Michael Paschalis Ovidian Metamorphosis and Nonnian poikilon eidos

The issue of Nonnus’ familiarity with and use of ’s as a literary source has attracted and continues to attract a lot of scholarly atten- tion. In recent years the argument in favor of Ovidian influence on Nonnus has weakened considerably. Nonnus had at his disposal an enormous amount of Greek literature now lost to us and hence, as Peter Knox has pointed out, “it is a priori improbable that a Panopolitan would use a poem as his source for , when there were so many works available in his native tongue.” 1 Nonnus’ familiarity with the Metamorphoses is not improba- ble but it is an entirely different thing to assume that he used Ovid’s epic as a source text.2 The existence of a common source for Ovid and Nonnus is commonly suggested as an alternative to Nonnus’ dependence on Ovid but the situation may turn out to be more complex.3 The parallel study of Ovid and Nonnus, independently of Quellenforschung and intertextual relations, would in my view prove more useful. It would shift attention to a more substantial comparison of Ovidian and Nonnian narratives and poetics in areas where there is common ground. Below I will attempt to do so in comparing the Proems of the Metamorphoses and the Dionysiaca and Ovid’s and Nonnus’ versions of the episode.

1 Metamorphosis and poikilon eidos: Introduction

A major issue that invites a comparison between Ovid’s Metamorphoses and Nonnus’ Dionysiaca is that both place transformation at the heart of their

 Knox 1988, 551.  In favor of Nonnus’ dependence on Ovid see especially Braune 1935; D’Ippolito 1964; Diggle 1970, 180–200. In discussing the motif of the rape of , Kuhlmann (2012) stresses the “many similarities” between the Dionysiaca and the Metamorphoses as regards structure and narrative mode and seems to imply some sort of dependence (“Nonnus further develops the elements already to be found in Moschus’ epyllion and Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, 489). Against Nonnus’ dependence in addition to Knox see Agosti 2004, 258–65; Paschalis 2007, 2. For further bibliography see below the discussion of the Actaeon and episodes.  Cf. Barchiesi 2005, 231 on Nonnus and Ovid with regard to the episode:“Allo stato attuale della discussione, si può dire che Nonno è una fonte indipendente, non condizi- 98 Michael Paschalis poetic program. The Ovidian Proem is unusually short but its temporal grasp and literary ambition is extraordinary, Met. 1.1–4:4

In noua fert animus mutatas dicere formas corpora; di, coeptis (nam uos mutastis et illa) adspirate meis primaque ab origine mundi ad mea perpetuum deducite tempora carmen.

My mind moves me to tell of shapes changed into new bodies. You, gods, inspire my undertaking (since it was you that changed it) and bring down my continuous song from the world’s very beginning to my own times.5

Three main aspects of metamorphosis are suggested by these lines. In the first place they are transformations not of gods but of human beings brought about by the gods. Next they are single transformations and involve a permanent loss of form: the language describes a single completed action and one new shape: mutatas(“changed”), mutastis(“you changed”), and nova corpora (“new bodies”).6 Finally these transformations are strung together to form a continuous song (carmen perpetuum) from the world’s first origins to the poet’s own time.7 The organizing principle for these changes is not a single plot, event or character but a (relative) chronological order. The narrative itself reveals numerous other organizing techniques that operate within the chrono- logical frame but the only theme that links almost all the stories together is “change” (an additional theme, not mentioned in the Proem and not present in every story, is“love”). Transformation lies also at the heart of the Dionysiaca and is also announced in the Proem, Dion. 1.1–44:

Εἰπέ, θεά, Κρονίδαο διάκτορον αἴθοπος εὐνῆς, νυμφιδίῳ σπινθῆρι μογοστόκονἄσθμα κεραυνοῦ, καὶ στεροπὴν Σεμέλης θαλαμηπόλον· εἰπὲδὲ φύτλην Βάκχου δισσοτόκοιο,τὸνἐκ πυρὸςὑγρὸνἀείρας onata da Ovidio, e neppure risalente a un modello comune. Le somiglianze fra i due poeti vanno quindi interpretate nel quadro di una tradizione più vasta e complessa”.  The most informative commentary on Ovid’s Proem is Barchiesi 2005, 133–45.  Translated by the author.  In this article I discuss only real and actual metamorphosis. The notion of“multiple meta- morphosis” in Anderson (1963) involves metaphorical in addition to physical change and therefore does not concern my research. The portrayal of the Metamorphoses as“a world of ceaseless change and instability” (Newbold 2010, 82) is correct but does not concern me either.  Strictly speaking to the of Julius Caesar in 44 B. C., the year before Ovid’s birth. Ovidian Metamorphosis and Nonnian poikilon eidos 99

Ζεὺς βρέφοςἡμιτέλεστονἀμαιεύτοιο τεκούσης, 5 φειδομέναις παλάμῃσι τομὴν μηροῖο χαράξας, ἄρσενι γαστρὶ λόχευσε, πατὴρ καὶ πότνια μήτηρ, εὖεἰδὼς τόκονἄλλον ἑῷ γονόεντι καρήνῳ ὅς πάροςὄγκονἄπιστονἔχωνἐγκύμονι κόρσῃ τεύχεσινἀστράπτουσανἀνηκόντιζενἈθήνην. 10 Ἄξατέ μοι νάρθηκα, τινάξατε κύμβαλα, Μοῦσαι, καὶ παλάμῃ δότε θύρσονἀειδομένου Διονύσου. Ἀλλὰ χοροῦ ψαύοντι Φάρῳ παρὰ γείτονι νήσῳ στήσατέ μοι Πρωτῆα πολύτροπον,ὄφρα φανείη ποικίλον εἶδοςἔχων,ὅτι ποικίλονὕμνονἀράσσω. 15 Εἰγὰρἐφερπύσσειε δράκων κυκλούμενοςὁλκῷ, μέλψω θεῖονἄεθλον,ὅπως κισσώδεϊ θύρσῳ φρικτὰ δρακοντοκόμωνἐδαΐζετο φῦλα Γιγάντων· εἰδὲ λέων φρίξειενἐπαυχενίην τρίχα σείων, Βάκχονἀνευάξω βλοσυρῆςἐπὶ πήχεϊῬείης 20 μαζὸνὑποκλέπτοντα λεοντοβότοιο θεαίνης· εἰδὲ θυελλήεντι μετάρσιοςἅλματι ταρσῶν πόρδαλιςἀίξῃ πολυδαίδαλον εἶδοςἀμείβων, ὑμνήσω Διὸς υἷα, πόθεν γένοςἔκτανενἸνδῶν πορδαλίωνὀχέεσσι καθιππεύσαςἐλεφάντων· 25 εἰ δέμαςἰσάζοιτο τύπῳ συός,υἷα Θυώνης ἀείσω ποθέοντα συοκτόνον εὔγαμον Αὔρην, ὀψιγόνου τριτάτοιο Κυβηλίδα μητέρα Βάκχου· εἰδὲ πέλοι μιμηλὸνὕδωρ, Διόνυσονἀείσω κόλπονἁλὸς δύνοντα κορυσσομένοιο Λυκούργου· 30 εἰ φυτὸν αἰθύσσοιτο νόθον ψιθύρισμα τιταίνων, μνήσομαιἸκαρίοιο, πόθεν παρὰ θυάδι ληνῷ βότρυςἁμιλλητῆρι ποδῶνἐθλίβετο ταρσῷ. Ἄξατέ μοι νάρθηκα, Μιμαλλόνες,ὠμαδίην δὲ νεβρίδα ποικιλόνωτονἐθήμονοςἀντὶ χιτῶνος 35 σφίγξατέ μοι στέρνοισι, Μαρωνίδοςἔμπλεονὀδμῆς νεκταρέης, βυθίῃδὲ παρ’Εἰδοθέῃ καὶ Ὁμήρῳ φωκάων βαρὺ δέρμα φυλασσέσθω Μενελάῳ. Εὔιά μοι δότεῥόπτρα καὶαἰγίδας,ἡδυμελῆδὲ ἄλλῳ δίθροον αὐλὸνὀπάσσατε,μὴ καὶ ὀρίνω 40 Φοῖβονἐμόν· δονάκων γὰρἀναίνεταιἔμπνοονἠχώ, ἐξότε Μαρσύαο θεημάχον αὐλὸνἐλέγξας δέρμα παρῃώρησε φυτῷ κολπούμενον αὔραις, γυμνώσαςὅλα γυῖα λιπορρίνοιο νομῆος. 100 Michael Paschalis

