https:\/\/www.antiquitatem.com\/en\/ovid-bimillenary-exile-euxine-pontus<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\tIt is also unknown and unexplained why this destination <\/em>was chosen: Tomis <\/em>in the Euxine Pontus<\/em>.
\n\tIn various passages he attributes his sentence to "error" and an "indiscretion". For example very clearly in Tristia II, 207 et seq .:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tThough two crimes, a poem and a blunder, have brought me ruin, of my fault in the one I must keep silent, for my worth is not such that I may reopen thy wounds, O Caesar ; 'tis more than enough that thou shouldst have been pained once. The other remains : the charge that by an obscene poem I have taught foul adultery. <\/strong><\/em>(Translation by Arthur Leslie Wheeler. The Loeb Classical Library.)<\/p>\n\n\tperdiderint cum me duo crimina, carmen et error,
\n\talterius facti culpa silenda mihi :
\n\tnam non sum tanti, renovem ut tua vulnera, Caesar,
\n\tquem nimio plus est indoluisse semel.
\n\taltera pars superest, qua turpi carmine factus
\n\targuor obsceni doctor adulterii.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tThus in his time, as Ovid <\/em>himself reports, he is known as "teacher of impudent adultery<\/em>," and this was directly in line with the program of morality of Augustus <\/em>and the Leges Iuliae of 18 BC. To 9 d.C.<\/em> which sought to defend the family and the ancient traditions, punishing adultery with exile and fineing those who had no children. These are in particular the lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis, the lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus and the lex Papia Poppaea.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tIt is clear that his mistake was to write the "Art of loving" (Ars amandi)<\/em>, as already he makes clear in the poem that serves as a presentation to his Tristia: I, 1, 67-68 <\/em>and then on multiple occasions:<\/p>\n\n\tExamine the title. I am not the teacher of love; that work has already paid its deserved penalty. <\/strong><\/em>(Translation by Arthur Leslie Wheeler. The Loeb Classical Library.)<\/p>\n\n\t'inspice' dic 'titulum. non sum praeceptor amoris;
\n\tquas meruit, poenas iam dedit illud opus'.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tBut he defends himself by affirming the difference between literature and life, that it is one thing to write and another to maintain certain behavior. In the elegy addressed to a friend orator, he says in Tristia I, 9,55 et seq:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tIt had been best that light had failed my pursuit. And just as you are aided, my eloquent friend, by serious arts, so arts unlike them have injured me. Yet my life is well known to you ; you know that with those arts their author's character had no connexion ; you know that this poem I was written long ago, an amusement of my youth, and that those jests, though not deserving praise, were still mere jests.<\/strong><\/em> (Translation by Arthur Leslie Wheeler. The Loeb Classical Library.)<\/p>\n\n\tat nostrum tenebris utinam latuisset in imis !
\n\texpediit studio lumen abesse meo.
\n\tutque tibi prosunt artes, facunde, severae,
\n\tdissimiles illis sic nocuere mihi.
\n\tvita tamen tibi nota mea est. scis artibus illis
\n\tauctoris mores abstinuisse sui :
\n\tscis vetus hoc iuveni lusum mihi carmen, et istos
\n\tut non laudandos, sic tamen esse iocos.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tHe repeats this idea that it was an error and not a crime, the fault he committed, at least six or seven times in addition to that quoted: Tristia I, 1,51-52; II, 109; III 1,7-8; III, 14,5-6; III, 7,29-30; IV, 1,24; IV, 10, 99 et seq .; In Pontics II, 2,15-16; II, 3,91-94; III, 3,71-72<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tAs Catullus <\/em>had to defend himself as forced to defend himself with his poems before, and then Martial<\/em> with some of his epigrams, and so many other writers since then, Ovid <\/em>sets the record straight in Tristia, on Book II, 345 ff. :<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tThis wantonness has caused thee to hate me on account of the arts which thou didst think disturbed unions that all were forbidden to attack. But no brides have learned deceptions through my teaching ; nobody can teach that of which he knows too little. I have composed songs of pleasure and love but in such fashion that no scandal has ever touched my name. No husband exists even amid the common people who doubts his fatherhood through sin of mine. I assure you, my character differs from my verse (my life is moral, my muse is gay), and most of my work, unreal and fictitious, has allowed itself more licence than its author has had. A book is not an evidence of one's soul, but an honourable impulse that presents very many things suited to charm the ear. Else would Accius be cruel, Terence a reveller, or those would be quarrelsome who sing of fierce war.<\/strong><\/em> (Translation by Arthur Leslie Wheeler. The Loeb Classical Library.)<\/p>\n\n\thaec tibi me invisum lascivia fecit, ob artes,
\n\tquis ratus es vetitos sollicitare toros.
