Enjoinder and Argument in Ovid’s Remedia Amoris 3515070788, 9783515070782

Citation preview

David Jones

Enjoinder and Argument in Ovid’s Remedia Amoris HERMES Einzelschriften 77

Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart

DAVID JONES ENJOINDER AND ARGUMENT IN OVID’S REMEDIA AMORIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments

6

Bibliography

10 7–

Introduction

19 11–

Chapter:

One: Enjoinders

35 20–

Two: Proofs

41 36–

Three: Exempla

68 42–

Four: Promissory Terms

87 69–

Five: Tractatio

94 88–

95

Epilogue Appendix

Index

–Sequential Identification of E+A Components

114 96–

of Passages Discussed

from theRemedia Amoris

117 115–

General Index

119 118–

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I amindebted to many people for their assistance which made this corpusculum possible. Myfirst thanks are owedto Professor Alva W. Bennett, whofostered in his students a love for Latin literature on its ownterms. I wasfortunate enough to have hadthe opportunity to study and discuss Ovidian matters with J.P. Sullivan before his untimely passing. At various stages of its development Professors A.J. Boyle, Jo-Ann Shelton, and Jürgen Blänsdorf of Hermes-Einzelschriften read my manuscript andI thank them for their many corrections andinsightful suggestions. ῳτ εκ α ὶ φ ιλ ο σ ό ῷφ My deepest gratitude to Professor Robert Renehan, τ φ ιλ α ν θ ῳ ρ ώ , for his unfailing generosity of intellect andspirit which has inspired π so many. All errors of judgement and execution are, of course, due to my own lack of discretion andpatience. Myloving thanks to myparents and, for hergracious meae vitae.

understanding,

to mywife,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

F., O vid as Vates in the Proem to the Ars Amatoria’, CP 85 (1990), 48. ‘ pp.44– ALEWELL, Karl, Über dasrhetorische Paradeigma, Leipzig, 1913. 160. andthe Roman Elegists’, CP 45 (1950), pp. 145– ALLEN, Archibald, S incerity” 20)’, Hermes BENNETT, Alva Walter, ‘“ ‘Sententia andCatalogue in Propertius (3.9.1– 243. 95 (1967), pp. 222– BENNETT, Charles E., Syntax of Early Latin, Boston, 1910/Hildesheim, 1966. BINNICKER, Charles Mathews, Didactic Qualities of Ovid’s Ars Amatoria, Diss.

AHERN, Charles

Chapel Hill, 1967. BRÜCK, Carl, De Ovidio scholasticarum declamationum imitatore, Diss. Giessen,

1909.

L., Studia Pindarica, Berkeley, 1986 (reissue of Volume 18 (1962), nos. 1 and 2, of the University of California Publications in Classical

BUNDY, Elroy

Philology).

in Greek and Roman Poetry, Edinburgh, 1972. CONTE (1), Gian Biagio, ‘L’amore senza elegia: I «Remedia Amoris» e la logica di 53 in Rimedio contro l’amore by Caterina Lazzarini, un genere’ pp. 9– Venice, 1986. CONTE (2), Gian Biagio, The Rhetoric of Imitation, translated by Charles Segal, Ithaca, 1986. COPE, Edward Merideth, The Rhetoric of Aristotle, edited by John Edwin Sandys, NewYork, 1973 reprint of 1877. DAY, Archibald A., The Origins of Latin Love Elegy, Oxford, 1938. DODDS, E. R., Plato: Gorgias, Oxford, 1959. , 167. DURLING, Robert M., O vid as Praeceptor Amoris’ CJ 53 (1958), pp. 157– EDWARDS, Catherine,‘ The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome, Cambridge, 1993. EFFE, Bernd, Dichtung und Lehre, Untersuchungen zur Typologie des antiken Lehrgedichts, Munich 1977. ERNESTI, Johann Christian Gottlieb, Lexicon technologiae Latinorum rhetoricae, Hildesheim, 1962, reissue of Leipzig, 1797. FANTHAM, Elaine, Comparative Studies in Republican Latin Imagery, Toronto, 1972. FRAENKEL (1), Eduard, Horace, Oxford, 1957. FRAENKEL (2), Eduard, Aeschylus: Agamemnon, Oxford, 1962. FRÄNKEL, Hermann, Ovid: Apoet between TwoWorlds, Berkeley, 1969. humour chez Ovide, Grenoble, 1972. FRÉCAUT, Jean-Marc, L’esprit et l’ FYLER, John M., O mnia Vincit Amor: Incongruity andthe Limitations of Structure ‘ 203. Poetry’, CJ 66 (1971), pp. 196– in Ovid’s Elegiac

CAIRNS, Francis, Generic Composition

8

Bibliography

396, Diss. mit Kommentar zu Vers 1– Berlin, 1969. GRIFFIN (1), Jasper, Latin Poets andRoman Life, London, 1985. GRIFFIN (2), Jasper, TheMirror of Myth, London, 1986. GWYNN, Aubrey, Roman Education, NewYork, 1966, reissue of Cambridge, 1926. HÄUSSLER, Reinhard, Nachträge zu A. Otto, Sprichwörter undsprichwörtliche Redensarten derRömer, Hildesheim, 1968. HAVELOCK, Eric A., Preface to Plato, New York, 1967, reissue of Cambridge, 1963. HENDERSON (1), A. A. R., Remedia Amoris, Edinburgh, 1979. Notes on the Text of Ovid’s Remedia Amoris’, CQ 30 HENDERSON (2), A. A. R., “ 173. (1980), pp. 59– HIGHAM, T. F., O vidandRhetoric’, in Ovidiana edited byN. I. Herescu, Paris 1958 ‘ J., O vid andPolitics’, Historia 20 (1971), pp. 458– 66. HOLLEMAN, A. W. HOLZBERG, Niklas, O‘vids erotische Lehrgedichte und die römische Liebeslegie’, ‘ pp. 185– 204. WS15 (1981), JAEGER, Werner, Paideia, translated by Gilbert Highet, NewYork, 3 volumes 1939– 1944. KENNEDY, Duncan F., TheArts of Love, Cambridge, 1993. KENNEDY, George, Aristotle on Rhetoric, Oxford, 1991. KENNEY, E. J., ‘Nequitiae Poeta’, in Ovidiana edited byN. I. Herescu, Paris, 1958. KIRK, G. S., TheIliad: A Commentary, Volume 1, Cambridge, 1985. LABATE, Mario, L’arte difarsi amare, Pisa, 1984. LAINENTRALGO, Pedro, The Therapy of the Word, translated by L. J. Rather and John M. Sharp, NewHaven, 1970. LAW,Helen H., ‘Hyperbole in Mythological Comparisons’, AJP 47 (1926), pp. 361–

GEISLER, Hans Joachim, Remedia Amoris

372. LAZZARINI, Caterina, Rimedio

contro l’amore, Venice, 1986. in the Ars Amatoria’, TAPA 95 (1964),

LEACH, Eleanor Winsor, ‘Georgic Imagery

154. pp. 142–

die Liebe, Die Pflege des weiblichen Gesichtes, Berlin, 1960. 60 in Hippocratic Writings edited by G. E. R. LLOYD, G. E. R., ‘Introduction’pp. 9– Lloyd, London, 1978. LUCK, Georg, TheLatin Love Elegy, London, 1959. 814, Diss. Bonn, LUCKE, Christina, Remedia Amoris: Kommentar zu Vers 397– 1982. LYNNE, R. O. A. M., TheLatin Love Poets, Oxford, 1980. MACK, Sarah, Ovid, NewHaven, 1988. MENDELL, Clarence W., Latin Poetry: TheNewPoets andtheAugustans, NewHaven, 1965. MÜLLER, Richard, Motivkatalog der römische Elegie, Diss. Zurich, 1952. LENZ, Friedrich Walter, Ovid: Heilmittel gegen

Bibliography

9

MYEROWITZ, Molly, Ovid’s Games

of Love, Detroit, 1985. (1), J. K., Augustus and the NewPoetry, Brussels, 1967. NEWMAN (2), J. K., The Concept of the Vates inAugustan Poetry, Brussels, 1967. ONG(1), Walter, ThePresence of the Word, NewHaven, 1967. ONG(2), Walter, Orality andLiteracy, London, 1982. OTTO, A., Die Sprichwörter undsprichwörtlichen Redensarten der Römer, Hildesheim, 1962 reprint of 1890.

NEWMAN

Paola, Remedia Amoris, Bologna, 1988. Karl, ‘Untersuchungen zu Ovids Remedia Amoris’, WS39 (1917), pp. 90–

PINOTTI,

PRINZ,

121.

James C., ‘Enthymemes, Examples, and Rhetorical Method’, in Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse, edited by Robert J. Connors, Lisa S. Ede, andAndrea A. Lunsford, Carbondale, 1984. RENEHAN, Robert, T he Greek Anthropocentric View of Man’, HSCP 85 (1981), pp. 59. ‘ 239– Ross, David O., Backgrounds to Augustan Poetry, Cambridge, 1975. SLINGS, S. R., ‘Written andSpoken Language: AnExercise in the Pragmatics of the 109. Greek Sentence’, CP 87 (1992), pp.95– SMITH, Kirby Flower, The Elegies of Albius Tibullus, Darmstadt, 1985 reprint of

RAYMOND,

1913. SPURLOCK, Lewis Clay, Ovid’s Ars Amatoria,

Diss. Iowa City, 1975.

SYME, Ronald, History in Ovid, Oxford, 1978. THIBAULT, J. C., TheMystery of Ovid’s Exile, Berkeley, 1964. VERDUCCI (1), Florence, Ovid’s Toyshop of the Heart, Princeton, 1985.

(2), Florence, T he Contest of Rational Libertinism and Imaginative Li‘ Amatoria’, PCPh 15 (1980), pp.29– 39. cense in Ovid’s Ars VEYNE, Paul, Roman Erotic Elegy, translated byDavid Pellauer, Chicago, 1988. WATSON, Patricia, ‘Mythological Exempla in Ovid’s Ars Amatoria’, CP 78 (1983), 126. pp. 117– WHEELER (1), Arthur Leslie, ‘Erotic Teaching in Roman Elegy and the Greek 450. Sources, Part 1’ , CP 5 (1910), pp. 440– WHEELER (2), Arthur Leslie, ‘Propertius as Praeceptor Amoris’, CP 5 (1910), pp. 40. 28– WHITAKER, Richard, Myth andPersonal Experience in Roman Love Elegy, GöttinVERDUCCI

gen, 1983. WILKINSON, L. P., Ovid

Recalled, Cambridge, 1955.

(1), M. M., TheIliad of Homer, London, 1978. WILLCOCK (2), M. M., ‘Mythological Paradeigma’, CQ 14 (1964), pp. 141– 154. WILLIAMS (1), Gordon, Tradition andOriginality in Roman Poetry, Oxford, 1968. WILLIAMS (2), Gordon, Figures of Thought in Roman Poetry, NewHaven, 1980. WILLCOCK

10

Bibliography

All quotations from Ovid’s Remedia Amoris andArsAmatoria aretaken from: KENNEY, E. J. (ed.), P. Ovidi Nasonis: Amores, Medicamina Faciei Femineae, Ars Amatoria, Remedia Amoris, Oxford, 1961.

INTRODUCTION

Admea, decepti iuvenes, praecepta venite, quos suus ex omniparte fefellit amor. discite sanari per quemdidicistis amare; unamanus vobis

vulnus opemque feret.

terra salutares herbas eademque nocentes nutrit, et urticae proxima saepe rosa est; vulnus in Herculeo quae quondam fecerat hoste, vulneris auxilium Pelias hasta tulit.

45

48 Remedia Amoris 41– In this passage from the exordium of the Remedia Amoris Ovid, who had previously taught the iuvenes howto wintheir love in theArsAmatoria, enjoins those whom love has played false to come to him for further erotodidaxis. He offers an argument for compliance to the enjoinders venite and discite which consists of a guarantee for a successful cure for love at the hand of the one responsible for the una manus vobis vulnus opemque feret. The guarantee is followed by affliction – terra salutares exempla from nature andmyth which act as proof of its legitimacy – herbas eademque nocentes/nutrit, et urticae proxima saepe rosa est,/vulnus in Herculeo quae quondam fecerat hoste,/vulneris auxilium Pelias hasta tulit. An enjoinder and supporting argument for compliance, such as employed here in the exordium to convince the lovelorn to partake of his services, is the main rhetorical device through which Ovid purports to dispense cures for the dolor immedicabilis.1 814), which contains the poet’s salutary regimen, is a nearly The tractatio (lines 79– unbroken series of enjoinders andsupporting arguments (enjoinder andsupporting argument –E+A) and it is with this persuasive tactic that Ovid operates on the motifs of amatory elegy. To state that a didactic piece, such as the Remedia Amoris, is constructed out of authoritative advice andattendant arguments for the efficacy of that advice borders onthetautological. Outof what else wasmost ancient didactic composed? It is the aimof this work to demonstrate theprecise nature of therhetoric of Ovidian elegiac didaxis as displayed in the E+As of the Remedia Amoris. My hope is that this investigation, while it may not radically alter one’s interpretation of the Remedia Amoris, will provide insight into the structure and style of Ovid’s didactic poetry which mayincrease one’s apppreciation andenjoyment of thepiece. TheE+A tactic is a salient feature of the ‘natural’rhetoric displayed in the earliest didactic situations/texts of the Greco-Roman tradition. In Book 1 of the Iliad the attempt of Hephaistos to dissuade Hera from contesting with Zeus for the sake of mortals takes theform of anE+A. 1Onthevana magisteria inthecase of love seeVerducci (2) p. 35.

12

Introduction

ή ,κ ηneρ α ρἐμ ὶἀ , ν μ τ ά έ ν ε σ δ ο χ ε οκη α θ ι, μῆ τέτλ ήoεφ μ ίλ η νπ eρἐοῦ σ α νἐ νὀφ θ μ α ο λ ῖσ μ ινἴδω α ι μ α ιἀ χν ι δυνήσο ειν θ ὔτ εδο ρ τ έvη evóςη μ μ ε , τό ύ ο ν ’ςγ ι σθ ηφ έρβ α ρὈ μ ὰ λ π α ιο ςἀ λ ύ ργ έ ο ν μ ε ῖν ἀ ρ α ισ χ ἤ δ ηγ ά ρμ εκ α ὶἄ λ λ λ ο τ’ἀ eξ έμ eν aῶ eμ α ιμ τα 590 ῥ ῖψ επ ο δ ὸ ςτετα γ ὼ νἀ π ὸβη λ ο ῦθ eσ π eσ ίoιo, η ν κ ε α ’ἠ óμ ,ἅ μ λ τα eρ αδ ρφ δύ μ ίῳ α ν τ ι π νδ’ἦ ᾶ ῳ ,ὀ τι θ ςδ’ἔ λ ςἐν ο μ ίγ ὸ υ ν μ ή ῆ ο νἐ νΛ π π εσ εν κ ά .

593 586–

τ έ Here the basic constituents of the argument for compliance to the enjoinders τ ήσ ε οare: a threat as to the consequences of noncompliance –μ ε σ χ ά ν λ α θ ιand ἀ ρἐοῦ φ ίλ η νπ σ α ε νἐ θ νὀφ α μ λ ο ῖσ ινἴδω μ eιvoμ v, τό α ι/θ έvη τ εδ’ ο ὔτ ι δυ ή ν ρ α ισ μ eῖv; a general statement (gnome) as proof for the /χ ρ χν ιἀ α μ ε ο σ evóςπ μ ύ ρ εσ έ θ α ι; an exemplum ςἀ τιφ ν eλ μ ιο π ρὈ λ ύ ργ ὰ ἀ έ ςγ ο legitimacy of the threat – eῖov as evidence for the truth of the general statement, in this case an oἰκ επ εκ ῖψ ο ρμ α ὶἄ δ /ῥ ά ς λ μ λ ὸ εξ εν λ ῶ ο ηγ τ’ ἀ τα έ α ι μεμα δ δ ά ρ α π , –ἤ ειγ α μ η ρ μ ν ε μ ρφ ό α , ἅ μ αδ’ ἠελ λ ο ᾶ ν δ’ ἦ ῦθ εσ π εσ ίο ιο ίῳ ,/π ὸ βη π νἀ γ ὼ τετα ῳ , ὀλ ςδἔ ο ε ίγ ν . This E+A displays ν μ ςἐνῆ νἐ μ ὸ νΛή ο τ ιθ π εσ υ ά π ν τι/κ κ α τα δύ a characteristic common to others found in ’Homer, Hesiod andother poets of the pre-philosophical period, as well as to many of those in the Remedia Amoris itself, inthat the argument for compliance to the enjoinder is composed of sententious and analogical reasoning employing widely held truths and familiar paradigms, rather than complex ratiocination andcasuistry.2 That, of course, does not mean that the structure of E+As in Homer or the Remedia Amoris is always ‘simple’or that their logic is always patent. Earlier in Book 1 Nestor couches his advice to Achilles and Agamemnon to be persuasible in a neatly turned piece of ring composition.3 θἄ εσ ἀ λ λ ὰπ ίθ ῖο ε νἐμ ὸ τ ἐσ ω ρ έ τ εω ὲν δ ω φ μ ’’ἐ ἤ δ ηγ ρὑ ά ρπ μ ο γ ῖν τ ὼ κ έπ α ὶἀ ρ είο ε σ ινἠ ’ἀθ ρ ιζ η έ ’ο σ α ίλ μ ,κ ἵγ ο ν α ὶο ρ ά σ ινὡ . ὔπ ο τ έμ ν δ ἀ ςοὐ α ςἴδ νἀνέρ το ίο ο δ ρπ ω μ υ ὲἴδω α ά ι, ο ὐγ ίθ ο ντ ρύ α ν εΔ τ άτ ειρ νΠ ο ἷο ν , αλα ῶ ν έ ιμ ο ,π ε μ ο ν η , ξ ιό δ ντ νΠ φ ά ο ε εκ τίθ ο α ν λ ὶἀ ύ έ ατ’Ἐ ιν Κ α η ν εΐδ , ἐπ ἰγ ιείκίε η σ έ ατ’Α λ ο νἀ θ α ν ά το ισ ι Θ θ ενἀ ν ρ δ ῶ ν ὴκεῖν ι ἐπ ο ιχθ ν νρά ιδ ίω ο ο ρ τ τισ κ ά ησ τ ο ιμ ὲ νἔσ α ρ νκ ρ τίσ κ ὶκ α ά χο ν α τ ο ιςἐμά τ , ο

260

265

2 Forbroader discussions onvarious features of argumentation inearly Western texts seeOng(1) pp. 31ff. and80ff.; Havelock passim. For discussions on features of Ovid’s argumentation with an orientation which differs fromthis study

seeBrück andBinniker.

3 See Willcock (1) pp. 192ff. on various elements of the ring composition in this passage and 54 for Homer’s rather involved argumentation in his use of the Niobe and Willcock (2) pp. 141– Meleager myths intheIliad.

Introduction

13

φ η ρ σ ὶνὀ ρ ῴ εσ ο ισ κ ι, κ ςἀπ α ό ὶἐκπ γ λ λ ω εσ σ ά ν α . μ ίλ ε ο νἐ κΠ μ εθ ο ύ λ ο ν ώ υἐλθ , ὼ ντο ινἐγ ὲ ῖσ κ α ὶμ ς κα ρα λ έσ ὰ α ὐ ν τ τ ο ογ ί α ίη 270 ςγ λ ό νἐ θ ξἀ ε π ίη τη ’α ὐ μ τ νἐγ ώκ ὸ είν νο ο ισ ι δ’ἄ ὔτ η νκ α τ’ἔ ις μ χό κ α ὶμα α χ ο έ ιτ ο ρ ο τ ίε ιχθ ιο ο ἰσ ν ινἐπ ό ιμ τ νο ἵν νβ ῶ ῦ ῳ ότ εμύθ τ ε ν λ νξύ ο έ υβου ω νπ είθ ν ιε έ νμ κ α ὶμ ς μ , ἐπ ε ν ιν ο μ ε ε ὶπ είθ εσ θ α ιἄ μ ὶὔ α εκ θ εσ ίθ ὰπ λ λ ἀ ίθ ) in lines 259 and274 supported by εσ This E+A consists of the enjoinder –π (ε θ π ε ὶπ ο νin line 274 and its είθ ειν εσ μ θ α ιἄ the gnomic proof for the enjoinder –ἐ antecedental exemplary evidence drawn from Nestor’s own experience that better 74). men than Achilles and Agamemnon have been persuaded by him (lines 259– Nestor’s ‘natural’rhetorical prowess is evident in his manipulation of the compo) occurs in the same position in the opening and (ε θ εσ ίθ λ ὰπ λ nents of this E+A. ἀ closing lines of the advice concerning persuasion andthe exemplary section also 73 expressing the same 62 and 271– shows responsional segments with lines 260– sentiments regarding the better menof the past with whom he hadcontact andwho followed his advice. The details on the expedition against the Centaurs occupies the central position of this paradigm ontypes susceptible to persuasion (of Nestor). ςof line 268, prototypes of unreasonability, battle against those men ρ ε ῆ The φ 65, whocompose the exemplary foil against which Achilles catalogued in lines 263– andAgamemnon are to set themselves.4 The violent endvisited upon the Centaurs, while not directly attributed to their lack of ‘persuasability, nevertheless portends ρ τισ τ ο ι ἐπ ά ιχθ ν ο ίω ν the fate awaiting those whose actions are at odds with the κ νwho listened to Nestor. Nestor avails himself of both direct logical ρ ῶ ν δ ἀ Achilles andAgamemnon > better men of the past andimplication – connection – ςin the exemplary material of this finely worked ρ ε ῆ Achilles andAgamemnon > φ E+A. Although the E+As briefly discussed above demonstrate different levels of rhetorical complexity, their argumentative power is based on the use of gnome and example, not on a set of sophisticated syllogisms or esoteric philosophical exegeses.5 The gnomes andexamples are derived both from the conventional, formulary wisdom abstracted from the common experience of the community and from personal insight and personal history, and the speaker’s persuasiveness and teaching effectiveness depends on his ability to manipulate these elements within the E+A. The E+A developed around this analogical andparadigmatic logic was an integral part of the didactic mode in many genres dueto its intrinsic persuasive strength and it continued as animportant rhetorical tool dueboth to that intrinsic strength andto theinfluence andimitation of earlier works inwhich it appeared.

4 Onthe question of the authenticity of line 265 see Willcock (1) p. 192 andKirk p. 80. 5 Onthe enthymematic nature of such argumentation andits suitability for audiences not trained in sophisticated logical constructs see Raymond p. 142ff; Aristotle’s Ars Rhetorica B 21and22; Cope notes onB 22 p. 220ff.; andKennedy p. 183 n. 143; p. 144; p. 187 n. 156; p. 160.

14

Introduction

In theArsAmatoria Ovidposits amor as anactivity susceptible to ratio, such as farming, hunting andother teachable pursuits. While his erotodidaxis concentrates onthe techniques necessary for success in love, rather than on esoteric philosophical instruction as to its place in the cosmos, within the ratio amandi gnomic and exemplary material gleaned from ‘scientific’fields not at handto the early poets appears alongside more traditional gnomes andexempla This type of pragmatic didaxis with its reliance on the ‘simpler’argumentation discussed above has a long poetic history andthe culti of Ovid’s audience were well aware that many of the works in this tradition were as concerned with the dulce as with the utile.6 The idea that love wassusceptible to codification as anars rancounter to the amatory motifs in many genres andespecially so to those of Roman amatory elegy andOvid took full advantage of the opportunities for allusion, irony andparody that placing this most sweet incongruity into didactic elegy afforded him and his sophisticated audience.7 Ovid as the medicus of love in the Remedia Amoris further altered the 6 SeeLuckpp.32– 3 ontheshift fromthehortatory nature of archaic elegy to theentertaining didaxis of Alexandrian elegy. See Effe pp. 238ff. for a study of the place of Ovidian parody within the development of didactic poetry. For discussions onthe utile as outside the aims of Ovid’s didactic elegy see Hollis p. 85, where he asserts that theAAis no more a practical guide to love than the Georgics is to farming; Mendell p. 213 asserts that there is no utilitas to be hadin Ovidian poetry

due to its lack of moral vision; cf. Labate’s study, in the chapter ‘Amore et società’from L’arte di farsi amare, onthe utile present in thetranscodification andtransvaluation of the ideologies of the mosmaiorum andthemoral code of Augustus into Ovidian amatory elegy. OnOvidian didactic asa parody of thepragmatic function indidactic poetry seeMyerowitz p. 147. 7 For varying interpretations as to howthe Ovidian didactic text concerned with remedia amoris is configured to promote irony andparody see: Conte (1) passim, where he argues that Ovid in his didactic elegy splits apart the conventional persona of the elegiac poet-lover into praeceptor and student andthusly is able to adhere to theconventions andcodes of amatory elegy intheconstitution of the‘patient’, while positing theminthebroader semantic andideological world of theLovedoctor. According to Conte, Ovid had already sported with subjective (lover) and objective (poet) positionalities in the Amores to the point where he instilled a metaliterary consciousness in his audience, which allowed it full appreciation of the irony intheplay of the subjective andobjective viewpoints. Hisdidactic elegy is therefore seen as less paradoxical inmanywaysthan theAmores, inthat thesplit between poet andelegiac lover is formalized. Fyler considers thedidactic asa genre unto itself, notasa modeinto which all genres maybe subsumed. Forhimirony andparadox result from the chaos which ensues from the mixture of two genres without regard to the hierarchial decorum”(p. 196) demanded of the conventions of each genre. Ovid purposefully creates “ incongruities of convention in order to destroy the integrity of any program to strategize the irrational. In a related approach Verducci (2) states that theAA(and by extension theRA), as much of Roman literature, destroys the integrity of the genres whence it arose and is characterized by Ovid’s exploitation of the “ innate formal dissonance”(p. 39) which the crasis of genres produces. Lover’s Discourse’from TheArts ofLove perceives opportunities for irony Kennedy inhischapter Ἀ in the praeceptor’s attempt to adopt a position outside’ of the normative language of a lover’s discourse upon which he is also dependent. This‘language can be (de)constructed by the level of self-consciousness with which it is spoken and the “ rhetoricity”of Ovid’s didactic elegy highlights its mimetic, artificial aspect. Myerowitz perceives Ovid’s didactic elegy as a consideration of how the fluid andfree world of play enables the conscious falsehood to become truth”(p. 183). She “ reads the didactic elegy of Ovid as a parody of didactic andelegiac convention which points outthe

Introduction

15

psycho-semantic condition of amatory elegy by subjecting love not only to control, but to cure. As in the Ars Amatoria it is within the E+As of a pragmatic didaxis dependent upon axiom andexample that the poet mixes the amatory, medical and other topoi which compose hisremedies. Aristotle found the authority of reasoning from gnome andparadigm inferior to other, more sophisticated, logical constructs, butfelt it retained its utility for certain speakers of high stature whowere persuading audiences which were ill-disposed to more complicated argumentation.8 Other rhetorical theorists warn against overuse of this type of reasoning andthe culti of Ovid’s ‘literary’audience were well aware of its limitations, yet they were also trained (overtrained according to some) in the niceties of its employment through their poetic studies and their suasoriae and controversiae.9 Ovid as vates andmedicus assumes personae of the authoritative stature for which Aristotle would approve the use of axiom andparadigm andhis lovesick addressees arethose whose emotional state would certainly make them illdisposed to complicated argumentation. Yet how would the sophisticated ‘literary’ audience be well-disposed to the prolonged exposition of the remedies for mal d’amour in the ‘simple’persuasion found in the E+As of the Remedia Amoris? Ovid is able to maintain the effectiveness of this strategy through the almost limitless variatio to which he subjects the form of the E+A andto the novel applications he finds for the axioms andparadigms within the amatory andmedical topoi at play in the poem.10 No poet more fully developed the possibilities of the E+A structure andOvid positions the Remedia Amoris for the most part subspecie ludi where he cansport with reductiones adabsurdum andother techniques of composition which encourage variation.11 This variatio can make the comparatively ‘simple’logic of ultimate lack of seriousness with which onecanview a cultural construct such as love. Veyne in his chapter T heAmusing Paradox andthe Pleasure Process’from Roman Erotic Elegy views all elegy as ‘ –a literary joke which the keepers of the “puritanical theory of citizenship”so comic deception inimical to the laxity (otium), which bred the contagion of love, allowed to flourish, since it wasa game played upontheparadox of controlled pleasure to which all culti understood themoves. For Veyne all elegiac poetry is also parody ona deeper level dueto thelack of coincidence between the poetic process which creates the poet andthe experiences he depicts. (For further discussion on opportunities for irony and parody discerned by commentators in the poet’s manipulation of subjective/objective positionality see under Enjoinders below.) Onopportunities for parody in the inversion of rhetorical genres see Cairns p. 137 andpassim. For a discussion which discounts the role of rhetorical genres asanorganizing principle seeGriffin (1) pp.47ff. 8 Aristotle, ArsRhetorica B 21.

9 Fordiscussions onrhetorical overtraining’seeWilkinson p.7ff.; Higham p.34. ‘ 10 See Binniker p. 33 for a discussion on Ovid’s use of variation in his instructions by use of mythological digression andsocial scenery andcf. theremarks onekphrasis in theExempla section

below. 11 Several recent commentators on Ovid discern ‘serious’ intentions in elements of his didactic poetry. E.g. Myerowitz argues that Ovidian didactic pointedly draws attention to theconventionality of a poet’s moulding the materia of love into a culturally acceptable, i.e. controllable, form andhis didactic poems are a reductio ad absurdum of art as utile. The didactic program which Ovid as praeceptor devises to transform instinctual eros into an ars under a ratio amandi is delivered in a

16

Introduction

the E+A at times difficult to comprehend for it may blur the form and function of the different components of an E+A. The interpretive problems concerning the logical connectedness of certain E+As are increased by the imaginative license the poet exercises in his useof gnomes andexempla within their components. However, the components of an E+A do not always suffer from the difficulties described above:

waywhich validates theprocess of art while discounting thepragmatic function of the didaxis. The result of such amaterialistic play by a poet whorealizes that all culture is artifice is anundercutting of the appetitive process for an item of the objective’world and concomittant valorization of the serious, anti-classical treatment of art and artistic. Fyler sees Ovid’s elegiac didaxis‘ as a “ limitations of genre as an ordering principle”(p. experience”(p. 196) which is an attack on the “ 196). In Ovid the Vergilian model of poetic decorum as the utilisation of normative generic elements in their proper hierarchy is called into question. For Fyler Ovid transgresses the poetic norms andin so doing sets upa group of incongruities within which hepraises the sophisticated wit a passion which Augustus is trying to revive in his of thepresent over therude passion of thepast – atavistic legislation, which attempts to reconfigure the amoral present to a Golden Agemodel of morality. (For a view of Augustus’legislation as part of the rhetoric of power andnot as a reaction an ideological rhetoric as removed from the ‘real’as Paul against the realities of moral decline – Moral Veyne and others argue that Roman amatory elegy is –see Edwards, Chapter One –Ἀ Revolution? The LawAgainst Adultery’.) Several others see ‘serious’ satirical intent in Ovid’s treatment of mythological figures as beings motivated by the same concerns as the contemporary see below on Exempla for details. Mario Labate in the chapter ‘Scienza morale e Roman lover – didascalia galante’attributes to Ovid’s playful didaxis in the AA(many of his remarks hold for the RA)a deep figural hermeneutic onhowsome cultural constructs result from seemingly contrapoised models of behavior. In Labate’s view Ovid is constructing a newwork deofficiis amoris by setting forth amatory issues as legitimate moral concerns for the boni, whoare educated in therole of love as part of one’s humanitas. For Labate Ovid’s precepts do not run counter to the moral aims of Augustan political policy, but set out a framework for the incorporation of amatory issues into a process of valuation which mirrors the ethical plans of Augustus. Verducci (2) states “ the poem’s depiction of erotic emotion, manipulation, imagination andactivity becomes ananalytic description of human love. It becomes, as well, a complex metaphor for the other similar confusions of design andemotion in human behavior”(p. 32). Verducci views such a program (which obtains fortheRA as well) as a parody of the Augustan idealization of ratio which would result in love’s ethical compartmentalization. Verducci also sees ‘serious’artistic import inOvid’s creation of anirresolvable generic tension between the “ ethos, mode andsubject matter of didactic andelegiac poetry” (p. 31) which calls into question thehierarchy of genres (see also Verducci (1) inwhich sheargues that one of Ovid’s aims intheHeroides is to establish anunrelieved tension between theserious andcomic – a tension which owes much to generic misdirection). For Conte (1) a ‘serious’tension results when ideas from outside the closed elegiac world are incorporated within it. In the RAthe rhetoric of remedia amoris is so incompatible with theconstitutive rhetoric of pain necessary for amatory elegy that it creates such tension as to threaten the existence of elegy itself. Conte argues that Ovid imposes the stress of this ‘deadly’paradox in the RAas the logical conclusion of his composition of amatory elegy. ForVeyne pp. 171ff andKennedy pp.72ff. Ovidian poetry hasa ‘seriousness’related to the sincerity and impressions of objectivity inherent in the rhetoric of the domination of and subjugation to pleasure. Fora review of earlier interpretations anda claim that Ovid’s mainpurposes in theRAarehumorous see Holzberg. See under the Exempla section for a discussion of various claims of serious intent inOvid’s useof Exempla.

Introduction

17

dumfuror in cursu est, currenti cedefurori:

120 difficiles aditus impetus omnis habet. stultus, ab obliquo, qui, cumdescendere possit, pugnat in adversas ire natator aquas. impatiens animus nec adhuc tractabilis arte respuit atque odio verba monentis habet. adgrediar melius turn cumsua vulnera tangi 125 iamsinet et veris vocibus aptus erit. 126 Remedia Amoris 119–

126 Ovidhasassured his patients that all is not Inthepassage preceeding lines 119– lost if the poet/physician has been called in after lovesickness has taken hold andhe enjoins the patient currenti cedefurori, if such is the case. This enjoinder is then diffifollowed by a proof of the efficacy of the enjoinder in the form of a gnome – ciles aditus impetus omnis habet. Then an exemplum from the sphere of human

activity –stultus, ab obliquo, qui, cum descendere possit,/pugnat in adversas ire natator aquas argues for the appropriateness of thepreceding proof for the situation at hand. The argument for compliance continues with a second proof for the impatiens animus nec efficacy of the enjoinder in the form of a general statement – adhuc tractabilis arte/respuit atque odio verba monentis habet where adhuc is a cede. restatement of dumfuror in cursu est which set the context of the enjoinder – A guarantee of the beneficial effects resulting from compliance to the enjoinder is adgrediar melius turn cumsua vulnera tangi/ iamsinet et veris vothen offered – cibus aptus erit. This E+A continues past line 126 with further argument for currenti cedefurori, but the passage cited is sufficient for the purpose of introducing the basic structural components of an E+A: Enjoinders –imperatival element(s); statement(s) made as proof for the efficacy of the Enjoinder or other comProofs – ponents; Promissory terms –statement(s) made as guarantees and threats for exemplary evidence for compliance andnoncompliance to theEnjoinder; Exempla – the appropriateness of both Proofs and Promissory terms. While identification of the Enjoinders and components of the supportive argument is not especially problematic in the passage above, there are many E+As where this process is less assured dueto Ovid’s manipulation of their structural andmotival elements. Thefirst difficulty is in identifying the specific components of theE+A, for each of the components maycome in a variety of guises; for example an Enjoinder may appear as an imperative, a jussive subjunctive, a dependent subjunctive, a gerundive, a condition, an interrogative, or a general statement, and most of these grammatical forms also occur in Proofs, Promissory terms, andExempla At certain times Ovid subjects individual components to macrologia, leptologia and various figurae etymologicae which maycause further confusion as to its role in the E+A. The second difficulty in the proper interpretation of an E+A is finding the logical coherence between the various components within the E+A. The com-

18

Introduction

of the E+As exhibit a broad structural array. They mayrange in form from Enjoinder with support of a single component of the argument for compliance to a group of interdependent Enjoinders set out in a variety of organspecies, concrete – metaphor, cause – effect, etc., izational patterns, such as genus – with the group or each individual Enjoinder having an argument for compliance. Components of the argument for compliance also demonstrate different organizational patterns which at times can obscure the logical connections between themselves andthe other components; for example a series of Proofs for an Enjoinder may occur in a genus –species or concrete –metaphor relationship. Ovid’s purposeful use of arcane andspurious material in the arguments for compliance, often placed for comic/ironic effect, such as uncommon mythological allusions andfalse gnomes, can also foul the search for a logical coherence in the E+A. Gnomes and Exempla are central elements in the ‘simple’argumentation of the Remedia Amoris andOvid further complicates logical matters by often ‘stacking’a series of gnomic statements, each of which serves a different argumentative function or byincluding ornamental’elements in his Exempla, which exceed the analogical demands of the ‘ E+A within which they occur. addressee relationComponents of the E+A are also situated within a speaker – ship whose context canhave a direct effect onthelogical coherence of theE+A and ponents

a lone

Ovid at times alters both his persona and the make-up of his addressees. This speaker –addressee variation is often part of Ovid’s ethical appeal, whereby he convinces his lovelorn patients that his credentials astheDoctor of Love arebeyond reproach. The rhetorical tactics of the ethical appeal mayalter the form of certain components of a given E+A, while operating independently of the line of argumentation within that E+A.

The analysis of the motifs which are present in an E+A is another important indetermining thelogical connection among its components. Inherent within the E+A are the amatory, medical andother topoi from various genres which Ovid combines into his remedy for lovesickness andhe demands of his literary ‘patient’ the full appreciation of the ‘physician’s’skillful exploitation of these topoi for the Remedia Amoris to have its intended effect. This appreciation is dependent upon adequate knowledge of the topoi to recognize them when they appear in their variegated forms in different components of the E+A, as well as adequate knowledge of the various components of the E+A to recognize at what moment in the argument the topoi appear. Failure to assesss properly where the motival information is situated within an E+A often will result in an attendant failure to give it the proper emotional/intellectual response. While commentaries on the Remedia Amoris arereplete with expositions of themotifs at workwithin thepoem, explanations as to their exact location within the logic of the argumentation in the piece areoften given short shrift. Poetic logic is a seeming oxymoron andthere is much in any poem, as in any human enterprise, beyond logical explanation. Therange of logical complexity in a factor

Introduction

19

poem such as theRemedia Amoris, with its ostensibly utilitarian aimwhich maybe

the façade for other artistic/textual concerns, obviously can not be covered by any single interpretive scheme. The aim of this study is to offer a commentary of the E+As which will reveal the skeletal logic of this persuasive device as it appears in the Remedia Amoris. This entails an analysis of certain E+As of the tractatio of the Remedia Amoris andinvolves the identification of the individual components of the E+A and an analysis of how they function within the E+A. As the tractatio is almost exclusively composed of E+As this amounts to the creation of a ‘structural grammar’which traces the logic of persuasion in this section of the poem. This analysis of the logic of persuasion includes a study of howmotivai materials are configured to meet the rhetorical demands of particular E+As, as well as comment upon the various interpretations scholars have advanced regarding the form and function of motivai material. The appearance of E+As in other sections of the poem will also be discussed with a view to showing how they may operate in precatory, vocatival andother situations. A ‘fleshing out’of this skeletal logic is available in the commentaries on the Remedia Amoris, of which there is no shortage, andthis work has been especially dependent onthose of Lenz, Geisler, Lucke, Henderson, Pinotti andLazzarini.

