Tears in Propertius, Ovid and Greek Epistolographers: Thorsten Fçgen

1
2
3
4 Tears in Propertius, Ovid and Greek Epistolographers
5
6 Thorsten Fçgen
7
8 Nec, tua si fletu scindentur verba, nocebit:
9 interdum lacrimae pondera vocis habent.
10 Ovid, Ex Ponto 3.1.157 – 158
11
12 Abstract:
13 In few literary genres of classical antiquity is the role of emotions as pronounced
as in Roman love elegy, which vividly portrays the feelings of its characters by
14
means of gesture, facial expression and tone of voice. In this context, the occur-
15 rence of tears and crying is particularly noteworthy. This contribution primarily
16 examines exemplary passages from Propertius and Ovid in which both men and
17 women are depicted as crying. The reasons for their tears vary. Thus, the analysis
18 of the narrative functions of tears within individual elegies assumes a prominent
place. It is shown that the motif of weeping is frequently devoid of weighty emo-
19
tional import and instead deployed for the sake of humour and levity. Apart
20 from an investigation of the context in which tears occur in Roman elegy, the
21 focus is on non-verbal elements and gender-specific differences that appear in
22 connection with crying. The paper concludes with some remarks on tears in
23 Ovid s Ars amatoria and Remedia amoris, followed by an excursus on the role
of crying in works by the Greek epistolographers Alciphron and Aristaenetus.
24
25
26
1. Introduction: Roman Love Elegy
27
28
Irrespective of how varied they appear in detail, the works of Roman love
29
elegists reveal certain common elements in structure and motifs, of which
30
the following may be mentioned. An elegiac “I”, who appears as the au-
31
thor,1 speaks of his experiences of joy and suffering in love, and to this
32
33
34 1 The poetic “I” is, however, in no way identical with the respective authors.
35 Scholars (e. g. Burck 1952: 166; Burck 1963: 89 and 93 n. 14) early rejected an
36 autobiographical interpretation of Roman love elegy in the manner in which it
37 can be found in an extreme form in Postgate (1901) in his commentary on Pro-
pertius, for example, or still consistently in Lyne (1980), albeit with occasional
38 caveats; a more compromising position has been taken by those who view
39 Roman elegy as a combination of poetry and truth (see e. g. Luck 1961: 103,
40 154, 194 – 195; see also Du Quesnay 1973: 2 – 3; Booth & Lee 2000: xii, xxiii).
Brought to you by | Oxford University

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/13/15 1:09 PM
180 Thorsten Fçgen
1 end always employs specific topoi which characterize the relationship be-
2 tween himself and the beloved. These motifs include, for example, love as
3 enslavement (servitium amoris), in which the beloved assumes the role of
4 the domina and the lover that of the slave (Copley 1947, Lyne 1979, Mur-
5 gatroyd 1981), or that of love as military service (militia amoris), in which
6 the lover withdraws from public battlefields and concentrates instead on
7 the private sphere (Murgatroyd 1975). Love gives rise to labores of a very
8 particular kind, extending to pain and illness (e. g. Burck 1952: 205 – 206;
9 Lilja 1965: 100 – 109). Such motifs2 are often interpreted as the expression
10 of a tendency opposed to the established socio-cultural conceptions and
11 value systems. Hallett (1973: 108 – 109) speaks justifiably of a “counter-
12 culture” (see the relativization in Holzberg 22001: 15 – 17, 21 – 27).
13 Roman love elegy is not, however, in any sense a completely inde-
14
pendent literary genre, but rather a particular form of the elegy which
15
is attested in the Greek-speaking world already from the seventh century
16
B.C. and which is not confined to an erotic content (see Holzberg 22001:
17
4 – 11; Booth & Lee 2000: xvii – xxv; Luck 1961: 24 – 42; Alfonsi & Schmid
18
1959: 1028 – 1038). The precise meaning of the term “elegy” (see Alfonsi
19
& Schmid 1959: 1027 – 1028) was already disputed in antiquity: the deri-
20
vation of the word 5kecor from 3 3 kćeim3 suggests its beginnings in the
21
dirge or lament. This folk etymology may have originated from the fact
22
that tomb epigrams in classical Greece were usually written in distichs,
23
which is also the typical metre of elegy. It is more probable, however,
24
25
that an elegy was a poem accompanied by flutes, an explanation which
26
27 In more recent research, the work above all of Wyke (1987: esp. 168, 170; 1989)
has led to this genre no longer being seen as a direct expression of real personal
28 experience. Wyke speaks of the beloved as a “poetic fiction” and a “written
29 woman”, who does not belong to the real love life of the poet, but merely to
30 the “grammar” of his poetry (e. g. Wyke 1989: 27, 35, 43; see Holzberg 22001:
31 2, 17 – 21, 28; Kennedy 1993: 83 – 100; with regard to Ovid, see Armstrong
32 2005: 46 – 48, 54 – 55, 66).
2 Other typical motifs of Roman elegy are listed together with text references in
33 the rather pedestrian work of M ller (1952). See further Kçlblinger (1971) as
34 well as the useful overviews of Booth & Lee (2000: xi – xv) and Lyne (1980:
35 65 – 81).
36 3 Sacerdos, Gramm. Lat. 6.509.31 Keil: elegiacum metrum dictum est, quod ee
37 sonat interiectionem flentis; further, Etymologicum Magnum 326.49 (ed. Thomas
Gaisford, Oxford 1848): 5kecor7 hq/mor b to?r tehme_sim 1pikecºlemor. eUqgtai d³
38 paq± t¹ 3 3 kćeim 1m to?r t²voir (…). See also Euripides, Iph. Taur. 144 – 147,
39 1091; Troad. 119; Hel. 185; further, Horace, Ars poet. 75 – 76 and Diomedes,
40 Gramm. Lat. 1.484.22 – 1.485.10 Keil.

Authenticated
Tears in Propertius, Ovid and Greek Epistolographers 181
1 results from the association of 5kecor with a Phrygian root meaning

2 “pipe” or “flute” (Armenian ełegn). Yet, although this disputed linguistic
3 interpretation4 makes it likely that, already in antiquity, elegy was not ex-
4 clusively conceived of as a lament, it cannot be denied that, in Roman
5 love elegy, lamentation and especially weeping assume a central role.
6 This occurs not only in relation to death, as Ovid weeps at the death of
7 Tibullus in Am. 3.9 – an occasion on which, immediately at the beginning
8 of the poem, Elegia personified is summoned, who, as Ovid remarks, is
9 appropriately designated as flebilis (Am. 3.9.3 – 4; cf. Her. 15.7: elegiae fle-
10 bile carmen).5 Rather, in Roman love elegy, there is weeping everywhere.
11 This is scarcely surprising, as the literary form inevitably lays considerable
12 weight upon the treatment of emotions.
13 In what follows, examples from the elegies of Propertius and Ovid
14
will be discussed, in which both men and women are represented as weep-
15
ing. The specific reasons for their tears in each case will be examined, as
16
well as the concrete verbal and non-verbal elements which accompany
17
their weeping. In this context, paralinguistic (e. g. slow or rapid speech,
18
broken voice, screaming, sighing) and non-vocal (e. g. facial expression,
19
various body movements such as tearing at one s hair or scratching
20
one s skin) aspects will be considered. It will also be analysed whether
21
weeping and the accompanying elements of non-verbal communication,
22
as expressed in Roman love elegy, display any gender-specific differences.
23
Particular attention will be paid to the narrative function of tears within
24
25
the selected elegies. It will be shown that, in many elegies, the motif of
26
weeping is stripped of its seriousness and deployed for humorous ends.
27 Following a section on Propertius and Ovid s elegies respectively,
28 Ovid s Ars amatoria and the Remedia amoris are briefly considered in re-
29 lation to the subject investigated in this paper. The discussion concludes
30
31 4 Chantraine (1990: 334) observed succinctly that the etymology of 5kecor is “in-
32 connue”, before summarizing the various attempts at definition in the earlier re-
search literature.
33 5 The fact that in Ovid s Am. 3.1, the again personified Elegia is designated in con-
34 trast to her rival Tragedy as levis does not contradict the beginning of Am. 3.9. In
35 Am. 3.1, it is a question of the principal difference between the two genres: trag-
36 edy entirely excludes lighter subjects; in contrast to tragedy, elegy is not charac-
37 terized by consistent thematic and stylistic seriousness (Am. 3.1.35: gravibus ver-
bis) and sublimity (Am. 3.1.39: sublimia carmina; cf. 3.1.48: supercilio … tuo),
38 which does not mean that it cannot assume a more serious tone. When the fri-
39 volity, otherwise typical of elegy, recedes, the difference between it and tragedy
40 is still one of degree, in terms of both language and content.

Authenticated
182 Thorsten Fçgen
1 with an excursus on the role of tears in the Greek epistolographers Alci-

2 phron and Aristaenetus.
3
4
2. Propertius
5
6
The motif of weeping belongs to the standard inventory of Graeco-
7
Roman literature for the description of the power of Eros. Thus, in
8
elegy 1.12, Propertius observes parenthetically that Eros has pleasure in
9
tears (1.12.16: non nihil aspersis gaudet Amor lacrimis). It is inevitable,
10
then, that the entire existence of lovers will be depicted as scarcely
11
happy: immediately at the beginning of the first book of elegies, the
12
lover describes himself as miser (1.1.1: Cynthia prima suis miserum me
13
cepit ocellis), and thereby mentions a motif which extends throughout
14
the entire corpus of Propertius work. It must nonetheless be asked exact-
15
ly what role it is that tears play in this poetry.
16
In elegy 1.5, the poetic “I” addresses a rival who is jealous of his re-
17
lationship with Cynthia, and warns him against subjecting himself to the
18
same suffering as that which he, the loving “poet”, endures. The manner
19
of life of the lover is extensively described here. His condition is denoted
20
with terms which suggest emotional disturbance (1.5.3: furores; 1.5.5:
21
ignes) and misery (1.5.4: mala). The beloved is the cause of countless
22
anxieties and dominates his entire existence (1.5.9 – 12). Such an enslave-
23
ment to the beloved (servitium amoris) is a harsh fate and causes the lover
24
to weep many tears (cf. 1.6.23 – 26 in connection with the nequitia motif;
25
1.7.15 – 18). His weeping, caused by unrequited love and accompanied by
26
trembling and fear (1.5.15 – 16), which is clearly visible in his face, makes
27
him incapable of speaking. One sees the results of love in his pallid face
28
and his emaciated body (1.5.21 – 22). He who desires to live in such a state
29
can only be called a fool (1.5.3: insane). The name of the envious man
30
who is so emphatically warned against the consequences of love is only
31
given in the penultimate verse: it is Gallus, who with some probability
32
can be identified with the eponymous elegist and poet colleague of Pro-
33
pertius.6 This surprising conclusion, as well as the strongly hyperbolically
34
35
36
37 6 Scholars are by no means in complete agreement over this identification with
Cornelius Gallus (see Baker 2000: 88). Camps (1961: 57) wrote succinctly:
38 “we do not know anything about this Gallus, except from this poem and from
39 x, xiii and xx, which are also addressed to him. He is not Cornelius Gallus or Ae-
40 lius Gallus, for neither of them was of noble ancestry (cf. lines 23 – 4)”. For a dif-

