mezentius and polyphemus

Mezentius and PolyphemusAuthor(s): Justin GlennSource: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 92, No. 2 (Apr., 1971), pp. 129-155Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/293327 .

Accessed: 15/11/2014 09:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheAmerican Journal of Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 82.154.32.194 on Sat, 15 Nov 2014 09:33:45 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/293327?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


AMERICAN

JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY

VOL. XCII, 2 WHOLE NO. 366

MEZENTIUS AND POLYPHEMUS.

As with most of his characters, Vergil drew inspiration from many sources in fashioning his distinctive portrait of Mezentius. These sources were basically twofold: historical (or antiquarian) and poetic. The former-as we can judge from Cato,' Livy (I, 1, 3), and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (I, 57-65)-provided the main outline, while the considerable discrepancies between them provided our poet with every justification to introduce his own embellishments and alterations. As for poetic sources, Vergil drew heavily from the battle scenes in the Iliad,2 but he also has his Mezentius echo Aeschylus' Parthenopaeus and Apol- lonius of Rhodes' Idas in making a god of his spear.3 Further, Vergil seems to have borrowed from Catullus,4 the Aithiopis,5

1 Frs. 8-12, ed. H. Peter, Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae, I (Leipzig, 1870), pp. 53-5.

This article is based on the last chapter of my unpublished disser- tation "Polyphemus and Mezentius: A Study in Homeric and Vergilian Characterization" (Princeton University, 1970), directed by Professors George E. Duckworth and Bernard Fenik, to whom I wish to express my sincere gratitude.

I For a full list of these parallels, see G. Knauer, Die Aeneis und Homer (Gittingen, 1964), pp. 371 ff.; the following are perhaps the most striking: Aen., X, 693-6 and II., XV, 618-21; Aen., X, 707-13 and II., XVII, 61-7; Aen., X, 723-8 and II., III, 23-6; Aen., X, 743-4 and II., XXII, 365-6.

With Aen., X, 773 cf. Aesch., Septem, 529, and Ap. Rhod., Arg., I, 466.

'With Aen., X, 844 cf. Cat., 64, 224. 6See T. E. Page (ed.), The Aeneid of Virgil, III (London, 1900),

ad X, 792, and E. Fraenkel, "Vergil und die Aithiopis," Philologus, LXXXVII (1932), pp. 243-8.

129



JU8TIN GLENN.

and perhaps Euripides.6 These literary influences, with the

exception of the minor parallels with Euripides I have suggested, are well known and cited in most commentaries. Surprisingly, however, the most important literary model for Vergil's Mezen- tius has been overlooked. That model, as I shall try to show, was Polyphemus. In him we find an entire series of parallels, a

phenomenon which we do not encounter in the case of Aeschylus' Parthenopaeus or Apollonius of Rhodes' Idas, etc. Recently, however, Fr. F. A. Sullivan has attempted to show a series of

parallels between Mezentius and Ajax.7 It is only proper that I give due attention to his theory before I offer my own candi- date as the more striking parallel to Mezentius.8

Sullivan's primary argument is based on the similes applied to Mezentius and Ajax in the battle scenes of Aeneid X and Iliad XVII respectively. He presents his case as follows:

[Mezentius] was a bulwark of defense, unyielding when the odds were greatest, like a great rock that juts out into the sea and braves the raving winds and waves . . . (10.693-96). At bay, surrounded by foes who shower him with their darts, he is like a boar caught in the toils (10.707 if.), a boar that snorts savagely and bristles up his shoulders and none has the courage to come near him. When he takes the offensive, he is like a lion maddened by hunger (723 if.) that springs on a timid roe or antlered stag ...

Now if we turn to Book 17 of the Iliad, we shall find these same similes (with some variations in expression and

setting) applied to Ajax as he defends the corpse of Patro- clus against the Trojans. Covering the body with his great shield (132 if.), he stood fast "like a lion over his young, when the lion is leading his whelps along and hunters come upon them." Later . . . Ajax charges the Trojans bestriding

6 With Aen., X, 904-6 cf. Eur., Ale., 365-8 and Or., 1052-3. 7 F. A. Sullivan, "Mezentius: A Vergilian Creation," . P., LXIV

(1969), pp. 219-25. 8 Another possible source for Vergil's Mezentius, we might also

observe, is the character Drona in the Mahdbhdrata. The parallels between these two figures are pointed out by J. Lallemant, "Une source de l'n6ide: le Makdbhdrata," Latomus, XVIII (1959), p. 265, and G. E. Duckworth, " Turnus and Duryodhana," T. A. P. A., XCII (1961), pp. 113-14. Although these parallels are not nearly so numerous as those between Turnus and Duryodhana (see Duckworth, ibid., pp. 103-

17) and Pallas and Abhimanyu (see Duckworth, ibid., pp. 98-103), they merit attention and further study.

130



MEZEJNTIUS AND POLYPHEMUS.

the body (281ff.) "like a savage wild boar, who among the hills easily scatters the dogs and young men when he turns at bay in the valley." Toward the end of the book (746 ff.) the two Ajaxes hold off the Trojans " as a wooded headland holds off water . . ." It was evidently this great book of the Iliad, where the courage, the obstinacy, and the fighting qualities of Ajax are so magnificent, that was much in Vergil's mind as he portrayed Mezentius display- ing his prowess.9

If we examine these similies more closely, however, I believe that we shall find the parallels not nearly so convincing as they may seem at first glance:

A. The cliff-similes. The comparison at Aen., X, 693-6 (Me- zentius), in fact, is modelled closely on II., XV, 618-21 (the Greek army as a whole), and is only very faintly similar to II., XVII, 747-51 (the two Ajaxes) 10

(1) Mezentius (Aen., X, 693-6):

. . .velut rupes vastum quae prodit in aequor, obvia ventorum furiis expostaque ponto vim cunctam atque minas perfert caelique marisque ipsa immota manens ...

(2) the Greek army (II., XV, 618-21):

X'rXov yap 7rvpyr7ov acpporesT7, rVe TrETprl fTX1i/aro JLpeyaAX7, 7roXLFs aXo.s Eyyvs covra

j TE JwVC XAyewv &ve`jwv Xaiprpat KeXCv6a KVpaTa Tr Trpo(foevTa, Ta TE T7porEcpevyETa auvrv

(3) the two Ajaxes (II., XVII, 747-51)

Atavr' taXavETrv, Ws T7 TrpV icTXavet Owp vXctF, Tre&lolO Starpvomtov r7EvX7?KcJ, oS rT KatU 6tlAOwv 7roTafizv aXeyetva peep,pa aXeL, dafap 8e re 7ranL tpoov 7resltove rIOrqaL

7rXaowOv' ov6 ri uv acrevei pr7yV0Vt peovres-

B. The boar-similes. It is true that both Mezentius and Ajax are compared to boars at Aen., X, 707-13 and II., XVII, 281-3 respectively, but boar-similes are common in the Iliad; they also

? Sullivan (note 7, above), p. 220. 10Here, as in considering the similes which follow, I am indebted to

the tables in Knauer (note 2, above), pp. 371ff.

