Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T21:44:15.051Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Poet and the Procuress: The Lena in Latin Love Elegy*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2012

K. Sara Myers
K. Sara Myers
Affiliation:
The University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper investigates the figure of the lena in the elegies of Tibullus (I.5; II.6), Propertius (IV.5), and Ovid (Amores I.8). While each poet treats the character of the lena in importantly different ways, each has in common a deep interest in contrasting his own position as both lover and poet with the activities of the lena, a bawd or procuress. All three poets curse the lena, denouncing primarily her malevolent magical powers, her carmina, which are directed against them and their carmina. The lena not only preaches an erotic code which in its emphasis on remuneration and the denigration of poetry directly opposes that of the poet-lover, she also usurps his role as instructor and constructor of the elegiac puella. It is the elegiac poet's prerogative to describe and construct the elegiac mistress. By usurping his role as praeceptor, the lena threatens the poet with both sexual and literary impotence. It is precisely because the lena challenges the male poet-lover's control over these terms that she is such a potent enemy; the woman with a pen, as Pollack writes in The Poetics of Sexual Myth, ‘threatens to undermine a system of signification that defines her both as vulnerable and as victim’. If the elegiac mistress can be said to play a more masterful role as domina in Roman love poetry than in conventional Roman ideology, it must nevertheless be qualified with the reminder that she only plays a role constructed for her by elegy's first-person narrator who demands complete control over the discourse of their relationship, of the rules of the amatory game.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 86 , November 1996 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © K. Sara Myers 1996. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The texts referred to throughout are: for Tibullus, Postgate, J. P., Tibulli Aliorumque Carminum Libri Tres (Oxford, 1915)Google Scholar; for Propertius, Fedeli, P., Sexti Properti Elegiarum Libri IV (Teubner, 1984)Google Scholar; for Ovid, McKeown, J. C., Ovid Amores. Volume I: Text and Prolegomena (1987)Google Scholar. The translations in this paper are my own and aim only at clarity.

2 Pollack, E., The Poetics of Sexual Myth. Gender and Ideology in the Verse of Swift and Pope (1985), 7.Google Scholar

3 Hallet, J., ‘The role of women in Roman elegy’, Arethusa 6 (1973), 103ffGoogle Scholar. See Betensky's, A. responses in Arethusa 6 (1973), 267–9Google Scholar; 7(1974), 217–19.

4 Kennedy, D., The Arts of Love: Five Studies in the Discourse of Roman Love Elegy (1993), 74Google Scholar: ‘The lover's discourse emerges as an incessant attempt to control, to mould, to construct’.

5 Wyke, M., ‘The elegiac woman at Rome’, PCPS 33 (1987), 167Google Scholar.

6 Gutzwiller, K., ‘The lover and the lena: Propertius 4.5’, Ramus 14 (1985), 153–78Google Scholar.

7 For arguments supporting this order, see Courtney, E., ‘Three poems of Propertius’, BICS 16 (1969), 80–1Google Scholar; Williams, G., Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry (1968), 545Google Scholar. Fedeli, P., Properzio elegie libro IV. Testo critico e commento (1965), xxviGoogle Scholar, agrees with Luck's, G. arguments in ‘Das Acanthisgedicht des Properz’, Hermes 83 (1955), 428–38Google Scholar, for an early composition date of Propertius IV. 5. Tränkle, H., Die Sprachkunst des Properz und die Tradition der lateinischen Dichtersprache (1960), 140–1Google Scholar, argues on the basis of metrical and linguistic features for a late date, see also Lefèvre, E., Propertius Ludibundus (1966), 100–8Google Scholar. See also the discussion of Am. 1.8 by McKeown, J. C., Ovid: Amores Vol. II. A Commentary on Book One (1989), 200–1Google Scholar. The situation is obviously made more difficult by the two editions of the Amores; on this see most recently McKeown, op. cit. (n. 1), 74–89. I will not be discussing the figure of the lena in Ovid, Am. III. 5.39–40.

8 For parallels see the commentaries of Fedeli and McKeown, ad locc. See Neumann, R., Qua ratione Ovidius in amoribus scribendis Properti elegiis usus sit (1919), 106–22Google Scholar, Tränkle, op. cit. (n. 7), 105–8, Courtney, op. cit. (n. 7), and Labate, M., ‘Tradizione elegiaca e società galante negli Amores’, SCO 27 (1977), 283–339Google Scholar, for comparisons of the two poems.

9 The numerous textual difficulties of the poem have not made the construction of the dramatic situation any easier, see M. Hubbard, Propertius (1975), 137–42.

10 McKeown, op. cit. (n. 1), 22, points out that Corinna speaks a total of only six words in the collection at Am. II.18.8; another mistress speaks briefly at III.7.77–80.

11 Ovid's and Propertius' poems have frequently been dismissed as generic set-pieces, e.g. W. Camps, A., Propertius Elegies Book IV (1965), 96Google Scholar, ‘genre piece’; Sullivan, J. P., Propertius: A Critical Introduction (1976), 138Google Scholar, ‘Alexandrian exercise’.

12 cf. Leo, F., Plautinische Forschungen2 (1912), 146–8Google Scholar; Day, A. A., The Origins of Latin Love-Elegy (1938), 90–101Google Scholar. See on the figure of the lena, Oeri, H. G., Der Typ der komischen Alten in der griechischen Komödie seine Nachwirkungen und seine Herkunft (1948)Google Scholar; Gutzwiller, op. cit. (n. 6), 106–7. Yardley, J. C., ‘Propertius 4.5, Ovid Amores 1.6 and Roman Comedy’, PCPS 33 (1987), 179–89Google Scholar, and MacL, H.. Currie, , ‘Ovid and the Roman Stage’, ANRW II.31.4 (1981), 2729–40Google Scholar, both argue for the importance of Roman Comedy as a direct source of inspiration for the elegists. Henderson, J., ‘Older women in Attic Old Comedy’, TAPA 117 (1987), 105–29Google Scholar, traces the bawd type back to Archilochus 112. The Dialog, meretr. of Lucian also contain similar topics and types, esp. 3, 6, 7, 8.

13 Griffin, J., Latin Poets and Roman Life (1985), 114–15.Google Scholar

14 ibid., 115.

