Contextualization and Textual Criticism: Making Sense of Character in Propertius 4.

4 and
Ovid, "Heroides" 1
Author(s): Steven J. Green
Source: The Classical World, Vol. 97, No. 4 (Summer, 2004), pp. 363-372
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press on behalf of the Classical Association of
the Atlantic States
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4352872
Accessed: 27-01-2017 13:22 UTC

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 support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

The Johns Hopkins University Press, Classical Association of the Atlantic States are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical World

This content downloaded from 129.11.21.2 on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:22:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 CONTEXTUALIZATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM:
MAKING SENSE OF CHARACTER IN
PROPERTIUS 4.4 AND OVID, HEROIDES 1*

The difficulties faced by editors of either Propertius or Ovid's

Heroides-most recently, D6rrie for Ovid and Goold, Heyworth,
and Butrica for Propertius-are immense. Problems of transmis-
sion have resulted not only in several instances where either a choice
between variant readings or emendation must be made; there are
also the added problems of the loss or interpolation of couplets in
Ovid and the potential transposition of couplets and the uncertainties
over poem and book division in Propertius.' In the effort to estab-
lish a good reading from a textual difficulty, the critic typically
stresses the importance of rationality of thought within the poem:
if a reading goes against the perceived "rationale" of its context,
that reading is considered unsatisfactory and a more suitable read-
ing is suggested. This methodology is, however, problematized when
words are "uttered" by internal narrators. In such cases, additional
questions are raised: what is the character of the internal narra-
tor? Is the rationale of the internal speaker the same as the poet's
or, indeed, the reader's? In short, whose "state of mind" is being
articulated in the text?
The present paper revisits three textual problems which have
concerned critics over the years two from Propertius 4.4 (47, 55)
and one from Ovid, Heroides I (15)-where emendation has fre-
quently been made (often to a lesser manuscript reading or modern
conjecture) on the basis that the better-attested reading "makes little
sense." In these same cases, however, the words of the text are
"Luttered" by an internal narrator-Tarpeia and Penelope, respec-
tively-whose distinct characters are established by their "'speeches"
as a whole. I aim to show that, by taking into account the dra-
matic context and the characterization of the primary speaker, we
can make sense of the seemingly illogical sentiments that issue
forth from their mouths, without having to resort to substantial
emendation of the text.

I. Propertius 4.4: Tarpeia as Model of Treachery

Propertius 4.4 tells the story of Tarpeia, the Vestal Virgin who
betrays Rome out of love for the enemy leader, Tatius. In lines

* I would like to thank Stephen Heyworth for his advice on the text of Propertius
and for providing me with an offprint of the relevant sections of his forthcoming
critical edition. I would also like to thank the anonymous readers of Classical World
for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.
I See H. Dorrie, Untersuchungen zur Oberlieferungsgeschichle von Ovids epistulae
Heroidum I (Gottingen 1960), II (Gottingen 1960), and III (Gottingen 1972); G. P.
Goold, "Problems in Editing Propertius," Editing Greek and Latin Texts, ed. J. Grant
(Toronto 1987) 97-119; S. J. Heyworth, "Propertius: Division, Transmission, and the
Editor's Task," Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 8 (1995) 165-85;
and J. L. Butrica, "Editing Propertius," CQ 47 (1997) 176-208.

363

This content downloaded from 129.11.21.2 on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:22:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 364 STEVEN J. GREEN

