Copyright (C) 2006 by Mark Bear Akrigg

THE LAST POEMS OF OVID

A New Edition, with Commentary, of the Fourth Book of the Epistulae ex Ponto

by Mark Bear Akrigg, Ph.D.

Original (unpublished) edition © 1985 by Mark Bear Akrigg

First published edition, corrected and augmented © 2006 by Mark Bear Akrigg

This edition and commentary are dedicated to
ROB MORROW

"quo non mihi carior alter"

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Editor gratefully acknowledges the permission of the Herzog August Bibliothek for the use of Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel: Cod. Guelf. 13.11 Aug. 4° (fragmentum Guelferbytanum).

PREFACE

It is a pleasure to present to the public this digital edition, with commentary, of Ex Ponto IV, the final poems written by the Roman poet Ovid, published after his death as a posthumous collection quite separate from the earlier Ex Ponto I-III.

These poems have a special place among Ovid's works, but have not received the attention which they deserve. In particular, there has been no full modern commentary on these poems.

This text presented in this edition is based on my personal examination of ten manuscripts. I have also restored to the text certain readings commonly accepted by editors until the nineteenth century. Finally, the edition contains several dozen new textual conjectures by myself and others.

The intended audience of this edition

This edition is intended to serve as a guide to the poems for intermediate and advanced students of Latin poetry. However, I have deliberately made it as straightforward as possible, and my hope is that even a beginning student of Latin poetry embarking on the study of these poems will find the commentary helpful.

This edition is also directed towards present and future Latin textual critics.

My expectation when starting my research for this edition was that I would be presenting a text that differed little from that to be found in current editions. However, I made two discoveries during my research into the text.

The first discovery was that many important textual corrections generally accepted in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had been suppressed by editors in the course of the nineteenth century. I have restored many of these readings to the text, and others will be found in the textual apparatus.

The second discovery was that there was a surprisingly large number of passages which appeared to be corrupt and for which it was possible to suggest corrections. Given the long history of Latin textual criticism, and Ovid's central position in Roman literary history, it was surprising to find that so much remained to be done. Yet such was the case.

Nothing is more certain than that this book of poems as well as the three earlier books of the Ex Ponto represent an outstanding opportunity for future editors and commentators to contribute to the progress of Latin scholarship.

History of this edition

I originally prepared this edition and commentary during my time as a graduate student at the University of Toronto. Upon its completion (and my graduation) in 1985, a copy was deposited at the National Library of Canada.

Had I followed a university teaching career after graduation, I would undoubtedly have taken the necessary steps to publish the edition, if only in pursuit of academic promotion. But I instead chose a career in the software industry, which both removed the external incentive to publish the edition, and denied me the time that I would have needed to prepare it for publication.

However, I wished to ensure that future editors and commentators were aware of the edition and would be able to make use of it. I therefore decided to publish two short articles drawn from the edition. These articles were intended to make generally available two textual conjectures which I considered likely to be correct. But the articles were also intended to make future editors aware that I had worked on the text of Ovid, so that they would seek out my unpublished edition.

The first article ("An Intrusive Gloss in Ovid Ex Ponto 4.13") appeared in Phoenix (vol. 40, p. 322) in 1986: it reported the restoration of IV xiii 45 discussed at [page 408] of the commentary. Phoenix is published by the Classical Association of Canada, and since my own training in the classical languages had taken place almost entirely in Canada, it seemed appropriate that my first publication should be in a Canadian journal.

To my surprise and pleasure, my short article attracted a critique by Professor Allan Kershaw ("Ex Ponto 4.13: A Reply", Phoenix, vol. 42, p. 176), followed by a learned defense of my conjecture by Professor James Butrica ("Taking Enemies for Chains: Ovid Ex Ponto 4.13.45 Again", Phoenix, vol. 43, pp. 258-59).

Four years later, I published a second article ("A Palaeographical Corruption in Ovid, Ex Ponto 4.6"), which appeared in the May 1990 issue of the Classical Quarterly ([pp. 283-84]). This article reported the restoration of IV vi 38 discussed at [pages 240-41] of the commentary. I selected the Classical Quarterly because of its prominence within the world of classical scholarship, and in particular because of its close association with the modern history of Latin textual criticism: it was in the Classical Quarterly that many of the learned articles of A. E. Housman first appeared.

My hope had been that these two articles would serve as a signpost that would lead editors to my edition. The publication of J. A. Richmond's Teubner edition of the Ex Ponto in 1990 proved that this plan was inadequate. Professor Richmond had indeed discovered the existence of my edition: it received a prominent and flattering mention at the end of his preface. However, he stated that he received the microfilm of the edition too late for use in his edition!

In his review of Richmond's Teubner edition in the Classical Review (n.s. 42, 2 [1992], pp. 305-06), Professor James Butrica highlighted a number of proposed emendations from my edition.

It had become clear there was considerable outside interest in the work that I had done, and that simply having a copy of an unpublished edition on deposit at the National Library of Canada was not a sufficient means of making the edition available to the public, so over the years that followed I gave some consideration to how I might publish the edition so that it would be conveniently available to students of Latin poetry.

Early in 2006, I was working as a volunteer proofreader for the Project Gutenberg digital library: I noticed that the Project Gutenberg library included some public domain classical editions comparable in scope to my own. Prompted by this, I decided that I would publish my edition online in order to make it instantly accessible free of charge to anyone wishing to use it. This seemed in every way preferable to seeking out a university press, going through the time-consuming process of seeking the necessary grants to subsidize publication, in order to produce a printed book so expensive that no student and not many libraries could afford to purchase a copy.

Nature of this edition

In essence, this is a corrected version of the original typescript. Typing errors have been corrected, and minor errors have been set right.

All statements made and conjectures proposed should be considered to have been made in 1985.

The HTML and Text versions of this edition

This digital edition is being made available in two versions.

The HTML version takes advantage of the Unicode character set to present Greek passages using the Greek alphabet, and to present certain other special characters, such as the macron. It also offers hyperlinks from the table of contents and from the indices to the relevant sections of the edition.

Popular and useful as HTML is, it does not offer the universality of ASCII text. Essentially every computer can display plain ASCII text correctly. The Text version is presented so that the edition can be read on any computer, large or small, new or old. However, this portability comes at a price. The ISO 8859-1 ASCII character set does not include the Greek alphabet, nor does it include certain special characters which form part of this edition.

Therefore, the Text version of this edition presents Greek passages transliterated into the Latin alphabet. Similarly, in the textual apparatus any capital letter occurring in the report of a manuscript should be considered to be that letter in lower case, with a macron (dash) above.

When the textual apparatus reports a manuscript correction where the original reading is no longer legible, the HTML version underlines the corrected letters, but the Text version uses capitalization. For example, the Text version reports "facTisque _B2c_" at iii 25: a later hand in B has erased the original fourth letter, and has replaced it with "t".

In the commentary, when metre is being discussed and a Latin word is quoted, any vowel in that word which is capitalized is long, and any vowel which is not capitalized is short. I have occasionally pointed out explicitly that a word is metrically inconvenient because it has a series of short vowels: in the HTML edition, because the actual letters are marked short, these statements will appear to be redundant.

In the Latin text, the start and end of passages which are deeply corrupt and therefore difficult to correct are indicated by an asterisk, instead of the usual dagger (obelus).

Finally, in the critical apparatus, 'æ' is used where a manuscript has 'e' with a cedilla.

Enhancements made: the indices

In order to make the digital edition as useful as possible, I have added this preface, a full table of contents, and two indices.

The first index (starting on [page 477]) is an index of topics discussed. It is a selective rather than an exhaustive index for the following two reasons:

(1) A commentary is already in effect indexed by the text it is linked to. If, for instance, readers wish to find what the commentary has to say about a certain passage, all they need do is turn to the part of the commentary dealing with that passage.

(2) A digital edition can be searched online very quickly and easily. A reader wishing to find any mention of the eminent Dutch textual critic Nicolaus Heinsius could find every mention of Heinsius in the edition simply by using "Heinsius" as a search argument.

However, some of the discussions in the commentary do not have an obvious link to the text, nor would they necessarily be found quickly by an electronic search. An example would be the discussion of "Simple verbs used for compound ones" at [page 281].

Also, there were some parts of the introduction and commentary which I wanted to highlight to the reader as being of possible interest: including references to these in the index would serve this purpose.

For similar reasons, I have included (starting on [page 489]) an index of textual emendations first proposed in this edition. Some of these emendations involve works other than Ex Ponto IV, and authors other than Ovid. The index of textual emendations makes these corrections easy to find.

The debt I owe to others

I was able to create this edition only because of the help that I have received over the years from others.

My basic training in the classical languages took place at the University of British Columbia, where I completed my B.A. in 1974, and my M.A. in 1977. It is impossible to repay the debt I owe to every single member of the Classics Department at that time.

Professor Charles Murgia of the University of California (Berkeley) initiated me into the mysteries of Latin palaeography and textual criticism.

I created this edition while a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Classics at the University of Toronto. I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Professor Richard Tarrant, who encouraged me to undertake the edition, posed many excellent questions, and offered many excellent suggestions.

I owe a similar debt to Professor Alexander Dalzell, Professor Elaine Fantham, Professor J. N. Grant, and Professor C. P. Jones, all of them members of the Graduate Department of Classics at the University of Toronto when I was creating the edition.

I have known Rob Morrow for twenty-one years, and he has touched every aspect of my life. The study of Latin poetry is a field of endeavour far removed from his usual interests: but even here he has made an important contribution in the work he did in scanning the original typescript, and in his continuing encouragement and support during the months I worked on creating this digital edition. It is to him, with deep affection and gratitude, that I dedicate this edition.

INTRODUCTION

In AD 8, when he was fifty years of age, Ovid was abruptly banished from Rome to Tomis, an exile from which he never returned. In his poetry from exile, he gives two reasons for the banishment: the publication of the Ars Amatoria, and an unnamed error (Tr II 207; EP III iii 71-72)[1]. The Ars Amatoria had been published some years previously, being generally dated on the basis of AA I 171-72 to 2 BC or shortly thereafter; compare Tr II 545-46. The error was clearly the real cause of the banishment; what precisely this error was Ovid does not reveal, but it appears from Tr II 103-4 and Tr III v 49-50 to have been the witnessing of some action that was embarrassing to the imperial family. Beyond this nothing is known, for Ovid was careful to avoid compounding his original mistake by mentioning what it consisted of.

