Abstract
I propose by means of intertextual interpretation that principal personae Dido and Aeneas are politico-cultural constructs. I attribute differences in character portrayal to literary-historical conditions. I review humanist educational values which, following Erasmus, introduced the post-scholastic ‘pagan text’ curriculum. I investigate why Nahum Tate and Henry Purcell chose to render their version of the Dido myth from a historico-pedagogical perspective. I provide an overview of early modern pedagogy and practice. I begin by arguing that grammar schools offering an early modern classical education — principally humanist teaching methods and the curriculum — situate the Dido myth within a historical context. I argue that the Dido myth bore significant worth to Tate in particular because he was profoundly indebted to the classical sources. The earlier representations of fate, destiny, love, death and other topoi in the Dido narrative formed Tate’s outlook augmenting his reworked libretto version and linking it to a larger, lasting tradition. Tate’s reworked text reflects the shifting social and political landscape of the Restoration era suggesting that his writing was influenced by the humanist point of view prizing historical depth — the diachronic perspective.
Details
Presentation Type
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session
Theme
Past and Present in the Humanistic Education
KEYWORDS
Erasmus, Virgil, Ovid, Dido and Aeneas, Henry Purcell, Nahum Tate