15 Wheeler, A. L., ‘Erotic teaching in Roman elegy and the Greek sources, Part I’, CP 5 (1910), 447–50Google Scholar; cf. ‘Part II’, CP 6 (1911), 56–77Google Scholar.

16 Courtney, op. cit. (n. 7), 82, takes Propertius' lines as a direct reference to the Thais of Menander as his source. At Rem. 385–6 the figure of Thais is used by Ovid to define the very nature of the subject of his erotic elegies: ‘Thais in arte mea est’. For some background to the elegists’ references to Menander, see Fantham, E., ‘Roman experience of Menander in the late Republic and early Empire’, TAPA 114 (1984), 299–309Google Scholar.

17 Dawson, C. M., ‘An Alexandrian prototype of Marathus?’ AJP 67 (1945), 1–15Google Scholar; Bulloch, A. W., ‘Tibullus and the Alexandrians’, PCPS 19 (1973), 78–80Google Scholar.

18 McKeown, J. C., ‘Augustan elegy and mime’, PCPS 25 (1979), 79Google Scholar. On the staging of elegy as mime or pantomime, see Ovid, Tr. II.519–20; Fantham, E., ‘Mime: the missing link in Roman literary history’, CW 82 (1989), 159Google Scholar.

19 McKeown, Intro, to Am. I.8; Courtney, op. cit. (n 7), 82–3.

20 As Wyke, op. cit. (n. 5), 165, observes.

21 See especially the recent work of Wyke, M., ‘Reading female flesh’, in Cameron, A. (ed.), History as Text (1989), 113–43Google Scholar; ‘Written woman: Propertius' scripta puella’, JRS 77 (1987), 47–61Google Scholar, ‘Mistress and metaphor in Augustan elegy’, Helios 16 (1989b), 25–47Google Scholar, and Veyne, P., Roman Erotic Elegy. Love, Poetry, and the West, trans. Pellauer, D. (1988)Google Scholar. Cf. Kennedy, op. cit. (n. 4), 83–100, on the historicism/textualism bind.

22 McGinn, T. A. J., ‘Prostitution and Julio-Claudian legislation: the formation of social policy in early imperial Rome’, unpub. dissertation, University of Michigan (1986)Google Scholar. See also, Hermann, A. and Herter, H., s.v. ‘Dirne’, RAC III (1957), 1149–213Google Scholar; Herter, H., ‘Die Soziologie der antiken Prostitution im Lichte des heidnisches und christlichen Schriftums’, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 3 (1960), 70–111Google Scholar; Gardner, J. F., Women in Roman Law and Society (1986), 129–33, 250–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On infamia, see Greenidge, A. J. H., Infamia: Its Place in Roman Public and Private Law (1894), 173ff.Google Scholar; on the lena, Digest XXIII. 2.43.6: ‘Lenocinium facere non minus est quam corpore quaestum exercere. Lenas autem eas dicimus, quae mulieres quaestuarias prostituunt’.

23 See Griffin, op. cit. (n. 13), 26–8; Lyne, R. O. A. M., The Latin Love Poets from Catullus to Horace (1980), 8–18Google Scholar, for the picture of a ‘demi-monde’, Treggiari, S., Roman Marriage. Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian (1991), 302–7Google Scholar, reviews and confirms the evidence for such a world in Cicero's mentions of Volumnia Cytheris, in Sallust's Sempronia, and in Augustus’ legislation. For cautions against the uncomplicated ‘historicity’ of such women, see Wyke, op. cit. (n. 21, 1989b); Paul, G. M., ‘Sallust's Sempronia: the portrait of a lady’, PLLS 5 (1985), 9–22Google Scholar, on Sempronia as a rhetorical stereotype, ‘an exemplum of social degeneracy’; cf. Delia, D., ‘Fulvia reconsidered’, in Pomeroy, S. (ed.), Women's History, Ancient History (1991), 197–217Google Scholar. Brown, P. G. Mcc, ‘Plots and prostitutes in Greek New Comedy’, PLLS 6 (1990), 247–8Google Scholar, argues that frequently no distinction can be made between the terms hetaira and porne.

24 Konstan, D., Sexual Symmetry: Love in The Ancient Novel and Related Genres (1994), 151–9Google Scholar; Veyne, op. cit. (n. 21); Conte, G. B., ‘Love without elegy: the Remedia Amoris and the logic of a genre’, Poetics Today 10.3 (1989), 441–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See Sullivan, op. cit. (n. 11), 91–106, for a psychological (‘Dirnenliebe’) explanation of the elegiac situation.

25 Veyne, op. cit. (n. 21), 85, passim.

26 Adams, J. N., ‘Words for prostitute in Latin’, RhM 126 (1983), 344–50Google Scholar. For the status of the mistress of elegy as a married woman, see, e.g., Williams, op. cit. (n. 7), 528–54; as meretrix, see, e.g., W. A. Camps, Propertius Elegies Book I (1961), 6.

27 On III.1, see Wyke, op. cit. (n. 21, 1989), 119–34. See also Grimal, P., Les intentions de Properce et la composition du livre IV des Élégies (1953), 40–6.Google Scholar

28 Gutzwiller, op. cit. (n. 6); Wyke, op. cit. (n. 5), 166.

29 cf. Scapha's warnings of desertion at Most. 196ff. She makes explicit the parallel between herself and her daughter: ‘tibi idem futurum credo’ (202). The motif of the old age of the ‘courtesan’ can be found in much ancient poetry, see Smith, K. F., Commentary on Tibullus (1913), ad Tib. 1.6.77f.Google Scholar; Sharrock, A., Seduction and Repetition in Ovid's Ars Amatoria 2 (1994), 39–42Google Scholar.

30 Gutzwiller, op. cit. (n. 6), in; Lefèvre, op. cit. (n. 7), 101. Cf. Prop. II.18a.19–20, where the poet is trying to convince his mistress to love him in his old age!

