Chapter 26

Professor E. Fantham suggests to me, however, that _munera legis_ is a reference to civic duties, or liturgies, that Greek cities imposed on certain of their citizens, and Ovid may be saying that citizens performing such liturgies at Tomis procured exemption from regular taxation.

Wheeler translates 'those only excepted who have the boon by law'. This seems difficult; but Professor A. Dalzell notes that the strangeness of the phrasing may be the results of Ovid's striving for a play on _munera_/_immunis_.

=55. CORONA.= Professor C. P. Jones notes that the _corona_ indicates that Ovid was probably invested with a local priesthood.

=57-58. DELIA TELLVS, / ERRANTI TVTVM QVAE DEDIT VNA LOCVM.= Accounts of this at _Met_ VI 186-91 (Niobe speaking) 'Latonam ... cui maxima quondam / exiguam sedem pariturae terra negauit! / nec caelo nec humo nec aquis dea uestra recepta est: / exul erat mundo, donec miserata uagantem / "hospita tu terris erras, ego" dixit "in undis" / instabilemque locum Delos dedit' and in the passages cited by Williams at _Aen_ III 76 and Tarrant at Sen _Ag_ 384f.

=61-62. DI MODO FECISSENT PLACIDAE SPEM POSSET HABERE / PACIS, ET A GELIDO LONGIVS AXE FORET.= In this final distich Ovid unexpectedly reverts from his gratitude to the Tomitans to the subject of the first part of the poem, the inhospitality of the region.

This passage provides an example of the technique pointed out in the _Amores_ by Douglass Parker ("The Ovidian Coda", _Arion_ 8 [1969]) whereby Ovid unexpectedly modifies a poem's tone in the concluding distich. In _Am_ I x Ovid rails against his girl because she has asked him for a present: 'nec dare, sed pretium posci dedignor et odi; / quod nego poscenti, desine uelle, dabo!' (63-64). In _Am_ II xiv Ovid scolds his girl for having an abortion: 'di faciles, peccasse semel concedite tuto, / et satis est; poenam culpa secunda ferat!' (43-44). In II xv, Ovid imagines that he becomes the ring he is giving his girl: 'inrita quid uoueo? paruum proficiscere munus; / illa data tecum sentiat esse fide!' (27-28). _Am_ I vii, I xiii, I xiv, and II xiii are other examples of the device.

=62. A GELIDO ... AXE.= Compare XV 36 'dura iubet _gelido_ Parca _sub axe_ mori' and _Her_ VI 105-6 (Hypsipyle to Jason) 'non probat Alcimede mater tua--consule matrem-- / non pater, _a gelido_ cui uenit _axe_ nurus'.

XV. To Sextus Pompeius

The poem, the fourth and last in the book to be addressed to Pompeius, is an elaborate appeal to him to continue his assistance.

It starts with the assertion that Pompeius, after the Caesars, is principally responsible for Ovid's well-being (1-4). The favours Pompeius has done for Ovid are innumerable and extend throughout his life (5-10). Ovid will of his own volition declare that he is as much Pompeius' property as Pompeius' estates in Sicily and Macedonia, his house in Rome, or his country retreat in Campania; because of Ovid, Pompeius now has property in the Pontus (11-20). Ovid asks him to continue working on his behalf (21-24). He knows that he does not have to urge Pompeius, but he cannot help himself (27-34). No matter whether he is recalled or not, he will always remember Pompeius; all lands will hear that it is he who saved Ovid, and that Ovid belongs to him (35-42).

The poem effectively combines a number of commonplaces of the works of exile, subordinating them to the central theme of Ovid's indebtedness to Pompeius. The topic of Ovid as Pompeius' property is to a certain extent foreshadowed in _EP_ I vii, throughout which Ovid refers to himself as a client of Messalinus' family: 'ecquis in extremo positus iacet orbe tuorum, / me tamen excepto, qui precor esse tuus?' (5-6); it is found explicitly at i 35-36 'sic ego sum rerum non ultima, Sexte, tuarum / tutelaeque feror munus opusque tuae'. Syme (_HO_ 156) believes that the addressing of the first and penultimate letters to Pompeius constitutes a dedication of the book to Pompeius. However, as Syme recognizes, the abnormal length of the book indicates that it may be a posthumous collection (see page 4 of the introduction); if so, the arrangement of the poems is presumably by Ovid's literary executor.

