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.
The letters from exile have been the least appreciated and most heavily criticized of Ovid’s works. In the past scholars found interest in details of biography, prosopography, chronology, and ethnography; but in general they were very ready to accept Ovid’s own view of the poetry as monotonous, repetitious, and of inferior quality (Pont. 1. 5, 3. 9), and to add their own condemnation of the servile flattery used by the poet in his efforts to secure a better fate. More recently Ovid’s attitude to Augustus has been re-examined to suggest considerable independence of spirit, and a careful examination of individual elegies has revealed a richer poetic quality than had generally been suspected.
There are recent texts of Tr. and Pont., by G. Luck (Zurich, 1963) and in the Budé series by J. André (Tr.: Paris, 1968; Pont.: Paris, 1977). The exile poems lack major commentaries. Luck’s Tr. commentary (Heidelberg, i. 1967; ii. 1968 and 1972) has so far reached Book II; meanwhile S. G. Owen’s edition of Tr. II (Oxford, 1924) has been reprinted (Amsterdam, 1967). For other books we have to turn to the doctoral dissertations of T. J. de Jonge (Tr. IV: Groningen, 1951), J. T. Bakker (Tr. V: Amsterdam, 1946), and U. Staffhorst (Pont. III. 1-3: Würzburg, 1965). A. L. Wheeler’s Loeb edition (London, 1924) has a useful introduction and index; there is a more recent English translation by L. R. Lind (Athens, 1975). The only full-length discussion of the exile poems is that of Frösch, who also provides a full and up-to-date bibliography (187 ff.).
2. The whole question is thoroughly discussed by Thibault, J. C., The Mystery of Ovid’s Exile (Berkeley, 1964)Google Scholar, who is unable to reach any positive conclusion. See also André’s Tr. edition (vii ff.), who inclines to a political explanation, and Norwood, F., CPh 58 (1963), 150–63Google Scholar, who ingeniously combines the sexual and political aspects.
3. See D’Elia, 371 ff., and Wiedemann, T., CQ 25 (1975), 264-71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4. For a sympathetic biographical approach see Fränkel, 117 ff., 155 ff., and Wilkinson, 285 ff., 322 ff.; and, more recently, Bouynot, Y., Atti i. 249-68Google Scholar, and Willige, W., AU 12 (1969), 51–72 Google Scholar.
5. The dates are: Tr. I, A.D. 8-9; Tr. II, A.D. 9; Tr. III, A.D. 9-10; Tr. IV, A.D. 10-11; Tr. V, A.D. 11-12;Pont. I-III (a single collection), A.D. 12-13; Pont. IV, A.D. 13 – 16. For the possibility that some of the letters of Pont. I–III were actually written earlier see Evans, H. B., Hermes 104 (1976), 103-12Google Scholar. On the whole question see Wheeler’s Loeb Introduction (xxxiii ff.).
6. For scepticism on the truth of these claims see Frösch, 73 ff. Luck, G., HSPh 65 (1961), 243–61Google Scholar, shows by an examination of various linguistic features that there is no technical decline in the exile poetry.
7. There are important discussions by R. Marache, Ovidiana, 412–19, and Marg, W., Atti ii. 345-54 (= Wege zu Ovid, 502-12)Google Scholar. See also N. I. Herescu, Ovidiana, 420-42, and Voulikh, N., LEC 36 (1968), 370-82Google Scholar.
8. So Frösch, 77 ff. On Ovid and Cicero see also D’Elia, 386 ff. There are many other parallels not specifically noted by either, as a reading of Att. III (passim), Fam. XIV (esp. 1–4), and Q. Fr. 1.3 will reveal. The problem of deliberate imitation is complicated by the uncertainty of the date of publication of Fam., which may not have been before Neronian times.
9. On Ovid and Horace see Rahn, 480 ff., who goes too far in ascribing a ‘legitimizing’ aim to Ovid’s allusions to Horace and in seeing an attempt by Ovid to take over Horace’s role as literary correspondent to Augustus.
10. On the links with Her. see Rahn, 479 f., 484 ff.
11. So Kenney (3), 38.
12. On Tr. 1. 2 and 1. 3 see Dickinson, 161 ff., and Frösch, 25 ff.; on Tr. 3. 10 see Besslich, S., Gymnasium 79 (1972), 177-91Google Scholar.
13. For further examples see Zingerle, Lüneburg, and Ganzenmüller. There is an excellent discussion of this aspect of the exile poetry by Kenney (3); see also Lee, A. G., G & R 18 (1949), 113-20Google Scholar, on Tr. 3. 8. For the reversal of themes see also Wimmel, 297 ff., on the recusatio;, Galinsky, G. K., WSt 82 (1969), 102-7Google Scholar, on the triumph; Stroh, 250 ff., on wooing through poetry; Cairns, F., Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry (Edinburgh, 1972), 135 ff.Google Scholar, on the birthday poem.
14. On myth in the exile poems see Frécaut, 317 ff.; on the significance of the Ulysses role see Rahn, 493 ff.
15. The possibilities, and limitations, of book-analysis are indicated by Dickinson’s discussion of Tr. On Pont. I-III see Frösch, H. H., Ovids Epistulae ex Ponto I–III als Gedichtsammlung (Diss. Bonn, 1968)Google Scholar, who implausibly proposes to transpose 2. 11 to follow 3. 4 to produce perfect symmetry (136 ff.). Pont. IV, which was published posthumously, has no clear structure.
16. On the central position see Port, 457 ff.; on Tr. 1. 6 see Kenney (3), 39 ff.
17. See further the studies of Pont. 1. 4 and 3. 6 by Benedum, J., Studien zur Dichtkunst des späten Ovid (Diss. Giesen, 1967), 8 ff., 65 ff.Google Scholar