131



JUSTIN GLENN.

occur at XI, 414-18 (Odysseus), XII, 41-8 (Hector), XIII, 471-5 (Idomeneus), and XVII, 726-8 (both Ajaxes). True, Ajax is the only figure in the Iliad involved in two boar-similes (XVII, 281-3 and XVII, 726-9), but neither simile involving Ajax corresponds closely to that which describes Mezentius at Aen., X, 707-13. Rather, as Knauer observes,11 the Vergilian simile seems to be indebted most to II., XVII, 61-7, where Menelaus is compared to a fierce lion surrounded by a throng of barking dogs and shouting people:

(1) Mezentius (Aen., X, 707-13) :

. . . velut ille canum morsu de montibus altis actus aper, multos Vesulus quem pinifer annos defendit multosque palus Laurentia, silva pastus harundinea, postquam inter retia ventum est, substitit infremuitque ferox et inhorruit armos, nec cuiquam irasci propiusque accedere virtus, sed iaculis tutisque procul clamoribus instant ...

(2) Menelaus (II., XVII, 61-7):

o 8s OTE TCS TE A(WV OpE(oCTpO(Os, a.XKt 7r7eo0s? po0xKOEvrcO S ayXeArs povv ap7rady 77 Tlt ap(tarI7 T77 8' CE avxev' Ea$e Aa/3wv KparepoTlcv oSovrat lrp&rov, e7retTa e 60' ai/La Kal y/Ka ra XaVa Aav'

vv a,utl OE TOV YE KVYE? r' av8pes -re vote 7roXXAAa uaX' LVgovCLtv a7ro1rpoOev ov'S' EOEXovactv avrtov XOef/LEvat' iaAXa yap XOwpov &sog alpet'

(3) Ajax (II., XVII, 281-3): LOvaev oe\ 8ta 7rpofaXuv cru- ctKEXO aXIrKv KarrptU, Os T' EV ope?at Kvafs aXepovq T aclr7OV\ pqiSt' EK KSaocrE V, EAt4aueLvoq &La ( 7crras'

C. The lion-similes. Mezentius (Aen., X, 723-8) and Ajax (II., XVII, 133-6) are the subjects of lion-similes, but, again, Sullivan fails to note two facts which greatly diminish this parallel. First, lion-similes are extremely common in Homer.12

Ibid., p. 418. 12 Iliad: III, 23-6 (Menelaus), X, 297 (Odysseus and Diomedes),

XI, 113-19 (Agamemnon), XI, 548-55 (Ajax), XII, 299-306 (Sarpedon), XVII, 657-64 (Menelaus); Odyssey: VI, 130-4 (Odysseus), IX, 292 (Polyphemus), and XXII, 402-5 (Odysseus). All but the Polyphemus- simile are cited by Knauer (note 2, above), pp. 418-19.

132




Second, the simile at Aen., X, 723-8 (Mezentius) is only vaguely similar to II., XVII, 133-6 (Ajax), but rather, as Knauer observes,l3 seems closely modelled on II., III, 23-6 (Menelaus): (1) Mezentius (Aen., X, 723-8):

impastus stabula alta leo ceu saepe peragrans (suadet enim vesana fames), si forte fugacem conspexit capream aut surgentem in cornua cervum, gaudet hians immane comasque arrexit et haeret visceribus super accumbens-lavit improba taeter ora cruor . . .

(2) Menelaus (II., III, 23-6): XSo T? XeOv eXCapr7 E,yXya A ert nwuaTt Kvpcas,

Ecvpv 7 iXa(fov Kepaov ') ayptov atya 7retvaowv /uaaXa yap TE KaTE(crOtE, l T7rp av avov

aoevwVTaL TaXEC re KVVES Oakepol r' atol .

(3) Ajax (II., XVII, 133-6):

eCOrrTKEL Og VS Tr XeAo) 7rEpl oLcTL TEKEca(rV, t el I C , , s o) pa Te VfrE c7OVTL Urvvav7Tqa(OVTaL ev vXZr

avSpes e7raKT7npE' o' T?E o6devei 'XpLeaLvEt, 7rTv 8e T' er7TLKVVLOV KaTo 'XKETCaL OYTE 'a KaXv7TrTOV

In summary, none of the three Ajax-similes in Iliad XVII appears to have inspired the three Mezentius-similes in Aeneid X. The most that can be said is that Ajax is the only figure in Homer who appears in a cliff-, boar-, and lion-simile. In my own judgment this is a very slender base indeed to support the view that Vergil modelled his Mezentius substantially on Homer's Ajax.

We proceed, then, to Sullivan's second link between Mezentius and Ajax. In connection with the former's notable contempt for the gods, Sullivan compares Sophocles' Ajax and suggests that this was the " heroic figure that most inspired [Vergil] as he limned his own contemptor divum ... 14 As Sullivan puts it:

That Ajax was most certainly a man of hybris. When he was leaving Salamis to go to Troy, his father warned him (Ajax 762 if.): "My son, remember to win victory with your spear, but always win it with the gods' aid." But he, in wilful arrogance, made answer: "With the gods' aid

18 Knauer, ibid. " Sullivan (note 7, above), p. 221.

133



JUSTIN GLENN.

even a man of naught may conquer; I am confident that I can snatch this glory without them." Again, when Athena urged him to turn his reeking hands against his foes (770ff.) he spoke a dread, blasphemous word: "Queen, stand beside the other Greeks, where I stand never shall the battle break us." Brutal to his enemies, a law unto himself, this Sophoclean Ajax strides to his doom with a raw, heroic self-assertiveness that awes and fascinates us.15

Admittedly these two scenes do reveal a contemptuous attitude toward the gods, but I do not find them a convincing parallel to the frequent, emphatic, almost rabid scorn for the gods which is central to Mezentius' characterization. Even a reader who has only the vaguest recollection of Mezentius will recall his impiety, which is his epithet and hallmark in his appearances in the Aeneid. I doubt very much if we can reasonably say the same about the impiety of Sophocles' Ajax. There is one Homeric character, however, who is especially flagrant in his contempt for the gods, a character who parallels Mezentius in a surprising number of other respects-Polyphemus. To these parallels we now turn.

1. Contemptor deorum

No one would dispute that contempt for the gods is crucial to Mezentius' characterization in the Aeneid. He is contemptor divum in his first appearance (VII, 648), contemptor deorum in the next (VIII, 7), and his impious words and behavior in later scenes reinforce this emphatic epithet.16 While the Aeneid contains a number of impious figures, there can be no doubt that Mezentius stands above these head and shoulders.17 Turning to Homer's Polyphemus, here too we find a perfect example of a contemptor deorum. The Cyclops' arrogant impiety is especi-

15 Ibid. 18 Cf. Aen., X, 742-4, 773-6, and 880. On the disputed interpretation

of 742-4 and 880, see J. Glenn, Polyphemus and Mezentius: A Study in Homeric and Vergilian Characterization (Ph. D. diss., Princeton Univ., 1970), pp. 201-3 and 219-23 respectively.

17 Other impious figures in the Aeneid are: Furor (I, 294ff.), Pyg- malion (I, 348 ff.), Diomedes (II, 163), Fama (IV, 298), Misenus (VI, 171 ff.), and the various mythological sinners in the underworld (VI, 393, 397, 582-603, and 617-20). Finally, Dido in her frenzy at Aeneas' deDartiri o'alls him impius at IV, 496.

134



MfEZENTI US AND POLYPHMtUS.

ally evident in his crucial exchange with Odysseus at Od., IX, 259-80. In pleading for himself and his men, the hero con- cludes with a plea that the Cyclops show respect for the gods, reminding him that Zeus accompanies strangers and suppliants (Od., IX, 269-71):

aXX' alSio, (pLfpTr(, 8OovS' LtKTat 86 TOt eltJv. ZEV. 8' 7rTLTL,lITWp iKETaOV T? LIEVWO TE,

etvtos, gs eiLvota v ap' ailsoLcrOLv 0Trr8eL.

