Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-pkds5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T09:33:40.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ΤWO BEGINNINGS: ACROSTIC COMMENCEMENTS IN HORACE (EPOD. 1.1–2) AND OVID (MET. 1.1–3)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2024

Brett Evans
Brett Evans*
Affiliation:
Connecticut College
*
bevans2@conncoll.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article proposes that Horace's Epodes and Ovid's Metamorphoses open with significant acrostics that comprise the first two letters, in some cases forming syllables, of successive lines: IB-AM/IAMB (Epod. 1.1–2) and IN-CO-(H)AS (Met. 1.1–3). Each acrostic, it will be argued, tees up programmatic concerns vital to the work it opens: generic identity and the interrelation of form and content (Epodes), etymology and monumentality (Metamorphoses). Moreover, as befits their placement at the head of collections, both acrostics negotiate the challenge of literary commencement. The introduction reviews recent developments in acrostic studies and discusses important predecessors and parallels for Horace's and Ovid's ‘two-letter’ and syllabic acrostics. Two subsequent sections examine the acrostics singly, and a conclusion compares the dialogues that these acrostics open between author and reader, underscoring the welcome challenge which Ovid's acrostic offers to the prevailing scholarly view that this form of wordplay is a strictly visual affair.

Keywords

acrosticssyllablesvisionvoicesynaestheticOvidHorace

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 73 , Issue 2 , December 2023 , pp. 699 - 713
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

Access options

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

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

I am thankful to both Sara Myers and Tony Woodman, as well as to the CQ reviewers and editors, for offering their feedback on this article.

References

1 Fowler, D.P., ‘An acrostic in Vergil (Aeneid 7.601–4)?’, CQ 33 (1983), 298CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The acrostic was earlier noted as accidental by Hilberg, I., ‘Ist die Ilias Latina von einem Italicus verfasst oder einem Italicus gewidmet?’, WS 21 (1899), 264–305Google Scholar.

2 Hejduk, J.D., ‘Was Vergil reading the Bible? Original sin and an astonishing acrostic in the Orpheus and Eurydice’, Vergilius 64 (2018), 71–102Google Scholar, at 73.

3 Vogt, E., ‘Das Akrostichon in der griechischen Literatur’, A&A 13 (1967), 80–95Google Scholar and Courtney, E., ‘Greek and Latin acrostichs’, Philologus 134 (1990), 3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar remain essential. For Greek acrostics, see now Luz, C., Technopaignia: Formspiele in der griechischen Dichtung (Berlin and Boston, 2010), 1–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for Latin, Damschen, G., ‘Das lateinische Akrostichon: neue Funde bei Ovid sowie Vergil, Grattius, Manilius und Silius Italicus’, Philologus 148 (2004), 88–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Katz, J.T., ‘The Muse at play: an introduction’, in Kwapisz, J., Petrain, D. and Szymański, M. (edd.), The Muse at Play (Berlin and Boston, 2013), 1–30Google Scholar, at 4–10.

4 See Katz (n. 3); Hilton, J., ‘The hunt for acrostics by some ancient readers of Homer’, Hermes 141 (2013), 88–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robinson, M., ‘Arms and a mouse: approaching acrostics in Ovid and Vergil’, MD 82 (2019)(a), 23–73, at 24–42Google Scholar; Robinson, M., ‘Looking edgeways: pursuing acrostics in Ovid and Virgil’, CQ 69 (2019)(b), 290–308, at 291CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hejduk (n. 2), 73–6; Hanses, M., ‘Naso deus: Ovid's hidden signature in the Metamorphoses’, in Sharrock, A., Möller, D. and Malm, M. (edd.), Metamorphic Readings: Transformation, Language, and Gender in the Interpretation of Ovid's Metamorphoses (Oxford, 2020), 126–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 126–7.

5 Which ones we do not know: J. Vahlen (ed.), Ennianae poesis reliquiae (Leipzig, 1903) placed the acrostic among Ennius’ incerta (fr. 53); see also A.S. Pease (ed.), M. Tulli Ciceronis De diuinatione liber secundus (Urbana, 1923), 529 ad loc.

6 On ancient syllabic etymologies, see Ahl, F., Metaformations: Soundplay and Wordplay in Ovid and Other Classical Poets (Ithaca and London, 1985), 35–40, 54–60Google Scholar.

