Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T16:18:40.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VI. Metamorphoses1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

Get access

Extract

In contrast to the comparative neglect of the Fasti, the Metamorphoses has been the subject of several important books and monographs in the last two decades. The most influential of these has been Otis’s book Ovid as an Epic Poet, which has focused attention on three aspects of the work, its relation to epic, its structure, and its attitude to Augustus.

Type
Research Article
Information
New Surveys in the Classics , Volume 12: Ovid , 1978 , pp. 31 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1.

The time is ripe for a new critical edition of Met. to replace that of Magnus (Berlin, 1914), whose deficiencies are outlined by F. W. Lenz, Ovid’s Metamorphoses: Prolegomena to a Revision of Hugo Magnus’ Edition (Dublin / Zurich, 1967). Editions are forthcoming in the Teubner and O.C.T. series (by Anderson and Tarrant respectively); meanwhile G. M. Edwards’s text in Postgate’s Corpus Poetarum Latinorum (London, 1905) has some claim to be the best available. There is no lack of recent English translations; that by A. E. Watts (Berkeley, 1954) is outstanding, and the versions of M. Innes (Harmondsworth, 1955) in prose and R. Humphries (Bloomington, 1955) and H. Gregory (New York, 1958) in verse all have their merits. The only serviceable commentary on the whole work is the Haupt-Ehwald one (10th edn. Zurich / Dublin, 1966); it is being superseded by that of F. Bömer, which has so far reached Book VII (Heidelberg, i. 1969, ii. 1976, iii. 1977). The English-speaking student is served by the separate editions of A. G. Lee (Book I: Cambridge, 1953), W. S. Anderson (Books VI-X: Norman, 1972), A. S. Hollis (Book VIII: Oxford, 1970), and G. M. H. Murphy (Book XI: London, 1972). The books by Otis and Galinsky provide important general discussions of Met.; there are also valuable monographs by von Albrecht, Ludwig, Bernbeck, Segal, and Due. There is a bibliography for Met. (from 1914 to 1965) by von Albrecht in his revision of Haupt-Ehwald (i. 457 ff.).

References

Notes

2. On the treatment of the gods see Doblhofer, E., Philologus 104 (1960), 69 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bernbeck, 80 ff.; Frécaut, 246 ff.; and Galinsky, 162 ff. On ἐλ∊∊ινóν see D. A. Little in Zinn, 77 ff. On subjectivity see von Albrecht, Parenthese, 189 ff.; Bernbeck, 124 ff.; and Frécaut, 135 ff.

3. So Otis, 366 f. The following quotations are from von Albrecht in Haupt-Ehwald, i. 486; Bernbeck, 130; and Coleman, 475 n. 2. On the whole question see Bernbeck, 123 ff.

4. On Ovid’s debt to universal history (and Hesiod) see Ludwig, 74 ff.; on the chronological difficulties of mythology see P. Grimal, Ovidiana, 245–57; on the Theban cycle see Otis, 130; on transitions see L. P. Wilkinson, Ovidiana, 231–44, and Frécaut, J.-M., REL 46 (1968), 247–63Google Scholar; on the combination of linear sequences and inset patterns see Coleman, 463 ff.; on thematic interconnections see Galinsky, 86 ff., and Due, 123 ff.

5. For summaries see Otis, 93, 129, 168, and Ludwig, 55 ff. (cf. Wilkinson, Ovid Recalled, 148). Lurlwig’s symmetry would be more convincing if his sections were all equally cohesive (the Theseus cycle is a very loose one) and of more even lengths.

6. The ‘importance of metamorphosis as the main subject is assumed by Viarre, 39, and Frécaut, 260, but denied by Kenney (2), 146 n. 15, and Galinsky, 3, 97. Otis, 263 f. and passim, emphasizes the amatory element. On the snake motif (in the Theban cycle) see Norwood, F., CJ 59 (1964), 170–4Google Scholar; on the stone motif (with special reference to Pygmalion) see Bauer, D. F., TAPhA 93 (1962), 1–21Google Scholar; on landscape as a unifying theme see Segal (1), 39 ff. von Albrecht, M., A U 6 (1963), 47–72 (= Wege zu Ovid, 405-37)Google Scholar sees Ovid’s humour as important for the unity of the poem.

7. On the Augustan ‘frame’ and the progression from chaos to cosmos see Ludwig, 82 ff., Döpp, 105 ff., and especially Buchheit, V., Hermes 94 (1966), 80-108Google Scholar, who apart from the explicit references in Book I sees Augustan significance in the Jupiter– Lycaon and Apollo–Python episodes and in the war between gods and giants. On epic panels see Otis, 345 and passim. On the movement from Greece to Rome see Segal (2), 288 f., and Galinsky, 253. Little, D. A., Mnemosyne 25 (1972), 389–401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, argues persuasively that the Augustan element is not organic to the poem.