Authenticated
1 described state of loving as one of renunciation, suggests that the poet

2 does not lack a sense of humour.7 The appearance of tears in no way ex-
3 cludes an amusing interpretation on another level; indeed, the weeping
4 repeatedly emphasized in this elegy in combination with other exaggera-
5 tions evokes a certain comic element and leads to a degree of self-irony
6 on the part of the poetic “I”. In this connection, it may be recalled that
7 in New Comedy, which includes certain motifs which find their parallels
8 in Roman elegy (see most recently, in particular for Ovid, Barsby 1996,
9 with a useful survey of the earlier literature), the figure of the youth in
10 love (e. g. Sostratus in Menander s Dyscolus) often displays comic traits,
11 however earnestly he pursues a girl, or when he is entirely captivated
12 by her.
13 The separation from the beloved during travels can also be cause for
14 tears on the part of the lover (1.12). Complaints and weeping are more
15 difficult to endure alone than in the presence of the beloved (1.12.13 –
16
15). Yet solitude sometimes seems to be the most appropriate place for
17
the amator to reflect upon his circumstances, as in the monody of elegy
18
1.18, paired with the previous elegy 1.17, in which the poetic “I” finds
19
himself in a storm during a sea voyage. Already in the first two verses
20
of 1.18, the remoteness of the place in which the “I” finds himself is em-
21
phasized (1.18.1 – 2: deserta loca, vacuum … nemus).8 The grief which the
22
lover is about to articulate thus remains concealed from others
23
(1.18.3 – 4). He interrogates himself about the reasons for Cynthia s
24
spurning of him, and thus for the reason for his tears (1.18.5 – 9). Given
25
his fidelity to her, he sees no reason for jealousy; his thoughts have always
26
been concentrated on her alone. Neither has he complained about her
27
sometimes proud and capricious nature, and even now in his isolation,
28
only the birds can hear his complaints (1.18.29 – 30). At the end of the
29
30 ferentiated interpretation of nobilitas and priscis imaginibus in 1.5.23 – 24, see
31 Baker (2000: 90 – 91).
32 7 On humour in Propertius, see Lef vre (1966), who observes specifically with re-
gard to elegy 1.5 that it is “kaum vorstellbar, daß Properz die Warnungen (…) an
33 Gallus vor Cynthias Verf hrungsk nsten allzu ernstlich gemeint hat” (1966: 14),
34 though without providing any specific textual evidence. The unmistakable hyper-
35 bole of the sufferings of love depicted here is overlooked by Fauth (1980: 280):
36 “Von Humor und Ironie kann hier sicherlich keine Rede sein; man sp rt den bit-
37 teren Ernst. (…).”
8 Literary parallels for the scene and circumstances of this poem are given in their
38 commentaries by Camps (1961: 89) and Baker (2000: 159 – 160). Baker (1983)
39 offers a more detailed, if not altogether convincing, treatment of elegy 1.18, to-
40 gether with further references; see also Hubbard (1974: 33 – 35).

Authenticated
184 Thorsten Fçgen
1 poem, Cynthia, despite her absence, is again made present when the “I”
2 makes her name echo through the emptiness (1.18.31 – 32). The represen-
3 tation of the solitude of the place which is emphasized at the beginning of
4 the poem is repeated almost verbatim at the end (1.18.32: deserta saxa),
5 with the decisive difference that the beloved seems to be present through
6 the summons and the resulting echo. The same impression has already oc-
7 curred in elegy 1.17, in which the storm at sea is, as it were, depicted as a
8 continuation of Cynthia s threats and complaints (1.17.5 – 10).
9 Another form of distance from the beloved occurs in the typical ele-
10 giac motif of the lover complaining before her closed door (paraklausi-
11 thyron), which appears in 1.16 (see Yardley 1978: 23 – 27). What is striking
12 in this poem is the personification of the door, which cannot find rest be-
13 cause of the persistent weeping of the exclusus amator (1.16.13 – 16). The
14 complaints of the lover are embedded within the framework of the narra-
15 tive of the door (1.16.17 – 44), whom he seeks to soften and from whom he
16 begs admission. At the same time, he accuses the door of cruelty, because
17 it does not permit his voice to penetrate to the beloved, whom he believes
18 he could move with his petitions. It cannot be denied that there are comic
19 elements here. The personified door once served as a passage for triumph
20 processions, and is now, as the entrance to the house of a merry resident,
21 compelled, to its annoyance, to endure a rather inglorious existence. Less
22 than respectable poems have even been carved into its wood (1.16.1 – 12).
23 The fact that it is a door which does not merely object to the morally
24 loose behaviour of its mistress, but also regards her conduct as a symptom
25 of a more pervasive lack of restraint (1.16.11 – 12), cannot be intended to
26 convey the impression of a seriously intended disapproval of a general de-
27 cline in morals. On the contrary, in such verses we may perceive a mock-
28 ery of adherents to old Roman virtue, if not necessarily a direct side-
29 swipe at Augustan attempts at moral reform (cautiously, Lef vre 1966:
30 95 – 96 n. 5). The entire situation of this elegy is so conceived that even
31 the weeping of the locked-out lover is not without comic effect. This im-
32 pression is underlined when the door observes that it will itself be brought
33 to tears by his complaints (1.16.13 – 14) – this, as an additional element of
34 humour, contrary to the assumption of the exclusus amator that he is real-
35 ly addressing a mere object without feeling and sympathy (1.16.25).
36 Thus far, we have considered primarily the role of weeping for the
37 male lover. What function do the tears of the female beloved have?
38 The beloved is imagined as weeping, for example, when her lover does
39 not obey her and when he leaves her waiting. Tears of this kind can
40 have unpleasant consequences for the amator, as Propertius demonstrates

Authenticated
1 in elegy 3.16. In the middle of the night, he received a letter from his
2 domina, demanding that he go at once to Tibur, and he obeyed so that
3 he would not provoke her to tears by his neglect and then be repulsed
4 by her for a year, as had occurred previously (3.16.1 – 10). Here, the
5 motif of the servitium amoris is combined with the image of the lover
6 who is untouchable and who can even move without danger at night
7 (3.16.11 – 20), an image frequent in Roman love poetry. Should something
8 happen to him on the way, however, he can still take consolation in the
9 fact that his beloved will hold vigil at his grave (3.16.21 – 24). The choice
10 between the possible dangers associated with obedience, and the refusal
11 to obey his domina, made equally risky by her irascible nature, in fact rep-
12 resents no real conflict for the amator. The question quid faciam?
13 (3.16.5), borrowed from tragedy, is rather inappropriate to his quite un-
14 tragic circumstances, and converts the entire situation into something
15 more amusing. This impression is confirmed when we observe the
16 sound structure of verses 5 and 6: the striking alliteration of the m
17 and the dominance of the e sound, sometimes combined (quid faciam?
18 obductis committam mene tenebris, / ut timeam audaces in mea membra
19 manus), might be associated with a kind of lament, even if one is in gen-
20 eral not inclined to base far-reaching conclusions upon sound symbolism.
21 In the two following verses (7 – 8), a superficially dark mood is created, in
22
which the lover imagines the dangers which could await him in the streets
23
and at the same time the tears of the domina; this is achieved by the re-
24
peated o sound (at si distulero haec nostro mandata timore, / nocturno
25
fletus saevior hoste mihi). A contrast to this passage with its exaggerated
26
tragic character occurs in the following section (3.16.11 – 20), in which it is
27
doubted that a robber would stain himself with the meagre blood of a
28
lover (3.16.19 – 20); this is an ironic allusion to the motif repeated by
29
Propertius of the emaciated, “bloodless” lover (1.5.21 – 22, 2.12.17,
30
4.5.64; see also Ovid, Ars am. 1.733 – 736).9 From this perspective, the
31
statement that the weeping of the beloved whose commands were not
32
obeyed is worse than the dangers one risks in going to her at night
33
(3.16.7 – 8) appears to be relativized.
34
In certain situations, the lover can be pleased to see his beloved dem-
35
onstrate by her tears that she loves him, and this also applies in reverse
36
37
9 In the fairy-tale motif according to which the lover is specially protected, Lef -
38 vre (1966: 48) sees a clear indication of the humorous dimension of elegy 3.16,
39 then adding further arguments, which take him in another direction than that
40 followed here.

Authenticated
186 Thorsten Fçgen
1 for the man. In elegy 3.8, a bitter argument which had occurred the pre-
2 vious day between the beloved and the poetic “I” is recalled, from which
3 the advantages of such conflicts for a relationship are extrapolated in gen-
4 eral terms. One need not object when the beloved voices insults and
5 threats against the amator out of jealousy, when she throws a full wine
6 goblet at him, when she scratches and bites him and collapses in tears
7 (for tears of jealousy, see 2.20.1 – 8). All of these are signs of genuine
8 love and will be welcomed by the lover, because the absence of such
9 scenes can only be construed as evidence of the beloved s indifference,
10 which one would only wish on an enemy (3.8.17 – 20). This attitude is fur-
11 ther developed in such a way as to lend the poem additional amusing and
12 ironic elements. The bite and scratch wounds, which the puella has given
13 the lover during a fight, should be visible for friends (3.8.21 – 22). The fol-
14 lowing verse also need not be taken altogether seriously, in which the
15 combination of love and suffering, already accentuated as being desirable,
16 is clearly stated (3.8.23: aut in amore dolere volo aut audire dolentem).
17 This view of the poem does not undermine the importance of the associ-
18 ation of amor and dolor as a fixed motif of love elegy (for Propertius, see
19 esp. 2.25.1) and its essentially serious character.
20 The tears of the beloved are absolutely unavoidable in another situa-
21 tion, which is already anticipated in elegy 3.16: the death of the amator.
22 Such a scene is often imagined by Propertius,10 as, for example, in elegy
23 1.19: the lover does not fear death as such, but only that, after his demise,
24 Cynthia might cease being faithful to him. The tears which make Cyn-
25 thia s inner sorrow visible and are a sign of her unshakable love for the
26 departed might one day be dried by love for someone else (1.19.21 –
27 24). This slightly melancholic poem, which revolves around the foedus ae-
28 ternum motif, ends, however, in a more positive mood: the recognition
29
30 10 Other passages include 1.17.11 – 12 (an poteris siccis mea fata reponere ocellis, /
31 ossaque nulla tuo nostra tenere sinu?), 1.17.19 – 24 (extensive mourning rites in-
32 cluding the sacrifice of hair), 2.13.17 – 58 (detailed instructions for the form of
burial and mourning), esp. 27 – 30, 39 – 42, 51 – 58 (notably 51 – 52: tu tamen amis-
33 so non numquam flebis amico: / fas est praeteritos semper amare viros), and
34 3.16.21 – 30 (see above). The papers of Prescendi (2000) and Šterbenc Erker
35 (2009, in this volume) discuss the mourning rites of Roman women. – On the im-
36 agined death of the poetic “I”, see also 1.7.23 – 24, 2.1.47 – 48, 2.1.71 – 78, 2.8.17 –
37 28 (ridicule of the hard-hearted puella over the death of the beloved), 2.26.43 –
44 and 2.26.57 – 58. Papanghelis (1987) offers a comprehensive discussion of the
38 motif of death in Propertius, while the dissertation by Drews (1952) is not con-
39 fined to Propertius. See also the collection of text passages in M ller (1952: 38 –
40 42).

