You are on page 1of 52

Mediaeval Biographies of Ovid Author(s): Fausto Ghisalberti Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes,

Vol. 9 (1946), pp. 10-59 Published by: The Warburg Institute Stable URL: . Accessed: 26/04/2012 15:40
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

The Warburg Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes.



a "Life" of Ovid has not been transmitted to us from antiquity, as case of other poets and authors, it is interesting to enquire how mediaeval students made up for this lack. The need of a comprehensive synthesis of the poet's own revelations or reservations, concerning himself, and of traditional accretions to his biography, was felt with particular intensity from the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries, at the height of the vogue for Ovid. The mediaeval biography of Ovid aims at serving as a useful introduction to the reading of the poems, for the idea of a literary biography, as an end in itself, was unknown to those times. When the mediaeval commentator undertook the explanation of a work, his aims were to elucidate the causes determining its origin, the matter of which it was composed, its intention, the useful lessons to be learned from it, its title, and, finally, to what part of philosophy it should be ascribed. The life of the poet was, therefore, divided under these various headings and reduced to conformity with them, and this, usually, only in reference to the particular poem chosen. For instance, when speaking of the matter of the poem, its contents and characteristics would be described in such a way as to lead on to its efficient cause, namely the poet himself, and thence to the poet's life, in the search for the reasons which induced him to write it, reasons which varied from one epoch to another according to the conditions of the author's existence. In speaking of the Metamorphoses, biographical circumthe stances adduced as causes would be different from those chosen when treating of the Ars Amatoria the Tristia. The usefulness of the work chosen by the or commentator would also lead up to biographical points concerning the advantages which the author himself gained, or hoped to gain, from it. The enunciation of the title brought him naturally to the author's name, and thence to the drawing up of the principal biographical data, sometimes more or less exact, sometimes purely fantastic; this might be followed by the complete list of his works. Finally, the assignation of the work to a branch of philosophy provided opportunity for bringing out its importance from a higher point of view, and became, as it were, the moral sanction for the author, particularly in the case of a pagan writer.

Since in the


Some specimens of mediaeval introductions and commentaries have been published and studied, for example by Sedlmayer1 in his notes on the Laurenziana codices of the Heroides.Only in one of these do we find a complete life of the poet; in the others the biography is restricted to points which bear upon the work concerned. During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries,
the exordium on Ovid as poet which introduced the text of the Heroides was almost always drawn up in terms such as are to be found, for example, in
1 H. S. Sedlmayer, "Beitrage zur Geschichte der Ovidstudien im Mittelalter,"

Wiener Studien, VI, 1884, pp. I42 f.






two codices in Berne and Paris respectively,1 or in the fourteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.2 The latter recounts that Ovid lived in the town of Paelignum and went to Rome hoping to acquire literary fame there. He observed the lives of the young people in the city and wrote the Heroides,in imitation of Hesiod of Ascra,3 in order to give them good moral advice. There are also special prefaces to each individual epistle in the Heroides, as can be studied in an important fourteenth century Parisian codex4 which is rich in glosses and ample expositions of the historical circumstances of the various letters; in a fourteenth century manuscript in the Laurenziana5 which gives expository summaries; and, above all, in the Laurenziana codex6 disedition surrounded by cussed by Sedlmayer. The latter is a beautiful trecento a rich commentary, in which each letter is preceded by a summary of its contents and a statement of its general and special purpose, that is the purpose of the lady who is supposed to have written it and Ovid's purpose. In these the whole moral sustenance of the poem is summed up, condensed in verse form to be learned by heart.7
1 Bern. 41I, and Paris. 15136. For the Berne codex, I2th-13th centuries, see E. H. Alton, "The mediaeval commentators on Ovid's Fasti," Hermathena, XLIV, 1926, pp. 119-15I. On Paris. 15136, which contains an important commentary, see below, p. I3, note 4. Several of the longer 2Vat. lat. 2792. quotations used as sources in this article are For this one, see given in the Appendices. below, p. 44, Appendix A. 3 See below, p. 44, note 2. SParis. 79955 Laur. 36, 28. 6 Laur. 36, 27. SMany examples are given by H. S. Sedlmayer, Prolegomena critica ad Heroides The ovidianas, Vienna, 1878, p. 96-98. commentators insist on the moral character of the work. See, for example, Laur. 36, 27: "Intentio est castum amorem commendare, illicitum refrenare et incestum condemnare. Utilitas est magna, nam per hoc scimus castum amorem eligere, illicitum refutare et incestum penitus extirpare"; and Vindob. 13685: ". .. . intentio eius duo amoris genera notare castum s. et incestum, ut Phedre et Finalis causa sive utilitas est ut, aliarum. dum castum amorem Penelopis intuemur, proderit instruendis moribus, ethice suppositio, que in duas dividitur partes: in repulsionem s. et admissionem, repellimus enim turpia, admittimus honesta que utraque inveniuntur in hoc opere . . ." (Sedlmayer, p. 145 ; Prolegg. pp. II and "Beitrige," Ioi); the commentator of Clm. 19475 adds to the general intention of giving pleasure and providing model love letters that of

recommending chaste love and blaming unchaste love; this is the "utility" which is generally expected of the poem. "Intentio eius est de triplici genere amoris, stulti, incesti, furiosi scribere . . . Aliter intentio huius libri est commendare castum amorem S. . vel vituperare incestum amorem . . . Aliter . . . Aliter: Intentio sua est cum in preceptis de arte amatoria non ostendit quo modo aliquis per epistolas sollicitaretur, illud hic exequitur. Aliter: Intentio sua est in hoc libro hortari ad virtutes et redarguere vitia. Ipse accusatus fuit apud Cesarem quia scriptis suis romanas matronas illicitos amores docuisset. Unde librum scripsit eis istud exemplum proponens, ut sciant, amando, quas debeant imitari, quas non. Sciendum quoque est quod cum in toto libro hanc et supradictas habet intentiones, preterea duas habet in hoc libro, unam generalem et aliam Generalem delectari et comspecialem. muniter prodesse Specialem habet intentionem sicut in singulis epistulis, aut laudando castum amorem ... aut vituperando incestum amorem . . . Utilitas vel finalis causa secundum intentiones deversificatur, vel illicitorum, vel stultorum amorum cognitio, vel quo modo alique per epistolas sollicitentur, vel quo modo per effectum ipsius castitatis commodum consequamur. Vel finalis causa est ut per commendationem caste amantium ad castos amores nos invitet, vel ut visa utilitate que ex legitimo amore procedit, visisque infortuniis vel incommoditatibus que ex illicito et stulto amore proveniunt, et stultum et illicitum repellamus et fugiamus, et legitimo adhereamus." Cf. G. Przychocki, "Accessus ovidiani," Rozprawi Akademii



becomes so much accentuated as time The moral character of the Heroides on that the commentator of a fifteenth century manuscript would have goes us believe that the epistles were written as a reparation for the immorality of the Ars Amatoria,and in the hope of obtaining the emperor's permission to for return from exile. As he substitutes the Heroides the Ex Ponto,so he substitutes Nero for Augustus in his imaginary biographical notice. He is convinced of the good faith of Ovid, whose triple name is proof of morality, and believes him to have been the victim of cruel machinations.The short notice which accompanies the text of the Amores in an eleventh century codex is limited to justifying the anomaly of a poem "without a title." The book is called Sine Titulo, says the writer, either because Ovid was not seeking fame for himself through it, but desired only to please his beloved; or because Augustus had been so angered by his Ars Amatoria that he did not dare to give a title to the present work.2 This explanation is given in almost the same words by all later commentators. The grammarian writer of a twelfth-thirteenth century manuscript (Clm 19475 and 19474) may seem to know more when he hints as a "third cause," that Augustus had ordered Ovid to describe his war with Anthony and Cleopatra, but the poet, being drawn away by Cupid, wrote the books on love instead. But all this is his own invention, based on a misunderstanding of the epigram at the head of the three books, which he attempted to explain by relating it to the first elegy in the first book.3 This hint seems, as we shall see later, to have encouraged the grammarians, even if they did not accept the tale of Augustus' command to the poet, in the belief that Ovid intended to give his work another title. Equally sparse and ill-authenticated are the biographical notices which are to be found in some of the commentaries to the Ars Amatoria. According to the unprejudiced glossator of a manuscript dated in the year 1305, Ovid wrote the work in his youth and described in it his own love experiences. There are six main questions to be examined concerning the book, as concerning all other books: namely, its author, its subject, the intention of the author, the usefulness of the work, its title and to what part of philosophy it belongs. The subject of this work is love; and its usefulnessis to give an accomplished knowledge of love. The book is an ethical one because the author discusses the characters of the young men and women whom he describes.4
Umiejetnosci; Wydzial Filologiczny, Ser. III, Vol. IV, Cracow, 1911, pp. 84 ff. 1 Laur. 91 sup. 23. See below, p. 44, Appendix B. 2 Sangall. 864: "Iste liber intitulatur Ovidius sine titulo i. sine laude, et hoc duabus de causis, vel quia nullam laudem querat sibi in hoc libro nisi placere amice
sue .. . , vel quia accusatus erga Augustum

Cf. F. Lenz, "De Ovidii Amorum codice sangallensi denuo collato," Rendicontidelli'
Istituto Lombardo, LXIX,

There are but few notices on the Amoresin the codices. Another example is Barb. 26 (I 3th- I4th centuries) published by B. Nogara, "Di alcune vite e commentari medioevali di
Ovidio," in Miscellanea Ceriani, Milan, 1910,


pp. 633-57-

p. 417. Arnulf of Orleans must have used de Amatoria Arte, unde omnes romane the St. Gall codex, as Lenz points out. mulieres erant contaminate, tam matrone 3 Cf. Lenz, op. cit., p. 637; Przychocki, op. quam solute, non ausus hic apponere titulum. cit., p. 93, note 32. 4 Paris. 7998. See below, p. 45, AppenSi quis tamen opponat quis huic sine titulo apposuerit, ab aliquo dicatur esse appositus." dix C.





The commentaries on the RemediaAmorisare in general more severe in judging the moral responsibility of Ovid for the Ars, but this is in order to bring out the force of the antidote. A typical thirteenth century example speaks of the corrupting and softening influence of the Ars which led many people astray. But as the creator of all things did not make anything without a remedy, so Ovid provided a remedy for the Ars, and wrote the present work in order to cure those whom he had formerly corrupted.' The industrious author of the gloss to a manuscript dated 12862 takes a similar line, though he tempers the supposed antithesis between the Remedia and the Ars.3 The commentators on the love poems do not usually pay much attention to their biographical aspect: they are chiefly interested in placing them in the context of Roman social behaviour and in justifying Ovid's purpose. amatoria Interesting from this point of view is the series of notes on the carmina in general to be found in a thirteenth century manuscript.4 The commentator is aware that the poet's real aim was to give delight by singing of love, and that he is recounting his own amorous experiences under fictitious names: but since it was an unquestioned rule that poetry must be the vehicle for good moral teaching, he labours to bring out the hidden moral scope of these with its praise of conjugal love erotic poems. He explains that in the Heroides, and its descriptions of the results of passionate aberrations, Ovid's aim is to recommend legitimate love; whilst in the Amores,although it is true that "ludicra tractat et iocosa," his intention is to stigmatize the corruption of dissolute women. Those who take the Ars Amandias merely a frivolous tale of amorous intrigue are very dull-witted. No, this is a tractate "de amore ad artis compositionem," a book of precepts, an ars in the serious sense of the word, its object being to establish the foundations of a full and perfect art of the love. He sees no real opposition between the Ars and the Remedia; material of the poems relates to "amor," whilst the latter is "remediosus" in the sense that the poet seeks to extinguish the flames of harmful passion. And although he realizes the strictly personal character of the Ibis, he seeks to establish here also a theme of general utility, namely the execration of the vice of envy, through a number of instructive fables. Whilst in the De Nuce he finds the moral that no one ought to be unjustly punished, he cannot deny that the treats of an effeminate practice, but in compensation he finds, Medicaminafaciei under the fictitious veil of the De Somno,the moral purpose of putting the reader on his guard against the intrigues of women.5 Though the Fasti belong to an altogether higher and graver type of poetry,
Paris. I 1318. See below, p. 45, Appendix D. 2 Paris. 8246. 3 With the remark: "Tamen non est reprehendendum hoc opus premisso operi fuisse contrarium. Quod ipse actor ostendit dicens: 'Nec te blande puer,' etc... " (Rem., I I). 4 Paris. 7994. A similar collection is Bern. 411 (I2th-I3th century), which, perhaps,

derives from Orleans. The Berne codex contains a series of introductions to the Ars am., Remedia, Fasti, Ex Ponto, Metam., Heroid. They all conclude with a few remarks on the first lines of each text. Cf. Alton, op. cit., p. 21. Another collection which evidently belongs to the same class is Paris. 15136, 13th century (see above, p. I I, note I). 5 See below, pp. 45-48, Appendix E.



the chief preoccupation of the grammarian commentator of a thirteenth century manuscript, as he introduces the reader to the work, is to explain its title, the occasion for which it was composed, and the reason why it remained unfinished. He tells the story that Ovid destroyed the poem before leaving Rome to go into exile, and that later, at the request of Germanicus, he tried to reconstruct it from memory, but was interrupted by death when the task was only half done.' Some additions can be made to the examples already given by Ehwald of mediaeval introductions to the Ex Ponto and the Tristia which refer to the three causes of the exile: "quod ipse concubuit cum Livia, quod vidit Augustum condormientem puero, quod ipse composuit librum de arte amatoria"2 and to the explanation of Ovid's name: "Publius a Publia familia, Naso a quantitate nasi, Ovidius quod ovum dividens." For example, the commentator of a thirteenth century manuscript defines the utility of the ex Pontoas twofold. It was useful for Ovid in helping him to forget his misfortunes and his weariness. And it is useful for the readers for it warns them to avoid the mistake which Ovid made.3 A more realistic version is given by a fourteenth century writer who believes that Ovid hoped by this work to induce the emperor either to cancel his exile altogether or to alleviate it by sending him to a pleasanter place.4 The same writer, speaking of the Tristia, takes care to relate it to the special circumstances of the exile. He states that the work was composed during Ovid's journey to Pontus with the object of exciting the pity of his friends, and of the emperor, and in the hope of being pardoned and recalled.5 A similar account is to be found in another fourteenth century manuscript, which, however, includes quite a new story concerning the relations between Ovid and Virgil. In discussing Ovid's supposed intrigue with the empress, the commentator says that the poet climbed to her window on a bronze ladder. Virgil took some of the rungs out of this ladder whilst Ovid was with the empress, so that when the latter descended, he fell and broke his leg. For this, among other reasons, Ovid hated Virgil.6

It would obviously be inexact to speak of these compilations as "lives" in the classical sense of the word, and it is better to adopt the mediaeval term "accessus," as Przychocki does when speaking of them. The learned Polish
errore consimili precavere." 4 Paris. 8207. See below, p. 49, Appen2 R. Ehwald, Ad historiam carminum ovidi- dix G. Paris. 8207 includes a variety of anorumrecensionemque symbolae,Gothae, I, 1889, contents. Amongst them are some 'glosulae' 1Vat. Reg. I548. Appendix F.
II, 1892.

See below, p. 48,

3 Paris. 8197: "Utilitas huius libri in hoc opere duplex est scilicet quo ad Ovidium et ad auditores: quo ad ipsum Ovidium talis est utilitas s. habere oblivionem de suis malis et tedium removere. Utilitas legentium est quod per errorem Ovidii sibi possint ab

which derive in part from those of Arnulf of Orl6ans. The introduction to the Ex Ponto proves this. 5 Ibid. See below, p. 49, Appendix G. dix H.
6 Paris. 8255. See below, p. 50, Appen-

to the Ex Ponto, Remedia, Ars, Amores, Tristia,





scholar has quoted examples of such "accessus" from the Vatican and Munich codices, illustrating them with much learning.' He emphasizes that they are really introductions to the works, and this is confirmed by all the other examples which we have examined in the Ovidian codices. They are a product of the monastic schools of the Middle Ages, the successors of the ancient 'ludi' and of the curriculum of the liberal arts. Theology, the sum of all sciences, reigned at the apex of the system and its base rested on grammar, and thus to teach the right the function of which was to interpret the auctores use of the Latin tongue. Hence the assumption, which is obligatory in every 'accessus,' that all the works have a moral aim. This falsifies the spirit of Ovidian poetry, whilst preserving it from ecclesiastical censure by adapting it to the theological and didactic ends of Christian pedagogy. The same method was, of course, used in the moralizing florilegia,2 and to Conrad of Hirschau it seemed the chief satisfaction which a learned teacher should derive from the reading of the classics. It is to Przychocki that we owe the establishment of a point of departure for the history of the mediaeval "accessus." He observed that, since the works of Ovid are without classical commentaries such as those of Servius and Donatus on Virgil, the Middle Ages applied to their interpretation the method of commentary ultimately derived from the Greek schools which was widely diffused in the West. As for the later development of genre, it remains to be seen how far Przychocki's statement that Servius and Donatus were absorbed into mediaeval methods of interpretation can be accepted. The teaching of Conrad of Hirschau, which he cites, has in fact, a theoretical value. But in practice it can be proved, and Przychocki himself admits this, that the
1 The Przychocki, op. cit., pp. 65-126. word 'accessus' does not appear in Palat. and transcribed by Vat. 242, examined He found it in two Munich Przychocki. codices, Clm. 19475 (12th century), and 19474 (I2th-I3th centuries), where it occurs fairly frequently and is written on the front pages (op. cit., p. 77). He points out that the first mention of the "accessus" was made by S. Giinther, Gesch. der litterarischenAnstalten in Bayern, Munich, I8Io, I, p. 271. L. Traube (Vorlesungen and Abhandlungen, Munich, 1911, II, p. 165), and after him M. Manitius (Gesch. d. lat. Lit. d. M.A., I, p. 505) thought that the introduction which Remigius of Auxerre prefixed to his commentaries served as models for the vast numbers of 'accessus' which swarmed in the But Strecker (reviewing Middle Ages. Przychocki's work in Neues Archiv, XXXVII, 1911, p. 382) affirms that these derive from Greek doctrines transmitted through the Latins. "It is always the same schemes that we find, in Conrad of Hirschau, Hugo of Trimberg, the Anonymus Mellicensis and even in the earliest printed texts." 2 An important florilegium of I2th century

Latin poets (on which see F. Vollmer, in Sitzungsber. d. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Miinchen, I908, Abh. ii, p. I7.) *was studied for Ovid's carmina amatoria by Sedlmayer in Wiener Studien, XXII, 1900, pp. 229 ff. Following him Schr6tter noted (Ovid und die Troubadours, Halle, 19o8, pp. 35 ff.) how the lascivious spirit of Ovid was altered by giving a moral aim to his amorous works. This was a fiction to avoid the strictures of the Church, and one which forced Ovid into the service of Christian didactics and theology. A characteristic example of such a use of Latin authors in the Middle Ages is the florilegium contained in a I2th century manuscript (codex 227 of the studied by monastery of Heiligenkreuz) Himer in Zeitschriftf. isterr. Gymn., XXXII, 1881, p. 415In the codex (Paris. N.A. 1. I544, 15th century) described by B. Haur6au (Notices et Extraits, XXXII, I, pp. 253-314), which contains moral and religious material, Ovid is much used. From the amorous works, the Ex Ponto, the Tristia, and the 'Ovidius magnus' is drawn a varied and nourishing supply of sentences; the missing folios of the volume must have contained more of these.




"questions" were much reduced. The mediaeval grammarians, who enjoy the details of traditional pedantry, never enumerated more than seven "questions"; others limit themselves to six, and the majority are preoccupied with four only-namely, materia,intentio,utilitas, philosophie suppositio. The of these four is sometimes altered, but not their substance. terminology

If it is true that for the minor works of Ovid, and of other authors, we find the canon of seven, or four, questions fixed by Przychocki, for the Metamorphoses(and perhaps for other poems of equal importance) the situation seems different. Naturally, the grammarian who was preparing to read the would feel the need of giving his hearers a wider and deeper Metamorphoses of the author than was called for in introducing the minor works, knowledge such as the Ars Amatoriaor the Tristia. The Metamorphoses belonged to the both of the author's greatest fame and of his greatest disgrace; it had period been with difficulty saved from destruction and had never been emendated. So that the grammarian, in this case, whilst maintaining the scheme of the 'accessus,' felt obliged to modify its substance by making it an introduction to the life and work of the poet as a whole. The researches of Przychocki thus maior, require to be supplemented by the study of the 'accessus' to the Ovidius which throw further light on these hitherto neglected problems and offer new elements for the reconstruction of the mediaeval biography of Ovid. Although one does not expect to find classical doctrines in these introductions, I believe that traces of these may be gleaned from the abundant glosses with which the later codices are enriched. There must certainly have been scholia in the works of Ovid in the classical era. In spite of the ban in force in the libraries, his works were sought after by the contemporaries. The letters were recited; and many from Pontus were read and appreciated; the Heroides scholars are convinced that certain passages, which, even at that time, could hardly have been understood without erudite explanation, were accompanied by commentaries. Thus, Wilamowitz believes that Ovid himself provided glosses for his edition of the Ibis,' and Ellis has reconstructed a corpus of antique scholia on that poem. We cannot make such affirmations in the case Slater's theory that this work was already accompanied of the Metamorphoses. by a critical apparatus in ancient times is entirely conjectural. Knaack and Castiglioni hoped that traces of an antique commentary might eventually be found amongst the mass of mediaeval scholia,2 but so far the investigations
1 U. v. Wilamowitz, Hellenistische Dichtung in der Zeit des Kallimachos, Berlin, 1924, II, PP. 97 ff. 2 D. A. Slater, Towards a Text of the Metamorphoses of Ovid, Oxford, 1927; L. Castiglioni (reviewing Przychocki in Atene e Roma, XV, 1912, pp. 250 ff.), discusses the point as follows: "I have given examples of the earliest scholia in my Analectaplanudea(pp. 193, 275) ... Possibly from a careful examination of such remains, and of the variants in the Laurenziana mythographer and the so-called Lactantius, one might obtain results suggesting the existence of a relatively ancient commentary from which Servius and the others drew those slight variations of the fables from the pure Ovidian version. The hypothesis that such a commentary existed has been maintained by Knaack and myself; but is denied by an authoritative scholar like Magnus."



of materia,but begins with philosophy, the last question, discoursing on the parts of philosophy and poetry, which he divides into three kinds: pragmaticon, After an exposition of the opinion of the ancient exegeticon, cinomicticon.4 philosophers on the origin of the world, follows the intentio. Ovid's intention was both to please by relating the fables, and also to instruct through the moral meaning in the stories, "for all authors tend to ethics."'5 Finally, in place of materia,there appears the theme so dear to mediaeval scholiasts of utilitas. The utility of Ovid is that the full knowledge of mythology which he provides helps to explain allusions in other books, and also that he teaches a beautiful literary style.6 Of the life there is hardly a word, if one excepts the allusion in the first verses to his supposed Christianity; this is perhaps the result of a confusion of Ovid with Statius.7 It may be questioned, however, whether this extract
6 "Utilitatem nobis confert Ovidius quia cum fabule in aliis libris tangebantur, ignorabantur, donec iste Ovidius enodavit 252 ff. 2 Prodest nobis et ad ostenet enucleavit. 46 Io, a codex from the monastery Clm. of Benedictbeuren. See Meiser, "Ueber dendam pulchram dictionum compositioeinen Commentar zu den Metamorphosen nem."' der des Ovid,"Sitzungsber. Akad.derWissensch. 7 The scholiast dates the poet's life in the time of Domitian and Augustus; because, for zu Miinchen, 1885, pp. 47-49. 3 "Cum multa possint inquiri in capite him, Domitian is the persecutor of the moderni Christians, and he supposes that Ovid must libri, quadam uniuscuiusque gaudentes brevitate tria principaliter in- have been a Christian, and that it was only quirenda statuere id est materiam, inten- through fear of the emperor that he recognized the pagan gods. It is, therefore, not tionem et cui parti philosophie supponatur." 4 "Tercium genus poematis est Cinomintisurprising that in commenting I, 21, "Hanc con (i.e., "common") ut Ovidius iste scribit." deus et melior natura diremit," he refers the to Christ: from the Greek expression "melior natura" (Read "cinomicticon," "Melior natura id est voluntas dei, filius dei see Meiser, op. cit., pp. 49-50.) KoLvotxx6v; Cf. Przychocki, op. cit., p. 85, note 15. diremit, et sic quantum ad effectum id est 5 "Intentio Ovidii est omniumque fabulas secundum qui videbatur, non quod deo scribentium utpote Terentii maxime delectare aliquid accidat, ut sit melior, dictum est de et delectando tamen mores instruere, quia Jesu: Puer Jesus proficiebat etate et sapientia omnes auctores fere ad ethicam tendunt." apud deum et homines."

cui parti philosophiesupponatur.3 In practice, however, he does not speak at all

in this field have not yielded any such result. It is true, however, that the tends to strengthen the thesis study of mediaeval prefaces to the Metamorphoses advanced by E. K. Rand who gained from the texts of this type, which he had come across, the impression that mediaeval readers-particularly those of the thirteenth century-were not so much bound by mystical, allegorical, or strictly moral presuppositions in their understanding of Ovidian poetry as has usually been maintained.' In fact, these prefaces, and the commentaries which follow them, sometimes contain surprises; we have already noted this in connection with the carmina amatoria. We shall see how these literary and notices develop from the rudimentary mediaeval "accessus," biographical through a series of experiments and accretions, into the more complex form of the humanistic "life." An eleventh century preface quoted by Meiser,2 would seem to show that the habit of amplifying the poet's life was still in force at that date. The writer intentio, says that he wishes to treat his subject under these heads only: materia,

1 E. K. Rand, "The Classics in the Thirteenth Century," Speculum, IV, 1929, pp.



from the Benedictbeuren codex is an "accessus" in the proper sense of the word; the absence of any treatment of materia,and the general disorder of its procedure makes one doubt its integrity. The twenty-four folios which contain this commentary do not include the text; they are merely a collection

of glosses on about 450 passages from all the books of the Metamorphoses.

