Ovid's Metamorphosis of the Famous Apologoi

Home , Aeolus, Bias (mythology), Caieta, Dulichium, Laestrygonians, Macareus (son of Aeolus)

Ovid’s metamorphosis of the famous Apologoi A narratological study into Odysseus’ wanderings as told by Homer and Ovid

MA Thesis

University of Amsterdam/Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Faculty of Humanities

MA Classics

Radhika S. Sahtie

Contact: [email protected] [email protected]

Student number: 10714553

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. I.J.F. de Jong

Second assessor: Dr. M.A.J. Heerink

Word count: 20567

Date of completion: June 15th 2020

I hereby declare that this dissertation is an original piece of work, written by myself alone. Any information and ideas from other sources are acknowledged fully in the text and notes.

Amsterdam, 15th of june 2020 (place, date) (signature)

Table of contents Introduction ...... 4 Chapter 1. The Cyclops episode ...... 7 Part one: A first analysis ...... 8 1.1 Structure ...... 8 1.2 Narrator and narratee ...... 8 1.3 Focalization ...... 9 1.4 Time ...... 10 1.5 Space ...... 12 Part two: A Comparison with the Odyssey ...... 15 1.6 On a macro-level ...... 15 1.7 On a micro-level ...... 17 Chapter 2. Aeolus and the Laestrygonians ...... 26 Part one: A first analysis ...... 27 2.1 Structure ...... 27 2.2 Narrator and narratee ...... 27 2.3 Focalization ...... 28 2.4 Time ...... 31 2.5 Space ...... 33 Part two: A comparison with the Odyssey...... 33 2.6 On a macro-level ...... 33 2.7 On a micro-level ...... 35 Chapter 3. The Circe episode ...... 43 Part one: A first analysis ...... 44 3.1 Structure ...... 44 3.2 Narrator and narratee ...... 45 3.3 Focalization ...... 46 3.4 Time ...... 46 3.5 Space ...... 48 Part two: a comparison with the Odyssey ...... 48 3.6 On a macro-level ...... 49 3.7 On a micro-level ...... 51 Conclusion ...... 60 Bibliography ...... 61

Introduction

Ovid (43 BCE- 17 AD) may be counted among the most ingenious and influential poets of antiquity. As a contemporary of Augustan authors like Virgil and Horace, he is one of the three canonical poets of Latin Literature. He has been praised widely for many qualities, amongst which the ability to adapt old and famous stories in order to provide them with “contemporary relevance”.1 The majority of his Metamorphoses, for instance, is constituted by Greek myths,2 and the most fascinating feature about his adaptations is the coalescence of Greek and Roman material into a single epic poem,3 making Ovid a rather Hellenistic, but “also a very Roman poet”.4 One of the many Homeric stories that Ovid has transformed,5 is the narrative of Odysseus’ wanderings, or the Apologoi (Od. 9-12).6 The adventures of Odysseus and the Greeks that led them to Polyphemus, Aeolus, the Laestrygonians and Circe are now told not by the hero Odysseus, but by his (invented) comrades Achaemenides and Macareus (Met. 14.154-307;435- 440). This difference in narrator, as one might expect, has consequences for the narration of events.

My aim in this thesis is to detect and analyse (similarities and) differences between the Homeric and Ovidian versions of the Apologoi. Needless to say, this is not the first analysis and comparison of the stories. Met.13.623-14.608, in which the Apologoi are embedded, has often been referred to as Ovid’s “Aeneid”.7 This nomenclature is comprehensible, because the passage sets off when Aeneas flees from Troy, and follows the Trojan hero as he travels to Sicily, Cumae and Caieta (where the narration of the Homeric adventures begins). Unsurprisingly then, most studies on this passage focus on (dis)similarities between Virgil’s and Ovid’s “Aeneid”. Rutherford, for instance, explains how Ovid “fills in gaps left by Virgil, while avoiding high points.”8 Thomas thinks that Ovid aimed to correct a strongly Augustan reading of the Aeneid.9 Ellsworth shows how Ovid inserts three triangle love stories, in order to capture the events that occurred in the post-Trojan war period in the Aeneid.10 Whereas a comparison between the Aeneid and the Metamorphoses makes for a very interesting case, my thesis will focus on the Odyssey and the Metamorphoses. I

1 Anderson 1997: 8. 2 See Lafaye 1904 on the Greek models of Ovid’s Metamorphoses. 3 The status of the Metamorphoses as an ‘epic’ poem is a point of debate, see Newlands 2008, especially p.477-78 for an overview of the discussion. 4 Segal 1971: 373. See also Rutherford 2005: 41, where it is explained that the very subject of metamorphosis has a Hellenistic background. 5 Ovid often employs Homeric scenery and characters in his work, for example in the Heroides, or in his Ars Amatoria: see Sharrock 1987. 6 The Homeric Apologue has been studied by many scholars, see e.g. Radermacher 1915, Abrahamson 1956, Suerbaum 1986, Most 1989, De Jong 2001: 221ff., Beck 2005, Hopman 2012. 7 Bömer 1986: 361, Ellsworth 1986,Thomas 2009: 300-303. 8 Rutherford 2005: 43. 9 Thomas 2009: 303. 10 Ellsworth 1986: 32.

4 choose to do so because of the more narrow resemblance in characters, themes and events. However, I will not leave out the Aeneid completely, as Achaemenides is a Virgilian creation.

With regard to the commentaries written on book 14 of the Metamorphoses, Bömer takes up an intertextual approach and reminds us of the countless parallels with not only Homer and Virgil, but also other authors, like Valerius Flaccus, Cicero and Seneca. Beside this, his focus lays on textual and grammatical issues.11 Myers pays attention to (dis)similarities of Ovid’s version with the Homeric and Virgilian versions, and her approach emphasizes choices from the author to model his version on (in particular) Virgil’s version and adapt it.12 These approaches focus predominantly on the poet of the Metamorphoses who engages with his predecessors and thus modifies existing stories.

All studies mentioned so far are highly relevant, but their intertextual approach might be enriched by a narratological point of view.13 The way I see it, not only the author should be considered whilst analysing differences between the Odyssey and the Metamorphoses, but the narrator-focalizer as well, because the same story is now told from a different point of view. In my opinion, Bömer and Myers do not pay enough attention to the identity of the narrator-focalizer, and how this figure determines the way the story is told. My aim is not to disregard these intertextual approaches in their entirety, but rather to combine intertextuality with narratology:14 I will use the narrator-focalizer as an additional parameter to explain differences between the two texts, whilst engaging extensively with both commentaries and other related studies. My research question then is: how does Ovid employ the identity of his narrator-focalizers to tell the well- known Apologoi differently?

In order to answer my main research question, I will divide each chapter in two parts. In the first part, I will present the general outline of the episode, and pay attention to larger narratological topics, such as narrator and focalization.15 I thereby attempt to answer the following question: 1.) how is the story told? The second part will consist of a narratological close reading, which will include a comparison of the Homeric and the Ovidian versions of the Apologoi, aiming to answer two questions: 2.) how is the story told in comparison with the Odyssey? 3.) what is the effect of differences with the Odyssey?

11 Bömer 1986. 12 Myers 2009. 13 Ovid’s poems have been the object of much narratological research, see e.g. Kirby 1989, Wheeler 1999, Barchiesi 2002, Peek 2003, Libatique 2015. These studies focus on the narrator, focalization or other narrative techniques, but do not discuss the Ovidian Apologoi. 14 Cf. De Jong 2019, who considers the possibility of connecting intertextuality with narratology. 15 For all of my narratological terminology, I make use of De Jong’s (2014) handbook on Narratology and Classics.

As said before, the Ovidian Apologoi are embedded in the story of Aeneas’ wanderings. The phenomenon of embedded stories is a “recurrent feature”16 in the Metamorphoses and makes the work a special type of frame narrative.17 The story is told by a primary external narrator, who regularly hands over the presentation of events to his secondary narrator (here: Achaemenides and Macareus). The identity of the primary narrator is a highly debated topic, as is the relation between this entity and Ovid.18 According to Solodow, it is difficult to maintain a distinction between Ovid as narrator and Ovid as persona.19 He prefers to see Ovid as a ‘supernarrator’, who is always present in every narration. Wheeler poses that Ovid represents himself as an epic storyteller, and Hutchinson makes a distinction between the poet as primary narrator and the poet as designer and researcher.20 Barchiesi breaks with the assumption that there is only one narrative voice in the epic (the ‘supernarrator’), and suggests that we are dealing with a layering of multiple voices: Ovid’s authorial voice and the voices of his many characters. 21

Barchiesi’s view will count as the premise of my thesis, because this perspective acknowledges that characters have the ability “to become narrators”.22 I see the primary external narrator as the alter ego of Ovid (which corresponds to Barchiesi’s authorial voice), who allows his secondary and tertiary narrators to speak. My hypothesis is that Ovid adapted the Homeric (and Virgilian) version of the Apologoi by making use of a new (secondary) narrator, Macareus, or by allowing a secondary narrator invented by Virgil to tell other adventures: Achaemenides. These narrators allow him, on the one hand, to highlight different events and/or elements of the stories, or to downplay other events on the other, and thus to display his creativity as a poet. To put my hypothesis to the test, I will begin my analysis with the Cyclops episode (14.167-222) in the first chapter. The second chapter will cover the Aeolus and the Laestrygonians episodes (14.223-242), as both stories are recounted relatively briefly. And in the third and final chapter, I discuss the Circe episode (14.243-307;435-440).

16 Solodow 1988:138. 17 A “frame narrative” is defined by Prince 2003 as “a narrative in which another narrative is embedded” (p.33). The Metamorphoses can be seen as a special type of frame narrative, because the poem consists of many different embedded stories; it is not just one story that is told within a larger story, see De Jong 2014: 22. 18 For further reading on the ‘narrator’ Ovid in his other poems: Nagle 1980, Newlands 1992, Armstrong 2015: 21-52. 19 Solodow 1988: 41. 20 Wheeler 1999, Hutchinson 2011. 21 Barchiesi 2002. 22 Barchiesi 2002: 181.

Chapter 1. The Cyclops episode

Introduction

The first Odyssean adventure I discuss is the Polyphemus episode (Met. 14.167- 222). The episode is located directly between Aeneas’ encounter with the Sibyl of Cumae and Macareus’ report about Aeolus. Aeneas performs funerary rites for his nurse and then lands on Caieta, where Macareus, a companion of Ulysses who settled there, identifies his comrade Achaemenides. Immediately after recognizing him, Macareus asks Achaemenides what he has been through ever since he had been separated from the Greeks. As Achaemenides starts his account in reply to this, so the Ovidian Apologoi set off.23 Achaemenides narrates his own take on (or in narratological terms, focalization of) the events that took place between the Greeks and Polyphemus.

Achaemenides is not a character from the Odyssey, but he was invented by Virgil (Aen. 3.588- 691).24 In Virgil’s version, the Trojans land on the shore of the Cyclopes’ island and find Achaemenides, one of Odysseus’ comrades who had been left behind by the Greeks (which is in contrast with what happens in the Odyssey where Odysseus escapes with all of his companions).25 He urges the Trojans to take him along upon which they ask him to tell them what happened to him. Achaemenides then elaborates on what occurred between the Greeks and Polyphemus, and is rescued by the Trojans. Ovid’s version of the Achaemenides episode was influenced by Virgil’s. In the Metamorphoses, Achaemenides explains his side of the story not to the Trojans, but to Macareus, who is in turn an invention from Ovid.26 Therefore, apart from many similarities we shall find between this narration and the story we already know from the Odyssey (and the Aeneid), the episode will reveal to contain multiple variations.

My aim for this chapter, as I have mentioned before, is to analyse these similarities and differences from a narratological point of view. I will engage with the commentaries by Bömer and Myers in my discussion of the Cyclops episode, and other studies on the Odyssey and Metamorphoses, such as Galinsky’s introduction to the basic aspects of the Metamorphoses and Hutchinson’s narratological analysis of Polyphemus from Homer to Ovid.27 I have explained in my introduction that my thesis will be guided by three questions, and that each chapter will be divided in two parts: an analysis and a comparison. My comparison will focus on similarities and differences between the Odyssey and the Metamorphoses, but I will also include the Aeneid

23 Ovid’s Metamorphoses 13.623-14.608 have also been called “Ovid’s Odyssey”, see Ellsworth 1988. 24 Bömer 1986: “[…] Achaemenides […], den die Leser Virgils seit dem Besuch des Aeneas auf Sizilien kennen…” (p.68). 25 The Virgilian Achaemenides episode is discussed by Lloyd 1957, Williams 1962, McKay 1966, Römisch 1976, Kinsey 1979, Moskalew 1988, Ramminger 1991, Soerink 2017. 26 Otis 1970: “The very name Macareus is Ovid’s contribution” (p.289). 27 Galinsky 1975 and Hutchinson 2007.

7 throughout the chapter, because as we have seen, the Virgilian Achaemenides episode was highly influential for the Ovidian one, and must therefore not be completely omitted.

Part one: A first analysis

1.1 Structure

The following structure may be recognized in the episode:

A. 167-176 Achaemenides shows gratitude for Aeneas and praises his magnanimity

B. 177-190 Achaemenides narrates: Polyphemus hurls rocks at the Greeks, but Ulysses’ ship manages to escape

C. 191-198 Achaemenides narrates: Polyphemus’ curse

D. 199-213 Achaemenides narrates: Achaemenides’ distress and fear of the Cyclops

E. 214-220 Achaemenides narrates: Achaemenides keeps himself hidden from Polyphemus and is eventually rescued by the Trojans

F 221-222 Achaemenides prompts Macareus to recount in turn what happened to him

1.2 Narrator and narratee

One of the most important factors in a narration is the narrator. Without this figure, we would not have a story to analyse in the first place. I see this text as a purely narrative text.28 We are presented with an internal narrator, because the narrator functions as a character in the story.29 In this case, Achaemenides recounts his own story and therefore plays a part in his narration. He is also an overt narrator, because his presence as a narrator is established very clearly. Achaemenides repeatedly uses the first person singular to signify his role in the events (vs. 172 respicio, vs. 181,183 vidi) and even utters a wish at the beginning of his narration (vs. 168 adspiciam). Achaemenides can be seen as the secondary narrator. He is not the main narrator from the beginning of the book, the primary narrator rather hands over the presentation of events to him, which he describes in direct speech: vs. 167 fatur Achaemenides: “iterum etc…”. 30 The verb fatur (“he said”) signals that the primary narrator gives ‘the stage’ to somebody else.

28 De Jong 2014: 17. 29 De Jong 2014: 19, Bowie, De Jong & Nünlist 2004: 2. 30 I have expanded on the primary narrator in my Introduction. For an elaborate discussion of Ovid as (primary) narrator and the abundance of secondary (and tertiary/quaternary) narrators in the Metamorphoses, see Wheeler 1999 (in particular p.81, 103, 109, 112, 162).

This secondary narrator, in turn, at some points of his narrative hands over the word to Polyphemus: vs. 192 [ille] ait: ‘o etc…’, making him the tertiary narrator.

Because this particular episode is part of a conversation between the two friends, we can designate Macareus as Achaemenides’ narratee. He is the one who asks Achaemenides about what has happened to him and who is expected to respond when he finishes. Moreover, Achaemenides directly refers to Macareus as ‘you’ throughout his story. An example of this is from vs. 178-9, when Achaemenides recounts how he saw Macareus and the Greeks escaping from the Cyclops and says: cum vos petere alta relictus aequora conspexi, “when I, left behind, saw you making for the open sea”.31 As Macareus is also a character in the story, he can be classified as an internal narratee.

We might also distinguish another narratee, that is the “recipient of the narration by the narrator”32 who corresponds to our primary external narrator, defined as the external primary narratee.33 I see this external primary narratee as the imagined (implied) audience of Ovid,34 cf. Wheeler: “The narrator addresses himself to a fictional audience that does not have visual access to the text; this audience is a surrogate for the reader.”35

1.3 Focalization

We have already established that Achaemenides is the internal overt narrator of this episode. Additionally, he can be said to function as the focalizer, because the events are reported through his perspective. The Cyclops episode is clearly a report of Achaemenides’ experience. Some examples to illustrate this: vss. 177-78 quid mihi tunc animi fuit “what went on in my mind then” vss. 179-80 Volui inclamare, sed hosti prodere me timui “I wanted to scream, yet I feared that I would expose myself to the enemy” vs. 198 me luridus occupat horror “pale fear seizes me” vs. 202 mors erat ante oculus “death was before my eyes” vs. 210 Me tremor invasit “tremor invaded me”

Words like timui, luridus, horror and tremor signal the anxiety that Achaemenides experienced because of Polyphemus: we are seeing the events through Achaemenides’ eyes. From these examples flows that we can define Achaemenides as the experiencing focalizer (or erlebendes Ich),

31 Unless stated differently, all translations in this thesis are mine. 32 De Jong 1987: xiv. 33 De Jong 2014: 28. 34 De Jong 2014: “it is tempting simply to equate the external narratees with the historical readers of flesh and blood […]. But […] we are dealing with a product of the author’s imagination” (p.29). 35 Wheeler 1999: 41.