31-66 of this poem, Tarpeia, looking down on the enemy camp

from the Capitol, utters a soliloquy in which she reveals her inner
turmoil and delusional plans for the future.
When one takes into account previous versions of the Tarpeia
myth, it is clear that Propertius sets out to make his Tarpeia as
treacherous as possible. For a Roman to betray her city would have
been bad enough; but Propertius has gone further. First, he insists
on her being a Vestal Virgin.2 Secondly-and this is unparalleled
in the other versions of the myth-he insists on the specific tem-
poral setting of the Parilia (73-78). The stage is thus set for the
ultimate treachery-the betrayal of Rome, on its birthday, by a
woman who is supposed to be the guardian of the Vestal flame,
on which the prosperity of Rome depends.
In the opening line of the poem, the poet achieves effective
wordplay with the juxtaposition of Tarpeiae turpe. Given Tarpeia's
subsequent conduct, this juxtaposition might in fact serve as an
etymological signpost: Tarpeia will emerge as the very model of
turpitude.3 On fetching water for a sacrifice in her role as Vestal
Virgin (15-16), Tarpeia catches sight of Tatius and is immediately
smitten (19-22). The seemingly innocent detail in line 22, that
Tarpeia drops the ritual urn from her "forgetful hands" (interque
oblitas excidit urna manus), can be read symbolically: it antici-
pates the subsequent neglect of all her duties as a Roman priestess
and her ultimate dissociation from Rome.4 By the time she makes
her soliloquy (31-66), her steep slide from dutiful Vestal to shameless
traitor is all too apparent. She bids farewell to Rome and her du-
ties as a Vestal and prays to join the Sabines (35-38); she defames
the miraculous upbringing of Rome's founder in favor of the en-
emy leader (53-54); she offers the city of Rome to Tatius as her
dowry (56); she even suggests that revenge is owing to the Ro-
mans for their rape of the Sabine women (57-58). In effect, she
shows herself to be totally alienated from Rome and casting a critical
eye over its institutions and beliefs. She is, moreover, fully aware
and perversely proud of the treachery she plans to commit (espe-
cially 43-44).
To summarize, from the undisputed text, Tarpeia's soliloquy
is consciously fashioned as a shocking showpiece of treachery; it

2 Tarpeia is previously cast as a Vestal Virgin in Varro (Ling. 5.41). Livy (1.11)
is more ambiguous: we see Tarpeia going to fetch water, but we gain no indication
of a religious status.
3 Reinforcing this sense are references elsewhere to mala puella (17) and improba
ministra (44); see further B. W. Boyd, "Tarpeia's Tomb: A Note on Prop. 4.4," AJPh
105 (1984) 85-86.
4 For the carrying of water as symbolic of a Vestal's chastity and sense of duty,
compare the case of the Vestal Tuccia who, in a successful attempt to clear her name
of sexual malpractice, is reputed to have carried water from the Tiber to the Forum
in a sieve (Dion. Hal. 2.69); see further M. Janan, "Beyond Good and Evil: Tarpeia
and Philosophy in the Feminine," CW 92 (1999) 435-36. In Tarpeia's case, it is worth
noting that in abandoning the urn in favour of Tatius, Tarpeia rejects a piece of Ro-
man fictilia (fictilis urna, 16), regularly symbolic of early Rome's moral simplicity,
for, among other things, foreign luxury in the form of gold (Tatius' golden armlets:
obstupuit . . . regalibus armis, 21).

This content downloaded from 129.11.21.2 on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:22:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 CONTEXTUALIZATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM 365

is her own words which make Tarpeia such a powerful and arrest-
ing figure and, consequently, justify her eventual demise. It is with
this characterization of Tarpeia firmly in mind that we should now
turn to two of the most interesting and puzzling textual problems
in this section.

Line 47: The Case for purgabitur

cras, ut rumor ait, tota pigrabitur urbe:

tu cape spinosi rorida terga iugi!
(Prop. 4.4.47-48)

