Ovid Rhetorical Wit and Amatory Persuation

Rhetorical Wit and Amatory Persuasion in Ovid
Author(s): Nicolas P. Gross

Source: The Classical Journal, Vol. 74, No. 4 (Apr. - May, 1979), pp. 305-318
Published by: The Classical Association of the Middle West and South
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3297141 .
Accessed: 09/06/2013 23:55
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
The Classical Association of the Middle West and South is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Classical Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 200.89.67.14 on Sun, 9 Jun 2013 23:55:28 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RHETORICAL WIT AND AMATORY PERSUASION IN OVID
When Ovid
suggests
that
youth
learn "bonas artes,"
persuasion (A.A. I.
459)
in order to seduce
young
women,
he mocks the traditional
goal
of a Roman
education,
oratorical skill as a means to a successful career.
Despite
this
facetiousness,
the association between love
(Aphrodite)
and
persuasion
(Peitho) appears
as
early
as Hesiod and has corroboration in ancient
myth,
graphic
art and
religious
cults.1
So too lovers in ancient literature
persuade
with
eloquence,
and Ovid's
personae
are no
exception-except
of course that
they
are
uniquely
Ovidian. "Humorous" and "rhetorical" are labels often
assigned
to his
works,2
yet
in
spite
of the traditional association between Love and
Persuasion and the
poet's
own
amusing
exhortation,
modem scholars seem
uncomfortable when confronted
by
these characteristics within Ovid's
amatory
poetry.
His
contemporaries, however,
unbiased
by
Romantic
doctrine,
would
have been
equipped by
their education to
respond
to his humorous
manipulation
and
exploitation
of the various traditions of
amatory persuasion.
The
purpose
of this
paper,
therefore,
is to examine
Apollo's plea
to
Daphne (Met. I.
504-524),
the Dido
epistle (H. 7)
and Amores 3.14 as
examples
of the
interconnection between wit and rhetorical tradition in Ovid's love
poetry,
to
show how his
playful
use of common features of rhetoric is
integral
to these
passages,
and to
suggest
that the
phenomenon
of
amatory persuasion
in Ovid is
worthy
of further
appreciation.
I
According
to
myth, Apollo,
one of the swiftest of the
immortals,
loses a
footrace to a mere
nymph.
Ovid cannot resist the
amusing potentialities
of so
incongruous
a
situation.3 Running
at full
speed,
the
god
of
light
and intellect
1Works
and
Days,
73f. The verb
peithein appears
in
amatory
contexts as
early
as
Iliad
6.162
and is often so used
throughout
the Iliad and
Odyssey.
Cf. Od.
7.258, 9.33, 10.335,
etc. For
specific examples
of the connection between Peitho and
Aphrodite
in the
graphic
arts see L. D.
Caskey
and J. D.
Beazley,
Attic Vase
Paintings (Boston 1963) part
III,
32-39. Cf. S.
Reinach,
Repetoire
des Vases Peints
(Paris 1900)
vol.
2,
413. Ancient cults of
Aphrodite-Peitho
are dateable
to the
fifth
century
B.C. L.R.
Farnell,
The Cults
ofthe
Greek
States,
vol. 2
(Oxford 1896)
664-665.
See also
Voigt,
Peitho,
RE vol.
19,
cols. 194-217.
2For a
survey
of humor in
Ovid,
see J.-M.
Fr6caut, L'Esprit
et l'Humour chez Ovide
(Grenoble
1972),
hereafter
Fr6caut.
Essentially
Fr6caut's
work is an
anatomy
of Ovidian humor and em-
phasizes
the loci of humor rather than detailed
literary analysis.
For another
approach
to humor in
the
Metamorphoses
with close
exegesis
of text see G. K.
Galinsky,
Ovid's
Metamorphoses:
An
Introduction to the Basic
Aspects (Oxford
and
Berkeley 1975) 158-209,
hereafter
Galinsky.
H.
Friinkel,
Ovid,
A Poet Between Two Worlds
(Berkeley
and Los
Angeles 1945)
note 3,
167ff.,
hereafter
Frhinkel, presents
a
thorough
discussion of the term "rhetorical" as it
applies
to Ovid. For
an examination of how Ovid is "rhetorical" in the broadest sense see
G.A.
Kennedy,
The Art
of
Rhetoric in the Roman World
(Princeton 1972)
405-419.
3B.
Otis,
Ovid as an
Epic Poet,
2nd ed.
(Cambridge 1970) 103-104,
hereafter Otis.
305
306
NICOLAS P. GROSS
attempts
to seduce
Daphne
with his words.
Although
a chase is not
usually
conducive to a set
oration,
this
panting Apollo
delivers a
surprisingly
well-
organized plea:
A)
504-511 non
insequor
hostis
(gentle
lover)
B)
512-518
Apollo's good qualities
C)
519-524
Appeal
to
pity:
healer cannot heal himself.4
Here three individual
topics (Apollo's passion, Apollo,
and
Apollo's amatory
plight)
are set out within
clearly
defined,
endstopped
and balanced units
(8,
7
and 6
lines).
But
Apollo's
situation is and is
expected
to be
quite
emotional.
Hence there exists a deliberate and
amusing irony
between the unfulfilled
expectation
of
disorderly, impassioned speech
and the actual
orderly
structure.5
The initial
request,
moreover,
which introduces the
plea
further
highlights
this
rhetorical
discrepancy. Although
the formal
precision
of the
speech
as a whole
suggests
careful
development
of
persuasion
and hence
produces
the
anticipa-
tion of a
request
in or near the
conclusion,6
Apollo,
in
fact, immediately
blurts
out his desire:
Nympha, precor,
Penei'
mane
(504).7
By placing
what should
be the climax of
Apollo's speech
in the first
line,
Ovid intensifies the reader's
expectation
of
impassioned
address,
but then undermines this
assumption
with
anti-climactic
arrangement.
In
short,
Apollo's speech appears
as
rhetorically
ridiculous as his
very predicament.
Indeed,
many
rhetorical elements within
Apollo's speech support
its humor-
ous circumstances. In addition to
placement
of
plea,
another feature essential to
persuasion
is
presentation
of character
(ethos).