9 because he narrates the events exactly as he saw and understood events as they happened. However, this is not always the case. Achaemenides sometimes “draws on the understanding possessed at the moment of narration”,36 which makes him a narrating focalizer (or erzählendes Ich): vs. 174-5 ille dedit, quod non anima haec Cyclopis in ora veni “he made it possible, that my life did not end up in the Cylops’ jaw”

Achaemenides refers to the knowledge he gained after his experiences with the Cyclops, i.e. his rescue by Aeneas and the Trojans. So he modulates his focalization between experiencing and narrating.

1.3.1 Spatial standpoint

Since the narrator also functions as a character in the story, his standpoint can be defined as actorial rather than narratorial. Besides this, the episode is written from a scenic standpoint, as the narrator places himself at the scene, which is (in this case) a scene in which he himself is the main character. In general, the episode can be said to involve a scenic rhythm, rather than a summary or retardation. There are some cases in which time is accelerated or delayed, which I will address in the next section.

1.4 Time

Achaemenides informs Macareus of what he has experienced prior to their encounter, making the narration subsequent to the events.

1.4.1 Fabula-story-text

Achaemenides firstly recalls how Aeneas had saved him from his ordeals and then elaborates on what happened after he was abandoned by the Greeks. He then describes how he had to keep himself hidden from the Cyclops for several days and finally returns to his rescue by the Trojans, which means that a ring composition can be recognized from the episode. The story is largely recounted in chronological order, except for the beginning. As we have seen, Achaemenides starts by praising Aeneas for saving him, thereby revealing the outcome of his confrontation with the Cyclops. The following schemas will illustrate that this makes the story somewhat dissimilar to the fabula:

36 De Jong 2014: 65.

Fabula A Polyphemus hurls rocks at the Greeks, but they escape B Polyphemus curses Ulysses and the Greeks C Achaemenides is left behind and fears the Cyclops D Achaemenides hides for several days E Achaemenides is rescued by the Trojans F Eventually, Achaemenides meets Macareus

Story and text In comparison with the fabula, the story is organized differently, which makes its order no longer chronological.

F (34 words)- Ee (71 words)- Aa (80 words)- Bb (70 words)- Ccc (99 words)- D (25 words)- E’ (19 words)- F’ (16 words)

As we can see, two events are highlighted by Achaemenides. Firstly, Achaemenides speaks about his rescue twice (Ee and E’): when he begins his story and when he ends it. And second, his own experiences with the Cyclops receive much emphasis (Ccc). I will elaborate on this in the second part of this chapter.

1.4.2 Rhythm

We have seen that not every event is recounted with the same amount of attention. Sometimes, the story is told very elaborately, and sometimes a summary suffices. This means that the rhythm, or “the amount of time that is devoted to an event” varies from time to time.37 I will provide some examples to illuminate this.

Summary One can speak of a summary when certain events are told in broad strokes and do not include much detail. An illustration: vss. 214-15

perque dies multos latitans omnemque tremescens ad strepitum, mortemque timens cupidusque moriri

“for many days I hid myself, trembling at every noise, fearing death yet wishing to die”

Achaemenides’ narration of his hidden days is very compact: in but a few words he explains how he had kept himself hidden for ‘many days’. The story time is thereby shorter than the fabula

37 De Jong 2014: 92.

11 time, which is a useful way to account for events that happen repeatedly or take place over a long span of time. In this case, we are dealing with the latter option; Achaemenides narrates how his distress lasted for days.

Retardation When a certain affair is told in more detail, and the story time exceeds the fabula time, we are dealing with retardation. This happens several times in the Cyclops episode and especially when Achaemenides expresses how he was paralyzed with fear because he saw Polyphemus chewing up his friends and spewing them up again. vss. 210-12

stabam sine sanguine maestus, “I stood bloodless and mournful, as I saw him mandentemque videns eiectantemque cruentas chewing, ejecting the bloody meal from his mouth ore dapes et frusta mero glomerate vomentem and vomiting scraps of food mixed with wine”

Acceleration

Finally, I turn to accelerations, where the narration is speeded up and the fabula time exceeds the story time. The example I use here is from the end of Achaemenides’ story. He uses relatively little words to report how he saw the Trojans, ran to the shore and was saved by Aeneas and the Trojans. vss. 218-220 hanc procul adspexi longo post tempore navem “After a long time, I saw this ship from afar and I oravique fugam gestu ad litusque cucurri, begged for escape with gestures and ran to the shore et movi: Graiumque ratis Troiana recepit! and I moved them: a Trojan ship welcomed a Greek!”

This manner of reporting is fitting to the events themselves. As Achaemenides rushes to the shore because he wants to escape, so the narrative is accelerated by the use of multiple verbs in one clause: adspexi, oravi, cucurri, movi and finally recepit.

1.5 Space

The final aspect I would like to consider in this first part of the chapter is space, which is an interesting category for our episode, because it involves a rather remarkable location as I will clarify in the following.

1.5.1 Narrative setting

The first mention of space takes place before the narration of Achaemenides, in vss. 154-157: sedibus Euboicam Stygiis emergit in urbem Troius Aeneas sacrisque ex more litatis litora adit nondum nutricis habentia nomen. hic quoque substiterat post taedia longa laborum Neritius Macareus, comes experientis Ulixis.

“From the Stygian world the Trojan Aeneas emerged near the Euboean city. After performing the customary sacrifices, he landed on a shore, that did not yet have the nurse’s name. Here also the Neritian Macareus stayed behind after the long exhaustion of labour, the friend of suffering Ulixes.”

From the Euboean city (i.e. Cumae),38 Aeneas and his crew land on Caieta (a city in the region of Latium), which is where Achaemenides and Macareus stumble upon one another. This is not irrelevant to the story, I think, because it is a place we also hear about in the Aeneid (6.900-901, 7.1-7). Aeneas lands on Caieta at the end of book 6, where he buries his nurse Caieta with the Trojans, which is also incorporated in the Metamorphoses at 14.441-5.39 It reminds us that the story is inspired by Aeneid. Especially through nondum does the passage make us alert that we are presented with a place from the Aeneid: we are told that the shore, at this point of the story in the Met. does not yet (like it does in the Aeneid) bear the nurse’s name, which creates “aetiological and narratological anticipation within the time-sequence of the poem”.40

The setting, meaning the location where the events take place,41 (the conversation between Achaemenides and Macareus) is marked by hic: the coast (litora). We can find another clue about the setting in vss. 163-4: cur barbara Graium prora vehit? (“why does a non-Greek ship carry a Greek?”).42 The barbara prora here is the Trojan ship that transported Aeneas and his crew to the shore, which is where Macareus recognizes his fellow Greek and to which Achaemenides also points: vss. 169: hac carina, “this vessel”. So not only are we told that the conversation takes place on the shore, we also know that the comrades are standing in the proximity of Aeneas’ ship.

38 Myers 2009: “Euboicus […] is applied by Virgil to the Euboean colony of Cumae at Aen.6.2 Euboicis Cumarum oris.” (p.87) Cumae was the earliest Greek colony in Italy, see Caputo et al. 1996: 29ff, Johnston 1998: 14. 39 Myers 2009: 87-88. 40 Myers 2009: 88. The poet uses nondum frequently in a similar way, see Solodow 1988: 63-4, and Hinds 1998: 107-11. 41 De Jong 2012: 4, De Jong 2014: 107. 42 On the use of barbara for Trojan, see Galinsky 1969: 93-8, Bömer 1986: 69 and Myers 2009: 91.

It is rather surprising that the conversation between Achaemenides and Macareus takes place on the shore of Caieta and is placed after the funerary rites to the nurse Caieta, because the encounter between Achaemenides and the Trojans in the Aeneid was localized in Sicily and before the burial of nurse Caieta. Bömer and Galinsky pose that Ovid ‘corrects’ Virgil by locating his Achaemenides on another point in Aeneas’ voyage and on a different location; Myers claims that it can be seen as an ‘intertextual’ joke in combination with improvisoque repertum (vs 161,“unexpectedly discovered”).43 I think that the poet indeed plays with the existing stories and “suggests his capacity to treat the story differently”.44 In addition to this, I follow Otis in his explanation that Caieta is the perfect place for reuniting the two comrades, as it is an “unimportant place in the Aeneid” and thus fits the conversation between the narrator and narratee, or “two common sailors”, who represent the “man-in-the-street’s view of the marvels of Virgil and Homer”.45 In short, I pose that the somewhat innovative location Caieta for the meeting between Achaemenides and Macareus can be attributed to the poet’s creativity and emanates from his specific narrator and narratee.

Apart from the setting of the meeting between Achaemenides and Macareus, we may also locate a setting of Achaemenides’ story of which we find stray indications, that are scattered over the text and that occur in Achaemenides’ report. His story takes place on Sicily, and specifically around the Aetna: vs. 188 obambulat Aetnam “he strolls around the Aetna”.46 In addition to this, we receive small indications about the localities: vs. 181 monte, vs. 182 in undas, vs. 189 silvas. These little words indicate that we are presented with a scene that takes place outside, in a natural environment.

1.5.2 Description

Lastly, I would like to briefly consider the element description, which is usually a situation whereby a narrator temporarily freezes his or her story in order to describe an object or a scenery. In this particular case however, we rather find a somewhat lengthy description not of the surroundings or an item, but of the Cyclops in vss. 198-201: me luridus occupat horror spectantem vultus etiamnum caede madentes crudelesque manus et inanem luminis orbem membraque et humano concretam sanguine barbam.

43 Bömer 1986: 68, Galinsky 1975: 231, Myers 2009: 90-91. 44 Galinsky 1975: 231. 45 Otis 1970: 289. 46 The Virgilian Achaemenides is also found by the Trojans on Sicily, at the foot of the Aetna (Aen.3.570- 95).

“Pale fear seizes me, as I gazed upon his face, still dripping with slaughter, his relentless hands and his empty eye and limbs and his beard tangled by human blood.”

Achaemenides describes the fearsome Cyclops by explicitly referring to his bloodiness: his face is still dripping with blood from Achaemenides’ comrades (caede madentes), and his beard is gruesomely tangled with human gore (humano sanguine). He also calls Polyphemus’ hands crudeles, thereby reminding his narratee of Polyphemus’ cruelty and brutality when he slaughtered his comrades. I think this makes sense: Achaemenides mainly reports how afraid he is of Polyphemus, so it would serve him well to expand more on the horror that he experiences when looking upon the Cyclops.

Part two: A Comparison with the Odyssey

Now that I have provided an analysis of the most prominent narratological aspects of Achaemenides’ story, I would like to compare it with the version we find in the Odyssey (Hom. Od. 9.106-566). I will do so with the aid of De Jong’s narratological commentary on book 9 of Homer’s epic.47 I will first compare the structure and the material of both episodes on a large scale, and then zoom in on similarities and differences by following the Ovidian version from beginning to end.

1.6 On a macro-level

The first considerable dissimilarity between the two stories we can find in the narrator and narratee. Whereas both stories are told by a first-person narrator, in the Odyssey the tale is told by Odysseus to the Phaeaceans, 48 and in specific to king Alcinous who asked Odysseus to unfold his experiences (Od. 8.572-586).49 Evidently, this contrasts with both narrator and narratee from the Ovidian version: Odysseus is the protagonist, Achaemenides is a minor character; Macareus is the internal narratee, the Phaeaceans are external narratees. This briefly turns us back to the setting of both episodes; Odysseus finds himself on the island of the Phaeaceans (Scheria) and as we have seen already, Achaemenides and Macareus meet each other on Caieta.

The second difference I would like to address here is the length of both episodes. Odysseus’ side of the story comprises 461 verses, which is quite a lot more than Achaemenides’ version that only occupies 56 lines. A straightforward explanation for this can be brought to the fore: Odysseus’

47 De Jong 2001: 221-249. 48 De Jong 2001: 221. 49 One of the ‘argument functions’ of the Apologoi as described by De Jong 2001: 226 is to provide Alcinous with the information asked for.

15 tale is part of the Odyssey, an epic in which Odysseus himself is the main figure. It is self- explanatory that he is allowed to occupy quite an amount of speaking time. Achaemenides, however, is neither the main character of this book of the Metamorphoses, nor of the poem in general. In addition to this, he is not a dominant epic character, such as Achilles or Aeneas. So it is intelligible that his story does not take up half of Ovid’s book 14.

Thirdly, I discuss the material itself. It is clear that we are concerned with two stories that dwell on the same topic: the Greeks and Polyphemus. And both stories inform us that the Greeks escape from this Cyclops, and that the latter utters a curse. But the Homeric Apologoi begin with Odysseus’ encounter with the Ciconians and the Lotus-Eaters, and only afterwards involves Polyphemus. The Ovidian Apologoi on the other hand immediately start with the adventure surrounding the Cyclops. This is compatible with our line of expectations, because Macareus urges Achaemenides to tell him about what happened after they were separated. He is interested in finding out how it was possible for Achaemenides to stay alive,50 and so the narration starts at the moment the Greeks escaped from the island of the Cyclopes. The effect of this is that Achaemenides’ report can be seen as a continuation of the Cyclops episode in the Odyssey and of the story that Achaemenides tells in the Aeneid.51 It can thus be seen as a “remake-with-sequel”.52 I have made an attempt to illustrate this in the following schema:

Odyssey book 9 Met. book 14 105-151 Description of the Cyclopes’ land 152-192 The Cyclops’ cave 193-255 Polyphemus returns 256-306 The Greeks are trapped 307-359 Odysseus offers the Cyclops wine

50 Ovid, Met. 14.162-3 qui te casusve deusve servat, Achaemenide? “What chance or what god rescues you Achaemenides?” 51 Cf. Myers 2009: “His [Ovid’s] Achaemenides continues, as it were, his earlier narration in Virgil with an eye-witness accounts of the departure of Ulysses’ crew without him, after their escape from the cave.” (p. 92). 52 Myers 2009: 88.

360-412 Blinding of the Cyclops 413-479 Escape from the 177-180 Achaemenides is left behind and cave sees the Greeks go to the sea 480-525+536- Odysseus reveals 180-87 Achaemenides hears Odysseus 556 his name. shouting and sees Polyphemus Polyphemus throwing a rock throws rocks 526-535 Polyphemus’ 188-98 Achaemenides hears Polyphemus curse curse 199-217 Achaemenides is still with the Cyclops 218-220 Achaemenides rescued by Aeneas Table 1: Comparison of fabula in Odyssey and Metamorphoses

As we can see, there is some overlap between the Cyclops tale as told by Odysseus on the one hand and by Achaemenides on the other: both report that the Greeks escaped from the island and that Polyphemus cursed the Greeks. But there are more differences than similarities in regard to the general outline, as the blank spots suggest. The Metamorphoses do not inform us about the events in the cave prior to the escape of the Greeks but add events which follow after Odysseus has escaped. This can be explained by two factors:

1.) the story as told by Odysseus is considered to be known material, not only to the audience of Ovid, but also to Macareus, who was with Odysseus when the Greeks escaped. So it would be superfluous to mention this part of the story. 2.) as established, the narrator of the story in the Metamorphoses is Achaemenides. His character is not a part of the original crew of Odysseus, but he is an invention of Virgil. This is followed by Ovid not only in order to show his own creativity as a poet, but also to recount the events from another point of view and to add to them. Also, Macareus does not know what happened to Achaemenides after they separated, so it makes sense that this part of the story receives more attention.

1.7 On a micro-level

In this section, I will continue the comparison of both stories by examining the texts more closely. The first passage I choose to examine will not be compared to the Odyssey, because it involves a character who is not present there: Aeneas. As I explained in the introduction of this chapter however, I deem it relevant to examine this, as Aeneas is mentioned both in the

17 beginning and in the end of Achaemenides’ story and is very important to our narrator, Achaemenides.

1.7.1 Achaemenides and Aeneas 167-176

As I have shown before, Achaemenides starts off with praising and thanking Aeneas for saving him (Met. 14.167-176). This goes back to the Virgilian version of the story (Aen. 3.593-654), where Achaemenides is found by the Trojans. He asks them to take him along (v.601 tollite me, Teucri “take me with you, Teucri”). Achaemenides is then welcomed by Anchises:

Aen.3.610-611

Ipse pater dextram Anchises haud multa moratus dat iuveni atque animum praesenti pignore firmat.

“Father Anchises himself, without any hesitation, offered his hand to the young man and enheartened him with immediate aid.”

Polyphemus then appears and the Trojans successfully hurry to escape from him. Ovidian Achaemenides, however, pays his gratitude not to Anchises, but to Aeneas:

Met.14.167-171 iterum53 Polyphemon et illos adspiciam fluidos humano sanguine rictus, hac mihi si potior domus est Ithaceque carina, si minus Aenean veneror genitore, nec umquam esse satis potero, praestem licet omnia, gratus.

“May I look once again at Polyphemus and those wide jaws, dripping with human blood, if my home and Ithaca are preferable to this ship, if I venerate Aeneas less than my father, and I could never be grateful enough, although I give my all.”

Why is it that he thanks Aeneas (and not Anchises, who decides to save him in the Aeneid)? Aeneas is a central figure in book 14 of the Metamorphoses and Anchises is no longer alive (vs. 84: sacrificat tumulumque sui genitoris honorat (“he [Aeneas] sacrificed and honoured the grave of his father”). Therefore, it is a logical choice of the poet to make Aeneas the object of Achaemenides’

53 On iterum as a marker of allusion see Wills 1996: 31, and for iterum as a metapoetical marker of Achaemenides’ second appearance in literature, see Hinds 1998: 114 and Myers 2009: 93.

