² See e.g. Rosati, G., Narciso e Pigmalione. Illusione e spettacolo nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio (Firenze, 1983), especially 51–94Google Scholar; Hardie, P., Ovid's Poetics of Illusion (Cambridge, 2002), 186–226Google Scholar.

³ With few exceptions: e.g. Fränkel, H., Ovid: A Poet Between Two Worlds (Berkeley, 1945), 93–5Google Scholar; Downing, E., ‘Anti-Pygmalion: the praeceptor in Ars Amatoria, Book 3’, Helios 17 (1990), 235–50Google Scholar, at 236–7.

⁴ The tale of the Propoetides is attested only by Ovid: see Reed on Ov. Met. 10.238–42 in Humphries, R. (transl.), Reed, J.D. (annot.), Ovid Metamorphoses. The New, Annotated Edition (Indiana, 2018), 58Google Scholar.

⁵ The text of Ovid's Metamorphoses is taken from R.J. Tarrant's Oxford Classical Text.

⁶ See Reed (n. 4), 59 on Ov. Met. 10.238. The adjective also alludes to their ill-omened fate.

⁷ Apparently, the Propoetides harden, because their life of debauchery makes them lose the softness that is usually associated with female body: it is a small step (paruo discrimine) from this metaphoric harshness to the hardness of real stone that they reach in the end (induruit, rigidum silicem). In a way, their metamorphosis is also a gender transformation from feminine softness to male hardness.

⁸ It is noteworthy that the tale of Pygmalion is recounted by Orpheus, another artist who, albeit for different reasons, feels threatened by women (Met. 10.79–81). See e.g. Hardie (n. 2), 189 and Reed (n. 4), on Met. 10.244–5.

⁹ The wording may recall Dido's regret for not having been able to live without indulging in the pleasures of the thalamus (Verg. Aen. 4.550–1 non licuit thalami expertem sine crimine uitam | degere more ferae): Pygmalion seems to realize her impossible desire.

¹⁰ Dutsch, D., Feminine Discourse in Roman Comedy: On Echoes and Voices (Oxford, 2008), 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See e.g. Plaut. Mil. 193–4, where, beside the usual panoply of tricks and vanities traditionally attributed to women, Plautus points out that the mulier, when she is mala, does not need to go to the greengrocer, because she already has at home condimenta ad omnis mores malificos.

¹¹ Plautus’ text is taken from W.M. Lindsay's Oxford Classical Text.

¹² Tibullus will use the same motif, saying that Delia's husband, this time with the help of real magic, will not believe his wife's adulteries despite the fact that the information comes from an eye witness, or even from himself: 1.2.43–4; 57–8 nec tamen huic credet coniunx tuus, ut mihi uerax | pollicita est magico saga ministerio … | ille nihil poterit de nobis credere cuiquam, | non sibi, si in molli uiderit ipse toro.

¹³ One could also think of Pygmalion's endeavour as an attempt to reshape the stony Propoetides according to his will (see Reed [n. 4], on Met. 10.241–2, 283). The Ovidian artist seems to undo what Venus has done by resorting to Venus’ help.

¹⁴ On Amores 3.7, see e.g. Sharrock, A., ‘The drooping rose: elegiac failure in Amores 3.7’, Ramus 24–5 (1995), 152–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mauger-Plichon, B., ‘Ovide et l'expression du fiasco’, Vita Latina 154 (1999), 23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Holzberg, N., ‘Impotence? It happened to the best of them! A linear reading of the Corpus Priapeorum’, Hermes 133 (2005), 368–81Google Scholar; id., ‘Un'esperienza imbarazzante e le sue conseguenze: Tib. 1, 5, 39–44, Ov. am. 3, 7 e Priapeum 83 Büch.’, in L. Landolfi, V. Chinnici (edd.), Teneri properentur Amores. Riflessioni sull’intertestualità ovidiana. Gli Amores (Bologna, 2007), 157–75; id., ‘Ovid, Amores 3.7: a poem between two genres’, Latomus 68 (2009), 933–40; Angulo, E.F. Baeza, ‘Quin istic pudibunda iaces, pars pessima nostri?: la impotencia sexual como motivo literario en el mundo clásico’, Lexis 28 (2010), 433–63Google Scholar; Gärtner, T., ‘Das Erlebnis der Impotenz. Zur Genese, Struktur und Rezeption von Ov. am. III 7’, Latomus 70 (2011), 103–23Google Scholar; Hallett, J.P., ‘Anxiety and influence: Ovid's Amores 3.7 and Encolpius’ impotence in Satyricon 126 ff.’, in Pinheiro, M.P. Futre, Skinner, M.B., Zeitlin, F.I. (edd.), Narrating Desire: Eros, Sex, and Gender in the Ancient Novel (Berlin and Boston, 2012), 211–22Google Scholar.

