Lustrum Band 62 – 2020 [1 ed.] 9783666352270, 9783525352274

Citation preview

lustrum lustrum

ternationale Forschungsberichte Internationale Forschungsberichte us dem Bereich des klassischen Altertums aus dem Bereich des klassischen Altertums

erausgegeben von von Herausgegeben arcus Deufert und Irmgard Männlein-Robert Marcus Deufert und Irmgard Männlein-Robert

ndband 61 2019 62  2020

LUSTRUM INTERNATIONALE FORSCHUNGSBERICHTE AUS DEM BEREICH DES KLASSISCHEN ALTERTUMS

unter redaktioneller Mitarbeit von Wolfgang Polleichtner

herausgegeben von MARCUS DEUFERT und IRMGARD MÄNNLEIN-ROBERT

Band 62 · 2020

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über https://dnb.de abrufbar. © 2022, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen, ein Imprint der Brill-Gruppe (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Niederlande; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Deutschland; Brill Österreich GmbH, Wien, Österreich) Koninklijke Brill NV umfasst die Imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, Verlag Antike und V&R unipress. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Satz: textformart, Daniela Weiland, Göttingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISBN 978-3-666-35227-0 ISSN 2197-3849

The Metamorphoses of Ovid: 35 Years of Research 1980–2014

Volume I

Luis Rivero García (coord.)

Note from the authors: The extent of the bibliography analysed in this work is vast. For this reason, the authors have been allowed to organise it in a different way to the normal standards observed in Lustrum. The references will be listed chronologically in each chapter, ordered independently. In this way, we hope to make it easier for the reader to consult the work. Huelva, May 2021.

The Metamorphoses of Ovid: 35 Years of Research 1980–20141 Contents and Authors

Volume 1 I.

Bibliographies (Antonio Ramírez de Verger) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

II.

Reference works (Pere Fàbregas Salis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1. Introductions to Ovid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2. Joint interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3. Companions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4. Literary history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5. Augustan milieu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 6. Narrative technique and poetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 7. Instrumenta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 8. Miscellanea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 9. Philological history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 10. Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

III. Websites (Pere Fàbregas Salis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Bibliographies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Online editions and commentaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Manuscripts, editions and textual criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Onomasticon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Iconography and reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

IV. Transmission and Textual Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 1. Manuscripts (Juan A. Estévez Sola) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 2. Textual Criticism (Antonio Ramírez de Verger) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 a. Tendencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 b. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 c. Studies on particular passages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 3. Translations (Antonio Ramírez de Verger) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 4. Editions with Translation (Antonio Ramírez de Verger) . . . . . . . . 216 1 This volume has been produced with the help of the Research Projects FFI2013-42529 and PGC2018-098024-B-I00, financed by the Spanish Government and “FEDER una manera de hacer Europa” funds, and of the Centro de Investigación en Patrimonio Histórico, Cultural y Natural at the Universidad de Huelva (Spain). The contributors want to express their gratitude to Prof. Pedro P. Fuentes and the team of L’Année Philologique for their help at the initial stage of our work, and to Fiona Flores Watson for her translation of the English version. Titles marked with an asterisk (*) throughout the volume could not be read directly by the authors.

8 V.

Contents and Authors

General Aspects of the Metamorphoses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 1. In General (Luis Rivero García) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 2. Structure (Beatrice Larosa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 3. Literary Genres (Luis Rivero García) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 4. Generic Compositions (Luis Rivero García) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 5. The concept of ‘metamorphosis’ (Beatrice Larosa) . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 6. The concept of ‘myth’ (Beatrice Larosa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 7. Religion and Cult (Samuel Díez Reboso) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 a. Religion and worship in general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 b. Treatment of the gods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 c. Aetiological value of myth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 d. Cosmogony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 e. Religious rituals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 f. Rites of passage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 g. Religious invocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 h. Sacrifices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 i. Cult spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 j. Religious infractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 k. Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 l. Political theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 m. Imperial cult . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 n. Orphism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 o. Pythagoreanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 p. Relation with other religious texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 q. Symbolic influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 r. Conflict between religions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 8. Magic (Samuel Díez Reboso) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 a. Magic in general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 b. Magicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 c. Ritual magic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 d. Invocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 e. Amulets and superstitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 f. Astrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 g. Alchemy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 h. Optical effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 i. Oneiropompeia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 j. Metamorphosis as Spell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 k. Divination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 9. Philosophical Content (Samuel Díez Reboso) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 a. Philosophical content in general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 b. Cosmogony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 c. Chaos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 d. Deus et melior … natura (met. 1.21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 e. Time and Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

Contents and Authors

9

f. Natural philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 g. The influence of Lucretius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 h. Pythagoras’ speech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 i. Psychological Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 10. Nature and Landscape (Beatrice Larosa) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 11. History, Politics (Samuel Díez Reboso) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 a. History and Politics in General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 b. Myth and History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 c. Sidus Iulium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 d. Augustanism and anti-Augustanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 e. Apotheosis of Julius Caesar and Augustus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 f. Ovid’s apotheosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 g. Patronage and power relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 h. Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 i. Exile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 j. Gender politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 k. Virtue and morality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 12. Love (Ángela Suárez del Río) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 13. Sexuality (Ángela Suárez del Río) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 14. Gender (Ángela Suárez del Río) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 15. Humour (Luis Rivero García) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 16. Other aspects (Juan A. Estévez Sola) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379

I. Bibliographies 1.  G. Elliot, “Ovid’s Metamorphoses: a bibliography 1968–1978”, CW 73, 1980, 385. 2.  H. Hofmann, “Ovids Metamorphosen in der Forschung der letzten 30 Jahre (1950–1979)”, ANRW II 31.4, 1981, 2161–273. 3. C. Kallendorf, Latin Influences on English Literature from the Middle Ages to the Eighteenth Century: an Annotated Bibliography of Scholarship, 1945–1979, New York 1982. 4.  H.  Lamarque, “Supplèment bibliographique aux éditions d’Ovide dans la Re­naissance française”, RFHL 62, 1983, 263–70. 5.  C. H. Lohr, Traditio Classicorum, “Überlieferung der klassischen Autoren bis 1650”, Teil 2: M-Z, s. v. ‘OVIDIUS’: http://www.theol.uni-freiburg.de 6.  B. W.  Boyd, “Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Recent Work and New Directions”, NECN 16, 1988, 12–16. 7.  B. R. Nagle, “Recent Structural Studies on Ovid”, AugAge 9, 1989, 27–36. 8.  J. B. Allen, “Eleven Unpublished Commentaries on Ovid’s Metamorphoses and Two Other Texts of Mythographic Interest. Some Comments on a Bibliography”, in J. Chance (ed.), The Mytographic Art: Classical Fable and the Rise of the Vernacular in Early France and England, Gainesville 1990, 281–315. 9.  J. Booth, “Addenda (1991)”, in J. Barsby (ed.), Ovid with Addenda by J. Booth, Oxford 1991, 51–6 (Greece & Rome, New Survey in the Classics 12). 10.  S. J. Harrison, “Review Article: Some Recent Work on Ovid”, JACT Review 12, 1992, 18–20. 11.  M. von Albrecht, “Ovidian Scholarship: Some Trends and Perspectives”, in K. Galinsky (ed.), The Interpretation of Roman Poetry: Empiricism or Hermeneutics?, Frankfurt am Main 1992, 176–90 (Spanish version “La investigación sobre Ovidio: algunas tendencias y perspectivas”, in M. A.  Sánchez Manzano (ed.), Gramática y comentario de autores en la tradición latina, León 2000, 17–30). 12. E.  Fantham, “Strengths and Weaknesses of Current Ovidian Criticism. Response to Michael von Albrecht”, in K. Galinsky (ed.), The Interpretation of Roman Poetry: Empiricism or Hermeneutics?, Frankfurt am Main 1992, 191–9. 13.  C. Santini, N. Scivoletto, “Ovidiana”, GIF 47, 1995, 299–313. 14.  R.  Tabacco, “Le similitudini in Ovidio: Rassegne degli studi  e prospetti di ricerca”, BStudLat 26, 1995, 129–71. 15.  S. Myers, “The Metamorphoses of a Poet: Recent Work on Ovid”, JRS 89, 1999, 190–204. 16.  E. A. Schmidt, “Ovids Verwandlungserzählungen: Verfahren und Bedeutung. Forschungsbericht”, GGA 253, 2001, 166–96. 17.  U. Schmitzer, “Neue Forschungen zu Ovid”, Gymnasium 109, 2002, 143–66.

12

 Bibliographies

18.  A. Feldherr, “Metamorphosis in the Metamorphoses”, in P. Hardie (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ovid, Cambridge 2002. 19.  B. W. Boyd (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Ovid, Leiden-Boston-Köln 2002. 20.  U. Schmitzer, “Neue Forschungen zu Ovid. Teil II”, Gymnasium 110, 2003, 147–81. 21.  P. E.  Knox, “Introduction: Horizons in Ovidian Scholarship”, in Oxford Readings in Ovid, Oxford 2006, 1–12. 22.  U. Schmitzer, “Neue Forschungen zu Ovid. Teil III”, Gymnasium 114, 2007, 149–79. 23.  M. Janka, “Vivam, parsque mei multa superstes erit (Ov. am. 1,15,42). Wege der Ovidsforschung in der Aetas Nasonis seit 1968”, in U. Schmitzer, H. Seng (eds.), Ovid. Werk – Kultur – Wirkung, Darmstadt 2007, 1–25. 24. N.  Holzberg, Augusteische Dichtung. Eine Bibliographie, München 2009: http://www.niklasholzberg.com/Homepage/Bibliographien.html 25.  P. E. Knox, ed., A Companion to Ovid, Malden: Wiley-Blackwell 2009. 26.  E.  Gallego Moya, “Bibliografía ovidiana en España”, in M. von Albrecht, Ovidio. Una introducción, Murcia 2014, 339–453. 27.  S. L.  James, “Twenty Years of Ovid and Literary Theory”, CW 108, 2015, 205–20. 28. N. Holzberg, Ovid, Metamorphosen, München 2016: http://www.niklasholz​ berg.com/Homepage/Bibliographien.html After some preliminary remarks on studies of met. from 1968–1978, Goddard Elliot (1) lists  – with appropriate comments  – specific works about met.: editions, translations, bibliographies and other research aids, commentaries, manuscript and textual studies, collections and Festschriften, critical studies, and metrical studies. Heinz Hofmann (2) offers  a broad and comprehensive bibliographical list on met. from 1950–1979. This includes, among other entries: bibliographies, editions, commentaries, translations, bilingual editions, lexicons, miscellaneous and literary studies; textual criticism and transmission, manuscripts, incunabula and first editions; and passages on textual criticism, language and style, metre, sources, studies on specific passages, and reception. Craig Kallendorf (3) offers  a full and complete bibliography, with brief commentaries about the influence of the Latin tradition on English literature from the Middle Ages to the 18th century. The monograph starts with a review of basic works on the classical tradition, continues with rhetoric and English prose style, then looks at Medieval and Renaissance literature, followed by English literature (1600–1660). Afterwards, Kallendorf examines Elizabethan, Jacobean, and Caroline drama, and finally Restoration and 18th-century literature. Henry Lamarque (4) offers a supplement to the editions of Ovid dating from the French Renaissance, to complete the monograph of Ann Ross (Ovid in Renaissance

 Bibliographies

13

France. A survey of the Latin editions of Ovid and commentaries printed in France before 1600, London 1982). This includes various editions of met., of which 17 are complete and eight fragmentary. Charles H. Lohr (5) points out 392 entries on Ovidian tradition in European literature. However, he does not add commentaries and some quotes appear incomplete. Barbara W. Boyd (6), after making a perfunctory review of some texts and commentaries of met. (Anderson 1972, Murphy 1972, Anderson 1977, Moore 1977, Henderson 1979, Bömer 1969–1986, Hollis 1970, Lee 19842 , Hill 1985), focuses on three important monographs, which stand out for their ‘excitement or innovations’. The subject of P. E. Knox’s book (Ovid’s Metamorphoses and the Traditions of Augustan Poetry) is style and Alexandrian influences on Latin poetry, while the work by S. Hinds (The Metamorphosis of Persephone: Ovid and the Self-Conscious Muse) examines how the legend of Persephone (met. 5.341–408) draws on fast. 4.417–618 and the Homeric hymn of Demeter. J. Solodow’s monograph (The World of Ovid’s Metamorphoses) shows us how Ovid is in complete control of the world of met. In summary, the three books consider Ovid as an innovative poet, rather than simply an imitator. Betty R. Nagle (7) analyses the structural studies of Ovid’s poems, among them met., through various works, notably those by B. Otis (Ovid as an Epic Poet), R. Rieks (“Zum Aufbau Ovids Metamorphosen”), A.  Crabbe (“Structure and Content in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”), G. Davis (The Death of Procris), P. L. Allen (“The Structure of Orpheus’ Song: Metamorphoses X”), and S. Hinds (The Metamorphosis of Persephone: Ovid and the Self-Conscious Muse). Judson B. Allen (8) analyses 11 medieval manuscripts containing commentaries on met., and two mythographical texts. In addition, he offers  a broad and useful bibliography divided into ‘Primary Works’ or texts, and ‘Secondary Works’ or studies. Joan Booth (9) updates the survey by Barsby, through a brief review of the main studies on Ovid. She dedicates pp. 54–5 to met., with allusions to the bibliographies of Hofmann (2) and Boyd (6). In a clear and concise article, Stephen Harrison (10) proposes to “discuss a selection of work on Ovid published in English in recent decades”. He looks over the general works, met. (p. 18), the amatory poems, Fasti, Tristia, and Ex Ponto, and finishes off by predicting an Ovidian revival, and considering future prospects. And finally he offers a varied bibliography on pp. 19–20. Michael von Albrecht (11) analyses a minimal number of recent studies on met., from general themes to more specific ones, such as history, style, structure and poetology. The works examined appear in the footnotes and in the brief final bibliography. Elaine Fantham (12) complements the aforementioned work by von Albrecht, warning about the excessive amount of literary criticism around the interpretation of Ovid’s work. Carlo Santini and Nino Scivoletto (13) examine some Ovidian monographs from 1989–1994: G. Lazi (Presenze ovidiane, Firenze 1994), I. Galo and L. Nicastri (Aetates Ovidianae, Napoli 1991), P.  Esposito (La narrazione inverosimile, Napoli 1994), G. Brugnoli and F. Stok (Ovidius παρῳδήσας, Pisa 1992), A. Barchiesi (Heroides

14

 Bibliographies

1–3, Firenze 1992), G. Faranda Villa (Metamorfosi, I–II, Milano 1994), R. Schilling (Fasti, Paris 1992), A. Barchiesi (Il poeta e il principe, Laterza 1994) and F. Lo Monaco (Commento inedito dei Fasti di Ovidio di Angelo Poliziano, Firenze 1991). Raffaella Tabacco (14) makes a critical analysis of studies about similes in Ovid, especially those in met., with entries extending from 1861 to 1992. Sarah Myers (15) outlines some of the most important trends in Ovidian studies, especially of met. and Fasti. She addresses Ovid’s poetics: genre and allusion (genre, allusion and intertextuality, Ovid and Virgil), and his politics: poetic authority and Augustan discourse (Ovid’s Fasti, gender politics). The survey ends with a full bibliography of the works analysed from the 1980s and 1990s. Ernst A. Schmidt (16) examines in detail three literary monographs, and an article on met., from 1999–2000: E. Pianezzola, Ovidio. Modelli retorici e forma narrativa, Bologna 1999; M. von Albrecht, Das Buch der Verwandlungen. Ovid-Intepretationen, Düsseldorf-Zürich 2000; F.  Harzer, Erzählte Verwandlung. Eine Poetik epischer Metamorphosen (Ovid – Kafka – Ransmayr), Tübingen 2000; and R. Porod, “Typische narrative Verhältnisse zwischen Vorgeschichte und Verwandlungsakt in den Metamorphosen Ovids”, GB 23, 2000, 111–41. Ulrich Schmitzer (17) reviews Ovidian studies starting from 1974, dedicating pp. 151–62 to met. Andrew Feldherr (18, 178–9) examines in ‘Further Reading’ the literary studies published since 1978 that seem the most important to him, with brief commentaries. Barbara W.  Boyd offers  a general bibliography (19, 486–512), which includes editions, commentaries, and collections of ancient texts and reference works, as well as monographs and articles looking at Ovid’s entire oeuvre, including met. Ulrich Schmitzer (20) continues his previous work (17) with a critical review of the Ovidian bibliography; met. is treated on pp. 168–72. Peter E. Knox (21) takes a critical look at recent Ovidian studies on literary, cultural and political aspects; editions and commentaries, translations and reception in art and literature. Ulrich Schmitzer (22) carries on from his two earlier studies with a critical section looking at met. on pp. 156–8. Markus Janka (23) offers a critical bibliography of studies of Ovid since 1968 with various entries about editions and commentaries, literary and didactic studies, and the reception of his work. Niklas Holzberg (24) produces a long list of works about met. – entries published from 1919 to 2010. Peter E. Knox (25) dedicates various chapters to met., with ‘Further Reading’ in each one, offering brief, pertinent notes: E. J. Kenney on p. 153, G. D. Williams on p. 169, R. F. Thomas on p. 307, M. Possanza on p. 326, P. E. Knox on p. 340, S. Casali on pp. 353–4. Elena Gallego Moya (26) offers an excellent critical bibliography of Ovidian studies in Spain, especially the past few decades. Her paper consists of a general bibliography (met. on pp. 347–51), a specific Spanish bibliography (met. on pp. 382–92), and a list of Spanish studies on Ovid’s work.

 Bibliographies

15

Sharon L. James (27) mentions met. tangentially in a course for graduate students on Ovid and literary theory. She claims that what applies to Ovidian elegy also applies to met. (p. 205 n. 1). Niklas Holzberg (28) has produced various works on Ovidian bibliography which can be consulted online. He has dedicated  a bibliography to met.  – highly com­ prehensive but without notes or brief commentaries. It is divided into various sections: A.  Titles of the works in alphabetical order (9–121); B.  Systematic development (122–59): 1. Sources (122–3); 2. Materials (124–42); 3. Book-by-book analysis (143–59).

II. Reference works 1.  A. G. Elliot, “Accessus ad Auctores: Twelfth-Century Introductions to Ovid”, Allegorica 5, 1980, 6–48. 2.  A. de Rosalia, Il realismo di Ovidio, Palermo 1980. 3.  V.  Chadha (ed.), Mosaic. Journal of the comparative study of international literature, art and ideas, 12.2: Special issue on the writings of Publius Ovidius Naso, New Delhi 1981. Reviews: E. J. Kenney, CR 32, 1982, 276; A. Manzo, Aevum 56, 1982, 136. 4.  M. G. Iodice di Martino, “Ovidio e la poesia”, RCCM 23, 1981, 63–108. 5.  Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, Zürich-München-Düsseldorf 1981–2009. 6.  R. Martin, J. Gaillard, Les Genres littéraires à Rome, Paris 1981; 19902 . 7.  J. E. G. Zetzel, Latin Textual Criticism in Antiquity, New York 1981. Recommended review: M. D.  Reeve, CPh 80, 1985, 85–92. Other reviews: W. S. Anderson, CW 75, 1982, 319; H. D. Jocelyn, Gnomon 55, 1983, 307–11; P. Walcot, G&R 30, 1983, 229; J. W. Halporn, CJ 79, 1984, 267–9; J. N. Grant, Phoenix 39, 1985, 86–8. 8.  J. N. Adams, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary, Baltimore 1982. Recommended reviews: A. Richlin, AJPh 105, 1984, 491–4; F. R. D. Goodyear, CR 35, 1985, 316–17; E. Montero Cartelle, Emerita 53, 1985, 370–2. Other reviews: R. Valenti Pagnini, BStudLat 12, 1982, 287; A. D. Booth, Phoenix 37, 1983, 362–4; J. Hallett, LCM 8, 1983, 102–8; P. A. Johnston, EMC 27, 1983, 363–4; F. Lochner von Hüttenbach, AAHG 36, 1983, 130; E. Segal, CW 77, 1983, 132; G. Serbat, REL 61, 1983, 324–5; M. B. Skinner, CW 77, 1983, 56; P. Walcot, G&R 30, 1983, 229; P. Flobert, RPh 58, 1984, 127; K. Baldinger, ZRPh 101, 1985, 187–9; D. R. Shackleton Bailey, CPh 80, 1985, 83–5; F. M. Fröhlke, Gymnasium 93, 1986, 207–8; J. Kepartová, Eirene 24, 1987, 106–7. 9. R. Chevallier, Colloque Présence d’Ovide, Paris 1982 (Caesarodunum 17 bis). Review: R. Verdière, RBPh 62, 1984, 186–7. 10.  W. R.  Johnson, “Ovid”, in J.  Luce (ed.), Ancient Writers. Greece and Rome, New York 1982, 783–806. 11.  E. J.  Kenney, W. V.  Clausen (eds.), The Cambridge History of Classical Literature. II Latin Literature, Cambridge 1982 (= Historia de la literatura clásica. II Literatura latina, versión de E. Bombín, Madrid 1989). Recommended reviews: R. G. M.  Nisbet, JRS 73, 1983, 175–9; B. L.  Hijmans, Mnemosyne 38, 1985, 222–8; A. Ramírez de Verger, EClas 89, 1985, 448–55; A. Setaioli, CPh 81, 1986, 173–9. Other reviews: A. J.  Woodman, LCM 7, 1982, 102–8; W. S. Anderson, CompLit 34, 1984, 362–4; S. M. Goldberg, CJ 79, 1984, 368–71; W.  Hering, DLZ 105, 1984, 126–9; M. von Albrecht, Gnomon 56, 1984, 103–7; M. von Albrecht, Gymnasium 91, 1984, 547–8; A. Wankenne, LEC 52, 1984, 86–7. Review of the Spanish version: G. Laguna Mariscal, Habis 21, 1990, 269–72.

Reference works

17

12.  E. J.  Kenney, “Ovid”, in E. J.  Kenney, W. V.  Clausen (eds.), The Cambridge History of Classical Literature. II Latin Literature, Cambridge 1982, 420–57. 13.  E. J.  Kenney, “Ovid. 4. The Metamorphoses”, in E. J.  Kenney, W. V.  Clausen (eds.), The Cambridge History of Classical Literature. II Latin Literature, Cambridge 1982, 430–41. 14. G. Lieberg, Poeta creator: Studien zu einer Figur der antiken Dichtung, Amsterdam 1982. Reviews: G. Giangrande, CL 2, 1982, 212–13; I. Du Quesnay, G&R 30, 1983, 91; P. Parroni, RFIC 111, 1983, 342–5; W. Hering, DLZ 105, 1984, 349–52; J. Perret, RPh 58, 1984, 144–6; D. Briquel, RBPh 63, 1985, 179; J. Granarolo, Latomus 44, 1985, 632–5; B. Kytzler, Arcadia 22, 1987, 313–15. 15.  D. Little, “Politics in Augustan poetry”, ANRW II 30.1, 1982, 254–370. 16.  H.  Zehnacker, “Ovide et la tragédie”, in α’ Πανελλήνιο Συμπόσιο Λατινικών Σπουδών. Θέμα: Λογοτεχνία και πολιτική στα χρόνια του Αυγούστου, Γιάννενα, 5–6 Νοέμβριου, Iannina 1982, 181–94. 17.  E.  Cizek, “Ovide et le goût littéraire de l’époque impériale”, BAGB 1983, 277–83. 18.  L. Duret, “Dans l’ombre des plus grands I: Poétes et prosateurs mal connus de l’époque augusteénne”, ANRW II 30.3, Berlin-New York 1983, 1447–560. 19.  A. La Penna, “Relativismo e sperimentalismo in Ovidio”, in G. Rosati, Narciso e Pigmalione. Illusione e spettacolo nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio, con un saggio di A. La Penna, Firenze 1983, V–XXVIII. 20. *W.  Ginsberg, The Cast of Character: The Representation of Personality in Ancient and Medieval Literature, Toronto 1983. Reviews: E. T. Hansen, Modern Language Quarterly 44, 1983, 311–13; J. B. Friedman, The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 84, 1985, 411–15; R. W. Hanning, Speculum 60, 1985, 404–6. 21.  C. R. Phillips, “Rethinking Augustan poetry”, Latomus 42, 1983, 780–818. 22.  J. E. G. Zetzel, “Recreating the Canon: Augustan Poetry and the Alexandrian Past”, CI 10, 1983, 83–105. 23.  F. M. Ahl, “The Rider and the Horse: Politics and Power in Roman Poetry from Horace to Statius”, ANRW II 32.1, Berlin-New York 1984, 40–110. 24.  M. von Albrecht, H.-J. Glücklich, Interpretationen und Unterrichtsvorschläge zu Ovids Metamorphosen, Göttingen 1984; 19902; 20023 (Consilia 7). 25.  M. von Albrecht, H.-J. Glücklich, Ovid, Metamorphosen, Göttingen 1984; 19892; 19943; 20014 (Exempla 7). 26.  J.  Griffin, “Augustus and the Poets: Caesar qui cogere posset”, in F.  Millar, E. Segal (eds.), Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects, Oxford 1984, 189–218. 27.  G. B. Conte, Letteratura latina. Manuale storico dalle origini alla fine dell’ impero romano, Firenze 1987; 19892; 19923 [multiple editions and reprints]. Reviews: E. Paratore, RCCM 30, 1988, 62–6; M. Dubuisson, AC 60, 1991, 385–6.

18

Reference works

28.  G. Cavallo, P. Fedeli, A. Giardina (eds.), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, I. La produzione del testo, Roma 1989. Reviews: J.  Gómez Pallarès, Faventia 12–13, 1990–1991, 466–8; A.  Touwaide, Scriptorium 46.2, 1992, 154. 29.  G. Cavallo, P. Fedeli, A. Giardina (eds.), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, II. La circolazione del testo, Roma 1989. Review: A. Touwaide, Scriptorium 46.2, 1992, 154. 30.  G. Cavallo, P. Fedeli, A. Giardina (eds.), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, III. La ricezione del testo, Roma 1989. Review: A. Touwaide, Scriptorium 46.2, 1992, 154–5. 31.  G. Cavallo, P. Fedeli, A. Giardina (eds.), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, IV. L’attualizzazione del testo, Roma 1991. 32. M.  Giebel, Ovid. Mit Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten, Reinbek bei Hamburg 1991 (Rowohlts Monographien 460). Review: G. Wojaczek, DaSiU 42.3, 1995, 29–30. 33.  G. Papponetti (ed.), Ovidio poeta della memoria. Atti del Convegno Interna­ zionale di Studi, Sulmona, 19–21 ottobre 1989, Roma 1991. Reviews: I.  Di Iorio, A&R 36, 1991, 220–2; E.  Pianezzola, Aufidus 15, 1991, 117–24; G. Eichberg, GIF 44, 1992, 115–18. 34. C. Segal, Ovidio e la poesia del mito. Saggi sulle Metamorfosi, Vicenza 1991. Review: P. Pinotti, RFIC 124, 1996, 215–19. 35. S. Döpp, Werke Ovids. Eine Einführung, München 1992 (DTV Wissenschaft 180/4587). Reviews: P. Esposito, BStudLat 25, 1995, 227–9; S. Viarre, Latomus 55, 1996, 467. 36. P. White, Promised Verse. Poets in the Society of Augustan Rome, Cambridge (USA) 1993. Recommended reviews: D. C. Feeney, BMCR 1994.06.16; G. K. Galinsky, Vergilius 41, 1995, 135–8; H. D. Jocelyn, RFIC 123, 1995, 507; A. La Penna, Maia 50, 1998, 527–38. Other reviews: A. M. Keith, EMC 38, 1994, 430–3; D. F. Kennedy, G&R 49, 1994, 228–9; T. A. Suits, NECN 22, 1995, 80–1; R. Jeffreys, Phoenix 49, 1995, 263–5; P. McKechnie, AUMLA 84, 1995, 124–5; C. R. Phillips, AHR 100, 1995, 501. 37.  M. von Albrecht, Geschichte der römischen Literatur: von Andronicus bis Boethius. Mit Berücksichtigung ihrer Bedeutung für die Neuzeit, Bern 1992; München 19942; Berlin-New York 20123. Reviews: A. Kohl, Anregung 39, 1993, 128–9; G. Polara, RFIC 121, 1993, 211–15; J.  Hellegouarc’h, Gnomon 66, 1994, 496–9; S. Koster, AAHG 47, 1994, 269–71; P. Hardie, CR 45, 1995, 57–9; R. Sühnel, Arcadia 30, 1995, 84–7; A. Kohl, Anregung 41, 1995, 124. 38.  G. Cavallo, P. Fedeli, A. Giardina (eds.), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, V. Cronologia e bibliografia della letteratura latina, Roma 1991. Review: J. Gómez Pallarès, Faventia 16.1, 1994, 115–16.

Reference works

19

39.  A. J. Boyle (ed.), Roman Epic, London 1993. Reviews: J. Gaisser, BMCR 04.05.20; P.-J. Dehon, AC 63, 1994, 383–4; L. De­ schamps, REA 96, 1994, 603–5; L.  Deschamps, REA 99, 1997, 229; R.  Lesueur, Latomus 56, 1997, 674; J.  Poucet, LEC 65, 1997, 178–9; M.  Martin, Latomus 57, 1998, 163–7. 40.  H. Zehnacker, J.-C. Fredouille, Littérature latine, Paris 1993; 20013; 2005. Reviews: B. Gain, RHPhR 75, 1995, 232; B. Victor, LEC 65, 1997, 83–4; V. Zarini, REL 83, 2005, 301–2. 41.  G. B.  Conte, Latin literature:  a history, transl. by J. B.  Solodow, revised by D. P. Fowler, G. W. Most, Baltimore 1994. Recommended reviews: D. F. Kennedy, G&R 42, 1995, 83–5; R. F. Thomas, AJPh 118, 1997, 471–5; P. J.  Davis, Scholia 5, 1996, 142–5 (esp. 144). Other reviews: W. S. Anderson, CO, 72, 1995, 109–10; C.  Martindale, LCM 19, 1994, 153–8; P. Tordeur, AC 64, 1995, 310–11; M. Á. Rodríguez Madrigal, Emerita 65, 1997, 344. 42. F. Cupaiuolo, Storia della letteratura latina: forme letterarie, autori e società, Napoli 1994. Reviews: J.  Hellegouarc’h, REL 72, 1994, 284; M. C. de Castro, M. de Sousa Pimentel, Euphrosyne 23, 1995, 524–7; N. Scivoletto, GIF 48, 1996, 327–8; P. Tordeur, AC 65, 1996, 315–16; R. Martin, Latomus 58, 1999, 681–2. 43. P. Grimal, La littérature latine, Paris 1994. Reviews: P.  Desy, AC 65, 1996, 313–14; I.  Lana, RFIC 124, 1996, 339–43; R. Martin, Latomus 55, 1996, 667–70. 44.  M. von Albrecht, Storia della letteratura latina, trad.  a cura di A.  Setaioli, Torino 1995–1996. Recommended review: P.  Esposito, BStudLat 26, 1996, 651–4. Other reviews: G. Maselli, Aufidus 10 (29), 1996, 150–3. 45.  P. K. Galinsky, Augustan Culture. An Interpretative Introduction, Princeton 1996. Recommended reviews: T. Habinek, Vergilius 43, 1997, 156–60; A. Smith, BMCR 97.2.24; J. B. Solodow, BMCR 98.1.2; A. La Penna, Athenaeum 87, 1999, 330–40 (most recommended); P. Hardie, Gnomon 72, 2000, 49–53. Other reviews: T. R. Stevenson, Prudentia 28, 1996, 52–7; J. A. Crook, JRS 87, 1997, 287–8; E. Fantham, EMC 16, 1997, 515–20; M. Jager, NECN 24, 1997, 115–17; A. P. Keaveney, G&R 44, 1997, 97–8; J. Gómez Pallarès, Faventia 19, 1997, 84–6; J.-M. André, Latomus 57, 1998, 930–2; J. Booth, CR 48, 1998, 396–8; J. Henderson, Hermathena 164, 1998, 101–16 (review-article); F. Hinard, REG 111, 1998, 354; L. A. Hughes, CO 75, 1998, 119–21; E. A. Schmidt, MH 55, 1998, 247; K. Wacker, Gymnasium 105, 1998, 79–81; R. J. Evans, Mnemosyne 52, 1999, 628–34; J. Filée, LEC 67, 1999, 119–20; P. Walcot, G&R 46, 1999, 117. 46.  C. Codoñer (ed.), Historia de la literatura latina, Madrid 1997. 47.  D. J. Coetzee, “Die prepon-beginsel in die Metamorphoses van Ovidius”, Akroterion 42, 1997, 85–93.

20

Reference works

48. N. Holzberg, Ovid. Dichter und Werk, München 1997; 19982; 20053. Recommended reviews: E. J. Kenney, CR 48, 1998, 29–31; W. S. Anderson, AJPh 119, 1998, 651–5; K. Galinsky, Gnomon 72, 2000, 213–16. Other reviews: J. Fabre-Serris, REL 75, 1997, 331; B. W. Häuptli, MH 54, 1997, 247–8; J. H. Brouwers, Lampas 31, 1998, 268–71; B. Czapla, Poetica 30, 1998, 224–7; A. Kohl, Anregung 44, 1998, 271; V.  Manzini, Maia 50, 1998, 560; U.  Rütten, DaSiU 45, 1998, 37–8; U. Schmitzer, Gymnasium 105, 1998, 358–61; P. Tordeur, AC 67, 1998, 351; J. Den Boeft, Mnemosyne 52, 1999, 357–9; M. Fuhrmann, Klio 81, 1999, 547; B. Rochette, LEC 1999, 285; G. Dobesch, Tyche 15, 2000, 216–27; S. Viarre, Latomus 59, 2000, 464–5. 49.  M. von Albrecht, A History of Roman Literature. Revised by G. Schmeling and by the author, Leiden-New York-Köln 1997. Recommended review: E. J. Kenney, BMCR 1998.2.04. Other reviews: R. G. Mayer, CR 48, 1998, 206–7; P. Desy, AC 68, 1999, 389–90; S. Deléani, REAug 46, 2000, 279–80; L. Marchal, LEC 69, 2001, 317–18. 50.  M. von Albrecht, Historia de la literatura romana, versión castellana por D. Estefanía, A. Pociña Pérez, Barcelona 1997–1999. Reviews: C.  Criado, Tempus 22, 1999, 87–9; J.  Gómez Pallarès, Faventia 22.2, 2000, 151–2; M. A. Sánchez Manzano, CFC(L) 18, 2000, 387–91; F. Moya, Myrtia 16, 2001, 369–73; J. Molina, Nova Tellus 21, 2003, 205–16. 51.  M. von Albrecht, Ιστορία της ρωμαϊκής λογοτεχνίας, Heraklion 1998. 52.  M. von Albrecht, “Ovidio”, in I. Lana, E. V. Maltese (eds.), Storia della civiltà letteraria greca e latina, Torino 1998, II, 757–74. 53.  P. Hardie, A. Barchiesi, S. Hinds (eds.), Ovidian Transformations: Essays on the Metamorphoses and its Reception, Cambridge 1999 (Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. 23) (= Transformaciones ovidianas: estudios sobre Metamorfosis y su recepción, coord. del proyecto de trad. Mª E. Steinberg, Buenos Aires 2009). Recommended review: N. Holzberg, CR 51, 2001, 256–8. Other reviews: J. Fabre-Serris, REL 77, 1999, 426–7; J. J. O’Hara, BCMR 2000.07.23; C.  Montuschi, RFIC 129, 2001, 99–109; S. M.  Wheeler, JRS 91, 2001, 242–4; F.  Schaffenrath, AAHG 55, 2002, 121–2; S. Viarre, Latomus 61, 2002, 489–90. 54.  W. Schubert (ed.), Ovid. Werk und Wirkung. Festgabe für Michael von Albrecht zum 65. Geburtstag, 2 vols., Frankfurt am Main 1999 (Studien zur klassischen Philologie 100). Reviews: C. R. Raschle, MH 57, 2000, 325; H. Hofmann, RPL 7, 2004, 193–6. 55.  M. von Albrecht, Roman Epic. An Interpretative Introduction, Leiden-BostonKöln 1999. Recommended review: A. J.  Boyle, Gnomon 73, 2001, 720–2. Other reviews: S. M. Goldberg, CW 93, 2000, 545–6; P. Hardie, JRS 91, 2001, 214; G. L. Schmeling, PSN 31, 2001 (sine pagina). 56.  A. Perutelli, “Le Metamorfosi di Ovidio”, in A. Perutelli, La poesia epica latina. Dalle origine all’età dei Flavi, Roma 2000, 115–38.

Reference works

21

57.  M. von Albrecht, Das Buch der Verwandlungen. Ovid-Interpretationen, Darmstadt 2000. Reviews: E. A. Schmidt, GGA 253, 2001, 166–96; C. Tsitsiou-Chelidoni, Helle­ nica 55, 2005, 321–7. 58. U.  Schmitzer, Ovid, Hildesheim-Zürich-New York 2001 (Studienbücher Antike 7). Recommended reviews: J. A.  Richmond, BMCR 2002.03.22; W. S. Anderson, Gnomon 76, 2004, 366–9; M. Janka, Gymnasium 111, 2004, 580–3. Other reviews: C. Walde, MH 59, 2002, 260–1; S. Viarre, Latomus 63, 2004, 1027; D. E. Hill, G&R 49, 2005, 245. 59.  B. W. Boyd (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Ovid, Leiden-Boston-Köln 2002. Recommended reviews: R. K. Gibson, BMCR 2003.01.34; N. Holzberg, JRS 93, 2003, 374–6; S. H. Lindheim, Vergilius 49, 2003, 135–51. Other reviews: E. Tola, Argos 26, 2002, 199–201; M. S. Cummings, Mouseion (Canada)  3, 2003, 57–73; S. J. Green, CR 53, 2003, 365–7; W. S. Anderson, NECJ 32, 2005, 287–91; H. Casa­ nova-Robin, Gaia 10, 2006, 301–4. 60. P. Hardie, Ovid’s Poetics of Illusion, Cambridge 2002. Recommended reviews: G. A. Jacobsen, BMCR 2002.11.20; C. A. Perkins, CB 79, 2003, 152–6; R. Hexter, CR 54, 2004, 384–8; S. M. Wheeler, Vergilius 50, 2004, 205–15. Other reviews: J.-Y. Maleuvre, LEC 70, 2002, 419; C. Walde, MH 59, 2002, 261; J. Fabre-Serris, REL 80, 2002, 354–5; V. Cova, Athenaeum 91, 2003, 299–300; P. J.  Davis, AJPh 124, 2003, 485–9; G.  De Santis, Ordia prima 2, 2003, 195–9; A. Feldherr, JRS 93, 2003, 373–4; R. T. Ganiban, NECJ 30, 2003, 173–5; P. Todeur, AC 72, 2003, 393–4; M. W. Janan, CW 97, 2004, 216–17; J. Stanfiel, CO 81, 2003, 40–1; R. D. Brown, AHB 18, 2004, 197; J. Wildberger, Gnomon 76, 2004, 453–4; S. Viarre, Latomus 65, 2006, 230. 61.  P.  Hardie (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ovid, Cambridge-New York 2002 (Cambridge Companions to Literature). Recommended reviews: N.  Holzberg, JRS 93, 2003, 374–6; S. H.  Lindheim, Vergilius 49, 2003, 135–51; J. A. Farrell, BMCR 2004.12.21; P. E. Knox, Hermathena 176, 2004, 101–4. Other reviews: J. Fabre-Serris, REL 80, 2002, 354; B. Rochette, LEC 70, 2002, 418–19; L. Fulkerson, CO 80, 2003, 161–2; J. Aubrit, Ordia prima 2, 2003, 187–91; M.  Brady, Classics Ireland 10, 2003, 78–82; M. S. Cummings, Mouseion (Canada) 3, 2003, 57–73; G. A. Daujotas, Argos 27, 2003, 172–6; P. J. Davis, AJPh 124, 2003, 485–9; F. Feraco, BStudLat 33, 2003, 217–20; R. D. Marks, CML 23, 2003, 135–42; O.  Salomies, Arctos 37, 2003, 262–5; R. D.  Brown, AHB 18, 2004, 196; J.  Poucet, AC 73, 2004, 396–7; V.  Hunink, Mnemosyne 58, 2005, 299–302. 62.  G. B. Conte, Dějiny řimské literatury, D. Bartoňková (trad.), Praha 2003. Review: K. Petrovićová, SPFB(klas) 9, 2004, 177–8. 63. F. Harzer, Ovid, Stuttgart 2002 (Sammlung Metzler 328). Review: U. Schmitzer, Gymnasium 110, 2003, 179–80.

22

Reference works

64. N. Holzberg, Ovid: The Poet and His Work, translated by G. M. Goshgarian, Ithaca-New York 2002. Recommended review: P. E. Knox, CPh 99, 2004, 275–8. Other reviews: R. Armstrong, BMCR 2002.11.21; C. A. Perkins, CB 79, 2003, 156–9. 65.  M. von Albrecht, История римской литературы, Перевод А. И. Любжина, Москва 2002. 66. S. Daams, Epische und elegische Erzählung bei Ovid: Ars amatoria und Metamorphosen, München 2003 (Forum europäische Literatur 1). 67.  M. von Albrecht, A Római irodalom története, fordította Tar Ibolya, Budapest 2003–2004. 68.  M. von Albrecht, Ovid. Eine Einführung, Stuttgart 2003. 69.  S. J. Harrison (ed.), A Companion to Latin Literature, Oxford-Malden 2004 (Blackwell companions to literature and culture). Reviews: E.  Hamer, BMCR 2006.04.19; P. A.  Zissos, CR 56, 2006, 335–7; J. Gómez Pallarès, Ordia prima 6, 2007, 258–60; A. M. Morelli, RFIC 136, 2008, 242–7; L. Roman, Phoenix 62, 2008, 392–5. 70.  K. Galinsky (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus, Cambridge 2005. Recommended reviews: M.  Toher, CR 57, 2007, 472–4; F. J.  Vervaet, AC 76, 2007, 546–9. Other reviews: L. L. Brice, BMCR 2006.7.26; B. Eden, CB 82, 2006, 146–7; E. J.  Schnabel, TJ 27, 2006, 329–30; M. K.  Jaeger, AHB 21, 2007, 150–2; D. O’Rourke, Classics Ireland 14, 2007, 107–10; S. Thakur, JRA 20, 2007, 439–43; C.  Wendt, HistLit 5, 2007, 9–11; S. Papaïoannou, Ordia prima 7, 2008, 207–23; K. Sandberg, Arctos 43, 2009, 261–4. 71.  C. E. Newlands, “Ovid”, in J. M. Foley (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Epic. Malden-Oxford 2005, 476–91 (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World). Reviews: J.  Boulogne, LEC 73, 2005, 260–1; E.  Barker, JHS 127, 2007, 155–6; S. Dalley, JAS 17, 2007, 188–9; R.  Facundo Espino, Minerva 20, 2007, 225–30; D. E. Gay, Fabula 48, 2007, 340–3; F. Létoublon, RPh 81, 2007, 399–400; A. J. R. Syson, BMCR 2007.09.41; N. Wasserman, SCI 26, 2007, 216–18; E. Theodorakopoulos, CR 59, 2009, 8–10; C. Saerens, Latomus 69, 2010, 516–19. 72. U. Schmitzer, Ovidio. Trad. it. e un saggio di M. Bonvicini, Bologna 2005. Reviews: F. Corsaro, Orpheus 27, 2006, 279–83; A. De Vivo, BStudLat 36, 2006, 290–1; S. M. Manzella, Vichiana 8, 2006, 308–17; D. Ghira, Maia 60, 2008, 139–40. 73.  P. E. Knox (ed.), Oxford Readings in Ovid, Oxford 2006 (Oxford Reading in Classical Studies). Reviews: A. Borgo, A&R 1, 2007, 169–73; F. Casaceli, BStudLat 37, 2007, 722–38; G. C. Lacki, BMCR 2007.09.19; P. J. Davis, CR 58, 2008, 132–3. 74.  *B.  Milewska-Waźbińska, J.  Domański (eds.), Owidiusz: twórczość, recepcja, legenda. Referaty wygłoszone podczas międzynarodowej konferencji z okazji Setnego Jubileuszowego Zjazdu Polskiego Towarzystwa Filologicznego. Warszawa 16–18 września 2004, Warszawa 2006.

Reference works

23

75.  *G. Papponetti (ed.), Ovidio fra Roma e Tomis. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi: Sulmona 13–15 giugno 2003, Sulmona 2006. Reviews: F. Ficca, BStudLat 36, 2006, 627–32; S. Ferrando, Maia 60, 2008, 137–8. 76.  M.  Janka, U.  Schmitzer, H. Seng (eds.), Ovid. Werk  – Kultur  – Wirkung, Darmstadt 2007. Reviews: R. Glei, Forum Classicum 52, 2009, 156–9; S. Viarre, Latomus 70, 2011, 1176. 77.  I. Jouteur (ed.), La théâtralité de l’œuvre ovidienne, Paris 2009. Reviews: A. Deremetz, Latomus 71, 2012, 1230–2; F. Klein, REL 90, 2012, 386–9. 78.  P. E.  Knox (ed.), A Companion to Ovid, Oxford-Malden 2009 (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World). Recommended review: A. Ramírez de Verger, BMCR 2009.11.32. Other reviews: J. Ingleheart, CR 60, 2010, 449–51; P. Tordeur, AC 80, 2011, 312; K. S. Myers, CJ 106, 2011, 495–8. 79.  P. Parroni (ed.), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, VI. I testi: 1. La poesia, Roma 2009. Reviews: A.  Balbo, Aufidus 25 (74–5), 2011, 163–6; A.  Canobbio, Athenaeum 100, 2012, 723–6; P. Paolucci, Paideia 67, 2012, 727–42; R. Ruggiero, Belfagor 67, 2012, 234–6; G. Salanitro, Sileno 38, 2012, 377–8; S. Monda, Eikasmos 26, 2015, 490–2. 80. A. Feldherr, Playing gods: Ovid’s «Metamorphoses» and the politics of fiction, Princeton 2010. Reviews: P. J.  Davis, BMCR 2010.12.74; L. M.  Fratantuono, CPh 106, 2011, 175–9; S. Myers, NECJ 38, 2011, 299–301; P.  Chaudhuri, CR 62, 2012, 160–1; C.  Kossaifi, REL 90, 2012, 384–6; L.  Jansen, JRS 102, 2012, 384–5; G.  Liveley, Phoenix 66, 2012, 198–201. 81. R. Heinze, Il racconto elegiaco di Ovidio. Trad. italiana di C. Travan; con una premessa di F. Serpa; ed. a cura di S. Ravalico, Trieste 2010 (Dicti studiosus: classici della filologia in traduzione 1). Reviews: J. A. Bellido Díaz, ExClass 14, 2010, 375–8; B. Larosa, BMCR 2010.10.43; S. Viarre, REL 89, 2011, 371; D. Ghira, Maia 64, 2012, 410–12; A. Arena, Latomus 72, 2013, 1149–51. 82. M. Labate, Passato remoto: età mitiche e identità augustea in Ovidio, Pisa-Roma 2010 (Biblioteca di Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 21). Reviews: C. Battistella BMCR 2010.12.42; K. S. Myers, CR 62, 2012, 158–9. 83.  R. B. Patrick, Groves in Ovid’s «Metamorphoses»: domesticity, wildness and transformation, Ph. D. dissertation, Gainesville 2010. 84. H. Vial, La métamorphose dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide: étude sur l’art de la variation, Paris 2010 (Collection d’études anciennes. Série latine 70). Recommended reviews: S. Stucchi, Latomus 71, 2012, 215–19; G. Rosati, Gnomon 86, 2014, 311–14. Other reviews: C. Noacco, BMCR 2010.11.24; S. Ballestra-Puech, AC 80, 2011, 312–14; S. Viarre, REL 89, 2011, 374–8; F. Ripoll, Pallas 88, 2012,

24

Reference works

248–50; I. Gildenhard, CR 63, 2013, 434–6; N. Simões Rodrigues, Euphrosyne 42, 2014, 305–6. 85. *A. Videau, La poétique d’Ovide, de l’ élégie à l’ épopée des «Métamorphoses»: essai sur un style dans l’ histoire, Paris 2010 (Rome et ses renaissances). Reviews: P.  Chaudhuri, AJPh 133, 2012, 528–31; F.  Delarue, REL 90, 2012, 389–91; É. Coutelle, Latomus 72, 2013, 582–5. 86. K.  Volk, Ovid, Chichester-Malden 2010 (Blackwell introductions to the classical world). Reviews: C. Kossaifi, REL 89, 2011, 369–71; P. B. Katz, NECJ 39, 2012, 71–3; D. Krasne, BMCR 2012.02.09; M. C. Pasco-Pranger, CR 62, 2012, 502–4. 87.  *A. De Vivo, Frammenti di discorsi ovidiani, Napoli 2011 (Studi latini 77). Reviews: I. Jouteur, REL 89, 2011, 378–9; A. Borgo, Vichiana 14, 2012, 273–7; F. Giordano, A&R 6, 2012, 240–2; B. Larosa, Athenaeum 102, 2014, 629–33; G. Patti, RPL 15, 2012, 214–16. 88.  R. Moreno Soldevila (ed.), Diccionario de motivos amatorios en la literatura latina (Siglos III a. C.-II d. C.), Huelva 2011 (ExClass, Anejo 2). Reviews: F.  Cairns, BMCR 2011.12.27; M.  Martínez Hernández, CFC(G) 22, 2012, 231–3; R. Dimundo, Latomus 73, 2014, 267–9; S. L. James, Gnomon 86, 2014, 654–5. 89.  Mª C. Álvarez, R. Mª Iglesias (eds.), Y el mito se hizo poesía, Madrid 2012. Reviews: M. C. García Fuentes, CFC(L) 33, 2013, 209–14; J. González Vázquez, FlorIlib 24, 2013, 301–4; G. Lopetegui Semperena, Veleia 30, 2013, 351–5; F. Socas, EClas 144, 2013, 121–7; J. L. Arcaz Pozo, Minerva 27, 2014, 294–7; M. von Albrecht, Myrtia 29, 2014, 457–60. 90.  P. L. Gatti, N. Mindt (eds.), «Undique mutabant atque undique mutabantur»: Beiträge zur augusteischen Literatur und ihren Transformationen, Göttingen 2012 (Vertumnus 8). Reviews: C. Zgoll, BMCR 2013.03.42; C. Laudani, BStudLat 45, 2015, 306–9. 91.  *M. von Albrecht, Grosse römische Autoren: Texte und Themen. 2, ­Horaz, Vergil und seine Nachfolger, Heidelberg 2013 (Heidelberger Studienhefte zur Altertums­ wissenschaft). Reviews: R. Gordesiani, Phasis 16, 2013, 427–31; A. Podossinov, Aristeas 8, 2013, 199–206; F.  Weitz, GFA 16, 2013, 1403–7; B.  Dunsch, Gymnasium 121, 2014, 610–12; G. Lernout, BMCR 2014.05.59; D. Schmitz, Forum Classicum 1, 2014, 84–8; A. Setaioli, Prometheus 41, 2015, 291–5; F. Winter, Ianus 36, 2015, 88–9; B. Rochette, Latomus 75, 2016, 541–4. 92.  *M. von Albrecht, Grosse römische Autoren: Texte und Themen. 3, Von Lukrez und Catull zu Ovid, Heidelberg 2013 (Heidelberger Studienhefte zur Altertumswissenschaft). Same reviews of 91. 93. P.  Laurens, Histoire critique de la littérature latine: de Virgile à Huysmans, Paris 2014.

Introductions to Ovid

25

Reviews: S. Audano, BMCR 2014.11.45; G.  Flamerie de Lachapelle, REA 116, 2014, 402–3; C. Langlois-Pezeret, BiblH&R 76, 2014, 341–3; R. Martin, René, REL 92, 2014, 358–60; G. Rosati, RPh 88, 2014, 216–17. 94.  *M. von Albrecht, Ovids «Metamorphosen»: Texte, Themen, Illustrationen, Heidelberg 2014 (Heidelberger Studienhefte zur Altertumswissenschaft). Reviews: M. Capponi, MH 72, 2015, 227–8; J.-M. Claassen BMCR 2015.06.37; C. Schwameis, Ianus 37, 2016, 92; S. Albert, Vox Latina 50.198, 2014, 622–3. 95.  M. von Albrecht, Ovidio: Una introducción, trad. del alemán de A. Mauriz, revisada por F. Moya del Baño y M. von Albrecht, bibliografía ovidiana en España por E. Gallego Moya, Murcia 2014 Reviews: J. Cantó Llorca, CFC(L) 36, 2016, 353–5; J. A. Estévez Sola, Minerva 29, 2016, 356–8; R. Guarino Ortega, Myrtia 31, 2016, 436–7; C. Macías, AnMal Electrónica 40, 2016, 179–97; M. E. Sala, REC 43, 2016, 261–5. 96.  F. Citti, L. Pasetti, D. Pellacani (eds.), Metamorfosi tra scienza e letteratura, Firenze 2014 (Biblioteca Nuncius. Studi e testi 73). 97.  M. von Albrecht, La littérature latine de Livius Andronicus à Boèce et sa permanence dans les lettres européennes, Louvain 2014. 98.  L. Rivero, Mª C. Álvarez, R. Mª Iglesias, J. A. Estévez (eds.), Viuam! Estudios sobre la obra de Ovidio  – Studies on Ovid’s poetry, Huelva-Murcia 2018 (Huelva Classical Monographs 10 – Exemplaria Classica Supplements). 1. Introductions to Ovid In recent years, numerous general introductions to Ovid have been published, almost all of them in German. On the one hand, there are the scholarly monographs of Döpp (35), Holzberg (48) and von Albrecht (68). On the other, the educational and informative books by Giebel (32), Schmitzer (58, 72) and Harzer (63). I will start by briefly reviewing the second group. Marion Giebel (32) published a basic introduction to Ovid, conceived, I think, simply as an invitation to read. In the first chapter (7–14), she examines the different conditions that encouraged the development of elegy in Augustan Rome. She also briefly addresses Ovid’s predecessors. After this, Giebel summarily analyses the am. (15–22), the Med. (16–17), and the Heroides (17–28) as explorations of female psychology. The author draws links between ars (29–44) and the political-social context of the time. Afterwards, she dedicates considerable space to presenting the controversial poetic programme of met. (45–52), and to summarising and discussing some stories which are significant from this point of view (53–95). Finally, she briefly examines fast. (96–101), the poetry of exile (102–25), and offers some hints on the reception of Ovid (126–33). The book is illustrated with images from different periods. The work by Ulrich Schmitzer (58) consists of a basic review of Ovid’s biography (chapter 1 and part of 6, dedicated to exile), and especially of his poetic production. The book is organised chronologically and combines an overall vision with an analysis

26

Reference works

of specific aspects, considering most of the key issues in Ovidian studies. Chapter 3 is dedicated to met.: Schmitzer addresses aspects such as the structure of the work, the compromise between carmen perpetuum and carmen deductum, its main themes, and possible anti-Augustan ideology. As examples, he analyses the episodes of Callisto (2.401–530), Scylla (8.6–151), Hyacinthus (10.162–219) and Vertumnus and Pomona (14.623–771). The Italian edition of the book (72) also includes an essay by Mariella Bonvicini, who attempts to show the contrast between poetry and rhetoric in Ovid’s work, especially in the exile poetry. Friedmann Harzer’s short book (63) is designed for students of modern literature who are not trained in the classics, to provide basic information about the author, his work, and especially its influence and reception, above all in modern times (ix). Although the book is mostly based on contemporary literary criticism (such as gender studies), Harzer also addresses well-known issues from Ovidian studies. In the introductory chapter, the author offers a brief overview (1–6) of Ovid’s life, and the chronological framework of his poetic production (6–9), and gives some broad ideas about its reception (9–16). After this, he examines Ovid’s main works: the opera amatoria (19–66); met. (67–106), commenting on several specific myths; fast. (106–12) and lastly epist., trist. and Pont. (113–31), which are included under the epigraph “Versepistolographie”. Ample space is allocated to the individual reception of each of these works. Turning to more specialised studies, Siegmar Döpp (35) moves slightly away from the traditional format of general introductions. He does not attempt to offer an overall vision of the poet’s works, but rather focuses attention on the interpretation of individual passages in an attempt to explain their structure, how they fit into the literary genre, and their relation with literary models. However, as an introduction, Döpp includes some pages examining Ovid’s biography which are based, perhaps excessively, on the autobiography of trist. 4.10 (9–28). As regards met. (117–54), the author explores Ovid’s relation to his sources. Specifically, he mentions Nicander of Colophon (119–20), Parthenius of Nicaea (120), the Ornithogonia attributed to Boios, and Aemilius Macer (120), and the programmatic differences between them and Ovid (123–8). He also mentions the relevance of aetiology and the different types of transformation used to represent human nature (121–3), as well as the poet’s relation with Augustus (129–30). Finally, he analyses the episodes of Pygmalion (10.238–97) in 131–42, and Phaethon (1.747–2.400) in 142–54. Some years later, Niklas Holzberg (48) published a successful general introduction to Ovid of some 200 pages, which has been reedited several times, translated into English (64), and has received several reviews. Although the book is aimed at a wide audience, it is essential reading for specialists, since Holzberg’s views are always entertaining and stimulating, although not always conventional or entirely coherent concerning the evidence (for example, the idea that Medea never existed, the excessive search for pentads and structures in the works, etc.). Broadly, Holzberg understands the genre and the elegiac conventions (“das elegische System”) as the motif which Ovid never abandoned throughout his entire poetic production, and which was adapted to

Introductions to Ovid

27

the stories that he wanted to tell (for example, in the elegies of exile, Augustus performs the role of dura puella). Additionally, Holzberg identifies the “Seelenmalerei” (157) as one of the key elements of Ovid’s success. The author correctly stresses Ovid’s position of doctus poeta in the literary sphere, but also in the political one (see the epigraph “Ovid – ein Dichter zwischen den Texten”: 13–20). At the same time, he also emphasises that Ovid’s work should always be taken as fiction. The section dedicated to met. (123–58) should be read alongside  a monograph (Ovids Metamorphosen, München 2007) by the same author. The introduction by Michael von Albrecht (68) offers a clear, concise and in-depth review of Ovid’s poetic and biographical journey, focusing on the works one at a time. For each one he makes observations about its contents, structure, literary models, genres, language and style, and literary resources, among other aspects. Additionally, he dedicates a chapter to the poet’s influence and reception. The Spanish edition (95) also features a “bibliografía ovidiana en España” (362–453) by Elena Gallego Moya and an “índice onomástico y conceptual” (455–75) prepared by the translator Antonio Mauriz Martínez. During the period examined, only one general introduction to Ovid was published originally in a language other than German (although the author is German). Katharina Volk’s book (86) is designed for a broad and non-specialist audience, but she brings together within it some of the latest trends in Ovidian criticism, while also offering her own vision. The book is not organised by works, but by themes. In the first two chapters, Volk presents Ovid’s poetic production in chronological order (6–19), along with what we know about the poet’s life (20–34). In the following chapter, she examines the elegiac genre and its transformation from am. to trist. and Pont. (35–49). The fourth chapter, which is almost entirely dedicated to met., explores the poet’s use of myth (50–3), the work’s epic character, intertextuality (53–6), and Ovid’s skill as a narrator (56–64). In the next four chapters, specific topics are examined: the ars or imitation of reality (65–6, 71–80), the use of rhetoric (67–70), the treatment of women (81–94), how the poet presents the city of Rome (95–109), and some aspects of the work’s posterior reception (110–27). Last but not least, one could also regard two papers by Johnson (10) and La Penna (19) as concise introductions to Ovid. W. R. Johnson’s brief chapter (10) examines Ovid’s biography (784–5), the poet’s relation with the emperor (785–8), and his main works (788–804). More generally, the author attempts to dispel some prejudices which undermined the poet’s popularity during part of the 20th century. In addition, Johnson points out that one of the merits of Ovidian poetry is finding ways to successfully portray the human personality with all its vulnerabilities, and its relation with others and society (esp. 804–5); met. are also analysed (797–803) from this perspective. Following on from Gianpiero Rosati’s unforgettable analysis of the myths of Narcissus and Pygmalion, Antonio La Penna (19) offers an essay in which he examines Ovid’s main works, and reflects on some general aspects of Ovidian poetry. The author examines different procedures that allow the poet to show the varied nature of human life, and to relativise our experience, mainly through “la banalizzazione del pathos”,

28

Reference works

“lo svuotamento ironico del pathos”, lusus, and an elaborate play of contrasts. As far as met. are concerned (xviii-xxiii), I would like to highlight La Penna’s statement that no structural analysis of the work will ever completely dispel the idea that it is a group of dissimilar stories thrown together (xviii-xx). As usual, all these introductions do not address, or do so in a merely tangential way, questions relative to the text and its transmission. 2. Joint interpretations As a complement to the introductions above, the books by Hardie (60), Feldherr (80), Labate (82), Patrick (83), Vial (84) and Videau (85) attempt to offer a joint reading or interpretation of the Ovidian corpus, or part of it, usually following a Leitmotiv or a specific aspect of his poetry. Philip Hardie (60) argues persuasively that the motif which presides over the varied Ovidian corpus (although, in practice, he only takes into consideration am., epist., met., trist. and Pont.) is the tension between presence and absence – or rather, the evocation of mental images or “illusions of presence” (φαντασίαι) – of beings and objects which are, in reality, absent. The desire to materialise these absences, which are normally unattainable, takes a fundamental role in the articulation of such illusions (the basic theoretical structure comes largely from M. Krieger, Poetic Presence and Illusion, Baltimore-London 1979, but Hardie constantly resorts to modern literary criticism, psychoanalysis and philosophical thinking, especially Lacan). Hardie develops his thesis within a complex and somewhat scattered web of ten chapters with a more or less chronological review of Ovid’s works. Throughout the book, general analyses alternate with further examinations, more focused on details. In the case of met., the reader will find pages dedicated almost exclusively, always from the perspective of “poetic illusion”, to the study of the stories of Apollo and Daphne (45–50), Orpheus along with Apollo and Hyacinthus (63–70), Narcissus (143–172), Pygmalion (173–226), Tereus and Philomela (259–272), and Ceyx and Alcyone (272–82), as well as the poet’s epilogue (91–7). Chapter 7 (“Absent presences of language”) is devoted to studying the linguistic facets that permit the creation of “illusions of presence”. Additionally, throughout the entire work, Ovid’s relationship with his predecessors is also addressed (notably Lucretius, Gallus, Virgil and Propertius), as is the reception of Ovidian poetry from the Renaissance to present day. Andrew Feldherr (80) advances  a political reading of the met. and, more specifically, of the aspects which Ovid’s audience could interpret in  a political, civic, dramatic, social or religious sense. The material has, for the most part, been published previously (ix). The first chapter (15–59) addresses the fictionality of the text and the concept of metamorphosis, which is not considered stable; in the second (60–122), the author examines identity in terms of artistic representation; the third (125–59) analyses the episodes of Lycaon and Pythagoras in relation to sacrificial ritual; in the fourth, (160–98) Feldherr studies Ovidian fiction and public spectacles; the fifth (199–239) analyses the episode of Philomela, the gladiatorial games, and the absence of divinities; in the sixth (243–92), he focuses on Pygmalion and the Roman

Joint interpretations

29

experience of contemplating art; and, finally, the seventh (293–341) looks at Niobe and Perseus, and the public images of Augustus. The book includes an index locorum (365–72) as well as a general index (373–7). Mario Labate (82) dedicates a monographic volume to Ovid’s epic work (previously he produced another similar book about the poet’s love elegy: L’arte di farsi amare: modelli culturali e progetto didascalico nell’elegia ovidiana, Pisa 1984). Some chapters had been previously published as independent papers. Labate explores Ovid’s narrative strategies as opposed to the epic genre and mythical tradition of the past, and shows how the narrator manages to appropriate this tradition and present a coherent epic discourse that is also critical of his own time. The first section (“Strategie epiche ovidiane”, 13–126), subdivided into 10 chapters, examines the Ovidian treatment of epic models, and Greek heroes and battles. In the second section (“Le molte verità del poeta maestro”, 137–56), Labate studies cosmogony and the myth of the ages in met. 1 in relation to preceding models and Augustan politics. The third section (“L’identità culturale augustea nei Fasti”, 157–242) examines the union between Greek myth and popular Roman religion in fast., and how this allowed the extension of the Roman identity from the urbs to the orbis. The thesis of Robert Patrick (83) maintains that one of Ovid’s objectives in the met. was to explore identity and the human psyche. To do this, one of the most typical techniques was to bring together the civilised, domesticated human being with the untamed (9): wild divinities, human instincts, extreme passions etc. The author understands that this confrontation has a function analogous to the sacred groves or luci of ancient landscapes, and for this reason he calls this confrontation the “grove-dynamic”. Chapters 3–5 (52–207) form, in this way, a linear interpretation of the poem and the sacred groves that appear in it. The dense book by Hélène Vial (84), which started out as  a doctoral thesis, addresses the theme of transformation as the thematic and conceptual, as well as formal and linguistic, nucleus of the met. She explores Ovid’s ability to vary the same theme without becoming monotonous (the various myths are classified by thematic similarities specifically to illustrate the art of variation). The transformation is seen as a metaphor for the hybrid, changing nature of the Ovidian work and poetics. Anne Videau’s work (85) is a reelaboration of previously published papers, and can be considered a continuation of another essay of hers (Les Tristes d’Ovide et l’ élégie romaine: une poétique de la rupture, Paris 1991). She attempts to present  a unified picture of Ovid’s work and poetics, and his generic diversity, as  a response to the historical context. The first part of the book (23–236) explores the history of elegy since Ancient Greece, where some aspects that will later appear in met. are already identified. The second part (241–556) assesses the unity of the Ovidian corpus between elegy and epos. Videau begins by analysing the Theban cycle in books 3–4 of met., and its generic contamination, as well as the wordplays and semantic connections that operate therein (so that action can become opsis). Later, she studies the Ovidian transformation of the ethics which governed the archaic and divine world, informed by the political and historical context.

30

Reference works

3. Companions Three Companions to Ovid have been published in recent years. Two of these both appeared in 2002, one prepared by Barbara W. Boyd (59) for Brill, the second one by Philip Hardie (61) for Cambridge. Seven years later, the Companion edited by Peter Knox (78) was published by Blackwell. The three volumes should be considered complementary and representative of the most recent trends and developments in Ovidian studies. In all three cases, the chapters that refer to met. are appropriately collected into the pertinent sections. In any case, it is worth saying a few words about each of the volumes. See also the additional volume prepared by Knox (73): see on ‘Miscellanea’. The Brill Companion (59) collects papers of 14 prestigious scholars, which focus as much on general issues (social and biographical; literary and stylistic; reception; textual transmission) as on the various works of the poet, addressed in chronological order. One section is dedicated to exploring aspects of each of met.’s pentads (A. M. Keith, “Sources and Genres in Ovid’s Metamorphoses 1–5”, 235–70; G. Rosati, “Narrative Technique and Narrative Structures in the Metamorphoses”, 271–304; G.  Tissol, “The House of Fame: Roman History and Augustan Politics in Metamorphoses 11–15”, 305–36). The volume features an index locorum (513–19) as well as a general index (520–33). The plan of the Cambridge Companion (61) is probably more ambitious. The 20 papers by 17 excellent scholars are not grouped by chronological criteria, but by theme. The first section (“Contexts and history”, 13–75) situates the poet and his work in the contemporary literary and political context, while the second part (“Themes and works”, 79–245) then focuses on specific aspects of the Ovidian poetic produc­ tion. The third section (“Reception”, 249–367) explores the poet’s reception and posterior influence. The book does not, however, include an index locorum. In a way, the two previous approaches are combined in the Blackwell Companion (78), which brings together 33 articles by 31 Ovidian scholars. The first section (“Contexts”, 1–58) studies the poet’s life, and the social and literary context. The second (“Texts”, 59–216) consists of one chapter about each of Ovid’s works (on met., see E. J. Kenney, “The Metamorphoses: A Poet’s Poem”, 140–53). In the third part (“Intertexts”, 217–307), Ovid’s use of sources and of intertextuality is analysed, while in the fourth (“Critical and Scholarly Approaches”, 309–93) two chapters are dedicated to the challenges of editing and commenting on texts, followed by four chapters on various literary theories and their application to Ovidian texts. The fifth section (“Literary Receptions”, 395–485) explores the literary reception of Ovid. This volume does not include an index locorum either. 4. Literary history The perspectives noted in the various introductions to Ovid, and in the other works above, can be contrasted and expanded with more general volumes and ‘literary histories’. In some cases, they can also serve as introductions with narrower scope.

Literary history

31

Considering the limits of the present report, the following list is necessarily selective and includes only those works deemed especially important and relevant, and published for the first time after 1980 (reprints or new editions of older histories of Roman literature are therefore excluded). The second volume of the essential Cambridge History of Classical Literature is dedicated, under the editorship of Edward Kenney and Wendell Clausen (11), to Latin literature. The team of 18 scholars addresses, from a critical perspective, both the most relevant authors and works (but they also address some of the less important ones), and the different periods and literary genres. In addition, they consider more general questions such as the literary culture of ancient Rome. The book includes an appendix of authors (biographies) and works with bibliography (Ovid 855–7), and a metrical appendix (936–9), although not an index rerum. The chapter dedicated to Ovid by Kenney (12) is excellent. The poet’s technical skills and resources, which allow him to appropriate previous literary conventions and revitalise them in an original way (esp. 455–7), are analysed convincingly. The volume includes, of course, a specific section (13) on met., which examines the main key points in interpreting the poem. In any case, perhaps it is excessive to state that the met. are more universal that the Aeneid (440–1). The vision expressed in this chapter should be complemented with another excellent contribution by Kenney in the Blackwell Companion reviewed above (“The Metamorphoses: A Poet’s Poem”, 140–53), and his brilliant introduction to books 7–9 (Ovidio. Metamorfosi. Volume IV. Libri VII–IX, Milano 2011, ix-xxxviii). The magnificent and successful handbook by Gian Biagio Conte (27), in a more traditional format (and also offering more conservative interpretations), includes collaborations from other prestigious academics: A. Barchiesi, E. Narducci, G. Polara, G.  Ranucci and G.  Rosati, as well as M.  Labate, A.  Schiesaro and R.  Ferri since the English edition (41), which also includes contributions by D. P.  Fowler and G. W.  Most. With around 700 pages (in the 1992 edition, used as reference here), the manual offers  a critical panorama, always with personal assessment, of Latin literature from its earliest origins up to the Middle Ages. Some chapters are oriented towards literary periodisation and the characterisation of each period identified. However, most of the chapters specifically address the different authors, although some also examine literary genres. The basic outline of the chapters includes a first section of “vita, opere, fonti”, which leads to the specific treatment of different works, paying special attention to intertextuality and the use of previous literary tradition. In addition, other aspects such as social and cultural context are commented upon. Most chapters finish with some words about the “fortuna” of the author, and a short commented bibliography (in the English edition, both sections are adapted to the Anglo-Saxon readership). In my view, the introductory chapter to Augustan literary production is outstanding (215–16). Likewise, the chapter dedicated to Ovid is also very good. Firstly, a few indications are offered about what we know of his biography (291) and the chronology of his poetic production (291–2). This is followed by an adequate general characterisation of Ovidian poetry (292–3) and another on each of his works (293–307; met. 300–4). At this point, as is logical, reference is made to

32

Reference works

the models, and how the poet uses them to produce a personal and original work. The chapter finishes with a brief overview of the poet’s posterior reception (307–8). The manual features frequent epigraphs in the margin, to simplify its use; it also includes various glossaries, a chronology, and an index of names. The work has recently been translated into Czech (62). The monumental ‘Handbuch’ by Michael von Albrecht (37) is also designed in a traditional way. The global output is perhaps less personal than Conte’s and, by its rigid structure, the book is more to be consulted than read continuously. However the scholar always expresses his views and opinions, based on his personal experience and familiarity with the texts, and also establishes a dialogue with the latest bibliography. The ‘Handbuch’ is divided into four main chronological periods: Republican, Augustan, Early Imperial, and Middle and Late Imperial. Each section includes an introduction to the period as  a whole (he takes into consideration aspects such as historical and literary context, Greek precedents and their Roman developments, or primary genres and characteristics of the period). After that, von Albrecht offers a detailed overview of each period’s poetry, and subsequently its prose according to genres and authors. An introductory chapter examines the origins of Latin literature, and a final one looks at its transmission. The chapters devoted to individual authors try to provide, within  a very rigid structure, some information about the author’s life; the contents of his (or her) work, and an assessment of his (or her) relationship with previous models; his (or her) literary technique and style; the conceptual world (‘reflections on literature’ and ‘thought-world’); the author’s transmission; and, in a more detailed way, the author’s later reception (since a key aim of the work is to show the importance of Roman literature in the development of European cultural and literary movements). The bibliographies are comprehensive and up-to-date. The chapter on Ovid is a short, but learned and useful, introduction to his work. I would like to highlight the sub-section on the poet’s influence. The sub-section on Ovid’s textual transmission, however, is somewhat outdated. An abridged version of the chapter on Ovid is to be found in 52. The German original has been re-edited twice thus far (with mainly bibliographical updates) and has been translated into multiple languages, in many cases under the supervision of von Albrecht himself, including the Italian (44, with a bibliographical appendix by Rita Degl’Innocenti Pierini), English (49), Spanish (50, with  a brief bibliographical appendix) and French (97) versions. However I am not aware whether the author was also involved in the preparation of the Greek (51), Russian  (65) or Hungarian (67) translations. The perspectives of these three fundamental works should be supplemented with the massive five-volume work, Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, edited by Guglielmo Cavallo, Paolo Fedeli and Andrea Giardina (with contributions by some of the most relevant Italian scholars of the last decades). The work attempts to offer an overview of the context and multiple aspects surrounding the creation, transmission and reception of Roman literature in the broadest sense (i. e. “lo spazio letterario”). The first volume (28) explores the different facets that intervene in the creation of a text (myths, religious experiences, reading experiences, preferences of the public etc.).

Literary history

33

The second volume (29) focuses on the diffusion of the texts (from book form to private recitations or letters), while the third volume (30) analyses the dynamics that allowed the destruction or preservation of Roman literature. The fourth volume (31) focuses on some aspects of classical tradition; and, finally, the fifth volume (38) offers a chronology of Roman literature (9–145),  a useful bibliography both on general matters (155–211) and on individual authors (Ovid, 379–88), and indexes. Two complementary volumes appeared some years later, edited by Piergiorgio Parroni, one focusing on poetry (79) and the other on prose (P.  Parroni (ed.), Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, VII. I testi: 2. La prosa, Roma 2012). Each consists of a commented anthology of texts organized by genre, with every section including an introductory note. The texts are presented with translation and commentary. Alessandro Fusi was responsible of the chapters on Ovid: the section on met. includes 3.339–512 and 4.53–166 (70–97); one will also find texts from am. (546–51), epist. (552–63), ars (306–17), fast. (270–285), and trist. (564–75). At the end of each volume there are “schede bio-bibliografiche” for every author (Ovid, 842–52). Among many further literary histories published in the reviewed period, I would like to briefly address the following: in Italian, that of Cupaiuolo (42); in French, those of Zehnacker-Fredouille (40), Grimal (43) and Laurens (93); and in Spanish, that of Codoñer (46). The literary history by Fabio Cupaiuolo (42) is mainly organized into chronological periods, although within each epoch an attempt is made to group together authors that cultivated the same genres. An individual chapter is devoted to Ovid (“Il tramonto dell’età augustea: Ovidio”, 261–74). In the brief pages on met. (266–7), Cupaiuolo focuses on Ovidian narrative technique, and on the philosophical background of the work (267–8). The volume is, in fact, a revised and expanded edition of a previous book by the author (Letteratura latina. Profilo storico, Napoli 1990). A similar structure is followed by Hubert Zehnacker and Jean-Claude Fredouille (40), although the subsection on Ovid (193–206) is more conventional. Carmen Codoñer (46) coordinated a group of Spanish scholars in order to produce a history of Latin literature, organised mainly by authors. Antonio Alvar wrote the chapter on Ovidian elegy (213–30), Rosa Mª Iglesias and Mª Consuelo Álvarez the chapter on met. (231–44), and Francisca Moya the chapter on fast. (245–53). Iglesias and Álvarez focus especially on programmatic and mythological aspects, the contamination of genres, and the structure of the carmen perpetuum. Many years after publishing a succinct history of Latin literature (La litterature latine, Paris 1964; 19722), Pierre Grimal (43) offered a much more extensive one as a result of his long scholarly experience (although, controversially, Christian authors are excluded). He emphasises the autonomy and originality of Latin literature, while recognizing the importance of Greek influence. Augustan Literature is also seen as a product of late-Republican struggle, rather than a new product of the Augustan age. Some pages are devoted specifically to Ovid (333–42). Lastly, the stimulating book by Pierre Laurens (93) is everything but a traditional history of Latin literature. Laurens rather tries to reconstruct the history of Latin literature through the dialogue between scribes, scholars and creators who have

34

Reference works

appropriated Latin literature (especially humanists). As far as the met. are concerned, Laurens briefly discusses the historical reception of the poem as “une collection de fables” (93–4), as opposed to the true structure as a carmen perpetuum (94–6). He also addresses the innovative character of the poem (96–7). To all these literary histories, one could add other works which might provide supplementary perspectives. The work by Luc Duret (18) is focused on the minor poets and prose writers of the Augustan era whose work has not been preserved, or only in fragmentary form. For Ovidian scholars, the pages dedicated to the poets of ‘Ovid’s generation’ (1487–1502) could be particurlarly interesting, with figures such as Cornelius Severus and Albinovanus Pedo, as well as other authors of mythological or ‘national’ epics. These secondary figures can help to gain a more thorough understanding of Augustan literature and its evolution in Ovid’s time. Although not specifically about Ovid’s production, the work by James Zetzel (22) analyses Augustan poetry (especially Virgil, Horace and Propertius) in relation to Alexandrine poetry and Alexandrine classification of genres. The author notes that the peculiar characteristic of Augustan poetry is the appropriation of tradition and the expansion of genres, combining large and small, old and new, intimate and heroic (cf. esp. 100–2). The companion to Latin literature edited by Stephen Harrison (69) includes contributions of major academics and is divided into three sections (“periods”, “genres”, “themes”). Those studying met. might be especially interested in the third chapter by Joseph Farrell (“The Augustan Period: 40 bc-ad 14”, 44–57, esp. 54–6), and part of the sub-chapter “Narrative Epic. 4 Post-Virgilian Epic” (91–4) by Philip Hardie. Other scholars have approached Roman literary history according to genre. Since met. are particularly hard to classify as one genre or another, it might be interesting to list some of these literary histories. I will address the works by Martin-Gaillard (6), von Albrecht (55) and Perutelli (56). René Martin and Jacques Gaillard (6) examine each genre of Latin literature. Every section includes a small anthology of texts, although Ovid’s met. are seen as a special case of generic contamination that forbids any exact classification or, at least, not as an epic in the traditional sense (49–50). Michael von Albrecht’s book (55) analyses almost eight centuries of Latin epic tradition (from Livius Andronicus to Corippus). The book does not have the format of a conventional manual, but starts off with linguistic and literary commentary on various passages, drawing conclusions from that. The study of rhetoric and intertextuality enables the author to appreciate which elements are already part of the tradition and which are innovations. The sixth chapter is dedicated to met. (143–207), and consists of five sections which reproduce previously published material (duly organised into corresponding sections of the present work). However, as an introduction to Latin epic, it is more useful the book edited by Anthony Boyle (39), with a chapter on met. by William Anderson (108–24). As a part of a history of Latin epic, Alessandro Perutelli (56) offers a good introduction to the carmen perpetuum. Although one could expect special emphasis on the

Augustan milieu

35

generic definition of the poem (115–17, 130, 133–5), most of the chapter is devoted to the idea and description of metamorphosis (several examples are discussed: 119–29), and to the articulation of the narrative (esp. 131–3). Finally, within the ambitious Companion to Ancient Epic, Carole Newlands (71) examines how Ovid accommodated “to the sweep of epic the elegiac strategies derived from the neoteric and Hellenistic poets” (476). For instance, she studies the Ovidian treatment of some typical epic subjects such as “battlefields” (481–2), “the hero” (482–5), and “the gods” (485–90), which lead her to consider the political implications of the work. She also reviews the essential critical issues in the interpretation of the met., and takes into account the most important scholarly trends. Newlands thus produces a fine and up-to-date introduction to Ovid’s ‘epic’ piece. 5. Augustan milieu Many works have explored the insertion of Augustan poets and Ovid into the broader Augustan literary context. To begin with, I would like to comment on the works by Little (15), Cizek (17), Phillips (21), Ahl (23), Griffin (26) and White (36). Douglas Little (15) studies, in a fairly conventional way, the relation between the production of the main Augustan poets (Virgil, Horace, Propertius, Tibullus, Ovid) and the policies driven by the emperor. The author mentions Ovid (316–49) as a poet who was not concerned with political or ‘national’ matters; about met. specifically, he says that the narrated stories lack civic character, and are concerned solely with the private sphere (341–4). In spite of that, Little states that in Ovid’s work, in one way or another, there are certain political implications that challenged some aspects of the main moral foundations of the Augustan regime. The author analyses the following works: am. (316–22), ars (322–31), fast. (331–9), met. (339–4), trist. and Pont. (344–9). Eugen Cizek (17) notes that Ovid did not adapt well to the established order of his time, and showed  a certain opposition to it. He thus ended up surpassing the predominant literary taste, as well as becoming, after Virgil,  a second model for posterior authors. Similarly, Frederick Ahl (23) examines the themes and dynamics related to the principate which operated in Imperial poetry, and their evolution until the loss of hope one can perceive in the Silver Age poetry. Jasper Griffin (26) tries to shed some light on how Horace and Virgil especially, but also Propertius, dealt with the risk of servitude before Augustus (and how the latter, in turn, tried to exert his influence over the poets, often through Maecenas). Although Ovid is only mentioned in passing (esp. 215), the work can help to illuminate his relations with the emperor. Peter White’s book (36) is very important in the same way, exploring incisively the relation between poets and leaders of Augustan society. He therefore examines issues such as patronage, propaganda and censorship during Augustus’ reign. The main thesis of White, as opposed to more traditional visions, is that Augustan poets do not behave like intellectuals at the service of state power and propaganda. Two of the appendices deserve a special mention: one is about “the social status of Latin

36

Reference works

poets” (211–22) and the other looks at “connections of Augustan poets” (223–65; Ovid, 239–48). On  a separate matter, Charles Phillips (21), following the hypotheses of the sociology of knowledge, tries to overcome the ‘Augustan’ or ‘anti-Augustan’ clichés, especially in Ovid. He suggests that the poet’s exile could be motivated by a vision of religion antithetical to tradition (esp. 806–15), which would have been growing progressively throughout ars, met. and fast. There are countless works examining the principality of Augustus and the cultural activity of this period. Here we examine only two works by Karl Galinsky (45, 70), who has dedicated a significant part of his academic career to studying the incredibly rich and productive society and culture that was built during Augustus’ principate. Both works could come in useful for understanding Ovid’s poetic production, especially met. The fruit of long years of study is the now-classic monograph in which Galinsky (45) offers a broad analysis of the various materialisations of Augustan culture, in its widest sense, and in all its complexity (politics, ideology, propaganda, figurative arts, architecture, literature, religion etc.). Although many interpretations are not new, this is the first non-collective volume in many years that studies in depth the multiple manifestations of ‘Augustan culture’. Galinsky presents an Augustus who is almost the exact opposite of the despotic tyrant of R. Syme (The Roman Revolution, Oxford 1939). Galinsky points out that the entire period is more of  a synthesis between innovation and tradition  – an entity in constant evolution and transformation, erected around the auctoritas of the princeps – than a pre-conceived plan. Chapter 5 is dedicated to literature, and includes  a short section (261–9) analysing met. as  a work that is representative of late Augustan literature (to be complemented by Galinsky’s still-valid monograph Ovid’s Metamorphoses. An Introduction to the Basic Aspects, Oxford 1975; see also “Was Ovid a Silver Latin poet?”, ICS 14, 1989, 69–88 and “Ovid’s Metamorphoses and Augustan Cultural Thematics”, in P. Hardie, A. Barchiesi, S. Hinds (eds.), Ovidian transformations: essays on the Metamorphoses and its reception, Cambridge 1999, 103–11 on ‘VI.1 Language and Style’). Galinsky’s contribution was completed, some years later, by an excellent collective volume (70), which gathered 16 chapters grouped into six sections. This book aimed to establish both the status quaestionis and new points of departure for research from a multidisciplinary perspective. Section 5 is dedicated to Augustan literature and includes studies by A. Barchiesi, J. Griffin, P. White and Galinsky himself, who specifically addresses the Aeneid and met. as expressions of both Augustan oikumene and “world literature”. 6. Narrative technique and poetics In 2010 an Italian translation by Corrado Travan (81) was published of Richard Heinze’s classic work (Ovids elegische Erzählung, Leipzig 1919), largely still current, and reedited on more than one occasion. It is well known that Heinze’s aim was to show the differences between epic and elegiac forms and diction. Heinze also aspired

Narrative technique and poetics

37

to contribute to the appreciation of Ovid, demonstrating his effective use of the two genres, based on a comparison of passages in fast. and met. The Italian edition has a brief introduction by Franco Serpa, “L’Ovidio di Heinze” (ix-xiii), which considers Heinze’s influence on Virgilian and Ovidian studies, and points out the most relevant aspects of the work. Besides this, the book includes notes each from the translator (xv-xvi) and the editor, Simona Ravalico (xvii). Taking precisely Heinze’s classic work as a reference, Susanne Daams (66) studies from  a formal, thematic and narrative viewpoint the myths of Venus and Mars (ars 2.561–88; met. 4.167–89), and of Cephalus and Procris (ars 3.687–746; met. 7.690–862). One section is devoted to the individual study of each story (9–79), one to studying the secondary bibliography that responds to Heinze’s book (80–90), and another to observing the linguistic, stylistic, narrative and content differences in the various tales (91–154). Daams concludes that Ovid’s narrative technique and originality do not allow such a clear distinction between the elegiac and epic as presented by Heinze (155–63). Ovid is often associated with myth, legend and fable, however Antonino de Rosalia (2) defends the significance of the realist “quadri di vita”, which the poet included in his work. De Rosalia understands that realism serves to lend credibility to fantastical deeds (6–7), and to transmit the vision, “impregnata di grande umanità”, that the poet has of the world. This is exemplified through the convenient examples of Philemon and Baucis (7, 9–10), Pygmalion (7–8) or Anna Perenna (10–11). Godo Lieberg (14) studies the motif whereby the poet says that he himself is doing what he, in fact, is narrating (cf. Verg. ecl. 6.62–3). Lieberg maintains that this motif has heavy philosophical implications, and involves a reflection on the creator’s role, as well as Dionysian and Orphic connotations. The book brings together and discusses examples of the motif, mostly in Latin poetry (from Virgil to Prudentius), although examples of Greek literature and modern authors are also included. As far as Ovid is concerned, Lieberg examines the poetic implications of trist. 2.439–40 (99–100), am. 2.18.1–4 (100–2), 2.18.11–18 (102–4), 3.12 (104–9), and met. 10.247–9 (110–11). Lieberg also looks at the issue of the verisimilitude of myths (108–10). In the appendix (174–8) he explores the metaphor of the word as weapon in various authors, including Ovid (175). The thesis sustained in this book should be complemented by G. Lieberg, Zu Idee und Figur des dichterischen Schöpfertums, Bochum 1985. Warren Ginsberg (20) analyses various techniques, originating in rhetoric and philosophy, used in Ancient and Medieval literature, to define characters. These characterisations also define the authors themselves, and their public. In this sense, the representations of the characters could also be considered as a metaphor of the artistic imagination (4). The first and second chapters deal with am. and met. respectively. In the former, each character notably celebrates the omnipresent Ovidian creativity in some way, while in the second the characters, reflected in the narrative structure itself, clearly appeal very directly to the audience. More precisely, Ginsberg analyses the stories of Ceyx and Alcyone (11.410–748), and the tale of Orpheus (10). D. J. Coetzee (47) examines met. from the point of view of the Aristotlean principle of πρέπον (85–6), and the possible ἀπρέπεια of Ovid, especially in light of Quintilian’s

38

Reference works

criticism. On the one hand, the role of the gods, and the excessively human nature of their weaknesses, is examined (87–90). On the other, the scholar notes the constant intrusiveness of the narrator and the poet in the poem, as opposed to the impersonal character of the Homeric narrator (90–2). Lastly, in the first part of her article, Maria Grazia Iodice di Martino (4) systematically addresses Ovidian ideas about poetry which are spread throughout his corpus (63–77). These are themes such as the poet’s fame and immortality (63–6), the recusatio (66–8), divine inspiration (68–71), the non-utilitarian purpose of poetry (71), the opposition between ingenium and ars (71–3), the public (74–6), or literary genres (76–7). Additionally, the author analyses Ovid’s mentions, often without any kind of assessment, of other Greek (78–85) and Latin poets (85–95). In general, Ovid reproduces ideas that belong to a long tradition (represented by Callimachus, Horatius or Propertius, for example), but also offers further personal ones, and opens the way to those of Quintilian (95–6). 7. Instrumenta The LIMC (5) is an encyclopaedia in various volumes which gathers together the representations of mythological characters in Ancient art. Each volume is divided into two: one volume describing and commenting the representations, and the other one reproducing them. It is a useful instrument for observing the similarities between some pictorial representations and Ovid’s descriptions of mythological characters and situations. As a culmination of previous works, the fundamental monograph by James Adams (8) consists of the very first attempt to systemise Latin vocabulary referring to sexual organs, as well as to some sexual practices. Due to the necessity of limiting such an ambitious work, certain fields, such as the lexicon about, among others, breasts, prostitution and kisses is left out. In each case, Adams analyses the basic terms, as well as some metaphors and alternative euphemisms to label them (especially metonymy, while the use of aposiopesis is generally left out). In the case of sexual organs, the volume also examines specialised terms used to describe parts of them. As brilliant as his book is, Adams makes some regrettable omissions, especially in terms of certain euphemisms. The brief reflections on some specific functions of sexual language are interesting (e.g. apotropaism, aggression or humiliation, humour and outrageousness, and titillation 4–8). Perhaps less relevant are the conclusions about socio-linguistic variations, almost non-existent, depending on the communicative context (214–17) or literary genre (218–25), and about chronological variations (225–8) or possible analogies with Greek (228–30). In the appendix (231–50), the author examines the language that describes excretory acts (defecation, urination, pedo). The volume includes three comprehensive indexes (257–72): one of Latin words, another of Greek words, and a general one. We must also address the impressive, multi-authored Diccionario de motivos amatorios edited by Rosario Moreno (88), but originally conceived by Antonio Ramírez de Verger (9). The volume covers erotic motifs in Latin elegy, but also in other genres,

Miscellanea

39

as well as in some prose works (from Ennius to Petronius and Martial; cf. 9–10). The entries are the result of a fresh reading of the huge corpus of texts being taken into account. Each article is headed by its title in Spanish, with the possible Latin equivalents. In some cases, the heading also includes cross-references to further related articles. After  a general definition and description of the motif (following paradigmatic passages), the authors also provide analysis of sub-motives. At the bottom of the entry, they offer a list of the most relevant words and passages related to the motif, and a bibliography. As expected, the volume ends with different indices (Index verborum latinorum 497–505; Index verborum graecorum 507; Index rerum memorabilium 509–26). 8. Miscellanea As a complement to the two Companions reviewed earlier (59, 61; vid. supra on ‘Companions’), Peter E. Knox (73) brings together 20 papers published between 1976 and 1999, which the editor considers to be among the most representative and influential in Ovidian studies in recent years (for references to the original contributions, cf. 489–90). They are definitively worth reading. The editor’s introduction (1–12) can be understood as a justification of his choice, but also as a short review of the revival and development of Ovidian studies in the last few decades. The works are divided into four sections, giving us a general idea of the big themes that are addressed: “Contexts and Intertexts” (about the use of intertextuality and other literary strategies to understand the works of Ovid; seven papers), “Ideologies of Love and Poetry” (about Ovid’s poetry in Augustan Rome; four papers), “Narrators and Narratives” (focussed on met. and fast.; five papers) and “On the Margins of Empire” (about the poet’s relation with politics and power; four papers). The contributions dealing with met. are considered in corresponding sections. The volume finishes with an index locorum (525–32) and a general index (533–41). This section also includes other books that bring together works by a single author (“Schriften”) and collective volumes (“Acta” and “Festschriften”) that have Ovid and his poetry as a common thread. The books by Segal (34), von Albrecht (57, 91, 92, 94) and De Vivo (87) belong to the first category (“Schriften”). In each case, the particular articles that concern met. are reviewed in the corresponding sections of this volume. Charles Segal’s volume (34) collects, in an Italian translation, six articles by the author published between 1969 and 1985 about various aspects of met. such as love, humour, artistic skill, Augustan values, the very particular Ovidian seriousness etc. It also includes three unedited contributions. The volume prepared by Michael von Albrecht (57) gathers 21 of his papers, the product of his long and productive research into the met. Apart from a couple of previously unedited articles, the book reproduces works, with slight changes, published between 1968 and 1996. The papers are organised into six sections (“Einführung”, about the relation between the author and his public; “Themen und Variationen. Mythos – Liebe – Kunst”, about aspects of content; “Epos und Elegie. Wandlungen der Erzählkunst in Ovids Lebenswerk”, about formal elements; “Wechselnde Per­

40

Reference works

spektiven”, a suggestion to read each book after illustrations; “Gesamtwürdigung der Metamorphosen”, about various problems that the author must have considered; and “Fortwirken”, about Ovid’s reception and influence). Each chapter is preceded by a short introduction. Another similar volume by von Albrecht (94) appeared some years later. It contains 15 articles, partly rewritten and all published for the first time between 1958 and 2010. The book is arranged into five sections: “Autor und Werk” (11–80), “Längsschnitte” (81–102), “Gestalten und Themen” (103–38), “Poetische Technik” (139–66) and “Tradition und Fortwirken” (167–220). In addition, the third (92) volume of Große römische Autoren by von Albrecht also brings together other works by the author concerning Ovid, already published (again reworked to a greater or lesser extent). The third section of this third volume (203–77) is entirely dedicated to Ovid. In the third section of the second volume (91) poets such as Ovid, Lucan, Valerius Flaccus, Silius Italicus and Claudian are examined as imitators of Virgil (179–256). The volume by Arturo De Vivo (87) gathers 11 of the author’s previously-published papers. Those regarding met. are duly reviewed in the pertinent sections. On the other hand, the volumes edited by Chadha (3), Chevallier (9), Papponetti (33, 75), Schubert (54), Hardie-Barchiesi-Hinds (53), Milewska-Waźbińska-Domań­ ski (74), Janka-Schmitzer-Seng (76), Jouteur (77), Álvarez-Iglesias (89), Gatti-Mindt (90) and Citti-Pasetti-Pellacani (96) belong to the category of “Acta” or “Festschriften”. The special issue of Mosaic journal, prepared by Vijay Chadha (3), gathers, as a true mosaic, 19 contributions of the most varied nature around the Ovidian corpus (3–210). The volume prepared by Raymond Chevallier (9) brings together 29 works presented in the colloquium “Présence d’Ovide”, held in the château d’Azay-le-Ferreron in 1980 and which, not unexpectedly, focused largely on the reception of Ovid. The book edited by Giuseppe Papponetti (33) collects the papers and communications of the Convegno Internazionale di Studi, held in Sulmona in 1989, with the theme “Ovidio, poeta della memoria”. Likewise, Papponetti (75) edited the proceedings of the Ovidian conference held in Sulmona in 2003. The double-volume homage to Michael von Albrecht, edited by Werner Schubert (54), gathers together 79 original papers about various aspects of Ovid’s work and its reception (19 on met. 255–536). The book edited by Philip Hardie, Alessandro Barchiesi and Stephen Hinds (53) collects 18 papers presented in Cambridge in July 1997, as  a preparation for the commentary on met. published in subsequent years by the Fondazione Lorenzo Valla (2005–2015). Themes addressed include, for example, matters related to time and chronology, allusion and intertextuality, posterior reception, the relation with imperial power, “the Self ”, compositive technique, and even textual criticism. The volume edited by Barbara Milewska-Waźbińska and Juliusz Domański (74) consists of 22 papers (three in German, the rest in Polish), presented at a conference held in Warsaw from 16 to 18 September 2004. Some contributions focus on aspects

Miscellanea

41

of Ovid’s poetic production (especially met., fast., trist. and Pont), but many address the reception of the poet, mostly in Poland (nine papers). The volume edited by Markus Janka, Ulrich Schmitzer and Helmut Seng (76) gathers together 13 works presented in Konstanz in 2005, organised implicitly around the three main phases of Ovid’s poetic career, and his reception and posterior influence. The articles therefore address various aspects of the opera amatoria, fast. and met., and the exile elegies. The perspectives adopted are very wide (“Quellenforschung”, intertextuality, the poet’s relation with the historical and political context etc.). The volume prepared by Isabelle Jouteur (77) collects 13 works presented at  a conference held in Poitiers in 2008. They address most of Ovid’s poetic production in relation to the world of theatre and performance. The editor rightly states that the study of this interaction is justified, above all, due to the importance of recitation and declamatory practices in contemporary literature (5). In this way, various contributions address Ovid’s use of different theatrical resources, combining diverse models and genres. In one case, the poet’s influence on subsequent Roman theatre is also explored (G. Tronchet, “Hosidius le tragique et ses modèles ovidiens”, 89–137). All this ends up providing a proof of the diversity and hybridisation of Ovid’s poetry, but also of the poet’s total command over the resources at his disposal (17–19). The editor summarises the articles in 8–15. The volume edited by Mª Consuelo Álvarez and Rosa Mª Iglesias (89) gathers together the 15 papers presented in the Seminario Internacional about Ovid held at the Universidad de Murcia in November 2010. The various contributions address, from different perspectives, the crystallisation of already existant myths into poetry thanks to the Ovidian verses. Moreover they also deal with aspects related to the ancient mythographers and poetic creations of the Augustan era (including matters of detail and textual criticism), but also related to the classical tradition that derives from Ovid. The volume is completed by an index locorum and an index nominum. The book edited by Pierluigi Leone Gatti and Nina Mindt (90) brings together nine articles around the concept of “Transformation der Antike” in broad sense: within the context of Augustan poetry and literature in Antiquity and beyond, both in Latin and modern languages. Eight of the papers have Ovid as common thread, and examine his production from the perspective of its models, the political context, and especially its reception from Antiquity to present day. The book edited by Francesco Citti, Lucia Pasetti and Daniele Pellacani (96) consists of 11 works that reflect on metamorphosis as a meeting point for philosophy, literature and science, especially since the Hellenistic period. In this way, the contributions explore the relation between transformations that belong to the world of myth and the supernatural, and those which arise in nature. They also study the language and imagery of the metamorphosis, which is shared in philosophical, scientific and literary production (there being, of course, no clear-cut distinction of these genres in Antiquity). This concomitance is especially visible in Ovid and in met., on which several papers of the volume are focused. Last but not least, the volume edited by Luis Rivero, Mª Consuelo Álvarez, Rosa Mª Iglesias and Juan Antonio Estévez (98) features 11 papers delivered by some of

42

Reference works

the most respected Ovidian scholars of the last years in an International Symposium held in Huelva in October 2017 as a celebration of the bimillennium of Ovid’s death. The variegated approaches present in the volume, but also the relevance of the contributions, offer a stimulating panorama of the most recent developments in Ovidian studies and also set starting points for further reflection and research. Four chapters deal specifically with met., while  a fourth does so indirectly: Tarrant (21–45) and Ramírez de Verger (81–102) struggle with its text; Labate (169–86) investigates the role and representation of the East in met.; Coulson (223–35) focuses on the ‘vulgate commentary’; Iglesias and Álvarez (201–21) look at the whole Ovidian corpus, including met., as an ‘incomplete mythical encyclopaedia’. The volume includes an index locorum and a general index. 9. Philological history James Zetzel’s book (7), originating in a doctoral thesis defended in Harvard in 1972, studies the first stages of the manuscript transmission of Latin texts and the work of ancient philologists. Logically, it largely studies the work carried out on the text of Virgil. The book was harshly, though fairly, contested by S. Timpanaro (Per la storia della filologia virgiliana antica, Roma 1986; cf. Virgilianisti antichi e tradizione indiretta, Firenze 2001). 10. Others Alison Elliot (1) offers the text of, and translates into English, 11 medieval accessus Ovidii, which might serve to illustrate common opinions about Ovid, especially during the so-called Aetas Ovidiana. In a brief introduction (6–11), she defines the concept of accessus and the main trends of Ovidian scholarship in the Middle Ages. The text of Arnulf of Orléans on met. follows the edition by Fausto Ghisaberti (“Arnolfo d’Orléans, un cultore di Ovidio nel secolo XII”, MIL 24, 1932, 180–1), and the accessus to Ovid’s elegiac poetry follows that of R. B. C. Huygens (Accessus ad Auctores. Bernard d’Utrecht. Conrad d’Hirsau. Dialogus super auctores, édition critique entièremente revue et eugmentée, Leiden 1970, 29–38). In the appendix (44–5) she translates a Vita Ovidii preserved in Cod. Paris. 8255 (following the text of F. Ghisaberti, “Medieval Biographies of Ovid”, JWI 9, 1946, 50). Hubert Zehnacker (16) tries to hypothesise some reasons why Ovid’s relation with the theatre was limited to his famous Medea, which in reality was not performed, but recited. The author maintains that Ovid probably did not make a further foray into tragedy, because the genre was very politically troubled, and therefore in the Augustan context could imply risks which were best avoided. Zehnacker goes even further, suggesting that these circumstances also ended up causing the disappearance of Roman tragedy. The volume (25) prepared by Michael von Albrecht, together with Hans-Joachim Glücklich from the third edition onwards, includes a small selection of texts from met. annotated for use in schools (“ab 10. Jahrgangsstufe”). The selected passages are these:

Others

43

1.1–4, 5–88, 89–150 (from the third edition), 1.747–2.400 (selection), 3.131–259ª (not included from the third edition onwards), 339–510, 4.55–166, 6.146–315, 317–81 (also removed from the third edition onwards), 7.1–158 (not included either from the third edition), 8.183–259, 616–724, 10.1–77 and 15.871–9. The book comes with exercises for studying linguistic, literary, cultural and metrical questions. The editors also examine the posterior reception of the texts and, in addition, suggest that students should appropriate the text, recreating it in their own way. This book includes two appendices on Ovid’s style and metre, adapted to the required level. In the volume Consilia (24), von Albrecht, with the collaboration of Glücklich from the third edition onwards, presents advice for teachers on how to prepare and guide the reading of met. in general, and for each of the selected passages in particular. Likewise, they include an interpretation of the different texts selected, which, in many cases, I consider valuable not only for schools.

III. Websites (in alphabetical order) 1.  A.-M. Boxus, J. Poucet, Ovide, Les metamorphoses. Traduction nouvelle annotée, Bruxelles 2005–2009 (Bibliotheca Classica Selecta): http://bcs.fltr.ucl.ac.be/metam/ Met00-Intro.html 2.  L. A.  Brown, Ovid’s Metamorphoses. An introduction and commentary with discussion of myths, links to classical sources, and influences in art and literature: https:// larryavisbrown.com/ovid-metamorphoses [last up-date: 02/2020] 3. M.  Cuypers, A Hellenistic Bibliography. Ovid: https://sites.google.com/site/ hellenisticbibliography/latin-authors/ovid [last up-date: 07/2012] 4. P.-A. Deproost, Ovide, Métamorphoses: http://pot-pourri.fltr.ucl.ac.be/itinera/ Enseignement/Glor2330/Ovide_Metamorphoses/accueil.htm [last up-date: 04/07/2017] 5.  D. Drescher, M. Müller (dir.), Mutatas dicere formas. Wie klangen Ovids Metamorphosen? – Rekonstruktion und Rezitation: Der Ovid-Saal in den Neuen Kammern in Potsdam-Sanssouci in Bild, Text und Ton: http://www.telemachos.hu-berlin.de/ materialien/ovidprojekt/start/start.html [last up-date: 18/08/2006] 6.  Forum Didacticum (Abteilung für Griechische und Lateinische Philologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München): http://www.fachdidaktik.klassphil. uni-muenchen.de/extras/bibliographien/metamov/index.html 7. P. Grau, Die Eichstätter Datenbank zur Antike-Rezeption / Kunst: http://www1. ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/Klassphil/grau/eichst.htm 8. H. Greenberg, The Ovid Project: ‘Metamorphosing’ the Metamorphoses: http:// www.uvm.edu/~hag/ovid/ [last up-date: 07/11/1997] 9. H.-J. Günther, P. Ovidi Nasonis Metamorphoses illustrationibus praeclaris auctae: http://latein-pagina.de/iexplorer/ovids_metas.htm [last up-date: 11/09/2021] 10. N.  Holzberg, Augusteische Dichtung: eine Bibliographie, München 2009: http://www.niklasholzberg.com/Homepage/Bibliographien.html 11. N.  Holzberg, Ovid, Metamorphosen: eine Bibliographie, München 2016: http://www.niklasholzberg.com/Homepage/Bibliographien.html 12.  Iconos. Viaggio interattivo nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio: http://www.iconos.it/ 13.  D. Kinney, E. Styron, Ovid Illustrated: The Reception of Ovid’s Metamorphoses in Image and Text: http://ovid.lib.virginia.edu/index.html 14. C. Lohr, Traditio Classicorum. Teil 2: M-Z. Ovidius: https://www.theol.unifreiburg.de/disciplinae/dqtm/forschung/tcdt/tcteil2#ovid [last up-date: 01/05/2017] 15.  W.  McCarty, M.  Matthews, A.  Suksi, B.  Wright, J.  Bradley, An Analytical Onomasticon to the Metamorphoses of Ovid: http://www.mccarty.org.uk/analytical​ onomasticon/ [last up-date: 16/10/2004] 16.  Ovidius pictus. Biblioteca digital ovidiana: http://www.ovidiuspictus.es/index. php

Bibliographies

45

17.  Las Metamorfosis de Ovidio. Proyecto de Investigación del Grupo Nicolaus Heinsius (Universidad de Huelva): http://www.uhu.es/proyectovidio/esp/index. html (https://opacplus.bsb-muenchen.de/search?oclcno=973043726&db=100) [last up-date: 04/07/2016] 18.  OEF: Ovide en français: https://www.rose.uzh.ch/de/forschung/forschung​ amrose/projekte/oef.html 19.  A.  Pérez Vega, Ovidio: Metamorfosis, Alicante 2002: http://www.cervantes​ virtual.com/nd/ark:/59851/bmccz361 20. U.  Schmitzer, KIRKE, Ovid im WWW: http://www.kirke.hu-berlin.de/ ovid/start.html [last up-date: 11/05/2017] 21.  The Warburg Institute Iconographic Database: Ovid, Metamorphoses: https:// iconographic.warburg.sas.ac.uk/vpc/VPC_search/subcats.php?cat_1=8&cat_2=15 &cat_3=33&cat_4=42 Although the content of this section is liable to become rapidly outdated, it is nevertheless interesting to review some websites devoted to Ovid (as available on 27/10/2021). General web resources, such as repertoires of texts, databases, etc., are not taken into account. 1. Bibliographies Many of the websites reviewed (3, 6, 10, 11, 14, 20) fall into the category of biblio­ graphies, and are therefore also reviewed in the “Bibliographies” chapter (the reader is referred to it). However, it would also be pertinent to mention them here. The Forum Didacticum of Munich University (6), currently directed by Markus Janka, provides resources for teaching and studying different areas of classical languages. Among these, there is a bibliography for the Metamorphoses, with special emphasis on didactic resources, organised into four main categories: “Kritische Editionen”, “Zweisprachige Ausgaben (lat.-dt.), Kommentare, Übersetzungen und Nachwirken”, “Didaktische Literatur”, and “Wissenschaftliche Sekundärliteratur”; no comments are included. On the website, similar bibliographies for am., ars and rem. can be found. Ulrich Schmitzer (20) provides a comprehensive website with a number of links to other online resources about Ovid. Under the title “wissenschaftliche Publikationen und Rezeptionsgeschichte”, he offers four uncommented bibliographies about Ovid in general, and also about met. in particular (“Bücher, Aufsätze, Abstracts”, “Rezensionen”, “weitere WWW-Projekte”, “Gesamtbibliographie und Spezialbibliographien”, and “Rezeptionsgeschichte”). Martine Cuypers (3), as part of her project “The Hellenistic Bibliography: A bibliography on post-classical Greek poetry and its influence”, includes  a general uncommented bibliography on Ovid. Niklas Holzberg shares many of his impressive and very useful bibliographies online, including one on Augustan Literature (10), which features a specific section

46

Websites (in alphabetical order) 

on met., and another specific and comprehensive one on met. (11). The classification is excellent, but no comments are offered. Within an extensive bibliography on classical tradition, Charles Lohr (14) devotes some space to the reception of Ovid: he lists 390 works published between 1861 and 1994. 2. Online editions and commentaries Anne-Marie Boxus and Jacques Poucet (1) offer an online French translation of met. based on the text available at http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/ovid.html, with some modifications after the edition of Lafaye (Paris 1925–1930). The authors also offer some comments about mythography and realia for the general public. Additionally, they reproduce some extracts of literary histories on met. Ana Pérez Vega (19) offers her plain Spanish translation of met. online. Paul-Augustin Deproost (4), as part of his courses at the Université de Louvain, presents a detailed analysis of three episodes of met.: Pyramus and Thisbe (4.55–166), Arachne and Minerva (6.1–145), and Daedalus and Icarus (8.183–235). The website also includes a general introduction to Ovid and to met., as well as a select bibliography. Larry Brown (2) offers an elementary introduction to met. and some reading notes for each book. Some myths are illustrated with images and depictions. 3. Manuscripts, editions and textual criticism The Nicolaus Heinsius research team (17) is currently editing met. and providing an exhaustive textual commentary of the poem. On the website, various invaluable documents, mostly prepared by José Antonio Bellido, can be found: a list and description of all manuscript witnesses of met. known so far; the identification of the manuscripts used by Nicolaus Heinsius; an exhaustive list of editions (1471–2009); and two bibliographies (“studia ad textum Ovidii Metamorphoseon pertinentia”, 1914–2008, but it actually includes some papers published before 1914; “ab anno 2005 edita” – up to 2010 so far). The OEF research team (18) intends to make a complete study of the manuscript tradition of the Ovide moralisé. On their website there is a catalogue of the manuscripts, as well as an up-to-date bibliography on the Ovide moralisé. 4. Onomasticon The Analytical Onomasticon to the Metamorphoses of Ovid (15), directed by Willard McCarty, is the last prototype (2002) of an ambitious project which tried to improve the concept of a conventional index nominum of met. The Onomasticon indexes names and places, but also “any word, phrase or clause that refers to one or more persons or places, i. e. an ‘appellative’”. A specific project on personifications was started, but abandoned at an early stage (2003); however some preliminary data can be still consulted.

Iconography and reception

47

5. Iconography and reception The team of the Iconos project (12), led by Claudia Cieri Via (Università di Roma “La Sapienza”), offers an extensive online repertory of iconographic mythological representations from Antiquity to the 18th century, following the disposition of Ovid’s met. But the site offers more than this: for every episode of the Ovidian poem (or at least for those episodes already worked-out), along with a list of classical, medieval and renaissance literary sources, there is also a wide range of images and representations of that myth. The images are commented and, whenever possible, compared with the literary sources and other iconographic representations. There is also a bibliography of each episode. The Biblioteca Digital Ovidiana (Ovidian Digital Library) website (16), of the Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, displays the result of a research project on all illustrated editions of Ovid printed between the 15th and 19th centuries that are preserved in public (or private) libraries in Spain. The site includes information on these editions, and comments on their illustrations and iconography. The Warburg Institute Iconographic Database dedicates some space to Ovid’s met. (21), featuring the illustrations from editions preserved in the Warburg Library and in other institutions. The images, with a brief scheda, are classified according to “Cycles” and books of the carmen perpetuum. Hosted by the University of Virginia, the site Ovid Illustrated (13) presents, somewhat chaotically, the digitalizations of numerous illustrated editions, translations and interpretations of Ovid’s met., mainly between the 16th and 19th centuries. Some efforts are made to classify the pictures and contents by myths. It also includes a bibliography and links to other projects. Likewise, Hope Greenberg’s website (8) presents the engravings of J. W.  Bauer inspired by met. (Bellissimum Ovidii Theatrum, Norimbergae 1703), and the engravings that accompany the English translation of G.  Sandys (Ovid’s Metamorphosis. Englished, Mythologized, London 1640). All the plates come from the collections of the University of Vermont. Hans-Jürgen Günther (9) has gathered around 1,000 images illustrating met., especially from ancient editions. Notable among them are the 183 engravings by Virgil Solis from the edition of Sigmund Feyerabend (P. Ovidii Metamorphoses, Franckfort am Mayn [sic] 1581). The site of the “Mutatas dicere formas: Ovid-Projekt Berlin / Potsdam” (5) provides a tour through the “Ovid-Galerie” in the Schloss Sanssouci. The web-site displays images of the representations that can be seen in the Schloss and provide recordings of the corresponding lines in the Ovidian poem (both in Latin and in German translation). The site also includes a section dealing with the pronunciation, prosody and the metrics of Latin language, as well as some bibliographical references. Similarly, Peter Grau (7) offers a database of met.’s iconographic reception in the artistic representations in Bayern and various illustrated editions; however its obsolete interface does not allow searches.

IV. Transmission and Textual Criticism 1. Manuscripts 1.  G. L.  Bursill-Hall, A Census of Medieval Latin Grammatical Manuscripts, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1981. 2.  R. Leotta, “Un accessus ovidiano”, GIF 33, 1981, 141–4. 3. É. Pellegrin, Manuscrits latins de la Bodmeriana, Cologny-Genève 1982. 4. É. Pellegrin et al., Les Manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane…. 2. 2, Fonds Palatin Rossi, Ste. Marie Majeure et Urbinate, Paris 1982. 5.  S. Gavinelli, “Per un’enciclopedia carolingia (Codice Bernese 363)”, IMU 26, 1983, 1–25. 6.  J. B. Hall, “An eleventh-century manuscript of Ovid’s Metamorphoses; British Library King’s 26”, RFIC 111, 1983, 295–308. 7.  R. J. Tarrant, “Ovid”, in L. D. Reynolds (ed.), Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics, Oxford 1983, 257–86. 8. M. Kowalczyk et al., Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum medii aevi latinorum qui in Bibliotheca Jagellonica Cracoviae asservantur: Vol. 3. Numeros continens inde a 445 usque ad 563, Wratislaviae 1984. 9.  A. P.  McQuillan, AUL MS.165,  a study of an annotated thirteenth century manuscript of Ovid’s Metamorphoses. With  a transcript of Book VI (fol. 41r-48r), U.-Thesis Aberdeen Univ. 1984. 10. G. Powitz, Die datierten Handschriften der Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek Frankfurt am Main, Stuttgart 1984. 11. L.  Rubio, Catálogo de los manuscritos clásicos existentes en España, Madrid 1984. 12.  F. T. Coulson, “Mss. of the Vulgate Commentary on Ovid’s Metamorphoses: A Checklist”, Scriptorium 39, 1985, 118–29. 13.  J. Fohlen, “Les Manuscrits Classiques dans le Fonds Vatican Latin d’Eugène IV (1443) à Jules III (1550)”, HumLov 34, 1985, 1–51. 14. R. Schmidt, Reichenau und St. Gallen. Ihre literarische Überlieferung zur Zeit des Klosterhumanismus in St. Ulrich und Afra zu Augsburg um 1500, Sigmaringen 1985. 15.  C. Alschner, C. Krause, Katalog der Handschriften der Sächsischen Landes­ bibliothek zu Dresden, Bd. 5 (Mscr. Dresd. App. 184 – 1928), Dresden 1986. 16. J. Fliege, Die lateinischen Handschriften der Stadtbibliothek Dessau: Bestandsverzeichnis aus dem Zentralinventar mittelalterlicher Handschriften (ZIH), Berlin 1986. 17. A. Giaccaria, Manoscritti danneggiati nell’ incendio del 1904: mostra di recuperi e restauri, Torino 1986.

Manuscripts

49

18. H.  Hoffmann, Buchkunst und Königtum im ottonischen und frühsalischen Reich, Stuttgart 1986. 19.  N. Staubach, “Sedulius Scottus und die Gedichte des Codex Bernensis 363”, FMS 20, 1986, 549–98. 20. U.  Winter, Die europäischen Handschriften der Bibliothek Diez: Teil 1. Die Manuscripta Dieziana B Santeniana, Teil 2. Die Libri impressi cum notis manuscriptis, Leipzig 1986. 21.  F. T. Coulson, “Hitherto Unedited Medieval and Renaissance Lives of Ovid (I)”, MS 49, 1987, 152–207. 22.  G. Dicke, K. Grubmüller, Die Fabeln des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit: ein Katalog der deutschen Versionen und ihrer lateinischen Entsprechungen, München 1987. 23.  B. Munk Olsen, “Ovide au Moyen Age (du XIe au XIIe siècle)”, in G. Cavallo (ed.), Le strade del testo, Bari 1987, 67–96. 24. C.  Scalon, Libri, scuole  e cultura nel Friuli medioevale. «Membra disiecta» dell’Archivio di Stato di Udine, Padova 1987. 25. M.  Andersson-Schmitt, M.  Hedlund, Mittelalterliche Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Uppsala: Katalog über die C- Sammlung: Bd. 1. C I–IV, 1–50, Stockholm 1988. 26.  F. T. Coulson, “An update to Munari’s Catalogues of the manuscripts of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Scriptorium 42, 1988, 111–2. 27. U.  Bodemann, G.  Dicke, “Grundzüge einer Überlieferungs- und Text­ geschichte von Boners ‘Edelstein’”, in V.  Honemann, N. F.  Palmer (eds.), Deutsche Handschriften 1100–1400. Oxforder Kolloquium 1985, Tübingen 1988. 28. F. Newton, The earliest illustrated MS of Ovid’s Metamorphoses and its mediaeval home, New York 1988. 29. É. Pellegrin, Bibliothèques retrouvées: Manuscrits, bibliothèques et bibliophiles du Moyen Âge et de la Renaissance, Paris 1988. 30. L.  Reynhout, “Fragment d’un nouveau manuscrit des “Métamorphoses” d’Ovide (Bruxelles, “Bibliothèque royale”, ms. IV 634)”, Latomus 47, 1988, 834–50. 31.  H. A.  Bologna, “Un incognito excerptum ovidiano (Met. 2.351–467)”, in G.  Papponetti, Ovidio poeta della memoria, Sulmona 1989, 305–24 (with four plates). 32. J.  Christophory, 150 manuscrits précieux du 9e au 16e siècle conservés à la Bibliothèque nationale de Luxembourg, Luxembourg 1989. 33.  J. Daguillon, Y. Fernillot, Supplément au catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque de la Sorbonne (N°s 1590–2144), Paris 1989. 34.  S.  Krämer, M.  Bernhard, Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands und der Schweiz. Handschriftenerbe des Deutschen Mittelalters. Teil 3 Handschriftenregister, München 1990.

50

Transmission and Textual Criticism

35.  F. T. Coulson, “New Manuscripts of the Medieval Interpretations of Ovid”, Scriptorium 49, 1990, 272–5. 36.  J. P. Gumbert, The Dutch and their books in the manuscript age, London 1990. 37.  C. Jeudy, Y.-F. Riou, Les manuscrits classiques latins des bibliothèques publiques de France, I: Agen-Évreux, Paris 1989. 38.  G. Senis, “Le Narrationes ovidianae e il cod. Neap. IV F 3”, Maia 42, 1990, 167–78. 39.  M. C. Trémouille, “Il ms. 429 Ovidii Metamorph. Libri I–IV della Biblioteca di Arezzo”, Atti e Memorie dell’Accademia Petrarca di Lettere, Arti e Scienze 52, 1990, 447–9. 40.  F. T. Coulson, The Vulgate Commentary on Ovid’s Metamorphoses: The ­Creation Myth and the Story of Orpheus, Toronto 1991. 41. J.  Fohlen, Les Auteurs classiques dans le fonds Vatican latin, Paris-Roma 1991. 42. A.  Haidinger, Katalog der handschriften des Augustiner Chorherrenstiftes Klosterneuburg: Katalogband. Cod. 101–200. 2, Wien 1991, 154–8. 43. É. Pellegrin et al., Les manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane. Tome III. 1ère partie, Fonds Vatican latin, 224–2900, Paris-Roma 1991. 44.  M.  Stähli, H. Härtel, R.  Giermann, M.  Arnold, Handschriften der Dom­ bibliothek zu Hildesheim, Erster Teil: Hs 124a-Hs 698, Wiesbaden 1991. 45.  F. T. Coulson, “Newly Discovered Manuscripts of Ovid’s Metamorphoses in the Libraries of Florence and Milan”, Scriptorium 46, 1992, 285–8. 46. S. Fogg, Text Manuscripts of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, London 1992. 47. B. Shailor, Catalogue of medieval and renaissance manuscripts in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University, Binghantom-New York 1992. 48.  M.  Andersson-Schmitt, H. Hallberg, M.  Hedlund, Mittelalterliche Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Uppsala. Katalog über die C-Sammlung, Bd. 6: Handschriften C 551–935, Stockholm 1993. 49.  H.  Härtel, M.  Arnold, Handschriften der Dombibliothek zu Hildesheim: Teil 2. Hs 700–1050, St. God. Nr. 1–51, Ps 1–6, J 23–95, Wiesbaden 1993. 50.  P. O. Kristeller, S. Krämer, Latin Manuscript Books before 1600. A List of the Printed Catalogues and Unpublished Inventories of Extant Collections, München 1993. 51.  H. Leith Spencer, English Preaching in the Late Middle Ages, Oxford 1993. 52.  T.  Wilhelmi, “Metamorphosen einer Ovid-Handschrift”, Symbolae Berolinenses [Festschrift] für Dieter Harlfinger hrsg. von F.  Berger, Amsterdam 1993, 237–42. 53.  F. T. Coulson, “A Bibliographical Update and Corrigenda Minora to Munari’s Catalogues of the Manuscripts of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Manuscripta 38, 1994, 3–22.

Manuscripts

51

54. G.  Glauche, Katalog der lateinischen Handschriften der Bayerischen Staats­ bibliothek München: Die Pergamenthandschriften aus Benediktbeuern: Clm 4501– 4663, Wiesbaden 1994. 55.  G. Lazzi, P. Scapecchi, P. Panedigrano, C. Pinzauti, Di Ovidio le Metamorphosi & Presenze ovidiane: manoscritti ed edizioni a stampa dal XV al XIX secolo nelle colle­ zioni della Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze: con 15 disegni inediti di Giuseppe Zocchi per la Nouvelle traduction des Methamorphoses d’Ovide par M. Fontanelle, à Lille, chez J. B. Henry, 1767, Firenze 1994. 56.  E. F. Baeza, A. Ramírez de Verger, “Noticia sobre unos fragmentos descono­ cidos de la obra de Ovidio”, Emerita 53, 1995, 17–20. 57. P. Bonfadini, Codici e incunaboli miniati della Fondazione Ugo da Como di Lonato, Lonato 1995. 58.  M.  Buonocore, “Note sui codici vaticani delle Metamorphoses di Ovidio”, Ehum 17, 1995, 67–93. 59.  F. T. Coulson, “Addenda to Munari’s Catalogues of the manuscripts of Ovid’s «Metamorphoses»“, RHT 25, 1995, 91–127. 60.  F. T. Coulson, “Addenda to Munari’s Catalogues of the manuscripts of Ovid’s «Metamorphoses» 2”, Manuscripta 40, 1996, 115–8. 61.  C. Villa, “Tra fabula e historia: Manegoldo di Lautenbach e il «Maestro di Orazio»”, Aevum 70, 1996, 245–56. 62.  D. Klein, “Heinrich von München und die Tradition der gereimten deutschen Weltchronistik”, in H. Brunner (ed.), Studien zur ‘Weltchronik’ Heinrichs von München, Bd. I: Überlieferung, Forschungsbericht, Untersuchungen, Texte, Wiesbaden 1998 (Wissensliteratur im Mittelalter 29). 63. A.  Manfron, “La biblioteca di un medico del Quattrocento. I codici di Giovanni di Marco da Rimini nella biblioteca Malatestiana”, Catalogo della mostra a cura di A. Manfron, Cesena-Torino 1998, 237–8. 64.  F.  Navarro Antolín, E. F.  Baeza, “«Metamorfosis» en «Augusta Treverorum»”, Emerita 67, 1999, 105–13. 65.  F. T. Coulson, B. Roy, Incipitarium Ovidianum: a Finding Guide for Text in Latin Related to the Study of Ovid in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, Turnhout 2000. 66.  H.  Harthausen, “Die Speyerer Ovidhandschrift aus Alzey: ein Beitrag zur Geistes- und Schulgeschichte der Kurpfalz im 15. Jahrhundert”, in E. Reil, R. Schieder (eds.), Wahrheit suchen – Wirklichkeit wahrnehmen: Festschrift für Hans Mercker zum 60. Geburtstag, Landau 2000, 223–35. 67. R. Black, Humanism and Education in Medieval and Renaissance Italy: Tradition and Innovation in Latin Schools from the Twelfth to the Fifteenth Century, Cambridge 2001. 68.  G.  Brinkhus, A.  Mentzel-Reuters, Die lateinischen Handschriften der Uni­ versitätsbibliothek Tübingen: Teil 2: Signaturen Mc 151 bis Mc 379 sowie die latei-

52

Transmission and Textual Criticism

nischen Handschriften bis 1600 aus den Signaturengruppen Mh, Mk und aus dem Druckschriftenbestand; beschrieben von Gerd Brinkhus und Arno Mentzel-Reuters; unter Mitwirkung von Hedwig Röckelein u. a.; unter Benutzung der Vorarbeiten von Eugen Neuscheler, Wiesbaden 2001. 69.  F. T. Coulson, “Addenda and Corrigenda to Incipitarium Ovidianum”, JML 12, 2002, 154–80. 70.  G. Lazzi, L. Melani, G. Pomaro, P. Semoli, P. Stoppacci, I manoscritti medievali della Biblioteca Città di Arezzo, Firenze 2003. 71. E. Andreis, I più antichi manoscritti della Fondazione Ugo Da Como: saggio di un catalogo (Secc. XII–XV), Verona 2003–2004. 72.  C.  Denoël, “Le fonds des manuscrits latins de Notre-Dame de Paris à la Bibliothèque Nationale de France”, Scriptorium 58, 2004, 131–73. 73. R. Plate, Die Überlieferung der ‘Christherre-Chronik’, Wiesbaden 2005. 74.  M. Librán, “Colación de Dertusensis 134 (Ou. metamorphoseon libri XV). I”, ExClass 10, 2006, 83–111. 75.  M. Librán, “Colación de Dertusensis 134 (Ou. Metamorphoseon libri XV). II”, ExClass 11, 2007, 83–103. 76.  P. O. Kristeller, S. Krämer, B. C. Arensmann, Latin Manuscript Books Before 1600. A List of the Printed Catalogues and Unpublished Inventories of Extant Collections: Ergänzungsband 2006, Hannover 2007. 77.  B. Fernández de la Cuesta, En la senda del “Florilegium Gallicum”. Edición y estudio del florilegio del manuscrito Córdoba, Archivo Capitular 150, Louvain-la-Neuve 2008. 78.  E. Murcia, “Colación del manuscrito S-III-19 de las Metamorfosis de Ovidio del Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo de El Escorial”, ExClass 12, 2008, 69–101. 79. H. Anderson, The Manuscripts of Statius, Arlington, Virginia 2009, 3 vols. 80.  P. Toribio, “Colación del Matritensis 3767: Ovidio, Metamorfosis”, ExClass 13, 2009, 27–69. 81.  F. T. Coulson, “Renaissance Latin commentaries on the Iudicium armorum (Met. 13.1–398)”, StudUmanistPiceni 30, 2010, 91–100. 82.  G. Martel Bravo, “Colación de las Metamorfosis de Ovidio en el ms. Turonensis 879”, ExClass 14, 2010, 91–173. 83. É. Pellegrin et al., Les manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane. Tome III. 2ème partie, Fonds Vatican latin, 2901–14740, Paris-Cité du Vatican 2010. 84.  F. T. Coulson, “Ovid’s Metamorphoses in the school tradition of France, 1180– 1400. Texts, manuscript traditions, manuscript settings”, in J. G. Clark, F. T. Coulson, K. L. McKinley (eds.), Ovid in the Middle Ages, Cambridge 2011, 48–82. 85.  J. P. Gumbert, Illustrated inventory of medieval manuscripts in Latin script in the Netherlands / Inventaire illustré de manuscrits médiévaux / Illustriertes Inventar mittelalterlicher Manuskripte, Leiden 2011, 2 vols.

Manuscripts

53

86.  S. Díez Reboso, “Colación del manuscrito Matritensis 10038: Ovidio, Metamorfosis”, ExClass 16, 2012, 81–135. 87.  J. A.  Estévez Sola, “New manuscript witnesses of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, ExClass 17, 2013, 191–208. 88.  Á. Suárez del Río, “Colación del ms. Berolinensis Diez. B. Sant. 13: Ovidio, Metamorfosis”, ExClass 17, 2013, 101–87. 89. B.  Bischoff, Katalog der festländischen Handschriften des neunten Jahrhunderts, Wiesbaden 1998–2014, 3vols. 90.  B.  Munk Olsen, L’ étude des auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles, Paris 1982–2014, 4 vols. 91.  M. Starzyński, “Ein Fragment von Ovids Metamorphosen aus dem 10. Jh. in einem Manuskript aus dem Bestand des Nationalarchivs in Krakau”, Gymnasium 121, 2014, 469–76. 92.  A. Ramírez de Verger, “El codex Menardi de N. Heinsius y P. Burmannus”, in E. Borrell, Ó. de la Cruz Palma (eds.), OMNIA MVTANTVR. Canvi, transformació i pervivència en la cultura clàssica, en les seves llengües i en el seu llegat, Barcelona 2016, II, 115–26. 93.  L.  Rivero, “N.  Heinsius’s fragmentum Caesenas of Ovid’s Metamorphoses rediscovered”, CQ 66, 2016, 384–94. 94.  J. A.  Estévez Sola, “Nuevos fragmentos de las Metamorfosis de Ovidio en Trento”, Emerita 85, 2017, 161–7. I will divide the above list into different sections. Firstly, I should mention the lists of manuscripts of met. that serve to increase the number of known mss., highlighting mainly the contributions made by F. T. Coulson. In his different articles since 1988, he has updated – due to a change of library where they are kept, of its name or of the manuscript’s catalogue number – and indeed expanded (26, 45, 53, 59, 60) the well-known catalogue of F. Munari (Catalogue of the MSS. of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, London 1957). The creator of the first catalogue of manuscripts of met. later added several further witnesses in 1965 (“Supplemento al catalogo dei manoscritti delle Metamorfosi ovidiane”, RIFC 93, 288–97), and then in 1970 (“Secondo supplemento al catalogo dei manoscritti delle Metamorfosi ovidiane”, in Studia Florentina Alexandro Ronconi sexagenario oblata, Roma, 275–80). The latest catalogue to extend the mss. of met. is that of Estévez Sola (87), who increased the complete or partially known manuscripts by more than 50 new witnesses, and added further ones which are strictly florilegia. The same author (94) later continued to expand the number of manuscripts with some fragments discovered in Trento originating in an old binding, a discovery that he accompanies with collation and study. Buonocore (58), on the other hand, in 1995 enumerated with concise description the Vatican manuscripts of met. included in the Munari – 46 in total.

54

Transmission and Textual Criticism

Other specific lists are those of Tarrant (7), Rubio (11), Coulson (65), Bischoff (89) and Munk Olsen (90). Tarrant studied the mss. according to their links, in order to build a stemma, above all endeavouring to organise the oldest witnesses such as the Monacensis (München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 4286). The stemma was repeated subsequently in his 2004 edition. Rubio’s catalogue is not one of mss. by Ovid, but by classical authors in Spanish libraries, organised alphabetically by city. To find the mss. of met. one must go to the index and search by library; he includes a brief description of each manuscript. Coulson and Roy also produced their famous Incipitarium Ovidianum (65): rather than being  a list of new manuscripts of met., this details all the witnesses relating to the study of Ovid from the years 400 to 1600. These are ordered by their first words, including a list of manuscripts with annotations on individual works. The book goes beyond mere allusions to met., also being a useful tool to familiarise oneself with the manuscripts themselves, insofar as they could include other texts relating to the author. Coulson made corrections and additions to this work in 2002 (69). Bischoff’s catalogue is interesting for its fragments dating from the ninth century, while Munk Olsen lists manuscripts for studying how Latin authors were known in the 11th and 12th centuries, so that we can know more about the dissemination of Ovid during these centuries of the Middle Ages, especially in the first two volumes of his work, and in the addenda of III.2. Other mentions of manuscripts can be found in Fohlen (13), due to their relation with their owners (see also Vat. Lat. 1594, 1597 and 1598). Worth mentioning, in addition, is the book by Fernández de la Cuesta (77), specifically dedicated to Florilegium Gallicum, which leads him to study the florilegia containing Ovid’s met: for instance, Paris, Parisinus Lat. 13582; Oxford, Oxoniensis Bodl. Add. A 208; Córdoba, Cordubensis ms. 150 Arch. Catedr.; Douai, Duacensis Bibliothèque municipale, 690; Heidelberg, Heidelbergensis Bibl. Univ. Sal. 9. 62; London, Londinensis Mus. Brit. Harl. 2745; and Leiden, Leidensis UB ms. VUL 48. For similar reasons, I will also mention the book by Anderson (79): although it is a comprehensive registry of Statius’ manuscripts in which Ovid might feature, this collects news of the mss. Paris, Parisinus Lat. 13582; Berlin, Berolinensis Deutsche Staatsbibl. Diez B Sant. 60 E; Douai, Duacensis Bibliothèque municipale, 690; Heidelberg, Heidelbergensis Bibl. Univ. Sal. 9. 62; Leiden, Leidensis UB ms. VUL 48; and Oxford, Oxoniensis Bodl. Add. A 208. In second place, I should highlight the specific studies of manuscripts from the point of view of textual criticism. Also worth emphasising are the contributions, in terms of collating and studying manuscripts, made under the auspices of the Universidad de Huelva’s Ovid Project (http://www.uhu.es/proyectovidio/esp/index.html). For example, the collations and studies of ms. Dertusensis 134 (Munari 73) by Librán (74, 75); of Escorialenis S-III-19 (Munari 88) by Murcia (78); of Matritensis 3767 (Munari 185) by Toribio (80); of Turonensis 879 (Munari 330) by Martel (82); of Matritensis 10038 (Munari 186) by Díez Reboso (86); and finally, that of Berolinensis Diez. B. Sant. 13 (Munari 47) by Suárez del Río (88).