31 Veyne, op. cit. (n. 21), 63. For verbal echoes between IV.5 and IV.7, see Burck, E., ‘Zur Komposition des vierten Buches des Properz’, WS 79 (1966), 416–18Google Scholar; Papanghelis, T. D., Propertius: A Hellenistic Poet on Love and Death (1987), 165–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Warden, J., Fallax Opus: Poet and Reader in the Elegies of Propertius (1980), passim.Google Scholar

32 See Richlin, A., ‘Invective against women in Roman Satire’, Arethusa 17 (1984), 67–80Google Scholar; eadem, The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor (1992), 109–16; Gutzwiller, op. cit (n. 6), 113 n. 6; Oeri, op. cit. (n. 12); Grassman, V., Die erotischen Epoden des Horaz (1966), 1–46.Google Scholar

33 Richlin, op. cit. (n. 32, 1984), 71; Bremmer, J. N., ‘The Old Women of Ancient Greece’, in Blok, J. and Mason, P. (eds), Sexual Asymmetry (1987), 204Google Scholar. Cf. Falkner, T. M. and de Luce, J. (eds), Old Age in Greek and Latin Literature (1989)Google Scholar; Rosivach, V., ‘Anus: some older women in Latin literature’, CW 88 (1994), 107–17Google Scholar.

34 Winkler, J. J., The Constraints of Desire (1990), 90.Google Scholar

35 Richlin, op. cit. (n. 32, 1984), 72.

36 cf. esp. Epodes 5, 7 12, Sat. 1.8. See Luck, op. cit. (n. 7), 435–7, on the similarities between Canidia and Acanthis. On Tibullus’ curses, see Oppenheim, D. E., ‘APAI (zu Tibull 1.5)’, WS 30 (1908), 146–64Google Scholar. Compare, unusually, Juvenal's abuse of old men at Satires 10.190–209.

37 See Wyke, M., ‘Augustan Cleopatras: Female Power and Poetic Authority’, in Powell, A. (ed.), Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus (1992), 98–14.Google Scholar

38 See A. E. Hanson, ‘The Medical Writers' Woman’, 333, and Carson, A., ‘Putting Her in her Place: Women, Dirt, and Desire’, 138Google Scholar, both in Halperin, D. M., Winkler, J. J. and Zeitlin, F. I. (eds), Before Sexuality (1990)Google Scholar. Hanson, A. E., ‘The Restructuring of Female Physiology at Rome’, in Mudry, P. and Pigeaud, J. (eds), Les écoles médicates à Rome (1991), 266Google Scholar, discusses the theory of female hyper-sexuality. See Ars 1.281–2, 341–42 and Propertius III.19 for the proverbial statement of the greater intensity of the female libido.

39 Adams, op. cit. (n. 26), 333–5, cf. Isid., Orig. 10.163: ‘a rapacitate vocata’; Serv. ad Aen. III. 647: ‘dictae ab obscenitatis et odoris similitudine’.

40 See Carson, op. cit. (n. 38), 144, on charges of bestiality in rhetoric against women, again connoting lack of control; Oliensis, E., ‘Canidia, Canicula, and the Decorum of Horace's Epodes’, Arethusa 24 (1991), 111Google Scholar, on the prominence of dogs in the classical misogynist tradition. See Plautus, Curc. 110a-b, for the connection of old woman (Leaena), dogs, and drinking.

41 cf. the graveyard imagery of Horace, Epodes 5. See Richlin, op. cit. (n. 32, 1984), 71, on the theme of old women as corpses and see D. F. Bright's discussion of the parallels between the imagery of the curses against the lena in Tibullus 1.5 and his underworld in 1.3.67–82 (Haec Mihi Fingebam: Tibullus in his World (1978), 157). Artemidorus IV.24 records a dream in which old women signify death.

42 See on the strix, Smith, ad Tib. 1.5.52; Tupet, A.-M., La magie dans la poésie latine (1976), 376Google Scholar. Cf. Fasti VI.141f. for old women as striges and Festus 414.25–7: ‘maleficis mulieribus nomen inditum est, quas volaticas etiam vocant’.

43 See Richlin, op. cit. (n. 32, 1992), 148–50, on the connection of gastric and sexual hunger.

44 cf. Tib. 1.5.49–56; Prop, IV.5.2–4, 75–8. For similar curses against a lena, see Plautus, Most. 192f. For the question of whether or not Acanthis is meant to be understood as already dead at the end of Prop. IV.5, see Fedeli, op. cit. (n. 7), ad loc.; Shackleton Bailey, D. R., Propertiana (1967), 244Google Scholar; Goold, G. P., ‘Noctes Propertianae’, HSCP 71 (1966), 81–2Google Scholar; Williams, op. cit. (n. 7), 543–4.

45 The Phryne of Tibullus II.6 is from the Greek word for frog, but was also the name of a famous Greek courtesan who modelled for Apelles. For other names of prostitutes which carry similar associations, see Borthwick, E. K., ‘A “femme fatale” in Asclepiades’, CR 17 (1967), 250–4Google Scholar, on A.P. V.162 (Asclepiades) where an hetaira is compared to a viper, and Theocritus, Id. 10.17–18 where Milon's mistress is compared to a mantis (which Gow, ad loc., warns may only refer to her thinness, as there is no evidence that the mantis' mate-killing habit was known).

46 cf., e.g., A.P. VII.315, 320, 536; Courtney, op. cit. (n. 7), 80. There may also b e a verbal play with her name in Acanthis' mention of the withered roses of Paestum in ll. 61–2: ‘vidi ego odorati victura rosaria Paesti/sub matutino cocta iacere Noto’ (cf. Ars III.67–8).

47 See Oeri, op. cit. (n. 12), 13ff., 39ff., on the literary topos. Cf., on the bibulousness of lenae, Plautus, Cist. 120f., 149 (on Syra), ‘multiloqua et multibiba’. For other names of prostitutes suggesting alcoholism, see A.P. VII.353, 455 (Maronis), 457 (Ampelis), 456; XI.409 (Silenis); Lucian, Dial. Meretr. 4 (Bacchis), 8 (Ampelis). See also Bremmer, op. cit. (n. 33), 201–2; Carson, op. cit. (n. 38), 137, on wetness of mind connoted by drinking as an intellectually deficient condition. Cf. Ars III.765: ‘turpe iacens mulier multo madefacta Lyaeo’; Rem. 805: ‘vina parant animum Veneri, nisi plurima sumas’; Prop. II.33b.33–4: ‘vino forma perit, vino corrumpitur aetas/vino saepe suum nescit amica virum’.