Possibly, therefore, what we have here is a collection of excerpts from some fully glossated text. The first true "life" is that which the twelfth century teacher, Arnulf of on Orleans, prefixes to his glosulae the Metamorphoses. Arnulfmay be considered the most complete commentator on Ovid in this century. I have already devoted a special study to him;I here it will suffice to say that the biographical notices transmitted to us by Arnulf are very sober and scrupulous, being mostly based on the poet's own words. The scheme of Arnulf's biography is a simple one. Without much preamble or classification, he begins a summary account of the poet's life, introducing a mention of the various works in the chronological order of their appearance; then he passes to a second part of the

treatise in which he expounds titulus, materia, intentio, philosophie suppositio,

utilitas, modustractandi. Arnulf seems here quite close to the canon of the classical grammarians, particularly to Servius, who, in his introduction to the commentary on the Aeneid,observes the following order of treatment: poetae
vita, titulus operis, qualitas carminis, scribentis intentio, numerus librorum, ordo

librorum, explanatio.Arnulf respects the fundamental distinctions of the Servian but modifies some of them in accordance with the exigencies of school, mediaeval mentality. In this introduction to the Ovidiusmaiorwe find him treating of the whole life of the poet, in accordance with the rule, like Servius in the Aeneid; such a full treatment does not appear in the prefaces to the minor works until considerably later, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The qualitascarminisis here replaced by a lengthy treatise on materiain which he expounds a classification based on three kinds of transformation, "natural, magical, spiritual," which will be found subsisting, almost unaltered, in later "accessus." For Arnulf the aim of the poet was entirely moral; by showing, through the mutation of bodies the changes in spirit which are inseparable from them, he brings us back to God, inviting us to follow reason and to maintain the soul in its original form by keeping it clear of vice. It follows that the poem should be assigned to moral philosophy, and its usefulness is, not only that it provides a compendium of mythology, but, above all, that it leads to the understanding of the doctrine that divine things can be known through the transformationof the corporeal forms. Here Arnulf formulates one of the salient characteristics of mediaeval Ovidian commentary, to which he himself was one of the first to give an enormous impulsenamely that of the allegorical or hermeneutic interpretation of myths, and
consequently of their inclusion, when thus understood, within the sphere of the ecclesiastical culture of his time. The example set by Arnulf, both here and in his other prefaces and commentaries to Ovidian works, formed a school. The scheme of his "life," with its method of introducing a review of all the works in correct sequence, was to be repeated up to the time of late
1 F. Ghisalberti, "Arnolfo d'Orlans, un dell'Istituto Lombardo, XXIV, cultore di Ovidio nel sec. XII," Memorie 234.

pp. 157-



humanism. And the highly significant analytical side of Arnulf's treatment was also heavily drawn upon by successive compilers, with a constantly renewed confidence in the system excogitated by him. This can be observed, for example, in the first of the two "lives" to be found in the twelfth century codex of which Nogara speaks.' Here we find the seven "questions" enunciated in the same terms, and preceded by the "life"; and here also it is stated, and proved from examples, that it was the intention of the poet to allude, through the metamorphoses of matter, to the transformations of spirit. Przychocki gives as examples of introductions to the Metamorphoses (which he had not found represented in the Munich codex published by him) a fifteenth century manuscript2 which contains a widely diffused life of late date, and those in the twelfth century codex just mentioned,3 to which Nogara had drawn attention. Such introductions become much more numerous and wide-spread from the time of Arnulf onwards. On account of its length, the Ovidiusmaior always enjoyed the privilege of a separate edition, and this provided opportunity for a comprehensive treatment of the author. Arnulf himself declared: "When we have in hand Ovid's greatest work, then we will trace his life." These lives were too bulky to be included in the collections of "accessus" to the minor works, though this was occasionally done; for example, Alton found in the Berne sillogus studied by him, a proem to the included amongst those to minor works. Nevertheless, the introMetamorphoses duction to the larger poem usually constituted an entity in itself and had the character of a genuine literary notice of the poet. The arid scheme of exegesis laid down by Arnulfwas progressively amplified by his successors. Sometimes a grammarian would further elaborate the second part of the treatise, adding subtle distinctions on the various kinds of metamorphosis; others would prefer to expand the biographical part, with fresh colour and new details from the works of Ovid, particularly from the confessions in the Tristia,and more often still from his own imagination. And so, as time went on, the life of the poet grew longer and longer in the constantly renewed copies of the Metamorphoses. In one of these, a fourteenth century manuscript mentioned by Nogara the and which forms part of an "accessus" to the De Vetula, influence of Arnulf of Orleans' "life" is very strong.4 In fact, it is merely an amplification of Arnulf's work, to which it corresponds literally at many points, though the writer prefixes to it a declaration on the general structure of the composition which is not given by Arnulf. It is printed in full in one of the appendices to this article, with the words, which correspond to Arnulf's text, italicized.5
Vat. 1593. Cf. Nogara, op. cit., p. 417. 2781. Nogara also alludes to this. 3 Vat. 1593- See Przychocki, op. cit., p. 96; Nogara, op. cit., pp. 416-I8. Vat. 1593 contains a life which alludes to the supposed destruction of the Metamorphoses order of by the poet: "ac ibidem mortuus est: hunc autem librum dum filie sue comburere iussisset non combussit, sed ad placitum correxit." 4 Vat. Reg. 1559. This "life" also appears in two other codices: Ven. Marc. lat. XII. 57

2 Vat.

(14th century), and Ambros. G. 130 inf. (I 4th century). Vat. Reg. I559 was written between 1389 and 1407 by Riccardus de Basochiis, a cleric of the diocese of S6ez and rector of the school of Conches. It contains the De Vetulawith marginal notes and an introduction. Nogara prints only that part of the introduction which concerns the exile and the composition of De Vetula. 5 See below, p. 50, Appendix I, for the whole "life" together with the introductory



The grammarian author of a fourteenth century manuscript' keeps to the usual restrictions which limit an "accessus" to the circumstances concerning the work which it introduces. He states that there are four principal reasons governing the composition of a work,2 but he intends to consider this one more particularly under six aspects. Insisting above all on materia, he completes the Arnulfian scheme of the different kinds of metamorphosis by body into another body. Passing to the title, he gives a reason for the strange derivation of the name of Ovid from the parts of an egg, a derivation which others had adopted without giving a reason for it. The egg symbolizes the four elements, with the division of which Ovid is concerned in his philosophical work.3 The addition of a list of the genuine works of Ovid show that this writer felt the need for as complete a documentation as possible. The proem to an Ambrosiana manuscript4 shows later amplifications. The grammarian has attempted to lighten the arid, schematic form of composition with quotations. He declares that he desires above all things to avoid prolixity and passes at once to the section titulus,explaining the author's name first by paraphrasing "Naso a quantitate nasi," and then, as usual, drawing from it the figurative sense, namely that of his sagacity in moral intuition. "Ovidius" signifies for him also 'ovum dividens,' for the same reason as that given by the preceding writer. He explains the Greek derivation of "metamorphosis," adding the epitaph which appears also in the manuscript just mentioned (Paris. 8253), and which here is attributed to Matthew of Vend6me. He then passes to the examination of the contents, enumerating four kinds of transformations, 'naturalis,' 'moralis,' 'magica,' 'spiritualis,' after the manner of the above-mentioned Paris manuscript and with accurate examples. For this grammarian, the intentio the author was to expound all the transformaof tions from the beginning of the world up to the deification of Caesar, and thus bring out the importance of the latter event. The utilitas, which the author hoped for from the work, was that Augustus should pardon him; that which the reader may draw from it, is the detestation of those vices which transform us into beasts. Philosophically speaking, therefore, the work may be ascribed both to ethics and to physics.5
general statement, omitting, however, the remainder of the introduction which refers exclusively to the little pseudo-Ovidian poem De Vetula. 1 Paris. 8253. See below, p. 51, Appendix J for the text. On this and other commented Ovidian codices see the notes in my edition of John of Garlandia, Integumenta Ovidii, Milan, 1933, and the above-mentioned work on Arnulf. Consult the indices under the name of the codex. 2 The "four causes" discussed by Vat. Reg. 1559 and Paris. 8253, which are typical examples of this kind of treatise, derive from Donatus' commentary on Virgil's Bucolics, where he says "causa unde ortum sit opus et quare hoc potissimum sibi ad scribendum poeta praesumpserit" (see Przychocki, op. cit., p. 109). 3 See below, p. 27. 4 Ambros. N. 254 sup. (14th century). See below, p. 53, Appendix K. 5 The "accessus" to Vat. 2781 (I5th century), ff. 185-9, closely resembles Ambros. N. 254 sup. though it treats the same material at greater length. It gives the same examples for the various kinds of mutation, but adds to them; for example, as well as Orestes, it gives Agave and Pentheus. There is also a long digression on philosophical opinions as to the origin of the world (cf. Nogara, op. cit., p. 417, and Przychocki, op. cit., p. 96). The introduction in Ambros. B. 18. inf. is also related to this, as well as to Paris. 8253-

subdividing mutatio magica into a fourth part, mutatio moralis, the change of a



With the proem which in the fourteenth century Guillelmus deThiegiis prefixes to his commentary' we arrive at a genuinely literary type of biography. The author is particularly eager to inform us concerning Ovid's youth, which he reconstructsby quotations from the poet. Such autobiographical quotations are not infrequent in earlier lives; 2 the novelty here is that they are arranged to form an organic whole. In Arnulf's life the biographical details are indistinct and arid, and the author soon passes to the usual classifications. Guillelmus does not omit these; under materia,he distinguishes three kinds of mutation, 'moralis,' 'magica,' 'theorica'; the utilitasof the work consists in of remembering what is here recounted; the intentio the author was the glorification of Augustus and the discussion of the properties of the elements. This part of the treatise is very thin, but when he comes to speak of the titulushe seems to be drawing on a richer source-perhaps similar to the one used by the Ambrosiana manuscript which this text closely resembles from now onwards. Forgetting what he has just said, Guillelmus brings up again the topic of the various kinds of mutation, of which he now distinguishes four, 'naturalis,' 'moralis,' 'spiritualis,' and 'magica,' with the same subdivisions as in the Ambrosiana manuscript, though with different examples. And he also which here, as in the Ambrosiana, means the exposispeaks again of intentio tion of all change from the beginning of the world up to the deification of Caesar; and of utilitas,which is the reconciliation with Augustus. For Guillelmus, too, Ovid is both ethical and physical. This mechanical and uncritical juxtaposition of passages taken from different sources leads him into making contradictory statements, and this spoils the good impression made by his first part. There is also a serious lacuna, namely, the absence of the catalogue of the works; even Arnulf, poor in materials though he was, had not omitted this. These examples will suffice without further mention of the similar "accessus" to be found in some Vatican manuscripts, for example, in that fourteenth century codex3 in which is still to be found the arrangement, henceforward dropped, of discussing life and works at the same time, reserving for the major poem the longest exposition of hidden intentions and of the various species and sub-species of mutation. The fullest and best arranged introduction to the Metamorphoses that is dictated by the famous orator, Giovanni del Virgilio, as part of the general exposition of the whole poem which he gave at the university of Bologna during
1 Paris. 8oio (14th century). See below, p. 54, Appendix L. On this Guillelmus de Thiegiis and his commentary (assigned by B. Haureau to the I3th century, but which appears to me to belong to the 14th) see Histoire litte'raire de la France, XXIX, I885, p. 582, and my Arnolfo, pp. 191 ff. 2Guillelmus may have known the biographical 'accessus' to the Metamorphosesin Bern. 4I1 (I2th-I3th century), which probably comes from Orleans. Alton (op. cit., p. 121) has reprinted parts of this, and some of them correspond closely with the text published below. For example: "Ovidius in peligno opido natus erat unde ait in ovidio sine titulo. Hic ego composui pelinis natus aquosis tempore illo in quo fuit bellum inter marium et cillam . . ." with which compare Appendix L, p. 543 Vat. 7627.



the two years 1332-3. I have already published the text of this, with a commentary,1 and here it will suffice to point out aspects of it which are important for the study of the evolution from the "accessus" to biography proper. Giovanni del Virgilio, following resolutely along the way opened by a type such as Paris. 8253, does justice to the old classifications which here also contest the field with the quadripartite system. The latter dominates the greater part of Del Virgilio's "life." In accordance with classical doctrine and following in the footsteps of Boethius and Virgil, our grammarian teaches that the end of all science is the knowledge of causes. Thus, even when opening a book, one should know the causes for which it was written; and to search out these is the principal task of every "accessus." There are but four causes. First, the causaeficiens;this for Del Virgilio is the author himself, rather than any movement external to him. Therefore, he includes in this section a first attempt at a general biography, no longer limited to the circumstances related to the particular work to be explained, but including the whole literary of curriculum the poet. Giovanni notes only a few external events; the poet's going to Rome with his brother to study; his love for Corinna; the exile, which he seems to regard as not so much a consequence of the Ars Amandi, which was only a pretext, as of some intrigue with the empress, to which he sees a transparent allusion in the verses of the Tristia: "iussuss et Atheon vidi sine veste Dianam." As to Ovid's death, he quotes the various stories without vouching for the truth of any of them. It is wrapped in mystery; one may believe with Arrighetto da Settimello2 that Ovid died in exile; or one may accept the tradition that he was the victim of his own popularity and was suffocated by the crowds who welcomed him on his return to Rome. In the second we section, that devoted to causamaterialis, find enumerated all the different kinds of transformation which Arnulf had gathered under the title materia. Giovanni simplifies here also, contenting himself with the "mutatio naturalis," the "spiritualis" (in which he perhaps includes the third, or "moralis," which the others mention) and the "magica." He reduces the examples and abolishes the sub-divisions. The treatment of the causa formalis is particularly interestfor in this he introduces a novelty: the definition of the poem from the ing, rhetorical point of view. For Giovanni the form is divided into two parts: the forma tractatus, which includes the division of the poem into fifteen books and the subdivisions of these, and the arrangement of each poem in its various which is the modus agendiof the poet, and may parts; and the forma tractandi, have a dominant characteristic (modusagendigeneralis),namely, the general style corresponding to the nature of the poem; or it may assume in particular and so details the properties of various styles, dffinitivus, collectivus, discursivus, on (modus agendispecialis).3 This shows how the new rhetoric intuitively felt
F. Ghisalberti, "Giovanni del Virgilio espositore delle Metamorfosi," Giornale Dantesco, XXXIV, N.S., Annuario Dantesco, IV, Florence, Olschki, 1933, PP- 1-110. 2 G. Rotondi has pointed out ("Ovidio nel Medio Evo," Convivium, 1934, p. 266, note I) that the erroneous reading "Arigecus" which I printed is an allusion to the well-known elegy by Arrighetto da Settimello.
1 3 G. Vandelli, in Studi Danteschi, XVIII, I934, pp. I63 ff., drew my attention to the affinity between Dante's epistle to Cangrande and parts of this "accessus" by Del Virgilio. It is true that we find in chap. 9 of that epistle the same distinction: "Forma vero est duplex: forma tractatus at forma tractandi. Forma tractatus . .. secundum . .. divisionem . . Forma sive modus tractandi est poeticus,



the necessity of overriding the old scholastic barriers in order to differentiate between the various strands from which the unity of the poem is woven. This wider view appears also in the simplified and definite way in which Giovanni characterizes the fourth and last cause, the causafinalis,which takes the place of intentioand utilitas. He does not seek, like Arnulf, for hidden religious meanings, nor dwell on conjectures as to the utility which Ovid sought to procure for himself and others from the poem. The grandiose vision of a general history of all change and the desire for immortal fame ("et iste breviter est finis cuiuslibet poete") were the final cause of the poem. After having thus distributed the parts of his treatise, Giovanni is seized with a scruple. It may seem to some that he has omitted to discuss the title of the poem and the section of philosophy to which it should be ascribed. But this is not the case. "Hiis visis veniamus ad alia duo que solent queri in principiis librorum s. quis sit titulus et cui parti philosophie supponatur. Que non videntur michi necessario inquirenda eo quod, visis causis quatuor, statim in unoquoque libro apparet quis sit libri titulus et cui parti philosophie supponatur. Nam libri titulus habetur ex causa efficiente, et cui parti habetur ex causa materiali." But one would say that it cost him an effort ("dicamus ergo") to repeat the well-worn similitude of Ovid and the egg, and to labour For the rest he concludes with a rule in the etymology of metamorphoseos. which he seems to identify himself with the affirmation of scholasticism: "Dico quod supponitur ethice i. morali philosophie, nam omnes poete tendunt in mores." These are new and as yet still hesitant ways of considering Ovid's major work. Mediaeval scholasticism is beginning to be shaken. New schemes are replacing the old patterns. True, it is but a new kind of formalism which is being substituted for the old, but the need for a fresh critical spirit is clearly revealed. This tendency is also noticeable in the brief proem prefixed to a fourteenth century Laurenziana manuscript.' The biographical notices treat the usual points; the enumeration of the works is close to that in Paris. 8253. The author feels considerable sympathy with Ovid; his life is rehabilitated, the exile itself being viewed as the consequence of the poet's having been suspected of faults of which he was innocent. And the poem is judged from an independent, almost humanist, point of view, for Ovid means to teach through delight, and to educate his readers in eloquence. On the last folio of a manuscript in the Ambrosiana is an "accessus" which appears to have been written and compiled by a grammarian of the end of the fourteenth century.2 This is at last a true biography, freed from the hesitations which still held back Giovanni del Virgilio. The old schematism has almost disappeared. The author, indeed, proposes to himself four points for elucidation which he arranges in the following order of importance: vita, utilitas. In practice, however, the last three are but brief notes, titulus,intentio,
fictivus, descriptivus, digressivus, transumptivus, et cum hoc diffinitivus, divisivus, probativus, improbativus, et exemplorum positivus." Dante, Opere, ed. Soc. Dant. Ital., Florence, 1921.

dix M.

1 Laur. 36, I8. See below, p. 56, AppenSee below, p. 56,

Ambros. H 64 sup. Appendix N.



in part related to customary mediaeval ways of thought, as, for example, in the explanation of the name Ovid. But in addition to the pious intention of and establishing a moral and didactic aim for the poet in the Metamorphoses in the Ars Amatoria, the concept of 'delectatio,' which, blameworthy appears in poetry if it is an aim in itself, becomes most perfect when used, as Ovid uses it, to teach by pleasing. By far the most important part of the treatise, however, both in length and in novelty, is the life of the poet. The compiler clears it almost entirely of mediaeval inventions, except for some onomastic details, drawing for the most part on citations from the poet as his chief source. He disdains to repeat the conjectures of his predecessors on the causes of the exile, which he regards as unjustly inflicted on the poet on account of the Ars Amatoria,the honest intention of which was misunderstood or ignored; and it is with many doubts that he mentions the story of the secret transportation of the bones of the poet to the Rome for which he had sighed in vain. Immediately following this life in the same codex, the same hand had begun to transcribe a second life, which can be recognized as that of Arnulf. This cannot be entirely a coincidence. The author of this life must have had Arnulf's outmoded rules in mind, and instead of a simple proem to the limited to such biographical notes as were indispensable for Metamorphoses, the understanding of how and when the poem was written, he embraced the whole life and work of the poet, discussing even the exile and its causes, which was normally matter for the introduction to the amorous works or the Tristia. An example of the new style of complete biography forming an introduction to a minor work, is to be found in the proem to the Ars Amatoriain a fifteenth century codex,1 which passed through the hands of two humanists, both of them students of Ovid.2 Although the elements of which this is formed are entirely mediaeval, as can easily be seen,3 the tone is rather that of a true biography, in that the writer no longer seeks for seven, or four, causes, but tries to establish the facts concerning the writer's origins, family, studies, life and work. After this, one is not surprised to find in an elegant fifteenth century codex, illustrated with miniatures,4 a life which was clearly written by some one who understood Latin, and by a critic who had sifted the mediaeval tradition. This can be seen from his manner of treating the much discussed question of the causes of the exile. The prudence and the learning of this author are also apparent in the soberly correct catalogue of the works which he draws up. It begins with the Heroides which he says: "Nec illud tamen of opus puerile censendum est, eruditum, argutum, maximo artificio conflatum, cui opera annectenda epistola illa aurea quam Sappho puella lesbia ad
Napol. V. D. 52. See below, p. 58, Appendix O. 2 The superscription says: "Antonii Seripandi ex Jani Parrhasii testamento." 3 Przychocki pointed out (op. cit., p. Io8) that although the facts given in this biography are incomplete and vague, and mingled with fantasy even to the point of including the dispute 'de habitu nasi ovidiani,' this type of "accessus" furnished material for 1 lives which were still appearing in post humanist editions of the poet's works. See the edition of the Heroides, Venice, 1512, published by Giovanni Tacuino, with a commentary by Antonio Volsco and Ubertino Crescentinate; and the Ars Amatoria, also published by Tacuino, Venice, 1494, edited by Bartolomeo Merula. 4 Laur. 36, 2. See below, p. 59, Appendix P.



