Latin Elegy and Narratology

Latin Elegy and Narratology

4th Liveley.indb 1 9/11/2008 3:51:32 PM

Latin Elegy and Narratology

Edited by

Genevieve Liveleyand

Patricia Salzman-Mitchell

<

The Ohio State University Press • Columbus

Fragments of Story


Copyright © 2008 by The Ohio State University.All rights reserved.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataLatin elegy and narratology : fragments of story / edited by Genevieve Liveley and Patricia Salzman-Mitchell. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8142-0406-1 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Elegaic poetry, Latin—History and criticism. 2. Narrative poetry, Latin—History and criticism. I. Liveley, Genevieve. II. Salzman-Mitchell, Patricia B. PA6059.E6L375 2008 871'.010923—dc22 2008013647

This book is available in the following editions:Cloth (ISBN 978-08142-0406-1)CD-ROM (ISBN 978-08142-9180-1)

Cover design by Melissa RyanType set in Adobe Garamond Pro by Juliet WilliamsPrinted by Thomson-Shore, Inc.

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Mate-rials. ANSI Z39.48-1992.

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1


To Ken Mitchell, Alex Mitchelland Richard Huxtable


Acknowledgments ix

Introduction Narrating in Couplets Genevieve Liveley and Patricia Salzman-Mitchell 1

Part I. Unveiling the Body of Elegiac Narrative: Two Narratological Approaches to Ovid’s Amores 1.5

Chapter 1 Elegy and the Erotics of Narratology Duncan Kennedy 19

Chapter 2 Snapshots of a Love Affair: Amores 1.5 and the Program of Elegiac Narrative Patricia Salzman-Mitchell 34

Part II. Telling Times: Elegy and Temporality

Chapter 3 Chronological Segmentation in Ovid’s Tristia: The Implicit Narrative of Elegy Eleonora Tola 51

Chapter 4 Women’s Time in the Remedia Amoris Hunter H. Gardner 68

Chapter 5 Paraquel Lines: Time and Narrative in Ovid’s Heroides Genevieve Liveley 86

Contents <


viii

Part III. Plots across Poems: Elegy and Story

Chapter 6 Self-Reflections on Elegy Writing, in Two Parts: The Metapoetics of Diptych Elegies in Ovid, Amores 1.11 + 12 Sophia Papaioannou 105

Chapter 7 Narration in a Standstill: Propertius 1.16–18 Christine Walde 123

Chapter 8 Platonic Strategies in Ovid’s Tales of Love Vered Lev Kenaan 142

Part IV. Seeing and Speaking the Self: Elegy and Subjectivity

Chapter 9 Cornelia’s Exemplum: Form and Ideology in Propertius 4.11 Michèle Lowrie 165

Chapter 10 The Expert, The Novice, and the Exile: A Narrative Tale of Three Ovids in Fasti Steven Green 180

Chapter 11 The Potentials of Narrative: The Rhetoric of the Subjective in Tibullus Benjamin Todd Lee 196

Part V. Narrative at the Receiving End: Elegy and Reception

Chapter 12 Narrating Disiecta Corpora: The Rhetoric of Bodily Dismemberment in Prudentius Peristephanon 11 Christian A. Kaesser 223

Chapter 13 Telling Sulpicia’s Joys: Narrativity at the Receiving End Mathilde Skoie 241

Bibliography 257Contributors 274Index Locorum 277General Index 279

CoNtENts


This project originated in a conference on “Elegy and Narrativity” which took place at Princeton University on April 30 and May 1, 2004.

That event could not have been possible without the support and hard work of Andrew Feldherr and the department of classics at Princeton, and the financial support of St. Peter’s College and Princeton University. To them we are indebted and offer our grateful thanks. We are also grateful to the con-ference respondents—John Miller, Joseph Farrell, Ronnie Ancona, Lowell Edmunds, and Joy Connolly—whose insightful comments helped to shape and inform several of the papers now collected in this volume. Montclair State University provided Patricia an SBR grant to work on this project and she thanks colleagues and friends from Montclair for their constant support—in particular, Prudence Jones, Jean Alvares, and Tim Renner. Genevieve also received financial support from the University of Bristol to attend the Princeton Conference and to travel to the U.S. for editorial meetings. We are indebted to the anonymous readers of The Ohio State University Press and our acquiring editor, Eugene O’Connor, who provided excellent feedback and keen observations at different stages of this book. But most of all, we would like to thank all our contributors—a remarkable group of internationally renown scholars and vibrant junior classicists. We are grateful for their ideas, their efficiency, and their patience. On a more personal note, Patricia would like to thank Ken Mitchell and Carol Mitchell for babysitting for endless hours over Christmas 2006 so that

ix

<Acknowledgments <

x

she could edit the manuscript. And Alex Mitchell, her son, who with his incredible smile and humor, always made even the most tedious moments of editing cheerful. She is grateful to her parents as well for their constant support and encouragement of her work. Genevieve would also like to thank Richard Huxtable for his humor and for providing suitable distractions dur-ing the editing process. Finally, we would like to thank our teachers for introducing us to the potential of reading Latin elegy through the lens(es) of narratology: Alison Sharrock, Duncan Kennedy, and Don Fowler—whose intellectual spark and acute insights into narratology are dearly missed.

ACkNowLEdgmENts


Introduction

1

<

In recent decades literary studies have shown great interest in issues concerning the elements of narrative: What are the central pieces of a

plot? How do stories begin and end? What is the role of the “point of view” or focalization in a story? What are the functions of description? How does the reader participate in the construction of a story? The study of narrative, or narratology, particularly as theorized in the writings of Mieke Bal, Gérard Genette, and Paul Ricoeur, has inspired many productive readings of classi-cal texts. However, for the most part these studies have centered on genres that are deemed as “essentially” or “straightforwardly” narrative, such as epic, history, and the novel.1

1. Massimo Fusillo’s 1985 study of Il tempo delle Argonautiche, informed by the narratological theories and methodologies of Genette, has been identified as “the first published narratological study of a Classical text” (Nikolopoulos 2004, 17). However, John Winkler’s 1985 Auctor and Actor: A Narratological Reading of Apuleius’ The Golden Ass might have an equal claim to this pioneering label. These key works were shortly followed by Irene De Jong’s 1987 groundbreaking Narrators and Focal-izers: The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad. For more recent narratological studies of Greek texts, see Richardson (1990), Rood (1998), Morales (2004), and Doherty (1995). In Latin literature, interest in narratological approaches to textual criticism similarly emerged in the late 1980s. In fact, Alessandro Barchiesi locates “one of the first Genettian moments of Ovidian criticism” with Stephen Hinds’s 1987 study of Ovid’s epic Metamorphoses in The Metamorphosis of Persephone: Ovid and the Self-Con-scious Muse (Barchiesi 2002, 188 n.19). Yet, as with narratological approaches to Greek literature, such studies in Latin literature have tended to focus primarily upon the straightforwardly narrative genre of epic. For recent narratological studies of Latin texts see Hinds (1987b), Laird (1999), Sharrock and Morales, eds. (2000), Barchiesi (2001), and Nikolopoulos (2004).

Genevieve Liveleyand

Patricia Salzman-Mitchell

All mythology and poetry is a narration of events, either past, present, or to come.

Plato, Republic 3.392

Narrating in Couplets


INtroduCtIoN�

This volume explores how theories of narrative can promote further understanding and innovative readings of a series of texts that are not tra-ditionally seen as narrative: the corpus of Latin elegy.2 Although this body of literature does not tell a continuous story in the sense of Callimachus’ ’aisma dienekes, yet many stories surface in the web of the poems at different narrative levels. We have, for example, quasi-narratives like the overarch-ing “story” of Tibullus’ relationship with Delia, of Propertius’ affair with Cynthia, or of Ovid’s life in exile—which are, however, often interrupted and infiltrated by other tangential plots. Throughout elegy there are many embedded tales—narratives in their own right—located within and interact-ing with the primarily nonnarrative structure of the external frame-text. The essays in this volume discuss several aspects of how such stories are formed, presented, and read in Latin elegy. The thirteen essays collected here address a series of interrelated ques-tions: Can the inset narratives of elegy, with their distinctive narrative strat-egies, provide the key to a poetics of elegiac storytelling? How, as readers of erotic elegy, should we respond when we find ourselves positioned as eavesdroppers or voyeurs? Can narratology and its concepts of framing and focalization provide a critical vocabulary with which to explore these effects? In what ways does elegy renegotiate the linearity and teleology of narrative? Does the idea of death in elegy work to fix or destabilize its narratives and supply or deny closure? How do the concepts of time and space shape the way we read Roman elegy? In what ways does elegy use the dynamics of narrative to manipulate the relationship between reader, poet, character, and text? Why are women in elegy characterized by narrative circularity and repetition rather than by forward momentum in story, time, and space? Can formal theories of narratology help to make sense of the temporal contradic-tions and narrative incongruities that so often characterize elegiac stories? What can the reception of Roman elegy tell us about narratives of unity, identity, and authority? But first, we might ask: Does elegy actually narrate? Does the elegiac genre provide an appropriate vehicle for telling stories? Or does the “closed” form of the elegiac couplet impose structural limitations upon the devel-opment of narrative, marking a metrical barrier to an effective narrative continuum, as Brooks Otis once maintained?3 Is the elegiac meter with

2. The focus of this volume will be primarily the poetry written in elegiac couplets that flour-ished between 30 BCE and 30 CE at Rome. While love was the central theme of most authors, other topics such as exile, politics, and even the Roman calendar were treated as suitable elegiac materia by the poet Ovid and his successors. 3. Otis (1966), 38.


NArrAtINg IN CoupLEts �

its characteristic rise and fall “anti-narrative”? The answers to these ques-tions are intimately linked to the history of literary criticism on this genre. Scholars of elegy from antiquity to our own century have endeavored to link the characters, incidents, and plots described in the elegiac collections to people and events in the “real” lives of the poets Tibullus, Propertius, Ovid, Sulpicia, and others. From such a perspective, the Tibullan corpus is seen to trace the story of the poet’s life and loves and, on the basis of discrete details provided in individual elegies, a coherent story—a quasi-autobiographical narrative—can be read. In this view, it matters not that Tibullus’ poetry is characterized by its lack of narrative unity and continuity, described by W. R. Johnson as “a sheer discontinuum, fragmentations of self and work and love”4—the overarching story of the poet and his mistress(es) is seen to tie these fragments together, creating a narrative continuum out of elegiac shards.5

Critical hostility to such a viewpoint has been widespread for at least the last sixty years, however. In his highly influential 1945 study Ovid: A Poet between Two Worlds, Eduard Fränkel denied that there was any sense of narrative continuity and chronology in the collections of the elegiac love poets, maintaining that: “there is little continuity in the volumes of Roman erotic poetry, and scholars who have tried to piece together the history of one individual affair have wasted their labor.”6 In 1965, Jean-Paul Boucher roundly denied that Propertius’ monobiblos narrated a story of love, claiming that the first book of the Propertian corpus “has no beginning, no ending analogous to that of a novel” and that the second “is completely independent of any novel-like chronology.”7 And in 1988 Paul Veyne made the scathing declaration in his seminal Roman Erotic Elegy: Love, Poetry, and the West that: “[t]o believe that our elegists tell the story of their affairs, one must not have read them. The ‘Story of Tibullus and Delia’! It comes down to five poems. . . . The poems do not present the episodes of a love affair—beginnings, declaration, seduction, a falling out. Time does not pass at all.”8

Veyne is highly censorious of readers and critics who try to find a nar-rative continuation in any of the elegiac collections. Indeed, he insists that, without exception, elegy is: “a poetry without action, with no plot leading to a denouement or maintaining any tension, and this is why time has no

4. Johnson (1990), 108. 5. For a recent illustration of this approach see Lee (1990), xiv–xv. See also Griffin (1985), 118 on Propertius 2.20. 6. Fränkel (1945), 26. 7. Boucher (1965), 401. 8. Veyne (1988), 50.


INtroduCtIoN�

reality in it. . . . An event . . . is not really an event. Before and after do not exist, any more than does duration.”9

But Veyne overstates the case. Certainly, the elegiac genre seems to invite and authorize the conventional view of its “anti-narrative” status, and to an even greater degree than its generic “neighbors,” lyric and epigram, elegy seems particularly antithetical to narrativity. So, where readers of elegy look for consistency of viewpoint or voice, for unity of time, place or action, for plot and progress, for time passing and movement toward a final telos, we find instead inconsistency and disunity, inconsistency and incongruity, fragments of self and work and love and story. But this does not tell us the “whole” story about elegy’s narrativity. It has become a critical commonplace to acknowledge that “sincerity” and “reality” are elegiac tropes effected and exploited by the elegiac ego and his (or her) first-person poetry, and to appreciate that behind the pseud-onyms Delia, Cynthia, Corinna, Cerinthus et al. lie not “real” women of flesh and blood, or even invented characters, but rather poetic figures, rep-resentations, metaphors, embodiments of elegiac poetry and its programs.10 Similarly, contemporary critics offer increasingly convincing affirmation that plot, character, action, and chronology are themselves also effects produced in and by elegiac poetry—that “story” is a fundamental part of elegiac textual discourse, no less than “reality” or the elegiac ego. W. R. Johnson has reminded us that, although there may be no overrid-ing narrative sequence or thread that ties together the individual poems that make up the Propertian corpus, individual elegies and individual books lose something of their “resonance and bite” if read outside of the wider narrative context offered by their position within the collection as a whole.11 Empha-sizing the role of the reader and the process of reading in the configuration of elegiac stories, James Butrica goes further, to argue that:12

Propertius’ elegies are not discrete entities but are meant to be read together in a linear progression for cumulative meaning; each elegy, each book in fact, is only one element of the tribiblos and achieves its full significance only when read in sequence together with all the other elements. Of course, such a linear reading is virtually demanded by the format of the ancient bookroll, which offered little scope for browsing back and forth. [ . . . ]

9. Ibid., 51. 10. On the “reality” effects of elegy see Wyke (1989), Kennedy (1993), Thomas (1988), and Veyne (1988), especially chapter 3. 11. Johnson (1997), 179f. 12. Butrica (1996), 98f.


NArrAtINg IN CoupLEts 5

There is no narrative thread as such, and no “message” or “meaning” is spelled out explicitly; rather the reader is left to extract the cumulative meaning from the multiple resonances created by sequence, juxtaposition, echoing, or cross-reference within the whole.

