TEXTUAL INTRODUCTION

finitumque tuum, si non ratione, doloremipsa 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 fromEx PontoIV aread 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), andtantummodo(xvi 49).

Both in subject and style the sixteen poems ofEx PontoIV show a wide variety, worthy of the creator of theMetamorphoses. The following section examines the special characteristics of each of the poems.

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 referto future help from Pompeius, linking it with the assistance he is already providing:

nunc quoque nil subitis clementia territa fatisauxilium 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 ofEPII 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 techniquesOvid 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 precandonumina 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 secundoaugetur remis cursus euntis aquae.

(27-38)

Then he apologizes for making such constant requests:

et pudet et metuo semperque eademque precarine 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.

No poem in the fourth book of theEx Pontois 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 patronGermanicus. Suillius' family ties with Ovid and his influential position would have made it natural for Ovid to address him in the earlier books of theEx Pontoor even in theTristia; 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.

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

There is some difference between Ovid's treatment of Brutus and Graecinus inEPIV and in the earlier poems.EPIV 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 theEx Pontois more completely concerned with the addressee as a person. In contrast, nothing is said of Brutus inEPI 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 ofEPIV 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: inEPI 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 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 questusnon 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 theEx Pontothat 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 sametechnique in some of theAmores, 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.

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

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 uirtuscrescit, 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.

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 theTheseidAlbinovanus is engaged on: just as Theseus was faithful, so Albinovanus should be faithful to Ovid.

This letter is remarkable for its economy of structure, and indeed is so short as to seem rather perfunctory. Only twenty-two lines inlength, 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 amicisensisses 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 theEx Ponto.

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 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,primipilarisof 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.

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 theIbis, where Ovid's final curse is to wish his enemy's exile to Tomis.

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.

The manuscript authority for the text of the fourth book of theEx Pontois significantly poorer than for the earlier books because of the absence ofA,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 theEx Ponto; it breaks off, however, at III ii 67.

The manuscript authorities for the fourth book can be placed in three categories. The fragmentaryGis from a different tradition than the other manuscripts.BandCare 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 themMandFshow some independence, while no subclassification can be made ofH,I,L, orT.

Thefragmentum 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 centuryfor a text of Augustine; later they were incorporated into a bookbinding. As a result of this treatment they are in extremely poor condition.

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

Gis 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 readsquamquam ... sitinstead of the more usualquamquam ... estfound in the other manuscripts. In general, the text offered byGis surprisingly poor. At ix 108 it readsfatoforfacto, at ix 130 it has the false and unmetrical spellingpraeces, at ix 132 it hasmissceliteformisi caelite, at xii 17 it readslatifordilati, and at xii 19naiafornota. These errors demonstrate that the rest of the tradition does not descend fromG.

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.

Monacensis latinus 384andMon. 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 36BandChaveintenduntfor the correctintendent, at viii 6uoloforuoco, at viii 18perueniemusforinueniemur(-ntur,-mus), at viii 44illaforulla, at viii 89caraforcare, at ix 44fingitforfinget, at ix 71quodforcum(FILT) andut(HM), at ix 92praestatforperstat, at ix 97etforut, at xiii 5certe estforcerte, and at xiv 30culpatusforculpatis. In some of these passagesB's still visible original reading has been corrected by a later hand. In other passages it is clear from the signs of correction thatBoriginally agreed withCin distinctive readings now preserved in C alone:subitoforsed et(iii 27),eratforeras(vi 9),occiditforoccidis(vi 11),suspicitforsuscipit(ix 90),parentfordarent(xvi 31).

BandCon the whole offer a better text than any other manuscript. At iii 44B1andComit the lost pentameter, where the other manuscripts offer interpolations. At iv 11 they alone give the probably correctsolusfortristis, at xii 3autforast, and atxvi 31tyrannis(conjectured by Heinsius) fortyranni. At v 40CandB2alone have the correctmancipii ... tuiformancipium ... tuum.

Both manuscripts naturally have readings peculiar to themselves.Bhas 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 34Balone haserunt(forerit), conjectured by Heinsius;Comits the word. Similarly, at xi 21BandF1havemihi, omitted byC; the other manuscripts havetibi.Bhasabat i 9 for the other manuscripts'in;abis possibly the true reading.

