No More Learning

Even Ovid in his mature period has recognized this difference
to some extent; for the hexameter of elegy in the Heroides
(first series) reaches 56. 4%, while the epic hexameter of the
Metamorphoses does not exceed 54. 8%.
It is evident then that in the first edition of the A mores
which was published in 14 B. C. , 32 only a few years after the
Sulpicia elegies, the Ciris, and the Aetna, Ovid had had little
opportunity to develop a marked dactylic virtuosity and to
become a highly artistic elegiac poet. We may be sure then
that the first Amores of 14 B. C. showed only a very moderate
advance upon the 47. 4% of the Sulpicia elegies, and they
may even have contained, like the latter, a few polysyllabic
endings in the pentameter. Up to 14 B. C. Ovid was in fact
fully as much an epic as an elegiac poet (see Am. i, i, 1-18
on his early ambition to excel in epic themes), and he was
still far from having attained in the Sulpicia poems the high
virtuosity which appears in three of the four genuine elegies
of Tibullus' second book, namely, 55% or more. 33 Two of
the short Sulpicia elegies and the equally short Cornutus
poem show, it is true, an equal or a superior number of dac-
tyls, 34 but four Sulpicia poems and the long Messalinus elegy
32 Schanz, op. cit. 270 (293), suggests that these elegies probably came
first separately before the public, but later were collected in the edition of
14 B. C. This seems quite probable, especially as the spondaic Amores show
in general the predominance of the same schemata or figures of the hexameter
as the Sulpicia and Messalinus poems.
33 The first elegy of the second book has 55. 2% in the distich, the third has
50%, the fourth 55%, and the sixth 56. 8%; see the figures of Cartault, op.
cit. 7, and Ehrengruber, op. cit. x, 5.
34 iv, 6 (20 vss. ) has 50% of dactyls ; iv, 5 (20 vss. ) 58. 3% ; n, 2 (20 vss. ) 50%.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:20 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc2. ark:/13960/t45q4vr7s Public Domain / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd
? Vol. li] The Juvenile Works of Ovid 167
(n, 5) have a decided preponderance of spondees. A marked
change in Ovid's whole attitude took place, however, after
14 B. C. For unlike the Ciris and the Aetna, which did not
greatly increase their author's reputation, the Amores, im-
mediately upon their first publication, achieved a prodigious
success; they at once became popular favorites, and, like
the Eclogues of Vergil, were frequently sung in the theatre
with accompanying dance (Trist. n, 519; v, 7, 25). The
favorable reception thus accorded to the elegies naturally
determined the direction of the poet'3 genius and led him to
devote himself uninterruptedly (with the exception of the
tragedy of Medea) for sixteen years (14 B. C. to 2 A. D. ) to the
perfection of an elegiac style which surpassed even the later
work of Tibullus.
Having developed a remarkable and distinctive technique
in the Heroides and the Ars, Ovid resolved to make the first
Amores conform fully to his later rules of art. The revision
was not due to the fact that this popular and successful work
was poetically immature, nor even chiefly to the desire to
add a series of new elegies ; as he himself tells us in the pre-
fixed epigram, the question was primarily one of more careful
finish and elaboration : " hoc illi praetulit auctor opus "
(cf. Gruppe, op. cit. 377). In brief, his principal purpose
was to eliminate all polysyllabic endings, to introduce every-
where the full dactylic virtuosity, to multiply the dactylic
beginnings, and to remove or greatly reduce those schemata,
such as DSSS, SDSS, 5555, 55, SD, and the like, which
were no longer fully acceptable. The view adopted by
Heuwes in his discussion of the matter (op. cit. 31) is that
the revision " consisted in here and there substituting a word
that was more suitable for one that was less suitable to the
metre and sense, or in changing the collocation of words o 1
verses, or in doing all these things at the same time. " These
conclusions are partly correct, but there can be no doubt that
both the additions and the alterations were far more extensive
and thoroughgoing than Heuwes supposes. The first edition
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:20 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc2. ark:/13960/t45q4vr7s Public Domain / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd
? 1 68 Robert S. Radford [1920
was in fact subjected to a drastic revision and was almost
entirely rewritten in conformity to the new rules of art. 35
Nevertheless abundant traces of the character of the first
edition still remain ; for in not a few cases the poet has
triumphed over the versifier and the artist, and a number
of the original poems of the first edition have been retained
with very moderate changes. This fact may be shown very
clearly in two ways, if the writer correctly understands the
true nature of Ovidian versification. For the full and har-
moniously developed virtuosity in the Ovidian sense means
first that there shall be a considerable preponderance of
dactyls in the distich taken as a whole, and secondly that
there shall be a similar preponderance of dactyls in each
member taken singly, that is, in both the hexameter and the
pentameter lines. It is evident therefore that virtuosity is
lacking in the Amores in two ways: (i) when the spondees
are either equal or predominant in the whole distich ;
(2) when they are equal or predominant in the hexameter
line (versus fortis or diirus) alone. With this understanding
of the nature of virtuosity, I may summarize the facts briefly
as follows. A considerable part of the second edition is
entirely new and consists of such newly written elegies as
n, 17 and 1 8 ; in, i and 15 ; and also the last 18 lines of in.