Manuscripts

55

Previous to all of these is the collation of ms. Londinensis Mus. Brit. King’s 26 (Munari 172) by Hall (6). From manuscript 165 of the University of Aberdeen (Munari 1), we have the study and transcription of met. 6 by McQuillan (9). A fragment held in the Bibliothèque Royal Albert I in Brussels with met. 7.552–664 was discovered and studied by Reynhout (30). Bologna (31) published a fragment of met. 2.351–467, stored in the private collection of Professor Lidio Gasperini, while Trémouille (39) studied the Arretinus (Arezzo, Bibl. S. Mariae 429 II), and Wilhelmi (52) examined the ms. of Tübingen Universitätsbibliothek, Mc 296. The fragments of Trier, unearthed by Ramírez de Verger and Baeza (56) (Estévez [87] 43–46), were collated by Navarro and Baeza (64). The ms. Spirensis Bibl. Gymnasii 2, Pfälzische Landesbibliothek Speyer (Munari 314) was studied by Harthausen (66), while in 2014 Starzyński (91) discovered and collated three small pieces of parchment from the 10th century found in the spine of the binding of ms. Krakau, Nationalarchivs, Handschrift Nr. 899, and which depart from the usual reading of met. 5.127, 175; 7.26, 76. Lastly, I will point out the work by Ramírez de Verger (92), who studied the codex Menardi, mentioned by Heinsius and Burman, and identified by R. J. Tarrant (“Editing Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Problems and Possibilities”, CPh 77, 1982, 342–60, 345 n. 17) with the manuscript of Berlin, Berolinensis Deutsche Staatsbibliothek Diez B.  Santenensis 11, from the 13th century, and especially the work of Rivero García (93). Rivero conclusively discovered the famous fragmentum Caesenas, known by Heinsius but which subsequently disappeared, in the Manuscript of Cesena, Bibl. Malatestiana, Caesenas S. I.5. I should also mention the manuscript catalogues in various libraries which store witnesses to met. Updating of these catalogues, together with more modern codicological analysis, has increased during this period. Notable examples include the contributions by Pellegrin (3, 311–14) from 1982 relating to the Bibliotheca Bodmeriana (Cologny-Genève), with an updated description of the ms. Genève, cod. Bodmer 90, and at the Biblioteca Vaticana and its library of mss. Urbinates (4). Powitz (10) amended the aforementioned data, especially the ms. of Frankfurt, Francofurtanus, Stadt- und Universitatsbibliothek, Lat. Qu. 21, as a precisely dated manuscript. Alschner and Krause (15, 145–6) updated the outline of the ms. of Dresden, Dresdensis, Sächische Landesbibliothek, App. 1092, while Fliege (16, 109–11) described the mss. Dessauiensis HB hs. 8 and Dessauiensis HB hs. 9, from Dessau. Winter (20) also amended the catalogue of the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek in Berlin, which lists the updated contents of the mss. Diez B Sant. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 22, 23, 60, 138, 142, 143, 144, 148e, 174, 177. In 1991 Pellegrin again amended the library Vaticanus latinus 224–2900 (43), which includes the manuscripts of met. Vat. Lat. 1258, 1479, 1593, 1594, 1596, 1597, 1598, 2780, 2781, 2782, 2795 (Fohlen [41] used an extract from this). We should keep in mind that the description of this Vatican library depended on contributions like that of C. Stornajolo from 1902 (reprinted in 1981), for the mss. 1–500 Urbinates latini. The same author in 2010 (83) updated the library Vaticanus latinus 2901–14740, which includes the manuscripts of met. Vat. Lat. 5179, 5222, 5859, 6441, 7622, 8719, 11457 and 11597; M. Kowalczyk et al. outlined the ms. Cracoviensis Bibl. Univ. Jagell 528 (DD VI 5) of the Jagiellonian

56

Transmission and Textual Criticism

Library (8); and Scalon (24, 235) registered the manuscript of Udine, Archivio Stato, 181, while Christophory (32, 157) in 1989 described the Luciliburgensis, Luxembourg, Bibliothèque Nationale, 1.18, which depended on the description of Werveke from 1894 (Kristeller also examined this in his volume from the same year). Krämer and Bernhard (34, 456) referred to the Parisinus, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, nouv. acq. lat. 2199. Andersson-Schmitt and Hedlund (25, 163) updated the description of Upsaliensis Bibl. Univ. C 136; subsequently, in 1993, Andersson-Schmitt et al. (48, 378–80) described precisely Upsaliensis Bibl. Univ. C 931. Daguillon and Fernillot (33, 15), in their supplement to the catalogue of Bibliothèque de la Sorbonne (nº 1590–2144), included the Parisinus, Bibliothèque de la Sorbonne, 1595; while Jeudy and Riou (37, 573–86) mentioned the ms. 749, previously examined by A. Boutemy (Latomus 3, 1939, 183–206, 264–98) in their catalogue of the manuscripts of the City Library of Douai. Haidinger (42) updated Klosterneuburg, which includes ms. Claustroneoburgensis, Augustiner-Chorherrenstift, Cod. 194, while in 1991 Stähli et al. amended the catalogue of Hildesheim cathedral (44, 81–2), which includes the ms. Hildesheim Dombibliothek Hs. 660. This work was continued by Härtel and Arnold (49), who also updated the description of the ms. Hildesheim Dombibliothek J 73a 8, and Hildesheim Dombibliothek J 90. Shailor, in his catalogue of the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library (47, 29–30), includes the outline of Marstonianus Yalensis 16; Andersson-Schmitt et al. amended the description of Upsaliensis Bibl. Univ. C 931 (48). In 1993 Krämer (50) updated the great catalogue of Kristeller, subsequently also expanded by Arensmann (76). It is not exactly a catalogue that describes manuscripts, but rather a list, organised by country and library, of manuscripts sometimes not included in any descriptive catalogue (v.3 Alia itinera I: Australia to Germany. Index. 1983, repr. 1987- v.4 Alia itinera II: Great Britain to Spain. 1989 – v.5 Alia itinera III and Italy: Sweden to Yugoslavia, Utopia, supplement to Italy (A-F) 1990, repr. 1993  – v.6 Italy III and Alia itinera IV: Supplement to Italy (G–V); Supplement to Vatican and Austria to Spain. 1992). Glauche (54, 189–91) refined the outline of Monacensis Clm 4610, while Lazzi (55) collected the 15th-century manuscripts from the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale de Florence. Bonfadini (57, 5) improved the description of ms. 238 from the Biblioteca della Fondazione Ugo da Como de Lonato, also collected later by Andreis (71, 150–3). In 1998 Manfron (63) refined the old description of the ms. Caesenas S. XXV.6 de Muccioli (1780–1784); Lazzi et al. (70) updated the description of the mss. Arretinus Bibl. S. Mariae 429 I, and Arretinus Bibl. S. Mariae  429 II. In 2011 Gumbert (85) notably improved the limited outline of the manuscripts from Leiden University Library: B. P. L. 3001–5, B. P. L. 3001–4, B. P. L. 3001–3, B. P. L. 2845. Brinkhus and Mentzel-Reuters (68, 185–6) updated the descriptions of the ms. from Tübingen, Universitätsbibliothek, Mc 296. In other cases, the reference to mss. of met. is connected to brief mentions of these due to their relation with other authors and works. In this way, Bursill-Hall (1, 58–9; 146) mentioned Augustudonensis, Autun, Bibliothèque de la Societé Éduenne 1, su nº 72, relative to other medieval manuscripts with grammatical content and the Monacensis, München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 4409. Gavinelli (5) studied

Manuscripts

57

the codex Bernensis 363 in connection with other authors, especially Virgil; the same manuscript is used by Staubach (19) due to its relation with Sedulius. Studies into mss. of late era, medieval and humanistic works, derived from studying met. and Ovid, can be found in Leotta (2), where the author examined  a medieval accessus with the life and work of Ovid contained in the Vaticanus Latinus 11597, from the 15th-16th centuries (Coulson 80). Coulson (12) included the ms. Los Angeles, University of California at Los Angeles Research Library, 100 box 178 (although this only has some fragments from met.: f. 1, met. 1.2–40, 42–79; f. 2, met. 1.560–599, 600–639), because it is a witness to the medieval vulgate commentary of met. The same author (21) also studied the mss. of Berlin, Berolinensis Deutsche Staatsbibl. Diez. B Sant. 2; Coloniacensis, Cologny-Genève, Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 125; and Florentinus, Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Magl. VIII. 1445, since they contain unedited material relating to the medieval and renaissance lives of Ovid. Due to their relation to the fable in the Middle Ages, Dicke and Grubmüller (22, lxvii, 403) mentioned the mss. Monacensis, München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Monacensis Clm 24510 and 4409. For the same reason, Bodemann and Dicke (27, 432) made reference to Monacensis, München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Monacensis Clm 4409, including German versions of fables (ff. 87–132). Pellegrin (29, 311) also mentioned this mss. due to its inclusion (f. 180–183) of the work Liber quinque clauium sapientiae: ‘Utilis est rudibus praesentis cura libelli’, while Munk Olsen (23, 67–96) concisely referred to the Duacensis, Douai, Bibliothèque municipale 749, the ms. Heiligenkreuz, Bibliothek des Zisterzienserstifts, 227, and Monacensis, München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 4409, as witnesses of the so-called aetas Ovidiana. Again Coulson, although he collected it in his additions to the catalogue of Munari (35, nº 41), also included his description as a witness to the medieval interpretations of Ovid. Senis (38) used the celebrated Neapolitanus, Bibl. Naz. IV. F.3, but relating to its presence in Narrationes attributed to Lactantius. The ms. Camberrensis, Canberra, National Library of Australia, 1097/75, is  a single sheet containing met. 4.794–803, 5.1–41, but which was studied by Coulson (40) because it has a commentary in the margins surrounding the text, which has many points in common with the vulgate version. For the same reason, he studied (40) the ms. of Los Angeles, University of California at Los Angeles Research Library, 100 box 178, hence the commentary which accompanies the text is from the vulgate commentary. Spencer (51, 395 n. 31) briefly mentions the ms. Oxoniensis, Oxford, Bodl. Add. A 208,  a florilegium containing verses of different authors including Ovid. In 1996 Villa (61) examined the identification of Manegoldo di Lautenbach, present in the ms. Monacensis, München, Clm 4610, with the Mainegaudus which comments on the ms. Bernensis, Bern, Burgerbibl. 327 (s. XII–XIII) Horace’s Ars poetica. Klein (62, 1–112, esp. 94) refers to Leidensis, Leiden, B. P. L. 2845, which contains two very small fragments of met. at f. 2: 1.321–60 and 1.362–400, due to its universal historiographic contents by Heinrich von München (14th century). Plate made a similar study in 2005 (73, 35, 273–4), while Coulson (81) examined the manuscripts and printed works produced about Iudicium armorum (met. 13.1–398) from the end of the 10th century to the third quarter of the 14th century, adding in an appendix the interlineal notes from the ms.

58

Transmission and Textual Criticism

Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, lat. fol. 167. The f. 323r-326v of this manuscript contain met. 13.1–140 and the prose paraphrasing of Veit Amerbach (1549–1550). In 2011 Coulson (84) included the ms. from Florence, Laurentianus 36, 18, because of its relation to the scholarly French translation in the Middle Ages and its teaching methods, including the tradition of met. commentaries. These commentaries are usually characterised by a multiplicity of approaches according to the audience, who read Ovid’s text carefully and in detail. Other unusual cases are: The ms. of München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Monacensis Clm 4409, was listed by Schmidt (14, 84, 203) due to its origin in St. Ulrich and Afra zu Augsburg. Denoël (72) mentioned the Parisinus, Paris, Lat. 18546 for its provenance in Nôtre-Dame. Gumbert (36, 90 n. 82) mentioned the Londinensis, London, Mus. Brit. Harl. 2494, stating that it was authored by Jo. Schalck de Egmond. Fogg (46) pointed out the purchase (nº 33; sale noted in Scriptorium 47, 1998, 56) of the not-yet-described Marstonianus Yalensis MS 774 stored in New Haven, Yale University, and Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Black (67), on the other hand, was interested in Ovidian manuscripts in terms of studying the methods of scholarly teaching in Italian medieval and Renaissance times. In this way, he utilised the manuscripts of Florence, Acquisti e Doni 387; Plutei, 36,3; 36.4; 36.5; 36.6; 36.9; 36.10; 36.12; 36.14; 36.16; 36.17; 36.18; Conventi Soppressi 186, 245, and 340; Strozzi 121; San Marco 238. Other manuscripts were examined for distinct motives. Giaccaria (17) mentioned the ms. of Torino, Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria, K.IV.27 because it was affected by fire. For reasons of artistic book production, Hoffmann (18, 480) mentioned the manuscript Monacensis, München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cgm 4286 + Clm 29208 (1). Finally, for iconographic motives, Newton (28) explained the illustrations in the three oldest mss.of met. 2. Textual Criticism a. Tendencies The text of Ovid’s Metamorphoses from the editiones principes of Bologna and Rome of 1471 (1, 2) has progressed through various stages (Ramírez de Verger, 335): aetas natalis (1471–1501); aetas Regiana-Naugeriana (1502–1652); aetas Heinsiana (1652–1821); aetas Germanica (1832–1977); aetas Angloamericana (1894–2020). The editors of the met., in the terms used by Tarrant (342, 18–29; 355), are divided into curators, sceptics and radicals. Among the first group are the editions and commentaries of Anderson (203), von Albrecht (208), Bömer (153; 156; 163; 170; 186; 268), Scivoletto (239), Galasso (236), and Fink (288); among the second group, the editions of Goold (178), Tarrant (258), Ramírez de Verger (266), Barchiesi and Rosati (284), Kenney (315), Reed (324), Hardie (328), and Holzberg (347). Until now there has never been an edition of met. as radical as those of Propertius by Heyworth (Oxford 2006) or Giardina (Rome 2010).

References

59

Therefore it seems that the editorial tendencies in met. are as far removed from the Germanic conservatism of the late 19th century as from the British radicalism of Bentley and Housman. In some ways they show a return to the scepticism of Heinsius, Kenney and Tarrant, who argue that each possible reading should be judged according to its own merits, not just the quantitive weights of the manuscripts. This is the route taken by the ‘Nicolaus Heinsius’ group at Huelva University about the editions and commentaries of each of the met.’s books, a project which should be finished in a few years’ time. b. References I have tried to bear witness to the editions, commentaries, articles and essays which have been published during the period 1980–2018 about textual criticism of met. I should admit that much good work has been done on the Ovidian text. However, on numerous occasions I have come across inaccuracies and deafening silences in the exact allocation of authors’ speculations and amendments to Ovid’s text. I was surprised by their loyalty in quoting the works by modern philologists, starting from the 20th century, as well as their vagueness in remembering the contributions of previous philologists. For this reason, I have taken the liberty of mentioning not only the bibliography of the relevant years, but also the references which they make to previous works, often difficult to locate and access, in spite of the now-invaluable assistance of Google Books. I was unable to resist including monographs which will be published in the next few years. The sigla, both of Ovidian manuscripts and codices Heinsiani, can be crosschecked on the website of the Huelva University ‘Nicolaus Heinsius’ research group http://www.uhu.es/proyectovidio/esp/index.html. 1.  Editio Bononiensis, a Francisco Puteolano, Bononiae MCCCCLXXI. 2. Editio Romana,  a Jo. Andr. de Buxis, Romae quintodecimo Kal. Augu. MCCCCLXXI. 3.  Editio Veneta, Metamorphoses, Venetiis per Iacobum Rubeum, 1472. 4.  Editio Veneta, Metamorphoses, Iacobus Rubeus impressit, 1474. 5.  Editio Mediolanensis, a I. Bono Accursio, 1475. 6.  Editio Parmensis, Publii Ovidii Metamorphoseos libri xv cum fabulis ad loca sua positis. Impressum Parmae ductu et impensis mei Stephani Coralli Lugdunensis, MCCCCLXXVII die primo Iulii. 7.  Editio Vicentina, P. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoseos libri xv, Vicentiae impressa MCCCCLXXX pridie idus Aug. 8.  Editio Veneta, Publii Ovidii Metamorphoseos opera, Lucantonii Florentini, Venetiis 1489. 9. H. Barbarus, Castigationes Hermolai in Plinium omnium quae excusae fuerunt castigatissimae, Romae 1493.

60

Transmission and Textual Criticism

10. R. Regius, P. Ovidii Metamorphosis cum integris ac emendatissimis Raphaelis Regii enarrationibus et reprehensione illarum ineptiarum, Venetiis 1493. 11.  Editio Aldina, Ovidii Metamorphoseon libri quindecim, Venetiis in aedibus Aldi mense Octobri MCII. 12.  I. a Cruce, Jacobi a Cruce centum et sexaginta annotationes in varios auctores, Bononiae 1503. 13.  I. Constantius Fanensis, Iacobi Constantii Fanensis in Ovidii Metamorphoses assumenta, in Iacobi Constantii Fanensis Collectaneorum Hecatostys, Fani 1508. 14. R. Regius, P. Ovidii Metamorphoseis cum luculentissimis Raphaelis Regii enarrationibus, Mediolani 1510. 15. A.  Naugerius, Ovidii Metamorphoseon libri quindecim, Venetiis in aedibus Aldi et Andreae Soceri mense Februario MDXVI (curante Andr. Naugerio). 16. Editio Lugdunensis, P.  Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoseos. Adnotationes … Philippi Beroaldi, Ioannis Baptistae, Iani Parrhasii, Lodovico C. Rhodigini et Iacobi Bononiensis, Lugduni MDXVIII. 17.  Editio Iuntina, Publii Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoseos libri XV nunc primum in lucem lati castigatissimi, Florentiae per heredes Philippi Iuntae anno dominicae Incarnationis MDXXII Kal. Septemb. Leguntur Caroli Viviani Collensis castigationes. 18.  Editio Aldina, Ovidii Metamorphoseon libri quindecim, Venetiis in Aedibus Aldi et Andreae Soceri Mense Septembri MDXXX. 19.  Editio Gryphiana, Pub. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri XV, Lugduni apud Seb. Gryphium, 1543. 20. I. Micyllus, P. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoseos libri quindecim cum commentariis Raphaelis Regii, adiectis annotationibus Jacobi Micylli nunc primum in lucem editis, Basileae 1543. 21.  Editio Gryphiana, Pub. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri XV, Lugduni apud Seb. Gryphium 1546. 22.  F.  Sanctius ‘Brocensis’, Angeli Politiani Sylvae. Nutricia. Rusticus. Manto. Ambra. Poëma quidem obscurum, sed nouis nunc Scholijs illustratum per Franciscum Sanctium Brocensem, Salmanticae 1554. 23.  Editio Gryphiana, Pub. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri XV, Lugduni apud haered. Seb. Gryphii, 1559. 24.  Editio Gryphiana, Pub. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri XV, Lugduni apud Seb. Gryphium, 1565. 25.  Editio Plantiniana, Pub. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon lib. XV ex accuratiss. Andreae Naugerii castigatione, Antverpiae 1566. 26. H.  Glareanus, P.  Ovidii Nasonis Opera, veterum exemplarium auxilio ab infinitis mendis emendata. Henrici Glareani annotationes in Metamorphosin et ad verba et ad res intelligendas magni usus. Praeterea Longolii, quae lectorem plurimum in impeditis locis iuvare possunt, Londini 1570.

References

61

27. H.  Ciofanus, Herculis Ciofani Sulmonensis in P.  Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphosin ex XXIII libris antiquis observationes, Venetiis 1575. 28.  M. A. Delrio, In L. Annaei Senecae Cordubensis poetae gravissimi tragoediae decem … amplissima adversaria, quo loco commentarii esse possunt ex bibliotheca Martini Antonii Delrio, I. C., Antverpiae 1576. 29. H.  Ciofanus, Herculis Ciofani Sulmonensis in P.  Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphosin  ex XXIII libris antiquis observationes. Secunda editio multo locupletior, Antverpiae 1583. 30.  Editio Plantiniana, Pub. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon lib. XV ab Andrea Naugerio castigati et Vict. Giselini scholiis illustrati, Antverpiae 1595. 31. P.  Faber, Agonisticon Petri Fabri … sive de re athletica ludisque, Lugduni 1595. 32. G. Bersman, Publ. Ovidii Nasonis Operum tomus II quo continentur Metamorphoseon libri XV ex postrema Iacobi Micylli recognitione et recensione nova Gregorii Bersmani. Editio tertia aliquot locis auctior, Lipsiae 1596. 33. I. Meursius, Ioannis Meursi ad Theocriti Syracusani poetae Idyllia Spicilegium. Eiusdem ad epigrammata notae, Lugduni Batavorum 1597. 34. T. Marcilius, Ad Horatii Flacci opera omnia, quotidiana & emendatae lectiones, Parisiis 1604. 35. I. Gebhardus, Iani Gebhardi Crepundiorum seu iuvenilium curarum libri tres, Hanoviae 1615. 36. C. Barth, Casp. Barthi Adversariorum commentariorum libri LX …, Francofurti 1624. 37. D. Heinsius, Pub. Ovidii Nasonis Opera. Daniel Heinsius textum recensuit. Accedunt breves notae ex collatione Scaligeri et Palatinis Iani Gruteri. P.  Ovidii Nasonis operum tomus II, qui XV Metamorphoseon sive Transformationum libros continet cum brevibus notis e MSS. potissimum Palatinis, Lugduni Batavorum 1629. 38. L. Alardus, C. Valerii Flacci Setini Balbi Argonauticon libri IX. Lamp. Alardus Guilielmiades perpetuo commentario illustravit …, Lipsiae 1630. 39. D. Salvagnius, Publii Ovidii Nasonis equitis Romani libellus in Ibin: Dionysii Salvagnii Boessii, Lugduni 1633. 40. T.  Farnabius, Publii Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri XV. … opera et studio Th. Farnabii, Amstelodami 1639. 41. S. Petitus, Samuelis Petiti Observationum libri III., in quibus uaria ueterum scriptorum loca, quae ad Philologiam, Iurisprudentiam & utriusque Ecclesiae Iudaicae atque Christianae historiam pertinent, illustrantur aut emendantur, Parisiis 1642. 42. C. Barth, Cl. Claudiani … quae exstant. Caspar Barthius ope septemdecim manuscriptorum exemplarium restituit …, Francofurti 1650. 43.  I. F.  Gronovius, Johannis Frederici Gronovii Observationum Liber Novus, Daventriae 1652.

62

Transmission and Textual Criticism

44. N. Heinsius, Operum P. Ovidii Nasonis editio nova accurante Nicolao Heinsio. Publii Ovidii Nasonis Operum tomus II qui XV Metamorphoseon sive Transfor­ mationum libros continet, Amstelodami 1652. 45. C. Salmasius, Claudii Salmasii viri ill. Epistolarum liber primus …. Accurante Antonio Clementio, Lugduni Batavorum 1656. 46. N. Heinsius, P. Ovidii Nasonis Operum tomus I scripta amatoria complexus. Nicolaus Heinsius, D. F., infinitis locis castigavit ad fidem scriptorum exemplarium, Amstelaedami ex officina Elzeviriana, 1658. 47.  I. G. Capoferreus, Joannis Gulielmi Capoferrei animadversionum in auctores classicos L. L. Liber I qui est in Ovidii Metamorphosin, Lipsiae 1659. 48. T.  Faber, Tanaquilli Fabri Epistolae criticae quarum pleraeque ad emenda­ tionem scriptorum veterum pertinent, Salmurii 1659. 49. N. Heinsius, P. Ovidii Nasonis Operum tomus II qui Metamorphoses complectitur. Nicolaus Heinsius, D. F., locis infinitis ex fide scriptorum exemplarium castigavit et observationes adiecit, Amstelaedami ex officina Elzeviriana, 1659. 50. I.  Schepperus, Isaci Schepperi coniecturae et emendationes ad Ovidii Meta­ morphoses, in T. Faber 1659, 307–23, 327–45. 51. N.  Heinsius, P.  Ovidii Nasonis Operum tomus tertius, in quo Fasti, Tristia, Ponticae Epistolae et Ibis. Nicolaus Heinsius locis quamplurimis castigavit et notas adjecit, Amstelaedami 1661. 52.  I. F.  Gronovius, L.  Annaei Senecae tragoediae. I. F.  Gronovius recensuit. Acceserunt eiusdem et variorum notae, Amstelodami 1662. 53.  I. F. Gronovius, Johannis Frederici Gronovii Observationum libri tres, Lugduni Batavorum 16622 . 54. D. Crispinus, Pub. Ovidii Nasonis Operum tomus secundus interpretatione et notis illustravit Daniel Crispinus Helvetius, Lugduni 1689. 55. P.  Burman, P.  Ovidii Nasonis opera omnia IV voluminibus comprehensa. Tomus II: P. Ovidii Nasonis Metamporphoseon libri XV cum integris J. C. Fanensis … quibus et suas adnotationes adiecit Petrus Burmannus, Amstelodami 1727. 56.  P.  Burman (ed.), Sylloge Epistolarum  a viris illustribus scriptarum, t. III …, Leiden 1727. 57.  J. H. Withof, Joannis Hildebrandi Withofii Praemetium crucium criticarum praecipue ex Seneca tragico …, Lugduni Batavorum 1749. 58. N.  Heinsius, P.  Ovidii Nasonis opera omnia  e recensione Nic. Heinsii cum eiusdem notis integris praefatus est Ioh. Aug. Ernesti, curavit indicemque verborum copiosissimum adiecit Io. Frid. Fischerus, Lipsiae 1758. 59.  Editio Parisina, P. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri XV … ad usum scho­ larum, Parisiis 1771. 60.  H. Verheykius (ed.), Antonini Liberalis Transformationum congeries, Lugduni Batavorum 1774.

References

63

61. J. Schrader, Jo. Schraderi liber emendationum, Leovardiae 1776. 62.  Editio Bipontina, Publii Ovidii Nasonis Opera ad optimas editiones collata, volumen secundum: Metamorphoseon libri XV, Biponti 1783. 63.  E. Erkema, “Observatorum in Teognidem pars altera”, Acta literaria societatis Rheno-Trajectinae, Lugduni Batavorum et Trajecti ad Rhenum 1803, 338–57. 64.  G. E. Gierig, P. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoses. Recensuit varietate lectionis notisque instruxit G. E. Gierig. Tomus prior, Lipsiae 18042 . 65.  G. E. Gierig, P. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoses. Recensuit varietate lectionis notisque instruxit G. E. Gierig. Tomus posterior, Lipsiae 18072 . 66. G. Wakefield, T. Lucreti Cari De rerum natura libri sex, ad exemplar Gilberti Wakefield …, Glasguae 1813, I. 67.  F. H. Bothe, P. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri XV. Collatis Academiae Berolin. codice ms. aliisque bonis libris curavit F. H. Bothe, Manhemii 1818. 68.  F. H. Bothe, Friderici Henrici Bothe Vindiciae sive annotationes in P. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon libros XV. Accedunt J. H. Vossii lectiones et notae, Gottingae 1818. 69.  J. F.  Boissonade, Ovidii Metamorphoseon libri quindecim. Graeci versi  a ­Maximo Planude et nunc primum editi a Jo. Fr. Boissonade, vol. V, Parisiis 1822. 70.  J. D. Fuss ad J. B. Lycocriticum Epistola, Leodii 1823. 71. J. Markland, P. Papinii Statii libri quinque Silvarum ex vetustis exemplaribus recensuit et notas atque emendationes adjecit Jer. Marklandus, Dresdae-Londini 1827. 72.  E. C. C. Bach, P. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri XV. Mit kritischen und erläuternden Anmerkungen von E. C. Chr. Bach, Hannover 1831, Erster Band I–VII. 73.  I. F.  Gronovius, Iohannis Frederici Gronovii Observationum libri quattuor. Edidit C. H. Frotscher, Lipsiae 1831. 74.  J. C. Jahn, P. Ovidii Nasonis quae supersunt Opera Omnia. Ad codicum mss. et editt. fidem recognovit, varias lectiones subjunxit et clavem Ovidianam addidit Joannes Christianus Jahn. Volumen II. Tom. I–II, Lipsiae 1832. 75.  D. C. G. Baumgarten-Crusius, P. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoses. Recensuit et perpetua annotatione illustravit D. C. G. Baumgarten-Crusius, Lipsiae 1834. 76.  E. C. C.  Bach, P.  Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri XV. Mit kritischen und erläuternden Anmerkungen von E. C. Chr. Bach, Hannover 1836, Zweiter Band VIII–XV. 77. R. Merkel, P. Ovidius Naso ex recognitione R. Merkelii, tom. II: Metamor­ phoses, Lipsiae 1850. 78. R. Unger, Analecta Propertiana scripsit; quaestiones Philitaeas atque emendationes Arnobianas interposuit Robertus Unger, Halis 1850. 79. M. Haupt, Die Metamorphosen des P. Ovidius Naso. Erklärt von M. Haupt, Leipzig 1853, vol. I.

64

Transmission and Textual Criticism

80. H.  Lindemann, Publii Ovidii Nasonis Opera …, von H. Lindemann, III: Buch 11–15, Leipzig 1856. 81.  R. Suchier, “Zur Kritik von Ovidius Metamorphosen”, JCP 79, 1859, 570–5, 639–43. 82. R.  Merkel, P.  Ovidius Naso ex recognitione R.  Merkelii. Tom. II Meta­ morphoses, Lipsiae 1861. 83.  H. A. Koch, “Coniectanea in poetas latinos”, in Symbola philologorum Bonnensium in honorem Friderici Ritschelii collecta, Lipsiae 1864, 313–58. 84. L.  Müller, “Zur Kritik des ersten Theils der Ovidischen Dichtungen”, RhM 20, 1865, 256–64. 85. J.  Siebelis, P.  Ouidii Nasonis Metamorphoses. Auswahl für Schulen. Mit erläuternden Anmerkungen und einem mythologisch-geographischen Register versehen von Dr. Johannes Siebelis. Zweites Heft. Buch. X–XV und das mythologischgeographischen Register enthaltend. Fünfte Auflage, Leipzig 1868. 86.  W. H. Roscher, “Zu Ovidius Metamorphosen III 643”, NJbb 101, 1870, 216 87.  I. N. Madvig, I. N. Madvigii Adversaria critica ad scriptores Graecos et Latinos. Vol. I De arte coniecturali. Emendationes Graecae, Hauniae 1871. 88. J.  Rappold, Beitrag zur Kritik und Erklärung der Ovidianischen Metamor­ phosen, Leoben 1871. 89. A. Riese, P. Ovidii Nasonis Carmina edidit A. Riese. Vol. II: Metamorphoses. Editio stereotypa, Lipsiae 1872. 90. E. Hoffmann, Die construction der lateinische Zeitpartikeln, Wien 1873. 91.  I. N. Madvig, I. N. Madvigii Adversaria critica ad scriptores Graecos et Latinos. Vol. II Emendationes Latinae, Hauniae 1873 (Hildesheim 1967). 92. R. Merkel, P. Ovidius Naso ex iterata R. Merkelii recognitione. Vol. II: Metamorphoses cum emendationis summario, Lipsiae 1875. 93.  H. Hartung, “Zu Ovidius”, Philologus 36, 1877, 362. 94.  G. Nick, “Ovidius”, Philologischer Anzeiger 8, 1877, 486–96. 95.  J. J. Cornelissen, “Satura”, Mnemosyne 6, 1878, 305–14. 96.  M.  Haupt, O.  Korn, Die Metamorphosen des P.  Ovidius Naso. Erklärt von M. Haupt. Bearbeitet von O. Korn, Berlin 1878, vol. I. 97.  L.  Lange, “Ovid. Metamorphos. 6, 82”, Leipziger Studien zur Classischen Philologie 1, 1878, 381–5. 98.  E. Mehler, “Miscellanea”, Mnemosyne 6, 1878, 387–412. 99. F. Polle, P. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoses … von J. Siebelis, II: X–XV. Neunte Auflage besorgt von F. Polle, Leipzig 1878. 100. A. Algermissen, Quaestiones Ovidianae criticae, Monasterii 1879. 101. C. Hellmuth, Emendations-Versuche zu Ovids Metamorphosen, Kaiserslautern 1880.

References

65

102.  H. Köstlin, “Zu Ovids Metamorphosen 3, 640 ff.”, Philologus 39, 1880, 369. 103. O. Korn, P. Ovidius Naso. Recensuit O. Korn. Tomus II Metamorphoseon libri XV, Berolini 1880. 104.  P. Preibisch, “Zu Ovidius Metamorphosen”, NJhbb 151, 1881, 128. 105.  J.  Rappold, “Zu Ovid’s Heroiden und Metamorphosen”, ZÖG 32, 1881, 401–15. 106. C. Lachmann, Caroli Lachmanni in T. Lucreti Cari de rerum natura libros commentarius quartum editus, Berolini 1882. 107.  R. Ellis, “On some passages of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, JPh 12, 1883, 62–76. 108. T. Bergk, Kleine philologische Schriften, ed. R. Peppmüller, Halis Saxonum 1884, I. 109. H. S. Sedlmayer, A.  Zingerle, O.  Güthling, P.  Ovidi Nasonis Carmina ediderunt H. St. Sedlmayer, A. Zingerle, O. Güthling. Vol. II: Metamorphoses scholarum in usum edidit A. Zingerle, Lipsiae 1884. 110. R. Ellis, Analecta Oxoniensia, vol. I, part V, Oxford 1885. 111.  F. Polle, “Zu Ovidius”, NJhPP 134, 1885, 889–93. 112.  J. Siebelis, F. Polle, P. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoses. Auswahl für Schulen. Edd. Dr. Johannes Siebelis-Dr. Friedrich Polle. II: Buch X–XV, Leipzig 1888. 113.  F. Polle, “Zu Ovidius Metamorphosen”, NJhbb 137, 1888, 266–70. 114.  S. G.  Owen, P.  Ovidi Nasonis Tristium Libri V.  Recensuit S. G.  Owen, Oxford 1889. 115. A. Riese, P. Ovidii Nasonis Carmina edidit A. Riese. Vol. II: Metamorphoses. Editio stereotypa iterum recognita, Lipsiae 1889. 116. C.  Simmons, P.  Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon XIII. XIV. Edited with Introduction, Analysis and Notes by Ch. Simmons, London-New York 18892 (18871). 117.  I. Siebelis, F. Polle, P. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoses, I: Buch I–IX, Leipzig 189215. 118.  P. H. Damsté, “De locis quibusdam ex Ovidii Metamorphosin”, Mnemosyne 22, 1894, 58–65. 119.  G. M. Edwards, P. Ovidi Nasonis Metamorphoseon libros recensuit G. M. Ed­ wards, in J. P. Postgate, (ed.), Corpus Poetarum Latinorum, Londini 1894, I, 401–93. 120. P. Lejay, Morceaux choisis des Métamorphoses d’Ovide, avec une introduction et des notes par P. Lejay, Paris 1894. 121.  J. P. Postgate, “On book XV of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, JPh 22, 1894, 144–53. 122.  E. Tournier, “Sur un passage d’Ovide”, RPh 19, 1895, 140–2. 123. J. Gilbert, Ovidianae quaestiones criticae et exegeticae, Meissen 1896. 124.  I. Hilberg, “Beobachtungen über die prosodischen Functionen inlautender muta cum liquida bei Ovid”, Serta Harteliana, Wien 1896, 172–6.

66

Transmission and Textual Criticism

125. H.  Usener, Götternamen: Versuch eine Lehre von der religiösen Begriffs­ bildung, Bonn 1896. 126. A. Palmer, P. Ovidi Nasonis Heroides with the Greek translation of Planudes. Edited by the late A. Palmer, Oxford 1898. 127. R. Holland, Die Sage von Daidalos und Ikaros, Leipzig 1902. 128.  A. E.  Housman, Marcus Manilius Astronomicon. Recensuit et enarravit A. E. Housman, Hildesheim 1972, I–II (= 1903–1916). 129.  O. von Bariner, “Nixi di und Verwandtes”, RhM 60, 1905, 614–23. 130.  J. J. Hartman, De Ovidio poeta commentatio, Lugduni Batavorum 1905. 131. E.  Hedicke, Edmundi Hedickii Studia Bentleiana. V: Ovidius Bentleianus, Freienwaldiae 1905. 132. S. Mendner, Der Text der Metamorphosen Ovids, Inaug.-Diss. Univ. Köln, Bochum 1909. 133.  D. A. Slater, “Notes on Statius”, CR 26, 1912, 255–8. 134. H. Magnus, P. Ovidi Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri XV. Lactanti Placidi qui dicitur Narrationes fabularum Ovidianarum. Recensuit apparatu critico instruxit H. Magnus, Berolini 1914. 135. R. Ehwald, P. Ovidius Naso. Vol. II Metamorphoses. Ex iterata R. Merkelii recognitione edidit R.  Ehwald. Editio maior: Commentarius criticus ex Hugonis Magni apparatu maximam partem transumptus est, Lipsiae 1915. 136.  D. A. Slater, “Some codices Vossiani and the Metamorphosis of Ovid”, CR 29, 1915, 174–8. 137. P. Fabbri, P. Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoseon libri VI–X. Recensuit, praefatus est, appendice critica instruxit Paulus Fabbri, Aug. Taurinorum 1923. 138. J. Borucki, Seneca philosophus quam habeat auctoritatem in aliorum scriptorium locis afferendis, diss. Leipzig 1926. 139.  A. E. Housman, M. Annaei Lucani Belli civilis libri decem editorem in usum edidit A. E. Housman, Oxonii 1926. 140. E. Norden, P. Vergilius Maro, Aeneis Buch VI. Erklärt von E. Norden. Neunte Auflage. Neudruck der dritten Auflage 1927, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1995. 141.  D. A. Slater, Towards a text of the Metamorphosis of Ovid, Oxford 1927. 142.  A. G.  Lee, P.  Ovidi Nasonis Metamorphoseon liber I.  Edited by A. G.  Lee, Cambridge 1953. 143.  D. R. Shackleton Bailey, “Ovidiana”, CQ 4, 1954, 165–70. 144.  W. Clausen, “Two Conjectures”, AJPh 84, 1963, 415–17. 145. H. Breitenbach, Publius Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen, Epos in 15 Büchern. Herausgegeben und übersetzt von H. Breitenbach, Zürich 19642 . 146.  W. Clausen, review of Enk, Prop. II, AJPh 86, 1965, 95–101.

References

67

147.  G. P. Goold, “Amatoria Critica”, HSCPh 69, 1965, 1–107. 148.  M. Haupt, R. Ehwald, M. von Albrecht, P. Ovidius Naso Metamorphosen. Erster Band. Buch I–VII. Erklärt von M.  Haupt. Unveränderte Neuausgabe der Auflage von R. Ehwald, korrigiert und bibliographisch ergänzt von M. von Albrecht, Dublin-Zürich 1966. 149.  E. J. Kenney, “In Parenthesis”, CR 20, 1970, 291. 150.  W. S. Anderson, Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Books 6–10, Norman 1972. 151.  A. E. Housman, The Classical Papers of A. E. Housman. Collected and edited by J. Diggle and F. R. D. Goodyear, Cambridge 1972, 20042 , I–III. 152.  E. J. Kenney, “Materie superatur Opus”, CR 22, 1972, 38–42. 153. F.  Bömer, P.  Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen. Kommentar von F.  Bömer. Buch VI–VII, Heidelberg 1976. 154.  E. J. Kenney, “Ovidius prohemians”, PCPhS 22, 1976, 46–53. 155.  M. Pulbrook, “Eleven Emendations in Latin Poets”, Hermathena 120, 1976, 39–49. 156. F.  Bömer, P.  Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen. Kommentar von F.  Bömer, Buch VIII–IX, Heidelberg 1977. 157.  A. S. Hollis, Ovid, Ars amatoria Book I. Edited with introduction and commentary by A. S. Hollis, Oxford 1977, repr. 1983. 158. G. Luck, P. Ovidius Naso, Tristia. Herausgegeben, übersetzt und erklärt von G. Luck, Band II Kommentar, Heidelberg 1977. 159.  E. J. Kenney, “Too Many Ablatives Spoil the Broth”, CQ 28, 1978, 471–2. 160.  W. Clausen, “Ovid, MET. 15.90”, AJPh 100, 1979, 247–9. 161.  E. J. Kenney, “De minimis curatio”, CR 29, 1979, 223–6. 162.  J.  Blänsdorf, “Entstehung und Kontamination der Doppelfassung Ovid, Metam. I,544–547a”, RhM 123, 1980, 138–51. 163. F.  Bömer, P.  Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen. Kommentar von F.  Bömer, Buch X–XI, Heidelberg 1980. 164.  J. B. Hall, review of Anderson’s edition, PACA 15, 1980, 62–70. 165. G.  Lieberg, “Zur Kombination literarischer Gattungen. Ovids Erzäh­ lung  von Philemon und Baucis (Metamorphosen VIII 611–728)”, Aevum 1, 1980, 35–45. 166.  A. A. R.  Henderson, Ovid, Metamorphoses III. Edited with Introduction, Notes and Vocabulary by A. A. R. Henderson, London 19812 , repr. 2001. 167.  G. Lieberg, “Ovid’s Tale of Philemon and Baucis”, Mosaic 12, 1981, 93–104. 168.  M. Paschalis, “Evolat”, Dodone 10, 1981, 23–36. 169.  D. R. Shackleton Bailey, “Notes on Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Phoenix 35, 1981, 332–7.

68

Transmission and Textual Criticism

170. F.  Bömer, P.  Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen. Kommentar von F.  Bömer, Buch XI–XII, Heidelberg 1982. 171.  G. L. Huxley, “Arne Sithonis”, CQ 32, 1982, 159–61. 172.  G.  Luck, “Notes on the Text of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, AJPh 103, 1982, 47–61. 173.  R. J.  Tarrant, “Editing Ovid’s Metamorphoses: Problems and Possibilities”, CPh 77, 1982, 342–60. 174.  J. Delz, “Die Hörner des Achelous (Ov. Epist. 9, 139 und Met. 9, 98)”, MH 40, 1983, 123–4. 175.  C. Gnilka, “Zu Ovid, met. 4, 623”, RPL 6, 1983, 143–4. 176.  A. A. R. Henderson, “acuta cupressus (Ovid, Met. 3.155)”, LCM 8, 1983, 13. 177.  D. E. Hill, “Ovid, Metamorphoses 1,438–60”, Mnemosyne 36, 1983, 159–61. 178.  G. P. Goold, Ovid in six volumes. III. Metamorphoses, with an English translation by F. J. Miller in two volumes. I: Books I–VIII, II: Books IX–XV, Third Edition, revised by G. P. Goold, Cambridge, Ma., 1984. 179.  R. Degl’Innocenti Pierini, “Seneca emulo di Ovidio nella rappresentazione del diluvio universale (Nat. Quaest. 3, 27, 13 sgg.)”, Atene e Roma 29, 1984, 146–61. 180.  E. J. Kenney, “In the Straight”, CR 34, 1984, 33–6. 181.  C. E. Murgia, “Ovid Met. 1. 544–547 and the Theory of Double Recension”, CQ 3, 1984, 207–35. 182.  J. C.  Relihan, “Ovid Metamorphoses I, 1–4 and Fulgentius’ Mythologiae”, AJPh 105, 1984, 87–90. 183.  H. Stadler, “Eine textkritische Anmerkung zu Ovid, Metamorphoses 11, 534”, Philologus 128, 1984, 304–6. 184.  D. E. Hill, Ovid, Metamorphoses I–IV. Edited with Translation and Notes by D. E. Hill, Warminster 1985. 185.  H.  Stadler, “Beobachtungen zu Ovids Erzählung von Ceyx und Alcyone, Met. 11,410–748”, Philologus 129, 1985, 201–12. 186. F. Bömer, P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen. Kommentar von F. Bömer, Buch XIV–XV, Heidelberg 1986. 187.  D. Melville, E. J. Kenney, Ovid Metamorphoses, Oxford 1986. 188.  J. B. Solodow, “Raucae, tua cura, palumbes: Study of a Poetic Word Order”, HSCPh 90, 1986, 129–53. 189.  E. Sonderegger, “Die Flügel des Dädalus”, Gymnasium 93, 1986, 520–32. 190. O. Zwierlein, L. Annaei Senecae Tragoediae. Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit O. Zwierlin, Oxonii 1986. 191.  P.-J. Dehon, “Ovide, Mét. VIII, 788–789”, Latomus 46, 1987, 214. 192.  R. Degl’Innocenti Pierini, “Il concilio degli dei tra Lucilio e Ovidio”, A&R 32, 1987, 137–47.

References

69

193.  R. J. Tarrant, “Toward a typology of interpolation in Latin poetry”, TAPhA 117, 1987, 281–98. 194.  E. J. Kenney, “Dicite Io Paean et Io bis dicite Paean”, CR 38, 1988, 247–9. 195.  A. De Vivo, “Parole oscure, oscure caverne (Ov. met. I 388, Sen. nat. V 14)”, Vichiana 18, 1989, 297–305. 196.  R. J.  Tarrant, “Silver Threads among the Gold: A Problem in the Text of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, ICS 14, 1989, 103–17. 197.  R. J. Tarrant, “The Reader as Author: Collaborative Interpolation in Latin Poetry”, in J. N. Grant (ed.), Editing Greek and Latin Poets, New York 1989, 121–62. 198.  R. Degl’Innocenti Pierini, “Per il testo di met. 12,543”, in R. Degl’Innocenti Pierini, Tra Ovidio e Seneca, Bologna 1990, 31–5. 199.  P. E.  Knox, “Three Notes on Ovid, Metamorphoses 15”, RhM 113, 1990, 187–9. 200.  P. E. Knox. “In Pursuit of Daphne”, TAPhA 120, 1990, 183–202. 201.  R. A. B.  Mynors, Virgil, Georgics. Edited with  a Commentary by R. A. B. Mynors, Oxford 1990. 202.  H.  Petersmann, “Lucina Nixusque pares. Die Geburtsgottheiten in Ovids Met. IX 294. Variationen eines mythologischen Motivs”, RhM 133, 1990, 157–75. 203.  W. S. Anderson, P.  Ovidii Nasonis Metamorphoses, Stutgardiae et Lipsiae 19915. 204.  A. H. F. Griffin, “Philemon and Baucis in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (Book 8.​ 611–724)”, Hermathena 151, 1991, 51–62. 205.  J. F. Huyck, A commentary on Ovid’s Armorum iudicium, “Metamorphoses” 12.612–13.398, Ph. D. Diss. Harvard 1991. 206.  G. B. A. Fletcher, “Passages in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies on Latin Literature and Roman History, VI, Bruxelles 1992, 345–53. 207.  M.  Hendry, “Two Conjectures in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, CQ 42, 1992, 552–5. 208.  M. von Albrecht, P.  Ovidius Naso Metamorphosen. Lateinisch / Deutsch. Übersetzt und herausgegeben von M. von Albrecht, Stuttgart 1994. 209.  P. Bernardini Marzolla, Publio Ovidio Nasone, Metamorfosi. Testo a fronte a cura di P. Bernardini Marzolla con uno scritto di I. Calvino, Torino 19942 . 210.  A. D. Kovacs, “Notes on Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Museum Criticum 29, 1994, 245–9. 211. A. Sharrock, Seduction and repetition in Ovid’s Ars amatoria, Oxford 1994. 212.  A. H. F.  Griffin,  “A Note on Ovid, Metamorphoses 11.48”, CQ 45, 1995, 578–9. 213.  M. Hendry, “Ovid, Metamorphoses 13.471”, Museum Criticum 30/31, 1995/96, 247–8.

70

Transmission and Textual Criticism

214.  A.  Ramírez de Verger, F.  Navarro Antolín, Ovidio: Metamorfosis, Madrid 1995. 215.  R. J.  Tarrant, “The Silence of Cephalus: Text and Narrative technique in Ovid, Metamorphoses 7.685 ff”, TAPhA 125, 1995, 99–111. 216.  W. S. Watt, “Ovidiana”, MH 52, 1995, 90–107. 217.  L. Baldini Moscadi, “Il dono di Medea (A proposito di Ovidio, Met. 7.276)”, Prometheus 22, 1996, 231–8. 218.  B. Formicola, “Varia Philologica”, in G. Germano (ed.), Classicità, medioevo e umanesimo. Studi in onore di S. Monti, Napoli 1996, 114–23. 219.  M.  Hendry, “On not looking at  a Gorgon: Ovid, Metamorphoses 5.217”, Mnemosyne 49, 1996, 188–91. 220. M.  Hendry, “Improving the alliteration: Ovid, Metamorphoses 6, 376”, Mnemosyne 49, 1996, 443–5. 221.  E. J. Kenney, Ovid, Heroides XVI–XXI. Edited by E. J. Kenney, Cambridge 1996. 222.  L. Baldini Moscadi, “Il cielo e la terra della maga (Ov. met. 7.268)”, Sileno 23, 1997, 65–72. 223.  H. Bernsdorff, “Arachnes Efeusaum (Ov. Met. 6,127–8)”, Hermes 125, 1997, 347–56. 224. F. Bessone, P. Ovidii Nasonis Heroidum epistula XII Medea Iasoni, a cura di Federica Bessone, Firenze 1997. 225.  S. J. Harrison. “A conjecture on Ovid, Metamorphoses 4.243”, CQ 47, 1997, 608–9. 226.  Mª C.  Álvarez, R. Mª Iglesias, “Razones que justifican una elección:  a propósito de la traducción de las Metamorfosis de Ovidio”, Corolla Complutensis in memoriam Josephi S. Lasso de la Vega contexta L.  Gil, M.  Martínez Pastor, R. Mª Aguilar curantibus, Madrid 1998, 289–94. 227.  S. Ratti, “Ovide artiste: le dit et le non-dit des notes: remarques sur quelques lectures de Métamorphoses 6, 151–200”, Euphrosyne 26, 1998, 455–64. 228.  Mª C. Álvarez, “Filemón y Baucis”, in E. Fernández de Mier, F. Piñero (eds.), Amores míticos, Madrid 1999, 116–35 (= SFulg 16, 2006, 123–37). 229.  Mª C. Álvarez, R. Mª Iglesias, “Nihil novum sub sole: comentarios antiguos y modernos de las Metamorfosis de Ovidio”, Actas del IX Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos, Madrid 1999, 35–40. 230.  D. E. Hill, Ovid, Metamorphoses IX–XII. Edited with Translation and Notes by D. E. Hill, Warminster 1999. 231.  W. S. Watt, “Notes on Ovid”, C&M 50, 1999, 167–78. 232.  V. Zoccola, “‘Turpe caput tendunt’: su Ov. Met. VI 379”, Maia 51, 1999, 41–5. 233.  L. Zurli, “Crux ovidiana”, GIF 51, 1999, 103–5.

References

71

234.  L.  Zurli, “Diagnosi  e restauro: esempi dalle «Metamorfosi» ovidiane”, GIF 51, 1999, 165–78. 235. O.  Zwierlein, Die Ovid- und Vergil-Revision in Tiberischer Zeit, Band I: Prolegomena, Berlin-New York 1999. 236. L. Galasso, Ovidio, Opere. II Le metamorfosi. Edizione con testo a fronte, traduzione di G.  Paduano, introduzione di A.  Perutelli, commento di L.  Galasso, Torino 2000. 237.  D. E.  Hill, Ovid. Metamorphoses XIII–XV. Edited with Translation and Notes by D. E. Hill, Warminster 2000. 238. N. Hopkinson, Ovid, Metamorphoses book XIII. Edited by N. Hopkinson, Cambridge 2000. 239. N. Scivoletto, Opere di Publio Ovidio Nasone. Volume terzo: Metamorfosi, a cura di N. Scivoletto, Torino 2000. 240.  R. J.  Tarrant, “The Soldier in the Garden and Other Intruders in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, HSCPh 100, 2000, 425–38. 241. O. Zwierlein, Antike Revisionen des Vergil und Ovid, Wiesbaden 2000. 242.  D.  Felton, “On reading latrare at Ovid, Met. 7.791”, CW 95, 2001/2, 65–9. 243.  E. J. Kenney, “Textual Notes on Ovid, Metamorphoses 7–9”, CQ 51, 2001, 545–50. 244.  G. Luck, “On the text of Ovid, Metamorphoses 15, 566”, Exemplaria 5, 2001, 119–20. 245.  D. R. Shackleton Bailey, “Lump into Minibear”, CJ 96, 2001, 261. 246.  L. Zurli, “Locus Ovidianus (Met. VIII 371) nuperrime restitutus”, GIF 53, 2001, 95–9. 247.  R. Degl’Innocenti Pierini, “Dedalo, Catone e un’eco ovidiana (Met. VIII 185 s.) in Seneca (Prov. 2, 10)”, Maia 54, 2002, 19–26. 248. G.  Liberman, Valerius Flaccus, Argonautiques, Tome II: Chants V–VIII. Texte établi et traduit par G. Liberman, Paris 2002. 249.  I. Possanza, “Penelope in Ovid’s Metamorphoses 14.671”, AJPh 123, 2002, 89–94. 250. J.  Richmond, “Manuscript Traditions and the Transmission of Ovid’s Works”, in B. W. Boyd (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Ovid, Leiden 2002, 443–83. 251.  R. J. Tarrant, “Chaos in Ovid’s Metamorphoses and its Neronian influence”, Arethusa 35, 2002, 349–60. 252.  E. J. Kenney, “Vain Repetitions? Notes on the Text of Ovid, Ars amatoria 2.593 and Metamorphoses 14.240”, CQ 53, 2003, 619–20. 253.  E. Courtney, “Tum and tunc”, Prometheus 29, 2003, 235–40. 254. G. Luck, Opera minora selecta, Huelva 2003.

72

Transmission and Textual Criticism

255. R. Bentley, Q. Horatius Flaccus ex recensione et cum notis atque emendationibus Richardi Bentelii. Tomus prior, Hildesheim 2004 4. 256.  J. Cardigni, “Un caso de posible variante de autor en Ovidio: Metamorfosis 1.544–547”, Circe 9, 2004, 87–99. 257. G.  Liberman, “Observations sur le texte des Métamorphoses d’Ovide”, RPh 78, 2004, 58–90. 258.  R. J.  Tarrant, P.  Ovidi Nasonis Metamorphoses, ed. R. J.  Tarrant, Oxonii 2004. 259.  E. Amato, “Ovidio e l’aurea aetas: continuità di miti, continuazione di storie (a proposito di Met. XV, 104)”, Latomus 64, 2005, 910–18. 260. A.  Barchiesi, Ovidio, Metamorphosi. Volume I (Libri I–II),  a cura di A. Barchiesi, Milano 2005. 261.  E. Courtney, “Three Conjetures on Ovid”, Maia 57, 2005, 39–40. 262.  H. Jacobson, “Ovid, Metamorphoses 15.88–90”, CQ 55, 2005, 651–2. 263.  G.  Luck, “Naugerius’ Notes on Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, ExClass 9, 2005, 155–224. 264.  G. Luck, review of Tarrant’s edition 2004, ExClass 9, 2005, 249–71. 265.  I. Possanza, review of Tarrant’s edition 2004, BMCR 2005.06.27. 266.  A.  Ramírez de Verger, “Metamorfosis”, in Publio Ovidio Nasón, Obras completas, Madrid 2005, 827–1.479, and 1.944–68. 267.  K.  Vanhaegendoren, “Ovid, Metamorphoses 1.258: textual criticism and Ovidian mockery”, AC 74, 2005, 199–206. 268. F.  Bömer, P.  Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen. Kommentar von F.  Bömer. Addenda, Corrigenda, Indices. Teil I: Addenda et Corrigenda. Aufgrund der Vor­ arbeiten F. Bömer zusammengestellt durch U. Schmitzer, Heidelberg 2006. 269.  L. Galasso, “L’edizione di Richard Tarrant delle Metamorfosi di Ovidio: una discussione”, MD 57, 2006, 105–36. 270.  G. Giardina, “Ovidio, Met. XIV, 416”, Latomus 65, 2006, 736–7. 271.  G. Giardina, “Ovidio, Met. XIV, 419”, Latomus 65, 2006, 735–6. 272.  G. Giardina, “Note di lettura a Ovid. Met. XIV 416–419”, Maia 58, 2006, 21–3. 273.  T. van de Loo (ed.), C. de Mure, Fabularius, Turnhout 2006. 274.  G.  Luck, “Missing Letters in Ovid’s Metamorphoses?”, Myrtia 21, 2006, 113–21. 275.  G. Luck, “Dis Manibus D. R. Shackleton Bailey (1917–2005) Laedo or ludo?”, MH 63, 2006, 68–72. 276.  A. Ramírez de Verger, “Notas críticas a las Metamorfosis de Ovidio (I 386, VI 399, VII 77, IX 653, XIII 602, XV 364)”, Emerita 74, 2006, 29–39.

References

73

277. A.  Ramírez de Verger, “A New Edition of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, in C.  ­Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History XIII, Bruxelles 2006, 315–34. 278.  A. Ramírez de Verger, “Taurus formosus: A Note on Ovid, Met. II 855”, Maia 58, 2006, 486–90. 279. A.  Ramírez de Verger, P.  Ovidius Naso, Carmina amatoria: Amores, Medicamina faciei femineae, Ars amatoria, Remedia amoris. Edidit A.  Ramírez de Verger. Editio altera, Monachii et Lipsiae 2006. 280.  A. Ramírez de Verger, “Nicolaus Heinsius sobre Ovidio, Met. XI 302–310”, Latomus, 65, 2006, 737–9. 281.  J.  Richmond, review of Tarrant’s edition 2004, Hermathena 180, 2006, 129–32. 282.  C.  Tsitsiou-Chelidoni, “Ov. met. 14,671: Pomona in der Gesellschaft der heftigst umworbenen Frauen”, BStudL 36, 2006, 399–418. 283.  T. Walsh, review of Tarrant’s edition 2004, Vergilius 52, 2006, 200–11. 284.  A. Barchiesi, G. Rosati, Ovidio, Metamorphosi. Volume I (Libri III–IV), a cura di A. Barchiesi. Commento di A. Barchiesi e G. Rosati, Milano 2007. 285.  S. Casali, “Correcting Aeneas’s Voyage: Ovid’s Commentary on Aeneid 3”, TAPhA 137, 2007, 181–210. 286.  C.  Doyen, “Note de lecture: un cheval sur l’Acropole? (Virgile, Geor., I, v. 12–14; Ovide, Métam., VI, v. 75–77)”, LEC 75, 2007, 461–5. 287.  P. Fedeli, review of Tarrant’s edition 2004, Gnomon 79, 2007, 605–12. 288. G. Fink, Publius Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen. Herausgegeben und übersetzt von G. Fink, Düsseldorf 20072 . 289.  J. F. Gaertner, “Ov. Met. 4,506; 6,343 und der Gebrauch von vergere / vertere und mediocris”, RhM 150, 2007, 89–95. 290.  J. F. Gaertner, “Tum und tunc in der Augusteischen Dichtersprache”, RhM 150, 2007, 211–224. 291.  G. Liberman, review of Barchiesi-Rosati, Ovidio, Metamorfosi, II: III–IV, BMCR 2007.10.55. 292.  G.  Luck, “Zwei Vermutungen zu Ovids Metamorphosen”, MH 64, 2007, 118–19. 293.  M. Massaro, “Che cosa mutano gli dei? (Ovidio, met. 1, 2)”, InvLuc 29, 2007, 129–44. 294.  A. Ramírez de Verger, “Dos notas críticas a las Metamorfosis de Ovidio (5.482 y 9.70–74)”, in G.  Hinojo, J. C.  Fernández Corte (eds.), Munus quaesitum meritis, Salamanca 2007, 741–6. 295.  D. J. Butterfield, “On the avoidance of eius in Latin Poetry”, RhM 151, 2008, 151–67.

74

Transmission and Textual Criticism

296.  T. Gärtner, “Untersuchungen zum Mythos in der lateinischen Dichtung”, Prometheus 34, 2008, 257–74. 297.  G. Luck, “Notes on the text of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, ExClass 12, 2008, 49–67. 298.  G. Luck, “Emendaturus, si licuisset, erat”, Euphrosyne 36, 2008, 9–19. 299.  A. Ramírez de Verger, “Seven critical notes on Ovid’s Metamorphoses (3.242; 7.532; 8.150; 11.145; 13.922; 15.169; 15.624)”, Athenaeum 96, 2008, 807–12. 300.  A.  Ramírez de Verger, “Sleep Steals upon Sleepless Eyes (On Ovid Meta­ morphoses 7.155)”, CPh 103, 2008, 311–14. 301. H. Bernsdorff, “Antonios-Diogenes-Interpretationen”, Studien zur Philologie und zur Musikwissenschaft 7, 2009, 1–52. 302.  G. Luck, “More Missing Letters in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, MH 66, 2009, 88–119. 303.  K. S. Myers, Ovid, Metamorphoses book XIV. Edited by K. S. Myers, Cambridge 2009. 304.  A. Ramírez de Verger, “Lilia in Ovid, Metamorphoses, X 191”, Maia 61, 2009, 101–6. 305. G. Rosati, Ovidio, Metamorfosi. Volume III (Libri V–VI), a cura di G. Rosati. Testo critico basato sull’edizione oxoniense di R. Tarrant. Traduzione di G. Chiarini, Milano 2009. 306.  P. Sandin, “Dim Hyperborea? Ovid, Metamorphoses 15, 356–360”, Hyper­ borea 15, 2009, 291–6. 307.  P. Campana, “Un ‘ritocco’ a Ov, met. 9,583–584”, MH 67, 2010, 164–6. 308.  T. Gärtner, “Ein Textvorschlag zu Ov. Met. 1.591”, ExClass 14, 2010, 89–90. 309.  A. Hardie, “‘Canens’ (Ovid Metamorphoses 14.320–434)”, SIFC 103, 2010, 11–67. 310. G. Liberman, Stace, Silves. Édition et commentaire critiques par G. Liberman, Paris 2010. 311.  S. Rebeggiani, “Nota ad Ovidio, met. 9, 37”, MD 64, 2010, 197–200. 312.  U.  Reinhardt, “Neptun, Enipeus und Tyro: ein alter Textfehler in Ovids Metamorphosen (6.116–117)”, RhM 153, 2010, 43–53. 313.  E.  Courtney, “Some passages of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Maia 63, 2011, 84–7. 314.  T. Gärtner, review of Ovidio, Metamorfosis, III V–VI a cura de G. Rosati, RFIC 139, 2011, 460–9. 315.  E. J.  Kenney, Ovidio, Metamorphosi. Volume IV (Libri VI–IX), Milano 2011. 316.  G. W. Most, “Ovid, Metamorphoses 14.671”, in A. Heil, M. Korn, J. Sauer (eds.), Noctes Sinenses, Heidelberg 2011, 94–101.

References

75

317.  A.  Ramírez de Verger, “Quoque in Ovid, Met. 6.27”, Philologus 155, 2011, 383–6. 318.  H. White, “Language and Style in Ovid”, Veleia 28, 2011, 191–208. 319.  J. D.  Hejduk, “Arachne’s Attitude: Metamorphoses 6.25”, Mnemosyne 65, 2012, 764–8. 320. E.  Murcia, El libro VII de las Metamorfosis de Ovidio: edición crítica y comentario textual, Tesis doctoral Huelva 2012. 321.  A. Ramírez de Verger, “Las notas de N. Heinsius a Ovidio, Met. 6 (vv. 49, 77, 514)”, in Mª C. Álvarez Morán, R. Mª Iglesias Montiel (eds.), Y el mito se hizo poesía, Madrid 2012, 141–57. 322.  A. Ramírez de Verger, “Ovid, Met. VI 664: flesh half eaten or gobbled up?”, Maia 64, 2012, 459–64. 323. A. Romeo, Orfeo in Ovidio: la creazione di un nuovo epos, Soveria Mannelli 2012 (Studi di filologia antica e moderna 25). 324.  J. D. Reed, Ovidio, Metamorfosi. Volume V (Libri X–XII), a cura di J. D. Reed, Milano 2013. 325.  S.  Díez Reboso, Edición crítica y comentario textual del libro XI de las Metamorfosis de Ovidio, Tesis doctoral Huelva 2014. 326. J. Godwin, Ovid : Metamorphoses III. An extract : 511–733, London 2014. 327.  M. G. Mosci Sassi, “Ovid. Met. 7–9”, in G. Piras (ed.), Labor in studiis. Scritti de Filologia in onore di Piergiorgio Parroni, Roma 2014, 49–55. 328. P. Hardie, Ovidio, Metamorphosi. Volume VI (Libri XII–XV), Milano 2015. 329.  A. Ramírez de Verger, F. Navarro Antolín, Ovidio, Metamorfosis. Introducción y notas de A. Ramírez de Verger. Traducción de A. Ramírez de Verger y F. Navarro Antolín, Madrid 20153, pp. 48–50. 330.  L. Rivero García, “Nota critico-esegetica a Ov. Met. 13, 257”, RaRe 6, 2015, 113–20. 331.  L. Rivero García, “Sobre dos posibles interpolaciones en el Armorum iudicium de Ovidio (Met. 13.294s., 332s.)”, GIF 67, 2015, 161–80. 332.  Á.  Suárez del Río, Edición crítica y comentario textual del libro III de las Metamorfosis de Ovidio, Tesis doctoral Huelva 2015. 333. P. Fàbregas, Edición crítica y comentario textual del libro X de las Metamorfosis de Ovidio, Tesis doctoral Barcelona 2016. 334.  I. Gildenhard, A. Zissos, eds., Ovid, Metamorphoses, 3.511–733, Latin text with introduction, commentary, glossary of terms, vocabulary aid and study questions, Cambridge 2016. 335.  A. Ramírez de Verger, “The Sources of the Editions of Ovid’s Metamorphoses (The example of Met. 6.401–674)”, in J.  Velaza (ed.), From the Protohistory to the History of the Text, Frankfurt am Main 2016, 245–78.

76

Transmission and Textual Criticism

336.  A.  Ramírez de Verger, “Three Textual Notes on Ovid’s Metamorphoses (6,212, 294, 477)”, Paideia 71, 2016, 401–8. 337.  L.  Rivero García, “N.  Heinsius’s fragmentum Caesenas of Ovid’s Meta­ morphoses rediscovered”, CQ 66, 2016, 384–94. 338.  L.  Rivero García, “In search of textual heroes. Apropos  a recent book on textual criticism”, Paideia 71, 2016, 159–67. 339.  L. Rivero García, “On Ov. Met. 13,400b”, Paideia 71, 2016, 409–15. 340.  L. Rivero García, “On the Text of Ovid, Met. 13.692–696”, SO 90, 2016, 85–92. 341.  L. Rivero García, “Three critical notes on Ovid (Met. XIII 554, 560 f., 602)”, Eikasmos 27, 2016, 143–52. 342.  R. J.  Tarrant, Texts, editors, and readers. Methods and problems in Latin textual criticism, Cambridge 2016. 343. L. Zurli, Il limen (sottile) tra congettura e restituzione, Perugia 2016. 344.  J. A. Bellido Díaz, “Nota a Ovidio met. 1.313”, ExClass 21, 2017, 43–9. 345.  B. W. Boyd, review of P. Hardie, Ovidio, Metamorfosi, VI. Libri XIII–XV, Gnomon 89, 2017, 26–9. 346.  Á. Escobar, “Virgilio (Eneida) y Ovidio (Metamorfosis): dos transmisiones textuales disimétricas”, ExClass 21, 2017, 25–42. 347. N.  Holzberg, Publius Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen. Lateinisch-deutsch. Herausgegeben und übersetzt von N. Holzberg, Berlin-Boston 2017. 348. G. Luck, A Textual Commentary on Ovid, Metamorphoses, book XV, Huelva 2017. 349.  L. Rivero García, “Requests as Orders. On Ov. Met. 13.377–379”, Mnemosyne 70, 2017, 406–16. 350.  L.  Rivero García, “Two suggestions on the text of Ovid’s Metamorphoses (13.8; 13.94)”, Hermes 145, 2017, 499–503. 351.  L. Rivero García, “Nota crítica a dos lugares oscuros de Ovidio (Met. XIII 884 y 890)”, Emerita 85, 2017, 153–9. 352.  L.  Rivero García, “Critical discussion on three passages of Ovid’s Meta­ morphoses 13 (ll. 129, 432, 653)”, RhM 160, 2017, 320–8. 353.  L.  Rivero García, “Marginalia critica to Ov. met. 13”, ExClass 21, 2017, 51–61. 354.  A. Ramírez de Verger, “Suum cuique: Editors and Commentators on Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, in L. Rivero, Mª C. Álvarez, R. Iglesias, J. A. Estévez (eds.), Viuam! Estudios sobre la obra de Ovidio  – Studies on Ovid’s poetry, Huelva-Murcia 2018, 81–102. 355.  L. Rivero García, Book XIII of Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses’. A Textual Commentary, Berlin-Boston 2018.

Studies on particular passages: Book I

77

356.  R. J. Tarrant, “Editing Ovid’s Metamorphoses: Past, Present and Future”, in L. Rivero, Mª C. Álvarez, R. Mª Iglesias, J. A. Estévez (eds.), Viuam! Estudios sobre la obra de Ovidio – Studies on Ovid’s poetry, Huelva-Murcia 2018, 21–45. 357.  J. A. Bellido Díaz, Book II of Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses’. A Textual Commentary, forthcoming. 358.  J. A. Estévez Sola, Book XII of Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses’. A Textual Commentary, forthcoming. 359.  J. Fernández Valverde, Book IV of Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses’. A Textual Commentary, forthcoming. 360.  A. Ramírez de Verger, Book VI of Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses’. A Textual Commentary, Berlin-Boston 2021. c. Studies on particular passages Book I 1.2 Goold (178, 2), Anderson (203, 1), and Massaro (293, 129–44) read illas from Ω. Relihan (182, 87–90) supports the variant illa from a few codd., summarised by Lejay (120, 17 and 74), defended by Kenney (154, 49) and accepted by Tarrant (258, 1). 1.5 Luck (264, 257) recalls the variant tellus, noted by Vivianus (17, cast. s. p., ‘vetustissimus codex tellus habet, quod maxime placet’; cf. Heinsius, 49, 13 and 8–9n), in place of terras from Ω and editors. 1.8 Possanza (265, 12) observes that Tarrant (258, 1) fails to mention the omission of this line in the codex B. 1.31 Luck (264, 257) comments on the variant extima instead of ultima, pointed out by Ciofanus (29, 5) and surmised by Bentley (Hedicke, 131, 27). 1.33 Possanza (265, 12) points out that Tarrant (258, 1) does not include the variant coegit of the codex B. 1.36 Goold (178, 4) and Anderson (203, 2) read diffudit from Ω, while Hall (164, 68), von Albrecht (208, 8 and 859) and Tarrant (258, 2) opt for diffundi from a few codd., such as Heinsius (49, 14 and 9n), although Tarrant expresses doubts about diffudit. 1.52 Goold (178, 6), Galasso (236, 52) and Tarrant (258, 3) do not insert a comma after terrae, as Anderson does (203, 3). 1.53 Goold (178, 6), von Albrecht (208, 8 and 859), Galasso (236, 4 and 746–7), Tarrant

78

Transmission and Textual Criticism

(258, 3) and Ramírez de Verger (266, 830 and 1.944), like Heinsius (49, 14 and 9n ‘veterrimus codex Constantii Fanensis’) and Housman (139, xxvii–xxix), opt for pondus aquae levius instead of pondere aquae levior from Ω, the option also preferred by Anderson (203, 3); cf. Hall 164, 65. 1.66 Iglesias-Álvarez (226, 290), Scivoletto (239, 31 and 46), Tarrant (258, 4) and Galasso (269, 121) retain pluvioque from Ω. Goold (178, 6), Anderson (203, 3), Luck (264, 257) and Holzberg (347123, 42 and 804) defend pluviaque from some codd. and Gilbert (123, 11). 1.71 Luck (302, 89) questions the reading effervescere, only seen here. He recalls the defence by Housman (151, 179) of ecfervescere. 1.82 Fink (288, 12) reads fluvialibus from Ω, replacing pluvialibus of B and editors. 1.91–3 Kovacs (210, 245) has no objection to omitting these lines, left out by Ω, nor likewise does Tarrant (258, 4). As an alternative, Kovacs proposes reading iusti in place of tuti in line 93. 1.91 Luck (172, 51) suggests, although with some reservations, verba minacia (Mac)  to replace verba minantia from Ω, as do Goold (178, 8), Anderson (203, 4) and Tarrant (258, 4); cf. 5.669; see also Luck (264, 257). 1.92 Iglesias-Álvarez (226, 292–3) and Tarrant (258, 5) tend towards reading ligabantur from Ω (cf. edd. vett.; Jahn, 74, 45; Magnus, 134, 11) in place of legebantur from several codd. and most editors since Heinsius (49, 15 and 11–12n). Goold (178, 8), Anderson (203, 4), Barchiesi (260, 14 and 168–9), and Possanza (265, 6–7) favour legebantur. 1.98 Luck (172, 51) defends derecti, as Housman suggested in Edwards (119, 402), not directi from Ω and editors. 1.125 Hall (164, 68) reads per illas, like Heinsius (49, 16 and 13n), instead of per illam in Ω and editors. 1.132 Anderson (203, 5) and Tarrant (258, 6) read dabat from  a group of ‘antiquiores’, although the latter questions whether to accept dabant in Ω, as maintained by Goold (178, 10). 1.133 Goold (178, 10) reads prius from fragm. Bernense instead of diu in Ω and editors. 1.144 Luck (264, 257) recalls the variant ex raptu from ‘Harleianus’ to replace rapto; cf. Sen. dial. 4.16; Luck (158, 316). 1.155 Anderson (203, 6) and Tarrant (258, 7) read subiectae Pelion Ossae in a group of codd.,

Studies on particular passages: Book I

79

while Goold (178, 12) favours subiecto Pelion Ossae from Ω. Luck (264, 257) notes the proposed subiectam Pelio Ossam (Heinsius, 49, 13–14n) or subiecto Pelio Ossam (Heinsius, 49, 17). 1.173 Hall (164, 68) reads a fronte, like Heinsius (49, 18), replacing hac parte in the codex B and editors. 1.189 Von Albrecht (208, 18 and 859) and Ramírez de Verger (214, 48) prefer to read sub terra from several codd. and Riese (115, xi and 5), instead of sub terras in Ω and editors. 1.190 Goold (178, 14), von Albrecht (208, 18 and 859), Tarrant (258, 8) and Luck (297, 49) tend towards temptanda instead of temptata from several codd. and many editors, such as Anderson (203, 7) and Barchiesi (260, 22 and 184–5). Possanza (265, 7) favours temptanda as opposed to Lee’s defence of temptata (142, 49 and 149–50). Luck (172, 51; 297, 50), Degl’Innocenti Pierini (192, 137–40) and Galasso (236, 12 and 764) read vulnus in place of corpus; Goold (178, 14) opts for curae, as does Merkel (92, vi). 1.200 Liberman (257, 58) suggests reading sumpsit instead of saevit from Ω and editors, since saevire with the infinitive seems a unique case. 1.207–8 Like Merkel (92, vi and 6), von Albrecht (208, 20 and 859) omits the two lines. Tarrant (240, 437; 258, 9) is unsure whether to omit only line 207. 1.225 Goold (178, 18) reads comparat from some ‘antiquiores’, as does Slater (141, ad loc.), replacing me parat from the other codd. and editors. 1.230 Hall (164, 68) reads quos, like Heinsius (49, 19), in place of quod from Ω and editors. 1.235 Anderson (203, 9) and Barchiesi (260, 24 and 189–90) read utitur from Ω, while Hall (164, 68), Goold (178, 18) and Tarrant (258, 10) opt for vertitur from several codd. and Heinsius (49, 19 and 15n). 1.244 Luck (264, 158) supports the variant furenti, quoted by Naugerius (15, s. p.), instead of frementi in Ω and editors. 1.258 Goold (178, 20) and von Albrecht (208, 24 and 859) read mundi moles obsessa in some ‘antiquiores’, instead of mundi moles operosa from Ω and editors. Vanhaegendoren (267, 199–205) defends the phrase mundi proles obsessa. 1.268 Hall (164, 68) and Goold (178, 20) read lata (cf. Heinsius, 49, 20; Burman 55, 43) instead of late from Ω and many editors. 1.269 Goold (178, 20), Anderson (203, 10) and Tarrant (258, 11) read hinc in several ‘antiquiores’. Scivoletto (239, 31 and 58) prefer to read et (Ω), as in line 218.

80

Transmission and Textual Criticism

1.272 Degl’Innocenti Pierini (179, 158–9) analyses the superiority of the variant colonis in Ω and Seneca, as read by Anderson (203, 10) and Tarrant (258, 11), replacing coloni in some codd. and Goold (178, 20). 1.290 Degl’Innocenti Pierini (179, 156–8) examines the variant labant (‘codd. Senecae’) instead of latent in Ω and editors. 1.292 Anderson (203, 10) reads erant from several codd., while Goold (178, 22) and Tarrant (258, 12) tends towards erat in Ω. 1.294 Goold (178, 22) favours arabat to replace ararat in Ω, as preferred by Anderson (203, 10) and Tarrant (258, 12), although the latter has doubts about arabat. 1.313 Iglesias-Álvarez (226, 290–1) follows the reading Aonios Actaeis in Ω, as opposed to Aonios Oetaeis of Gierig (64, 44) and Ionios Oetaeis of El Brocense (22, 107, n. 18) and Delrío (28, 72) a Sen. H. F. 1164. Goold (178, 24), Anderson (203, 11) and Tarrant (258, 13) read Aonios Oetaeis. 1.325 Hall (164, 68) reads videt, like Heinsius (49, 22 and 17n), instead of virum from Ω and editors. 1.333 Luck (172, 51–2; 263, 158–9; 264, 257–8) prefers sonaci like Naugerius (15, s.p.), as opposed to sonanti in Ω and editors, introduced by Heinsius into his text (49, 22 and 17n). Tarrant (196, 111–15; 258, 13) rejects the variant sonaci, which originates in Apuleius, met. 4.31. 1.336 Von Albrecht (208, 30 and 859), Goold (178, 26) and Tarrant (258, 13) do not have a comma after tortilis, as Anderson does (203, 12). 1.344 Tarrant (173, 354–5) defends the omission of line 344, as does Riese (115, xi); he believes that the line is probably  a fragment of another poem. Goold (178, 26), Anderson (203, 12), and Barchiesi keep it (260, 32 and 196 “l’espunzione del v. 344 proposta da Riese e Tarrant priverebbe il testo di una significativa eco virgiliana”). Hall (164, 68) opts for colles from some codd., such as Heinsius (49, 22), replacing collesque in Ω and editors. 1.345 Hall (164, 68) and Goold (178, 26) read sola, like Heinsius (in o4, 13 ‘leg. sola’, not in o5, as noted by Slater, 141, ad loc.), and Housman (151, 163), instead of loca from Ω, the preferred option of Anderson (203, 12) and Tarrant (258, 14). Watt (231, 167) supports iuga in Slater (141, ad loc.). 1.360 Luck (263, 159) comments that dolores was the vulgate before Naugerius (15, s. p.) opted for doleres, the preferred reading for most recent editors. Luck believes it would

Studies on particular passages: Book I

81

be possible to understand dolores with ferre, in parallel with timorem in the previous line, as does Ehwald (135, 13), in which case  a comma would be needed after posses. 1.361 Hall (164, 68) should print te modo from some ‘antiquiores’, such as Heinsius (49, 23 and 17n), replacing te quoque in Ω and editors. 1.386 Shackleton Bailey (169, 332), with some reservations, suggests reading pigetque instead of pavetque and timetque from the manuscripts and other suggestions. Goold (178, 28) and Anderson (203, 13) opt for pavido … pavetque from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 15) tends towards pavido … timetque from a group of codd. Ramírez de Verger (276, 31–2; 277, 333) reads timido … pavetque, and Tarrant (ibid.) favours timetque from several codd. 1.388 Liberman (248, 300; 257, 58) believes that the correct reading is reputant instead of repetunt from Ω and editors. Goold (178, 28), Anderson (203, 13) and Holzberg (347, 62 and 804) read caecis from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 15) opts for caecisque from some ‘antiquiores’ (cf. Ciofanus, 29, 17), although he questions accepting caecis. Luck (264, 258) introduces the variant suspensa in place of obscura in Ω and editors, transmitted by Seneca (nat. 5.14.1), as ‘lectio difficilior’. De Vivo (195, 297–305) dismisses the possibility, already noted by Borucki (138, 29–30). 1.392 Goold (178, 30), Anderson (203, 14), Possanza (265, 10) and Luck (264, 269) write in parentheses (pia … suadent), like Jacobus to Cruce (12, s. p.; cf. Burman 55, 53). Von Albrecht (208, 34 and 860) and Tarrant (258, 16) leave it out. 1.398 Hall (164, 68) and Goold (178, 30), like Heinsius (49, 24 and 18n), favour descendunt (MV3ac) instead of discedunt from the other codd. and editors. 1.405 Luck (264, 258) recalls the suggestion of Merkel (92, vii and 12), coeptis … signis instead of marmore coepta in Ω and editors. 1.426–7 Goold (178, 32) and Anderson (203, 15) read modo coepta … imperfecta from Ω; Tarrant (258, 17) opts for perfecta … modo coepta from van Leeuwen (in Hartman, 130, 90). 1.435 Liberman (257, 89n) and Luck (298, 10) unearth the variant almoque from codex Sprotii [O4] and Burman (55, 57), in place of altoque from Ω and editors. 1.439 Hill (177) and Anderson (203, 15) read incognite serpens as vocative from Ω; Hall (164, 68), Goold (178, 32) and Tarrant (258, 17) tend towards the feminine incognita from several codd., defended by Heinsius (49, 25 and 58–9n); cf. Hill, 184, 30 and Possanza (265, 5).

82

Transmission and Textual Criticism

1.441 Hall (164, 68) should print hanc from a number of codd., such as Heinsius (49, 19n) and Burman (55, 57n ‘sed hanc iam olim Petrus Faber lib. II Agonist. cap. 24 [31, 357] hanc Deus sic omnino legendum apparet  e sequentibus, non ut vulgo, hunc Deus’] legendum esse coniecerat’), replacing hunc from Ω and editors. Anderson (203, 15) reads et numquam talibus from Ω, while Goold (178, 32) and Tarrant (258, 17) favour numquam letalibus from Housman (151, 163). 1.443 Tarrant (258, 17) is uncertain whether to accept gravi (NacBac)  in the app. crit., referring to pharetra, as suggested by Heinsius (b3, f. 34r; o, f. 9; cf. Burman 55, 58), in place of gravem in almost all codd. and editors. 1.445 Goold (178, 32) and Anderson (203, 15) read posset from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 18) opts for possit from some ‘antiquiores’, like Heinsius (49, 25), although he is uncertain about posset. 1.447 Hall (164, 68) and Goold (178, 32) read de domitae from some ‘antiquiores’, like Heinsius (49, 25 and 19n). Luck (172, 52) defends the masculine perdomiti (S2) instead of the feminine perdomitae (Ω) applied to the sex of the Python snake, as do Anderson (203, 15) and Tarrant (258, 18); cf. also Hill (184, 30). 1.448 Hall (164, 68) and Luck (264, 258) retrieve the variant his, which Heinsius (49, 19n) reads in some codd., instead of hic from Ω and editors. Anderson (203, 15) reads pedibusque, as opposed to pedibusve from Hall (164, 68), Goold (178, 32) and Tarrant (258, 18), as edited by Heinsius (49, 25). Cf. Galasso (269, 123); Fedeli (287, 610). 1.454 Hill (177, 159–61; 184, 32) and Anderson (203, 15) read victo serpente in the masculine gender from a group of codd. Luck (172, 68), Goold (178, 34) and Tarrant (258, 18) favour victa serpente, as does, for example, Heinsius (49, 25 and 19n). 1.465 Hall (164, 68) mentions the variant tibi (cf. Heinsius, 49, 26 and 19n), not pointed out by Tarrant (258, 18), instead of deo in Ω and editors. 1.477 Tarrant (173, 355; 258, 19) deletes the line due to its absence from codd. Lactantiani and its lack of adaptation to either the diction or the context; cf. 2.412–13; Galasso, 269, 114–15. Anderson (203, 16) and Goold (178, 36) keep it. 1.479 Luck (302, 89; cf. 264, 258) recalls the juncture nemorum avia from some codd. and from Heinsius (49, 26 and 19n), replacing nemora avia from Ω and editors. 1.484 Goold (178, 36) and Anderson (203, 16) read subfuderat from most codd. Hall (164, 68), Tarrant (258, 19) and Ramírez de Verger (266, 854 and 1.945) favour suffunditur (P21S2), like Heinsius (49, 26 and 19n).

Studies on particular passages: Book I

83

1.485 Kovacs (210, 245–6) suggests, albeit with some reservations, reading et patria instead of inque patris from Ω and editors. 1.489 Luck (264, 258) unearths the doubtful suggestion by Slater (141, ad loc.), Fortuna for tua forma, from Ω and editors; cf. Luck (254, 375–8). 1.491 Hall (164, 68) prefers quaeque from some codd., such as Heinsius (49, 26 and 19n), in place of quodque from Ω and editors. 1.509 Hall (164, 68) favours secent from some codd., such as Heinsius (49, 27 and 20n), instead of notent from Ω and editors. 1.521 Luck (263, 159) quotes the ‘vetus lectio’ opiferque, retrieved by Naugerius (15, s. p.) and now accepted by editors, in place of opifexque. Cf. 15.653 deus in somnis opifer. 1.530 Goold (178, 38) and Anderson (203, 18) read auctaque forma fuga est from many codd. and the editors. Tarrant (258, 21) favours aucta fuga forma est from some ‘antiquiores’, although the app. crit. and Galasso (269, 124) question the correct form of the latter. 1.531 Hall (164, 68) opts for movebat from several codd., such as Heinsius (49, 21 and 25n), instead of monebat from Ω and editors. 1.552 Hall (164, 68) prefers obit from some codd., such as Heinsius (49, 28 and 23n), in place of habet from a number of other manuscripts and editors. 1.539 Anderson (203, 18) places  a semicolon after virgo; Goold (178, 40) and Tarrant (258, 21) do not punctuate. 1.544–7 Blänsdorf (162) defends a double recension in these lines, while Murgia (181) considers that they have been correctly passed down and are due neither to a greater interpolation nor to a double recension. However he believes that 544a is due to an interpolation of the French tradition (“conjecture following accidental omission”), and he suggests reading the lines in this order: 544, 547, 546 and 545. Knox (200, 196–201) analyses the passage without reaching any definitive conclusion, while Goold (178, 40) omits lines 545 and 547a. Anderson (203, 18–19) does not consider authentic lines 544a (victa labore fugae, spectans Peneidas undas) and 547a (qua nimium placui, Tellus, ait, hisce vel istam). Zwierlein (235, 243–8) deletes lines 544a, 545 and 546. Galasso (236, cxvi and 787–90) deems incorrect line 547a (qua nimium placui, Tellus, ait, hisce vel istam) with this order: 543, 544a, 546, 547, 544, 545, 548. Richmond (250, 474) considers inadmissible 545 and 547. Von Albrecht (208, 44 and 860) and Tarrant (258, 21–2) delete lines 544–5, as does Magnus (134, 34–5), and keep the rest, including 544a; cf. Galasso, 269, 109–12. Cardigni (256, 87–99) estimates that the existing versions of these lines respond to author variants. See also Escobar (346, 31 n. 24).

84

Transmission and Textual Criticism

1.560 Iglesias-Álvarez (226, 291) and Scivoletto (239, 31 and 76) return to the reading laetis (Ω) in place of the suggestion, accepted by many editors, Latiis from Heinsius (49, 28 and 23n ‘inconcinna repetitio [laetis … laeta]. Scribe vel invitis priscis exemplaribus tu ducibus Latiis aderis’). Latiis is the option of Goold (178, 40), Anderson (203, 19), and Tarrant (258, 22). Anderson (ibid.) writes triumphum from Ω; Goold (ibid.) and Tarrant (ibid.) endorse Triumphum, as does Merkel (92, 16). 1.580 Luck (263, 159–60) recalls that Naugerius supported the proposal of Regius (10, s. p. ‘quare Apidanus legatur, ne ineptus esse Ovidius videatur. Est enim Thessaliae fluvius’; 14, 13; also Politian and Jacobus to Cruce), Apidanosque instead of Eridanusque; cf. Luc. 6.373. Goold (178, 42) and Tarrant (258, 23) also have this reading. See also Álvarez-Iglesias (229, 39). 1.601 Luck (172, 52), Goold (178, 44) and Tarrant (258, 24) follow Müller (84, 259–60) in reading Argos, as opposed to agros from Ω, as does Anderson (203, 20). 1.608 Luck (275, 68–72) suggests the possible reading ludor in place of laedor from Ω and editors. 1.618–19 Goold (178, 44–5) accepts the personification of Pudor and Amor. 1.637 Anderson (203, 21) and Tarrant (258, 25) read et conata queri from Ω, while Goold (178, 46) and Gärtner (296, 257–8) prefer the variant conatoque queri from some ‘antiquiores’ and edd. vett. 1.638 Goold (178, 46) and Anderson (203, 21) consider the line authentic, however Tarrant (258, 25) omits it on the grounds of having been inserted from epist. 14.92 territaque est forma, territa voce sua. Barchiesi (260, 54 and 220) considers it authentic due to the clear intertextuality between the context of this passage and epist. 14. Gaertner (296, 257–67) has the same view; cf. Sharrock, 211, 131–2. Galasso (269, 116) also deletes the line (‘in dubio contra reum’). 1.647 Luck (172, 56) believes that it should be read sed (Ω) instead of et from several codd. and editors. Tarrant (258, 25n), however, has doubts about it in the app. crit. 1.660 Hall (164, 68) should print nunc from several codd. and editors, such as Heinsius (49, 31 and 27n), in place of et. Tarrant (258, 26n), on the other hand, considers it possible (‘non male’). 1.676–7 Liberman (257, 89n) recalls that the punctuation (capellas, / dum venit,) attributed by Tarrant (258, 27n) to Ehwald (135, 24), is now found in Farnabius (40, 27).

Studies on particular passages: Book I

85

1.677 Goold (178, 50) and Tarrant (258, 27) read abductas from a number of codd., such as Heinsius (49, 32 and 27n). Anderson (203, 224) and Galasso (269, 125) favour adductas from Ω. 1.678 Goold (178, 50) and Tarrant (258, 27) read voce nova captus custos Iunonius at tu, like the codex P11 (s. XIII) and Burman (55, 78–9); cf. rem. 371 at tu, quicumque es. Ramírez de Verger (266, 864 and 1.945; 277, 333) tends towards voce novae captus custos Iunonius artis from a group of codd. Anderson (203, 23) and Galasso (269, 125 n. 4) read voce nova et … arte, like Ehwald (135, 24). 1.679 Liberman (257, 59) justifies the reading poteras with the Virgilian echo of ecl. 1.79–80 hic tamen hanc mecum poteras requiescere noctem / fronde super viridi. 1.703 Luck (264, 258) recalls that Heinsius (49, 32 and 28n ‘eleganter’) had noted illi for illam from the ‘Cantabrigiensis optimus’. 1.712 Luck (172, 52; 254, 279; 264, 258) leans towards cecinisse, a suggestion from Shackleton Bailey per litteras. Tarrant (258, 28) favours posuisse with the support of Verg. Aen. 7.63 Laurentisque ab ea nomen posuisse colonis. Galasso (269, 132–3) accepts this suggestion, although with reservations. Goold (178, 52), Anderson (203, 24) and Holzberg (347, 82 and 804) keep tenuisse from the codd. and line 706. See Fedeli (287, 610). 1.727 Goold (178, 52) and Tarrant (258, 29) endorse the reading exercuit of Postgate (ap. Edwards, 119, 406) in place of terruit (Ω), like Anderson (203, 24). 1.728 Luck (264, 258) recalls that Heinsius (b3, f. 44r ‘forte emenso’; cf. Burman, 55, 87) had suggested, with reservations, emenso instead of immenso from Ω and editors. 1.739 Luck (302, 89) defends fugiunt de corpore from some codd. in place of fugiunt e corpore from Ω and editors; cf. 9.344–5 (could be read de flore … decidere) and 15.592. 1.742 Luck (263, 160; 264, 258) cites the variant diducta, known by Naugerius (15, adn.), instead of dilapsa from Ω and editors. 1.779 Anderson (203, 26) questions writing patrios (Magnus already has it, 134, 46) in place of patriosque from Ω and editors.

86

Transmission and Textual Criticism

Book II 2.1 Liberman (257, 59–60; 310, 258) and Luck (298, 10–11) support apta, as suggested by Bentley (131, 27; cf. Bothe 68, 7), in place of alta from Ω and editors. 2.21 Tarrant (258, 31n) reads vertit (L2), but questions whether to accept sua fert from Ω, as do Goold (178, 60), Anderson (203, 27) and many editors. Cf. Walsh (283, 203–4). 2.31 Goold (178, 62) reads ipse, as suggested by Magnus (134, 48), while Anderson (203, 27) and Tarrant (258, 32n) tend towards inde from Ω, although the latter does not disapprove of Magnus’ suggestion. Luck (302, 98 and 106) reads loci medius, as Heinsius (b2, 40 ‘f. loci’ ) suggested, instead of loco medius from Ω and editors. 2.38 Goold (178, 62) and Anderson (203, 27) read genitor from Ω. Tarrant (258, 32) opts for generis from several codd. (cf. L2ac), as approved by Vivianus (17, cast. s. p. ‘pignora da genitor vel da generis, quod maxime placet’; cf. Heinsius, b2, 39r ‘quod Viviano maxime placet’; Burman, 55, 96 ‘quidam, quod probabat Vivianus’). Walsh (283, 204) criticises Tarrant’s opinion. 2.45 Anderson (203, 27) reads promissis from a group of codd., while Goold (178, 62) and Tarrant (258, 32) favour promissi from another group, as does Slater (141, ad loc.). 2.57 Goold (178, 64) and Anderson (203, 28) keep possit from Ω.  Hall (164, 68) and Tarrant (258, 33) read fas sit from several codd., as does Heinsius (49, 36 and 30n). Cf. Walsh (283, 204–5). 2.62 Hall (164, 68) and Goold (178, 64) read agat from a group of codd., such as Heinsius (49, 36 and 30n), however Luck (172, 52) suggests reading regit from ‘fragm. Vossia­ num Heinsii’ (O6)’ instead of aget from Ω, as does Anderson (203, 28). Kenney (in Luck) prefers regat; cf. 2.86, 8.34, Ib. 470. Four mss. (A9sAvLd6 Bo4) offer reget. Tarrant (258, 33) tends towards agit from several codd. Cf. Walsh (283, 204–5). 2.65 Luck (264, 258) points out the variant videnti from Planudes (βλέποντι) and Farnabius (following Heinsius, b3: ‘leg. & sic Farnabii editio incertum an ex mss.’), although the latter edited videre. This error was repeated by Magnus (134, 50) and Slater (141, ad loc.), in place of videre from Ω and editors; cf. Burman, 55, 98n ‘videnti edidisse Farnabium notaverat Heinsius, nescius an ex codice; mihi certe non placet et in Farnabii editione, qua utor, videre non legitur’. In fact, it was Heinsius who speculated on videnti in o4, p. 30 ‘leg. videnti’ (also in b2 and o2). 2.66 Goold (178, 64) and Tarrant (258, 33) opt for fit and trepidat from a sizeable group of

Studies on particular passages: Book II

87

codd., such as Heinsius (49, 37 and 31n). Anderson (203, 28) prefers the subjunctives sit and trepidet from Ω. Walsh (283, 205–6) supports Tarrant’s first option. 2.68 Anderson (203, 28) punctuates with a comma after etiam, omitted by Goold (178, 64), von Albrecht (208, 66 and 861) and Tarrant (258, 33). 2.76 Tarrant (258, 33n) questions whether to accept the suggested sedesque from Kovacs (210, 246–7), instead of urbesque from Ω and editors. See Luck (264, 258). 2.78 Goold (178, 64) reads esse from Ω, while Anderson (203, 28) questions the infinitive. Tarrant (258, 34n) reads ecce, but does not disregard Burman’s suggestion of omne (55, 99n) in place of ecce or esse. In fact, the idea originates with Heinsius (o2 ad loc. ‘lege omne’, and b3). 2.83 Possanza (265, 7) considers it worth mentioning that Riese (89, xii) questions the authenticity of this line, omitted by some mss. ante correctionem: A ilL3mM2il Geil H4m. 2.95–7 Luck (302, 90) prefers to put circumspice in parentheses, read deque in place of eque (line 96), and replace posce with elige (line 97). 2.104 Liberman (257, 60) and Luck (264, 258; 298, 11) prefer, like Heinsius (49, 38 and 31n), propositumque tenet to propositumque premit from Ω and editors; cf. ars 1.470. 2.112 Hall (164, 68) should print rutilo from several codd., such as Heinsius (49, 38 and 31n), in place of nitido from Ω and editors. 2.132 Luck (274, 113–15) reads effugito, like Heinsius (49, 38 and 32n), and prefers (302, 90) to put australem … aquilonibus in capitals to fit with Arcton. 2.135 Goold (178, 68) and Anderson (203, 30) read currum. Tarrant (258, 36) opts for cursum from  a group of codd. (cf. Ds2, f. 10 v) and Merkel (92, 26). Liberman (310, 81) also prefers to read cursum. In fact, this variant was noted by Jahn (74, 103 ‘cod. Bersm.: per aera cursum’), who had read it in Bersman (32, 81, lower margin ‘aëra cursum m. scr.’), although Naugerius (15, 17r) was the first to edit cursum. Luck (348, on 15.518) believes that it should be read currum, not cursum. 2.144 Hall (164, 68) and Goold (178, 70) read effulget from some ‘recentiores’, as Heinsius did (49, 39 and 32n). Luck (172, 52) opts, although with reservations, for en fulget (already in Heinsius, 49, 32n ‘posset et en fulget legi’) instead of et fulget from Ω and editors. See Luck (302, 89) on 1.71. 2.147 Tarrant (258, 36) considers that the line was inserted, as Hartman (130, 96) also believes.

88

Transmission and Textual Criticism

2.151 Hall (164, 68), Scivoletto (239, 31 and 100) and Tarrant (258, 36) read datas from a group of ‘antiquiores’. Goold (178, 70), Anderson (203, 31) and Tarrant, although with some uncertainty about the app. crit., favour leves from other ‘antiquiores’. 2.165 Goold (178, 70) and Tarrant (258, 37n), although with reservations, read in aera to replace in aere from Ω and editors. 2.179 Goold (178, 72) and Anderson (203, 32) read iacentes from many codd. Tarrant (258, 37) opts for patentes, although questioning the first variant. 2.183 Luck (264, 258) notes the reading iamque agnosse from some ‘meliores’ codd., as Heinsius (49, 40 and 33n) accepted, instead of iam cognosse from Ω and editors. 2.189 Luck (263, 160; 264, 258) supports fato from P2, and from Heinsius (49, 40 and 33n), in place of fatum from Ω and editors. 2.191–2 Tarrant (240, 347; 258, 38n) questions the authenticity of these two lines, which appear incorrectly placed in some mss. 2.201 Anderson (203, 32) reads summo … tergo from Ω, while Hall (164, 68), von Albrecht (208, 74 and 861), Goold (178, 74), Galasso (236, 58 and 817) and Tarrant (258, 38) favour summum … tergum from NV2, recovered by Heinsius (49, 40 and 33n ‘nempe reponendum summum tetigere tergum ex Neapolitano et Urbinati’). Luck (263, 161), along with Polle (117, 38), reads cadentia instead of iacentia from Ω and editors. 2.214–16 Tarrant (258, 39n) suggests that, if the exclusion of 214 pereunt  – 216 vertunt is accepted, as suggested by Cornelissen (95, 310), magnis would have to be read in place of magnae from Ω in line 214. 2.226 Tarrant (240, 427–8; 258, 39) omits the line; cf. Galasso, 269, 118. Goold (178, 76), Anderson (203, 33) and Barchiesi (260, 82 and 255) keep it. 2.235 Goold (178, 76) and Luck (263, 212) read tum instead of tunc, as maintained by Anderson (203, 33) and Tarrant (258, 212). 2.244 Ramírez de Verger (214, 48) reads Phocaico from Ω in place of Phegiaco from Baum­ garten-Crusius (75, 66) and most editors. 2.247 Álvarez-Iglesias (229, 39–40) points out that Regius (10, s. p.) defends Taenarieus in order to avoid the iamb of the fifth foot, if reading Taenarius, but the syllable -us can be long in arsis and caesura.

Studies on particular passages: Book II

89

2.278 Anderson (203, 35) and Barchiesi (260, 86 and 259–60) read siccaque from V and Heinsius (49, 42 and 35n). Goold (178, 78) and Tarrant (258, 41) favour fractaque from Housman (151, 164), although Tarrant is uncertain whether to accept sacraque from Ω, like Galasso (236, 64 and 821). 2.308 Luck (172, 53) reads librataque in place of vibrataque from Ω and editors; cf. lines 312, 624; Verg. Aen. 9.417. 2.310 Luck (264, 258) points out that Tarrant (258, 42 and 496) should have referred to Naugerius (15, 20r) for demitteret instead of dimitteret; cf. 1.261, 4.367, 8.188; Kenney (152, 41 n. 2). 2.314 Luck (263, 161–2) supports the variant consternantur from some codd., Naugerius (15, adn.) and many editors in place of consternuntur. 2.324 Goold (178, 82) and Anderson (203, 36) read fumantiaque from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 43) opts for flagrantiaque from Riese (89, xii ‘fortasse flagrantia?’). 2.326 Goold (178, 82) and Anderson (203, 36) read signant quoque carmine saxum from ‘antiquiores’; Tarrant (258, 43) and Luck (263, 162) opt for signantque hoc carmine saxum, as suggested by Heinsius (49, 44 and 56n) from other codd. Possanza (265, 7) defends the variant fatum instead of saxum with the parallels 9.566, 14.433 and Verg. Aen. 3.287. 2.340 Hall (164, 68) and Goold (178, 82) read fletus from several ‘antiquiores’, such as Heinsius (49, 44 and 36n), in place of lugent from Ω and editors. Liberman (257, 60) does not rule out reading fratri instead of morti. 2.366 Goold (178, 84), Anderson (203, 38) and Barchiesi (260, 92 and 267) read gestanda from Ω. Tarrant (258, 45) favours spectanda from some codd., such as Magnus (134, 65). 2.376 Tarrant (196, 110–11; 258, 45) considers the variant vestit, accepted by Heinsius (49, 45 and 56n) instead of velat from Ω, to be a learned insertion. 2.378 In place of ut iniuste, Luck (172, 53) suggests, albeit with reservations, reading at iniuste, as in 7.487 at utilius preferable to et utilius, 8.60 at puto from Markland (71, 160a) rather than et puto, 9.554 adhuc at in place of adhuc et, and 10.355 at instead of et. 2.382 Anderson (203, 38), Luck (263, 162–3) and Galasso (269, 122) tend towards Heinsius’ suggestion (in b3, f. 58r, not in Passerat), quali, cum deficit, orbe. Goold (178, 86), Iglesias-Álvarez (226, 291), Scivoletto (239, 31 and 114) and Tarrant (258, 45)

90

Transmission and Textual Criticism

prefer qualis cum deficit orbem (only a few mss. offer orbem, as opposed to orbe or orbi in the rest). 2.384 Goold (178, 86) and Anderson (203, 38) keep this line, while Tarrant (240, 435; 258, 45) deletes it. 2.399 Luck (264, 258) points out that Tarrant (258, 46 ‘fort. corruptum’) does not mention Burman’s suggestion (55, 123) stimuloque furens et verbere caedit in place of stimuloque dolens et verbere saevit. 2.400 Tarrant (240, 435; 258, 46) omits the line, based on Heinsius’ suspicion (49, 37n) about lines 398–400. Goold (178, 88), Anderson (203, 39) and Barchiesi (260, 94 and 269) keep it. Marzolla (209, 64 and 651) suggests reading erus in place of enim from codd. and editors. 2.405 Liberman (257, 89n and also in Luck 298, 11) proposes reading inspicit instead of perspicit from Ω and editors. 2.406 Tarrant (196, 114–15) defends audentia in most of the codd. and editors, as opposed to audacia in the minority, as suggested by Heinsius (49, 37n). 2.437 Goold (178, 90), Anderson (203, 40) and Tarrant (258, 47) insert a question mark after poterat, as in  a group of codd. Galasso (236, 74 and 833–4) and Possanza (265, 10–11) believe that it should be placed after superum. Marzolla (209, 66 and 651) reads summum in place of superum from codd. and editors. 2.454 Von Albrecht (208, 92 and 861) reads venatrix from several codd. and Heinsius (49, 47 and 38n); Goold (178, 92) and Tarrant (258, 48) opt for venatu et from  a number of codd., while Anderson (203, 40) keeps venatu. Cf. Galasso (269, 125–6). 2.476 Anderson (203, 41) and Tarrant (258, 49) read adversa from some codd. and Nau­gerius (15, 23r), while Goold (178, 92) and Scivoletto (239, 31 and 120) opt for adversam from other codd., as does Ehwald (135, 44). 2.482 Shackleton Bailey (169, 332) suggests reading verba querentia instead of verba precantia, while Goold (178, 92), Anderson (203, 41) and Tarrant (258, 49) keep verba precantia from Ω, although the latter questions the reading preces … precantia. Watt (216, 97–8) leans towards changing preces for querela and does not change precantia. Tarrant (ibid.) keeps verba precantia in the text, but questions whether preces … precantia in the app. crit. is correct. 2.485 Anderson (203, 41) reads manet from Ω; Goold (178, 94), von Albrecht (208, 94 and 861), Scivoletto (239, 31 and 120) and Tarrant (258, 49) favour tamen from several codd., such as Heinsius (49, 48).

Studies on particular passages: Book II

91

2.496 Luck (264, 258) comments on the variant parenti, as Heinsius (49, 49 and 39n) suggests from some codd., instead of parentis from Ω and editors. 2.506 Tarrant (258, 50) speculates on volucri instead of celeri from most codd. or pariter from some of them; see also Goold, 178, 94; Anderson, 203, 42. Galasso (269, 133) believes that Tarrant’s proposal should appear in the app. crit. and celeri in the text. Cf. Fedeli (287, 610). 2.514 Luck (263, 167; 264, 258) recalls that mentiar from P2 in place of mentior was adapted by Heinsius (49, 49 and 39n). Bonus Accursius (5, ad loc.) reads mentior, not mentiar, as noted by Luck. 2.518 Anderson (203, 42) reads est vero cur quis from most codd. Tarrant (258, 50n) obelizes †est vero quisquam† and does not disapprove of Slater’s proposal (141, ad loc.), et quisquam ulterius; cf. Verg. Aen. 1.48–9. Barchiesi (260, 102 and 278) and Goold (178, 96) support Ellis’ suggestion (107, 69), et vero quisquam, included in the text by Magnus (134, 72). 2.520 Tarrant (240, 435; 258, 50) deletes the line, kept by Goold (178, 96), Anderson (203, 42) and Barchiesi (260, 101). 2.529 Tarrant (258, 51) opts for in caelum from most codd., while Goold (178, 96), Anderson (203, 43) and others read in caelo from NV2. 2.556 Liberman (257, 61) believes that a line is missing between 555 and 556 (most of the codd. have transmitted between both, with multiple variants, the line seruandum dederat sic inconfessa quid esset). Luck (263, 164; 298, 556) considers that the solution for achieving improved comprehension of lines 554–6 would be reading hanc legem from some codd., instead of et legem from Ω and editors. See also Tarrant (193, 289). 2.560 Luck (263, 164) points out that the variant diducit is assigned to Naugerius, who does not disagree in his ‘notes’, but includes it in his text (15, 24v). However, the reading already appears in Calphurnius (4, s. p.) and the 1st Aldina (11, s. p.). 2.563 Watt (216, 98) suggests laedar or vincar in place of dicar from Ω and editors, but four years later (231, 167–8) he favours cedam. Liberman (257, 89n) points to Housman (128, II, 40 to Manil. 4.314) as a supporter of dicar. 2.577 Watt (216, 98) suggests, although with some uncertainty, luctor instead of lassor from Ω and editors. 2.587 Anderson (203, 44) reads acta from most codd., while Goold (178, 100) and Tarrant (258, 53) opt for alta from several codd., although the latter questions the first variant.

92

Transmission and Textual Criticism

2.600 Anderson (203, 45) reads amanti from Heinsius (o2, s. p. ‘leg. -ti’; o4, p. 48 ‘leg. amanti’; cf. Burman, 55, 141). Goold (178, 102), Galasso (236, 82 and 844) and Tarrant (258, 53) favour amantis from Ω. 2.606 Goold (178, 102), Anderson (203, 45) and Tarrant (258, 53) read corpore from Ω; von Albrecht (208, 102 and 861) opts for vulnere from a sizeable number of codd. and edd. vett. 2.611 Tarrant (173, 355–6; 240, 435; 258, 54) omits the line, as Gierig (64, 150) suggested. It is kept by Goold (178, 102), Anderson (203, 45) and Barchiesi (260, 108 and 287). 2.616 Luck (264, 269) believes that it is preferible to put temeraria tela in inverted commas, according to the so-called ‘schema Cornelianum’; see Solodow (188). 2.620 Anderson (203, 45) reads sensit from Lactantius Placidus’ note to Stat. Theb. 6.384. Goold (178, 102) and Tarrant (258, 54) opt for vidit from Ω. 2.626 Liberman (257, 89n) suggests reading corpora from a few codd. or funera (not found so far), instead of pectora from Ω and editors. 2.636 Luck (264, 258) says that Tarrant (258, 54 and 486) should have quoted from Politian and Naugerius (15, 25v) for the reading Chariclo; cf. Heinsius (49, 52 and 42n). 2.667 Tarrant (258, 55) accepts Kenney’s suggestion (‘per litteras’) of reading ne in place of nec from Ω and editors. However, the reading already appears in the mss. Pr, B13 and V30 and was edited in ed. Romana (2, s. p.). 2.669 Luck (298, 12) defends in herbis, as suggested by Liberman (257, 61) and attested by the codd. ‘antiquiores’, instead of in herbas from Ω and editors. 2.681 Luck (263, 164–5) defends the variants baculum from M1 and most editors, not baculus from Ω, as does Edwards (119, 412); cf. 2.789, 15.655. 2.691 Anderson (203, 48) reads timuit from Ω; Goold (178, 108) and Tarrant (258, 56) opt for tenuit from L2, like Ellis (110, 10) and Ehwald (135, 52), instead of timuit; cf. 1.600, 10.533. 2.695–6 Anderson (203, 48), Goold (178, 108) and Fink (288, 106) read reddidit: hospes, / tutus eas! … loquetur’, as does Merkel (92, 41). Tarrant (258, 57) favours reddidit hospes: / ‘tutus eas; … loquetur’. 2.701 Anderson (203, 48) reads pariter from Ω, while Goold (178, 108) and Tarrant (258, 57) lean towards pretium from a codex, as does Heinsius (49, 54 and 45n ‘optimus Thuaneus [P28, f. 21r]’).

Studies on particular passages: Book II

93

2.712 Goold (178, 110) and Anderson (203, 48) read Palladis from Ω and editors. Tarrant (258, 57 and 491) writes Pallados. 2.718 Liberman (257, 62) prefers nec comminus audet adire in place of nec longius audet abire from Ω and editors. 2.733 Liberman (257, 62) proposes changing componit for permulcet from Ω and editors. 2.735–6 Liberman (257, 62) believes that before line 735 or after line 736 another line is missing. 2.735 Goold (178, 110) reads qua from some ‘antiquiores’ and editions previous to Magnus (134, 82). Tarrant (258, 58n) has doubts about reading qua instead of quae from Ω and Anderson (203, 49); cf. Verg. Aen. 4.242–3, Stat. Theb. 1.306–7. 2.745 Liberman (257, 89n) suggests reading causam from some codd. instead of causas from Ω and editors. Cf. Bellido (357, ad loc.). 2.757 Liberman (257, 89n) recalls that Tarrant (258, 54) does not point out another variant, rata, speculation by Heinsius (o4, o2 and b3 ad loc.; cf. Heinsius, 58, 463; Burman, 55, 154), instead of data. 2.763 Luck (264, 258) points out that Tarrant (258, 59) should have mentioned the suggestion by Faber (48, 310) ut quae in place of et quae from Ω and editors. 2.771 Anderson (203, 50) and Tarrant (258, 59) read pigra from a group of ‘antiquiores’ and Heinsius (49, 56 and 47n). Goold (178, 114) and von Albrecht (208, 114 and 862) favour pigre from other ‘antiquiores’ and edd. vett. 2.774 Goold (178, 114) and Tarrant (258, 60) support Housman’s suggestion (in Edwards 119, 413) of una ac instead of ima ad from some codd. and editors. 2.779 See on 1.91. 2.788 Goold (178, 114), Anderson (203, 51) and Tarrant (258, 60) read successurumque, diversa lectio from a couple of codd., such as Heinsius (49, 57 and 48n), in place of successorumque from Ω. Scivoletto (239, 31 and 138) prefers to read successuramque from L2. 2.792 Tarrant (258, 60n) considers if the truth is hidden, although he incorporates cacumina from V3 into the text, like Goold (178, 114), and not papavera from Ω, as proposed by Anderson (203, 51) and Barchiesi (260, 122 and 304). 2.811 Anderson (203, 51) reads lenique from Ω; Goold (178, 116) and Tarrant (258, 61n)

94

Transmission and Textual Criticism

opt for lentoque from some codd., but the latter questions lenique in the app. crit.; cf. Richmond, 281, 130. The option of lentoque vapore came from Heinsius (b3, 73v; cf. Burman, 55, 159), based on some manuscript evidence. 2.823 Luck (264, 258) mentions the variant per inguen from Erkema (63, 345–6 ‘legendum videtur inguen’; cf. 2.353–4) in place of per ungues from Ω. However, Heinsius had already showed his preference for this reading in b3, p. 73v (‘forte, ut lib. xi. v.80 ex ms.’ [11.79 L3 H3]). 2.836 Tarrant (258, 62n) questions whether it would be correct to read amorem, as Francius believed (in Burman, 55, 161), instead of amoris from Ω and editors; cf. 4.520. 2.854 Liberman (257, 62–3) questions whether Ovid would have written mento and not toris from Ω and editors. 2.855 Anderson (203, 53) and Tarrant (258, 63) read parva from Ω, while Goold (178, 120) and Ramírez de Verger (277, 333; 278) support the proposal vara from Heinsius (49, 51n), or torva from Housman (151, 164). 2.871 Goold (178, 120), von Albrecht (208, 122 and 862) and Tarrant (258, 63) read primis from S2, as does Heinsius (49, 59 and 52n), instead of primo from Ω. 2.874 Álvarez-Iglesias (229, 39) points out that Regius (10, s. p.) already defended cornum as ‘archaismus … metri causa’ in place of cornu from Ω. Book III 3.17 Anderson (203, 54) and Tarrant (258, 64) read passu from B and other codd., like Ehwald (135, 59). Goold (178, 124), Galasso (236, 100 and 864) and Scivoletto (239, 31 and 146) defend gressu from Ω and many editors. 3.31 Liberman (in Luck, 298, 12) suggests quo, as can be read in the codex Go2 and as read by Capoferreus (47, s. p. ‘lego quo conditus antro’), in place of ubi from Ω and editors; see also Suárez del Río, 332, 34–5. Luck (ibid.) recalls that Burman (55, 171) reads hoc and adds parentheses between hoc and dentes in line 34. 3.33 Liberman (291) suggests guttur to replace corpus from Ω and editors, while Anderson (203, 55) reads veneno from most codd. Goold (178, 126) and Tarrant (258, 65) favour venenis from codex Be, although Tarrant questions the veracity of veneno. 3.34 Goold (178, 126) suggests tresque vibrant from some codd., the editiones Gryphianae (cf. 19, 88; 21, 76) and Heinsius (49, 61, 53–4n). Anderson (203, 55) opts for tresque micant from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 65) questions its authenticity (240, 437) and

Studies on particular passages: Book III

95

includes in his text tres from Bothe (68, 21–2), as well as vibrant, a reading defended by Suárez del Río (332, 38–9). 3.37 Luck (263, 165–6; 264, 258), Ramírez de Verger (277, 333) and Suárez del Río (332, 42–4) prefer to follow Vollmer (in Magnus, 134, 92) in reading longe instead of longo from Ω and editors. 3.39 Anderson (203, 55) reads relinquit from some codd. Goold (178, 126), Tarrant (258, 65), Galasso (269, 123) and Suárez del Río (332, 46) favour reliquit from Ω, although Tarrant questions relinquit. 3.49 Luck (172, 53–4) reads afflatos funesta following Heinsius (49, 54n ‘afflati funesta tabe veneni. Recte, nisi quod aflatos vel efflati veneni malim’). Goold (178, 128) and Tarrant in the app. crit. opt for adflati from some ‘antiquiores’ and Heinsius (ibid.). Tarrant (258, 65) and Suárez del Río (332, 55–6) favour adflatu from other ‘antiquiores’, as does Magnus (134, 92). Liberman (257, 89n) suggests adflata, which can be found in some codd. and editions, such as those of Bach (76, 118 afflata os funesti), Riese (89, 40) and von Albrecht (208, 126 and 862). Cf. Luck (264, 258). 3.55–8 To avoid the triple repetition of corpus, Luck (172, 54) suggests reading spatiosi tergoris in line 56, like Heinsius (49, 56n), and fidissima pectora in line 58, like Heinsius (ibid.) and Bentley (131, 27), a suggestion accepted by Goold (178, 128). Anderson (203, 56) reads spatiosi corporis and fidissima corpora. Tarrant (258, 66) and Suárez del Río (332, 60–2) favour spatiosi corporis and fidissima pectora. 3.67 Goold (178, 128), Anderson (203, 56), Tarrant (196, 109–10; 258, 66) and Suárez del Río (332, 69) read totum … ferrum from most codd., as against toto … ferro from some manuscripts, and the support of Constantius Fanensis (13, s. p.) and Heinsius (49, 56n). 3.73 Liberman (291) is enticed by plaga, as in some ‘recentiores’ and Burman (55, 176 ‘causa huc migravit ex vers. 260’), instead of causa from Ω and editors. 3.78 Liberman (257, 63) prefers to read flectitur in place of cingitur from Ω and editors; cf. 8.881, 9.64. 3.90 Goold (178, 130), Tarrant (258, 67) and Suárez del Río (332, 85–6) read guttura from P2S2. Anderson (203, 57) opts for gutture from Ω. 3.93 Goold (178, 130), Tarrant (258, 67) and Suárez del Río (332, 88) read ima from several codd. and Hartung (93, 362), while Anderson (203, 57) keeps imae from Ω. 3.99 Luck (302, 90) accepts Liberman’s suggestion (291) of metu to replace diu from Ω and editors; cf. 4.228, 6.706, 9.249. Additionally, he rejects the variant voce for mente from some codd.; cf. Burman (55, I, 630).

96

Transmission and Textual Criticism

3.125 According to Liberman (257, 63–4), trepido … pectore should be read, as in Heinsius (49, 63 and 57n), instead of tepido … pectore from Ω and editors. 3.130 Tarrant (258, 68n) questions whether to accept the variant iussam, replacing iussus from Ω and editors. 3.132 Luck (263, 166) notes the variant exilii felix, pointed out by Naugerius (15, adn.), instead of exilio felix from Ω and editors. 3.136 Luck (302, 90) defends homini est from most codd., as opposed to hominis from Goold (178, 134), von Albrecht (208, 132 and 863) and Tarrant (258, 69). Suárez del Río (332, 124–5), on the other hand, tends towards homini from fragmentum Lipsiense and others. 3.145 Reeve (in Tarrant, 258, 69) considers that this line should be omitted; cf. line 152. 3.149 Goold (178, 134) reads fortunaeque from Li and other codd., such as Regius (10, ad loc.) and Naugerius (15, 32r). Anderson (203, 58), Tarrant (258, 69) and Suárez del Río (332, 135–6) opt for fortunamque from Ω, although Tarrant is uncertain whether to read fortunaeque. 3.150 Luck (264, 258) comments on the variant evecta from some codd. and Ciofanus (27, 61) instead of invecta from Ω and editors. 3.155 Henderson (176, 13) expands his previous explanation (166, 61) to this line. 3.170 Liberman (291) follows Crispinus (54, 198) in omitting the hemistich quamvis erat ipsa solutis from Ω and editors, and suggests either reading quos pexerat ipsa solutos or inserting cruces desperationis. 3.178 Goold (178, 136), Tarrant (258, 70) and Suárez del Río (332, 159–60) read nudae viso from Li and other ‘antiquiores’, although Tarrant questions viso nudae, while Anderson (203, 59) opts for viso nudae from some ‘antiquiores’. 3.186 Goold (178, 136) and Tarrant (258, 71) read turba est, although the latter has some doubts about turba without the linking verb from most codd., as affirmed by Anderson (203, 60) and Suárez del Río (332, 164–5). 3.187 Luck (264, 258) notes the variant abstitit, which Bothe (67, 60) reads and Ellis (107, 68) approves, to replace adstitit from Ω and editors. 3.200 Tarrant (240, 435; 258, 71) considers this line spurious, as does Heinsius (49, 59n). Goold (178, 138), Anderson (203, 60), Barchiesi-Rosati (284, 22 and 157–8), Liber-

Studies on particular passages: Book III

97

man (291 “maybe rightly”) and Suárez del Río (332, 174–5) endorse its authenticity. Cf. Galasso (269, 71). 3.205 Goold (178, 138), Tarrant (258, 71) and Galasso (269, 124) read pudor … timor from most codd. and edd. vett. Anderson (203, 60) and Suárez del Río (332, 178–9) opt for timor … pudor from several manuscripts, as does Ciofanus (29, 62). 3.213 Goold (178, 138) and Anderson (203, 60) read ferox from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 72) and Suárez del Río (332, 187–8) favour fero from codex Li, as does Heinsius (49, 66 and 60n). 3.216 Luck (263, 166) comments on the variant Lagon instead of Ladon from Ω and editors, as Naugerius (15, adn.) indicated and can be read in Planudes (Λάγγων). 3.222 Liberman (291) suggests tergore instead of corpore from Ω and editors. 3.224 Goold (178, 138), Tarrant (258, 72) and Suárez del Río (332, 196–7) read Argiodus, as proposed by Haupt (79, 91; cf. Magnus, 134, 101), while Anderson (203, 61) keeps Agriodus from Ω. Cf. Galasso (269, 129). 3.227 Luck (264, 258) notes the variant feruntur from some codd., as does Heinsius (49, 60n), in place of sequuntur from Ω and editors. 3.230 Tarrant (240, 435; 258, 72) does not consider this line authentic, nor does Heinsius (49, 60n). Goold (178, 140), Anderson (203, 61), Barchiesi-Rosati (284, 24 and 162), Liberman (291, ‘maybe rightly’) and Suárez del Río (332, 174–5), on the other hand, endorse its authenticity. 3.234 Goold (178, 140), von Albrecht (208, 138 and 863), Tarrant (258, 72) and Suárez del Río (332, 202–3) favour exierant from a number of ‘antiquiores’ and many editions. Anderson (203, 61) reads exierat from Ω. 3.241 Liberman (257, 64) suggests reading tectos instead of tacitos in light of Sen. Oed. 753 ( frontem ramis texere novis), but in line 291 proposes the reading circumfert, tendat tamquam sua bracchia, vultus. Possanza (265, 12) suggests reading lumina instead of bracchia. See also Suárez del Río (332, 208). 3.242 Anderson (203, 61), Ramírez de Verger (299, 807–8) and Suárez del Río (332, 209–10) read rabidum from Li. Goold (178, 140) and Tarrant (258, 73) opt for rapidum, although the latter ponders whether to accept rabidum. 3.250 Luck (264, 258) defends the variant falsa from some codd. and Bothe (68, 24), in place of falsi from Ω and editors. Cf. 2.37, 4.404, 7.360, 9.460, 14.323, 15.566. See also Luck, 244, 119–20.

98

Transmission and Textual Criticism

3.261 Goold (178, 142), Tarrant (258, 73) and Suárez del Río (332, 221–2) endorse dum, suggested by Bothe (67, 61; 68, 24), instead of tum from Ω, as Anderson (203, 62) asserts. 3.266–7 Luck (171, 54; 264, 269) supports the question mark after nostri, as suggested by Edwards (119, 416). 3.269 Luck (172, 54) prefers to read uni in place of uno and recalls, with Kenney, the proposal of Capoferreus (47, s, p.), unum. 3.271–2 Liberman (291) suggests perdat instead of fallat and tosta to replace mersa. 3.271 Luck (263, 167) points out the positives of sim from some codd., from Regius (10, s. p.) and from Naugerius (15, 34r), replacing sum from Ω and most editors. 3.283 Luck (172, 54) reads nec tantum instead of nec tamen from Ω and editors. 3.291 Liberman (291) states that the linking et is to be connected with deorum, not with deus. 3.299 Von Albrecht (208, 144 and 863) reads nutuque from ‘fragmentum Theatinorum Romanum’ and Heinsius (49, 68 and 65n), in place of vultuque from Ω and editors. Luck (302, 91) has doubts between vultuque from the codd. and nutuque; cf. Luck (264, 258–9) and Suárez del Río (332, 246–7). 3.302 Luck (263, 167) recalls that Naugerius (15, adn.) noted the variant quo tamen usque, which can be found in various codd. and in the editio Veneta from 1472 (3), replacing qua tamen usque Ω and editors. See Suárez del Río (332, 249). 3.315 To avoid repeating datum / dedere, Liberman (291) considers the possibility of tulere to replace dedere. See Suárez del Río (332, 255). 3.345 Goold (178, 148) and Anderson (203, 65) read tunc, while Tarrant (258, 76 and 499) and Suárez del Río (332, 271) opt for tum. 3.352 Liberman (257, 89n) suggests reading iuvenisve instead of iuvenisque from Ω and editors. 3.362 Luck (264, 259) comments on the variant quae ne, as speculated by Heinsius (49, 65n), replacing quia cum from Ω and editors. 3.363 Luck (264, 259) considers Tarrant’s reference (258, 77) to 4.260, supporting sub Iove instead of cum Iove, as irrelevant. See Suárez del Río (332, 281–2).

Studies on particular passages: Book III

99

3.368 Goold (178, 150), Tarrant (258, 77) and Suárez del Río (332, 284) endorse the reading tantum from various codd. and Bothe (68, 26), to replace tamen from Ω and Anderson (203, 65). 3.378 Liberman (257, 64) speculates on exceptare instead of exspectare from Ω and editors. 3.388 Liberman (291) suggests reading calet to replace favet from Ω and editors. 3.390 Goold (178, 150), Anderson (203, 66), Tarrant (258, 78) and Suárez del Río (332, 299–9) support aufer, as speculated by Heinsius (49, 71 and 66n). Álvarez-Iglesias (226, 291) keeps aufert from Ω. 3.400–1 Goold (178, 152) and Anderson (203, 66) consider these lines authentic, while Tarrant (173, 356–7; 240, 435; 258, 79) and Suárez del Río (332, 303–5) omit them, as proposed by Heinsius (49, 71 and 66n). 3.403 Luck (302, 91) defends the variant coeptus (L2), as do Slater (141, ad loc.) and Liber­man (291), instead of coetus from Ω and editors. 3.405 Kovacs (210, 247–8) suggests reading sic et, replacing sic non from Ω and editors, and instead of licet would accept the proposal from Tarrant (258, 79n), precor, or even utinam. 3.415 Goold (178, 152), Anderson (203, 67) and Barchiesi-Rosati (284, 38 and 193) believe this line to be authentic. However Tarrant (240, 345; 258, 79) and Suárez del Río (332, 313–14) delete it, as does Merkel (92, 57). 3.415–17 Tarrant (240, 436; 258, 79), Liberman (291) and Suárez del Río (332, 312–14) consider the lines 415 and 417 to be spurious, as does Merkel (92, 57). Barchiesi-Rosati (284, 38 and 194–5) believe they are authentic. Luck (302, 91) considers it unnecessary to omit line 417, but to read rem for spem and umbra instead of unda, as does Heinsius (49, 71 and 67n). 3.447 Anderson (203, 68) and Suárez del Río (332, 327–8) correctly interpret the second hemistich as an epiphoneme (tantus tenet error amantem!). Kenney (149, 291), Goold (178, 154) and Tarrant (258, 80) read it as a parenthesis responding to an author’s comment. See also Barchiesi-Rosati (284, 198–9). 3.456 Liberman (310, 408) believes that amarunt me quoque nymphae could mean “même les nymphes sont tombées amoureuses de moi”, rather than “les nymphes sont tombées amoureuses de moi aussi”.

100

Transmission and Textual Criticism

3.474 Luck (264, 259) notes Merkel’s suggestion of speciem (92, xi and 59) to replace faciem from Ω and editors. 3.479 Luck (172, 55; 264, 259) reads furoris, as opposed to furori from Ω and editors; cf. 6.480. 3.480 Luck (172, 55; 263, 167–8; 264, 259) reads diduxit, rather than deduxit from Ω; cf. am. 1.7.47, but see also Ramírez de Verger (279, 18); Suárez del Río (332, 343–5). 3.482 Luck (172, 55) asserts that one must choose between tenuem … ruborem and roseum … colorem, as in line 485. 3.511 Luck (302, 103) considers that the form Achaeidas should be restored to replace Achaidas from Ω and editors. 3.519–20 Luck (172, 55; 264, 259) reads iamque … veniet instead of namque … veniat from most codd. and editors. Heinsius (49, 74 and 69n) suggests reading iamque … iamque … veniat. 3.532 Luck (263, 168) endorses the variant attenuit from some codd., as do Constantius Fanensis (13, s. p.) and Naugerius (15, adn.), in place of attollit from Ω. 3.548 Liberman (257, 89n) recalls that Tarrant (258, 84) does not point out the variant revocate from some codd. (e.g. the ‘primus Gronovius [B42m]’, not Gronovius), and Heinsius (49, 75 and 70n), instead of retinete from Ω and editors. See also Suárez del Río (332, 382–3). 3.567 Goold (178, 164), Tarrant (258, 85) and Suárez del Río (332, 392–3) read remoraminaque from several codd. in place of moderaminaque from Ω, as do Anderson (203, 72) and Possanza (265, 7–8). Luck (298, 12) proposes revocaminaque. Liberman (257, 65) suggests reading ciebant instead of nocebant from Ω, while Luck (298, 12) proposes movebant. 3.568–71 Tarrant (258, 85) puts these lines in parentheses. 3.576 Tarrant (240, 436; 258, 85) deletes this line, as does Heinsius (49, 71n), as well as Liberman (291). Anderson (203, 72), Barchiesi (284, xxxvi, 48 and 224) and Suárez del Río (332, 397–8) accept its authenticity. Luck (264, 259; 302, 92) suggests reading quendam [S2vH2 V16] for quondam and Tyrrhena e gente (Vollmer in Magnus, 134, 118) in order to consider the line authentic. 3.595 Watt (216, 98) wants to read notare in place of notavi, as a parallel of flectere.

Studies on particular passages: Book III

101

3.597 Luck (264, 259) comments on the variant Ceae, attributed to an ‘anon. ap. Micyll.’ (20, 78 ‘sunt qui putent legendum Ceę sive Ciae telluris’) and also argues for Vossius (in Bothe, 68, 170 ‘Ceiae, cum hac nota: Ceia tellus hoc loco Cos’). 3.601 Liberman (291) prefers to read adferre from some codd. instead of inferre from Ω and editors. 3.618 Luck (264, 259) and Liberman (291) comment on the suggestion of Voss (in Bothe, 68, 170): regimenque to replace requiemque from Ω and editors. 3.626 Luck (302, 92) opts for persto, as does Schepperus (50, 330), in place of resto from Ω and editors; cf. fast. 4.515, Pont. 4.9.92, Luc. 5.210. 3.627 Tarrant (258, 87) and Liberman (291) support Heinsius’ suggestion (in Burman, 55, 226) of raptat instead of rupit from Ω, as does Anderson (203, 73). Until now, I have found nothing in Heinsius, either in his editions or in the codices Heinsiani. As the variant raptat is not in b8 or b9, the reading raptat must be attributed to Burman. 3.640 Luck (263, 169) explains the difference in meaning between dextera (“situated on the right-hand side”) … dextra (‘in dexteram partem’). 3.641 Goold (178, 168) and Anderson (203, 74) read Acoete from Ω; Tarrant (258, 88) reads Opheltes from several codd., such as the editio Romana from 1471 (2), a proposal accepted by Suárez del Río (332, 434–5). 3.642 Tarrant (258, 88) reads “persequitur?” retinens to replace pro se quisque timet from Ω, as do Goold (178, 168) and Anderson (203, 74). Galasso (269, 133) expresses doubts over Tarrant’s suggestion and references the speculation by Possanza (265, 12–13), praedae quisque timet. Cf. Fedeli, 287, 610. Von Albrecht (208, 168 and 863) favours tenet? laevam pete! from a group of codd. and Heinsius (49, 78 and 72n), while Suárez del Río (332, 435–40) tends towards the variant surmised by Schepperus (50, 330), persequiturve timor. 3.643 Goold (178, 168) and Gildengard-Zissos (334, 94) read ore susurro, as does Slater (141, ad loc. ‘an ore susurro? cf 7.825’). Anderson (203, 74), Tarrant (258, 88) and Suárez del Río (332, 440–1) opt for aure susurrat from Roscher (86, 216) and Köstlin (102, 269). 3.644 Tarrant (258, 88n) questions alius from some codd. instead of aliquis from Ω and editors. Luck (263, 169) recalls that alius is attributed to Naugerius (y así es: 15, 40 v) and to Heinsius (49, 78). 3.646 Liberman (291) suggests reading obmurmurat, due to the context, instead of immurmurat from Ω, a verb found in epist. 18.47 (with Kenney, 221, 150).