Tell the tale, Goddess, of Cronides’ courier with fiery flame, the gasping travail which the thunder-bolt brought with sparks for wedding-torches, the lightning in waiting upon ’s nuptials; tell the naissance of Bacchos twice-born, whom lifted still moist from the fire, a baby half-complete born without midwife; how with shrinking hands he cut the incision in his thigh and carried him in his man’s womb, father and gracious mother at once–and well he remembered another birth, when his own head conceived, when his temple was big with child, and he carried that incredible unbegotten lump, until he shot out scintillating in her armour. Bring me the fennel, rattle the cymbals, ye ! put in my hand the wand of Dionysos whom I sing: but bring me a partner for your dance in the neighbouring island of Pharos, of many turns, that he may appear in all his diversity of shapes, since I twang my harp to a diversity of songs. For if, as a , he should glide along his winding trail, I will sing my god’s achievement, how with ivy-wreathed wand he destroyed the horrid hosts of ser- pent-haired. If as a lion he shake his bristling mane, I will cry“Euoi!” to Bacchos on the arm of buxom Rheia, stealthily draining the breast of the lionbreeding goddess. If as a leopard he shoot up into the air with a stormy leap from his pads, changing shape like a master-craftsman, I will hymn the son of Zeus, how he slew the Indian nation, with his team of pards riding down the elephants. If he make his figure like the shape of a boar, I will sing Thyone’s son, love-sick for the desirable, boarslayer, daughter of , mother of the third Bacchos late-born. If he be mimic , I will sing Dionysos diving into the bosom of the brine, when Lycurgos armed himself. If he become a quivering tree and tune a counterfeit whispering, I will tell of Icarios, how in the jubilant winepress his feet crushed the grape in rivalry. Bring me the fennel, Mimallons! On my shoulders in place of the wonted kirtle, bind, I pray, tight over my breast a dapple-back fawnskin, full of the perfume of Maronian nectar; and let and deep-sea Eidothea keep the rank skin of the seals for Menelaos. Give me the jocund tambours and the goatskins! but leave for another the double-sounding pipe with its melodious sweetness, or I may offend my own ; for he rejects the sound of breathing reeds, ever since he put to shame Marsyas and his god-defiant pipes, and bared every limb of the skin-stript shepherd, and hung his skin on a tree to belly in the breezes.8

Nonnus’ Proem contrasts with Ovid’s on all three aspects of transformation outlined above. In the first place Nonnus lays the focus not on human but on divine metamorphosis (13–5 Proteus). Furthermore he does not foreground sin- gle transformations but multiple metamorphosis of one deity. Finally multiple metamorphosis is organized around a single subject-matter, which is the heroic life and deeds of (15–33). In Nonnus there are irreversible and permanent transformations as in Ovid but the distinguishing feature of the Dionysiaca are reversible transformations and ever-changing shapes. Reversible transformations are the privilege of the gods, of certain humans of divine descent, and favorites of the gods. Zeus and Bacchus, chief representatives of the first category, have the power of crossing

 All translations of the Dionysiaca are by Rouse 1940. Ovidian Metamorphosis and Nonnian poikilon eidos 101 and recrossing boundaries, of changing into animate or inanimate and back. They can do these things on different occasions or on one occasion in succession (multiple consecutive transformations). Dionysus- assumes nine different shapes as he is being dismembered by the (6.174–205). Multiple transformation is an aspect of Nonnian ποικιλία (diversity) which in turn is associated with Dionysiac shape-shifting.9 All major transformations in the Dionysiaca– real, aspired or metaphorical– are placed against the background of ποικιλία and the mutations and manifestations of Dionysus. But the simultaneous possession of different shapes is monstrous and undesira- ble. The chief representative of this kind of being is Typhoeus who is defeated and removed from the picture very early in the Dionysiaca. Diversity manifests itself in very original ways. In Book 11.155–223 Ampelos is killed by a bull while emulating bull-shaped Dionysus (a case of imagined self-transformation) and in Book 12.173–87 he is resurrected as a vine-tree. In Book 21.1–154 and 295–8 the Ambrosie fights Lycurgus and runs the danger of being murdered; she prays to Mother earth for help, the earth engulfs her and the Nymph reemerges changed into a vine-shoot; it winds itself around the neck of Lycurgus and nearly strangles him, but frees him by cutting the vine with ’ word; eventually the Nymph is catasterized. The idea of a Nymph being transformed into a plant, then continuing her earlier performance in the same episode more vigorously than before and subsequently changing into yet another shape is alien to Ovid. In Ovidian transformations there is continuity, since something of the old shape continues into the new one (the name; human mind and feelings; a striking habit, ability or desire) but as a rule the new shape remains unchanged.10 For instance in Met. 1.544–67 the Nymph prays to her father for help to escape from the pursuing Apollo and is next changed into a laurel tree. The laurel tree retains the name of the Nymph, human mind and human feelings. Thus it shrinks from the god’s kisses even after death but reacts positively to his prom- ises– that the laurel will become his symbol and crown permanently his head, that it will adorn the head of triumphant Roman generals and will guard the portals of Augustus– as it seems to nod assent with its newly created branches. The consecutive transformations of Ambrosie could be tested against Ovid’s Caeneus story. The Lapith Caeneus (Met. 12.171–535) was originally a

 Of the various notions of ποικιλία mentioned in Fauth (1981) I am here concerned especially with those that apply to metamorphosis.  Chapter 5 of Solodow (1988) offers a very good introduction to the typical features of Ovidian metamorphosis. 102 Michael Paschalis woman called Caenis but was raped by Neptune who in requital changed him into an invulnerable man; but the managed to kill Caeneus and after death he was changed into a bird. The crucial difference with Nonnus’ Ambro- sie is that the transformation of Caenis into Caeneus belongs to an older epi- sode, entirely unrelated to the episode of the battle between the and the Centaurs. Illuminating is also the comparison of Ambrosie to Tereus in the story of Tereus, Procne and Philomela (Met. 6.412–674): when the sisters Procne and Philomela cook and serve to Tereus his son Itys as a special ban- quet dish, Tereus seizes a sword and begins to pursue them. In the course of the pursuit all three are changed into birds; Tereus is changed into a hoopoe, whose crest and long beak make him look like a warrior and retain the memory of his desire to inflict vengeance (6.671–3). Contrary to the Nonnian Ambrosie, the Ovidian Tereus in the shape of a bird can no longer perform exactly as before, that is pursue the two sisters vigorously and exact his vengeance. In Ovid transformations of the gods are common but multiple consecutive transformations, as when in the Dionysiaca Zeus adopts several shapes in order to court Semele, the future mother of Bacchus (7.318–33), are not prac- ticed by major deities. A single transformation is enough for Zeus or Apollo to conquer the object of his desire. In rare cases minor deities or humans may practice multiple metamorphosis but these prove unsuccessful in terms of the purpose they are intented to achieve. Those who practice them are defeated, outsmarted or killed. The supreme example is whose multiple transfor- mations in Met. 11.260–5 do not prevent from raping her. It is signifi- cant that in a poem that tells of mutatas formas Proteus does not practice any of his legendary transformations: he is only said to have done so by the river- god (Met. 8.730–7). Because in the Proem of the Dionysiaca the poet portrays himself as a successor to Proteus, it is important to stress that in the Metamorphoses the successors to Proteus are portrayed as failures: Thetis is raped by Peleus who acts on the advice of Proteus; Achelous is defeated by Hercules (Met. 8.879–84); Periclymenus is killed by the same hero (Met. 12.555–76). The last case concerns Mestra, Erysichthon’s daughter. The ever- hungry Erysichthon sells his daughter so that he can provide himself with food; she exploits her ability of multiple metamorphosis to escape the owner and return home to her father, who can then sell her again (Met. 8.846–74). In the end, however, not even this device works, and Erysichthon is reduced to self-cannibalism. Nonnus’ fondness of multiple metamorphosis is manifested in his treat- ment of Io, the daughter of Inachus. In Ovid she is metamorphosed into a cow but eventually retrieves her human shape, a process of reverse transformation which Ovid describes at length (Met. 1.738–46). Next her worship as a goddess Ovidian Metamorphosis and Nonnian poikilon eidos 103 is mentioned, but without any reference to the horns of Isis or any association with Io as a formerly horned animal (Met. 1.747 Nunc dea linigera colitur cele- berrima turba). What in Ovid is a reverse transformation in Nonnus becomes a multiple metamorphosis, from horned animal to horned goddess. In Dion. 3.259–83 Io’s transformation into a heifer assumes a Dionysiac flavor: though female, she is called ταυροφυής (bull-shaped), an epithet of Dionysus record- ing one of his principal shapes; and her guardian, the hundred-eyed, ever watchful is referred to as βουκόλον… ποικίλον. In Egypt Io does not retrieve her earlier, human shape but undergoes a new transformation: Io’s bull form is changed into that of the horned goddess Isis (3.279–81 βοέην μετὰ μορφὴν/ δαιμονίηςἴνδαλμα μεταλλάξασα κεραίης/ἔσκε θεὰ φερέκαρπος). To be noted that shape-shifting takes place against an ever-changing landscape where the Nile with his muddy floods deposits year after year new alluvium on his bride the earth. As regards single transformations of human beings, in Ovid the focus is placed as a rule on the process of transformation. Nonnus frequently explores other aspects. One was mentioned above: placing the single event against various manifestations of ποικιλία and/or associating it with the shapes and mutations of Dionysus. Another one has to do with the complications of chang- ing identity, as in the Actaeon story discussed in the third section of this article.

