Ovid’s Metamorphoses is laden with tangible transformations: transfigurations, physical creation, erosion. Yet, Ovid champions an intangible mode of metamorphosis, that is, the act of storytelling. It is no secret that Ovid was a masterful poet and storyteller—curious to tamper with metanarrative boundaries, proud to explore slippages between fiction and reality. Literary historian Gian Conte describes Ovid as “The poet who…occasionally smiles at the credibility of what he is recounting, at the poet’s innate lack of fidelity to the truth.”[1] Beyond depicting slippages, Ovid excavates their relevance to concepts such as justice, sympathy, and power. In doing so, he simultaneously demonstrates and comments on storytelling as the ultimate metamorphic endeavor. As Conte phrases it, “metamorphosis is minutely described in the course of taking place.”[2]
In this paper, I analyze the competition between Ajax and Ulysses for Achilles’ arms. This scene, which begins with Ajax’s speech and ends with Ajax’s suicide, is a prime example of Ovid’s concurrent participation in and commentary on the power of storytelling. In conglomerating two speeches with narration, Ovid assembles a larger narrative and assumes creative license over its components (characters, speeches, plot).
I begin my analysis by verifying claims made by Ovid’s Ajax and Ulysses. The cross-references between these speeches and non-Ovidian primary accounts of the Trojan War reveal any discrepancies between speech and the truth, relative to the general consensus of the larger literary canon. Through this exposure, I establish each character’s reliability, as conveyed by Ovid (I. First Things First: Veracity). Following this clarification, I rhetorically analyze the speeches and narrator commentary, investigating how Ovid’s personal values and narratorial motivation (analysis of purpose vis-à-vis the intentions of the narrator[3]) manifest in language and actorial motivation (analysis of purpose vis-à-vis the intentions of the character[4]) (II. Honesty is Not Always the Best Policy, III. Did Someone Say…Logical Fallacy?). In particular, I examine how Ovid’s unfavorable depiction of Ulysses’ victory undermines it. To further distinguish these characterizations as Ovid’s own (not universally agreed-upon interpretations), I compare Ovid’s Ulysses and Ajax to others’ (IV. What Makes Ovid’s Version Different and Why That Matters). Ultimately, these analyses support the claim that storytelling is the most perennial form of metamorphosis. And, Ovid, as the entire universe’s storyteller, is the master of that form—because no matter who wins in the story, Ovid is the one who tells it.
I. First Things First: Veracity
While Ovid’s Ajax makes a few questionable claims, his speech is generally true to most depictions of Ajax, resulting in a candid (if not blunt) characterization. Ajax’s first dubious claim is more of an exaggeration than a false statement, as he boasts, “‘Standing up to the smoke and flames, I drove / The Trojans away from the fleet.’”[5] D.E. Hill, in his commentary on Metamorphoses, notes, “At first, Ajax had indeed prevented Hector from setting fire to the ships, but he was eventually overcome by sheer weight of numbers and a ship was burnt.”[6] Lee Fratatuono responds similarly in his reading: “Ajax had stood against the entire Trojan army at one point in the attempted firing of the fleet, and eventually had to give way at the cost of one ship.”[7] The Iliad confirms, “great Telamonian Ajax rallied the Argives [and they] secured their ships [with the exception of] one ship burning.”[8] Though Ajax’s assertion slightly inflates his contribution, it is not a far stretch from what most would consider the truth.
Ajax makes his second questionable claim when he insults Ulysses’ lineage, though it is not an unfounded denouncement. Ajax calls Ulysses “‘the son of Sisyphus, and just like him / When it comes to trickery’”[9] despite the narrator’s confirmation that Ulysses is “Laertes’…son.”[10] Hill reasons that, while Ulysses was Laertes’ son according to Homer, there was the “scandalous view that he was the product of an illicit relationship between Sisyphos and Anticleia before she married Laertes,”[11] neither confirming nor denying the scandal himself. Fratantuono uses the term “famous slander,”[12] implying that while the claim may be false, it was at least very popular. Thus, Ajax’s insult could be interpreted as either his genuine belief or, perhaps, a malicious attempt at slander.