47 pugnabitur w: purgabitur ;: potabitur Rossberg et Palmer5

In the middle of her soliloquy, Tarpeia looks forward to the
activities of the following day and the opportunity it may afford
her beloved Tatius to attack the city. An interesting textual problem
occurs in line 47. The archetypal manuscript reading, pugnabitur,
is clearly unsatisfactory in view of the fact that the next day is
the Parilia, a time of festivity rather than fighting; the reading
therefore stands at odds with the description of the festival in lines
73-78. No amount of special pleading, therefore, can defend the
archetypal reading, and some emendation must be made. One of
these emendations is purgabitur ("a ceremonial purification will
be conducted"), a palaeographically plausible, late medieval/Renaissance
emendation found in two lesser manuscripts, which has not been
considered in the standard editions since the early years of the
last century.6 The principal objection to the reading purgabitur has
been the proximity of the clause ut rumor ait: it has been argued
that since Propertius' Tarpeia is a Vestal Virgin, accustomed to taking
part in the Parilia, she would surely not have to rely on rumor to
learn that the festival was imminent.' No reading is without its
problems in this case, but I feel that purgabitur is the most attractive
reading when one takes into account the character of Tarpeia and,
as such, might be preferred to the other conjectures.
First, those who maintain that the proximity of ut rumor ait
militates against the adoption of purgabitur miss the point. The

I The text and apparatus criticus for Propertius are taken from the edition by
P. Fedeli (Stuttgart 1984).
6 The two MSS in which the emendation occurs are Berlin 41 and Leiden Voss.
lat. 0.81 (see J. L. Butrica, The Manuscript Tradition of Propertius [Toronto 1984]
105-10). Preferred by Huleatt (JPh 13 [1885] 304), it is the reading found in the
editions by Postgate (London 1905) and Butler (London 1905; Loeb edition, 1912).
By the time of Butler and Barber's edition (Oxford 1933), however, the reading has
been changed. For purgo in the sense "I conduct a purification," see, e.g., Tib. 2.1.17;
Liv. 3.18.10, Ov. Fast. 4.640; and OLD s.v. 5; for the requirement of a purgatio at
the Parilia, see Ov. Fast. 4.785-786: omnia purgat edax ignis vitiumque metallis /
excoquit: id circo cum duce purgat oves?
7For the argument, see, e.g., Butler and Barber (above, n.6) 347. For the Vestals'
traditional involvement in the purification ceremony of the Parilia, compare Ov. Fast.
4.639-640 (igne cremat vitulos quae natu maxima virgo est, / luce Palis populos purget
ut ille cinis) and 731-732 (i, pete virginea, populus, suffimen ab ara, / Vesta dabit;
Vestae munere purus eris) with J. G. Frazer, Publii Ovidii Nasonis Fastorum libri
sex: 3-Commentary on Books III and IV (London 1929) ad loc.

This content downloaded from 129.11.21.2 on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:22:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 366 STEVEN J. GREEN

fact is that ut rumor ait, uncontested in the manuscripts, creates a

problem for all readings: why should Tarpeia, as a Roman, need
to rely on rumor to inform her that the Parilia (or indeed any
festival) will involve widespread drinking (potabitur) or relaxation
from work (pigrabitur)?8 Ut rumor ait is an unavoidable obstacle,
and any suggested reading must be accompanied by an explana-
tion to account for Tarpeia's curious lapse in memory.
Elsewhere in the soliloquy, Tarpeia has shown herself to be
particularly interested in the fact that she is deserting her primary
station as a Vestal: she bids farewell to Vesta specifically (36),
gloats in the audacity of her desertion (43-44), and contemplates
the most serious outcome, the extinction of the Vestal flame (45-
46). Following on from this emphasis on religious desertion, the
adoption of purgabitur in line 47 would create a powerful senti-
ment which fits perfectly in the mouth of Tarpeia. First, the close
proximity of ut rumor ait and purgabitur would suggest that the
Vestal has now either forgotten her role in the Roman festival or
is at least consciously distancing herself from it. Extra shock value
is achieved by the fact that the purification in question is the one
accompanying the Parilia, the birthday of Rome: one would ex-
pect all Romans to remember this festival and value its commemoration,
especially a Vestal. Secondly, on being reminded of the coming
festival, we might have expected Tarpeia to turn her thoughts back
to her religious role in the proceedings. On the contrary, she dis-
misses any sense of duty and only envisages the occasion in terms
of an opportunity for her beloved, Rome's enemy, to attack (48).
The suggested reading, therefore, would maintain and build on the
general characterization of Tarpeia as a maiden who has swiftly trans-
formed from faithful religious servant to absent-minded traitor.
A potential problem with purgabitur might be raised on the
grammatical front. Purgo is transitive, and the impersonal passive
formed from transitive verbs is a construction typically associated
with early Latin.9 The reader, however, would clearly have recog-