ENJOINDERS CHAPTER ONE –

As mentioned in the Introduction, Enjoinders andtheir supporting arguments not only in the tractatio, but also in other sections of the Remedia Amoris (RA). Even when E+As are employed in sections of the poem whose functions are not ostensibly to direct the amatory behavior of the lovesick addressees, they serve the didactic purposes of the poet. 40 a proem in the form of an address to Cupid introduces the topic at In lines 1– hand and validates the poet’s undertaking. The first component of the proem is Ovid’s conciliation of the God, whohas misconstrued the poet’s intentions (Legerat lines huius Amor titulum nomenque libelli:/‘bella mihi, video, bella parantur’ait – 2).12 This component takes the form of an E+A begun with the Enjoinder parce 1– tuum vatem sceleris damnare (line 3). The obligations of a godin the contractual language of a prayer often areplaced in E+A form, where the Enjoinder carries the request/demand upon the god. While Ovid sports with traditional precatory elements, such as the genealogy of the god, (here with Cupid’s mother advanced to fit nonego Tydides, a quo tua saucia mater/in the mock epic beginning of the poem – 6) he adheres to the traditional liquidum rediit aethera Martis equis –lines 5– precatory device of the E+A. The poet’s argument forparce... damnare includes the obligatory list of the services the petitioner has performed for the god; in this case ego semper amavi (line the poet’s personal andprofessional dedication to the God– 7), quin etiam docui qua possis arte parari (line 9). Ovid then promises that through his teachings he also will protect the God from charges of murder by rescuing the unrequited lover from suicide –cur aliquis laqueo collum nodatus appear

amator/a trabe sublimi triste pependit onus?/cur aliquis rigido fodit sua pectora ferro?/invidiam caedis pacis amator habes./qui, nisi desierit, misero periturus 22). As part of the arguamore est,/desinat, et nulli funeris auctor eris (lines 17– ment that he is protecting the Godthe poet refashions a second catalogue of the God’sprovinciae, a typical element of prayer formula, into a reminder to the Godof 38. These Enjoinders his duties in the form of a series of Enjoinders from lines 31– are aligned under the precepts etpuer es, nec te quicquam nisi ludere oportet:/lude; 24) and tu cole maternas, tuto quibus decent annos mollia regna tuos (lines 23– 30). This piece of utimur, artes/et quarum vitio nulla fit orba parens (lines 29– erotodidaxis has great ethical force as the poet sets upthe very Godof Love as one of his charges in an ex maiore ad minorem example for his lovesick audience. These Enjoinders foreshadow the didactic work to come for both the lovesick addressee, for whom the poet’s advice to the God promises salvation, and for the ‘literary’ audience, for whom the poet’s advice to the God has already provided humorous inflection of the motifs of amatory poetry within the language of his prayer

to Cupid.

12SeeGeisler pp. 130ff. onthevarious elements of this proem.

Chapter

1 –Enjoinders

21

74 Ovid summons the lovesick to partake of his services and this In lines 41– kletic section of the poem is composed in an E+A format generated by the Enjoindervenite of line 41. Enjoinders arenotalways the first component of the E+A, but they are the most common prefatory component andas such they often introduce the sphere of human activity at issue in the E+A and also introduce the motival information which identifies the sphere of literary activity at play. Enjoinders are comprised of imperatival language, which comes in the various forms discussed later in this chapter, andthey mayalso include contextual terms which posit information as to the circumstances under which the imperatival element operates, descriptions of the addressees for whomthe advice is intended, andthepersona under which the poet forwards the advice. This contextual information maybe included within the syntax of the imperatival construction or maybe aligned with it through some subordinate construction within the Enjoinder or mayoccur in both of these positions. 43 display contextual information in both imperatival TheEnjoinders of lines 41– Admea, decepti iuvenes, praecepta venite,/quos suus ex andsubordinate positions – omniparte fefellit amor./discite sanari per quem didicistis amare. The addressees of the Enjoinder venite ad meapraecepta are defined as the decepti iuvenes, quos suus ex omniparte fefellit amor andtheir identification as to genus andspecies is defined in the imperatival and subordinate syntax. Ovid takes pains in this vocatival passage to limit his addressees to those who fit the description of the lovelorn to whom Cupid hasjust granted Ovid access in the preface to his erotodidaxis. Hewill work his artupontheonewhomalefert indignae regna puellae (line 15), while he allows the one who amat quod amare iuvat (line 13) to enjoy his situation andvento navigare suo. The incongruity with the motivai ‘standards’of amatory elegy inherent in the identification of a class of people for whom love goes well, as set forth in the preface, is reformulated in the opening Enjoinder to his patients. Ovid implicitly reassures the Godof his proper intentions by summoning only the lovelorn andreassures the literary audience (secondary addressees) of his intentions to continue to sport with the motivai material of amatory elegy by promising a cure for love. The contextual terms which accompany the Enjoinder per quem venite provide information onthe addressees, while the contextual term – didicistis amare of line 43, which attends the Enjoinder discite sanari, provides information on the persona of the poet under which the specific advice of the following E+A operates. Ovid’s roles as the magister amandi andmedicus amoris are Naso –for the highlighted in this E+A by the substitution of the specific name – relative inper quem of line 43, which acts as a general focusing device for which the specific term is delayed until the responsional element in the ring composition 72 –Naso legendus erat tum cum didicistis amare;/idem of this E+A in lines 71– nunc vobis Naso legendus erit.13 The identification of the addressees as decepti 13See Henderson (1) p. 39 onthe ring structure of lines 41– 74 andp. 46 on the anaphoric use of

Naso in lines 71 and72.

22

Chapter

1 –Enjoinders

iuvenes quos suus ex omni parte fefellit amor foreshadows the Exemplary figures 68 (see below under Promissory Exempla whowill appear in this E+A in lines 55– in Chapter Four for details) and the medical topic introduced in the Enjoinder 47.14 discite sanari is carried forward in the components of the E+A in lines 43– This E+A also demonstrates that speaker –addressee relationships may be shifted within anycomponent of the E+A andin no wayappear only within the Enjoinder 68, which give eviandits contextual terms. In the series of Exempla in lines 55– 4, the apostrophe 53 – of Nisus lines of occurs 4, andin lines 73– dence for the Proofs which acts as as Promissory term for the preceeding Enjoinders, Ovid changes his publicus persona from that of magister and medicus to that of legal defender – levabo/pectora. The terminal Enjoinder which closes assertor dominis suppressa this E+A reconfigures the primary addressees as those whoare enslaved by love and continues the legal tenor of the preceding Promissory term –vindictae quisque favete suae (line 74). This shift to the metaphorical obviously does not exclude the personae under which thepoet asserts his advice is given, butis additive rather than

exclusionary. 78 with an invocaThe summons issued to his ‘patients’is followed in lines 75– tion of Apollo. This invocation displays a structure typical of such appeals to the gods in which the poet demonstrates his adherence to his obligations (te precor line 75) andthen enjoins the god, in the guise suitable for the demands incipiens – of the moment, to attend to his obligations (adsit tua laurea nobis,/carminis et medicae Phoebe repertor opis;/tu pariter vati, pariter succurre medenti:/utraque 78).15 This invocation is an E+A in which lines 75– tutelae subdita cura tuae est – the two Enjoinders adsit andsuccurre are argued for by the Proof utraque tutelae subdita cura tuae est. The exact identification of thepersona of the poet in anygiven E+A is complicated by the fact that Ovid in the preface to the poem, in this invocation, andelsewhere claims that all of his advice takes place under the aegis of Cupid andApollo. Claims as to divine sanction forhis advice in hisvarious guises is anintegral part of his ethical appeal aimed at gaining theconfidence of his lovelorn addressees, just as the manipulation of the poetic personae normally associated with amatory elegy is aimed at gaining the ‘confidence’of his l iterary’audience. In the RAOvid takes on ‘ under the auspices of Cupid (‘ p ropositum line 3) thepersona as vates (tuum vatem – perfice’dixit opus’– line 40) andthereby, when his words are taken at face value, acceptance from his audience for the soothsayer’s amatory demands uncritical ‘

14Addressees are often defined by contextual terms which are conventional to didactic poetry and si sapis, ad numeros exige quidque suos; si quis reflect its casuistical tenor, e.g. si sapis of line 372 – amas nec vis of line 613 -si quis amas nec vis, facito contagia vites; etc. See Pinotti’s note on line 613 p. 275.

15Onformulaic

elements

of such invocations seePinotti p. 114.

Chapter

Enjoinders 1–

23

Healso assumes the role of vates under the poetic guidance of Apollo, whoaids himin song andwhoalso helps himin his role as medicus (tupariter vati, 78, pariter succurre medenti:/utraque tutelae subdita cura tuae est –line 77– 6). In this stance of the inspired physician Ovid Phoebus adest –line 705– dispenses remedies which are part of a ratio he has developed (quin etiam docui quapossis arteparari,/et, quodnunc ratio est, impetus antefuit – 10) andhe lines 9– utilises ars to control love, while remanding his patients to the ultimate authority of the numen of Cupid and Apollo for the efficacy of his work. Ovid as both soothsayer and demiurge claims divine inspiration and thus advances a didaxis which combines the carmina of the vates with the ratio of the artifex. Ovid further defines himself in the preface of the poem as onewhois experienced in love (ego line 7) andhelater offers himself as Exemplary evidence for oneof semper amavi – his precepts andexplains that he, the Doctor of Love, once suffered from a painful love affair (fateor, medicus turpiter aeger eram –line 314. For a discussion of Ovid’s role as medicus see Chapter Four). The role of the physician whohas experienced the disease blurs the distinction between the objective andsubjective orientation in his advice andplaces Ovid in a unique position in thetradition of amatory elegy.17 Ovid is the lover, who has been cured of painful love, but who still loves and who, under the auspices of both the God of Love and God of Cupid is Health/Song, will cure the afflicted. The adherence to (love is painful – hurtful) and divergence from (love is curable –Cupid is gracious) the norms of amatory elegy alert the ‘literary’audience to expect paradoxical strains of advice in the RAandOvid does not disappoint. Ovid, the medicus amoris/magister amandi, 9618) andsuch self-reunmasks himself in his attack against his critics (lines 361– flexive attention onthe poet quapoet establishes a newset of questions regarding the subjectivity (Ovid’s complaints against Livor edax which drives his critics are real) andtheobjectivity (Ovid’s apologia is generated byliterary convention andthe desire to amuse) of thepoet in thepoem, while it reiterates to the ‘literary’audience theplay involved in Ovid’s creation of his various personae within thepoem. Ovid does not maintain the ‘standard’subjectivity of the elegiac lover, nor does he adopt the objectivity of the ‘standard’didactic poet. 78 the poet commences upon the After the introductory material in lines 1– 810, the curative regimen that his ‘patients’ which comprises tractatio of lines 79– areto adopt. Within the tractatio are several passages which interrupt that regimen precepts.16

16See Newman (2) pp. 100ff. on Ovid’s useof the vates persona. Cf. Ovid’s claims to authority in the preface of the AAand Ahern p. 47 for the wisdom implied in the words of the vates. See also Durling p. 159 for Ovid’s claims for thesuperiority of experience over (Hesiodic) inspiration inthe workof thevates. 17 For discussions of subjective and objective positions in Ovidian elegy see Allen, Conte (1), 40, Verducci (2) pp.32ff. Durling, Fyler pp. 199ff., Kennedy pp.64ff., Myerowitz pp.38– 18Forthelack of serious intent inthis passage andtheuseof theE+Astructure inthis section of the poemseeChapter Three.

24

Chapter

1 –Enjoinders

to attend to various other matters. The remedial precepts in the form of Enjoinders in this section of the poem appear in a linear sequence of E+As organized around the elements of the cure listed immediately below.19 The comments in the subsequent chapters are centered on these prescriptions, but attention will also be paid to interruptions to the prescriptive material noted below, as well as to further analysis of passages from outside the tractatio. 134 set out the best time for treatment with Time for curative action: lines 79– 106 advising the ‘patient’to resist the disease at the first signs of its preslines 79– 34 reassuring the ‘patient’that, if thedisease hasnotbeen treated ence andlines 107– with its first symptoms, heshould allow the first onslaught to runits course andthat a cure is still possible. 50 advance the salutary effects of staying Avoid leisure andbe active: lines 135– 68 recommend civil andmilitary activities, lines 169– 212 rural active andlines 151– 48 recommend travel. pursuits, andlines 213– 90 warn against anyreliance uponmagic to Have notruck with magic: lines 249– regain one’s health. 98 introduce Prophylactic measures (if one must remain in the city): lines 291– 340 adprocedures for those ‘patients’who must remain in the city with lines 299– 56 vising that one concentrate onthe misdeeds andfaults of his girl andlines 341– urging that the ‘patient’payunannounced calls upon his beloved in order to see her in her unadorned state. The poet interrupts his introduction of therapeutic acts 58) with a defense of his which can be practised during lovemaking (lines 357– 98 against those detractors whocall it licentious. In lines 399– poetry in lines 359– 440 thecures which canbe gotfrom theact of lovemaking aretaken up. From lines 88 the poet charges his ‘patients’to divide their love between several lovers. 441– 522, while that of The medicinal aid of self-deception is explained in lines 489– 42. The unhealthy worry that the girl mayno satiation is put forward in lines 523– 48. The advice that the lover should longer be yours is warned against in lines 543– concentrate onhis non-amatory problems in order to combat amatory ones is passed 78. The salubrious effects for along to the poet by Lethaeus Amor(?) in lines 549– the lover of keeping the company of friends andthe dangers inherent in being alone 608. are argued for in lines 579– To avoid recidivism, if oneis following thepoet’s regimen: thepoet cautions the ‘patient’whois tending the Lovedoctor’s precepts to avoid the contagion of the girl 42). Hethen admonishes the lover 34) or anyof herintimates (lines 635– (lines 609– attempting a cure neither to complain about the ill-treatment he received at the 46), nor to crow about his new status as ex-lover hands of his beloved (lines 643– 48), but instead to leave the relationship behind without ill will (lines (lines 647– 72) andto cultivate anattitude of indifference, even if he should encounter his 649– girl face to face (lines 673– 98). 19Foroverviews of thestructure of thepoemseeGeisler pp.64– 24, Henderson (1) 66, Pinotti pp.23– pp.xx-xxiii.

Chapter

1 –Enjoinders

25

706 the poet interrupts his catalogue of mandates Heed myadvice: in lines 699– andorders that the lovers listen to his words as he assures his charges that he is not transgressing the provinciae of Cupid and that Apollo’s presence is proof of his power.

810 the Doctor posits a series of To avoid recidivism, continued: in lines 707– items which should be part of the agenda for one who is on the mend. The ‘patient’ 14), refrain from rereading is to compare his girl to those more beautiful (lines 707– 24), andsteer clear of their her loveletters andget rid of remembrances (lines 715– 40). Oneis told he need not go so far as to resort to poverty oldhaunts (lines 725– 50), butonemust avoid the theater andthe works of the to assure sucess (lines 741– 66) andmake sure not to contrive a rival with whom he would feel poets (lines 751– 94). The last set of instructions deals with dietary obliged to contend (lines 767– 810). provisions (lines 795– 14) also comes in the E+A format with the The epilogue of the poem (lines 811– poet calling on his charges to bedeck thefessae carinae with garlands as the poet has ledthe unhappy lovers to safe harbor andcompleted the work (hoc opus exegi – see the discussion on this passage in Chapter Three) to which Cupid gave his propositum perfice ... opus.’ The ship has appeared within the blessing in line 40 –‘ imagery related to the progress of the poem, as well as in many amatory passages andhas good reason to befessae.20 Ovid closes the poem with a guarantee to his ‘patients’that after abiding by his precepts they will return duevows to the poet for their salvation (postmodo reddetis sacro pia vota poetae,/carmine sanati femina 14). This Promissory term also doubles as an Enjoinder to lines 813– virque meo – that thanks to thepoet are, in fact, owed. remember they that thesanati The Enjoinder driven argumentation of the RA, as outlined above, is also the organizing element for Ovid’s other didactic elegy. TheArsAmatoria exhibits the same dependence on the E+A structure as the RAandthe poet assimilates virtually all sections of that work into the Enjoinder orientation of the didactic mode. The first book of theArsAmatoria demonstrates this fact as it opens with an Enjoinder (si quis in hoc artem populo non novit amandi,/hoc legat et lecto carmine doctus 2) which is argued for by a Proof in gnomic form –arte regendus amet –lines 1– Amor (line 4). Argumentation driven off of this Enjoinder andProof, much of it in the form of Exempla, occupies the better part of the proem. The poet closes his introduction by calling on his audience to listen to one experienced in the art at hand (vati parete perito –line 29). He then enjoins Venus to be present (mater line 30) andemploys an E+A to warn the modest to keep away (este Amoris ades – procul, vittae tenues, insigne pudoris,/quaeque tegis medios instita longa pedes:/nos Venerem tutam concessaque furta canemus/inque meonullum carmine 34). As in the RA, the tractatio of the poem (lines 35– 770) is lines 31– crimen erit – 20See Henderson (1) p. 138 for citations ontheuseof theship inprogress images in thepoem. For possibilities of the symbolic range andpoetical allusions present in the epilogue see Pinotti pp.338–

41.

26

Chapter

Enjoinders 1–

a continuous sequence of E+As containing thepoet’s directives. Ovid ends his first installment of amatory advice with a call for a break, which is attracted into an Enjoinder, as are many of thepraeceptor’s moments of self-governance – Pars su-

perest coepti, pars est exhausta, laboris;/hic teneat nostras ancora iacta rates 72). While the structure of the last two books of the Ars Amatoria are (lines 771– morecomplex thanthefirst, theytoorest upontheE+Aframework throughout. Enjoinders set forth those actions to be followed by the addressees. Individual 88 which E+As mayhave a single Enjoinder element as in the E+A of lines 487– follows upon the poet’s advice to have more than one beloved –quaeris ubi invenias? artes tuperlege nostras:/plena puellarum iamtibi navis erit. In this two line E+Aperlege is the sole Enjoinder. Most E+As in the RAcontain more than one Enjoinder andthey exhibit a variety of organizational patterns (see ‘taxonomy’ 206 there are several Enjoinders which are argued below). In the E+A of lines 199– for bya single argument of compliance:

vel tuvenandi studium cole: saepe recessit

turpiter a Phoebi victa sorore Venus. nunc leporem pronum catulo sectare sagaci nunc tuafrondosis retia tende iugis; autpavidos terre varia formidine cervos, autcadat adversa cuspide fossus aper. nocte fatigatum somnus, noncura puellae, excipit etpingui membra quiete levat.

200

205

Here the genus of activity to be undertaken is given in venandi studium cole andthe species are set forth in leporem sectare, retia tende, terre cervos, andcadat aper. saepe recessit/turpiter a Phoebi victa sorore Venus The Proof for the Enjoinders – is a gnome which makes claims on the efficacy of the advice andthe Promissory nocte fatigatum somnus, non cura puellae,/excipit et pingui membra quiete term – guarantees the salutary results. Nearly all theE+As in thepoem arepart of a levat –

series aligned under a specific preceptive topos andthe twoexamples of individual 88 E+As above are members of an E+A series. In the case of the E+A of lines 487– it is part of the advice of the poet organized under a ‘have more than one beloved’ 88 andthe E+A of lines 199– 206, which advises topos which runs from lines 441– 212. the ‘patient’to hunt is part of the ‘flee leisure’topos which runs from lines 135– (For a detailed analysis of howtheadvice from a series of E+As is aligned under a single topos see Chapter Five.) Notall imperatival constructions in theRAare Enjoinders as is demonstrated in 12: the E+A of lines 707– confer Amyclaeis medicatum vellus aenis murice cumTyrio: turpius illud erit.

Chapter

27

Enjoinders 1–

vosquoque formosis vestras conferte puellas: incipiet dominae quemque pudere suae. utraque formosae Paridi potuere videri, sedsibi conlatam vicit utramque Venus.

710

In line 707 confer is part of anExemplum which has a construction parallel to that of the Enjoinder of line 709 –conferte. The results posited in the Exemplum of the comparison of the dyed cloth is guaranteed as well for the comparison of the beloved in attendant Promissory terms.21 The activity promoted as part of the cure of the medicus amoris is the comparing of women andthis activity is advanced in the Enjoinder term of this E+A, while confer in line 707 in the functional grammar of the argument is an Exemplum ex rebus humanis, which forwards evidence for the general utility of comparisons injudging quality. A second Exemplum is adduced 12 which exhibits the utility of the precept in from the world of myth in lines 711– the specific realm of comparing feminine beauty. (For further discussions on imperatival constructions in non-Enjoinder contexts see the discussion on line 65 in Chapter Four.) Aswasstated

in the Introduction this process of identifying various components of the E+A and parsing the motival material is often rather complex and the following examples will be studied with an eye toward demonstrating the range of problems associated with identifying Enjoinders and interpreting their argumentative role in their respective E+A and in their interrelationship with other E+As

whenaligned under a single argumentative topos. The Enjoinder discite sanari per quem didicistis amare (line 43) discussed above from the kletic section of the poem is a gnomic Enjoinder in that the imperative and attendant contextual term make a categorical demand upon Ovid’s amatory charges. Gnomes operate in all of the components of the E+A andsome explanation of the term as it is utilized in this study is necessary. The meaning of gnome in this work is somewhat more expansive than that in many rhetorical schemes, butit seemed better to utilize a familiar term with some explanation than to distend further an already bloated rhetorical vocabulary with some inspired collocation. The term Gnome (to be spelled with the upper case G henceforth when the following defintion holds) includes all categorical statements drawn from the human and natural spheres and thereby encompasses many, but not all, of the ηandthe Latin sententia. In his Ars Rhetorica μ ν ώ meanings found in the Greek γ ηas a general statement concerning human actions to be μ ν ώ Aristotle defines the γ chosen or avoided anddescribes how it functions within the structure of an arguηto human activity and ascribes to it a μ ν ώ ment.22 This definition restricts the γ moral dimension much as the definition for sententia found in the AdHerennium sententia est oratio sumpta devita, quae autquidsit autquid esse oporteat in 4.24 –

21Forthe syntactical construction of incipiet dominae quemque pudere suae see Lucke p. 290. 22SeeCopep. 205 onAristotle’s wider useof term inother sections of theArsRhetorica.

28

Chapter

Enjoinders 1–

vita, breviter ostendit. Such definitions exclude general statements from nature and those which do not have a moral force andthere are many axiomatic statements which are ex natura and/or lack an inherently moral character which are the Gnomic underpinnings for many of the E+As in the RA. The more restricted ηorsententia within the μ ν ώ definitions reflect limits placed onthefunction of theγ in these influential developed rhetorical persuasion theories which do for arguments not obtain for the use of Gnomes in this study.23 In some rhetorical schemes γ ν μ α ιand sententiae arediscussed as elements of speech outside the limits of any ω argumentative function except for their ethical appeal. For example, Quintilian gives primary place to the definition of sententia as the vox universalis originating fromthedecrees andcounsels of theancients, buthealso gives detailed attention to the use of sententiae as ornaments of speech which was in vogue among his contemporaries. Employed as such, sententiae became the closing flourishes to a period andenhanced the speaker’s ethical appeal, but often their logical connection to the argument at hand became rather strained andnon-Gnomic sententiae even made their way into the declaimer’s repertoire.24 This study does not call the definitions or logic of other rhetorical systems into question, but is exclusively interested in demonstrating how categorical statements, Gnomes, operate within ηfrom a specific declamatory scheme μ ώ E+As. A definition for sententia andγν retains its efficacy for those whose interest lies in assessing how closely Ovidian poetry fits into that particular scheme anddetermining which passages in Ovid are ν ιwithin that scheme.25 That is notthepoint of this α μ ω examples of sententiae orγ is not taken from any particular declamatory Gnome of and the definition study η–gnome’and‘sententia’in many ancient program, although the meaning of ‘γ μ ώ ν to that of Gnome.26 affiliation close has andmodern commentaries language in the conventional Gnomic of role Much has been written about the wisdom of oral cultures where theplace of humankind in its world andthebehavior appropriate to it is set forth in a series of commonplaces.27 These mnemonically patterned general truths played a large part in the structuring of human logic into analogical systems built around the loci communes and the didactic/persuasive moments in narrative anddidactic texts not only passed along these truisms, but also displayed the argumentative tactics with which they might be applied. The individual’s empirical knowledge of the world wasarranged under these loci communes anddidactic texts or wisdom ‘literature’helped to organize the cultural truisms, often buttressed by the speaker’s empirical truisms, around specific activities or spheres of knowledge. Much of the argument in Ovid’s RAoperates onthe same principles as the earliest didactic texts of the Greco-Roman tradition in that it

23E.g. see Arist. Rhet. 1394aff. 24Quint. Inst. 7.1.44. 25 E.g. Brück. 26For anoverview of therange of meanings of sententia/γ η see Ernesti pp.349– μ ν ώ 52. 27E.g. Ong (2) pp. 30ff.

Chapter

29

Enjoinders 1–

musters thetruths of theculture to act as theunassailable proofs for proper amatory behavior. In this case a behavioral program is presented to ridthose suffering from a ‘literary’disease of its ill effects. The disease is that found in a specific genre of amatory literature and therefore has the limitations which the ideological and motival constraints of that genre within which it appears imposes upon it.28 Ovid composes a regimen based upon a generic pathology in which broader cultural truths are combined with elegiac loci communes into the therapeutic agents designed specifically to cure the elegiac lover. Therange of signification of the cultural truths is thus limited within an elegiac context for the patient, but for the ‘literary’audience they mayretain a broader signification andprovide ironic moments in the poem. The creation of elegiac truths in an effort to cure the patient, which will in turn lead to the endof the very genre which created him, offers the opportunities for a paradoxical reading of the poem.29 Ovid also brings the ars of the medicus to bear upon lovesickness and the truths of this science, while not completely foreign to the elegiac genre, introduce an extra-generic element which expands the motival range of the poem as it calls upon a broader cultural and ‘literary’memory of the ‘literary’audience.30 As stated above the Gnomic Enjoinder of line 43 –discite sanari per quem didicistis amare –is composed of an imperative and circumstantial clause which gives the categorical force to the imperative. Many Enjoinders in the RAare not Gnomic in that they do not have contextual terms which provide them with the categorical conditions for the imperative’s applicability and therefore there is no Gnomic force to the Enjoinder. Often the imperatival element of the Enjoinder is aligned in the E+A with a Gnomic Proof, not its own contextual term, which provides the categorical conditions under which the Enjoinder functions. A simple taxonomic rundown from outside the constraints of the RAmight be helpful in illustrating these points. A protective mother calls to hersonona hot, sunny andwindy daynear lunchtime: – Enjoinder, notGnomic, since notcategorical and Comeinside.” “ without specific non-verbal context. – Gnomic Enjoinder dueto contextual Come inside when it is hot.” “

whenit is hot. term –

– non-Gnomic Enjoinder Come inside. Heat is badfor little boys.” “ with Gnomic Proof of efficacy.

This simple exposition of whenEnjoinders areGnomic obviously does notcover all Gnome relationships intheRA. Forexample, I thecomplications of theEnjoinder – dumfuror in cursu est, currenti cedefurori, which wasbriefly construe line 119 – discussed intheIntroduction, as anexample of a Gnomic Enjoinder with dum furor 28SeeConte (1) passim andKennedy pp.64ff. 29See Conte (1) pp. 18– 19. 30Fora discussion onpoetic

memory

andintertextuality

within genres

seeConte (2) pp.32ff.

30

Chapter

1 –Enjoinders

in cursu est providing thecontextual terms which give theimperative its categorical force andwith currenti performing a strictly adjectival function. However, it could be argued that in the clause currenti cedefurori, currenti provides the contextual term necessary to make it a Gnome andthat dumfuror in cursu est is merely an anaphoric dressing out of the hexameter (see the Index for pages which provide on the E+A within which line 119 occurs). Many of the E+As of theRAare ‘loaded’with Gnomes in order to foster trust in the poet’s precepts andthis proclivity toward Gnomic expressions sometimes leads to confusion as to howa Gnome operates in its E+A. The Gnomic statement of line 655 –sed modo dilectam scelus est odisse puellam –offers a new precept for the ‘patient’to follow which admonishes him not to replace his love for his girl with hatred andthus functions as an Enjoinder. Gnomic Enjoinders, as other types of Enjoinders, may come in a variety of forms (see below). A Gnomic Enjoinder details

contains an inherent Proof for its legitimacy within its own axiomatic nature and Enjoinder andProof. therefore comes equipped with two components of the E+A – Gnomes of the infinitive + est + predicate adjective form are not uncommon in the RAandoften are Gnomic Enjoinders where the the predicate adjective supplies the claim of legitimacy or illegitimacy in performing the action of the infinitive.31 Gnomic Enjoinders mayhave nofurther Proofs beyond their intrinsic ones, butthey mayalso have a variety of other supportive Proofs andthis Gnomic Enjoinder has not only its inherent Proof, but also the Gnomic Proof of line 656 –exitus ingeniis convenit isteferis (see Chapter Twofor a discussion on‘illegitimate’Proofs), which completes this two-line E+A. The same infinitve + est + predicate adjective Enjoinder form occurs again in line 657, which instructs the ‘patient’on the proper course of action in breaking off relations with his girl (non curare sat est) and supplies the proper course of action to be followed in conformity with the prohibition of line 655. The extrinsic Proof for this Gnomic Enjoinder is the odio quifinit amorem,/aut amat aut aegre desinet esse miser of lines 657– Gnome – 58. A third Gnomic Enjoinder in line 659 –turpe vir et mulier, iuncti modo, protinus hostes –continues the imperatival language in the duritia topos of this 62 –nonillas lites Appias ipsa Enjoinder series andthe Gnomic Proof of lines 660– probat./saepe reas faciunt et amant: ubi nulla simultas/incidit, admonitu liber abargues for the validity of the Enjoinder. Empirical evidence of the errat Amor – 68, which recounts a scene illustrating the lack of resolve of one poet in lines 663– who attempts to end a relationship in acrimony, provides an Exemplum for the Proof – forte aderam iuveni; dominam lectica tenebat;/horrebant saevis omnia verba minis./iamque vadaturus ‘lectica prodeat’ inquit;/prodierat; visa coniuge mutus erat;/et manus et manibus duplices cecidere tabellae;/venit in amplexus 70 yet another Gnomic Enjoinder gives the posiatque ita ‘vincis’ait. In lines 669– tive action called for given the dangers depicted in litigious entanglements above –

31For possible ties of the Latin infinitive to imperatival language see Bennett, Charles E. vol. 1, p. 420.

Chapter

Enjoinders 1–

31

est aptumque magis discedere pace/nec petere a thalamis litigiosa fora. The Enjoinder of line 671 continues the warnings against harboring ill will against an ex-lover andforwards a species of proper activity under the genus just set outin the munera quae dederas, habeat sine lite iubeto. This preceeding Gnomic Enjoinder – E+A is closed by a Gnomic Proof which argues for the efficacy of the Enjoinder of esse soient magno damna minora bono. line 672 – Oneaspect of Gnomic Enjoinders warrants special comment, namely the difference between proverbial and non-proverbial Gnomic Enjoinders. As our knowledge of Roman proverbial language is far from complete there is at times a difficulty in determining whether a Gnome is an ad hoc formulation or is proverbial in nature. While thepersuasive power of a Gnome is based onits categorical force, a claim of allegiance to the formulary truths of the society obviously increases its ethical appeal andOvidoften takes advantage of proverbial expressions to heighten thepersuasive power of his precepts or couches his Gnomes in proverbial sounding phrases. Ovid in hispersonae as vates of Cupid andmedicus under the tutelage of Apollo hasclaims to authority which give his Gnomes a strong ethical appeal withoutthe need to defer to the cultural authority of proverbial language, yet the marriage of his Gnomes with the proverbial expressions of the Greco-Roman world would further increase their trustworthiness. Many of Ovid’s Gnomes exhibit alliteration, anaphora andother figures which addto the memorability of the Gnome andare characteristic of proverbial language. The vates also utilises these stylistic devices in his incantatory/hieratic utterances andmany Gnomes in the RAare formulated as part of the amatory strictures of Cupid’s vates. Gnomic Enjoinders such as discite sanari per quem didicistis amare reflect this verbal play and Ovid is, in fact, creating a new ‘proverbial’language for amatory literature. In this proverbial language, material appropriated from the broader semantic universe often suffers a shift of signification when incorporated into the context of amatory elegy which produces ironic effects. These ironic effects, of course, are dependent on the knowledge of the range of signification of words in both their ‘literary’and non‘literary’contexts (for an example of the possible ‘shift in signification’ see comments online 80 in Chapter Five). The inexact process of attributing ‘true’proverbial status to a collocation has been noted by compilers of Roman proverbs andproverbial language andthere are times when the proverbial play of Ovid is beyond our ken.32 Many of the expressions given proverbial status in compilations such as Otto’s are based on formulary criteria which if applied across the range of Gnomic expressions in elegiac poetry would generate several volumes on sprichwörtliche Redensarten for elegy. It should be stressed that a Gnome can be ‘true’andrepresent a sentiment in accord with theaccepted beliefs of Ovid’s Roman audience andtheir ancestors andnotbe a proverbial Gnome. A proverbial Gnome must be composed, at least partially, of tutius

32E.g. Sony pp. 82– 83 andSutphen pp. 124– 5 in Haussler.

32

Chapter

Enjoinders 1–

formulary expressions evident in other extant passages, but there is no exact description of what constitutes proverbial formulae. A glimpse back at a fewof the Gnomic Enjoinders discussed above provides a preview of some of the questions regarding the proverbial nature of Gnomes which will follow in the discussion of the individual E+As below. For the purposes of this study it must be kept in mindthat notall proverbial expressions are Gnomes as they maynot demonstrate the categorical force necessary to attain Gnomic status. The (sed) modo dilectam scelus est odisse puellam Gnomic Enjoinder discussed above – Gnome a contrived for the motivai demands of the certainly (line 655) is almost ‘elegiac’moment, and although Ovid has placed this Gnome in the authoritative sounding scelus est + infinitive form it expresses a sentiment generated from the motifs of amatory literature in terms which do not seem to be part of the Roman proverbial vocabulary andis one of the poet’s amatory truisms.33 Scelus est identifies activities as legally and/or morally wrong andmodo dilectam odisse puellam is an activity not normally associated with legal or moral misbehavior (for a fuller discussion of the motivai material in this E+A see Chapter Two). The Gnomic Dumlicet et modici tangunt praecordia motus,/si piget, inprimo limine Enjoinder – 80) includes a main clause composed of language fairly well siste pedem (lines 79– established as proverbial –in primo limine siste pedem34, although on one level Ovid uses the normally concrete proverbial language metaphorically and thereby 80 for shifts the proverbial register of the phrase (see Chapter Five on lines 79– details). In the Gnomic Enjoinder dumfuror in cursu est, currenti cedefurori (line 119) the stylistic devices of the alliteration andanaphora are found which impart a memorability to the precept and provide evidence that it might be proverbial in nature. Currenti cedefurori has a wide enough range of semantic associations that it does notstretch theimagination too farto believe that some proverbial expression of the sort here cropped uparound it andalthough the collectors of proverbs cite no such proverbial connection, that does not mean it didnot exist. Onthe other hand this phrase might well be an ad hoc construction of Ovid’s to adumbrate the Gnomic Exemplum which follows –stultus, ab obliquo, qui, cum descendere 22), which does incorporate possit,/pugnat in adversas ire natator aquas (lines 121– the ‘true’proverbial ire in adversas aquas35 foreshadowed in the cursu –currenti imagery above. The question as to whether this Gnomic precept is derived from proverbial precedents with which Ovid is making sport or is manufactured by the poet forthe situation at handinthis E+A is noteasily answerable. As was stated above Enjoinders often appear in the prefatory position in the 34 a PromE+A, but this is certainly not always the case. In the E+A of lines 107– issory term, which assures thepatient that if thedisease haspassed the initial phase si tamen auxilii perierunt tempora there is still hope, is the prefatory component –

33Fortheplay ontheelegiac odiet amo‘situation’atworkinthis passage seeChapter Two. 34SeeGeisler p. 192, Otto p. 193 35Otto pp. 139– 40.

Chapter

Enjoinders 1–

33

primi/et vetus in capto pectore sedit amor,/maius opus superest; sed non, quia se10). An Exemplum from rior aegro/advocor, ille mihi destituendus erit (lines 107– quam laesus fuerat, partem myth is adduced as evidence for the Promissory term – Poeantius heros/certa debuerat praesecuisse manu;/post tamen hic multos sanatus 14). The Enjoinders creditur annos/supremam bellis imposuisse manum (lines 111– 19 are introduced by a bit of macrologia regarding the for this E+A in lines 115– ςmotif that will ό ιρ α change of tactics of the medicus which focuses in on the κ qui modo nascentis properaoccupy a central place within the advice of this E+A – 16). This bampellere morbos,/admoveo tardam nunc tibi lentus opem (lines 115– information on thepersona of the poet becomes a vaunt for his skill when the importance of timing in the medical art is fully developed in the remaining components of the E+A. Such self-encomiastic introductions for Enjoinders are a commonploy in Ovid’s ethical appeals andthey often are utilized to introduce motival information as well. TheEnjoinders arepresented in an‘if A doX or Y, if B doZ’ 18 –aut nova, si possis, sedare incendia format with ‘ X’and Y in lines 117– temptes/aut ubiper vires ‘ ’procubuere suas, corresponding to the strategies presented 16 and ‘Z’positing the activity to be in the introductory material of lines 115– followed if the incendia are neither recent norhave been laid lowunder there own dumfuror in cursu est, currenti cedefurori (line 121 –see above on the weight – Gnomic andproverbial nature of this Enjoinder). This final Enjoinder has a Gnomic Proof aligned with it –difficiles aditus impetus omnis habet (line 120) and an stultus, ab Exemplum ex rebus humanis is forwarded as evidence for the Proof – obliquo, qui, cum descendere possit,/pugnat in adversas ire natator aquas (lines 22). A second Gnomic Proof is then given for the efficacy of the Enjoinder of 121– line 119, which gives reasons specific to the emotional aspect of the mind not impatiens animus nec adhuc traccovered in the more general Proof of line 120 – 24). A Promissory tabilis arte/respuit atque odio verba monentis habet (lines 123– term follows which guarantees the salutary effects of following the preceeding adadgrediar melius tumcumsua vulnera tangi/iam sinet et veris vocibus aptus vice – 26) and this asseveration has an evidential Exemplum adduced ex erit (lines 125– quis matrem, nisi mentis inops, infunere nati/flere vetet? nonhoc rebus humanis – illa monenda loco est;/cum dederit lacrimas animumque impleverit aegrum,/ille 30 –for details on this Exemplum see dolor verbis emoderandus erit (lines 127– Chapter Three). In line 131 a Gnomic Proof offers further argument for the trust ςmotif – ό ιρ α temporis ars one should have in Ovid’s guarantee and highlights the κ medicina fere est. This claim as to the role of timing in medicine brings forth an data tempore prosunt/et data non apto tempore vina noExemplum ex medicina – 32). This E+A, begun with a Gnomic Promissory term in condicent (lines 131– tional form, is closed by a Gnomic Promissory term in conditional form which quin etiam acthreatens the consequences of noncompliance to the poet’s advice – 34). cendas vitia inritesque vetando,/temporibus si nonadgrediare suis (lines 133–

34

Chapter

Enjoinders 1–

The fact that Enjoinders appear in various forms andin various organizational patterns is clear from the preceding discussion of Enjoinders. The following ‘taxonomy’provides examples of the various Enjoinder items andmany of the passages cited will be treated in detail in the commentary onthe other components of the RAwhich follows. Forms:

da line 150; cave (loca) line 738; cave relegas line 717; nolifingere line 769;fac saltet line 334. Imperatives arealways negatived bynec.

