Ovid Rhetorical Wit and Amatory Persuation

8/12/2019 Ovid Rhetorical Wit and Amatory Persuation

1/15

Rhetorical Wit and Amatory Persuasion in OvidAuthor(s): Nicolas P. GrossSource: The Classical Journal, Vol. 74, No. 4 (Apr. - May, 1979), pp. 305-318Published by: The Classical Association of the Middle West and SouthStable 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 [email protected].

.

The Classical Association of the Middle West and Southis 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 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=camwshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3297141?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3297141?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=camws


2/15

RHETORICALWIT AND AMATORY PERSUASIONIN OVIDWhen Ovid suggests thatyouth learn "bonas artes," persuasion(A.A. I.459) inorder o seduceyoungwomen, he mocks the traditional oalof aRomaneducation, oratoricalskill as a means to a successful career. Despite thisfacetiousness, the association between love (Aphrodite) and persuasion(Peitho) appearsas early as Hesiod and has corroboration n ancient myth,graphicartandreligiouscults.1So too lovers in ancient iterature ersuadewitheloquence, and Ovid's personae areno exception-except of coursethattheyareuniquelyOvidian. "Humorous"and "rhetorical"are abels oftenassigned

to his works,2 yet in spite of the traditionalassociation between Love andPersuasionand the poet's own amusing exhortation, modem scholars seemuncomfortablewhenconfrontedby these characteristicswithin Ovid's amatorypoetry. His contemporaries,however, unbiasedby Romanticdoctrine,wouldhave beenequippedbytheireducation orespond o his humorousmanipulationandexploitationof the varioustraditionsof amatorypersuasion. The purposeof 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 theinterconnectionbetween wit andrhetorical radition n Ovid's love poetry, toshow how his playful use of common featuresof rhetoric s integralto thesepassages, andto suggestthatthephenomenonof amatorypersuasion n Ovidisworthyof furtherappreciation.I

According to myth, Apollo, one of the swiftest of the immortals, loses afootrace to a merenymph. Ovid cannot resistthe amusing potentialitiesof soincongruousa situation.3Runningat full speed, the god of light and intellect

1Works nd Days, 73f. The verbpeithein appears n amatorycontexts as early as Iliad 6.162and is often so used throughout he Iliad and Odyssey. Cf. Od. 7.258, 9.33, 10.335, etc. Forspecific examples of the connectionbetween Peitho and Aphrodite n the graphicartssee L. D.Caskey and J. D. Beazley, Attic VasePaintings (Boston 1963) partIII, 32-39. Cf. S. Reinach,Repetoiredes VasesPeints (Paris1900)vol. 2, 413. Ancient cults of Aphrodite-Peitho redateableto thefifthcenturyB.C. L.R. Farnell,TheCultsofthe GreekStates, vol. 2 (Oxford1896)664-665.See also Voigt, Peitho, RE vol. 19, cols. 194-217.2Fora surveyof humor n Ovid, see J.-M. Fr6caut,L'Espritet l'HumourchezOvide(Grenoble1972), hereafterFr6caut. EssentiallyFr6caut'swork is an anatomyof Ovidianhumorand em-phasizesthe loci of humorrather handetailedliteraryanalysis. For anotherapproach o humor nthe Metamorphoseswith close exegesis of text see G. K. Galinsky, Ovid'sMetamorphoses:AnIntroduction o the Basic Aspects (Oxfordand Berkeley 1975) 158-209, hereafterGalinsky. H.Friinkel,Ovid, A Poet Between Two Worlds (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1945) note 3, 167ff.,hereafterFrhinkel, resentsa thoroughdiscussion of theterm"rhetorical"as itappliestoOvid. Foran examinationof how Ovid is "rhetorical"in the broadestsense see G.A. Kennedy, TheArtofRhetoric in the Roman World(Princeton1972) 405-419.3B. Otis, Ovid as an Epic Poet, 2nd ed. (Cambridge1970) 103-104, hereafterOtis.305

This content downloaded from 200.89.67.14 on Sun, 9 Jun 2013 23:55:28 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/15

306 NICOLAS. GROSSattemptsto seduce Daphnewith his words. Althougha chase is not usuallyconducive to a set oration, this pantingApollo delivers a surprisinglywell-organizedplea:

A) 504-511 non insequorhostis (gentle lover)B) 512-518 Apollo's good qualitiesC) 519-524 Appeal to pity: healer cannotheal himself.4Here threeindividual opics (Apollo's passion, Apollo, andApollo's amatoryplight) are set out withinclearlydefined, endstoppedand balancedunits(8, 7and 6 lines). But Apollo's situation is andis expected to be quiteemotional.Hence there exists a deliberateand amusing irony between the unfulfilledexpectationof disorderly, mpassioned peechandthe actualorderlystructure.5The initialrequest,moreover,which introduces heplea furtherhighlightsthisrhetoricaldiscrepancy.Althoughtheformalprecisionof thespeechas a wholesuggests carefuldevelopmentof persuasionandhence producesthe anticipa-tion of a request n or neartheconclusion,6Apollo, in fact, immediatelyblurtsout his desire:Nympha,precor, Penei'mane (504).7 By placing what shouldbe the climax of Apollo's speech in the first line, Ovid intensifies the reader'sexpectationof impassionedaddress,but thenundermines his assumptionwithanti-climacticarrangement.In short, Apollo's speech appearsas rhetoricallyridiculous as his very predicament.Indeed,manyrhetorical lements withinApollo's speechsupport ts humor-ous circumstances.Inaddition oplacementof plea, another eatureessential topersuasion s presentation f characterethos). Justas inthe courtroomwhereadefendantoften deliversa plea containing mplicationsof his virtue,so too thelover can help his cause by suggesting his own good qualities. But while anardentyoung manmightbe expected to suggest his worthiness,Apollo exag-gerateshis own praises. Even Zeus whose famous andamusingcatalogueofliaisons is repletewithegotism (Iliad 14. 314f.) merely implies his admirable