I A later reference to ebria turba (Prop. 4.4.78) does not in itself commend
potabitur in our line: it is, I think, simply part of a general awareness that drunken-
ness formed part of the celebration of the Parilia; see also Tib. 2.5.87-90. Those who
defend the Housman conjecture pigrabitur point to Romulus' later instructions to the
guards to relax during the holiday (Romulus excubias decrevit in otia solvi / atque
intermissa castra silere tuba, Prop. 4.4.79-80) and maintain that it is this specific
area of relaxation, heard as rumour, to which Tarpeia alludes here; see A. E. Housman,
"Emendationes Propertianae," JPh 16 (1888) 13-14; R. Hanslik, "Textkritisches in
Properz Buch IV," RhM 105 (1962) 242-43; and J. L. Marr, "Notes on Propertius
4.1 and 4.4," CQ 20 (1970) 171. The impersonal passive construction suggests, how-
ever, more widespread, universal relaxation. Furthermore, it seems highly unlikely
that, in the midst of conflict with neighbouring tribes, Romulus would divulge such
intentions beforehand!
9 See, e.g., Plaut. Pseud. 273, Poen. 835, Trin. 479; Cato Agr. 14.1; in the fu-
ture passive indicative, see Plaut. Cas. 131; Ter. An. 403, 980; Cato Agr. 1.4, 3.6,
144.1; see further C. Bennett, Syntax of Early Latin I (Boston 1910) 7-9. By con-
trast, classical Latin seems to have largely limited use of this construction to certain
intransitive verbs; see J. Wackemagel, Vorlesungen uber Syntax von Griechisch, Lateinisch,
und Deutsch I (Basel 1926) 144-49; and J. Hofmann and A. Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax
und Stilistik (Munich 1963) 288.

This content downloaded from 129.11.21.2 on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:22:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 CONTEXTUALIZATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM 367

nized the construction and the sense it created. Moreover, it is

not difficult to see why Propertius might have opted for the ar-
chaic construction here: it has the effect of creating a shocking
distance between speaker and action, thus reinforcing the depic-
tion of Tarpeia as a woman who is now "detached" from her religious
obligations. Furthermore, it would not be inappropriate for Tarpeia-
the "oldest" woman of extant Roman elegy-to be articulating herself
in an "old-fashioned" manner.
On balance, then, I feel that it is for the reading purgabitur
that the strongest case emerges. It is palaeographically plausible
from the archetypal pugnabitur; it offers a dose of treachery from
the mouth of Tarpeia which is entirely in line with Propertius' designs
for the "heroine" in this poem; its form, though typically archaic,
is an effective means of reinforcing that sense of treachery.
Line 55: The Case for pariamne

t sic hospes pariamne tua regina sub aula t

dos tibi non humilis prodita Roma venit.
(Prop. 4.4.55-56)

55 pariamne tua N: patrianne (ex patrianue) tua F: patria ve tua

P: patrare tua L: patiare tua D V: patrianne Vo: pariam ne te
V2: patria metuar Weidgen: spatierne (spatiorne Henisius) tua Housman