Imperative:

Subjunctive: Jussive: inacescant line 307; nec morentur line 219. Substantive noun clause: hortor uthabeatis line 441. Result clause: nonhoc tanti est, utesse velis line 750. In optatival constructions: malim taceas line 647; difaciant, possis transire line 785; utinam possis 10. etiamfacundus in illis/esse line 309– Neplus theperfect subjunctive does notappear intheRA. Gerundival: est inveniendus line 452. habendus erit line 564. (not all gerundival constructions

areinvolved in Enjoinders: e.g.

flendus eris line 494.) General Statement: noncredere tutum est line 349; scelus est odisse 655; 70. tutius est aptumque magis discedere necpetere lines 669–

4. Interrogative: quid lacrimas? line 471; quid carperis? lines 723– Future: nec...rogabis line 641.

Organizational Patterns: Genus

–Species: referat line 559genus with torqueat line 562, habendus erit line 564, credat line 566, time line 568, cogitet line 570, angat 571 as species.

Concrete

– Metaphor:

concrete mental activity with circumspice line 89 – subtrahe line 90 themetaphorical physical response inthepentameter.

Oppositional: propera nec te differ line 93.

Chapter

Cause

Enjoinders 1–

– Effect: puta line 790 cause with effect in line 790 adice.

Enjoinder

+ Qualification: line 389 Enjoinder with qualification in 391.

Ring composition: where a terminal Enjoinder closes theE+A which is a restatement of theprefatory Enjoinder: line 785 to 790.

35

PROOFS CHAPTER TWO –

The major function of Proofs within the RA is to argue for the efficacy of En10 the final E+A of the tractatio of the RA exhibits an Enjoinders.36 In lines 803– joinder with a Proof which provides this function: quid tibipraecipiam deBacchi munere, quaeris?

spe brevius monitis expediere meis. vinaparant animum Veneri, nisiplurima sumas

805

sepulta mero. nutritur vento, vento restinguitur ignis; lenis alitflammas, grandior aura necat. autnulla ebrietas, aut tanta sit, uttibi curas eripiat: si quaest inter utrumque, nocet.

810

utstupeant multo corda

4 –quid tibi praecipiam de This E+A begins with a Promissory term in lines 803– Bacchi munere, quaeris?/spe brevius monitis expediere meis which guarantees the nature of the subsequent advice and introduces the motivai material which will 6 which comes in the form follow. Then a Gnomic statement appears in lines 805– of a conditional clause –vina parant animum Veneri, nisi plurima sumas/ut stupeant multo corda sepulta mero. The Gnomic statement is followed in lines 807– 8

bya Gnomic Exemplum which gives evidence for it –nutritur vento, vento restinguitur ignis;/lenis alit flammas, grandior aura necat (see under ‘fire’Exempla in 10 the Enjoinder aut Chapter Three for details on this Exemplum). In lines 809– nulla ebrietas, aut tanta sit, ut tibi curas/eripiat: si qua est inter utrumque, nocet 6 is the proleptic Proof that appears for which the Gnomic statement of lines 805– gives the reason the ‘patient’can have confidence in the efficacy of the Enjoinder. All Proofs arebasically causal in nature andthis causal connection to the Enjoinder canbe expressly stated (although it most often is not) as inthe Gnomic Proof of line 83 –nammora dat vires, which argues for the efficacy of the Enjoinder series of 82 –Dum licet et modici tangunt praecordia motus,/si piget, in primo lines 79– limine siste pedem:/opprime, dum nova sunt, subiti mala semina morbi/et tuus incipiens ire resistat equus (see Chapter Five for details onthis E+A). The majority of Proofs in the RAare Gnomic in nature andthey are invested with theargumentative advantages of the Gnome as described above under Gnomic Enjoinders. Many of the Gnomic Proofs have a proverbial ring to them andthe same process of deciding on the proverbial nature of a Gnomic Enjoinder obtains conditions, for the Gnomic Proof. The Gnomic Proof comes in a variety of forms – as above; questions, etc., butthe general statement is the most common form. As hasbeen discussed above there maybe problems in gauging therole of the Gnome 36Ontherelationship of Gnomes andsupporting

Exempla

seeBennett, AlvaWalter pp.232ff.

Chapter

2 –Proofs

37

in the E+A. The E+A which enjoins the addressee to take uphunting as oneof the waysfugere otia (line 136) begins with the Enjoinder tu venandi studium cole (line 199) andthis Enjoinder is followed bythe Gnomic statement saepe recessit/turpiter 200). Henderson calls this line, “ not an a Phoebi victa sorore Venus (lines 199–

37 It exemplum, in Ovid’s usual manner, but a metonymic metaphor or allegory.” actually functions as a Gnomic Proof for the Enjoinder, not as a tautological Exemplum giving evidence for anunderstood Proof. At times a specific Proof mayrely on an understood general statement for its Hoc opus argumentative force. In the epilogue of the poem such a Proof exists – exegi: fessae date serta carinae;/contigimus portus, quo mihi cursus erat (lines contigimus portus, quomihi cursus erat – 12).38 Here the Proof for date serta – 811– is placed in specific terms with a first person subject of the non-Gnomic perfect tense verb in the main clause andthe specific first person form of the personal pronoun in the relative clause. This specific information relies upon the understood general proposition that one gives garlands to ships upon their reaching port.’ (The ‘ arguments for compliance will be discussed in detail in enthymematic nature of the Chapter Three.) There are also argumentative contexts within which a Proof may offer support for an understood Enjoinder. The E+A which operates under a magicae artes topos (see under Chapter Four for further discussion of this E+A) begins with the Enjoinder viderit39 in line 249 with the contextual term Haemoniae 50, si quis mala pabula terrae/et magicas artes posse iuvare putat of lines 249– which posits the identification of the person whodoes not follow the poet’s advice. This Enjoinder is followed in line 251 with the Gnomic Proof ista veneficii vetus est via, which sets this old approach in contrast to the poet’s new ratio. A second noster Apollo/innocuam sacro carmine 52 – Gnomic Proof then appears in lines 251– monstrat opem, which argues for the understood Enjoinder T rust in the sacred song ‘ on the precepts of Apollo.’ This Gnomic Proof focuses the addressee’s attention given under the Godof Health/Song as the proper curative items. The E+A then continues with a list of Promissory terms that refocus the audience’s attention onthe ways of magic which will be shown as ineffectual love cures in the Exempla that follow upon the Promissory terms (see Chapter Three for a discussion of the Exemplary figure of Circe). Substitution of a specific term for a general term in statements which still retain their Gnomic status is not uncommon in the RA. This phenomenon is found primarily in the Gnomic statements of components other than Proofs, but it is present inthem aswell. Inthe Gnomic Promissory term of line 125the specific first person adgrediar melius singular is found in place of the general term medicus amoris – tumcumsua vulnera tangi (see below for ananalysis of the E+A within which this Promissory term appears). This substitution mayalso be set upas a responsional 37Henderson (1) pp. 67– 68. 38Fortheuseof thenautical metaphor intheprogress imagery seeLucke pp.366– 70. 39SeeHenderson p.73 onviderit aspartofthe“admonitory formulae”ofthepoem.

38

Chapter

2 –Proofs

72. In line 43 the Enjoinder discite element in an E+A as with lines 43 and 71– sanari per quemdidicistis amare is given Gnomic status by the contextual termper quem didicistis amare in which the relative pronoun has a generalizing force. At 72 there is a virtual restatement of theEnjoinder of theclose of this E+A at lines 71– line 43, butwith thereplacement of the general termper quemwith thepoet’s name – Naso legendus erat turn cumdidicistis amare;/idem nunc vobis Naso legendus erit 72 retain their Gnomic andeven with this substitution the statements of lines 71– force. Related to this use of specific terms is the use of the second person categorical, which ‘personalizes’a statement, but allows it to retain its categorical force. The second person categorical is most common in Enjoinders (e.g. line 89, line 117, etc.), many of which are Gnomic in nature, but is also found in other 34 (see components. In the Promissory term which closes the E+A of lines 107– – quin E+A) the second person this etiam on categorical appears below for details vetando,/temporibus si non adgrediare suis. This use of accendas vitia inritesque specific terms in Gnomic constructions appears in Gnomic Proofs as well. In the preface to thepoem as part of thepoet’s erotodidaxis to Cupid thepoet proffers the 4) and Enjoinder et puer es, nec te quicquam nisi ludere oportet:/lude (lines 23– argues fortheefficacy of theEnjoinder with the Gnomic Proof decent annos mollia regna tuos (line 24), in which the specific term tuos stands in for some categorical 52 discussed above adjective such as iuvenales. In the Gnomic Proof of lines 251– noster Apollo/innocuam sacro carmine monstrat opem the specific term noster, in the form of the didactic first person plural set in contrast to the pejorative force of ista in the preceeding Proof in line 251 –ista veneficii vetus est via40, replaces a categorical term which would have aligned Apollo with the poet in his guise of medicus andvates. Gnomic Proofs mayeither be ‘legitimate’or ‘illegitimate’in nature. A Gnomic Proof is ‘legitimate’if it is a statement without anyinherent logical inconsistency, is

not in contradiction to the other statements in the E+A in which it appears, is compatible with the generic topoi of the work at hand, andis a sentiment accepted by the larger cultural community. These various types of argumentative compatibility difficiles aditus impetus omnis habet are present in the Gnomic Proof of line 120 – dumfuror in cursu est, which argues for compliance to the Enjoinder of line 119 – currenti cede furori. This Enjoinder and attendant Proof are followed by other members of the argument for compliance aligned under them: stultus, ab obliquo, qui, cumdescendere possit,/pugnat in adversas ire natator aquas (lines 121– 22 – Exemplum as evidence for the Gnomic Proof of line 120)/impatiens animus nec 4 – adhuc tractabilis arte/respuit atque odio verba monentis habet (lines 123– Gnomic Proof with adhuc equal to dumfuror in cursu est. This Gnomic Proof is a species of Proof aligned under the genus set outin the Proof of line 120)./adgrediar 26 melius turn cumsua vulnera tangi/iam sinet et veris vocibus aptus erit (lines 125– 40Onthedidactic

plural

seeHenderson (1) p. 107, note online 534.

Chapter

Proofs 2–

– Promissory term with

39

guarantee of success with compliance to the mentis inops, infunere nati/flere vetet? non hoc illa matrem, nisi Enjoinder)./quis lacrimas animumque impleverit aegrum,/ille dolor dederit monenda loco est;/cum 30 –Exemplum which gives evidence for the verbis emoderandus erit (lines 127– 24)./temporis ars medicina fere est (line 131 – 123 – lines of preceeding Proof of line 119 andthe Enjoinder Enjoinder the for evidence Gnomic Proof which gives – ille verbis dolor emoderandus erit): data tempore inhering within the Exemplum – Exemplum for the 32 vina 131 – nocent (lines tempore apto non prosunt/et data vetando,/temporibus inritesque vitia accendas etiam si non preceeding Proof)./quin – Promissory term with 34 threat of noncompliance to adgrediare suis (lines 133– Enjoinder which closes the E+A). (See index for passages which treat other elements of this E+A in detail.) TheGnomic Proof of line 120 is ‘legitimate’inthat it exhibits nointernal inconsistency as impetus doindeed have difficult approaches and in fact this Gnomic Proof is proverbial in nature41. Furor –love in the Enjoinder of line 119 is a type of impetus andthe impetus intheExemplary material is the(in) adversas aquas at line122, against which the swimmer is struggling, and thefuror –impetus –(in) adversas aquas connection poses no problem as far as logical consistency between these components of the E+A is concerned.42 The fact that the swimmer could have avoided the oncoming waters ab obliquo does inject an extraneous element into the E+A, but does not effect the ‘legitimacy’ of the Gnomic Proof. Impetus has a range of meanings which fit into both the amatory andmedical topoi central to this E+A andto the genre of amatory elegy andso the Gnomic Proof does not contradict the ‘literary’audience’s generic expectations.43 24 which operates as a This point is apparent in the Gnomic Proof of lines 123– species of line 120 andcenters the argument on the mental damage thatfuror can impetus is bring about in the patient. This mental side of the effects of furor – forwarded in the Exemplum of the ‘weeping mother’andthere is no incompatibility between these components which might call our Gnomic Proof of line 120 into question. The final Gnomic Proof of this E+A at line 130 is not another Proof 24, but instead it provides aligned under the Proof of line 120, as were lines 123– evidence fortheEnjoinders asmentioned above anddoes notintroduce information at variance with that of line 120. Neither of the Promissory terms in this section inject motival material incompatible with line120 andso the Proof stands upto the test for topos consistency. As mentioned above, this Gnomic Proof is proverbial andtherefore does notcontradict thesentiments heldbytheRoman community. A Gnomic Proof andother types of Gnomic constructions maybe ‘illegitimate’if they are inherently illogical and/or are logically incompatible with ideas expressed in the other components of the E+A in which they appear and/or are in contradiction to the ideas presented in the generic topoi and/or are opposed to the

41See Henderson (1) p. 56, Geisler p. 208, Pinotti p. 131. 42Onfuror asa metonym for love seeGeisler p.208. 43Ontheappearance of impetus inmedical language seePinotti p. 78.

40

Chapter

2 –Proofs

accepted beliefs of the wider community. The different levels of ‘legitimacy’each operate under different logical demands anda Gnome maybe ‘legitimate’in several ways andnot in another and still be an effective argumentative device, while the reverse also holds anda Gnome maybe legitimate in all ways butoneandnotbe an effective element in the E+A. Obviously many of these tests for ‘legitimacy’have been covered in treatises on logical argumentation, but the short rundown given here lines out the aspects of Gnomic ‘legitimacy’which are at issue in this study. The ‘illegitimate’ nature of a Gnome does not mean that it cannot perform its argumentative function orthat it necessarily destroys the logic of E+A within which it occurs, butthat it contains oneof theincompatibilities mentioned above. Within the RAthe most common type of ‘illegitimate’Gnome is that which is malaligned with thetopoi of the genre of amatory elegy. A basic proposition of the poem is that love is susceptible to a cure andthe poet can offer a strategy bywhich the cure can be effected. This runs counter to a basic topos of amatory elegy where love is indeed immedicabilis andit cannotbe controlled byanyars.44 Ovid situates his remedies for love within the motivai and ideological constructs of amatory literature andhis insistence that palliatives for love canbe found is at variance with the ‘standards’of amatory literature. Gnomic Proofs such as line 144 –cedit amor rebus which acts as the Gnomic Proof for res age (line 144) and quaelibet huic curae cedere cura potest (line 170) where huic curae is a conflation of rura and studium colendi from line 169 (see Chapter Three for details) are ‘illegitimate’ Gnomes in terms of ‘standard’amatory topoi where love gives place to no other interest. They are ‘legitimate’ in that they are compatible with the statements of their immediate argumentative context andcreate nosequential incompatibles in the E+A, buttheir incompatibility with the topoi of amatory elegy would not escape the the ‘patients’–are to take ‘literary’audience, even though the primary addressees – theGnomic information of thevates of Cupid at face value. In line 656 the Gnomic Proof exitus ingeniis convenit iste feris argues for the sedmodo dilectam scelus est efficacy of complying with the Enjoinder of line 655 – odisse puellam (see Chapter Onefor details onthis Enjoinder). This Gnomic Proof at first blush seems compatible with the topoi of amatory elegy and with Ovid’s as are statements concerning lovers in theRAto the effect that lovers are irrational – beasts. Ovid here is playing off of the odi/amo topos in which lovers are at the mercy of their emotions andthe fact that the lover whobreaks off anaffair in hatred 68 – is still under the control of Amor is exhibited in the Exemplum of lines 663– saevis omnia verba tenebat;/horrebant lectica dominam forte aderam iuveni; minis./iamque vadaturus ‘lectica prodeat’ inquit;/prodierat; visa coniuge mutus erat;/et manus et manibus duplices cecidere tabellae;/venit in amplexus atque ita ‘vincis’ait. The lover/hater is seen in a transitional moment of the love/hate cycle/situation, which is endemic to the life of the elegiac amator. However, there is

44SeeChapter Five forthecitational evidence.

Chapter

41

2 –Proofs

the slight problem of coincidence in the Gnomic Proof between lovers andbeasts in that beasts donot appear to demonstrate the odi/amo cycle/situation in their affairs. Their lust, which is often the analogue for the lover’s impulse in elegy andcomedy, does not have the duality which is present in the human lover’s affair.45 Beasts do notappear to have the odi side of the amatory cycle/situation andin fact they would seem, post lust, to demonstrate the duritia for which Ovid is arguing in his non curare sat est. I read the Gnomic Proof exitus ingeniis Enjoinder of line 657 –

convenit as a humorous reconfiguration of beastly amatory motivations which would not be part of the sentiments of the wider cultural community andwhich is also not quite in agreement with the elegiac topoi in question. This Gnomic Proof is ‘illegitimate’ in these two respects. The fact that this Gnomic Proof has no Exemplary evidence adduced as to its validity does not necessarily argue for its ‘illegitimacy’, for Ovid is capable of generating Exemplary information for Gnomes which exhibit various types of ‘illegitimacy’ as is evidenced by his Exempla to prove the‘illegitimate’Gnomic Proofs of lines 144 and170 discussed above. While many Gnomes are aligned with generic topoi of amatory poetry, not all are. For some their ‘legitimacy’or ‘illegitimacy’is predicated on compatibility or incompatibility with motifs from other generic standards. For example some Gnomes which argue for the efficacy of an Enjoinder within Ovid’s program are oriented to medical topoi (see Chapter Four for examples). It is interesting to note that, while Ovid’s argumentation does contain certain 10 in Chapter Three and 48, lines 803– logical ‘slips’(see the comments on lines 41– 84 in Chapter Five), I amnot able to detect anyGnomic Proof which exlines 83– hibits an‘illegitimacy’based oneither aninherent logical inconsistency or onanincompatibility with the logic of the other elements of the E+A within which it appears. While the poet maybe sporting with literary truisms andwith the proverbs of thebroader culture which render some of his Gnomic statements ‘illegitimate’, he does notallow the internal logic of his arguments to suffer from a fallacious useof Gnomes. Gnomes are often used as narratival devices to open or close an E+A. In line sic venit ille puer, sic puer ille manet which op168 we find a terminal Gnome – erates asa Gnomic tagforthepreceeding Exemplum (see Chapter Three for details) which closes E+A regarding the needfugere otia. This tag acts as a Gnomic Proof setting forth the reason one should obey the commands of the poet. Cupid works his wiles onthe idle. In line 169 a prefatory Gnomic Proof opens a newE+A under the same topos –rura quoque oblectant animos studiumque colendi. This Gnome provides part of the Gnomic Proof for the series of Enjoinders which follow (see Chapter Three fordetails).

45Theparallels cited by Lucke p. 251 cover the pre-coital

ingenium

of the beast.

EXEMPLA CHAPTER THREE –

As has been stated above, Exempla mayact as evidence for all the other components of the E+A. I have classified the Exemplary material as ex rebus humanis, ex natura, and ex animalibus and although not all Exempla fit neatly into these classifications, nor are these distinctions always mutually exclusive, they at least give a framework within which to discuss thevarious types of Exempla. Human Exempla: Categorical: Quis matrem, nisi mentis inops, infunere nati/flere vetet? nonhoc illa monenda loco est;/cum dederit lacrimas animumque impleverit aegrum,/ille dolor verbis 30). This Exemplum argues for the legitimacy of the emoderandus erit (lines 127– Promissory term adgrediar melius turn cum sua vulnera tangi/iam sinet et veris vocibus aptus erit (line 125) by adducing a categorical example ex rebus humanis where the Exemplary figure is to be allowed currenti cedere furori as the Enjoinder, for which this material is part of the argument of compliance, commands. Only a fool would order a mother not to cry at the funeral of her child as only a foolish lovedoctor would order his patient to fight against the most emotional stage of an attack of love. The coincidence set upby Ovid between the ‘wounds’suffered by one in love andthose suffered by a mother grieving for her child is so outrageous 64 – that it is humorous. The same motif appears in the Exemplum of lines 463– quem flens clamat ‘tu mihi solus eras.’ fortius e multis mater desiderat unum/quam This Exemplum is offered as evidence for the Gnomic Proof successore novo vincitur omnis amor (line 462) andis a component of the argument of compliance for the Enjoinder at tibi, quifueris dominae male creditus uni,/nunc saltem novus 52. Here again the bereaved mother is compared est inveniendus amor of lines 451– to the lovesick patient and the dead child becomes the analogue for the prima amica. The lack of serious intent in the hyperbolic coincidences of this passage is highlighted byOvid’s farcical treatment of the argument between Agamemnon and Achilles in the mythological Exemplum which follows (see below). Ovid uses a fit quoque longus amor quem related mother/son motif in the following E+A – diffidentia nutrit (Gnomic Proof for Enjoinder):/hunc tu si quaeres ponere, pone metum (Enjoinder)./qui timet utsua sit, ne quis sibi detrahat illam,/ ille Machaonia vix ope sanus erit (Promissory term):/plus amat e natis mater plerumque duobus,/pro cuius reditu, quodgerit arma, timet (Exemplum for Promissory term) – 48. Here a humorous parity between the anguish of a mother (the lines 543– categorical Exemplum) over a soninjeopardy andthelover afraid to lose his love is established. Such incongruous analogies are part of Ovid’s subordination of all cultural constructs to the demands of his erotodidaxis and their devaluation into items with which to order theamatory world reconfigures themoral universe forthe ‘literary’audience in an absurd andcomic way. This reconfiguration is viewed by some critics as a parody of the artifice of all societal mores, yetthehumor is present in the mater flens type Exemplum only if both author andaudience feel that it is

Chapter

Exempla 3–

43

invested with more innate cultural importance than the amatory situation to which it is compared.46 440 provide models of The categorical human Exempla in the E+A of lines 425– curative techniques which are dismissed by Ovid as inappropriate for his program. In the E+A preceding these lines Ovid has enjoined his ‘patient’to place his beloved inthemost compromising positions for lovemaking (figura of line 407) andto avail himself of these opportunities to concentrate onwhatever flaws present themselves. Ovid anticipates the ‘patient’s’complaint that trying to find faults with the beloved while inmid-Venus might seem to be a rather inconsequential tactic andinsists that 40 even minor curative techniques can be helpful in the overall cure. In lines 425– Ovid sets forth the proposition that not all moments in which the beloved is in an uncompromising position (figurae of line 425) are to be sought after, since, for various reasons, there are positions which are inappropriate for the Lovedoctor’s regimen. Heincreases theethical appeal of this E+A bystating that in deference to pudor heshall notmention all positions to be avoided. Ovidbegins theE+A with a Gnomic Enjoinder which advises the patient not to expect all things regarding compromising positions to be lined outin his precepts dueto the fact that there are as many possible compromising positions as there are concepts of what constitutes sedquoniam totidem mores totidemque figurae,/non sunt a compromising position – 26).47 A Gnomic Proof for this Enjoinder is iudiciis omnia danda meis (lines 425– quotua nonpossunt offendi pectora facto,/forsitan hoc alio iudice then advanced – 28). Two categorical human Exempla then follow which crimen erit (lines 427– give evidence for the Proof - ille quod obscenas in aperto corpore partes/viderat, in cursu qui fuit, haesit amor;/ille quod a Veneris rebus surgente puella/vidit in 432). Ovid then produces a second Proof inmundo signa pudenda toro (lines 429– 26, which brings forward the idea that these for the Gnomic Enjoinder of lines 425– positions do not have efficacy for those truly afflicted and therefore should not be considered as a viable component of his cure –luditis, o si quos potuerunt ista 34). A Promissory term movere:/adflarant tepidae pectora vestra faces (lines 433– follows which guarantees anyone, whomight have thought such maneuvers were of medicinal value, that if they are truly smitten much more potent medicine will be

46SeeMyerowitz pp.38ff. forOvid’s seriousness about love andcompare Veyne pp.85ff. 47Henderson (1) pp.94– 95 is correct to dismiss thereading followed byNémethy, Mozley andLenz in which danda = permittenda. In fact danda here is functionally synonymous with expedienda of line 440 which closes this E+A(see OLDunder do,dare 28a+b fortheproper force of danda as “ to communicate” ) andOvid is saying that he knows much more than he will divulge; not that he is allowing the sick ‘patient’to make decisions about the proper curative regimen for himself. The reasons for his withholding of information is forthcoming in the E+A. Henderson’s reading of the passage as “ inviewofthegreat variety of waysofmaking love andof people’s attitudes to sex, there is nocall, inmyview, tobeexhaustive”is off themark aswell. I believe theforce of thegerundive should be brought forward, so that a rendering along the lines of the following results: ‘all things ought not to be communicated in my precepts.’ Ovid is going to show that some items are inappropriate forhisregimen andthis is notpart of a ‘weary praeceptor’motif.

44

Chapter

Exempla 3–

–adtrahet ille puer contentos fortius arcus,/saucia maiorem turba petetis 36). Ovidhasbrought forward categorical human Exempla whose opem(lines 435– use of ‘positions’were not to be included in his regimen dueto the lack of curative strength in thefigurae and he procedes to then offer another categorical human Exemplum whose figura tactic is too strong a dose of ‘positionality.’ This quid, qui clam latuit reddente obscena puella/et vidit quae mos ipse Exemplum – 38) –acts as evidence for the Proof of lines 427– 28, as did videre vetat? (lines 437– theprevious Exempla. Thepoet’s demands that his ‘patient’notexpect certain types of advice which were given general form in the opening Enjoinder of this E+A is dimelius, quam restated in a closing Enjoinder specific to the last Exemplum cited – nos moneamus talia quemquam:/ut prosint, nonsunt expedienda tamen (lines 439– 40). This Enjoinder, which is a variant onthe “Don’t expect meto give a rundown 26, takes the form of a comic praeteritio in of all positions”Enjoinder of lines 425– which Ovidbegs off advancing thetype of advice hehasjust advanced. Theclaim of allegiance to mos(note the comic contrast to mores in line 425) is ostensibly part of Ovid’s appeal to his reasonableness, which reinforces previous arguments that there are pieces of advice which pudor prevents him from mentioning (lines 359– 60) andwhich follows closely on his defense against those detractors whodeem his Museto beproterva. (See onsection 361ff. below.) 72 categorical Exempla of the human variety are adduced as eviIn lines 561– dence for the Gnomic Proof omnibus illa deus plusve minusve dedit (line 560) which posits the legitimacy of the Enjoinder andPromissory term ad mala quisque animum referat sua, ponet amorem (line 559). Thewisdom of the Gnomic Proof is proverbial andsomnus (Cupid?) lists the categories of human misfortune which will drive love from one’s mind. (See Chapter Four below for an analysis of the humor in this section and for the occurence of other categorical Exempla which are

required

Promissory in nature.) Human Exempla: Specific: Ovidmayusespecific human examples whogounnamed as in thetwonegative praestiterat Exempla in thefacito contagia vites section at lines 609ff. The first – iuvenis, quidquid meaMusa iubebat,/inque suae portu paene salutis erat./reccidit, ut cupidos inter devenit amantes/et, quae condiderat, tela resumpsit Amor (lines 10) is evidence for the postpositive Gnomic Proof –multaque corporibus 609– transitione nocent (line 616) of the Enjoinder si quis amas nec vis,facito contagia vites (line 613). The Gnomic Proof in which transitio andcontagium are equated hasthe further Exemplary support from the animal world andfrom physics in lines 15 –haec etiam pecori saepe nocere solent./dum spectant laesos oculi, 614– laeduntur et ipsi (see Chapter Four for a discussion of such technical/scientific manat amor tectus, si material).48 The guarantee/Promissory term for this E+A – the by buttressed is Exemplum in exagricultura – nonab amante recedas (line 619)

48See Pinotti pp.274– 75 andLucke p. 222 for the force of the Exempla inthis section.

Chapter

3 –Exempla

45

loca nonnumquam siccis arentia glaebis/de prope currenti flumine manat aqua 20 comes in the form of a 18). The closure of the E+A of lines 609– (lines 617– Gnomic Proof for the Promissory term introduced by an epexegetical que –turbaque in hoc omnes ingeniosa sumus-line 620. The second specific human Exemplum of this section –alter item iam sanus erat; vicinia laesit;/occursum dominae nontulit ille suae./vulnus in antiquum rediit 24) acts male firma cicatrix,/successumque artes non habuere meae (lines 621– along with the Gnomic Exemplum proximus a tectis ignis defenditur aegre (line 625) as evidence for the Gnomic Proof of line 626 –utile finitimis abstinuisse locis. This Proof argues for the validity of the Enjoinders –nec, quae ferre solet 28), as spatiantem porticus illam,/te ferat, officium neve colatur idem (lines 627– well as for the Enjoinder which posits the genus of advice under which these Enjoinders operate –alter, si possis, orbis habendus erit (line 630) which has the direct interrogative Gnomic Proof quid iuvat admonitu tepidam recalescere mentem? (line 629) which acts as a broader sentiment under which the previous Proof utile finitimis abstinuisse locis hasadded force. Theinterrogative Proof of line 629 hasa

34 –nonfacile esuriens posita retinebere series of evidential Exempla in lines 631– mensa/et multam saliens incitat unda sitim;/non facile est taurum visa retinere iuvenca;/fortis equus visae semper adhinnit equae the first two of which are categorical Exempla ex rebus humanis andposit the fact that for humankind love is asprimary a needas food andwater. 58 a specific human Exemplum from the In the following E+A of lines 153– contemporary world is offered as evidence of the utility of pursuing the rewards of vel tu sanguinei iuvenalia mubattle in order to rid the mind of thoughts of love – nera Martis/suscipe (Enjoinder): deliciae iam tibi terga dabunt (Promissory term)./ecce fugax Parthus, magni nova causa triumphi,/iam videt in campis Caesaris arma suis (Exemplum)./vince Cupidineas pariter Parthasque sagittas/et refer adpatrios bina tropaea deos (Enjoinder). This E+A continues with mythological Exempla (discussed below). The parallel drawn between the conquering of love andthedestruction of theParthian enemy is comically highlighted byLove showing its back in retreat in Parthian style (while it is actually the patient whois showing hisback to love bygoing outoncampaign) andbyreference to the common victory to be hadover the weapon of choice of both Cupid andthe Parthian enemy –the sagittas of line 157. Asinthemater flens Exempla discussed above Ovidgenerates humor inthis Exemplary passage through extravagant exaggeration. Inthis case the patient is to envision the fruits to be gained from a victory over the foremost military threat to the State, which would constitute a great success for the forces of Caesar, as part of a twin triumph in which the defeat of Cupid holds equal place. The encomium for the poet’s regimen inherent in the adduction of Exempla which threats which the poet’s regimen highlight the threat Cupid poses to the individual – will dismiss –is, of course, part of the poet’s ethical appeal and the vaunt that a victory over Cupid would somehow bring honor adpatrios deos would seem to be

46

Chapter

3 –Exempla

humor which relaxes the oft found tension in Roman amatory elegy between public and private concerns.49 As with the mater flens Exempla Ovid’s humor is rather dark in view of the fact that the Parthian problem hadcaused no little distress to the State andto many individuals, yet the honor to be gained from destruction of the Parthians would bring great honor to the State. The Parthian Exemplum follows the pattern of comparison in many human Exemplary items which places the power of love on a par with the most compelling of life’s situations.50 To follow the lead of several commentators one should perceive such contemporary ‘political’ Exempla employed in the service of erotodidaxis as satirical barbs aimed at Augustan policies.51 Comparison of the struggles against the Parthians to a ‘war’on Cupid would be perceived as a comic devaluation of Augustan foreign policy as part of Ovid’s broader satirical assault on Augustan Rome. These critics contend that Augustan policies which promote a revival of Golden Age morality andthe Caesar’s call for a renewal of the old virtues which brought Rome to prominence are easy targets for the satirist, since State policy seems bound to programs of lavish public expenditure andto territorial expansion to support such expenditure. This lack of restraint in the public sector in turn encouraged the private lifestyles which Augustus’s moral legislation, such as the leges Juliae deadulteriis anddemaritandis ordinibus andthe lex sumptuaria, were designed to discourage. Within this interpretive scheme Ovid’s relegatio can be attributed, at least partially, to the comic exposure of the contradictions of Augustan policy in his amatory poetry.52 In a related interpretation Ovid’s anti-Augustanism

an instance of hyperbolic

49Theincompatability of theamatory andthemilitary is a common topos for Roman amatory elegy andis present inspecific form intherecusatio involving theinability of thepoet to compose works on the subject of the Caesar’s exploits, e.g. Prop. 2.1. See Williams (1) pp. 558ff. on the role of public affairs in Roman elegiac poetry. See also Am.3.12.13ff. for Ovid’s play onthis recusatio motif andhis disingenuous attack onthefides of the poet andcompare this to his meaculpa at Tr. 2.315ff. forhisfailure tocompose onmoreacceptable themes. 50Another such human Exemplum which highlights the danger of the force of love is the stultus 22 (see Chapter One). natator of lines 121– 51For a rather concise statement which reflects this outlook see Mack pp. 38– 39. For the historical Parthian relationship at the time of Ovid’s composition of the RAsee realities of the Roman – Henderson (1) pp.xi-xii. 52Forbroader historical perspectives onOvid’s anti-Augustanism see SymeChapter 10– ‘Poetry and Government’; Holleman passim; and Thibault pp. 89ff. Both Syme and Holleman incorrectly attribute political motivations to poetic topoi. E.g. Holleman’s assessment of serious anti-Augustan propoganda in Amores 3.8 (pp. 459ff.) seems to meto be a misreading of Ovid’s recasting of the amatory topic of themiles gloriosus asrival into contemporary form (this reconfiguration also plays onthe soldier (public world) vs. poet (private world) motif). In Syme’s andHolleman’s view the rival is configured asheis forpointedly political purposes. Forthose whodiscount thepossibility of serious political intentions in a poem such asAmores 3.8, where thepoet employs mock outrage to impress his beloved, this moment of contemporaneity is merely part of thepoikilia Ovid utilizes for humorous affect as he weaves many of life’s/literature’s serious moments into his comic amatory design. I donotmeanto deny some normative reality behind the literary gamesmanship in which youths might well exhibit those traits characteristic of the amator in elegy, but the elegiac

Chapter

3 –Exempla

47

is seen to insinuate itself into the praise of the game playing of the culti of the sophisticated present and condemnation of the rude barbarism of rustics who peopled the old Rome upon which Augustus places the fundamenta of his social legislation. The passages cited by commentators as anti-Augustan involve the use of Augustan Rome for erotic purposes and contain no overt anti-Augustan language. The use of a triumph as a hunting ground for women satirizes the moment andbecomes an element of anti-Augustan propoganda.53 The description of theaters as the haunts for the initiates into the erotic culture elicits the story of Romulus’s role in the crude rape of the uncultured Sabines, which serves as parody of Augustus’s crudely configured marriage legislation aimed at the cultured men andwomen of Ovid’s Rome.54 However, the utilization of anAugustan triumph or the theaters for amatory aims may be no more a serious attack on the Augustan world than the utilization for amatory aims of the death of a child and a mother’s grief in the Exempla of the mater flens is a serious attack upon the world of the matrona Romana. Ovid’s didaxis operates in a universe where there is the basic comedic assumption that amatory concerns are paramount and all other concerns must be made subservient to them. Nocultural concept, no image from thepast, no contemporary scene is spared from being employed as grist for Ovid’s erotic mill. Ovid’s claim to have an ars with which to control love is not to be taken seriously andhis advice to the would be amatory sophisticates, whoarehis addressees in the Ars Amatoria, is not to be considered as serious moral instruction any more than than his advice to the sick ‘patients’of the RA.55 Ovid’s moral compass swings wildly in his didactic works. At one moment he praises the cultural advantages of the contemporary world andat another hewistfully looks back at the mosmaiorum. In answer to the anti-Augustan strain of criticism one might counter that Ovid’s ratio amoris should be construed as pro-Augustan in that it attempts to place order upon a force of chaos.56 Under such an interpretive scheme the battle against love is a battle for control andorder just as is the battle against the Parthians. I would argue for a less ‘political’view of Ovidian didactic poetry which perceives serious conventions place the actions of the lover in a complex chain of metonymic associations andany attempt to follow thechain back to thereality behind thepoetry is a hazardous undertaking. 53See Fyler pp. 199– 200 for the use of Augustan Rome in the poet’s program of deception andcf. Myerowitz pp.35ff. forAugustan Romeasthestage forcultural play. 54Myerowitz pp.64ff.

