La pâle est aux jasmins en blancheur comparable; La maigre a de la taille et de la liberté; La grasse est dans son port pleine de majesté; La naine, un abrégé des merveilles des cieux; C'est ainsi qu'un amant dont l'ardeur est extrême With this compare Plato, Rep. 5, 474 D: ἢ οὐχ οὕτω ποιεῖτε πρὸς τοὺς καλούς; ὁ μέν, ὅτι σιμός, ἐπίχαρις κληθεὶς ἐπαινεθήσεται ὑφ ̓ ὑμῶν, τοῦ δὲ τὸ γρυπὸν βασιλικόν φατε εἶναι, τὸν δὲ δὴ διὰ μέσον τούτων ἐμμετρότατα ἔχειν, μέλανας δὲ ἀνδρικοὺς ἰδεῖν, λευκοὺς δὲ θεῶν παῖδας εἶναι· μελιχλώρους δὲ καὶ τοὔνομα οἴει τινὸς ἄλλου ποίημα εἶναι ἢ ἐραστοῦ ὑποκοριζομένου τε καὶ εὐχερῶς φέροντας τὴν ὠχρότητα, ἐὰν ἐπὶ ὥρᾳ ᾖ; The similarity of these two passages is sufficient to warrant the conclusion that they are probably connected. But Molière did not get the idea from Plato, but from Lucr. 4, 1153: Nam faciunt homines plerumque cupidine caeci vs. 1160 Nigra melichrus est, inmunda et fetida acosmos, Ischnon eromenion tum fit, cum vivere non quit Cetera de genere hoc longum est si dicere coner." There is additional evidence to show that Molière was especially familiar with Lucretius and had even translated him in part. With these are to be compared further Hor. Sat. 1, 3, 38: Turpia decipiunt caecum vitia, aut etiam ipsa haec Delectant, veluti Balbinum polypus Hagnae. Ov. A. A. 2, 657: Nominibus mollire licet mala. Fusca vocetur, Nigrior Illyrica cui pice sanguis erit: Si crassa est, Veneris similis, si torva, Minervae. Sit gracilis, macie quae male viva sua est. Die habilem, quaecumque brevis. quae turgida, plenam: Et lateat vitium proximitate boni. Cf. Also Am. 2. 4 for the sentiment, and Rem. Am. 323-330 for the opposite. Also Prop. 3, 20, 41 Theoc. Id 6, 18; and 10, 26. The illustration is already too long and we cannot enter here upon a discussion of the relation of these various passages to one another.* Our difficulties in investigating the sources of an author like Ovid are further increased by the loss of so many books which he read, especially out of the Alexandrian literature. Ovid himself has been used by some scholars to reconstruct the plots of such lost works.** The plan of the Heroides renders it possible to use this argument as far as the essential points of the story are concerned. The details cannot be obtained with any certainty. * Most of these references may be found in the edition of Molière by Despois & Mesnard, 5, 557. **See Dilthey, Cydippe p. 46. Some general remarks on Ovid and the Heroides may not be out of place here. First of all a word may be said for Ovid as a poet. Perhaps no Roman writer has been so variously estimated by modern scholars. On the whole, I think he has been greatly underestimated. His very virtues have been turned against him. His cleverness in manipulating the language and in handling the metres has led some to think that he was nothing but a skilful juggler with words. Rhetorical tricks we affect to despise, no matter how cleverly used, and there is no doubt that Ovid is somewhat of a rhetorician. Ovid repeats himself often and other people sometimes, and that gives rise to the idea that he was nothing but a superficial, though clever, imitator. Such works as the present tend to strengthen this notion and it is for this reason that I wish to say here that Ovid, though he borrows freely, yet manages to put his own inimitable stamp on his material, and that he must still be regarded, in spite of his many faults, as a great and original poet. We may apply to his poems the words which he himself uses of another's: Cumque nihil totiens lecta e dulcedine perdant, In regard to the Heroides, opinions differ very much both on the whole and on the separate letters. For instance, Loers praises the Sappho letter very highly and says of it "omnium maxime Ovidianam videri dixerim", while Palmer speaks of the same letter as "condemned by Lachmann and by every scholar possessed of common sense". On the whole, I must confess that I do not regard the Heroides as one of the best works of Ovid. There is too much rhetorical pathos, too many repetitions, in short too much sameness, too