Lex and Ius in Propertius’ and Ovid’s Discourse: The Augustan Principate as the Paramilitary Kingdom of Minos
Usov Dmitriy A.
The paper examines Propertius’ and Ovid’s perception of Augustus’ political regime analyzing their interpretation of lex and ius. The aim of the study is to determine the key meanings of these concepts by demonstrating the peculiarities of their semantic relations with the terms arma (war, weapons), aurum (gold), pudor (shame), metus/timor (fear), amor (love), liber/libertas (free/freedom), felix/felicitas (happy/happiness), etc. The study has shown that in most cases the terms lex and ius mean a strict prescription, someone’s power exercised over something or somebody. Such prescriptions are divided into two types: an external state decree and an internal order of a lover’s heart. Lex and ius of the first type are closely associated with Augustus who in this context appears in two complementary guises. Propertius depicts him as an imperator, a victorious military leader who imposes laws on conquered peoples and tribes, while Ovid portrays him as a princeps, a judge-legislator who focuses on the private life of Roman citizens. In both cases, principate appears as a direct continuation of republic: pillaging of foreign lands persists as well as repressions (republican in their spirit) against citizens. The poets argue that these facts negatively affect life of an ordinary citizen. According to Propertius, public laws, coupled with predatory external wars, make vices thrive and thereby destroy sincere love as a guarantee of genuine happiness. This brings him to the statement of the lovers’ right not to participate in battles. Portraying the Augustan principate as the kingdom of Minos, Ovid shows that the laws of the ruler ruthlessly suppress human freedom (libertas), forcing lovers, like Daedalus and Scylla, to flee away from the orbis terrarum conquered by Rome. Ultimately, both poets depict the Augustan principate as a regime of emperor-princeps’ personal power, whose leges and iura are incompatible with the aspiration of Roman citizens to seek individual happiness (felicitas).
References:
Albrecht, M. von 2004: Istoriya rimskoy literatury [A History of Roman Literature]. Vol. II. Moscow.
Альбрехт, М. фон. История римской литературы. Т. 2. М.
Andreev, Yu.V. 1990: Poeziya mifa i proza istorii [Poetry of Myth and Prose of History]. Leningrad.
Андреев, Ю. В. Поэзия мифа и проза истории. Л.
Arena, V. 2012: Libertas and the Practice of Politics in the Late Roman Republic. Cambridge.
Arena, V. 2021: Liberty and the rule of law. In: P. Cartledge, C. Atack (eds.), A Cultural History of Democracy in Antiquity. Vol. I. London–New York–Oxford–New Delhi–Sydney, 37–56.
Balmaceda, C. 2020: Libertas in early Latin authors. In: C. Balmaceda (ed.), Libertas and Res Publica in the Roman Republic: Ideas of Freedom and Roman Politics. Leiden–Boston, 33–54.
Barchiesi, A. 1997: The Poet and the Prince: Ovid and Augustan Discourse. Berkeley–Los Angeles–London.
Balsley, K. 2010: Between two lives: Tiresias and the law in Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Dictynna – Revue de poétique latine 7, 13–31.
Balsley, K. 2011: Truthseeking and truthmaking in Ovid’s Metamorphoses 1. 163–245. Law and Literature 23/1, 48–70.
Bowditch, Ph. L. 1994: Horace’s poetics of political integrity: epistle 1.18. American Journal of Philology 115/3, 409–426.
Brown, S.A. 2005: Ovid: Myth and Metamorphosis. London.
Brunt, P.A. 1988: The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays. Oxford.
Casali, S. 2006: The art of making oneself hated: rethinking (Anti-)Augustanism in Ovid’s Ars Amatoria. In: R. Gibson, S. Green, A. Sharrock (eds.), The Art of Love: Bimillennial Essays on Ovid’s Ars Amatoria and Remedia Amoris. Oxford, 216–234.
Coleman, K.M. 1990: Tiresias the judge: Ovid, Metamorphoses 3.322–38. Classical Quarterly 40/2, 571–577.
Crook, J.A. 1967: Law and Life of Rome (Aspects of Greek and Roman Life). London.
Danilov, E.S. 2017: [Securitas in “Panegyrici Latini”]. Problemy istorii, filologii, kul’tury [Journal of Historical, Philological and Cultural Studies] 3, 81–89.
Данилов, Е. С. Securitas в «Panegyrici Latini». ПИФК 3, 81–89.
Davis, P.J. 1999: Ovid’s Amores: a political reading. Classical Philology 94/4, 431–449.
