Ovid and Augustus: A Political Reading of Ovid’s Erotic Poems. By P.J.
DAVIS. London: Duckworth Publishers, 2006. Pp. viii + 183. Cloth, $70.00.
ISBN 0–7156–3559–X.
Order this text for $70.00 from Amazon.com using this link and benefit
CAMWS and the Classical Journal:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/classjourn-20
Print Version: CJ 103.4 (2008): 335–8
Few will take exception to Davis’ (D.) thesis that Ovid’s erotic poetry
flouts many components of Augustan ideology. Indeed, a significant portion
of this book is not new, but comprises revised versions of articles that
have appeared elsewhere. It is therefore all the more significant that it
makes an original and insightful contribution to the crowded discussion of
Ovid’s relationship with the Augustan regime.
After a brief opening chapter that probes Tristia 2 for Ovid’s defense of
his literary corpus, D. spends two chapters investigating the nature and
manifestations of Augustan ideology. In the first, which is by far the most
important in the book, D. seeks to undermine Duncan Kennedy’s influential
deconstruction of the terms “Augustan” and “anti-Augustan.” [n. 1] In
particular, he adduces passages from Augustus’ Res Gestae to challenge
Kennedy’s assertion that “no statement (not even made by Augustus himself)
can be categorically ‘Augustan’ or ‘anti-Augustan’.” The strength of the
argument lies in D.’s ability to confront Kennedy on his own terms,
adroitly handling the complex issues of reception that form the basis of
Kennedy’s argument that the ideological allegiances of individual readers
will determine their interpretation of a work, whatever the author’s own
loyalties may have been.
With similar skill, D. addresses the problems of authorial intent that
necessarily accompany his counter-argument that Augustus wrote the Res
Gestae to trumpet his accomplishments. D. concedes that the Res Gestae can
be read negatively, reminding us of Tacitus’ account of the interpretive
communities that espoused positive and negative views of the document when
it was first published (Ann. 1.9–10); but he does not allow that Augustus
himself conceived of his work as anything other than a positive record of
his accomplishments. D.’s disagreement with Kennedy might seem to stem
merely from a difference in critical approach, but D. ultimately exposes
fatal inconsistencies in Kennedy’s subjectivism and proposes a more
balanced approach that accounts for an intention-bearing author and the
reception of his text by readers who may or may not share his ideological
loyalties.
In the balance of his first chapter, D. tackles the issue of the literary
persona, again rebutting a view held by Kennedy (and Gale and Cairns).
Averring that “there is no separation between author and persona” in Roman
poetry (p. 20), D. reminds us of Ovid’s failed attempt in Tristia 2 to base
his defense on just such a division. He concludes with a call for “a better
way of establishing whether a text is pro- or anti- or un-Augustan,” and
suggests that “that way involves considering the relationship between the
text under investigation and what we call ‘Augustan’ ideology” (p. 22).
Unfortunately, D.’s articulation of his proposed method for considering
that relationship lacks the strength, clarity and organization of his
analysis and refutation of Kennedy. Any single chapter that seeks to
redefine the scholarly approach to Augustan ideology is bound to labor
under such ambition. But D. seeks to limit the scope of his discussion to
the Secular Festival and the Augustan Forum as the non-literary
representatives of Augustan ideology against which he will read Ovid’s
erotic works in later chapters. Because of the extent and
interconnectedness of Augustus’ building program, the discussion
necessarily expands to encompass much of the rest of Rome. It is
accordingly easy to become distracted by digressions and superfluous
details. Nevertheless, D. ultimately succeeds in showing how the Secular
Festival and the Augustan Forum exude Augustan ideology, but at the cost of
straying from his topic of Ovid and Augustus.
Ovid may make only a cameo appearance in the chapters on Augustus, but he
is prominent in the remaining five. D. devotes a chapter each to the
Heroides, Amores, Ars Amatoria and Remedia Amoris, and appends an epilogue
in which he considers the erotic works as they appear in the exile poetry.
Although it will be obvious to most readers that Ovid’s Amores and
especially the Ars Amatoria contravene the morals espoused by the Augustan
regime, D.’s subtle reading of these poems contributes much to the
discussion, and his observations will be of interest to specialists in
Ovidian poetry and non-specialists alike for their insight into the finer
points of Ovid’s criticism of Augustus.
More innovative and striking is the chapter on the Heroides, in which D.
argues that Ovid “focuses not on the glories of masculine achievement, but
on its cost” (p. 49). Although the women of the Heroides are “committed to
a specifically Augustan ideal of marriage” (p. 50), they receive nothing
but grief as a reward for their fidelity. As examples, D. offers the
letters of Deianira, Laodamia and Dido. Deianira laments the infidelity of
her husband Hercules with a prisoner of war; Laodamia bewails the absence
of Protesilaus and encourages her husband in vain to abandon his desire for
military glory; Dido decries her abandonment by her unfaithful husband
Aeneas, the ancestor of Augustus himself. D. concludes that the Heroides
exposes a flaw in the flagship moral legislation of the Augustan regime.
Strictly speaking, the Julian Law on the Suppression of Adultery (18 BCE)
concerns only female sexuality and social status; its definition of
adultery hinges on the standing of the woman involved. As D. demonstrates,
“the law regulated male sexuality only to the extent that men were required
to refrain from extramarital sex with ‘respectable’ women … [but they]
could have sex with ‘unrespectable’ women with impunity” (p. 70). For these
reasons, however bitterly the women in the Heroides might complain of their
lovers’ infidelity, the law tacitly permits it.
Each chapter ends with a conclusion, but D. has not given us a conclusion
to the book as a whole. Rather, he moves from his chapter on the Remedia
Amoris to an epilogue that discusses how Ovid revisits his erotic poetry in
the works from exile. This tactic suggests that work remains before any
conclusions can be drawn. Indeed, the epilogue tantalizes the reader with
what might be done with the Tristia and the Epistulae ex Ponto. Perhaps D.
will turn his attention to them next.
SAMUEL J. HUSKEY
University of Oklahoma
[n. 1] “‘Augustan’ and ‘Anti-Augustan’: Reflections on Terms of Reference,”
in A. Powell, ed., Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus
(London, 1992) 26–58.
You may remove yourself from the CJ-Online list-serve by sending an email
to: [log in to unmask] Leave the subject line blank, and in the first
line of the message write: UNSUBSCRIBE
|