Authenticated
1 that love does not endure forever after death allows only one conclusion,
2 namely, that one should enjoy love while it lasts (1.19.25 – 26). This point
3 has led some scholars to give the poem the motto of “vivamus”, as the
4 real intention here is, according to their opinion, less to reflect on love be-
5 yond death than in the exhortation to make the most of love (thus Lef -
6 vre 1966: 142 – 145, building on earlier studies).
7 In elegy 1.15, Propertius takes up the motif of false female tears,11 fre-
8 quent in Graeco-Roman literature. Cynthia has mastered not only the art
9 of feigning tears, but also of turning pale in gradual stages (1.15.39 – 40),
10 in order to swear her love to the poetic “I” with the greatest conviction.
11 Such refined deception is eventually summarized as “flattery” (1.15.42:
12 blanditiis), with which Cynthia seeks to conceal her infidelity. She is
13 here depicted as the opposite of various mythological female figures,
14
who remained true to their lovers in exemplary fashion (1.15.9 – 24).
15
Cynthia s deliberate deployment of tears for the purpose of manipu-
16
lating her lover is also addressed in the final poem of Book 3 (3.25): by
17
this means, which she has made an art (3.25.5: ars), she first won the po-
18
etic “I” for herself, who remained faithful to her for five years. The breach
19
with Cynthia is already signalled in elegy 3.24 (see Booth & Lee 2000:
20
73 – 77), where the “I” admits that he has transfigured the attractions of
21
the beloved, once the sole inspiration of his love poetry (elegy 2.1,
22
esp. 2.1.1 – 4; see also 1.4). Once the amator has separated himself from
23
Cynthia, he confidently claims that her tears will no longer move him
24
25
(3.25.5), only to admit two verses later that he could not help weeping
26
at their separation (3.25.7). The fact that their separation in no way leaves
27 him cold also becomes clear in the second part of the elegy (3.25.11 – 18):
28 he allows his feelings free reign, in some measure as a substitute for tears,
29 by wishing that her beauty will soon fade, and that the loss of it and the
30
31 11 Aristotle (Hist. anim. IX 1 608b8 – 15) had already spoken of the particularly fe-
32 male inclination to deception and falsehood, as well as to weeping (see Fçgen
2004: 228 – 229, 234). Further references include Anth. Pal. 5.186 (Posidippus);
33 Terence, Eun. 67 – 70; Catullus, Carm. 66.15 – 18; Martial 1.33; Juvenal, Sat.
34 6.272 – 277; and Petronius, Sat. 17.2. See also Publilius Syrus 153 (quoted from
35 the edition of Wilhelm Meyer, Publilii Syri mimi sententiae, Leipzig 1880; text
36 and numbering are identical with the edition of J. Wight Duff & Arnold M.
37 Duff, Minor Latin Poets. With introductions and English translations, Cam-
bridge, Mass. & London 1961): didicere flere feminae in mendacium, and 384:
38 muliebris lacrima condimentum est malitiae; further, Disticha Catonis 3.20
39 (also included in the edition of Duff & Duff): coniugis iratae noli tu verba timere;
40 / nam lacrimis struit insidias, cum femina plorat.

Authenticated
188 Thorsten Fçgen
1 contempt which she will consequently experience might lead her to regret
2 the past. With this angry and bitter elegy, Propertius concludes the three-
3 book cycle of Cynthia poems, but in the fourth book, which takes up
4 other subjects, he cannot entirely avoid mentioning her. Elegy 4.7 is an
5 obituary for her, who has died in the meantime;12 the following elegy
6 (4.8), similar to 3.8, shows the raging beloved, who discovered the un-
7 faithful amator in a m nage trois.
8
9
10 3. Ovid
11
12 In this section, we will examine the role that tears assume in Ovid s
13 Amores. In a short supplementary section, the Ars amatoria and the Re-
14 media amoris will also be considered in relation to this question. Neither
15 of these latter works belongs to the genre of love elegy, yet they both dis-
16 play a close relationship to it in terms of both form and content.13
17
18 3.1 Ovid s Amores
19
20 The classical situation in which the male lover weeps is that of jealousy of
21 a rival. Elegy 1.4 depicts fully how the amator must endure that his girl
22 not only appears accompanied at a banquet but is also escorted to it by
23 her vir. Immediately at the beginning, the amator wishes this rival a
24 quick end (Am. 1.4.2). He must confine himself to observing his beloved
25 at a distance, and can at best exchange discreet signs with her which con-
26 stitute, however, an elaborate code system enabling unambiguous com-
27 munication (Am. 1.4.15 – 28). Eroticism and humour are inseparably in-
28 terwoven in this as in other passages of the elegy. Only at the end of
29 the evening does it come to tears described hyperbolically with the almost
30 celebratory epic expression lacrimis ego maestus obortis (Am. 1.4.60 – 62).
31 While the poetic “I” was comparatively close to his puella during the eve-
32 ning, he can now only accompany her to the door – the situation of the
33
34 12 See Lef vre (1966: 108 – 119) on the already early recognized combination of se-
35 riousness with irony in this poem; further, Hubbard (1974: 149 – 153), Papanghe-
36 lis (1987: 145 – 198) and Booth & Lee (2000: 78 – 94).
37 13 The work of Hollenburger-Rusch (2001) discusses the motif of tears in Ovid s
Metamorphoses, consideration of which is omitted here in view of the primary
38 concentration on elegiac love poetry. Elegiac elements can nonetheless also be
39 identified in the Metamorphoses; see Sharrock (1991: esp. 36 – 37) and Hollen-
40 burger-Rusch (2001: 265 – 273), both with further references.

Authenticated
1 exclusus amator is here merely hinted at by the reference to weeping and

2 the saevae fores – and must there bid her good night. He is led to sadness
3 and tears by the thought that his rival now has her to himself, yet he hopes
4 that his beloved will show herself as unresponsive as possible to her vir,
5 and that on the morrow she will convince him, her true lover, of this
6 (Am. 1.4.63 – 70). The fact that the deeply jealous, suffering lover consoles
7 himself merely with such hopes, as is claimed in the final two verses of the
8 poem, raises doubts about the sincerity of his previously described emo-
9 tions. At the same time, the irony of the concluding verses is not altogeth-
10 er unexpected, especially after the instruction of the beloved in coded
11 communication, also mentioned in the Ars amatoria (1.565 – 612) and
12 the Heroides (17.75 – 90) (see Ford 1966: 647 – 650), has already intro-
13 duced rather comic elements.
14 The motif of the complaining lover seeking admission to his beloved
15 at her door, the paraklausithyron typical of love elegy, also occurs in
16 Ovid. In Am. 1.6.17 – 18, the exclusus amator attempts to move the
17 door-keeper with his tears.14 It would suffice him merely if the door
18 were slightly opened, as he has become so emaciated due to love
19 (Am. 1.6.3 – 6) – also a familiar picture (see above). The elegy consists
20 of a chain of the lover s arguments with which he seeks to strengthen
21 his appeal to the door-keeper. The briefly appearing motif of tears, how-
22 ever, is not subsequently exploited and is thus confined to two lines out of
23 a total of 74 verses. The amator is therefore here less a petitioner than a
24 skilful, if ultimately unsuccessful, rhetor, who relies upon the effective-
25 ness of his persuasion and scarcely employs non-verbal tactics.15 As a re-
26 sult of his wine consumption, the lover appears rather in an aggressive
27
temper than in one of genuine despair, and even threatens to attack
28
the house with fire and sword (Am. 1.6.57 – 60); at the beginning of the
29
elegy, he has already stated that love has made him daring (Am. 1.6.9 –
30
14). He has also signalled himself that he will pass from requests to
31
threats (Am. 1.6.61 – 62: omnia consumpsi, nec te precibusque minisque /
32
33 14 Yardley (1978: 29 – 34), for example, provides a more detailed analysis of
34 Am. 1.6 and explicates the parodying character of the poem. See also Yardley
35 (1987: 182 – 186) and Barsby (1996: 140 – 143), who refers to the parallel motifs
36 in the first act of Plautus Curculio. The paper by Laigneau (2000), who also
37 fails to refer to Yardley, offers no new perspectives.
15 Correctly perceived by Du Quesnay (1973: 8): “(…) in 1.6 when Ovid finds him-
38 self locked out of his mistress house the reader s attention is focussed not on his
39 despair and frustration but on his witty attempts to persuade the doorman to let
40 him in.”

Authenticated
190 Thorsten Fçgen
1 movimus), and it is consistent that, at the end, he casts insults at the door-
2 keeper (Am. 1.6.63 – 64, 72). We may thus agree with the assessment of
3 Lyne, who observes: “[t]he whole poem is clearly parodic” (Lyne 1980:
4 249).16
5 Elegy 1.12, a direct continuation of Am. 1.11, begins with the emphat-
6 ically tragic-serious invocation to weep (flete meos casus) for the misfor-
7 tune of the poetic “I” (see Du Quesnay 1973: 30 – 40; Dimundo 2000:
8 259 – 274). The reason for this invocation is that he has received a message
9 that his beloved will not come to him today. The sorrow that this message
10 provokes in the lyrical “I” is emphasized by the strategic positioning of
11 the two adjectives tristes and infelix. Yet just as in elegy 1.6, so also
12 here, the motif of tears is not taken up again. The plural imperative
13 flete (Am. 1.12.1) may have been intended to signify that the “I” leaves
14
it to others to weep rather than doing so himself. Instead of weeping,
15
the amator resorts to insulting the writing tablet which bore the message
16
of the puella – anger and rage in place of tears, indicated at the end of the
17
poem by the word iratus and the cursing of the tablet (Am. 1.12.29 – 30).
18
And yet, even this anger proves upon closer inspection to be an attitude
19
which points to comedy rather than anything serious. The detailed accu-
20
sation, which stands within the tradition of invective, is directed not only
21
against the writing tablet but also against its manufacturer and even
22
against the tree from which it came. Even the reference to the evil
23
omen – the servant girl who brought him the message stubbed her toe
24
25
as she left the house – is rather a caricature than genuine evidence of su-
26
perstition. The positioning of the expression omina sunt aliquid at the be-
27 ginning of the verse (Am. 1.12.3) is supposed to inspire scepticism about
28 what follows. Similarly, the remark that the insensitive tablet would have
29 been better used for the recording of dry legal texts or accounts than for
30 the inscription of the mollia verba of a lover (Am. 1.12.21 – 26) must also
31 be interpreted as a playful element. The humour which pervades this
32
33 16 Lyne (1980: 249) continues: “What Ovid does in 1.6 is (among other things) take
34 over scenes and themes of the previous Elegists but then treat them with a liter-
35 alness that dispels their romantic potential and leaves them incongruous; he pur-
36 sues them relentlessly to their logical, unromantic, and eventually funny ends.
37 (…) Propertius and Tibullus had been at times aware of the comic side of
their doleful plight and had indulged in humour at their own expense. But
38 never with the implacable zest of the parodist.” Such a general contrast of Pro-
39 pertius and Tibullus with Ovid, however, seems – at least in the case of Proper-
40 tius – in view of the discussion of elegy 1.16 above, to be unjustified.

