This paper is an adapted version of a dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Classics at the University of Cambridge for the M.Phil, degree. Its form back then had a lot to do with the acute comments of John Henderson, just as its form now derives from the shaping notes of my markers Christopher Whitton and Emily Gowers. Thanks also to Ramus’ editors and anonymous readers for precise (and quick!) feedback.

1. Genette, G., Narrative Discourse (Oxford 1986Google Scholar) claims protos heuretes status (first published as Figures III, 1970). A key application has been in the area of narrative time: see de Jong, I.|Nunlist, R. (eds.), Time in Ancient Greek Literature (Leiden 2007), 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. de Jong, E.g. I., Narrators and Focalizers: The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad (Amsterdam 1987Google Scholar).

3. Liveley, G. and Salzman-Mitchell, P. (eds.), Latin Elegy and Narratology: Fragments of Story (Columbus 2008Google Scholar), 2ff.

4. Excepting S. Green, ‘The Expert, the Novice, and the Exile: A Narrative Tale of Three Ovids in Fasti’, in Liveley and Salzman-Mitchell (n3 above), 180–95.

5. For an attempt, see Murgatroyd, P., Mythical and Legendary Narrative in Ovid’s Fasti (Leiden 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

6. Harries, B., ‘Causation and the Authority of the Poet in Ovid’s Fasti’, CQ 39 (1989), 164–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Newlands, C., ‘Ovid’s Narrator in the Fasti’, Arethusa 25 (1992), 33–55Google Scholar.

7. Hardie, P., ‘Closure in Latin Epic’, in F. Dunn, D. Fowler and D. Roberts (eds), Classical Closure: Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature (Princeton 1997), 145Google Scholar.

8. On ‘regressive repetition’ in the early Aeneid, see P. Hardie, , The Epic Successors of Virgil: A Study in the Dynamics of a Tradition (Cambridge 1993), 16Google Scholar; Quint, D., Epic and Empire: Politics and Generic Form from Virgil to Milton (Princeton 1993), 50–52Google Scholar; Bettini, M., ‘Ghosts of Exile: Doubles and Nostalgia in Virgil’s parva Troia (Aeneid3.294ff.)’, ClAnt 16 (1997), 8–33Google Scholar.

9. Schiesaro, A., ‘Under the Sign of Saturn: Dido’s Kulturkampf’, in J. Schwindt (cd.), La representation du temps dans la poésie augustéenne IZur Poetik der Zeit in augusteischer Dichtung (Heidelberg 2005), 87Google Scholar; Quint (n.8 above), 29; Salzman-Mitchell, P., A Web of Fantasies: Gaze, Image, and Gender in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (Columbus 2005), 208Google Scholar; Newlands, C., ‘Contesting Time and Space: Fasti 6.637–48’, in G. Herbert-Brown (ed.), Ovid’s Fasti: Historical Readings at its Bimillenium (Oxford 2002), 242fGoogle Scholar.; on cunctari in the Aeneid, see J. Bishop, ‘Cunctari in the Aeneid’, in The Cost of Power: Studies in the Aeneid of Virgil (Armidale NSW 1988), 251–55Google Scholar.

10. On Lucan see Masters, J., Poetry and Civil War in Lucan’s Bellum Civile (Cambridge 1992), 3–9Google Scholar and passim; Hardie (n.7 above), 146; on Statius, Brown, J., Into the Woods: Narrative Studies in the Thebaid of Statius with Special Reference to Books IV-VI (Diss. Cambridge 1994), 1–29Google Scholar; J. Henderson, ‘Form Remade/Statius’ Thebaid’, in Boyle, A J. (ed.), Roman Epic (London 1993), 182CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Feeney, D., The Gods in Epic: Poets and Critics of the Classical Tradition (Oxford 1991), 339f.Google Scholar; also Tipping, B., ‘Haec turn Roma fuit: Past, Present, and Closure in Silius Italicus’ Punica’, in P. Fowler, S. Harrison and S. Heyworth (eds.), Classical Constructions: Papers in Memory of Don Fowler, Classicist and Epicurean (Oxford 2007), 226f.Google Scholar, on mora in Silius.