Phaonem scribit."' On the Amoreshe notes: "hos neoterici de Sine titulo vocant"; he continues with the Ars Amatoria,the Remedia,the Metamorphoses, "opus divinum et propter fabularum cognitionem necessarium, cuius operis inter cetera mira continuationis est virtus." For the Medeahe quotes Quintilian's judgment. He lists the Tristia, the Fasti, the Ibis, the Ex Ponto, the composition in the Pontic dialect on the triumph of Augustus Caesar. And in conclusion he remarks, "Attribuunt ei et alia opuscula, sed meo iudicio numquam Ovidii fuere, videlicet de Nuce, de Pulice, de Philomena: insaniunt vero qui eum dicunt scripsisse de Vetula, de Lumaca, nam ea oportuit fuisse cuiusdam infantis et ignorantissimi." It may be said that it forms the last link in the chain of manuscripts which constitute the history of lives of Ovid in the mediaeval tradition. The high esteem in which this poet was held, particularly in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, caused his works to be much sought after and transcribed, commented in the schools, and paraphrased in the vulgar tongues of Europe. His love poetry stimulated the songs of wandering scholars and suggested themes to the troubadours and the minnesingers. The rich wealth of mythological lore presented by him in such vividly pagan colouring, was copiously drawn upon by allegorists and moralizers in the service of a vision of the world dominated by the Christian faith. This fame stimulated the desire to know more about his personality in relation to his various works, an interest which may be defined as an embryo form of history of literature. Traube was right to maintain that these mediaeval compositions, which were written about all the classical authors and sometimes collected together, constitute a kind of scholastic history of literature. In the vast complex of the later Ovidian codices, the "accessus" abound; and they differ little from one another, as the previous researches of Sedlmayer, Nogara, Przychocki and Alton, limited to certain groups, have shown. In the present enquiry, which includes various groups and collections of manuscripts, I have tried to co-ordinate certain aspects of those codices in such a way as both to bring out a line of development, and to bring together a collection of dates which enables us to reconstruct a fairly accurate picture of what the mediaeval students knew of the life of Ovid. Mediaeval commentators had little historical sense; they loved gossip and would enlarge a hint in the author's works into some entirely imaginary episode. They realized that the sole source of information on Ovid's life is Ovid himself, but, being innocent of modern critical methods, they were unable to sift the evidence which the poems provide. They made use of his words, often not properly understood, as a basis for their biographies, but on points where he himself is silent on the mystery of his life they gave rein to their imaginations; nor have moderns always resisted the temptation to fill in the gaps with conjectures. Elements from this uncertain tradition survived even in minds which had begun to develop a critical sense; they can be found, for example, in the life of Ovid which Boccaccio inserts into his life
of Dante. In the mid-fifteenth century, Sicco Polenton wrote a notice of Ovid
1 This letter was discovered in the early It was almost unknown to the Middle Ages; years of the I5th century. Panormita cites it a Parisian codex which mentions it is dated as early as 1426. Bono d'Accorso quotes it in Nov. 20oth, 1423. Cf. R. Sabbadini, Le
the edition of the Metamorphoses,Milan, I475. scopertedei codici latini e greci, I, Florence, p. 99.



which is still entirely dependent on the mediaeval tradition, full of those inventions and superstitions which disappear in the first true humanistic life, which Manuzio prefixed to the first volume of the Aldine edition in 1515.1

We are now in possession of sufficient data to draw up a conspectus of the knowledge of Ovid available to the Middle Ages. The name of Ovid's father was reconstructed by the mediaeval grammarians from the poet's first name; it appears in various mutilated forms in the twelfth century lives, and is stabilized in the most probable form, Publius, The mother was also given a name, but it appears in only one manuscript hitherto discovered, the same Clm., 19475, where she is designated as Pelagia. It cannot have been an isolated example, for this name reached Polenton who regards it as quite authentic.4 As for the poet's own name, Arnulf and the other twelfth century writers state it without adding all those allusive etymologies which are so characteristic of almost all the thirteenth and fourteenth century lives. From the codex Gothanus onwards, the name gives rise to various interpretations. The first name 'Publius' is in general derived from the 'gens' of the poet, and thence from the "Publius family" ;5 but for many this derivation does not suffice, and they add, with the usual 'vel . . vel' other possible meanings: such as the public favour which he enjoyed," or the name of his
1 P. Ovidii Nasonis uita per Aldum ex ipsius libris excerpta, Venetiis in aedibus Aldi et Andeae soceri mense maio MDXV. 2 Cf. Przychocki, p. 80; Paris. 8253 (see below, p. 52, Appendix J). Vat. 1593 (first Arnulf gives the form life) has "Puplius." "Plimius," also the second life in Vat. 1593, which, as I have elsewhere demonstrated (Arnolfo, p. 178, note 2), follows Arnulf exactly. 3 "Publius" in Paris. 8253; in Ambr. N 254 and in Guillelmus de Thiegiis. Some sup.; 14th century codices, such as Reg. 1559 and its two allies Ambros. G 130 inf. and Marc. XII, 57; Vat. 2781; Laur. 36, 18 and the versified preface to Vat. 5222, 15th century Others give an give the form "Pilius." entirely new name; "Botius" (cf. Sedlmayer, p. 142); Ambr. H 64 sup. is uncertain: "Botius vel Pilius"; Vat. 1479 does not hesitate to make the Trojan Solemus, companion of Aeneas and founder of Sulmo, the father of Ovid, and indeed insists upon this Giovanni del Virgilio (see pp. 29, 30). and Boccaccio do not give the father a name. Sicco Polenton maintains that the father also was called P. Ovidius Naso (Sicconis Polentoni, Scriptorum illustrium latinae linguae libri XVIII, ed. B. L. Ullman, American Academy in Rome, 1928, p. 65, line 16). 4 "Mater Pelagia" (Polenton, ed. Ullman). M. Lenchantin de Gubernatis ("La biografia ovidiana di Sicco Polenton," Athenaeum, I, 1913) did not use Przychocki's work, where he would have found the mediaeval precedent which he believed lacking. 5 Thus, the Gothanus and Paris. 8253Arnulf ignores the first name, which is given by the codices, but there is no confirmation of it in classical sources. 6 Ambr. N 254 sup.: "vel quia primus publicum favorem habuit"; Napol. V.D. 52: "a publico favore romanorum quem emeruerat"; Guillelmus de Thiegiis: "vel quia pubFor licum omnium obtinuit assensum." Ambr. H. 64 sup. also this is the only possible explanation: "dictus est Publius ab honoribus et dignitatibus quas erat solitus habere anteLaur. 36, 27 quam deveniret in exilium." says that Ovid took this name because he came from the "gens Publiorum"; or because he was a notable member of that "gens"; or, finally, "quia poete scientia nobilitabantur, in signum huius nobilitatis Publii vocabantur, quod patet in Virgilio qui Publius appellatus fuit in titulo versuum compositorum ab

in the Clm. 19475,2

and similarly in the best fourteenth century lives.3

Of~~~~~~~~ f ::t:if i f:ii


Ixs -:* k(6tfits



The Four Elements symbolized by an Egg.

From Ovide Moralise', Bibl. Nat. MS. fr. I37, fol. Iv (p. 27)





father,1 or even the public school of morality which he founded." Much more which was explained as elaborate meanings were drawn from the name Ovidius, an allusion to the cosmology of the poem, designating Ovid as he who distinguished the parts of the egg, symbol of the world, composed of four elements disposed concentrically like those of the egg: the shell envelops all like the heaven, seat of fire; the subtle and transparent air is like the skin; the clear water is like the white of the egg; and the central earth is like the yolk in the middle of the egg.3 Another etymology, which found little acceptance, derived the name from the verb 'ovare,' alluding to the note of exultation which is sometimes found in Ovid's language.4 As to the cognomen Naso, not every
Ovidio et ab Augusto super vita ipsius Virgilii," (Sedlmayer, p. 142). This alludes to a composition by Ovid about Virgil which is not mentioned by the others. Or possibly it is an allusion to some epitaph attributed to him, such as I have seen in Vat. 5222, fol. Ovidius ad 25; "Ovidius ad Atticum, Cottam, Ovidius ad incertum." Or to those "argumenta librorum virgilianorum" which were attributed to him. Finally, amongst those who thought that the name alluded to his public fame were the author of the verse prefaces published by Hagen (Carmina med. aevi, Berne, 1877) from the Berne cod. 512, 12th century, and also reproduced by Przychocki, p. 116. He expresses himself thus: "Publius de publica fama nuncupatur." 1 Ambr. H 64 sup.: "vel a Publio patre"; Paris. 7998: "Publius a patre suo qui Publius fuit dictus"; Vat. I479 has a variant which is characteristic of the volubility of this scholiast: "Publius dicitur a Publio prenomine vel a Publia matre Nasonis." Giovanni del Virgilio has "Publius dictus a parentela sua." 2 Laur. 91 sup. 23: "Publius enim dictus a publico-cas quia publice reprehendebat ea que reprehendenda et laudabat laudanda." "Ovidius 3 Gothanus simply explains: Paris. 7998 adds: quod ovum dividens." "quia mundus quasi ovo comparatur." Paris. 8253 goes more fully into the strange derivation of the comparison of the egg with the four elements, which Ovid explains as divided from the materiaprima (see below, Ambr. N 254 sup. p. 52, Appendix J). the same idea in other words (see expounds below, p. 53, Appendix K); and Guillelmus clarifies and completes it (see below, p. 55, Appendix L). Ambr. H 64 sup. is shorter: "quia tamquam bonus philosophus divisit celum elementa," meaning that the elements of the universe were included by him in the general term of heavens (see below, But Napol. V.D. 52 p. 58, Appendix N). returns to the comparison with the egg (see below, p. 59, Appendix O). Even the diffident Giovanni del Virgilio also adopts this, and it seems indeed to have been almost obligatory in commentaries and teaching courses on the 'Ovidius maior' as may be deduced from the Ovide moralise. A miniature (Paris, Bibl. nat., MS. fr. 137, fol. I verso, see P1. 6) shows a teacher sitting in his chair with Ovid's book open before him on the desk. He is explaining to the scholars the division of the elements of the universe by means of an egg which he holds in his hand. (On this see my "Ovidius moralizatus," Studi Romanzi, XXIII, 1933, P- 75, note I, and further comparisons in J. Engels, Etudes sur I'Ovide Moralisd, Groningen, 1943, p. 90.) Some departures from the regular interpretation are made by Vat. 1479 and Laur. 36, 27 for whom the shell represents earth and the "sicut enim in ovo quatuor sunt, yolk-fire: s. vitellus sive rubigo qui respondet igni, albumen sive claretum quod respondet aeri, cartillago que respondet aque, et testa que respondet terre, et sic Ovidius quatuor elementa distinxit, ut ostendit in Ovidio maiori in principio" (Sedl., p. 143). To some the etymology 'ovum dividens' seemed farfetched, and they seemed to modify it into 'ovum videns.' To this the author of the verse preface to Berne MS. 512 seems to allude when he says "Ovidius satis declaratur si . . . visere nomen agatur,' (Hagen, Carm. med. aev., p. 207). Giovanni del Virgilio is also alluding to this second interpretation when he says: "Secundum aliquos dicitur Ovidius ovum dividens i. totum mundum videns per sui sapientiam." 4 Laur. 91 sup. 23: "Ovidius dictus est a ovo ovas quia ovanter i. gaudenter hoc faciebat," that is to say his office of moralist (see below, p. 45, Appendix B); Laur. 36, 27: "quia rem suam ovanter dicit," Sedlmayer, p. 142.



one agreed in believing it to be an allusion to a physical characteristic and one particularly suited to the poet on account of the moral sagacity which enabled him to smell out the difference between virtue and vice.' The earliest biographers, such as Arnulf, give as Ovid's birthplace a supposed "oppidum Pelignum," not entirely an invention of their own, for the confusion of the region with the place of birth might have arisen through the rather confused statement in Suetonius.2 But in the fourteenth century the poet's own testimony became better understood, and the birthplace is exactly indicated as Sulmo in the Pelignum district, ninety miles distant from Rome.3 Ovid himself had alluded in the Fasti to the foundation of Sulmo by a
1 Clm. 19475: "Naso dictus est Ovidius et est agnomen quod ab eventu impositum sit ei eo quod magnum nasum habuit," (Przychocki, p. 89); Paris. 7998: "Naso a quantitate nasi"; Gothanus: "Naso dicitur a quantitate nasi"; Regin. 1559, Ambr. G, 130 inf., and Marc. XII, 57: "Naso cognomine a magnitudine nasi dictus"; see also the life in verse cited by Sedlmayer: "Ovidium novi dicit quia dividit ovi Partes, a naso fit derivamine Naso, Publius instat ei cognomine progeniei"; Laur. 91 sup. 23, on the other hand, gives only the moral reason: "Naso vero dicitur per similitudinem, quia sicut aliquis odorifera secernit a putridis eodem modo sua solercia sciebat secernere castas et pudicas ab incestis"; Paris. 8253 explicitly warns against equivocating: "Naso dicitur a quantitate nasi, non quia haberet maiorem nasum quam alii, sed quia discretio animi per eum denotatur"; Ambr. N 254 sup. admits both meanings and introduces the simile of the 'canis venaticus' who smells out the prey, just as Ovid with his nose 'bonas percipiebat sententias'; Guillelmus expresses himself in almost the same words (see below, p. 55, Appendix L); Napol. V.D. 52, too, speaks of the 'magnitudo nasi' as an allusion to the 'communis discretio' and thinks that the idea is derived by analogy with the sense of smell of a dog; Laur. 36, 27 also admits this, but emphasizes not so much the sagacity of finding something out, as the wisdom of distinguishing between vice and virtue: "Naso agnomen est. Et dictus est Naso ab habitu nasi, eo quod habuit magnum nasum, vel quia, sicut cum naso bonum odorem a malo discernimus, sic et ipse distinxit eligenda a non eligendis. Vel quia sicut per nasum fetida ab odoriferis discernimus, ita vitia a virtutibus disgregavit." (Sedlmayer, p. 143). Ambr. H 64 sup. is positive that Ovid really had a large nose, and produces Aristotelian sanction for the statement that men with large noses are wiser and more prudent than others (see below, p. 58, Appendix N). The writer of Marc. XII, 49, I5th century, also discourses on the nose as a sign of wisdom. In the humanistic period, the commentator of Ambr. B. 18., inf., dated 1420, is still adducing Guillelmus's explanation: "Publius provel dicitur prium nomen est actoris, Publius a Publia familia, vel quia publicum obtinuit favorem. Naso secundum quosdam proprium est nomen actoris, vel dicitur Naso a quantitate nasi, vel quadam similitudine que se habet ad canem venaticum: sicut enim canis . . . adinvenit sententias . . . ovum dividens appellatur." 2 Suetonius states in a brief sentence: "Ovidius nascitur in Paelignis" (De vir. inlustr., De poetis, XXX, ed. Reifferscheid, Leipzig, 186o, p. 49). Cf. Arnulf, Reg. 1559, Ambr. G., 130 inf. and Marc. XII, 57, also Bern. 411: "in Peligno opido natus" (Alton, p. 121); Vat. 1593: "de Peligno oppido quod est tertia pars Sulmonis"; Barb. 26: "fuit sulmonensis poeta de Peligno opido, quod opidum distat ab urbe romana nonaginta miliariis, tertia pars cuius est Sulmo"; Paris. 8207: "a Peligno opido oriundus extitit." 3 Though Paris. 8253 and Ambr. N 254 sup. do not mention the place of birth, Guillelmus names it exactly, combining his statement with that of his predecessors through the remark "Pelignum opidum divisum fuit in tres partes sive in tres villas, una quarum Sulmo vocabatur" (see below, Vat. 1479 and p. 54, Appendix L). Vat. 2781 give only the name Sulmo. Giovanni del Virgilio specifies "de Sulmone civitate"; Napol. V.D. 52: "de Sulmone civitate Apulie duxit originem"; Laur. 36, 18: "sulmontinus natione"; Ambr. H 64 sup. is more precise: "Patet ergo quod fuit oriundus illius regionis que dicitur Pelignum in qua fuit constructus Sulmo (see below, One scholiast calls p. 57, Appendix N). Ovid a Roman (Sedlmayer, p. 413), but this seems to have been an isolated error.



legendary soldier from Troy, and the commentators followed him in this particular, with varying degrees of digression on the theme, sometimes mentioning the source, sometimes not. The name of this companion of Aeneas appears as Solemus.' It would be an arduous task to attempt to establish agreement amongst the commentators as to the date of the birth. The greater number avoid committing themselves to any date; others place it on the date of the anniversary of the battle of Cannae which coincided with the festival of Pallas;2 one puts it at the time of the war between Marius and Sulla; another at the time when the two Decii fell ;3 some will have it in April, others in May.4 A name was given not only to Ovid's father and mother, but also to his brother, who is called Lucilius or Lucius; all the commentators are in accord as to the year's distance between the birth of the brothers, their going to Rome together, the difference in their dispositions, the father's warning advice, the premature death of the brother, because all these details are to be found in the autobiographical elegy.5 However, they do not all give so
1 "Huius erat Solymus Phrygia comes unus ab Ida A quo Sulmonis moenia nomen habent." (Fasti, IV, 791); Ambr. H 64 sup. quotes this exactly and then derives the name Pelignum "a nomine Peligni ducis" (for this tendency to attribute Trojan origins to a town through pride in Roman blood see A. Graf, Roma nella memoria . . . del Medio Evo, Turin, 1882, I, p. 19); Arnulf, Regin. 1559, Ambr. G., 130 inf., Marc. XII, 57, and Vat. 2781, all mention Solemus. In Vat. 1479, the scholiast inserts at this point a prolix exposition of the events leading up to the Judgment of Paris, going on to the burning of Troy and With his usual the departure of Aeneas. stupidity, this scribe muddles up everything: "Solemus unus de militibus romanis noluit repatriare, sed mansit cum uxore sua, et remansit iuxta civitatem romanam, et ibi fundavit opidum, et vocavit illum Sulmo: a nomine suo Solemone dictum est Sulmo opidum et ibi genuit duos filios et vocavit primum nomine Lucillum . . ." The long versified biography in Bern. 512 discusses the point as follows: "De Troia progressus est ut quod Solemus In troiano nomine non laude supremus. Hic Sulmonem fecerat propriam De cuius castro te natum Naso notemus. docemus" (Alton, p. 122). 2 Vat. 1593 (first life): "die qua Annibal cum romanis de festo Palladis circa Cannas prelium fecit"; Barb. 26: "ea die qua Paulus et Terentius comiserunt bellum cum Anibale apud Canas, et similiter qua die festum Palladis celebrabatur." 3 Guillelmus thinks (basing himself on the Tristia, "cum cecidit fato," etc.), that Ovid was born "in illo tempore quando pugna fuit

inter Marium et Scillam" (see below, p. 54, Appendix L); Bern. 4I I: "natus erat . . . tempore illo quo fuit bellum inter Marium et Cillam" (Alton, p. 121). But Ambr. H 64 sup. has, basing himself on the same passage: "natus est tempore quo duo Decii ceciderunt . . pater enim et filius fuerunt simul consules, quorum unus in bello samnitico ut pater, alter in gallico ut filius cecidit." 4 Guillelmus deduces from the Tristia: "Haec est armigerae de festis quinta Minervae," etc. (IV, Io, 133), that the date of birth corresponds to "tricesimo kalendas martii," whilst for the humanist author of Laur. 36, 2, the date is "XIIII kalendas aprilis." The more cautious confine themselves to remarking vaguely, like Laur. 36, 18: "temporibus Octaviani Augusti claruit." Amongst all the puzzlement of the scholiasts, who did not know of the death of Hirtius and Pansa at the battle of Modena, 48 B.C., the only exact date is given by Laur. 36, 2, namely March I9th, the date of the beginning of the Quinquatria. 5 Tristia, IV, Io. In Regin. 1559, Ambr. G., 130 inf., Marc. XII, 57, and Arnulf the name of the brother is Lucilius; in Vat. 1593 (first life), Clm. 19475, it is Lucius; Vat. 2781, has Luceus, for Lucius; Vat. 1479, has Lucillus; in Giovanni del Virgilio it is Lucidius, with the age incorrectly given, "Lucidius vocabatur qui maior erat duobus annis"; Sicco Polenton takes the name from the mediaeval commentators in the form "Lucillius"; Arnulf, Regin. 1559, Ambr. G., 13o inf. and Marc. XII, 57 say that he was a year older than Ovid: "senior spacio unius anni. Nam in eius nataliciis sive anniversario die natus fuit Ovidius"; Guillelmus




much space to the brother. The earlier ones do not speak of his successes or of his death. Interest in the episode awakens in the fourteenth century, as the preliminary to that accent on the contrast between Ovid's dedication to the pure, though not unlucrative pursuit of poetry, and the practical ambitions of the brother which the father encouraged. This contrast which is sketched by Boccaccio, may be said to be the chief preoccupation of the biography written by Polenton.1 The visit to Rome in order to study is mentioned by few; two only know of the visit to Athens, which they confuse with other imaginary travels, although Ovid himself is the authority for it.2 We know from Ovid himself what offices he held, namely those of head triumvir and of decemvir, an important post in the centumvirate.3 But the Middle Ages preferred to turn what were really judicial and civil offices into literary or military ones; some ascribe to him an imaginary poetic censorship; others a military tribuneship.4 Few mediaeval biographers mention the poet's wife
refers to the quotation from the Tristia.There are the same dates and quotations in Vat. I479: "natus fuit anno revoluto eodem Lucillus eruditus fuit die quo frater suus.... in iuribus et decretis . . . Ovidius . . in grammaticalibus." 1 Arnulf: "Hos dispariter natos pariter ad litteras apposuit pater eorum. Cumque in minoribus essent eruditi, dedit eis magistrum But Guillelmus makes in arte rethorica." the more precise statement that they were sent by the father to Rome where "Lucius studens circa secularem disciplinam longo tempore causidicus effectus est" (see below, p. 54, Appendix L); all this was based on quotations from the Tristia. This contrast is brought out still more strongly by Vat. 1479, with the aid of other quotations from the poet: "Cum autem videret Solemus quod Lucillus multa lucraretur in scientia sua, Ovidius vero nichil dixit Ovidio quod scientiam suam desineret et in decretis curiosissime perstuderet . . . Hoc audiens Ovidius voluit gramaticalia et versificaturam deserere. Sed tamen non potuit . . . immo quicquid dicebat versificatum erat . . . Cum autem XX annorum vixisset spacio Lucillus Unde Ovidius ita tristis fuit decessit. ac si perdidisset dimidiam partem sui" (Nogara, p. 425); Boccaccio takes the same line and with the same quotations; Polenton believes that Ovid studied civil law in obedience to his father's wishes, and began his career in that profession, showing such sagacity that he won the approval of Octavius (ed. Ullman, p. 65, note 24). 2 Guillelmus: "pater transmisit eos Romam Giovanni del et literis eos deputavit"; "Cum missus fuisset Romam ad Virgilio: studendum." But on this point Arnulf, Ambr. N 254 sup., Ambr. H 64 sup., Paris. 8253, are silent. Some connect the visit to Rome with the first poetic experiments, for example, Vat. 2792: "Romam venit et ibi animum suum ad iuvenalia applicavit" (see below, p. 44). Without giving precise references to Pont., II, Io, 21 and Trist., I, 2, 77, Barb. 26 says: "Iste Ovidius cum esset bone indolis diversis in locis studuit. Studuit enim Constantinopoli, Alexandrie, atque Rome, demum Athenas ivit, ubi invenit quendam fratrem suum iam existentem patronum legisque doctorem" (Nogara, p. 422). The mention of Alexandria may derive from a false interpretation of verse 79 of the abovementioned elegy in the Tristia; the other place names perhaps come from the allusion to travel in Asia and the Troad in the epistle from Pontus, and in Fast. VI, 417-24. Napol. V.D. 52, remarks briefly: "dicendum est quod Athenis studuit et Rome." 3 Cf. Trist., IV, 1o, 34; Fast., IV, 3844An early mediaeval commentator on Horace (formerly rather doubtfully identified with Alcuin) notes concerning verse 268 of the Ars poetica: "Quinque iudices erant, quorum unus Ovidius erat suo tempore, ante quos referebantur scripta poemata priusquam ad populum recitarentur." This is evidently (as Pio Rajna points out in "Le denominazioni di Trivium e di Quadrivium," Studi Medievali, N.S., I, 1928, p. 22) a transformation into a literary office of Ovid's position amongst the decemvirs, "slitibus iudicandis," with a wrong interpretation of the number given in Fast., IV, 384 ("inter bis quinos usus honore viros"). Vat. 1593 (first life) has "cancellarius et unum de centum censoribus . .. cui intererat carmina omnium poetarum corrigere"; probably he is relying on Tristia, II,