Authenticated
1 elegy then has the effect of modifying the summons at the beginning to
2 weep.
3 We now turn to consider the female side. The theme of elegy 1.14 is
4 the hair of the beloved, which has been lost through dying and perming
5 (see Gauly 1990: 129 – 136; Dimundo 2000: 303 – 322; Hohenwallner
6 2001: 71 – 95). The poetic “I” has always warned her against the conse-
7 quences of such beauty treatments, and now takes the opportunity to
8 praise naturalness, a motif which is sufficiently familiar from other elegies
9 (e. g. Propertius 1.2, 2.18). Given the natural beauty of the hair of the
10 puella, resort to such artificial methods is entirely unnecessary. Yet
11 even though he criticizes the behaviour of his beloved as thoughtless
12 and regards her as silly (Am. 1.14.36: inepta), in the end, the appearance
13 of the amator almost as a know-all can scarcely conceal his pity for her:
14 her tears running over her red cheeks set an end to his tirade and turn his
15 mood. The weeping of the beloved does not begin until the end of the
16 poem (Am. 1.14.51 – 56), and seems to have been caused not only by
17 the loss of her hair, but also and particularly by the tireless and unsympa-
18 thetic criticism of the amator. Taken by itself, his praise of the natural at-
19 tractiveness of the girl is flattering, but it is associated with an excessive
20 self-opiniatedness, so that under the circumstances, it can scarcely console
21 her. It is only her tears which impose a pause upon his self-righteousness.
22 Yet even the final lines of the poem remain somewhat elusive: quite en
23 passant, the loss of the hair, which for the girl is adequate reason to de-
24 spair, is curtly dismissed in only two verses with the observation that
25 new hair will soon grow (Am. 1.14.55 – 56; cf. Parker 1969: 90 – 91). In
26 its curious realism, almost verging on the banal, the poem allows the po-
27 etic “I” to seem anything but a captivated servus amoris who pays uncon-
28 ditional homage to his beloved. The problem which Propertius addresses
29 in the thematically related elegy 2.18, that the use of cosmetics by the be-
30 loved entails the risk of attracting rivals and thus of provoking the jeal-
31 ousy of the amator (2.18.11 – 14), is nowhere mentioned by Ovid.17
32 The puella weeps for a far more serious reason when she is beaten by
33 her lover (Am. 1.7.4)18 – an act which even the poetic “I” criticizes harshly
34
35 17 A wider discussion of the poetological implications of the subject of hair in
36 Am. 1.14 (cf. Holzberg 1997: 57 – 58, 60 – 62, 73; taken up by Hohenwallner
37 2001: 82 – 86) would fall outside of the parameters of the present study.
18 Ovid was not the first to deal with violence against the beloved. Kçlblinger
38 (1971: 54 – 85), and McKeown (1989: 162 – 197, esp. 162 – 164) in his commentary,
39 give numerous parallels, which are not confined to Roman love elegy. See also
40 Dimundo (2000: 128 – 133).

Authenticated
192 Thorsten Fçgen
1 as an unforgivable outburst: his rage is mentioned twice within the first

2 three verses (Am. 1.7.1 – 3: furor; cf. 1.7.43 – 44). The girl pales from hor-
3 ror, trembles, and is speechless, yet precisely her silence is an eloquent ac-
4 cusation (Am. 1.7.19 – 22):
5
6 quis mihi non demens , quis non mihi barbare dixit?
7 ipsa nihil; pavido est lingua retenta metu.
sed taciti fecere tamen convicia vultus,
8
egit me lacrimis ore silente reum.
9
10 Who did not say madman to me, who did not say barbarian ?
11 She said nothing; her tongue was kept from it by trembling fear.
12 But her silent looks still conveyed reproaches;
Her mouth being silent, she accused me with her tears.
13
14
The tears of the puella are subsequently compared with water which runs
15
from melting snow (Am. 1.7.57 – 58). It is her weeping which inspires feel-
16
17
ings of guilt in the amator, which harmonises with the remark in elegy 3.6
18
that only a heart of stone or iron is unmoved by a woman s tears
19 (Am. 3.6.59 – 60). The lover admits that he has earned the intransigent re-
20 venge of the girl for his violence: she should simply attack him and satisfy
21 her anger (Am. 1.7.63 – 66). The modern reader may find it tasteless or
22 chauvinistic that the speaking lover here views the anxious weeping
23 and the distraught state of his beloved from the perspective of the relish-
24 ing observer, who detects a kind of beauty in it (Am. 1.7.12 – 18).19 In this
25 connection, however, it is striking that the beauty of the weeping girl is
26 compared with three mythological female figures: Atalante, Ariadne20
27 and Cassandra. Given such an elaborate insertion,21 one might gain the
28 impression that this demonstration of learning dominates the representa-
29
30 19 In Am. 2.5, it is the beauty of the blush, the lowered eyes and the sad face of the
31 girl who has just been caught being unfaithful, that deter the amator from raising
32 his hand against her (Am. 2.5.33 – 48). The individual elements of the affecting
facial expression, by means of which the puella avoids the violence of her
33 lover, are designated as her “weapons” (Am. 2.5.48: defensa est armis nostra
34 puella suis). The manipulative character of such acting ability and its insincerity
35 are underlined by the girl s smile, which she assumes immediately after she per-
36 ceives the “I” to be overpowered by her charms (Am. 2.5.49 – 52).
37 20 Weeping Ariadne also appears in the Heroides (Her. 10.43, 55, 114, 138, 148;
cf. 15 – 16, 37 – 40 for beating of the breast) and in the first book of the Ars ama-
38 toria, where it is also emphasized that she is beautiful in spite of her tears (Ars
39 am. 1.527 – 536, esp. 1.534).
40 21 See the good observations of Lyne (1980: 254 – 256).

Authenticated
1 tion of the drama of the – fictive – situation. An example of the familiar

2 dictum of Quintilian – albeit primarily with regard to the Metamorphoses
3 – that Ovid was too much in love with his own poetic talent and occasion-
4 ally exaggerated it?22 At any rate, by means of such digressions and the
5 rich vocabulary of the highly elaborate reflections and their tendency
6 to hyperbole, the self-accusations of the poetic “I” and the seriousness
7 of the scene are toned down in their significance. This impression is con-
8 firmed by the conclusion of the elegy – the invitation to the puella to at-
9 tack the amator in revenge, which appears to be spoken tongue in cheek.
10 The last two verses in particular, in which the girl is abruptly told to put
11 her hair in order and so remove the traces of the violence (Am. 1.7.67 –
12 68), as if the matter is of no greater moment, in their sober pragmatism
13 stand in contrast to the earlier prevailing pathos.23 A parodying element,
14 manifest in the transformation of an established elegiac motif, thus can-
15 not be overlooked in this poem.24 Less plausible is the interpretation of
16 James (2003), who takes the tears of the beloved in poems such as this
17 or Am. 1.14 as part of a transformation of the traditional figure of the suf-
18 fering amator who weeps from pain into an egocentric misogynist who,
19 out of revenge for his earlier weeping, caused by the dura puella, now
20 provokes her to tears. Such an approach would seem to ignore the ironic
21
22
23
24
25 22 Quintilian, Inst. orat. 10.1.88: lascivos quidem in herois quoque Ovidius et nimi-
26 um amator ingenii sui, laudandus tamen partibus. See also Inst. orat. 10.1.98:
27 Ovidi Medea videtur mihi ostendere, quantum ille vir praestare potuerit, si ingenio
suo imperare quam indulgere maluisset; further Seneca, Contr. 2.2.12.
28 23 This procedure of Ovid s in Am. 1.7.67 – 68 is appropriately described by Du
29 Quesnay (1973: 12) as a “technique of undercutting the emotionality of his per-
30 sona”. See also Kçlblinger (1971: 80 – 82) and Parker (1969), who refers to a se-
31 ries of comparable passages and remarks specifically on Am. 1.7: “The high rhe-
32 torical strain, the expansions of guilt, the involvement of all nature – all these
run into another sort of reality, the everyday variety with its concern for appear-
33 ances which says, Fix your hair. Relief of tension, certainly. But much more: per
34 contrarium, the poem is put on trial by the intrusion of another sensibility which,
35 by the prosaic statement and the mocking maintenance of military imagery in in
36 statione, shows up previous language and response as overblown, perhaps ade-
37 quate to describe a situation but not to deal with it. Were the last distich lacking,
the poem, even with the time-shift, would be quite different” (Parker 1969: 87).
38 24 Gauly (1990: 120 – 129) offers a detailed analysis of Am. 1.7 in terms of humor-
39 ous elements, and also discusses previous interpretations of this elegy. See also
40 the brief remarks of Sharrock (2002: 157 – 158).

Authenticated
194 Thorsten Fçgen
1 element, which is admittedly accentuated from the male rather than from
2 the female perspective.25
3 In Ovid s Amores, as well as in the Ars amatoria (see below, section
4 3.2), we also find the motif of false female tears. It is introduced briefly
5 in elegy 2.2 (Am. 2.2.35 – 36). In the “didactic” elegy 1.8, which reveals
6 certain parallels with Propertius elegy 4.5 (see O Neill 1999; Dimundo
7 2000: 155 – 185), the match-maker Dipsas, experienced in magic, gives a
8 girl extensive advice as a female praeceptor amoris on how to capture a
9 man for herself alone. The talents of an actress are necessary, for exam-
10 ple, the ability to weep at will (Am. 1.8.83 – 84), by means of which one
11 can lead a man by the nose. The speech of Dipsas is framed by the opin-
12 ion of the poetic “I” about such methods. Her name, meaning “the thirsty
13 one”, already betrays what one should think of her: she is an ever-drunk-
14 en old hag (Am. 1.8.3 – 4), for whom one can only wish the worst, not least
15 – and here, the curse is changed at the end into something amusing – eter-
16 nal thirst (Am. 1.8.113 – 114). Dipsas recalls the type of the grotesque-
17 comic witch, for example, as she appears in Horace s Canidia or Petro-
18 nius Oenothea (see Baertschi & Fçgen 2006). It is therefore clear from
19 the beginning that this elegy contains comic elements, and that it is
20 close to the genres of comedy, mime and satire. Its affinity to comedy
21 also becomes apparent when it is compared with the third scene of Plau-
22 tus Mostellaria (vv. 157 – 312), which is in some respects structured simi-
23 larly.26
24 It is thus evident that male tears occur in Ovid s Amores much less
25 frequently than they do in Propertius: in total only three times (assuming
26 that the narrator in the imperative flete at the beginning of Am. 1.12 is in-
27 cluded), two of which are associated with the exclusus amator motif. At-
28 tempts to explain this difference by suggesting that Propertius, unlike
29
30 25 In my opinion, it is here that a deficit can be perceived in some feminist interpre-
31 tations of the Amores which have appeared in recent years (see the account in
32 Greene 1998: xv – xvi, 67 – 113, esp. 84 – 92 on Am. 1.7; see further n. 32 below).
One may be inclined to classify elements of humour as they occur in Am. 1.7 as
33 chauvinistic. The parodying aspect is nonetheless clearly signposted in the text, al-
34 though it is a purely male humour which takes no account of female readers. And
35 yet, given the mostly unflattering representation of women in Roman literature
36 (see Fçgen 2004), is it really so surprising that there is such a restriction to a
37 male perspective? It should also not be forgotten that the amator by no means al-
ways appears as a serious character, and that the male lover in the Amores is an
38 object of irony and mockery, as, for example, in Am. 1.6 and 1.12.
39 26 Most recently on this, Barsby (1996: 138 – 140), who also discusses connections
40 between Am. 1.8 and Propertius elegy 4.5.

