Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2013
For Stefania
The Amazon's son
Two things distinguish Phaedra's from the other letters in Ovid's Heroides. In the first place, Phaedra's is not a letter without consequences. On the contrary, it will have a decisive effect on the addressee. But above all, Phaedra's letter is important just as a letter. The very fact of Phaedra's writing a letter touches a fundamental point in the story, and a controversial one. In the Heroides problems of communication are important in themselves, but, after the gratuitous letters by Penelope, Phyllis and Briseis, this is the first (and it will remain the only one) in which the complication always caused by an epistolary intrusion into the body of the story is superimposed on a pre-existent problem. Phaedra's declaration of her love to Hippolytus is a crucial point, a turning-point for the various tragic treatments of the history. Ovid adds problem to problem.
1. For the ironic prefiguration realized through the use by the heroine of elegiac metaphorical expressions destined to find a literal (and tragic) fulfilment both in the future of the story and in the continuation of the model-text, see Casali, S., ‘Enone, Apollo pastore e l'amore immedicabile’, MD 28 (1992) 85ff.Google Scholar; ‘Tragic irony in Ovid, Heroies 9 and 11’, CQ n.s. 45 (1995)Google Scholar, forthcoming, and P. Ovidii Nasonis Heroidum Epistula IX: Deianira Herculi, edited by Casali, S. (Florence 1995)Google Scholar via the index s.v. prefigurazione ironica.
2. See Jacobson, H., Ovid's Heroides (Princeton 1974) 176Google Scholar. See also Barchiesi, A., ‘Riflessivo e futuro. Due modi di allusione nella poesia, ellenistica e augustea’, Aevum Antiquum 5 (1992) 211–12Google Scholar.
3. Cf. Jacobson (n. 2) 147; Rosati, G., ‘Forma elegiaca di un simbolo letterario: la Fedra di Ovidio’, in Atti delle giornate di studio su Fedra (Torino 1985) 115Google Scholar.
4. For the grid of relationships between VIGOR and VIRGO, see Maltby, R., A lexicon of ancient Latin etymologies (Leeds 1991)Google Scholar s.vv. ‘vir’, ‘virago’, ‘virgo’, ‘virtus’, ‘vis’. For the paradoxical paronomastical combination uir/uirgo, cf. e.g. Verg. Aen. 1.493 audetque VIRis concurrere VIRgo; 11.676–7 quotque emissa manu contorsit spicula VIRgo, | tot Phrygii cecidere VIRi; Ov. Am. 3.12.28 ambiguae captos VIRginis ore VIRos; Her. 6.133 turpiter ilia VIRum cognouit adultera VIRgo; 21.116; Met. 4.681–2; 13.740; Fast. 5.621. Particularly paradoxical is Ars 3.23 ipsa quoque et cultu et nomine femina Virtus.
5. On the androgyny of the Amazons (ἀντιάνειϱαι ever since Hom. Il. 3.189, 6.186 and στυγάνοϱες ever since Aesch., Prom. 724Google Scholar) there exists a vast literature. See especially Tyrrell, W. Blake, Amazons. A study in Athenian mythmaking (Baltimore and London 1984) 76–85Google Scholar (‘liminality’ of the Amazons, and esp. 84–5 on Hippolytus' ‘liminality’) and 88–112 (89: ‘They are hybrids, androgynous monsters, neither male, nor female’).
6. Thus I see an element of wishful sexual allusion e.g. in 73 rigidum; 77 rigor, 85 duritiam. Similar illusions, destined also to be frustrated, may be seen in 75–6 sint procul a nobis iuuenes ut femina compti; | fine coli modico forma uirilis amat. Cf. Jacobson (n. 2) 150 ‘The obviously erotic symbolism at 91f., arcus (et arma tuae tibi sunt imitanda Dianae) | si numquam cesses tendere, mollis erit, is a humorously witty counterpoint to the character of Hippolytos.’
7. Cf. Devereux, G., The character of the Euripidean Hippolytos: an ethno-psychoanalytical study (Chico, California 1985) esp. 28–32Google Scholar.