18 gratitude rather than Anchises. And indeed, the passage suggests that we are dealing with an Achaemenides who highly reveres Aeneas and pays him due respect.

However, another interpretation has been proposed, that involves taking into consideration the historical and political context of the poem, in which Aeneas is taken to stand for Augustus. In contrast to Virgil,54 Livy and Horace, Ovid has the reputation of not being very appreciative of Augustus and his programme. Some say he is “un-Augustan and indifferent to the moral and political values propagated at his time.”55 Galinsky poses that throughout the Metamorphoses, we are repeatedly reminded that Ovid is “uncomfortable with total seriousness”56 and hence adds some light touches to more weighty situations. The same happens here, says Galinsky, where the conclusion of Achaemenides’ praise in vs. 176 is aut tumulo aut certe non illa condar in alvo (“I shall be buried in a tomb, but surely not in that monster’s maw”).57 In his opinion, the contrast between tumulo and illa alvo is “a bit of graphic over-explicitness”, which reduces the weight of Achaemenides’ praise of Aeneas.58

I agree with the idea that Ovid does not seem as bothered as his predecessors with propagating August by making Aeneas stand out as a true hero, and accordingly assumes a rather playful attitude in serious situations. But if one considers purely the text, and the viewpoint of the narrator, I do not think that this contrast is necessarily a “graphic over-explicitness”, as Galinsky calls it. It can rather be seen as a remark of Achaemenides that emphasizes the two options he had been given by fate. Either he would be devoured like one of his comrades (illa alvo), or he might be rescued and eventually find death in a ‘normal’ way (tumulo). Besides, as I have shown (especially in the sections ‘Focalization’, ‘Time’ and ‘Space’), much of Achaemenides’ narration centres around his fear of Polyphemus. He keeps thinking that he will die because of him. So it would not be very strange, I think, that the contrast highlights the fact that he has finally escaped from the Cyclops’ maw. This would then point out that his appreciation for Aeneas is actually genuine.59

54 Virgil’s attitude pertaining to Augustus is a major point of debate addressed by many scholars. To name a few: Frank 1930, Korfmacher 1956, Ross 1984, Harrison 1990, Thomas 2001. 55 Galinsky 1975: 217. Chapter 5 is concerned with the ‘(anti)-Augustanism’ of the Ovidian Aeneid (Met.13.623-14.608). 56 Galinsky 1975: 232. 57 Ibidem. I cite Galinsky’s translation here, in order to illustrate his point as accurately as possible. 58 Ibidem. 59 In agreement with this, see Myers 2009: “Through this speech, Ovid, in effect, encapsulates the overall import of the Virgilian scene in its expression of Trojan magnanimity.” (p.93) and Hutchinson 2007: “It [Achaemenides’ narrative] has a further point in glorifying Aeneas” (p.13).

1.7.2 The Greeks and Polyphemus 177-190 In this passage, Achaemenides recalls how Ulysses and the Greeks flee to the sea and how Polyphemus hurls rocks at them. There are some distinct similarities between the Homeric scene and the Ovidian variant:

1.) (One of ) the crew members fear(s) that the rocks might cause the destruction of the vessel (Od. 9.498-9≈Met. 14.185-6). 2.) Polyphemus becomes more dangerous to the Greeks after Odysseus shouts at him provocatively, because he, blinded as he is, can now locate the Greeks (Od. 9.480, 9.506≈Met.14.180-181).60 3.) Polyphemus throws giant rocks at the Greeks in order to destroy their ship (Od. 9.481-86, 536--542≈Met. 14.181-186). 4.) The Greeks escape by making for the open sea with their ship (Od. 9.543≈Met. 14.187).

From a wide perspective, there is much overlap between the two stories. Yet, if we examine the Ovidian version more closely, some differences may be revealed.

The first and most obvious difference is that the Ovidian story is told by a figure who did not make it to the ship,61 which is in contrast with the Odyssey, where Odysseus escapes with all of his (alive) crew members. A subsequent effect of this is that the story is now told from not only another perspective, but also another location, i.e. the island of the Cyclopes (as opposed to Odysseus’ ship). This means that we are told in more detail what happens on the island after the Greeks escape (Met.14.188-190): Polyphemus prowls all over the Aetna, whilst reaching through the woods to find something to fling at the Greeks. In the Odyssey however, we are merely told that Polyphemus lifted a greater stone than before and threw it (Od. 9.537-40).

Secondly, (ad point 2) in the Odyssey, we are told that Polyphemus was already angry with the Greeks, but became truly exasperated when Odysseus spoke to him mockingly and provocatively, bragging about his victory (and thereby adhering to the heroic code)62 upon which Polyphemus starts throwing rocks at the Greeks:

Od. 9.480-482

ὣς ἐφάμην,ὁ δ᾽ἔπειτα χολώσατο κηρόθι μᾶλλον “So I spoke, and he became more angry at heart ἧκε δ᾽ ἀπορρήξας κορυφὴν ὄρεος μεγάλοιο, and broke off the peak of a high mountain κὰδ δ᾽ ἔβαλε προπάροιθε νεὸς κυανοπρῴροιο and threw it in front of the dark-prowed ship.”

60 Cf. De Jong 2001: “Not only the aggressive nature of his words, but the very act of speaking is dangerous […], since it allows the blind Cyclops to locate the Greeks.” (p.246) 61 Met.14.186 me non esse oblitus in illa (“I forgot that I was not on it [the ship]”). 62 De Jong 2001: 246.

So Odysseus shouts to the Cyclops, thereby providing him with the location of the Greeks. His comrades attempt to calm him down, but they were not successful. Odysseus explains how he was angry (vs. 501 κεκοτηότι) and thus could not help his ‘great-hearted spirit’ (vs. 500 μεγαλήτορα θυμόν) when he shouted at Polyphemus the second time. At this point, we also learn that Odysseus reveals his name (vs. 502-4), which reminds Polyphemus of Telemus’ oracle and gives him the ability to curse Odysseus. Odysseus justifies his yelling (and the revelation of his name) by hinting that he had been provoked by the Cyclops, cf. De Jong:

“The vaunting here is also provoked by Polyphemus’ disparaging reference to him as ‘worthless No One’ (460), as witness Odysseus’ rejoinder at the opening of his first speech: it was not of a weak man you ate the companions…” 63

This is not the first time we see that Odysseus ‘shifts the blame’ for his actions. Earlier on, he justifies his misdeeds to the Cyclops by claiming that Polyphemus is being punished by the gods, and Zeus in particular, because he did not adhere to the rules of hospitality (vs. 478-9):

ἐπεὶ ξείνους οὐχ ἅζεο σῷ ἐνὶ οἴκῳ ἐσθέμεναι: τῷ σε Ζεὺς τίσατο καὶ θεοὶ ἄλλοι

“because you did not shy away from eating guests in your own house: that is why Zeus and the other gods took vengeance on you.”

In doing so, Odysseus not only makes Polyphemus responsible for the terrible things that happened to him (he was blinded and robbed), he also poses that the gods played a role in these events.64

The same scene, in which Odysseus shouts and Polyphemus hurls, is described somewhat differently in the Metamorphoses. Achaemenides says in vs. 180-82:

vestrae quoque65 clamor Ulixis “in the same way the shouting of Ulysses paene rati nocuit. Vidi, cum monte revulsum had nearly wrecked your ship. I watched, as immanem scopulum medias permisit in undas he tore an enormous rock from the mountain and threw it into the midst of the

waves”

63 Ibidem. 64 Cf. Heubeck 1989: “In his first speech (475-9) Odysseus describes his action as the vengeance of Zeus” (p.39). Odysseus’ statement has been assessed by various scholars such as Lloyd-Jones (1983: 30), Fisher (1992: 183), Brown 1996. 65 With quoque Achaemenides means that just like how he himself wanted to scream at the Greeks, so did Odysseus scream at Polyphemus (vss. 179-180).

We learn here that Polyphemus throw rocks as a consequence of Ulysses’ shouting. Both Bömer and Myers address this passage in their commentaries, but merely mention the similarity to Homer.66 A closer look might reveal some dissimilarities: Achaemenides does not explicitly mention that Odysseus revealed his name, nor does he clarify that Odysseus shouted because he was provoked by Polyphemus. I think this can be explained through the difference of the narrator/focalizer (and narratee). Odysseus is narrating to Alcinous and the Phaeaceans and attempts to exonerate himself of the (possible) destruction of his ship. He connects his shout and the revelation of his name to the actions and words of the Cyclops. Achaemenides however, does not beat about the bush: he straightforwardly says that Odysseus, through his shouting, could have been the cause for the demolition of the ship, and consequently the Greeks’ demise. He does not have to gain Odysseus’ benevolence by moderating the fact that he gave away the Greeks’ location to Polyphemus, because Odysseus is not there; he is speaking to Macareus. Besides, he does not have to acquit himself, for he was the one abandoned by the Greeks.

In addition, we might notice that Achaemenides is very brief here: in but two words he explains how Ulysses could have destroyed the ship (clamor Ulixis). This can be explained, as we have seen before, because his primary and secondary narratee are considered to be familiar with the story. The primary narratee could have learnt it from the Homeric story, and Macareus was on the ship with Ulysses when he shouted, so he knows it happened as well.

1.7.3 Polyphemus’ curse 191-198

After Odysseus/Ulysses shouts at Polyphemus and the Greeks successfully escape, Polyphemus utters a curse, which combines elements from Homeric and Virgilian passages.67 There is definitely some overlap between the curses:

1.) Polyphemus stretches out his arms in order to perform the curse (Met. 14.189-90 bracchia protendens≈Od. 9.527 χεῖρ᾿ ὀρέγων).68 2.) Polyphemus mentions Odysseus/Ulysses in his curse (Met. 14.192≈Od. 9.530).69

But the two curses also display much dissimilarity:

1.) The Ovidian Polyphemus stretches out his arms to the sea (in mare), whereas the Homeric Polyphemus stretches out his arms to the sky (εἰς οὐρανὸν ἀστερόεντα).

66 Bömer 1986: “Gemeint ist die bekannte Szene Hom. Od. IX 474ff” (p.73) and Myers 2009: “Achaemenides refers to the scene in Homer, Od.9.473-542, where Odysseus cannot resist deriding the blinded Cyclops from his ship.” (p.94-5). 67 Discussed by Barchiesi 1993 as ‘future-reflexive allusion’, where an “older tradition enters a new text as a view of the future” (p.334). 68 This is one the formulaic gestures in Homeric prayer, see Lateiner 1997: 253, De Jong 2001: 248. 69 On the importance of Odysseus’ name in this curse see Brown 1966: 193-202, Austin 1972: 4, Heubeck 1989: 39, De Jong 2001: 247.

2.) Homeric Polyphemus invokes his father Poseidon in order to endorse his curse (Od. 9.528), in contrast with Ovidian Polyphemus, who rather appeals to chance (Met. 14.192 quis casus). Poseidon is not mentioned as Polyphemus’ father here. 3.) Homeric Polyphemus curses Odysseus specifically; he wants Odysseus never to reach his home. The Ovidian Polyphemus, however, curses all the Greeks (vs. 191 gentem exsecratur Achivam). 4.) The contents of the curses differ: Homeric Polyphemus wants to prevent Odysseus from completing his nostos. But if it is his fate that he does, then he should only come home late and in somebody else’s ship, after having lost all his comrades. On top of this, he should find trouble in his house (Od. 9.530-53). But Ovidian Polyphemus merely wishes to see Ulysses or any of his friends once more in order to devour him, which is then explained graphically (Met. 14.192-198: viscera edam “I shall devour the vitals”, sanguis inundet guttur “the blood shall flood my throat”).

When compared, the Homeric curse seems more ‘sophisticated’ than the Ovidian one. Homeric Polyphemus has been insulted and injured and therefore wants to make sure that misfortune befalls Odysseus. His curse, which includes a reference to the suitors, forms part of the Odyssean plot. The Ovidian Polyphemus, however, is portrayed more as a savage, who merely seeks to demolish somebody, who does not even have to be Odysseus: aut aliquem e sociis (“or any of his friends”, vs.193). According to Galinsky, Ovid was inspired by the equally ferocious Virgilian Polyphemus, which explains why his Polyphemus would utter “a few cliché threats”.70

In my judgement, the discrepancies can again be clarified by considering the narrator. Odysseus explains how Polyphemus’ curse has ensured that he will not return home without any trouble.71 Surely, he would then verbatim report the Cyclops’ elaborate curse and emphasize how it was mainly himself who had been hurt by the curse. In contrast, Achaemenides tells his friend how the Cyclops has cursed all the Greeks. By presenting it this way, Achaemenides makes all the Greeks, probably including himself (and not just Ulysses!), victims of the curse. Perhaps this enhances the pathos that his friend and the audience thereby feel for him, which reduces the pathos for Polyphemus, cf. Hutchinson:

“Ovid uses monologue to disrupt the pity which Achaemenides’ narrative had generated (188-90). […] The Cyclops shortly becomes like an animal himself in his eating of men (14.207-9, cf. Hom. Od. 9.292-3). His hideous first-person description of cannibalism (194-6)

70 Galinsky 1975: 233. 71 De Jong 2001: 247.

goes beyond Homer and shows the ugly absorption of one body by another which is the antithesis of loving union.”72

Achaemenides repeatedly stresses that Polyphemus is a horrifying and violent monster. The curse uttered by Ovidian Polyphemus tallies with his characterization. This portrayal differs from Homeric Polyphemus’, for whom sympathy is created, as Hutchinson explains: “It is extraordinary to create sympathy for the man-eating violator of Zeus’s laws, especially when his enemy is telling the story”.73 In contrast with Odysseus, Achaemenides portrays Polyphemus as a cannibalistic savage and not much more.

At the end of Polyphemus’ direct speech, Achaemenides does say that there was more to the curse: haec et plura ferox (“this and more the savage [said]”), but he does not elaborate further on this; he merely focuses on the aggressive parts of Polyphemus’ curse. In doing so, he reduces the relevance of what plura might have indicated and emphasizes the monstrous nature of the Cyclops, because that is how he sees him: not as the son of Poseidon,74 but as ferox.75

1.7.4 Achaemenides and Polyphemus 198-220

In this final section, I discuss the events that happened after the Greeks left. I do this rather briefly, because 1.) most of it has been covered in part 1 of this chapter and 2.) this passage does not have a direct Homeric equivalent. Achaemenides explains how he hid in the cave and feared that he might be killed by the Cyclops, which is not reported in the Odyssey. Surely, there are many parallels and allusions to Homer (and other authors) as the commentaries explain,76 such as the comparison of Polyphemus to a lion (Met. 14.207/Od.9.292), or the horrid description of Polyphemus vomiting limbs mixed with wine (Met. 14.211-12/Od.9.373-4), but I think this passage serves as a reminder of how much Achaemenides’ experiences were different from Odysseus’.

The purport of the passage is that Achaemenides reports how terrified he was (which I have argued more elaborately in the foregoing) and how he had been alone all the time: vs. 217 solus inops exspes leto poenaeque relictus “I was alone, helpless, hopeless, and left to death and suffering”. Achaemenides remembers how Polyphemus devoured his comrades and spewed them up again. He continuously keeps this in mind and expects the same to happen to him: vs. 213 talia fingebam misero mihi fata parari “I imagined that such a fate was in store for miserable me”. He did not have

72 Hutchinson 2007: 13, my underlining. 73 Hutchinson 2007: 2. 74 See also Bömer 1986: “Im Gegensatz zu dem homerischen Polyphem hat der ovidische nichts mit den Göttern zu tun” (p.76). 75 Myers 2009: “On the ferocity of Polyphemus, cf. 13.767 feros vultus, 768 feritas, 780 ferus… Cyclops, 772 terribilem Polyphemon” (p.97). 76 Bömer 1986: 77-83, Myers 2009 97-100.

24 his comrades to accompany him, nor was he able to invent a plan of escape. This would explain why he was so grateful to Aeneas for rescuing him. Apart from the fact that both he and Odysseus feared the Cyclops,77 his situation is the exact opposite of what Odysseus’ had been: Odysseus had his comrades with him, so he was not solus. He invented a plan to escape,78 so he was neither inops nor exspes, and since this plan succeeded, he was not left to die either. In short: Achaemenides’ experience with Polyphemus was very dissimilar to Odysseus’.

The whole episode reveals many parallels to the Odyssey (and Aeneid), but also quite some differences. We have seen that some aspects of the story are told in the same way, some are omitted, some are added. These discrepancies, as I have argued, can be attributed not only to the author, but also to the difference in narrator-focalizer. We are reminded throughout the text that this time around, the story is not told by the hero Odysseus who manages to escape thanks to his cleverness but by the minor character Achaemenides, who can only witness events in horror and has to be saved by others.

77 Od. 9.236 ἡμεῖς δὲ δείσαντες ἀπεσσύμεθ᾿ ἐς μυχὸν ἄντρου “struck with fear, we dove into a corner of the cave”. 78 Od. 9.318 ἥδε δέ μοι κατὰ θυμὸν ἀρίστη φαίνετο βουλή “this plan seemed the best in my mind”.

