Why is Line 546 of Ovid's Daphne and Apollo considered a "corrupted line"?
Here's the section in which it is contained:

543 viribus absumptis expalluit illa citaeque
544 victa labore fugae spectans Peneidas undas
545 'fer, pater,' inquit 'opem! si flumina numen habetis,
546 [quae facit ut laedar mutando perde figuram.]
547 qua nimium placui, mutando perde figuram!'
548 vix prece finita torpor gravis occupat artus,
549 mollia cinguntur tenui praecordia libro,
550 in frondem crines, in ramos bracchia crescunt,
551 pes modo tam velox pigris radicibus haeret,
552 ora cacumen habet: remanet nitor unus in illa.


What you quote are lines as they appear at http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/ovid/ovid.met1.shtml .

My own copy is the 1909 Teubner edition "cum emendationis summario", and, for what it's worth, it differs from the lines you have quoted:

(545) 'Fer pater' inquit 'opem! Tellus,' ait, 'hisce, vel istam / (545 ! ) Quae fecit, ut laedar, mutando perde figuram?' / Vix prece finita, torpor gravis occupat artus, / Mollia cinguntur tenui praecodia libro, / (550) In frondem crines, in ramos bracchia crescunt: / Pes modo tam velox pigris radicibus . . . . .

[Your] line 547 does not appear. The emendatio as given by the [Teubner's] editor is :

" 545, 547 recepi quae in proecdosi posthabui. non est probabile solum Peneum invocatum voluisse poetam, a patre filiam mutatam fuisse. Tellurum aut crediderim desumptam ex Aesch. Promethei vv. 565 581 H., quam fabulam relegisse eum oportet antequam versum abhinc vigesimum conscriberet, aut ex fabula Antiochena, quam habet Nonnus Dion. XXXIII 214 (Munro, Aetna p.43). "

| improve this answer | |
  • Some good info here: "Harley MS 2610, and OVID, Met. I 544-546" (The Classical Review It's a good start to mention that there are other renderings of the line (obviously--the one in the OP's edition is a nonsensical repetition), but some reference to an authoritative critical edition would probably be needed to settle what exactly causes these discrepancies – brianpck Nov 4 '16 at 18:16
  • @brianpck The Teubner is usually considered an "authoritative critical edition" on a par with, say, the Oxford Classical Texts. Isn't the discrepancy merely the result of different attempts at interpolating a missing portion — as I was taught? It would, naturally, be good to know how much authority is accorded to the interpolating editors (whoever they were). – Tom Cotton Nov 4 '16 at 19:50
  • Take a look at the first page of the article I cited: it proposes a different text (as well as alternate MSS readings) with what seems like good authority, though it was written in 1919 (old, but still newer than Teubner) – brianpck Nov 4 '16 at 19:54
  • Unfortunately, I can only access a few brief lines from the article, which isn't much use. In any event, to look for the "cause of these discrepancies" outwith what I suggested doesn't to me seem likely to give as strong an answer as either of us might wish. – Tom Cotton Nov 4 '16 at 20:05
  • 1
    The latest Teubner edition of Metamorphoses was in 1998, by William Anderson degruyter.com/viewbooktoc/product/33013 imho nothing can beat Teubner – Alex B. Nov 4 '16 at 23:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.