Just as in the courtroom where a
defendant often delivers a
plea containing implications
of his
virtue,
so too the
lover can
help
his cause
by suggesting
his own
good qualities.
But while an
ardent
young
man
might
be
expected
to
suggest
his
worthiness,
Apollo exag-
gerates
his own
praises.
Even Zeus whose famous and
amusing catalogue
of
liaisons is
replete
with
egotism (Iliad
14.
314f.)
merely implies
his admirable
4My
outline,
I
believe,
represents
more
accurately
the flow of
Apollo's speech
than those of F.
Bbmer, ed,
Metamorphosen (Heidelberg 1969)
158 and A.G.
Lee, ed.,
Metamorphoseon,
Liber I
(Cambridge 1953)
123.
Bbmer,
for
example,
marks off the
comparison
of bestial
pursuer
and
pursued (505-507),
but this section functions
integrally
with
Apollo's
declaration of love
(504-
511),
a
unity
which Lee
recognizes.
On the other
hand,
Bbmer and Lee consider the latter
part
of
Apollo's speech
self-identification. There is, however,
a clear break at 519 since
Apollo speaks
not
only
of his own arrow but also
Cupid's,
the source of his
amatory plight.
5The
relationship
between the
presentation
of
genuine
emotion and the
arrangement
of an address
is
perhaps
best defined
by
Socrates' second
speech
in the Phaedrus. Here Socrates'
plea, by
conventional
standards,
is
disorderly.
That
is,
to
give
an
impassioned appeal
of
genuinely
held
convictions on love,
Socrates
pointedly rejects customary,
rhetorical
disposition
found within his
first
speech.
On the
arrangement
of the first
speech,
see
G.A.
Kennedy,
The Art
of
Persuasion in
Greece
(Princeton 1963)
77. Other
"disorderly" (if
not
formless)
and emotional
speeches
include:
Zeus to Hera
(Iliad
14.
313-328)
and the
young
man to the
young
woman
(Ecclesiazusae 960-975).
"Examples
of controlled
speeches
with
concluding requests
include
Odysseus
to Nausicaa
(Od.
6.
149-185)
and Catullus 32.
7Citations
of the text are from R.
Ehwald, ed.,
P. Ovidius Naso
Metamorphoses
vol. 2
(Leipzig
1915).
RHETORICAL WIT AND AMATORY PERSUASION IN OVID 307
qualities; Apollo overtly
states
his.8 According
to the Rhetorica adHerennium
3. 6. 10
commonplaces
for
speeches
of
praise
of another include reference to
attractiveness,
family lineage
and wisdom. Section B forms a
catalogue
of
these
very topics,
but
they
are all
applied
to
Apollo:
attractiveness;
non hic armenta
gregesquel
horridus observo
(513-514)
distinguished lineage: Juppiter
est
genitor (517)
wisdom:
per
me,
quod eritque fuitque
/
estque, patet (517-518).
Daphne
is
supposed
to be the
object
of
Apollo's passion
and
flattery,
but his
words
suggest extraordinary
self-love.
Although Apollo's egotism
does not turn out to be
long lasting,
nonetheless,
it
is sufficient to
imply
a formal
aspect
of his
character,
the
posture
from which he
speaks.
In section B his
posture
is that of the
superior,
the manifest
Olympian
divinity addressing
a
nymph.
Not
only
does
Apollo
address
Daphne
with an
imperative, inquire (512),
but he also calls her temeraria
(514).
In the next
section
(C), however,
he
abruptly
discards his authoritarian demeanor. Since
he is
describing
his weakness or
passion,
here the
god
assumes the role of an
inferior,9
and his
plea
becomes a
miseratio,
an
appeal
to
pity.
Even the
introduction of the
speech anticipates Apollo's shifting postures.
In his first
words
(504),
the
formality
of
precor
ill-suits a
desperate
chase and
places
the
god
in the role of
suppliant.10 Immediately,
however,
Apollo
sheds his
polite
precor
. . mane for the direct and authoritative command-a contrast made
all the more evident
by juxtaposition:
Nympha, precor,
Penei:
mane;
non
insequor
hostis;
nympha,
mane!
(504-505).
The
uncertainty
of his rhetorical
posture,
an
inconsistency
which
grows
far
more obvious in sections B and
C,
renders the
Delphian
foolish and confused.
The deliberate and
amusing
inconsistencies which define Ovid's
Apollo
become more
apparent
when
comparison
is made to
Horace,
Odes 1.23-a
possible
source of the Ovidian
passage.11
Like
Apollo's address,
the Horatian
poem
is
presented
in the form of a seduction
speech.
It too is
playful
in
tone,
for
its
development
relies on a
lighthanded interplay
of an almost
syllogistic logic
and traditional
amatory
roles.
By stating
that Chloe shuns him like a fawn
(first
stanza,
major premise)
in the
spring
time
(second stanza,
minor
premise),
8There is
good
reason to
suppose
that Zeus'
speech
to Hera
significantly
influenced the address of
Ovid's
Apollo. They
are similar in function-both
humorously
mock boastful divinities. Similar in
form-both
begin
with
requests
and contain
catalogues.
And similar in
diction-Apollo's
words
are
strikingly
Homeric
(517-518).
Cf.
Publii Ovidii
Nasonis
Opera
vol. 3
(Oxford 1825)
115
hereafter
Ovidii'Opera,
and M.
Haupt,
ed.,
P. Ovidius Naso
Metamorphosen (Zurich 1966)
60.
9Apollo's
human
posture
here is
not, however,
unusual for Ovidian
divinities;
see
Galinsky,
162f. Cf.
Otis,
125f.
10See R.
Pichon,
Index Verborum Amatorium
(Paris 1902)
s.v.
preces
4. 8ff.
"Horace's
poem may
have influenced
Apollo's speech.
Note that
Ovidii
Opera compares
Met.
1. 505 with Odes 1. 23. 9.
308 NICOLAS P. GROSS
Horace
suggests
the
customary
reluctance of the female.12
Chloe flees,
Horace
pursues-a
familiar
amatory topos.