2 Poikilon eidos and Metamorphosis: Further Considerations

A closer look at the Proems of the Dionysiaca and the Metamorposes reveals further differences as regards the issue of transformation. The first section of Nonnus’ Proem (1–10) deals with the birth of Dionysus, the son of Zeus and Semele. The“birth” of the god whose heroic life and exploits constitute the topic of the Dionysiaca functions at the same time as a suitable“beginning” and also as a metaphor for the creation of the work itself. These lines do not, however, talk about the god’s birth in a simple and straightforward manner. They enrich it with meaningful themes and meta- phors: Dionysus’“double” birth; Zeus’ destructive that became a source of life; Semele who was burnt to ashes but did not die (she was later given a divine life); fire that did not extinguish water; a male parent (Zeus) who provided a life-giving womb; and the birth of Athena from Zeus’ head. Birth is viewed here as a kind of metamorphosis that manifests itself in diverse forms (ποικιλία). Thus section 1 of the Proem introduces the notion of ποικιλία, 104 Michael Paschalis which is mentioned explicitly in line 10 and is a dominant thematic but also stylistic and structural feature of the Dionysiaca. Nonnus announces a concept of metamorphosis that concerns gods and gods-to-be (Semele) and assumes different, reversible shapes, where one shape does not erase the other, where conventional death does not extinguish life. Ovid’s Proem begins with the birth of“new bodies” and the strategically placed word“noua” relates directly to the beginnings of poetic composition (In noua fert animus). In addition to the idea of creation and originality the word“noua” implicitly associates Ovid’s poem with metamorphosis, an idea which returns explicitly in line 2 of the Proem (discussed at the end of this section).11 Ποικιλία appears also as an intrinsic feature of Nonnus’ allusive engage- ment with Homer and other epic poets. In the second part of the Proem (11– 33) the single Homeric Muse invoked in line 1 (θεά) has changed into many Muses (Μοῦσαι), who in addition appear as , companions of Bacchus, and in the third section (34–44) are invoked as Mimallones. Furthermore while in the opening line the poet asks the Muse in the Homeric manner to sing of the circumstance of the birth of Dionysus, in the next sections of the Proem he asks for the god’s accoutrements and emblems and changes himself into a Dionysiac poet who strikes up a ποικίλονὕμνον. 12 In the rest of the proem (lines 13–44) Nonnus enters into a more explicit contest with Homer’s account in 4 of how managed to elicit from Proteus, with the aid of his daughter Eidothea, a prophecy regarding his nostos and the nostoi of other Achaeans.13 I quote the passage directly relevant to the Proem of the Dionysi- aca, Od. 4.435–59:

τόφρα δ’ἄρ’ἥγ’ὑποδῦσα θαλάσσης εὐρέα κόλπον τέσσαρα φωκάωνἐκ πόντου δέρματ’ἔνεικε· πάντα δ’ἔσαν νεόδαρτα· δόλον δ’ἐπεμήδετο πατρί. εὐνὰς δ’ἐν ψαμάθοισι διαγλάψασ’ἁλίῃσιν ἧστο μένουσ’·ἡμεῖς δὲ μάλα σχεδὸνἤλθομεν αὐτῆς· ἑξείης δ’εὔνησε, βάλεν δ’ἐπὶ δέρμαἑκάστῳ. ἔνθα κεν αἰνότατος λόχοςἔπλετο· τεῖρε γὰρ αἰνῶς φωκάωνἁλιοτρεφέωνὀλοώτατοςὀδμή·

 See further Barchiesi 2005, 133–45.  On the unconventional character of the Proem see Vian 1976, 7–10; Bannert 2008. On Nonnus as a Dionysiac poet see Shorrock 2001, 114–6 with literature.  On Nonnus, Homer and Proteus see Vian 1976, 7–10, 134–6; Fauth 1981, 32–8; Gigli Piccardi 1985, passim; Hopkinson 1994a; Shorrock 2001, 20–3, 114–21. Ovidian Metamorphosis and Nonnian poikilon eidos 105

τίς γάρ κ’εἰναλίῳ παρὰ κήτεϊ κοιμηθείη; ἀλλ’αὐτὴ ἐσάωσε καὶ ἐφράσατο μέγ’ὄνειαρ· ἀμβροσίηνὑπὸ ῥῖναἑκάστῳθῆκε φέρουσα ἡδὺ μάλα πνείουσαν,ὄλεσσε δὲ κήτεοςὀδμήν. πᾶσαν δ’ἠοίην μένομεν τετληότι θυμῷ· φῶκαι δ’ἐξἁλὸςἦλθονἀολλέες.αἱμὲνἔπειτα ἑξῆς εὐνάζοντο παρὰ ῥηγμῖνι θαλάσσης· ἔνδιος δ’ὁ γέρωνἦλθ’ἐξἁλός,εὗρε δὲ φώκας ζατρεφέας, πάσας δ’ἄρ’ἐπῴχετο, λέκτο δ’ἀριθμόν· ἐν δ’ἡμέας πρώτους λέγε κήτεσιν,οὐδέ τι θυμῷ ὠΐσθη δόλον εἶναι·ἔπειτα δὲ λέκτο καὶαὐτός. ἡμεῖς δὲ ἰάχοντεςἐπεσσύμεθ’,ἀμφὶδὲ χεῖρας βάλλομεν· οὐδ’ὁ γέρων δολίηςἐπελήθετο τέχνης, ἀλλ’ἦ τοι πρώτιστα λέων γένετ’ἠϋγένειος, αὐτὰρἔπειτα δράκων καὶ πάρδαλιςἠδὲ μέγας σῦς· γίγνετο δ’ὑγρὸνὕδωρ καὶ δένδρεονὑψιπέτηλον. ἡμεῖς δ’ἀστεμφέωςἔχομεν τετληότι θυμῷ.

Meanwhile she, having plunged down under the sea’s broad bosom, came back bringing with her four sealskins out of the seaway, all of them recently flayed: she was planning a snare for her father. When she had scooped out beds for us all in the sand of the seashore, she sat waiting for us, and as we came right up beside her, laid us there in a row, over each man throwing a sealskin. Then would the ambush have been most horrible, such was the baneful odor that horridly rose from the sea-bred seals to afflict us. What man ever would lie in a bed with a deep-sea monster? But she saved us herself and devised a great cure for the nuisance: bringing ambrosial unguent sweet in the breathing, she put it under the nostrils of each, thus killing the smell of the monster. So we remained for the whole of the morning with resolute spirits. Soon as the seals came out of the sea-brine, huddled together, they lay down in a row on the tide-heaped sand of the seashore. Out of the sea at midday did the old man come, and he found his well-fed seals, and he went through them all, and he counted the number, counted us first among all of his seabeasts, nor in his spirit noticed that it was a trick; then he too laid himself down there. Shouting and screaming, we launched an assault on him, casting about him arm-holds; nor did the old man forget his craft or his cunning but to begin transformed himself to a long-bearded lion, then to a serpent and next to a panther and then to a huge boar; then he became running water, a tree next, lofty and leafy. We maintained irresistible grips with a resolute spirit.14