In a similar vein, it would be fitting to look at line 55, one

of the most problematic of Propertius 4.4. It is now generally held
that the lost archetypal manuscript, which the extant manuscripts
draw upon and emend, read either parianne or pariane in line 55;
from this came the simplest and most palaeographically plausible
emendation pariamne. Grammatically speaking, it makes sense: Tarpeia
asks, "Thus, '0 stranger, am I to bear children as queen in your
palace?" Objections have long been raised, however, as to the
appropriateness of the sentiment and its purpose in the context.
Housman objects to the audacity of the sentiment at this stage of
Tarpeia's infatuation: "But pariam on the lips of a Vestal virgin
overcome by first love is much worse than premature."" For this
reason, modern editors have rejected pariamne tua.'2 Many of their
emendations make good sense, but is it necessary to stray so far
from the archetypal reading? Again, consideration of the primary
narrator's "state of mind" might prove instructive.
In interpreting these lines, I feel that Housman has raised the
crucial point but has drawn the wrong conclusion: it is precisely
the audacity of the sentiment which commends the reading pariamne
tua. First, we should recall that the entertaining of premature thoughts

0 In the immediate context of Tarpeia's instructions to Tatius on the appropri-

ate time and route for capturing Rome (47-54), sic can be understood as "on the
condition of my betraying Rome"; see Housman (below, n.11).
" A. E. Housman, "The Manuscripts of Propertius (III)," JPh 22 (1894) 89-90.
12 The last editor to adopt pariamne tua (without daggers) was Dornseiff (Stuttgart
1958).

This content downloaded from 129.11.21.2 on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:22:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
368 STEVEN J. GREEN

is a stock characteristic of the delusional, lovesick heroine. Typi-

cally, these take the form of a longing for marriage with the hero,
even though there are no real grounds for such hope.'3 Tarpeia likewise
dreams of marriage. But even here, she is much more audacious
and insistent than previous heroines: she boldly instructs Tatius to
prepare marriage (61-62, noting the imperatives), and no sooner
has she betrayed Rome than she is asking Tatius to name the ac-
tual day of the wedding (87-88, with diem emphatically delayed)!
Given the noticeably audacious hopes of this woman, it seems
entirely appropriate that she should go further than any other love-
struck ancient literary female and anticipate future children with
her man. I can cite only one other example of this motif. This
involves Vergil's Dido who, beyond all reasonable hope of fulfill-
ment, wishes for a child by Aeneas as a comfort for his departure
(Verg. Aen. 4.327-330). The parallel, however, only draws atten-
tion to the stark difference between each female. Dido can be excused
for her thoughts on several grounds. First, she is an older woman,
a childless widow who naturally longs for offspring in her later
years. Moreover, as Aeneas has been staying with her for about a
year in an apparent "marriage," she can be forgiven for entertain-
ing thoughts of motherhood. Tarpeia's situation is altogether different
and offers no such excuses: her lover is the very enemy besieging
her people; she has never even met her beloved; most worryingly,
she is supposed to be a virginal attendant of Vesta. In effect, Tarpeia
reveals her complete dissociation from her former self-she has
now forgotten her role as virgin as well as Vestal. The sentiment
gains extra shock value when we recognize the importance the Romans
placed on the physical virginity of their Vestals. Indeed, sexual
malpractice on the part of the Vestals was often felt to accom-
pany a crisis in the state.'4 Tarpeia's bold anticipation of her role
as mother, therefore, can be viewed symbolically as a forewarning
of the potential crisis that her actions might inflict upon Rome.
In short, I would suggest that the reading pariamne tua not
only makes sense grammatically; it also fits perfectly the charac-
ter of the speaker, when one takes into account the traditional
characteristics of lovesick heroines and Tarpeia's consistently treacherous
transgression of all norms.5
I have argued that approaching the problematic text of Tarpeia's
speech in Propertius 4.4.31-66 with consideration of her distinct
characterization allows us to uncover, without significant emenda-
tion, the ingenious ways in which the poet builds up the treacherous

13 See, e.g., Dido (Verg. Aen. 4.18-23); Scylla (Ov. Met. 8.51-54); Medea (Ap.
Rhod. Argon. 3.619-623; and Ov. Met. 7.21-22, 48-50, 60-61).
14 For crises in the state giving rise to suspicions about the virtue of Vestals,
see, e.g., Liv. 22.57.2-5 (216 B.c.); Val. Max 3.7.9 (114-113 B.C.). See further M.
Beard, "The Sexual Status of Vestal Virgins," JRS 70 (1980) 16.
'5 It has also been pointed out to me that there is great potential for wordplay
between pariam and Parilia (73). It is ironic, to say the least, that Tarpeia's wording
should encourage a connection between Rome's birthday and the birth of a child conceived
through treachery.