48 Dion. Hal. II.25.6; Pliny, Nat. XIV.89–90; Aulus Gellius X.23.1; Val. Max. VI.3.9 (Cato).

49 See Putnam, M. C. J., Tibullus: A Commentary (1973)Google Scholar, ad loc. Contrast the sexual imagery of Horace Epodes 8 and 12. On the connection between financial and sexual rapacity see Myerowitz, M., Ovid's Games of Love (1985), 119–20Google Scholar, who cites Millet, K., Sexual Politics (1971), 298Google Scholar. Zagagi, N., Tradition and Originality in Plautus: Studies in the Amatory Motifs in Plautine Comedy (1980), 109ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, also interestingly sees in Plautus an analogy between love and legal or commercial transactions.

50 Courtney, op. cit. (n. 7), 80–1, cf. McKeown, ad loc.

51 See Boucher, J. P., ‘A propos de Cérinthus et de quelques autres pseudonymes dans la poésie augustéenne’, Latomus 35 (1976), 511–13Google Scholar; Columella x.235f.; Plin., Nat. xx.263; TLL III.1059.81.

52 Oliensis, op. cit. (n. 40), 110, 120–2.

53 Carson, op. cit. (n. 38), 139–43. Old women's dryness of skin is a different matter (cf., e.g., Hor., Odes II.11.5–8, ‘arida… canitie’; Juv., Satires 6.145, ‘cutis arida’). Siccus is also a literary critical term connoting an unadorned style (OLD s.v. siccus) and is used occasionally of sexual frigidity, e.g. Ars II.686.

54 Carson, op. cit. (n. 38), 137 (on women and wetness), 139–43; Oliensis, op. cit. (n. 40), 120–35; Hanson, op. cit. (n. 38, 1991), 263 (on women's colder nature). See Edwards, C., The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome (1992), 174–5Google Scholar, on the association of wetness and luxury.

55 I follow the interpretation of 1. 17 suggested by Shackleton Bailey, op. cit. (n. 44), 241; see also Tupet, op. cit. (n. 42), 376. The text is very corrupt in ll. 63–4 and it is difficult to know whether the lines refer to the poet or the lena. A parallel may be Horace's emaciation as a result of Canidia's power in Epodes 17, on which see Oliensis, op. cit. (n. 40), 120. Lucilius 282–3M similarly connects old women and male impotence.

56 On water imagery and poetry, see Wimmel, W., Kallimachos in Rom (1960), 222–33Google Scholar; Kambylis, A., Die Dichterweihe und ihre Symbolik (1965), 23–30, 66–8, 98ff., 183–8.Google Scholar

57 The imputation of erotic magic to old women is again a conventional charge. Gager, J. G., Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World (1992), 89Google Scholar, speaks of the ‘systematic distortion’ of literary texts in their emphasis on women as initiators of amatory spells. On the connection of erotic power and magic, see Sharrock, op. cit. (n. 29), 84. Old women proverbially need aphrodisiacs because of their sexual undesirability, e.g. Martial XIII. 34. On the widespread stereotyping of women and old women as witches, see the remarks of Harris, G., ‘Furies, Witches, Mothers’, in Goody, J. (ed.), The Character of Kinship (1973), 145–59.Google Scholar

58 On these traditional magical powers, cf. Horace, , Ep. 5.12Google Scholar; Sat. 1.8; Tib. 1.2.41–6; 1.8.17–23; Verg., Ecl. VIII.64f., Juv., Satires 6.133–5. On the connection between prostitutes and magic, cf. Lucian, , Dial. Meretr. 1, 4, 8Google Scholar. For further parallels, see Smith, , ad Tib 1.2.41ffGoogle Scholar; Tupet, op. cit. (n. 42), 337–417; Luck, G., Hexen und Zauberei in der römischen Dichtung (1962)Google Scholar; Riess, E., ‘Études sur le folklore et les superstitions VIII: Les poètes élégiaques romains’, Latomus 2 (1938), 164–89Google Scholar. On the connection in Roman thought between poisoning and sexual misbehaviour, see Ad Her. IV.16.23, ‘mulieris ad omnia maleficia cupiditas una ducit’; Quint, V.11.39; Sen. Contr. 7.3 (18).6; F. Santoro L'Hoir, The Rhetoric of Gender Terms. ‘Man’, ‘Woman’, and the Portrayal of Character in Latin Prose (1992), 41. See Purcell, N., ‘Livia and the womanhood of Rome’, PCPS 32 (1986), 95Google Scholar, on the charge of poisoning as an inversion of the matrona's role.

59 Courtney, op. cit. (n. 7), 83, believes that the hippomanes is a poison in Propertius, but an aphrodisiac in Ovid. See Tupet, op. cit. (n. 42), 79–82, 377. For the topos of love as a poison, see Papanghelis, op. cit. (n. 31), 34. For the associations of the disease of eros and magic in Latin poetry, see Fauth, W., ‘Venena Amoris: die Motive des Liebeszaubers und der erotischen Verzauberung in der augusteischen Dichtung’, Maia 33 (1980), 265–82Google Scholar.

60 cf. Plin., Nat. VII.18, ‘feminas quidem omnes ubique visu nocere quae duplices pupillas habeant’. On double pupils as a possible sign of sexual voracity, as orgasms were said to be visible in the eyes, see Adams, J. N., The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (1982), 140, 143Google Scholar; Bramble, J. C., Persius and the Programmatic Satire. A Study in Form and Imagery (1974), 77 n. 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the pupula duplex, see Tupet, op. cit. (n. 42), 390–4; K. F. Smith, ‘Pupula Duplex’, in Studies in Honour of B. L. Gildersleeve (1902), 287–300; McDaniel, W. B., CP 13 (1918), 335–46Google Scholar.

61 Pollack, op. cit. (n. 2), 3. See Dixon, S., ‘The Enduring Theme: Domineering Dowagers and Scheming Concubines’, Dixon, S. and Allen, P. (eds), Stereotypes of Women in Power (1992), 210–Google Scholar 11, on the male reaction to female power: ‘defining it as illegitimate, unnatural, ridiculous’; cf. Henderson, J., ‘Satire writes “Woman”: gendersong’, PCPS 35 (1989), 61Google Scholar.