4Myoutline, I believe, representsmoreaccurately he flow of Apollo's speechthanthoseof F.Bbmer,ed, Metamorphosen Heidelberg1969) 158 andA.G. Lee, ed., Metamorphoseon,LiberI(Cambridge1953) 123. Bbmer, for example, marks off the comparisonof bestial pursuerandpursued(505-507), but this section functionsintegrallywith Apollo's declarationof love (504-511), a unitywhich Lee recognizes. On the otherhand,Bbmer andLee considerthe latterpartofApollo's speechself-identification.There s, however,a clearbreakat519 sinceApollo speaksnotonly of his own arrow but also Cupid's, the source of his amatoryplight.5Therelationshipbetweenthepresentation f genuineemotion andthearrangementf an addressis perhapsbest defined by Socrates' second speech in the Phaedrus. Here Socrates' plea, byconventionalstandards, s disorderly.That is, to give an impassioned appealof genuinely heldconvictionson love, Socratespointedlyrejectscustomary,rhetoricaldispositionfoundwithinhisfirstspeech. On thearrangement f the firstspeech, see G.A. Kennedy,TheArtof PersuasioninGreece (Princeton1963)77. Other"disorderly"(if notformless)andemotionalspeechesinclude:Zeus to Hera Iliad 14.313-328) andtheyoungmanto theyoungwoman(Ecclesiazusae960-975)."Examplesof controlledspeecheswithconcluding requests ncludeOdysseusto Nausicaa(Od.6. 149-185) and Catullus 32.7Citations f the textarefromR. Ehwald, ed., P. OvidiusNaso Metamorphosesvol. 2 (Leipzig1915).



4/15

RHETORICAL IT AND AMATORYPERSUASIONN OVID 307qualities;Apollo overtlystateshis.8 Accordingto theRhetoricaadHerennium3. 6. 10 commonplacesfor speeches of praiseof another ncludereference toattractiveness,family lineage and wisdom. Section B forms a catalogue ofthese very topics, but they are all applied to Apollo:

attractiveness;non hic armentagregesquel horridus observo (513-514)distinguishedlineage: Juppiterest genitor (517)wisdom:per me, quod eritque uitque / estque, patet (517-518).Daphne is supposedto be the object of Apollo's passion andflattery, but hiswords suggest extraordinary elf-love.AlthoughApollo'segotismdoes not turnout to be long lasting,nonetheless, tis sufficientto implya formalaspectof his character, heposture rom which hespeaks. In section B his posture s thatof the superior,the manifestOlympiandivinity addressinga nymph. Not only does Apollo addressDaphnewith animperative, inquire (512), but he also calls her temeraria (514). In the nextsection (C), however, he abruptlydiscards his authoritarian emeanor. Sincehe is describinghis weakness or passion, here the god assumesthe role of aninferior,9 and his plea becomes a miseratio, an appeal to pity. Even theintroductionof the speech anticipates Apollo's shifting postures. In his firstwords(504), the formalityof precor ill-suits a desperatechase andplaces thegod in the role of suppliant.10 mmediately,however, Apollo shedshis politeprecor . . mane for the direct and authoritative ommand-a contrastmadeall the more evident by juxtaposition:

Nympha, precor, Penei: mane; non insequorhostis;nympha, mane (504-505).The uncertaintyof his rhetoricalposture, an inconsistency which grows farmore obvious in sectionsB andC, renders heDelphianfoolish andconfused.The deliberate and amusing inconsistencies which define Ovid's Apollobecome more apparentwhen comparison is made to Horace, Odes 1.23-apossible sourceof the Ovidianpassage.11Like Apollo's address,the Horatianpoemis presented nthe formof a seductionspeech. Ittoo is playfulintone, forits developmentrelies on a lighthanded nterplayof an almostsyllogistic logicandtraditional matory oles. By statingthatChloe shunshimlike a fawn(firststanza, majorpremise) in the spring time (second stanza, minor premise),

8There s good reason o supposethatZeus' speechto Herasignificantly nfluenced he addressofOvid's Apollo. Theyaresimilar n function-both humorouslymock boastfuldivinities. Similar nform-both begin with requestsand containcatalogues. And similar n diction-Apollo's wordsare strikinglyHomeric (517-518). Cf. Publii Ovidii Nasonis Opera vol. 3 (Oxford 1825) 115hereafterOvidii'Opera,and M. Haupt,ed., P. OvidiusNaso Metamorphosen Zurich 1966)60.9Apollo's humanposturehere is not, however, unusualfor Ovidian divinities; see Galinsky,162f. Cf. Otis, 125f.10SeeR. Pichon, Index VerborumAmatorium(Paris 1902) s.v. preces 4. 8ff."Horace's poemmayhave influencedApollo's speech. Note thatOvidiiOpera comparesMet.1. 505 with Odes 1. 23. 9.