Chapter 2. Aeolus and the Laestrygonians

Introduction In this second chapter, I will discuss two adventures that are reported by Macareus: the encounter between the Greeks and Aeolus (Met.14.223-233) and the Laestrygonians (Met.14.234-242). Because these events are described relatively briefly (in merely 20 verses), I deem it best to analyse both of them in a single chapter. The narration of these stories is placed exactly between the Cyclops episode (Met.14.167-222) and the story of Circe (Met.14.243-440). Macareus’ report is incited by Achaemenides in vs. 221-22: tu quoque pande tuos, comitum gratissime, casus “Now you also, best of comrades, tell me of your et ducis et turbae, quae tecum est credita ponto. adventures and of the leader and the company that entrusted itself with you to the sea.”

Macareus starts in indirect speech (vs. 223: Aeolon ille refert Tuscano regnare profundo “he told how Aeolus ruled the Tuscan deep”) when he tells his friend of what happened when they visited Aeolus, the ruler of winds. From there, the narration continues, but in direct speech (vs. 233: “inde Lami veterem Laestrygonis” inquit “in urbem venimus” :“Afterwards”, he said, “we came to the ancient city of Laestrygonian Lamus”). We are broadly told the same as in the Odyssey (resp. Od.10.1-79 and Od.10.80-134): Odysseus receives a bag of wind from Aeolus. His companions, ignorant of its content and driven by their jealousy and greed, open the bag. The winds are released and the Greeks are blown further away from their homes back to Aeolus. They sail onward to the land of the Laestrygonians, where Odysseus loses all of his ships and the crew upon them, except for his own.

Like the Cyclops episode however, the story is told by somebody other than Odysseus. In this case, is it not Achaemenides telling us his version of the events. It is Macareus who is mentioned neither in the Odyssey, nor in the Aeneid, but is an Ovidian creation. 79 I think that this shift in focalization, from not only a different, but also a new point of view, again has consequences for the way in which the two stories are presented, and that there are probably more dissimilarities between Macareus’ and Odysseus’ versions than might seem apparent at first. In order to demonstrate this, I use the same approach from the previous chapter and divide this chapter in two parts. I will make use of and engage with mainly the same commentaries. 80 This time around, I will limit my comparison to

79 See LaFaye 1904: 125, Ludwig 1965: 67, Bernbeck 1967:119, Otis 1970: 289, Galinsky 1975: 230, Ellsworth 1988: 355. 80 In my comparison I make use of De Jong’s narratological commentary on Od.10 (2001: 250-70).

26 the Odyssey, because Aeneas is not referred to explicitly, nor does he play much of a role throughout Macareus’ narrative.81

Part one: A first analysis

2.1 Structure

Considering the fact that both episodes are described with relatively little words, I will display the structure of Macareus’ entire report in one scheme:

A. [indirect speech] 223-26 Ulysses receives a bag of wind from Aeolus

B. [indirect speech] 226-27 The Greeks sail homewards

C. [indirect speech] 228-32 Ulysses’ comrades open the bag and the Greeks are blown back to Aeolus

D. [direct speech] 233-34 The Greeks arrive at the land of the Laestrygonians

E. [direct speech] 235-38a Macareus is sent to explore the land with two comrades; one of them gets devoured by the Laestrygonians

F. [direct speech]238b-42a The Greeks flee, Antiphates and his people destroy every Greek ship, Ulysses escapes with his crew

From verse 242b onwards, the Greeks sail towards the island of Circe, which I will cover in my third and final chapter. At first sight, we see that the entire passage is fairly information-dense; there is quite a lot going on in but 20 verses. In comparison, both episodes occupy 134 verses in the Odyssey. Another first observation is the alternation from indirect to direct speech. Bömer does not provide an explanation for these modes of speech, he merely points out the grammatical structures.82 Myers suggests that the indirect speech “allows Ovid to speed up his narrative and then slow it down again for emphasis on his expanded metamorphic narratives when Macareus resumes direct speech.”83 I will demonstrate in this chapter that the indirect speech is employed by the poet to convey the intentions of the narrator-focalizer.

2.2 Narrator and narratee

As we know by now, the story is narrated by Macareus who therefore functions as our narrator. But, like I have shown in the general structure of the episodes, we do not hear from him directly

81 What is remarkable about Ovid’s “Aeneid” (Galinsky 1975: 217-250) , is that Aeneas is often, in contrast with our expectations, not the main character of the story, cf. Galinsky 1975: “Ovid moves Aeneas out of the picture for more than three hundred lines (13.730-14.74)” (p.222). 82 Bomer 1986: 84. 83 Myers 2009: 101.

27 in the Aeolus passage. Throughout this particular episode, the story is told by a reported narrator: a hybrid form between the primary and secondary narrator.84 This narrator is introduced by vs. 223: Aeolon ille refert…(“He told of Aeolus…”). A consequence of Macareus being a reported narrator (rather than a secondary narrator) is that it becomes dubious whether we are presented with the ideas of the primary or secondary narrator. I will address this in the section “Focalization”.

There has been much debate about the distinction between author, poet, primary narrator and ‘supernarrator’ as regards Ovid and his Metamorphoses, to which I referred in the Introduction of this thesis. I see the primary narrator here as an entity responsible for the greater outline of the story (e.g. the ille refert), who in turn hands over the presentation of events to his secondary or, as here, reported, narrators.85

When the Laestrygonian adventure starts, we hear Macareus in oratio recta, introduced by inquit (vs.233) and demonstrated by first person plural verb venimus (vs. 234). Similar to his comrade Achaemenides, Macareus is a secondary internal overt narrator; once again, he is not the main or primary narrator from the beginning of the book or the Metamorphoses in general, he plays a role in his own narrative and his presence as a narrator is established clearly. He uses the first person singular to signify the role he plays in the events (vs. 235 missus ad hunc ego sum “I was sent to him”) and through first person plural verbs, it becomes clear that Macareus sees himself as part of the crew and that some actions are carried out collectively (such as the earlier cited venimus).

The direct internal narratee of both passages is unambiguously Achaemenides. While the secondary narrator Achaemenides referred to his narratee, as we saw in chapter 1 (vs.178-9), Macareus does not explicitly refer to or address him in these passages. But it is self-evident that he is Macareus’ narratee since these stories are part of a conversation between the two friends. As I have explained in my first chapter, we might also keep in mind our primary external narratees: the imagined audience of Ovid.

2.3 Focalization

The fact that the story is told to us firstly by the reported and then by the secondary narrator, makes for a particularly interesting case in regard to the focalization of the episodes. In the episode about the Laestrygonians, it is rather straightforward to determine whose focalization we are presented with, since this part is narrated directly by Macareus and he explicitly refers to himself: ego sum (vs. 235), mihique (vs. 236), and to himself together with his comrades: nobis (vs.

84 De Jong 2014: 23. 85 See Wheeler 1999: 207-210 for an overview of all internal narrators and audiences in the Metamorphoses.

237) nos (vs. 241). The events are narrated from his perspective, so he can be said to function as the narrator-focalizer.

Additionally, we can recognize a narrating focalization, because Macareus seems to possess ex eventu understanding of what has happened in the Laestrygonian city, as illustrated by this example: Macareus reveals immediately that the Greeks arrived at the land that is ruled by Antiphates (vs. 234 Antiphates terra regnabat in illa). We do not get the impression that he does not know who he was dealing with at the time.

We might also distinguish an experiencing focalization. Between verse 238 and 240, Macareus describes in present tense how Antiphates pursued him (instat), how Antiphates urged his people to his aid (concitat), how the Laestrygonians pelted the Greeks (coniciunt), how they sank the Greeks and their ships (mergunt), and how Ulysses escaped with his crew (effugit). Up until verse 238, the verbs were either set in perfect tense (tinxit, 237) or represented by participles (missus, 235; quaesita, 236). The present tense may be used for many purposes, such as marking a narrative peak, zooming in on a situation spatially and temporally, or hinting at universality.86 I believe that the present tense here characterizes a narrative peak, or “the most central and emotional event in the entire story”,87 which fits the experiencing focalization as events are recalled in the same manner in which they were experienced.

The Aeolus episode is somewhat more complex in terms of focalization, because the story is told by a reported narrator who is quoted by the primary narrator. Some verses or words will make us wonder whether we are presented with the focalization of the primary narrator, or with that of the reported narrator Macareus, or with that of the characters in the story (embedded focalization) as I will demonstrate.

The first two verses of the episode (223-4) can be attributed to the primary narrator-focalizer

(NF1), because here it is told that Aeolus reigned over the Tuscan deep and that he incarcerated the winds, which are introductory remarks fitting to an (omniscient) primary narrator. In line 225, the bag of wind that Ulysses received from Aeolus is described as a memorabile munus, or a “remarkable gift”. According to Myers, this is an “allusive reminder that the tale is following Homer’s account or an ironic comment on the marvellous nature of the gift”.88 In my view, we can expand Myers’ remark: the adjective memorabile is quite ambiguous and can be more than a reminder or a comment. I think we can distinguish three levels on which the adjective might function:

86 Kroon 2007: 75-90. 87 Kroon 2007: 77. 88 Myers 2009: 101. Bömer provides many places in other works where memorabile munus appears, but does not elaborate further on it. (1986: 84)

1.) Like Myers states, memorabile can serve as an intertextuality marker inserted by the author, like iterum or nondum as explained in 1.5. 2.) Memorabile could be connected to the focalization of the reported narrator Macareus who makes use of his ex eventu knowledge. He knows that the winds, once released from the bag, will blow the ship back to Aeolus (231-2). 3.) It could also, and at the same time, represent the focalization of Ulysses’ comrades in the past: they do not know yet what the bag holds, assume that it may be ‘memorable’, i.e. contain gold, and hence open it.

A more transparent case of embedded focalization can be distinguished in the following verses. In 229-30, it is described how Ulysses’ comrades are “overthrown by envy and by desire for booty” (invidia socios praedaeque cupidine victos) and how they “thought that the bag contained gold” (ratos aurum). These remarks can be seen as an example of explicit embedded focalization, marked by a verb of feeling (cupidine victos) and of thinking (ratos).89 Macareus informs us what the comrades must have been thinking and feeling, without them being secondary narrator-focalizers.90 He can know this because he himself was one of the comrades and thereby knows what they (and he) were thinking. Afterwards, the focalization returns to the NF1: in verse 231-2 it is told how the Greeks return to Aeolus.

The focalization shifts again in the final verses of the episode. When the bag is opened and the Greeks are blown back to Aeolus’ island, they are sent away. Aeolus is then called tyranni (223), which could be seen as a negative characterization of the ruler of winds, because he was unsympathetic to the Greeks the second time they arrived. So this epithet might then be a marker of the focalization of the reported narrator Macareus. This point has been missed by Bömer, who is reluctant to see tyranni as a negative characterization:

“tyrannus, ohne negative (XV 602) Charakterisierung […], obwohl der Zorn, den Odysseus nach der zweiten Landung auf der Insel des Aeolus im Hause des Königs zu spüren bekommt […] eine negative Kritik verdient haben könnte.”91

Together with being a reflection of Macareus’ focalization, tyranni functions as a reminder of the Homeric version of the Aeolus story (such as clamor Ulixis as explained in 1.7.2). The primary audience will be triggered by the epithet, and reminded of Aeolus’ rejection, which is not mentioned in the Metamorphoses. This is quite remarkable, because Achaemenides, Macareus’ narratee, does not possess any knowledge of the encounter with Aeolus. I propose that this part is

89 Both Bömer (1986: 85) and Myers (2009: 102) point out the Homeric equivalent. 90 De Jong 2014: 50. 91 Bömer 1986: 86.

30 left out by the poet, because it is considered to be common knowledge among his primary narratees.

To sum up, Macareus’ tale proves to be a complex interplay of focalizations, those of himself as reported narrator who can make use of his ex eventu knowledge and those of the characters at the time, including Macareus himself.

2.3.1 Spatial standpoint

The beginning of the Aeolus episode is written from a panoramic standpoint, because we are told from a wide perspective how the Greeks sailed to Aeolus’ island and then onwards to the Laestrygonians. From verse 228 onwards, the narrator ‘zooms in’ on the scenery by telling us how the comrades were overcome by their envy and greed, which means that we are then dealing with a scenic standpoint. The multiple levels of speech complicate the question whether the story is told from a narratorial or actorial standpoint. On an internal level, the narration of the Aeolus episode is carried out by reported narrator Macareus to Achaemenides. Therefore, I think we could state that we are dealing with an actorial standpoint.

In the Laestrygonians episode, there is also modulation between a panoramic and scenic actorial standpoint, since the story is now directly told by Macareus. In 233-4 we see how the Greeks reach the city of the Laestrygonians (panoramic) and between verses 235-239 Macareus focuses on his encounter with Antiphates and his mob (scenic). In verse 240 then, we are told what happened from a larger perspective when there was chaos at sea: merguntque viros merguntque carinas (panoramic).

2.4 Time

The events are narrated after they have happened, which means that the narration is subsequent. Both the Aeolus episode and the Laestrygonians episode are related in chronological order, but not every part of the story is narrated with the same detail as I will demonstrate.

2.4.1 Fabula-story-text

Aeolus episode

The fabula of this episode may be reconstructed along these lines:

A Aeolus gifts Ulysses with a bag of wind B The Greeks continue their journey home for nine days C On the tenth day, the comrades open the bag D The Greeks are blown back to Aeolus’ island and sent away

The story and text may be analysed as follows:

A (14 words)- B (9 words)- C (18 words)- D (14 words)

These reconstructions show that the story is told in chronological order and that events A, C and D receive about the same amount of attention, i.e. words. The rhythm of the events fluctuates as we can see in B. In merely 9 words, nine days are described. I will return to this in the next section.

Laestrygonians episode

Fabula:

A The Greeks arrive at the city of the Laestrygonians B Macareus is sent out to explore with two comrades C Macareus flees from the Laestrygonians whilst one of his comrades is being devoured D Antiphates and his crowd follow Macareus and friend E The Laestrygonians hurl rocks at the Greeks and sink nearly all ships and men F Ulysses’ ship and crew escape

Story and text:

A (7 words)- B (8 words) – Cc ( 15 words) – D (6 words) – E (9 words) – F (8 words) Again, most events receive equal amounts of story time, except for event C, which is described somewhat longer than the rest.

2.4.2 Rhythm

I have already indicated that most events are recounted with the same amount of time. Sometimes, however, the narrative is speeded up in a summary: vss. 226-27

flatuque secundo “for nine days they had sailed along with a lucibus isse novem et terram aspexisse petitam fortunate breeze and they had seen the land they sought”

In this case, the nine days are summarized quickly and the fabula time exceeds the story time. As the same happens continuously during nine days (the Greeks are sailing), it is not necessary to provide a very detailed narration. On the tenth day, the narrative is slowed down again and described in more detail. The summary suggests a fortunate journey as the Greeks had been sailing with a prosperous wind. This manner of reporting puts more emphasis on what occurs on the tenth and disastrous day.

Another way of speeding up the narrative is through acceleration:

Vss. 238-40

fugientibus instat et agmen “Antiphates chased us as we fled and agitated his concitat Antiphates; coeunt et saxa trabesque mob; they came together and hurled stones and coniciunt merguntque viros merguntque carinas timbers. they sank our men and they sank our ships.”

These three verses are very information dense, a lot happens: escaping, pursuing, throwing, and sinking. This manner of reporting fits the events themselves, like we have seen in chapter 1. The abundant use of verbs (instat, concitat, coeunt, coniciunt, mergunt (2x)) matches the disorder experienced on land and sea.

2.5 Space

I have addressed the narrative setting of the encounter between Macareus and Achaemenides in the previous chapter. I will expand this with the setting of Macareus’ stories, of which we receive clear indications. The Aeolus episode is set around the island of Aeolus, in the “Tuscan deep” (vs. 223 Tusco profundo) and around “the harbour of the Aeolian tyrant” (vs. 232 Aeoliique portus tyranni). The Laestrygonians episode is located in their city: vs. 233 Lami veterem Laestrygonis urbem.

Part two: A comparison with the Odyssey

Now I turn to the second part of this chapter, which is the comparison to the Odyssey. I will begin by providing an overview of the two episodes in comparison with the corresponding episodes in the Odyssey, in order to lay bare the general structures with similarities and differences between the stories. Afterwards, I will zoom in and analyse the episodes on a smaller scale and focus on verses and words/word groups.

2.6 On a macro-level

The following two tables (2 and 3) will demonstrate the (dis)similarity between both the Aeolus and the Laestrygonians episode as told in Homer and in Ovid. As I have stated in the introduction of this chapter, there is much overlap between the two versions: the material is the same, the order of events corresponds, and so does the outcome of the events. But we can see that there are some blank spots in the Aeolus episode, which means that some events are omitted in the Metamorphoses. The same can be said about the Laestrygonians episode; broadly we find the same events in both versions, but some elements to the story are not brought up in the Metamorphoses, and sometimes events are even added.