¹⁵ The condition of impotence described in Amores 3.7 is also reminiscent of the Narcissus episode, which, as is well known, is strongly interlaced with the story of Pygmalion (see e.g. Rosati [n. 2], 58–67) and with elegiac poetry (see e.g. Sharrock, A., ‘Womanufacture’, JRS 81 [1991], 36–49Google Scholar, at 36; Pavlock, B., The Image of the Poet in Ovid’s Metamorphoses [Madison, WI, 2009], 14–37Google Scholar). The protagonist of Amores 3.7 finds himself precisely in the condition of desiring something without being able to possess it (Met. 3.405 ‘sic amet ipse licet, sic non potiatur amato’). The oscillation between living and inert matter switches from the desiring subject to the object of desire: see the textual similarities between Am. 3.7.16 et non exactum, corpus an umbra forem and Met. 3.417 corpus putat esse, quod umbra est. Narcissus and his reflection share the statuesque appearance of the elegiac puella: compare e.g. Am. 3.7.7–8 subiecit eburnea collo | bracchia Sithonia candidiora niue to Met. 3.422–3 eburnea colla decusque | oris et in niueo mixtum candore ruborem and Met. 3.428–9 in mediis quotiens uisum captantia collum | bracchia mersit aquis. His attempts to kiss his reflection (Met. 3.427 inrita fallaci quotiens dedit oscula fonti! cf. also Met. 3.451) may recall the vain kisses of the girl to her partner in Amores 3.7 (9 osculaque inseruit cupida luctantia lingua). More generally, in both texts the use of polyptoton is aimed to express the unattainable reciprocity of desire (see e.g. Am. 3.7.5, 10; and Met. 3.425–6, 436, 458–9, 465). Finally, the comparison with Tantalus in Am. 3.7.51–2 brings into play Lucretius’ discussion of love as a cruel deceit. As Hardie (n. 2), 157 has noticed, the language of Narcissus’ ‘vain attempts to reach the deceptive simulacrum is the language of Tantalus’.

¹⁶ The text of Ovid's Amores is from E.J. Kenney's Oxford Classical Text.

¹⁷ The sorceress and Pygmalion show some interesting points of contact. In both texts we find a reference to the manipulation of wax. In Amores 3.7 wax features in the list of magical arts that may have caused impotence: a witch must have carved the man's name in wax, putting him under her spell (Am. 3.7.29 sagaue poenicea defixit nomina cera). In the Metamorphoses instead it is the manipulation of the statue that is compared to the manipulation of wax (Met. 10.284–6 ut Hymettia sole | cera remollescit tractataque pollice multas | flectitur in facies ipsoque fit utilis usu). While the skilled hands of Pygmalion, by moulding ivory as if it were wax, end up animating inert matter, the hands of the sorceress, by carving onto a puppet of wax the name of a man who is alive and vigorous, end up reaching the opposite result: life is suddenly reduced to lifeless matter (this is another link to Narcissus [see n. 15 above], whose love consumption is compared to wax melting in the morning sun [Met. 3.487–90]). Furthermore, both the art of the witch and the art of Pygmalion seem to act invisibly: the magicae artes have only hypothetically caused impotence, just as Pygmalion's mira ars (Met. 10.247) is so sophisticated that latet arte sua (10.252).

¹⁸ See e.g. Rimell, V., Ovid's Lovers. Desire, Difference, and the Poetic Imagination (Cambridge, 2006), 61–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ See also Ov. Met. 10.275–6 sit coniunx, opto,' non ausus ‘eburnea uirgo’ | dicere.