5/15

308 NICOLASP. GROSSHoracesuggeststhecustomaryreluctanceof the female.12 Chloe flees, Horacepursues-a familiaramatorytopos. But with non ego te tigris (9) Horacedenies any implicationof bestial behavioron his partand hence casts off theliteraryconventions associated with the love-chase. He then requests thatChloecease to follow hermother I -12), thatshe likewiserejecta stereotypedamatoryrole and recognize herself as she is, a young woman ready(ripe, inseason) for a man (12) tempestivaviro (thirdstanza, conclusion). Althoughsubtle andgentle, Horace, nonetheless, playfully trapsChloe with the logicalimplicationsof hercoy behaviorandtherebycontrolsthe situation. Consistentwith his postureof a superior,his requestthat she leave hermotherappearsatthepoem's close andin theimperativemood, desinematrem 11). Incontrast,Apollo's juxtapositionof precor andmane, his uncertain oles andinappropri-ateploys areincongruous.By logical arrangementHorace n Odes 1. 23 pokesgentle fun at his addressee; by purposeful inconsistency, Ovid mocks hisspeaker.

Although considerable attention of late has been focused on Ovid'sHeroides,13 the light or amusing element of the epistles remains somewhatneglectedandoccasionallydeplored: "But this delight andamusement s onething the poem could well do without."" That the playful aspect of theHeroides should be overlooked or even chastised when elsewhere it is anassumed eatureof Ovid's earlyelegiacs at leastraisesthequestionof scholarlybias. InAmoresI. 1theteasingCupidgives noticeof thelightandliterary oneof Ovid's love poems.15 Especially throughthe use of elegiac meter, the ArsAmatoria mocks one of Rome's dominant literarygenres, didactic poetry,usuallycharacterizedby weightyhexameters.16 To dismiss the humorconsid-ered significantelsewhere in the Ovidiancorpusdoes far less thanjustice, Ifeel, 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 hascompiledanextensive bibliography n his editionP. OvidiiNasonis, EpistulaeHeroidum(BerlinandNew York 1971). Recent important tudies of the Heroides includeW. S.Anderson, "The Heroides" in Ovid, ed. J.W. Binns (London 1973) 49-83; H. Dorrie, "DiedichterischeAbsichtOvids in den EpistulaeHeroidum" AntikeundAbendland 13 (1967) 41-55,hereafterDorrie, and H. JacobsonOvid's Heroides (Princeton1974) hereafterJacobson.14H.Jacobson,"Ovid's Briseis:AStudyof Heroides 3," Phoenix25 (1971) 355. Discussionofthe light aspect of the Heroides , to say nothingof rhetoricalwit, ,is sparse. Although Dorrieconsiders the elements of Suasorien, Briefe and Elegien and even refers to the playfulnesscommonly associated with Ovidian elegiacs (45), he does not deal with rhetoricalwit in theHeroides. Jacobsonmakes a sustainedeffortto show the seriousnessof theHeroides and does notbroach hesubjectof rhetoricalwit, despite frequentdiscussionsof rhetoric.Forhis approachotheproblem,see especially322-330. Frecautdoes not discuss rhetoricalwit inhis examinationof theHeroides, 193-215.'5ForOvid's literaryprogramntheAmores, see E. Reitzenstein,"Das neueKunstwollen ndenAmores Ovids," RhM 84 (1935) 62-88.'6R.M. Durling, "Ovid as Praeceptor Amoris," CJ 53 (1958) 157-167, discusses Ovid'sfacetiousness in the Ars Amatoria.



6/15

RHETORICALWIT AND AMATORY PERSUASION IN OVID 309considerthe Heroides as a whole, I have chosen to examine the epistle fromDido to Aeneas17as an illustrationof the interconnectionbetween wit andrhetorical raditionwithinthese heroicmonologues."1Like the otherspeecheswithin the Heroides, Dido's departureaddresspossesses a distinguished iter-ary lineage and one sufficientlycoherent in circumstanceanatopic to providecommonrhetorical lements withwhich Ovid canplay.19Dido's wordscontainreferences to and derive a set of expectations from addresses of abandonedheroineswhichextend fromVergil's Dido (Aeneid4. 305-330) toAndromache(Iliad 6. 407-439) and include Tecmessa (Ajax, 485-524), the two Medeas(Medea, 465-519; Argon. 4. 355-390) and Ariadne(Catullus64. 132-163).20Yet Ovid is not contentmerelyto imitateorembellish. InHeroides 7 he looksbackwith wryhumorupona traditionof heroic women anddeparture ddressnow archaicand remote.

