Open main menu


Neutral, informative point of viewEdit

I brushed up a little for you guys. There is still a massive amount of work to be done. My editing skills are but average, so that's why you'll need to edit quite a bit until it's perfectly polished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Gay couplesEdit

Is it needful to say that the topic of the books is '(heterosexual) love and sex'? I know that it may not be politically correct, but heterosexuality is the unmarked form when referring to such things. It would only be notable to say if the books were about homosexual love and sex. I will make the changes. Oswax 07:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It is needful to realise that homosexuality was not accepted back in 1 B.C, thus the book was only made for heterosexual couples, and whie it may mean both, it was meant for heterosexuals. not gays please do some research, and don't forget the rule: No unstated facts, or original research.-- (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that it is needful given Ovid's particularly irregular damning of homosexuality within this poem. Compare this to his contemporary Martial who wrote many homosexual lines. Given the nature of Roman love and love poetry clarification that this directly applies to heterosexual love is important. Howtheocritushadsung (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree, since the other love poets conventionally include homoerotic material, though Ovid's "damning" is really not that. (Martial was not Ovid's contemporary, BTW.) I don't think he actually condemns homosexuality per se. It's simply his personal preference, and has a political dimension in that in Latin love poetry, the object of same-sex love among men was invariably a boy, and the relationship was quite unequal and often plainly exploitive, as the "boy" most often would've been a slave. So Ovid's affirmation of heterosexual love, as he explicitly states, is that real pleasure comes from loving an equal, not from using sex to express a domination paradigm. This is radical not only because of a distaste for power inequality (which is one of the ways in which Ovid may be viewed as expressing republican sympathies contra the new regime of the first emperor Augustus), but because he regards women as equals in the erotic relationship. Remember that this is the work that according to tradition (if not reality) got him exiled, in part because it encouraged women to be sexually independent. The IP is wrong to say that "it meant both," and is bafflingly wrong to say that homosexuality was not "accepted" in the 1st century BC, though homoeroticism was no longer idealized as it was in Classical Greece. It's a complicated issue that would get us off the subject here, since Ovid is not prescribing for same-sex relations. Though presumably many of his "tips" for seduction would work, to the extent that they work at all. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


Why did this book cause Augustus to banish Ovid? Was it too pornagraphic? Was it offensive? I don't understand. Celsiana 00:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


Agustus was trying to reverse the declining morals of Rome, including all the extramarital sex Roman women were having. Roman men were expected to have sex with their babies, sex slaves, non-citizens, and of couse, their wives. Roman women were expected to tend to the household, and visit only their husband's beds.

The main problem with the book was that it contributed to the breakdown of morals by encouraging such perversions as Roman women having sex like Roman men. (Don't forget that one of the 'great' founding stories of Rome, was the mass rape and abduction of the Sabine women, their acquiesce, and eventual acceptence of their rapists as husbands. {I suspect to avoid war between Sabine and Rome.} I only mention this because I belive it helps to put the 'proper' view of a Roman woman into perspective.)

The Ars Amatoria was, of course, the most popular book of its time. Augustus was fighting a loosing battle, to the extent that, in an attempt to lead by example, he even disowned his sons and daughter for their loose morals.

But the main reason that Ovid was banished was probably the rumored affair that Ovid was having with Augustus' daughter, who I believe was exiled at the same time.

Or so sayth the History Channel. ;)

BB 04:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the translation be posted in wikibooks instead of in wikipedia, since it is not a short piece? Rintrah 12:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The book doesn't belong in this articleEdit

It's not considered acceptable to quote enormous chunks of text as is being done in this article, the book needs to be moved to Wikisource or wikibooks. --Xyzzyplugh 14:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't move to Wikisource until the translator is identified. This may be a violation of the translator's coyright.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey! This is the only article in wikipedia written by Ovid. Rintrah 22:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Content section is highly opinionated.Edit

