Which scholar argues that Dido is a victim of circumstances and the gods?

• A. Damien Nelis - Characterisation of Dido
• B. Ian Du Quesnay - Characterisation of Dido
• C. Philip Hardie - Modern audience and Dido
• D. Bruce Gibson - Book 2

Answer: (C)

The idea being tested is how readers interpret Dido’s fate in the Aeneid—whether she is driven mainly by her own choices or by larger forces beyond her control, especially the will of the gods. Philip Hardie is the scholar who argues from a modern-audience perspective that Dido’s tragedy is shaped by external forces—the divine machinations and the circumstances they create—more than by simple personal blame. In this view, the gods interfere and set the stage: Juno’s vendetta against the Trojans, Jupiter’s overarching plan, and the political imperatives surrounding establishing Rome all press on Dido, constraining her and steering events. Aeneas’s departure, though framed as his duty, leaves Dido to face the consequences, reinforcing the sense that her destruction comes from forces outside her control rather than from pure character flaw or isolated choices.

Context helps: in Book 4 Dido’s love for Aeneas collides with divine designs and political realities, culminating in a tragedy that many modern readers read as the result of fate and divine influence, not just individual decisions. Hardie’s focus on how modern audiences perceive Dido captures this reading stance, distinguishing it from analyses that emphasize Dido’s agency or from discussions that zero in on a particular book or character study.

The other scholars mentioned concentrate on different angles—one on how Dido is portrayed as a character, another on her role in Book 2—without centering the broader interpretive lens that sees her as a victim of circumstance and divine meddling in the eyes of modern readers.