No More Learning

But for Ovid this voyage among the Aegean Islands afforded an-
other and greater advantage. From Preparethus, he said, Minos turned
to the left and went southwards to still another island called Aegina,
which lay in the Saronic Gulf just opposite Athens. The incident made
it possible afterwards for Ovid to introduce several important tales.
According to Pindar and others, the island at first was called
Oenopia (Rich in Wine). The Manual noted that it was given the new
name Aegina in honor of the paramour of Jupiter (cf. Arachne, Bk. 6)
and the first ruler of the island was her son, Aeacus. This ruler, the
Manual continued, became the father of three sons, Telamon, Peleus, and
Phocus. The last of these was a child of the nereid Psamathe. Accepting
this account, Ovid added that Aeacus had been the first to name the
island Aegina. His three sons, Ovid continued, were among those hasten-
ing to behold Minos on his arrival. Aeacus himself, being now old and
infirm, arrived somewhat later.
Although Aeacus inquired the reason for the visit, he needed no
lengthy explanation. The period of negotiations between Minos and the
inhabitants of other isles had given him time to learn the cause of the
war. Minos had only to say that he desired help in avenging his son.
Aeacus declined, pleading a treaty of friendship with Athens. Minos,
unwilling to spend his strength in immediate war, departed with a threat.
He sailed westwards to the head of the gulf and attacked another ally of
Athens, King Nisus of Megara, as Ovid was to record in the opening lines
of the Eighth Book. From the point of view of military strategy the
conduct of Minos was hardly credible, for by seizing the island of Aegina
he would have not only a more convenient base for attacking Athens but
also control of the entire Saronic Gulf. Ovid was not interested in the
war for its own sake. He used it only as a plausible occasion for tales of
metamorphosis.
128
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:21 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015005276665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? CREATION OF THE MYRMIDONS
Creation of the Myrmidons
Not only Minos, Ovid continued, but also Aegeus desired the help
of Aegina. The Athenian king sent as his ambassador Cephalus. The
idea was not only an invention of Ovid's but a considerable anachronism.
Tradition had spoken of Cephalus as being contemporary with King
Pandion and as marrying Pandion's sister. He would have been in his
prime two long generations before the arrival of Theseus in Athens.
Ovid committed this anachronism because he desired to close the book
effectively with the story of Cephalus and Procris. He lessened the diffi-
culty by describing Cephalus as advanced in years and by avoiding until
much later any mention of his wife. To accompany the hero, Aegeus sent
two princes, Clytus and Butes, sons of his brother Pallas.
Opposed by an enemy so formidable as Minos, Aegeus probably
would have lost no time in despatching the embassy to Aegina. But Ovid
wisely sacrificed probability to literary effect. Aegeus delayed so long
that, when Cephalus arrived, the Cretan sails were disappearing on the
horizon.
Still attractive and striking in appearance, the hero landed in
Aegina, bearing in his right hand a spray of the olive tree which was
sacred to Athena, patron deity of Athens. Although he had not visited
the island for many years, the sons of Aeacus recognized him and wel-
comed him as an ally and as a personal friend. The leaders of both
parties entered the palace, and Cephalus delivered his message. Remind-
ing Aeacus of the ancient friendship between the two countries and of
their treaty, he requested aid, adding as a further incentive the rather
improbable idea that Minos intended to subdue the whole of Greece.
Aeacus urged him courteously to take whatever soldiers he desired, for
happily Aegina possessed soldiers in abundance. After commenting on
the remarkable number of young men in Aegina, Cephalus noted the ab-
sence of many persons whom he remembered from his earlier visit. Aeacus
then proceeded to explain the cause.
His explanation dealt with the origin of a people called Myrmidons.
The Iliad often had mentioned them as inhabiting Phthia in Thessaly
and as being subjects of Peleus and his son, Achilles. It added that
Peleus was a son of Aeacus and a grandson of Jupiter. The Iliad had
not associated the Myrmidons with the island of Aegina. But the Cata-
129
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:21 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015005276665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? METAMORPHOSES -- BOOK SEVEN
logues and subsequent tradition made this island their native country
and tried to account for the name Myrmidons by deriving it from the
Greek word for ant (myrmex). Jupiter had transformed the ants of
Aegina into the Myrmidons.