Immediately the ogre shoots back his brutal reply, crushing the Greeks' hopes. Just as Odysseus' address was based on an appeal to the gods, so now the giant's reply is based on his contempt for them (Od., IX, 273-8):

vrrLOs ElS, c EteVi, V T'rX7Xo9ev eiXrjXovOas, o0 /WE 0?osv KE?ai E 88EL&,Ev XA aA?aO0al ov yap Kv'KXwores ALtos atytoXov aXeyovalv ov8? Ocov uLaKapwv,

' rel

' 7r' V oX EpT Epo' Ev. ov c a Er caKapcOV q VreL dTEPOeprpo

oi8' a yv 'yw Atos EX0os AXeva,evos TreL8toiqV OVTE acr ovO erTapWv, eil wj Ovp e c K EXevot.

In addition to having Polyphemus personally proclaim his own impiety, Homer also seems to emphasize this black side of the giant by depicting constantly the contrasting attitude of Odys- seus, who shows a healthy respect for the gods and sees their hand at work everywhere.'8 It is Polyphemus' open profession of impiety, however, which sets him apart from Homer's other impious figures. The suitors, it is true, are accused of impiety,19 and they are notable for their disregard for established norms of

18 Cf. Od., IX, 142, 154-5, 158, 231, 262, 269-71, 294, 381, 477-9, and 551-3. This piety admittedly is not unique or even extraordinary, but is comparable to the normal awareness of and regard for the gods dis- played by such characters as Eumaeus and Penelope. This fact, however, does not notably diminish the contrast between Odysseus' and Polyphemus' attitudes toward the divine.

19 Od., XIV, 82, 94; XX, 215; and XXII, 39. In the second of these (XIV, 94), Eumaeus says that the suitors never sacrifice (Ipe6ovat). Actually, we find several references to the suitors 1(e)peuovres (II, 56; XIV, 28; XVII, 180; XX, 250 and 391). LSJ, however, dis- tinguish between ipevetv = (1) sacrifice, and (2) slaughter; they classify Od., II, 56 under the latter. It would seem, then, that in the passages where the suitors ipe6ovrt the word has lost most if not all of its religious overtone.

135



JUSTIN GLENN.

morality, as we see in their flagrant disrespect for xeinoi.20 Yet even the suitors occasionally show some regard for the gods,21 and certainly they never make an open profession of impiety, as Polyphemus does at IX, 273 ff.22

In linking Mezentius and Polyphemus as contemptores deorum I interpret this phrase to mean "one whose attitude toward the gods is contempt, disdain, or indifference." This is essentially the interpretation defended by Henry,23 and accepted by Fow- ler,24 Sullivan,25 and Fraenkel.26 Some, however, have inter- preted this phrase to mean one who denies the existence of the gods, an " atheist." 27 Obviously, if we understand it in this way, the result would be to weaken greatly, if not destroy, this initial link between these two characters which I am attempting to establish. Polyphemus (whatever else he may be) is certainly no atheist, as is obvious from the form of his impiety at Od., IX, 275-6:

ov yap KvKAowc7r ASlo ov aiyto'ov daeyovotv ovo0? O)v /uaKapwv, e7rl 7 roXV (EpTrepot elL/ev.

What boast could be more meaningless or absurd than claiming to be more powerful than a being which does not exist? For- tunately for my argument, I believe that we may safely reject the interpretation of contemptor deorum as "atheist." Nearly

20 Od., XVII, 458 ff.; XX, 296 ff., etc. 21 Od., XVI, 400-5, and XVII, 483-7. 22Other impious figures in the Odyssey are all quite minor: Ajax,

son of Oileus (IV, 499-511) and the various mythological sinners in the underworld (XI, 308-20 and 576-600). Finally, we may note that contempt for the gods plays a relatively small role in the Iliad; for a complete list of relevant passages, see B. Fenik, Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad (Hermes Einzelschriften, XXI [Wiesbaden, 1968]), pp. 45-6.

23 J. Henry, Aeneidea, III (Dublin, 1881), pp. 630-1. 24 W. Fowler, Virgil's Gathering of the Clans (Oxford, 1916), pp.

43ff. 25 F. A. Sullivan, in Classical Essays Presented to James A. Kleist,

S.J., ed. R. Arnold (St. Louis, 1946), pp. 100-1. 26E. Fraenkel, "Some Aspects of the Structure of Aeneid VII,"

J.R.S., XXXV (1945), p. 11, n. 19. 7 See most recently K. Quinn, Virgil's Aeneid: A Critical Descrip-

tion (London and Ann Arbor, 1968), pp. 45 and 229, where Mezentius is described as an "unbeliever," an "agnostic," and an "atheist."

136




a century ago Henry built a strong case against it. He set out to show that the phrase designates "not the theoretical dis- believer in the existence of the gods, but the practical under- rater, despiser, contemner of the gods." 28 To support his interpretation Henry then surveyed the use of the word in numerous passages, and he reported that he could not find a single reference to justify the interpretation of contemptor alicuius as dis- believer in the existence of someone or something. Rather, we may say that Henry's findings apply precisely to Polyphemus, one who has a contemptuous, disdainful indifference toward the gods (but hardly a disbelief in their existence). This interpretation now has been vindicated completely by the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. First, it restricts contemptor to only the general meanings suggested by Henry. Further, under heading III, B we are referred to a passage in Livy (III, 57, 3) which should rule out an interpretation of the phrase in question as "atheist." Here Verginius speaks of Appius Claudius as a deorum hominumque contemptor. Can we really believe that this means "one who has contempt for men and who denies the existence of the gods"? If not, it is extremely unlikely that this phrase can have the same meaning in Livy's contemporary Vergil. Finally, under the same heading the T. L. L. cites the following description of Polyphemus from Ovid's Metamor- phoses (XIII, 759-61):

. . nempe ille inmitis et ipsis horrendus silvis et visus ab hospite nullo impune et magni cum dis contemptor Olympi . . .

Certainly no one would suggest that Ovid means " an atheist," "one who denied the existence of Mt. Olympus together with its gods." Quite possibly Ovid was influenced by Vergil's emphatic characterization of Mezentius as a contemptor deorum, and felt that this description was particularly apt for Poly- phemus.29 If so, perhaps Ovid sensed in Vergil a connection between Mezentius and Polyphemus, although I would not press this. At the very least, however, Ovid's lines show that

28 Henry (note 23, above), III, p. 630. 29 To judge from the T.L.L., s.v. contemptor (III, B), there are

only three contemptores deorum in Augustan poetry: Mezentius, Poly- phemus, and Pentheus (Ov., Met., III, 514).

137



JUSTIN GLEYW.

Polyphemus' character is perfectly consistent with (if not

actually suggestive of) a contemptor deorum. We might have expected that Vergil himself would have

described Polyphemus explicitly as a scorner of the gods; certainly this would have been quite consistent with the Homeric cannibal which Vergil depicts him to be in Aen., III, 622 ff. Vergil, in fact, does not do so, but this is not a serious blow to my argument. Rather, we might attribute this simply to his desire not to deviate too glaringly from the non-Homeric role which he generally assigns to the Cyclopes in both the Aeneid and the Georgics, viz., to be the workmen of Vulcan. Further, Vergil does implicitly depict Polyphemus as something of an impious figure, as we may judge from the manner in which the poet frames the giant's brutal atrocities with his victims' appeals to the gods:

. . di, talem terris avertite pestem! (III, 620) ... nos magna precati

numina sortitique vices una undique circum fundimur, et telo lumen terebramus acuto ingens . . . (III, 633-6)

In any event, we may reasonably link Polyphemus and Mezentius as the most flagrant contemptor deorum in Homer and Vergil respectively.