The poem is remarkable for the cluster of legal terms at 11-12. The passage is evidence for Ovid's expertise and interest in law. For other indications of this in his works, see at 12 (p 434).

=1. SI QVIS ... EXTAT.= Pompeius is kept in the third person through line 10; Ovid thereby indicates that he is making a public declaration.

=1. EXTAT.= As Riese pointed out, the choice in 1-2 is between _extat ... requirit_ and _extet ... requirat_; the problem is that the manuscripts give _extat ... requirat_, _requirit_ being found only in a few manuscripts of Heinsius, while _extet_ is a conjecture of Guethling. Owen (1894) thought that the ending of _extat_ caused _requirit_ to be corrupted to _requirat_; on the other hand, the alteration of _extet_ to _extat_ would be all but automatic. There is a similar difficulty at _Tr_ I i 17-18 'si quis ut in populo nostri non immemor illi [=_illic_], / si quis qui quid agam forte _requirat_ erit', where most manuscripts have _requiret_. Both passages seem to involve the assimilation of _requirere_ to the mood of the verb immediately following. I print _extat ... requirit_ in consideration of _Tr_ III x 1-2 'Si quis adhuc istic _meminit_ Nasonis adempti, / et _superest_ sine me nomen in urbe meum' (cited by Lenz), _Tr_ III v 23-24 'si tamen interea quid in his ego perditus oris-- / quod te credibile est quaerere--_quaeris_, agam' and _Tr_ V vii 5 'scilicet ut semper quid agam, carissime, _quaeris_'.

=3. CAESARIBVS= = _Augusto et Tiberio_. Augustus is similarly given primary credit for Ovid's survival at v 31-32 'uiuit adhuc uitamque tibi debere fatetur, / quam prius a miti Caesare [=_Augusto_] munus habet'.

=4. A SVPERIS ... PRIMVS.= The same idiomatic use of _ab_ 'after' at v 25-26 'tempus ab his uacuum Caesar Germanicus omne / auferet; _a magnis_ hunc colit ille _deis_' and _Fast_ III 93-94 (of the month of March) 'quintum Laurentes, bis quintum Aequiculus acer, / _a tribus_ hunc _primum_ turba Curensis habet'.

=5. TEMPORA ... OMNIA.= Compare i 23 '_numquam_ pigra fuit nostris tua gratia rebus'.

=5. COMPLECTAR.= _Complecti_ in the weak sense 'include, take in' is found in Ovid only here and at _Tr_ I v 55 'non tamen idcirco _complecterer_ omnia uerbis'. The usage is common in prose (_OLD complector_ 8).

=6. MERITIS.= Compare i 21-22 'et leuis haec _meritis_ referatur gratia tantis; / si minus, inuito te quoque gratus ero'.

=7-10. QVAE NVMERO TOT SVNT.= Ovid is very fond of using this type of catalogue to indicate great number. Compare _AA_ I 57-59 ('tot habet tua Roma puellas'), _AA_ II 517-19 ('tot sunt in amore dolores'), _AA_ III 149-50 (the many ways women can ornament themselves), _Tr_ V vi 37-40 (the number of Ovid's ills), and _EP_ II vii 25-28 ('nostrorum ... summa laborum').

=8. LENTO CORTICE.= 'Tough skin'.

=8. GRANA.= Ovid does not use pomegranates in his similar catalogues elsewhere. Professor R. J. Tarrant points out to me how Ovid elaborates the novel item of comparison in a full distich with several picturesque details (_Punica_, _lento cortice_, _rubent_), then reviews familiar elements rather more quickly in 9-10, with geography the ordering principle.

=9. AFRICA QVOT SEGETES.= Compare _EP_ II vii 25 'Cinyphiae segetis citius numerabis aristas' (the Cinyps was a river in Libya).

=9. SEGETES ... RACEMOS.= Compare _AA_ I 57 'Gargara quot _segetes_, quot habet Methymna _racemos_'.

=9. TMOLIA TERRA= = _Lydia_. The adjective _Tmolius_ (from _Tmolus_, a mountain in Lydia famous for its wines) occurs only here.

=10. QVOT SICYON BACAS.= Compare _AA_ II 518 'caerula quot bacas Palladis arbor habet'. For Sicyonian _bacae_ compare Virgil _G_ II 519 'Sicyonia baca' and _Ibis_ 317 'oliuifera ... Sicyone'.