More than one cause was assigned for the event. According to the
Catalogues and the Manual, Aegina and her son were at first the only
inhabitants of the island, and Aeacus desired more human society. But
an Alexandrian author, whose work now is lost, gave a different explana-
tion. Originally, he said, there were other inhabitants of Aegina, and
Aeacus became their king. Juno, resenting the favor shown her rival,
caused a serpent to poison the water. This brought a plague and de-
stroyed so many lives that Jupiter repopulated the island by the trans-
formation of ants. The new story was mentioned by Ovid's Greek con-
temporary, Strabo. Ovid used it in his narrative of Aeacus. If such
remarkable events had occurred in a friendly island which lay opposite
the harbor of Athens and was plainly visible from the Acropolis, there
is no doubt that Cephalus would have been acquainted with the fact. But
Ovid assumed the contrary and obtained a situation most favorable for
telling the story.
Throughout human history there have occurred frequent epidemics
of disease, with rapid and extensive destruction of life. The underlying
cause has been uncleanly conditions and lowered vitality of the people,
occasioned often by poverty or famine. Under these circumstances a
virulent, contagious disease often appears and spreads rapidly. The in-
fection is transmitted by various means, but for a particular disease,
one means is apt to be most important. For bubonic plague it is the flea
which preys on rats and mice, for typhoid fever and cholera it is con-
taminated water, and for typhus fever it is the body louse. *
Of all such diseases the most formidable has been bubonic plague.
It was noted first in Libya during the third century B. C. In the sixth
century A. D. it invaded Europe and for fifty years spread through the
Roman Empire, causing immense loss of life. Towards the middle of the
fourteenth century the bubonic plague swept from China westwards into
? Typhus fever is thought to have been originally a disease of rats and mice. Often
the flea carries it from them to human beings, and for this reason there have been
periods of history, notably the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Europe, when
typhus fever and bubonic plague were epidemic at the same time. But in many re-
gions typhus fever became regularly a malady of human beings and was transmitted
from one to another by the louse. Transmission of this kind was not possible for
bubonic plague. Probably for this reason bubonic plague spent its force in Europe
during the seventeenth century and then decreased rapidly, but typhus fever became
still more prevalent and reached its height in the eighteenth century.
130
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:21 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015005276665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? CREATION OF THE MYRMIDONS
Europe. This epidemic, known as the Black Death, was particularly
destructive in Italy and in England, but it visited almost all the con-
tinent of Europe and is believed to have destroyed a quarter of the entire
population. Among its victims the most celebrated were the Laura of
Petrarch's lyrics and Blanche, wife of John of Gaunt, whom Chaucer
commemorated in his Book of the Duchess. Again in the latter half of
the seventeenth century the bubonic plague devastated the greater part
of Europe. This epidemic was most severe in Naples, where three hundred
thousand people died, but it was notorious for its ravages in London.
Other destructive and recurrent epidemics have been due to small
pox; to typhoid fever, the dread scourge of armies until the period of
the Spanish American War; to cholera, a chronic disease of India; and
more recently to influenza, which spread over the whole world during
the Great War. But the earliest recorded plague was due to typhus
fever. This disease brought the famous epidemic in Athens of the fifth
century B. C. and probably the epidemic which Livy describes as oc-
curring at almost the same time in Rome. It reappeared in Europe at
frequent intervals until the period of the Great War. In modern times
epidemics of typhus have destroyed as many as a fifth of those who fell
sick. Under the less favorable conditions of the ancient world the death
rate probably was much higher.
Fortunately, all the diseases which occasion plagues have been lim-
ited by natural conditions. In the tropics the hot, dry weather of sum-
mer tends to lessen both the evil bacteria and the means of transmission.
In the temperate climates the cold of winter usually has a similar effect.
But unknown causes appear often to have operated powerfully in the
same direction and brought the pestilence to an end. Thus after the
great epidemic which invaded London during the middle of the seven-
teenth century, the bubonic plague spontaneously became less active
and gradually retreated eastwards, until in the latter half of the nine-
teenth century it was confined to small areas of Asia and East Africa.
Recently it has become active again and has shown a tendency to spread
widely. But all former causes of plague now are checked by more
hygienic conditions and better care of the sick.
Uncivilized nations often have personified the plague as a malignant
supernatural being. In a Russian folk-tale this being came as a white
hag to a certain peasant. Promising him immunity in his own person,
she mounted on his shoulders and required him to bear her far and wide.
At length she directed him towards a village by the river where lived his
131
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:21 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015005276665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? METAMORPHOSES -- BOOK SEVEN
own wife and children. Resolved to perish in their defense, he seized the
hag firmly and plunged into the river. The Plague rose to the surface
but fled, abashed at such unfaltering courage.