Inorder hathe maypointedlycommentuponthe material o whichhe is heir,throughoutHeroides 7 Ovid strives to create the appearanceof theabandonedheroine's monologue. Literaryborrowingslarge and small sustainthe poem;even minordetails are recalled. For example, abandonedheroinesregularlyelaborate heir misfortunes. Ovid's Dido speaksof the tenor of her fate (H. 7.112). Vergil's heroine(Aeneid4. 320-326), Ariadne(Cat. 64. 152-153) andthe two Medeas (Medea 502-507, Argon. 4. 376-378) are hardly loath todescribe their troubles;Tecmessa specifically recalls her compelling and la-mentable ate(tuches,Ajax, 485 anddaimon, 504). Thetraditionalsocontainsreference to the man's sense of fidelity:171nregardto H. 7, the difference between the approachof this essay and that of Jacobson'schapter on the Dido epistle (76-93) is considerable. Jacobson insists that H. 7 is an inferiorimitation of Vergil (Aeneid 4) and "a failure in its own right" (76). Anderson by contrastappreciatesOvid's "un-Virgilianstyle" (55) but, despitehis acknowledgementof Dido's rhetori-cal skill, believes thatOvidhas moved Dido "out of theheroicframework"(61);whereas, in fact,Ovid employs heroic rhetoric to make her a facetious heroine.'8The abundantsimilaritiesof heroic monologues from epic (and epyllion) and drama to theHeroides are undeniable. See, for example, H. Peter, Der Brief in der riimischenLiteratur(Leipzig 1901) 191 andL.P. Wilkinson, OvidRecalled (Cambridge1955) 86, hereafterWilkin-son. The two forms are, however, by no means completely identical, Jacobson, 342f.19TheHeroides andH. 7, despitetheirmanifoldvarietiesof persuasion, houldnot be consideredversified suasoria. Perhaps he ElderSeneca's descriptionof Ovid as a youngorator Controver-siae 2.2.8-12) gave impetusto this notion. Certainlyauthorityhas been addedby A. Palmer,ed.,P. OvidiNasonis Heroides (Oxford 1898) intro., Purserxiii, hereafterPalmer.Nevertheless, theinadequaciesof this notion have recently been demonstrated.See E. Oppel, Ovids Heroides:Studienzur innerenForm undzurMotivation(Diss. Erlangen-Niirnburg968). Cf. Frainkel,190n. 1. For persuasiveintent, however, Wilkinson states the point well: "The heroines are mainlyconcerned,like the rhetoricians,with scoringpoints, whetherargumentative r emotional" (96).Moreover, the Heroides are filled with rhetoricalploys. For an attemptto identify and collectrhetoricalfigures in H. 7 see A. Michel, "Rhetoriqueet Poesie. Le Manierismedes Heroides:Didon chez Ovide" in N. Barbu, E. Dobriou, and M. Masti (ed.) Acta ConventusomniumGentium Ovidianis studiisFovendis (Bucurest 1976) 443-450.20Itis an articleof faithfor many scholarsthatH. 7 has a uniquesource, Aeneid 4. "We restassuredthatOvid was following one model, the Aeneid 4" Jacobson,77. "It is unnecessarytoseekanysourceforthisepistle(H. 7) besidethe fourthbookof theAeneid" Palmer,339. ThatH. 7has sourcesbeyondthe Aeneid has been shown by S. D6pp, VirgilischerEinflussim WerkOvids(Diss. Munich 1968) especially 17f. Cf. A. S. Pease, ed., Publi VergiliMaronisAeneidosLiberQuartus(Cambridge,Mass. 1935) 282f.



7/15

310 NICOLAS. GROSSH. 7. 130 impiadextra21Aeneid 4. 314 per ... dextramque tuamMedea 496 40Ev Ea`ai XEip ...

Ovid's specific allusions include other like phrases:H. 7. 178 pro spe coniugiiAeneid 4. 316 per conubia nostra, per inceptos hymenaeosCatullus64. 141 sed conubia laeta, sed optatos hymenaeosAjax 492-3 irpo" ... / etvlsV? 7TEOT7o ...

From earlier speeches within the tradition, the poet even appropriates hefigure, polyptoton, thoughwith the humorof exaggeration.Perdita ne per-dam, timeo, noceamve nocenti (61) is hardto forgetbutclearly an imitation:

xCPL3XPLVya p COTv 7TLKTOVO"' aEL. (Ajax, 522)4ihXov pE7)/Lo, o-)v TEKVOL3 OLV7)O6voL. (Medea, 513)The considerableeffort to which the poet has gone to provide the seventhepistle of the Heroides with the fagadeanddetails of conventionand even thelengthof theaddress tselfshouldalertthe reader o Ovidianfacetiousness. Justas in Apollo's speech, here expectationexists only to be undercut. Not onlydoes Ovid manipulate iterarycommonplaces, but he creates a heroine who

challenges tradition. An appeal to mutual affection, for example, appearsregularly naddressesas diverseasTecmessa'spleatoAjax(Ajax491-492) andthe speech of Vergil's Dido to Aeneas (Aeneid4. 307, 316); Ovid's Dido, bycontrast,expresses an exaggeratedlyselfish, physical and exploitive attitudetoward Aeneas and their former affair. She describes their liaison as onebetweena loverand anexternalobject22 otbetweentwo involvedlovers. Sherefers to Aeneas in the thirdpersonthree times withinthe space of five lines:Aeneas (25), Aenean (26), andAenean (29) andconcludes the descriptionofher love (H. 7. 23-34) by calling him materiam (34), stuff; his physicalqualities are thus emphasizedin the extreme. The hero's noble or spiritualqualities,bycontrast,receivenopraise nthisspeech. If love is mentioned, t isDido's own (23-24) and devoid of any suggestion of mutual involvement.Materiamcuraepraebeat ille meae (34) concludesa sectionof herspeechandepitomizes Dido's interpretation f a traditionallysignificanttopos, sharedaffection.Ovid's manipulationof tradition s particularly vident in Dido's amusingandexaggerated tatement hatshe mightbe pregnant,a variationof theappealto mutual affection. Here comparisonof her words with the wish of Vergil'sDido for a childby Aeneas illustratesOvid's appropriationf amatory onven-tion to createa most unconventionalheroine:

21Citations f the Heroides are from Palmer, others from the OCT.22Forexternalizationappliedto myth see Galinsky, 63-64.