 Translated by R. Merrill. 106 Michael Paschalis

As noted above, in the Proem of the Dionysiaca the figure of the Homeric poet is radically changed. The poet is turned into a master of ποικιλία and Dionysiac shape-shifting and applies his transforming art on the Homeric material with meticulous ruthlessness. He does so by appropriating and adapting a Homeric episode, by turning Homer against Homer. Let us begin with the contents of the Homeric episode. Following the instructions of Eidothea Menelaus and his companions put on seal skins and manage to deceive Proteus, who is himself the master of shape-shifting deceit, by passing as real seals. They capture him as he is lying among his flock of seals and hold him down until he has stopped changing himself and returned to his original shape, so that Menelaus may inquire him about his nostos and the nostoi of other Achaean warriors. The Homeric passage contains two kinds of“transformation”, human disguise and divine multiple metamorphosis. The poet of the Dionysiaca asks the Muses to cause Proteus to appear before him in all his diverse shapes (ποικίλον εἶδος)– as he appeared to Mene- laus– because he strikes up a hymn of many shapes (ποικίλονὕμνον). In Homer Proteus is captured and forced to stop changing himself but in Nonnus his capacity for multiple metamorphosis (πολύτροπος) is changed into an aes- thetic principle (ποικιλία) and his flock of seals are changed into a Chorus of Muses-Maenads. Of major programmatic significance is the fact that the poet of the Dionysiaca deprives of the epithet πολύτροπος that marks the opening of . Based on what Proteus tells Menelaus in Odyssey 4.555–60“the many wiles” of Odysseus avail him not, since his nostos looks impossible: he is a prisoner on the island of and has neither a ship nor the companions needed for the voyage. Thus implicitly Nonnus uses Homer against Homer, the episode of Odyssey 4 against the opening line of Homer’s epic. Having deprived Odysseus of his wiles, Nonnus proceeded to appropriate πολύτροπος, change its meaning to“shape-shifting” and apply it to the composition of a ποικίλονὕμνον to the god of countless mutations. Ποικίλον εἶδος is not a static but a dynamic notion, indicating not just diversity but ever-changing shapes. Whichever of his six Homeric shapes should Proteus choose to adopt, Nonnus is able to match him with appropri- ately varied theme and style. The poet matches the six shapes in which Proteus appears in the Odyssey to episodes of Dionysus’ life recounted in the Dionysi- aca. Serpent, lion, leopard, boar, water and tree are also manifestations of Bacchus and Zeus. Furthermore almost every individual manifestation of Pro- teus is at the same time multi-shaped: the serpent that“glides along its wind- ing trail” changes shape as it moves and has the ivy on the as its counterpart; the leopard with the spotted skin undergoes Protean transforma- Ovidian Metamorphosis and Nonnian poikilon eidos 107 tions as it leaps storm-like through the air;15 water can take all possible shapes; the quivering tree has an ever-changing shape.

2.1 νεβρὶς ποικιλόνωτος vs φωκάων δέρματα

In lines 34–8 of the Proem Nonnus takes up the issue of human disguise in the Odyssean episode and attaches aesthetic significance to it. He rejects the Homeric heavy-smelling seal skin of Menelaus16 for the sake of the Dionysiac “dappled fawn skin” that smells of the aroma of Maronian nectar. In doing so he simultaneously rejects the single shape (seal skin) for the many shapes of the νεβρὶς ποικιλόνωτος, which stands for the quality of ποικιλία in the new epic. Furthermore while the seal skin is a casual means of disguise, intended only to deceive, the fawn skin is a ritual garment occurring several times in the Dionysiaca. It is commonly worn by the god’s companions or favorites, the god himself and even by Zeus.17 The poet receives the dappled fawn skin from the hands of the Muses– Maenads and is thus singled out as the first in order and rank among the favorites of Dionysus.

2.2 νεβρὶς ποικιλόνωτος vs δέρμα κολπούμενον αὔραις

In the concluding lines of the Proem Nonnus contrasts his newly acquired dappled fawn skin to the skin of flayed Marsyas. The flaying of Marsyas picks up and reverses the situation in Homer where Menelaus and his companions put on the skin of“newly flayed seal skins”(φωκάων… δέρματα… νεόδαρτα). Marsyas challenged Apollo to a musical contest with his flute but lost and in punishment the god flayed him alive and hang his skin on a tree to belly in the breezes. In Ovid’s respective account (Met. 6.382–400) the poet focuses on what happens to the body of Marsyas: his skin is removed entirely leaving behind bare limbs, bare sinews, bare veins, bare insides. By contrast Nonnus focuses on what happens to the skin of Marsyas: as specified in Dion. 19.319– 22 Apollo turned his skin into a windbag (ἔμπνοονἀσκόν): the wind entered it often as it hang on high and swelled it into a shape resembling living Mar- syas which forever reproduced the sound of the double flute. Thus while the

 Cf. Dion. 43.246–7, of Proteus: κερδαλέος δὲ γέρων πολυδαίδαλον εἶδοςἀμείβων/εἶχε Περικλυμένοιο πολύτροπα δαίδαλα μορφῆς.  Cf. Hopkinson 1994a, 10:“the noisome Homeric sealskin is a collateral descendant of ’ long-distance cranes, braying ass, bloated woman, and filthy river”.  On its significance see Maxwell-Stuart 1971. 108 Michael Paschalis poet takes pride in his newly acquired Dionysiac νεβρίς, Marsyas is deprived of his own skin. The dappled fawn skin stands for the god’s favorite ποικίλον ὕμνον; Marsyas’ skin stands for the song that the god rejects, the arrogant, god-fighting flute-playing.18 Ovid’s short Proem also applies the notion of metamorphosis to the poet’s manner of writing but in its own terms. I already noted above that the opening phrase“In noua fert animus” introduces the composition of the poem as a kind of metamorphosis. The expression also programmatically eliminates the role of the epic Muse. But this is not done in direct competition with Homer as it happens in the Proem of the Dionysiaca. The third person singular opening (In noua fert animus) is directed at ’s first person singular opening (Aen. 1.1 Arma virumque cano). In the next three lines Ovid reestablishes divine inspiration in a conspicuous manner. The pattern of beginning with the poet’s own voice and next (re)turning to divine inspiration is Virgilian and Ovid’s target is again Virgil: while Virgil reestablishes the Homeric Muse (Aen.1.8 Musa, mihi causas memora) Ovid addresses the gods in general.19 In the second line of the Proem the gods are asked to inspire Ovid’s under- taking, an undertaking they have changed just as they changed the shapes of things that are the subject of the poem. Ovid thus applies the notion of metamorphosis to his own work in terms of his“changed” manner of writing (nam vos mutastis et illa).20 According to E. J. Kenney (1976) Ovid is implying that he had embarked upon another kind of (epic) poem when the gods inter- vened and deflected his purpose, along the line of Apollo’s intervention in Virg. Ecl. 6.3–5. A more probable interpretation was given by Kovacs (1987, 462):“The change Ovid is alluding to is his new manner of writing: no longer light love poetry (or love letters from fictional heroines) in elegiac couplets but instead mythical narrative in hexameter”. Whatever the case, in the Proem Ovid tells how the generic direction of his inspiration was transformed and how divine intervention caused him to turn from the kind of poetry he was writing to composing the Metamorphoses. Nonnus tells how he left behind Homeric epic and transformed himself into a Dionysiac poet by receiving from the Muses-Maenads the dappled fawn skin, the emblem of the Protean Dionysiaca.

 On Marsyas’ music see further Harries 2006, 539–40.  Cf. Barchiesi 2005, 137:“La più sintetica e globale invocazione agli dèi nella storia dell’epica”.  The majority of MSS read illas, with reference to formas. Illa is a late medieval variant now accepted by most editors and refers to coepta. Ovidian Metamorphosis and Nonnian poikilon eidos 109

3 The Episode of Actaeon in the Dionysiaca

The contrast between Ovidian metamorphosis and Nonnian poikilon eidos detected in the programs of the two poems and outlined in general terms with examples from both epics can be put to the test by comparing episodes which treat the same and have been discussed in the context of Nonnus’ pre- sumed dependence on Ovid. The Actaeon myth belongs to the most prominent episodes of this kind. An additional advantage is the following one: the dap- pled fawn skin (νεβρὶς ποικιλόνωτος), the Dionysiac garment which the poet receives from the Muses-Maenads in the Proem and which is emblematic of the ποικίλονὕμνον he sings, plays a crucial role in Nonnus’ version of the Actaeon myth (Dion. 5.287–551). It is highly significant that the next reference to the dappled fawn skin occurs in the Actaeon story. This time it is the dap- pled skin (στικτὸν δέμας/εἶδος) of the fawn (νεβρός) / deer (ἔλαφος) into which Actaeon is transformed. It will be shown below that Nonnus’ version of the myth presents meaningful and significant connections with the Proem of the Dionysiaca. The best known version of the Actaeon myth occurs in Ovid’s Metamorpho- ses (3.138–252) and it is the one that made Actaeon a favorite subject in West- ern Literature and Art. According to Ovid, Actaeon, the son of and grandson of , while seeking a cool resting place after a tiring expedition accidentally walked into the forest pool where was bathing in the company of her ; angered at having been seen naked by mortal eyes the vengeful goddess instantly turned Actaeon into a stag by sprinkling him with water; the hero was subsequently chased and mangled by his own hounds which did not recognize their transformed master.21 Nonnus offers a composite narrative in two parts.22 In the first part of the episode (Dion. 5.287–369) he tells the story approximately like Ovid but with four major differences: Actaeon spies deliberately on bathing Artemis from the top of an oak tree, as Pentheus in ’ Bacchae attempts to spy on the Maenads (1064–75), because he feels erotic desire for the goddess; the hero is instantly transformed as in Ovid, but Artemis does not address him and does not openly use her powers or any visible means to turn him into a deer; the punishing deity slows down the rage of the hounds so that the hero’s suffering may last longer; Actaeon retains the capacity to speak for the time necessary