8. The anti-Augustan implications of Met. have recently been stressed by Segal (2); Johnson, W. R., CSCA 3 (1970), 137 ff.Google Scholar; Coleman, 471 ff.; and Curran, 82 ff. Coleman, 477, and Curran, 90, support the view that Met. was a contributory cause of Ovid’s banishment (cf. Rand, 92). But the pendulum is swinging back to more moderate views; see Galinsky, 210 ff.; Due, 66ff.;and Little, D. A., Prudentia 8 (1976), 19–35 Google Scholar. On the Juno and Perseus episodes see Otis, 131 ff., 159 ff.; on Ovid’s treatment of Virgil see further Bernbeck, 117 ff.; Frécaut, 243 ff.; and Galinsky, 217 ff. (Frécaut and Galinsky both minimize the element of parody).

9. The former view is argued strongly by D’Elia, 245 ff., who then has to regard such stories as Myrrha and Byblis as impairing the unity of the poem; for the latter view see Segal (1), 86 ff.

10. On the streak of cruelty in Met. see Galinsky, 110 ff.; on violence in a pastoral setting see Parry, H., TAPhA 95 (1964), 268-82Google Scholar.

11. So D’Elia, 237 ff.; Little, D. A., Hermes 98 (1970), 340-60Google Scholar; and Coleman, 462 f. L. Alfonsi, Ovidiana, 265-72, and R. Crahay and J. Hubaux, Ovidiana, 283-300, take the Pythagoreanism of Book XV too seriously; on the other hand Segal (2), 278 ff., and Johnson, W. R., CSCA 3 (1970), 138 ff.Google Scholar, go too far in seeing it as parody (cf. Little, D. A., Prudentia 6 (1974), 17–21)Google Scholar.

12. On the cosmos of Met. see Friedrich, W.-H., Festschrift fúr Franz Dornseiff (Leipzig, 1953), 94-110Google Scholar (= Wege zu Ovid, 362-83), and Riddehough, G. B., Phoenix 13 (1959), 201–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, both of whom emphasize the loss of humanity through metamorphosis.

13. The links between modern psychoanalysis and Met. are none the less interesting; for discussion and references see Curran, 77 ff., and Galinsky, 45 ff. Curran offers Daphne and Actaeon as examples of a ‘false self system’ and ‘boundary anxiety’. See also Fränkel, 79 ff., on Io and Narcissus; Dörrie, H., AU 10 (1967), 54–75 Google Scholar, on Narcissus; and Segal (1), 49 ff., on Pyramus and Thisbe. For other modern aspects of Ovid’s psychology see Viarre, 388 ff.

14. On Ovid’s portrayal of love see D’Elia, 255 ff.; Otis, 263 ff. (who emphasizes the idealization of conjugal love); and Garson, R. W., Prudentia 8 (1976), 9–18Google Scholar (who illustrates the variety of situation and treatment).

15. See Otis’s useful Appendix (375 ff.). The discussions of Ovid’s sources by Lafaye and Castiglioni are still basic (with von Albrecht’s important introduction to the 1971 reprint of Lafaye). For a recent account of Ovid’s sources and models see Due, 15 ff.

16. So Bernbeck, 44 ff.

17. On the symbolic element see Segal (1). The question of Ovid’s debt to contemporary wall-painting and to other forms of classical art is still debated (see esp. Viarre, 45 ff.). It seems highly probable that Ovid’s imagination was stimulated by works of visual art, but direct influence on Met. can be seen in relatively few cases (see the negative conclusions of H. Herter, Ovidiana, 49–74). This is a separate question from the common tendencies of Met. and contemporary art in matters such as fluidity of structure or realism / fantasy; on these see Bernbeck, 135 ff., and Galinsky, 83 ff.

18. On syncopation and abruptness see Crahay, R., Atti i. 91 ff.Google Scholar, and Bernbeck, 1 ff.; on cinematic techniques see Viarre, 100 ff.

19. On parenthesis see von Albrecht, Parenthese, esp. 26 ff.; on direct speech see J. Marouzeau, Ovidiana, 101–5.

20. On similes see Richardson, J., CJ 59 (1964), 161-9Google Scholar, and Brunner, T. F., CJ 61 (1966), 354–63Google Scholar (cf. Washietl, Owen, and Wilkins); on the metamorphosis descriptions see Kenney (2), 142 ff., who comments on their intellectual rather than human qualities.

21. On Ovid’s versification see Lee’s edition of Met. I, 31 ff.; Duckworth, G., Vergil and Classical Hexameter Poetry (Michigan, 1969), 71 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kenney (2), 119, 135 ff.; Anderson’s edition of Met. VI–X, 24 ff.; and Ott, W., Metrische Analysen zu Ovid Metamorphosen Buch I (Tübingen, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22. On diction and syntax see Kenney (2), 120 ff., 128 ff.

23. On the ‘baroque’ element see Wilkinson, 155 ff.; D’Elia, 300 ff.; H. Bardon, Ovidiana, 82 ff.; Crahay, R., Atti i. 91-110Google Scholar.

24. See the studies of Doblhofer, E., Philologus 104 (1960), 63–91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; von Albrecht, M., AU 6 (1963), 47–72 Google Scholar (= Wege zu Ovid, 405-37); and Galinsky, 158 ff. The whole subject is well illustrated by Frécaut (esp. 27 ff., 114 ff., 135 ff., 237 ff.).

25. See Bömer, F., Gymnasium 66 (1959), 268-87Google Scholar (= Wege zu Ovid, 173-202), and Lamacchia, R., Maia 12 (1960), 310-30Google Scholar.

26. See Otis, 374.