Propertius by Gallus", Gallus by himself. His poems soon became popular; and like many of the early poems of young men were inspired by a passion for some mistress unknown, whom he chooses to call Corinna. He boasts, however, that though the morality of his 'Amores' was lax, his life was free from scandal. And it is natural when we compare these elegies with, for example, the Sonnets of Shakespeare, to suppose that the greater part of them were dramatic and not founded on actual experiences of the Poet. Of his private life during this period we only know what he has chosen to tell us. He was thrice married. His first wife, given him when he was almost a boy, proved unworthy, he says, and was quickly divorced. His second was divorced with equal despatch, though he tells us that there was no fault to be found with her 25. By the third, to whom he remained warmly attached to the day of his death, he is generally said to have had a daughter, Perilla. His daughter was twice married, he says, 24 Caius Cornelius Gallus was born B.c. 66 at Forum Julii (Frejus) in Gaul, and died by his own hand in B.C. 26. He was a school fellow of Virgil, who addresses one of his Eclogues to him. He was with Octavianus at Actium, by whom he was afterwards made Prefect of Egypt. His principal work was a Collection of Elegies in four books. Quinctilian (10, 1, 93) says that he was less polished (durior) than Tibullus or Propertius. 25 For the extreme facility of divorce at this time see Ramsay p. 253. Augustus tried in vain by the Lex Julia et Papia Poppaea to restrain it. Suet. Octav. 74. 26 There are symptoms however of his feeling somewhat dissatisfied with his wife's exertions for his recall. See Pont. 3, 1, which is an exhortation to her to use more energy in his cause. Cf. ib. 3, 7, 11 Nec gravis uxori dicar; quae scilicet in me Quam proba, tam timida est, experiensque parum. After which her name does not occur. But it is the inevitable result of such a position to make a man fancy that his best friends might have done something more. and had a child by each husband". This third wife was of noble birth, and belonged to the Fabian gens 28. From this fact, and from the names of the friends whom Ovid addresses in the Pontine Epistles, we may clearly gather that Ovid was not only a popular poet, but that he lived in society of the better sort at Rome. The only other fact which he tells us of this part of his life is that his father and mother lived to a very advanced age, dying one soon after the other, not very long before the date of his own exile. In these circumstances, unusually happy and prosperous perhaps, Ovid lived till past the age of fifty. But a sudden and final change came upon him. In the year A.D. 8, he was peremptorily ordered by a rescript of Augustus to retire to Tomi 29 on the shores of the Euxine, the Capital of lower Mœsia. There was nothing for it but to obey; and accordingly after an affecting parting with his wife and friends, the Poet set out for his barbaric residence. His journey occu 27 We hear of a certain Fidus Cornelius as a son-in-law of Ovid; about whom Seneca (Dial. 2, 17, 1) tells us that he wept in the Senate House because Corbulo called him 'a plucked Ostridge' Struthocamelus depilatus. 28 Pont. 1, 2, 138, to Fabius Maximus, Ille ego de vestra cui data nupta domo. She was also niece to Rufus, Pont. 2, 11, 13. She had a daughter by a former marriage married to Suillius, Pont. 4, 8, 9. 29 Ovid only twice uses the name itself, in both cases he writes Tomis, Tr. 3, 9, 33. Pont. 4, 14, 59. Suetonius in the fragment of Ovid's life has Tomos (acc.). Strabo has two forms Touéa (acc.) 7, 5. Tóuis (nom.) 7, 6. Elsewhere Ovid avoids the word and uses Tomitae, 'the people of Tomis,' or some substantive with the adjective Tomitanus, or Pontus. The name probably means the Cuts' (réuvw) from certain Canals near it. But Ovid mentions the Mythological derivation from Téμvw as the place where Medea cut up her brother Absyrtus. Inde Tomis dictus locus hic, quia fertur in illo 30 Described in Tr. 1, 3. Tr. 3, 9, 33. pied nearly a year; and according to his own account was exceedingly dangerous and fatiguing. There he resided till his death in A.D. 18. His punishment was not exilium but relegatio. That is, he did not forfeit property or citizenship, nor personal freedom, except in so far as his place of residence was concerned31. He was simply obliged to live away from Rome at a fixed place, during the will of the emperor". But this meant for Ovid the loss of all that made life worth having, of wife and friends, of congenial society, of country, of habitual pursuits, of interest in his work 33 and the sweets of contemporary fame, of everything in fact except property. This indeed remained, and among his many complaints that of poverty finds no place. The cause of his banishment has never been fully cleared up, and still remains, like the authorship of the letters of Junius, one of the mysteries of 31 Adde quod edictum, quamvis immite minaxque, Quippe relegatus, non exul, dicor in illo, Tr. 2, 135. It was no doubt the proper guardianship of his property which was the object of Ovid's wife, staying at Rome, and not accompanying her husband to Tomi. She wished to do so but gave in from prudential motives. Vixque dedit victas utilitate manus. Tr. 1, 3, 88. 