8/15

RHETORICALWIT AND AMATORY PERSUASION IN OVID 311saltem si qua mihi de te susceptafuissetante fugam suboles, si quis mihi parvulusaulaluderetAeneas, qui te tamen ore referret,non equidem omnino capta ac desertaviderer. Aeneid 4. 327-330Forsitanet gravidamDidon, scelerate, relinquas,parsquetui lateat corporeclausa meoaccedet fatis matris miserabilis infans,et nondum nato funeris auctoreris, H. 7. 133-136

Vergil's Dido speaks with a poignantand genuine hope for a child, and herwords are entirelycentered on that child. By contrast,the blatant,rhetoricalmachinations of Ovid's Dido stress what is most important o her, herself.References to the infant take second place. Her favorite subject, moreover,occupies the metricalcenter of three of four lines. In her hexameters(133,135)Didon andmatrisappearat the end of thethirdandbeginningof the fourthfoot respectively, and in the pentameter corpore (134) takes its place im-mediatelyafterthe caesura. Even hersuggestionof suicide is hardlyguileless.By herway of arguing f she takesher own life, Aeneas will be responsible oractuallymurderingheunborn nfantandDido as well. So too Dido employsanindignatio (again contrary o tradition)to drive home her point relentlessly.Customarilyassociated with the abandonedheroine's referenceto a child is amiseratio, an attempt o elicit pity from the departingman23 ndcertainlythemotivation for the Vergilian Dido's parvulusAeneas.24 By contrast,Ovid'sDido, to elicit further eelings of guilt from Aeneas, speaks in an indignatio.She virtuallyhisses at her former lover:

Accedet fatis matris miserabilis infans.(135)In short, this Dido's effort to persuadeAeneas appearsboth overbearingandmisguided.Ovid's clever misuseof traditional opics is complementedby his neglectofothers. We have seen Dido stress certain externalqualitiesof herrelationshipwith Aeneas, but when she presents a topic which innately possesses anexternalnature,shedoes notelaborate. To expressall thegooddeeds whichshehas done for Aeneas, she baldlysays: pro meritis (H. 7. 177).25 Yet we knowfrom her almost interminable eferencesto the sea that she is eminentlyskilledatelaboration. Otherheroinesdo not allow their"services rendered" o go allbutunnoticed. Euripides'Medea even makes thistopica primary eatureof herspeech. The mainbody of heraddressto Jason is boundedby the like phrases

23For xamplesof the traditional onnection between an appealby the child and miseratio, seeAndromacheto 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.



9/15

312 NICOLAS. GROSSes^isa s'(476) and es isa se (515), and morethan a fifth of herplea containsreference 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-complishedfor theirmen. As we have seen in hersuggestionthatshe mightbepregnant,Ovid's Didocanpressanargumentwith arelentlessness hatborderson the comic and therebyundercuther case; but now suddenlyshe becomesalmost tongue-tiedin her neglect of a potentially convincing plea.Ovid's facile wit has contrived othermeans for weakeningtraditionalen-treaty. Customarilya soon-to-be-abandonedheroinepointedly speaks of herman'scharacternthecontext of theirparticular elationship.The twoMedeas,for example, discuss their men's lack of fidelity withinangryrhetoricalques-tions. Euripides'Medeacalls JasonEXOL0roiMedea, 467). AlthoughApol-lonius' Medea does not use characterizingadjectives, her meaningis clear:

7rOVOLAL6o IKEaT'OLO6pKLar, Trov8Eth.EXtXpatiV7TrooXEOLatEfaauOLtv;(Argon. 4. 358-359)

She excoriatesJason for his lack of steadfastnessto her. Vergil's Dido callsAeneasperfide (Aeneid4. 305). Againthecharge s pointedandconcrete. ButOvid's Dido in her introductoryrhetoricalquestions neithermakes specificaccusations,nordoes she expressher problemas uniquelyherown.26 Rathershe elaboratelydiscourseson Aeneas' habitualbehavior,first in relation o hisquest:facta fugis, faciendapetis; quaerendaper orbemaltera, quaesitaest alteraterratibi. (13-14)

Since it is inclusive,facta presumablyrefers to everythingwhich Aeneas hasdone and hence encompasses his stay at Carthage. Significantly, however,Dido's emphasisis not on Aeneas' pastdeeds (facta). To the contrary, n herchiasmus of past participlesand gerundives, facienda and quaerenda, thefutureoccupies thecenterof the line. Dido, therefore,speaksas if Aeneas willgo on seeking endlessly. She furtherunderscores he iterative and ceaselessnatureof Aeneas' questby the repetitionof the word altera (14). Yet despiteherclaim of Aeneas' adventuresomeness, he implies at the same timethat helacks self-sufficiency:

ut terram nvenias, quis eam tibi tradet habendam?quis sua non notis arva tenenda dabit? (15-16)The answerto the rhetoricalquestion quis eam tibi tradet habendam(15) isprobablyaltera Dido (17). That is Aeneas will need anotherDido to give him

26Here thepoet's ployseems tobe inversion reversalof the commonmethodof presentation);orthe humorous inversionof a literarymotif see Galinskyon Salmacis' speech (Met. 4. 320-8)187-189.