8. As to Hippolytus' mother, see Barrett, W. S., Euripides: Hippolytos (Oxford 1964) 8–9Google Scholar. Antiope: Hyg. Fab. 30; 241; 250; Sen. Phaedr. 227; 927–9; Plut., Thes. 26Google Scholar; 28; Diod. 4.28; Paus. 1.2.1; 1.41.7; Tz. ad Lycophr. 1329. Hippolyte: Stesich. PMG fr. 193.25–6 Page; Argum. Eur. Hipp.; Clidemus and Simonides (ap. Plut., Thes. 27Google Scholar; [Apollod.] Epit. 1.16); Isocr. O. 12.193. Melanippe: ‘someone’ ap. [Apollod.] Epit. 1.16.
9. E.-A. Kirfel is on the wrong track when he gives examples of puella referring to married women (Untersuchungen zur Briefform der Heroides Ovids (Bern/Stuttgart 1969) 93)Google Scholar. Jacobson's is a better approach: see (n. 2) 147 n. 13. For puella as a signal of genre, see Barchiesi, A., P. Ovidii Nasonis Epistulae Heroidum 1–3 (Florence 1992) on Her. 1.3Google Scholar.
10. On the importance of the ‘hereditary backgrounds’ in the Euripidean Hippolytus, Winnington-Ingram, R. P., ‘Hippolytus: a study in causation’, in Entretiens Hardt 6: Euripide (Geneva 1960) 169–91, esp. 175–6Google Scholar, is clear and concise.
11. Call. Hymn. 1.8; cf. Am. 3.10.19 Cretes erunt testes; nec fingunt omnia Cretes; Ars 1.298 non hoc [Pasiphae's love for the bull] … | quamuis sit mendax, Creta negare potest; Otto, A., Sprichwörter … (Leipzig 1890, repr. Hildesheim 1967) 98Google Scholar. Phaedra's Cretan origin is stressed again in line 163 est mihi dotalis tellus Iouis insula, Crete: | seruiat Hippolyto regia tota meo: see below.
12. See A. De Franciscis, EAA 3.612; P. Linant de Bellefonds, LIMC 5.1.460ff.; Kalkmann, A., De Hippolytis Euripideis quaestiones novae (Bonn 1882) 65ffGoogle Scholar.
13. See further arguments in defence of perlege, sed in Hunt, J. M., CP 70 (1975) 223–4Google Scholar. Kenney, E. J., HSCP 94 (1970) 176–7Google Scholar has proposed qui legis et, and this is also the reading given by Dörrie (Berlin/New York 1971); see also Jacobson (n. 2) 152 n. 24. The most recent emendation is by Watt, W. S., RFIC 117 (1989) 62Google Scholar, who suggests only a slight change in punctuation: perlegis? et. Of course, the irony does not disappear even if we read qui legis: but the repetition of the verb perlegere seems to me to be much more effective. The fact that the following epistle (Oenone to Paris) begins with perlegis is not a strong argument against reading a form of perlego here.
14. Rosati (n. 3) 123–31.
15. See Jacobson (n. 2) 153.
16. Rosati (n. 3) 122–9.
17. Where the current etymology of Iuppiter from iuuare is parodically reworked: Enn. ap. Varro Ling. 5.65 (= Trag. 359–60 Jocelyn); Cic. Nat. deor. 2.64 Iuppiter, id est iuuans pater, quem, conuersis casibus, appellamus a iuuando Iouem; Gell. 5.12.4; see Maltby (n. 4) s.v. For another punning reference to this etymology in Heroides, cf. 11.17–18 quid IUVat admotam per auorum nomina caelo | inter cognatos posse referre IOVem? For other instances, see McKeown, J. C., Ovid: Amores, I. Text and Prolegomena (Liverpool 1987) 49Google Scholar.
18. For clarus applied to heavenly bodies in Ovid, cf. e.g. Her. 18.151; 19.34; Met. 4.664; 8.178; 15.190; Trist. 5.3.42; Ib. 109–10; Pont. 2.2.10; TLL 3.1271.72ff.; to Aurora: Stat. Theb. 6.25; cf. Cic. Arat. 66 Aurora … clari praenuntia Solis. clarus also hints at the notoriety of the myth of Cephalus. Compare Ars 1.731–2 pallidus in Side siluis errabat Orion; | pallidus in lenta Naide Daphnis erat. As Hollis remarks ad loc. (Oxford 1977), ‘Orion the great hunter and Daphnis the shepherd might be expected to have a sunburned complexion.’ Does pallidus hint at the lack of notoriety of the stories referred to (see again Hollis: ‘the two legends referred to are exceedingly obscure’)?