9 (the epicedion upon Tibullus). 36 A still larger part has
been completely or almost completely revised in order to
bring the elegies up to practically the same virtuosity as the
35 The extraordinary importance which the mature Ovid attached to formal
poli. -h and elegance is not only evident from the exacting rules \vhii h he strictly
observes, but also from his own express statements. Thus he speaks of de-
stroying many works which would have won popular favor, but which he
himself considered " faulty " (I'itiosa, Trist. iv. 10, 61"), he often laments that
the poems of the exile are composed with less care and skill than was his wont
(Pont, i, 5, 15 ff. ; 57 ff. ), and he bitterly complains that the Metamorphoses
were uncorrected and lacked the finishing touches at the moment of his banish-
ment, as in Trist. in, 14, 21, illud opus . . . nunc incorrectiun populi pervenit
in ora. See also ib. i, 7, 27 ff. , defuit et scriptis ultima lima meis; i, 7, 39 ff. ;
H, 555-
36 On the new elegies, see also Schanz, op. cit. 270 ( 293).
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:20 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc2. ark:/13960/t45q4vr7s Public Domain / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd
? Vol. li] The Juvenile Works of Ovid 169
Ars or the Heroides (first series), namely, 57% in the dis-
tich ; 37 about a fourth part of the whole edition, however,
shows only slight and moderate changes from its original
form. That is, of the forty-nine elegies, 38 fourteen have been
only partially and imperfectly revised. A single poem of
66 verses (in, 8) remains at practically the same average as
the Sulpicia elegies, namely, 47. 98% of dactyls in the distich ;
four other poems, however, of 184 verses (i, 2. 13. 15 ; in, 10)
remain with the dactyls subordinate in the hexameter line,
and either equal (only 50%) or subordinate (49. 23%) in the
whole distich. Five elegies (i, 14 ; 39 n, 4. 8. n; in, 3), of
236 verses, also remain with the dactyls either subordinate
or equal in the hexameter line, and with 52. 4, 50. 7, 51. 2,
50. 6, 50. 7% respectively in the whole distich. Two elegies
(n, 12. 14) of 72 verses, show a weak pentameter and only
51. 2 and 52. 3% in the distich; two other elegies (in, 14 and
the first three-fourths of in, 9, the epicedion on Tibullus,
composed in 19 B. C. ), with 100 verses, are also low in their
proportion of dactyls, namely, 53. 3 and 51. 3%. Further-
more, very largely the same identical schemata are predomi-
nant in all these elegies as we find preferred in the Sulpicia
elegies (iv, 2-6) and in the imitation of Tibullus (iv, 13).
Thus fourteen elegies of 658 verses more than one-fourth
of the total number conspicuously lack the virtuosity ;
among these are included some of the most notable poems in
the collection, such as i, 2 (the poet's willing submission to
Love), i, 13 (Aurora and Tithonus), i, 14 (Corinna's use of
dyes), i, 15 (epilogue on the immortality of poesy), n, 4
(reasons for love), n, n (lament over Corinna's voyage),
37 56. c/~c in the Ars (Drobisch), and 57. 6^ in the Heroides.
3S There are really fifty elegies, as Gruppe, op. cit. 377, first pointed out,
and as Ehwald, the latest editor, obtains, by breaking up n, o into two poems.
In order, however, to avoid confusion and to be uniform with the results of
Hultgren and Drobisch, my statistics (like theirs) are everywhere based upon
the edition of Merkel, Leipzig, 1887.
39 This is the poem which, through its reference to the subjugation of the
Sigambri (15 B. C. ), dates the whole original collection.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:20 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc2. ark:/13960/t45q4vr7s Public Domain / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd
? 170 Robert S. Radford [1920
n, 12 (Corinna's surrender), n, 14 (the evils of abortion,
with several Lygdamus verses repeated), in, 3 (Corinna's
perjuries unpunished), in, 9 (epicedion on Tibullus, 50 out
of 68 verses), in, 14 (Corinna's infidelities best unknown).
The percentage of the nine ' imperfect ' elegies of Books I
and in is 50. 5% of dactyls for the whole distich, of the five
'imperfect' elegies of Book n, 51. 1%, and the difference
between the perfect and the imperfect parts of the second
Amores is 6% for the four poems of Book I, 5. 3% for the
five of Book 11, and 4. 8% for the five of Book in. 40 I think
it quite reasonable, however, to assume that, even in the case
of the imperfect elegies, at least 2. 3% of actyls have been
added in the revision, and I thus reach the conclusion that
the percentage of the first Amores did not exceed 48. 5% of
dactyls for the whole distich, and therefore rose only slightly
above the 47. 4% of the Sulpicia elegies and of iv, 13-14.