But with non
ego
te
tigris (9)
Horace
denies
any implication
of bestial behavior on his
part
and hence casts off the
literary
conventions associated with the love-chase. He then
requests
that
Chloe cease to follow her mother
( I
-
12),
that she likewise
reject
a
stereotyped
amatory
role and
recognize
herself as she
is,
a
young
woman
ready (ripe,
in
season)
for a man
(12) tempestiva
viro
(third stanza, conclusion). Although
subtle and
gentle,
Horace, nonetheless,
playfully traps
Chloe with the
logical
implications
of her
coy
behavior and
thereby
controls the situation. Consistent
with his
posture
of a
superior,
his
request
that she leave her mother
appears
at
the
poem's
close and in the
imperative
mood,
desine matrem
(11).
In
contrast,
Apollo's juxtaposition
of
precor
and
mane,
his uncertain roles and
inappropri-
ate
ploys
are
incongruous. By logical arrangement
Horace in Odes 1. 23
pokes
gentle
fun at his
addressee;
by purposeful
inconsistency,
Ovid mocks his
speaker.
Although
considerable attention of late has been focused on Ovid's
Heroides,13
the
light
or
amusing
element of the
epistles
remains somewhat
neglected
and
occasionally deplored:
"But this
delight
and amusement is one
thing
the
poem
could well do without."" That the
playful aspect
of the
Heroides should be overlooked or even chastised when elsewhere it is an
assumed feature of Ovid's
early elegiacs
at least raises the
question
of
scholarly
bias. In Amores
I.
1
the
teasing Cupid gives
notice of the
light
and
literary
tone
of Ovid's love
poems.15 Especially through
the use of
elegiac
meter,
the Ars
Amatoria mocks one of Rome's dominant
literary genres,
didactic
poetry,
usually
characterized
by weighty
hexameters.16 To
dismiss the humor consid-
ered
significant
elsewhere in the Ovidian
corpus
does far less than
justice,
I
feel,
to the Heroides.
Although
it is not within the
scope
of this
essay
to
12For the seasonal motif which infuses this
poem
see S.
Commager,
The Odes
of
Horace
(London
and New Haven
1962) 237-238,
249-250. Cf. R. M. Nielsen, "Horace Odes 1.23:
Innocence," Arion 9
(1970)
373-378.
'3H.
Dirrie
has
compiled
an extensive
bibliography
in his edition P. Ovidii Nasonis,
Epistulae
Heroidum
(Berlin
and New York
1971).
Recent
important
studies of the Heroides include W. S.
Anderson,
"The Heroides" in
Ovid,
ed. J.W. Binns
(London 1973) 49-83;
H.
Dorrie,
"Die
dichterische Absicht Ovids in den
Epistulae
Heroidum" Antike und Abendland 13
(1967) 41-55,
hereafter
Dorrie,
and H. Jacobson Ovid's Heroides
(Princeton 1974)
hereafter Jacobson.
14H. Jacobson,
"Ovid's Briseis: A
Study
of Heroides
3,"
Phoenix 25
(1971)
355. Discussion of
the
light aspect
of the Heroides ,
to
say nothing
of rhetorical
wit,
,is sparse. Although Dorrie
considers the elements of Suasorien,
Briefe
and
Elegien
and even refers to the
playfulness
commonly
associated with Ovidian
elegiacs (45),
he does not deal with rhetorical wit in the
Heroides. Jacobson makes a sustained effort to show the seriousness of the Heroides and does not
broach the
subject
of rhetorical
wit, despite frequent
discussions of rhetoric. For his
approach
to the
problem,
see
especially
322-330.
Frecaut
does not discuss rhetorical wit in his examination of the
Heroides,
193-215.
'5For Ovid's
literary program
in the Amores,
see E. Reitzenstein,
"Das neue Kunstwollen in den
Amores
Ovids,"
RhM 84
(1935)
62-88.
'6R.M.
Durling,
"Ovid as
Praeceptor
Amoris,"
CJ 53
(1958) 157-167,
discusses Ovid's
facetiousness in the Ars Amatoria.
consider the Heroides as a
whole,
I have chosen to examine the
epistle
from
Dido to Aeneas17 as an illustration of the interconnection between wit and
rhetorical tradition within these heroic
monologues."1
Like the other
speeches
within the
Heroides,
Dido's
departure
address
possesses
a
distinguished
liter-
ary lineage
and one
sufficiently
coherent in circumstance ana
topic
to
provide
common rhetorical elements with which Ovid can
play.19
Dido's words contain
references to and derive a set of
expectations
from addresses of abandoned
heroines which extend from
Vergil's
Dido
(Aeneid
4.
305-330)
to Andromache
(Iliad
6.
407-439)
and include Tecmessa
(Ajax, 485-524),
the two Medeas
(Medea, 465-519;
Argon.
4.
355-390)
and Ariadne
(Catullus
64.
132-163).20
Yet Ovid is not content
merely
to imitate or embellish. In Heroides 7 he looks
back with
wry
humor
upon
a tradition of heroic women and
departure
address
now archaic and remote.
In order that he
may pointedly
comment
upon
the material to which he is
heir,
throughout
Heroides 7 Ovid strives to create the
appearance
of the abandoned
heroine's
monologue. Literary borrowings large
and small sustain the
poem;
even minor details are recalled. For
example,
abandoned heroines
regularly
elaborate their misfortunes. Ovid's Dido
speaks
of the tenor of her fate
(H.
7.
112). Vergil's
heroine
(Aeneid
4.
320-326),
Ariadne
(Cat.
64.
152-153)
and
the two Medeas
(Medea 502-507,
Argon.
4.
376-378)
are
hardly
loath to
describe their
troubles;
Tecmessa
specifically
recalls her
compelling
and la-
mentable fate
(tuches, Ajax,
485 and
daimon, 504).
The tradition also contains
reference to the man's sense of
fidelity:
171n regard
to H.
7,
the difference between the
approach
of this
essay
and that of Jacobson's
chapter
on the Dido
epistle (76-93)
is considerable. Jacobson insists that H. 7 is an inferior
imitation of
Vergil (Aeneid 4)
and "a failure in its own
right" (76).
Anderson
by
contrast
appreciates
Ovid's
"un-Virgilian style" (55) but, despite
his
acknowledgement
of Dido's rhetori-
cal
skill,
believes that Ovid has moved Dido "out of the heroic
framework"(61); whereas,
in
fact,
Ovid
employs
heroic rhetoric to make her a facetious heroine.