much machine-work in plot and execution, though it must be granted that this defect is partly inherent in the subject-matter and would be hard to avoid. Still, some of the letters are very fine and all of them abound in fine passages. Ovid resembles Euripides in being a very quotable writer. *Ex P. 3, 5, 13. The origin of this species of composition concerns us directly. Ovid himself claims originality for the work and I see no good reason for doubting the correctness of his statement. A. A. 3, 345: Vel tibi composita cantetur Epistola voce: Ignotum hoc aliis ille novavit opus. Prop. 5, 3* (Arethusa) has been looked upon as possibly suggesting the idea of the Heroides to Ovid. This is quite possible, but nothing more can be said for it. There is no very close. See, how great similarity except in the opening and the ever, Dilthey, Obss. in Epp. Heroid. Ovid. partic. 1. p. 4: "Omnino auctorem heroidum haud incedere in via a se primo aperta, sed potius dudum ab aliis munita et paene trita, varia mihi persuadent indicia. inter quae gravissimum est carmen Propertii [V, 3]" etc. Cf. Tolkiehn p. 9. Some have suspected an Alexandrian source for the Heroides. Cf. Tolkiehn, Quaest. ad Her. Ov. Spectant. p. 8: Verisimile enim est, Ovidium hoc carminum genus non invenisse, sed iam antea apud aevi alexandrini poetas similia extitisse, quae sibi ad imitandum proponeret praesertim cum argumenta vel tota vel maximam partem e fontibus graecis eum hausisse notum sit." Some try to evade Ovid's statement by interpreting it to refer to Roman literature alone. Cf. Tolkiehn p. 9, and Luňak, Quaestiones Sapphicae p. 43. It seems to me however that this position is untenable. Ovid's words will hardly bear this interpretation without straining. By claiming originality for the plan of the Heroides, Ovid probably meant that no such collection of epistles was in existence at his time. It is probable enough that he received suggestions from the Alexandrians, Propertius, or others. The insertion of single letters in the body of other works was doubtless common enough. It was quite common in the later erotic literature. Cf. Achilles Tatius, 5, 18; Xen. Ephes. 2, 5; Chariton 8, 4; Nicetas Eugen. 1, 169; 202, 240, 284. Attention has also been called to the statement of Paeon the Amathusian ap. Plut. Thes. c. 20, that when Ariadne was *Müller's edition. left in Cyprus, the native women brought her letters to console her, pretending that they were from Theseus: tas ouv ἐγχωρίους γυναῖκας τὴν Ἀριάδνην ἀναλαβεῖν καὶ περιέπειν ἀθυ μοῦσαν ἐπὶ τῇ μονώσει καὶ γράμματα πλαστὰ προσφέρειν, ὡς tov Oŋoéws reagovτos aúty. "En habes herois Epistulam!", says A. Kalkman, De Hippolytis Euripideis p. 100. As these letters are essentially rhetorical, it may be worth our while to consider Ovid's rhetorical training. Upon this point Seneca the Elder throws some light, Controv. 2, 2, 8: "Hanc controversiam memini ab Ovidio Nasone declamari aput rhetorem Arellium Fuscum cuius auditor fuit; nam Labionis admirator erat, cum diversum sequeretur dicendi genus. Habebat ille comptum et decens et amabile ingenium. Oratio eius iam tum nihil aliud poterat videri quam solutum carmen. Adeo autem studiose Latronem audiit, ut multas illius sententias in versus suos transtulerit. In armorum iudicio dixerat Latro: Mittamus arma in hostis et petamus. Naso dixit: Arma viri fortis medios mittantur in hostis; Et alium ex illa suasoria sensum aeque a Labione mutuatus est. Memini Labionem in praefatione quadam dicere, quod scholastici quasi carmen didicerant: Non vides ut immota fax torpeat, ut exagitata reddat ignes? Mollit viros (otium), ferrum situ carpitur (et rubiginem ducit), desidia dedocet. Naso dixit: Vidi ego iactatas mota face crescere flammas Et rursus nullo concutiente mori. Tunc autem cum studeret habebatur bonus declamator. hanc certe controversiam ante Arellium Fuscum declamavit, ut mihi videbatur, longe ingeniosius, excepto eo, quod sine certo ordine per locos discurrerat. Controv. 2, 2, 12: Declamabat autem Naso raro controversias et non nisi ethicas; libentius dicebat suasorias. Molesta |