2. Atrocities

As well as being scorners of the gods, Polyphemus and Mezen- tius are also notable for their fiendish atrocities. The difference, of course, is that the giant's cannibalism was directed against Odysseus' own men, whereas Mezentius' tortures and murders were committed earlier against the Etruscans over whom he was tyrant. In the Aeneid, however, we find evidence that these two atrocities were linked closely in the poet's mind. Consider first Achaemenides' description of Polyphemus' cannibalism at Aen., III, 623-7:

vidi egomet duo de numero cum corpora nostro prensa manu magna medio resupinus in antro frangeret ad saxum sanieque aspersa natarent limina; vidi atro cum membra fluentia tabo manderet et tepidi tremerent sub dentibus artus ...

138




Note the similarity between this and Evander's description of Mezentius' atrocities against his former subjects at Aen., VIII, 485-8:

mortua quin etiam iungebat corpora vivis componens manibusque manus atque oribus ora, tormenti genus, et sanie taboque fluentis complexu in misero longa sic morte necabat.

The echo of Polyphemus' outrages is unmistakable, although, surprisingly enough, Forbiger is apparently the only commen- tator to point out the parallel.'0 I perhaps should anticipate here the possible objection: "Vergil would naturally use the same vocabulary in describing gory atrocities; there is no need to assume a connection between these two particular instances." We should note, however, that the two passages quoted above are the only places in the Aeneid where the three words sanies, fluens (in its varying forms), and tabum are juxtaposed.31 If Vergil used language indiscriminately in describing gory details, we would expect a closer parallel between the bloody caves of the monsters Polyphemus and Cacus than between the cannibalism of Polyphemus and the tortures of Mezentius. But the Cacus passage, in fact, contains almost no echo, since it lacks both sanies and fluens (Aen., VIII, 193-7):

hic spelunca fuit vasto summota recessu, semihominis Caci facies quam dira tenebat, solis inaccessam radiis; semperque recenti

0 A. Forbiger (ed.), P. Vergili Maronis Opera4, III (Leipzig, 1875), ad Aen., VIII, 487.

81 Sanies and tabum are both rare words in the Aeneid; each occurs only five times: (A) sanies:

(1) II, 221: death of Laocoon. (2) III, 618: description of Polyphemus' cave. (3) III, 625: atrocities of Polyphemus. (4) III, 632: Polyphemus belching out saniem. (5) VIII, 487: atrocities of Mezentius.

(B) tabum: (1) III, 29: burial place of Polydorus. (2) III, 626: atrocities of Polyphemus. (3) VIII, 197: atrocities of Cacus. (4) VIII, 487: atrocities of Mezentius. (5) IX, 472: mutilation of Nisus and Euryalus.

139



JUSTIN GLENN.

caede tepebat humus, foribusque adfixa superbis ora virum tristi pendebant pallida tabo.

A somewhat closer parallel is the description of the decapitated Nisus and Euryalus in Book IX, although it lacks sanies (Aen., IX, 465-7, 471-2):

quin ipsa arrectis (visu miserabile) in hastis praefigunt capita et multo clamore sequuntur Euryali et Nisi. ... simul ora virum praefixa movebant nota nimis miseris atroque fluentia tabo.

From these passages we may safely conclude, I believe, that there is a striking and almost certainly intentional echo in Vergil's descriptions of Polyphemus' and Mezentius' atrocities.

3. Address to an animal

While both Homer's Polyphemus and Vergil's Mezentius are emphatically impious and brutal, in the end they appear in a much more human and sympathetic light. In the case of Poly- phemus this comes about through his address to his ram (Od., IX, 447-60). The situation is more complex with Miezentius: he first commands our respect as a fearless warrior,32 and then he appears as a pitiably grief-stricken father in the scene with his dead son Lausus (X, 833-56). This sympathetic view of the Etruscan is reinforced immediately by the scene of him with his horse. While not so crucial or powerful as the address to Lausus, it still has a convincing and memorable pathos of its own. If we examine the artistic function and content of this address to the horse and compare it with Polyphemus' address to his ram, we find a number of important parallels.

2 See especially Aen., X, 732-5: atque idem fugientem haud est dignatus Oroden sternere nec iacta caecum dare cuspide vulnus; obvius adversoque occurrit seque viro vir contulit, haud furto melior sed fortibus armis.

Here we find in Mezentius not only valor, but for the first time a surprising decency. Refusing to strike down his opponent from behind, he is bent on fighting him face to face. Camilla at XI, 699 ff. shows a similar determination to meet her enemy (the son of Aunus) face to face (adversa, 719). With this we may contrast Turnus' slaying fugi- tives from behind at XII, 330.

140




Both villains at the time of these scenes have just suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of the heroes Aeneas and Odysseus. Polyphemus has been blinded, and Mezentius has been badly wounded and has suffered the loss of his son Lausus. At this point each of them appears in a moving scene with an address to an animal (Aen., X, 856-66):

. . . simul hoc dicens attollit in aegrum se femur et, quamquam vis alto vulnere tardat, haud deiectus equum duci iubet. hoc decus illi, hoc solamen erat, bellis hoc victor abibat omnibus. adloquitur maerentem et talibus infit: " Rhaebe, diu, res si qua diu mortalibus ulla est, viximus. aut hodie victor spolia illa cruenta et caput Aeneae referes Lausique dolorum ultor eris mecum, aut aperit si nulla viam vis, occumbes pariter; neque enim, fortissime, credo, iussa aliena pati et dominos dignabere Teucros."

Od., IX, 447-60:

' Kp&t 7rErov, TL /OL O8e 08&6 8 Tro o- avo rXvov vaTraos; o0 TL 7apos ye X3XEYep.LEvoCs ePXE(L ofwv, aAXa 7roAvO 7rp6TO1S VEfLcal Trpep dvsva 7ro'7sT LxaKpa ftfla/a, 7rp?TOS 8f poas Trorapx3v atKca'veL 7rpwro7 Sc aTraOpOvSe XLXCatL at a7OveecOat

aE7TrepLo Vvv acT7E 7rawvvaTaTos. ra y aVaKrTO

6f6aX!Lv 7roe?t?5, ,rv avr7p KaKOCS o.aAaroe arvv XvypotL ETrapotatn, SapaacrOa/Lvos cfpeva otVy OvrUsov,

0o 7Ov ) o(77tL 7rE64Vy,JLvov OIL?LEv oXsOpov.

E t O 0/OpOVEOl 7TOTfrooVrLFet T? yefVOto

iTrIEV 07r7r K0LVOs qJOV iLiVOs iXWaxKKaCaE' dT Ke Ot yKEycaXA ye ota ( arfo XV8Ls aJXA 0eLVO,LEVOV paaoLTo 7rpos oSi., xa8 8Ec K' vLLOV K7?p XofrEtEe KCaKwV, Tra /OL OV TtSaVO' 7ropev OVTI?.

When these two scenes are viewed together, I believe that the similarities to which I have just referred become apparent. Both occur at the downfall of a fiendish contemptor deorum at the hands of the central hero. Both scenes center around an address to an animal, the only surviving creature for which the villain has any attachments or feelings, and which is pictured (in some way, at least) as reciprocating those feelings. Both scenes clearly achieve much pathos from the addresses and the crushing isolation of the blinded giant and the bereaved, doomed Etruscan. Ultimately, as I have emphasized, the chief function

141



JUSTIN GLENN.

of both scenes is to enrich memorably the characterization of Polyphemus and Mezentius by showing a truly human dimension in them.