'8The abundant similarities of heroic
monologues
from
epic (and epyllion)
and drama to the
Heroides are undeniable.
See,
for
example,
H.
Peter,
Der
Brief
in der
riimischen
Literatur
(Leipzig 1901)
191 and L.P.
Wilkinson,
Ovid Recalled
(Cambridge
1955) 86,
hereafter Wilkin-
son. The two forms
are, however,
by
no means
completely
identical, Jacobson,
342f.
19The Heroides and H.
7,
despite
their manifold varieties of
persuasion,
should not be considered
versified suasoria.
Perhaps
the Elder Seneca's
description
of Ovid as a
young
orator
(Controver-
siae
2.2.8-12) gave impetus
to this notion.
Certainly authority
has been added
by
A.
Palmer, ed.,
P. Ovidi Nasonis Heroides
(Oxford 1898) intro.,
Purser
xiii,
hereafter Palmer.
Nevertheless,
the
inadequacies
of this notion have
recently
been demonstrated. See E.
Oppel,
Ovids Heroides:
Studien zur inneren Form und zur Motivation
(Diss. Erlangen-Niirnburg 1968).
Cf.
Frainkel,
190
n. 1. For
persuasive
intent, however,
Wilkinson states the
point
well: "The heroines are
mainly
concerned,
like the
rhetoricians,
with
scoring points,
whether
argumentative
or emotional"
(96).
Moreover,
the Heroides are filled with rhetorical
ploys.
For an
attempt
to
identify
and collect
rhetorical
figures
in H. 7 see A.
Michel,
"Rhetorique
et Poesie. Le Manierisme des Heroides:
Didon chez Ovide" in N.
Barbu,
E.
Dobriou,
and M. Masti
(ed.)
Acta Conventus omnium
Gentium Ovidianis studiis Fovendis
(Bucurest 1976)
443-450.
20It
is
an article of faith for
many
scholars that H. 7 has a
unique
source,
Aeneid 4. "We rest
assured that Ovid was
following
one model, the Aeneid 4" Jacobson, 77. "It is
unnecessary
to
seek
any
source for this
epistle (H. 7)
beside the fourth book of theAeneid"
Palmer,
339. ThatH. 7
has sources
beyond
the Aeneid has been shown
by
S.
D6pp,
Virgilischer Einfluss
im Werk Ovids
(Diss.
Munich
1968) especially
17f. Cf. A. S.
Pease, ed.,
Publi
Vergili
MaronisAeneidos Liber
Quartus (Cambridge,
Mass.
1935)
282f.
H. 7.
130
impia
dextra21
Aeneid 4. 314
per
...
dextramque
tuam
Medea 496
40Ev
Ea`ai XEip
...
Ovid's
specific
allusions include other like
phrases:
H. 7. 178
pro spe coniugii
Aeneid 4. 316
per
conubia
nostra,
per inceptos hymenaeos
Catullus 64. 141 sed conubia laeta, sed
optatos hymenaeos
Ajax
492-3
irpo" ... /
etvlsV?
7T
TE
OT7
o
...
From earlier
speeches
within the
tradition,
the
poet
even
appropriates
the
figure, polyptoton, though
with the humor of
exaggeration.
Perdita ne
per-
dam, timeo,
noceamve nocenti
(61)
is hard to
forget
but
clearly
an imitation:
xCPL3
XPLV
ya
p
COTv 7TLKTOVO"'
'aEL. (Ajax, 522)
4ihXov
pE7)/Lo, o-)v
TEKVOL3
OLV7) lO 6voL.
(Medea, 513)
The considerable effort to which the
poet
has
gone
to
provide
the seventh
epistle
of the Heroides with the
fagade
and details of convention and even the
length
of the address itself should alert the reader to Ovidian facetiousness. Just
as in
Apollo's speech,
here
expectation
exists
only
to be undercut. Not
only
does Ovid
manipulate literary commonplaces,
but he creates a heroine who
challenges
tradition. An
appeal
to mutual
affection,
for
example, appears
regularly
in addresses as diverse as Tecmessa's
plea
to
Ajax (Ajax 491-492)
and
the
speech
of
Vergil's
Dido to Aeneas
(Aeneid
4.
307, 316);
Ovid's
Dido,
by
contrast,
expresses
an
exaggeratedly
selfish,
physical
and
exploitive
attitude
toward Aeneas and their former affair. She describes their liaison as one
between a lover and an external
object22
not
between two involved lovers. She
refers to Aeneas in the third
person
three times within the
space
of five lines:
Aeneas
(25),
Aenean
(26),
and Aenean
(29)
and concludes the
description
of
her love
(H.
7.
23-34) by calling
him materiam
(34), stuff;
his
physical
qualities
are thus
emphasized
in the extreme. The hero's noble or
spiritual
qualities, by
contrast,
receive no
praise
in this
speech.
If love is
mentioned,
it is
Dido's own
(23-24)
and devoid of
any suggestion
of mutual involvement.
Materiam curae
praebeat
ille
meae
(34)
concludes a section of her
speech
and
epitomizes
Dido's
interpretation
of a
traditionally significant topos,
shared
affection.
Ovid's
manipulation
of tradition is
particularly
evident in Dido's
amusing
and
exaggerated
statement that she
might
be
pregnant,
a variation of the
appeal
to mutual affection. Here
comparison
of her words with the wish of
Vergil's
Dido for a child
by
Aeneas illustrates Ovid's
appropriation
of
amatory
conven-
tion to create a most unconventional heroine:
21Citations of the Heroides are from
Palmer,
others from the OCT.
22For externalization applied
to
myth
see
Galinsky,
63-64.
saltem si
qua
mihi de te
suscepta
fuisset
ante
fugam
suboles,
si
quis
mihi parvulus
aula
luderet
Aeneas,
qui
te tamen ore referret,
non
equidem
omnino
capta
ac deserta viderer.
Aeneid 4. 327-330
Forsitan et
gravidam
Didon, scelerate, relinquas,
parsque
tui lateat
corpore
clausa meo
accedet fatis matris miserabilis infans,
et nondum nato funeris auctor eris,
H. 7. 133-136
Vergil's
Dido
speaks
with a
poignant
and
genuine hope
for a
child,
and her
words are
entirely
centered on that child.
