At the beginning of Book 12 of the Metamorphoses, Ovid makes the transition from ‘mythical’ events to the so-called ‘historical’ narration,Footnote 1 the Trojan War and Aesacus’ funeral. Calchas, the skilled augur, pronounces his famous omen at this event after contemplating the scene of a serpent devouring eight fledgling birds along with their mother. The text runs as follows (Met. 12.18–23):
Immediately he prophesies from the nine birds nine years of war. These verses introduce for the first time in the Metamorphoses the history of Troy and the near future of Rome as its successor.
The aim of this note is to discuss whether a key is hidden in such an important structural point, thus drawing our attention to this highly significant moment for both Troy and Rome, with Ovid's use of an as yet undetected acrostic (Met. 12.20–3):
It is reasonable to conjecture that Ovid is playing here with both the fall of Troy and the future appearance of Rome: with the initial Troia cadet being balanced by the reverse acrostic fiat Troia. At 12.23 the verse also opens with fit, producing something like an inversion of the Γ-acrostic in Aratus (Phaen. 783–7),Footnote 2 including a polyptoton within the acrostic.Footnote 3 First, the attention of the careful reader should be drawn to the existence of fiat formed backwards in the margin in the acrostic. Moreover, this would not be the first instance of an acrostic in reverse. In fact, recent scholarship has endeavoured to report new discoveries of this kind of linguistic device.Footnote 4 Robinson, particularly, tries to explain how acrostics work, and how they could be understood: ‘It can be helpful to think about acrostics in the same way as we think about allusion and intertextuality.’Footnote 5 This would not be the first instance of an acrostic in reverse either; the authorial signature MA-VE-PV, representing the name of Publius Vergilius Maro in reverse in Verg. G. 1.429–33, is a good example. And as Danielewicz suggests,Footnote 6 we can also find another reverse acrostic in Verg. G. 1.439–43—namely, scies:
But an acrostic could work here not only as an allusion to an implicit idea or text. I think we can go further. Any educated person in Rome knew, at the very least from Virgil's Aeneid, that the foundation of Rome originated in the diaspora following the fall of Troy, the arrival of Aeneas in Italy, and the founding initially of Alba Longa and subsequently of Rome itself. In this way, the idea provided in the acrostic can be reinforced by the fact that the words mora and longa appear linked together (Met. 12.20):
longa could evoke Alba Longa (Ov. Fast. 2.499; Verg. Aen. 6.766), and mora is one of the usual anagrams of Roma. The function of mora, and its relationship with Rome, can be perceived in some passages of the Aeneid, for example 1.414, 1.670–1, 4.347, 4.566–70, 12.11 (nulla mora in Turno).Footnote 7 Even the word ramos could be seen as another anagram of Roma in the plural, using the idea of Rome as a second Troy: altera Troiae | Pergama (Verg. Aen. 3.86–7).
This important structural moment is balanced by another prophecy in Ov. Met. 15.439–49. Helenus, the twin brother of Cassandra, predicts to Aeneas his own destiny and, at the same time, the future of Rome, beginning with Aeneas himself:
Contrary to the first prediction of Calchas, Troy will not fall entirely while Aeneas lives. The one born to the bloodline of Julius is Augustus, as is well known; but more surprising is the plausible reverse acrostic in Met. 15.440–1, flamen; this may be addressed both to Aeneas and to Augustus, as religious reformer, suggesting the development of the imperial cult, or the flamen of the deified Julius Caesar. At this point the ground we tread upon seems unsure, from the moment that the emperor's old enemy, Mark Antony, was the first flamen of Julius Caesar. The victory of Octavian over Mark Antony established a new step forward in Roman history: Troy, a new Troy, that is, Rome, and a new Rome under Augustus as ruler of a new world. Finally, we can also compare now mora longa in Met. 12.20 with saecula longa in Met. 15.446, and the reverse acrostic fiat in Met. 12.20–3 with efficiet in Met. 15.448.
Furthermore, with the anagrams in mora (amor, Roma) in his so-called ‘little Aeneid’ (Met. 13.623–14.582), was Ovid intending to make his readers also think about Maro, that is, Publius Vergilius Maro?
I believe that these instances of formal, inlaid complexity are real and significant, and observing them enhances our understanding of the text.
Open access
