Search

The Consolatio ad Liuiam appears in the 1460s and is attributed to Ovid. It describes the circumstances surrounding Drusus’ death in 9 BC, addressing his family before turning to consolation, particularly of Livia. The versification indicates that it is not by Ovid, but it may still be contemporary. The poem sets itself soon after the funeral, but is it conceived as genuine consolation, a rhetorical exercise, or a commentary on the Julio-Claudian era? The historical information in the poem is strikingly accurate; by comparison of it with Dio, it becomes clear that the Consolatio could easily have been written in the immediate aftermath of Drusus’ death. The poem may thus take a central place in Augustan literary history, alluding to several poets and the early works of Ovid, but itself alluded to by Ovid in exile. The chapter considers some cases in detail, showing that the chains of allusion may plausibly be read so.

Ovid is now firmly established as a central figure in the Latin poetic canon, and his Fasti is his most complex elegy. Drafted alongside the Metamorphoses before the poet's exile, it was only published after the death of Augustus, and involves a wide range of myth, Roman history, religion, astronomy and explication of the calendar. In its aetiology and conversations with gods, it is a Latin equivalent of Callimachus' Aetia. This invaluable new commentary on a central book of the poem explores Ovid's playful inversion of genre, his witty but challenging style of Latin, his use of the elegiac couplet, intertextuality and much more. With a comprehensive introduction providing key background for students and instructors, this guide to Book 3, the first in English for nearly a century, makes use of the latest scholarly research to illuminate Ovid's wide-ranging and amusing account of Roman life.

By thoroughly mapping possible allusions to Sappho in Propertius, this chapter concludes that Sappho’s influence is most conspicuous in the case of Cynthia. As a consequence the Propertian puella appears not only as a beloved in the poetic corpus of Propertius, but arguably also as a figure that may be associated with a poet in her own right such as Sappho, which intriguingly yet necessarily reflects back on essential qualities of the poet Propertius himself. The argument emerges from the close reading of almost twenty individual passages from the Propertian corpus, alongside the ‘Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite’ and a large number of passages from Sappho, notably her poem 1.

Aulus Gellius records an epigram of the Roman consul Q. Lutatius Catulus (Noctes Atticae19.9.14 = fr. 1 Blänsdorf/Courtney):Aufugit mi animus; credo, ut solet, ad Theotimumdeuenit. sic est, perfugium illud habet.quid si non interdixem, ne illunc fugitiuummitteret ad se intro, sed magis eiceret?ibimu' quaesitum. uerum ne ipsi teneamurformido. quid ago? da, Venu', consilium.

The notion of the single Ode as a unit, coherent and complete in itself, has played a long and important part in Horatian criticism, as recent research has shown. But there are dangers to this interpretive principle, partly because lyric is an expansive and digressive genre, and partly because the units into which editors divide the books are based on traditional numeration rather than the most ancient evidence and careful argumentation. The presence or absence of division necessarily has implications for our reading, as is illustrated by examination of Carm. 2.13-15. If we adopt the principle that within a book Horace begins a new Ode where he changes metre, this unit can be read as a fine exploration of interwoven themes, looking back at times to the modes of the Epodes and the Satires, and ahead to the complex combination of public and private found in the Roman Ode. Another Alcaic unit, 2.19-20, marks the inspiration that leads to the sublimity of 3.1-6.

Ovid in writing Amores 3.11.38–9 showed awareness of Metellus Macedonicus’ speech of 131, which proposed compulsory marriage in order to stimulate the birth rate and which was read to the senate and published at large by Augustus (Suet. Aug. 89.2). I wish to suggest that when he wrote Book 1 of the Metamorphoses Ovid was evoking another political debate in which Augustus was involved. Jupiter announces to the gods that in the end radical surgery is needed when the wickedness of mankind becomes incurable (Met. 1.187–91).

This article contains five notes on Roman topography. The first three briefly argue (1) that the uia Tecta supposedly to be placed in the Campus Martius has perhaps arisen from corruption of uia Recta; (2) that the temple of Juturna, placed by Ovid near the arches of the Aqua Virgo, could not have stood where Largo Argentina now is, but further north, perhaps in the grounds of Santa Maria in Via; and (3) that the rites of Anna Perenna described by Ovid in Fasti 3 took place near the Mausoleum of Augustus, and not at the recently discovered spring near Piazza Euclide. Note (4) exhibits the evidence for regarding the twin summits of the Capitol and the Arx as the duo luci between which the Asylum was set up, and goes on to suggest that Vergil and Ovid may have used the name Ianiculum to refer to the Arx; (5) demonstrates that in with the name of a hill can refer to any site from the foot up, and builds on this in arguing that the phrase Concordia in Arce refers to a temple constructed where the slope rises from the Forum.