Authenticated
1 Ovid, was particularly inclined to melancholy and that he even had an

2 “almost lachrymose disposition”27 of course avoids the real issue, not
3 least because such interpretations are based on an inadmissible equation
4 of elegy with autobiography. It would seem more appropriate to seek a
5 reason for the difference between Propertius and Ovid s treatments of
6 love in general. For Ovid, the subject obviously had primarily the charac-
7 ter of a game, which, on the whole, has exceptionally few really serious
8 facets.28 While tears in Propertius are sometimes handled with an element
9 of humour, or the significance of weeping is at least modified, in Ovid,
10 male tears are never mentioned without a certain comic aspect; even
11 the amator himself is not infrequently a comic figure, especially in
12 Am. 1.6 and 1.12. In the case of female tears, the situation is not essential-
13 ly different, though the comic aspect is associated with the male perspec-
14
tive of the poetic “I” and would not have been nearly so amusing from the
15
woman s position. However, it does not necessarily follow from the
16
strongly humorous texture of the Amores that Ovid intended a pure par-
17
ody of the genre of love elegy and its traditional elements (correctly,
18
Holzberg 1997: 75). It cannot be disputed that a certain degree of the
19
irony in the Amores derives from allusions to the themes and motifs of
20
his predecessors and their transformation in his work, yet such an ap-
21
proach cannot be applied equally to all of the poems in the Amores
22
cycle. In elegy 1.5, for example, which contains an exceptionally sensitive
23
description of an erotic moment between the beloved Corinna and the
24
25
lyrical “I”, there is no recognizable element of parody. Moreover, as
26
27 27 Postgate (1901: xxxvi) wrote: “Propertius nature was soft rather than strong”;
he manifests an “habitual melancholy, at times breaking into querulousness,
28 (…) at times sinking in a gloomy foreboding”. Further: “A melancholy and al-
29 most lachrymose disposition is shewn, on the one hand, by the frequency with
30 which words like querelae, &c., flere, lacrima, &c., tristis and the like occur
31 and, on the other, by the frequency of allusions to death and the grave (…)”
32 (1901: xl). With the greatest surprise, one reads similar views in the paper by
Osmun (1984), which is also in other respects problematic; for example, he
33 speaks of a “hypersensitive, emotionally unstable Propertius” (1984: 47).
34 28 The dimension of pa¸feim as the fundamental principle of the Amores was al-
35 ready recognized by Reitzenstein (1935), to be taken up subsequently e. g. by
36 Lyne (1980: 240 – 287, esp. 256), Du Quesnay (1973: 7 – 9) and Barsby (1973:
37 17 – 18). The fact that, to a large extent, Ovid did not want to be taken seriously
cannot be disputed. Reitzenstein s view becomes problematic, however, when he
38 contrasts Ovid with Propertius: the celebratory pathos which is ascribed to Pro-
39 pertius is not an element which pervades his entire oeuvre. Lef vre (1966) has
40 shown particularly convincingly that humour was not alien to Propertius.

Authenticated
196 Thorsten Fçgen
1 has been shown in selected examples above, Propertius also often as-
2 sumes an ironical distance to the established inventory of themes and mo-
3 tifs of love elegy, so that we cannot ascribe to Ovid a role of absolute in-
4 novation in this respect. At the same time, it appears that tears as an ex-
5 pression of the amator s suffering for love and his willingness to submit to
6 his beloved domina are considerably diminished in comparison with
7 Ovid s predecessors. On the other hand, female tears are more common
8 and often provoked intentionally by the elegiac “I”. Interpretations of
9 this situation in terms of a kind of revenge on women or compensation
10 for the otherwise frequent weeping of the male lover, suffering in his ser-
11 vitium amoris (so James 2003), and in terms of a reversal of the “counter-
12 culture” fundamental to this genre and of its associated role allocation for
13 men and women, have not proven to be convincing conclusions.
14
15 3.2 Ovid s Ars amatoria and Remedia amoris
16
17
The following discussion is intended as a supplement to the preceding sec-
18
tion on the Amores, which should give no more than a summary account
19 of Ovid s Ars amatoria and Remedia amoris. Both cycles of poems con-
20 tain numerous references to non-verbal forms of communication, includ-
21 ing tears.
22 The Ars amatoria is a didactic poem of a particular kind:29 it instructs
23 both men (Books 1 and 2) and women (Book 3) as to how they can be
24 successful in love, and with which means they can win a partner. In addi-
25 tion to advice about how to present the most attractive appearance pos-
26 sible, a comprehensive training in verbal and non-verbal communication
27 is given.30 The Remedia amoris are similarly conceived as a didactic poem
28 and as a pendant to the Ars amatoria, and offer advice about how one can
29 overcome one s feelings and cure oneself of love.
30 In relation to the subject of weeping, the motif of false tears occurs
31 most frequently. It is claimed that women employ false tears in order
32 to pretend that they have lost something and thereby to obtain a replace-
33 ment from their lovers (Ars am. 1.431 – 432). Book 3 offers comprehen-
34 sive instruction for women about effective smiling and weeping: they
35
36 29 On the genre question, see e. g. K ppers (1981: esp. 2509 – 2513), Watson (2002:
37 145 – 148) and Volk (2002: 157 – 195). The many connections between the Ars
amatoria and the Amores have been most recently discussed by Opsomer
38 (2003, with earlier literature); see also Lyne (1980: 274 – 282).
39 30 On non-verbal communication in Graeco-Roman antiquity, see Fçgen (2001,
40 with further literature).

Authenticated
1 should always preserve moderation and not exaggerate if they wish to be

2 successful with men (Ars am. 3.281 – 292, esp. 291: discunt lacrimare de-
3 center). An excess of emotion is never desirable. When playing party
4 games such as dice, above all, women should not give way to an open dis-
5 play of frustration at losing a round: squabbling, shouting and tears are to
6 be avoided at any cost (Ars am. 3.369 – 380). On the other hand, there are
7 certain situations in which the loving woman should definitely allow her-
8 self to be moved to an outburst of anger: jealousy, which is supposed to
9 suggest true love to the amator, should be accompanied by tears and
10 grief, and also by aggression (Ars am. 3.673 – 682) – conduct which is al-
11 ready regarded as a sign of sincere passion in Propertius elegy 3.8.
12 Men are also jokingly advised to deploy tears specifically for the soft-
13 ening up of the woman they desire. If they are unable to weep at will, they
14 should wet their hands and rub their eyes in order to give the appearance
15 of genuine tears (Ars am. 1.659 – 662). It is also important to echo what-
16 ever a woman says (Ars am. 2.197 – 200) and to adapt oneself as far as
17 possible to her emotional state, that is, to laugh when she laughs and to
18 weep when she weeps (Ars am. 2.201 – 202). The showing of tears as
19 part of a correctly measured out “flattering business” (Ars am. 2.334:
20 sit suus in blanda sedulitate modus) is especially suitable at the sickbed
21 of the puella: one may not allow it to be observed that one is morose
22 as a result of her illness, but should give a clear display of one s love
23 and devotion. The added remark that by this means one lays the founda-
24 tion for later pleasures with the girl (Ars am. 2.319 – 336) sounds rather
25 opportunistic and frivolous.
26 It is clear that the concept of a suffering romantic love, which consti-
27 tutes the basis of Roman love elegy, is treated with heavy irony in the Ars
28 amatoria. Love becomes a calculating, utilitarian game: a rich palette of
29 strategies, based upon simulatio as the dominating principle (see Stroh
30 1979), guarantees sexual experience to both men and women. Equally
31 strategic are the techniques explained in the Remedia amoris which are
32 intended to help one liberate oneself from passion. The man is advised
33 not to give in to any flattery or to allow himself to be moved by a girl s
34 tears, as these belong to the common arsenal of women s deceptions
35 and can scarcely claim to be authentic (Rem. am. 687 – 692). If he wishes
36 to be rid of his girl, then it is best not even to encounter her maid, who
37 might offer him greetings with tears from her mistress (Rem. am. 639 –
38 642). It is self-evident that genuine (i. e. emotional) tears can no longer
39 play a role in erotic didacticism, in which the praeceptor, in contrast to
40 the elegiac amator, appears as emotionally less directly involved. Emo-

Authenticated
198 Thorsten Fçgen
1 tion is reduced to manipulative behaviour which serves the pursuit of per-

2 sonal desires in the sphere of sex (see Opsomer 2003: 340 – 343).31 How-
3 ever, to draw the inference from this circumstance that Ovid intended to
4 articulate indirect moral criticism of contemporary seduction tactics and
5 of the masculine misogyny associated with them32 is to miss the point:
6 such an interpretation entirely ignores the elements of humour and
7 irony, which are also omnipresent in the Ars amatoria and the Remedia
8 amoris. 33
9
10
11 4. Two Examples from Greek Epistolography:
12 Alciphron and Aristaenetus
13
14 The erotic epistolary literature of the second and third centuries A.D.,
15 represented by authors such as Alciphron, Aelian and Philostratus (see
16 Rosenmeyer 2001: 255 – 338, with earlier literature), demonstrates paral-
17 lels in its motifs with love elegy as well as with comedy. Here again, tears
18 belong to the inventory of motifs shared with elegy. Two examples will be
19 presented here briefly, of which one is taken from Alciphron (second /
20 third century A.D.), and the other from the much later epistolographer
21 Aristaenetus (c. fifth century A.D.).34 The question as to the extent to
22 which Greek letter-writers of the imperial period had any direct knowl-
23
24 31 With regard to the Remedia amoris, Holzberg (1997: 115 – 121) rightly speaks of
25 a “Demontage des elegischen Systems”.
26 32 Greene (1998: esp. 93 – 113) argued along these lines with reference to the
27 Amores, writing for example: “(…) Ovid is criticizing not only the hypocrisy
of the whole elegiac model with its attendant romantic illusions, but more impor-
28 tantly, the cruel, destructive, and inhumane aspects of amor. (…) Ovid extends
29 his critique of violence and exploitation of women to a more general critique
30 of a social and political system that promotes aggression, conquest, and the ex-
31 ploitation of others” (1998: 94); later: “By exhibiting how dehumanizing the
32 male lover s conquest of his beloved is, Ovid permits us to see the destructive-
ness and inhumanity in the desire to conquer and enslave others” (1998: 113).
33 The discussions by Watson (2002: esp. 148 – 149, 158 – 160, 163 – 164) and Opso-
34 mer (2003: 316 – 317) are critical of such approaches.
35 33 With reference to the Ars amatoria, Fr caut (1972: 232) indicates a central as-
36 pect in this connection: “La forme la plus manifeste de l humour dont s illumine
37 l Art d aimer consiste dans l laboration de pr ceptes d terminant des attitudes,
des d marches, des actions, qui devraient Þtre instinctives et spontan es chez un
38 v ritable amoureux”.
39 34 For the date and person of Aristaenetus, see now Burri (2004); see also Arnott
40 (1982: 294 – 296).