 On the myth of Actaeon and Ovid’s treatment of it see Schlam 1984; Lacy 1990. Commenta- ries: Bömer 1969, 487–514; Anderson 1997, 388–409; Barchiesi– Rosati 2007, 146–65.  Chuvin 1976, 95–8. 110 Michael Paschalis to utter a moving lament (Dion. 5.332–69) as he is being mangled by his own hounds while in Ovid transformed Actaeon loses his human voice immediately. In the second part of the episode (Dion. 5.370–551) Rumor brings the sad news to Actaeon’s mother Autonoe, who next searches vainly for her son’s remains. Later the soul of Actaeon in the shape of a dappled deer appears to his father in sleep and talks to him with human voice: he identifies himself as his son; he confesses his erotic desire for Artemis; he pleads the innocence of his hounds which are now mourning and vainly looking for him; he retells the story of his death but replaces the oak tree with the olive sacred to Athena, admitting that he committed towards both Athena and Arte- mis; he gives further details concerning the bath of Artemis and the reaction of her nymphs; and he provides indications as to the whereabouts of his remains and gives instructions for his burial. When Aristaeus wakes up, he informs his wife of the dream and their son’s instructions and she locates, collects and buries his remains. Braune, Keydell and D’Ippolito among others argued that Ovid was one of Nonnus’ models. They adduced as evidence a number of parallels, like the following ones: the reaction of the Nymphs to the sight of spying Actaeon (Dion. 5.307–10 = Met. 3.178–80); Actaeon’s outer transformation with parallel preservation of human conscience, his flight and fear of wild animals (Dion. 5.316–25 = Met. 3.194–205 passim); a passage referring to the mangling of the hero by his hounds (Dion. 5.329–31 = Met. 3.249–50); and a passage about the bath of Artemis (Dion. 5.482–4 = Met. 3.163–4).23 We have already seen that there are substantial divergences between the two versions of the story of Actaeon. Pursuing the topic of Nonnian ποικιλία vs Ovidian metamorphosis I will attempt to show below that any similarities like the ones listed above should not distract our attention from the distin- guishing features of Nonnus’ narrative. Actaeon’s instructions for his burial monument sum up basic points of my argument, Dion. 5.527–32:

“…ζῳοτύπον δ’ἱκέτευε πολύτροπον,ὄφρα χαράξῃ στικτὸνἐμὸν νόθον εἶδοςἀπ’αὐχένος εἰς πόδαςἄκρους· μοῦνονἐμοῦ βροτέοιο τύπον τεύξειε προσώπου, πάντεςἵνα γνώωσινἐμὴν ψευδήμονα μορφήν. Μηδέ, πάτερ, γράψειαςἐμὸν μόρον· οὐ δύναται γὰρ δακρυχέεινἐμὸν εἶδοςὁμοῦ καὶ πότμονὁδίτης.”

 Braune 1935, 33–8; Keydell 1935, 601–3; D’Ippolito 1964, 177–90. Ovidian Metamorphosis and Nonnian poikilon eidos 111

“… And ask a skillful artist to carve my changeling dappled shape from neck to feet, but let him make only my face of human form, that all may recognize my shape as false. But do not inscribe my fate, father; for the wayfarer cannot shed a tear for fate and shape together.”

Actaeon desires that a versatile artist (ζῳοτύπον… πολύτροπον) should carve an image of his consisting of a dappled deer body and a human face, so that all may recognize (ἵνα γνώωσιν) his shape as false; there should be no inscrip- tion telling his fate.24 These instructions tell the reader in a very eloquent fashion what the focus and purpose of the second part of Nonnus’ Actaeon episode is about. It develops the theme of animal ignorance of the deer’s human identity, which caused the hounds to tear their former master apart, into human ignorance of Actaeon’s true identity25 and the hero’s efforts to make it known: his mother does not recognize his remains the first time she searches for them because they are not human (Dion. 5.390–404, beginning with:εἶδε καὶοὐ γίνωσκεν ἑὸν γόνον); the dead hero spends sixteen lines (Dion. 5.415–431) revealing his human identity to his sleeping father by identi- fying individual parts of his animal body with human parts; and he gives instructions for carving a funerary image of himself with an animal body and a human head attached to it. The meticulous presentation to Aristaeus sounds like a reverse transformation, a restoration of the human form, but it is actually the fruit of Actaeon’s anguish to make his human identity known. While Ovid mentions the preservation of Actaeon’s human mind only once (Met. 3.203 mens tantum pristina manet), Nonnus does it repeatedly (beginning with Dion. 5.323εἰσέτι μοῦνοςἔην νόοςἔμπεδος), because it is precisely this condition which enables the transformed hero to possess and display consciousness of his situation and struggle to make it known. Transformed human beings in Ovid frequently retain human consciousness but are entirely incapable of taking initiatives and acting like human beings in order to achieve something. “This monstrous and ugly figure is unparalleled”, writes Chuvin of the image to be carved on Actaeon’s burial monument.26 Indeed the simultaneous possession of an animal body and a human head makes of Actaeon a“mon- strous” figure. But what is the significance of this representation? For Actaeon it is the dappled fawn skin that represents his new identity and it is an identity he stubbornly rejects; in his desire to show that his ποικίλον εἶδος is false and make his human identity known he is caught between the animal and the

 On inscriptions in the Dionysiaca see Montes Cala 2009.  Human ignorance appears also in Ovid but it is restricted to Actaeon’s hunting compan- ions (Met. 3.242–6).  Chuvin 1976, 191. 112 Michael Paschalis human shape (physical identity), something unparalleled in Ovid and mon- strous by Nonnian standards. It should be stressed that Nonnus gives great prominence to the spotted skin of transformed Actaeon, unlike Ovid who mentions it only once and at the obvious moment of the hero’s metamorphosis (Met. 3.197 maculoso vellere). In the Dionysiaca there are eight references to Actaeon’s dappled skin, which cover a wide spectrum of linguistic and descriptive ποικιλία(στικτός Dion. 5.321, 331, 413, 528; ποικίλλετο 321; δαιδάλεος 391, 501;αἰόλος 494) and occur at crucial points of the narrative. The spotted skin is singled out by Actaeon to represent his animal shape on the funerary monument. As already noted above, in the Metamorphoses Actaeon is changed into a stag (cervus), while in the Dionysiaca he is changed into a fawn (νεβρός) or deer (ἔλαφος). The employment of νεβρός in the Actaeon episode is associated with νεβρίς, the fawn skin given to the poet in the Proem of the Dionysiaca, in a number of significant ways. In the first place it is in the opening lines of the Actaeon episode that the second reference to νεβρός occurs. It serves to introduce the fate of Actaeon as“the wandering fawn torn apart by his hounds”(Dion. 5.301 κυνοσπάδα νεβρὸνἀλήτην). In addition the sculptor who will be begged to carve Actaeon’s image on the funerary monument should be πολύτροπος, like Proteus and like the poet who appropriates his skills in the Proem– actually this is the second occurrence of πολύτροπος in the epic with reference to artistic creation. But unlike the poet who proudly claims from the Muses the Dionysiac νεβρὶς ποικιλόνωτος, Actaeon resists his transformation into a fawn (νεβρός) with dappled skin. On the carved image Actaeon’s spotted animal shape extends from the neck downwards like a garment, like the poet’s fawn skin worn on his shoulders in lieu of a χιτών (1.34–5ὠμαδίην δὲ/ νεβρίδα ποικιλόνωτονἐθήμονοςἀντὶ χιτῶνος). I will return to this point below. To be noted that in stories and art the metamorphosis of Actaeon is often enacted by Artemis throwing a stag’s skin over the hero.27

4 Actaeon and Pentheus

Scholars have identified Dionysiac features in the Actaeon myth and have noted parallels between Actaeon, Pentheus and Dionysus: they are Theban cousins who suffer a similar fate and the first two are offenders respectively against Artemis and Dionysus. They have also pointed out that Nonnus’ Act- aeon: as hunter and game evokes Pentheus and Dionysus; gazes on bathing