11. Quint (n.8 above), 3Iff. (cf. the epic/romance distinction in Burrow, C., Epic Romance: Homer to Milton [Oxford 1993], 34–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

12. Lowrie, Cf. M., Horace’s Narrative Odes (Oxford 1997), 13, 45, 49–58Google Scholar, on the different temporalities of lyric and (epic) narrative.

13. Quint (n.8 above), 41.

14. P. Salzman-Mitchell, ‘Snapshots of a Love Affair: Amores 1.5 and the Program of Elegiac Narrative’, in Liveley and Salzman-Mitchell (n.3 above), 34.

15. On mora in elegy, see Pucci, P., ‘Lingering on the Threshold’, Glyph 3 (1978), 53Google Scholar; Liveley and Salzman-Mitchell (n.3 above) index under ‘delay’.

16. See E. Tola, ‘Chronological Segmentation in Ovid’s Tristia: The Implicit Narrative of Elegy’, in Liveley and Salzman-Mitchell (n.3 above), 61–67, on the frozen repetition of Tomitan time in the Tristia; Claassen, J.-M., Displaced Persons: The Literature of Exile from Cicero to Boethius (Madison 1999), 71,157Google Scholar, on its dilation.

17. For elegiac metre/didactic mode conflict, see Toohey, P., Epic Lessons: An Introduction to Ancient Didactic Poetry (London 1996), 126Google Scholar; Boyle, AJ., ‘Postscripts from the Edge: Exilic Fasti and Imperialised Rome’, Ramus 26 (1997), 19–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on continuity with Ovidian love elegy, see Pasco-Pranger, M., Founding the Year: Ovid’s Fasti and the Poetics of the Roman Calendar (Leiden 2006), 119–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Fasti’s episodic structure and elegiac metre have also led critics (e.g. Braun, L., ‘Kompositionskunst in Ovids Fasti’, ANRW 1131.4 [1981], 2344–85Google Scholar) to read it as a collection of short poems; see Miller, J., ‘The Fasti: Style, Structure and Time’, in B. Boyd (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Ovid (Leiden 2002), 184Google Scholar, for criticism of this approach.

18. On the clash between (love) elegy’s love for delay and didactic teleology in the Ars, see H. Gardner, ‘Women’s Time in the Remedia Amoris’, in Liveley and Salzman-Mitchell (n.3 above), 74,85.

19. Cf. Sharrock, A., Seduction and Repetition in Ovid’s Ars Amatoria 2 (New York 1994), 23–25Google Scholar, on Ars 2.

20. For collation of examples, see Kenney, EJ., ‘Nequitiae poeta’, in D. de Adamesteanu, V. Christea and E. Lozovan (eds.), Ovidiana: Recherches sur Ovide (Paris 1958), 205Google Scholar; Volk, K., The Poetics of Latin Didactic (Oxford 2002), 181f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gale, M., ‘Poetry and the Backward Glance in Virgil’s Georgics and Aeneid’, TAP A 133 (2003), 329 n.17Google Scholar; note the adaptability of this imagery to a context of political control as well (Harrison, S., ‘Decline and Nostalgia’, in S. Harrison [ed.], A Companion to Latin Literature [Malden 2005], 292CrossRefGoogle Scholar). P. Hardie, ‘Time in Lucretius and the Augustan Poets: Freedom and Innovation’, in Schwindt (n.9 above), 26f., explicitly links the political and textual. See also D. Kennedy, ‘Elegy and the Erotics of Narratology’, in Liveley and Salzman-Mitchell (n.3 above), 20f., on erotic uses for the progress metaphor. Bömer, F., P. Ovidius Naso, Die Fasten Band II: Kommentar (Heidelberg 1958Google Scholar) lists poem-as-ship images (Fasti and Ovid-wide) ad 1.4.