32 The punishment was entirely an act of the Emperor's will and not inflicted by any legal tribunal: Nec mea decreto damnasti facta senatus Nec mea selecto judice jussa fuga est. Tr. 2, 131. 33 Ovid often asserts that he has lost the energy or care to correct his poetry or make it worthy of him, e. g. Pont. 1, 5, 15 cum relego, scripsisse pudet; quia plurima cerno Me quoque, qui feci, judice digna lini. Nec tamen emendo: labor hic quam scribere major. Mensque pati durum sustinet aegra nihil. And again ib. 57 Gloria vos acuat: vos ut recitata probentur Carmina, Pieriis invigilate choris. Quod venit ex facili, satis est componere nobis, et nimis intenti causa laboris abest. literary history. Mr Munro (Catul. p. 185) says: 'Dates and his own reiterated hints prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Ovid's disaster was connected with the detection of the younger Julia.' This Julia was the grand-daughter of Augustus and was banished in the same year as Ovid. The circumstances which led to her punishment were such as to make it quite possible that Ovid, or any one else leading a life of free pleasure in the higher society of Rome, should have been implicated more or less remotely in her crimes. But granting this, it is still an unsolved mystery in what way Ovid was involved, and what his particular offence to Augustus was. In the Classical Museum (vol. 4, p. 229, of 1847) Mr Dyer has laboured to show that his crime was that of having been privy to Julia's adultery with Decius Julius Silanus, and having concealed it. His own language in speaking of the causes of his banishment seems to go through two phases. He first seems to wish to convey the idea that his youthful indiscretion in publishing his Amatory treatises was the sole cause. 'He is a poet destroyed by his own genius; his verses have been his undoing; they deserved punishment but surely not so heavy a one? But presently he begins to own that there was another cause; not, he is careful to state, any political offence; no plot against the Emperor; no plan of violence against the state 35. He had seen something that he should not have seen. He is ruined by his simplicity and want of prudence, combined with treachery on 34 Inspice, dic, titulum non sum praeceptor amoris Comp. Pont. 2, 2, 11. Tr. 1, 5, 41. the part of slaves and friends. The exact cause he dare not reveal, and yet it is well known in Rome › The conclusion arrived at from these various hints of the Poet, at any rate must be that there was another cause of a personal nature affecting Augustus, which brought about the disaster besides the immorality of his poems. The ostensible cause however put forward in the Edict was this; nor can we say that it was not a plausible or prima facie a sufficient cause, in spite of the fact that they had been published ten years. No doubt much that was coarse and licentious had been written before and had found at any rate toleration, and much was being daily written of the same nature. But nothing had been written before, nor I think has been written since, which so deliberately and with such apparent seriousness systemizes vice and ignores all idea of virtue. It is surprising to hear pleaded that Horace was as licentious, or that Augustus wrote uncleanly epigrams. 36 Cur aliquid vidi? cur noxia lumina feci? Nec veniam laeso numine casus habet. Tr. 2, 102. The chief passages in the Tristia and Pontine Epistles referring to Ovid's banishment have been collected by Mr Dyer and Professor Ramsay. They are too numerous to quote at length. Dyer thus classifies them: (1) His offence was error not crime, Tr. 1, 2, 97; 3, 37; 4, 41. 4, 4, 43. Pont. 1, 7, 41. 2, 9, 71. (2) He had seen a crime committed, Tr. 2, 102; 3, 5, 50; 3, 6, 27. (3) Augustus would be offended by its revelation, Tr. 1, 5, 51. 2, 207. Pont. 2, 2, 59–62. (4) It was known at Rome, Tr. 4, 10, 99. Pont. 1, 7, 39. (5) His conduct, subsequent to his seeing what he saw, helped on his ruin, it was not only one act, Tr. 4, 4, 37. 3, 6, 13. Pont. 2, 3, 91. 2, 6, 17. (6) His own want of courage helped, Tr. 4, 4, 37. Pont. 2, 2, 19. (7) He acted from no mercenary motive and involved no one else. Tr. 3, 6, 33. Pont. 2, 2, 17. |