No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2016
If the Heroides are an adaptation of the elegiac tradition to the epistolary form, then the Ars and Remedia are an adaptation to the didactic, with the crucial difference that, unlike the poetic epistle, the didactic poem had a clearly defined tradition and (in Virgil) a distinguished recent practitioner. The Hesiodic tradition had been enlarged by the Alexandrians to include the learned scientific, and had more recently been debased by the inclusion of the trivial (Tr. 2. 471 ff.), and it is important to see where Ovid stands. Superficially, the Ars Amatoria is on a par with practical poems like that of Ovid’s contemporary Grattius on hunting, and the Remedia Amoris has affinities with medical works like Macer’s on the cures for snake-bites; but the use of the didactic form for such an untraditional subject as love creates ‘a pleasing atmosphere of burlesque’.
The standard text of Ars and Rem. is that of E. J. Kenney (Oxford, 1961, corr. edn. 1965); F. W. Lenz’s two Paravia editions (Ars: Turin, 1969; Rem.: Turin, 1965) have more extensive apparatus and include the readings of Y. There are two recent English translations of Ars and Rem., both of some merit, P. Turner’s in prose (London, 1968) and R. Humphries’s in verse (Bloomington, 1957). The only commentary in English is that of A. S. Hollis on Ars I (Oxford, 1977); see also the German editions of Lenz (Ars: Berlin, 1969; Rem.: Berlin, 1960, 2nd edn. 1968) and P. Brandt (Leipzig, 1902; repr. Hildesheim, 1963). Among recent general discussions are those by de Saint Denis, 190 ff., and Hollis. There is a bibliography for Ars and Rem. (together with Am. and Her.) in Zinn, 110 ff.
2. So Wilkinson, 120. On Ovid’s relation to the didactic tradition see Pöhlmann, E., Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt i. 3 (Berlin, 1973), 859 Google Scholarff.; cf.Krokowski, J., Eos 53 (1963), 143—56Google Scholar. For the possibility that Ovid may have used Grattius or some similar ars uenatoria for the hunting imagery in Ars see Krokowski, 152 ff., and Leach, 144 f.
3. See Kenney (1), 201 ff.
4. There is a good discussion of Ovid’s use of Geo. by Leach; see also Kenney (1); Döpp, 95 ff.¡ and Rudd, 19 ff. On his use of an ars oratoria see Zielinski, T., Pbilologus 64 (1905), 1—26 Google Scholar, followed by D’Elia, 178 f.; but the resemblances may be illusory.
5. On Ovid’s persona see Durling, R. M., CJ 53 (1958), 157 Google Scholar-67; cf.Fyler, J. M., CJ 66 (1971), 196–203 Google Scholar.
6. See Wheeler, A. L., CPh 5 (1910), 440-50Google Scholar, and 6 (1911), 56-77, who also pursues the Greek sources.
7. See Hollis, 93 ff.
8. On the circus episode see Thomas, E., Hommages à M. Renard (Brussels, 1969), i. 710 Google Scholar—24, and K. Jäger in Zinn, 51—60, as against the negative verdict of Wilkinson, 143 For some other repeated themes see Hollis, 100 ff. Opinions of Ars III and Rem. differ. Against Hollis’s favourable verdict on Rem. (110 ff.) should be set the criticisms of D’Elia, 216 ff., who also underlines the deficiencies of Ars III. The proportion of reversals in Rem. (in fact 16 out of 42) was established by Prinz, K., WSt 36 (1914), 36–83 Google Scholar, and 39 (1917), 91-121, 259-90, which remains an important study.
9. These are well illustrated by Wilkinson, 140 ff., and D’Elia, 198 ff.
10. See Kenney (1), 208, and Leach, 154.
11. See de Saint Denis, 194 ff.
12. See the excellent discussion by Rudd, 1 ff.; Hollis, 85 ff., reaches essentially the same conclusion.
13. On structure see the essays in Zinn’s collection. On Ars 111 A. Hermann (29 ff.) agrees in many points with Fränkel, 205 f. For Rem. T. Greiner’s proposed tripartite division (35 ff.) is preferable to K. Weisert’s ‘four pentads’ (4 ff.). In general the more complex the proposed scheme the less conviction it carries.
14. So Pöhlmann, , Aufstieg und Niedergang i. 3. 892 Google Scholar ff.; see also Frécaut, 235. The old idea that Rem. was a recantation can now be decently laid to rest.
15. See D’Elia, 198 ff.
16. On the reinterpretation of history in this episode see Wardman, A. E., CQ 15 (1965), 101—3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on metre and rhythm in Ars see D’Elia, 207 f.; on similes see the classifications of Washietl and Wilkins and the statistics of Owen (99 f.), who shows that similes are much more frequent in Ars (one in 38.2 lines) than in Her. (one in 73.3) or in Am. (one in 64.6).
17. Many of the parallels between Cicero and Ovid listed in C. Atzert’s Teubner edition of Cic. De Off. (Leipzig, 1949), xxxii f., seem to be negated by the complete difference of context in Ars, but Ovid does follow Cicero’s principle of decorum and echo some of his details; see also Kenney (1), 206 f., and D’Elia, S., Atti del l. congresso internazionale di studi Ciceroniani (Rome, 1961), ii. 127—40Google Scholar. On Ovid and Hor. Sat. 2. 5 see D’Elia, Ovidio, 179 ff.
18. For examples see Wilkinson, 134 ff., and D’Elia, 224 ff.
19. The quotation is from Hollis (on 1. 767 ff.). On decency see Rand, 42 ff.; Fränkel, 57 ff.; Kraus (1), 101 f.; Frécaut, 220 ff. On cultus see Kraus (1), 101, and D’Elia, 188 ff.