and daughter. The earliest one, perhaps of the twelfth century, recalls a daughter whom Ovid was supposed to have charged with the task of burning On the authority of the autobiographical elegy, at least the Metamorphoses.l two wives are assigned to him, and perhaps a slave woman as a third.2 Some are aware of his connection with the Fabii,3 to which family his wife belonged ; her name was Palles, and that of Ovid's son-in-law was Fidus Cornellius.4 No one alludes to the two divorces. Some lives speak of how he chose the Eternal City as his place of residence in order to make his way in the world of letters; also of his introduction to Augustus.5 One only mentions worldly luxuries, such as a sumptuous villa on the Campidoglio and four white horses given him by the emperor." These elegant particulars must have been invented on the analogy of lives of other Augustan poets.
93 ("commissa est nobis fortuna reorum Usque decem decies inspicienda viris"), perhaps in a corrupt form which he did not understand; or more probably still, on Pont., III, 5, 21 ("At nisi pecassem, nisi me mea Musa fugasset, Quod legi tua vox exibuisset opus, Utque fui solitus, sedissem forsitan unus De centum judex in tua verba viris"), forgetting that this is an oration by the advocate Cotta and is addressed to a legal audience. Barb. 26, in its turn, tells us that; "Octavianus . . insuper eum unum de centum iudicibus fecit poetarum quibus poemata discernebantur, de quibus centum erant electi alii decem"; Laur. 36, 2, maintains that the poet's office was judicial: "Cesari Augusto et vita et carmine placuit, et cum iudicia ad centum equites referret, in eo numero Those who make a Ovidius esse voluit." military tribune of him are relying on Arnulf who says that Ovid: "facundia et virtute sua To these meruit fieri tribunus militum." codices Laur. 36, 27 should be added: it repeats Arnulf of Orleans word for word (Sedlmayer, p. 143). 1 Vat. I593 (first life), speaking of Ovid's death in exile, says: "ac ibidem mortuus est: hunc autem librum dum filie sue comburere iussisset non combussit sed ad placitum correxit" (Nogara, p. 416). 2 Vat. 2781 records only two wives and one daughter evidently because he thought that the remark in the last of the Tristia (IV, I0o, 73) referred to the woman given as a second wife, "non firma futura toro" because "coniux exulis viri." Vat. 1479, on the other hand, well understood the passage about the second wife, but hesitated as to the existence of a third and did not know that she belonged to a good family: "Ovidius autem in iuventute sua accepit uxorem et multum criminatur illam, unde in Tristibus: 'pene michi puero . . . nupta fuit.' Illa autem uxore mortua, habuit aliam, unde multum laudat illam, sed dicit quod si diu vixisset, non diu durasset in probitate sua; unde in Tristibus: 'Illi successit ... thoro.' Quidam dicunt quod habuit terciam, et volunt probare per hos versus in Tristibus: 'Ultima que mecum seros permansit in annos Sustinuit iuste tempora seva mee.' Tum alii dicunt quod hic loquitur de serva" (Nogara, p. 426). 3 Ambr. H 64 sup.: "vendicavit sibi familiaritatem Fabiorum"; Laur. 36, 2 speaks in the notes of three wives and a daughter. 4 We have already seen how the humanist Sicco adopted names invented by the mediaevals. Therefore, when he writes: "Uxor eius nomine Palles dicta est, Fabiorum e famiglia, nobilis femina" (Ullman, p. 69, line 30) one may assume that he probably found this name in some life which is unknown to us, or in some gloss to Tristia, V, 2, I, where (as C. Landi acutely observed in the Athenaeum,N.S., VII, 1929, P- 558), palles was exchanged for a vocative, the pentameter presenting a treacherous variant in some codices: "haec tibi . . . ipsa manu"; Sicco gives the name of the son-in-law correctly; we know from Seneca, dial. 2, 17, I, that it was Fidus Cornelius. 5 Vat. 2792, Bern. 411. Paris. 1536 have: "videns alios poetas per scripta ad honorem provehi Romam venit et ibi animum suum ad iuvenalia applicavit"; Ambr. H 64 sup.: "Post paucum tempus, audiens quod poete multum honorabantur, precipue a romanis, quid fecit? recessit a Sulmone inveniens Sic profectus est in elegantiorem urbem. urbem romanam et illic vendicavit sibi familiaritatem Fabiorum; Fabii enim tunc inter romanos clarebant; isti Fabii prefecerunt eum ad familiaritatem Augusti Cesaris." 6 Barb. 26: "Ovidius vero provectus etate et sapientia, Romam rediens factus est




When they come to the most serious moment of Ovid's career, namely, the exile, the mediaeval commentators give the poet's love affairs as the chief cause. And here the figure of Corinna enters upon the scene. Even in classical antiquity, in the fifth century, Sidonius Apollinaris had spoken of her as a 'caesarea puella'; the mediaeval biographers identify her with the wife of Augustus,1 though occasionally, even in the Middle Ages, some more cautious reader will see in her a pure abstraction.2 The intrigue with the empress is usually put forward as the leading cause of the exile3 to which the poet was condemned for three reasons. The first and most serious charge was adultery with the empress; the second was that he had involuntarily discovered Augustus in an act which ought to have remained secret; the third was his profession of a corrupting poet.4 These mediaeval suppositions lived on, later
amicus summus Octaviani imperatoris, qui concessit ei mirabilem domum iuxta Capitolium, quatuor quoque equos albos semper alios in cursu vincere solitos ei donavit." Traces of this invention survive even in the humanistic period, as appears from the life in an incunable of the end of the I5th century in the State Library of Hamburg (cf. R. Jahnke, "Eine neue Ovidvita," Rheinisches Museum, XLVII, I892, p. 46), in which occurs the remark "Hortos habuit in collo Quirinali." 1 "Et te carmina per libidinosa Notum, Naso tener, Tomosque missus, Quondam Caesareae nimis puellae Ficto nomine subditum Corinnae," Sid. Apoll., Carm., 23, 158. Polenton accepts the tradition from Sidonius, whom he gives as his authority; like Sidonius, he hints that Corinna not only inspired Ovid's verses, but corrected them: "adeoque perita etiam in faciendo metro quod versum, ut refert Sidonius, ipso cum Nasone et aliThe author of the quando compleret." the Antiovidianus is curtly contradicting Sidonius tradition when he says, speaking of the Sine Titulo: "Illic plena dolis depingitur per te Corinna . . . Nec regina fuit veluti persuadere volebas, sed meretrix turpis, testis es ipse michi" (ed. Kienast, in Burdach, Vom Mittelalter zur Reformation, IV, 1929, p. 90; cf. my note in Giorn. Stor. d. Lett. Ital., CI, That Corinna was Julia, 1933, p. 8I). daughter of Augustus, has long ago been refuted, for example in the life by J. Masson; more recently G. Przychocki ("De Ovidii caesarea puella," Wiener Studien, XXXVI, 1914, P. 340) has shown that Sidonius' evidence does not rest on a very firm basis. The author of Paris. 7994 contents himself with remarking that Ovid "ad uxorem Cesaris anelavit quam falso nomine Corinnam appellavit"; but most writers actually name Livia. The Gotha codex, for instance, says: "concubuit cum Livia uxore Augusti quam sub falso nomine vocabat Corinnam"; Vat. 2781, and Vat. I479, say: "adamavit Liviam uxorem imperatoris quam falso nomine appellavit Corinam quasi cor urens." We have noted the gallant episode invented by the glossator of Paris. 8255 (see below, p. 50, Appendix H). An epigram on the affair is given by both Napol. V.D. 52, and Vat. 1479: "Ad vada pontina te duxit, Naso, ruina Triplex The doctrina, visusque, tuaque Corina." identification with Livia was adopted by Boccaccio: "Alcuni aggiungono una terza cagione e vogliono lui essersi inteso in Livia moglie di Ottaviano, e lei essere quella la quale esso sovente nomina Corinna" (Comm. dant., ed. Guerri, II, 32). 2 For example, the author of the second "accessus" in the Munich codex makes the following observation on Sine titulo: "Materia huius est amica eius Corinna, quia quamque amicam vocat Corinnam" (see Przychocki, p. 92). For Barb. 26 Corinna was no more than one of Ovid's many loves: "habuit iste Ovidius multas amicas inter quas precipue dilexit Corinnam." 3 An exception to this is Laur. 91 sup. 23, who makes the calumny of the Roman matrons the cause (see p. 44). 4 Clm. 19475 expounds the causes thus: "Queritur autem cur missus sit in exilium, unde tres dicuntur sententie: prima quod concubuit cum uxore Cesaris Livia nomine, secunda quod sicut familiaris transiens eius porticum, viderit eum cum amasio suo coeuntem, unde timens Cesar ne ab-eo proderetur misit eum in exilium. Tertia quod librum fecerat De Amatoria Arte in quo iuvenes docuerat matronas decipiendo sibi allicere, et ideo offensis Romanis dicitur missus esse in exilium" (Przychocki, p. 91); Gothanus puts the causes in this order: ".. quod ipse concubuit cum Livia . . . quod



than one would have thought possible; they survive in the humanist schools, and traces of them are still to be found even in the age of Enlightenment. The three famous causes are still valid for Boccaccio. Polenton pretends that
ipse vidit Augustum condormientem puero S. quod ipse composuit librum de arte . amatoria." The scholiasts regarded the Ibis as a reply to an envious person Who had accused the poet; some of them, remembering the case of Phaedra, affirmed that the accusation came from the empress herself, because Ovid had refused her advances: "quod noluit imperatricem stuprare ab illa rogatus; que dolens de repulsa accusabat eum apud dominum suum" (A. Rostagni, Ibis, Florence, 1920, p. 75). That this tradition was widely disseminated is suggested by the traces of it to be found in popular poetry, particularly in certain German rhymed chronicles where we read that Ovid, who was chancellor to Augustus, having been discovered in adultery with the queen, was put on a ship and abandoned to the waves (cf. Keiserchronik,ed. Massmann, p. 437). Arnulf: "Sunt etenim tres cause quare in exilio sit positus: vel pro libro de arte amandi, vel quia Cesarem suo amasio vidit abutentem forte." Regin. 1559, Ambr. G, 130 inf., and Marc. XII, 57 make the amorous works the chief cause of the exile: "quod si cause familiares alie fuerint, ista tamen principaliter videbatur pretendi"; cf. also Laur. 36, 18: "occasione libri de arte predicti et quia imperator illum de uxore suspectum habuit"; and Ambr. H 64 sup.: "librum de arte amandi propter quem devenit in exilium"; Barb. 26 puts the causes in this order: "Quodam enim tempore romanorum iuvenum rogatu compulsus, composuit librum artis amatorie, in quo docuit iuvenes solum licitas amare puellas. Illi vero mox trasgredientes non solum licitis verum etiam illicitis abutebantur puellis. Hoc autem videntes nobilissime romane matrone, indignatione commote, eum apud imperatorem accusaverunt. Imperator vero habens eum exosum tum hac de causa tum aliis pluribus causis, quod concubuisse cum uxore sua dicebatur, et insuper eum facientem quoddam secretum vidit. Unde timens ne ab ipso propalaretur, eum in Ponto insula . . . relegavit"; Laur. 36, 18 and Laur. 36, 27 give a similar account; Paris. 8197, c. 89, expresses it thus: "quarum prima liber est artis amatorie unde in hoc libro: 'neve leges stultam quam scripsimus artem'; secunda est quia cum uxore imperatoris dicebat concubare, unde: 'moverat ingenium totum cantata per orbem Nomine non vero dicta Corinna mihi; tertia causa fuit quod vidit Cesarem puero abutentem, unde illud: 'heu mihi cur vidi, cur noxia lumina feci' "; Paris. 8207 admits the three causes, but gives preference to the third: "vel quia cum uxore imperatoris concubuit, vel quia opus amatorium composuit, vel, quod melius est, quia vidit Cesarem cum amasio suo ludere"; Vat. 1479 makes the personal scandal the chief cause: ". .. quadam die pergens per palacium regis solus vidit imperatorem Cesarem abutentem puero. Cesar autem videns quod Ovidius cognoverat, timuit ne ipsum revelaret et jamque propter uxorem suam habebat ipsum suspectum et ipsum habebat in odio propter librum de arte ..."; Vat. 278I takes a similar line. Ovid's own statement that his fault consisted in having seen something which he ought not to have seen suggested the case of Acteon, and in some codices, for example, Vat. 2877, 14th century, we read: Per Atheonem "Aliqui aliter sentiunt. Ovidium se ipsum intellexisse qui cum vidisset imperatricem nudam, religatus est, et sic conversus in cervum et a canibus i. The ab infamatoribus est consumptus." parallel had in fact been indicated by Ovid himself: "inscius Acteon .. ." (Trist., II, I, 103). Hence some lives, for example Laur. 36, 24 (I3th century), give the three causes of exile thus: "scilicet liber de arte, Diana in balneo, Augustus cum puero"; for Giovanni del Virgilio the causes are the Ars, and that the poet had seen Augustus "incestuose agentem" and the empress "nudam in balneo"; cf. also Laur. 36, 2 (see below, p. 59, Appendix P); L. Hermann has interpreted the allusion to Actaeon to mean that Ovid was impelled by a purely scientific curiosity to penetrate the religious rites of which he speaks in the Fasti, and that he made a furtive attempt to see with his own eyes the annual celebration on the night of the Bona Dea at which no one of the masculine sex was allowed to be present. In the year 8 the empress Livia herself led this celebration which took place in her house on the Palatine, where she officiated naked in the midst of the other women taking part in the ceremony (L. Hermann, "La faute secrete d'Ovide," Revue Belge de philol. et d'histoire, XVII, 1938, p. 714)-




his account is based on Aurelius Victor and Suetonius, but the three causes really hold the field; for he believes that Ovid's amorous writings were but the pretext for his banishment, the true reason for which was that he had witnessed some lascivious act of the emperor's, or one of those convivial rites in which Augustus liked to appear as a god, far above human stature.1 The incestuous act to which Giovanni del Virgilio alludes is still spoken of by Coelius Rhodiginus, who is followed by Bayle and Voltaire;2 and even amongst modern philologists some are to be found who disbelieve in the carmina amatoria the cause of the exile, and exercise all their acumen in the as search for supposed intimate causes, or of high and mysterious reasons of state.3 The scholiasts are not much interested in the place of the exile; most
1 Aurelius Victor, Epist. I, 24: "Nam poetam Ovidium, qui et Naso, pro eo quod tres libros artis amatoriae conscripsit, exilio damnavit." He does not report the scandal in Suetonius concerning the vices of which Augustus was accused, but he takes from him the account of the supper "in qua deorum dearumque habitu discubuisse convivas et illum pro Apolline ornatum" (Suetonius, Augustus, ed. Rolfe, 68 and 70o) and writes: "Hanc quidem exilii causam esse, ut affirmabat princeps, et qui audivit tunc quisque credidit facile et, qui postea res Caesareas scripsit, Sextus Aurelius memoravit" (Sicco But Polenton, ed. Ullman, 68, line 24). though contemporaries may have accepted this explanation, Polenton does not, for he knew that the condemned poems had been published several years earlier, and also that other amorous poets were not punished, but rewarded. Bearing in mind Ovid's "Actaeon" allusion, Polenton therefore decides thus on the question of the causes of the exile: "Quid autem tunc ageret princeps inveni nusquam; sed facile mihi animus persuadet tunc a Nasone offensum Augustum cum aut venereis lascivius uteretur aut super humanum fastigium inter amicos deorum dearumque habitu caenitaret; delectatum Augustum re utraque scribit Tranquillus" (ed. cit., 67, line 26). Sicco adds that the poet was condemned by an imperial edict, the contents of which he reconstructs from his own imagination. 2 Cf. Caelius Rhodiginus, Antiquarum lectionum commentarii, Venice, 1516, XIII, I: "Auctor idem Minutianus est . . . pulsum quoque in exilium, quod Augusti incestum vidisset"; S. Reinach, commenting on this ("Le Tombeau d'Ovide," Revue de philologie, XX, 1906, p. 278), was of the opinion that Rhodiginus may have drawn this from the Caligula of Suetonius, or, more probably, from the grammarian whom he calls Caecilius

Minutianus Apuleius, which may have been a collection of scholia on Ovid of earlier date than those on the Ibis. For the notice in Bayle, see Dictionnaire historique, Paris, 1820, XI, p. 286. 3 Levy, Carcopino and others think that the Ars Amatoria, published nine years earlier, cannot have been the sole cause of the exile. The younger Julia was exiled at the same time as the poet and many think that he was perhaps associated with the excesses which led to her disgrace; cf. Boissier, L'Opposition sous les Cisars, p. 144; Ehwald, Ad historiam carm. ovid., II, 1892, p. 20o; Cartault, "Encore les causes de la rle6gation d'Ovide," Milanges Chatelain, Paris, 1910, p. 42 (based on a highly conjectural romance). F. Levy thinks it possible that Ovid, although not really interested in politics, may have been compromised in some state intrigue (cf. Bericht, 1930, p. 136). The mysterious 'quoddam secretum' of the mediaevals, which Sicco Polenton, following Suetonius, had interpreted as the intrusion by Ovid into some semi-religious convivial rite, seems to be revived in the conjectures of Ellis (in his edition of Ibis, Oxford, i88I, p. xxviii), who imagines that Ovid might have violated the temple of Isis to satisfy Julia's libertinism. He attaches great importance to Ovid's participation in certain experiments in divination which the emperor had forbidden. S. Reinach also drew attention to these (Mythes, Cultes et Religions, IV, pp. 69-79); and more recently, J. Carcopino, in a learned study, attempted to draw from them the conclusion that the poet was a member of one of those Neo-Pythagorean sects which practised hydromancy ("De la Porta Maggiore a Tomi," Orpheus,Bucharest, I, 1925, pp. 289313; and Revue des itudes latines, V, 1927, pp. 146-9).





of them speak only of Pontus, which they think is an island; others mention Scythia as the first stage of the exile, whence the poet went into Thrace. A few give Tomi as the exact spot.' Some think that banishment, rather than the exile, was the poet's fate.2 He is believed to have written the Remedia,3 and the Fasti, as acts of reparation in the hope of pardon, the Metamorphoses, Fasti being composed at the direct solicitation of Germanicus. Then, having lost all hope, he dictated the Tristia, and finally the invective In Ibim. There is not much about his supposed return to Italy in the lives: two touch upon the question in the negative sense, and another doubts whether even the bones could have been secretly brought back to Rome in accordance with the poet's will. On the other hand, two fourteenth century writers, Giovanni del Virgilio and Boccaccio accept the story of Ovid's repatriation, and of his death through suffocation by the crowds who came to meet him.4 Around the poet's disappearance into a far country there gathered the legend that he was honoured by a tomb and an inscription. There are traces of this in one life which is to be found in several codices; and we know that this tradition was accepted by some humanists and lived on into modern times.5
1 Gothanus: "Et notandum quod liber iste intitulatur de Tristibus de Ponto a loco ubi compositus fuit, quoniam in Ponto est insula"; Clm. I9475: "in Ponto insula Scytie"; Barb. 26: "eum in Ponto insula omnibus malis circumdata relegavit"; Paris. 8207: "dum ad locum suo exilio destinatum ad Pontum scilicet insulam tenderet, hunc tractatum composuit"; Laur. 36, 18: "in Pontum relegatus est"; Laur. 36, 2: "in Pontum Euxinum relegatus est"; in Vat. 1479 the epigram "Ad loca pontina" is cited, but otherwise the name of the place of exile is not given; nor does Giovanni del Virgilio mention it; Laur. 53, 15 gives the place of exile as Miletus, presumably through a wrong interpretation of Trist., I, 10, 41. The other Laurenziana codices give the place as Tomi (cf. Sedlmayer, p. 144). Remembering the well-known verse "Naso Thomitanae" . .. Boccaccio places the exile "in an island called Tomitania, in the great ocean"; Ambr. H 64 sup. has "proficiscens versus Scithiam per viam scripsit Ovidium de tristibus . .. venit in Traciam ubi scripsit Ovidium de Ponto." 2 Arnulf: est sub rele"Dampnatus gatione"; Paris. 8207: "Ovidius relegationi subiacuit; Paris. 8255: "Ovidius vero erat relegatus unde dicit 'quippe relegatus non exul dicor ab illo' " (cf. Trist., II, I37, etc.; Pont., I, 7, 42). del Virgilio: "Quapropter 3 Giovanni Ovidius de Ovidium quinto composuit remedio amoris ut ipse causam amoveret propter quam in exilium positus erat." 4 Laur. 36, 27: "An non fuerit mortuus in

exilio sive redierit nescio"; Vat. 1479: "et dicunt quidam quod ad ultimum, suspenso studio suo, repatriavit: alii dicunt quod Cesar mortuus fuit et sic repatriavit: quidam tamen dicunt quod nunquam repatriavit, et ita in dubio remanserunt lectores"; Ambr. H 64 sup.: "et tunc occupatus est a morte illic et scripsit tunc unam epistolam uxori ut saltem ossa sua faceret transferri Romam. Tamen non potuit. Quidam dicunt quod occulte ipsa et amici eius ferri fecere ossa invito Augusto." Giovanni del Virgilio and Boccaccio both repeat the legend that Ovid was suffocated by the crowds on his return to Rome. 5 Cf. the life prefixed to De Vetula in Regin. 1559; Ambr. G. 130 inf.; Marc. XII, 57; according to this the tomb was found in a suburb of the town of Diostori, capital of Colchis, in a public cemetery, "iuxta opidum Thomus," and on it was the inscription "Hic iacet Ovidius ingeniosissimus poetarum." According to a clever conjecture by S. Reinach ("Le tombeau d'Ovide," pp. 275285), the story which Pontano tells in De magnificentiaof a tomb raised to Ovid by the Geti "ante oppidi portam" and which he says that he learned from Georgius Trapezuntius, may have been diffused in Italy towards the end of the I3th century by the Bizantine Planudes, who translated Ovid. Przychocki proved (in a lecture translated in 1920) that the story of the existence of a tomb of Ovid in North-West Hungary was fairly widely diffused in the 15th century, particularly in German sources. It was inscribed:




