オウィディウス『祭暦』第一巻の「平和」とヤヌス神

Abstract

This paper observes some incongruous expressions concerning Peace and Janus in the first book of the Fasti, which seem to reflect the characteristic narrative manner and arrangement of the work. Put the last to the first. The entry of ara Pacis on Jan. 30(709-22) contains some features fitting to sphragis : a main theme highlighted at the end of the book, and carmen deductum, 'fine-woven poem', suggested by the juncture carmen deduxit in 1.709. There are, however, other features pointing to the opposite : 1.709 is an extremely heavy and awkward line, with four spondees in the first four feet and a diaeresis after the first foot, which has no caesura, and 1.710 notes that this is the second-1ast day of the month, namely the wrong moment for a sphragis of the calendar poem. This incongruity seems to be concisely expressed by the phrase carmen deduxit, which, judging from the word order, does not really stand for carmen deductum, and to reflect the difficulty which the Fasti has to deal with : arrangement in calendrical order hinders coherent presentation. The proem (1-26) proclaims the Fasti to be poetry of peace. Ovid is anxiously nervous about putting the grand and weighty themes of augustan Rome in the little and light verse of elegy(4-5, 16), but he hopes that his work will stand within the genre with its year going well as long as it is in peace and doctus princeps(19f.) accepts it with the peaceful look(3), on which its success depends (17-18). This proem could have been aptly bridged to the Jan. I entry by the passage about Romulus' year of ten months(27-44) : the error of the rude and unlearned king's year was corrected by Numa, a pious, erudite and peace-10ving king, adding January and February, and at the beginning of the Jan. 1 entry Janus, the god of the month, takes over the role played by the prince, the dedicatee of the calendar poem, in the proem. In fact, there is the explanation of the characters of day(45-62) interrupting this smooth shift. It abruptly begins by saying : Ne tamen ignores(45)(also cf. ne fallare cave(58) in contrast to recognosces(7)), but why should a man so skilled in civica arma(23) as Germanicus be ignorant of those legal matters(45-53; note also iura(45), officium(46), vindicat(55), tutela(57))? Here we should pay attention to ll.61-2 : haec mihi dicta semel, totis haerentia fastis, /ne seriem rerum scindere cogar, erunt. The right comment in the right place : this passage itself fully demonstrates the disrupting nature by cutting off the transition. This incoherence combined with the sudden change of topic appears to expose the difficulty in arranging materials day by day which applies to the whole poem . On the first reading of the Jan. 1 entry, it seems that the interview with Janus (89-288) is its main body, and that the new consuls' inaugural rite(71-88) and the dedication of the temples for Aesculapius and Veiovis(289-94) are incidental, whereas they are the events marked on the calendar. In this respect the first line of the Aesculapius-Veiovis passage(Quod tamen ex ipsis licuit mihi discere fastis 289) is remarkably similar to that of the passage explaining the days(Ne tamen ignores variorum iura dierum 45). Someone may wonder if the teachings of Janus were not satisfactory(cf. disce 101, 133 ; percipe 102, 166 ; multa didici 228). But we should note that the dialogue also begins with a similar phrase(Quem tamen? 89), suddenly shifting the topic. And we wonder why Ovid was so frightened at the appearance of Janus, the god of peace. It is probably because it occurred to the poet's mind that the presence of Janus meant the opening of his temple's doors, i. e. Belli portae(cf. Verg. Aen. 7.607) : the god should hide in peace, reveal himself in war(277), then here would come a war, that might ruin the Fasti, a poem of peace! Why, then, did the god appear now? Because he thought he was asked to do so by the poet, who prayed that he might open the doors(70) and teach the cause (91). Of course, this was not what Ovid had intended. By the temples(70) he probably meant the new year figuratively, or specifically Iuppiter capitolinus (candida(70) suggests the white robes of the inaugural rite(79-80)) and the two temples dedicated on Jan. 1(patres(290) echoes patribus(69)). In this calendar poem it would be reasonable to imagine that Ovid's original plan had only those temples for Jan. 1. His expression, however, is so ambiguous(resera nutu tuo 70), that it is no wonder that Janus thought it was his own temple. Here is Ovid's first fault. His second is that he neglected the traditional form of invocation to the Muses when taking up a new theme(haec ego cum sumptis agitarem tabellis 93 ; cf. Callim. Aet. fr. 1.21-22). Perhaps Janus happily felt like revealing himself because the poet sidestepped the convention, to call upon him. Thus the dialogue between the god and the poet began by their miscommunication, product of sheer chance. At the start, the poet, hampered by the initial terror, looks very awkward : unable to say a word until the god's gentle eyes(voltu 145 ; cf. 3, 18) encourage him to inquire(145-46), after the long section (101-44), giving time for recovery, as the passage associating the opening of the doors with Peace going out over the world(121-22) helps the poet to overcome his fear. For that Ovid naturally gives thanks(147), but his first question, with his eyes still downcast(148), is pointlessly lengthy(149-60), while the god's answer is concise(161-64). The second question is anticipated by the god before it is uttered (165-66). In time, however, Ovid grows more and more at ease : the third question is launched immediately(mox ego 171) and the fourth(175-76) without any halt after the god's replies. Janus, on the other hand, now looks less cooperative as if he is looking for the right time to return to behind the doors (presumably because he cannot leave them open so long). After the poet's fourth question Janus makes a pause(177) for the first time. Twice he is said to have finished (desierat Ianus 183, finierat monitus 227), but each time Ovid finds the words to continue(183-84, 227-28). In his memories of the Golden Age (233-52) Janus associates a god hiding in Latium with the peaceful kingdom of his own(not of Saturn, who was just a hospes 240), presumably to suggest to Ovid that the god had better hide himself in time for peace. To conclude, exhibiting his key, Janus stresses his power to maintain peace(253-54), and shuts his mouth as if to close the gates (presserat ora deus 255). But Ovid does not care, opening his mouth to call out the god(255-56). This is Ovid's third fault. As a result, the god brought forth a war(rettulit arma 260), which broke out as the gates were unbarred(266, 269) and ceased when the path was closed(272), thanks to Janus. Now the poet, as well as the god, realizes it is time Ovid's last question is as short as a single line(277), as if to suggest that the god hide(lates?) After the last words of the god(279-82) there was peace(pax erat 285), probably because Janus was back on duty watching all over the world(283-84) from behind the gates. With regard to the ineptitude of Ovid as vates seen above, the last line of his prayer to Janus(288) could be paraphrased as. take care lest the author abandon his work (by carelessly unbarring(de-serat) your doors). In the Jan. 1 entry we see the defectiveness of calendrical arrangement being subtly balanced by the poet's incompetence. He promises to take up grand themes in calendrical order, but when he does so, the incoherent nature of the work is put into focus, while, when he fails, the results are successful : we can have a real feeling of peace through the humorous conversation between the timid, but careless and easy-going poet and the gentle, kind and generous god. The calendar looks like a book of complicated rules which enable a playful poet to enjoy the game better, rather than presenting the difficulties in making poetry.