The catastrophe which befell Ovid did not put an end to his poetic activity; from the eight or nine years of his exile we possess a corpus of elegiac verse that substantially exceeds in bulk the combined production of Tibullus and Propertius.

The first work produced by Ovid was book I of the Tristia. Although it is perhaps not literally true that Ovid wrote much of the poetry on shipboard (Tr I xi 3-10), all of the poems are directly related to the circumstances of his downfall and his journey to exile; and it is reasonable to suppose that the book was published shortly after Ovid's arrival in Tomis.

In his first poems from exile, Ovid had attempted to engage the sympathy of the public on his behalf; his next production was a direct appeal to Augustus in the 578-line elegiac poem that comprises the second book of the Tristia. The poem is written with Ovid's usual clarity and elegance, but its failure to secure his recall is not surprising. The poem deals only with the publication of the Ars Amatoria, which was not the true cause of the exile; and rather than admitting his guilt and appealing to Augustus' clemency, Ovid tactlessly argues that Augustus had been wrong to exile him.

The years 10, 11, and 12 saw the publication of the final three books of the Tristia. The charge of monotony that is generally brought against Ovid's poetry from exile (and was brought by his friends at the time; Ovid makes his defence in EP III ix) is most nearly true of these three books of verse. He was unable to name his correspondents and vary his poetry with personal references as he was to do in the Ex Ponto; and the pain of exile was so fresh as to exclude other topics.

Not all of Ovid's literary efforts in exile were devoted to his letters. It appears from Fast IV 81-82 and VI 666, as well as from the dedication to Germanicus at the start of the first book (at Tr II 551 Ovid says he dedicated the work to Augustus) that the Fasti in the edition we possess is a revision produced by Ovid in exile after the death of Augustus.

In AD 12 Ovid produced the Ibis. The greater part of the poem is a series of curses showing such minute mythological learning that many of them have not been explained; but the poem's lengthy exordium is a powerful treatment of Ovid's circumstances and Ibis's perfidy that has been considered Ovid's most perfect literary creation (Housman 1041).

Many scholars also ascribe the composition of the final six Heroides to the period of Ovid's exile; but although the literary appeal of these three sets of double epistles is considerable, I believe that their comparative diffuseness of manner indicates that Ovid was not their author. They are, however, clearly modelled on the Heroides written by Ovid, and I have frequently quoted from them in the commentary.

In AD 12 Ovid must have received some indication that it was safe for him to name his correspondents. He took full advantage of this new opportunity to induce his friends to work on his behalf; it is clear from Ovid's references to his fourth year of exile (I ii 26, I viii 28) and to Tiberius' triumph of 23 October AD 12 (II i 1 & 46, II ii 75-76, II v 27-28, III i 136, III iii 86, III iv 3)[2] that all three books were written within the space of a single year: as fast a rate of composition as can be proved for any part of Ovid's life. The three books were published as a unit: the opening poem of the first book and the closing poem of the last are addressed to Brutus, who was therefore the dedicatee of the collection; both poems are apologies for Ovid's verse. No such framing poems are found at the start of books II or III, or at the end of books I and II, although the addressees of II i and III i, Germanicus and Ovid's wife, were clearly chosen for their respective importance and closeness to Ovid.

Ex Ponto IV

The fourth book of the Ex Ponto constitutes a work separate from the three books composed in AD 12. The earliest datable poem in the book is the fourth, written shortly before Sextus Pompeius' consulship in AD 14; the latest is the ninth, written in honour of Graecinus' becoming suffect consul in AD 16. Of the books of Ovid's verse which are collections of individual poems, the fourth book of the Ex Ponto is the longest, being some 926 lines in length (excluding the probably spurious distichs xv 25-26 and xvi 51-52). The mean average length of such books is 764 lines; and the next longest after Ex Ponto IV is Am III, with 824 lines (excluding the spurious fifth poem). I take the length of the book as an indication that in its present form it is probably a posthumous collection: Ovid's editor either gathered the individual poems to form a single book that was unusually long, or added a few later poems to a book previously assembled by Ovid[3].

Syme (HO 156) argues that the order of the poems indicates that Ovid survived to publish or at least to arrange the book: the fact that the first and penultimate poems are addressed to Sextus Pompeius indicates that Ovid dedicated the book to him. Professor R. J. Tarrant points out to me correspondences of structure between EP IV and some of Ovid's earlier books. If the sixteenth and final poem of EP IV is considered a sphragis-poem, as is indicated by Nasonis in the opening line, we are left with a fifteen-poem book of which the first and last poems are addressed to Sextus Pompeius, and in which the middle poem is addressed to Germanicus through his client Suillius[4]. The same structural outline of 1-8-15 appears in Amores I and III—the opening and closing poems of both books are concerned with Ovid's verse, while the eighth poem of each book stands somewhat apart from the other poems: Am I viii is about the procuress Dipsas, while III ix (the eighth poem in the book after the removal of the spurious fifth poem) is the elegy on the death of Tibullus.

Ovid's addressees in Ex Ponto IV

Sextus Pompeius, consul ordinarius in 14, and himself a relative of Augustus, is the recipient of no less than four letters in EP IV[5]. It is significant that he is not the recipient of any of Ovid's earlier letters from exile; this is discussed in the next section.

In the attention Ovid gives Sextus Pompeius there can be seen, according to Syme (HO 156), a deliberate attempt to gain the favour of Germanicus, who is mentioned in connection with Sextus Pompeius at v 25. It is interesting that in viii Ovid addresses Germanicus' quaestor Suillius (and in the course of the poem addresses Germanicus), and that the recipient of xiii is Carus, the tutor of Germanicus' sons. But it is only natural that Ovid, when at last permitted, should address so influential a man as his benefactor Sextus Pompeius; and it does not seem strange that he should address his fellow poet Carus, still less that he should send a letter to Suillius, husband of his stepdaughter Perilla.

C. Pomponius Graecinus, the recipient of ix, must have had some political influence, since the poem is in celebration of his becoming suffect consul in 16. But he probably owed this influence to his brother Flaccus, a close friend of Tiberius who succeeded Graecinus as consul ordinarius for 17, and whom Ovid gives prominent mention at ix 57 ff. Graecinus must have been an old associate of Ovid, since he has the rare distinction of being mentioned by name in a poem written by Ovid before his exile (Am II x 1).

Two of Ovid's correspondents were orators. Gallio, the addressee of the eleventh poem, is frequently quoted by the elder Seneca. He was a senator; both Tacitus and Dio give accounts of how he fell into disfavour with Tiberius for proposing that ex-members of the Praetorian guard be granted the privilege of using the theatre seats reserved for members of the equestrian order (Ann VI 3; LVIII 18 4). Brutus, the recipient of the sixth poem and dedicatee of the first three books of the Ex Ponto, is not mentioned by other writers, but it appears from vi 29-38 that he had a considerable reputation as a forensic orator, although some allowance must be made for possible exaggeration in Ovid's description of his close friend. The poem contains six lines on the death of Fabius Maximus, to whom Ovid had addressed EP I ii and III iii; perhaps he and Brutus had been associates.

Five epistles are addressed to Ovid's fellow poets. Cornelius Severus, the recipient of the second poem, was one of the most famous epic poets of the day; he is mentioned by Quintilian (X i 89), and the elder Seneca preserves his lines on the death of Cicero (Suas VI 26), Albinovanus Pedo, the recipient of the tenth epistle, was known as a writer of hexameter verse and of epigram. He served in Germanicus' campaign of AD 15 (Tac Ann I 60 2), and the elder Seneca preserves a fragment of his poem on Germanicus' campaigns (Suas I 15). It might be argued that in addressing him Ovid is once again trying to win Germanicus' favour. But in view of his intimacy with Ovid (mentioned at Sen Cont II 2 12), Albinovanus seems a natural choice to receive one of Ovid's letters. Tuticanus, the recipient of the twelfth and fourteenth poems and author of a Phaeacid based on Homer (mentioned at xii 27 and again in the catalogue of poets at xvi 29), is known only through the Ex Ponto; the same is true of Carus, author of a poem on Hercules and, as already mentioned, tutor of the sons of Germanicus.

Vestalis, the recipient of the seventh poem, is in a class separate from the other recipients of Ovid's verse epistles. As primipilaris of the legion stationed in the vicinity, he would of course have been without influence at Rome, but as (apparently) the prefect of the region around Tomis, he presumably had some control over Ovid's circumstances.

The traitorous friend to whom the third poem is addressed was a real person, for Ovid is quite explicit when speaking of their past together and of the friend's perfidy towards him; the same cannot be said of the inuidus to whom is addressed the concluding poem of the book, a defence of Ovid's reputation as a poet.

Cotta Maximus, the younger son of Tibullus' patron Messalla, is prominently mentioned at xvi 41-44 as an unpublished poet of outstanding excellence. He is the recipient of six letters in the earlier books of the Ex Ponto. Syme finds it significant that there is no poem in EP IV addressed to Cotta: 'Ovid ... was now concentrating his efforts elsewhere: Germanicus, the friends of Germanicus, Sextus Pompeius ... The tardy tribute may perhaps be interpreted as a veiled reproach' (HO 128). But arguments from silence are dangerous; and Ovid's mention of Cotta seems flattering enough.

It is perhaps safer to postulate a change in Ovid's feelings towards his wife. She is never mentioned in EP IV, although she had been the recipient of some eight earlier letters from exile (Tr I vi, III iii, IV iii, V ii, xi, xiv, EP I iv, III i; Tr V v was written in honour of her birthday). At EP III vii 11-12 Ovid indicates that his wife's efforts on his behalf had not matched his hopes:

nec grauis uxori dicar, quae scilicet in me
quam proba tam timida est experiensque parum.

The fact that Ovid chose not to address any verse epistle to his wife during his final years at Tomis may well reflect a cooling in his attitude towards her.

