¹ Otis, B., Ovid as an Epic Poet (2nd edn., 1970), pp. 341–2.Google Scholar

² Op. cit., p. 108.

³ Op. cit., p. 358.

⁴ Op. cit., p. 357.

⁵ We should, in any case, beware of the idea that the ‘prologue’ has a uniform character. In his 2nd edn. (p. 316) Otis recognizes the unsatisfactory nature of the term ‘Creation Epic’ which he had applied in his 1st edn. to the sequence from the initial creation to the subsequent recreation.

⁶ At Met. 10. 148 Orpheus invokes the ab loue principle. The recital then begins with a brief account of the Jupiter Ganymede story. A story involving Apollo (Hyacinthus) this time occupies the second place.Google Scholar

⁷ e.g. Fränkel, H., Ovid: A Poet between two Worlds (1945), p. 79Google Scholar; Doblhofer, E., Philologus 104 (1960), 79 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Otis (op. cit., p. 102; cf. also pp. 379 ff.) thinks the Cupid scene is a transposition from Calvus' Io but regards the transition itself as an ‘obvious jeu d‘esprit’.

⁹ Call. Ait. 1 fr. 1, 21 ff. (Pfeiff.). Kenney, E. J., Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc N.S. 22 (1976), 46 ff., sees an allusion to this theophany in Met. 1. 2. Although it seems to me that there are difficulties in Kenney's view it need only be noted here that the recognition of the Apollo-Cupid as a version of the Callimachean theophany does not in itself preclude the possibility of an earlier reference to the motif.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ e.g. Ovid, , Met. 1Google Scholar, ed. Lee, A. G. (1953) n. ad loc.Google Scholar

¹¹ Ovidius Naso, P., Metamorphosen I–III, komm. von F.Bömer, (1969), n. ad 453.Google Scholar

¹² The harsh rebuke with which Ovid first addresses Cupid (Am. 1. 1. 5) recalls Prop. 3.3.15 (the opening words in a theophany). Cf. also Prop. 4. 1. 71.Google Scholar

¹³ Apollo himself is paired with Mars in Am. 1. 1Google Scholar because Ovid there wishes to stress that Apollo's true role is as a musician not as a warrior. This pair would clearly not be appropriate in Met. Note that the counter balanced arma-fax of Minerva and Venus in Am. 1. 1 are perhaps echoed in the Apollo-Cupid when Cupid is told to leave fortia arma alone and be content to stir up love with his torch.Google Scholar

¹⁴ e.g. Virgil, , Ec. 6. 1–5.Google Scholar

¹⁵ I do not rule out the possibility that there is also an allusion to Aen. 9. 590Google Scholar ff. (the first exploit of Ascanius as an archer in war) as suggested by Primmer, A., Wiener Studien N.F. 10 (1976), 213. Lucan's ‘adhuc rudibus … sagittis’ (5. 80) (of Apollo'' exploit) is perhaps derived from Ovid.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Stress is laid on his use of arrows to overcome Python (441 ‘arcitenens’: 443 ‘exhausta paene pharetra’).

¹⁷ These changes are, of course, reminiscent of the normal poetic convention whereby reference is made to the performance of a deed when what is meant is a literary account of such a deed and to the deity presiding over a craft when the human practitioner is meant. Prop. 4. 6. 69–70 is a particularly relevant example of this kind of convention. In Prop. Apollo ‘uictor … exuit arma’ (after Actium) and instead ‘citharam … poscit’ in preparation for peaceful celebrations. In the Apollo-Cupid Apollo undergoes, albeit humorously a somewhat similar transformation. For the connection between the Python episode and Actium see below and nn. 36 and 37.

¹⁸ Op. cit., p. 78.

¹⁹ Due, O. S., Changing Forms. Studies re the Metamorphoses of Ovid (1974), p. 112Google Scholar. Primmer, A., op. cit., pp. 210Google Scholar ff., stresses the ‘epic’ character of the Apollo-Cupid as a whole and includes primus in a list of several ‘epic’ elements. While some such elements might be expected in view of Apollo's epic-style posturing Primmer seems to me to go rather too far in arguing that Ovid has ‘epicized’ 452–73 ‘in auffälliger Weise’ and that his intention is to make the reader aware of a progression from a ‘Homeric’ stage (452–73) via Callimachus (474–503) to pastoral-burlesque (504–24). While some of Primmer's ‘epic’ elements may be admitted they cannot disguise the fact that in the Apollo-Cupid Ovid employs the ‘Calli-machean’ recusatio as his main vehicle for establishing his position vis-a-vis epic con- vention. Epic parody, in the sense of direct allusions to the Aeneid or other epics, is an auxiliary weapon. One should note that an element such as Apollo's superbia and Cupid's reaction to it derives from the elegists' conventions about ‘epic’ pride and its downfall and not directly from any particular passage in epic such as Aen. 10. 514 ff.Google Scholar

²⁰ Hesiod, , Theog. 24; Call. Ait. 1 fr. 1, 21 (Pfeiff.).Google Scholar

²¹ The joke is heightened if we see here an allusion to Aen. 7. 554Google Scholar as Primmer (op. cit., p. 212) suggests. While the arma used at the outbreak of hostilities between Trojans and Latins were provided by fors the amor of Apollo had no such random cause.