21. For example: (of ships) Ovid’s shaky bark (setting out in winter, 1.1–20), Arion jumping ship (2.83ff.), Anna Perenna’s disaster (3.593f.), Ceres’ wandering (4.497–500); (of chariots) Hippolytus’ crash (6.743f.), Tullia’s crime (6.605–08), and finally, time’s unbridled passage (6.771f.). (NB: I will refer to the edition of R. Schilling, Les Pastes [Paris 1993] throughout.) Given the ubiquity of chariot/ship imagery used metapoetically, we can also read other narrative appearances of chariots/ships in the poem as metapoetic comment. Such a move merits a paper all of its own. For reasons of space, I have had to suppress discussion of these spatial metaphors; but it should be kept in mind that the temporal can always be troped in terms of the spatial and vice versa (cf. Feeney, D., Caesar’s Calendar: Ancient Time and the Beginnings of History [Berkeley 2007], 1Google Scholar).

22. Licence turns to silence: see Feeney, D., ‘Si licet et fas est: Ovid’s Fasti and the Problem of Free Speech under the Principate’, in P. Knox (ed.), Oxford Readings in Ovid (Oxford 2006), 483–88Google Scholar.

23. Especially in the Fasti: see Miller, J., ‘Callimachus and the Augustan Aetiological Elegy’, ANRW II.30.1 (1982), 371–417Google Scholar, and ‘The Fasti and Hellenistic Didactic’, Arethusa 25 (1992), 11–31Google Scholar. The Aetia provides a model for the narrative tension between continuity and discontinuity: for which (re the Aetia) see Hunter, R. and Fantuzzi, M., Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry (Cambridge 2004), 43–49Google Scholar; (re the Fasti) Newlands, C., ‘Connecting the Disconnected: Reading Ovid’s Fasti’, in A. Sharrock and H. Morales (eds.), lntratextuality (Oxford 2000), 171–202Google Scholar.

24. Hardie, P., ‘The Janus Episode in Ovid’s Fasti’, MD 26 (1991), 47Google Scholar; Murgatroyd (n.5 above), 210, talks of frequent allusion to beginnings at beginnings.

25. See Hardie (n.24 above); Green, S., Ovid’s Fasti I: A Commentary (Leiden 2004), 70f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barchiesi, A., The Poet and the Prince: Ovid and Augustan Discourse (Berkeley 1997), 232Google Scholar.

26. Hardie (n.24 above), 52f.; cf. Barchiesi, A., ‘Discordant Muses’, PCPS 37 (1991), 6Google Scholar.

27. Hinds has shown it to be a loaded term both inside and outside the Fasti: Hinds, S., ‘Arma in Ovid’s Fasfi: I and II’, Arethusa 25 (1992), 101Google Scholar; ‘Generalising About Ovid’, Ramus 16(1987),21Google Scholar; ‘After Exile: Time and Teleology from Metamorphoses to Ibis’, in A. Barchiesi, P. Hardie and S. Hinds (eds.), Ovidian Transformations: Essays on the Metamorphoses and its Reception (Cambridge 1999), 53–57Google Scholar; cf. ‘calendar-orientated action’ under the index of subjects in Hinds, S., The Metamorphosis of Persephone: Ovid and the Self-Conscious Muse (Cambridge 1987Google Scholar).

28. A pun on ‘temples’ here is also likely (cf. Henderson, J., ‘A Turn-up for the Books: Yes, It’s….Ovid’s Metamorphoses’, Omnibus 19 [1990], 20Google Scholar, on Met. 1.4). On the pun elsewhere, see Hinds (n.27 above ‘After Exile’), 56f.; Newlands, C., Playing with Time: A Study of Ovid’s Fasti (Ithaca 1995), 184f.Google Scholar; Barchiesi (n.25 above), 58; cf. Green (n.25 above), 85, on this couplet increasing Janus’ programmatic importance.