Differences between Ex Ponto IV and the earlier poetry from exile

The criticism most often made of Ovid's poems from exile is that they are repetitive and therefore monotonous. EP III ix 1-4 shows that the same criticism was made while Ovid was still alive:

Quod sit in his eadem sententia, Brute, libellis,
carmina nescio quem carpere nostra refers:
nil nisi me terra fruar ut propiore rogare,
et quam sim denso cinctus ab hoste loqui.

Ovid does not attempt to deny the criticism, but explains that he wished to obtain the assistance of as many people as possible:

et tamen haec eadem cum sint, non scripsimus isdem,
unaque per plures uox mea temptat opem.

(41-42)

nec liber ut fieret, sed uti sua cuique daretur
littera, propositum curaque nostra fuit.
postmodo collectas utcumque sine ordine iunxi:
hoc opus electum ne mihi forte putes.
da ueniam scriptis, quorum non gloria nobis
causa, sed utilitas officiumque fuit.

(51-56)

Ovid's explanation is reasonable enough, and is confirmed by the speed with which he composed the first three books of the Ex Ponto once he knew that it was safe to name people in his verse. The first three books of the Ex Ponto, like the Tristia, were written with the single objective of securing Ovid's recall, and this naturally caused a certain repetition of subject-matter.

By the time Ovid wrote the poems that would form the fourth book of the Ex Ponto, he had lived in Tomis for six or more years, and it must have been clear to him that his chances of recall were slight. The result of this is a diminished use of his personal situation as a theme for his verse. Often he introduces his plight in only one or two distichs of a poem, subordinating the topic to the poem's main theme. The result of this technique can be seen in such extended passages as the descriptions of the investiture of the new consul (iv & ix), the address to Germanicus on the power of poetry (viii), or the catalogue of poets that concludes the book. In all of these passages Ovid's desire for recall is only a secondary theme.

The mixing of levels of diction

As well as variety of subject, the fourth book of the Ex Ponto shows a variation in style that is typical of Ovid's letters from exile. The poems use the metre and language of elegiac verse. But at the same time they are letters, and are strongly influenced by the structure and vocabulary of prose epistles. This influence is naturally more obvious at some points than at others; and even within a single poem there can be a surprising degree of variation in the different sections of the poem.

Some poems tend more to one extreme than the other. The eleventh poem, a letter of commiseration to Gallio on the death of his wife, is extensively indebted to the genre of the prose letter of consolation; this prose influence is evident in such passages as:

finitumque tuum, si non ratione, dolorem
ipsa iam pridem suspicor esse mora

(13-14)

At the opposite extreme is the final poem of the book, a defence of Ovid's poetry; as this was a traditional poetic subject, the level of diction throughout the poem is extremely high, particularly in the catalogue of poets that forms the main body of the poem.

An interesting result of the mixture of styles is the presence in the poems of exile of words and expressions which belong essentially to prose, being otherwise rarely or never found in verse. Some instances from Ex Ponto IV are ad summam (i 15), conuictor (iii 15), abunde (viii 37), ex toto (viii 72), di faciant (ix 3), secreto (ix 31), respectu (ix 100), quominus (xii 1), praefrigidus (xii 35), and tantummodo (xvi 49).

Both in subject and style the sixteen poems of Ex Ponto IV show a wide variety, worthy of the creator of the Metamorphoses. The following section examines the special characteristics of each of the poems.

The letters to Sextus Pompeius

Sextus Pompeius is the recipient of poems i, iv, v, and xv; only Cotta Maximus and Ovid's wife have more letters from exile addressed to them. It is clear from the opening of IV i that Pompeius had himself prohibited Ovid from addressing him; and Ovid is careful to present himself as a client rather than a friend; the tone is of almost abject humility, and he shows circumspection in his requests for assistance.

In the opening of the first poem, Ovid describes how difficult it had been to prevent himself from naming Pompeius in his verse; in the climactic ten lines he declares that he is entirely Pompeius' creation. Only in the transition between the topics does he refer to future help from Pompeius, linking it with the assistance he is already providing:

nunc quoque nil subitis clementia territa fatis
auxilium uitae fertque feretque meae.

(25-26)

The fourth poem is a description of how Fama came to Ovid and told him of Pompeius' election to the consulship; Ovid then pictures the joyous scene of the accession. At the end of the poem he indirectly asks for Pompeius' assistance, praying that at some point he may remember him in exile. The device of having Fama report Pompeius' accession to the consulship serves to emphasize the importance of the event and raise the tone of the poem. Ovid had earlier used Fama as the formal addressee of EP II i, which described his reaction to the news of Germanicus' triumph. In the fifth poem Ovid achieves a similar effect through the device of addressing the poem itself, giving it directions on where it will find Pompeius and what consular duties he might be performing[6]. Only in the concluding distich does Ovid direct the poem to ask for his assistance.

The fifteenth poem contains Ovid's most forceful appeal for Pompeius' assistance. It is interesting to observe the techniques Ovid uses to avoid offending Pompeius. The first part of the poem is a metaphorical description of how Ovid is as much Pompeius' property as his many estates or his house in Rome. This leads to Ovid's request:

atque utinam possis, et detur amicius aruum,
remque tuam ponas in meliore loco!
quod quoniam in dis est, tempta lenire precando
numina perpetua quae pietate colis.

(21-24)

He then attempts to compensate for the boldness of his request. First he says that his appeal is unnecessary:

nec dubitans oro; sed flumine saepe secundo
augetur remis cursus euntis aquae.

(27-38)

Then he apologizes for making such constant requests:

et pudet et metuo semperque eademque precari
ne subeant animo taedia iusta tuo

(29-30)

He ends the poem with a return to the topic of the benefits Pompeius has already rendered him.

The letter to Suillius addressing Germanicus

No poem in the fourth book of the Ex Ponto is addressed to a member of the imperial family, but the greater part of IV viii, nominally addressed to Suillius, is in fact directed to his patron Germanicus. Suillius' family ties with Ovid and his influential position would have made it natural for Ovid to address him in the earlier books of the Ex Ponto or even in the Tristia; and it is clear from the opening of the poem that Suillius must have distanced himself from Ovid:

Littera sera quidem, studiis exculte Suilli,
huc tua peruenit, sed mihi grata tamen

In the section that follows, Ovid asks for Suillius' assistance, rather strangely setting forth his own impeccable family background and moral purity; then he moves to the topic of Suillius' piety towards Germanicus, and in line 31 begins to address Germanicus with a direct request for his assistance. In the fifty-eight lines that follow he develops the argument that Germanicus should accept the verse Ovid offers him for two reasons: poetry grants immortality to the subjects it describes; and Germanicus is himself a poet. In this passage Ovid allows himself a very high level of diction; as the topic was congenial to him, the result is perhaps the finest extended passage of verse in the book[7].

Ovid ends his address to Germanicus by asking for his assistance; only in the final distich of the poem does he return to Suillius.

The letters to Brutus and Graecinus

Only two of the ten addressees named by Ovid in EP IV were recipients of earlier letters from him. Brutus, to whom IV vi is addressed, was also the addressee of EP I i and III ix, while Graecinus, to whom IV ix is addressed, was the recipient of EP I vi and II vi.

There is some difference between Ovid's treatment of Brutus and Graecinus in EP IV and in the earlier poems. EP IV vi is highly personal, being mostly devoted to a lengthy description of Brutus' apparently conflicting but in fact complementary qualities of tenacity as a prosecuting advocate and of kindness towards those in need; no poem in the fourth book of the Ex Ponto is more completely concerned with the addressee as a person. In contrast, nothing is said of Brutus in EP I i, where he acts as the mere recipient of the plea that he protect Ovid's poems, or in III ix, where Brutus is the reporter of another's remarks on the monotony of Ovid's subject-matter. The address to Graecinus in IV ix, on the other hand, is much less personal than in I vi and II vi. The part of EP IV ix concerned with Graecinus describes his elevation to the consulship, and was clearly written (in some haste) to celebrate the event. The earlier poems are more concerned with Graecinus as an individual: in EP I vi Ovid describes at length Graecinus' kindliness of spirit and his closeness to his exiled friend, while in II vi Ovid admits the justice of the criticism Graecinus makes of the conduct which led to his exile, but thanks him for his support and asks for its continuance.

The letters to Tuticanus

The two letters to Tuticanus show a similar dichotomy.

Of the two poems, xii is more personal and more concerned with poetry. The first eighteen lines are a witty demonstration of the impossibility of using Tuticanus' name in elegiac verse, while the twelve verses that follow recall their poetic apprenticeship together. In the final twelve lines, referring to Tuticanus' senatorial career, Ovid asks him to help his cause in any way possible.

Poem xiv is far less personal than the earlier epistle. The only mention of Tuticanus is at the poem's beginning:

Haec tibi mittuntur quem sum modo carmine questus
non aptum numeris nomen habere meis,
in quibus, excepto quod adhuc utcumque ualemus,
nil te praeterea quod iuuet inuenies.

The bulk of the poem is a defense against charges raised by some of the Tomitans that he has defamed them in his verse. Ovid answers that he was complaining about the physical conditions at Tomis, not the people, to whom he owes a great debt. It is characteristic of the fourth book of the Ex Ponto that Ovid complains less of his exile than in his earlier verse from exile; this poem furnishes the most explicit demonstration that the years spent in exile and the dwindling likelihood of recall has made Ovid reach an accommodation with his new conditions of life.

The topic of the poem clearly has no relation to Tuticanus; Professor R. J. Tarrant points out to me Ovid's use of the same technique in some of the Amores, such as I ix (Militat omnis amans), and II x, to Graecinus on loving two women at once, where there is no apparent connection between the addressee and the subject of the poem. Professor E. Fantham notes that the bulk of xiv could even have been written before Ovid chose Tuticanus as its addressee.

Other letters to poets

Three other poems in the book are addressed to poets. In all of them poetry itself is a primary subject.

The letter to Severus

The second poem in the book, addressed to the epic poet Severus, opens with a contrast of the situations of the two poets. The main body of the poem is concerned with the difficulty of composing under the conditions Ovid endures at Tomis, and the comfort that he even so derives from pursuing his old calling. The poem is well constructed and the language vivid. A particularly fine example of the use Ovid makes of differing levels of diction is found at 35-38:

excitat auditor studium, laudataque uirtus
crescit, et immensum gloria calcar habet.
hic mea cui recitem nisi flauis scripta Corallis,
quasque alias gentes barbarus Hister obit?