\n\tsed neque me nuptae didicerunt furta magistro,
\n\tquodque parum novit, nemo docere potest.
\n\tsic ego delicias et mollia carmina feci,
\n\tstrinxerit ut nomen fabula nulla meum.
\n\tnec quisquam est adeo media de plebe maritus,
\n\tut dubius vitio sit pater ille meo.
\n\tcrede mihi, distant mores a carmine nostro
\n\t-vita verecunda est, Musa iocosa mea-
\n\tmagnaque pars mendax operum est et ficta meorum :
\n\tplus sibi permisit compositore suo.
\n\tnec liber indicium est animi, sed honesta voluntas
\n\tplurima mulcendis auribus apta ferens.
\n\tAccius esset atrox, conviva Terentius esset,
\n\tessent pugnaces qui fera bella canunt.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tIn this book Tristia II, 237 et seq<\/em>. he tells Emperor Augustus<\/em>, engaged in the important tasks of governing such a great empire, that he is not responsible for the misuse of his poems:<\/p>\n\n\tCan I wonder, then, that under this weight of great affairs thou hast never unrolled the volume of my jests ? Yet if, as I could wish, thou hadst chanced to have the leisure, thou wouldst have read no crimes in my " Art." That poem, I admit, has no serious mien, it is not worthy to be read by so great a prince ; but not for that reason is it opposed to the commandments of the law, nor does it offer teaching to the daughters of Rome. And that thou may'st not doubt for whom I write, one of the three books contains these four verses* : " Far from me ! ye narrow fillets, badge of modesty ! and thou, long ruffle covering half the feet** ! I shall sing of naught but what is lawful, of loves which men allow. There shall be in my song no sin." Have I not strictly excluded from this " Art " all women whom the assumption of the robe and fillet of wedlock protect ?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\tBut, thou mayst say, the matron can use arts intended for others and draw therefrom instruction, though she be not herself the pupil. Let the matron read nothing then, for from every song she can gain wisdom for sin. From whatever she touches, be she inclined to wrongdoing, she will equip her character for vice. Let her take up the Annals -naught is ruder than they- she will surely read by whom Ilia*** became a mother. So soon as she takes up the " Aeneadum genetrix," she will ask by whom fostering Venus became the mother of the Aeneadae****. I will show later, if only I may present it in order, that it is possible for the soul to be injured by every kind of poem.<\/strong><\/em> (Translation by Arthur Leslie Wheeler. The Loeb Classical Library.)<\/p>\n\n\tNotes<\/em>:
\n\t* The verses are in Ars Amandi, I 31-34, Art of loving, Remedia amoris 285-86
\n\t** The ribbons are the ties with which the free Roman women are tied and the purple steering wheel is worn by the matrons in the stole, which is their characteristic dress. The poet is telling us that his work is not for free Roman girls or midwives, but for slaves and professionals of love.
\n\t*** Ilia or Rea Silvia was a vestal priestess, therefore with a vow of chastity, who became pregnant with the god Mars and gave birth to the most famous Roman twins, Romulus and Remus.
\n\t**** The goddess Venus or Aphrodite, the wife of Hephaistos or Vulcan, fell in love with the mortal Anchises, she was presented to him like the daughter of Otreus, king of Phrygia and Aeneas was born from him.<\/p>\n\n\tmirer in hoc igitur tantarum pondere rerum
\n\tte numquam nostros evoluisse iocos ?
\n\tat si, quod mallem, vacuum tibi forte fuisset,
\n\tnullum legisses crimen in Arte mea.
\n\tilla quidem fateor frontis non esse severae
\n\tscripta, nec a tanto principe digna legi :
\n\tnon tamen idcirco legum contraria iussis
\n\tsunt ea Romanas erudiuntque nurus.
\n\tneve, quibus scribam, possis dubitare, libellos,
\n\tquattuor hos versus e tribus unus habet :
\n\t" este procul, vittae tenues, insigne pudoris,
\n\tquaeque tegis medios instita longa pedes !