7 Ancient admiration is suggested by Callimachus (27 Pfeiffer), Leonidas (Anth. Pal. 9.25) and ‘King Ptolemy’ (Supplementum Hellenisticum 712 Lloyd-Jones–Parsons). Since its rediscovery by Jacques, J.-M., ‘Sur un acrostiche d'Aratos (Phén., 783–787)’, REA 62 (1960), 48–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar, the acrostic's formal and thematic elements have been discussed extensively: see Levitan, W., ‘Plexed artistry: Aratean acrostics’, Glyph 5 (1979), 55–68Google Scholar; Bing, P., ‘A pun on Aratus’ name in verse 2 of the Phaenomena’, HSPh 93 (1990), 281–5Google Scholar, at 281 n. 1; Haslam, M., ‘Hidden signs: Aratus Diosemeiai 46ff., Vergil Georgics 1.424ff.’, HSPh 94 (1992), 199–204Google Scholar, at 199–200; Feeney, D. and Nelis, D., ‘Two Virgilian acrostics: certissima signa?’, CQ 55 (2005), 644–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 645; Hanses, M., ‘The pun and the moon in the sky: Aratus’ ΛΕΠΤΗ acrostic’, CQ 64 (2014), 609–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 610, 612–13; Danielewicz, J., ‘One sign after another: the fifth ΛΕΠΤΗ in Aratus’ Phaen. 783–4?’, CQ 65 (2015), 387–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Haslam (n. 7), 201.

9 All translations are mine.

10 On ‘signposts’, see O'Hara, J.J., True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay (Ann Arbor, 2017 2), 75–9Google Scholar.

11 I owe this observation to Tony Woodman.

12 Levitan (n. 7), 58 suggests that the acrostic continues until line 812 (ΣΕΜΕΑ ~ σημεῖα).

13 Haslam (n. 7).

14 Haslam (n. 7), 201 also suggests that ΜΕ-ΣΗ and ΕΣ-ΜΗ evoke ΣΗ-ΜΕ, and thence σημεῖον.

15 L. Kronenberg, ‘The light side of the moon: a Lucretian acrostic (LUCE, 4.712–15) and its relationship to acrostics in Homer (LEUKĒ, Il. 24.1–5) and Aratus (LEPTĒ, Phaen. 783–87)’, CPh 114 (2019), 278–92, at 280; she also discusses LV-MEN (5.763–4) at 281. On Lucretius’ ‘atomization’ of language, see P. Friedländer, ‘Pattern of sound and atomic theory in Lucretius’, AJPh 62 (1941), 16–34; J.M. Snyder, Puns and Poetry in Lucretius’ De rerum natura (Amsterdam, 1980), 31–51; and D. Armstrong, ‘The impossibility of metathesis: Philodemus and Lucretius on form and content in poetry’, in D. Obbink (ed.), Philodemus & Poetry: Poetic Theory & Practice in Philodemus, Lucretius, & Horace (Oxford, 1995), 210–32.

16 As argued by T. Somerville, ‘Note on a reversed acrostic in Vergil Georgics 1.429–33’, CPh 105 (2010), 202–9, at 205. On the MA-VE-PV acrostic, first identified by E.L. Brown, Numeri Vergiliani: Studies in «Eclogues» and «Georgics» (Brussels, 1963), 102–5, see Haslam (n. 7), 202–4; Feeney and Nelis (n. 7), 645–6; J.T. Katz, ‘Vergil translates Aratus: Phaenomena 1–2 and Georgics 1.1–2’, MD 60 (2008), 105–23, at 108–10; Somerville (this note), 205–9; J. Danielewicz, ‘Vergil's certissima signa reinterpreted: the Aratean LEPTE-acrostic in Georgics I’, Eos 100 (2013), 287–95.

17 DE-CA-TE (‘tenth’, Verg. Ecl. 4.9–11), identified by L. Kronenberg, ‘The tenth of age of Apollo and a new acrostic in Eclogue 4’, Philologus 161 (2017), 337–9; and AS(pice)-TER(rAS)-AS(pice) (Ecl. 4.50–2), a triple ἀστήρ (‘star’) identified by J. Danielewicz, ‘ASTER, ASTER, ASTER: a triple transliterated Greek acrostic in Eclogue 4’, Philologus 163 (2019), 361–6.

18 For this translation, see F. Kayser, ‘Egypte et Nubie’, Bullétin Epigraphique (2012), 684–7, at 687. On this acrostic, see R. Mairs, ‘Acrostich inscriptions at Kalabsha: cultural identities and literary games’, CE 86 (2011), 281–97; V. Garulli, ‘Greek acrostic verse inscriptions’, in J. Kwapisz, D. Petrain and M. Szymański (edd.), The Muse at Play: Riddles and Wordplay in Greek and Latin Poetry (Berlin and Boston, 2013), 246–76, at 267, 270.

