument that the Ylias and Alexandreis, when read in their twelfth-century context, are more closely aligned with Virgil than Lucan. This conclusion contradicts the current scholarly consensus.

The Architrenius as Virgilian Allegory

This chapter relies again on Servius, Fulgentius, and Bernard Silvestris to demonstrate how John of Hauville’s Architrenius reflects an allegorical reading of the Aeneid. Unlike the Anticlaudianus, which refers to all of the episodes of the allegorical Aeneid, the Architrenius focuses on the allegory of the sixth book of Virgil’s Aeneid. Once the relationship between these plot structures is understood, the plot of the Architrenius, previously described by other scholars as chaotic, comes into sharper focus. The distinction in emphasis between the Anticlaudianus and the Architrenius also becomes clearer. The Anticlaudianus focuses on the allegorical ascent; the Architrenius, the descent. In Dantean terms, the Anticlaudianus is more concerned with paradiso, while the Architrenius gives more weight to inferno.

The Medieval Classic

This book considers how ancient and medieval commentaries on the Aeneid by Servius, Fulgentius, Bernard Silvestris, and others can give us new insights into four twelfth-century Latin epics—the Ylias by Joseph of Exeter, the Alexandreis by Walter of Châtillon, the Anticlaudianus by Alan of Lille, and the Architrenius by John of Hauville. Virgil’s influence on twelfth-century Latin epic is generally thought to be limited to verbal echoes and occasional narrative episodes, but evidence is presented that more global influences have been overlooked because ancient and medieval interpretations of the Aeneid, as preserved by the commentaries, were often radically different from modern readings of the Aeneid. By explaining how to interpret the Aeneid, these commentaries directly influenced the way in which twelfth-century Latin epic imitated the Aeneid. At the same time, these Aeneid commentaries allow us a greater awareness of the generic expectations held by the original readers of twelfth-century Latin epic. Thus, this book provides a new way to look at the development of allegory and contributes to our understanding of ancient and medieval perceptions of the Aeneid while exploring the importance of commentaries in shaping poetic composition, imitation, and reading.