102

Transmission and Textual Criticism

3.661 Tarrant (258, 89n) questions the reading siccam, as suggested by Housman (151, 165), to replace siccum from Ω and editors. 3.663 Luck (264, 259) claims that the technical term should be tela (carbasa) diducere, as opposed to deducere; cf. 6.233, 11.477. 3.665 Instead of distingunt from Ω and editors, Liberman (291) suggests constringunt, and Luck (302, 92) restringunt. 3.671 Goold (178, 170), Tarrant (258, 89) and Suárez del Río (332, 454–5) support the proposal of Shackleton Bailey (143, 166–7), toto in place of coepit from Ω, as do Anderson (203, 75) and Gildenhard-Zissos (334, 100). 3.672 Goold (178, 170), Tarrant (258, 89) and Suárez del Río (332, 455) do not punctuate after flecti in line 672. Anderson (203, 75) and Gildenhard-Zissos (334, 100) insert a full stop, as does Merkel (92, xi and 64). 3.674 Liberman (257, 65) prefers to read sima instead of panda from Ω and editors; cf. Plin. nat. 9.23. 3.676 Liberman (291) suggests reading adstrictos … convertere in place of obstantes … obvertere from Ω and editors. 3.678 Goold (178, 172), Anderson (203, 75) and Suárez del Río (332, 460) read esse manus from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 89) and Gildenhard-Zissos (334, 102) favour posse manus, as proposed by Housman (in Edwards, 119, 419n). 3.682 Goold (178, 172), Tarrant (258, 89) and Suárez del Río (332, 461–2) read dividuae, as transmitted in the ‘excerpta Matthaei Herculani’ (Heinsius, 49, 73n). Anderson (203, 75) keeps dimidiae from Ω. 3.688 Goold (178, 172), Anderson (203, 75) and Suárez del Río (332, 463–5) read pavidum gelidumque trementi. Henderson (166, 37 and 112), Liberman (291), Godwin (326, 34 and 72) and Gildenhard-Zissos (334, 104) tend towards pavidum gelidoque trementem from Havet (in Lejay, 120, 69 and 131). 3.689 Goold (178, 172) and Anderson (203, 76) read Diamque, but Tarrant (258, 90 and 487) and Suárez del Río (332, 466–7) correctly transcribe Dianque; cf. Luck (263, 169–70). 3.691 Goold (178, 172) and Anderson (203, 76) read sacris, while Tarrant (258, 90) obelizes sacris and suggests, although with reservations, thiasis; cf. Verg. ecl. 5.30, also supported by Luck (264, 259), who notes the possibility of leaving sacris and replacing

Studies on particular passages: Book IV

103

sacra with festa from Heinsius (49, 74n). This option is defended by Holzberg (347, 186 and 804). Suárez del Río (332, 467–71) prefers to read excessi patriis, suggested by Schepperus (50, 331). 3.693 Luck (302, 92) considers the reading absumere from some codd. to be correct. See also Suárez del Río (332, 472). 3.703 Ramírez de Verger (277, 333) believes that Bacchantum should be written in capitals. 3.705 According to Liberman (257, 65–6) one can read both adsumit and resumit. Luck (298, 12) favours resumit. 3.716 Tarrant (258, 91), Ramírez de Verger (266, 956) and Suárez del Río (332, 482–5) accept the proposal of Schepperus (50, 331–2), fremituque to replace trepidumque from Ω, as do Goold (178, 174) and Anderson (203, 76). 3.720 Tarrant (258, 91) correctly writes Autonoes instead of Autonoe from Ω and most editors, an opinion shared by Ramírez de Verger (266, 958), Galasso (269, 134) and Barchiesi (284, 238). Cf. Fedeli (287, 610); Suárez del Río (332, 486–7). 3.722 Liberman (291) suggests abscidit for abstulit from Ω and, instead of lacerata from Ω, proposes reading resoluta. 3.724 Goold (178, 174) and Tarrant (258, 91) support the suggestion dereptis from Housman (in Edwards, 119, 419n), based on Heinsius’ conjecture (49, 75n), direptis. Anderson (203, 77) and Suárez del Río (332, 491–3) keep deiectis from Ω. 3.728 Luck (302, 92) suggests reading opus haec victoria nostrum est, as do Heinsius (49, 80 and 75n), Edwards (119, 419) and Tarrant (258, 91n). Goold (178, 174), Anderson (203, 77), Tarrant (258, 91) and Suárez del Río (332, 494) keep opus hoc victoria nostra est. 3.731 Goold (178, 174), Anderson (203, 77) and Suárez del Río (332, 496) read direpta. Tarrant (258, 92 and 496) suggests derepta. Book IV 4.21 Goold (178, 180) and Tarrant (258, 94) read tingitur from some codd. and Burman (55, 238–9). Anderson (203, 78) opts for cingitur from Ω and most editors, while Tarrant questions in the app. crit. whether to accept cingitur. 4.31 Luck (264, 259) comments on the variant pacatus from a codex and Heinsius (49, 82 and 79n), in place of placatus from Ω and editors.

104

Transmission and Textual Criticism

4.48 Anderson (203, 79) reads altis from Ω, while Galasso (236, 146) and Tarrant (258, 95) favour albis from M and Heinsius (49, 82 and 80n). 4.53 Luck (264, 259) suggests hoc placet: hinc (quoniam vulgaris fabula non est) based on hinc (‘hinc Voss’ in Ehwald, 135, 89n; ‘unus Vossii’ in Slater, 141, ad loc.) and the parentheses of ‘vir doctus in Diez. Berol.’ (in Ehwald, ibid.). 4.69 Goold (178, 182), Anderson (203, 79) and Tarrant (258, 95) read vocis from Ω and most editors, although Tarrant questions in the app. crit. whether to accept voci. Barchiesi-Rosati (284, 66) and Luck (348, on 15.106) read the same variant, voci, from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 83 and 80n). 4.119–21 Luck (264, 269) does not punctuate after ferrum and traxit, but inserts a full stop after humo, reads et iacuit replacing ut iacuit, and accepts line 120, as does Tarrant (258, 97). 4.121 Anderson (203, 81), Galasso (269, 126) and Barchiesi-Rosati (284, 70 and 266) keep et from Ω, while Goold (178, 186) and Tarrant (258, 97) read ut from several codd. and Heinsius (49, 84 and 81n). 4.123 Goold (178, 186) and Anderson (203, 81) read tenui … longas from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 97) favours tenues … longe from some codd., such as Heinsius (49, 84 and 81n). Luck (264, 259) agrees with Tarrant’s opinion. 4.131 Goold (178, 186), Anderson (203, 81) and Tarrant (258, 98) read visa from M and Merkel (77, 67), although Tarrant has doubts, and is amenable to versa of Postgate (in Edwards, 119, 420). Scivoletto (239, 32 and 196) favours visam from Ω, as does Jahn (74, 224). Luck (302, 93) opts for versam, like some codd. and Heinsius (49, 84 and 82n). 4.136 Iglesias-Álvarez (226, 293) tends towards fremit from Ω, replacing tremit from several codd., as Goold (178, 188), Anderson (203, 81) and Tarrant (258, 98) maintain. 4.143 Anderson (203, 82) and Tarrant (258, 98) read carissime from M2, as does Heinsius (49, 85; cf. Burman, 55, 251). Goold (178, 188) and Scivoletto (239, 32 and 198) lean towards carissima from Ω. 4.151 Liberman (291) reckons that prosequar is preferable to persequar, as does Burman (55, 252n ‘ex Sixii codice’, cf. epist. 11.121); see also Tarrant (258, 99n). 4.167 Luck (302, 93) recalls the variant subit instead of fuit, which Heinsius (49, 83n) found in Leidensis (line l) and which he was uncertain about accepting (‘quod parum abest quin amplectar’).

Studies on particular passages: Book IV

105

4.186 Anderson (203, 83) reads admisitque from Ω, while Goold (178, 190) and Tarrant (258, 100) opt for immisitque from M and Planudes, as does Slater (141, ad loc.), although Tarrant expresses doubts in the app. crit. about the first option. 4.190 Luck (302, 94) defends the reading Cythereia, rather than Cytherea, here and in 10.529. The forms -eius and -eia should be restored in 10.640, 717, 14.487, 15.803, 816; am. 1.3.4, ars 2.15, 607, 3.43, epist. 15.20. 4.221 Liberman (257, 89n) recalls that Tarrant (258, 101) does not comment on the variant tenuia of Heinsius (49, 84n) in place of levia from Ω and editors. 4.226 For Luck (302, 94), the variant emetior is more appropriate than metior from Ω and editors. 4.228 Tarrant (258, 101n) notes the variant oculis from N1, and that Heinsius (b3, p. 111 ‘l. oculis, meis oculis, qui oculi sunt mundi’) speculates on this. 4.229 Anderson (203, 84) reads fusi from one group of codd. Goold (178, 194) and Tarrant (258, 101) opt for fusus from another group, as does Heinsius (49, 87 and 84n), although Tarrant in the app. crit. questions the reading fusi. 4.236 Anderson (203, 84) reads diffamatumque from Ω. Goold (178, 194), von Albrecht (208, 190) and Tarrant (258, 102) favour diffamatamque from Planudes and Heinsius (b3, 112; o, 46r; 1758, 496). Cf. Slater (141, ad loc.) ‘-tam, ut vid. Plan. et ex coniect. Heinsius’. 4.241–2 Liberman (257, 89n) questions if these two lines should be omitted. 4.242 Anderson (203, 85) reads quo from Ω, while Goold (178, 194) and Tarrant (258, 102) tend towards qua from Mac, as do, for example, Merkel (92, 72) and Magnus (134, 138). 4.243 Harrison (225, 608–9) suggests reading iniecto, as opposed to the dubious enectum from Ω and editors, while Watt (231, 168) proposes oneratum. 4.249 Liberman (257, 89n) recalls that Tarrant (258, 54) does not comment on the variant vanis from Heinsius (49, 855) instead of tantis from Ω and editors. 4.260 Goold (178, 196), Anderson (203, 85) and Fink (288, 184) read nympharum impatiens from a group of codd. and most editors. Tarrant (258, 103) favours nimborum patiens from several codd., as defended by Heinsius (49, 85n) and suggested by Bentley (131, 28). 4.278 Luck (172, 55–6) thinks it is preferable to place the epiphoneme tantus dolor urit amantes in parentheses, as does Tarrant (258, 103).

106

Transmission and Textual Criticism

4.325 Goold (178, 200) and Anderson (203, 87) read beatior illa from Ω. Tarrant (258, 105) keeps beatior, but opts for illis from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 90 and 87n). 4.330 Luck (302, 104) reads (nescit quid sit amor) from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 90 and 87n), replacing (nescit enim quid amor) from other codd. and editors. 4.336 Liberman (257, 89n) suggests reading aut instead of an, and arva to replace ista, from Ω and editors. 4.340 Tarrant (258, 106) tends towards flexumque from GfLr2acV2 and the editio Romana (2) or Heinsius (49, 90), in place of flexuque from some codd. and most editors, such as Goold (178, 202) and Anderson (203, 88); cf. Galasso (269, 122); Fernández Valverde (359, ad loc.). 4.341 Goold (178, 202) and Anderson (203, 88) read scilicet ut vacuis et from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 106) favours ut puer et vacuis ut from Heinsius (49, 90 and 87–8n). Possanza (265, 13) prefers reading (scilicet it vacuis ut inobservatus in herbis) in parentheses. 4.352 Liberman (291) opts to read pectore from some codd. instead of corpore from Ω and editors. 4.375 Luck (264, 259) comments on the suggestions of Capoferreus (47, s. p. ‘verum ego quo magis magisque cogitavi, eo amplius confirmatus sum in sententia corrigendi velut si quis conducta cortice ramos’; also Heinsius, 49, 91 and 89n), conducta, and of Ramírez de Verger (279, 166), obducto. Goold (178, 204), Anderson (203, 89) and Tarrant (258, 107) read conducat from Ω. 4.379 Anderson (203, 89) reads nec utrumque from Ω.  Goold (178, 204) and Tarrant (258, 107) favour neutrumque from a number of ‘antiquiores’ and also, for example, Magnus (134, 145). 4. 388 Anderson (203, 89) reads incerto from Ω.  Goold (178, 204), von Albrecht (208, 200 and 864), Galasso (236, 166 and 937), Scivoletto (239, 32 and 212), Possanza (265, 8) and Tarrant (258, 108) opt for incesto from some codd. and Merkel (77, 74; 92, xiv). 4.389 Luck (172, 56; 264, 259) reads sed adhuc, as opposed to et adhuc from Ω and editors. 4.408 Liberman (257, 89n) reads tenuisque inducit in place of tenuique includit from some codd. Luck (298, 12) recalls that inducit was already suggested by Heinsius (49, 92 and 91n). 4.413 Goold (178, 206) reads levi stridore querellas from Npc and other codd., such as Hein-

Studies on particular passages: Book IV

107

sius (b2, 112v; en Burman, 55, 276–7). Anderson (203, 90) and Tarrant (258, 108) favour leves stridore querellas, although in the app. crit. the latter questions the first option. 4.414 Possanza (265, 13) reads antraque instead of tectaque from Ω and editors. 4.417 Goold (178, 206), Anderson (203, 90) and Barchiesi-Rosati (284, 92 and 297) read numen from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 109) tends towards nomen from a group of codd. (L3 ApB2B4, and others; cf. Fernández Valverde, 359, ad loc.), although he expresses doubts in the app. crit. 4.436–8 Tarrant (258, 109n) questions whether to delete these lines, according to Polle’s suggestion (117, 36). 4.445–6 Goold (178, 208) deletes line 446. Anderson (203, 91) keeps both these lines. Tarrant (258, 110; cf. 240, 436) does not consider line 445 to be authentic, an opinion shared by Heinsius (49, 93n), and inserts  a space after line 445, as proposed by Bentley (131, 28). Luck (302, 95) reckons that the solution lies in reading antiquas, according to Slater’s suggestion (141, ad loc.), in place of pars aliquas in line 445, and following Pulbrook (155, 43–4) in line 446: exercent alii, partem. 4.488 Goold (178, 212) reads est territa from P2 and Bentley (131, 28). Anderson (203, 92) and Tarrant (258, 111) favour exterrita from Ω and editors; cf. Clausen (146, 97–8). 4.506 Gaertner (289, 89–93) defends the verb vertit from the manuscripts and Anderson (203, 93), as opposed to vergit from Graevius (in Heinsius, 49, 95n), accepted by Goold (178, 212), Galasso (236, 172 and 947), Tarrant (258, 112) and Liberman (257, 86). Cf. Heinsius (51, 358–9n). 4.520 Luck (172, 56) supports the juncture sparsum causa venenum, suggested by Faber (48, 312), in place of sparsi causa veneni from Ω, as do Goold (178, 214), Galasso (236, 174 and 947) and Tarrant (258, 113). 4.537 Tarrant (258, 113n) questions the correction tamen from Ω and editors, while Liberman (257, 66) proposes reading si saltem instead of si tamen. 4.542 Goold (178, 216) and Tarrant (258, 113) read Leucothoeque from Ω.  Anderson (203, 94 and 489) opts for Leucotheaque from Planudes, Naugerius (15, 51r) and Bothe (67, 87). 4.551 Liberman (291) also prefers prosequar here, from some mss. (confusion with prefixes; cf. line 151) to replace persequar from Ω and editors. 4.555 Anderson (203, 94) reads temptatos from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 114) tends towards

108

Transmission and Textual Criticism

temptantes from Li2. Richmond (281, 132) criticises Tarrant (ibid.) for failing to specify ‘nescioquis’ from the variant temptando. 4.610 Goold (178, 220), Galasso (236, 178) and Tarrant (258, 116) read putet from several codd., such as Heinsius (49, 98 and 100n), while Anderson (203, 96) keeps the indicative putat from Ω. Anderson (ibid.) reads esse deum from Ω, based on the previous line. Goold (ibid.) and Tarrant (ibid.) favour esse Iovis from some codd., as defended by Heinsius (49, 98 and 100n). 4.620 Liberman (257, 89n) tends towards omitting the line, as does Broukhusius; see ­Magnus, 134, 155 ‘cf DHoogstraten in Mscr Diez Sant 148e p 397’. 4.623 Hendry (207, 552–3) suggests diductas in place of seductas, while Gnilka (175, 143–4) endorses the juncture seductas aequore longe from Ω and editors, with seductas equivalent to divisas; cf. 1.80–1, epist. 19.142, as do Goold (178, 222), Anderson (203, 96) and Tarrant (258, 117). Von Albrecht (208, 218 and 865) and Ramírez de Verger (214, 48) read aethere from some codd., as do many editors. 4.647 Anderson (203, 97) reads montibus from Ω, while Goold (178, 224) and Tarrant (258, 118) favour moenibus from a group of codd., as proposed by Heinsius (49, 99 and 101n). Luck (264, 259) comments on the suggestion by Schepperus (50, 333), molibus; cf. line 773 solidae … molis. 4.656 Liberman (248, 346) cites the variant prodidit from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 99 and 102n; 51, 182–3n on fast. 5.508) instead of protulit from Ω and editors. 4.660 Goold (178, 224), Anderson (203, 97) and Tarrant (258, 118) read altus from Ω; von Albrecht (208, 220 and 865) reads auctus from some codd. and from Heinsius (49, 99 and 102n). Tarrant (258, 118n) has doubts about altus and prefers auctus. Luck (302, 95) believes that auctus is preferible to altus, but that actus from some codd. is also possible. 4.663 Goold (178, 224) and Tarrant (258, 118) accept the suggestion of Housman (151, 165), Aetnaeo, replacing the dubious (Anderson, 203, 97) aeternum. Galasso (269, 129–30) is not convinced and refers back to Pulbrook (155, 44–6), where he mentions other suggestions and reads nocturnos … ventos. 4.669 Luck (297, 50–1; 302, 94 and 95) considers that Cepheïa should be read (Heinsius, 49, 99 and 102n), rather than Cepheaque. 4.690 Liberman (257, 89n) opts for proscidit from Heinsius (b3, f. 130 ‘forte proscidit’; cf. Magnus, 134, 159 ‘cf Mscr Diez 1075’) instead of possidet from Ω and editors. 4.695 Tarrant (258, 119) reads tum from a group of codd., while Anderson (203, 98) keeps cum from Ω and editors.

Studies on particular passages: Book IV

109

4.704 Liberman (257, 66) suggests ad horam instead of et orant. Tarrant (258, 120n) is doubtful about this juncture (‘an sanum nescio’). Liberman (291) reads opemque. 4.709–10 Luck (172, 56) reads tortum … plumbum medio from VN in place of torto … plumbo medii from Ω and editors; cf. 2.727–8. 4.713 Anderson (203, 99) reads visa … in umbra from  a group of codd., while Goold (178, 228) and Tarrant (258, 120) favour visam … in umbram from ‘antiquiores’, such as, for example, Heinsius (49, 121). 4.726 Liberman (257, 66) believes that costas is an annotation of laterum cratem; cf. 12.370; Luck (298, 13). 4.744 Anderson (203, 100) reads etiamnunc. Goold (178, 230) and Tarrant (258, 121 and 497) prefer etiamnum. 4.760 Luck (264, 259; 297, 51) reads lotique, as do Gronovius (43, 245) and Heinsius (46, 477–8n), as opposed to et ubique from Ω, read by Goold (178, 232), Anderson (203, 100) and Tarrant (258, 122). 4.765–70 Goold (178, 232) and Anderson (203, 101) omit lines 767a–768. Tarrant (240, 436; 258, 122) deletes line 768; cf. Fedeli (287, 610). Marzolla (209, 170 and 652) reads lines 766–9 thus: cultusque genusque locorum /  quaerit Lyncides: quaerenti protinus unus / narrat Cephenum moresque animumque virorum. 4.769 Goold (178, 232) and Anderson (203, 101) read qui from M1 and editors. Von Albrecht (208, 228 and 865) and Tarrant (258, 122) opt for quae from Ω. 4.770 Tarrant (258, 101) reads Cepheus from Planudes and Haupt (79, 147n), in place of Perseu from Ω and editors. 4.783 Goold (178, 232) and Anderson (203, 101) read aere repercusso from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 123) favours repercussae, as suggested by Slater (141, ad loc.); cf. Fletcher (206, 347). 4.784 Luck (264, 259) comments on the amendment cumque from Hoffman (90, 170–1) and introduced into the text by Korn (103, 94), replacing dumque from Ω and editors. 4.802–3 Tarrant (258, 124n ‘olim deleverunt’) does not assign responsibility to Haupt (79, 149n) for the omission of these two lines.

110

Transmission and Textual Criticism

Book V 5.40 Liberman (257, 89n) notes that Tarrant (258, 126) does not include the variant palpitat from Heinsius (49, 105 and 110n) instead of calcitrat from Ω and editors. 5.48 Ramírez de Verger (214, 48) reads Limnate from Ω in place of Limnaee from Magnus (134, 168) and other editors. Tarrant (196, 106–8; 258, 126) defends the reading from most codd., vitreis .. sub undis, as opposed to vitreis .. sub antris from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 105 and 110n). 5.59 Luck (172, 56) reads foedatos iactantem sanguine vultus to replace laudatos iactantem in sanguine vultus from Ω and editors. 5.69 Liberman (257, 67) presents various alternatives to spectatam from Ω and editors: madefactam, tepefactam, rubefactam, signatam, respersam and infectam. 5.74 Anderson (203, 104) and Tarrant (258, 127) read Suenites. Richmond (281, 131) believes they should quote Syenites, as do Planudes and Goold (178, 242). 5.80 Goold (178, 244) and Tarrant (258, 128) favour hamato from a group of codd., such as Heinsius (b3, 137r ‘hamato ense Lovaniensis pro diversa lectione, id est curvato. placet’), who notes the parallels with trist. 3.10.63 (hamatis … sagittis), met. 2.799 (hamatis … sentibus), 5.384 (hamata … harundine), 12.563 (hamatisque … unguibus); cf. Heinsius (58, 518). Burman (55, 321) and Anderson (203, 105) read admoto from Ω. 5.87 Goold (178, 244) and Tarrant (258, 128) correctly read Phlegyanque ‘more Graeco’. Anderson (203, 105) keeps the Latin accusative, Phlegiamque. 5.95 Anderson (203, 105) reads vulnere from one group of codd., while Goold (178, 244) and Tarrant (258, 128) tend towards corpore from another group, as does Heinsius (49, 106 and 112n), although Tarrant questions vulnere. 5.104 Tarrant (196, 103–5; 258, 129) prefers to keep decutit from Ω and most editors, instead of demetit, as suggested by Heinsius (49, 107 and 113n), Luck (172, 57) and other editors. 5.108 Gärtner (314, 460) believes that parentheses should be used (vinci si possent caestibus enses), as seen in Chiarini’s translation (Rosati, 305, 17). 5.118 Anderson (203, 106) and Rosati (305, 16 and 145) read casuque fuit. Goold (178, 246) and Tarrant (258, 129) support Housman’s suggestion (151, 165), casuque ferit.

Studies on particular passages: Book V

111

5.131 Goold (178, 246) and Anderson (203, 106) read turis from  a group of codd. Tarrant (258, 130) favours farris from another group, as does Heinsius (b3, 137v-138r; cf. Burman, 55, 325). 5.172 Tarrant (258, 131) reads fregit in from M2s, while Goold (178, 250), Anderson (203, 107) and Galasso (269, 126) keep fregit, et from Ω. Goold inserts a comma after fregit and a colon after columnae; Anderson also adds a comma after fregit, but does not punctuate after columnae. Tarrant, on the other hand, does not use punctuation after fregit, and inserts a semicolon after columnae. 5.181 Anderson (203, 108) and Rosati (305, 20 and 153) read oracula from one group of codd. Goold (178, 250), Galasso (236, 202 and 975) and Tarrant (258, 132) favour miracula from another group. 5.217 Anderson (203, 109) keeps ea from Ω, while Hendry (219, 188–91) tends towards quacumque est or quacumque es. Goold (178, 252), Tarrant (258, 133), Galasso (269, 126) and Luck (302, 96) read quacumque est, although Tarrant has doubts about ea instead of est. 5.224 Tarrant (258, 133) supports the suggestion of Bothe (68, 43), Perseus. Goold (178, 252) and Anderson (203, 109) keep Phineu from Ω and editors. Cf. Galasso (269, 129). 5.252 See on 7.464. 5.261 Luck (302, 96) confirms Heinsius’ reading nostro es (49, 11 and 118n) to replace nostro est from most codd., a reading also accepted by Goold (178, 256), Anderson (203, 110) and Tarrant (258, 135). 5.306 Luck (302, 103) believes that the form Achaeidas should be reinstated. 5.314 Anderson (203, 112) reads cedamus from a group of codd., while Goold (178, 260) and Tarrant (258, 137) favour cedemus from another group, although the latter questions cedamus. 5.329 Anderson (203, 112) reads in corvo est from one group of codd. Goold (178, 260) and Tarrant (258, 137) tends towards corvo from the other group. 5.353 Luck (302, 96) recalls the variant eructat, like Heinsius (49, 120n, in Mr), instead of eiectat from Ω and editors; cf. 14.211. 5.363 Luck (264, 259) comments on the reading deposuitque metu from Naugerius (15, adn.), like Planudes, replacing depositoque metu from Ω and editors.

112

Transmission and Textual Criticism

Anderson (203, 113) and Gärtner (314, 461) prefer to insert a comma after vagantem as opposed to after metu, as favoured by Goold (178, 262), Tarrant (258, 139) and Rosati (305, 34). 5.373–4 Gärtner (314, 461–2) proposes reading et tamen in caelo quoque, quae patientia nostra est, / spernimur. 5.378 Luck (264, 259–60; 274, 115–16; 302, 97) and Rosati (305, 34 and 199–200) support the reading mea, as Heinsius stated (49, 122n) from several manuscripts (cf. 515, 2.293, 4.536, 6.440–1) instead of ea from Ω, as do Goold (178, 264), Anderson (203, 114) and Tarrant (258, 139). 5.387 Anderson (203, 114) reads edit from several ‘antiquiores’ and Magnus (134, 185), while Goold (178, 264), von Albrecht (208, 258 and 866) and Tarrant (258, 140) opt for audit from other ‘antiquiores’ and many editions. 5.389 Iglesias-Álvarez (226, 293) tends towards ignes from Ω, cf. Manil. 4.531–2. Goold (178, 264), Anderson (203, 114) and Tarrant (258, 140) favour ictus from N (cf. 3.183), although the latter expresses doubts about accepting ignes. 5.390 Goold (178, 264) and Anderson (203, 114) read Tyrios from most codd. Tarrant (258, 140) favours varios from MN1, although has doubts about Tyrios. Heinsius (49, 124n) had noted down varios … flores (‘quamquam et varii flores pro diversis coloribus possunt sumi non male’). 5.396 Liberman (257, 89n) suggests adeo properavit, replacing adeo est properatus from Ω and editors. 5.405 Von Albrecht (208, 260 and 866) and Luck (302, 97) defend the variant sacros from some codd. and from the grammatician Diomedes, instead of altos from Ω, as claimed by Goold (178, 266), Anderson (203, 115) and Tarrant (258, 140). 5.414 Goold (178, 266) and Rosati (305, 38 and 206) keep the punctuation of Housman (151, 413), ‘ne’c replacing ‘nec, as do Anderson (203, 115) and Tarrant (258, 141). 5.446 Luck (264, 260) prefers sitim collegerat, as in 6.341, instead of sitim conceperat from Ω and editors; cf. Mynors (201, 231–2) on Verg. georg. 3.327. 5.454 Goold (178, 268) and Anderson (203, 116) read mixta … polenta from Ω. Tarrant (258, 142), however, supports the suggestion of Kenney (159), mixtae … polentae. 5.460 Anderson (203, 117) reads colori from Ω, while Goold (178, 270) and Tarrant (258, 142) opt for pudori from MNac, although the latter has doubts about colori.

Studies on particular passages: Book V

113

5.480 Gärtner (314, 463) suggests reading vitiataque semina iecit in place of vitiataque semina fecit from Ω and editors, supported by semina iacta from line 485. 5.482 Goold (178, 270), Anderson (203, 117) and Ramírez de Verger (294, 741–2) read falsa from some codd. Tarrant (258, 143) speculates on laesa, accepted by Galasso (269, 134); cf. Fedeli, 287, 610. Rosati (305, 42 and 215) favours cassa from Heinsius (49, 117 and 126–7n). Gärtner (314, 463–4) prefers strata from Burman (55, 361). Luck (264, 260) believes that suggestions which should also be considered are lassa from Bach (72, 243–4) and fessa from C. Schenkl (in Magnus, 134, 190). 5.526 Luck (297, 52) tends towards honor, as suggested by Schepperus (50, 334 ‘pro τῷ amor legendum hic esse honor probant sequentia’), in place of amor from Ω and editors. 5.535 Courtney (313, 84) proposes reading Ditis instead of cultis from Ω and editors. 5.541 Tarrant (196, 107–8; 258, 145) defends the majority reading of codd. and editors, silvis … sub atris, against furvis … sub antris from some codd., from Regius (14, 56v), Naugerius (15, 64v) and Heinsius (49, 119 and 127n; cf. Burman, 55, 364–5). See Luck (264, 260). 5.571 Gärtner (314, 464) reinstates the suggestion of Hartman (130, 116), victis cum nubibus, to replace victis e nubibus from Ω and editors. 5.577 Luck (302, 103) believes that the form Achaeide should be reinstated. 5.591 Luck (274, 118) suggests reading gratas from two codd. and Hellmuth (101, 14–15) instead of natas from Ω and editors. 5.598 Goold (178, 278), von Albrecht (208, 272 and 866) and Luck (302, 97) favour reading propioris … ripae instead of propiori … fontis, as maintained by Anderson (203, 121) and Tarrant (258, 148). 5.612 Tarrant (240, 437; 258, 148) questions whether to delete this line. 5.621 Liberman (257, 67) suggests reading trahens in place of ferens from Ω and editors. 5.670 Anderson (203, 123) reads conantesque oculis, however Goold (178, 284), von Albrecht (208, 278 and 866) and Tarrant (258, 150) prefer conataeque loqui et, as does, for example, Heinsius (49, 122).

114

Transmission and Textual Criticism

Book VI 6.8 Possanza (265, 11) believes that a semicolon is needed after Idmon, and that huic is not to be considered equivalent to huius. 6.15 Anderson (203, 124) and Tarrant (258, 152) edit the reading dumeta. Goold (178, 288), Scivoletto (239, 32 and 278) and Ramírez de Verger (214, 48; 360, ad loc.) favour vineta. 6.18 Luck (264, 269) defends the parentheses (tantus … arti) from Capoferreus (47, s. p.), while Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) reckons that the second part of the line is an epiphoneme: tantus … arti! 6.25 Hejduk (319) argues for the translation “there is no reason for me to refuse, defeated”, so the juncture nihil est + subjunctive can only mean ‘there is no reason why’, as supported in Verg. Aen. 12.11–13. 6.27 Watt (216, 98–9) accepts the suggestion by Delz, male, to substitute quoque, supposedly incorrect. Zurli (234, 167–8; 343, 27–8) and Luck (298, 13) propose the reading baculum quo, a variant on Riese’s suggestion (115, xvi and 90), quos, which is accepted by Tarrant (258, 153). Liberman (257, 67) suggests vix in place of quoque; Anderson (203, 124), Ramírez de Verger (317, 383–6; 360, ad loc.) and Gärtner (314, 464) keep the adverb quoque from the codd. 6.49 Goold (178, 290), Anderson (203, 125) and Tarrant (258, 153) read solis ab ortu from Ω, although the latter questions in the app. crit. whether to read ictu. Ramírez de Verger (214, 48; 321, 142–6; 360, ad loc.) defends the variant solis ab ictu from some ‘antiquiores’, instead of solis ab ortu; cf. 3.183–5. 6.50 Goold (178, 292), Anderson (203, 125), Rosati (305, 64 and 225) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) read stolidae as an ‘enallage adiectivi’. Tarrant (258, 154) incorporates Postgate’s correction stolida (in Edwards, 119, 431). 6.77 Goold (178, 292), Anderson (203, 126) and Tarrant (258, 155) read fretum from some ‘antiquiores’. Luck (263, 182–3) tends towards ferum as ‘lectio difficilior’, based on Verg. georg. 1.12–14 and Aen. 2.51; cf. also Lucan. 6.396–9. Others who support this reading are Doyen (286, 461–5) and Ramírez de Verger (321, 146–54), who (360, ad loc.) considers it difficult to decide between the two variants. 6.82 Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) reads operi from some codd., such as Heinsius (49, 125 and 133n), replacing operis from Ω and most editors. Goold (178, 294), von Albrecht (208, 284 and 867), Tarrant (258, 155) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) personify, following Lange’s proposal (97, 381–5), the name Victoria, in other words the ‘imago Victoriae’. Anderson (203, 126) keeps victoria.

Studies on particular passages: Book VI

115

6.87 Luck (264, 260) rightly defends the reading Haemon, as opposed to Haemum, as in 10.77, based on the Greek Αἷμον. Ramírez de Verger agrees (360, ad loc.). 6.88–9 Luck (264, 269) punctuates between parentheses (nunc … deorum). 6.102 Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) reads operi. See on line 82 above. 6.104 Goold (178, 294) and Anderson (203, 127) read Europam, while Tarrant (258, 156 and 487) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) prefer Europen. 6.110 Luck (302, 98) recalls that Constantius Fanensis (13, s. p.) was the first to justly defend the accusative pulchram from most of the codd., agreeing with Nycteida from the following line. Additionally, he believes that Satyri should be read, rather than satyri. 6.117 Reinhardt (312, 43–53) defends the reading Aeolidas, understanding that the variant Aloidas from Ω and editors was introduced thanks to the influence of Verg. Aen. 6.582–3. 6.128 Bernsdorff (223, 347–56) explains the line reading intertextos to describe Arachnes with a border of ivy. 6.139 Liberman (257, 67–8) suggests that in place of post ea discedens sucis “le mot artus …. est tombé entre discedens et sucis”. Gärtner (314, 465) proposes the alternative membraque, replacing post ea from Ω and editors. 6.151 Ratti (227, 456–7) suggests translating verbisque minoribus as “paroles moins fières”. 6.154 Luck (274, 116) points out the variant sua, as Burman defended (55, 366), in place of ea from Ω and editors. 6.184 Anderson (203, 129) reads causam from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 158) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) opt for laudem, although Tarrant expresses doubts about causam in the app. crit. Rosati (305, 281–2) and Gärtner (314, 465) favour causam as an oratorial-judicial term, as in 5.220. 6.189 Luck (263, 183) is in favour of the juncture exul mundi instead of exul mundo, based on some parallels in poetry; cf. 9.409; Hor. carm. 2.16.18–20; Mart. 10.5.3. Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) agrees. 6.197 Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) defends the juncture excussere metum from some codd., Heinsius (b2, p. 162; b3, p. 168; o4, p. 143) and Burman (55, 399) to replace excessere metum from Ω and editors.

116

Transmission and Textual Criticism

6.199–203 Tarrant (258, 159) reads thus: non tamen ad numerum redigar spoliata duorum, Latonae turbam, qua quantum distat ab orba?  200 infectis propere ite sacris laurumque capillis ponite’ deponunt et sacra infecta relinquunt, quodque licet, tacito venerantur murmure numen. indignata dea est. In line 200 he accepts the supposed suggestion of Bentley, qua (which, in fact, already appears in some codd. [V2rv Li2(f. 16v)Oacv(f. 16v)P3(f. 32r) Sb2m(f. 17v) B11], and in Gronovius, 43, 245–7, or Burman, 55, 400), and follows Korn (103, 202n) in the reading of line 201. Luck (263, 183–5; cf. 264, 260) tries to reconstruct these lines thus: non tamen ad numerum redigar spoliata duorum, Latonae turbae, qua quantum distat ab orba?  200 ite, satis, propere ite, sacri est laurumque capillis ponite!’ deponunt et sacra infecta relinquunt, quodque licet, tacito venerantur murmure numen. indignata dea est. See also Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.). 6.200 Scivoletto (239, 32 and 290) reads quae, the ‘lectio facilior’, instead of qua. Cf. Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.). 6.201 Goold (178, 302) reads ite -satis pro re sacri-; Anderson (203, 130) obelizes † satis propere sacris † and suggests in the app. crit. reading ite statis propere sacris. Von Albrecht (208, 292 and 867) reads ite, satis, propere ite, sacri est, while Marzolla (209, 220 and 653) proposes reading ite citae his procul a sacris. Tarrant (258, 159) follows the suggestion of Korn (96, 202n) infectis propere ite sacris and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) suggests reading ite sacris procul a sacris, as does Micyllus (20, 134). 6.212 Ramírez de Verger (336, 401–3) explains the correct spelling of reccidat, found in the codex E2. 6.219 Liberman (257, 68) questions turba and believes, albeit with some reservations, that it should have been substituted by massa; cf. Stat. Theb. 6.648–50. 6.222 Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) reads fuco from some codd. in place of suco from Ω and editors. 6.223 Iglesias-Álvarez (226, 293) retains auro gravidis … habenis from Ω instead of auroque graves … habenas from some codd. and many editors. Luck (263, 185–6) supports the reading auroque graves, put forward by Naugerius (15, adn.), supported by ars 3.131.

Studies on particular passages: Book VI

117

6.224 Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) prefers to read, ‘more Graeco’, Ismenos from some ‘antiquiores’, replacing Ismenus from Ω and editors. 6.231 Goold (178, 304), Anderson (203, 131) and Rosati (305, 76 and 286–7) read imbris in the genitive; cf. line 157. Tarrant (258, 160) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) keep imbres from Ω. 6.233 Luck (264, 260) favours reading diducit to replace deducit from Ω and editors. 6.237 Goold (178, 304), Anderson (203, 131) and Tarrant (258, 161) read crura from Ω. Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) and Tarrant, albeit with reservations in the app. crit., opt for colla from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 129 and 137n). Luck (297, 53) favours lora. 6.243 Anderson (203, 131) reads contento from Ω. Goold (178, 304), Tarrant (258, 161) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) tend towards cum tento from several codd. and Gebhardus (35, 125–6). 6.244 Liberman (257, 89n) suggests iunctos instead of iuncti from Ω and editors. 6.247 Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) questions whether to read animas from P3, replacing animam from Ω and editors. 6.249 Goold (178, 304) and Anderson (203, 131) read advolat, as does GFP2. Tarrant (258, 161), Galasso (236, 246 and 1030) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) favour evolat from Ω, a variant defended by Paschalis (168) based on Virgil (Aen. 7.386–7, 9.477), and Ciris 214, where he also reads evolat, as opposed to avolat. Tarrant (258, 161n) questions reading advolat. 6.259 Luck (302, 98) elucidates the variants seque iaculatus and se qui iaculatus based on the loss of e- after -e (seque eiaculatus) and, as this juncture was unmetrical, the version se qui iaculatus appeared. The correct reading, seque eiaculatus, appears in most codd. and editors. 6.274 Goold (178, 306) and Anderson (203, 132) read Latois, while Tarrant (258, 162 and 489) opts for Letois, as does Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.). 6.280–2 Murgia (181, 222–3) believes in the authenticity of these versions, and defends the repetition of ait with dixit in the same appeal; cf. “the combined evidence of Apul. Met. 9.38 and Ovid, met. 9.176”; Anderson (203, 132) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) concur. Goold (178, 306), Galasso (236, 248 and 1032–3) and Tarrant (240, 436; 258, 162) omit line 282, and Zwierlein (235, 251) omits both 281 and 282. Rosati (305, 80 and 291–2) and Gärtner (314, 466) consider line 281 to be spurious, while Rosati believes line 282 to be authentic.

118

Transmission and Textual Criticism

6.294 Goold (178, 308), Anderson (203, 133), Tarrant (240, 436; 258, 163) and Fedeli (287, 609) consider this line to be inauthentic, as suggested by Heinsius (49, 131 and 138n). However Ramírez de Verger (336, 403–4; 360, ad loc.) defends the authenticity of the line, reading oraque non pressit, nisi postquam spiritus exit, in place of oraque compressit, nisi postquam spiritus ibat. 6.307 Tarrant (196, 108) understands that dediscunt from Gf41, to replace desistunt from Ω, is a colourful interpolation from readers influenced by 1stC AD writers. 6.316 Tarrant (196, 108–9; cf. 258, 163) defends renarrant and understands retractant “as another possible instance of a variant prompted by familiarity with later usage”. Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) questions the veracity of retractant. 6.325 Luck (302, 98) questions whether to accept lacus (not lacu) from ‘Barberinianus’ [V101(lacu V102s)] and Heinsius (44, 107; 49, 232 and 139n); cf. 6.409. For Luck, another possiblity would be to read lacu in medio,  a juncture from some codd.; cf. 7.789–91, 10.167–8. 6.327 Luck (302, 98) explains the variants of pavido (parvo, paulo, pavio) based on the loss of the -d-; cf. 9.568–9. 6.332 Luck (263, 186; 302, 98) defends regia coniux, as opposed to regia Iuno, where Iuno must be an annotation; cf. 9.259, 10.46, 13.483, 14.592. 6.333 Luck (302, 99) recalls the variant orbe, instead of orbem, from Regius (14, f. 63r), Naugerius (15, s. p. ‘in nonnullis fortasse rectius orbe interdixit’), and Heinsius (49, 140n), but which already appeared in the codex Lu; cf. Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.). 6.334 Goold (178, 310), Anderson (203, 134), Tarrant (258, 164) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) read orantem from Ω.  Fink (288, 284) and Luck (302, 99) prefer errantem “because it stresses the similarity between Delos and Latona”, although elsewhere Luck (263, 186) defends orantem. 6.335 Tarrant (258, 164 and 491) writes Pallados in place of Palladis from Ω and editors, as does Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.). 6.341 Tarrant (258, 164) notes in the app. crit. the suggestion by Reeve, collegerat, to replace collegit ab from Ω and editors. Luck (263, 187) supports the juncture sitim collegit based on 5.446 and Verg. georg. 3.327. 6.342 Goold (178, 312), Luck (302, 102) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) read lactantia, as opposed to lactentia, as do Anderson (203, 134) and Tarrant (258, 164).

Studies on particular passages: Book VI

119

6.343 Gaertner (289, 93–5) has dusted off the suggestion of Burman (55, 411) and Verheykius (60, 238), Melitensis, in their commentary on Μελίτῃ from Antoninus Liberalis 35.1, instead of mediocris from Ω and editors. The proposal has been accepted by Liberman (291), Rosati (305, 84 and 301–2) and Ramírez de Verger (277, 333; 360, ad loc.). 6.357 Goold (178, 312), Anderson (203, 135) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) insert a colon after simul, while Tarrant (258, 165) adds a semicolon. 6.376 Hendry (220, 443–5) defends the juncture quamquam sunt to replace quamvis sint from Ω and editors. 6.379 Zoccola (232) tends, in terms of a metaphorical interpretation, towards tendunt from some ‘antiquiores’, instead of tangunt from Ω and editors. 6.384 Goold (178, 314) and Anderson (203, 136) read Latous from Ω. Tarrant (258, 166 and 489) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) opt for Letous. 6.393 Luck (274, 116) favours clarus from Ω, replacing carus from some ‘antiquiores’ and editors: “Ovid says that Olympus was “even then” (probably because he was still quite young) famous as a musician”. Luck also recalls (302, 99) that Heinsius (49, 142n) prefers to read et tu quoque carus, Olympe (as opposed to tu quoque, carus Olympe, “taking carus as a vocative”), although he reads clarus in the text of his editions (44, 109 and 49, 134). 6.399 Anderson (203, 136n) questions whether to read rapide instead of rapidum; Reeve (in Tarrant, 258, 167) suggests reading patulum (‘vel sim.’) to replace rapidum or rapidus. This option is also supported by Holzberg (347, 310 and 804), while Tarrant obelizes the word. Goold (178, 316) favours rapidus, as does Ramírez de Verger (276, 32–3; 360, ad loc.) from Hellmuth (101, 17–18), without punctuation after habet in the next line. 6.403 Goold (178, 316) and Anderson (203, 136) read hanc tunc from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 167) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) opt for tamen hanc from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 134 and 142n), 6.405 Luck (264, 260 and 270) considers diduxit to be correct, rather than deduxit from Ω and editors. 6.406 Luck (263, 187) supports the reading hic (as opposed to huic), as noted by Naugerius (15, adn. ‘multo rectius in quibusdam hic humerus’) and followed by most editors. 6.409 Akrigg (in Tarrant, 258, 167) resolves the problematic juncture qui locus (Ω) with this

120

Transmission and Textual Criticism

suggestion: cui locus; cf. fast. 1.540; Sen. Phaedr. 1258. Goold (178, 316) and Anderson (203, 136) keep qui locus from Ω. 6.418 Luck (302, 99) explains the readings Trozen, Trozenius or Trozena from the manuscripts, in place of the correct forms Troezen, Troezenius, Troezena, for the loss of an e in the manuscripts. See Tarrant (258, 494). 6.422 Luck (302, 100) supports the reading subvectaque (as opposed to subiectaque, where “a stroke, that is, a part of a letter, seems to be missing”). The verb subvehi is more or less equivalent to vehi “with an indication of the direction or the goal”. 6.435 The codd. and editors read Thracia. Possanza (265, 10) recalls that Lachmann defended Thrace; cf. 106, 278 to Lucr. 5.31 ‘neque Thraciam ullus poëta dixit praeter Lucanum, qui quomodo hoc in ii 162 audere potuerit non intellego … exemplaria vetera tanti non facio ut eum Thracia maluisse credam quam Thrace’. 6.438 Goold (178, 318), Anderson (203, 137) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) add a colon after vocari; Tarrant (258, 168), a semicolon. 6.441 Anderson (203, 137) reads visendam from Ω, while Goold (178, 318), Tarrant (258, 168) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) opt for visendae from Heinsius (49, 135 and 144n). 6.477 Ramírez de Verger (336, 404–6; 360, ad loc.) favours incorporating usque into the text instead of Ω and editors. Additionally, he inserts a question mark after salutem. 6.485 Scivoletto (239, 32 and 306) prefers to read erat in place of erit. 6.489 The suggestion by Housman (in Edwards, 119, 434), dantur sua tempora, is accepted by Tarrant (173, 352; 258, 170). Goold (178, 322) reads dant turgida corpora, as does Madvig (91, 83); Anderson (203, 139) keeps dantur sua corpora from Ω, while Luck (264, 187–8) defends tradunt sua corpora (cf. Naugerius, 15, adn.) with the parallel from Homer. 633–4 (implentur dapibus largis Bacchique liquore / atque avidi placido tradunt sua corpora somno), a passage very similar to Ovid. Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) agrees. 6.496–8 Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) favours maintaining the usual order of lines 496, 497, and 498, and reading ut voluere in line 496 instead of et voluere from P2 and editors. 6.506 Gärtner (314, 466) proposes reading inque fide pignus in place of utque fide pignus from some codd. and Priscianus. 6.512 Liberman (257, 67) suggests reading commotum in place of admotum from Ω and editors; cf. am. 2.11.5–6; Val. Fl. 5.71.

Studies on particular passages: Book VI

121

6.514 Tarrant (240, 436; 258, 171) deletes the line, as do Capoferreus (47, 22), Heinsius (49, 137 and 147n), Burman (55, 427) and others (cf. Galasso, 269, 117). Goold (178, 324). Anderson (203, 140), Rosati (305, 98 and 332) and Ramírez de Verger (321, 154–7; 360, ad loc.) defend its authenticity. Luck (264, 261) agrees with one of Burman’s suggestions (55, 427), rather than Heinsius’, exultansque animo vix iam sua gaudia differt, and rejects its inauthenticity. The similarity of the line to 2.863 and 4.350 is not  a strong enough reason to consider the line spurious, as Tarrant establishes (ibid.). Galasso (269, 117) accepts another suggestion from Burman (previous to Hartman, 130, 340–1), exultatque animo, vix et sua gaudia differt. This proposal is accepted by Rosati (305, 332) and Gärtner (314, 466). 6.518 Reeve (in Tarrant, 258, 171 ‘mallem abesset’) does not consider the line authentic. 6.532 Rosati (305, 98 and 334) rejects the omission of the line, suggested by Heinsius (49, 147n) and accepted by Tarrant (240, 436; 258, 172). Goold (178, 324), Anderson (203, 140) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.), on the other hand, endorse its authenticity. 6.537–8 Tarrant (240, 436; 258, 172; cf. 251, 352 n. 4) omits these lines, while Rosati (305, 98 and 334) considers this omission inopportune “non essendo tuttavia così ovvia da poter esse attribuita a un interpolatore”. Goold (178, 324), Anderson (203, 140) and Ramírez de Verer (360, ad loc.) believe them to be authentic. 6.538 Shackleton Bailey (169, 332) suggests reading si instead of mihi and punctuating with a comma after poena: hostis si debita poena, / quin …? Goold (178, 324) prefers to read hostis mihi debita Procne!, as proposed by Withof (57, 180–1), while von Albrecht (208, 316 and 867) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) opt for non haec mihi debita poena. Anderson (203, 140) and Tarrant (258, 172) read hostis mihi debita poena from most codd. Watt (216, 99) substitutes the noun hostis from most codd. for mors est. Tarrant (251, 352 n. 4) considers that this juncture “can hardly be sound” and deletes it, as mentioned previously. Rosati (305, 98 and 334) accepted Watt’s suggestion, because “si integra perfettamente nel contesto, e prepara i versi che seguono”. Gärtner (314, 467) inserts a full stop after coniunx and a colon after poena. 6.548 Goold (178, 326), Anderson (203, 141) and Tarrant (258, 172) read audiet from Ω and editors from Merkel (77, 117). Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) prefers to read audiat from some ‘antiquiores’. 6.582 Anderson (203, 142) reads fortunaeque and carmen from Ω. Goold (178, 328) and Watt (216, 100) accept the readings germanaeque and fatum from  a minority of manuscripts, in place of fortunaeque and carmen from most of them. Liberman (310, 434) also believes that the correct reading is fatum miserabile legit with the support of 6.90. Tarrant (258, 174) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) opt for germanaeque

122

Transmission and Textual Criticism

and carmen, as does Heinsius (49, 139 and 149n). Gärtner (314, 467–8) agrees with this proposal, also defended by Bernsdorf (301, 10). Reeve (in Tarrant, 258, 174n) suggests, albeit with some reservations, omitting line 582, while Tarrant himself proposes, not with certainty, textum to replace carmen, already put forward by Slater (141, ad loc.). Liberman (257, 67) suggests the unusual word nemen, mistreated in the textual transmission; cf. Liberman, 248, 237 to Val. Fl. 6.310 segnes abrumpere metas or netus. Luck (264, 261) agrees with another of Slater’s proposals (133, 257 n. 1), stamen instead of carmen. 6.584–5 Zurli (234, 168–9; 343, 27–8) proposes keeping defuerant from almost all the codd., understands the copulative conjunction -que as epexegetic-causal, and adds parentheses (verbaque … defuerant). Scivoletto (239, 32, 312) also keps the indicative pluperfect tense. 6.600 Luck (263, 188) favours moenia, rather than limina. 6.605 Luck (302, 100) considers the plural amplexusque more appropriate “because two pairs of arms are involved”; cf. 4.597, 9.560, 11.459, epist. 14.69; Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.). 6.611 Liberman (257, 89n) and Luck (264, 261) suggest hic, as does Heinsius (49, 140 and 150n), in place of hoc from Ω and editors. 6.616–17 Goold (178, 330) and Tarrant (258, 175) read aut … atque … et quae … aut per. Anderson (203, 143) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) write aut … aut … et quae … aut per. Luck (302, 100) argues in favour of aut … aut … aut quae … aut per: “These are several drastic forms of revenge, but they have to be separated, not (partly) combined”. 6.617 Luck (263, 188) supports the perfect abstulerunt from some codd., such as Naugerius (15, adn., ‘fortasse rectius sit abstulerunt’, cf. Verg. georg. 2.179; Aen. 2.774) instead of abstulerant or abstulerint. 6.618 Luck (302, 100) approves of magnum est in line 618, because “the structure of the whole period demands est after magnum”. 6.631 Goold (178, 332) and Anderson (203, 143) read ambos from Ω and editors, while Tarrant (258, 175 and 494) favours ambo, as does Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.). 6.635 Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) reads degenera from some codd., as does Bothe (67, 128; 68, 58–9), in place of degeneras from other manuscripts and editors. Goold (178, 332) and Anderson (203, 144) read Tereo, while Tarrant (258, 176) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) support the amendment Terei from Slater (141, ad loc.) and Shackleton Bailey (169, 332–3). As noted by Rosati (305, 346), “il significato non è che Procne non deve mostrare pietà verso Tereo, ma che come moglie

Studies on particular passages: Book VI

123

di Tereo (in coniuge Terei) non può avere sentimenti materni”; Gärtner (314, 468) defends in coniuge Tereo from Ω. 6.640 Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) questions whether to read prementem from some codd., like Heinsius (b3, 184r) and Burman (55, 435), instead of petentem from Ω and editors. 6.642 Luck (274, 116–17), along with Glareanus (26, 224) and Heinsius (49, 141 and 151n), supports the variant avertit from some codd. to replace vertit from most manuscripts and editors. For vultum avertere Luck (302, 101) provides parallels am. 3.9.45; ars 2.616; met. 5.179, 15.587. 6.654 The line was omitted by Merkel from his first edition (77, 120). Since then, no one has separated it from the text, although Tarrant has expressed doubts (240, 437; 258, 176 ‘del. Merkel, haud scio an certe’). Gärtner (314, 468–9) puts forward for consideration the idea of laudis instead of cladis. 6.660 Although with some reservations, Tarrant (258, 177n), Fink (288, 306) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) read mentis from some codd., to replace meritis from Ω and most editors. 6.664 Anderson (203, 144) reads inmersaque; Goold (178, 334) and Tarrant (258, 177) favour semesaque, as does Heinsius (49, 141 and 152n). Luck (297, 54; 302, 101) argues for demersaque as “a case of the missing letter and the wrong prefix” and adduces the parallel of 15.105. Ramírez de Verger (322; 360, ad loc.) defends the reading inmersaque; cf. 14.202–3, fast. 4.199–200. 6.673 Goold (178, 334) and Anderson (203, 145) read pro longa from Ω and most editors. Tarrant (258, 177) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) opt for praelonga, as does Heinsius (in b2, 176v). 6.674 Tarrant (240, 436; 258, 177) omits the line, as does Riese (89, 104), while Goold (178, 334), Anderson (203, 145) and Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) endorse its authenticity. Rosati (305, 108 and 352) also believes that “il verso glossa non oziosamente il senso dell’aspetto aggressivo assunto dal nuovo uccello fornendone, come spesso (cfr. p. es. lines 145, 381, 400), alla fine il nome”. 6.677 Luck (263, 188) considers that the variant regnique for rerumque could be an annotation. 6.695 Luck (264, 261) seems to favour intonet, as does Heinsius (49, 142 and 153n ‘intonet rectius nonnulli’), in place of insonet from Ω and editors; cf. 2.311 intonat et dextra libratum fulmen ab aure / misit. See also Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.).

124

Transmission and Textual Criticism

6.701 Ramírez de Verger (360, ad loc.) supports sed vi from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 142 and 153n), instead of mihi sed from Ω and editors. 6.707 Luck (263, 189) accounts for the variants Orithyian amans, Orithyiam adamans and Orithyiam clamans as examples of a “creative evolution” in the textual history of met. 6.710 Luck (264, 261) notes the variant Sithonum from Planudes to replace Ciconum from Ω; Boissonade (69, 261 n. 6) supports this and quotes the parallel from Virgil Sithoniasque nives (ecl. 10.66). Book VII 7.8 Anderson (203, 147) obelizes † visque datur numeris †. Marzolla (209, 248 and 653) suggests reading lex dicitur. Goold (178, 342) and Tarrant (258, 180) opt for lexque datur Minyis, although the latter questions whether to read iuveni (sc. Iasoni) in place of Minyis. Scivoletto (239, 32 and 322) favours visque datur Minyism. Mosci Sassi (327, 53 n. 22) tends towards restoring the vulgate, visque datur numeris magnorum horrenda laborum. 7.12 Anderson (203, 147) keeps quid from Ω, while Goold (178, 342) and Tarrant (258, 180) incorporate Heinsius’ proposal of nisi (49, 144 and 155n), which Galasso (269, 126) also accepts. 7.21 Luck (264, 261) reads sequar in place of sequor from Ω and editors. Cf. Hor. epist. 1.8.11. 7.28 Goold (178, 344), Anderson (203, 147) and Tarrant (258, 181) read ore, although the latter doubts whether to accept forma, defended by Luck (302, 101) and Kenney (315, 10 and 214–15). 7.30 Anderson (203, 147) reads segetis from Ω, while Luck (172, 57), Goold (178, 344) and Tarrant (258, 181) tend towards segeti from several codd., such as Heinsius (49, 145) and Burman (55, 448). 7.31 Kenney (243, 545) suggests reading mera praeda instead of fera praeda from Ω and editors, although afterwards (315, 10 and 215) he assigns the speculation to the author, Slater (141, ad loc. ‘an mera?’). Luck (172, 57) proposes nova praeda and quotes the conjecture of Kenney, rapietur to replace dabitur. Tarrant (258, 181n) notes Watt’s reading (‘per litteras’) in lines 30–1 ferae segeti … sua praeda; White (318, 195) considers this textual alteration uneccessary.

Studies on particular passages: Book VII

125

7.56 Luck (263, 189) recalls that Naugerius (15, adn.) admitted the possibility of reading puppis from some ‘antiquiores’ in place of pubis from Ω and editors. 7.59 Luck (264, 261) believes that non of Planudes is not only ‘non male’, as noted by Slater (141, ad loc.) and Tarrant (258, 182), but is essential, so cum may be a gloss and mutasse from the next line does not require cum. 7.62 Anderson (203, 148) reads occurrere from some codd., Galasso (236, 280 and 1084) opts for incurrere from Ω, and Goold (178, 346) and Tarrant (258, 182) favour concurrere from another group, as defended by Heinsius (49, 145 and 157–8). 7.76 Goold (178, 346) leans towards recesserat from V2 and Bach (72, 312n), while Anderson (203, 149) and Tarrant (258, 183) read resederat from Ω. Kenney (315, 14 and 224–5) favours residerat from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 146 and 159n). 7.77 Ramírez de Verger (276, 33–4) supports revixit from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 146 and 159n), in place of reluxit from Ω and editors. Cf. Luck (264, 261). 7.84 Liberman (257, 89n) suggests at instead of et from Ω and editors. 7.115 Anderson (203, 150) reads illos from Ω. Goold (178, 350), Galasso (236, 282 and 1088) and Tarrant (258, 184) support the proposal by Naugerius (15, adn. and 81r), ignes. Cf. Luck (263, 189–90). 7.116 Anderson (203, 150) reads anhelantes from a group of codd. Goold (178, 350), von Albrecht (208, 338 and 868), Galasso (236, 282 and 1088) and Tarrant (258, 184) favour anhelatos, as do Naugerius (15, adn. and 81r) and Edwards (119, 437). Cf. Luck (263, 189–90). 7.120–1 Liberman (257, 69–70) suggests reading altis / adiciunt animos in place of augent / adiciuntque animos from Ω and editors. 7.132 Goold (178, 350) and Anderson (203, 150) read Haemonii from Ω and editors. Tarrant (258, 185) favours Aesonii from Heinsius, as Slater comments (141, ad loc. ‘an Aesonii? Heinsius, cll. Her. 12.66’). This variant is now found in the editions of Heinsius (49) or Burman (55), so Slater must have read it in the ‘codd. Heinsiani’ o, 81r (‘f. Aesonii. Sic Epist. Medeae [12.66]’) and o2, ad loc. (‘Aeso E [B5pc, f. 58v]’). Cf. Galasso (269, 129); Bessone (224, 132). 7.135–6 Tarrant (240, 437; 258, 185 ‘melius abessent’) questions the authenticity of these lines. 7.145–6 Goold (178, 352) and Anderson (203, 151) keep the normal order of most codd. and consider these lines authentic, while Galasso (236, 284 and 1089) follows the sequence

126

Transmission and Textual Criticism

144, 146, 145. Tarrant (240, 436; 258, 185) reads the sequence as 146–5 and considers the lines spurious. Heinsius (49, 148 and 161n) deletes line 145, and Scivoletto (239, 32 and 330) leaves out line 146. 7.146 Goold (178, 352), Anderson (203, 151) and Tarrant (258, 185) read at from Ω, while Galasso (236, 284 and 1089) and Kenney (315, 18 and 235) favour et from some codd. 7.147 Marzolla (209, 254 and 654) suggests reading obtutu tacito in place of adfectu tacito from Ω and editors. Tarrant (258, 185n) considers ‘non male’ aspectu, as suggested by Merkel (92, 130), and Mehler (98, 409–10). 7.154–6 Tarrant (240, 437; 258, 186) questions the authenticity of these lines. 7.155 Goold (178, 352) opts for sibi venit from Merkel (92, xx and 130), while Anderson (203, 151) reads ubi venit from Ω. Tarrant (258, 186) obelizes it. Ramírez de Verger (300) proposes reading surrepsit. Kenney (315, 236) does not dismiss the suggestion of Heinsius (49, 148 and 161–2n), subrepit, or the aforementioned proposal of Ramírez de Verger, while Holzberg (347, 340 and 804) accepts Heinsius’ subrepit. 7.162 Anderson (203, 151) reads facit from Ω. Goold (178, 352), von Albrecht (208, 340 and 868), Galasso (236, 286 and 1091) and Tarrant (258, 186) favour cadit from a group of codd., as defended by Heinsius (49, 147 and 163n). 7.164 Goold (178, 354) and Anderson (203, 151) read cum from Ω. Tarrant (258, 186) opts for tum from several codd. and Planudes, as do others such as Jahn (74, 410) and Slater (141, ad loc.). 7.167 Luck (264, 269) criticises Tarrant (258, 186) for inserting three punctation marks after possunt. 7.168 Tarrant (258, 186n) questions whether to accept meis annos of Heinsius (49, 163n), replacing meis annis from Ω and editors. 7.170 Goold (178, 354) and Anderson (203, 152) keep the line in the text. Tarrant (240, 436; 258, 186) omits it, as do some codd. and Heinsius (b2, 185r; cf. Burman, 55, 465). Luck (263, 190) uses the reading subiit Aeeta, which comes from Pierius and Naugerius (15, adn. ‘in nonnullis’), to defend the line’s authenticity. 7.177 Luck (263, 190–1) notes the variant revocare, pointed out by Naugerius (15, adn.) and Anderson (203, 152n) and accepted by Goold (178, 354). 7.183 Luck (263, 191) comments on the variant nudis umeris, highlighted by Naugerius (15, adn.) and Anderson (203, 152n).

Studies on particular passages: Book VII

127

7.186–186a Anderson (203, 152) and von Albrecht (208, 342 and 868) keep the lines in the text. Tarrant (258, 187) considers them ‘locus nondum sanatus’ and reads saepes in line 186, a reading which comes from P2 (‘quod dubitanter recepi’), as well as Heinsius (49, 149 and 164n) and Courtney (313, 84), who consider sopitae similis from 186a to be correct. For Goold (178, 354) and Tarrant, (cf. also 240, 346), as for Naugerius (15, adn.) line 186a is spurious; Galasso (236, 286 and 1092) accepts it. Cf. Luck (263, 191–2) and Galasso (269, 134–5). Scivoletto (239, 32–3 and 332) deletes nullo … similis, while Anderson (ibid.), von Albrecht (ibid.), Galasso (236, 286 and 1092) and Kenney (315, 22 and 240) favour serpens from Ω in line 186. Goold (ibid.), Scivoletto (239, 33 and 332) and Tarrant (ibid.) opt for saepes from P2, although that latter expresses doubts. 7.195 Ramírez de Verger (214, 49) reads artesque from Ω, while Goold (178, 356), Anderson (203, 152) and Tarrant (258, 187) tend towards artisque, in the genitive, from Madvig (91, 83–4), although Tarrants accept it with reservations. Goold (ibid.) and Anderson (ibid.) read magorum from Ω. Tarrant (240, 437; 258, 187) obelizes it, notes in the app. crit. magistra from Conte (‘viva voce’), and questions whether to delete the entire line. Liberman (257, 89n) rightly attributes the suggestion magistra to Polle (117, 130). Holzberg (347, 344 and 804) supports magistra from Polle, rather than Conte, as commented on p. 804. 7.203 Luck (297) suggests reading gramine instead of carmine from Ω and editors, as verbis et carmine is a pointless repetition in magical rituals. 7.209 Álvarez-Iglesias (226, 291) keeps pallent et pallet from Ω, while Goold (178, 356), Anderson (203, 153) and Tarrant (258, 188) follow Heinsius (49, 250 and 165n) in the reading pallet avi, pallet; cf. Val. Fl. 6.441; Luck (264, 261). 7.213 Anderson (203, 153) reads somno from Ω. Goold (178, 356) and Tarrant (258, 188) favour somni from a group of codd., such as Heinsius (49, 250 and 166n). See also Luck (263, 192). 7.223 Iglesias-Álvarez (226, 293) supports the reading cretis from Ω. Anderson (203, 153) obelizes †Cretes†. Goold (178, 358), von Albrecht (208, 344 and 868), Scivoletto (239, 33 and 334), and Tarrant (258, 189) favour certis from some codd., as noted by Heinsius (49, 166n ‘nisi quod certis in nonnullis’). 7.224 Anderson (203, 153) reads altus from Ω, and Tarrant (258, 189) opts for altum from several codd., as read by several, including Edwards (119, 438) and Goold (178, 358). 7.228 See on 1.580; Luck (263, 192). 7.236 Luck (264, 261) notes the variant pasti from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 150 and 167n ‘eleganter’); cf. Iuv. 5.150.

128

Transmission and Textual Criticism

7.240 Luck (302, 102) prefers to read de caespite from NV, as do Ehwald (135, 191) and Goold (178, 358), instead of e caespite from Ω and editors. 7.241 Tarrant (258, 189) reads at, as in M2, edd. vett. and Heinsius (49, 250), in place of ast from Ω and most editors. 7.248 Anderson (203, 154) reads fundit … lenit from most codd, while Goold (178, 360) and Tarrant (258, 190) favour fudit from M and civit from Heinsius (49, 168n ‘an civit? Stat. Theb. 1.553–4’). Galasso (269, 123) does not take a stance. 7.250 Goold (178, 360) and Anderson (203, 154) read senili from Ω. Tarrant (258, 190) opts for seniles from several codd., such as Heinsius (49, 251n), although he expresses doubts about senili. 7.259 Liberman (257, 70) dares to suggest sanguinis uda in place of sanguinis atra from Ω and editors. Luck (263, 192–3) and Tarrant (258, 190) recall the variant atri, from S2, which Naugerius (15, 83v) incorporated into the text, as noted by Slater (141, ad loc.). Courney (313, 85) proposes reading sanguine sacro with the parallel from Verg. Aen. 5.77–8. 7.260 Tarrant (258, 190n) questions reading instinctas from some ‘antiquiores’ and Heinsius (49, 151 and 168n), instead of infectas from Ω and most editors. 7.264 Luck (264, 261) comments on the variant falce from ‘unus Heinsii’ (Heinsius in b3, 194v; cf. Burman, 55, 473n), to replace valle from Ω and editors. 7.267 Kenney (243, 545–6; 315, 28 and 250) reads harenis, “from the beaches”, in place of harenas from Ω and editors. Cf. Luck (264, 261). White (318, 195–6) considers this text alteration uneccessary. 7.268 Tarrant (258, 191n) questions the veracity of adicit from some ‘antiquiores’ (cf. Anderson, 203, 155n), as opposed to addit et from other ‘antiquiores’ and editors. Goold (178, 360), Anderson (203, 155) and Tarrant (258, 191) follow Heinsius (49, 151 and 169n ‘ex Zulichemiano’) in his reading luna pernocte pruinas. Baldini Moscadi (222, 65–72) defends lunae de nocte pruinas from Ω. 7.274 Goold (178, 360) and Luck (264, 261) read ova from Heinsius (49, 169n ‘non video quid inter ora et caput intersit. Quare arbitror scribendum ova’) to replace ora from Ω and editors. 7.276 Goold (178, 362), Anderson (203, 155) and Tarrant (258, 191) read maius from some ‘antiquiores’, like Riese (89, xvii and 112) and Korn (103, 237). Baldini Moscadi (217, 231–8) favours munus from Ω and editions prior to Riese.

Studies on particular passages: Book VII

129

7.293 Luck (263, 193; 264, 261) recalls that Naugerius (15, ad loc.) suggested hunc, based on Planudes, to replace nunc from Ω. 7.308 Anderson (203, 156) reads rogantes from MacN, like Heinsius (49, 152 and 171n), while Goold (178, 364) and Tarrant (258, 192) opt for rogantum from most codd., such as Jahn (74, 424), although the latter expresses doubts about rogantes. 7.310 Tarrant (258, 192n) has reservations about reading vestras from some ‘antiquiores’ and edd. vett. instead of vestri from Ω and most editors. 7.317 Goold (178, 364) and Anderson (203, 157) keep minuunt ea corporis artus from Ω. Tarrant (258, 192) uncertainly opts for minuunt medicamina corpus from Korn (103, 147). 7.318 Liberman (257, 70) suggests reading extenuant instead of exurunt from Ω and editors. 7.321 Luck (274, 117) defends fugax from Heinsius (49, 172n), in place of fuga from Ω and editors. Goold (178, 364), Anderson (203, 157) and Luck (302, 102) read lactantia from Ω. Tarrant (258, 193 and 498) leans towards lactentia from Nac. Cf. Goold (147, 70); Fàbregas (333, 234–6). 7.324 Luck (264, 261) notes the variant gurgite from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 153 and 172n) instead of flumine from Ω and editors. 7.335 Tarrant (240, 437; 258, 193) questions the authenticity of the line; cf. Heinsius (49, 153 and 172n). 7.343 Luck (263, 193) comments on the option of Naugerius (15, adn.) supporting cubito: ‘cubito, non subito, ex veteribus legendum’. 7.349 Courtney (313, 85) proposes reading abscidit in place of abstulit from Ω and editors. 7.360 Luck (264, 261; 348, ad loc.) reads falsa to replace falsi from Ω and editors. See on 3.250. 7.366 Tarrant (258, 194n) has reservations about accepting minitantes from P21v instead of vitiantes. Luck (263, 193–4) notes that Naugerius (15, 85r) opts for vitiantes. 7.368 Goold (178, 368), Anderson (203, 158) and Tarrant (258, 194 and 485) read Cartheia; Luck (302, 103) suggests Carthaeia. 7.375 Tarrant (258, 194) reads at in place of et from Ω, the reading by Goold (178, 368) and

130

Transmission and Textual Criticism

Anderson (203, 158), while Galasso (269, 134) expresses doubts about it; cf. Fedeli, 287, 610. Goold and Tarrant also opt for spreto from a group of codd., as noted by Naugerius (15, adn.; cf. Luck, 263, 194) and read by Heinsius (49, 154 and 174n), as opposed to stricto from Ω and Anderson (ibid.). 7.380 Goold (178, 368) and Anderson (203, 158) read servati based on Heinsius (49, 174n ‘puto servati, quod in uno Mediceo extabat’). Tarrant (258, 195) favours servari from some codd., as in the text of Heinsius (49, 154), while Kenney (315, 36 and 263) defends servatum from Ω. 7.386 Anderson (203, 159) reads dextra from Ω; Tarrant (258, 195) opts for dextera from several ‘antiquiores’, as do, for example, Edwards (119, 430) and Goold (178, 368). 7.430 Anderson (203, 160) reads Erechthidis, like Goold (178, 372) and Tarrant (258, 197). Luck (302, 103) favours Erectheidis, as does Kenney (243, 546; 315, 40 and 269–70). 7.433–4 Liberman (257, 70) suggests reading tibi … rorata instead of te … mirata from Ω and editors. 7.435 Luck (264, 261) considers that Tarrant (258, 197) should be more specific, noting for example ‘suis e [E], coni. Salvagnius a Ib. 409 [39, 79]’; cf. Heinsius, 49, 156 and 176n. See Murcia (320, 153). 7.442 Liberman (257, 71) reads passuras (from pando), as opposed to sparsuras from Ω and editors. 7.448 Liberman (257, 89n) suggests reading conferre (cf. 7.696) in place of numerare from Ω and editors. 7.449 Kenney (315, 42 and 271; cf. also 221, 107) defends prement from a group of codd. and edd. vett., such as the editio Romana from 1471 (2), as opposed to premant from another group of manuscripts and editors. 7.458 Goold (178, 374), Anderson (203, 161) and Tarrant (258, 198) read Androgeique, but Possanza (265, 10) does not dismiss reading Androgeoque as a Greek genitive, as in Verg. Aen. 6.20. 7.462 Luck (264, 269) inserts parentheses (promissis … bello). 7.464 Goold (178, 374) and Tarrant (258, 198) read Syron from Naugerius (15, adn.), who also proposes Cythnon, a reading accepted by Anderson (203, 161) and Luck (263, 194). The latter two also favour parvamque from Constantius Fanensis (13, s. p.), as opposed to planamque, a suggestion supported by Liberman (257, 71); cf. 5.242. See also Galasso (269, 131–2); Luck (264, 259; 298, 14).

Studies on particular passages: Book VII

131

7.466 Anderson (203, 161) obelizes Sithon, while Goold (178, 374) and Tarrant (258, 198) read Siphnon from Heinsius (49, 177n ‘forte Siphnon et’). Von Albrecht (208, 362 and 869), Scivoletto (239, 33 and 348) and Galasso (236, 302 and 1108; 269, 132) favour Sithonis from several codd., as read by Heinsius (49, 157) and defended by Huxley (171); cf. Bömer (153, 317). 7.469 Tarrant (258, 198) reads nec from several codd. and Magnus (134, 262n ‘fort.recte’), while Goold (178, 374) and Anderson (203, 161) keep at from Ω and editors. 7.486 Goold (178, 376) reads est hac tellus from some ‘antiquiores’. Anderson (203, 162) opts for quam est haec tellus from MNac. Tarrant (258, 199) favours hac est tellus from several other ‘antiquiores’, such as Heinsius (49, 157 and 178n). 7.488 Luck (172, 53; 264, 261; 297, 54–5) reads at utilius instead of et utilius from Ω and editors. 7.499 Goold (178, 376), Tarrant (258, 199) and Galasso (269, 126) read a dextra from some codd. and edd. vet, while Anderson (203, 107) opts for et dextra from Ω. 7.502 Goold (178, 376) and Anderson (203, 162) read Cecropidae from Ω; Tarrant (258, 199) follows Heinsius’ suggestion (49, 158 and 178n), Cecropidum. 7.504 Goold (178, 376), Anderson (203, 162) and Tarrant (258, 199) read Achaidos. Kenney (243, 546; 315, 46 and 276) and Luck (264, 261; 302, 103) reinstate Achaeidos, like the editio Aldina from 1502 (11, ad loc.). The latter asserts that these forms should be restored in 3.511, 5.306, 577 and 15.293. 7.508–11 Marzolla (209, 272 and 654) reads lines 508–10 like this: nec dubie vires, quas haec habet insula, vestras / ducite, et – o, maneat rerum status iste mearum! – / robora non desunt: superat mihi miles et hosti. Luck (263, 195; cf. 264, 261) proposes, based on Naugerius (15, adn.) and Burman (55, 513) reading these lines thus: 508 nec dubie vires, quas haec habet insula, vestras 509 ducite, ut omnis’ ait ‘rerum status iste mearum 511 (gratia dis) felix et inexcusabile tempus: 510 robora non desunt: superest mihi miles in hostem. 7.508–9 Goold (178, 378), Anderson (203, 163) and Luck (263, 193) keep these lines in the text, however Tarrant (240, 436; 258, 200) omits them. 7.509 Anderson (203, 163) and Tarrant (258, 200) read dicite from Ω, while Goold (178, 378), Luck (263, 193) and Galasso (236, 306 and 1111) prefer ducite from some codd. and edd. vett. Fink (288, 344) writes ducite, et omnia habet rerum status iste mearum, like Merkel (92, xxiii and 140).

132

Transmission and Textual Criticism

7.510 Anderson (203, 163) reads hostis from a group of codd. Goold (178, 378) and Tarrant (258, 200) favour hoc est from the ‘excerpta Calandrae’ (lost), as noted by Heinsius and surmised by Gronovius (Burman, 56, III, 317; cf. Heinsius en b3, 205r and 49, 179n; Burman, 55, 513). This was Slater’s option (141, ad loc.), who refers to Madvig (91, 85), as well as Goold’s (ibid.). Von Albrecht (208, 364 and 869), Scivoletto (239, 33 and 352) and Galasso (236, 306 and 1111) prefer to read hosti from a group of codd. Luck (172, 57), on the other hand, rescues Burman’s suggestion (55, 513), superest mihi miles in hostem. 7.515 Liberman (257, 89n) proposes ipse in place of inde from Ω and editors. 7.522 Tarrant (240, 436; 258, 200) deletes the line, however Goold (178, 378), Anderson (203, 163) and Kenney (315, 48 and 277) accept its authenticity. Liberman (257, 89n) suggests heu to replace et. 7.525–7 Tarrant (173, 357–8; 240, 436; 258, 200) omits these lines. Goold (178, 378), Anderson (203, 163) and Holzberg (347, 364 and 804) consider them authentic. 7.528 Tarrant (258, 200n) questions reading solem instead of terras from Ω and editors with the support of Sen. nat. 3.37.4. 7.529 Liberman (in Luck, 298, 14) proposes reading induxit to replace inclusit from Ω and editors. 7.532 Goold (178, 378), Anderson (203, 163) and Tarrant (258, 201) read aestibus from Ω. Liberman (257, 71) and Ramírez de Verger (266, 1108 and 1953; 299, 808) read flatibus instead of aestibus, as suggested by Ciofanus (29, 144 ‘in eodem meo legitur non aestubus, sed flatibus Austri, quod mihi probatur maxime’) and Heinsius (49, 159 and 180–1n). Cf. Luck (298, 14); Murcia (320, 184). 7.535 Kenney (243, 546) believes that Ovid may have written aque suis, as opposed to atque suis from Ω and editors. 7.544 Anderson (203, 164) reads longo from Ω, while Goold (178, 380), Galasso (236, 308 and 1113), Scivoletto (239, 33 and 354) and Tarrant (258, 201) opt for leto from several codd. ‘antiquiores’ (U3c G2v) and ‘deteriores’,  a variant based on Ciofanus (27, 107; 29, 145), who reads leto in various codd. (‘duo Vatic. unus meus [O16] et Caelest. perplacet’). Heinsius (49, 181n ‘veteres multi letho inerti’) notes the variant, defended by Burman (55, 525) and included in his text. Burman is followed by several editors, such as Edwards (119, 440) and the aforementioned group, while von Albrecht (208, 366 and 869) favours morbo from a group of codd.

Studies on particular passages: Book VII

133

7.554 Fedeli (287, 610) points out that Tarrant (258, 201) should have written flammaeque latentis in the app. crit., instead of flammaque latentis. 7.555 Goold (178, 380) and Anderson (203, 164) read igni from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 202) opts for aegre from a group of codd., as surmised by Heinsius (49, 159 and 181n); cf. Kenney (161, 225). Goold (ibid.) and Anderson (ibid.) insert a semicolon after anhelitus, while Tarrant (ibid.) adds a full stop after aegre. Fink (288, 346) inserts a full stop after anhelitus. 7.556 Luck (297, 55) reads trepidis … venis from some codd., as suggested by Heinsius (49, 159 and 181–2n), in place of tepidisque … ventis from Ω and editors. 7.559 Anderson (203, 164) reads dura, while Goold (178, 380) and Tarrant (258, 202) favour nuda, as proposed by Schepperus (50, 335–6) and Bentley (131, 29). 7.564 Goold (178, 380), Anderson (203, 164) and Tarrant (258, 2002) read utque from some codd., as Naugerius suggested (15, adn. ‘et fortasse rectius’) and Heinsius confirmed (49, 159 and 182n). 7.569 Tarrant (240, 436; 258, 202) deletes the line, as suggested by Merkel (92, 142); Goold (178, 382) and Anderson (203, 165) endorse its authenticity. Luck (264, 261) affirms that the deletion is unnecessary, if the line is inserted after 571, as proposed by Bothe (68, 74–5) and accepted by Edwards (119, 440). 7.576 Tarrant (173, 358; 240, 436; 258, 202) considers the line spurious; it is already considered doubtful by Heinsius (49, 182n), and was omitted by Merkel (92, 142). Anderson (203, 165), however, keeps it. Goold (178, 382) reads partim, as does Korn (103, 155n ‘an partim puncto posito post crimine?’). Watt (216, 100) suggests paucos in place of parvus and considers the line authentic. Luck (264, 261) recalls the suggestion of Ramírez de Verger, nullus (266, 1110 and 1953; 277, 333). 7.580–1 Tarrant (173, 358–9; 240, 436; 258, 203) omits the lines, as proposed by Heinsius (49, 160 and 182–3n). Goold (178, 382) and Anderson (203, 165) accept their authenticity. 7.582 Tarrant (258, 203) reads aut quid from most codd., while Goold (178, 382), Anderson (203, 165) and Kenney (315, 52 and 283–4) opt for an quod from some manuscripts and Heinsius (160 and 183n). Cf. Galasso (269, 127). 7.583 Goold (178, 382), Anderson (203, 165), Luck (298, 14) and Kenney (315, 52) read ut from Ω, as does Heinsius (49, 160 and 183n). Álvarez-Iglesias (226, 292) and Tarrant (258, 203) opt for ni from some codd. Liberman (257, 71–2) reads ne.

134

Transmission and Textual Criticism

7.601 Kenney (243, 546–7) questions whether to read penetrarant viscera instead of penetrant ad viscera from Ω and editors. White (318, 196) considers this text alteration unnecessary. 7.602–3 Luck (264, 269) inserts a semicolon after postes. 7.603 Goold (178, 384), Tarrant (258, 204) and Fink (288, 348) add a full stop after aras. Anderson (203, 166) does not punctuate. 7.607 Luck (264, 269) does not insert parentheses (neque … portae), but adds a full stop after portae. 7.610 Liberman (257, 72) suggests reading urunt in place of pugnant from Ω and editors. 7.612 Luck (264, 261) points out Polle’s proposal matrumque nuruumque (117, 141) instead of natorumque virumque from Ω, like Anderson (203, 166) and Tarrant (258, 204). Goold (178, 384) and Kenney (315, 54 and 286) favour natorum patrumque from Rappold (88, 37–40; patrumque is already in Heinsius, 49, 183n). 7.616 Luck (263, 194; 264, 261–2) reads, based on Naugerius (15, adn.) and Heinsius (49, 183–4n), isse sub amplexus Aeginae Asopidos ignem, in place of dicta sub amplexus Aeginae Asopidos isse from M, as asserted by Goold (178, 384), Anderson (203, 166) and Tarrant (258, 204). 7.622 Liberman (257, 72) reads densissima in place of rarissima from Ω and editors. 7.636 Goold (178, 386) reads et ramis totidem, like Ehwald (135, 210), while Anderson (203, 167) opts for et promittere idem from some codd. Tarrant (258, 205) prefers et ramos totidem from several others, such as Naugerius (15, adn. ‘rectius in quibusdam et ramos totidem’) and Heinsius (49, 161 and 185n); cf. Luck (263, 196–7). Galasso (236, 312 and 1118) defends et rami totidem from other manuscripts. 7.639 Goold (178, 386) and Anderson (203, 167) read desubito et from a group of codd. and Heinsius (49, 161 quod subito et); Tarrant (258, 205) favours quod subito without et from some ‘antiquiores’. Goold and Anderson read in the same line videri from a group of codd. Tarrant opts for videtur from another group, as in the edd. vett. (e.g. Naugerius, 15, 89 v). 7.651 Goold (178, 386), Anderson (203, 167) and Tarrant (258, 206) read noscoque from Ω.  Luck (264, 261–2; 274, 117–18; 302, 103–4) suggests reading agnoscoque, as proposed by Heinsius (49, 162 and 186n). 7.657 Tarrant (173, 359; 240, 438) deletes the line as requested by Reeve, but later (258, 206) keeps it in the text; see Possanza (265, 12).

Studies on particular passages: Book VII

135

7.662 Anderson (203, 168) and Kenney (315, 58 and 289) read optima from Ω.  Goold (178, 388) and Tarrant (258, 206) opt for ultima from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 162 and 186n). 7.671–2 Tarrant (258, 207n) questions whether to punctuate ducit; cum … resedit, / aspicit, like Heinsius (49, 162 and 186n). 7.674 Anderson (203, 168) and Tarrant (258, 207) read ante from a group of codd., while Goold (178, 388) and Kenney (315, 60 and 290) prefer ille from another group and many edd. vett. See Murcia (320, 226–7). 7.687–8 Tarrant (193, 291–2; 215, 99–111; 240, 436; 258, 207) omits the lines 687–8 and 687a, 687b, 688a. Cf. Galasso, 269, 135–6. Goold (178, 390) and Anderson (203, 168) keep them. See also Luck (264, 262). 7.687b Goold (178, 390) reads sed enim narrare pudori est, like Merkel (92, 145), while Anderson (203, 168) opts for et cetera: nota pudori from some ‘antiquiores’; however in the app. crit. he writes et cetera nota pudore. Luck (172, 56) and von Albrecht (208, 376 and 869) endorse reading sed quae narrare pudori est, like Heinsius (49, 163 and 188n). Tarrant (258, 207) reads et cetera nota pudori without punctuating after nota; Galasso (236, 316 and 1125) obelizes it. 7.688 Marzolla (209, 282 and 654) proposes reading rubet instead of silet from Ω and editors. 7.698 Goold (178, 390) and Anderson (203, 169) read amor. Tarrant (258, 208) opts for Amor, like Planudes. 7.699 Luck (264, 262) believes that if the parentheses only include (non … est), and if et is read rather than aut, like Naugerius (15, 90 v, long before Jahn, 74, 461 ‘et nunc Heinsius coni.’ [in fact Heinsius picked up on et, as in the previous editions]), it would not have been necessary to omit the line, like Bentley (131, 29) and Tarrant’s doubts (258, 208n). See Murcia (320, 232). 7.715 Watt (231, 168–9) suggests reading ecce metus cepit instead of esse metus coepit from Ω and editors. 7.739 Goold (178, 394) and Anderson (203, 170) read loquendo from Ω. Tarrant (258, 209) opts for paciscor from several codd., such as Heinsius (49, 164 and 190n), while Walsh (283, 206–7) backs up the Tarrant’s opinion. 7.740 Anderson (203, 170) inserts a comma after coegi. Goold (178, 394), Scivoletto (239, 33 and 364) and Tarrant (258, 209) add a full stop.

136

Transmission and Textual Criticism

7.741 Goold (178, 394) and von Albrecht (208, 380 and 869) read male victor: ‘adest, mala, fictus adulter, like Ehwald (135, 215n). Anderson (203, 170) favours male fictor: adest male fictus adulter, from some codd, while Tarrant (258, 209) suggests reading male victor: “ego en, ego fictus, as approved by Walsh (283, 207). Richmond (281, 131), however, does not endorse ego en, ego. Cf. Fedeli, 287, 610; Fink (288, 358) writes “male fictor adest, male fictus adulter; and Courtney (313, 85–6) reads exclamo male victor “adest fictus adulter / verus eram coniunx. See Murcia (320, 245–8). 7.742 Kenney (243, 547) interprets perfida as a nominative predicative, rather than vocative, as does Tarrant (258, 210). 7.756 Anderson (203, 171) reads quod nos ut from M, while Goold (178, 394) and Tarrant (258, 210) opt for manibus quod from Ω, like Heinsius (49, 165 and 191n). Tarrant puts cernis in parentheses, and questions Anderson’s opinion. 7.762 Goold (178, 394), Anderson (203, 171), von Albrecht (208, 382 and 870) and Tarrant (193, 291; 240, 436; 258, 210) delete the line, as do most editors. 7.763–5 The text of Goold (178, 394), Anderson (203, 171) and Tarrant (258, 210–11) follows Heinsius (49, 165 and 192–3n) in including the speculated pestis instead of cessit in line 764, according to Gronovius’ advice to Heinsius (ibid., ‘opportune me monuit vir … noster Gronovius’). Luck (263, 197) and Ramírez de Verger (277, 333) read in line 765 ruricolae from some codd., in place of rurigenae from a group of ‘antiquiores’ and editors. 7.777 Anderson (203, 171) reads exutae from Ω, while Goold (178, 396), von Albrecht (208, 382 and 870) and Tarrant (258, 211) favour excussae from a group of codd., like Heinsius (49, 165 and 193n). 7.783 Liberman (257, 73) reads spatium refugit instead of in spatiumque fugit from Ω and editors. 7.786 Anderson (203, 172) reads motus from Ω.  Goold (178, 396), von Albrecht (208, 383 and 870) and Tarrant (258, 211) opt for morsus from several ‘antiquiores’ and edd. vett. 7.790 Galasso (236, 322 and 1130) prefers to keep rettuleram et medio from Ω, in place of rettuleram: medio from some codd., as read by Goold (178, 396), Anderson (203, 172) and Tarrant (258, 211). 7.791 Anderson (203, 172) keeps latrare from Ω, while Goold (178, 396), von Albrecht (208, 384 and 870) and Tarrant (258, 211) tend towards captare from Polle (117, 146). Felton (242, 65–9) defends latrare.

Studies on particular passages: Book VIII

137

7.798 Anderson (203, 172) reads Aeacida from some codd. Goold (178, 398) and Tarrant (258, 212 and 483) favour Aeacide from a group of them, including the edd. vett. (e.g. Naugerius, 15, 92v). 7.831 Tarrant (197, 140–1; 240, 436; 258, 336) omits this line after Polle (111, 889; 117, 148). Goold (178, 400) and Anderson (203, 173) consider it authentic. 7.833 Goold (178, 400) and Anderson (203, 173) read indiciique from a group of codd., while Tarrant (258, 213) favours indicioque from another group of manuscripts, such as Heinsius (49, 167). 7.836 Luck (264, 262) notes the proposals pererrans from Merkel (92, xxix and 149) and revertens from Nick (94, 490) and Postgate (in Edwards, 119, 442), to replace per herbas from Ω and editors. 7.839 Tarrant (258, 213) reads dixi from some codd. and edd. vett., instead of dicens from Ω and most editors. 7.860–1 Liberman (257, 73) proposes et edit or agitque, instead of et in me, from Ω and editors. Later he suggests (310, 174) reading infelicem animam exhalat ab ore. 7.865 Goold (178, 402) and Anderson (203, 174) read cum fortibus from Ω; Tarrant (258, 214) favours consortibus from Housman (151, 167). Book VIII 8.8 Goold (178, 406) and Anderson (203, 175) read Alcathoe from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 215 and 484) opts for Alcathoï from several codd., such as Heinsius (46, 360n and 49, 197n). 8.16 Butterfield (295, 159–60) believes huius should be read, rather than eius from Ω and editors. 8.22 Anderson (203, 175) reads Cydonaeasque, as does Ehwald (135, 222), while Goold (178, 406), von Albrecht (208, 390 and 870) and Tarrant (258, 215) prefer Cydoneasque from edd. vett. 8.49 Goold (178, 408) and Anderson (203, 176) read regum from Ω; von Albrecht (208, 392 and 870) and Tarrant (258, 216) opt for rerum from several codd. and Heinsius (49, 170 and 199n ‘omnino rectius’).

138

Transmission and Textual Criticism

8.50 Goold (178, 408) and Anderson (203, 176) read ipse from a number of codd., while Tarrant (258, 217) favours ipsa from Ω, like Heinsius (49, 199n). 8.53 Tarrant (258, 217) supports Reeve’s amendment (‘per litteras’), rogare, in place of rogarem from Ω and editors. 8.56–7 Kenney (243, 545; 315, 80 and 312–13) proposes swapping vinci and multis. Tarrant (258, 217) reads vinci … victis from Riese (89, XVIII ‘ fort. victis’), although he questions whether to accept Kenney’s suggestion. Goold (178, 410) and Anderson (203, 176) keep vinci … multis from Ω. White (318, 196) inserts a full stop after clementia. 8.59 Anderson (203, 176) and Tarrant (258, 217) read causamque tenentibus, while Goold (178, 410) and Scivoletto (239, 33 and 376) opt for causamque tuentibus. Luck (297, 55–6) reads in causaque … tuentibus from some codd., from Constantius Fanensis (13, s. p. ‘emendo in causaque valet’) and from Heinsius (49, 170 and 199n ‘in causaque … tuentibus’). Goold and Luck prefer to insert a full stop after armis rather than a comma, as do Anderson and Tarrant. 8.60 Luck (172, 53; 264, 262; 297, 56) and Ramírez de Verger (277, 333) favour reading at, puto, vincemur? from Markland (71, 160a) instead of et, puto. Tarrant (258, 217) reads qui si from several ‘antiquiores’ and Heinsius (49, 170); Anderson (203, 176) keep quis enim from Ω and editors. 8.61 Luck (297, 56) believes that the readings reserabit and reserarit from Heinsius (49, 170 and 199n) and some codd. should be reconsidered, in place of reseret mea from Ω and editors. 8.66 Anderson (203, 176) reads dirigere, while Goold (178, 410) and Tarrant (258, 217 and 496) opt for derigere, as does Edwards (119, 443). 8.87 Goold (178, 412) and Tarrant (197, 138–9; 240, 436; 258, 218) consider this line an old addition, since it is quoted by Priscian 5.16. Anderson (203, 177) believes it to be authentic. Galasso (236, 332 and 1141) and Ramírez de Verger (214, 49) read celeris from some codd. and Priscian, while Anderson (ibid.) and Tarrant (258, 218) favour sceleris from Ω. 8.103 Goold (178, 412), Anderson (203, 178) and Tarrant (258, 219) read impelli from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 172 and 201n). Scivoletto (239, 33–4 and 380) and Galasso (236, 334 and 1142) tends towards impleri from Ω. 8.107 Anderson (203, 178) reads fusis from several codd., while Goold (178, 412) and Tarrant (258, 219) favour passis from most codd., like Heinsius (49, 172).

Studies on particular passages: Book VIII

139

8.117 Galasso (236, 334 and 1143–4) and Tarrant (258, 219) read obstruximus orbem from most codd., although the latter is not averse to seponimur orbe from Tournier (122). Goold (178, 414) and Anderson (203, 178) opt for exponimur orbae from M and Heinsius (49, 172 and 202n); von Albrecht (208, 398 and 870) also prefers the latter, punctuating after orbae, rather than terrarum from the following line. 8.123–4 Luck (263, 197–8; 264, 262) supports the proposal of Capoferreus (47, s. p.), generis falsa est ea fabula vestri, / sed ferus: with this, he considers it unnecessary to omit line 124. Heinsius (49, 172 and 202n) agrees with Capoferreus’ proposal, but reads et in the following line, while Burman (55, 556) follows Heinsius, although he puts the phrase in parentheses and prefers sed, like Capoferreus, in the next line. Anderson (203, 178) and Tarrant (258, 220) do not comment on this suggestion. 8.124 Goold (178, 414) and Tarrant (240, 436; 258, 220) follow Merkel (92, 153) in omitt­ ing the line, while Anderson (203, 178) considers it authentic. Cf. Galasso (269, 118). 8.127 Liberman (257, 89n) proposes reading merui, like Heinsius (49, 140 and 150n), to replace merui et from Ω and editors. 8.130 Anderson (203, 179) reads patrique from Ω, while Goold (178, 414) and Tarrant (258, 220) favour patrique est from M and edd. vett. 8.131 Anderson (203, 179) reads vero from Ω. Goold (178, 414), von Albrecht (208, 398 and 870) and Tarrant favour vere from V3, as does Heinsius (49, 172), although Tarrant questions whether to accept vero. 8.133 Luck (264, 262) notes the suggestion dissortemque from Heinsius (49, 172 and 203n) instead of discordemque from Ω and editors. 8.136–7 Tarrant (258, 118) favours, like Mendner (132, 51–2), omitting these lines. Goold (178, 414) and Anderson (203, 179) consider them authentic. 8.139 Goold (178, 414) and Tarrant (258, 220) read mecumque simul from a group of codd. and Magnus (134, 292). Anderson (203, 179) opts for mecum simul, ah from another group of codd. 8.141 Goold (178, 416) and Anderson (203, 179) read puppimque, while Tarrant (258, 220) tends towards puppemque. 8.145 Goold (178, 416), Anderson (203, 179) and Tarrant (258, 220) read in aura from several codd. and Magnus (134, 292). Galasso (236, 336 and 1145–6) defends in auras from Ω, such as Hollis (157, 53).

140

Transmission and Textual Criticism

8.148 Anderson (203, 179) reads puppim, while Tarrant (258, 221) favours puppem. 8.150 Anderson (203, 179) and Holzberg (347, 394 and 804) read pluma fuit: plumis; Tarrant (258, 221) obelizes pluma fuit plumis, and suggests, albeit with reservations, palmas in the app. crit. Luck (264, 262) supports the proposal pluma subit from Pulbrook (155, 46–7) and Goold (178, 416), although he is not averse to Ramírez de Verger’s suggestion (299, 808–9), pluma fit, et plumis. 8.157 Goold (178, 416) reads thalamo from some ‘antiquiores’, while Anderson (203, 179) opts for thalamis from other ‘antiquiores’. Tarrant tends towards thalami from most codd. 8.159 Goold (178, 416), Anderson (203, 180) and Tarrant (258, 221) read Daedalus. Kenney (315, 88 and 323) defends the spelling Daedalos from the Greek δαίδαλος. 8.160 Goold (178, 416) reads flexum from some ‘antiquiores’. Anderson (203, 180) opts for flexu in Ω, as does Galasso (269, 126 n. 1). Tarrant (258, 221) favours flexa from ‘duo veteres’ in Heinsius (49, 205n). 8.184 Goold (178, 418) and Anderson (203, 180) read loci from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 222) opts for soli for several ‘recentiores’, as suggested by Heinsius (49, 174 and 206–7 n). 8.186 Degl’Innocenti Pierini (247, 19–26) is amenable to the variant et licet armis from some ‘antiquiores’, to replace ibimus illac from Ω and editors. 8.190 Shackleton Bailey (169, 333) proposes reading longa  a breviore instead of longam breviore from Ω and editors; the ablative was already suggested by Holland (127, 4 n. 2); cf. Richmond, 281, 130. Tarrant (173, 359–60; 240, 436; 258, 222) omits the line, as does Merkel (92, 155), while Goold (178, 418) and Anderson (203, 181) keep it. Liberman (257, 73–4) and Luck (264, 262) defend the authenticity of the line with Holland’s correction. Galasso (269, 120) prefers to accept Sonderegger’s explanation of the line (189) rather than delete it. Goold (ibid.) and Anderson (ibid.) read sequenti from MN, while Tarrant (258, 222) favours sequente from Ω. 8.201 Liberman (257, 61) suggests reading in alis in place of in alas from Ω and editors. 8.207 Goold (178, 420), Anderson (203, 181) and Tarrant (258, 223) read strictumque from Ω, while Kenney (315, 92 and 328) tends towards strictumve from a group of codd., as proposed by Heinsius (in b3, p. 224 ‘strictumve bene, tert. Gronov. [B2] et unus meus [O9]’).

Studies on particular passages: Book VIII

141

8.216 Tarrant (173, 360; 240, 436; 258, 223) deletes the line, being identical to ars 2.73, while Goold (178, 420) and Anderson (203, 181) consider it authentic. 8.235 Luck (274, 118; 302, 96) and Tarrant (258, 224) read est tellus, which Richmond (281, 131) does not agree with. Goold (178, 422) and Anderson (203, 182) keep et tellus from Ω. 8.237 Richmond (281, 132) points out the supposedly incomplete information of Tarrant (258, 224) about elice, a variant alledgedly transmitted by H3 (cf. Magnus, 134, 297, and Slater, 141, ad loc.) and accepted by Merkel (92, 156; cf. Bömer, 156, 88), instead of ilice from Ω. However, I have not found this reading in the aforementioned codex. Possanza (265, 8) is unconvinced about the veracity of elice. 8.262 Tarrant (258, 225) questions mitis habebatur. Liberman (257, 74) considers the possible reading of servabat miserum. 8.266 Anderson (203, 183) and Kenney (315, 96 and 333) read acervis from a group of codd. Goold (178, 424), von Albrecht (208, 408 and 870) and Tarrant (258, 225) favour acerris from another group, like Heinsius (49, 176). 8.274 Tarrant (258, 225) questions whether fruges is preferable to frugum from Ω and editors. 8.278 Anderson (203, 183) reads praeteritas from Ω, while Goold (178, 424), von Albrecht (208, 408 and 870) and Tarrant (258, 226) opt for praeteritae from some ‘recentiores’, such as Heinsius (49, 176 and 209n). Additionally, Tarrant (258, 226 and 489) reads Letoidos instead of Latoidos from Ω, Goold (178, 424) and Anderson (203, 183). 8.279 Possanza (265, 13) reads non impune sinemus, in place of non impune feremus from Ω and editors. Luck (297, 56) reads non impune feretis, as suggested by Bentley (131, 30) and Hartman (130, 127–8). 8.283 Luck (172, 56) reads sed from most codd., although Tarrant (258, 226n) questions the correction sed habent … minores. Liberman (257, 74–5) suggests reading neque habent Sicula arva minaces. 8.285–6 Zwierlein (235, 252–4) omits line 285, while Tarrant (240, 436; 258, 226) deletes both these lines, as Gierig proposed (64, 506 ‘forte ambo versus delendi’), a decision branded radical by Luck (263, 199). Goold (178, 426), Anderson (203, 184) and von Albrecht (208, 410 and 870) omit line 286. Galasso (236, 344 and 1161), on the other hand, deletes line 285 and keeps line 286. Line 285 is omitted by Naugerius (15, adn.) and Heinsius (49, 177 and 209n); line 286 is deleted in some codd. and omitted by Burman (55, 572). Luck (263, 198; 264,

142

Transmission and Textual Criticism

262) recalls that Burman (ibid.) reads in his text vel ut alta hastilia rather than velut alta hastilia, although I believe that vel ut from Burman should be taken as a simple error. 8.290–1 Luck (264, 262) notes Heinsius’ suggestion (49, 210n), vix modo crescenti … / nec, instead of is modo crescentes … / nunc, from Ω. Cf. Burman (55, 572) ‘Heinsius [b3, 228v] volebat vix modo’. See also Hollis (157, 73). 8.301 Tarrant (258, 226n) questions whether to accept spectatus from some codd., such as Bömer (156, 110–11), although he reads in the text spectandus from N1V and editors. 8.317; see also Tarrant (193, 290–1). 8.322 Goold (178, 428), Anderson (203, 185) and Scivoletto (239, 34 and 392) read cultu from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 227) opts for cultus from a group of codd. and Heinsius (49, 178 and 212n). Goold and Anderson insert a comma after cultu, Scivoletto adds a semicolon, and Tarrant also inserts a semicolon after cultus. 8.359 Goold (178, 430), Anderson (203, 186) and Tarrant (258, 229) read certo from Ω; von Albrecht (208, 414 and 870) favours vasto from a group of codd., as defended by Burman (55, 583). 8.360 Galasso (236, 348 and 1167) reads Hippalcmon, as endorsed by Bömer (156, 127–8), in place of Hippalmon from the editors. 8.371 Zurli (246; 343, 29–33) defends reading Othryadae from Hd and Heinsius (49, 179 and 213n) instead of Eurytidae from Ω and editors. 8.400 Anderson (203, 187) reads direxit from Ω, while Goold (178, 434) and Tarrant (258, 230 and 496) opt for derexit, as does Polle (117, 159). 8.402 Goold (178, 434) and Tarrant (258, 230) read est terra cruore from M.  Anderson (203, 187) favours terra cruore est from VV3. 8.411–13 Kenney (243, 547–8) questions the authenticity of these lines. 8.411 Luck (264, 262) notes the suggestion Aeacides from Slater (141, ad loc.) to replace Aesonides from Ω and editors. 8.412 White (318, 196–7) proposes reading vertit et immeritum figit latrantis from some codd., instead of vertit in immeriti fatum latrantis from other codd. and editors. 8.463 Tarrant (251, 354 n. 5; 258, 233) favours pugnant from a minority of codd., replacing pugnat from Ω, Goold (178, 438) and Anderson (203, 189). Richmond (281, 131), on the other hand, questions Tarrant’s opinion.

Studies on particular passages: Book VIII

143

8.513 Anderson (203, 191) reads ille from Ω. Goold (178, 442) and Tarrant (258, 234) opt for ipse from Bentley (131, 30). 8.525 Tarrant (240, 438) questions its authenticity; cf. Heinsius (49, 218n). 8.535 Goold (178, 442) reads fata from some codd., while Ramírez de Verger (214, 49) opts for dicta from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 184 and 219n). Anderson (203, 192) and Tarrant (258, 235) tend towards vota from Ω, although the latter has doubts about writing verba based on 14.744. Holzberg (347, 418 and 804) endorses the latter option, although he assigns it erroneously to Kenney on p. 804. 8.542 Goold (178, 444) and Anderson (203, 192) read Parthaoniae from some codd., while Tarrant (258, 236 and 492) writes Porthaoniae, as suggested by Slater (141, ad loc. ‘puto scribendum quas Porthaoniae’); see also Fedeli (287, 609–10). 8.557 Ramírez de Verger (277, 333) prefers to read caeruleo in place of turbineo from Ω and editors. Goold (178, 444) and Anderson (203, 192) read vertice from several codd., while Tarrant (258, 236) tends towards culmine from others, although without much conviction (‘quod vix intellego’) and has doubts about vertice. Richmond (281, 131) endorses vertice (“with a whirling eddy”) and believes that culmine could be an annotation. Ramírez de Verger (ibid.) considers possible the suggestion of Zingerle (109, xvi), gurgite; cf. Verg. Aen. 11.258. 8.573 Luck (264, 262) notes merum, cum from Bentley (131, 30) instead of merum. tum from Ω and editors. 8.575 Luck (264, 262) comments that Ehwald (135, 245; cf. 11.693) puts in parentheses (digitoque ostendit). 8.576 Goold (178, 446) and Anderson (203, 193) read gerit from most codd., while Tarrant (258, 237) opts for gerat in the text, like Heinsius (49, 185 and 221n), although in the app.crit. he questions its veracity. Therefore it appears to be an error, as noted by Possanza (265, 12), Richmond (281, 131) and Fedeli (287, 610). Luck (264, 262) also reads gerit, and believes that Algermissen’s punctuation should be taken into consideration (100, 8–10), quod gerit illa? doce. 8.583 Liberman (257, 75) suggests reading cum crescimus imbri / imbre to replace cum plurimus umquam from Ω and editors. 8.588 Anderson (203, 193) reads pariterque revellit from most codd., while Goold (178, 446) and Tarrant (258, 238) opt for partesque resolvit from some, such as Heinsius (49, 185 and 222n); see also Luck (263, 201).

144

Transmission and Textual Criticism

8.597–600b Goold (178, 448), von Albrecht (208, 430 and 871), Zwierlein (235, 248–50; 241, 54–7) and Tarrant (197, 148 n. 56; 240, 436; 258, 238) follow Magnus (134, 315) in their deletion of these lines. 8.597 Anderson (203, 194) reads quo sacri, while Tarrant (258, 238) favours quot sacri from Burman (55, 601). 8.600b Anderson (203, 194) reads quondam from Ω.  Tarrant (258, 238) leans towards quoniam from Bothe (67, 168). 8.603–8 Goold (178, 448), Zwierlein (235, 248–50; 241, 54–7) and Tarrant (258, 238–9) consider these lines spurious, as does Magnus (134, 315–6); cf. Galasso (269, 107). 8.603 Anderson (203, 194) reads hanc from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 238) prefers hunc from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 222n). 8.621 Goold (178, 448), Ramírez de Verger (214, 49) and Luck (263, 201–2) favour the variant modico … muro from some codd. Anderson (203, 195) and Tarrant (258, 239) opt for medio … muro from Ω. 8.629 Goold (178, 448) and Anderson (203, 195) read tamen from Ω. Tarrant (258, 239) prefers tandem from N2 and Bothe (68, 85), as does Griffin (204, 55) 8.631 Possanza (265, 11) supports Ehwald’s punctuation (135, 248) with a colon after pia (pia:), referring to the home of Philemon and Baucis. 8.640 Anderson (203, 195) reads quo from Ω, while Goold (178, 450) and Tarrant (258, 240) support the variant cui assigned to Madvig (87, 38). However, the authorship of cui should be attributed to Heinsius and Burman (55, 604): ‘quod plurimi scripti. Forte scripserat quoi pro cui, ut mox vers. 662 pro quae quo est in Juniano pro quoi vel cui, ut malebat Heinsius (b2, 289r ‘quo postquam Junian. Forte cui’)’. Richmond (281, 131) considers that it should be written quo super iniecit, in light of 5.522 me super iniecit. 8.641 Goold (178, 450) and Anderson (203, 195) read inque from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 240) favours inde from some codd., such as Heinsius (49, 187). 8.647 Anderson (203, 195) and Kenney (315, 126 and 370) read illa from several codd. Goold (178, 450), von Albrecht (208, 434 and 871) and Tarrant (258, 240) opt for ille from most of them, as do Heinsius (49, 187) and Griffin (204, 55). 8.652–6 Goold (178, 450) omits lines 652–5a, as do Ehwald (135, 249) and Zwierlein (235, 239–43), while Tarrant (240, 436 and 438; 258, 240–1) includes (‘dubitanter recepi’) the long version in the text: 651, 652, 653, 654, 655a, 656a and deletes lines 655 and

Studies on particular passages: Book VIII

145

656; cf. Galasso, 269, 108–9. Lieberg (165, 42–5; 167, 102–4), Anderson (203, 196), Griffin (204, 56) and von Albrecht (208, 434 and 871) defend the long version. Cf. Kenney (161, 225). 8.653 Ramírez de Verger (277, 333) questions whether to read panda instead of dura from Ω and editors. 8.668–9 Luck (264, 262) points out eadem … argilla from D. Heinsius (37, 437). 8.669 Álvarez Morán (228, 126–7) endorses the reading argento from Ω and many editors, as opposed to argillo from V9 and Heinsius (49, 225n). 8.693a-693b Goold (178, 454) endorses the authenticity of these lines, which are excluded from the text by Anderson (203, 197), Griffin (204, 58), von Albrecht (208, 436 and 871), Zwierlein (235, 235–8) and Tarrant (240, 435; 258, 242), like Ω and Heinsius (49, 226n); cf. Galasso (269, 107–8). 8.701–2 Anderson (203, 198) reads adopertaque marmore tellus / … aurataque tecta videntur, while Goold (178, 454) and Tarrant (258, 242–3) favour aurataque tecta videntur / … adopertaque marmore tellus. 8.704 Liberman (257, 89n) reads digno, as does Heinsius (49, 227–8n; Burman 55, 610; cf. Val. Fl. 7.290 with Liberman, 248, 305) replacing iusto from Ω and editors. 8.724 Goold (178, 456) and Anderson (203, 198) read sint … colantur from  a group of codd., while Kenney (187, 424; 243, 548), Griffin (204, 59–60) and Tarrant (258, 243) favour sunt … coluntur, rather than sint … colantur, as defended by Heinsius (49, 189 and 228n). Tarrant (258, 223n) questions whether to accept Heinsius’ suggestion (49, 228n) cura pii dis sunt. White (318, 197) adds a full stop after deum. 8.745 Anderson (203, 199) reads potentis from Ω. Goold (178, 456) and Tarrant (258, 244) support potentum, as proposed by Heinsius (in b3, 243r; cf. Burman, 55, 614). 8.750 Anderson (203, 199) reads omnis from Ω, while Goold (178, 458) and Tarrant (258, 244) opt for silva from Heinsius (49, 190 and 228–9n). 8.760 Kenney (243, 548–9) suggests reading lurorem instead of pallorem. White (318, 197) proposes accepting the variant sudore madescere from  a group of codd. to replace pallorem ducere from Ω and editors. 8.770 Anderson (203, 200) reads editus et medio and de robore from Ω, while Goold (178, 458) and Tarrant (258, 245) opt for redditus (M and Korn, 103, 187) e medio and tum robore. Luck (264, 262) comments on redditus at from Hollis (157, 137); Kenney (315, 136 and 382) prefers cum to tum.

146

Transmission and Textual Criticism

8.778–9 Tarrant (240, 438; 258, 246) questions the authenticity of these lines. 8.788–9 Dehon (191, 214) explains and defends the transmitted text est locus extremis Scythiae glacialis in oris with the adjective glacialis referring to Scythiae, not to locus. 8.812 Tarrant (258, 247n) questions whether to write Famem, like Heinsius (49, 191) and Burman (55, 619), instead of famem. 8.818 Luck (302, 104) endorses the reading (noctis erat tempus) from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 191 and 231n). 8.820 Anderson (203, 201) reads peragit from most codd., while Goold (178, 462) and Tarrant (258, 247) opt for spargit from a group of ‘recentiores’, as Heinsius proposed (49, 192 and 231n ‘quod omnino arridet’). 8.822 Luck (297, 56–7) favours endorsing et sueta, following Shackleton Bailey’s suggestion (in Tarrant, 258, 247n), in place of adsueta. Goold (178, 462) and Anderson (203, 201) read antra from a group of codd., while Tarrant (258, 247) prefers arva from another group, as does Heinsius (49, 192 and 231n). 8.829 Anderson (203, 202) reads inmensaque from Ω; Goold (178, 462) and Tarrant (258, 248) favour Heinsius’ proposal (in b3, 246r; cf. Burman, 55, 620, con Call. Hymn. Dem. 66–7), incensaque, with the parallel from line 846 ( flamma gulae). Cf. Kenney, 161, 225. 8.852 Liberman (257, 89n) suggests reading cum vix ea instead of quamvis modo from Ω and editors. 8.854 Luck (263, 202) notes the defence of Naugerius (15, ad loc. ‘legendum ex veteribus cultus non vultus’) of the variant cultus from some codd. and editors, replacing vultus from Ω. 8.858 Anderson (203, 203) reads nullus from Ω, while Goold (178, 464) and Tarrant (258, 249) opt for nullos from several codd., such as Heinsius (49, 193). 8.868 Kenney (243, 549) affirms that the juncture me tamen excepto must be referred apò koinoû to both the previous and subsequent words. 8.876 Anderson (203, 203) reads dederatque from Ω, while Goold (178, 466), Galasso (236, 378 and 1213) and Tarrant (258, 249) favour deerantque from several codd., as speculated by Burman (55, 622n).

Studies on particular passages: Book IX

147

8.877 Luck (264, 262) comments on the variant lacerans from Planudes, Postgate (in Edwards, 119, 449) and Goold (178, 466), instead of lacero from Ω and most editors. 8.879 Anderson (203, 203) reads saepe from Ω, while Goold (178, 466) and Tarrant (258, 250) adopt nempe from Polle (117, 179). Book IX 9.8 Anderson (203, 251) reads tandem from Ω. Goold (178, 2) and Tarrant (258, 251) support fando, Burman’s suggestion (55, 625); cf. Heinsius to 15.497 (49, 418n). 9.10–11 Luck (172, 57) and Ramírez de Verger (214, 49) favour ambitiosa in line 10 from Bentley (131, 20), in place of invidiosa from Ω and editors. Luck, furthermore, offers the possible reading petenti instead of petiti in line 11.  9.12 Goold (178, 2) and Anderson (203, 204) read Parthaone from Ω, although the latter recalls in the app. crit. the writing Porthaone. Tarrant (258, 251 and 492) writes Porthaone, a form which appears in some codd. (MV3 VtVt2 V30), as well as editio Romana (2, ad loc.), in Micyllus (20, 206 ‘Homerus Portheum vocat [Il. 14.115]), Burman (55, 596 to 8.541), Slater (141, ad loc.) and Kenney (to Tarrant ‘per litteras’; cf. also 315, 356–7). See on 8.541; cf. Pl. Men. 745 ego te simitu novi cum Porthaone; Stat. Theb. 1.670, 2.726; Val. Fl. 3.705; Hyg. fab. 14.17, 172.1. 9.36 Liberman (257, 75) endorses the variant iactu from several codd., as Barth reinstated (36, 2711; 42, 614) and Heinsius ratified (49, 195 and 233–4n), to replace tactu from Ω, as affirmed by Goold (178, 4), Anderson (203, 205), Tarrant (258, 252) and Holzberg (347, 444). See Ramírez de Verger (354, 93–8). 9.37 The term micantia is called into doubt by Tarrant (258, 252 ‘an sanum nescio’, while Shackleton Bailey (169, 333) tries to mend the passage with his proposal modo ilia instead of micantia, accepted by Goold (178, 4). Watt suggests (216, 100–1) madentia, and later (231, 169) proposes natantia. Liberman (257, 76) puts forward rigentia. Rebeggiani (311) suggests reading vitantia with the parallel of Stat. Theb. 6.861–2. 9.49 Luck (263, 203; 264, 262) recalls the variant belli from some codd., also offered by Naugerius (15, adn.), in place of regni from Ω and editors. 9.55 Iglesias-Álvarez (226, 293–4) opts for mihi ficta from most manuscripts; Goold (178, 6), Anderson (203, 205) and Tarrant (258, 253) favour ficta mihi from several codd. 9.58 Goold (178, 6), Anderson (203, 205) and Tarrant (258, 253) read corpore from Ω,

148

Transmission and Textual Criticism

while von Albrecht (208, 456 and 871) opts for pectore from some codd., along with editio Romana (2). 9.65 Luck (302, 104) reads trisulcam, like Burman (55, 629n; already in Heinsius, b3, 249), instead of bisulcam from Ω and editors. 9.71 Anderson (203, 206) and Tarrant (258, 253) read comitum from Ω, although Tarrant (253n) questions whether to read capitum from some codd. Goold (178, 6), von Albrecht (208, 456 and 871) and Ramírez de Verger (294, 743–5; 329, 49) tend towards centum from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 196 and 234–5n). 9.74 Goold (178, 6), Anderson (203, 206) and Kenney (315, 152 and 402) read domitamque reclusi from Merkel (92, xxix and 176). Tarrant (258, 254) obelizes the term reduxi; cf. Galasso, 269, 122–3; Possanza (265, 13) favours domitamque recidi, and Ramírez de Verger (294, 743–5) opts for perussi from Heinsius (49, 235n). 9.75 Goold (178, 6), Anderson (203, 206) and Tarrant (258, 254) read credis from Ω, while Galasso (236, 1221) in his notes opts for credas from M and Heinsius (49, 196 and 235n). 9.98 Delz (174, 124) suggests reading hunc … minuit. Shackleton Bailey (169, 333), Goold (178, 8) and Tarrant, with some reservations (258, 254), seem to accept Markland’s proposal (71, 241b), huic … doluit, instead of hunc … domuit from Ω and Anderson (203, 207). Shackleton Bailey, Goold and Tarrant, however, read huic tamen, when Markland’s complete suggestion includes also reading tantum (Tarrant with doubts in the app. crit.) from some codd., pointed out by Naugerius (15, adn. ‘in nonnullis hunc tantum et fortasse rectius’), in place of tamen from Ω, as poined out by Luck (263, 203–4; 264, 262–3; 297, 57). The latter also rejects the proposal of McKeown (in Tarrant, ibid.), hunc … doluit. 9.99 Luck (297, 57) reads abit, like Heinsius (49, 236n ‘abit eleganti Graecismo unus ex meis Mediolani emtus’), instead of habet from Ω and editors. 9.111 Tarrant (240, 436; 258, 255) omits the line, as does Heinsius (49, 197 and 236n). Goold (178, 10) and Anderson (203, 207) retain it as authentic. Kenney (315, 154 and 406) inverts the order (112–11), like some codd. as well as Jahn (74, 567n). 9.136 Luck (302, 104) reads Caenaeo, as proposed by Hermolaus Barbarus (9, to Plin. nat. 4.5, s. v. PORTVS CHENITES), in place of Cenaeo from Ω and editors. 9.145 Tarrant (258, 256n) questions whether it would be correct to read adventat from P2 and Heinsius (49, 198 and 257n; cf. 12.65), instead of adveniet from Ω and editors. 9.147–8 Tarrant (240, 436; 258, 256) deletes these lines, while Goold (178, 12), Anderson (203, 207) and Kenney (315, 156 and 410–11) keep them as authentic.

Studies on particular passages: Book IX

149

9.151 Luck (263, 204) restores the variants of Naugerius (15, adn.): ‘fortasse sit rectius tester, superius enim memorem, sed et testor recte’, where tester appears to be an amendment from Naugerius himself. 9.152 Goold (178, 12), Anderson (203, 208) and Tarrant (258, 257) read in cursus … abit from Ω, while Ramírez de Verger (214, 49) favours incursus … habet, as noted by D.  Heinsius (37, 438 ‘melius Palatini incursus animus varios habet’); cf. Slater (141, ad loc.). 9.161 Tarrant (258, 257n) wonders whether it would be correct to read inde from Burman (55, 637n), rather than illa from Ω and editors. 9.178 Goold (178, 14), Anderson (203, 209) and Holzberg (347, 452 and 804) read hosti from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 258) favours hostis from Bothe (68, 94). 9.179 Tarrant (240, 436; 258, 255) omits the line, like Korn (103, 44). Goold (178, 14), Anderson (203, 207) and Holzberg (347, 452 and 804) retain it as authentic, and read hoc est, si tibi sum from Ω. Kenney (315, 160 and 413) obelizes † hoc est tibi sum † 9.184 Goold (178, 16) and Luck (264, 269) insert  a question mark after eripui, as does Edwards (119, 451). 9.194 Luck (264, 263) points out the variant quid? quod Thracas from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 199 and 238–9n) instead of quid, cum Thracis from most manuscripts and editors. 9.197a Goold (178, 16), Anderson (203, 210), von Albrecht (208, 466 and 872) and Tarrant (197, 140–1; 258, 258) omit this line, as do Naugerius (15, adn.) and most codd. See also Luck (263, 204). 9.205 Luck (264, 263) notes the variant tigris from M2 and Heinsius (49, 199 and 239n), in place of taurus from Ω and editors. 9.208 Liberman (257, 76) suggests reading abscinderes instead of infringere from Ω and editors. Luck (298, 14–15) favours rescindere, as read by Riese (115, 150). 9.211 Liberman (257, 89n) reads trepidus to replace trepidum from Ω and editors, while Luck (302, 105) proposes trepidum et from some codd. 9.221 Courtney (313, 86) reads gelatis instead of rotatis from Ω and editors. 9.232 Luck (264, 263; 302, 105) reads versuras, as doubtfully suggested by Heinsius (49, 240n ‘an versuras?’), instead of visuras from Ω and editors.

150

Transmission and Textual Criticism

9.233 Tarrant (258, 260) and Luck (302, 105) read ministro est from MV; Goold (178, 18) and Anderson (203, 211) favour ministro from most codd. 9.237 Liberman (257, 89n) reads cultu to replace vultu from Ω and editors. 9.249 Shackleton Bailey (169, 333–4) suggests reading istis ne credite flammis, while Goold (178, 20), Anderson (203, 211) and Tarrant (258, 260) keep Oetaeas spernite flammas from Ω. Marzolla (209, 354 and 654) reads istasque instead of Oetaeas. 9.253 As for domabile flamma, Luck (264, 263) recalls populabile flammae in line 262. 9.257 Tarrant (258, 261n) questions whether to read nolit instead of nolet from P2 and editors. 9.280 Anderson (203, 212) reads cum from Ω. Goold (178, 22) and Tarrant (258, 262) opt for cui from a group of codd., like Heinsius (49, 202 and 241n). 9.283 Goold (178, 22), Anderson (203, 212) and Tarrant (258, 262) write Ilithyiam, while Kenney (315, 166 and 427) favours Ilithyian with the Greek declension. 9.288 Anderson (203, 212) reads possis from Ω. Goold (178, 22) and Tarrant (258, 262) opt for posses from several ‘antiquiores’, such as Heinsius (49, 202). 9.291 Luck (264, 263) affirms that obit, suggested – although with reservations – by Heinsius (49, 241n), might easily have been corrupted into habet, as read in Ω and editors. 9.294 Goold (178, 22) and Anderson (203, 213) read Nixosque, as does Heinsius (49, 202 and 241n). Scivoletto (239, 34 and 444) favours Nixasque, as proposed by Bariner (129, 619n), while Tarrant (258, 262) opts for Nixusque from some codd., like Petersmann (202). 9.299 Tarrant (258, 262) reads genu et from MN, while Goold (178, 24) and Anderson (203, 213) keep genu from Ω and Priscian. Galasso (269, 127) seems to prefer the second option; see also Luck (264, 263). 9.300–1 Tarrant (258, 262) believes the repetition of partus … partus might be dubious. 9.304 Watt (216, 101) favours the variant loquor from several codd., in place of queror from Ω and editors. 9.344 Luck (302, 105) prefers to read de flore, according to Burman’s suggestion (55, 652n ‘de flore Vaticanus et unus Heinsii, rectius’), instead of e flore from Ω and editors; cf. 1.739 and 15.593.

Studies on particular passages: Book IX

151

9.347 Lotis is the reading defended by Naugerius (15, adn. ‘Lotis fortasse legendum sit. Lotis enim, non Lotos dicta Nymphe illa quae in lotum versa est’), as Luck recalls (263, 204; 264, 263); he points out that Constantius Fanensis (13, s. p.) already proposed Lotis: ‘magis placet ut Lotis legatur’; cf. fast. 1.416, 423. 9.365 Goold (178, 28) and Anderson (203, 215) read loton from Ω, while Kenney (243, 549) looks favourably on Harrison’s suggestion to read quercum in place of loton. Tarrant (258, 265) obelizes loton, like Kenney (161, 226), and notes another proposal by Watt (‘per litteras’), robur, accepted by Holzberg (347, 464 and 804). Possanza (265, 13–14) suggests reading lignum. 9.367 Goold (178, 28), Anderson (203, 215) and Tarrant (258, 265) read habebat from Ω, while von Albrecht (208, 478 and 872) opts for habebas, as in the edd. vett. 9.396 Kenney (243, 549–50) punctuates flens ipsa; tamen, as proposed by Bach (76, 104n), instead of (flet et ipsa tamen) from editors; cf. White (318, 198). 9.403 Luck (264, 263) is surprised that most editors ignore the variant iam iam (Magnus, 134, 350; Ehwald, 135, 276) in place of nam iam from Ω. 9.405 Luck (264, 263) points out ibuntque from Heinsius (49, 205 and 244n) to replace fientque from a group of codd. and editors. 9.406 Marzolla (209, 362 and 655) suggests reading subducta tacitos instead of subductaque suos from codd. and editors. 9.413–15 Marzolla (209, 362 and 655) proposes this reading: tum demum magno petet hoc Acheloia supplex / ab Iove Callirhoe, ut natis infantibus annos / addat, neve necem sinat esse ultoris inultam. 9.415 Tarrant (240, 436; 258, 267) omits the line, as suggested by Heinsius (49, 245n). Goold (178, 32) and Anderson (203, 216) keep it as authentic. 9.452 Anderson (203, 218) and Luck (302, 106) read praestantia from several ‘antiquiores’ and punctuate after Cyanee. Goold (178, 34), Scivoletto (239, 34 and 452) and Tarrant (258, 268) favour praestanti from P2v and Heinsius (49, 206 and 248n), the first two punctuating after Cyanee and the third without punctuation. Shackleton Bailey (in Tarrant, 258, 268n) proposes praestanti pignora forma. 9.456 Goold (178, 34) and Anderson (203, 218) keep the line as authentic, while Tarrant (240, 428–9 and 436; 258, 268) deletes it. Galasso (269, 116–17) wants to save the line with strong punctuation after line 453, and relating line 455 with the following ones.

152

Transmission and Textual Criticism

9.490 Luck (264, 269) puts di facerent between commas, as proposed by Norden (140, 130). 9.491 Shackleton Bailey (169, 334) defends the line’s authenticity against Slater (141, ad loc.), who considers lines 490–1 corrupted. 9.507 Heinsius (49, 249n) offers information from fragmentum Caesenas, which Rivero (337) has identified with the central part of the codex Cs2 (= Cs, containing 9.234–13.403). Luck (264, 263) notes the variant tenuere instead of timuere from fragmentum Caesenas (cf. Rivero, 337, 386), which is a corruption of renuere, as suggested by Heinsius (49, 241n; cf. Markland 1827, 224b). 9.508 Liberman (257, 89n) reads movi, as proposed by Watt (216, 101), to replace novi from Ω and editors. 9.520 Tarrant (197, 152–5; 240, 436 and 438; 258, 271) deletes line 520 and questions whether to take the same action with line 524. Goold (178, 40), Anderson (203, 220) and Galasso (269, 115) consider it to be authentic. 9.524–5 Kenney (315, 184 and 453) changes the order of the lines (525–4), as suggested by Bothe (68, 99), based on Berolinensis (B14). Tarrant (258, 271n) questions whether to omit the line; Goold (178, 40) and Anderson (203, 220) keep the normal order. 9.529 Anderson (203, 220) reads correptis from Ω. Goold (178, 40), Galasso (236, 410 and 1252) and Tarrant (258, 271) opt for correctis from V3 and many others, as pointed out by Heinsius (49, 208 and 250n). 9.540 Anderson (203, 220) and Tarrant (258, 272) read animi from Ω, while Goold (178, 40) and Kenney (315, 186 and 455) favour animo from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 209 and 250n). 9.554 See Luck, 172, 53: adhuc at instead of adhuc et. 9.557 Goold (178, 42) and Anderson (203, 221) read tantum sit. Tarrant (258, 272) favours tamen ut sit, as suggested by Bach (76, 115n). 9.561 Goold (178, 42), Anderson (203, 221) and Tarrant (258, 272) read desit? and Scivoletto (239, 34 and 460) tends towards a colon (desit:). 9.563 Tarrant (240, 438) questions the authenticity of the line (cf. Heinsius, 49, 209 and 250n), but keeps it in his edition (258, 272). 9.569 Goold (178, 42) and Anderson (203, 221) read pavidum from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 273), Luck (302, 106) and Holzberg (347, 476 and 804) opt for paulum from a group

Studies on particular passages: Book IX

153

of codd., as well as editio Gryphiana (24, 273); cf. Slater, 141, ad loc. Liberman (257, 76–7) proposes, if pavidum is not accepted, the adverb timide referring to dixit from the next line. Kenney (315, 188 and 459) obelizes †pavidum†. Luck (302, 106) reads feras from some ‘antiquiores’, such as D. Heinsius (37, 438), in place of fer has from Ω. 9.578 Luck (263, 205) notes that the variant quod from NV1 is ascribed to Naugerius. Indeed, the latter does not comment in his notes, but includes it in the text (15, 118r). Luck is uncertain about his decision, but believes that, if qui from Ω and Heinsius (49, 251n) is kept, tecum from Ω would have to be read in the following line (doubts in Tarrant, 258, 273n), as Anderson affirms (203, 222), instead of secum from a group of codd. and editors. 9.584 Goold (178, 44), Anderson (203, 222), Tarrant (258, 273) and Kenney (315, 188 and 460–1) read vix from Ω. Tarrant (258, 273n) questions whether to read mox in the app. crit., while Campana (307) suggests reading vi instead of vix. 9.611 Luck (264, 263) mentions the variant caute, attributed to Poliziano and ancient codd. in place of apte from Ω and editors. 9.626 Liberman (257, 77) suggests reading duci instead of denique from Ω and editors. 9.627 Goold (178, 46), von Albrecht (208, 496 and 873), Liberman (257, 77) and Kenney (315, 192 and 463–4) agree with Shackleton Bailey’s suggestion (143, 167) of reserata instead of temerata from Ω and most editors. 9.637 Goold (178, 48) and Anderson (203, 224) read diripuit from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 275 and 496) favours deripuit from several codd. and Heinsius (49, 211 and 252n). 9.638 Anderson (203, 224) reads inconcessamque from Ω.  Goold (178, 48) and Tarrant (258, 275) opt for inconcessaeque from a group of codd. and Heinsius (b3, p. 268; cf. Burman, 55, 671 ‘inconcessaeque maluerat Heinsius’), and as defended by Kenney (161, 226) and Luck (172, 58). 9.639 Anderson (203, 224) reads sine qua from Ω; Goold (178, 48) and Tarrant (258, 275) tend towards siquidem (Mac and edd. vett.). Liberman (257, 89n) reads pro qua, as pointed out by Heinsius (49, 252n). 9.652 Anderson (203, 224) reads etiam from a group of codd., while Goold (178, 48) and Tarrant (258, 276) opt for illam from another group of manuscripts. 9.653 Anderson (203, 224) reads medeantur amori from some codd. Goold (178, 48), Galasso (236, 418 and 1259) and Tarrant (258, 276) favour medeatur amori from Ω. Ramírez de Verger (276, 34–6; 277, 333) defends the reading moderetur amorem

154

Transmission and Textual Criticism

instead of medeatur amori. Heinsius (49, 212 and 252n) reads, as in some codd., moderetur amori; cf. Luck (264, 263). 9.661 Anderson (203, 224) and Tarrant (258, 276) read utque from Ω. Kenney (315, 194 and 467) favours utve from M and some editors, like Goold (178, 50). Tarrant (ibid.) reads sub adventum from NV and Favoni, like Heinsius (49, 212), while Goold (ibid.) and Anderson (ibid.) opt for sub adventu from Ω and favoni; cf. Kenney (221, 181). 9.669 Luck (302, 92) and Kenney (315, 194 and 469) support, in place of quondam, the variant quendam, as proposed by Housman (in Edwards, 119, 454), and not disregarded by Tarrant (258, 277n). 9.687 Goold (178, 52), Anderson (203, 225) and Tarrant (258, 277) read sacrorum from Ω, while Luck (172, 58) favours suarum from some codd. Von Albrecht (208, 500 and 873) opts for suorum, as does Heinsius (49, 213 and 253n). 9.711 Goold (178, 54) and Anderson (203, 226) read inde incepta from ‘Noricus’ (Nr3), as surmised by Zingerle (109, xvii and 174). Tarrant (258, 278) supports Shackleton Bailey’s suggestion (143, 167), indetecta, although questions indecepta from Ω. 9.713 Goold (178, 54) and Holzberg (347, 486 and 804) read fuerat from Mpc, like Merkel (77, 187). Anderson (203, 226) and Tarrant (258, 278) opt for fieret from Ω, although the latter expresses doubts in the app. crit. about reading fuerat. 9.718–19 Luck (264, 263) notes that Faber’s proposal (48, 314–15), primasque … artes elementaque prima sub isdem could work in place of primasque … artes, elementa aetatis ab isdem from Ω, although he also says that using alimenta from Gierig (65, 63) instead of elementa could solve the issue. 9.728–9 Tarrant (240, 436; 258, 279) omits parcere … et based on Heinsius (49, 214 and 255n), who also deletes line 729; Goold (178, 54) and Anderson (203, 227) keep it. Cf. Fedeli (287, 610). 9.728 Tarrant (258, 279) reads me in place of mihi from Ω and editors as a consequence of the previously mentioned exclusion. Luck (264, 263) believes that “this kind of intervention is questionable”. 9.747 Goold (178, 56), Anderson (203, 227) and Kenney (315, 200) read vide from Ω. Tarrant (258, 280) opts for vides from several codd. and edd. vett., although he questions vides in the app. crit. 9.749 Goold (178, 56) reads faciat from Faber (48, 315), and which Burman read ‘in uno Basil.’ (see Heinsius in b3, p. 272). Anderson (203, 227) and Tarrant (258, 280) read

Studies on particular passages: Book IX

155

capiat from Ω, although Tarrant expresses doubts about faciat. Liberman (257, 78) puts forward the possible options pariat, generat and gignit. Anderson reads pascit from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 280) opts for pascat from  a group of codd., such as Heinsius (49, 215 and 255n), who also prefers to omit the line. Luck (263, 205–6) believes that using captat … pascit from Korn (103, 212) and reading amantem could offer an acceptable meaning; he is also amenable to the reading faciat … pascat from Faber (ibid.), “the easiest solution, perhaps”; see also Luck (264, 263). 9.755–6 Kenney (243, 550) proposes deleting line 755 and reading nempe dei instead of dique mihi in line 756. Tarrant (240, 437; 258, 280) follows Heinsius (49, 215 and 255n) in omitting lines 755–6. Goold (178, 56) and Anderson (203, 227–8) consider them authentic. 9.755 Luck (263, 206) points out that Anderson (203, 227) and Slater (141, ad loc.) attribute, in place of una from Ω, the variant vana from a group of ‘recentiores’, to Naugerius, who introduces it in his text (15, 121r). White (318, 198) suggests reading pars una est, as proposed by Burman (55, 680), in place of nulla est pars from Ω and editors. 9.757 Goold (178, 56) and Anderson (203, 228) read quodque ego from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 280) favours quod volo from  a group of codd., like Slater (141, ad loc. ‘haud male’). 9.766 Shackleton Bailey (169, 334) believes that the preferred reading is quae petit, haec or even quod petit, hoc (in Tarrant, 258, 280n). 9.771 Kenney (243, 550; 315, 202 and 481) changes sibique into suoque, as proposed by Heinsius (49, 256n ‘nisi pro sibique legas suoque’). Liberman (257, 89n) suggests reading capitis … sibique or capiti … suoque. 9.777 Tarrant (240, 437; 258, 281) omits the line, like Merkel (92, 195), while Goold (178, 58), von Albrecht (208, 506), Anderson (203, 228), Galasso (269, 120) and Kenney (315, 202 and 481–2) keep it as authentic. Anderson (ibid.) and Tarrant (258, 281) read comitesque facesque from many codd. Goold (178, 58) and von Albrecht (208, 506 and 873) opt for comitantiaque aera from some ‘antiquiores’, as does Jahn (74, 620). 9.778 Shackleton Bailey (169, 334) suggests reading sacrorum to replace sistrorum. Tarrant (258, 281) obelizes it, although with doubts over Shackleton Bailey’s suggestion. Goold (178, 58), Anderson (203, 228) and Kenney (315, 202) read sistrorum from Ω.  Liberman (257, 89n) does not believe that sistrorum is corrupted, if line 777 is taken as interpolated. 9.779 Goold (178, 58), Anderson (203, 228) and Holzberg (347, 490 and 804) read quod non ego punior, ecce from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 281) obelizes it. Possanza (265, 14)

156

Transmission and Textual Criticism

proposes reading quod ego non funeris auctor, and Kenney (315, 204 and 482) obelizes †quod non ego punior†. 9.780 Tarrant (258, 281n) questions whether to read consilio monituque tuo est (cf. 3.127, and elsewhere). He also believes that tuarum could be read from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 256n), in place of duarum from Ω and editors. 9.790–4 Liberman (257, 78) believes that lines 792–4 are a pious interpolation. 9.796 Anderson (203, 229) reads sociusque from Ω, while Goold (178, 60), von Albrecht (208, 508 and 873) and Tarrant (258, 282) favour sociosque from a group of codd., as defended by Heinsius (49, 216 and 257n). Book X 10.32 Anderson (203, 230) reads debentur from Ω, while Goold (178, 66), von Albrecht (208, 512 and 873), Galasso (236, 430 and 1277), Tarrant (258, 284) and Fàbregas (333, 84–5) opt for debemur from some ‘antiquiores’, such as Heinsius (49, 218 and 258–9n). 10.50 Anderson (203, 231) reads Orpheus from Ω. Goold (178, 66), Tarrant (258, 285) and Fàbregas (333, 94–5) favour heros from various codd., such as Heinsius (49, 218 and 259n). 10.55 Goold (178, 68) and Anderson (203, 231) read abfuerant from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 285) and Fàbregas (333, 97–8) opt for abfuerunt from M, as does Heinsius (49, 218 and 259n). 10.58–9 Tarrant (258, 295) questions if these lines should be omitted, as suggested by Polle (111, 889). 10.58 Luck (263, 206) points out that the variant certans is attributed to Naugerius from MP2. This is not mentioned in his notes, but in the text (15, 123r); it also appears in editio Romana (2, ad loc.) and in Vivianus (17, cast. ad loc.). See Fàbregas, 333, 100–2. 10.65 Tarrant (258, 285) supports Heinsius’ proposal (49, 260n), Stygii, in place of timidus from Ω and Anderson (203, 231). For Galasso (269, 130), Reed (324, 180) and Fàbregas (333, 108), Heinsius’ suggestion is difficult to accept. 10.104–5 Fedeli (287, 610) points out that Tarrant (258, 287) reads in the text Attis … alto from Bothe (68, 104–5), but in the app. crit. it is shown as the accepted reading Attis … illo from Ω.

