Exile of Ovid - Wikipedia
If the Ars Amatoria were that disruptive, surely Augustus would have taken action before 8 Ovid's relationship with the poet Propertius provides some insight. Ovid's playful poetry made him a favorite among Rome's elite, but angered Emperor Augustus. Just as he was producing his finest work, Ovid (43 BC – 17 AD). Ovid's treatment of Phoebus Apollo affords an interesting test case in the politics of god's connection with Octavian-Augustus, and put that connection into.
As though hinting at his own misfortune, Ovid begins the myth with a deflection of sorts, inviting the reader to consider whether a mistake due to fate is a crime. He continues this alignment in his Tristia: Why did I make my eyes guilty? Why was I so thoughtless as to harbor the knowledge of a fault? Unwitting was Actaeon when he beheld Diana unclothed; None the less he became the prey of his own hounds.
Both are unwitting victims of sight, who, by accident, see something they should not have seen.
Exile of Ovid
In the end, a vengeful superior condemns them to disaster. The inciting incident for both is viewing something that they should not have.
For Actaeon, it is a nude Diana; for Ovid, it is something related to politics at court. Perhaps it was something treasonous, a thing that would cause Augustus to remove him from Rome for the safety of his regime. To any educated Roman, this echo of Virgil would call to mind the rest of the line, in which sight is at the forefront. The Crime Though Ovid is reluctant to reveal what he saw, he does provide textual clues to the crime he was charged with.
One scholar suggests the charge ofthat is, offending the dignity of the state. This broad charge, which Tiberius used freely during his subsequent reign to exile or execute opponents, is the perfect legal vehicle by which to exile Ovid. He, however, makes no explicit mention of this charge, and only uses the word maiestas once in his post-exile works.
Rome Sick: Ovid’s Exile | Ovid and the Censored Voice
In two tantalizing couplets, Ovid writes, Haec tu spectasti spectandaque saepe dedisti -maiestas adeo comis ubique tua est- luminibusque tuis, totus quibus utitur orbis, scaenica vidisti lentus adulteria.
The language of sight in such close proximity to a word as loaded as is the closest Ovid ever gets to revealing the charge. The second word of the charge,appears in many forms throughout his post-exile work. Overall, Ovid uses forms of laesa eighty-five times. In his large body of work before his exile, he uses the word thirty-nine times. In contrast, he uses the word forty-seven times in his smaller post-exile body of work, which only includes the Tristia, the Epistulae ex Ponto, and the Ibis.
Clearly, though he hesitates to explicitly mention the crime with which he was charged, Ovid leaves textual clues for the reader to surmise the cause of his exile. Conclusion Tomis, where Ovid was banished, is marked by a star. The darker shade of red indicates provinces managed by the Senate; the lighter shade those provinces controlled by Augustus.
Rome Sick: Ovid’s Exile
Yellow regions are client states, and the green regions are those ruled by the Parthians. Given this combination of factors, it is probable that Ovid was exiled under the charge of maiestas laesa. This error, in conjunction with his carmen, the Ars Amatoria, led him to the metaphorical chopping block, from which he was never recalled. The effects of his carmen et error are devastating and long-lasting. From all of this, we can extract a multitude of questions, but one resonates here: In such a case, objection to Ars Amatoria was a mere pretext, concealing the real cause of Ovid's condemnation, considering the time that had elapsed between the publication of this work and the sentence of Augustus.
Hartman argued that Ovid never left Rome for exile, and that all of his works referring to it are an imaginative and humorous fiction. This theory was debated during the s, especially by certain Dutch authors.
Fitton Brown also argued that Ovid's exile was fictional. The reasons advanced by Brown are basically: That, except for doubtful passages in Pliny the Elder and Statiusno other historian mentioned it until the beginning of the 5th century. That the poet was already adept at projecting a persona separate from his personal life.
Roman poets themselves wrote about this gap between biography and invention. Nevertheless, although this work gives the clearest testimony of support of Augustan ideals, it has also been commented that the passage 3. In addition both the Metamorphoses and Fasti seem to lack evidence of a final revision,  as Ovid himself claims in the Tristia. Nagle suggests the possibility that Ovid conceived the idea of writing this work as early as 8 BC when Augustus, the new Pontifex Maximuscorrected the defects resulting from the introduction of the Julian calendar.
Nagle also argues that political motivations may have caused the poet to link the work with the year 4 AD, when Tiberius was adopted by Augustus and therefore implicitly named his successor.