The emotional height of the tricolon, where Ovid describes poetic inspiration, gives way to a comparatively prosaic distich where he explains that the conditions necessary for inspiration do not exist at Tomis.

At the poem's conclusion Ovid reverts to Severus, asking that he send Ovid some recent piece of work.

The letter to Albinovanus Pedo

In the tenth poem of the book, poetry is not the main subject; instead, Ovid describes the hardships he endures at Tomis, and then describes at length the reasons the Black Sea freezes over. Towards the end of the letter, however, he explains why he is writing a poem to Albinovanus on this seemingly irrelevant topic[8]. The language recalls the poem to Severus:

'detinui' dicam 'tempus, curasque fefelli;
hunc fructum praesens attulit hora mihi.
abfuimus solito dum scribimus ista dolore,
in mediis nec nos sensimus esse Getis.'

(67-70)

In the poem's concluding lines he links his own situation with the Theseid Albinovanus is engaged on: just as Theseus was faithful, so Albinovanus should be faithful to Ovid.

The letter to Gallio

This letter is remarkable for its economy of structure, and indeed is so short as to seem rather perfunctory. Only twenty-two lines in length, it is a letter of consolation addressed to Gallio on the death of his wife. In the first four lines Ovid apologizes for not having written to him earlier. Ovid's exile serves as a bridge to the main topic of the poem:

atque utinam rapti iactura laesus amici
sensisses ultra quod quererere nihil

(5-6)

The remainder of the poem consists of the ingenious interweaving of various commonplaces of consolation. The poem is a good illustration of the secondary importance Ovid often gives his own misfortune in the fourth book of the Ex Ponto.

The letter to Carus

The thirteenth poem, like the second letter to Tuticanus, shows Ovid's acceptance of his life in Tomis. In it he tells Carus of the favourable reception given a poem he had written in Getic on the apotheosis of Augustus. The poem's opening is of interest as showing Ovid's consciousness of verbal wit as a special characteristic of his verse. He starts the poem with a play on the meaning of Carus' name, then tells him that the opening will by itself tell him who his correspondent is. In the lines that follow he discusses the individuality of his own style and that of Carus; this serves to introduce the subject of his Getic verse.

The letter to Vestalis

The subordination of the topic of Ovid's exile to another subject can be clearly seen in the seventh poem of the book, addressed to Vestalis, primipilaris of a legion stationed in the area of Tomis. As in the letter to Gallio, mention of Ovid's personal misfortune is confined to one short passage near the start of the poem:

aspicis en praesens quali iaceamus in aruo,
nec me testis eris falsa solere queri

(3-4)

The descriptions that follow of wine freezing solid in the cold and of the Sarmatian herdsman driving his wagon across the frozen Danube are so picturesque that the reader's attention is drawn away from Ovid's personal situation. Ovid describes the poisoned arrows used in the region; then, in language recalling his letter to Gallio, expresses his regret that Vestalis has had personal experience of these weapons:

atque utinam pars haec tantum spectata fuisset,
non etiam proprio cognita Marte tibi!

(13-14)

The remainder of the poem is a description of Vestalis' capture of Aegissos. The description is conventional and unfelt; Ovid seems merely to have assembled a few standard topics of military panegyric.

The third poem

Poem iii, addressed to an unidentified friend who had proved faithless, is a well-crafted but not particularly original warning that Fortune is a changeable goddess, and his friend might well find find himself one day in Ovid's position. The familiar examples of Croesus, Pompey, and Marius are used; as the last and therefore most important example Ovid uses his own catastrophe. The device recalls the Ibis, where Ovid's final curse is to wish his enemy's exile to Tomis.

Poem xvi

The concluding poem of the book is a defence of Ovid's poetry. The poem's argument is that poets generally become famous only after their death, but that Ovid gained his reputation while still alive. The greater part of the poem is a catalogue of Ovid's contemporary poets, the argument being that even in such company he was illustrious.

As elsewhere he equates his exile with death; the defence of his poetry therefore includes only the poetry that he wrote before his exile.

TEXTUAL INTRODUCTION

The Manuscripts

The manuscript authority for the text of the fourth book of the Ex Ponto is significantly poorer than for the earlier books because of the absence of A, Hamburgensis scrin. 52 F. This ninth-century manuscript has been recognized since the time of Heinsius as the most important witness for the text of the Ex Ponto; it breaks off, however, at III ii 67.

The manuscript authorities for the fourth book can be placed in three categories. The fragmentary G is from a different tradition than the other manuscripts. B and C are closely related, and offer the best witness to the main tradition. The other manuscripts I have collated are more greatly affected by contamination and interpolation; of them M and F show some independence, while no subclassification can be made of H, I, L, or T.

G

The fragmentum Guelferbytanum, Cod. Guelf. 13.11 Aug. 4°, generally dated to the fifth or sixth century, is the oldest manuscript witness to any of Ovid's poems. Part of the collection of the Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel, it was discovered by Carl Schoenemann, who published his discovery in 1829; details of his monograph will be found in the bibliography. The two pieces of parchment are a palimpsest, having been reused in the eighth century for a text of Augustine; later they were incorporated into a bookbinding. As a result of this treatment they are in extremely poor condition.

G contains all or part of ix 101-8, ix 127-33, xii 15-19, and xii 41-44. To make it perfectly clear when G is a witness to the text, I have not grouped it with other manuscripts, but have always specified it by name. If G is not mentioned in an apparatus entry, it is not extant for the text concerned.

G is written in uncial script, with no division between words but with indentation of the pentameters. Its one contribution to the establishment of the text is at ix 103, where it reads quamquam ... sit instead of the more usual quamquam ... est found in the other manuscripts. In general, the text offered by G is surprisingly poor. At ix 108 it reads fato for facto, at ix 130 it has the false and unmetrical spelling praeces, at ix 132 it has misscelite for misi caelite, at xii 17 it reads lati for dilati, and at xii 19 naia for nota. These errors demonstrate that the rest of the tradition does not descend from G.

Korn gives an accurate transcription of the fragment in the introduction to his edition; photographs of parts of the fragment can be found at Chatelain, Paléographie des classiques latins, tab. xcix, 2 and E. A. Lowe, Codices Latini Antiquiores, vol. IX, p. 40, no. 1377.

B and C

Monacensis latinus 384 and Mon. lat. 19476, both dated by editors to the twelfth century, are descended from a common ancestor. This is easily demonstrated by the large number of shared errors not found in other manuscripts[9]. At iv 36 B and C have intendunt for the correct intendent, at viii 6 uolo for uoco, at viii 18 perueniemus for inueniemur (-ntur,-mus), at viii 44 illa for ulla, at viii 89 cara for care, at ix 44 fingit for finget, at ix 71 quod for cum (FILT) and ut (HM), at ix 92 praestat for perstat, at ix 97 et for ut, at xiii 5 certe est for certe, and at xiv 30 culpatus for culpatis. In some of these passages B's still visible original reading has been corrected by a later hand. In other passages it is clear from the signs of correction that B originally agreed with C in distinctive readings now preserved in C alone: subito for sed et (iii 27), erat for eras (vi 9), occidit for occidis (vi 11), suspicit for suscipit (ix 90), parent for darent (xvi 31).

B and C on the whole offer a better text than any other manuscript. At iii 44 B¹ and C omit the lost pentameter, where the other manuscripts offer interpolations. At iv 11 they alone give the probably correct solus for tristis, at xii 3 aut for ast, and at xvi 31 tyrannis (conjectured by Heinsius) for tyranni. At v 40 C and B² alone have the correct mancipii ... tui for mancipium ... tuum.

Both manuscripts naturally have readings peculiar to themselves. B has about fifty unique readings. It places iii 11-12 after 13-14, omits v 37-40, and interchanges viii 49-50 and 51-52. At iv 34 B alone has erunt (for erit), conjectured by Heinsius; C omits the word. Similarly, at xi 21 B and F¹ have mihi, omitted by C; the other manuscripts have tibi. B has ab at i 9 for the other manuscripts' in; ab is possibly the true reading.

Under the influence of Ehwald, modern editors have wrongly taken some of B's other readings to be correct, placing aspicerem in the text for prospicerem at ix 23, ara for ora at ix 115, and illi for illum at ix 126. At ix 73 editors print B and T's quem, which is clearly an interpolation for the awkward transmitted reading qua.

Unlike C, B has been quite heavily corrected by later hands.

C has more than one hundred readings peculiar to itself. Two of them I have accepted as correct: summo (for summum; H has mundum) at iii 32, and horas (that is, oras) at vii 1; the reading is also given by I. It is possible that C's correptior should be read at xii 13 for correptius. At xiv 38 C's sceptius is the manuscript reading closest to the correct Scepsius restored by Scaliger.

Most of C's errors are trivial, but at some points it departs widely from the usual text. It omits ix 47 and xiv 37, and interchanges the second hemistichs of iii 26 and 28; xvi 30 is inserted by a later hand, perhaps in an erasure. At viii 43 it has in uita for officio, at xiii 12 contra uiam for nouimus, at xiv 36 in for loci, and at xv 31 colloquio for uerum quid.

C also contains a greater number of purely palaeographical errors than any other manuscript: hunc for nunc (i 25), humeris for numeris (ii 30), hec for nec (ix 30), lucos for sucos (x 19), hasto for horto (xv 7), ueiiuolique for ueliuolique (xvi 21), pretia for pr(o)elia (xvi 23).

B and C sporadically offer the third declension accusative plural ending -is (ix 4 fascis C, ix 7 partis C, ix 73 rudentis B, x 17 cantantis B, xii 30 albentis B). But more usually all manuscripts, including B and C, have the accusative in -es: compare for example ii 27 partes, iii 53 purgantes, ix 35 praesentes, and ix 42 fasces. The manuscripts show a similar variation in the earlier books of the Ex Ponto. The ninth-century Hamburg manuscript (A) sometimes offers accusatives in -is where the other manuscripts, even B and C, have -es (I iv 23 partis, I v 11 talis, I vi 39 ligantis, I vi 51 turris). At I ii 4, A has omnes, where C¹ has omnis, and in general even in A the accusative in -es is the predominant form. For example, A offers auris at II iv 13 and II ix 25, but aures at I ii 127, I ix 5, II v 33, and II ix 3. In view of the instability of the manuscript evidence[10], I have normalized the ending to -es in all cases, considering the instances of -is to be scribal interpolations.