Studies on particular passages: Book X

157

10.109 Goold (178, 72), Anderson (203, 233), Tarrant (258, 287) and Fàbregas (333, 140–1) read Carthaea, while Luck (302, 103) proposes reading Carthaeia. 10.115 Anderson (203, 233) reads parilique aetate from most codd., while Goold (178, 72), Tarrant (258, 287) and Fàbregas (333, 143–6) favour parilesque ex aere. Liberman (257, 78–9) defends one of the speculations of Bergk (108, 657), parili levore. Luck (264, 263) tends towards Postgate’s parili levitate (in Edwards, 119, 456) from Planudes. 10.133 Liberman (257, 79) suggests reading levius instead of leviter in this line, albeit with reservations; see Fàbregas (333, 154–7). 10.144 Luck (264, 263; 297, 57; 302, 98 and 106) supports the reading concilio, medius turbae, volucrumque (between commas) from codd., from Bentley (131, 31) and Wakefield (66, 9) to replace medius turba from Ω and editors. 10.154 Liberman (257, 89n) proposes reading ardentes instead of attonitas from Ω and editors. 10.162 Luck (302, 107) reads Amyclaide with Unger (78, 7 Amycliade or Amyclaide); see Fàbregas (333, 177–8). 10.184 Goold (178, 76) reads repercusso … verbere, like Merkel (92, xxxi), while Anderson (150, 490; 203, 235) opts for repercusso … †aere† based on Ω; von Albrecht (208, 522 and 875) and Tarrant (258, 290) favour the juncture repercusso … pondere from Koch (83, 342). Galasso (236, 438 and 1293) and Fàbregas (333, 193–5) tend towards repercussum … ab aere from Jahn (74, 99; 74, 637); and Scivoletto (239, 34 and 486) prefers to read repercussum in aëra from some ‘antiquiores’, such as Heinsius (49, 222 and 263n) and Bach (76, 149). 10.191 Goold (178, 76), Anderson (203, 235) and Tarrant (258, 290) read horrentia, as does Riese (89, xxi and 168). Ramírez de Verger (266, 1957; 304, 101–6) suggests florentia in place of haerentia from Ω. See also Fàbregas (333, 200–4). 10.200–8 Tarrant (240, 437; 258, 290–1) deletes lines 200–1 and 205–8 based on Merkel (92, 201), who considers lines 200–8 to be spurious; cf. Galasso, 269, 116. Goold (178, 78), Anderson (203, 236), Reed (324, 22 and 213–14) and Fàbregas (333, 207–11) believe them to be authentic. 10.202 Goold (178, 78) reads tecumque mori vitamque, as proposed by Housman (Edwards, 119, 457n; 151, 168), while Anderson (203, 236) opts for pro te vitam tecumque from Ω.  Tarrant (258, 290) and Fàbregas (333, 212–13) prefer pro te vitam (Ω) tecumve (MS), and Galasso (236, 440 and 1295) tends towards merito from several ‘antiquiores’ and Riese (89, xxi and 168).

158

Transmission and Textual Criticism

10.215 Luck (263, 206–7) points out the variant et ya, which Naugerius (15, ad loc.) finds in many codd.; see Fàbregas (333, 219–20). 10.216 Goold (178, 78), Anderson (203, 236), Tarrant (258, 291) and Fàbregas (333, 220–2) read ducta from Ω, while Scivoletto (239, 34–5) favours dicta from some ‘antiquiores’, such as Magnus (134, 380). 10.225 Goold (178, 80) and Tarrant (258, 291) tend towards ignarus sceleris quam, as suggested by Madvig (91, 88). Anderson (203, 237n) obelizes †inlugubris sceleris† and confesses “temptavi eri: poeta dicit Iovem Hospitem erum illugubrem fuisse”. Watt (216, 101) suggests reading nomine ‘Lugubris’, while Zurli (234, 169–71) proposes ara / lugubris, en sceleris quam. Ramírez de Verger (214, 49) opts for lugubris sceleris from some codd. See Fàbregas (333, 27–34) about this passage: he prefers to obelize it. 10.227 Goold (178, 80) and Anderson (203, 237) read lactantes. Tarrant (258, 291 and 498), Luck (302, 102) and Fàbregas (333, 234–6) favour lactentes. 10.239–40 Luck (264, 264; 297, 58) and Fàbregas (333, 241–3) endorse the reading pro quaestu from Slater (141, ad loc.) in place of pro quo sua: the latter suggests ‘temptabam sed tamen … pro quaestu numinis ira cet. (puncto post deam deleto)’. Luck also follows the variant fama instead of forma in line 240, proposed by Burman (55, 706–7n). 10.256 Tarrant (240, 437; 258, 293) omits the line, Fedeli (287, 610) is undecided. 10.257 Due to the deletion of the previous line, Tarrant (258, 293) reads sed in place of et from Ω and editors. Luck (264, 264) criticises Tarrant’s course of action, while Reed (324, 225n) inserts the line after 258, also replacing et with sed. 10.271 Álvarez-Iglesias (226, 292) keeps blandis from Ω, while Goold (178, 82), Anderson (203, 238), Tarrant (258, 293) and Fàbregas (333, 260–1) read pandis from a codex (Go2v), as do Gronovius (in Burman, 56, 351 ‘quid blandis? Omnino pandis’) and Heinsius (49, 224 and 266–7n). 10.284 Goold (178, 84), Anderson (203, 238), Liberman (257, 89n), Galasso (269, 123) and Fàbregas (333, 266–7) read subsidit from Heinsius (49, 225 and 267n). Tarrant (258, 294 and 499) favours subsedit from Ω. 10.287 Anderson (203, 238) reads medio from Ω, while von Albrecht (208, 522 and 874), Goold (178, 84), Scivoletto (239, 35 and 492), Tarrant (258, 294) and Fàbregas (333, 268–9) opt for dubie from some ‘antiquiores’ and edd. vett. 10.305 Tarrant (258, 294n) questions whether to omit the line, as defended by Schrader (61, 199–200); see Fàbregas (333, 280).

Studies on particular passages: Book X

159

10.309 Liberman (310, 406) believes that Fuss’ suggestion roresque is correct (70, 21), in place of floresque from Ω and editors. Luck (302, 107) and Fàbregas (333, 282–6) defend reading Panchaïca from some ‘antiquiores’, instead of Panchaia from Ω and editors. 10.310 Marzolla (209, 400 and 655) reads cur fert et myrrham? tanti nova non fuit arbor! 10.323 Tarrant (258, 295n) questions whether to read nec enim damnare videtur? for sed enim damnare negatur, an option highly regarded by Luck (264, 264). Fàbregas (333, 293–5) supports etenim, like Heinsius (b3, 287v-288r), replacing sed enim from Ω and editors. 10.323–4 Shackleton Bailey (169, 334) proposes reading putatur in line 323 instead of negatur from Ω and editors, and coeunt in place of coeuntque line 324. 10.325 Anderson (203, 240) reads delicto from Ω, while Goold (178, 86), von Albrecht (208, 532 and 875), Tarrant (204, 295) and Fàbregas (333, 295–7) opt for dilectu from M, as does Heinsius (49, 226 and 268n), although the latter also considers delectu. See also Luck (264, 264). 10.333 Goold (178, 88) and Anderson (203, 240) read et … crescit from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 295) and Fàbregas (333, 299) favour ut … crescat from MNac, along with many editors (e.g. Riese, 89, 171; Magnus, 134, 386). The latter, however, expresses doubts about the first option. 10.345 Goold (178, 88) and Scivoletto (239, 35 and 496) prefer to add a question mark after virgo. Anderson (203, 240), Tarrant (258, 296) and Fàbregas (333, 304) insert a comma. 10.355 Luck (172, 53) reads at instead of et from Ω and editors. 10.377 Goold (178, 90) and Anderson (203, 241) read et from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 297) and Fàbregas (333, 323–4) read aut from some codd. 10.384 Luck (297, 58) suggest reading parata in place of paratae from Ω and editors. 10.408 Goold (178, 92) and Anderson (203, 242) read et in hoc from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 299) and Fàbregas (333, 340–2) take up Heinsius’ proposal (b3, 288v; cf. Burman, 55, 719; Magnus, 134, 390 ‘amas sed hic mea sic scripsi’), although Fàbregas questions the majority reading. 10.418 Luck (263, 207) points out that Naugerius attributes the variant at to some codd. (15, adn. ‘nonnulli at officium’) instead of et from Ω and editors. Bothe (67, 208) takes

160

Transmission and Textual Criticism

it up later in his edition, and Tarrant (258, 299) is not averse to the variant (‘non male’). Von Albrecht (208, 538–9) keeps et in the text, but translates at. 10.423 Anderson (203, 243) reads gelidos from Ω, while Goold (178, 94), Scivoletto (239, 35 and 500), Tarrant (258, 299) and Fàbregas (333, 348–9) opt for gelidus from some codd., as do Ehwald (135, 311) and Magnus (134, 390). 10.428 Luck (264, 264) points out that the variant amato, instead of amore from Ω, appears in the fragmentum Caesenas and other codd., as well as in the editio Romana (2, ad loc.) and Heinsius (49, 229 and 270n); cf. Fàbregas (333, 351); Rivero (337). 10.453 Luck (264, 264) recalls, regarding the variant infandus from Servius (to Verg. Aen. 4.462), replacing funereus from Ω and editors, that grammaticians are not always reliable, because they quote from memory. 10.455 Liberman (257, 79) reads tactu instead of motu from Ω and editors. 10.478 Anderson (203, 244) reads reliquit from Ω, while Goold (178, 98), Tarrant (258, 301), Galasso (269, 123) and Fàbregas (333, 373) favour relinquit from MV16, although Tarrant questions whether reliquit is appropriate in the app. crit. 10.483 Liberman (257, 79–80) proposes reading molita preces in place of complexa preces from Ω and editors. 10.492 Liberman (257, 80) suggests reading ossaque sunt robur in place of ossaque robur agunt from Ω and editors; cf. Luck (292, 118). 10.498–505 Luck (264, 264) points out the parallel with 3.55–8 for the sequence cortice … corpore … arbore … robore … robore … arbore. 10.529 See on 4.190. 10.539 Luck (302, 118–19) defends at fortibus from some codd., as already read in the first editio Aldina (11, ad loc.) and in Heinsius (b3, 293v; cf. Burman, 55, 728). Goold (178, 102), Anderson (203, 246) and Tarrant (258, 304), however, keep a fortibus from Ω, while Fàbregas (333, 421–2) clearly favours at fortibus. 10.548 Liberman (257, 89n) suggests reading non … non instead of nec … nec from Ω and editors. 10.549 Tarrant (240, 437; 258, 304) omits the line, while Goold (178, 102), Anderson (203, 246), Reed (324, 46 and 275–6) and Fàbregas (333, 425) keep it as authentic. 10.553 Anderson (203, 247) reads mirabile from Ω. Goold (178, 102), von Albrecht (208,

Studies on particular passages: Book X

161

548 and 875), Tarrant (258, 304) and Fàbregas (333, 426–7) opt for mirabere from some codd., such as Heinsius (49, 232 and 274n). 10.557 Goold (178, 102), Anderson (203, 247), Tarrant (258, 304) and Fàbregas (333, 426) parenthesise (et requievit); Scivoletto (239, 35 and 508) does not. 10.584 Shackleton Bailey (169, 335) and Tarrant (258, 305) read insidiasque timet (cf. am. 2.19.20) in place of invidiamque timet from Ω, as do Anderson (203, 248) and Fàbregas (333, 440–1). Liberman (257, 89n) criticises Shackleton Bailey’s suggestion and the cited parallel from am. 2.19.20. Possanza (265, 8) defends the transmitted text. Von Albrecht (208, 550 and 875) favours invidiaque from a group of codd., such as Micyllus (20, 241) and the editiones Gryphianae (e.g. 23, 272). 10.590 Anderson (203, 306) reads ille from Ω, while Goold (178, 106), Tarrant (258, 306) and Fàbregas (333, 445) tend towards ipse from some codd., such as Heinsius (49, 233). 10.591 Marzolla (208, 414 and 655) reads aurea fert in place of aura refert from Ω and editors. 10.596 Liberman (257, 80) suggests fluitantes instead of simulatas from M, while Luck (264, 264; 274, 119; 302, 107) and Fàbregas (333, 448–50) prefer simul et dat et inficit from some codd., as defended by Hartman (130, 364) and edited by Fabri (137, 159). Goold (178, 106), Anderson (203, 248) and Tarrant (258, 306) read simulatas inficit. 10.637 Anderson (203, 249) and Reed (324, 52 and 286) read quid facit from Ω. Marzolla (208, 416 and 656) proposes reading quid sit id. Goold (178, 108) and Tarrant (258, 308) favour quod facit from S2 and many editions starting from editio Bononiensis (1). Possanza (265, 14) suggests reading quid ferat. See also Fàbregas (333, 463–7 and 648). Scivoletto (239, 35 and 512) writes Cupidine, as a character. 10.638 Breitenbach (145, 1130), supported by Luck (264, 264; 302, 107), reads patresque in place of paterque from Ω and editors. See also Fàbregas (333, 466–7). 10.640 Luck (302, 107) believes it is preferable to read Cythereïa, like Heinsius (49, 278n), in place of Cytherea. Fàbregas (333, 467–8) also accepts Luck’s option. 10.645 Anderson (203, 250) reads quam from Ω, while Goold (178, 110), Tarrant (258, 308) and Fàbregas (333, 471) opt for quem from a group of codd., such as Heinsius (49, 235 and 278n). 10.648 Anderson (203, 250) reads coma from a group of codd. Goold (178, 110) and Tarrant (258, 308) favour comas from some other manuscripts, as was read in many editions starting from 1st editio Aldina (11). Cf. Fàbregas (333, 472–3 and 648). Liberman (257, 59) defends the reading crepitantibus from Ω and editors, not radian-

162

Transmission and Textual Criticism

tibus (Burman, 55, 735), so “il faut réfléchir pour voir que fulvo auro détermine ramis et non crepitantibus”; cf. Verg. Aen. 6.208–9; Fàbregas (333, 473). 10.661–3 Shackleton Bailey (169, 335) believes two lines are missing before either line 663 or line 661. 10.696 Liberman (257, 80) suggests signa in place of sacra from Ω and editors; cf. Luck (298, 15, and 302, 108). 10.697 Luck (264, 264; 302, 108) reads Stygiis … undis from some codd., instead of Stygia … unda from most of them and editors. 10.706 Tarrant (258, 310n) questions whether to read quod … praebent from Nac, as proposed by Magnus (134, 403; cf. fast. 4.215), to replace quod … praebet from other codd. and editors. 10.717 Luck (302, 108) reads Cythereïa instead of Cytherea. See on 4.190; 10.640. 10.733 Anderson (150, 535; 203, 252) and Romeo (323, 147–8) support the juncture fulvo … coelo from the codd., as opposed to fulvo … caeno (pluvio … caeno already in Merkel and Siebelis-Polle, 112, 12 and 152) from some editions (Bömer, 163, 232; Goold, 178, 116; von Albrecht, 208, 560 and 875; Hill, 230, 72 and 184; Galasso, 236, 470 and 1338; Tarrant, 258, 311; Reed, 324, 301). Luck (264, 264) and Fàbregas (333, 507–8) defend pluvio … caelo from some manuscripts, such as Naugerius (15, 134r). Book XI 11.21 Luck (172, 58) believes innumeras to be corrupt. 11.22 Goold (178, 120) and Luck (172, 58) suggest triumphi, as in Planudes and edd. vett. (cf. Burman, 55, 745), instead of theatri in Ω and editors. 11.25 Luck (172, 58) proposes reading structove in place of structoque from Ω and editors. 11.27 Liberman (257, 89n) deletes the semicolon after est, believing that the enclitic -que from vatemque forms, with et, the coordination -que … et, and that the enclitic -que from line 25 connects vatemque petunt with coeunt from line 24. 11.37 Luck (263, 208) cites the variant minaces as noted by Naugerius (15, adn.), also favoured by Luck. See also Díez Reboso (325, 24–5). 11.48 Goold (178, 122), Anderson (203, 254), Tarrant (258, 314) and Díez Reboso (325, 33–4) read obstrusaque from Ω. Griffin (212, 576–9) suggests abstrusaque, as does

Studies on particular passages: Book XI

163

Galasso (236, 476 and 1342). Liberman (257, 81) considers that a word needs to be found from the lexicon of clothes cleaning, such as imbuta, infecta or saturata, to replace obstrusa. Luck (264, 264–5; 297, 59) is amenable to Polle’s obsutaque (117, 15) and proposes pullis instead of pullo. 11.49 Anderson (203, 254), Courtney (313, 87) and Díez Reboso (325, 27 and 34–5) read habuere from Ω. Tarrant (258, 314) opts for habuisse from a group of codd., but the nom. Naides et Dryades should be changed to ac. Naidas et Dryadas, as noted by Heinsius (49, 283n) and recalled by Possanza (265, 11–12). See also Luck (297, 59). 11.55 Liberman (257, 81) suggests reading Methymnaeo instead of Methymnaeae from Planudes and editors. Cf. Luck (298, 15). 11.57a See Tarrant (193, 288). 11.59 Tarrant (240, 437; 258, 315) omits the line, as proposed by Riese (89, xxi); Goold (178, 124), Anderson (203, 255) and Díez Reboso (325, 48) keep it as authentic. 11.70 Watt (216, 101–2) reads fecere from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 284n), or else iuvere from Capoferreus (47, s. p. ‘melius videretur quae iuvere’) in place of videre in Ω and editors. 11.71 Liberman (257, 81–2) deletes the line, as advised by Lejay (120, 70) and suspected by Tarrant (258, 315n). Goold (178, 124) reads quam tum est quaeque secuta, while von Albrecht (208, 566 and 875) opts for in quantum est quisque secutus, as proposed by Bentley (131, 31). Watt (216, 102) suggests reading quis vatem quaeque secuta instead of in quantum est quaeque secuta from Ω and editors. See Díez Reboso (325, 57–60). 11.83 Goold (178, 126) reads nodosaque, like Postgate (in Edwards, 119, 462); A ­ nderson (203, 255) reads longos quoque from Ω. Tarrant (258, 316) and Díez Reboso (325, 63–7) favour porrectaque from a group of codd. and many editions since editio Bononiensis (1). 11.108 Tarrant (193, 294–5; 240, 437; 258, 317) deletes the line, based on the omission from the editio Romana from 1471 (2) and the deletion by Merkel (92, 219). Goold (178, 126), Anderson (203, 256), Luck (264, 265) and Díez Reboso (325, 83–4) consider it authentic. 11.134 Goold (178, 128) and Anderson (203, 257) add  a colon after nomen, like Bothe (67, 220). Tarrant (258, 318) inserts a semicolon, erroneously ascribing it to Bothe. 11.135 Anderson (203, 257) reads factique from Ω, while Goold (178, 128), von Albrecht (208, 570 and 875), Galasso (236, 482 and 1349), Tarrant (258, 318) and Díez Reboso (325, 102–5) opt for pactique from some codd., as do Riese (89, 183) and Madvig (91, 89).

164

Transmission and Textual Criticism

11.145 Goold (178, 130), Anderson (203, 257) and Díez Reboso (325, 114–15) read madidis; questioning this word’s authenticity, Tarrant (258, 318) suggests, although with reservations, nitidis. Ramírez de Verger (266, 1959) prefers siccis (cf. Hor. epod. 16.55) but later (299, 809–10) defends the authenticity of auro madidis as a “bold image”. 11.153 Tarrant (258, 319) believes the term carmina to be corrupt. 11.167 Goold (178, 132) and Anderson (203, 258) read instructamque from some codd., while Tarrant (258, 319) and Díez Reboso (325, 131–3) opt for distinctamque from Ω, although Tarrant has doubts about the former variant. Ramírez de Verger (214, 49) tends towards instrictamque from several manuscripts and Merkel (92, 221). 11.172 Luck (172, 58–9) reads placent to replace placet from Ω and editors. 11.177 Luck (172, 59) proposes reading ima instead of imas from some codd. and editors. Liberman (257, 82) suggests loco to replace imas. 11.178–9 Liberman (257, 89n) omits both lines. 11.178 Luck (172, 59) reads parte est damnatus in una, as reworded by Planudes, in place of partem damnatur in unam in Ω and editors. 11.180 The mss. B5acMoacV6 omit this line. Tarrant (240, 437; 258, 320) and Díez Reboso (325, 138) delete it based on Merkel (92, 221), who omits turpique … temptat from lines 180–1. Liberman (257, 82) also deletes it and expresses doubts about lines 178–9. Goold (178, 132) and Anderson (203, 258) keep it as authentic. Luck (172, 59) notes that one should keep in mind Schenkl’s suggestion (in Zingerle, 109, XVII ‘C. Schenkl cogitat de coniectura torpensque pudore’), torpensque pudore, instead of the questionable juncture turpique pudore, as read by Goold (178, 132), Anderson (203, 258), Galasso (236, 484 ‘†turpique†’) and Tarrant (258, 320n). 11.181 Liberman (257, 89n) reads celare in place of velare from Ω. 11.183 Tarrant (258, 320n) questions whether to accept haec from some codd. and Bothe (68, 113), to replace hoc from Ω and editors. 11.184 Liberman (257, 82) believes the line has been inserted. 11.203 Ramírez de Verger (277, 333) prefers to read Phrygioque from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 243 and 287n), instead of Phrygiaeque from Ω and editors. 11.210 Ramírez de Verger (277, 333) questions whether to read arva from V3 and other codd., as well as Heinsius (49, 244 and 288n), in place of agros from Ω and editors.

Studies on particular passages: Book XI

165

11.219 Anderson (203, 260) and Díez Reboso (325, 173–4) read nepotem from Ω, while Goold (178, 134) and Tarrant (258, 321), in addition to Heinsius (49, 244 and 288n), favour nepoti from M, although Tarrant expresses doubts about nepotem. 11.222 Ramírez de Verger (277, 333) tends towards iuveni from Heinsius (49, 244 and 288n) instead of iuvenis from Ω and editors. Shackleton Bailey (169, 335) questions whether to read ausis. Goold (178, 136) and Anderson (203, 260) opt for annis, while Tarrant (258, 321) favours actis, although he questions in the app. crit. whether to accept annis. Galasso (236, 486 and 1358–9) and Díez Reboso (325, 177) opt for, albeit with reservations, armis from some ‘antiquiores’ and edd. vett. 11.229–30 Luck (264, 269) does not put  a full stop after arcus and parenthesises (bracchia procurrunt), as does Edwards (119, 463). 11.233 Ramírez de Verger (214, 49) reads operta from Ω in place of opertum from some codd. and editors. 11.238 Anderson (203, 260) reads victa from a group of codd., while Goold (178, 136), von Albrecht (208, 578 and 876), Tarrant (258, 322) and Díez Reboso (325, 186–7) opt for vincta from another group, as defended by Heinsius (49, 244 and 288–9n). 11.247 Anderson (203, 261) and Tarrant (258, 322) read isque from Ω. Goold (178, 136) and Tarrant tend, although with reservations, (258, 322n) towards inde from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 245). 11.251 Goold (178, 138), Anderson (203, 261) and Tarrant (258, 322) read rigido from some ‘antiquiores’. Galasso (236, 488 and 1360) and Díez Reboso (325, 192–3) favour gelido from Ω. 11.270 Tarrant (258, 323n) questions reading gerebat from Housman (151, 170) to replace regebat from Ω and editors. 11.276 Goold (178, 140) and Anderson (203, 261) read pecorum quae from Ω.  Tarrant (258, 323) and Díez Reboso (325, 207–8) prefer pecorum et quae from several codd. 11.277 Tarrant (258, 323) and Díez Reboso (325, 207) add a full stop after reliquit, as opposed to a comma, like Anderson (203, 261), or a semicolon, like Goold (178, 140), who follows Jahn (74, 705). 11.295 Anderson (203, 263), Tarrant (258, 324) and Díez Reboso (325, 221–2) read creatus from Ω, while Goold (178, 140), von Albrecht (208, 582 and 876) and Ramírez de

166

Transmission and Textual Criticism

Verger (214, 49) prefer creatis, as proposed by Damsté (118, 64), adding a full stop after Deucalion. 11.302 Luck (264, 265) believes the juncture procis placuit to be idiomatic, as do codd., edd. vett. and Heinsius (49, 246 and 291n; cf. epist. 7.123–4), instead of procos habuit from Ω and most editors. Ramírez de Verger (266, 1272; 277, 333; 280, 737–8) and Díez Reboso (325, 225–8) also read procis placuit. 11.310 Ramírez de Verger (266, 1272; 277, 333; 280, 738–9) reads, in place of praerepta from Ω and editors, praeceptaque from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 246 and 291n), with the parallel from epist. 17.107. See Díez Reboso (325, 229–31). 11.317 Luck (263, 208) points out that Naugerius (15, adn.) found the spelling Philammon in a scholium to Apollonius of Rhodes (1.23), and therefore this spelling (i. e. not Phy-) is accepted by editors from D. Heinsius (37, 286) onwards. 11.319 Anderson (203, 263) reads Tonanti from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 325) and Díez Reboso (325, 235–6) opt for nitenti from the ‘codex Zulichemianus’ (cf. Burman, 55, 771 ‘nitenti quinque libri’) and Bentley (131, 31). 11.320–1 Von Albrecht (208, 584 and 876) punctuates before multis and after obfuit, like Ehwald (135, 335), while Goold (178, 142) and Anderson (203, 263) add a question mark after multis and punctuate obfuit huic certe! Scivoletto (239, 35 and 538) inserts a question mark after gloria, following Ehwald (ibid.), and reads multis / obfuit, huic certe! Tarrant (258, 325) and Díez Reboso (325, 233 and 237) add a question mark after multis and a comma after certe. 11.324 Goold (178, 142) and Anderson (203, 263) write cornu (Ω), while Tarrant (258, 326) and Díez Reboso (325, 238) read cornum (EN1), from the second declension, as does Slater (141, ad loc.). 11.328–9 Marzolla (209, 442 and 656) reads these lines thus: quem miser (o pietas!) ego non patruoque dolorem / corde tuli et fratri quae non solacia dixi! 11.328 Anderson (203, 326) reads quam miser (o pietas!) ego tum patrioque dolorem, while Galasso (236, 494 and 1366) changes patrioque for patriumque from N. Goold (178, 142), von Albrecht (208, 584 and 876), Scivoletto (239, 35–6 and 538), Tarrant (258, 326) and Díez Reboso (325, 242–4) opt for quam miser amplexans ego tum patriumque dolorem. The juncture miser amplexans appears in several codd. and in the editio Romana (2, ad loc.) before Naugerius (15, 140r), as well as in many other editors. See Luck (263, 209). 11.343 Tarrant (258, 326n) questions whether to omit this line.

Studies on particular passages: Book XI

167

11.344 Instead of nulli satis aequus from Ω and editors, Liberman (257, 89n) suggests nullo satiatus. The form nullo was conjectured by Hellmuth (101, 25–6 nullo satus ales), and satiatus was Riese’s proposal (115, xxiii nulli satiatus). A detailed discussion with other proposals can be seen in Díez Reboso (325, 251–3). 11.351 Tarrant (240, 437; 258, 327) omits the line, as suggested by Heinsius (49, 247 and 292n). Goold (178, 144), Anderson (203, 264) and Díez Reboso (325, 255–6) keep it as authentic. Luck (264, 265; 297, 59) prefers to read trepido from some codd. and Polle (112, 87), in place of trepidi from Ω and editors, and endorses heros from some codd. and Heinsius (ibid.; cf. Burman, 55, 774), instead of oris from Ω and editors. 11.361 Goold (178, 144) and Anderson (203, 264) read ponti from Ω, while von Albrecht (208, 586 and 876) and Tarrant favour templi from a number of codd. and Heinsius (49, 248). Luck (297, 59–60; 302, 108) and Díez Reboso (325, 260) opt for templis. 11.363 Possanza (265, 14) reads iuncta lacuna est huic densis obsessa salictis as opposed to iuncta palus huic est, densis obsessa salictis from Ω. 11.365 Luck (172, 59) is amenable to strepitans from some codd. and Constantius Fanensis (13, s. p. ‘corrigo strepitans ex vetere codice’),  a reading favoured by Goold (178, 146), Tarrant (258, 327) and Díez Reboso (325, 263–4). Anderson (203, 264) leans towards strepitu from another group of codd., while von Albrecht (208, 588 and 876), Scivoletto (239, 36 and 540), Galasso (236, 496 and 1368) and Ramírez de Verger (214, 49) opt for gravi et strepitu, which Slater (141, ad loc.) and Tarrant (258, 327) attribute to ‘Heinsius olim’, which is found in the Oxoniensis Bodl. Auct. S V 8 (o4, 288 ‘lege inde fragore gravi et strepitu’) and the Oxoniensis Bodl. Auct. S V 11 (o5, 310 ‘tu A f. et’). 11.366 Goold (178, 146) and Díez Reboso (325, 264–6) read iuncisque, as proposed by Korn (103, 266). Anderson (203, 264) and Tarrant (258, 327) prefer ulvisque, suggested by Burman (55, 774–5), although Tarrant is not averse to Korn’s proposal. Von Albrecht (208, 588 and 876) favours mucisque, like Polle (112, 26). Galasso (236, 496 and 1368) tends towards silvisque from many codd. 11.367 Goold (178, 146) and Holzberg (347, 562 and 804) read sparsus from M, as do Riese (89, 189) and Magnus (134, 424). Anderson (203, 264), Tarrant (258, 327) and Díez Reboso (325, 267–8) opt for crasso from Ω, although Tarrant questions in the app. crit. whether to keep sparsus. 11.368 Anderson (203, 264) and Díez Reboso (325, 268–9) read fulmineus from Ω. Goold (178, 146) and Tarrant (258, 327) opt for fulmineos from a group of codd., such as the editio Gryphiana (24, 320) and Heinsius (49, 248 and 293n).

168

Transmission and Textual Criticism

11.370 Liberman (257, 89n) endorses Watt’s amendment (216, 102), rabies in place of rabie from Ω and editors. 11.393 Anderson (203, 265) reads locus from Ω, while Goold (178, 148), von Albrecht (208, 590 and 876), Galasso (236, 498 and 1369), Scivoletto (239, 36 and 542), Tarrant (258, 328), with reservations, and Díez Reboso (325, 282–3) favour focus from a group of codd., such as Heinsius (49, 249 and 294–5n). Von Albrecht (ibid.) opts for nota, as suggested by Madvig (91, 90), instead of loca from Ω and editors. 11.401–2 Luck (264, 265) points out the variant in acri / caede, attributed to Merkel (82, 219), which in fact is already found, hidden in in agris from HM. See Díez Reboso (325, 285–6). 11.412 Luck (264, 265) notes the variants solamina from Faber (48, 316–17) and oblenimina from Korn (103, 248), in place of oblectamina from Ω and editors. 11.425 See on 3.266–7. 11.447 Luck (302, 108) is drawn to tulit, as are Burman (55, 783n) and Bothe (67, 228), instead of vult from Ω and editors. 11.464 Anderson (203, 267) and Reed (324, 92 and 348) favour relicta from  a group of ‘antiquiores’, such as Siebelis (117, 30) and Magnus (134, 429). Goold (178, 152), von Albrecht (208, 594 and 876), Tarrant (258, 331) and Díez Reboso (325, 319–20) opt for recurva from other ‘antiquiores’ and most editors. 11.466 Shackleton Bailey (169, 335) and Goold (178, 152) read prona, as proposed by Hellmuth (101, 27–8), instead of prima from Ω and editors. Liberman (257, 89n) believes that prima is equivalent to primum. 11.472 Anderson (203, 268) and Reed (324, 92 and 349) read locusque from Ω.  Goold (178, 154), Tarrant (258, 331) and Díez Reboso (325, 324–6) favour torusque from a group of codd., as noted by Heinsius (b2, 318r; cf. Burman, 55, 785 and III, 620 to trist. 4.3.23), surmised by Housman (151, 54), and approved by Edwards (119, 464) and Slater (141, ad loc.). However, Tarrant expresses doubts about accepting locusque. 11.477 Luck (264, 265) affirms that diducit may be the proper technical term, as opposed to deducit from Ω and editors. 11.484 Watt (216, 102) wonders whether hic should be sic, as does Tarrant (258, 332). See Luck (264, 265).

Studies on particular passages: Book XI

169

11.510–13 Tarrant (197, 147–8; 240, 437; 258, 333) considers these lines to be spurious, like Merkel (92, 230). Goold (178, 156), Anderson (203, 269), Díez Reboso (325, 352–4) and Holzberg (347, 570 and 804) keep them as authentic. 11.510 Anderson (203, 269) reads incursus from  a group of ‘antiquiores’, such as Ehwald (135, 343). Goold (178, 156), Scivoletto (239, 36 and 548), Tarrant (258, 333) and Díez Reboso (325, 354–5) opt for incursu from another group codd., as defended by Bach (76, 227). 11.513 Shackleton Bailey (169, 335–6) suggests reading alta in place of arma, and is followed by Goold (178, 156), Tarrant (258, 333) and Luck (264, 265). Anderson (203, 269), Reed (324, 96 and 213) and Díez Reboso (325, 359–60) keep arma from Ω. 11.518 Tarrant (240, 438; 258, 333) questions the authenticity of this line. 11.523 Anderson (203, 269) reads undae from Ω, while Goold (178, 156), Tarrant (258, 333) and Díez Reboso (325, 367–9) opt for ignes from M, as does Magnus (134, 432). 11.526 Luck (172, 59) proposes, albeit with reservations, reading urbi instead of urbis from Ω and editors. 11.529 Goold (178, 158), Anderson (203, 269) and Díez Reboso (325, 371) read celsi from a group of ‘antiquiores’. Von Albrecht (208, 598 and 876) and Tarrant (258, 333) support noviens, as proposed by Merkel (92, xxxiv and 230). 11.532 Liberman (257, 82) suggests reading conscendat in place of descendat from Ω and editors. Cf. Luck (298, 15). 11.534 Anderson (203, 270) reads segnius from Ω, while Goold (178, 158), Stadler (183), Tarrant (258, 334) and Díez Reboso (325, 377–8) opt for setius from Heinsius (49, 298n) and Burman (55, 789). 11.536 Due to Delz’s suspicion (‘per litteras’) over trepidare, Watt (231, 169), believes that turresque has been replaced by trepidare, a proposal supported by Liberman (257, 89n). 11.538 Goold (178, 158), Anderson (203, 270), Tarrant (258, 334) and Díez Reboso (325, 379–80) read veniunt from Ω, while Galasso (236, 506 and 1381) favours veniant from several ‘antiquiores’, such as Ehwald (135, 344) and Bömer (163, 381). 11.543 Anderson (203, 270) and Tarrant (258, 334) read quod cuique from many codd., while von Albrecht (208, 600 and 876) tends towards quodcumque from some mss., as does Ehwald (135, 344).

170

Transmission and Textual Criticism

11.552 Luck (172, 59–60) backs up the suggestion by Burman (55, 790), sinuatas … alas, based on Heinsius (49, 253 and 299n) and some codd. (GF E), sinuatas … undas (Tarrant, 258, 335 ‘an recte?’). See also Díez Reboso (325, 386–9). 11.558 Goold (178, 160), von Albrecht (208, 600 and 876), Galasso (236, 508 and 1382), Scivoletto (239, 36 and 552) and Tarrant (258, 335) read in aëra from a group of codd., while Anderson (203, 270) opts for in aëre from other manuscripts. 11.566–7 Stadler (185, 201–12) does not believe there to be an insertion in these lines. 11.591 Luck (264, 265) notes the suggestion spissa (Bentley, 131, 31) instead of iussi from Ω and editors. Luck (297, 60) reads sub rupe from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 254 and 300n), instead of sub nube from Ω and editors; cf. Slater (141, ad loc.). 11.599a Tarrant (193, 294–5; 197, 140–1; 258, 336) omits the line, as does Ω. 11.600–1 Tarrant (240, 429–30 and 437; 258, 336) deletes the two lines, preceded by Faber (48, epist. 2.69: he wanted to omit line 601) and Slater (141, ad loc.: he proposed placing line 600 before line 597). Anderson (203, 272), Reed (324, 102 and 360) and Díez Reboso (325, 415–18) keep them as authentic. 11.608 Goold (178, 162) and Tarrant (258, 337) read ne … reddat from most codd., as does Jahn (74, 732), while Anderson (203, 272) favours nec … reddit from a group of codd. Tarrant and Díez Reboso (325, 422) question whether to accept the latter option. Luck (302, 109) suggests reading quae … reddat from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 255 and 307n). 11.610 Bömer (163, 402) reads in medio … in atro, while Anderson (203, 272) tends towards in medio … in atra. Galasso (236, 510 and 1385–6), Goold (178, 162), Scivoletto (239, 36 and 554) and Tarrant (258, 337) opt for at medio … in antro; Possanza (265, 14–15) proposes reading torus ex ebeno in place of torus est ebeno from Ω. 11.611 Anderson (203, 272) reads unicolor from Ω. Goold (178, 162), Tarrant (258, 337) and Díez Reboso (325, 424–7) favour atricolor from Heinsius (49, 255 and 301–2n). 11.624 Luck (264, 265) notes the variant corda diurnis from Bs2 and Heinsius (49, 255 and 302n), replacing corpora duris from Ω and editors. 11.626 Ramírez de Verger (214, 49) reads imitantia from some codd. instead of imitamine from Ω and editors. 11.627 Goold (178, 164), Anderson (203, 273) and Tarrant (258, 337) read Herculea Trachine

Studies on particular passages: Book XI

171

from several codd. Possanza (265, 8) believes in reading Herculeam Trachina, which is exactly the reading from several codd. and the edd. vett., as shown by Díez Reboso (325, 430–1). 11.644–5 Anderson (203, 273) reads hic … solet from a group of codd., such as Magnus (134, 438). Goold (178, 164), von Albrecht (208, 606 and 876), Galasso (236, 512 and 1387), Tarrant (258, 338) and Díez Reboso (325, 443–4) prefer hi … solent from another group of manuscripts and many editors. 11.674 Anderson (203, 274) and Tarrant (258, 339) read lacrimas movet atque lacertos, although the latter questions whether lacrimans is correct. Luck (263, 208; 264, 265) points out that Naugerius (15, adn. ad loc. ‘fortasse legendum sit ingemit Halcyione lacrimans’) had suggested lacrimans before it was found in some codd. (EH2Lr4ac) and that Gronovius (Burman, 56, 351) had improved the text by reading ingemit Alcyone lacrimans motatque lacertos. Goold (178, 166) and Reed (324, 106 and 367) follow the latter suggestion. See also Díez Reboso (325, 461–3), who keeps lacrimas movet atque lacertos. 11.682–3 Luck (172, 60) proposes curans instead of curat from Ω and editors. In the next line he recalls the variant caedit from Heinsius (b3, p. 325; Burman, 55, 798). 11.695 Anderson (203, 275) and Díez Reboso (325, 472) read fugeres from a group of ‘antiquiores’. Goold (178, 168) and Tarrant (258, 340) opt for fugiens from several ‘antiquiores’ and editions up to Riese (89, xxii), although Tarrant questions whether to accept fugeres. 11.697 Liberman (257, 82–3) suggests reading coniux in place of tecum1, put into doubt by Tarrant (258, 340n ‘verum adhuc latet’). Luck (297, 60) proposes, without changing anything, the following punctuation (Heinsius, 49, 257 and 304n): me quoque duxisses! tecum fuit utile, tecum / ire mihi. Ramírez de Verger (214, 49) favours multum from M. See Díez Reboso (325, 474–7). 11.714 Luck (302, 109) supports Heinsius’ proposal (b3, 325v; cf. Burman, 55, 800n), notata oculis reminiscitur ante, instead of notata locis reminiscitur acta. 11.719 Luck (172, 60) reads nisi in place of qui from a group of ‘antiquiores’. 11.729 Anderson (203, 276) reads undas from Ω, while Goold (178, 170), Galasso (236, 518 and 1391), Tarrant (258, 341) and Díez Reboso (325, 493–4) prefer iras from several manuscripts, as defended by Heinsius (49, 258 and 305–6n ‘optime igitur praestantissimus Thuanae bibliothecae liber’). 11.742–4 Luck (264, 269) punctuates (fatis … alitibus), as does Leo (‘nescio ubi’). 11.743 Tarrant (258, 342 and 499) always reads tum, except for metrical reasons.

172

Transmission and Textual Criticism

11.747 Anderson (203, 276) and Díez Reboso (325, 502–4) read via tuta from Ω, while Goold (178, 172), Scivoletto (239, 36–7 and 562) and Tarrant (258, 342) opt for iacet unda de M. 11.748 Liberman (257, 83) considers it possible to read placatque in place of praestatque from Ω and editors. 11.757 Anderson (203, 277) and Díez Reboso (325, 509–10) read Laomedonve from Ω, while Goold (178, 172), von Albrecht (208, 614 and 876) and Tarrant (258, 343) opt for Laomedonque from V2, as have done many ancient and modern editors; cf. Galasso (236, 123). 11.763 Luck (263, 208) points out that the proper name, Alexiroe, was suggested by Heinsius (49, 259 and 306n). 11.769 Luck (263, 208) endorses prospicit from Naugerius (15, adn.). 11.784 Goold (178, 174) and Anderson (203, 278) read se dedit from some codd., while Galasso (236, 520 and 1396), Tarrant (258, 344) and Díez Reboso (325, 525–6) favour decidit from Ω, as defended by Magnus (134, 445). 11.795 Goold (178, 176), Tarrant (258, 344) and Díez Reboso (325, 532–3) read tenet from some codd., as well as Edwards (119, 467) and Slater (141, ad loc.); Anderson (203, 278) keeps manet from Ω. Book XII 12.3 Kenney (180, 34) criticises Bömer (170, 12) for preferring inani from some ‘anti­ quiores’, instead of inanes from Ω. 12.17 Goold (178, 180) and Anderson (203, 279) read avidoque … ore from a group of codd. Tarrant (258, 345) opts for avidaque … alvo from another group, although expresses doubts about the former option in the app. crit. 12.23 Anderson (203, 253) and Tarrant (258, 345) read servat from Ω, while von Albrecht (208, 618 and 877) favours superat from Merkel (77, 230). Goold (178, 182) and Liberman (257, 85) opt for the variant signat from one codd., such as Heinsius (b3, 330 ‘tertius Leidensis [Ld7]. placet’; cf. Burman, 55, 809) and Madvig (91, 90–1). See also Estévez, 358, ad loc. 12.26 Goold (178, 182), Anderson (203, 279) and Tarrant (258, 346) read urbi from some codd., although the latter (258, 346n ‘fort. recte’) and Luck (302, 109) both tend towards urbis from Ω.

Studies on particular passages: Book XII

173

12.43 Goold (178, 182), Anderson (203, 279) and Tarrant (258, 346) read legit from Ω, while von Albrecht (208, 620 and 877) opts for fecit from some ‘antiquiores’, as in line 27. 12.46 Luck (264, 265) notes the variant sonaci from Heinsius (in b3, 330 ‘lego etiam sonaci’; cf. Magnus, 134, 449), in place of sonanti from Ω. See on 1.333. 12.55 Von Albrecht (208, 620 and 877) reads Rumorum in place of rumorum. 12.61 Anderson (203, 280) retains recens from Ω, while Goold (178, 184) and Tarrant (258, 347) lean towards repens from Heinsius (49, 262 and 310n ‘repens scribendum vel invitis libris’). 12.71 Like Anderson (203, 280), Luck (263, 210–11) attributes Sigea to Naugerius, who includes it in his text (15, 149r) before Vivianus (17, 153r). 12.73 Anderson (203, 280) reads currus stabat Achillis from Ω.  Goold (178, 184), von Albrecht (208, 622 and 877), Galasso (236, 528 and 1404), Scivoletto (239, 37 and 570) and Tarrant (258, 347) read curru instabat Achilles, as proposed by Farnabius (40, 331), based on Verg. Aen. 1.468. 12.84–5 Goold (178, 186) does not punctuate after ferri and puts a full stop after ictu. Anderson (203, 281) adds a semicolon after ferri and a comma after ictu, while Tarrant (258, 348) inserts a full stop after ferri and a comma after ictu, as does Hartman (130, 150). 12.87 Luck (172, 60) reads quod in place of quid without a question mark after abesse. 12.118 Anderson (203, 282) and Tarrant (258, 349) read pectore from Ω. Goold (178, 188) and von Albrecht (208, 626 and 877) favour vertice from a group of codd. and edd. vett. 12.122 Goold (178, 188), Tarrant (258, 349) and Liberman (257, 73) endorse the juncture Cycnum repetit from Burman (55, 818n), while Anderson (203, 282) favours Cycnumque petit from Ω. 12.132 Ramírez de Verger (214, 49) reads retecti like Heinsius (o2, 297; 58, 674; cf. Burman, 55, 819), instead of reducto. 12.160 Anderson (203, 283) and Tarrant (258, 351) read pugnam … suamque from some codd. Goold (178, 192), Galasso (236, 534 and 1408) and Scivoletto (239, 37 and 574) tend towards pugnas … suasque from other manuscripts, such as editio Romana (2) and Magnus (134, 455). 12.163 Kenney (180, 34) recalls that there cannot have been alternation between either

174

Transmission and Textual Criticism

Achillem / Achillen or Ulixem / Ulixen, but only Achillem and Ulixem, for the simple reason that they are not Greek words, as Housman (151, 834–5) had already stated. 12.166 Goold (178, 192) and Anderson (203, 283) read iuveni from M, while Tarrant (258, 351) opts for iuvenis from Ω. 12.167 Goold (178, 192), Anderson (203, 283) and Tarrant (258, 351) read terebat from some codd. and the edd. vett.; Reed (324, 128 and 398–9) keeps ferebat from Ω. 12.187a Luck (264, 265) criticises Tarrant (258, 352) for failing to point out the text inserted by V4 after line 187, which is, however, cited by Anderson (203, 284): certe me poterit (potuit Constantius Fanensis, 13, s, p.), vidi (vixi V4m, Costantius Fanensis) qui tot iam saecula. 12.216 Zurli (234, 177–8; 343, 34–5) defends the juncture matrumque nurumque from almost every codd. instead of matrum nuruumque. 12.230–1 Goold (178, 196), Anderson (203, 285) and Tarrant (197, 138–9; 240, 437; 258, 353–4) set aside these lines from the text, as in some ancient codd. and Merkel (92, 244). 12.236 Goold (178, 196), Anderson (203, 285) and Tarrant (258, 354) read quem vastum vastior ipse from Ω, while Scivoletto (239, 37 and 580) prefers to read quem surgens vastior ipso from some ‘antiquiores’, like Merkel (92, 244). Luck (263, 211) believes that the editors should mention quem vasto vastior ipse from Planudes and Naugerius (15, adn.). 12.251 Goold (178, 198) and Anderson (203, 286) read relinquit from MN and most editors. Tarrant (258, 354) and Galasso (269, 123) favour reliquit from Ω. 12.252 Shackleton Bailey (169, 336) questions whether to read omnis in place of oris from Ω and editors. 12.273 Goold (178, 198), Anderson (203, 287) and Tarrant (258, 355) read perfringit from a group of codd. Galasso (236, 540 and 1418) prefers to read perstringit from N, as suggested by Magnus (134, 460). 12.278 Goold (178, 200), Anderson (203, 287) and Tarrant (258, 355) read at illud. Possanza (265, 8–9) endorses et illud from some codd. and the editio Romana (2), as well as commas after demittit and eduxit. The latter is also defended by Luck (302, 110). 12.279 Goold (178, 200) and Luck (302, 110) read trepida from some ‘antiquiores’, such as Heinsius (49, 269 and 318n), in place of tepida from Ω and most editors.

Studies on particular passages: Book XII

175

12.302 Luck (263, 211) attributes Lycabasque from several codd., instead of Licidasque from Ω, to Naugerius, who includes it in his text (15, 152v). 12.308 Goold (178, 202) reads Asbolus, while Anderson (203, 288) keeps Astylos from Ω. Tarrant (258, 357) writes Asbolos from codex V16, already by Baumgarten-Crusius (75, 470 ‘scribendum Asbolos ex Scut. Herc. 185’). Cf. Galasso (269, 130). 12.316–17 Luck (297, 61) prefers to read strepitu from M2 and Conrad of Mure (273, 131, l. 2109), and iunctis … vinis from Gronovius (53, 232–3; cf. 73, 121; Burman, 56, 353; Heinsius, 49, 319n) in place of fremitu and cunctis venis from Ω and editors. 12.327 Luck (302, 110) favours evellere, like the first editio Aldina (11, ad loc.), instead of tollere from Ω and editors. 12.350 Tarrant (258, 358) reads Lycotan, like the ‘exc. Calandrae’ (cf. Heinsius, 49, 320n), in place of Lycopen from Planudes, Usener (125, 210), Goold (178, 204) and Anderson (203, 289). 12.353 Luck (264, 266) notes that Tarrant (258, 359) does not comment on Thereaque from many codd., from the editio Romana (2) and Constantius Fanensis (13, s. p. ‘scribo Therea cum th aspirato’). See Estévez (358, ad loc.). 12.356 Liberman (257, 83–4) has no doubt that the authentic reading is solidoque … fundo, as written by Wakefield (66, 151 to Lucr. 1.890), with some reservations, as opposed to solidoque … dumo in Ω and editors; cf. Luck, 298, 15; 302, 110. Liberman’s suggestion is accepted by Courtney (313, 86). 12.362 Anderson (203, 290) reads iaculo from Ω, while Goold (178, 206), von Albrecht (208, 642 and 877) and Tarrant (258, 359) opt for iugulo from a group of codd., such as Heinsius (49, 171; cf. Burman, 55, 835). Courtney (313, 87) reads lateri. 12.369 Anderson (203, 290) reads mentis quoque from Ω.  Goold (178, 206) and Tarrant (258, 359) follow Heinsius (49, 321n) in his choice of contentis. 12.411 Anderson (203, 291) reads canentia from M and other codd., while Goold (178, 208), Galasso (236, 548 and 1422) and Tarrant (258, 361) favour candentia from some ‘antiquiores’, such as Heinsius (49, 272 and 323n), although Tarrant expresses some doubts about canentia. 12.434–8 Goold (178, 210), Anderson (203, 292), Tarrant (197, 140–1; 240, 437; 258, 336) and Reed (324, 146 and 426) keep these lines apart, as does Bothe (67, 248; 68, 125); cf. Possanza (265, 4).

176

Transmission and Textual Criticism

12.452 Goold (178, 212) and Tarrant (258, 362) follow the codex O (Heinsius, 49, 273 and 325n ‘malo Pelethronium cum Boxhornii fragmento’) in reading Pelethronium agreeing with Erigdupum from the following line, in place of Pelethronius agreeing with Macareus from the same line, like Ω and Anderson (203, 292); cf. Galasso (269, 130). 12.457 Anderson (203, 293) reads accubuit from Ω, while Goold (178, 212) and Tarrant (258, 363) favour occubuit from some codd., like many editors. 12.466 Luck (264, 266) points out the variant galeaque from some codd., edd. vett. and Heinsius (49, 274). 12.473 Ramírez de Verger (214, 49) reads parasti from M and edd. vett., to replace pararis from Ω and editors. 12.487 Goold (178, 214) and Tarrant (258, 364) read ut from a number of codd., such as Heinsius (49, 326n), while Anderson favours in from a group of them. Luck (302, 113) believes that the correct version is ceu verbera marmoris icti, as suggested by Koch (83, 343). 12.492–3 Goold (178, 214), Anderson (203, 294) and Tarrant (258, 364) read caecamque … manum from Ω, while Possanza (265, 9) believes that caecaque … manu from Nac makes better sense. 12.494 Goold (178, 214) reads rabidi from some codd., such as Heinsius (49, 271 and 326n); Anderson (203, 294) and Tarrant (258, 364) opt for rapidi from Ω, although the latter questions in the app. crit. whether to read rabidi. 12.509 Shackleton Bailey (169, 336) proposes, albeit with reservations, massa instead of silva from Ω and most editors. Goold (178, 216) takes up his suggestion in the text. 12.510 Goold (178, 216) and Anderson (203, 294) read insanis … viribus from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 365) opts for insani … Austri from a group of codd., such as Heinsius (49, 275 and 326–7n). 12.511 Luck (264, 266) points out the variant validam from the codex Gronovianus (cf.  Magnus, 134, 473), in place of validum from Ω and editors. 12.514 Anderson (203, 294) reads tumulo from Ω, while Goold (178, 216) and Tarrant (258, 365) opt for cumulo from a group of codd., like Naugerius (15, 156v) and many editions, although Tarrant questions in the app. crit. whether to read tumulo; see also Luck (263, 211).

Studies on particular passages: Book XII

177

12.518 Liberman (257, 84) proposes reading sese urgentia instead of se super aera from Ω and editors. Luck (264, 266) notes the suggestion of Korn (103, 274), superantia. 12.526 Luck (263, 212) defends the sequence tunc … tum, not tum .., tunc, as do Goold (178, 216), Anderson (203, 295) and Tarrant (258, 365). He affirms that Tarrant’s decision (258, 499 ‘tum ubique scripsi praeter locos ubi tunc metro postulatur’) was not a wise one, since tunc is more emphatic that tum; cf. Courtney (253); Gaertner (290). 12.528 Anderson (203, 295) reads clamore from Ω, while Goold (178, 218), Galasso (236, 556 and 1426) and Tarrant (258, 366) favour clangore from a number of ‘antiquiores’, as defended by Heinsius (49, 275 and 327n). 12.538 Luck (302, 110) reads placido … ore from several codd. in place of tacito … ore from Ω and editors. 12.543 Goold (178, 218), Degl’Innocenti Pierini (198, 31–5), Galasso (236, 556 and 1427) and Tarrant (258, 366) read rescindere from a group of ‘recentiores’, as does Heinsius (49, 276 and 327–8n). Anderson (203, 295) opts for restringere from a group of codd., while Scivoletto (239, 37 and 596) tends towards retexere from P2, like the editio Romana (2). 12.545 Anderson (203, 295) reads quoque gessit from Ω, while Scivoletto (239, 37 and 596) writes fide, di, gessit. Goold (178, 218) and Tarrant (258, 366) prefer (di!) gessit from Heinsius (49, 276, 328n and 46, 161n to epist. 18.102). 12.552 Liberman (257, 84) defends reading intulit from some codd., as does Burman (55, 847), as opposed to impulit from Ω and editors. See also Luck (264, 266; 298, 15–16) and Estévez (358, ad loc.). 12.555 Goold (178, 218) adds a semicolon after viribus and est, while Anderson (203, 296) inserts a comma after viribus and a colon after est. Scivoletto (239, 37 and 598) adds a semicolon after viribus and a comma after est. Tarrant (258, 367) prefers to insert a full stop after viribus and a semicolon after est. 12.564 Goold (178, 220) reads hanc from M, as does Merkel (92, 253). Anderson (203, 296) and Tarrant (258, 367) opt for hunc from Ω. 12.570 Goold (178, 220) and Anderson (203, 296) read qua from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 367) favours quae from some codd., like Merkel (92, xxxvi and 253). 12.571 Shackleton Bailey (169, 336) believes that adflicti captures the sense more effectively than adfixi from Ω; Goold (178, 220) also reads adflicti.

178

Transmission and Textual Criticism

12.581 Goold (178, 220), von Albrecht (208, 656 and 877), Ramírez de Verger (214, 49), Galasso (236, 1430n), Scivoletto (239, 37 and 600) and Tarrant (258, 368) read Phaethontida from several codd., as read by Naugerius (15, 157v). Anderson (203, 296) and Galasso (236, 558) keep Cygneida from Ω. 12.592 Luck (263, 213; 264, 266) comments that Naugerius (15, adn.) reads the variants cur tamen and et tamen in some codd., in place of cum tamen from Ω and editors. He also points out that Constantius Fanensis (13, s. p. ‘Non cum sed cur boni codd. habent’) reads cur … Achilles from some codd. Finally, Luck considers that Boissonade’s proposal (69, 543n ‘videtur legisse dum, non cum’) from Planudes, dum tamen, is an attractive solution. 12.600–1 Liberman (257, 72) believes that the adjective densa … tela should go after rara… tela. 12.606 Anderson (203, 297) reads direxit from Ω, while Goold (178, 222) and Tarrant (258, 369 and 497) opt for derexit, like Polle (117, 63). 12.614 Anderson (203, 298) reads cremabat from a group of ‘antiquiores’. Goold (178, 224), Kenney (180, 34), von Albrecht (208, 658 and 878) and Tarrant (258, 369) opt for cremarat from another group of ‘antiquiores’, such as Edwards (119, 472). 12.624 Tarrant (258, 369) supports the proposal of Bentley (131, 32), solis … creato; cf. Edwards, 119, 472. Anderson (203, 298) favours soli … creato from Ω, while Hall (164, 69), Goold (178, 224), Kenney (180, 34) and Galasso (236, 562 and 1434) opt for creatis, as suggested by Heinsius (49, 330n). 12.625 Goold (178, 224), Kenney (180, 34) and Galasso (236, 562 and 1434) read Laertaque from a group of codd. and Heinsius’ text (49, 278). Tarrant (258, 369) reads Laerteque from several codd., following the proposal of Heinsius in his notes (49, 330n ‘Laërteque nonnulli. rectius’). Anderson (203, 298) keeps Laertiadaeque (‘con un’intollerabile sinizesi di a con e’, as noted by Galasso, 269, 129; cf. Possanza, 265, 2) and erroneously assigns Laerteque to Jahn (74, 807). Book XIII 13.6 Luck (264, 269) supports Tarrant’s punctation Ulixes? (258, 370n). 13.8 Against the majority paradosis hac a classe, Rivero (350; 355, ad loc.), suggests reading hac hac classe. 13.16 Goold (178, 228), Anderson (203, 299), Tarrant (258, 370) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) read peti from Ω. Hopkinson (238, 47 and 83) favours peto from several codd. and Magnus (134, 480n).

Studies on particular passages: Book XIII

179

13.17 Luck (264, 269) attributes the punctuation aemulus: Aiaci to Francius (1604–1705). Cf. also Burman (55, 856): ‘Mallem distinguere […] Aemulus. Ajaci […] Ut Ajax Ulixi opponatur, & ita Francius notaverat in ora libri sui’. 13.19 Rivero (353, 52; 355, ad loc.) reads certaminis from Ω, in place of temptaminis from some codd. ‘antiquiores’ and editors based on Merkel (92, 256). 13.25 Goold (178, 230), Anderson (203, 299) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) read Aeacus from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 371 and 483) writes Aeacos. Richmond (281, 131) believes that Tarrant’s suggestion is unnecessary. 13.38 Tarrant (258, 131) reads sed from several codd., while Anderson (203, 299), Hopkinson (238, 48), Galasso (269, 126 n. 3) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) keep et from Ω. Huyck (205, 73), Fink (288, 624) and Rivero (ibid.) parenthesise (et sibi inutilior), as proposed by Magnus (134, 482). 13.40 Luck (172, 60; 264, 266) reads optima nunc sumet qui instead of optima num sumat, quia. 13.49 Luck (264, 266) notes the variant preceris from some codd. instead of precaris from Ω. The variant already appears in the editio Veneta from 1474 (4), as passed on by Calphurnius, and in Regius (10, s. p.); cf. Heinsius (49, 280 and 332n) and Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.51 Goold (178, 230) and Tarrant (258, 372) read heu! pars una ducum. Anderson (203, 300) punctuates heu, pars una ducum. Rivero (355, ad loc.) parenthesises (heu! pars una ducum). Luck (263, 213–14) points out that Naugerius (15, adn.) prefers to read et pars una ducum, a juncture he accepts on condition that at can be read in the previous line, instead of et, as noted by Burman (55, 860 ‘at nunc Oxon. et Leid. [Ld7]’; Heinsius already in b3, 351r). Luck (ibid.) also reads spes magna ducum, based on spes from Postgate (in Edwards, 119, 472) and magna from Bothe (68, 127–8), a reading which the latter found in the codex B14, and which can also be located in editio Veneta from 1472 (3, ad loc.). See Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.53 Luck (263, 214) points out the variant venaturque aliturque from several codd., mentioned by Naugerius (15, adn.), which he defends as a brachylogy, i. e., ‘venatur aves et avibus alitur’. See Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.57 Goold (178, 232), Huyck (205, 74 and 111), Hopkinson (238, 48 and 91–2) and Tarrant (240, 437; 258, 372) omit the line, as does Merkel (92, 257). Anderson (203, 300) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) keep it as authentic. 13.60 Luck (302, 111) favours reading clam, as suggested by Burman (55, 861n), in place of iam from Ω and editors. See also Rivero (355, ad loc.), who accepts it.

180

Transmission and Textual Criticism

13.74 Anderson (203, 301) reads metuentem from Ω, while Galasso (236, 568 and 1441), Goold (178, 232), Tarrant (258, 372) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) tend towards trepidantem from a group of codd. and many editions. 13.78 Luck (264, 266) notes the variant vultumque from Planudes and some codd., and from Schepperus (50, 342), instead of vulnusque in Ω. See Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.86 Luck (302, 111) reads comminus, like Heinsius (49, 281 and 333n) from an ‘Oxo­ niensis’, in place of eminus from Ω and editors. See Rivero (338, 164–5; 355, ad loc.). 13.94 Rivero (338, 164) criticises the limitations of Tarrant’s minimalist app. crit. (258, 373n) in the case of spem / spes. Rivero (350; 355, ad loc.) defends the reading pro tot date documented in Lr22V30 and the editio Romana (2, ad loc.). 13.120 Possanza (265, 11) supports the punctuation of Ehwald (135, 385) as parentheses (quid verbis opus est?), understanding denique, spectemur agendo! 13.129 Rivero (352, 320–3; 355, ad loc.) defends the minority variant gestaminis, as do Magnus (134, 486n) and Fabbri (137, 144n), instead of certaminis from Ω and editors. 13.130 Possanza (265, 12) observes that Tarrant (258, 375) omits the variant potiremur from Ω. 13.144 Luck (264, 266) identifies Constantius Fanensis as the hand who corrected Arcesius in V24. Rivero (355, ad loc.) endorses the reading Arcisius, defended by Ehwald (135, 386), Huyck (205, 141) and Galasso (236, 574 and 1445), in place of Acrisius from Ω or Arcesius. 13.158 Tarrant (258, 376) incorporates into the text Huyck’s suggestion (205, 141), ille … ille, which already appears in some codd., and which was also defended by Hardie (328, 20 and 239). Goold (178, 238), Anderson (203, 303) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) read ille … illa from many codd. and editions based on editio Bononiensis (1, s. p.). Luck (264, 266) prefers to read num sperat ut auferat arma?, like Constantius Fanensis (13, s. p.) and Heinsius (49, 283 and 334n), in place of num, si petat, auferat ille? from other codd. and many editors. 13.175 Luck (263, 215) points out that Naugerius proposed Syron, which he undoubtedly incorporated (15, 160 v), instead of Scyrum from Ω and editors. Gronovius accepted his proposal (53, 383–4), which Petitus (41, 28) had suggested earlier in this passage and in Sen. Tro. 226. Huyck (205, 79) and Tarrant (258, 377) read Scyron, as in the first editio Aldina (11, s. p.). See Rivero (355, ad loc.).

Studies on particular passages: Book XIII

181

13.179 Luck (264, 266) notes the proposal by Markland (71, 407b-408a), illis his to replace illis haec from Ω and editors. See also Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.189 Goold (178, 240) and Ramírez de Verger (266, 1342) read hunc from some codd. and from Vollmer (in Magnus, 134, 489). Anderson (203, 304), Huyck (205, 80), Hopkinson (238, 52) and Tarrant (258, 377) opt for nunc from Ω, while Luck (264, 266) prefers to read hanc from some codd., the editio Bononiensis (1, s. p.) and other editions. Luck also endorses the parentheses including (fateor fassoque ignoscat Atrides) from P38, the editio Veneta from 1474 (4, s. p.) and Bach (76, 308; Tarrant, 258, 377n assigns the parentheses erroneously (fassoque … Atrides) to Bach). In the texts of Anderson (203, 304) and Tarrant (258, 377) parentheses are not added. Goold (178, 240) and Ramírez de Verger (266, 1342) follow Bach’s punctuation. Rivero (355, ad loc.) punctuates (fassoque ignoscat Atrides), as do most editors. 13.221 Anderson (203, 305) and Hardie (328, 24 and 247) read capit? det from Ω. Tarrant (258, 379) favours capit, dat from some codd. Rivero (355, ad loc.) follows Riese (115, xxv) in reading capit? cur non to replace capit, dat quod, and refashions lines 220–1 thus: Quodque potest, pugnet, det quod vaga turba sequatur! Cur non arma capit? cur non remoratur ituros? 13.230 Tarrant (240, 438) questions the authenticity of the line; cf. Kenney (180, 34–5). 13.232 Anderson (203, 306) reads audeat from several ‘antiquiores’. Huyck (205, 82) and Galasso (236, 578 and 1410) tends towards audet et from Ω and many editions since editio Bononiensis (1). Goold (178, 214), Hopkinson (238, 54), Scivoletto (239, 37 and 618), Tarrant (258, 379), Luck (302, 111) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) opt for audet at from a number of codd., such as Jahn (74, 826). 13.233 Anderson (203, 306), Hopkinson (238, 54) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) read protervus from Ω, while Goold (178, 244), Huyck (205, 82), Tarrant (258, 379) opt for protervis from a group of codd., such as Heinsius (49, 235 and 336n). 13.235 Anderson (203, 306) and Hopkinson (238, 54 and 130) read reposco from a group of codd. Goold (178, 244), Huyck (205, 82), Tarrant (258, 379) and Rivero (353, 52–3; 355, ad loc.) favour repono from some manuscripts, Marcilius (34, 52) and Bentley (131, 32). 13.240 Rivero (353, 53–4; 355, ad loc.) defends reading Ulixi from Mpc instead of Ulixe from Ω and editors. 13.242 Luck (264, 269) supports the parentheses (nec … iubebat) from Magnus (134, 491).

182

Transmission and Textual Criticism

13.243 Anderson (203, 306) and Possanza (265, 9) read si tamen from a group of codd. with nec … iubebat from the previous line in parentheses. Goold (178, 244), Hopkinson (238, 54 and 132), Tarrant (258, 380) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) opt for sic tamen from a number of codd., such as Heinsius (49, 285 and 337n). Huyck (205, 82 and 155) obelizes †si tamen et†, and suggests, although with reservations, sponte mea, while Liberman (257, 89n) prefers to read sed tamen, like the edd. vett. and Fabbri (137, 52). 13.244 Anderson (203, 306) reads etiam from a group of codd. Goold (178, 244), Huyck (205, 82), Hopkinson (238, 54), von Albrecht (208, 678 and 878), Tarrant (258, 380) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) favour eadem from another group, such as, for example, Heinsius (49, 285). 13.254 Goold (178, 246), Anderson (203, 306), Hopkinson (238, 54), Tarrant (258, 380) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) read fueritque benignior from Ω. Huyck (205, 83 and 159–60) obelizes it, †fueritque benignior†, while Galasso (236, 580 and 1451) only obelizes the verb, †fueritque†. 13.257 Goold (178, 246), Anderson (203, 306), Hopkinson (238, 55) and Tarrant (258, 380) read Iphitiden et from Ω, while Huyck (205, 83 and 161), Galasso (236, 580 and 1451–2) and Rivero (330; 355, ad loc.) favour Iphitidenque from To2 and some edd. vett., such as the first editio Aldina (1502, s. p.) and Naugerius (15, 162v). 13.262 Hardie (328, 252) is amenable to Huyck’s suggestion (205, 163), testes, in place of cives, and rejects the proposal of Heinsius to read en instead of et; cf. Boyd, 345, 28. In reality, it was Heinsius (49, 337n) who read sunt en mihi vulnera testes; cf. Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.264 Goold (178, 246), Anderson (203, 307), Hopkinson (238, 55) and Tarrant (258, 381) read diduxit from a group of codd. Huyck (205, 83 and 165–6), Hardie (328, 26 and 252) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) opt for deduxit from another group, as does Tarrant, albeit with reservations (258, 381n). 13.271–2 Luck (264, 269) affirms that, if ne is read in line 271, a comma must be added after honorem. 13.273 Goold (178, 246), Huyck (205, 83), von Albrecht (208, 680 and 878), Hopkinson (238, 55), Tarrant (258, 381) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) read sub imagine from a group of codd., while Anderson (203, 307) opts for sed imagine from another group of manuscripts. 13.282 Luck (264, 226) points out that Tarrant (258, 381n) indicates ‘ fort. dolorque’ in place of timorque from Ω, when the variant appears in some codd. and is already quoted in Ciofanus (29, 242 ‘in uno meo nec me lacrimae, luctusque dolorque’), Burman

Studies on particular passages: Book XIII

183

(55, 879), Magnus (134, 494) and Slater (141, ad loc.). Hardie (328, 28 and 254) incorporates dolorque in the text. See also Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.294–5 Goold (178, 248) considers spurious line 295. Huyck (205, 84 and 181–3) and Tarrant (240, 347; 258, 382) delete both lines, based on Lejay (120, 71 “elle [‘la fin du vers’] … aura été interpolé d’après viii 207”; cf. Liberman, 257, 89n) and Bentley (131, 31 ‘del. 295’). Anderson (203, 308), Hopkinson (238, 56), Hardie (328, 28) and Rivero (331, 161–9) consider them authentic. Luck (264, 266) criticises Tarrant’s radical decision. 13.294 Anderson (203, 308), Huyck (205, 84), Hardie (328, 28 and 257) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) read diversasque urbes from Ω, while Goold (178, 248), von Albrecht (208, 878), with reservations, and Tarrant (258, 382) favour diversosque orbes from a number of codd. and Heinsius (49, 338n). 13.312 Hardie (328, 30) tends towards praestoque, as speculated by Merkel (92, xxxvii and 264), instead of pretioque from Ω and editors. 13.314–15 Luck (264, 269) parenthesises (factum … enim), like Ehwald (135, 392). Cf. Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.332–3 On these problematic lines, read Huyck, 205, 186–8. Tarrant (193, 295–6; 240, 348; 258, 383), Hopkinson (238, 57 and 152) and Rivero (331, 169–77) omit line 332, as do Muretus (in Ciofanus, 27, 176) and Heinsius (49, 288 and 339n). Line 333 is suspicious for Anderson (203, 309n) and Tarrant (193, 296; 240, 438; 258, 383). Rivero (331, 175) believes that the expression mecumque reducere nitar is authentic. 13.345 Goold (178, 252), Anderson (203, 309), Hopkinson (238, 56) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) read afferre from Ω. Tarrant (258, 384) tends towards auferre from a group of codd., as do Regius (10, s. p.) and Huyck (205, 87 and 189–90). 13.371 Kenney (180, 35) comments on the variant quos from some codd., which also appears in Regius (10, s. p.) and in Heinsius (49, 340n), and which is not commented on by either Anderson (203, 310) or Tarrant (258, 385). 13.374 Tarrant (240, 438; 258, 385) doubts the authenticity of this line. 13.377–9 Tarrant (240, 430–2 and 437; 258, 385) omits these lines (Heinsius [49, 340n] and Bentley [131, 32] already deleted lines 378–9, as did Hopkinson, 238, 58 and 158). Anderson (203, 310) and Hardie (328, 36 and 267) keep them, and Rivero (349) defends their authenticity, while Huyck (205, 200–2) considers them dubious. 13.378 Kenney (in Hopkinson, 238, 158; Luck, 264, 266) proposes audendum in place of audax from Ω. Cf. Hardie, 328, 267; Rivero (355, ad loc.).

184

Transmission and Textual Criticism

13.385 Anderson (203, 310) reads sustulit from Ω, while Goold (178, 256), Huyck (205, 89), von Albrecht (208, 686 and 879), Hopkinson (238, 59), Tarrant (258, 385) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) favour sustinet from V3 and many editions. 13.392 Anderson (203, 311) and Tarrant (258, 386) read ferro from Ω. Goold (178, 256) and von Albrecht (208, 688 and 879) opt for ferrum from several ‘antiquiores’, such as Merkel (77, 256). Huyck (205, 89 and 207–8) obelizes † qua patuit ferro †. See Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.400b Rivero (339) considers the arguments for and against the line, transmitted by part of the manuscript tradition: transierat. tandem portu votoque potitus. 13.403 Anderson (203, 311) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) read estque fero from some ‘antiquiores’. Goold (178, 256), von Albrecht (208, 688 and 879), Hopkinson (238, 59) and Tarrant (258, 386) opt for est sero from some ‘deteriores’ and Heinsius (49, 341n). 13.404–7 Goold (178, 256), Tarrant (240, 347; 258, 386) and Hopkinson (238, 59 and 164) omit these lines, based on Bentley (131, 32 ‘404–6 del.’) and Bothe (68, 135–6). Anderson (203, 311) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) consider them authentic. 13.410 Anderson (203, 311) reads tractisque from some codd., while Hopkinson (238, 59 and 165–6) opts for raptata, as read by Heinsius at one time (49, 341n). Galasso (236, 590 and 1460) prefers tracta atque from H2ac, as proposed by Vollmer (in Magnus, 134, 500). Tarrant (258, 386) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) tend towards tractata from a group of manuscripts. 13.423 Anderson (203, 312) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) write Hecube. Goold (178, 258), Hopkinson (238, 60) and Tarrant (258, 387 and 488, with  a reference to Housman, Cl. Pap. 835) prefer Hecabe, like Bothe (68, 136). 13.427 Liberman (257, 85) suggests reading raptum (already in Burman, 55, 891 cano from vertice raptum; Bothe, 67, 265; Baumgarten-Crusius, 75, 509), or else carptum or demptum instead of crinem from Ω and editors. See Luck (298, 16), and Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.432 Rivero (352, 323–5) defends ab arvis from some ‘recentiores’ and from Bothe (68, 136) against ab armis in Ω and editors. 13.436 Goold (178, 258), Anderson (203, 312), Tarrant (258, 387) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) read demisit from many codd. Hopkinson (238, 60) favours defigit from other manuscripts, like some edd. vett. and Heinsius (49, 291 and 342n). 13.440 Luck (302, 111–12) and Hardie (328, 40 and 279) read placatum from a group of ‘recentiores’, in place of pacatum from Ω and editors. See Rivero (355, ad loc.).

Studies on particular passages: Book XIII

185

13.442 Luck (264, 266) believes that the variant minaci in Ld8, instead of minanti from Ω, should have been mentioned by Tarrant (258, 388); cf. Heinsius (49, 291 and 342n); see on 1.91. 13.444 Goold (178, 260) reads iniustum, as does Magnus (134, 501n), while Luck (297, 61–2) prefers Slater’s suggestion (141, ad loc.), infesto instead of iniusto from Ω. Breitenbach (145, 904 and 1132), Hopkinson (238, 60 and 170), Hardie (328, 40 and 280) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) also accept iniusto. 13.451 Luck (264, 266) notes the proposal of Faber (48, 319–20), fortiter infelix in place of fortis et infelix from Ω and editors. See Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.456 Goold (178, 260), Hopkinson (238, 61), Tarrant (258, 388) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) read inque from several codd., such as the editio Gryphiana from 1546 (21) and Heinsius (49, 291 and 342n), while Anderson (203, 313) favours utque from Ω. 13.460 The app. crit. of Tarrant (258, 388) does not match the text: he reads ferrem from a group of codd., as suggested by Heinsius (49, 291 and 342n), and accepts Rivero (355, ad loc.). Goold (178, 260) and Anderson (203, 313) favour vellem from Ω. 13.461 Hopkinson (238, 81 and 172) and Tarrant (240, 347; 258, 388) delete the line based on Suchier (81, 640), who excluded lines 460–1 from the text. Anderson (203, 313) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) keep them as authentic. 13.468 Rivero (355, ad loc.) writes the line in parentheses. 13.471 Goold (178, 260), Anderson (203, 313), Hopkinson (238, 61), Tarrant (258, 389) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) read non from several ‘antiquiores’; Hardie (328, 42 and 285) opts for nunc from other ‘antiquiores’; cf. E. Hec. 357. Hendry (213, 247–8) proposes reading roget instead of rogat from the manuscripts, and removing the parentheses from lines 470–1. 13.482 Anderson (203, 313) reads quid … cruoris from a group of ‘antiquiores’, while Goold (178, 262), Tarrant (258, 389) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) opt for quot … cruores from M, already defended by Rappold (105, 411–12). 13.487 Anderson (203, 313) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) read ediderat from Ω. Goold (178, 262), Hopkinson (238, 62) and Tarrant (258, 389) opt for edideras from Heinsius (49, 292 and 343n). 13.490 Goold (178, 262), von Albrecht (208, 694 and 879), Galasso (236, 596 and 1466), Hopkinson (238, 62), Tarrant (258, 490) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) read in vulnera from P2, while Anderson (203, 314) favours in vulnere from Ω.

186

Transmission and Textual Criticism

13.491 Luck (263, 215) supports the variant legit from some codd., like Heinsius (49, 292 and 343–4n), in place of tegit from Ω and editors. 13.495 Goold (178, 262), Solodow (188, 145), Hopkinson (238, 62 and 177), Galasso (236, 596 and 1466), Tarrant (258, 390) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) read tuum, mea vulnera from several codd. and Heinsius (49, 292 and 344n), while Anderson (203, 314) tends towards meum, tua vulnera from another group of manuscripts. Rivero (355, ad loc.) prefers to read pectus from some ‘antiquiores’, instead of vulnus from other manuscripts and editors. 13.496 Anderson (203, 314) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) read et from Ω.  Goold (178, 262), Hopkinson (238, 62) and Tarrant (258, 390) favour en from Heinsius (49, 292 and 344n; he erroneously attributes it to P2), although Tarrant expresses doubts about the suitability of et. 13.517 Hopkinson (238, 63 and 180) and Hardie (328, 46 and 293) read damnosa, like the edd. vett. and Heinsius (49, 293 and 344n), in place of annosa from Ω, as do Anderson (203, 314), Tarrant (258, 391), Luck (302, 112) and Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.523–4 Luck (264, 266 and 269) puctuates at, puto, … avitis? Cf. 2.566, 3.266–7; Rivero, 355, ad loc. 13.523 Ramírez de Verger (214, 50) and Rivero (353, 54–5; 355, ad loc.) read donabere from some ‘antiquiores’ and Magnus (134, 505), instead of dotabere from Ω and editions. 13.532 Hopkinson (238, 181) reads insonti from some codd. (cf. Heinsius, 49, 345n), in place of immiti from Ω and editors. 13.542 Rivero (353, 55 [where sidera, not aethera must be read]; 355, ad loc.) defends the reading tollit torvos from N in place of torvos extollit / sustollit from Ω and editors. 13.544 Luck (264, 269) adds parentheses to (vulnera praecipue), reads iram instead of ira, and does not believe that lines 544–5 should be omitted, as Tarrant (258, 392n) does, although with reservations. 13.549 Anderson (203, 315) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) write Hecube, while Goold (178, 266), Hopkinson (238, 64) and Tarrant (258, 392 and 488) prefer Hecabe, as does Bothe (68, 140). See on line 423. 13.554 Goold (178, 268), Anderson (203, 316) and Hopkinson (238, 64) read adsuetus from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 392) obelizes it (‘vix sanum’). Rivero (341, 143–5) proposes reading adductus from Polle (113, 270); Holzberg (347, 664 and 804) tends towards allectus from Heinsius (49, 345n).

Studies on particular passages: Book XIII

187

13.556 See on line 549. 13.560–1 Hardie (328, 48 and 300) omits line 560 and reads in line 561 involat from several codd., such as Heinsius (49, 294 and 345n), replacing invocat from Ω. Rivero (341, 145–7) suggests a new app. crit. for these lines, although he doubts their authenticity (355, ad loc.). 13.562 Anderson (203, 316) reads expilatque from some ‘antiquiores’ as  a ‘metaphoram audacem’. Hopkinson (238, 64 and 185) and Tarrant (258, 392) favour expellitque from many codd., while Luck (263, 216) timidly defends effoditque from Planudes, but endorses expoliatque in 264, 266. See Rivero (355, ad loc.). Hopkinson (ibid.) reads potentem from many codd. and Heinsius (49, 294 and 346n) instead of nocentem from many other manuscripts and most editors. 13.591 Shackleton Bailey (169, 336) questions whether to read orbi in place of tibi from Ω and editors. 13.592 Liberman (257, 85) proposes reading signo instead of servo from Ω and editors. Cf. Luck, 298, 15. 13.602–3 Goold (178, 270) reads Nais … nebulas, as proposed by Housman (151, 171), while Liberman (257, 85) and Ramírez de Verger (276, 36–7) suggest reading densas … nebulas in place of natas … nebulas from Ω and many editors. Watt (216, 102) proposes in auras to replace natas. Burman’s suggestion (55, 902), latas, is accepted by von Albrecht (208, 702 and 879). Hopkinson (238, 65 and 189) comments on the proposal caecas from B. Harries (‘per litteras’). Liberman (in Luck, 298, 16; cf. 264, 266) is undecided between gratas (so Slater, 136, 176 ‘varia lectio gratas’ in the Harleianus 2742, and 141, ad loc.) and the above-mentioned densas (already Kenney ‘per litteras’ to Luck, 298, 16). Ramírez de Verger (266, 1963; 276, 37) suggests as possibilities densas, inertes or spissas, although he is more inclined towards densas. Hardie (328, 50 and 308) favours lentas from Postgate (in Edwards, 119, 476). Rivero (341, 147–50; 355, ad loc.) suggests nantes. 13.605 Anderson (203, 317) reads colorem from Ω, while Galasso (236, 602 and 1472), Goold (178, 270), Tarrant (258, 394) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) opt for calorem from several codd., such as Heinsius (49, 296 and 346n). 13.610 Luck (263, 216; 264, 266) defends the variant of some ‘recentiores’ et ter sonus instead of et consonus from Ω, as approved by Ciofanus (29, 252 ‘quod non damno’). See Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.619 Anderson (203, 318) and Hopkinson (238, 66 and 191–2) read voce from some ‘antiquiores’. Goold (178, 272), Tarrant (258, 395) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) opt for

188

Transmission and Textual Criticism

more from other ‘antiquiores’, as do, for example, Edwards (119, 477) and Slater (141, ad loc.; also caede with reservations). 13.626–7 Luck (264, 269–70) supports the parentheses of (de tantis … suum) from Tarrant (258, 395). 13.628 Goold (178, 272), Anderson (203, 318), Tarrant (258, 395), Casali (285, 183 n. 6) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) read limina from Ω. Hopkinson (238, 66 and 194–5) and Hardie (328, 52 and 316) prefer litora from a number of codd. 13.638 Goold (178, 274), Hall (164, 69), Kenney (180, 35), Tarrant (258, 396) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) read positique from O4 and Heinsius (49, 196 and 347n). Anderson (203, 318) keeps positisque from Ω. 13.653 Rivero (352, 325–7) edits † canaeque † and even goes so far as to consider the possibility that the authentic reading is donumque. 13.666 Rivero (353, 55–6; 355, ad loc.) favours reading per quos from M in place of per quem from some ‘antiquiores’ and editors since Merkel (92, 273). 13.679 Luck (264, 266–7) recalls the suggestion of Magnus (134, 513n), moenia, instead of litora. See Rivero (355, ad loc.). Hardie (328, 56 and 322–3) punctuates dat, munus, as opposed to dat munus. 13.684 Tarrant (258, 398) and Holzberg (347, 672 and 804) opt for reading Lindius of the Lactantian narrationes (cf. Magnus, 134, 702); cf. Plin. nat. 34.141. Goold (178, 276), Anderson (203, 320) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) keep Hȳleus from some codd. and most editors. Hopkinson (238, 68 and 201) and Hardie (328, 56 and 323) obelize it, and Galasso (269, 130–1) expresses doubts about Lindius. 13.693–4 Hopkinson (238, 68 and 203) deletes these lines, as does Bentley (131, 32). Rivero (340) puts the two lines in parentheses. Goold (178, 276) and Marzolla (209, 538 and 656) accept Merkel’s proposal (92, xxxviii and 274), hac … illac, while Anderson (203, 320), Hopkinson (ibid.), Tarrant (258, 398) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) keep hanc … illam from Ω. 13.693 Anderson (203, 320) reads pectus from Ω and most editors. Von Albrecht (208, 708 and 879) and Tarrant (258, 398) read vulnus from a group of ‘antiquiores’, like Merkel (77, 264). See Rivero (355, ad loc.). Hardie (328, 58 and 325; Liberman ‘per litteras’ accepts it) conjectures per vulnus instead of dare vulnus from Ω and editors. 13.694 Anderson (203, 320) reads vulnera from several ‘antiquiores’ and a group of codd., while Marzolla (209, 538 and 656) reads guttura. Goold (178, 276), von Albrecht

Studies on particular passages: Book XIII

189

(208, 708 and 879), Hopkinson (238, 68 and 203), Tarrant (258, 398) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) opt for pectora from others, as do Jahn (74, 868), Edwards (119, 477), Slater (141, ad loc.) and Goold (ibid.). 13.695 Liberman (257, 89n) supports the proposal of Lejay (120, 72), pulchrasque instead of pulchrisque from Ω and editors. Recently, Liberman (‘per litteras’) has considered clarisque instead. 13.698 Goold (178, 278), Anderson (203, 320), Tarrant (258, 398) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) read Coronas from most codd. Von Albrecht (208, 710 and 879), Galasso (236, 1482 ‘difficile la scelta tra il femminile e il maschile Coronos’), Hopkinson (238, 68 and 203) and Fink (288, 666) favour Coronos, like other manuscripts and editors. See Hardie (328, 326). 13.711 Anderson (203, 321) and Goold (178, 278) read Ithacamque from Ω and editors. Tarrant (258, 399 and 488) writes Ithacenque. Luck (158, 56), Hopkinson (238, 69 and 206) and Hardie (328, 58 and 327) read, as noted and rejected by Heinsius (1558, 445–6n), Samenque in place of Samonque from Ω and editors. 13.718 Rivero (353, 56–7; 355, ad loc.) prefers to read suppositis … pennis instead of subiectis … pennis from Ω and editors. Liberman (‘per litteras’) suggests succretis, subnatis or vix natis. 13.724 Anderson (203, 321) reads pinnis from some codd. Goold (178, 280), Hopkinson (238, 69), Tarrant (258, 399) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) opt for linguis from M1N1, like Heinsius (49, 299 and 350n). 13.725 Luck (264, 267) points out the variant obversa from Heinsius (49, 299 and 350–1n) and Bach (76, 349), instead of est versa from Ω and editors. 13.726–7 Luck (264, 267) notes at Arcton … expertem from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 299 and 351n) in place of ad Arctos … expertes from Ω and editors. Cf. Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.726 Goold (178, 280), Anderson (203, 321), Tarrant (258, 399) and Ramírez de Verger (266, 1372) read oppositum from several codd., and as proposed by Housman (151, 171). Galasso (236, 610 and 1485) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) prefer expositum from Ω and many editions. 13.728 Goold (178, 280), Anderson (203, 321), Tarrant (258, 400) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) read hac from some ‘antiquiores’. Hopkinson (238, 69 and 209) favours huc from some manuscripts. 13.739 Anderson (203, 322) reads referens from Ω, while Goold (178, 280), Hopkinson

190

Transmission and Textual Criticism

(238, 70), Tarrant (215, 109 n. 20; 258, 400) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) favour repetens from some ‘antiquiores’ with the parallel of 2.125, like Heinsius (49, 351n) and Burman (55, 916). 13.748 Liberman (257, 89n) reads nam instead of sic from some manuscripts and Ehwald (1898, 266). Ramírez de Verger (266, 1964; 277, 333) questions whether to accept sum tibi from a number of manuscripts and edd. vett. See Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.751 Luck (264, 267) notes Hilberg’s suggestion (124, 175), patris ille sui to replace patris­ que sui from Ω, to avoid lengthening the first syllable of patris. Cf. Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.762 Anderson (203, 322) reads sensit from Ω, while Goold (178, 282), Hopkinson (238, 70), Tarrant (258, 401) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) favour the present sentit from several codd. Galasso (269, 123) appears to accept it. Rivero (353, 57–8; 355, ad loc.) prefers to read nostrique from Ω instead of validaque from M, Riese (89, 230) and subsequent editors, and believes that this variant points to antigraphs in the transmission of M that were written in Beneventan script. 13.780–1 Luck (172, 60–1; 264, 267) reads mediusque resedit / lanigerae pecudis (‘eleganter’ for Tarrant, 258, 402) instead of mediusque resedit; / lanigerae pecudes, while Courtney (313, 87) criticises that Luck “has clearly confused the feminine pecus, -udis ‘livestock animal’ with the neuter pecus, -oris ‘flock’ (rarely ‘livestock animal’)”. See Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.788 Rivero (353, 58–9; 355, ad loc.) defends the possibility of opting for verba from Ω instead of mente from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 301 and 353n). The opposite view is defended by Tarrant, 355. 13.794 Tarrant (240, 432–3 and 437) considers this line spurious, and he is followed by Hill (237, 166). Tarrant (258, 402n) keeps it in the text, but still doubts the authenticity of the app. crit. Anderson (203, 323) and Hopkinson (238, 71 and 219) read nobilior pomis from Ω. Tarrant (258, 402) opts for nobilior palma from Siebelis (85, 96), while Goold (178, 284) reads mobilior dama, as suggested by Madvig (91, 92). Luck (302, 113) suspects that Ovid wrote nobilior palmis, as evidenced in Ls and B14 and already edited by Bothe (67, 326 and 68, 141), Baumgarten-Crusius (75, 526) and Bach (76, 355). Luck also recalls the proposal of R. Ellis taken up by Simmons (116, 162n), mobilior flamma. See Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.825 Liberman (257, 86) questions nil from Ω and suggests vix instead. Luck (298, 16), however, believes that it is unnecessary to change nil. 13.826 Liberman (257, 85–6; 310, 365) suggests reading the variant sustineant from some

Studies on particular passages: Book XIII

191

codd. and some editions (cf. e.g. ‘editio Aldina’, 11; Heinsius, 49, 302 and 353n), in place of circueant from Ω. Cf. Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.833 Anderson (203, 325) reads parque … demptusque, while Goold (178, 286), Tarrant (258, 403), Galasso (269, 123–4) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) prefer parve … demptusve, as do Naugerius (15) and Heinsius (49, 302). 13.840 Luck (297, 62; 264, 267) reads in margine from some codd., instead of in imagine from Ω and editors. 13.843–4 Anderson (203, 325) and Tarrant (258, 404) put in parentheses (nam … Iovem), a proposal which Tarrant attributes to Magnus (134, 522); in fact, the latter, as pointed out by Possanza (265, 12), says in the app. crit. that ‘in caelo regnare fort. est coniungendum’. The parentheses (nam … Iovem) can already be seen in the editio Aldina from 1502 (11), as noted by Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.849–50 Tarrant (240, 438; 258, 404) questions the authenticity of these lines.; cf. Merkel (77, 268). 13.865 Anderson (203, 326) and Tarrant (258, 405) read divisaque from a group of ‘anti­ quiores’ and the editio Bononiensis (1); Goold (178, 288), Hopkinson (238, 73 and 227), Luck (302, 113) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) favour divulsaque from Ω. Tarrant (258, 405n) questions whether to accept the latter option. 13.875 Luck (264, 267) comments on the variant Veneri from Hd and Heinsius (49, 303 and 354n), instead of Veneris from Ω and editors. Ramírez de Verger (266, 1964) expresses doubts about accepting Veneri. 13.884 Rivero (351, 153–6; 355, ad loc.) obelizes †e saxo†. 13.890 Anderson (203, 326) and Tarrant (258, 406) read tacta from Ω, while Tarrant, with doubts, (258, 406n) and Luck (302, 113), seem to favour fracta from a group of codd. and Gierig (65, 303). Hardie (328, 72n; now in Tarrant, 258, 406n) proposes reading tota, a suggestion supported by Holzberg (347, 684 and 804). Goold (178, 290) and Rivero (351, 156–7; 355, ad loc.) opt for iacta from a number of codd. and Glareanus (26, 228). 13.896 Hopkinson (238, 74 ‘fort. latet menda’, and 230) believes it is posible that this line is corrupt, as Heinsius thought (49, 355n ‘locus tamen de mendo suspectus’). He reads, like Goold (178, 290), sed sic from some codd. in place of et sic from Ω and editors. See Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.911 Marzolla (209, 548 and 656) reads the line thus: longus ab aequoribus convexus in aethera vertex.

192

Transmission and Textual Criticism

13.913 Luck (264, 267) suggests reading ignorans admiratusque instead of ignorans admiraturque from Ω and editors. Hardie (328, 74 and 363) reads ignorat from a group codd., and this proposal is accepted by Rivero (355, ad loc.). Bellido (in Rivero, 355, ad loc.) proposes reading ignoratque to correlate with admiraturque. 13.917–18 Rivero (353, 59–61; 355, ad loc.) favours reading non …, non …, / sum …, like Heinsius (49, 304 and 356n), in place of non … nec … sed from Ω and many editors. 13.918 Goold (178, 292), Hopkinson (238, 75) and Tarrant (258, 407) read in aequora from some codd., such as Heinsius (49, 304 and 356n), while Anderson (203, 327) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) opt for in aequore. 13.919 Luck (264, 267) points out aut from Heinsius (49, 356n) and Bentley (131, 32) instead of et from Ω and editors. 13.921 Goold (178, 292), Hopkinson (238, 233), Fink (288, 682), Hardie (328, 74 and 364) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) read debitus, as does Bentley (131, 32), while Anderson (203, 327) and Tarrant (258, 407) opt for deditus from Ω. Luck (264, 267; 302, 114) proposes creditus. 13.922 Reeve (in Tarrant, 258, 407n) questions ducentia, while Possanza (265, 15) suggests reading fallacia. Ramírez de Verger (299, 810) proposes tendebam ducentia, conjectur­ ing that ducebam replaces the verb tendebam, as suggested by Koch (83, 344). 13.928 Anderson (203, 328) reads collecto semine from some codd. Bömer (170, 462), Goold (178, 292), von Albrecht (208, 724 and 880), Galasso (236, 1497), Scivoletto (239, 37–8 and 656), Tarrant (258, 408) and Rivero (355, ad loc.) tend towards collectos sedula, as transmitted by Priscian. 13.955 Hopkinson (238, 76n and 237) questions reading tortaque in place of totaque from Ω and editors. Rivero (355, ad loc.) is amenable to this (‘haud male’). Liberman (257, 86) reads verguntur instead of vertuntur from Ω and editors. See also Luck (298, 16–17). 13.956–7 Watt (216, 102) punctuates referre, / hactenus; haec memini, while Courtney (313, 87) recalls that Hardie’s suggestion, nam, taken up by Tarrant (258, 409n ‘ fort. nam Hardie’; cf. Hardie, 328, 76) to replace et, is unmetrical. See Rivero (355, ad loc.). 13.963 Hopkinson (238, 76) and Hardie (328, 78 and 369) read pinnigero, as opposed to pennigero. 13.967 Marzolla (209, 552 and 657) proposes reading Scylla ferox, to replace Scylla deum or Scylla furens from the codd. Luck (172, 61) reads fugit instead of furit from Ω and editors.

Studies on particular passages: Book XIV

193

Book XIV 14.10 Ramírez de Verger (214, 50), Bömer (186, 11–12), Galasso (236, 626 and 1499) and Tarrant (258, 410) read vanarum from MN, like Korn (103, 306), in place of variarum from Ω and most editors. 14.24 Anderson (203, 330) reads fineque nil opus est from a group of ‘antiquiores’. Goold (178, 302, without parentheses), Kenney (194, 247) and Tarrant (258, 411) favour (fine nihil opus est!) from another group, as accepted by Edwards (119, 480) and Slater (141, ad loc.), based on the codd. ‘Heinsiani’ (o, 175r; o2, 347r; o3, 373r; o4, 359; o5, 359) and in defence of nihil as a bisyllable of Lachmann (106, 28) and Housman (151, 925–6, 1001). Cf. also Goold, 178, 302. The parentheses were suggested by Burman (55, 934 ‘ponenda vero haec verba in parenthesi’). Luck (264, 267; 297, 62–3) rescued Capoferreus’ amendment (47, s. p. ‘lego frigore nil opus est’), frigore instead of fine, which was taken up by Ehwald (135, 420). 14.48 Luck (264, 270) reads Rhegion from Vossius (in Bothe, 68, 15) instead of Region (cf. Tarrant, 258, 412 and 493). 14.87 Luck (263, 218) recalls the proposal by Naugerius (15, ad loc.), Acheloiadumque, a reading which was found later in some codd., and which was also suggested by Constantius Fanensis (13, s. p. ‘ego acheloiadum repono syllabae ratione ita exigente’). 14.103 Von Albrecht (208, 736 and 880) and Fink (288, 964) read ulvis from some codd., in place of undis from Ω, and do not add a comma before loca, as do Anderson (203, 332) and Goold (178, 306). Luck (264, 267) criticises Tarrant (258, 414) for not accepting ulvis here from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 310 and 362n), while he does accept it in 11.366 (ulvisque of Burman, 55, 774). 14.114 Liberman (257, 89n) reads ramum silva from some manuscripts, in place of ramum silva from most of them, and editors. Cf. Luck (298, 17). 14.127 Anderson (203, 333) reads viventi from M, while Goold (178, 308), Galasso (236, 634 and 1509) and Tarrant (258, 415) favour meritis from Ω. 14.131 Goold (178, 308), Anderson (203, 333), Luck (302, 114) and Hardie (328, 90) read caput, neu. Tarrant (258, 415) uses a full stop instead of a comma. 14.145 Hardie (328, 90 and 393) reads acta; tamen, as proposed by Clausen (144, 415–17), to replace acta vides from Ω and editors. 14.152–3 Tarrant (240, 347; 258, 416) omits these lines, while Goold (178, 310), Anderson (203, 334), Myers (303, 31 and 86–7) and Hardie (328, 90 and 393–4) consider them authentic.

194

Transmission and Textual Criticism

14.158 Goold (178, 310), Anderson (203, 334) and Hardie (328, 90) read post taedia from Ω. Galasso (236, 636 and 1512), Tarrant (258, 416) and Luck (302, 114) prefer per taedia from M, as does Magnus (134, 537). 14.159–60 Possanza (265, 11) thinks it is necessary to add  a comma after Ulixis in 159. In the following line, he prefers to read sub from N instead of qui. Goold (178, 310), Anderson (203, 334) and Tarrant (258, 416) insert a full stop after Ulixis. In line 160 Anderson reads mediis e rupibus from several codd., while Goold and Tarrant favour mediis qui rupibus from MNac. 14.160 Goold (178, 310), von Albrecht (740 and 881) and Tarrant (258, 416) read qui from a number of codd. and Heinsius (49, 311 and 363n), while Anderson (203, 334) tends towards e from another group of manuscripts. 14.166 Possanza (265, 15) suggests reading usus iam; usus instead of iam suus et from Ω and editors. 14.169 Anderson (203, 335) reads Ithacique from Ω. Goold (178, 312), Kenney (194, 247) and Tarrant (258, 416) opt for Ithaceque from several codd., from Naugerius (15, 177v) and from Heinsius (49, 311 and 364n); see Luck (263, 218); cf. 13.711. 14.173 Anderson (203, 335) reads impius from MN, while Goold (178, 312), Tarrant (258, 417) and Myers (303, 31 and 94) favour immemor from Ω. 14.176 Goold (178, 312) and Tarrant (258, 417) read aut tumulo from several codd. and Heinsius (49, 312 and 364n); Anderson (203, 335) favours ut tumulo from Ω. 14.179 Luck (264, 267) reads prospexi from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 312 and 364n) in place of conspexi from Ω and editors. 14.185 Goold (178, 312) reads fluctus ventusve from some codd. and many editors. Anderson (203, 335), Tarrant (258, 417) and Fink (288, 698) opt for fluctusve lapisve from Ω. 14.187 Anderson (203, 335) reads ab acerba from Ω, while Goold (178, 312) and Tarrant (258, 417) favour a certa from M, as does Heinsius (49, 364n). 14.196 Hardie (328, 94) adds a full stop after artus instead of a comma, like most editors (Goold, 178, 314 uses a semicolon). 14.201 Hardie (328, 94 and 400) omits the line. 14.202 Tarrant (240, 438; 258, 418) deletes the line and questions the authenticity of line 201. Goold (178, 314) and Anderson (203, 336) consider it authentic, while Myers

Studies on particular passages: Book XIV

195

(303, 97) has doubts. Ramírez de Verger (214, 50) reads illa malorum from some ‘antiquiores’ in place of ipsa doloris from Ω and editors. 14.205 Luck (274, 119–20; 302, 115) proposes reading viva in place of bina. 14.211 Luck (302, 96) recalls the variant of Heinsius (49, 120n), eructantemque instead of eiectantemque; cf. 5.353. 14.212 Hardie (328, 96) adds a full stop after vomentem, as does, for example, Anderson (203, 336). Tarrant (258, 418), however, adds a comma, while Goold (178, 314) uses a colon. 14.213 Goold (178, 314) does not punctuate after parari; Anderson (203, 336) adds a coma, Scivoletto (2000, 38 and 706) a semicolon, and Tarrant (258, 418) a full stop. 14.218 Luck (297, 63) reads haud te replace hanc from Ω and editors. 14.240 Goold (178, 316) and Anderson (203, 337) read merguntque carinas from Ω. Tarrant (258, 420) accepts the sugestion by Kenney (252), franguntque carinas. 14.245 Goold (178, 316) and Anderson (203, 337) read visa from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 420) accepts Shackleton Bailey’s proposal (169, 336), crede. Courtney (261, 39) suggests pressa with the parallel of ars 3.192. 14.250 Anderson (203, 337) and Tarrant (258, 420) read et from some ‘antiquiores’. Goold (178, 318) and von Albrecht (208, 746 and 881) favour sed from other ‘antiquiores’. 14.262 Luck (302, 115) supports the reading sublimis from V2 , as does Hall (164, 69), instead of sollemni from a group of codd., such as Goold (178, 318), Anderson (203, 338) and Tarrant (258, 421). Hardie (328, 100 and 406) favours sublimi from another group of manuscripts, as do the edd. vett. and Jahn (74, 913). 14.269 Goold (178, 318) and Anderson (203, 338) read quove from some ‘antiquiores’, while Tarrant (258, 421) favours quoque from another group of ‘antiquiores’, as does Heinsius (49, 314). 14.272 Liberman (257, 89n) reads vota in place of votis from Ω. Possanza (265, 12) observes that the wrong word omnia has been printed in Tarrant’s text (258, 421); cf. Fedeli (287, 610). Luck (264, 267) reads omina instead of omnia from Ω and editors. 14.281 Hardie (328, 100 and 408) reads prono from S2, and as suggested by Heinsius (in b3, 393r ‘for. prono’; cf. Burman, 55, 957n) instead of toto from Ω and editors. 14.288 Anderson (203, 338) keep maneret from Ω, while Goold (178, 320), von Albrecht (208, 750 and 881), Galasso (236, 642 and 1520) and Tarrant (258, 422) opt for

196

Transmission and Textual Criticism

manerem from Gruter (reference not known), as appears in Heinsius (o, 179v ‘leg. manerem’) and Burman (55, 958 ‘manerem Gruterum maluisse notat Heinsius [b3, 393v] et recte’). 14.305 Anderson (203, 339), Myers (303, 35 and 111) and Hardie (328, 102 and 409) read illis from several codd. Tarrant (258, 422) favours illum from another group, like Heinsius (49, 315 and 370n). Goold (178, 320) and Possanza (265, 9) defend ipsi from some manuscripts and most editors; cf. Bömer (186, 107). 14.323 Kenney (194, 247–8) points out that Bömer (186, 114) does not mention the variant verum from some codd. and several editors, like Goold (178, 322) and Hardie (328, 104 and 412). 14.324 Tarrant (240, 438) questions the authenticity of these lines (cf. Zwierlein, 235, 261–2), but keeps them in the text of his edition (258, 423). Luck (263, 219) does not believe that lines 324–5 need to be deleted. Anderson (203, 339) reads tot annos from Ω, while Goold (178, 322) and Tarrant (258, 423) opt for per annos from a group of codd., such as the edd. vett. and Heinsius (49, 316 and 370n). 14.325 Goold (178, 322), Anderson (203, 340) and Scivoletto (239, 38 and 678) obelize †Graia quater edere pugna†; von Albrecht (208, 752 and 881), Scivoletto in the translation (239, 679) and Tarrant (258, 423) favour Elide pugnam from the ‘excerpta Matthaei Herculani’ (Burman, 55, 960) and as proposed by Heinsius (o4, 385 ‘lege nec adhuc … quarter Elide pugnam’; 49, 316 and 370n ‘repone meo periculo …’) and Capoferreus (47, s. p.). Cf. Luck (263, 219). 14.330 Anderson (203, 340) reads undae from a group of codd. Goold (178, 322) and Tarrant (258, 423) opt for umbrae from another group, like many editors (cf. the editio Romana, 2, and Heinsius, 49, 316 and 371n). 14.334 Goold (178, 322) and Scivoletto (239, 38 and 678) read ancipiti from some ‘antiquiores’, such as Planudes and edd. vett. Anderson (203, 340) and Tarrant (258, 424) read Ionio. Zurli (233; 343, 40–2) suggests reading Inoo. Luck (264, 267) reads Ausonio from Rappold (105, 412–13). 14.339 Hardie (328, 106 and 414) reads prona, as proposed by Housman (in Edwards, 119, 482n), instead of longa from Ω and editors. 14.345 Liberman (257, 86) and Myers (303, 36 and 118) believe the appropriate reading is constrictus, already defended by Salmasius (45, 149) in place of contractus from Ω and editors. Cf. Luck (298, 18). 14.371 Luck (263, 219) notes that Naugerius had suggested reading regi from H3 and other

Studies on particular passages: Book XIV

197

mss., in place of regis from Ω and most editors. Naugerius includes the variant in his text (15, 181r), as do Heinsius (49, 317 and 373n) and von Albrecht (208, 754 and 881). Luck (264, 267) advises reading the note by Baumgarten-Crusius (75, 562) on lines 371–2; cf. Burman (55, 965 ‘ut abest Urbin. recte, si tollas distinctionem post regi et ponas post comites’). 14.373 Luck (172, 61) questions whether to read me in place of mea from Ω and editors. 14.385 Kenney (194, 248), Tarrant (193, 294–5; 240, 347; 258, 426) and Myers (303, 37 and 122) omit the line, as proposed by Korn (96, 223). Goold (178, 326) and Anderson (203, 341) keep it as authentic. Watt (216, 102–3) suggests reading rebus; adest et amans. Marzolla (209, 596 and 657) reads et est et instead of ait sed from codd. and editors. 14.394 Hardie (328, 110 and 420) backs Bothe’s proposal (68, 149), vestisque … oram in place of vestemque … aurum from Ω and editors. 14.404–5 Luck (297, 64) reads in line 404 Erebumque Chaosque, as suggested by Lindemann (80, 278 and 326), instead of Ereboque Chaoque from Ω and editors. In line 405 he ponders between evocat or invocat instead of convocat from Ω and editors. 14.412 Goold (178, 328) and Anderson (203, 342) read paventis from M, while Tarrant (258, 427) favours paventum from Ω. 14.416 Giardina (270; 272, 21–2) reads the line thus: mergitur occiduus Tartessia aequora Phoebus, in place of sparserat occiduus Tartessia litora Phoebus from codd. and editors. 14.419 Giardina (271; 272, 22–3) reads the line as follows: discurrunt saltus atque avia (or invia) culmina lustrant, in place of discurrunt silvas atque obvia lumina portant from codd. and editors. 14.426–7 Goold (178, 330) and Anderson (203, 343) read fessam … Thybris from Ω; Tarrant (258, 427) favours Thybris … fessam from MNn, as do many editors (e.g. Heinsius, 49, 319; Magnus, 134, 550). 14.427 Anderson (203, 343) and Hardie (328, 112) read in gelida from Ω; Goold (178, 330) and Tarrant (258, 427) opt for iam longa from M, like the editio Romana (2) and Merkel (92, 294), although Tarrant shows his like for the former option. Watt (216, 103) wonders “if iam longa conceals raminea”. Cf. Kenney (194, 248). 14.428 Goold (178, 330), Anderson (203, 343) and Hardie (328, 104 and 424) read ipso … dolore from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 427) favours ipsos … dolores from several codd. and Heinsius (49, 319; 375n ‘latet mendum. an spissos dolores?’).

198

Transmission and Textual Criticism

14.431 Luck (302, 115) and Hardie (328, 112 and 425) read teneras from several codd. and Magnus (134, 550), instead of tenues from Ω and editors. 14.434 Anderson (203, 343) reads coloni from Ω. Goold (178, 330), von Albrecht (208, 758 and 881), Galasso (236, 652 and 1528) and Tarrant (258, 428) favour Camenae from MNac, like Heinsius (49, 319 and 375n); Possanza (265, 9–10) and Hardie (309, 28–31) defend coloni. 14.465 Goold (178, 332) reads luctus renoventur amari from some ‘antiquiores’ and Jahn (74, 930), while Anderson (203, 344) opts for renovetur luctus amarus from M. Tarrant (258, 429) favours luctus renoventur amaro from certain ‘antiquiores’, as well as the editio Romana (2) and Heinsius (49, 320); he also suggests, albeit with some reservations, luctus renovetur? amaro. 14.467 Anderson (203, 344) and Tarrant (258, 429 and 488) read Ilion. Goold (178, 332), Possanza (265, 10) and Hardie (328, 114 and 430) defend Ilios from some codd., as Palmer comments (126, 439) to epist. 16.49. 14.476 Tarrant (258, 429n) questions whether to read Argis from a group of codd., such as Heinsius (49, 320 and 377n), in place of agris from Ω and editors. Cf. 1.601. 14.487 See on 4.190. 14.489 Goold (178, 334) and Fink (288, 718) read est in vota locus from a group of codd., like Heinsius (49, 320 and 378n); von Albrecht (208, 764 and 882) and Tarrant (258, 430) opt for est locus in votum, as considered by Magnus (134, 553n), while Anderson (203, 224) favours est locus in voto from Ω; Watt (216, 103) reads est locus, est voto. 14.491 Goold (178, 334) reads licet, licet, ut facit from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 320 and 378n), while Anderson (203, 345) and Tarrant (258, 430) opt for licet et, quod facit from Ω. Luck (264, 267) points out the variant licet vel quod facit from V16, as read by Merkel (77, 284). 14.493 Shackleton Bailey (169, 336–7) proposes, although with reservations, reading victa in place of magna. Tarrant (258, 430) obelizes magno stat magna, as endorsed by Goold (178, 334) and Anderson (203, 345), although Tarrant expresses doubts in the app. crit. about whether to read et parvo stat magna from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 378n). Holzberg (347, 722 and 804) supports the latter option. Marzolla (209, 580 and 657) suggests reading ut magno stet magniloquentia nobis! See also Kenney (194, 248). 14.494–5 Liberman (257, 89n) wonders whether it would be preferable to read irritat instead of iratam and omit line 495.

Studies on particular passages: Book XIV

199

14.495 Goold (178, 334) and Holzberg (347, 722 and 804) read instimulat verbis veteremque resuscitat iram. Anderson (203, 345) and Tarrant (258, 430) opt for instimulat verbis stimulisque resuscitat iram. Luck (264, 267) reads talibus irritans (Bentley, 131, 33) … / … veteremque (Tarrant, 258, 430n ‘fort. recte’) resuscitat iram. 14.499 Goold (178, 334), Anderson (203) and Holzberg (347, 722 and 804) read nova from some ‘antiquiores’, and Tarrant (258, 430) favours quoque from Ω, although in the app. crit. he expresses doubts about nova. 14.502 Marzolla (582 and 657) reads pinna in place of pars from codd. and editors, while Liberman (257, 86–7) proposes reading iuncta pedis digitos cutis alligat instead of magna pedis digitos pars occupat from Ω, backed up by Luck (298, 18). 14.508 Anderson (203, 346) reads dubiarum from Ω, while Goold (178, 336), von Albrecht (208, 764 and 882) and Tarrant (258, 431) opt for subitarum from S2 and Heinsius (49, 321 and 379n). 14.534 Anderson (203, 346) reads igne from MN. Goold (178, 338), Scivoletto (239, 38 and 690) and Tarrant (258, 432) opt for transtra from Ω. 14.536 Goold (178, 338), Anderson (203, 347) and Tarrant (258, 432) read aëra from some ‘antiquiores’, although the latter expresses doubts about aethera from other ‘antiquiores’. Holzberg (347, 724 and 804) edits aethera. 14.547 Anderson (203, 347) reads puppis from Ω, while Goold (178, 338) and Tarrant (258, 432) opt for classis from V3, as do many editors. Tarrant considers, albeit with reservations, puppis as possibly suitable. 14.552 Anderson (203, 347) reads sinus … latus from Ω, while Formicola (218, 115–19) suggests reading latus … sinus. Goold (178, 338), von Albrecht (208, 768 and 882) and Galasso (236, 660 and 1537) favour prius … latus from N and Heinsius (49, 322 and 382n). Tarrant (258, 433) opts for latus … latus from a group of codd., as also proposed by Heinsius (49, 382n). 14.557 Luck (302, 115) reads, with reservations, Naiades from some codd. in place of Naides; cf. Tarrant (258, 490). 14.559 Richmond (281, 132) criticises Tarrant (258, 433) for not specifying ‘edd. aliquot’ for the variant saepe. See also Kenney (194, 248). 14.568 Luck (264, 267) reads habentque in line with habent from the following line, instead of habetque from Ω and editors.

200

Transmission and Textual Criticism

14.575 Anderson (203, 348) reads patuerunt from Ω. Goold (178, 340), Kenney (194, 248) and Tarrant (258, 434) favour latuerunt from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 323 and 383n). 14.594 Anderson (203, 348) reads numine from a group of codd., while Goold (178, 342), Kenney (194, 248), von Albrecht (208, 770 and 882) and Tarrant (258, 434) opt for munere from another group and Heinsius (49, 323 and 383n). 14.604 Goold (178, 342) and Anderson (203, 349) read respersit, while Tarrant (258, 435) and Galasso (2006, 123), with good reason, opt for the present respergit from several codd., as does Heinsius (49, 324 and 383n ‘respergit rectius multi’). 14.612 Luck (263, 220; 264, 268) points out that Naugerius (15, adn. ad loc.) suggests Alba (‘ideo nos Alba non ecce legendum putavimus’) instead of ecce from Ω, later found by Heinsius (49, 384n ‘in uno meo, Calandrae et Politiani excerptis’). He also notes that the change from clarus to clarum cannot be found in Naugerius, as Anderson says (203, 349n), but that it comes instead from Heinsius (49, 324 and 384n). 14.622 Luck (263, 220) says, with good reason, that the reading Palatinae summam Proca is not attributed to Naugerius (15, adn. ad loc.) as opposed to Palatinus summae loca from Ω, but to an earlier version, probably Poliziano. 14.646 Anderson (203, 350) reads versare from Ω, while Goold (178, 346), Kenney (194, 248) and Tarrant (258, 436) opt for versasse from a group of codd., such as Heinsius (49, 325 and 386n), although with doubts about the first option. 14.648 Anderson (203, 350) reads iurasses from Ω; Goold (178, 346) and Tarrant (258, 436) favour iurares from S2, as does Heinsius (49, 325 and 386n), although Tarrant expresses doubts about the former option. 14.651 Tarrant (240, 425–7 and 347; 258, 437) omits the line (cf. Prop. 4.2.27, 37), but for Galasso (269, 119–20) the issue is less clear-cut. Goold (178, 346), Anderson (203, 350), Myers (303, 44 and 171) and Hardie (328, 128 and 452) keep it as authentic. 14.655 Anderson (203, 350) reads ad tempora from  a group of codd., like most editors, while Goold (178, 346) and Tarrant (258, 437) opt for per tempora from Ω. Luck (264, 267) points out that per is odd and suggests reading positisque ad tempora; cf. 3.275. 14.657 Goold (178, 346) and Anderson (203, 350) read ‘tanto’que ‘potentior!’ from Ω and most editors. Tarrant (258, 437) obelizes †‘tanto’que ‘potentior!’†, and instead of potentior Tarrant suggests in the app. crit. reading decentior, Luck (172, 61; 264, 267)

Studies on particular passages: Book XIV

201

beatior, Watt (216, 103) pacentior, Liberman (257, 87) ‘quanto’que es pulchrior’. Holzberg (347, 732 and 804) edits tantoque decentior from Tarrant, rather than from Hardie. 14.666 Goold (178, 346), Iglesias-Álvarez (226, 294), Galasso (236, 666 and 1546) and Tarrant (258, 437) read nupta from several codd., such as Heinsius (49, 325 and 387–8n). Anderson (203, 351) reads iuncta from Ω, while questioning its authenticity (‘suspectum ob ineptam iterationem’). 14.671 Goold (178, 348) reads nimium tardantis, as does Riese (89, xxvi and 250); Anderson (203, 351n) considers the possibility of imitanda instead of timidi aut. Zurli (234, 172–3; 343, 35–7) obelizes timidi aut audacis, as endorsed by Tarrant (258, 438), who in the app. crit. brands Postgate’s proposal as “elegant” (in Edwards, 119, 484), tarde remeantis. Von Albrecht (208, 776 and 882) and Ramírez de Verger (214, 50), on the other hand, opt for timidis audacis, like Heinsius (49, 325 and 388n). Possanza (249) suggests reading prudens for timidi aut. Most (316) proposes reading coniunx constans errantis Ulixi, while Heil (in Most, 316, 94n) favours coniunx timidos audacem in Ulixem. Tsitsiou-Chelidoni (282) suggests Turni aut audacis Ulixei, and Holzberg (347, 732 and 804) edits prudens audacis from Possanza. 14.673 Luck (264, 267) reads proci, as does Heinsius (49, 325; cf. Burman, 55, 992 ‘proci Leid.’), in place of viri from Ω and most editors. 14.681 Goold (178, 348) and Anderson (203, 351) read magna from Ω, and Tarrant (258, 438) opts for sola from a group of codd., as noted by Vivianus (17, ad loc. ‘haec loca sola quod maxime placet, quia dixit nec toto passim vagus errat in orbe’) and found by Heinsius (49, 389n) in the ‘codex Menardi [B8]’. 14.688 Von Albrecht (208, 778 and 882) reads avet instead of habet from Ω and editors. 14.692 Goold (178, 348) and Anderson (203, 352) add a comma after petit, while Tarrant (258, 438) does not punctuate. Fink (288, 732) inserts a comma following meo. 14.705–6 Tarrant (240, 438) questions the authenticity of these lines (cf. Zwierlein, 235, 262–3), but keeps them in his edition (258, 439). 14.705 Anderson (203, 352) and Scivoletto (239, 38–9 and 698) obelize †alicui blanditus amicis†. Goold (178, 350), von Albrecht (208, 778 and 882), Scivoletto in the translation (239, 699), and Tarrant (258, 439) favour blanditus cuique ministris from a group of codd., such as Heinsius (49, 326 and 389–90n). 14.724 Goold (178, 350), Anderson (203, 353) and Tarrant (258, 440) read tui from some ‘antiquiores’ and editors. Galasso (236, 670 and 1550) opts for mihi from other ‘antiquiores’ and the 1st Aldina (11, s. p.).

202

Transmission and Textual Criticism

Luck (263, 220–1) prefers to read cessisse or fugisse from Heinsius (49, 327 ‘cessisse’ and 391n ‘ fugisse vel cessisse’) instead of excessisse from some ‘antiquiores’ and editors. 14.725 Goold (1894, 350) reads carendum from Ω. Anderson (203, 353) and Tarrant (258, 440) opt for carendum est from some ‘antiquiores’, although the latter expresses doubts about the first option. 14.739 Shackleton Bailey (169, 337) suggests reading icta pedum motu trepidantum aperire iubentem; Goold (178, 352) and Holzberg (347, 738 and 804) accept it. Anderson (203, 353) and Tarrant (258, 440) obelize †et multa timentem†, while von Albrecht (208, 782 and 882) and Scivoletto (239, 39 and 700) favour multa gementem from a group of codd. Zurli (234, 174–5) proposes reading icta pedum motu trepidantem ut multa timentis / visa dedisse sonum est. Cf. also Kenney, 194, 248. 14.744 Anderson (203, 354) reads miserarum from Ω; Goold (178, 352), Kenney (194, 248) and Tarrant (258, 441) favour miserorum from some codd. and, for example, Slater (141, ad loc.). 14.751 Hardie (328, 136 and 463) punctuates mota “tamen videamus, as does Vollmer (in Magnus, 134, 567), in place of mota tamen “videamus. 14.758 Anderson (203, 354) reads corpore from Ω; Goold (178, 354), von Albrecht (208, 782 and 882), Kenney (194, 248) and Tarrant (258, 441) opt for pectore from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 328 and 393n). 14.765 Goold (178, 354) reads formae deus aptus anili, as does Magnus (134, 568), while Anderson (203, 354) and Myers (303, 47 and 192) read formas deus aptus in omnes from Ω.  Tarrant (258, 442) opts for formae deus apta senili from Housman (in Edwards, 119, 485n; senili already in Merkel, 92, xliii and 303). 14.777 Luck (263, 222) suggests reading digna animam poena congestis edidit armis, as proposed by Heinsius (49, 393n), in place of dignam animam poena congestis exuit armis from codd. and editors. 14.799 Luck (264, 267) notes the variant quam (sc. portam) from some codd., instead of quae (sc. arma) from most manuscripts and editors. 14.804 Anderson (203, 356) reads excedere from Ω. Goold (178, 356), von Albrecht (208, 786 and 882), Galasso (236, 674 and 1554), Scivoletto (239, 39 and 704) and Tarrant (258, 443) favour accedere from V3, as do many editions. 14.809 Goold (178, 356), von Albrecht (208, 786 and 882) and Tarrant (258, 443) read nec from several codd. and Heinsius (49, 329 and 394n), while Anderson (203, 356) favours et from Ω, and Tarrant also expresses doubts about the latter option.

Studies on particular passages: Book XV

203

14.810 Goold (178, 358) and Anderson (203, 356) read sunt from a group of ‘antiquiores’. Tarrant opts for iam from a group of ‘recentiores’, as does Jahn (74, 961). 14.813 Kovacs (210, 248–9) proposes reading memini in place of memoro; cf. 15.160. Luck (263, 222) recalls that the juncture pia verba does not appear in classical poetry according to Bömer (186, 240). Additionally, Luck favours reading nam refero, as suggested by Heinsius (49, 394–5n), instead of nam memoro from Ω and editors. Luck (264, 268) believes that Withof ’s suggestion (57, 130–1), sum memor o!, deserves a mention by Tarrant (258, 444). 14.816 Goold (178, 358), Anderson (203, 356) and Tarrant (258, 444) read aëra from Ω, while von Albrecht (208, 786 and 882) opts for aethera. 14.817 Goold (178, 358), Anderson (203, 356) and Hardie (328, 140 and 472) read orbem from Ω. Tarrant (258, 444) favours urbem from a group of codd., such as Heinsius (49, 329) and Slater (141, ad loc.), although with reservations. 14.818 Goold (178, 358) and Ramírez de Verger (214, 50) read rata from M, from the editio Romana (2), and Merkel (92, 304). Anderson (203, 356) and Tarrant (258, 444) opt for data from Ω. 14.828 Goold (178, 358), Scivoletto (239, 39 and 706) and Tarrant (258, 444) add a comma after dignior; omitted by Anderson (203, 357). 14.830 Anderson (203, 357) reads Hersiliam from Ω, while Goold (178, 358) and Tarrant (258, 444 and 488) write Hersilien from some codd., such as Bothe (67, 300). 14.831 Liberman (257, 87) considers it probable to read viduae instead of vacuae from Ω and editors. 14.848 Goold (178, 360), Anderson (203, 357) and Tarrant (258, 445) read Hersilie from Ω. Von Albrecht (208, 788 and 883) has Hersiliae, like the edd. vett. Book XV 15.22–3 Goold (178, 364–5) reads | ‘patrias, age, desere sedes; 23b | I, pete diversi | lapidosas Aesaris undas!’ 22b, while Anderson (203, 358), Tarrant (258, 446) and Luck (348, 20) write ‘ lapidosas Aesaris undas, | i, pete diversi; patrias, age, desere sedes!’. 15.27 Luck (348, 21) thinks that viso should be read in place of visa from Ω and editors. 15.33 Luck (348, 33) keeps et from Ω and editors, while Tarrant (258, 447) reads ac, but most probably it is a mistake instead of et, from what can be read in the app. crit.

204

Transmission and Textual Criticism

15.39 Anderson (203, 359) reads o cuius caelum from Ω, while Goold (178, 366), Tarrant (258, 447) and Luck (302, 112 and 116; 348, 22) support Muretus’ and Scaliger’s suggestion o cui ius caeli. Heinsius restored this proposal in b3, 417 (‘o cui ius coeli Scaliger et Muretus’; cf. 49, 398n) and in b2, 416 (‘Muretus legebat o cui ius coeli, quod probat Ciofanus [29, 285 ‘Muretus legendum censet: o cui ius caeli bis’]. Luck (348, 22) attributes the same suggestion to Meursius, based on Burman (55, 1010 ‘ita etiam Meursius emendat Specileg. ad Theocrit. p. 142. vid. ad Eleg. in Drus. 54 [55, 800]’). Meursius does not mention Muretus’ and Scaliger’s proposal, but proposes reading vicere instead of fecere, as noted by Heinsius (b2, 416 ‘vicere labores Meurs. ad Theocr. p. 142 [33, 142] et Christ. Bulaeus teste Alardo in Val. Flaccum [38, 253 on 4.35]’; cf. 49, 398n ‘Christophorus Bulaeus teste Alardo commentariis in Val. Flaccum pro fecere reponebat vicere’). Liberman (‘per litteras’) suggests o tu cui caelum bis sex meruere labores. 15.42 Goold (178, 366) and Tarrant (258, 447: he does not point out number 42 of the lemma in the app. crit.) read culpa from a group of codd; Anderson (203, 359) tends towards culpam from some ‘antiquiores’. 15.53 Kenney (194, 248–9) criticises Bömer (186, 267) for failing to mention Owen’s suggestion (114, lxxvi), aequora, as read by Goold (178, 368) and Holzberg (347, 748 and 804). Tarrant (258, 448) expresses doubts about this, in place of litora from the manuscripts and most editors. 15.62 Tarrant (258, 448n) questions whether to read remotus from some ‘antiquiores’ instead of remotos from other codd. and editors. 15.73 Luck (264, 268) believes that the variant arcuit from some codd. should be used. Later (348, ad loc.) he defends reading this variant, as does Heinsius (49, 333 and 358–9n), in place of arguit from Ω and editors. 15.77 Tarrant (258, 448n) questions whether to read suos from some codd. in place of suo from Ω and editors. 15.80 Ramírez de Verger (214, 50) and Goold (178, 370) read florem from several codd. and Heinsius (49, 333 and 399n), instead of flore from Ω and editors. See Luck, 348, 27. 15.88 Goold (178, 370) and Anderson (203, 360) read in viscera from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 449) opts for in viscere from some codd., although questions in the app. crit. whether to accept in viscera. Cf. Luck, 264, 268. 15.90 Anderson (203, 360) reads animantem from Ω, while Goold (178, 370) and Tarrant (258, 449) opt for animans from R schol. Pers., as recommended by Clausen (160). See also Jacobson, 262, 651.

Studies on particular passages: Book XV

205

15.93 Luck (348, 29) reads victusque from Slater (141, ad loc.) instead of ritusque or rictusque from the codd. 15.104 Anderson (203, 361) and Amato (259, 910–18) defend deorum from Ω, while Tarrant obelizes †deorum†, inserted from 1.32, and questions whether to accept ferarum from Hottinger (in Magnus, 134, 580). Possanza (265, 15) suggests reading cruentis as an epithet from victibus. Goold (178, 372), Ramírez de Verger (214, 50), von Albrecht (208, 796 and 883), Galasso, with reservations (236, 684 and 1567), and Hardie (328, 152 and 497) opt for leonum from Bothe (68, 156–7). See also Luck (348, 30). 15.108 Von Albrecht (208, 796 and 883) and Tarrant (258, 450) do not parenthesise idque satis fuerat, unlike Goold (178, 372), Anderson (203, 361) and other editors. 15.111 Luck (348, 31) believes that the possibility should be considered of reading sed instead of et, to avoid lengthening the final syllable of abiit in arsis. 15.122 Liberman (257, 77) believes that iusti is the term that should be under the suspicious demum from Ω and editors. Possanza (265, 15), on the other hand, suggests reading operum. 15.126 Liberman (257, 89n) believes that Tarrant erroneously attributes tulerant in the app. crit. to Heinsius, who suggested tulerat (49, 402n ‘nisi mavis tot tulerat messes’), a proposal which Liberman considers the authentic reading in place of dederat from Ω and editors. Cf. Luck (298, 18; 348, 33). 15.137 Goold (178, 374), Anderson (203, 362) and Tarrant (258, 451) read in illis, while von Albrecht (208, 798 and 883) opts for et illis, as suggested by Korn (103, 335 ‘et illis conieci, mutata interpunctione’ et illis – / unde fames homini vetitorum tanta ciborum est? -). 15.138 Goold (178, 374), Ramírez de Verger (214, 50) and Luck (348, 35) read inde from Postgate (in Edwards, 119, 487), instead of unde from Ω and most editors. 15.140 Luck (348, 35) prefers reading at, like Slater (141, ad loc.), in place of et from Ω and editors. 15.146 Luck (348, 36) believes that it would be preferible to read evestigata from some ‘antiquiores’ and Heinsius (49, 335 and 402n), instead of investigata from Ω and editors. 15.149 Luck (302, 116; 348, 37) is tempted to read validisque umeris instead of validique umeris from Ω and editors.

206

Transmission and Textual Criticism

15.155 Luck (348, 38–9) tends towards piacula from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 535 and 402n) in place of pericula from Ω and editors. 15.163 Luck (348, 40) questions whether to read agnovi instead of cognovi from Ω and editors. 15.169 Goold (178, 376), Anderson (203, 363) and Tarrant (258, 452) read facilis from Ω, while Ramírez de Verger (299, 810–11) supports fragilis to replace facilis, as defended by Heinsius (49, 335 and 403–4n). Cf. Luck (297, 64). 15.182 Anderson (203, 364) reads eadem veniens from Ω; Goold (178, 376) and Tarrant (258, 453) tend towards prior veniente from a group of codd., as also do the editio Gryphiana (24, 426) and Heinsius (49, 336 prior venienti). 15.186 Luck (264, 268) notes the variant emersas from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 336 and 404n), instead of emensas from Ω and editors. 15.193 Luck (348, 44–5) believes that a comma should be added, rather than a semicolon, after ima. 15.206–7 Kenney (194, 249) expresses doubts about the repetition robustior … robustior and offers several alternatives: florentior, genialior, generosior, viridantior. 15.211 Luck (348, 47) considers that iam could be read in place of quoque from Ω and editors. 15.213 Luck (348, 47) prefers to read suis from V2 in place of suos from Ω and editors. 15.217 Goold (178, 380), Anderson (203, 365) and Tarrant (258, 454) read matris from many ‘antiquiores’, such as Ehwald (135, 463). Galasso (236, 690 and 1573) and Luck (348, 47–8) prefer materna from a group of ‘recentiores’ and Heinsius (49, 337 and 406n). Anderson (ibid.) and Luck (348, 47–8) read habitavimus from several ‘antiquiores’. Goold (ibid.), Kenney (194, 249), Knox (199, 187–8) and Tarrant (ibid.) favour latitavimus from Riese (89, 259). 15.225 Luck (292, 118–19; 302, 116; 348, 49) considers fugit, already suggested by Farnabius (40, 430 ‘alii leg. furit, alii fugit’), in place of fuit from Ω and editors. 15.229 Liberman (257, 87) proposes inertes instead of inanes from Ω and editors. Later (310, 331), he reads ab annis to replace inanes with the support of am. 1.13.41 marcet ab annis. 15.242 Luck (348, 51) prefers to read at, as does Heinsius (b3, p. 425), in place of et from Ω and editors.