10/15

RHETORICAL IT AND AMATORYPERSUASIONN OVID 313new landsor, atleast, he will needsomebody(quis, 15). Inshort,he is notableto gain them by himself. Within Dido's presentation, Aeneas becomes aperennial gigolo:

alterhabendusamor tibi restatet et altera Didoquamqueiterum fallas alteradandafides. (17-18)

Again a chiasmus. Dido's view of the repetitive pattern n Aeneas' behaviorremains constant:alter . . . amor . . . altera Dido? / iterum. . . fallas . . .altera fides (17-18). Dido claims that Aeneas follows the same modusoperandi in seducingwomenthat he does in seeking new lands. His questandhis inextricablyconnected treatmentof women are ever the same and everrepeated. Althoughthe assumedgoal of this epistle is Aeneas' return,Dido,nonetheless,vaingloriouslyreducesRome's mythicfounder-heroo a Lotharioand the foundationof Rome to mere sexual adventurism.If Dido is speakinghere in the traditionof kakologia27 as the angerof herexcursusin rhetoricalquestions ndicates,then herwords areunconventionallyobliqueandsuggestive. Customarily heseangryquestions ocus sharplyontheheroine's personal injury while directly and explicitly attackingthe man'sfaults. Because Dido's questions imply (rather hanovertly state)an amorousmotivation behind Aeneas' wandering, her words become an affront to thesense of duty or pietas which pulls the hero from her. Yet the negativepotentialitiesof the man's strengths occasionally find precedent within thetraditionof the departurespeech. Unlike the Medeas who lash out at theirmates' failings, AndromacheandTecmessa argue againsttheir men's virtues.Tactfully, however, both shift the emphasisof theirarguments o themselvesand theirhomes andawayfromheroic, martialpursuits. InitiallyAndromachesays thatHector's strengthwill destroyhim, butshe dwells chiefly on the lossof her family. Tecmessa tries to change Ajax's view of his own nobility,eugenes, butemphasizeshis importance o his family, herself andEurysakes.Dido, however, contrastswith all herliterarypredecessors. As kakologia, herrhetoricalquestions lack specificity. Nor is her equationbetweenpietas andsensual indulgence (a pointless attackon Aeneas' raison d' tre) redirectedtowards her own situation. Ovid has precisely circumvented he traditionallypersuasive potentialof rhetoricalquestions within the departureaddressandhence has renderedDido's words bombasticallyinsulting.Dido's postureof superiority upports hetone of herrhetorical uestions,andsuch a rhetoricalposture(againcontrary o tradition) ails to persuade.At line19 she implies that Aeneas cannot match her in city-building, and she hasalready suggested (18) that his accomplishmentsresult from dependenceonwomen. She speaks as Aeneas' superiorand all but explicitly states that heneeds her althoughhe has already departedand she, ironically, is trying topersuadehimto return o her. Traditionally heheroine,even if angry,revealsher real need for her man; her posture, therefore, is thatof the suppliantor

27kakologia as the commonmeaning(as it is usedhere)of abuseor reviling. See Hdt. 7. 237,Xen, Cyr. 1. 2. 6, Hyp. Fr. 247, Thphr. Char. 28. For examples of kakologia, the heroinereviling her addressee, see Medea 465-519, Argon. 4. 355-390, and Catullus64. 132-163.



11/15

314 NICOLAS. GROSSinferior. Euripides'Medea, for example, fiercely angry at Jason and wellawareof his baseness, appealsto him not to abandonher becauseof her ownneed for him and that of their children. Ovid's Dido, however, regularlyaddressesAeneas with lack of deference. She avoids or all but ridiculeshismilitaryprowess. She speaksof the wars in Africa as already fought (H. 7.119-121);28no need for Aeneas here. Despite herpastdifficulties, moreover,she does not referto warfareas seriousper se butratheras apotentialdiversiondevised to keep Aeneas in Carthage:Si tibi mens avida est belli, si quaeritJulus, (153). In demonstratingDido's lack of dependenceon Aeneas, how-ever, one problemremains.Whatof Dido's statementabout arbas H. 7. 125):QuiddubitasvinctamGaetulotradere arbae? Hereclearlyis a close imitationfrom the Vergilian Dido's speech to Aeneas: aut captam ducat Gaetuluslarbas? (Aeneid4. 326). Comparison,however, shows the difference. Ver-gil's Dido suggests she needs Aeneas for protection from larbas. Ovid'sheroinestressesAeneas'crueltyrather hanherdependence. The Aeneasof H.7 might actively hand her over to the enemy. His malevolence is stressedfurther;Dido speaksof her brother'smanusimpia (127) andshortlythereafterof Aeneas' impiadextra(130). Onceagain,almostbeyondallexpectation,sheis notdependenton Aeneas. Even where it would be mosteasy for the OvidianDido to assumea traditional ole towardherman,she maintainsanexaggeratedhauteur. In fact, Ovid has so undercut he topics, emotional argumentation,figuresand rhetoricalposturetraditionally oundin thedeparture ddress,thatit becomes quite difficult to view this Dido as trulyheroic.The presenceof witty andhumorouselements withinthe seventh EpistulaHeroidum,I feel, arguesagainst abelingthismonologuea "psycho-drama.'"29Even Dirrie has warned that there is no need to make the Heroides an"Anh~ingerSigmundFreud's.''30 Indeed the circumstancesof the poem aretragic,yet unlikeherliterarypredecessors,Ovid'sDido does not riseheroicallyto the challengeof abandonment ut reactswithmundanerealism. Subjectivedepiction of an heroic Dido's particularpsychic condition is not the poet'sprimary nterest n the seventhepistle;ratherhe strenuouslyattempts o effectintellectualdistanceandobjectivitytowardadistraughtwoman.3'By placingavery humanDido withinthe literary raditionof the abandonedheroineand atthe sametime usingher to undermine hetraditional hetoricof heroicspeech,Ovid wittilycommentsuponthe suprahumanonventionsof a remotepastandamusingly portrays he juxtapositionbetween the ideal and the mundane.