In those prefaces which have the character of true lives, we find the indispensable catalogue of the works. Arnulf knew only the authentic works, and other scholiasts prudently limit themselves to these. But, particularly in the fourteenth century, the pseudo-Ovidiana were sometimes accepted, though with some reservations. The canon consists of nine works, in the following Ex order: Heroides, Sinetitulo,Ars Amatoria, Remedia, Fasti, Metamorphoses, Ponto, A thirteenth century commentator maintains, with legitimate arguIbis.1 ments, the authenticity of the Medicaminafaciei the humanistic life in Laur. ;2 36, 2 ignores this, but argues for the authenticity of the Medea, the song in the Getic tongue, and the Consolatio Liviam.3 Of the Halieuticathere is no ad mention. There is one allusion, in the twelfth century, to the Gigantomachia which Ovid intended to write, and this was taken up later by Polenton.4 It is interesting to note the cautious treatment of certain pseudo-Ovidian writings which had such a vogue in the Middle Ages. The commentator of one of the most popular of these, the De Vetula,endeavours to prove its authenticity by arguments which seem to him of great weight, but he inserts a list of other minor poems which he thinks are spurious.5 One life enumerates
"Hic situs est vates, quem divi Caesaris ira Augusti Latio (or 'patrio') cedere iussit humo. Saepe miser voluit patriis occumbere terris Sed frustra: hunc illi fata dedere locum." This inscription did not come from Hungary, but from Poland; it was probably the work of a Polish humanist Wojonowski, who composed it in 1581 and it became associated with the tradition of Ovid's tomb (cf. Levy in Bursians Jahresber., I930, p. 140). In one of the small villages near the modern town of Kostangi6 (the ancient Tomi) there still survives a tradition that in the "black garden", that is in the small island of Sutghiol, a great man was buried who died, persecuted and in disgrace, far from his home (cf. M. Mandalari, "Una tradizione ovidiana in Romania," in Anecdoti, Catania, 1895). 1 This "order of the books" was handed on from Arnulf's life to Paris. 8253, Laur. 36, 18, Ambr. H 64 sup. with only very slight variations. It remained substantially unaltered, even by those commentators who added the Though we need not be pseudo-Ovidiana. surprised to find that the author of the nonsensical life in Vat. 1479 confused the order, placing Ibis second, followed by De Pulice, and the Sine Titulo sixth, after the Tristia. But it is curious to find Giovanni del Virgilio putting the Fasti fourth, after the Ars Amatoria, and the Metamorphosesas the ninth and the last work. Boccaccio puts the Fasti third, after the Amores, but places the Metamorphoses sixth, before the Tristia. 2 Paris. 7994 relies on Ovid's own statement (see below, p. 48, Appendix E.) For Ambr. H 64 sup. this work and the Nux come into the catalogue of Ovidian works in the third place, after Sine Titulo (see below, Polenton places it p. 57, Appendix N). beside the De medicamineaurium amongst the juvenilia. Regin. 1559, Ambr. G. 130 inf., Marc. XII, 57 put it with the spurious works. 3 On the much discussed authorship of the Consolatiosee E. Martini, Einleitungzu Ovid,Prague, 1933, p. 65. Polenton notes, in addition to the poem in the Getic tongue another poem in Latin on the triumph of Augustus; "Edidit quoque librum de triumpho Cesaris Augusti quem victis de Germanis Drusi auspiciis ac virtute gessit. Haec metro et Latine apud Gethas scripta. Gethica item lingua, quam longa mora et necessitas docuisset, composuit librum de laudibus Julii" (ed. Uhlman, 70, line 35). 4 Clm. 19475: "Dicitur autem rogatu Ocbellum incepisse, sed taviani Giganteum in the second Cupido retraxit eum"; 'accessus' in the same manuscript we read: "Proposuerat describere bellum quod fuit inter deos et Gigantes in Phlegrea valle V libris, sed ne maius facerent tedium duos ademit." Polenton also believes that the poem was begun and left half finished (ed. Uhlman, p. 67, line 21). 5 The authenticity of the De Vetula, affirmed even by Roger Bacon, was contested in vain by Petrarch. In the "accessus" to that work in Regin. 1559, Ambr. G. 130 inf., and Marc. XII, 57 we read: "Libellos illos fecisse connicitur qui non cadunt in numero librorum suorum s. de cuclo, de philomena, de pulice





four of these as authentic, together with the Medicamina. Giovanni del Virgilio thinks that one of them is genuine. The other two lives in which they are mentioned distinguish carefully between attributions and works of certain Polenton is reluctant to abandon them entirely, although by authenticity. his time they were known to be spurious; he speaks of them as youthful experiments.' Of the works which passed under Ovid's name in the Middle Ages, some are noted in our lives more often than others: the De Nuce and De

Pulice are noted six times; the De Cuculo,De Medicamine aurium,De Philomena,
De Vetula, three times; De Puellis and De Somno twice; and once only the

and De Vino.2 De Mirabilibusmundi,De Lumaca,De Schachis

Having collected these general notions, a task which did not require excessive labour or scrupulousness, the compilers of the "accessus" turned to the particular work with which they were concerned, and sought to evaluate it. This was their principal preoccupation. But it is clear that the reader of a series of Ovidian texts thus commented would, in passing from one to another, acquire a fairly complex amount of literary and biographical material on Ovid; in one preface, usually that to the Ovidius major, he would find the biography, and in the others he would find the individual works separately treated. The various collections (sillogi) of Ovidian "accessus" of which we have already spoken, show that the need was felt of bringing them together in a convenient form, independent of the texts. Such a synthesis provides, as has been said, a rudimentary attempt by mediaeval scholasticism at the history of literature.3
de somno, de nuce, de medicamine surdi et de medicamine faciei, de mirabilibus mundi," cf. below, p. 51, Appendix I). 1 Ambr. H 64 sup.: "Composuit librum de Sine Titulo, postea librum de Medicamine Faciei, de Nuce, de Cuculo, et de Pulice, et de Puellis." Giovanni del Virgilio accepts the works, but speaks of them as of secondary "Sed adhuc alios composuit importance: sicut Ovidium de nuce de pulice, de medicamine aurium cum suis similibus de quibus non facio quia parva opera mentionem fuerunt"; Laur. 36, 2, phrases it thus: "Attribuunt ei et alia opuscula, sed meo iudicio numquam Ovidii fuere: insaniunt vero qui eum dicunt scripsisse de Vetula, de Lumaca, nam ea oportuit fuisse cuiusdam infantis et ignoratissimi"; not so Polenton, who puts them among the juvenile works (ed. Uhlman, 66, line 34). 2 The authenticity of the Nux was disputed, even in the Middle Ages. Paris. 7994 believes it to be by Ovid and places it in a true light: "Intentio sua est sub persona nucis sine causa pericula sustinere" (see below, p. 48, Appendix E). On the problem of the authenticity of the Nux see E. Martini, op. cit., p. 59; Ambr. H 64 sup. and also Polenton place it amongst the juvenilia, after the Medicamina. It was a very popular work (cf. P. Lehmann, Pseudo-Antike Literatur des Mittelalters, Leipzig, 1927, p. 89; Nux, ed. F. Lenz, Turin, I939, p. 47) and holds a prominent place in the mediaeval lives. As for the Cuculus, it is twice mentioned together with Philomena, and is almost certainly not a duplication of the latter work. Under the title De Puellis, the little poem De nuntio sagaci or De tribuspuellis is indicated. As for the song De Vino it is listed in the catalogue of MS. Escurial, V, III, Io (I5th century) and according to Lehmann (op. cit., pp. 6 and 91, note 8) it would seem to have consisted of the verses on Bacchus drawn from Eugenius of Toledo (7th century) which in some manuscripts are entitled "Ovidius de Baccho." There is no doubt that the De Somnomentioned by Regin. 1559, Ambr. G, I30 inf. and Marc. XII, 57 is the elegy Amor, III, 5. The De Somno cited by these manuscripts may perhaps refer to the pseudo-Ovidian composition "Nox erat et placido capiebam pectore somnum." Of the following we have found no mention: De Luco, De Pediculo, De Lupo, Altercatio ventris et artuum, De facetia mense, De quatuor humoribus and De distributionemulierum. 3 These are the Dialogus super auctores of Conrad of Hirschau, which is a compilation arranged in dialogue form; the Register multorumauctorumof Hugo of Trimberg who



What kind of notion of Ovid's writings could mediaeval readers have formed from these judgments by their grammarian contemporaries? In the

sexual intercourse.' Although the catalogues generally put the Heroidesin the first place,2 it occasionally comes after the Ars, and so finds itself next to with which it becomes associated as an additional corrective to the Remedia, of the Ars.3 In the second place come the elegies of the Amores, dangers which, owing to the accident of having been temporarily copied into some codex without a title, were baptized as the book Sine Titulo. This gave and that the poems were composed only for the private ear of the lady; or that the author had wished to conceal the work from Augustus; or that he feared the scorn of his rivals; or, finally, that since he was uncertain whether to sing of love or of arms, he left the poem thus without a title.4
states that he has made a digest of titles, material and 'ordo librorum'; and the De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis by Anonymous Mellicensis. Cf. Przychocki, p. 117. 1 Some commentators insist exclusively on the moral aim of the Heroides, for example the copious Paris. 7995. This attitude also appears in Laur. 36, 28 and dominates in Laur. 36, 27. The metrical summaries which Sedlmayer has drawn from this and other codices contrast the amorous motives of the heroines who write the letters with the entirely moral aim of the poet: "Penelope veniat citius deposcit Ulixem Qam Naso laudat castum quia duxit amorem.-Demophoonta rogat veniat queritur quoque Phyllis Quam quia stulte amat [ut dixit] vult carpere Naso.-Hyppolitum Phaedra rogat ut potiatur amante: Damnat Naso per hanc incestas ille puellas," etc. (cf. Prolegomena, pp. 96-8). In this way the Heroides are turned into a moral lesson. For the poet's real intention of indulging the passions of his heroines, the mediaeval commentator substitutes a rigid judgment of human errors from a superior standpoint. The Munich "accessus," however, which accumulates so many different points of view from different commentators, puts forward the notion that the Heroides may be related to the Ars because it teaches how to make love by letters (see p. 11, note 7). Hence would arise a purely artistic aim of 'delectatio,' which is echoed in the sillogus, Paris. 7994 (see below, p. 46, Appendix E). Cf. the two catalogues published by Lehmann (op. cit., p. 89). In support of this chronological order, Giovanni del Virgilio affirms: "quamvis aliqui velint dicere quod prius composuerit librum de Sine Titulo. Sed hoc non est verum, quia in libro de Sine Titulo mentionem facit de Ovidio epistolarum." 3 In the 12th century it had already occurred to the author of Clm. 19475 that Ovid wrote the Heroides after the accusations of the Roman matrons: "unde librum scripsit eis istud exemplum proponens, ut sciant amando quas debeant imitari, quas non." Later, however, it was suggested that he dictated it in exile. Barb. 26 affirms this, and we read in Laur. 36, 27: "Qui positus in exilio vitam in longo tempore ducens, Romanarum mulierum benivolentiam sibi recuperare cupiens, epistolarum librum composuit, in quo castas extollendo et incestas deprimendo ponit, ut earum benivolentia recepta, ad statum pristinum reducatur"; Laur. 91, sup. 23 makes the same statement, in other words (see below, p. 44, Appendix B). 4 Drawing on the St. Gall codex (on which see p. 12), Arnulf explains it thus: "Sine titulo i. sine laude quia nullam laudem querit sibi . . . vel quia accusatus apud Augustum de Amatoria Arte non ausus est huic apponere titulum" (op. cit., p. 166); on the other hand Clm. 19475 expresses it thus: "quod metuebat emulos qui solebant reprehendere opera eius, ne titulo lecto detraherent ei. Altera causa est quia metuebat Augustum

exalting pure love, and showing the evil consequences of illegitimate forms of

Heroidesthe poet had transferred into Roman literature the Greek genre of noble and elegant love letters, wherein courtship takes on the moral aim of

rise to some of the more improbable fantasies of the commentators. They imagined that "without a title" might mean "without desire for fame,"





These strange suppositions, which so many writers delighted to bring forward, are put to shame by those who give the true title of the poem, Amores, and who point out that these elegies satisfy by describing experiences in love which are universally valid and at the same time personal to the author. Whence some draw yet another conjecture to the effect that the true title was cancelled by Ovid's admirers in order to try to preserve these elegies from the ban which the libraries had placed on the Ars Amatoria.1The latter work, according to some, was the outcome of Ovid's popularity with the youth of Rome; 2 but all admitted that it brought upon him the wrath of chaste matrons and 'honesti viri.'3 Many were the discussions concerning the matter of the work: some maintained that it reflected the experiences of his own youth; others claimed for it the artistic intention of establishing precepts for refined love, and so attempted to make an apology for it.4 It was generally
Cesarem quem offensum sciebat de Amatoria hic autem 'De amore' in semet ipso complet Arte, quia ibi matronas quasi in postibula percepta" (cf. Przychocki, p. 92). Paris. 7994 posuit, sciebat autem quod magis offende- very well understands the character of the retur lecto hoc titulo, inscripta sunt enim hic Amores: "Auctoris materia est de amore suo. quedam de amore. Tertia causa est quod Distat autem hoc opus ab opere artis AmaAugustus perceperat ut describeretur bellum torie quia in Arte Amatoria dat precepta de suum contra Antonium et Cleopatram, unde amore, in hoc opere ludicra tractat et iocosa proposuit V libros facere, sed abstractus est a ... Contigit autem longo post Artem AmaCupidine et ideo istos tres libros fecit in toriam compositam, Artis Amatorie causa quibus est sua materia amica eius vel amor" Ovidius ab Augusto dampnari et Artem Poete (cf. Przychocki, p. 92). The second "accessus" Amatoriam a publico eici armario. in the same codex puts it after the Ars, as vero timentes ne similiter liber Amorum follows: "Nam antequam componeret istum amitterent, titulum deleverunt, et ita caruit composuerat 'Ovidium de amatoria arte' et titulo." (Cf. below, p. 46 Appendix E.) 2 Vat. 1593: "videntes ergo romani iuvenes cunctas fere matronas et puellas fecerat adulteras et hinc romanos sibi reddiderat in cunctis fore peritum Ovidium impetrainimicos, et ideo ne adhuc maius incideret verunt ab eo Artis Amatorie librum"; Barb. odium huic non apposuit titulum"; the 26: "iuvenum rogatu impulsus composuit sillogus Paris. 7994 assembles all these various librum Artis Amatorie in quo docuit iuvenes inconsistent explanations (see the text pub- solum licitas amare puellas." Cf. also lished below, p. 46, Appendix E). Sedlmayer, op. cit., p. I451 Cf. the second "accessus" in Clm. 19475: 3 Arnulf: ". .. ibique romanos iuvenes "Iste Ovidius dicitur de amore"; Arnulf and adulteros esse docuit, matronasque impuRegin. 1559, Ambr. G, 130 inf., Marc. XII, dicas, unde in inimiciciam Augusti incurrit, 57: "Ovidius amorum sive sine titulo"; Paris. docendo adulterium." Cf. also the discussions 7994 knows the true title "Hunc enim titulum on the causes of the exile (above p. 32). 4 Clm. 19474: "Materia sua est ipsi prescripsit actor: incipit liber amorum"; Napol. IV. F. 12: "Secundum opus fuit iuvenes et puelle et ipsa precepta amoris que 'Ovidius sine titulo' quod intitulavit 'Ovidius ipse iuvenibus intendit dare" (Przychocki, amorum' " (cf. Przychocki, p. 92, note 31). p. 87). Others disagreed with this, maintainThey all more or less agree that 'delectatio' ing that a master who teaches an art does not seems to have been the principal aim of the have the scholars as his 'material,' but the work. Clm. 19475: "Intentio eius est delec- art itself; and that in this case the art is tare"; Paris. 7994: "Utilitas est delectatio"; love, understood as a science (cf. Paris. 7998, Clm. 19474 endeavours to explain in what quoted below, p. 45, Appendix C), as the this delectatio consists: "Finalis causa scilicet prudent art of "amare sapienter" and avoidutilitas est ornatus verborum et pulchras ing tragic excesses (cf. Napol. V, D, 52, cognoscere positiones. Quid autem differat quoted below, p. 58, Appendix O); Paris. inter 'Ovidium de amore' et 'De amatoria 7994 discusses the title at length, and seems arte' sciendum est: 'Ovidius de amatoria to hesitate between taking 'ars' in the arte' dat precepta amatoribus ut sint cauti, scholastic sense "brevis et aperta precep-




agreed that when Ovid realized how much his rules of love had been misunderstood, he felt the need of bridling the intemperance of youth and dictated the RemediaAmoris,the readers of which were enabled to gain the victory over those illicit passions to which they were formerly slaves.1 Not that he wished, as some pointed out, to put his readers on guard against all forms of love, but only against those which brought evil and ruin in their train.2 The meaning of the Remedia,as not necessarily opposed to the Ars, but more in the nature of integration of the earlier work, did not entirely escape the mediaeval grammarians, although they did not perfectly understand it. We have already seen that some regarded not only the Remedia,but also as the Heroides having been composed in exile in order to regain the lost favour of Augustus. Now it is the turn of the Fasti. More than one writer believed that this work was written in the hope of obtaining repatriation; for in it Ovid showed himself anxious to restore the religious cult, by reminding Germanicus, the Pontifex designate, of the sacred festivals of the Roman calendar which had fallen into oblivion.3 Some remembered that, according
torum collectio ad aliquid artificiose agendum," or as really meaning ways of making love (see below, p. 47, Appendix E). Many abstain from criticizing the work, for example, Ambr. H 64 sup., who protests with evident exaggeration: "Videbatur enim in illo libro, ab illis qui non intellexere eum, fecisse iuvenes adulteros et matronas impudicas, cuius contrarium apparet: detestatur luxuriam et et describit amorem, qualiter honeste amemus" (see below, p. 57, Appendix N). 1 Clm. 19475 treats very clearly of Ovid's situation and his repentance: ". . . Quidam autem iuvenes, voluptati nimium obedientes, non solum virgines, verum etiam matronas et consanguineas minime vitabant. Virgines coniugatis, sicut non uxoratis se pariter Unde Ovidius ab amicis et subiungebant. ab aliis in maximo odio habebatur, postea penitens, quos offenderat sibi reconciliari desiderans, vidensque hoc non melius posse fieri quam si dato amori medicinam adinveniret, hunc librum scribere aggressus est, in quo pariter iuvenibus et puellis irretitis [consulit], qualiter erga illicitum amorem se armare debeant .. ." (Przychocki, p. 87); there is a similar discussion in Nap. IV. F. 12: ". . . cum docuisset tam iuvenes quam puellas amare, tam viri quam mulieres preceptis amoris imprudenter et illicite [utentes] suo preceptori gravissimam invidiam conflaverunt et sibi precipitium paraverunt, unde cupiens Ovidius tam suam lenire invidiam, quam illorum errori consulere, hunc librum De remedio amoris composuit, quare potest dici quod ipsius libri materies est moderamen amoris. Intentio auctoris est bene amantes in suo proposito confirmare, stulte et illicite amantes sanatos suis preceptis ab amore revocare . . ." (Przychocki, p. ioi). 2 The ruinous consequences of a wrong application of the teaching of the Ars is emphasized by the commentators of Paris. I11318 (see below, p. 45) and of Paris. 8246 (13th century); "Quoniam actor iste multos per artem amatoriam traxerat in errorem. Populata autem arte amatoria omnes amori vacare studuerunt, sed, relicto recto limine, quidam ad suspendium, quidam ad incendium, ceteri ad diversa genera tormentorum coIdcirco actor iste Ovidius cogigebantur. tavit ut quoddam opus componeret quo amantes ab errore valeret revocare et non a quolibet amore sed tantum ab amore illicito. Et propter hoc presens opus incepit compilare et perfecit, in quo iuvenes in amore deviantes revocavit ad rectum limitem. Tamen non est reprehendendum hoc opus premisso Quod ipse actor operi fuisse contrarium. ostendit dicens: 'Nec te blande puer,' etc." The same ideas are emphasized by Paris. 7994, with other quotations (see below, p. 47, Appendix E). 3 According to Cod. Hafn. G.K.S. 2oio (I3th century): "Intencio duplex est, communis et privata. Communis est assignacio fastorum in Kal.; privata est duplex: est enim erudire Germanicum festivitates que in libro annalium confuse dicebantur, qui futurus erat episcopus illo anno: vel quod illo mediante posset Ovidius Augusti Cesaris quem offenderat propter compositionem libri





to Ovid himself, the Fasti would have been composed in Rome, and they tried to explain this by the conjecture that the first version had been written in Rome and destroyed; and that the poet made a second version from memory when in exile which survived in an incomplete form.1 This incompleteness gave rise to the view, which gained credit in the thirteenth century, that the missing last six books were suppressed by the Church because of their idolatrous and anti-Christian subject matter.2 The greater number of our "accessus" believe that the disgraced poet tried to rehabilitate himself through the Fasti, before the exile ;3 and they exercise themselves chiefly over the question of the various meanings given to the terms "fastus" and "nefastus."4
Artis Amatorie favorem et gratiam adipisci. Utilitas huius libri nulla legitur fuisse, quia ab exilio numquam legitur rediisse . . ." (see Alton, op. cit., p. I22); Clm. 19475 has: ubi composuit hunc librum. "Dubitatur Dicunt quidam quod in exilio composuit, alii vero dicunt antequam mitteretur, ut sic sibi ." (see Przychocki, . placaret Cesarem p. 95). 1 For the hypothesis of the two versions, see the Codex Reginensis, quoted below, p. 492 Cf. Cod. Hafn. G.K.S. 2010o: "...fuerunt etenim XII sed beatus Geronimus considerans ydolatriam i. cultus idolorum de quibus tractabatur in VI ultimis libris, illos delevit .. ."; Giovanni del Virgilio says: "in quo sunt 12 Libri sicut duodecim menses sunt anni, eo quod de quolibet mense fecit suum librum. Sed non inveniuntur nisi sex. Et dicitur quod Ecclesia alios sex abstulit, eo quod cum determinarent de mense Julii et Augusti, qui tunc nominabantur a Cesare Julio et Augusto, ipse posuit multa signa de Christo applicando ipsa Cesari Julio et Augusto." 3 Gf. Arnulf in his special "accessus"; "Causa suscepti operis duplex, communis et privata. Communis ut omnes romanos quos sibi iratos fecerat per librum de Arte Amandi per istum gratiosos redderet, et hoc opus suscepit, annales siquidem libros qui per veteratim iam adeo erant aboliti quod omnem morem sacrificii ita transferrent ut in fastis nulla sacrificia facerent, in nefastis vero quod erat fastorum facerent. Ovidius vero que in libris Annalibus erant deposita in hoc libro breviter collegit. Causa privata fuit ut Germanicum sacrificiis instrueret qui futurus erat Pontifex anni illius in quo Ovidius hoc opus incepit" (op. cit., p. 162); and in his 'life': "Sexto loco Ovidium fastorum in honore Germanici qui futurus erat pontifex anni illius, fecit, ut eius interventu gratiam Augusti recuperaret. Sed cum nequaquam posset eum reddere benevolum, in exilium profectus . . ." (ibid., p. I80); Clm. 19475 tells the story thus, without alluding to Germanicus: "Ovidius autem sciens eo tempore Romanos sibi esse odiosos propter opus quod fecerat de Arte enim per illud preceptum Amatoria-multi amandi decipiebantur-istud opus duabus de causis explicandum suscepit et spatiosa volumina in compendiosiorem tractatum redegit, quo morem sacrificii explicaret et Romanos sibi offensos mitigaret" (Przychocki, p. 93). See also Richard de Fournival: ". . . liber Fastorum ... composuit in honore Germanici . . . ut scilicet interventu ipsius Augusto sibi irato reconciliari" (Biblion., X, p. 118). Giovanni del Virgilio says that when he saw the hostility of the emperor, "Ovidius voluit Germanici Cesaris nepotis benevolentiam Octaviani captari, ut ipsum defenderet ab Octaviano, et ideo quarto composuit Ovidium de fastis. ... Sed tamen parum profuit, quia Octavianus Cesar nullis precibus omisit quin ipsum in exilium revocaret . . ."; Laur. 36, 18: Ambr. H 64 sup.; Napol. V, D, 52, all date the work before the exile. 4 Arnulf: ". . . de fastis et nefastis agit diebus. Nefastus enim dicitur a nefas qui illicitus, eo quod et quasi nefas erat in illa die negotia agere, causas exercere vel aliud tale, eo quod in illa die male contigerat romanis ... Videmus autem quod in quorundam scriptis qui fastos dies appellant non festivos, nefastos vero festivos. Sed inveniuntur quidam de fastis festivos, et de nefastis quidam non festivi. Prava est eorum sententia qui hoc tenent. Mirum enim esset si dies in quo male contigerat pro sollempnibus haberent .. ." (op. cit., pp. 162-3); Clm. 19475: "Videnda est quorundam versutia de fastis et de nefastis diebus, perverso enim modo accipiunt: cum enim superius diceremus fastos dies commoditates, in quibus iura exercere, sacrificia fieri liceret, nefastos vero in quibus horum nihil romana curia fieri censeret, quidam opinantur dies fastos vocari ab urbanis



