THE PREDOMINANT VALUE IN THE WORLD OF OVIDS LOVE POETRY IS SINCERITY DISCUSS

Sincerity, or rather the lack of it, is inescapably central to Ovid’s amatory corpus. One cannot fail to note, as Sharrock has, that, “The lover’s discourse desperately seeks sincerity…seemingly incompatible with the necessary artifices of poetry.” It is difficult to be convinced of individual sincerity when a poet follows the typical topoi of Roman elegiac poetry (for example lover as slave or soldier) set out by Propertius and Tibullus, Catullus and Gallus before them, and Callimachus before that. How can a reader believe that so many will share the same, somewhat identical sentiments? Conforming to a couplet alone betrays some contrivance of vocabulary that must distance the author from his true, emotional intention. While admitting that Ovid makes use of the traditional topoi of the elegiac poet it is interesting to discuss the way in which he subverts these. Ovid differs from his forebears in that his motive to love is to obtain a muse for his elegy, instead of the love of a woman inspiring him to write elegiac poetry.

The most obvious example of this is that the first word of Propertius’s elegy is “Cynthia” but we do not learn Corinna’s name until the fifth poem of Ovid’s first book. Ovid’s priority is clearly to write in a particular style, the puella is merely a convention of elegy. This naturally calls into question the sincerity of the feelings expressed within the verse, which a reader may likewise interpret as functions of the form rather than genuine emotion. Amores 1.9 boldly states that, “Lover’s are soldiers” yet Sharrock points out that the decision to write elegiac poetry was one that chose “a life of decadence and devotion rather than civic and military success”. Being a lover is the antithesis of being a soldier. Within the topos of lover as soldier Ovid compares the conquest of Corinna to a campaign and imagines being awarded a triumph for his achievement (2.12).

This is clearly all metaphorical but could Ovid be commenting that a soldier’s time would be better spent in the conquest of women rather than territories? Ovid rejected civil life for his poetry and his antagonistic view of Augustus is abundantly apparent, so the amatory works may be seen as a wholesale rejection of the expected Roman masculine ideal. The Amores presents us with a persona that wants to play the game of love, rather than one who is helplessly caught in it.

This gives him the advantage of not being a slave to his emotions; he may be calculated in the treatment of his puella, acting the role of captivated servant while maintaining control. This becomes apparent in Ovid’s treatment of the elegiac topos of the lover as his puella’s slave (2.17.1-2). While appearing to be attentive in 3.2 the amator’sbehavior is actually aggressive and makes his object uncomfortable, “Why edge away? It’s no use” (3.2.19). He is also in control in 1.7, having beaten his beloved. He claims to be sorry, but when she sustains her silence he loses his temper again and tells her to tidy her hair, so that he doesn’t have to be reminded of his crime.

The power struggle here is interesting but he is never playing the role of slave. She may have the power by withholding her forgiveness but his continued pleading for her to relent is not the rite of a slave nor is the intimacy he speaks of (1.7.41-42). The illusion he creates of the lover as slave is consistently undermined and informs the reader not only of the amator’s insincerity but also of the poet’s intention to destabilize accepted poetic constructs. From feigning slavery to befriending the slaves, the preceptor suggests this because the suitor’s “path will be smoother” (1.52). The amator sycophantically employs this at the opening of 1.11, and then he praises Cypassis to her face (2.8.1-2) but insults her to Corinna (2.7.19-20).

If the amator is befriending the servants for personal gain, and making his audience aware of contrary feelings, then can any affection he professes be believed? The amator bewails the husband, one moment for not guarding his wife at all (2.19), the next for guarding her too strictly (3.4).

This poem tells the audience that the amator enjoys the chase, wants what he cannot have. But elsewhere he bemoans the barriers betwixt him and his puella: the door at 1.6, her servant in 2.2, and Corinna’s voyage in 2.11. If he likes the conflict and triumph against the odds why does he berate these things? It may be to simply act the part of the lover. The contradiction once again undermines any shred of sincerity. The amator actively encourages his puella to be deceitful, teaching her tricks by which to communicate with him, ways to mislead her husband (1.4). This one would expect but he outrageously goes on to advise her that she is free to cheat on him but “maintain she didn’t – to the end!” (1.4.70).

One would expect that amorous relationships would be based on trust, our amator has no interest in that, as long as he is unaware of her indiscretions. If trust is not important then the reader is confronted with a relationship based on the pursuit of pleasure rather than mutual emotional fulfillment. Therefore, the deep sighing of the amator elsewhere (one case is 2.16) is entirely bereft of sincerity. The amator is not the only one guilty of perpetrating or encouraging insincerity; Dipsas schools girls in the art of obtaining gifts by deceit. She openly states that shyness is “[a] boon, if faked” and for a girl to “keep her price down till the trap’s set” (1.8.36 and 69 respectively).

She also suggests that girls should amass lovers, with plenty plunder’s surer” (1.8.55). A girl cannot be sincere about her feelings for a suitor if she is likewise entertaining other men. What is also interesting is the amator’s reaction to Dipsas’s advice, “may you be cursed”, he is categorically against girls seeking material gain, or perhaps rather of girls attempting to profit from a relationship that he seeks to be the sole beneficiary of.

What one must note is that Dipsas here plays the same role as the preceptor will assume in the Ars, advising insincerity as a means to personal gain. The amator’s outrage proposes that he believes women should not be allowed to trick their suitors, as men are encouraged to deceive their puellas. He clearly expects sincerity from girls that he is not prepared to experience himself. But this flies in the face of what he has promoted elsewhere. The amator contradicts him and is therefore an unreliable individual who does not inspire his audience to trust his sincerity.