Studies on particular passages: Book XV

207

15.244 Hendry (207, 553–5) proposes reading specie instead of spatio from Ω and editors. 15.250 Luck (264, 268) points out the suggestion of deorsum from Polle (99, 128) in place of densum from Ω and editors. 15.252–8 Luck (348, 53) believes that the punctuation adopted by Tarrant needs to be changed. The period goes on from nec species in 252 to constent (sic) in 258. 15.254 Luck (348, 53) prefers to read tanto from some ‘antiquiores’ and Heinsius (49, 338), to replace toto from other ‘antiquiores’ and most editors. 15.258 Luck (348, 54) prefers to read constent, as suggested by Bothe (67, 308; 68, 160), in place of constant from Ω and editors. 15.271 Tarrant (258, 456) obelizes †antiquis tam multa†, while not dismissing Merkel’s suggestion (92, xliv and 313), aut imis commota, as accepted by Goold (178, 382), von Albrecht (208, 808 and 883) and Holzberg (347, 762 and 804). Anderson (203, 366) keeps antiquis tam multa from Ω in the text, although with reservations. Luck (348, 56) concludes his explanation thus: “Perhaps the following text and punctuation comes close to what Ovid wrote: at illic / clauserat antiquos: occulta tremoribus orbis / flumina prosiliunt”. 15.275 Kenney (194, 249) defends modo tecto in anaphora with the previous modo. 15.278 Luck (348, 58) favours reading alias from some ‘antiquiores’ in place of alia from another group and editors. 15.279 Luck (348, 58) reads Amenanos from Heinsius (49, 339 and 409n; 51, 146n on fast. 4.467) in place of Amenanus from Fulvius Ursinus and editors. 15.281 Luck (302, 116) reads bibebantur (‘sc. aquae’), as does Burman (55, 1031), instead of bibebatur from Ω and editors. 15.283 Luck (348, 58) considers that bimembres should be written Bimembres, referring to the Centauri; cf. 12.240. 15.293 Luck (302, 103; 348, 60) believes that the form Achaeidas should be restored. Hardie (328, 166 and 522) wrongly assumes authorship of this option. See also Kenney, 315, 276. 15.302 Kenney (194, 249) points out that some consideration should be given to Ochsner’s suggestion (in Bach, 76, 570), quae pervia, instead of nec pervia from Ω and editors.

208

Transmission and Textual Criticism

15.304–5 Goold (178, 386), Anderson (203, 368), Tarrant (258, 458) and Luck (263, 166) follow Heinsius’ wake (49, 339 and 410n) in reading derepta bicorni / terga capro. 15.307 Goold (178, 386) and Tarrant (258, 458) read et from a group of codd., while Anderson (203, 368), Hardie (328, 168 and 524) and Luck (348, 61) favour aut from Ω. Tarrant expresses doubts about accepting this option. 15.315 Luck (348, 62) prefers to read nostris … arvis from some ‘antiquiores’ instead of nostris … oris from other ‘antiquiores’. 15.355 Hardie (328, 152 and 497) reads ignes from Ω, in place of ignis from Preibisch (104) and editors. 15.356 Sandin (306) suggests reading in Hyperborea pallente instead of the transmitted reading in Hyperborea Pallene. 15.357 Luck (264, 268; 348, 68) notes the variant quis soleant from some codd., Planudes and Lindemann (80, 370 and 421), to replace qui soleant from Ω and most editors. 15.359 Luck (348, 68) prefers to write in parentheses (haud equidem credo). 15.361 Goold (178, 390) and Anderson (203, 370) read siqua, while Tarrant (258, 460) writes sive, which seems to be a mistake; cf. Luck (348, 69). 15.362 Goold (178, 390), Knox (199, 188) and Tarrant (258, 460, hesitantly), read fluidove instead of fluidoque (Anderson, 203, 370), like a group of codd. and Heinsius (49, 341). 15.363 Anderson (203, 370) read tabescunt from a sizeable group of codd; Goold (178, 390), Knox (199, 188) and Tarrant (258, 460) favour tabuerint from V3 and Heinsius (49, 341). Cf. Walsh (283, 207–8). 15.364 Goold (178, 390) reads in scrobe deiecto, while Knox (199, 188–9) suggests reading i grege de laeto, accepted by Holzberg (347, 768 and 804). Anderson (203, 370) reads i quoque, delectos, and Watt (216, 99) proposes reading i modo delectos. Ramírez de Verger (214, 50; 276, 38–9) favours i, scrobe depresso from Heinsius (58, 755); Tarrant (258, 460) keeps the ‘obeli desperationis’. See also Luck (348, 69–70). 15.379 Watt (231, 169–70) changes, likes Heinsius (49, 412n ‘malim quod reddidit’), quod instead of quem from Ω and editors. 15.381 Shackleton Bailey (169, 337; 245) and Anderson (203, 370) read quantam capit, ipsa reducit. Kenney (194, 249) suggests reading either quantam capit, ipsa; quantam capit ipse; or quam possidet ipsa; he also proposes changing quantam for qualem (Heinsius

Studies on particular passages: Book XV

209

in b3, 432r) or quam, while Goold (178, 390) reads quantam capit ipse. Von Albrecht (208, 814 and 884) surmises quam iam in place of quantam, while Watt (231, 170) maintains that the easiest option is to read ipse, as Goold does, instead of ipsa; or even, as an alternative, quantam capit ursa. Tarrant (258, 461) opts for qualem capit ipsa, reducit, although he expresses doubts about qualem. Liberman (257, 88) proposes reading qualem tenet ipsa. See Luck (348, 72). 15.386 Luck (263, 223) notes the defence by Naugerius (15, adn.) of Cythereiadas, which was in fact proposed by Constantius Fanensis (13, s. p. ‘Lego Cythereiadas, quam primam syllabam semper brevem invenio, licet non ignorem υ esse bitemporeum’). See on 14.87. 15.396 Hardie (328, 174 and 535) reads ilicet from some codd. and Barth (42, 990), replaced by ilicis from Ω and editors. Goold (178, 392), Anderson (203, 371) and Hardie (328, 174 and 535) read tremulaeque. Von Albrecht (208, 816 and 884), Tarrant (258, 461) and Galasso (269, 124) favour tremulaeve, like Heinsius (49, 342). 15.398 Luck (348, 74) believes that levis from some codd. is the correct reading, instead of lenis from Ω and editors. 15.402 Luck (348, 75) believes that phoenica should be capitalized, as in line 393. 15.407 Luck (297, 65; 348, 76–7) supports Bach’s suggestion (76, 472n) of reading igne in place of aede from Ω and editors. Tarrant (258, 462n) questions aede. 15.420 Luck (263, 462) points out that Naugerius introduced the reading tempora (15, 196r), although he himself favours reading tempore from Gf and Heinsius (49, 343 and 414n). 15.426–30 Tarrant (240, 433–5 and 347; 258, 463) omits these lines, as suggested by Heinsius (49, 343 and 415n), while Luck (297, 65–6; 348, 79–80) edits them like this: clara fuit Sparte, magnae viguere Mycenae: 426 vile solum Sparte est, altae cecidere Mycenae 428 nec non Cecropiae, nec non Amphionis arces. 427 quid Pandioniis restat, nisi nomen Athenis? 430 Oedipodioniae quid sunt nisi fabula Thebae? 429 Goold (178, 394), Anderson (203, 372) and Hardie (328, 176 and 538–9) consider them to be authentic. 15.437–8 Tarrant (258, 463n) questions whether to change the order of these lines, as in some codd. and Heinsius (49, 343 and 415n). 15.438 Luck (348, 82) believes that we should probably restore, along with Magnus (134, 599), the form Helenos in Ovid instead of Helenus from Ω and editors.

210

Transmission and Textual Criticism

15.458 Ramírez de Verger (214, 50), von Albrecht (208, 820 and 884) and Luck (348, 85) read corpora from some codd., in place of pectora from others and editors. 15.464 Richmond (281, 132) criticises Tarrant (258, 389) for failing to specify the ‘quod quibusdam placuit’ for the variant tremenda. Luck (348, 86) reads guttura cultro with Heinsius (49, 344 and 416n) and Magnus (134, 601), in place of guttura ferro from Ω and most editors. 15.475 Luck (264, 268) believes that formidantes from some codd. is preferable to formidatis frolm Ω, although subsequently (348, 87–8) chooses formidatis. Luck (274, 120; 302, 117; 348, ibid.) and Tarrant (258, 465n, albeit with reservations) read includite from a group of ‘antiquiores’, like the edd. vett. and Burman (55, 1054 ‘nos includite praetulimus’). 15.478 Anderson (203, 374) reads vacent epulis from Ω, while Goold (178, 398) and Tarrant (258, 465) favour cruore vacent from Postgate (121, 152, and Edwards, 119, 490). Watt (216, 103–4) proposes reading ora vacent illis. See Luck (348, 88). 15.481 Luck (348, 88) believes that, at the end of the line, only a comma, no semicolon, is needed. 15.493 Liberman (257, 88) reads pone modum in place of siste modum from Ω, questionable for Tarrant (258, 466), while Luck (298, 18; 348, ad loc.) accepts this proposal, if flenti in the previous line is changed to flendi. Ramírez de Verger (214, 50) favours siste modo from Bothe (68, 164–5). 15.498 Luck (302, 17) reads sceleratae et from a group of codd., such as Koch (in Magnus, 134, 602), in place of sceleratae from Ω and editors. 15.500 Luck (263, 224) attributes to Naugerius (15, 197v) the reading Pasiphaeia; cf. 14.87, 15.386. 15.501 Hardie (328, 182) punctuates frustra, patrium … cubile, while Goold (178, 400), Anderson (203, 374) and Tarrant (258, 466) add a comma after cubile. 15.502 Tarrant (258, 466) questions whether to omit the line, like Heinsius (49, 345 and 418n); Anderson (203, 345) and Hardie (328, 182 and 553) read voluisse infelix from other codd., while Goold (178, 400), von Albrecht (208, 822 and 885) and Tarrant (ibid.) tend towards finxit voluisse from several, such as the edd. vett. and Heinsius (49, 345). 15.503 Luck (263, 462) recalls that Anderson (203, 374) attributes -ne … -ne to the codex Lr2, and to Naugerius (15, 197v).

Studies on particular passages: Book XV

211

15.515 Goold (178, 400), Anderson (203, 375) and Tarrant (258, 467) read contenta from Ω and editors. Ehwald (135, 476), Bömer (186, 390), Hardie (328, 182 and 556) and Luck (348, 93) opt for intenta from a group of codd. 15.518 Luck (348, 94) believes that Zwierlein’s conjecture cursum (190, 203 on Sen. Phaedr. 1069) is illogical. 15.522 Goold (178, 400) and Tarrant (258, 467) read qua from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 346 and 420n), while Anderson (203, 375) and Luck (348, 94–5) favour quae from Ω. 15.540 Goold (178, 402), Anderson (203, 376) and Luck (348, 98) do not add a full stop after mihi, like Tarrant (258, 467). 15.558–9 Luck (264, 270) remarks that the punctuation (indigenae … futuros) is owed by Tarrant (258, 468) to Edwards (119, 490). 15.559 Tarrant (258, 468) is not certain about the veracity of aperire. 15.566 Luck (244; 264, 268; 348, 101–2) reads falsaque in imagine from some codd., in place of falsamque in imagine from Ω and editors. 15.570 Goold (178, 404) and Tarrant (258, 468) read oculos … bracchia from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 347 and 422n), while Anderson (203, 376) and Tarrant (ibid., although with some reservations in the app. crit.) favour oculos … cornua from Ω, as does Jahn (74, 1017). 15.572 Luck (264, 268; 348, 103) tends towards patribus laetum from Bentley (255, 159 on Hor. carm. 3.6.20) instead of patriae laetum from Ω and editors. 15.577 Goold (178, 404) and Anderson (203, 377) read aspexit from Ω, while Knox (199, 189) and Tarrant (258, 469) opt for inspexit from several codd. and Heinsius (49, 347 and 422n). 15.593 Tarrant (258, 469n) questions whether to read priscosque from some codd. and Merkel (92, 322) in place of priscoque from Ω and editors, as defended by Luck (348, 106). Luck (264, 268–9; 274, 120; 302, 102 and 117–18; 348, 106) proposes reading de more, as the ‘editio Iuntina’ by Vivianus (17, 203v), to replace  e more from Ω and editors. 15.606 Magnus (134, 608) ascribes frementis to ‘ϛ Hs vulgo’, while Slater (141, ad loc.) notes ‘frementis (vid. ad 1.199) Naugerius’, and Anderson (203, 378n) indicates ‘frementis Naugerius’. Luck (263, 224) affirms that frementis is attributed to Naugerius, as does

212

Transmission and Textual Criticism

Tarrant (258, 470n), who annotates ‘ut vid.’. Luck (348, 107) adds ‘frementis’ Nauger. ex coni., ut vid., Heins.’. Taking into account these doubts, one need only read the second Aldina from 1516, under the charge of Naugerius (15), and reach f. 199r to read frementis. 15.607 Luck (348, 108) believes that est should be deleted, as proposed by Heinsius (49, 348). 15.624 Tarrant (258, 471) questions alti from Ω and editors, while Ramírez de Verger (299, 811–12) and Luck (348, 111) prefer to read alveo with Heinsius (49, 348 and 423–4n), although undis from some codd. is an attractive option. 15.625 Goold (178, 408), Anderson (203, 378) and Holzberg (347, 784 and 804) read adiecerit from several codd. Tarrant (258, 471) favours adlegerit from Housman (151, 172), although he expresses doubts about the first option. Luck (348, 111) considers that adsciverit should be read, with Heinsius (49, 349 and 424n). 15.627 Luck (264, 268) points out the variant tabo (quoted by neither Anderson nor Tarrant), from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 349 and 425n), in place of morbo from Ω and editors. Cf. Ramírez de Verger (277, 329). 15.634 Anderson (203, 379) reads pharetra from  a number of ‘antiquiores’, while Goold (178, 408) and Tarrant (258, 471) favour pharetrae from several other ‘antiquiores’, as defended by Heinsius (49, 349 and 425n), based on many manuscripts. 15.644 Ramírez de Verger (214, 50) reads postquam curva from several ‘antiquiores’ instead of simul incurva from most of them. See Luck (348, 115). 15.649 Luck (264, 269; 298, 18; 348, 116) reads renuere, as does Heinsius (49, 349 and 426n; see also 249–50n to 9.507), in place of retinere from Ω and editors. 15.650 Liberman (257, 89n) reads permittere instead of emittere from Ω and editors; Luck (298, 12 and 18; 348, 116) favours promittere. 15.652 Tarrant (240, 438) questions the authenticity of this line, which Heinsius (49, 349 and 426n) omits. 15.656 Luck (348, 117) reads diducere in place of deducere from Ω and editors. 15.660 Goold (178, 410) and Anderson (203, 380) read visu from Ω, while Tarrant (258, 472) opts for visum (without punctuating afterwards), as in a group of codd., such as the ‘editio Aldina’ from 1502 (11, ad loc.). See Luck (348, 118–19). 15.677 Luck (264, 269) believes that it is possible to read ‘est deus, en deus est’ by analogy with Verg. Aen. 6.46 deus ecce deus. See also Luck (348, 121–2).

Studies on particular passages: Book XV

213

15.680 Tarrant (258, 473n) is not averse to the variant iussum from some codd. and Heinsius (49, 350 and 427n), instead of visum from Ω and most editors. 15.694–5 Luck (348, 125) reads and punctuates with Bach (76, 498) and some earlier editors pressaque dei gravitate carina / Aeneadae gaudent, with no full stop after Aeneadae. 15.708 Luck (348, 128) reads Leucasiamque from Heinsius (49, 351 and 429n), in place of Leucosiamque from Ω and editors; cf. Plin. nat. 2.90.204 avellit … Leucosiam Sirenum promuntorio. 15.713 Luck (348, 129) reads tenentur instead of tenetur from Ω and editors. 15.715 Anderson (203, 381) and Hardie (328, 196 and 588) read colubris from Ω, although Hardie believes that columbis could also be the correct reading. Goold (178, 414), von Albrecht (208, 836 and 885) and Tarrant (258, 474) opt for columbis from several codd., such as Heinsius (49, 429n ‘itaque dubium non est columbas niveas harum loco reponi debere’). 15.718 Luck (264, 269) notes that Antium from V3c and Mo also appears as an amendment in Regius (14, 162r), as pointed out by Magnus (134, 615) and Slater (141, ad loc.). 15.723 Luck (302, 118) prefers to read pacato from several codd., such as Heinsius (49, 351 and 430n), in place of placato from Ω and editors. 15.729 Luck (348, 132) believes that matrumque nurumque (for nuruumque) deserves serious consideration, as opposed to matrumque patrumque from Ω. 15.768 Luck (172, 61) reads ego iniustis in place of ero iustis from Ω and editors, although he is no longer sure that this is correct (348, 137). 15.776 Anderson (203, 383) and Hardie (328, 202 and 597–8) read in me from most codd., while Goold (178, 418) and Tarrant (258, 477) opt for en from H3, as edited by Riese (89, 272). 15.793 Luck (348, 140) believes that minacia from some codd. is preferable to minantia from Ω and editors. 15.803 See on 4.190; Luck (348, 141). 15.804 Goold (178, 420) and Tarrant (258, 478) read Aeneaden; Anderson (203, 384n) considers the possible reading intrepidum (based on interdum from some codd.). Luck (348, 142) believes that Iliaden would be suitable here; moreover this option would fit the episodes in the Iliad referred to in lines 805–6, though told differently by Homer.

214

Transmission and Textual Criticism

15.809 Liberman (257, 88–9) proposes reading molimina vasta to replace molimine vasto from Ω. Luck (298, 19) recalls that Baumgarten-Crusius (75, 643n) reads molimina magna in a ‘Patav.’ cod. and molimina vasta in a ‘Reg.’. 15.813 Luck (302, 119) questions reading inclusa from many ‘antiquiores’, such as Heinsius (49, 431n), in place of incisa from other codd. and editors. 15.816 See on 4.190. 15.824 Anderson (203, 385) reads Emathiaque. Goold (178, 422) and Tarrant (258, 478) opt for Emathiique, while Luck (263, 478) attributes the correct form to Naugerius (15, 202n), Emathiique, later read in some codd. But it is already found in editio princeps Bononiensis (1, ad loc.), in the editio Parmensis of 1477 (6, ad loc.), the editio Veneta of 1489 (8, 133r) and the first Aldina (11, ad loc.). 15.825 Tarrant (258, 478) questions writing Magnum, as suggested by Holford-Strevens, in place of magnum from editors, but he was anticipated by Heinsius (49, 354), as pointed out by Ramírez de Verger (277, 334). 15.829 Anderson (203, 385) and Luck (348, 146) read barbariem gentesque from some codd. Goold (178, 422) and Tarrant (258, 479) favour barbariam gentesque. Hardie (328, 206 and 607) opts for barbariae gentes, as proposed by Heinsius (49, 432–3n ‘Zulichem. et tres alii’), based on some codd. 15.838 Goold (178, 424) reads senior meritis aequaverit, while Anderson (203, 385) writes †senior similes† aequaverit and von Albrecht (208, 846 and 885) reads senior patrios superaverit, as suggested by Lenz (in Magnus, 134, 621). Watt (216, 104) offers the possible reading felix Pylios aequaverit, a proposal favoured by Liberman (257, 89n). Zurli (234, 175–7; 343, 15–16 and 38–40) believes that the term similes from the manuscripts has occupied the post of simul his and reads nec, nisi senior simul his aequaverit annos. Tarrant (258, 479) accepts Heinsius’ proposal (49, 433n), senior Pylios adequaverit, already accepted by Magnus (134, 621). See also Luck (348, 147–8). 15.841 Luck (348, 148) writes Forum with Heinsius (49, 355), as in fast. 3.703–4; cf. Ramírez de Verger (277, 334). 15.869 Liberman (257, 89–90) believes that Ovid could have written procul Augustus rather than caput Augustum from Ω and editors. 15.871 Goold (178, 426) and Tarrant (258, 480) read ignis from some codd., the ‘editio Romana’ (2) and Merkel (92, 329), while Anderson (203, 387) favours ignes from Ω. 15.879 Luck (264, 270; 348, 154) opposes parenthesising (si quid …praesagia) from Tarrant

Translations

215

(258, 481). Additionally, he believes that the juncture ‘nulla inscriptio’ from the app. crit. should be ‘nulla subscriptio’. 3. Translations 1.  A. D.  Melville, Ovid, Metamorphoses. Translated by A. D.  Melville with an Introduction and Notes by E. J. Kenney, Oxford 1986. 2. L. Dorrucci, Opere di P. Ovidio Nasone. II Le Metamorfosi, Sulmona 1989. 3.  J. H. Voss, Publius Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen. In der Übertragung von J. H. Voss mit den Radierung von Pablo Picasso und einem Nachwort von B. Kytzler, Frankfurt 1990. 4.  M. Ramous, E. Pianezzola, Publio Ovidio Nasone, Metamorfosi, Milano 1992. 5.  G. Lafaye, J. P. Néraudeau, Ovide, Les Métamorphoses, Paris 1992. 6.  Mª C. Álvarez, R. Mª Iglesias, Ovidio, Metamorfosis, Madrid 1995. 7.  D. R. Slavitt, The Metamorphoses of Ovid, Baltimore 1994. 8. L. Goracci, Le Metamorfosi di P. Ovidio Nasone, Città di Castello 1996. 9. J. Parramon, Publi Ovidi Nasó, Les Metamorfosis, Barcelona 1996. 10. M.  Simpson, The Metamorphoses of Ovid. Translated with an Introduction and Commentary by M. Simpson, Amherst 2001. 11.  A.  Pérez Vega, Publio Ovidio Nasón, Metamorfosis, Alicante 2002 (http:// www.cervantesvirtual.com/nd/ark:/59851/bmccz361). 12. D. Raeburn, Ovid, Metamorphoses. A New Verse Translation. Translated by D. Raeburn with an Introduction by D. Feeney, London 2004. 13.  Z. Ph. Ambrose, Publius Ovidius Naso, Metamorphoses, Newburyport, Mass., 2004. 14.  J. C.  Fernández Corte, Mª J.  Cantó, Ovidio, Metamorfosis. I.  Libros I–IV, Madrid 2008. 15. H. Gregory, Ovid. The Metamorphoses with a New Introduction by Sara Myers, London 2009. 16. S. Lombardo, Ovid, Metamorphoses. Translated by S. Lombardo. Introduction by W. R. Johnson, Indianapolis 2010. 17. L.  Stanley, Ovid, Metamorphoses. Intr. by W.  Ralph Johnson, Indianapolis 2010. 18. C. Martin, Ovid, Metamorphoses, New York-London 2010. 19.  J. C.  Fernández Corte, Mª J.  Cantó, Ovidio, Metamorfosis. II. Libros V–X, Madrid 2012. 20.  J. H. Voss, H. Oelschläger, H. Lindermann, P. Ovidius Naso. Liebesdichtungen: gesammelte Werke, Köln 2013. 21.  F. Navarro, A. Ramírez de Verger, Ovidio, Metamorfosis, Madrid 20163.

216

Transmission and Textual Criticism

Oxford University Press published the English verse translation by A. D. Mellville (1) in its World’s Classics collection. The introduction (pp. xii-xxix) and the extensive explanatory notes (pp. 381–466) were provided by E. J. Kenney. J. H. Voss (3) offered a German version, illustrated with Pablo Picasso’s etchings. The volume ends with a brief essay by B. Kytzler, Der Sang vom Wandel der Welt, on pp. 359–73. Mª Consuelo Álvarez and Rosa Mª Iglesias (6) published  a good translation of Metamorphosis with a lengthy introduction, a rich bibliography and copious notes on the translation. M.  Simpson (10) offered  a prose translation of met. using Miller-Goold’s text (1977–1984) with extensive notes (pp. 273–469), aimed mainly at a non-specialist audience. Penguin books published a new verse translation of the Metamorphoses by D. Raeburn (12) with an introduction by D. Feeney. Notes can be found on pp. 637–70. José Carlos Fernández Corte and Josefa Cantó (14 and 19) produced their own translation of met. for the prestigious Biblioteca Clásica Gredos. Two volumes have been published thus far: volume I (books 1–5) and volume II (books 6–10). The first volume contains almost a monograph on the poem. Most notably, both publications have excellent literary notes. As well as an English translation, C. Martin (18) offered one section on contexts (pp. 439–75) and another on criticism (pp. 477–530). The English verse translation by S. Lombardo (16) includes an introduction by W. R. Johnson, and a useful catalogue of transformations (pp. 446–60). A. Ramírez de Verger and Fernando Navarro (21) produced their translation of met. for Alianza Editorial; its first edition was published in 1995. Ramírez de Verger was responsible for the introduction (pp. 13–66), the explanatory notes (pp. 517–612) and the translation of books 1, 4, 6, 10 and 13.750–968, while Navarro translated books 2–3, 5, 7–9, 11–13.1–749 and 14–15, as well as putting together the lengthy index of proper names (pp. 617–62). 4. Editions with Translation 1.  A. Mª Trepat, A. Mª de Saavedra, P.  Ovidi Nasó, Les Metamorfosis. Llibres I–V. Text revisat i traducció de A. Mª Trepat i A. Mª de Saavedra, Barcelona 1979 (= 1929). 2.  A. Mª Trepat, A. Mª de Saavedra, P.  Ovidi Nasó, Les Metamorfosis. Llibres VI–X. Text revisat i traducció de A. Mª Trepat i A. Mª de Saavedra, Barcelona 1980 (= 1930). 3.  A. Mª Trepat, A. Mª de Saavedra, P.  Ovidi Nasó, Les Metamorfosis. Llibres XI–XV. Text revisat i traducció de A. Mª Trepat i A. Mª de Saavedra, Barcelona 1982 (= 1932). 4. E. Rösch, Publius Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen. In deutsche Hexameter übertragen und mit dem Text herausgegeben von E. Rösch, München 19809.

Editions with Translation

217

5.  G. P.  Goold, Metamorphoses with an English translation by F.  Justus Miller in two volumes. I, books i-viii, II, books ix-xv. Revised by G. P. Goold, Cambridge, Mass., 1977, 1984. 6.  D. E. Hill, Ovid, Metamorphoses I–IV. Edited with Translation and Notes by D. E. Hill, Warminster 1985. 7.  D. E. Hill, Ovid, Metamorphoses V–VIII. Edited with Translation and Notes by D. E. Hill, Warminster 1992. 8.  M. von Albrecht, P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen. Lateinisch / Deutsch. Übersetzt und herausgegeben von M. von Albrecht, Stuttgart 1994. 9.  P. B.  Marzolla, Publio Ovidio Nasone, Metamorfosi. Testo  a fronte  a cura di P. B. Marzolla con uno scritto di Italo Calvino, Torino 19942 . 10. N.  Holzberg, Publius Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen. Lateinisch-Deutsch. In deutsche Hexameter übertragen von E. Rösch. Herausgegeben von N. Holzberg, Zürich-Düsseldorf 199614. 11.  D. E. Hill, Ovid, Metamorphoses IX–XII. Edited with Translation and Notes by D. E. Hill, Warminster 1999. 12.  D. E. Hill, Ovid, Metamorphoses XIII–XV. Edited with Translation and Notes by D. E. Hill, Warminster 2000. 13. G.  Lafaye, Ovide, Les Métamorphoses. Tome I, Livres I–V.  Texte établi et traduit par G. Lafaye. Troisième tirage de la huitième édition revue et corrigée par J. Fabre; tome II, Livres VI–X revue et corrigée par H. Le Bonniec; tome III, Livres XI–XV revue et corrigée par H. Le Bonniec, Paris 2002. 14. G. Fink, Publius Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen. Herausgegeben und übersetzt von G. Fink, Düsseldorf 20072 . 15.  A. Ruiz de Elvira, P. Ovidio Nasón, Metamorfosis, I–III, Madrid 1990 (= 1969). 16. N. Scivoletto, Metamorfosi, Torino 2000. 17. G.  Paduano, Ovidio. Opere II Le metamorfosi. Edizione con testo  a fronte. Traduzione di G. Paduano. Introduzione di A. Perutelli. Commento di L. Galasso, Torino 2000. 18. A. Barchiesi, Ovidio, Metamorfosi, vol. I: libri I–II, Milano 2005. 19. A.  Ramírez de Verger, Ovidio, Obras completas, Madrid 2005 (met. in pp. 827–1479, 1942–1968). 20.  A. Barchiesi, G. Rosati, Ovidio, Metamorfosi, vol. II: libri III–IV, Milano 2007. 21. G. Rosati, Ovidio, Metamorfosi, vol. III: libri V–VI, Milano 2009. 22.  M. von Albrecht, P.  Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen. Lateinisch / Deutsch. Übersetzt und herausgegeben von M. von Albrecht. Mit 30 Radierungen von Pablo Picasso und einem kunsthistorischen Nachtwort von E. Leuschner, Stuttgart 2010. 23.  E. J. Kenney, Ovidio, Metamorfosi, vol. IV: libri VII–IX, Milano 2011. 24.  J. D. Reed, Ovidio, Metamorfosi, vol. V: libri X–XII, Milano 2014.

218

Transmission and Textual Criticism

25. P. Hardie, Ovidio, Metamorfosi, vol. VI: libri XIII–XV, Milano 2015. 26. N. Holzberg, P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen. Lateinisch-Deutsch, Herausgegeben und übersetzt von N. Holzberg, Berlin-Boston 2017. 27.  G. Lafaye, O. Sers, Ovid, Les Métamorphoses. Texte établi par G. Lafaye, traduit par Ol Sers, Paris 2018. G. P. Goold (1977–1984) revised the edition with English translation by F. J. Miller (5). He introduced variants on the Latin text and changed the translation in certain places. He also added a short bibliography and a synopsis at the beginning of each book. The Fundació Bernat Metge reprinted (1, 2, 3) the three volumes of met., edited and translated into Catalan by A. Mª Trepat and A. Mª de Saavedra. The volume features a short critical apparatus and some very basic notes on the translation. D. E. Hill (1985–2000) published the Latin text, based on Tarrant’s version; the English translation; and numerous notes on met., for school use. The publication consists of four volumes (6, 7, 11, 12). The Spanish ‘Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas’ re-edited (15) the translation of met. with Latin text by A. Ruiz de Elvira (I, 1–5; II, 6–10; III, 11–15, the last with Latin text by B.  Segura). The Latin text incorporates readings of the interpretatio Planudea, and the Spanish translation is excellent; however the notes, many of which are additional, are extremely lean. M. von Albrecht (8) produced a bilingual Latin-German edition of met. for the series Reclams Universal-Bibliothek, consisting of Latin text with German translation (pp. 6–849). This volume includes  a thematic index of the work (pp. 853–8); brief notes with some text digressions regarding the W. S. Anderson edition from 1977 (pp. 859–86); a complete index of proper names (pp. 887–948); and finishes with a biography (pp. 949–54), a chronology (p. 955) and an epilogue in the form of a literary introduction to Ovid and met. (pp. 957–95). P. B. Marzolla (9) presented the Latin text, based on the version of Lafaye, Merkel, Edwards and Magnus (p. lx), an Italian translation, and critical notes (pp. 651–8). The introduction is by Italo Calvino (vii-lvii). G. Paduano (17) produced the Italian translation in a volume with an introduction by A. Perutelli, Latin text, and excellent commentary by L. Galasso (pp. 733–1610). The French publisher Les Belles Lettres re-edited (13) the edition and French translation by G. Lafaye, first published in 1928. It consists of a short critical apparatus (where he assigns to the Heinsius edition the abbreviation H, as used in manuscripts) and very brief notes on the translation. G. Fink (14) offered a new Latin-German bilingual edition for Sammlung Tusculum, which includes an introduction (pp. 801–52), an extensive index of names (pp. 853–960), and a short bibliography (pp. 961–5). The few text differences with the E. Rösch edition (4) are noted on p. 966. A. Ramírez de Verger (19) produced for the Obras completas de Ovidio volume a bilingual edition, with Latin text and Spanish translation shared with F. Navarro on pp. 827–1479 (see ‘Translations’), plus brief critical notes on pp. 1942–68.

Editions with Translation

219

The Fondazione Lorenzo Valla published (18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25) an edition which includes Latin text based on the OUP version by R. J. Tarrant, with the translation and commentary by various philologists. Volume I (books 1–2) was edited by A. Barchiesi with ‘un saggio introduttivo’ by C. Segal and Italian translation by L. Koch. Similarly, volume II (books 3–4) was also edited by A. Barchiesi, and translated into Italian by L. Koch, with a commentary by A. Barchiesi (book 3) and G. Rosati (book 4). The latter also edited volume III (books 5–6) with Italian translation by G. Chiarini, while E. J. Kenney edited volume IV (books 7–9), also translated into Italian by G. Chiarini. Volume V (books 10–12) was edited by J. D. Reed, again with Italian translation by G.  Chiarini, with P.  Hardie editing Volume VI (books 13–15), also translated by G. Chiarini. This is the best literary commentary of met. to date, although we should still also keep at hand the monumental commentary by F. Bömer. M. von Albrecht edited met. again for Reclams Universal-Bibliothek in a magnificent volume (22). Added to the 1994 edition are a revised bibliography and 30 etchings by the Spanish artist Pablo Picasso. The bilingual Latin-German edition by N.  Holzberg (26) is composed of an introduction (pp. 7–35), Latin text and translation (pp. 37–801), various readings of the Tarrant edition (pp. 803–4), notes (pp. 805–55), bibliography (pp. 856–62) and an index of names (pp. 863–95).

V. General Aspects of the Metamorphoses 1. In General 1.  G. Lieberg, “Ovide et les Muses”, LEC 48, 1980, 3–22. 2.  K. H. Eller, Ovid und der Mythos von der Verwandlung. Zum mythologischen und poetischen Verständnis des Metamorphosen-Gedichts, Frankfurt a. M.-Berlin-​ München 1982. 3. C. Tomlinson, Poetry and Metamorphosis, Cambridge 1983. 4.  A. Primmer, “Ovids Metamorphosen in neuer Sicht”, WHB 25, 1983, 15–39. 5.  M. von Albrecht, Interpretationen und Unterrichtsvorschläge zu Ovids ‘Metamorphosen’, mit einem Abbildungsverzeichnis von F. M.  Scherer, Göttingen 1984 (Consilia. Lehrerkommentare 7). 6.  P. James, “Crises of identity in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, BICS 33, 1986, 17–25. 7. H.  Wissmüller, Ovid. Einführung in seine Dichtung, Neustadt a. d. Aisch 1987. 8. S. Mack, Ovid, New Haven-London 1988. 9.  S. Viarre, “Les images de l’espace et du temps chez Ovide”, in L’ imaginaire de l’espace et du temps chez les Latins, Perpignan 1988, 89–105 (Cahiers de l’Université de Perpignan 5). 10.  W. S. Ginsberg, “Ovid’s Metamorphoses and the politics of interpretation”, CJ 84, 1988/89, 222–31. 11.  M. Lausberg, “Ovid. Metamorphosen”, in H. V. Geppert (ed.), Große Werke der Literatur, Tübingen 1990, I, 39–53. 12.  A. M.  Keith, The Play of Fictions: Studies in Ovid’s Metamorphoses Book 2, Michigan 1992. 13. G.  Thome, Vorstellungen vom Bösen in der lateinischen Literatur. Begriffe, Motive, Gestalten, Stuttgart 1993. 14. B. Blanc, Les Métamorphoses d’Ovide: un vivier de légendes et de mythes, préf. de B. Blanc, Paris-Montréal 1995. 15. R. Galvagno, Le sacrifice du corps. Frayages du fantasme dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide. Textes traduits du latin par D. Robert, Paris 1995. 16.  A. Sharrock, “Representing Metamorphosis”, in J. Elsner (ed.), Art and Text in Roman Culture, Cambridge 1996, 103–30 (Cambridge Studies in New Art History and Criticism). 17.  R. A. Spencer, Contrast in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Ph. D. thesis, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 1996. 18. A. Rink, Mensch und Vogel bei römischen Naturschriftstellern und Dichtern. Untersucht insbesondere bei Plinius, Älian und Ovid, Bern-Frankfurt a. M. 1997 (Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe 15, Klassische Sprachen und Literaturen 71).

In General

221

19.  M.  Wenzel, “Ovids Dädalus und Ikarus  – ein tiefenpsychologischer Deutungsversuch”, Ianus 19, 1998, 15–29. 20.  N.  Holzberg, “Ovid, Metamorphosen: das Buch der mythischen und literarischen Verwandlungen”, in M. Hose (ed.), Meisterwerke der antiken Literatur. Von Homer bis Boethius, München 2000, 124–42 (Beck’sche Reihe 1382). 21. P. Maréchaux, Énigmes romaines. Une lecture d’Ovide, Paris 2000. 22.  R. Tarrant, “Ovid and Ancient Literary History”, in P. R. Hardie (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ovid, Cambridge 2002, 13–33. 23.  H. Erbse, “Beobachtungen über die Funktion der Metamorphose bei Ovid”, Hermes 131, 2003, 323–49. 24.  G. Kompatscher Gufler, “Spectatrix aderam fati crudelis … : Zuschauer-Reaktionen in Ovids Metamorphosen”, WHB 45, 2003, 39–65. 25. E. Fantham, Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Oxford 2004. 26. U.  Eigler, “‘Erzählen und Sterben-lassen’: Erzählervielfalt und narrative Kohärenz in Ovids Metamorphosen”, in S. Harwardt, J.  Schwind (eds.), Corona coronaria: Festschrift für Hans-Otto Kröner zum 75. Geburtstag, Hildesheim 2005, 109–22 (Spudasmata 102). 27.  C. E. Newlands, “Ovid”, in J. M. Foley (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Epic, Malden 2005, 476–91. 28. W.  Schindler, Ovid: Metamorphosen. Erkennungsmythen des Abendlandes. Europa und Narziss, Annweiler am Trifels 2005 (Exemplarische Reihe Literatur und Philosophie 20). 29. E. Tola, Ovidio, Metamorfosis. Una introducción crítica, Buenos Aires 2005. 30. N. Holzberg, Ovids Metamorphosen, München 2007 (Beck’sche Reihe 2421). 31.  H. Vial, “Ovide: le feu des métamorphoses”, in M. Courtois (ed.), L’ imaginaire du feu. Approches bachelardiennes, Lyon 2007, 194–200. 32. P. Fondermann, Kino im Kopf. Zur Visualisierung des Mythos in den »Metamorphosen« Ovids, Göttingen 2008 (Hypomnemata 173). 33.  N.  Holzberg, “Ovid: Metamorphosen”, in H.-J.  Ortheil et alii (eds.), Welt­ literatur I: Von Homer bis Dante, Hildesheim 2008, 135–55 (Hildesheimer Universitätsschriften 20). 34.  G. Weber, “Esplorazione patologica dei poemi omerici, delle Metamorfosi di Ovidio, dell’Inferno di Dante”, AATC 59, 2008, 9–22. 35.  B. M. Gauly, “Verba imperfecta: Reden, Erzählen und Verstummen in Ovids Metamorphosen”, A&A 55, 2009, 62–79. 36. M.  Haynes, Written in stone. Literary representations of the statue in the Roman empire, Ph. D. thesis Harvard University 2009. 37.  E. J. Kenney, “The Metamorphoses: A Poet’s Poem”, in P. E. Knox (ed.), Companion to Ovid, Malden, MA, 2009, 140–53.

222

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

38. J. Krupp, Distanz und Bedeutung: Ovids Metamorphosen und die Frage der Ironie, Heidelberg 2009 (Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, N. F. 2, 126). 39. B. Pavlock, The image of the poet in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Madison 2009. 40.  F. Wittchow, “Pallidus amaro aspectu: der Neid, ein hässliches Gefühl?”, in M. S. Harbsmeier, S. Möckel (eds.), Pathos, Affekt, Emotion: Transformationen der Antike, Frankfurt a. M. 2009, 217–49. Books on Ovid’s œuvre, and specifically on met., are analysed throughout these volumes. In this particular chapter we will thus address only those works not mentioned elsewhere, which examine the literary form and nature of met. as Ovid’s ‘masterpiece’. Some of them offer an introductive approach to the poem, in different languages and with varying degrees of detail, e.g. the titles by Wissmüller (7, on Ovid’s life and works in general), Mack (8), Lausberg (11), Holzberg (20, 30, 33), Fantham (25), Newlands (27), Tola (29), and Kenney (37). Charles Tomlinson (3) combines the insights of poetry and scholarship through four chapters (originally delivered as four lectures at Trinity College, Cambridge), where he analyses a 17th–18th c. translation of met., along with the ‘metamorphosis’ of Ovid’s work seen in the re-creations crafted by T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound. A final chapter, again examining the nature and interconnection between translation and re-creation, aims to prove “how, when a writer is taken over by the voice of a former poet, the literary metempsychosis that results can equal and even surpass his own ‘original’ work” (xi). Bernard Blanc’s book (14) contains a selection of episodes of met. from the author’s own translation, which he accompanies with ample commentaries on their aesthetical, psychological, philosophical and political constituents. Pierre Maréchaux (21), who introduces met. to his readers as “une quête de l’homme au milieu du déphasage permanent entre ce qu’il est et ce qu’il aspire à être”, offers  a general vision of the poem through five chapters: “Le jeu des contraires”, “Rhapsodie en chute libre”, “Le supplice du nom ou «Midas a des oreilles d’âne »”, “Mythiques rébellions”, and “Voix sans corps”. Episodes from almost all the books of met. form the bulk of Karl Heinz Eller’s book (2). He provides interpretations of them, as well as classroom exercises for didactic purposes. A similar approach and structure is taken by Michael von Albrecht (5). Godo Lieberg (1) examines the role of the Muses in each Ovidian poem, starting from the analysis of the two main tendencies of interpretation in scholarship: those who state that Ovid represents them purely as a metaphor, and those who think he gives them a deep, religious meaning, albeit expressed in a non-traditional way. The author adheres to this latter vision. Adolf Primmer (4) finds thematic connections between specific episodes in met., especially when topics such as death and the passing of time are involved. Through an analysis of the three first episodes of the poem (1.5–162), this scholar contrasts Ovid’s pessimism with Virgil’s optimistic religious vision.

In General

223

Simone Viarre considers the representation of space and time in three poems by Ovid, her thesis being that “dans les Héroïdes, nous avons du temps et de l’espace une double image zéro; dans les Métamorphoses, la recreation du monde se trouve justifiée sur un plan mythologico-philosophique; dans les poèmes de l’exil, la mythification de la distance et l’écrasement du temps font se rejoindre l’infini et le zéro” (9, 92). Richard Tarrant (22) writes an enjoyable chapter on Ovid’s literary perspective, i. e. the poet’s self-consciousness as a writer who is to be included in a historical series. He examines how this feeling takes shape through different poetic techniques, such as quoting predecessors, different – and refined – forms of imitation, or else through the practice of rewriting (even his own poems), a device used often, especially in met. Barbara Pavlock (39) provides  a useful analysis of Ovid’s self-image in met. by considering the metapoetic contribution of characters (Narcissus, Medea, Daedalus, Orpheus and Ulysses) who are not generally expected to be metapoetic, and who are less clearly seen as Ovid’s ‘surrogates’. Alison Keith (12) makes  a detailed analysis of the five episodes narrated by Ovid in 2.531–835, all of them characterised by the importance assigned to speech and storytelling. She analyses the technique employed by Ovid to develop the episodes, with particular attention to etymologising, the transitions between them, and the probable political significance Ovid lends to the theme of speech under the Principate. Bardo Gauly (35), for his part, studies the silencing (“Verstummen”) of speakers in met. (this topic has already been partially addressed by Galvagno, 15), due to death or metamorphosis, or else as the result of the audience’s negative reaction. In the final part of the article, the author applies this analysis to Ovid’s exile poems, where the poet himself becomes a character who suffers this same silencing. Ulrich Eigler (26) also studies the implications and risks of narrating in the poem, and analyses the fates of Arachne and Orpheus as against the figure of Ovid-the narrator himself. Richard Spencer’s Ph. D. thesis (17) examines the nature, function and effect of contrast, as an important technique of Ovid’s use of variatio, in an ample selection of episodes: Actaeon (3.131–252); Narcissus and Echo (3.339–510); Pentheus and Bacchus (3.511–733); Baucis and Philemon (8.611–724); Erysichthon (8.725–878); and Orpheus and Eurydice (10.1–85; 11.1–84). Paula James (6) addresses the theme of identity crises in met., focusing mainly on the characters of Narcissus and Actaeon. Her conclusion (25) reads thus: “Therefore Ovid’s γνῶθι σεαυτόν, so mischievously implied in the introduction to Narcissus, is  a concept which undergoes its own metamorphosis, not least in the unhappy mortals who are rapidly forced into a change of self-image by the powerful spite of psychologically insecure deities”. The thesis of Warren Ginsberg’s article (10, 222) is that “the assumptions and practices of medieval interpretations substantiate, in their peculiar way, Ovid’s own opinion of interpretation. That is to say, for Ovid all interpretation is an act of appropriation, an imposition finally based on power, nowhere fully sanctioned by the text, nowhere fully denied by it either”. To this end, he analyses the myth of Phaethon,

224

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

where “Ovid explodes the idea that paternity determines continuity of identity” (224), and those of Lycaon, and Apollo and Daphne. The book by Annette Rink (18), based on her Ph. D. thesis (Göttingen 1996), analyses the ancients’ anthropomorphic vision of birds, focusing mainly – but not exclusively – on the works of Pliny, Aelian and Ovid, since metamorphosis was an important element in their explanation of the origin of the different avian species. Starting from the episodes of Coronis, Atalanta, Eco-Narcissus, Philemon-­Baucis, Galanthis-Dryopa, Byblis, Daphne, Medea, Scylla, Myrrha, and the Armorum iudicium, Harmut Erbse (23) scrutinises the multiple function of metamorphosis in our poem (“Wandel ist das Grundprinzip der ovidischen Weltsicht. Ihm unterliegen alle Dinge und alle Lebewesen mit Ausnahme der Götter”, 347). He examines Ovid’s didactic viz. ethic purpose in exemplifying by means of this device the consequences of human behaviour through met.’s function, and in showing the present state of the world as the result of these extraordinary events that would only be expected in a mythical past. Gabriela Kompatscher (24) considers those  – few  – metamorphoses where an observer is present and studies his / her different emotional reactions. The brief book by Winfried Schindler (28) opens with  a short introduction to Ovid and his work, and then focuses on the myths of Europa (21–33) and Narcissus (33–84), and their reception. The paper by Hélène Vial studies, through the examination of different episodes, the threefold relationship between metamorphosis and fire in the poem (31, 194): “le feu intervient soit comme un substitut de la métamorphose, dans des passages où celle-ci, étonnament, ne se produit pas, soit comme son élément déclencheur, soit enfin comme son résultat, quand un personnage devient feu, accédant ainsi à l’immortalité”. Alison Sharrock deals with “some of the different ways in which metamorphosis was represented by ancient artists in literary and visual media”, and suggests that “there is a significatory nexus in ancient art, literary and visual, involving metamorphosis, hybridisation and metaphor, and that these three are therefore conceptually related” (16, 105). To this end she analyses different instances, most of them belonging to met. The monograph by Philipp Fondermann (32), based on his Ph. D. thesis (Zürich 2007), offers  a thorough theoretical update and  a typological analysis of Ovid’s graphicness and plasticity (“Anschaulichkeit”, “Bildlichkeit”), and of his ability to create visual images in the readers’ minds, through his own words and through his characters’ speeches. The Ph. D. thesis of Melissa Haynes (36) also starts with Ovid’s met.: her case studies analyse the translation of the statues’ features from  a visual to  a literary medium, and its implications in the artistic viz. creative act. The monograph by József Krupp (38) addresses the essential resource of irony in met. through the analysis of several key episodes of the poem, such as those of Lycaon, Actaeon, Narcissus, Echo, Adonis, Atalanta and the Little Aeneid. Irony in this context must be considered in its wider nature: as the author’s ability to create textual distance between the reader and his narrative, not necessarily linked to parody or humour.

Structure

225

F.  Wittchow (40) studies the feeling of envy in met. as opposed to anger (as a reaction to undeserved success), and the connections of the two emotions with Aristotle’s phthonos and nemesis (though not focused on Ovid, some observations about ‘evil’ – “Böse” – can be found in the book by Gabriele Thome, 13). Rosalba Galvagno (15) examines aspects of desire in met., by combining the concept of psychoanalytic transference and the shapes of Eros in our poem. The psychoanalytic perspective is also used by Michael Wenzel (19) in order to analyse the Daedalus-Icarus myth as against previous interpretations. Weber (34) provides an innovative perception of physical pain and the representations of monsters in Homer, Ovid and Dante, from the dual perspective of neuropathology and theratology (or “scienza dei mostri”). 2. Structure 1.  G. Davis, “The problem of closure in a carmen perpetuum. Aspects of thematic recapitulation in Ovid Met. 15”, GB 9, 1980, 123–32. 2.  R. Rieks, “Zum Aufbau von Ovids Metamorphosen”, WJA 6, 1980, 85–103. 3.  A. Crabbe, “Structure and content in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, ANRW II 31.4, 1981, 2274–327. 4.  G. Rosati, “Il racconto dentro il racconto. Funzione metanarrativa nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio”, MCSN 3, 1981, 297–309. 5. H.  Herter, “Daphne und Io in Ovids Metamorphosen”, in H. Zehnacker, G. Hentz (eds.), Hommages à Robert Schilling, Paris 1983, 315–35. 6.  R. Gordesiani, “Zu den Prinzipien der kompositionellen Organisation in Ovids Metamorphosen”, Klio 67, 1985, 198–204. 7.  H. E. Charles, The design and arrangement of the episodes in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Ph. D. diss. Chicago 1986. 8. M. Geymonat, I miti straordinari di Ovidio, Milano 1987. 9.  A. Barchiesi, “Voci e instanze narrative nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio”, MD 23, 1989, 55–97. 10. A.  Bartenbach, Motiv- und Erzählstruktur in Ovids Metamorphosen: das Verhältnis von Rahmen- und Binnenerzählung im 5., 10. und 15. Buch von Ovids Metamorphosen, Frankfurt am Main 1990. 11.  M. Á. Candelas Colodrón, “La estructura narrativa del libro IV de las Metamorfosis de Ovidio”, Minerva 4, 1990, 203–12. 12.  R. Mª Iglesias Montiel, Mª C. Álvarez Morán, “Met. II 262–300 y su incidencia en la unidad de la epopeya ovidiana”, Myrtia 6, 1991, 11–25. 13.  M. W. Musgrove, Narrative Experimentation in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, books 12–14, Chapel Hill 1991. 14.  S. M. Wheeler, Repetition, continuity, and closure in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Princeton 1992.

226

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

15. W. L.  McCarty, “Discontinuity, Metamorphosis and Coherence: Metho­ dologies for Computer-Assisted Textual Analysis, with Reference to the Metamorphoses of Ovid”, in B. H. McLean (ed.), Origins and Method: Towards  a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity. Essays in Honour of John C.  Hurd, Sheffield 1993, 302–32. 16.  E. S. Sacks, The web of change in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Ph. D. thesis Bryn Mawr, Pa., 1993. 17. G.  Tissol, “Ovid’s little Aeneid and the thematic integrity of the Meta­ morphoses”, Helios 20, 1993, 69–79 (cf. AAPhA 1988, 13). 18.  N. Holzberg, “Ter quinque uolumina as carmen perpetuum: the division into books in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, MD 40, 1998, 77–98. 19.  Mª C. Álvarez Morán, R. Mª Iglesias Montiel, “Observaciones sobre la intencionalidad en la disposición de algunos relatos en las Metamorfosis de Ovidio”, in W. Schubert (ed.), Ovid: Werk und Wirkung. Festgabe für Michael von Albrecht zum 65. Geburtstag, Bern-Frankfurt am Main 1999, I, 387–99. 20.  R. Mª Iglesias Montiel, Mª C.  Álvarez Morán, “El yo del poeta: elemento estructural en las Metamorfosis de Ovidio”, in A. Alvar Ezquerra, F. García Jurado (eds.), X Congreso Nacional de Estudios Clásicos, Madrid 2001, II, 415–21. 21.  M. von Albrecht, “Viaggi nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio”, Latina didaxis 19, 2004, 99–109. 22.  T. A. Cole, “Ovid, Varro, and Castor of Rhodes: the chronological architecture of the Metamorphoses”, HSCPh 102, 2004, 355–422. 23.  E. Merli, “On the number of books in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, CQ 54, 2004, 304–7. 24.  E. J. Kenney, “On the number of books in Ovid’s Metamorphoses: a postscript”, CQ 55, 2005, 650. 25.  M. Onorato, “Eco, Narcisso e l’impianto tematico del terzo libro delle Metamorfosi di Ovidio”, BStudLat 35, 2005, 495–512. 26.  B. W. Boyd, “Two rivers and the reader in Ovid: Metamorphoses 8”, TAPhA 136, 2006, 171–206. 27.  U. Schmitzer, “Reserare oracula mentis: abermals zu Funktion der Pythagorasrede in Ovids Metamorphosen”, SIFC 4, 2006, 32–56. 28.  B. Feichtinger, “Ovids Metamorphosen oder Der totale Text”, in V. M. Strocka, R. von Haehling, S. Freund, M. Vielberg (eds.), Vergil und das antike Epos. Festschrift Hans Jürgen Tschiedel, Stuttgart 2008, 295–320. 29.  F. Graziani, “Synthesis mythographique et confabulatio poétique: une lecture humaniste du principe de structuration des Métamorphoses”, in Mª C. Álvarez Morán, R. Mª Iglesias Montiel (eds.), Y el mito se hizo poesía, Madrid 2012, 271–83. 30.  R. Henneböhl, “Von den Wurzeln menschlichen Handelns: Ovid als Psychologe”, AU 56, 2013, 86–92.

Structure

227

31.  C. Schmitz, “Liebeserklärungen: zum narrativen Potential in Ovids Metamorphosen”, Gymnasium 120, 2013, 139–67. In his contribution, Davis (1) outlines some thematic links between books 1 and 15 of Metamorphoses, which, in his view, serve to strengthen the narrative coherence of the whole poem. Rieks (2) studies the compositional modalities present in met., and he focuses on how the poet presents himself: the gods have given Ovid a creative power (ingenium), and throughout the poem he shows his awareness that poetic creation can only come from divine inspiration (94). Rieks also analyses the roles played by the Muses, Pythagoras and Orpheus in the poem. The work by Crabbe (3) outlines the central position of book 8 and its symmetries with books 1 and 15. The narrative structure of book 8 is also addressed by Boyd (26). She states that this book has the function of mise en abyme of the whole poem: from its central position, and with its narrative repetitions, it offers the reader the keys to understanding the poem as a whole. The hermeneutic connection between author, text and reader is also addressed by Schmitzer (27), who examines Pythagoras’ speech (15.60–478) from a literary and philosophical perspective, taking into account the compositional and structural devices of the poem, against the historical background of the presence of neo-Pythagoreanism in Rome. Tissol (17) focuses on the last book in the poem and its ‘little Aeneid’, within which he perceives Ovid’s anti-Augustan position. In the Trojan War and Aeneas narrative (books 12–14), the poet particularly confronts Homer and Virgil and their moral, epic values, such as heroism and sense of justice, as Musgrove (13) points out. Rosati (4) examines the episodes in 5.250–678 as  a clue to the communicative modalities that the poet establishes with his readers. Herter’s contribution (5), which analyses the connections between the episodes of Daphne and Io (on these, see also Gordesiani, 6, 203), states that the poem must be understood as a unitary composition rather than as a succession of epyllia. In his Ph. D. thesis, Charles (7) considers whether the episodes in met. are organised coherently, thus recognising nine compositional cycles (1.452–2.875; 3.1–4.603; 4.604–6.411; 6.412–8.546; 8.547–9.797; 10.1–11.795; 12.1–14.608; 14.609–15.879) with their internal connections and correspondences. Geymonat’s volume (8) is devoted to Ovid’s reelaboration of myths, to his fondness for refined innovation sought via literary allusions to his Greek and Latin sources. Barchiesi also focuses on Ovid’s narrative technique, on the relationship between the narrator and his interlocutor, on the modalities and circumstances of the narrative, and on its reception by the reader. Polyeideia, or multiple form, is how the author refers to the “pluralità di forme e generi letterari” which characterises met. (9, 56). Comparison with Ovid’s narrative technique is also illuminating for biblical research: the study by McCarty (15) defends a compositional unity in the Bible similar to that of met., in spite of the apparent discontinuity of both narratives. In her Ph. D. thesis, Bartenbach (10) offers a detailed study of books 5, 10 and 15, with their pivotal episodes of Calliope, Orpheus and Pythagoras. According to

228

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

this scholar, the poem has a pentadic structure based on the thematic parallelisms between these three books (306–18). Holzberg (18) also adheres to the fundamental importance of books 5, 10 and 15 within the general structure of the poem. Candelas (11) analyses book 4 as paradigmatic of heterogeneity and miscellany in met. This book is divided into two heterogeneous parts (the first ending at l. 603, and the second starting at l. 604). The latter section is dominated by the narrative of Perseus, which this scholar reads following Propp’s narrative model. In their contribution (12), Iglesias and Álvarez focus on 2.262–300, a text to which they assign a decisive role in the structure of the whole epic poem. The verbal recollections create a strong link with the preceding section, and make evident Ovid’s purpose of dividing the poem into books, or at least different sections. In his monograph, Wheeler (14) analyses the poem on the basis of repetition, continuity and closure. Repetition hints at the recurrence of typical models of action; by continuity, he means the serial development of the action through single episodes. The first chapter offers an attentive reading of the cosmogony in book 1; the second chapter analyses the episodes of the flood and fire narrated in books 1–2; the third chapter starts by discussing narrative continuity in met.: Apollo’s change from hunter to lover is an example of how the cosmological narrative creates an erotic narrative. The fourth chapter explores the traces of continuity between non-contiguous episodes, and particularly the succession of episodes featuring Jupiter and Juno. The fifth chapter focuses on the closure in book 15, paying attention to Pythagoras’ speech, the apotheoses of both Caesars, and the epilogue that the poet devotes to his own eternity. In his Ph. D. thesis, Sacks (16) identifies the basic themes in the poem, which correspond to the instruments of poetic creation: metaphor, imitation, image, synecdoche and theatre. In the second chapter, book 2 is analysed: Apollo’s palace is seen as the temple of imitation, where the character of Phaethon copies and tries to replace his father. In chapter 3, the author addresses the topics of the labyrinth, ambiguity and repetition, which are also developed on a metaphorical level in book 8. In two different contributions (19 and 20), Álvarez and Iglesias consider the rhetoric device of apostrophe, and its ability to unite different episodes from a compositional perspective. Their paper, published in 2001, is devoted to examining the apostrophes where Ovid speaks through the voice of other characters, such as Nestor or Calliope. The work by von Albrecht (21) reviews several episodes that share the topic of travel (by earth, sea, air and heaven), and reflects on the compositional aspects of the poem as evinced from this motif. Cole (22), starting from certain reflections by A. Laudien and J. Dietze, states that the structure of the poem owes much to the king lists of Castor of Rhodes (FGrHist 250 F 1–19). In her article, continued by Kenney (24), Merli (23) proves that Ovid’s entire œuvre shows a clear predilection for multiples of five, as did other Augustan poetry (Virgil’s Eclogues, book 1 of Tibullus, book 1 of Horace’s Satires…). The division of met. into 15 books also marks the work’s distance from the epic tradition, which is based on multiples of six.

Literary Genres

229

Onorato (25) examines the episode of Narcissus and Echo as a reading key to the compositional technique of book 3, where the breaking of the chronological order of events is replaced by a series of recurring narrative motifs. Feichtinger (28) reflects on met. as  a carmen perpetuum. Ovid’s originality and mastery lies in his ability to narrate a myriad of stories with internal connections, an idea also shared by Graziani (29). This last scholar considers the so-called confabulatio, a Renaissance method for discovering the structural design of met.: a search of the network of correspondences and symmetry connections which link heterogeneous mythical traditions at a distance. The study by Henneböhl (30) focuses on Ovid’s ability to explore the psychological features which underlie the actions of his characters. The poet frequently contrasts two characters with different attitudes and whose behaviour is thus alternately conditioned or reinforced. Finally, the article by Schmitz (31) analyses the episodes of met. that contain amorous declarations, and identifies a narrative feature that is common to all of them: the moment of revealing one’s love always represents an unhappy turning point in the story for both characters, since it often causes the escape of one of them. In the few stories of happy couples, on the other hand, there are no love declarations. 3. Literary Genres 1.  G. Lieberg, “Zur Kombination literarischer Gattungen Ovids Erzählung von Philemon und Baucis (Metamorphosen, VIII,611–728)”, Aevum 54, 1980, 35–45. 2.  W. S. M. Nicoll, “Cupid, Apollo, and Daphne (Ovid, Met. 1.452 ff.)”, CQ 30, 1980, 174–82. 3.  M. Lausberg, “Ein epigrammatisches Motiv in Ovids Metamorphosen”, GB 10, 1981, 181–91. 4.  A. La Penna, “I generi letterari ellenistici nella tarda repubblica romana: epillio, elegia, epigramma, lirica”, Maia 34, 1982, 111–30. 5. G. Davis, The Death of Procris. “Amor” and the Hunt in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Roma 1983. 6.  A. H. F. Griffin, “Unrequited love. Polyphemus and Galatea in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, G&R 30, 1983, 190–7. 7.  C. R.  Dobinson, The Continuation of Elegiac Themes and Attitudes in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, M. A. Thesis, University of Queensland 1984. 8.  F.  Dupont, “Le furor de Myrrha (Ovide, Métamorphoses, X, 311–502)”, in J. M. Frécaut, D. Porte (eds.), Journées Ovidiennes de Parménie. Actes du colloque sur Ovide, Bruxelles 1985, 83–91. 9.  J. M. Frécaut, “« Le barbier de Midas » ou « Le vent instrumentiste » (Ovide, Métamorphoses, XI, 180–193)”, in M. Renard, P. Laurens (eds.), Hommages à Henry Bardon, Bruxelles 1985, 147–62.

230

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

10.  H. Hofmann, “Ovid’s Metamorphoses: Carmen Perpetuum, Carmen Deductum”, in F.  Cairns (ed.), Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar V, Liverpool 1985, 223–41. 11.  C. Segal, “Ovid: Metamorphosis, Hero, Poet”, Helios 12, 1985, 49–63. 12.  P. E.  Knox, Ovid’s Metamorphoses and the Traditions of Augustan Poetry, Cambridge 1986 (Cambridge Philol. Soc. Suppl. 11). 13. S. Hinds, The Metamorphosis of Persephone. Ovid and the self-conscious Muse, Cambridge 1987. 14.  J. B. Solodow, The World of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Chapel Hill-London 1988. 15.  A. Barchiesi, “Voci e istanze narrative nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio”, MD 23, 1989, 55–97 (transl. “Voices and Narrative “Instances” in the Metamorphoses”, in Speaking Volumes. Narrative and Intertext in Ovid and Other Latin Poets, London 2001, 49–78, and in P. E.  Knox (ed.), Oxford Reading in Classical Studies. Ovid, Oxford 2006, 274–319). 16.  J. T. Kirby, “Humor and the Unity of Ovid’s Metamorphoses. A Narratological Assessment”, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History V, Bruxelles 1989, 233–51 (Coll. Latomus 206). 17.  M. Labate, “Forme della letteratura, immagini del mondo: da Catullo a Ovidio”, in AA.VV., Storia di Roma, Torino 1990, 923–65, II.1. 18.  M. Pechillo, “Ovid’s Framing Technique: The Aeacus and Cephalus Epyllion (Met. 7.490–8.5)”, CJ 86, 1990, 35–44. 19. G. Conte, Generi e lettori. Lucrezio, l’elegia d’amore, l’enciclopedia di Plinio, Milano 1991 (English transl. by G. Most, Baltimore-London 1994). 20.  A. R. Sharrock, “Womanufacture”, JRS 81, 1991, 36–49.  21.  C. E. Newlands, “Ovid’s Ravenous Raven”, CJ 86, 1991, 244–55. 22.  S. Casali, “Enone, Apollo pastore e l’amore immedicabile: giochi ovidiani su di un topo elegiaco”, MD 28, 1992, 85–100. 23.  J.  Farrell, “Dialogue of Genres in Ovid’s ‘Lovesong of Polyphemus’ (Meta­ morphoses 13. 719–897)”, AJPh 113, 1992, 235–68. 24.  A. Houriez, “D’Eschyle à Ovide: le traitement du mythe d’Io à travers divers genres littéraires”, Uranie 2, 1992, 43–62. 25.  C. Santini, “La morte di Orfeo da Fanocle a Ovidio”, GIF 44, 1992, 173–81. 26.  F.  Grewing, “Einige Bemerkungen zum Proömium der ‘Metamorphosen’ Ovids”, Hermes 121, 1993, 246–52. 27. P.  Esposito, La narrazione inverosimile. Aspetti dell’epica ovidiana, Napoli 1994 (Università degli Studi di Salerno. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità 15). 28.  K. S. Myers, Ovid’s Causes. Cosmogony and Aetiology in the Metamorphoses, Ann Arbor 1994.

Literary Genres

231

29.  K. S. Myers, “Ultimus ardor: Pomona and Vertumnus in Ovid’s Met. 14.623– 771”, CJ 89, 1994, 225–50. 30. G. Baldo, Dall’Eneide alle Metamorfosi: il codice epico di Ovidio, Padova 1995. 31.  R. Gentilcore, “The lanscape of desire: the tale of Pomona and Vertumnus in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Phoenix 49, 1995, 110–20. 32.  S. J.  Heyworth, “Some Allusions to Callimachus in Latin Poetry”, MD 33, 1995, 51–79. 33.  S. A. Cecchin, “Medea in Ovidio fra elegia ed epos”, in R. Uglione (ed.), Atti delle giornate di studio su Medea (Torino 23–24 ottobre 1995), Torino 1997, 69–89. 34. S. Hinds, Allusion and Intertext, Cambridge 1998. 35.  A. Pérez Vega, “Ovid, on the birth of love (Met. I 452 ff.)”, Exemplaria 2, 1998, 15–23. 36.  D.  Estefanía, “Ovidio, Quintiliano y el “canon” literario”, in W.  Schubert (ed.), Ovid: Werk und Wirkung. Festgabe für Michael von Albrecht zum 65. Geburtstag, Bern-Frankfurt am Main 1999, II, 829–40. 37.  I.  Gildenhard, A.  Zissos, “‘Somatic Economies’. Tragic Bodies and Poetic Design in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, in P. Hardie, A. Barchiesi, S. Hinds (eds.), Ovidian Transformations. Essays on the Metamorphoses and its Reception, Cambridge 1999, 162–81. 38.  E.  Pianezzola, “Molteplicità  e leggereza nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio”, in Ovidio: modelli retorici e forma narrativa, Bologna 1999, 199–210. 39.  C. Segal, “Ovid’s Meleager and the Greeks: Trials of Gender and Genre”, HSPh 99, 1999, 301–40. 40.  M. von Albrecht, “Feinarbeit in Großformat: Das Prooemium der Meta­ morphosen”, in Das Buch der Verwandlungen. Ovid-Interpretationen, Darmstadt 2000, 158–67. 41. D. Fowler, Roman Constructions. Reading in Postmodern Latin, Oxford 2000. 42.  E. Gallego Moya, “El mito de Escila en Ovidio (Met. VIII 1–151)”, CFC(L) 18, 2000, 217–37. 43.  I. Gildenhard, A. Zissos, “Inspirational fictions: autobiography and generic reflexivity in Ovid’s proems”, G&R 47, 2000, 67–79. 44.  I.  Rutherford, “Formulas, Voice, and Death in Ehoie-Poetry, the Hesiodic Gunaikon Katalogos, and the Odysseian Nekuia”, in D.  Obbink (ed.), Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society, Cambridge, MA-London 2000, 81–96. 45.  C. Harrauer, “Zitat und Originalität in Ovids Metamorphosen-Prooemium”, WS 114, 2001, 297–302. 46. I.  Jouteur, Jeux de genre dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide, Louvain 2001 (cf. I. Mervaud, Métamorphoses génériques: le mélange des genres dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide, 2 vol., Thèse de doctorat de l’université de Paris IV, 1997).

232

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

47.  S. Raval, “A lover’s discourse: Byblis in Metamorphoses 9”, Arethusa 34, 2001, 285–311. 48.  Mª C.  Álvarez Morán, R. Mª Iglesias Montiel, “Cruce de géneros en las Metamorfosis: Medea entre la épica y la tragedia”, in A. López López, A. Pociña Pérez (eds.), Medeas: versiones de un mito desde Grecia hasta hoy, Granada 2002, I, 411–45. 49.  T. M.  Brady, The Margins of Epic: Three Studies in an Ovidian Homer, Ph. D. thesis University of Bristol 2002. 50.  S. Harrison, “Ovid and Genre: Evolutions of an Elegist”, in P. Hardie (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ovid, Cambridge 2002, 79–94. 51.  A. M. Keith, “Sources and Genres in Ovid’s Metamorphoses 1–5”, in B. W. Boyd, Brill’s Companion to Ovid, Leiden-Boston 2002, 235–69. 52.  A. R.  Sharrock, “An a-Musing tale: gender, genre and Ovid’s battles with inspiration in the Metamorphoses”, in E. Spentzou, D. P. Fowler (eds.), Cultivating the Muse: Struggles for Power and Inspiration in Classical Literature, Oxford-New York 2002, 207–27. 53.  D. Curley, “Ovid’s Tereus: Theater and Metatheater”, in A. Sommerstein (ed.), Shards from Kolonos: Studies in Sophoclean Fragments, Bari 2003, 163–97 (Le Rane 34). 54. S. Daams, Epische und elegische Erzählung bei Ovid: Ars amatoria und Metamorphosen, München 2003 (Forum europäische Literatur 1). 55.  J. Fabre-Serris, “Ovide et la naissance du genre pastoral: réflexions sur l’ars noua et la hiérarchie des genres Mét 1,668–719)”, MD 50, 2003, 185–94. 56.  J. Farrell, “Classical Genre in Theory and Practice”, New Literary History 34, 2003, 383–408. 57.  M. Patti, “Agnoscis Ceyca, miserrime coniunx? (Ov. Met. 11,658). Il sogno di Alcione come tributo normativo all’epos”, in L. Landolfi, P. Monella (eds.), Ars adeo latet arte sua: riflessioni sull’ intertestualità ovidiana. Le metamorfosi, Palermo 2003, 103–18. 58.  F. Rosiello, “La favola di Cefalo e Procri: tra elegia e epica (ars III 687–746; met. VII 661–865)”, in V. Viparelli (ed.), Tra strategie retoriche e generi letterari. Dieci studi di letteratura latina, Napoli 2003, 131–47. 59.  J. B. DeBrohun, “Centaurs in Love and War: Cyllarus and Hylonome in Ovid’s Metamorphoses 12.393–428”, AJPh 125, 2004, 417–52. 60. E. Fantham, Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Oxford 2004. 61.  A. Feldherr, “Flaying the Other”, Arethusa 37, 2004, 77–87 (in A. Feldherr, P. James, “Making the most of Marsyas”, Arethusa 37, 2004, 75–103). 62.  E. Merli, “Esculapio e Chirone in Fasti e Metamorfosi: tradizione mitologica e definizione del genere letterario”, Hermes 132, 2004, 459–71. 63.  A. D.  Nikolopoulos, Ovidius polytropos. Metanarrative in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Hildesheim 2004 (Spudasmata 98).

Literary Genres

233

64. Y.  Syed, “Ovid’s Use of the Hymnic Genre in the Metamorphoses”, in A. Barchiesi, J. Rüpke, S. Stephens (eds.), Rituals in Ink. A Conference on Religion and Literary Production in Ancient Rome held at Standford University in February 2002, Stuttgart 2004, 99–113 (Postdamer altertumswissenchaftliche Beiträge 10). 65.  G.  Baldo, “Pathos ed elegia nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio”, in C.  Santini, F. Santucci (eds.), Properzio nel genere elegiaco: modelli, motivi, riflessi storici. Atti del convegno internazionale (Assisi, 27–29 maggio 2004), Assisi 2005, 325–58. 66.  L.  Chappuis Sandoz, “Les puellae des Métamorphoses d’Ovide: des jeunes femmes de mauvais genre?”, LEC 73, 2005, 319–57. 67.  J.  Farrell, “Precincts of Venus: Towards  a Prehistory of Ovidian Genre”, Hermathena 177/78, 2004/05, 27–69. 68.  R. Henneböhl, “‘Stumm vor Schmerz ist die Lyra’: der Gesang des Orpheus und die Entstehung der Liebeselegie. Zur Aussageabsicht des zehnten Buches der Metamorphosen Ovids”, Gymnasium 112, 2005, 345–74. 69.  C. E. Newlands, “Ovid”, in J. M. Foley (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Epic, Malden 2005, 476–91. 70.  J. J. O’Hara, “‘Some God … or his Own Heart’: Two Kinds of Epic Motivation in the Proem to Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, CJ 100, 2004/05, 149–61. 71.  A. Barchiesi, “Music for Monsters: Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Bucolic Evolution, and Bucolic Criticism”, in M. Fantuzzi, Th. Papanghelis (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral, Leiden 2006, 403–25. 72.  J. Á. Delgado Santos, “Una historia elegíaca en las Metamorfosis de Ovidio: el mito de Ifis y Anaxárate”, in M.  Rodríguez-Pantoja (ed.), Las raíces clásicas de Andalucía. Actas del IV congreso andaluz de estudios clásicos, Córdoba 2006, 271–7, I. 73.  J. J. O’Hara, Inconsistency in Roman Epic: Studies in Catullus, Lucretius, Vergil, Ovid and Lucan, Cambridge-New York 2006 (Roman Literature and Its Contexts). 74. H.  Seng, “Ovids Phaethon-Tragödie (met. 1,747–2,400)”, in M.  Janka, U.  Schmitzer, H. Seng (eds.), Ovid: Werk  – Kultur  – Wirkung, Darmstadt 2007, 163–81. 75.  G. Rosati, “Le Metamorfosi di Ovidio, un’epica del desiderio”, in R. Uglione (ed.), Atti del convegno nazionale di studi Arma virumque cano… L’epica dei Greci e dei Romani (Torino, 23–24 aprile 2007), Alessandria 2008, 139–57. 76.  V. Subias-Konofal, “La ronde d’Apollon et Daphné: prière et poésie au seuil des Métamorphoses”, Euphrosyne 36, 2008, 105–18. 77.  J. Farrell, “Ovid’s Generic Transformations”, in P. E. Knox (ed.), Companion to Ovid, Malden, MA, 2009, 370–80. 78.  S. Laigneau-Fontaine, “Jupiter, figure d’Ovide dans l’épisode de Sémélé (Mét., III, 253–315)?”, in H. Casanova-Robin (ed.), Ovide, figures de l’ hybride: illustrations littéraires et figurées de l’esthétiques ovidienne à travers les âges, Paris 2009, 267–78 (Colloques, congrès et conférences sur la Renaissance 64).

234

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

79.  S. Laigneau-Fontaine, “Procris et Céphale dans les Métamorphoses: un épisode épique entre tragédie et comédie”, in I.  Jouteur (ed.), La théâtralité de l’œuvre ovi­ dienne, Paris 2009, 157–72. 80. H.  Vial, “Comparaisons, métaphores et images théâtrales: la complexité générique portée sur la scène poétique”, in I. Jouteur (ed.), La théâtralité de l’œuvre ovidienne, Paris 2009, 249–64. 81.  J. Fabre-Serris, “Le cycle thébain des Métamorphoses: un exemple de mythographie genrée?”, Eugesta 1, 2010, 99–120. 82.  J.  Brasil Fontes, “Bella gerunt uenti: o sítio de Troia em Metamorfoses XI, 410–748”, Phaos 10, 2010, 5–43. 83.  A. Hardie, “‘Canens’ (Ovid Metamorphoses 14.320–434)”, SIFC 8, 2010, 11–67. 84. A.  Hunt, “Elegiac grafting in Pomona’s orchard: Ovid, Metamorphoses 14.623–771”, MD 65, 2010, 43–58. 85. A. Videau, La poétique d’Ovide, de l’ élégie à l’ épopée des «Métamorphoses»: essai sur un style dans l’ histoire, Paris 2010 (Rome et ses renaissances). 86.  C. Battistella, “Genere e intertestualità in Ovidio: qualche riflessione su Met. 13.771–5; Her. 14.45–50; Ibis 153–8”, Dictynna 8, 2011, sine pagina. 87.  I.  Ziogas, “Ovid as an Hesiodic Poet: Atalanta in the Catalogue of Women (fr. 72–6 M-W) and the Metamorphoses (10.560–707)”, Mnemosyne 64, 2011, 249–70. 88.  M. von Albrecht, “Ovid and the Novel”, in M. P. Futre Pinheiro, S. J. Harrison (eds.),  Fictional Traces. Receptions of the Ancient Novel, Groningen 2012, 3–19, I (Ancient Narrative Supplementum 14.1) (see also in T. N.  Jackson et al. (eds.), Gaudeamus igitur. Studies to honour the 60th birthday of A. V. Podossinov, Moscow 2010, 33–48, and “Ovids Metamorphosen und der Roman”, Ovids Metamorphosen: Texte, Themen, Illustrationen, Heidelberg 2014, 157–66). 89.  B. W. Boyd, “On starting an epic (journey): Telemachus, Phaethon, and the beginning of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, MD 69, 2012, 101–18. 90.  J. Heath, “Poetic Simultaneity and Genre in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, CJ 107, 2011/12, 189–211. 91.  M.  Labate, “Polifemo in Ovidio: il difficile cammino della civiltà”, in Mª C. Álvarez Morán, R. Mª Iglesias Montiel (eds.), Y el mito se hizo poesía, Madrid 2012, 229–45. 92. A. Romeo, Orfeo in Ovidio: la creazione di un nuovo epos, Soveria Mannelli 2012 (Studi di filologia antica e moderna 25). 93. D. Curley, Tragedy in Ovid. Theater, Metatheater, and the Transformation of a Genre, Cambridge 2013. 94.  F. Klein, “Omnia turbasti: l’épisode de Térée, Philomèle et Procné dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide”, in S. Barbara (ed.), Couples mythiques: origines, transgressions et falsifications. Imaginaires mythologiques des sociétés anciennes, Lille 2013, 119–40 (Ateliers 45).

Literary Genres

235

95.  G. Mader, “The be(a)st of the Achaeans: turning tables / overturning tables in Ovid’s centauromachy (Metamorphoses 12.210–535)”, Arethusa 46, 2013, 87–116. 96.  A. Romeo, “Metamorfosi della declamazione: metodo declamatorio e creazione epica nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio”, FAM 39/40, 2012/13, 57–73. 97. I. Ziogas, Ovid and Hesiod. The Metamorphosis of “The Catalogue of Women”, Cambridge-New York 2013 (revised version of his Ph. D. Thesis, Hesiod in Ovid. The Metamorphosis of the “Catalogue of women”, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., 2010). 98.  M. von Albrecht, “Das Prooemium”, in Ovids Metamorphosen: Texte, Themen, Illustrationen, Heidelberg 2014, 139–46. 99.  A. Feldherr, “Modeling Reception in Metamorphoses: Ovid’s Epic Cyclops”, in J. F. Miller, C. E. Newlands (eds.), A Handbook to the Reception of Ovid, Chichester (New Sussex) 2014, 22–35. 100.  P.  Martínez Astorino, La apoteosis en las Metamorfosis de Ovidio. Diseño estructural, mitologización y «lectura» en la representación de apoteosis y sus contextos, Bahía Blanca 2017. Some interesting works partially dealing with genre can be found in ‘Reference Works’ and ‘General Aspects of the Metamorphoses: In General’. The generic delimitation of the Metamorphoses has traditionally been an object of study and debate, from those who consider the poem to be defined correctly as an epic composition, to those who consider it a sui generis work, as well as those who see met. as an original combination of epic and other genres, especially elegy (the locus classicus is R. Heinze, Ovids elegische Erzählung, Leipzig 1919 [= Stuttgart 19603; there is a new Italian edition, Trieste 2010], responded to in extenso by D. A. Little, in E. Zinn (ed.), Ovids Ars amatoria und Remedia amoris. Untersuchungen zum Aufbau, Stuttgart 1970, 64–105; a clear, comprehensive and recent vision, although referring to all of Ovid’s work, in Farrell, 77; some insightful thoughts can be found in Pianezzola, 38, in chapter 9 of Fantham, 60 (119–32), and in Newlands, 69 (esp. 476–81), and see also Esposito 27, 147–64; brief considerations, in La Penna, 4, 119, Davis 5, 153–4, Solodow 14, 18–25, Estefanía 36, esp. 836–40, Harrison, 50, 87–9, Daams 54, 79–90, and Merli 62, 460–1; for Anne Videau’s book, 85, see ‘Reference Works’). A review of the bibliography available up to his time can be found in the 5th chapter of Hinds (13, 99–114 “Elegy and Epic: A Traditional Approach”). He reasonably advocates a middle way which, while recognizing the genre-awareness of Ovid in the poem (see e.g. 120), points out the difficulties in establishing clear-cut lines of generic ascription (esp. chapter 6: “Elegy and Epic: A New Approach”, 115–34). Isabelle Jouteur offers another overall study of the material in the first half of her monograph (46, 3–195), based on her Ph. D. thesis (Paris IV 1997). This scholar sees in met. a melting pot of genres, a “kaléidoscope générique”, and analyses the presence of other genres, particularly strong in the cases of elegy and tragedy (esp. 99–162). Charles Segal views the generic originality of met. as the result of – often combined  – techniques (11, 49): “first, the suppression or undermining of the heroic

236

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

element by displacement of emphasis or lightness of tone; second, the conflation with other styles and genres” (and the author illustrates this with examples from Books 9–13); and then by the constant use of metamorphosis, which “is in itself a mode of undercutting the traditional epic heroism” (54), be it through the dissolution of identity, or by breaking down the barrier between nature and culture viz. civilization, or by reminding us “that we are dependent on physical substances and physical processes whose very essence is transformation” (57), an evidence opposite to the belief in eternal fame: “The metamorphosed hero, fixed in a transsubstantiation of his bodily nature, becomes plant or animal rather than monument”. Further elements which help to create this particular kind of epic are the lack of a single mythic paradigm of heroic existence, and – correspondingly – the lack of a central narrative focus. Among this variability and mobility, it is the poet’s eternal fame which stands at the end of the poem: “If the heroic kleos of the epic hero has dissolved in the fluid boundaries of metamorphosis, it finds a new embodiment in the epic glory of the poet himself, the poet as a hero” (62). In a work focused on arguing the importance of humour for the cohesion of met., John Kirby (16) also starts by summarizing the various studies regarding the genre of this poem (233–7). Although his study goes beyond Ovid, the chapter “Il genere tra empirismo  e teoria” by Gianbiagio Conte (19, 145–73) is worthy of attention. Plentiful interesting information regarding Ovid’s sensitivity to issues of genre and literariness can be found in Barchiesi (15) and, on his experimentalism in matters of genre, in Labate (17, “Dopo i generi: lo sperimentalismo di Ovidio”, 960–5; for met., 964–5); for met. as ‘rewriting’ of the Aeneid, Baldo (30), Hinds (34, 99–122), Rosati (75, 139–48). A theoretical approach to Ovid’s narrative in met. can be found in Nikolopoulos (63). Joseph Farrell offers a short resume of the topic in his first pages (23, and see also 56, 422–3). He bases his study on Wilhelm Kroll’s concept of Kreuzung der Gattungen, going a step further in order to analyse the story of Acis, Galatea, and Polyphemus (13.719–897) in terms of ‘dialogue’ or ‘polyphony’. In other words, he considers that “all of the constituent genres represent different ‘voices’ or even ‘languages’ present in a state of constant interaction throughout the poem” and thus dismisses “a primary generic background”, i. e. epic in the case of this episode, which is therefore read as a dialogue between bucolic, elegy and epic. Concerning this same viewpoint, although adhering explicitly to the thesis of Richard Heinze, Alison Keith (51) carries out a complete and bibliographically up-to-date exercise of Quellenforschung regarding the first five books of met., pointing out first of all Ovid’s indebtedness to epic (Homer, Homeric Hymns, Ennius, Virgil) and didactic epic (Hesiod, Nicander, Aratus, Lucretius), a combination already present in the first four programmatic verses, and which therefore “signals that the Metamorphoses will combine the traditions of heroic and didactic epos in a comprehensive culmination of the genre” (239). Afterwards she studies, in line with Heinze’s thesis, the debt to elegiac themes and sources (Callimachus, Parthenius, Catullus, and Roman elegy, Ovid himself included), which she finds “consonant with his [sc. Ovid’s] demonstrable engagement with the generic conventions of epic” (251). And she adds (ibid.): “[W]hat does seem novel is Ovid’s

Literary Genres

237

self-conscious commentary on his contamination of epic with elegy, “his continual awareness of the system of genres,” whether observed, transgressed, or problematized” (the quotation belongs to Conte, 19, English transl., 124). Lastly, Keith addresses the influence of tragic authors and sagas (a brief summary on the mixing of genres in met. is available in O’Hara, 73, 118–21). Also following the thesis of Heinze, Elena Merli (62) analyses the differences in the treatment of the characters of Aesculapius and Chiron in met. (2.640–75) and fast. (5.379–414; 6.746–62). A different study – and, in my opinion, less fruitful – of the theme of literary genres in met. can be found in Gildenhard and Zissos (37), who analyse from the perspective of trans-generic and cross-cultural poetics the way in which Ovid incorporates the physical suffering of Greek tragic material into his text. Alison Sharrock (20) suggests that the story of Pygmalion (10.243–97) reflects on the eroto-artistic relationship between the poet and his puella explored in Latin love elegy (49): “By foregrounding the lover as artist / artist as lover, the text consciously or unconsciously exposes the workings of gendered power relations in erotic and specifically elegiac discourse”. In a later work (52), Sharrock in turn studies the gender and sexual undertones of Ovid’s relationship with the Muse, which she illustrates using the episode of Salmacis and Hermaphroditus in Book 4, and interprets that “the poet is emasculated through his connection with the overpowering Muse of epic” (217); also “Throughout the poem there is a tension between these two elements: independence from the Muse (and the intertextual tradition) and desire for the Muse and the epic grandeur she can bestow” (219). Sylvie Laigneau-Fontaine (78, 269–76) observes that in the episode of Semele (3.253–314) Ovid resumes and freely modifies various elegiac topics (the love triangle, the lena and the puella, the servitium amoris, the paraclausithyron, or the fire of love), parodying them. She notes that in doing so, Ovid presents Jupiter as  a degraded elegiac hero, so that secondarily and metapoetically he is presenting himself as a poet incapable of producing a completely epic work (276–8). In a long article concerning Meleager’s episode (8.268–546), Charles Segal (39) studies Ovid’s techniques of incorporating traditional material (Homer, Bacchylides, Euripides, Calimachus, Nicander, Accius) in such a particular way that he manages “to include a contrasting range of genres and registers: martial and erotic, tragic and comic tones, heavy and light narratives, male-centered and female-centered points of view, public and domestic realms. Ovid here exhibits two complementary features of his artistry at its most subtle, a self-conscious sense of both belatedness and comprehensiveness” (301). According to Segal, “Ovid’s answer is just the reverse of Virgil’s, namely to produce a poem of epic length, contents, and style that continually refuses to take itself and its heroes with epic seriousness” (337). Comparing the treatment of the myth of Io in Homer, Aeschylus, Moschus and Ovid, Houriez (24, 61) arrives at this conclusion: “Le traitement du mythe d’Io dans le Métamorphoses, et déjà dans l’Europé, est par consequent le résultat d’une redefinition de l’épos”. Some years later, Joseph Farrell returned to the topic (67) with the intention of outlining a “Prehistory of Ovidian Genre”, especially regarding met. and fast. What is new is that, in the absence of literary forerunners of Ovid in the generic practice,

238

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

Farrell focuses on  a number of literary and artistic designs (which he refers to as ‘precincts’ here) that are related to Venus, a goddess he chooses because of her strong presence in the politics, literature, and art of the late Republican and Augustan periods, and also because of Ovid’s personal affinity with her. The three ‘precincts’ that he takes into consideration are the complex of buildings dedicated to Venus Victrix by Cn. Pompeius Magnus in 55 bce, the fourth book of Ovid’s Fasti, and the fourth book of Horace’s Odes. By comparing these (the author applies the rhetorical concept of ‘genre’ in the sense of ‘type’ to the fields of architecture and religion), Farrell tries to show “the generic sophistication of their designs and of the ways in which they represent the goddess herself ” (29). His starting hypothesis “is that Ovid’s characteristic attitude towards genre has strong affinities with attitudes that are very much in evidence in the realms of late Republican architecture and cult, and that it exhibits equally distinct divergences from the characteristic tendencies of antecedent literature, which was generally more conservative in this respect” (30). Specifically, Farrell finds  a parallel  – not necessarily  a model or source  – in the architectural composition of the opera Pompeiana. He focuses on its combination of different elements (curia, theatrum, templum, porticus) and even the double nature of elements like the cavea, which allows him to qualify the collection of buildings as ‘ambiguous’ and to consider it explicitly (37) as an example of “Kreuzung der Gattungen”, “a true and very advanced hybrid”: “Like the Metamorphoses or Fasti, which combine so many disparate generic elements, the opera Pompeiana amount to a kind of Kataloggedicht, and […] the individual elements of the composition change their meaning in combination with one another, even to the extent that their generic identity becomes unstable” (37–8). Continuing along this line, Farrell even contends that “[t]he genre of Venus also comprises  a number of subtypes” (40) and mentions the similarities of Venus Victrix with Minerva, but also with Mars. With this background in mind, Farrell goes on to consider Fasti 4 as “poetic precinct of Venus”, to the extent that Aprilis is the month of Venus, and hers only. Now, the association of Venus with other goddesses in the heart of the book has as a consequence that “Ovid’s Venus becomes a complex figure whose cult extends to both matrons and streetwalkers, whose generative force animates both farmlands and the Roman imperial family, and whose manifestations extend from literally naked sexuality to ritual chastity” (cf. 67: “Ovid’s treatment of Venus in Fasti 4 does […] expand the goddess’ frame of reference without sacrificing […] her basic character as the Goddess of Love”). Lastly, Farrell analyses the presence of Venus in Hor. carm. 4, not as Ovid’s forerunner but as “an exceptionally important comparandum” (53), although from this comparison he deduces the vast difference between the two treatments: Horace is the more traditional or conservative in terms of generic adscription, while “Ovid develops the numinous and the literary-generic aspects of Venus and her sister goddesses in closely analogous ways”; “The closest analogue to Ovid’s practice … is found not in other literary manifestations of the Augustan Venus, but in the late Republican Venus of the opera Pompeiana” (68). Explaining and developing certain theses of Otis (Ovid as an epic poet, 19702), Nicoll (2) argues that Apollo’s theophany (Apollo-Cupid and Apollo-Daphne) shows Ovid’s connection to the elegiac genre through his comparison with am. 1.1 at the

Literary Genres

239

same time as with Call. Ait. 1 fr. 1, seeing the Apollo-Cupid episode as a “disguised recusatio”, and therefore with  a programmatic purpose at this point in the poem (a similar approach, in Syed, 64, esp. 100–2). The Apollo-Daphne episode could be interpreted humorously in the sense that “the patron of epic and serious poetry should be obliged to abandon his epic pretensions in order to get his hands on the tree which was the symbol of his own poetic craft” (177). Just as am. 1.1 opens with an obvious reference to the Aeneid, so he then analyses the similarities between the entire section of met. 1 which precedes the theophany of Apollo, and the beginning of the Aeneid: “This combination of ‘epic’ and ‘anti-epic’ surely exactly fulfils Ovid’s initial promise in Met. 1.4 of a carmen which was to be both perpetuum and deductum” (180). This initial double characterisation of the poem in programmatic code (the apparent paradox had already been pointed out by O. S. Due, Changing Forms. Studies in the Metamorphoses of Ovid, Copenhagen 1974, 95, and see Myers, 28, 2–15, Heyworth, 32, von Albrecht, 40 and 98, Gildenhard and Zissos, 43, Harrauer, 45, Jouteur 46, 234–71, Brady, 49, 75–81, O’Hara, 70, 155 n. 19, and Martínez Astorino, 100, 83–9, as well as Barchiesi in the comm. Ovidio. Metamorfosi, I, 133–45) is the purpose of both Heinz Hofmann’s article (10), which recognises in it Ovid’s aim to eroticize epic, and Farouk Grewing’s (26), who sees in this apparent paradox the cryptic adscription by Ovid to the Alexandrine poetic ideology (see also ‘Sources and models: Hellenistic authors – poets’). This thesis, however, had already been one of the central topics of Peter Knox’s monograph (12, abbreviated version of his dissertation: Ovid’s Metamorphoses and the Tradition of Elegy, Diss. Harvard 1982). He illustrates Ovid’s Alexandrianism through the ‘Alexandrian’ Orpheus in Book 10 and through the aetiological stories which make up books 14 and 15. The article by James O’Hara (70) returns to this same aspect of the proem, focusing attention on Ovid’s use of the topos of divine vs. human motivation for poetic composition (152: “Who changed Ovid’s plans, his own heart or the immortal gods?”), and authority or causation (156: “Who is in charge in Ovid’s poem?”). The reasoning which O’Hara uses can be found in extenso in the 5th chapter of his later monograph (73, 104–30), dedicated to Ovid, where certain episodes are analysed from the perspective of the relationship between inconsistency and narrative authority. John Heath (90) also addresses the way in which Ovid manipulates, in the very prologue of the poem, the topos of ‘poetic simultaneity’ (“the illusion that a poem is really only coming into being as it evolves before the readers’ eyes, that the poet / persona is composing it ‘as we watch’”, 189) to evoke the tension between the poet and the gods in their dispute for generic control of the work. Finally, a more literal reading of the poem is offered by Esposito (27, 162–4). Ana Pérez Vega (35) finds  a combination of elegy with the cosmogonic hymn, didactic wisdom and the epyllion in the Apollo-Daphne episode. The article by Subias-Konofal (76) also considers the “hybridité générique” (epos, bucolic, komos, elegy, hymn, personal panegyric) of the Apollo-Daphne episode and draws attention to its common points with that of Polyphemus-Galatea (with regards to genre, the problematic connection between both and the pastoral genre). For the generic diversification of the character of Polyphemus in met. 13 (pastoral and elegy) and 14 (epic and tragedy), see Griffin (6), Labate (91), and Feldherr (99, 27–34).

240

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

Marion Lausberg (3) devotes her study to the use of Hellenistic epigram in 10.515–8: she sees in this use, in addition to further evidence of Ovid’s desire to enrich the traditional genres, a means of adding cohesion to the carmen perpetuum. Moreover Lausberg addresses other epigrammatic passages  – funereal (2.327–8, 14.443–4) and votive (9.794)  – in the poem,  a practice already present in Homer and Virgil but which Ovid moves to the sphere of private life. Christopher Dobinson’s M. A. thesis (7) analyses the way in which Ovid expresses in narrative form the poetic credo which had guided his elegiac work; that is, how this elegiac attitude influenced his epic telling of the myths. As far as the love theme is concerned, the author states that Ovid does not seem to have changed his stance from his elegiac days. The article by Rudolf Henneböhl (68) offers us a poetological analysis of book 10 through Orpheus’ song: he studies how Ovid represents Orpheus, Apollo and Venus, through their tragic experiences, as founders of the genres of epigram and elegy. Carlo Santini (25) had already put forward the view that certain characteristics which differentiate Ovid’s Orpheus from Virgil’s originate in the work of Phanocles. Orpheus as the central symbol to exemplify the new kind of Ovidian epos (“la ‘maniera’ epica ovidiana”) is the thesis of Alessandra Romeo (92), who pays special attention to Ovid’s aemulatio of Virgil. On the other hand, Ioannis Ziogas (97, 8) suggests relating Orpheus’ song, as well as many other elements of met., with the epic subgenre of Ehoiai, as distinguished from martial epic (for a formal description of this subgenre, see Rutherford 44, 89–93, Ziogas 97, 8–9, with references; see also Papaioannou, Mnemosyne 67, 2014, 854). This, in turn, implies reading Ovid through Hesiod’s direct engagement with Homeric epic (87, 267–8): “By casting himself as a Hesiodic poet against the background of Vergil’s Homeric epic, Ovid revisits the long-standing debate between Homeric and Hesiodic epic. Ovid re-uses the language of martial epic in his amatory tales, in order to contrast the Metamorphoses with the Aeneid, and deflate the battle narrative of his epic predecessor. Likewise, Hesiod employs the diction of martial epic, but recasts it in a context of love affairs. Of course, this is not the only way to interpret Ovid’s references to heroic epic, but, in my view, one worth pursuing. Ovid is engaged in a poetic competition with Vergil, hoping that in the end he, like Hesiod, will be crowned with the victory laurel”. Sergio Casali (22) analyses the character of Apollo-shepherd in love with Daphne (1.519–24) and his elegiac nature, since he is subject to servitium amoris, and the equally elegiac nature of Apollo-hunter in love with Hyacinthus (10.162–219). Casali notes Apollo’s inability to maintain his own cognitive powers: the gift of prophecy (Daphne)  and that of medicine (metaphorically in the case of Daphne, literally in that of Hyacinthus). Sara Myers’ article (28) addresses the contrast of genres: she focuses on Pomona-Vertumnus as the last amatory episode, complementary to the first, that of Apollo-Daphne, which “also functions in a similarly programmatic way in intro­ducing themes which are important in the remainder of the poem” (225) and “forms with the first erotic episode a sort of amatory frame within the broader cosmic framework” (226). According to Myers, “this final amatory episode is emphatically placed where it is because Ovid was concerned to assert once again the affiliations of his epic with the traditions of Alexandrian and neoteric poetry, both erotic and

Literary Genres

241

aetiological, as he approached the emphatically grand epic nationalistic and cosmological themes with which the Metamorphoses concludes” (226). Gianluigi Baldo (65) devotes his attention to the same episode and to Byblis, observing the mechanisms used by Ovid to adapt the elegiac code to the narrative demands of the epic. Ailsa Hunt (84) studies the use of the grafting image for the georgic, but also unexpectedly elegiac, characterisation of the Vertumnus-Pomona amorous union. José Ángel Delgado (72) analyses the inclusion of the elegiac episode of Iphis and Anaxarete (14.698–758) in the epic setting of met. as a means of persuasion by Vertumnus over Pomona. Roxanne Gentilcore (31, 117) had already wanted to see “Ovid’s mockery of the elegiac genre” in this episode. Jeri DeBrohun (59) interprets the love story of Cyllarus and Hylonome as “typical of lyric-elegiac love poetry” (432) and highlights the constant presence in the passage of opposing elements, among them, elegy and epic. Fowler (41, 159–60) also has observations about the similarities between Pyramus and Thisbe and the elegiac lovers. Carole Newlands (21) compares Ovid’s treatment of the Apollo and the raven episode ( fast. 2.243–66, and met. 2.542–632) with his source in the now fragmentary crow’s story in Callimachus’ Hecale (fr. 260) and concludes that Ovid makes a “creative transgression of generic norms” (254): “The version in the Metamorphoses represents an attempt to translate material that is more typical of elegy into the grand style. (…) Whereas Callimachus tries to adapt the hexameter metre to narrower, more domestic topics and “unepic” style, Ovid seeks to raise such topics to the level of the hexameter metre and a weightier style” (253). Jacqueline Fabre-Serris (55) studies Ovid’s version of the birth of pastoral poetry (1.668–719). She finds in this episode, and in its characterisation as an ars nova, the paradoxical effect that it is assigned by Ovid the position traditionally reserved for epic: that of first literary genre, both chronologically and hierarchically. Through the analysis of three instances of Ovidian pastoral: Mercury and Argus (1.664–723); Midas (11.146–92); Poliphemus (13.750–898), Alessandro Barchiesi (71) defends this thesis (406): “The Ovidian poem tells the origins of bucolic song, how it became too ambitious and was put in its place, and how it ended up (in a specifically Roman version) transgressing its borders” (a brief reference to the possible presence of satyr play and pantomime in the Cyclops’ episode, in 419 n. 30). Andrew Feldherr (61) relates the theme of dismemberment in 6.382–400 (Marsyas) to the generic ambiguity (epic, hymn, pastoral, elegy) of the episode and to issues of imitation. For her part, Elena Gallego (42) maintains that, in the episode of Scylla (8.1–151), Ovid focuses on the character’s psychological and sentimental aspects, his interior conflict, and therefore the elegiac and almost dramatic tone of the episode; hardly epic. Shilpa Raval’s perspective is similar in her study (47) of the character of Byblis, whose reasoning and behaviour she sees as built on conventions originating from Ovid’s own elegy and love poetry (Heroides, Ars amatoria). Florence Dupont (8) focuses on the tragic elements of Myrrha’s character (10.311–502), and especially her furor, and proposes that Ovid’s story was built on a previous tragedy or pantomime in which she was the main character. In the wake of Heinze’s and Hinds’ (13) method of comparing a single myth or

242

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

character within the works of Ovid, Sergio Cecchin (33) analyses Ovid’s character of Medea and the different treatment of her in epist. and met. In the epic poem Medea maintains the dual state of relicta and maga which she had acquired in the epistles: “l’amore domina nella parte della Colchide, mentre nella parte greca […] si manifesta il potere nefasto della magia” (81). Compared with its main models (Eur. and A. R.), in met. magic is not intrumental, but “si espande e si sviluppa in modo tale da segnare definitivamente il personaggio di Medea e da costituire un ineliminabile precedente per le successive versioni di Seneca  e di Valerio Flacco” (89). The same method of comparing within Ovid, although at a more superficial level, inspires Susanne Daams’ monograph (54), wherein she studies the characters of Mars and Venus, on the one hand, and of Cephalus and Procris, on the other, both in ars and in met., and analyses some differences probably due to “Gattungsbedingungen”. Ovid’s Medea as the original ‘cross-genre’ between epic and tragedy is the thesis defended by Mª Consuelo Álvarez and Rosa Iglesias (48), who point out, moreover, characteristics of Medea’s personality that are attributed to Procne. Dan Curley (53) examines the remains of Sophocles’ Tereus and analyses the mechanisms which Ovid uses to adapt his primary model for the creation of the Tereus character. Curley also dedicates a whole monograph (93), a re-elaboration of his Ph. D. thesis, supervised by Stephen Hinds (Metatheater: Heroines and Ephebes in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Univ. of Washington 1999), to analysing the different types of presence of tragedy and the tragic in Ovid, mainly in met. and Heroides. For our purpose, the final part of chapter 3, on the identification of key aspects of genre, and chapters 4, 5 and 6, dealing with space and time, the tragic monologues, and tragic heroes and heroines, are especially interesting. The interaction between tragedy and erotic elegy in the (epic) episode of Procne, Tereus and Philomela is taken into consideration in Florence Klein’s study (94). The presence of tragedies like Oedipus rex and Bacchae, but also of mythographic sources in Ovid’s ‘theban cycle’ (Books 3–4) are addressed, together with other elements, in the work by Fabre-Serris (81). Marilyn Pechillo’s article (18) is focused on the epyllion of Aeacus and Cephalus (7.490–8.5), arguing that Ovid’s deliberate juxtaposition of epic and didactic poetry, on the one hand, with the elegiac and tragic genres, on the other, suggests “that for him elegy and tragedy outweigh epic and didactic poetry, although Augustus’ poetic program emphasized the latter genres” (35). Helmut Seng (74) considers the formal tragic elements (five-act structure, development of the action over the course of one day…) of the Ovidian episode of Phaethon, which nevertheless “ist episch erzählt und in ein größeres Epos integriert” (178). In fact, Seng shows more interest in Ovid’s skill in combining very distinct literary models to redevelop his character in order to create, in the end, an encyclopedic and universal collective poem. Marianna Patti (57) addresses Alcyone’s dream (11.650–80) and the debt which Ovid incurs in it regarding the ‘objective’ dream, characteristic of the epic genre (Homer, but also Ennius), as well as the Hellenistic erotic dream, and she points to new elegiac elements in the characterization of Ceyx and Alcyone. Joaquim Brasil Fontes (82) also focuses on this same episode, examining how Ovid combines both the elegiac and epic registers here. Federica Rosiello (58) compares the poet’s treatment of the

Literary Genres

243

myth of Cephalus and Procris in ars (3.687–746) and in met. (7.661–865), pointing out the greater complexity of the latter, in which Ovid moreover must implement “l’inserimento di una situazione elegiaca tutta al femminile in un contesto epico ancora al maschile” (141), and concludes that in his transfer between elegiac and epic poetry Ovid “cerca di azzerare le distanze al punto che diviene arduo stabilire i confini tra i due generi” (146). Sylvie Laigneau-Fontaine’s work (79) is dedicated to the same Cephalus and Procris episode: she examines the theatricality in Ovid’s epic treatment, which owes much to tragedy, but also, “de façon sans doute plus surprenante, mais assez indéniable” (157), to comedy. In the same collective volume, Hélène Vial (80) defends “l’hypothèse qu’à travers l’alliance fugace qui s’opère parfois entre ces deux réalités poétiques de nature différente que sont le monde du théâtre et l’usage des figures, c’est l’hybridité fondamentale et revendiquée de l’œuvre ovidienne” (249). To this point she analyses the text of all Ovid’s work, including met. (254–8). Alex Hardie (83, 44–7) considers, among other topics, the connections of the character of “Canens’ interplay of grief and song” (14.428–9) with the origins of Roman elegy and specifically with the Gallan elegiac tradition. Laure Chappuis Sandoz (66) analyses the 13 passages in met. in which Ovid uses the term puella, typical of elegy, as opposed to virgo, more typical of epic, and reaches the conclusion that these passages are always strongly erotic episodes, but that they also imply sexual behaviour which is outside accepted social norms. Therefore the intrusion of this vocabulary, alien to the epic genre, serves to show up the deviation from love which is referenced, while also contributing to the “variabilité générique” which characterises the poem (322). Chiara Battistella (86) notes in Polyphemus’ words “altera iam rapuit” (13.774) a hint to the elegiac amatory code, since “altera definisce un’opposizione tra non più di due elementi ed è proprio su questa intenzionale ‘alterità’ che è costruito il codice della poesia amatoria” (§ 4). Barbara Boyd (89) professes to see in Homer’s Telemacheia the model of Ovid’s ‘poetic journey’ towards the epic genre, as this is viewed in the poem’s first verse (cf. in nova fert animus and Hom. Od. 1.347 ὅππῃ οἱ νόος ὄρνυται). Gottfried Mader (95) notes in Ovid’s Centauromachy (12.210–535), as narrated by Nestor, “a transition from Augustan restraint to the explosion of Schmerz und Tod in Seneca and Lucan” (87), as well as an ironic criticism of the traditional epic virtus and a way of dismantling and parodying the ideology of his epic pretext using the rhetoric of violent mutilation and disfigurement, with an alternation between epic and bucolic-elegiac registers: “This is high epic replaying itself as black comedy” (113). The study by Godo Lieberg (1) is focused on the episode of Philemon and Baucis (8.611–724), analysing the presence of elements of other genres, especially the popular tale and the Hellenistic idyll. The presence of the popular tale in the Midas episode (11.180–93) is also the topic of Jean Marc Frécaut (9). Alessandra Romeo (96) examines the transmitted text of  a controversia pronounced by the young Ovid (Sen. contr. 2.2), regarding the extreme fidelity of two spouses, and compares it with similar episodes in met. (Philemon and Baucis, Pyramus and Thisbe, Orpheus and Eurydice, Ceyx and Alcyone), as well as other episodes where a character involuntarily causes the death of  a loved one, and those which consider different types of love

244

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

(marital, filial, familiar…). Then she analyses more in extenso such a highly oratorical piece from met. as the Armorum iudicium (13.1–398). Finally, she considers examples of ethopoeia and prosopopoeia, as well as monologues. Michael von Albrecht (88) studies the relationship between Ovid (in general) and the novel. In the second part of his paper he considers Ovid’s potential use of previous novels, but he concludes that (18) “the subject must be left open to discussion”, and that “the importance of Callimachus to Petronius and Ovid as well as the position of Ovid’s Metamorphoses in the context of “historical novels” and “science fiction” ought to be illuminated by further research”. 4. Generic Compositions In this section we have collected some works which, beyond the question of literary genre or rhetorical aspects in general, are mainly focused on generic composition (for a succinct list of example of subgenres, see Solodow 6, 18–25). 1.  P. Hardie, “Imago Mundi: Cosmological and Ideological Aspects of the Shield of Achilles”, JHS 105, 1985, 11–31. 2. *M. Pechillo, Ovid’s Epyllia: Genres Within a Genre, Diss. Loyola University of Chicago 1985. 3.  H. Stadler, “Beobachtungen zu Ovids Erzählung von Ceyx und Alcyone. Met. 11,410–748”, Philologus 129, 1985, 201–12. 4.  A. Taliercio, “Alcuni aspetti dell’etiologia in età augustea”, RCCM 27, 1985, 13–21. 5.  P.  Galand, “Les “fleurs” de l’ecphrasis: autour du rapt de Proserpine (Ovide, Claudien, Politien)”, Latomus 46, 1987, 87–122. 6.  J. B. Solodow, The World of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Chapel Hill-London 1988. 7.  J. Danielewicz, “Ovid’s hymn to Bacchus (Met. 4.11 ff.): tradition and originality”, Euphrosyne 18, 1990, 73–84. 8.  M. Pechillo, “Ovid’s Framing Technique: The Aeacus and Cephalus Epyllion (Met. 7.490–8.5)”, CJ 86, 1990, 35–44. 9.  J. Farrell, “Dialogue of Genres in Ovid’s ‘Lovesong of Polyphemus’ (Metamorphoses 13. 719–897)”, AJPh 113, 1992, 235–68. 10. P.  Esposito, La narrazione inverosimile. Aspetti dell’epica ovidiana, Napoli 1994 (Università degli Studi di Salerno. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità 15). 11.  K. S. Myers, Ovid’s Causes. Cosmogony and Aetiology in the Metamorphoses, Ann Arbor 1994. 12.  T. D. Papanghelis, “De tergore partem exiguam: the case for a programmatic metaphor in Ovid, Met. 8. 649–50”, Philologus 140, 1996, 277–84. 13.  G. Baldo, “Una battaglia virgiliana: Metamorfosi’5, 1–235”, in G. Papponetti

Generic Compositions

245

(ed.), Metamorfosi. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi (Sulmona, 20–22 novembre 1994), Sulmona 1997, 93–119. 14.  M. Labate, “Un altro Omero: Scene di battaglia nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio”, in G.  Papponetti (ed.), Metamorfosi. Atti del Convegno internazionale di Studi (Sulmona, 20–22 novembre 1994), Sulmona 1997, 143–65. 15. G. Tissol, The Face of Nature. Wit, Narrative, and Cosmic Origins in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Princeton 1997 (revised version of Narrative style in Ovid’s “Metamor­phoses” and the influence of Callimachus, Ph. D. thesis Univ. of California, Berkeley 1988). 16.  N. Holzberg, “Ter quinque uolumina as carmen perpetuum: The Division into Books in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, MD 40, 1998, 77–98. 17.  M.  Ciappi, “Il catalogo dei partecipanti alla caccia calidonia nelle «Meta­ morfosi» ovidiane (8, 298–328)”, Orpheus 19–20, 1998–99, 270–98. 18.  T.  Fuhrer, “Der Götterhymnus als Prahlrede  – Zum Spiel mit einer literarischen Form in Ovids »Metamorphosen«”, Hermes 127, 1999, 356–67. 19.  C. Reitz, “Zur Funktion der Kataloge in Ovids Metamorphosen”, in W. Schu­ bert (ed.), Ovid: Werk und Wirkung. Festgabe für Michael von Albrecht zum 65. Ge­ burtstag, Bern-Frankfurt am Main 1999, 359–72, I. 20.  N. P. Gross, “Allusion and Rhetorical Wit in Ovid, Metamorphoses 13”, Scholia 9, 2000, 54–65. 21.  M. Labate, “Tra Omero e Virgilio: strategie epiche ovidiane”, in F. Montanari, S. Pittaluga (eds.), Posthomerica 2: Tradizioni omeriche dall’Antichità al Rinascimento, Genova 2000, 19–39 (Nuova serie 185). 22.  A. W.  Bishop, The Battle Scenes in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Ph. D.  thesis University of Texas at Austin, 2001. 23. I. Jouteur, Jeux de genre dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide, Louvain 2001. 24.  M.  Fucecchi, “In cerca di una forma: vicende dell’epillio (e di alcuni suoi personaggi) in età augustea. Appunti su Teseo e Orfeo nelle Metamorfosi”, MD 49, 2002, 85–116. 25.  S. Kyriakidis, “The Alban Kings in the Metamorphoses: an Ovidian Catalogue and its Historiographical Models”, in D. S. Levene, D. P. Nelis (eds.), Clio and the Poets. Augustan Poetry and the Traditions of Ancient Historiography, Leiden 2002, 211–29. 26.  E. Woytek, “Ein ovidischer Bacchushymnus: (Ovid, Metamorphosen 4.11–31)”, WHB 45, 2003, 66–79. 27.  M. von Albrecht, “Viaggi nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio”, in S. Rocca (ed.), Latina didaxis XIX: «Multa per æquora». Atti del Congresso, 16–18 aprile 2004, Genova 2005, 99–109 (see also “Reisen in Ovids Metamorphosen”, Ovids Metamorphosen: Texte, Themen, Illustrationen, Heidelberg 2014, 95–102). 28. A.  Bartels, Vergleichende Studien zur Erzählkunst des römischen Epyllion, Göttingen 2004.

246

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

29.  J. B. DeBrohun, “Centaurs in Love and War: Cyllarus and Hylonome in Ovid’s Metamorphoses 12.393–428”, AJPh 125, 2004, 417–52. 30. Y.  Syed, “Ovid’s Use of the Hymnic Genre in the Metamorphoses”, in A. Barchiesi, J. Rüpke, S. Stephens (eds.), Rituals in Ink. A Conference on Religion and Literary Production in Ancient Rome held at Standford University in February 2002, Stuttgart 2004, 99–113 (Postdamer altertumswissenchaftliche Beiträge 10). 31.  M. Janka, “Ovids Unterwelten im Wandel: Die Katabaseis der Metamorphosen zwischen Imitation und Innovation”, in M. Janka, U. Schmitzer, H. Seng (eds.), Ovid: Werk – Kultur – Wirkung, Darmstadt 2007, 195–237. 32.  A. M. Keith, “Imperial building projects and architectural ecphrases in Ovid’s Metamorphoses and Statius’ Thebaid”, Mouseion 7, 2007, 1–26. 33. S. Kyriakidis, Catalogues of Proper Names in Latin Epic Poetry: Lucretius – Virgil – Ovid, Cambridge 2007 (Pierides. Studies in Greek and Latin Literature). 34.  S. O’Bryhim, “Myrrha’s ‘Wedding’ (Ov. Met. 10.446–70)”, CQ 58, 2008, 190–5. 35.  M. Fernandelli, “Miti, miti in miniatura, miti senza racconto: note a quattro epilli (Mosch. Eur. 58–62, Catull. 64, 89–90; Verg. Georg. IV 507–515; Ou. Met. XI 751–795”, CentoPagine 2, 2008, 12–27. 36.  J.  Brasil Fontes, “Bella gerunt uenti: o sítio de Troia em Metamorfoses XI, 410–748”, Phaos 10, 2010, 5–43. 37.  F. Cairns, “The genre «oaristys»”, WS 123, 2010, 101–29. 38.  B. W. Boyd, “On starting an epic (journey): Telemachus, Phaethon, and the Beginning of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, MD 69, 2012, 101–18. 39.  U. Eigler, “The tenth book of Ovid’s Metamorphoses as Orpheus’ epyllion”, in M. Baumbach, S. Bär (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Epyllion and Its Reception, Leiden-Boston 2012, 355–68. 40.  J. Fabre-Serris, “Ovide et les mythographes: pratiques catalogique et narrative dans les Métamorphoses: l’exemplum d’Atalante et Hippomène”, in Mª. C.  Álvarez Morán, R. Iglesias Montiel (eds.), Y el mito se hizo poesía, Madrid 2012, 159–75. 41.  L. Nicolini, “Uno sguardo ecfrastico sulla realtà: modi dell’influenza ovidiana in Apuleio”, in M. Carmignani, L. Graverini, B. T. Lee (eds.), Collected Studies on the Roman Novel. Ensayos sobre la novela romana, Córdoba (Arg.) 2013, 157–78 (Ordia Prima. Studia 7). Ovid’s use of the epyllion is the focus of Marilyn Pechillo’s Dissertation (2), and this same author dedicated an article (8) to the specific analysis of the epyllion of Aeacus and Cephalus as an inset digression within  a main framing subject:  a digression which in turn contains two further digressions. It also studies the way in which epic, didactic poetry, elegy and tragedy are combined and juxtaposed, in “a deliberate attempt to include within one ostensibly epic poem as many literary genres as possible

Generic Compositions

247

[…]; he thus presents himself, Ovid, the literary artist, as the one unchanging form, the central figure in the Metamorphoses” (44). Annette Bartels (28) dedicates her attention in chapter 8 (191–219) of her study into the Latin epyllion in general, to the same episode of Cephalus (7.490–8.5). The author analyses the organisation and rhythm of the narrative, tempo and voices within this epyllion, and moreover considers met. in its entirety (esp. 191–2, 216–9) as a skilled composition of epyllia. A structural and stylistic-rhetorical analysis of the epyllion of Ceyx and Alcyone (11.410–748) is offered in Hubert Stadler’s article (3), wherein he analyses devices such as symmetry and parallelism, and lexical choices, as well as elements which make up some of the speeches in the epyllion. He also focuses attention on the description of the storm as an epic motif and on the elements of Alcyone’s dream (on this topic, see also Brasil Fontes, 36). Although more centred on the treatment of a metaphor in Ovid (8.649–50) in terms of its models, Theodore Papanghelis’ article (12) also considers “two features of the epyllion technique […]: the tale-within-a-tale structure and the thematic connexion between the outer and inner story” (281). The reception of the Alexandrian epyllion in the Augustan era is the objective of Marco Fucecchi’s work (24), which centres on how Ovid integrates this material into the narrative thread of met., particularly through the epyllia of Theseus and Orpheus. Marco Fernandelli (35) dedicates some pages of his study (22–4) to analysing “l’epillio in miniatura di Esaco” (11.751–95) as a new example of “la struttura ‘cornice-inserto’, con un centro patetico che si trova in un rapporto di contrasto con la sua cornice: e tale contrasto pone il lettore attento davanti a un problema di interpretazione”. Taking as his starting point the comparison with Virgil’s Aristaeus epyllion, Ulrich Eigler (39) considers the structure and the extraordinary position of the Orpheus narrative (10.1–11.66) within the Metamorphoses and its importance within the context of the entire poem, which leads him to confirm that “the epyllion is a genre without genre history” (356). Speeches are the main theme of Nicolas Gross’ work (20), which considers the whole of Book 13 as a succession of three great speeches ironically inspired in three major periods of Greek literature: Aiax-Ulysses / Homer; Polyxena’s plea within the story of Hecuba / Euripides’ Hecuba; and Polyphemus-Galatea / Theocritus, Idyll 11. Although this grouping is irrefutable, the arguments regarding parody as supposedly practised by Ovid are not always evident. The presence of hymns in met. has, logically, received the attention of critics. Jerzy Danielewicz’s article (7) attempts to distinguish elements of tradition (mainly Orphic and Homeric hymns) and originality (mainly in style matters, in structure, and in the use of the “indirect interior monologue”) in the so-called ‘hymn to Bacchus’ (4.11–32). His conclusion (84): “Ovid’s formal refinement visible in his hymn to Bacchus may have its roots in the Alexandrian poetry, especially in the hymns of Callimachus”. Isabelle Jouteur also dedicates a section (23, 173–7) to analysing the same passage from a formal perspective which takes as its reference the traditional constituent characteristics of the hymnic subgenre. In Erich Woytek’s article (26), consisting of  a verse-by-verse analysis of the same hymn, he contends that Ovid manages to create a compact piece from heterogeneous elements, “ein Götterlied sui generis” (79). Therese Fuhrer (18) mainly focuses her attention on the boastful, flawed

248

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

speeches of Apollo (1.504–24) and Niobe (6.170–202), and sees in Ovid’s innovative treatment another example of “Epos-Parodie” which depicts Ovid as “nachklassischer Künstler”. Yasmin Syed (30) has  a more general focus in her study, in which she analyses laudatory hymnic elements in various passages of met., relating the Ovidian technique to the new Roman imperial cult, with an oriental flavour. In an interesting essay (34) on Myrrha’s journey to her father’s room (10.446–70) as  a sui generis epithalamium, Shawn O’Bryhim shows that Myrrha considers her incestuous act as a marriage. Indeed, certain characteristics of this distinctive epithalamium, unlike those dictated by the formal, traditional model, foreshadow the failure of this relationship (cf. a similar procedure in Tereus’ and Procne’s wedding at 6.428–38). Annamaria Taliercio (4) studies how Virgil, Propertius and Ovid (met. and fasti) use the aetiological story and comes to the conclusion “che il Sulmonese sembra sentire l’aition più alla maniera properziana che alla maniera virgiliana” (18), since Virgil is inclined to adapt it to “uno schema classico e omerizzante” while Propertius and Ovid use it “sempre alla maniera alessandrina” (19–20). The monographic work of reference on aetiology in the met. and its Alexandrine dependence, however, is that of Sara Myers (11, with bibliography in vii n. 2; cf. her previous Rerum causae: Ovid’s Metamorphoses and aetiological narrative, Ph. Diss., Stanford Univ. 1990). Also compulsory reading is chapter 4 (“Deeper Causes: Aetiology and Style”) of Garth Tissol’s book (15, 167–214), in fact written before Myers in its initial version, such as chapter 3.2 (“Deeper Causes: Aetiology and the Nature of Flux”) of his Ph. D. thesis (1988, 193–222). In terms of ecphrasis, Philip Hardie (1) gives a thorough review of the iconography of the decorated shields, and particularly of the shield of Achilles (met. 13.110–1 and 288–95), and their ideological implications. Jeri DeBrohun (29) reads Ovid’s ecphrastic depiction of the couple formed by Cyllarus and Hylonome (12.393–428) as a combined allusion to both Lucretius and his own Ars amatoria, and hence concludes that “Ovid’s use of two didactic poems as allusive sources for the descriptions of his two Centaurs reminds the reader of the educative aspect of ecphrasis itself ” (447). For the architectural ecphrasis in Ovid and Statius, see Keith (32). Other interesting pages regarding the use of ecphrasis in Ovid and organic imitation by Apuleius can be found in Nicolini (41, 162–78). In a comparative study of instances of locus amoenus in Ovid (5.385–95, fast. 4.427–45), Claudian (rapt. 2.88–141) and Politian (rust. 173–216), Perrine Galand (5) reveals both the “‘horizontal extension’ (Modifications de la structure descriptive)” and the “‘vertical’ (Symbolique – Intertextualité)” of the technique of ecphrasis. The Ph. D. thesis of Anne W. Bishop (22) deals solely with the subgenre of battle descriptions, chiefly in the two great battles of the met.: the one between Perseus and Phineus (5.1–235), as Ovid’s response to Virgil’s Aeneid (especially Book 10); and the one between Lapiths and Centaurs (12.210–535), as the author’s response to Homer’s Iliad. Particular attention is given to Ovid’s methods of synthesis and creative variation as well as to parody. Gianluigi Baldo’s previous work (13) examined this exact theme – the dependency of the Ovidian Perseus-Phineus battle (5.1–235) with

Generic Compositions

249

respect to the Virgilian Aeneas-Turnus conflict. According to Baldo, Ovid works by summing up the model but also exaggerating its characteristics (“Virgilio manierato”) and even parodying Virgil himself through the use of unsuitable weapons by some of the contenders. In the same volume was included the study, also on battle scenes, by Mario Labate (14). Labate reviews these types of scenes in met. and analyses how Ovid has diverted from the Homeric-Virgilian model, seeking a new literary space. For this innovation Ovid either makes use of a remarkable lack of homogeneity between the contenders, or offers different physical conditions and fighting techniques (generally avoiding standard weaponry), or, lastly, presents battles in unusual places and settings, such as celebrations (Perseus-Phineus; Centaurs-Lapiths). The only duel which does not use these innovations is that of Achilles and Cygnus, which nevertheless “è segnalato ironicamente come il “doppio” del duello tra Achille ed Ettore, cioè del duello più famoso e per così dire emblematico dell’epica di tipo “Iliadico” […] Ma proprio questo duello […] è costruito da Ovidio secondo una sistematica frustrazione delle attese” (149–50). Sometime afterwards, Labate returned to the topic (21), and enriched his comparative analysis by including new texts, especially from the Odyssey and the Aeneid. However many of these ideas are already suggested in a study that predates them all, that of Paolo Esposito (10), who dedicates three chapters of his book to the subgenre of battles: (1.2) “La battaglia inverosimile: Perseo-Fineo e Lapiti-Centauri” (39–49); (1.3) “Il duello impossibile: Achille e Cicno” (51–67); (2.1) “Le battaglie in Ovidio  e in Lucano” (87–106). Moreover, the chapter (1.4) titled “L’inevitabile massacro: i figli di Niobe” (69–84) has content related to this theme, and another chapter: (2.2) “Tra una battaglia e l’altra” (107–33), is associated with it. The function of the catalogue, as  a clearly defined epic motif, is the object of Christiane Reitz’s study (19). She analyses its presence in met. (Actaeon, Meleager, Perseus) and its elements, both traditional and innovative, in terms of Virgil’s use in the Aeneid. Comparison between the Ovidian catalogue of participants in the boar hunt (8.298–328) and other literary and figurative sources had been the aim of Maurizio Ciappi’s previous article (17). The work of Stratis Kyriakidis (25) focuses on the dynastic (or ktetik) catalogue of the Alban kings (14.609–23) and its similarities to Verg. Aen. 6.756–76; the differences between the two catalogues can be explained through comparison with certain historiographical models (Liv. 1.3.6–10; Dion. Hal. 1.71; Diod. Sic. 7.5.9–12). Kyriakidis later published a broader monographic study (33), focused on short catalogues of proper names (in principle, when a proper name occurs a minimum of three times within two hexameters) in epic Latin poetry until Ovid’s time. Through the analysis of these catalogues, both in their inner structure and vocabulary, and in their connection with the narrative and the surrounding context, Kyriakidis tries to suggest the evolution of this device throughout literary history, and pays special attention to Virgil and Ovid (esp. 39–51, 123–73). In the appendix, there is a classification of the catalogues of proper names in Aen. (176–80) and met. (181–5). Finally, Jacqueline Fabre-Serris (40, 162–74) examines the presence of the traditional technique of the catalogue in the speech of Orpheus (10.148–739). The chapter by Michael von Albrecht (27) looks at travel in met., and analyses typology (literal, exceptional, metaphorical…), its function and influence in the

250

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

general structure of the poem. Barbara W.  Boyd (38) centres her attention on the influence of Homer’s Telemacheia on the voyage of Phaethon (1.768–75), since both young men embark on a dangerous journey seeking to confirm their paternity, but also on the actual ‘poetic travel’ by Ovid in the met. (the connection between verses 1.1 and 1.775 through the expression fert animus had already been noted by Holzberg 16, 91). Katabasis is the focus of Markus Janka (31), who compares Ovid’s technique (Juno in Book 4, Orpheus in 10, Aeneas in 14) with that of his predecessors and pays especial attention to his differences vis-à-vis Virgil. ‘Lament of the abandoned lover’ (σχετλιασμός) is the theme of Joseph Farrell’s article (9), yet he focuses more on the polyphony of genres present in the ‘Lovesong of Polyphemus’ (13.719–897), seen as a dialogue between bucolic, elegy and epic. In the complex study of the ‘oaristys’ genre (ὀαριστύς, “wooing”) from Homer to Paulus Silentiarius, Francis Cairns (37, esp. 121–7) examines its presence in Ovid (am. 1.5, 3.2; met. 14.622–771). In this, as in other passages analysed, although the genre appears to show touches of humour and irony, it is obvious that its general tone tends more towards the serious than humorous. 5. The concept of ‘metamorphosis’ 1.  L. L.  Neuru, Metamorphosis: Some Aspects of this Motif in Ovid’s Metamor­ phoses, Ph. D. thesis, McMaster University 1980. 2. C. Segal, Ovidio e la poesia del mito: saggi sulle Metamorfosi, Venezia 1991. 3.  C. Segal, “Ovid’s metamorphic bodies: art, gender, and violence in the Metamorphoses”, Arion 5, 1997/98, 9–41. 4. P.  Murray, “Bodies in flux: Ovid’s «Metamorphoses». Changing bodies, changing meanings”, in D.  Montserrat (ed.), Changing bodies, changing meanings: studies on the human body in antiquity, London 1998, 80–96. 5.  T.  Adamik, “In speciem unius corporis (Struktur und Botschaft von Ovids Metamorphosen)”, in W.  Schubert (ed.), Ovid: Werk und Wirkung. Festgabe für Michael von Albrecht zum 65. Geburtstag, Bern-Frankfurt am Main 1999, I, 257–68. 6. G.  Lieberg, “Das Verhältnis der Metapher und des Vergleichs zur Meta­ morphose in den Metamorphosen Ovids”, in W.  Schubert (ed.), Ovid: Werk und Wirkung. Festgabe für Michael von Albrecht zum 65. Geburtstag, Bern-Frankfurt am Main 1999, I, 343–58. 7.  K. S. Myers, “The metamorphosis of a poet: recent work on Ovid”, JRS 89, 1999, 190–204. 8.  S. M.  Wheeler, A discourse of wonders: audience and performance in Ovid’s «Metamorphoses», Philadelphia (Pa.) 1999. 9.  L. Landolfi, “Posse loqui eripitur (Ov. Met. 2, 438). Perdita di parola, perdita d’identità nelle Metamorfosi”, in L.  Landolfi, P.  Monella (eds.),  Ars adeo latet arte sua. Riflessioni sull’ intertestualità ovidiana. Le metamorfosi, Palermo 2003, 29–58.

The concept of ‘metamorphosis’

251

10.  H. Gottwald, “Die Metamorphose aus mythostheoretischer und literaturwissenschaftlicher Sicht”, in H. Gottwald, H. A. Klein (eds.), Konzepte der Metamorphose in den Geisteswissenschaften, Heidelberg 2005, 81–102. 11.  N. Holzberg, “Formen des Wandels in Ovids Metamorphosen”, in H. Gott­ wald, H. A.  Klein (eds.), Konzepte der Metamorphose in den Geisteswissenschaften, Heidelberg 2005, 37–50. 12.  H. Klein, “Dido in barockem Gewand”, in S. Coelsch-Foisner, M. Schwarzbauer (eds.), Metamorphosen. Akten der Tagung der Interdisziplinären Forschungsgruppe Metamorphosen an der Universität Salzburg in Kooperation mit der Universität Mozarteum und der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Polyästhetische Erziehung (Zell an der Pram, 2003), Heidelberg 2005, 73–96. 13.  P. Kuon, “Metamorphose als geisteswissenschaftlicher Begriff”, in H. Gottwald, H. A.  Klein (eds.), Konzepte der Metamorphose in den Geisteswissenschaften, Heidelberg 2005, 1–16. 14.  P. Kuon, “Metamorphosen: ein Forschungsprogramm für die Geisteswissenschaften”, in S. Coelsch-Foisner, M. Schwarzbauer (eds.), Metamorphosen. Akten der Tagung der Interdisziplinären Forschungsgruppe Metamorphosen an der Universität Salzburg in Kooperation mit der Universität Mozarteum und der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Polyästhetische Erziehung (Zell an der Pram, 2003), Heidelberg 2005, 1–8. 15.  M.  Schmitz-Emans, “Metamorphose und Metempsychose: zwei konkurrierende Modelle von Verwandlung im Spiegel der Gegenwartsliteratur”, Arcadia 40, 2005, 390–413. 16.  G.  Mazzoli, “Le  Metamorfosi  tra Ovidio  e Apuleio”,  Athenaeum  95, 2007, 7–20. 17.  U. Schmitzer, “Exemplarische Betrachtungen zu Ovids Metamorphosen: das Epos vom steten Wandel der Welt”, in H. Sonnabend, E. Olshausen (eds.), Antiker Mythos: Vorträge und Beiträge als Grundlage für Deutung und Bewältigung heutiger Probleme, Stuttgart 2008, 69–90. Neuru’s Ph. D. thesis (1) analyses and compares Ovid’s descriptions of the change of the human form into an animal, a stone, a body of water or a tree, and defends that Ovid relies on tradition as far as animal metamorphoses are concerned, while he is more innovative and was more influential in his treatment of the other groups. According to Segal (2, 50) the Metamorphoses adheres to the tradition of the epic poem, and reinterprets it using two narrative devices: suppression and depreciation of the heroic element, by shifting the central focus of the story and by using a lighter tone; and combining with other genres and literary styles, mainly Hellenistic erotic elegy, narrative and didactic poetry. In Ovid, he states, Greek heroes are not featured in accordance with epic tradition: e.g., Achilles does not pursue kleos, nor is he prone to duels or battles (54–7). The most frequent Ovidian hero is the lover, not the warrior; the immature and unstable youth, not the mature, reliable man (57–60). The meta-

252

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

morphosis of the characters implies, Segal claims, a dissolution and fragmentation of their identity, inasmuch as the process unveils their fragility and makes them subject to the mutability of the physical world (60–4). The main thesis of Segal’s second contribution (3, 9) is that met. reveals “the ways in which the materiality of the body becomes the focus for the conflict between the potential disorder of the material world on the one hand and the drive for order and transcendence on the other”. Murray, for her part, (4, 88) reflects on the concept of the body as trap and prison, both before and after the transformation. In his study, Lieberg (6) analyses the connection between metaphor and metamorphosis in met. Myers, in her article (7), makes a critical review of contemporary studies on met. dealing with the following topics: the boundaries of the epic genre, comparing the polyphony of literary genres already present in the Aeneid, and reflecting on the influence of Alexandrine poetics (191–3); intertextuality (194–5); connections with the Aeneid (195–6); and the political and cultural background of the poem vis-à-vis the Augustan project (196–8 and 200–1). In his book, Wheeler (8) considers met. in its format of carmen perpetuum: Ovid presents himself as an epic storyteller who narrates  a universal history before an imaginary audience. Landolfi (9) examines the motif of the loss of speech after a metamorphosis. The transformation from the former to the newer appearance implies a double alienation in the passage, between what has been lost and what has been conquered. The loss of speech happens in the moment of transition between old and new, and represents the lost part of a being in transformation. Gottwald (10) considers that the Ovidian concept of ‘metamorphosis’ is closely linked to that of ‘myth’. The transformations cannot be considered according to conventional scientific laws of cause and effect. Holzberg (11) focuses on the transformations of gods, an innovation of Ovid’s met. The poem itself represents a metamorphosis of the author’s poetics, which move from amatory elegy to epos. Klein (12) analyses the topic of metamorphosis beyond Ovid, focusing on certain narrative categories: the subject who provokes the transformation; the one who suffers it; the setting and duration; the subject’s reaction; and the positioning of the metamorphosis description within the poem. Kuon considers the phenomenology of metamorphosis in the poem (13). In a more general study (14), he outlines the differences between the concept of ‘scientific metamorphosis’ and that explored in Ovid’s poem: the transformations described in met. are violent, unexpected, and take place just once; furthermore, they create discrepancies between the new body and the old conscience. The study by Schmitz-Emans (15) focuses on the concept of ‘metamorphosis’ vis-àvis that of ‘metempsychosis’, starting from met. 15.16–478. Mazzoli (16) underlines the analogies, but especially the differences between the concept of ‘metamorphosis’ in Ovid and Apuleius. In the latter, transformation does not move from myth to nature, but from sense to mystery. Schmitzer (17) starts from the well-known opening sentence by Kafka, describing Gregor Samsa’s metamorphosis. According to him, this points the reader’s attention

The concept of ‘myth’

253

towards the effects of the transformation and its consequences on the protagonist’s life. With this scene in mind, the author compares the peculiarities of the various metamorphoses as narrated by Ovid, where attention is paid largely to the specific moment of the change, as is evinced by the emblematic transformation of Daphne. In conclusion, the transformation itself is the focus of Ovid’s narrative (71). 6. The concept of ‘myth’ 1. J. Fabre-Serris, Mythe et poésie dans les «Métamorphoses» d’Ovide: fonctions et significations de la mythologie dans la Rome augustéenne, Paris 1995. 2.  S. A. Brown, Ovid: Myth and Metamorphosis, London 2005. 3. K.  Fletcher, Ovid, mythography, and the translation of myth, Ph. D. thesis University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 2005. 4.  H. Gottwald, “Die Metamorphose aus mythostheoretischer und literaturwissenschaftlicher Sicht”, in H. Gottwald, H. A. Klein (eds.), Konzepte der Metamorphose in den Geisteswissenschaften, Heidelberg 2005, 81–102. 5.  M.  Kern, “Mythomorphose: ästhetische und theoretische Aspekte der literarischen Arbeit am Mythos”, in S. Coelsch-Foisner, M. Schwarzbauer (eds.), Metamorphosen. Akten der Tagung der Interdisziplinären Forschungsgruppe Metamorphosen an der Universität Salzburg in Kooperation mit der Universität Mozarteum und der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Polyästhetische Erziehung (Zell an der Pram 2003), Heidelberg 2005, 55–71. 6.  E.  Pianezzola, “Ovidio, dalla cosmogonia alla metamorfosi: per la ricomposizione di un ordine universale”, MD 65, 2010, 59–68. 7.  G. Luck, “Myth and history in Ovid”, in Mª C. Álvarez Morán, R. Mª Iglesias Montiel (eds.), Y el mito se hizo poesía, Madrid 2012, 113–26. 8.  H. Casanova-Robin, “Potentia, vis, regnum: l’obscure origine du pouvoir dans le chant XIV des Metamorphoses d’Ovide”, Paideia 68, 2013, 79–103. According to Jaqueline Fabre-Serris’ contribution (1), the treatment of mythology in Ovid’s Metamorphoses – a work that bears crucial witness to the functions of myth in Augustan Rome – takes one of two directions: either political or psychological. In terms of political direction, Ovid’s remakes of epic myths criticise how the Principate uses mythology for ideological purposes, as a propaganda instrument to display the Empire’s power. As for the psychological direction, these Ovidian versions aim at the exploration of psyche, and question the human being in his relationship with nature, and with the object of his desire. The impact of Ovid’s met. on Western culture is noteworthy. The poem is an essential reference point for most of the well-known myths of Greece and Rome. The basis of Fletcher’s Ph. D. thesis (3) is research into the collections of myths in Antiquity. He deals not only with met., but also with Apollodorus’ Bibliotheca, Hyginus’ Fabulae and Parthenius’ Erotica Pathemata.