Authenticated
1 edge of Roman love elegy cannot be discussed here. It may merely be ob-
2 served that motifs shared by epistolographers and elegists are probably to
3 be traced to familiarity of the Roman authors with Greek comedy and
4 elegy, that is, with texts which inspired the Roman comedians and elegists.
5
6 4.1 Alciphron: Epistles 4.8 and 4.9
7
The epistolary corpus of Alciphron, in which depictions of milieux of ev-
8
eryday Attic life are prominent, is arranged in four parts in more recent
9
editions, namely, letters from fishermen, farmers, parasites and courte-
10
sans.35 The example to be considered here consists of a pair of letters
11
from the fourth book (Epist. 4.8 and 4.9). The letter of the lover Simalion,
12
who complains at his poor treatment by Petale, the hetaera whom he
13
loves, is followed by her brutally sober reply. In Epist. 4.8, Simalion insists
14
upon the sincerity of his love, in which none of the other admirers of Pe-
15
tale can compete with him. She, however, repays his fidelity poorly and
16
often leaves him standing before her door (the motif of the exclusus ama-
17
tor).36 The previous night, Simalion attempted to drown his sorrows with
18
an excess of wine,37 but he achieved precisely the opposite, namely, un-
19
controllable weeping. Petale is addressed as a cruel domina who is likely
20
to derive amusement from his weeping, but who will perhaps be punished
21
for her pride (rpeqox¸a) by Aphrodite (Epist. 4.8.3 – 4). The cry of Sima-
22
lion in the concluding paragraph of his letter that his love for Petale is bad
23
(Epist. 4.8.4: 1q_ c²q, § Pet²kg, jaj_r) places him in the line of despair-
24
ing lovers, familiar from elegy, who suffer from the power of Eros and the
25
hard-heartedness of their beloveds.
26
27
28
29 35 The most conveniently accessible edition of the letters of Alciphron is the bilin-
30 gual text of Allen Rogers Benner and Francis H. Fobes (eds.), Alciphron – Ae-
31 lian – Philostratus: The Letters, Cambridge, Mass. & London 1949 (repr. 1990);
32 see also the French translation of Ozanam (1999) with a useful introduction. A
critical edition was published by Menno A. Schepers (ed.), Alciphronis rhetoris
33 epistularum libri IV, Stuttgart 1905 (repr. 1969). Good estimations of the literary
34 character of Alciphron s letters are offered by Anderson (1997), Ozanam (1999:
35 11 – 39) and Rosenmeyer (2001: 255 – 307); see also Fçgen (2007).
36 36 See Rosenmeyer (2001: 283): “The conventional elegiac paraclausithyron
37 evolves here into an epistolary exercise: the lovers communicate by letter, not
by song.”
38 37 For the motif of the amator who seeks to forget his grief with wine, Ozanam
39 (1999: 35 with n. 56) rightly refers to the following parallels in Roman love
40 elegy: Tibullus 1.2, Propertius 3.17, and Ovid, Am. 1.6 (see above, section 3.1).

Authenticated
200 Thorsten Fçgen
1 The reaction of the hetaera Petale to the letter of complaint from her
2 admirer is as follows. Immediately in the opening sentence, she addresses
3 Simalion s abundant weeping. If she could earn her income with tears, she
4 would certainly be in a fortunate position, but unfortunately, such ges-
5 tures do not guarantee her existence. As a hetaera, she must instead be
6 able to depend upon her admirers for money, clothes, jewellery, and the
7 wages of her maids (Epist. 4.9.1). Petales thoroughgoing realism is under-
8 lined by the reference to a lack of inherited property. She enjoys no bed
9 of roses and derives her modest income only from her profession. Follow-
10 ing these preliminary remarks, she turns to speak of her relationship with
11 Simalion, which has already lasted one year. This relationship has brought
12 her no advantages, since apart from flowers, roses and tears, he has of-
13 fered her no gifts. Her good looks have vanished, so that she is ashamed
14 even before her female friends. The fact that Simalion entirely misunder-
15 stands her situation and bases his love for her on ideals alone, makes his
16 tears for her unconvincing (Epist. 4.9.2 – 3). A certain craftiness sounds in
17 her question whether Simalion could not bring her some goblets from
18 home, or his mother s jewels (Epist. 4.9.4). She characterizes him finally
19 as a singer of laments (hqgm\dºm), and demands that he not return to
20 her again unless he brings her a gift;38 otherwise he and his tears should
21 leave her in peace (Epist. 4.9.5). This fictional letter reminds us of a sen-
22 tence of Publilius Syrus, according to which the heart of a meretrix is
23 moved not by tears but by gifts.39
24 In her unadorned directness and lack of sympathy, Petale recalls in
25 some respects the elegiac domina and various hetaera figures from com-
26 edy. One would not wish, though, to ascribe to her an offensive malice.
27
She is much more the sober realist who defends herself against the day-
28
dreaming, idealistic Simalion, happy with his tears, and lends elements of
29
the comic to the, in her view, exaggerated pathos of his complaint. Her
30
profession and low social status are inseparable from her concern for
31
her own well-being. This pair of letters can then to some extent be
32
33 38 The fact that the male lover is often financially exploited by his mistress is also
34 considered by Ovid in the Ars amatoria, where he enumerates the female tactics
35 deployed to this end, including tears (Ars am. 1.419 – 436; further 2.273 – 286,
36 esp. 2.277 – 278: aurea sunt vere nunc saecula, plurimus auro / venit honos, auro
37 conciliatur amor). See also Ovid, Am. 1.8.54 – 70, 87 – 94, 99 – 104 (significantly,
within the lena-elegy), and earlier, Lucretius, De rer. nat. 4.1121 – 1140; echoes
38 are already to be found in Xenophon, Oec. 1.13.
39 39 Publilius Syrus 399 (ed. Meyer, see n. 11): Muneribus est, non lacrimis meretrix
40 misericors.

Authenticated
1 taken as a literary representation of the social conditions in Greece, even

2 if one cannot use these texts as a reliable historical source for the recon-
3 struction of those conditions. The strongly literary character and the elab-
4 orate style of fictional epistolography, which is quite uncharacteristic for
5 the majority of fishermen, farmers, parasites and courtesans, should warn
6 against such usage.40 It should also be noted that Alciphron is not con-
7 cerned to reflect his own age, but rather, in the style of the Second So-
8 phistic, to depict Athens in the classical period.41
9 We might be inclined to see a later reminiscence of Alciphron s Pe-
10 tale in Aristaenetus hetaera Philochremation, “the money lover”42
11 (Epist. 1.14).43 She attacks admirers who think that they can please cour-
12 tesans alone with music; any such attempt with her is futile, as she is not
13 receptive to sweet melodies, but only to money, as her name suggests.44
14
15 40 Ozanam (1999: 15), for example, notes this artificial quality of Alciphron s let-
16 ters: “Le texte d Alciphron (…) n imite pas la vie, mais des œuvres litt raires
17 (…)”. See also Ozanam (1999: 16) in connection with the problem of the dating
and person of Alciphron: “Un auteur dont la personne chappe. Cette absence
18 tient la nature mÞme d une œuvre qui ne fait jamais la moindre r f rence aux
19 r alit s de son temps.” Further, Reardon (1971: 182) and Vieillefond (1979: 138 –
20 139): “Les petites sc nes (…) peuvent nous para tre au premier coup d œil
21 comme le fruit d une observation imm diate, mais si nous y voyons un document
22 c est cause d une erreur d optique de notre part. Alciphron n est ni un histo-
rien, ni un sociologue, ni mÞme un journaliste-reporter. C est un artiste pour le-
23 quel l effet est le premier devoir. (…) la vie quotidienne, telle qu elle appara t
24 dans son recueil, il l a toujours observ e travers les lunettes de la litt rature.”
25 41 In other courtesan letters from Alciphron, the context of Athens primarily in the
26 fourth century B.C. is considerably more obvious, for example, when the histor-
27 ical figures of the courtesans Phryne (Epist. 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5), Lamia (Epist. 4.16),
Leontion (Epist. 4.17) and the comic poet Menander (Epist. 4.18 und 4.19) are
28 mentioned.
29 42 On the “programmatic” names of the letter-writers used by Alciphron, Ander-
30 son (1997: 2201) comments: “One of the obvious sources of entertainment is
31 the series of extraordinary proper names invented or assembled for the charac-
32 ters (…). The procedure reflects a tradition at least as old as Old Comedy: in
general these are redende Namen betraying some essential aspect of the subject s
33 occupation or environment (…)” (see also Ozanam 1999: 18 – 19 with n. 22). This
34 statement can be equally applied to Aristaenetus; see Arnott (1982: 292 – 293,
35 317).
36 43 The standard critical edition of Aristaenetus, which is used here, is that of Jean-
37 Ren Vieillefond (ed.), Arist n te: Lettres d amour. Texte tabli et traduit, Paris
1992. Albin Lesky (ed.), Aristainetos: Erotische Briefe, Z rich 1951, provides a
38 German translation with extensive introduction and notes.
39 44 Epist. 1.14 (p. 29.1 – 8 Vieillefond): Oute aqk¹r 2ta¸qam oWde pqotq´peim, oute
40 k¼qô tir 1v´kjetai, pºqmar !qcuq¸ou wyq¸r. J´qdei lºmom douke¼olem, oq hek-

Authenticated
202 Thorsten Fçgen
1 Here, again, a pragmatist is presented who emphasizes her long profes-