While stressing these similarities, I would not deny certain differences between the two scenes. The particular situation of Polyphemus is obviously not that of a warrior about to ride off to his death. Further, Polyphemus' address provides us with our only glimpse into a truly human and sympathetic dimension of his character,33 while Mezentius' address serves rather to reinforce the preceding scene's much more crucial glimpse of the new, sympathetic side of his character. These and other differences are undeniable, and they naturally result in certain differences in the content of the two addresses. Nevertheless, the over-all parallels strike me as being too great to be coinci- dental. They strongly suggest a direct Homeric influence on Vergil, especially in view of the fundamental similarity in what the two poets are doing with the same device in their treatment of character.

With these general similarities in mind, let us now consider some specific points of comparison between the two scenes. At the beginning of the Vergilian passage, we find the wounded Mezentius calling for his horse (X, 856-9):

. . . simul hoc dicens attollit in aegrum se femur et, quamquam vis alto vulnere tardat, baud deiectus equum duci iubet. hoc decus illi, hoc solamen erat.

At first glance we find nothing here to connect this relationship with that of Polyphemus and his ram. Certainly no words in Homer's scene in Od. IX provide a parallel. We must not stop here, however, for the Aeneid itself provides a striking indication that in Vergil's mind these words were connected very closely with Polyphemus. At Aen., III, 658-61 we find the blinded Cyclops described as follows:

monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen ademptum.

33 Some have attempted to view Polyphemus' other pastoral qualities and his allegedly comic aspects as presenting a human, sympathetic picture of the giant. On the whole, I find these attempts unconvincing; see Glenn (note 16, above), pp. 129-38.

142



MEZENTIU S AND POLYPHEMUS.

trunca manum pinus regit et vestigia firmat; lanigerae comitantur oves; ea sola voluptas solamenque mali.

The close relationship between this picture and that of Mezen- tius and his horse is unmistakable. The general scenes themselves are strikingly similar-the two villains reduced to a pathetic and almost helpless state, barely able to walk. The echoes in the language at the end of the two passages are abso- lutely unmistakable, as commentators frequently point out.34 No one, however, appears to have considered the possibility that this echo is only one of a number of parallels which link Me- zentius and Polyphemus.

To compare the content of the Homeric and Vergilian addresses, let us first consider Polyphemus. He begins with an affectionate, familiar address (447). Then, surprised at the ram's leaving the cave last, he dwells fondly on the animal's past behavior with sufficient details and emotion to show the close rapport between them (448-52). Somehow he senses that the ram is grieving for his blinded master, and that somehow the animal would like to help him take vengeance on Odysseus (452-7). In the course of this memorable scene, Homer adds just a touch of humanity to Polyphemus and thus renders him a truly convincing, three-dimensional figure. I say "just a touch " because Homer includes in the giant's final words an unmistakable reminder of the bestial, literally bloodthirsty streak which has dominated him:

T9) KE' Ol eyKeC(ALXs y ye 8t a(TFOS 'X0 V8Lq &XX Oeuvo,e`vov patoLro 7rpo ovSa . . . (IX, 458-9)

Turning to the content of Mezentius' address for comparison, we may note at least the following similarities. First, the tone is set similarly by the affectionate direct address to the animal at the outset (861). The Etruscan then refers briefly to their former times together, followed by a lengthier picture of the present crisis (861-5). Here he expresses the hope that his horse can share and cooperate with him in taking vengeance

4 See, e.g., Conington-Nettleship and T. E. Page (note 5, above), both ad Aen., X, 858, and E. A. Hahn, "Vergil and the 'Under-Dog,"' T. A. P A., LVI (1925), p. 202, n. 128.

143



JUSTIN GLENN.

(ultor eris mecum, 864) on his archenemy Aeneas. This seems to correspond to the wish of Polyphemus that somehow his ram might help him take vengeance on Odysseus (Od., IX, 456-7). Also similar is the subtle touch of pathos which the two poets achieve through anaphora.

Aen., X, 858-9:35

... hoc decus illi, hoc solamen erat, bellis hoc victor abibat . .

Od., IX, 448-51:

. . . ov ri 7rapo 'ye XAcAC/Au/Evoo Cpxal oiOv, daAAa 7roAv 7rpTroS VEp/alt TrpEV' avOea Tro0rL7

/LaKpa P/tca, lrp(wTOS 8e poas 'roTarywv d acKcaVc,

7rp6)TOT Se oraOJs v& XAXat'eaL airoveaa . .

Further, we may also note that the ending of the address, as was the case with Polyphemus, reminds us of the old character of Mezentius. His proud, unyielding defiance emerges clearly at X, 865-6:

. . .neque enim, fortissime, credo iussa aliena pati et dominos dignabere Teucros.

Similarly, the gory details at X, 862-3-

. . aut hodie victor spolia illa cruenta et caput Aeneae referes ...

parallel the glimpse of Polyphemus' gory brutality at Od., IX, 458-9 (quoted above). We must add, however, one important qualification. The giant's last lines bring us back to his old character in all of its brutality. The Etruscan's closing words (X, 865-6), on the other hand, are subdued at least to the extent that his former arrogance, while still as unyielding as ever, is now channeled into a defiance in the face of death that commands our respect.

It remains for us now to consider the Homeric passages which have been suggested by the commentators as parallels in some way to the address of Mezentius to his horse. They are three scenes in the Iliad: VIII, 184 ff., XVII, 437 ff., and XIX, 397 ff.

8 These words introduce Mezentius' address.

144



MEZENTIU8 AND POLYPHEMUS.

Let us first consider II., XVII, 437 if. Of the three scenes in question, this is the most superficial parallel of all. Here the horses of Achilles weep copiously as they grieve for the fallen Patroclus. Zeus looks on, touched with pity, and speaks at length of their sorrows, the sorrows of man, and of his own determination to see that the horses do not fall into the hands of the rampaging Trojans. We should note in the first place that this scene barely qualifies as an address to horses at all. True, Zeus from on high addresses the two horses a 8iAkX, etc. (443), but he really is talking aloud to himself, to his own Bvao'v (442). There are only two similarities between this address and that of Mezentius. First, both depict animals grieving: uvpop,.voLaL .. . . ro' (II., XVII, 438-9), cf. [Mezentius] adloquitur [equum] maerentem (Aen., X, 860). Second, Zeus' promise that Hector will not capture the horses (II., XVII, 448-9):

EAAX otv ua v tv ye Kat apua.t Sat8akAotovw "Ercop lIpta,p&87qF 7roX7crEra& ov yap cao'aa.

is somewhat reminiscent of Mezentius' words (Aen., X, 865-6): . . neque enim, fortissime, credo,

iussa aliena pati et dominos dignabere Teucros.

These two similarities, however, are overshadowed completely by the Homeric scene's numerous supernatural elements-immortal horses shedding streams of tears while Zeus looks on and com- ments at length. These elements obviously constitute a huge gulf between this scene and those of Mezentius (Aen., X, 856 ff.) and Polyphemus (Od., IX, 466 ff.). In both the latter scenes the poet adds an important touch of pathos by a restrained and unobtrusive indication of the animals' grief for their masters. Vergil simply describes Mezentius' horse as maerentem (X, 860), while Homer briefly expresses the same emotion in Polyphemus' ram through his masters words, v ov' y' avaKTo / o00aaXA,v 7roOLFt (IX, 452-3). The essentially human elements here stand in sharp contrast to the supernatural elements which we observed at II., XVII, 437 fE., and to which we must return again shortly in connection with II., XIX, 397 ff.