Davis, P.J. 2016: Freedom of speech in Virgil and Ovid. In: P. Mitsis, I. Ziogas (eds.), Wordplay and Powerplay in Latin Poetry. Berlin–Boston, 183–198.
Devine, A.M. 1978: A Study of the Aristocratic Ideal and the Theme of Moral Decline in Latin Love Elegy. PhD thesis. Hobart.
Drinkwater, M.O. 2013: Militia amoris: fighting in love’s army. In: T. S. Thorsen (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Latin Love Elegy. Cambridge, 194–206.
Durov, V.S. 2000: Istoriya rimskoy literatury [A History of Roman Literature]. Saint Petersburg.
Дуров, В. С. История римской литературы. СПб.
Eckerman, Ch. 2016: Freedom and slavery in Vergil’s eclogue 1. Wiener Studien 129, 257–280.
Feldherr, A. 2010: Playing Gods: Ovid’s Metamorphoses and the Politics of Fiction. Princeton–Oxford.
Fraenkel, E. 1957: Horace. Oxford.
Galinsky, K. 1975: Ovid’s Metamorphoses: An Introduction to the Basic Aspects. Berkeley–Los Angeles.
Galinsky, K. 2006: Vergil’s uses of “libertas”: texts and contexts. Vergilius 52, 3–19.
Galinsky, K. 2017: [Augustan literature and Augustan “ideology”: an ongoing reassessment]. Shagi / Steps 3/4, 151–167.
Галински, К. Августовская литература и августовская «идеология»: пересмотр оценок. Шаги / Steps 3/4, 151–167.
Gebhardt, U.C.J. 2009: Sermo Iuris: Rechtssprache und Recht in der augusteischen Dichtung. Leiden–Boston.
Hollis, A.S. 1994: Rights of way in Ovid (Heroides 20.146) and Plautus (Curculio 36). Classical Quarterly 44/2, 545–549.
Janan, M. 2001: The Politics of Desire: Propertius IV. Berkeley–Los Angeles–London.
Johnston, P.A. 2006: Turnus, horses, and “libertas”. Vergilius 52, 20–31.
Kenney, E.J. 1969: Ovid and the law. Yale Classical Sudies 21, 241–263.
Kenney, E.J. 1970: Love and legalism: Ovid, Heroides 20 and 21. Arion: A Journal of Humanities and the Classics 9/4, 388–414.
Kennedy, D.F. 1992: “Augustan” and “Anti-Augustan”: reflections on terms of reference. In: A. Powell (ed.), Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus. London, 26–58.
Knabe, G.S. 1993: [Rome of Titus Livy – image, myth and history]. In: E. S. Golubtsova (ed.) Tit Livy, Istoriya Rima ot osnovaniya goroda [The History of Rome from Its Foundation]. Vol. III. Moscow, 590–655.
Кнабе, Г. С. Рим Тита Ливия – образ, миф и история. В кн.: Е. С. Голубцова (ред.) Тит Ливий, История Рима от основания города. Т. 3. М., 590–655.
Kudryavtseva, T.V. 2015: [Peace plea and opposition to war in the Roman poetry of the Civil wars epoch]. Mnemon. Issledovaniya i publikatsii po istorii antichnogo mira [Mnemon. Research and Publications on the History of the Ancient World] 15, 329–339.
Кудрявцева, Т. В. Призывы к миру и критика войны в римской поэзии эпохи гражданских войн. Мнемон. Исследования и публикации по истории античного мира 15, 329–339.
Lefèvre, E. 1998: Vergil as a republican: Aeneid 6.815–35. In: H. P. Stahl (ed.), Vergil’s Aeneid: Augustan Epic and Political Context. London, 101–118.
Lowrie, M. 2009: Writing, Performance, and Authority in Augustan Rome. Oxford–New York.
Lowrie, M. 2010: Vergil and founding violence. In: J. Farrell, M.C.J. Putnam (eds.), A Companion to Vergil’s Aeneid and Its Tradition. Malden (MA)–Oxford, 391–403.
Makhlayuk, A.V. 2019: [The space of the Roman world in “the Res gestae divi Augusti”]. Vestnik drevney istorii [Journal of Ancient History] 79/3, 653–677.
Махлаюк, А. В. Пространство римского мира в “Res gestae divi Augusti”. ВДИ 79/3, 653–677.
Mazurek, T. 1997: Self-parody and the law in Horace’s “Satires” 1.9. Classical Journal 93/1, 1–17.
McGinn, Th.A.J. 2001: Satire and the law: the case of Horace. Cambridge Classical Journal 47, 81–102.