Though less important than the sum of the dactyls, the
proportion of dactylic beginnings also requires mention.
The percentage of dactylic beginnings in both hexameter and
pentameter in Am. I is 80 ; in the four imperfect elegies
(i, 2. 13. 14. 15) it is 73. 4, in the remainder of the book it is
82. 2, thus giving a difference of 8. 8% between the two parts.
We may consider as normal for the mature Ovid the per-
centage in both hexameter and pentameter of the Ars, which
is 82. 3, or that of the Fasti, which is 84. 2. Similarly the
percentage of dactylic beginnings in the whole of Am. 11 is
78. 6; in the five imperfect elegies (n, 4. 8. n. 12. 14) 41 it is
71. 6, in the remainder of the book it is 80. 9, giving a difference
of 9. 3% between the two parts. With these five elegies of
Am. ii we may fitly compare not only the percentage of the
Sulpicia elegies (iv, 2-6) and iv, 13-14, which is 69. 7% in
142 verses, but also that of the early Medicamen Faciei frag-
40 In the case of in, 9, the Tibullus epicedion, only the first 50 verses out of
68 are used.
41 n, q is also spondaic if \vc cut out the six verses (23-28) which Ovid
seems to have added in the second edition in order to join the originally sepa-
rate poems 9 and 9 H.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:20 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc2. ark:/13960/t45q4vr7s Public Domain / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd
? Vol. li] The Juvenile Works of Ovid 171
ment of 100 verses, which is 70, while its percentage of dactyls
for the distich is also low, namely, 53. 5- 42 The percentage
of dactylic beginnings in the whole of Am. in is 77. 1 ; in the
four imperfect elegies (in, 8. 10. 14, first 50 vs. of 9) it is
74, in the remainder of the book it is 78. 5, giving a
difference of 4. 5 between the two parts.
I consider this brief
summary of usage affecting the first foot sufficient for the
practical purposes of the present study, and in my subsequent
discussion shall purposely omit this feature of the single elegies
from the tabular statements. I may add, however, that the
percentage of dactyls in the first foot in Catalepton, ix is
71. 9; owing to preoccupation with the dissyllabic close and
to imitation of Catullus, it sinks in the Lygdamus elegies to
55-8 43 and in the Sulpicia letters (iv, . 7-12, 40 verses) to 50;
it rises again to 67. 7 in the Panegyric, 66. 8 in the Ciris, and
67. 1 in the Cnlex. ^
42 Hultgren, op. cit. 28 ff. , argues that no importance should be attached
lo so small a fragment, yet at the same time (pp. 32 f. ) shows the greatest
uneasiness because of its evidence, apparently fearing that it may bring to
naught the whole elaborate fabric of Ovidian virtuosity. One wonders what
he would have thought if he had examined the single Amorcs.
4:! It varies greatly in single Lygdamus elegies from 82. 2, 61. 8, and 65. 7
in i, 5, and 6 to 53. 4, 55. 2, and 45. 8 in 2, 3, and 4. In the technical Halieutica
it sinks also to 47. 7.
44 On account of the length of the article it has been found necessary to omit
here five tables giving exact statistics for the fourteen elegies. Two articles,
which continue the present study and treat the language and schemata of
Book iv of the Tibulline Corpus, will be published shortly in the American
Journal of Philology.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:20 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc2. ark:/13960/t45q4vr7s Public Domain / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd
? ? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:20 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc2. ark:/13960/t45q4vr7s Public Domain / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd
? UNIVERSITY Ol- t A1_II-WNIN I A A I 1_<JS AIN
THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
This book is DUE on the last data stam^'
-f CALIFOKNTJ
AT
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:20 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc2. ark:/13960/t45q4vr7s Public Domain / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd
? ? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:20 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc2. ark:/13960/t45q4vr7s Public Domain / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd
? jl pry
rf
53 ^JJ t 5
ffljJBJ$$lESy>>
=T X'^N^ V "^
y i=
^s
''
^MiHRAHY,-9/:
| 11(7 i
Sc^i
o X. . . . ^'
vV */,
}I
"Ti
i'L^Cil
< l -TN >
Ti ! J
*'
V:-,:
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:20 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc2. ark:/13960/t45q4vr7s Public Domain / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd
? UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
A 001 410597 7
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:20 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc2. ark:/13960/t45q4vr7s Public Domain / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd
? ? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-26 11:20 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc2. ark:/13960/t45q4vr7s Public Domain / http://www. hathitrust.