I'm just a guest here on wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure that there is something wrong with the "content" section of the article. It is highly opinionated; the whole section is full of phrases that make it seem as though it was taken completely out of a review regarding the book. This page needs one of those boxes that informs readers that the page is highly opinionated (I apologize for not knowing the technical term). Please deal with this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, the content section is not at all NPOV and needs serious work to be anywhere near encyclopedia standards. Could someone please address this? (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto again. The middle paragraph under "reception" about Ovid's relegation and the role of his poetry in it does not represent the real variation of scholarly opinion on the matter; the idea that Ovid's own statement (carmen et error) is "inadmissable" as evidence (and "for many reasons", none of which are stated), is paradoxical at the least; indeed, the thrust of Ovid's defense to Augustus in Tristia 2 is all about poetry and censorship, which it makes little sense that Ovid would trump up this theme for a defense that was merely a literary exercise. Again, this section, along with the entire, article, needs more balance and less slanted POV.-- (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the suggestion that Ars means textbook can stand. The first line, si quis in hoc artem populo non novit amandi, can hardly refer to a textbook.Seadowns (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

About the potency of the textEdit

"Ovid hardly offers lore of great potency to his eager disciples," the article states. This is really down to how you interpret the "lore", and I do not think Wikipedia should be a text critic! There are many passages in this text that even the lovers of today may learn a great deal from! As for "brushing the dust off her gown" - this is simply a great way to instigate touch, without it being seen as impromptu. And being able to make a woman accept your touch is one of the first hurdles a lover must overcome. Thus I don't think it's bad advice at all! --Kebman (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC) (I just now saw that NPOV has already been discussed.)

NPOV disputeEdit

In accordance with the above comments, I've added a POV template to the content section of this article. I will attempt to work on it myself, but it's going to need the eyes of more than one editor to attain neutrality. Amphy (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

  • After rereading the full article, I've noticed some other major NPOV issues in other sections of the article. I'm going to go ahead and place a full POV template at the top of the article until it can be resolved. Amphy (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Finally working on NPOVEdit

I've finally started working on cleaning up the POV issues with this article. I could use some help, and I'd love if we could utilize some of the content from The Art of Love section on Ovid. I think we can also pull some sources from that page to help solidify info on Ovid's exile in relation to the Ars amatoria, as well as content on his meter (elegiac couplet) and his genre (love elegy). Perhaps we can also add some info on the preceeding Amores and Ovid's development of Ars amatoria from that. I am rereading my library's abridged version of The Art of Love but someone more familiar with the elegy is welcome to take a crack at this article. Amphy (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead and Body IssuesEdit

The lead currently states "It is about teaching basic Gentlemanly male and female relationship skills and techniques", which is not supported by the text. Gentlemanly, as defined in the wiki link is "good, courteous conduct". Ovid takes a cynical view of love and encourages making false promises ("If you are wise, practise deceit on women alone, for that you may do with impunity..."), adultery ("Be courteous to her husband too. Nothing could better serve your plans than to be in his good graces.") manipulation ("Tears, too, are a mighty useful resource in the matter of love"), trickery ("Let him think there's someone else with whom he has to share your charms. Some such tricks as these are needed"), and other dishonest actions which are the opposite of Gentlemanly. That word should be removed for inaccuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NastyBrutishAndTall (talkcontribs) 23:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


The Body starts off with "The Ars amatoria can be called a burlesque satire on didactic poetry." Why is this considered burlesque satire, when the book was apparently written in earnest? Its seems odd to call it that without any verifiable citation.

Also, the book doesn't seem to match the definition of burlesque satire, which is defined in Resolution of the Debate in the Medieval Poem The Owl and the Nightingale, by Karen M. Gasser as "satire which diminishes its object through incongruous imitation."

("As Chiron was to Achilles, so I am to Cupid"—in other words, "I pacified the wild Cupid") - The first quote here is from the Art of Love, but where is the second quote from? It's not in my version of Art of Love.

Finally, the excepted quotes are presented without context as to the whole work.

Any issues with me doing some serious editing in regards to the above issues? NastyBrutishAndTall (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Publishing DateEdit

The article states that the Ars amatoria was written in the year 2 AD, but the infobox says that it was published (ca.) 1 BC, which is three years before it is supposed to be written. (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Return to "Ars Amatoria" page.