The Elegies of Maximianus by Maximianus; Juster A. M.; Roberts Michael

Author:Maximianus; Juster, A. M.; Roberts, Michael [Maximianus; Juster, A. M.; Roberts, Michael]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780812249798
Publisher: University of Pennsylvania Press
Published: 2018-01-15T07:00:00+00:00

Elegy 2

2.1–2 Both Martial and Gallus called their love interests “Lycoris.” We have no extrinsic evidence about Maximianus’ Lycoris or his other love interests, if they existed at all. Szövérffy badly misses the point of Maximianus’ description of Lycoris by dismissing it as “a generic antifeminist satire” with “the rather overdrawn picture of a lecherous, libidinous, selfish woman who abandons loyalty and faith.” Szövérffy (1968) at 362. Just the opposite is true. Maximianus’ description of Lycoris is fairly charitable considering she was his long-term coniunx. Indeed, as this elegy progresses, Lycoris remains the vital and attractive person as Maximianus degenerates into the pathetic senex of Roman comedy. This pattern sets the stage for the subsequent elegies; in each one Maximianus paints the female figure from somewhat to very charitably as he himself becomes progressively more ridiculous, a pattern which culminates with his extreme humiliation during the Greek girl’s lament in elegy 5. In short, Szövérffy rightly sees Maximianus as a satirist, but entirely misses the point that Maximianus is satirizing himself—or as Barnish aptly puts it, “Maximian . . . shows wit, but small pleasure in his play: it is a savage exercise in Swiftian despair.” Barnish (1990) at 32.

I have used the lichoris of most of the manuscripts rather than the implicitly updated Lycoris of Webster.

For discussion of Prada’s argument that these lines are the start of a second book, see Franzoi (2011) at 161.

For res as “world,” see OLD 4.

2.3 The adjective indivisi (“together”) is rare and generally not used in this sense until Late Antiquity. See Spaltenstein (1983) at 173.

For multos annos (“the many years”), cf. Juvenal 10.188.

2.4 Schneider (2003) at 214 notes that Spaltenstein, Schadd, and Guardalben follow Webster’s Ovidian pavefacta (“dismayed”), as I have, but Agozzino and Fels follow Baehrens’ conjecture of labefacta. Goldlust (2013) at 144 also follows Webster. Cf. Ovid Metamorphoses 9.314, 15.878, 15.636. There is also some manuscript support for stupefacta. See Ellis (1884b) at 154. Welsh suggests the intriguing tubefacta, but his argument relies too heavily on the premise that pavefacta necessarily involves fear. See Welsh (2011) at 218.

For respuit (“kissed off”), which also means “spit” or “spew,” cf. Ovid Remedia amoris 124–125. It starts an unpleasant string of verbs. Cf. 2.12 (expuit); 2.15 (fundit).

One scholar wrongly believes that he can tell that this description is an “indicio probable de que la situación descrita es más product de la imagination que de la realidad.” Ramírez de Verger (1986) at 190.

2.5 Spaltenstein (1983) at 173 misses the meaning of this line when he asserts it is “donc incohérent.” The implication is that the young men she is chasing are not her first, exactly what one would expect from a docta puella of love elegy.

2.5–6 Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy quotes these lines. Burton (2001) at 267. One can’t help wondering whether Maximianus’ use of imbellem (“gutless”) to describe a senem (“an old man”) hints at his own sense of helplessness as the forces of Justinian advanced through Italy toward Ravenna. Goldlust (2013) at

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.