55See Lynne pp.282ff. for a discussion of the lack of seriousness andcatholic nature of Ovid’s irboth political andpoetic. Another charge of anti-Augustanism which is leveled at Ovid reverence – is that his didactic parodies the Virgilian literary decorum established in the pro-Augustan Aeneid 97 andVerducci (2) p. 34). Ovid’s andis therefore, by extension, anti-Augustan (Fyler pp. 196– borrowings from and parody of Virgil, Lucretius, and Catullus and the crossing of generic boundaries in this intertextual material does not necessitate that weread Ovid as anti-Roman, antiEpicurean, etc. 56 See Labate passim

control.

andcf. Myerowitz pp. 38– 39, et al. on Ovid’s parody of the conventions of

48

Chapter

Exempla 3–

intent, not within anypolitical criticism, but within a desire to reconfigure amatory topics in interesting ways. This mayseem perversely simpleminded, but I find the rather selective choice of Exempla and other items to support the ‘political’ readings of the poem leads to unconvincing demonstrations as to Ovid’s antiAugustan (or pro-Augustan) bias. Efforts to glean a consistent anti-Augustan bias from mythological Exempla will be discussed below. Ovid places the defense of his poetry against those detractors whose invidia has led them to call his Muse proterva in an E+A structure within which specific humanExempla are adduced. Ovid piques the prurient interest of the audience in 58 –nunc tibi, quae medio Veneris praestemus in usu,/eloquar: ex omni lines 357– 60 – estparte fugandus Amor andthen procedes to qualify the promise in lines 359– multa quidem ex illis pudor est mihi dicere, sed tu/ingenio verbis concipe plura meis. There then follows an argument for the appropriateness for such ‘racy’material in his work which addresses both the base motives of those infected with β α σ κ α ν ία andthe concerns of those for whom licentious material is objectionable. This argument at the same time is a comic delay of the introduction of the salacious dummodo sicplaceam, dum matter.57 Asproof forthe legitimacy of theEnjoinder – 64) the toto canter in orbe,/qui volet, inpugnent unus et alter opus (lines 363– summa petit livor. Ingenium proverbial Gnomic Proof of line 369 is advanced – magni livor detractat Homeri;/quisquis es, ex illo, Zoile, nomen habes (lines 365– 66) is Exemplary evidence for this statement with the specific Exemplary figures of Homer and Zoilus (who is apostrophised to highlight the derogatory statement 68 offer quisquis es) adduced to correspond to Ovid andhis detractors.58 Lines 367– et tua sacrilegae laniarunt carmina linguae,/pertulit another specific Exemplum – huc victos quo duce Troia deos with the antonomasia of quo duce leaving Virgil to be named in the closing lines of this section –tantum se nobis elegi debere 96). To those for whom fatentur,/quantum Vergilio nobile debet epos (lines 395– lascivious topics arepainful Ovidoffers a literature lesson in E+A form intended to explain the proper orientation of such material. The Enjoinder and its contextual at tu, quicumque es, quem nostra licentia terms which configure the addressee – 72) –contains an echo laedit,/si sapis, ad numeros exige quidque suos (lines 371– (quisquis es) of the language used to describe Zoilus, the Homeromastix, and forewarns the addressees of the infamy awaiting those whodo not come to terms with Ovid’s teaching on the role of licentia in poetry. The Enjoinder is supported 84) from the various ‘literary’ genres in which specific by Exempla (lines 373– Maeonio...pede human Exempla, sometimes in tropic form, play a prominent role – (line 373), Callimachi numeris (line 381), Homere (line 382). The last Exemplary figure adduced is categorical in nature andappears in the future less vivid condition 85 –quis ferat Andromaches peragentem Thaida partes?/peccet, in of lines 384–

57SeeHenderson p. 88 andPinotti pp.194– 95 onthedidactic conventions andprogrammatic ofthelivor motif atworkinthispassage. 58Ontheproverbial nature of summa petit livor seeHenderson (1) p. 89.

nature

Chapter

3 –Exempla

49

Andromache Thaida quisquis agat which is a Gnomic statement which posits nemo in the category at hand.59 However, Ovid maywell be providing more humor in this section in which he claims he follows the generic rules and which most commentators read as a serious defense of his poetry. Ovid himself plays with the generic boundaries when he utilizes epic couples such as Hector andAndromache in conjugal scenes where very unepic motifs are present. In AA 2.703ff. Andromache and Hector in their marriage bed are offered as Exemplary items – conscius, ecce, duos accepit lectus amantes:/ad thalami clausas, Musa, resiste, fores./sponte sua sine te celeberrima verba loquentur,/nec manus in lecto laeva iacebit iners;/invenient digiti quod agant inpartibus illis,/in quibus occulte spicula tingit Amor./fecit in Andromache prius hoc fortissimus Hector/nec solum bellis utilis ille fuit. In this scene Ovid skirts the limits of the generic boundaries as he brings Andromache’s erogenous zones into play while also comically reasserting Hector’s epic status. The apologia for one’s work is a convention of both epic and elegiac genres andhere Ovid’s defense of his erotic work comically references his owntransgression of thegeneric purity heargues for inthis E+A. α is another type of specific human Exemplum andOvid μ ρ ά δ ειγ α eῖov π Theoἰκ employs his personal experience, both amatory and non-amatory, as part of his ἰκ ε ῖο ρ νπ α ά δ μ ειγ α arguments for compliance to his precepts. Anexample of anο quamvis infelix from his non-amatory past occurs in the E+A starting at line 491 – media torreberis Aetna,/frigidior dominae fac videare tuae./et sanum simula nec, si 94 –Enjoinders quidforte dolebis,/sentiat, et ride, cumtibi flendus eris (lines 491– and contextual terms)60./non ego te iubeo medias abrumpere curas (line 495 – Proof for the Enjoinder Enjoinder):/non sunt imperii tamfera iussa mei (line 496 – Enjoinders of line 495). quodnones, simula positosque imitare furores (line 497 – 94):/sic facies vere, quod meditatus eris (line which restate the Enjoinders of 491– 498 –Promissory term)./saepe ego, ne biberem, volui dormire videri:/dum videor, Exemplum as evidence for the Promissory 500 – somno lumina victa dedi (lines 499– ). This personal example is then followed μ α ειγ δ ά ρ α νπ ε ῖο ἰκ term in form of anο by evidence for which the author personally vouches –deceptum risi, qui se 502). While this simulabat amare,/in laqueos auceps decideratque suos (lines 501– μ αit does have Ovid’s personal ειγ δ ά ρ α ἰκ ε νπ ῖο empirical evidence is not an ο assurance of reliability andoffers a specific human Exemplum other than the author astestimony forthevalidity of thePromissory term. Ovid poses as a medicus whohas hadthe experience of suffering from illnesses saepe bibi sucos quamvis in28 – which required unpleasant remedies in lines 227– ἰκ vitus amaros/aeger, et oranti mensa negata mihi. This ο μ ε α ῖο ρ ά νπ δ ειγ α demonstrates thepain oneis willing to undergo to restore one’s physical health and operates as evidence for the Promissory Enjoinder of line 226 (see Chapter Four)

59SeePinotti pp.202– 3 onthemoods of theverbs inthis statement. 60 For discussions on the various readings for line 492 see Pinotti p. 234 andHenderson (2) pp. 164ff.

50

Chapter

3 –Exempla

sed ut valeas multa dolenda feres which is the Enjoinder term in this anticipatio which pre-empts the complaints of the adressees andstresses the labor necessary to follow advice of the type which the praeceptor knows is difficult –dura aliquis 26). Ovid uses the common praecepta vocet mea; dura fatemur/esse (lines 225– sed didactic ploy of stressing the labor faced in undertaking a worthwhile task – tamen est artis tristissima ianua nostrae,/et labor est unus tempora prima pati 34) andhis preceding claim to have undergone the similar non-amatory (lines 233– trials urges the patients to submit.61 The ethical appeal inherent in the claims of the labor involved in following the lovedoctor’s regimen is offset bylater assurances to the lovesick that his prescriptions will not be too harsh.62 Ovid in this passage also adduces the behavior of the addressees themselves in other medical situations as Exemplary evidence for howthey should act when faced with the rigors of overutcorpus redimas, ferrum patieris et ignes/arida nec sitiens coming lovesickness – 30). ora levabis aqua (lines 229– μ α τ αof anamatory nature andthese Exempla είγ δ α ρ α Ovid does useο ἰκ ε ῖαπ patient bond. They may are of obvious importance in establishing a firm doctor – 322 which is distake the extended form of the personal Exemplum of lines 311– cussed under Promissory Exempla below or they may come in abbreviated form such as in the following E+A –exiguum est, quod deinde canam, sedprofuit illud/exiguum multis, in quibus ipse fui./scripta cave relegas blandae servata puellae:/constantis animos scripta relecta movent./omnia poneferos (pones invitus) in /Thestias absentem succendit stipite ignes/et dic ‘ardoris sit rogus iste mei.’ 22). The aidwhich the natum:/tu timide flammae perfida verba dabis? (lines 715– poet says he received from the precept in question –sedprofuit illud exiguum multis, in quibus ipsefui provides the credibility for the warning of line 719 (pones invitus) andcreates thesympathetic bondbetween theoneafflicted andtheonewho hassurvived theaffliction. The most common type of specific human Exemplum is the mythological Exemplum andit offers thepoet a great opportunity to manipulate thevarious levels of coincidence which exist between the addressees andthe Exemplary material dueto the audience’s familiarity both with the myths themselves andwith the numerous poetic strategies within which they are employed. In Ovid’s didactic poetry, where the majority of mythological Exempla have the ostensible function of acting as argumentative evidence, they donot exhibit as broad a range of narratival duties as the mythological Exempla in certain other types of poetry.63 However, within the argumentative tactics of the E+As in the RA Ovid finds many applications for 61Ontherole of labor in didactic andepic strategies see Fyler p. 200, Kenney pp.205– 6, Myerowitz 94 andhernotes onp. 209, Verducci (2) p. 34. pp.86– 62 E.g. lines 495– 96 –non ego te iubeo medias abrumpere curas:/non sunt imperii tamfera iussa mei.

63See Williams (2) Chapter 4 –‘Arbitrary Assertion of Similarity’for a study of the different narratival andthematic uses ofmythological paradigms inRoman poetry.

Chapter

3 –Exempla

51

mythic Exempla andcommentators on the poem have hadmany explanations as to μ α τ α ρ treated in α δ είγ α the purpose behind these applications. The mythological π the following analysis have been separated into groups according to the argumentative function they serve in thepoem, i.e. as evidence for Proofs, Promissory terms, orEnjoinders. Thevarious interpretations as to Ovid’s purposes in the adduction of specific Exempla as well as to his general strategy in their employment is incorporated into the discussions of the individual Exempla. Human Exempla: Specific; continued –Mythological Exempla as evidence for

Proofs:

Ovid often forwards mythological Exempla as evidence for the legitimacy of his truisms regarding love. As part of the argument of compliance for the Enjoinder of 52 –at tibi, quifueris dominae male creditus uni,/nunc saltem novus est lines 451– inveniendus amor Ovid states that successore novo vincitur omnis amor (line 462) 64 (discussed above) as an Exemand after adducing the mater flens in lines 463– plum to verify this Gnomic Proof he anticipates the possible incredulity of his addressees concerning this advice andargues for its credentials as a proven anti-love et, technique by attributing its origin to a mythological figure of some reputation – utinam inventi gloria iura/(atque nostra ne forte putes nova me tibi condere foret!),/vidit id Atrides: quid enim non ille videret,/cuius in arbitrio Graecia tota 84, which follows, functions as 68). The Exemplum of lines 469– fuit? (lines 465– both evidence for the Gnomic Proof of line 462 andas an aetiological explanation as to its source: Marte suo captam Chryseida victor amabat; at senior stulte flebat ubique pater. 470 quid lacrimas, odiose senex? bene convenit illis; officio natam laedis inepte tuo. quampostquam reddi Calchas opetutus Achillis iusserat etpatria est illa recepta domo, 475 ‘est’ait Atrides ‘illius proxima forma et, siprima sinat syllaba, nomen idem: hanc mihi, si sapiat, per se concedat Achilles; si minus, imperium sentiet ille meum. quodsi quis vestrum factum hocaccusat, Achivi, 480 est aliquid valida sceptra tenere manu. namsi rex egosum, nec mecum dormiat ulla, inmeaThersites regna licebit eat.’ dixit et hanc habuit solacia magna prioris, etposita estcura cura repulsa nova.

The macrologia of this Exemplum is not mere ornament which goes beyond the levels of coincidence between Exemplary foil andaddressee demanded of the evi-

52

Chapter

Exempla 3–

dence for the Gnomic Proof, but can be rationalized as aetiological information essential to the poet’s ethical appeal. Ovid, of course, humorously destabilizes the Exemplum as viable evidence for the preceding Proof andalso undercuts any credence the audience might have for this precept which is generated bythe aetiological explanation. Wise Agamemnon, under whose command was all of Greece, is given credit for the tactic of taking a new lover to forget the old. This mayhave hada salubrious effect on his lovelife, but the repercussions of this action for the Greeks is pendent in Agamemnon’s threats to Achilles. Wesee in the mythological Exempla the same subjugation of all other considerations to those concerning love which waspresent in other human Exempla mentioned above. ‘Standard’items of the myth are reconsidered, often in absurd terms, in order to fulfill the amatory needs of the argumentative moment. Chryses is no longer the wronged priest of Apollo, but an aged curmudgeon, whodoes not allow Agamemnon andChryseis their sexual pleasure and Ovid treats him with the same disrespect with which Agamemnon had. Agamemnon’s appeal for the power of the rex is couched in sexual terms and the dissolution of aristocratic ideals, which would result in a Thersites as leader, is threatened bya diminution of thesexual status of theking. Such manipulation of mythological items is seen by some modern critics as a serious attack by Ovid onthe symbolic anduniversal nature of myth. They contend that his radical inflections of the stories, which constitute the ancient models of behavior, in the service of erotodidaxis trivialize them andcompromise their utility as a source for Exemplary material.64 The epic solemnity of the heroes is vitiated when they are situated in patently ridiculous strategies for the entertainment of the sophisticates of Ovid’s Rome. Theapologies for andrationalizations of theheinous acts of mythic figures, whoare the paradigms of misbehavior, under the rubric of lovesickness undermines their ability to function in serious paedogogical settings. Within this view Ovid’s manipulation of Exemplary material also mocks the magisterial role of thepraeceptor whouses mythological items in his didaxis. I do notbelieve Ovid’s intentions are quite so sinister in regards to myth. The question is whether Ovid wasattempting to destroy the ability of mythic figures to function as a meaningful source for models of behavoir in his culture. Mythic figures are certainly thefodder for Ovid’s comic intentions in theRA,butthey arealso utilized as “ a resonant source for renewing awareness of present existence”65in his works written while in exile. Heforwards myths, some of them the same as those in the RA,to explain his situation andto persuade Augustus to have mercy onhimin the works from Tomis, which are still considered by most commentators to have

64Comments onOvid’s lack of belief in myth as representative of a culture whose sense of reality 18, et al.) have been replaced by comments as to his hasbeen shaken (as stated by Fränkel pp. 17– 200, et al.). trivialization of mythwhich strips it of its symbolic function (as stated byFyler pp. 199– 65Ong(2) p. 98.

Chapter

Exempla 3–

53

6 the Exemplum of serious intentions of a pragmatic nature.66 At Tristia 2.105– Actaeon is adduced as evidence forthe fact that mortals must paywhenthe gods are 8 Ovid posits the Exemplum of Antigone as part of the wronged. At Tristia 3.3.67– argument for compliance in his plea that his bones be interred in his homeland. At Tristia 5.1.53ff. the Exemplary figures of Phalaris andPerillus; Achilles andPriam; andApollo, Demeter andNiobe areforwarded as part of Ovid’s defense for his need to weepopenly about hismisfortune. Ovid’s poetry exhibits his constancy of belief in the evidenciary power of mythic figures in his culture. In his didaxis the evidence from myth maybe structured in such a waythat attention is focused oncomic inventio, as with Chryses as the stultuspater above, butthis reformulation of the character of the mythic figure will not destroy the availability of the figure for use in other arguments with more serious import. One of the signs of a fine speaker in the Greco-Roman tradition is his μ α . When Achilles persuades Priam to take sustenance he τ α είγ δ α ρ α control of π Niobe myth, whose original’function wasto forward a the does so byreconfiguring ‘ ’ ο ι. This ‘new μ ά χ εο treatment of themyth does not negative lesson to prospective θ destroy, but enhances its applicability by widening its motivai range. Those who perceive Homeric inventio intheIliad as essentially different from Ovidian inventio in the RAargue that Ovid’s poetry makes the Exemplary figures appear ridiculous by attributing ridiculous motives to their actions. The fact that he invests them with the same foibles as the contemporary Roman audience must, in turn, destroy their ability to function as categorical paradigms for that audience. Yet Ovid in the Tristia can employ theNiobe myth in a fashion analogous to that of Homer in Iliad Book 24 with apparent lack of concern that his argument may appear foolish. Euripides, much as Ovid, portrayed his mythic figures with the character traits of his fellow Athenians –often for comic and/or absurd effect –andyet he could still compose the Bacchae, a drama in which myth seems to retain its capacity to carry serious lessons for the culture. Callimachus hadrecast many mythological figures inthemold of contemporary society andtempered them with Alexandrian erudition and his mythological images became a model for his poetic successors, among whom was Ovid. Ovid carried forward the ‘Callimachean’elements into both his comic didactic elegy and his more serious elegy written in exile and these had become elements common to manygenres.67 66I believe that Ovid’s claims that his Muse is iocosa (RA387 andTr. 2.354) aretrue, even though notall his statements inthe Tristia areto betaken at face value. The Tristia itself hasa fair share of elegiac play, which is designed to please both Augustus andtheliterary audience. Hisdefense of his comic didaxis includes claims as to its lack of harmful intent –candidus a salibus suffusis felle 6) andI believe this is a true statement of his venenato littera mixta ioco est (Tr. 2.565– poetic intent. Even where he points outtargets for abuse, such as his detractors in RA361ff., comic touches often signal that there areoverriding literary motivations atwork. 67 Almost no modern study of Roman epic or elegiac poetry from Ennius to Ovid andbeyond is without remarks concerning Callimachus’s style of mythologizing and its effects on the genre in refugi:/nulla

question.

54

Chapter

3 –Exempla

Should it not, at least, be admitted that the comic treatment of mythic material in Ovid’s amatory poetry is part of a program which leads to an investment of too much emotional andintellectual energy in trivial issues such as love andtherefore ?68 Is Ovid poking fun at funantipathetic to civic virtue” fosters a frame of mind “ concepts such aspudicitia attacking by policy moral Augustan of damental features andfides inherent in the mythic scenes like that above in which the concerns of Chryses for his daughter are discounted? Ovid does enjoin the lovelorn in the RAto 54 he advances a course of avoid otium which breeds the disease andat lines 149– – desidiam puer (Cupid) sequi solet, odit ille action to counteract its ill effects agentes:/da vacuae menti, quo teneatur, opus./sunt fora, sunt leges, sunt, quos tuearis, amici:/vade per urbanae splendida castra togae./vel tusanguinei iuvenalia munera Martis/suscipe: deliciae iam tibi terga dabunt. As evidence for the Promissory term deliciae iamtibi terga dabunt he offers the negative Exemplum of Aegisthus –quaeritis, Aegisthus quare sit factus adulter?/in promptu causa est: desidiosus erat./pugnabant alii tardis apud Ilion armis;/transtulerat vires Graecia tota suas./sive operam bellis vellet dare, nulla gerebat,/sive foro, vacuum litibus 67). The precept to Argos erat./quod potuit, ne nil illic ageretur, amavit (lines 161– avoid otium would seem to be in line with Augustan moral policy.69 However; is this Exemplum, which humorously rationalizes the actions of Aegisthus andconsequently compromises the effect of the anti-otium argument, meant as a satirical jibe at the pursuits of the lawcourts and battlefields where the boni make their mark? If so, does it follow that it operates as a parody of Augustan concepts of the useful citizen? Is Aegisthus a model of the Roman aristocrat, who, for political reasons, has been denied access to public honors and is forced to search out personal fulfillment in the private sphere? Do such drastic reworkings of mythic material strip it of its ability to carry anyformative weight in moral arguments? My answer to such questions posed by commentators on Ovidian amatory didactic is α δ ρ α in the RAoperate within a persuasive α τ ε α μ ίγ no.” All the mythological π “ framework set upon the fundamental assumption that love can be strategized. As mentioned above this assumption is radically at variance with the motifs of Roman amatory elegy and the radical reconfiguration of the myths is part of the comically skewed amatory world where Aegisthus’s actions are reasonable and Chryses is nothing more than a bothersome old man. As discussed above these Exempla operate alongside those of mothers who weep for their dead children and such Exemplary excesses destroy the poetic decorum of didaxis for humorous ends. That does not mean that Ovid intends to call into question the persuasive capacities of such Exemplary material in other settings or that this play on didactic convention is

68Griffin (2) p. 54. 69 For the harmful effects of otium on those in the past see Catullus 51.13–16 –otium, Catulle, tibi molestum est:/otium exsultas nimiumque gestis:/otium et reges prius et beatas/perdidit urbes. See also Fraenkel (1) pp.211ff. fora discussion ofthedevelopment of poetic ideas associated with otium andits enervating force.

Chapter

3 –Exempla

55

meant as serious commentary onthe place of didactic poetry in the moral universe. Ovid’s argumentation and ethical appeals are so flawed as to negate any ‘serious’ intentions as to erecting a cultural construct, such as a ratio amandi, andto perceive the games playing of the RAas a commentary onthe artifice of human culture is to ask the audience to use the absurdly constructed remedia amoris as a serious heuristic model. That does not mean that ideological formations, which may provide a variety of societal insights, are not identifiable in the RA,butclaims as to serious authorial intent in this work must be reviewed within the argumentative structure of thepiece.70 Several times Ovid directly addresses mythic figures whoact as evidence for the validity of a Proof. The role of apostrophe of mythological personages in both the argumentation andethical appeals of theE+As is discussed below under Promissory

Exempla. Human Exempla: Specific; continued –Mythological Exempla as evidence for Promissory terms: Mythological Exempla are employed as validation for Promissory terms. As described in the Introduction the argument of compliance to venite and discite of lines 41 and43 in the exordium consists of the Gnomic Promissory term of line 44 – una manus vobis vulnus opemque feret, which guarantees the utility of the En48, which give evidence for thevalidjoinders, anda series of Exempla in lines 45– ity of the Promissory term –terra salutares herbas eademque nocentes/nutrit, et urticae proxima saepe rosa est;/vulnus in Herculeo quae quondam fecerat hoste,/vulneris auxilium Pelias hasta tulit. Here the Exemplary item from mythologyis thehasta which is set in comparison to themanus of the Promissory term and there is a direct coincidence established between the Promissory term and the Exemplum in the word vulnus. The mythological Exemplum certainly provides evidence that the Gnomic Promissory term is valid and, while the argument for compliance appears to be logically coherent, there is a disjunction between the Enjoinders andthis argument of compliance which is designed to help establish Ovid’s bond with his patients as the Doctor of Love. As much as he might boast about his prowess as the praeceptor amoris –discite sanari per quem didicistis he is notthe true source of the vulnus amoris andhis logical laxity here is amare – calculated to putthepoet intheplace of theamica, thetrue source of thewound, as theoneto whomthepatient owes primary allegiance. The direct connection between the Promissory term andthe Exemplum posited bythewordvulnus does notmeanthat in both instances there must be a reference to the wound of love. The Telephian wound is proverbial in descriptions of items which have reciprocal power andto perceive a strong amatory coloration in this

70Ideological formations’refers to the normative belief system(s) andpractice(s) which identify a or individual. Anexample of such ideological work is theidentification of theelegiac amica inMyerowitz pp,123ff. andpassim.

group

56

Chapter

Exempla 3–

Exemplum on the basis of the fact that the myth of Telephus appears in other amatory settings is uncalled for.71 As evidence for the Promissory terms, which guarantee the patient that Ovid’s curative program will not have recourse to the magical arts, Ovid offers mythological Exempla that demonstrate the impotence of magicians to deal with love. 90 and the The E+A within which these Exempla operate is located at lines 249– viderit, Haemoniae si quis mala pabula terrae/et magiEnjoinder of this section – see Chapter One) is given its legitimacy 50 – cas artes posse iuvare putat (lines 249– – ista veneficii vetus est via; noster by the subsequent Gnomic Proofs 2), which distinguish Apollo/innocuam sacro carmine monstrat opem (lines 251– between the capacities of magic andmedicine. The Promissory terms of lines 253– 60 are a series of horrific commonplaces from the magician’s repertoire and the Exempla exhibit the helplessness of famous magicians, who possessed such a repertoire, to deal effectively with their own lovesickness. Medea appears in apostrophe (see Chapter Four for the use of apostrophe) in the first two-line Exemplum andOvid concentrates on the inability of Medea to fight off the first onslaught of the disease when Jason arrived at Colchis, while the second Exemplum, that of Circe, shows her inability to deal with the separation from her lover. The polar terms (beginning/end) lined out in these Exempla drive home the point that magic is never aneffective anti-love agent. The Exemplum of Circe, also placed in 88 andthe macrologia in this Exemplum is characapostrophe, runs from line 263– terized as Alexandrian digression by some commentators.72 The Alexandrian penchant for thepsychological insight is indeed present in this version of Ulysses’s departure, which varies greatly from the Odyssean version. It also has the artificial tenor of the suasoria, as domany of the abandonment scenes in the Heroides, but that does not mean that it carries little argumentative weight. It does serve the argumentative function of focusing on Circe’s forsaking of her magical skills in her attempt to get Ulysses to remain with her. She relies on the tried anduntrue formula which other abandoned women, such as theVirgilian Dido, usedandthepoint here is that herlast resort is to the ‘normal’non-magical pleas which have proved so unsuccessful for others.73 Mythological; continued – varia: Human Exempla: Specific – Mythological Exempla mayappear to be direct evidence for the efficacy of an 58 –vince Cupidineas pariter Parthasque Enjoinder. The Enjoinders of lines 157– sagittas/et refer ad patrios bina tropaea deos are supported by Exempla which directly follow. The first is aligned with the Enjoinder by a direct comparison, introduced by ut, of the action of the Exemplary figure with the action to be per-

71FortheuseoftheTelephian wound innon-amatory contexts inOvidseeMet. 12.112; 13.171; Tr. Pinotti p. 103 and Geisler p. 166 argue for an amatory orientation for this

20; 5.2.15. 2.19– Exemplum. 72Henderson

(1) p. 73, Pinotti pp. 173– 74. 73Onthemotifs atplay inabandonment scenes seeGeisler p. 289– 92, Pinotti p. 176– 78.

Chapter

3 –Exempla

57

ut semel Aetola Venus est a cuspide laesa,/mandat amaformed by the addressee – 60). Here the Exemplary figure, Diomedes, aptori bella gerenda suo (lines 159– pears in metonymic form and his battle victory over Venus is an Exemplum ex maiore ad minorem as the addressees are shown a hero defeating the Goddess (whose sonthey areto overcome). Theparadigmatic message to the addressees that a double victory can be had is completed by the portentous figure of Mars as Venus’s lover, whom Diomedes wounded and routed from the battlefield with

Athena’s help, standing in for the Parthian threat to which the addressee is to devote his energies. This Exemplum has a syntactical tie to the Enjoinder terms through theutof line 159, butis it directly tied to the Enjoinder in the logic of the argument of compliance? The enthymematic nature of the connection between Exempla and Enjoinders demands that animplied premise be present for the logical connection of vince et Enjoinder andExemplum to be made. In ourcase above, the conclusion – ‘Diomedes refer tropaea is driven off theminor premise inherent in theExemplum – conquered Venus’–andthe implied premise necessary for this argument to make sense in logical terms is a major premise along the lines of ‘love is conquerable.’ This implied major premise is one which would be compatible with the other truisms in the res age section of the poem within which this E+A occurs; e.g., cedit amor rebus (line 144). As the Exemplum posits information which reflects the implied premise there does notseemto be anylogical break intheargumentation. Mythological figures mayappear as anelement in Enjoinders, Promissory terms orProofs andin that case there maybe a conflation of theExemplary function with the component within which the Exemplum occurs. In line 589 –semper habe the mythological Exemplum of Pylades as the Pyladen aliquem, qui curet Oresten – constant companion whomthe patient, as an Orestes, is to seek out, is attracted into the Enjoinder term. The same type of conflation occurs in line 676 which contains 76 –nunc opus est the closing Enjoinder in the tricolonic crescendo of lines 675– which exhorts the armis; hic ofortissime pugna:/vincenda est telo Penthesilea tuo – patient, whois avoiding contact with his girl, to usetheweapons thepoet hasgiven him, if he should ever chance upon her. In line 676 the mythic figure, Penthesilea, stands in for the amica, butthemythic figure (Achilles) whose role thepatient is to emulate is not mentioned, but instead the patient himself, in metonymic terms, is placed into the mythic imagery. (The same enthymematic relationship exists between these Enjoinders and Exempla as outlined above.) There is a comic misapplication of the Exemplary figure here in that a ‘standard’element of this mythic scene has Achilles fall in love with the dead Penthesilea. A result inappropriate fortheargument at hand. 700 a Promissory term contains a metonymic reference to a mythic In lines 699– non ego Dulichio furari more sagittas/nec raptas ausim tinguere in amne figure – faces.74 This Promissory term operates as a guarantee of safety from divine retri-

74Forinterpretations astothefunction ofthis E+Acentered around theEnjoinder parete canenti see 79. Fora discussion ofthevariant readings forthis line seeLucke pp.280– 81. Lucke pp.278–

58

Chapter

3 –Exempla

bution, if one follows the poet’s precept set forth in the Enjoinder and attendant consilium est, quodcumque cano: parete canenti. The assurance Proof of line 703 – that the poet’s advice operates under the tutelage of a god is advanced in the 6 –utque facis, coeptis, Phoebe saluber, epiphany of Apollo in lines 704– sonuere pharetrae;/signa deumnosco per sua: lyrae, sonuere ades./Phoebus adest: Phoebus adest. This kletic hymn which reminds the Godof his contractual duties with his vates and medicus (both the poetic and medical timai of the God are present in the lyrae andpharetrae (which carries the arrows of destruction) of line 705) acts as a second Promissory term for the Enjoinder of line 704 –parete canenti. The reference to Odysseus in the first Promissory term by the word Dulichio can be seen merely as a metaphorical adjective for ‘thievish’, but Ovid’s purposes are likely more complex.75 This adduction of Odysseus functions as an Exemplary item for the Promissory term and in this case the theft of the arrows of Philoctetes is the mythological scene at hand. The poet has shifted the points of 14 –quam laesus coincidence involving Philoctetes from that seen at lines 111– fuerat, partem Poeantius heros/certa debuerat praesecuisse manu;/post tamen hic multos sanatus creditur annos/supremam bellis imposuisse manum, where Philoctetes is compared to thelovesick patient whomaystill be helped, even if the disease is at anadvanced stage. Thelogical extension of thecomparison involving thetheft 700 is: Ovid is not to Odysseus as Cupid, in need of his of the arrows in lines 699– arrows, is not to Philoctetes, in need of his arrows. This comparison in the Promissory term assures Cupid of his good intentions andthe second Promissory 6 follows nicely upon it. There is also anethical term involving Apollo in lines 704– appeal to his lovesick patients inherent in Ovid’s asseveration that he would not steal Philoctetes’s arrows andthus further harm a sick manandthis appeal mirrors 14. theappeal at work intheappearance of Philoctetes in lines 111– 52 –turn quoque, In the argument of compliance to the Enjoinder of lines 351– a compositis sua cumlinit ora venenis,/ad dominae vultus, necpudor obstet, eas76 – mythic figure is adduced which serves several functions. The Promissory term of pyxidas invenies 54 guarantees theoutcome of adhering to theEnjoinder – lines 353– et rerum mille colores/et fluere in tepidos oesypa lapsa sinus. Line 355 offers a metaphorical description of the medicamina mentioned in the previous lines and ilia tuas redolent, Phineu, operates as part of the Promissory term in that respect –

75 Ovid’s use of recherché terms may, at times, do more than reflect an affinity for Alexandrian stylistics. In line 778 the use of the adjective Plisthenius, which refers to Agamemnon’s seldom referred to forefather/father (see Henderson (1) p. 134 onPlisthenes asthefather of Agamemnon and cf. Fraenkel (2) p. 740 for its broader associations), maywell be an indication of Achilles’s low esteem forhim. Thefact that Agamemnon is sleeping with Briseis is made all themore lamentable by his lack of status in the eyes of Achilles, whoperceives him as the offspring of the relatively hoc et in abducta Briseide flebat Achilles,/illam Plisthenio gaudia ferre viro unknown Plisthenes – 78). (lines 777– 76See Henderson (2) p. 162 for anargument forthereading collinet inplace of cumlinit. Theshift tothefuture is notcalled for inthis contextual termwhich gives Gnomic status totheEnjoinder eas.

Chapter

Exempla 3–

59

medicamina mensas. Thepoet’s apostrophe of Phineus foreshadows the succeeding μ α–non semel hinc stomacho nausea facta meo est (line 356) ρ ά δ ειγ ο ἰκ ε νπ α ῖο andprovides an Exemplary comparison between the poet’s experience with putrid cosmetics and that of Phineus with his food made putrid by the Harpies. The implicit comparison inthis Exemplum is Harpies > dominae. Exempla ex natura: Many Exempla are adduced from the world of nature andthey almost invariably come in the form of Gnomes. This Gnomic tendency results from the constancy observed in the phenomena of the physical world which made it the prime source for the irrefutable example in the earliest didactic situations. The use of analogies from nature is a salient feature of early medical treatises andOvid imbues his curative program with theanalogical insights typical of themedical science of theday.77 The theoretical constructs behind Ovid’s amatory regimen are often explained in terms of the mechanics of the natural world familiar to his patients. Love is considered by Ovid to be ‘phenomenologically’ aligned with many items of the natural world andtherefore comparisons forwarded from nature play a large role in the argumenta of the RA. In his erotodidaxis Ovid demonstrates that manhasthe ability to control items from nature andlove itself with the proper ars. Within the ars which he forwards is much paradoxical play on the rich poetic tradition of love/nature comparisons wherein love is one of the uncontrollable forces of the natural world.78

Ovidestablishes thecomparison of thenature of love to that of aflumen whenhe flumina pauca vides de magnis the Gnomic Exemplum in line 97 – 6 –verba dat omnis as evidence for the Gnomic Proofs of lines 95– fontibus orta – amor reperitque alimenta morando;/optima vindictae proxima quaeque dies (see Chapter Five for a fulldiscussion of the E+A within which this material is located). This Exemplary item, at line 97 aligned with love in its early stages, is resubmitted atline 445 with changes appropriate for it to function as evidence for thepossibility of control over love, even after it has become mature –grandi a per multos tenuantur flumina rivos. In this Exemplum love is compared to the grandi a flumina, which can be controlled by the artificial division into multi rivi, just as love hortor et ut canbe weakened by its forced division between several love objects – pariter binas habeatis amicas/(fortior est, plures si quis habere potest): (lines 441– 42 –Enjoinder)/secta bipertito cummens discurrit utroque,/alterius vires subtrahit 44 –Gnomic Proofs for the Enjoinder). It should be noted alter amor (lines 441– that the Exemplary item itself, flumina, does not contain amatory motivai information andin fact the technical/scientific elements of the image receive stress over thepoetical in theverbs multiplicantur andtenuantur. Theabsence of amatory motifs in Exempla ex natura keep them from being tautological in nature, butOvid is notalways concerned with maintaining the logical advantage of the adduction of forwards

77Ontheuseof analogy inmedical treatises seeLloyd pp.46– 47. 78SeeMyerowitz p.46 onthelove – nature association inOvid’s didactic

poetry.

60

Chapter

3 –Exempla

Exempla from the natural sphere which have no erotic motivai connections, when comic manipulation of the relationship between precepts concerning love and its Exemplary evidence is possible. Fire is first introduced in the RAin the form of thefax Cupidinis in line 38 (see below for an analysis of the E+A in which it appears). The metaphor of fire for love is first used in the Gnomic Proof of line 53 –utile propositum est saevas extinguere flammas (see Chapter Four for an explanation of the E+A at work here) and appears again in the Promissory term of line 105 –interea tacitae serpunt in fire connection viscera flammae (see Chapter Five). These occurences of the love – are set within the conventional motifs of amatory poetry within which this association is a long andbusy one.79 When Ovid forwards fire as anExemplary item these erotic associations complicate the logic of the E+A within which the fire Exemplum occurs due to the fact that the metaphorical relationship precedes the 10) fire apanalogical relationship. In the final amatory E+A in the RA(lines 803– pears as an Exemplary item. quid tibi praecipiam deBacchi munere, quaeris?/spe 4 –Promissory term regarding the charbrevius monitis expediere meis (lines 803– acter of the advice andsetting the context for advice = I shall very quickly advise youconcerning wine’)./vina parant animum Veneri, nisi‘ plurima sumas/ut stupeant 6 –antecedental Gnomic Proofs in conditional multo corda sepulta mero (lines 805– form corresponding to the ‘either-or’Enjoinders which follow)./nutritur vento, vento 8 –Exemplum restinguitur ignis;/lenis alitflammas, grandior aura necat (lines 807– 10 – ex natura)./aut nulla ebrietas, aut tanta sit, ut tibi curas/eripiat (lines 809– Promissory term in the form Enjoinders):si qua est inter utrumque, nocet (line 810 – of a threat of noncompliance). Ovidquickens thepace of his advice as hecloses in on the completion of his task andin this final precept he utilizes the fire image which hasalready done much argumentative duty in thepoem. In the Exemplum in line 807 andflammas – line 808) comes in the form of a this E+A the fire (ignis – hexametric Gnome anda following explanatory Gnome in thepentameter. Thefire line 807 andaura – line 808) to wine, and corresponds to love andthewind(vento – the fire in question in this E+A should, in strict logical terms, have no amatory love metaphor atwork elsewhere inthepoem leaves only connections, butthefire – wine comparison with a strictly non-tautological relationship. The fire – the wind – love connections outside this E+A, of course, donotmaketheargument ineffective. There is a slightly unsettling aspect to this E+A as far as Ovid’s ratio amandi is concerned in that the wind is something over which manhas no control, andyet Ovidinthis section orders hispatients to control their intake of wine, for which the windis the analogue. Some of the other forces of nature which are compared to love canbe mastered by the art of man as with theflumina which are controlled by the artificial rivi in line 445 discussed above. Fire itself is a natural element which canbe controlled by

79 For an overview of fire imagery in NewComedy andelegy see Fantham pp. 86ff. Also see Henderson (1) p. 55 onthepairing of fire andwater imagery.

Chapter

3 –Exempla

61

man as is expressed in the Exemplum of line 446, which performs the same function in its E+A as line 445, laesaque diducto stipite flamma perit. Here the flamma is not in strict terms of the argument the metaphorical flame of love, but is theanalogue to love as thestipes is the analogue for the love object which feeds the flame. However, the fire –love alignment is too strong in the poem for the metaphor not to impart a certain tautological force to this Exemplum. The metaphorical/analogical duplicity in the fire image is also at play in the Gnomic Exemproximus a tectis ignis defenditur aegre, which provides eviplum of line 625 – utile finitimis abstinuisse locis, which in dence for the Gnomic Proof of line 626 – 28 –nec, quaeferre solet turn argues for the validity of the Enjoinders of lines 627–

spatiantem porticus illam,/te ferat, officium neve colatur idem, which serve as facito contagia vites. The Gnomic Proof respecies of the Enjoinder of line 613 – close to his lover andthe buildings on being fers to the utility of the person’s not fire intheExemplum areanalogous to the lover andtheproximus ignis functions as the analogue for the amica. Here again the metaphorical connections of ignis allow it to operate on both the metaphorical and analogical levels, i.e. as both the amica proper andas thepassion of love attendant to her. love configuration in other E+As in the Ovid works against the normative fire – 22 Ovid enjoins his patients not to reread loveletpoem. In the E+A of lines 717– ters, but instead to burn them. scripta cave relegas blandae servata puellae (Enjoinder):/constantis animos scripta relecta movent (Gnomic Proof)./omnia pone feros (pones invitus (Promissory term)) in ignes/et dic ‘ardoris sit rogus iste mei.’ (Enjoinders generated from previous causal Enjoinder of 717)/Thestias absentem succendit stipite natum (Exemplum):/tu timide flammae perfida verba dabis? The ardoris rogus here is a humorous (Enjoinder = da flammae verba). reorientation of the fire –love motif with the fire, literally composed out of love(letters), consuming the passion of the amans. The comic force of the dislove alignment is continued in the mythological Exemplum placement of the fire – of Althaea who is an hyberbolic example ex maiore as she dared to burn up her son’s life in fire, while all the patient is asked to do is burn up the words of his girl.80 In this E+A fire is transfigured into a tool with which to control love and love metaphor there is at least a hint of thehomeopathic in this material as the fire – is not entirely dispensed with. love motif is presented in the argument Themost sophisticated use of the fire – for compliance to the Enjoinder fugito loca conscia vestri/concubitus (lines 725– 26), where the Gnomic Proof for the Enjoinder infirmis culpa pusilla nocet (line 730) appears with an Exemplum andattendant Promissory term in the form of a simile ut,paene extinctum cinerem si sulphure tangas,/vivet et e minimo maximus ignis erit,/sic, nisi vitaris quidquid renovabit amorem,/flamma redardescet, quae 34), where the utclause provides the Exemplum andthe modonulla fuit (lines 731– 80See Pinotti pp. 305– 6.

