In “Fate and Free Will in Vergil’s “Aeneid”,” the author, George Duckworth, makes a compelling argument that Aeneas, and other characters in the Aeneid, are not “puppets in the hands of Fate” (Duckworth 357), but rather “the gods and Fate play no part in the sequence of events” (Duckworth 360). Moreover, Aeneas cooperates using his own sense of free will, and also because of his inner sense of duty. Unlike several characters in the Aeneid, Aeneas makes the correct decisions, most of the time, and therefore reaps the benefits of doing so, this being when he and the Trojans found a new city in Italy.
Duckworth rationalizes his opinion of Vergil’s thoughts about free will, when he says, “but Vergil’s interest in human emotions and the psychology of his characters made it impossible for him to explain human action entirely by the working of Fate or divine interference” (Duckworth 358). Basically, Duckworth is saying that the Aeneid is too emotionally driven to be based solely on Fate. This is apparent in many cases, one being that even Aeneas, the poster child of acting in harmony with destiny, occasionally errs. Duckworth reasons that Aeneas is able to err because Virgil gives his characters’ freedom to do so.
Duckworth also gives the example of free will in the many tragic deaths in the epic poem. Duckworth states that although these deaths are “tragic,” they were not the will of Fate, but rather the actual errors of the individual. Duckworth further explains how Vergil clearly portrays the significant free will of his characters with the story of Nisus and Euryalus. Duckworth explains the slaughter in this story as “unnecessary” and describes Nisus and Euryalus as “suffering” because of their own incorrect motives (Duckworth 360).
127 our experts are availableright now
Duckworth continues to support this explanation of Nisus and Euryalus’s free will when he says, “nowhere in the Aeneid do we have a clearer instance of individuals making their own decisions and doing the wrong thing through misguided motives” (Duckworth 360). The previous statement is the entire basis for which Duckworth understands the Aeneid.
His opinion is once again shown in his recap of the story of Turnus’s fall. He gives examples how Turnus could have chosen to obey Fate, but rather Turnus does the opposite. Ultimately, leading to his death and giving yet another example of how Duckworth thinks Virgil is portraying an individual who “reaps what he sows,” other wise to be understood as Turnus facing the consequences for making the wrong decisions.
In January of 1907, R. B. Steele published an article in the “Latin Leaflet” talking about Virgil’s Aeneid, the article section was titled “Fate and Free will in the Aeneid.” Coincidentally, the article begins by determining the difference between fate and free will. It is stated that if a reader were to look at, and focus solely on, fate in the poem, then everything would seem to be “fixed” (Steele 1), on the other hand if the reader were to do the opposite, and only focus on the just divinities in the poem, “all would be free” (Steele 1). Steele states that Virgil’s most accurate representation of free will in opposition to fate is queen of the gods, Juno.
Juno’s power is described as omnipotent and equal to that of Jupiter. Although her power is described as supreme, even she realizes that she cannot ultimately alter Aeneas’s fate. The article states how Juno instead wreaks havoc upon Aeneas and his journey to Italy, examples listed are when she wrecks his ship and binds Dido to him in love (Steele 1).
Steele defines the term “numen” for readers, and relates it to the work as a whole. He recognizes “numen” is the power of independent activity and ties it to the “will of gods” (Steele 2). All of these examples eventually lead up to Steele’s main idea which is, that even though humans are ultimately bound by fate, the actions of individuals are of their own free will. An example of this is how Aeneas is constantly steered towards his goal, and is eventually successful, he does make mistakes and wavers from his mission at times because he is free to make his own choices.
In conclusion of the article, Steele compares the characters’ impressions that they were not bound by fate, to a bird. A bird who is able to fly anywhere in the world, but just as free as that sounds, the bird can never fly out of, or off of, the world itself (Steele 2). This correlates to the fact that no matter the actions of Aeneas, his fate always remained.
In Dorothea Clinton Woodworth article, “The Function of the Gods in Vergil’s Aeneid,” she, like George Duckworth, says that she does not agree with the common misconception that the characters in the Aeneid are just “puppets.” Woodworth gives specific reasoning to some of the actions of humans in the epic. She believes in the idea that Virgil used deities at specific points to illustrate the connection between humans and destiny, or fate. Woodworth also inadvertently writes that gods have significant influence over some of the actions of human beings. Although deities are able to “manipulate” humans, they are not always omnipotent.
They ultimately have no control over the ending result of fate. This is true in the case of Juno. Juno is characterized as “the struggle” in the epic. Juno is constantly trying to slow down and hinder Aeneas in his pursuit to his destiny.
Woodworth interprets Virgil’s use of Juno as the Aeneid’s antagonist, and the eventual triumph of Aeneas, and Rome, by saying, “though Fate is immutable and ultimately invincible, yet its ends are not attained without a struggle” (Woodworth 115). She is alluding to the fact that even fate cannot be received without some kind of strife, in this case, Aeneas’s strife being Juno. No matter the amount of trouble Juno causes for Aeneas, she inevitably knows that he will fulfill his destiny to found Rome.
Woodworth writes of Juno’s last ditch effort to foil Aeneas, when she employs Fury to wage war between the Latins and the Trojans. Woodworth describes Juno’s actions as, “resolving her last resource against Fate; though she knows the outcome is fixed, yet she will delay it…” (Woodworth 118). In the article, Woodworth interprets Virgil’s use of the gods to be either good or bad in accordance with fate. This is represented when she says, “the deities are symbolic actions in the struggle for and against fate (Woodworth 126). Like previously stated, Juno is an example of a god attempting to hinder the progression of fate. In opposition to Juno, there is Venus, Aeneas’s mother. Venus is an example of a god working with destiny.
Woodworth uses the examples of Venus’s deliberate use of Cupid, Faurus, and Tiber. She also describes Venus as constantly working for Aeneas’s good. Although Venus, like Juno and other gods, is not all powerful, she provides excellent counsel and advisement to Aeneas through her “clearer view of Fate” (Woodworth 124).
Woodworth associates the other less important gods as either tools for the two perspectives on fate, or merely not associated with either side. In the case of Apollo, he is neither helping nor hindering fate. He is solely used as a messenger of the prophecy. Overall, Woodworth attributes the free will of the Aeneid characters to influence of the gods, although she does thoroughly convey that fate is not ultimately alterable, the characters do act of their own free will, as state before, under considerable influence.
In her book, Virgil: The Aeneid, K.W. Grandsden describes fate and free will as being a dominate force in shaping the epic poem. She dives into the origin and meaning of the word fate itself, its connection to destiny, and its first appearance in the epic. In doing so, she mentions the significance of Jupiter’s speech to Venus assuring her of Aeneas’s destiny. She highlights not only Jupiter speaking of Aeneas fulfilling his fate, but also how Jupiter “unrolls the book of destiny” (Grandsden and Harrison 91).
Grandsden correlates both Jupiter’s actual words and the written word to how Aeneas’s fate was predestined, and solely known by the gods and other prophets. She gives the example of the Sibyl’s harsh, intervening speech to Aeneas’s ship guide. When the man is pleading with Aeneas to take him over the river, the Sibyl says “stop hoping that the gods’ decrees can be bent with prayer” (Virgil 143.455-456).
Grandsden further explains this example when she says, “certain events are predetermined…,” describing how fate is unable to be altered (Grandsden and Harrison 91), but she continues to say “…though the precise moment and circumstances of their fulfillment remains flexible, and this flexibility allows for the continued operation of human free will…” (Grandsden and Harrison 93). Therefore, clarifying her overall understanding of fate in the epic.
