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.

Introduction

By placing twelfth-century Latin epic in the context of the Virgilian tradition, this study seeks to promote wider interdisciplinary knowledge of these poems. At the same time, it attempts to bridge a gap in scholarship between late antique epic and early modern epic. The Introduction presents what information is known about the lives of Joseph of Exeter, Walter of Châtillon, Alan of Lille, and John of Hauville, as well as the chronology of the composition of their poems, the Ylias, Alexandreis, Anticlaudianus, and Architrenius, respectively. The poets all lived in close geographical proximity—all were active in northern France for all or much of their careers. There was also a narrow window of time in which all four poems were composed—roughly a decade, centered around the 1180s. These facts suggest the possibility of direct competition and mutual influence.

Allegorical Mimesis

This chapter gives an overview of twelfth-century conceptions of allegory as integumentum. It also discusses the precedents—both medieval and modern—for reading an epic as an imitation of the allegorical reading of the Aeneid. In particular, this chapter lays out the evidence that allegorical readings of the Aeneid—especially the sixth book—were sometimes cited as structural models for allegorical poems in the Middle Ages. The plot structures of the Anticlaudianus and Architrenius are shown to have only small portions in common with the poems most generally said to be their models, such as Martianus’s De nuptiis, Prudentius’s Psychomachia, and Claudian’s In Rufinum. The chapter concludes with a short discussion of Fulgentius’s overall plot of the allegorical Aeneid and its tantalizing similarities to the plots of the Anticlaudianus and Architrenius.

History in the Ylias and Alexandreis

This chapter argues that the Alexandreis and Ylias reflect the way that Virgil was believed, in the twelfth century, to have constructed history and myth in the Aeneid. The key witnesses to the twelfth-century perception of history in the Aeneid are the “Anselm” commentary on the Aeneid and Servius, which was ubiquitous in the period and determined the shape of most other available commentaries on the Aeneid. Servius’s understanding of history (historia) and myth (fabula), and especially anachronism, is discussed in detail. Servius reads the Aeneid as a historical text which, although often bending the historical truth, did so with intentional allusion to specific historical events or alternate historical possibilities. The Alexandreis’s and the Ylias’s special interest in historical truth (historia) accords well with the way in which the Aeneid was read in the twelfth century.

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 Anticlaudianus as Virgilian Allegory

This chapter presents evidence that the plot of Alan of Lille’s Anticlaudianus is modeled on the allegorical interpretation of Virgil’s Aeneid. Specifically, it argues that the first six books of the Anticlaudianus are modeled on allegorizations of the Aeneid’s sixth book, while books 7, 8, and 9 of the Anticlaudianus are modeled on the allegorical interpretation of the entire Aeneid. The sorts of allegorical interpretations of the Aeneid available to scholars in the twelfth century are reconstructed with the help of Servius’s, Fulgentius’s, and Bernard Silvestris’s allegorizing comments on the Aeneid. Most of the evidence depends on similarities of plot points. However, verbal reminiscences from key moments in the “literal” Aeneid also serve to orient the reader in the allegorical Aeneid.

Conclusion

The conclusion suggests that Virgil’s importance was greater in the twelfth century than previously thought. Dante was not the first to “resuscitate” Virgilianism after the Carolingian period, as is often claimed, nor were Renaissance authors the first—another thing sometimes claimed. Furthermore, the importance of the Virgilian commentary tradition in shaping these epics suggests an alternative origin for the Platonism that has previously been detected in the poetry of this period. Winthrop Wetherbee had argued in Platonism and Poetry that the reason for such Platonism in the poetry of the twelfth century was due to the so-called Chartrian interest in Calcidius’s translation of the Timaeus. The research presented in this book suggests that nearly all of such Platonism detected by Wetherbee—especially the Platonic ascent of the soul to the creator—can be explained through commentary on the Aeneid without direct recourse to the Timaeus.

Blurring the Lines between History and Allegory

This chapter explores the possibility that the allegorical epics, the Anticlaudianus and Architrenius, and the historical epics, the Alexandreis and Ylias, are not so diametrically opposed as is often thought. If historical and allegorical epic in the twelfth century can both be said to be founded on a medieval reading of the Aeneid, then the allegorical epics should be able to be read as historical epics and vice versa. The Architrenius is read both as a possible autobiography and as a biography of John of Hauville’s patron. Previous historical readings of characters in the Anticlaudianus are re-evaluated—such as Nero as Henry II, the New Man as Philip Augustus, and the New Man as Christ. The plots of both the Alexandreis and Ylias seem to show the imprint of global allegory, in the style of Fulgentius’s and Bernard Silvestris’s allegorizations of the Aeneid.