The major poem, the Metamorphoses, which had such an extraordinary in the Middle Ages and was made use of in so many different ways, is vogue treated in the "accessus" primarily from the structural point of view. The need was felt of grouping the divers varieties of mutations in definite categories.' At the same time the usefulness of the poem as a store-house of mythological knowledge was kept in view. And, above all, readers were urged to seek the moral meaning hidden beneath the veil of the fables.2 The texts studied and observations made in the earlier part of this article make it unnecessary to insist further on these points.3 It is interesting to observe how from these strictly scholastic modes of thinking there arises an embryonic kind of aestheticjudgment; and how through the attempt at discovering the secret of poetry by defining its external forms, there arises a recognition of a substantial and unbreakable alliance between ethics and poetry, and of the concept of 'delectatio' as the principal result of Ovid's wonderful power of mouldnegotiis in quibus deberent vacare. nec liceret caon), magica (Pygmalion, Circe), also Romana iura exerceri nec ullas diis hostias Actaeon, Baucis, Tage. Giovanni del Virgilio immolare. Nefastos vero vocant in quibus returns to the triple division: 'naturalis' (by decretum erat non abstinere. and corruption) ; 'spiritualis' generation supradictis Horum et similium errores cognoscuntur (from sane to mad and vice versa); and Ovidio testante qui ait: "Ille nefastus erit 'magica' (by the arts of sorcery). 2 In his allegorical summary, Arnulf brings per quem tria verba silentur. Fastus erit per out the ethical utility of the poem: "Ethice quem lege licebit agi" (Trist., I, 47). 1 Arnulf gives three categories of mutation: supponitur quia docet nos ista temporalia vel que transitoria et mutabilia, contempnere "Naturalis que fit per contexionem . .. utilitas est erudicio divinorum habita ex retexionem elementorum ... Magica quando mutacione temporalium" (op. cit., p. I81); fit per prestigia magicorum (Lycaon, Io) ... Spiritualis que fit circa spiritum ut de in- Paris. 8253 echoes this: "Utilitas . . . ut, viso quomodo res mundane transmutantur, sano fit sanus vel e contrario (Agave, Autonoe) . . ." These three kinds of muta- quisquis erigat mentem suam ad creatorem tion can be achieved in three ways: "de re suum sive ad creatoris sui cognitionem"; animata ad rem animatam (Lycaon) . . . de Ambr. N. 254 sup.: "Utilitas legentium inanimatam in inanimatam (the house of cognitio fabularum et ut, viso quid de pravis Baucis into a temple) . . . de inanimata ad moribus acciderit, quia quibusdam in beluas animatam (Pygmalion's statue) . . . de ani- variari, a viciis et a beluina turpitudine mata ad inanimatam (Orpheus's serpent into abstineamus." a rock) ... ." Paris. 8253 (see below, p. 52, 3 For some commentators, the Metamorthe classification by the phoses served to mitigate the wrath of AugusAppendix J) expands tus. See, for example, Paris. 8253: "Actor addition of 'mutatio moralis,' as follows: iste qui per edificium Artis Amatorie malinaturalis (the elements), spiritualis (Agave), his volentiam romanorum maxime moralis (Io), magica (Pygmalion): Augusti other examples (Actaeon, Baucis, Deucaadeptus erat, volebat ostendere Julium posse lion, Orpheus's serpent) are almost the deificari per mutationes diversas ..."; Ambr. same. This classification is clarified with N. 254 sup.: "Est autem auctoris utilitas ut further examples, by Ambr. N 254 sup. (see ostensa apotesi i. deificacione Julii, favorem below, p. 53, Appendix K): naturalis (the Augusti et gratiam recuperet . . ."; Guglielmoralis mus de Thiegiis: "Intentio ad quid agat ut (Orestes), elements), spiritualis . . .reconsiliationem apud Augustum (Lycaon), magica (Circe), also Actaeon, mereatur." But many do not confirm this. Baucis, Deucalion, and the serpent. GuillelSome note that the poem was never emended, mus de Thiegiis (see below, p. 55, Appendix L) at first seems to withdraw 'naturalis,' for example, Laur. 36, i8: ". .. in Ponto but ends by admitting it. He also gives the relegatus est, libro Methamorphoseos non pleno correcto"; Ambr. H. 64 sup.: ". . . et examples as follows: naturalis (the elements), spiritualis (Hercules, Agave), moralis (Ly- postea scripsit itsum et non emendavit . . ."





ing and weaving the dispersed variety of myths into a continuous narrative. 1 The Middle Ages made of the Tristia and the Ex Ponto a group apart, almost a unity in itself. The commentaries and the "accessus" which were consecrated to these two works in Germany, France and Italy, witness to the sympathy felt for the Ovidian muse, even in her sad moments. This sympathy appears particularly in the commentaries, more than in the brief introductions. In treating the much discussed questions of the causes of the exile,2 and the four different kinds of exile,3 the commentators touch all the cords of sadness and suffering.4 Nor do they forget the moral admonishment to which the spectacle of Ovid's misfortunes should give rise; those misfortunes which inspired so many mediaeval poets to sing of the mutability of fortune.5
1 For Giovanni del Virgilio the ethical supposition, "nam omnes poete tendunt in mores," counts for little, and amongst the final aims he puts "causa finalis remota ut ipse famam perpetuam acquireret . .. et iste breviter finis est cuiuslibet poete." From del Virgilio's subtle disquisitions on style (see above, p. 22) we come to the simple and true declaration of Ambr. H. 64, sup.: "Intentio sua est describere fabulas ut per harum descriptionem delectet et prosit . ." And to the clearly formulated aesthetic judgment of Laur. 36, 2 on the "mira virtus continuationis"; or Polenton's observation, who says of the fables invented by Ovid or drawn from other poets: "Illas enim artificio tanto disposuit, enarravit, contexuit ut profectae uno ab auctore, non a pluribus, videantur" (op. cit., p. 67). 2 On this see above, p. 32, note 4. 3 Arnulf thus defines the various kinds of est quando quis sua exile: "Inscriptio amittens et in patria remanens ab amicis sustentatus est. Relegatio quando quis privatim iussus est discedere, spem revertendi habens ut Ovidius. Proscriptus cuius bona in publicum erarium referuntur, et missus est in exilium et statuti sunt dies ei quando redire debeat. Exul est qui numquam redibit extra solum patrie positus" (op. cit., p. 173); in the other 'accessus' to the Tristia which is attributed to him, he repeats the same distinctions and adds four verses (ibid., p. 176, note 4); Clm. 19475 differs from Arnulf by maintaining that the proscript can never return to his native land, but the exile may have some hope of doing so: "Proscriptus dicebatur cuius bona publicabantur et ipse sine aliqua spe redeundi missus est in exilium. Inscriptus, cuius bona etiam publicabantur et ipse domi inter amicos retentus; Relegatus, cuius bona publicabantur et ipse sub spe redeundi in exilium missus. Exul, cuius bona publicabantur et ipse sub aliqua spe redeundi missus" (Przychocki, p. 91); Paris. 8207 gives hope of return both to the proscript and to the exile: "Ille enim dicebatur relegatus qui privatim discedere iussus spem revertendi habebat nec sua amittebat. proscriptus vero dicebatur qui extra patriam missus spem revertendi habebat sed bona sua ad publicum ferebantur, inscriptus qui sua amittens et in patria remanens ab amicis sustentabatur, exul qui publice dampnatus bonisque suis privatus extra patriam cum spe revertendi mittebatur." 4 Arnulf: "Ovidius in exilio positus hunc librum composuit in quo se ipsum et miseriam suam et amicos materiam habuit" (op. cit., p. 173); Gothanus: "Et notandum quod materia huius libri est calamitas et miseria quod de calamitate et miseria sua loquitur in hoc opere . . . dicitur de Tristibus quod librum in tristicia sua composuit"; Clm. 19475: "Huic operi titulus a causa imponitur, eo quod eius auctor in tristicia versabatur"; Paris. 8207: "Materia sua est ipse miserus Ovidius, uxor et amici sui. .. Modus exorationis amicorum talis: ostendit enim eos dum presens fuerit multum dilexisse et in eis fiduciam habuisse, sue pondus miserie multis exaggerat ..."; Paris. 8255: "nimie iocunditatis auctorem ad erumpnas sue calamitatis declarandas procubuisse subito . ." 5 Clm. 19475: "Intentio sua est unumquemque persuadere, ut vero suo amico in necessitate subveniat .. ."; Paris. 8197: "Utilitas legentium est quod per errorem Ovidii sibi possint ab errore consimili precavere" (see p. 14, note 3); Paris. 8207: ". . . vel intendit persuadere poetis ne aliquid indignum scribant propter quem penam sui similem incurrant."



This contrast between the time of happiness and the time of misery is emphasized in the "accessus" to the Ibis as the main theme of this work, and it is pointed out that the poet's rage seems to find a kind of pleasurable relief in accumulating the wildest invectives against his fate, whence the readers may draw a useful lesson.1 We have tried to establish the general knowledge concerning the life and work of Ovid which was current in schools and cultivated circles in the later Middle Ages, and which probably did not extend beyond the limits here laid down.
1 See

above, p. 13 and Appendix E, p. 48.


A. Cod. Vat. lat. 2792 (I4th century). Heroides. Ovidius in Peligno opido existens, videns alios poetas per scripta ad honorem provehi, Romam venit et ibi animum suum ad iuvenalia applicavit. Unde ait in libro de Ponto: 'leta cano letus, tecum quoque tristia tristis.'1Ad utilitatem vero iuvenum composuit istum librum in quo imitatus est Esiodum ascreum poetam reducendo epistulas ad memoriam que iam date erant fere oblivioni; unde habetur in Ovidio de arte amatoria: 'ignotum aliis hoc ille novavit opus.'2 Materia ipsius est amor illicitus et stultus. Intentio sua est quasdam puellas commendare in licito amore sicut Penelopem, alias reprehendere ab illicito sicut Phedram que dilexit Yppolitum privignum suum, alias reprehendere a stulto amore sicut Phillida et Oenonem. Stultitia enim est pueros diligere sicut Oenone quia solent esse inconstantes secundum etatis sue variacionem. Hec est principalisintentio, alie secundum distinctiones speciales exponuntur.


B. Cod. Laur. 91 sup. 23 (I5th century). Heroides. Auctor iste Ovidius rogatu quorundam iuvenum romanorum impulsus scripsit librum artis amatorie in quo largitus est illis periciam decipiendi; qui non solum se licitis, verum etiam ab illicitis non abstinebant, utpote sanctis monialibus et viduis et coniugatis. Unde romane mulieres et religiosissime plurimum condolebant quod non poterant resistere illis, et inceperant cogitare quomodo possent ipsum Ovidium opprimere, et finxerunt quod ipse concuberet cum uxore Neronis. Quod pervenit ad iniquissimas aures Neronis, qui vero iniquissimus Nero non solum sontes damnabatur verum etiam insontes, et hunc Ovidium posuit in Ponto insula. Qui Ovidius, morans ibi, sustinebat multa incommoda scilicet famem, sitim et nuditatem; et incepit inde cogitare qualiter posset exire, et qualiter earum amicitiam recuperareposset, qui sicut incusacione earum venerat, ita earum prece eriperetur. Et tunc composuit hunc librum in quo multum commendat mulieres castas et pudicas, et reprehendit incestas et impudicas. Utilitas permaxima est,
quoniam perlecto hoc libro, et pudice castitatem observare studeant, et impudice
librum Heroidum epistolarum, quas ab Esiodo, greco poeta, conscriptas ipse in latinum reducens, amplius expolivit" (see Sedlmayer, op. cit., p. 146; Przychocki, op. cit., p. 81, note 5).

The citation of Hesiod as a source is transmitted in almost the same words from one commentator to another. Cf. Laur. 36, 18: "Composuit novem magna volumina et primo quidem

2 Ars. Amat., III, 346.

Pont., III, 9, 35.

45 et inceste castitati adhereant.1 Et sciendum est quod iste autor tria nomina dicitur habuisse, videlicet Publius Ovidius et Naso, sed non sine causa: Publius enim dictus est a publico -cas, quia publice reprehendebat ea que reprehendenda et laudabat laudanda. Ovidius dictus est a ovo ovas quia ovanter, gaudenter hoc faciebat. Naso vero dicitur per similitudinem, quia sicut aliquis odorifera secernit a putridis, eodem modo sua solercia sciebat secernere castas et pudicas ab incestis. Ethice supponitur quia tractat de moribus in docendo bonos mores et reprehendendo malos.


Cod. Paris. 7998 (dated 1305). Ars Amatoria. Flore iuventutis vernans Ovidius telisque Cupidinis lacessitus ideo universas amoris fallacias doctus et expertus, hoc opus incepit et perfecit. In hoc autem opere, sicut in aliis sex sunt principaliter inquirenda s. quis actor, que materia actoris, que intentio, que utilitas, quis titulus, cui parti philosophie supponatur. Actor est Ovidius, amorem habet pro materia. Obmutescant ergo illi qui asserunt auctorem habere iuvenes pro materia. Non enim qui docet rectoricam habet discipulos pro materia, immo ipsam artem. Intentio sua est dare iuvenibus et puellis plenariam Utilitas est artificiosa amoris peritia, ut patet in primis amoris tractationem. duobus versis: 'Si quis in hoc artem populo'2 etc. Ethice supponitur liber iste quia loquitur de moribus iuvenum et puellarum, quos introducit in hac arte. Titulus talis est: Publii Nasonis Ovidii de arte amatoria primus liber incipit. Bene dicitur primus quia sequitur secundus. Sunt enim tres. Ovidius est proprium nomen eius, et dicitur Ovidius quia ovum dividens i. quia mundus quasi ovo comparatur. Naso a quantitate nasi. Publius a patre suo qui Publius fuit dictus.
D. Cod. Paris. I 1318 (13th century). RemediaAmoris. Quante iocunditatis actor iste extiterit librorum suorum manifestat series Ovidius autem quadam mollicie depravatus et nimia prosperitate universa. gavisus, vite sue iocose iocosum prebuit argumentum. Ipse vero in iuvenili etate constitutus, telumque Cupidinis sepissime lacessitus, effeminate lascivie sue relaxens, librum de Arte Amatoria composuit in quo quam plurimos contraxit in errorem Sed cum sine remedio nichil constituit omnium per amoris varia documenta. rerum creator altissimus, videns Ovidius quod liber Artis Amatorie quam plurimos traxerat in errorem, Arte sua vix prolata, omnes amori vacare studuerunt nam, recto tramite derelicto, quidam ad suspendium, quidam ad incendium, ceterique ad ceterorum genera mortis presonpcione amoris intollerancia cogebantur. Hac de causa compulsus, Ovidius ad eorum remedia hoc opus suscipere destinavit. In cuis principio breviter inquiramus illa que principaliter solent queri s. que sit causa materialis, que formalis, que efficiens, que finalis. Causa materialis huius operis est amor temperatus et remediosus contra quem utitur acris intencio que est suadere nos amorem perniciosum deponere, amori remedioso adherendo. E. Cod. Paris. 7994 (I3th century). CarminaAmatoria. Explicit Ovidius Epistularum, incipit materia eiusdem. In hoc primo suorum operum Ovidius iocose vite sue iocosum prebuit argumentum. Secutus est enim sententiam Mimnermi qui sine amore nichil esse iocosum asserebat. Unde: 'Si Mimnermus uti censet sine amore iocisque nichil esse iocundum vivas in amore
Faone, Florence, 1896, p. 45, note I. 2Ars., I, I.



1 The passage was printed up to this point by D. ovidianadi Saffoa Comparetti, Sull'autenticita dell'epistola


FAUSTO GHISALBERTI iocisque.' In hoc ergo opere agit Ovidius de amore secundum amoris omnes species, que sunt legitimus amor s. coniugium, stultus s. fornicatio, illicitus s. incestus. Legitimum commendat in Penelope, arguit in Phillide stultum, illicitum dampnat in Phedra et in Canace. Intentio sua est effectum amoris in qualibet eius specie ostendere. Utilitas est delectatio. Vel utilitas est si quandoque contigerit nos a puellis nostris destitui hoc opus exemplar habeamus quomodo eas ad amorem nostrum revocemus vel e contrario. Sed utilitas est precipua legitimo amori adherere qui ceteris videtur preiudicare. Etice supponitur quia de moribus loquitur. Titulus talis est: Ovidii Nasonis Epistularum liber incipit. Non dicitur primus quia non sequitur secundus. Non est enim nisi unus Ubi autem deest ordo deest et numerus. Vel verius assignatur titulus sic: Incipit liber Heroidum, et ita a maiori parte intitulatur opus; plures enim sunt heroides que scribunt heroibus quam heroes heroidibus.... Explicit Ovidius sine titulo, incipit materia eiusdem. Quante iocunditatis extiterit actor iste non solum huius executio verum eiusdem librorum series approbat universa. Ovidius etenim naturali quadam mollicie semper amoribus deputatus nimiaque Cupidinis prosperitate gavisus ad uxorem Cesaris anelavit, quam falso nomine in hoc opere Corinnam appellavit. Unde ipse in Ovidio Tristium: 'Moverat ingenium totam cantata per urbem Nomine non vero dicta Corinna michi.'1 Hac igitur occasione compulsus hoc opus incepit ut inter cetera que falso apponuntur quedam iocosa de veris amoribus suis enarraret. In hoc igitur opere breviter et iocose videmus que sit materia, que intentio, que causa intentionis, que utilitas, cui parti philosophie supponatur, et quare liber hic tituli careat inscriptione. Actoris siquidem materia est de amore suo. Distat autem hoc opus ab opere Artis Amatorie, quia in Arte Amatoria dat precepta de amore, in hoc opere ludicra tractat et iocosa. Intentio sua est quedam de amoribus suis iocose exponere. Causa intentionis duplex: vel ut ille delectet quia ut ait Horatius: 'aut prodesse volunt aut delectare poete' etc., vel amice sue quam falso nomine Corinnam appellat se commendet. Utilitas est delectatio, vel apud Corinnam suam commendatio. Ad eticam spectat quia de suis moribus loquendo quarumlibet succubarum pelicis rivalium et lenarum mores insinuat. Quare autem liber iste titulo careat diverse a diversis assignantur cause. Dicunt quidam quod ipse proposuerat se de armis tractaturum et ita secundum propositum et intentionem debuit intitulari incipit liber armorum. Sed retractus est ab armis per Cupidinem, ut tractaret de amoribus suis. Quod nichil aliud fuit nisi quod cum ipse de bellis scriberet sensit se plus valere in scribendo de amore quam de armis, ideo ab armis se retraxit. Et ita secundum materie executionem debuit intitulari liber amorum. Et quia dubium erat an deberet dici liber armorum secundum propositum et intentionem, sive liber amorum secundum materie executionem, ideo remansit in dubio, et ita caruit titulo. Et iam utrum melius dicatur usque in hodiernam diem actores certant et adhuc sub iudice lis est. Alii dicunt quod metu emulorum titulum non apposuit, quia opera eius licet bona vituperarent si titulum sui libri viderent.2 Sed quoniam predicte cause frivole sunt et nulle, veram huis rei causam assignemus. Contigit autem longo post Artem Amatoriam compositam, Artis Amatorie causa Ovidius ab Augusto dampnari et Artem Amatoriam a publico eici armario. Poete vero timentes ne similiter liber Amorum amitterent, titulum deleverunt, et ita liber caruit titulo. Hunc enim titulum prescripsit actor: Incipit liber Amorum ... Explicit Ovidius de Arte Amandi, incipit materia eiusdem Flore iuventutis vernans Ovidius, telisque Cupidinis sepissime lacessitus, ideoque universas amoris fallacias doctus et expertus, hoc opus incepit et perfecit. In hoc autem opere agit de

1 Trist., IV, Io, 59 if. 2 For the origin of this conjecture, which dates from

the St. Gall codex, see Lenz, op. cit., p. 637, and above, p. 12 and 38.



amore quod ipsemet in libro Tristium profitetur dicens : 'Tres procul obscura latitantes parte videbis. hic quoque quod nemo nescit amare docent.'1 Si ergo docent amare, amor est eorum doctrina, non de arte amandi vel iuvenibus et puellis sicut quidam apocrifi cornicantur. Obmutescant igitur qui sompniant iuvenes et puellas esse materiam auctoris in hoc opere, quemadmodum si quis discipulos in arte aliqua instruat, ipsi non sunt materia eiusdem artis, sic iuvenes et puelle ad amandum instructi non sunt materia auctoris. Obmutescant etiam qui garriunt amandi artem esse materiam. Nunc enim de arte agit ut illud denotet materiam, sed de arte amandi i. de amore ad artem i. ad artis compositionem ut illud denotet finalem causam, ut s. tractando de tali materia i. de amore ars componatur, quod opus nomine artis meruit censeri, quia totum consistit in preceptis, quod sonat differentio vocabuli. Ars est brevis et aperta preceptorum collectio ad aliquid artificiose agendum. Vel melius dicatur quod cum dicitur: incipit Ovidius de Arte, illud notat materiam, ut ubi: incipit Ovidius de Remedio Amoris, ibi enim notatur per hanc propositionem "de", quod remedium sit materia auctoris. Similiter et hic cum dicitur: Incipit Ovidius de Arte, "de" notat materiam operis, quod scilicet ars amoris sit materia scribentis. Sic ergo ars est materia. Intentio Ovidii est in hoc opere docendo iuvenes et puellas plenariam et perfectam de Utilitas est artificiosa amoris peritia preceptorum amore facere traditionem. collectione comparata. Titulus talis est: Ovidii de Arte liber primus incipit. Bene dicitur primus quia sequitur secundus. Sunt enim tres de Arte Amandi i. de amore ad artem, sicut expositum est. .... Explicit Ovidius de Remedio Amoris, incipit materia eiusdem. Cum liber Artis Amatorie multos traxerat in errorem prolata re vera Arte Amatoria omnes amori vacare studuerunt, sed sollempni preceptorum limite derelicto, quidam ad laqueum, quidam ad incendium, ceteri ad cetera mortis genera cogebantur. Hac de causa Ovidius ad eorum remedium hoc opus adhibuit in quo opere agit de amore levi et remedioso. Nec enim credendum est hoc opus esse contrarium premisso operi Artis Amatorie quod ipse testatur in hoc opere dicens: 'Nec te blande puer nec nostras prodimus artes.'2 Amor ergo remediosus est materia actoris in hoc opere. Intentio sua perniciosum amorem removere ad quod ipse in hoc opere nos invitat dicens: 'Me duce dampnosas modo compesce causas.'3 Utilitas est pernitiosi amoris depositio. Unde hic ait: 'Utile propositum est sevas extinguere flammas. Nec servum vitiis pectus suum.'4 Titulus talis est: Publii Nasonis Ovidii de Remedio Amoris liber primus incipit. Bene dicitur primus quia sequitur secundus, sunt enim duo. Titulus autem sumptus est a materia.... Explicit Ovidius de in Ibin incipit materia eiusdem. Ait Ovidius in libro Tristium: 'Dum iuvat et vultu ridet fortuna secundo. Indelibata cuncta sequuntur opes. At simul intonuit nec noscitur ulli Agminibus comitum qui modo cinctus erat.'5 Sic igitur dum Ovidius prosperitate floreret domus eius turba nobilium frequentabatur. Postquam vero in exilium relegatus est, omnes pene discesserunt metuentes propter familiaritatem eius iram imperatoris incurrere. Quidam etiam de eo malos rumores serebat in curia metuens ne de exilio ipse repatriaret, Ovidii possessiones sitiens et uxorem. Hac igitur de causa compulsus, Ovidius in eum facit invectiones huiusmodi vel odio suo quod erga invidum habebat et ire sue cupiens satisfacere, vel per invectiones istas illum a detractionis vitiis absterrere. Materia igitur huius actoris in hoc opere est execratio invidi. Intentio execrari invidum faciendo invectiones in ipsum. Causa intentionis duplex vel ut ire sue et odio in invidum satisfaciat, vel ut eum execrando a detractione deterreat. Utilitas
: Trist., I, I, III. 2 Rem., II. 3 Rem., 69. 4 Rem., 53 if. 5 Trist., I, 5, 27 f.