Most recently, Niklas Holzberg has claimed that “Ovid tells vividly real-istic stories about people in love” and expounds the thesis that Ovid’s elegiac works can be read like novels. Indeed, he repeatedly describes the Amores as an “erotic novel,” a “romance,” and a “novel in poems,” arranged in order to tell an “ongoing story.”13 What is more, in his discussion of Amores 3.7, he explains that what we have here is: “ . . . not only a poem, but also an exciting first-person verse narrative. Indeed, because Amores 3.7 takes its place in a sequence of elegies in which the speaker reconstitutes his erotic experiences in chronological order, what we have, in fact, is one episode of a first-person novel.”14

This “fictive chronology” is, he affirms, “typical of Roman verse collec-tions” and he even goes so far as to suggest that15 “the borderline between elegy and epic is crossed in certain passages” and that some narrative features of these elegies might even be compared to those of the Greek novel.16 As Johnson and Butrica claimed for the Propertian corpus, so Holzberg empha-sizes that stories are told across poems in the Amores, and that while an individual elegy may lay claim to its own status as narrative, it is primarily through its relation to other poems and other parts of a wider narrative scheme that it is able to tell a story.17

However, what Holzberg underplays somewhat here is the important consideration that some of the extant “sequence of elegies” that we read are, or appear to be, the products of their author’s devising (such as Ovid’s Amores), while others (such as Propertius Book 4 or the fragments of Sulpica)

13. Holzberg (2002), x. He goes on to argue (2002), 2 that “He manages to present even the oldest Greek myths in such a way as to make us feel that we are reading about the everyday experience of characters in a modern novel.” 14. Ibid., 16. 15. Ibid., 16–17. Holzberg even draws a link between the Amores as a “novel in poems” and the modern epistolary novel. He also sees “novelistic structures” in Heroides, Fasti, Ars, Remedia, Metamor-phoses and the exile poetry. 16. Ibid., 47–48. Yet, while Holzberg certainly places the focus on the importance of narrative, plots and narrative structures, he does not do so from a theoretical perspective and does not use the tools and terminology offered by modern theories of narrative. In fact, narratologists such as Barthes, Genette, or Bal do not figure at all in his bibliography. 17. Barchiesi claims (2001), 32f.: “There is no doubt that a single elegy can project its own nar-rative context, by laying down the tracks for a temporal development, by taking its place in a plot already known in part.”


INtroduCtIoN�

are evidently the products of later editors and their efforts to arrange a col-lection of poems into a coherent sequence.18 This raises an important ques-tion concerning elegy’s narrative potential: What differences are entailed in reading the narrative of a single poem and in reading that poem as part of a narrative sequence or continuum across poems—which may or may not have been arranged by the author? The role of the reader in configuring elegy’s narratives is brought to the fore in such considerations, reminding us that, in elegy’s complex relation to narrative, the roles of reader and elegiac poet-lover are intimately intertwined. What “story”—if any—are we trying to tell, then, about the relationship between narrative and Latin elegy in and across the forthcoming chapters? Can narratology simply aid us in understanding the “grammar” of how sto-ries are composed in the corpus of Latin elegy? Can it help to forward new interpretations of elegiac texts? The various theories of narrative employed in the following chapters—ranging from Plato to Prince—each present nar-ratology as an essential critical tool for the study of literary texts. Indeed, Bal’s account of what the use of this tool might entail illustrates well the aims of this volume:19

Readers are offered an instrument with which they can describe narrative texts. This does not imply that the theory is some kind of machine into which one inserts a text at one end and expects an adequate description to roll out at the other. The concepts that are presented here must be regarded as intellectual tools. These tools are useful in that they enable their users to formulate a textual description in such a way that it is accessible to others. Furthermore, discovering the characteristics of a text can also be facilitated by insight into the abstract narrative system. But above all, the concepts help to increase understanding by encouraging readers to articulate what they understand, or think they understand, when reading or otherwise ‘pro-cessing’ a narrative artifact.

The essays that make up this collection use the tool(s) of narratology in different ways and to varying degrees. Some of the papers aim to explore

18. Skoie, in this volume, explores this question in relation to the corpus Tibullianum. 19. Bal (1997), 3f. A detailed survey of narratology and its theories is beyond the scope of this volume, but Bal’s Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative is an excellent starting point for the neophyte narratologist. For a good overview of narratology and narratological analysis, see Her-man et al. (2005), Herman and Vervaeck (2005), Phelan and Rabinowitz (2005), Onega and Landa (1996), and Toolan (1988). For an interesting study applying the tools of narratology to lyric poetry, see Hühn and Kiefer (2005).



and explain the dynamics and mechanisms of elegiac narratives using the instrument(s) and theories of narratology in a systematic way. Others offer new readings and interpretations of elegiac stories prompted by the insights that narratology offers into (amongst other motifs): narrators and levels of narration, actors and characters, focalization and temporality, readers and reception. The essays are organized broadly according to narratological theme rather than by text or author—although, inevitably, there is produc-tive interplay not only between these themes but also between individual essays.20

Part I, Unveiling the Body of Elegiac Narrative: Two Narratological Approaches to Ovid’s Amores 1.5, offers an extended introduction to the sub-ject of elegy and narratology. Intended as a critical orientation for both the practiced and the neophyte narratologist, two essays focusing upon Ovid’s programmatic Amores 1.5 demonstrate the rich potential in bringing the tools of narratology to bear upon elegiac poetry. Aptly enough for a collec-tion primarily concerned with the genre of erotic elegy, this section begins with a new reading of Amores 1.5 inspired by the work of American critic and theorist Peter Brooks. Brooks draws both upon the insights of narratol-ogy and Freudian psychonalysis in his exploration of the “erotics of narra-tive,” arguing that what moves us as readers forward through any narrative is our desire for the end, for closure, and telos—a desire that Brooks sees as analogous to a desire for sexual consummation and orgasm. Integrating Brooks’s ideas on the intimate interrelations between narrative and erotics into his own innovative reading of Ovid, Duncan Kennedy in “Elegy and the Erotics of Narratology” traces desire as a dynamic of narrative significa-tion to show how the poet, his narrated self, and the reader move together, through a series of delays and descriptions that mutually excite and frustrate, toward a desired end-point. Coming at Ovid’s programmatic Amores 1.5 from a different narratologi-cal perspective, Patricia Salzman-Mitchell in “Snapshots of a Love Affair: Amores 1.5 and the Program of Elegiac Narrative” offers an alternative—and complementary—reading of this poem. Again emphasizing the eroticized participation of the reader in the “story” of Amores 1.5, Salzman-Mitchell

20. Ovid’s dominant position in the collection is worthy of note here. An attempt to cover all of the principal works encompassed in the sphere traditionally labeled as “Latin elegy” necessarily entailed that we include essays devoted not only to Tibullus and Propertius, but to Ovid’s Amores, Heroides, Ars and Remedia Amoris, Fasti, and Tristia—hence his expansive profile in this collection. However, as Barchiesi has observed (2002, 180): “The poet who minted Latin words like narratus ‘nar-rative’ and narrabilis ‘narratable’ is no passive participant in the modern debate about story-telling and its techniques . . . the study of narrative and Ovidian poetics continue to be mutually illuminating.”


INtroduCtIoN�

takes the concept of “event”—a term central to definitions of narrative from Aristotle through to Genette and Bal—to propose that elegy presents its narratives in a succession of fragmented “states” or “snapshots,” leaving the linking events to the imagination of the reader. Corinna’s body, as presented in Amores 1.5, is thus seen to inscribe the program of elegiac narrative, and elegy itself is seen to tell fragmented narratives with missing “holes” and “gaps” that require the active engagement of the reader to be satisfactorily completed and filled. Part II, Telling Times: Elegy and Temporality, considers the important relationship between elegy, narrativity and time, with three essays exploring different aspects of time and narrative in Ovid’s elegiac writing. Indeed, an understanding of time and temporality is shown here to represent a sine qua non in the appreciation of elegiac narrativity. In his study of the interrela-tions between plot, story, and narrative, narratological pioneer Gérard Gen-ette focused upon the ways in which narrative discourse works to subvert and replay the passage of time in order to explore the links and differences between “what is told” and “its telling.” And, like Genette, French narra-tologist Paul Ricoeur maintained in his seminal work Time and Narrative that “Everything that is recounted occurs in time, takes time, unfolds tem-porally.” For, as Ricoeur argued, “the common feature of human experience, that which is marked, organized and clarified by the fact of storytelling in all its forms, is its temporal character.” 21

In this light, Eleonora Tola considers “Chronological Segmentation in Ovid’s Tristia: The Implicit Narrative of Elegy,” looking at the temporal play evident in Ovid’s exile poetry. Ovid’s Tristia is traditionally seen to tell the “story” of its narrator’s exile. Nevertheless, the insertion of this story within the elegiac genre confers on it a narrative modality that differs from that of more traditional storytelling. In particular, Tola shows how temporally confused and contradictory poems about Ovid’s journey into exile are inter-spersed throughout the Tristia, fragmenting the Ovidian narrator and his narratives. Employing the narratological insights of Genette to focus upon the text’s temporal configuration, this chapter proposes that the implicit and a-chronological narrative of the Tristia can be read as a mise en abyme of the poetics of a genre—that elegy is founded, as is Ovid’s exilic experience, on (textual) fragmentation and dislocation. Next, Hunter Gardner looks at the subject of “Women’s Time in the Remedia Amoris,” using Julia Kristeva’s concept of women’s time and Paul Ricoeur’s description of the teleology that gives narrative meaning to forward

21. Ricoeur (1991), 2; emphasis in original.



a fresh interpretation of Ovid’s poem—focusing in particular upon the exem-plum of Phyllis. Gardner argues that Kristeva’s understanding of “women’s time,” which posits female subjectivity as marginal to the linear movement of syntax and symbolic language, offers a persuasive explanation for the properties often attributed to women in elegy, such as delay, repetition, and enclosure—properties that retard the elegiac narrative and become especially problematic in Ovid’s antidote to elegiac love, the Remedia Amoris. Genevieve Liveley in “Paraquel Lines: Time and Narrative in Ovid’s Heroides” similarly explores the delays, the “frozen moments” and “stopped clocks” in Ovid’s elegiac narratives. Liveley considers the Heroides as nar-rative “paraquels” or “side-narratives,” occupying space upon parallel chro-nologies and narrative lines to their original narrative models, short stories that telescope out from a moment in another tale to project alternative pasts and futures. Focusing upon the alternative futures, counterfactual histories, and virtual lives imagined and written by Ovid’s heroines, she identifies the Heroides as “What if?” narratives—plausible but speculative side-shoots from the established time-lines and the established versions of familiar mas-ter-narratives and canonical source texts. Part III, Plots across Poems: Elegy and Story, focuses upon different strate-gies of elegiac storytelling, drawing broadly upon a range of insights into “action” and “plot” offered by narratological theory. In his Poetics (considered by some critics to be “the first narratological treatise” in Western literature22), Aristotle indicated that genres such as epic and drama are structured upon the arrangement of events—and that such stories need a beginning, middle, and end. Thus, he coined key “narratological” terms such as mythos (“plot”), and praxis (“action”), defining mythos as “the combination of incidents or things done in the story,”23 and observing that “plot” is the essential element of tragedy—in Aristotle’s view, the highest form of narrative. Further, Aristo-tle introduced the well-known ideas of unity of time and space, maintaining that the action of tragedy must be complete in itself, having a beginning, middle, and end. Subsequent classical literary critics and theorists were all influenced profoundly by Aristotle’s thinking on narrative. Thus, Horace’s Ars Poetica considered some of the narrative techniques appropriate to different literary genres and styles—perhaps most famously, advising that the proper way to begin an epic narrative is in medias res (as in Homer’s Odyssey) so as to allow for the development of plot through the heightening of narrative inten-

22. Onega and Landa (1996), 1. 23. Aristotle, Poetics 5.


INtroduCtIoN10

sity. However, over the next two thousand years much of the narratological theory outlined in Aristotle’s Poetics remained neglected and undeveloped by literary theorists (its evolution restricted perhaps by Aristotle’s privileging of drama—and above all tragedy—in his analysis) until the formalist and structuralist schools of the twentieth century took up his ideas as the basis for their new science of narrative and story—narratology. In her chapter, “Self-Reflections on Elegy-Writing in Two Parts: The Metapoetics of Diptych Elegies in Ovid, Amores 1.11 + 12,” Sophia Papaio-annou argues that this Ovidian diptych comprises a unified story, and that its narrative continuity is principally determined by the poetics behind the identification of Nape, the maid/messenger with the tablets/love-messages that she is entrusted to carry. Drawing particularly upon Bal and Barthes, Papaioannou’s reading of Amores 1.11 and 1.12 as a narrative unit examines the mechanics of elegiac storytelling alongside the performance of elegiac mimesis and role-play. Christine Walde’s “Narration in a Standstill: Propertius 1.16–18” pro-poses that this thematically organized group of poems provides a key not only to the Propertian concept of love, but also to a poetics of elegiac sto-rytelling. She argues that Propertius’ use of the literary device of soliloquy profits from the narrative unity of time, place and action. Yet, at the same time, the temporal, spatial, and geographical liminality of the spaces from which these soliloquies are delivered (such as doorway and seashore) seem to preclude narrativity in that they proliferate possibilities both past and present, slowing the first person narrator’s story to a standstill. Next, Vered Lev Kenaan’s “Platonic Strategies in Ovid’s Tales of Love” engages Barthes’s notion of a “nonnarrative” erotic discourse and Kristevan ideas of love and storytelling to illuminate some of the critically neglected narratological conventions at work in and across Ovid’s Ars Amatoria and Remedia Amoris. She focuses upon Ovid’s rejection of a linear form of story-telling and upon his choice of an alternative cyclical narrative to show that Ovid adopts two of his major narratological strategies from Plato’s erotic dialogues, the Symposium and the Phaedrus, in configuring his own erotodi-dactic “tales of love.” Part IV, Seeing and Speaking the Self: Elegy and Subjectivity, deals with a subject that both underpins contemporary studies in narratology and is fun-damental to contemporary studies in Roman elegy: subjectivity. The ques-tion of who sees, who speaks, and who tells in elegiac narratives has been at the forefront of classical scholarship in the field since the 1980s—to such a degree that any meaningful analysis of Latin elegy is now unthinkable with-out due consideration of issues (primarily) of gender, but also (more gener-


NArrAtINg IN CoupLEts 11

ally) of historical, cultural, and local contexts. Feminist critics of the 1970s and 80s complained that early narratology, in its desire to be objective and descriptive, and in its primary focus upon the “mechanisms” of story-telling, was too little concerned with the subjective and personal implications of nar-rative to provide an effective critical tool.24 However, in no small part due to the writings of Mieke Bal, Teresa de Lauretis, and Laura Mulvey, feminist criticism and gender scholarship have asserted a considerable influence upon the contemporary shape of narratology. In particular, feminist analyses of the construction of gender have encouraged critics to rethink notions of textual authority and authorship, focalization and characterization, reading and reception. And, as several of the essays in this collection demonstrate, cognizance of gendered subjectivities can direct readers of Latin elegy and its narratives to rethink (and reread) not only gendered points of view, but also gendered expectations and desires.25

This section opens with Michèle Lowrie, “Cornelia’s Exemplum: Form and Ideology in Propertius 4.11,” a rereading of Propertius 4.11 in the light of formal analyses of the narratological unities of time, place, and character. Lowrie’s reading of 4.11 reveals that Propertius grants Cornelia consistency in none of these. She speaks on different occasions and in different places. These inconsistencies alert us to Cornelia’s greater role as an exemplum rather than as an individual, but the exemplum is both a narrative category that mediates between singularity and the general, and a moral category that sets up a model to be imitated. Cornelia emerges in this reading not merely as an exemplum of Augustan morality, but as a paradigm for the dynamic prin-ciples of representation informing the Augustan age and Augustan elegy. Next, Steven Green in “The Expert, The Novice, and the Exile: A Narra-tive Tale of Three Ovids in Fasti” focuses on the opening sections of Ovid’s Fasti (1.1–288) in an attempt to tease out the multilayered character of its homodiegetic, and at times autodiegetic, speaker (“Ovid”). As a mature work from a self-consciously experienced poet, the Fasti can be seen to pull “Ovid” in different directions: “Ovid” can be viewed simultaneously as a poet-expert steeped in personal and literary experience; a complete novice in matters of religious inquiry; and a Black Sea exile struggling to keep his emotions in check and his mind on the Roman literary project to hand, presenting (at least) three different—and competing—levels of narration and focalization in this text.

