THE RE-IMAGINATION OF A LETTER- WRITER AND THE DE-CONSTRUCTION OF AN OVIDIAN RAPE NARRATIVE AT ARS AMATORIA 1.527-64 By Despina Keramida Summary: Ovid’s writing is infused with the re-telling of known myths and the portrayal of heroes and heroines, whose figurae held a central role in Greek and Roman literature. This article argues in favour of reading Ariadne’s story at Ars am. 1.527-64 as a rape nar- rative. The exploration of the passage in question and its comparative reading with other poems (such as Prop. 1.3 and the Ovidian version of the rape of the Sabine women), illustrates and explains why Ovid re-imagines Ariadne as a victim of erotic violence. 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS It is generally acknowledged that Ovid’s work is characterised by differ- ent types of repetition, especially in his earlier works such as the Heroides and the Ars Amatoria.1 Nevertheless, this re-introduction of heroines and mythological narratives is not limited to mere repetition. On the contrary, it often takes the form of re-interpretation and re-imagination of well- known stories. One of the most well-known examples of Ovidian repeti- tion and – as this article suggests – of re-imagination is that of Ariadne, 1 As Sharrock 2002: 150 underlines ‘much of Ovid’s amatory work is infused with an aesthetics of repetition: of material, of style, of himself, and in his characters’. On Ovidian repetition within the Ars Amatoria in particular see Martelli 2013: 68-103. Despina Keramida ‘The Re-Imagination of a Letter-Writer and the De-Construction of an Ovidian Rape Narrative at Ars Amatoria 1.527-64’ C&M 67 (2019) 153-187. 154 DESPINA KERAMIDA whose story appears three times in the poet’s corpus,2 with the first ex- tant account appearing at Heroides 10, continuing in the Ars Amatoria (1.527-64) and concluding in the Fasti (3.459-516). The scholarly approach to the Ovidian accounts of this mythological story displays a certain ten- dency to discuss the three passages either in relation to each other or in comparison to the Catullan ecphrasis that presents the first extensive ver- sion of Ariadne’s myth, focusing on matters of allusion.3 This article diverges from other scholarly readings by discussing and focusing primarily on the second Ovidian version of Ariadne – as it is nar- rated in the Ars Amatoria – aiming to illustrate its major narrative varia- tion. Of the three Ovidian passages, the Ars Amatoria version appears to have drawn little scholarly interest (in comparison to the other two pas- sages), mainly because of its length and its function as a digression. The general consensus concerning this particular version is that it estab- lishes allusion to both the Catullan Ariadne and the Ovidian Ariadne of Heroides 10. However, as this article suggests, Ovid shatters the intrinsic web connecting the two pre-existing versions of Ariadne’s story, de-con- structs her imago and transforms her from a lamenting deserted heroine with a vox, who expresses her complaints verbally and is heard (at least by the external readers), to a deserted heroine who loses her voice and is portrayed as the victim within a rape narrative. The de-construction of the figura of a lamenting and abandoned Ari- adne within an epistolary framework and its re-imagination and subse- quent re-labelling as the figura of a rape victim at Ars am. 1.527-64 is crucial because it demonstrates the major change that Ovid brings to the treat- ment of the specific heroine, creating an interesting variation from pre- 2 I do not consider the account in the Metamorphoses (8.171-82) as one of the main ac- counts for two reasons; firstly it is very brief and secondly it does not include a mon- ologue or a speech of the heroine. However, when necessary the passage will be in- cluded in the discussion. 3 Selected studies on allusion in Latin literature in general include Conte 1986; Hinds 1998: 99-122. On Ovidian allusion see Barchiesi 2001: 79-103, 141-54. On Ovidian allu- sion in the Heroides in particular see Barchiesi 2001; Jolivet 2001: 193-229. On Ovid’s allusion to Catullus 64 within the boundaries of Her. 10 see Armstrong 2006: 221-41. On Ovidian allusion and self-reflexive allusion at Ars am. 1.527-64 and Fast. 3.459-561 see Armstrong 2006: 241-60. CLASSICA ET MEDIAEVA L I A 67 · 2019 THE RE-IMAGINATION OF A LET TER-WRITER 155 vious representations of Ariadne (including his own portrayal of the her- oine as a letter-writer). In support of this argument, not only previous treatments of the story will be taken into consideration, but also two rape narratives involving other elegiac heroines, namely the Propertian Cynthia (1.3) and the Ovidian Sabine women (Ars am. 1.89-134),4 as well as scholarly approaches of Ovidian rape narratives, addressing how and why Ovid introduces this novelty to his second treatment of Ariadne. 