Chapter 28

Gracchus (Bardon 48-49) is mentioned by Priscian, Nonius, and the author of the _De dubiis nominibus_, who among them preserve four fragments and three titles (Ribbeck 266). One of the titles is a _Thyestes_; Professor R. J. Tarrant plausibly suggests that Ovid may here be alluding to the plays by Varius and Gracchus on the theme with his words _cum ... darent fera uerba tyrannis_, Atreus being the archetype of the tyrant in tragedy.

Nipperdey proposed that Ovid's Gracchus was the Sempronius Gracchus implicated in the disgrace of Julia (Vel Pat II 100 5); see Syme _HO_ 196 and Furneaux on Tac _Ann_ I 53 4. The identification is however far from certain.

=32. CALLIMACHI PROCVLVS MOLLE TENERET ITER.= Proculus is otherwise unknown. Ehwald suggested (_JAW_ 43 [1885] 141) that he was a dramatic poet like Varius and Gracchus, citing a mention of the '[Greek: satyrika dramata, tragôidiai, kômôidiai]' of Callimachus in the _Souda_. But Callimachus' primary reputation was hardly that of a tragedian; and _molle ... iter_ must be a reference to _Aetia_ 25-28: '[Greek: kai tod' anôga, ta mê pateousin hamaxai / ta steiben, heterôn d' ichnia mê kath homa / [_Hunt: _diphron el]ain mêd' hoimon ana platyn, alla keleuthous / [_Pfeiffer: _atripto]us, ei kai steinoterên elaseis]'.

For _mollis_ used specifically of elegy (the _Aetia_ were in elegiac verse), see _EP_ III iv 85 and Prop I vii 19 (cited by André); for the word in an overtly Callimachean context, see Prop III i 19 '_mollia_, Pegasides, date uestro serta poetae'.

_Tenere_ here has the sense 'keep to', as at _Met_ II 79 'ut ... uiam _teneas_' and Q Cic (?) _Pet_ 55 'perge _tenere_ istam uiam quam institisti [_Gruterus_: instituisti _codd_]'; Professor R. J. Tarrant rightly sees a suggestion of conscious artistic preference, and a faint allusion to the places where Augustan poets renounce the attractions of higher poetry.

=33. TITYRON ANTIQVAS PASSERQVE REDIRET AD HERBAS= _B1C_. For the many variants and emendations proposed, see the apparatus.

Housman has offered a defence of _B_ and _C_'s version of this line (937-39). He accepted Riese's printing of _Passer_ as a proper name ('M. Petronius Passer' is mentioned at Varro _RR_ III 2 2), and took the passage to mean 'He wrote bucolics, or, as Ovid puts it, he went back to Tityrus and the pastures of old': the construction is 'cum Passer rediret ad Tityron antiquasque herbas'. In writing the line, Ovid resorted to three devices, 'each of them legitimate, but not perhaps elsewhere assembled in a single verse'. The first is the delay of the preposition _ad_ after _Tityron_, which it governs; the second is the delay of _-que_, which properly belongs with _antiquas_; and the third is the placing of the verb between its two objects. For each of these devices Housman furnishes convincing parallels.

Housman's argument is ingenious and informative, but I do not believe that he is right in defending the line: the accumulation of difficulties is suspicious, and the divergence of the manuscripts is greater here than at any other point in the book. Heinsius wrote of the line, 'haec nec Latina sunt, nec satis intelligo quid sibi uelint'. Like Heinsius, I believe the line to be deeply corrupted and, in the absence of further evidence, impossible to correct.

=34. APTAQVE VENANTI GRATTIVS ARMA DARET.= Compare Grattius 23 'carmine et arma dabo et uenandi [_cod_: uenanti et _Vlitius_] persequar artis'.

=34. GRATTIVS.= The manuscripts have GRATIVS (_CFLT_) or GRACIVS (_BMHI_); and _Gratius_ is what editors both of Ovid and Grattius printed until Buecheler pointed out (_RhM_ 35 [1880] 407) that _Grattius_ is the only form found in inscriptions, and is what is given in the oldest manuscript of Grattius, _Vindobonensis 277_ (saec viii/ix), which predates the manuscripts of _EP_ IV by at least four hundred years.

=35. NAIADAS= _C. P. Jones_ NAIADAS A _HLI2_ NAYADES A _MT_ NAIDAS A _BCFI2_. Ovid elsewhere invariably uses the dative of agent with _amatus_ (_Am_ I v 12, II viii 12, III ix 55-56, _AA_ II 80, _Tr_ I vi 2, II 400, III i 42, IV x 40).

As Professor Jones notes, following the interpolation of _a_, the shorter form _Naidas_ was introduced in _BCFI1_ to restore metre.

=35-36. FONTANVS ... CAPELLA.= Neither poet is otherwise known.