62

Chapter

Exempla 3–

sic clause the Promissory term. In the Exemplum the fire –ignis is the analogue to thelove of thepatient, while the sulphur is theanalogue for theloca which areto be avoided. In the sic clause the metaphorical use of flamma is primary, but the analogical connection made in the utclause is also at play. In the mythological Exemplum which follows as evidence for the Promissory term Argolides cuperent 36) the fugisse Capherea puppes/teque, senex luctus ignibus ulte tuos (lines 735– concrete its and metaphorical both in forms. The ablative of fire image is exploited means ignibus refers to the fires with which Nauplius lured the Argive fleet to its destruction and these fires are also invested with the metaphorical force of dehere in the form which the Greeks hold for their homeland andwives. sire/love – This metaphorical force operates here only because of theuseof fire imagery in the previous E+As within the RAandsuch metaphorical associations, of course, should notberead into imagery notalready invested with such tropic play. Although Exempla ex natura in the tractatio of the RA involve love/nature parallels, notall Exempla exnatura in thepoem carry forward that alignment. In an Exemplum ex natura from the exordium items from nature are compared to the medicus amoris himself. IntheIntroduction thebasic structure of the E+A of lines 46 –terra salutares 48 wasoutlined andthe Exemplum from nature of lines 45– 41– wasidentified herbas eademque nocentes/nutrit, et urticae proxima saepe rosa est – as evidence for the Promissory term of line 44 –una manus vobis vulnus opemque feret. (See Chapter Five for a discussion of vegetative Exempla.) These are 43 for elements of the argument for compliance to the Enjoinders of lines 41– patients to come to Ovid for cures for their lovesickness. In the first part of the Exemplum the terra is compared to the una manus of the Promissory term andby extension to Ovid in the Enjoinders, while the herbas salutares nocentesque align themselves with vulnus opemque in the Promissory term andby extension to the ability of Ovid to teach sanari andamare (line 44). There is no amatory topic at play in terra salutares herbas eademque nocentes, but the medical topos of the μ α κ α is carried forward from the previous Enρ ά existence of helpful andhurtful φ joinders andPromissory term. In this erotodidactic work pains should be taken to avoid reading amatory motifs into Exempla where such motivational material is not present, butit must also be recognized that Ovid often injects amatory material into Exemplary items where logic does notdemand it. In the statement urticae proxima rosa est, which is a gloss of the preceeding non-amatory Exemplary information, Ovidadds anerotic element into this Exemplum which reinforces themedical point at work in the E+A andalso adds a humorous extension to the ‘the rose is next to thethorn’motif. The urtica is the harmful component, the nocens herba, not only because of the physical wounds it mayinflict, butalso because it is an aphrodisiac andit therefore is harmful to the amatory health of the decepti iuvenes, whoarethe specific addressees inthis E+A.81 81 At AA2.417– 20 Ovid advises

against placing any trust in aphrodisiacs such as piper (mixtum) which is all that is necessary for urticae...semine, butthat does not speak against its reputed powers –

Chapter

3 –Exempla

63

98 within a section of A series of Exempla are present in the E+A of lines 169– the poem which advises the patient on the curative properties of the countryside. While notall the Exempla in this section arethemselves strictly ex natura, the large number of references to the natural world warrants discussion of these Exempla under the rubric of Exemplary items from the world of nature. The exact position of these Exempla in the argumentation of the passage requires a close analysis of the argumentation of this E+A. Line 169 –rura quoque oblectant animos stuis a prefatory Gnomic Proof which introduces thethird species of diumque colendi – precepts under thegenus offuge otium (line 136), after those directing thepatient to occupy himself withthings of thefora (line 151) andMars (line 153). This Gnomic Proof argues for the efficacy of the subsequent Enjoinders which direct the patient in the use of rura andstudium colendi to busy the mind. The specific utility of these Enjoinders for the lovelorn is set forth in the pentametric Gnomic Proof of line 170 –quaelibet huic curae cedere cura potest, which conflates rura and studium colendi into a cura which no other cura, most implicitly the cura central to amatory elegy, can overcome. This conflation is repeated in the terminal Gnome for this section –cumsemel haec animum coepit mulcere voluptas,/debilibus pinnis 98), where haec voluptas stands for rura andstudium inritus exit Amor (lines 197– colendi and the specific term Amor replaces the general term quaelibet cura. Within themotifs of amatory poetry these appear to be ‘illegitimate’Gnomes as it is often stated that nocura is able to overcome love andOvidis again taking liberties with axiomatic underpinnings of Roman amatory elegy to create his remedia 86 focus the patient’s attention on the amoris82 The Enjoinders of lines 171– passive oblectamenta derived from the rura. Lines 171– 74 –colla iube domitos oneri subponere tauros,/sauciet ut duram vomer aduncus humum;/obrue versata command actions Cerealia semina terra,/quae tibi cummulto fenore reddat ager – which will result in the pleasure given from the expectation of the generous return ρ α φ σ ιςwhich engages the from the plowed andsown field andbegin the bucolic ἔκ patient in the sensory pleasures of the rura.83 The functional role of the Enjoinder

the allusion in this passage. Thecommentators donot agree onthe levels of coincidence between theherbae salutares et nocentes andthe urtica et rosa, because of therange of medicinal anderotic 66, associations which are present in both urtica and rosa (Henderson (1) p. 41, Geisler pp. 165– 3). Much of the problem in sorting out the relationship between these elements Pinotti pp. 102– results from the desire to attribute definite medicinal properties to rosa and such attempts may be searching for too strict a parallelism here. I would construe rosa in its more broadly positive appearance, odor, etc. (One medicinal property of the rose which the commentators connotations – donotpoint outis its ability to produce cold –Celsus De Med. 2.33.4.2, et al. This would play off well against thecapacity oftheurtica to produce heat, butI believe, eventhough I shall argue inthe section onPromissory terms that theculti of Ovid’s audience werereasonably well-versed inmedical heat connection is a bit too recherché.) cold/urtica – topics, that this rosa – 82Onlove as the most powerful cura see onthe dolor immedicabilis in Chapter One. 83 On the ‘passive’orientation of these imperatives Pinotti p. 148 correctly comments, Il secondo imperativo, obrue, sarà da interpretare come iube obrui, dato che il poeta consiglia ai suoipazienti

64

Chapter

3 –Exempla

scenes in the argumentation of this E+A make them more than mere ‘ekphrastic’ macrologia. The imagery of the plowing and sowing is followed by Enjoinders of 86 to observe the delights of the countryside, which provide a sensory lines 175– aspice curvatos pomorum pondere ramos,/ut feast with which to indulge the mind – sua quod peperit vix ferat arbor onus;/aspice labentes iucundo murmure rivos;/aspice tondentes fertile gramen oves./ecce, petunt rupes praeruptaque saxa capellae:/iam referent haedis ubera plena suis./pastor inaequali modulatur harundine carmen,/nec desunt comites, sedula turba, canes./parte sonant alia silvae mugitibus altae/et queritur vitulum mater abesse suum./quid, cum suppositos fugiunt examina fumos,/ut relevent dempti vimina curva favi?84 The four Gnomic 88 serve as argument for the Proofs balanced across the couplet of lines 187– efficacy of the preceding Enjoinders as they state that the oblectamenta ruris are available throughout the year and it follows that the mind will therefore have no poma dat autumnus; reason to concentrate on matters of the heart at any time – formosa est messibus aestas;/ver praebet flores; igne levatur hiems. The single pleasure attributed to each season is conventional to it andimparts proverbial force 92 (temporibus certis maturam rusticus to the passage.85 The Gnomes of lines 189– uvam/deligit, et nudo sub pede musta fluunt;/temporibus certis desectas alligat herbas/et tonsam raro pectine verrit humum) operate as Exempla ex natura for the 88 andoffer evidence for the presence of specific preceeding Gnomes of lines 187– oblectamenta at specific times of year. Geisler hascorrectly gauged the force of the 92) ist die anaphora of temporibus certis: In den folgenden Versen (187– beruhigende Regelmäßigkeit des Landlebens betont (temporibus certis 189, 191), seine Annehmlichkeiten in allen Jahreszeiten.86 The anaphora also emphasizes the logical connection between these Exemplary Gnomes andthe preceding Gnomic 92 also provide a neat closure for the passive rura to be Proofs. Lines 189– observed by the patient, as the rusticus, whowasto be employed in the activities of 74, is now involved in the harvest.87 The plowing and sowing in lines 171– 96 turn the patient’s attention to the studium colendi and Enjoinders of lines 193– ipsepotes riguis plantam more active pursuits in which hehimself is to participate – deponere in hortis;/ipse potes rivos ducere lenis aquae./venerit insitio, fac ramum ramus adoptet/stetque peregrinis arbor operta comis. The Gnomic closure of lines 98 discussed above comes in the form of a Promissory term which guarantees 197– nonpesanti lavori manuali, reservati al rusticus, maunatteggiamento contemplativo o al massimo unlimitato impegno nello ‘hobby’delgiardinaggio. 84Pinotti p. 150 rightly rejects Geisler’s contention p. 230, based onthe force of the Enjoinders ρ σ α ιςis divided into two sections, one which emphasizes the φ aspice andecce, that this bucolic ἔκ 84. Both aspice andecce maytake visual and lines 179– 78 andtheother theheard – lines 175– seen– non-visual objects andbothvisual andaural elements appear ineachsection. 85Onthe conventionality of these lines see Geisler pp.240– 41, Pinotti p. 152, andHenderson (1) p. 65. 86 Geisler p. 230. 87Ontechnical tenor

of these

lines

53. seePinotti pp. 152–

Chapter

3 –Exempla

65

the efficacy of the precepts put forward in this section –cumsemel haec animum coepit mulcere voluptas,/debilibus pinnis inritus exit Amor. Exempla ex animalibus: Exempla ex animalibus are common in Ovid’s didactic poetry. The history of human to animal comparisons in oracular situations maywell provide a predisposition to a positive response, at least on an emotional level, to such Exempla in a work where the poet is the vates of Cupid, while the use of parallels to the animal world in ‘scientific’ works certainly provided a tradition for cross-species Exempla.88 Notall animal Exempla are found in animal to human comparisons andthese will also be discussed below. The applicability of animal Exempla for the evidence of the effects of the disease of love upon those afflicted is seen in the following passage si quis amas nec 14), vis, facito contagia vites:/haec etiam pecori saepe nocere solent (lines 613– where theExemplum of thepecus acts as evidence fortheEnjoinder facito contagia vites. Disease is the common term in this comparison with love operating with the same mechanics as the disease which besets the herd. This Exemplum occurs in a 20 within which the physics of the love is complicated E+A from lines 609– highlighted:

praestiterat iuvenis, quidquid meaMusa iubebat, inque suaeportu paene salutis erat. reccidit, utcupidos inter devenit amantes et, quae condiderat, tela resumpsit Amor. si quis amas nec vis,facito contagia vites: haec etiam pecori saepe nocere soient. dumspectant laesos oculi, laeduntur et ipsi, multaque corporibus transitione nocent. in loca nonnumquam siccis arentia glaebis deprope currenti flumine manat aqua: manat amor tectus, si nonab amante recedas, turbaque

inhoc omnes

ingeniosa sumus.

610

615

620

praestiterat 12 – The E+A begins with a prefatory human Exemplum in lines 609– iuvenis, quidquid meaMusa iubebat,/inque suae portu paene salutis erat./reccidit, ut cupidos inter devenit amantes/et, quae condiderat, tela resumpsit Amor, which acts as evidence for the Enjoinder andalso sets out the fact that the contagion at issue in this E+A is that pertaining to other iuvenes whoare infected. The Enjoinder of line 613 –si quis amas nec vis, facito contagia vites –is argued for in the

88Ontheplace of animal to human comparisons in oracles seeFraenkel (2) pp.510– 11. Oncross69. Cross-species comparisons in species Exempla in ‘scientific’writings see e.g. Lucretius 3.634– themedical texts donotnormally involve thecourse of a disease, since a fundamental precept among themedical writers is that thenature of mandiffers fromthat of theanimals, seeRenehan pp.248ff.

66

Chapter

3 –Exempla

Gnomic Proof of line 616 –multaque corporibus transitione nocent.89 The Exemplum ex animalibus of line 614 –haec etiam pecori saepe nocere soient –is closely aligned with the Enjoinder as the haec picks up the preceeding contagia; however in the logic of this E+A it acts as antecedental evidence for the Gnomic dumspectant laesos oculi, laeduntur et Proof, as does the Exemplum in line 615 – ipsi. This reading of the passage construes contagia andtransitione as functionally synonymous. The Gnomic Proof of line 616 for the Enjoinder is situated in the E+A in such a wayas to separate the Exemplum ex natura –in loca nonnumquam 20) from siccis arentia glaebis/de prope currenti flumine manat aqua (lines 619– those of the animate beings and the Promissory term in the form of a Gnomic condition which follows threatens the dire consequences of ignoring the preceeding manat amor tectus, si non ab amante recedas (line 619). This Promissory advice – term is argued for in a Gnomic Proof which provides closure for this E+A –turbaque in hocomnes ingeniosa sumus. Animal to human Exempla often do not involve the medical side of lovesickness, but are used in the argumenta to validate certain anti-love strategies. In the 16 twodifferent types of Exempla ex animalibus occur which are E+A of lines 513– commonly found in Ovidian didactic poetry. This E+A begins with a pair of species relationship te quoque falle tamen, nec sit tibifinis Enjoinders in a genus – 14). A Gnomic Exemplum ex animalibus follows amandi/propositus (lines 513– frenis saepe repugnat equus (line 514), which gives evidence for the understood Proof of the Enjoinders –which would entail a sentiment along the lines of ‘the passionate reject control.’90 Here the horse stands in for the lover’s passion andthe frena for the finis propositus. This ‘fighting the bit’motif is not uncommon in Ovid’s amatory elegy andthe horse is often adduced to represent the desire of one who is not predisposed to accept controls over his passion.91 The bull is often 36 both thehorse and forwarded as anExemplum of thesametype andin lines 235– bull appear as Exemplary foils against which the lover, unaccustomed to the aspicis ut rigorous demands of undertaking a battle against love, is to set himself – prensos urant iuga prima iuvencos/et nova velocem cingula laedat equum? The strength of thepassion of thebull andhorse is expressed in the Gnomic Exempla of 34, which are utilized in the argument against the lover’s getting too near lines 633– to his beloved, nonfacile est taurum visa retinere iuvenca;/fortis equus visae semper adhinnit equae. A humorous variant on the bull as passionate lover conparva necat morsu spanection takes place in the Gnomic Exemplum of line 421 – tiosum vipera taurum. This Exemplum is advanced asevidence forthefact that one should concentrate on whatever faults, no matter how small, he can find in his beloved andposits the bite of the small viper as the analogue for the blemishes of

89Ontheforce of oculi seethereadings byLucke p.222 andHenderson 75 ontherelationship of contagia andtransitio inmedicine. 274–

(1) p. 117. SeePinotti pp.

90SeeChapter Twofortheenthymematic nature oftherelationship of theEnjoinder andProof. 91SeeLucke p. 154forcitations onthis motif inGreek andRoman poetry.

Chapter

Exempla 3–

67

the amica, andthe bull, should the addressee press the coincidences in the Exemplum, stands in for the desire of the lover suffering from lovesickness. In this hyperbolic Exemplum the bull is not to be controlled, but killed outright by following the poet’s advice.92 All of the instances of thehorse andbull images in theExempla of theRArelate to the desire of the lover, except for the occasion upon which they appear in the perdat opes 44 – mythological Exemplum of Phaedra and Hippolytus at lines 743– Phaedra, parces, Neptune, nepoti,/nec faciet pavidos taurus avitus equos (discussed in Chapter Four), where, while the horses certainly may be aligned thematically with Hippolytus’s desires, the Neptunian bull summoned by Theseus’s curse does not follow in the bull/desire pattern of the Exempla in the RA. The horse andbull doappear in other components of theE+As in theRAandin such cases they donot carry the connection with the passion of love which they carry in the Exempla. I agree with Henderson (1) (p.52) andPinotti (p.117) that theappearance of thehorse tuus incipiens ire resistat equus (see Chapter image in the Enjoinder of line 82 – Five for details) –should not be seen to have sexual implications, but should be inprimo construed as a restatement of thepreceding Enjoinders of lines 80 and81 – limine siste pedem andopprime, dumnova sunt, subiti mala semina morbi. In line 394 a horse image occurs within the closing E+A of Ovid’s attack onhis detractors. He, in effect, orders Livor (the detractors) not to burst quite yet as he will provide more song on which it maybe sated. His injunctions take an E+A form in lines 92 –rumpere, Livor edax (Enjoinder): magnum iam nomen habemus 389– (Proof);/maius erit, tantum, quopede coepit, eat./sed nimium properas (Enjoinder): vivam modo, plura dolebis,/et capiunt anni carmina multa mei (Promissory terms).93 The Proof for the Promissory terms comes in Gnomic form with the namiuvat et studium famae mihi crevit honore. A specific term mihi in line 393 – principio clivi noster anhelat equus in threat to Livor then follows in line 394 – which the horse represents the desire of the poet, but here it is, of course, the literary desire to begin composing, rather than anamatory one.94 The second type of Exemplum ex animalibus employed in the E+A of lines 513– 16 deals with the hunt –quae nimis apparent retia, vitat avis (line 516).95 This quod nonprofitebere, Exemplum is evidence for the Promissory term of line 515 – hunting metaphors the of normal inflection comic a is Exemplum fiet. This hunting within theExempla in Ovid’s amatory poems where theamica is thehunted andthe 92See Lucke p. 90 onthespeciousness of thetie between theProof andExemplum for lines 420– 21 24. andthemoreeffective alignment with lines 423– 93I prefer the alternate reading of theMSS capient for line 392, which emphasizes thethreat to the 2 andPinotti pp. 205– 6 for his 69 for his deletion of lines 391– addressee. See Henderson (2) pp. 168– argument against excising them.

94The horse here operates

within progress imagery regarding the poet’s career. agery within Ovidian didactic see Myerowitz pp. 87ff. 95SeeHenderson (1) p. 105forfurther explanation ofthemeaning of line 516.

For progress im-

68

Chapter

3 –Exempla

lover the hunter.96 Hunting in the RA becomes a diversion from love, as 200 –tu venandi studium cole: saepe demonstrated in the precept of lines 199– recessit/turpiter a Phoebi victa sorore Venus, not a metaphor for the activity of the amatory chase, which the lovelorn patient is supposed to forswear.

96See Myerowitz pp. 124– 25 andVerducci (2) p. 36 for theposition of women in thehunting imagery

of the AA.

PROMISSORY TERMS CHAPTER FOUR –

The guarantees of the efficacies of compliance and the threats of the consequences of noncompliance with Enjoinders appear as an element of the E+A in didactic contexts in the earliest Greco-Roman poetry as evidenced by the threat Hephaistos makes to Hera ontherepercussions of notobeying his injunctions in the passage from Book One of the Iliad discussed in the Introduction. Promissory terms are a most natural argumentative device andare used unsparingly by Ovid in the E+As of the RA. The effectiveness of guarantees andthreats depends on the fides Ovid is able to engender in his addressees for whichever didactic persona he adopts.97 Promissory terms issued by the peritus vates of Cupid are prophecies uttered under divine sanction (movit Amor gemmatas aureus alas/et mihi 40) by one whose ingenium (ego semper propositum perfice’dixit opus’– ‘ lines 39– suited to his task. Not only should the amaespecially line 7) makes him amavi – ‘ tory precepts of Ovid, whois the vates of Cupid, be inviolable, buthis asseverations about the future infallible, for they are, after all, spoken by the sacer poeta (line 813). Theethical appeal of such deference to theauthority of thedeity is developed out of the poet’s apparent willingness to risk trespassing on theprovinciae of the God (Legerat huius Amor titulum nomenque libelli:/‘bella mihi, video, bella 2) in order to save those humans whose lives arejeopardized parantur’ait – lines 1– byhis dura regna (decent annos mollia regna tuos –line 24). Themock epic tone in the response of the Godto Ovid’s libellus provides a vaunt for the daring of the poet’s undertaking andis the initial ploy in thepoet’s attempt to winthetrust of his lovesick addressees andto entertain his literary audience. Thepoet’s defense of his program in thepreface of thepoemrests ontheclaim that hewill salvage the God’s reputation by keeping the lovelorn from doing themselves harm, andthis tactic insures the goodwill of his lovelorn addressees as it conciliates Cupid. Throughout the RAOvid attempts to increase the patients’confidence in him which he has engendered in the opening of thepoem andhis various maneuvers within the Promissory terms to establish his competence as the Doctor of Love are a major component of hisethical appeal. Promissory terms as part of the argument for compliance to the poet’s injunctions are especially well suited to the RAbecause of the prominent position of the lovesickness topos andthe importance of a proper prognosis, a type of Promissory 97For a discussion onthe subjective andobjective force of fides andtherole of sincerity in thepo-

etry of Ovid see Allen pp. 146ff. This need for fides in the praeceptor changes the focus of the normal trust relationship in Roman elegy andmost ‘subjective’amatory literature from that of the faithfulness of the love object, see Kennedy pp. 64ff. The patient is taught to lie anddeceive as part ofthecure andiswarned thatthebeloved often isunfaithful, withtheresult that theonly relationship oftrust isthat between thepoetandhisaddressee.

70

Chapter

Promissory 4–

Terms

term, to effect a cure.98 Ovid contends that he is a physician whopractices his art under the guidance of Apollo (dux operis...Apollo –line 767, coeptis, Phoebe sa5). Moreover, he is a peritus medicus who lines 704– luber, ades./Phoebus adest – as anaeger Podalirius (line 313) has hadto cure himself andtherefore his predictions as to both the course of the disease andthe course of the cure arevalidated by experience.99 The critical role of prognoses in acquiring the confidence of the patient to follow the physician’s program was well understood by ancient physi-

cians:

ρ ρ ισ νδο ρ ὸ ο τ νεἶν ιἄ κ ο ό ε α ν ῖμ ιπ ο ια νἰητ νἐπ Τ ὸ δ εύ ιν ε ιτη ρ νπ ω ὰτο α ρκ ρ ο α λ έγ ὶπ ὰ ῖσ ι νοσέου νγ ν σ ώ ω κ γ ιγ σ ιτ ρ ο άτ π ε· ο ν ό τ εγ γ ακ μ ὶτ α ελ ο ὰ λ ρ ό ν τ αἔσεσθ ρ εό ν τ ακ α ὰπ π ὶτ α α ι, ὁκ ό σ α εύ μ ς ςἐκδιηγ εν ,π ο τ ισ ν θ ε σ εν έο ἱἀ είπ ο ρ τ α λ ινο υ σ εύ τ επ α ο ιτ οἄ ν μ ᾶ λ λ ο ιν μ νγ γ ώ α σ τ κ α ρή ε ιντ ὰτ τ ω ννοσεύν νπ ῶ ,ὥ σ τ ετολ μ ᾶ ν ῷ . ῷ ρ φ ςαὐτο τ ἰη ᾶ ςσ ςτ π ο ὺ ρώ υ ςἀνθ ὺ ειντο ρ έπ ιτ ἐπ

(Hp. Prog. II. 1,1)

Ovid’s contemporary literary audience hadbeen exposed to medical writings as one scientific element of their liberal education and they surely appreciated Ovid’s symptomatology for lovesickness andhis attendant curative program within which prognoses give the patient insight into what the future holds in store.100 Promissory terms mayinstill in thepatient a full appreciation forthethreat the disease will pose to hishealth andthedire consequences of notfollowing Naso’s regimen orthey may detail the responses one will have to the cure and guarantee its salutary effects. Once the physician has the confidence of the patient the prognoses as to a successful cure also acquire a psychotherapeutic dimension.101 Promissory terms maymake threats to the patient as to the consequences of not following the physician’s regimen andprovide a prognosis as to the course of the disease if left unchecked. Such a Promissory term is the one which concludes the series of Enjoinders which prescribe anabsence from thecity until such time as the disease has lost its strength –quod nisi firmata properaris mente reverti,/inferet 46). Other threats predict the state of the arma tibi saeva rebellis Amor (lines 245– patient if various precepts are not followed as does the Gnomic Promissory term

98For a discussion of theλ γ ό ςθ ο ερ α π ευ τικ ςsee Prinz p. 92 andthenote of Dodds on456b4 (pp. ό

11). 210–

99Theapparent contradiction between Ovid’s claim to have always loved (ego semper amavi –line 7) and his statement that he once was an aeger Podalirius (line 313) in need of a cure can be explained awaybythe fact that his illness wasprecipitated bythe unrequited nature of his passion andtherefore he wasnotfeliciter ardens (line 13). Heneeded to be cured of his passion for this love, sohemight moveonto oneinwhich suonavigare vento potest. 100Onmedicine as part of theἐγκύκλ ςπ ιο α ιδ ε ίαin Greece andRome see Jaeger, Vol. 3, Book ‘Greek Medicine asPaideia’ andGwynn p. 147. Fortheknowledge of some of Four, Chapter One– thebasics of Hippocratic theory asa given among theeducated seeCicero AdAtt.16.15.4.5. 101SeeLain Entralgo pp. 156ff. fora discussion of thepsychological aspects of prognoses.

Chapter

4 -Promissory

Terms

71

which is part of the argument for the injunction against quitting a love affair with odio quifinit amorem,/aut amai aut aegre desinet enmity for the recently beloved – 58). Threats mayalso serve notice as to the detrimental effect esse miser (lines 657– certain actions will have on the course of the cure, as does Ovid’s Enjoinder to the lovelorn to use the past transgressions of the beloved as a curative agent andthe poet warns his ‘patient’notto bring them to the girl’s attention. Hemakes the threat that should the lover make this mistake he will destroy their medicinal value by nec dic quid doleas, clam tamen usque giving the girl a chance to argue her case – dole;/nec peccata refer, ne diluat: ipse favebis,/ut melior causa causa sit illa tua 96). Threats to the patient, especially those regarding the results of his (lines 694– notfollowing the doctor’s orders, are less likely to endear himto the physician than are promises as to the salutary effects of following the prescribed regimen, andthe number of Promissory threats is far outnumbered by the Promissory guarantees, which area more effective element of the doctor’s ethical appeal. Guarantees as to the progress of the cure warn the patient of the possible side i effects of the prescriptions. The Promissory terms for the Enjoinders of line 214 – prepare the lovesick to cope with symptoms procul, et longas carpere perge vias – of withdrawal – flebis, et occurret desertae nomen amicae,/stabit et in media pes 16). In another passage the Doctor of Love realizes his tibi saepe via (lines 215– regimen is harsh and in his anticipatio to this possible objection he couches a statement as to the dolor andlabor necessary to effect a cure in a Gnomic Promissory term with a general second person subject which guarantees the patient of his ability to succeed, since one will do what is necessary to be cured.102 There is a strong hortatory tone to this Promissory term which allows it to double as a virtual Enjoinder –dura aliquis praecepta vocet mea; dura fatemur/esse, sed ut valeas 26). After an Exemplum in the form of an οἰκε ν ῖο multa dolenda feres (lines 225– μ α- saepe bibi sucos quamvis invitus amaros/aeger, et oranti mensa ρ ά ειγ δ π α 28) –there follow Gnomic Promissory terms which assure negata mihi (lines 227– howone will act in regard to bodily health –ut corpus redimas, ferrum patieris et 30) andan interrogative Promignes/arida nec sitiens ora levabis aqua (lines 229– issory term concerning mental health supported by a Gnomic Proof with the correct answer. This interrogative Promissory term serves both a hortatory andprognostic function as did sed ut valeas multa dolenda feres above –ut valeas animo, quicquam tolerare negabis?/at pretium pars haec corpore maius habet (lines 231– 32). The physician then deflates somewhat the dire predictions as to the strenuous sed tamen est artis tristissima ianua nature of his regimen with the guarantee – nostrae (line 233) followed by a Gnomic Proof andsupporting Exemplum for the et labor est unus tempora prima pati./aspicis ut legitimacy of this Promissory term – prensos urant iuga prima iuvencos/et nova velocem cingula laedat equum? (lines

36). 234– 102Onthe traditional role of the labor motif in didactic poetry see Chapter Three on lines 225– 36.

72

Chapter

4 –Promissory Terms

Some guarantees offer the promise of freedom from thefuror amoris andoffer the strongest ethical appeals within the tractatio. In the contra otium section of thepoem Ovidmakes thefollowing guarantee asto thecourse of thedisease –otia si tollas, periere Cupidinis arcus/contemptaeque iacent et sine luce faces 40). This would seem to be in contradiction to Ovid’s claims not to (lines 139– ήof the Godandto another Promissory term Ovid makes as to his ιμ violate the τ 702 –non ego Dulichio furari more sarelationship with the God at lines 699– gittas/nec raptas ausim tinguere in amne faces,/nec nos purpureas pueri resecabimus alas,/nec sacer arte mea laxior arcus erit (see Chapter Three for further details on this Passage).103 Other guarantees are less sweeping in scope andchart thecourse of thepatient’s progress as does thePromissory term connected with the Enjoinders to concentrate on your girl’s misdeeds andto suffer at the thought of dole tantum, sponte them in order to gain the needed eloquence to deal with her – disertus eris (line 310). Another prognostic Promissory term follows Ovid’s Enjoinders to dissipate one’s sexual energies before having sex with the beloved – quamlibet invenias, in qua tuaprima voluptas/desinat: a prima proxima segnis erit 4). Such prognostic guarantees are found throughout the tractatio of the (lines 403– perhaps

poem. There are times when Ovid places the patient into future settings where he will be at danger from theonslaught of thedisease andheutilises hisprognostic powers to predict howthe situation will develop andthen gives the appropriate remedial action. Suchuseof hypotheticals allows Ovidto varythecontexts of hisEnjoinders as well as highlight his predictive skills which will in turn increase the patient’s trust in him. In the supportive arguments for Ovid’s Enjoinders for one to feign 522) several hypothetical indifference in order to escape love’s contagion (lines 491– situations are tendered accompanied bythe appropriate advice for the moment; e.g. dixerit ut venias: pacta tibi nocte venito;/veneris, etfuerit ianua clausa: feres;/nec dic blanditias necfac convicia posti/nec latus in duro limine pone tuum(lines 505– 8). Here the Promissory terms dixerit, veneris andfueris set the stage for the future imperatival Enjoinder venito andthe future feres which acts both as an Enjoinder and confidence inspiring Promissory term. This future Enjoinder (cf. the use of feres in line 225 discussed above) is followed by a series of imperatives which outline theproper course of action. All the precepts in the RAare ostensibly part of Ovid’s ‘medical’treatment for lovesickness andmany prescriptions exhibit a conflation of amatory and medical topics. Some curative techniques borrow heavily from established medical approaches which also have a history as anti-love agents in amatory poetry. The ecce, cibos etiam, medicinae corrective role diet mayplay intheanti-love regimen – 96) adheres fungar ut omni/munere, quosfugias quosque sequare, dabo (lines 795–

103SeeLucke pp.278ff. andPinotti pp.296ff. onthevarious readings of these lines.

Chapter

4 -Promissory

Terms

73

to both medical andamatory precedents.104 Thepoet’s confidence in his skill in this Daunius, area is stressed by the future (Promissory) orientation of the Enjoinder – an Libycis bulbus tibi missus ab oris,/an veniat Megaris, noxius omnis erit (lines 98) andin the Promissory term for the Enjoinder as to howto handle drink – 797– 10) which comes in aut nulla ebrietas, aut tanta sit, ut tibi curas/eripiat (lines 809– the form of a Gnomic condition si qua est inter utrumque, nocet (line 810). The established connection between certain places andcertain types of disease underlies thethreat Ovid makes for noncompliance to the Enjoinder loca sola caveto of line tristis eris, si solus eris, dominaeque relictae/ante oculos facies stabit, ut ipsa, 579 – 84).105 Therole of topography in the cause of disease wasdiscussed tuos (lines 583– at length in the Hippocratic Corpus andOvid’s patients are warned to avoid lonely spots which breed the disease. Ovid brings forward Phyllis as an Exemplum for the fact that augent secreta furores (line 581) which is a concept he had treated in length inhisHeroides. Exercise wasanintegral element inthecurative regimens of manyancient physicians for different types of ailments andis employed byOvid in his precepts concerning the need to avoid otia. The helpful role of the hunt (tu line 199) andthe occupations of thefora (sunt fora, sunt venandi studium cole – leges, sunt, quos tuearis, amici:/vade per urbanae splendida castra togae –lines 52) in staving off otium is well attested in the amatory literature.106 The 151– training in the military is often cited as a wayto physical health andit is also a traditional enemy of otium and love in the amatory literature.107 Here again a res Promissory term bears witness to the physician’s confidence in this approach – age, tutus eris (line 144). ThePhysician of Love uses his knowledge of the fundamental principles of the medical art as part of his argument for the course one’s cure must take when he proffers the Gnomic Proof temporis ars medicina fere est (line 131) as argument for the legitimacy of the Promissory term adgrediar melius turn cum sua vulnera tangi/iam sinet et veris vocibus aptus erit which guarantees the utility of the Enjoinder of line 119 – currenti cedefurori. As evidence for the truth of this Gnomic data tempore prosunt/et Proof an Exemplum is adduced from the medical world – 32) which sets upanequivalent status data nonapto tempore vina nocent (lines 131– between one of Ovid’s cures for thefuror amoris andthe medicinal properties of wine when properly dispensed. Ovid displays a sophisticated approach to treating this pernicious disease which attacks the mind that would have been approved by 104Fora sampling of therole ofδια ή incures seeHippocrates Salubr. Onwineasa stimulant τικ ιτη forlove andasa remedy seePinotti p. 138. 105The relationship of loca to disease is set out in several places in Hippocrates, e.g. in Aër. Cf. 6. Herodotus 9.122.3.4– 106In Horace Odes 1.26 the hunt is where the venator is tenerae coniugis immemor. For a witty treatment ontheinverse topos of thefemale lover’s desire to accompany herbeloved onthehunt see 88. Tibullus. 4.3 andSmith p. 494. For the sites of thefora as suitable spots for love see AA1.79– 107SeePinotti p. 140 for citations onlove’s incompatibility withwar.

74

Chapter

Promissory 4–

Terms

namquoniam variant animi, variabimus artes;/mille many physicians before him – 26). This connection between Ovid’s mali species, mille salutis erunt (lines 525–

amatory regimen and the basic assumptions of medical science had already appeared in a Promissory term/guarantee for the benefits of accepting Ovid as una manus vobis vulnus opemque feret, which is founded upon medicus at line 44 – μ α κ α ρ have both beneficial ά byphysicians that certain φ understood a concept well andharmful properties.108 This conflation of medical and amatory topoi is also at play in many words throughout the RA. Words such as vulnus, dolor, cura, furor, sanus etc. have well attested histories as medical/amatory terms and Ovid continues the tradition and incorporates them into his language onthe remedies for love. These ‘loaded’terms areutilized by Ovid in his Promissory terms where they imbue the prognoses with added medical color. In a guarantee to the patient that he should currenti cedefurori (line 119) Ovid’s medical persona is strongly in evidence –adgrediar melius 26) and these wounds are those turn cum sua vulnera tangi/iam sinet (lines 125– amatory types which are to be cured with veris vocibus (line 126). Words without such an identifiable pattern of metaphorical duty are enlisted by Ovid into his curative program. The combining of medical andamatory pathology in his description of the lover’s disease is in evidence in the Promissory term regarding tacitae flamdiscussed in detail in Chapter Five). This maewhich serpunt in viscera (line 105 – is oneof the few‘standard’literary symptoms for thephysical effects of love which Oviduses in theRA. Throughout thepoemhe stresses themental/emotional aspect of the disease and he does not provide the patient with the full battery of physical symptoms which have been used as the standard literary warning signs of the onset of the disease. Several of thekeyphysical manifestations of the lovesickness such as the sickly pallor, the perspiration, the trembling and the loss of speech which would have been familiar to the literary ‘patient’arenotforwarded in thephysician’s ν ρ ο ια ό of lovesickness.109 π Ovid further displays his dependence on the scientific through his harangues against magic andits practitioners andassures his patients in Promissory terms that meduce nontumulo prodire iubebiit will have noplace in his curative program – tur umbra,/non anus infami carmine rumpet humum,/non seges ex aliis alios

108Fora discussion of thevarious philosophical/theoretical approaches to the artof medicine which includes statements onthe variety of possible causes andcures for disease see theProoemium 54ff. to the De Medicina of Celsus. It should not be inferred from the fact that Ovid employs some of the basic concepts of the medical profession that he is adhering to anysingle theoretical model. From thevarious types of advice intheRAit is notpossible tocall Ovida strict Empiricist, Methodist, etc., nor is it possible to saythat he is constructing his medical program on a Stoic, Epicurean or other philosphical foundation. Onthevarious natures of manseeHippocrates Salubr. 67. 109 The locus classicus is Sappho fr. 31 (Page) lines 9– λ λ 16 –ἀ σ σ α†ἔα νγλῶ ὲ νμ α ᾽ἄ κ γ ε , †

ε ισ ιδ μ η κ μ ιδ ό -/β εν σ ρ σ π ε π τ ά μ /ὀ ρ ό ρὐπ α δ εδ ιρ /δ δ ᾽ ρ ῦ ιπ ὐ ῶ , ἐπ ᾽ο ᾽ ν ο αχ τ λ έπ ᾽ἒνὄρημ ᾽αὔτικ μ /ἔ μ ι, ρ ε ι, χλω γ ρ αδ ς α ὲπ ρ ο ο νἄ τ ία ῖσ έ α ςδὲ/π μ ο ςἔχ ε ι, τρό ρ ο χ ςψῦ έμ ω ι/κ δδ ἄ κ ο α ὰ υ ᾽ἴδρ 56. α μἔ ίν μα ο ὐ τ[ᾳ . Cf. Catullus 51 andLucretius 3.152– ς/φ νδ᾽ὀλ η ω᾽π η τεθ ν ά κ εύ ίγ ιδ

᾽ ᾽

Chapter

4 -Promissory

75

Terms

transibit in agros/nec subito Phoebi pallidus orbis erit;/ut solet, aequoreas ibit Tiberinus in undas;/ut solet, in niveis Luna vehetur equis./nulla recantatas depo60).110 His nent pectora curas,/nec fugiet vivo sulphure victus Amor (lines 253– rejection of the use of any infame carmen does not mean that there will not be incantatory elements in his poetry for heis producing thesacrum carmen (line 252) of Apollo which yields innocuam opem(line 252) andPromissory terms often exhibit this influence as is evidenced by the assonance, consonance, homoeoteleuton and thebalanced wordorder of nulla recantatas deponent pectora curas above.111 Not all of Ovid’s prescriptions are rooted in the medical tradition. There is a strain of advice in the RAwhich is composed out of the non-medical motivai elements of amatory poetry andespecially out of the motifs central to Roman amatory elegy. Of course Ovid often places his ownstamp on such material when he incorporates it into his curative program andoften closes anargument for the useof such newmedicine with a guarantee asto its effectiveness. Ovidenjoins his ‘patients’to employ usus as a prophylactic in lines 489ff. andassures its success against love in 4 –intrat amor mentes usu, dediscitur usu (Gnomic Proof):/qui poterit lines 503– While the sanum fingere, sanus erit (Promissory term). As Henderson points out, “ idea that habit can kindle love is a commonplace, Ovid appears to be the first to 112 think of reversing it.” Another of Ovid’s ethical appeals involves the employment of mythological Exempla as Promissory terms. Ovidassures hispatients that thepower of his regimen is so potent that mythic figures afflicted with the worst cases of lovesickness would have been cured hadthey been under his care. These Promissory Exempla provide the same range of argumentative functions as other Exempla, butthey also operate as explicit guarantees for the success of following the dictates of Naso byproviding specific examples as to its efficacy. Inthe exordium of thepoem thepoet sets forth thereasons whythe lovelorn should come to himfor help andas evidence for the legitimacy of his Gnomic statement that utile propositum est saevas extinguere 54) he marshalls a host of flammas/nec servum vitii pectus habere sui (lines 53– 68). mythological figures ravaged bythe ill effects of the disease (lines 55– vixisset Phyllis, si meforet usa magistro, etper quodnovies, saepius isset iter. nec moriens Dido summa vidisset ab arce Dardanias vento vela dedisse rates, nec dolor armasset contra sua viscera matrem, quae socii damno sanguinis ulta virum est.