=10. QVOT PARIT HYBLA FAVOS.= _Fauos_ stands by a type of metonymy for _apes_; compare _AA_ II 517 'quot apes pascuntur in Hybla', _AA_ III 150 'nec quot apes Hybla nec quot in Alpe ferae', and _Tr_ V vi 38 'florida quam multas Hybla tuetur apes'. For a similar metonymy, see _EP_ II vii 26 'altaque quam multis floreat Hybla thymis'.

=11. CONFITEOR; TESTERE LICET.= 'I make a public deposition; you, Pompeius, may be a witness'. The deposition is to the effect that Ovid is now Pompeius' property by virtue of the many gifts Pompeius has made to him.

=11. TESTERE ... SIGNATE.= André cites _Dig_ XXII v 22 'curent magistratus cuiusque loci _testari_ uolentibus et se ipsos et alios testes uel _signatores_ praebere'.

=11. SIGNATE, QVIRITES.= After addressing Pompeius directly (_testere licet_), Ovid addresses those witnessing the _mancipatio_. As Professor A. Dalzell points out, this was achieved _ex iure Quiritium_; there is a similar direct address to the witnessing _Quirites_ in the formula for establishing a will (Gaius II 104).

Professor Dalzell also notes the abrupt change of audience; typical of Propertius, this is a very unusual procedure in Ovid.

For _signare_ used without an object, compare Suet _Cl_ 9 2 'etiam cognitio falsi testamenti recepta est, in quo et ipse _signauerat_' & _Nero_ 17 'cautum ut testamentis primae duae cerae testatorum modo nomine inscripto uacuae _signaturis_ ostenderentur'.

Ovid uses _testis_ and _signare_ in a similarly metaphorical sense at _EP_ III ii 23-24 (he forgives those friends who deserted him in his disaster) 'sint hac [_M (Heinsius)_: hi _codd_] contenti uenia, _signentque_ [_uarr_ sientque; fugiantque] licebit / purgari factum me quoque _teste_ suum'

=12. NIL OPVS EST LEGVM VIRIBVS, IPSE LOQVOR.= Ehwald (_KB_ 52) aptly cites Quintilian V vii 9 'duo genera sunt testium, aut uoluntariorum aut eorum quibus in [in _add editio Aldina_] iudiciis publicis lege denuntiari solet ['or those who are summoned _sub poena_ in trials']'.

The reference in this passage to a legal procedure is rather curious, as is the connected reference in 41-42. But it is clear from Ovid's verse that he had a solid practical expertise and interest in law. In his youth he had been one of the _tresuiri monetales_ or _capitales_ (_Tr_ IV x 33-34), and had also served in the centumviral court (_Tr_ II 93-94; _EP_ III v 23-24). He must have been known for his knowledge of law as well as for his fairness in order to be selected as arbitrator in private cases: 'res quoque priuatas statui sine crimine iudex, / deque mea fassa est pars quoque uicta fide' (_Tr_ II 95-96). E. J. Kenney has presented some interesting statistics concerning the frequent occurrence of legal terms in Ovid's poetry ("Ovid and the Law", _Yale Classical Studies_ XXI [1969] 241-63) comparing the number of occurrences of certain legal terms in Ovid and in Lucretius, Catullus, Virgil, Propertius, Tibullus, and the _Odes_ of Horace. _Ius_ and _lex_ are not much more common in Ovid than in the other poets (the proportions being 134:59 and 74:60 respectively for Ovid and the other poets combined); this is not surprising, since these common words could hardly be considered technical terms. _Arbiter_ (7:4) and _lis_ (23:10) are not much more common in Ovid than in the other poets. But it will be seen from the following list how fond Ovid was of legal terminology: _legitimus_ (16:0), _iudex_ (47:12), _iudicium_ (39:7), _index_ (26:1), _indicium_ (36:8), _arbitrium_ (23:6), _reus_ (23:5), _uindex_ (26:5), _uindicare_ (16:6), _uindicta_ (11:0), _asserere_ (3:0), _assertor_ (1:0). Compare as well the play on legal terminology at _AA_ I 83-86 (with Hollis's notes), and the use of such terms as _addicere_ (_Met_ I 617), _fallere depositum_ (_Met_ V 480 & IX 120), _usus communis_ (_Met_ VI 349), _transcribere_ (_Met_ VII 173), _primus heres_ (_Met_ XIII 154), _rescindere_ (_Met_ XIV 784), _accensere_ (_Met_ XV 546), _subscribere_ (_Tr_ I ii 3), _sub condicione_ (_Tr_ I ii 109), and _acceptum referre_ (_Tr_ II 10).