A similar idea influenced many Greek and Roman accounts. They
pictured an angry deity shooting arrows among men. And, since the
cause was supernatural and the event far off in time, they often imag-
ined the deity as afflicting also other forms of life which are useful to
man, such as cultivated plants and domestic animals. These authors
were mistaken in believing that a single malady would become a plague
both in plant and in animal life. Diseases which are contagious for one
of these forms are not contagious for the other. An animal or a human
being may sicken from eating an unhealthy plant, but the malady does
not spread to others.
And such authors greatly exaggerated the possibility of the same
disease afflicting both animals and men. Bubonic plague and typhus
fever often have originated among rats and spread to human beings.
Bubonic plague sometimes has become epidemic among other small
rodents and has been caught by individual animals as unlike as snakes,
dogs, and monkeys. But in general a disease contagious among animals
is not contagious among human beings. It stops with the individual who
has had contact with the animal. And this is true especially of diseases
which become epidemic among the larger domestic species. Nevertheless
it is a fact that famine often prepared the way for plague. Disease of
one kind which destroyed crops or livestock might open the way for
disease of another kind among human beings.
According to the Iliad, Apollo, angry at the treatment of his
priest, destroyed first the dogs and mules and then the soldiers of the
Greek army. Sophocles told how Apollo and Mars were offended at the
crimes of Oedipus and how they first blighted the ripe grain and the new-
born of cattle and human beings and then caused a general pestilence in
Thebes. Vergil told how the gods warned Aeneas that his choice of a
location for his new city was wrong by sending a pestilence on trees,
grain, and human beings. Livy recorded a plague which destroyed both
cattle and men until the Romans appeased the angry gods. And both
Livy and Ovid (Bk. 15) told of another plague from which the Romans
delivered themselves by sending to Epidaurus for the god Aesculapius. *
*In a similar manner the Old Testament named anger of Jehovah as cause of the
plagues which occurred after the Philistines captured the ark of God and after David
had taken a census of his people. But it spoke of these plagues as destroying only
human beings.
132
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:21 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015005276665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? CREATION OF THE MYRMIDONS
Thucydides was the first to describe a pestilence carefully and from
personal observation. He told in some detail of the plague which devas-
tated Athens and the neighboring country in the summer of the year
430 B. C. , hoping that his account might afford guidance in meeting
future visitations of the same kind. Believing it useless to seek the cause,
Thucydides confined himself to its effect.
Beginning in Aethiopia, the plague swept northwards into Egypt
and Libya, continued through the Persian Empire, and at the time of
the first Peloponnesian invasion arrived in Athens. Not realizing the
formidable nature of the disease, the Athenians at first combated it with
ordinary remedies. The physicians used their skill in vain and were
among the first to perish; the people in general resorted to prayers in
the temples or to oracles and found them utterly useless. Soon men felt
overwhelmed by the calamity and ceased to struggle against it.
Thucydides then described rather accurately the symptoms of
what we now recognize as typhus fever with complications of bronchitis.
In individual cases the disease began without warning and followed a
regular course. The patient experienced violent fever in the head and
inflammation of the eyes. The tongue and the inside of the throat suf-
fused with blood, respiration became unnatural and the breath fetid.
The malady then attacked the chest. It caused sneezing, hoarseness, and
a violent cough. It afterwards attacked the stomach and caused vomit-
ing and convulsions. The surface of the body was livid and was covered
with pustules. Externally there was little fever, but internally it was
intense. The sick could not bear any covering. They felt an overpower-
ing desire for coolness and an insatiable thirst. Many actually threw
themselves into cisterns but could get no relief, whether they drank little
or much. The sick were continually restless and unable to sleep. At this
stage the plague brought death to many, after afflicting them in all from
seven to nine days. If the patient survived, the malady descended into
the bowels, causing ulceration, diarrhea, and exhaustion, which often
proved fatal. Finally it settled in the extremities. Some lost fingers or
toes, some grew blind, and others were affected with such amnesia as not
to remember either themselves or their friends.
No remedy for the disease could be relied on. What was beneficial
to one man proved harmful to another. Most appalling was the despair
of those who found themselves attacked, for they did not even try to
save their lives. Hardly less appalling was the spread of the infection.
Those who ventured to care for the sick caught the plague themselves,
133
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:21 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015005276665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? METAMORPHOSES -- BOOK SEVEN
especially if they aspired to heroism. Often even friends and kindred of
the sick fled from the house, leaving them to die untended.