62 cf. on the similar contrast between the carmina of Circe and Canens in Met. XIV, Segal, C. P., Landscape in Ovid's Metamorphoses (1969), 65.Google Scholar

63 Sharrock, op. cit. (n. 29), 64. See her excellent discussion of ‘Love, Poetry, and Magic’ at 53–86, to which this discussion is indebted.

64 See especially the work of Gleason, M., Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome (1995)Google Scholar, and ‘The Semiotics of Gender: Physiognomy and Self-Fashioning in the Second Century C.E.’, in Halperin, D. M., Winkler, J. J. and Zeitlin, F. I. (eds), Before Sexuality (1990), 389–415Google Scholar. Modern studies of gender, such as the work of Judith Butler, also emphasize the importance of gender performance.

65 Edwards, op. cit. (n. 54), 63ff.

66 ibid., 35–6, 43–7, 53; Treggiari, op. cit. (n. 23), 211.

67 Wyke, op. cit. (n. 21, 1989b), 27, and eadem, ‘In pursuit of love, the poetic self and a process of reading: Augustan poetry in the 1980s’, JRS 79 (1989), 165–73Google Scholar; Gold, B. K., ‘“But Ariadne Was Never There in the First Place”: Finding the Female in Roman Poetry’, in Rabinowitz, N. Sorkin, and Richlin, A. (eds), Feminist Theory and the Classics (1993), 75–101Google Scholar; Henderson, J., ‘Wrapping up the case: reading Ovid, Amores 2.7 (+ 8) I’, MD 27 (1991), 39, 63Google Scholar.

68 See esp. Bramble, op. cit. (n. 60), 16ff., 59–62; Kennedy, op. cit. (n. 4), 58–63; Richlin, op. cit. (n. 32, 1992), 2–13. On the related use of cosmetic metaphors for rhetoric, see Wiseman, T. P., Clio's Cosmetics (1979), 3–8Google Scholar and Wyke, M., ‘Woman in the Mirror: The Rhetoric of Adornment in the Roman World’, in Archer, L. J., Fischler, S. and Wyke, M. (eds), Women in Ancient Societies (1994), 134–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Gleason, op. cit. (n. 64, 1995), 75 n. 90, ‘in antiquity judgements about speech were sexualized because speech was an essential variable in the social construction of masculinity’.

69 As much recent work has argued, see e.g. Kennedy, op. cit. (n. 4), 17–18; Freudenberg, K., ‘Horace's satiric program and the language of contemporary theory in Satires 2.1’, AJP III (1990), 187–203Google Scholar; Buchan, M., ‘Ovidius Imperamator: beginnings and endings of: love poems and empire in the Amores’, Arethusa 28 (1995), 53–85Google Scholar. See Fitzgerald, W., ‘Power and impotence in Horace's Epodes’, Ramus 17 (1988), 176–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar, on Horace's expression of his feelings of inadequacy in relation to a standard of masculinity.

70 Note also the play on numerus in III.7.18, 26. Keith, A. M., ‘Corpus Eroticum: elegiac poetics and elegiac puellae in Ovid's Amores’, CW 88 (1994), 38Google Scholar, reads III.7 as ‘a metaphorical dramatization of disengagement from the elegiac project’.

71 See esp. Edwards, op. cit. (n. 54), on ‘Mollitia’, 63ff.

72 Kennedy, op. cit. (no. 4), 32; Edwards, op. cit. (n. 54), 93. See Adams, op. cit. (n. 60), 21, on arma as penis.

73 Konstan, op. cit. (n. 24), 182. See Fitzgerald, W., ‘Catullus and the reader: the erotics of poetry’, Arethusa 25 (1992), 419–43Google Scholar, on Catullus 16 and the power relations between poet and reader. A paradox is already built into the cinaedus position: the effeminate man as highly sexed, cf., e.g., Juv., Satires 6.O 25, ‘hic erit in lecto fortissimus’.

74 See on this strategy of the elegiac pose, Gutzwiller, K. J. and Michelini, A. N., ‘Women and Other Strangers: Feminist Perspectives in Classical Literature’, in Hartman, J. E. and Messer-Davidow, E. (eds), (En) Gendering Knowledge (1991), 66–84.Google Scholar

75 On the masculinity manifested by the iambic vis, see Quint, X.1.60 on Archilochus: ‘plurimum sanguinis atque nervorum’; cf. Fitzgerald, op. cit. (n. 73), 186; Oliensis, op. cit. (n. 40), 122; Henderson, J., ‘Suck it and see (Horace, Epode 8)’, in Whitby, M., Hardie, P. and Whitby, M. (eds), Homo Viator. Classical Essays for John Bramble (1987), 105–18, esp. 109–10Google Scholar. On Priapus as the central figure through which to read Roman invective (i.e., the phallic threat) see Richlin, op. cit. (n. 32, 1992), 58–9, 113, 118–21, 140–1. Even modern critics betray the persistence of the association of invective and virility; Elder, J. P., ‘Tibullus: Tersus atque Elegans’, in Sullivan, J. P. (ed.), Critical Essays in Roman Literature (1962), 102Google Scholar, calls them ‘robust, enjoyable’; Papanghelis, op. cit. (n. 31), 167, speaks instead of ‘an unflinching realism applied to the anile condition’.

76 On the sexual connotations of caprificus, see Buchheit, V., ‘Feigensymbolik im antiken Epigramm’, RhM 103 (1960), 218–23Google Scholar, on Martial Ep. IV.52, where he argues the term suggests the membrum virile and the lasciviousness of the caper (cf. Hor., Epod. 10.23: ‘libidinosus … caper’). Note Priapus in Hor., Sat. 1.8.1 is made of fig (ficulnus). Bramble, op. cit. (n. 60), 90–4, points to the commonplace association of the wild fig with fissures in tombs as another form of penetration (e.g. Horace, Epodes 5; 17; Mart, X.2.9, and obviously relevant to Prop, IV.5), and to the fact that the word also connotes sterility (Plin., Nat. XV.79f.; Juv. 10.144–5). His image of the caprificus representing an impotent paedicator in Persius, Sat. 1.24–5 might also fit nicely with the context of Propertius IV.5. For more on the sexual imagery of the fig, see Adams, op. cit. (n. 47), 113–14.