254

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

Met. is, thus, a model for subsequent literature. Brown, in her monograph (2), limits herself to the most memorable mythical accounts (Apollo and Daphne, Actaeon, Philomela, Arachne and Pygmalion), where she points out certain influences on subsequent literature (e.g. the myth of Pygmalion and its bearing on the story of Frankenstein, as well as on works by Chaucer and Shakespeare). Ovid’s remake of myths can be variously read with the tools of different disciplines: not only Philology but also Archaeology, History of Art, Cultural Sociology, Psychology, Linguistics… Every phenomenon finds its origin in a myth that is the product of a primitive way of thinking, characterised by the lack of a scientific idea of development according to the principles of causality and effect (Gottwald, 4). The basic – albeit antithetic  – elements of Ovid’s met. are stability and mutability. The aetiological explanation of what exists is not reassuring, but disturbing, since every pre-existent being can be unpredictably transformed into something new (Kern, 5). In this way, metamorphosis becomes the means to stabilise a new cosmic order (Pianezzola, 6). Ovid is aware of the difference between poetic fiction and historical truth, but in certain contexts, myth and history intertwine. His poem shows the passage from the prevalence of myth to that of historical truth, the former representing the civilisation of Greece and Asia Minor, and the latter that of Italy (Luck, 7). Similarly, both met. and the Fasti are full of mythological tales, but met. contains mainly myths of Greek origin, while the Fasti deals to a greater extent with Roman legends. The fluctuating boundaries between myth and history compel us to take Ovid’s narrative as a re-reading of the theories developed about the origins of Rome in the Republican era. The contribution by Casanova Robin focuses on book 14 of met., where the origin of Roman power is linked to the primeval forces and to the mythical figures of the Italic land (8). 7. Religion and Cult 1.  K. H. Eller, Metamorphosen. Mythos und Naturreligion in Ovids Großgedicht. Modelle für den altsprachlichen Unterricht, Frankfurt am Main 1980. 2.  P. Gros, “Les Métamorphoses d’Ovide et le décor intérieur des temples romains. Un essai de définition du dernier art baroque hellénistique”, in École française de Rome, L’art décoratif à Rome à la fin de la République et au début du principat. Table ronde organisée par l’École française de Rome (Rome, 10–11 mai 1979), Paris 1981, 353–66. 3.  M. von Albrecht, “Venus in Ovids Metamorphosen”, Vichiana 11, 1982, 318–31. 4.  H. Hommel, “Antike Bussformulare. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Interpretation der ovidischen Midas-Erzählung, I”, in H. Hommel, Sebasmata. Studien zur antiken Religionsgeschichte und zum frühen Christentum, Tübingen 1983, I, 351–70. 5.  C. R. Phillips, “Rethinking Augustan poetry”, Latomus 42, 1983, 780–818. 6.  A. Primmer, “Ovids Metamorphosen in neuer Sicht”, WHB 25, 1983, 15–39. 7.  P. Somville, “Le dauphin dans la religion grecque”, RHR 201, 1984, 3–24.

Religion and Cult

255

8. T. Eggers, Die Darstellung von Naturgottheiten bei Ovid und früheren Dichtern, München 1984. 9.  H. Le Bonniec, “Apollon dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide”, in J. M. Frécaut, D. Porte (eds.), Journées Ovidiennes de Parménie. Actes du colloque sur Ovide, Bruxelles 1985, 145–74. 10.  H.  Cancik-Lindemaier, “Ovids Bacchanal. Ein religionswissenschaftlicher Versuch zu Ovid, Met. IV 1–415”, AU 28, 1985, 42–61. 11.  O.  Petersen, H. Weiss,“Ovids Einsatz mythologischer Stoffe. Ein Vergleich ausgewählter Mythen in den Metamorphosen und der Ars amatoria”, AU 28, 1985, 42–51. 12.  L. Poznanski, “D’Hermès à Mercure chez Ovide”, StudClass 23, 1985, 65–72. 13.  A.-M.  Tupet, “La magie dans la métamorphose d’Arachné (Ovide, Met., 6,135–145)”, in J. M. Frécaut, D. Porte (eds.), Journées Ovidiennes de Parménie. Actes du colloque sur Ovide, Bruxelles 1985, 215–28. 14. L. Barkan, The Gods made Flesh. Metamorphosis and the Pursuit of Paganism, New Haven-London 1986. 15.  M. Cicognini, “Per una tipologia del motivo mitico della metamorfosi. Il caso di Adonis e Mirra”, SMSR 10, 1986, 5–32. 16.  K. Heinrich, “Götter und Halbgötter der Renaissance. Eine Betrachtung am Beispiel der Galatea”, in R.  Faber, R.  Schlesier (eds.), Die Restauration der Götter. Antike Religion und Neo-Paganismus, Würzburg 1986, 153–82. 17.  F.-H. Massa-Pairault, “Image et sens politique du thiase des tragiques latins à Ovide”, in École française de Rome, L’association dionysiaque dans les sociétes anciennes. Actes de la table ronde organisée par l’ école française de Rome, Roma 1986, 199–226. 18.  F.  Maier, “Der Gott des antiken Mythos. Eine Herausforderung für den aufgeklärten Menschen? Anstösse zur Ovid-Interpretation in der Mittelstufe”, in P. Neukam (ed.), Reflexionen antiker Kulturen, Dialog Schule- Wissenschaft. Klassische Sprachen und Literaturen 20, München 1986, 78–99. 19.  A. Neschke, “Erzählte und erlebte Götter. Zum Funktionswandel des griechischen Mythos in Ovids Metamorphosen”, in R. Faber, R. Schlesier (eds.), Die Restauration der Götter. Antike Religion und Neo-Paganismus, Würzburg 1986, 133–52. 20.  M. von Albrecht, “Les dieux et la religion dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide”, in D. Porte, J.-P. Néraudau (eds.), Res sacrae. Hommages à Henri LeBonniec, Bruxelles 1988, 1–9 (Collection Latomus 201). 21.  M. M.  Colavito, Pythagorean philosophy in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Ph.D. thesis, State Univ. of New York at Stony Brook 1988. 22.  F. Graf, “Ovide, les Métamorphoses et la véracité du mythe”, in C. Calame (ed.), Métamorphoses du mythe en Grèce ancienne, Genève 1988, 57–70 (Kernos 2). 23.  J. J.  Clauss, “The episode of the Lycian farmers in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, HSPh 92, 1989, 297–314.

256

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

24.  A. Pardini, “La colpa di Aiace e la poesia augustea”, MD 22, 1989, 201–6. 25. M.  Steinkühler, Macht und Ohnmacht der Götter im Spiegel ihrer Reden, Ammersbek bei Hamburg 1989. 26.  J. J. O’Hara, “The Significance of Vergil’s Acidalia Mater, and Venus Erycina in Catullus and Ovid”, HSPh 93, 1990, 335–42. 27.  H.  Petersmann, “Lucina Nixusque pares. Die Geburtsgottheiten in Ovids Met. IX 294. Variationen eines mythologischen Motivs”, RhM 133, 1990, 157–75. 28.  D. C.  Feeney, The Gods in Epic. Poets and Critics of the Classical Tradition, Oxford 1991. 29.  C. E. Newlands, “Ovid’s Ravenous Raven”, CJ 86, 1991, 244–55. 30.  F.  Stok, “La rivincita di Esculapio”, in G.  Brugnoli, F.  Stok (eds.), Ovidius Παρῳδήσας, Pisa 1992, 135–80. 31.  M. von Albrecht, “Ovidio y la música”, Myrtia 8, 1993, 7–22. 32.  M. Lowrie, “Myrrha’s Second Taboo, Ovid Metamorphoses 10.467–468”, CPh 88, 1993, 50–2. 33.  G. Monaco, “Icaro e l’ardimento punito”, Pan 11/12, 1993/94, 415–19. 34.  F. Ahl, “Apollo: Cult and Prophesy in Ovid, Lucan, and Statius”, in J. Solomon (ed.), Apollo: Origins and Influences, Tucson 1994, 113–34. 35.  G. Bretzigheimer, “Diana in Ovids Metamorphosen”, Gymnasium 101, 1994, 506–46. 36.  F. Graf, “Die Götter, die Menschen und der Erzähler: zum Göttermythos in Ovids Metamorphosen”, in M. Picone, B. Zimmermann (eds.), Ovidius redivivus. Von Ovid zu Dante, Stuttgart 1994, 22–42. 37.  J. Uría Varela, “Una prohibición verbal mal interpretada en Servio (Aen. 4,58)”, Minerva 8, 1994, 243–50. 38.  S.  Viarre, “L’enfant Amour dans la poésie augustéenne”, in D.  Auger (ed.), Enfants et enfances dans les mythologies. Actes du VIIe colloque du Centre de recherches mythologiques de l’Université de Paris – X (Chantilly, 16–18 septembre 1992), Paris 1995, 197–215. 39.  D.  Konstan, “De Deméter  a Ceres: construcciones de la diosa en Homero, Calímaco y Ovidio”, Synthesis 3, 1996, 67–90. 40.  G. Lieberg, “De indole deorum in Ovidii Metamorphoseon fabulis amatoriis”, VoxLat 32, 1996, 152–69. 41.  M. Wenzel, “Wenn die Götter strafen… Zur psychologischen Deutung griechischer Mythen bei Ovid”, DaSiU 43, 1996, 30–8. 42.  P. Hardie, “Questions of authority: the inventions of tradition in Ovid Metamorphoses 15”, in T. Habinek, A. Schiesaro (eds.), The Roman Cultural Revolution, Cambridge 1997, 182–92. 43.  W. Schindler, “Die Sintflut im Alten Testament und bei Ovid”, AU 40, 1997, 36–51.

Religion and Cult

257

44. J. Fabre-Serris, Mythologie et littérature à Rome. La réécriture des mythes aux Iers siècles avant et après J.-C., Lausanne 1998. 45.  D. C. Feeney, Literature and Religion at Rome: Cultures, Contexts, and Beliefs, Cambridge 1998. 46.  M. R.  Salzman, “Deification in the «Fasti» and the «Metamorphoses»”, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin literature and Roman history 9, Bruxelles 1998, 313–46. 47.  R. Scarcia, “Perseo e i falò”, BBGG 52, 1998, 7–17. 48.  R. L.  Vos, “«Varius coloribus Apis»: some remarks on the colours of Apis and other sacred animals”, in W. Clarysse, A. Schoors, H. Willems (eds.), Egyptian religion: the last thousand years. Studies dedicated to the memory of Jan Quaegebeur, Leuven 1998, I, 709–18. 49.  M. von Albrecht, “Ovid. 3. Clash of Genres. Gods and Religion in Ovid’s Metamorphoses with Special Regard to Venus and Elegy”, in Roman Epic. An Interpretative Introduction, Leiden-Boston-Köln 1999, 177–96. 50.  F. E. Brenk, Clothed in Purple Light. Studies in Vergil and in Latin Literature, Including Aspects of Philosophy, Religion, Magic, Judaism, and the New Testament Background, Stuttgart 1999. 51.  G. Lieberg, “De Ouidii deis non tristibus in «Metamorphosesin»”, Orpheus 19/20, 1998/99, 74–94. 52.  A. Barchiesi, “Venus’ masterplot: Ovid and the Homeric hymns”, in P. Hardie, A. Barchiesi, S. Hinds (eds.), Ovidian Transformations: Essays on the «Metamorphoses» and its Reception, Cambridge 1999, 112–26. 53.  S. M. Redmond, Ideology, envy and artistic failure in Ovid’s «Metamorphoses», Ph.D. thesis, New York 1999. 54.  S. O’Bryhim, “The «Cerastae» and Phoenician human sacrifice on Cyprus”, RstudFen 27, 1999, 3–20. 55.  S. Wright, “Creation and recreation: medieval responses to Metamorphoses 1, 5–88”, in P. Hardie, A. Barchiesi, S. Hinds (eds.), Ovidian Transformations: Essays on the «Metamorphoses» and its Reception, Cambridge 1999, 68–84. 56.  M. Leigh, “Two Notes on Ovid”, CQ 50, 2000, 311–13. 57.  M. L. Meulder, “Le feu et la source à Rome”, Latomus 59, 2000, 749–65. 58.  P. J. Jones, “Saving Water: Early Floods in the Forum”, in S. R. Asirvatham, C. Ondine Pache, J. Watrous (eds.), Between Magic and Religion: Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and Society, Lanham (MD) 2001, 35–46. 59.  G. Lieberg, “Homo imago deorum Deive a Genesi et Ovidio ad S. Thomam”, Latinitas 49, 2001, 76–82. 60.  C. P. Segal, “Jupiter in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Arion 9, 2001, 78–99. 61.  P. Martínez Astorino, “Prometeo y las versiones romanas de la creación del hombre”, Auster 6/7, 2001/02, 53–67.

258

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

62.  M. Leigh, “Ovid and the lectisternium (Metamorphoses 8.651–60)”, CQ 52, 2002, 625–7. 63.  A. Schiesaro, “Ovid and the Professional Discourses of Scholarship, Religion, Rhetoric”, in P. Hardie (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ovid, Cambridge 2002, 62–75. 64.  E. T. Adams, Gods and humans in Ovid’s Metamorphoses: constructions of identity and the politics of status, Ph.D. thesis, Athenes 2003. 65. H. Cancik, Verse und Sachen. Kulturwissenschaftliche Interpretation römischer Dichtung, Würzburg 2003. 66.  Mª. C.  Álvarez, R. Mª. Iglesias, “Padres en las Metamorfosis de Ovidio”, in M. Ruiz Sánchez (ed.), Visiones mítico-religiosas del padre en la Antigüedad clásica, Madrid 2004, 13–43. 67.  E. Peraki-Kyriakidou, “Ζεύγη διπολικά: η οβιδιανή εκδοχή”, in A. P. Vasileiadis (et al.) (eds.), Δημητρίῳ στέφανος: τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγητή Δημήτρη Λυπουρλή, Thessaloniki 2004, 343–68. 68.  J. F. Miller, “Ovid and Augustan Apollo”, in D. Nelis, (ed.), Aetas Ovidiana? (= Hermathena 177/78), Dublin 2004/05, 165–80. 69. E. Anagnostou-Laoutides, Eros and Ritual in Ancient Literature: Singing of Atalanta, Daphnis and Orpheus, Piscataway 2005. 70.  L. Fulkerson, “Apollo, paenitentia, and Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Mnemosyne 59, 2006, 388–402. 71.  D. Lateiner, “Procul este parentes: mothers in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Helios 33, 2006, 189–201. 72.  S.  Papaioannou, “[O]pus est… Apolline nato: liminality and closure in the Aesculapius episode in Metamorphoses 15.626–744”, C&M 57, 2006, 125–56. 73. D. Engels, Das römische Vorzeichenwesen (753–27 v. Chr.). Quellen, Terminologie, Kommentar, historische Entwicklung, Stuttgart 2007. 74.  P. A. Kuhlmann, “Theologie und Ethik in Ovids Metamorphosen”, Gymnasium 114, 2007, 317–35. 75.  J. S. Mainero, “La apoteosis de Hércules en Ovidio (Met. IX, 103–272) ante la figura del héroe en la tradición helénica”, AFC 20, 2007, 127–43. 76.  G. Sauron, “Le thème du vrai dieu dans les Métamorphoses, d’Ovide à Apulée”, REL 85, 2007, 131–54. 77.  K. Waldner, “Griechische und römische Aitiologie in Ovids Metamorphosen”, in A. Bierl, R. Lämmle, K. Wesselmann (eds.), Literatur und Religion. Wege zu einer mythisch-rituellen Poetik bei den Griechen, Berlin-New York 2007, II, 203–37. 78.  J.  Kozlowski, “Sur des rites féminins populaires: significations des thesmophories en Grèce”, in C. Bobas (et al.), Croyances populaires. Rites et représentations en Méditerranée Orientale, Actes du Colloque de Lille (2–4 décembre 2004), Athena 2008, 37–54.

Religion and Cult

259

79.  S. J. Green, “Save our cows? Augustan discourse and animal sacrifice in Ovid’s Fasti”, G&R 55, 2008, 39–54. 80.  P. J. Johnson, Ovid before Exile. Art and Punishment in the Metamorphoses, Madison 2008. 81.  E. M. Young, “Inscribing Orpheus: Ovid and the Invention of a Greco-Roman Corpus”, Representations 101, 2008, 1–31. 82.  M. von Albrecht, “Philosophie und Religion in der lateinischen Literatur der Kaiserzeit”, in R. Hirsch-Luipold, H. Görgemanns, M. von Albrecht (eds.), Religiöse Philosophie und philosophische Religion der frühen Kaiserzeit. Literaturgeschichtliche Perspektiven, Tübingen 2009, 23–45. 83.  H. Casanova-Robin, “Dendrophories d’Ovide à Pontano: sens et fonction de l’hypotypose”, in H. Casanova-Robin (ed.), Ovide, figures de l’ hybride: illustrations littéraires et figurées de l’esthétiques ovidienne à travers les âges, Paris 2009, 79–103 (Colloques, congrès et conférences sur la Renaissance 64). 84.  J. Dyson Hejduk, “Ovid and Religion”, in P. E. Knox (ed.), Companion to Ovid, Maden (MA) 2009, 45–58. 85.  I. S. Johnston, “A New Web for Arachne”, in U. Dill, C. Walde (eds.), Antike Mythen. Konstruktionen, Transformationen, Berlin 2009, 1–22. 86.  J. F. Miller, Apollo, Augustus, and the Poets, Cambridge-New York 2009. 87.  G. Rosati, “Latrator Anubis: alien divinities in Augustan Rome, and how to tame monsters through aetiology”, in P. Hardie (ed.), Paradox and the Marvellous in Augustan Literature and Culture, Oxford-New York 2009, 268–87. 88.  A. Hardie, “Canens: (Ovid Metamorphoses 14.320–434)”, SIFC 8, 2010, 11–67. 89.  A. M. Keith, “Dionysiac theme and dramatic allusion in Ovid’s Metamorphoses 4”, in I. Gildenhard, M. Revermann (eds.), Beyond the fifth century: interactions with Greek tragedy from the fourth century BCE to the Middle Ages, Berlin-New York 2010, 187–217. 90.  H. S. Versnel, Coping With The Gods: Wayward Readings in Greek Theology, Leiden 2011. 91.  F.  Ghedini, “Ovidio  e il pantheon augusteo: Apollo nelle Metamorfosi”, Paideia 67, 2012, 145–64. 92.  H. Jung, “Mythos Orpheus: Stationen von Wandel und Übergang”, Symbolon 18, 2012, 121–34. 93.  B. Kayachev, “The so-called Orphic gold tablets in ancient poetry and poetics”, ZPE 180, 2012, 17–37. 94. C. Nasse, Erdichtete Rituale: die Eingeweideschau in der lateinischen Epik und Tragödie, Stuttgart 2012. 95.  J. Pàmias, “Auis nunc unica, Caeneu!: el mito de Ceneo de Acusilao a Ovidio”, in Mª. C. Álvarez Morán, R. Mª. Iglesias Montiel (eds.), Y el mito se hizo poesía, Madrid 2012, 49–68.

260

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

96.  M. J. Pena, M. Oller, “Hipólito y Orestes en el santuario de Diana en Nemi: contaminaciones mitográficas antiguas y modernas: análisis crítico de las fuentes literarias”, Latomus 71, 2012, 338–72. 97.  R.  Matuszewski, “Der unsterbliche Geliebte des Zeus: über die göttlichen Anfänge der menschlichen Liebe”, AW 4, 2013, 81–4. 98. P.  Chaudhuri, The War with God: Theomachy in Roman Imperial Poetry, Oxford 2014. 99. L. Fratantuono, Metamorphoses X, London 2014. 100.  F.  Létoublon, “Les suppliciés des enfers: des châtiments sans crime?”, in M.  Christopoulos, M.  Païzi-Apostolopoulou (eds.), Crime and Punishment in Homeric and Archaic Epic: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on the Odyssey. Ithaca, September 3–7, 2013, Ithaki 2014, 235–56. 101. N. Lévi, La révélation finale à Rome: Cicéron, Ovide, Apulée. Études sur le “Songe de Scipion” (De republica VI), le discours de Pythagore (Métamorphoses XV) et la théophanie d’Isis (Métamorphoses XI), Paris 2014. 102.  H. Vial, “Puissance transformatrice et passion du pouvoir: Vénus et ses enfants dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide”, in H. Vial (ed.), Aphrodite-Vénus et ses enfants: incarnations littéraires d’une mère problématique, Paris 2014, 93–111. 103.  C.  Walde, “Aitiologie und Religion in der griechisch-römischen Antike”, in C. Reitz, A. Walter (eds.), Von Ursachen sprechen. Eine aitiologische Spurensuche. Telling Origins. On the Lookout for Aetiology. Hildesheim-Zürich 2014, 25–57. 104.  A.  Walter, “Ovids alma Venus, die Mutter der Aitiologie”, in C.  Reitz, A. Walter (eds.), Von Ursachen sprechen. Eine aitiologische Spurensuche. Telling Ori­ gins. On the Lookout for Aetiology. Hildesheim-Zürich, 2014, 431–59. 105. V. Subias-Konofal, Poétique de la prière dans les œuvres d’Ovide, Turnhout 2016. 106.  E. G.  McKinnon, Ovid’s Metamorphoses: Myth and Religion in Ancient Rome, Ph.D. thesis, Claremont 2017. a. Religion and worship in general Von Albrecht (20, 49) gives a brief outline of the concept of religion for a Roman in imperial times. He reminds us of the idea of tripartite theology introduced by Varro, as well as that these three dimensions are present in the Metamorphoses. The treatment of the gods in Ovid’s epic is different from that of elegiac authors. In met. the elements of Greek myth, Roman religious sentiment, literature, and philosophical and theological tradition are combined, not as a philosophical system, but as a series of poetic signs. These symbols are placed at the centre of the Ovidian composition, and the rest of the elements orbit around them. Thus, the gods are not invoked for their omnipotence, but for their competence in certain situations; moreover, their magnificence is respected throughout the poem. Dyson Hejduk (84) also conducts a brief review of Ovid’s work,

Religion and Cult

261

appraising the relations between gods and men in the myths of met.; the descriptions of the deities as models of behaviour; and the concept of pietas. Graf (22) differentiates from the outset the value of myth for the Greek audience, for whom these stories have an aetiological value, and its value for Ovid. As a Roman citizen trained in the Alexandrian poetic tradition, Ovid follows mythology closely. Thus, the Greek myths of met.’s first 13 books are opposed to the last two, which include strictly Roman legends. Graf also differentiates the author from the fictional narrator. The first one remarks ironically on the puerile beliefs of the second one, regarding the veracity of the myths. This double perspective focuses the contemporary reader’s attention on the paradox of myth in Ovid’s time: mythical poetry is both aetiological explanation and poetic fiction. The statement highlights the tripartite division of Varro, which the role of the Aeneid in Augustan society serves both to confirm and clarify. The work of Fabre-Serris (44) is along the same lines, in that she classifies the ways in which the Romans used mythology: firstly, to substantiate its origins, and secondly, to question the customs. Her book gathers together in the first chapter (25–55) the treatment given by different Roman authors to Greek myths in the 1st century bce, starting with the Golden Age. Ovid recreates this in met. based on Virgilian motifs and sources (41–4). Fabre-Serris continues with the Gigantomachy, and other myths where hybris is revealed (46). Ovid seems reluctant to utilise these myths for moralistic purposes. Next the myths about the origins of Rome (57–76) are collected, and  a section studies them as mentioned in met. (62–7). The third chapter includes the relationship between myth and philosophy (77–99): Ovid’s epic imbibes from the sources of Ennius and Lucretius in the episode of Pythagoras (93–7), and the imperial apotheosis of book 15 (97–9), which Hardie also addresses (42). Ovid is ironic about this latter myth that aims to show the genealogical connections of certain Roman families with official mythology. Petersen and Weiss (11) consider the recreations of various myths in ars (3.687–746, 2.21–98, 2.561–92, 1.101–30, 1.295–328, 1.527–64) and met. (7.690–862, 8.155–261, 4.171–89, 14.775–804, 8.136, 9.735–42, 8.174–82). Their work is intended for use in schools. b. Treatment of the gods Steinkühler (25, 134–289) explores various scenes in met. where the divinities’ power and helplessness are exhibited. While for Virgil, the deities were  a representation of the invisible and unrepresentable divinity in which he believed, for Ovid they were nothing more than a poetic game. Rarely are gods the main theme in Ovid’s work. Irreconcilable contradictions are found in the relationship between men and gods, in order to establish an Ovidian ‘theology’. Feeney (45) devotes  a chapter to met. (188–249), where he deals with several passages. In the first part (188–205), he considers the relationship between gods and men, and the characterisation attributed by Ovid to each one. Finally, the third section (224–49) is dedicated to fiction and evidence in am. 3.12 and in met., and to deities, which are used by Ovid to introduce fictional elements. Eggers’ work (8) is a historical-religious interpretation that addresses Ovid’s rela-

262

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

tionship with myth and religion. He proposes a classification of divine manifestations that extends from the gods’ appearances in nature, to local and individual deities. His analysis includes the manifestation of these deities in Ovid, but also in a wide repertoire of Latin and Greek authors. In the first part, he studies how the divinities and their areas of influence in Ovid and other earlier poets (35–63) are portrayed. In the second part, Egger discusses the choice and use of different levels of identity. First he focuses on those forms with a single identity, then listing those that are replaced by others (65–254). Graf (36) interprets the reanthropomorphisation of the gods as a mechanism to create a caricature of them, which might entail the reason for his exile. Also characteristic of Ovid is his treatment of the deities of love. Von Albrecht (3, 49) dedicates an article to Venus, focusing on her appearances and the tripartite structure that these provide for the work. Sauron (76) also recognises the importance of this goddess in met. In the Metamorphoses of both Ovid and Apuleius, the gods are represented in various ways. While most of the celestial deities seem to be comedy characters, only one goddess, under the name of Venus or Isis, possesses a truly divine nature, combining majesty with love. Barchiesi (52) highlights how Ovid’s ‘hymnic’ Venus takes control of the plot and theology of met., after alluding to the poet’s neglect of Homeric and Callimachean hymns. In this way, the goddess fulfils her universal imperial aspirations (first celebrated in the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite) by ruling and eroticising Rome through the Caesars. Venus’ behaviour towards her children is marked by change, an element that unites met. and the Ovidian cosmovision. Vial (102) asserts that factors intervene relating to the sovereignty and history of the gens Iulia, which show the poet’s distancing from the Virgilian model of the Augustan concept of power. According to Walter (104), in Ovid’s time Venus is a public goddess, mother of the gens Iulia, an important element in the construction of the original Augustan myth. This official program by Augustus forms a large part of the material addressed in Fasti. However by virtue of his own close affiliation with Venus, Ovid decides to return to a new type of aetiology, which is relevant for Rome but also aesthetically satisfactory. In his study of Ovidian characters, Viarre (38), like von Albrecht (49), focuses on the figure of Cupid: his filiation and cult, his portrait, his appearance in met. and other Ovidian works. Cupid appears in the company of his mother at met. 9.482; then in book 10, we see his new-found independence from her when he shoots his arrow without being accountable. This powerful deity has no temple of his own, so he shares his mother’s. Servius comments that Amor must be worshipped in the temple of Venus (Aen. 6.630), and Ovid himself states parodically in Remedia (599 ff.) that Cupid reigns in the temple of Venus Erycina. Ovid respects the god’s universal power, although to the image described by Apollonius he adds, as a parody, arrows with gold and lead tips used to achieve the opposite effects; other contemporary authors used the depiction in a more generic way. Love intervenes as a driving force for epic action in met., however, among the elegiac poets, Propertius and Ovid portray the god in a concrete way, and sometimes he is identified with the inspirer of elegiac compositions. Segal (60) studies the figure of Jupiter in met. In some episodes, the god follows the Homeric characterisation; in others, the Virgilian. The Ovidian representation of

Religion and Cult

263

Jupiter could be related to that of Augustus, as both characters suggest the established moral authority and order. This could be the basis of a sort of attack against the Augustan system, although Segal does not go so far as to assert this, and he recalls that Ovid probably never considers his work as a form of social or political criticism. Perhaps this parallel is due to the contradictory perception of the Ovidian gods, who promoted order and chaos at the same time. Logically, as Jupiter is identified with Augustus, it could be concluded by association that his behaviour was also practised by Octavian himelf. Johnson (80, 88–92) sums up the religious implications of the appearance of Minerva to take on Arachne’s challenge. Likewise, Le Bonniec (99) considers Apollo’s appearances in the poem. On the one hand, Ovid follows the epic and Homeric tradition (145, 156), while in the love stories he offers a very human and original vision of the god (145, 167, 171). Miller (68) examines several passages of met. where Apollo is the protagonist. At the beginning (1.559–64) Apollo watches over Augustus’ residence; the god reappears at the end as  a Phoebus domesticus,  a domestic deity. Reading between the lines allows us to see the political meaning of each appearance by Apollo. His brutal revenge on Marsyas, and on Niobe’s sons, and his failure to cure Hyacinthus, speak of Ovid’s hostility to the Augustan religion. Miller supports the idea that the contemporaneous connection between Apollo and Augustus could evoke the parallel between mythological and historical conflict. In terms of religion, at that time Jupiter Tonans is displaced by Apollo Palatinus. Ghedini (91) classifies these apparitions, as leading roles of the god, in two categories: those in which Apollo flirts with nymphs, maidens and youths, and those in which he assumes the role of avenger. Ghedini believes that Ovid shows an image of a god entirely unlike that proposed by Augustan propaganda. Later, in the last chapter of his book, Miller (86, 332–73) gives an ideological reading of Apollo’s presence in met., similar to that of Redmond (53), and in the same terms. The character of Apollo also draws Fulkerson’s attention (70) for similar reasons. He focuses on divine repentance using a human analogue from several examples in met.: Apollo and Phaethon, Apollo and Coronis; Apollo, Hyacinthus and Cyparissus. All are attempts to illustrate the characterisation of Apollo in the poem, making us question why the god is portrayed so frequently. Apollo’s paenitentia highlights the key difference between gods and mortals, and Ovid could be using the figure of Apollo to highlight that of Augustus. Bretzigheimer (35) deals with Ovid’s treatment of the goddess Diana (dea offensa, virgo et venatrix, virgo ultrix and Diana adiutrix) and analyses her relationship with the Roman cult of Diana, and the political and religious aspects of the Augustan period. Konstan (39) focuses on the acceptance of Greek Demeter, until she becomes Roman Ceres, through Homer (Hymnus ad Cererem), where the goddess is responsible for agricultural rhythms; Callimachus (Hymnus in Cererem), who treats her as a strict and impartial administrator of justice; and Ovid (met. 5.341–661), who associates her with his vision of imperial aristocracy: proud, temperamental and vengeful.

264

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

Von Albrecht (31) considers the song of the Muse who tells Ceres’ story in met. 5.269–678. This is written in the form of a hymn, at the service of the exaltation of the gods. The ‘Hymn to Theseus’ (7.433–50) could also be addressed to the deities, written in the form of a plea and prayer. Poznanski (12), on the other hand, studies the Ovidian representation of Mercury through several of his works. In met. the image offered is that of the Greek Hermes, unlike the version which appears in Fasti, which is more imbued with  a political character. Massa-Pairault (17) aims to study the contributions of the Roman state, and of Dionysus, that have been represented and repeated by Latin and Republican writers. The archaeologist raises the relationship between Dionysus and the idea of monarchy in Ovid. She does so by interpreting the ideological tendency underlying the text. Petersmann (27) considers how Lucina is treated: for a Roman of the 1st c., it is an epithet for Juno, derived from a place of worship. Ovid uses that title in met. 9.281 ff. to create a new character who intervenes in the birth of Heracles. On the other hand, Ovid also mentions Nixus, another divinity who helped women in childbirth. This use is compared with Greek sources, to show how their deities are adapted to Roman customs. c. Aetiological value of myth Waldner (77) reconstructs the antecedents of the modern notion of ‘aetiology’ from the beginning of the twentieth century to the present day, assuming the phenomenology of religion itself and the modern trends which recognise that every myth is the explanation of a certain ritual. The second part of the chapter deals with three cases of aetiology from different times and genres; we are interested in the one dealing with the Roman aetiological narrative from Propertius to Ovid. She shows how this narrative was embedded in a socio-cultural framework of religious practices. Thus, Waldner connects the spheres of religion and literature in both time and space. In the genesis of the laurel tree (met. 1.41–567), beyond the well-known story, the reader learns the new plant’s uses henceforth: adorning Apollo’s hair, lyre and quiver, but also recognising the triumphs of the Roman heroes in the procession to the Capitol. Finally, its use is extended to the ‘Augustan gate’, as the Emperor’s house was known to be connected to the Temple of Apollo. Thus poetry has an undeniable role in religious discourse. Walde (103) considers that the aetiologies show a reflection of the aesthetic and political programme of Ovid’s work, but fundamentally in Fasti, rather than in met. Stok (30) wonders why the transfer of Asclepius’ snake from Epidaurus to Rome (met.15.626–744) occupies such an important place in the Ovidian work. The author considers the differences between the traditional version, the reception of other Augustan authors, and the one present in Ovid (169–70), to ask himself how the poet incorporates the cult of Asclepius into that of Apollo, which was dominant in the Augustan period. Stok wagers that Ovid sought to reconcile the two cults (178). The arrival of Asclepius in Rome closes a narrative chain that passes through Ovid’s epic,

Religion and Cult

265

and whose individual links share thematic and structural relations. The story, inspired by an event at the intersection of legend and history, alludes to events and rumours linked to present-day people and situations that unite met. with Fasti. According to Papaioannou (72), this association underlines, on the one hand, the double function of the episode as an introductory unit and as a closing element; and, on the other hand, the complex insertion of Ovidian poetry into contemporary political history. The Greek authors discuss the etymology of divine names, associating the individual divinity mentioned with another auxiliary deity which shares its specific qualities. Peraki-Kyriakidou (67) reminds us that in met. and Fasti, on the contrary, we often find the common element that unites the same bipolar association. Cicognini’s article (15) uses the myth of Adonis and Myrrha to present (7) a tripartite classification of the work’s metamorphoses, according to the result of each change. This study also includes a comparison of the myth with that of the Indonesian goddess Hainuwele. Tupet (13) investigates the origins of the Arachne myth, and she compares the presence of its magical elements with examples of folklore from other cultures where the protagonists are also turned into insects. The treatment offered by Ovid of the Icarus legend (8.183–235) tries to show, according to Monaco (33), that flight is an activity restricted to the gods; at the moment when Daedalus and Icarus are flying, they feel like deities. However, the author focuses on explaining that the story shows, on the one hand, the rite that follows a death; while, on the other, it serves to verify the aetiologies of the names of the island of Icaria and the Icarian Sea, part of the Aegean Sea. O’Hara (26) explains the use of the gentilic Erycina, referring to Venus. Ovid’s use of the epithet is taken from the Virgilian passage (mater acidalia, Aen. 1.715–22), which Virgil had, in turn, lifted from Catullus. Meulder (57) studies different versions of the legend (Ovid 14.775–804, Servius and Macrobius) according to which, thanks to the intervention of the god Janus, the Romans were saved from  a Sabine incursion by the emergence of an igneous water source. The parallels with other myths and legends from different civilisations reveal an Indo-European theme: that of water bubbling up when a religious offence is committed. The work also contains considerations on the Hostus Hostilius legend, as well as on the relationship between water and fire in the god Vulcan. Jones (58) traces the origins of the Roman legends that use the Tiber’s potentially lethal power to protect the city. In Propertius and Ovid’s versions of the Tarpeian story, the waters of Rome offer supernatural protection from invasion (Prop. 4.4.47–72; Ov. met. 14.791–2). Comparison between the sinking of Mettius’ horse Curtius in Livy (1.12–13) and Plutarch (Romulus 18.3–5) shows that the idea of the topography providing an advantage appears only in Livy, suggesting that the interpretation was purely Roman. Frontinus’ concern to relate the aqueducts to natural springs (Aq. 4) portrays a self-conscious concern in Rome about technological modifications to the city’s water. Engels (73) deals with wondrous occurrences in Rome. First of all, he offers a general analysis of the historiographic function of sacred signs in the works of several Republican and Augustan authors (60–258). Then he explains each of the terms

266

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

associated with the marvellous, and he goes on to make an exhaustive catalogue of their appearances in Latin historiographic literature, from the arrival of Aeneas until the end of the Republic (259–82). The following chapter includes a diachronic study of the use of these terms (283–797). One of the marvels mentioned (299) is the death of Romulus by lightning (met. 14.617 ff.). Alex Hardie (88) starts from the story of Circe’s infatuation with King Picus and the transformation of the latter into a woodpecker (met. 14.320–434). He analyses the characteristics, role and meaning of Canens, Picus’ wife. Her character goes back to the origins of Roman elegy as poetry of love and pain: her worship, together with that of her lost husband, anticipates the cult in Rome of the kings, the Camenae and the Muses themselves. Canens is a nymph of mixed kinship with antecedents among the Greek Muses. d. Cosmogony One characteristic of Latin literature is the supremacy of personal access to philosophy and religion. Von Albrecht (82) reminds us that philosophy and mystery religion form the core of the three ancient theologiae (see also Eller, 1); religious rites tend to be renewed constantly. We can observe that the specifically Roman perspectives on religion and philosophy touch on Hebrew mentality, since both have in common the reinterpretation of myth as political history. Greek philosophy also helped the Romans to understand their own religious feeling and to translate this sentiment into literary creations. Colavito’s doctoral thesis (21) is also addressed in the section on Philosophy, although we should note here the influence of Pythagoreanism in met. This mystical cult, which is present in the Creation in the form of the four elements and the pairs of opposites, appears explicitly in the figure of Pythagoras himself. His appearance, at the beginning and end of the poem, pushes the author to defend Pythagoreanism as the unifying and structuring theme of the poem. In the Ovidian creation, men are created in the image of the gods (met. 1.83); however, for Lieberg (51), the love between the gods is stronger than that between humans. Then he offers several examples of relationships between deities that prove this: Apollo and Daphne (1.434–567), Jupiter and Io (1.583–750), Jupiter and Callisto (2.401–530), Jupiter and Europa (2.836–75), and Mercury and Herse (2.708–835). The relationships that occur in these stories are more humane than those between humans themselves. A comparison is introduced with the treatment of these loves in Homer. Wright (55) tells us about the reception by Christian writers of the Ovidian Creation fragment in met. 1.5–88. Some of them found this passage inappropriate because of its paganism and blasphemous nature, while others incorporated this version into their own Christian imagery. In medieval times, met. was understood to be a cosmogony and not a collection of independent myths. Several Christian writers between the 4th and 12th c. (Avitus, Conrad of Hirsau, Odo of Cluny, Bernardus Silvestris, Geoffrey of Monmouth, and Baldric of Dol) appropriated the image by transforming it in various ways, especially with reference to the beginning of Genesis. Lieberg addresses this issue, and the differences

Religion and Cult

267

in the love between mortals and that between gods (51), to reflect on the topic of the creation of human beings in the image and likeness of God (59). He uses the fragment of met. 1.82–3 to draw attention to a possible influence of the Septuaginta, and perhaps even of the very ancient Latin tradition that was created from those texts. Lieberg alludes to the fact that, after the creation of the first woman in Hesiod, Ovid was the first Latin writer to narrate the birth of man in the image and likeness of God. Martínez Astorino (61) also highlights the philosophical and mythical elements of Creation, and takes the passage from 1.76–88 as his capital. According to him, with the appearance of Prometheus, the work of poetry passes to myth. In addition, a kind of philosophical-natural program is established in the proemy, which proclaims a rational vision of the world. In this, God is the regulating principle of the cosmos and has a rational attitude: he makes man the most important creature, the centre of Creation. This is followed by diverse independent myths in which, according to Kuhlmann (74), preeminent roles are attributed individually to the gods, polytheistically devised. Thus, met. also has a philosophical and ethical reading. Brenk (50, 184–96) points out violence as an ever-present element in met., and shows us  a joint interpretation of the work that stretches from chaos to the final cosmos. In similar terms, Schiesaro (63) compares Fasti with met. While in the former the chronology structures the work, in the latter the unifying element seems to be the passage from chaos to order, hence why the procedures of analysis and prolepsis are crucial in the work. He highlights Ovid’s mastery of rhetoric, although the use of erudition is not constant. Rhetoric is understood by Ovid as a form of interpreting reality; he opts for pathos to present his stories successfully, rather than for the philosophical and logical rigour of truth. e. Religious rituals Met. 8.651–60 features a play on the words lecto and sternere, through which Leigh (62) recognises the Roman ritual of lectisternium in the episode of Philemon and Baucis. In the fifth chapter of Nasse’s work (94, 175 ff.) the character Cipus (met. ­15.565– 621) is examined: by considering the function of the episode in the narrative context, the author studies the gods involved and the ritual itself in which a haruspex appears, examining the entrails spilled in a sacrifice. Casanova-Robin (83) considers the recreation of the dendrophoriae ritual in met. 1.550, 2.341–52, 9.354–5, 388–9 etc. and the reception by Giovanni Pontano. Johnston (85) reminds us that the affordances implied by the spider in Antiquity are also found in the ritual of the arrephoria, the Panathenaic festival, and in the myth of the Cecropidae, even without direct and formalised connections between the myth and these cult practices. Kozlowski (78) acknowledges the celebration of the Thesmophoriae held in Cyprus in met. 10.431, and he seems to speak of a nine-day abstinence period there, in preparation for these festivities. Pàmias (95) focuses his attention on the myth of Caeneus, through its literary and iconographic sources throughout Antiquity from archaic times. He analyses

268

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

Acusilaus’ portrait of Caeneus, in parallel with a text by Herodotus that also bears similarities to the character’s metamorphosis in Ovid (met. 12.168–209, 510–35): he is turned into  a bird after his death, crushed by tree trunks at the hands of the Centaurs. The connection of this episode with the Roman practice of crematio and, perhaps, with a reference to the homosexuality of Julius Caesar, is also raised. Pena and Oller (96) study various literary sources to establish the ritual of rex nemorensis, which has, directly or indirectly, influenced studies of Diana’s sanctuary on the shores of Lake Nemi, as is the case with met. 15.485–546. The use of the adjective Orestea has led to believe that Orestes was the founder of the Nemi sanctuary. The authors value the possibility that he is a literary creation inspired by Scythian and Thracian traditions. The sources of Ovid and Strabo claim that the ritual of rex nemorensis involved bloodshed. f. Rites of passage Anagnostou-Laoutides (69) focuses on popular erotic myths, taking into account their origins and literary treatment during Antiquity. She also includes the relationship of certain mythical models that reflect initiation rites, myths that reinforce the association of cult and mythology in literature. Initiation models were used as literary metaphors for falling in love, or even to support  a philosophical argument about human progress. We are interested in these effects in the first chapter, dedicated to the passage of met. where Atalanta appears, compared to the character of Daphne. Atalanta is linked to Artemis, and Daphne to Aphrodite (10.534–41). However, Atalanta lies between the spheres of power of both goddesses. Perhaps Ovid intends to show Atalanta’s connection to the world of fertility, the beautiful and the wild. Homoerotic relationships with children have been observed in the Ganymede myth in European culture over the centuries. This story is well documented in literary texts (Homer, Homeric Hymns, Virgil and Ovid), but also figuratively in a clay sculpture from Olympia, in a pottery cup with red figures, and in one of the works by the Painter of Berlin 1686. Elements such as abduction, offerings, and Ganymede’s new role as cupbearer on Olympus, are similar to rites of passage elements, for example initiations and marriages. The recreation of the myth in Ovid (met. 10.155–61) emphasises Jupiter’s passionate feelings toward the king of Troy’s son, which seem to be the main, if not the only, reason of the child’s abduction, in Matuszewski’s opinion (97). g. Religious invocation The work by Subias-Konofal (105) is fundamental, since she presents a study of the prayers and supplications to the gods in Ovid’s work. The author analyses her sources, from Augustan liturgical language and literary sources, to elements of the poet’s own creation. She includes a classification of Roman public rituals (31–45), moving on to identify the different forms of prayer in the corpus Ovidianum (47–103). In the second section, the speaker is analysed exhaustively, as are the addressee of the supplication

Religion and Cult

269

(highlighting the figures of Jupiter, Apollo and Venus), the location where the prayer takes place, the result of the prayer, and the gestures that accompany the ritual (107–209). The third part (213–330) includes a formal analysis of the supplications, from the formulas to the words used in each case. Clauss’ article (23) is relevant for this section due to, in the author’s words, “the call for ritual silence” (313). One of the Lycian farmers is identified with a poet, since he uses the liturgical phrase, repeated by his companion. When the Augustan poets take on the role of vates, they sometimes use formulas which they repeat, as in the case of favete linguis; this precedes the narration of the aetiological story, although in met. the phrase appears as faveas mihi! (6.327–8). Versnel (90, 55) reminds us of the Hellenistic influence in met. 4.11–21 when invoking Dionysus with various names. h. Sacrifices In met. 4.753 ff. Perseus gives thanks to Mercury, Minerva and Jupiter for his victory over the sea monster that endangered Andromeda, with a ritual sacrifice: the importance of each sacrifice corresponds to the importance of the divinity. Scarcia (47) associates the etymology of Perseus with ‘Persians’ and ‘Persia’, even though these are related to Zoroastrianism. Hence, the bonfires built would be directed towards the fire and sun cults, and to follow the rules of the Magi. Likewise, another episode connects to the construction of a further sanctuary by Perseus, in this case dedicated to Zeus Keraunios. O’Bryhim (54) investigates the myth of the Cerastae (10.220–37), horned men of Cyprus who sacrificed foreigners on the altar of Jupiter. Analysis of literary texts and archaeological evidence shows that Ovid recasts a Hellenistic source, with some licence, and that the myth reflects a genuine ritual of human sacrifice that was practiced on the island from the Bronze Age to the Hellenistic period. The distinction between the Etruscan and Roman sacrificial rituals is one of the fundamental convictions of religious history. However Nasse (94) shows that this assumption is based on  a misinterpretation of sources and failed research. He questions the historiographical references, and moves away from literature to analyse the battle rite through various sources that he considers as key (the commentaries of Servius and Macrobius on Virgil, as well as the laws of the Codex Theodosianus). This study is of interest, shedding light on various poetic representations by authors such as Virgil, Ovid, Lucan, Seneca and Silius. i. Cult spaces Gros (2) establishes the relation between met. and the distribution of ornamental elements in Roman cult spaces.

270

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

j. Religious infractions In the third chapter of his work, Steinkühler (25, 134–289) speaks of the divine response that is achieved by engaging in communication with higher beings. If Virgil showed scenes of resistance and resignation, Ovid transforms them into stories of guilt and punishment; he even shows how the gods execute demonstrations of their power. Chaudhuri (98, 82–115) offers a chapter on the study of theomatics in met.: mortals, when confronted by the gods, prove the latters’ divinity. The author identifies the divine responses as reflecting the Emperor Augustus’ belief in the state of godliness, using the examples of Lycaon, Pentheus, Arachne and Niobe. Redmond (53) and Johnson (80, 41–95) also examine the confrontations between mortals and gods, and their consequences, in this case focusing on the clashes between Arachne and Minerva, and between the Pierides and the Muses. Redmond identifies the punishments of the Muses and Minerva from the point of view of invidia or phthonos as  a literary topos. He also includes the myths of Byblis (9.450–665) and Myrrha (10.298–502), identifying incest not as  a crime, but as  a divine or natural action respectively. Through the myths of Arachne, Niobe, the Lycian peasants and Marsyas in met. (6.1–400), Maier (18) reflects on whether the current reception of the myths of Antiquity respects the concept of “the god of myth”, or whether, on the contrary, this idea is irrelevant because the contemporary religious paradigm has changed. Maier concludes that myth is the central element of Western cultural tradition. In these passages, the presence of the goddesses Athena and Latona serves to oppose humans, who challenge them and receive the appropriate punishment. Pardini (24) analyses manuscript variations concerning the violation by Ajax of Cassandra’s sacred right of asylum: she was a refugee in the Palladium. Depending on our understanding of how Ovid treats the impiety of Ajax (13.408–11), one of these variae lectiones will be more apt than the others (203–4). Lowrie (32) argues that Myrrha not only breaks a taboo by having sex with her father, but that her mother is celebrating  a sexual abstinence ritual in honour of Ceres. Myrrha also infringes by using the words filia and pater (10.467–8), violating a second social convention by employing terms that appear in the same Ceres rituals. In the cult of Ceres, certain terms could not be named, and this tradition was maintained. Uría Varela (37) reminds us of that same taboo in the cult of Ceres, as mentioned by Servius (Aen. 4.58), regarding the children of the goddess: Liber Pater and Kore. Ovid himself ignores the meaning of that symbol in the incest episode. Authors such as Virgil and Ovid were already unaware of the reason for this taboo. Wenzel (41) deals with the divine punishment of those who dare to confront the gods. First of all, he uses the example of Marsyas (met. 6.383 ff.) to show us a horror that we no can longer comprehend today: skinning. Not even by contextualising the myth in a religious or historical framework do we come close to a real understanding of this story. The author proposes a psychoanalytical interpretation to ‘put ourselves in

Religion and Cult

271

the skin’ of Marsyas: Apollo wants to demonstrate his masculinity to those who have just challenged him. In the case of the petrification of Niobe (6.303 ff.), Ovid uses the appropriate words to justify the punishment, describing a proud and reckless woman (6.167–93). The rigidity that Niobe suffers goes against all the feelings she showed in her earlier defiance. Additionally, the daughters of Minyas are turned into bats, creatures of the night that remind us of the Dionysian cult’s nocturnal celebrations, as a punishment for interrupting its rites, as Leigh reminds us (56). Ino becomes an aretalogist for his nephew Dionysus in met. 4.20–30. Between the end of book 3 and the beginning of book 4, the Theban hymn to Dionysus is suddenly interrupted, by the main narrator, with the action of the Minyades. Most of the Dionysian themes are included in this so-called ‘Ovid’s Thebaid’. In the episode of Minyas’ daughters that appears in the fourth book, Bacchus establishes a powerful and ominous presence that not only manifests itself in the transformation of the daughters into bats, but also in the thematic design of the tales they tell. Keith (89) reminds us that Ovid’s stories, told instead of participating in the rituals of Bacchus, reverberate with tragic themes, such as the contrast between city and country, man and beast, the related themes of exile and wandering in nature, the repeated intervention of the vengeful divinity, and “spectacle, recognition and reversal”(89, 190). These tragic themes had already been identified by Hardie (“Ovid’s Theban History: the First ‘Anti-Aeneid’?”, CQ 40, 224–35) in the third book of met. and in the Athamas and Cadmus episodes of the fourth, but here they are too indistinct. Létoublon (100) offers a review of the characters that embody the different punishments of hell from the Aeneid and met. (4.447–80, 10.41–4) and concludes that the various penances embodied by Titius, Sisyphus and Tantalus in the Odyssey, are assumed by more than one character in the Latin works. These representations have symbolic value, each one representing a misery of the human condition. Hommel (4) focuses on the transformation of Midas’ ears into those of a donkey (met. 11.147 ff.) to point out that this animal was a symbol of stubbornness, but not of lack of intelligence. The second part of the myth (11.180–93) focuses on poetic metamorphosis, ignoring moralistic teaching, since repentance does not bear fruit. Brenk (50) includes three contributions about Ovid (166–96). The first of them (166–75) features an interpretation of the Cephalus and Procris story, in light of the presence of the Roman concept of pietas as embodied by Minos. This feeling contends with that of fides, represented by Cephalus and Aeacus. k. Animals Unlike the concept of ‘symbol’, which focuses on the study of the largely static meanings of a myth, the concept of ‘affordance’ focuses on the interaction between a phenomenon and an observer. As an example, Johnston (85) examines the possibilities of the Lucina and Galanthis myth (met. 9.285–323). Lucina turns the latter into a weasel, condemning the new creature to give birth using its mouth instead of speaking. From this myth, the concept of ‘affordance’ allows us to consider the story’s wider field

272

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

of meaning, or a series of overlapping meanings: simple birth, indiscreet speech and lack of words, and not only the weasel as a symbol of deceitfulness; something similar also happens with Arachne. In Antiquity, the spider was described as capable of spinning and weaving, with a tendency to parricide, sometimes followed by cannibalism, as well as voluptuousness. Newlands’ article (29) is based on the study of the raven myth in fast. 2.243–66 and met. 2.401–507, and the presence of elements typical of elegy, and of Callimachus, which can be found in the epic work. Vos (48) questions the presence of the syntagma varius coloribus (met. 9.691), referring to Apis, and whether this is a reflection of theological conceptions related to the divine nature of the bull god. Animal skins were used to represent how ancient Egyptians recognised the divinity of a sacred animal. With the excuse of the Ovidian episode, the author makes  a journey through the range of ancient Egypt’s sacred animals. Somville (7) uses, among other sources, the myth of the Tyrrhenian sailors (met. 3.582–691) to contend the relationship between the Dionysian cult and the dolphins. l. Political theology Engels (73) offers a historical-psychoanalytical examination of the function of marvellous elements or wonders in Roman society (798–825), with a logically aetiological function. Neschke (19) compares the Roman pantheon of met., which she considers ‘der wichtigste Überlieferungsträger des griechischen Mythos in der abendländischen Tradition’ (134), with that of the Hellenic tradition, specifying the case of the Cypria and Aeschylus. Myth in Rome was part of the private life of wealthy citizens. In Greece myth could be reinterpreted due to the absence of a canonical text. In met. Neschke differentiates the cosmic divinities, which she sees as an immutable aspect imbued with philosophy, from the divine punishment itself, which is influenced by socio-cultural changes. Ovid’s Romanisation, and the colourful contribution of the Hellenistic heroines, reflects a greater Roman freedom for women. Some of the poet’s matres familiae act more assertively than their Greek models, both in their loves and their loathings. Lateiner (71) examines seven notable examples of mothers in met.: Niobe (6.142–312), Latona (6.313–81), Procne (6.412–674), Althaea (8.445–525), Alcmena (9.273–323), Dryope (9.324–93) and Hecuba (13.422–575). The author reveals that Ovid’s human mothers experience terrible suffering, while the goddess mothers achieve types of maternal vengeance that are questionable and even repellent, at least from a human perspective. Cancik-Lindemaier (10, 65) mentions the reception of the Dionysian cult in Roman society, the participation of women, and the influence of ritual in some passages of met, for example at the beginning of book 4.

Religion and Cult

273

m. Imperial cult Phillips (5) considers the concept of ‘Augustanism’ as a political and religious ideology based on patriotism and tradition (801–2). Ovid, in his eyes, should not be labelled ‘Augustan’; the poet’s interpretation of Roman religion is antithetical to the prevailing one, which would explain his troubles. Primmer’s article (6) is along the same lines. In this case, the compositional technique of Cosmogony (met. 1.5–162) regarding the theme of death and transience, as well as Virgil’s patriotic optimism, are opposed to the Augustan tendency. Engels (73, 717 ff.) consistently quotes the Cipus episode of met. (15.565–621), which has served to support Ovid’s Augustanism, non-Augustanism or anti-Augustanism. The second part of Feeney’s work (45, 205–24) focuses on apotheosis and the functioning of Roman cult and religion, particularly relevant in book 15 of met. In a previous publication (28), the author discusses in the fifth chapter how Ovid deviates from the standards of traditional epics: the main parallel between Jupiter and Augustus is denied by the author. In Ovid’s work the gods are incomprehensible and irresponsible, and the setting is not moralising, although neither were the Homeric gods. The work also includes valuable insights into Ovid’s attitude towards Augustus and the Roman religion. Salzman (46) focuses on the deification of Caesar (met. 15.746 ff.) and the Augustus project (met. 15.847 ff.). Of course, these apotheoses have political connotations, which is how the subject has been treated by the critics. Augustus himself supported the deification of Caesar. Moreover, the Emperor was already considered a god in life, even leaving instructions for his rites. This process, as well as the ritual of apotheosis, was contemporary to the composition of met. by Ovid. Some authors have seen in his literary production an ambivalence, a double reading, while other specialists do not observe these connotations. Salzman proposes that the ambiguity and ironic vision of deification in met. is perfectly consistent with the poet’s scepticism about Greek mythology and the Augustan manipulation of Roman religion. The author notes differences in the treatment of religion in this work and in Fasti, and discusses them in his first section. Salzman distinguishes the apotheoses related to Augustus (Romulus, Caesar and Augustus himself) from those that are not (Asclepius in 2.645 ff., Hippolytus in 15.497 ff., Ino and Melicertes in 4.539–42). The general procedure observed in met. is the inversion of immortality; in achieving this state, we observe its relative insignificance. In the second part, the author tries to explain these differences in treatment. Firstly, one explanation could be that Ovid wants to earn the favour of Augustus and Germanicus. Second, perhaps Ovid shows a new, more serious voice by focusing on religion, but also in order to win over the Emperor’s benevolence. Ovid may also have wanted to show his skills as a poet in Fasti when confronting an aetiological elegy. Finally, one might conclude that Ovid had developed  a genuine interest in Roman religion, lending this cult, if not his faith, then perhaps some kind of respect. For Salzman, Ovid was genuinely interested in religion, but his scepticism was concentrated on Augustan deification, so openly manipulated in the service of power. Similar is the position of Adams (64), who reflects in his fourth chapter on

274

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

the apotheosis from Julius Caesar, with a clear political and religious intention. The author studies the relations between men and gods in their cultural context. On the same bearing, we find the chapter of Hardie (42, esp. 189 ff.), which highlights Augustus’ interest in deifying his great-uncle and making clear his relationship with the latter’s genealogy. Alvarez and Iglesias (66) establish a classification of paternalfilial relations in met., which is interesting to us because of the allusion to Augustanism (43), since Ovid calls Augustus pater. The glorification of met. 15.855–60 is ambiguous, as the disparate opinions of the critics attest. Mainero (75) wants to emphasise the importance of the Heracles myth: “El relato de la apoteosis de Heracles se volvió […] precursor de la divinización imperial” (141). The story is traced back to its incorporation into Latin culture. Ovid rewrites the contemporary cultural background to the myth in met. 9.103–272: the rite of apotheosis and divinisation in the political sphere is justified by the resulting existence of previous myths. In met. Ovid relates Octavian to the figures of Jupiter and Apollo. In the case of the latter, the poet offers a vision that, in the eyes of Ahl (34, 118–26), is ironic. He uses the episode of the python (1.441–4), the encounter with Cupid (1.452–72), and the transformation of Daphne into a laurel (1.472–556). The critic finds similarities between Apollo’s ‘victory’ over Daphne and the ‘victories’ achieved by Octavian. Apollo swears that the branches of the laurel will always be attached to his head, as a symbol of a victory that never happened. Octavian’s victory would be firstly against Cleopatra. The Egyptian committed suicide before she was caught, almost the same fate as Daphne’s. n. Orphism Jung (92) studies the myth of Orpheus in the ancient tradition, and establishes three functions for this tale. Firstly, the power to sing and make music: in the words of Segal, this story is the “Myth of the Poet” (Orpheus: The Myth of the Poet, Baltimore-London 1989). Orpheus returns from  a descent into Hades due to his quest for Eurydice, without being rewarded; he converts to the cult of Apollo and regrets his situation. In the end, he is killed by the followers of Dionysus. Secondly, Orpheus is treated as a poet to whom writings of mystical content and secret teachings are attributed. Thirdly, he is seen as the founder of culture and religion, who secretly brings together a small organized society, Orphism. Due to the lack of written documentation and oral transmission, the person and destiny of Orpheus, in relation to Eurydice, is fixed only a few decades before the Christian era in Virgil and Ovid, a subject that von Albrecht has already dealt with (“Orfeo en Virgilio y Ovidio”, Myrtia 19, 1995, 17–34). Johnson (80, 99–103), Young (81) and Fratantuono (99, 1–18) also offer an image of Ovid’s Orpheus. The second attributes to Ovid certain allusions to Augustus through the figure of Orpheus. In addition, some elements are included, such as the use of the hyacinth in the Ovidian passages in which the god appears. Kayachev (93) compares the narrative of the Orphic golden tablets of group B with several passages of Theocritus, Apollonius, Callimachus, Virgil, Propertius and Ovid. The author considers the Callimachean allusion (Hymn to Athena 71–2) by Ovid (met. 3.144); the

Religion and Cult

275

poet may also be referring to the text of the Actaeon story tablets in met. 3.138–252, but also again to Teiresias’ role in Hymn to Athena of Callimachus. However, only in Ovid and on the tablets does the river Lethe allow Orpheus to preserve his memory. o. Pythagoreanism Hardie (42, 185–9) identifies Ovid’s own voice through the words of Pythagoras in the speech of book 15. Echoes of Ennius, Lucretius and Virgil can be seen in his composition. Eller (1, 11–58) proposes an interpretation of the great love stories, the transformations (59–107), and the didactic part, to relate Pythagorean and preSocratic influence (Heraclitus) on the work. This selection of passages is approached from the premise that Ovid arrives at the myth with a knowledge of nature, since his education is that expected of a Roman. Lévi (101) deals with the reason for the final revelation, which in met. is observed in the discourse of Pythagoras (15.60–478): the soul’s immortality and transmigration is mentioned, as well as the fact that everything is eternally subject to change. This text is studied together with Cicero’s Somnium Scipionis (Rep. 6.9–29) and the ‘Theophany of Isis’ (Apul. met. 11), concluding that each fragment is the final revelation of the work to which it belongs. Brenk (50, 176–83) talks about Galatea and the Cyclops, irrelevant in this section except for the psychological interpretation offered by the author: he ventures to relate the reaction of the nymphs, as representatives of nature, to the idea of the Pythagorean soul’s immortality. Green (79) again takes up dogmatic aspects of Pythagorean religion and philosophy in Fasti, around the topic of animal sacrifice. On the one hand, he finds a traditional, Augustan perspective, and on the other, a Pythagorean one, which invites sympathy for animal victims. Perhaps this can be extended to met. p. Relation with other religious texts Schindler (43) confronts the way the flood is treated in Genesis and in met. The main differentiating element is the monotheistic and polytheistic nature, although there are aspects common to both. A study of the main characters involved in the Flood, the different divinities, is also offered. While the biblical text is more serious, the Ovidian seems to be driven by irony. In Act. Apost. 14.11–12 Paul and Barnabas are acclaimed as Zeus and Hermes. This identification comes at  a later date, since in their own land the Lycaonians worshipped a divine couple with different functions from those of the Olympian gods. Versnel (90, 42) reminds us of the visit by the same couple, in the same region, to the elderly Philemon and Baucis (8.611–724).

276

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

q. Symbolic influence Barkan (14) focuses on the transmission and influence of Ovidian myths, reflecting the prevailing paganism, in several writers of the Italian, French and English schools in the Middle Ages and Renaissance: Dante, Shakespeare, Petrarch, Ronsard and Spenser. He also studies the poet’s influence on the painters Titian and Correggio. For his part, Heinrich (16) deals with the figure of the nymphs, and of Galatea in particular, in the Renaissance, thanks to her power of transformation and the religious implications she entails. r. Conflict between religions Rosati (87) deals with the clash between the Egyptian and Roman deities, as seen in Aeneas’ coat of arms in the Virgilian description (Aen. 8.696–706), which is a symbol of the triumph of Western civilization over the barbaric East, and of order over the forces of Chaos. Egyptian theriomorphism was, for non-Egyptians, a sign of superstition, and became the most typical negative stereotype about their land. The myth of the gods’ flight towards Greek Egypt and, especially, their metamorphoses into animals, appears in Ovid (met. 5.318–531), where the poet uses aetiology to normalise “the Other” for Romans; this Other is assimilated and made a derivative of the first “Other”. Other passages in Ovid (am. 2.13.7–17; met. 9.686–94) show a change from the Augustan demonisation of the East, and a different attitude in Egyptian worship, in response to the end of the conflict with Anthony. 8. Magic 1.  V. Wise, “Ovid’s Medea and the magic of language”, Ramus 11, 1982, 16–25. 2.  J. A. Rosner-Siegel, “Amor, metamorphosis, and magic. Ovid’s Medea (Met. 7.1– 424)”, CJ 77, 1982, 231–43. 3. G. Luck, Arcana Mundi. Magic and the Occult in the Greek and Roman Worlds, Baltimore 1985. 4.  A.-M. Tupet, “La magie dans la métamorphose d’Arachné (Ovide, Met., 6,135– 145)”, in J.-M. Frécaut, D. Porte (eds.), Journées Ovidiennes de Parménie, Bruxelles 1985, 215–28. 5.  A.  Perutelli, “Enotea, la capanna  e il rito magico. L’intreccio dei modelli in Petron. 135–136”, MD 17, 1986, 125–43. 6.  A.-M. Tupet, “Rites magiques dans l’Antiquité romaine”, ANRW 16.3, 1986, 2591–675. 7.  W.  McCarty, “The shape of the mirror. Metaphorical catoptrics in classical literature”, Arethusa 22, 1989, 161–95. 8.  F. Bader, “Langue liée et bouche cousue. Ovide, Fastes 2,571–582”, Revue de Philologie 66, 1992, 217–45.

Magic

277

9.  D. W.  Leinweber, The Role of Metamorphosis in Greco-Roman Religious Thought, Diss. Michigan State University 1992. 10.  M. von Albrecht, “Ovidio y la música”, Myrtia 8, 1993, 7–22. 11.  S. A. Cecchin, “Medea in Ovidio fra elegia ed epos”, in R. Uglione (ed.), Atti delle giornate di studio su Medea (Torino 23–24 ottobre 1995), Torino 1997, 69–89. 12.  M. Nelson, “Narcissus: Myth and Magic”, CJ 95, 2000, 363–89. 13.  C.  Segal, “Tantum medicamina possunt: la magie dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide”, in A. Moreau, J. C. Turpin (eds.), La magie. Actes du colloque international de Montpellier 25–27 mars 1999. I.  Du monde babylonien au monde hellénistique. II. La magie dans l’antiquité grecque tardive. Les mythes. III. Du monde latin au monde contemporain. IV. Bibliographie générale, Montpellier 2000, III, 45–70. 14.  Mª. C.  Álvarez Morán, R. Mª. Iglesias Montiel, “Cruce de géneros en las Metamorfosis”, in A. López, A. Pociña (eds.), Medeas: versiones de un mito desde Grecia hasta hoy, Granada 2002, 445–57. 15.  P.  Hardie, “Conjugal conjuring”, in P.  Hardie, Ovid’s Poetics of Illusion, Cambridge 2002, 258–82. 16. D.  Ogden, Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds: a Sourcebook, New York 2002. 17.  O. Phillips, “The witches’ Thessaly”, in P. Mirecki, M. Meyer (eds.), Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World, Leiden 2002, 378–86. 18.  C. Segal, “Black and White Magic in Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses’: Passion, Love and Art”, Arion 9, 2002, 1–34. 19.  A. D. Nikolopoulos, “Tremuloque gradu venit aegra senectus: old age in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Mnemosyne 56, 2003, 48–60. 20.  A. A.  Nicgorski, “Interlaced Fingers and Knotted Limbs: The Hostile Posture of Quarrelsome Ares on the Parthenon Frieze”, in A. P. Chapin (ed.), ΧΑΡΙΣ: Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr, Princeton 2004, 291–303 (Hesperia Supplement 33). 21.  G.  Mazzoli, “Le Metamorfosi tra Ovidio  e Apuleio”, Athenaeum 95, 2007, 7–20. 22.  I. Jouteur, “Tisiphone ovidienne (Met. IV, 451–511)”, Euphrosyne 36, 2008, 87–104. 23.  M. Fucecchi, “Encountering the fantastic: expectations, forms of communication, reactions”, in P. Hardie (ed.), P. Hardie (ed.), Paradox and the Marvellous in Augustan Literature and Culture, Oxford-New York 2009, 213–30. 24.  R. Gordon, “Magic as a Topos in Augustan Poetry: Discourse, Reality and Distance”, Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 11, 2009, 209–28. 25.  F. Klein, “Prodigiosa mendacia uatum: responses to the marvellous in Ovid’s narrative of Perseus (Metamorphoses 4–5)”, in P.  Hardie (ed.), Paradox and the Marvellous in Augustan Literature and Culture, Oxford-New York 2009, 189–212.

278

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

26.  D.  Nelis, “Ovid, Metamorphoses 1.416–51: noua monstra and the foedera natura”, in P. Hardie (ed.), Paradox and the Marvellous in Augustan Literature and Culture, Oxford-New York 2009, 248–67. 27.  F.  Graf, “Gods in Greek inscriptions: Some methodological questions”, in J. N. Bremmer, A. Erskine (eds.), The Gods of Ancient Greece: Identities and Transformations, Edinburgh 2010, 55–80. 28. S. I.  Johnston, “Sending Dreams, Restraining Dreams: oneiropompeia in Theory and Practice”, in E. J. Scioli, C. Walde (eds.), Sub imagine somni: Nighttime Phenomena in Greco-Roman Culture, Pisa 2010, 63–80 (Testi  e studi di cultura classica 46). 29.  K. Lapatin, “New Statues for old gods”, in J. N. Bremmer, A. Erskine (eds.), The Gods of Ancient Greece: Identities and Transformations, Edinburgh 2010, 126–51. 30.  M. Simon, “Magicienne en Italie: Circé dans le livre XIV des Métamor ­phoses”, REL 89, 2011, 118–32. 31.  R. L.  Phillips, “On the outside looking in Pliny’s Natural history and the portrayal of invisibility rituals in the Latin West”, MAAR 56/57, 2011/12, 37–62. 32.  G. Braden, “Ovid’s Witchcraft”, in W. Brockliss, P. Chaudhuri, A. Haimson Lushkov, K. Wasdin (eds.), Reception and the Classics. An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Classical Tradition, Cambridge 2012, 120–8 (Yale Classical Studies 34). 33.  G. M. Masselli, “La potenza dei carmina tra poesia e magia”, in G. M. Masselli (ed.), Riflessi di magia. Virtù e virtuosismi della parola in Roma antica, Napoli 2012, 115–28. 34.  G.  Williams, “Medea in Metamorphoses 7: magic, moreness and the maius opus”, Ramus 41, 2012, 49–70. 35.  L. Aresi, “Vicende (e intrecci) del mito in terra d’Italia: Scilla, Glauco e Circe nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio”, Prometheus 2, 2013, 137–64. 36.  A.  Galindo Esparza, El tema de Circe en la tradición literaria: De la épica griega a la literatura española, Murcia 2015. 37. P.  Habermehl, “Die Magie des Wortes: Thema und Variationen in den poetischen Einlagen Petron, Sat. 134–135”, Gymnasium 121, 2014, 355–73. 38. V.  Subias-Konofal, Poétique de la prière dans les œuvres d’Ovide, Turnhout 2016. a. Magic in general For an explanation of what we understand as magic, the introduction to Luck’s book (3, 33–173) is recommended. An excellent definition, which does not include metamorphosis, can also be found in Tupet (4); however both of these are based on supernatural happenings. In two different works (13, 18), Segal examines the various episodes of Meta-

Magic

279

morphoses in which magic appears, to demonstrate its small but fundamental role in Ovid’s epic. The article by Klein (25) tries to explain that, faced with the narration of marvellous occurences, some of the characters who listen to them show their incredulity (met. 5.195–7). This is a reflection of the general public’s response when they hear about these types of extraordinary events. Furthermore, Klein shows the various rhetorical elements that Ovid uses to combat the audience’s scepticism. In the episode of Perseus, the enchantment is treated as an etiological narrative (met. 4.793–7). Jouteur (22) analyses the role of Tisiphone in met. 4.451–511, examining the influence of witchcraft, Pythagorism, and the interaction between the two. She tries to clarify the reason for Ovid’s fascination with magic, and whether this could be  a reflection of the author’s link with resurgent Pythagorism. The philosopher’s teachings had filtered into cultivated circles, while witchcraft was being fought by the civil authorities of the era. Ovid’s recreation of Pythagoras (15.259–420), observing everything around him as changing, and confirming the phenomenon of metamorphosis (262–3), is discussed by Fucecchi (23). Even so, when the philosopher finishes listing the different types of metamorphoses that he has observed in nature (259–417), he alludes to change from a didactic, almost scientific, perspective. He is close to paradoxography (215–16). The appearance of Pythagoras allows Nelis (26) to note the influence on this passage of Hellenistic paradoxography; of Alexandrian poetic tradition; and, stylistically, of Lucretius, in terms of Ovid’s didactic treatment of the subject. However, he identifies these elements in the narrative (261–7) of the origin of animal life after the flood (met. 1.416–51). b. Magicians In every case, magic is associated with female passion. Magicians were generally characters who inititally did not belong to native legends of Greece, but to oriental traditions. The sorcerers of Greco-Latin literature come from the East, almost always Thessaly or the Black Sea, such as Circe and Medea, who are both descendants of the Sun God (on this, see Galindo, 36). Phillips (17) reminds us that most of the allusions by Roman writers to Thessaly refer to its talent for magic. In the passages about Medea and Circe, on which Segal focuses (18, 11–26), magic and love are linked together in a complementary fashion (7.116, 167, 424, 13.942, 14.295, 368–71). By contrast, we have the luminous figure of Canens, wife of Picus; and Orpheus who, with his magical powers over nature, and his lyre and song, ends up losing his wife (18, 26–30). Aresi (35) considers that the critics misunderstand the role attributed to Circe in met. 13.730–14.74. The author analyses her conversation with Glaucus, concluding that the ultimate purpose of their presence in the work is to defend the importance of amor mutuus, as well as the fact that magic is useless when it comes to matters of love. The lovers who suffer (also Egeria and Hersilia) are treated with benevolence (18). Circe, a skilled transformer, occupies a much more important place in met. than in Virgil, as well as being interpreted more as a Roman matron for whom her servants work,

280

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

than as Homer’s charming woman who knits and sings. Simon (30) identifies Circe’s affiliation and interprets the character’s central role in the work for its relevance to the genealogy of the Latins. Ogden (16) considers the figure of Orpheus: in his myth, he descends to the Underworld to find Euridyce, but fails to locate her (Verg. georg. 4.453–525, met. 10.1–63). The author assumes that in an original version of the myth, he succeeds; this serves as a paradigm for the followers of Orphic doctrine to delve into the mysteries of the Underworld, reveal them to the living, and manipulate the souls of the dead. c. Ritual magic Leinweber (9) examines various themes related to Greco-Romano religion, making scattered allusions to met. In his second chapter, “Ecstatic metamorphosis” (50–108), he makes references to magic rituals (7.252) more related to spells. The role of music and the use of potions are also considered. Magic rituals in met. commonly required three elements: herbs, juices and filters, and the invocation to draw the desired divinity’s attention, usually accompanied by music. The telling of the Medea myth explains how nature changes in met. In her chapter, Tupet (4) analyses various metamorphoses, concluding that most of them are outside her own definition, while other cases seem more ambiguous. In the Arachne myth, she assumes that contact exists with a magical substance that causes transformation and a form of wondrous invocation. Minerva never uses magic in other metamorphoses, so neither does she have to do so in this myth. Cecchin (11, 80) identifies the introduction of magic by Ovid as a novelty in the treatment of myth. Ovid goes on to influence Seneca and Valerius Flaccus. The story about Medea can be divided into three episodes: Medea and Jason; Medea and Aeson; and Aeson, Medea and Pelias. The character’s evolution throughout the three episodes is due to love. She changes from a woman in love, who uses the power of this emotion to help her lover, to a wicked witch who destroys everything around her, and even herself,  a point also highlighted by Segal (13, 18). Jason’s esteem for Medea depends on her magical powers rather than her human qualities. In the first episode, magic is hardly mentioned. By contrast, in the second one, a long allusion to preparations for rituals is included (7.179–293). Ovid describes minutely the change in Medea’s physical appearance throughout the process. Rosner-Siegel  (2) distinguishes four stages in the ritual: the preparation and purification of Medea (179–91); the invocation to the gods of magic (192–219); the search for ingredients for potions (219–37); the rejuvenation of Aeson, and the preparation of the ritual in the strict sense (238–93). Álvarez and Iglesias (14) suggest eight steps: choosing the time, the dishevelled attire, performing the ceremony, the invocations, the ingredients, preparing the altars, the expiatory sacrifice and, lastly, the rite itself (426). In the purification, one of the steps was to avoid human contact (see also Ogden, 16). The ritual of bringing down the moon, and the erotic motivation of its powers, were typical of the reductionist descriptions of Thessalian sorceresses by Roman writers (Phillips 17). Tupet (6) also focuses on the magical elements which appear in this epi-

Magic

281

sode of met.: destroying the serpents (7.203), and the use of filter ingredients, whether of mineral (7.266–7) or animal (7.269–75) origin. The fourth chapter of Leinweber’s doctoral thesis (9, 143–82) deals with regenerative metamorphoses through the blood. These powers, used in occult rituals of Antiquity, are also represented in the Medea tale in met. (7.160–350); in addition, they require the help of Hecate, and of potions which include blood as an ingredient (7.181–3, 194–214). Galindo Esparza (36) dedicates her fifth chapter to Latin literature (151–203) and, specifically (176–190), to the treatment of Circe in met. (13.623–14.608). Circe has two forms of bewitchment: one is by means of herbs (14.9–22). and the other with carmina (14.20). She uses both, accompanied by terrible potions (14.43) whose components are also described when used in the transformation of Ulysses’ crew into pigs (14.271–90); additionally, the author describes the use of a wand. Gordon (24) does not identify Medea’s ritual (met. 7.179–293) with actual experiences that Ovid could have observed in person, but with literary sources. These practices (reversing the course of rivers, opening up the earth so that snakes appear) were identical in many Augustan poets (17), as Ogden (16) likewise mentions. Comprehensive lists of ritual phases, ingredients and other paraphernalia further contribute to the gap between the symbolic and the real. Habermehl (37) considers several passages of Petronius’ Satyricon. In the comparison between Petron. 134–5 and met. 8.618–724, Oenothea’s role as a magician exhibits a much kinder reception from Roman society of Nero’s time than from Ovid’s contemporaries. Williams (34) even notes the metapoetic implications of Medea, beginning in epist. 12.209–12. He presents certain aspects of the sorceress’ character, and pits these against the expectations that the author of a mythological work would have. Medea herself is an agent of change, as in Aeson’s rejuvenation. Only when calm is restored and she becomes frustrated in her repeated attempts to kill Theseus, does she suddenly leave the poem. d. Invocation The invocation and use of spell formulas are undoubtedly part of the magic ritual, but we treat them here independently to facilitate the reader’s search. First of all, we must mention the work of Subias-Konofal (38), who classifies the different types of prayers to the gods in public rituals in Rome (31–45) and in Ovid (47–103). Graft (27) reminds us that, on occasions, the altar at which the invocation to the gods is made is located in the open air, like the isolated altar where the story of the Lycian peasants starts (6.325–6). Wise (1) describes the use of magic through verbal invocation as a parallel process employed by Ovid as a poet to transform the characters in his work. While magic appears to be only part of Medea and Jason’s relationship, the development of which will determine the result of her enchantments, the poet’s artistic capacity also seems to be called into question by the reader. Álvarez and Iglesias (14) point out the novelty of a magic spell which accompanies the use of herbs (424). Von Albrecht (10) recalls that Medea accompanies her recitation with music. Tupet (4) justifies (met. 7.139 ff.) the presence of repetitive fragments in the invocation to Medea, to the point where some

282

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

literary critics have suggested that they be removed from the Ovidian text. Galindo Esparza (36) also identifies the carmina of Circe (14.20) with enchantments in place of beautiful singing by the Odyssey’s witch. The value of the Circe’s and Medea’s carmina spells is addressed and compared by Masselli (33), using Virgil, the commentator Servius, and Petrarch. The enchantments achieve divine complicity through their magical carmina, which function like speeches. Von Albrecht collects various uses of music and song in magical contexts, as in met. 4.33, 7.98, 131–2, 330, 12.263 ff., 14.365–70, 14.302, 387. As mentioned by the author, “apenas se puede dilucidar si en las fórmulas mágicas juega un papel mayor la palabra o la salmodia recitativa” (10, 15). Leinweber (9) reflects on the hypnotic role of music and the use of potions in various Ovidian passages (1.680–720, 3.62–3, 7.149–58, 326–7). The music accompanies religious rituals with the ultimate aim of reaching a state of ecstatic trance, as in the case of Dionysian mythology (82–7). References to the ecstatic trance in the myths of Juno and Tisiphone, and Ino and Athamas, are also included. e. Amulets and superstitions Lapatin (29) mentions ivory as a material with magical properties, along with gold, as seen in the myths of Pelops (6.404–411) and Pygmalion (10.243–97). In met. 9.281–315 the description of Ilithyia during Heracles’ birth is included. Her posture, with legs crossed and fingers interlaced like a comb, prevented the birth from taking place. This type of superstition, according to the principles of homeopathic magic, served to prevent or stop the action that was about to occur. The figure of Ares in the eastern frieze of the Parthenon takes this position. According to Nicgorski (20), this pose speaks of Ares’ hostile intentions towards his sister Athena, and his impatience to return to the affairs of war, which reminds us that Athena will never be able to live in peace. Bader (8) analyses a passage of Fasti (2.571–82) which examines the Feralia festival, where the Manes are celebrated. From the passage, we are reminded of the ritual to Tacita, to prevent unfriendly tongues. In the rite, beans were used and the head of a small fish was burned, which Pythagoreans were forbidden from consuming. The ritual is compared to two passages of met. where Ovid uses the ’’langue des dieux’’ (11.640, 14.292). The goddess was also called Tacita Muta, a double name as in the examples of met. where one name was used for her by mortals, and the other was used by the gods. f. Astrology Luck (3, 395) highlights Ovid as one of the main influences on Manilius in his cosmogony.

Magic

283

g. Alchemy Luck (3, 441) studies the attitude of each culture in terms of magic and occult science. On this occasion met. is proposed to verify the perception of the transformation principle for the ancients in the field of alchemy. h. Optical effects The metaphorical catoptrics used by Ovid in met. may have different implications. In the Actaeon and Hermaphroditus myths, the reflection returns a vision of themselves in the opposite gender. In the cases of Ganymede and Narcissus, the image corresponds to an individual of their own sex. In both cases McCarty (7) points out the negative effect that the vision in the mirror has on the real image of the characters. To address the invisibility rituals in Pliny the Elder, Phillips (31) considers several examples, including met. 7.404–724. In that passage, Medea appears using one of these rituals after failing to poison Theseus; this subject has Hellenistic sources. Her appearance in the poem could be related to the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficiis, which condemned poisoning with murderous intent. This law, of which no testimony has been preserved, criminalised magic during the imperial era, although few further details are known about it. By associating Ovid’s poison with invisibility, he shows us that the latter would be not only be harmful on a similar level, but also illegal in the eyes of Roman law. Perutelli (5) presents various interpretations of Petron. 135–6. Encolpius could have been enchanted by Oenothea to make him perceive the hut where she lives as a symbol of wealth. Several passages of met. are used as a model or counterpoint to the Petronian fragment, especially in those descriptions of estates that suggest wealth or misery to the reader, despite the use of the term ‘hut’, as in the case of Philemon and Baucis. i. Oneiropompeia Morpheus creates fictional images that are considered real by those who experience them, and also, at the same time, conjure up the illusion of their actual presence, according to Hardie (15). This can be seen in the Ceyx and Alcyone episode (met. 11.410–748). Johnston (28) examines the theme of oneiropompeia from two passages in met. (9.684–703, 11.585–680). This magical practice is recorded in several Greek papyri that collect diverse information about the phenomenon, and the method of controlling these entities: through the dead. Ovid’s parallels, as well as others of Virgil and Homer, serve to confirm the control that the ancients thought they could exert over dreams.

284

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

j. Metamorphosis as Spell Braden (32) suggests that Ovid was the great poet of magic. The transformations of characters in met. are related with the demonic powers of witches. This is used as a model in the Renaissance and, above all, in Shakespeare. In met., according to Mazzoli (21), metamorphosis is not a dark and impenetrable force, but the same capricious divine will. The metamorphoses in Ovid respond to a summary of the human condition’s pathos exposed to the irrational, or to the sanctions of cruel divinity. Apuleius’ work is indeed influenced by the element of magic. This treatment can also be seen in Statius’ Thebaid, Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica and Petronius’ Satyricon. Nikolopoulos (19) talks about how old age intervenes in the process of changing the shape of bodies, even though it is not a metamorphosis stricto sensu. Aging is a physiological process that can be reversed through magic. The gods pass themselves off as elders to advise and warn mortals (3.275 ff., 6.26 ff., 11.310, 14.654 ff.). This ‘wrinkly disguise’ can only be removed by humans with supernatural help. The use of magic for this purpose can have a positive outcome, as in the case of Aeson (7.288–92), or a negative one, as in the case of Pelias. Other characters, like the Sibyl, sought eternal life through the favour of the gods (14.129–53), with unexpected results on her part. The transformation into an old woman is very common in classical literature, as a symbol of time itself. Elderly men usually appear as narrators or judges; they have credibility and judgement / discretion because of the fact that they are old. The author highlights three of their virtues: selective memory, self-glorification and judgmental moralism. k. Divination Nelson (12) deals with the relationship between the myth of Narcissus and a form of divination called “scrying“. This form of divination consists of staring at a point, often accompanied by hypnosis, fasting, or narcotics, until hallucinations are experienced. That fixed point is usually a shiny surface, like a pond, where you look at your own reflection. 9. Philosophical Content 1.  O. S. Due, Changing Forms: Studies in the Metamorphoses of Ovid, København 1974. 2.  L. Lorch, “Human time and the magic of the carmen. Metamorphosis as an element of rhetoric in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Ph&Rh 15, 1982, 262–73. 3.  R. McKim, “Myth against Philosophy in Ovid’s account of Creation”, CJ 80, 1984/85, 97–108. 4.  F. della Corte, “Il vegetarismo di Ovidio”, C&S 93, 1985, 51–60. 5.  F. della Corte, “Gli Empedoclea e Ovidio”, Maia 37, 1985, 3–12. 6.  P. Mommsen, “Philosophische Propädeutik in den Metamorphosen des Ovid”, AU 28, 1985, 27–45.

Philosophical Content

285

7.  P. E.  Knox, Ovid’s Metamorphoses and the Traditions of Augustan Poetry, Cambridge 1986. 8. F. Bömer, P. Ovidius Naso. Die Metamorphosen. Buch XIV–XV, Heidelberg 1986. 9.  R. Brown, “The Palace of the Sun in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, in M. Whitby, P. Hardie, M. Whitby (eds.), Homo Viator: Classical Essays for John Bramble, Bristol 1987, 211–20. 10.  P. Hardie, “Lucretius and delusion of Narcissus”, MD 20–21, 1988, 71–89. 11.  J. B. Solodow, The World of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Chapel Hill 1988. 12.  M. M. Colavito, The Pythagorean intertext in Ovid’s Metamorphoses. A new interpretation, Lewiston 1989. 13.  M.  López López, “Mito y filosofía en las Metamorfosis de Ovidio: Ulises, Hércules, Níobe, Licaón”, CFC 22, 1989, 167–74. 14.  J. P. Néraudau, Ovide ou les dissidences du poète, Paris 1989. 15.  K. S. Myers, Rerum causae: Ovid’s Metamorphoses and Aetiological Narrative, Ann Arbor 1990. 16.  P.  Panitschek, “Numa Pompilius als Schüler des Pythagoras”, GB 17, 1990, 49–65. 17. U. Schmitzer, Zeitgeschichte in Ovids Metamorphosen, Stuttgart 1990. 18. D.  Feeney, The Gods in Epic. Poets and Critics of the Classical Tradition, Oxford 1991. 19.  B. Pavlock, “The Tyrant and Boundary Violations in Ovid’s Tereus Episode”, Helios 18, 1991, 34–48. 20.  E. A. Schmidt, Ovids poetische Menschenwelt. Die Metamorphosen als Metapher und Symphonie, Heidelberg 1991. 21.  F. Bader, “Langue liée et bouche cousue. Ovide, Fastes 2,571–582”, Revue de Philologie 66, 1992, 217–45. 22.  G. Freyburger, “L’initiation pythagoricienne dans le Livre XV des Metamorphoses d’Ovide”, in A. Moreau (ed.), L’ initiation. Actes du colloque international de Montpellier (11–14 avril 1991), I: Les rites d’adolescence et les mystères, Montpellier 1992, 261–9. 23.  V. Longo, “Pitagora e pitagorismo nel XV libro delle Metamorfosi di Ovidio”, AALig 49, 1992, 355–68. 24. U. Todini, L’altro Omero. Scienza e storia nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio, Napoli 1992 (Pubbl. Univ. Salerno. Sezione di studi di filologia, letteratura, storia e archeologia del mondo classico 3). 25.  R. M. Wilhelm, “The Metamorphoses of the Golden Age in Greek and Latin Writers”, AugAge 10, 1990/92, 58–74.

286

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

26.  V. Buchheit, “Numa – Pythagoras in der Deutung Ovids”, Hermes 121, 1993, 77–99. 27.  E.  Caballero de del Sastre, “El hombre entre la filosofía y el mito (Ovidio Metamorfosis I 76–88)”, Faventia 15, 1993, 91–6. 28.  M. Helzle, “Ovid’s Cosmogony: Metamorphoses 1.5–88 and the traditions of ancient poetry”, PLLS 7, 123–34. 29.  J. F. Miller, “The memories of Ovid’s Pythagoras », Mnemosyne 47.4, 1994, 473–87. 30.  K. S. Myers, Ovid’s Causes: Cosmogony and Aetiology in the Metamorphoses, Ann Arbor 1994. 31. J. Fabre-Serris, Mythe et poésie dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide. Fonctions et significations de la mythologie dans la Rome augustéenne, Paris 1995. 32.  P. Hardie, “The speech of Pythagoras in Ovid Metamorphoses 15: Empedo­ clean epos”, CQ 45, 1995, 204–14. 33.  S. M. Wheeler, “Imago mundi: another view of the creation in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, AJPh 116, 1995, 95–121. 34.  S. M. Wheeler, “Ovid’s Use of Lucretius in Metamorphoses 1.67–8”, CQ 45, 1995, 200–3. 35.  W. S. Anderson (ed.), Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Books 1–5, Norman 1996. 36. M. D.  Buisel de Sequeiros, “Deus et melior natura. Ovidio: Metamorphosis I,21”, Actas de las VIII Jornadas de Estudios Clásicos, Buenos Aires 1996, 51–70. 37. J. Loehr, Ovids Mehrfacherklärungen in der Tradition aitiologischen Dichtens, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1996. 38.  E. J.  Milowicki, “Reflections on  a Symbolic Heritage: Ovid’s Narcissus”, SyllClass 7, 1996, 155–66. 39.  L. Spahlinger, ‘Ars latet arte sua’: Untersuchungen zur Poetologie in den Metamorphosen Ovids, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1996. 40. N. Holzberg, Ovid. Dichter und Werk, München 1997. 41. G. Tissol, The Face of Nature, Princeton 1997. 42.  P. Barolsky, “Poussin’s Ovidian Stoicism”, Arion 6, 1998, 4–10. 43.  R. Bonifaz Nuño, “Ovidio neopitagórico”, Nova Tellus 16, 1998, 45–9. 44. J. Fabre-Serris, Mythologie et littérature à Rome. La réécriture des mythes aux Iers siècles avant et après J.-C., Lausanne 1998. 45.  K. Galinsky, “The speech of Pythagoras at Ovid Metamorphoses 15.75–478”, in F. Cairns, M. Heath (eds.), Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 10, Leeds 1998, 313–36 (ARCA 38). 46.  M.  Wenzel, “Ovids Dädalus und Ikarus  – ein tiefenpsychologischer Deutungsversuch”, Ianus 19, 1998, 15–29.

Philosophical Content

287

47.  F. E. Brenk, Clothed in Purple Light. Studies in Vergil and in Latin Literature, Including Aspects of Philosophy, Religion, Magic, Judaism, and the New Testament Background, Stuttgart 1999. 48.  W.  Burkert, “The logic of cosmogony”, in R.  Buxton (ed.), From Myth to Reason? Studies in the Development of Greek Thought, Oxford 1999, 87–106. 49.  D.  Feeney, “Mea tempora: Patterning of Time in the Metamorphoses”, in P.  Hardie, A.  Barchiesi, S. Hinds (eds.), Ovidian Transformations: Essays on The Metamorphoses and its Reception”, Cambridge 1999, 13–30. 50.  F. Lecocq, “De la création du monde: les De rerum natura d’Ovide ou Lucrèce métamorphosé”, in R. Poignault (ed.), Présence de Lucrèce, Tours 1999, 129–47. 51.  G. Lieberg, “Sulla creazione dell’uomo in Ovidio: l’uomo immagine degli dei (Met. I 82–83)”, BStudLat 29, 1999, 89–95. 52.  A.  Setaioli, “L’impostazione letteraria del discorso di Pitagora nel XV libro delle Metamorfosi”, in W.  Schubert (ed.), Ovid: Werk und Wirkung: Festgabe für Michael von Albrecht zum 65. Geburtstag, Bern-Frankfurt am Main 1999, I, 487–514. 53.  S. M. Wheeler, A discourse of Wonders, Philadelphia 1999. 54.  A. Zissos, I. Gildenhard, “Problems of time in Metamorphoses 2”, in P. Hardie, A. Barchiesi, S. Hinds (eds.), Ovidian Transformations: Essays on The Metamorphoses and its Reception”, Cambridge 1999, 31–47. 55.  S. M.  Wheeler, Narrative Dynamics in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Tübingen 2000, 114–26. 56. A.  Barchiesi, Speaking Volumes. Narratives and intertext in Ovid and other Latin poets, London 2001. 57.  D. P. Nelis, Vergil’s Aeneid and the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius, Leeds 2001. 58.  E. A. Schmidt, “Ovid. Dichterische Anthropologie in Schöpfungserzählungen”, in Musen in Rom. Deutung von Welt und Geschichte in großen Texten der römischen Literatur, Tübingen 2001, 133–45. 59.  C. P. Segal, “Intertextuality and inmortality: Ovid, Pythagoras and Lucretius in Metamorphoses 15”, MD 46, 2001, 63–101. 60.  F. Graf, “Myth in Ovid”, in P. Hardie (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ovid, Cambridge 2002, 108–21. 61.  J. Y. Guillaumin, “Présence de l’arithmologie dans le livre 15 des Métamorphoses d’Ovide”, in M. Piot (ed.), Regards sur le monde antique. Hommages à Guy Sabbah, Lyon 2002, 105–14. 62. P. Hardie, Ovid’s Poetics of Illusion, Cambridge 2002. 63.  A. Keith, “Sources and Genres in Ovid’s Metamorphoses 1–5”, in B. W. Boyd (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Ovid, Leiden-Boston-Köln 2002, 235–69. 64.  G.  Liveley, “Cleopatra’s Nose, Naso and the Science of Chaos”, G&R 49, 27–43.

288

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

65.  P. Martínez Astorino, “Prometeo y las versiones romanas de la creación del hombre”, Auster 6/7, 2001/02, 53–67. 66.  W. Pötscher, “Zu Ovids Weltanschauung”, in P. Defosse (ed.), Hommages à Carl Deroux, I: Poésie, Bruxelles 2002, 424–32 (Collection Latomus 266). 67.  G. Rosati, “Narrative Techniques and Narrative Structures in the Metamorphoses”, in B. Boyd (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Ovid, Leiden 2002, 271–304. 68.  A. Schiesaro, “Ovid and the professional discourses of scholarship, religion, rhetoric”, in P. Hardie (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ovid, Cambridge 2002, 62–75. 69.  R. J. Tarrant, “Chaos in Ovid’s Metamorphoses and its Neronian Influence”, Arethusa 35, 2002, 349–60. 70. K.  Volk, The Poetics of Latin Didactic: Lucretius, Vergil, Ovid, Manilius, Oxford 2002. 71.  P. Martínez Astorino, “El relato hesiódico de Pandora y sus incidencias en la cosmología ovidiana”, CFC(L) 23, 2003, 335–49. 72.  T. Cole, “Ovid, Varro and Castor of Rhodes: The Chronological Architec­ture of the Metamorphoses”, HSCP 102, 2004, 355–422. 73. E. Fantham, Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Oxford 2004. 74.  D. Obbink, “Vergil’s De pietate: from Ehoiae to allegory in Vergil, Philodemus and Ovid”, in D.  Armstrong, J.  Fisch, P.  Johnston, M. B.  Skinner (eds.), Vergil, Philodemus, and the Augustans, Austin 2004, 175–209. 75.  M. Silk, “Numa Pompilius and the Idea of Civil Religion in the West”, JAAR 72, 2004, 863–96. 76.  A. Barchiesi (ed.), Ovidio, Metamorfosi, vol. I, libri I–II, Milano 2005. 77.  A. Deremetz, “L’histoire du genre épique dans les catabases de Virgile, d’Ovide et de Silius Italicus”, in J. P. Schwindt (ed.), La représentation du temps dans la poésie augustéenne = Zur Poetik der Zeit in augusteischer Dichtung, Heidelberg 2005, 111–21. 78.  L. Oberrauch, “Metempsychose, Universalgeschichte und Autopsie. Die Rede des Pythagoras in Ovid, Met. XV als Kernstück epischer Legitimation”, Gymnasium 112, 2005, 107–21. 79.  M. C. J. Putnam, “Daphne’s Roots: In memoriam Charles Segal”, Herma­thena 177/178, 2004/05, 71–89. 80.  J. P. Schwindt, “Zeiten und Räume in augusteischer Dichtung”, in J. P. Schwindt (ed.), La représentation du temps dans la poésie augustéenne = Zur Poetik der Zeit in augusteischer Dichtung, Heidelberg 2005, 1–18. 81.  S.  Stucchi, “Pitagora  e l’ultima metamorfosi di Ovidio”, Sileno 31, 2005, 159–84. 82.  M. E. Vesley, “Women and civilization in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, SyllClass 16, 2005, 61–83.

Philosophical Content

289

83.  A.  Barchiesi, “Voices and Narrative Instances in the Metamorphoses”, in P. Knox (ed.), Oxford Readings in Ovid, Oxford 2006, 273–319. 84.  J. Dalfen, “Warum erleben Gestalten des Mythos viele Metamorphosen?”, in S. Coelsch-Foisner, M. Schwarzbauer (eds.), Akten der Tagung der Interdisziplinären Forschungsgruppe Metamorphosen an der Universität Salzburg in Kooperation mit der Universität Mozarteum und der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Polyästhetische Erziehung (Zell an der Pram, 2003), Heidelberg 2006, 21–38. 85.  S.  Rocca, “L’origo animantium in Ovidio tra mito  e letteratura”, SLD 7.18, 2006, 29–49. 86.  U.  Schmitzer, “Reserare oracula mentis: abermals zu Funktion der Pytha­ gorasrede in Ovids Metamorphosen”, SIFC 99, 2006, 32–56. 87.  P. A. Kuhlmann, “Theologie und Ethik in Ovids Metamorphosen”, Gymnasium 114, 2007, 317–35. 88.  F. Maier, “Ovids Blick in die Seele des Menschen. Thematische Brückenschläge innerhalb und außerhalb der Metamorphosen”, in R.  Kussl (ed.), Antike Welt und Literatur. Einblicke, Analysen und Vermittlung im Unterricht, Speyer 2007, 115–36 (Dialog Schule – Wissenschaft. Klassische Sprachen und Literaturen 41). 89.  M.  Nabielek, “Silenus’ song (Virgil Ecl. 6.27–86)  – A source for Ovid’s Pythagoreanism in the Metamorphoses?”, Tópicos 33, 2007, 97–118. 90.  C. Torre, “Tra Ovidio e Seneca: la traccia dell’epos di Pitagora nel programma filosofico delle Naturales Quaestiones”, in A.  Costazza (ed.), La poesia filosofica, Milano, 7–9 marzo 2007, Milano 2007, 445–61 (Quaderni di Acme 98). 91. A. Bernabé, Dioses, héroes y orígenes del mundo, Madrid 2008. 92. T. Cole, Ovidius mythistoricus: legendary time in the Metamorphoses, New York-London 2008 (Studien zur klassischen Philologie 160). 93.  E. A.  Fontecedro, “Echi di un discorso sacro: Pitagora nella trascrizione di Ovidio: rifrazione ovidiane”, Aufidus 22, 2008, 7–30. 94.  S. J. Green, “Save our cows? Augustan discourse and animal sacrifice in Ovid’s Fasti”, G&R 55, 2008, 39–54. 95.  I. Jouteur, “Tisiphone ovidienne (Met. IV, 451–511)”, Euphrosyne 36, 2008, 87–104. 96.  P.  Martínez Astorino, “Del sanctius animal  a la apoteosis: Hércules en las Metamorfosis de Ovidio”, Latomus 67, 2008, 378–90. 97. G. Salvo, Ovidio come specchio della cultura figurativa di Età Augustea: miti di hybris punita: Marsia, Pisa-Roma 2008. 98.  M. A. Santamaría Álvarez, “Orfeo y el orfismo en los poetas helenísticos”, in A. Bernabé, F. Casadesús (eds.), Orfeo y la tradición órfica: Un reencuentro, Madrid 2008, 1339–82. 99.  H. Vial, “‘Poète est le nom du sujet qui se brise et renaît de ses cendres’: le phénix dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide (XV, 392–407)”, Euphrosyne 36, 2008, 119–33.

290

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

100.  M.  Vielberg, “Omnia mutantur, nihil interit? Vergils Katabasis und die Jenseitsvorstellungen in Ovids Metamorphosen”, in S. Freund, M.  Vielberg (eds.), Vergil und das antike Epos. Festschrift Hans Jürgen Tschiedel, Stuttgart 2008, 321–7. 101.  M.  Beagon, “Ordering wonderland: Ovid’s Pythagoras and the Augustan vision”, in P.  Hardie (ed.), Paradox and the marvellous in Augustan literature and culture, Oxford-New York 2009, 288–309. 102.  P. Martínez Astorino, La apoteosis en las Metamorfosis de Ovidio: función estructural y valor semántico, Ph. D. thesis, Buenos Aires 2009. 103.  J. F. Miller, Apollo, Augustus, and the Poets, Cambridge-New York 2009. 104.  D. P. Nelis, “Ovid, Metamorphoses 1.416–51: noua monstra and the foedera naturae”, in P. Hardie (ed.), Paradox and the marvellous in Augustan literature and culture, Oxford-New York 2009, 248–67. 105.  J.-Y. Tillette, “Ovide et son ‘moralisateur’ au miroir de Pythagore: figure(s) de l’auteur dans le livre XV de l’Ovide moralisé”, in M. Szkilnik, L. Harf-Lancner, L. Mathey Maille (eds.), Ovide métamorphosé: les lecteurs médiévaux d’Ovide, Paris 2009, 201–22. 106.  A. Wolkenhauer, “Dehnung der Akmé, Eukrasie und Zeitlosigkeit. Entwürfe des guten Alterns im griechisch-römischen Zeitaltermythos”, in T. Fitzon, S. Linden, K. Liess, D. Elm (eds.), Alterszäsuren. Zeit und Lebensalter in Literatur, Theologie und Geschichte, Berlin 2009, 221–35. 107. M. Huber, Spiegelungen: philosophisch-ästhetische Studien zur Geschichte des Bildes, Basel-Frankfurt a. M. 2010. 108. M. Payne, The animal part: human and other animals in the poetic imagination, Chicago 2010. 109. K. Volk, Ovid, Malden 2010. 110.  M. E. Gregory, Search for self in other in Cicero, Ovid, Rousseau, Diderot and Sartre, Bern-Frankfurt a. M. 2011 (Currents in comparative Romance languages and literatures 197). 111.  S. Papaïoannou, “Ovid, Metamorphoses 15, 418–452: Pythagoras’ Helenus on Epic Grandeur and Epic Succession”, AAntHung 51, 2011, 31–43. 112.  B.  Schneeweiss, “Ovids Metamorphosen und Platons Timaios” WHB 53, 2011, 16–32. 113.  D. van Schoor, “Nec me mea fallit imago: Ovid’s poetics of irony and reflections of Lucretius and Pythagoras in the Metamorphoses”, AClass 54, 2011, 125–47. 114. M. Beasley, Seriously Playful: Philosophy in the Myths of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Diss., Victoria 2012. 115. S.  Papaïoannou, Epic Succession and Dissension: Ovid, Metamorphoses 13.623–14.582, and the Reinvention of the Aeneid, Berlin 2012 (Untersuchungen zur Antiken und Geschichte).

Philosophical Content

291

116.  A. Videau, “‘Mutatas dicere formas’; signification de la métamorphose dans l’épopée ovidienne”, BAGB 1, 2012, 116–33. 117.  V. Coulson, “The baby and the mirror: the sexual politics of the Narcissus Myth in Poststructuralist Theory, Winnicottian Psychoanalysis, and Ovid’s Metamorphoses III”, Textual Practice 27, 2013, 805–23. 118.  A.  Videau, “La fiction dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide: philosophie de la nature, art et pensée du langage”, in C. Bréchet, A. Videau, R. Webb (eds.), Théories et pratiques de la fiction à l’epoque impériale, Paris 2013, 169–77. 119. I. Ziogas, Ovid and Hesiod: The Metamorphosis of the Catalogue of Women, Cambridge-New York 2013. 120.  J.  Fabre-Serris, “La réception d’Empedocle dans la poésie latine: Virgile (Buc. 6), Lucrèce, Gallus et les poètes élégiaques”, Dictynna 11, 2014. 121.  N. Franklin, “‘Unless All That The Poet Sing is False’: The Role Of Pytha­ goras’ Speech In Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Hirundo 3, 2014, 65–73. 122.  M. Garani, “The figure of Numa in Ovid’s Fasti”, in M. Garani, D. Konstan (eds.), The Philosophizing Muse: The Influence of Greek Philosophy on Roman Poetry. Pierides, 3, Newcastle upon Tyne 2014, 128–60. 123.  M. M. McGowan, “What distinguishes Ovid’s Pythagoras of Ausonius and Martianus Capella?”, Anabases 19, 2014, 189–204. 124.  A. Ottaviani, “Lo sguardo onirico di Pitagora: vis vegetativa fra metamorfosi e cristallizzazione”, in F. Citti, L. Pasetti, D. Pellacani (eds.), Metamorfosi tra scienza e letteratura, Firenze 2014, 231–48 (Biblioteca Nuncius. Studi e testi 74). 125.  A.  Schiesaro, “Materiam superabat opus: Lucretius Metamorphosed”, JRS 104, 2014, 73–104. 126.  Á.  Tamás, “Ovid Reading Horace. The Empedoclean Drive in the Ars Poetica”, MD 72, 2014, 173–92. 127.  A.  Videau, “Le Métamorphoses d’Ovide: mythes et philosophie théologico-politique à l’orée de la monarchie impériale”, in A.  Estèves, J.  Meyers (eds.), Tradition et innovation dans l’ épopée latine, de l’Antiquité au Moyen Âge, Bordeaux 2014, 55–62. 128.  P. Hardie, G. Chiarini (eds.), Ovidio: Metamorfosi, Volume VI: Libri XIII– XV, Milano 2015. 129.  Y.  García López, “The subordination of the epic to mystic poetics: the example of Polyphemus in love”, in M. Díaz de Cerio, C. Cabrillana, C. Criado (eds.), Ancient Epic: Linguistic and Literary Essays, Newcastle upon Tyne 2015, 101–36. 130.  H. van Noorden, Playing Hesiod: The “Myth of the Races” in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge 2015. 131.  J. Scheid, “Metamorphoses in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Concerning Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, La lettre du Collège de France 7, 2015 (sine pag.).

292

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

132. S. Scully, Hesiod’s Theogony: From Near Eastern Creation Myths to Paradise Lost, Oxford 2015. 133.  G.  Freyburger, “Lament on the sacrificed bull in Ovid, Metamorphoses 15.120–42”, in P. A. Johnston, A. Mastrocinque, S. Papaïoannou (eds.), Animals in Greek and Roman religion and myth. Proceedings of the Symposium Grumentinum, Grumento Nova (Potenza) 5–7 June 2013, Cambridge 2016, 299–308. 134.  M. M. McGowan, “Pythagoras and Numa in Ovid: exile and inmortality at Rome”, in P. Mitsis, I. Ziogas (eds.), Wordplay and powerplay in Latin poetry, Berlin 2016, 241–58 (Trends in Classics. Supplementary volumes 36). 135.  C. Zatta, “Plants’ Interconnected Lives: From Ovid’s Myths to Presocratic Thought and Beyond”, Arion 24, 2016, 101–26. 136.  P.  Martínez Astorino, La apoteosis en las Metamorfosis de Ovidio. Diseño estructural, mitologización y «lectura» en la representación de apoteosis y sus contextos, Bahía Blanca 2017. 137.  M. Moser, “Ovide lecteur d’Empedocle: pour une reinterprétation du fr. 6 DK”, BAGB, 1, 2017, 80–96. 138.  A. Bernabé, “La cosmogonía de las Metamorfosis de Ovidio y las Rapsodias órficas”, Emerita 86, 2018, 207–32. 139.  H. Casanova-Robin, “Reconstruire une poétique des présocratiques: le feu dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide”, in S. Franchet d’Espèrey, C. Lévy (eds.), Les Pré­ socratiques à Rome, Paris 2018, 323–46. 140.  J.  Fabre-Serris, “Enjeux moraux et idéologiques des usages d’Empédocle au livre XV des Métamorphose: une réponse d’Ovide à Virgile (Eneide VI et VIII)”, in S. Franchet d’Espèrey, C.  Lévy (eds.), Les Présocratiques à Rome, Paris 2018, 303–19. 141.  A.  Videau, “Les  Métamorphoses  d’Ovide, une cosmogonie originale”, in S. Franchet d’Espèrey, C. Lévy (eds.), Les Présocratiques à Rome, Paris 2018, 347–59. 142.  P. Roche, “Citing Empedocles: A Bilingual Pun at Ovid, met. 15.58”, CQ 68, 2018, 552–6. 143.  G. Sissa, “Apples and poplars, nuts and bulls. The poetic biosphere of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, in E. Bianchi, S. Brill, B. Holmes (eds.), Antiquities Beyond Humanism. Classics in Theory, Oxford-New York 2019, 159–85. a. Philosophical content in general Philosophy, like myth, understands the existence of everything as the result of a set of transformations. Although the Romans clearly attributed to the gods a “reverencial y desacralizado” character (López López 13, 168), Ovid attempts to rationalise natural processes through myth. Change seems to be the starting point from which this universal mythological story is told, as proposed in the programmatic text of met. 1.1–4 (Schmitzer 17).

Philosophical Content

293

Change, flow and stability are the main elements that Sissa (143) deals with in Pythagoras’ speech, while Pötscher (66) advises that although Ovid is irreverent about myths, and his stories are far from being considered as profane, the poet takes the stories of the gods seriously. However he is critical of them, in the sense of the philosophical tradition of criticising the gods (87) in favour of  a hopeful outlook towards men (88). The myths of Daphne and Niobe, for example, show the origin of the natural elements. The aetiological function of myth in met. has the same role as that of natural philosophy (30, VII; 84). Note that even naturalists use Ovid’s words to speak of coral and fossils (124). Mythologists and philosophers do not establish boundaries between nature, men and gods, but interrelations, thereby implying the constant presence of transformation in their connections between each other. The concept of metamorphosis used by Ovid is applied to all existence as a philosophical propaedeutic, a model that he presents in Pythagoras’ speech. From the analysis of several passages (met. 1.1–4, 5–88, 89–150, 2.846–75, 3.143–252, 4.256–70, 6.313–81, 8.183–235, 12.612–21, 15.871–9), Mommsen (6) claims to demonstrate the validity of the metamorphosis principle. Dalfen (80, 26–8) examines the concept, and assumes that it derives from two sources (Parth., Metamorphoseis; Nic., het.) and will be used as “ein geistes- und kulturgeschichtliches Phänomen” (84, 28). Colavito (12, 63–8) identifies transformation with transmutation, bringing together the metamorphoses of met. and linking them to the Tabula Smaragdina, glimpsing the relationship of the hermetic text with Orphism (summarised by Barnabas 138, vid. infra) and Pythagoreanism. The ultimate ontological purpose of philosophy is transcendence; that is why philosophical discourse is clearly influenced by mystical doctrines, as in Pythagoreanism and Empedocles’ world view. García López (129, esp. 107–10) tries to prove this in the presence of Polyphemus in met. and other treatments and influences. Ovid provides an ontology that starts from inexistence and tends towards the representation of the tangible, following the aesthetics of ‘illusion’. This is the proposal established by Hardie (62), who has already identified the philosophical influence of the Epicurean doctrine of simulacra on the Narcissus myth (10). On the value of fiction and reality in the epic, cf. Videau (116, 118; see also G. Rosati, Narcisso e Pigmalione. Illusione e spettacolo nelle Metamorfosi, Firenze 1983). For other scholars, the philosophy present in met. demythologises the mythical story; it is a kind of homage to Ovid’s doctrine. The general impression is that Ovid’s knowledge of philosophy is merely superficial and unsystematic. McKim (1,  97) even goes so far as to state: “we will […] discover that the poet assumes the role of philosopher in a spirit of irreverent irony, and that his purpose is to expose philosophy as inferior to myth in his understanding of man and his world.” The author interprets the poet’s philosophical dissertations as being parodic in style. Papaïoannou (115) also warns us of the inaccuracies and lack of chronological precision in Pythagoras’ speech. She argues that the placement of Helenus at the end of the discourse, shortly before the Aesculapius episode, humorously assumes the predestined conquest of the world by Rome, as celebrated in a wide range of cultural

294

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

expressions of the Augustan era. Pythagoras’ attitude is compared to that of Helenus in the Aeneid. Freyburger (22) focuses on the demeanour of Ovid’s Pythagoras as a cult priest, and compares the poet’s treatment with that of Apuleius towards the priests of Isis in his Metamorphoses. The mocking tone is present in both the Isism and the Pythago­ reanism of the work. Beagon (101) deals with this issue in greater depth: according to her, we find multiple philosophical influences in met. Thus, while vegetarianism is strongly linked to Pythagorean discourse, the idea of change as a universal principle seems to come from Heraclitus, and the inclusion of mirabilia and prodigia is influenced by paradoxography. Tissol (41) equates aetiology with cosmology, and with everything that flows and changes, stating that met. is a reaction to the aetiological function of Aeneid. Ovid, however, denies that history is the origin, emphasising instead an “arbitrary power and unintelligible suffering” (41, 186). Beagon traces the main relationships between prodigia and philosophy (101, 289, 297–8), while Myers (30, 20–1) postulates that in met. we find Ovid’s eagerness to investigate in different ways: epic and philosophy, science and myth. The poet resorts to procedures that, a priori, might traditionally be contradictory in trying to make sense of the world he knows (30, 136). In this sense, Schiesaro (68, 63–4) agrees with her in recognising Ovid’s philosophical doctrine in met. as an “in-depth knowledge of different traditions and very little inclination to adopt wholesale a coherent view of the world”. In other words, it seems that Ovid himself might have actively sought the absence of coherence in his disposition towards a particular philosophical doctrine, in order to show multiple possible world views. Nelis (104) also offers us, through the episode of zoogony, an example of Ovid’s eclecticism, although he points out that the philosophical tradition to which Ovid usually adheres is based on Lucretius, and on Empedocles as a Lucretian model. Not only does Ovid use these models, but Anaximander’s presence is obvious when the epic poet focuses on fire and water, and forgets the Empedoclean union of the four elements (104, 264 n. 53; see Casanova-Robin 139). On the reception of Empedocles in met., see the articles by Fabre-Serris (120), Tamás (126) and Moser (137). Van Schoor skilfully justifies Ovid’s eclecticism throughout the work: ““philosophical” insights form part of what animates a creativity that refuses to be faithful to any one particular philosophical school but eclectically draws from several” (113, 130). Galinsky, in line with the Anglo-Saxon school that Segal started (cf. “Myth and Philosophy in the Metamorphoses: Ovid’s Augustanism and the Augustan Conclusion of Book XV”, AJP 90, 1969, 257–92), questions the direct influence of Heraclitus; the author identifies this principle with popular philosophy or even a proverb (45, 321). Myers (30, 5–6) also reminds us that Ovid sometimes includes philosophical references, even misinterpretations, in contexts that transform their original meaning, mainly in the Ovidian “Thebaid” (met. 2.836–4.603) and in Pythagoras’ speech (cf. Beasley 114, 31). His use of philosophical elements is also often clumsy (van Schoor 114). On the possible political readings of the use of myth and philosophy as a source of reason in met., see Videau (127).

Philosophical Content

295

For Beasley (114, 15), delimiting Ovid’s use of philosophy in his work is extremely problematic. Volk (109, 65) demarcates the definition of a “philosophical poet”, and she identifies each particular doctrine with an individual poet, just as Lucretius and Empedocles did. Of course, the author concludes that it is impossible to isolate a single, solid message in Ovid’s work, and that the poet therefore does not merit such a label. Beasley tries to redefine the concept of “philosophical poet” (114, 15), while van Schoor (113, 126) reminds us of the difference between philosophy and philosophical discourse. For this scholar, Ovid employs ideological debate without its initial purpose as used in Antiquity, which was to modify the audience’s opinion. Ovid’s attitude towards philosophy seems ironic: while philosophical discourse is futile, poetic dialogue is useful due to its power to transform things, based on the relationship between the natural world and the artifice, the illusion, created by the artist. Ovid’s stance towards what he describes, how he addresses reality in his work, does not depend on any world view: the poet is concerned with the myths and stories, and our relationship with those stories (Hardie 62, 62–105; van Schoor 113, 143). Traditionally it has been argued that the Pythagorean influence on met. can be noted both in the cosmogony of book 1 (5–88), and in the extensive discourse of book 15 that is attributed to Pythagoras (75–478), although Colavito extends this effect to the whole epic (12; see e.g. Schmitzer 82). This allows the work to be structured in a circular or speculative way, so that in its last section, universality for science and philosophy is achieved. Volk (70, 66–7 n. 78) reminds us of the parallels between 1.1–2 and 15.419–20 and the use of corpora at the beginning of the verse (met. 15.76, 156, 215, 363, 459), alluding to met. 1.2 by way of mannerism. This has been identified by critics as the philosophical framework of met. (Myers 30, 133, 135; Hardie 32, 210–12; Franklin 121, 65–73). For Hardie and Myers (30, IX, 6, 27, 134) this structure provides a philosophical basis to the whole work, which serves primarily to place the composition at the literary epic level. Other authors, such as Volk (109, 66), find little connection between explicitly philosophical material and met. myths, while Feeney calls for caution in interpreting the ‘speech’ as a “unifying key” (18, 205). Wheeler (33, 106) establishes a speculative relationship between the cosmogony of book 1 and book 15 of met., since a connection exists between the divine creator of book 1, and Ovid himself as the creator of met. in the latter. Most of the works collected here treat philosophy in met. as a work in its entirety. I find few studies of individual passages. I shall highlight that of Narcissus (3.339–510) by Hardie (10); those of Odysseus (13.123–381), Hercules (9.101–272), Niobe (6.146–312) and Lycaon (1.163–252) by López López (13); the Gigantomachia (42, 59), and that of Ino and Athamas (4.416–542) by Jouteur (13); and that of Marsyas (6. 382–400) by Salvo (97). Finally, the studies by Vielberg (100) and Beasley (114, 113–66; 167–238), about the Musomachia (5.250–678) and Orpheus (10.1–11.84), together with analysis of the cosmogony and Pythagoras’ speech, deal with, respectively, the treatment of afterlife, and the ideological manipulation of the myth. I have shown that eclecticism, or the lack of a single line of thought, is present in met. (Beasley 114, 15). Undoubtedly, in the Augustan period, a cultural patrimony

296

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

exists that includes different philosophical subjects, like the stoic ἐκπύρωσις. For this reason, it is difficult to speak of allusions to specific texts (114, 30). b. Cosmogony Critics usually agree that the cosmogony occupies ll. 1.5–88, since this is the point when the creation of the physical world is finished. The relationship of the episode with natural philosophy is evident (30, 43–4); for McKim (1, 108), however, this passage only shows “the poem’s progress from the sterility of Reason to the fertility of the imagination”, leaving aside the possible influence. Beasley (114, 48–52) proposes that the cosmogony extends to 1.437. The function of cosmogonies in general is treated by Bernabé (91, 13–25; 138, 209; see also Burkert, 48). Myers highlights the aetiological character of the Ovidian cosmogony (30, VII), while Bernabé defines the cosmogony of met. “como un tratamiento literario de temas filosoficos” (138, 211). As Martínez Astorino (71, 336–7; 102, 20; 136, 31) points out, the trend in the last century was to study cosmogony’s philosophical sources. A good summary of the religious themes and Greek sources of the creation can be found in López López (13, 169–171) (see also G.  Maurach, Gymnasium 86, 1979, 131–48). Caballero de del Sastre (27) reminds us of the different precepts of pre-Socratic philosophers (Empedocles, Anaxagoras, the Stoics) that justify the transformations. At the start of the creation, Ovid embraces different philosophical world views (1.6–7, 21, 72, 76–7) and finally, from ll. 80 ff., another possible version of the myth, that of Prometheus. On Ovid’s creation of man, see Lieberg (51) and Rocca (85). We pass from philosophy to legend, and later from myth to philosophy again, in ll. 84–86. Here, elements specific to Stoicism are cited again. We will follow the tripartite classification of influences on the composition of met. proposed by Wheeler (55, 12 n. 25). Firstly, we have the Stoic ones, of whom Posidonius stands out especially (cf. Scheid 131). Then, we have the non-Stoic influences, among whom Plato is emphasised. Finally, we include a third group where we will classify the eclectic influences. For a general overview on the subject, see Spahlinger (39, 213–29) and Bernabé (138, 214). For Stoic sources, we must take into account the contributions of López López (13, 167–8), Schmidt (20, 29 n. 31) and Spahlinger (39, 228–9). Among the authors who highlight the influence of non-Stoic philosophical sources, we should mention Spörri (Späthellenistische Berichte über Welt, Kultur und Götter, Basel 1959) as the initiator of this trend, although again we recommend Spahlinger (ibid.). Barolsky (42) devotes an article to the possible influence of Ovidian Stoicism on the painter Poussin. The most widely accepted tendency, without direct mention of philosophical inconsistency, is the eclectic position (McKim 1, 97–8; Knox 7, 12; Myers 30, 6). This is a typically Augustan characteristic, and expected of a Roman poet. McKim (1, 97–108) points out that, philosophically speaking, the cosmogony is influenced by Plato’s Timaeus, in terms of the conception of Chaos in motion, rather than motionless. Schneeweiss (112) also highlights this influence, not only on cosmogony, but also on Pythagoras’ speech. However, McKim additionally identifies the presence

Philosophical Content

297

of Stoicism in the introduction of deus et melior … natura (met. 1.21). Moreover Ovid uses the Empedoclean theory of Love and Strife, for example (Colavito 12, 39–44). We find games of divine and mortal opposites, in particular with the myth of Apollo and Daphne. However, in met. Strife maintains Chaos, and Love does not act as an agent of the cosmos, substituting in importance deus et melior…natura (Wheeler 33, 95–7). Due to this eclecticism, current critics point out different sources like “Peripatetic eclecticism”, “jungepikureisch” and Stoicism, where Posidonius stands out (Bömer 8, ad loc.; Galinsky 45, 321–2). Colavito (12) traces the influence of Pythagoreanism at this beginning of the work, in the ordering of the cosmos through numbers and music. An analysis of the myth of creation alerts us to the knowledge of the Pythagorean τετρακτύς. Later on, critics focus on the poetic models used as sources for the composition of the cosmogony, whose inclusion in met. responds to Ovid’s need to classify his poem generically as epic. The topic of cosmogony is philosophical, and is traditionally the subject of the highest form of poetry (Helzle 28; Myers 30, 5–15; Wheeler 33; Segal 59, 63; Keith 63, 240). Hardie (32, 204–14, esp. 209) alerts us to a generous number of references to Empedocles. The author argues that the cosmogony and Pythagoras’ speech are a mixture of philosophy and history from an Empedoclean perspective. The ultimate goal of these elements is to empower met. to take its rightful place in the Roman epic tradition, just as Ennius and Virgil had done (see also Myers 30, 43; Segal 59). Wheeler (53, 31) adds that Ovid’s only desire in using his cosmogony is to show his audience a familiar and expected account of the origin of the world. Thus, on the one hand, monographic Hellenistic poems have been proposed as a source, such as Orpheus’ song from the Argonautica (Knox, 7, 10–12; Helzle 28; Wheeler 33, 99; Wheeler 55, 13 n. 28; Nelis 57, 105–12, Barchiesi 76, 148). We have found several works (Helzle 28, Myers 30, 7–9) dedicated to expounding the use of philosophy in Virgil and Ovid. Feeney (18, 189–196) compares the two by confronting the Virgilian Silenus’ song (Ecl. 6.31–83) and the Ovidian cosmogony, a relationship also highlighted by Nabielek (89). On the other hand, it is interesting to highlight the passage of Verg. georg. 4.345–7, where Clymene sings the works of Hesiod, from Chaos to the loves of the gods. Similarly, in met., the myth of Apollo and Daphne follows the cosmogony (Loehr 37, 168–70; Spahlinger 39, 332–40; Wheeler 55, 54–7, Putnam 79). Due (1, 21–3) had proposed the Homeric model of Achilles’ coat of arms as a source for the cosmogony (Il. 18.478–608; Wheeler 33, 97). Several authors (Keith 63, 250 n. 71) point out the influence of two sources: the Theogony (esp. Scully 132, 144–5) and Works and Days. The Catalogue of Women, attributed to Hesiod, which also affects met. and forms the carmen perpetuum, together with the Theogony (cf. Obbink [70]; Ziogas 119, esp. 144–5). Hesiod’s path goes from Chaos to the love between the gods, as summarised in Verg. georg. 4.347. Martínez Astorino (66, 336) points out that Ovid uses as a source the Greek poet’s creation of Pandora (Op. 42–105), a great epic model. The author cites a lost text about the creation of man, by Hesiod, as a possible direct source for the cosmogony of met. Wilhelm (25) studies Hesiod’s influence on the recreation of the Ages of Man myth. On Hesiod as a source for met. see also van Noorden (130). The debt of didactic epos (Myers 30, 5–6) and elegy in Ovid’s

298

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

composition are also highlighted, because of the importance of love in the work (see Keith 63, 251 n. 74). Finally, Santamaría Álvarez (98, 1360–6) gathers the elements that Ovid shares with the Orphic tradition (Bernabé 138, 214–15). In fact, Bernabé proposes a new Greek precedent for met.: the Orphic Rhapsodies (138, 220–3). Early in this century, Wheeler (55, 12–23) put a new spin on the question, focusing his attention on the compositional aspects, and thus pointing out a ‘Ringkomposition’ in the cosmogony. In the first two books of met. we find repeated cycles of creation and destruction (52, 22–3). We have found several works dedicated specifically to the creation of man, which Ovid values to an excessive degree, placing it above the other elements of creation (met. 1.76), and thereby disassociating it from Hellenistic philosophy. Two different versions of the creation of man are proposed in met. (McKim 1, 101–2; Schmidt 20, 12; Caballero de del Sastre 27; Anderson 35, 160 ad loc.; Wheeler 55, 34–5; Martínez Astorino 96, 381). We highlight Schmidt’s study: a catalogue of different types of men (20, 25–36), while Vesley (82) catalogues the varieties of women in met. according to their relationship with the concept of civilisation. Thus, first we have the virgin huntresses who commit acts against men (e.g. 1.452–567, 1.689–712, 3.409–507); then there are the bacchantes (e.g. 4.4–9, 28–9, 11.1–43); and, finally, the woman violated by men and unnatural desires (e.g. 14.623–97, 761–71). The nymph Pomona is identified with the Latin woman, the prototype contemporary to Ovid who represents the last step on women’s path through the myths. Wilhelm (25) focuses on studying the influences on the Ages of Man myth, including Hesiod, Empedocles, Aratus, Lucretius and Virgil. The author identifies opposing political motivations in Ovid’s recreation of the Golden Age and the Iron Age. Wolkenhauer’s interpretation of this passage (106, 230–3) shows a study of the concept of time in the story, as well as death and life. Ovid creates in the Golden Age an earthly paradise in which neither time nor change, birth nor death exists. Zatta (135) proposes the antecedents for the creation of the plants in met., fundamentally Empedocles’ Zoogony. c. Chaos On Chaos, see Wheeler (55, 12–26). Tarrant (69) dedicates an interesting article to studying the role of Chaos, not only in the story’s initial layers, but also throughout met. The force’s presence is reflected in human behaviour and morals, which also appear chaotic: in the Procne and Tereus episode, for example, family relationships fail due to the presence of Chaos (69, 353–4), while Brenk (47, 184–96, esp. 195) uses the term “violence” to indicate the same presence in the work. This passage is also studied by Pavlock (19), who observes  a transgression: the rupturing of the limits within which society and family function. This “boundary violation” (19, 34) shows Tereus as  a tyrant, just as the Tarquins were the cause of Lucretia’s rape. Along the same lines as Todini (24, 151–63), Liveley (64, 34) highlights the relationship between the first and last books of met. though the initial Chaos. The elements that composed the ἀρχή of the cosmos, and were separated in the

Philosophical Content

299

cosmogony, continue to flow in 15.244–53. Bernabé devotes a few pages to both the status quaestionis and the sources and parallels of the Chaos concept in the cosmogony (138, 218–20). d. Deus et melior … natura (met. 1.21) Ovid seems to accept, through this expression (met. 1.21), the existence of an entity which organises the cosmos, while for Virgil, natural philosophy is the driving force of the universe. There are several interpretations of this topic (cf. Wheeler 55, 17 n. 40), and it seems, therefore, that the Platonic conception of the cosmos expressed in the Timaeus influenced Ovid. McKim (1, 100) explains the contrast implied by the presence of this “higher nature”, with respect to the reigning “mythical state of flux” that the initial Chaos signified. The presence of Chaos seems to be required to establish each element, created in its pertinent place (met. 1.69). The same also occurs in the cosmogonies of Lucretius and Cicero, especially in the former, inspired by Epicureanism. The Platonic conception is difficult to reconcile with the immediate continuation of met., since no reference is made to the creation of the gods by that superior being. McKim recognises in that creator, also called by Ovid fabricator mundi (1.57) and opifex rerum (1.79), the god of the philosophers. This demiurge opposes Prometheus: the former represents philosophy, and the latter, myth. Ovid chooses to yield to the mythical gods at the end of the cosmogony. On the other hand, with the presence of this creator, Ovid does not surprise the audience with a new belief, but reproduces a world view that has been consolidated in Augustan Rome (Wheeler 53, 30–1). We must remember that, for Wheeler (33, 117), this demiurge figure must be identified with the poet himself: with the cosmogony, Ovid recreates his own literary creation. The cosmogony becomes a teleology, thanks to the use of hendiadys (Barchiesi 76, 147). Schmidt (58, 136–7) affirms that, with this exercise, Ovid does not describe a deus creator “ex nihilo”, but rather that he assumes the task of dividing up what was previously a chaotic mixture of constant turbulence, through separation, distribution and delimitation (see also Buisel de Sequeiros, 36). e. Time and Space In this sense, the promises of a chronological linearity already made in met. 1.5 are obviously not fulfilled (Schiesaro 68, 67–8). Several deliberate discrepancies can be found that fit in with the use of a subjective narrative tense (Papaïoannou 115, 55–7). The inconsistency of Pythagoras’ speech to Numa is clear (Feeney 49, 22–4, Barchiesi 56, 71). Wheeler (53, 117–18) explains that the absence of temporal continuity in the text responds to Ovid’s interest in making his readers understand the order that surrounds the permanent presence of Chaos. The importance of time in met. is relative; Ovid has no qualms about using anachronisms explicitly and deliberately. These types of irregularities become more obvious when historical aspects are recreated in the later books (Wheeler 53, 134; see also Lorch 2). The treatment of time in these cases has political implications, so they will be addressed in the corresponding section.