But fortunately those who recovered from the disease were im-
mune afterwards to serious attack and proved most valuable attendants
of the sufferers. All men congratulated them, and in excess of joy they
fancied they could not die of any other sickness. Such immunity to
further contagion is normal for those recovering from an attack of
typhus fever. But the condition of the patient is less fortunate than
Thucydides implied. After a few years he becomes susceptible again to
infection from others, and even after many years his original disease
may return in a virulent form.
In one respect, Thucydides continued, the malady was unique. At
other times birds, wild beasts of prey, and dogs would devour bodies
which lay unburied. Now such animals usually avoided the bodies of
those who died of the plague; and, if they did not, they soon caught
the disease themselves. In fact, they rarely were seen at this time -- a
proof, in the opinion of Thucydides, of their being destroyed by the
plague. If Thucydides was accurate in his statement of facts, his con-
clusion was improbable. The few animals which devoured the bodies
would succumb to typhus fever, but the disease would not become epi-
demic among the rest.
Because of the Spartan invasion, the country people crowded into
Athens during the heat of summer. This exposed them to the plague
and occasioned great loss of life. In their temporary lodgings the dead
lay one upon another. The dying crawled about every fountain. In the
emergency men no longer regarded the sancity of temples. These too
were used as lodgings and became filled with corpses. The customary
laws of burial were forgotten. Ceasing to lament for the dead, men dis-
posed of the bodies hastily in any way that offered itself. They did not
scruple to burn them on the funeral pyres of other people and to lay the
ashes in ground which rightfully belonged to others.
Lawlessness became general. Neither piety nor virtue seemed of
any avail. Everyone appeared to be under a sentence of speedy death.
Those who behaved honorably would not survive to be held in honor, and
those who did ill would not live long enough to be called to account. Many
did not scruple to indulge without restraint in the pleasure of the
moment.
This famous account of the plague influenced many later authors,
notably Procopius in his history and Boccaccio in the Decameron.
134
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:21 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015005276665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? CREATION OF THE MYRMIDONS
But the most remarkable influence appeared in the work of Lucre-
tius. At the close of his great poem this author dealt with the cause of
disease. It is a scientific fact that the presence in the air of an unusual
quantity of gas from decaying animal or vegetable matter promotes
the increase of harmful bacteria. Diseases are caused indirectly by an
unwholesome atmosphere. But Lucretius imagined that diseases were
caused directly by germs floating in the air and that the whole atmos-
phere of the country was infected. The idea was general in ancient
times, it was repeated during the eighteenth century by Gibbon in his
account of the plague at Constantinople, and it has been refuted only
recently. The atmosphere of every country, Lucretius went on, is in-
fected by certain forms of disease. The inhabitants become used to
them, but strangers are apt to sicken. Sometimes the atmosphere of
one country moves to another country; an unfamiliar infection pollutes
the water and grain, often destroying cattle; and it may also bring a
plague on human beings. A famous example was Athens infected by the
atmosphere of distant Egypt.
Lucretius proceeded to a description of the Athenian Plague. He
did not indicate the historical situation, and he left out the brighter
side of the picture, notably the immunity of those who recovered and
their tending the sick. Lucretius devoted his attention to the symptoms
of the disease and the demoralization of the people. In this he followed
Thucydides rather closely, but often intensified the horrors, so that his
narrative became overweighted with what was abnormal and repulsive.
Lucretius heightened the effect with new details observed probably
during pestilence of his own time. Some of these details were observed
in epidemics of the same plague, typhus fever. Thucydides had spoken
of the sick as retaining their bodily strength during the first stage of
the malady. Lucretius spoke of their suffering immediate prostration,
which ordinarily is true of typhus fever.
He noted also how the eruptions of the skin resembled those of
erysipelas, which is true of typhus fever in certain epidemics. But other
details suggest plagues of a different kind. Lucretius described the
tongue as swollen, rough, and bleeding -- a usual effect of small pox;
and his references to twitching of the hands, nosebleed, and the general
appearance before death suggest the normal effect of typhoid.
He mentioned a spread of the plague from Athens into the coun-
try, destroying farmers in their huts. He told of the confusion at
funerals, adding that it led often to strife. But he did not mention
135
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:21 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015005276665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? METAMORPHOSES -- BOOK SEVEN
other forms of lawlessness -- perhaps because his work remained in-
complete.