2 sional experience in order to disarm any suspicion that she is na ve and
3 easily seduced (Epist. 1.14, pp. 29.8 – 30.17 Vieillefond). She gives her
4 motto with irony with the words that money is the strongest proof of a
5 perfect love that she knows.45 The fact that she includes herself among
6 the pºqmai illustrates her distance from the elegiac puella.
7
8 4.2 Aristaenetus: Epistle 2.13
9
10
Aristaenetus Epistle 2.13 offers us a picture of a hetaera fundamentally
11
different from that of Alciphron s Petale. The author of this short letter
12 is Chelidonion,46 whose name is programmatic, as the swallow (wekid¾m)
13 was often seen as a lamenting bird in antiquity.47 The hetaera emphasizes
14 her weeping repeatedly in order to allay the suspicion of her absent ad-
15 mirer Philonides that she loves another. Admittedly, she has accepted
16 gifts from other admirers, but such conduct, which entails a conscious pre-
17 tence (rpºjqisir), belongs to her profession and is thus not evidence that
18 she prefers another to her Philonides. The fact that he went away while
19 she was sleeping gives her occasion to stylize herself as lonely Ariadne,
20 with the decisive qualification that for her, Philonides represents both
21 Theseus and Dionysus. By this means, Chelidonion attempts once more
22
cºleha lek\d¸air. T¸ owm l²tgm, § mói, diaqq¶cmushe t±r cm²hour 1lvus_mter t0
23 s¼qicci. Oqd³m rl÷r am¶sei t± jihaq¸slata7 t¸ pq²clata paq´wete ta?r woqda?r. T¸
24 d³ ja· Ådomter 5vgte “Oqj 1pihule?r, § paqh´me, cem´shai cum¶.” L´wqi t¸mor paq-
25 h´mor ja· jºqg, t± t_m !mo¶tym amºlata.
26 45 Epist. 1.14 (p. 30.17 – 18 Vieillefond): Wqus¸ou c±q le?fom tejl¶qiom toO jolid0
27 vike?m oqj oWda 6teqom.
46 In Lucian s Dialogues of the Courtesans, there is also a hetaera with this name
28 (Dial. meretr. 10), but she displays no resemblance to Aristaenetus Chelidonion:
29 she serves merely as an interlocutor for her colleague, Drose, who is abandoned
30 by her lover because he has begun to study philosophy and now aspires to virtue.
31 47 Artemidorus (Oneir. 2.66) comments on swallows generally: vas· c±q t¹ fòm
32 (i. e. wekid½m) h²matºm te sgla¸meim !¾qym syl²tym ja· p´mhor ja· k¼pgm
lec²kgm. The lament of the swallow was particularly associated with the myth
33 of Tereus (narrated by Ovid, Met. 6.412 – 674): Philomela, dishonoured by Te-
34 reus, the husband of her sister Procne, is turned into a swallow and continues
35 to mourn the loss of her honour, so e. g. Anth. Pal. 9.57, 9.70 (esp. vv. 3 – 4:
36 t¸pte pamal´qior co²eir !m± d_la, wekido?. / pa¼e , 1pe¸ se l´mei ja· jatºpim
37 d²jqua), 9.210 (esp. v. 5: jimuqol´mam); further, Moschus 3.39; Seneca,
Agam. 673 – 675; Statius, Theb. 12.478 – 480. Apart from lamenting, the song of
38 the swallow was associated with unmelodious and unclear, even barbaric sounds:
39 see e. g. Aeschylus, Agam. 1050 – 1051, fr. 450 Radt; Aristophanes, Frogs 678 –
40 682, Birds 1681; Lucretius, De rer. nat. 3.6 – 7.

Authenticated
1 to demonstrate the seriousness of her love,48 of which the recipient of the

2 letter also receives a visible sign: the appeal of the hetaera that she should
3 not be blamed for her conduct is accompanied by her tears, which have
4 fallen on the letter.49 The letter ends, significantly, with the assertion
5 that she has written the letter overcome with sighing and weeping.50
6 The letter marked with tears is a motif of mourning, which is familiar,
7 for example, from Ovid s Heroides. 51 Chelidonion s comparison with
8 Ariadne also recalls the Heroides (see n. 20) as well as Catullus 64th
9 poem.52 A considerable measure of the irony of Aristaenetus letter lies
10 precisely in this comparison, since here, it is a “real” hetaera who laments
11 and not a mythical heroine. The addressee of the letter is also no god or
12 hero, but an ordinary young man. His removal from the sphere of gods
13 and heroes is already achieved through his name, which means “one
14 who delights in reviling or insulting”; further, Chelidonion speaks in
15 her letter of his accusations, which in her view are unjustified.53 Chelido-
16 nion s detailed account of her feelings and her request that Philonides
17 concede her point recall the appeal of the elegiac lover to his puella.
18 The decisive difference here, however, is the role reversal: in Aristaene-
19 tus letter, the amator has become an amatrix, the domina almost a domi-
20
21
22
48 Epist. 2.13 (p. 72.4 – 8 Vieillefond): Ja¸toi le jahe¼dousam !ve·r Lćaq²de
23 pqos´ptgr7 1c½ d( !vupmishe?sa pq¹r 1lautµm 1bºym toOto7 “Oqj 5sti Vikym¸dgr,
24 !kk± Hgse¼r.” Joilyl´mgm jatakip½m åwou. )qi²dmgm le p÷sai jakoOsi7 s» d³
25 Hgse»r 1lo· ja· Diºmusor.
26 49 Epist. 2.13 (p. 72.19 – 20 Vieillefond): Lµ s¼ce, dólai ja· Rjete¼y, ja· jata-
27 sp´mdy d²jqua t_m cqall²tym.
50 Epist. 2.13 (p. 73.26 – 28 Vieillefond): TaOta cćqava, mµ to»r =qytar, !shla¸-
28 mousa ja· dedajqul´mg <ja·> jah( 6jastom ¨m 1p´stekkom !mastem²fousa.
29 51 Ovid, Her. 3.3 – 4, 15.97 – 98 (earlier, however, Propertius 4.3.3 – 4). This motif
30 also appears e. g. in the letters of the late Greek orator Libanius (so in
31 Epist. 1063.6 Foerster), who speaks of his own or of others tears astonishingly
32 often, especially in cases of death (e. g. Epist. 388.1 – 2, 390.10, 1048.7, 1220.1,
1430.3 Foerster).
33 52 Catullus Ariadne also laments and weeps copiously, as in Carm. 64.60 (maestis
34 … ocellis), 64.124 – 131 (esp. 130 – 131: atque haec extremis maestam dixisse que-
35 relis, / frigidulos udo singultus ore cientem) and 64.195 – 199.
36 53 Epist. 2.13 (p. 72.18 – 19 Vieillefond): S» d´ loi jatal´lv,, tµm rpºjqisim !cmo-
37 ¶sar. See also the following lines (p. 72.20 – 22): nlyr Flaqtom, blokoc_, eU soi
v¸kom "pk_r blokoco¼sgr !joOsai. Ja· Dm bo¼kei d¸jgm 1p¸her, pkµm toO diakO-
38 sai tµm Blet´qam vik¸am. Chelidonion s intention to seek to avoid the annoying
39 of Philonides in the future (p. 72.24 – 25) also suggests how easily he is hurt and
40 prone to arguing.

Authenticated
204 Thorsten Fçgen
1 nus, whose irritable nature, however, occurs together with jealousy, a

2 characteristic trait of the typical elegiac lover.
3
4
5 5. Conclusions
6
7 The discussion of Alciphron and Aristaenetus has shown once more that
8 tears are a standard motif in elegiac texts (or in texts that are related to
9 elegy). The two Greek epistolographers have achieved an attractive mix-
10 ture of genres, combining the prose letter form with themes from elegy
11 and comedy. In the two letters of Alciphron, the weeping of the admirer
12 is confronted with the sober rationalism of the hetaera, which suggests an
13 element of social realism. Aristaenetus epistle, on the other hand, seems
14 to stand more obviously in the tradition of the elegiac lover s complaint,
15 albeit with a significant male-female role reversal, which finds expression
16 above all in Ovid s Heroides, equally a synthesis of letter and elegy,
17 though in verse form. Inescapable elements of humour are associated
18 with the motif of tears alike in the love elegies of Propertius and Ovid,
19 and in the Greek erotic epistolography of the imperial period. At the
20 same time, this theme illustrates the power relationship between the he-
21 taera and her admirer: in Alciphron and Aristaenetus, tears are always
22 those of the weaker figure, or at least of the suppliant.
23 The parallels with Ovid s Heroides also make clear that it would be
24 worthwhile to analyse these poetic letters along the lines pursued in
25 this paper. Several themes found in the Heroides have already been men-
26 tioned in the poetological elegy 2.18 of the Amores cycle. At its begin-
27 ning, it is stated that the poet has long wished to depart from love
28 elegy, but whenever he rejected his puella – here merely a synonym for
29 the Amores – she burst into tears and persuaded him with caresses to re-
30 turn to her (Am. 2.18.1 – 12). Consequently, he has given up his project of
31 composing tragic poetry and devoted himself once more to the subject of
32 love, this time with the Epistulae Heroidum, fictitious love letters from
33 mythical women addressed to the men they love. The central importance
34 of weeping and lamenting in the Heroides is clearly evident in the exam-
35 ples provided in elegy 2.18 (Am. 2.18.19 – 34): Phyllis tears are men-
36 tioned, Dido is designated as miserabilis, and Hypsipyle s letter to
37 Jason is tristis. 54 Female tears in these elegiac letters are almost omnipre-
38
39 54 Weeping heroines appear already in Propertius: in elegy 1.15, the tearful Calyp-
40 so, Hypsipyle, Alphesiboia and Euadne are contrasted with the faithless Cynthia.

Authenticated
1 sent. When we include the pairs of letters (Her. 16 – 21) in our analysis,
2 this is equally true for male tears: Paris, Leander and Acontius all
3 weep (Her. 16, 18, 20). Although for reasons of space we cannot here un-
4 dertake a detailed consideration of the role of tears in the Heroides,55
5 such an omission does not alter the representative conclusions of this dis-
6 cussion.
7 On another level, it would be possible to argue that the texts exam-
8 ined here permit us to interpret weeping as a structural pattern that con-
9 tributes to the establishment of social identity. As a cultural resource and
10 practice, it can create coherence within Greek and Roman society, but at
11 the same time provoke divergence, which brings with it a clearly struc-
12 tured effect. In the case of Roman elegy and Greek erotic epistolography,
13 partially related to the former, this double function of tears is readily visi-
14 ble: the dichotomy of male and female behaviour in relation to weeping is
15
not at all as unambiguous as it might at first sight appear. While elegy is
16
already a literary genre in which male and female roles and identities are
17
not clearly defined, indeed, in which these are to some extent even invert-
18
ed in comparison to the tradition, it can be concluded that the motif of
19
tears and crying is used to constantly renegotiate identities.
20
21
22
Bibliography
23
24 Alfonsi, Luigi & Wilhelm Schmid (1959): s.v. “Elegie”. In: Reallexikon f r An-
25 tike und Christentum (vol. 4), Stuttgart, 1026 – 1061.
26 Anderson, Graham (1997): Alciphron s miniatures. In: Aufstieg und Niedergang
27 der rçmischen Welt II 34.3, 2188 – 2206.
28 Armstrong, Rebecca (2005): Ovid and His Love Poetry, London.
Arnott, W. Geoffrey (1982): Pastiche, pleasantry, prudish eroticism. The letters
29
of Aristaenetus . In: Yale Classical Studies 27, 291 – 320.
30
Baca, Albert R. (1971): The themes of querela and lacrimae in Ovid s Heroides.
31 In: Emerita 39, 195 – 201.
32 Baertschi, Annette M. & Thorsten Fçgen (2006): Zauberinnen und Hexen in der
33 antiken Literatur. In: Gymnasium 113, 223 – 251.
34 Baker, Robert J. (1983): The threshold of loneliness: Propertius, I.18. In: Carl
35
Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History III, Bruxelles,
126 – 140.
36
Baker, Robert J. (ed.) (2000): Propertius I. An Introduction, Translation and
37 Commentary, Warminster.
38
39 55 The paper by Baca (1971) contributes little to this subject and is largely confined
40 to an examination of the significance of the word querela in the Heroides.