77 Kennedy, op. cit. (n. 4), 73.

78 Conte, op. cit. (n. 24), 444–6, speaks of a ‘transcodification of values’; cf. Labate, M., L'arte di farsi amare: modelli culturali e progetto didascaslico nell'elegia ovidiana (1984), 30, 41f.Google Scholar

79 For this argument, see Gutzwiller, op. cit. (n. 6), 108.

80 Stroh, W., Die römische Liebeselegie ah werbende Dichtung (1971), 215–16Google Scholar, traces the ‘antimusische Hetärenphilosophie’ back to New Comedy.

81 See Cairns, F., Tibullus: A Hellenistic Poet at Rome (1979), 8–9Google Scholar, 20–4; Luck, G., The Latin Love Elegy (1959), 88–9Google Scholar; Wimmel, W., ‘Apollo-Paupertas: zur Symbolik von Berufungsvorgängen bei Properz, Horaz und Calpurnius’, in Forschungen zur römischen Literatur. Festschrift zum 60Google Scholar. Geburtstag von Karl Büchner (1970), 291–7; McKeown, intro. ad Am. 1.10.

82 Griffin, op. cit. (n.13), 112–18; Fedeli, P., ‘Properzio e L'Amore Elegiaco’, Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Properziani (1986), 286–7Google Scholar; Gutzwiller, op. cit. (n. 6), 110. Cf. Prop, III.7.1: ‘ergo sollicitae tu causa, pecunia, vitae’.

83 Kennedy, op. cit. (n. 4), 47, Conte, op. cit. (n. 24), 444.

84 Griffin, op. cit. (n. 13), 117; Boucher, J. P., Études sur Properce: problèmes d'inspiration et d'art (1965), 19Google Scholar. See further on the contemporary associations of otium André, J.-M., L'Otium dans la vie morale et intellectuelle romaine (1966), esp. 385ffGoogle Scholar.

85 Cairns, op. cit. (n. 81), 8–9, 20–4; Bramble, op. cit. (n. 60), 162ff.; Newman, J. K., Augustus and the New Poetry (1967), 375 n. 5Google Scholar; W. Wimmel, op. cit. (n. 56), s.v. paupertas; Cody, J. V., Horace and Callimachean Aesthetics (1976)Google Scholar; Mette, H. J., ‘Genus tenue und mensa tenuis bei Horaz’, in Oppermann, H. (ed.), Wege zu Horaz (1972), 220–4Google Scholar; Hardie, A., ‘Juvenal and the condition of letters: the seventh Satire’, PLLS 6 (1990), 169Google Scholar. cf., e.g., Prop. II.10.23–4; Horace, Sat. II.6. 1ff.

86 cf. Newman, op. cit. (n. 85), 375 n. 5.

87 On IV.4, see Wyke, op. cit. (n. 5), 163.

88 McKeown, ad Am. 1.8.62.

89 On the topos of poetry vs. gold in Greek and Roman poetry, see Smith, ad Tibullus 1.4.57–72; Cairns, op. cit. (n. 81), 37–8; Murgatroyd, P., Tibullus Elegies II (1994)Google Scholar, ad II.3.35–6; Stroh, op. cit. (n. 80), 214–15, s.v. carmina-munera Topik. See Pfeiffer's comments ad Call. fr. 193.17, where he cites additionally frr. 23.4,695.

90 For the rapacious mistress or puer see, e.g., Tib. I.4; I.9; II.3; II.4 (with Smith's parallels ad II.4.14); Prop. II.16; III.13; Am. I.10; III.8. See Garbarino, G., ‘Properzio e la “domina”: l'amore come dipendenza’, in Uglione, R. (ed.), Atti del convegno nazionale di studi su la donna nel mondo antico (1987), 181Google Scholar; Lilja, S., The Roman Elegists’ Attitude to Women (1978), 143ffGoogle Scholar. The avaricious meretrix is a common figure in comedy; on the economic realities behind the depiction of this figure, see Fantham, E., ‘Sex, status, and survival in Hellenistic Athens: a study of women in New Comedy’, Phoenix 29 (1975), 44–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schumann, E., ‘Zur sozialen Stellung der Frau in den Komödien des Plautus’, Das Altertum 24.2 (1978), 97–105Google Scholar.

91 On this aspect of elegy, see Stroh, op. cit. (n. 80); Conte, op. cit. (n. 24), 446 n. 10, 459.

92 Sharrock, A. R., ‘Womanufacture’, JRS 81 (1991), 44Google Scholar.

93 e.g. Richlin, op. cit. (n. 32, 1992), Edwards, op. cit. (n. 54); Wallace-Hadrill, A., ‘Pliny the Elder and man's unnatural history’, GR 37 (1990), 80–96Google Scholar.

94 McKeown, op. cit. (n. 1), 100, suggests convincingly that the contextual symmetry between Amores I.8 and III.8 is intended.

95 Debrohun, J., ‘Redressing elegy's puella: Propertius IV and the rhetoric of fashion’, JRS 84 (1994), 52 n. 53Google Scholar.

96 cf. Lyne, op. cit. (n. 23), 155, on Tibullus' use of the agricola ideal as a ‘re-deployment against the Roman establishment's thinking of a figure of the establishment's own moral mythology’.

97 See Zanker, P., The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (1988), 167ffGoogle Scholar.; Wallace-Hadrill, A., ‘The Golden Age and sin in Augustan ideology’, Past and Present 95 (1982), 19–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Murgatroyd ad Tib. II.3.67–8.

98 cf. Saturn's rule in Tib I.3.35–48: ‘non domus ulla fores habuit’ (43).

99 Propertius IV.5 appears immediately before Propertius' most Augustan poem, IV.6, and there are a number of verbal parallels between the two poems which suggest that the juxtaposition of these poems might bear some significance.

100 cf. Epist. I.18.3 on the use of the same figure, and see Griffin's, J. discussion of Horace and patronage in ‘Augustus and the Poets: Caesar qui cogere posset’, in Millar, F. and Segal, E. (eds), Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects (1984), 196–206Google Scholar. In Sat. 1.6 Horace disassociates himself from prava ambitio (51–2) and avaritia (68). In Epist. II.1.175–6 he seems to charge Plautus with venal motives: ‘gestit enim nummum in loculos demittere, post hoc/securus cadat an recto stet fabula talo’.