Similarly, I have used the form penna at iv 12 and vii 37, where C offers pinna. Penna is the form given in the ancient manuscripts of Virgil, and attested by Quintilian.

MFHILT

The other manuscripts I have collated belong to the vulgate class. They are not related to each other in the sense that B and C are related, nor does any of them possess independent authority as does G. Within the group firm lines of affiliation are hard to establish, and each of the manuscripts attests a handful of good readings that are found in few or none of the others, either by happy conjecture, or because a reading that was in circulation at the time as a variant chanced to get copied into a few surviving manuscripts. Professor R. J. Tarrant has noted that the presence of the Ex Ponto in north-central France 'can be traced from the eleventh century onwards, first from echoes in Hildebert of Lavardin and Baudri de Bourgeuil, later from the extracts in the Florilegium Gallicum, and finally from the complete texts [which include our H and F] ... that emanate from this region toward the end of the twelfth century' (Texts and Transmission 263); the vulgate manuscripts seem to have been propagated from the text current in the region of Orléans.

M and F show some originality. Their readings at xvi 33 differ somewhat from the version of that passage in HILT. F¹'s interpolation for the missing pentameter at iii 44 differs from that of MHILT, while M has an interpolated distich following x 6 that is not otherwise attested.

Of the other manuscripts, I agrees with C in reading horas (=oras) for undas at vii 1, while T is the only manuscript collated to have the correct laeuus at ix 119 in the original hand (F² gives it as a variant reading). Similarly, H and L each have a few peculiar variants.

As a group MFHILT offer a good picture of the readings current in the later mediaeval period, and only rarely have I been obliged to cite a vulgate manuscript from the editions of Heinsius, Burman, or Lenz as testimony for a variant.

M

Heinsius did not have knowledge of B or C, and seems to have considered his codex Moreti (preserved at the Museum Plantin-Moretus in Antwerp as 'Latin, n° 68 [anc. 43] [salle des reliures, n° 32]' in Denucé's catalogue of the museum's collection) to be the best of the poor selection of manuscripts available; at xvi 33, understandably despairing of restoring the true reading, he accepted M's reading pending the discovery of better manuscripts.

M was dated by Heinsius to the twelfth or thirteenth century; Denucé assigns it to the twelfth century.

At viii 85 M alone has the correct ullo for the other manuscripts' illo; this could naturally have been recovered by conjecture. At x 1 it has cumerio, the closest reading in the manuscripts collated to the correct Cimmerio; but Professor R. J. Tarrant informs me that Cimmerio is also found in British Library Harley 2607.

M has suffered from a certain degree of interpolation. Following x 6 there is the spurious distich set cum nostra malis uexentur corpora multis / aspera non possum perpetiendo mori. At ii 9 Falerno is a deliberate alteration of Falerna. At x 49 Niphates is an interpolation from Lucan III 245. At xiii 47 duorum (also given as a variant reading by F²) looks like an attempt to correct the cryptic transmitted reading deorum, and at xv 15 tellus regnata is presumably a metrical correction following the loss of -que from regnataque terra, the reading of the other manuscripts. At xvi 25 eticiusque looks to be a deliberate alteration of Trinacriusque, but I am not sure what the interpolation means.

F

Francofurtanus Barth 110, used by Burman, shows some signs of independence. At iii 44, where a pentameter has been lost, B and C omit the line, while the other manuscripts, including M, have the interpolation indigus effectus omnibus ipse magis; F has the separate interpolation Achillas Pharius abstulit ense caput, also found in Heinsius' fragmentum Louaniense. F omits viii 51-54, at xi 1 reads Pollio for Gallio, and at xvi 33 has a reading somewhat different from those offered by the other manuscripts.

F alone of the manuscripts collated offers the correct audisse (for audire) at x 17. At xi 21 it and B alone have the correct mihi for tibi (omitted by C). At xiv 7 it has the probably correct muter for mittar, also found in Bodleianus Canon. lat. 1 and Barberinus lat. 26, both of the thirteenth century. With the exception of muter, these readings could have been recovered by conjecture; given the separative interpolation at iii 44, F differs surprisingly little from the other manuscripts.

H

The thirteenth-century Holkhamicus 322, now British Library add. 49368, contains (with I) the correct hanc at i 16, the other manuscripts having ha, ah (B), or a (C). At xvi 30, where I have printed leuis, the reading of most manuscripts, H has leui, the conjecture of Heinsius; Professor R. J. Tarrant informs me that the same reading is found in Othob. lat. 1469. At iv 45 H's qua libet is the manuscript reading closest to Heinsius' correct quamlibet; most manuscripts have quod licet.

Most other variants in H are trivial errors, although there seems to have been deliberate scribal alteration at x 18 (sucus amarus erat for lotos amara fuit), xiv 38 (Celsius for the usual Septius; Scaliger restored Scepsius), xvi 3 (ueniet for uenit et; presumably the intermediate step was uenit), and perhaps at xiv 31 (miserabilis for uitabilis).

I

The thirteenth-century Laurentianus 36 32, Lenz's and André's m, has the correct perstas at x 83 for praestas; its reading is also found in P and as a variant of F². At vii 1 it shares with C the reading horas (=oras), which I have printed in preference to the usual undas.

At viii 15 I has the hypercorrect nil for nihil, and at xiii 26 ethereos ... deos for aetherias ... domos, but in general has few signs of deliberate alteration.

L

Lipsiensis bibl. ciu. Rep. I 2° 7, of the thirteenth century, has haec at ix 103 for the other manuscripts' et. Haec restores sense to the passage, and was the preferred reading of Heinsius; I consider it a scribal conjecture, now rendered obsolete by Professor R. J. Tarrant's more elegant quae. L's text has clearly been tampered with at xiv 41 (populum ... uertit in iram for populi ... concitat iram), but in general seems to have suffered little from interpolation. It is, however, of little independent value as a witness to the text.

T

Turonensis 879, written around the year 1200, was first fully collated by André for his edition; Lenz had earlier reported its readings for IV xvi and part of I i. At ix 119 only T and F² of the manuscripts collated have the correct laeuus, although other manuscripts come close, and the reading could have been recovered by conjecture. At xv 40 T reads transierit saeuos for transit nostra feros; clearly nostra was at some point lost from the text, and metre forcibly restored.

P

I have also collated the thirteenth-century Parisinus lat. 7993, Heinsius' codex Regius. At ix 46 P offers the correct cernet for credet; cernet is also the reading of M after correction by a later hand and of the thirteenth-century Gothanus membr. II 121. At vi 7 P alone of collated manuscripts agrees with C in reading praestat for the correct perstat. P agrees with L in reading niuibus for the other manuscripts' nubibus at v 5, adeptum for ademptum at vi 49, signare for signate at xv 11, and in the orthography puplicus for publicus at ix 48, ix 102, xiii 5, and xiv 16. The manuscript has many corruptions: a few examples are i 30 igne for imbre, ii 18 supremo for suppresso, iv 6 pace for parte, vi 34 uirtus for uirus, vii 15 piacula for pericula, ix 42 praeterea for praetextam, x 63 in harena for marina, xiv 39 conuiuia for conuicia, and xvi 24 sacri for scripti. However, P has no unique variants with any probability of correctness. To have given a full report of P would have involved a considerable expansion of an already long apparatus, and I have cited the manuscript only occasionally, where a reading is only weakly attested by the other manuscripts.

Titles

MF and B²H²I²T² usually supply titles for the poems. As will be seen from the apparatus, there is considerable variation among the titles, and there is no reason to suppose that they form an authentic part of the transmitted text.

The manuscript authority for the text of Ex Ponto IV

By and large the manuscripts of the fourth book of the Ex Ponto offer a remarkably uniform text of the poems, and one which, considering the late date of the manuscripts, is in surprisingly good condition. I believe that all the manuscripts, with the exception of G, are descended from a single archetype. B and C are the best witnesses to the text of the archetype, although the other, more heavily contaminated and interpolated manuscripts are indispensable, since they correct the peculiar errors of B and C.

The present edition

The apparatus of this edition is intended to be a full report of BCMFHILT and of the fragmentary G; some reports are also given of P. It includes corrections by original and by later hands.

When no manuscripts are specified for the lemma in an entry, the lemma is the reading for those manuscripts not otherwise specified. For instance, the entry

deductum carmen] carmen deductum M

indicates that deductum carmen is the reading of BCFHILT, while carmen deductum is the reading of M.

I have from time to time cited from earlier editions readings of manuscripts which I have not collated. To make it clear that I have not personally verified these readings, I have added in parentheses after the citation the name of the editor whose report I am using. Professor R. J. Tarrant has inspected some nine manuscripts to see what readings they offered in some particularly vexed portions of the poems; I have similarly indicated when I am obliged to him for information on a manuscript.

The excerpta Scaligeri mentioned at xiii 27 I know of through Heinsius' notes as printed in Burman's edition; according to M. D. Reeve (RhM CXVII [1974] 163), the original excerpts are still extant in Diez 8° 2560, a copy of the editio Gryphiana of 1546. Reeve also gives identifications of certain of Heinsius' manuscripts; when citing Heinsius' codices, I give the modern name when the manuscript has been identified and is still extant.

The greater number of the manuscripts dealt with have been corrected, some heavily. In my apparatus B¹ means "the original hand in B" and B² means "a correcting hand in B". B^2ul indicates that the reading of B² is clearly marked as a variant reading. B^2gl indicates that the entry is marked in the manuscript as a gloss; B^2(gl) indicates a gloss not marked as such. I have reported glosses where they contribute to the understanding of a textual problem.

If different correctors have been at work in different passages, both are called B². If a later hand has made a correction after B², the later hand is called B³. When I place B¹ in an entry but do not report B², it can be assumed that B² has the lemma as its reading.

