Dating_and_authenticity Heroides

knox notes [t]his passage ... provides external evidence date of composition of heroides listed here. collection of heroides attested o[vid] therefore antedates @ least second edition of amores (c. 2 bc), , first (c. 16 bc) ... on view, probable date of composition @ least majority of collection of single heroides ranges between c. 25 , 16 bc, if indeed eventual publication predated of assumed first edition of amores in latter year. regardless of absolute dating, evidence nonetheless suggests single heroides represent of ovid s earliest poetic efforts.

questions of authenticity, however, have inhibited literary appreciation of these poems. joseph farrell identifies 3 distinct issues of importance collection in regard: (1) individual interpolations within single poems, (2) authorship of entire poems possible ovidian impersonator, , (3) relation of double heroides singles, coupled authenticity of secondary collection. discussion of these issues has been focus, if tangentially, of many treatments of heroides in recent memory.

as example following these lines, time scholars debated on whether passage amores—corroborating, does, existence of her. 1–2, 4–7, 10–11, , possibly of 12, 13, , 15—could cited evidence inauthenticity of @ least letters of briseis (3), hermione (8), deianira (9), , hypermnestra (14), if not of medea (12), laodamia (13), , sappho (15). stephen hinds argues, however, list constitutes poetic catalogue, in there no need ovid have enumerated every individual epistle. assertion has been persuasive, , tendency amongst scholarly readings of later 1990s , following has been towards careful , insightful literary explication of individual letters, either proceeding under assumption of, or eye towards proving, ovidian authorship. other studies, eschewing direct engagement issue in favour of highlighting more ingenious elements—and thereby demonstrating high value—of individual poems in collection, have subsumed authenticity debate, implicating through tacit equation of high literary quality ovidian authorship. trend visible in recent monographs on heroides. on other hand, scholars have taken different route, ascribing whole collection 1 or 2 ovidian imitators (the catalogue in am. 2.18, ars am. 3.345–6 , epistulae ex ponto 4.16.13–14, interpolations introduced establish imitations authentic ovid).

with ovid s word viable evidence on matter, existence of second edition of amores regarded potentially questionable (cf. arguments of, e.g. holzberg [1997]).

^ fuller overview of authenticity debate can offered here, see, among others, lachmann (1876), palmer (1898), courtney (1965) , (1998), anderson (1973), reeve (1973), jacobson (1974), tarrant (1981), knox (1986), (1995, esp. introduction), , (2002), kennedy (2002), , lingenberg (2003).
^ farrell (1998).
^ am. 2.18.38 reads et comes extincto laodamia viro ( , laodamia, companion deceased husband ), refer solely subject of poetry of macer, addressed in am. 2.18, or relating macer s works ovid s own compositions, serving evidence, therefore, authenticity of her. 13.
^ critics have argued passage in cruces in line 26—together partner @ line 34 (det votam phoebo lesbis amata lyram – woman of lesbos, loved in return, might offer phoebus promised lyre )—is in fact interpolation.
^ hinds (1993) 30 f., suggestion cited scholars since matter of reflex. cf. also, on her. 12, knox (1986) , heinze (1991–93). more recent discussion of broad implications of passage amores, see knox (2002) 118–21.
^ cf. in particular recent dissertations-turned-published-monographs of lindheim (2003), spentzou (2003), , fulkerson (2005).
^ zwierlein (1999).
^ lingenberg (2003) regards single letters coherently structured work 1 author, published years after ovid s death @ latest , believed authentic ovid seneca; double letters different author, contemporary.