Lucretius had studied a plague among human beings. To Vergil
his example suggested study of a plague among animals domestic and
wild. In the Georgics Vergil described a pestilence which had devastated
Illyria. Following Lucretius, he imagined that an unfamiliar atmo-
sphere inundated the country with strange infection, but he noted also
the intense heat of autumn. With Lucretius he noted the pollution of
water and subsistence of cattle, but he mentioned specifically lakes and
pastures.
Although much information had been available about the Athenian
plague, Lucretius had added realistic details from his own observation.
Since little information was obtainable about the Illyrian plague, Ver-
gil went much further. For almost all detail he drew on his own observa-
tion of sick animals. His account of symptoms was remarkably accu-
rate and vivid. But he implied a general situation which was improb-
able. Drawing uncritically on observations made at various times and
in many places, he described chiefly the effect of anthrax but also the
effect of a number of other diseases, and he implied that all of them
became epidemic at the same time. In describing the plague, Lucretius
emphasized the element of horror. Vergil introduced piety and pity.
Speaking first of sheep, Vergil mentioned thirst shriveling their
limbs and then watery humor dissolving their bones. The animal stand-
ing by the altar and adorned for sacrifice fell down in the throes of
death; or, if it was killed by the priest, the scanty blood hardly tinged
the sacrificial knife. The flesh would not burn, and the entrails afforded
no guidance to the seer. Among the pleasant fields and before the full
cribs the calves died in herds. Madness beset the usually harmless dogs.
Contagious pneumonia attacked the swine. The horse which had been
victor in the race languished, and Vergil described in detail his terrible
death. Vergil told at some length of the ox falling at the plow and
perishing sadly, despite his faithful labor and temperate life. Unseemly
buffaloes must draw the car at Juno's temple; men had to cultivate their
fields by hand. The wild creatures too were stricken and forsook their
normal ways. The wolf no longer threatened the herds; deer wandered
with dogs near human habitations. And, with splendid imagination,
Vergil added even more remarkable details, such as the sea creatures
lying dead on the beach and the water snake perishing, his scales erect
with terror.
136
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:21 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015005276665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? CREATION OF THE MYRMIDONS
Nothing could check the disease. The remedies attempted in-
creased the evil. Chiron and Melampus labored in vain. Tisiphone,
accompanied by Disease and Dread, raged in the fields. Bodies lay in
heaps decomposing or they were buried wholesale in pits, for the plague
had ruined flesh, hide, and fleece. Even men fell sick, if they put on
clothing made from the infected wool.
In describing the plague at Aegina, Ovid profited by the example
of all his predecessors. Following his Alexandrian authority, he at-
tributed the plague to a hostile deity. Juno, angry because the island
was named after her rival, Aegina, sent this terrible affliction on its in-
habitants. It was strange that she delayed until Aeacus had become an
old man, but Ovid may have supposed that she was offended chiefly by
the growing prosperity of the island. The supernatural cause gave
Ovid's narrative a traditional and impressive effect, and it made easier
the choice of striking detail.
With the Iliad and Sophocles, Ovid imagined the plague as attack-
ing first animals and then human beings. But in his description he
relied chiefly on the more scientific narratives of Thucydides, Lucretius,
and Vergil. These authors helped him to give a stronger sense of reality,
and they allowed him to choose what he found best from much circum-
stantial detail. Ovid combined the element of horror in the work of
Lucretius with the piety and pity in the work of Vergil. He appreciated
Vergil's moderation and his method of contrasting the normal, flourish-
ing state of the animal with the terrible effects of the plague.
Thucydides, Lucretius, and Vergil had been scientific in their aim
and had been anxious to show the actual course of a pestilence. Their
purpose limited them to details which were scientifically probable and
required them to include all details which would further an understand-
ing of the facts. Ovid was interested only in literary effect -- in sug-
gesting terrible destruction. He was not limited by scientific probability
or obliged to give more than was necessary for his own purpose. Lucre-
tius and Vergil had seemed to digress from the main course of their work.
Ovid made his description an essential part of the story.
All previous accounts of pestilence, from the Iliad to Vergil, had
been impersonal and general. This was true even of Thucydides, who
had been present at the time of the Athenian plague and himself had been
attacked by the disease. But Ovid made his account the personal nar- -
rative of King Aeacus, an eyewitness of the event and the one chiefly
concerned in the catastrophe.