Sometimes a corrector has altered the original text so much (without however erasing it entirely) that only the altered reading can be made out. In such cases I have used the siglum B^2c. Where a corrector has inserted or altered only certain letters of a word, I have indicated this in the HTML version of this edition by underlining the letters involved. In the Text version, these letters are capitalized.

Where the correction is apparently by the original scribe, B^ac indicates the original reading, and B^pc the correction.

The asterisk is used to indicate illegible letters, and the solidus (/) erasures.

When reporting variants, I have tried to indicate the spellings actually found in the manuscripts, but since mediaeval spellings do not in themselves constitute variant readings, they have not usually been reported when the text is not otherwise disturbed. I have been more generous with proper names, but have often excluded confusions of ae, oe, and e, of i and y, of ph and f, of c and t, the doubling of consonants, and the loss or addition of the aspirate.

The apparatus is intended to include a comprehensive listing of all conjectures proposed. When the author of a conjecture is not a previous editor of the poems, I have given a reference either to the publication where the emendation was first proposed, or to the earliest edition I have consulted which reports the emendation. Conjectures of Bentley are from Hedicke's Studia Bentleiana. Conjectures of Professor R. J. Tarrant, Professor J. N. Grant, and Professor C. P. Jones were communicated to me by their authors.

Printed editions

The first editions of the works of Ovid were printed in 1471 by Balthesar Azoguidus at Bologna and by Conradus Sweynheym and Arnoldus Pannartz at Rome. The Bologna edition was edited by Franc. Puteolanus, and the Rome edition by J. Andreas de Buxis. Lenz's edition gives numerous readings from both editions; to judge from his reports, their texts of the Ex Ponto were derived from late manuscripts of no great value. The Roman edition, however, contained the elegant correction of iactate to laxate at ix 73.

For my knowledge of other early editions of the Ex Ponto I have relied upon Burman's large variorum edition of the complete works of Ovid, published at Amsterdam in 1727. The edition contains notes of various editors of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, among them Merula, Naugerius, Ciofanus, Fabricius, and Micyllus. Although I have occasionally quoted from these notes, they are in general of surprisingly little use, containing for the most part unlikely variant readings from unnamed manuscripts and explanations of passages not really in need of elucidation.

The principal event in the history of the editing of the Ex Ponto was the appearance at Amsterdam in 1652 of Nicolaus Heinsius' edition of Ovid. Heinsius took full advantage of the opportunity his travels as a diplomat gave him of searching out manuscripts, thereby gaining a direct knowledge of the manuscripts of the poems which has never since been equalled[11]. Heinsius also possessed an unrivalled felicity in conjectural emendation. Some of his conjectures are unnecessary alterations of a text that was in fact sound, some of his necessary conjectures are trivial, and are already found in late manuscripts of the poems or could have been made by critics of less outstanding capacities; but many are alterations which are subtle and yet necessary to restore sense or Latinity. The present edition returns to the text many conjectures and preferred readings of Heinsius that were ejected by editors of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

The edition of Heinsius formed the basis of all editions published during the two centuries that followed. Of these editions the most important was the 1727 variorum edition of Burman already referred to. It is from the copy of that edition at the University of Toronto Library that I have obtained my knowledge of Heinsius' notes. Burman was apparently the first editor to make use of F. On occasion he differs from Heinsius in his choice of readings. At xvi 44 he made the convincing conjecture Maxime (codd maxima), subsequently confirmed by B and C. His notes are informative; and my note on x 37-38 in particular is greatly indebted to him.

For poem x Burman reproduced some notes from an anthology of Latin verse for use at Eton, produced by an anonymous editor in 1705[12].

In 1772 Theophilus Harles published at Erlangen his edition of the Tristia and Ex Ponto 'ex recensione Petri Burmanni'. Harles was the first editor to make use of B. In the introduction to his edition Harles relates how he wrote von Oeffele, librarian to the Elector of Bavaria, asking if there was any manuscript in the Elector's library that might be helpful in preparing his edition, and thereby learned of the existence of B. It is clear from Harles' introduction that he fully appreciated the manuscript's importance; and in his notes he gives many of its readings, pointing out where it confirmed suggestions of Heinsius and Burman. However, his text is simply reprinted from Burman's variorum edition.

W. E. Weber's text of Ex Ponto IV in his 1833 Corpus Poetarum Latinorum is in effect a reprint of the Heinsius-Burman vulgate, except that at viii 59 he prints the manuscripts' incorrect accusative form Gigantes (Heinsius Gigantas). But this fidelity to the vulgate text seems not to have been the editor's intention: in his introduction he speaks of 'Heinsianae emendationes felices saepe, superuacuae saepius ... quarum emendationum partem Mitscherlichius eiecit [Göttingen, 1796; I have not seen the edition], maiorem eiicere Iahnius coepit [Leipzig, 1828: the part of the edition containing the Ex Ponto was never published]. dicendum tamen, etiamnunc passim haud paucas fortasse latere Heinsii et aliorum correctiones minus necessarias in uerbis Ouidianis, quas accuratior codicum inter se comparatio, opus sane immensi laboris, extrudet'. It would be understandable enough if Weber, faced with the labour of editing the entire corpus of Latin poetry, found himself unable to effect a radical revision of the text of the Ex Ponto.

In 1853 there appeared at Leipzig the third volume of Rudolf Merkel's first Teubner edition of the works of Ovid, containing his text of the Ex Ponto. The part of Merkel's introduction dealing with the Ex Ponto is entirely concerned with describing the appearance, orthography, and readings of the ninth-century Hamburgensis scrin. 52 F. The manuscript ends, however, at III ii 67, and Merkel says nothing of the basis for his text of the later poems, which in general is the Heinsius-Burman vulgate.

In 1868 B. G. Teubner published at Leipzig Otto Korn's separate edition of the Ex Ponto. Korn's apparatus is the first to have a modern appearance; but this appearance is deceptive, for of the twenty sigla Korn uses, ten are for individual or several manuscripts collated by Heinsius, and only five are for manuscripts collated by Korn himself. The edition is important, since Korn was the first editor to make substantial use of B in constituting his text. Usually he printed the text of B in preference to the vulgate: 'Ceterum eas partes in quibus A caremus, β [=B] libri uestigia secutus restitui, prorsus neglectis recentiorum exemplarium elegantiis, quorum ad normam N. Heinsius, cuius in tertio quartoque libro R. Merkelius assecla est, textum conformauit' (xv).

There was some reason to review critically the vulgate established by Heinsius and Burman. Even Heinsius was capable of error; examples of this in Ex Ponto IV include his preference for the inelegant idem for ille at iii 17, for the impossible ullo instead of the better attested nullo at v 15, and for the obvious interpolation domitam ... ab Hercule at xvi 19 instead of domito ... ab Hectore. His most pervasive fault is a partiality for elegant but unnecessary emendation: often he is guilty of rewriting passages which are in themselves perfectly sound. A typical instance is vii 30: Heinsius' globos is elegant enough, but there is no reason to suspect the transmitted uiros.

Some of the readings proposed or preferred by Heinsius had been unnecessary or wrong, but many had been necessary to make sense of the text; and Korn is often guilty of damaging the text by excluding readings not found in B. The supreme example of this is his restoration of the manuscripts' reading iactate for laxate at ix 73.

Korn used the collation of B by Harles, which had errors and omissions (in his preface Harles had warned that his report might contain errors[13]), so that at i 9 Korn prints in istis and at x 83 perstas, without noting in his apparatus that B's false readings were ab istis and praestas respectively. He was aware that at xi 21 B read mihi, but printed tibi nonetheless, although Burman had already explained why mihi was the correct reading.

A curious feature of Korn's edition is its dual apparatus: below the report of manuscript variants is a listing of passages where his text differs from those of Heinsius and Merkel: 'Lectiones discrepantes editionum Heinsii et Merkelii adposui, ut et quantopere Ouidius Heinsianus a genuina forma discrepet dilucide perspiciatur, et quibus locis a Merkelio discesserim facilius adpareat' (xxxii). Korn ejects such obviously correct readings as leuastis at vi 44 and laxate at ix 73; in each instance the true reading is printed in large type at the bottom of the page. In addition, Korn rather unfairly included as different readings what were in fact only spellings which did not conform to the purified orthography then coming into use. Cymba does not differ from cumba (viii 28), nor is Danubium a variant for Danuuium (ix 80), nor again is Vlysses different from Vlixes (x 9). Finally, the second apparatus at several points misrepresents what Heinsius actually thought.

Korn's confusion on this point is understandable, since determining Heinsius' textual preferences is often more difficult than it might at first appear. Editions were published under his name which did not incorporate all his preferred readings[14]; even the lemmas to his notes are taken from the edition of Daniel Heinsius, and are not a guide to Heinsius' own view of the text, which can only be discovered by reading the actual notes[15]. A good example of this can be found at x 47. Here Heinsius' text reproduces the standard reading Cratesque. The lemma in his note is Oratesque, the reading of Daniel Heinsius' edition. In the note itself Heinsius indicates his preference for the conjecture Calesque, communicated to him by his friend Isaac Vossius. Here Korn, along with all modern editors, prints Calesque in his text; he reports Cratesque as Heinsius' reading.

Korn made one important conjecture in Ex Ponto IV, printing decretis at ix 44 for the manuscripts' secretis.

For the third volume of his complete edition of Ovid, published at Leipzig in 1874, Alexander Riese drew on Korn's edition, but was less radical in following the readings of B: 'nec eclecticam quam dicunt N. Heinsii nec libri optimi rigide tenacem O. Kornii rationem ingressus mediam uiam tenere studui' (vii). Riese restores Heinsius' preferred reading in only about a quarter of the places where it was deserted by Korn; even so, no editor since has shown such independence in the selection of readings.