²⁰ On the anomalous insistence on the girl's erotic gestures, which ends up producing a sort of inversion of gender roles, see Holzberg (n. 14 [2007]), 161–4.

²¹ For Pygmalion's elegiac features see Sharrock (n. 15).

²² On the elegiac use of the verb temptare, see Sharrock (n. 15), 41–3, who associates Pygmalion's gestures with the elegiac lover's fantasies in Prop. 1.3.15–16. On the sexual undertones of Pygmalion's touching of the statue, see again Sharrock (n. 15), 47–8.

²³ His touch is hilariously compared to the way in which the girl's robe—an inanimate object—touches her body (40 sic etiam tunica tangitur illa sua) and to the vain attempts of Tantalus to reach the fruits (52). Significantly, in the end, the girl will be defined as intacta (83). See also the joke on the verb contingere at 3.7.43.

²⁴ See also e.g. Ov. Am. 2.3.7 (to a eunuch) non fortibus utilis armis and Sen. Contr. 2.5.14 si hic maritus … inutilis in concubitu suae uxoris iacuisset; Mart. 11.81.3 (of a eunuch and an old man) uiribus hic, operi non est hic utilis annis.

²⁵ On the condition of liminality characterizing the man affected by impotence, see S.H. Tohm, ‘Contesting masculinity: locating the male body in Roman elegy’ (Diss., University of Michigan, 2011), 100.

²⁶ In both Amores 3.7 and the Pygmalion episode the puella is connected with the gods. At the beginning of Amores 3.7, the girl is defined as uotis saepe petita (2); the impotent man fears that the gods might regret having offered him such a munus (45–6 credo etiam magnos, quo sum tam turpiter usus, | muneris oblati paenituisse deos). In the Metamorphoses, the girl emerging from ivory is defined by Pygmalion as sua uota (288), in that she comes to life precisely because he has sent a prayer to Venus (Met. 10.273–9 cum munere functus ad aras | constitit et timide ‘si, di, dare cuncta potestis, | sit coniunx, opto,’ non ausus ‘eburnea uirgo’ | dicere, Pygmalion ‘similis mea’ dixit ‘eburnae.’ | sensit, ut ipsa suis aderat Venus aurea festis, | uota quid illa uelint et, amici numinis omen, | flamma ter accensa est apicemque per aera duxit). One may think of Pandora, whose destructive effect on mankind, rather than being exemplified in the Metamorphoses, where Venus’ gift is beneficial for Pygmalion, seems to find a parodic expression in Amores 3.7. For the influence of the Hesiodic myth of Pandora on the Pygmalion episode, see e.g. Segal, C., ‘Ovid's metamorphic bodies: art, gender, and violence in the “Metamorphoses”’, Arion 5 (1998), 9–41Google Scholar, at 18–19.

²⁷ Ovid insists on the dangerous power of magical songs and spells (28, 31–2 and especially 33 ilicibus glandes cantataque uitibus uua | decidit), and then he compares the girl herself to a singer (61 quid iuuet ad surdas si cantet Phemius aures?). For the association of this puella with witchcraft, see Holzberg (n. 14 [2007]), 163 n. 23; L.M. Muto, ‘Body parts and their epic struggle in Ovid's Amores’ (Diss., Marshall University, 2007), 59–60.

²⁸ See Hallett (n. 14), 215. See also Wyke, M., ‘Taking the woman's part: engendering Roman love elegy’, Ramus 23 (1994), 110–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 121–4. For other famous complaints by elegiac puellae, see e.g. Prop. 1.3.35–46; 2.15.8 ‘sicine, lente, iaces?’; 3.23.12–13 ‘irascor, quoniam es, lente, moratus heri. | an tibi nescio quae uisa est formosior?’; Ov. Am. 2.18.8 ‘me miseram! iam te’ dixit ‘amare pudet?’.

²⁹ But see vv. 67–8 quae [sc. membra] nunc, ecce, uigent intempestiua ualentque, | nunc opus exposcunt militiamque suam: apparently, now that the girl is gone, the ‘truncus’ is not iners anymore. The narrator however regards this untimely animation as deceitful (70–1 sic sum pollicitis captus et ante tuis. | tu dominum fallis).