\n\tnil nisi legitimum concessaque furta canemus,
\n\tinque meo nullum carmine crimen erit."
\n\tecquid ab hac omnes rigide summovimus Arte,
\n\tquas stola contingi vittaque sumpta vetat ?
\n\t" at matrona potest alienis artibus uti,
\n\tquodque trahat, quamvis non doceatur, habet."
\n\tnil igitur matrona legat, quia carmine ab omni
\n\tad delinquendum doctior esse potest.
\n\tquodcumque attigerit, siqua est studiosa sinistri,
\n\tad vitium mores instruet inde suos.
\n\tsumpserit Annales -nihil est hirsutius illis-
\n\tfacta sit unde parens Ilia, nempe leget.
\n\tsumpserit Aeneadum genetrix ubi prima, requiret,
\n\tAeneadum genetrix unde sit alma Venus,
\n\tpersequar inferius, modo si licet ordine ferri,
\n\tposse nocere animis carminis omne genus.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tAnd he does itso extensively, reviewing in many verses the most scurrilous episodes of Greco-Latin<\/em> mythology, before which the advice of his “Art of love” <\/em>may pale.<\/p>\n\n\tIt is the idea that he also reiterates in Pontics III, 3, 49 et seq<\/em>. speaking imaginatively with Eros <\/em>who has appeared to him in dreams:<\/p>\n\n\tYet thou knowest, and thou couldst swear it with a clear conscience, that I have not disturbed lawful wedlock. This I wrote for those who have no modest locks to be touched with the fillet nor a long stole descending to their feet. 3 Speak, I beg thee hast thou at any time learned to deceive brides, rendering descent uncertain by my precepts ? Or has not every wo nan been strictly excluded from these books whom the law protects from stealthy paramours ? Yet of what avail is this if men believe that I have composed directions for that adultery which is forbidden by stern laws ? <\/strong><\/em> (Translation by Arthur Leslie Wheeler. The Loeb Classical Library.)<\/p>\n\n\tscis tamen, et liquido iuratus dicere possis,
\n\tnon me legitimos sollicitasse toros.
\n\tscripsimus haec illis, quarum nee vitta pudicos
\n\tcontingit crines nee stola longa pedes.
\n\tdie, precor, ecquando didicisti fallere nuptas,
\n\tet facere incertum per mea iussa genus ?
\n\tan sit ab his omnis rigide summota libellis,
\n\tquam lex furtivos arcet habere viros ?
\n\tquid tamen hoc prodest, vetiti si lege severa
\n\tcredor adulterii composuisse notas ?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tHe insists on the same idea soon after, Tristia II, 303 ff.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tFar from the " Art," written for courtesans alone, its first page warns the hands of upright women. Any woman who breaks away to a place forbidden by a priest, forthwith removes from him the sin and becomes herself guilty. Nevertheless it is no crime to read tender verse ; the chaste may read much that they should not do. Often matrons of serious brow behold women nude, ready for every kind of lust. The eyes of Vestals behold the bodies of courtesans* nor has that been the cause of punishment to their owner. Yet why is my muse so wanton ? Why does my book advise anybody to love ? There is naught for me but confession of my error and my obvious fault : I repent of my talent and my tastes.<\/strong><\/em> (Translation by Arthur Leslie Wheeler. The Loeb Classical Library.)<\/p>\n\n\tNote<\/em>:
\n\t* Because they attended the Floralia festivities between April 28 and May 3, when prostitutes were exhibited naked according to the work of Ovid Fasti V, 159-378.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tet procul a scripta solis meretricibus Arte
\n\tsummovet ingenuas pagina prima manus.
\n\tquaecumque erupit, qua non sinit ire sacerdos,
\n\tprotinus huic dempti criminis ipsa rea est.
\n\tnec tamen est facinus versus evolvere mollis ;
\n\tmulta licet castae non facienda legant.
\n\tsaepe supercilii nudas matrona severi
\n\tet veneris stantis ad genus omne videt.
\n\tcorpora Vestales oculi meretricia cernunt,
\n\tnec domino poenae res ea causa fuit.
\n\tat cur in nostra nimia est lascivia Musa,
\n\tcurve meus cuiquam suadet amare liber ?
