No CrossRef data available.
Extract
The Fasti has often been regarded as one of Ovid’s less successful works; it has also been one of the more neglected, even during the present revival of interest in Ovid. There are diminishing returns to be gained from the re-editing of the text, from the investigation of Ovid’s sources, and from the study of the chronology of the work; and it is doubtful whether significant progress has been made in these fields in the last twenty years. There has been progress in our understanding of Roman religion and of the calendar, but this has not revealed any unsuspected insights or deficiencies on Ovid’s part. It is on the literary side of the Fasti that the most interesting work is to be done.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1978
Footnotes
1.
There have been recent texts of Fast. by F. Bömer, H. Le Bonniec (i Catania, 1969: ii Bologna, 1971), and G. B. Pighi (Turin, 2 vols., 1973); of these Le Bonniec’s is the most interesting (Pighi’s has been generally criticized for its excessive reliance on G). There has not been a new English translation since Frazer’s. Frazer’s monumental commentary (London, 5 vols., 1929) is being outdated by advances in anthropological method and in comparative religion; the standard commentary is now Bömer’s, which is very thorough on content and (unlike Frazer’s) on language. Le Bonniec’s Érasme editions of Book I (Paris, 1961; 2nd end. 1965) and Book II (Paris, 1969) can be warmly commended in spite of their small scale; the English-speaking student is still sadly neglected. The best general discussion of Fast. is in Bömer’s Introduction; see also Santini. F. Peeters, Les Fastes d’Ovide (Brussels, 1939), is thorough and still useful, though some of his conclusions (for example, on chronology) cannot be accepted. There is a comprehensive bibliography in Pighi’s edition (i. 58 ff.).