29. Bömer, F., Die Fasten Band I: Einleitung, Text und Übersetzung (Heidelberg 1957), 18Google Scholar, views the contrast as contradiction; Hardie (n.24 above), 50 n.6, identifies the same problem, which my interpretation ‘solves’—or shelves.

30. Barchiesi (n.26 above), 16f., notes the connection between Janus and couplet form, and other types of binary in this section (cf. Hardie [n.24 above], 62f.).

31. See Feeney (n.21 above), 214, on Hor. Od. 4.7.

32. Cf. univocal Ovid vs multivocal Janus at 1.256: uoce mea uoces eliciente dei (‘with my voice coaxing out the voices of the god’: cf. Hardie [n.24 above], 63).

33. Through the os posterius of a footnote; cf. Ahl’s observation that Ovid often plays with memorare and mora, which both contain the root syllable or-: Ahl, F., Metaformations: Soundplay and Wordplay in Ovid and Other Classical Poets (Ithaca 1985), 40, 54Google Scholar. Newlands, Cf. C., ‘Ovid’s Ravenous Raven’, CJ 86 (1991), 245Google Scholar n.l 1: ‘[T]he concept of narrating is already contained within the key word moras.’ Cf. also Keith, A., ‘Etymological Wordplay in Ovid’s Pyramus and Thisbe (Met. 4.55–166)’, CQ 51 (2001), 309–12Google Scholar, on mora play in the Metamorphoses. As a work concerned with etymology, wordplay can be suspected everywhere in the Fasti: see Porte, D., L’Étiologie religieuse dans les Pastes d’Ovide (Paris 1985), 197–264Google Scholar.

34. Miller, Cf. J., ‘Ovid’s Divine Interlocutors in the Fasti’, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 3 (1983), 172Google Scholar.

35. Green (n.4 above, 185; n.25 above, 87f.) sees this as a learning curve. He also notes that it is the longest question in the poem (Green [n.4 above], 194); on the ‘disproportionate’ devotion to spring here, see Hardie (n.24 above), 50 n.6. On Janus’ role as model didactic poet, see Miller (n.34 above), 166.

36. See section 5 below.

37. See Green (n.25 above), 97f., 109.

38. Cf. Hardie (n.24 above), 53.

39. Could Janus be the first poetic victim of Augustus’ tightening constraints on free speech (Feeney [n.22 above], 473–77)?

40. There is surely a connection between the three-headed Hecate, well-equipped to guard the crossroads (1.141f.),and Ovid at 53–6, unable to cope with a busy aetiological intersection because he can only look in one direction at a time; see below.

41. Hinds (n.27 above ‘Arma’); Harrison, S., ‘Ovid and Genre: Evolutions of an Elegist’, in P. Hardie (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ovid (Cambridge 2002), 86Google Scholar.

42. Cf. Sharrock (n.19 above), 20, on the useful ambiguity of the meta in Ars 2 as ‘both the goal and turning post, the end and the change of direction’.

43. See Salzman-Mitchell (n.14 above),46; Miller (n.17 above), 189–91.

44. Gowers, E., ‘Horace, Satires 1.5: An Inconsequential Journey’, PCPS 39 (1993), 53–60Google Scholar.

45. Kennedy’s (n.20 above, 24) assessment for love elegy bears striking resemblance to Gowers’s (n.44 above) for satire.

46. Cf. Harries, B., ‘Ovid and the Fabii: Fasti 2.193–474’, CQ 41 (1991), 155fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47. Cf. Harries (n.46 above), 154f., on the narrative acceleration indicating a modulation to an epic register; cf. Newlands (n.28 above), 90f.

48. See Henderson, J., Figuring Out Roman Nobility: Juvenal’s Eighth Satire (Exeter 1997), 125Google Scholar; Newlands (n.33 above), 251; we can thus extend Murgatroyd’s (n.5 above, 283) apprehension of ‘false closure’ in the Fabii episode even further.