The suggested parallel at II., VIII, 184ff. likewise seems weak. Here we find Hector shouting to his four-horse team by name, urging them to hasten in order that they may capture

145



JUSTIN GLENN.

(Xad/3iev) the shield of Nestor and the breastplate of Diomedes (191-4). By their quick pursuit, he says, they will pay back the cost of their nurture. Here we have a bare similarity to the Mezentius passage in that both depict an epic warrior calling on his horse (s) to cooperate that he may win a desired objective. To this extent this Homeric scene may be regarded as a prece- dent or prototype of the Vergilian. I find no indications, however, that this particular Homeric incident had any influence on Vergil's treatment of Mezentius and his horse. The tone of the Iliadic scene is completely different; there is no affection, no pathos. Above all, there is no noteworthy insight into character. In fact, there is nothing memorable at all about the scene. It is simply another type of excited exhortation of a hopeful warrior in a battle scene full of such exhortations.

Finally, we come to II., XIX, 397-424, which, like II., VIII, 184 ff., shows an Homeric warrior's address to his horses. Unlike the latter passage, however, this is a striking and memorable scene which merits close attention. Achilles begins with a ter- rible shout to his horses (oyepSoAAEov S' I7r7roLWv iKEKXE-TO [399]), scathingly rebuking them for not bringing back Patroclus safe. At this point Hera miraculously intervenes to endow the horse Xanthus with human speech (407). He proceeds to defend himself and the other horses, transferring the blame to the gods (409-16). He also predicts the details of Achilles' own death, which lies not far off (409, 416-17). The Erinyes then check Xanthus' voice. Achilles, greatly vexed, replies that he knows of his fate, but he will not relent (420-4). The scene and the book end as Achilles drives the team forward with a shout.

This bold and imaginative scene unquestionably has certain similarities with the scene of Mezentius at the end of Aeneid X. Both depict a warrior addressing his horse(s) before an especially important battle. Both warriors crave vengeance. Achilles seeks to kill the slayer of Patroclus; Mezcntius, the slayer of Lausus. Nevertheless, I find myself in agreement with those who feel that the differences between the two scenes far outweigh the similarities. First we must note that this scene at Iliad XIX, much like that of Achilles' weeping horses at II., XVII, 437 ff., is dominated by supernatural elements. Here the goddess Hera intervenes to endow an immortal horse with the gift of prophetic speech. Thus, while II., XIX, 397 ff. (together with

146




the much less striking scene of Hector at 11., VIII, 184 ff.) may be regarded as similar to the Mezentius scene insofar as they involve the address of an epic warrior to his horse, there is obviously a huge gulf between the use of this motif by Homer and Vergil. In the words of Cartault, commenting on Aen., X, 861-6:

... le prototype du discours au cheval est homerique; II., XIX, 400 sq. .. . Virgile a completement transforme le motif; il a supprime le merveilleux un peu pueril et prgte aux paroles de Mezence une profondeur d'emotion que ne connalt pas l'Iliade . . . Virgile n'a rien emprunte a l'exhortation d'Hektor a ses chevaux, II. VIII, 184 sqq., ni a la doleur des chevaux immortels d'Achille a la mort de Patrocle, II. XVII, 437 sqq. Il s'en est tenu aux pro- portions humaines, autrement touchantes.36

Thus, in surveying the three suggested Iliadic parallels, we find a notable lack of the deep human pathos which character- izes the addresses of both Mezentius to his horse and Polyphemus to his ram. Further, the strident tone of the addresses of Achil- les and Hector is completely different from the much more subdued tone of Polyphemus and Mezentius, who convey a similarly moving affection for an animal. Finally, and perhaps most con- spicuously of all, the addresses of Mezentius and Polyphemus notably lack the supernatural elements which are so dominant both in the exchange of Achilles and Xanthus (II., XIX, 397 ff.) and in the scene of Achilles' grieving horses (II., XVII, 437 ff.).

To sum up this particular parallel, then, we may agree that the Iliad provided Vergil with a prototype of a warrior's address to his horse which he uses very effectively in the case of Mezentius. There are no indications, however, that any of the three suggested Iliadic parallels exercised more than a superficial influence on his use of this motif. Rather, the significant Homeric parallel to Mezentius' address to his horse in Aeneid X has been overlooked and is to be found in Polyphemus' address to his ram in Odyssey IX. In comparing this Odyssean passage with Vergil's, we find that both poets use a similar device for a similar function in the case of two similar characters. That device, an address to an animal, plays a significant role in add-

8 A. Cartault, L'Art de Virgile dans l'~neide (Paris, 1926), p. 777.

147



JUSTIN GLENN.

ing a new, human dimension to two fiendish contemptores deorum. In his adaptation of this device, however, Vergil has made a number of changes, especially in his subordinating it to the preceding crucial scene of Mezentius and Lausus.

4. The Orion-Mezentius simile

Just before Mezentius' fatal duel with Aeneas, Vergil uses a most unusual and vivid simile to describe the Etruscan at this dramatic moment (Aen., X, 763-8):

... quam magnus Orion, cum pedes incedit medii per maxima Nerei stagna viam scindens, umero supereminet undas, aut summis referens annosam montibus ornum ingrediturque solo et caput inter nubila condit: talis se vastis infert Mezentius armis.

The more recent studies of the Aeneid, and even the few special- ized treatments of Book X and Mezentius, have either ignored this passage completely

37 or dismissed it with a single per- functory sentence.38 A number of older commentaries and studies, however, have noted that the images in this simile are

very similar to Vergil's description of Polyphemus in Book III (659, 662-5): 39

trunca manum pinus regit et vestigia firmat ... . . . postquam altos tetigit fluctus et ad aequora venit, luminis effossi fluidum lavit inde cruorem dentibus infrendens gemitu, graditurque per aequor iam medium, necdum fluctus latera ardua tinxit.

In both passages we see giants carrying a tree for a staff and wading far out into the sea. Further, Vergil's description of the

37 So W. F. J. Knight, Roman Vergil (London, 1966); B. Otis, Virgil: A Study in Civilized Poetry (Oxford, 1963); V. Poschl, The Art of Vergil, tr. G. Seligson (Ann Arbor, 1962); and K. Quinn (note 27, above).

38 So H. Benario, "The Tenth Book of the Aeneid," T.A.P.A., XCVIII (1967), p. 31; K. Biichner, P. Vergilius Maro, Der Dichter der Komer (Stuttgart, 1966), cols. 393-4; F. Klingner, Virgil (Zurich and Stuttgart, 1967), p. 574; Sullivan, in Essays to Kleist (note 25, above), p. 99, and "Mezentius" (note 7, above), p. 220.

9 See, e.g., Conington-Nettleship and Forbiger (note 30, above), both ad Aen., X, 766, and Cartault (note 36, above), p. 774, n. 1.

148




huge Polyphemus (ipse arduus, altaque pulsat / sidera [III, 619-20]) and his fellow Cyclopes (caelo capita alta ferentis [III, 678]) are reminiscent of his description of Orion (caput inter nubila condit [X, 767]). Additional parallels are the traditions that Orion, like Polyphemus, was the son of Posei- don40 and was blinded.41 We may safely conclude, then, that Vergil, in comparing Mezentius with Orion, is recalling his own description of Polyphemus.