IIIOvid's Amores 3. 14 is a most unusual poem,32 for it is infused withcontradictions.On the surface, Ovid seems to want to persuadeCorinnato

28arma aro (H. 7. 122) is in the historicalpresentas are the otherverbs in the present ense in111-122.29A.R. Baca, "Ovid's Claim to Originalityand Heroides I" TAPA 100 (1969) 5.30Diorrie, 4.31Wilkinson elieves that the Heroides would have producedan intellectualresponsein Ovid'saudience, 97.32Scholarsregularlyassume that Am. 3.14 is serious. F. W. Lenz, "Ein Selbstbekenntnis



12/15

RHETORICAL ITANDAMATORYPERSUASIONN OVID 315pretendto be faithful. Yet this apparentlysimple goal leads to all sorts ofproblems. For the continuationof the affair, notonly mustOvid be deceived;he also mustdeceive himself. Buthow canhe possiblydo so whenhe is theonegiving advice and consequently mastermindingthe deception? Even thespecific instructionsgive rise to difficulties. On the one hand,Ovid demandsda populo, da verbamihi (29), yet on the otherhand, imploresthatthe deceithe couched in the bald andunconvincingrhetoricof the Romancourts, "nonfeci."33 Indeed, if one presses to the logical extreme, every offence wouldcome to be identifiedrather hanrefutedby a ritualistic"nonfeci." Inshort,thepurposestatedin the poem and its achievementappearat greatvariance. Yeteven if thepoem seems paradoxical,I hopeto show that t possesses anartisticunity, that it is ideally suited for the last amatorypoem of the Amores andperhapsjust as fitting for the concluding words of the Roman elegiac poet-lover.The solutionto themanyproblemswhichthepoemraises lies in consideringAmores 3.14 as anunusualvariationof the odi etamo paradox: uncamo, tuncodifrustra, quodamarenecesse est; (3.14.39). Thepoem contains,albeit in aquite unconventionalpresentation,the essential featureof amatorydilemma,two contradictory treamsof thought. Onthe one hand,there s Ovid's requestthat Corinnapersuadehim of her fidelity:

non peccat, quaecumquepotest peccasse negaresolaque famosam culpa professa facit. (5-6)Thiscoupletseems to indicate hatthere s no differencebetween actualfidelityand being persuadedthat Corinnais faithful. In fact, the notion of amatorypersuasionpermeatesAm. 3.14: tantum ecisse negato (15), verba modestaloqui (16), dapopulo, da verbamihi (29), concedentverbisluminanostratuis(46), verbissuperareduobus(49). In addition o these specific references,theexpectationof persuasionis continuallythrustupon the readerby the poet'slegal diction.34It is not merely causa and iudice at the poem's end (50) thatcreate this impression. The whole poem is filled with language playfullyechoing the vocabularyof the law courts:pecces (1), culpa (6), commissiindiciumque 12), crimina(20,27), crimen(35) andnonfeci (48). Noris suchdictionunusualfor theAmores;it repeats,for example, the languageandtoneof Am. 2.7 in which Ovid is tryingtodefendhimself fromachargeof infidelitybroughtby Corinna.At thebeginningandendof thispoem, he referstohimselfas a defendant(reus):Ovids?" Studi taliani di Filologia Classica 12(1935) 227-325, O0.Seel, "Von HerodotzurOvid(Ovid, Am. 3, 14undHerodot1,8, 3)" in Ovidiana, ed., N.I. Herescu(Paris 1958) 139-183 andG. Luck, The LatinLove Elegy 2nd ed. (New York 1969) see especially 173-180. Cf. Friinkel,30-31.

33SeeP. Brandt,P. OvidiNasonis, AmorumLibriTres (Leipzig 1911) 190. With"nonfeci,"Oviddeflates all theelaborate trategiesby which he was supposedto be deceived. Such a reversalis typicalof Ovid in theAmores;see D. S. Parker,"The OvidianCoda," Arion 8 (1969) 80-97.34For he influence of legal diction on Ovid's poetry, see E. J. Kenney "Ovid andthe Law"YCIS 21 (1969) 243-263 and also his "Love andLegalism: Ovid, Heroides 20 and 21" Arion 9(1970) 388-414.



13/15

316 NICOLAS. GROSSErgo sufficiam reus in nova criminasemper?(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 reciprocalamatorypersuasion. Thelover wants to persuadethe beloved to persuadehim.On the otherhornof the dilemma, however, Ovid the betrayedattempts oconvict Corinnaof infidelity. The whole strategyof the poem works towardthis verdict which similarly is based on the notion of amatory and legalpersuasion. In the first sixteen lines Ovid elaborateshis requestthat Corinnaappearto be pudica even if she acts otherwise. The poet then describes ascene of potential (and allowable) infidelity (17-26) and repeatshis request(27-30). While the centralsection, threecoupletsof fairly graphicdescription(21-26), constitutesonly animaginedorprojected nfidelity,nonetheless,Ovidfollows these hypotheticalpeccadillos withconcreteevidence presented n theform of rhetoricalquestions. HereOvidemphasizeshis actualwitnessingof theevents, video (31) and conspicio (34), and he pursues this visual imagerythroughouthepoem:oculos (35), oculis (44), benevisa (twice45) and luminanostra (46). Indeedhe even goes so far asto say thatCorinnahas no case (etsinoncausa, 50). She cannotproveherfidelity. Inshort,althoughCorinnamightget off because of her judge, Ovid (iudice, 50), she has, however, been