By
contrast,
the
blatant,
rhetorical
machinations of Ovid's Dido stress what is most
important
to
her,
herself.
References to the infant take second
place.
Her favorite
subject,
moreover,
occupies
the metrical center of three of four lines. In her hexameters
(133,
135)
Didon and matris
appear
at the end of the third and
beginning
of the fourth
foot
respectively,
and in the
pentameter corpore (134)
takes its
place
im-
mediately
after the caesura. Even her
suggestion
of suicide is
hardly guileless.
By
her
way
of
arguing
if she takes her own
life,
Aeneas will be
responsible
for
actually murdering
the unborn infant and Dido as well. So too Dido
employs
an
indignatio (again contrary
to
tradition)
to drive home her
point relentlessly.
Customarily
associated with the abandoned heroine's reference to a child is a
miseratio,
an
attempt
to elicit
pity
from the
departing
man23
and
certainly
the
motivation for the
Vergilian
Dido's
parvulus
Aeneas.24
By contrast,
Ovid's
Dido,
to elicit further
feelings
of
guilt
from
Aeneas,
speaks
in an
indignatio.
She
virtually
hisses at her former lover:
Accedet fatis matris miserabilis
infans.(135)
In
short,
this Dido's effort to
persuade
Aeneas
appears
both
overbearing
and
misguided.
Ovid's clever misuse of traditional
topics
is
complemented by
his
neglect
of
others. We have seen Dido stress certain external
qualities
of her
relationship
with
Aeneas,
but when she
presents
a
topic
which
innately possesses
an
external
nature,
she does not elaborate. To
express
all the
good
deeds which she
has done for
Aeneas,
she
baldly says: pro
meritis
(H.
7.
177).25
Yet we know
from her almost interminable references to the sea that she is
eminently
skilled
at elaboration. Other heroines do not allow their "services rendered" to
go
all
but unnoticed.
Euripides'
Medea even makes this
topic
a
primary
feature of her
speech.
The main
body
of her address to Jason is bounded
by
the like
phrases
23For
examples
of the traditional connection between an
appeal by
the child and
miseratio,
see
Andromache to Hector
(Iliad
6.
407-408),
Tecmessa to
Ajax (Ajax 510)
and Medea to Jason
(Medea 513).
24R.
Heinze, Virgils Epische
Technik
(Berlin 1928)
425.
25Cf. H. 7. 89-91.
es^isa s'(476)
and es isa se
(515),
and more than a fifth of her
plea
contains
reference to this
topic
(Medea 476-487). Apollonius'
Medea
(Argon.
4.
364-368),
Ariadne
(Cat.
64.
149-150)
and
Vergil's
Dido
(Aeneid
4.
317)
mention and make
highly
effective use of the benefits which
they
have ac-
complished
for their men. As we have seen in her
suggestion
that she
might
be
pregnant,
Ovid's Dido can
press
an
argument
with a relentlessness that borders
on the comic and
thereby
undercut her
case;
but now
suddenly
she becomes
almost
tongue-tied
in her
neglect
of a
potentially convincing plea.
Ovid's facile wit has contrived other means for
weakening
traditional en-
treaty. Customarily
a soon-to-be-abandoned heroine
pointedly speaks
of her
man's
character in the context of their
particular relationship.
The two
Medeas,
for
example,
discuss their men's lack of
fidelity
within
angry
rhetorical
ques-
tions.
Euripides'
Medea calls Jason
EXOL0roi (Medea, 467).
Although Apol-
lonius' Medea does not use
characterizing adjectives,
her
meaning
is clear:
7rOV
TOL
AL6o 'IKEaT'OLO
6pKLar, Trov
8
Eth.EXtXpati
V7TrooXEOLat
PEfaauOLtv;
(Argon.
4.
358-359)
She excoriates Jason for his lack of steadfastness to her.
Vergil's
Dido calls
Aeneas
perfide (Aeneid
4.
305).
Again
the
charge
is
pointed
and concrete. But
Ovid's Dido in her
introductory
rhetorical
questions
neither makes
specific
accusations,
nor does she
express
her
problem
as
uniquely
her own.26 Rather
she
elaborately
discourses on Aeneas' habitual
behavior,
first in relation to his
quest:
facta
fugis,
facienda
petis; quaerenda per
orbem
altera,
quaesita
est altera terra tibi.
(13-14)
Since it is
inclusive, facta presumably
refers to
everything
which Aeneas has
done and hence
encompasses
his
stay
at
Carthage. Significantly,
however,
Dido's
emphasis
is not on Aeneas'
past
deeds
(facta).
To the
contrary,
in her
chiasmus of
past participles
and
gerundives, facienda
and
quaerenda,
the
future
occupies
the center of the line.
Dido, therefore,
speaks
as if Aeneas will
go
on
seeking endlessly.
She further underscores the iterative and ceaseless
nature of Aeneas'
quest by
the
repetition
of the word altera
(14).
Yet
despite
her claim of Aeneas'
adventuresomeness,
she
implies
at the same time that he
lacks
self-sufficiency:
ut terram invenias,
quis
eam
tibi tradet habendam?
quis
sua non notis arva tenenda dabit?
(15-16)
The answer to the rhetorical
question quis
eam tibi tradet habendam
(15)
is
probably
altera Dido
(17).
That is Aeneas will need another Dido to
give
him
26Here the
poet's ploy
seems to be inversion
(reversal
of the common method of
presentation);
for
the humorous inversion of a
literary
motif see
Galinsky
on Salmacis'
speech
(Met.
4.
320-8)
187-189.
new lands
or,
at
least,
he will need
somebody (quis, 15).
In
short,
he is not able
to
gain
them
by
himself. Within
Dido's
presentation,
Aeneas becomes a
perennial gigolo:
alter habendus amor tibi restatet et altera Dido
quamque
iterum fallas altera danda fides.
(17-18)
Again
a chiasmus. Dido's view of the
repetitive pattern
in Aeneas' behavior
remains constant: alter . . . amor . . . altera Dido?
/
iterum . . .
fallas
.
. .
altera
fides (17-18).