5. Additional parallels The similarities between Mezentius and Polyphemus treated

above-contempt for the gods, atrocities (with verbal echo), similar address to an animal, and the Orion-simile-are the major evidence for a series of parallels between these two figures. In addition, however, there are several further points for comparison which, while not so striking, seem to reinforce this pattern.

A. Wielding a pine tree (pinus). When we first catch sight of Polyphemus at Aen., III, 655 if., he is described as horrendum and wielding a pinus:

monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen ademptum. trunca manum pinus regit et vestigia firmat ...

Later, when Mezentius appears briefly in a battle scene at IX, 521-2, he is horrendus as he wields a pinum:

parte alia horrendus visu quassabat Etruscam pinum et fumiferos infert Mezentius ignis . . .

The Etruscan, of course, is not brandishing a real pine tree, but rather the torch described in the rest of the line.42 The primary

? So Hesiod (fr. 148, Merkelbach-West), our earliest source, although a later tradition relates that Orion was sired jointly by Posei- don, Zeus, and Hermes. For sources and slightly differing versions of this later tradition see F. Wehrli, "Orion," R.-E., XXXV (1939), col. 1066.

41 See Wehrli, ibid., cols. 1071-2. According to most versions of the story, Orion was blinded by Oinopion for raping the latter's daughter (or wife). Orion regained his sight by wading through the ocean to the farthest east, where he was cured by Helios.

"J. de la Cerda (cited by Forbiger [note 30, above], III, ad Aen.,

149



JUSTIN GLENN.

meaning of pinum, however, and the initial image which the

unqualified word suggests, is a pine tree; hence, I think it likely that this initial image of horrendus Mezentius wielding an Etruscam pinum was chosen to suggest his prodigious size and strength in terms reminiscent of Polyphemus.43 B. Throwing a mountain-sized rock. All readers of Homer's tale of Polyphemus will recall Odysseus' narrow escape as the Greeks are rowing away. When the hero provokes the giant with taunts, the latter responds by hurling "the peak of a great mountain" (Kopv4v OpeoS feyaXoto, IX, 481). Similarly, Me- zentius at Aen., X, 698-9 is described as hitting an enemy with "a huge fragment of a mountain" (ingenti fragmine montis). Taken alone this similarity is not very significant, since (1) the

prototype of Mezentius' attack is a battle scene in the Iliad,44 and (2) two other figures in the Aeneid also hurl rocks that are compared with mountains.45 Yet, this does reinforce to some extent the close and distinctive parallels cited above. C. Common epithets, etc. In the Aeneid we find at least two cases of striking or unusual words applied to both Polyphemus and Mezentius. One we have already noted-horrendus (-um), which is applied to Polyphemus at III, 658 and to Mezentius at IX, 521. This shared epithet is particularly notable because it is juxtaposed with another similarity, viz., their wielding a

pine tree. In addition to Mezentius, Polyphemus, and the Cy-

IX, 522) suggested that the Etruscam pinum was a spear, but this unlikely view has been universally rejected.

43 Turnus, it is true, wields a pinu flagranti at Aen., IX, 72, and in this there is perhaps a similarity to Mezentius and possibly even Polyphemus. In the case of Turnus, however, pinu is immediately qualified by flagranti; the secondary meaning is obvious at once: Vergil means a torch. In the case of both Polyphemus in Book III and Mezentius in Book IX, however, the word is not qualified by any adjective of this sort.

44 II., XIV, 409-12: Trb [sc. Hector] Aiev eretr' dlrlovra ze'yas TeXa/L&vios Atas xepLuaisy, ra pa oXXac, Ooadwv XtLuara vP7lv,

7rap roaol uapva/ueL'PwP dcKv X'eTO, rTv V delpas oTr7'os ?3e\fXKEL ir p davTvyos d'yX6o)tc etpis . . .

The rock, however, is not compared to a part of a mountain, unlike those thrown by Mezentius and Polyphemus.

4 Ilioneus (IX, 569) and Acmon (X, 128). Cf. also Turnus at Aen., XII, 896-907.

150



MEZENTIUS AND POLYPHEMUIS.

clopes (III, 679), only five figures in the Aeneid are horrendus (-a, -urn): Fama (IV, 181), the Sibyl (VI, 10), Charon (VI, 298), Allecto (VII, 323), and Camilla (XI, 507). Of these only Camilla is a major character, and only she has any significant parallels to Mezentius.46 Second, the poet also speaks of Poly- phemus' and Mezentius' moles, their huge size (III, 656-7):

. .vasta se mole moventem pastorem Polyphemum ..

X, 771: . . [Mezentius] et mole sua stat ...

While moles is quite common in the Aeneid,47 it is very rarely applied to individuals; the only others are Entellus (V, 431) and Cacus (VIII, 199). The former has nothing else in common with Mezentius or Polyphemus, but Cacus resembles both of them in important aspects.48 Vergil's reference to Mezentius' moles, we should also recall, directly follows the Orion-simile (X, 763-7), where the poet almost certainly had in mind his earlier picture of Polyphemus.49

"4For these see Klingner (note 38, above), p. 585, and H. Schweizer, Vergil und Italien (Aarau, 1967), pp. 60-1.

" M. N. Wetmore, Index Verborum Vergilianus (New Haven, 1911), cites thirty instances.

48 See F. Miinzer, Cacus der Rinderdieb (Rektoratsprogramm Basel, 1911), pp. 31, 36-43; and Otis (note 37, above), pp. 330-1.

"4 For the sake of completeness I note here two possible but doubtful parallels; on the whole, I consider them so weak that they tend to dilute my argument rather than to strengthen it. (1) Lion-similes. Both Mezentius (Aen., X, 724-8) and Polyphemus (Od., IX, 292-3) are compared with lions. The very elaborate Vergilian simile, however, is modelled on II., III, 23-6 (Menelaus). Further, lion- similes are very frequent in Homer (see note 12, above) and Vergil (Aen., IX, 339 ff., 792, X, 454 ff., and XII, 6 ff., in addition to the Mezentius-simile just cited). (2) On Aen., X, 880 (nec mortem horremus nec divum parcimus ulli), Conington-Nettleship make the following suggestion: " The word 'par- cere' may have been suggested to Virgil by the language of Polyphemus, Od. 9.277, o68' av eyb Atds 9X0os dXevadievos ,retSoitpuv / o6re are oi0' erTapcw (Cerda)." On the whole, I must agree with the comment of Cartault (note 36, above), p. 777, on Aen., X, 880: "I1 ne semble pas que le prototype soit ici l'impifte du Cyclope, qui s'exprime en d'autres termes et dans une circonstance tres differente, Od., IX, 273 sqq...."

151



JUSTIN GLENN.

When viewed as a whole, these similarities present striking and, I believe, conclusive evidence of a series of parallel ideas, scenes, images, and words which link Mezentius and Polyphe- mus. In view of the extent of these parallels, and also the prodigious time, attention, and talent which Vergil lavished on the Aeneid, it is difficult to believe that this phenomenon is pure chance. Rather, it would appear to be a conscious part of Vergil's art. In these concluding pages, then, I shall attempt to comment on the nature of these parallels and their possible contribution to a better appreciation of the Aeneid.