successfully prosecuted by none other than Ovid. Rather thandiminish herguilt, the arrangementof the poem actually develops and strengthenstheevidence.That Ovid is Corinna's iudex reflects the larger ambiguity of the entirepoem. He is a judge with a dilemma, for in addition he bothprosecutesanddefends. Fromtheobjectiveevidence he shouldfind herguilty, butbecauseofhis personal nvolvement,he cannot. Indeed,asasupplianthe entreatsCorinnato defendherself. But as prosecutorhe is also superior o Corinna. Consistentwith this official posture, he gives orders to Corinnathroughout he poem(facito, negato 15, indue27, da 29) butparadoxicallyonly so he maycontinueto love her. This considerableambiguityof word,roleandposture s restatedatthe conclusionof Ovid's presentationof factual evidence: collaque conspiciodentis habere notam(34)--quite similar n sentiment o Catullus'ruefulprojec-tions: cui labella mordebis? 8. 18). ForOvid, however, it is actuallyobtainingthe evidence of infidelity (39) which causes him to love and hate Corinna.Indeedhis apparentclash of emotions finds immediateand arrestingexpres-sion: Tunc ego, sed tecum, mortuus esse velim (40). To press the logicalimplicationsof this statement:at the instantOvid learns of Corinna's nfidelityhe wishes to be dead. Since he will not die of old age at a moment'snotice,presumablydeathwill be a lover's suicide. But if he wishes Corinnadead also(sed tecum), he will have to murderher as an expressionof his hatred. Then(tunc) Ovid will die (suicide, love) but with Corinna(murder,hate).35

35Fora presentationof the murder-suicide opos which is at once both moreconventional(andobvious) and less insouciantthan Ovid's usage, see Propertius2. 8. 25-28.



14/15

RHETORICALWIT AND AMATORY ERSUASIONN OVID 317Given the meaningof amor andodiumparticularo Am. 3. 14, thedilemmawhichOvidhascreatedas poet and faces as loverdoes not spring rominternaldisquiet. Ratherhe playfully undercuts he elementof personalstrugglebasic

to the odi et amo paradoxby turningpsychic conflict inside out. To be surethereis a clash in the wordsandsyntaxof the first line, but it reflectsa tensionbetween CorinnaandOvid, Non ego, nepecces, cumsisformosa, recuso (1),not withinadistraughtover. Similarlywhen thepoetjuxtaposes ove andhate,his wordsinvolve a violent, externalact, murder.Yet the emotionalambiva-lences found in Ovid's literarypredecessorsaredepictedas havingtheiroriginin internal,spiritual urmoil;considerationsof violence to the beloved do notappear. One need only recallCorydonor the hulkingPolyphemus. AlthoughAm. 3. 14retains hemonologueform which is typicalof anamatorydilemma,nonetheless, Ovid has transformed he closing phase of an affair from thecustomary, spiritualconflict within one persona to an external strugglebe-tween his mistress andhimself and even betweenthepersonae of his variousroles, such as prosecutorand defender.Nor do these roles function solely to make inner ruminationsexternalbutfurtherundermine he traditionaldilemma by creatingan overelaboratecom-plexity. So great s thevarietyof roleswhichthepoet assumes that six possibleOvids are identifiablehere: the lover (tuncamo, 39), thehater(tuncodi, 39),the defender(he tells Corinnawhat to say), theprosecutor noncausa, 50), thejudge (iudice, 50) andeven Ovid as Corinna he speaksher "non feci", 48).Nor does the extraordinary nddeliberatecomplexityend with multiplicationof roles. In comparisonto Am. 3.14 the traditionaldilemma appearsrathersimple, for itmerelyexpressestwo antithetical entiments, ove andhate. It hasone basicgoal, self-dissuasion,release from thepainof love. Even if we leaveasidethelegal dictionandmultipleroles, Am. 3.14 contains at leastthreebasicand intertwinedgoals: Ovid's persuadingCorinna,Ovid's deceiving himself(falli munerisinstarerit, 42), and Corinna'spersuasionof Ovid. In terms ofambiguities and tensions, the poem is labyrinthine. In fact, the degree ofcomplexity actuallyremoves thepoem from the realmof genuineemotion. Arscreated this maze. The poem is too complicated to portray real psychicambivalence;here thedilemmabecomes a vehicle for an adroit iterarygame.By considerableexaggerationandexternalizationof the emotionalstruggleinherent in the dilemma, Amores 3.14 mocks the very notion of amatorypersuasion, a foundationof Roman elegiac poetry. The influence of wordsupon the lover or beloved is far more significantwithin this Romantraditionthaneven thephysicalbeautyof the domina. Am. 3.14 is so designedthatthevery conceptionof amatorypersuasionwhich seems so strongat the outset ofthe 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 differentfromthe vindictive blasts whichconcludethe affairsof CatullusandPropertiushere we have the imageof theartist yinghimself in amatory,rhetoricalandliteraryknotsfor his own and his audience'sdelight. Just as in Apollo's speech and in Heroides 7, Ovid in Am. 3.14 is



15/15

318 NICOLAS. GROSSlooking backwithsophisticateddetachmentupona literary raditionno longerviable for his age.36

NICOLAS P. GROSSUniversity of Delaware

36My hanks o G. K. GalinskyandW. R. Nethercut orreadingearlierversionsof thispaper. Iwould also like to thank heLudwigVogelsteinFoundationwhichprovidedme a grant orresearchduring 1976/77 when this articlewas completed.

Ovid Rhetorical Wit and Amatory Persuation

Documents

Transcript of Ovid Rhetorical Wit and Amatory Persuation