Ajax’s final questionable claim pertains to a moment of Ulysses’ escape. Ajax describes Ulysses as “‘trembling and pale [before he] ran away not slowed at all by his [feigned] wounds’”;[13] however, in the Iliad, this escape is initiated by Menelaos.[14] Given that Ajax was mid-battle when he witnessed this escape, it is possible that he did not notice exact details and thus mistakenly recalled, as opposed to intentionally lied. Frantanuono speculates, “There is no good reason to imagine that Homer would not have agreed with this [cowardly] characterization, even if Ajax is clearly making his case in a way that paints his own actions in as favorable as light as possible.”[15] As for the authenticity of Ulysses’ wounds, Frantanuono admits that Homer does not provide evidence that “this fakery actually happened. [However,] [t]he fact that [Ulysses] feigned madness to escape fighting at Troy makes Ajax’s case more credible.”[16] Thus, Ajax’s tenuous claims against Ulysses are at least substantiated and supported with context, and they are hyperbolic or scandalous at worst. This relatively honest portrayal of Ajax is one way through which Ovid conveys sympathy for the fallen hero and distaste for the conniving victor. Notably, the most despicable, outlandish accusations against Ulysses—his feigned madness, his abandonment of Nestor, his scheme against Palamedes, his devious ploy against Philoctetes—are considered legitimate by various accounts.
Ovid’s Ulysses is devious and deceptive, using lies to compensate for shortcomings. Ulysses begins his speech “bombastic[ally]” (as Fratantuono phrases it), given that Ajax “focused on his own deeds and what [Ulysses] had not done, while [Ulysses] made his opening argument a celebration not of his deeds…but of Achilles’.”[17] Most tendentiously, Ulysses claims that, because he “‘sent [Achilles] forth to brave deeds[,] all that [Achilles] did after is due to [Ulysses].’”[18] Using that logic, Palamedes should receive credit for all of Ulysses’ (and, by extension, Achilles’) deeds, since Palamedes, in “the same way…detected [Ulysses’] feigned madness”[19] and sent him forth to join the Trojan War. Of course, Ulysses avoids all mention of this, and even gloats, insisting, “‘It was I who wounded Telephus and then / Healed his wound…Thebes fell / To me…I broke through Lyrnesus’ walls’”[20] when those physical deeds were undeniably accomplished by Achilles.[21]
Ulysses uses the middle portion of his speech to debunk his reputation as a man of slippery words; however, much of his evidence is verifiably fabricated. First, to emphasize his prowess and bravery, Ulysses names men he has killed, such as “‘Dolon’”[22] and “‘Sarpedon.’”[23] However, according to Homer’s Iliad and Apollodorus’ Library, “Diomedes struck [Dolon]”[24], and Patroclus killed Sarpedon.[25] Then, in an attempt to demean Ajax, Ulysses declares, Ajax “‘was the ninth to step forward’”[26] against Hector, even though the Iliad confirms that the two Ajaxes were third and fourth, and Ulysses himself was ninth.[27]Ulysses also insists that he “‘lift[ed] up [Achilles’] body / And carr[ied] it upon these very shoulders,’”[28] but Apollodorus’ Library confirms that Ajax “picked up the body and carried it.”[29] In addition to stealing Ajax’s credit, Ulysses belittles Ajax’s battle prowess, remarking, “‘Hector withdrew [from the duel] without receiving a wound’”[30] even though, according to Homer, Ajax “beat back Hector…cut [Hector’s] neck…dark blood gushed forth”[31] and “broke the strength of Hector’s very knees.”[32] Given that Ulysses was a spectator, it is unlikely that he would mistakenly miss such details as Ajax cutting Hector’s neck. It is also unlikely that Ulysses would mistakenly recall his involvement in these other tasks too, given their highly physical nature. It can be assumed, then, that these are full-fledged, intentional lies.