McGowan, M.M. 2009: Ovid in Exile: Power and Poetic Redress in the Tristia and Epistulae ex Ponto. Leiden–Boston.
Mezheritskiy, Ja. Yu. 2016: “Vosstanovlennaya respublika” imperatora Avgusta [Emperor Augustus’ “Restored Republic”]. Moscow.
Межерицкий, Я.Ю. «Восстановленная республика» императора Августа. М.
Milnor, K. 2005: Gender, Domesticity, and the Age of Augustus: Inventing Private Life. New York.
Moreva-Vulikh, N.V. 2000: Rimskiy klassitsizm: tvorchestvo Vergiliya, lirika Goratsiya [Roman Classicism: Virgil’s Works, Horace’s Lyrics]. Saint Petersburg.
Морева-Вулих, Н. В. Римский классицизм: творчество Вергилия, лирика Горация. СПб.
Osherov, S.A. 1983: [Ovid’s lyrics and epic]. In: S. V. Shervinskiy (ed.), Ovidiy, Lyubovnye elegii. Metamorfozy. Skorbnye elegii [Ovid. Amores. Metamorphoses. Tristia]. Moscow, 3–22.
Ошеров, С. А. Лирика и эпос Овидия. В кн.: С. В. Шервинский (ред.), Овидий, Любовные элегии. Метаморфозы. Скорбные элегии. М., 3–22.
Pavlock, B. 1998: Daedalus in the labyrinth of Ovid's “Metamorphoses”. Classical World 92/2, 141–157.
Pavlock, B. 2009: The Image of the Poet in Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Madison.
Pokrovskiy, M.M. 1907: Ocherki po rimskoy istorii i literature [Essays on Roman History and Literature]. Saint Petersburg.
Покровский, М. М. Очерки по римской истории и литературе. СПб.
Rich, J.W., Williams, J.H.C. 1999: Leges et iura P. R. Restituit: a new aureus of Octavian and the settlement of 28–27 B. C. Numismatic Chronicle 159, 169–213.
Schmidt, E.A. 2001: The meaning of Vergil’s “Aeneid”: American and German approaches. Classical World 94/2, 145–171.
Segal, Ch. 1989: Orpheus: The Myth of the Poet. Baltimore–London.
Shtaerman, E.M. 1985: [From citizen to subject]. In: E. S. Golubtsova (ed.), Kul’tura drevnego Rima [Culture of Ancient Rome]. Vol. I. Moscow, 22–105.
Штаерман, Е. М. От гражданина к подданному. В кн.: Е. С. Голубцова (ред.), Культура древнего Рима. Т. 1. М., 22–105.
Shumilin, M.V. 2015: [Political context of Roman poetry]. Shagi / Steps 1/1, 213–222.
Шумилин, М. В. Политический контекст римской поэзии. Шаги / Steps 1/1, 213–222.
Smith, R.A. 2006: Books in search of a library: Ovid’s “response” to Augustan “Libertas”. Vergilius 52, 45–54.
Tatum, W.J. 1998: Ultra legem: law and literature in Horace, Satires II.1. Mnemosyne 51/6, 688–699.
Tokarev, A.N. 2011: Stanovlenie ofitsial’noy ideologii printsipata imperatora Avgusta [Formation of the Official Ideology of the Emperor Augustus’ Principate]. Kharkiv.
Токарев, А. Н. Становление официальной идеологии принципата императора Августа. Харьков.
Tronskiy, I.M. 1988: Istoriya antichnoy literatury [A History of Ancient Literature]. Moscow.
Тронский, И. М. История античной литературы. М.
Usov, D.A. 2021: [Libertas as interpreted by Ovid: freedom or willfulness?]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 8. Istoriya [Moscow University Bulletin. Series 8. History] 4, 3–18.
Усов, Д. А. Libertas в трактовке Овидия: свобода или своеволие? Вестник Московского университета. Серия 8. История 4, 3–18.
VerSteeg, R., Barclay, N. 2003: Rhetoric and law in Ovid’s Orpheus. Law and Literature 15/3, 395–420.
Von der Osten, D.E. 2006: The cult of the goddess “Libertas” in Rome and its reflection in Ovid’s poetry and Tibullan love elegy. Vergilius 52, 32–44.
Wirszubski, Ch. 1968: Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic and Early Principate. Cambridge.
Wyke, M. 1989: Mistress and metaphor in Augustan elegy. Helios 16, 25–47.
Ziogas, I. 2016: Orpheus and the law: the story of Myrrha in Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Law in Context 34/1, 24–41.
Ziogas, I. 2021: Law and Love in Ovid: Courting Justice in the Age of Augustus. Oxford.