²² Fränkel, H. (op. cit., p. 78) claimed that the Apollo-Cupid was programmatic but failed to establish the link with Callimachus. Neither he nor those who followed him satisfactorily explained how this programme was to be understood. Fränkel believed that Ovid was proclaiming that ‘the theme of love was to rank second only to that of metamorphosis’. Due (op. cit., p. 112) sees the Apollo-Cupid as illustrating the maxim omnia uincit Amor.Google Scholar

²³ The Pan-Syrinx (Met. 2. 689 ff.) puts Argus to sleep because it is a boring doublet of the Apollo-Daphne. One of the repeated elements is precisely the fact that both stories are aetiologies connected with poetry.Google Scholar

²⁴ The idea of the dignified Apollo being reduced to the role of ‘elegiac’ lover did not of course originate with Ovid. The Alexandrian version of the story of Apollo and Admetus lends itself to such treatment and Tib. 2. 3. 11 ff. affords a number of parallels to the Apollo-Daphne. Cf. esp. Tib. 2. 3. 13–14 and Met. 1. 523–4 and Tib. 2. 3. 27 and Met. 1. 515–16. See K. F. Smith's note ad Tib. 2. 3. 11 ff.

²⁵ Otis, (op. cit., p. 103) describes her as ‘nothing but the determined virgin whose single role is to thwart the infatuated lover’.Google Scholar

²⁶ Otis, , op. cit., p. 105.Google Scholar

²⁷ On the symbolic contrasts in the opening sequence of the Aeneid see Pöschl, V., The Art of Virgil (1966), pp. 12Google Scholar ff., and Otis, B., Virgil: A Study in civilized Poetry (1963), pp. 227 ff. Unfortunately although Otis stresses the symmetry here his plan is not quite correct.Google Scholar

²⁸ The most obvious counterbalanced features are the two ‘Homeric’ speeches of Aeneas (94–101 and 198–207) and the parallel argumentation of the speech of Juno (39–49) and the latter part of the speech of Venus (242–53). Note that these four elements together with the ‘statesman’ are regularly spaced within the scheme at about fifty-line intervals.

²⁹ Ovid as an Epic Poet, pp. 93 ff. By subdividing too far Otis obscures the basic 162/163 line balance.Google Scholar

³⁰ I include the opening four lines within this section. The Aeneid too has a short initial prologue which, for structural purposes, falls within the ‘Junonian’ half of the ring complex.

³¹ Other examples are Met. 9. 270 where Hercules acquires grauitas (significantly described as ‘augusta’) which increases the burden on Atlas' shoulders (273) and Met. 15. 693–4 (of the ship which is to take Aesculapius to Rome) ‘numinis illa/sensit onus, pressa estque dei grauitate carina’ where the stress on numinis and dei points to the double meaning.

³² I do not, of course, exclude the possibility that Ovid intends us to regard the Deluge as somewhat rough justice in spite of Jupiter's pleas that it is a last resort (190) and that mankind's guilt is general (240–3).

³³ Met. 1. 4. On perpetuum carmen much has been written. See esp. Herter, H., AJP 69 (1948), 129Google Scholar ff., and Otis, , op. cit., pp. 45Google Scholar ff. E. J. Kenney (Ovid, ed. Binris, J. W. (1980), p. 116)Google Scholar observes ‘von Albrecht's careful analysis of the surprisingly brief proem shows that Ovid's declared pretensions are those of an epic poet.’ See von Albrecht, M.. RhMus 104 (1961), 269 ff.Google Scholar

³⁴ I accept the view of Gilbert, C. D. (CQ N.S. 26 (1976), 111–2)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Kenney, (Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. N.S. 22 (1976), 51–2) that deducite in 1.4 alludes to the special meaning which deductum bears in Ec. 6. 5.Google Scholar

³⁵ On this practice see Bramble, J. C., Persius and the Programmatic Satire (1974), pp. 156 ff.Google Scholar

³⁶ Hermes 94 (1966), 90 ff.Google Scholar

³¹ See Syndikus, H. P., Die Lyrik des Horaz: eine Interpretation der Oden (1972–1980), 2. 70. I owe this reference to Dr J. Y. Nadeau.Google Scholar

³⁸ See H. L. Levy's commentary ad loc. I owe this reference to Mr A. B. E. Hood.

³⁹ Op. cit., p. 311 and ref. ad loc.

⁴⁰ On this passage see Rudd, N., Lines of Enquiry (1976), pp. 28–9.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Hence the contrast between the Jupiter who transforms Lycaon and the Jupiter who woos Io and Callisto. D. A. Little is wrong to complain that ‘there has been nothing in the Met. to prepare us for this characterization’ (sc. the playboy Jupiter) (The Structural Character of Ovid's Met. (1972), p. 49).Google Scholar