Ovide du remede d’amours (review)

Widely read throughout the Middle Ages, Ovid’s pseudo-didactic work, the Remedia amoris, was regularly included in the Liber Catonianus, the standard miscellany of classical and late antique texts used to teach elementary Latin. Advanced students also studied the poem, which benefited from rich accretions of glosses and commentaries, particularly during the so-called aetas Ovidiana of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Hunt’s edition of a translation of the Remedia amoris into medieval French (from BnF, MS fr. 12478) is a welcome addition to the scholarly literature. It provides a solid introduction to the circulation and influence of the Ars amatoria and Remedia amoris in the later Middle Ages. Both undergraduate and graduate students can use it profitably. The edition includes a general introduction, the edited text of the Remede d’amours, extensive notes on the translation and a glossary. The general introduction provides an overview of the translations of the Ars amatoria and Remedia amoris into medieval French, demonstrating how the version from MS 12478 differs in approach and emphasis from its antecedents. In his edition, Hunt wisely replicates the Latin text of the Remedia amoris that accompanied the French translation in the manuscript. The appended notes helpfully guide the student through the nuances of the medieval French and highlight places where the translator has modified his Latin original, either by expanding details present in the Latin text or by incorporating new material. Hunt ranks among the most important scholars currently working in the area of classical reception, and his command of the medieval tradition of Ovid’s amatory poems is clearly in evidence throughout the volume. The edition does show some trivial slips in preparation and some omissions of bibliographical details. Authors are at times incorrectly cited in the footnotes. F. T. Thomas (n. 1) should be F. T. Coulson. Footnotes pointing readers to secondary literature omit a few references to major scholars. Ann Moss’s seminal work on Ovid in Renaissance France is not included. Bruno Roy’s edition of a medieval French commentary on the Ars amatoria is mentioned, but his equally significant work on Arnulf of Orléans’s Latin commentary on the Remedia amoris (which appeared in JML 6, 1996) should likewise be cited. In Hunt’s edition of the text (pp. 35–101), I note the following queries: p. 37 (Latin text after line 100) traditu>. read tradita?; p. 37 (Latin text after line 108) liquidem>. read liquidum?. The edition is attractively produced with wide margins to facilitate note-taking and a truly arresting cover.