Under the influence of Ehwald, modern editors have wrongly taken some ofB's other readings to be correct, placingaspiceremin the text forprospiceremat ix 23,arafororaat ix 115, andilliforillumat ix 126. At ix 73 editors printBandT'squem, which is clearly an interpolation for the awkward transmitted readingqua.

UnlikeC,Bhas been quite heavily corrected by later hands.

Chas more than one hundred readings peculiar to itself. Two of them I have accepted as correct:summo(forsummum;Hhasmundum) at iii 32, andhoras(that is,oras) at vii 1; the reading is also given byI. It is possible thatC'scorreptiorshould be read at xii 13 forcorreptius. At xiv 38C'ssceptiusis the manuscript reading closest to the correctScepsiusrestored by Scaliger.

Most ofC'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 insertedby a later hand, perhaps in an erasure. At viii 43 it hasin uitaforofficio, at xiii 12contra uiamfornouimus, at xiv 36inforloci, and at xv 31colloquioforuerum quid.

Calso contains a greater number of purely palaeographical errors than any other manuscript:huncfornunc(i 25),humerisfornumeris(ii 30),hecfornec(ix 30),lucosforsucos(x 19),hastoforhorto(xv 7),ueiiuoliqueforueliuolique(xvi 21),pretiaforpr(o)elia(xvi 23).

BandCsporadically offer the third declension accusative plural ending-is(ix 4fascisC, ix 7partisC, ix 73rudentisB, x 17cantantisB, xii 30albentisB). But more usually all manuscripts, includingBandC, have the accusative in-es: compare for example ii 27partes, iii 53purgantes, ix 35praesentes, and ix 42fasces. The manuscripts show a similar variation in the earlier books of theEx Ponto. The ninth-century Hamburg manuscript (A) sometimes offers accusatives in-iswhere the other manuscripts, evenBandC, have-es(I iv 23partis, I v 11talis, I vi 39ligantis, I vi 51turris). At I ii 4,Ahasomnes, whereC1hasomnis, and in general even inAthe accusative in-esis the predominant form. For example,Aoffersaurisat II iv 13 and II ix 25, butauresat 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-esin all cases,considering the instances of-isto be scribal interpolations.

Similarly, I have used the formpennaat iv 12 and vii 37, whereCofferspinna.Pennais the form given in the ancient manuscripts of Virgil, and attested by Quintilian.

The other manuscripts I have collated belong to the vulgate class. They are not related to each other in the sense thatBandCare related, nor does any of them possess independent authority as doesG. 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 theEx Pontoin 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 theFlorilegium Gallicum, and finally from the complete texts [which include ourHandF] ... that emanate from this region toward the end of the twelfth century' (Texts and Transmission263); the vulgate manuscripts seem to have been propagated from the text current in the region of Orléans.

MandFshow some originality. Their readings at xvi 33 differ somewhat from the version of that passage inHILT.F1's interpolation for the missing pentameter at iii 44 differs from that ofMHILT, whileMhas an interpolated distich following x 6 that is not otherwise attested.

Of the other manuscripts,Iagrees withCin readinghoras(=oras) forundasat vii 1, whileTis the only manuscript collated to have the correctlaeuusat ix 119 in the original hand (F2gives it as a variant reading). Similarly,HandLeach have a few peculiar variants.

As a groupMFHILToffer 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.

Heinsius did not have knowledge ofBorC, and seems to have considered hiscodex 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 acceptedM's reading pending the discovery of better manuscripts.

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

At viii 85Malone has the correctullofor the other manuscripts'illo; this could naturally have been recovered by conjecture. At x 1 it hascumerio, the closest reading in the manuscripts collated to thecorrectCimmerio; but Professor R. J. Tarrant informs me thatCimmeriois also found inBritish Library Harley 2607.

Mhas suffered from a certain degree of interpolation. Following x 6 there is the spurious distichset cum nostra malis uexentur corpora multis / aspera non possum perpetiendo mori. At ii 9Falernois a deliberate alteration ofFalerna. At x 49Niphatesis an interpolation from Lucan III 245. At xiii 47duorum(also given as a variant reading byF2) looks like an attempt to correct the cryptic transmitted readingdeorum, and at xv 15tellus regnatais presumably a metrical correction following the loss of-quefromregnataque terra, the reading of the other manuscripts. At xvi 25eticiusquelooks to be a deliberate alteration ofTrinacriusque, but I am not sure what the interpolation means.