 Burkert 1983, 112. Ovidian Metamorphosis and Nonnian poikilon eidos 113

Artemis from the branches of a tree just as in Euripides’ Bacchae (1064–75) and in the Pentheid (Dion. 44.58–60, 46.145–58) Pentheus attempts to spy upon the Bacchants from a similar location. The Actaeon episode anticipates the Pentheid (Dion. 44–46) on various points. It should also be noted that in Euripides’ Bacchae as well the fate of Actaeon anticipates that of Pentheus: Cadmus warns the King by reminding him of the death of Actaeon who was torn apart by his hounds because he boasted that he excelled Artemis in hunt- ing (Bacc. 337–41, 1291).28 Below I will engage myself with aspects of the rela- tion between the Actaeon and the Pentheus episodes of the Dionysiaca. As noted above, from a narrative viewpoint various elements of the Actaeon epi- sode anticipate the fate of Pentheus; but most of the Actaeon precedents are themselves derived or developed from Euripides’ Bacchae, which in turn is the principal model of the Pentheid.29

4.1 Transformed Actaeon and Disguised Pentheus

In this context Actaeon’s rejection of his new, spotted skin seems to allude to characters that resist the religion of Dionysus and more specifically to Pen- theus who, before Dionysus drove him mad, refused to dress up like a (Eur. Bacc. 851–3). Actaeon bears the shape of a spotted deer when he is torn apart by his“fawn-killing” hounds (νεβροφόνοι: an epithet elsewhere applied almost exclusively to Dionysus and his followers)30 and Pentheus is dressed as a woman when he is mangled by the Maenads. But these are not ordinary female clothes: to the garments of his mother and aunt(s) Nonnus has added a touch of ποικιλία: Pentheus puts on a ποικιλόνωτον… πέπλον and a ποικίλος… χιτών, Dion. 46.110–5:

καὶ χροῒ ποικιλόνωτονἐδύσατο πέπλονἈγαύης· Αὐτονόης δ’ἔσφιγξενἐπὶ πλοκάμοισι καλύπτρην, στήθεα μιτρώσας βασιλήια κυκλάδι τέχνῃ· καὶ πόδαςἐσφήκωσε γυναικείοισι πεδίλοις· χειρὶδὲ θύρσονἄειρε· μετερχομένοιο δὲ Βάκχας ποικίλοςἰχνευτῆρι χιτὼνἐπεσύρετο ταρσῷ.

 Heath 1992, 10–8, 136–42 with literature.  On Dion. 46 in relation to Euripides’ Bacchae see D’Ippolito 1964, 165–75; Tissoni 1998, 66– 71; Simon 2004, 103–32; Accorinti 2004, 339–55. On Actaeon and Pentheus in the Dionysiaca as instances of“ἀσέβεια punita” see D’Ippolito 1964, 164–90. Tissoni 1998, 324 calls the σύγκρισις between Actaeon and Pentheus“motivo guida del canto 46”.  Dion. 5.329, 447; 16.141; 25.225; 44.198. The only exception is 13.115, of . 114 Michael Paschalis

He donned the embroidered robe of Agaue, bound Autonoe’s veil over his locks, laced his royal breast in a rounded handwork, passed his feet into women’s shoes; he took a thyrsus in hand, and as he walked after the Bacchants a broidered smock trailed behind his hunting heel.

Women’s clothes and the thyrsus derive from Euripides’ Bacchae. There Diony- sus proposes to dress Pentheus in female clothes (821–34); to these he adds a thyrsus and a“dappled fawn skin” (835 νεβροῦ στικτὸν δέρας), the traditional cloak of the Maenads, which his mother and her sisters wear in the play (24, 111, 696–7). Pentheus resists the idea and so the god drives him mad, dresses him in women’s clothes and gives him a thyrsus; this time the text does not (explicitly) mention a νεβρίς (915–44). In the Dionysiaca Bacchus invites Pentheus to dress in female clothes and become a female (46.83). When Pentheus is driven mad, he chooses the items himself, from among the clothing of his mother and aunts. Bacchic frenzy guides him to choose suitable clothing: the list begins with a ποικιλόνωτον… πέπλον and concludes with a ποικίλος… χιτών. The Dionysiac character of ποικιλόνωτος with reference to a garment is undisputable: of the nine occur- rences in the Dionysiaca four concern a fawn skin (νεβρίς) and one a leopard skin.31 I would not agree, however, that the ποικιλόνωτον… πέπλον Pentheus puts on is a νεβρίς,32 because a few lines below πέπλος and νεβρίς are kept distinct (Dion. 46.159–160) and because the passage mentions in addition a ποικίλος… χιτών.Ι would rather think that in order to disguise himself as a Maenad Pentheus chooses items of female clothing which are ποικίλα and have the appearance of a νεβρίς.33 The ποικίλος… χιτών that trails behind Pentheus’ heels as he is preparing to join the Bacchants is reminiscent of transformed Actaeon’s spotted fawn skin that“extends from neck to foot” (5.528 στικτὸνἐμὸν νόθον εἶδοςἀπ’αὐχένος εἰς πόδαςἄκρους). As for the epithet στικτός qualifying the fawn skin in , it was noted above that it occurs four times in Nonnus’ Actaeon narrative with reference to the hero’s spotted animal shape. On the whole disguised Pentheus and trans- formed Actaeon appear“clothed” in Dionysiac skin and garments: both are distinctly ποικίλα. And it would seem that the Euripidean / Dionysiac νεβρίς

 1.35 given to the poet; 7.343 worn by Zeus; 37.702 worn by Melisseus; 43.78 to be worn by Proteus; 14.357 of leopard skin; cf. Tissoni 1998, 311.  Simon 2004, 113, 142.  Accorinti 2004, 461 translates ποικιλόνωτον… πέπλον as“ variegato” and ποικίλος… χιτών as“variopinta veste”. The latter picks up the πέπλοι ποδήρεις of Euripides’ Bacchae (833) which, according to EtM 191.5, were called βασσάραι, were ποικίλοι and were worn by Thracian Bacchants (Accorinti 2004, ad loc. with literature; Dodds 1960, 177). Ovidian Metamorphosis and Nonnian poikilon eidos 115 was instrumental in shaping both the skin of Actaeon and Pentheus’ female garments.

4.2 The Attached Head and the Missing Head

In Euripides’ Bacchae Agave and her sisters instigated by Dionysus uproot the fir tree, on which Pentheus was perched preparing to spy on them,“in order to capture the mounted beast” (1107–08τὸνἀμβάτην/θῆρ’ὡςἕλωμεν); Pen- theus falls to the ground and realizing that death is approaching casts away the snood from his head, so that his mother may recognize him and spare his life (1116ὥς νιν γνωρίσασα μὴ κτάνοι). In a desperate condition and touching her cheek in supplication Pentheus appeals to her to recognize him and spare his life (1118–21). But the possessed sisters tear him apart; and next Agave fixes his head on the point of her thyrsus and carries it around as if it belonged to a mountain lion (1141–42ὡςὀρεστέρου/… λέοντος). In Book 46 of the Dionysiaca events unfold in approximately the same way. Relevant to the topic of this article are the following differences: though in both works Pentheus recovers his senses when he falls to the ground, Non- nus’ Pentheus does not explicitly remove his head-dress (cf. Dion. 46.189–90) so that his mother may recognize him; but from his appeal to Agave for mercy it becomes clear that the καλύπτρη is gone and his face is fully visible. The way Nonnus elaborates on the appeal of Euripidean Pentheus to his mother (1118–21) is very significant, Dion. 46.194–8, 201–2:

Μήτερἐμή, δύσμητερ,ἀπηνέοςἴσχεο λύσσης· θῆρα πόθεν καλέεις με τὸν υἱέα; Ποῖα κομίζω στήθεα λαχνήεντα;Tίνα βρυχηθμὸνἰάλλω; Οὐκέτι γινώσκεις με τὸνἔτρεφες,οὐκέτι λεύσσεις· Σὴν φρένα καὶ τεὸνὄμμα τιςἤρπασε; […] Δέρκεο ταῦτα γένεια νεότριχα, δέρκεο μορφήν ἀνδρομέην· οὐκ εἰμὶ λέων· οὐθῆρα δοκεύεις.

O my mother, cruel mother, cease from this heartless frenzy! How can you call me your son a wild beast? Where is my shaggy chest? Where is my roaring voice? Do you not know me any longer whom you nursed, do not you see any longer? Who has robbed you of sense and sight? […] See this chin with its young beard, see the shape of a man–I am no lion; no wild beast is what you see.