=13. OPES ... PATERNAS.= Pompeius appears to have been very wealthy. Seneca speaks of the wealth of a Pompeius (presumably the son of Ovid's patron--so Syme _Ten Studies_ 82, _HO_ 162), who was murdered by Gaius Caligula (_Tranq_ 11 10).

=13. REM PARVAM= _MHIT_ PARVAM REM _BCFL_. Either reading is possible enough. On balance, I believe _paruam rem_ to be an intentional scribal alteration to avoid the incidence of a spondaic word in the fourth foot of the hexameter; for a discussion of the phenomenon, see at i 11 _uellem cum_ (p 150).

In an older poet, the alliteration of _paruam pone paternas_ would be a strong argument for the reading (see page 15 of Munro's introduction to his commentary on Lucretius), but Ovid did not use the device in his poetry.

=15. TRINACRIA= = _Sicilia_, unusable because it begins with three consecutive short vowels; compare _Met_ V 474-76 (of Ceres) 'terras tamen increpat omnes / ingratasque uocat nec frugum munere dignas, / _Trinacriam_ ante alias'.

André avoids the literal meaning of the passage, joining _terra_ with _Trinacria_ as well as with _regnataque ... Philippo_ and taking it to mean 'estate': 'ta terre de Trinacrie et celle où régna Philippe'. But this sense of _terra_ is rare in Latin (Martial IX xx 2, Apuleius _Met_ IX 35), it is difficult to see how _regnataque ... Philippo_ could stand as an epithet in such a case, and it is clear enough that Ovid is imitating _Aen_ III 13-14 '_terra_ ... acri quondam _regnata Lycurgo'_, as he does at _Her_ X 69 'tellus iusto regnata parenti', _Met_ VIII 623 'arua suo quondam regnata parenti', and _Met_ XIII 720-21 'regnataque uati / Buthrotos Phrygio'. In these lines Ovid states that Pompeius owns Sicily, Macedonia, and Campania, and by the hyperbole indicates the size of Pompeius' holdings. Seneca similarly mentions how the Pompeius murdered by Gaius Caligula possessed 'tot flumina ... in suo orientia, in suo cadentia'.

=16. QVAM DOMVS AVGVSTO CONTINVATA FORO.= Compare v 9-10 'protinus inde domus uobis Pompeia petetur: / _non est Augusto iunctior ulla foro'_.

=18. QVAEQVE RELICTA TIBI, SEXTE, VEL EMPTA TENES.= The line seems rather prosaic. For the thought, compare Cic _Off_ II 81 'multa _hereditatibus_, multa _emptionibus_, multa dotibus tenebantur sine iniuria'; for this sense of _relicta_, compare Nepos _Att_ 13 2 'domum habuit ... ab auunculo hereditate _relictam_', Livy XXII 26 1 'pecunia a patre _relicta_', and Martial X xlvii 3 'res non parta labore, sed _relicta_'.

=19. TAM TVVS EN EGO SVM.= Professor A. Dalzell notes the play on the dual sense of _tuus_ (devoted/belonging to you) which is probably the basis of the entire poem. For _tuus_ 'devoted' compare _Tr_ II 55-56 '[iuro ...] hunc animum fauisse tibi, uir maxime, meque, / qua sola potui, mente fuisse _tuum_' and the other passages cited at _OLD tuus_ 6.

=19. MVNERE.= The word is difficult. 'Gift' seems strange in view of the stress placed on Pompeius' ownership of Ovid. Professor E. Fantham suggests to me that the phrase could mean 'by virtue of whose sad _service_ you cannot say you own nothing in the Pontus', while Professor R. J. Tarrant suggests that _munere_ could mean 'responsibility, charge', with _cuius_ (=_mei_) as an objective genitive.

=21. ATQVE VTINAM POSSIS, ET DETVR AMICIVS ARVVM.= This elliptical use of _posse_ seems to be colloquial. The only instance cited by _OLD_ _possum_ 2a from verse is Prop IV vii 74 'potuit [_uar_ patuit], nec tibi auara fuit'; there as well the tone is that of lively speech.

=21. AMICIVS ARVVM.= The same phrase at _Met_ XV 442-43 (Helenus to Aeneas) 'Pergama rapta feres, donec Troiaeque tibique / externum patrio contingat _amicius aruum_'. The use of the adjective _amicus_ of things rather than person is in the main a poetic usage, but compare Cic _Quinct_ 34 'breuitas postulatur, quae mihimet ipsi _amicissima_ est', _ND_ II 43 'fortunam, quae _amica_ uarietati constantiam respuit', and _Att_ XII xv 'nihil est mihi _amicius_ solitudine'; other instances in the elder Pliny and Columella.