Ulysses then defends himself for not joining the war by drawing a tenuous parallel between himself and Achilles: “‘A loving wife held me back, a loving mother / Detained Achilles.’”[33] Fratantuono calls this “a nearly complete misrepresentation of reality; Thetis knew her son would die, while nowhere else in extant sources does Penelope have anything to do with [Ulysses’] fakery”[34]. Indeed, in Apollodorus’ Library, Ulysses “did not want to go on the campaign, so he feigned insanity,”[35] and Penelope is not mentioned at all. By amassing such a collection of tenuous statements and lies, Ovid depicts Ulysses as disloyal, dishonest, and unworthy.
II. Honesty Is Not Always The Best Policy (A Rhetorical Analysis of Ajax’s Speech)
Rhetorical analysis (pertains to narrative form) builds on veracity verification (pertains to narrative content) by complicating Ovid’s characterizations. Whereas veracity hints at each character’s ethical quality, rhetoric depicts metrics such as intelligence, reasonability, and persuasiveness. This is a speech competition, after all. Thus, Ovid’s narratorial motivation—to assert the power of the storyteller—becomes even more clear through his portrayals of rhetoric.
Ovid demonstrates support for Ajax by depicting him as more straightforward, qualified, and logically coherent than Ulysses. Ajax is introduced as “Lord of the sevenfold shield, barely able / To control his anger [with a] scowling gaze,”[36] which illuminates two key qualities: battle prowess (he is identified by his battle shield) and transparency (he does not hide his emotions). With this, the narrator, on behalf of Ovid, characterizes Ajax for readers before his speech even commences.
From the beginning, Ajax’s speech is comprehensive and rhetorically sound; he makes a strong case for himself as a man of action while also criticizing Ulysses. Ajax uses parallelism and antithesis to contrast his loyalty with Ulysses’ selfishness: “‘Ulysses opposes me. But did he oppose Hector[?] No, I did…I drove / The Trojans away.’”[37] He boldly declares, “‘As for what I have done, I don’t need to tell you, / Because you saw it all yourself.’”[38] Fittingly, Ajax articulates his own qualifications, making nine “I” statements in this first section. He only diverges from self-promotion to call Ulysses untrustworthy (as he works “‘in the dark of the night’”[39]) and unworthy of the arms (“‘a rival like this diminishes [the prize’s] honor’”[40]). Thus, Ajax begins with a clear, focused claim: that his prowess and dedication make him worthy and Ulysses not.
Ajax then supplements his ethos-based claim of valor with an ethos-based claim of lineage. He demonstrates rhetorical sense by using an even-if clause, pre-emptively arguing, “‘even if my valor were open to question, / I am nobler in birth.’”[41] With this assertion, Ajax combines self-advocacy and an attack on Ulysses, implying that 1) Ajax’s valor is not equivocal, 2) even if it were, he would still have more rights to the arms. He continues this barrage, asking rhetorical questions to expose Ulysses and emphasize his own hereditary rights: “‘will [the arms] be given to one who feigned madness / To dodge the war and had to be exposed by someone shrewder?…Will he take the best / Because he wanted to take up none? And will I / Go unhonored and deprived of my cousin’s arms / Because I was the first to meet this danger head on?’”[42] In asking such questions, Ajax both conveys dedication to the Greeks and encourages his audience to be wary of Ulysses.
Ajax’s speech is not without error, however: when he mentions his duel against Hector, his pride betters his sense. He asks, “‘where was Ulysses, then / With all of his speeches?…My chest was…your only hope of return. / You should grant me the arms for all of those ships.’”[43] Instead of elaborating on how his willingness to fight Hector proves his bravery and loyalty, he asks a rhetorical question with no expository or productive answer. He also ostracizes his audience with the direct address when he reminds them of their helplessness and indebtedness to him.
Still, Ajax finishes his speech strong, with witty and practical claims. He remarks, “‘The glint of gold on Achilles’ helmet would only / Give away [Ulysses’] hiding place…retreat, [his] cowardly specialty, / Would only be slowed if [he] bore such a weight.’”[44] Not only does Ajax hone in on Ulysses’ cowardice, but he also points out the incongruity of Ulysses and armor, given Ulysses’ relative aversion to physical combat. Ajax then asserts his own suitability for the shield, declaring, “‘[My shield] has been hit / A thousand times and needs to be replaced.’”[45] It is both a practical and moral argument, that he needs and deserves the shield more.