Focusing on Corinna one may venture that she does not exist as an individual. Her name appears in 1.5 but the ethereal quality of the verse implies a dream state in which perhaps only the amator is substantial. Allen notes that, “Historical identities have been found for the women in earlier elegy, but literary history is silent on Corinna”. While 1.3 and 1.4 appear to be addressed to a specific woman they could simply be archetypal letters that a lover should send. One may also cite 2.4, in which the amator lists the types of girls he falls for. They are numerous and indeed of every sort thus making Corinna just another girl, she really could be anyone or no one in particular. Ovid also states in 2.17 that a woman “broadcasts she’s Corinna”, which surely would not happen if there were a definite girl of which he wrote.

Ovid uses the puella as a construct; one cannot be sincere about loving a construct. The integrity of the amator and preceptor can be called into question when one notes that while creating an illusion of writing for the reception of a particular audience they exhibit their work to everyone. This is to say that while the amator refutes Corinna’s claims of infidelity with her maid, he immediately writes to the maid of their illicit relationship (Amores 2.7-8), both letters being on public display. The preceptor is likewise guilty of a lack of discretion when he publishes his first two books for men only, and his third for women, while all are available to both audiences.

On one level this is a mistake by the respective personas, the ‘wrong’ readers are made into voyeurs, reading what was not meant for them. But of course Ovid knows this is the case and wittingly offers the secret games of each sex for viewing by their opponents. This has the amusing affect of highlighting to women the treachery they fall for at the hands of their beaus. Also his fully explaining the ways women may improve their looks while keeping it a secret from their suitors is laughable (Ars 3.225-34). It is as if Ovid is holding the silly foibles of each sex up to scrutiny in order to make his audience aware of the absurdity of the rules of love. Not only does he allow women to read what is intended for the education of men but also he displays private verses, for Corinna’s eyes only, to the world. This is never more evident than in the juxtaposition of 2.7 and 2.8.

The first may be for Corinna, or indeed anyone, but the second poem is most definitely not something the amator would want his mistress to see. Yet Ovid presents them in succession because they are for public consumption, Corinna and Cypassis are merely constructs, a means by which Ovid may demonstrate the insincerity of the amator.

Here not only the characters of the Amores but the game of love itself is found disingenuous. The Ars seem to act as a contradiction to the Amores, undermining any semblance of sincerity the earlier work may have otherwise maintained. I refer principally to the preceptor’s suggestion of finding a girl at the racecourse, which the amator does in Amores 3.2. Every particular of the amator’sbehavior is suggested by the preceptor, “Sit next your mistress”, “back her fancy”, “[f]or…Venus…raise a cheer” (3.2.3, 73 and 55 respectively). The amator appears in earnest but the preceptor reveals contrivance and formulae in place of sincere consideration (1.135ff). The blatancy with which Ovid deconstructs his own elegy is quite comical, and doubles as a comment not only on the devices of poetry but also of courtship, it appears that girls really are subject to fall for the same old patter every time.

Having highlighted the ways in which the Arscontradict the Amores one might also note the contradictions inherent to the latter work itself. 1.3 depicts a sincere lover, desperate for his puella’s recognition, even highlighting “frank sincerity” (1.3.16) among his humble virtues. He states here that “[a] thousand charmers give me no joy” (1.3.18), then in 2.4 exclaims, “Every worthwhile girl…My love’s a candidate to win them all” (2.4.47-48). He also says, “I’m not love’s acrobat to leap from bed/to bed” (1.3.19-20) but 2.8 claims otherwise.

These glaring inconsistencies serve to subvert every claim the amator makes. The Ars points out that the game of love is based on art, and art is not real. Art conforms to a set of rules, as the elegy conforms to metre and topoi, while sincerity is something individual and personal, expressed in infinitely varying ways. The art Ovid has adopted is that of poetry. In order to achieve success in love he suggests poetry, painting (with regards make-up), and acting. Ars 1.611 instructs his pupil that one should “Enact the wooer, play the love-sick youth”. But then he says that this acting causes the player to truly fall in love so that he “lives the part that he’d begun to act” (1.616). Ovid is saying that by being insincere one comes to sincerity of feeling.

Therefore insincerity is the key, a starting point for all would-be-lovers, and is thus unequivocally central to Ovid’s love poetry. Towards the end of Ars 1 the preceptor offers some interesting advice on “Brute force” (1.673). This appears to be an endorsement of rape but can one take Ovid at his word? One may argue that Ovid is here pointing out some common chauvinistic misconception that “while resisting, [women] long to be subdued” (1.666), that is to say that no means yes. The preceptor endorses rape with a range of mythic exemplar including the Dioscuri (1.679-80) and even shows it as an act that confirms masculinity in the case of Achilles (1.697-98). While appearing to be positive the section is disquieting and seems to be saying that this is not the way to behave. This idea is confirmed when the preceptor immediately turns to teaching restraint, “stay your enterprise” (1.716).

We have already noted that the amatory works are a discourse on poetry as well as love; one may also cite a political stratum to the verse. Ovid was writing after Virgil, who’s Aenead was propaganda mythologizing Rome and Augustus’s ancestry. Perhaps Ovid is commenting on the fact that, with Augustus attempting to glorify the founding of Rome, one must also consider that it is a city founded on the rape of the Sabine women. This undermines the Emperor’s propaganda just as the whole amatory corpus challenges his marriage and adultery legislation of 18BC. This multi layering of intention weakens the integrity of the surface instructions. The discourse herein demonstrates that sincerity is not central to Ovid’s love poetry in the sense that both the amator and the preceptor suggest it as the preferred course of action. Its centrality lies in the fact that it is in constant discussion. Insincerity is promoted as the only successful method of securing a prosperous love affair. Ovid conceals many messages in the guise of amatory advice, for example his jibes at Augustus. So it is not only the personas but also the poet that conceals an agenda beneath an innocent guise.