^{page 165 note 1} Like the Roman poets I use Gigantomachy and Titanomachy as synonyms. For the confusion see West, M. L. on Hes. Tbeog. 617 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 165 note 2} The passage is translated in full in Ancient Literary Criticism, ed. Russell, D. A. and Winterbottom, M., pp. 567–8.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 1} e.g. of metaphors Ar. Rb. 1405^a15, Cic, . De Or. 3. 164Google Scholar, Dem, . On Style 84.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 2} Such compliments to rulers are conventional, e.g. Call, . Hy. 4. 171Google Scholar ff. See Meincke, W., Untersucbungen zu den enkomiastischen Gedicbten Theokrits, Diss. Kiel, 1955Google Scholar. Comparison to Gigantomachy is perhaps rare in prose: note however Plu, . Galba 1. 6Google Scholar, [Liban, .] decl. 43 (= 7.472 Foerster).Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 3} See Nisbet-Hubbard, on Hor, . Odes 2. 12. 7Google Scholar; cf. Wimmel, W., Kallimachos in Rom, pp.31 ff.Google Scholar Though such epics were written (see Susemihl, i. 407Google Scholar, Ziegler, K., Das bellenistiscbe Epos, p.21), we need not think of some specific Hellenistic Gigantomachy now lost. The theme alone was an adequate exemplar of greatness. Note too that it already had a place in literary polemic, as a hackneyed theme in Xenoph. B. 1. 19–21 West.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 1} Cf. Manil, . 3. 5 ff.Google Scholar, Culex, 28 ff.Google Scholar Its high status similarly makes the Gigantomachy a suitable comparison to the contemplated future poem on philosophy in Ciris, 29 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 2} In his edition of Tristia II (1924, pp.63–81) Owen, S. G.Google Scholar provides a useful survey but fails to convince that Ovid did write a Gigantomachy. For strong arguments against its composition see Pfister, F., RhMus 70 (1915), 472–4Google Scholar, and Reitzenstein, E., RhMus 84 (1935), 87–8.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 3} The Gigantomachy as the extreme of epic is suitable for the higher bards of antiquity, as Orpheus here, Thamyris (Heracl. Pont. fr. 157 Wehrli), and Apollo himself in Sen, . Agam. 338 ff., a passage modelled on Ovid with similar polar contrast of poems of ‘lusus’’ and Gigantomachy.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 1} For ‘audere’’ as the ‘vox propria’’ for such doomed enterprises see Macleod, C. W., CQ NS 27 (1977), 362, n.14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Add Ov. Am. 2. 18. 4 ‘et tener ausuros grandia frangit amor’’.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 2} See Russell, ad loc.Google Scholar, cf. Cic, . De N.D. 1. 42.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 3} On these and further allegorical Gigantomachies both in literature and in public sculpture see Nisbet-Hubbard, on Odes 2. 12. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 1} Horace pours scorn on such themes, perhaps reflecting real-life attitudes to such but probably also mocking grandiose pretensions, as with the Pindaric efforts of Titius, in Ep. 1. 3. 9 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 2} For such ‘corrections’’ of Homer see Schlunk, R. R., The Homeric Scholia and the Aeneid (1974)Google Scholar. Add Verg, . Aen. 8. 243 ff.Google Scholar, where Virgil avoids the detail in Horn, . Il. 20. 61 ff.Google Scholar that Pluto felt fear that his realm would be torn open, precisely the point criticised by Long, . 9. 6–7. Virgil more decorously shows the shades in fear, ‘trepident immisso lumine Manes’’ (246).Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 1} For focus on the divine to dignify the high status of a current work cf. Ov, . Fast. 1. 1. 13, ‘Caesaris arma canant alii: nos Caesaris aras…’’Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 2} For the laws of nature and god see e.g. Georg. 1. 60–1Google Scholar, Wilkinson, L. P., The Georgics of Virgil, Ch. 3.Google Scholar Virgil may perhaps with similar delicacy assert his combination of Alexandrian ‘slenderness’’ and the higher didactic in Georg. 4. 1 ff.Google Scholar, where the slight bees (‘in tenui labor’’ 4. 6) are humorously described in terms recalling the rhetoricians' list of great themes: ‘caelestia’’… ‘admiranda’’ (cf. Cic, . Part. Or. 56 ‘admirabilia’’), followed by warfare and morals.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 3} See Courtney, E., BICS 16 (1969), 70–2Google Scholar, who notes Propertius' scorn for such themes in 2.34.27–8 and 51–4 and his desire to retract the rash promise of 2. 10. 7–8 to tackle martial epic in old age: ‘aetas prima canat Veneres, extrema tumultus;/bella canam, quando scripta puella mea est.’’

^{page 170 note 4} See Galinsky, G. K., Ovid's Metamorphoses, pp.104–7.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 5} [Verg, .] Catalepton 5 has perhaps had undue influence here.Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 1} So too in Odes 4. 1Google Scholar Horace marks his return to love poetry as a return to love. The poet views his genre as synonymous with its characteristic content. See Macleod, C. W., CQ 27 (1977), 362 n. 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 171 note 2} See e.g. Büchner, K., RE, s.v. ‘P. Vergilius Maro’’Google Scholar, Fleischer, U., Hermes 88 (1960), 280–331.Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 3} I wish to thank MrGriffin, J., MrHollis, A. S., and MrRussell, D. A. for helpful comments on an earlier draft.Google Scholar