Euripides focuses exclusively on the son-mother relationship while Nonnus adds the crucial distinction between animal and human being. When the ghost 116 Michael Paschalis of transformed Actaeon appeared to his sleeping father, he identified individ- ual parts of his animal body with human parts because Aristaeus saw a deer before his eyes and could not recognize his son. Pentheus is human but his frenzied mother takes him for a lion (Dion. 46.176–7) and so he does something analogous: he points to parts of his body begging his mother to see and recog- nize that they do not belong to a lion but to a human being.34 To be noted that the fawn (Actaeon) and the lion (Pentheus) are both Dionysiac animals. From a narrative viewpoint the passage of the Actaeon episode anticipates the one in the Pentheus narrative. It is likely, however, that the Actaeon pas- sage developed Pentheus’ appeal to Agave in Euripides’ Bacchae mentioned above. As evidence I would adduce the overall context of Pentheus’ death. Accorinti notes correctly that Pentheus who falls from the fir tree and is man- gled by his mother possessed by λύσσα and unable to recognize him evokes Actaeon who falls from the olive tree, is immediately transformed into a fawn and torn apart by his hounds which do not recognize him and are also driven by λύσσα (5.493–6, 325–31).35 To these common elements let me add one more: at the moment of death Actaeon bears the shape of a spotted fawn and respec- tively Pentheus is (or was) dressed in a ποικιλόνωτον… πέπλον and a ποικίλος… χιτών. The Actaeon passages constitute a narrative precedent within the Dionysiaca but probably they were themselves modeled after the death of Pentheus in Euripides’ Bacchae. When Agave recovers her senses, she realizes that she is not holding a lion’s head but the head of her own son. She kisses it on the eyes, cheeks and curls, laments her action, blesses Autonoe because she wept for her son but did not kill him, and promises to build a tomb and bury the headless body with an inscription informing wayfarers of her son’s parentage and fate, Dion. 46.315–9:

“… Σοὶμὲνἐγὼ φιλόδακρυς,ἀώριε, τύμβονἐγείρω χερσὶνἐμαῖςἀκάρηνονἐνικρύψασα κονίῃ σὸν δὲμας·ὑμετέρῳδ’ἐπὶ σήματι τοῦτο χαράξω· ‘Εἰμὶ νέκυς Πενθῆος,ὁδοιπόρε· νηδὺςἈγαύης παιδοκόμος με λόχευσε καὶ ἔκτανε παιδοφόνος χείρ’”.

 Tissoni 1998, 324 sees a“direct ” of Dion. 5.415–732 but does not observe this aspect of the σύγκρισις between Actaeon and Pentheus.  Accorinti 2004, 351–2. Ovidian Metamorphosis and Nonnian poikilon eidos 117

“… For you, untimely dead, I will build amid my tears a tomb with my own hands. I will lay in the earth your headless body; and on your monument I will carve these words: ‘Wayfarer, I am the body of Pentheus; the cherishing womb of Agaue brought me forth, and the murdering hand of Agaue slew her son’”.

Actaeon was torn apart by his own hounds; Pentheus suffered a sparagmos by his mother and aunts. Apparently someone collected the limbs of Pentheus’ body for burial (Dion. 46.353–5), as Autonoe collected the scattered members of Actaeon (Dion. 5.545–546). Both narratives attach particular attention to the head of the dead heroes. Autonoe kisses Actaeon’ deer head on the lips and caresses one of its horns (Dion. 5.545–8); Agave kisses the eyes, cheeks and curls of Pentheus’ head; Autonoe in her own lament dedicates several lines to Pentheus’ human head in contrast to Actaeon’s deer head (Dion. 46.322–8). Transformed Actaeon’s carved image will bear a deer head; Pentheus’ body will be buried without the head. Agave buries a headless body (ἀκάρηνον) though she could bury a body (δέμας) reconstituted in its entirety. In Bacc. 1298–300 Cadmus collects the limbs (ἄρθρα) of Pentheus but further informa- tion regarding its recomposition has been lost because of a lacuna in the text.36 In the exodos of the Euripidean tragedy Pentheus’ severed head functions independently of his body, when Agave carries it to Cadmus in triumph (1165– 285), and the same happens in the narrative of the Dionysiaca (46.217–320). Iconographical sources preceding the Bacchae represent women carrying vari- ous parts of Pentheus’ dismembered body, not just the head.37 I suspect that it is the Bacchae and its tradition which inspired Nonnus to detach the head from the rest of Pentheus’ body also at burial and to give prominence to Act- aeon’s head– Autonoe’s lament is illuminating on this point, because it con- trasts Pentheus’ head to her own son’s animal head. I will return to this argu- ment below. But there is also another reason for the attention attached to Pentheus’ head and regards the distinction between human and animal iden- tity. It takes us back to the Actaeon episode and concerns the relation between Pentheus’ condition and the condition of metamorphosed Actaeon. Pentheus is metaphorically caught between the animal and the human condition in a way reminiscent of Actaeon. The ποικιλόνωτος πέπλος assimi- lates young Pentheus (cf. 46.201 γένεια νεότριχα; 315ἀώριε) to a νεβρός; his frenzied mother takes him for a lion; he appeals to his mother’s eyes and reason vainly trying to convince her that he is not an animal by pointing to parts of his human body. Cadmus reacts as follows to the sight of Agave triumphantly holding his grandson’s head in her blood-stained hands:“What

 Dodds 1960, 232; Kirk 1970, 130–1; Seaford 2001, 249–50.  See, for instance, Weaver 2009. 118 Michael Paschalis an intelligent beast you have conquered”(Dion. 46.242Οἷον θῆρα δάμασσας ἐχέφρονα). The epithetἐχέφρων occurs twenty-six times in the Dionysiaca, five of which– the greatest number by far in a single episode– are found in the Actaeon episode: four are used to qualify the condition of metamorphosed Actaeon, the“intelligent fawn”(ἐχέφρων νεβρός), and one to qualify his “intelligent hounds”(Dion. 5.351, 368, 464, 538; 450). taught that the seat of reason was the heart but Alcmeon of Cro- ton, Hippocrates, and Galen believed that it was the brain. A vital mani- festation of intelligence missing from Ovid’s transformed human beings is speech. We have already seen that while in Ovid Actaeon loses from the start his human voice and hence the capacity to express himself, in Nonnus he retains it for a time sufficient to voice a long complaint; having retrieved the capacity to speak after death he utters a long speech to his sleeping father. It is also through speech that Pentheus appeals, though vainly, to the vision and reason of Agave imploring her to recognize that he is not an animal but a human being. But speech goes along with human shape and so Actaeon asks his father to have an image carved on his funerary monument that will represent him with a human head attached to an animal body so that all may recognize his true identity. I suggest that Nonnus derived inspiration from the independent function of Pentheus’ severed head in the Bacchae in order to compose a monstrous and grotesque representation of Actaeon. The same source probably inspired him to stage the burial of a headless body instead of recomposing it. But these Nonnian inventions created an intriguing situation: while in the Actaeon episode the human head attached to the animal body was adequately informative without the need of a funerary inscription vice-versa the headless body requires an inscription informing wayfarers of his parentage and fate. It is as if the need for an inscription was triggered by the fact that Pentheus’ head was missing and could not“narrate” his story. Here there may be a connection between head and inscription as a written utterance. The crucial elements discussed above do not occur in Ovid’s Pentheus narrative (Met. 3.511–733) or take a different direction. The Pentheus episode is located at the end of Book 3 and balances the Actaeon episode within the cycle of stories concerning the fate of Cadmus’ grandsons and daughters.38 The main source is again Euripides’ Bacchae; a significant mediating text in parts of the episode is Virgil’s .39 In the Metamorphoses there is no

 Commentaries on the Pentheus episode: Bömer 1969, 570–625; Anderson 1997, 388–409; Barchiesi– Rosati 2007, 207–41. On Actaeon and Pentheus see Feldherr 1997 and 2010.  Barchiesi– Rosati 2007, 207–13. Ovidian Metamorphosis and Nonnian poikilon eidos 119 mention of female disguise with regard to Pentheus (Met. 3.701–3);40 in fact the king does not yield an inch to Bacchus and is not driven mad by the god.41 Ovid reserves disguise for the god himself: Acoetes, who is brought before Pentheus, presents himself as a former helmsman and now follower of Bac- chus and tells him a story of how the god in the form of a beautiful boy was kidnapped by the sailors of his ship and then manifested himself in all his majesty and turned the sailors into dolphins, is probably Dionysus himself. Acoetes’ narrative is complemented with the miracles he works in the end: he is cast into prison by Pentheus but, as his attendants are preparing the instru- ments of torture, the prison doors are thrown open of themselves and he is released from bonds (Met. 3.572–700). Commentators note that the Ovidian Acoetes reworks not only the helmsman of the Homeric Hymn to Dionysius (7) but also Dionysus in Euripides’ Bacchae, who in the capacity of ξένος is cap- tured and brought before Pentheus but next manifests his supernatural powers and releases himself revealing his divine identity– actually Acoetes is cap- tured while Pentheus’ attendants are searching for Dionysus.42 Ovid’s Pentheus watches the Maenads not from a tree-top but from a clear- ing near the middle of the mountain (Met. 3.708–10)– hence the connection made above between Actaeon’s fall from the olive tree and Pentheus’ fall from the fir tree is irrelevant. As Pentheus is spying on the Bacchic orgies from this elevated location, his mother spots him, wounds him with her thyrsus and invites her sisters to join in the hunt of the“wild boar”(aper ). Pentheus is frightened, gives up his arrogant and violent talk, repents and confesses his