137
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:21 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015005276665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? METAMORPHOSES -- BOOK SEVEN
In accord with Thucydides, Ovid showed Aeacus observing how at
first the formidable nature of the malady was unknown and how the
physicians combatted it in vain. The circumstances preceding the epi-
demic Ovid took chiefly from Lucretius and Vergil. South winds blew
continually, causing sultry heat. Ovid added that during four months
there were continual clouds and fog. The infected air polluted springs
and lakes. But Ovid also introduced and magnified the Alexandrian
author's idea of a serpent poisoning the water. Thousands of serpents
crawled through the fields and tainted the rivers with their venom.
He then told of the plague among animals. The details he took
chiefly from Vergil, but he recorded them in better order and made his
description more concise. Although he felt obliged to omit some ad-
mirable passages, this was an advantage. Like Vergil, Ovid indicated
first the extent of the destruction. It fell on dogs and birds, sheep and
cattle, and wild beasts. He noted the death of oxen at the plow. And,
since by poetic license Vergil had called them bulls, Ovid followed his
example. The sheep bleated feebly, while their wool fell off and their
bodies rotted away. The horse, renowned on the track, forgot his earlier
glory and groaned in the stall, doomed to an ignoble end.
Wild animals too became infected. Here Ovid used several fine
details from Vergil but added also a number of his own. The boar for-
got to rage, the deer to flee, the bear to attack the herds of cattle. Vergil
had introduced the Fury Tisiphone raging in the fields and causing
widespread death. Ovid omitted the incident, probably because he had
introduced Tisiphone prominently in the tale of Athamas. Through all
the country, he continued, there lay decomposing carcasses, filling the
air with stench. Dogs, birds, and hoary wolves avoided them and left
them to spread contagion.
The plague soon passed to human beings, first in the country and
then in the city. Here Ovid followed Lucretius, but not closely, and
again he made the description more concise. In individual cases the
vitals were consumed with fever, the face was flushed, the breathing
labored. The tongue became rough and swollen, the mouth was open
and gasping. No bed or covering was tolerable. Ovid added the pic-
turesque idea of the sick vainly throwing themselves flat on the ground,
in the hope of cooling their bodies. But the ground did not cool them.
On the contrary it became hot. With Thucydides he observed that phy-
sicians themselves perished from the disease, and with Vergil he noted
138
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:21 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015005276665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? CREATION OF THE MYRMIDONS
that remedies increased the evil. The more faithful the attendants, the
more quickly they caught the plague.
The sick, despairing, grew reckless of precautions and restraints,
for nothing availed. Shameless they lay in fountains, streams, and
cisterns and drank unsatisfied until death. Ovid added a further horror.
Many, unable to rise, died in the water; yet others did not scruple to
drink it. Ovid then elaborated effectively ideas of Thucydides and Lu-
cretius. So hateful did their sick beds appear that many forsook them.
The weakest rolled about on the ground; the others fled from their
homes, hoping so to avoid the unknown evil. One could see them stagger-
ing about the roads or prostrate on the ground, weeping, rolling their
eyes, and extending their hands towards the pall of clouds.
Aeacus longed to die with his people. Everywhere he saw them lying
in heaps, like mellow apples or acorns shaken from the tree. Thucydides
had spoken of prayers as useless; Lucretius had spoken of parents fall-
ing dead on the bodies of their children. Ovid combined these two ideas
in a more effective manner. Aeacus pointed out to Cephalus a temple
of Jupiter, with its long flight of steps. How many, he said, brought
thither fruitless offerings! How often a husband praying for his wife or
a father for his son died, still holding part of the incense unused!
Euripides in the Hippolytus had mentioned it as a rule of the gods that
one deity should not thwart the purpose of another, and probably for
this reason Ovid showed the people of Aegina obtaining no help even
from Jupiter, their divine patron and the king of the gods.
Ovid then adapted effectively a detail from Vergil. Often, he said,
bulls standing at the altar and being decorated for sacrifice fell, with-
out receiving the stroke. While Aeacus himself was about to make such
an offering in behalf of his family and his people, the animal uttered
dreadful bellowings, fell down, and hardly stained with its blood the
sacrificial knife. The disease had so ravaged its vitals as to make them
useless for augury.
Human bodies were piled before the temple doors and -- more
horrible -- before the very altars. Thucydides and Lucretius had
spoken of the sick as not even trying to save their lives. Ovid declared
that many hung themselves, anticipating their fate. He then followed
the account that Lucretius had given of funerals. The usual ceremo-
nies were lacking, for they could not be performed. The dead either lay
unburied or were heaped indiscriminately on pyres. Men fought for a
chance to burn the corpses of their friends. No kinsmen were left to
139
?