Francofurtanus Barth 110, used by Burman, shows some signs of independence. At iii 44, where a pentameter has been lost,BandComit the line, while the other manuscripts, includingM, have the interpolationindigus effectus omnibus ipse magis;Fhas the separate interpolationAchillas Pharius abstulit ense caput, also found in Heinsius'fragmentum Louaniense.Fomits viii 51-54, at xi 1 readsPollioforGallio, and at xvi 33 has a reading somewhat different from those offered by the other manuscripts.

Falone of the manuscripts collated offers the correctaudisse(foraudire) at x 17. At xi 21 it andBalone have the correctmihifortibi(omitted byC). At xiv 7 it has the probably correctmuterformittar, also found inBodleianus Canon. lat. 1andBarberinus lat. 26, both of the thirteenth century. With the exception ofmuter, these readings could have been recovered by conjecture; given the separative interpolation at iii 44,Fdiffers surprisingly little from the other manuscripts.

The thirteenth-centuryHolkhamicus 322, nowBritish Library add. 49368, contains (withI) the correcthancat i 16, the other manuscripts havingha,ah(B), ora(C). At xvi 30, where I have printedleuis, the reading of most manuscripts,Hhasleui, the conjecture of Heinsius; Professor R. J. Tarrant informs me that the same reading is found inOthob. lat. 1469. At iv 45H'squa libetis the manuscript reading closest to Heinsius' correctquamlibet; most manuscripts havequod licet.

Most other variants inHare trivial errors, although there seems to have been deliberate scribal alteration at x 18 (sucus amarus eratforlotos amara fuit), xiv 38 (Celsiusfor the usualSeptius; Scaliger restoredScepsius), xvi 3 (uenietforuenit et; presumably the intermediate step wasuenit), and perhaps at xiv 31 (miserabilisforuitabilis).

The thirteenth-centuryLaurentianus 36 32, Lenz's and André'sm, has the correctperstasat x 83 forpraestas; its reading is also found inPand as a variant ofF2. At vii 1 it shares withCthe readinghoras(=oras), which I have printed in preference to the usualundas.

At viii 15Ihas the hypercorrectnilfornihil, and at xiii 26ethereos ... deosforaetherias ... domos, but in general has few signs of deliberate alteration.

Lipsiensis bibl. ciu. Rep. I 2° 7, of the thirteenth century, hashaecat ix 103 for the other manuscripts'et.Haecrestores 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 elegantquae.L's text has clearly been tampered with at xiv 41 (populum ... uertit in iramforpopuli ... 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.

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 onlyTandF2of the manuscripts collated have the correctlaeuus, although othermanuscripts come close, and the reading could have been recovered by conjecture. At xv 40Treadstransierit saeuosfortransit nostra feros; clearlynostrawas at some point lost from the text, and metre forcibly restored.

I have also collated the thirteenth-centuryParisinus lat. 7993, Heinsius'codex Regius. At ix 46Poffers the correctcernetforcredet;cernetis also the reading ofMafter correction by a later hand and of the thirteenth-centuryGothanus membr. II 121. At vi 7Palone of collated manuscripts agrees withCin readingpraestatfor the correctperstat.Pagrees withLin readingniuibusfor the other manuscripts'nubibusat v 5,adeptumforademptumat vi 49,signareforsignateat xv 11, and in the orthographypuplicusforpublicusat ix 48, ix 102, xiii 5, and xiv 16. The manuscript has many corruptions: a few examples are i 30igneforimbre, ii 18supremoforsuppresso, iv 6paceforparte, vi 34uirtusforuirus, vii 15piaculaforpericula, ix 42praetereaforpraetextam, x 63in harenaformarina, xiv 39conuiuiaforconuicia, and xvi 24sacriforscripti. However,Phas no unique variants with any probability of correctness. To have given a full report ofPwould 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.

MFandB2H2I2T2usually 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.

By and large the manuscripts of the fourth book of theEx Pontooffer 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 ofG, are descended from a single archetype.BandCare 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 ofBandC.

The apparatus of this edition is intended to be a full report ofBCMFHILTand of the fragmentaryG; some reports are also given ofP. 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 deductumM

indicates thatdeductum carmenis the reading ofBCFHILT, whilecarmen deductumis the reading ofM.

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.