101 Wyke, op. cit. (n. 21, 1989b), 42; Fitzgerald, op. cit. (n. 73); Bernstein, M. A., ‘“O Totiens Servus”: Saturnalia and Servitude in Augustan Rome’, in von Hallberg, R. (ed.), Politics and Poetic Value (1987), 37–61Google Scholar, on Horace; Skinner, M. B., ‘Ego mulier: the construction of male sexuality in Catullus’, Helios 20 (1993), 107–30Google Scholar, on Catullus. White, P., Promised Verse. Poets in the Society of Augustan Rome (1993), 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar, conversely argues that the vocabulary of amicitia in poetry is far more prevalent than that of servility, (but compare his remarks on the use of the slavery metaphor on pp. 89–90). For the use of amicitia as an expression of the patron/client relationship, see Brunt, P. A., ‘Amicitia in the Late Roman Republic’, in The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays (1988), 351–81Google Scholar.

102 cf. Am. I.10.39: ‘turpe reos empta miseros defendere lingua’. Note Propertius' complaints in II.24a.5–7 about the charges of nequitia and infamia which he has incurred by associating with prostitutes.

103 Fitzgerald, op. cit. (n. 73), 432.

104 See Feeney's, D. review of White in BMCR 5.4 (1994), 347Google Scholar, and P. White's observations, op. cit. (n. 101), 63, that the Latin poets rarely mention either Greeks or grammatici. Edwards, op. cit. (n. 54), 17, suggests that ‘moralizing literature in general seems to have been produced by writers whose claims to being authentic elite were questioned’.

105 See Hardie, A., Statius and the Silvae: Poets, Patrons and Epideixis in the Graeco-Roman World (1983), 32–6Google Scholar, on the motif of the ‘greedy poet’, and idem, ‘Juvenal and the condition of letters: the seventh Satire’, PLLS 6 (1990), 201 n. 87; Thummer, E., Pindar: die isthmischen Gedichte Band I (1968), 82–3Google Scholar; Kurke, L., The Traffic in Praise: Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy (1991), 242–56Google Scholar.

106 He is probably referring in fr. 222 to Simonides who had a bad reputation in Antiquity for being an avaricious poet, cf. Arist., Pax 697f.; see Hardie, op. cit. (n. 105, 1990), 166–7. I follow the interpretation of SH 239 proposed by Bulloch, A. W., ‘A new interpretation of a fragment of Callimachus’ Aetia: Antinoopolis Papyrus 113 Fr.1 (b)’, CQ 20 (1970), 269–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 He will qualify this desire for a commission at 16.58f. See the discussion of Griffiths, F. T., Theocritus at Court (1979), 7–50.Google Scholar

108 On this passage see Hardie, op. cit. (n. 105, 1990), 166, Tandoi, V., ‘Il recordo di Stazio ‘Dolce Poeta’ nella Sat. VII di Giovenale’, Maia 21 (1969), 103–22Google Scholar.

109 White, op. cit. (n. 101), 4, 88–91. He points out that ‘what Horace's Tiresias says about courting rich old men in Satires 2.5 needs surprisingly few adjustments to fit Ovid's purposes in the Art of Love' (89). See also Gold, B., ‘The Master-Mistress of My Passion: The Lady as Patron in Ancient and Renaissance Literature’, in De Forest, M. (ed.), Woman's Power, Man's Game: Essays in Honor of Joy K. King (1993). 279–304.Google Scholar

110 See most recently, White, op. cit. (n. 101) and Millar, F., ‘Ovid and the Domus Augusta: Rome seen from Tomoi’, JRS 83 (1993), 7Google Scholar. On the anxieties of publication and poetry writing in Roman society, see e.g. Fitzgerald, op. cit. (nn. 69, 73).

111 Griffin, op. cit. (n. 100), 217 n. 43.

112 See similarly Zetzel, J. E. G., ‘The Poetics of Patronage in the Late First Century B.C.’, in Gold, B. K. (ed.), Literary and Artistic Patronage in Ancient Rome (1982), 87–102Google Scholar, on the rejection of patronage in Latin verse as a literary vehicle for the elevation of the value of poetry.

113 See Henry, M. M., Menander's Courtesans and the Greek Comic Tradition (1985), 29Google Scholar, on the role of the figure of the prostitute, often old, in Greek Old Comedy as the personification of ‘cheap and decadent versifying’.

114 Oliensis, op. cit. (n. 40), 110; Clayman, D. L., ‘Horace's Epodes VII and XII: more than clever obscenity?’ CW (1975), 55–61Google Scholar; Henderson, op. cit. (n. 61), 60.

115 On the elegiac mistress's form as a metaphor for the elegists' poetics, see especially Wyke, op. cit. (n. 21, 1989b). Cf. also Keith, op. cit. (n. 70); McNamee, K., ‘Propertius, Poetry, and Love’, and Fineberg, B. H., ‘From a Sure Foot to Faltering Meters: The Dark Ladies of Tibullan Elegy’, both in De Forest, op. cit. (n. 109), 215–48, 249–56Google Scholar.

116 See Bramble, op. cit. (n. 60), 34–59.

117 See Bramble, op. cit. (n. 60), 48–9, on the stylistic imagery of drink, and Knox, P. E., ‘Wine, water, and Callimachean polemics’, HSCP 89 (1985), 107–19Google Scholar.

118 See Bramble, op. cit. (n. 60), 59–62.

119 See Keith, op. cit. (n. 70), 30, OLD s.v. rarus.

120 See Olstein, K., ‘Amores 1.9 and the structure of Book I’, in Deroux, C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History (1980), 286–300Google Scholar, on some interesting connections between 1.8 and the surrounding poems.

121 For an interpretation of Satires 1.2 as having literary as well as moral dimensions, see Freudenberg, K., The Walking Muse: Horace on the Theory of Satire (1993), 193–8Google Scholar. Cf. Horace, Sat. 1.2.101 on the accessibility of prostitutes: ‘nil obstat’.

122 The image of thunder is Callimachean, Aet. I fr. 1.20. Cf. Prop, IV.8.55: ‘fulminat ilia oculis,’ where this verb describes Cynthia's eyes in a poem of Homeric associations.