Through strong rhetorical construction, Ovid depicts Ajax as not particularly unlikable or brutish. He makes cohesive, justified arguments and is even witty, though he lacks the manipulative ability to completely poison the well for Ulysses or coax the audience into a mob mentality. This shortcoming (which is more indicative of his superior ethical quality) makes him vulnerable to devious Ulysses. Ovid foreshadows the ill-fated outcome via audience reaction: despite Ajax’s ardent speech and transparent actorial motivations, the crowd is only interested “until Ulysses…[rises and makes] the speech / They awaited.”[46] The narrator suggests, unfortunately, that the circumstances are stacked against Ajax from the beginning. By having the audience react to Ajax’s passionate, coherent speech with nonchalant, distracted approval, Ovid presents a situation of injustice, superseding the narrative to evoke reader dissatisfaction.
III. Did Someone Say…Logical Fallacy? (A Rhetorical Analysis of Ulysses’ Speech)
Ovid saturates Ulysses’ speech with verbosity, disturbingly personal appeals, and logical fallacies to portray his victory over Ajax as underhanded. Notably, Ulysses’ speech is twice as long as Ajax’s. From the beginning, it is clear that Ulysses’ speech is more rooted in pandering than genuine quality. “‘If my prayers and yours had been answered, Pelasgian lords,’” he begins, “‘Achilles…we would still have you. But…An unjust fate has denied him to me and to you.’”[47] Directly addressing the Pelasgian lords engages the audience, while directly addressing Achilles creates shared intimacy, camaraderie, and sorrow. As a metanarrative reminder to readers, Ovid supersedes the narrative, interjecting, “(Here he pretended to wipe a tear from his eye).”[48]
The rest of Ulysses’ speech is laden with logical fallacies, illustrating the frustrating discrepancy between his manipulative eloquence and true argumentative quality. Ulysses begins his rebuttal with a strawman argument,[49] drawing excessive attention to Ajax’s lineage to insinuate that Ajax conflates lineage with accomplishment. Recall, Ajax uses an even-if clause: “‘even if my valor were open to question, / I am nobler in birth [and Achilles] was my cousin.’”[50] Lineage is clearly secondary, contingent on a lack of valor (clearly not the case). Ulysses embellishes his strawman with a red herring fallacy[51] and more personal appeals, via an extensive tangent, to distract listeners from Ajax’s actual claim: “‘Now, I do not count a noble lineage / As one’s own accomplishment, but since Ajax tells us [about his lineage]…Peleus / Is Achilles’ father and Pyrrhus his son, / So ship the arms off to Phthia or Scyros…Teucer is as much Achilles’ cousin / As Ajax is, but does he lay claim[?]’.”[52] Taking his distraction even further, Ulysses creates a false dilemma:[53] given the (false) premise that Ajax’s claim to the arms is lineage, then either all of Achilles’ relatives are equally rightful heirs to his armor, or lineage does not matter. Ulysses then uses a slippery slope argument[54] when he boasts, “‘all that [Achilles] did…is due to me. It was I who wounded Telephus…Thebes fell / To me…I broke through Lyrnesus’ walls…it is through me that glorious Hector / Lies in his grave.’”[55] The proof is in Ulysses’ speech itself: if Thetis foresaw “‘The death of her son’” [56] in the Trojan War, then Achilles was certainly destined to die in the war; Ulysses was merely a catalyst.
With even more logical fallacies, Ulysses frames Ajax as an enemy of Achilles, the audience, and himself. He uses another red herring, warping Ajax’s criticism of him into “‘[Ajax] censuring the great Achilles’”[57] to fabricate tension between Ajax and Achilles. The audience should (but inexplicably does not) notice this distraction. He then ostracizes the audience on Ajax’s behalf: “‘We should not wonder that his ignorant mouth / Spews out insults against me, when he even tries / To heap shame on you.’”[58] The collective “We” is yet another pandering appeal. The confrontational “you” is Ulysses stirring audience discomfort at being supposedly shamed by Ajax.