In 1881 there appeared at London a text of Ex Ponto IV with accompanying commentary by W. H. Williams. The text, which Williams says is drawn from the "Oxford variorum edition of 1825", seems in general to be a reprint of the Heinsius-Burman vulgate with some readings drawn from Merkel's first edition. In spite of occasional conjectures and notes on variant readings, based on information drawn from Burman and Merkel, Williams is not generally concerned with the constitution of the text: his note on x 68 curasque fefelli is 'so Tennyson in the "In Memoriam'". The commentary, which is about eighty pages long, consists largely of discussions of the cognates of various Latin words in other Indo-European languages, 'though the limits of the work preclude more than the data from which a competent teacher can deduce the principles of comparative philology'. A typical note is that on i 11 scribere: 'from [root] skrabh = to dig, whence scrob-s and scrofa = 'the grubber,' i.e. the pig; Grk. γράφω by loss of sibilant and softening'. The edition has been only occasionally useful in editing the poems or writing the commentary.

In 1884 Merkel published his second edition of the poems of exile. In his previous edition he had in general followed Heinsius and Burman in the fourth book; in the new edition, without specifically saying so (although in his introduction he mentions the "codex Monacensis uetustior"), he generally alters his text so as to conform with B's readings. He does not always desert his former text, rightly retaining hanc at i 16, quamlibet at iv 45, and tempus curasque at x 67; he also keeps lux at vi 9 and domitam ... ab Hercule at xvi 19.

In his 1874 monograph De codicibus duobus carminum Ouidianarum ex Ponto datorum Monacensibus Korn had made known the existence of C. S. G. Owen's first edition of the Ex Ponto, printed in Postgate's Corpus Poetarum Latinorum in 1894, was the first edition to report this manuscript as well as B. His text is unduly partial to the readings of B and C, and his well-organized apparatus is so abbreviated as to be deceptive. It cannot be relied upon even for reports of B and C. At ix 73 it gives no hint that for four centuries editors had read laxate; many of Heinsius' preferred readings are similarly consigned to oblivion. At vi 5-6 he reports Housman's ingenious repunctuation, presumably communicated to him by its author.

In 1896 Rudolf Ehwald published his monograph Kritische Beiträge zu Ovids Epistulae ex Ponto. I am often indebted to Ehwald for references he has collected; my notes on i 15 ad summam and xiii 48 quos laus formandos est tibi magna datos could not have been written without the assistance of his monograph. This said, the fact remains that Ehwald's judgment and linguistic intuition were exceptionally poor. He had not relied on Korn's apparatus for his knowledge of B, but had collated it himself; and the intent of his monograph was to establish B's authority as paramount. A typical example can be seen at ix 71. Here FILT offer cum ... uacabit and MH have ut ... uacabit, while the reading of B and C is quod uacabit. In one of the examples Ehwald adduces, Fast II 18, uacat is found in only a few manuscripts, and it can easily be seen how it arose from uacas; all the other examples are instances of quod superest or quod reliquum est. The cumulative effect of these examples is to demonstrate that quod ... uacabit is not a possible reading. This insensitivity to the precise meaning of the passages he discusses is usual with Ehwald, and his book, although useful, is an extremely unsafe guide to the textual criticism of the poems. It has unfortunately exercised a decisive influence on all succeeding editions.

The first of these editions was Owen's 1915 Oxford Classical Text of the poems of exile. In the preface Owen acknowledges the influence of Ehwald: "adiumento primario erat R. Ehwaldi, doctrinae Ouidianae iudicis peritissimi, uere aureus libellus ... in quo excussis perpensisque codicibus poetaeque locutione ad perpendiculum exacta rectam Ponticarum edendarum normam uir doctus stabilire instituit' (viii). In most instances Owen follows Ehwald's recommendations, altering in to ab at i 9, prospicerem to aspicerem at ix 23, and at ix 44 abandoning Korn's decretis for the manuscripts' secretis.

Owen's reliance on Ehwald was noticed by Housman (903-4) in his short and accurate review of Owen's edition: 'In the ex Ponto Mr Owen had displayed less originality [than in his 1889 and 1894 editions of the Tristia] and consequently has less to repent of. Most of the changes in this edition are made in pursuance of orders issued by R. Ehwald in his Kritische Beiträge of 1896; but let it be counted to Mr Owen for righteousness that at III.7.37 and IV.15.42 he has refused to execute the sanguinary mandates of his superior officer'.

As in Owen's earlier edition, the apparatus is so short as to be misleading. His choice of manuscripts is too small, and exaggerates the importance of B and C; even of these two manuscripts his report is inadequate. At ix 73 he rightly prints laxate; the apparatus gives no indication that this is a conjecture, and that all manuscripts, including B and C, read iactate, which he had printed in 1894. At xi 21, where B gives mihi, indicated by Burman as the correct reading, Owen prints tibi and does not mention the variant in the apparatus. The situation is naturally worse with readings of manuscripts other than B and C, and with conjectures. In general, Owen's apparatus can be trusted neither as a report even of the principal readings of the few manuscripts he used, or as a register of critics' views of the constitution of the text.

In the same year as Owen's second text there appeared at Budapest Geza Némethy's commentary on the Ex Ponto, of which twenty-six pages are devoted to the fourth book. The notes are too sparse and elementary to form an adequate commentary, consisting largely of simple glosses. They are a useful supplement to a plain text of the poems, however, and Némethy sometimes notices points missed by others: he correctly glosses Augusti as "Tiberii imperatoris" at ix 70. The notes are based on Merkel's second edition; Némethy lists in a preface his few departures from Merkel's text.

In 1922 Friedrich Levy published his first edition of the Ex Ponto as part of a new Teubner edition of the works of Ovid. The apparatus was a reduced version of that prepared by Ehwald, 'Qui ut totus prelis subiceretur ... propter saeculi angustias fieri non potuit'. Levy's text is virtually identical to Owen's, but the apparatus is more complete. It contains a full report of B and C, and also of the thirteenth-century Gothanus memb. II 121. This last manuscript has the correct cernet at ix 46, where most manuscripts read credet; but otherwise its readings are of very poor quality, consisting of simple misreadings (i 24 magnificas for munificas, vii 30 uento for uenit, viii 37 habendus for abunde), simplified word order (vi 25 tuas lacrimas pariter for tuas pariter lacrimas, xvi 39 et iuuenes essent for essent et iuuenes), and intrusive glosses (viii 61 captiuis for superatis, xvi 47 me laedere for proscindere). The manuscript does not deserve the important place it has in the editions of Levy, Luck, and André[16]; Ehwald presumably included it in his apparatus because of its easy accessibility to him at Gotha, where he lived. No other manuscripts are regularly reported, so Levy's apparatus gives a false impression of the evidence for the text, although he often reports isolated readings from the manuscripts of Heinsius.

Levy omitted conjectures 'quatenus falsae uel superuacuae uidebantur'; the result is that Korn's elegant decretis does not appear even in the apparatus at ix 44, and the same fate befalls Scaliger's coactus at xiii 27.

In 1924 the Loeb Classical Library published A. L. Wheeler's text and translation of the Tristia and Ex Ponto. His text is based on Merkel's second edition, on Ehwald's Beiträge, and on Owen's Oxford Classical Text. In several places he rightly abandons B's reading, printing hanc for ah at i 16 and perstas for praestas at x 83; at iv 45 he was clearly tempted to print Heinsius' quamlibet. His judgment is good, and if Ehwald and Owen had supplied him with more information on other manuscripts and on the Heinsius-Burman vulgate, his text might well have superseded all previous editions. His translation is accurate, and in corrupt passages indicates the awkwardness of the original; I have often quoted from it.

In 1938 there appeared the elaborate Paravia edition of F. W. Levy, who in the period following his earlier edition had altered his name to F. W. Lenz. The text is virtually unchanged from his edition of 1922, but has a much larger apparatus, which includes a large number of conjectures omitted from the earlier edition; I am indebted to Lenz for many of the conjectures I report, particularly at xvi 33. The large size of the apparatus is, however, deceptive; most of the manuscripts he knew of only from the reports of Heinsius, Korn and Owen, and the reports are therefore incomplete: the only manuscripts reliably reported are B and C. Since Lenz does not usually give the lemma for the variants reported, it is difficult to tell which manuscripts offer the reading in the text. Much space is wasted by reports of the readings of several heavily interpolated mediaeval florilegia; more is wasted by an undue attention to mediaeval spellings and attempts to reproduce abbreviations and to show the precise appearance of secondary corrections. These factors combine to render the apparatus virtually unreadable.

In 1963 Georg Luck published the Artemis edition of the Tristia and Ex Ponto, with a German translation by Wilhelm Willige. Luck shows some independence from Lenz, at i 16 printing hanc for ah, at iii 27 sed et for subito, at viii 71 mauis for maius, at viii 86 distet for distat, at ix 73 laxate for iactate, at xii 13 producatur for ut dicatur, and at xiv 7 muter for mittar, each time rightly. He suggests a new conjecture for the incurable xvi 33, and a new and possibly correct punctuation of xii 19. The apparatus is misleading, consisting of isolated readings from B and C and a small number of readings from other manuscripts. No indication is given that hanc at i 16 or pars at i 35 are found only in a few manuscripts, and not in B or C. Luck criticizes modern editors for ignoring the discoveries of their predecessors, and rightly prints Heinsius' Gigantas (codd -es) at viii 59. However, he shows no direct knowledge of Heinsius' notes or of the Burman vulgate, making no mention of such readings as Gete for Getae at iii 52, leuastis for leuatis at vi 44, or fouet for mouet at xi 20. The oldest edition named in his apparatus is that of Riese.

In 1977 F. Della Corte published an Italian translation of the Ex Ponto with an accompanying commentary, of which fifty-eight pages are devoted to the fourth book. Most of the commentary consists of extended paraphrase of the poems; I have found it of little assistance.

The most recent text of the Ex Ponto is the 1977 Budé edition of Jacques André. His text is essentially that of Lenz, although at ix 23 he rightly prints prospicerem instead of B's aspicerem. There are a significant number of misprints in the text, apparatus, and notes, and other signs of carelessness as well.

André makes full reports of only four manuscripts in his apparatus, B, C, T, and Gothanus membr. II 121[17]. This is an inadequate sampling. B and C form a distinct group, and the Gotha manuscript is too corrupt to merit a central part in an apparatus. The result is that T is the sole good representative of the vulgate class of manuscripts that is regularly cited.