=22. REMQVE TVAM PONAS IN MELIORE LOCO.= Compare _EP_ I iii 77-78 'liquit Agenorides Sidonia moenia Cadmus / poneret ut muros _in meliore loco_'.

=24. NVMINA PERPETVA QVAE PIETATE COLIS.= Tiberius and Germanicus are meant. For Pompeius' devotion to Germanicus, compare v 25-26 'tempus ab his uacuum Caesar Germanicus omne / auferet; a magnis hunc colit ille deis'.

=25-26. ERRORIS NAM TV VIX EST DISCERNERE NOSTRI / SIS ARGVMENTVM MAIVS AN AVXILIVM.= This distich does not belong in the text: it is in itself unintelligible, and interrupts a natural progression from 24 to 27. I am not certain that the distich is a simple interpolation, since there is nothing in the context to which it is an obvious gloss. Possibly it has been inserted from another letter from exile, in which its meaning would have been clear from context.

_Argumentum_ is difficult. Wheeler translates, 'For 'tis hard to distinguish whether you are more the proof of my mistake or the relief', and notes 'Apparently Pompey could prove (_argumentum_) that "error" which Ovid regarded as the beginning of his woes'. But this seems a strange thing to say, for Ovid's _error_ was hardly in need of demonstration.

_Auxilium_ is used in its medical sense, _erroris_ being equivalent to _morbi_ or _uulneris_; compare _RA_ 48 'uulneris auxilium' and the passages collected at _OLD remedium_ 1.

=25. DISCERNERE.= Gronovius argued (_Obseruationes_ III xiii) that DECERNERE (_MI1_) should be read here, since _decernere_ has the required sense 'uel decertare uel iudicare et certum statuere', whereas _discernere_ means 'separare, dirimere, distinguere, diuidere'. On the evidence of the lexica, however, Gronovius' distinction breaks down, since _discernere_ meaning 'decide, determine, make out' is common enough: compare Sallust _Cat_ 25 3 'pecuniae an famae minus parceret haud facile _discerneres_', Cic _Rep_ 2 6 'ne nota quidem ulla pacatus an hostis sit _discerni_ ac iudicari potest', Varro _LL_ VII 17 'quo _discernitur_ homo mas an femina sit', and Livy XXII 61 10 'quid ueri sit _discernere_'. I therefore let _discernere_ stand.

=29-30. ET PVDET ET METVO SEMPERQVE EADEMQVE PRECARI / NE SVBEANT ANIMO TAEDIA IVSTA TVO.= Compare _EP_ III vii entire (an apology to his friends for the monotony of his verse), and especially the opening lines: 'Verba mihi desunt eadem tam saepe roganti, / iamque pudet uanas fine carere preces. / taedia consimili fieri de carmine uobis, / quidque petam cunctos edidicisse reor'.

=30. SVBEANT ANIMO.= _Subire animo_ occurs also at _Tr_ I v 13. Ovid uses _subire_ with the dative several times in the poetry of exile (_Tr_ I vii 9, II 147, III iii 14 & V vii 58; _EP_ I ix 11, II x 43 & IV iv 47), but not beforehand; earlier he has the accusative (_Met_ XII 472) or the simple verb (_Met_ XV 307). The dative construction is taken up by the author of the later _Heroides_ (XVI 99, XVIII 62).

=31. RES IMMODERATA CVPIDO EST.= _Cupido_ similarly called _immoderata_ at Apuleius _Plat_ II 21; elsewhere qualified as _immodica_ (Livy VI 35 6) and _immensa_ (_Aen_ VI 823, Tac _Ann_ XII 7).

=33. DELABOR.= Cicero uses the word for moving from one subject to another (_OLD delabor_ 5b); here the metaphorical sense 'fall' is still active.

=34. IPSA LOCVM PER SE LITTERA NOSTRA ROGAT.= This line as it stands is clearly corrupt. I do not understand Wheeler's 'my very letters of their own accord seek the opportunity'; André's 'c'est la lettre qui, d'elle-meme, demande le sujet' seems equally difficult, although _locus_ can certainly have the meaning 'subject, topic of discussion' (_OLD_ _locus_ 24b).