For a moment, it appears as if Ulysses will acknowledge his dishonest past; instead, he distracts his audience once more through more fallacious and pandering antics. He admits, “‘I advised [Philoctetes]’”[59] but omits the destructive consequences of his advice, instead twisting this superficial admission of guilt into self-praise: “‘He took the advice—and he is still alive…the advice [was] given in good faith, / It also worked out well.’”[60] To further distract listeners, he uses a tu quoque fallacy,[61] defensively replying to Ajax’s observation about Diomedes with “‘You had partners too.’”[62] Ulysses concludes his speech with praises for specific audience members— “‘lesser Ajax, Eurypylus, Thoas, Idomeneus, and his countryman, Meriones, and Menelaus…All of them / Are brave and strong’”[63]—and appeals to “‘our common hopes,’”[64] even though his victory clearly only benefits himself. The audience does not notice this inconsistency, as Ovid again hints at his disapproval; they must be incredibly dense, he implies, to be so easily manipulated.
Ovid most clearly expresses his disapproval through the omniscient narrator, who undermines the legitimacy of Ulysses’ victory. He recalls, the captains are “swayed by Ulysses’ eloquence”[65] (as opposed to his valor), and “the smooth talker bore off the hero’s arms.”[66] Distinctly juxtaposing “smooth talker” and “hero” indicates that Ulysses is not a hero, an implication furthered by the narrator’s comment, “grief conquered / The unconquered hero [Ajax].”[67] Achilles and Ajax are deemed heroes, whereas Ulysses is just a smooth talker. The scene ends with the narrator’s condolences for Ajax, as “A purple flower [with] petals inscribed / With letters common to [Hyacinthus] and the hero”[68] emerges after Ajax’s suicide. This delicate image evokes pity by likening Hyacinthus’ untimely death to Ajax’s, as the narrator reiterates Ajax’s hero status.
IV. What Makes Ovid’s Version Different and Why That Matters
While veracity-based analysis enables us to examine the respective ethos of Ovid’s Ajax and Ulysses and rhetorical analysis enables us to directly examine their respective qualifications as speakers, analysis of Ovid’s subliminal narrative enables us to examine his personal adjustments. Ovid’s version differs from others in that his Ajax does not go on a frenzied rampage, his Ajax is particularly insightful, and his Ulysses is particularly malicious. As D.E. Hill comments, these distinctions suggest “Ovid [shows] a marked preference for Ajax’s case in spite of the judgment he has reported.”[69] In superseding the narrative to propagate his own viewpoints, Ovid demonstrates the influence of the storyteller.
Ovid’s Ajax commits suicide purely due to grief, but in other versions, Ajax goes on a traitorous murderous rampage before his suicide. In Apollodorus’ Library, Ajax “plotted against the army at night [then] Out of his mind…killed the sheep along with the herdsmen, thinking they were Achaians [Greeks]. When he came back to his senses later, he killed himself too.”[70] Fratantuono notes, “There is no mention in Ovid of the madness that drove the hero against the flocks…the letters [on the flower] mark…the gods’ lament.”[71] Since Ovid does not villainize Ajax as others do and even laments Ajax’s death, readers are similarly encouraged to sympathize.
As previously demonstrated, Ovid’s Ajax is generally honest, reasonable, and even witty; however, other authors turn Ajax into a caricature, exaggerating his brutishness to ridicule him. In Dialogues of the Dead, Lucian mocks Ajax through Agamemnon and Ajax in the Underworld. Agamemnon asks, rhetorically, “‘Ajax, if you went crazy and killed yourself when you were planning to kill all of us, how can you blame Odysseus? You didn’t even look at him just now.’” Ajax, too dense to detect any accusatory implications, responds, “‘That’s right, Agamemnon. After all, he was the one responsible for my madness. He was the only one to challenge me for the arms.’” Agamemnon retorts, “‘You didn’t think anyone would oppose you? That you’d beat everyone without even working for it?’” Unable to detect sarcasm, Ajax replies earnestly, “‘Yes. Yes I did.’”[72] The reference to Ajax’s murderous rampage indicates Lucian’s personal canonization of Ajax’s brutish inferiority. This unsympathetic portrayal is furthered by Ajax’s parodic stupidity.
