| In 1963, two main paradigms for interpreting the Aeneid emerged that have dominated the field ever since. One of these, Adam Parry's ‘two voices’ theory, is centered, obviously, on the concept of literary ‘voice’. The other, Brooks Otis' notion of “subjective style,” depends on the concept of ‘point of view’. In the early 1970's, the French theorist, Gérard Genette, distinguished between ‘voice’ and ‘point of view’ on the basis of ‘who speaks’ and ‘who sees’, respectively. In Chapter 1, I apply this distinction to recent criticism of the Aeneid to show the extent to which voice and point of view have been and continue to be confused with one another. This confusion, I further argue, has contributed greatly to the interpretive impasse that currently affects the field.; In Chapter 2, I allow the text to bring to light a central problem affecting narratology, or at least that version of narratology that was originally developed by Genette and later modified by his students. In positing the fundamental ‘seeing/speaking’ dichotomy, Genette fails to account adequately and definitively for the phenomenon of thought, as represented in and by narrative. Within his system, thought is treated, at times, as ‘voice’ (or ‘speaking’) and, at other times, as focalization (‘seeing’). To remedy this flaw, I develop a taxonomy of represented speech, thought and perception (RSTP) that allows for the emergence of “differing degrees of internal focalization,” as one commentator puts it. Moreover, I assign to the various forms of RSTP both unique and context-dependent functions, which can, in turn, provide a basis for interpreting the text.; The third and fourth chapters represent the application of my post-narratological methodology to the text. In Chapter 3, I define and illustrate the various forms of RSTP as they occur in Book 1 of the Aeneid, while discussing briefly the problems associated with FID (free indirect discourse) and FIP (free indirect perception) in the Aeneid. In Chapter 4, I describe the major patterns of RSTP that occur in Book 1 of the Aeneid, including the patterns of variant focalization, variable distance, and emergent subjectivity.; The implications of my study are three-fold. First, I contribute towards a greater aesthetic appreciation of the Aeneid by elucidating the particular manner in which Virgil represents the speech, thought, or perceptions of his characters. Second, I establish Virgil as a great narrative innovator, responsible, perhaps, for the earliest usage of the free indirect methods. Third, to the extent that the same patterns found in Book 1 may extend to the rest of the poem, my study has potentially great implications for the ideological debate surrounding the poem. However, the present study represents only the first step in that direction. Having developed a suitable methodology for analyzing voice, focalization and subjectivity in the Aeneid, the path is now clear for extending the analysis to the rest of the poem. |