\n\tnil nisi peccatum manifestaque culpa fatenda est :
\n\tpaenitet ingenii iudiciique mei.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tThe whole book II<\/em> is really a defense of his poetry, which in no way pretends to be a stimulus for the immorality of the Roman matrons<\/em>, because it is not addressed to them. On the other hand, their alleged immoralities do not clash in the Greco-Roman<\/em> cultural, religious and social context, in the context of their mythology, plagued by scabrous episodes, and their way of life.<\/p>\n\n\tAlready at the beginning of this book II, verse 1 and ss. tells us:
\n\tWhat have I to do with you, ye books, illstarred object of my toil, -I, ruined and wretched through my own talent ? Why do I seek once again the Muses so recently condemned, the causes of my guilt ? Or is one well-earned penalty not enough ? Verse gave men and women a desire to know me, but 'twas no good omen for me ; verse caused Caesar to brand me and my ways by commanding that my " Art” be forthwith taken away. Take away from me my pursuit and you will take away from my life also the charges against it.<\/strong><\/em> (Translation by Arthur Leslie Wheeler. The Loeb Classical Library.)<\/p>\n\n\tQuid mihi vobiscum est, infelix cura, libelli,
\n\tingenio perii qui miser ipse meo ?
\n\tcur modo damnatas repeto, mea crimina, Musas ?
\n\tan semel est poenam commeruisse parum ?
\n\tcarmina fecerunt, ut me cognoscere vellet
\n\tomine non fausto femina virque meo :
\n\tcarmina fecerunt, ut me moresque notaret
\n\tiam demi iussa Caesar ab Arte mea.
\n\tdeme mihi studium, vitae quoque crimina demes ;<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tBut despite the problems that his poems have caused him, the poetry is a passion that he can not renounce. That passion is what made him no listening the advice of his father. See the article in this blog where I quote the famous verse what ever I tried to write was verse." "quod temptabam dicere versus erat” https:\/\/www.antiquitatem.com\/en\/poetry-is-a-godsend-horace-ovid-virgil<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\tIn an expressive and heartfelt way he explains why he resorts to poetry in his exile. He says in Tristia, IV, 1, 19 and ss.:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tMe also the Muse comforted while on my way to the appointed lands of Pontus ; she only was the steadfast companion of my flight the -only one who fears neither treachery, nor the brand of the Sintian soldier, nor sea nor winds nor the world of the barbarians.
\n\t…………..
\n\tWell could I wish, since they were destined to work me harm, that I had ne'er set hand to the holy service of the Pierian ones. But now, what am I to do ? The very power of that holy service grips me ; madman that I am, though song has injured me, 'tis still song that I love.<\/strong><\/em> (Translation by Arthur Leslie Wheeler. The Loeb Classical Library.)<\/p>\n\n\tme quoque Musa levat Ponti loca iussa petentem :
\n\tsola comes nostrae perstitit ilia fugae ;
\n\tsola nee insidias, Sinti nec militis ensem,
\n\tnec mare nec ventos barbariamque timet.
\n\t…………….
\n\tnon equidem vellem, quoniam nocitura fuerunt,
\n\tPieridum sacris inposuisse manum.
\n\tsed nunc quid faciam ? vis me tenet ipsa sacrorum,
\n\tet carmen demens carmine laesus amo.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tCould be the cause of exile this book, Ars Amandi, Ars amatoria<\/em>, which had been circulating in Rome <\/em>for more than eight years? The poet himself is surprised that the punishment has come so late. He tells us in Tristia. II, 539-546:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tI too sinned in that style of composition thus a fault not new is suffering a new penalty and I had published verse when thou wert censuring our sins and I passed thee so many times, a knight uncriticized. Thus the writings which in my youth all thoughtless I supposed would harm me not, have harmed me now that I am old. Late and overfull is the vengeance for that early book, distant is the penalty from the time of the sin<\/strong><\/em>. (Translation by Arthur Leslie Wheeler. The Loeb Classical Library.)<\/p>\n\n\tnos quoque iam pridem scripto peccavimus isto:
\n\tsupplicium patitur non nova culpa novum;
\n\tcarminaque edideram, cum te delicta notantem
\n\tpraeteriit totiens inreprehensus eques.
\n\tergo quae iuvenis mihi non nocitura putavi
\n\tscripta parum prudens, nunc nocuere seni.