19 Mairs (n. 18).

20 S. La Barbera, ‘Divinità occulte: acrostici nei proemi di Ovidio e Claudiano’, MD 56 (2006), 181–4.

21 Katz (n. 16), 112–15; J.T. Katz, ‘Another Vergilian signature in the Georgics?’, in P. Mitsis and I. Ziogas (edd.), Wordplay and Powerplay in Latin Poetry (Berlin and Boston, 2016), 69–85, at 70 n. 5. On Aratus’ pun on ἄρρητον, see Bing (n. 7).

22 Robinson (n. 4 [2019(a)]), 44–9 catalogues the attempts. The most exceptional is that of C. Castelletti, ‘Following Aratus’ plow: Vergil's signature in the Aeneid’, MH 69 (2012), 83–95, noting that the Aeneid's first four lines’ first and last letters, when read boustrophedon, yield A STILO M. V. (‘from the pen of V[ergilius] M[aro]’).

23 C.O. Brink (ed.), Horace on Poetry: The ‘Ars Poetica’ (Cambridge, 1971), 139 ad loc.; N. Rudd (ed.), Horace Epistles Book II and Epistle to the Pisones (‘Ars Poetica’) (Cambridge, 1989), 157 ad loc.

24 Acrostics: DISCE (Carm. 1.18.11–15) noted by G. Morgan, ‘Nullum, Vare … chance or choice in Odes 1.18?’, Philologus 137 (1993), 142–5; PINN- (Carm. 4.2.1–4; cf. Pindarum, 1; pinnis, 3) discussed by Armstrong (n. 15), 229–30 and R.F. Thomas (ed.), Horace Odes Book 4 and Carmen Saeculare (Cambridge, 2011), 104 ad loc.; and AMICO (Sat. 1.9.24–8) and OTIA (Sat. 2.1.7–10) discussed by T. Kearey, ‘Two acrostics in Horace's Satires (1.9.24–8, 2.1.7–10), CQ 69 (2020), 734–44. Telestichs: SATIS (Sat. 1.4.14–18) observed by E. Frederickson, ‘When enough is enough: an unnoticed telestich in Horace (Satires 1.4.14–18)’, CQ 68 (2018), 716–20; and those in K. Mitchell, ‘Acrostics and telestichs in Augustan poetry: Ovid's edgy and subversive sideswipes’, CCJ 66 (2020), 165–81, at 170–1.

25 I take et as explanatory (OLD s.v. 11) with A.J. Woodman, ‘Horace, Epistles 1, 19, 23–40’, MH 40 (1983), 75–81, at 77 n. 5, observing that Horace does include Archilochean res—just not the feud with Lycambes.

26 For construing proprio with rabies, see Brink (n. 23), 168 ad loc.

27 For Horace's manipulation of the conventions of the propemptikon, see F. Cairns, Generic Composition in Greek and Latin Poetry (Edinburgh, 1972), 141; I.M.Le M. Du Quesnay, ‘Amicus certus in re incerta cernitur: Epode I’, in T. Woodman and D. Feeney (edd.), Traditions & Contexts in the Poetry of Horace (Cambridge, 2002), 17–37, at 20.

28 I print the text of D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Q. Horatius Flaccus opera (Berlin and New York, 20084).

29 A. Cavarzere (ed.), Orazio: Il libro degli Epodi (Venice, 1992), 118–19; D. Mankin (ed.), Horace Epodes (Cambridge, 1995), 49; A. Barchiesi, ‘Horace and iambos: the poet as literary historian’, in A. Cavarzere, A. Aloni and A. Barchiesi (edd.), Iambic Ideas: Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to the Late Roman Empire (Lanham, MD, 2001), 141–64, at 155; S.J. Harrison, ‘Some generic problems in Horace's Epodes: Or, on (not) being Archilochus’, in A. Cavarzere, A. Aloni and A. Barchiesi (edd.), Iambic Ideas: Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to the Late Roman Empire (Lanham, MD, 2001), 165–86, at 168.