19. The narrative of the Ars does not mention Aurora, but Cephalus' affair with her is clearly presupposed (sometimes ironically) by means of the mentions of aura: cf. above all 3.701 Procris, ut accepit nomen, quasi paelicis, Aurae: the name aura was indeed ‘almost the name’ of a rival of hers. Also because ab … aura dicitur Aurora (Prisc. Gramm. 3.509.28). Given the importance of Dawn in Procris' story, it seems difficult to resist the implication that Procris' last words have a double meaning: ante diem morior (739): Procris dies young, ‘before her time’, but dying ante diem she dies just at dawn.
20. Cf. [Apollod.] 3.14.4 
.
21. In Met. 10.503ff. Orpheus narrates Myrrha's transformation into a tree and subsequently the difficult delivery of Adonis. When the child is born, his beauty is described in this way: laudaret faciem Liuor quoque; qualia namque | corpora nudorum tabula pinguntur Amorum, | talis erat, sed, ne faciat discrimina cultus, | aut huic adde leues, aut illi deme pharetras (515–18). Adonis looks like a small Eros: the son of the incest between Myrrha and her own father is compared with the son of Venus, whose lover he (Adonis) will be (cf. 525ff.). He who was born from the union of a daughter with her own father cannot be distinguished from the son of his own future mistress.
22. There is an analogous prefigurative pun in Met. 8.325–6 hanc [sc. Atalanta] pariter uidit, pariter Calydonius heros | optauit renuente deo flammasque latentes | hausit. The point is noted by Hollis (Oxford 19832) ad loc; Bömer's (Heidelberg 1977) scepticism is, as usual, inopportune. Compare also 7.554–5: in the context of the plague of Aegina a physical flamma latens is associated with torreri viscera, and both expressions are later used of Meleager (8.516–17 uritur et caecis torreri uiscera sentit | ignibus – here too pace Bömer). In 8.516–17 there is a straining of metaphorical erotic language (cf. e.g. Rem. 105 interea tacitae serpunt in uiscera flammae). For an explicit pun of this kind see Fast. 3.545–6 arserat Aeneae Dido miserabilis igne, | arserat extructis in sua fata rogis (cf. Lyne, R. O. A. M., Words and the poet (Oxford 1989) 23 n. 11)Google Scholar. But Ovidian examples may be multiplied. For a similar pun about Semele and Zeus, remember Prop. 2.30.29 ut Semela est combustus [sc. Iuppiter!].
23. Cf. [Apollod.] Epit. 1.17 (the Amazon was killed by Theseus and his guests at the very moment when the marriage of Theseus and Phaedra was being celebrated; ‘however, some say that she was slain in battle by Theseus’); Plut. Thes. 28.1 (according to the author of the Theseis Antiope fought against Theseus because he had married Phaedra); Pind. fr. 175; Pherec. fr. 151 in FGrH 1 A 98; Hellanicus fr. 166 in FGrH 1 A 145; Istrus fr. 10 in FGrH 3 B 171. According to Diod. 4.28, Antiope died fighting gallantly by Theseus’ side against the Amazons who had invaded Attica.
24. Pausan. 1.2.1; 1.41.7; on the various Amazons’ graves, of perennially controversial attribution, μαϱτύϱια of the battle against the Amazons, cf. Plut., Thes. 27Google Scholar.
25. On this issue, see Massimilla, G., ‘L'Elena di Stesicoro quale premessa di una ritrattazione’, PP 45 (1990) 370–81Google Scholar.
26. On Oenone's ignorance, see Casali (n. 1) 85ff.
27. According to Serv. Aen. 2.636, Varro in the Antiquitates rerum humanarum (fr. 10 Levi) narrated that the Greeks had offered some Trojans the chance of leaving Troy and of taking with them one thing of their choosing: Aeneas chose his father; on being given a second choice, he chose the Penates; after this, he was allowed to carry away all he wanted. This is more or less the story narrated in Aelian Var. hist. 3.22; cf. [Xen.] Cyn. 1.15. But nowhere is there a reference to Aeneas' taking Creusa away with him. See Casali, S., ‘Altre voci nell'Eneide di Ovidio’, MD 35 (1995), forthcomingGoogle Scholar.
28. With regard to the irony in the references to bulls, see Jacobson (n. 2) 155; Barchiesi (n. 2) 212 n. 6.
29. See the discussion of the complicated and paradoxical consequences of Zeus's assertion in Barchiesi, A., Il poeta e il principe. Ovidio e il discorso augusteo (Bari 1994) 169–70Google Scholar.