Theexcerpta Scaligerimentioned at xiii 27 I know of through Heinsius' notes as printed in Burman's edition; according to M. D. Reeve (RhMCXVII [1974] 163), the original excerpts are still extant in Diez 8° 2560, a copy of theeditio Gryphianaof 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 apparatusB1means "the original hand inB" andB2means "a correcting hand in B".B2ulindicates that the reading ofB2is clearly marked as a variant reading.B2glindicates that the entry is marked in the manuscript as a gloss;B2(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 calledB2. If a later hand has made a correction afterB2, the later hand is calledB3. When I placeB1in an entry but do not reportB2, it can be assumed thatB2has 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 siglumB2c. 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,Bacindicates the original reading, andBpcthe 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 ofae,oe, ande, ofiandy, ofphandf, ofcandt, 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 earliestedition I have consulted which reports the emendation. Conjectures of Bentley are from Hedicke'sStudia Bentleiana. Conjectures of Professor R. J. Tarrant, Professor J. N. Grant, and Professor C. P. Jones were communicated to me by their authors.

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 theEx Pontowere derived from late manuscripts of no great value. The Roman edition, however, contained the elegant correction ofiactatetolaxateat ix 73.

For my knowledge of other early editions of theEx PontoI 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 theEx Pontowas 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 ofF. On occasion he differs from Heinsius in his choice of readings. At xvi 44 he made the convincing conjectureMaxime(coddmaxima),subsequently confirmed byBandC. 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 theTristiaandEx Ponto'ex recensione Petri Burmanni'. Harles was the first editor to make use ofB. 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 ofB. 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 ofEx PontoIV in his 1833Corpus Poetarum Latinorumis in effect a reprint of the Heinsius-Burman vulgate, except that at viii 59 he prints the manuscripts' incorrect accusative formGigantes(HeinsiusGigantas). 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 theEx Pontowas 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 theEx 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 theEx Ponto. The part of Merkel's introduction dealing with theEx Pontois entirely concerned with describing the appearance, orthography, and readings of the ninth-centuryHamburgensis 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 theEx 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 editorto make substantial use ofBin constituting his text. Usually he printed the text ofBin preference to the vulgate: 'Ceterum eas partes in quibusAcaremus, 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 inEx PontoIV include his preference for the inelegantidemforilleat iii 17, for the impossibleulloinstead of the better attestednulloat v 15, and for the obvious interpolationdomitam ... ab Herculeat xvi 19 instead ofdomito ... 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'globosis elegant enough, but there is no reason to suspect the transmitteduiros.

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 inB. The supreme example of this is his restoration of the manuscripts' readingiactateforlaxateat ix 73.

Korn used the collation ofBby Harles, which had errors and omissions (in his preface Harles had warned that his report mightcontain errors[13]), so that at i 9 Korn printsin istisand at x 83perstas, without noting in his apparatus thatB's false readings wereab istisandpraestasrespectively. He was aware that at xi 21Breadmihi, but printedtibinonetheless, although Burman had already explained whymihiwas 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 asleuastisat vi 44 andlaxateat 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.Cymbadoes not differ fromcumba(viii 28), nor isDanubiuma variant forDanuuium(ix 80), nor again isVlyssesdifferent fromVlixes(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 readingCratesque. The lemma in his note isOratesque, the reading of Daniel Heinsius' edition. In the note itself Heinsius indicates his preference for the conjectureCalesque, communicated to him by his friend Isaac Vossius. Here Korn, along with all modern editors, printsCalesquein his text; he reportsCratesqueas Heinsius' reading.

Korn made one important conjecture inEx PontoIV, printingdecretisat 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 ofB: '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 ofEx PontoIV 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 68curasque fefelliis '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 thedatafrom which a competent teacher can deduce the principles of comparative philology'. A typical note is that on i 11scribere: 'from [root] skrabh = to dig, whence scrob-s and scrofa = 'the grubber,'i.e.the pig; Grk. γράφω by loss of sibilantand 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 withB's readings. He does not always desert his former text, rightly retaininghancat i 16,quamlibetat iv 45, andtempus curasqueat x 67; he also keepsluxat vi 9 anddomitam ... ab Herculeat xvi 19.