 McNamara 2010, 183:“Clearly, Ovid’s Pentheus is not in the cross-dressing world of drama, but the (Roman) epic world, with its suspicions of effeminate men. Or at least, that is where he aspires to place himself with his rhetoric”.  Cf. Barchiesi– Rosati 2007, 208:“il personaggio di Ovidio rimase fino al crollo finale un aggressivo tiranno, patriotico, militarista, mascolino e nemico del nuovo dio”.  A version of the story of the Tyrrhenian pirates (Σικελὸς μῦθος) occurs also in Nonnus and is put in the mouth of and addressed to Pentheus as a tale warning the king against the god’s wrath (Dion. 45.105–69). First Keydell 1935, 603–4 and later D’Ippolito 1964, 173–7 suggested that Nonnus derived the idea of inserting the tale into the Pentheus narrative directly from Ovid; see further Chuvin 1992, 74–7. For a presentation and comparison of these and other versions of the story of the Tyrrhenian pirates see James 1975; Herter 1980. For an outline of the arguments in favor and against Nonnus’ dependence on Ovid see Herter 1980, 110–3; Barchiesi– Rosati 2007, 221–3; Accorinti 2004, 346–8. While Tiresias’ tale of the Tyrrhe- nian pirates contains repeated and emphatic warnings to Pentheus to beware of the wrath of Dionysus, in Ovid’s narrative neither the poet not Acoetes issue such a warning, not even once– contrary to scholarly claims which recur invariably since Keydell 1935, 603. On this point see James 1975, 29. Vian 2000, 684 contrasts Nonnus’ narrative to all other versions, in which“Dionysos veut seulement faire reconnaître sa nature divine”. On Acoetes and Bacchus see Hardie 2002, 166–70; Barchiesi– Rosati 2007, 222–3. 120 Michael Paschalis guilt. Wounded and facing death he appeals to his aunt Autonoe for help invoking the shade of Actaeon (“Let Actaeon’s shade move your spirit”), but she does not know (nescit) who Actaeon is, belying the meaning of her name;43 hence she tears away his right arm while his other aunt rips off his left arm. Having no arms to extend and plead for mercy, Pentheus shows the “mangled stumps” of his arms and cries:“Mother, look!”(aspice, mater!). But the sight increases Agave’s frenzy: she wrenches off his head and holding it in her hands she exults in triumph over her victory (Met. 3.711–28). On his way to Pentheus is compared with a spirited war horse eager for battle (Met. 3.704–7; in 531–63 he declared war on the Bacchants) and later frenzied Agave identifies him with a wild boar. The former identifica- tion does not occur in Nonnus and in place of the latter the narrative of the Dionysiaca exploits the Euripidean identification with a lion. Ovid’s Pentheus pleads for his life on the basis of family relationships (nephew to aunt, son to mother) but I could not anyway envisage a situation in which he would have pointed to parts of his body, as in Nonnus, distinguishing them from those of a boar. The aftermath of the dismemberment involving Agave, Kadmos and Autonoe (Dion. 6.221–369) and the severed head of Pentheus is absent from Ovid– a boar’s head would anyway not have been convenient for such an occasion. But the message of the last section is clear as regards Pentheus’ mother and aunts: they are the true warriors (Met. 3.728“opus hoc uictoria nostra est!”) in contrast to Pentheus portrayed as the war horse;44 the true beasts (cf. Met. 3.725 uisis ululauit Agaue) in contrast to Pentheus viewed as a wild boar;45 the maddened hounds that mangled Actaeon. Though Actaeon, unlike Nonnus’ hero, is an innocent offender of and Pentheus a hard-line god-fighter, the circumstances of their death are similar and in fact the death of the former is picked up in Pentheus’ appeal to Autonoe. The frenzied Bacchants hunt down (cf. also Theoc. 26.6) and tear Pentheus apart ignorant of his identity as the hounds do in the case of Act- aeon; both heroes are turned from spectators to spectacle; both display the same kind of helplessness: Pentheus is left without arms to hold out to his raging mother and beg for mercy and so he shows her the“mangled stumps” of his arms (Met. 3.723–4 non habet infelix quae matri bracchia tendat, / trunca sed ostendens dereptis uulnera membris); transformed Actaeon uses his eyes

 James 1993, 88.  Anderson 1997, 409:“The final‘victory’ takes the military imagery from Pentheus’ grasp and lodges it with the women”.  Cf. Barchiesi– Rosati 2007, 238:“il riferimento alla visione scatena una violenta ambiguità, dato che la metamorfosi opera non sulla vittima (come nel caso di Atteone), nella mente della torturatrice, che‘vede’ un Penteo diverso da come lo vediamo noi”. Ovidian Metamorphosis and Nonnian poikilon eidos 121 in place of his arms (3.241 circumfert tacitos tamquam sua bracchia uultus:“he turns his silent eyes from side to side, as if he were stretching arms out towards them”).46 In Nonnus the ποικιλόνωτον… πέπλον assimilates Pentheus to the spotted fawn into which Actaeon was turned; in Ovid dismemberment “metamorphoses” him into a stag which like him does not possess arms. Ovid pursues the theme of dismemberment into a striking simile, of Homeric descent and partly Virgilian wording,47 which concludes the Pen- theus episode and brings Maenadic violence to its culmination: the women tear the hero’s limbs more quickly than autumn wind strips the leaves from a tree which are touched by the cold and hardly cling there (3.729–31 non citius frondes autumni frigore tactas / iamque male haerentes alta rapit arbore uentus/ quam sunt membra uiri manibus derepta nefandis). All that is left is a trunk with leafless branches, the analogue of Pentheus’ maimed body. The removal of limbs like tree branches is an implicit metamorphosis, as when the arms of Daphne are changed into branches (Met. 1.550 in ramos bracchia crescunt).48 Tiresias’ prophecy that, if Pentheus should persist in outraging Bacchus, he would end up lying mangled and scattered in countless places (Met. 3.522– 523) is thus fulfilled in the most unexpected way. I have argued that both Ovid’s Metamorphoses and Nonnus’ Dionysiaca place transformation at the heart of their poetic program but in different terms. Nonnus lays the focus not on human but on divine metamorphosis, does not foreground single transformations but multiple metamorphosis, a prominent manifestation of ποικιλία, and organizes it around a single subject-matter, which is the heroic life and deeds of Dionysus (15–33). Ποικιλία features also as an intrinsic feature of Nonnus’ allusive engagement with Homer. In the Proem the poet is turned into a master of ποικιλία and Dionysiac shape-shifting and applies his transforming art on the Homeric material with meticulous ruth- lessness. He does so by appropriating and adapting a Homeric episode, by turning Homer against Homer. In reworking the Odyssean episode of Menelaus and Proteus he rejects the single shape of the seal skin and adopts instead the Protean shapes of νεβρὶς ποικιλόνωτος, which stands for the quality ποικιλία in his new Dionysiac epic. In his own short Proem Ovid tells how the generic direction of his inspiration was transformed, how divine intervention caused him to turn from the kind of poetry he was writing to composing the Metamor-

 Anderson 1997, 405 reminds us that Ovid likes to describe the frustrating loss of arms in metamorphosis, usually in the form of (he compares Io in Met. 1.636), and understands the dismemberment of Pentheus as“a cruel type of metamorphosis, totally different from the limbless body in Met. 3.680–1 of the sailor who was changed into a sportive dolphin” (408).  Barchiesi– Rosati 2007, 239–40.  On the change pattern“arms into branches” see Haege 1976, 88. 122 Michael Paschalis phoses. The νεβρὶς ποικιλόνωτος, the Dionysiac garment which the poet receives from the Muses-Maenads in the Proem and which is emblematic of the ποικίλονὕμνον he sings and a synecdoche for ποικιλία, recurs in the spot- ted fawn skin of Actaeon and Pentheus’ disguise clothes which include a ποικι- λόνωτον… πέπλον and a ποικίλος… χιτών. The last two sections of the article discuss at length differences between Ovid and Nonnus in the treatment of the Actaeon and Pentheus . They also elaborate on the close analogies between the Actaeon and Pentheus episodes in the Dionysiaca: from a narra- tive viewpoint the Actaeon episode anticipates the Pentheid but this is so because it has already been influenced by Euripides’ Bacchae.