As for Ulysses, authors with different narratorial motivations from Ovid cast Ulysses in a less criminalizing light. Irene Jong’s Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey examines Ulysses under other circumstances: different author (Homer), different context (post-Trojan War), different angle (king/politician). Whereas Ovid leads readers to grimace at Ulysses’ victory, Homer, through “[Athena’s] unfailing support[,] encourages the narratees to sympathize with [Ulysses] and to side with him against the Suitors.”[73] Perhaps, because the Odyssey’s plot involves literal politics, Homer interprets Ulysses’ political savviness as a positive. Multiple characters in the Odyssey “stress the fact that [Ulysses] is a good king.”[74] Ovid’s works, on the other hand, are “essentially anti-mimetic and anti-naturalistic”[75] and champion “The poet [as the] sole possessor of the ‘true point of view.’”[76] To Ovid, then, political savviness may not be so positive; he relays this to readers.
Conclusion
Thus, Ovid engages in creative metamorphosis in order to garner reader support for his own viewpoints. My analyses of veracity, rhetoric, and subliminal narrative in Metamorphoses suggest that Ovid, through stories, exhibits his power to metamorphosize. Events take place (or, in this case, mythological events are canonized to the point of seeming real), stories are invented, myths are preserved. Nobody can reverse time to undo any of this. However, the storyteller possesses the miraculous power to reinvent, omit, displace, “[i]n the skeptical distance from its own content, from the world of the venerable mythological tradition by which it is inspired.”[77] Really, as Ovid demonstrates, that is the closest anyone can get.
[1] Conte, Gian Biagio. 1999. Latin Literature: A History. Translated by Joseph B. Solodow. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 354.
[2] Conte, Gian Biagio. 1999. Latin Literature: A History. Translated by Joseph B. Solodow. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 352.
[3] Jong, Irene J.F. 2001. Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey. New York: Cambridge University Press, xvi.
[4] Jong, Irene J.F. 2001. Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey. New York: Cambridge University Press, xi.
[5] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.10-13.11.
[6] Hill, D.E., ed. 2000. OVID Metamorphoses XIII-XV and Indexes to Metamorphoses I-XV. Translated by D.E. Hill. D.E. Hill., 126.
[7] Fratantuono, Lee. 2011. Madness Transformed: A Reading of Ovid’s Metamorphoses . Lanham: Lexington Books, 394.
[8] Homer. 2015. The Iliad. Translated by Caroline Alexander. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers, 15.560-15.600.
[9] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.35-13.36.
[10] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.144.
[11] Hill, D.E., ed. 2000. OVID Metamorphoses XIII-XV and Indexes to Metamorphoses I-XV. Translated by D.E. Hill. D.E. Hill., 127.
[12] Fratantuono, Lee. 2011. Madness Transformed: A Reading of Ovid’s Metamorphoses . Lanham: Lexington Books, 394.
[13] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.84-13.93.
[14] Homer. 2015. The Iliad. Translated by Caroline Alexander. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers, 11.487-11.488.
[15] Fratantuono, Lee. 2011. Madness Transformed: A Reading of Ovid’s Metamorphoses . Lanham: Lexington Books, 371.
[16] Fratantuono, Lee. 2011. Madness Transformed: A Reading of Ovid’s Metamorphoses . Lanham: Lexington Books, 371.
[17] Fratantuono, Lee. 2011. Madness Transformed: A Reading of Ovid’s Metamorphoses . Lanham: Lexington Books, 373-374.
[18] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.203-13.204.
[19] Fratantuono, Lee. 2011. Madness Transformed: A Reading of Ovid’s Metamorphoses . Lanham: Lexington Books, 373.
[20] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.205-13.209.