This content downloaded from 129.11.21.2 on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:22:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 CONTEXTUALIZATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM 369

figure of the Vestal. A similar approach might be equally reward-

ing when analyzing Ovid's Heroides, a textually problematic set
of poems which, given their letter form, invite us to penetrate the
minds of the individual mythical writers. I will conclude by con-
sidering one textual problem, from Heroides 1, which has not, I
feel, been satisfactorily addressed.

II. Ovid, Heroides 1

Line 15: Penelope's "Error"

sive quis Antilochum narrabat ab Hectore victum,

Antilochus nostri causa timoris erat,
(Ov. Her. 1.15-16)

ab hoste revictum Housman 16

Near the beginning of her letter to her absent husband Ulysses,

Penelope, at home in Ithaca, recounts the pieces of news she has
so far received about the Trojan War. One of these reports has
been the death of Antilochus. All manuscripts agree in reading ab
Hectore victum in line 15. Commentators are quick, however, to
point out that this detail stands at odds with Ovid's primary model
for the letter, the Odyssey: in the Odyssey, we are told that Antilochus
is killed not by Hector but by Memnon, leader of the Ethiopian
allies of Troy.'7 The reading is commonly explained away in terms
of scribal haplography, given the presence of Hectoreo in the pre-
vious line (14), but we should surely try to make sense of the
present reading before resorting to any emendation. It is unlikely
that Ovid is here making use of a variant source: there is no con-
vincing evidence of an alternative tradition for Antilochus' death.'8
Instead, I want to suggest that line 15, as part of a wider strategy
in the epistle, has something important to say about the character-
ization of the primary speaker, Penelope.
As a starting point to the discussion, we should note that the
Heroides are full of thematic deviations, some small, some more
significant, from the literary model from which the mythical writer
has been lifted. In Heroides I there are, in addition to the ex-
ample in line 15, four noteworthy differences in detail from the
Homeric tradition:
i) Penelope says that she sent Telemachos to Sparta and
Pylos (37-38); in the Odyssey, it is Athena who instructs
him (Od. 1.280-286) whilst Penelope remains ignorant
(Od. 3.373-376);
ii) Penelope suggests that the night attack on Rhesus was
predominantly the work of Ulysses (39-44); in the Iliad,

16 The text and apparatus criticus are taken from the edition by H. D6rrie, P.
Ovidii Nasonis Epistulae Heroidum (Berlin and New York, 1971).
71 See Hoom. Od. 4.187, 11.52; also Pind. Pyth. 6.28-32.
18 Only a brief and curious reference in Hyginus, Fab. 113.1, makes Hector the
killer of Antilochus, and even this contradicts the previous story (Fab. 112.4), which
observes the traditional detail of Memnon as the killer.

This content downloaded from 129.11.21.2 on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:22:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 370 STEVEN J. GREEN