24. Bal was among the first theorists to forward a specifically feminist approach to narrative and narratology with her 1987 study of Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories. For a good overview of feminism and narratology see Nikolopoulos (2004), 135–41. 25. See in particular, Kennedy, Papaioannou, Gardner, and Skoie in this volume.


INtroduCtIoN1�

Then, in Benjamin Lee’s chapter “Potentials of Narrative: The Rhetoric of the Subjective in Tibullus,” we investigate the narrative function of sub-jective withdrawal and private thought in the elegies of Tibullus. Lee argues that there are two forms of narrative in the elegies of Tibullus: a narrative of real events, public events that unfold in public time, and a narrative of subjectivity, a depiction of the imagination that happens in private time. He concludes that, from the perspective of narratology, the principal function and effect of Tibullan elegy is to generate a rhetoric of subjectivity, which makes the narrative of public or “real” events coordinate with, and perhaps even subordinate to, the narrative of the imagination. Part V, Narrative at the Receiving End: Elegy and Reception, turns finally to examine the role of narrative and narratology in the reception of Roman elegy, following its demise in the early first century CE. Ricoeur identified three key temporal components of narrative: prefiguration, configuration, and refiguration. Prefiguration is our practical pre-understanding of how characters are likely to behave in a narrative, our beliefs and expectations regarding the motivations, values and behaviors that, for example, lovers and ex-lovers may exhibit in Roman elegy. The next mode, configuration, describes the relation of “agents, goals, means, interactions, circumstances, unexpected results,” however diverse and contradictory, through the processes of emplotment.26 As with prefiguration, there is a key temporal dimension to the mode of configuration, concerning (to borrow Frank Kermode’s phrase) “the sense of an ending” in which meaning is made by and as a story pro-gresses toward an end point, and is only understood retrospectively from that end point when the story can be seen as a whole. Following on from the configuration of a narrative, refiguration is seen to involve “the intersec-tion of the world of the text and the world of the hearer or reader,” that is, the impact of the text upon its audience to bring about new or increased understanding—an important narratological consideration for the “recep-tion” of Roman elegy.27

This section offers innovative analyses of two poets whose work is often neglected in studies of Latin elegy: Latin literature’s only extant female poet, Sulpicia, and the early Christian elegist Prudentius. Christian Kaesser in “Narrating Disiecta Corpora: The Rhetoric of Bodily Dismemberment in Prudentius Peristephanon 11” sets out to examine Prudentius Pe. 11, one of only two elegiac poems in Prudentius’ book of martyrdom poetry, to show how a late antique and Christian example of the elegiac tradition

26. Ricouer (1984), 65. 27. Ricoeur (1984), 71.


NArrAtINg IN CoupLEts 1�

both reworks narrative strategies of previous elegiac poetry (particularly Ovid) and reflects these strategies through its imagery. Here, Kaesser draws innovatively from ancient narratological and rhetorical theory, particularly the tradition that figured literary works and their parts as corporeal enti-ties, to highlight the suitability of the “disfigured” elegiac meter (famously characterized by Ovid as being deprived of one foot) as a vehicle to carry narratives of dismemberment and fragmentation. Engaging with the ancient narratological theories of Plato and Quintilian rather than Bal and Genette, Kaesser traces a convincing concordance between the form and content of Prudentius’ elegiac writing. Finally, Mathilde Skoie in “Telling Sulpicia’s Joys: Narrativity at the Receiving End” offers an analysis of the reception and narrative reconfigu-ration of Sulpicia’s elegiac fragments in three translations of the corpus Tibul-lianum—viewing these translations themselves as “narratives” in their own right. These translations variously rearrange the poems and fragments attrib-uted to Sulpicia so as to emplot a (morally) satisfying narrative sequence of events—with beginning, crisis-ridden middle, and happy ending for Sulpi-cia and her beloved. Skoie’s close analysis of these translations shows how the translator’s—like any reader’s—desire for a coherent narrative (with the concomitant sense of a unified narrative voice and stable point of view that this entails) inevitably directs and structures his or her readings. She returns, thus, the readers of this collection of diverse narratives to its beginning, and to Duncan Kennedy’s “tale” of elegy and the erotics of narratology, where a desire for knowledge and satisfaction drives the reader to read on.


�5�

Adams, C. J. (2003). The Pornography of Meat. New York: Continuum.Adam J.-M. (1984). Le récit. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Adams, J. N. (1982). The Latin Sexual Vocabulary. London: Duckworth.Agamben, G. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Trans. D. Heller-Roaz-

en. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Allan, A. (1985). “Founts Divine.” Phoenix 39: 271–72.Allen, A. W. (1950). “‘Sincerity’ and the Roman Elegists.” Classical Philology 45: 145–

60.Altman, C. F. (1975). “Two Types of Opposition and the Structure of Latin Saints’

Lives.” Medievalia et Humanistica 6: 1–11.Altman, J. G. (1982). Epistolarity: Approaches to a Form. Columbus: The Ohio State

University Press.Alton, E. H., D. E. Wormell, and E. Courtney. (1988). Ovidius Fasti. Leipzig: Teubner.Aroumi, M. (1992). “Ovide écartelé.” Revue des études anciennes 94: 363–77.Baker, R. J. (2001). Propertius I. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.Bal, M. (2006). A Mieke Bal Reader. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.———. (1997). Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. 2nd ed. Trans. C.

van Boheemen. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.———. (1987). Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories. Bloom-

ington, IN: Indiana University Press.———. (1985). Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Trans. C. van Bo-

heemen. Toronto: The University of Toronto Press.———. (1984). Narratologie (Essais sur la signification narrative dans quatre romans mod-

ernes). Utrecht: HES.Barchiesi, A. (2002). “Narrative Technique and Narratology in the Metamorphoses.” In P.

Hardie, ed., Cambridge Companion to Ovid, 180–99. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

———. (2001). Speaking Volumes: Narrative and Intertext in Ovid and Other Latin Poets. London: Duckworth.

Bibliography <


bIbLIogrAphy�5�

———. (1997). The Poet and the Prince: Ovid and Augustan Discourse. Berkeley: Uni-versity of California Press.

Barkan, L. (1986). The Gods Made Flesh. Metamorphosis and the Pursuit of Paganism. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Barthes, R. (1978 [1977]). A Lover’s Discourse: Fragments. Trans. R. Howard. New York: Hill and Wang.

———. (1977). Image-Music-Text. S. Heath, ed. and trans. New York: Noonday Press.———. (1975). S/Z: An Essay. Trans. R. Miller. London: Jonathan Cape.———. (1974). S/Z: An Essay. Trans. R. Miller. New York: Hill and Wang.Bassi, K. (1993). “Helen and the Discourse of Denial in Stesichorus’ Palinode.” Arethusa

26.1: 51–76.Beard, M. (1987). “A Complex of Times: No More Sheep on Romulus’ Birthday.” Pro-

ceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 33: 1–15.Beard, M., J. North, and S. Price. (1998). Religions of Rome. Cambridge and New York:

Cambridge University Press.Beecroft, A. J. (2006). “‘This is not a True Story’: Stesichorus’s Palinode and the Revenge of

Epichoric.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 136: 47–69.Benediktson, D. T. (1989). Propertius: Modernist Poet of Antiquity. Carbondale: Southern

Illinois University Press.Bentley, R., ed. (1711). Q. Horatius Flaccus. Cambridge.Benveniste E. (1966). Problèmes de linguistique générale, T. 1. Paris: Gallimard.Bertonière, G. (1985). The Cult Center of the Martyr Hippolytus on the Via Tiburtina.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.Bettini, M. (1999). The Portrait of the Lover. Trans. L. Gibbs. Berkeley: University of

California Press.Birt, T. (1882). Das antike Buchwesen in seinem Verhältniss zur Litteratur. Berlin: Wil-

helm Hertz.Black, M. (1962). Models and Metaphors. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Bloomer, M. (1992). Valerius Maximus and the Rhetoric of the New Nobility. Chapel Hill:

University of North Carolina Press.Blumenberg, H. (1984). Arbeit am Mythos. Frankfurt am Main: Surhkamp.———. (1983). The Legitimacy of the Modern Age. Trans. R. M. Wallace. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.Bömer, F. (1969). P. Ovidius Naso: Metamorphosen. Kommentar: Buch I–III. Heidelberg:

Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.Boucher, J.-P. (1965). Études sur Properce. Problèmes d’inspiration et d’art. Paris: De Boc-

card.Bowersock, G. W. (1995). Martyrdom and Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Boyd, B. W. (1997). Ovid’s Literary Loves: Influence and Innovation in the Amores. Ann

Arbor: University of Michigan Press.———. (1984). “Parva seges satis est: The Landscape of Tibullan Elegy in 1.1 and 1.10.”

Transactions of the American Philological Association 114: 273–80.Brent, A. (1995). Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century. Communities in

Tension before the Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop. Leiden: Brill.Bright, D. F. (1978). Haec mihi fingebam: Tibullus in his World. Leiden: Brill.———. (1971). “A Tibullan Odyssey.” Arethusa 4: 197–214.


bIbLIogrAphy �5�

Brooks, P. (1994). Psychoanalysis and Storytelling. Oxford: Blackwell.———. (1992 [1984]). Reading for the Plot: Design and Intention in Narrative. Cam-

bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Brunelle, C. (2005). “Ovid’s Satirical Remedies.” In E. Greene and R. Ancona, eds.,

Gendered Dynamics in Latin Love Poetry, 141–58. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uni-versity Press.

———. (1997). “Gender and Genre in Ovid’s Remedia Amoris.” Ph.D. dissertation, UNC Chapel Hill.

Brunt, P. A., and J. M. Moore. (1967). Res Gestae Divi Augusti: The Achievements of the Divine Augustus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Buchan, M. (2005). Review of Miller (1994). Classical Philology 100: 198–202.———. (1995). “Ovidius Imperamator: Beginnings and Endings of Love Poems and

Empire in the Amores.” Arethusa 28: 53–83.Butrica, J. (1996). “The Amores of Propertius: Unity and Structure in Books II–IV.” Il-

linois Classical Studies 21: 87–158.Butler, H. E. (1905). Sexti Properti Opera Omnia. London: Archibald Constable & Co.Cahoon, L. (1988). “The Bed as Battlefield: Erotic Conquest and Military Metaphor in

Ovid’s Amores.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 118: 293–307.Cairns, F. (1979). Tibullus: A Hellenistic Poet at Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-

sity Press.———. (1972). Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.Calame, C. (2006). Pratiques poétiques de la mémoire. Représentations de l’espace-temps en

Grèce ancienne. Paris: Éditions de la Découverte.———. (2000). Le récit en Grèce ancienne. Paris: Editions Bélin.Cameron, A. (1999). “On Defining the Holy Man.” In J. Howard-Johnston, and P. A.

Hayward, eds., The Cult of the Saints in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Es-says on the Contribution of Peter Brown, 27–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Camps, W. A. (1965). Propertius: Elegies Book IV. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. (1961). Propertius, Elegies, Book I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Cancik, H., and H. Schneider. (2002–). Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of the Ancient

World. Leiden and Boston: Brill.Carson, A. (2003). Eros the Bittersweet: An Essay. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Casali, S. (1992). “Enone, Apollo pastore e l’ amore immedicabile: giochi ovidiani su di

un topos elegiaco.” Materiali e Discussioni 28: 85–100.Castelli, E. A. (2004). Martyrdom and Memory. Early Christian Culture Making. New

York: Columbia University Press.Cerrato, J. A. (2002). Hippolytus between East and West. The Commentaries and the Prov-

enance of the Corpus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Chadwick, H. (1986). Augustine: Confessions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Chaplin, J. D. (2000). Livy’s Exemplary History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Chatman, S. (1978). Story and Discourse. Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca

and London: Cornell University Press.Claassen, J. M. (1992). “Structure, Chronology, Tone and Undertone: An Examination

of Tonal Variation in Ovid’s Exilic Poetry.” Akroterion 37.3–4: 98–113.Classen, C. J. (2002). “Clio Exclusa.” In D. S. Levene and D. P. Nelis, eds., Clio and


bIbLIogrAphy��0

the Poets: Augustan Poetry and the Traditions of Ancient Historiography, 1–24. Leiden: Brill.

Conte, G. B. (1994a). Latin Literature: A History. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Uni-versity Press.

———. (1994b). Genres and Readers: Lucretius, Love Elegy, Pliny’s Encyclopedia. Trans. G. Most. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

———. (1994c). “Love without Elegy: The Remedia Amoris and the Logic of a Genre.” In Genres and Readers: Lucretius, Love Elegy, Pliny’s Encyclopedia, trans. G. W. Most, 35–65. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Courtés, J. (1991). Analyse sémiotique du discours. De l’énoncé à l’énonciation. Paris: Ha-chette.

Cowley, R., ed., (2002). More What If? Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been. London: Pan.

Culler, J. (1981). The Pursuit of Signs. Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Cunningham, M. P. (1966). Aurelii Prudentii Clementis Carmina (CCSL, 126). Turn-hout: Brepols.

Currie, H. M. (1983). “The Poems of Sulpicia.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II, 30.3: 1751–64.

Currie, M. (1998). Postmodern Narrative Theory. New York: Palgrave McMillan.Cyllenius, B. (1475). Albii Tibulli elegiarum Libri IV cum Commentario Bernardini Cil-

lenii Veronensis. Rome: Georg Lauer.Dalzell, A. (1996). The Criticism of Didactic Poetry: Essays on Lucretius, Virgil and Ovid.

Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Dangel, J. (1997). “Le carmen latin: rhétorique, poétique et poésie.” Euphrosyne 25:

113–31.Darby, D. (2001). “Form and Context: An Essay in the History of Narratology.” Poetics

Today 22.4 (Winter 2001): 829–52.Davis, G. (1991). Polyhymnia: The Rhetoric of Horatian Lyric Discourse. Berkeley and Los

Angeles: University of California Press.Davisson, M. H. T. (1996). “The Search for alter orbis in Ovid’s Remedia Amoris.” Phoe-

nix 50: 240–61.De Jong, I. (2001). A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.———. (1992). “The Subjective Style in Odysseus’ Wanderings.” Classical Quarterly

42: 1–11.———. (1987). Narrators and Focalizers: The Presentation of the Story in the Iliad. Am-

sterdam: Grüner.Delehaye, H. (1966). Les passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires. Deuxième édition,

revue et corrigée. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes.Demos, M. (1999). Lyric Quotation in Plato. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Dickinson, R. J. (1973). “The Tristia: Poetry in Exile.” In J. W. Binns, ed., Ovid, 154–

90. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Dillon, J. (1994). “A Platonist Ars Amatoria.” Classical Quarterly 2: 387–92.Dissen, L. (1835). Albii Tibulli Carmina ex recensione Car. Lachmanni. Göttingen: Diet-

erich.Doherty, L. (1995). Siren Songs: Gender, Audiences and Narrators in the Odyssey. Ann

Arbor: University of Michigan Press.


bIbLIogrAphy ��1

Donnelly, C. (1988). “The Non-Homogeneous I: Fragmentation, Desire, and Pleasure in Barthes’s A Lover’s Discourse.” Southern Review: Literary and Interdisciplinary Essays 21.2: 169–80.

Downing, E. (1999). “Anti-Pygmalion: The Praeceptor in Ars Amatoria, Book 3.” In J. I. Porter, ed., Constructions of the Classical Body, 235–51. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

———. (1990). “Anti-Pygmalion: The Praeceptor in Ars Amatoria, Book 3.” Helios 17: 237–49.

DuPlessis, R. Blau. (1985). Writing beyond the Ending. Bloomington: University of In-diana Press.

Durling, R. M. (1958). “Ovid as praeceptor amoris.” Classical Journal 53: 157–67.Edmunds, L. (2001). Intertextuality and the Reading of Roman Poetry. Baltimore: The

Johns Hopkins University Press.Elliott, A. G. (1987). Roads to Paradise. Reading the Lives of the Early Saints. Hanover:

Brown University Press.Elsner, J. (1995). Art and the Roman Viewer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Enterline, L. (2000). The Rhetoric of the Body from Ovid to Shakespeare. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Erslew, T. H. (1843–68 [1962]). Almindeligt Forfatter-lexicon for Kongeriget Danmark.

Copenhagen: Rosenkilde og Bagger forlag.Evans, H. B. (1983). Publica Carmina: Ovid’s Books from Exile. Lincoln and London:

University of Nebraska Press.Farrell, J. (1999). “The Ovidian Corpus: Poetic Body and Poetic Text.” In P. Hardie, A.

Barchiesi, and S. Hinds, eds., Ovidian Transformations. Essays on Ovid’s Metamorpho-ses and Its Reception, 127–41. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society.

———. (1998). “Reading and Writing the Heroides.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philol-ogy 98: 307–38.

Feeney, D. C. (1999). “Mea tempora: Patternings of Time in the Metamorphoses.” In P. Hardie, A. Barchiesi, and S. Hinds, eds., Ovidian Transformations. Essays on Ovid’s Metamorphoses and its Reception, 13–30. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Soci-ety.

———. (1998). Literature and Religion at Rome: Cultures, Contexts and Beliefs. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Felson, N., ed. (2004). “The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman, Pindar, and Other Lyric.” Arethusa 37: 253–66.

———. (1999). “Vicarious Transport: Fictive Deixis in Pindar’s Pythian Four.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 99: 1–31.

Ferguson, N., ed. (1999). Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals. New York: Basic Books.

Ferrari, G. R. F. (1987). Listening to the Cicadas: A Study of Plato’s Phaedrus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferrua, A., ed. (1942). Epigrammata Damasiana. Rome: Città del Vaticano.Fitton Brown, A. D. (1985). “The Unreality of Ovid’s Tomitan Exile.” Liverpool Classical

Monthly 10.2: 18–22.Fitzgerald, W. (2000). Slavery and the Roman Literary Imagination. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.Flaschenriem, B. L. (1999). “Sulpicia and the Rhetoric of Disclosure.” Classical Philology

94: 36–54.


bIbLIogrAphy��

Flower, H. (1996). Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture. Oxford: Clarendon.

Fludernik, M. (2005). “Histories of Narrative Theory (II): From Structuralism to the Present.” In J. Phelan and P. Rabinowitz, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Narrative Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Fontaine, J. (1977 [1981]). Naissance de la poésie dans l’occident Chrétien. Esquisse d’une histoire de la poésie latine chrétienne du IIIe au VIe siècle. Paris: Études Agustiennes.

Fowler, A. (1982). Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Fowler D. (2000). Roman Constructions. Readings in Postmodern Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. (1991). “Narrate and Describe: the Problem of Ekphrasis.” Journal of Roman Studies 81: 25–36.

Fränkel, H. (1945 [1956]). Ovid: A Poet between Two Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Fulkerson, L. (2005). The Ovidian Heroine as Author: Reading, Writing, and Community in the Heroides. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. (2004). “Omnia Vincit Amor: Why the Remedia Fail.” Classical Quarterly 54.1: 211–33.

Fusillo, M. (1985). Il tempo delle Argonautiche. Un’ analisi di racconto in Apollonio Rodio. Rome: Edizione dell’ Ateneo.

Fux, P.-Y. (2003). Les sept passions de Prudence (Peristephanon 2. 5. 9. 11–14). Introduc-tion générale et commentaire. Freiburg: Academic Press Fribourg.

Gaisser, J. H. (1983). “Amor, Rura, and Militia in Three Elegies of Tibullus: 1.1., 1.5, and 1.10.” Latomus 42: 58–72.

Gandelman, C. (1991). Reading Pictures. Viewing Texts. Bloomington: Indiana Univer-sity Press.

Genette, G. (1990). Narrative Discourse Revisited. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.———. (1988). Narrative Discourse. An Essay in Method. Ithaca: Cornell University

Press.———. (1983). Nouveau discours du récit. Paris: Seuil.———. (1980). Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Ithaca: Cornell University

Press.———. (1979). Fiction et diction. Paris: Seuil.———. (1972). Figures III. Paris: Seuil.———. (1969). Figures II. Paris: Seuil.Gilmore, J. (1999). “Tibullus and the British Empire. Grainger, Smollett and the Politics

of Translation in the Mid-18th Century.” The Translator 5.1: 1–26.Görler W. (1999). “Rowing Strokes: Tentative Considerations on ‘Shifting’ Objects in

Virgil and Elsewhere.” In J. N. Adams and R. G. Mayer, eds., Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry, 269–86. New York: Oxford University Press.

Graf, F. (1995). “Ekphrasis. Die Entstehung der Gattung in der Antike.” In Boehm and Helmut Pfotenhauer, eds., Beschreibungskunst-Kunstbeschreibung. Ekphrasis von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, 143–55. Munich: Fink.

Grainger, J. M. D. (1759). A Poetical Translation of the Elegies of Tibullus, and the Poems of Sulpicia. London.

Grant, J. N. (1979). “Propertius I 18.” Phoenix 33: 48–58.


bIbLIogrAphy ��

Grattarola, P. (1984). “Gli scismi di Felicissimo e di Novaziano.” Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 38: 367–90.

Green, P. (1982). Ovid: The Erotic Poems: Translated with an Introduction. London: Pen-guin.

Green, S. J. (2004). Ovid Fasti 1: A Commentary. Leiden and Boston: Brill.———. (2001). “Docens Poeta: Development of the Interviewer’s Skills in Ovid’s Fasti.”

Latomus 60: 603–12.———. (2000). “Multiple Interpretation of the Opening and Closing of the Temple of

Janus: A Misunderstanding of Ovid, Fasti 1.281.” Mnemosyne 53: 302–9.Greene, E. (1999). “Travesties of Love: Violence and Voyeurism in Amores 1.7.” Classical

World 92.5: 409–18.———. (1998). The Erotics of Domination. Male Desire and the Mistress in Latin Love

Poetry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Griffin, J. (1985). Latin Poets and Roman Life. London: Duckworth.Grig, L. (2004). Making Martyrs in Late Antiquity. London: Duckworth.Gruppe, O. F. (1838). Die römische Elegie. Leipzig. Otto Wigand.Gutzwiller, K. (1992). “The Nautilus, the Halcyon, and the Selenaia: Callimachus’ Epi-

gram 5 Pf. = 14 G.-P.” Classical Antiquity 11: 194–209.Hackforth, R. (1955). Plato’s Phaedo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hallett, J. P. (2002). “Sulpicia and the Valerii: Family Ties and Poetic Unity.” In B.

Amden, P. Flensted-Jensen, T. H. Nielsen, A. Schwartz, and Chr. G. Tortzen, eds., Noctes Atticae. 34 articles on Greco-Roman Antiquity and its Nachleben. Studies Pre-sented to Jørgen Mejer on His Sixtieth Birthday March 18, 2002. Copenhagen: Mu-seum Tusculanum.

Halporn, J. W., M. Ostwald, and T. G. Rosenmeyer. (1963). The Meters of Greek and Latin Poetry. New York: Hackett Publishing Company.

Halperin, D. (2005). “Love’s Irony: Six Remarks on Platonic Eros.” In S. Bartsch and T. Bartscherer, eds., Erotikon: Essays on Eros, Ancient and Modern, 48–58. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hamon P. (1981). Introduction à l’analyse du descriptif. Paris: Hachette.Hansen, P. (1892). “Høegh-Guldberg, Frederik.” In C. F. Bricka, ed., Dansk Biografisk

Lexikon. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandels Forlag.Hardie, P. (2002a). Ovid’s Poetics of Illusion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.———. (2002b). “Ovid and Early Imperial Literature.” In P. Hardie, ed., The Cam-

bridge Companion to Ovid, 34–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.———. (2002c), ed. The Cambridge Companion to Ovid. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.Harvey, E. D. (1992). Ventriloquized Voices: Feminist Theory and English Renaissance

Texts. London: Routledge.Heath, M. (1989). Unity in Greek Poetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Heath-Stubbs, J. (2000). The Poems of Sulpicia. London: Hearing Eye.Heinze, R. (1972). “Die horazische Ode.” In R. Heinze, ed., Vom Geist des Römertums.

Ausgewählte Aufsätze, 172–89. Darmstadt: Wissenschäftliche Buchgesellschaft, (orig. publ. Neue Jahrbücher 51 [1923]: 153–68).

Henderson, A. A. R., ed. (1980). “Notes on the Text of Ovid’s Remedia Amoris.” Classical Quarterly 30.1: 159–73.

———. (1979). P. Ovidi Nasonis, Remedia Amoris. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.


bIbLIogrAphy��

Henderson, J. (1992). “Wrapping Up the Case: Reading Ovid, Amores 2, 7 (+8). Part II.” Materiali e Discussioni 28: 27–83.

———. (1991). “Wrapping up the Case: Reading Ovid Amores 2.7 (+8). Part I.” Mate-riali e Discussioni 27: 38–88.

Hendricks, W. O. (1973). “Methodology of Narrative Structural Analysis.” Semiotica 7: 163–84.

Herman, D., M. Jahn, and M.-L. Ryan, eds. (2005). The Routledge Encyclopedia of Nar-rative Theory. London: Routledge.

Herman, D., and B. Vervaeck. (2005). Handbook of Narrative Analysis. Lincoln: Univer-sity of Nebraska Press.

Hewig, A. (1991). “Ariadne’s Fears from Sea and Sky (Ovid, Heroides 10. 88 and 10. 95–8).” Classical Quarterly 41: 554–6.

Heyne, G (1755). Albii Tibulli Carmina Libri Tres cum Libro Quarto Sulpiciae et Alio-rum. Leipzig.

Hinds, S. (1999). “After Exile: Time and Teleology from Metamorphoses to Ibis.” In P. Hardie, A. Barchiesi, and S. Hinds, eds., Ovidian Transformations. Essays on Ovid’s Metamorphoses and its Reception, 48–67.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. (1988). “Generalising about Ovid.” In A. J. Boyle, ed., The Imperial Muse. Ra-mus Essays on Roman Literature of the Empire, 4–31. Victoria: Berwick.

———. (1987a). “The Poetess and the Reader: Further Steps towards Sulpicia.” Herma-thena 143: 29–46.

———. (1987b). The Metamorphosis of Persephone: Ovid and the Self-Conscious Muse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Høegh-Guldberg, F. (1803). Tibulls Elegier. Copenhagen: Schultz.Hollingsworth, C. (2001). Poetics of the Hive: the Insect Metaphor in Literature. Iowa

City: University of Iowa Press.Hollis, A. S. (1989). Ovid: Ars Amatoria. Book 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Holzberg, N. (2002). Ovid. The Poet and His Work. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.———. (1998–99). “Four Poets and a Poetess or a Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man?

Thoughts on Book Three of the Corpus Tibullianum.” Classical Journal 94: 169–91.———. (1997). Ovid: Dichter und Werk. Munich: Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Hubbard, M. (1974). Propertius. London: Duckworth.Hubbard, T. K. (2004–5). “The Invention of Sulpicia.” Classical Journal 100.2: 177–94.Huhn, P., and Kiefer, J. (2005). The Narratological Analysis of Poetry. Berlin: Walter de

Gruyter.Huntingford, N. P. C. (1981). “Ovid Amores 1.5.” Acta Classica 24: 107–17.Hutton, J. (1982). Aristotle’s Poetics. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Ibsch, E. (1990). “The Cognitive Turn in Narratology.” Poetics Today 11.2 (Summer).Iser, W. (1980). “Interaction between Text and Reader.” In S. R. Suleiman and I. Cros-

man, eds., The Reader in the Text, 128–38. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Jacobson, H. (1974). Ovid’s Heroides. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Jacoby, F. (1909–1910). “Tibulls erste elegie.” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 64:

601–66; 65: 22–87.James, S. L. (2003). Learned Girls and Male Persuasion: Gender and Reading in Roman

Love Elegy. Berkeley: University of California Press.———. (2001). “The Economics of Roman Elegy: Voluntary Poverty, the Recusatio, and

the Greedy Girl.” American Journal of Philology 122: 223–53.



———. (1998). “Introduction: Gender and Genre in Roman Comedy and Elegy.” He-lios 25: 3–16.

———. (1997). “Slave-Rape and Female Silence in Ovid’s Love Poetry.” Helios 2: 60–76.

Janan, M. (2001). The Politics of Desire: Propertius IV. Berkeley: University of California Press.

———. (1994). “When the lamp is shattered.” Desire and Narrative in Catullus. Carbon-dale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Jed, S. H. (1989). Chaste Thinking: The Rape of Lucretia and the Birth of Humanism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Johnson, W. R. (1997). “Final Exit: Propertius 4.11.” In D. H. Roberts, F. M. Dunn, and D. Fowler, eds., Classical Closure: Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature, 163–80. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

———. (1990). “Messalla’s Birthday: The Politics of Pastoral.” Arethusa 23: 93–113.Kauffman, L. S. (1986). Discourses of Desire: Gender, Genre and Epistolary Fictions. Itha-

ca: Cornell University Press.Keith, A. (2001). “Etymological Wordplay in Ovid’s ‘Pyramus and Thisbe.’” Classical

Quarterly n.s. 51: 309–12.———. (1994). “Corpus Eroticum: Elegiac Poetics and Elegiac Puellae in Ovid’s Amores.”