³⁰ Ovid here is also implicitly opposing the flawed and imperfect body of the male protagonist—associated with images of deafness (61 surdas aures), blindness (62 miserum Thamyran) and muteness (63 tacita mente)—to the perfect body of the puella, which is compared to refined works of art (namely songs and paintings: Am. 3.7.61–2).

³¹ See Dimatteo on Juv. 8.52–5 in Dimatteo, G., Giovenale, Satira 8. Introduzione, Testo, Traduzione e Commento (De Gruyter, 2014), 88–90Google Scholar. Note the expression nullo alio discrimine that may recall the Ovidian paruo discrimine, said about the change of the Propoetides into stone (see n. 6 above).

³² Obermayer, H.P., Martial und der Diskurs über männliche Homosexualität in der Literatur der frühen Kaiserzeit (Tübingen, 1998), 286Google Scholar. A similar expression is found in Plaut. Truc. 265–6, where, if Ussing's conjecture is correct, Stratilax mishears Astaphium's truculentus as truncus lentus, with allusion to his virility.

³³ Especially Priamus at Verg. Aen. 2.557–8 (see e.g. Bretzigheimer, G., Ovids Amores. Poetik in der Erotik [Tübingen, 2001]Google Scholar, 140 n. 151). The poet of Anth. Lat. 3.106, defining Priamus’ truncus as iners, seems to have acknowledged the Ovidian parody: 55–6 tempore non illo Priamum periisse putabis, | quo iacuit Teucro litore truncus iners. According to Hutchinson, G.O., Talking Books: Readings in Hellenistic and Roman Books of Poetry (Oxford, 2008), 191CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ‘the narrator parodies Achilles, the supreme exemplar of masculinity’, alluding to Hom. Il. 18.104.

³⁴ On this Horatian passage, see Gowers, E., Horace Satires Book I (Cambridge, 2012), 266–7Google Scholar; Richlin, A., The Garden of Priapus. Sexuality & Aggression in Roman Humor (Oxford, 1992), 126Google Scholar.

³⁵ On the erotic meaning of iners and its connection to impotence, see Adams, J.N., The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (London, 1982), 46Google Scholar (quoting Catull. 67.26 and Hor. Epod. 12.16–17; cf. also Ov. Rem. am. 779–80; Priapea 83.4 Bücheler).

³⁶ See Antoniadis, T., ‘Beyond impotence. Some unexplored Ovidian dynamics in Petronius's sketch of the Croton episode: Satyrica 126. 1–140. 12’, TIC 5 (2013), 179–91Google Scholar, at 187.

³⁷ The text of the Satyricon is taken from the 2003 edition by K. Müller.

³⁸ See e.g. McMahon, J.M., Paralysin Cave: Impotence, Perception, and Text in the Satyrica of Petronius (Leiden, 1998), 77–86, 189–92Google Scholar; Schmeling, G., A Commentary on the Satyrica of Petronius (Oxford, 2011)Google Scholar, on Petron. Sat. 126–8; Hallett (n. 14).

³⁹ See Rimell, V., Petronius and the Anatomy of Fiction (Cambridge, 2004), 149Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ On the contrast between idealized statue-like appearance and disappointing reality, see Downing (n. 3).

⁴¹ Cf. Ars am. 3.193–4, 277.

⁴² On the invective against old women, a recurring theme in Roman literature, see Richlin (n. 34), 109–16.

⁴³ Petron. Sat. 129 ‘dic, Chrysis, sed uerum: numquid indecens sum? numquid incompta? numquid ab aliquo naturali uitio formam meam excaeco? noli decipere dominam tuam. nescio quid peccauimus.’ rapuit deinde tacenti speculum, et postquam omnes uultus temptauit, quos solet inter amantes risus fingere, excussit uexatam solo uestem raptimque aedem Veneris intrauit.

⁴⁴ Conte, G.B., The Hidden Author. An Interpretation of Petronius’ Satyricon (Berkeley, 1996), 99Google Scholar.