it is clear that most of the hard work is done by Diomedes

(II. 10.488-493);
iii) Penelope categorizes Medon as a hostile suitor (91); in
the Odyssey, he is generally seen as a faithful confidant
(Od. 4.675-715, 22.354-360); and
iv) Penelope says that the suitors attempted to ambush Tele-
machos on his outward journey (99-100); in the Odyssey,
the ambush is planned for the return journey (Od. 4.701).
In recent years, scholars have (rightly) moved away from in-
terpreting these differences in terms of Ovid's "forgetting" details
of his models or making use of (often unattested) alternative tra-
ditions. In an important article on the Heroides, Duncan Kennedy
convincingly suggests that "deviation from an established source
allows the reader to recognize and penetrate the subjectivity of
the writer's viewpoint, which is a central feature of the [letter]
form."'9 As such, the established source can act as the "objec-
tive" account of events; the reader of the Heroides is therefore
invited to play the role of intertextual judge, assessing the sub-
jectivity of the heroine's account of events and suggesting reasons
for the heroine's deviations from the "objective" account.20 It is
by looking at the text in these terms that recent scholars have
posited a number of reasons for Penelope's intentional or unin-
tentional deviations in her letter. No one has seriously considered,
however, the error at Heroides 1.15 along these interpretive lines.2'
This has, I feel, prevented a complete picture of Penelope's per-
sona from being constructed.
I wish to test my own hypothesis: that Penelope's comment
here is a deliberate error on her part.22 Let us consider the con-
text. Penelope offers details of the vague reports she has received
from Troy (13-22) so as to exemplify the constant state of fear
she is in owing to the uncertainty surrounding her husband's where-
abouts. In a clever reversal of the traditional picture, which views
Ulysses as the long-suffering hero, Penelope continually suggests
that the uncertainty she faces makes her suffering worse than that

'9 D. Kennedy, "The Epistolary Mode and the First of Ovid's Heroides," CQ 34
(1984) 421.
20 This methodology assumes that Ovid is the notional author. For the potential
dynamics of epistolarity, see J. Farrell, "Reading and Writing the Heroides," HSCPh
98 (1998) 323-29. and; now, D. Kennedy, "Epistolarity: Ovid's Heroides," in P. R.
Hardie, The Cambridge Companion to Ovid (Cambridge 2002) 217-32, esp. 227-31.
21 For recent interpretations of Penelope along these lines, see H. Jacobson, Ovid's
Heroides (Princeton 1974) 243-76, esp. 264-68; Kennedy (above, n.19) 413-22; A.
Barchiesi, Epistulae Heroidum 1-3 (Florence 1992) ad loc.; and P. Knox, Ovid's Heroides:
Select Epistles (Cambridge 1995) ad loc. Their comments on Her. 1.15, however, are
disappointing in this regard: Kennedy (above, n. 19) offers no suggestion; Barchiesi
72 and M. Kelly ["Homer, Ovid and Heroides 1.15-16," Antichthon 32 (1998) 24-
28] suggest that victum be translated in a more unusual sense ("overwhelmed"), so
as to fit the Homeric tradition whereby Antilochus flees Hector at II. 15.585-589,
but this is surely too strained.
22 Both Knox (above, n.21) and Jacobson (above, n.21) 252-53 briefly float,
only to dismiss, the idea of a deliberate error on Penelope's part.

This content downloaded from 129.11.21.2 on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:22:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 CONTEXTUALIZATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM 371

of her husband's-fear of the unknown is worse than the realities

of war, as it makes her fearful of everything:

quando ego non timui graviora pericula veris?

res est solliciti plena timoris amor.
(Ov. Her. 1.11-12)

When have I not feared dangers which were more

serious than the real ones? Love is a thing filled
with anxious fear.

quid timeam ignoro; timeo tamen omnia demens

et patet in curas area lata meas.
quaecumque aequor habet quaecumque pericula
tellus,
tam longae causas suspicor esse morae.
(Ov. Her. 1.71-74)23

What I should fear, I do not know; yet none the

less I fear all things in my madness, and a wide
space opens up for my concerns. Whatever dangers
the sea, whatever dangers the land holds, I suspect
that these are the reasons for your delay so long.

Turning to the problem at hand, I read Penelope as an indi-

vidual who actually knows rather more than she admits to. She is
a clever woman who has a certain amount of knowledge of the
Trojan War; she also has an absent husband who cannot be sure
what she knows about the Trojan War nor what is occurring in
Ithaca. Paradoxically then, by feigning ignorance, Penelope could
potentially benefit from Ulysses' ignorance.
Penelope wants to impress upon Ulysses her vulnerable state so
that he will return more speedily. She suggests that the dubious re-
ports she receives fuel rather than allay her fears, because she cannot
be sure of the truth (1 1-12). A deliberate and glaring factual error
at this point in the form of the wrong killer of Antilochus in line
15 would, in this context, be an ingenious ploy on Penelope's part
to force the point home: Ulysses, having been at Troy, would no-
tice the error and realize the stark truth of Penelope's predicament.
Line 15 is, I would argue, a subtle instance of a much wider
strategy on Ovid's part to present Penelope as a deliberately de-
ceitful woman trying all means to get her husband back.24 When
Penelope suggests that she, rather than Athena, took the initiative
to send Telemachos abroad (37-38), she may be deliberately lying
in an attempt to impress upon Ulysses her active role in the search
for her husband's whereabouts: even after all this time, she has

23 See also 45-46 (Penelope is fearful throughout the report of Ulysses' attack
on Rhesus until she eventually learns of his safe return) and 59-62. (her frantic search
for more information). Translations are my own.
24 This is, in general terms, the impression of Penelope held by Knox (above,
n.21) on 37-38, 41, 65, 76, and 87-90. He accounts, however, for the sentiments in
Her. 1.15 and 91 in terms other than Penelope's deliberate action.

This content downloaded from 129.11.21.2 on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:22:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 372 STEVEN J. GREEN

an incredible desire to remain faithful and find her husband.25 When

she categorizes Medon as a suitor (91), she may be deliberately
exaggerating the desperation of her plight and her lack of male
guardians to shock Ulysses into returning more quickly-even the
faithful have turned against her now.26 When she exaggerates Ulysses'
role in the attack on Rhesus, she may be again deliberately feign-
ing ignorance to her advantage-the dubious reports that she has
received have painted Ulysses in too good a light; Ulysses will be
aware of this and will again be reminded of the problems Penelope
has in receiving accurate reports.27
In short, I feel that a consistent persona for Penelope can emerge
from Ovid's first epistle if we take into account the advantages
that the heroine could gain by deliberately erring. It has often been
noted with surprise that Penelope does not make more in the let-
ter of her famous act of deceit, the trickery of the web, which
she has been effectively playing on the suitors for many years.
She alludes to it only once in lines 9-10. I suggest, for the rea-
sons given above, that the decision not to mention the web specifically
is a conscious attempt not to draw Ulysses' attention to her obvi-
ous capacity for trickery. Though the web trickery is downplayed,
Ovid's heroine shows herself to be just as devious, if not more
so, than her Homeric counterpart: in Ovid's poem, it is Penelope's
trickery on an intellectual and rhetorical level which is played up.
Albeit in different ways, both Penelopes show themselves to be
the worthy consort of 7roAlVTpOro05 'OhVwu,eo .
My aim in this paper has been, in the first place, to argue
the case for three specific readings. More generally, I have sought
to continue recent discussions which critique the rationale behind
the choices made by modern editors of texts.28 In the continual
pursuit of choosing between manuscript readings or defending a
strange but well-attested manuscript reading, I would argue that
the (sometimes complex) characterization of the primary speaker
has a more important part to play: it might just provide pleasing
solutions to some of the riddles of the ancient text and do justice
to the ingenuity of its author.

The University of Manchester STEVEN J. GREEN

Classical World 97.4 (2004) steven.green@man.ac.uk

25 See Knox (above, n.21) on 37-38. Penelope (unknowingly) cont

self later in the epistle, when she suggests that everyone was unwilling to let Telemachos
go (invitis omnibus, 100): is this an embedded clue to the astute reader of Penelope's
falsehoods in 37-38?
26 See Jacobson (above, n.21) 260.
27 See Knox (above, n.21) on 41, 43.
28 For relatively recent discussions (though along different lines), see Janan (above,
n.4) and P. Miller and C. Platter, "Crux as Symptom: Augustan Elegy and Beyond,"
CW 92 (1999) 445-54.

This content downloaded from 129.11.21.2 on Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:22:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms