Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T20:17:12.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Notes on the Text of Ovid's Remedia Amoris1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

A. A. R. Henderson
Affiliation:
Glasgow University

Extract

Part I examines various readings about which there persists editorial or other disagreement, Part II argues that six couplets are not from Ovid's hand. The lemmata give the reading of the Oxford Classical Text (Kenney, 1961/5), followed by the rejected variants and any conjectures. ‘Goold’ = G. P. Goold, ‘Amatoria Critica’, HSCP 69 (1965), 1–107. ‘Geisler’ = H. J. Geisler, P. Ovidius Naso Rentedia Amoris mit Kommentar zu Vers 1–396 (Inaugural Dissertation, Berlin, 1969). Normally only the principal manuscripts are cited individually.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1980

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.)

References

2 See Munari, F., Il Codice Hamilton 471 di Ovidio (Rome, 1965), p. 19.Google Scholar

3 On the picking up of the simple verb by the compound and vice versa (though without specific reference to anaphora), see L.-H.-S. ii, Stilistik, § 49.c.o. On the anaphora of synonyms (though without specific reference to ‘simplex pro composito’ or vice versa), see Lausberg, H., Handbucb der literarischen Rhetorik (Munich, 1960), §§629–30,656.Google Scholar

4 It is possible that Ovid is seeking to reproduce a technique of Lucretian argumentation examined by David West in The Imagery and Poetry of Lucretius (Edinburgh 1969), ch. 4, esp. pp. 43 ft. (‘transfusion of terms’). The opening of the tractatio is heavily indebted for its matter to DRN 4. 1063 ff. and 1141 ff.Google Scholar

5 Cf. the confusion between I and t at Ovid, , Fast. 3. 726Google Scholar (vitis-, vilis), on which see Maas, P., Textual Criticism (1958), Appendix II ad fin.Google Scholar

6 As suggested to me by Professor Kenney.

7 See Goold, 96, Geisler, ad loc. To Goold's comment on Met. 9.262 populabile flammae one might add that the epithet itself helps to ‘personalize’ the dative, since populari is essentially a human activity.Google Scholar

8 TLL vi, s.v. finis sub fin. (‘iuncturae’).

9 For the characteristic hyperbaton cf. 8,641, Trist. 1.1.18.Google Scholar

10 Met. 15.1 gives little support, as the context is so different (Geisler).Google Scholar

11 Cf., e.g., Cic, . Top. 82Google Scholar (status coniecturalis: ‘coniecturae ratio in quattuor partes distributa est, quarum … tenia [est cum quaeritur] quae id causa effecerit …’), 84 (s. generalis, ‘cum quaeritur quale quid sit’; cf. Or. 45, Part. 61 ff., etc.); Lausberg, , op. cit., §§ 123 ff.Google Scholar

12 SIFC 29 (1957), 14. Cf. p. 66 of his Paravia text and p. 82 of his Berlin (1969) edition.Google Scholar

13 Cf. Kenney, E. J., SIFC 30 (1968), 172 n. 2.Google Scholar

14 L.-H.-S. ii. 438Google Scholar; K.-S. i. 24 f.Google Scholar

15 See further Kenney, ‘Notes on Ovid II’, CQ N.S. 9 (1959), 258.Google Scholar

16 Handford, S. A., The Latin Subjunctive (London, 1947), pp. 117Google Scholar ff.; L.-H.-S. ii. 657.Google Scholar

17 Kenney, , ‘Notes on Ovid: II’, 259. Cf. id., CQ N.S. 12 (1962), 27.Google Scholar

18 See Servius on Aen. 1.165atrum nemus for an explanation of this trope. A similar interaction between epithets can be seen at Rem. 251–2 ‘ista veneficii VETUS est via; noster Apollo/INNOCUAM sacro carmine monstrat opem’, where vetus = ‘(harmful) old’ and innocuam = ‘harmless (new)’.Google Scholar

19 See Nutting, H. C., ‘The form si sit … erit, UCPCP 8. 2 (1926), 187 ff.Google Scholar

20 As may conveniently be seen, e.g., in the index of Owen's, S. G. O. C. T. (1915) of the Tristia etc.Google Scholar

21 Handford, , op. cit., pp. 133 f. (§149).Google Scholar

22 Op. cit. [n. 17], p. 260. The relationship of id/tu caveas to the rest of the couplet is not made wholly clear; presumably it is to stand as an independent prohibition with reference back to 757.