\n\tsera redundavit veteris vindicta libelli,
\n\tdistat et a meriti tempore poena sui.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tThe truth is that the poet was not so young: he was 42 years old.<\/p>\n
\n\tIt does not seem, therefore, that the real cause was to have written the Ars Amandi (Ars Amatoria)<\/em>, but another one of more substance and gravity, as the poet himself reflects when he makes Eros <\/em>himself, whom he recurs to justify his poetry, to say in Epistulae ex Ponto , III, 3, 65 et seq.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tThus methought I spoke to the winged boy, in these words methought he answered me, " By my weapons, the torch and arrows, by my mother I swear, and by Caesar's head, that I have learned naught but what is lawful from thy mastership, that there resides no crime in thine ‘ Art.' As I defend thee on this score, would I could on the rest! Thou knowest there is another thing that has injured thee more. Whatever this is (for neither should the painful tale itself be repeated nor canst thou say that thou art free from guilt), though thou dost veil thy crime under the guise of ' error ' the wrath of the judge was not too severe.<\/strong><\/em> (Translation by Arthur Leslie Wheeler. The Loeb Classical Library.)<\/p>\n\n\thaec ego visus eram puero dixisse volucri,
\n\thos visus nobis ille dedisse sonos :
\n\t" per mea tela, faces, et per mea tela, sagittas,
\n\tper inatrem iuro Caesareumque caput,
\n\tnil nisi concessum nos te didicisse magistro,
\n\tArtibus et nullum crimen inesse tuis.
\n\tutque hoc, sic utinam defendere cetera possem !
\n\tscis aliud, quod te laeserit, esse, magis.
\n\tquicquid id est (neque enim debet dolor ipse referri,
\n\tnee potes a culpa dicere abesse tua)
\n\ttu licet erroris sub imagine crimen obumbres,
\n\tnon gravior merito iudicis ira fuit.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tThere was something more serious, an indiscretion that had to do directly with Augustus<\/em>, to which he refers clearly in Book II, 103 et seq <\/em>.:<\/p>\n\n\twhy did I see anything ? Why did I make my eyes guilty ? Why was I so thoughtless as to
\n\tharbour the knowledge of a fault ? Unwitting was Actaeon when he beheld Diana unclothed ; none the less he became the prey of his own hounds. Clearly, among the gods, even ill-fortune must be atoned for, nor is mischance an excuse when a deity is wronged. On that day when my ruinous mistake ravished me away, my house, humble but stainless, was destroyed humble indeed.<\/strong><\/em> (Translation by Arthur Leslie Wheeler. The Loeb Classical Library.)<\/p>\n\n\tCur aliquid uidi? cur noxia lumina feci?
\n\t Cur imprudenti cognita culpa mihi?
\n\tInscius Actaeon uidit sine ueste Dianam:
\n\t Praeda fuit canibus non minus ille suis.
\n\tScilicet in superis etiam fortuna luenda est,
\n\t Nec ueniam laeso numine casus habet.
\n\tIlla nostra die, qua me malus abstulit error,
\n\t Parua quidem periit, sed sine labe domus:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tThe allusion to the myth of Acteon, who saw naked Diana or Artemis<\/em>, the virgin goddess of the hunt and was transformed into deer devoured by their own dogs, unleashed the speculations and made several think that Ovid <\/em>saw something that offended to the emperor, such as Livia, his wife; Or perhaps he saw some ceremony of the Goddess <\/em>or Isis <\/em>cults, forbidden to men.<\/p>\n\n\tHe insists on the guilty fact of having seen something that was not due in Tristia, III, 5, 45 et seq .:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tI never sought to wreck everything by assailing the life of Caesar, which is the life of the world. I have said nothing, divulged nothing in speech, let slip no impious words by reason of too much wine : because my unwitting eyes beheld a crime, I am punished, and 'tis my sin that I possessed eyes. I cannot indeed exculpate my fault entirely, but part of it consists in error.<\/strong><\/em> (Translation by Arthur Leslie Wheeler. The Loeb Classical Library.)<\/p>\n\n\tNon mihi quaerenti pessumdare cuncta petitum
\n\t Caesareum caput est, quod caput orbis erat:
\n\tNon aliquid dixiue, elataue lingua loquendo est,
\n\t Lapsaque sunt nimio uerba profana mero:
\n\tInscia quod crimen uiderunt lumina, plector,
\n\t Peccatumque oculos est habuisse meum.