123 McKeown, ad loc., points to Ecl. III.86: ‘nova carmina’.

124 cf. Call., Aetia fr.1.4. Ovid's curse against the lena involving winter and thirst is repeated in his curse of the swollen stream in Am. III.6.105–6, which is another literary Callimachean image, (on which see Courtney, E., ‘Some literary jokes in Ovid's Amores’, BICS 51 (1988), 20–3Google Scholar, and Suter, A., ‘Ovid, from image to narrative: Amores 1.8 and 3.6’, CW 83 (1989), 15–20Google Scholar). I would also compare the similar curses against the writing-tablets in Am. 1.12.7ff.

125 The MS reading arte is in many ways more appealing for my argument here, although it is usually rejected, see Fedeli ad loc.

126 On the argument for the retention of the suspected distich of IV.5.55–6, see Shackleton Bailey, op. cit. (n. 44), 242; Luck, op. cit. (n. 7), 430–3; Burck, op. cit. (n. 31), 417; Camps ad loc.; Fedeli, ad loc. It is considered an interpolation by many others, e.g. Tränkle, op. cit. (n. 7). On the connection between Coan versus and vestis, see Heyworth, S. J., ‘Notes on Propertius, Books III and IV’, CQ 36 (1986), 209–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who points also to Propertius II.1.5–6, III.9.44, and Call. fr. 532; Wyke, op. cit. (n. 21, 1989), 137, cf. Ross, D. O., Backgrounds to Augustan Poetry: Gallus, Elegy, and Rome (1975), 59 n. 2.Google Scholar

127 Goold, op. cit. (n. 44), 83–4: ‘exercebat opus tenebris, ceu blatta papyron/suffosamque forat sedula talpa viam’. Labate, op. cit. (n. 8), 337–9, defends the reading of the MS tradition, also retained by Fedeli: ‘exorabat opus verbis + ceu blanda perure +/ saxosamque forat sedula gutta viam’.

128 The threats from which the lyric poet escapes in Horace, Odes 1.17, which are figured similarly as wolves, snakes, and the dog star, might also programmatically represent iambic verse; cf. Davis, G., Polyhymnia: The Rhetoric of Horatian Lyric Discourse (1091), 82f.Google Scholar, on invective as a foil for lyric.

129 cf. Amores III.9.3–4: ‘flebilis indignos, Elegia, solve capillos:/ a nimis ex vero nunc tibi nomen erit!’ See also Brink, C. O., Horace on Poetry: The ‘Ars Poetica’ (1971), ad A.P. 75–8Google Scholar; Nisbet, R. G. M. and Hubbard, M., A Commentary on Horace, Odes Book I (1970), ad Odes 1.33.2Google Scholar; Hinds, S. E., The Metamorphosis of Persephone (1987), 103.Google Scholar

130 The term is Sharrock's, op. cit. (n. 92). Cf. Ars I.435:III.615.

131 See Downing, E., ‘Anti-Pygmalion: the praeceptor in Ars Amatoria, Book 3’, Helios 17 (1990), 237–49Google Scholar.

132 Conte, op. cit. (n. 24), 454; Courtney, op. cit. (n. 7), 84–5; Labate, op. cit. (n. 8), 308.

133 For lists of parallels and echoes, see McKeown, ad Am. 1.8, Sharrock, op. cit. (n. 29), 85–6.

134 On the erotodidactic element in Tibullus, Propertius, and Ovid see Wheeler, op. cit. (n. 15), 447–8; idem, ‘Propertius as praeceptor amoris’, CP 5 (1910), 28–40; Romano, E., ‘Amores 1.8: l'elegia didattica e il genre dell' Ars Amatoria’, Orpheus I (1980), 269–92Google Scholar.

135 On the stylistic mixture of Acanthis' speech between the loftiness of her opening and closing lines and the vulgarity of the bulk of it, see Tränkle, op. cit. (n. 7), 175–7 (‘In den gesamten Werken des Properz gibt es keine Stelle, die annähernd so tief in die Niederungen der Vulgärsprache hinabsteigt wie diese Verse’); Lefèvre, op. cit. (n. 7), 103–5; Puccioni, G., ‘L'elegia IV.5 di Properzio’, in Studi di poesia latina in onore di Antonio Traglia II (1979), 609–23Google Scholar; Gutzwiller, op. cit. (n. 6), 108–9; Luck, op. cit. (n. 7), 429–30.

136 On the identification of Ovid and Dipsas, see Labate, op. cit. (n. 8), 285–309, Sharrock, op. cit. (n. 29), 86.

137 See especially Conte, op. cit. (n. 24), 454–6, on irony.

138 Henderson, op. cit. (n. 67), 66; cf. Kennedy, op. cit. (n. 4), 69; Sharrock, op. cit. (n. 29), 86, on the elegiac narrator as seducer; Olstein, K., ‘Amores 1.3 and duplicity as a way of love’, TAPA 105 (1975), 241–58Google Scholar.

139 See T. Hillard, ‘On the Stage, Behind the Curtain: Images of Politically Active Women in the Late Republic’, in Garlick et al., op. cit. (n. 61), 53, on ‘the high price paid for a public profile’. Note Apuleius' charge that Lucilius prostituted two Roman boys by publishing their real names instead of using pseudonyms in his poetry (‘pueros directis nominibus carmine suo prostituerit’, Apologia 10).

140 For Venus as a praeceptrix amoris see Tib. 1.2.15–22; 1.8.5–6.

141 On this poetic figure, see Bramble, op. cit. (n. 60), 59–62; Connor, P. J., ‘Book despatch: Horace Epistles 1.20 and 1.13’, Ramus II (1982), 145–52Google Scholar; Fitzgerald, op. cit. (n. 73), 423; Harrison, S. J., ‘Deflating the Odes: Horace, Epistles 1.20’, CQ 38 (1988), 473–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Citroni, M., ‘I destinatori contemporanei’, in Cavallo, G., Fedeli, P. and Giardina, A. (eds), Lo spazio letterario di Roma Antica Vol. III (1990), 70Google Scholar; Pearcy, L. T., ‘The personification of the text and Augustan poetics in Epistles 1.20’, CW 87 (1994), 457–64Google Scholar.