Classical World 88.1: 27–40.Kennedy, D. F. (2002). “Epistolarity: the Heroides.” In P. Hardie, ed., The Cambridge

Companion to Ovid, 217–32. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.———. (2000). “Bluff Your Way in Didactic: Ovid’s Ars Amatoria and Remedia Amo-

ris.” Arethusa 33.2: 159–76.———. (1993). The Arts of Love: Five Studies in the Discourse of Roman Love Elegy. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press.———. (1984). “The Epistolary Mode and the First of Ovid’s Heroides.” Classical Quar-

terly 34: 413–22.Kenney, E. J. (1996). Ovid: Heroides XVI–XXI. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.———. (1965). “The Poetry of Ovid’s Exile.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological

Society 11: 37–49.Kermode, F. (1966 [1967]). The Sense of an Ending. London and New York: Oxford

University Press.Keuls, E. (1993). The Reign of the Phallus: Sexual Politics in Ancient Athens. Berkeley:

University of California Press.King, J. K. (1975). “Propertius’ Programmatic Poetry and the Unity of the Monobiblos.”

Classical Journal 71: 108–24.Klopsch, P. (1972). Einführung in die mittellateinische Verslehre. Darmstadt: Wissen-

schaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Knox, P. E (1995). Ovid: Heroides–Select Epistles. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Konstan, D. (1994). Sexual Symmetry: Love in the Ancient Novel and Related Genres.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.Kövecses, Z. (1988). The Language of Love. The Semantics of Passion in Conversational

English. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press.Kraus, C. S. (2005). “From Exempla to Exemplar? Writing History around the Emperor


bIbLIogrAphy��

in Imperial Rome.” In J. Edmondson, S. Mason, and J. Rives, eds., Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kristeva, J. (1987). Tales of Love. Trans. L. S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press.

———. (1979). “Le Temps des Femmes.” Cahiers de Recherche de Sciences des Textes et Documents 5: 4–19.

———. (1974). La Révolution du Langage Poétique: l’avant-garde à la fin du XIXe siècle, Lautrémont et Mallarmé. Paris: Seuil.

Laird, A. (1999). Powers of Expression, Expressions of Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.———. (1993). “Sounding Out Ecphrasis: Art and Text in Catullus 64.” Journal of Ro-

man Studies 83: 18–30.Lanham, R. A. (1976). The Motives of Eloquence: Literary Rhetoric in the Renaissance. New

Haven: Yale University Press.Lausberg, H. (1960). Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Munich: Max Hueber.Leach, E. (1966). “Propertius 1.17: The Experimental Voyage.” Yale Classical Studies 19:

211–32.———. (1964). “Georgic Imagery in the Ars Amatoria.” Transactions of the American

Philological Association 95: 142–54.Lee, A. G. (1949). “An Appreciation of Tristia III. Vii.” Greece and Rome 18: 113–20.Lee. G., ed. (1990). Tibullus: Elegies. Introduction, Text, Translation and Notes. 3rd ed.

Leeds: Francis Cairns.Lefèvre, E. (1977). “L’unità dell’ elegia properziana.” In M. Bigaroni and F. Santucci,

eds., Colloquium Propertianum, 25–51. Assisi: Atti dell’ Accademia properziana del Subiaso.

Lee-Stecum, P. (2000). “Poet/reader, Authority Deferred: Re-reading Tibullan Elegy.” Arethusa 33: 177–215.

Lev Kenaan, V. (2008). Pandora’s Senses: The Feminine Character of the Ancient Text. Mad-ison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

———. (2005). “The Contribution of Ars and Remedia to the Development of Autobio-graphical Fiction.” Classica et Mediaevalia 56: 167–84.

Lindheim, S. H. (2003). Mail and Female: Epistolary Narrative and Desire in Ovid’s Heroides. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Liveley, G. (2005). Ovid: Love Songs. London: Duckworth.Lodge, D. (1984). Small World. London: Penguin.———. (1977). The Modes of Modern Writing. Metaphor, Metonymy, and the Typology of

Modern Literature. London: E. Arnold.Lowe, N. J. (1988). “Sulpicia’s Syntax.” Classical Quarterly 38: 193–205.Lowrie, M. (forthcoming). Writing, Performance, and Authority in Augustan Rome. Ox-

ford: Oxford University Press.———. (2007). “Making an Exemplum of Yourself: Cicero and Augustus.” In S. J.

Heyworth, with P. G. Fowler and S. J. Harrison, eds., Classical Constructions. Papers in Memory of Don Fowler, Classicist and Epicurean, 91–112. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

———. (2006a). “Hic and Absence in Catullus 68.” Classical Philology 101: 115–32.———. (2006b). “Reading and the Law in Ovid.” In E. Horn, B. Menke, and C.

Menke, eds., Literatur als Philosophie—Philosophie als Literatur, 333–46. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.


bIbLIogrAphy ��

———. (2005a). “Slander and Horse Law in Horace, Sermones 2.1.” Law and Literature 17 (2005): 405–31.

———. (2005b). “Elegy and Subjectivity in the Transition to Empire.” Review of Miller (2004) in International Journal of the Classical Tradition 12 (2005): 108–16.

———. (2002). Review of Micaela Janan, The Politics of Desire: Propertius IV. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. Classical Review 52 (2002): 63–65.

———. (1997). Horace’s Narrative Odes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Lucas, D. W. (1968). Aristotle: Poetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Luck, G. (1988). Tibulli Carmina. Stuttgart: Teubner.Lühken, M. (2002). Christianorum Maro et Flaccus. Zur Vergil- und Horazrezeption des

Prudentius. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.Lyne, R. O. A. M. (1989). Words and the Poet. Characteristic Techniques of Style in Virgil’s

Aeneid. Oxford: Clarendon Press.———. (1980). The Latin Love Poets: From Catullus to Ovid. Oxford: Clarendon

Press.MacKay, L.A. (1956). “The Well-Disposed and Ill-Used Door (Propertius I 16).” Phoe-

nix 10: 13–19.Madoz, J. (1962). “Valerian, Bishop of Calahorra.” In J. M. F. Marique, ed., Leaders of

Iberean Christianity. 50–650 A.D., 157–63. Boston: St. Paul Editions.Magdelain, A. (1978). La loi à Rome: histoire d’un concept. Paris: Belles Lettres.Malamud, M. A. (1989). A Poetics of Transformation. Prudentius and Classical Mythology.

Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Maltby, R. (2002). Tibullus: Elegies. Cambridge: Francis Cairns.———. (1991). A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies. Leeds: Francis Cairns.Masson, O. (1962). Les fragments du poète Hipponax. Paris: Klincksieck.McArthur, E. J. (1990). Extravagant Narratives: Closure and Dynamics in the Epistolary

Form. Princeton: Princeton University Press.McKeown, J. C. (1989). Ovid: Amores. Text, Prolegomena and Commentary in Four Vol-

umes. Vol. II: Commentary on Book One. ARCA 22. Leeds: Francis Cairns.———. (1987). Ovid: Amores. Text, Prolegomena and Commentary in Four Volumes. Vol.

I: Text and Prolegomena. ARCA 20. Leeds: Francis Cairns.Michaelis, E. A. (1921). Tibulls Sulpicia, Leipzig: Insel-Bücherei.Miller, P. A. (2004). Subjecting Verses: Latin Love Elegy and the Emergence of the Real.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.———. (1999). “The Tibullan Dream Text.” Transactions of the American Philological

Association 129: 181–224.Miller, P. C. (2000). “‘The Little Blue Flower Is Read.’ Relics and the Poetizing of the

Body.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 8: 213–36.Mills, D. H. (1974). “Tibullus and Phaeacia: A Reinterpretation of 1.3.” Classical Jour-

nal 69: 226–33.Moi, T. (1986). The Kristeva Reader. New York: Columbia University Press.———. (1985). Sexual Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory. London: Methuen.Morales, H. (2004). Vision and Narrative in Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press.Morgan, L. (2000). “Metre Matters. Some Higher-Level Play in Latin Poetry.” Proceed-

ings of the Cambridge Philological Society 46: 99–120.Morley, N. (2000). “Trajan’s Engines.” Greece and Rome 47: 197–210.


bIbLIogrAphy��

Morrison, J. V. (1992). “Literary Reference and Generic Transgression in Ovid, Amores 1.7: Lover, Poet, and Furor.” Latomus 51.3: 571–89.

Morson, G. S. (1994). Narrative and Freedom: The Shadows of Time. New Haven and London. Yale University Press.

Most, G. W. (1992). “Disiecti membra poetae. The Rhetoric of Dismemberment in Nero-nian Poetry.” In R. Hexter and D. Selden, eds., Innovations of Antiquity, 391–419. New York: Routledge.

———. (1985). “Des verschieden Gesinnten Sinnesverbindung: Zur poetischen Einheit der Alten,” in K. Gloy and E. Rudolph, eds., Einheit als Grundfrage der Philosophie, 1–29. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Mozley J. H., tr. (1947). Ovid: The Art of Love, and Other Poems. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard University Press, The Loeb Classical Library.

Mulvey, L. (1989). “Afterthoughts on ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.’” In L. Mulvey, Visual and Other Pleasures (Theories of Representation and Difference), 22–44. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

———. (1975). “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Screen 16.3:8–18.Murgatroyd, P. (2005). Mythical and Legendary Narrative in Ovid’s Fasti. Leiden and

Boston: Brill.Mutschler, F.-H. (1985). Die poetische Kunst Tibulls: Struktur und Bedeutung der Bücher

1 und 2 des Corpus Tibullianum. Frankfurt am Main: Studien zur klassischen Phi-lologie 18.

Myerowitz-Levine, M. (1981–82). “The Women of Ovid’s Ars Amatoria: Nature or Cul-ture?” Journal of Roman Studies 6: 30–56.

Myerowitz, M. (1985). Ovid’s Games of Love. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Myers, K. S. (1996). “The Poet and the Procuress: The Lena in Latin Love Elegy.” Journal

of Roman Studies 86: 1–21.Nagle, B. R. (1980). The Poetics of Exile: Programme and Polemic in the Tristia and Epistu-

lae ex Ponto of Ovid. Brussels: Latomus 170.Nehamas A., and P. Woodruff. (1989). Plato’s Symposium. Indianapolis: Hackett.Newlands, C. E. (1995). Playing with Time: Ovid and the Fasti. Ithaca: Cornell Univer-

sity Press.Nicholson, J. (1994). “The Delivery and Confidentiality of Cicero’s Letters.” Classical

Journal 90: 33–63.Nicoll, W. S. M. (1977). “Ovid. Amores 1.5.” Mnemosyne 30.1: 40–48.Nightingale A. W. (1995). Genres in Dialogues: Plato and the Construct of Philosophy.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Nikolopoulos, A. D. (2004). Ovidius Polytropos. Metanarrative in Ovid’s Metamorphoses.

Spudasmata Band 98. New York: Georg Olms Verlag Hildesheim.Nünlist, R. (1998). Poetologische Bildersprache in der frühgriechischen Dichtung. Stuttgart

and Leipzig: Teubner.Nussbaum, M. C. (1986). The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and

Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Onega, S., and J. A. G. Landa, eds. (1996). Narratology: An Introduction. London and

New York: Addison Wesley.Opelt, I. (1967). “Der Christenverfolger bei Prudentius.” Philologus 111: 242–57.Orth, E-M. (2000). Das Selbstgespräch. Untersuchungen zum dialogisierten Monolog am

Beispiel englischsprachiger Romane. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.


bIbLIogrAphy ��

Otis, B. (1966 [1970]). Ovid as an Epic Poet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Palmer, A. (1967 [1898]). P. Ovidi Nasonis Heroides. Reprint Hildesheim: Olms.Palmer, A.-M. (1989). Prudentius on the Martyrs. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Papaioannou, S. (2006). “The Poetology of Hairstyling and the Excitement of Hair Loss

in Ovid, Amores 1.14.” Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 82.2: 45–69.Papanghelis, T. D. (1989). “About the Hour of Noon: Ovid. Amores 1.5.” Mnemosyne

42: 54–61.———. (1987). Propertius: A Hellenistic Poet on Love and Death. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.Parker, H. N. (1994). “Sulpicia, the Auctor de Sulpicia and the Authorship of 3.9 and

3.11 of the Corpus Tibullianum.” Helios 21.1 (1994): 39–62.Perkins, J. (1995). The Suffering Self. Pain and Narrative Representation in the Early Chris-

tian Era. London: Routledge.Perri, C. (1978). “On Alluding.” Poetics 7: 289–301.Phelan, J., and P. Rabinowitz, eds. (2005). The Blackwell Companion to Narrative Theory.

Oxford: Blackwell.Platnauer, M. (1951). Latin Elegiac Verse: A Study of the Metrical Usages of Tibullus, Prop-

ertius and Ovid. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Prince, G. (1987). A Dictionary of Narratology. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Prinz, K. (1932). “Zu Properz I 18.” Wiener Studien 50: 105–14.Pucci, P. (1978). “Lingering on the Threshold.” Glyph 3: 52–73.Putnam, M. (1982). “Simple Tibullus and the Ruse of Style.” In Putnam, Essays on Latin

Lyric, Elegy, and Epic, 163–74. Princeton: Princeton University Press.———. (1973). Tibullus: A Commentary. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Rahn, H. (1958). “Ovids elegische Epistle.” Antike und Abendland 7: 105–20.Ramage, E. S. (1987). The Nature and Purpose of Augustus’ “Res Gestae.” Historia Einzel-

schrift 54. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Richardson, S. (1990). The Homeric Narrator. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.Richlin, A. (1984). “Invective against Women in Roman Satire.” Arethusa 17: 67–

80.Ricoeur P. (1991). From Text to Action: Essays in Hermeneutics. Trans. K. Blamey and J.

B. Thompson. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.———. (1986). Du texte à l’action. Essais d’herméneutique II. Paris: Seuil.———. (1984a). Temps et récit. La configuration dans le récit de fiction. Paris: Seuil.———. (1984b). Time and Narrative. 3 vols. Trans. K. Blamey and D. Pellaver. Chi-

cago: University of Chicago Press.———. (1980). “Narrative Time.” Critical Inquiry 7.1: 169–90.———. (1979) “The Human Experience of Time and Narrative.” Trans. D. Pellaver

and reprinted from Research in Phenomenology 9:17–34. In M. Valdés, ed., A Ricoeur Reader: Reflection and Imagination (1991). London: University of Toronto Press.

Rieks, R. (1986). “Entwicklungsstadien der römischen Elegie.” Dialog Schule–Wissen-schaft: Klassische Sprachen und Literaturen 20: 100–122.

Ripert E. (1921). Ovide, poète de l’amour, des dieux et de l’exil. Paris: A. Colin.Roberts, M. (1993). Poetry and the Cult of the Martyrs. The Liber Peristephanon of Pruden-

tius. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Roller, M. B. (2004). “Exemplarity in Roman Culture: The Cases of Horatius Cocles

and Cloelia.” Classical Philology 99: 1–56.


bIbLIogrAphy��0

Romano, A. (1972). “Ovid’s Ars Amatoria, or the Art of Outmaneuvering the Partner.” Latomus 31: 814–19.

