Kenney_and_Clausen B.M.W.(eds.) - Get a Free Blog

THE POEMS OF EXILE
The language and the application of the idea to the case of a poet again recall
Horace: at the beginning of his first book of Epistles he had written of having
earned his conge: spectatum satis et donatum iam rude (Epist. 1.1.2), and had
gone on to apply the image of the ageing gladiator quite explicitly to himself.
Delicately Ovid is hinting that he, no less than (for instance) Horace, had done
honour to poetry and had deserved the sort of retirement that Horace — whether
in earnest or jest is no matter — had laid claim to for himself. He rounds off the
argument by restating the two themes of retirement, now with specific reference
to himself (25—8~5—12, 29—30~ 13—14), and of ruin (35—6~ 15—16).
With mention of old age as the moment when he might reasonably have expected
to be granted his otium cum dignitate (29—36) the poem returns to its point
of departure.
An emphatic ergo ('so then') introduces the final section. These hopes were
shattered because Ovid in his folly had offended the man who was the very
personification of clemency (37—9). True, he was allowed to live — but at
Tomis (40—2). If Delphi and Dodona had foretold his fate he would have
disbelieved them, but the moral is clear:
nil adeo ualidum est, adamas licet alliget illud,
ut maneat rapido firmius igne Iouis;
nil ita sublime est supraque pericula tendit,
non sit ut inferius suppositumque deo.
nam quamquam uitio pars est contracta malorum,
plus tamen exitii numinis ira dedit.
at uos admoniti nostris quoque casibus este
aequantem superos emeruisse uirum. (45—51)
Nothing is so strong, though adamant bind it, that it can resist the swift fire of Jove;
nothing is so high or reaches so far above danger that it is not lower than and subject
to god. For although some part of our misfortunes are brought on us by wrong-doing,
more destruction is caused by the anger of godhead. But do you be warned by my
fate to deserve well of the man who is the equal of those above.
From Jupiter to Augustus the argument moves through a series of variations:
from Iouis (46), the king of the conventional pantheon, through deo (48),' god',
and numinis (50), 'godhead', to (52) the man with all the attributes of divinity.
Lines 45—8 are bound to recall yet once more the proud affirmation at the end of the
Metamorphoses:
iamque opus exegi quod nee Iouis ira nee ignis
nee poterit ferrum nee edax abolere uetustas. (Met. 15.871— 2)
In an earlier poem (Trist. 1.7) Ovid had implied that in condemning him
Augustus had condemned his creation, the Metamorphoses, or tried to. 1 Now
it seems to be suggested that the condemnation had been effective: that here is
1 Grisart (1959).
451
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008