Od. 10 Met. 14 Od. 10 Met. 14 1-12 Description of 223-24 Description of 80-96 The Greeks arrive at the 233-34 The Greeks arrive at the Aeolus, palace and Aeolus family Laestrygonian city, description of Laestrygonian city,

13-16 Greeks welcomed the land introduction of king by Aeolus 97-104 Odysseus sends men out to 235 Macareus is sent with two 17-27 Odysseus receives 225-26a Idem explore the land companions to the king bag of wind 105-117 Three of Odysseus’s men stumble 236-238a Antiphates eats one of the men 28-55 Greeks sail 226b-32 Idem upon Antiphates’ daughter, who homewards, brings them to the palace; there companions open bag of wind, Greeks they first meet the queen, who are sent back to calls her husband Antiphates; he Aeolus eats one of the men 56-76 Aeolus sends the 238b-9a Macareus is chased by Greeks away Antiphates 77-79 Greeks sail away 118-125 The Laestrygonians pelt and spear 239b-40 The Laestrygonians pelt the the Greeks Greeks 126-134 Odysseus escapes with his ship 241-42 Idem and crew

Table 2: The Aeolus episode Table 3: The Laestrygonians episode

Apart from the fact that not all aspects to the story are discussed in the Metamorphoses, we may acknowledge some other differences on a large scale. First and most evident: the difference in narrator and narratee. The Homeric Apologoi are, of course, told by Odysseus to the Phaeaceans, whereas the Ovidian versions of these two adventures are told by Macareus to Achaemenides. Secondly, the length of the episodes differ much:

Odyssey Metamorphoses

Aeolus episode 79 verses 10 verses Laestrygonians 55 verses 10 verses episode

Table 4: Length of the episodes

The Ovidian versions are told in significantly less verses than the Homeric ones, which means that the narration of the episodes in the Metamorphoses is much less detailed than in the Odyssey, cf. Myers: “Ovid’s version is extremely abbreviated and requires a knowledge of the Homeric episode”.92 And thirdly, pertaining to the Aeolus episode, the modes of speech contrast. The Homeric episode is presented in oratio recta, whereas the Ovidian one is, as we have seen, narrated in oratio obliqua. Taking into consideration these larger dissimilarities, I will now continue my comparison through a smaller lens.

2.7 On a micro-level

In this section, I shall make a distinction between both episodes, as this will make for a more transparent comparison.

2.7.1 Aeolus

Both the Homeric and the Ovidian Aeolus episode start with a description of this ruler of winds and are comparatively similar:

Met. 14.223-24 Od. 10.1-2 Aeolon ille refert Tusco regnare profundo, Αἰολίην δ᾿ ἐς νῆσον ἀφικόμεθ᾿· ἔνθα δ᾿ ἔναιεν Aeolon Hippotaden, cohibentem carcere Αἴολος Ἱπποτάδης, φίλος ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσιν, ventos;

92 Myers 2009: 103.

In terms of appearance, it is noteworthy that in both versions Aeolus is introduced by epanalepsis93 and by his patronym Hippotades;94Aeolon is placed at the same marked position in two consecutive verses, corresponding with Αἰολίην and Αἴολος. Through this resemblance in appearance combined with the sameness in place (in the beginning of the episode), the poet signals that we are dealing with the very same material: the topic of discussion is Aeolus.

The remainders of the verses differ, as we can see. Odysseus includes a more detailed description of Aeolus, his palace and his family. Macareus, however, immediately points out the location of Aeolus’ reign and his main characteristic, i.e. that he rules the winds and can therefore confine them (cohibentem carcere ventos). This seems understandable when looking at the length of both episodes. Odysseus’ narration is much longer, so more time can be devoted to a description. Macareus omits most of the background details and instantly cuts to the chase, by providing merely the information needed to understand the story of the bag of wind.

2.7.2 Odysseus receives bag of wind

In the Odyssey it is said that Odysseus and his comrades stayed with Aeolus for a month, and that Odysseus unfolded his Trojan past to him (Od.10.14-16).95 There is no mention of this in the Metamorphoses. Macareus rather fasts forward to the bag of wind and says: vss 225-6 quos bovis inclusos tergo, memorabile munus, “these [the winds] bounded in a bag of bull’s hide, a Dulichium sumpsisse ducem remarkable gift, the Dulichian leader had received”

From a narratological point of view, it might be explained why Macareus does not mention the tales told by Odysseus to Aeolus. Either he was not present when Odysseus told them to Aeolus, or he simply does not find it relevant enough to make mention of.

Odysseus is referred to as Dulichium ducem, which is “used in poetry as a recherché way to refer to Ulysses”96 and is an allusion to Odysseus being the ruler of Dulichium (just like he ruled Same, Zakynthos and Ithaca in Od.1.246-7,9.24). So this name can be seen as a somewhat innovative touch from the poet.97 In addition to this, I think this phrasing emphasizes here that Odysseus, being the leader (ducem) of the group, is the one who receives the memorabile munus, as opposed to

93 Myers 2009: 101. See also Wills 1996: 124, 161-3. 94 For a description of the genealogy of Aeolus, see Fraser 1933, Haslam 1991: 297-8. 95 De Jong 2001: 251. 96 Myers 2009: 102. 97 The description of Ulysses as the ruler of i.a. Dulichium occurs merely six times in Latin literature, of which three are from Ovid; the other three are Verg. Aen.3.271, Mel. De Chr.2.110.3 and Pl.Sec. Nat.Hist.4.54.2

36 his comrades, who are then jealous about not having received a gift: invidia socios victos (Met.14.229), cf. Od.10.41-42 ἡμεῖς δ᾿ αὖτε ὁμὴν ὁδὸν ἐκτελέσαντες οἴκαδε νισσόμεθα κενεὰς σὺν χεῖρας ἔχοντες, “yet we, having accomplished the very same journey, return home empty- handed”.

2.7.3 The Greeks sail homewards

After having received the bag of wind, Odysseus and his comrades return homewards. They sail for nine days and on the tenth day, the homeland comes into their sight:

Od.10.28-30

ἐννῆμαρ μὲν ὁμῶς πλέομεν νύκτας τε καὶ ἦμαρ, “Nine days long we sailed, night and day alike, τῇ δεκάτῃ δ᾿ ἤδη ἀνεφαίνετο πατρὶς ἄρουρα, and on the tenth appeared our fatherland, and καὶ δὴ πυρπολέοντας ἐλεύσσομεν ἐγγὺς ἐόντες yes we were so close that we saw fire tenders”

Met.14.226-27

flatuque secundo “for nine days they had sailed with a fortunate lucibus isse novem et terram aspexisse petitam breeze and they had seen the desired land”

Apart from the detail that is missing in the Metamorphoses, i.e. that Odysseus and his comrades were able to see people tending fires, the two passages are very similar in essence, cf. Bömer about lucibus…petitam: “in engem Anschluss an Homer”.98 Galinsky ascribes the similarity between Odysseus’ and Macareus’ tale to the narrator: “Macareus is, after all, Odysseus’ companion and therefore his narrative is modelled on Homer.”99 I agree with Bömer and Galinsky that the tales are very similar to each other, but I might add to this that we can recognize some differences. First of all, Odysseus narrates in the first person (πλέομεν, ἐλεύσσομεν) and Macareus does not, which creates a distance between himself and the events.

Secondly, Odysseus states that his πατρὶς ἄρουρα, his “native land” was within view, and adds to this that he could even distinguish people looking after fires. These aspects highly enhance the compassion felt for him, as De Jong explains:

“The pathos is heightened by the repetition of ‘already’; the use of the character-language † * πατρίς, ‘fatherland’ […]; and the * ‘smoke’ motif, which indicates that they have come within sight of Ithaca.”100

98 Bömer 1986: 84. 99 Galinsky 1975: 233. 100 De Jong 2001: 252.

In my view, we do not find such pathos in the Metamorphoses. Firstly, because the ‘smoke’ motif is missing and secondly, because Ithaca is described as terram petitam (“the land they sought”) which seems a somewhat more distant term than e.g. patria, and could be seen as any land, if one does not have prior knowledge as to which land is meant. I believe that this ‘distance’ is a direct consequence of the mode of speech (oratio obliqua) and has to do, perhaps, with the narrator- focalizer. As one of the ‘argument functions’ of the Apologoi is that Odysseus is confronted with his “endurance”,101 Odysseus aims to emphasize how well the things were going for him before the comrades intervened and everything went downhill. Macareus also emphasizes that the Greeks were well on their way home, but the difference is that he uses neither first person verbs, nor does he narrate in direct speech. The effect of this is that he seems to distance himself from the events. Perhaps he even distances himself from the comrades, as I will explain in the next section.

2.7.4 The comrades open the bag

Macareus does not create much pathos for the comrades who opened the bag of wind, because they thought it contained treasures. Odysseus explains how he fell asleep before the Greeks reached Ithaca (Od. 10.31-3). In doing so, he creates sympathy for himself, cf. De Jong on 10.32- 3: “These lines […] add to the pathos.”102 He also provides a conversation between the comrades (Od. 10.38-45), in which the motivation is given for loosening the string of the bag. This conversation vilifies the comrades whilst enhancing the pathos for Odysseus.

In contrast, Macareus merely recounts how the comrades were overrun by jealousy and greed (vs. 229 invidia praedaeque cupidine), which seems as if Odysseus could have phrased it. A reader with interest in the narratological aspects of the story would have preferred Macareus, being one of the comrades and thus able to provide a different point of view than Odysseus, to elaborate more on why exactly they opened the bag. What was their motivation according to themselves? What did they say to each other? But this is precisely what is missing here. He does not explain further what exactly went on in their minds when the comrades (unknowingly) brought themselves and their leader in danger. Macareus again appears to distance himself from the events and the comrades by not providing these details. Perhaps he does so in order not to be criticized by Achaemenides, who does not know yet of the comrades’ motives. Perhaps it is simply a consequence of the oratio obliqua and the fact that the episode is recounted so briefly. Either way, I would say that it is difficult to feel pity for the comrades from Macareus’ story.

101 De Jong 2001: 226. 102 De Jong 2001: 252.

2.7.5 Aeolus’ rejection

After the winds had been unleashed, the Greeks were blown back to Aeolus’ palace, where Aeolus harshly sent them away and where it becomes clear that Odysseus is not a favourite of the gods (Od. 10.56-75). This final part is left unmentioned in the Metamorphoses. We simply hear that the Greeks “returned to the port of the Aeolian tyrant” (Met.14.232: Aeoliique ratem portus repetisse tyranni). According to Bömer, the Metamorphoses do not elaborate on Aeolus’ rejection, because the poet chose not to for his own convenience:

“Macareus schildert diese Szene nicht, und der Dichter hat das Recht, da aufzuhören, wo es ihm beliebt (XIII 656ff.); er tut es demonstrativ, indem er, statt diese allen bekannte Szene im Hause des Aeolus auch nur mit einem Wort zu erwähnen, das Laestrygonen- Abenteuer schlicht mit inde anfügt”.103

So, it was the poet who made the choice to end the Aeolus episode at this point of the story, in order to switch to the Laestrygonians episode smoothly. This solution sounds reasonable to me, but another explanation might be added. If we take the reported narrator Macareus into consideration, it would make sense that he does not elaborate more on this part. First of all, he might not have been there with Odysseus when the latter re-entered Aeolus’ palace, so then he would not be able to recount it in the first place.

Secondly, the Homeric Aeolus episode “illustrates that Odysseus has fallen out of grace with the gods”,104 which becomes particularly apparent from passage 10.56-75 and which is one of the explanations why Odysseus wandered so much before returning home. The Ovidian episode has a different intention, which is to “tell the story of the Odyssey as completely as possible”.105 The difference with the Apologoi from the Odyssey is that the story is now not centred around Odysseus, nor about why he fulfilled his nostos with great delay. It is Macareus who tells the story to his friend, and it is apparently not in his interest to explain why Odysseus came home so late.

2.8.1 Exploring the Laestrygonian city

After being refused by Aeolus, the Greeks sail onwards to the city of the Laestrygonians, which is described comparatively briefly. In the Odyssey, we are told much about the inhabitants, about the shape of the harbour and where Odysseus’ ship was moored (Od. 10.81-96). In the Metamorphoses, we learn in merely two verses that the Greeks arrived at Lamus’ city (vs. 233, cf. Od.10.81), where Antiphates reigned (vs. 234). This brevity can be attributed to the poet, according to Galinsky: “The stories of Achaemenides and Macareus are already too remote and, as most of

103 Bömer 1986: 86. 104 De Jong 2001: 250. 105 Ellsworth 1988: 333.

39 the time, it is the immediate purpose that matters for Ovid.”106 From an intertextual point of view, this seems like a plausible suggestion: perhaps it was not in Ovid’s interest to elaborate very much on the Laestrygonians. From a narratological point of view however, we might add to this that it seems characteristic of Macareus to leave out long descriptions of unknown lands, since we did not find it in the Aeolus episode either. Macareus focuses on what seems most important for him.

Upon landing, Macareus narrates how he had been dispatched with two comrades (vs.235). This corresponds with Od.10.102 ἄνδρε δύω κρίνας, τρίτατον κήρυχ᾿ ἅμ᾿ ὀπάσσας “two men I chose, a third I sent as herald”. Bömer rightly points out at 235n that the fact that the events are now recounted by Macareus, and not by Odysseus who is still on his ship, enhances the immediacy of the story.107 And indeed, the distance between the narrator and the events is smaller in the Metamorphoses. Let us consider the different versions of Antiphates devouring one of Odysseus’ comrades.

Od.10.116 αὐτίχ᾿ ἕνα μάρψας ἑτάρων ὡπλίσσατο δεῖπνον “immediately he seized one of my comrades and τὼ δὲ δύ᾿ ἀίξαντε φυγῇ ἐπὶ νῆας ἱκέσθην. prepared his meal; the other two leapt up and came fleeing to the ship.”

Met.14.236-8 vixque fuga quaesita salus comitique mihique, “me and my comrade barely fled to a safe place; tertius e nobis Laestrygonis inpia tinxit the third of us dyed the impious mouth of the ora cruore suo Laestrygonian with his blood”

Odysseus is not the primary source of these events, he rather repeats what his scouts told him when they returned to the ship.108 In the Metamorphoses, however, we find an eyewitness account: Macareus himself tells how he saw his comrade being consumed. His narration is more direct than Odysseus’ because of the first person account (mihi), and the pathos is increased by the use of the strongly evaluative word inpia. This language is lacking in Odysseus’ narration, which makes it appear more neutral.

We might recognize another sign that the degree of immediacy is higher in the Metamorphoses. Macareus narrates how he had been pursued by Antiphates and his men (vs. 238). This is not

106 Galinsky 1975: 241, my underlining. With ‘remote’ Galinsky refers to a distance from the “overall thematic development” of the story (ibid.) 107 Bömer 1986: 87. 108 De Jong 2001: 254.

40 mentioned in the Odyssey; we merely learn here that the Laestrygonian king ate one of the comrades and that he starts pelting the Greeks hereafter (vs. 116-23).

2.8.2 Attacked by the Laestrygonians

The opposite seems to happen in the next verses, where Antiphates summons his troops in order to pelt the Greeks. The fabulae of the two narrations are similar: the Laestrygonians bombard the Greeks and they wipe out nearly all of them. According to De Jong, the Homeric variant is brimming with pathos because of the character language and the ‘fish’ comparison (the Greeks are speared like fish, vs. 124).109 We may recognize some differences with the Ovidian version:

Vss. 238-40

fugientibus instat et agmen “Antiphates chased us as we fled and agitated his concitat Antiphates; coeunt et saxa trabesque mob; they came together and hurled stones and timbers. coniciunt merguntque viros merguntque carinas they sank our men and they sank our ships.”

Myers reminds us of the Homeric parallels to these verses and Bömer states that Homer depicts this scene more elaborately.110 In my judgement, Macareus’ narration is not only less elaborate, it is also short of pathos. Apart from the detail that Macareus and his friend were pursued by Antiphates, his tale lacks both the character language and the fish comparison, and it misses other ‘pathos enhancing’ details e.g. that the Greeks were enclosed from all sides (Od.10.119) and that there were countless giant Laestrygonians (Od. 10.120). We notice once more how succinct the Ovidian version is. Perhaps the encounter with the Laestrygonians did not have such a great impact on Macareus. We might compare it to his tale about Circe, to which over 60 verses are devoted (Met.14.243-307).

2.8.3 Escape from the Laestrygonians

The episode finishes when Odysseus escapes the Laestrygonians with his ship. In the Odyssey, we are told how Odysseus cuts the moorings of the ship and urges his comrades to row the ship to safety (Od.10.125-132). In the Metamorphoses, we are not informed how the Greeks escaped, merely that they did: vss. 241-2 una tamen, quae nos ipsumque vehebat Ulixem, “one [ship] however, that carried us and Ulysses effugit himself, made it out”

109 De Jong 2001: 254. 110 Myers 2009: 103 and Bömer 1986: 87 respectively.

Odysseus’ intention is to show how he, as leader of his comrades, made it possible for him and his crew to escape. A specific reminder of his heroism is the formulaic verse ἐγὼ ξίφος ὀξὺ ἐρυσσάμενος παρὰ μηροῦ (vs. 126), which we also find in e.g. 11.24 and 11.48 when Odysseus prepares the blood for the spirits, a task assigned specifically to him. In contrast, Macareus merely tells us that he, together with his comrades and Ulysses, survived. I think he does so because this is what matters to him the most. His intention does not appear to be a celebration of Ulysses’ heroism; his attitude towards Ulysses actually seems rather neutral.

As I have illustrated, there are quite some ‘under the table’ differences between Macareus’ narration and Odysseus’. His tale is much shorter than Odysseus’, which automatically means that some events and/or ‘sensations’ are missing. He seems to play with pathos: he includes it from time to time, but also omits it in some unanticipated places. The Aeolus episode in specific demonstrates that the indirect speech generates a distance between Macareus and the events. And from the Laestrygonians episode, I can conclude that Macareus appears to have his own agenda when recounting the adventure. Macareus does not tell the tale of the hero Odysseus who lost nearly all of his companions and ships, he tells his side of the story according to his own intentions.