Dido claims that Aeneas follows the same modus
operandi
in
seducing
women that he does in
seeking
new lands. His
quest
and
his
inextricably
connected treatment of women are ever the same and ever
repeated. Although
the assumed
goal
of this
epistle
is Aeneas'
return, Dido,
nonetheless,
vaingloriously
reduces Rome's
mythic
founder-hero to a Lothario
and the foundation of Rome to mere sexual adventurism.
If Dido is
speaking
here in the tradition of
kakologia27
as
the
anger
of her
excursus in rhetorical
questions
indicates,
then her words are
unconventionally
oblique
and
suggestive. Customarily
these
angry questions
focus
sharply
on the
heroine's
personal injury
while
directly
and
explicitly attacking
the man's
faults. Because Dido's
questions imply (rather
than
overtly state)
an amorous
motivation behind Aeneas'
wandering,
her words become an affront to the
sense of
duty
or
pietas
which
pulls
the hero from her. Yet the
negative
potentialities
of the man's
strengths occasionally
find
precedent
within the
tradition of the
departure speech.
Unlike the Medeas who lash out at their
mates'
failings,
Andromache and Tecmessa
argue against
their men's virtues.
Tactfully,
however,
both shift the
emphasis
of their
arguments
to themselves
and their homes and
away
from
heroic,
martial
pursuits. Initially
Andromache
says
that Hector's
strength
will
destroy
him,
but she dwells
chiefly
on the loss
of her
family.
Tecmessa tries to
change Ajax's
view of his own
nobility,
eugenes,
but
emphasizes
his
importance
to his
family,
herself and
Eurysakes.
Dido, however,
contrasts with all her
literary predecessors.
As
kakologia,
her
rhetorical
questions
lack
specificity.
Nor is her
equation
between
pietas
and
sensual
indulgence
(a
pointless
attack on Aeneas' raison
d' tre)
redirected
towards her own situation. Ovid has
precisely
circumvented the
traditionally
persuasive potential
of rhetorical
questions
within the
departure
address and
hence has rendered Dido's words
bombastically insulting.
Dido's
posture
of
superiority supports
the tone of her rhetorical
questions,
and
such a rhetorical
posture (again contrary
to
tradition)
fails to
persuade.
At line
19 she
implies
that Aeneas cannot match her in
city-building,
and she has
already suggested (18)
that his
accomplishments
result from
dependence
on
women. She
speaks
as Aeneas'
superior
and all but
explicitly
states that he
needs her
although
he has
already departed
and
she,
ironically,
is
trying
to
persuade
him to return to her.
Traditionally
the
heroine,
even if
angry,
reveals
her real need for her
man;
her
posture,
therefore,
is that of the
suppliant
or
27kakologia
has the common
meaning (as
it is used
here)
of abuse or
reviling.
See Hdt. 7.
237,
Xen, Cyr.
1. 2.
6,
Hyp.
Fr.
247,
Thphr.
Char. 28. For
examples
of
kakologia,
the heroine
reviling
her
addressee,
see Medea
465-519, Argon.
4.
355-390,
and Catullus 64. 132-163.
inferior.
Euripides'
Medea,
for
example, fiercely angry
at Jason and well
aware of his
baseness,
appeals
to him not to abandon her because of her own
need for him and that of their children. Ovid's
Dido, however,
regularly
addresses Aeneas with lack of deference. She avoids or all but ridicules his
military prowess.
She
speaks
of the wars in Africa as
already fought
(H.
7.
1
19-121);28
no need for Aeneas here.
Despite
her
past
difficulties, moreover,
she does not refer to warfare as serious
per
se but rather as a
potential
diversion
devised to
keep
Aeneas in
Carthage:
Si tibi mens avida est
belli,
si
quaerit
Julus, (153).
In
demonstrating
Dido's lack of
dependence
on
Aeneas,
how-
ever,
one
problem
remains. What of Dido's statement about larbas
(H.
7.
125):
Quid
dubitas vinctam Gaetulo tradere
larbae?
Here
clearly
is a close imitation
from the
Vergilian
Dido's
speech
to Aeneas: aut
captam
ducat Gaetulus
larbas? (Aeneid
4.
326). Comparison,
however,
shows the difference. Ver-
gil's
Dido
suggests
she needs Aeneas for
protection
from larbas. Ovid's
heroine stresses Aeneas'
cruelty
rather than her
dependence.
The Aeneas of
H.
7
might actively
hand her over to the
enemy.
His malevolence is stressed
further;
Dido
speaks
of her brother's manus
impia (127)
and
shortly
thereafter
of Aeneas'
impia
dextra
(130).
Once
again,
almost
beyond
all
expectation,
she
is not
dependent
on Aeneas. Even where it would be most
easy
for the Ovidian
Dido to assume a traditional role toward her
man,
she maintains an
exaggerated
hauteur. In
fact,
Ovid has so undercut the
topics,
emotional
argumentation,
figures
and rhetorical
posture traditionally
found in the
departure
address,
that
it becomes
quite
difficult to view this Dido as
truly
heroic.
The
presence
of
witty
and humorous elements within the seventh
Epistula
Heroidum,
I
feel,
argues against labeling
this
monologue
a
"psycho-drama.'"29
Even
Dirrie
has warned that there is no need to make the Heroides an
"Anh~inger
Sigmund Freud's.''30
Indeed the circumstances of the
poem
are
tragic, yet
unlike her
literary predecessors,
Ovid's Dido does not rise
heroically
to the
challenge
of abandonment but reacts with mundane realism.
Subjective
depiction
of an heroic Dido's
particular psychic
condition is not the
poet's
primary
interest in the seventh
epistle;
rather he
strenuously attempts
to effect
intellectual distance and
objectivity
toward a
distraught
woman.3'
By placing
a
very
human Dido within the
literary
tradition of the abandoned heroine and at
the same time
using
her to undermine the traditional rhetoric of heroic
speech,
Ovid
wittily
comments
upon
the
suprahuman
conventions of a remote
past
and
amusingly portrays
the
juxtaposition
between the ideal and the mundane.
III
Ovid's Amores 3. 14 is a most unusual
poem,32
for
it is infused with
contradictions. On the
surface,
Ovid seems to want to
persuade
Corinna to
28arma
paro (H.