55

60

110For the motivations for Ovid’s attack onmagic see Pinotti p. 167. 111Promissory terms are themselves a salient feature of magical spells whose structure is often precatory in nature. Guarantees andthreats mayoccur in various positions within theE+As of such 7 foranexample oftheuseof Promissory terms ina love spell. precatory spells; seePGM1.83– 112SeeHenderson (1) p. 104withcitations forthis topos.

76

Chapter

4 –Promissory Terms

arte mea Tereus, quamvis Philomela placeret, perfacinus fieri nonmeruisset avis.

daPhaedram, Phaedrae turpis abibit amor.

redde Parin nobis, Helenen Menelaus habebit

65

necmanibus Danais Pergama victa cadent. impia si nostros legisset Scylla libellos, haesisset capiti purpura, Nise, tuo. appeal arising from the praise of the poet’s abilities in these Exempla 68 takes equal place with, or even precedence over, their argumenfrom lines 55– tative role of proving thetruthfulness of thepreceeding Gnomic statement. Phrases such as si meforet usa magistro, arte mea, da mihi, redde nobis, andsi nostros legisset libellos arewell fitted to theethical appeal of this kletic section of thepoem 74) in which the argumentation supports the Enjoinder venite of line 41 (lines 41– and ends with Ovid’s guarantees that Naso legendus erat tum cum didicistis amare;/idem nunc vobis Naso legendus erit./publicus assertor dominis suppressa 73) and a terminal Enjoinder –vindictae quisque favete levabo/pectora (lines 71– suae (line 74). The contrary to fact conditions in the Exempla are guarantees/Promissory terms andarefollowed byfurther Exemplary guarantees in a future The variatio seen in the imperative –future constructions tense variation. transplants the mythic figures from the past to the present andthe vividness of this construction is enhanced by the apostrophe to Nisus in line 68.113 The mythic characters are thereby placed in the same temporal frame of reference as Ovid’s contemporary patients as part of his attempt to increase the level of coincidence between Exemplary foil andaddressee.114 Within the Promissory Exempla there is also anappeal to the importance of the undertaking. Hadthe mythic world hadits Ovid it would have been a much different place, as he whocould cure lovesickness could have saved Troy. The comic deflation of the hortatory effect of these Exempla inherent in the sweeping reconfiguration of the mythic past peopled by a nec moriens Dido, etc. is heightened by light touches such as the illogicality of Phyllis taking the path decies. Promissory Exempla may appear in Exemplary catalogues along with non62. Thedirect nature of the Promissory Exempla as occurs in the E+A of lines 451– guarantees andthreats separates the Promissory Exempla from the non-Promissory type. It should also be noted that the Promissory Exempla from the tractatio often mirror the form andcontent of those from the kletic section of the poem andeven

The ethical

113The “humorous variatio”which Henderson (2) p. 159, perceives here also acts to heighten the 6) on the passage as a series of Promissory character of the passage. Cf. Pinotti’s note (pp. 105– formed for comic effect. α τ α ν δύ ἀ 114This is seenbyFyler pp.99ff., Myerowitz pp. 145ff., Veyne pp. 127ff., et al. asa moveto reduce thestatus of themythic figures to that of theculti of Ovid’s dayandto makethefemale Exemplary figures correspond to thedemimonde of Rome.

Chapter

4 -Promissory

77

Terms

when self-promoting terms such as si meforet usa magistro, arte mea, etc. are absent from the Promissory Exempla of the tractatio the reflection of the ethical appeal from the ‘kletic’catalogue is projected upon them. The reflection of the 62) is made apparent by the Promissory Exempla from this section (lines 451– reappearance of the same mythological figures throughout thepoem.

at tibi, quifueris dominae male creditus uni, nunc saltem novus est inveniendus amor. Pasiphaes Minos in Procride perdidit ignes: cessit abIdaea coniuge victa prior; Amphilochi frater nePhegida semper amaret,

455

Callirhoe fecit parte recepta tori; et Parin Oenone summos tenuisset adannos, si nonOebalia paelice laesa foret; coniugis Odrysio placuisset forma tyranno, sedmelior clausae forma sororis erat.

460

quidmoror exemplis, quorum meturba fatigat? successore novo vincitur omnis amor.

at tibi,..., nunc saltem novus est inveniendus amor, which is Gnomic TheEnjoinder – in nature dueto the categorical force of quifueris dominae male creditus uni, is successore supported by the Gnomic Proof which provides closure to the E+A – quid novo vincitur omnis amor andthe comic rhetorical hesitation of the question – moror exemplis, quorum meturba fatigat?, which serves the ‘serious’argumentative function of guaranteeing that many more Exempla could be adduced andis also a satirical comment ontheuseof suchpraeteritiones in didactic texts which gains its bite from Ovid’s inveterate useof Exempla in theRA.115 Theantecedental Exempla for this Gnome begin with the non-Promissory type in which there is no explicit guarantee or threat connected with compliance of the Exemplary figure to the precept in question. In non-Promissory Exempla such as Pasiphaes Minos in Procride perdidit ignes a statement is forwarded which aligns the action of Minos with the action which the addressee is being urged to follow andwhile there is a tacit assumption as to the results if Minos had acted in a way other than he did, there is noexplicit guarantee that this is the case. This distinction between Promissory Exempla of thetype where there is no direct address of the mythological figure (incases where apostrophe is atworkthe shift intheregister of theethical appeal is more easily seen) andnon-Promissory Exempla mayappear to be a bit precious, yet there is a shift in thetype of guarantee presented in the twotypes of Exempla that changes the register of the ethical appeal. Such an explicit guarantee is present in 115See Pinotti pp.225– 26 for examples of suchpraeteritiones. See Henderson p. 99 for this line as

parody ofthetireless enthusiasm 9. see Bundy pp.8–

fortheir labor professed bypraeceptores. Onrhetorical hesitations

78

Chapter

Promissory 4–

Terms

the Promissory Exemplum –et Parin Oenone summos tenuisset ad annos ‚/si non Oebalia paelice laesa foret andit works as part of the physician’s ethical appeal as he exhibits his ability to diagnose the illnesses of the past as he had promissed he wascapable of doing in the kletic section of the poem. The humor at play in the Promissory Exempla of this E+A revolves around the less than pleasant outcomes that taking on a novus amor has for the Exemplary figures. These Exempla certainly dooffer paradigms which prove that a newlover canbreak the spell of the predecessor, but the results of such action in the case of Paris andTereus were far from positive andthe obsession with their newloves led to a worse situation than that with the first. This almost hyperbolic lack of coincidence in elements of the mythic paradigms which donothave a strictly logical connection to the moment of the argument is not uncommon in Ovid andproduces some of the broadest humor intheRA(as hasbeen shown above in Chapter Three). Closely aligned to the ethical appeal at play in the preceding examples is Ovid’s

useof Promissory terms as a claim to his intimate knowledge of the amatory makeupof his mythic ‘patients’which acts as proof of his understanding of the disease for which hiscontemporary patients areseeking a cure. quod nisi duxoperis vatem frustratur Apollo, aemulus est nostri maxima causa mali. at turivalem noli tibifingere quemquam inque suosolam crede iacere toro. acrius Hermionen ideo dilexit Orestes, esse quodalterius coeperat illa viri. quid, Menelae, doles? ibas sine coniuge Creten etpoteras nupta lentus abesse tua. utParis hanc rapuit, nunc demum uxore carere nonpotes: alterius crevit amore tuus. hoc et in abducta Briseide flebat Achilles, illam Plisthenio gaudia ferre viro. necfrustra flebat, mihi credite: fecit Atrides, quodsi nonfaceret, turpiter esset iners. certe egofecissem, necsumsapientior illo: invidiae fructus maximus illefuit. namsibi quodnumquam tactam Briseida iurat per sceptrum, sceptrum nonputat esse deos.

770

775

780

84) which introduces the motif of The prefatory Gnome of this section (lines 767– the rival –aemulus est nostri maxima causa mali –is given great sanction by the deference given to Apollo’s power over the subject at hand andthe unquestioned role of his vates is emphasized by the introduction of the clause by the rhetorical pause in quod nisi of quod nisi dux operis vatem frustratur Apollo (cf. lines 489–

Chapter

4 -Promissory

Terms

79

90). The prefatory Gnome is a proleptic Proof for the Enjoinders tu rivalem noli tibifingere andin suo solam crede iacere toro. The Exempla which follow demonstrate that nolifingere andcrede mean, in effect, ‘donot believe there is, (even if there is)’, since the Exempla display scenes in which the rival is real.116 The Exemplary series begins with the non-Promissory Exemplum of Orestes. The second Exemplum involves the apostrophe of Menelaus which begins with the interrogaandthe poet proceeds to make Menelaus quid, Menelae, doles? – tive Enjoinder – confront his ‘whyworry?’attitude (lentus) which opened the door to Paris andthe disasters that followed. This is a type of Promissory Exemplum where the address of the mythic figure places him directly in the care of Naso, the physician, andthe error which led to his illness is discussed. The tenor of this Promissory term, which sets outthe cause of the illness andbyextension howit could have been avoided, is more accusatory than most, which merely guarantee the Exemplary figures that if they hadhadmore knowledge of thetype Ovid is capable of dispensing they would have been cured. Thepoet/physician in this Promissory term seems more intent on displaying his knowledge of the patient’s malady than on assuring him of a cure. This desire to heighten the ethical appeal of his advice for his contemporary ςof the paradigmatic θ ο audience bydemonstrating complete understanding of theἦ patient is continued in the next Exemplum. The Exemplum proper in this version of the abduction of Briseis –hoc et in abducta Briseide flebat Achilles,/illam is non-Promissory innature, buttheethopoeia atwork Plisthenio gaudia ferre viro – inthepoet’s comments upon Agamemnon’s actions andhis assurances as to howhe would have acted in the same circumstance give this Exemplum a Promissory orientation as the poet offers guarantees as to the psychological make-up of those affected by the disease –mihi credite: fecit Atrides,/quod si nonfaceret, turpiter esset iners./certe egofecissem, nec sumsapientior illo. The honesty of the poet in validating Agamemnon’s actions also increases theethical appeal of this section, but the ‘literary’audience would nothave missed the incongruous element of the poet’s insistence that he wasno wiser than Agamemnon, whom he has already shown to 87 in Chapter Three). This be something of a pompous fool (see on lines 467– negative view of Agamemnon is continued byhis facile reasoning as to theplace of the sceptre in his oathtaking which conforms to his statement to Chryses in Book 1 ήσ ε , of the Iliad concerning the power of the sceptre of Apollo to protect him –μ γ ρ έ ο ν /ἢν ῦ υ νδηθ σ ὶκ , κοίλῃ ιχ ύ ν ο ν ρ τ᾽ἢὕ ε ὰνη ίω α ὼπ σ ινἐγ ρ ο να σ τε ὖ τ ις ρ μ ο νκ τ α αθ ὶ στέμ ε ῃσκῆπ 28).117 ο ῖο(lines 26– μ ίσ ήν ύτ ο ιο ὐχρα ,/μ τα ν ἰό 116SeePinotti p. 323 fora discussion onthearchitectonics of this Exemplary catalogue. 117Lenz p. 93 and Lucke p. 348 note Ovid’s reworking of the Homeric material dealing with the sceptre in respect to the fact that Agamemnon does notswear upon the sceptre of Zeus whenhe is returning Briseis intact toAchilles. While Ovidmayhaveshifted thesceptre scene of Book 1, where Agamemnon does swear onthesceptre of Zeus, to thescene of Briseis’s return in Book 19to fit the needs ofthis Exemplum, herarely reworks ‘standard’elements of themyths, butinstead reformulates themotivations ofthecharacters which cause themto actinthewaythey dooraddsnewdetail.

80

Chapter

Promissory 4–

Terms

Promissory Exempla are present in different contexts within the tractatio as Ovidsearches outwaysto increase their persuasive power. Thedirect erotodidactic advice that the poet receives from somnus or perhaps from the divine visitation of 74, when he avails himself of the curative power of the temple Cupid in lines 557– of Venus of Eryx, comes inE+A form andincludes a Promissory Exemplum:

oquisollicitos mododas, modo demis amores, ‘adice praeceptis hocquoque, Naso, tuis. admala quisque animum referat sua, ponet amorem: omnibus illa deusplusve minusve dedit. 560 quiPuteal Ianumque timet celeresque Kalendas, torqueat hunc aeris mutua summa sui;

cuidurus pater est, utvoto cetera cedant, huicpater ante oculos durus habendus erit;

hic male dotata pauper cumconiuge vivit: uxorem fato credat obesse suo; est tibi rure bonogenerosae fertilis uvae vinea: nenascens usta sit uva, time; ille habet inreditu navem: mare semper iniquum cogitet et damno litora foeda suo; filius hunc miles, tefilia nubilis angat; et quis noncausas mille doloris habet?

565

570

utposses

odisse tuam, Pari, funera fratrum debueras oculis substituisse tuis.’

The main precept of somnus (Cupid?) –ad mala quisque animum referat sua –is followed by the Promissory term ponet amorem anda Gnomic Proof for the fact omnibus illa that all have problems upon which they might focus their attentions – deus plusve minusve dedit. This Gnome is supported by a list of Exempla of the et quis mala at the disposal of humankind118 followed by an interrogative Gnome – non causas mille doloris habet?, which restates the Gnomic Proof –omnibus illa deus plusve minusve dedit and closes the catalogue of vulgar Exempla.119 It also introduces the mythological Exemplum of Paris (quis? etiam heros) andtherefore works as a true transitional Gnome in that it both closes one Exemplary series (vulgar) andopens another (heroic). TheExemplum of Paris argues fortheveracity of the preceding interrogative Gnome and may well have been one of several Exempla since somnus (Cupid?) plura loquebatur. This Exemplum also acts as a Promissory term as a guarantee is made in this apostrophe to Paris which functions as part of the ethical appeal for the poet’s program. The advice given here comes

118Ontheuseof Exemplary priamels seeBundy pp.4ff. 119For a discussion onthe spurious nature of lines 565– 66 see Lucke pp. 188– 91 andPinotti pp.254– 56.

Chapter

4 -Promissory Terms

81

from a higher authority whoasserts that even onewith the ingenium of Paris canbe cured with thetechniques that arebeing passed onto Ovid. The grim humor of this passage stems from the hyberbolic lack of coincidence between the mala in the vulgar Exempla andthe mythological Exemplum andthe rather late cure concocted for Paris out of the battle at Troy andthe deaths of his brothers.120 The ethical appeal of this section is also comically muted by the confusion as to whence the amatory precepts arise. The Exemplum of Paris provides comic closure to this passage which begins with the iuvenes at the temple of Lethaeus Amor (line 553), a place where one would never have found Paris as an incubator. In fact, the adduction of Paris in this argument for compliance might well be questioned by the more logically minded addressees, since Paris was never truly capable of feeling discomfort over anyof his actions. 50. A mixture of Promissory Exempla andethical appeals is present in lines 741–

sunt quae nonpossunt aliquo cogente iuberi, saepe tamen casufacta levare solent. perdat opes Phaedra, parces, Neptune, nepoti,

necfaciet pavidos taurus avitus equos. Cnosida fecisses inopem, sapienter amasset: 745 divitiis alitur luxuriosus amor. cur nemo est, Hecalen, nulla est, quae ceperit Iron? nempe quodalter egens, altera pauper erat. nonhabet undesuumpaupertas pascat amorem; nontamen hoc tanti est, pauper utesse velis. 750 This section of the poem begins with a prefatory Gnomic Proof –sunt quae non possunt aliquo cogente iuberi,/saepe tamen casufacta levare solent, which states that not all elements of the patient’s cure can be strategized andthat (mis)fortune mayplay a useful role in theprevention of lovesickness. However, the lack of any paupertas – nontamen hoc real utility in the onecasus adduced to prove thepoint – undercuts the ‘let (mis)fortune play a role’sentiment. tanti est, pauper ut esse velis – ὴτέχ ω τικ η ν This sentiment does tend to work against the poet’s reliance onhis ἐρ to prove his worth to his patients, yet by pointing out the role of casus he is asserting his preceptorial skills which include an understanding of howthe world works and love’s place within it.121 The topos of the benefits the rich reap andthe problems the poor (such as poets) undergo is a common one in amatory poetry and the curative power of poverty within Ovid’s program would seem to have its place, 120SeeLucke pp. 193– 96 forinterpretations astotherole of apostrophe of mythic figures andonthe nature of the ‘death of thebrother’motif. 121For the broader view of the world thepraeceptor has in relation to the elegiac poet (whose poverty plays a major role in the production of his verse) andthe paradoxical use of elegiac topoi this wider vantage point engenders intheRAseeConte (1) pp.40ff.

82

Chapter

Promissory 4–

Terms

but the motivai elements of these Exempla are malaligned with the normal erotic motifs concerning money. Neither Hippolytus nor the Bull, the love interests of two of the Exemplary figures in the coming Promissory Phaedra and Pasiphae – are driven on by mercenary concerns as are ‘standard’love objects in Exempla – Roman amatory elegy andother amatory literature. The normal role of poverty in nonhabet unde suum stifling love’s impulses is offered in the Gnome of line 749 – paupertas pascat amorem, but it holds little specific applicability to the situations of Phaedra andPasiphae. In theAAthe superfluous nature of riches for Pasiphae’s quotibi, Pasiphae, pretiosas sumere vestes?/ille amatory needs is stated explicitly – 4).122 Such cogitation on the levels of tuus nullas sentit adulter opes (lines 303– coincidence between these Exemplary foils andthe ‘patients’is part of the fun Ovid aims to promote in his Exemplary passages anda fit explanation as to exactly how poverty would solve the love problems of the two ladies, except to remove them from the mythological setting altogether, is left farcically suspended. Ovid, as he 96 –non ego te iubeo medias abrumpere curas:/non does elsewhere (e.g. line 495– sunt imperii tamfera iussa mei), lets his patients know there is a limit of sacrifice beyond which he will not ask them to go. This reasonability is part of his ethical appeal, in spite of his earlier rhetorical question utvaleas animo, quicquam tolerare negabis?(line 231)123 The prefatory Gnome in this passage –sunt quae nonpossunt aliquo cogente introduces a truism about the role of iuberi,/saepe tamen casufacta levare soient – (mis)fortune in the disposition of the disease andthe Promissory Exempla which follow support this statement. This Gnome could be viewed as a Gnomic Proof nontamen hoc tanti est, pauper ut esse with concessive force for the Enjoinder – velis, where the logic would proceed as ‘Don’t wish to be poor, even though such perdat misfortune can stifle any pathogenic agent (Exempla supplied).’ The first – opes Phaedra, parces, Neptune, nepoti/nec faciet pavidos taurus avitus equos – places theExemplary figures inthepresent with theapostrophe of Neptune, andthe guarantee of the salvation of Hippolytus through Phaedra’s poverty forces the audience to reconsider the myth within which these characters appear in a newand absurd way. Again Ovid informs his patients that he could have saved the worst afflicted and here he even passes on to the God the benefit of his expertise as to howthe cure could have been effected. Thenext Promissory Exemplum is a guarantee set in the past which asserts that Pasiphae would nothave been undone were it not for her wealth –Cnosida fecisses inopem, sapienter amasset124. This whole 122Ontherole of women inOvid’s erotic poems asdemonstrated inthemythof Pasiphae seeLeach pp. 142ff. andMyerowitz pp. 117ff. andpassim. 123Fora list of several occurences of this topos seeMüller pp.66– 67. 124Major objections tothese lines have ledsometo excise them. Twoproblems have been detected: first that forms of thewordCnosis refer to Ariadne in Ovidandtherefore the scene depicted with its luxuriosus amor is not suitable, andsecond that the use of the second person infecisses is illogical 16, and no emendation has been supplied which supplies a reasonable reading. Lucke pp. 313–

Chapter

4 -Promissory

Terms

83

argument in which consideration of the hypothetical role of a certain misfortune (poverty) in a mythic situation where that misfortune is cast as good fortune and good fortune (wealth) cast as misfortune – all as part of a tactic that is summarily dismissed –is a bit of leptologia designed to humor the literary audience. The cur negative examples are followed by the positive Exempla of Hecale and Iron – nemoest, Hecalen, nulla est, quae ceperit Iron?, which attain Promissory status due to the following causal clause which guarantees the prophylactic quality of poverty directly to the addressees of the question cur? –nempe quod alter egens, altera

pauper erat.

ςof the speaker as one θ ο The role of Promissory Exempla in establishing the ἦ μ α ρ τ δ α είγ αof the RA. ῖαπ ε α of the patients’trust is also at play in the οἰκ Those Exempla discussed above have been classed as Promissory because they forward explicit assurances as to the benefits of having Ovid as one’s physician. μ α τ α mayinclude elements which impart a Promissory tone to είγ δ α ρ α ῖαπ ε Ο ἰκ the Exemplary material contained within, but not all Exempla derived from personal experience provide such explicit guarantees forthe success of Ovid’s program andthey maymerely adda personal assurance for the legitimacy of the Exemplum. There is a difference in the ethical appeal between the empirical evidence such as 22 and line τ μ α αseen at lines 311– ρ α δ είγ 2 andthe οἰκ α ῖαπ ε occurs at lines 101– 2 –vidi ego, quodfuerat primo sanabile, vulnus/dilatum longae 356. At lines 101– damna tulisse morae –the personal experience of the poet lends surety to the 96 –verba dat Exemplum which acts as evidence for the Gnomic series of lines 95–

worthy

omnis amor reperitque alimenta morando;/optima vindictae proxima quaeque dies. While this empirical evidence does give a personal guarantee fortheveracity of this Exemplum it does not give an explicit guarantee that the cure, for which this Exemplum is supportive evidence, is assured. Such explicit assurance is offered in 22 –haeserat in quadam nuper mea cura μ αat lines 311– ειγ δ ά ρ α νπ ῖο ε ἰκ the ο

puella;/conveniens animo non erat illa meo./curabar propriis aeger Podalirius herbis/(et, fateor, medicus turpiter aeger eram):/profuit adsidue vitiis insistere amicae,/idque mihi factum saepe salubre fuit./‘quammala’ dicebam ‘nostrae sunt crura puellae’/(nec tamen, ut vere confiteamur, erant);/‘bracchia quam non sunt nostrae formosa puellae’/(et tamen, ut vere confiteamur, erant);/‘quam brevis est (nec erat), ‘quam multum poscit amantem’;/haec odio venit maxima causa meo. This Exemplum acts as supportive evidence for the Promissory term in line 310 – atque utinam possis sponte disertus eris which is a guarantee for the Enjoinders – 14 have rather long discussions on 72, andPinotti pp. 312– 30 and(2) pp. 171– Henderson (1) pp. 129– this passage andLenz p. 90 andLazzarini p. 171attend to it as well. Ofthese only Henderson (2),

whomisconstrues the force of the condition by his reading of the protasis as an implied Cnosida

feceras opulentam, athetizes the lines following Goold et al. Lucke andPinotti argue convincingly especially telling isAA1.293 where Cnosides... iuvencae refers that Cnosida here refers to Pasiphae –

to Pasiphae.

While

theuseof thegeneric second person, forwhich Lucke p. 315 andPinotti p. 314 it does follow thepattern of past Promissory terms discussed above as

argue, seems a bit strained, past unfulfilled conditions.

84

Chapter

Promissory 4–

Terms

10 –for the use of a wish as an etiam facundus in illis/esse: dole tantum (lines 309– In this Exemplum there is the explicit anddirect One).125 Chapter see Enjoinder profuit adsidue vitiis assurance that the precept at hand will act as a curative agent – insistere amicae and idque mihi factum saepe salubre fuit. The same direct nonsemel hinc stomacho nausea facta meoest, guarantee is at work in line 356 – 56 –tum which is the closing line of the Promissory term in the E+A of lines 351– quoque, compositis sua cumlinit ora venenis,/ad dominae vultus, necpudor obstet, eas (Enjoinder):/pyxidas invenies et rerum mille colores/et fluere in tepidos oesypa lapsa sinus./illa tuas redolent, Phineu, medicamina mensas;/non semel hinc see Chapter Three onlines 351– stomacho nausea facta meoest (Promissory term – 56). FORMS: The most common form of Promissory term is the future indicative as in line lente desine, tutus eris where the Promissory term guarantees the utility of the 650 – Enjoinder.

In the direct

speech

of mythological

characters E+As are often found and in

them future Promissory terms. Agamemnon speaks in regards to the handing over of Briseis –hanc mihi, si sapiat, per se concedat Achilles;/si minus, imperium 78). Here thethreat is made for noncompliance to the sentiet ille meum(lines 477– Enjoinder term concedat.

Not all future tense constructions are strictly Promissory in nature, but often

when a future functions as another component of the E+A it still maintains a Promissory force andthereby performs a dual function. This duality is present in the following passage –dixerit ut venias: pacta tibi nocte venito;/veneris, etfuerit 6). Here the future feres acts as an Enjoinder with ianua clausa: feres (lines 505– the contextual terms veneris, etfuerit ianua clausa andperforms the same function in the syntax of this E+A as the future imperative venito which takes dixerit ut venias as its contextual terms. Feres enjoins the patient to accept being the exclusus amator with an equanimity not normally displayed in paraclausithyra andin the

succeeding lines prohibitions against generic behavior are forwarded –nec dic 8). blanditias necfac convicia posti/nec latus in duro limine pone tuum (lines 507– Feres also holds a Promissory force for the indicative nature of the verb adds a Promissory coloring which assures the patient of the outcome of the situation. In 6 thefuture perfects dixerit, veneris, andfuerit as contextual terms forthe lines 505– Enjoinders have been attracted into the future tense of the future Enjoinders feres

125SeeHenderson (1) pp.81– 2 onthevarious interpretations of conveniens animo nonerat illa meo (line 312). Ovid is relating a strategy by which he rid himself of a lover whose avaritia (line 321) hadmade himmiser, a veritable aeger Podalirius (line 313), butupon whomhis desire hadbeen line 311). This personal testimony is serving as evidence for the fact that fixed (mea cura haeserat – onemust concentrate onthe faults, real or imaginary, of the girl (the illis in line 309 refers to the line 308), so he might free himself from such mala of the girl which will become the odii semina tui – anamica (amicae of line 315 is usedsardonically).

Chapter

4 -Promissory

Terms

85

andvenito. They also contribute to the Promissory thrust of the Enjoinders in that they guarantee that a certain course of action will take place; cf. the conditional contextual terms with Enjoinders such as si te causa potens domina retinebit in 92). Urbe,/accipe consilium quodsit in Urbe meum(lines 291– A similar useof a future contexual term adding Promissory color to anEnjoinder cumtibiflendus eris, which gives is seen in the gerundival construction at line 494 – a guarantee as to the circumstances under which the Enjoinder ride of line 494 operates. There is also a Promissory tinge to future gerundival items which function as Enjoinders in that the idea of future necessity/obligation/intention implicit in this construction posits the asseverative force of which Promissory terms are made. An example occurs in the Enjoinder of line 630 –alter, si possis, orbis habendus erit. This of course should not be stressed overmuch as such constructions often appear as little more than Enjoinder variatio, butthere is a slight modal shift from theuseof present imperatives with their natural future orientation to that

of future

gerundives. Future tenses in Promissory terms occur in the main clause of conditions with the subordinate clause giving the context under which the Promissory term holds, tristis eris, si solus eris, dominaeque relictae/ante such as in the future most vivid – 84), which acts as a threat for oculos facies stabit, ut ipsa, tuos (lines 583– non tibi secretis ... est opus (lines 581– 82). The noncompliance to the Enjoinder – Gnomic Proof –admonitu refricatur amor vulnusque novatum/scinditur: infirmis 30) for the Enjoinder fugito loca conscia vesculpa pusilla nocet (lines 729– 26) has an Exemplum which gives evidence for its veractri/concubitus (lines 725– ity in the form of a future condition. The futurity of this Exemplum results from its being attracted into the temporal orientation of the following Promissory term sic construction –ut, paene extinctum cinerem si sulphure aligned to it in a ut – tangas,/vivet et e minimo maximus ignis erit,/sic, nisi vitaris quidquid renovabit 34 –see Chapter amorem,/flamma redardescet, quae modo nulla fuit (lines 731– 36). Three onlines 725– There aretypes of non future’conditions which act as Promissory terms. Si qua ‘ of line 810 has a Gnomic present in the apodosis andis est inter utrumque, nocet thethreat fornoncompliance totheEnjoinder autnulla ebrietas, auttanta sit, uttibi 10). There are contrary to fact conditions which operate as curas/eripiat (lines 809– Promissory Exempla such as si cito sensisses quantum peccare parares,/non seeChapter Five fordetails). 100– tegeres vultus cortice, Myrrha, tuos (lines 99– Other tenses than the future are involved in Promissory terms outside of conditional sentences. As a threat to the patient who does not follow his injunction propera nec te venturas differ in horas of line 93 Ovid offers sed, quia delectat Veneris decerpere fructum,/dicimus adsidue cras quoque fiet idem’./interea tacitae 106 –see serpunt in viscera flammae/et mala radices ‘altius arbor agit (lines 103– 50 comes in perfect Chapter Five for details). The Promissory term of line 449– quisibi iampridem solacia bina paravit,/iam pridem summa victor in indicatives –

86

Chapter

Promissory 4–

Terms

Arcefuit. This Promissory term guarantees the efficacy of adhering to the Enjoinhortor et utpariter binas habeatis arnicas andis an Exemplum in derof line 441 – categorical terms of onewhohashadbinas arnicas andtherefore is the foil against which the patient should place himself. This Exemplum also provides an explicit

in metaphorical terms, for the results of the physician’s directions. The use of the Gnomic perfects after iampridem along with the categorical terms help produce a Gnomic force for the Promissory Exemplum (see above on Promissory guarantee,

Exempla).126 Ovid sometimes uses purpose clauses as Promissory terms as in ut tuus in bivio distineatur amor (line 486), which gives the guarantee of the benefits of complying with theEnjoinder adsume novas flammas (line 485). Narratival Function: Promissory terms perform a number of the narratival functions which have been discussed in regards to theother E+A components. There are prefatory Promissory terms which are not part of the logic of the argumentation for a specific Enjoinder, but instead introduce a newtopic. At lines 84 a transitional sedintroduces thefollowing: quidpraecipue nostris conatibus 683– obstet,/eloquar, exemplo quemque docente suo. This bit of introductory macrologia marks a motival shift andthefirst Enjoinders of this section areadvanced only after desinimus tarde, quia nos speramus amari;/dum sibi quisque the Gnomic Proofs – 86), which correspond to the preceding quid placet, credula turba sumus (lines 685– andwhich are prefatory Gnomes to the didaxis of this section. Promissory terms are employed to provide closure to an E+A and this would seem to be the logical position for a guarantee or threat in regard to adherence to a piece of advice, yetthePromissory terms of theRAoccur in theterminal position of the E+A with less frequency than they do appear there. As has been pointed out above other components of the E+A are employed as terminal devices in the vast array of argumentative structures in theRAandthere is nouseful rule of thumb for gauging theposition of Promissory terms in the E+As. Terminal Promissory terms mayoccur at the close of anintermediate E+A in a series such as cumsemel haec 98), animum coepit mulcere voluptas,/debilibus pinnis inritus exit Amor (lines 197– which closes the passage onthe rural pastimes under the res age genus which continues on with the activity of the hunt in lines 199ff. Terminal Promissory terms mayalso close a topic such as quod nisi firmata properaris mente reverti,/inferet arma tibi saeva rebellis Amor,/quidquid et afueris, avidus sitiensque redibis/et 48), which provides closure for the i spatium damno cesserit omne tuo (lines 245– 248. procul section of thepoem in lines 231– Gnomic Promissory terms: Promissory terms with Gnomic status acquire thebenefits which obtain with the various types of Gnomic statements that have been outlined above. The categorical

126SeeLucke p. 110 forcitations ontheuseandappearance of gnomic perfects.

Chapter

4 -Promissory

Terms

87

force of the Gnome adds to the trustworthiness of the Promissory term andthere are Promissory terms of each form listed above which are Gnomic in nature; e.g. the 30 –ut corpus redimas, ferrum patieris et future Promissory term of lines 229– ignes/arida nec sitiens ora levabis aqua, which derives its Gnomic nature from the contextual force of ut corpus redimas. Promissory terms without any inherent generalizing contextual information are not themselves Gnomic and a Promissory term such as tutus eris (line 650) which is aligned directly with the Enjoinder lente desine (line 650) is not Gnomic. Many conditions, both future andnon-future, are si qua est employed as Gnomic Promissory terms such as the threat of line 810 – inter utrumque, nocet, which is the Promissory for the Enjoinder aut nulla ebrietas, 10. The same observations as to the aut tanta sit, uttibi curas/eripiat in lines 809– proverbial nature of Gnomic Enjoinders, Gnomic Proofs, andGnomic Exempla also hold for Gnomic Promissory terms.

THE TRACTATIO CHAPTER FIVE –

The tractatio is the poet’s treatise on howto cure the lovelorn andhis advice comes in a series of E+As aligned under individual topoi. While the preceeding analyses of various aspects of the components of the E+As have touched upon the wayin which E+As are organized by motivai affiliation, an investigation into the ways in which a complete series of E+As is organized under a specific topos hasnot 106, which operate under yet been undertaken. The following analysis of lines 79– the same topos, is primarily designed to demonstrate thetechniques Ovidutilizes to align E+As with like motivai material. Observations elucidating howthe various components, discussed above, fit within the E+As of this section will also be advanced within a line by line discussion. (Citations will be included within the text of the comments.) The following abbreviations are used in the taxonomic section below for the various components of theE+A: Gnomic Enjoinder Enjoinder; GN/ENJ – ENJ – Gnomic Proof Proof; GN/PR – PR – Promissory Exemplum Gnomic Exemplum; PM/EX – Exemplum; GN/EX – EX – – Gnomic Promissory term term; – GN/PM Promissory PM The individual components of the E+A are numbered to denote with which E+A in each section they are primarily aligned; however, as discussed above, certain components mayprovide argumentative functions which operate beyond those of the E+A within which they occur.

106 LINES 79– GN/ENJ-1 a

Dumlicet et modici tangunt praecordia motus,

sipiget, inprimo limine siste pedem: opprime, dumnova sunt, subiti mala semina morbi GN/ENJ-1b et tuus incipiens ire resistat equus. GN/ENJ-1 c GN/PR-1: GN/EX-1a nammora datvires: teneras morapercoquit uvas GN/EX-1b et validas segetes, quaefuit herba, facit. quaepraebet latas arbor spatiantibus umbras, GN/EX-1c quoposita estprimum tempore, virga fuit; turn poterat manibus summa tellure revelli; nunc stat in inmensum viribus aucta suis. quale sit idquodamas, celeri circumspice mente, ENJ-2a et tua laesuro subtrahe colla iugo. ENJ-2b principiis obsta: sero medicina paratur, ENJ-2c: GN/PR-2 cummalaper longas convaluere moras. sedpropera nec te venturas differ in horas: ENJ-3a, 3b

80

85

90

Chapter

GN/PM-3 GN/PR-3a, 3b GN/PR-3 c GN/EX-3a

PM/EX-3b

EX-3c GN/PM-3a

PM-3b PM-3c

5 –Tractatio

quinonest hodie, cras minus aptus erit. verba dat omnis amor reperitque alimenta morando; optima vindictae proxima quaeque dies. flumina pauca vides demagnis fontibus orta; plurima collectis multiplicantur aquis. si cito sensisses quantum peccare parares, nontegeres vultus cortice, Myrrha, tuos. vidi ego, quodfuerat primo sanabile, vulnus dilatum longae damna tulisse morae. sed, quia delectat Veneris decerpere fructum, dicimus adsidue cras quoque fiet idem.’ ‘ interea tacitae serpunt in viscera flammae et mala radices altius arbor agit.