Chapter 3. The Circe episode

Introduction In this final chapter, I discuss Ovid’s Circe episode. Circe is a character of frequent occurrence in ancient literature; we know her from Homer, Hesiod, Apollonius Rhodius and many others. As this magical figure is often connected to transformations, it is not surprising that Ovid too has included her in his poems.111 The poet of the Metamorphoses provides not one, but three tales about the sorceress: the story of Glaucus, Scylla and Circe (14.1-74), the story of Ulysses and Circe (14.243-307;435-440) and the story of Picus, Canens and Circe (14.308-434). My thesis focuses on the Apologoi, and therefore I will limit myself to the tale of Ulysses and Circe.

This episode is part of Maraceus’ tale to Achaemenides and directly follows the Laestrygonian adventure. Macareus explains how the Greeks wept at the loss of their companions (vs. 242b-3) and reached the island of Circe (244-7). Speaking broadly, we are told quite the same as in the Odyssey (10.133-574): Odysseus and his comrades reach the island of Circe, he dispatches a selection of his men to explore the land, who stumble upon Circe’s palace. Circe captures the men, feeds them mysterious herbs, changes them into pigs with her wand and locks them up in a sty. Eurylochus, suspicious as he is, keeps away from the palace and flees back to the ship. Here, he tells Odysseus that his comrades are in danger. With the aid and advice of Hermes, Odysseus convinces Circe to release his men. The Greeks remain with Circe for a year, after which they continue their journey, which leads them to the Underworld.

Each of these events occurs in both the Odyssey and the Metamorphoses, yet we will once again detect noteworthy differences between the two versions. Ovid’s Circe episode is not only significantly reduced, it is also told from a different point of view.112 The effect of this is that, in comparison with the Odyssey, some elements of the story will be recounted in more detail, whereas some will be summarized in a few verses. As we have seen in the previous chapters, many of the differences between the two versions may be explained by considering not only the poet, but also the narrator-focalizer, which is once more what I aim to do in this chapter. The story of Circe is now told by a person who himself experiences two Metamorphoses:113 from man

111 Ovid’s Circe has been the topic of many interesting studies, to name a few: Nagle 1984, Browning 1990, Segal 2002, Barber 2011. 112 Cf. Myers 2009: “While Ovid follows Homer in the general outline of the story, he again abbreviates the episode and changes the perspective of the story through the use of Macareus as narrator instead of Odysseus.” (p.104). 113 For a detailed discussion of man-to-beast transformations in Ovid, see Riddehough 1959.

43 to pig and back.114 I will attempt to lay bare how the poet uses the identity of his narrator- focalizer to tell the famous tale of Circe and Ulysses in a different way.

As I have explained in the introduction of this thesis, my approach and research questions will remain the same in this chapter as well. Not only the commentaries of Bömer and Myers, but also other studies will be of importance throughout this chapter, such as Yarnall’s detailed research on the transformations of Circe.115 Whereas there are quite some verbal parallels with the Circe episode in the Aeneid (Aen.7.10-24) 116 and Aeneas is again mentioned in the Ovidian version, my focus will remain on the Odyssey for two reasons. The verbal similarities with the Aeneid are of particular interest for a strictly intertextual approach and my approach combines intertextuality with narratology. Moreover, Aeneas and his comrades do not actually land on the island of Circe in Virgil’s version, they merely pass it by, as opposed to Ulysses and his comrades.117

Part one: A first analysis

3.1 Structure

Macareus’ narration about Circe is structured as follows: A. 242b-249 The Greeks approach and land on the shore of Circe’s island

B. 250-253 Macareus is dispatched to Circe’s palace with 21 comrades

C. 254-267 Macareus and comrades are received in Circe’s palace

D. 268-276 Circe gives the men a drink with magic herbs

E. 277-286 Circe changes the men into pigs and incarcerates them

F. 287-290 Eurylochus alerts Ulysses

G. 291-298 Ulysses urges Circe to release his men

H. 299-305a Circe reverses the transformation

I. 305b-307 The Greeks are reunited and remain with Circe for a year

(308-434 The Italic story of Circe, Picus and Canens)118

114 Cf. Yarnall 1994: “It [the Circe-Odysseus episode] is narrated by Macareus, a deserter from Odysseus’ crew. The chief advantage of this point of view is that is offers a first-hand description of how it feels to change from man to pig to man.” (p.90) 115 Yarnall 1994. 116 For examples of such similarities, see Myers 2009: 105-106. 117 For a discussion of the Virgilian Circe episode, see Segal 1968, Basto 1982, Stoffelen 1994, Putnam 1995. 118 The Picus and Canens story has been addressed by many scholars, among which Ellsworth 1986, Nagle 1988, Mack 1999 and Myers 2004.

J. 435-440 Circe informs the Greeks of their Underworld task, Macareus remains at Caieta

3.2 Narrator and narratee

Similar to the Laestrygonian adventure, the Circe episode is recounted by Macareus in direct speech. He functions as our secondary internal overt narrator. Macareus refers to himself multiple times and uses the first person singular to recount the events, e.g.: vs. 245 mihi, 247 moneo, 250 negabamus, 276 accipimus. He seems particularly aware of his role as narrator in this episode, as his evaluative comments signal: 285 tantum medicamina possunt! “such is the power of her magic drugs!”. He also shows awareness of his narratee when he recalls his Metamorphoses: vs. 279 et pudet et referam “it shames me, yet I will tell”.

Achaemenides remains Macareus’ internal narratee. He is not referred to explicitly, but the episode is still a part of the conversation between the two friends. Macareus does turn to another person explicitly: Aeneas. In lines 245b-7, he addresses Aeneas with respectful epithets and warns him to keep away from Circe’s island: tuque o iustissime Troum, “and you, most honorable of Trojans, nate dea, (neque enim finito Marte vocandus son of a goddess (for you should be called a hostis es, Aenea) moneo, fuge litora Circes! foe no longer as the war is over, Aeneas) I warn you, avoid Circe’s shores!”

As Macareus warns Aeneas, the latter also functions as Macareus’ narratee. According to Myers, Ovid “gestures toward Virgil’s narrative manoeuvre in the Aeneid of having the Trojans avoid a meeting with Circe”,119 which explains, from an intertextual perspective, why Macareus would warn Aeneas (and not Achaemenides). In my narratological point of view, we may add that Macareus announces this to the captain of the ship, as opposed to a common sailor who does not have any influence on the next destination of the Trojans.

With Aeneas as additional narratee, we might also explain why Macareus would feel ashamed and therefore somewhat reluctant to narrate how he had been changed into a pig: Aeneas is a respectable figure, which is why Macareus would deem it inappropriate to discuss such disgraceful matters.120

119 Myers 2009: 105. 120 Bömer provides places where Aeneas is referred to with the same epithets (1986: 91) and Myers adds why such names are employed for Aeneas here (2009: 104-5). Neither commentaries explicitly consider the possibility that Aeneas would be another narratee of Macareus.

3.3 Focalization

Unsurprisingly, Macareus also serves as our focalizer. The events, and especially the Metamorphoses that befall him, are narrated from his point of view: vs. 280 nec iam posse loqui “I could not speak anymore” vs. 282 osque meum sensi pando occallescere rostro “I felt my mouth hardening into a broad snout” vs. 302-3 quo magis illa canit, magis hoc tellure levati erigimur “the more she sang, the more we began to rise from the ground and stand erect”

Additionally, Macareus uses evaluative words that signal his focalization, such as vs. 278 dea dira “the cruel goddess”, vs.294-5 insidiosa pocula “deceitful goblet”. He modulates between a narrating and experiencing focalization. When he describes his Metamorphoses, we see his experience exactly as it happened at the time, which is fitting to an experiencing focalization. Sometimes however, he uses a narrating focalization; he employs his hindsight knowledge to recount something he did not know at the time, e.g. how Ulysses received moly from Hermes/Mercury (vs.291-2). At other times, he utters an evaluative comment he only could have made after the events happened, such as vs. 288-9: quae nisi vitasset, pecoris pars una manerem nunc quoque saetigeri “if he [Eurylochus] had not refused it [the cup], I would still be a part of the bristle-bearing flock”.

3.3.1 Spatial standpoint

Our narrator functions as a character in his story who also places himself at the scene of his narration, which means that we are presented with an actorial scenic standpoint.

3.4 Time

The narration of the Circe episode is subsequent to the events, as these have already taken place before the encounter between Macareus and Achaemenides.

3.4.1 Fabula-story-text

Macareus narrates the events in chronological order:

Fabula

A. The Greeks arrive at Circe’s island B. A selection of comrades is dispatched to explore the land and find Circe’s palace C. The comrades are received by Circe and her nymphs and receive a mysterious drink D. The comrades drink from the cup, Circe transforms the men and locks them up E. Eurylochus informs Ulysses about the fate of the comrades

F. Ulysses convinces Circe to release the men and transform them back with Mercury’s aid G. The Greeks stay with Circe for a year H. The Greeks learn about their journey to the Underworld, Macareus settles at Caieta

Story and text

Aa (56 words) – Bb (45 words) – Cccc (121 words) – Ddd (73 words) – E (21 words) – Fff (84 words) – G (24 words) – H (29 words)

3.4.2 Rhythm

Macareus pays much attention to events C, D and F. This makes sense; he dedicates most speaking time to the events that have had the most impact on him: his arrival at the mystique palace of Circe, the magic drink he received from her and, of course, his two Metamorphoses. An example of a retardation occurs earlier in the story, where Macareus describes his metamorphosis: vs. 279b-285a

saetis horrescere coepi, “I began to bristle up, and I could speak nec iam posse loqui, pro verbis edere raucum no longer. In the place of words came hoarse grumbling and I started to bend forward murmur et in terram toto procumbere vultu, turned completely to the earth. I felt my osque meum sensi pando occallescere rostro, mouth hardening into a broad snout, my colla tumere toris, et qua modo pocula parte neck swelling in folds, and the limbs, with sumpta mihi fuerant, illa vestigia feci which I had just picked up the goblet, made cumque eadem passis tracks on the ground.”

As we can see, Macareus narrates in much detail how his metamorphosis took place; he explains each part of the transformation carefully. It seems reasonable that he would pay ample attention to this, for it is an event that made a great impression on him.

At other points of the narrative, the rhythm is accelerated. Let us consider an example of a summary: vs. 308 annua nos illic tenuit mora “a year of delay kept us there”

In merely five words, we are told how the Greeks remained at Circe’s palace for a whole year. This compact summary suggests that the Greeks spent a prosperous year with Circe and her servants, as opposed to their troublesome adventures which are recounted in detail. Macareus only slows down his narrative to tell the tale of Picus and Canens.

Lastly, I discuss an example of an acceleration:

47 vs. 297-8 inde fides dextraeque datae thalamoque receptus “Then faith was pledged, right hands were coniugii dotem sociorum corpora poscit. given, and after being welcomed to her chamber, he [Ulysses] demanded the bodies of his friends as dowry.”

These lines are considerably dense: in but two verses it is explained how Ulysses and Circe pledged their faith to each other, that they entered the (marriage) bed, and finally that Ulysses made appeal to a wedding gift. I think that Macareus recounts these events rather briefly, because 1.) it is not himself pledging faith to a woman, it is Ulysses and 2.) what matters most for Macareus, is that Ulysses freed his comrades and not necessarily that he did so by making a vow to Circe.

3.5 Space

In section 1.5 of this thesis I have discussed the narrative setting of the meeting between Macareus and Achaemenides. In this section, I therefore concentrate on the setting of the Circe story as told by Macareus. The narrative lacks a full description, so we only receive scattered indications of the surroundings of the Greeks. We are told that they approach Circe’s island (vs. 245 insula), and set foot on her shores (vs. 247 litora Circes). Then we learn that a selection of comrades draws closer to Circe’s fortifications (vs. 253 Circaea ad moenia).121 And there is rather little information as to what Circe’s palace must have looked like, merely that it was guarded by animals (vs. 255-59) and that its atria were covered with marble (vs.260 atria122 marmore tecta).

On an intertextual level, I reckon that the description is rather short, because the imagined audience is probably supposed to be familiar with the features of Circe’s palace as described in the Odyssey (10.210-13, 312-15).123 From a narratological point of view, we could add that Macareus might not deem it important enough to provide an elaborate description of the palace. The animals are perhaps the only information of interest to him, since he was afraid of them. We have seen in the previous chapter that he does not pay much attention to describing the land of Aeolus and the Laestrygonians either.

Part two: a comparison with the Odyssey

This second part will deal with a comparison between the Metamorphoses and the Odyssey. Similar to the previous two chapters, I will examine the two texts from a large perspective and then

121 Homer’s Circe lives in the middle of the woods; moenia however suggests a grand building. 122 Myers explains that atria is a “Roman touch” (2009:106). 123 Cf. Myers 2009: “For the depiction of Circe’s home Ovid follows Homer’s account at Od.210-23, while also drawing on Virgil’s brief description at Aen.7.10-24.” (p.106).

48 continue the comparison on a small level. Let us first examine the fabulae of both episodes from table 5.

3.6 On a macro-level

Od.10 Met.14 135-143 The Greeks reach Circe’s island, 242b-249 The Greeks reach Circe’s island, description of Circe, the Greeks Macareus warns Aeneas to steer clear of remain on the shore for two days the land 144-186 Odysseus slays a deer for his comrades; he and his men enjoy a meal on the shore and then rest 187-209 Odysseus divides his men in two 250-253 Macareus is dispatched to Circe’s palace groups, the group led by Eurylochus with 21 companions sets out to explore the island; the others, led by Odysseus, stay at the shore 210-229 The men reach Circe’s palace 254-259 The men reach Circe’s palace 230-243 The men are invited in, drugged, 260-286a The men are invited in, drugged, transformed and locked up transformed and locked up 244-260 Eurylochus rushes back to the shore 286b-290 Eurylochus rushes back to the shore and and informs Odysseus informs Odysseus 261- Odysseus goes to the palace to save his 291-293 Ulysses goes to the palace to save his 307a men, Hermes comes to his aid men, Mercury comes to his aid 307b- Odysseus reaches the palace, scares 294-298 Ulysses reaches the palace, scares Circe 347 Circe with his sword, urges Circe to with his sword, both pledge their faith, swear an oath to do him no further Odysseus demands his men as dowry harm and enters her bed 348-374 Description of Circe’s maids; Odysseus is bathed, but does not want to eat out of pity for his comrades 375-399 On Odysseus’ request, Circe releases 299-307 Circe releases the men and reverses the the men and reverses the metamorphosis; the men are reunited metamorphosis; the men are reunited 400-466 Circe advises Odysseus to draw the ship on land and store his goods;

Odysseus does so and takes his comrades back to the palace 467-48 The Greeks enjoy their stay for a year 308 The Greeks enjoy their stay for a year 469-486 At the insistence of his men, Odysseus begs Circe to allow him to depart 487-550 Circe informs Odysseus about his 435-440 Idem; Macareus decides to remain at journey to the Underworld Caieta 551-574 Elpenor’s death, the Greeks make for the Underworld Table 5: Fabulae in Circe episodes

At first sight, the two versions display much overlap: the story consists of the same events. But once again, we may notice

1.) the blank spots which indicate that events have been omitted from the Metamorphoses 2.) that most events in the Ovidian version are narrated in less story time 3.) that some events in the Metamorphoses are actually recounted with more attention, such as the transformation of the men (I will return to this in 3.7.4).

(ad 1) Most events that are missing in the Metamorphoses are to be attributed to our narrator- focalizer. In the Odyssey, Odysseus narrates how he provided his men with a meal in order to placate them before informing them of yet another hazardous mission. He deems it better to feed them first after having suffered immensely at the land of the Cyclops and the Laestrygonians.124 He explains how he found a stag, killed it, carried it back to sea and then how he and his men enjoyed a nice meal of meat and wine. This story makes Odysseus appear like a caring and thoughtful leader. In contrast, Macareus merely says that he was dispatched once again and that he and his comrades were reluctant to do so (vs. 250 ire negabamus). As Macareus tells the story from his own point of view, the emphasis lays on his own feelings and not on Ulysses and his kind heart.

Likewise, Macareus omits the part where Odysseus receives a nice bath from Circe’s handmaids. I propose that he does so, because he was either not present when it happened or it does not concern him; he was not the one enjoying such a treatment, he was rather confined like a pig.

(ad 2) Whereas the Circe episode is the longest adventure of the Ovidian Apologoi, it is still not quite as lengthy and elaborate as its Homeric equivalent. In 1.6 I have suggested why Achaemenides’ narration was much shorter than Odysseus’. In my view, the same explanation

124 See also De Jong 2001: “The stag was literally a godsend to Odysseus-hero which he exploited to cheer up his despondent men, knowing that soon he would have to demand new exertions of them.” (p.256).

50 might be brought to the fore here: the Odyssey revolves around the hero Odysseus and his nostos, but Macareus is neither the protagonist of book 14 of the Metamorphoses, nor of the poem in general. Therefore, it is intelligible that his account is comparatively brief.125

3.7 On a micro-level

I will now continue the comparison on a smaller scale by focussing on the most striking differences.