Rood, T. (1998). Thucydides: Narrative and Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rothstein, M. (1920 [1924]). Die Elegien des Sextus Propertius. 2 vols. Berlin: Weid-mann.

Salzman, M. R. (1990). On Roman Time. The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Salzman-Mitchell, P. (2005). A Web of Fantasies: Gaze, Image, and Gender in Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.

Sandre, T. (1922). Tablettes d’une jeune amoureuse. Abbeville: Paillart.Sandys, J. E. (1958 [1967]). A History of Classical Scholarship. New York and London:

Hafner Publishing Company.Scaliger, J. J. (1577). Castigationes in Catullum, Tibullum, Propertium. Paris.Schiesaro A. (1997). “L’ intertestualità e i suoi disagi.” Materiali e Discussioni 39: 75–

109.Sedley, D. (1998). “The Etymologies in Plato’s Cratylus.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 118:

140–54.Seeck, G. A. (1975). “Ich-Erzähler und Erzähler-Ich in Ovids Heroides. Zur Entste-

hung des neuzeitlichen literarischen Menschen.” In E. Lefévre, ed., Monumentum Chiloniense. Studien zur augusteischen Zeit (Festschrift Burck), 436–75. Amsterdam: Hakkert.

Sharrock, A. (2002a). “Gender and Sexuality.” In P. Hardie, ed., The Cambridge Com-panion to Ovid, 95–107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. (2002b). “Ovid and the Discourses of Love: The Amatory Works.” In P. Hardie, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Ovid, 150–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. (1994). Seduction and Repetition in Ovid’s Ars Amatoria II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Sharrock A., and H. Morales, eds. (2000). Intratextuality: Greek and Roman Textual Rela-tions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shaw, B. D. (1996). “Body/Power/Identity: Passions of the Martyrs.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 4: 269–312.

Showerman, G., tr. (1977). Ovid: Heroides and Amores. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press, The Loeb Classical Library.

Skoie, M. (2008). “Reading Sulpicia: (Em)plotting Love.” In I. Nilsson, ed., Loving Reading: Narrative, Poetics and Eros. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

———. (2002). Reading Sulpicia. Commentaries 1475–1990. Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Shlain, L. (1999). The Alphabet versus the Goddess. New York: Penguin.Simms, K. (2003). Paul Ricoeur. London: Routledge.Smith, K. Flower (1913). The Elegies of Albius Tibullus. New York: American Book Com-

pany (reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschafliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964).Soller, J. (2005). “Religion et récit de voyage. Le Peristephanon de Prudence et le De

reditu suo de Rutilius Namatianus.” Revue des études augustiniennes 51: 297–326.Solmsen, F. (1962). “Three Elegies of Propertius’ First Book.” Classical Philology 57:

73–88.



Spentzou, E. (2003). Readers and Writers in Ovid’s Heroides: Transgressions of Genre and Gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stahl, H-P. (1985). Propertius: “Love” and “War.” Individual and State under Augustus. Berkeley: University of California Press.

———. (1968). “Doppeldeutigkeit bei Properz (Elegie I, 18).” Poetica 2: 438–50.Steiner, D. T. (2001). Images in Mind: Statues in Archaic and Classical Greek Literature

and Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Stevens, W. (1982). Opus Posthumous, edited by Samuel French Morse. New York: Ran-

dom House; originally published New York: Knopf, 1957.———. (1971). The Palm at the End of the Mind: Selected Poems and a Play by Wallace

Stevens, edited by Holly Stevens. New York: Knopf. (play: Bowl, Cat and Broom-stick)

———. (1957). The Collected Poems of Wallace Stevens. New York: Knopf.Stevenson, J. (2005). Women Latin Poets. Language, Gender, and Authority, from Antiq-

uity to the Eighteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Stroh, W. (1991). “Heroides Ovidianae cur epistolas scribant.” In G. Papponetti, ed.,

Ovidio poeta della memoria, 201–44. Rome: Herder.———. (1971). Die römische Liebeselegie als werbende Dichtung. Amsterdam: Hakkert.Svenbro, J. (1993). Phrasikleia: An Anthropology of Reading in Ancient Greece. Trans. J.

Lloyd. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.Terzaghi, I. (1957). “Il paraclausithyron di Properzio.” In Miscellanea Properziana 83–

106. Assisi: Atti dell’ Accademia Properziana di Subiaso.Thomas, R. (1988). “Review Article: Turning Back the Clock.” Classical Philology 83:

54–69.Thomson, H. J. (1949). Prudentius. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

Loeb Classical Library.Thraede, K. (1965). Studien zur Sprache und Stil des Prudentius. Göttingen: Vanden-

hoeck und Ruprecht.Tola, E. (2004). La métamorphose poétique chez Ovide: Tristes et Pontiques. Le poème in-

épuisable. Paris: Peeters.Toolan, M. J. (1988). Narrative: A Critical Linguistic Introduction. London: Routledge.Tränkle, H. (1999). “Der Brunnen im Atrium der Petersbasilika und der Zeitpunkt von

Prudentius’ Romaufenthalt.” Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 3: 97–112.Van Nortwick, T. (1990). “Huc veniet Messalla meus: Commentary on Johnson.” Are-

thusa 23: 115–23.Vendler, H. (1969). On Extended Wings: Wallace Stevens’ Longer Poems. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.Verducci, F. (1985). Ovid’s Toyshop of the Heart. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Veyne, P. (1988). Roman Erotic Elegy: Love, Poetry, and the West. Trans. D. Pellaver. Chi-

cago: University of Chicago Press.Viarre, S. (1976). Ovide, Essai de lecture poétique. Paris: Belles Lettres.Videau, A. (1991). Les “Tristes” d’Ovide et l’élégie romaine. Une poétique de la rupture.

Paris: Klincksieck.Viscardi, G. (1997). “La du martyre de saint Hippolyte ou la mortification transfigurée.

Prudence, Peristephanon 11.” Latomus 56: 360–81.


bIbLIogrAphy��

Vogt, H. J. (1968). Coetus Sanctorum. Der Kirchenbegriff des Novatian und die Geschichte seiner Sonderkirche. Bonn: Peter Hanstein.

Voss, J. H. (1810–11). Albius Tibullus und Lygdamus. Tübingen: Cottaischren Buch-handlung.

Walde, C. (2001a). “Das Theater der Träume: Die Traumtheorie des Lukrez.” In R. Heinze, ed., 100 Jahre Freudische Traumdeutung. Zur Aktualität der Traumforschung Freuds, Passagen-Verlag, 203–24. Wien: Turia und Kant.

———. (2001b). Traumdarstellungen in der griechisch-römischen Dichtung. Munich and Leipzig: Saur.

———. (2000). “Literatur als Experiment? Zur Erzähltechnik in Ovids Heroides.” An-tike und Abendland 46: 124–38.

Walsh, G. B. (1990). “Surprised by Self: Audible Thought in Hellenistic Poetry.” Classi-cal Philology 85: 1–21.

Warden, J. (1980). Fallax opus. Poet and Reader in the Elegies of Propertius. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Webb, R. (1999). “Ekphrasis Ancient and Modern. The Invention of a Genre.” Word and Image 15: 7–18.

Wheeler, A. L. (1996 [1924]). Ovid. Tristia. Ex Ponto. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press, Loeb Classical Library.

White, H. (1987). The Content of the Form. Narrative Discourse and Historical Representa-tion. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

———. (1978a). Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

———. (1978b). “The Historical Text as Literary Artifact.” In R. Canary and H. Kozicki, eds., The Writing of History. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Wilkinson, L. P. (1955). Ovid Recalled. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.———. (1958). “The World of the Metamorphoses.” In N. I. Herescu, ed., Ovidiana:

Recherches sur Ovide, 231–44. Paris: Belles Lettres.Williams, G. (2002). “Ovid’s Exilic Poetry: Worlds Apart.” In G. W. Boyd, ed., Brill’s

Companion to Ovid, 337–81. Leiden: Brill.Wimmel, W. (1976). Tibull und Delia: Erster Teil, Tibullus Elegie 1,1. Hermes Einzel-

schriften, Heft 37. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.Winkler, J. (1985). Author and Actor: A Narratological Reading of Apuleius’ The Golden

Ass. Berkeley: University of California Press.Winsor Leach, E. (1966). “Propertius 1.17: The Experimental Voyage.” Yale Classical

Studies 19: 211–32.Wolfenstein, V. E. (2000). Inside/Outside Nietzsche: Psychoanalytic Explorations. Ithaca:

Cornell University Press.Woodman, A. J. (1974). “Exegi monumentum: Horace, Odes 3.30.” In T. Woodman and

D. West, eds., Quality and Pleasure in Latin Poetry, 115–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Worman, N. (2001). “This Voice Which Is Not One: Helen’s Verbal Guises in Homeric Epic.” In A. Lardinois and L. McClure, eds., Making Silence Speak: Women’s Voices in Greek Literature and Society, 19–37. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Wray, D. (2003). “What Poets Do: Tibullus on Easy Hands.” Classical Philology 98: 217–50.

Wyke, M. (2002a). The Roman Mistress: Ancient and Modern Representations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


bIbLIogrAphy ��

———. (2002b). “Reading Female Flesh: Ovid, Amores 3.1.” In M. Wyke, ed., The Ro-man Mistress, 115–54. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reprinted and revised ver-sion of the article in A. Cameron, ed. (1990). History as Text: The Writing of Ancient History, 111–43. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

———. (1989). “Mistress and Metaphor in Augustan Elegy.” Helios 16: 25–47.———. (1987). “The Elegiac Woman at Rome.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philologi-

cal Society 213, n.s. 33: 153–78.Zeitlin, F. (1978). “The Dynamics of Misogyny: Myth and Mythmaking in the Ores-

teia.” Arethusa 11: 149–84.


��

The editors

PATRICIA SALzMAN-MITCHELL is assistant professor of classics at Montclair State University, NJ. She is the author of A Web of Fantasies: Gaze, Image and Gender in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (The Ohio State University Press, 2005) and of various articles on Latin poetry and Ovid. Her research focuses on Latin poetry, gender approaches to literature, and film and the classics.

GENEVIEVE LIVELEy is lecturer in classics at the University of Bristol. She is the author of Ovid: Love Songs (Duckworth, 2005) and a number of articles on aspects of Latin poetry and contemporary critical theory.

The contributors

HUNTER GARDNER is assistant professor at the University of South Caro-lina (Columbia). She completed her doctoral degree at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, with a dissertation entitled The Waiting Game: Gender and Time in Latin Love Elegy (2005).

STEVEN GREEN is senior lecturer in classics at the University of Leeds. He is the author of Ovid, Fasti 1: A Commentary (Leiden, 2004), and co-editor of The Art of Love: Bimillennial Essays on Ovid’s Ars Amatoria and Remedia Amoris (Oxford University Press, 2007). He has published widely on various aspects of Roman poetry, particularly Ovid.

Contributors

<


CoNtrIbutors ��5

CHRISTIAN KAESSER is assistant professor of classics at Stanford Uni-versity. His research focuses on Hellenistic and Augustan poetry and he has published on ekphrasis and the relation of art and text as well as on Christian Latin poetry.

DUNCAN F. KENNEDy is Professor in Latin Literature and the Theory of Criticism at the University of Bristol. He is the author of The Arts of Love: Five Studies in the Discourse of Roman Love Elegy (Cambridge University Press, 1993) and Rethinking Reality: Lucretius and the Textualization of Nature (University of Michigan Press, 2002).

BENJAMIN TODD LEE is assistant professor of classics at Oberlin College. His research interests are in Latin poetry, postclassical Latin prose, critical theory, and Latin paleography. He has published a commentary on Apuleius’ Florida with Walter de Gruyter (Berlin).

MICHèLE LOWRIE is associate professor of classics and co-director of the Poetics and Theory Program at New York University. She is the author of Horace’s Narrative Odes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), and is currently completing a book called, Writing, Performance, and Authority in Augustan Rome for Oxford University Press. She co-edited The Aesthetics of Empire and the Reception of Vergil, Literary Imagination 8.3 (2006) and is currently editing Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Horace’s Odes and Epodes.

VERED LEV KENAAN is senior lecturer in the department of Hebrew and comparative literature at the University of Haifa. She is the author of Pandora’s Senses: The Feminine Character of the Ancient Text (University of Wisconsin Press, 2008).

SOPHIA PAPAIOANNOU is assistant professor in the department of philol-ogy at the National and Capodistrian University of Athens. She is the author of Epic Succession and Dissension: Ovid, Metamorphoses 13.623–14.582, and the Reinvention of the Aeneid (Walter de Gruyter, 2005), and Redesigning Achilles: Recycling the Epic Cycle in Ovid, Metamorphoses 12.1–13.622 (Wal-ter de Gruyter, 2008), as well as a number of articles on the Augustan authors and the Roman novel.

MATHILDE SKOIE is senior lecturer in Latin at the University of Bergen, Norway. In her research she has been dealing with the reception of Roman elegy in scholarly commentaries and pastoral poetry more generally. She has


CoNtrIbutors��

published Reading Sulpicia. Commentaries 1475–1990 (Oxford University Press, 2002) and is co-editor of Pastoral and the Humanities: Arcadia Re-Inscribed on the reception of pastoral (Bristol Phoenix Press, 2007).

ELEONORA TOLA has taught Latin at the University of Buenos Aires and is now a career researcher at CONICET (Argentina). She is also a researcher at the Sorbonne, Paris and at the University of Buenos Aires. She is the author of La métamorphose poétique chez Ovide: Tristes et Pontiques. Le poème inépuisable (Peeters, 2004), and of various articles on Ovid and other aspects of Latin literature.

CHRISTINE WALDE holds the Chair of Klassische Philologie/Latinistik at the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz (Germany). She is author of Herculeus Labor. Studien zum pseudo-senecanischen Hercules Oetaeus (P. Lang, 1992) and Die Traumdarstellungen in der griechisch-römischen Dichtung (Saur, 2001), as well as of numerous articles on Latin literature, rhetoric, and ancient dream cultures, and is a former editor (for mythology and history of religions) of Der Neue Pauly.