FAUSTO GHISALBERTI est tota actoris scilicet delectatio quam habet maledicendo invido. Vel utilitas est lectoris s. cognitio fabularum in hoc opere compilatarum. Titulus talis est: Publii Nasonis Ovidii liber invectionum in Ibin incipit. Non dicitur primus quia non sequitur secundus non est enim nisi unus.1 Sciendum tamen est quod Ovidius nomen invidi sui reticet ut in Ovidio de ponto ait: 'Nomine non utar ne commendere querela,'2 etc. Per similitudinem tamen Ibin eum nominat, et merito, ibis enim est avis rostro rubeo, cauda nigra, cetero corpore albo. Per rubedinem rostri designatur flamma invidie qua inflammatus invidus Ovidii sanguinem sitiebat, per candorem corporis simulatus amor notatur, cuius turpis finis per caude nigredinem aperitur. Item ciconia rostro suo purgare interiora dicitur, unde in ea nichil rostro sordidior invenitur. Unde per simile potest dici de invido quod ore suo nichil sordidius habeat de quo detractiones prodeunt et invidie fel distillat. Id autem quod dicitur de ciconia recte videtur invido convenire, unde merito nomine ibidis designatur. .... Explicit Ovidius de Nuce, incipit materia eiusdem. Exiguum generat doctrina superflua fructum. Ideoque secundum opusculi huius brevitatem comprehendamus materie quantitatem. Huius igitur actoris materia in hoc opere conquestio nucis que conqueritur quod sine merito cum fructum proferat puniatur. Intentio sua est sub persona nucis sine causa pericula sustinere. Utilitas est delectatio. Vel utilitas est per hoc opus precognoscere neminem sine merito puniendum esse.3. . . Explicit Ovidius de Medicamine Faciei, incipit materia eiusdem. Ovidius hoc opus composuisse dicitur sicut ipsemet loquens ad puellas in libro de Arte Amatoria protestatur dicens: 'Est michi quod dixi nostre medicamina forme sed cura grande libellus opus.'4 Quia vero omne quod est nimium vertitur in vitium, idcirco sub breviloquio materiam huius opusculi comprehendo. Ovidius etenim naturali quadam mollitie semper in amorem femineus, puellarumque gratiam summis viribus adipisci desiderans, ad opus earum hoc opusculum describit in quo quomodo facies suas colere debeant ostendit. Materia igitur sua est muliebris facies adornatio. Intentio qualiter formas suas debeant colere. Utilitas delectatio. Vel utilitas puellarum est s. forme politio. Vel utilitas Ovidii est, in docendo quomodo se colant, puellaris gratie adquisitio. .... Explicit Ovidius de Sompno, incipit materia eiusdem. Quidquid huius opusculi materia implicat verborum compendiosa brevitas comprehendat. Materia igitur huius actoris in hoc opere est sompnum quod vidit et eiusdem sompnii interpretatio. Intentio sua est illud iocose narrare et exponere. Vel intentio sua est sub iocosa sompnii expositione reprehendere viciosos mores lenarum que per fallacias suas Utilitas est delectatio, vel castissimarum etiam incestant animos feminarum. operis lenarum et morum cognitio. ....

APPENDIX F. Cod. Vat. Reg. 1548 (I3th century).


. . Requiritur etiam cuius rogatu hoc opus conscripserit, cum constet Ovidius . multorum operum nullo supplicante sed pro sola Augusti vel civium romanorum gratia promerenda laborem plurimum suscepisse. Dicitur a rogatu Gei'manici Cesaris hunc librum scripsisse. Quod etiam evidens est ratio, nam in prima pagina et sic deinceps per totum librum illi assurgat. Dubitatur vero a multis quando conscriptus sit hic liber, cum de ceteris operibus eiusdem
codex is a sillogus, as are those of Munich and Berne. 2 Pont., IV, 3, 33 That the "Pseudo-Ovidiana" were read and commented in the schools as genuine is attested by many of the prefaces to them (cf. Przychocki, op. cit., p. 98). 4Ars, III, 205.

1 This proem was printed in Ellis's edition of Ibis, Oxford, i881, p. 44. Przychocki reproduces it up to this point (op. cit., p. 33). But his text is inexact and he makes the wrong statement (ibid., p. 98), due to his not having seen the original, that this proem is isolated and does not form part of a sillogus. This



veram ex ipsius testimonio habeamus certitudinem. Dicunt quidam quod Rome conscriptus sit. Et hii volunt probare per quemdam versicolum Ovidii Tristium quem in ipso itinere exilii conscripserat dicentis: 'Sex ego Fastorum scripsi totidemque libellos.'1 Sed huic sententie videtur repugnare quod in quarto libro Fastorum dicitur: 'Sulmonis gelide patrie Germanice nostre Me miserum scitico quam procul ille solo est.'2 Verumtamen nobis ut in omnibus hiis sententiis satisfaciamus dicamus quod ipsi precipue magistri dicunt. Asserunt enim quod in honorem Augusti Rome XIII libros de fastis conscripserit ut sic placaretur Augustus qui iam deliberavit Ovidium dampnare exilio. Videns autem se nichil hoc labore profecisse, dampnavit et opus et laborem incendio. Tempore vero Germanici Cesaris rarissimi erant scriptores Rome. Virgilius et Horatius et ceteri poete qui tempore Augusti viguerant, ex hac vita emigraverant. Ovidius autem exilio dampnatus est. Videns igitur Germanicus egregia sua facta observari, et hoc ex raritate scriptorum, doluit, et Ovidius in gratiam Augusti revocare elaboravit, sed nichil profecit. Tandem legacione facta ad Ovidium quem plurimum dilexerat, scilicet quod ab exilio quandoque eum absolveret pollicitus est, cum primum sibi gubernacula regni contigerent. Demandavitque ei ut prout posset sui de causa liber Fastorum repararet, et quanto Ovidius hunc pro eo susciperet laborem. Hac utique adductus spe Ovidius incepit quidem reparare librum Fastorum quantum ad memoriam revocare valuit pristina laboris, nec consummavit. Morte enim preventus est. Hec est quippe causa quare tam pauca inveniantur conscripta in honorem Germanici, quia in suo tempore paucissimi inveniebantur scriptores....

Cod. Paris. 8207 (I4th century). Ex Ponto. Actor iste non longe a Roma, a Peligno opido oriundus extitit iuxta illud: 'Hec ego composui Pelignis natus aquosis.'3 Qui, siquidem essent alii poete Rome, in arte retorica floruit et precipue in versibus compenendis effulsit iuxta illud: 'Quidquid conabar dicere versus erat.'4 . . His habitis, ad principalia transeamus. Intendit Ovidius in hoc opere amicos suos exorare ut libros suos recipiant et iram Cesaris sopire laborent et ita delectionam exilii vel saltem alleviacionem eiusdem consentiatur, ut de tam maligno loco in minus asperum transferatur. . . . Modus exorationis amicorum talis est: ostendit se eos dum esset presens multum dilexisse et in eis fiduciam habuisse et pondus sue miserie multis modis exaugerabat. . . Cum in exilio mitteretur Ovidius, videns ab amicis suis fere omnibus sibi neque auxilium impendendi neque consilii ne iram Cesaris incurrere timentibus, dum ad locum suo exilio destinatum ad Pontum s. insulam tenderet, hunc tractatum composuit. Quem suis remittens amicis, rerum multarum exempla cum proverbiis pretendens, eos exorare cepit. Intendit ut lenita Cesaris ira, eum de exilio ad terram sue nativitatis revocare laborent. .... Materia sua est ipse miserus Ovidius, uxor et amici sui s. Maximus et alii. Finis est lenita Cesaris ira, ad terram patrie et ad locum minus asperum posse reverti quam ille in quo erat. Etice supponitur quia loquitur de moribus Messalini non nominati. Modus exorationis amicorum talis: ostendit enim se dum presens fuerit multum dilexisse et in eis fiduciam habuisse, sue pondus miserie multis exaggerat, et sic incipit. In hoc opere Ovidius ostendit exilium et incommoditates exilii. Intendit autem amicos supplicare ut Cesarem precibus suis sibi conciliare laborent; vel intendit persuadere poetis ne aliquid indignum scribant propter quod penam sue similem incurrant. Notandum est quod singule distinctiones proprie carent intencionibus et soli principali adherent. Facit etiam duo in hoc libello: confitetur culpam, negat
529. IV, 8 . 3 Amor., II, I, I. 4 Trist., IV, 10, 26.

2 Fast.,

1 Trist., II,


FAUSTO GHISALBERTI scelus, per hoc quoquomodo volens misericordiam impetrare quia ubi est confessio ibi est venial status. Totus autem liber texitur exoracione et deprecacione conquerendo diversis maneriebus se esse . . . ut amicis suis innotescat res dicuntur cause quare in exilio fuerit positus: vel quia cum uxore imperatoris concubuit, vel quia opus amatorium composuit, vel, quod melius est, quia vidit Cesarem cum amasio suo ludere. Hanc autem causam esse principalem innuit ipse in hoc libro suo dicens: 'Sunt michi cred.' etc. Sciendum est quod Rome diverse dampnaciones sint: proscriptio, inscriptio, exilium, relegatio. Ovidius relegationi subiacuit. Ille enim dicebatur relegatus qui privatim discedere iussus spem revertendi habebat nec sua amittebat, proscriptus vero dicebatur qui extra patriam missus spem revertendi habebat sed bona sua ad publicum ferebantur, inscriptus qui sua amittens et in patria remanens ab amicis sustentabatur, exul qui publice dampnatus bonisque suis privatus extra patriam cum spe revertendi mittebatur.


H. Cod. Paris. 8255 (I4th century). Tristia. . . . Ovidius igitur de ingenuis parentibus extitit oriundus et in Liviam Augusti uxorem anhelavit quam in libro sine titulo sub falso nomine Corinnam vocavit, unde illud: 'Moverat ingenium'1 etc., et alibi: 'Nichil nisi non sapiens possum timidusque vocari, hec duo sunt nomina vera mei,'2 In consultis pronosticis Ovidius ad territos imperatricis talamos per scalam eneam ascendebat. Coactus autem necessario, pre nimio timore, per sua vestigia repedare, quosdam de scala gradus Virgilius abstulerat fraudolenter. Ovidius ergo non ore suo facinus suum sed cruris fractione demonstravit. Unde Ovidius de cetero Virgilium habuit odio. Cum igitur in hoc contemporaneos suos commendet, Virgilio detrahit, unde illud: 'Virgilium tantum vidi.'3...

I. Cod. Vat. Reg. 1559 (I4th century); Cod Marc. lat. XII. 57 (14th century); Cod. Ambros. G. 130 inf. (14th century). De Vetula. The words in italics correspond to the text of Arnulf of Orleans (see above, pp. 18 f.); the rest is interpolation. In librorum initiis septem solent inquiri que ad causas quatuor reducuntur. Quarum intrinsece sunt materialis et formalis, extrinsece efficiens et finalis. In intentione finalis prior est, efficiens in operatione precedit. Septem autem inquiri solita sunt hoc modo: que materia, que intentio, que utilitas, quis modus agendi, quis auctor, quis titulus, cui ex philosophie partibus supponatur. Sed quoniam auctoris vita precognita, multa circa materiam et intentionem et utilitatem patebunt, ab ipsius vita incipiamus auctoris.-Capta Troia, sicut tradunt historie, cum Enea venit de Phrigia quidam Solemus qui Sulmonemregionemde suo nomine appellavit, de cuius regionisopidoPeligno natusfuit Ovidius. Naso cognomine a magnitudine nasi dictus. Fuit autem ex patre Pilio, fratrem habens Lucilium, uno anno maiorem adeo quod in eius nataliciis videlicet anniversarionativitatis eiusdem die natusfuit Ovidius. Hos dispariternatospater eorumad literaspariter aptavit; cumquein minoribusad plenum eruditi fuissent, dedit eis pater magistrumin arte rhetoricade qua tanta Ovidiuspalmam adeptusest quodfacundia et virtutesua meruitfieri tribunusmilitum. Tribunatoverodeposito, et mortuo fratre suo, rogatu Maximiani principis et aliorum nobilium romanorum, et ut famam suam in scribendo maximam faceret, animum suum applicavit ad tractandum iuvenilia. Et primofecit librumEroydums. de epistolis, imitatus Esiodum ascreum qui oblivioni datas fabulas et epistulas ad memoriam revocabat. Secundo
APPENDIX 1 Trist., IV, 10, 59. 2 Pont.,II, 2, 17.

Trist., IV, rI, 51.



fecit librum amorumqui dicitur sine titulo, post quem libellos illos fecisse connicitur qui non cadunt in numero librorum suorum s. de cuculo, de philomena, de pulice, de somno, de. nuce, de medicamine surdi et de medicamine faciei, de mirabilibus mundi. Tercio loco fecit librum de Arte Amandi et quia docuit iuvenesesse adulteroset matronasimpudicasAugusti Cesarisindignationi incurrit. Quod si cause familiares alie fuerint, ista tamen principaliter videbatur pretendi. Ad mitigandum igitur iram Augusti quarto fecit librum de RemedioAmoris, subiunxitetiam quinto loco librumFastorum sive licitorum in honoremGermaniciCesaris qui eratfuturus pontifex anni illius, ut eius saltem interventu in Augusti gratie reddiposset. Sexto locofecit librumMetamorphoseos, quo laudavit Augustum ab antecessoribus Eneam. Sed cum nec per hoc etiam idem per Germanicus Augustum flexibilem invenisset, comperiens quod etiam meditaretur qualiter Ovidium morti traderet, vix tandem impetravit ut viveret saltem exilio relegandus. In exilii cuius itinere fecit septimo librum Tristium, libro Metamorphoseos incorrecto relicto. Cum autem in exilium pervenisset, octavo fecit librum de Ponto, et nono librum in Ibin, in invidumsuum quem similiter ita vocat. Cumque per litteras amicorum suorum didicisset ad plenum quod vivente Augusto revocari non posset, decimo et ultimo composuit librum istum in quo iam desperatus et unumcumque solacia sibi querens reducit ad memoriam modum suum vivendi quem habuerat dum vacaret amori, et quare mutavit eum, et ad quem modum mutavit ad illum s. quem habuit postquam iam vacaverat ab amore. Precepit autem in ultimo vite sue librum istum poni secum in sepulcro quia sperans ossa sua saltem post mortem Augusti, qui fuit annus decimus octavus a nativitate Domini.1 Sed nescitur si pervenit ad eum de morte Augusti. Nuper autem in suburbio civitatis Diostori que regni Colcorum caput est, cum extraherentur quedam gentilium antiquorum sepulcra de cimiterio publico quod iuxta opidum Thomos est, inter cetera unum inventum est cuius epigrama literis armenicis erat sculptum in eo, eiusque interpretacio sic sonabat: Hic iacet Ovidius ingeniosissimus poetarum. In capite vero sepulcri capsella eburnea inventa est, et in ea liber iste nulla vestustate consumptus cuius litteras non agnoscentes indigene, miserunt eum Costantinopolim Vathasii principis2 tempore cuius mandato Leoni sacri palacii prothonotario traditus est et ipse eum perlectum puplicavit et ad multa climata derivavit. .... APPENDIX Cod. Paris. 8253 (I4th century). Metamorphoses. J. Quatuor sunt cause principales in cuiuslibet operis compositione s. causa efficiens, causa materialis, causa formalis, causa finalis. Causa efficiens est illud a quo res agitur sicut est ipse deus, quia est causa efficiens cuiuslibet rerum. Causa materialis est illud de quo res agitur sicut sunt ligna et, lapides que sunt causa materialis domus.3 Causa formalis est illud quod in esse rei, sicuti divinitas in deo, humanitas in homine. Causa finalis est illud propter quod res agitur sicuti bonitas quia propter bonitatem et, ut ad bonum finem deveniant, omnia procreantur. Unde patet in versibus: 'Efficiens causa deus est, formalis ydea, finalis bonitas,
9 The Marciana codex is incomplete here. After "sepulchro," Vat. Reg. has: "vel quod sibi ceteris cultior apparebat, vel quia in eius fine commendet se prime cause post mortem. Sed demum quod, sperans ossa sua saltem post mortem Augusti Cesaris ad solum patrium referenda, volebat eciam cum eis librum istum referri, ut eorum relatio non careret honore. Et quia non fuit qui post mortem eiusdem suis ossibus referendis curaret, liber ideo nec Romam missus est nec auctentim lectus est, nec habetur in usu. Vixit autem sicut in annalibus invenitur usque ad secundum annum Tiberii, sive per duos annos post mortem Augusti, qui fuit annus octavus decimus a nativitate Domini, sed nescitur si pervenit ad ipsum de morte Augusti." 2 This emperor Vathasius perhaps corresponds to John III, the so-called Duke Vatatze, who reigned in
Nicea from 1222 constat

3 Cf. Conrad of Hirschau:

quodlibet . . . duobus

to 1254.

"Materia est unde

autem dicitur modis

materia, ut, sicut in edificio sunt ligna et lapides, sicut in vocibus genus et species et cetera, quibus opus perficitur, quod auctor agendum aggreditur." Dialogus superauctores,ed. Schepps, 1889, p. 28.


FAUSTO GHISALBERTI materialis yle.'-In opere cuiuslibet actoris sex sunt inquirenda s. que sit materia, que intentio, que utilitas que causa suscepti operis, quis titulus, cui parti philosophie supponatur liber iste. Et sciendum est quod mutationes rerum in diversis figuris mutabilium sunt materia huius actoris. Plures enim mutationes esse assignantur. Est autem mutatio naturalis sicut illa de elementis, quia bene elementum transit in reliqum. Terra enim transit in aquam, aqua in aera, aer in ignem. Et est mutatio spiritualis sicuti fuit de Agave que facta est insana. Et est mutatio moralis et magica mutatio sicuti de Pimalione qui fecit virginem eburneam et per artem magicam mutavit eam in virginem. Et est mutatio de corpore in corpus. Alia sub eodem genere. Ut Io que mutata fuit in bovem. Et est alia mutatio de re inanimata in rem animatam, sicuti de lapidibus iactatis a Deucalione qui mutabantur in homines. Alia enim mutatio de re animata in animatam sicuti de Acteo qui mutatus fuit in cervum. Et est mutatio de re animata in inanimatam sicuti fuit de serpente qui voluit devorare caput Orphei, qui mutatus fuit in lapidem. Et est mutatio de re inanimata in rem inanimatam sicut de Philemone cuius domus mutata fuit in templum. Intentio autem versatur circa materiam. Causa suscepti operis duplex s. communis et privata. Privata quia actor iste [qui] per edificium Artis Amatorie malivolentiam romanorum maxime Augusti adeptus erat, volebat ostendere Julium posse deificari per mutationes diversas. Et ut begnivolentiam aliorum recuperaret. Communis causa est ad auditores. Utilitas in illa minima est quantum ad auctorem, sed magna est quantum ad auditores. Ut, viso quomodo res mundane transmutantur, quisquis erigat mentem suam ad creatorem suum sive ad creatoris sui cognitionem. Titulus talis est: Publii Nasonis Ovidii liber primus Methamorphoseos incipit; et bene dicitur primus quia sequitur secundus: sunt enim quindecim. Antiquitus mos erat quod quanto nobiliores tanto pluribus nominibus appropriabantur. Publius dicitur a Publia familia de qua fuit natus actor ille. Ovidius oportet esse proprium nomen sive impositum. Ovidius dicitur quasi ovum dividens, quia actor ille ostendit quatuor elementa tracta esse a prima materia. Dicitur ovum dindule:1 per quatuor enim partes ovi dividit quatuor elementa. Per testa, que est prima pars et rotunda, signat firmamentum. Per pelliculam, que est tenuis et lucida, figuratur aer qui est tenuis et lucidus. Per albumen quod est album et frigidum figuratur aqua que est alba et frigida et lucida. Per meditullium quod est aliis partibus circumclusum figuratur terra que ab aliis elementis circumdatur. Naso dicitur a quantitate nasi, non quia haberet maiorem nasum quam alii, sed quia discretio animi per eum denotatur. Sed Methamorphosis huius -sis, vel -eos, dicitur a metha quod est trans, et morphos mutatio, quasi transmutatio. Et quod ita declinatur habemus in versibus: 'Sum quod eris, fueramque quod es. Vel quod es ante fui. Methamorphosis ita humanis rebus subdere colla vetat.' Sunt enim quindecim ut ipse testatur in libro Tristium dicens: Sunt quoque mutate ter quinque etc. Phisice supponitur quia de naturalibus loquitur s. quomodo elementa nature principalis separata fuerunt a prima materia s. yle. Omne illud est yle quod est quid et de quo est quid. Unde diffinitio: Generator uterus indefessus, formarum 'Yle est vultus nature antiquissimus. materia corporum, substantie fundamentum.' Ethice supponitur propria susceptio, quia tractat de moribus, sicuti de Lichaone. Actor iste plures libros composuit, maxime IX. Primo loco composuit librum Heroydum, sive epistularum. Secundo Ovidium sine titulo. Tercio Ovidium de arte amatoria. Quarto Ovidium de remedio amoris. Quinto Ovidium fastorum. Sexto presens opus composuit. Septimo librum de tristibus. Octavo Ovidium de ponto. Nono Ovidium in ybin, quod scripsit contra invidum. More aliorum poetarum etc ...

The Earth as divinity was called Dindime. The epithet of the goddess Cybele was, in fact, Dindymene.




K. Cod. Ambros. N. 254 sup. (I4th century). Metamorphoses. Quoniam audientibus novercatur et generatur fastidium prolixe locutionis dispendium, sub verborum compendio per ipsius inscriptionem tituli satis patet materia huius libri, et merito quia titulus a titan, quod est illuminatio, sibi trahit originem congruentem.1 Est autem titulus talis: Publii Nasonis Ovidii Methamorphoseos, vel Methamorphoseon liber primus incipit. Bene dicitur primus quia sequitur secundus, ipso Ovidio attestante qui ait in libro de Tristibus: 'Sunt quoque mutate ter quinque volumina forme nuper ab exequiis carmina rapta meis.2 Publius dictus est vel quia primus publicum favorem habuit, vel a Publio patre, vel a Publia familia de qua extitit oriundus. Naso dictus est ab eventu s. a nasi corporei quantitate, vel dictus est Naso per similitudinem, quia sicut canis venaticus odore nasi feras percipit et sequitur, sic Ovidius odore et discrecione nasi sui bonas percipiebat sententias. Ovidius proprium nomen est actoris, vel Ovidius, sicut dicunt quidam, dicitur quasi ovum dividens. Sicut enim qui ovum dividit, que sunt intus abscondita manifestat, sic eciam in suo carmine divisiones elementorum que clausa iacebant in primordiali materia nobis Ovidius aperit et denudat. Methamorphoseos est genitivus casus grecus et componitur a metha quod est trans et morphos quod est mutans et usia quod est substancia. Unde liber MethamorEt declinatur sicut decapolis phoseos quasi liber transmutationis substancie. decapoleos, genesis geneseos, thetis thetios, methamorphosis methamorphoseos, dativo methamorphosi, accusativo methamorphosin, vel methamorphosim, vocativo methamorphosis, ablativo methamorphosi, et pluraliter nominativo methamorphoses, genitivo methamorphoseon. Cuius ablativum singularem ponit Marcianus loquens de supracelestibus et dicens sic: Supera methamorphosi refulxere i. est in summa transmutacione. Nominativum singularem posuit magister Matheus de Vindocino, in quodam epitaphio in quo mortum loquentem ad quemlibet per prosopopeiam introducit in hunc modum: 'Sum ens quod es, methamorphosis ista humanis rebus subdere colla vetat.' Methamorphoseon est genitivus pluralis, vel methamorphoseoi. Due sunt diciones s. metha prepositio, metha que idem valet quod de, et morphoseos unde methamorphoseos, quasi dicat de mutacionis subtancie. Et bene dico mutacionis et non mutacione, quoniam greci, carentes ablativo, loco ablativi genitivum improprium ponebant. Ut ibi: 'currum tenus armis pallearia pendent.' Actor iste a digniori parte intitulavit s. a mutacione substancie. Quadruplex est enim mutacio, naturalis, moralis, magica et spiritualis. Naturalis mutatio est quando quatuor elementa conveniunt ad compositionem alicuius corporis, vel ad ipsius destructionem dissolvuntur et de huius mutatione loquitur actor in principio sui libri. Moralis mutatio est quando mores alicuius mutantur sicut habemus de Licaone qui de homine mutatus est in lupum, vel factus est lupus et de mansueto. . . . Magica mutatio est quando magi per artem magicam rem aliquam sub alia forma quam sit faciunt apparere. Et hoc habemus de Circe et de sociis Ulixis, que per potiones suas istos socios quantum ad fabulam variavit. Spiritualis mutacio est quando spiritus alicuius mutatur, sicut habemus de Horeste qui post interfectionem matris a furiis vexatus de sano factus est insanus. Preter istas quatuor mutaciones sunt alie quatuor s. mutatio de re inanimata ad rem animatam, de re animata ad rem animatam et de re animata in rem inanimatam, de re inanimata ad rem inanimatam. Mutatio de inanimata ad rem animatam fuit quando ex lapidibus proiectis a Deucalione fuerunt homines procreati. Mutatio de re animata in rem animatam fuit quando Acteon de homine factus cervus. Mutatio de re animata in rem inanimatam fuit quando serpens ille qui voluit caput
quentia . . ." cf. M. Manitius, "Zur karolingischen Literatur," Neues Archiv, XXXVI, I9I0-I I, p. 48. I, 2Trist., I, 117f.