30 S.J. Heyworth, ‘Horace's ibis: on the titles, unity, and contents of the Epodes’, PLLS 7 (1993), 85–96, at 85–6; T.S. Johnson, Horace's Iambic Criticism: Casting Blame (Iambikē Poiēsis) (Leiden and Boston, 2012), 79. While Mankin (n. 29), 6 n. 28 rejected any supposed Horatian engagement with Callimachus, most scholars now agree that the Epodes must be read in dialogue with Callimachus’ Iambi, since central to both poets’ works are evocations of archaic predecessors: see A. Barchiesi, ‘Palingenre: death, rebirth and Horatian iambos’, in M. Paschalis and M.C.J. Putnam (edd.), Horace and Greek Lyric Poetry (Rethymnon, 2002), 47–70. Further allusions to Callimachus’ Iambi in the Epodes are now discussed in A.D. Morrison, ‘Lycambae spretus infido gener | aut acer hostis Bupalo: Horace's Epodes and the Greek iambic tradition’, in P. Bather and C. Stocks (edd.), Horace's Epodes: Contexts, Intertexts, and Reception (Oxford, 2016), 31–62, at 57–62.

31 C.L. Babcock, ‘Omne militabitur bellum: the language of commitment in Epode 1’, CJ 70 (1974), 14–31, at 15 notes Horace's mastery of the iambic metre without elaboration.

32 See e.g. Barchiesi (n. 29), 155; Harrison (n. 29), 168; Du Quesnay (n. 27), 20.

33 For the proverbial swiftness of the Liburnians, see App. Ill. 7.4 cited by Du Quesnay (n. 27), 20 n. 23; cf. L.C. Watson (ed.), A Commentary on Horace's Epodes (Cambridge, 2003), 57–8 on Epod. 1.1–2.

34 E. Kraggerud, Horaz und Actium: Studien zu den politischen Epoden (Oslo, 1984), 24–5 and R.G.M. Nisbet, ‘Horace's Epodes and history’, in T. Woodman and D. West (edd.), Poetry and Politics in the Age of Augustus (Cambridge, 1984), 1–18, at 10 have understood the alta nauium propugnacula as Octavian's, since he, too, used large warships at Actium (Cass. Dio 50.19.3). Yet it is far more plausible that they belong to Antony, since the battle of Actium was ex euentu celebrated as the triumph of Octavian's light ships against Antony's larger warships: so Cavarzere (n. 29), 119–20 ad loc.; Du Quesnay (n. 27), 20 n. 27; Watson (n. 33), 57–8 ad loc., who notes the archaeological evidence that Octavian mounted large rams from Antony's ships in Nicopolis soon after the battle (see W.M. Murray and P.M. Petsas, Octavian's Campsite Memorial for the Actian War [Philadelphia, 1989], 85–94, 143–51).

35 Barchiesi (n. 29), 155; Harrison (n. 29), 168.

36 A.J. Woodman, ‘Horatiana: Satires 1.10.20–35; Epodes 1.1–14, 5.11–16; Odes 4.5.17–18’, PLLS 18 (2020), 1–25, at 5–6.

37 Watson (n. 33), 43–6.

38 N. Holzberg, Marzial und das antike Epigram (Darmstadt, 2002), 141. In this way ibis is balanced by the Epode book's last word, exitus: see e.g. Mankin (n. 29), 293 ad loc.; Watson (n. 33), 81 ad loc.

39 Du Quesnay (n. 27), 20–1, at 197–8 n. 26, citing Sen. Ep. 59.8; Stat. Theb. 4.318–21; Sil. Pun. 14.384–6, 393–4; and BAfr. 83.2, if Klotz's conjecture inter for the manuscripts’ reading intra is accepted.

40 For ἰάπτω used of verbal invective, see e.g. Soph. Aj. 501 λόγοις ἰάπτων (‘inveighing with words’); Rhianus, fr. 1.4 Powell μακάρεσσιν ἔπι ψόγον αἰνὸν ἰάπτει (‘he hurls terrible abuse at the blessed ones’).

41 Anagrammatically inclined readers will appreciate that ibis … amice (‘you will go, friend’) is an exact anagram for cie iambis (‘rouse with iambs!’), a fittingly martial image for Horace's propemptikon to Maecenas.

42 For the scholarly debate over the truth of Horace's claim, see Du Quesnay (n. 27), 19 n. 17. I agree with Du Quesnay (n. 27), 19 and Watson (n. 33), 56–7 that it is nearly impossible to imagine Horace publishing Epodes 1 and 9 if he was known not to have gone to Actium.

43 The collection's terminus post quem is provided by Epode 9, a sympotic conversation taking place on board ship during the battle itself, as persuasively argued by A.J. Woodman, ‘Vinous voices: Horace's ninth Epode’, in A.J. Woodman and J. Wisse (edd.), Word and Context in Latin Poetry: Studies in Memory of David West (Cambridge, 2017), 43–60.