2 Passer, deliciae meae puellae,quicum ludere, quem in sinu tenere,cui primum digitum dare appetentiet acris solet incitare morsus,cum desiderio meo nitenti 5carum nescio quid lubet iocari,et solaciolum sui doloris,credo ut tum grauis acquiescat ardor;tecum ludere sicut ipsa possem,et tristis animi leuare curas! 10***2b tam gratum est mihi quam ferunt puellaepernici aureolum fuisse malum,quod zonam soluit diu ligatam.Robin Nisbet, whose masterly article on the text of Catullus it is a particular pleasure to be able to salute in a piece appearing in the same journal twenty years later, adduced an important parallel for verse 5, πόθωι στίλβων (Anacreon,PMG444), and thus demonstrated that the probable sense is ‘the woman shining with longing for me’.

Professor J. B. Hall has been kind enough to include some conjectures of mine in the apparatus of his forthcoming Teubner edition of Ovid'sTristia. The notes that follow (bar one – the discussion of 4.2) give some explanation and defence of these proposals.Tristia1.6.19–26nec probitate tua prior est aut Hectoris uxor,aut comes extincto Laodamia uiro. 20tu si Maeonium uatem sortita fuisses,Penelopes esset fama secunda tuae; 22prima locum sanctas heroidas inter haberes, 33prima bonis animi conspicerere tui. 34siue tibi hoc debes, nullo pia facta magistro, 23cumque noua mores sunt tibi luce dati,femina seu princeps omnes tibi culta per annos 25te docet exemplum coniugis esse bonae …33–4post22ed. Ven. 1486

Early in Aeneid 3 Aeneas visits Delos and approaches the temple of Apollo with a request for advice on the destination for which the refugees should head. There is an immediate response to his questions (Verg. Aen. 3.90–2):uix ea fatus eram: tremere omnia uisa repente,liminaque laurusque dei, totusque mouerimons circum et mugire adytis cortina reclusis.

I offer further notes on the text of Propertius. In the apparatusΩis employed to indicate the archetype, i.e. the consensus of N and two separate groups of humanistic manuscripts that I denote by the lettersΠandΛ. TheΠMSS (FLP) derive from a lost manuscript of Petrarch, itself copied from the manuscript A (which is not extant after 2.1.63). TheΛMSS are largely a group isolated by J. L. Butrica (The Manuscript Tradition of Propertius, Phoenixsuppl. vol. 17, Toronto, 1984, 62–95), which derive from a third medieval source discovered by Poggio and brought to Italy, apparently in 1423. The oldestΛmanuscript is Vat. lat. 3273, copied by Panormita in Florence in 1427, here called T. Another independent descendant is S (Monacensis Univ. Cim. 22), written in Florencec.1460 by Poggio's son Jacopo. Three other Florentine copies of the 1460s descend from a single source later thanΛ: M (Paris. B. N. lat. 8233, formerlyμ); U (Vat. Urb. lat. 641, formerlyυ); and R (Bodmer. 141, once Abbey 5989). Butrica would cite also C (Romanus Casanatensis 15), written by Pomponio Letoc.1470; but its witness is vitiated by the frequency both of error and of interpolation and its presence would confuse rather than clarify our picture ofΛ. On the other hand I include the pair J (Parmensis Palat. Parm. 140, Florence,c.1440) and K (Vratislauiensis Univ. Akc. 1948 KN 197, Padua 1469).

I offer further notes on the text of Propertius. In the apparatus Ω is employed to indicate the archetype, i.e. the consensus of N and two separate groups of humanistic manuscripts that I denote by the letters Π and Λ . The Π MSS (FLP) derive from a lost manuscript of Petrarch, itself copied from the manuscript A (which is not extant after 2.1.63). The Λ MSS are largely a group isolated by J. L. Butrica ( The Manuscript Tradition of Propertius, Phoenix suppl. vol. 17, Toronto, 1984, 62–95), which derive from a third medieval source discovered by Poggio and brought to Italy, apparently in 1423. The oldest Λ manuscript is Vat. lat. 3273, copied by Panormita in Florence in 1427, here called T. Another independent descendant is S (Monacensis Univ. Cim. 22), written in Florence c. 1460 by Poggio's son Jacopo. Three other Florentine copies of the 1460s descend from a single source later than Λ : M (Paris. B. N. lat. 8233, formerly μ ); U (Vat. Urb. lat. 641, formerly υ ); and R (Bodmer. 141, once Abbey 5989). Butrica would cite also C (Romanus Casanatensis 15), written by Pomponio Leto c. 1470; but its witness is vitiated by the frequency both of error and of interpolation and its presence would confuse rather than clarify our picture of Λ . On the other hand I include the pair J (Parmensis Palat. Parm. 140, Florence, c. 1440) and K (Vratislauiensis Univ. Akc. 1948 KN 197, Padua 1469).