49. Cf. Newlands (n.33 above), 245. Bömer (n.20 above) ad loc. also picks up ‘der Witz’; cf. Fränkel, H., Ovid: A Poet between Two Worlds (Berkeley 1969), 239 n.6Google Scholar.

50. For the metapoetics of this episode, see Newlands (n.28 above), 158; Newlands (n.33 above), 245ff.

51. E.g. brides postponing wedding: 3.393-96, 2.557ff., 6.233f.; Ovid postponing narrative: 3.57f., 3.199f.,3.791,4.947f., 5.147f.

52. Newlands (n.33 above), 246.

53. Barchiesi (n.25 above), 74–78, is excellent on Ovid’s rendering the calendar a seemingly immutable structure.

54. Indeed, even a challenge to its supremacy as Augustan foundation myth: see Boyle (n.17 above), 12, on the displacement of Aeneas by Evander in the Fasti.

55. The Abbruchsformel raises questions of inclusion/exclusion similar to those discussed in section 4 below; cf. Apollonius’ (J. Klooster, ‘Apollonius of Rhodes’, in de Jong and Nunlist [n.l above], 72) and Callimachus’ (A. Harder, ‘Callimachus’, in de Jong and Nunlist [n.l above], 96) use of the formula. On the exilic resonance of these heroes, see Fantham, E., ‘The Role of Evander in Ovid’s Fasti’, Arethusa 25 (1992), 168Google Scholar.

56. As Boyle (n.17 above), 12, shows, Carmentis and Evander can be read as exilic analogues for the poet: replaying the Aeneid’s journey, yes—but reversing the Tristia’s as well.

57. Carmentis perhaps activates an etymology of carmen here: carere + mens (see Maltby, R., A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies [Leeds 1991Google Scholar], under carmen).

58. E.g. quo ruis? See Bömer (n.20 above) ad 2.225.

59. A. Barchiesi, ‘Endgames: Ovid’s Metamorphoses 15 and Fasti 6’, in Dunn, Fowler and Roberts (n.7 above), 207f.; Hinds (n.27 above), 11 If.

60. Cf. Barchiesi, A., Speaking Volumes: Narrative and lntertext in Ovid and Other Latin Poets (London 2001), 15Google Scholar.

61. Emily Gowers draws my attention to Met. 3.131, where Thebes is built in three words: iam stabant Thebae (‘now Thebes was standing’). John Henderson points me to Propertius’ version in the perfect: et Thebae steterunt altaque Troia fuit (‘Thebes has stood and towering Troy has been’, Prop. 2.8.10). Elegy likes to write epic off and into the cramped pentameter, but Ovid’s hexameter epic is also fond of summarising: cf. the ‘Little Aeneid’ of Met. 13.623–14.582.

62. See Harries (n.6 above) on Ovid’s widespread technique of allowing himself to be directed by biased informants; Barchiesi (n.25 above), 202, on the gods’ bias.

63. Newlands (n.28 above), 84f.

64. Tendentious, but active nevertheless (see n.53 above).

65. Boyle (n.17 above), 22f., picks up many of the politically significant omissions; both he and Newlands, C., ‘The Ending of Ovid’s Fasti’, Ramus 23 (1994), 139CrossRefGoogle Scholar, discuss the closural omission of Fulvius Nobilior and Paullus Fabius Maximus (see below). The Fasti is a poem of deafening silences in this regard.

66. Cf. Volk (n.20 above), 174f., on a similar phenomenon in Ars 1 and 2.

67. Note how Numa, calendar-builder par excellence, is careful to include by not excluding: at Numa nec lanum nec auitas praeterit umbras (‘but Numa forgot neither Janus nor the ancestral shades’, 1.43).

68. Note dubita (‘hesitate’): Ovid’s praeteritiones are often framed as dubitationes.

69. On the transgressive aspects of this Ovidian ‘day’, see Newlands, C., ‘Transgressive Acts: Ovid’s Treatment of the Ides of March’, CP 91 (1996), 324fGoogle Scholar.

70. Barchiesi (n.25 above), 128, remarks that praeteritio formulae like this in Livy denote both reluctance and insignificance.