[21] Apollodorus, Hyginus. 2007. Apollodorus’ Library and Hyginus’ Fabulae. Translated by Stephen M. Trzaskoma R. Scott Smith. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Epit.3.20.
[22] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.296.
[23] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.309.
[24] Homer. 2015. The Iliad. Translated by Caroline Alexander. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers, 10.455.
[25] Apollodorus, Hyginus. 2007. Apollodorus’ Library and Hyginus’ Fabulae. Translated by Stephen M. Trzaskoma R. Scott Smith. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Aes.99.
[26] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.334.
[27] Homer. 2015. The Iliad. Translated by Caroline Alexander. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers, 7.161-7.168.
[28] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.342-13.343.
[29] Apollodorus, Hyginus. 2007. Apollodorus’ Library and Hyginus’ Fabulae. Translated by Stephen M. Trzaskoma R. Scott Smith. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Epit.5.4.
[30] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.338.
[31] Homer. 2015. The Iliad. Translated by Caroline Alexander. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers, 7.261-7.262.
[32] Homer. 2015. The Iliad. Translated by Caroline Alexander. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers, 7.271.
[33] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.364-13.365.
[34] Fratantuono, Lee. 2011. Madness Transformed: A Reading of Ovid’s Metamorphoses . Lanham: Lexington Books, 377.
[35] Apollodorus, Hyginus. 2007. Apollodorus’ Library and Hyginus’ Fabulae. Translated by Stephen M. Trzaskoma R. Scott Smith. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Epit.3.7.
[36] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.3-13.4.
[37] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.9-13.11.
[38] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.14-13.15.
[39] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.16.
[40] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.18.
[41] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.23-13.24.
[42] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.41-13.49.
[43] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.106-13.109.
[44] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.122-13.135.
[45] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.137-13.138.
[46] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.143-13.147.
[47] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.148-13.152.
[48] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.154.
[49] intentionally misrepresenting the opponent’s proposition because it is easier to defeat than the opponent’s real argument
[50] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.24-13.35.
[51] introducing an irrelevant topic mid-argument to divert the attention of listeners from the original issue
[52] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.166-13.189.
[53] falsely claiming an “either/or” situation when, in fact, there is at least one other logically valid option
[54] asserting that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect
[55] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.204-13.213.
[56] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.194.
[57] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.360-13.361.
[58] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.370-13.372.
[59] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.382.
[60] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.385-13.387.
[61] discrediting an opponent’s argument by drawing attention to his hypocrisy (irrelevant to the actual argument)
[62] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.426.
[63] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.432-13.435.
[64] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.453.
[65] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.461.
[66] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.463.
[67] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.466-13.467.
[68] Ovid. 2010. “Metamorphoses.” In Book 13, translated by Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 13.477.
[69] Hill, D.E., ed. 2000. OVID Metamorphoses XIII-XV and Indexes to Metamorphoses I-XV. Translated by D.E. Hill. D.E. Hill., 149.
[70] Apollodorus, Hyginus. 2007. Apollodorus’ Library and Hyginus’ Fabulae. Translated by Stephen M. Trzaskoma R. Scott Smith. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Epit.5.6-5.7.
[71] Fratantuono, Lee. 2011. Madness Transformed: A Reading of Ovid’s Metamorphoses . Lanham: Lexington Books, 377-378.
[72] Stephen M. Trzaskoma, R. Scott Smith, Stephen Brunet, ed. 2004. Anthology of Classical Myth: Primary Sources in Translation. Translated by R. Scott Smith, Stephen Brunet Stephen M. Trzaskoma. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., Luc.DD.23.
[73] Jong, Irene J.F. 2001. Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey. New York: Cambridge University Press, 11.
[74] Jong, Irene J.F. 2001. Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey. New York: Cambridge University Press, 57.
[75] Conte, Gian Biagio. 1999. Latin Literature: A History. Translated by Joseph B. Solodow. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 342.
[76] Conte, Gian Biagio. 1999. Latin Literature: A History. Translated by Joseph B. Solodow. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 355.
[77] Conte, Gian Biagio. 1999. Latin Literature: A History. Translated by Joseph B. Solodow. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 354.