The similarities exhibit a surprising complexity, and perhaps may best be divided into three categories:

A. Homer's Polyphemus -> Vergil's Mezentius

Under this heading fall (1) contempt for the gods, (2) similar address to an animal, and (3) throwing a mountain-sized rock. Of these the first is only implicit in Vergil's Polyphemus, but very prominent in Homer's Polyphemus and Vergil's Mezentius. Both (2) and (3) are not found in Vergil's Polyphemus episode, but they are common to Homer's Polyphemus and Vergil's Mezentius.

B. Vergil's Polyphemus-> Vergil's Mezentius

This category includes three parallels which do not pertain to Homer's Polyphemus, but which emerge in studying Polyphe- mus' and Mezentius' appearances in the Aeneid. First, the Orion-simile-where Mezentius is compared to a huge giant wading far out into the ocean and carrying a tree for a staff- is strikingly similar to Vergil's description of Polyphemus, but has practically nothing in common with Homer's.50 Second, the picture of Mezentius himself wielding a pinum recalls a similar glimpse of Vergil's Polyphemus, but this image is not found in IHomer's story.51 Finally, moles and horrendus (-urn), rarely applied to individuals in the Aeneid, are used to describe both

0o Cf. Aen., X, 763 ff. and III, 659 ff. There is only a faint similarity to the Homeric Cyclops in the description of his staff at Od., IX, 319-23. We never actually see him wield the staff, of course, for it becomes instead the weapon which Odysseus uses to blind him.

51 Cf. Aen., IX, 521-2 and III, 659. See, however, the preceding note.

152




Mezentius and Polyphemus. Obviously these echoes, if such they are, do not extend to Homer's Polyphemus.

C. Homer's Polyphemus -- Vergil's Polyphemus -> Vergil's Mezentius

In this group the clearest connection is to be found in the two Vergilian figures, Polyphemus and Mezentius, but at the same time Vergil is influenced by aspects of Homer's Polyphemus. This rather complex relationship should become clear if we examine the two relevant parallels. First, there are the brutal atrocities of Polyphemus and Mezentius in the Aeneid. Achae- menides on Polyphemus, III, 623-7:

vidi egomet duo de numero cum corpora nostro prensa manu magna medio resupinus in antro frangeret ad saxum, sanieque aspersa natarent limina; vidi atro cum membra fluentia tabo manderet et tepidi tremerent sub dentibus artus ...

Evander on Mezentius, VIII, 485-8:

mortua quin etiam iungebat corpora vivis componens manibusque manus atque oribus ora, tormenti genus, et sanie taboque fluentis complexu in misero longa sic morte necabat.

The parallel here consists of a clear verbal echo within the Aeneid; at the same time, however, Vergil's account of Poly- phemus' gory cannibalism is directly inspired by Homer. A second, somewhat similar case is the description of the relationship between the giant and his sheep at Aen., III, 660-1 (ea sola voluptas / solamenque mali) and the Etruscan and his horse at Aen., X, 858-9 (hoc decus illi, / hoc solamen erat). Here again the parallel consists basically of the echo within the Aeneid, but Vergil's sympathetic glimpse of Polyphemus and his flock is undoubtedly inspired by Homer's scene of the blinded giant and his ram.52

Finally we come to the ultimate question: what new insights

' So R. D. Williams (ed.), P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos liber tertius (Oxford, 1962), ad Aen., III, 660-1: "The prototype of the glimpse of sympathy for this monstrous ogre is . . . the passage in Homer (Od. 9.447 f.) where Polyphemus speaks to his ram." Cf. Conington- Nettleship, ad Aen., III, 660.

153



JUSTIN GLENN.

into Vergil's artistry do these parallels provide? First, if they are valid, they sharpen our awareness of Vergil's originality and his relationship to Homer. To take one example, the addresses of the Vergilian Mezentius to his horse and of the Homeric Polyphemus to his ram comprise a close Homer-Ver- gilian parallel which, to judge from Knauer's Die Aeneis und Homer, has been overlooked completely. This is an impressive tribute, I believe, to the remarkably rich and subtle interrela- +ionship between antiquity's two supreme masters of epic poetry, a seemingly inexhaustible subject for our study and admiration. In more practical terms, this particular parallel may contain a lesson which has a wide application to Vergilian criticism. It is clear that in the past critics seeking parallels in Homer to Mezentius' address have confined themselves to scenes of Homeric warriors and their horses. In this they perhaps have been overly rigid, even to the point of blinding themselves to the one truly close parallel which they were seeking. The lesson, then, would be to make ourselves more attentive to parallels in feeling, tone, and artistic intent of Homer and Vergil, rather than to content ourselves with merely observing in a mechanical way external and often superficial similarities.

Second, the interrelationship between these two characters may possibly be the key to understanding the full significance of a particular Vergilian image or passage. An example of this, I believe, is the Orion-simile. As we observed above, commentators occasionally have noted that Vergil, in comparing Mezentius with Orion, reminds us of his earlier view of Polyphemus.53 But no one seems to have taken this parallel seriously, for no one has posed the logical question: why should Vergil at this point describe Mezentius in imagery suggestive of Polyphemus? I believe that we may make at least an intelligent guess at the poet's purpose here. In Book III Aeneas often found himself in the footsteps of Ulysses; the most striking case is the Poly- phemus episode. But while the Greek hero had faced and over- come this giant, Aeneas and his men take one quick look and row away frantically. This reaction is perfectly sensible, and at least he gets all of his men away safely. Yet, sensible as this behavior is, it is certainly not heroic. For his own reasons,

68 See note 39, above.

154




Vergil seems to present Aeneas with an heroic challenge, but it goes unmet.54 Here in Book III, then, we find a fiendish monster-Homer's most notorious contemptor deorum, a perfect example of furor impius-and yet at this point Aeneas manages only to get himself and his men safely out of range of this menace. In Book X the situation has changed dramati- cally. The hero now has seen his own mission mirrored in Book VI (Rome's mission debellare superbos [853]) and Book VIII (Hercules' conquest of furiis . . . mens effera [205]). Now in Book X Aeneas will not flee and seek safety on the high seas as he once did in Book III, and as Turnus in effect has done un- wittingly thanks to the trickery of Juno (X, 653 ff.). Now Aeneas will face this seemingly superhuman opponent-who is described with images very reminiscent of Polyphemus-will fight him, and will destroy him.

Finally, by seeing these two Vergilian characters together, we receive a new insight into the role of Polyphemus in the Aeneid. The Vergilian Cyclops has sometimes been described as a " baroque ornament," a purple patch, and " an epyllion told for its own sake." 55 Long ago, however, Miinzer pointed out parallels between Polyphemus and Cacus in the Aeneid.56 Now, when viewed in the light of his numerous parallels to Mezentius, Poly- phemus surely must be regarded as an integral figure in the entire movement of the epic. He is, it would seem, not merely a monstrum in his terrifying aspects; in addition, he is a monstrum in the most literal and meaningful sense of the word. He is an omen, a portent of what lies ahead, for he foreshadows in many respects a most formidable and memorable opponent awaiting Aeneas in Hesperia.

JUSTIN GLENN. UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA.

" B. Otis, in Virgil (ed. D. R. Dudley [London, 1969]), pp. 30-6, suggests that Book III represents a confused, indecisive stage of Aeneas' psychological development as a hero, starting the painful tran- sition from a Trojan to a Roman hero.

6 For these points of view see Williams (note 52, above), p. 13 and ad Aen., III, 588 f., and R. B. Lloyd, "Aeneid III, A New Approach," A.J.P., LXXVIII (1957), p. 137.

86 See Miinzer (note 48, above), ibid.

155



mezentius and polyphemus

Documents