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