44 R. Cowan, ‘Alas, poor Io! Bilingual wordplay in Horace Epode 11’, Mnemosyne 65 (2012), 753–63.

45 Harrison (n. 29), 172.

46 A. Barchiesi, ‘Endgames: Ovid's Metamorphoses 15 and Fasti 6’, in D.H. Roberts, F.M. Dunn and D. Fowler (edd.), Classical Closure: Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature (Princeton, 1999), 181–208, at 195.

47 Mitchell (n. 24), 173.

48 Robinson (n. 4 [2019(a)]), 51–2, arguing that MVS alludes to Horace's ridiculus mus (‘laughable mouse’) at Ars P. 139.

49 Resurrected by Damschen (n. 3), 97 n. 30.

50 Discussed by Robinson (n. 4 [2019(a)]), 52 n. 2; Mitchell (n. 24), 173.

51 Mitchell (n. 24), 173.

52 Robinson (n. 4 [2019(b)]), 293–4; Mitchell (n. 24), 173; Hanses (n. 4), 134–5, considering NASO in conjunction with DEVS (Met. 1.29–32) as the claim of an authorial demiurge.

53 R.J. Tarrant (ed.), P. Ouidi Nasonis Metamorphoses (Oxford, 2004).

54 illa Lejay (but also a medieval variant, as noted by R.J. Tarrant, ‘Editing Ovid's Metamorphoses: problems and possibilities’, CPh 77 [1982], 342–60, at 350–1) for the manuscripts’ reading illas is now generally accepted, thanks especially to E.J. Kenney, ‘Ovidius prooemians’, PCPhS 22 (1976), 46–53.

55 Kenney (n. 54), 46–7.

56 Noted by Tarrant (n. 54), 351 n. 35; S.J. Heyworth, ‘Some allusions to Callimachus in Latin poetry’, MD 33 (1994), 51–79, at 75 argues persuasively for an allusion to Cupid's theft of a foot in Amores 1.1. This metrical observation strengthens the argument of G. Luck, ‘Zum Prooemium vons Ovids Metamorphosen’, Hermes 86 (1958), 499–500 that Ovid here refers to his transformation from elegiac to epic poet and not, as Kenney (n. 54), 51–2 argues, from writing grand to ‘Callimachean’ epic.

57 Ahl (n. 6), 59. forma is also a near-anagram of μορφή: so A. Barchiesi (ed.), Ovidio. Metamorfosi. Volume I. Libri I–II. Traduzione di Ludovica Koch (Milan, 2005), 136 ad loc.

58 See K.S. Myers, Ovid's Causes: Cosmogony and Aetiology in the Metamorphoses (Ann Arbor, 1994), 5–15, noting at 6 n. 14 parallels for Ovid's opening in noua, including Aratus’ ἐκ Διός (Phaen. 1), Cicero's ab Ioue (Aratea fr. 1), and Manilius’ and the Aetna's in noua (Manil. 3.1; Aetna 7).

59 Noted by Kenney (n. 54), 50.

60 M. Leumann, Lateinische Grammatik. Erster Band: Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre (Munich, 1977), 173 §178.II; W.S. Allen, Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin (Cambridge, 19782), 43–5; M. Weiss, Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin (Ann Arbor and New York, 2009), 152–4. Recently J.N. Adams, Social Variation and the Latin Language (Cambridge, 2013), 192, however, cautions against drawing hard-and-fast divisions between elite and non-elite pronunciation in such cases as word-initial [h].

61 For Varro, see Charisius, Gramm. page 93.3–4 Barwick; for Nigidius Figulus, see Gell. NA 13.6.3; further examples in TLL 2.840.53–80; cf. OLD s.v. 2b.

62 TLL 2.838.61–839.58; cf. OLD s.v. 2.

63 W.S. Anderson, Ovidius Metamorphoses (Leipzig, 1977); Barchiesi (n. 57).

64 Allen (n. 60), 22; cf. Weiss (n. 60), 181 on the phonological development *-TsT > -sT-. A. Cser, ‘The phonology of classical Latin’, TPhS 118 (2020), 1–218, at 171 reports that the assimilated spelling aspirare is adopted in over thirty per cent of cases reported in the Brepols Library of Latin Texts, a rate higher than average for words beginning with ad + s-, which he calculates to be twenty-six per cent.