71. Bömer (n.20 above) ad loc; Fränkel (n.49 above), 240 n.l1.

72. A nickname for hexameter: see Gowers (n.44 above), 55.

73. See Feeney (n.22 above), 480.

74. A similar poetic impasse is staged at 6.319ff. (of Priapus and Vesta—praeteream referamne…?, ‘should I pass over or relate…?’). Here the issue of repetition is in play; Ovid has already told a longer version of the story at 1.391-440 (Priapus and Lotis). On praeteritio here, see Newlands (n.33 above), 13; themes of licence and restraint, Barchiesi (n.25 above), 137f.; for comparison with the Book 1 version, Murgatroyd (n.5 above), 86–88.

75. Cf. Barchiesi (n.25 above), 105, on multiplicity as alibi.

76. Critics perceive two forces working against the Fasti: unstable subject matter and a hostile artistic environment (i.e. Augustus)—see Newlands (n.28 above), 208; Newlands (n.6 above), 47–52; Feeney (n.22 above), 473.

77. Cf. Ovid’s reason for burning the Met. in the Tristia: the work is adhuc crescens et rude (‘still growing and not yet formed’, Tr. 1.7.22; see S. Hinds, ‘Booking the Return Trip: Ovid and Tristia I’, in Knox [n.22 abovel], 431). Growth links poetic production with city foundation (see Pasco-Pranger [n.l7 above], 82–84); it can also indicate generic modulation upwards, tying in with Augustan expansion (Barchiesi [n,25 above], 69).

78. I wonder aloud if maybe—just maybe—this is related to the Fasti’s constant dwelling on the insupportably great (too great—maius) subject matter it has lumped on its limping couplets (on which see Boyle [n.l7 above], 18f.).

79. See Newlands (n.33 above), 74f.

80. Cf. March: 398 lines down, and only one day gone.

81. Cf. Herbert-Brown, G., ‘Fasti: The Poet, the Prince, and the Plebs’, in P. Knox (ed), A Companion to Ovid (Chichester 2009), 134Google Scholar; on the politics and genre poetics behind this decision also, see Barchiesi (n.25 above), 134–36.

82. Boyle (n.17 above), 16.

83. As is her flower vocabulary (Barchiesi [n.25 above], 190).

84. See Pasco-Pranger (n.17 above), 61, on its use in the context of Romulus’ social organisation; 79 on its assimilation of Romulus and Ovid as counterpart calendar-builders.

85. See further Newlands (n.33 above), 109f.

86. For the perceived etymological link between mensis and mensus (from metiri), see Maltby (n.55 above) under mensis.

87. This seasons (!) Newlands’s point: the narrator’s voice becomes overwhelmed by too much aetiological material. Newlands (n.33 above), 84f.

88. Although, according to Varro’s new correlation of natural and civil time, summer begins on May 9th (Feeney [n.21 above], 200). The poem also experiences a more obvious seasonal death, freezing in the Tomitan winter of exile (which never thaws); see S. Hinds, ‘Dislocations of Ovidian Time’, in Schwindt (n.9 above), 214,and below.

89. ‘The’ calendar is really an amalgam of patched strata, a palimpsest of year upon year of amendment (cf. Gee, E., Ovid, Aratus, and Augustus: Astronomy in Ovid’s Fasti [Cambridge 2000], 15Google Scholar).

90. Cf. esp. 3.89ff., where Ovid makes explicit use of non-Roman calendars (thanks to Emily Gowers for refreshing my time-lapsed memory).

91. Augustus’ impact on the calendar was more symbolic (inserting festivals, changing month names, sealing the time/s for good) than structural; after the Julian reform, it only remained to correct a misinterpretation of the leap-year system (Gee [n.89 above], 9f.).