2. THE RE-IMAGINATION AND THE DE-CONSTRUCTION OF ARIADNE AS A RAPE VICTIM Ovid’s portrayal of Ariadne as a letter-writer within the boundaries of his epistolary collection involves a de-construction in his second version of the heroine. In Heroides 10, his first extant version of the story, Ariadne as the supposed letter-writer and narrator delivers a monologue that aims to convince both the internal reader (Theseus) and the external readers of her dire situation and the need for her rescue.5 The mono- logue, as a technique, enables the poet to focus on the heroine and her feelings in a specific temporal moment (enriched with the inclusion of past memories and worries for the future). However, the Ars offers a better treatment of the particular story as a whole than the letter, despite the substantial reduction in length (the digression covers merely thirty-seven lines): 4 I follow the Oxford edition for Ovid (Kenney 1994) and Propertius (Heyworth 2007a); the Teubner edition for Catullus (Eisenhut 1983) and Vergil (Conte 2009). However, I use v instead of u and i instead of j. For the translations of Greek and Latin texts I follow the Loeb editions, unless stated otherwise. 5 On the relationship between writer and reader in the epistolary collection see Fulk- erson 2005: 23-29, who discusses the familial relationships between heroines such as Phyllis, Dido, Ariadne and Medea; Fulkerson 2005: 122-42 explores the familial rela- tionship between Ariadne and Phaedra in particular. On Ariadne as part of a land- scape of deserted heroines see Spentzou 2003: 52-56, 70. On female letter-writing in the collection see Lindheim 2003: 13-77. On the male readers of Ars Amatoria 1 and 2 see Holzberg 2006: 40-49. CLASSICA ET MEDIAEVA L I A 67 · 2019 156 DESPINA KERAMIDA Cnosis in ignotis amens errabat harenis, qua brevis aequoreis Dia feritur aquis; utque erat e somno, tunica velata recincta, nuda pedem, croceas irreligata comas, 530 Thesea crudelem surdas clamabat ad undas, indigno teneras imbre rigante genas. clamabat flebatque simul, sed utrumque decebat; non facta est lacrimis turpior illa suis. iamque iterum tundens mollissima pectora palmis 535 ‘perfidus ille abiit: quid mihi fiet?’ ait; ‘quid mihi fiet?’ ait; sonuerunt cymbala toto litore et attonita tympana pulsa manu. excidit illa metu rupitque novissima verba; nullus in exanimi corpore sanguis erat. 540 ecce, Mimallonides sparsis in terga capillis, ecce, leves Satyri, praevia turba dei. ebrius, ecce, senex pando Silenus asello vix sedet et pressas continet arte iubas. dum sequitur Bacchas, Bacchae fugiuntque petuntque, 545 quadrupedem ferula dum malus urget eques, in caput aurito cecidit delapsus asello; clamarunt Satyri ‘surge age, surge, pater.’ iam deus in curru, quem summum texerat uvis, tigribus adiunctis aurea lora dabat. 550 et color et Theseus et vox abiere puellae, terque fugam petiit terque retenta metu est. horruit, ut steriles, agitat quas ventus, aristae, et levis in madida canna palude tremit. cui deus ‘en, adsum tibi cura fidelior’ inquit; 555 ‘pone metum, Bacchi Cnosias uxor eris. munus habe caelum: caelo spectabere sidus; saepe reget dubiam Cressa Corona ratem.’ dixit et e curru, ne tigres illa timeret, desilit (imposito cessit harena pede) 560 implicitamque sinu, neque enim pugnare valebat, abstulit: in facili est omnia posse deo. CLASSICA ET MEDIAEVA L I A 67 · 2019 THE RE-IMAGINATION OF A LET TER-WRITER 157 pars ‘Hymeneae’ canunt, pars clamant ‘Euhion euhoe’; sic coeunt sacro nupta deusque toro. (‘The Cretan maid wandered distractedly on the unknown sand, where little Dia is lashed by the sea waves. Just as she came from sleep, clad in an ungirt tunic, barefoot, with yellow hair unbound, she cried upon The- seus over the deaf waters, while an innocent shower bedewed her tender cheeks. She clamoured and wept together, but both became her; nor was she made less comely by her tears. Again she beats her soft bosom with her hands, and cries, ‘He is gone, the faithless one; what will become of me?’ ‘What will become of me?’ she cries: then o’er all the shore cymbals resounded and drums beaten by frenzied hands. She fainted for fear, and broke off her latest words; no blood was there in her lifeless frame. Lo! Bacchanals with tresses streaming behind them, lo! wanton Satyrs, the god’s forerunning band; lo! drunken old Silenus scarce sits his crook- backed ass, and leaning clings to the mane before him. While he pursues the Bacchanals, and the Bacchanals flee and again attack, and while the unskilful horseman urges his beast with a rod, he falls off the long-eared ass and topples head-foremost and the Satyrs cry, ‘Come, get up, father, get up!’ And now on his car, that he had covered with grape-clusters, the god was giving the golden reins to his yoked tigers: voice, colour–and Theseus, all were gone from the girl; thrice she tried flight, thrice fear stayed her.