65 See OLD s.v. incoho 2b (‘to begin to deal with [a topic]’).

66 OLD suggests that incoho has another literary meaning, ‘to make a first draft or sketch’ (s.v. 1b), but the grounds for this distinction are not clear. Take, for example, Catull. 35.13–14 cited under OLD s.v. 1b: nam quo tempore legit incohatam | Dindymi dominam … (‘for since the time she read the unfinished “Mistress of Dindymon” …’). There is no way to know that here Catullus means specifically a ‘first draft’ of an entire poem rather than a work that the poet has started but not finished, as C.J. Fordyce, Catullus (Oxford, 1961), 178 ad loc. understands it. TLL 7.1.968.9–14 does not make the fine distinction of the OLD, and I thus think it reasonable to interpret IN-CO-(H)AS as ‘you are beginning [sc. to compose]’, not ‘you are writing a first draft’.

67 Varro (apud Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.62.6) viewed the acrostics as proof of the oracle's genuine divine origin, while Cicero (Diu. 2.112) considered them evidence of careful human forgery. For the Sibylline books’ acrostics, see recently Luz (n. 3), 29–33; J. Gore and A. Kershaw, ‘An unnoticed acrostic in Apuleius Metamorphoses and Cicero De Diuinatione 2.111–12’, CQ 58 (2008), 393–4; J.L. Lightfoot (ed.), The Sibylline Oracles: With Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on the First and Second Books (Oxford, 2007), 17.

68 See Myers (n. 58), 37–9; J.J. O'Hara, ‘Vergil's best reader? Ovidian commentary on Vergilian etymological wordplay’, CJ 91 (1996), 255–76.

69 For the term, see O'Hara (n. 10), 79–82.

70 So Ahl (n. 6), 24–5.

71 For verbal parallels and discussion, see P. Hardie (ed.), Ovidio Metamorfosi. Volume VI. Libri XIII–XV. Traduzione di Gioachino Chiarini (Milan, 2015), 617–22.

72 T. Woodman, ‘Exegi monumentum: Horace, Odes 3.30’, in T. Woodman and D. West (edd.), Quality and Pleasure in Latin Poetry (Cambridge, 1974), 115–28.

73 Hardie (n. 71), 622 ad Met. 15.871.

74 TLL 7.1.967.62–968.5 furnishes examples of monumental construction begun with incoho.

75 Barchiesi (n. 46), 195.

76 Barchiesi (n. 46), 188.

77 Garulli (n. 18), 266.

78 So e.g. Bing, P., The Well-Read Muse: Present and Past in Callimachus and the Hellenistic Poets (Göttingen, 1988), 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 Volk, K., ‘Manilius’ cosmos of the senses’, in Butler, S. and Purves, A. (edd.), Synaesthesia and the Ancient Senses (London and New York, 2013), 103–14Google Scholar, at 109 suggests that the ΛΕΠΤΗ acrostic is ‘programmatic for the visual paradigm of the Phaenomena as a whole’, on which see Volk, K., ‘Letters in the sky: reading the signs in Aratus’ Phaenomena’, AJPh 133 (2012), 209–40Google Scholar.

80 Kwapisz, J., The Greek Figure Poems (Leuven / Paris / Walpole, MA, 2013), 19Google Scholar (emphasis his).

81 Brenkman, J., ‘Narcissus in the text’, Georgia Review 30 (1976), 293–327Google Scholar, at 316–21 analyses the oppositions uox–imago and speech–writing in the Narcissus and Echo episode; see also Männlein-Robert, I., Stimme, Schrift und Bild: Zum Verhältnis der Künste in der hellenistischen Dichtung (Heidelberg, 2007), 320–32Google Scholar. On Ovid's use in that scene of Lucretian physics of the voice, see Hardie, P., Ovid's Poetics of Illusion (Cambridge, 2002), 143–72Google Scholar. Recent Ovidian scholarship attends to the voice's expressive potential beyond or before language: see especially Butler, S., The Ancient Phonograph (New York, 2015), 59–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rimell, V., ‘After Ovid, after theory’, IJCT 26 (2019), 446–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 So J. Farrell, ‘The Ovidian corpus: poetic body and poetic text’, in P. Hardie, A. Barchiesi and S. Hinds (edd.), Ovidian Transformations: Essays on Ovid's Metamorphoses and its Reception (Cambridge, 1999), 127–41, at 128–33.

83 Wiseman, T.P., The Roman Audience: Classical Literature as Social History (Oxford, 2015), 150–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.