The only parallel I have found is _Fast_ II 861 'iure uenis, Gradiue: _locum tua tempora poscunt_'. If _littera_ is retained in the present passage, this parallel is of little assistance, since _locum_ there means 'a place within a larger work', and Ovid's poetry cannot ask for a _locus_ in that sense. Taking the passage from the _Fasti_ as a parallel, I once thought that Ovid wrote _ipsa locum pro se tristia nostra rogant_ (or _petunt_); for the noun _triste_ compare _Fast_ VI 463 'scilicet interdum miscentur _tristia_ laetis', _Ecl_ III 80-81 '_triste_ lupus stabulis, maturis frugibus imbres, / arboribus uenti, nobis Amaryllidis irae', and Hor _Carm_ I xvi 25-26 'nunc ego mitibus / mutare quaero _tristia_'. I now consider this unlikely, since the personal adjective _nostra_ with _tristia_ seems unidiomatic; but I still believe that _littera_ is the key to the corruption.

Professor R. J. Tarrant has tentatively suggested something like _inque locum ... redit_, but questions whether _in locum_, even just after _eodem_, can have the sense _in eundem locum_. Professor Tarrant also points out to me the possible relevance of _locus_ in the sense _locus communis_ (compare Sen _Suas_ I 9 'dixit ... _locum_ de uarietate fortunae'); Ovid might be saying that his poetry had made rather frequent use of the _locus de exilio_. In this case, _rogat_ would require emendation.

One of Heinsius' manuscripts read _per se ... facit_, which is just possibly correct. Heinsius proposed _pro se ... facit_, which I do not understand.

=35. HABITVRA= is a good instance of the future participle used to express what is inevitably destined to happen (with _Parca_ balancing in the pentameter); for the sense, see Tarrant on Sen _Ag_ 43 'daturus coniugi iugulum suae'.

=37. INOBLITA= = _memori_. Apparently the only instance of the word in classical Latin.

=39. CAELO ... SVB VLLO.= Bentley oddly conjectured ILLO, the reading of _Mac_, which gives the sense 'under the Tomitan sky'. This obviously contradicts the following _transit nostra feros si modo Musa Getas_.

=41. SERVATOREM= occurs in Ovid only here and at _Met_ IV 737-38 (of Perseus) 'auxiliumque domus _seruatoremque_ fatentur / Cassiope Cepheusque pater'. In prose it is several times used in a civic context (Cic _Pis_ 34, _Planc_ 102, Livy VI 20 16 & XLV 44 20; _CIL_ IX 4852 in a dedication to _Ioui optimo maximo seruatori conseruatori ... ex uoto suscepto_). The solemn overtones of _seruatorem_ must be part of what Ovid means for his own land and for the rest of the world to hear and know; the poem thus ends with an implied pronouncement to balance the public statement of the opening.

=42. MEQVE TVVM LIBRA NORIT ET AERE MAGIS.= This line clearly refers to _mancipatio_, the receiving of property (including slaves), which is described by Gaius as follows: 'adhibitis non minus quam [_Boeth._: quod _cod_] quinque testibus ciuibus Romanis puberibus, et praeterea alio eiusdem condicionis qui libram aeneam teneat, qui appellatur libripens ['scale-holder'--de Zulueta], is qui mancipio accipit, aes [aes _add Boeth._] tenens, ita dicit: "hunc ego hominem ex iure [_Boeth._: iUst _cod_] Quiritium meum esse aio isque mihi emptus esto hoc aere aeneaque libra", deinde aere percutit libram, idque aes dat ei a quo mancipio accipit quasi pretii loco' (I 119).

MAGIS is found as a secondary reading in _F_ and in the thirteenth-century _Barberinus lat. 26_; the reading of most manuscripts is MINVS, which seems to me impossible. Several explanations of _minus_ have been advanced:

(i) Gronovius took the line to mean 'tuus sum, immo mancipium tuum, nisi quod sola libra et aes mea mancipatione abfuerunt'. This retention of _minus_, however, involves Ovid in a qualifying retraction just when he seems to be aiming for a ringing conclusion. As well, the instances of _minus_ cited by Gronovius do not in fact illustrate this passage: among them are _EP_ I vii 25-26 'uno / nempe salutaris quam prius ore minus', _Met_ XII 554-55 'bis sex Herculeis ceciderunt me minus uno ['except for me alone'] / uiribus', and Manilius I 778 'Tarquinio ... minus reges', 'the kings, except for Tarquin'.