89

95

100

105

Dumlicet et modici tangunt praecordia motus,/si piget, inprimo limine siste pedem –This Gnomic Enjoinder is the first of three Enjoinders which are metaphorical restatements of the same injunction. The contextual terms dumlicet et modici tangunt motus, si piget give the circumstances under which andthose for see Henderson (1) (p. 51) on whom the Enjoinder siste is applicable. dumlicet – here with epexegetical et it desigthis “ admonitory formula”in didactic settings – nates that the Enjoinder holds its efficacy only when the motus are modici and points upthe need for haste in dealing with the first pangs of love. This temporal idea is present in all the Enjoinder terms in this section –inprimo (here with local/temporal displacement) 80, nova 81, subiti 81, incipiens 82, celeri 89,principiis 91, propera 93, nec differ 93; as well as in other components of the E+As of this primum 86, hodie 94, cito 99, primo 101, adsidue 104 (see Henderson (1) section – p. 51 andPinotti p.117 for citations ontheneedfor a quick cure of a disease). The mora 83 and84, other side of this haste motif is present in the dangers of delay – sero 91, moras 92, venturas in horas 93, cras 94, morando 95, proxima quaeque the dies 96, dilatum 102, morae 103, cras 104. modici tangunt praecordia motus – emotional aspect of the disease as designated bythis phrase (see Pinotti p. 116 for modici motus as medical language) is played off against the physical body in the metonymic force ofpedem in siste pedem which appears with the metaphorical use 17). of limine which is unusual in Ovid (see Henderson (1) p. 51, Pinotti pp. 116– This limen also retains its more ‘concrete’associations from the scenes in amatory elegy in which the foot draws theunwilling lover to the doorstep of his beloved, as iuravi quotiens rediturum adlimina numquam!/cum bene iuravi, 14 – in Tib. 2.6.13– 86 in theRA pes tamen ipse redit andas Ovidbrings forth inhis advice at lines 785– –difaciant, possis dominae transire relictae/limina, proposito sufficiantque pedes. 90 –celeri The mind/body dichotomy is picked up in the Enjoinders of line 89– circumspice mente...laesuro subtrahe colla iugo, where the physical aspect is again presented in metonymic terms. The metonymic force of pedem andcolla highlight

90

Chapter

5 –Tractatio

the fact that this emotional affliction puts the body at risk as well. This mind/body 32 –ut corpus redimas, ferrum patieris dichotomy is explicitly drawn in lines 229– et ignes/arida nec sitiens ora levabis aqua:/ut valeas animo, quicquam tolerare negabis?/at pretium pars haec corpore maius habet. si piget –determines for whomthe poet’s advice is intended andreaffirms that his advice will not transgress Cupid’s provinciae –nec te, blande puer, nec nostras prodimus artes,/nec nova praeteritum Musa retexit opus./si quis amat quod amare iuvat, feliciter ardens/gaudeat, et vento naviget ille suo;/at si quis male fert indignae regna 16). He reaffirms this puellae,/ne pereat, nostrae sentiat artis opem (lines 11– 701. This is a paradoxical restriction for the Enjoinder, in spite stance at lines 699– of the poet’s disingenuous defense to Cupid that he intends to save the God’s reputation through his advice, in that it is opposed to the prevalent view in amatory elegy that love is always noxious. This is no benign condition for the elegiac lover andit is never posssible for one in love vento navigare suo for anylength of time, although at the beginning of an affair one is most aptto be blind to the danger and thus the need of the celeris mens in line 89. si piget as the contextual term for this line 89 for quale sit id quod amas – Enjoinder determines the introductory clause – 91, where quale sit id quod amas refers to the next Enjoinder series in lines 89– whether the love is hurtful ornot. opprime, dum nova sunt, subiti mala semina morbi –The second Gnomic Enjoinder continues the metaphorical play of the Enjoinders in this series with semina as a quasi-technical medical term (see Henderson (1) p. 51) which retains its literal force in its foreshadowing of the vegetative Exempla which follow (see Pinotti p. 117). The short bits of syntactic information into which elegiac verse often divides itself, especially under

the influence of the hemiepes of the pentame-

ter, but also in the hexameter as here, has made it particularly suited for the mnechunking” , the monic needs of hortatory/didactic pieces (see Luck p. 33). This “ particularly pleasing term linguists have coined for this phenomenon (see Slings p. 108), allows for a great deal of hyperbata, prolepses and other forms of displacement andinference. When combined with alliteration, anaphora, homoeoteleuton andother devices, which echo theincantatory carmina of theearly healer andvates, the resulting phrases are often memorable and when this process is taken to

as often in Ovid, amusing. et tuus incipiens ire resistat equus –This Gnomic Enjoinder has the participle incipiens supplying the contextual term which gives it Gnomic status. Geisler prints the future resistet and states (p. 193) his agreement with Kraus that this phrase is nicht weitere Mahnung, sondern Wirkung der befolgten Mahnung. Geisler’s reading of this line as a Promissory term rests partially on the use of et to join imperative andfuture clauses andhe remarks in reference to this line solche parataktische Verbindung vonImperativ undFutur durch et hat Ovid oft anstelle vonKondizionalperioden verwandt. IntheRAthejoining of imperative clause with future clause through et does not occur, while there are occurences of imperatives extremes,

Chapter

5 –Tractatio

91

10 – and subjunctives in an Enjoinder series being linked by et, e.g. lines 509– postera lux aderit: careant tua verba querelis/et nulla in vultu signa dolentis habe. Of the over twenty instances of the connection of imperative clause and future clause, most of which are Enjoinders followed by Promissory terms, all stand in asyndeton. Geisler is also troubled by the shift of subject that would occur between 10 as an the Enjoinders opprime and resistat and I would again cite lines 509– of shift. type example of this nam mora dat vires –Gnomic Proof for the efficacy of siste, opprime andresistat. This is a ‘legitimate’Gnomic Proof (see on ‘legitimate’Gnomes in Chapter Two). Thefirst teneras morapercoquit uvas/et validas segetes, quaefuit herba, facit – twoGnomic Exempla of a series of three exagricultura which give evidence forthe truth of the Gnomic Proof andprovide direct comparison dueto the common term mora. As the passage of time matures grapes andgrain, so it matures love andthe poet directs the addressees notto let the ‘fruit’ripen, as would be the desired process with uvae andsegetes, butto nip it in the bud. The lack of coincidence of mature good, while not destroying the logic of this bad> mature grapes andgrain – love – E+A, does create a slight disequilibrium which brings attention to the fact that the poet’s precepts are not meant to teach one howto cultivate andcontrol love, as the poet trains his students in theAA,where the major precept is arte regendus Amor – line 1. 4; butto provide onewith the ars to avoid its contagion, since ex omni est parte fugandus Amor (line 358). quaepraebet latas arbor spatiantibus umbras,/quo posita estprimum tempore, virga fuit;/tum poterat manibus summa tellure revelli;/nunc stat in inmensum See Pinotti (p. 119) on the chiasmo temporale in the structure viribus aucta suis – of this Gnomic Exemplum. Again the poet offers a positive foil for the power of mora against which the danger of mature love is to be set. This Exemplum of the arbor adumbrates the mythological Exemplum of Myrrha below. Theimage of the et mala radices altius arbor is also repeated in the Promissory term of line 106 – arbor agit, where the mala arbor amoris stands in contrast to the tree in this Exemplum which offers its shade to those taking a stroll. The strollers here need not be considered lovers andas mentioned in the section on Exempla above some types of Exempla are most effective when they stand in contrast to the amatory world.

quale sit idquodamas, celeri circumspice mente,/et tua laesuro subtrahe colla These twoEnjoinders aresetoutina consequential series where onemustdo iugo – A then B. These Enjoinders are not Gnomic since they donot have the contextual terms which give them categorical force. Oncircumspice see Pinotti (p. 120) for the spirito scientifico which the poet asks his audience to adopt by his use of this term. This ‘scientific spirit’is offset bythepoetical image of theyoke with its erotic 21 ontheyoke in andconnubial associations (see Geisler p. 196 andPinotti pp. 120– amatory settings).

92

Chapter 5 - Tractatio

principiis obsta - This proverbial Enjoinder (see Otto p. 28, Geisler p.197) is the third of this E+A and is not part of the consequential series, but reformulates the precept at work in circumspice and subtrahe. This precept has already been offered in the first series of Enjoinders in this section - siste, opprime and resistat and these three Enjoinders in responsion close off the imperatival elements where resistance is highlighted before those which emphasize the need for haste - propera and nec te differ. sero medicina paratur/cum mala per longas convaluere moras - This 'legitimate' Gnomic Proof is proverbial in nature (see Otto p. 83, Geisler p.197) and argues for the efficacy of compliance with the previous Enjoinder. sed propera nec te venturas differ in horas - These two Enjoinders are introduced by the colloquial sed which is discussed by Smith (1) at the note on Tib. 2.5.7. qui non est hodie, cras minus aptus erit - A Gnomic Promissory for propera and nec differ in which the threat cras minus aptus erit is a reversal of the proverbial idea of cras melius erit. verba dat omnis amor reperitque alimenta morando - Gnomic Proofs for the truth of the Gnomic Promissory term - qui non est hodie, cras minus aptus erit. The one who is not fit to hold off the disease today will be less fit to do so tomorrow, since love receives aliment as time goes by. optima vindictae proximo quaeque dies - Lazzarini (p. 135) construes proximo quaeque dies to mean each successive day and takes this line as evidence for the truth of the assertion that qui non est hodie, cras minus aptus erit since it is alia consuetudine degli amanti ehe, ingannando se stessi (verba dant), fanno ogni volta del giorno successivo (proximo quaeque dies) quello più adatto per troncare una relazione pur dolorosa, rimandando continuamente il problema (morando). To follow Lazzarini would mean construing this line as a third Gnomic Proof for the Promissory term - qui non est hodie, cras minus aptus erit. This Proof would then have a consequential relationship to the two preceeding Gnomic Proofs - verba dat omnis amor reperitque alimenta morando and would pick up the idea of delay, which has been at work in this section and especially in - venturas in horas, cras, and morando. Geisler (p. 198) and Pinotti (p. 122-23) follow Lenz (p. 75) and construe proxima quaeque dies of this line as der gegenwärtige Tag - the nearest day, since to take it as the next day das wäre ein Widerspruch zu der unmittelbar vorhergehenden Mahnung. They do not interpret the line as a the third piece of evidence for qui non est hodie, cras minus aptus erit, but as a restatement of or evidence for (Pinotti refers to the line as a pseudo-proverbio) the Enjoinders propera and nec differ. Their rendering of the line orients it, I believe correctly, toward the idea of haste at play in this section, rather than that of delay as does Lazzarini's reading. Their reading seems to reflect the idiomatic grammar of Ovid which runs 'the_ _ _ est is th e _ _ _ est', although the citations they forward lack the double superlative construction we have here, e.g. Geisler cites AA 3.152 - adicit

Chapter

5 –Tractatio

93

ornatus proxima quaeque dies as a parallel. Henderson (1) (p. 53) reads proxima quaeque dies as ‘each next day’andcontends that this means that one should seek his freedom “ , i.e. as quickly as possible. the dayafter one finds himself enslaved” with propera line directly this and nec differ. To follow aligns also His reading means construing the Henderson line as a Gnomic Proof and Lenz, Geisler, Pinotti differ nec and propera Gnomic Enjoinder. fortheEnjoinders or as a closing flumina pauca vides demagnis fontibus orta;/plurima collectis multiplicantur aquis –Gnomic Exemplum ex natura which indirectly, since the Gnomic Proofs and Exempla share no common term, provides evidence for the veracity of the preceding Gnomic Proof – verba dat omnis amor reperitque alimenta morando. For the appeal to the empirical knowledge of the audience in Exemplary passages see Chapter Three. si cito sensisses quantum peccare parares,/non tegeres vultus cortice, Myrrha, This Exemplum of Myrrha operates as a Promissory Exemplum and serves tuos – the argumentative role of giving evidence for the truth of the Gnomic Proofs in 96 –verba dat omnis amor reperitque alimenta morando;/optima vindictae lines 95– proxima quaeque dies. The apostrophe to this mythological figure allows the poet to make a bathetic personal guarantee for the effectiveness of his regimen to one whosuffered its worst afflictions andfor whomthe newfound cure comes too late. It also serves as a tacit threat of noncompliance to his primary addressees. This bathos is heightened as Henderson (1) (p. 91) points out by the fact that the indicates that Ovid is now thinking of Myrrha qua tree imperfect subjunctive “ rather than qua woman.”For the explanation of the Promissory nature of this Exemplum see Chapter Four. Arguments which employ Exempla such as this one which compare the greater (here worst afflicted) to the lesser are among the most effective according to Quintilian (Orat. V. 11, 10). The use of a cross-sexual Exemplum with a woman whowould be less able to counteract the evils of love than the young men who are the poet’s primary addressees in the RA heightens the audacious nature of the guarantee. The attitude of Ovid, thepraeceptor amoris for iuvenes, onthemore libidinous andintemperate nature of women is fully developed 350 andencapsulated in the poet’s lines at 341– 2 –omnia feminea sunt inAA1.269– ista libidine mota;/acrior est nostra plusque furoris habet. In his list of the worst 68 Paris andTereus arethe only male members andthe afflicted in theRAlines 55– tendency for women to fall harder’makes Ovid’s claims to cure them all the more ‘ amator of elegy might not agree that this is a common impressive. The exclusus trait among women, while the praeceptor of the AAand RA can make such an 24 assertion with relative impunity. (See Myerowitz passim andespecially pp. 109– 29 onrepresentations of female sexuality in Ovid.) Quintilian andKennedy pp.28– states that in the use of Exempla the obverse also holds, i.e. women whopossess a virtue that menare being urged to adopt make excellent Exempla of the lesser to greater type (Orat. V. 11. 10).

94

Chapter

5 –Tractatio

vidi ego, quodfuerat primo sanabile, vulnus/dilatum longae damna tulisse For the appeal to the empirical evidence of thepraeceptor as a tactic of morae – didactic argumentation see the section on Promissory Exempla above. The comparison in this Exemplum is effective only if non-tautological, i.e. this wound is one other than the vulnus amoris. sed, quia delectat Veneris decerpere fructum,/dicimus adsidue cras quoque ‘ fiet idem.’/ interea tacitae serpunt in viscera flammae/et mala radices altius arbor This Promissory term which closes this section is a threat of the consequences agit – which follow upon a rejection of the Enjoinders propera andnec differ. The one

whois deluded by love’s verba says cras quoque fiet idem’, i.e. I won’t be anyless ‘ ’ and this phrase marks‘ a shift from the able to handle the situation tomorrow constant deferral of getting ridof love at play in morando in line 95 to a denial that it needs to be got rid of. The results of this denial are given in the following couplet. Thepraeceptor’s use of dicimus follows the vides andvidi in the empirical Exemplary material above andhelps to drive home the fact that even though we have evidence for love’s nature wemaynotreact to it properly. The ethical appeal of the praeceptor’s identification of himself as one of the afflicted is particularly

effective in threats/Promissory terms as it keeps them from acquiring a ‘holier than thou’tone. As pointed out above threats mayinclude a pathology of the disease. ρ(fr. 31) – έπ νπ τ ο ῦ Here a conventional symptom of lovesickness since Sappho’s λ serpunt flamma is combined with a verb which is part of the medical terminology – (see Pinotti p.125 for a fewof the many citations which can be adduced for this as the standard term for the spread of ulcers –Celsus, Med. 2.1.18.3, cankers –ibid. 6.18.4.4, putrifying flesh –ibid. 5.22.2a.1, as well as malum Med. 5.28.3a.5, etc.). Theconflation of amatory pathology with ‘true’medical pathology lends even more credence to Ovid’s asseverations about the future. This Promissory term also strengthens the literary audiences’ trust in Ovid’s poetic gifts as he combines medical and metaphorical language used previously in this section –the mala 88 –into the semina morbi of line 81 (see Pinotti p.117) andthe arbor of lines 85– pathogenesis of the mala arbor of lovesickness. Theflammae of line 105 foreshadow the incendia of line 117. The debilitating effects of the disease upon its dicimus victim, if the doctor’s orders are ignored, are also elaborated in line 104 – adsidue cras quoque fiet idem.’ ‘

EPILOGUE

In his RA Ovid composes addressees for whom a ‘refined’philosophical and casuistical explanation of the role amor should occupy in one’s life is inappropriate. The lovelorn addressees are in dire need of a pragmatic regimen with which to combat the onslaught of love and Ovid, as the experienced praeceptor amoris, provides just such a regimen. The intended irony andhumor of the poet’s remedia amoris will be successful upon his cultivated ‘literary’audience only if delivered in suitably sophisticated argumenta. As I have attempted to demonstrate above Ovid utilizes a persuasive strategy appropriate for his lovelorn ‘patients’, butconfigures it in such a waythat it is equally appropriate for his ‘literary’audience. Thepermutations to which Ovid subjects the E+A structure andhis inflections of the form of individual E+A components provide an entertaining didactic medium in which his elegiac parody might flourish. The didactic medium of the E+A, in fact, provides the argumentative structure within which the overarching trope of the RA, the remedia amoris, canhave its maximum ironic effect as theelegiac poet teaches that which, inelegiac terms, is unteachable. The Roman audience’s familiarity with the E+A structure allowed the poet to manipulate the form of thevarious components of the E+A, while maintaining their functional integrity as part of his amatory arguments, andI believe such gamesplayingwith didactic expectation wasno small part of the entertainment of theRA. Of course, while the components of the E+A maintained functional integrity, Ovid infused them with ideas which sported with the audience’s amatory expectations. The poet’s use of ‘illegitimate’Gnomes andExempla which distorted the mythic ‘standards’did not destroy the logic of his arguments for his sick ‘patients’, but humorously reconfigured the logic of amatory elegy forthe culti.

APPENDIX Sequential Identification

of E+A Components

The following is a sequential identification of the components for the E+As of 134 which are identified in Chapter the tractatio of the poem, except for lines 79– Five. Manyof theindividual E+As have been analysed inthepreceding chapters andthe Index of Passages Discussed, which follows this appendix, should be referred to for information onspecific E+As andtheir respective components. Inthis taxonomy the E+As have been listed under the sections of the tractatio as delineated in Chapter One. Abbreviations: Gnomic Enjoinder Enjoinder; GN/ENJ – ENJ – – Gnomic Proof Proof; GN/PR PR – Promissory Exemplum Gnomic Exemplum; PM/EX – Exemplum; GN/EX – EX – Gnomic Promissory term Promissory term; GN/PM – PM– Morethantwolike components in a series maybeindicated byan-s. Thepunctuation which separates components of theE+As inthetext of thepoemis reproduced as needed for clarity inthetaxonomy.

134 Time for curative action: lines 107– GN/PM

EX

si tamen auxilii perierunt tempora primi et vetus in capto pectore sedit amor, maius opus superest; sednon, quia serior aegro advocor, ille mihi destituendus erit. quamlaesus fuerat, partem Poeantius heros

110

certa debuerat praesecuisse manu;

post tamen hic multos sanatus creditur annos supremam bellis imposuisse manum.

GN/ENJ

GN/ENJ GN/ENJ GN/PR GN/EX GN/PR

GN/PM

GN/EX

quimodo nascentis properabam pellere morbos,

115

admoveo tardam nunc tibi lentus opem. autnova, sipossis, sedare incendia temptes aut ubiper vires procubuere suas.

dumfuror in cursu est, currenti cedefurori: difficiles aditus impetus omnis habet. stultus, ab obliquo, qui, cumdescendere possit, pugnat in adversas ire natator aquas. impatiens animus nec adhuc tractabilis arte respuit atque odio verba monentis habet. adgrediar melius turn cumsua vulnera tangi iamsinet et veris vocibus aptus erit. quis matrem, nisi mentis inops, infunere nati

120

125

Appendix

97

–Sequential Identification of E+A Components

flere vetet? nonhoc ilia monenda loco est. cumdederit lacrimas animumque impleverit aegrum, 130 ille dolor verbis emoderandus erit. GN/PR:GN/EX temporis ars medicina fere est: data tempore prosunt et data nonapto tempore vina nocent. GN/PM

quin etiam accendas vitia inritesque vetando, temporibus

si nonadgrediare suis.

68 civil andmilitary affairs: lines 135– Avoid leisure andbeactive – ergo ubivisus eris nostrae medicabilis arti, GN/ENJ fac monitis fugias otia prima meis. haec utamesfaciunt; haec, utfecere, tuentur; GN/PR haec sunt iucundi causa cibusque mali. otia si tollas, periere Cupidinis arcus GN/PM contemptaeque iacent et sine lucefaces. quamplatanus vino gaudet, quampopulus unda GN/EXs et quamlimosa canna palustris humo, GN/PR:GN/ENJ tamVenus otia amat: quifinem quaeris amoris, (cedit amor rebus) res age, tutus eris. (GN/PR),PM languor et inmodici subnullo vindice somni GN/PR aleaque et multo tempora quassa mero eripiunt omnes animo sine vulnere nervos; adfluit incautis insidiosus Amor. GN/PR desidiam puer ille sequi solet, odit agentes: GN/PR da vacuae menti, quoteneatur, opus. ENJ suntfora, sunt leges, sunt, quos tuearis, amici: ENJ vadeper urbanae splendida castra togae. veltusanguinei iuvenalia munera Martis ENJ suscipe: deliciae iamtibi terga dabunt. :PM eccefugax Parthus, magni nova causa triumphi, EX iamvidet in campis Caesaris arma suis. vince Cupidineas pariter Parthasque sagittas ENJ et refer adpatrios bina tropaea deos. ENJ utsemel Aetola Venus esta cuspide laesa, EX mandat amatori bella gerenda suo. quaeritis, Aegisthus quare sitfactus adulter? EX inpromptu causa est: desidiosus erat. pugnabant alii tardis apud Ilion armis; transtulerat vires Graecia tota suas. sive operam bellis vellet dare, nulla gerebat, siveforo, vacuum litibus Argos erat. quodpotuit, nenil illic ageretur, amavit.

135

140

145

150

155

160

165

98 GN/PR

Appendix

Sequential –

Identification

of E+AComponents

sic venit ille puer, sicpuer ille manet.

rural pursuits: lines 169– 212 Avoid leisure andbe active, continued – rura quoque oblectant animos studiumque colendi; GN/PR quaelibet huic curae cedere cura potest. 170 colla iube domitos oneri subponere tauros, ENJs sauciet utduram vomer aduncus humum; obrue versata Cerealia semina terra, quae tibi cummulto fenore reddat ager; aspice curvatos pomorum pondere ramos, 175 utsua quodpeperit vixferat arbor onus; aspice labentes iucundo murmure rivos; aspice tondentes fertile gramen oves. ecce, petunt rupes praeruptaque saxa capellae: iamreferent haedis ubera plena suis. 180 pastor inaequali modulatur harundine carmen, necdesunt comites, sedula turba, canes. parte sonant alia silvae mugitibus altae et queritur vitulum mater abesse suum. quid, cumsuppositos fugiunt examina fumos, 185 utrelevent dempti vimina curva favi? GN/PR;GN/PR poma datautumnus; formosa est messibus aestas; verpraebet flores; igne levatur hiems. GN/PR;GN/PR temporibus certis maturam rusticus uvam GN/EX deligit, et nudosubpede musta fluunt; 190 temporibus certis desectas alligat herbas GN/EX et tonsam raropectine verrit humum. ipsepotes riguis plantam deponere in hortis; ENJs ipsepotes rivos ducere lenis aquae. venerit insitio, fac ramum ramus adoptet 195 stetque peregrinis arbor operta comis. cumsemel haec animum coepit mulcere voluptas, GN/PM debilibus pinnis inritus exit Amor. veltuvenandi studium cole: saepe recessit ENJ:GN/PR turpiter a Phoebi victa sorore Venus. 200 nunc leporem pronum catulo sectare sagaci, ENJs nunc tuafrondosis retia tende iugis; autpavidos terre varia formidine cervos, autcadat adversa cuspide fossus aper. nocte fatigatum somnus, noncura puellae,205 PM excipit etpingui membra quiete levat. lenius eststudium, studium tamen, alite capta ENJ

Appendix

ENJ

PM

–Sequential Identification of E+AComponents

aut lino aut calamis praemia parva sequi, vel, quaepiscis edax avido male devoret ore, abdere subparvis aera recurva cibis. authis autaliis, donec dediscis amare, ipse tibifurtim decipiendus eris.

48 travel: lines 213– Avoid leisure andbe active, continued – tutantum, quamvis firmis retinebere vinclis, ENJ i procul, et longas carpere perge vias. PM flebis, et occurret desertae nomen amicae, stabit et in media pes tibi saepe via. sedquanto minus ire voles, magis ire memento; ENJ perfer, et invitos currere cogepedes. necpluvias opta, nec teperegrina morentur ENJs sabbata necdamnis Allia nota suis; necquot transieris, sedquot tibi, quaere, supersint milia nec, maneas utprope, finge moras; tempora nec numera nec crebro respice Romam, sedfuge: tutus adhuc Parthus ab hoste fuga est. :EX dura aliquis praecepta vocet mea; durafatemur GN/PM esse, sedutvaleas multa dolenda feres. saepe bibi sucos quamvis invitus amaros EX aeger, et oranti mensa negata mihi; utcorpus redimas, ferrum patieris et ignes GN/PM arida necsitiens ora levabis aqua: PM utvaleas animo, quicquam tolerare negabis? atpretium pars haec corpore maius habet. GN/PR sedtamen est artis tristissima ianua nostrae, PR et labor est unus tempora prima pati. aspicis utprensos urant iugaprima iuvencos GN/EX et nova velocem cingula laedat equum? PM forsitan a laribus patriis exire pigebit; sedtamen exibis; deinde redire voles. nec te larpatrius, sedamor revocabit amicae PM praetendens culpae splendida verba tuae. cumsemel exieris, centum solacia curae GN/PM et rus et comites et via longa dabit. necsatis esseputes discedere; lentus abesto, ENJ dumperdat vires sitque sine igne cinis. quod nisifirmata properaris mente reverti, GN/PM inferet arma tibi saeva rebellis Amor, quidquid et afueris, avidus sitiensque redibis

99

210

215

220

225

230

235

240

245

100

Appendix

Sequential –

Identification

of E+A Components

et spatium damno cesserit omne tuo.

90 Have notruck with magic: lines 249– viderit, Haemoniae si quis malapabula terrae GN/ENJ et magicas artes posse iuvare putat. GN/PR;GN/PR ista veneficii vetus est via; noster Apollo innocuam sacro carmine monstrat opem. meduce nontumulo prodire iubebitur umbra, GN/PMs nonanus infami carmine rumpet humum, nonseges ex aliis alios transibit in agros nec subito Phoebi pallidus orbis erit; utsolet, aequoreas ibit Tiberinus in undas; utsolet, inniveis Luna vehetur equis. nulla recantatas deponent pectora curas, necfugiet vivo sulphure victus Amor. quid te Phasiacae iuverunt gramina terrae, EX cumcuperes patria, Colchi, manere domo? quidtibiprofuerunt, Circe, Perseides herbae, EX cumsuaNeritias abstulit aura rates? omnia fecisti, necallidus hospes abiret: ille dedit certae lintea plena fugae; omnia fecisti, neteferus ureret ignis: longus et invito pectore sedit Amor. vertere tupoteras homines in mille figuras; nonpoteras animi vertere iura tui. diceris his etiam, cumiamdiscedere vellet, Dulichium verbis detinuisse ducem: ‘nonego, quodprimo, memini, sperare solebam, iamprecor, utconiunx tumeus esse velis. et tamen, utconiunx essem tua, digna videbar, quoddea, quodmagni filia Solis eram. neproperes, oro: spatium pro munere posco; quid minus optari per meavotapotest? etfreta mota vides, et debes illa timere: utilior velis postmodo ventus erit. quae tibi causa fugae? nonhic nova Troia resurgit, nonaliquis socios rursus adarma vocat. hic amor etpax est, inquamale vulneror una, totaque subregno terra futura tuoest.’ illa loquebatur, navem solvebat Ulixes; inrita cumvelis verba tulere Noti. ardet et adsuetas Circe decurrit adartes;

250

255

260

265

270

275

280

285

Appendix

GN/ENJ

GN/PM

ENJ ENJ EXs

ENJs ENJ ‚PM

EX

GN/PR

ENJs

Identification

of E+AComponents

nec tamen est illis adtenuatus amor. ergo, quisquis opemnostra tibiposcis ab arte, deme veneficiis carminibusque fidem.

Prophylactic measures

356 291– GN/ENJ

–Sequential

101

290

– concentrate onthemisdeeds andfaults of thebeloved: lines

si te causa potens

domina retinebit in Urbe, accipe consilium quodsit in Urbe meum. optimus ille sui vindex, laedentia pectus

vincula quirupit dedoluitque semel; sedcui tantum animi est, ilium mirabor et ipse et dicam ‘monitis noneget iste meis.’ tumihi, qui, quodamas, aegre dediscis amare necpotes et velles posse, docendus eris. saepe refer tecum sceleratae facta puellae etpone ante oculos omnia damna tuos: illud et illud habet, nec ea contenta rapina est: ‘ subtitulum nostros misit avara lares. sic mihi iuravit, sic meiurata fefellit,

295

300

ante suas quotiens passa iacere fores! 305 diligit ipsa alios, a mefastidit amari: institor heunoctes, quas mihi nondat, habet.’ haec tibiper totos inacescant omnia sensus, haec refer, hinc odii semina quaere tui. atque utinam possis etiamfacundus in illis 310 esse: dole tantum, sponte disertus eris. haeserat in quadam nuper meacurapuella; conveniens animo nonerat illa meo. curabar propriis aeger Podalirius herbis (et,fateor, medicus turpiter aeger eram): profuit adsidue vitiis insistere amicae, 315 idque mihifactum saepe salubre fuit. ‘quammala’dicebam ‘nostrae sunt crura puellae’ (nec tamen, utvere confiteamur, erant); ‘bracchia quamnonsunt nostrae formosa puellae’ (et tamen, utvere confiteamur, erant); 320 ‘quambrevis est’(nec erat), ‘quammultum poscit amantem’: haec odio venit maxima causa meo. et mala sunt vicina bonis: errore subillo pro vitio virtus crimina saepe tulit. quapotes, inpeius dotes deflecte puellae 325 iudiciumque brevi limite falle tuum.

102

ENJ ENJs

GN/PM GN/PR PM GN/PR ENJ:PM PM ENJ GN/PR GN/ENJ PM PM EX

Appendix - Sequential Identification o f E+A Components

'turgida', si plena est, si fusca est, 'nigra' vocetur; in gracili 'macies' crimen habere potest, et poterit dici 'petulans', quae rustica non est; et poterit did 'rustica' si qua proba est. 330 quin etiam, quacumque caret tua femina dote, hanc moveat, blandis usque precare sonis: exige uti cantet, si qua est sine voce puella; fac saltet, nescit si qua movere manum; barbara sermone est, fac tecum multa loquatur; 335 non didicit chordas tangere, posce lyram; durius incedit, fac inambulet; omne papillae pectus habent, vitium fascia nulla tegat; si male dentata est, narra, quod rideat, illi; mollibus est oculis, quodfleat ilia, refer. 340 proderit et subito, cum se non finxerit ulli, ad dominam celeres mane tulisse gradus. auferimur cultu; gemmis auroque teguntur omnia; pars minima est ipsa puella sui. saepe, ubi sit, quod ames, inter tam multa, requiras: 345 decipit hac oculos aegide dives Amor. improvisus ades: deprendes tutus inermem; infelix vitiis excidet illa suis. (non tamen huic nimium praecepto credere tutum est: fallit enim multos forma sine arte decens.) 350 tum quoque, compositis sua cum linit ora venenis, ad dominae vultus, nec pudor obstet, eas: pyxidas invenies et rerum mille colores et fluere in tepidos oesypa lapsa sinus. ilia tuas redolent, Phineu, medicamina mensas; 355 non semel hinc stomacho nausea facta meo est.

Prophylactic measures, continued - introduction of therapeutic acts in lovemaking: lines 357–58 PM nunc tibi, quae medio Veneris praestemus in usu, :GN/PR eloquar: ex omni est parte fugandus Amor. Defense of poetry against charges of licentiousness: lines 359–98 ENJ multa quidem ex illis pudor est mihi dicere, sed tu ingenio verbis concipe plura meis. PR nuper enim nostros quidam carpsere libellos, quorum censura Musa proterva mea est. ENJ dummodo sic placeam, dum toto canter in orbe,

360

Appendix

EX

GN/PR:EX

EX

GN/ENJ

EXs

PR ENJ:PR

PM

ENJ:PM GN/PR

PM PR

–Sequential Identification of E+A Components

quivolet, inpugnent unus et alter opus.

ingenium magni livor detractat Homeri; 365 quisquis es, ex illo, Zoile, nomen habes. et tua sacrilegae laniarunt carmina linguae, pertulit hucvictos quoduce Troia deos. summa petit livor: perflant altissima venti, summa petunt dextra fulmina missa lovis. 370 at tu, quicumque es, quemnostra licentia laedit, si sapis, adnumeros exige quidque suos. fortia Maeonio gaudent pede bella referri: deliciis illic quis locus esse potest? grande sonant tragici: tragicos decet ira cothurnos; 375 usibus e mediis soccus habendus erit. liber in adversos hostes stringatur iambus, seuceler, extremum seutrahat illepedem. blanda pharetratos Elegia cantet Amores 380 et levis arbitrio ludat amica suo. Callimachi numeris nonest dicendus Achilles; Cydippe nonest oris, Homere, tui. quisferat Andromaches peragentem Thaida partes? peccet, inAndromache Thaida quisquis agat. 385 Thais inarte meaest: lascivia libera nostra est; nil mihi cumvitta; Thais inarte meaest. si meamateriae respondet Musa iocosae, vicimus, etfalsi criminis acta rea est. rumpere, Livor edax: magnum iamnomen habemus; 390 maius erit, tantum, quopede coepit, eat. sednimium properas: vivam modo, plura dolebis, et capiunt anni carmina multa mei. namiuvat et studium famae mihi crevit honore; principio clivi noster anhelat equus. tantum se nobis elegi debere fatentur, 395 quantum Vergilio nobile debet epos.

cures to betaken from lovemaking: Prophylactic measures, continued – 440 lines 300– hactenus invidiae respondimus: attrahe lora PR:ENJ fortius etgyro curre, poeta, tuo. ergo, ubiconcubitus et opus iuvenale petetur GN/ENJ etprope promissae tempora noctis erunt, 400 gaudia nedominae, pleno si corpore sumes, te capiant, ineas quamlibet ante velim;

103

104

Appendix

Sequential Identification of E+AComponents –

quamlibet invenias, in qua tuaprima voluptas desinet: a prima proxima segnis erit. sustentata Venus gratissima: frigore soles, 405 GN/PR:EXs sole iuvant umbrae, grata fit unda siti. etpudet, et dicam: Venerem quoque iunge figura, PM:ENJ quaminime iungi quamque decere putas. GN/PM:GN/PR nec labor efficere est: rarae sibi verafatentur, et nihil est, quodse dedecuisse putent. 410 tunc etiam iubeo totas aperire fenestras ENJs turpiaque admisso membra notare die. at simul admetas venit finita voluptas lassaque cumtota corpore mente iacent, 415 dumpiget, utmalles nullam tetigisse puellam tacturusque tibi nonvideare diu, tunc animo signa, quodcumque in corpore mendum est, luminaque in vitiis illius usque tene. GN/PM forsitan haec aliquis (namsunt quoque) parva vocabit, 420 sed, quae nonprosunt singula, multa iuvant. GN/PR parva necat morsu spatiosum vipera taurum; GN/EX a cane nonmagno saepe tenetur aper. GN/EX tutantum numero pugna praeceptaque in unum ENJ contrahe: demultis grandis acervus erit. :PM sedquoniam totidem mores totidemque figurae, GN/ENJ 425 nonsunt iudiciis omnia danda meis. quotua nonpossunt offendi pectora facto, GN/PR forsitan hoc alio iudice crimen erit. ille quodobscenas inaperto corpore partes EX 430 viderat, in cursu quifuit, haesit amor; ille quoda Veneris rebus surgente puella EX vidit in inmundo signa pudenda toro. luditis, o si quospotuerunt ista movere: GN/PR adflarant tepidae pectora vestra faces. adtrahet illepuer contentos fortius arcus, GN/PM 435 saucia maiorem turba petetis opem. quid, quiclamlatuit reddente obscena puella EX et vidit quae mosipse videre vetat? di melius, quamnosmoneamus talia quemquam; ENJ 440 utprosint, nonsunt expedienda tamen.

GN/PM

88 take morethan onelover: lines 441– Prophylactic measures, continued – habeatis amicas binas pariter hortor et ut ENJ (fortior est, plures si quis habere potest):

Appendix

GN/PR

GN/EXs

PM GN/ENJ

EXs

–Sequential

Identification

of E+A Components

secta bipertito cummens discurrit utroque, alterius vires subtrahit alter amor. grandia per multos tenuantur flumina rivos, laesaque diducto stipite flamma perit; nonsatis unatenet ceratas ancora puppes, nec satis est liquidis unicus hamus aquis: quisibi iampridem solacia binaparavit, iampridem summa victor inArcefuit. at tibi, quifueris dominae male creditus uni, nunc saltem novus est inveniendus amor. Pasiphaes Minos in Procride perdidit ignes: cessit ab Idaea coniuge victa prior; Amphilochi frater nePhegida semper amaret, Callirhoe fecit parte recepta tori;

PM/EX

et Parin Oenone summos tenuisset adannos, si nonOebalia paelice laesa foret;

PM/EX

coniugis Odrysio placuisset forma tyranno, sedmelior clausae forma sororis erat. quid moror exemplis, quorum meturba fatigat? successore novo vincitur omnis amor. fortius e multis mater desiderat unum quamquemflens clamat ‘tumihisolus eras.’ et, neforte putes nova metibi condere iura (atque utinam inventi gloria nostra foret!) vidit idAtrides: quid enim non ille videret, cuius in arbitrio Graecia totafuit? Marte suocaptam Chryseida victor amabat; at senior stulte flebat ubique pater. quid lacrimas, odiose senex? bene convenit illis; officio natam laedis inepte tuo. quampostquam reddi Calchas opetutus Achillis iusserat etpatria est illa recepta domo, ‘est’ait Atrides ‘illius proxima forma et, siprima sinat syllaba, nomen idem: hanc mihi, si sapiat, per se concedat Achilles; si minus, imperium sentiet ille meum. quodsi quis vestrum factum hoc accusat, Achivi, est aliquid valida sceptra tenere manu. namsi rex egosum, nec mecum dormiat ulla, inmeaThersites regna licebit eat.’ dixit et hanc habuit solacia magna prioris, etposita est cura cura repulsa nova.

GN/PR

GN/EX

EX

105

445

450

455

460

465

470

475

480

106

ENJ

ENJ

PM

Appendix

Sequential –

Identification

of E+A Components

ergo adsume novas auctore Agamemnone flammas, 485

uttuus in bivio distineatur amor. quaeris ubiinvenias? artes tuperlege nostras: plena puellarum iamtibi navis erit.