300

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

Zissos and Gildenhard examine the time inconsistency in the Phaethon myth (54, 39–42). In an attempt to rely on the historians Castor of Rhodes and Varro to reconstruct the chronological order of met., Cole finds similarities in the treatments of some myths with historical sources (72), and ends up calling Ovid “mythistoricus” (92). For Cole, far from the theory explaining that chronology depends on love, on poetry, and on the concept of metamorphosis, the poet tends to provide a “mythistory” designed to justify the imperium and the cult of the emperor (92, 153–6). Regarding the chronology of met., see Deremetz (77), who focuses particularly on the catabasis, and Schwindt (80), who stipulates two different ways for writers to manage time in their works. On the one hand, the neoteric writers, especially ­Catullus, seek to delimit spatial-temporal coordinates; on the other hand, the Augustan poets tend to use chronotopes oriented towards immanence and transcendence. Wolkenhauer (106) describes this staticity of time in Ovid when recreating the Ages of Man myth: in the Golden Age it is always eternal spring, and there are no genealogies or seasons. Death and the seasons are born with the Silver Age. Temporality is a divine punishment: Schwindt (80, 8–10) offers us the myth of Actaeon (met. 3.131–252) as an example. One of the most evident anachronisms in met. is found in Pythagoras’ speech: the encounter between Pythagoras and Numa. Several authors address this relationship (Hardie 32, 206; Galinsky 45, 317–21; Segal 59, 95; Graf 60, 121; Garani 122, 130–3). Myers (30, 137) finds  a second anachronism: Croton was not  a contemporary of Numa. This serves to blur the boundaries between historical and mythical sections, although certain authors identify met. with an attempt to create a universal history (cf. History, Politics). As far as space is concerned, Myers (15) highlights the macro-structural importance of the cosmogony (met. 1.5–88), because all the places where the events narrated in the work take place are described here. f. Natural philosophy The study of the two main philosophical themes has led to the appearance of a number of works that focus on natural philosophy, as well as on physics and cosmology. We will include here those aspects of natural philosophy that are not mentioned in the sections on Cosmogony (see above) or Pythagoras’ speech (see below). Ovid repeats the structure of the confrontation between Chaos and the cosmos. In the first part of book 1, creation seemed to reach  a certain order; then, the appearance of the Iron Age (1.127–50), the Gigantomachy (151–62), Lycaon (210–43), and the Flood (252–312) again manifested Chaos. Thus, in book 2, the description of the Palace of the Sun, which embodies the implicit order of divine nature, is matched by the episode of Phaethon, which transgresses this particular order (Brown 9, 216–17; Wheeler 33, 117). The Pythagorean examples of the natural world appear at the beginning of the work (Myers 30, 133). On the conflict between divine and human nature, see Beasley (114) Ovid’s language is that of a poem dedicated to natural philosophy, especially that of

Philosophical Content

301

Lucretius. The incongruity appears when applied to fantastic explanations originating in myth (Myers 30, 56; uid. infra); this dissonance, whereby philosophy is not useful for explaining myth, and where it loses its explanatory function, appears in met. to deny the preeminence of one over the other, and to make us doubt the validity of both (Myers 30, 27). g. The influence of Lucretius In Lucretius’ case, his influence is decisive: DRN and met. share the anthropocentric focus of life, shunning superstitions and focusing on existence as something playful. Man and Art are the two fundamental pillars of met. (López López 13, 168). Myers (30, 53–7) reminds us of the presence of Lucretius’ work, not only in terms of theories and concepts, but also in the model of philosophical and didactic poetry that he introduced. Volk (70) identifies some of Lucretius’ ideas in Ovid’s Pythagoras, while contradicting his philosophical point of view, especially regarding the question of the soul’s immortality. Ovid takes from Lucretius his own ‘Epicurean’ theory of myth, while Epicurus himself despises poetry because it requires myth; so Lucretius takes it upon himself to define myth, using it to defend reason. Ovid does this in the cosmogony and in Pythagoras’ speech, in which the relationship with DRN soon becomes evident, almost literally (cf. met. 15.6, Lucr. 1.25), although for Beasley (109, 240–1) Ovidian Pythagoras’ philosophical approach to the issues is very distinct “and ultimately opposed to that of Lucretius” (241). On the other hand, juxtapositions between mythological and philosophical explanations are common in Lucretius. However, Lucretius employed these mechanisms for his philosophy, while Ovid uses the Lucretian language of natural philosophy for his more fantastic metamorphoses (Helzle 28, 129; Myers 30, 47–9, 202; Galinsky 45, 329–30). Wheeler (53, 30–1) reminds us that the introduction of a demiurge in the work is opposed to the Lucretian cosmogony that Wheeler describes as “undesigned and haphazard”. Nelis (104, 261–7) shows the influence of Lucretius in met. through zoogony (1.416–51), and Lecocq (50) in cosmogony. Nelis also shows that Empedocles in turn influences Lucretius and, indirectly, Ovid (104, 256–60). Beasley (114, 113–38) analyses the influence of Lucretius on Musomachia (met. 5–250–678). To see the relationship between Ovid and Lucretius in the Phaethon passage, see Schiesaro (125). Echoes of Lucretius are also found in met. 15.153–9 according to Segal (59, 81), who shows us the transformation of natura creatix (Lucr. 1.629) into natura novatrix (met. 15.252). Segal reminds us that, when Ovid assumes the voice of Pythagoras, the poet takes Lucretius as his reference as much as he moves away from him (59, 84). h. Pythagoras’ speech Once he has overcome positivism and its prejudices, Ovid is more self-assured because his fictional concept of recounting world history, in association with mythology, is equal, if not superior, to temperate logical analysis. Schmitzer (86) examines Pytha­ goras’ reception in Rome, through the testimony of other contemporary authors.

302

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

Ovid does not claim to represent historical reality in a reliable way (although, in the end, historians also permit recreation). Nor can we devise a consistent philosophical system, since Ovid uses an amalgam of several doctrines that reveal ideological eclecticism. Longo (23) points out the distinction between those elements of Pythagoras’ speech pertaining to Pythagorean doctrine, and those belonging to the Neopythagoreanism of Ovid’s time. The author includes the two main theses of Ovid’s Pythagoreanism: that it is a product of Neopythagorean eclecticism, with its Neoplatonic and Stoic influences, the result of contaminating the initial Pythagoreanism with elements from different sources; or that Ovid’s words are those of the philosopher himself. Setaioli (52) seems to take the first position on this, proposing different models that explain the Hellenistic influence. Holzberg (40, 144–51), for his part, proposes that, in philosophical terms, Pytha­ goras’ only contribution in met. is the doctrine of the transmigration of souls. The Pythagoras we find in Ovid does not exclude mythology from his doctrine. Torre (90) offers Seneca’s point of view as the receiver of the text. Seneca is interested in this part of the work, specifically because of its possible affiliation to Pythagoreanism, and also because of the didactic characteristics of the epos, which influence the composition of his Naturales Quaestiones. The speech given by Pythagoras is addressed to King Numa, whom tradition also identified with Pythagoreanism. Galinsky (45, 315–17), like Longo (23) and McGowan (123, 190–7), offers a superb overview of the reception of Pythagorean ­theories among Ovid’s contemporaries, as well as of the relationship between Pytha­ goras and Numa (45, 317–21). For the theological implications of Numa as  a Pythagorean, see Silk 75, esp. 869–72; Panitschek (16) deals specifically with that relationship. First the philosopher denounced the carnivorous diet and opted for vegetarianism (15.75–142); then he argued for metempsychosis and change as a universal principle (15.165). This principle is observed from the transmigration of souls, the aging of human beings, the seasons, the elements, changing earth and water, and the spontaneous generation of the phoenix, although it also affects artificial elements, such as cities. The fleeting and brilliant appearance of the phoenix figure in met. 15 seems to imply, by the fact that it intervenes within Pythagoras’ speech, a philosophical dimension. Likewise, the pietas of the phoenix, in front of his father’s body, is charged with political significance: an obvious allusion to the virtue restored by Augustus and attributed to Aeneas, ancestor of the gens Iulia. Vial (99) analyses these two levels of interpretation, also examining the hypothesis that the mythical bird represents the poet-narrator who dominates, not without irony, the word of the philosopher and the staging of the princeps. Philosophy and politics are mixed together in using this paradox. Pythagoras’ speech has been interpreted in various ways. For some, his intervention does not represent Ovid’s world view, while others consider that the poet uses the philosopher as a mouthpiece for his own ideas. The differentiation between the poet and the philosopher seems clear, as Wheeler indicates (55, 73–4; see also Rosati, 67). Only two voices disagree with this position: Solodow (11, 38–9) identifies the narra-

Philosophical Content

303

tor’s voice with that of Ovid; and Oberrauch (78) identifies the figure of Pythagoras with the poet, with reservations. In this way, Ovid adds authenticity to the story, thanks to literary identity, just as other authors use the Muses or the Homeric model of authority. For these authors, Ovid shows his own reflections here. Tillette (105) bestows a moralising role on the Pythagoras figure. In this sense, Miller (103) suggests seeing the character as  a figure of Apollonian knowledge, and, therefore, Augustan. Van Noorden (130, 258–64) stresses that the presence of Pythagoras in met. responds to the expectations of the audience, and not so much to the demands of didactic discourse. Miller (29, 475) argues that Ovid simply uses imitatio, literary reminiscences of the form of expression used by the character, who was famous for his memory, as well as of Numa’s oral narrative. Ironically,  a character remembered for his memory is later forgotten in terms of his teachings, as seen in met. 15.877–9 (see also Freyburger 133, 301). Barchiesi (83) does not try to identify whether or not Pythagoras is Ovid’s spokesman in this last book of met. Todini (24, 151–63) begins with the relationship of met. with Ennius’ Annales, in order to bear witness to  a doctrine about the soul, and the origin of the ordinary world. He sees Ovid’s treatment of Pythagoras as the appearance of yet another voice, used as as argumentum ab auctoritate, just as Ennius incorporates Homer in his Annales, and Lucretius uses Epicurus. Fabre-Serris (44, 93–6) has also focused on the relationship of met. with Ennius, and she also deals with Ovid’s irony in his treatment of Pythagoras. Buchheit (24) highlights the irony of the final lines (15.877–9), which speak of the immortality of fame, and which contrast with the Pythagorean teachings of met. (15.178–478), and with the first lines of the poem (however, see Setaioli 52, 489–90, and see also the treatment offered by Franklin, 121). Fantham (73, 114) notes that the main themes that can be identified throughout met. are included here in this passage. Fontecedro (93) also recognises two more possible sources for the composition of Pythagoras’ speech: Empedocles and Heraclitus. McGowan (134, esp. 190–3) has pointed out that the characterisation of Pythagoras in Ovid as an astrologer (15.145–52) could be related to the Pythagorean teachings of 1st c. bce thinkers such as Nigidius Figulus. Even so, the most relevant philosophical aspects of Pythagoras’ speech, as well as possible literary models, have already been collected by Bömer (8 ad loc.), with an extensive bibliography (8, 268–71). Some authors even suggest that Ovid was linked to a Pythagorean circle (Bonifaz Nuño, 43). The passage has been comprehensively examined recently by Hardie (128). Galinsky (45, 320) advises that no elements in the speech establish that Numa was  a follower of Pythagoras. For  a Roman, the main philosophical interest was ethics, and in Ovid Pythagorean ethics are reduced to vegetarianism. Pythagoreans and Epicureans were forbidden to eat animal flesh, and consumed only food that did not need fire because of the idea of metempsychosis. Green (94) reminds us that, as far as vegetarianism is concerned, a traditional Augustan trend in Rome ridiculed this custom, despite the influence of Pythagoreanism among the more select political elite (Barchiesi 83, 300–1; Sissa 143, 162).

304

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

Freyburger (133, 306) deals with the episode of the sacrifice of the bull in met. 15,120–42 in relation to vegetarianism. From an archaeological perspective, Pythagorean books on topics such as Pythagoras, pontifical law and generic Greek philosophy, depending on the source, were found in the tomb of King Numa. It seems that, for Ovid, Numa acquired the competence to rule Rome through Pythagorean teachings. Pythagoreanism must have spread as  a philosophical trend in the Roman ruling environment. The philosophical proposal of immortality merges with the Ovidian version, which claims that death does not exist and everything is immortal (Stucchi 81). In relation to this concept of immortality, Nabielek (89) discusses the transcendence of music and how it is treated by poets and philosophers. Della Corte proposes that this vegetarianism may have been taken from the Empedoclea of Gnaeus Sallustius (4, 5). Ovid’s task is not to include the preceptive of Pythagoreanism in its entirety in met. (despite the reservations of Colavito, 12), but this discourse is useful to him since both works feature change as  a universal principle (Néraudau, 14). The tendency against animal sacrifice and the consumption of animal flesh, which, for example, was also shared by the Gens Sextia, is well known in this speech. However, the reason for opting for vegetarianism was not the possible reincarnation as animals, but an interest in maintaining hygiene and the repudiation of animal abuse. Galinsky (45, 322) recognises from the parallels of met. 15.130–40, 462–9 a similar tendency, and therefore denies that this position has philosophical implications of any kind. In fact, in fast. 2.571–82 the ritual to Tacita Muta is shown to be contrary to Pythagorean dogma (Bader 21; see also Payne 108, 125–9). As for the discussion on the elements (met. 15.237–51), Myers (30, 42) reminds us of the relationship of this passage to the cosmogony. This assumption is associated with Empedocles, although Lucretius had attacked the theory (1.705–829). Della Corte (5) discusses the possible influence of Gnaeus Sallustius’ Empedoclea on Pythagoras’ speech. Galinsky states that the use of this knowledge was applicable to almost any philosophical school (45, 321). On the possible presence of Pythagorean arithmology in met. 15, see Guillaumin (61). Virgil had to assume several philosophical traditions to give weight to his Hades, since the contemporary Roman intelligentsia had lost faith in the concept of the underworld. At the end of his work, the poet advises his audience not to believe all the Aeneid’s contents, especially the θαυμαστά. Ovid, on the other hand, humanises Hades, passing responsibility for his statements to Pythagoras, who describes it as nomina vana or materiem vatum (met. 15.154–5) while including  a long list of θαυμαστά. Furthermore, Ovid accepts Pythagorean doctrine in which the myths he uses have not been written down to be believed, but rather to entertain (trist. 2.63–4) (Myers 30, 49–51; Galinsky 45, 328–9). Ovid wields Pythagorean ideas against Lucretius and Virgil. According to ­Fabre-Serris (31, 327–53; 44, 271–2), the poet criticises those who have linked the ideas of the Presocratic philosopher with politics. For Ovid, the myths show reality in continuous change. Ovid converges with Pythagorean theories because philosophy also finds knowledge in myth. Nabielek (89) postulates that the Pythagorean philo-

Nature and Landscape

305

sophical influence of met. is due to Silenus’ song in Verg. ecl. 6.27–86. Fabre-Serris (140) proposed the passage as a response to Virgil himself. Hardie (32) points out that in 15.259–452 this Empedoclean influence disappears. In the first part of the speech, a philosophy that was already in the popular heritage is included, and in the second part, aetiological explanations of natural philosophy and mythology alternate, as shown by Bömer (8, ad 15.324) and Myers (30, 133–66, esp. 152–9). However, Roche (142) has pointed out the presence of a wordplay in met. 15.58 (certa … fama; note the tracing of ἔμπεδον κλέος, ergo Empedocles) that works in both Latin and Greek literature. In the tradition of the epic genre, it was common to quote the work’s own sources. i. Psychological Aspects The Narcissus myth, from  a psychological perspective, represents the dangers of self-referentiality and imagined autonomy (Huber 107, Gregory 110). Milowicki (38) interprets the tale as an allegory of psychological collapse into the Other. Coulson’s study (117) traces the function of the mirror, which provides  a starting point for clinical and academic comparison in great psychologists such as Lacan and Winnicott. The figure of Narcissus in met. 3 represents the inconsistency in classical post-Freudian psychoanalysis of the male subject’s need to escape, to run towards the female, and to reach sexual maturity. Dalfen analyses the myth of Prometheus, from Hesiod to the French psychoanalyst Bachelard, who detected “Prometheus’ Complex” (84, 28–30). Wenzel (46) dedicates an article to studying the role of the Unconscious in the myth of Daedalus and Icarus. Brenk (47, 176–83) produces a psychological portrait of Galatea and the Cyclops, in the context of the perpetuity of the soul and the mortality of plant elements. 10. Nature and Landscape 1. *E.  Cocchia, La geografia nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio, Roma 1980 (= La geografia nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio e l’Averno virgiliano, Napoli 1896). 2. *N. V.  Vulikh, “Les traits féériques des paysages dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide”, PhilClas 2, 1982, 234–42. 3. G.  Tissol, The Face of Nature. Wit, Narrative, and Cosmic Origins in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Princeton 1997. 4.  F.  Morzadec, “Le paysage sauvage existe-t-il dans la poésie latine?: l’exemple de la poésie d’Ovide”, in Les espaces du sauvage dans le monde antique: approches et définitions. Actes du colloque (Besançon, 4–5 mai 2000), Besançon 2004, 67–82 (Collection de l’Institut des Sciences et Techniques de l’Antiquité 925). 5.  R. Mª Iglesias Montiel, Mª C.  Álvarez Morán, “El mar, elemento, morada y camino en las Metamorfosis de Ovidio”, Myrtia 20, 2005, 87–106. 6.  I.  Colpo, M.  Salvadori, “Ovidio  e la pittura della prima età imperiale”, in I. Bragantini (ed.), Atti del X congresso internazionale dell’A IPMA (Association Inter-

306

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

nationale pour la Peinture Murale Antique): Napoli 17–21 settembre 2007, Napoli 2010, I, 277–88. 7.  R. B.  Patrick, Groves in Ovid’s «Metamorphoses»: domesticity, wildness and transformation, [s. l.] 2010. 8.  S. Rocca, “Sub tegmine fagi: natura e paesaggio in alcuni scrittori greci e latini”, Silvae di Latina Didaxis 11.30, 2010, 9–23. 9.  I. Seiringer, “Fons erat inlimis, nitidis argenteus undis: Badende in den Metamorphosen des Ovid”, in A. Oberndorfer, M. Schwarzbauer (eds.), Badende: Akten des Kooperationssymposiums des IRCM mit der Residenzgalerie Salzburg, Heidelberg 2011, 83–99. As Monica Salvadori states (6, 281), “le descrizioni di paesaggio costituiscono l’elemento connettivo, una sorta di leitmotiv, che conferisce unità al poema delle Metamorfosi, sia nell’introdurre i passaggi da un racconto a un altro sia nel localizzare i diversi momenti di una stessa vicenda”. Influences from contemporary iconographic tradition can be detected in met., particularly in Perseus freeing Andromeda (277–81), and in the depiction of the natural and architectural landscape, which reveals the tastes of those times: “poesia e pittura riflettono entrambe la predilezione dell’età augustea per la rappresentazione del paesaggio che è sempre un paesaggio di invenzione, mai ripreso dal vero, anche se i singoli elementi sono realistici” (282). These descriptions of wild landscapes, or places characterised by wildness, untouched by civilization, are interesting. The passages are analysed by Françoise Morzadec (4): in Latin poetry, the representation of wild landscapes is influenced by socio-cultural and ideological behaviours, and by literary and artistic traditions partially stemming from Hellenism. All this is, in turn, coloured by typically Latin mental constructs, and by rhetorical models (68). The study of the descriptions of wild landscapes in met. demonstrates how they are adapted to the narrated episodes, since the elements they contain (mountains, forests, lakes, caves), which seemingly belong to the bucolic locus amoenus, of GrecoHelle­nistic origin (Rocca, 8), were revived in Rome in the pictorial scenery of satyric drama. These elements often conceal the traits of ferocity, violence and mystery which are contained in the myths themselves (cf. the scenes featuring the deeds of Actaeon, Callisto, Narcissus, Pyramus and Thisbe). The Ph. D. thesis of Robert B. Patrick (7) is devoted to literary descriptions of sacred groves in met., of which there are 48 in all throughout the poem. The author suggests the definition “grove-dynamic”, where antique epic poetry, as far as the image of the grove is concerned, had developed a sense of stable reality. Ovid’s narrative style, which renders even the reading of the poem a dynamic experience, represents and expresses the mutability which rules the world (Tissol, 3). Patrick (7) proves that in met. the sacred grove, depicted in a different way from Virgil’s static version, represents the symbolic place where changes  – even those patently unexpected – take place. In the last pentade of the poem, these alterations affect characters who were well known to Roman readers (Aeneas, Romulus, Caesar

History, Politics

307

and Augustus), and who were transformed into gods by the bard-poet Ovid (the new Orpheus). Water- and seascapes are the topic of the works by Rosa Mª Iglesias and Mª Consuelo Álvarez (5), and by Ingrid Seiringer (9). Iglesias and Álvarez observe that there are few references to the sea in the first nine books of met. They group them into three main sets, according to the way the sea is shown (an element of nature, the residence of the gods, and so on), and then they evince the strong contrast with Book 10, which contains many sea scenes. Seiringer, for her part, analyses the bathing scenes in met., paying special attention to the motif of the purity of water, a crucial element in the metamorphoses of Narcissus, Hermaphroditus, Arethusa, Actaeon and Callisto. 11. History, Politics 1. S. Lundström, Ovids Metamorphosen und die Politik des Kaisers, Stockholm 1980. 2.  C. C.  Rhorer, “Ideology, Triartition and Ovid’s Metamorphoses (1.5–451)”, Arethusa 13, 1980, 299–313. 3.  M. von Albrecht, “Mythos und römische Realität in Ovids Metamorphosen”, ANRW II.31.4, 1981, 2328–42. 4.  L. Baldini Moscadi, “Per l’interpretazione di Manil. I,926: una reminiscenza ovidiana”, SIFC 53, 1981, 233–45. 5.  C. Curran, F. Williams, “Laurel Boughs”, LCM 6, 1981, 209–12. 6.  K. Galinsky, “Some aspects of Ovid’s Golden Age”, GB 10, 1981, 193–205. 7. F. Maier, Ovid: Dädalus und Ikarus. Der Prinzipat des Augustus. Interpretationsmodelle, Bamberg 1981. 8.  F.  Williams, “Augustus and Daphne. Ovid. Metamorphoses I,560–63 and Phylarchus, FGrH 81 F32 (b), III 1981”, PLLS 3, 1981, 249–57. 9.  C.-M.  Ternes, “La théorie des ages et l’“autopsie” de l’histoire romaine par Ovide”, in R. Chevallier (ed.), Colloque Présence d’Ovide, Paris 1982, 65–78. 10.  C. R.  Dobinson,  The continuation of elegiac themes and attitudes in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Ph. Diss., Queensland 1984. 11.  J. Griffin, “Augustus and the Poets: Caesar qui cogere posset”, in F. Millar, E. Segal (eds.), Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects, Oxford 1984, 189–218. 12. D.  Lateiner, “Mythic and non-mythic artists in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Ramus 13, 1984, 1–30. 13.  M. Paschalis, “The Demythicization of virtus in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (Love, Humor and Politics)” (“Η απομυθοποίηση της virtus στις Μεταμορφώσεις του Οβιδίου (χιούμορ, έρωτας και πολιτική)”), in Πανελλήνιο Συμπόσιο Λατινικών Σπουδών. Θέμα: Λογοτεχνία και πολιτική στα χρόνια του Αυγούστου, Γιάννενα, 5–6 Νοέμβριου 1982, Iannina 1984, 51–66. 14. J. Griffin, Latin Poets and Roman Life, London 1985.

308

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

15.  J. Hemker, “Rape and the founding of Rome”, Helios 12, 1985, 9–20. 16.  D.  Porte, “L’idée romaine et la metamorphose”, in J. M.  Frécaut, D.  Porte (eds.), Journées Ovidiennes de Parménie. Actes du colloque sur Ovide, Bruxelles 1985, 175–98. 17.  L.  Poznanski, “D’Hermès à Mercure chez Ovide”, Studii Clasice 23, 1985, 65–72. 18.  L. Voit, “Caesars Apotheose in der Darstellung Ovids”, in F. Maier, W. Suerbaum, G. Thorme (eds.), Et scholae et uitae. Humanistische Beiträge zur Aktualität der Antike für Karl Bayer zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, München 1985, 49–56. 19.  K.  Galinsky, “Recent trends in the interpretation of the Augustan Age”, AugAge 5, 1986, 22–36. 20.  R. O. A. M. Lyne, “Augustan Poetry and Society”, in J. Boardman, J. Griffin, O. Murray (eds.), The Oxford History of the Classical World, Oxford 1986, 610–15. 21.  F.-H. Massa-Pairault, “Image et sens politique du thiase des tragiques latins à Ovide”, in L’association dionysiaque dans les sociétes anciennes. Actes de la table ronde organisée par l’ école française de Rome, Roma 1986, 199–226. 22. E. Simon, Augustus, München 1986. 23.  C. Santini, “La storia di Cipus in Valerio Massimo e Ovidio”, in S. Boldrini (ed.), Filologia e forme letterarie. Studi offerti a Francesco della Corte, Urbino 1987, III, 291–8. 24.  D. Müller, “Ovid, Iuppiter und Augustus. Gedanken zur Götterversamm­lung im ersten Buch der Metamophosen”, Philologus 131, 1987, 270–88. 25.  S. Hinds, “Generalizing about Ovid”, in A. J. Boyle (ed.), The Imperial Muse. Ramus Essays on Roman Literature of the Empire. To Juvenal Through Ovid, Victoria 1988, 4–31. 26.  H. Hofmann, “Ovidius elegiacus et epicus. Over enkele hoofdlijnen van het modern Ovidius-onderzoek”, Lampas 21, 1988, 320–32. 27.  A. W. J. Holleman, “Zum Konflikt zwischen Ovid und Augustus”, in G. Bin­ der (ed.), Saeculum Augustum II. Religion und Literatur, Darmstadt 1988, 378–93. 28.  M. Janan, “The book of good love? Design versus desire in Metamorphoses 10”, Ramus 17, 1988, 110–37. 29.  S.  Śnieżewski, “Owidiusz i August w Metamorfozach”, Meander 43, 1988, 397–409. 30. P.  Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, Ann Arbor 1988 (= transl. of Augustus und die Macht der Bilder, München 1987). 31.  H.  Gaertner, “Der Drachenkampf des Cadmus. Zu Ovid, Met. 3.50–98”, Anregung 35, 1989, 299–313. 32.  K. Galinsky, “Was Ovid a Silver Latin Poet?”, ICS 14, 1989, 69–89. 33.  J. P. Néraudau, Ovide ou les dissidences du poète, Paris 1989.

History, Politics

309

34.  A. Novara, “Les mérites du père et du fils dans le panégyrique d’Auguste à la fin des Métamorphoses d’Ovide (XV, 745–870)”, VL 114, 1989, 2–14. 35.  J. Soubiran, “Autour de Numa (Ovide, Metamorphoses, XV)”, VL 113, 1989, 11–17. 36.  S. G. Nugent, “This sex is not one: de-constructing Ovid’s Hermaphrodite”, Differences 2, 1990, 160–85. 37.  F.-H. Pairault-Massa, “Ovide et la mémoire plébéienne ou l’étrange prodige de Genucius Cipus”, in M.-M. Mactoux, E. Geny (eds.), Mélanges Pierre Lévêque, 5: Anthropologie et société, Paris 1990, 287–305 (Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 429; Centre de recherches d’histoire ancienne 101). 38. U. Schmitzer, Zeitgeschichte in Ovids Metamorphosen: mythologische Dichtung unter politischem Anspruch, Stuttgart 1990. 39.  D. C. Feeney, The gods in epic, Oxford 1991. 40.  P.  Domenicucci, “La caratterizzazione astrale delle apoteosi di Romolo ed Ersilia nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio”, in I. Gallo et alii (eds.), Cultura, poesia, ideologia nell’opera di Ovidio, Napoli 1991, 221–8. 41.  M.  Janan, “The ‘Labyrinth and the Mirror’: incest and influence in Meta­ morphoses 9”, Arethusa 24, 1991, 239–56. 42.  J. Y. Maleuvre, “Ovide revisité: la satire politique dans les deux derniers livres des Métamorphoses”, Pallas 37, 1991, 89–103. 43.  T. Privitera, “Ovidio e gli Eneadi: pianti in famiglia”, in I. Gallo, L. Nicastri (eds.), Cultura poesia ideologia nell’opera di Ovidio, Napoli 1991, 243–51. 44.  E. A. Schmidt, Ovids poetische Menschenwelt. Die Metamorphosen als Metapher und Symphonie, Heidelberg 1991. 45.  U.  Todini. “L’altro Pitagora: considerazioni sulle Metamorfosi di Ovidio”, in I. Gallo, L. Nicastri (eds.), Cultura, poesia, ideologia nell’opera di Ovidio, Napoli 1991, 99–145. 46.  D. Feeney, “Si licet et fas est: Ovid’s Fasti and the problem of free speech under the Principate”, in A.  Powell (ed.), Roman Poetry and Propaganda, Bristol 1992, 1–25. 47.  D.  Kennedy, “‘Augustan’ and ‘anti-Augustan’: reflections on terms of reference”, in A. Powell (ed.), Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Ages of Augustus, Bristol 1992, 26–58. 48.  M. L. Pratt, Imperial Eyes: Travels Writing and Transculturation, New York 1992. 49.  A.  Richlin, “Reading Ovid’s Rapes”, in A.  Richlin (ed.), Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome, Oxford 1992, 169–73. 50.  F.  Stok, “La rivincita di Esculapio”, in G.  Brugnoli, F.  Stok (eds.),  Ovidius Παρῳδήσας, Pisa 1992, 135–80 (Testi e Studi di Cultura Classica 10).

310

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

51. U. Todini, L’altro Omero. Scienza e storia nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio, Napoli 1992. 52.  G.  Bretzigheimer, “Jupiter Tonans in Ovids Metamorphosen”, Gymnasium 100, 1993, 19–74. 53.  V. Buchheit, “Numa-Pythagoras in der Deutung Ovids”, Hermes 121, 1993, 77–99. 54. C. Edwards, The Politics of Inmorality in Ancient Rome, Cambridge 1993. 55. E. Said, Culture and Imperialism, New York 1993. 56. P. White, Promised Verse: Poets in the Society of Augustan Rome, Cambridge 1993. 57.  F. Ahl, “Apollo: Cult and Prophesy in Ovid, Lucan, and Statius”, in J. Solomon (ed.), Apollo: Origins and Influences, Tucson 1994, 113–34. 58. A. Barchiesi, Il poeta e il principe: Ovidio e il discorso augusteo, Bari 1994. 59.  J.  Blomqvist, “The Fall of Phaethon and the Kaalijärv Meteorite Crater: Is there a Connection?”, Eranos 92, 1994, 1–16. 60.  K. S. Myers, Ovid’s Causes: Cosmogony and Aetiology in the Metamorphoses, Ann Arbor 1994. 61.  K. S. Myers, “Ultimus ardor. Pomona and Vertumnus in Ovid’s Met. 14.​ 623–771”, CJ 89, 1993/94, 225–50. 62.  C.  Segal, “Philomela’s Web and the Pleasures of the Text”, in J. F. de Jorg, J. P. Sullivan (eds.), Modern Critical Theory and Classical Literature, 1994, 258–80. 63.  A. R. Sharrock, “Ovid and the politics of reading”, MD 33, 1994, 97–122. 64.  W. S. Anderson, “Aspects of Love in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, CJ 90, 1995, 265–9. 65.  M. Hillgruber, “Der Phaethonmythos als Gegenstand kosmologischer Spekulationen”, Gymnasium 101, 1995, 481–96. 66.  G. K. Galinsky, Augustan Culture: An Interpretative Introduction, Princeton 1996. 67.  E. S. Gruen, “The expansion of the empire under Augustus”, in A. K. Bowman, E.  Champlin, A.  Lintott (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History 10, Cambridge 1996, 147–97. 68.  P. J. Johnson, “Constructions of Venus in Ovid’s Metamorphoses V”, Arethusa 29, 1996, 125–49. 69.  D. Konstan, “De Deméter a Ceres: Construcciones de la diosa en Homero, Calímaco y Ovidio”, Synthesis 3, 1996, 67–90. 70.  A. L.  Uggenti, “La figura di Ovidio alla corte augustea”, in M.  Pani (ed.), Epigrafia e territorio, politica e società: temi di antichità romane, Bari 1996, 313–28. 71.  A. Alvar Ezquerra, “El significado de Las Metamorfosis en la poesía del siglo de Augusto”, in D.  Estefanía, J.  Gil Mayoral, M.  Domínguez García et al. (eds.), Cuadernos de literatura griega y latina. 1, Santiago de Compostela 1997, 109–24.

History, Politics

311

72. C. Damon, The Mask of the Parasite: A Pathology of Roman Patronage, Ann Arbor 1997. 73.  E. P. Forbis, “Voice and Voicelessness in Ovid’s Exile Poetry”, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History VIII, 1997, 245–67 (Collection Latomus 239). 74. R.  Granobs, Studien zur Darstellung römischer Geschichte in Ovids Meta­ morphosen, Frankfurt am Main 1997 (Studien zur Klassischen Philologie 108). 75.  T. N.  Habinek, “The invention of sexuality in the world-city of Rome”, in T. Habinek, A. Schiesaro (eds.), The Roman Cultural Revolution, Cambridge 1997, 23–43. 76.  P.  Hardie, “Questions of Authority: The Invention of Tradition in Ovid’s Metamorphoses 15”, in T. Habinek, A. Schiesaro (eds.), The Roman Cultural Revolution, Cambridge 1997, 182–98. 77. N. Holzberg, Ovid. Dichter und Werk, München 1997. 78.  A.  Wallace-Hadrill, “Mutatio morum: the idea of  a cultural revolution”, in T. Habinek, A. Schiesaro (eds.), The Roman Cultural Revolution, Cambridge 1997, 2–22. 79.  R. Alston, “Arms and the man: soldiers, masculinity, and power in Republican and Imperial Rome”, in L.  Foxhall, J.  Salmon (eds.), When Men were Men: Masculinity, Power, and Identity in Classical Antiquity, London-New York 1998, 205–23. 80. A.  Brazouski, “«Indicium» in the works of Ovid”, SyllClass 9, 1998, 86–94. 81. J. Fabre-Serris, Mythologie et littérature à Rome, Lausanne 1998. 82.  T. N. Habinek, The Politics of Latin Literature: Writing, Identity, and Empire in Ancient Rome, Princeton 1998. 83.  M. Salzman, “Deification in the Fasti and the Metamorphoses”, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History IX, Brussels 1998, 313–46 (Collection Latomus 244). 84.  C. Segal, “Ovid’s metamorphic bodies: art, gender, and violence in the Metamorphoses”, Arion 5, 1998, 9–41. 85. A.  Barchiesi, “‘Venus’ masterplot: Ovid and the Homeric Hymns”, in P. Hardie, A. Barchiesi, S. Hinds (eds.), Ovidian transformations: essays on the «Metamorphoses» and its reception, Cambridge 1999, 112–26. 86.  D. C. Feeney, “«Mea tempora»: patterning of time in the «Metamor­phoses»”, in P.  Hardie, A.  Barchiesi, S. Hinds (eds.), Ovidian transformations: essays on the «Metamorphoses» and its reception, Cambridge 1999, 13–30. 87.  M.  Janka, “Wenn Götterväter zürnen…: von Zeus und Aigisth zu Jupiter, Augustus und Lykaon (Interpretation von Ov. Met. 1, 163–252)”, Hermes 127, 1999, 345–55.

312

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

88.  A. M.  Keith, “Versions of epic masculinity in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, in P. Hardie, A. Barchiesi, S. Hinds (eds.), Ovidian transformations: essays on the «Metamorphoses» and its reception, Cambridge 1999, 216–41. 89. S. Mattern, Rome and the Enemy: Ideas of Warfare and Empire from 31 BC to AD 235, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1999. 90.  A.  La Penna, “Ovidio  e la fortuna di Cesare”, in W.  Schubert (ed.), Ovid: Werk und Wirkung. Festgabe für Michael von Albrecht zum 65. Geburtstag, Bern-Frankfurt am Main 1999, II, 635–46. 91.  S. M. Redmond, Ideology, envy and artistic failure in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Ph. Diss., New York 1999. 92.  K. S. Myers, “The Metamorphosis of a Poet: Recent Work on Ovid”, JRS 89, 1999, 190–204. 93.  S. M. Wheeler, A Discourse of Wonders: Audience and Performance in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Philadelphia 1999. 94.  B. L. Wickkiser, “Famous last words: putting Ovid’s sphragis back into the «Metamorphoses», MD 42, 1999, 113–42. 95.  C. A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity, Oxford 1999. 96.  A. M. Keith, Engendering Rome, Cambridge 2000. 97.  M. L. Meulder, “Le feu et la source à Rome”, Latomus 59, 2000, 749–65. 98.  S. M.  Wheeler, Narrative Dynamics in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Tübingen 2000. 99. A.  Barchiesi, Speaking Volumes. Narrative and intertext in Ovid and other Latin poets, London 2001. 100.  F.  Ghedini, “Spunti di riflessione sulla casa romana nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio”, Eidola 8, 2001, 129–42. 101. I.  Jouteur, Jeux de genre dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide, Louvain-Paris-­ Sterling 2001. 102.  G. Rosati, “Mito e potere nell’epica di Ovidio”, MD 46, 2001, 39–61. 103.  A. Feldherr, “Metamophosis in the Metamorphoses”, in P. Hardie (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ovid, Cambridge 2002, 163–79. 104.  A. Gosling, “Sending up the founder: Ovid and the apotheosis of Romulus”, Acta Classica 45, 2002, 51–69. 105.  T. Habinek, “Ovid and Empire”, in P. Hardie (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ovid, Cambridge 2002, 46–61. 106.  P. Hardie, “The Historian in Ovid. The Roman History of Metamorphoses 14–15”, in D. S. Levene, D. Nelis (eds.), Clio and the Poets: Augustan Poetry and the Traditions of Ancient Historiography, Leiden 2002, 191–209. 107.  D. E. Hill, “Ovid and Augustus”, in J. F. Miller, C. Damon, S. Myers (eds.),

History, Politics

313

“Vertis in usum”. Studies in Honor of Edward Courtney, München 2002, 140–51 (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 161). 108.  A. M. Keith, “Ovid on Vergilian War Narrative”, Vergilius 48, 2002, 105–22. 109.  S. Kyriakidis, “The Alban Kings in the Metamorphoses: an Ovidian Catalogue and its Historigraphical Models”, in D. S. Levene, D. Nelis (eds.), Clio and the Poets: Augustan Poetry and the Traditions of Ancient Historiography, Leiden 2002, 211–30. 110.  F. Maier, “‘Abschied von der Antike’? Venus und Mars – Liebe und Krieg: Urformen menschlichen Verhaltens. Ovid und Caesar als Bildungsgegenstände”, in P. Neukam, B. O’Connor (eds.), Weltbild und Weltdeutung, München 2002, 86–108 (Dialog Schule-Wissenschaft. Klassische Sprachen und Literaturen 36). 111.  A. Schiesaro, “Ovid and the Professional Discourses of Scholarship, Religion, Retoric”, in P. Hardie (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ovid, Cambridge 2002, 62–75. 112.  A.  Sharrock, “Gender and sexuality”, in P.  Hardie (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ovid, Cambridge 2002, 95–107. 113.  G. Tissol, “The House of Fame: Roman History and Augustan Politics in Metamorphoses 11–15”, in B. W.  Boyd, Brill’s Companion to Ovid, Leiden-Boston 2002, 305–36. 114.  S. Wheeler, “Ovid’s Metamorphoses and Universal History”, in D. S. Levene, D.  Nelis (eds.), Clio and the Poets: Augustan Poetry and the Traditions of Ancient Historiography, Leiden 2002, 163–90. 115.  P. White, “Ovid and the Augustan Milieu”, in B. W. Boyd, Brill’s Companion to Ovid, Leiden-Boston 2002, 1–26. 116.  A. J. Boyle, Ovid and the Monuments: A Poet’s Rome, Victoria 2003 (Ramus Monographs 4). 117.  Mª. C. Álvarez Morán, R. Mª. Iglesias Montiel, “Padres en las Metamorfosis de Ovidio”, en M. Ruiz Sánchez (ed.), Visiones mítico-religiosas del padre en la antigüedad clásica, Madrid 2004, 13–43. 118.  T. Cole, “Ovid, Varro, and Castor of Rhodes: The Chronological Architecture of the Metamorphoses”, HSCPh 102, 2004, 355–422. 119.  I. Gildenhard, P. A. Zissos, “Ovid’s ‘Hecale’: deconstructing Athens in the Metamorphoses”, JRS 94, 2004, 47–72. 120.  R. D. Gold, “Iovis ira. Allusion and the relegation of Ovid”, in R. B. Egan, M. Joyal, E. G. Edmund (eds.), Daimonpylai. Essays in classics and the classical tradition presented to Edmund G. Berry, Winnipeg 2004, 127–42. 121.  R. Marks, “Of Kings, Crowns and Boundary Stones: Cipus and the hasta Romuli in Metamorphoses 15”, TAPhA 134, 2004, 107–31. 122.  E. Oliensis, “The power of image-makers: representation and revenge in Ovid Metamorphoses 6 and Tristia 4”, ClAnt 23, 2004, 285–321. 123.  M. von Albrecht, “Populus: la testimonianza dei poeti augustei”, in G. Urso

314

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

(ed.), Popolo e potere nel mondo antico (Atti del convegno internazionale. Cividale del Friuli, 23–25 settembre 2004), Pisa 2005, 219–29. 124.  A. Feldherr, “Reconciling Niobe”, Hermathena 177/178, 2004/05, 125–46. 125.  G. Fink, “Festum geniale: Ovid und die Iden des März”, in H. Loos (ed.), Athlon: Festschrift für Hans-Joachim Glücklich, Speyer 2005, 11–18. 126.  R. Fletcher, “Or such as Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, in R. L. Hunter (ed.), The Hesiodic Catalogue of women: constructions and reconstructions, Cambridge-New York 2005, 299–319. 127.  J.-Y. Maleuvre, Vrais et faux héros dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide, Fontenay-sous-Bois 2005. 128. S.  Papaioannou, Epic Succession and Dissension. Ovid, Metamorphoses 13.623–14.582, and the Reinvention of the Aeneid, Berlin 2005. 129.  U.  Schmitzer, “Legittimazione del presente attraverso la costruzione del passato: Troia nella poesia latina di età imperiale”, in G. Burzacchini (ed.), Troia: tra realtà e leggenda, Parma 2005, 22–45. 130.  G. Tissol, “Maimed books and maimed authors: Tristia 1. 7 and the fate of the Metamorphoses”, in W. W. Batstone, G. Tissol (eds.), Defining genre and gender in Latin literature. Essays presented to William S. Anderson on his seventy-fifth birthday, New York 2005, 97–112. 131. D. Urban, Die augusteische Herrschaftsprogrammatik in Ovids Metamorphosen, Bern-Frankfurt am Main 2005. 132.  K.  Vanhaegendoren, “Ovid, Metamorphoses 1.258: textual criticism and Ovidian mockery”, AC 74, 2005, 199–206. 133.  P. White, “Poets in the New Milieu: Realigning”, in P. K. Galinsky (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus, Cambridge 2005, 321–39. 134.  L. Fulkerson, “Apollo, paenitentia, and Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Mnemosyne 59, 2006, 388–402. 135.  L.  Galasso, “La più antica storia di Roma nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio (14, 772–804)”, in M. Faraguna, V. Vedaldi Iasbez (eds.), Δύνασθαι διδάσκειν: studi in onore di Filippo Càssola per il suo ottantesimo compleanno, Trieste 2006, 261–71. 136. *M. Zagórski, Bogowie mieszkają na Palatynie, Oktawian August i jego program ideowy w „Metamorfozach” Owidiusza, Kraków 2006. 137.  *M. Zagórski, “Polityczny Aspekt Metamorfoz w Kontextekście Programu Poetyckiego Owidiusza”, in J. Bocheński et al., Owidius. Twórczość, Recepcja, Legenda. Waźbińska 2006, 31–41. 138. D. Engels, Das römische Vorzeichenwesen (753–27 v. Chr.). Quellen, Termi­ nologie, Kommentar, historische Entwicklung, Stuttgart 2007 (Potsdamer altertums­ wissenschaftliche Beiträge 22). 139.  P.  Fleischmann, “Die kleinen Leute in Ovids Metamorphosen: zwischen Sozialrealismus und literarischem Konzept am Beispiel der lykischen Bauern (met. 6,

History, Politics

315

313–387)”, in M. Janka, U. Schmitzer, H. Seng (eds.), Ovid: Werk – Kultur – Wirkung, Darmstadt 2007, 183–93. 140.  J. Mainero, “Las últimas metamorfosis: César, Augusto y Ovidio”, Circe 11, 2007, 163–73. 141.  M. Zagórski, “Augustus and his Ideology in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Eos 17, 2007, 265–9. 142.  A. Barchiesi, “Ovidio y los monstruos del Palatino”, EClás 134, 2008, 7–32. (trans. of “Phaethon and the monsters”, in P. Hardie (ed.), Paradox and the marvellous in Augustan literature and culture, Oxford-New York 2009, 163–88). 143.  A. Barchiesi, “Senatus consultum de Lycaone: concili degli dèi e immagina­ zione politica nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio”, MD 61, 2008, 116–45. 144. T.  Cole, Ovidius Mythistoricus: legendary Time in the Metamorphoses, Bern-Frankfurt am Main 2008 (Studien zur klassischen Philologie 160). 145.  B. Feichtinger, “Ovids Metamorphosen oder Der totale Text”, in V. M. Strocka, R. von Haehling, S. Freund, M. Vielberg (eds.), Vergil und das antike Epos. Festschrift Hans Jürgen Tschiedel, Stuttgart 2008, 295–320. 146.  J. Y. Guillaumin, “Les cornes de Cipus”, in F. Galtier, Y. Perrin (eds.), Ars pictoris, ars scriptoris; peinture, littérature, histoire: mélanges offertes à Jean-Michel Croisille, Clermont-Ferrand 2008, 163–71. 147.  P. J. Johnson, Ovid before exile. Art and punishment in the Metamorphoses, Madison (Wisc.) 2008. 148.  T. A.  Joseph, “The metamorphoses of tanta moles: Ovid, Met. 15.765 and Tacitus, Ann. 1.11.1”, Vergilius 54, 2008, 24–36. 149.  G. Rosati, “Le Metamorfosi di Ovidio, un’epica del desiderio”, in R. Uglione (ed.), Atti del convegno nazionale di studi Arma virumque cano… L’epica dei Greci e dei Romani (Torino, 23–24 aprile 2007), Alessandria 2008, 139–57. 150.  G.  Rosati, “Perseo  e la “guerra giusta” nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio”, in P. Arduini et al. (eds.), Studi offerti ad Alessandro Perutelli, Roma 2008, II, 445–53. 151.  H. Vial, “‘Poète est le nom du sujet qui se brise et renaît de ses cendres’: le phénix dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide (XV, 392–407)”, Euphrosyne 36, 2008, 119–33. 152.  M.  Beagon, “Ordering wonderland: Ovid’s Pythagoras and the Augustan vision”, in P.  Hardie (ed.), Paradox and the marvellous in Augustan literature and culture, Oxford-New York 2009, 288–309. 153.  J. Fabre-Serris, “Constructing a narrative of mira deum: the story of Phile­mon and Baucis (Ovid, Metamorphoses 8)”, in P. Hardie (ed.), Paradox and the marvel­lous in Augustan literature and culture, Oxford-New York 2009, 231–47. 154. J. Krupp, Distanz und Bedeutung. Ovids Metamorphosen und die Frage der Ironie, Heidelberg 2009. 155. M. Lowrie, Writing, Performance and Authority in Augustan Rome, Oxford 2009.

316

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

156.  P. M. Martin, “Res publica non restituta. La résponse d’Ovide: la légende de Cipus”, in F. Hurlet, B. Mineo (eds.), Le Principat d’Auguste. Réalités et représentations du pouvoir. Autour de la Res publica restituta, Rennes 2009, 267–79. 157.  P. Martínez Astorino, La apoteosis en las Metamorfosis de Ovidio: función estructural y valor semantico, Ph. Diss., La Plata 2009. 158.  J. F. Miller, Apollo, Augustus, and the Poets, Cambridge-New York 2009. 159.  D. P.  Nelis, “Ovid,  Metamorphoses  1.416–51:  noua monstra  and the  foeder a naturae”, in P. Hardie (ed.), Paradox and the marvellous in Augustan literature and culture, Oxford-New York 2009, 248–67. 160.  S. Rebenich, “medio tutissimus ibis: Mythos und Politik im frühen Prinzipat”, in K.-J. Hölkeskamp, S. Rebenich (eds.), Phaëthon. Ein Mythos in Antike und ­Moderne. Eine Dresdner Tagung, Stuttgart 2009, 33–43. 161.  G. Salvo, “Ovidio e la cultura figurativa di età augustea: il mito di Niobe tra arte e letteratura”, Eidola 6, 2009, 69–112. 162.  K. Waldner, “Zwischen Kreta und Rom: Ovids Bearbeitung eines aitiolo­ gischen Mythos aus Nikanders Heteroioumena (Ant. Lib. 17) in den Metamorphosen (9,666–797)”, in A. Bendlin, J. Rüpke, D. Püschel (eds.), Römische Religion im historischen Wandel. Diskursentwicklung von Plautus bis Ovid, Stuttgart 2009, 171–86. 163.  G. D.  Williams, “The Metamorphoses: Politics and Narrative”, in P.  Knox (ed.), Companion to Ovid, Maden 2009, 154–69. 164. G. D.  Williams, “Politics in Ovid”, in W. J.  Dominik, J.  Garthwaite, P. A. Roche (eds.), Writing Politics in Imperial Rome, Leiden-Boston 2009, 203–24. 165.  K.  Balsley, “Between two lives: Tiresias and the law in Ovid’s Metamor­ phoses”, Dictynna 7, 2010, 13–31. 166.  C.  Bechtold, “Das ‘sidus Iulium’, der ‘Grand Camée de France’ und die Etablierung des Herrscherkatasterismos in Rom”, in C. Antenhofer, L. Regazzoni, A. von Schlachta (eds.), Werkstatt politische Kommunikation. Netzwerke, Orte und Sprachen des Politischen. Political Communication Office. Intrecci, luoghi e linguaggi del “politico”, Göttingen 2010, 99–118. 167.  F.  Díez Platas, P.  López Barja de Quiroga, “Cipo en las Metamorfosis de Ovidio y en su redacción posterior”, in C. Fornis, J. Gallego, P. López Barja, M. Valdés (eds.), Dialéctica histórica y compromiso social. Homenaje a Domingo Plácido, Zaragoza 2010, I, 275–306. 168. A. Feldherr, Playing Gods: Ovid’s Metamorphoses and the Politics of Fiction, Princeton-Oxford 2010. 169.  M. Gazeau, “Les métamorphoses de Vertumne ou La recusatio propertienne de tous les récits”, REL 88, 2010, 137–55. 170.  S. E. Lake, Literary parody in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Ph. Diss., New York 2010.

History, Politics

317

171.  S. H. Lindheim, “Pomona’s pomarium: the «mapping impulse» in Metamorphoses 14 (and 9)”, TAPhA 140, 2010, 163–94. 172.  D. B. Louden, “Retrospective Prophecy and the Vision in Aeneid 6 and the Book of Revelation”, IJCT 16, 2009/10, 1–18. 173.  A. Luther, “Zum Orientfeldzug des Gaius Caesar”, Gymnasium 117, 2010, 103–27. 174.  Y. Nadeau, “Naulochus and Actium, the fleets of Paris and Aeneas, and the tree-felling of C.  Iulius Caesar Erysichthon”, in C.  Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin literature and Roman history XV, Bruxelles 2010, 219–239 (Collection Latomus 323). 175.  B. Rappenglück, M. A. Rappenglück, K. Ernstson et al., “The fall of Phae­ thon: a Greco-Roman geomyth preserves the memory of a meteorite impact in Bavaria (south-east Germany)”, Antiquity 84, 2010, 386–439. 176.  G. D.  Williams, “Apollo, Aesculapius and the poetics of illness in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, in F.  Cairns, M. T. Griffin (eds.), Papers of the Langford Latin Seminar 14: Health and sickness in Ancient Rome: Greek and Roman poetry and historiography, Cambridge 2010 (ARCA 50). 177.  E. Delbey, “Pouvoir de la métamorphose et métamorphose du pouvoir dans le Livre XIV des Métamorphoses d’Ovide”, Vita Latina 183/184, 2011, 142–9. 178. G. Doppler et al., “Response to «The fall of Phaethon: a Greco-Roman geomyth preserves the memory of a meteorite impact in Bavaria (south-east Germany)» by Rappenglück et al. (Antiquity 84)”, Antiquity 85, 2011, 274–7. 179.  P.  Emberger, “Iuuenis quondam, nunc femina: zur Kainis-Erzählung im augusteischen Epos (Ov. Met. 8,305; 12,169–209. 459–535; Verg. Aen. 6,448–449)”, BG 28, 2011, 44–59. 180.  F.-H. Mutschler, “Die res publica restituta im Spiegel augusteischer Dichtung: das kleine Problem mit der Freiheit”, in A. Haltenhoff, A. Heil, F.-H. Mutschler (eds.), Römische Werte und römische Literatur im frühen Prinzipat, Berlin-New York 2011, 23–52 (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 275). 181. B.  Rappenglück et al., “Reply to Doppler et al., Response to «The fall of Phaethon: a Greco-Roman geomyth preserves the memory of a meteorite impact in Bavaria (south-east Germany) (Antiquity 84)»”, Antiquity 85, 2011, 278–80. 182.  F. Slavazzi, “Ovidio nelle residenze di Augusto e della sua corte”, Eidola 8, 2011, 143–55. 183.  Mª. C.  Álvarez, R. Mª. Iglesias, “Contexto femenino de Meleagro y Hér­ cules en las Metamorfosis: comentario literario y mitográfico”, in Mª. C.  Álvarez Morán, R. Mª. Iglesias Montiel (eds.), Y el mito se hizo poesía, Madrid 2012, 247–70. 184.  E. Delbey, “La colère dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide: un motif d’interpré­ tation”, Vita Latina 185/186, 2012, 32–45. 185.  F.  Ghedini, “Ovidio  e il pantheon augusteo: Apollo nelle Metamorfosi”, Paideia 67, 2012, 145–64.

318

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

186.  J. Ingleheart, “Ovid’s scripta puella: Perilla as poetic and political fiction in Tristia 3.7”, CQ 62, 2012, 227–41. 187.  S. Koster, “Femina sed princeps – Livia bei Ovid”, in P. L. Gatti, N. Mindt (eds.), «Undique mutabant atque undique mutabantur»: Beiträge zur augusteischen Literatur und ihren Transformationen, Göttingen 2012, 69–80. 188.  G.  Luck, “Myth and history in Ovid”, in Mª. C.  Álvarez Morán, R. Mª. Iglesias Montiel (eds.), Y el mito se hizo poesía, Madrid 2012, 113–26. 189.  P.  Martínez Astorino, “Numa y la construcción poética de la historia en Las metamorfosis de Ovidio”, QUCC 102, 2012, 149–64. 190. K.  Balsey, “Truthseeking and Truthmaking in Ovid’s Metamorphoses 1.163–245”, Law and Literature 23, 2013, 48–70. 191.  H.  Casanova-Robin, “Potentia, vis, regnum: l’obscure origine du pouvoir dans le chant XIV des Metamorphoses d’Ovide”, Paideia 68, 2013, 79–103. 192.  A. Deremetz, “Numa in Augustan poetry”, in J. Farrell, D. P. Nelis (eds.), Augustan Poetry and the Roman Republic, Oxford-New York 2013, 228–43. 193.  K. Galinsky, “La construzione del mito augusteo: Some Construction Elements”, in M. Labate, G. Rosati (eds.), La construzione del mito augusteo, Heidelberg 2013, 29–47. 194.  N.  Holzberg, “Ovid: Textspektrum, Interpretationsaspekte, Fortwirken”, AU 56 (4–5), 2013, 1–11. 195. F. Martelli, Ovid’s Revisions: The Editor as Author, Cambridge 2013. 196.  N. Pandey, “Caesar’s comet, the Julian star, and the invention of Augustus”, TAPhA 143, 2013, 405–49. 197.  D. Stratenwerth, “Den Zeitaltermythos mit Verständnis lesen”, AU 56 (4–5), 2013, 59–67. 198.  H. H. Gardner, “Bees, Ants, and the Body Politic: Vergil’s Noric Plague and Ovid’s Origin of the Myrmidons”, Vergilius 60, 2014, 3–31. 199.  S. J.  Heyworth, “Medical Imagery in Ovid, Metamorphoses 1.190–1 and Livia’s Advice to Augustus”, CQ 64, 2014, 293–7. 200.  H. Malochet-Turquety, “Rome dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide: du Palatin et du Capitole”, in D. Nelis, M. Royo (eds.), Lire la Ville. Fragments d’une archéologie littéraire de Rome antique, Bordeaux-Paris 2014, 195–213. 201.  P.  Martínez Astorino, “Augusto en la representación de las Metamorfosis (Ovidio, Metamorfosis I y XV)”, Auster 19, 2014, 97–109. 202.  S.  Thakur, “Femina princeps: Livia in Ovid’s Poetry”, EuGeStA 4, 2014, 175–213. 203.  H.  Vial, “Puissance transformatrice et passion du pouvoir: Vénus et ses enfants dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide”, in H. Vial (ed.), Aphrodite-Vénus et ses enfants: incarnations littéraires d’une mère problématique, Paris 2014, 93–111.

History, Politics

319

204.  C. Waldner, “Aitiologie und Religion in der griechisch-römischen Antike”, in C. Reitz, A. Walter (eds.), Von Ursachen sprechen. Eine aitiologische Spurensuche. Telling Origins. On the Lookout for Aetiology, Hildesheim-Zürich 2014, 25–57 (Spudas­mata 162). 205. M. Wilkens, Augustan triumphs: Dishonorable laurels in Ovids Amores and Metamorphoses, Ph. Diss., Albuquerque 2014. 206.  E.  Bérchez Castaño,  El destierro de Ovidio en Tomis: realidad y ficción, Valencia 2015 (Col·lecció Estudis Clàssics 11). 207.  I.  Ziogas, “The poet as prince: author and authority under Augustus”, in H. Baltussen, P. J. Davis (eds.), The art of veiled speech, Philadelphia 2015, 115–36. 208.  P. J. Davis, “Freedom of Speech in Virgil and Ovid”, in P. Mitsis, I. Ziogas (eds.), Wordplay and Powerplay in Latin Poetry, Berlin 2016, 183–98. 209.  A. Feldherr, “Nothing like the Sun: Repetition and Representation in Ovid’s Phaethon Narrative”, in L. Fulkerson, T. Stover (eds.), Repeat Performances. Ovidian Repetition and the Metamorphoses, Madison 2016, 26–46. 210.  D. Krasne, “Succeeding Succession: Cosmic and Earthly Succession in the Fasti and Metamorphoses”, in L.  Fulkerson, T. Stover (eds.), Repeat Performances. Ovidian Repetition and the Metamorphoses, Madison 2016, 125–53. 211.  *L. Brännstedt, “En ny gudinna för en ny tid: Ovidius och Hersilias metamorfos”, in A. M. H. Nilsson, A. Damtoft Poulsen, J. Svensson (eds.), Humanitas: Festskrift till Arne Jönsson, Göteborg-Stockholm 2017, 141–5. 212.  P.  Martínez Astorino, La apoteosis en las Metamorfosis de Ovidio: diseño estructural, mitologización y “ lectura” en la representación de apoteosis y sus contextos, Bahía Blanca 2017. 213.  P. Martínez Astorino, “El poeta y la representación de la historia en Aen. I, 223–296 y Met. XV, 761–842”, AC 86, 2017, 129–47. 214.  P. Martínez Astorino, “Dos modos de artificio. La construccion poética de la historia en el pasaje de Rómulo de las Metamorfosis a la luz de los Fastos”, Athenaeum 105, 2017, 569–83. 215.  P.  Martínez Astorino, “Cipo-César en las Metamorfosis de Ovidio: ¿una reivindicación de la monarquía?”, Euphrosyne 45, 2017, 259–70. 216.  B. A. Natoli, Silenced Voices. The Poetics of Speech in Ovid, Madison-London 2017. 217.  S. Kyriakidis, “Deflexus solito cursu : Phaethon between Ovid and Manilius”, Myrtia 33, 2018, 109–53. 218. N. Pandey, The Poetics of Power in Augustan Rome. Latin Poetic Responses to Earley Imperial Iconography, Cambridge 2018. 219.  *E. Kluska-Jaśkowiak, “‘Pater Aeneas, Romanae stirpis origo…’. Mit o E ­ neaszu i jego obecno ść w literaturze epoki Augusta”, Gremium 13, 2019, 27–39. 220.  J. Farrell, “Ovidian Synchronisms”, CJ 115, 2020, 324–38.

320

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

221.  J. D. Hejduk, The God of Rome. Jupiter in Augustan Poetry, Oxford 2020. 222.  N. Pandey, “Ovid, the Res Publica, and the ‘Imperial Presidency’: Public Figures and Popular Freedoms in Augustan Rome and America”, Polis 37, 2020, 123–44. a. History and Politics in General Possibly the work that best, and most concisely, reflects the historical and cultural context of Ovid’s life is that of Gruen (67). For  a more up-to-date overview, see Williams (164). In the Augustan period, the Romans’ awareness of their empire’s geographical space shifts, and in addition to expanding into new territories, they also push to organise and control how their existing colonies are ruled. This new imperial perspective implies changes at all levels: political, social, cultural and economic. Lindheim (171) proposes an analysis of these new Augustan motivations, based on the study of the Vertumnus and Pomona myths (met. 14.621–96, 764–70), and of Iphis and Ianthe (met. 9.666–797). The (negative)  influence of this new context, without entering into cultural or ideological implications, is treated exhaustively in the monumental R. Syme, History in Ovid, Oxford 1978, esp. 169–229. This important but controversial work has been vilified by some for its excessively simplistic disposition with regard to Ovidian ideology. The works of Said (55) and Pratt (48) also provide a broad overview of imperialism’s influence on literature, in that it sustains the cultural hegemony of a given power at a geopolitical level, with examples from the reign of Augustus. Around the change of era, Augustus’ grandson and adopted son are sent to the East to restore Roman influence in Armenia, and to improve relations with the Parthians. Luther (173) studies contemporary literature (including Ovid)  and official propaganda in order to establish the relationship between Gaius Caesar and the campaign of Alexander the Great, which is intended to show an image of world domination. This imperialist propaganda can be seen even among the geographers Iuba and Isidore of Charax. On the value of the autobiographical content in Ovid (especially in tr. 1.7), and Ovid’s likely interest in being the subject of commentaries in the future, see Tissol (130). At the end of 20th c., and beginning of the 21st, a large number of articles imbued with new historicism, philosophy of history, and post-structuralism were published. Within this context, reflection about the political content of Ovid’s poetry takes on special relevance. Thus, most of the works we find in this chapter attempt to establish the cultural contexts within which met. is composed, as well as the social purpose that underlies its poetic discourse. In Kennedy’s words, “‘literature’ emerges […] as a dynamic category encoding social, economic, political, philosophical, and a host of other practices and assumptions, all themselves overlapping and interpenetrating” (47, 40). From a structural point of view, which seems to be the main concern of met. scholars in the 1980s, we can refer to a tripartite division of the work, encased between the Cosmogony of Book 1 and Caesar’s Apotheosis in Book 15. Within that framework, we find three sections of similar length: gods (1.452–6.420), heroes (6.421–11.193)

History, Politics

321

and historical figures (11.194–15.744). The relationships that determine these criteria are discussed extensively by Kenney in the introduction to Melville’s translation (Ovid. Metamorphoses, Oxford 1998, XXVI–XXVII). In that third pentad we find a significant amount of historical material: “first Trojan, then Roman subjects signal the work’s conclusion, wherein the large-scale historical progression promised in the work’s opening lines will be fulfilled” (Tissol 113, 305). Tissol considers that met. shows Ovidianised history, in which Ovid tries to relate reality with the mythical metamorphoses that he includes in the two previous pentads (113, 310). The last book of the poem represents Ovid’s immediate past, present and future, wherein the final three metamorphoses are developed: that of Caesar, of Augustus and of Ovid himself (met. 15.745–879). Critics highlight these transformations as being of greater interest in historical and political terms. The continuous successions seem to be of concern to Ovid: firstly, from Julius Caesar to Augustus, which leads to the creation of the Principate; and then, the succession of Tiberius from Augustus, which reverberates throughout the last book of met., and in all his later work. Of course, the aspects that attract the most attention in the historical and political field are two, which are inevitably interrelated: namely, the relationship between Ovid and Augustus and, consequently, the reason for his exile to Tomis. Other relevant issues are, in the words of Williams, “gender and sexuality, Roman imperialism, class difference, and Roman power (individual or collective) as a tool of social oppression and exploitation” (163, 154). b. Myth and History Aetiological poetry must address issues of causality and temporality in order to explain the contemporary situation. Possibly the work that deals most generally with this aspect is that of Tissol (113). According to Luck (188), myth in met. mixes with history and vice versa, even though Ovid realises the limits of both. The evolution of myth into history through the work is obvious, from Asia Minor and Greece to Italy. The legends in met. are largely of Greek origin, while in Fasti they are Roman. Waldner (162) compares Ovid’s version with that of Antoninus Liberalis 17; according to the author, Greek myth and Roman ritual influenced each other. He also shows (204) how Latin literature and Roman religion worked together, within the context of changes during the Augustan Principate. In met. the aetiological myths come one after another, explaining why things are this way, and not otherwise. They culminate in the Rome of the time, attributing meaning to each of the previous myths. Ovid organises the contents of met.’s most epic section in his last two books, based on a pair of historical facts: the murder of Caesar at the hands of Brutus, and the appearance of a comet in July 44 bce. The other elements – the praise for Caesar, Venus’ lament, his death, the consolation of Jupiter, and the filiation established by Venus linking Aeneas to Julius Caesar – turn history into myth (Jouteur 101, 230–1). The poet’s need to assert power within an epic setting requires the rewriting of those stories centred on the very concept of power. That specific myth must be manipulated in order to underscore the relationships between the characters that it features. Rosati

322

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

(102, 55–9) makes an analysis of met., analogous to Aen., of the power centred on the characters of Fame and Nestor. Ovid interprets historical fact from two perspectives. Presumably, Augustus does not want to be reminded of the reason why Caesar was killed: because of the same autocracy that Octavian himself is seeking. Fink (125) shows us, for the first time among the Augustan poets, the murder of Caesar. On the one hand, in met. the events are exaggerated and result in a fatalistic scenario, which also seems to extend to Caesar’s successor. However, in Fasti the Ides of March is a celebration of Anna Perenna and the anniversary of Caesar’s death, which in turn was Octavian’s starting point. Although most of the work re-examines Greek topics, the history of Rome is its focus. Gildenhard and Zissos (119) point out that in the first two books of met., Ovid anticipates Roman historical issues (e.g. 2.536–9) and offers us a subtext in which the political realities of the Principate can be recognised. In 2.533–832, Ovid rejects Athenian culture as the focus around which the rest of the poem revolves. Met. is clearly a work that seeks to carry through the cultural transition from the Greek world to the Roman world in the two final books. The relationship between myth and history is dealt with concisely in von Albrecht’s work (3). He focuses on Ovid’s “Poesie der Technik”: the poet often uses anachronisms and fantasy elements, even to recreate the historical part. He even goes so far as to reconstruct the image of the stage curtain, providing  a spectacular description for readers (met. 3.106–14). Ovid tries to attribute a political dimension to these updates of the myth. Wheeler (114) develops W.  Ludwig’s idea (Struktur und Einheit der Metamorphosen Ovids, Berlin 1965, 9) that the structure and content of met. stand up in universal history. Like von Albrecht, Wheeler assumes the mixture of diachrony and synchrony in the poem, and he observes that Ludwig’s tripartite structure justifies the relationship between the text and historiographical models. Feeney (86) explains the dissociations between the Greek and Roman worlds in terms of the canonical division of epochs in human history. Hardie (106) dedicates an article to the treatment of Ovid as a historian in the last 80 verses of book 14 and book 15 of met. The author examines which historiographic sources Ovid draws on to complete his history of Rome, such as Ennius, Cicero, and the Greek models, but also compares this with other sources, fundamentally the historiography of the beginning of the empire. Hardie also alludes to indigenous sources, as in the cases of Tages and Cipus, and their treatment by Ovid. Feeney (86) studies the concept of time in met., and he locates the differences between mea tempora (met. 1.4) and tua tempora in tr. 2.569 that refer to Augustus. For his part, Kyriakidis (109) highlights certain innovations in the treatment of the Alban Kings, such as the presence of the Vertumnus and Pomona myth. This catalogue shows only one period of time in Ovid’s work, the legendary monarchical era, and how he integrates himself into the narrative by assuming the poetic voice. Kyriakidis’ conclusion is that Ovid does not use this enumeration in order to praise Rome, but rather tries to show the negative aspect related to violence and power

History, Politics

323

struggles throughout the city’s history, from the myth of its foundation up to historical reality (109, 226). When referring to the mythical topic of the Ages of Man, Ovid avoids designating the aetas Augusta within the Iron Age (met. 1.127), to eschew being taken as a veiled criticism of Augustan ideology. The poet relegates this Roman-looking era to the more distant period (Ternes, 9). Wilkens (205, 56) agrees with Kyriakidis in reminding us that Ovid pays little attention to the Silver or Bronze Ages, and identifies the Golden Age with the Augustan Golden Age (met. 1.89–112). He even considers this age to be better than the Golden Age, because it is sine vindice. Regarding this literary topic, Stratenwerth (197) compares the myths of the Golden and Iron Ages, and considers the treatment of the topos in other authors (Hesiod, Lucretius, Virgil). She recognises similarities and differences between the individual topoi. When Ovid deviates from any of these universal subjects, a veiled criticism of Octavian can be read between the lines. Habinek (105) reminds us of the function of translatio imperii in met., which is the main topic addressed in the final part of the poem. Everything changes, but not forever. The power of Rome remains outright because the empire has no rival: Rome does not conquer, but rather it civilises. In Ovid’s version of universal history, the translatio imperii from one location to another is an omen that, in the poet’s time, finds its place in Rome. In turn, Rome will fall and another empire will take its place, as Pythagoras seems to have predicted when comparing it to Troy. Martínez Astorino (213) compares Aen. 1.223–96 and met. 15.761–842, concluding that in Ovid the image of the poet prevails, while in Virgil the image of Rome weighs more heavily. In met. the representation of Rome forms part of “a mythologized universal history that culminates in the celebration of the poet” (213, 143). Cole (118) examines the sources of the mythographers used by Ovid in met., and the chronological order in which the different passages are arranged. He deals with the relationship between Ovid and Augustus in a later work (144, 153 ff.). In met., we find problems of chronological imprecision continuously, especially when faced with different dynasties of the people mentioned: time serves a ‘mythistoricus’ purpose for their civilisation and achievements. Cole assumes that Ovid takes the chronologies of the mythographers Castor of Rhodes and Varro, so that his Roman contemporaries understand the meaning of imperium and ruler cult, which come to replace reason and the laws of the gods. In this regard, the work of Farrell (220) is recommended. Hesiod’s Catalogue of Women may have been a model for Ovid’s use of time, since it is based on a tension between the genealogies of heroes and the divine violation that engenders them. These genealogies also affect the family of Emperor Augustus (Fletcher, 126). Hejduk focuses part of her work (221, 262–6) on Jupiter as a violator. Segal (62, 260–6) also identifies the tyrannical presence of Tereus in the work and a female reading in Procne. In addition, he raises the issue of rape in the context of voyeuristic violence in Ovid, and in Roman society in general. See also Hemker (15), who discusses rape in the origins of Rome. Myers (61) studies the myth of Pomona and Vertumnus in met. to examine its function. The association of at least Vertumnus with the religious boundaries of the city of Rome offers a transition in the poem, from early Latin legends to Rome itself,

324

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

thereby providing  a bridge between met. and Fasti. Myers (61, 248–50) observes a common programme for reading both works. Gazeau (169) also offers  a political reading of the myth in comparison with Propertius’ treatment (4.2), which also incorporates a poetic intention. Casanova-Robin (191) reflects on the origin of Roman power, which is found in primitive forces and in mythical Latin figures, according to met. 14. She concludes that the boundaries between myth and history shift, and she proposes that Ovid tries to reinterpret the legends about the origin of Rome developed in the republican era. Ovid’s treatment of Trojan topics also involves his ideology, and therefore has different characteristics from those proposed by Virgil in Aen., as examined by Schmitzer (129, 35). Other published works gather historical aspects incorporated into met. To facilitate consultation in this chapter, I have separated those referring to the sidus Iulium from these works. Gardner (198) uses the Ovidian parallel of met. 7.490–660 to establish a Virgilian error in georg. 3, where an insect cures a disease; by disease, both refer to the Civil War. Ovid’s text, by extension, can be read as a critique of Roman politics after the battle of Actium. Meulder (97) brings us a reading from the Latin texts (Ovid [met. 14.775–804; fast. 1.259–74], Servius, Macrobius [Sat. 1.9.17]) in order to connect a legend in which the war against the Sabines, triggered by the abduction of the Sabine women, caused Janus to flood them when they threatened one of the gates of the Viminal. It seems to be an Indo-European theme, in which a source of thermal water appears suddenly when a religious offence is committed. c. Sidus Iulium Ovid inserts the description of a comet into the deification of Caesar (met. ­15.745–842). A list with comprehensive bibliography on the subject can be found in Bechtold (166, 101–2 n. 7). In most of these works, only the passage is named. Voit (18, 54) alludes specifically to the apotheosis in met. to establish that the deification of Caesar is only credible among the Romans once the comet appears. Apparently, he personally does not believe that one event had any relation to the other. Feeney (39, 212) bestows on Augustus individual credit for the act of faith, when it seems obvious that the effort is collective. The people and senate of Rome deify Caesar because of his reputation and achievements, rather than due to this omen in the form of a heavenly body. Ovid frames the deification as the result of a pro-Augustan attempt to the extent of subordinating Caesar’s influence on Augustus (Pandey, 196, 436–45). Sidus Iulium is not the only celestial phenomenon that is addressed in met. Based on the study of the Phaethon myth (met. 1.750–2.408) and scientific evidence,  a group of scientists considered the possibility that the myth’s aition was the impact of a meteorite that fell in the Bavarian region of Chiemgau between 2000 and 428 bce (175). Doppler questions the relationship between Phaethon’s myth and the meteorite impact (178), to which the group of scientists, led by Rappenglück (181), responds again. This is not the only historical event that might have generated the

History, Politics

325

myth of Phaethon. Blomqvist (59) also argues that this tale could be derived from the fall of a meteorite in Kaali, on the island of Saaremaa, Estonia. The attempts to identify the myth of Phaethon with a historical event have been collected exhaustively by Hillgruber (65). d. Augustanism and anti-Augustanism One of the issues that generates the most debate regarding Ovid’s entire work is his pro- or anti-Augustan tendency. We can even attempt to value a non-Augustanism, which would indicate his indifference in this respect (Williams, 163, 154). This is despite the reluctance by some critics to use this terminology, or to recognise some of these tendencies in met. simply because Ovid did not recreate in his writing the transformation of Rome from its origins into the Principate (Habinek, 105, 46). For a bibliographical listing of anti-Augustanism in Ovid in the 1960s and 1970s, see Rhorer (2, 311 n. 47), completed by Schmitzer with the 1980s (38, 1–14); see also Zagórski (136, 137, 141). In the years prior to his exile, the poet’s relationship with the princeps seems to be neither supportive, oppositional, nor ambivalent (Habinek, 105; for  a different view, see Johnson 146, who detects Ovid’s criticism in his descriptions of the contests between the Muses and the Emathides and between Arachne and Minerva, as well as in Orpheus’ song). Gaertner (31) stresses that the battle between Cadmus and the dragon (met. 3.50–98) does not meet the epic’s expectations, and the author identifies many elements of the passage’s treatment as humorous, in relation to what is written by other Augustan authors. Gaertner tries to identify this lack of interest in following stylistic criteria with the propensity to remain indifferent to Augustan political tendency. It is unlikely, however, that under Augustus’ rule, any poet did not have political involvement (Myers, 60, 131). Although the practice of establishing dichotomies is somewhat simplistic, this does not mean that politics is absent from met., or that the politics of Roman poetry cannot be explained (Kennedy, 47). Galinsky (6) questions the existence of a prototype of systematic imperial propaganda controlled by Augustus himself. In the first article, the author points out that the Ovidian representation of the Golden Age takes an eclectic perspective, comparing it with the Augustan regime. Galinsky (32) neatly summarises the mood of the Golden Age, arguing that the output of this period is simply a product of its time, with a relish for depicting the pantomime that had replaced tragedy. He affirms that it is too simplistic to presume that the characteristics of contemporary written literature are imposed individually by the ruler of the time (66, esp. 261–9). In this sense, Galinsky continues with the ideas of Zanker (30), who also maintains that Augustan values are propagated through a relationship between the ruler and his subjects, rather than an imposition by the powers that be to become a propaganda machine. Barchiesi (58) joins in with this reductionist critique: at  a time of cultural restoration, it would have been impossible not to participate in Augustanism, which presents an aesthetic dilemma. It seems unfeasible for Ovid not to take sides, one way

326

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

or the other, if the princeps appears as a character in his work. See also Simon (22, 9–10) and Dobinson (10, 28–30), while Galinsky himself published a somewhat outdated overview in 1986 (19). Based on a lack of respect for ancient customs, Galinsky weighs up Ovid’s attitude on this issue, which at best confuses these “ancient” mores. In other words, the Res Gestae is no different from met. on this subject (Hardie, 76). Habinek shares this view and transfers the focus of Ovid’s writing motivation to other elements that make up ideology and practice during the Principate. Ovid shares the spirit of the age; he is not forced to fly the flag of Augustanism by legal necessity. However, Habinek departs from Galinsky’s position by stating that literature is one of the causes of Augustan cultural hegemony. He claims that the critic’s task is to note those strange and contradictory allusions that seem to be veiled in the text, whether they are explicitly ideological (82), social (75) or propagandistic (105). Different studies emphasise the way in which Augustanism saturated every cultural issue in Rome. Augustus associated different symbols and elements with his person, promoting his image and authority. Moreover irony and even frivolous discourse are traditionally found in Ovid’s work, so that one has to read between the lines to see the author’s nonconformity, and possibly his opposition or conflict, even with Augustan values and expressions of authority (Krupp, 154). Fabre-Serris (81, 35) also notes the divergences of opinion between ideological positions of the Principate and Ovid. Néraudau (33, 74–82) maintains directly that Ovid is a dissident poet, and that we cannot study his relationship to power without taking into account his exile, and relating this to Augustus himself. Furthermore, Holzberg (194) establishes that Ovid’s text functions as  a hypotext of Augustan discourse, and serves as a model for other later texts. Barchiesi (99, 76) adopts a sort of intermediate position, allowing himself to be carried away by the value of subjectivity: he assumes that the issue of whether to support, or fight against, the princeps depends on the reader’s own image of Ovid, Augustus and the emperor’s regime. Consequently, the author concentrates all his efforts on analysing any sign of propaganda or ideology in each speech that shows evidence of the openly polysemic nature of Ovid’s poetry. Maleuvre (127), who is very interested in the politics of this period and how they are reflected in the Augustan poets, considers that the writers of the era are not simply flatterers of the emperor, or at least are only partially so. In this work, Maleuvre tries to show that Ovid uses coded language to denounce Augustus’ authority. Each metamorphosis is a metaphor, which is not always easy to interpret. The gods in met. show bipolarity: sometimes they are respectable and compassionate, while at other times they play the leading role in lurid or ridiculous situations. Maleuvre identifies gods, despots and other characters in the poem with real characters, especially the Emperor Augustus and other members of the imperial family (chiefly Caesar, Livia and Tiberius). The same position is defended by Feichtinger (145), who supports the multiple political readings of each apolitical metaphor. Keith (108, 106–7) extends Ovid’s interpretation of Aen. 7.37–44, which can be read in terms of the civil war’s outcome and the fall of the Roman Republic. Johnson (68) notes in the construction of met.’s

History, Politics

327

Venus the depiction of an imperial goddess who reflects repressive Caesarianism. The integrally Augustan Venus that we find at the end of met. is easily recognisable to contemporaries, since she is created from the merging of influential Alexandrian models in the two centuries prior to Ovid (Barchiesi, 85). Vial (203, esp. 110–13) also devotes  a paper to the presence of Venus in met., as well as to Cupid and Aeneas, and to the political reminiscences related to her appearance. Holzberg ends his chapter (“Augustus und die Macht der Metamorphose”, 77, 153–8) with Ovid’s political intentions, and promotes in his work the reading of met. as a direct invitation to search for subversive elements in the text that promote anti-Augustan criticism. Holzberg relates this veiled message to that offered by the Fasti, to support the cause of Ovid’s exile in Tomis (77, 159). This is also justified by Lundström (1), who identifies several passages in which the political background of met. could be the cause of his relegatio. Certainly during Ovid’s life, as with the Principate, his political viewpoint changed from a series of institutional sympathies and personal loyalties, to a cultural hegemony whose different bases incorporated various discourses on authority, sexuality and religion. The contexts evolve: at first, Augustus’ main concern is the foundation and origins of Rome, but by the end his interest moves towards developing the empire in his own era (Hardie, 76, 103; see also Wallace-Hadrill, 78). Ovid’s concerns in his poetry are not implicitly about Roman history or Roman society, but about the different perspectives from which the stories are told. In this way, Ovid is a subject who becomes the object of the imperial gaze. Most of the articles on politics in Ovid examine his degree of distancing from the princeps, instead of analysing the extent to which his corpus itself is involved in Roman imperialism (Habinek, 105, 48). Schiesaro (111, 74) observes in Ovid’s work a willingness to be interpreted; to offer related, shifting content that avoids becoming an institutional framework on which authority and norms can be based. Ovid does not want to build solid foundations with his poetry, but rather pour shifting sands into the ideological realm (Lowrie 155, 346; Pandey, 218, 21). This tendency eventually becomes politically incorrect after the Principate’s consolidation, and anticipates the concentration of power and intolerance (Mainero, 140, 171). Under the cover of myth, met. includes sharp criticisms of Emperor Augustus and his programme of social, spiritual, and religious reform. Probably the work that most comprehensively reflects the relationship between propaganda, ideology and poetry is that of Barchiesi (58). Mainero (140) reminds us that Ovid constructs the princeps in met. 15.745–879 from irony, intertextual play, and ambiguity. Parody in met. is the focus of Lake’s work: especially relevant here is chapter five, where we note that Ovid’s treatment of the Phaethon, Hercules and Centauromachy myths is not favourable towards the figure of Augustus (170, 175–222). This contrasts with the beginning of his work, when Lake shows how Perseus is identified with the princeps himself (170). Ovid invents or elaborates stories about artists in met. to illustrate the supremacy of art and its spiritual value (Lateiner, 12). Slavazzi (182) highlights Ovid’s in-depth knowledge of art, and shows that he would have visited the Palatine at some point.

328

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

However, if we want to know Ovid’s Rome in depth, it is advisable to read Boyle (116), who asserts that met. is influenced by an anti-Augustan attitude. This author’s work shows how the emperor appropriated the city’s spaces and monuments for his own political benefit. On occasion, Ovid is able to observe how spaces in Rome are erased to eliminate any trace of a past that embarrassed the emperor. From studying the Apollo and Daphne myth, Redmond (91) identifies the potential ideological obstacles that Ovid encounters as an artist in Augustan Rome. Feldherr (124) reflects that the description of Niobe in met. 6.169 ff. evokes the statues of this tragic figure in the temple of Apollo in the Circus, and at one of the sanctuary doors of the temple of Apollo on the Palatine. This causes us to believe that Ovid’s work, in describing Niobe in terms of what she will become, rather than what she is at the time, is not only influenced by ideology, but also by other artistic manifestations of the regime. Not everything is subjective; met. is sometimes used as  a resource to gain an improved understanding of the environment in which the Romans lived at the time. In the case of Ghedini (100), details about the modus vivendi of the inhabitants of the empire’s capital city are gleaned from the information provided by Ovid. Buchheit (53) explains that the depiction of Numa in met. presents the king as a second founder of Rome, as well as maintaining a connection with Pythagoras. This relationship with the philosopher allows him to illustrate a way of life characterised by the blessings of peace, the arts and Greek influence. The author identifies this figure as a warning to Ovid’s contemporaries, and even to Augustus himself. Soubiran (35) stresses the relevance of the Numa episode to the situation in Rome during the final years of Augustus’ rule: Numa’s power is matched by his wisdom. Deremetz (192) highlights the figure of Ovid, since both this figure and Romulus himself represent the ideas that the Roman people had about their identity. The Augustan poets saw Rome from two perspectives: political, governed by the figure of Romulus; and cultural, identifiable with the descriptions of Numa by Virgil, Horace and Ovid in their respective artistic productions. Ahl (57, 118–26) links Augustus with Jupiter and Apollo in met. With respect to Apollo, an ironic image is pursued through several passages (1.441–4, 452–72, 472–556). The critic finds similarities between Apollo’s ‘victory’ over Daphne, and Augustus’ victories. Apollo swears that laurel branches will be attached to his head as a symbol of a battle that never took place, as well as Augustus’ battle against Cleopatra; she committed suicide before being caught, almost in the same way as Daphne. Ovid’s Apollo gives Daphne, in her new laurel tree form, a role in the state cult of the as-yet-unfounded Rome in the story. This tale takes on a political dimension in reality, when the laurel wreath becomes an institutional honour in the time of Emperor Augustus (Curran, 5; Williams, 8). Ghedini (185) compiles the love episodes of Apollo in met., dividing them into two categories: firstly, those myths in which the god flirts with nymphs, virgins and children; and then, the stories where he assumes the role of vindex. Ghedini maintains that the image of the god transmitted in the work is far removed from the one preferred by Augustan propaganda.

History, Politics

329

Feldherr (103, 173) rejects the negative connotations for Augustus that can be attributed to the creation of the laurel, which Wilkens (205, 79) justifies as  a dishonour. For Miller (158, 338–49), the Apollo and Daphne episode simply creates a myth explaining the origin of one of Rome’s most recognisable victory symbols. Miller also discusses the relationship between Apollo and Augustus: the former is shown as clumsy, although Ovid in met. connects Apollo on the Palatine with Jupiter on the Capitoline, lining them up within the character of Augustus. Again we are faced with the classical ambiguity that is part of the Ovidian aesthetic (158, 332–73). Williams (176, 64–72) also points out Apollo’s ironic lack of skill in failing to cure his own attraction to Daphne (1.504–24), after being unable to extract Cupid’s arrow at the start of met. (1.438–77). Later, when the god tries to rescue Coronis (2.617–18), and prevent the death of Hyacinthus (10.186–9), his inability to heal again becomes apparent. The relationship between Apollo and Augustus is dealt with extensively by Urban (131, 5–87), who discusses the influence of the moral programme of Augustan laws on met. The author also cites Hercules’ relationship with Apollo, both as Augustan symbols. He attributes particular ideological importance to the passage about Cipus: according to Urban, the Principate represents the second-best form of government after the republic. Lundström (1, 77–9) examines the veiled criticism of Augustus embodied in this character: Cipus makes the right decision by withdrawing from the political sphere; Octavian, on the contrary, assumes the responsibility of being a leader and fails in the attempt, in what we can understand as an Ovidian conclusion. Barchiesi (58, 252) observes the parallel of princeps and Cipus. Díez and López (167, 283–6) identify L. Cornificius and Agrippa as the real-life protagonists of the episode. Fulkerson (134) studies different examples of divine paenitentia in met. with humans; Apollo with Phaethon; Coronis, Hyacinthus and Cyparissus respectively, to observe how the god behaves in each particular case. Fulkerson uses this analogy to support the identification of Apollo with the emperor. Salvo (161, 108–9) offers us a perspective on the influence of Augustan propaganda on the myth of Apollo and Niobe. Konstan (69; 68–9, 88) studies the treatment of Demeter and Persephone. In the case of met., he focuses on the myth of Persephone, in which Ovid characterises Ceres as a proud and aggressive god, indifferent to the consequences of her actions; she represents Ovid’s vision of the Roman imperial aristocracy. Konstan identifies the tensions between Jupiter and his relatives as a political allegory: here the figure of Jupiter represents Augustus. Vanhaegendoren (132) claims to see another example of irony in Ovid’s treatment of Jupiter in met. 1.258. In other cases, for example that proposed by Nadeau (174, 237), the myth makes fun of  a poet who is interested in the more patriotic and Augustan aspects, like Virgil in his Aeneid. Nadeau identifies the tone of humour used by Ovid in Erysichton’s myth to deal humorously with the propaganda message that we find in the work of the Mantuan.

330

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

The figure of the princeps is also referenced in the myth of Minerva and Arachne: the goddess’ lack of clemency represents a criticism by Ovid of established authority: Ovid and Arachne are representatives of art, while Minerva and Augustus stand for order and morality (Oliensis, 122, 286–96). Oliensis also discusses (122, 295–319) how Ovid and Virgil use such depictions, while Schmitzer (38) makes a thorough analysis of Apollo’s role in met. and his relationship with Augustus. Thus, the princeps is identified with Phaethon, the Palatine being the Sun’s palace. Barchiesi (142), for his part, creates the analogy from the myth of Phaethon, the Circus Maximus in Augustan Rome, and the perspective of Augustus from the Palatine. The latter is assimilated into Olympus by including the temple of Apollo and the imperial residence within its walls. Malochet-Turquetty (200) locates the twin points of the Palatine and the Capitol as the topographical centre of Ovid’s met. In his work (160), Rebenich exposes the status quaestionis of the interpretations of the Phaethon figure. Sometimes he is identified as Augustus, demonstrating his mortality in his hubristic attempt to order the world; at others as Gaius, whose disappearance marked the end of his dynasty’s efforts to perpetuate itself in power. Phaethon is a key figure in shaping the public image of subsequent emperors such as Caligula and Nero. The double reading that this passage allows, compels us to address the highly interesting work of Feldherr (209), who scrutinises the repetitions and word games of myth in met. to benefit political criticism. Poznanski (17) shows that Augustus is represented as Mercury in met. on the basis of socioeconomic criticism, since the latter is the god of commerce. Similarly, other critics identify some allusions in met. as pro-Augustan. Authors such as Salzman (83) argue that the portrayal of characters like Romulus and Numa, both in Fasti and in met., do not represent any facet of the emperor, and the deification we observe in the last book of met. is an exercise in sincere and honest laudatio. Gosling (104) does not even detect  a political background, and suppresses the military aspect of Romulus at first sight. However, it seems that the figure of Romulus is presented as a legislator in the light of Augustan propaganda. The Ovidian image of Romulus connects with Fasti’s themes, such as the rejection of militarism and the celebration of arts and peace. Porte (16) maintains that, through the evolution of the successive books in met., the apotheosis of the gods’ descendants shifts from metamorphosis-as-punishment to metamorphosis-as-reward, through the ascent of the human character from mortal to deity and heavenly body, which is a common concept in Roman times. Martínez Astorino (214) identifies the association of both characters, Romulus and Numa, with the emperor, while Marks (121) comments that the context in which Ovid places the episode is relevant, as it follows the myth of Romulus driving a spear into the Palatine; the weapon is then transformed into a tree. The pairing of Romulus and Cipus brings up the conundrum of the monarchy: military success cannot be enough to acquire the status of king. However, the figure of Cipus serves Ovid to condemn the monarchy, which is, after all, what the Res publica restituta ultimately becomes.

History, Politics

331

Ovid is not a believer and, despite representing in his work the deifications of various characters in the history of Rome, he questions this new religion that has become part of the political regime (Martin, 156). The episode of Cipus seems to represent the restitutio rei publicae of 27 bce or the crisis of 23 bce, when Augustus, believing that his end is near, gives a breviarium totius imperii and his ring to Agrippa, which seems to support a return to the republican state (Schmitzer, 38, 260–72). In terms of the figure of Romulus, Delbey also maintains that book 14 does not focus on political criticism of the emperor, but instead on criticism of the monarchy’s power: “Circé nous a semblé avoir été utilisée par Ovide comme le contre-exemple nécessaire et suffisant pour mettre en valeur le pouvoir tel qu’il s’exerce à Rome depuis Romulus, heritier des qualités morales d’Énée; […] le texte du poète se situe ainsi dans la controverse romaine sur l’exercice du pouvoir royal” (177, 148). According to Galasso (135), the interpretation of the legend of Romulus’ fate seems to be an epic-mythological adornment of what could have been a historical reality, as we find in met. 14.805 ff. This is a typical example of an authoritative exposition of the supernatural origins of Rome’s power, which boosted Augustan propaganda. In terms of royalty, Massa-Pairault (21, 215–18) also identifies a possible connection between the monarchy and Dionysus. Hersilia’s apotheosis is characteristic of Ovid’s simple inventiveness: “there was probably no euhemeristic tradition for Ovid to work against, so he could invent an apotheosis for her, representing it as a purely divine initiative” (Tissol, 113, 232). Brännstedt (211) recognises a form of flattery to Livia in the apotheosis of Hersilia into the goddess Hora, although this had already been proposed by Domenicucci (40, 223–4). Hersilia is a Sabine who married Romulus, while Livia is of the Claudian dynasty, also Sabine, descended from Attius Clausus. Livia is discussed by Koster and Thakur: while Koster (187) observes in Ovid an ironic treatment of the character, Thakur (202) examines her from  a more literal perspective. Ovid portrays Livia as the coniunx sacerdos, due to her significant presence in the public domain. Although her appearance observes the orthodox tradition of representation, such as limiting her presence to the female sphere, Ovid’s innovations include calling Livia by her name, for example. Thakur’s study shows the decreasing presence of Livia in Ovid’s work, and in public discourse in general. Studies from the early 21st c. endeavour to move away from the concepts of pro- or anti-Augustanism in order to consider the discursive value of texts and participating in the articulation of cultural values. When a predisposition or prejudice about a given theme exists, the reader will interpret the text to defend an anti- or pro-Augustan reading (Kennedy, 47, 40–1). Critics will develop their work focusing on “discourse versus opposition, authorial intention and opinion versus the openness of reader reception, among others” (Myers, 92, 197). Some current critics challenge conventional discussion, and propose that Ovid’s participation in Augustan discourse lends authority and legitimacy to the power of the princeps. This is defended by Kennedy (47, 45–7), Sharrock (63) and Feeney (46, 3). However, if the poet participates in a speech about Augustus, it seems inconceivable that the speech could be anti-Augustan. Ovid’s defiance of Augustus is demonstrated

332

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

in his unavoidable commitment to the imperial strategy, which proves its creator’s legitimacy and authority. Feeney (39, 210–24) shows how Ovid explores, and reflects on, the nature of Augustus’ power, and the religious innovations that he introduces in the final book of met. His interest in poetic creation and political authority is evident (39, 225–32, 247–9). Ovid’s method of gaining narrative authority through his work is the same as that used by the Augustan regime and the Roman epic tradition to normalise and legitimise Rome’s power: reinventing its past (Hardie, 76, 195). In both met. and Fasti aetiologies are used to justify the truth. This is reflected in Augustus’ administration, since his interest in uniting the present with the distant origins of the Roman past is well known, as Virgil also manages in the Aeneid with excellent results (Habinek, 82, 4). Kyriakidis (217) states that the novum concept was “a major pursuit in the poetry of all the great poets of the Augustan Age, but all depends on how this pursuit of the new ‘blends’ with the solitum coming from the past”. This type of novitas has “connotations of literary originality” (Nelis, 159, 267). The aetiology is  a form of systematisation of the stories about the gods recognised by the Romans who came from Alexandrian Greece. Although aetiology first appears in myths in Varro’s prose, first Propertius and then Ovid begin to use it in their verse compositions. One of the cases included here is that of the origin of the laurel, which in Ovid’s case leads him to allude to Apollo’s attempt to unite with Daphne. This is explained by the presence of the laurel as a ritual and decorative element among attributes recognised in Rome, as well as the “Augustus door” that connected the Palatine with the temple of Apollo (Waldner, 204). e. Apotheosis of Julius Caesar and Augustus In met. the plot starts with chaos, passing first through several mythical stages, followed by historical eras, before finally reaching the time of Julius Caesar: his apotheosis is included, while that of Augustus is predicted. However, we find several apotheoses throughout the whole work and, from the ninth book onwards, they acquire increasing importance. In the last two books, Aeneas, Romulus and Hersilia appear, as well as Caesar, Augustus and Ovid (Wheeler, 98, 138–40). Maleuvre (42) reviews the political satire found in the treatment of these met. characters, to which he adds Cipus and Aesculapius. All of them show  a clear identification with the criticism of Augustan ideology. Some critics have postulated that the passages dedicated to Julius Caesar and Augustus are external dedications to the poem (Barchiesi, 58, 308 n. 22). Lateiner (12) collates the religious attitudes adopted by the main rulers of Rome since Caesar, and their respective identification with the gods. Ovid’s poetry is anti-political and counter-reformist: books 11–15 of met. are not only hostile to war and to the Roman Aeneas, but also to the great epic convention. He considers apotheosis and catasterism as a kind of joke. Martínez Astorino (201, 101) analyses several reasons to contend that his presence

History, Politics

333

is justified, and that it is devised from the start: one of these is apotheosis. Instead of focusing on possible references to irony, which is the most widely used technique for studying the passage (Martelli, 195, 162), the author explores mythologisation and how the poet plays with recent history (Martínez Astorino, 157, 218). Galinsky (66, 63) argues that, just as Augustus is blamed for the nationalisation of private spaces, which become public, so Ovid does the same, using Feeney’s argument (39, 212–19), in which Octavian appropriates Roman public religion at the end of met. (15.861–70). Galinsky adds (66, 301) that the result of this blending of public and private domains is not problematic. Privitera (43) addresses the systematic demystification of the Aeneid’s religious context in relation to several sequences of the Ovidian Aeneid (met. 13.623–14.608). Martínez Astorino (157) remembers that Aesculapius is a foreign god who came to Roman temples, while Caesar is a god in his own city (met. 15.746, 749). In 760–1 the poet alludes to the urgent need for the apotheosis, so that Augustus can assume the status of son of a god, and thereby be related to the divinity. In 15.750–1 and 758, although Augustus does not share the blood of the gens Iulia, Caesar is presented as his father, and even Ovid refers to him as the father of the princeps (Álvarez and Iglesias, 117, 43). Caesar is identified as Aeneas by Joseph (148, 25–30). If in Aen. 8.693 the expression tanta moles represents the harm suffered by Aeneas, then in met. 15.765 the same phrase could refer to the assassination of Caesar, for which the Augustan regime might be criticised. In fact, the mythologisation of the apotheosis seems to respond to the myth of the translatio imperii previously mentioned, and to which Hardie dedicates several works (76, 183, 190–5). On the episode of Aesculapius, the last mythological story in met., see Schmitzer (38, 273–8) and Papaioannou (128, 32–42). Stok reflects on a possible proscription of Aesculapius in Augustan imperial propaganda, and additionally on Ovid’s motivation for rescuing this character (50, 166–80). The Aesculapius episode is followed by the appearance of Cipus, who rejects the office of king (15.583–5, 588–9), just as Julius Caesar rejects the golden crown, and Augustus himself renounces the monarchy for the sake of a res publica restituta (Schmitzer, 38, 263–72). Martínez Astorino (215) also observes the possibility of identification between Caesar and Cipus in these terms. The possible affinity between Cipus with Augustus, and the interpretation of this relationship, is dealt with by Guillaumin (146). The explicit references to Augustus by Ovid in met. have been collected by Martínez Astorino (201), while Louden (172) analyses the parody at the end of met. 15 and compares it with the interpretation of Aeneas and Anchises’ meeting in Aen. 6. The use of these techniques allows the author to do the same in the Book of Revelation. The characters of Augustus and Numa are predicated on the peace-making efforts of both figures (Hardie, 76, 192). Todini (45) highlights that Numa’s pacifist spirit is influenced by Pythagorean doctrine, and therefore stands as a further criticism of the Augustan militaristic bent. Feldherr (168, 73–5) includes the comparison (met. 15.832–4) with the Res Gestae (8.5). Voit (18) shows that the treatment of Caesar as a figure follows the same constant

334

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

theme that we find throughout book 15: Ovid does not select events in Roman history for their general relevance to the history of Rome, but for their function in justifying the situation of Augustus. All Caesar’s achievements fade away in order to focus on paving the way for his nephew. However, Ovid’s decision to focus the story on Venus and Jupiter visibly obscures Augustus’ role, to the extent that the reader wonders how Augustus helped in the deification of Caesar. The entire story is motivated by the emperor’s desire to be born from a god, and the story also flatters Augustus with the construction of the temple. Ovid’s story shows Augustus as the emperor would like to be seen: as someone born from a god, freely choosing Tiberius as his successor, and enjoying the favour both of the gods, and of fate (Pandey, 196, 443–4). To vindicate that Caesar is surpassed by Augustus,  a list of other sons who outshone their fathers is included, and this succession allows us to identify a hidden subtext, according to Krasne (210, 135–42). The reference to Atreus (met. 15.855) also arouses suspicion. In comparing Caesar to Augustus, in order to show that the son outperforms the father, Ovid uses the reference to Atreus being outperformed by Agamemnon, as well as Aegeus by Theseus, and Peleus by Achilles (1.99–100). See also the works of Müller (24, esp. 283), Novara (34) and Hill (107): these authors do not pinpoint any parody or irony; instead, they perceive in Ovid’s words a sincere gesture, which uses hyperbole as befits any text with a laudatory purpose. The allusion seems more rhetorical than political. In the case of the reference to Achilles, Galinsky (193, 31) identifies an association between Augustus and Alexander, who had a particular devotion to Achilles; certain historians, such as Appian, developed this association. In the case of Aeneas, the Trojan hero’s deification carries political implications, because when this mythical ancestor of the Julian dynasty acquires the status of god, in a way so does Augustus (Śnieżewski, 29). Kluska-Jaśkowiak (219, 35–6) analyses the reception of the Aeneas myth in all the Augustan poets, however few works relate to Hercules. Álvarez and Iglesias (183) consider the female characters of the Hercules legend in met. 8 and 9. The appearance of Deianira establishes a link between Tereus, Meleager and Hercules, since the latter had become a symbol of Augustus, and the legend of Meleager recalls the early days of the princeps’ individual power. Augustus’ identification with Jupiter as the supreme god would be expected in an absolutist leader like Octavian, as can be seen in Tristia, for example. Bretzigheimer (52), however, discovers that the affinity between the princeps and the deity is difficult to observe in three passages: namely, the Gigantomachia (1.151–62), the concilium deorum (1.163–261), and the myth of Phaethon (1.747–2.400). Although Jupiter possesses the typical characteristics in Roman texts, no clear parallel can be shown between Jupiter and Augustus. Despite Bretzigheimer’s thesis, the concilium deorum seems to represent the Roman Senate (Galinsky, 66, 218), and furthermore Jupiter’s supremacy points directly to Augustus (Müller, 24; Feeney, 39, 188–96; Tissol, 113, 306; Miller, 158, 334–8). The Lycaon episode, and the assault on Olympus by the Giants, function on two levels: narrative and ideological. Augustus’ victory over any kind of enemy has been compared previously to that of the Olympians against the Titans (Habinek, 105,

History, Politics

335

48). At the same time, Jupiter also strikes out against humanity, which could have an ideological counterpart in Roman foreign policy, or in the a posteriori justification of Jupiter’s actions, as in the case of Lycaon, who had already been transformed when Jupiter convened the concilium deorum. With the aim of protecting those humans under the Olympians’ custody (met. 1.192–5) from individuals like Lycaon, the god decides to extend his domain and to justify the destruction of an entire gens. This act has its counterpart today in every imperialist foreign policy like that of the Roman Empire (Mattern, 89). Jupiter takes the role of vindex, which would be expected from Augustus (Malochet-Turquety, 200). Barchiesi (143) also recreates the analogy of the concilium deorum with the Senate, but inserts the comparison of Cicero’s Catiline Orations. Heyworth (199) sees in met. 1.190–1 the attitude of Jupiter in the concilium deorum, based on autocratic decision-making in the Octavian senate. Ovid blames the princeps for lack of clementia, which inspires Livia in real life when she decides to finish off those who try to assassinate her. This attitude, which we perhaps imagine in Caesar, is not present in the poem. Balsey (190) offers the historical and legal context of the Lycaon passage, comparing the episode of met. 1.163–245 with several trials that took place in the Augustan era. In this way, Ovid’s knowledge of the legal terminology of the time, and the legal and political spheres, is evident. Feldherr (103, 171–2) tries to identify Lycaon’s crime with other actual legal references. On the influence on Ovid’s poetry of laus Augusti, see 4.  Delbey (184) discusses the plausible identification of Augustus with Jupiter through the concept of Iovis ira, and a possible critique of the ruling order that would lead to Ovid’s own exile. In this sense, Janka (87) reminds us of the Iovis ira in this Ovidian Jupiter, whose autocratic nature recalls Augustus’ character. The main reason is his ambivalence when mentioning Jupiter, which is indirectly understood as a criticism of Augustus himself. The work in exile only tries to dissuade an angry Augustus from his purpose (Gold, 120). f. Ovid’s apotheosis The concept of apotheosis ensures that the deceased will always be remembered in the future. Ovid is simply following the same path that Empedocles and Pythagoras had taken previously. In this way, by creating met., Ovid manages to share the same destiny as the principes: the immortality of fame (Hardie, 76, 190). The fact that the work finishes with apotheosis fulfils a speculative function with respect to the sanctius animal of met. 1.76. This function is examined by Wheeler (98, 139), Schmidt (44, 129) and Martínez Astorino (157, 20–41, 62–6). The treatment of his own apotheosis allows Ovid to return to political interpretation, since in 15.875–6 he declares that, in his catasterisation, he will be above Augustus, and Augustus above Caesar (Wickkiser, 94, 134–9). In the same way, several authors find an explicit opposition between the vivam of the last verse of met. and the absens at the end of the prayer at 15.870 (Ludström, 1, 102–4; Holleman, 27, 384–5; Schmitzer, 38, 296–7; Feeney, 39, 210–14; Barchiesi, 58, 263–4).

336

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

La Penna (90) considers that the subordination of Caesar’s deification to that of Augustus ante tempora does not increase the glory of Caesar. The passages of Fasti prove that the figure of Caesar is subsequently re-evaluated, and a political change wisely supported by Augustus. Afterwards, a period of declared hostility towards the dictator starts, that is reflected in the princeps’ caution in claiming his legacy. Wickkiser (94), addressing the sphragis of met. 15.871–9, believes that the ultimate intention of all Ovid’s work is to declare the superiority of the poet over Augustus. Thus, when determining the different processes of deification and apotheosis, the poet achieves final superiority. In these last verses Ovid declares his own self-perpetuating fame; he contrasts this with the rulers of Rome, who need their successors in order to maintain their memory, as Hardie reminds us (76, 189–95). Martínez Astorino (189, 162–4) puts Augustus as the boundary of the sphragis: the pax Augusta can become the pax Ovidiana, since the triumph of Rome not only implies a power struggle between the political and the cultural, but both spheres are different sides of the same coin. g. Patronage and power relations Several of the works dealing with patronage in Roman society emphasise its signi­ ficance for artistic production in Augustan Rome (White, 56). Others, however, observe a deep concern for status and power in the poets of this era, as well as for their integration into Roman social order, and the reception of their poetry. Virgil, Horace and Ovid are willing to assume the pax Augusta, as well as the recuperation of the ancestors’ morals, increased security, and greater power abroad, as achievements of the new imperial policy. On the other hand, these poets do not accept that the new regime can be identified with the restoration of the republic. The three authors note the loss of republican libertates. Virgil puts them into perspective, Horace acknowledges his own role in the Civil War, and Ovid takes the Principate’s achievements as standard. However, Ovid calls the Res publica restituta fraudulent, which displeases the leadership of the Principate, while Horace and Virgil’s reticence proves to be politically insignificant (Mutschler, 180). For Augustus’ relations with contemporary poets, see White (133, 332–7). The author points out that during this period it is not uncommon for writers to ask for patronage; however, it is difficult to ascertain to what extent the artistic patron might induce the author to compose propagandistic works, even more so when we observe that these subjects are often treated ambiguously. Augustus did invest in art; however, it is complicated to know to what extent he could have influenced Ovid or any other contemporary poet to censor their works (White, 133). Ovid is the only one who bears witness to having re-edited his corpus. Of all his works, the Fasti and met. are those that lend themselves to a reading in ideological terms (White, 115). Brazouski (80) points out several ‘indices’, a legal figure that refers to informants, in the Ovidian corpus. This attitude perhaps promotes the creation of the figure of Perilla,  a scripta puella who represents Ovid’s erotic programme, challenging Augustus’ customs and morals (Ingleheart, 186).

History, Politics

337

Ovid moves on the periphery of Augustus’ main literary circle, whose nucleus is Gaius Maecenas; when Ovid’s work reaches its peak, Maecenas’ influence has already declined. The political commitments of Ovid’s poetry are different from those of his predecessors and successors (Habinek, 105, 47). Although Ovid lives under the reign of Augustus, he is not Augustan stricto sensu; however, met. is still one of the most authentic expressions of the Augustan era (Galinsky, 32, 71). Some scholars overestimate the political significance of this group, but perhaps their peripheral power could be crucial to the fact that the poet ended up exiled in Tomis (Griffin, 11, see also Massa-Pairault, 21). Some of these patronage relationships are indirectly addressed by Damon (72, 118 and 163). Ovid writes not to communicate his ideas, nor to make money, but to draw attention to himself and his performance, which remains the most appropriate form of interaction between the author and his audience. Habinek (82, 103–21) suggests that the circulation of written texts, with the corresponding increase in the author’s fame, but without the need for his personal presence, has social consequences. Ovid’s renown enables him to expand his circle in the aristocratic society of Augustan Rome. Uggenti (70) deals with Ovid’s conception of nobilitas in Augustan times through several passages in his corpus, although she focuses on the book 13 of met. Some works assert that individual poetic construction, and the quest to become a poetic authority, operates not only in literary terms but also in social aspects. Hinds (25, 29) attempts to demonstrate how the poet’s individuality is subject to generational poetic characteristics, as in the case of the Silver Age poets and their use of passive acquiescence in eulogy to the emperor, as well as irony as a subversive element (25, 23–9; see Alvar Ezquerra, 71). Myers (92, 201, see nn. 141, 142) proposes several titles on this subject that I will not include here, because they deal with other elegiac poets and with Ovid’s amatory works. Fleischmann (139) talks about kleine Leute in met. The characters that at first seem irrelevant are significant in Ovid and sometimes become protagonists. The study deals with the relations of these kleine Leute in their environment, as well as with the gods, in whom a lack of pietas is observed at times. Additionally, the possible significance of the presence of these characters is considered; they represent the people ruled by those in charge. Von Albrecht (123) refers in similar terms to the concept of populus, while Ovid identifies the populus as a judge. He is aware of the latter’s power and accords it the character of a political resource, rather than a legal one. Pandey (222) studies the use of the adjective publicus in Ovid, to determine that the poet’s understanding of this sphere is republican. At first, the poet celebrates the economic prosperity of Augustus’ reign as beneficial for private citizens, and continues to accept the consequences of the abuse of power. He finishes, from exile, referring to the emperor as a public personality subject to popular sovereignty. The legend of Cipus could have a double moral reading. In comparing Ovid’s treatment (15.561–621) with that of Valerius Maximus (5.6.3), we can conclude that in the Ovidian version not only is Cipus transformed into a triumphant general, but the references that allow him to be inserted into a plebeian tradition are eliminated. In other words, the origin of

338

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

this story is plebeian, and its purpose is to show that relevant plebeian people existed since ancient times, who decided not to exercise or participate in power, for the sake of the common good of Rome (Pandey, 222, 37). On the symbols in Rome, see the work of Engels (138), whose object of study, unfortunately, ends with the republican period. In this work, the veiled distinction between the religious, political and cultural spheres is clear. h. Legislation Balsley (165) considers the legal and juridical vocabulary in met. 3.316–40 and concludes that it is increasingly specific. He notes that the scene is intended as a satire on the invasion of the private sphere by Augustus’ moral legislation. Johnson (68) points out reminiscences of mocking Augustan moral legislation and Roman imperial ideology in the treatment of both the elegiac and epic Venus and Cupid (see also Maier, 110). Rosati (150) identifies in met. 5.210 an allusion, bellum iniustum, which recalls the concept of Ius in bello. i. Exile Although scholars are more or less unanimous that Ovid’s exile is real (Holzberg, 77, 35–7), some discordant voices exist, such as that of Hofmann (26), who considers Ovid’s stay in Tomis a poetic topos (in the same line, see the recent monograph by Bérchez, 206). j. Gender politics Let us remember that the problematic relationship with the purveyors of Roman masculinity (the army, politics, Augustus, the epic genre) converts Ovid into a magnificent object of study (Sharrock, 112, 95). In the dialogue of Ovid’s work, the most representative contemporary elements of the masculine order (Augustus, war, the epic genre, and politics) are always present (Sharrock, 112, 99; see also Alston, 79). As Edwards (54) concludes, feminist and gender studies show the interdependence between Roman constructions of sexuality and their displays of social hierarchy. Men must be tough in order to be branded as men; they must be durus even if love makes them soft (mollis). Women are the passive part of the gender relationship, and this role is not suitable for men (Williams, 95, 7); see the case of Caenis and Caeneus in met. 12.169–209 (Keith, 88, 234). According to Ovid, during the battle between Lapiths and Centaurs, Caeneus is hit by sticks and stones and turns into a bird (met. 12.169–209, 459–535). Virgil informs us that Caeneus is turned back into Caenis in the underworld (Aen. 6.448–9). Emberger (179) recognises not only a gender issue in the passage, but also ideological content that would reflect Octavian’s passage to Augustus in that metamorphosis. However, Augustan ideology tends to trigger the existence of fixed categories in the generic sphere as well (Lindheim, 171). On the practice of homosexual relations in

History, Politics

339

Ovid’s time, see Griffin (14, 15–26), although the main references are to the amatory works. Towards the end of met. we see the gradual disappearance of that female perspective enjoyed in the rest of the poem: the feminine, the personal, and the sexual, ending with the apotheosis of Augustus. The princeps is adopted by Caesar in the dictator’s will, and the feminine role is eliminated from the work, just as imperial ideology tries to prevail upon society beyond simply maintaining patriarchal progression, as seen in met. 15.836, until the appearance of Tiberius, son of Livia and her ex-husband (Sharrock, 112, 103). The same values publicised by the regime are transgressed at the discretion of imperial intent. In Ovid, we can also find issues of sexual identity, although we must assume that the main motivation for composition in Antiquity is not personality, development or gender evolution (Williams, 95, 4–7). In this sense, the most interesting story is that of Iphis (met. 9.666–797), which shows the anxiety experienced on acquiring a gender identity, especially  a masculine one (Wheeler, 93, 57). Sometimes Ovidian characters experience concerns when reaching adult sexuality. On incest, see Janan (41); Redmond (91) notes that in the myths of Byblis (9.450–665) and Myrrha (1.298–502), incest is not seen as a crime but rather as a divine or natural event. k. Virtue and morality The moral reforms imposed by Augustus presumed a remodelling of social structure and Roman values. Galinsky (6) offers a useful summary of the Augustan programme, and collects together the moral legislation of the time. Zanker (30) discusses the importance of reforming the mores maiorum, the moral code that compiles the customs of Roman ancestors. This becomes the paradigm of virtus, which is one of the four values that meets the demands of this moral reform; clementia, iustitia and pietas are the other three. The concept of virtus embodies new values in this context, which also affect the concept of gender, as we have seen above: it even influences the redefinition of the gender boundaries of politics and the domestic sphere. At this time, immorality is conceived as the greatest evil of the past, and the cause of the Rome’s collapse. It coincides with the confusion between the public and private, and a recognition of the interests that reinforce the cultural constructions of gender roles (Richlin, 49). Paschalis (13) observes how Ovid treats with humour the prevailing concept of epic virtus among the Augustan poets in Meleager’s treatment. Ovid associates this term with sexual repression, rape and sex change. Vial (151) identifies pietas in the young Phoenix before the body of his father, a value with clear Augustan reminiscences since it is restored by the princeps and attributed mainly to Aeneas, ancestor of the gens Iulia. The mythological bird represents the poet, who as an artist is above the philosopher Pythagoras and the executive power of the emperor. Martínez Astorino (189) does not believe that the poet surpasses Augustus. Rosati (149, 144) reminds us that the key to understanding the world that met. proposes lies in the Pythagorean words of reality that flow continuously, a concept that is directly opposed to the social paralysis and absolute control desired by the princeps.

340

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

Beagon’s work (152) studies Pythagoras’ speech (met. 15.176–415), concluding that its philosophical content is limited (see “General Aspects of the Metamorphoses: Philosophical content”). The passage includes different aspects that have been compared by Beagon with the political situation in Ovid’s time. The stability and order proposed by the princeps is confronted with the eternal mutability of Pythagoreanism in its entirety. Moreover, Pythagoreanism does not respect the Augustan tendency to remember the past in order to justify the morality of the present. Attempts to control change are haphazard, despite Augustus’ repeated endeavours. In these terms, Fabre-Serris (153) offers us the study of the Philemon and Baucis fable (8.611–724), containing several elements about the divine power favoured by Augustus, who is inclined to use the fable to support the construction of his ideological system. The myth recognises the value of auctoritas, the mos maiorum and the pre-eminence of religion. The silence perceived in some of Ovid’s fables is examined by Davis (208). Freedom of expression in the Augustan age is not the same in the concilium Latinorum of Aeneid 11 as in several of the passages of met. 2 and 3. In Virgil the participants demand a freedom of expression that in met. is limited to the private sphere. The conclusion Davis reaches is that political circumstances change from 20 bce to the first decade ce. Ziogas (207) speaks of possible censorship in the power struggle between Ovid and Augustus. The subject of characters’ loss of voice, in this case Actaeon, as a reflection of the poet’s loss of voice due to his precarious situation in terms of imperial disapproval and the influence of the totalitarian regime on the artist’s creativity, is dealt with by Forbis (73, esp. 248). Wheeler (93, 50–8) notes that the loss of voice in discourse is identified with the loss of humanity and autonomy. On the search for freedom in the myth of Daedalus and Icarus, and the political implications of the passage, see Maier (7), although this theme is treated more broadly by Natoli (216). Ovid’s creation Perilla, a scripta puella, may have faced lack of freedom of expression at the end of the Augustan Principate (Ingleheart, 186). 12. Love 1.  C. J.  Classen, “Liebeskummer; eine Ovidinterpretation (Met. 9, 540–665)”, A&A 27, 1981, 163–78. 2.  M. von Albrecht, “Venus in Ovids Metamorphosen”, Vichiana 11, 1982, 318–31. 3.  J. A.  Rosner-Siegel, “Amor, metamorphosis, and magic. Ovid’s Medea (Met. 7.1–424)”, CJ 77, 1982, 231–43. 4. G. Davis, The death of Procris. “Amor” and the Hunt in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Roma 1983. · Robertson, G&R 32, 1985, 87–8; Le Bonniec, REL 62, 1984, 487; Derouau, LEC 53, 1985, 485; Néraudau, RPh 60, 1986, 154–5; W. Evenepoel, RBPh 65, 1987, 166–8. 5.  B. van Zyl Smit, “Love and metamorphosis in Ovid”, Akroterion  28, 1983, 34–6. 6.  C. R.  Dobinson, The continuation of elegiac themes and attitudes in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Diss. University of Queensland 1984.

Love

341

7.  M. K. Gamel, “Baucis and Philemon. Paradigm or paradox?”, Helios 11, 1984, 117–31. 8.  B. R. Nagle, “Amor, Ira, and Sexual Identity in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, ClAnt 3, 1984, 236–55. 9.  *M. Paschalis, “The demythicization of virtus in Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Love, humor and politics”, in Πανελλήνιο Συμπόσιο Λατινικών Σπουδών. Θέμα: Λογοτεχνία και πολιτική στα χρόνια του Αυγούστου, Γιάννενα, 5–6 Νοέμβριου 1982, Iannina 1984, 51–66. 10.  H. Le Bonniec, “Apollon dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide”, in J. M. Frécaut, D. Porte (eds.), Journées Ovidiennes de Parménie. Actes du colloque sur Ovide, Bruxelles 1985, 145–74 (Collection Latomus 189). 11.  A. Sabot, “Heur et malheur d’un amour conjugal: Céphale et Procris (Ovid, Métamorphoses, VII, 661–862)”, in J. M. Frécaut, D. Porte (eds.), Journées Ovidiennes de Parménie. Actes du colloque sur Ovide (24–26 juin 1983), Bruxelles 1985, 199–214 (Collection Latomus 189). 12.  C. Segal, “Pyramus and Thisbe. Liebestod, monument, and metamorphosis in Ovid, Beroul, Shakespeare, and some others”, AFLNice 50, 1985, 387–99 = “Piramo e Tisbe: Liebestod, monumento e metamorfosi in Ovidio, Béroul, Shakespeare e altri”, in C. Segal, Ovidio e la poesia del mito. Saggi sulle Metamorfosi, Vicenza 1991, 165–84. 13.  *F. Ahlheid, “De liefde van Cephalus en Procris”, Lampas 19, 1986, 261–71. 14.  J. Fabre, “La chasse amoureuse: A propos de l’épisode de Céphale et Procris (Met. VII, 690–862), REL 66, 1988, 122–38. 15.  M. Janan, “The book of good love? Design versus desire in Metamorphoses 10”, Ramus 17, 1988, 110–37. 16.  B. R. Nagle, “A Trio of Love-Triangles in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Arethusa 2, 1988, 75–98. 17.  B. R. Nagle, “Erotic pursuit and narrative seduction in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Ramus 17, 1988, 32–51. 18.  E. A. Schmidt, “Ovids Kunst der Themenführung in den Metamorphosen”, in M. von Albrecht, W. Schubert (eds.), Musik und Dichtung. Neue Forschungsbeiträge, Viktor Pöschl zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet, Frankfurt 1990, 195–208 (Quellen und Studien zur Musikgeschichte von der antike bis in die Gegenwart 23). 19.  M. P. Wilhelm, “The Medeas of Euripides, Apollonius and Ovid”, AugAge 10, 1990/92, 43–57. 20.  A. H. F. Griffin, “Married Bliss, Incest, and Wish Fulfilment: Three Episodes in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Classicum 9, 1993, 35–40. 21.  M. von Albrecht, “Orfeo en Virgilio y Ovidio”, Myrtia 10, 1995, 17–33 22.  R. Gentilcore, “The lanscape of desire: the tale of Pomona and Vertumnus in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Phoenix 49, 1995, 110–20.

342

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

23.  W. R. Johnson, “Vertumnus in love”, CPh 92, 1997, 367–75. 24. J. Fabre-Serris, Mythologie et littérature à Rome. La réécriture des mythes aux Iers siècles avant et après J.-C., Lausanne 1998. · F. Cupaiolo, BStudLat 29, 1999, 223–4; B. Powell, BMCRev 1999.09.06; B. Rochette, Kernos 13, 2000, 310–13; R. Le Mer, Archives de sciences sociales des religions 108, 1999, 72–3. 25. H.  Müller-Reineke, Liebesbeziehungen in Ovids Metamorphosen und ihr Einfluss auf den Roman des Apuleius, Göttingen 1998. · V.  Hunink, BMCRev 1999.05.02; Mª C. Álvarez Morán, Gnomon 74, 2002, 211–15; M. Lobe, Gymnasium 109, 2002, 170–2. 26.  A. Pérez Vega, “Ovid, on the birth of love (Met. I 452 ff.)”, Exemplaria 2, 1998, 15–23. 27.  Mª C. Álvarez Morán, R. Mª Iglesias Montiel, “Filemón y Baucis”, in E. Fer­ nández de Mier, F. Piñero (eds.), Amores míticos, Madrid 1999, 117–35 (= SFulg 16, 2006, 123–37). 28.  J.  Thomas, “L’imaginaire de l’amour chez les latins”, Euphrosyne 27, 1999, 31–50. 29.  S. Raval, “A lover’s discourse: Byblis in Metamorphoses 9”, Arethusa 34, 2001, 285–311. 30.  D. T. Pintabone, “Ovid’s Iphis and Ianthe: When Girls Won’t Be Girls”, in N. S. Rabinowitz, L.  Auanger (eds.), Among Women. From the Homosocial to the Homoerotic in the Ancient World, Austin, TX, 2002, 256–85. 31.  A. Bettenworth, “Ovid, Apollonios und Sappho: Die Liebessymptomatik der Medea in Ov. Met. 7,74–88”, Philologus 147, 2003, 101–13. 32.  C. U.  Merriam, “Acrior est nostra plusque furoris habet: Erotic Madness of Women in Latin Poetry”, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History XI, Bruxelles 2003, 177–85 (Collection Latomus 272). 33.  J. B. DeBrohun, “Centaurs in love and war: Cyllarus and Hylonome in Ovid’s ­Metamorphoses 12.393–428”, AJPh 125, 2004, 417–52. 34. E. Fantham, Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Oxford 2004. 35. J.  Ringleben, Woran stirbt Narziss?: Widerhall und Spiegelbild als tödlicher Schein: zum Liebestod von Echo und Narziss (Ovid. Metam. III. 339–510), Göttingen 2004 (Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. 1, Philologisch-Historische Klasse 10). 36.  S. Boehringer, “Iphis était une femme (Ovide, Mét. 9, 666–797)”, in F. Lestringant et al. (eds.), Liber amicorum. Mélanges sur la littérature antique et moderne à la mémoire de Jean-Pierre Néraudau, Paris 2005, 83–94 (Colloques, congrès et conférences sur la Renaissance 48). · P.  Hummel, BiblH&R 68, 2006, 379–80; E. Raymond, Réforme, Humanisme, Renaissance 67, 2008, 183–5; B. Gilles, RBPh 87, 2009, 148; W. Helmich, ZRPh 125, 2009, 715–19. 37.  K. Ormand, “Impossible Lesbians in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, in R. Ancona, E. Greene (eds.), Gendered Dynamics in Latin Love Poetry, Baltimore 2005, 79–110.

Love

343

38. *T.  Krüger, Die Liebesverhältnisse der olympischen Götter mit sterblichen Frauen. Strukturanalyse und Interpretation, Hamburg 2005 (Germanistik 29). · H. Müller, HistLit 4, 2006, 74–6. 39.  *M. Labate, “Amore che trasforma: dinamiche dell’eros nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio”, in O.  Casazza, R.  Gennaioli (eds.), Mythologica et Erotica. Arte  e cultura dall’antichità al XVIII secolo, Livorno 2005, 28–39. 40. V. Rimell, Ovid’s Lovers. Desire, Difference and the Poetic Imagination, Cambridge 2006. · J. Ingleheart, BMCRev 2007.04.61. 41.  J.  Fabre-Serris, “La notion de voluptas chez Lucrèce et sa réception dans la poésie érotique romaine (Virgile, Buc. 2; Géorg. 3; Properce, 1,10; Ovide, Hér. 18; Ars; Mét. 4)”, in L. Boulègue, C. Lévy (eds.), Hédonismes: penser et dire le plaisir dans l’Anti‑ quité et à la Renaissance, Villeneuve-d’Ascq 2007, 141–59 (Cahiers de philologie 23). 42.  E. Caballero de del Sastre, “Foedus y fides en el relato de Céfalo”, in R. P. Buzón et. al. (eds.), Docenda. Homenaje a Gerardo H. Pagés, Buenos Aires 2008, 145–56. 43.  G. Rosati, “Le Metamorfosi di Ovidio, un’epica del desiderio”, in R. Uglione (ed.), Atti del convegno nazionale di studi Arma virumque cano… L’epica dei Greci e dei Romani (Torino, 23–24 aprile 2007), Alessandria 2008, 139–57. 44.  Mª C. Álvarez Morán, R. Mª Iglesias Montiel, “El amor, soporte de la metamorfosis en la poética ovidiana”, in T. Arcos Pereira, J. Fernández López, F. Moya del Baño (eds.), Pectora mulcet. Estudios de retórica y oratoria latinas, Calahorra 2009, I, 261–75 (Quintiliano de retórica y comunicación 10). 45.  I.  Colpo, “Dèi  e uomini amano”, in I.  Colpo, F.  Ghedini, G.  Salvo (eds.), Metamorfosi. Miti d’amore e di vendetta nel mondo romano. Padova, Centro di Ateneo per i Musei (CAM), 29 settembre – 1 dicembre 2012, Padova 2012, 87–99. 46.  F.  Ghedini, “Ovidio  e il pantheon augusteo: Apollo nelle Metamorfosi”, Paideia 67, 2012, 145–64. 47.  G. Rosati, “Gli amori degli dei nelle Metamorfosi”, in Mª C. Álvarez Morán, R. Mª Iglesias Montiel (eds.), Y el mito se hizo poesía, Madrid 2012, 197–209. 48.  M.  Bauer, “Das A und O der Liebe: Eros, Ironie und Elegie von Ovid bis Antonioni”, in H. Harich-Schwarzbauer, A. Honold (eds.), Carmen perpetuum. Ovids Metamorphosen in der Weltliteratur, Basel 2013, 293–318. 49.  R. Henneböhl, “testis abest somno, nec abest imitata voluptas: Byblis als Beispiel psychologischer Darstellung bei Ovid”, AU 56, 2013, 38–51. 50.  D.  Lateiner, “Poetic Doubling Effects in Ovid’s “Ceyx and Alcyone” (Met. XI)”, in D.  Lateiner, B. K.  Gold, J.  Perkins (eds.), Roman literature, gender, and reception: domina illustris, London-New York 2013, 53–73 (Routledge monographs in classical studies 13) · J. Jope, BMCRev 2013.10.19; T. Ramsby, AJPh 135, 682–5. 51.  C. Schmitz, “Liebeserklärungen: zum narrativen Potential in Ovids Metamorphosen”, Gymnasium 120, 2013, 139–67.

344

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

Since love is a recurrent theme in met., it also appears in many of the works which study and discuss the Ovidian epic. Here we collect a series of titles in which the concept of Ovidian love, and stories in which it plays a central role, is analysed. Gianpiero Rosati (43, esp. 148–57) explores the presence of love in Ovid’s anomalous epic: he defines it as “una tensione fra un soggetto desiderante  e un oggetto desiderato” (152). Amorous relations are not often reciprocal and are almost always asymmetric. A god (invariably male) falls in love with a mortal or a nymph; gods are active protagonists, while women are passive agents. In the words of Rosati: “Ovidio visualizza questa asimmetria nella forma dell’inseguimento-fuga” (153). These loves, always violent, are  a show of the gods’ power and strength. In  a previous work, Rosati (47) repeats the same ideas in a more concise way and assesses the success of these types of affairs in the visual culture of the Roman world. Some of these ideas have already been outlined by Betty Nagle (8), whose study is based on how the behaviour of gods and goddesses differs, in terms of love and vengeance. A god’s love is destructive so, when necessary, he resorts to force in order to achieve his objective. According to Nagle, goddesses “interpret erotic rejection as an insult to their divinity which must be punished” (242). Some years later, Nagle (17) reflects on the connection between tales of erotic pursuit, fictional narrators and audiences. The chapter by Ernst Schmidt (18) consists of three parts. In the first, he examines myths which recount the creation of man (195–201). After this, in “Der Triumph der Liebe” (202–5), he shows how love extends further, affecting Apollo (met. 1), Pluto (met. 5) and Venus herself (met. 10). Then he compiles a catalogue of stories of apotheosis (205–8), a theme which often originates in love stories (207). Joël Thomas (28) analyses a tripartite vision of love in 1st c. bce Rome: the old institutional conception; the Epicurean or Platonic(-Pythagorean) visions, imported from the Greek world; and the new, transgressive image of an individualist love which emerges from the works of e.g. Catullus, Tibullus, Propertius and Ovid, and which will have a strong influence on the European conception of love. Hendrik Müller-Reineke (25) offers an overall vision of the amorous relations in which gods and humans are involved; in most of them, the destructive power of love can be found. Müller-Reineke describes the psychological and physical processes suffered by lovers, and analyses the use of metaphor, and the different narrative perspectives employed in these stories. Thorsten Krüger’s study (38) is a revised version of his doctoral thesis. He offers an analysis and a structural interpretation of the amorous relations between gods and mortal women. Using selected passages from Homer, Hesiod, Euripides and Ovid, he comes to the conclusion that each poet has his own intentions. Elaine Fantham (34) also reviews some love stories: in chapter 6, “Aspects of love” (74–88), she draws links between them, and occasionally alludes to other versions and works which may have inspired Ovid. Fantham starts with the story of Medea (74–6),  a model for what will be  a series of women in love, continuing with the tales of Cyparissus and Hyacinthus (76–8), and the myths of Myrrha (78–80) and of Venus and Adonis (80–2). The author finishes with a commentary on stories of mutual married love (82–7), in which the poet “could see no happier end than a shared transformation from human consciousness” (87).

Love

345

Mario Labate (39) contributed to the catalogue of the exhibition Mythologica et Erotica. Arte  e Cultura dall’antichit­à al XVIII secolo. Labate examines love stories in met. as one of the classical sources for art in the 18th century. Another exhibition catalogue, Metamorfosi. Miti d’amore e di vendetta nel mondo romano, has a chapter in which Isabella Colpo (45) recalls the different types of amatory relations featured in met., and the roles which metamorphosis plays in them (87–9). Then she analyses how these myths were received in the Roman era (89–99). Matthias Bauer (48) examines the trilogy made up of L’avventura (1960), La notte (1961) and L’eclisse (1962) by film director Michelangelo Antonioni, in the light of the ideas about love and metamorphosis that can be seen in the corpus Ovidianum. Bauer describes Eros from met. as a force that provokes catastrophes (293) and that brings people to a tragic end, usually suffering a metamorphosis (294). The article by Christine Schmitz (51) focuses on declarations of love, made at climactic moments, which normally lead to losing the desired one. A narrative model, which Ovid frequently modifies, can be seen in the words dedicated by Apollo to Daphne (met. 1). The changes are due to obstacles encountered by the lover: communication challenges, incestuous relations, or love triangles. Betty Nagle’s article (16) centres on three love-triangle stories (met. 13.750–897 GalateaAcis-Polyphemus; 13.898–14.69 Glaucus-Scylla-Circe; 14.320–434 Picus-Canens-Circe): she establishes the connection between the erotic and the narrative. In these tales, the characters play shifting roles in both the erotic and the narrative situations. For Michael Paschalis (9) Ovid connects virtus with sexual repression, rape and sex change, because he views it both as a qualification of the male lover, and as a cause of problems in amorous relations. The article by Carol Merriam (32) revolves around female characters in Latin literature who are in love and even possessed (Ovid uses the idea of possession in his description of Medea in met. 7), and are often depicted as bacchantes (such as Byblis in met. 9.635–51). Michael von Albrecht (2) reviews the passages in which Venus features, allowing him to analyse her facets as a goddess of sensual love, divine vengeance, and “erlösende und sorgende Mutter”. The character evolves and extends her power to the three kingdoms of the cosmos. At the same time, von Albrecht points out the relevance of this goddess and her descendants to the tripartite structure of the poem. Gregson Davis (4) analyses the myths in which amor and venatio are combined, two opposite and incompatible spheres: ‘loving’ is couched in terms of a ‘non-hunting’ posture (e.g. 96). Ovid, however, portrays Cephalus as “an ambivalent amator-venator” (126), while his synergetic life provokes domestic disequilibrium. The death of Procris also serves to confirm the hunt / love opposition (146). Jacqueline Fabre (14) returns to the Davis’ thesis, focusing on the commentary of hunting as an amorous metaphor (128–9) and the consequences of combining hunting, love and sexuality. Later, Fabre-Serris (24) in chapter 4, “Débats sur l’amour au travers des mythes” (102–22), devotes a section to met. (116–22), where “[l]’amour est recherche du Même et peur de l’altérité” (116). After this statement, she analyses the myth of Narcissus, and tales in which young characters (especially hunter women) reject love.