7.
122)
is in the historical
present
as are the other verbs in the
present
tense in
111-122.
29A. R.
Baca,
"Ovid's Claim to
Originality
and Heroides I" TAPA 100
(1969)
5.
30Diorrie,
54.
31Wilkinson believes that the Heroides would have
produced
an intellectual
response
in Ovid's
audience, 97.
32Scholars
regularly
assume that Am. 3.14 is serious. F. W.
Lenz, "Ein
Selbstbekenntnis
RHETORICAL WIT AND AMATORY PERSUASION IN OVID
315
pretend
to be faithful. Yet this
apparently simple goal
leads to all sorts of
problems.
For the continuation of the
affair,
not
only
must Ovid be
deceived;
he also must deceive himself. But how can he
possibly
do so when he is the one
giving
advice and
consequently masterminding
the
deception?
Even the
specific
instructions
give
rise to difficulties. On the one
hand,
Ovid demands
da
populo,
da verba mihi
(29), yet
on the other
hand,
implores
that the
deceit
he couched in the bald and
unconvincing
rhetoric of the Roman
courts, "non
feci."33 Indeed,
if one
presses
to the
logical
extreme,
every
offence
would
come to be identified rather than refuted
by
a ritualistic "
nonfeci."
In
short, the
purpose
stated in the
poem
and its achievement
appear
at
great
variance. Yet
even if the
poem
seems
paradoxical,
I
hope
to show that it
possesses
an artistic
unity,
that it is
ideally
suited for the last
amatory poem
of the Amores and
perhaps just
as
fitting
for the
concluding
words of the Roman
elegiac poet-
lover.
The solution to the
many problems
which the
poem
raises lies in
considering
Amores 3.14 as an unusual variation of the
odi
et amo
paradox:
tunc
amo,
tunc
odifrustra, quod
amare necesse
est; (3.14.39).
The
poem
contains,
albeit in a
quite
unconventional
presentation,
the essential feature of
amatory dilemma,
two
contradictory
streams of
thought.
On the one
hand,
there is Ovid's
request
that Corinna
persuade
him of her
fidelity:
non
peccat, quaecumque potest peccasse negare
solaque
famosam
culpa professa
facit.
(5-6)
This
couplet
seems to indicate that there is no difference between actual
fidelity
and
being persuaded
that Corinna is faithful. In
fact,
the notion of
amatory
persuasion permeates
Am. 3.14: tantum
fecisse negato (15),
verba modesta
loqui (16),
da
populo,
da verba mihi
(29),
concedent verbis lumina nostra tuis
(46),
verbis
superare
duobus
(49).
In addition to these
specific references,
the
expectation
of
persuasion
is
continually
thrust
upon
the reader
by
the
poet's
legal
diction.34
It is not
merely
causa and
iudice
at the
poem's
end
(50)
that
create this
impression.
The whole
poem
is filled with
language playfully
echoing
the
vocabulary
of the law courts:
pecces (1), culpa (6),
commissi
indiciumque (12),
crimina
(20,27),
crimen
(35)
and
nonfeci (48).
Nor is such
diction unusual for the
Amores;
it
repeats,
for
example,
the
language
and tone
of Am. 2.7 in which Ovid is
trying
to defend himself from a
charge
of
infidelity
brought by
Corinna. At the
beginning
and end of this
poem,
he refers to himself
as a defendant
(reus):
Ovids?"
Studi ltaliani
di
Filologia
Classica 12
(1935) 227-325,
O0.
Seel,
"Von Herodot zur Ovid
(Ovid,
Am.
3,
14 und Herodot
1,8, 3)"
in
Ovidiana, ed., N.I. Herescu
(Paris 1958)
139-183 and
G.
Luck,
The Latin Love
Elegy
2nd ed.
(New
York
1969)
see
especially
173-180. Cf.
Friinkel,
30-31.
33See
P.
Brandt,
P. Ovidi
Nasonis, Amorum Libri Tres
(Leipzig 1911)
190. With
"nonfeci,"
Ovid deflates all the elaborate
strategies by
which he was
supposed
to be deceived. Such a reversal
is
typical
of Ovid in the
Amores;
see D. S.
Parker,
"The Ovidian
Coda," Arion
8
(1969)
80-97.
34For
the influence of
legal
diction on Ovid's
poetry,
see E. J.
Kenney
"Ovid and the Law"
YCIS
21
(1969)
243-263 and also his "Love and
Legalism: Ovid,
Heroides 20 and 21"
Arion 9
(1970)
388-414.
Ergo
sufficiam reus in nova crimina
semper?
(Am. 2.7.1)
me non admissi criminis esse reum.
(2.7.28)
In Am.
3.14, however,
Ovid
urges
Corinna to defend herself. The
poem,
therefore,
involves a
complex
notion of
reciprocal amatory persuasion.
The
lover wants to
persuade
the beloved to
persuade
him.
On the other horn of the
dilemma, however,
Ovid the
betrayed attempts
to
convict Corinna of
infidelity.
The whole
strategy
of the
poem
works toward
this verdict which
similarly
is based on the notion of
amatory
and
legal
persuasion.
In the first sixteen lines Ovid elaborates his
request
that Corinna
appear
to be
pudica
even if she acts otherwise. The
poet
then describes a
scene of
potential (and allowable)
infidelity (17-26)
and
repeats
his
request
(27-30).
While the central
section,
three
couplets
of
fairly graphic description
(21-26),
constitutes
only
an
imagined
or
projected infidelity,
nonetheless,
Ovid
follows these
hypothetical peccadillos
with concrete evidence
presented
in the
form of rhetorical
questions.
Here Ovid
emphasizes
his actual
witnessing
of the
events,
video
(31)
and
conspicio (34),
and he
pursues
this visual
imagery
throughout
the
poem:
oculos
(35),
oculis
(44),
bene visa
(twice 45)
and lumina
nostra
(46).
Indeed he even
goes
so far as to
say
that Corinna has no case
(etsi
non
causa, 50).
She cannot
prove
her
fidelity.