– self deception: lines 489– 522 quod si quidpraecepta valent mea, si quidApollo utile mortales perdocet ore meo, quamvis infelix media torreberis Aetna, frigidior dominae fac videare tuae. et sanum simula nec, si quidforte dolebis, sentiat, et ride, cumtibiflendus eris. nonegote iubeo medias abrumpere curas: nonsunt imperii tamfera iussa mei. quodnones, simula positosque imitare furores: sicfacies vere, quodmeditatus eris. saepe ego, ne biberem, volui dormire videri:

Prophylactic measures, continued

ENJs

PR ENJ PM EX

EX GN/PR GN/PM

ENJ

PM

ENJs

GN/PM

PM ENJ :GN/EX ENJ;GN/PM GN/EX

ENJs

GN/PM

dumvideor, somno lumina victa dedi. deceptum risi, quise simulabat amare, in laqueos auceps decideratque suos. intrat amor mentes usu, dediscitur usu: quipoterit sanum fingere, sanus erit. dixerit utvenias: pacta tibi nocte venito; veneris, etfuerit ianua clausa: feres; nec dic blanditias necfac convicia posti nec latus induro limine pone tuum; postera luxaderit: careant tua verba querelis et nulla invultu signa dolentis habe. iamponet fastus, cumte languere videbit (hoc etiam nostra munus ab arteferes). te quoque falle tamen, necsit tibifinis amandi propositus: frenis saepe repugnat equus. utilitas lateat; quod nonprofitebere, fiet: quae nimis apparent retia, vitat avis. necsibi tamplaceat nec te contemnere possit: sume animos, animis cedat utilla tuis. ianua forte patet: quamvis revocabere, transi; estdata nox: dubita nocte venire data. posse patifacile est, ubi, si patientia desit, protinus exfacili gaudia ferre licet.

490

495

500

505

510

515

520

Appendix

–Sequential Identification of E+AComponents

42 satiation: lines 523– Prophylactic measures, continued – et quisquam praecepta potest meadura vocare? en, etiam partes conciliantis ago. namquoniam variant animi, variabimus artes; GN/PM mille mali species, mille salutis erunt. GN/PM corpora vixferro quaedam sanantur acuto; GN/PR auxilium multis sucus et herba fuit. mollior es neque abire potes vinctusque teneris ENJs et tua saevus Amor subpede colla premit: desine luctari; referant tua carbasa venti, quaque vocant fluctus, hac tibi remus eat. explenda est sitis ista tibi, quaperditus ardes: cedimus; e medio iamlicet amne bibas. sedbibeplus etiam quamquodpraecordia poscunt; gutture fac pleno sumpta redundet aqua. i,fruere usque tuanullo prohibente puella; illa tibi noctes auferat, illa dies. taedia quaere mali, faciunt et taedia finem; :GN/PR iamquoque, cumcredes posse carere, mane, GN/ENJ dumbene te cumules et copia tollat amorem etfastidita noniuvet esse domo.

107

PM

525

530

535

540

donotworry about whether ornotthegirl is Prophylactic measures, continued – 48 lines 543– yours – GN/PR fit quoque longus amor quemdiffidentia nutrit: hunc tusi quaeres ponere, pone metum. GN/ENJ qui timet utsua sit, ne quis sibi detrahat illam, 545 GN/PM ille Machaonia vixopesanus erit: plus amat e natis mater plerumque duobus, GN/EX pro cuius reditu, quodgerit arma, timet. the advice of Lethaeus Amor(?) that lovers Prophylactic measures, continued – 78 should concentrate ontheir non-amatory problems: lines 549– estprope Collinam templum venerabile portam, ENJ 550 inposuit templo nomina celsus Eryx. sanat pectora qui est illic Lethaeus Amor, inque suas gelidam lampadas addit aquam; illic et iuvenes votis oblivia poscunt et si quaest duro capta puella viro. is mihi sic dixit (dubito verusne Cupido 555 ansomnus fuerit; sed,puto, somnus erat):

108

ENJ,PM GN/PR

EXs

Appendix

–Sequential Identification of E+A Components

oqui sollicitos modo das, modo demis amores, ‘ adice praeceptis hoc quoque, Naso, tuis. admala quisque animum referat sua, ponet amorem omnibus illa deusplusve minusve dedit. quiPuteal Ianumque timet celeresque Kalendas, torqueat hunc aeris mutua summa sui; cui durus pater est, utvoto cetera cedant, huicpater ante oculos durus habendus erit; hic male dotata pauper cumconiuge vivit: uxorem fato credat obesse suo;

560

565

est tibi rure bonogenerosae fertilis uvae vinea: nenascens usta sit uva, time;

GN/PR PM/EX

PM

ille habet inreditu navem: maresemper iniquum cogitet et damno litora foeda suo; filius hunc miles, tefilia nubilis angat; et quis noncausas mille doloris habet? utposses odisse tuam, Pari, funera fratrum debueras oculis substituisse tuis.’ plura loquebatur; placidum puerilis imago destituit somnum, si modosomnus erat. quidfaciam? media navem Palinurus in unda deserit: ignotas cogor inire vias.

608 donotbealone: lines 579– Prophylactic measures, continued – quisquis amas, loca sola nocent: loca sola caveto; GN/PR:ENJ quofugis? inpopulo tutior essepotes. ENJ?PM nontibi secretis (augent secreta furores) ENJ(GN/PR) est opus; auxilio turba futura tibi est. ;PM tristis eris, si solus eris, dominaeque relictae GN/PM ante oculos facies stabit, ut ipsa, tuos. tristior idcirco noxest quamtempora Phoebi: GN/PR quae relevet luctus, turba sodalis abest. necfuge conloquium necsit tibi ianua clausa ENJs nec tenebris vultus flebilis abde tuos; semper habe Pyladen aliquem, quicuret Oresten: hic quoque amicitiae nonlevis usus erit. GN/PM nisi secretae laeserunt Phyllida silvae? quid PM/EX certa necis causa est: incomitata fuit. ibat, utEdono referens trieterica Baccho ire solet fusis barbara turba comis, et modo, quapoterat, longum spectabat inaequor, nunc in harenosa lassa iacebat humo;

570

575

580

585

590

595

Appendix

–Sequential

Identification

of E+AComponents

109

p erfide Demophoon’s urdas clamabat ad undas,

‘ ruptaque singultu verba loquentis erant.

erat tenuis, longa subnubilus umbra, quatulit illa suos admare saepe pedes.

limes

ENJ

nona terebatur miserae via; ‘viderit’inquit et spectat zonam pallida facta suam, aspicit et ramos: dubitat refugitque quod audet, et timet et digitos adsua colla refert. Sithoni, tumcerte vellem nonsolafuisses: nonflesset positis Phyllida silva comis. Phyllidis exemplo nimium secreta timete, laese vir a domina, laesa puella viro.

600

605

avoid thecontagion of thegirl andherintimates: lines 609– 42 Toavoid recidivism – praestiterat iuvenis, quidquid meaMusa iubebat, EX 610 inque suaeportu paene salutis erat. reccidit, utcupidos inter devenit amantes

et, quae condiderat, tela resumpsit Amor.

ENJ

si quis amas necvis,facito contagia

GN/EX GN/EX GN/PR GN/EX

haec etiam pecori saepe nocere soient. dumspectant laesos oculi, laeduntur et ipsi,

GN/PM GN/PR

EX

GN/EX GN/PR

ENJ ‚ENJ GN/PR

ENJ GN/EXs

GN/ENJs

vites:

multaque corporibus transitione nocent. in loca nonnumquam siccis arentia glaebis deprope currenti flumine manat aqua: manat amor tectus, si nonab amante recedas, turbaque in hoc omnes ingeniosa sumus. alter item iamsanus erat; vicinia laesit: occursum dominae nontulit ille suae. vulnus inantiquum rediit malefirma cicatrix, successumque artes nonhabuere meae. proximus a tectis ignis defenditur aegre: utile finitimis abstinuisse locis. nec, quaeferre solet spatiantem porticus illam, teferat, officium neve colatur idem. quid iuvat admonitu tepidam recalescere mentem? alter, si possis, orbis habendus erit. nonfacile esuriens posita retinebere mensa et multam saliens incitat unda sitim; nonfacile est taurum visa retinere iuvenca; fortis equus visae semper adhinnit equae. haec ubipraestiteris, uttandem litora tangas, nonipsam satis est deseruisse tibi:

615

620

625

630

635

110

Appendix

– Sequential

Identification

of E+A Components

et soror et mater valeant et conscia nutrix et quisquis dominae pars erit ulla tuae; nec veniat servus necflens ancillula fictum suppliciter dominae nomine dicat ‘ave’. necsi scire voles, quidagat, tamen, illa, rogabis; :PM

640

perfer: erit lucro lingua retenta tuo.

leave therelationship behind without complaint continued – 98 ill will, butwith indifference: lines 643– tuquoque, quicausamfiniti reddis amoris GN/ENJ deque tua domina multa querenda refers, 645 parce queri: melius sic ulciscere tacendo, :PM utdesideriis effluat illa tuis. et malim taceas quamte desisse loquaris: ENJ qui nimium multis ‘nonamo’dicit, amat. GN/PR sedmeliore fidepaulatim extinguitur ignis GN/EX 650 quamsubito: lente desine, tutus eris. :ENJ,PM GN/EX flumine perpetuo torrens solet altior ire, sedtamen haec brevis est, illa perennis aqua. ENJ fallat et in tenues evanidus exeat auras perque gradus molles emoriatur amor. 655 sedmododilectam scelus est odisse puellam; GN/ENJ exitus ingeniis convenit isteferis. GN/PR GN/ENJ:GN/PR noncurare sat est: odio quifinit amorem, autamat autaegre desinet esse miser. turpe vir et mulier, iuncti modo, protinus hostes; GN/ENJ 660 nonillas lites Appias ipsaprobat. GN/PR saepe reasfaciunt et amant: ubinulla simultas incidit, admonitu liber aberrat Amor. EX forte aderam iuveni; dominam lectica tenebat; horrebant saevis omnia verba minis. iamque vadaturus ‘lectica prodeat’inquit; 665 prodierat; visa coniuge mutus erat; et manus et manibus duplices cecidere tabellae; venit inamplexus atque ita ‘vincis’ait. tutius est aptumque magis discedere pace GN/ENJ necpetere a thalamis litigiosa fora. 670 munera quae dederas, habeat sine lite iubeto: ENJ esse soient magno damna minora bono. GN/PR quod si vos aliquis casus conducet in unum, GN/ENJs mente memor tota, quae damus, arma tene. 675 nunc opus est armis; hic ofortissime pugna:

To avoid recidivism,

or

Appendix

–Sequential

Identification

of E+AComponents

vincenda est telo Penthesilea tuo. nunc tibi rivalis, nunc durum limen, amanti, nunc subeant mediis inrita verba deis. nec compone comas, quia sis venturus ad illam, nec toga sit laxo conspicienda sinu: nulla sit utplaceas alienae curapuellae;

PM

111

680

iamfacito e multis unasit illa tibi. sedquidpraecipue nostris conatibus obstet,

eloquar, exemplo quemque docente suo: desinimus tarde, quia nossperamus amari; GN/PR dumsibi quisque placet, credula turba sumus. ENJ(PR)at tunec voces (quid enimfallacius illis?) crede nec aeternos pondus habere deos. ENJ nevepuellarum lacrimis moveare, caveto: ENJ utflerent, oculos erudiere suos. GN/PR artibus innumeris mens oppugnatur amantum, GN/PR utlapis aequoreis undique pulsus aquis. EX nec causas aperi quare divortia malis ENJs nec dic quiddoleas, clamtamen usque dole; :PM necpeccata refer, nediluat: ipsefavebis, utmelior causa causa sit illa tua. qui silet, estfirmus; qui dicit multa puellae GN/PM probra, satisfieri postulat ille sibi.

685

690

695

706 Heedmyadvice: lines 699– PMs

nonegoDulichio furari moresagittas necraptas ausim tinguere inamnefaces, necnospurpureas pueri resecabimus alas, necsacer arte mealaxior arcus erit.

GN/PR:ENJ GN/ENJ

consilium est, quodcumque cano: parete canenti, utque facis, coeptis, Phoebe saluber, ades. Phoebus adest: sonuere lyrae, sonuere pharetrae; signa deumnosco per sua: Phoebus adest.

PM

Toavoid recidivism, 14 707– GN/EX

:PM ENJ

PM EX

continued

700

705

– compare thebeloved to those more beautiful: lines

confer Amyclaeis medicatum vellus aenis murice cumTyrio: turpius illud erit. vosquoque formosis vestras conferte puellas: incipiet dominae quemque pudere suae. utraque formosae Paridi potuere videri, sedsibi conlatam vicit utramque Venus.

710

112

ENJ

Appendix

Sequential –

Identification

of E+AComponents

nec solamfaciem, mores quoque confer et artem; tantum iudicio

ne tuus obsit amor.

refrain from rereading loveletters, continued – 40 haunts: lines 715– old of clear membrances, andsteer exiguum est, quoddeinde canam, sedprofuit illud PM exiguum multis, in quibus ipsefui. ‚EX scripta cave relegas blandae servata puellae: ENJ constantis animos scripta relecta movent. GN/PR poneferos (pones invitus) in ignes omnia ENJ(PM) dic et ‘ardoris sit rogus iste mei.’ ENJ Thestias absentem succendit stipite natum: EX tutimide flammae perfida verba dabis? ENJ potes et ceras remove: quid imagine muta si ENJ ?EX carperis? hocperiit Laodamia modo. et loca saepe nocent; fugito loca conscia vestri GN/PR;ENJ concubitus: causas illa doloris habent. :GN/PR hicfuit, hic cubuit, thalamo dormivimus illo; EXs ‘ hic mihi lasciva gaudia nocte dedit.’ admonitu refricatur amor vulnusque novatum GN/PR scinditur: infirmis culpa pusilla nocet. :GN/PR ut,paene extinctum cinerem si sulphure tangas, EX vivet et e minimo maximus ignis erit, sic, nisi vitaris quidquid renovabit amorem, GN/PM fiamma redardescet, quae modonulla fuit. Argolides cuperent fugisse Capherea puppes PM/EX teque, senex luctus ignibus ulte tuos: praeterita cautus Niseide navita gaudet: EX tuloca, quae nimium grata fuere, cave. ENJ haec tibi sint Syrtes, haec Acroceraunia vita; ENJs hic vomit epotas dira Charybdis aquas.

To avoid recidivism,

getridof re-

715

720

725

730

735

740

oneneednotresort topoverty: lines 741– 50 continued – sunt quae nonpossunt aliquo cogente iuberi,

Toavoid recidivism, GN/PR

PM/EX PM/EX GN/PR PM/EX GN/PR

saepe tamen casufacta levare soient. perdat opes Phaedra, parces, Neptune, nepoti, necfaciet pavidos taurus avitus equos. 745 Cnosida fecisses inopem, sapienter amasset: divitiis alitur luxuriosus amor. cur nemoest, Hecalen, nulla est, quae ceperit Iron? nempe quodalter egens, altera pauper erat. nonhabet undesuumpaupertas pascat amorem;

Appendix

ENJ

–Sequential

Identification

of E+AComponents

nontamen hoc tanti est, pauper utesse velis.

113

750

avoid the theater andworks of the poets: lines To avoid recidivism, continued – 66 751– at tanti tibi sit nonindulgere theatris, GN/ENJ dumbene devacuo pectore cedat amor. GN/PR

PM:ENJ

ENJs

enervant animos citharae lotosque lyraeque et voxet numeris bracchia mota suis. illic adsidue ficti saltantur amantes; †quid caveas†actor, qua iuvat arte, nocet. eloquar invitus: teneros netange poetas; summoveo dotes ipsius ipse meas. Callimachum fugito, nonest inimicus amori; et cumCallimacho tuquoque, Coe, noces. mecerte Sappho meliorem fecit amicae, necrigidos mores Teia Musa dedit. carmina quispotuit tuto legisse Tibulli veltua, cuius opus Cynthia solafuit? quispoterit lecto durus discedere Gallo? et meanescioquid carmina tale sonant.

755

760

765

94 donotcontrive a rival: lines 767– continued – quod nisi duxoperis vatemfrustratur Apollo,

Toavoid recidivism, GN/PR

aemulus

ENJ ENJ EX PM/EX

PM/EX

ENJ ‚ENJ

est nostri maxima causa

mali.

at turivalem noli tibifingere quemquam

inque suosolam crede iacere toro. acrius Hermionen ideo dilexit Orestes, esse quodalterius coeperat illa viri. quid, Menelae, doles? ibas sine coniuge Creten etpoteras nupta lentus abesse tua. utParis hanc rapuit, nunc demum uxore carere nonpotes: alterius crevit amore tuus. hoc et in abducta Briseide flebat Achilles, illam Plisthenio gaudia ferre viro. necfrustra flebat, mihi credite: fecit Atrides, quodsi nonfaceret, turpiter esset iners. certe egofecissem, necsumsapientior illo: invidiae fructus maximus illefuit. namsibi quodnumquam tactam Briseida iurat per sceptrum, sceptrum nonputat esse deos. difaciant, possis dominae transire relictae limina, proposito sufficiantque pedes.

770

775

780

785

114 PM,ENJ GN/ENJ

ENJs

GN/PM

Appendix

–Sequential

Identification

of E+A Components

etpoteris, modo velle tene; nuncfortiter ire, nunc opus est celeri subdere calcar equo. illo Lotophagos, illo Sirenas in antro

790 esseputat; remis adice vela tuis. hunc quoque, quoquondam nimium rivale dolebas, vellem desineres hostis habere loco. at certe, quamvis odio remanente, saluta; oscula cumpoteris iamdare, sanus eris.

810 diet: lines 795– Toavoid recidivism, continued – ecce, cibos etiam, medicinae fungar utomni PM GN/ENJ GN/ENJ

GN/ENJ

PM GN/PR

GN/EX GN/EX

ENJ :GN/PM

munere, quosfugias quosque sequare, dabo. Daunius, an Libycis bulbus tibi missus ab oris, an veniat Megaris, noxius omnis erit; nec minus erucas aptum vitare salaces et quicquid Veneri corpora nostra parat. utilius sumas acuentis lumina rutas et quidquid Veneri corpora nostra negat. quidtibipraecipiam deBacchi munere, quaeris? spebrevius monitis expediere meis. vinaparant animum Veneri, nisiplurima sumas utstupeant multo corda sepulta mero. nutritur vento, vento restinguitur ignis; lenis alitflammas, grandior aura necat. autnulla ebrietas, auttanta sit, uttibi curas eripiat: si quaest inter utrumque, nocet.

795

800

805

810

INDEX OF PASSAGES DISCUSSED FROM THE REMEDIA AMORIS

2 Lines 1– 40 Lines 1–

Line 3 Line 7 10 Lines 9–

16 Lines 11– Line 13 Line 15

24 Lines 23– Line 24 Line 38

40 Lines 39–

Line 40

46 Lines 41– 48 Lines 41– 74 Lines 41– Line 43

47 Lines 43– Line 44 Line 53

68 Lines 53– 68 Lines 55– 72 Lines 71– 78 Lines 75– 78 Lines 77– 80 Lines 79– 83 Lines 79– 106 Lines 79– 810 Lines 79– 82 Lines 80– 84 Lines 83– Line 89

90 Lines 89– Line 93

96 Lines 95– 97 Lines 95– 100 Lines 99– 102 Lines 101– 106 Lines 103–

Page 69 Page 20 Page 22 Pages

23, 69

Page 23 Page 90 Page 21 Page 21 Page 38 Page 69 Page 60 Page 69

Pages 60, 74 33 134 Pages 32– Lines 107– 114 Page 58 Lines 111– Line 117 Pages 38, 94 30, 73, 74 Line 119 Pages 29– 122 Page 32 Lines 119– 126 Page 17 Lines 119– 39 134 Pages 38– Lines 119– 122 Page 46 note 50 Lines 121–

Line 105

Page 22

Page 37 Page 74 Page 42 Page 73 Page 38 Page 26 Page 37 Line 136 140 Page 72 Lines 139– Pages 40, 41, 57, Line 144

Page 60

167 Page 54 Lines 149–

Pages 22, 25

Page 62

56 Pages 11, 41, 55– 22, 76 Pages 21– 38 Pages 27, 29, 37–

74 Pages 73– 76 Pages 75– Page 93

38 Pages 37– Page 22 Page 23 Page 32 Page 36

94 Pages 88– 25 Pages 23– Page 67 Page 41 Page 38 Page 34 Pages

34, 85

Page 83 Page 59 Page 85 Page 83 Page 85

Line 125 Lines Lines Lines Lines Lines

126 125– 130 125– 132 131– 134 133– 212 135–

73

Page 34 Page 63 152 Page 73 Lines 151– Page 63 Line 153

Line 150 Line 151

Lines Lines Lines Lines Lines

158 153– 160 157– 169 168– 170 169– 198 169–

46 Pages 45– 57 Pages 56– Page 41 Page 40

65 Pages 63–

Line 170

Page 41

Line 199

Page 73

Line 219

Page 34

198 Page 86 Lines 197–

200 Pages 37, 68 Lines 199– 206 Page 26 Lines 199– 216 Page 71 Lines 214– 234 Page 50 Lines 225– 236 Page 71 Lines 225– 230 Page 87 Lines 229–

116

232 Lines 229– 236 Lines 235– 246 Lines 245– 248 Lines 245– 252 Lines 249– 290 Lines 249– 252 Lines 251– 260 Lines 252– 292 Lines 291–

Index

Page 90 Page 67 Page 70 Page 86 Page 37 Page 56 Page 38

75 Pages 74–

Page 85 Page 34 Line 307 310 Page 34 Lines 309– 84 322 Pages 83– Lines 309– Page 72 Line 310 322 Page 50 Lines 311– Page 70 Line 313 Page 23 Line 314 Page 34 Line 334 Page 34 Line 349 59, 84 356 Pages 58– Lines 351– Page 83 Line 356 49 396 Pages 48– Lines 357– Page 91 Line 358 360 Page 44 Lines 359– 396 Page 23 Lines 361– Page 22 note 14 Line 372 Page 53 note 66 Line 387 Page 34 Line 389 394 Page 67 Lines 389– Page 34 Line 391 404 Page 72 Lines 403– Page 43 Line 407 424 Page 67 note 92 Lines 420– Page 67 Line 421 44 440 Pages 43– Lines 425– Page 34 Line 441 60 445 Pages 59– Lines 441– 488 Page 26 Lines 441– 446 Page 61 Lines 445– 86 450 Pages 89– Lines 449– 78 462 Pages 76– Lines 451– 464 Page 42 Lines 451– 52 484 Pages 51– Lines 451–

of Discussed Passages

Line 452 Page 34 Line 471 Page 34 478 Page 84 Lines 477– 486 Page 86 Lines 485– 488 Page 26 Lines 487– 490 Page 78 Lines 489– 500 Page 49 Lines 491– 522 Page 72 Lines 491– Line 494 Pages 34, 85 496 Page 50 note 62 Lines 495– 504 Page 75 Lines 503– Lines Lines Lines Lines Lines Lines Lines Lines Lines Lines

508 505– 510 509– 516 513– 526 525– 548 543– 574 557– 571 559– 572 559– 584 579– 584 581–

85 Pages 72, 84– Page 91

67, 68 Pages 66– Page 74 Page 42

81 Pages 80–

Line 589

Page 34 Page 44 Page 73 Page 85 Page 57

Line 613

Page 22 note 14

Line 630

Page 85

Line 641 Line 647 Line 650 Line 655

Page 34 Page 34

66 620 Pages 65– Lines 609– 45 634 Pages 44– Lines 609– 626 Page 61 Lines 613–

634 Page 67 Lines 633–

Pages 84, 87 Pages 32, 34 41 668 Pages 40– 655– 31 673 Pages 30– 655– 658 Page 71 657– 670 Page 34 669– 58 676 Pages 57– 675– 686 Page 86 683– 696 Page 71 694–

Lines Lines Lines Lines Lines Lines Lines 701 Page 90 Lines 699– 702 Page 72 Lines 699– 58 706 Pages 57– Lines 699–

Index

Lines Lines Lines Lines

705 704– 706 705– 712 707– 722 715–

Line 717 Lines Lines Lines Lines

722 717– 724 723– 734 725– 736 725–

Line 738

70 Pages 69– Page 23

27 Pages 26–

Page 50 Page 34

62 Pages 61–

Page 34 Page 85 Page 62 Page 34

83 750 Pages 81– Lines 741– 744 Page 67 Lines 743–

Line 750 Line 767

784 Lines 767– Line 769 778 Lines 777– 786 Lines 785– 790 Lines 785– 798 Lines 795– 810 Lines 803– 810 Lines 809– 812 Lines 811– 814 Lines 811– Line 813

Page 34

70 Pages 69– 79 Pages 78–

Page 34 Page 58 note 75

Pages 35, 89

Page 34

73 Pages 72– 61 Pages 36, 41, 60– Pages 73, 85, 87 Page 37 Page 25 Page 69

of Discussed Passages

117

GENERAL INDEX abandonment scenes: 56 41, 67; in Exempla –65ff. 40– animals: passion of –

23, 37, 58, 70 Apollo: 22– apostrophe: 22, 56, 81n.120, 82, 93 Aristotle: onrole of gnome andparadigm

–15, 27 ars: 14, 29, 40, 61 26 ArsAmatoria: 11, 14, 15, 16n.11, 25– 16n.11, 46ff., 54; his moral Augustus: 53; anti-Augustan material in Ovid – code – 14n.6, 16n.11

Callimachus: 54 carmen: 23, 48 21, 23, 25, 31, 45, 58, 69, 71– 72; Lethaeus – 80 Cupid/Amor: 20– 73 diet: 72– 5ff.; problems in identification of components in –17ff., 27ff., E+A: defined – α ρ σ ις: 64 φ ἔκ 83, 94 21, 33, 45, 55, 69, 76, 79– encomia: Ovid’s of self – 13n.5 enthymeme: 37, 57; in ‘simple’argumentation – 20, 49, 69 epic: mock in Ovid – 20, 22, 30, 45, 50, 69ff., 75ff., 79, 31; of poet – ethical appeals: in Gnomes – – addressee relationship/personae 82ff.; seealso encomia andspeaker fire motif: 36, 60ff. 41, 49, 54, 69, 75, 82 generic topoi: 14n.6, 18, 21, 26, 29, 39– 27ff.; η– μ ν ώ Gnome: definition andrelation to sententia/γ 38ff. illegitimate’– ‘legitimate’/‘ Hippocratic Corpus: 70, 73 53, 79; argument in–12ff. Homer: 48; mythin– hunting imagery: 68, 73 55, 67, 78, 81 hyperbole: 42, 45, 52, 54– impetus: 23, 39 22, 58 78; of gods – invocations/kletic material: 21, 77– irony: 14n.7, 29, 31 ςmotif: 33 ό κ α ιρ 50, 71, 77n.115; ‘weary praeceptor’motif labor: motif in didactic poetry – 68 49, 67– livor/invidia: 23, 48– magic: 37, 56, 75n.111 90 89– 20, 70ff.; language of – medicus: 14, 29, 49; ethical force of – mos: 44; maiorum –14n.6, 47 50ff., 75ff.; 51; Exempla from – mythology: aetiological function of –

84

43n.47 –

General Index

mythology: recherché terms

in –58n.75; trivialization of mythic figures –52ff.,

76n.114

29 28– in –13ff.; loci communes in – 60, 91 – 59 – love nature: 62ff.; connection to 41 odi et amoas topos: 40– 59, 83 μ α : 49ff., ο γ ἰκ ε ρ νπ ῖο ά δ ει α parody: 14n.7, 42, 81n.121 Parthians: 45ff. praeteritio: 77n.115 ‘natural’rhetoric: analogical reasoning

prayer language:

20, 22

prognostication: 69ff. progress imagery: 25, 37, 68 Promissory Exempla: defined 75ff. proverbs: 31– 32, 36 pudor: 43, 48

ratio: 14, 16n.11, 23

in Ovid: 15n.11, 42, 43n.46, 52ff., 53n.66, 55 ship motif: 25, 37 sincerity of poet: 15n.7, 69n.97 23, 31, 48, 50, 69 addressee relationship/personae: 14n.7, 18, 21, 22– speaker –

‘serious’intentions

symptomatology: 74 utile: 14, 75 31 vates: 15ff., 23, 40; language of – 16n.11 Virgil: 48; aspoetic model –

war: 45ff., 73

119

HERMES-EINZELSCHRIFTEN Herausgegeben

vonJürgen Blänsdorf, Jochen Bleicken, Wolfgang Kullmann

9. Karl Büchner: Der Aufbau von Sallusts Bellum Jugurthinum. 2., unveränd. Aufl. 1956. VII, 104 S., kt. 00230– 8 515– ISBN 3– 10. Adalbert Briessmann: Tacitus und das flavische Geschichtsbild. 2. Aufl. 1961. 6 0231– VIII, 105 S., kt. 11. Josef-Hans Kühn: System- und Methodenprobleme im Corpus Hippocraticum 4 (vergriffen) 0232–

12. Walter Schmid: Über dieklassische Theorie und Praxis des antiken Prosarhyth2 0233– mus. (vergriffen) 13. Winfried Bühler: Die Europa des Moschos. Text, Übersetzung undKommentar. 0 1960. VII, 247 S., kt. 0234– 14. Wolfgang Kullmann: Die Quellen der Ilias (Troischer Sagenkreis). 1960. XIV, 407 9 S., kt. 0235– 15. Hermann Tränkle: Die Sprachkunst des Properz und die Tradition der lateinischen Dichtersprache. 1960. VII, 190S., kt.

7 0236– 16. Walter Wimmel: Kallimachos in Rom. Die Nachfolge seines apologetischen Dichtens in derAugusteerzeit (vergriffen) 5 0237– 17. Fritz Lossmann: Cicero und Caesar im Jahre 54. Studien zurTheorie undPraxis der römischen Freundschaft. 1962. XIV, 172 S., 3 0238– kt. 18. Eckart Schäfer: Das Verhältnis von Er19.

20.

21.

22. 23.

24.

25.

lebnis und Kunstgestalt bei Catull. 1966. 1 0239– VIII, 115 S., kt. Manfred Erren: DiePhainomena desAratos von Soloi. Untersuchungen zumSachundSinnverständnis. 1967. XXVIII, 339 S., 5 0240– 11 Abb., 6 Falttaf., kt. Jürgen Blänsdorf: Archaische Gedankengänge in denKomödien desPlautus. 1967. 3 0241– VIII, 320 S., kt. Bernard Fenik: Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad. Studies in the Narrative Techniques of Homeric Battle Description. 1968. 1 XII, 256., kt. 0242– Hermann Walter: Die „Collectanea Rerum Memorabilium“des C. Iulius Solinus. Ihre Entstehung unddieEchtheit ihrer Zweitfassung. 1969. XII, 92 S., kt. 0243-X Charles Paul Segal: Landscape in Ovid’s Metamorphoses. A Study in the Transformations of a Literary Symbol. 1969. X, 109 8 0244– S., kt. Michael Wigodsky: Vergil and Early 6 Latin Poetry. 1972. X, 168 S., kt. 0245– William M. A. Grimaldi S. J.: Studies in the Philosophy of Aristotle’s Rhetoric. 4 0246– 1972. VIII, 151 S., kt.

26. Joachim Adamietz: Untersuchungen zu Juvenal. 1972. VI, 171S., kt. 2 0247– 27. Joachim Laufs: Der Friedensgedanke bei Augustinus. Untersuchungen zum XIX. Buch desWerkes „ De Civitate Dei“ . 1973. 0 VII, 146 S., kt. 0248– 28. John Richmond: Chapters onGreek Fish9 Lore. 1973. VI, 83 S., kt. 0249– 29. Joe Park Poe: Caesurae in theHexameter Line ofLatin Elegiac Verse. 1974. X, 115S. m. 12 Tab., kt. 1795-X 30. Bernard Fenik: Studies in the Odyssey (vergriffen) 5 1775– 31. Konrad Heldmann: Untersuchungen zu denTragödien Senecas. 1974. VIII, 194 S., 1 kt. 1830– 32. Damianos Tsekourakis: Studies in the Terminology of Early Stoic Ethics. 1974. 6 XIV, 140 S., 1 Taf., kt. 1914– 33. Hunter Ripley Rawlings III: A Semantic Study of ‘Prophasis’ to 400 B.C. 1975. VIII, 113 S., kt. 1943-X 34. Felix Preisshofen: Untersuchungen zur Darstellung desGreisenalters inderfrühgriechischen Dichtung. 1977. X, 126S., kt. 0 2002– 35. David Sansone: Aeschylean Metaphors for Intellectual Activity. 1975. XII., 100S., 2 2001– kt. 36. Karl Büchner: Somnium Scipionis. (vergriffen) 2 2306– 37. Walter Wimmel: Tibull undDelia. Erster Teil: Tibulls Elegie 1,1. 1976. XII, 120 S., kt. 7 2312– 38. Philip Theodore Stevens: Colloquial Expressions in Euripides. 1976. XI, 72 S., kt. 1 2489– 39. John Douglas Minyard: Mode andValue in theDererum natura. A Study inLucretius’Metrical Language. 1978. XV, 184 S., 3 2569– kt. 40. Jørgen Mejer: Diogenes Laertius and his Hellenistic Background. 1978. X, 109 S., 2686-X kt. 41. Daniel H.Garrison: MildFrenzy. AReading of the Hellenistic Love Epigram. 1978. 8 2737– X, 97 S., kt. 42. Klaus Döring: Exemplum Socratis. Studien zur Sokratesnachwirkung in der kynischstoischen Popularphilosophie der frühen Kaiserzeit undim frühen Christentum. 3 2782– 1979. VIII, 173 S., kt. 43. Siegmar Döpp: Zeitgeschichte inDichtungenClaudians. 1980. XII, 281 S., kt. 8 2950– 44. George Briscoe Kerferd, ed.: TheSophists andtheir Legacy. Proceedings oftheFourth International Colloquium on Ancient Philo-

sophy heldincooperation withProjektgruppe Altertumswissenschaften der Thyssen Stiftung atBadHomburg, 29th August –1st September 1979. 1981. VII. 141 S., kt.

7 3427– 45. Thomas Berres: Die Entstehung der Aeneis. 1982. XII, 337 S., kt. 7 3489– 46. Odysseus Tsagarakis: Form and Content in Homer. 1982. IX, 170 S., kt. 3640– 7 47. Walter Wimmel: Tibull undDelia. ZweiterTeil: Tibulls Elegie 1,2. 1983. VIII, 130S. m. 1 Abb., kt. 4 3809– 48. Antonios Rengakos: Form und Wandel des Machtdenkens der Athener bei Thu2 3794– kydides. 1984. 149 S., kt. 49. William M. Calder III / Adolf Köhnken /

Wolfgang Kullmann / Günther Pflug, Hrsg.:Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker, Werk undWirkung. 1986. VIII, 293 S. m. 5 Abb., 5 4420– kt. 50. Theodora Hantos: Respublica constituta. DieVerfassung desDictators Sulla. 1988.

61. Raimund Schulz: Die Entwicklung des römischen Völkerrechts im vierten und 62. 63.

64. 65.

66.

8 176 S., kt. 4617– 51. Hermann Grensemann: Knidische MedizinTeil II. Versuch einer weiteren Analyse

67.

Denatura muliebri undDemulie7 4688– I undII. 1987. 91 S., kt.

68.

der Schicht A in denpseudohippokratischen Schriften

bribus

52. Meinolf Vielberg: Pflichten, Werte, Ideale. Eine Untersuchung zudenWertvorstel4 lungen desTacitus. 1987. 199 S., kt.4569– 53. Thomas Clark Loening: The Reconciliation Agreement of 403/402 B. C. in Athens. Its Content andApplication. 1987. 4 4832– 166 S., kt. 54. Dankward Vollmer: Symploke. DasÜbergreifen der römischen Expansion auf den griechischen Osten (Untersuchungen zurrömischen Außenpolitik amEndedes3. Jhs. v. 8 Chr.). 1990.185 S., kt. 5525– 55. Otta Wenskus: Astronomische ZeitangabenvonHomer bisTheophrast. 1990. 194 9 5533– S., kt. 56. Georg Wöhrle: Studien zur Theorie der antiken Gesundheitslehre. 1990. 295S.,kt. 1 5599– 57. Jochen Althoff: Warm, kalt, flüssig und fest bei Aristoteles. Die Elementarqualitätenindenzoologischen Schriften. 1992. 311 5 5826– S., kt. 58. Olaf Perlwitz: Titus Pomponius Atticus. Untersuchungen zur Person eines einflußreichen Ritters in der ausgehenden Römi3 schen Republik. 1992. 151 S., kt. 6170– 59. Loretana de Libero: Obstruktion. PolitischePraktiken imSenat undinderVolksversammlung derausgehenden römischen Re49 v.Chr.). 1992. 142 S., kt., publik (70– 0 6180– 60. Neill O’Sullivan: Alcidamas, Aristophanesandthe Beginnings of Greek Stylistic 0 5420– Theory. 1992. VIII, 168 S., kt.

69.

70.

71. 72. 73. 74.

75.

fünften Jahrhundert n. Chr. 1993. 210 S., kt. 6265– 3 Gregor Weber: Dichtung und höfische Gesellschaft. Die Rezeption von Zeitgeschichte amHofderersten drei Ptolemäer. 6297– 1 1993. XII, 492 S., kt. Martin Jehne: Koine Eirene. Untersuchungen zu den Befriedungs- und Stabilisierungsbemühungen in der griechischen Poliswelt des4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. 1994. IV, 320 S., kt. 1 6199– Antonios Rengakos: Der Homertext und die hellenistischen Dichter. 1993. 197 S., 2 kt. 6341– Charles Lichtenthaeler † : Neuer Kommentar der zweiundvierzig Krankengeschichten derEpidemienbücher III undI 7 des Hippokrates. 1994, 202 S., kt. 6361– Kai Trampedach: Platon, die Akademie unddie zeitgenössische Politik. 1994. 300 2 S., kt. 6453– Ursula Gärtner: Gehalt und Funktion der Gleichnisse bei Valerius Flaccus. 9 6553– 1994. 360 S., kt. Hans-Christian Günther: The Manuscripts andtheTransmission of the Paleologan Scholia on the Euripidean Triad. 1 6591– 1995. 331 S., 8 Taf., kt. Uwe Neumann: Gegenwart und mythische Vergangenheit bei Euripides. 1995. 2 192 S., kt. 6601– Martin Biermann: DieLeichenreden des Ambrosius vonMailand. 1995. 232 S., kt. 2 6632– Helga Botermann: Das Judenedikt des Kaisers Claudius. Römischer Staat und Christiani im 1. Jahrhundert. 1996. 200 S., 5 kt. 6863– Dirk Schlinkert: Ordosenatoris undnobilitas. Die Konstitution des Senatsadels in 5 der Spätantike. 1996. XI, 311 S., kt.6975– Thomas Baier: Werk undWirkung Varros im Spiegel seiner Zeitgenossen von Cicero bis Ovid. In Vorbereitung. Sabine Föllinger: Differenz und Gleichheit. Das Geschlechterverhältnis in der Sicht griechischer Philosophen des 4. bis 1. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. 1996. 341 S., kt. 7 7011– Markus Asper: Onomata allotria. Zur Genese, Struktur undFunktion poetologischer Metaphern bei Kallimachos. 1997. 0 7023– Ca. 300 S., kt.

76. Marianne Wifstrand-Schiebe: Vergil und die Tradition von den römischen 2 7019– Urkönigen. 1997. 194 S., kt. 77. David Jones: Emjoinder and Argument in Ovid’s Remedia Amoris. 1997. 119 S., 8 7078– kt.

FRANZ STEINER VERLAG STUTTGART

0064 ISSN 0341–

Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart