Tereus' Tears: the Performance and Performativity of Crying in Met.6.412

Home , Cleopatra (Greek myth), Philomela, Procne, Tereus

Tereus’ tears: the performance and performativity of crying in Met. 6.412-674

Jessica A. Westerhold University of Tennessee, Knoxville

In book 6 of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, we encounter the gruesome and heartbreaking story of the Athenian princess Procne, her husband Tereus, king of T race, and her sister Philomela (Met. 6.412-674). After returning to Athens in order to fetch Philomela back to T race for a family visit, Tereus is overcome by lust. He returns with the maiden to T race but locks her in a hut in the woods and rapes her repeatedly, cutting out her tongue in order to prevent her from calling for help and revealing his crime. She succeeds in communicating with her sister by means of a woven message, and the two take revenge. T ey kill Tereus’ and Procne’s son, Itys, and feed him to his father. T e three are changed into birds – a hoopoe, a swallow and a nightingale. Scholarship on this passage has fruitfully explored its debt to Greek and Roman tragedy,1 and, in some cases, attempted to reconstruct the lost tragedies of Sophocles and Accius.2 Scholars

1 See, e.g., Curley (1997; 2003; 2013); Gildenhard and Zissos (1999; 2007). 2 See, e.g., Coo (2013); Curley (2003); March (2003). 386 AUGUSTAN POETRY have also noted the metapoetic signif cance of Philomela’s web and the relationship between free speech, power and violence which it may represent.3 In this paper I focus exclusively on the shedding of tears (lacrimae, f etus).4 We may see tears performing emotions – that is, demonstrating to others through gesture a character’s experience of grief (dolor), anticipation of grief, or fear. T ey are also performative – that is, they do something.5 In Ovid’s tale, for example, Tereus’ tears often create a sense of trust. T e emotion grief (dolor) also incites characters to act – specif cally, to seek revenge for a wrong. For Procne, Philomela and Tereus, however, the performance of dolor and action motivated by dolor are mutually exclusive.6 Action motivated by dolor requires the ef ective suppression of its performance

3 See, e.g., Enterline (2000); Gildenhard and Zissos (2007); Joplin (1984); Marder (1991); Richlin (1991); Segal (1994). 4 See Hollenburger-Rusch (2001) for a comprehensive treatment of tears in the Metamorphoses as a whole and 19-29 for an analysis of the poem’s vocabulary of crying. See Osmun (1984) for tears and their function in Roman erotic elegy, including Ovid’s eroto-didactic and epistolary elegy. See James (2003) for the power of the lover to elicit tears from the puella. See further Fögen (2009) for tears in ancient Greece and Rome. 5 I am following Austin’s seminal (1955 [1975]) def nition of performative utterances, a name that “indicates that the issuing of the utterance is the performing of an action” (6). For more recent theoretical developments of Austin’s performative utterance, see e.g., Sedgwick (2003, 3-8 and passim), and (35-38, 61-65), for shame and performativity; and Butler (1993, 1-21 and passim). See Vingerhoets, Bylsma and Rottenberg (2009, 439-75), for a summary of recent studies on the function and ef ect of crying. See de Libero (2009, 210- 22), on “appealing tears” in Livy. See Lateiner (1992; 1996) for the performative functions of non-verbal behavior in Ovid’s Met. in general and (1992, 260-61), and (1996, 234-35), for crying in particular. 6 More often, especially in Greek literature, weeping motivates revenge. Cf. Achilles’ tears and subsequent revenge (Hom. Il.), Electra’s tears and Orestes’ revenge (Aesch., Or.; Soph., El.; Eur., El.), or Lucretia’s tears and the expulsion of the Tarquins (Liv. 1.58-60). For the connection between lament and (male) vengeance in ancient Greek culture and literature, see, e.g., Alexiou (2002 [1974], 21-23, 124-25, 171); Due (2006, 47, 117-35); Foley (2001, 23-25, 145- 71); Holst-Warhaft (1992, 75-97, 140-53); Loraux (1990); Murnaghan (1999, 210-12). In Roman culture and literature, see, e.g., de Libero (2009, 210-11, TEREUS’ TEARS 387 through weeping. Moreover, Tereus, who initially applies tears as a rhetorical technique in the absence of the emotion they perform, undergoes an emotional metamorphosis at the close of the tale. Ironically, while Ovid’s tale represents only the false, performative tears of Tereus as successful, his success creates the circumstances under which he will genuinely experience dolor. Tereus’ performance of grief produces grief. Lateiner (1992) and (1996) has explored the importance of non-verbal communication in Ovid’s Metamorphoses and Hollenburger-Rusch (2001) discusses the function of tears in particular. I chose to focus on weeping in this tale due to its central importance to the myth. Procne and Philomela, associated with the nightingale and swallow, are exemplary in mythology for mourning Procne’s dead son Itys.7 Homer’s Penelope likens herself to Procne mourning her child (Od. 19.518-23). Likewise, Sophocles’ Elektra is compared on three occasions to Procne (El. 107, 148-9, 1077). In the second instance, Elektra pairs Procne with another exemplary lamenting mother, Niobe (150-52), whose story precedes Procne’s in Ovid’s Metamorphoses. It is surprising to f nd that Ovid’s Procne, who is famous for her eternal tears, does very little crying in his version.8 T e narrator closes the tale with the familiar description of the metamorphoses and their signif cance as examples in myth. Neither sister becomes the querulous bird of Homer.

229); Erker (2009, 144-49); Fantham (1999); Keith (2008, 249). In Ovid’s Met., see, e.g., Fantham (2004-2005); McAuley (2012, 151-8 and passim). 7 Procne functions thus elsewhere in Ovid: Am. 3.12.32, concinit Odrysium Cecropis ales Ityn; Ep. 15.154, concinit Ismarium Daulias ales Ityn; Fast. 2.855, Procne, nimium properasse quereris; Fast. 4.482, ut amissum cum gemit ales Ityn; Tr. 2.390, luget …mater Ityn; Tr. 5.1.60, querulam Procnen. Cf. of Philomela: Am. 2.6.7, 10, quereris, Philomela,…magna, sed antiqua est causa doloris Itys. See, e.g., Anderson (1972, 206-37); Loraux (1990, 84-100); Monella (2005) for Procne as an exemplum of the mourning mother in Greek and Roman literature. 8 Itys’ cry (‘mater, mater’, 6.640), Curley (1997) argues, may also replace Procne’s own traditional lament of “Itys, Itys” from Greek poetry, while serving as aetiol- ogy for her lament as an answer to her son’s. 388 AUGUSTAN POETRY

Instead, Ovid’s birds carry the mark of their murderous revenge, “their feathers marked by blood” (signataque sanguine pluma est, 670),9 while Tereus’ metamorphosis is characterized by the grief traditionally associated with the sisters, for the narrator describes him as “swift due to his own grief (dolor) and desire for revenge” (ille dolore suo poenaeque cupidine uelox, 671). Tereus is the f rst character and the last character to cry in the tale. His initial tears are shed while entreating Pandion to entrust Philomela to him, ostensibly on behalf of Procne.10 We are told, however, that Tereus is seized by lust for Philomela at their f rst meeting: “Tereus burned at the sight of the maiden” (exarsit conspecta uirgine Tereus, 455). His desire has already led him to consider the usual comic and elegiac routes to a beloved (her friends, 461; her nurse, 462; and gifts, 463)11 as well as a more epic route (war captive, 464). Finally Tereus focuses his attention on his father-in-law (458-60, 467-74).

digna quidem facies, sed et hunc innata libido exstimulat, pronumque genus regionibus illis in Venerem est; f agrat uitio gentisque suoque. … iamque moras male fert cupidoque reuertitur ore ad mandata Procnes et agit sua uota sub illa. facundum faciebat amor, quotiensque rogabat ulterius iusto, Procnen ita uelle ferebat; addidit et lacrimas, tamquam mandasset et illas. pro superi, quantum mortalia pectora caecae noctis habent! ipso sceleris molimine Tereus creditur esse pius laudemque a crimine sumit.

9 See also Procne in Ovid’s Ars 2.384, where the poet-praeceptor notes signatum sanguine pectus habet; Rem. 60: quae socii damno sanguinis ulta uirum est; of Medea in Am. 2.14.29-30, 32, paired with the lamenting Procne: Colchida respersam puerorum sanguine culpant/ aque sua caesum matre queruntur Ityn… iactura socii sanguinis ulta uirum. 10 Hollenburger-Rusch (2001, 134-8). 11 Curley (2013, 71). TEREUS’ TEARS 389

…Indeed her appearance was worthy, but a natural lust also stimulates him, and the people of that country are prone to lust; he is inf amed by his national vice and his own… He is already bearing the delay badly and is turned with a face of desire back to Procne’s commands and makes his own pleas as if for her. Love was making him eloquent, and whenever he was asking with a little too much enthusiasm, he said that Procne wanted him to do so; he added tears as well, as if she had commanded even these. By the gods, the human heart has such dark blindness! T rough the sheer size of his crime Tereus is trusted to be pious and he earns praise from his crime.12

He pretends to carry out the requests of his wife (sub illa, 468). In truth, he is now secretly speaking on his own behalf (sua vota, 468-70). We are told that love was making him eloquent (facundum, 469). He “adds tears as if she had commanded even these” (et lacrimas, 471). T e tears seem to be the f nal touch which sells his credibility to Pandion (474). The verb addidit highlights their function as a tool, employed at will in order to persuade by arousing pity or sympathy.13 T is was a common rhetorical technique in Ovid’s day.14 Cicero, for example, tells us that he uses tears (lacrimis) when appealing to Caesar on behalf of Quintus Ligarius (Lig. 5.13).

Quodne nos petimus precibus ac lacrimis, strati ad pedes, non tam nostrae causae f dentes quam huius humanitati, id

12 All translations are my own. 13 Hollenburger-Rusch (2001, 136) calls Tereus’ tears “a prop” (“Requisit”) for his theatrical performance. 14 See Hall (2014, 98-128); MacMullen (1980) on the use of tears by Roman rhetoricians and aristocrats in order to arouse pity, gain sympathy and/or demonstrate sincere concern, with further Greek and Latin examples. Vergil’s Anna on behalf of Dido employs tears in her attempt to win back Aeneas at A. 4.413-15, 437-39: Hudson-Williams (1990); MacMullen (1980). See Lateiner (1996, 232-34), on actio and its relevance to Ovid’s poetry. 390 AUGUSTAN POETRY

ne impetremus pugnabis, et in nostrum f etum inrumpes, et nos iacentis ad pedes supplicum uoce prohibebis? Will you f ght against our obtaining what we seek with prayers and tears, prostrate at his feet, putting conf dence not so much in our case than in his humanity, and will you interrupt our weeping, and will you prevent us from lying at his feet with the voice of suppliants?

In de Oratore, Cicero’s M. Antonius reports that he and Marius, on behalf of Manius Aquilius, shed tears (lacrimis) (de Orat. 2.196).

cum C. Marius maerorem orationis meae praesens ac sedens multum lacrimis suis adiuvaret cumque ego illum crebro appellans collegam ei suum commendarem atque ipsum advocatum ad communem imperatorum fortunam defendendam invocarem, non fuit haec sine meis lacrimis, non sine dolore magno miseratio omniumque deorum et hominum et civium et sociorum imploratio. quibus omnibus verbis, quae a me tum sunt habita, si dolor afuisset meus, non modo non miserabilis, sed etiam inridenda fuisset oratio mea. quam ob rem hoc vos doceo, Sulpici, bonus ego videlicet atque eruditus magister, ut in dicendo irasci, ut dolere, ut f ere possitis.

When Gaius Marius who was in attendance and seated greatly augmented the sadness of my speech with his own tears and when I, frequently calling upon him, was entrusting his own colleague to him and I was calling him as advocate to defend the shared fate of the leaders, this pity and call for help from every god and human and citizen and ally was not unaccompanied by my own tears nor great grief. If my own grief had been absent from all of these words which then were spoken by me, my speech would have been not only not pitiable, but even ridiculous. T erefore I teach you this, Sulpicius, clearly as a good and educated teacher, so that you can be angry, aggrieved, tearful when speaking.

Antonius maintains that the speaker will not be successful unless he genuinely feels the emotions himself (189-94) and TEREUS’ TEARS 391 claims that he cried because of his own “grief ” (dolor, 195). Later, in book 3 of de Oratore, Cicero’s Crassus elaborates the performance of genuine emotion by an orator (de Orat. 3.214-16).

haec eo dico pluribus, quod genus hoc totum oratores, qui sunt veritatis ipsius actores, reliquerunt, imitatores autem veritatis histriones occupaverunt. ac sine dubio in omni re vincit imitationem veritas; sed ea si satis in actione ef ceret ipsa per sese, arte profecto non egeremus. verum quia animi permotio, quae maxime aut declaranda aut imitanda est actione, perturbata saepe ita est ut obscuretur ac paene obruatur, discutienda sunt ea, quae obscurant, et ea, quae sunt eminentia et prompta sumenda. omnis enim motus animi suum quendam a natura habet voltum et sonum et gestum;

The reason I speak of these things at such length is because the orators, who are the agents of truth itself, have neglected this entire category; actors, however, imitators of the truth, have taken it over. And there is no doubt that truth surpasses imitation in every way; but if this very thing were accomplishing enough in delivery on its own, we would not need skill at all. But because emotion, which especially must be made clear or imitated in delivery, often is so mixed up that it is obscure and almost concealed, what obscures must be removed, and what is distinctive and visible must be taken up. For every emotion has by nature a certain unique expression and sound and gesture…

In this passage, he emphasizes the importance of actio (“delivery”) for the rhetorician, for which tears may be employed as they were in the last two examples. He calls the orator a performer of “truth itself ” (veritatis ipsius, 214) by contrast to actors (histriones) who merely imitate the truth.15 Emotions (animi permotio, 215), moreover, each have their own distinctive

15 See, e.g., Gunderson (2000, 111-48 and passim), for the issue of authenticity and emotional performances in oratory and the orator’s troubled resemblance to the actor. 392 AUGUSTAN POETRY

(eminentia) and visible (prompta) physical characteristics (215- 216), which are often hard to detect. T e orator, therefore, must stylize the real emotion with the oculi, vox and gestus (214) peculiar to that motus animi in order to make it obvious to the audience. Quintilian similarly recommends adopting the emotions of one’s client. He of ers the example of actors who bring themselves to tears (f entes) at the end of a scene (Inst. 6.2.35) and attests (in the following section) to being moved to tears (lacrimae, 36) himself.16 In contrast to the advocate’s genuine weeping as a performance of genuine sympathetic emotion, Ovid’s Tereus applies deceitful tears. He opportunistically exploits the trust of his audience, Pandion. T e tears of an advocate, according to Antonius, are persuasive because they are (presumed to be) shed in sincere sympathy with one’s client and their suf ering. Tereus, by contrast, simulates this strategy – crying in order to convey his wife’s strong feeling and his own sympathetic emotion. Pandion trusts Tereus, for he is his af ne and his military ally. In reality, Tereus’ tears, disguised as Procne’s longing for her beloved sister, are in fact motivated by his own lust for the same woman. T is lust, moreover, is marked by dif erence. T e narrator tells us that T racians have a proclivity to lust (458-60). He is not the trustworthy man Pandion takes him to be. We may compare his deceitful tears to other contemporary representations. In Livy’s extant books, deceitful tears never belong to Romans.17 de Libero (2009, 215-16) only notes two examples, the Cibyrian tyrant Moagetes (38.14.14) and Macedonian prince Perseus (40.12.3). Moagetes employs deceitful tears (simulatis lacrimis, 38.14.14) in order to obtain

16 T e rhetor of ad Herennium 2.31.50, however, admonishes the speaker not to linger too long in appeal to pity, for “nothing dries more quickly than tears” (nihil enim lacrima citius arescit). 17 See further Lateiner (2009, 131), on Cleopatra’s fake tears in Plutarch’s Life of Antony 53.4 as a means of portraying Cleopatra’s manipulativeness. TEREUS’ TEARS 393 mercy from the Roman consul Gnaeus Manlius in 189 B.C.E. In 182 B.C.E. the Macedonian prince Demetrius accuses his brother Perseus of simulating tears (simulatis lacrimis, 40.12.3) which, in turn, has made his own real tears (veras lacrimas) suspicious. It is noteworthy that the Macedonian Demetrius is both a victim of his treacherous brother, the false weeper, and Demetrius is a friend to the Romans. In erotic elegy we see deceitful tears used primarily by women. T e amator in Propertius 3.25.5-7 accuses Cynthia, for example, of manipulating him with tears which are called an ars associated with treachery (insidiae).18 In his Remedia Amoris 689-90, Ovid’s praeceptor warns his male pupils to be wary of women’s tears (lacrimis) because they have taught their eyes how to weep (f ere).19 T e qualitative dif erence between deceitful tears and persuasive tears seems to be in the motivation. Tereus’ crying as Procne’s advocate is good rhetorical technique, but deceitful tears employed for self sh reasons is another sign of his dif erence. Despite being deceitful, his tears are successful in accomplishing Tereus’ goals, which resemble Procne’s at the outset, but will harm her and her family in the end.

18 Fögen (2009, 179-208), cites further, e.g., Prop. 1.15; Ovid, Am. 2.2. Cf. Ter. Eu., where Parmeno warns Phaedria that T ais, a courtesan, will be able to shift blame from herself to Phaedria with “one little fake tear” (una mehercle falsa lacrimula/ Quam oculos terendo misere uix ui expresserit, 67-68); and Catul. 66.16, where the lock of Berenice wonders whether virgins frustrate their eager grooms with false little tears (frustrantur falsis gaudia lacrimulis, 66.16). Hall (2014, 110 n. 37) suggests that Cicero’s critic, Laterensis, at Planc. 76 (discussed below, n. 20) may have been quoting Ter. Eu. (cf. una falsa lacrimula and tuam lacrimulam), associating Cicero’s emotional plea with the scheming tears of a foreign prostitute. 19 Dipsas instructs the puella at Am. 1.8.83 to let her eyes learn how to cry: discant oculi lacrimare coacti; Osmun (1984, 47). Fögen (2009) and Gildenhard and Zissos (2007, 2.25 and n. 55) also note Ovid’s praeceptor in the Ars recommends false tears to his male and female students (1.659-662; 2.197-202; 3.673-82). Hardie (2002, 267, n. 17) comments that Tereus may have learned his tricks from book 3.677. T e instruction for male pupils are in the interest of winning and maintaining a beloved, which one may argue is not very dif erent from Tereus’. While the tears may be faked, the goal will be transparent. T e lover’s interest in winning and keeping the beloved is not concealed, as Tereus’ goal is. 394 AUGUSTAN POETRY

As we saw, Tereus “added” (addidit, 471) his tears. By contrast, Pandion has no control over his (Met. 494-510): lux erat, et generi dextram conplexus euntis Pandion comitem lacrimis commendat obortis: “hanc ego, care gener, quoniam pia causa coegit et uoluere ambae (uoluisti tu quoque, Tereu), do tibi perque f dem cognataque pectora supplex, per superos oro, patrio ut tuearis amore et mihi sollicitae lenimen dulce senectae quam primum (omnis erit nobis mora longa) remittas. tu quoque quam primum (satis est procul esse sororem), si pietas ulla est, ad me, Philomela, redito.” mandabat pariterque suae dabat oscula natae, et lacrimae mites inter mandata cadebant. utque f de pignus dextras utriusque poposcit inter seque datas iunxit natamque nepotemque absentes pro se memori rogat ore salutent, supremumque “uale” pleno singultibus ore uix dixit timuitque suae praesagia mentis.

It was light, and Pandion embraces his departing son-in- law’s right hand and entrusts him with his daughter as companion as tears rose up: “Dear son-in-law, because a pious reason compels it and both sisters wish it (you want it too, Tereus) I give her to you and by your word and our kin hearts, by the gods above, I supplicate and beseech you to guard her with a father’s love and to send back this sweet solace to my anxious old age as soon as possible (every delay will seem long to me); and you too, Philomela, as soon as possible (it is hard enough that your sister is far), if you have any sense of duty, come back to me.” He was making these requests and giving kisses to his daughter in equal measure, and gentle tears were falling amid his requests. He requested their right hands as a pledge of their loyalty and he joined their hands between them and asked them to greet his absent daughter and grandson for him with words of remembrance, and he scarcely said his last goodbye because his voice was full of sobs and he feared his mind’s foreboding. TEREUS’ TEARS 395

His tears rise up in a passive ablative construction (lacrimis…obortis, 495) as he embraces his son-in-law and entrusts Philomela, called “companion”, to Tereus’ care (494- 95). Pandion continues to cry while entreating both travelers to consider his paternal love and show their piety by returning Philomela to him soon (496-503). Pandion’s tears appear of their own accord, as if a natural, physical response to the emotional moment. T ey continue and their quality of gentleness (mites, 505) suggests a lack of force or compulsion. T ese tears are involuntary and independent of Pandion’s intentions. Pandion’s last goodbye is punctuated and almost prevented by his sobs: supremumque “uale” pleno singultibus ore/ uix dixit (509-10). Livy tells us that the Macedonian prince Demetrius, in the speech cited earlier, began his speech with dif culty because weeping (f etus) prevented him: “T en there was a long silence, since it was clear to all that he was f ooded by weeping and could not speak. Finally necessity itself overcame grief, since they ordered him to speak, and so he began” (Deinde diu fuit silentium, cum perfusum f etu appareret omnibus loqui non posse. Tandem uicit dolorem ipsa necessitas, cum dicere iuberent, atque ita orsus est, 40.12.2). We may also see tears interrupt the sincere speech of Cicero in his defense of Plancius (104): “your tears, and yours, judges, not just my own, prevent me from saying many things” (plura ne dicam tuae me etiam lacrimae inpediunt vestraeque, iudices, non solum meae). T is tearful interruption demonstrates Cicero’s genuine and deeply felt emotion, as Pandion’s sobs demonstrate his own.20 Despite

20 In the same speech Cicero defends his emotional rhetoric from an earlier trial of P. Cispius. He quotes the defendant who seems to have accused him of pretending to cry: et mihi lacrimulam Cispiani iudici obiectas. sic enim dixistis: “vidi ego tuam lacrimulam,” (Planc. 76). His response is to claim to have wept profusely, demonstrating his sincerity: non modo lacrimulam, sed multas lacrimas et f etum cum singultu videre potuist, (Planc. 76). See Hall (2014, 109-28), for a full discussion with further bibliography. See also Hutchinson (1998, 32), for analogs in Cicero’s letters, where tears are given as an excuse for not writing. Cf. also Cicero in his defense of Marcus Caelius Rufus. Recalling the late Quintus Metellus Celer, the orator says that remembering him weakens his voice with 396 AUGUSTAN POETRY the genuine feeling motivating his tears, Pandion’s weeping is unsuccessful in eliciting Tereus’ sympathy and cooperation.21 As Philomela is being abducted, tears accompany questions about her sister (Met. 6.521-26):

in stabula alta trahit, siluis obscura uetustis, atque ibi pallentem trepidamque et cuncta timentem et iam cum lacrimis ubi sit germana rogantem includit fassusque nefas et uirginem et unam ui superat, frustra clamato saepe parente, saepe sorore sua, magnis super omnia diuis.

[Tereus] drags [Philomela] into a hut hidden by an ancient forest, and there growing pallid and trembling and fearing everything and now asking with tears where her sister is he locks her in and after saying the unsayable he overcomes by force a maiden all alone while her father’s name is shouted out in vain, often her sister’s name, above all the names of the great gods.

We are not told that the tears rose up of their own accord, but she doesn’t begin her speech until after her reason is restored (mens rediit, 531), suggesting that she is temporarily unable to act with reason or intention. T e tears, we are left to surmise, are an automatic physical reaction to her distress along with other physical symptoms – her pale complexion and trembling (522,

weeping and distracts his mind: sed reuertor ad crimen; etenim haec facta illius clarissimi ac fortissimi uiri mentio et uocem meam f etu debilitauit et mentem dolore impediuit (Cic. Cael. 60). 21 Pandion’s unsuccessful lacrimae obortae may be compared to Lucretia’s successful lacrimae obortae (Liv. 1.58.7). Like Pandion, Lucretia’s tears “well up” before she asks for right hands and a promise (date dexteras f demque) in the swearing of an oath to avenge her rape. Livy tells us that the men “give their promise” (dant ordine omnes f dem, 1.58.9), whereas Ovid’s narrator makes no mention of Philomela’s or Tereus’ response to Pandion’s requests. On the Livian Lucretia’s tears, see de Libero (2009, 210-11). See Feldherr (2010, 199-39); Pavlock (1991, 36-37) for the interplay of Ovid’s epic tale of Philomela and his elegiac tale of Lucretia in the Fasti. TEREUS’ TEARS 397

527) – for when she regains her wits (mens), her words are not accompanied by tears (Met. 6.531-36):

mox ubi mens rediit, passos laniata capillos, [lugenti similis, caesis plangore lacertis,] intendens palmas “o diris barbare factis, o crudelis” ait, “nec te mandata parentis cum lacrimis mouere piis nec cura sororis nec mea uirginitas nec coniugialia iura?”

Soon after her reason returned, tearing at her loosened hair[, like one in mourning, arms scratched from striking], stretching out her palms she said “O terrible man barbaric because of your deeds, O cruel one, did the pious and tearful requests of my father not move you nor a concern for my sister nor my maidenhood nor your marriage vows?”

Instead of crying, Philomela cites her father’s tears, which she expects to have the same utility as Tereus’ rhetorical tears. She calls Tereus cruel because he failed to be moved by Pandion’s tearful commands. Cum lacrimis … piis (535) surrounds the verb mouere, emphasizing their role in persuading the listener. Just as Tereus’ insincere crying, like his lust, marks him as a deceitful foreigner to the external audience, so Philomela remarks his dif erence by his failure to be moved by the sincere and pious performance of grief.22 Unlike her father, Philomela recognizes this dif erence and replaces tears with threats to expose his crimes. Neither strategy is ef ective. Her tears fail to elicit sympathy and mercy, and her threats elicit anger and fear (549, 550).23

22 As Pavlock (1991, 38), notes, quoting this line, Philomela represents pietas and normative family roles in contrast to Tereus. 23 de Libero (2009, 217-18), notes the importance of context and performance to the success of tears in Livy: “Ill-timed mourning tears can, in fact, prove fatal” (218). She cites as an example Horatia’s lament at Liv. 1.26.2-5. In the case of performative utterances, Austin (1975, 12-24; 34-38), observed a similar result, which he termed “Infelicities” or, more specif cally, “Misinvocations,” where the 398 AUGUSTAN POETRY

Tereus uses tears once again in order to deceive Procne: “But [Tereus] feigns laments and tells the story of a false funeral and his tears earned him trust” (dat gemitus f ctos commentaque funera narrat,/ et lacrimae fecere f dem, Met. 6.565-66). Here their function and success are stated more explicitly by the narrator. Like his feigned groans of mourning, Tereus’ tears perform grief and create trust (f des),24 and Procne believes the contrived story of Philomela’s death. We are not told that Procne sheds any tears when Tereus tells her about Philomela. She is only described as mourning, in appropriate attire, a sister who should not be mourned (et luget non sic lugendae fata sororis, Met. 6.570). Et luget (570) echoes et lacrimas (471, of Tereus) and et lacrimae (505, of Pandion), and less closely et iam cum lacrimis (523, of Philomela). T e contrast highlights a dif erence in behavior; for lugere (“to mourn”) is neither an emotion nor does it presume lacrimae (“tears”) or f etus (“weeping”). It is a ritualized performance of grief.25 Procne does not cry when she reads Philomela’s woven carmen miserabile “sad song”. In fact, Procne has no time for tears (Met. 6.581-86):

euoluit uestes saeui matrona tyranni germanaeque suae carmen miserabile legit et (mirum potuisse) silet. dolor ora repressit, uerbaque quaerenti satis indignantia linguae defuerunt; nec f ere uacat, sed fasque nefasque confusura ruit poenaeque in imagine tota est.

T e savage king’s wife unrolled the cloak and read the sad song of her sister and (a wonder that it was possible) she is silent. Grief held back her voice, and to her searching

“particular persons and circumstances in a given case” are not “appropriate for the invocation of the particular procedure invoked” (15). 24 Segal (1994, 263); Hollenburger-Rusch (2001, 137). 25 For female lament in ancient Rome, see, e.g., Corbeill (2004, 67-106); Dutsch (2008); Erker (2009); Fantham (1999); Keith (2008); Loraux (1990, 19-48); Richlin (2001). TEREUS’ TEARS 399

tongue, words expressing enough outrage were not there; nor is there time to weep, but mixing up right and wrong she rushes out and is entirely the image of vengeance.

After rescuing her sister, Philomela seems to have begun weeping; for Procne criticizes Philomela for crying (Met. 6.609-13):

…pro uoce manus fuit. ardet et iram non capit ipsa suam Procne f etumque sororis corripiens “non est lacrimis hoc” inquit “agendum, sed ferro, sed si quid habes, quod uincere ferrum possit.”

…, instead of a voice there was gesture. Procne is on f re and does not contain her anger and stopping short her sister’s weeping, she said “this must not be done by tears but by sword, or if you have anything else which can surpass a sword.”

It is not clear whether Philomela’s tears are voluntary or involuntary. T e context recommends her voluntary performance of tears in order to elicit sympathy from Procne. T e narrator describes her desire to speak in her own defense, a familiar context for rhetorical tears. T e narrator also describes her use of gesture in place of words (pro uoce manus fuit, 609).26 As we noted earlier, delivery (actio) required oculi vox and gestus. In fact, Cicero’s Crassus deems it the most important aspect of rhetoric (de Orat. 3.213). Actio includes, and in certain circumstances such as this one, demands, tears. Philomela appears to have improved her rhetorical skills, but she has again misjudged, not the audience, but the context. Procne tells her that the occasion calls for the sword, not tears (611-12). Procne’s suppression of weeping for them both indicates her conscious decision to choose action over

26 See Lateiner (1996, 244-47), for gesture used in place of words in Met. 14. 400 AUGUSTAN POETRY persuasion.27 Procne has correctly judged her audience (he is her husband, of course). She knows, as we do and as Philomela learned, that Tereus is unable to be moved by the emotions of others. Instead of crying, Procne becomes “entirely the image of revenge” (poenaeque in imagine tota est, 586) and takes up a sword (ferro, 612). Here we may see that dolor, as a stimulus to action, excludes the rhetorical performance of dolor. Procne’s dolor, to the surprise of the narrator, has reduced her to silence (et (mirum potuisse) silet, 583).28 Procne, however, does soon cry (Met. 6.627-30):

mota quidem est genetrix, infractaque constitit ira inuitique oculi lacrimis maduere coactis. sed simul ex nimia mentem pietate labare sensit, ab hoc iterum est ad uultus uersa sororis

As a mother she was indeed moved, and her shattered anger halted and unwilling eyes grew wet with welling tears. But as soon as she perceived that her mind was slipping from excessive piety, again from [Itys] she turned to her sister…

27 Hollenburger-Rusch (2001, 41, n. 148). 28 Hardie (2002, 268), notes that Procne “is deprived of the means by which Tereus had maintained control of the plot, words and tears.” Fantham (2004-2005, 117 and passim) identif es the same speechlessness in Ovid’s epic Ceres after she is told of Persephone’s fate (Met. 5.509-10), leading to a grievous dolor (511), and in Hecuba upon discovering Polydorus’ body (13.538-40; 123). Fantham further notes the connection of dolor with both grief and vengeance (117, 123). Hecuba’s speechless tears rise up (lacrimas…obortas, 539) like Pandion’s, but her ira leads to revenge (13.544-46). Compare Althaea (luctus et a lacrimis in poenae uersus amorem est, 8.450) and Hecuba (poenaeque in imagine tota est, 13.546) to Procne at 6.586; Curley (2003, 185-86); Fantham (2004-2005, 118, 123). See further Lateiner (1996, 237-38), on the syntax of stupefaction in Verg. A. and Ovid Met., which “imitates the momentary stillness…reported” with a pattern of enjambment, caesural pauses and choppy phrasing (238). cf. Procne’s silence: defuerunt; || nec f ere uacat, || sed fasque nefasque, 6.585. Curley (2003, 190-91) and Feldherr (2010, 209, 230) remark the reversal of positions. In Ovid’s narrative, notes Feldherr, Procne’s silence signals her identif cation with the mute Philomela. Curley hypothesizes Procne’s Ovidian silence reverses her Sophoclean eloquence, while Philomela’s Ovidian speech reverses her Sophoclean silence. TEREUS’ TEARS 401

Like her father’s, Procne’s tears, in the ablative, swell and wet her unwilling eyes (628).29 T is is what Procne is known for, eternally weeping over the loss of her child. In Ovid’s version, she and her father cry when they anticipate this loss.30 As soon as (simul, 629) Procne perceives her maternal feeling, she reminds herself of her sister’s mistreatment (629-30) and there is no further mention of tears. Tereus is the last character to weep when his son Itys is revealed to be the meal he has consumed (Met. 6.661-73):

T racius ingenti mensas clamore repellit uipereasque ciet Stygia de ualle sorores; et modo, si posset, reserato pectore diras egerere inde dapes semesaque uiscera gestit, f et modo seque uocat bustum miserabile nati, nunc sequitur nudo genitas Pandione ferro. corpora Cecropidum pennis pendere putares; pendebant pennis! quarum petit altera siluas, altera tecta subit; neque adhuc de pectore caedis excessere notae, signataque sanguine pluma est. ille dolore suo poenaeque cupidine uelox uertitur in uolucrem, cui stant in uertice cristae, prominet immodicum praelonga cuspide rostrum.

T e T racian pushes away the table loudly and calls upon the snaky sisters from the Stygian valley; and now, if only he could, he wants to open up his chest and vomit forth the terrible feast and half-digested organs, now he weeps and calls himself his son’s sad tomb, now he pursues Pandion’s of spring with a naked sword. You would think that the Athenian women’s bodies were gliding on wings; they were gliding on wings! One of them headed for the forest, the other f ew under the roof; still the signs of the

29 See Hollenburger-Rusch (2001, 40-41). 30 Many have recognized in Procne’s speech the speech given by Medea before she kills her own sons (Eur., Med. 1021-80). See Anderson (1972, 231-32); Ciappi (1998, 445-47); Feldherr (2009, 35; 2010, 203); Gildenhard and Zissos (2007, 3.29); Larmour (1990, 132); Newlands (1997, 192-95); Pavlock (1991, 43-44). 402 AUGUSTAN POETRY

murder have not faded from their chest, and their feathers are marked with blood. [Tereus] swift because of his grief and a desire for revenge is turned into a bird, whose crest stands up on his head, an immoderate beak stretches out as far as a very long spear.

He calls upon the Furies (662), wishes to tear open his chest or vomit up his meal (663-64), but f rst he weeps (f et modo, 665). For a moment weeping precludes action. T e correlatives modo… modo…nunc (663, 665, 666) suggests he f rst cries and then pursues the sisters. As mentioned above, Tereus’ transformation is introduced by a full line describing him as “swift due to his grief and desire for revenge” (ille dolore suo poenaeque cupidine uelox, 671). Tears speak in this passage. T ey communicate emotions – grief or longing for an absent loved one, the anticipation of this kind of loss, or fear. In addition to the emotions com- municated by tears, the narrator makes clear to us readers the sincerity of the tearful performances. Pandion’s and Procne’s weeping is represented as unconscious physical responses to the anticipated loss of a child. Pandion has no grammatical control over his tears which are described f rst in an ablative absolute (lacrimis … obortis, 495), next as the subject of their own verb (lacrimae mites … cadebant, 505) and f nally as an ablative of means (pleno singultibus ore, 509). Procne’s are also represented as an ablative of means in a sentence governed by the subject “eyes” qualif ed as “unwilling” (inuitique oculi lacrimis maduere coactis, 628). While Philomela’s own tears could be interpreted as rhetorical – employed in order to elicit pity – nevertheless, her emotion is marked as genuine. In the f rst instance tears attend (cum lacrimis, 523) her terror which has temporarily left her senseless. When Procne later stops her weeping, Philomela’s genuine feeling of shame is marked by the narrator’s description of her gesture and psychological state (Met. 6.605-9): TEREUS’ TEARS 403

amplexumque petit; sed non attollere contra sustinet haec oculos, paelex sibi uisa sororis, deiectoque in humum uultu iurare uolenti testarique deos per uim sibi dedecus illud inlatum, pro uoce manus fuit….

and [Procne] tried to embrace [Philomela]; but [Philomela] cannot bear to raise her eyes to meet [her sister’s], because she seemed to herself to be the other woman, and, while her eyes were cast on the ground, she, who wanted to swear and call to witness the gods that that shame was forced upon her, had hands in place of a voice…

T e sisters’ sincere tears stand in contrast to Tereus’, whose false tears and inability to “feel” in response to genuine tears are explicitly noted by the narrator (471, 565-66) and by Philomela (535). In each case the grammar marks lacrimae as an addition: et lacrimae/as (471, 505); lacrimis obortis (495); cum lacrimis (523, 535). Tears attend the emotion, simulated or real, but do not themselves constitute emotion. T ey also attend speech. In every case the weeping character is speaking, has spoken or will soon. T e verb f ere and the noun f etus are also used in this passage and, in the case of Procne’s injunction to Philomela, together with lacrimae (610-11): “reproaching her sister’s weeping (f etum), she says “this must not be accomplished with tears” (lacrimis).” While f ere and f etus also describe weeping, the words seem to mark a qualitative dif erence in the behavior.31

31 TLL s.v. “f eo” de sensu quotes Servius ad A. 11.59 and Dif . ed. Beck, 66, who dif erentiate f eo from lacrimare as a vocalized weeping and a more serious weeping respectively. Serv. ad A. 11.59: f ere enim est cum voce lacrimare; Dif . ed. Beck, 66: lacrimare levis strictura cordis est, f ere gravioris af ectus est, plorare violentioris. Flere and lacrimare, however, often are synonyms. See TLL s.v. “f eo” I. “intranstive: A proprie i.q. lacrimas ef undere, lacrimare necnon plorare.” Compare TLL s.v. “f etus” de notione Servius ad A. 6.427 (= Isid. Dif . 1.425): sane ploratus tantum lacrimarum est, plactus tantum vocum, f etus ad utrumque pertinent. quae plerumque confundunt poetae. See also Maltby s.v. “f eo” citing Isid. Dif . 1.227; Orig. 10.111, who further def nes f eo as the pouring (fundere, f uere) of tears (lacry(i)mae). Cf. Ernout and Meillet s.v. “f eo” 404 AUGUSTAN POETRY

By contrast to the rhetorical performance of emotion, which lacrimae have represented throughout this passage, f ere appears to describe a dif erent embodied grieving, but one which is still the physical reaction to an emotion and able to be controlled. T e verb is f rst used to describe Procne and Philomela, who interrupt weeping (585, 610) in order to do something else with their bodies. Tereus weeps (f et, 665) when he learns the fate of his son. T is weeping, described as f ere, is dif erentiated from and appears to obstruct action.32 Comparing other instances of lacrimare/ae and f ere/f etus in Met. 6, we may see a similar distinction. T e f rst instance is found on Minerva’s weaving, where she represents Cinyras shedding tears (lacrimare, 100). In an artistic representation, lacrimae may be understood as the symbolic signs of grief. Here the representation is intended by the artist to elicit sympathy, as Pandion’s and Philomela’s tears are. T e next instance is, unsurprisingly, found in the Niobe episode, where the tears of her friends alert Niobe to the seriousness of her situation (lacrimaeque suorum/ tam subitae matrem certam fecere ruinae, 267-68). Again we may see lacrimae as the sign of emotion and a form of communication. In this passage the performance is also performative. Just as Tereus’ tears generate trust in his words, the tears of Niobe’s friends generate awareness in Niobe. At the end of her tale (310-12), we see a collocation

32 Hollenburger-Rusch (2001, 54-55), notes the contrast between passive weeping and active revenge and suggests the pause for weeping could prevent violent action: “Die Tränen stehen hier antithetisch zu ferro als Symbol und Metonymie komplexer seelischer Zustände. Durch und in Tränen kann ein Verarbeitungsprozess (oder eine Überlegung) in Gang gesetzt werden, der den Racheimpuls verstummen läβt” (55). Looking back again at Cic. Cael. 60, cited above n. 20, f etus accompanying dolor brief y distracts and interrupts Cicero’s speech: mentio et uocem meam f etu debilitauit et mentem dolore impediuit. de Libero (2009, 229), notes “crying prevents action” in Tacitus Hist. 5.3.1 and Ann. 15.16.4. In Vergil’s Aeneid 9.498-502, the weeping of Euryalus’ mother (hoc f etu, 498) stops the action of the Trojan soldiers and makes them weep. See further, e.g., Erker (2009, 144); Fantham (1999, 225); Sharrock (2011). TEREUS’ TEARS 405 of lacrimae and f e r e . Transformed into stone, Niobe cannot move, “nevertheless, she weeps” (f et tamen, 310). T e marble continues to “drip tears” (lacrimas…manant, 312). An observer knows that this rock grieves because it weeps (f ere) and sheds tears (lacrimae) performing the emotion. Following Niobe’s transformation there is a brief inset narrative in which we hear other tales about the wrath of Latona and Apollo. In the f nal tale, the woodland inhabitants, divine and mortal, weep over (f erunt, 394) Marsyas’ fate. T e resulting tears (lacrimas, 397) are transformed by the soaked earth into a clear stream.33 As a language of grief lacrimae are able to be translated. Returning to the Niobe narrative, Pelops alone is said to grieve for (f esse, 404) his sister Niobe. Weeping (f ere) and tears (lacrimae) are a performance of af ect. Tears (lacrimae) are also performative and communicate in order to create trust and/or sympathy. In each case, the performance of the emotion constitutes “speech” that does something, to be distinguished from physical “action.” All of the characters follow the precepts of the Roman orators cited earlier. Lacrimae are employed as a means to elicit sympathy and thereby persuade an addressee to act according to one’s desire – grant a favor, keep an oath, be merciful, or forgive a transgression. Not surprisingly, the civilized Athenians are more Roman in their sincere performance of emotion, while the T racian king behaves more like Livy’s foreign (and Greek) weepers or elegy’s manipulative crying puellae.34 As Feldherr (2009, 41) has noted, the Athenians are credulous audience members for Tereus’ performances. T is representation may be identifying the Athenians as kindhearted. T eir capacity for sympathy toward Tereus’ performance is contrasted to his

33 See Feldherr (2004, 81-82, 87), for the connection between Marsyas’ stream and poetic creation. 34 Feldherr (2010, 212) suggests that the Athenians sophistication and Tereus’ marked barbarity would encourage Roman sympathy for Pandion and his daughters. See also, e.g., Segal (1994, 263 and passim). 406 AUGUSTAN POETRY lack of sympathy. T is representation, however, may also be interpreted as a failure to recognize Tereus’ true character. As a direct result of Pandion’s and Philomela’s mistake, their tearful speeches are inef ective. Tereus is the wrong audience because he is unable to feel with (be sympathetic to) them. While the tears of the genuine feelers are inef ective, Tereus’ fake tears are very ef ective.35 T e passage, however, does not privilege deceitful, foreign rhetorical tricks. For weeping as a form of persuasion is, in the end, less ef ective as a means of overcoming or preventing the negative emotion it performs. Tereus’ fake tears, moreover, produce the circumstances that result in his genuine experience of the emotion he pretends to perform.36 By suppressing the performance of hers and her sister’s dolor, Procne is able to

35 As Hardie (2002, 271), observes, Tereus’ genuine tears, which he f nally sheds at the end of the tale, are as inef ective as the Athenians’. Lateiner (1996, 225-26 and passim), also noted this pattern in non-verbal behaviors more generally in Met. 14. Lateiner (1996, 249), further observes that 40% of non-verbal behaviors mentioned by Ovid in Met. 14 are “conscious, voluntary, therefore controllable and falsif able.” de Libero (2009, 225) identif es a similar representation of crying in Tacitus, where, for both men and women, “seldom is the shedding of tears depicted as an honest, heartfelt plea for an honourable cause.” Noting a dif erence in the representation of weeping between Livy and Tacitus, de Libero (2009, 222-29), suggests that the increased danger of honest speech during the Principate may be one cause. 36 In the end, Tereus has inadvertently followed the precepts of Cicero’s Antonius and Quintilian. Not only has he sympathetically shared the dolor of Procne “in her place” (sub illa), he appears to have taken her place in the mythological tradition. Such a phenomenon is attested by Seneca Rhetor and recommended by Ovid’s praeceptor amoris. Gallus Vibius, according to Seneca, so well performed madness that he himself becomes mad (Con. 2.1.25: nam dum insanos imitator, dum lenocinium ingeni furorem putat, quod toties simulabat ad verum redegit). See Baumgarten (2009, 88-89), for Plato on the danger of mimesis in poetry. In his erotodidactic poems, Ovid’s praeceptor enjoins his pupils to simulate emotions, for through performance they will become sincere (A.A. 1.611, 616: est tibi agendus amans imitandaque uulnera uerbis;/…saepe, quod incipiens f nxerat esse, fuit; Rem. 497-98, 504: quod non es, simula, positosque imitare furores:/ sic facies uere, quod meditatus eris./… qui poterit sanum f ngere, sanus erit). Likewise, the Ovidian Tereus so well performed Procne that he becomes her. TEREUS’ TEARS 407 redirect this emotion towards action. Tereus’ suppression is too late. He is transformed before he exacts his vengeance. He is left, therefore, with his grief and a longing for revenge (dolore suo poenaeque cupidine, 671).37 Pandion, too, dies from grief (Hic dolor ante diem longaeque extrema senectae/ tempora Tartareas Pandiona misit ad umbras, 675-76). By contrast, both Procne and Philomela feel joy as they take their revenge. T e narrator states that “Procne could not pretend that she was not feeling a cruel joy” (dissimulare nequit crudelia gaudia Procne, 653) and that “never before did Philomela want to be able to speak and testify to her joy more” (nec tempore maluit ullo/ posse loqui et meritis testari gaudia dictis, 659-60). It is noteworthy that Tereus’ false tears were shed in the service of obtaining his own joy (exsultatque et uix animo sua gaudia dif ert, 6.514).38 Violence, not communication, frees the sisters from their famous fate of weeping. T e blood of their revenge marks their Ovidian transformation, replacing the sound of their mournful song (neque adhuc de pectore caedis/ excessere notae, signataque sanguine pluma est, 669-70).39 Ovid’s depiction of weeping, furthermore, may ensure that his external audience approves the outcome and, at least temporarily, f nds himself promoting the violence of a second Tereus – Boreas – in the f nal tale of the book. Feldherr (2010, 202) has demonstrated that Procne becomes her antithesis, Tereus, at the moment she identif es against him with his victim Philomela. T e narrative signals this in a variety of ways, including a simile comparing her to a tigress (636-37) and through her deceptive disguise of revenge with a pious ritual, a Terean strategy.40 Likewise, the emotional transformation

37 Feldherr (2010, 227), notes that Tereus “sings” Procne’s song by repeating Itys (Met. 6.652, 656). 38 Segal (1994, 268-69). 39 Feldherr (2010, 226). 40 See further Feldherr (2010, 216-17), on the tale’s collapse of the categories barbarian and Athenian in this tale. See Gildenhard and Zissos (1999, 165- 408 AUGUSTAN POETRY into one’s antithesis does not happen for Ovid’s ideal Roman reader through mimesis as it does for Tereus and as Greek and Roman philosophers as early as Plato feared, but through rejection. A good Roman would, like Cicero’s audience, be moved by the genuine tears of the Athenians. We are guided to identify with them and against Tereus both by their familiar performance of grief and fear and by the multiple ways the narrative marks his foreignness, including his non-Roman exploitation of the Roman-Athenians’ sympathies. His deceitful tears reinforce our disgust toward him and our sympathy with the Athenians. T e failure of their genuine tears, however, and the failure of the weepers to recognize Tereus’ lack of feeling, elicits frustration along with sympathy. Procne’s recognition that tears don’t work on Tereus is a relief. We experience her violent plans and their execution while still feeling pity for her and her family, disgust at her adult victim, and relief that we do not need to “see” her fail to move Tereus as her father and sister have. We are therefore more likely to approve of her violence even though, as Feldherr and others have well noted, hers participates in the very violence she is punishing.41 Tereus’ weeping, moreover, is less likely to elicit our sympathy. We are both the wrong audience (guided already to identify against him) and we have learned that tears are inef ective in this tale. His genuine tears seem to be deserved punishment.

67), and Newlands (1997, 194), for the similarity of grammar describing Tereus’ mutilation and Procne’s murder and the resemblance of Procne to Tereus. 41 By contrast to Tereus’ victim Philomela, Itys does not cry. T is perhaps denies the audience one opportunity for feeling sympathy with him or further associating Procne with Tereus and distancing her from a Roman audience by representing her as unmoved by rhetorical tears: Feldherr (2010, 202). See also, e.g., Gildenhard and Zissos (1999, 167; 2007, 3.30-36 and passim); Larmour (1990, 133-34); Joplin (1984, 45); Newlands (1997, 194-95); Pavlock (1991, 40-46); Schiesaro (2003, 82-83); Segal (1994, 267, 269 and passim). TEREUS’ TEARS 409

It is with these feelings that Ovid’s audience enters the story of Boreas. T e narrator introduces his tale by stating that Tereus and the reputation of T racians – for Boreas is T racian – were hurting his cause (682). T e narrator also tells us that Boreas’ entreaties (684-85) to win his Athenian beloved, Orithyia, did not work (agitur nihil, 685). Were his story focalized through the eyes of Orithyia’s father Erectheus, we might redirect our disgust from one T racian to another (from Tereus to Boreas) as the narrative suggests the internal Athenian audience has done. But the emotions are represented as genuine, his entreaties are not deceptive. By stating that Tereus has hurt his cause, the narrative implicitly sets Boreas in opposition to Tereus and, despite his nationality, associates him with Procne, our last agent. For both Procne and Boreas soon move toward violence as a resolution. His rape of Orithyia repeats on the divine level Philomela’s rape by T racian Tereus, but it results in a marriage and the birth of two famous heroes, Calais and Zetes. Book six ends with the familiar swift transition to the next tale of the next book ( Jason, the Argonauts and Medea – another Procne).42 Meanwhile, Ovid’s audience members may be surprised and troubled by their facile identif cation with a second Tereus.43 T e irony of Tereus’ f nal and genuine feelings of grief are paralleled by the external audience’s ironic sympathy toward T racian violence

42 T e praeceptor of Ars Amatoria pairs the two heroines, calling Procne “the other terrible parent” (altera dira parens, 2.383). T e two are also collocated at Am. 2.14.29-34, Rem. 59-63, Fast. 2.627-30, Tr. 2.387-90 and Pont. 3.1.119-20. 43 Feldherr (2010, 233-39), argues that the Boreas episode repeats but Romanizes T racian vis, of ering a distilled Romulus. He notes in particular the ef ective elision of a competing feminine perspective. See also Newlands (1997, 205-6). Newlands (1997, 203-7), and Segal (1994, 277-79), read the Boreas episode as a comic antidote to the previous tale. Hardie (2002, 260-62), locates another external audience identif cation with Tereus at the moment he sees Philomela. T e “approximative simile” (260) collapses the gaze of the audience and Tereus as both project desirous expectations upon Philomela, by inviting audience par- ticipation (quales audire solemus, 452) and through intertexts with Vergil’s Dido (A. 1.496-503) and Ovid’s Corinna (Am. 1.5). 410 AUGUSTAN POETRY which was guided by emotional identif cations with the crying victims of T racian violence.44

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexiou, M., Yatromanolakis, D. and Roilos, P. 2002. T e Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlef eld. Anderson, W. S., ed. 1972. Ovid’s Metamorphoses: Books 6-10. With intro. and comm. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. Alton, E.H., Wormell, D.E.W., and Courtney, E., eds. 1978. P. Ovidi Nasonis Fastorum libri sex. Leipzig: Teubner. Austin, J.L. 1975. How to do T ings with Words. 2nd ed. eds. J.O. Urmson and M. Sbisà. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Baumgarten, R. 2009. “Dangerous Tears? Platonic Provocations and Aristotelic Answers.” In: Tears in the Graeco-Roman World, ed. T. Fögen, 85-104. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Butler, J. 1993. Bodies that Matter. New York: Routledge. Ciappi, M. 1998. “Contaminazioni fra tradizioni letterarie af ni di ascendenza tragica nel racconto Ovidiano del mito di Procne e Filomela (Met. VI 587-666).” Maia 50: 433-63. Clark, A.C., ed. 1905. M. Tulli Ciceronis Orationes: Volume II: Pro Milone, Pro Marcello, Pro Ligario, Pro Rege Deiotaro, Philippicae I-XIV. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Coo, L. 2013. “A Tale of Two Sisters: Studies in Sophocles’ Tereus.” TAPA 143:349-384.

44 I am grateful to the organizers and participants of the 2015 conference “Augustan Poetry: New Trends and Revaluations,” for the opportunity to share an earlier version of this paper and for their valuable comments. I would also like to thank my colleagues at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville for suggestions and advice on initial drafts, in particular the members of the Classics department, Allen Dunn, La Vinia D. Jennings, and Lois Presser. I am also grateful to Justin Arft, Daniel Moore, Jocelyn Rohrbach Moore, Jaclyn Neel, and Melaine Racette-Campbell for suggestions on later drafts. All remaining errors are my own. TEREUS’ TEARS 411

Corbeill, A. 2004. Nature Embodied: Gesture in Ancient Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Curley, D.E. 1997. “Ovid, Met. 6.640: A Dialogue between Mother and Son.” CQ 47:320-322. _____. 2003. “Ovid’s Tereus: theater and metatheater.” In: Shards from Kolonos: Studies in Sophoclean Fragments, ed. A.H. Sommerstein, 163-97. Bari: Levante Editori. _____. 2013. Tragedy in Ovid. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. de Libero, L. 2009. “Precibus ac lacrimis: Tears in Roman Historiographers.” In: Tears in the Graeco-Roman World, ed. T. Fögen, 209-34. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Due, C. 2006. T e Captive Woman’s Lament in Greek Tragedy. Austin: University of Texas Press. Dutsch, D. 2008. “Nenia: Gender, Genre, and Lament in Ancient Rome.” In: Lament: Studies in the Ancient Mediterranean and Beyond, ed. A. Suter, 258-80. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dyck, A.R., ed. 2013. Cicero: Pro Marco Caelio. With intro. and comm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Enterline, Lynn. 2000. T e Rhetoric of the Body from Ovid to Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ernout, A. and Meillet, A. 1967. Dictionnaire Étymologique de la Langue Latine: Histoire des Mots. Paris. Erker, D. Š. 2009. “Women’s Tears in Ancient Roman Ritual.” In: Tears in the Graeco-Roman World, ed. T. Fögen, 135-60. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Fantham, E. 1999. “T e Role of Lament in the Growth and Eclipse of Roman Epic.” In: Epic Traditions in the Contemporary World: T e Poetics of Community, eds. M. Beissinger, J. Tylus, and S. Wof ord, 221-34. Berkeley: University of California Press. _____. 2004-2005. “Mater Dolorosa.” Hermathena 177/178:113-24. Fedeli, P., ed. 1984. Sexti Properti Elegiarum libri IV. Stuttgart: Teubner. Feldherr, A. 2004. “Flaying the Other.” Arethusa 37: 77-87. _____. 2009. “Intus habes quem poscis: T eatricality and the Borders of the Self in Ovid’s Tereus Narrative.” In: Vom Selbst-Verständnis in Antike und Neuzeit / Notions of the Self in Antiquity and Beyond, eds. A. Arweiler and M. Möller, 33-47. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 412 AUGUSTAN POETRY

_____. 2010. Playing Gods: Ovid’s Metamorphoses and the Politics of Fiction. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Fögen, T. 2009. Tears in the Graeco-Roman World. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Foley, H. 2001. Female Acts in Greek Tragedy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Gildenhard, I. and Zissos, A. 1999. “‘Somatic Economies’: Tragic Bodies and Poetic Design in Ovid’s Metamorphoses.” In: Ovidian Transformations: Essays on the Metamorphoses and its Reception, ed. P. Hardie, A. Barchiesi and S. Hinds, 162-81. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. _____. 2007. “Barbarian variations: Tereus, Procne and Philomela in Ovid (Met. 6.412-674) and Beyond.” Dictynna 4:1-25. Gunderson, E. 2000. Staging Masculinity: T e Rhetoric of Performance in the Roman World. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Hall, J. 2014. Cicero’s Use of Judicial T eater. Ann Arbor, MI: T e University of Michigan Press. Hardie, P. 2002. Ovid’s Poetics of Allusion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hollenburger-Rusch, C. 2001. Liquitur in lacrimas: zur Verwendung des Tränenmotivs in den Metamorphosen Ovids. Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann. Holst-Warhaft, G. 1992. Dangerous Voices: Women’s Laments and Greek Literature. London/New York: Routledge. Hudson-Williams, A. 1990. “Lacrimae Illae Inanes.” In: Virgil, ed. I. McAuslan and P. Walcot, 149-56. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hutchinson, G.O. 1998. Cicero’s Correspondence: A Literary Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press. James, S.L. 2003. “Her Turn to Cry: T e Politics of Weeping in Roman Love Elegy.” TAPA 133:99-122. Joplin, P.K. 1984. “T e voice of the shuttle is ours.” Stanford Literature Review 1:22-53. Keith, A. 2008. “Lament in Lucan’s Bellum Civile.” In: Lament: Studies in the Ancient Mediterranean and Beyond, ed. A. Suter, 233-57. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kenney, E.J. ed. 1961. P. Ovidi Nasonis Amores, Medicamina Faciei Femineae, Ars Amatoria, Remedia Amoris. Oxford: Oxford University Press. TEREUS’ TEARS 413

Kiessling, A.G., ed. 1966. Annaei Senecae Oratorem et Rhetorum Sententiae Divisiones Colores. Stuttgart: Teubner. Knox, P.E., ed. 1995. Ovid Heroides: Select Epistles. With intro. and comm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kumaniecki, K., ed. 1969. M. Tulli Ciceronis Scripta Quae Manserunt Omnia 3: De Oratore. Leipzig: Teubner. Larmour, D.H.J. 1990. “Tragic Contaminatio in Ovid’s Metamorphoses: Procne and Medea; Philomela and Iphigenia (6.424-674); Scylla and Phaedra (8.19-151).” ICS 15:131-41. Lateiner, D. 1992. “Af ect displays in the epic poetry of Homer, Vergil, and Ovid.” In: Advances in Nonverbal Communication, ed. F. Poyatos, 255-69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. _____. 1996. “Nonverbal Behaviors in Ovid’s Poetry, Primarily “Metamorphoses” 14.” CJ 91:225-53. _____. 2009. “Tears and Crying in Hellenic Historiography: Dacryology from Herodotus to Polybius.” In: Tears in the Graeco-Roman World, ed. T. Fögen, 105-34. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Loraux, N. 1990. Les mères en deuil. Paris: Seuil. MacMullen, R. 1980. “Romans in Tears.” CP 75: 254-55. Maltby, R. 1991. A Lexicon of Ancient Etymologies. Leeds: Cairns. March, J. 2003. “Sophocles’ Tereus and Euripides’ Medea.” In:: Shards from Kolonos: Studies in Sophoclean Fragments, ed. A.H. Sommerstein, 139-61. Bari: Levante Editori. Marder, E. 1991. “Disarticulated Voices: Feminism and Philomela.” Hypatia 7:148-166. Marouzeau, J., ed. 2003. Térence Comédies. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Marx, F., ed. 1964. M. Tulli Ciceronis Scripta Quae Manserunt Omnia 1: Incerti Auctoris de Ratione Dicendi Ad C. Herennium Libri IV. Leipzig: Teubner. McAuley, M. 2012. “Matermorphosis: Motherhood and the Ovidian Epic Subject.” EuGeStA 2: 123-68. Monella, P. 2005. Procne e Filomela. Dal mito al simbolo letterario. Bologna: Pàtron. Murnaghan, S. 1999. “T e Poetics of Loss in Greek Epic.” In: Epic Traditions in the Contemporary World: T e Poetics of Community, eds. M. 414 AUGUSTAN POETRY

Beissinger, J. Tylus, and S. Wof ord, 203-20. Berkeley: University of California Press. Mynors, R.A.B., ed. 1969. M. Vergili Maronis Opera. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Newlands, C.E. 1997. “T e Metamorphosis of Ovid’s Medea.” In: Medea: Essays on Medea in Myth, Literature, Philosophy, and Art, ed. J.J. Clauss and S.I. Johnston, 178-208. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Olechowska, E., ed. 1981. M. Tulli Ciceronis Scripta Quae Manserunt Omnia 25: Pro Cn. Plancio, Pro C.Rabirio Postumo. Leipzig: Teubner. Osmun, G.F. 1984. “Desistas lacrimare: Tears in Latin Elegy.” CB 60:45-47. Owen, S.G., ed. 1915. P. Ovidi Nasonis Tristium Libri Quinque, Ibis, Ex Ponto Libri Quattuor, Halieutica Fragmenta. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pavlock, B. 1991. “T e Tyrant and Boundary Violations in Ovid’s Tereus Episode.” Helios 18:34-48. Radermacher, L. 1965. M. Fabi Quintiliani Institutionis Oratoriae Libri Duodecim. Leipzig: Teubner. Richlin, A. 1991. “Reading Ovid’s Rapes.” In: Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome, ed. A. Richlin, 159-179. Oxford: Oxford University Press. _____. 2001. “Emotional Work: Lamenting the Roman Dead.” In: Essays in Honor of Gordon Williams, ed. E. Tylawsky and C. Weiss, 229-48. New Haven: Henry R. Schwab. Schiesaro, A. 2003. T e Passions in Play: T yestes and the Dynamics of Senecan Drama. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Sedgwick, E. 2003. Touching, Feeling: Af ect, Pedagogy, Performativity. Durham: Duke University Press. Segal, C. 1994. “Philomela’s Web and the Pleasures of the Text: Reader and Violence in the Metamorphoses.” In: Modern Critical T eory and Classical Literature, eds. I.J.F. de Jong and J.P. Sullivan, 257-80. New York: E.J. Brill. Sharrock, A. 2011. “Womanly Wailing? T e mother of Euryalus and gendered reading.” EuGeSta 1:55-77. Tarrant, R. J., ed. 2004. P. Ovidi Nasonis Metamorphoses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. TEREUS’ TEARS 415

Vingerhoets, A.J.J.M., Bylsma, L.M. and Rottenberg, J. 2009. “Crying: a Biopsychosocial Phenomenon.” In: Tears in the Graeco-Roman World, ed. T. Fögen, 439-75. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Walsh, P.G., ed. 1999. Titi Livi Ab Urbe Condita Tomus VI. Libri XXXVI- XL. Oxford: Oxford University Press.