��

Aristotle Poetics, 35, 167n7, 172, 218n29Augustine Confessions, 11.38, 96Augustus Res Gestae 8.5, 177–78Aulus Gellius Noctes Atticae 17.9.12, 234Catullus Poems 64, 92–93Cicero De Oratore 3.198, 232Homer Iliad 3, 157; 9, 87n2

Odyssey 1, 91; 4, 158n30; 6, 23; 7, 23; 11, 207

Horace Odes 1.7, 173n24; 1.33, 197 Epistles 1.4, 197Livy Preface 10, 166n6 Ab Urbe Condita 9.16–18, 97Lucilius Satires 1.4.62, 232Ovid

Amores 1.1, 34, 36, 45–46, 70n11, 231; 1.2, 34; 1.5, 19–47; 1.6, 37, 79n40, 182–84; 1.7, 114n26; 1.8, 120; 1.9, 69n5,

119; 1.11, 104–22; 1.12, 36, 104–12; 1.13, 38; 1.14, 38, 114n25, 119; 1.16, 38; 2.1, 69, 86; 2.7, 105n2, 109, 118n36; 2.8, 105n2, 109, 118n36; 2.10, 44n37, 69n5, 77n34; 2.13, 36, 105n2; 2.14, 97, 105n2; 3.1, 40n23, 42n29, 46, 70, 85, 114n24, 114n25, 120n40; 3.7, 5

Ars Amatoria, 142–62; 1, 21–22, 68, 72n17, 73, 146, 149–50; 2, 21, 69n5, 72n17, 76, 79n40, 80, 85n61, 147, 182n7; 3, 74–76, 79n40, 84n59, 80, 182n7

Epistulae ex Ponto 1.2, 58n28; 1.3, 192n29; 1.9, 192n29; 1.10, 58n28; 2.3, 58n28, 192n29; 3.9, 55n21; 4.4, 188, 189n24; 4.9, 188; 4.14, 192n29

Fasti 1, 180–95; 2, 181, 183n11, 191n27; 3, 191n27, 194n32, 195; 4, 181n4, 186, 189–90, 194n32, 195; 5, 186

Heroides 1, 87–89, 91, 94, 101; 2, 23n17, 85n62, 100; 4, 231; 3, 87, 100; 7, 87; 10, 92–94, 100; 11, 90; 12, 101; 13, 100; 15, 90

Metamorphoses 1, 37; 3, 43; 5,

Index Locorum <


INdEx LoCorum��

43n34; 6, 43; 9, 43n34, 92n20; 10, 115n29; 11, 43n34; 15, 86

Remedia Amoris, 68–85, 142–62Tristia 1.1, 54–55, 58n28, 188; 1.2,

55–58, 58n28, 59, 190n26; 1.3, 55, 58–60, 62, 189n24, 192n29; 1.4, 55–57, 190n26; 1.5, 55; 1.6, 55; 1.7, 41n27, 55; 1.8, 55; 1.9, 55; 1.10, 55, 190n26; 1.11, 55–58, 60n33, 190n26; 2, 187–88, 191n27; 3.1, 52n7, 55n21, 188; 3.2, 60–61; 3.8, 52n7, 63–64; 3.9, 62–63; 3.10, 64–65, 183n23, 192n29; 3.12, 188, 194; 3.14, 52n7; 4.1, 86; 4.2, 189n24; 4.5, 58n28; 4.10, 41n27; 5.1, 52n7, 55n21, 192n29; 5.5, 58n28, 66, 192; 5.10, 61, 65; 5.11, 58n28; 5.12, 52n7

PlatoPhaedrus, 145n12, 147, 151–54,

236 Symposium, 145n12, 147, 158–60 Timaeus, 79Plautus Captivi, 178n37 Miles Gloriosus, 113n21Pliny Natural History 33.11.52, 110Propertius

Poems 1.1, 69n5, 74; 1.3, 74n20; 1.6, 69; 1.7, 23, 69, 105n2; 1.8, 69n5, 74; 1.9, 105n2; 1.12, 69n5; 1.13, 69n5; 1.16, 123–41, 183n12; 1.17, 123–41; 1.18, 123–41; 1.20, 68; 2.1, 69–70; 2.10, 69, 70n11; 2.13, 70n11; 2.15, 24, 29n30, 74; 2.24, 70n11; 3.3, 69–70; 3.4,

105n2; 3.5, 70, 85, 105n2; 3.7, 69n5; 3.9, 69; 3.11, 69n5; 3.15, 68, 70; 3.23, 120n43; 3.24, 69n5, 70, 121; 3.25, 121; 4.1, 70; 4.4, 68; 4.5, 121, 182n7; 4.7, 179n39; 4.11, 164–79

PrudentiusPeristephanon 1, 227–28; 2, 228,

232; 3, 229; 4, 229; 6, 230; 8, 230; 11, 223–40

QuintilianInstitutio Oratoria 4.5.24–25, 238–

89; 5.11.6, 165–67; 8.5.27, 238; 11.1.21, 170n16

Sappho Fragment 130, 148–49, 153–55Seneca Phaedra, 232Suetonius Augustus 99, 178n36Sulpicia

Poems 3.1–6, 253; 3.8–18, 106n4, 243–56; 3.19, 251

Terence Heauton Timorumenos, 112n20Tibullus

Poems 1.1, 69, 182n7, 196, 199–204, 208, 214, 216, 218; 1.2, 183n12, 205–6, 208; 1.3, 69n5, 69n6, 207–9, 214; 1.4, 208; 1.5, 208–11; 1.6, 211–15; 1.7, 202n12; 2.5, 68, 70, 70n9, 85, 202n12; 2.6, 69–70, 214–17; 3.7, 85

Velleius Paterculus History of Rome 2.3.4, 173Vergil

Aeneid 2, 168; 4, 87–88; 6, 37, 168; 7, 37

Georgics, 2.323–35, 194n31


��

absence, 22–23, 31, 40, 74, 80, 88n6, 89, 91, 111, 123, 132, 137, 169

action, 3–4, 9–10, 25–30, 35–36, 39, 42n29, 44, 61, 75, 80, 82, 87, 95–96, 112, 123–25, 133, 136, 140, 144, 149, 158, 166n3, 167n7, 172, 184, 203, 204n16, 206, 209–10, 211n24, 212–14, 245

actor, 1n1, 7, 35–36, 39, 92, 95n30, 107, 108n11, 137. See also character

addressee, 23, 73n17, 74–76, 88, 107n6, 108, 112n19, 117n31, 118–19, 124, 126, 134, 180, 186–87, 208, 243, 245, 252–54. See also narratee

Alcyonae, 135–36, 138–39allegory, 114, 115n30, 119n38, 179anachronism, 167analepsis, 66, 93, 101. See also flashbackanti-narrative, elegy as, 3–4, 90n10apostrophe, 29n30, 125, 131, 169,

179n40, 205, 211–12Ariadne, 23n17, 89, 92–94, 99–101,

127, 136–37Aristotle, 8–10, 35, 68n4, 167n7, 172,

218n29atemporality, 29, 80n42, 84, 220Augustine, Confessions, 68n4, 96, 125,

159n33Augustus, 60n33, 166, 176–78, 187,

191

authority, 2, 11, 89, 128, 145, 151–52, 239

autobiography, 159n33, 161n38autodiegetic, narrator, 11, 180, 195

Bal, Mieke, 1, 5n16, 6, 8, 10–11, 13, 35–37, 39, 68n1, 92, 94–95, 107n7, 108n11, 125n10, 165, 167n7, 180, 181n3

Barthes, Roland, 5n16, 10, 19, 22, 24, 36, 44, 108, 144–45, 156–57, 162, 211n24, 239n43

beginnings, 3, 9, 13, 36–37, 39, 44–45, 53–55, 58, 73, 76, 90–91, 131, 135, 149, 165, 166n6, 169, 178, 182, 186, 193–94, 209, 224, 228, 230–32, 235, 237–38

bifurcation, 109bipartite, narrative, 105, 134n25Briseis, 87, 91, 100Brooks, Peter, 7, 19, 20, 21–24, 28–29,

30n33, 31, 32, 33, 44, 246n21

Callimachus, 2, 80n45, 125n8, 231Calypso, 76, 84, 91, 136–37Canace, 90, 94Catullus, 93–94, 99, 124n4, 127, 130,

136, 171n19, 242, 253n41Cerinthus, 4, 106n4, 242, 244–46, 248,

250, 251–55

General Index <


gENErAL INdEx��0

character, 2–4, 5n13, 7, 11–12, 27, 35n6, 36n12, 37, 40, 63, 76, 86, 95n30, 96–98, 107, 108n9, 109, 111–16, 118–19, 121–22, 124–25, 127, 170, 172–73, 180–81, 183, 190, 193–94, 204n16, 211, 218n27, 220, 252, 253n40. See also actor

chronology, 3–5, 34, 55, 57–58, 60, 66, 68, 70, 80n42, 91–92, 98, 142n3, 155, 242

circularity, 2, 85, 197, 218climax, 21, 44–45, 160closure, 2, 7, 20, 29, 30–32, 45, 58,

77n32, 84, 85n63, 121, 167, 197, 217, 242, 247, 250n34, 256

comedy, 112, 178commemoratio, as narration, 165, 166n3,

167, 172commentary, 43n33, 118, 121n46, 142,

198, 244–47, 250, 252, 255–56communication, 88, 107–8, 110–11,

114–15, 123–24, 126, 130, 133, 179

complaint, 74n20, 90, 126–30, 132, 189, 192, 215

configuration, narrative, 4, 8, 12, 52–54, 56–57, 65–66, 70, 78, 95, 129, 136

conflict, 69, 71, 106n3, 123, 124n4, 132, 135–37, 145, 147, 155, 187, 198–99, 211n24

confrontation, 36, 39, 41, 53, 185–86, 194, 233

consummation, 7, 20, 24–26, 28, 30, 213, 246, 247n28, 255

continuity, 3, 10, 34n1, 51n2, 56, 63, 66, 90, 95, 105, 111, 182

continuum, 2–3, 6, 95–96contract, 22, 80–82, 84Corinna, 4, 8, 24–30, 32, 34, 36, 38,

39, 40–44, 46, 85, 97, 106, 109n14, 110–11, 114n25, 116–20

Cornelia, 11, 165–79counterfactual, narrative, 9, 86, 97, 99,

101Creusa, 168crisis, narrative, 13, 88, 92–96Cynthia, 2, 4, 38, 51, 68, 70, 74, 85,

120n43, 121, 124n3, 127, 131–34, 136–39, 141, 172–73, 179n39

death, 2, 20, 67, 81, 93, 100, 123, 124n3, 134–38, 142, 167, 174–79, 187, 191–92, 204, 217, 223, 225–26, 228–29, 231–33, 235, 237. See also death drive

death drive, 20, 28n27deictics, 27, 57, 131, 170, 171n19delay (mora), 7, 9, 20, 24–25, 28, 40, 41,

42n29, 44, 61–62, 66, 69n5, 69n6, 73–74, 76–80, 84, 87–88, 211n24

Delia, 2–4, 38, 51n3, 85, 198, 202–14, 217, 220

description, 1, 6–7, 24–26, 29, 32, 33n42, 37, 39, 41–44, 55, 60, 65, 78, 79n40, 109, 111, 120n43, 127, 135, 138, 148, 153–54, 173, 188, 191, 194, 202, 207, 213–14, 223–24, 229, 234, 237

desire, 7, 11, 13, 19–28, 30–32, 44–45, 68, 71, 79, 97, 106n3, 117n31, 131, 136, 146–47, 149, 153, 158–60, 162, 194, 199, 201, 205–6, 242, 256

detour, narrative, 20, 24, 31dialogue, 10, 53n15, 59, 88, 117n33,

124, 126–27, 131, 147, 169, 170n16, 179n41, 183, 187, 210n22, 232

diary, as narrative, 243, 245, 255–56Dido, 87, 89, 94, 98–99Diotima, 158–60diptych, 105–22discontinuity, 55, 58, 60, 62–63, 65, 90dislocation, 8, 60, 63, 167distance, 59, 88n6, 117n33, 123, 127,

130, 156–57, 178, 189dream, 40, 124, 170, 196, 199, 202–6,

208–9, 214, 218–20duality, 59n30, 175duplicity, 109–10, 115, 121duration, 4, 21, 53, 68, 242–43

eavesdroppers, 2, 124, 256economy, narrative, 40, 59n31


gENErAL INdEx ��1

ego, elegiac, 4, 23, 27, 29, 32, 35n7, 124, 131, 161, 253

ekphrasis, 43, 93–94, 223, 233–35, 237, 239

elegy. See meterembedded narrative, 113n21, 126, 129,

134, 203emplotment, 12, 69, 245. See also

mythos; plotenclosure, 9, 83endings, 90n15. See also closureepic, 1, 5, 9, 36–37, 40n23, 43n34, 46,

52, 59n31, 70, 72n16, 85–86, 87n5, 91, 92n20, 93, 115n30, 124–26, 129, 130–32, 135–36, 138, 141, 157, 161, 207, 208

epigram, 4, 72n17, 110, 125, 137, 168n10, 170, 204n15, 230

epistle, 86–95, 99, 161, 193, 245, 254. See also epistolarity

epistolarity, 111epyllion, 93Eros, 20, 32, 44n37, 72n17, 148–49,

153–54, 158–59, 161erotics, 19–33, 44–46, 66, 69, 71,

73–74, 85n61, 89, 106n4, 109n14, 110, 112–13, 115–18, 121–22, 142, 149, 151, 152, 154–58, 160, 203, 231

erotodidaxis, 10, 74n19, 76, 79, 142–43, 146–47, 161, 185n15

event, 1, 3–4, 8–9, 12–13, 28–30, 34–47, 52–53, 55–56, 58–60, 66, 68–70, 74n21, 82, 89–92, 95–98, 101, 106n3, 113, 125, 127–28, 134–35, 137–38, 156–57, 159–60, 171n20, 172, 174, 185n16, 193, 198–99, 202, 204, 206–8, 210, 212–17, 220, 223n4, 237, 242–43, 246n21, 248, 251–52, 254

exclamation, 27, 29, 30, 135–36, 249exemplum, 9, 11, 80n42, 165–79, 214exile, 2, 5n15, 8, 41n27, 51–67, 81, 86,

180–95external narration, 2, 87, 92n20, 144,

198–200, 206, 208, 210–11, 214–17, 219–20, 242

fabula, 35–38, 40, 43–45, 47, 68n1, 80, 91, 95n30, 96–97, 107, 108n11, 111, 116, 118, 166

feminist, criticism, 11, 79n37, 241n3film, 36, 42flashback, 58. See also analepsisflashforward. See prolepsis.focalization, 1–2, 7, 11, 36–37, 41, 167,

170, 181formalism, 10, 19–20, 165–66, 174fragmentation, 3–5, 8, 13, 34, 37,

42, 44, 51–67, 90, 96, 144, 148, 223–40, 243–44, 246

framing, 2, 23–24, 34, 39, 41–44, 52–54, 63, 65, 87n2, 92, 119, 124, 126, 129–31, 134–35, 143, 146–47, 155, 161, 165, 169, 170, 172–74, 198, 204, 207, 209, 229, 253

Freud, Sigmund, 7, 19–20, 22, 31, 44n37, 79n37, 140, 199

futurity, 9, 28, 45, 53n15, 70n9, 74, 86, 88–90, 92–97, 99–101, 125–26, 133, 139, 175, 177–78, 201, 204n16, 207, 211, 232

Gallus, 127, 129n13, 134gaps, in narrative, 8, 26, 34, 43–47, 56,

58, 60, 88–90, 92n20, 95–98, 165, 179, 255

gender, 10–11, 34, 39, 72–78, 81n46, 89n8, 108n12, 118n34, 121n46, 127, 136, 139–40

Genette, Gérard, 1, 5n16, 8, 13, 35–37, 52–53, 55n21, 56–58, 60n32, 61, 125n10, 141, 165, 167n7, 180, 181n3, 198, 252n40

genre, 1–4, 7–9, 23, 34, 37–38, 41, 46, 51–53, 66, 69–70, 87, 89, 107n8, 111–12, 114, 122, 125, 130, 143n7, 161, 167–70, 172, 175–76, 179, 204–5, 230–31, 244–45, 254

gnomic present, 27. See also tensegrammar, 6, 20, 78, 144, 145n11,

198–99, 202, 204

happy ending, 13, 89, 203, 246, 248–50Helen, 152–53, 157–58, 202


gENErAL INdEx��

heterodiegetic (authorial) narration, 107n6, 116

Hippolytus, 99, 223–40history, 1, 3, 38, 53, 71, 73, 75–76,

79, 84, 89, 92–93, 96–101, 128, 135, 144–45, 149, 158–59, 176, 199, 202, 218–20, 244–45. See also counterfactual

Homer, 9, 37n15, 86–89, 99, 125, 135, 138, 152–53, 157, 207

homodiegetic (first-person) narration, 11, 52, 66, 107–8, 116, 180, 182, 188, 195

Horace, 9, 129n14, 173n24, 175n31, 196–98, 229, 232

hyper-subjunctive, 218

identity, 2, 42, 76, 82, 106–7, 115, 117n31, 118n36, 119, 144, 157, 167–68, 170, 172, 226n9

ideology, 43, 165–79, 199imagery, 13, 35, 40n24, 59–60, 63, 65,

76n27, 119n38, 120, 129n15, 139imitation, 35, 166n3, 177–78inaction, 196, 206, 211inscription, 82, 133, 134n23, 168,

170–72, 175–76, 178–79, 204n15, 225, 230, 234–35, 237n40, 239

intended audience (reader), 124, 126, 131–32

interaction, 12, 20, 60, 76, 106n5, 117n33, 198, 204–8, 210–11, 213, 219, 241n2

internal audience, 38internal narrative, 180, 195, 198, 200,

210, 214–17, 220intertextuality, 31, 62–63, 93, 97, 101,

130, 136–37, 140, 181–83, 219, 231. See also master narratives

Janus, 180–93journey, 8, 20–21, 32, 54–56, 60–62,

65, 72n17, 124n3, 156, 180, 190

Kermode, Frank, 12, 69n8, 99, 101knowledge, 21–26, 30–33, 89, 113,

116–17, 146–47, 158, 185, 195, 227

Kristeva, Julia, 65n41, 71–85, 143–48

lament, 23, 70, 126–27, 131, 134, 136, 198, 204, 207

landscape, 121, 125, 128, 218law, 131n17, 158–59, 170–72, 175–79Law, Lacanian, 174levels, of narration, 2, 7, 11, 26, 53–54,

58–59, 62, 66, 106–7, 109, 115, 117, 137, 141, 168, 172, 195, 225, 240, 242–43, 245, 247, 252, 255–56

liminality, 10, 124, 130, 141linearity, 2, 4, 9, 10, 34, 43–44, 46,

52–56, 58, 61–62, 65–66, 68–73, 75, 77–78, 81–84, 99, 144, 159–60, 167, 210

linking, 3, 8, 34–35, 37, 41, 43, 45–47, 52–53, 62, 72n16, 78–79, 85, 110, 119, 140, 144, 171–72, 175, 187, 231, 243, 250–51, 254

Livy, 101, 166love, 2n2, 3–7, 9–13, 20, 22–24, 32,

46n39, 68–77, 84–85, 106n4, 111–12, 115, 117, 121, 123, 127, 129, 132, 133–36, 138–41, 142–62, 185, 206, 209, 211, 214, 241, 243, 246, 247n28, 248, 250, 251–56

lover’s discourse, 22, 24, 144, 145n11, 148

lyric, 4, 6n19, 125, 167

Marathus, 203, 208, 220master narratives, 9, 86–87, 91, 92n20,

95n30, 96, 123, 178, 198, 203. See also intertextuality

memory, 55n22, 65–67, 86, 96, 127, 131, 154, 179, 198, 203, 207, 210n22, 213, 227

Messalla, 69, 203, 220, 244metanarrative, 40metaphor, 20, 25, 28–29, 32, 38, 41,

111, 115, 122, 133, 138n34, 148, 190, 231–32, 234, 238

metapoetics, 105–22metonymy, 28–29meter, 2, 13, 46, 204, 216, 229–32


gENErAL INdEx ��

militia amoris, 84, 128, 138mimesis, 10, 22, 242monologue, 53, 58, 90, 124, 131n17mood, 36n12, 55n19, 144, 198–202,

215, 220morality, 11, 13, 52, 63, 145n11, 146,

157, 166, 169, 172–77, 243, 247, 249, 250n34, 251–52, 256

mourning, 81, 169, 172, 189, 192, 204movement, 4, 7, 9, 19–21, 28–30,

40–45, 53, 61, 65, 68–87, 91–92, 96, 99–100, 108, 121, 127–28, 135, 139, 148, 156, 158–60, 165–68, 170–71, 181, 187, 189, 203, 210, 211n24, 237, 251

Mulvey, Laura, 11Myrrha, 77–78, 80myth, 1, 5n13, 37, 55, 62–63, 80–81,

84, 94, 130, 134–35, 137, 140–41, 191

mythos (plot), 9

Nape, 105–22narratee, 35, 107n6, 242–43, 252,

253n40, 254narrator, 1n1, 7–8, 10, 22–23, 27–28,

35–36, 38–47, 52–62, 66, 92n20, 98, 107n6, 124–27, 131–41, 146, 157, 180, 182, 188, 190–95, 242, 252, 255–56. See also autodiegetic; heterodiegetic; homodiegetic

novel, 1, 3, 5, 23, 25, 31, 52, 111n18, 145n11, 244–45, 251, 254

now, of narration, 27, 29–30, 54, 60–61, 80, 88–89, 94, 100, 109, 128, 130–31, 151, 155, 157, 161, 167, 181, 206, 209, 211, 254

objectification, 108, 118n36Oenone, 99oscillation, 61, 161, 202n12Ovid, 1–3, 5, 7, 16–17, 19–47, 51–67,

68–102, 105–22, 129n14, 142–62, 175n31, 180–95, 231–32

paraclausithyron (exclusus amator), 66, 126, 129, 181, 184, 205

paradox, 20, 77n34, 111, 126, 133, 149, 154–55, 240n44

paraquel, narrative, 9, 86, 98past, of narration, 1, 10, 27–28, 30, 53,

59n30, 86–97, 101, 125–35, 151, 155–61, 168, 177–78, 195, 197, 207, 210, 213

Penelope, 73, 87–91, 94, 99, 101, 136–37, 207–8

persona, 121n46, 127, 133, 180, 185n15, 188–90, 195, 228n15

persuasion, 106–7, 165, 178philosophy, elegy and, 145–46, 152, 158Phyllis, 9, 23n17, 76, 80–58, 99place, 4, 5, 10–11, 22, 28, 43n34, 53,

56, 62, 65, 81–82, 95, 96n35, 98, 121, 123–31, 136, 139, 156, 167–68, 170–71, 181, 189, 192n29, 194, 208, 219–20

Plato, 1, 6, 13, 37n15, 71, 78–79, 114n27, 124, 142–62, 237–38

plot, 1–5, 8–9, 12–13, 19–20, 23, 28, 32, 35, 44n37, 54–61, 66, 69n7, 70, 87n2, 96n35, 98–99, 107, 112, 118, 122, 126, 130, 171n20, 172, 199, 200, 202–4, 207, 210–14, 217, 219–20, 232, 234, 245–49, 252, 254, 256. See also emplotment; mythos

poetics, 2, 7n20, 8, 10, 39n18, 41, 43, 51n2, 66, 90n15, 98, 105, 107, 108n12, 114–15, 119, 120n40, 121

point of view, 1, 13, 36, 52, 66, 69, 106n5, 107, 156, 170. See also focalization

praxis, 9. See also actionpregnant moment, 86, 92–95present, of narration, 1, 10, 27–28, 30,

37, 53, 56, 57–61, 86–101, 111, 125, 132–35, 149, 155, 157, 159, 161, 169, 183, 195, 201, 203, 205–6, 208–13, 220

Prince, Gerald, 6, 35, 113n23, 253n40progress, narrative, 4, 19, 21, 27, 59n31,

69, 71, 72n16, 73–76, 80, 82, 84, 91, 190, 199, 210, 211n24, 217

prolepsis, 94, 101. See also flashforward


gENErAL INdEx��

Propertius, 2–5, 7n20, 24, 29n30, 51n3, 68, 69n5, 70, 72, 74, 105n2, 120n40, 120n43, 121, 123–41, 165–80, 230

Prudentius, 223–40psychoanalysis, and story, 7, 19, 31–32,

125, 140, 149, 153, 246n21. See also Freud; Lacan; Kristeva

Quintilian, 13, 165–69, 170n16, 178, 237n38, 238, 239n43

reader, intended. See intended audience (reader)

reality effect, 4, 24, 29, 34, 84, 118, 188–89, 214–16, 218, 220, 247n28

reception, 11, 52, 69n8, 108, 145–46, 175, 223–240, 241–56

recusatio, 69, 132, 167renarrativization, 89repetition, 2, 9, 51n2, 52, 59, 62, 65–66,

71, 75, 78–80, 82, 85, 107n8145n11, 162, 172, 174, 178, 197,

209–10, 219, 249, 251res gesta (content), 165–67resistance, 70, 173, 200, 233retardation, of narrative, 9, 21, 72n16retrospective, 12, 28, 90retrospective narration, 55, 56, 59n30,

61, 155, 157reversal, 136, 139–40, 143n4, 152–54,

182, 218Ricoeur, Paul, 1, 8, 12, 68n4, 69, 78, 84,

95–96, 219–20role-play, 10, 22, 43, 70, 72n16, 74, 76,

83, 106n5, 107, 109–10, 112–19, 134, 152n21, 172n21, 178, 184, 253n40. See also mimesis

rumor, 115n30, 247–48

Sappho, 90, 125, 139, 148–49, 153–54script, 106, 112–13, 119, 121, 178seduction, 3, 23, 74, 78, 149seeing, 32, 36. See also focalizationsegmentation, 40, 51–67self, narrated, 3–4, 7, 20, 27–29, 31,

53n15, 92, 106–7, 114n26, 117n31,

118–19, 121, 133, 141, 144, 159n33, 177, 211

sequence, narrative, 4–6, 13, 29–30, 35n5, 38, 52–53, 59–60, 68, 71, 105, 107n6, 108, 158–61, 194, 213, 242, 246, 247n28, 251, 256

sideshadowing, 101–2situation (narrative), 39, 51n2, 53,

58, 106, 124, 126, 130–35, 139, 141, 149, 167–68, 174, 197, 201, 242–43, 252–56

snapshots, 8, 34, 42–47, 126Socrates, 146–47, 151–56, 237–38soliloquy, 10, 124–26, 131, 134–35,

138–41, 243, 256space, and narrative, 2, 9, 35, 56, 60, 63,

65–66, 71–72, 78–81, 84, 86, 88, 91, 98, 125, 128, 135, 150, 167, 169, 194, 237

speaker, 5, 11, 70, 71, 107n6, 124–27, 131, 135–36, 148–49, 168, 170, 177, 180, 184, 190, 192, 237, 242, 252–53

speech, 11, 24, 46, 55, 57, 59, 63n37, 70, 75, 78, 83, 85, 100, 111, 114, 118n34, 121n46, 124–29, 131, 134–35, 141, 143–45, 147–48, 151–56, 158–59, 160n35, 167–72, 174–79, 184, 194, 215, 227, 233, 237, 242, 252

stasis, 76, 78structuralism, 10, 20, 140, 144n9, 241n2structure, and narrative, 2, 5n15, 9, 13,

19–22, 31–32, 35–36, 52–53, 70, 80, 91n16, 107, 111, 124n3, 132, 134, 143–47, 150–51, 154–55, 157–59, 162, 174–75, 178, 188, 191, 197n5, 198, 210, 211, 214, 217, 220, 228, 240, 241, 246n23

subjectivity, 9, 12, 42, 53–55, 66, 71, 75, 78–79, 125, 139, 165–220

sujet, 166Sulpicia, 3, 106n4, 241–55syncopated, narrative, 53syntax, 9, 29, 78, 82, 199, 202

teleology, 2, 30, 34, 69, 71, 72n17, 73–74, 78, 84, 158. See also telos


gENErAL INdEx ��5

telos, 4, 7temporality, 2, 5n17, 7–8, 10, 12, 19,

27–30, 51–102, 106n3, 125–28, 133, 135, 155, 157–59, 161, 168, 171–72, 208n19, 219–20, 251

tense, 27–29, 56–57, 61, 82, 88n7, 149, 205–6, 242

tension, 3, 19, 25, 31–32, 35n7, 71, 73, 78, 88–89, 143, 151, 200

testimony, 54, 137, 171textuality, 20, 24, 34, 38, 44n37, 52–54,

56–57, 60, 63, 66, 90, 111, 145, 151, 175, 241n2, 247

Tibullus, 2–3, 7n20, 51n3, 69n5, 70n9, 72, 106n4, 196–220, 243, 245–47, 250–51, 253–55

time, 2–4, 8–12, 19–20, 27, 29, 31–32, 35, 40n22, 42, 53, 55–66, 68–85, 86–102, 107, 111, 120, 123–28, 130–31, 136, 139–40, 149, 156–58, 162, 167–71, 178, 180–82, 184–85, 187, 190, 192, 194–95, 209, 211, 217–20, 225, 227, 229, 247–52; line, 91; women’s, 68–85. See also temporality

timespan. See durationtragedy, 9–10, 35, 46, 70, 114n24, 135,

161transition, narrative, 35–36, 53n15,

59n30, 156, 161, 169

translation, 82, 112, 243–47, 252–55

unity, 2–4, 9–10, 29, 60, 63–64, 110, 144n9, 167n7, 172, 225–26, 234, 240

ventriloquism, 89n8, 107n8viewpoint, 3–4, 28, 53–54, 58, 61, 63,

66. See also focalizationVirgil, 40n23, 46, 86, 99, 127, 129n13,

130, 134, 229voice, 4, 13, 22, 29–30, 36n12, 69, 105,

107, 118n34, 126–27, 133, 143, 152, 167–70, 173, 179, 188, 214, 228–29, 242, 253–54

voyeurism, 2, 38, 45

wishes, 44–45, 66, 71, 84, 101, 106, 113, 117n31, 120, 138, 157, 172, 176, 198–203, 206–8, 211, 214–18, 243, 250–51, 254–56

women, 2, 4, 8–9, 42–43, 68–85, 86, 92, 117n31, 142n1, 161, 192n30, 245, 254. See also time, women’s

writing, 22, 29–30, 51, 53, 55n22, 56–57, 62, 66n42, 67, 83, 87–89, 91–93, 100, 106, 108–11, 113n22, 115–18, 121, 131n18, 144, 146, 151–52, 159, 161, 168, 171, 176–78, 235, 238, 245, 250