In his 1874 monographDe codicibus duobus carminum Ouidianarum ex Ponto datorum MonacensibusKorn had made known the existence ofC. S. G. Owen's first edition of theEx Ponto, printed in Postgate'sCorpus Poetarum Latinorumin 1894, was the first edition to report this manuscript as well asB. His text is unduly partial to the readings ofBandC, and his well-organized apparatus is so abbreviated as to be deceptive. It cannot be relied upon even for reports ofBandC. At ix 73 it gives no hint that for four centuries editors had readlaxate; 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 monographKritische Beiträge zu Ovids Epistulae ex Ponto. I am often indebted to Ehwald for references he has collected; my notes on i 15ad summamand xiii 48quos laus formandos est tibi magna datoscould 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 ofB, but had collated it himself; and the intent of his monograph was to establishB's authority as paramount. A typical example can be seen at ix 71. HereFILToffercum ... uacabitandMHhaveut ... uacabit, while the reading ofBandCisquod uacabit. In one of the examples Ehwald adduces,FastII 18,uacatis found in only a few manuscripts, and it can easily be seen how it arose fromuacas; all the other examples are instances ofquod superestorquod reliquum est. The cumulative effect of these examples is to demonstrate thatquod ... uacabitis 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,alteringintoabat i 9,prospiceremtoaspiceremat ix 23, and at ix 44 abandoning Korn'sdecretisfor 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 theex PontoMr Owen had displayed less originality [than in his 1889 and 1894 editions of theTristia] 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 hisKritische Beiträgeof 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 ofBandC; even of these two manuscripts his report is inadequate. At ix 73 he rightly printslaxate; the apparatus gives no indication that this is a conjecture, and that all manuscripts, includingBandC, readiactate, which he had printed in 1894. At xi 21, whereBgivesmihi, indicated by Burman as the correct reading, Owen printstibiand does not mention the variant in the apparatus. The situation is naturally worse with readings of manuscripts other thanBandC, 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 theEx 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 glossesAugustias "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 theEx Pontoas 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 ofBandC, and also of the thirteenth-centuryGothanus memb. II 121. This last manuscript has the correctcernetat ix 46, where most manuscripts readcredet; but otherwise its readings are of very poor quality, consisting of simple misreadings (i 24magnificasformunificas, vii 30uentoforuenit, viii 37habendusforabunde), simplified word order (vi 25tuas lacrimas pariterfortuas pariter lacrimas, xvi 39et iuuenes essentforessent et iuuenes), and intrusive glosses (viii 61captiuisforsuperatis, xvi 47me laedereforproscindere). 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 elegantdecretisdoes not appear even in the apparatus at ix 44, and the same fate befalls Scaliger'scoactusat xiii 27.

In 1924 the Loeb Classical Library published A. L. Wheeler's text and translation of theTristiaandEx Ponto. His text is based on Merkel's second edition, on Ehwald'sBeiträge, and on Owen's Oxford Classical Text. In several places he rightly abandonsB's reading, printinghancforahat i 16 andperstasforpraestasat 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 hisname 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 areBandC. 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 theTristiaandEx Ponto, with a German translation by Wilhelm Willige. Luck shows some independence from Lenz, at i 16 printinghancforah, at iii 27sed etforsubito, at viii 71mauisformaius, at viii 86distetfordistat, at ix 73laxateforiactate, at xii 13producaturforut dicatur, and at xiv 7muterformittar, 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 fromBandCand a small number of readings fromother manuscripts. No indication is given thathancat i 16 orparsat i 35 are found only in a few manuscripts, and not inBorC. 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 asGeteforGetaeat iii 52,leuastisforleuatisat vi 44, orfouetformouetat xi 20. The oldest edition named in his apparatus is that of Riese.

In 1977 F. Della Corte published an Italian translation of theEx Pontowith 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 theEx Pontois the 1977 Budé edition of Jacques André. His text is essentially that of Lenz, although at ix 23 he rightly printsprospicereminstead ofB'saspicerem. 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, andGothanus membr. II 121[17]. This is an inadequate sampling.BandCform a distinct group, and the Gotha manuscript istoo corrupt to merit a central part in an apparatus. The result is thatTis 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 (ourM) was Heinsius'codex Moreti, whose readings Lenz sometimes reports; the result is that he reports the same manuscript twice, under the siglaMandN.

At ix 127 he cites the sixth-century Wolfenbüttel fragment in support of the unassimilated spellingadscite(the assimilated formasciteis 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 lemmafor 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 theEx 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 theEx 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 ofEx PontoIV than any previous edition.

Back to Index Next