1 Compare the commentary on the Ars of Phocas, which appears to be the work of Remigius of Auxerre, where we read: "Titulus dicitur a Titane, id est sole, quia sicut sol declarat tenebrosa, ita titulus se-


FAUSTO GHISALBERTI Orphei corrodere a Phebo in saxum conversus. Mutacio de re inanimata in rem inanimatam fuit quando casa Philemonis et Baccidis, prius stramine cooperta, in templum aureum fuit conversa. Intencio vero actoris est sub metro suo comprehendere omnes mutaciones que a mundi principio usque ad tempus suum contigerant ut sic in fine sui operis deificacionem Julii Cesaris ostendat possibilem extitisse. Duplex est utilitas: legentium et actoris. Est autem actoris utilitas ut ostensa apotesi i. deificacione Julii, favorem Augusti et gratiam recuperet quam in arte amatoria scriptis suis restantibus dinoscitur ostendisse. Utilitas legentium cognitio fabularum et ut, viso quid de pravis moribus acciderit, quia quibusdam in beluas variari, a viciis et a beluina turpitudine abstineamus. Epthicus et phisicus est actor iste: phisicus quia loquitur de confusione prime materie, de mundi origine et de elementorum divisione, eticus quia loquitur de moribus, ethi grece mos latine: inde ethica i. moralis sentencia ....


cum Guillelmi de Thiegiis L. Cod. Paris. 8oio (14th century). Metamorphoses commentario. Ad maiorem operis evidenciam in maiori opere suo de vita Ovidii primo tractandum est. Primo videam ubi natus fuit, quos mores habuit et quid composuit. Ad hoc dicendum est quod ipse natus fuit in Peligno opido. Et hoc testatur in libro sine titulo dicens: 'Hec que composui Pelignis natus aquosis.'l Consequenter sciendum est quod Pelignum opidum divisum fuit in tres partes sive in tres villas, una quarum Sulmo vocabatur. Et hoc testatur in libro sine titulo dicens: 'Me pars Sulmo tenet Peligni tertia ruris parva sed irriguis ora salubris aquis.'2 Postea sciendum est quod nonaginta miliaribus distabat Sulmo ab urbe romana. Hoc testatur in libro de Tristibus: 'Sulmo michi patria est gelidis uberrimus undis, Milia que novies distat ab urbe decem.'3 Sciendum est quod Ovidius natus fuit in illo tempore quando pugna fuit inter Marium et Scillam. Unde in Tristibus: 'Editus hinc ego sum nec non et tempora vatis cum cecidit fato consuluitque pari.'4 Postea sciendum est quod Ovidius natus fuit tricesimo kalendas Martii, unde in Tristibus: 'Hec est armigere de festis quinta Minerve, qua fieri pugna prima cruenta solet.'5 Sciendum est quod Ovidius habuit fratrem maiorem natu uno anno, unde in Tristibus: 'Nec stirps prima fui, nec sum sine fratre creatus qui quater atque tribus mensibus ortus eram.'6 Postea sciendum est quod Ovidius et frater suus qui nomine vocabatur Lucius unum diem natu suo occupaverunt sed anno revoluto, unde in Tristibus: 'Lucifer ambobus natalibus affuit idem una celebrata est pro duo liba dies.' 7 Sciendum autem est quod cum Ovidius et frater suus adhuc in tenera etate essent, Puplius pater eorum transmisit eos Romam et literis deputavit, unde in Tristibus: 'Protinus excolimur's etc. Sciendum est quod Lucius studens circa secularem9 disciplinam longo tempore causidicus effectus est, unde in Tristibus: 'Frater ad eloquium mundi tendebat ab evo, fortia verbosi natus ad arma fori.'10 Ovidius autem studens circa artem poeticam poeta preoptimus effectus est, unde in Tristibus: 'At michi iam puero celestia sacra placebant, inque suum furtim musa trahebat opus,'11 et alibi: 'Quidquid conabar dicere versus erat.'12 Cum Lucius Ovidii frater viginti annos occupasset mortuus est, unde in Tristibus: 'Cum frater decem vite summaverat ambos Tunc primum cepi parte
2 Amor., II, i6, I.

1 Amor., II, I, I.

Trist., IV, Io, 2.

4 Trist., IV, 10, 5 5 Ibid., 13 f.



Ibid., II f. Ibid., 15. 9 The MS. has solarem. 10 Ibid., 13 f.



Ibid., 9 f.


Ibid., 15 f. Ibid., 26.



carere sui.'1 Hiis habitis videamus que sunt inquirenda in principio istius libri quemadmodum cuiuslibet actoris, quid materia, quid utilitas, quid intentio actoris, cui parti philosophie supponatur, quid titulus. Materia huius libri est agere de mutatione rerum quemadmodum Lycaon mutatus fuit in lupum et consimilibet. Sed priusquam plura dicamus debemus considerare triplicem mutationem. Est enim mutatio moralis, et hoc attenditur in Lycaone qui mutavit mores suos, quia fabulose dicitur quod mutatus fuit in lupum, sed secundum rei veritatem nichil aliud est quod ipse mutatus fuit in reprobum sensum. Et hoc testatur in Integumentis dicens: 'Si lupus est archas lupus est feritate lupina, nam lupus esse potes proprietate lupi.' Et est enim alia mutatio magica, et ista potest attendi quando aliquid alternatum est per magicam artem. Et alia mutatio theorica sive spiritualis, 2 et hoc potest attendi quando aliquis de pravo effectus est bonus quemadmodum Hercules fuit qui virtuosus corpore fuit et postea deificatus. Istis tribus modis dicitur mutatio, et non pluribus. Utilitas autem istius libri est retinere ea que dicuntur in opere presenti. Intentio actoris est Augustum Cesarem in fine operis sui commendare, vel enarrare quomodo quatuor elementa divisa fuerunt inter se s. terra, aqua, aer, ignis. Postea debemus scire quod unumquodque elementum habet sua elementa et continet diversas proprietates, una que est per se, altera per accidens. Terra est frigida et humida, aer est humidus et calidus, ignis est siccus et calidus. Postea videamus cui parti philosophie supponatur, et hoc attenditur circa predicta. Postea videamus quid sit titulus et unde dicatur. Titulus enim talis est: Publii Nasonis Ovidii Methamorphoseos primus liber incipit. Bene dicitur primus quia sequitur secundus: sunt XV, ipso atestante qui ait: 'Sunt michi mutate ter quinque volumina forme, sed quasi de domini funera rapta sui,' 3 Publius proprium nomen est actoris, et dicitur Publius a Publia familia, vel qui publicum omnium obtinuit assensum. Naso secundum quosdam proprium est nomen actoris, et dicitur Naso a nasi quantitate. Vel dicitur Naso secundum quamdam similitudinem que se habet ad canem venaticum, sicut enim canis venaticus odore suarum narium feram insequitur, ita actor iste subtilitate ingenii bonas sententias adinvenit. Ovidius secundum quosdam proprium nomen est actoris, vel dicitur Ovidius quasi ovum dividens. Ovum enim tipum et formam mundi gerens: testa enim exterior et rotunda extremum et circulare signat firmamentum, pellicula autem media que est inter testam et albumen tenuis et pellucida luciditatem et claritatem aeris representat, albumen vero representat aque locum, meditullium vero quod est infimum et viis omnibus circumclusum terram figurat. Et quia dicente Ovidio divisionem elementorum novimus, iure Ovidius quasi ovum dividens appellatur. Titulus dicitur a Tytan quod est sol, quia sicut sol illuminat totum mundum et ita titulus totum librum. Methamorphoseos genitivus grecus singularis et declinatur, quod apparet per hos versus: 'Sum quod eris quod es ante fui, methamorphosis ista mundanis rebus subdere colla vocat.' Et dicitur methamorphosis a metha quod est de et morphos quod est mutatio et usia quod est substantia, unde liber methamorphoseos i. liber de mutatione substantiarum. Sciendum est quod quadruplex assignatur mutatio s. naturalis, moralis, spiritualis et magica Naturalis quam actor innuit in divisione elementorum, moralis que atenditur in Lycaone mutato in lupum, et ideo dicitur quia prius benignus postea factus predo et improbus. Spiritualis sicut de Agave que primo discreta mutata fuit in insanam. Magica est de ymagine Pymalionis in virginem mutata, et est magica sicut apparet in Circe que per incantacionem mutabat homines in porcos. Et est mutatio animati ad animatum ut Acteonis in cervum. Et est mutatio inanimati ad inanimatum sicut domus Baucidis et Pallemonis in templum. Et est mutatio inani1 Ibid., 31 f. 2 The MS. has


I, 1, II7 f.



FAUSTO GHISALBERTI mati ad animatum, ut glebe in Tagem: Tages proprium nomen cuiusdam poete. Sic habito de his mutationibus, habetur materia quando agit: narrat enim variam rerum mutationem ab inicio mundi usque ad suum tempus ut per varias rerum mutaciones verisimile videatur Julium Cesarem stellificatum fuisse. Sic qualiter agit habetur. Intentio ad quid agat ut apud Augustum quem ostendit per diversas causas que alibi demonstrentur reconsiliationem mereatur. Sic habito ad quid agat habetur utilitas. Actor iste ethicus est et phisicus. Ethicus assignando de moribus, phisicus de superlectilibus tangendo. More aliorum poetarum proponit invocat et narrat etc. ...


M. Cod. Laur. 36, 18 (14th century). Metamorphoses. Ovidius natione sulmontinus, ex patre Pilio, poeta facundissimus, temporibus Octaviani Augusti claruit. Cuius vita non lubrica ut quidam putant, sed sincera fuit. Unde in libro de Tristibus sic ait: 'Mores distant a carmine nostri. Vita verecunda Musa iocosa mea est.'l Item: 'Scis artibus illis autoris mores abstinuisse sui.'2 Composuit novem magna volumina. Et primo quidem librum Heroidum epistularum, quas ab Esiodo poeta greco conscriptas, ipse in latinum reducens amplius expolivit. Secundo librum qui Sine titulo dicitur. Tertio de Arte Amandi, propter quem cum juvenes et puelle se lascivie darent, Ovidius odium Augusti incurrit. Ideo et quarto conscripsit librum de Remedio. quinto librum Methamorphoseos ad captandam benivolentiam Augusti. Sexto librum Fastorum in honorem Germanici, qui fuit Augusti privignus et adoptivus filius. Post hec Ovidius occasione libri de Arte predicti, et quia imperator illum de uxore suspectum habuit, in Pontum relegatus est, libro Methamorphoseos non pleno correcto. Et in itinere conscripsit librum de Tristibus, septimum opus. Octavo in Ponto scripsit librum de Ponto et librum in Ybin. Et ibi temporibus Tiberii decessit. In hoc igitur libro, qui Methamorphoseos dicitur, intendit Ovidius sub quibusdam fabulis homines delectare, instruere, et eloquentes reddere. Cuius libri titulus talis est: incipit liber primus Ovidii Nasonis Methamorphoseos, et dicitur methamorphoseos i. de transformatione, de qua precipue agitur in hoc libro. In quo quedam que ponuntur fuerunt hystorie vere adiuncto tamen aliquo fabuloso, ut de Pyramo et Tysbe, Caieta sepulta, de Medea etc. Quedam vero sunt pure fabulosa sed per methaphoram dicta, sive alia significatione, ut de Atheone verso in cervum, et de auro Mide, et huiusmodi. Quedam sunt fabulosa sed per methaphoram dicta, ut de domo solis, de Orpheo trahente ligna et saxa i. homines silvestres suis sermonibus, ut Horatius dicit, et aliis huiusmodi.


N. Cod. Ambros. H. 64 sup. (14th century). Metamorphoses. Previo rore ducis superni serenissimique numinis implorato subsidio. In expositione huius libri quemadmodum et ceterorum ista sunt indaganda: primo videnda est vita poete, deinde videndus est titulus libri, tertio videnda est intentio poete, quarto causa intentionis, et per consequens utilitas Quantum ad primum, sciendum quod vita poete est talis: Quidam enim venit in Ausoniam ex Frigia una cum Enea nomine Solemus et iste occupavit quandam regionem Italie in qua constituit civitatem quam appellavit Sulmonem de suo nomine. Istud patet in libro Fastorum; ibi sic infit: 'Huius erat Frigia Solemus unus comes ab Ida a quo Sulmonis menia
2 Trist., I, 10, 59 f.

1 Trist., II, 353.

57 nomen habent.'1 Ista civitas que dicitur Sulmo constructa fuit ab isto Solemo in quadam regione italica que dicebatur Pelignum a nomine Peligni ducis. Istud patet in libro de sine titulo ubi dicit: 'Sic hoc ego mitto tibi pelignis natus aquosis' ;2 etiam patet in libro de Tristibus s. quod illa civitas vocatur Sulmo: 'Sulmo michi patria est gelidis uberrimus undis Milia qui novies distat ab urbe decem,'3 et rursus: "Pars me Sulmo tenet peligni tertia ruris."4 Rursus patet quod dicebatur Pelignum ut ibi: 'Ovidius Naso peligni ruris alumpnus certus ab exilio se iam non posse reverti.' 5 Patet ergo quod fuit oriundus illius regionis que dicebatur Pelignum in qua fuit constructus Sulmo. Demum sciendum quod Ovidius est natus de ingenuo et nobili patre; antecessores sui fuere de ordine equestri non de turba plebeia. Pater est denominatus Botius vel Pilius, et iste genuit duos filios s. Lucium et Ovidium, et istos duos misit ad studium literarum. Cum autem profecissent in primitivis, elegit eis magistrum artis rhetorice. Cum autem studuissent in rhetorica, Lucius obtinebat palmam tractandi causas inter rhetores; Ovidius autem se flectebat ad studium poeticum et carmina edenda, ut ibi: 'Quidquid temptabam dicere carmen erat.' Istud patet in libro de Tristibus ubi dicit: 'Frater ad eloquium primo tendebat ab evo fortia verbosi natus ad arma fori, at michi tunc puero celestia sacra placebant.'6 Per hec celestia sacra nichil aliud intellexit nisi poesim. Nam sic dicit Tullius de questionibus Tusculanis et in libro de Oratore: 'poete vocabantur sacri cum ipsi deflectant homines a vitiis et impellant ad cultum virtutis.' Cum autem uterque profecisset, Ovidius in poesi, Lucius in rhetorica, mortuus est Lucius; non enim venit ad etatem senilem. Ovidius est contristatus valde de morte fraterna. Post paucum tempus, audiens quod poete multum honorabantur, precipue a romanis, quid fecit? recessit a Sulmone inveniens elegantiorem urbem. Sic profectus est in urbem romanam, et illic vendicavit sibi familiaritatem Fabiorum; Fabii enim tunc inter romanos clarebant; isti Fabii prefecerunt eum ad familiaritatem Augusti Cesaris; regnavit enim Ovidius illo tempore quo Augustus imperavit. Natus est tempore quo duo Decij ceciderunt, ut patet in illis carminibus ubi sic: 'Editus hinc ego sum nec non ut tempora noris cum cecidit fato consul uterque pari.' Pater enim et filius fuere simul consules, quorum unus in bello samnitico ut pater, alter in gallico ut filius cecidit. Cum autem staret in urbe et haberet familiaritatem Augusti et familiaritatem Fabiorum et aliorum, proposuit aliqua scribere propter que vendicaret sibi famam, honorem seu amicitias romanorum. Hoc proposito, primo scripsit Ovidium Heroydum sive epistolarum, postea composuit librum de Sine titulo, postea librum de Medicamine faciei, de Nuce, de Cuculo, et de Pulice, et de Puellis, quartum librum de Arte Amandi propter quem devenit in exilium et in indignationem Augusti incurrit. Videbatur enim in illo libro, ab illis qui non intellexere eum, fecisse iuvenes adulteros et matronas impudicas, cuius contrarium apparet: detestatur luxuriam et amorem, et describit qualiter honeste amemus. Cum scripsisset istumin Arte, scripsit librum de de Remedio amoris ut emendaret se, et non profuit sibi, et postea scripsit istum et non emendavit, et nichil etiam profuit sibi. Postea composuit librum Fastorum ubi continentur multa mirabilia et precipue in astrologia. Tandem ivit in exilium, et proficiscens versus Scitiam, per viam scripsit Ovidium de Tristibus ubi narrat infelicia tam sua quam aliorum ut homines sciant pati adversa leniter. Cum autem scripsisset hunc venit in Traciam ubi scripsit Ovidium de Ponto cuius epistolas singulatim misit in urbem ad amicos perfidos ut intercederent pro ipso ad Augustum. Qui cum iuvare non potuerunt, finaliter scripsit Ovidium de Ibide i. de invido qui volebat uxorem eius stuprare de quo sic: . . . et tunc occupatus
Fast., IV, 2 Amor., II, 79. I. I, 3 Trist., IV, 10, 2. 4 Amor., II, 16, .


5 De Vetula. Trist., IV, Io, 13. STrist., IV, 10, 5.


FAUSTO GHISALBERTI est a morte illic, et scripsit tunc unam epistolam uxori ut saltem ossa sua faceret transferri Romam. Tamen non potuit. Quidam dicunt quod occulte ipsa et amici eius ferri fecere ossa invito Augusto. Hec est vita.-Titulus est talis: Publii Ovidii Nasonis Methamorphoseos liber primus incipit. Dictus est Publius ab honoribus et dignitatibus quas erat solitus habere antequam deveniret in exilium. Dictus est Ovidius quasi ovum dividens, quia tamquam bonus philosophus divisit celum elementa. Naso vocatus est a magnitudine nasi: magnum nasum habebat, et per hoc notatur ipsum fuisse sapientem, nam philosophus dicit quod homines habentes magnas nares ut plurimum sunt prudentes, et de his fuit Ovidius. Methamorphoseos tangit materiam libri et dicit sic ad differentiam aliorum librorum. De transmutatione substantie tractat qualiter una in aliam mutabatur. Primus non immerito quia bene in quindecim volumina dividitur hic liber.-Nunc veniamus ad intentionem Ovidii. Intentio sua est describere fabulas ut per harum descriptionem delectet et prosit, ut ait Flaccus: 'aut prodesse volunt aut delectare poete.' Quidam prosunt et non delectant cum habeant sermones scabros; quidam scurrilia tractant que delectant et non prosunt; quidam faciunt utrumque, et isti sunt perfecti: de his est Ovidius.-Causa intentionis, per quam patet utilitas, est duplex s. communis et propria: propria ut revertatur in gratiam Augusti per hunc librum; hinc patet utilitas etiam aliorum poetarum, quia quicquid faciunt ut removeant homines a vitiis et impellant ad cultum virtutis, sic iste facit. Liquet quod utilitas istius libri non est parva.-His visis descendamus ad literam etc.... O. Cod. Napol. V. D. 52 (I5th century). Ars Amatoria. In principio huius auctoris cuius famam propter operum diversitate late circumvulgata est, quatuor inquirenda sunt s. unde duxit originem, quibus parentibus ortum habuerit, ubi et quando studuit, et quomodo vixerit, et que opera composuerit. Iste cuius opus habemus pre manibus de Sulmone civitate Apulie duxit originem, unde in libro de Sine titulo: 'Sulmo michi patria est.' 1 Secundo videndum est de parentela eius qui a nobilibus traxit originem, et fuit de ordine equestri, unde in libro de Ponto ait: 'Equites ab origine prima usque per innumeros inveniemur avos.'2 Tertio dicendum est quod Athenis studuit et Rome tempore Augusti Cesaris. Quarto sciendum est quod fuit familiaris Augusti Cesaris qui postea condemnavit eum, ut quidam volunt, propter librum de Arte Amandi quem composuerat, vel quod concubuit cum uxore Augusti Cesaris, vel quia quadam die vidit ipsum Augustum quodam puero abutentem. Utrum autem de exilio redierit nec ne certitudinem non habemus, nec est de ordine librorum quos Unde dicunt quidam quod primo composuit librum Epistularum, composuit. secundo librum de Arte, tertio librum de Sine titulo, et isti tres de amore tractant et conveniunt in materia, quinto librum Fastorum qui tractant de festo gentilium et de ortu et occasu signorum, sexto librum Metamorphoseos de rerum mutatione, et dicitur a meta quod est trans, et morphoseos quod est mutatio. Cum esset in exilio composuit illum de Tristibus, et ultimum de Ponto et isti duo tractant de exilio et de eius miseria. His visis ad materiam accedamus. Notandum est quod flore iuventutis vernans Ovidius telisque Cupidinis sepissime [lacessi]tus,3 universasque amoris expertus fallacias, hoc opus incepit et perfecit in quo amorem habet pro materia. Tamen quidam. dicunt quod iuvenes et puellas habet pro materia, quod falsum est. Nam ille qui docet grammaticam vel rhectoricam non habet discipulos pro materia sed ipsam artem. Intentio auctoris est dare precepta
Trist., IV, 10, 2.


2 3

Pont., IV, 3, 3. I have thus emended the manuscript, which reads:

"flore iuventutis sepissime . . . tus ovidius telisque cupidinis."

59 et puellis de amore, utilitas est amare sapienter, unde sequitur in litera: iuvenibus carmine doctus amet. Causa suscepti operis est quod videbat Ovidius iuvenes et puellas in amore errare, unde quandoque propter amoris impacienciam se ipsos interficiebant. Modum agendi est metrum elegiacum quia tractat de versibus exametris et pentametris. Titulus talis est: P. Ovidii Nasonis sulmonensis poete clarissimi de Arte Amandi liber primus incipit. Publius dictus est a Publia familia, vel a publico favore romanorum quem emeruerat. Naso dictus est a magnitudine nasi i. discretionis communis que per nasum intelligitur; quod tractum est a cane qui per odorem nasi sequitur predam. Ovidius fuit proprium nomen eius ethimologice: Ovidius quasi ovum dividens, tractat enim de divisione quatuor elementorum que per ovum possunt designari: testa enim ovi exterior designat firmamentum quod omnia continet, pellicula tenuis designat aerem qui subtilis est, albunita que est liquida designat aquam, vitelus qui est in medio designat terram que est obtusa et rotunda. Unde dicitur primus quia sequitur secundus, sunt enim tres libri in hoc, volumine etc. ....


P. Cod. Laur. 36, 2 (I5th century). Ovidii Opera. Cesari Augusto tunc rebus imperanti ab initio et vita et carmine placuit, et cum iudicia ad centum equites referret, in eo numero Ovidium esse voluit. Sed demum urgentem fati necessitatem vitare haud valuit. Nam in Pontum Euxinum relegatus est exacto iam quinquagesimo anno. Quo autem crimine qua culpa non satis constat. Ipse in operibus suis nunc tribus libris quos de arte amandi composuit hoc imputat, nunc se vidisse aliquid, errore ductus, haud inficiatur, ita ut multi interpretentur aut Liviam Drusillam nudam vidisse, aut ipsum Augustum cum aliquo exoletorum se immiscentem. Nam illud valde leve et nugatorium ob eam causam expulsum quod cum Livia Augusta concubuerit, nam si id in causa fuisset divortisset a Livia Cesar, et mors non relegatio pena fuisset adulterii. Nec rursus ob Artem amoris exulasse verisimile est, precipue cum multi eo seculo amatoria carmina et lasciviora composuerint, nec exilium sed praemia altissima reportaverint. Ipse culpam vel errorem potius suum levem facit eumque supprimit.