\n\tNon equidem totam possum defendere culpam:
\n\t Sed partem nostri criminis error habet.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tAnd again in Tristia III, 6, 27 ff.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tTis not a brief tale or safe to say what chance made my eyes witness a baleful evil. My mind shrinks in dread from that time, as 'twere from its own wounds, and the very thought of it
\n\trenews my shame ; whatever can bring such sense of shame should be covered and hidden in the darkness of night. Nothing then will I say except that I have sinned, but by that sin sought no reward ; folly is the proper name for my crime, if you wish to give the true title to the deed.<\/strong><\/em> (Translation by Arthur Leslie Wheeler. The Loeb Classical Library.)<\/p>\n\n\tNec breue nec tutum, quo sint mea, dicere, casu
\n\t Lumina funesti conscia facta mali:
\n\tMensque reformidat, ueluti sua uulnera, tempus
\n\t Illud, et admonitu fit nouus ipse pudor:
\n\tSed quaecumque adeo possunt afferre pudorem,
\n\t Illa tegi caeca condita nocte decet.
\n\tNil igitur referam nisi me peccasse, sed illo
\n\t Praemia peccato nulla petita mihi,
\n\tStultitiamque meum crimen debere uocari,
\n\t Nomina si facto reddere uera uelis.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tSeen and read this whole story, apparently so detailed and so often repeated, it seems only an attempt to leave everything in the most absolute nebula and ambiguity, and consequently we are not really aware of the lack.<\/p>\n
\n\tAs I mentioned in the previous article quoted, several explanations or solutions have been proposed to the enigma of what Ovidio saw, what was his indiscretion, which evidently had to do directly with Augustus. It has been thought that perhaps Ovid <\/em>was a connoisseur or participant in some scabrous episode of the imperial family, in particular of his daughter Iulia<\/em>, who had been from Scribonia<\/em>, or her granddaughter, Iulia <\/em>also daughter of the same Scribonia <\/em>and Agrippa<\/em>, or even that the own Augustus<\/em> had committed incest with them (remember that in the same year that the poet the Young Iulia <\/em>was banished to a remote island probably by adultery); Or at some point saw the wife of Augustus <\/em>naked, perhaps in the bathroom; Or saw something forbidden to men at festivals in honor of Isis <\/em>or the Good<\/em> Goddess<\/em>; Or that he even had some love affair with the emperor's daughter; Or was a connoisseur and participant in some meeting of some group that was not a supporter of Augustus, or participated in the conspiracy of Fabius Maximus<\/em> in favor of the succession of Agrippa Postumus<\/em>, grandson of Augustus, and supporters of Germanicus and not of Tiberius <\/em>in succession in the context of the rivalries between the "Iulii" and the "Claudii<\/em>". This last hypothesis has been raised by numerous and recognized scholars. All these are unsupported hypotheses, which in any case have not been confirmed.<\/p>\n\n\tThere is even a somewhat absurd assumption that would not deserve to be quoted unless it was the work of an expert and famous person in the study of Roman History, Jerome Carcopin<\/em>o (1881-1970), member of the French Academy among many other titles.<\/p>\n\n\tAccording to the imaginative proposal of this author, Ovid <\/em>would actively belong to a kind of secret Neopythagorean <\/em>sect that celebrates meetings where using the magic power of the numbers they conspire or they try to harm Augustus; It should be noted that Augustus had also prohibited certain divinatory practices.<\/p>\n\n\t3<\/strong>. Their participation in a plot against the emperor and the characteristics of the sentence is not well agreed. As Ovid himself tells us on several occasions, he was not exiled <\/em>but relegated <\/em>or confined (relegatus) without confiscation of property or loss of other rights.<\/p>\n\n\tAlthough his works were removed from the libraries and his reading was forbidden, Ovid did not suffer a "damnatio memoriae" or elimination of any reference that kept his memory, because his works have almost reached us in their totality; And all this is also somewhat contradictory to the stubbornness of Augustus <\/em>and then Tiberius <\/em>not to grant him forgiveness, not even to bring his destiny closer to Italy or Rome:<\/p>\n\n\tTristia, II, 121 and ff.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\t