23 i.e. a reported form of quid caveam? See Handford, , op. cit., §§72 f. and n. 1 on p. 65.Google Scholar

24 H, in Lenz, , 1965Google Scholar, Ha in Lenz, , 1969.Google Scholar

25 Deleted by Damsté, , Mnem. 39 (1911), 445.Google Scholar

26 Deleted by Heinsius.

27 Deleted by Müller, L., RHM 17 (1862), 541.Google Scholar

28 Bracketed by Bornecque, (1929) without comment or explanation.Google Scholar

29 Liverpool Classical Monthly 3 (1978), 185–7, which also deals with the Amores ind Ars.Google Scholar

30 WS 36 (1914), 39.Google Scholar

31 Cf. Lenz, (1965), app.crit. ad loc: ‘distichon mihi quoque valde suspectum’; see however his note in the 1969 edition (pp. 78 f.).Google Scholar

31 Hermes 92 (1964), 185 f.Google Scholar

33 For the morass into which this leads, see Luck, G., Philol. 106 (1962), 147CrossRefGoogle Scholar f. In his Untersuchungen zur Textgeschichte Ovids (Heidelberg, 1969), pp. 45 f., Luck attributes the couplet to a Carolingian copy ist who found 25–6 illegible through wear and tear.Google Scholar

34 Cf. Geisler, (p. 150): ‘Die Harmonie des Aufbaus leidet unter der Athetese nicht.’Google Scholar

35 One is reminded of the old joke ‘If we had some bacon, we could have bacon- and-cggs – if we had some eggs.’

34 Were it worth considering emendation then perhaps concipiunt or concipient mighi be offered. But both ‘my (remaining) years hold many poems’ and ‘my years (will) conceive many poems’ seem foreign to Ovid's idiom.

37 Cf., e.g., Cic, . Cat. 4Google Scholar.6, Ad Fam. 13.64.1. The word does not occur elsewhere in Ovid's works; he has sustinere in a similar context at A. A. 2.690, but meaning producere (‘utque morer meme sustineamque, rogat’).Google Scholar

38 Cf. Prop. 4.9.62 and 70, Tib. 1.3.78. The poetic idiom exemplified by sitis Herculis – Hercules sitiens is of course both ancient and universal, and may readily be found in Ovid (e.g. Met. 1.58 cura dei = deus curans, 1.74 ira Iovis = Iuppiter iratus but he does not appear to employ it where physical ) like hunger, thirst, or pain ar involved.

39 With the former Vollmer, F. (Hermes 52 (1917), 468Google Scholar) compared the Senecan dolori adesse (De Cons. 7.2Google Scholar.), which = dolorem nutrire (see further TLL ii. 925Google Scholar, s.v. adsum i.q.faveo. But what fatumnutrire would mean is hard to guess; perhaps mortem parare, or (closer to the original dative) exitio imminere (cf. Met. 1.146). Reading obesse, Professor Kenney would translate (loosely) ‘is lousing up his entire life’, but without much conviction.Google Scholar

40 Cf., e.g., Plaut, . Merc. 702Google Scholar ff., or Mart. 8.12 (Kenney). The previous couplet (563–4) introduces the Comic figures of the durus pater and (by implication) adulescens flagitiosus; 565–6 perhaps owe their genesis to that.Google Scholar

41 Lausberg, , op. cit., §§643 and 647.Google Scholar

42 Platnauer, M., Latin Elegiac Verse (Hamden, Connecticut, 1971), pp. 64 ff.Google Scholar

43 ‘divitiis pereat luxuriosa suis.’

44 RHM 17 (1862), 541.Google Scholar

45 LAC 35 (1966), 581 ff.Google Scholar

46 Senecae Tragoediae i (1878), 174.Google Scholar

47 Pasiphae precedes Phaedra in the catalogue of love's casualties at 63 f.

48 The hexameter occurs on a wall at Pompeii (Bücheler, CLE 354.2)Google Scholar; cf. Am. 1.8.77–8Google Scholar (CLE 1785)Google Scholar, A.A. 1.475–6 (CLE 936.12).Google Scholar

49 Cf. Fast. 6.796 ff. (796 ‘cum data sunt trabeae templa, Quirine, tuae’, 809 Caesar, 812 Alcides).Google Scholar

50 See Lee, A. G., ‘The Authorship of the Nux’, in Ovidiana, ed. Herescu, N. I. (Paris, 1958), pp. 468 f. The Halieutica was accepted as by Ovid in Pliny's day (and afterwards).Google Scholar

51 The archetype of our manuscripts contained all four works in the order Ars, Remedia, Amoves, Heroides. See Goold, 3 f. (Luck, , Untersuchungen zur Text geschichte Ovids, pp. 11 ff. and 45 f., argues otherwise, unconvincingiy.)Google Scholar

52 The positions of the interpolated verses are, with very few exceptions, consistent with their having been added at the foot of the page in a codex having 13 lines to the page (allowing appropriate space for titles etc.). This would be a great rarity, of course, though not an impossibility (cf., e.g., Lowe, , CLA i. 23Google Scholar, Vat. Pal. Lat. 24 of Geilius; fourth century, capitalis rustica, 13 lines). We have nothing nearly as old as the second century to provide a control. But calculations of this kind in these circum-stances are unprofitable, since too many unverifiable assumptions require to be made.Google Scholar