1
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: radhika.sahtie@student.uva.nl radhika_sahtie@live.nl Student number: 10714553
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. I.J.F. de Jong Second assessor: Dr. M.A.J. Heerink Word count: 20567
2 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.
(place, date) (signature)
3
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
4
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.
5 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
6 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.
7
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.
8 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 StructureThe 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
9 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).
10 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:
11 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
12 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, mandentemque videns eiectantemque cruentas ore dapes et frusta mero glomerate vomentem
“I stood bloodless and mournful, as I saw him chewing, ejecting the bloody meal from his mouth 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 oravique fugam gestu ad litusque cucurri, et movi: Graiumque ratis Troiana recepit!
“After a long time, I saw this ship from afar and I begged for escape with gestures and ran to the shore 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.
13 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.
14 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
15 “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
16 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).
17 360-412 Blinding of the
Cyclops
413-479 Escape from the cave
177-180 Achaemenides is left behind and sees the Greeks go to the sea 480-525+536-556 Odysseus reveals his name. Polyphemus throws rocks
180-87 Achaemenides hears Odysseus shouting and sees Polyphemus throwing a rock
526-535 Polyphemus’
curse
188-98 Achaemenides hears Polyphemus 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
18 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
19 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).
20 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 ἧκε δ᾽ ἀπορρήξας κορυφὴν ὄρεος μεγάλοιο, κὰδ δ᾽ ἔβαλε προπάροιθε νεὸς κυανοπρῴροιο
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 I spoke, and he became more angry at heart and broke off the peak of a high mountain and threw it in front of the dark-prowed ship.”
21 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
paene rati nocuit. Vidi, cum monte revulsum immanem scopulum medias permisit in undas
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).
“in the same way the shouting of Ulysses had nearly wrecked your ship. I watched, as he tore an enormous rock from the
mountain and threw it into the midst of the waves”
22 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
23 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.
24
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).
25 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”.
26
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 et ducis et turbae, quae tecum est credita ponto.
“Now you also, best of comrades, tell me of your 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.
27 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 StructureConsidering 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.
28 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.
29 237) 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