346

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

The study by Joachim Ringleben (35) focuses on the tales of Echo and Narcissus (met. 3.339–510). The author establishes links between the two stories (e.g. both Echo’s love for Narcissus and the denouement of her episode are comparable to the young man’s love for himself and his terrible destiny) and claims that the first is essential for understanding the second (esp. 6–11, 24, 26–8). Ringleben also finds similarities and contrasts between the tales of Narcissus and that of Pygmalion (met. 10; pp. 18–21). The author explores the behaviour and reactions of Narcissus, and considers the illusory, the imaginary, the apparent, the impossible, and the useless nature of his desire and love, which the author defines as aporetic love. This love is determined by other scenes in the same story: the rape of Liriope, and Tiresias’ prophecy (11–26). During his commentary, Ringleben employs numerous concepts linked to identity and otherness. The thesis of Christopher Dobinson (6) is that met. “was written with the same fundamental attitudes which characterized Ovid’s earlier poetry” (135). Love, which reigns supreme in the world of elegiac poetry, is also a central theme in met. (esp. 6–7). The first chapter (3–25) is dedicated to the tale of Apollo and Daphne, where “love is the dominant motivating factor behind much of the narrative” (22). The author justifies Apollo’s failure by his refusal to recognise the superior power of love (25). The third chapter (61–99) addresses jealousy and divine justice: using commentaries on various myths, Dobinson shows that Juno in met. is “an exemplar of the destructive futility of amatory jealousy” (89). In the fourth and final chapter (100–35), the author claims that, although Ovid deals with the stories of mutual and enduring love (Pyramus-Thisbe, Cephalus-Procris, Ceix-Alcyone) in a largely serious way, whimsy and humour are also present in these tales. Betine van Zyl Smit (5) briefly examines six stories which combine love (in couples, paternal, and self-love) and metamorphosis, and concludes that the theme of love is central to them. Álvarez Morán and Iglesias Montiel (44) argue that Ovid manipulates Love (both the deity and the sentiment) to make it into a tool of transformation in his poetry (262): “… gracias a su magistral manipulación de Amor y del sentimiento amoroso, la poesía se elevará y dejará de ser levis para convertirse en sublimis” (267). As examples of this stance, they discuss the tales of Apollo and Daphne (263–8) and of Vertumnus (268–75). Henri Le Bonniec (10) discusses the myths in which Apollo appears in order to show the multiple images of the god presented by the poet. In his representation of a violent and vengeful Apollo, Ovid adheres to the epic and homeric tradition (145, 156), while in tales of love, he offers a highly human and original vision of the deity (145, 167, 171). Through the commentary on the Niobe and Marsyas stories (met. 6), Le Bonniec demonstrates how Ovid avoids characterising Apollo as implacable, and how the poet allows the god extenuating circumstances (150–2, 155). From the Daphne tale (met. 1), he points out the absolution of guilt attributed to Apollo, and the shift from humour to pathos. On other occasions, however, Ovid leaves aside pathos and turns to comedy (met. 2: Coronis), or even to black humour (Marsyas). In Le Bonniec’s opinion, the tales of homosexual love (met. 10: Cyparissus, Hyacinthus) are treated with shame and sentimentality. Le Bonniec alludes to other versions of

Love

347

these stories (vid. e.g. 154–5, 156 nn. 33–4, 170–1) very briefly at certain points, and relates specific passages to other lines of Ovid, both from met. and from ars. The tales in which Apollo makes an appearance are classified by Francesca Ghedini (46) into stories of love (Daphne, Coronis, Cyparissus, Hyacinthus, Chione, Sybilla), and of vengeance. In the tales of heterosexual love, a highly negative image is shown of the god, as he takes vengeance on his lovers. In the tales of homosexual love, although the god is reciprocated in love, the endings are equally tragic – with the result that the god expresses anger and pain, which incites him to behave inappropriately for a divinity. The author examines these tales and briefly alludes to their literary and iconographic traditions. Ana Pérez Vega (26) highlights the elegiac tone of the Apollo and Daphne tale, and relates the theme of love and hate to the story that frames their myth – the origins of the world (16). She considers Apollo to be representative of an age that thirsts for love (17). Charles Segal (12) reflects on the relation between the spatial world, communication, and Liebestod in the Pyramus and Thisbe episode (met. 4). Jacqueline Fabre-Serris (41) maintains that in the prologue to book 1, Lucretius portrays voluptas or Venus as sexual desire, while in book 4, the Latin poet depicts love as a “construction mentale” focused on the object of desire, which can lead to an incurable disease (esp. 145). The author examines the reception of these Lucretian elements in the text of Virgil, Propertius and Ovid. From met. she selects the myth of Salmacis and Hermaphroditus (met. 4), because it depicts what is, according to Lucretius’ work, “le phantasme secret des amants: le passage de deux corps à un seul” (159). Alan Griffin (20) chooses three tales which exemplify the variety of styles and themes in met.: Philemon and Baucis, an example of married bliss; Byblis, an instance of incestuous love; and Pygmalion, a story of wish-fulfilment in which Ovid captures that perfect love which cannot exist. Judith A. Rosner-Siegel (3) affirms that metamorphosis and amor are two main themes in met. After distinguishing various types of love, and addressing the tendency towards unsuccessful love in epic (232–3), she shows how Ovid uses the themes of amor and transformation in his version of the Medea myth (met. 7), and how he employs the literary motif of magic to illustrate and emphasise his theme and purpose. Medea’s feelings towards Jason are qualified as “improper love” (235). Rosner-Siegel concludes that “… Medea has changed from woman to witch, as love is transformed to cruelty and hate, piety to impiety, filial devotion to patricide” (241). Michelle Wilhelm (19, 54–6) takes  a similar view: for her, the character of Medea evolves from a naive young princess into an evil witch who destroys everyone who crosses her path, and whose actions are both inexplicable and inhuman; indeed, the dehumanizing effects of love are the cause of Medea’s metamorphosis. Anja Bettenworth (31) compares the meeting of Jason and Medea in the temple of Hecate with the story’s source, A. R. 3. Several differences, above all the symptoms of love, are caused by the influence of Sappho (fr. 31 Voigt). Augustin Sabot (11) considers the various versions of the Cephalus and Procris story (201–4), and believes that the silences and modifications introduced by Ovid in

348

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

met. 7 are intended to remove all the unfavourable events from Procris’ character. In this way, she is transformed into a model of conjugal fidelity, exalting the mutual love between married couple, and emphasising the institutional aspect of marital affection (esp. 204–8). At the same time, the story in met. suggests that constantly happy amorous relations do not exist (210). Frederic Ahlheid (13) states that both parts of the Cephalus and Procris love story (7.694–758, 796–842) should be examined together, as well as the secondary story introduced in between, in order to be able to better appreciate the tragic aspect. Elisabeth Caballero de del Sastre (42) asserts that in this story of marital love “el tema del foedus se desliza entre el pacto inter cives o viros y el pacto inter amatores” (145). An ambiguity between epic and elegy is thereby introduced. The article by Joachim Classen (1) compares the passage from Verg. Aen. 4.1–73 with the tale of Byblis (met. 9) to show “die dichterische Individualität” of Ovid. The poet from Sulmona considers each phase of love and its psychological implications. Rudolf Henneböhl (49) also examines the psychology of Byblis and how her love grows, until she resolves to confess her feelings to her brother in  a letter. The psychological conflict is analysed with regards to Freud’s psychic system. Henneböhl provides material for teacher and students to study the passage, enabling them to understand the complex emotional make-up of this heroine. Shilpa Raval (29) argues that in the Byblis episode, Ovid suggests that the process of ‘being in love’ is a discursively constructed experience, i. e. “the love is a textual construct” (286). Byblis’ speech is based entirely on elegiac models, and reveals the gendered relations of elegy (esp. 291–2). Caunus’ rejection of Byblis, along with her subsequent metamorphosis, is proof of the elegiac model’s failure as a vehicle for amatory persuasion (307). For Mary Kay Gamel (7), the aim of the Philemon and Baucis tale (met. 8) is to question the conventional strategies of narration and the traditional ethical codes. The story underlines the equality between the couple, and the mutuality of their relationship. The characters describe their marriage not as a civil institution, but as an emotional experience (124), where love is the real source of their pietas (128). Álvarez Morán and Iglesias Montiel (27) present this marriage as a paradigm of love in old age, and point out the pietas in coniugem and the pietas in deos that they share with Deucalion and Pyrrha (130–1). Diane Pintabone (30) carries out an in-depth study of the Iphis and Ianthe myth (met. 9). She offers  a brief review of works about female same-sex desire (256–9), analyses the characters who play leading roles in Ovidian myths and the Iphis’ monologue (261–75), reflects on the implications of gender, sexuality and love and suggests various interpretations of the story (275–81). In her assessment of the young couple’s love, Pintabone states that “[b]y having Iphis remain  a ‘female-minded’ woman despite her upbringing as a male …, Ovid suggest that the love occurs naturally and not as a result of a cultural construct of gender and sex” (278). However, the ending of the story, with a heterosexual married couple, leaves no doubt that “mutual and erotic love between women, while not absolutely condemned, has no place” (281). Kirk Ormand (37) also examines this tale, starting with a general overview, followed by a reflection on how sexual roles in Rome may have been, and on female homoeroticism (80–7).

Love

349

After this, he takes up the tale of Iphis and Ianthe, and highlights the impossibility of their love “because there is no asymmetry of power between them” (92). Finally, Ormand argues that female deviance has never been of primary concern in history, but rather masculinity or lack thereof (99). Sandra Boehringer (36) compares the story of Iphis with that of Leucippus (Ant. Lib. 17) and focuses on the feminisation of the Ovidian character: his purpose in emphasising this aspect is to allude to the multiple facets of love (91). From Victoria Rimell’s book (40), chapter 3 (104–22), where she examines met. 10.1–11.84, is interesting. Her starting point is line 10.57 flexit amans oculos, interpreted “as a culminating mythologization of the ‘look between lovers’” (104). Micaela Janan (15) studies the interconnection between identity, auctoritas (authorship / authority) and language in the tale of Orpheus, and the stories he recounts. She links all three foci to desire and eros. Love is the unifying theme in his song: “Orpheus’ initial focus upon differentiating two types of eros – ‘good’ boy love vs. ‘bad’ female passion – is quickly displaced by an insistent curiosity about the nature of love per se” (110). Rimell maintains that “death and silence are the only ‘solutions’ to eros, which remains enigmatically uncontrollable” (133). Michael von Albrecht (21) compares Ovid’s version of the Orpheus myth with the one in Verg. georg. 4. In met. the poetic-thematic creation of the speech rests on the contrast of the couples (Pluto-Proserpina, Orpheus-Eurydice) who are connected by two main themes: death and love (27–28). In both cases, Orpheus’ failure lies in loving too much, even though love has different connotations in the two poets in different. In met. Orpheus is the character who symbolises lover (31), and his love implies features of ethos (29). In the tale of Ceyx and Alcyone (met. 11), Donald Lateiner (50) defends that Ovid “supplies a mordant critique of an obsessive, suspicious and sterile conjugal love” (54). The poet satirises the sentimental “togetherness” of love idylls, and he suggests the danger of obliterating useful boundaries in marriage. To support his posture, Lateiner examines the example of doubling tropes in poetic expressiveness. Jeri DeBrohun (33) presents the story of Cyllarus and Hylonome (met. 12.393–428) as an example of mutual love (419) or conjugal love (439), and as a story “typical of lyric-elegiac love poetry” (432; see also p. 441). The author interprets “the final union of the couple in death as a consummation of their marriage” (445). Based on an analysis of diction, imagery, and narrative strategies, as well as on the presence of deception, Roxanne Gentilcore (22) sees the tale of Vertumnus and Pomona (met. 14) as an example of seduction rather than of mutual love. In her view, in the inset tale (Iphis-Anaxarete), Ovid “ridicules obsessive love”, and his message is “the destructive power of love and the dangers of all-consuming passion” (118). Behind Vertumnus’ behaviour, Ralph Johnson (23) perceives  a god genuinely in love. He interprets this story as “a romantic comedy” (372) in which Pomona knows what Vertumnus is trying to do, and allows herself to be won over. Due to the lack of “seriousness”, the passage “offers a wider subversion of universal history, its progresses and its finalities” (374).

350

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

13. Sexuality 1.  J. González Vázquez, “Arethuse: Chant to Virginity or Invitation to Sensuality?”, Mosaic 12.2, 1981, 74–92. 2. G. Davis, The death of Procris. “Amor” and the Hunt in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Roma 1983. 3.  A. La Penna, “La parola translucida di Ovidio. Sull’episodio di Ermafrodito, Met. IV 285–388”, Vichiana 12, 1983, 235–43. 4.  L. C. Curran, “Rape and rape victims in the Metamorphoses”, in J. Peradotto, J. P. Sullivan (eds.), Women in the ancient world: the Arethusa papers, Albany 1984, 263–84 (= Arethusa 11, 1978, 213–41). 5.  C. R. Dobinson, The Continuation of Elegiac Themes and Attitudes in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, M. A. thesis, University of Queensland 1984. 6.  *M. Paschalis, “The demythicization of virtus in Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Love, humor and politics”, in Πανελλήνιο Συμπόσιο Λατινικών Σπουδών. Θέμα: Λογοτεχνία και πολιτική στα χρόνια του Αυγούστου, Γιάννενα, 5–6 Νοέμβριου 1982, Iannina 1984, 51–66. 7.  J.  Fabre, “La chasse amoureuse: A propos de l’épisode de Céphale et Procris (Met. VII, 690–862)”, REL 66, 1988, 122–38. 8.  G. Nugent, “This Sex Which Is Not One: De-Constructing Ovid’s Hermaphrodite”, Differences 2, 1990, 160–85. 9.  J. Heath, “Diana’s Understanding of Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, CJ 86, 1990/91, 233–43. 10.  M. Janan, “‘The Labyrinth and the Mirror’: Incest and Influence in Metamorphoses 9”, Arethusa 24, 1991, 239–56. 11.  A. R. Sharrock, “Womanufacture”, JRS 81, 1991, 36–49. 12.  A. R. Sharrock, “The Love of Creation”, Ramus 20, 1991, 169–82. 13.  A.  Richlin, “Reading Ovid’s Rapes”, in A.  Richlin (ed.), Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome, Oxford 1992, 158–79. 14.  N. A. DeBloois, Reluctant Brides, Deadly Bridegrooms: Ovid’s Transformation of the Marriage of Death, Diss. Univ. of Iowa 1994. 15. G. Doblhofer, Vergewaltigung in der Antike, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1994 (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 46). · E.  Monroe Harris, CR 46, 1996, 327–9; E.  Fantham, Gnomon 70, 1998, 4–7; D.  Konstan, Religious Studies Review 24, 1998, 412–3; K. Thraede, Klio 80, 1998, 260–2. 16.  C. A.  Francese, Parthenius of Nicaea and Roman Poetry, Frankfurt a. M.-­ Berlin-Bern-Bruxelles-New York-Oxford-Wien 1996 (Studien zur klassischen Philologie 126). 17.  W. R. Johnson, “Vertumnus in love”, CPh 92, 1997, 367–75. 18.  J. F.  Makowski, “Bisexual Orpheus: pederasty and parody in Ovid”, CJ 92, 1996/97, 25–38.

Sexuality

351

19.  S. M. Wheeler, “Changing names: the miracle of Iphis in Ovid Metamorphoses 9”, Phoenix 51, 1997, 190–202. 20. S. Raval, Pudibunda ora: gender, sexuality, and language in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Diss. Brown University, Providence (R. I.), 1998. 21.  M.  Ruiz Sánchez, “Figuras del deseo: arte de la variación en Marcial y en Ovidio”, CFC(L) 14, 1998, 93–113. 22.  M. Robinson, “Salmacis and Hermaphoditus: When Two Become One (Ovid, Met. 4.285–388)”, CQ 49, 1999, 212–23. 23. D. Fowler, Roman Constructions. Reading in Postmodern Latin, Oxford 2000. · W. S. Anderson, BMCRev 2000.11.26. 24.  S. Raval, “A lover’s discourse: Byblis in Metamorphoses 9”, Arethusa 34, 2001, 285–311. 25.  P. J. Jones, “Aversion Reversed: Ovid’s Pomona and Her Roman Models”, CW 94, 2000/02, 361–76. 26.  K. Fellner, “Frauenbilder in den Metamorphosen. Eine kritische Annäherung an die Autorperspektive in Ovids Daphne-Mythos”, AU 45, 2002, 64–71. 27.  P. K.  Joplin, “The Voice of the Shuttle Is Ours”, in L. K.  McClure (ed.), Sexuality and Gender in the Classical World, Oxford, UK-Malen, MA, 2002, 259–92 (= Stanford Literature Review 1, 1984, 23–53). 28.  A. Sharrock, “Gender and Sexuality”, in P. Hardie, The Cambridge Companion to Ovid, Cambridge 2002, 95–107. 29.  J. B. DeBrohun, “Centaurs in love and war: Cyllarus and Hylonome in Ovid’s Metamorphoses 12.393–428”, AJPh 125, 2004, 417–52. 30. E. Fantham, Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Oxford 2004. 31.  P. Hardie, “Approximative similes in Ovid: incest and doubling”, Dyctinna 1, 2004, 83–122. 32.  S. Boehringer, “Iphis était une femme (Ovide, Mét. 9, 666–797)”, in F. Lestrin­ gant et al. (eds.), Liber amicorum. Mélanges sur la littérature antique et moderne à la mémoire de Jean-Pierre Néraudau, Paris 2005, 83–94 (Colloques, congrès et conférences sur la Renaissance 48). ·  P.  Hummel, BiblH&R 68, 2006, 379–80; E. Raymond, Réforme, Humanisme, Renaissance 67, 2008, 183–5; B. Gilles, RBPh 87, 2009, 148; W. Helmich, ZRPh 125, 2009, 715–19. 33.  L.  Chappuis Sandoz, “Les puellae des Métamorphoses d’Ovide: des jeunes femmes de mauvais genre?”, LEC 73, 2005, 319–57. 34.  J. Fabre-Serris, “Histoires d’inceste et de furor dans les Métamorphoses 9 et dans le chant en catalogue d’Orphée: une réponse d’Ovide au livre 4 des Géorgiques”, Dictynna 2, 2005, sine pagina. 35.  R.  Fletcher, “Or such as Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, in R. L.  Hunter (ed.), The Hesiodic Catalogue of women. Constructions and Reconstructions, Cambridge-New York 2005, 299–319.

352

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

36.  J. Walker, “Before the Name: Ovid’s Deformulated Lesbianism”, CompLit 58, 2006, 205–22. 37.  J.  Fabre-Serris, “Ovide lecteur de Parthénios de Nicée”, in A.  Zucker (ed.), Littérature et érotisme dans les Passions d’amour de Parthénios de Nicée. Actes du colloque de Nice. 31 mai 2006, Grenoble 2008, 189–205. 38.  A. M. Keith, “Sexuality and Gender”, in P. E. Knox (ed.), Companion to Ovid, Maden, MA, 2009, 355–69. 39.  V. Zajko, “‘Listening with’ Ovid: Intersexuality, Queer Theory, and the Myth of Hermaphroditus and Salmacis”, Helios 36, 2009, 175–202. 40.  F. Cairns, “The genre ‘oaristys’”, WS 123, 2010, 101–29. 41.  J. Fabre-Serris, “Le cycle thébain des Métamorphoses: un exemple de mythographie genrée?”, Eugesta 1, 2010, 99–120. 42.  J. A. Westerhold, Tragic desire: Phaedra and her heirs in Ovid, Diss. University of Toronto 2011. 43.  M.  Vandersmissen, “L’inceste dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide, un thème emprunté à Parthénios de Nicée?”, Latomus 71, 2012, 1015–25. 44.  F.  Lecocq, “‘Le sexe incertain’ du phénix: de la zoologie à la théologie”, in L. Gosserez (ed.), Le phénix et son autre. Poétique d’un mythe des origines au XVIe siècle, Rennes 2013, 187–210. 45.  K.  Heldmann, “Jupiters Nebeldecke und die Wolke des Zeus: Ovids Io-­ Erzählung (met. 1,588–750) und ihr literarhistorischer Kontext”, Hermes 142, 2014, 326–48. Sexuality and its different variations have a strong presence in met. For this reason, we review here works and articles which together offer a comprehensive view of this topic, and which analyse its presence in specific myths. Leo Curran (4) provides  a broad review of the tales in met. in which  a rape is attempted or committed. He emphasises the violence and ferocity of exaggerated male sexuality, which he contrasts with the weakness, vulnerability and passivity of women. Rape entails psychological consequences for the victim (terror, dehumanization); furthermore, to dramatise the horror, Ovid resorts to the motif of flight and pursuit, of chase and attempt to escape. In terms of the representation of rape in met., Curran states that “rape is less an act of sexual passion than of aggression and that erotic gratification is secondary to the rapist’s desire to dominate physically, to humiliate, and to degrade” (283). Christopher Dobinson (5) asserts that, in met., Ovid maintains the same fundamental attitudes which characterise his elegiac poetry. In the second chapter (26–60), he reflects on the poet’s attitude towards rape, which he does not condemn implicitly. The second part of this chapter (33–41) is dedicated to the landscape and its relation to rape; in the following one (41–60) he examines various episodes of violation, rejecting Charles Segal’s suggestion (Landscape in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, 1969, 93) of understanding met. as an “an epic of rape”

Sexuality

353

(59–60). To interpret the scenes of rape in met., Amy Richlin (13) follows a route through two theoretical frames: the pornographic model and the cross-sex fantasy model. The pornographic model allows us to take Ovid’s rapes literally, while the cross-sex fantasy model values the audience’s similar experiences, who also attended pantomime performances. The author makes the following statements: “Pantomime sets Ovid’s rapes in 3-D” (174) and “perhaps this transformative poem derives its poetry from motion, the motion of dance” (175). Richlin interprets the rapes as a highly appropriate element for met., since they involve the dissolution of boundaries between body, genus, gender, and genre (176). The author focuses on the stories of Daphne, Philomela, Myrrha and Hermaphroditus. From her analysis, we can obtain the following conclusions: Ovid’s rapes are not sexually explicit; sometimes (such as Philomela) the story has been construed as a sympathetic picture of a rape and its aftermath; and in many cases (for example Myrrha), illicit sexuality is the catalyst for metamorphosis: “It is as if there were an analogic or developmental relationship between rape and mutilation” (165). The book by Georg Doblhofer (15) is a revised version of his thesis, in which he studies the rape, and the consequences for the victim and for her immediate family, as addressed in texts stretching from Homer to the 3th c. ce. In chapter 3, “Vergewaltigung und die Folgen: Täter and Opfer, Ehe und Familie” (47–82), specifically in the subsection “Folgen für die Opfer” (64–79, esp. 70–6), various stories from met. have been selected to show how the loss of chastity results in the victim’s life deteriorating (expulsion from the immediate family, loss of status, metamorphosis). Chapter 4, “Vergewaltigung im Mythos” (83–93), addresses the rape myths and their relation to aetiology and the foundation of genealogy (“Aitiologische und genealogische Funktion”, 83–8). After this, Doblhofer deals with myths in which the rape is not consummated due to the woman’s status, either as a goddess or a hero’s wife (“Mißglückte Versuche”, 88–90). Then he focuses on the characteristics of the rape victims, young single women (“Vergewaltigte Mädchen”, 90–2), and the central role played by female characters in tales of violation (“Die prominente Rolle der Frauen im Mythos”, 92–3). In each section, he alludes to stories from met. Shilpa Raval (20) examines “the silence that surrounds the expression of women’s sexual experience” and “the boundaries that are imposed on women’s speech in regard to their sexuality” (2). In other words, she studies the relation between language (speech / silence motif) and sexuality, especially rape. Karin Fellner (26) distinguishes several stereotypical female characters in met. and in ars (64–6), one of which is the “reaktive und nicht sprechende Protagonistinnen”. In these cases, the feminine characters are converted into sexual objects, and the rape can be seen as a means of ‘civilising’ their wild nature and femininity, which is not subject to patriarchal culture (65–6). John Heath (9) examines narrative pattern in the rape tales from the first two books of met. He shows that “the pattern gathers momentum, absorbing new details and growing in complexity and violence with each telling” (233). In the author’s words: “These narrative conventions build to a momentary yet sundering climax at the beginning of Book 3 in the tale of Actaeon” (233). Although Ovid emphasises Actaeon’s innocence, the goddess interprets the voyeurism as an attack on her virginity

354

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

and punishes him. This response on the part of Diana serves as a monitory paradigm for our own reading of the text. In the chapter “The Lives of Women” (61–73), Elaine Fantham (30) examines various myths protagonised by feminine characters. One of the sections is dedicated to consummated or frustrated rapes (63–6). She states that “sexual pursuit is so recurrent in Metamorphoses that Ovid’s achievement of variety is an index of both his skill and his audience’s taste” (64). Alison Sharrock’s work (28) also looks at various passages: she offers a general view of how gender and sexuality are explored in the corpus Ovidianum. Nanci DeBloois (14) offers a broad study of the ‘bride of Hades’ motif, in other words interlinked images of rape, marriage and death. She shows the evolution of the motif from Homeric Hymn to Ceres, through Greek tragedy, to Ovid’s adaptation in his met. The Roman poet adapts the typology of the bride of Hades to his numerous stories about so-called ‘amorous pursuit’, but he replaces the element of marriage with rape. Chapter 4, “Ovid’s Persephone / Proserpina” (94–125), consists of an intertextual study of Homeric Hymn to Ceres and the Ovidian versions of the rape of Proserpina (met. 5.346–71; fast. 4.417–620). DeBloois concludes that, as in the Homeric hymn, Ovid interweaves images of marriage, rape and death, but he adds the implication that Persephone is to be compared to the sacrificial maidens of tragedy (esp. 124–5). In chapter 5, “Ludi incipiant: classic brides of Hades in the Metamorphoses” (126–87), the author discusses several of the most typical tales that employ the ‘classic’ bride of Hades motif, to show how Ovid’s use of a particular series of images and events creates a recognizable, repeated pattern that sets up certain expectations in the reader (132–63). She continues with a commentary on the tales which feature modifications of the ‘classic’ pattern: those containing  a role reversal (163–85). Chapter 6, “Ludi vertuntur: Ovid’s further variations” (188–236), is dedicated to the variations of the classic bride-of-death schema, which DeBloois refers to as a “Helen-type tales” and “‘disappointed expectations’ or ‘incomplete’ bride-of-Hades tales”. In the chapter “Incest in Greek myth and literature” (132–55), Christopher Francese (16) distinguishes three types of incest: “those in which the incest occurs accidentally, without the knowledge of the actors; those which involve active incestuous desire on the part of one person, often accompanied by some aggression; and those in which the desire is mutual” (135–6). He collects examples from Greek and Latin literature and includes the following passages from met.: 7.386–7, 10.298–502, 2.590–5, 9.450–665 (137). Philip Hardie (31) discusses a series of episodes in which, through ‘approximative similes’, the lines between art and nature, between representation and reality, are blurred. In these episodes, incest becomes “a central figure for Ovid’s own artistic practices of mimesis and imitatio” (§ 55). Marc Vandersmissen (43) studies the influence of the ’Ἐρωτικὰ Παθήματα in met., focusing solely on the treatment of incest. In the conclusion, he states: “Dans l’une et l’autre oeuvre … l’amour entre membres d’une même famille est présenté comme une solution heureuse lorsqu’une série de règles sont respectées” (1024). However the vocabulary used by Ovid to refer to these types of relations (crimen, scelus, furor) reveals that incest went against Augustus’ moral policy.

Sexuality

355

Laure Chappuis Sandoz (33), starting from the two articles by P. Watson (“Puella and virgo”, Glotta 61, 1983, 119–43; “Axelson Revisited: The Selection of Vocabulary in Latin Poetry”, CQ 35, 1985, 430–48), warns that in the met. the terms puella and virgo carry different sexual connotations. The first implies sexual behaviour that breaks established social norms; by contrast, virgo suggests an exemplary attitude, tied in with virginity and marriage. The author justifies the presence of these two terms in passages that, at first glance, do not appear to conform to the norms stated previously. In her Dissertation, Jessica Westerhold (42) explores the construction of female erotic desire in the myth of Phaedra, and in the characters from met. 8–9 to whom she refers as “the Phaedra-like figures”: Scylla, Byblis, Myrrha and Iphis. These heroines transgress the taboos and laws that govern sexual relations and “appear in Ovid’s poetry as dangerous spectres of wildly inappropriate and therefore destructive, bestial, or incestuous sexuality” (1). Gregson Davis (2) brands Daphne, Syrinx, Arethuse and Callisto as “anti-sexual nymphs”, whose masculine counterpart is Narcissus (73). On the other hand, Salmacis is an “over-sexed” nymph (78), Pomona transcends the anti-sexual norm (67), and Procris swings between rejection of sexual passion and marriage. According to Michael Paschalis (6), Ovid connects virtus to sexual repression, rape and sex change; he also identifies the term with trickery, cowardice, muscular strength, violence and barbarism. Unlike the works reviewed up to this point, the studies explored next focus on specific myths. Konrad Heldmann (45) studies the tale of Io (met. 1) within its literary tradition. He notices that Ovid introduces various innovations, such as transforming  a love affair into a brutal rape. Moving onto the Theban cycle (met. 3–4), one of the ideas in Jacqueline Fabre-Serris’ article (41) is that this section focuses on sexuality, desire and pleasure as viewed from a masculine perspective (esp. 101). Furthermore, Don Fowler (23), in the chapter “Pyramus, Thisbe, King Kong: Ovid and the Presence of Poetry” (156–67), reads the crack in the wall that separates the lovers in met. 4 as a vulva, and the penetration by a sword as phallic symbolism (160, 163). A large number of studies explore the sexual implications of Salmacis and Hermaphroditus myth (met. 4). Antonio La Penna (3) emphasises the nymph’s excessive sexual desire, and the violence she uses to be united with Hermaphroditus. Matthew Robinson (22), on the other hand, reviews the vocabulary used to show androgyny, effeminacy, and their sexual connotations, preferences for a passive role and, therefore, for a dishonourable attitude towards sex. Marcos Ruiz (21, 107–13) compares this same story with that of Echo and Narcissus (met. 3), and with Mart. 4.22. In the tale of Hermaphroditus and Salmacis, the sexual roles are reversed, while in the similes which describe the struggle between the young man and the nymph, to some extent the symbolic relation between hunting and sex is altered. From the work by Georgia Nugent (8), which also examines this myth, we should highlight the following statement: “… Ovid’s tale is readily interpretable as a classic narrative of sexual initiation” (172). Alison Keith (38) considers sexuality and gender in the Ovidian corpus. For this, she analyses various passages, focusing on the story of Hermaphroditus

356

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

and Salmacis (361–4). According to the author, when Hermaphroditus dives into Salmacis’ spring, his action invites interpretation as an exploratory plunge into adult sexuality, while the outcome of their coupling constitutes an object lesson in the dangers of disregarding the advice from ars 2.725–8. For Vanda Zajko (39), this myth “holds significance both for ancient models of sexuality, and for those emergent in the twentieth and twentieth-first centuries” (181); and can be interpreted as an explanation for passive homosexuality in Rome (189, 192–3). At the same time, its ‘ambiguous’ protagonists “might alleviate the prejudice sorrounding the intersexual by providing the modern phenomenon with an ancient etiological myth” (197). Also worthy of mentioning in this section is the work by Patricia Joplin (27). In her view, “the myth of Philomela insists upon the difference between legitimate exchange, marriage, and violent theft, rape” (269), and where rape is “adultery and incest” (270). José González Vázquez (1) dedicates his article to the myth of Arethuse (met. 5). Based on a review of the structure and style, he concludes that what appears to be “a song of chastity” in fact causes the reader to remain plunged inside the poetic world of desire (esp. 90–2). Richard Fletcher (35) offers  a reading of met. 6.116–17, of the ‘heroic’ section (met. 8–12), and of the apotheosis of Hercules (met. 9) in light of Hesiod’s Catalogue of Women. From this, he deduces that in Arachne’s tapestry, the rapes highlight the tension between the vis of rape and that of the offspring, heroes potentially rebellious to Olympian authority (308–9). However, in the ‘heroic’ section there is no reference to glorious children as a compensation for divine rape (311). In Fletcher’s opinion, the way in which Hercules’ apotheosis is described focuses firmly on his origins in divine rape (317). Jacqueline Fabre (7) detects a symbolic link between virginity and wild nature in the tale of Cephalus and Procris: at the moment when he addresses is drawn to the breeze, a natural element, as if it were a woman (vv. 7.813–20). To support her theory, Fabre alludes to other settings where the untamed and a maiden come into contact (122–6, 134). The author also maintains that in the tales with male protagonists, hunting is associated with a series of sexual behaviours which are removed from the norms of society (136). Michaela Janan (10) affirms about the Byblis and Caunus story (met. 9): “the significance of its incest theme is neither purely ethical nor voyeuristic; rather, it makes a complex statement about the paired antinomies of repetition and difference, limit and transgression, as they govern culture in general, and art in particular” (240). Shilpa Raval (24) also comments on this episode: she believes that at the moment when Byblis writes her letter, and transgresses the physical limitations of the tablet, Ovid makes it clear that the girl is transgressing sexual and ethical boundaries (302). John Makowski (18) considers the section of met. 9.666–11.66 to be a “homoerotic or bisexual sequence” (25). Orpheus is presented as bisexual: in love with Eurydice at first, and then  a promoter of homosexuality. This aspect of his sexual identity underlies much of the narrative’s diction, imagery, and use of literary reminiscence, as well as serving to explain the framing of met. 10. The Orpheus story is preceded by

Sexuality

357

that of Iphis, a tale of lesbian passion. The young Cretan girl’s monologue, in which homosexuality is condemned, functions as a proleptic comment on the forthcoming tale of Orpheus. Unlike Makowski, Sandra Boehringer (32) talks of “apparente et provisoire homosexualitè” (90) in the myth of Iphis (met. 9). For Stephen Wheeler (19), the nomina of Iphis and Ianthe are omina of the social and sexual roles they are supposed to play. Ianthe’s reflects her nubile virginity, while that of Iphis could be associated with sexual force (vis) and sexual potency (vires), in such a way that “it ironically calls attention to the “virility” that the maiden lacks to consummate her marriage with Ianthe” (195). In Wheeler’s view, “Ovid … maintains the tale’s original concern with the feminine sexuality of boys and the growth of their virility upon entering adulthood” (200). Jonathan Walker (36) states that the “tale of Iphis and Ianthe refuses to make what we would now call lesbianism at all visible” (206), since “the text invites the reader to see female homoerotic desire while simultaneously disavowing its existence” (208). The author outlines the operation by which the text both offers and revokes something akin to lesbianism, while interpolating its reader into that operation (208). Walker also affirms that labelling Iphis’ desire as lesbianism, heterosexuality, or bisexuality is inaccurate (esp. 208). Jacqueline Fabre-Serris (34) reviews all the tales of love and incestuous or forbidden relations which feature in Orpheus’ catalogue (met. 10–11). She understands that in these stories “l’inceste, révèle … une proximité inattendue entre pietas et furor” (§ 36), and that in some of the passages “l’inceste est une transgression de la pietas sous l’effet du furor” (§ 24). Alison Sharrock (11) confines herself to discussing the Pygmalion myth, and interprets the statue coming to life as being synonymous with sexual arousal (47–8). She also makes  a brief comparison between this myth and that of Narcissus, since in both cases there is an opposition between purity and sex (36). In another work, Sharrock (12) maintains that “Pygmalion rejects the positive-aggressive sexuality of the Propoetides and creates a chaste alternative, yet one which is secretly the fulfilment of his own erotic dream” (170). His statue shows a combination of modesty and eroticism, divinity (being the mortal double of Venus) and whoredom (169–73). Through Pandora (173–6), she makes a comparison between Pygmalion and Myrrha, who is the main character in “a story of cross-generational incest” (176). Jacqueline Fabre-Serris (37) dedicates part of her work to pointing out the debts owed by Ovid to Parthenius. For example, these can be seen in Orpheus’ song, which has two hidden tales of incest: that of Pygmalion, since the statue that he created is like a daughter; and that of Venus and Adonis, as the young man is identical to Cupid. Jeri DeBrohun (29), in her broad commentary on the relationship between Cyllarus and Hylonome (met. 12.393–428), picks up on a sexual connotation in the expression tergum sessile (431). It is also worth emphasising that in this tale, two typical characteristics of centaurs are missing: the hypersexuality and the uncontrolled masculinity (437; see also p. 439). At the same time, she affirms that “[t]he idealized conjugal love of Cyllarus and Hylonome also provides a stark contrast to … the lust-inspired rapes that disrupt marital relationships and lead to war in the outer narratives layers of Met. 12” (448).

358

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

Ralph Johnson (17) argues that the story of Vertumnus and Pomona (met. 14) “reserves the pattern of the ugly rape stories” (374), and rejects a possible comparison between this tale and others in which the protagonist has assumed a disguise in order to commit rape (Jupiter-Callisto, Sol-Leucothoë, Apollo-Chione). His principal argument is that “Jupiter and Sol and Apollo are in lust, Vertumnus is in love” (368). The article by Francis Cairns (40) examines the genre ‘oaristys’ (‘wooing’), which consists of an erotic negotiation culminating in  a described, or implied, sexual fulfilment (102). He marks out its primary and secondary elements (103–104), and analyses them in various texts, including the tale of Pomona and Vertumnus. With regards to the two Italian divinities, Prudence Jones (25) states that Pomona’s gentle, asexual interaction with plants and people contrasts with the suitors’ violence and sexuality. Moreover, she states that “the relationship between Vertumnus and Pomona is not the one of rapist and victim” (372). Françoise Lecocq (44) examines the genre which Greco-Latin and Christian authors have allocated to the Phoenix, and its means of reproduction. From the Ovidian version (190–1), she emphasises that there is no sexual procreation (met. 15.389–90), but that a father-son relation is mentioned (15.391–2, 401–2). 14. Gender 1.  S. Nicaise, “Un conte de fées dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide (IX,669–797). L’étrange histoire d’Iphis”, LEC 48, 1980, 67–71. 2.  B. R. Nagle, “Amor, Ira, and Sexual Identity in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, ClAnt 3, 1984, 236–55. 3.  *M. Paschalis, “The demythicization of virtus in Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Love, humor and politics”, in Πανελλήνιο Συμπόσιο Λατινικών Σπουδών. Θέμα: Λογοτεχνία και πολιτική στα χρόνια του Αυγούστου, Γιάννενα, 5–6 Νοέμβριου 1982, Iannina 1984, 51–66. 4.  S.  Viarre, “L’androgyne dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide”, in J. M.  Frécaut, D. Porte (eds.), Journées Ovidiennes de Parménie. Actes du Colloque sur Ovide (24–26 juin 1983), Bruxelles 1985, 229–43. ·  P. Tordeur, AC 56, 1987, 377–8; L. Deschamps, REA 90, 1988, 277–8. 5.  W. S. Ginsberg, “Ovid and the problem of gender”, Mediaevalia 13, 1987, 9–28. 6.  N. J. Miller, Subject to Change. Reading Feminist Writing, New York 1988. 7.  G.  Nugent, “This Sex Which Is Not One: De-Constructing Ovid’s Herma­ phrodite”, Differences 2, 1990, 160–85. 8.  A. R. Sharrock, “The Love of Creation”, Ramus 20, 1991, 169–82. 9. M. Delcourt, Hermaphrodite. Mythes et rites de la bisexualité dans l’Antiquité classique, Paris 1992 (19582) = Hermaphrodite. Myths and Rites of the Bisexual Figure in Classical Antiquity, Paris 1992 (19582). 10.  *E.  Marder, “Disarticulated Voices: Feminism and Philomela”, Hypatia 7, 1992, 148–66.

Gender

359

11.  N. A. DeBloois, Reluctant brides, deadly bridegrooms: Ovid’s transformation of the marriage of death, Diss. University of Iowa 1994. 12. G. Doblhofer, Vergewaltigung in der Antike, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1994 (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 46). ·  E.  Monroe Harris, CR 46, 1996, 327–9; E.  Fantham, Gnomon 70, 1998, 4–7; D.  Konstan, Religious Studies Review 24, 1998, 412–3; K. Thraede, Klio 80, 1998, 260–2. 13.  M. W.  Janan, “‘There Beneath the Roman Ruin where the Purple Flowers Grow’: Ovid’s Minyeides and the Feministic Imagination”, AJPh 115, 1994, 427–48. 14.  W. S. Anderson, “Aspects of Love in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, CJ 90, 1995, 265–9. 15. L. Silberman, Transforming Desire. Erotic Knowledge in Books III and IV of The Faerie Queene, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1995. 16.  M. Wenzel, “Wenn die Götter strafen… Zur psychologischen Deutung grie­ chischer Mythen bei Ovid”, DaSiU 43, 1996, 30–8. 17.  J. F.  Makowski, “Bisexual Orpheus: pederasty and parody in Ovid”, CJ 92, 1996/97, 25–38. 18.  E. Rossi, “Ruoli e scambi di ruoli nelle Metamorfosi ovidiane”, ASNP 2, 1997, 453–80. 19.  S. H. Lindheim, “I am dressed, therefore I am? Vertumnus in Propertius 4.2 and in Metamorphoses 14.622–771”, Ramus 27, 1998, 27–38. 20. S. Raval, Pudibunda ora: gender, sexuality, and language in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, diss. Brown University, Providence (R. I.) 1998. 21.  C.  Segal, “Ovid’s Metamorphic Bodies: Art, Gender, and Violence in the Metamorphoses”, Arion 5, 1998, 9–41. 22.  D. E. Curley, Metatheater. Heroines and Ephebes in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, diss. University of Washington 1999. 23.  A. M.  Keith, “Versions of Epic Masculinity in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, in P. Hardie, A. Barchiesi, S. Hinds (eds.), Ovidian transformations. Essays on the Metamorphoses and its reception, Cambridge 1999, 214–39. 24.  M.  Robinson, “Salmacis and Hermaphroditus: When Two Become One (Ovid, Met. 4.285–388)”, CQ 49, 1999, 212–23. 25.  C.  Segal, “Ovid’s Meleager and the Greeks: Trials of Gender and Genre”, HSPh 99, 1999, 301–40. 26. D.  Fowler, Roman Constructions. Reading in Postmodern Latin, Oxford 2000. · W. S. Anderson, BMCR 2000.11.26. 27.  A. M. Keith, Engendering Rome.Women in Latin Epic, Cambridge 2000. 28.  J. S. Burgess, “Coronis Aflame: The Gender of Mortality”,  CPh  96, 2001, 214–27. 29.  S. Raval, “‘A lover’s discourse’: Byblis in Metamorphoses 9”, Arethusa 34, 2001, 285–311.

360

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

30. L. Brisson, Sexual Ambivalence. Androgyny and Hermaphroditism in GraecoRoman Antiquity, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 2002 (= Le sexe incertain. Androgynie et hermaphrodisme dans l’Antiguité gréco-romaine, Paris 1997, transl. by J. Lloyd). 31.  K. Fellner, “Frauenbilder in den Metamorphosen. Eine kritische Annäherung an die Autorperspektive in Ovids Daphne-Mythos”, AU 45, 2002, 64–71. 32.  P. K.  Joplin, “The Voice of the Shuttle Is Ours”, in L. K.  McClure (ed.), Sexuality and Gender in the Classical World, Oxford, UK-Malen, MA, 2002, 259–92 (= Stanford Literature Review 1, 1984, 23–53). 33.  R. Langlands, “Can you tell what it is yet? Descriptions of sex change in ancient literature”, Ramus 31, 2002, 91–110. 34.  D. T. Pintabone, “Ovid’s Iphis and Ianthe: When Girls Won’t Be Girls”, in N. S. Rabinowitz, L.  Auanger (eds.), Among Women. From the Homosocial to the Homoerotic in the Ancient World, Austin, TX, 2002, 256–85. 35.  S.  Raval, “Cross-Dressing and ‘Gender Trouble’ in the Ovidian Corpus”, Helios 29, 2002, 149–72. 36.  A. R.  Sharrock, “An a-Musing tale: gender, genre and Ovid’s battles with inspiration in the Metamorphoses”, E. Spentzou, D. F. Fowler (eds.), Cultivating the Muse, Oxford-New York 2002, 207–27. 37.  A. R.  Sharrock, “Gender and Sexuality”, in P.  Hardie (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ovid, Cambridge 2002, 95–107. 38.  D. Bischoff, “Die schöne Stimme und der versehrte Körper. Ovids Philomela und die eloquentia corporis im Diskurs der Empfindsamkeit”, in M. Wagner-Egelhaaf (ed.), Weibliche Rede – Rhetorik der Weiblichkeit. Studien zum Verhältnis von Rhetorik und Geschlechterdifferenz, Freiburg i. Br. 2003, 249–81 (Rombach Wissenschaften. Reihe Litterae 93). 39.  G.  Liveley, “Tiresias / Teresa:  a man-made-woman in Ovid’s Metamorphoses 3.318–38”, Helios 30, 2003, 147–62. 40.  C. U.  Merriam, “Acrior est nostra plusque furoris habet: Erotic Madness of Women in Latin Poetry”, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History XI, Bruxelles 2003, 177–85 (Collection Latomus 272). 41.  L. Morgan, “Child’s Play: Ovid and His Critics”, JRS 93, 2003, 66–91. 42.  J. B. DeBrohun, “Centaurs in love and war: Cyllarus and Hylonome in Ovid’s Metamorphoses 12.393–428”, AJPh 125, 2004, 417–52. 43. E. Fantham, Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Oxford 2004. 44. G.  Stein, Mutter  – Tochter  – Geliebte. Weibliche Rollenkonflikte bei Ovid, München-Leipzig 2004 (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 204). · H.  Müller-Reineke, BMCR 2004.09.42; D. Ghira, Maia 58, 2006, 400–2; P. E. Knox, Gnomon 78, 2006, 164–5; A. Harreau-Clerc, RPh 81, 2007, 430–2. 45.  A. Suter, “The myth of Prokne and Philomela”, NECJ 31, 2004, 377–86. 46.  S. Boehringer, “‘Iphis était une femme’ (Ovide, Mét. 9, 666–797)”, in F. Lest-

Gender

361

ringant et al. (eds.), Liber amicorum. Mélanges sur la littérature antique et moderne à la mémoire de Jean-Pierre Néraudau, Paris 2005, 83–94 (Colloques, congrès et conférences sur la Renaissance 48). · P.  Hummel, BiblH&R 68, 2006, 379–80; E. Raymond, Réforme, Humanisme, Renaissance 67, 2008, 183–5; B. Gilles, RBPh 87, 2009, 148; W. Helmich, ZRPh 125, 2009, 715–19. 47.  K. Ormand, “Impossible Lesbians in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, in R. Ancona, E. Greene (eds.), Gendered Dynamics in Latin Love Poetry, Baltimore 2005, 79–110. 48.  P. B.  Salzman-Mitchell, A Web of Fantasies. Gaze, Image and Gender in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Columbus, OH, 2005. · S. H. Lindheim, IJCT 14, 2007, 262–5; H. Lovatt, BMCR 2006.10.23. 49.  P. B. Salzmann-Mitchell, “The Fixing Gaze: Movement, Image and Gender in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, in R. Ancona, E. Greene (eds.), Gendered Dynamics in Latin Poetry, Baltimore 2005, 159–76. 50.  S. Guerra López, “Mito y violencia sexuada en las Metamorfosis de Ovidio”, in Mª. D. Molas Font et al. (eds.), La violencia de género en la antigüedad, Madrid 2006, 169–76 (Instituto de la Mujer 97). 51.  D. M. Robinson, Closeted Writing and Lesbian and Gay Literature. Classical, Early Modern, Eighteenth Century, Aldershote-Burlington, VT, 2006. 52.  J. Walker, “Before the Name: Ovid’s Deformulated Lesbianism”, CompLit 58, 2006, 205–22. 53. F.  Frontisi-Ducroux, “La violenza velata. Il caso di Filomela”,  Mythos  1, 2006/07, 39–47. 54. S. Papaioannou, Redesigning Achilles. ‘Recycling’ the Epic Cycle in the ‘Little Iliad’ (Ovid, Metamorphoses 12.1–13–622), Berlin-New York 2007 (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 89). 55.  J. P. Hallett, “Corpus erat: Sulpicia’s Elegiac Text and Body in Ovid’s Pygmalion Narrative (Met. 10.238–297)”, in T. Fögen, M. M. Lee (eds.), Bodies and Boundaries in Graeco-Roman Antiquity, Berlin-New York 2009, 111–24. 56.  A. M. Keith, “The Lay of the Land in Ovid’s ‘Perseid’ (Met. 4.610–5.249)”, CW 102, 2009, 259–72. 57.  A. M. Keith, “Sexuality and Gender”, in P. E. Knox (ed.), Companion to Ovid, Maden, MA, 2009, 355–69. 58.  D.  Lateiner, “Transsexuals and Transvestites in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, in T. Fögen, M. M. Lee (eds.), Bodies and Boundaries in Graeco-Roman Antiquity, Berlin-New York 2009, 125–54. 59.  V. Zajko, “‘Listening With’ Ovid: Intersexuality, Queer Theory, and the Myth of Hermaphroditus and Salmacis”, Helios 36, 2009, 175–202. 60.  L. Chappuis Sandoz, “Eine Frau auf der kalydonischen Jagd. Inszenierungen von Männlichkeit und Weiblichkeit bei Ovid (met. 8) und beim französischen Übersetzer Villenave (1807)”, in M.  Formisano, T. Fuhrer (eds.),  Gender Studies in den Altertumswissenschaften. Gender-Inszenierungen in der antiken Literatur, Trier 2010, 177–97.

362

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

61.  J. Fabre-Serris, “L’histoire de Méléagre vue par Ovide ou de quoi le tison des Parques est-il l’emblème?”, EL 3–4, 2011, 149–65. 62.  P. M. Llanos, “El adulterio de Marte y Venus en Metamorfosis de Ovidio: relato, narradoras y auditorio internos”, Argos 34, 2011, 36–58. 63.  J. A. Westerhold, Tragic desire: Phaedra and Her Heirs in Ovid, Diss. University of Toronto 2011. 64.  Mª C. Álvarez, R. Mª Iglesias, “Contexto femenino de Meleagro y Hércules en las Metamorfosis: comentario literario y mitográfico”, in Mª C. Álvarez Morán, R. Mª Iglesias Montiel (eds.), Y el mito se hizo poesía, Madrid 2012, 247–70. 65.  M. McAuley, “Matermorphoses: motherhood and the Ovidian epic subject”, Eugesta 2, 2012, 123–68. 66.  G. Mader, “The be(a)st of the Achaeans: turning tables / overturning tables in Ovid’s centauromachy (Metamorphoses 12.210–535)”, Arethusa 46, 2013, 87–116. 67.  *M. G. Iodice, “Figure paterne nei primi due libri delle Metamorfosi di Ovidio”, in M. G. Iodice, M. Zagórski (eds.), Carminis personae – Character in Roman Poetry, Frankfurt a. M.-Bern etc. 2014, 71–83 (Warsaw Studies in Classical Literature and Culture 1). Ovid’s particular fascination with male characters who do not fit the stereotypical mould of virile epic hero is well documented, as is his interest in female personalities, whom he portrays so skilfully in a wide array of situations. For this reason, it is essential that this book contains a chapter dedicated to issues of gender. Llewelyn Morgan (41, 66) states that “[g]enres are gendered, and the epic genre is emphatically masculine”. However, Ovid destabilises gender hierarchies in his unorthodox epic (67), and subverts heroic masculinity and the epic genre which enshrined that virility (68). He illustrates his statement with the story of Ancaeus: “the form of his death is emblematic of Ovid’s emasculation of an epic genre” (73). Charles Segal (21) discusses numerous myths in order to emphasise the importance of characters’ bodies and the violence that they suffer; metamorphosis, its consequences and implications; and the poet’s exploration of the limits of genres. For this chapter, the section “The Gendered Body” (18–23) is interesting, in which the author lays bare the passive role of the female body, its representation as an ideal and submissive sex object, or as a victim of male sexual violence through the exegesis of these myths: Pygmalion (met. 10), the description of Andromeda (4.672–5), and the stories of Cyane, Arethusa and Proserpina (met. 5). In the next section, “The Male Body” (23–32), Segal claims that the ideal for the male body is impenetrability, and exemplifies this idea with the myths of Cygnus and Caeneus (met. 12). He believes that the poet highlights the male’s suffering, and that in terms of female experiences, Ovid is only interested in birth and motherhood. This statement leads him to reflect on the labour of Alcmena, the tale of Dryope (met. 9), the birth of Adonis (met. 10), and the story of Scylla (met. 14).

Gender

363

Alison Keith (23) analyses various passages of met. (book 4: Salmacis-Hermaphroditus, Perseus-Andromeda-Medusa; book 8: the Calydonian boar hunt; book 12: the Trojan war) without losing sight of its models: Iliadic, Odyssean, Apollonian and Virgilian epics. Her objective is to show that Ovid “juxtaposes male heroic endeavour with female incursion into the realm of epic masculinity” (238–9), and this encounter with the female results in the unmanning of the Ovidian epic hero. A subsequent work by Keith (27) returns to questions of gender in Greek and Latin epic. The author asserts that her “study represents an attempt to restore female characters to visibility in Roman epic and to examinate the discursive operations that effect their marginalisation within both the genre and the critical tradition it has given rise to” (iii). The work consists of five chapters; in the third, “The ground of representation” (36–64), Keith looks at the links between female reproductive anatomy and the earth, and refers to passages in Ovid, as well as other epics, to illustrate this metaphorical association. The passages mentioned are those of Deucalion and Pyrrha (met. 1), of Phaethon (met. 2) and l. 13.678 antiquam matrem. The author claims that in the tale of Phaethon, ll. 2.401–8 detail “a stark contrast between the inert passivity of ‘mother’ earth and the omnipotent activity of ‘father’ Jupiter”, a demonstration of the “male domination of the feminised earth” (52; vid. 49–52). Keith concentrates again on Ovid’s epic poem (specifically passages from met. 12–13) in chapter 4, “Exordia pugnae: engendering war” (65–100). She analyses the interrelation of gender and war, stating that “[i]n his ‘Iliad’, Ovid undertakes an extensive and sympathetic analysis of Virgil’s contamination of the hierarchy of gender with the structure of war” (81), and at no point does he mention female characters as “agents provocateurs or warriors” (82). The hierarchy of gender is present in Nestor’s narrative and in the structure itself of book 12, which begins with the arrival of Helen in Troy, and closes with the death of Achilles at the hands of the unmanly Paris (85). Finally, chapter 5, “Over her dead body” (101–31), reflects on the importance of a beautiful woman’s death as a prelude to a war. In pp. 122–6 Keith examines how Ovid articulates death, femininity and the aesthetic on a mythological level. She comments on the sacrifice of Iphigenia and Polyxena, and the death of the daughters of Anius and of Orion (met. 12–13). These, along with other passages, serve to conclude that “[t]he death of an ‘innocent’ woman … legitimates the epic hero’s violent mission: over her dead body, he regenerates or transforms the social order” (130), at the same time that the epic occludes or elides female subjectivity (131). Karin Fellner (31) focuses on the role of women in ars and met. (64–6). In terms of epic female characters, she recognises various stereotypes: “aktive und sprechende Protagonistinnen”, who match passion against reason in a monologue, and become a danger to the patriarchal social order (64); and “reaktive und nicht sprechende Protagonistinnen”, who become sexual objects (65–6). Then she concentrates on analysing the Apollo and Daphne story (66–9): the god represents patriarchal supremacy, while the object of his desire, the rejection of established order. Fellner maintains that in this story, and in other similar ones, Ovid offers the perspective of the masculine character, and avoids that of the feminine one, in order to present the sexual violence as a humorous and erotic act. Carol Merriam (40) also concentrates on female pro-

364

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

tagonists: she believes that in Latin literature, the women in love are possessed (Ovid uses the idea of possession in his description of Medea in met. 7) and are often depicted as bacchantes (such as Byblis in met. 9.635–51). Elaine Fantham (43) in the chapter “The Lives of Women” (61–73) approaches the women in met. through sex-change myths (Iphis, Caenis; 61–3), rapes (63–6), pregnancies (Semele, Latona, Alcmene), maternity (Dryope; 67–9), and mothers who have lost their children (Clymene, Niobe, Hecuba; 69–73). In this way Merriam shows that Ovid is familiar with many aspects of the female experience; and furthermore, in some cases she takes the opportunity to refer to Greek sources. In her study, Gabriele Stein (44) affirms that Ovid’s female characters embody the conflict between private life and society. The starting point for her thesis is the Sophoclean character of Antigone. From met. she analyses Medea (7.1–158), Scylla (8.6–151), Procne (6.412–674) and Althaea (8.260–546). Patricia Salzman-Mitchell (48) in her first chapter (1–21) presents the methodological approach which she uses to move towards met.: her main departure points are the idea of phantasia, feminist film theory and the two modes of reading, resisting and releasing. In the next chapter, “The Intrusive Gaze” (22–66), Salzman-Mitchell explores the connotations of seeing, its variations and destabilisations. In the first section (22–42), the analysis of various tales leads her to  a basic differentiation: men’s regard is penetrative, while that of women is powerless and non-performative, although with exceptions (e.g. Juno, Echo, Salmacis). The second section (43–62) focuses on ecphrasis and on penetration as a valid metaphor for reading. She discusses several myths while interweaving issues of gaze, ecphrasis and gender. Regard is also relevant in tales featuring the topos of the paraclausithyron (62–6): that of Iphis and Anaxarete, “a disturbing warning to men that masculinity is fallible” (64), and that of Pyramus and Thisbe. Chapter 3, “The Fixing Gaze” (67–116), examines the relation between regard and movement of the narration. Here the premise is that the eyes of males have the power to fix visual objects (women and boys), while delaying the narrative; although the female can also paralyse the viewer and deprive him of his masculine activity. Salzman-Mitchell moves away from this assumption in the last two sections of the chapter, one of which (96–104) addresses the issue of travel as a marker of masculinity, in contrast with women’s immobility and strong attachment to their land. In the other section (104–16) the author shows how the women who observe in an erotic way become deviant and are forced to abandon their homeland, or to undergo a metamorphosis. In chapter 4, “Phantastic Text(iles)” (117–49), she searches for the female gaze and the female phantasiae expressed in visual constructions in textiles (Arachne, Philomela). Finally, in chapter 5, “Women for Women, Women by Women” (150–208), Salzman-Mitchell explores female gaze and voice, and visual images produced by women in their own narratives, and the reception of their stories by other women. The following statement: “the Metamorphoses itself is a mixture of ‘masculine’ epic and ‘feminine’ fluidity and … strict gender definitions are doomed to failure” (165) could represent the ideas of gender which the author unfolds throughout the work. In another study from the same year, Patricia Salzman-Mitchell (49) reiterates the ideas expressed in chapter 3, summarised above. She explores the erotic and gendered implications of the interactions between gaze and pace of the narrative

Gender

365

in met. Her essay argues that in the episodes of Perseus and Andromeda (met. 4), and Atalanta and Hippomenes (met. 10), the men’s eyes have the power to fix visual objects, namely women, and to delay the narrative. However, over the course of her feministic reading, she appreciates in the power of Andromeda, Medusa and Atalanta to paralyze their viewers a further instance of the destabilisation and deconstruction of gender hierarchies present in met. (esp. 174). Mairéad McAuley (65) writes  a very well-documented article examining motherhood in met. Her starting point is comparison with Aen.: Virgil evokes maternal figures only to silence them, while Ovid transforms them into protagonists of their own extended narrative and privileges their voices (124–6). McAuley states that “Ovid exploits the metamorphic potential of maternity … to explore and redefine personal and political relations in the Augustan era” (128) and sets up her argument around three maternal tropes: birth (128–41), revenge (142–50), and mourning (150–7). She believes that “mothers … seem to embody traditional Ovidian ‘defects’ or rhetorical self-indulgence, immoderation and lack of decorum” (159) and characterises the tales where mothers play a leading role as “maternal poetics of excess, a poetics that flirts obsessively psychic, social and aesthetic limits and the incipient threat of their explosion” (163). Simone Viarre (4) offers  a study of transvestism and androgyny myths, as well as those that feature  a being of ambiguous gender (e.g. met. 15.408–10). She calls these stories “épopée romanesque” (241), and reflects on the biological, religious and psychological elements which appear in them, and on their compositional coherence within the poem. Marie Delcourt (9) reviews the various versions of sex-change myths in Greek and Latin literature in chapter 3, “Kaineus et Tirésias” (51–64). From met. she mentions Sithon (met. 4.279–80), Mestra (met. 8), Iphis (met. 9) and Caeneus (met. 12), devoting special attention to the latter two (52–5) for their links with mysteric rites: “Le travestissement sexuel est un rite de passage et d’initiation” (54). In the story of Caeneus, also relevant is the introduction of Phoenix, who has both sexes at the same time. In chapter 4 (65–103), dedicated to Hermaphroditus, Delcourt sums up Ovid’s concept of this character with the equation “bisexué = asexué” (79). Elena Rossi (18) analyses a series of metamorphoses and the implications on the sexual identity of the characters who experience them. She classifies the 13 episodes in which a sexual permutation takes place, into four basic categories: “trasformazione” (with the variant of disguise) from man to woman, or vice versa; “fusione”; “alternanza”; and “ambiguità”. Luc Brisson (30) centres his work on “dual sexuality”, which he defines as “the possession of both female and male genitalia, whether successively or simultaneously” (1). In chapter 2, “Dual Sexuality and Homosexuality” (41–71), Brisson addresses the Ovidian version of the myth of Hermaphroditus, the only being who possesses both sexes at the same time. The author highlights this tale’s originality both by establishing specific associations between dual sexuality and masculine homosexuality of the passive kind, and for its etiological function (esp. 42, 45, 57, 60, 148). Brisson reflects on the structure (49–50) and presence of the myth in authors who are either previous to, or contemporaneous with, Ovid (50–7). In this last section, he introduces fresh queries about gender: the fusion between Salmacis

366

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

and Hermaphroditus constitutes an advancement for the nymph, who becomes half-man; but then he is degraded by being transformed into a half-woman. Brisson justifies the femininity of the being who results from the union of an exaggeratedly feminine nymph, and an adolescent in whom the man / woman opposition is not yet present (59–60). In chapter 4, “Mediators” (117–45), the author looks at three versions of the Teiresias myth – the Callimachean one, Ovid’s, and that of Sostrates (in Eustathius, Comm. ad Hom. Od. 10.494) – in order to illustrate successive dual sexuality, which is associated with divination in each version (117–130, 149). Next he shows how this myth is associated with certain animals (130–45). Rebecca Lang­ lands (33) discusses and compares two stories that feature a sex change: those of Iphis (met. 9), and of Herais (D. S. 32.10–12). For the author, these two passages can be related to ecphrasis, so she problematises the relationship between text and reader, reality and appearance, seeing and believing. From the Ovidian tale Langlands highlights the reference to Daedalus (ll. 9.741–2), who helps Pasiphaë to deceive the bull, but without undergoing an actual transformation. Similarly, the poet cannot “reproduce physical change, process, and transformation through ekphrastic description” (105). Shilpa Raval (35) discusses stories of male-to-female cross-dressing ( fast. 2: Hercules; met. 2: Sol-Leucothoe, Jupiter-Callisto; met. 14: Vertumnus) and the lone myth of male-to-female transvestism (met. 9: Iphis). The former shows the connection between cross-dressing, manhood and aggression. Each character, once he throws off his disguise, exhibits a hyper-masculine force: his virility seems to have been reinvigorated (esp. 152–8). On the other hand, the myth of Iphis denaturalises the opposition between the categories of man and woman: it challenges the notion that the body is the basis for stable gender identification, and reveals that social institutions like marriage play  a pivotal role in this issue (esp. 158–67). Donald Lateiner (58) studies sex-change in seven tales from met.: Tiresias, Sithon, Hermaphroditus, Mestra, Iphis, Caenis / Caeneus, Coronis (131–41); and transvestism, namely, dress as expression of gender, in another six: Jupiter-Callisto, Sol-Leucothoe, Vertumnus-Pomona (in which the god’s aim is to gain sexual advantage), Pentheus (although Ovid does not describe his attempts at disguise, Lateiner claims that the poet expects his audience to fill the story with the cross-dressing of E. Ba. 821–61, 914–44), Cephalus-Procris, Achilles (141–9). In addition to these six tales, the author mentions another two: that of the transvestite Leucippus, present in a version of Daphne’s myth (Parth. 15.2, Paus. 8.20.4), and that of Atalanta, so that “Ovid … has his grammar appropriately cross cases in the description of the male-identified hunter female” (147). Lateiner proves that, in general, women who change into men gain the superior status of males. By contrast, men transformed into women lose status and see their strength weakened. With these myths of sex-change and cross-dressing, Ovid challenges the binomial sexual system, and transgresses natural and cultural gender limits. According to Betty Nagle (2), “Ovid generally associates the harm done by male divinities with the satisfaction of amor and that done by female divinities with satisfaction of ira” (239). Amor and ira are therefore closely linked to identity and gender. Her study, as well as examining the myths which fit her rule, includes an explanation of the supposed exceptions: the anger of Bacchus, and the sexual aggression shown by

Gender

367

Salmacis to Hermaphroditus (met. 4). This last story, and that of Apollo and Daphne (met. 1), are mentioned by Warren Ginsberg (5) to show that “the gender can no longer be exclusively proscriptive, a genetic condition that in and of itself determines how one will or should act” (10). In the story from book 1, Daphne’s femininity is neither totally displaced by the laurel tree, nor entirely absorbed by it. This is shown in Ginsberg’s analysis (5) of how Apollo defines the laurel, in light of Roman linguistic theory about the imposition of meaning on words. For their part, the Minyeides, Salmacis and Hermaphroditus exhibit characteristics that are, at the same time, both masculine and feminine. The dissertation of Nanci DeBloois (11) focuses on the bride of Hades motif (i. e. interlinked images of rape, marriage and death) and its evolution from the Hymn to Ceres to Ovid. Of special note is chapter 5, “Ludi incipiant: classic brides of Hades in the Metamorphoses” (126–87). DeBloois begins by analysing several of the most typical tales that employ the ‘classic’ bride of Hades motif (132–163), and con­tinues by discussing five tales (Echo-Narcissus, Salmacis-Hermaphroditus, Scylla-Minos, Circe-Picus, Myrrha-Cinyras) in which the ‘classic’ pattern varies, since the gender roles are reversed (163–85, vid. 240). Rape is also mentioned in the works of Georg Doblhofer (12) and Michael Paschalis (3). In the sub-section “Die prominente Rolle der Frauen im Mythos” (92–3), Doblhofer reflects on the central role taken by female characters in the myths in which a rape occurs. Among the tales chosen to illustrate his comments, he uses various stories from met. On the other hand, Paschalis maintains that Ovid connects virtus with sexual repression, rape and sex change: in met. female bravery and courage are represented as the ideal expression of this ultimate Roman virtue, and the deification of heroes is depicted as assumed incarnations of virtus. Additionally, we should mention two further works here: one by Shilpa Raval (20), in which she examines the connections between gender, language, and sexuality, based on the sexual and amorous experiences of various female characters; and the other by Alison Sharrock (37), who through her commentary on different myths offers a general vision of how gender and sexuality are explored in the Ovidian corpus. William Anderson (14) establishes links between the behaviour of female characters in four tales of love (Apollo-Daphne, Pyramus-Thisbe, Orpheus-Eurydice, Pygmalion), and the narrator of each story. Alison Sharrock (36), on the other hand, reflects on the relationship between poet and Muse, and their associations with genre and gender. In terms of the latter, Sharrock claims that the poet’s masculinity is undermined and feminised because his inspiration comes from the Muses. The author compares this situation with the tale of Salmacis and Hermaphroditus: Salmacis’ pool evokes the pure fountain from which the poet drinks in order to gain his inspiration, and the pool emasculates the limbs of those who touch it (esp. 211–7, 225–7). Jonathan Burgess (28) finds in the myths of Coronis and Semele a homology that can be expressed as female / male (the infant male body is separated from the female body), mortality / immortality. He analyses the motifs used in the Coronis / Semele story pattern and concludes that the two myths were serving a patriarchal ideology. Among the versions that Burgess mentions are the Ovidian ones: met. 2.542–632 and

368

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

3.259–315. Sonia Guerra López (50) takes a similar view, claiming that in the Ovidian corpus myths are used to transmit the patriarchal order, and that they limit functions of each sex in classical society. She illustrates her idea by briefly mentioning four myths: the rape of the Sabine women (ars 1.121–30), the Pygmalion story (met. 10), and the tales of Byblis (met. 9) and Myrrha (met. 10). Jessica Westerhold (63) uses as a paradigm the representation of the Phaedra myth in classical Greek tragedy. She traces the similarities between the Greek heroine, the characters to whom she refers as “the Phaedra-like figures” (including personalities from met. 8–10: Scylla, Byblis, Iphis and Myrrha), and the stories in which they feature. In each case, “the Phaedra-like figures” disrupt and challenge male control over familial and political symbolic systems, and struggle between performing kinship roles correctly, and sexual desire. Now that we have reviewed the works that offer a largely general perspective of the concept of gender in Ovid, in the next section we will sum up others that are more focussed on specific myths. Maria Grazia Iodice (67) shows how Peneus and Inachus share the experiences of their respective daughters, Daphne and Io (met. 1). The fathers break with the traditional Roman concepts of severitas and gravitas, since Ovid attributes them with motherly concern. A debate between Lacan and Irigaray, about Bernini’s statue of an ecstatic Saint Teresa, caused Genevieve Liveley (39) to assess the implications of gender present in the tale of Teiresias (met. 3). Here the character of Juno “is undermined by her sex, and women are denied the right even to speak of and for women” (153). Moreover, the voice of another female figure, Venus, is silenced, and Teiresias speaks in her place (154). Due to his transformations, the seer “destabilizes notions of fixed gender identity” (157), and the phallic connotations of the episode (e.g. Teiresias’ staff) may suggest that the phallus could be wielded by both women and men (160). The passage shows that “sex and gender are not fixed and immutable”, and “challenges the assumptions that men may have privileged access to power, knowledge and authority, and that women are fundamentally different to men” (161). Much has been written about the relationship of the Minyeides and their associations with questions of gender. Micaela Janan (13) concentrates her attention on these passages, specifically on met. 4.32–415. She argues that the daughters of Minyas “pose the question of gendered desire” (427): they show anxieties about women’s passion, which disrupts public and social institutions, and the institutional attempts to control it. In addition, the Minyeides myths demonstrate  a ‘feminine’ imagination. Don Fowler (26) in the chapter “Pyramus, Thisbe, King Kong: Ovid and the Presence of Poetry” (156–67) highlights the relevance of gender in the tale of the Minyeides, and in the stories related by them. Bearing in mind this context, he considers that “gender difference is relevant to the story of Pyramus and Thisbe” (160). Alison Keith (56) explores, in Ovid’s Perseid (met. 4.610–5.249), the gendered association of women with natural landscape, and the control exerted over both these elements by the male gaze, thus confirming the superiority of male. She also discusses the places where these gender dynamics are complicated or reversed. Keith (57) presents another of her works with these words: “I consider sexuality and gender in the

Gender

369

Ovidian corpus in connection with poetry and the body (both female and male), the female body and landscape, the circulation of women, and poetics and gender” (355). With regards to met. she mentions the feminisation of landscape in 1.416–17, 434–5; 2.273–4, and in the myth of Salmacis (361). Keith concentrates on gendered dynamics in the context of Mercury (met. 1), and in that of the Minyeides: she contrasts the Minyeides’ gynocentrism with the androcentric themes and settings of the tales narrated at Troy by the Greek army leaders (12.159–62, 210–535). Pablo Llanos (62) analyses the intertextual relations between the adultery of Mars and Venus, recounted by one of the Minyeides (met. 4), and its hypotext, the sexual encounter between Ares and Aphrodite (Od. 8). Llanos also relates the frame narrative and the others tales recounted by the daughters of Mynias, with the Homeric character of Penelope, and with Arachne and Philomela (met. 6). The author reaches the conclusion that in these stories from met., women “son representadas como transgresoras o … como opuestas al orden masculino” (44) and suggests various possible readings for the metamorphosis of the Minyeides into bats: as a punishment, due to their loss of speech, the ability to narrate and to oppose the voice of masculine authority; as a victory, since they do not leave the elegiac world (they emit querellas, a term often used in elegy) or the domestic sphere; or as an attraction to Bacchus and his rites. In the myth of Hermaphroditus and Salmacis (met. 4), Georgia Nugent (7) focuses on three stages (the encounter, the rape, and the consequences) “as constructing a story of gender which may also be challenged by a form of de-constructive reading” (162). In addition, she attempts to show that this text is replete with desire for the phallus and fear / denial of its loss (180). From the work by Lauren Silberman (15), the section “The Ovidian Myth: Discursive Construction vs. Biological Resistance” (50–4) is of interest. She approaches the myth of Hermaphroditus as “a myth of sexual identity and gender formation” (50), and focuses on the limitations of Hermaphroditus’ understanding: “… we can see his construction as a misconstruction, as a failure to recognize essential manhood and essential sexual difference” (53). Matthew Robinson (24) mentions the lexicon used in this same tale to denote androgyny, effeminacy and sexual connotations, and maintains that Hermaphroditus “owing to the fact that he was ἀνδρόγυνος in a literal sense, … came to be represented in literature and art as ἀνδρόγυνος in a pejorative sense, that is effeminate and pathic” (217). Vanda Zajko (59) studies how subsequent developments in feminist and queer theory, informed by psychoanalysis, employ the myth of Hermaphroditus within their own master narratives as they seek to understand the human subject. The author uses this body of theory as an interpretative lens for the myth itself, offering a reading that engages transformation as the vehicle of meaning for gender identity (175–6). She refers to the inversion of gender roles (191–2) and to the concept of androgyny as “an abhorrence and a threat to the purity of the position of the fertile male” (193). Nancy Miller (6) in “Arachnologies: The Woman, the Text, and the Critic” (77–101) uses the characters of Arachne (met. 6) and Ariadne (met. 8) to “display the differences that separate feminist readings from the current rhetorics of indifference and a poetics that imagines itself beyond the effects of gender” (77). In her reading, “Arachne is self-positioned as a feminist, Ariadne troped as masculinity’s feminine

370

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

other” (77), since the tapestry woven by Arachne, like feminist criticism, “constitutes a critique of phallomorphic privilege” (78) and “a feminocentric protest” (81). Michael Wenzel (16) discusses the stories of Marsyas and of Niobe (met. 6). He interprets the punishments suffered by them from a psychological, psychoanalytical, psychosomatic and symbolic point of view (30–38). In the first case, Wenzel values the triumph of Apollo’s masculinity, and the satyr’s loss of virility (33). Lastly, he reflects on the traditional “verticale Methode” and the new “horizontal Methode” used in teaching Latin (38). Next we shall focus on the tale protagonised by the daughters of Pandion. By juxtaposing a reading of selected feminist critics with an interpretation of Philomela’s myth (met. 6), Elissa Marder (10) interrogates the rhetorical, political, and epistemological implications of the feminist “we”. Patricia Joplin (32) also interprets the same story as being feminist, and converts Pandion’s daughter into a paradigm of women silenced by men. From this myth, she reflects on the importance of trading women in the politics of ancient Greece: “Pandion will give Tereus free entry to Procne’s body if he will agree not to use his force against Athens” (267). Doerte Bischoff (38) relates the fact of Philomela being deprived of her tongue and of talking, with treatises on rhetoric (esp. Quint. Inst.) where the female voice has no place. However, Ovid situates feminine discourse at the centre of attention using the subversive actio of the protagonists (149–58). Afterwards Bischoff examines the myth’s reception in 18th-century authors (258–81). Ann Suter (45) discusses the possible origins of this myth and contrasts the different literary and iconographic versions, from Homer to Ovid. The story of Procne and Philomela traces its origin back to other tales, which were either centred on control of female fertility, or which focused on the women and their rivalry over fertility. Then the focus shifted to the importance of who controls and enjoys it. The relevance of the tale about the two sisters lies in their mutual cooperation in order to “rebel against the gender structure of their society” (383). Like other Greek and Roman myths, its purpose would be to offer reasons to keep real women under control (384). This Ovidian myth and Ach. Tat. 5.4–5 were useful for Françoise Frontisi-Ducroux (53) to analyse the forms of representation of violence against the female body. Now we move on to book 8, which has aroused considerable interest in terms of gender. Charles Segal (25) carries out a review of the Greek versions of the Calydonian boar hunt episode (esp. Hom. Il. 9, Bacchylides 5). These are centred around the male experience, but Ovid refocuses on female experience (due to the presence of Atalanta, Althaea, and Meleager’s sisters) and suggests the failure of the traditional masculine ideal in the hunt, as a trial that separates the men from the boys. Laure Chappuis Sandoz (60) explores the “Inszenierung” of masculinity and femininity in hunting, and in the passage where Althaea is the main character. She specifies the literary techniques that allow the poet to dramatise, question and invert gender roles (177–84). Then she examines how Villaneuve limits such transgressions of gender in his translation from 1806–1807. Jacqueline Fabre-Serris (61) interprets the tale of the Calydonian boar hunt “comme una guerre des sexes où la position supérieure … est tenue par les

Gender

371

femmes” (4). Meanwhile, the subsequent stories, which feature Althaea and the hero’s sisters, show that “la vie du jeune homme tout entière aura été régie par des rapports aux femmes” (8). The charred log to which Meleager’s life is connected is the symbol for the “liens invisibles”, or ties that bind each man to the women in his family. Álvarez and Iglesias (64) offer  a literary and mythographical commentary on the passages concerning Meleager and Hercules (met. 8–9), to prove that Ovid is interested in innovating, and in creating an “épica alternativa”. The attention paid by the poet to female characters coincides within this aim. Next we will look at book 9. Shilpa Raval (29) suggests that in Byblis’ story (met. 9) the process of “being in love” is a discursively constructed experience, and that erotic experience exists within a gendered hierarchy: “Byblis transgresses gender boundaries when she aligns herself with the male amator and suffers the consequences of her actions” (286). After this, we move on to the tale of Iphis. Serge Nicaise (1) suggests two ways of reading this: following it to the letter – in other words, as a story of transsexuality; or symbolically. In the latter case, Ianthe’s love for Iphis would be symbolic, and the union of the two young people would imply Iphis’ reconciliation with her deepest being. John Makowski (17) focuses on how Ovid exploits the subject of bisexuality, as well as related issues of gender, for the sake of humour and satire. He reads the story of Iphis, which serves as a proleptic comment on the Orpheus myth, as a tale of gender confusion and trans-sexualism. The poet’s preoccupation with gender issues is noted, above all, in the catalogue of trees and in the Cyparissus story. The chapter by Diane Pintabone (34) also studies the myth of Iphis and Ianthe. After a brief review of works about female same-sex desire (256–9), the author talks of met. as a poem in which a clear hierarchy exists and “[w]ithin this hierarchy is patriarchy” (261). In this context, Iphis would be a woman “out of order” (260–1). Pintabone offers an analysis of both characters who participate in the myth, and of Iphis’ monologue (261–75). During the whole episode, you can see that, although Iphis has been assigned male gender, she acts according to female gender standards: her behaviour towards Ianthe is passive, which is why her case is not comparable to Pasiphaë, Byblis and other female aggressive pursuers. After reflecting on the sexual and amorous implications, and offering various interpretations of the story, Pintabone concludes that the final transformation of Iphis, and her marriage with Ianthe, restore the patriarchal hierarchy (275–81). Kirk Ormand (47) also examines this tale: he starts with a general view of it (79–80), which leads him to reflect on the possible sexual roles in Rome, and on female homoeroticism (80–7). Then he delves further into the myth about the two young people (87–100): in her monologue, Iphis explains that the relationship is impossible, because there is no asymmetry of power between them; instead there exists “an equal, mutual desire uninterrupted by the violence of gender difference” (94). For Ormand, in this tale there is “not a question of sexuality but of gender” and Iphis “is psychologically transgendered”: “she is a woman who wants to play a man’s role” (95), and in certain moments she even presents herself as an elegiac failed amator (96–7). In this way, the author reaches the conclusion that the story has focused on masculinity, or on its lack thereof (99). This myth is also the focus of Sandra Boehringer’s article

372

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

(46): while she compares the Iphis story with the tale of Leucippus (Ant. Lib. 17), Boehringer examines the feminisation of Iphis (88). In chapter 6, “Metamorphosis and Homosexuality I: Ovid’s “Iphis and Ianthe” and Related Tales” (163–97), David Robinson (51) explores the connections between the tale of Iphis and Ianthe, and other stories from the Ovidian epic that involve sex, gender, and sexuality. He reflects about all types of sexual behaviour and their consequences (misogyny, homophobia, destruction of the system) without losing sight of the link with masculinity and femininity. For Jonathan Walker (52), in this tale the “problematic of gender manages to make the issue of female homoeroticism disappear by refusing to understand that issue in / on its own terms. Lesbianism is deformulated because the problem can be addressed more intelligibly through the phallocentric gender system of Augustan Rome” (220). The author also highlights the gender confusion in Iphis’ mind caused by female-female erotic desire, and the central role played by female characters as opposed to the marginalised male ones. We will finish with various works that examine stories in the last five books of met. Alison Sharrock (8) compares the stories of Pygmalion and Myrrha (met. 10): one of her starting points is that “they are both involved in the construction of women” (176). The chapter by Judith Hallett (55) also focuses on Pygmalion’s narrative: she draws attention to a series of intertextualities that link this episode with Sulpicia’s poetry, and with Ovid’s own works. By stressing that the poetess shares some features with Pygmalion’s statue and even with the Propoetides, “Ovid minimizes Sulpicia’s agency as a literary creator” (122) and “is sending his readers the message that she is to be viewed as a female body and as a work, not a worker, of art” (123). In her monograph on the Ovidian ‘Iliad’ (met. 12.1–13.622), Sophia Papaioannou (54) dedicates a brief section, “The Hero’s Gender” (72–9), to exploring questions of gender in the confrontation between Achilles and Cycnus. Achilles shows anxiety about his manliness, and about his condition as an epic hero, while Cycnus is projected as effeminate. In the passage, gendered issues intersect with questions of genre. Gender and genre are also associated in “Epic Gender and Epic Performance” (102–7): she examines the encounter between Caeneus and Latreus, which is viewed as a complement to the conflict between Achilles and Cycnus, due to Ovid’s preoccupation with virtus; and to the story of Cyllarus and Hylonome, which inverts the epic politics of gender and genre. In chapter 6 (207–51), the fall of Troy is examined as an allegory for epic composition. Papaioannou evaluates intertexts (esp. Hom. Il., E. Hec., Verg. Aen.) to make obvious the reversal and deconstruction of the Homeric epic. Within the Ovidian epic, gender reversal plays a relevant role, present in Polyxena’s sacrifice, in Hecuba’s lament, and in her vengeance for the murder of Polydorus (vid. esp. 213, 225–7, 241, 243, 244, 247, 251). An inversion of roles is also detected by DeBrohun (42) in the story of Cyllarus and Hylonome (met. 12.393–428): “… Cyllarus is given the role of “feminized” love object while Hylonome becomes the primary agent of desire” (419; see also pp. 439 and 449). In his comprehensive commentary on Centauromachy, Gottfried Mader  (66) dedicates a brief section (110–12) to the confrontation between Caeneus and the Centaurs, where “[g]ender and the gender hierarchy are crucial points of reference” (110).

Humour

373

The woman-man’s presence is an affront to the Centaurs’ masculinity, which they battle to reassert. The subsequent death of Caeneus implies the survival of epic hierarchy, although as he dies by asphyxiation, the Centaurs’ victory is ambiguous at best. Sara Lindheim (19) contrasts the gendered connotations in Prop. 4.2 with the tale of Vertumnus and Pomona (met. 14). In his elegy, Propertius deconstructs notions of body and gender identity, while in the Ovidian story “gender identity is no more than  a tenacious … belief in roles that acquire comprehensible meaning in social context” (36). Daniel Curley (22) presents the chapter “Similes aliorum respice casus. Phaedra and Hippolytus (15.479–546)” (145–210) of his thesis thus: “Chapter 4 brings the dialogue between heroines and ephebes to the fore with an analysis of the narrative of Virbius” (6). At various points, Curley reflects on the relation between gender and genre: “Each sings  a tragic song within epic,  a song attenuated or bolstered by the genre conventionally associated with the gender of the singer: elegy for the female, epic for the male” (150; see also pp. 147–8). The author concludes that in the story of Virbius (met. 15): “The tragedy of the heroine has been recuperated to the tragedy of the ephebe, and the narrative code that drives ephebe drama has been reinstated” (200). 15. Humour As Niklas Holzberg rightly states (19, 258): “Given the variety of approaches presented in this volume, it is hard to understand why all contributors almost entirely ignore one thing: that Ovid is very funny” (some general thoughts on this topic, in the opening words of Peek 22; on ‘witticisms and jokes’, see Tissol 16, 3–10; on the kind of humour, related to dicacitas, that is present in met., see also Martínez Astorino, 38, 304–5). Yet references to Ovid’s pervasive humour appear everywhere in recent scholarship. We gather here a number of works which have focused more or less specifically on it. 1.  W. S. M. Nicoll, “Cupid, Apollo, and Daphne (Ovid, Met. 1.452 ff.)”, CQ 30, 1980, 174–82. 2. W. S. Anderson, “Playfulness and Seriousness in Ovid’s Metamorphoses,” Mosaic 12.2, 1981, 192–210. 3.  J. T. Davis, “Risit Amor: Aspects of Literary Burlesque in Ovid’s ‘Amores’”, ANRW II 31.4, 1981, 2460–506. 4.  M. Paschalis, “Parody of Homer in Ovid (Met. 1, 178–180)” (= “ΠΑΡΩΔΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΟΜΗΡΟΥ ΣΤΟΝ ΟΒΙΔΙΟ (MET. 1, 178–180)”), Dodone 10, 1981, 9–22. 5.  O. D. Watkins, “Ovid, Metamorphoses, 8, 365–8”, Latomus 42, 1983, 135–8. 6.  J. M.  Frécaut, “Humour et imaginaire dans un épisode des Métamorphoses d’Ovide; les paysans lyciens (VI, 313–381)”, Latomus 43, 1984, 540–53. 7.  M. Paschalis, “The Demythicization of virtus in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (Love, Humor and Politics)” (“Η απομυθοποίηση της virtus στις Μεταμορφώσεις του Οβιδίου

374

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

(χιούμορ, έρωτας και πολιτική)”), in Πανελλήνιο Συμπόσιο Λατινικών Σπουδών. Θέμα: Λογοτεχνία και πολιτική στα χρόνια του Αυγούστου, Γιάννενα, 5–6 Νοέμβριου 1982, Iannina 1984, 51–66. 8.  *D.  Den Hengst, “Ovidius ludens. De geestigheid van Ovidius”, Lampas 21, 1988, 346–60. 9.  J. B. Solodow, The World of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Chapel Hill-London 1988. 10.  J. T. Kirby, “Humor and the Unity of Ovid’s Metamorphoses. A Narratological Assessment”, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History V, Bruxelles 1989, 233–51 (Coll. Latomus 206). 11.  J.  Farrell, “Dialogue of Genres in Ovid’s ‘Lovesong of Polyphemus’ (Meta­ morphoses 13. 719–897)”, AJPh 113, 1992, 235–68. 12.  A. Houriez, “D’Eschyle à Ovide: le traitement du mythe d’Io à travers divers genres littéraires”, Uranie 2, 1992, 43–62. 13.  N. A. DeBloois, Reluctant Brides, Deadly Bridegrooms: Ovid’s Transformation of the Marriage of Death, Diss. Univ. of Iowa 1994. 14.  S. Mack, “Teaching Ovid’s Orpheus to Beginners”, CJ 90, 1995, 279–85. 15.  J. F.  Makowski, “Bisexual Orpheus: Pederasty and Parody in Ovid”, CJ 92, 1996–1997, 25–38. 16. G. Tissol, The Face of Nature. Wit, Narrative, and Cosmic Origins in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Princeton 1997 (revised version of Narrative style in Ovid’s “Metamorphoses” and the influence of Callimachus, Ph. D.  thesis Univ. of California, Berkeley 1988). 17.  T. Fuhrer, “Der Götterhymnus als Prahlrede: Zum Spiel mit einer literarischen Form in Ovids Metamorphosen”, Hermes 127, 1999, 356–67. 18.  N. P. Gross, “Allusion and Rhetorical Wit in Ovid, Metamorphoses 13”, Scholia 9, 2000, 54–65. 19.  N.  Holzberg, review of “P.  Hardie, A.  Barchiesi, S. Hinds (eds.), Ovidian Transformations. Essays on the Metamorphoses and its Reception, Cambridge 1999”, CR 51, 2001, 256–8. 20. I. Jouteur, Jeux de genre dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide, Louvain 2001. 21.  E. Lorenzetti, “L’armorum iudicium di Ovidio. Appunti sulla tradizione epica nelle Metamorfosi”, AFLM 34, 2001, 219–47. 22. P. S. Peek, “Black humour in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”,  Ramus 30, 2001, 128–51. 23.  K. Fellner, “Frauenbilder in den Metamorphosen: eine kritische Annäherung an die Autorperspektive in Ovids Daphne-Mythos”, AU 45, 2002, 64–71. 24.  M. Labate, “Ironia e iperbole nell’immaginario epico di Ovidio”, in L. Cristante (ed.), Incontri triestini di filologia classica I (2001–2), Trieste 2003, 139–53. 25.  R.  VerSteeg, N.  Barclay, “Rhetoric and Law in Ovid’s Orpheus”, Law and Literature 15, 2003, 395–420.

Humour

375

26.  C.  Walde, “Ovids Ars Ridendi”, in W.  Mauser, J.  Pfeiffer (eds.), Lachen, Würzburg 2006, 77–100 (Freiburger literaturpsychologische Gespräche. Jahrbuch für Literatur und Psychoanalyse 25). 27.  P. Murgatroyd, “Ovid’s Achilles and Cycnus”, Latomus 67, 2008, 931–9. 28.  P. Murgatroyd, “An Ovidian Katabasis”, Eranos 105, 2008–2009, 40–3. 29.  F. Cairns, “The genre «oaristys»”, WS 123, 2010, 101–29. 30.  L. Coo, “The Speech of Onetor (Ovid Met. 11.346–381) and Its Tragic Model (Euripides I. T. 236–339)”, SIFC 8, 2010, 86–108. 31.  S. E. Lake, Literary Parody in Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses’, Diss. Fordham University 2010. 32.  Y.  Nadeau, “Naulochus and Actium, the Fleets of Paris and Aeneas, and the Tree-felling of C.  Iulius Caesar Erysichthon”, in C.  Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin literature and Roman history XV, Bruxelles 2010, 219–39 (Collection Latomus 323). 33.  H. J. Westra, “Irony, Ambiguity, and Laughter in Greek and Latin texts”, in H.-G.  Moeller, G.  Wohlfart (eds.), Laughter in Eastern and Western Philosophies: Proceedings of the Académie du Midi, Freiburg, Br., 2010, 140–51 (Welten der Philo­ sophie 3). 34.  S. Papaïoannou, “Ovid, Metamorphoses 15, 418–452: Pythagoras’ Helenus on Epic Grandeur and Epic Succession”, AAntHung 51, 2011, 31–43. 35.  P. Murgatroyd, “Entertaining Arethusa”, MH 69, 2012, 177–89. 36.  P. Murgatroyd, “Wit and Humour at Ovid, Metamorphoses 3.316–338”, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History XVI, Bruxelles 2012, 307–12 (Collection Latomus 338). 37.  D. van Schoor, “Nec me mea fallit imago: Ovid’s poetics of irony and reflections of Lucretius and Pythagoras in the Metamorphoses”, AClass 54, 2011, 125–47. 38.  P.  Martínez Astorino, La apoteosis en las Metamorfosis de Ovidio. Diseño estructural, mitologización y «lectura» en la representación de apoteosis y sus contextos, Bahía Blanca 2017. In an article written in the first half of the 1970s (2), William Anderson starts off by defending Ovid from the traditional accusation of lascivia which had already been levelled against him in Antiquity (both Senecas and Quintilian) and again during Romanticism. Through an analysis of the episodes of Actaeon, Byblis or Myrrha, he concludes (203): “I regard the categories of traditional critics, their opposition of lascivia and gravitas, playfulness and seriousness, as fundamentally wrong. Ovid uses both playfulness and seriousness, but, even more than that, he employs imagination and clear vision”. Parody is one of the humorous methods most used by Ovid (some general caveats on the effective limits of irony and parody in Ovid can be found in Martínez

376

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

Astorino, 38, 101–12 and 299–306). Michael Paschalis (4) analyses this method in the presentation of Jupiter before the Assembly of the Gods (1.178–80) vis-à-vis the Homeric model (Il. 1.528–30). Paschalis asserts that this parody is based on the bold humanisation of the god, contrary to the imitations of Homer by earlier Roman poets and by Ovid himself, and in the reminiscences of Lucr. 2.632, Hor. carm. 3.1.8, and Ov. am. 3.1.31–2, with all their significant implications. Watkins (5) holds that the scarcely heroic behaviour of Nestor in the Calydonian boar-hunt in met. 8.365–8 could be a parody of the presentation which this character makes of himself in the Homeric work. Regarding the character of Io (1.568–688, 713–49), Annie Houriez (12, 59) claims that “… Ovide parodie la narration épique en faisant soigneusement alterner le plan terrestre et le plan humain comme dans l’Iliade (…). Ovide parodie les motifs de l’épopée homérique: ainsi la scène de séduction est-elle une reprise inversée d’une scène parallèle de l’Iliade” (14.152–353). John Makowski (15, 26) reads “the Orpheus story as parody by focusing on how Ovid exploits the subject of bisexuality as well as related issues of gender for the sake of humor and satire”. Therese Fuhrer (17) also qualifies the treatment of Apollo’s (1.504–24) and Niobe’s (6.170–202) speeches as “Epos-Parodie”. In her study, the author focuses attention on their humorous elements, while Nicolas Gross (18), in his analysis of three speeches in book 13 (Aiax-Ulysses; Polyxena; Polyphemus-Galatea), maintains that these speeches provide the book “with  a coherence defined by Ovid’s unique parody of Greek myth and literature, an intellectual playfulness characterised by rhetorical and visual incongruity” (55), something definitely more evident in the third speech than in the first two. The self-parody which, according to Gross, Ovid would have made to assimilate the Glaucus-Scylla episode to that of Apollo-Daphne for the phraseological echo non  – ego  – sum (1.513  – 13.917–8), is not that evident either. Neither are especially clear the sense or object of the parody of Hor. carm. 3.13.1 (splendidior vitro) in its obvious reuse for 13.791, even though for Gross, the passage “implies to his [sc. Ovid’s] audience that such literary and rhetorical playfulness is the dominant aspect of the book and not limited to Greek literature alone” (65). As against previous studies where Ovid’s parody was defended, Emanuela Lorenzetti (21) makes a reading of the Armorum iudicium according to which Ovid not only does not prefer the character of Ulysses but even enhances that of Aias. The Ph. D. thesis of Sean E.  Lake (31) is devoted specifically to the subject of parody in our work, though with a particularly political bias. As the author states at the start (2), the study “focuses on Ovid’s transformation of the Perseus myth in the Metamorphoses. Ovid adapts and indeed transforms his sources for the Perseus episode, creating a version that is largely directed toward a critique of the way that figures from myth, and Perseus in particular, are used by Augustus in his imagery or linked to him by other poets and artists”. But in chapter 5 (175–222) he also pays attention to Phaethon, Hercules, and the Centauromachy, since Ovid treats these episodes “in a similar fashion, demonstrating that these myths could be read in ways unflattering to the Princeps” (3). In her study, Lyndsay Coo (30) focuses attention on the humorous elements of Onetor’s speech (11.346–381) as an instance of parodying the traditional messen-

Humour

377

ger-speech of tragedy. Isabelle Jouteur devotes part 3 of her study (20, 199–299) to Ovid’s generic ‘subversions’ in met., among which different kinds of parody are to be considered (esp. 214–25: assembly of the gods, Calydon-boar hunt, Juno’s vengeance). In part 4, she also deals with Ovid’s “attitude ludique”, which she exemplifies through the examples of Polyphemus, Perseus and Andromeda, and Actaeon. Russ VerSteeg and Nina Barclay (25) examine the legal and rhetorical aspects of Orpheus’ speech to Hades (10.17–39), and conclude that Ovid is using sarcasm to parody both legalistic arguments, and the standard approach to rhetoric in his time. David van Schoor (37) finds in Ovid’s ‘empty discourses’, such as those in certain episodes of the Theban saga (Books 3–4) and in Pythagoras’ speech (15), a sort of parody of philosophy, since he uses philosophical topics without wanting to transform his public, which was the ultimate aim of philosophy. The technique of literary burlesque is close to parody. John Davis (3) examines Ovid’s treatment of elegy (Amores), but he does it through a meticulous comparison between this work and the poet’s version of ‘The Courtship of Polyphemus’ (13.750– 869), an episode in which literary burlesque is generally acknowledged. Along with this, many other passages of met. are the object of thorough analysis by Garth Tissol (16). His book aims to show the way in which openly humorous mechanisms such as witticism, paradox, ambiguity, wordplay, irony, puns and jokes, and – on a larger scale – disruption, affect the style of the poem. Philip Peek (22) examines more than 70 instances of black humour in met. through its different modalities (authorial interjections, unnatural thought, wordplay, the ridiculous, grotesquerie), his contention being (146) “that it is Ovid’s seriocomic treatment of the epic genre […] that gives his work unity”. As for the ideological background of Ovid’s attitude, he states (146): “Previously epic had been a stabilising force […]. Ovid’s joyously black comic epic destabilises, putting the common man with all his shortcomings, flaws, limitations and strengths on display. […] Through humour he emphasises the ambivalence of the human condition and the limitations of knowledge and understanding in a just and unjust world”. Nicoll (1) maintains that the Apollo-Daphne episode could be interpreted humorously in the sense that “the patron of epic and serious poetry should be obliged to abandon his epic pretensions in order to get his hands on the tree which was the symbol of his own poetic craft” (for 1.453 quem non fors ignara dedit as a joke, see 177). This same myth is the subject of Karin Fellner’s study (23). However, this author asserts that, in spite of Ovid’s recognised affinity with the feminine, it is only through adopting the masculine perspective, and through the silencing of the female sexual victim viewpoint, that Ovid manages to present this incident as erotic or humorous. This notwithstanding, several years earlier Michael Paschalis (7) had highlighted the humorous vein through which Ovid, consciously opposing the Augustan poets, connects virtus with sexual repression, rape and sex change, identifying this important traditional component of Roman aristocratic ideology with trickery, violence and barbarism. Although focused on the perspective of literary genres which converge in the episode of the ‘love song of Polyphemus’ (13.719–897), the article by Joseph Farrell

378

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

(11) emphasises humour as a creative element in Ovid’s adoption of these Theocritean characters. Part of this same episode (13.840–52) is chosen by Haijo Westra (33, 149) to illustrate how Ovid uses irony to produce laughter. Referring to met., John Kirby (10) uses as his starting point that “Ovid’s fine sense of humor is one of the forces that unify the work” and that “[t]his is not always acknowledged […], and when it was acknowledged in antiquity it was not always appreciated” (233). He dedicates his pages to analysing the ways in which various manifestations of humour fit into the text itself, distinguishing three levels of agreement with the proposed terminology of Gérard Genette (“histoire, récit, narration”). He focuses on three episodes apparently without humour: the tales of Phaethon (1.747–2.400), Tereus-Philomela-Procne (6.412–674), and Ceyx-Alcyone (11.266–748). Joseph Solodow (9, 101–9) also illustrates through various passages Ovid’s interpretation of wit and humour in met.: “The injection of humor inoculates mythology against excessive solemnity; it shuts out interpretations which tend to reduce man to  a figure within some abstract scheme, whether moral or historical, political or theological. Ovid’s version of mythology intimates that the past was not larger than life: it was like the present” (108). Sara Mack (14) compares, with didactic orientation, the treatment of Orpheus in Virgil and Ovid, and takes as his starting point that Ovid “assumes his reader will have Vergil’s text in mind as the standard from which he deviates as he creates his own much less tragic story” (280). Specifically, she studies the humorous means for this deviation. Den Hengst (8) claims that Ovid’s humour lies to a large extent in his awareness of the artificial character of poetry. After examining the motif of the ‘bride of Hades / Death’ in the Hymn to Demeter and in the Greek tragic authors (12–93), the dissertation of Nanci Ann DeBloois (13) looks at how Ovid transforms this motif both in his portrayal of Persephone (94–125), and in the many stories of maidens who are victims of rape (126–87). According to the author, Ovid’s principal innovations are adding the motivation of love; replacing marriage with rape; and treating these themes with humour and irony. Sophia Papaïoannou (34) gives  a political interpretation of the appearance of Helenus, the Trojan seer, at the closure of Pythagoras’ speech. According to her interpretation, this incident implies a humorous comment on the Augustan projection of Rome: “By means of undermining the infallibility of prophesying through the lack of credibility of the prophet, Ovid with subtle humor comments on the standardization of the literary motif of epic prophecies about Rome’s glorious destiny to succeed Greece as the political and cultural ruler of the world, a much advertized theme in the various expressions of Augustan ideology of global conquest” (33). Jean Marc Frécaut (6) highlights the elements of humour which Ovid introduces into the episode, characteristic of popular tales, of the Lycian peasants (6.313–81). Yvan Nadeau (32, 231–7) analyses through a comparative study how “Ovid’s tale of Erysichthon [sc. 8.725–884] subverts through humorous treatment the propaganda message of Vergil’s Aeneid” (237). In his diachronic study of the ‘oaristys’ genre (ὀαριστύς, “wooing”), also documented in Ovid (am. 1.5, 3.2; met. 14.622–771), Francis Cairns (29) comes to the

Other aspects

379

conclusion that, in spite of obvious touches of humour and irony, the tone of this genre is more serious than humorous. One of the scholars who has dedicated most attention in recent years to aspects of humour in Ovid is Paul Murgatroyd. Regarding the episode of Achilles and Cycnus’ fight (12.64–167), Murgatroyd (27) joins those who found therein wit, humour and epic parody (references in 931 n. 1, and, specifically on the matter, Labate 24, who studies this “sovversione ironica” through the Homeric and Hellenistic hypotexts). Murgatroyd dedicates his study to analysing in detail the humorous resources, explicitly opposing Luigi Galasso’s interpretation (BICS 47, 2004, 83–98) of the same episode. Similarly, in the catabasis of Aeneas (14.101–57), Murgatroyd (28) joins the group (40 n. 3) of those who observe occasional humorous touches in the episode, which he analyses through a nuanced reading. This same method, in short, is applied by this author to show the humorous mechanisms not always recognised in the episodes of Arethusa (35, met. 5.572–641), or Tiresias (36, met. 3.316–38). Christine Walde (26) begins with several extremely generalised factors about humour in Antiquity and particularly in Ovid, and afterwards focuses on the humorous component of the Narcissus-Echo episode. 16. Other aspects 1.  F. J. Brandhofer, M. Firnkes, E. Rieger, Lateinische Dichterlektüre I, Unterrichtsprojekte zu Phädrus und Ovid, Bamberg 1982, 80–123 (Auxilia 4). 2.  D.  Lateiner, “Mythic and non-mythic artists in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Ra­ mus 13, 1984, 1–30. 3.  M. Labate, “Di nuovo sulla poetica dei nomi in Petronio: Corax ‘il delatore’?”, MD 16, 1986, 135–46. 4.  A. Caubet, “Pygmalion et la statue d’ivoire”, in R. Ètienne, M.-T. Le Dinahet, M. Yon (eds.), Architecture et poésie dans le monde grec. Hommages à Georges Roux, Lyon-Paris 1989, 247–54. 5.  D. P.  Fowler, “First Thoughts on Closure: Problems and Prospects”, MD 22, 1989, 75–122. 6.  F. Giordano, “Nobilitas in Ovidio”, BStudLat 20, 1990, 344–59. 7.  M. von Albrecht, “Ovidio y la música”, Myrtia 8, 1993, 7–22. 8.  M. Citroni, “Ovidio e l’evoluzione del rapporto poeta-pubblico tra tarda repubblica e prima età imperiale”, in M. Citroni, Poesia e lettori in Roma antica. Forme della comunicazione letteraria, Bari 1995, 133–66. 9.  R. A. Spencer, Contrast as Narrative Technique in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Lewiston (N. Y.)-Queenstown (Ont.) 1996 (Studies in Classics 6). 10. F.  Capponi, Ovidius cynegeticus, Genova 1988 (Pubbl. del D. AR. FI. CL. ET. 722). 11. D. Hershkowitz, The Madness of Epic: Reading Insanity from Homer to Statius, Oxford 1998.

380

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

12.  C. Montuschi, “Le indicazioni del tempo nelle «Metamorfosi»: meccanismi ovidiani di contestualizzazione”, BStudLat 28, 1998, 426–55. 13.  O. Wittstock, “Die Sperrung und ihre methodische Behandlung bei der Übersetzung ins Deutsche, dargestellt an Ovids Metamorphosen I 1–500”, in C.-F. Collatz [et al.] (ed.), Dissertatiunculae criticae: Festschrift für Günther Christian Hansen, Würzburg 1998, 229–43. 14.  H.  Cancik, “Idolum and imago: Roman Dreams and Dream Theories”, in D. D. Shulman, G. G. Stroumsa (eds.), Dream Cultures: Explorations in the Comparative History of Dreaming, Oxford-New York 1999, 169–88. 15.  D. C. Feeney, “«Mea tempora»: patterning of time in the «Metamor­phoses»”, in P.  Hardie, A.  Barchiesi, S. Hinds (eds.), Ovidian Transformations: Essays on the «Metamorphoses» and its Reception, Cambridge 1999, 13–30. 16.  S.  Hinds, “After Exile: Time and Teleology from Metamorphoses to Ibis”, in P.  Hardie, A.  Barchiesi, S. Hinds (eds.), Ovidian Transformations: Essays on the «Metamorphoses» and its Reception, Cambridge 1999, 48–67. 17.  S. T. Newmyer, “Ovid on the moral grounds for vegetarianism”, in W. Schubert (ed.), Ovid: Werk und Wirkung. Festgabe für Michael von Albrecht zum 65. Geburtstag, Bern-Frankfurt am Main 1999, I, 477–86. 18.  A. Videau, “Le maître, la femme et l’éthique du savoir”, Helmantica 50, 1999, 769–80. 19.  A. Zissos, I. Gildenhard, “Problems of Time in Metamorphoses 2”, in P. Har­ die, A. Barchiesi, S. Hinds (eds.), Ovidian Transformations: Essays on the «Metamorphoses» and its Reception, Cambridge 1999, 31–47. 20. J. Loehr, Ovids Mehrfacherklärungen in der Tradition aitiologischen Dichtens, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1996 (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 74). 21. J. Bouquet, Le songe dans l’epopée latine d’Ennius à Claudien, Bruxelles 2001 (Collection Latomus 260). 22. P. Hardie, Ovid’s Poetics of Illusion, Cambridge 2002. 23. G.  Maselli, “La liberazione di Andromeda  e l’eziologia del corallo (Ov. Met. 4,663–752)”, InvLuc 24, 2002, 127–50. 24. J.  Fabre-Serris, “La fabrication de l’humain dans les «Métamorphoses» d’Ovide”, in U. Heidmann [et al.] (ed.), Poétiques comparées des mythes: De l’Antiquité à la Modernité, en hommage à Claude Calame, Lausanne 2003, 129–52 (Sciences humaines 265). 25.  C. Guzmán Arias, “Ovidio y el Etna”, QUCC 74, 2003, 137–45. 26.  L. Landolfi, “Posse loqui eripitur (Ov. Met. 2,483). Perdita di parola, perdita d’identità nelle Metamorfosi”, in L. Landolfi, P. Monella (eds.), Ars adeo latet arte sua. Riflessioni sull’ intertestualità ovidiana, Palermo 2003, 29–58. 27.  M.-A.  Marié, “De la lecture des vases à l’écriture des Métamorphoses”, in E. Bury (ed.), Lectures d’Ovide: publiées à la mémoire de Jean-Pierre Néraudau, Paris 2003, 107–14.

Other aspects

381

28.  A. D. Nikolopoulos, “Tremuloque gradu venit aegra senectus: old age in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, Mnemosyne 56, 2003, 48–60. 29.  P. S. Peek, “Procne, Philomela, Tereus in Ovid’s Metamorphoses:  a narrato­ logical approach”, Antichthon 37, 2003, 32–51. 30.  P. James, “What Lies Beneath: Fluid Subtexts in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, in M. Zimmerman, R. T. Van der Paardt (eds.), Metamorphic Reflections. Essays Presented to Ben Hijmans at his 75th Birthday, Leuven 2004, 1–19. 31.  E. Fantham, “Mater dolorosa”, Hermathena 177/78, 2004/05, 113–24. 32. C.  Montuschi, Il tempo in Ovidio. Funzioni, meccanismi, strutture, Firenze 2005 (Accademia La colombaria studi 226). 33.  R. J.  Tarrant, “Roads not taken: untold stories in Ovid’s Metamorphoses”, MD 54, 2005, 65–89. 34.  G.  Baldo, “Gesto  e personaggio nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio”, in G.  Papponetti (ed.), Ovidio fra Roma  e Tomis. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi (Sulmona 13–15 giugno 2003), Sulmona 2006, 55–75. 35.  G. Broccia, “Appunti sul tema del vino in Orazio”, Maia 58, 2006, 25–32. 36.  G. Becht-Jördens, P. M. Wehmeier, “Vom Kunstobjekt zum lebendigen Menschen: Ovid über Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Kunst”, in H. Förstl, E. Boehlke, M. Heuser (eds.), Metamorphosen, Berlin 2006, 37–45. 37.  P.  Hardie, “Phrygians in Rome, Romans in Phrygia”, in G.  Urso (ed.), Tra Oriente  e Occidente: indigeni, Greci  e Romani in Asia Minore. Atti del convegno internazionale. Cividale del Friuli, 28–30 settembre 2006, Pisa 2007, 93–103. 38.  S. J.  Harrison, “Exile in Latin Epic”, in J. F.  Gaertner (ed.), Writing Exile: The Discourse of Displacement in Greco-Roman Antiquity and Beyond, Leiden 2007, 129–54 (Mnemosyne. Supplementum 283). 39.  F. Scoditti, “Ovidio e la musica”, InvLuc 29, 2007, 253–62. 40.  P.  Martínez Astorino, La apoteosis en las Metamorfosis de Ovidio: función estructural y valor semántico, La Plata 2009. 41.  A.  Barchiesi, “Le «Metamorfosi» nell’atrio”, in R.  Uglione (ed.), Atti del convegno nazionale di studi «lector, intende, laetaberis»: il romanzo dei Greci  e dei Romani: Torino, 27–28 aprile 2009, Alessandria 2010, 187–208. 42. P. Barolsky, A Brief History of the Artist from God to Picasso, University Park, PA, 2010. 43.  L. Castagna, “Pauper Senatus”, Aevum(ant) 10, 2010, 361–70. 44.  J. B. Fontes, “Bella gerunt uenti: o sítio de Troia em Metamorfoses XI, 410–748”, Phaos 10, 2010, 5–43. 45.  I. Lada-Richards, “«Corporeal technologies» in Graeco-Roman Pantomime Dancing”, in M.-H. Garelli (ed.), Corps en jeu de l’Antiquité à nos jours, Rennes 2010, 251–69.

382

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

46.  J.  Ma, “A note on lead projectiles (glandes, molybdides) in support of sling bullets: a reply to T. Rihll”, JRA 23, 2010, 427–8. 47.  M. Menichetti, “Metamorfosi: una trama di sguardi tra Grecia e Roma. Il caso di Atteone e Diana. 1.”, Eidola 8, 2011, 45–50. 48.  G. L. Grassigli, “Metamorfosi: una trama di sguardi tra Grecia e Roma. Il caso di Atteone e Diana. 2.”, Eidola 8, 2011, 51–64. 49.  J. Heath, “Women’s work: female transmission of mythical narrative”, TAPhA 141, 2011, 69–104. 50. R. Henneböhl, Ovid, Metamorphosen, Reihe: Latein Kreativ 1, Bad Driburg 20114. 51.  A. Nowak, J. Voss, “Metamorphorische Nächte: nox bei Ovid: Textstellen in Graphik und Karikartoon”, in A. Heil, M. Korn, J. Sauer (eds.), «Noctes Sinenses»: Festschrift für Fritz-Heiner Mutschler zum 65. Geburtstag, Heidelberg 2011, 169–74 (Kalliope 11). 52.  L. Tomkins, “The myth of Narcissus: Ovid and the problem of subjectivity in psychology”, G&R 58, 2011, 224–39. 53.  C. Torre, “‘À rebours’: dalle immagini al testo (o brevi istruzioni, dedicate ai filologi, per l’uso di MarS)”, Eidola 8, 2011, 15–28. 54.  E. Delbey, “La colère dans les Métamorphoses d’Ovide: un motif d’interprétation”, Vita Latina 185/186, 2012, 32–45. 55.  M. McAuley, “Matermorphoses: motherhood and the Ovidian epic subject”, Eugesta 2, 2012, 123–68. 56.  A. McClintock, “L’ira di Demetra”, Index 40, 2012, 42–56. 57.  E.  Pillinger, “«And the gods dread to hear another poem»: the repetitive poetics of witchcraft from Virgil to Lucan”, MD 68, 2012, 39–79. 58.  H. Vial, “Intus habes quem poscis: l’infanticide dans les Métamorposes d’Ovid, entre identité et altérité”, in S. Dubel, A.  Montandon (eds.), Mythes sacrificiels et ragoûts d’enfants, Clermont-Ferrand 2012, 139–53 (Mythographies et sociétés). 59.  S.  Coin-Longeray, “Dis, diues chez Ovide”, in A.  Garcea, M.-K.  Lhommé, D.  Vallat (eds.), Polyphonia Romana: hommages à Frédérique Biville, HildesheimZürich 2013, I, 145–56 (Spudasmata 155). 60.  M.  Hellmich, “Actaeon. Ein Comic als Ovid-Schullektüre”, AU 56, 2013, 68–73. 61.  I. Lada-Richards, “Mutata corpora: Ovid’s changing forms and the metaphoric bodies of pantomime dancing”, TAPhA 143, 2013, 105–52. 62.  C. Reitz, “Describing the invisible: Ovid’s Rome”, Hermes 141, 2013, 283–93. 63. M.  Hellmich, Ovid. Verwandlungsgeschichten. Ein Comic als Ovid-Lektüre, Göttingen 2014. 64.  E. Pyy, “In Search of Peer Support: Changing Perspective on Sisterhood in Roman Imperial Epic”, Arctos 48, 2014, 295–318.

Other aspects

383

65. I.  Scholz, “Hausaufgaben in der Lektürephase: Ovids Metamorphosen”, AU 57, 2014, 34–41. 66.  C.  Thumiger, “Metamorphosis: Human into Animals”, in G. L.  Campbell (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Animals in Classical Thought and Life, Oxford 2014, 384–413. As the title of this chapter indicates, various works on themes derived from met., but difficult to fit together as a conceptual group, are gathered here. Dedicated to using met. as  a text for teaching Latin, we have the contributions in the volume by Brandhofer-Firnkes-Rieger (1, 54–79; 80–123). Here met. 1.1–88 and 6.146–312 are used as  a point of departure for reading poetry in secondary schools, and for teaching Latin as a second foreign language. The article by Scholz (65), however, is more directed towards understanding Ovid and his met., for which it uses book 2 and a study focused on the Myth of the Ages in 1.89–150; this is read in German, but with some queries on the morphology of the Latin text. In the same vein of using met. or a specific myth to teach Latin, and to introduce the poet and his work to students, we have the books by Hellmich (60 and 63), and Henneböhl (50). Finally, linked in a broad sense to the examples above is the case of Wittstock (13): his study of hyperbaton, and his treatment for translation into German, detail a series of situations and rules for translating the different modes of using adjectives into German. As an example to illustrate his study, he offers met. 1.1–500. Other cases are more related to questions of poetics. For example, Mario Labate dedicates his article (3) to investigating the name of Corax in Petronius’ Satyricon, connecting its meaning with one of the many speaking names in the novel. Corax’s name is inspired by the character’s traits, based on the reputation of the crow in Ovidian mythology (met. 2.540 ff.), among other examples. Don Fowler (5) begins with the status quaestionis on the matter of closure in Greek and Latin literary works, and among other examples he cites the case of the books of met. A wide variety of closure effects can be found in Ovid, and they all deserve to be considered as an artistic resource, rather than an inconvenience. Mario Citroni (8) attempts mainly to reconstruct how Roman readers perceived the literary work, among others by classical authors of the 1st c. bce. The poetic text establishes a dialogue with its audience, and is necessarily conditioned by this. In Ovid the discourse between the author and the generic reader finds its own well-defined space, in which the poet’s voice becomes impersonal in an attempt to establish a direct, real relationship. Moreover, in this dialogue the poet even makes the effort to provide editorial indications about the place that his work holds within the corpus of already published writing; all this is more evident in the exile works. Ovid delves into a method of bringing his poetry closer to the public, which goes on to have wide acceptance in later imperial poetics: the system of referencing individual addressees is thrown into crisis in the early empire, and is replaced by a reference system destined for the general reader (see chap. 8 “Ovidio e la scoperta del ‘lettore affezionato’”, and 9 “Dopo Ovidio: le nuove articolazioni del pubblico letterario imperiale”).

384

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

Spencer (9) attempts an exhaustive analysis, based on different myths (Orpheus, Cadmus, Actaeon, for example), of the procedure of contrast as  a narrative technique. The contrasts range from occasional and immediate rhetorical figures to more far-reaching differentiations in theme, character, tone and style. The text examines both the intertextual contrast and intratextual contrasts. Montuschi (12) concentrates her study on the different procedures used by Ovid to indicate the different moments of the day, which in met. form the pattern of the narrative development, whether through the use of a specific term, more developed images, or the intervention of a character who participates in the action. All of this is expanded in her monograph (32), a study of the weather signs in Ovid. In this work she examines the indications of various moments of the day and night at which the poet’s narrative unfolds. Montuschi analyses in detail the lexical and thematic innovations underlying the weather signs and Ovid’s innovative potential (the deviation from the norm) in the treatment of weather periphrases. Nowack and Voss (51) return to the theme of indication of parts of the day, focusing on the passages of met. in which the lexema nox appears. These passages are categorised and a compilation of Ovidian scenes as cartoons is presented. Loehr (20) investigates Ovid’s etiological focus in both met. and Fasti, attempting to understand the poetic functions of this narrative strategy. Her book follows the tendency of considering etiology as an important producer of poetic meaning in the text. She concentrates on the phenomenon of Ovid’s multiple or variant etiologies in his two main poems and seeks to examine his poetic function. An example of etiological analysis (Perseus and Andromeda) is that of Maselli (23). Hardie (22), as the title explains, focuses on the poetics of illusion. He analyses Ovid’s texts, searching for  a unifying element in their variety, based on the poet’s interest in the psychology of the person (Freud / Lacan). This manifests itself in what he calls the “poetics of illusion”. The author looks for traces, ramifications and variations (p. 136) of the concepts of ‘absence’ and ‘presence’ in Ovid’s oeuvre, reading it as a metafiction about how texts create reality. Hardie’s thesis is that Ovid’s poetry is fundamentally focused on the power of words to evoke illusions or mental images (phantasiai) of people and things that are, in fact, absent. For example, by using moments at funerals and cenotaphs in the poem, Hardie recreates the ending of met. as Ovid’s epitaph, “the poem’s last example of the power of words to conjure up the presence of that which is absent” (94). Although of smaller scope, the article by Tomkins (52) puts forward the possibilities of studying the myths through the lens of contemporary empirical psychology. To do this, she uses the Narcissus myth in met. 3.345–510. The analysis of subjectivity is key, since the personality of the reader, interpreter or researcher influences how they read the text and extract the meaning. Tomkins aims to show how seeing Narcissus from an explicitly psychological viewpoint can generate a set of meanings for interpreting the psyche, and the status of human beings, in empirical scientific investigation. Peek (29) analyses the myth of Procne, Philomela and Tereus by applying the theories of narratology, focusing on the interaction between the model reader and the

Other aspects

385

model author, the empirical reader and the empirical author, thereby providing readers with clues for interpreting the myths. Fantham (31) writes her chapter about the topic of the mother mourning the loss of her adult son. She applies it to met. 2.319–24 (Clymene mourning Phaethon), 5.438–89 (Ceres mourning Persephone) and 8.467–511 (Althaea mourning Meleager), among other cases, and examines the differences with other grieving mothers in ancient literature. The article by Richard Tarrant (33) addresses what is left unsaid by Ovid. One could say that it is the poetics of the ‘untold’. These are the stories, or versions of stories, which Ovid declines to tell in detail, “but whose existence is in one way or another signaled in his narrative”. His objective is to point out to what extent the reduction of the stories occurs within Ovid’s poem, and to suggest some of the artistic effects achieved by such silent or partial narrations. Ovid believes that there are better and worse narratives, and that only the best deserve the kind of presence that he accords them in his poem. But this means that, in order to evaluate the artistic truth of a narrative, one must be, at least implicitly, aware of how it could have been said. Therefore, what Ovid does not narrate, and shows that he is not narrating it, is as essential to the success of his poem as what he narrates. Recognising that the interpretations of met. are numerous (readings of individual myths, of descriptions and narratives, of genres), Delbey (54) proposes a new interpretation favouring the motif of anger. Ovid chooses to inscribe in met. the theme of Homeric ire, and the author reviews the poem book by book. He deems rage a unifying principle, the recurrence of which could allow the poet to question Augustus about the exercise of power, and to compare him to Jupiter. The book by Pablo Martínez Astorino (40) analyses in detail the motif of apotheosis in met., taking into account those transformations which culminate in divinity and which, far from being a mere stylistic resource, can fulfil a structural function. In this way, he examines how the apotheosis passages are semantically integrated into their contexts. He also looks at how Roman history and the depiction of Augustan times are prefigured in the work, and incorporated, through the apotheosis motif, into the poetic dimension. Another theme of poetics, the use of the topic of the storm, is analysed by Fontes (44). He reviews the epic elements developed by Ovid in the episode of Alcyone and Ceyx, a story with elegiac overtones in which the description of a storm can be seen as a metaphor for a city under siege. Ovid recalls the Homeric cliché by playing in this way with what the reader and writer know. Other cases could be incorporated within a broad concept of realia. Thus Caubet’s article (4) uses the verses of met. 10.247–9 (Pygmalion) simply as a starting point for the study of the appearance of ivory, material or metaphorical, in the representation of ideal women in stories from the Middle East and the Hellenistic world. Capponi’s book (10), although apparently dealing with the subject of hunting, goes beyond mere cinegetic practice in met. (and also in Fasti and Heroides). He studies the setting, the horses, the knowledge and habits of the prey, the instrumenta venatoria, the season, the vocabulary… but adds considerations of  a metaphorical type: Vidit

386

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

et incaluit (pp. 27–82), which deals with the myths of Meleager, Demeter, Iasion, Callisto, Echo, Daphne and Picus; Venator-Amator (pp. 83–103), which addresses Melanion, Phaedra, Oenone, Apollo and Hyacinth, Venus and Adonis; and Venatus-mors (p. 105–31), referring to Cephalus and Procris, Actaeon, Ino and Athamas. The book by Hershkowitz (11) deals with the subject of madness in different Latin authors, and attempts  a psychologising reading of met. (pp. 161–205). She starts from the fact that metamorphoses can serve as metaphors for madness, as her main assumption is: “where someone in another epic would go mad, in Ovid’s epic he or she will undergo metamorphosis instead”. She looks to R. D. Laing’s theories as key to reading the metaphors, linking the various transformations that appear in the poem with the Laingian categories of engulfment, implosion and petrification. Cancik (14) studies the theme of sleep, based on Cicero, De Divinatione, Lucretius 4.1011–106, and numerous passages from Ovid. He observes the suppression of dreams in three areas: in the general limitation of divination, in the repression of Dionysian cults after 186 bce, and in the restrictions of the Magna Mater cult. In the world of Augustus, the messages of the gods are imposed through dreams. More exhaustive is Bouquet’s exploration of the topic of sleep (21). In his work Bouquet proposes to study how Latin epic poets adapted the topic of the dream, which they had inherited from their Greek models. He differentiates between the four categories: external dream with the appearance of a divinity; external dream with the appearance of the shadow of a dead man; allegorical dream; and, finally, realistic dream (in the sense that it presents the characteristics of a real dream). With regards to dreams in met. (chap. III), Bouquet points out Ovid’s originality: the poet does not encircle the divinity with the marvellous halo that shows its power, in some cases even showing contempt for the divine world and minimising the role of the gods. The contributions of Feeney (15), Zissos and Gildenhard (19), and Hinds (16) deal with time. Feeney reviews the chronological passages of Nepos, Atticus and Varro, and other earlier works by Erastosthenes and Apollodorus, with the conviction that mea tempora of met. 1.4 is the time of Ovid himself. He compares it with trist. 2.560, when Ovid tells Augustus that he wrote met. until tua tempora, in other words, the time of Augustus. However, the canonical divisions of the ages of history are not valid for Ovid, since the poet “wants to create a space for uncertainty, for contingency, for unreality, for a different construction of the individual self in time”. Zissos and Gildenhard analyse how Ovid repeatedly deviates from  a natural time sequence, but consider that “the poet’s erratic chronology is  a deliberate and self-conscious effect”. After forging a symbolic link between solar movement and time (2.23–30), Ovid discusses the rupture of temporal norms (2.167–271), thus abandoning this familiar narrative convention, which gives rise to temporal variants in the narratological development of the succession of myths. Finally, Hinds insists on the implications of Ovid’s own reading of his met. in the elegies of exile by comparing again the previous expressions mea tempora and tua tempora: both can “be read as a kind of attempt to organize time”. Ovid, reading his own work, seems to revise his own temporal schemes in this way. Newmyer (17) proposes vegetarianism as an Ovidian theme. Based on met. 15.1–478, especially 75–142, he studies the pro-vegetarian and pro-abstinence of

Other aspects

387

animal consumption view of Pythagoras. Ovid allows the philosopher to advocate abstinence out of concern for the suffering of other living creatures, which deserve human goodness, and for the theme of transmigration of souls. Videau poses her article from an ethical viewpoint (18). She is interested in the relationship between the teacher, the woman and the ethics of knowledge in today’s world through the story of Pallas (Athena) and Arachne in book 6 of met. Arachne does not admit that her ability does not belong to her; the narrator does, however, know with certainty that Arachne’s knowledge depends on a teacher: Pallas. The story thus represents the dichotomy between two conceptions of power: one based on a pleasure unrelated to the law, the one onto which Arachne projects her vision; and the other based on a morality unrelated to desire, as represented by Pallas. Also linked to ethics and morality is the article by Castagna (43), who discusses the correlation of modesty in dress and morals, and of opulence and corruption, in Ovid and other authors. Fabre-Serris (24) considers how the myths of human creation have particularly interested Ovid. She highlights the stories in met., in which Ovid tells of the creation of a race, a group of men or an individual. For her, each story is designed to answer three questions: Who is the author? How did he do it? What was the objective? The analysis of the narrative and, more particularly, of its context, leads her finally to ask whether the fabrication of the human underlines a transgression. At the other extreme is Landolfi’s chapter (26) on the loss of the human condition: he analyses deprivation of speech as a result of change of form, which leads to deprivation of identity. This, in turn, leads to a double alienation, from both the original species and from the new one: the loss lasts forever. Linked to the previous theme, but in a very general sense, Thumiger (66) emphasises, in a chapter on the transformation of men into animals, the influence of met. on the cultural development of the motif. Sometimes it is not the loss of the human condition, but the aging, that acts as transformation or metamorphosis. Thus in Nikolopoulos’ article (28), aging is presented either as a physiological process of metamorphosis; as a disguise; or with an aged narrator: “Even the poem’s narrator, ‘Ovid’, succumbs to the allure of assuming the persona of old age”. McAuley’s article (55) looks at the met. epic from the perspective of motherhood versus the preeminent model of the Roman epic and of Augustus: Virgil’s Aeneid, an epic model of fathers and sons. In met., on the other hand, mothers are the subjects and protagonists of their own narratives. The article analyses some of the interpretative and thematic possibilities of placing motherhood at the centre of the reading of Ovid’s epic. She “explore(s) in … detail Ovid’s exploration of maternity as a hybrid, unfixable entity, the paradigm of the subject in process” (138). To some extent at the extreme of the study of motherhood is the article by Vial  (58): she considers an example of the main mythical expressions of that form of violence committed by parents on their children – infanticide. Itys was killed by his mother, Procne, with the help of her sister, Philomela, and handed over to his father, Tereus. The author focuses especially on how the story of this myth relates to the general theme of metamorphosis. The death of the son, when caused by his mother or father,

388

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

is presented in met. as a variation and a reflection on the reason for the metamorphosis and its challenges. Staying with the subject of the family and the same myth, Pyy’s article (64) focuses on the relationships between sisters. She studies this topic, apart from in Virgil’s Aeneid, Silius’ Punica, and Statius’ Thebaid, in the episode of Procne and Philomela. Ovid’s version of this myth can be read as a story about a strong sisterly bond, and female opposition to male violence and domination, but also as a conflict of loyalties. This results in a greater intimacy in the relationship between sisters in the Augustan epic than in the Flavian version. Dedicated to other very specific issues, we have the following works. Lateiner (2) reviews the presence of ‘artists’ within met. Ovid invented or elaborated stories about artists in the poem to illustrate the primacy of art and its spiritual value. The writer’s explicit comparisons between art and nature bring up the fact that Ovid is competing with the fabricator mundi by making a world of his own, a work of his own that rejects some of the ‘classical’ conventions of Augustus’ art. This is exemplified by the initial Chaos, and Deucalion, Narcissus, Niobe, Polyphemus, among others. Becht-Jördens and Wehmeier (36) focus especially on the story of Pygmalion, in which Ovid provides an indication of the limits imposed on art: it can make life more beautiful than it is, but it leaves other aspects hidden; in fact, it cannot replace what it shows. However, images of art satisfy other needs. Barolsky’s book also touches on these issues in his chapter 3 (42, 35–44): “Ovid’s Protean epic and artistic personae”, where he argues that met. is an epic in which rather the artists, than the warriors, are the main heroes. It describes how Prometheus, Pygmalion, Medusa, Arachne, and many other image-makers are transformed in the poem by converting flesh into inanimate matter and vice-versa. Ovid is the protean artist par excellence: the poet provides us with the most complete and profound understanding in all literature of the existential duplicity of sculpture, forever situated ambiguously between life and death. In the following works we have examples of art outside met., but compared to the poem. The chapter of Marié (27) uses met. mainly to illustrate ceramic artistic representations. Torre (53) takes the opposing view, preferring to read the mythological episodes of met. as descriptions of real works of art. Referring to the subject of artistic representation, we have the chapters by Menichetti (47) and Grassigli (48) looking at Actaeon. Related to this is the description within met. of artistic representations as a signifier of Romanisation, such as the tendency to reinterpret the Greek tradition in terms of an ‘imperial’ taste: thus Barchiesi (41) referred to met. 13.968; 14.9–10, 260, 314. Giordano (6) studies Ovid’s use of the term nobilitas and concludes that the poet reflects the social changes of the 1st c. bce, where the term alludes to personal qualities and not to the virtues of the old noble class. The article by von Albrecht (7) gathers the explicit manifestations about music in Ovid, and specifically in met: he offers an overview about which forms and types of music, and which musical instruments, are mentioned in met., and about Roman musical culture in general. He is also interested in the different psychological effects of music. For Scoditti (39), Ovid shows considerable interest in music, citing almost

Other aspects

389

30 instruments in his entire poetic work. The poet must have been very aware of the new musical reality that was spreading in Rome at the time. On the appearance of the volcano Etna (met. 15.340–55), the article by Arias (25) refers to its location, metaphorical sense and poetic description, which includes technical elements. James (30) highlights the importance of the motifs of water, river and aquatic creatures in met. as a symbol of the search for fluidity; it appears as a metaphor for the mixing of genres and the evidence of porosity between various worlds. She emphasises the significance of water for metamorphoses, especially in the landscape configuration of books 1–4 (e.g., in the story of Narcissus) as an underlying theme. Brocchia (35) includes a reference to met. (8.638–52) very collaterally when discussing the subject of wine in Horace. The gestures of the Ovidian characters, and the poet’s role in defining them, is Baldo’s topic (34). Expressions provide a connotative enrichment to speech, which moreover cannot replace them; and speech brings to light aspects that would otherwise be less expressive. Baldo adds the comparison with Virgil’s procedure, for example Aen. 4.362–4 and Ov. met. 9.27–9; Aen. 11.41 and met. 7.688–92, etc. The gesture in Ovid does not show the presence of the character dramatically and, consequently, the reader is not called upon to ‘suffer’ with him, as in Virgil; rather, he is asked to take part in the literary game and to see the traces of the model crystallise in Ovid’s text. Hardie’s study (37) focuses on the meaning of ‘Phrygian’ and, although he adds other mentions from further authors, and from Ovid in Fasti 4 itself, he focuses on Ovid’s use of the term by bringing out its contradictions and contrasts in the representation of Phrygia and the Phrygians. In met. Phrygia is already associated with a certain geographical vagueness, and at the same time identifies the ‘barbarians’, but in parallel Ovid represents the Roman identity, especially in light of the Philemon and Baucis story in met. 8.  In discussing the epics that include exile, especially the ktistic or foundational exile, where a hero leaves his homeland to establish a new city, Harrison (38) includes met. Exile as a permanent change of domicile is surely a kind of metamorphosis, and therefore it is perhaps not surprising that this is an important theme in Ovid’s poem. There exists an exiled Ovid like Aeneas, and Harrison relates him to episodes like Io, Cadmus and Daedalus, whose ideological political meaning seems evident. On the use of certain projectiles, Ma (46) refers to the appearance of lead shot (glanders) in Verg. Aen. 9.586–9 and Ov. met. 2.726–9. A vision of met. from a dance perspective is what Lada-Richards tries to project in (45) and (61). A reading of met. through the lens of pantomime dance, with dancers who explore the boundaries between femininity and masculinity, illuminates the little-explored symbiosis of dance and poetry in Augustus’ Rome. Heath’s article (49) examines met. narration from the point of view of the vague role that has been handed down to us from women who tell traditional myths or stories. Evidence suggests that, while they worked on their weaving, women told the same types of mythological stories as those found in the higher literary genres. Heath reviews the appearances and allusions of female characters who act as story­

390

 General Aspects of the Metamorphoses

tellers in met. The author acknowledges at the end that “all of this must remain speculative” (96). McClintock (56) examines the myth of Persephone (from the Homeric hymn itself) and its continuation in Ovid (met. 5.341–571 and Fasti 4.393–620), to see how myths can provide useful clues for deciphering ancient legal institutions. It should be noted that Ovid writes under the lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus and the lex Iulia de adulteriis coërcendis, which are the two main pillars of the ethical-matrimonial reform pursued by Augustus. Pillinger (57) presents an analysis of the literary presence of witches in different authors, among them Ovid, and she reviews how the witches’ own carmina act in the poems in which they appear. On wealth and its terminology, the chapter by Coin-Longeray (59) deals with the extent to which the theme of prosperity has been imitated by the poetry of Augustus, especially in the case of Ovid. The theme of wealth serves the poet for subverting the codes of love poetry, and to see if it conforms (or not) to the epic models (met.). The purpose of Reitz’s work (62) is to consider three passages where Ovid describes the city of Rome. She tries to show if the poet achieves his alleged goal of generating a vivid and graphic image of the city which, in the first example (met. 15.626–744), Ovid chooses as a scenario for events. The passage is a good example of what a text can do with ‘the play of text and image’: playing with the reader’s expectations and denying them concrete details, while waiting for a vivid description, is undoubtedly a humorous and witty effect. The other two examples are taken from poems of exile (trist. 3.1.27–32 and Pont. 1.8.2).