3.7.1 Arrival upon Circe’s island

The first passage I examine closely derives from the very beginning of the episode, where the Greeks land upon the coast of Circe’s island. We may first notice some similarities between the Homeric and Ovidian passages:

1.) The Greeks are said to grieve for their lost companions when approaching the shore (Od.133-4≈Met.14.242b-3).

2.) The comrades are reluctant to advance to the island, thinking of the dreadful loss they suffered because of the Cyclops and Laestrygonians (Od.198-202≈Met.14.249-50).

And now let us consider the differences between the passages:

1.) In the Odyssey, we find an elaborate description of Circe’s genealogy (10.135b-139). In the Metamorphoses however, we merely hear that Circe’s island is best to be seen from afar (14.243-245).

2.) In the Odyssey, the genealogy is followed by the stag episode (10.156-82), which is missing in the Metamorphoses. I have already addressed this in the previous section.

3.) The Greeks are said to have camped on the shore for two days in the Odyssey. According to Macareus, the comrades were dispatched immediately.

(ad 1) Odysseus introduces Circe by naming her parentage. The fact that she is the daughter of Helios and the granddaughter of Oceanus is of particular relevance to him, because this means that she is the one who can provide him with the necessary details for his journey to the Underworld.126 Macareus however, deserts the Greeks when they are informed about this very journey, so Circe’s genealogy (and her knowledge) is not as important to him. He is as brief in describing her as he was with Aeolus.

125 Bömer attributes the brevity of the Ulysses and Circe episode to the poet, and states that it leaves space for inserting the tale of Picus and Canens (p.89). Myers does not provide an explanation. 126 Cf. De Jong 2001: 256, 277.

(ad 4) As mentioned before, Odysseus aims to display his thoughtful nature as leader of his comrades, and provides them with days of rest and a meal in order to appease them. In contrast, Macareus explains how he and his comrades were immediately dispatched after having just reached the island. By omitting not only the feast, but also the days of rest the Greeks received, Macareus depicts a different (and perhaps somewhat inconsiderate?) Ulysses who insists on exploring the island instantly.

3.7.2 Reaching the palace

In both Odyssey and Metamorphoses it is said that the embassy was chosen by lottery. Odysseus explains how he divided his men in two groups, and shook lots in a helmet through which it was determined that Eurylochus’ party was to investigate the land (Od.10.203-7). Macareus states that his group was chosen similarly: vs. 250-1 tecta ignota subire sorte sumus lecti “we were chosen by lot to explore the unknown palace”. The comrades then proceed to the palace, where they find wild animals as guardians. Both versions inform us that the comrades were afraid of them at first, but the fear vanished when the animals turned out to be friendly. Next to these similarities, some differences may be recognized:

1.) According to Odysseus, Eurylochus’ group consisted of 23 men in total (Od.10.208). Macareus states that the embassy was made up from 22 men (Met.14.251-2).

2.) In the Metamorphoses, it is said that the men stumbled upon a thousand beasts (14.255). The Odyssey does not mention the number of animals.

(ad 1) I find it quite remarkable that the Ovidian version omits one comrade. If Ovid aimed to ‘correct’ Homer by introducing one more comrade to Odysseus’ journey and thereby perhaps surpass him, then one would expect him to make mention of not 22, but 24 men. Perhaps we might assume, like Bömer suggests, that Ovid did not read Homer very precisely and misunderstood the amount of men sent out.127

(ad 2) Macareus (probably) exaggerates the amount of wild beasts he encountered. Myers suggests that Ovid does so to surpass Virgil’s description of the same situation formae magnorum… luporum (Aen. 7.18).128 In my judgement, Macareus’ hyperbole serves as a representation of his fear of the animals. By stating to his friend Achaemenides that it was not just a few lions and bears, but a thousand, he emphasizes how frightening the throng of beasts was. Moreover, he mentions that there were not only lions and wolves (which corresponds with the Odyssey, 10.212, 218-9), but also bears in front of the palace. The addition of bears has been explained as an “Italian colour” to the story, or as a parallel with Virgil’s lions, wolves, swine and bears

127 Bömer 1986: 93. Myers does not explain the discrepancy (2009:106). 128 Myers 2009: 106.

(Aen.7.15-8).129 These solutions may be expanded: on an intertextual level, Ovid transcends Homer by adding another species to the enchanted animals. And narratologically speaking, the bears could also signal Macareus’ fear. The comrades stumbled not only on lions and wolves, but also on bears.

3.7.3 Welcomed by Circe

When the comrades realized that the animals were actually harmless, they decided to enter Circe’s palace. The subsequent events are described somewhat different in the Metamorphoses:

1.) According to Odysseus, his trusted comrade Polites proposed to call out to the woman who was singing inside the palace, in order to be invited in. The comrades yelled, and Circe, who heard them, opened the doors and welcomed them in the palace (10.226-231). Macareus narrates how Circe’s maids received them and led them to Circe’s court (14.259-61a).

2.) At this point in Ovid’s version, we are told about Circe’s dress (14.261b-63). This is mentioned later in the Odyssey, 10.543-545. She is also said to sit on a throne, with her maids around her, which is not the case in the Odyssey.

3.) Homer’s Circe is said to be weaving upon the arrival of the Greeks (10.222-3); Ovid’s Circe and her handmaids are said not to be engaged in this activity. Instead, we learn that Circe and her maids possess ample knowledge of the effects of herbs (14.264-70).

4.) In the Odyssey, we read that Circe immediately made the comrades a potion after they had been welcomed in the palace (10.233-236). In the Metamorphoses, Circe first welcomed them with favourable responses and only afterwards prepared them a drink (14.271-2).

(ad 1) The Metamorphoses make no mention of Polites’ suggestion, we are solely told that Polites was Ulysses’ trusted comrade (14.251 fidumque Politen) which is an echo of Odyssey 10.224-5: Πολίτης ὅς μοι κήδιστος ἑτάρων ἦν κεδνότατός τε (“Polites, who was the dearest and most trusty of my comrades”). The commentaries do not explain the discrepancy; they merely explain that fidum functions as an allusion to Homer’s Polites.130 I think that Macareus omits Polites’ suggestion in order to reduce the role the latter and the comrades play in entering Circe’s harmful palace. He puts the emphasis on the famulae (not mentioned in the Odyssey!), who guide the Greeks into the palace. He presents the situation as if the comrades did not have a choice but to set foot in the palace. In my view, this heightens the pathos felt for him and the comrades.

129 Horsfall as cited in Myers (2009: 106) and Myers (ibid.) respectively. 130 Bömer 1986: 92 and Myers 2009: 105.

(ad 2) In the Homeric ‘welcoming scene’, the maids are not present at all; Circe herself opens the door. According to Macareus however, Circe sat on a beautiful throne, wore a purple robe (palla)131 and a golden veil, and was attended by Nereids and nymphs (not to be confused with the aforementioned famulae). Haupt-Ehwald propose that Ovid depicts his Circe as a “römische Matrone inmitten ihrer Sklavinnen”.132 I agree; this portrayal of Circe makes her appear very powerful, which is understandable if we consider our narrator-focalizer Macareus. In his view, Circe is a potent woman.

(ad 3) It is explicitly negated that Ovid’s Circe participated in the customarily feminine activity of weaving.133 Macareus unfolds how Circe’s Nereids and nymphs are primarily occupied with picking out plants, and that Circe knows the effect of every herb. Segal poses that it is “because he concentrates on the elemental qualities of Circe-passion, magic, Titanic ancestry-that Ovid leaves out the Homeric details of her singing and weaving”.134 According to Myers, Ovid does so to emphasize “Circe’s magical powers by representing her home as an herbal pharmacy”.135

And from an intertextual point of view, it indeed seems that Ovid’s Circe is a more negative figure, mainly concerned with sorcery, whereas Homer’s Circe is characterized by contrasting qualities (she is dangerous yet generous).136 But let us expand this with a narratological lens. Myers appears to miss the fact that Macareus merely explains (according to his experiencing focalization) that he observes Circe’s affinity with herbs. At this point, he does not depict her as a witch. In fact, he does not yet have knowledge of Circe’s magical powers, because he and his comrades accepted the drink she offered the men without thinking twice, as they were very thirsty (vs.276-7).

(ad 4) In comparison with Odysseus, Macareus narrates more intricately what occurred when the Greeks set foot in Circe’s halls. At this point of the story, Odysseus was not present at the palace; he only hears later from Eurylochus what happened there. Macareus, in contrast, was there in Ovid’s version of the story. Therefore, he would give a more detailed report of how Circe’s welcome took place. And perhaps the fact that Circe first smiled at the comrades and then bewitched them, makes her appear even more treacherous. 137

131 On the association of this robe with deities, singers and poets, see McKeown 1987, Am.1.8.59-60. 132 Haupt-Ehwald 1966. 133 Fantham et. al. (2004: 10) suggest that Ovid “corrects” Homer and Virgil by negating the weaving. The negation may also be seen as merely an intertextual signal; Ovid refers to Homer and Virgil and decides to deviate from what they wrote. 134 Segal 1968: 439. 135 Myers 2009: 107. 136 The multiple qualities of Homeric Circe have been discussed thoroughly by McClymont 2008. 137 Myers provides a translation of verse 272, but does not address the difference with the Odyssey (2009: 108).

3.7.4 The transformation

After having welcomed her guests, Circe provides them with a drink made from cheese, barley, honey, wine and baleful herbs/juices (Od. 10.234-5≈Met.14.273-76a). She then strikes them with her wand and changes the men into pigs (Od.10.238-40≈Met.14.276b-86a). There are three significant differences between the two versions:

1.) In the Odyssey, Circe herself prepared the drink; in the Metamorphoses, she orders her maids to execute this task (273: misceri iubet), she only puts the juices in herself (275-6a sucos adicit).

2.) The herbs in Homer’s version are supposed to make the men forget their native land (10.236).138 This aspect of the herbs (juices) is left unmentioned in Ovid’s version.

3.) The transformation is described more elaborately in the Metamorphoses.

(ad 1+2) Myers states that “Circe mixes the drink […] in which she places the magical juices to transform Odysseus’ men” and thereby neglects the fact that Circe actually ordered her maids to mix the beverage.139 Bömer does acknowledge this and adds that the command corresponds with Circe’s position as domina, and with her qualities as venefica, with which I agree.140 I also think that this specific discrepancy with the Odyssey contributes to Circe’s ominous personality. Homer’s Circe prepared the entire potion for the men and it is not said explicitly that she attempts to hide the herbs; Ovid’s Circe only adds the malevolent juices and does so secretly (vs. 275: furtim). In addition, Homer’s Circe wants the Greeks to forget about their home (a recurrent theme in the Apologoi) and it is for this reason that she adds the herbs.141 Such a motivation is lacking in the Metamorphoses, which increases Circe’s character as a dangerous witch who strikes arbitrarily.

(ad 3) We have seen in 3.4.2 that Macareus’ description of his metamorphosis is rather detailed and comprises seven lines, cf. Galinsky: “He [Ovid] treats us to one of the most graphic and detailed metamorphosis descriptions in the poem, that of the men into swine.”142 In contrast, the same transformation is described in merely two lines in the Odyssey (10.239-40). In my judgement, this is another fine example of the relevance of the narrator-focalizer for the narration of events. Odysseus does not suffer a metamorphosis, but merely hears about it afterwards. As it did not make an immediate impact on him, it makes sense that he does not describe it very elaborately. Macareus however, is the one who undergoes the transformation. To him, this event

138 For a more detailed discussion of memory-altering drugs in the Odyssey, see Henry 2012. 139 Myers 2009: 108. 140 Bömer 1986: 98. 141 The exact effect of the drugs is a much debated point, see De Jong 2001: 259, Fantham et al. 2004: 8. 142 Galinsky 1975: 234.

55 is a momentous one that has affected him directly. Surely, he would then tell his comrade Achaemenides about every aspect of it. This would, I think, also explain why he pays so much attention to narrating the story of Circe in comparison with the Aeolus and Laestrygonians episodes.

3.7.5 The rescue

At this point of the story, the comrades have been transformed and imprisoned. In both versions, Eurylochus rushes back to the shore, in order to warn Odysseus for the fate of his men. The hero then sets out to rescue his comrades and receives aid from Hermes, who provides him with the rare plant moly, and instructs him how to make Circe free his companions. Circe eventually reverses the metamorphosis and the men are happily reunited with their leader. The most striking differences between the two versions may be summed up as follows:

1.) Many details of the rescue are missing in the Metamorphoses, such as the exact instructions that Hermes provided Odysseus with, the long description of Circe’s maids, Odysseus’ bath and the meal he was given, and the conversations between Circe and Odysseus before and after the reversal of the transformations.

2.) Homer’s Circe must swear an oath not to cause Odysseus any further harm; in Ovid’s version, Ulysses and Circe actually pledge their faith to each other.

3.) Homer’s Circe is said to make the men look far prettier and younger than they were before (10.395-6). In the Metamorphoses, the men look the same as before (14.304 redeunt umeri etc…).

(ad 1) Ovid often limits larger Odyssey passages to but a few words, of which I will give a few examples.143 Homer’s Eurylochus and Odysseus had a relatively long exchange of words on the beach: it occupies 30 verses (10.244- 274). Eurylochus’ role in the rescue of the men is condensed to four verses in the Metamorphoses (14.287-90). Moreover, the conversation between the two is not mentioned at all, we merely learn that if it were not for Eurylochus, then Ulysses would not have come to avenge the men. Likewise, the advice that Hermes gives Odysseus comprises over 20 lines in Homer’s epic (10.281-301). Ovid literally translates some verses from this scene,144 yet he also abbreviates those 20 lines in one word: monitis (vs. 293).

This brevity can be explained from an intertextual perspective. Ovid’s imagined audience already knows these aspects to the story from Homer, so it makes sense that Ovid does not specify these details. We may augment this with a narratological perspective. Macareus was not a participant

143 Likewise, Ovid extensively abbreviates much of Virgil’s Aeneid, cf. Rutherford 2005: 43. 144 Such as 14.292: moly vocant superi, nigra radice tenetur, which corresponds to Od.10.304-5: ῥίζῃ μὲν μέλαν ἔσκε, […]μῶλυ δέ μιν καλέουσι θεοί.

56 in either meeting, he was told about them later. He would thus only be able to recount these events with his hindsight knowledge and not, like Odysseus, with actual eyewitness knowledge, cf. Bömer (on the ‘moly’ passage): “was jetzt folgt, kann Macareus, in suem mutatus, nicht gesehen, sondern nur von Odysseus später gehört haben.”145

(ad 2) Hermes advised Odysseus to frighten Circe with his sword, then lie with her and finally urge her to swear a great oath. Odysseus minimizes the sexual relationship he had with Circe by recounting the domestic activities of Circe’s servants.146 Ovid significantly deviates from Homer in combining the sexual relationship and the oath: in his poem, Ulysses and Circe pledge mutual faith to each other and Ulysses demands his men as dowry. Ovid employs marriage terminology here: thalamoque receptus, coniugii dotem (vs.297-98) and so it appears as if the two have been married.

According to Myers this “witty play on Roman marriage convention” is used “perhaps here loosely of Ulysses and Circe’s affair”.147 I think that Myers downplays the discrepancy with the Odyssey and neglects the fact that Macareus reports his rescue as a wedding gift. This terminology could not have been used in the Odyssey, a poem in which one of the larger themes is the loyalty between the couple Penelope and Odysseus. In contrast, their marriage is not the main theme of the Metamorphoses. Likewise, the union between Penelope and Odysseus is of little interest to Macareus, as he is not a part of it. Surely, it does not matter to him then whether Ulysses/Odysseus and Circe are presented as merely lovers or as actual husband and wife.

(ad 3) In the previous sections, we have seen that Homeric Circe is a much more nuanced and sympathetic figure than the Ovidian one. I have suggested that this characterization can be attributed to not only the poet, but also the narrator-focalizer. In my opinion, the fact that the men are not made younger, nor prettier in the Metamorphoses serves as another example of how Ovid’s Circe is perceived as an unsympathetic sorceress. Unlike the Homeric Circe, she does not attempt to make amends with Odysseus’ men by beautifying them. Another detail from which follows that Odyssean Circe is more compassionate than Ovid’s: the first Circe herself is moved when she witnesses the emotional reunion of Odysseus and his men (Od. 10.399). This is not mentioned in the Metamorphoses, which causes Ovidian Circe to appear much less kind-hearted.

3.7.6 The final stop

After the reversal of the transformation, the Greeks stayed at Circe’s palace for a year. In the Odyssey, the story continues with the death of Elpenor, one of Odysseus’ comrades. Whilst being

145 Bömer 1986: 103. 146 See De Jong 2001: 262. 147 Myers 2009: 110.

57 inebriated, Elpenor fell off the roof of Circe’s palace. Odysseus meets him in the Underworld, upon which Elpenor asks the hero to give him a proper burial. Odysseus then grants his wish. As the tale is already known from Homer, Ovid merely alludes to this through a hint: vs.252 nimiique Elpenora vini “Elpenor, of excessive wine”. He then demonstrates his creativity as a poet and inserts the story of Picus and Canens.