92. Fantham, E., Ovid, Fasti: Book Four (Cambridge 1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar) ad loc.

93. Hardie(n.7 above), 151.

94. Hinds (n.27 above), 87ff.

95. Barchiesi (n.25 above), 60, observes that the Venus/spring hymn also recalls the inauguration of Lucretius’ poem, while the Silvia episode in Book 3 recalls the inauguration of Ennius’ (63).

96. See Frazer’s note ad loc. in the Loeb edition (Cambridge MA and London 1931), 314.

97. Frazer, J., Publii Ovidii Nasonis Fastorum Libri Sex (London 1929Google Scholar) ad loc.

98. Bömer (n.20 above) ad loc.

99. For further repetitions and ‘negative mirroring’ between Books 1 and 6, see Newlands (n.33 above), 124–26.

100. See Newlands (n.9 above), 249; Barchiesi (n.25 above), 91f. (which also observes the usage of nulla nota in a censorship context).

101. Cf. Toohey (n.17 above), 132, on the astronomical ‘stop-gap’ material increasing in Books 5 and 6. Pasco-Pranger (n.17 above), 295, validly asserts that the later months of the year would not have fitted with Ovid’s framework of month name etymologising (since they are numerically titled), not to mention the fact that winter suffers a relative dearth of military and agricultural events; Ovid would have ‘little to organize and nothing to organize it with’ (295).

102. I broadly agree with Newlands’s injection of not just this tension, but tension per se, into all ‘ideology’: Newlands (n.65 above), 129.

103. Cf. Hardie (n.8 above), 5; Pasco-Pranger (n.17 above), 222; Henderson (n.48 above), 126; Barchiesi (n.25 above), 94f. Cf. also Barchiesi (n.26 above), 9, on Polyhymnia’s Maiestas, an ‘increased’ version of the puer in Virg. Eel. 4.

104. Cf. Newlands (n.9 above), 237.

105. Cf. Newlands (n.9 above), 230; Pasco-Pranger (n.17 above), 274.

106. Cf. Barchiesi’s title (n.26 above).

107. I side with Fantham (n.92 above), 35, in so far as multiplicity is not an obstructive force per se.

108. For closural and not-so-closural gestures here, see Barchiesi (n.25 above), 205; Newlands (n.65 above), 139f.

109. Newlands (n.65 above), 139.

110. Newlands (n.65 above), 139; see also Boyle (n.17 above), 23, who sees a brighter Ovidian spark in the polemic silence.

111. So Newlands (n.65 above), 132–41. Newlands reads around commendably for subtextual and intertextual signs of unease; but the emphatic harmony of the closure in a text which has hitherto relished cacophony is more than enough to jar us far from ease. If the ending can be read (with Boyle [n.l7 above], 24f.) as an illumination (and criticism) of how Augustan discourse is formed, it must be said that it looks more like a caricature. Augustus always covered his tracks, ever the master cosmetician of regime change; Ovid’s work is amateur by comparison. One of the Fasti’s tasks is certainly to lay bare the mechanism of power. But we should be careful not to let this detract from the oft-naturalised, yet remarkable, fact: the Augustan revolution worked, and worked well.

112. On Augustus’ ‘stabilisation’ of the calendar, see Pasco-Pranger (n.17 above), 31f. She also points out that the months of July and Augustus would have been particularly straitened and prescribed (295). Barchiesi (n.25 above), 71f., observes that exegetical multiplication simply doesn’t work with fixed Augustan family rituals. Bringing closure to time, and in general, is a wider Augustan issue: see Hardie (n.7 above), 141; Barchiesi (n.25 above), 208. Newlands (n.9 above), 240, sees the Fasti as a direct challenge to this impulse.

113. Despite being, and because it is, so forcibly resolved in the chorus of concordant muses.

114. Hinds’s title (n.77 above).

115. Cf. (cyclically) n.16.

116. Cf. the ‘anarchic dissolution of the temporal sequence’ in Pont. 2.4 (Williams, G.D., Banished Voices: Readings in Ovid’s Exile Poetry [Cambridge 1994], 120Google Scholar).

117. Cf. Feeney (n.22 above),488.