Authenticated
206 Thorsten Fçgen
1 Barsby, John A. (ed.) (1973): Ovid s Amores: Book One. Edited with translation
2 and running commentary, Oxford.
3
Barsby, John A. (1996): Ovid s Amores and Roman comedy. In: Papers of the
Leeds International Latin Seminar 9, 135 – 157.
4
Booth, Joan & Guy Lee (2000): Catullus to Ovid: Reading Latin Love Elegy. A
5 Literary Commentary with Latin Text, London.
6 Burck, Erich (1952): Rçmische Wesensz ge der augusteischen Liebeselegie. In:
7 Hermes 80, 163 – 200.
8 Burck, Erich (1963): Rezension von Georg Luck, Die rçmische Liebeselegie
(1961). In: Gymnasium 70, 89 – 94.
9
Burck, Erich (1966): Rçmische Liebesdichtung. In: Id., Vom Menschenbild in
10 der rçmischen Literatur (vol. 1). Ed. by Eckard Lef vre, Heidelberg, 222 –
11 237.
12 Burri, Renate (2004): Zur Datierung und Identit t des Aristainetos. In: Museum
13 Helveticum 61, 83 – 91.
14 Camps, William A. (ed.) (1961): Propertius: Elegies Book I, Cambridge.
Chantraine, Pierre (1990): Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue grecque. His-
15
toire des mots, Paris.
16 Copley, Frank O. (1947): Servitium amoris in the Roman elegists. In: Transac-
17 tions of the American Philological Association 78, 285 – 300.
18 Dimundo, Rosalba (2000): L elegia allo specchio. Studi sul I libro degli Amores
19 di Ovidio, Bari.
20
Drews, Herma (1952): Der Todesgedanke bei den rçmischen Elegikern, Diss.
Kiel.
21
Du Quesnay, Ian M. Le M. (1973): The Amores. In: James W. Binns (ed.), Ovid,
22 London, 1 – 48.
23 Fauth, Wolfgang (1980): Venena amoris. Die Motive des Liebeszaubers und der
24 erotischen Verzauberung in der augusteischen Dichtung. In: Maia 33, 265 –
25 282.
Fçgen, Thorsten (2001): Ancient theorizing on nonverbal communication. In:
26
Ruth M. Brend, Alan K. Melby & Arle R. Lommel (eds.), LACUS
27 Forum XXVII: Speaking and Comprehending, Fullerton, California, 203 –
28 216.
29 Fçgen, Thorsten (2004): Gender-specific communication in Graeco-Roman an-
30 tiquity. With a research bibliography. In: Historiographia Linguistica 31,
31
199 – 276.
Fçgen, Thorsten (2007): Splendeurs et mis res des courtisanes. Zur Charakter-
32
zeichnung in den Het renbriefen Alkiphrons. In: W rzburger Jahrb cher
33 f r die Altertumswissenschaft N.F. 31, 181 – 205.
34 Ford Jr., Gordon B. (1966): An analysis of Amores I 4. In: Helikon 6, 645 – 652.
35 Fr caut, Jean-Marc (1972): L esprit et l humour chez Ovide, Grenoble.
36 Gauly, Bardo Maria (1990): Liebeserfahrungen. Zur Rolle des elegischen Ich in
Ovids Amores, Frankfurt am Main.
37
Greene, Ellen (1998): The Erotics of Domination. Male Desire and the Mistress
38 in Latin Love Poetry, Baltimore & London.
39 Hallett, Judith P. (1973): The role of women in Roman elegy. Counter-cultural
40 feminism. In: Arethusa 6, 103 – 124.

Authenticated
1 Hohenwallner, Ingrid (2001): Venit odoratos elegia nexa capillos. Haar und Fri-
2 sur in der rçmischen Liebeselegie, Mçhnesee.
Hollenburger-Rusch, Caroline (2001): Liquitur in lacrimas. Zur Verwendung des
3
Tr nenmotivs in den “Metamorphosen” Ovids, Hildesheim.
4 Holzberg, Niklas (1997): Ovid. Dichter und Werk, M nchen.
5 Holzberg, Niklas (22001): Die rçmische Liebeselegie. Eine Einf hrung, Darm-
6 stadt.
7 Hubbard, Margaret (1974): Propertius, London.
James, Sharon L. (2003): Her turn to cry. The politics of weeping in Roman love
8
elegy. In: Transactions of the American Philological Association 133, 99 –
9 122.
10 Kennedy, Duncan F. (1993): The Arts of Love. Five Studies in the Discourse of
11 Roman Love Elegy, Cambridge.
12 Kçlblinger, Gerald (1971): Einige Topoi bei den lateinischen Liebesdichtern,
Wien.
13
K ppers, Egon (1981): Ovids ,Ars amatoria und ,Remedia amoris als Lehrdich-
14 tungen. In: Aufstieg und Niedergang der rçmischen Welt II 31.4, 2507 – 2551.
15 Laigneau, Sylvie (2000): Ovide, Amores I,6. Un paraclausithyron tr s ovidien.
16 In: Latomus 59, 317 – 326.
17 Lef vre, Eckard (1966): Propertius ludibundus. Elemente des Humors in seinen
Elegien, Heidelberg.
18
Lilja, Saara (1965): The Roman Elegists Attitude to Women, Helsinki.
19 Luck, Georg (1961): Die rçmische Liebeselegie, Heidelberg.
20 Lyne, R. O. A. M. (1979): Servitium amoris. In: Classical Quarterly 29, 117 – 130.
21 Lyne, R. O. A. M. (1980): The Latin Love Poets. From Catullus to Horace, Ox-
22 ford.
McKeown, James C. (1989): Ovid: Amores. Vol. 2: A Commentary on Book
23
One, Leeds.
24 M ller, Richard (1952): Motivkatalog der rçmischen Elegie. Eine Untersuchung
25 zur Poetik der Rçmer, Z rich.
26 Murgatroyd, Paul (1975): Militia amoris and the Roman elegists. In: Latomus
27 34, 59 – 79.
Murgatroyd, Paul (1981): Servitium amoris and the Roman elegists. In: Latomus
28
40, 589 – 606.
29 O Neill, Kerill (1999): Ovid and Propertius. Reflexive annotation in Amores 1.8.
30 In: Mnemosyne 52, 286 – 307.
31 Opsomer, Thomas (2003): Referre aliter saepe solebat idem. The relation be-
32 tween Ovid s Amores and Ars amatoria. In: Carl Deroux (ed.), Studies in
Latin Literature and Roman History XI, Bruxelles, 313 – 350.
33
Osmun, George F. (1984): Desistas lacrimas. Tears in Latin elegy. In: Classical
34 Bulletin 60, 45 – 47.
35 Ozanam, Anne-Marie (ed.) (1999): Alciphron: Lettres de pÞcheurs, de paysans,
36 de parasites et d h ta res. Introduction, traduction et notes, Paris.
37 Papanghelis, Theodore D. (1987): Propertius. A Hellenistic Poet on Love and
Death, Cambridge.
38
Parker, Douglass (1969): The Ovidian coda. In: Arion 8, 80 – 97.
39
40

Authenticated
208 Thorsten Fçgen
1 Postgate, John P. (1901): Select Elegies of Propertius. Edited with Introduction,

2 Notes, and Appendices, London.
Prescendi, Francesca (2000): Klagende Frauen. Zur weiblichen Trauerhaltung in
3
Rom. In: Thomas Sp th & Beate Wagner-Hasel (eds.), Frauenwelten in der
4 Antike. Geschlechterordnung und weibliche Lebenspraxis, Darmstadt, 102 –
5 111.
6 Reardon, Bryan P. (1971): Courants litt raires grecs des IIe et IIIe si cles apr s J.-
7 C., Paris.
Reitzenstein, Erich (1935): Das neue Kunstwollen in den Amores Ovids. In:
8
Rheinisches Museum f r Philologie 84, 62 – 86.
9 Rosenmeyer, Patricia A. (2001): Ancient Epistolary Fictions. The Letter in Greek
10 Literature, Cambridge.
11 Sharrock, Alison R. (1991): Womanufacture. In: Journal of Roman Studies 81,
12 36 – 49.
Sharrock, Alison R. (2002): Ovid and the discourses of love. The amatory works.
13
In: Philip Hardie (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ovid, Cambridge,
14 150 – 162.
15 Šterbenc Erker, Darja (2009): Women s tears in ancient Roman ritual. In:
16 Thorsten Fçgen (ed.), Tears in the Graeco-Roman World, Berlin & New
17 York, 135 – 160.
Stroh, Wilfried (1979): Rhetorik und Elegie. Eine Studie zu Ovids liebesdidak-
18
tischen Gedichten. In: W rzburger Jahrb cher f r die Altertumswissenschaft
19 N.F. 5, 117 – 132.
20 Vieillefond, Jean-Ren (1979): L invention chez Alciphron. In: Revue des
21 tudes Grecques 92, 120 – 140.
22 Volk, Katharina (2002): The Poetics of Latin Didactic. Lucretius, Vergil, Ovid,
Manilius, Oxford.
23
Watson, Patricia (2002): Praecepta amoris. Ovid s didactic elegy. In: Barbara
24 Weiden Boyd (ed.), Brill s Companion to Ovid, Leiden, 141 – 165.
25 Wyke, Maria (1987): The elegiac woman at Rome. In: Proceedings of the Cam-
26 bridge Philological Society 33, 153 – 178.
27 Wyke, Maria (1989): Mistress and metaphor in Augustan elegy. In: Helios 16,
25 – 47.
28
Yardley, John C. (1978): The elegiac paraclausithyron. In: Eranos 76, 19 – 34.
29 Yardley, John C. (1987): Propertius 4.5, Ovid Amores 1.6 and Roman comedy.
30 In: Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 33, 179 – 189.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Authenticated

Tears in Propertius, Ovid and Greek Epistolographers: Thorsten Fçgen

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tears in Propertius, Ovid and Greek Epistolographers: Thorsten Fçgen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Brought to you by | Oxford University

Brought to you by | Oxford University

1 results from the association of 5kecor with a Phrygian root meaning

Brought to you by | Oxford University

1 with an excursus on the role of tears in the Greek epistolographers Alci-

Brought to you by | Oxford University

1 described state of loving as one of renunciation, suggests that the poet

Brought to you by | Oxford University

Brought to you by | Oxford University

Brought to you by | Oxford University

Brought to you by | Oxford University

Brought to you by | Oxford University

Brought to you by | Oxford University

1 exclusus amator is here merely hinted at by the reference to weeping and

Brought to you by | Oxford University

Brought to you by | Oxford University

Brought to you by | Oxford University

1 as an unforgivable outburst: his rage is mentioned twice within the first

Brought to you by | Oxford University

1 tion of the drama of the – fictive – situation. An example of the familiar

Brought to you by | Oxford University

Brought to you by | Oxford University

1 Ovid, was particularly inclined to melancholy and that he even had an

Brought to you by | Oxford University

Brought to you by | Oxford University

1 should always preserve moderation and not exaggerate if they wish to be

Brought to you by | Oxford University

1 tion is reduced to manipulative behaviour which serves the pursuit of per-

Brought to you by | Oxford University

Brought to you by | Oxford University

Brought to you by | Oxford University

1 taken as a literary representation of the social conditions in Greece, even

Brought to you by | Oxford University

1 Here, again, a pragmatist is presented who emphasizes her long profes-

Brought to you by | Oxford University

1 to demonstrate the seriousness of her love,48 of which the recipient of the

Brought to you by | Oxford University

1 nus, whose irritable nature, however, occurs together with jealousy, a

Brought to you by | Oxford University

Brought to you by | Oxford University

Brought to you by | Oxford University

Brought to you by | Oxford University

1 Postgate, John P. (1901): Select Elegies of Propertius. Edited with Introduction,

Brought to you by | Oxford University

You might also like