In
short,
although
Corinna
might
get
off because of her
judge,
Ovid
(iudice, 50),
she
has, however,
been
successfully prosecuted by
none other than Ovid. Rather than diminish her
guilt,
the
arrangement
of the
poem actually develops
and
strengthens
the
evidence.
That Ovid is Corinna's iudex
reflects the
larger ambiguity
of the entire
poem.
He is a
judge
with a
dilemma,
for in addition he both
prosecutes
and
defends. From the
objective
evidence he should find her
guilty,
but because of
his
personal
involvement,
he cannot.
Indeed,
as a
suppliant
he entreats Corinna
to defend herself. But as
prosecutor
he is also
superior
to Corinna. Consistent
with this official
posture,
he
gives
orders to Corinna
throughout
the
poem
(facito, negato
15,
indue
27,
da
29)
but
paradoxically only
so he
may
continue
to love her. This considerable
ambiguity
of
word,
role and
posture
is restated at
the conclusion of Ovid's
presentation
of factual evidence:
collaque conspicio
dentis habere notam
(34)--quite
similar in sentiment to Catullus' rueful
projec-
tions: cui labella mordebis?
(8. 18).
For
Ovid, however,
it is
actually obtaining
the evidence of
infidelity (39)
which causes him to love and hate Corinna.
Indeed his
apparent
clash of emotions finds immediate and
arresting expres-
sion: Tunc
ego,
sed
tecum,
mortuus esse velim
(40).
To
press
the
logical
implications
of this statement: at the instant Ovid learns of
Corinna's
infidelity
he wishes to be dead. Since he will not die of old
age
at a moment's
notice,
presumably
death will be a lover's suicide. But if he wishes Corinna dead also
(sed tecum),
he will have to murder her as an
expression
of his hatred. Then
(tunc)
Ovid will die
(suicide, love)
but with Corinna
(murder, hate).35
35For a
presentation
of the murder-suicide
topos
which is at once both more conventional
(and
obvious)
and less insouciant than Ovid's
usage,
see
Propertius
2. 8. 25-28.
Given the
meaning
of amor and odium
particular
to Am. 3.
14,
the dilemma
which Ovid has created as
poet
and faces as lover does not
spring
from
internal
disquiet.
Rather he
playfully
undercuts the element of
personal struggle
basic
to the
odi
et amo
paradox by turning psychic
conflict inside out. To be sure
there is a clash in the words and
syntax
of the first
line,
but it reflects a tension
between Corinna and
Ovid,
Non
ego,
ne
pecces,
cum
sisformosa,
recuso
(1),
not within a
distraught
lover.
Similarly
when the
poet juxtaposes
love and
hate,
his words involve a
violent, external act,
murder. Yet the emotional ambiva-
lences found in Ovid's
literary predecessors
are
depicted
as
having
their
origin
in
internal,
spiritual
turmoil;
considerations of violence to the beloved do not
appear.
One need
only
recall
Corydon
or the
hulking Polyphemus. Although
Am. 3. 14 retains the
monologue
form which is
typical
of an
amatory
dilemma,
nonetheless,
Ovid has transformed the
closing phase
of an affair from the
customary, spiritual
conflict within one
persona
to an external
struggle
be-
tween his mistress and himself and even between the
personae
of his various
roles,
such as
prosecutor
and defender.
Nor do these roles function
solely
to make inner ruminations
external
but
further undermine the traditional dilemma
by creating
an overelaborate com-
plexity.
So
great
is the
variety
of roles which the
poet
assumes that six
possible
Ovids are identifiable here: the lover
(tunc amo, 39),
the hater
(tunc odi, 39),
the defender
(he
tells Corinna what to
say),
the
prosecutor
(non causa, 50),
the
judge (iudice, 50)
and even Ovid as Corinna
(he speaks
her "non
feci", 48).
Nor does the
extraordinary
and deliberate
complexity
end with
multiplication
of roles. In
comparison
to Am. 3.14 the traditional dilemma
appears
rather
simple,
for it
merely expresses
two antithetical
sentiments,
love and hate. It has
one basic
goal,
self-dissuasion,
release from the
pain
of love. Even if we leave
aside the
legal
diction and
multiple
roles,
Am. 3.14 contains at least three basic
and intertwined
goals:
Ovid's
persuading
Corinna,
Ovid's
deceiving
himself
(falli
muneris instar
erit, 42),
and Corinna's
persuasion
of Ovid. In terms of
ambiguities
and
tensions,
the
poem
is
labyrinthine.
In
fact,
the
degree
of
complexity actually
removes the
poem
from the realm of
genuine
emotion. Ars
created this maze. The
poem
is too
complicated
to
portray
real
psychic
ambivalence;
here the dilemma becomes a vehicle for an adroit
literary game.
By
considerable
exaggeration
and externalization of the emotional
struggle
inherent in the
dilemma,
Amores 3.14 mocks the
very
notion of
amatory
persuasion,
a foundation of Roman
elegiac poetry.
The influence of words
upon
the lover or beloved is far more
significant
within this Roman tradition
than even the
physical beauty
of the domina. Am. 3.14 is so
designed
that the
very conception
of
amatory persuasion
which seems so
strong
at the outset of
the
poem (5-6)
finds itself
completely
without
validity by
the conclusion.
Corinna fails to
persuade;
she wins
only
because of the
judge's
affections
(iudice
vince
tuo, 50).
Far different from the vindictive blasts which conclude
the affairs of Catullus and
Propertius
here we have the
image
of the artist
tying
himself in
amatory,
rhetorical and
literary
knots for his own and his audience's
delight. Just as in Apollo's speech and in Heroides 7, Ovid in Am. 3.14 is
looking
back with
sophisticated
detachment
upon
a
literary
tradition no
longer
viable for his
age.36
NICOLAS P. GROSS
University of
Delaware
36My
thanks to G. K.
Galinsky
and W. R. Nethercut for
reading
earlier versions of this
paper.
I
would also like to thank the
Ludwig Vogelstein
Foundation which
provided
me a
grant
for research
during
1976/77 when this article was
completed.

Ovid Rhetorical Wit and Amatory Persuation

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Ovid Rhetorical Wit and Amatory Persuation

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Rhetorical Wit and Amatory Persuasion in Ovid

Author(s): Nicolas P. Gross

Potrebbero piacerti anche