For knowledge of many of his secondary manuscripts, André seems to have depended on the edition of Lenz. Since much of Lenz's information was drawn from Heinsius and other earlier editors, this means that André is often giving unverified information from collations made more than three centuries previously. He did not realize that the Antwerp manuscript he collated (our M) was Heinsius' codex Moreti, whose readings Lenz sometimes reports; the result is that he reports the same manuscript twice, under the sigla M and N.

At ix 127 he cites the sixth-century Wolfenbüttel fragment in support of the unassimilated spelling adscite (the assimilated form ascite is supported by the inscriptions and by the ancient manuscripts of Virgil). In fact, the word is not found in the fragment, which preserves only the first three letters of the line.

Finally, André shows insufficient knowledge of the Heinsius-Burman vulgate; this is evident not only from the text but from the introduction, where he prefaces his list of principal editions by saying 'Nous ne mentionnerons que les editions fondées sur des principes scientifiques, dont la première est celle de R. Merkel, Berlin, 1854' (the edition was published at Leipzig in 1853).

In spite of what I have said against it, André's edition has considerable merit. His apparatus is the first to supply a lemma for each variant reading reported, and is clear and easy to read. His selection of manuscripts is inadequate, but at least he makes a full report of the four manuscripts he uses. The apparatus is in every way a great improvement on that of Lenz. At the same time, he provides a clear prose translation, an informative introduction, ample footnotes, and thirteen pages of "notes complémentaires". His notes sometimes come close to forming a true commentary, and I often quote from them.

In preparing this edition of the fourth book of the Ex Ponto, I have carefully read all the editions discussed above, and have attempted to include a comprehensive list of conjectures in the apparatus. I have read Burman's variorum edition with particular attention, and have often restored readings favoured by Heinsius to the text. A complete examination of the manuscripts must await a full edition of all four books of the Ex Ponto; but on the basis of published editions I have selected the nine manuscripts that appeared most likely to assist in establishing the text, and have included full reports of their readings in the critical apparatus. I believe that even this preliminary apparatus gives a clearer picture of the evidence for the text of Ex Ponto IV than any previous edition.

P. OVIDI NASONIS
EPISTVLARM EX PONTO LIBER QVARTVS

CONSPECTVS SIGLORVM

G
Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel: Cod. Guelf. 13.11 Aug. 4°
(fragmentum Guelferbytanum)
saec v/vi
continet ix 101-8 et 127-33, xii 15-19 et 41-44. uersus saepe non integri.
B
Monacensis lat. 384
saec xii
C
Monacensis lat. 19476
saec xii
M
Antuerpiensis Musei Plantiniani Denucé 68
saec xii/xiii
codex Moreti Heinsianus
F
Francofortanus Barth 110
saec xiii
H
Holkhamicus 322, nunc British Library add. 49368
saec xiii
I
Laurentianus 36 32
saec xiii
primus Mediceus Heinsii
L
Lipsiensis bibl. ciu. Rep. I 2° 7
saec xiii
T
Turonensis 879
saec xii/xiii

Interdum aduocatur:
P
Parisinus lat. 7993
saec xiii
Regius Heinsii

I

Accipe, Pompei, deductum carmen ab illo
debitor est uitae qui tibi, Sexte, suae.
qui seu non prohibes a me tua nomina poni,
accedet meritis haec quoque summa tuis;
siue trahis uultus, equidem peccasse fatebor,5
delicti tamen est causa probanda mei.
non potuit mea mens quin esset grata teneri;
sit precor officio non grauis ira pio.
o quotiens ego sum libris mihi uisus in istis
impius in nullo quod legerere loco!10
o quotiens, alii uellem cum scribere, nomen
rettulit in ceras inscia dextra tuum!

incipit liber quartus B² incipit quartus sexto pompeio M liber ·iiii· sexto pompeio F incipit ·iiii· sexto pompeio H^2(?) ad pompeium lib ·iiii· I² hanc epistulam mittit sexto pompeio L || 1 deductum carmen] carmen deductum M || qui] cui Williams || seu] si ILF^2ul || 4 accedet] accedat M || summa] summe C || 5 trahis] trahes Owen (1894) || uultus om C || equidem] equid e B || 7 quin esset] esset quin H || 9-10 add F² in marg || 9 o] di B dii I || in] ab B || istis] illis F || 10 quod] quid F² || 11 alii] aliis L aliis M^2c || uellem cum scribere] cum uellem scribere B uellem conscribere F¹ uellem describere P

ipse mihi placuit mendis in talibus error,
et uix inuita facta litura manu est.
'uiderit! ad summam,' dixi 'licet ipse queratur,15
hanc pudet offensam non meruisse prius.'
da mihi, si quid ea est, hebetantem pectora Lethen,
oblitus potero non tamen esse tui;
idque sinas oro, nec fastidita repellas
uerba, nec officio crimen inesse putes,20
et leuis haec meritis referatur gratia tantis;
si minus, inuito te quoque gratus ero.
numquam pigra fuit nostris tua gratia rebus,
nec mihi munificas arca negauit opes.
nunc quoque nil subitis clementia territa fatis25
auxilium uitae fertque feretque meae.

13 mendis] mensis C || 14 manu est] manu T || 15 summam] summum LT finem F^2(gl) || ipse FTP ille BCMHIL || 16 hanc HI ha MFLT ah B a C hunc J. N. Grant || meruisse] merunisse M^ac || 18 non] nec L || 19 quid pro nec H, incertum || fastidita] fastidia F¹ || 20 putes] putas L puta I puto B^ac, ut uid || 21 et] sed fort legendum || leuis] lenis L || haec meritis] e meritis F¹T emeritis HM² || 23 numquam] non quam M || 24 mihi om C || negauit] negabit C || 25 nunc] hunc C || quoque] quisque C || nil] non M^pcF¹ nunc P || 26 feretque Heinsius refertque MFHILTB² referta C refert B¹

unde rogas forsan fiducia tanta futuri
sit mihi? quod fecit quisque tuetur opus,
ut Venus artificis labor est et gloria Coi,
aequoreo madidas quae premit imbre comas,30
arcis ut Actaeae uel eburna uel aerea custos
bellica Phidiaca stat dea facta manu,
uindicat ut Calamis laudem quos fecit equorum,
ut similis uerae uacca Myronis opus,
sic ego sum rerum non ultima, Sexte, tuarum35
tutelaeque feror munus opusque tuae.

27 unde] un* B¹ || futuri] futura ITF² || 28 quisque ex quique C, ut uid || 29 ut] et T || est] et I^ac || 30 aequoreo] equoreas T^ac || 31 arcis] artis LP || ut Actaeae] et actee T ut athee L uta^aceae C, ut uid || eburna] uberna C || aerea fragmentum Louaniense Heinsii (Korn, Lenz), codex Iunianus Heinsii (Korn); uide Haupt Opuscula 584 aurea Heinsius enea (=aenea) BMFHILT, contra metrum anea C || 32 Phidiaca] phasadica C || facta] ficta Heinsius || 33 Calamis BCI^acL calais MFI^pcTP cala bis H, ut uid || laudem] laudes B² || quos] quas B^ac que I^ac, ut uid || sum] pars excerpta Politiani res M^2(gl?) || non] pars F om P || ultima] ultimȩ (=ultimae) C || 36 tuae] teuȩ (=teuae) C

II

Quod legis, o uates magnorum maxime regum,
uenit ab intonsis usque, Seuere, Getis;
cuius adhuc nomen nostros tacuisse libellos,
si modo permittis dicere uera, pudet.
orba tamen numeris cessauit epistula numquam5
ire per alternas officiosa uices;
carmina sola tibi memorem testantia curam
non data sunt—quid enim quae facis ipse darem?
quis mel Aristaeo, quis Baccho uina Falerna,
Triptolemo fruges, poma det Alcinoo?10
fertile pectus habes, interque Helicona colentes
uberius nulli prouenit ista seges.
'mittere ad hunc carmen frondes erat addere siluis.'
haec mihi cunctandi causa, Seuere, fuit.

seuero B²H² seuero amico suo M ad mauximum F¹ [sic] ad seuerum F²I² hanc epistulam mittit seuero L || 1 regum] rerum C uatum M¹FIL || 2 intonsis] intensis H euxinis M¹ inuisis F^2ul || 5 orba ... numeris] uerba ... numerus C || cessauit] cessabit B¹ || 6 uices] uias T || 8 quae] quod T || 9 Falerna] falerno M || 10 triptolemo] triptolomo CL tritolemo F tritolomo IT || det] dat FT || 11 interque] inter I || 13 ad hunc carmen] carmen ad hunc fragmentum Louaniense Heinsii (Lenz) || 14 cunctandi] cunctanti FH cunctadi I

nec tamen ingenium nobis respondet ut ante,15
sed siccum sterili uomere litus aro;
scilicet ut limus uenas excaecat †in undis†,
laesaque suppresso fonte resistit aqua,
pectora sic mea sunt limo uitiata malorum,
et carmen uena pauperiore fluit.20
si quis in hac ipsum terra posuisset Homerum,
esset, crede mihi, factus et ipse Getes.
da ueniam fasso: studiis quoque frena remisi,
ducitur et digitis littera rara meis.
impetus ille sacer qui uatum pectora nutrit,25
qui prius in nobis esse solebat, abest;
uix uenit ad partes, uix sumptae Musa tabellae
imponit pigras, paene coacta, manus,

17 uenas excaecat MFIT cum uenas cecat BCHL uenas cum caecat Castiglioni (Lenz) || in undis] in unda F in aruis Dalzell inundans Madvig (Lenz) apertas uel aquarum Tarrant hiulcas Merkel olim (1884) || 18 laesaque] lessaque M^ac lapsaque Merkel (1884) || resistit] resistat L || 21 Homerum] homorum H¹ quid C^ac, incertum (hameo?) || 22 ipse MFH ille BCILT || 23 studiis] studii FIM^pc || quoque frena] frena quoque I^ac || 26 quid pro qui HP, incertum || nobis] uobis M || abest] adest T || 27 uix sumptae ... tabellae BCMFHL (uix ex uin C, ut uid) uix sumpta ... tabella T assumpte ... tabelle I || 28 imponit] imposuit I