The story of Elpenor is of relevance in the Odyssey, as it “adds to the characterization of *Odysseus as a solicitous leader”.148 I suggest that the opposite happens in the Metamorphoses. We have seen before that Macareus’ attitude towards Ulysses is rather neutral. There are several elements in the Circe episode which point to the same attitude. Next to the omission of the ‘stag scene’ and the fact that Ulysses is not praised for saving the comrades (unlike Aeneas, who is celebrated excessively by Achaemenides), the reduction of the Elpenor story contributes to Macareus’ neutral, perhaps even somewhat negative, perspective on hero Ulysses. He does not seem very concerned with portraying Ulysses as an overly mindful chief. He omits nearly every detail that would point towards such a depiction, and instead emphasizes the sufferings he himself went through because of his leader.

Another example of Macareus’ bias towards Ulysses, is Macareus’ decision to desert the company upon hearing about the dangers of the journey that is set to the Underworld, vs. 438- 440: ancipitesque vias et iter Titania vastum dixerat et saevi restare pericula ponti pertimui, fateor, nactusque hoc litus adhaesi

“The Titaness had told us about the dubious ways, the deserted road, and the dangers of the savage sea that were yet to come. I was afraid, I admit, and having landed on this shore, decided to remain here”

We learn that Macareus was disheartened by the impending perils described by Circe.149 Perhaps he would have continued the journey if he had thought very highly of his captain Ulysses. But the troubles he already suffered were probably crucial in his decision-making and outbalanced another mission with Ulysses, so he decided for himself that Caieta should be his final destination.

148 De Jong 2001: 274. 149 Cf Myers 2009: “Macareus’ version [of Circe’s instructions] stresses the dispiriting effect her list of trials had on him, […] leading him to abandon the journey.” (p.129).

I hope to have shown how Ovid’s version depicts a Circe, who is quite dissimilar to Homer’s Circe. The emphasis lays predominantly on her status as a dangerous sorceress.150 Most scholars attribute this discrepancy in characterization solely to the poet Ovid , e.g. Yarnall:

“On the whole, Ovid is not untrue to Homer’s Circe; he just seems not much interested in her, much preferring his own casting of the goddess as spurned, revengeful Queen of Lust.”151

But my suggestion is that Ovid ingeniously employs the identity of Macareus as secondary narrator-focalizer in order to tell the famous Circe story in a different way, and to accentuate different aspects. As we have seen in the previous chapter, Macareus has his own motives when recounting the events, and the same happens here. He omits some events that are of little interest to him, like the ‘bathing scene’, and dwells on events that affected him greatly, such as his metamorphoses. His portrayal of Circe is not nuanced, like it is in the Odyssey. He is clearly biased towards her, since he has suffered at her hand. And his attitude towards Ulysses remains neutral, if not slightly unfavourable. Overall, it appears to be quite transparent that Macareus has his own perspective and opinion on well-known events and characters.

150 Cf. Otis 1970, who describes Circe as a “malicious sorceress” (p.291) and Galinsky 1975 on Circe’s “sinister, demonic and brutalizing aspects” (p.234). 151 Yarnall 1994: 91.

Conclusion

In this thesis, I aimed to enrich intertextual approaches to the Ovidian version of the Apologoi with a narratological perspective. I wondered whether differences between the Metamorphoses and the Odyssey may be explained by considering not only the poet, but also the narrator-focalizer, who thus served as an extra parameter of analysis. My research question therefore was: how does Ovid employ the identity of his narrator-focalizers to tell the well-known Apologoi differently? I have attempted to answer this question by analysing four of Odysseus’ adventures, of which the first was narrated by Achaemenides and the other three by Macareus.

I have collected the most significant differences between the Homeric and Ovidian versions of the four adventures, and shown that some Odyssean events are missing from Achaemenides’ and Macareus’ narratives, e.g. the ‘stag episode’. An intertextual explanation might simply say that the implied audience of the Metamorphoses was supposed to be familiar with these elements of the story and that it would therefore have been superfluous to repeat them. But a narratological analysis can offer more precise explanations as to why particular elements are left out: either 1.) the narrator-focalizer in question was not present when these events occurred and thus was not able to recount them, or 2.) these events did not have a significant impact on him, or 3.) he had less reason than the Homeric secondary narrator Odysseus to pay much attention to these events.

Secondly, I have shown how some events were either added or recounted differently. An example of such an additional event is Achaemenides’ frightened stay with Polyphemus after the Greeks escaped from the Cyclops’ island. And we have seen for instance that, in comparison with the Odyssey, the degree of immediacy was much higher as a result of Macareus’ eyewitness account of his pursuit by the Laestrygonians. Moreover, major characters from the Odyssey (such as Odysseus and Circe) appeared to be depicted in a different way, because they are now looked at through the eyes of minor characters and more simple men like Achaemenides and Macareus. The Cyclops adventure is not recounted by the resourceful hero Odysseus, but by his helpless comrade. The other three adventures are told by Macareus, who seems to have his own agenda and intentions, and accordingly accentuates different aspects of the famous stories. These secondary narrator-focalizers (are made to) convey their own experiences, feelings and opinions on the characters and events that we already know from Homer’s epic. Changing the narratological parameters allowed Ovid new forms of intertextuality, and thus to exhibit his creativity as a poet. Ovid indeed recreated the Apologoi as completely as possible and employed different characters to tell them from a fresh perspective.

Bibliography

Primary literature

Homer. Odyssey, Volume I: Books 1-12. Translated by A. T. Murray. Revised by George E. Dimock. Loeb Classical Library 104. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919.

Ovid. Metamorphoses, Volume II: Books 9-15. Translated by Frank Justus Miller. Revised by G. P. Goold. Loeb Classical Library 43. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916.

Virgil. Eclogues. Georgics. Aeneid: Books 1-6. Translated by H. Rushton Fairclough. Revised by G. P. Goold. Loeb Classical Library 63. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916.

Virgil. Aeneid: Books 7-12. Appendix Vergiliana. Translated by H. Rushton Fairclough. Revised by G. P. Goold. Loeb Classical Library 64. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1918.

Secondary literature

Abrahamson, E. (1956). “The Adventures of Odysseus.”, The Classical Journal, 51(7): 313-316.

Anderson, W. S. (Ed.). (1997). Ovid's Metamorphoses. Oklahoma.

Armstrong, R. (2015). Ovid and his Love Poetry. Bloomsbury.

Austin, N. (1972). “Name Magic in the Odyssey.” California Studies in Classical Antiquity, 5: 1-19.

Barber, S. (2011). “The Presentation and Influence of Ovid’s Circe”, Oxford.

Barchiesi, A. (1993). “Future Reflexive: Two Modes of Allusion and Ovid's Heroides.”, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 95: 333-365.

Barchiesi, A. (2002). “Narrative Technique and Narratology in the Metamorphoses”, in: Hardie, P. (Ed.) (2002). The Cambridge Companion to Ovid. Cambridge, 180-99.

Basto, R. (1982). “The Grazing of Circe's Shore: A Note on Aeneid 7.10”, Classical World: A Quarterly journey on Antiquity, 76 (1): 39.

Beck, D. (2005). “Odysseus: Narrator, Storyteller, Poet?”, Classical Philology, 100 (3): 213-227.

Bernbeck, E.J. (1967). Beobachtungen zur Darstellungsart in Ovids Metamorphosen, Zetemata 43, Munich.

Bömer, F. (1986). P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen. Kommentar (XIV-XV). Heidelberg.

Bowie, A. M., de Jong, I. J., & Nünlist, R. (Eds) (2004). Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative. Leiden.

Brown, C. G. (1996). “In the Cyclops' Cave: Revenge and Justice in Odyssey 9.”, Mnemosyne, 49 (1): 1-29.

Brown, C. S. (1966). “Odysseus and Polyphemus: the Name and the Curse.”, Comparative Literature, 18 (3): 193-202.

Browning, J.E. (1990). “Sin, Eve, and Circe: Paradise Lost and the Ovidian Circe Tradition.”, Milton Studies 26: 135-157.

Caputo, P. et al. (1996). Cuma e il suo parco archeologico. Un territorio e le sue testimonianze. Rome.

De Jong, I. J.F. (1987). Narrators and Focalizers. The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad. Amsterdam.

De Jong, I.J.F. (2001). A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey. Cambridge.

De Jong, I. J. F. (Ed.) (2012). Space in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative, volume three. Leiden.

De Jong, I. J. F. (2014). Narratology and Classics: a practical guide. Oxford.

De Jong, I. J. F. (2019). “From Oroskopia to Ouranoskopia in Greek and Latin Epic”, Symbolae Osloenses, 93 (1): 12-36.

Ellsworth, J. D. (1986). “Ovid’s “Aeneid” Reconsidered (Met. 13.623-14.608).”, Vergilius (1959): 27-32.

Ellsworth, J. D. (1988). “Ovid's “Odyssey”: Met. 13,623-14,608”, Mnemosyne, 41 (3/4): 333-340.

Fantham, E., Coleman, K., & Rutherford, R. (2004). Ovid's Metamorphoses. Oxford.

Fisher, N.R.E. (1992). Hybris: a Study of the Values of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greece. Warminster.

Frank, T. (1930). “What Do We Know about Vergil?”, The Classical Journal 26 (1): 3-11.

Fraser, A. D. (1933). “The Origin of Aeolus.”, The Classical Journal, 28 (5): 364-366.

Galinsky, K. (1969). Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome. Princeton.

Galinsky, K. (1975). Ovid's Metamorphoses: an Introduction to the Basic Aspects. California.

Harrison, S.J. (1990). “Some Views of the Aeneid in the Twentieth Century”, in: S.J. Harrison (Ed.), Oxford Readings in Vergil’s Aeneid. Oxford: 1-20 (1991) Vergil, Aeneid 10. Oxford.

Haslam, M. W. (1991). “Aiolos' Cousin.”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 87: 297-299.

Haupt, M., & Ehwald, R. (1966). P. Ovidius Metamorphosen. Weidmann.

Henry, M. (2012). “Witchy Woman: Power, Drugs, and Memory in the Odyssey.”, Berkeley Undergraduate Journal of Classics, 1(1): 1-8.

Heubeck, A., & Hoekstra, A. (1989). A Commentary on Homer's Odyssey, Volume II: Books IX-XVI. Oxford.

Hinds, S. (1998). Allusion and Intertext: dynamics of appropriation in Roman poetry. Cambridge.

Hopman, M. (2012). “Narrative and Rhetoric in Odysseus' Tales to the Phaeacians.”, American journal of philology, 133 (1): 1-30.

Horsfall, N. (2000). Virgil, Aeneid 7: A Commentary. Leiden, Boston and Cologne.

Hutchinson, G. O. (2007). “The Monster and the Monologue: Polyphemus from Homer to Ovid”, in Hesperos: Studies in Ancient Greek Poetry Presented to ML West on his Seventieth Birthday (Vol. 22).

Hutchinson, G. O. (2011). “Telling Tales: Ovid’s Metamorphoses and Callimachus,” in: D. Obbink and P.J. Parsons (Eds) (2011), Culture in Pieces: Essays on Ancient Texts in Honour of Peter Parsons, 239-61.

Johnston, P.A.(1998). “Juno's Anger and the Sibyl at Cumae.”, Vergilius (1959-): 13-23.

Kinsey, T. E. (1979). “The Achaemenides Episode in Virgil's Aeneid III”, Latomus, 38 (1): 110- 124.

Kirby, J. T. (1989). “Humor and the Unity of Ovid's Metamorphoses: A Narratological Assessment”, Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, 5: 233-51.

Korfmacher, W.C. (1956). "Vergil, spokesman for the Augustan reforms.", The Classical Journal 51 (7): 329-334.

Kroon, C. H. M. (2007). “Discourse Modes and the Use of Tenses in Ovid’s Metamorphoses.”, in Allan, R. and Buijs, M. (Eds) (2007). The Language of Literature: Linguistic Approaches to Classical Texts. Leiden, 65-92.

Lafaye, G. (1904). Les Métamorphoses d’Ovide et eurs Modèles Grecs. Paris.

Lateiner, D. (1997). “Homeric prayer.”, Arethusa 30 (2): 241-272.

Libatique, D. (2015). “A Narratological Investigation of Ovid's Medea: Met. 7.1–424”, Classical World, 109 (1): 69-89.

Lloyd, R. B. (1957). “Aeneid III and the Aeneas legend.”, The American Journal of Philology, 78 (4): 382-400.

Lloyd-Jones, H. (1983). Justice of Zeus (Vol. 41). California.

Ludwig, W. (1965). Struktur und Einheit der Metamorphosen Ovids. Berlin.

Mack, S. (1999). “Acis and Galatea or Metamorphosis of Tradition.”, Arion: A Journal of Humanities and the Classics, 6 (3): 51-67.

McClymont, J. D. (2008). “The Character of Circe in the Odyssey.”, Akroterion, 53 (1): 21-29.

McKay, A. G. (1966). “The Achaemenides episode: Vergil, Aeneid III, 588-691.”, Vergilius (1959): 31-38.

McKeown, J. C. (1987). Ovid’s Amores I. Text and prolegomena. Cambridge.

Moskalew, W. (1988). “The Cyclops, Achaemenides, and the Permutations of the Guest-host Relationship in Aeneid 1-4”, Vergilius (1959-): 25-34.

Most, G. W. (1989). “The Structure and Function of Odysseus' Apologoi”, Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-), 119: 15-30.

Myers, S. (2004). “Italian myth in Metamorphoses 14: themes and patterns.”, Hermathena, 177/178: 91-112.

Myers, S. (2009). Ovid, Metamorphoses XIV. Cambridge.

Nagle, B.R. (1980). The Poetics of Exile. Brussels.

Nagle, B. R. (1984). “Amor, Ira, and Sexual Identity in Ovid's Metamorphoses.”, Classical Antiquity, 3 (2): 236-255.

Nagle, B. R. (1988). “A Trio of Love-Triangles in Ovid's Metamorphoses”, Arethusa, 21 (1): 75-98.

Newlands, C. (1992). “Ovid's Narrator in the Fasti”, Arethusa, 25 (1): 33-54.

Newlands, C. (2008). “Ovid”, in: J.M. Foley (Ed.) (2008). A companion to ancient epic. John Wiley & Sons, 476-491.

Otis, B. (1970). Ovid as an Epic Poet. Cambridge.

Peek, P. S. (2003). “Procne, Philomela, Tereus in Ovid's Metamorphoses: A Narratological Approach”, Antichthon, 37: 32-51.

Prince, G. (2003). A dictionary of narratology. Nebraska.

Putnam, M. C. (1995). Virgil's Aeneid: interpretation and influence. North Carolina.

Radermacher, L. (1915). “Die Erzählungen der Odyssee”, Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien / Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 187 (1): 1-59.

Ramminger, J. (1991). “Imitation and Allusion in the Achaemenides Scene (Vergil, Aeneid 3.588- 691)”, The American Journal of Philology, 112 (1): 53-71.

Riddehough, G. B. (1959). “Man-into-beast changes in Ovid.”, Phoenix, 13 (4): 201-209.

Römisch, E. (1976). “Die Achaemenides-Episode in Vergils Aeneis”, in H. Görgemanns en E.A. Schmidt (Eds) (1976), Studien zum antiken Epos. Beitrage zur klassischen Philologie 72, Meisenheim am Glan, 208-227.

Ross, A. (1984). “Virgil and the Augustans,” in C. Martindale (ed.) (1984), Virgil and his Influence. Bristol, 141-158.

Rutherford, R. (2005). Classical Literature. A Concise History. Blackwell.

Segal, C. (1968). “Circean Temptations: Homer, Vergil, Ovid.”, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 99: 419-442. Johns Hopkins.

Segal, C. (1971). “Ovid's Metamorphoses: Greek Myth in Augustan Rome.” Studies in Philology, 68 (4): 371-394.

Segal, C. (2002). “Black and White Magic in Ovid's Metamorphoses: Passion, Love, and Art.”, Arion: A Journal of Humanities and the Classics, 9 (3):1-34.

Sharrock, A. R. (1987). “Ars Amatoria 2.123-42: Another Homeric Scene in Ovid.”, Mnemosyne, 40 (3/4): 406-412.

Soerink, J. (2017). “”Homerus noemt mij niet” Achaemenides in Vergilius, Aeneis 3.”, Lampas. Tijdschrift voor classici, 50 (1): 76-95.

Solodow, J. B. (1988). The World of Ovid's Metamorphoses. North Carolina.

Stoffelen, V. (1994). “Vergil's Circe: Sources for a Sorceress.”, L'Antiquité Classique, 63: 121-135.

Suerbaum, W. (1968). “Die Ich-Erzählungen des Odysseus. Überlegungen zur epischen Technik der Odyssee”, Poetica 2: 150–177.

Thomas, R. F. (2001). Virgil and the Augustan reception. Cambridge.

Thomas, R. F. (2009). “Ovid’s reception of Virgil.”, in: P.E. Knox & J. Wiley (Eds) (2009). A companion to Ovid. Maiden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 294-307.

Wheeler, S. M. (1999). A Discourse of Wonders: Audience and Performance in Ovid's Metamorphoses. Pennsylvania.

Williams, R.D. (Ed.) (1962). P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Liber Tertius. Oxford.

Wills, J. (1996). Repetition in Latin poetry: figures of allusion. Oxford.

Yarnall, J. (1994). Transformations of Circe: the history of an enchantress. Illinois.

Dictionaries

Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon, http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#eid=1 (consulted lastly on June 11th)

Lewis and Short Latin-English Lexicon, http://perseus.uchicago.edu/Reference/lewisandshort.html (consulted lastly on June 11th)