=36. IMPARIBVS ... MODIS.= See at 11 _imparibus numeris ... uel aequis_ (p 453).

=37-38. QVORVM MIHI CVNCTA REFERRE / NOMINA LONGA MORA EST.= Similar phrasing at _Met_ XIII 205-6 '_longa referre mora est_ quae consilioque manuque / utiliter feci spatiosi tempore belli' and _Fast_ V 311-12 (Flora speaking) '_longa referre mora est_ correcta obliuia damnis; / me quoque Romani praeteriere patres'.

=39-40. ESSENT ET IVVENES QVORVM, QVOD INEDITA CVRA EST, / APPELLANDORVM NIL MIHI IVRIS ADEST.= All editors, misled no doubt by 37, mispunctuate this passage, placing a comma before _quorum_ instead of after: this destroys the gerundive _quorum ... appellandorum_, leaving the pentameter without a construction.

Williams proposed excising this distich, the reasons being (1) the sudden change from _forent_ to _essent_, (2) the use of _inedita_, which is not found elsewhere, (3) the use of _cura_ in a sense, 'written work', that is found only in late Latin, and (4) the prose turn of _quorum ... appellandorum_. To which it can be replied that (1) _forent_ and _essent_ are equivalent, and metrical convenience alone could justify the change, (2) the use of negatived perfect participles such as _inedita_, _indeclinatus_ (x 83), and _inoblita_ (xv 37) is a hallmark of Ovid's style, (3) _cura_ is used in this sense by Tacitus (_Dial_ 3 3 & 6 5; _Ann_ III 24 4 & IV 11 5); its earlier use in verse is not surprising, and (4) gerundives were allowed in Latin verse; here, as at ix 12 '_salutandi_ munere functa _tui_', the hyperbaton compensates for any awkwardness.

=39. CVRA= _unus Thuaneus Heinsii_ CAVSA _BCMFHILT_. The same error in some manuscripts at _Her_ I 20 'Tlepolemi leto _cura_ nouata mea est', and _Fast_ I 55 'uindicat Ausonias Iunonis _cura_ Kalendas'; the inverse corruption at _Am_ II xii 17 and _Fast_ IV 368.

In 1894 Owen printed _causa_. The word can certainly have the meaning he attributed to it ('[Greek: hypothesis]', 'theme'), as at Prop II i 12 'inuenio _causas_ mille poeta nouas', but this does not seem appropriate to the context here. In his later edition Owen returned to the usual reading.

=41. APPELLANDORVM.= _Appellare_ used with the same sense (_OLD appello2_ 11) at III vi 6 '_appellent_ ne te carmina nostra rogas'; _nOminAre_ was not available for Ovid's use.

=41-44. COTTA ... MAXIME.= M. Aurelius Cotta Maximus Messalinus[31] (_Forschungen in Ephesos_ III 112 no. 22; cited by Syme _HO_ 117) was the younger son of Messalla, the patron of Tibullus; he was the recipient of six of the _Epistulae ex Ponto_ (I v, I ix, II iii, II viii, III ii & III v). He is undoubtedly the M. Aurelius or Aurelius Cotta recorded by Tacitus as consul for 20 (_Ann_ III 2 3 & 17 4). He was born much later than his brother Messalinus (the addressee of _EP_ I vii and II ii), who was consul in 3 BC; the chronology is confirmed by a mention of him as praetor in 17 (_Inscriptiones Italiae_ XIII i p. 298; see Syme _Ten Studies_ 52), and by Ovid's testimony that Cotta was born after Ovid had become acquainted with his family (_EP_ II iii 69-80). Cotta was clearly a very close friend of Ovid; this can be seen particularly from _EP_ II iii, in which Ovid recounts how Cotta sent the first letter of comfort after his catastrophe (67-68) and tells how he confessed his _error_ to Cotta.

[Footnote 31: _PIR_1 A 1236; _PIR_2 A 1488; PW 11,2 2490 13]]

Tacitus gives some information on Cotta's public career. In AD 16, in the aftermath of the discovery of Libo's plot against Tiberius, Cotta proposed that Libo's image not be in his descendants' funeral processions (_Ann_ II 32 1). In 20, as consul, he similarly proposed penalties against Piso's family (_Ann_ III 17), and in 27 he is mentioned as attacking Agrippina so as to please Tiberius (_Ann_ V 3). The most interesting mention of him is at _Ann_ VI 5 (AD 32), where Tacitus tells of how Tiberius himself intervened in favour of Cotta after he had been charged with _maiestas_; the eventual result was that charges were laid against Cotta's chief accuser.

=42. PIERIDVM LVMEN.= At _EP_ III v 29-36 Ovid asked Cotta to send him some of his poetry.

For the sense of _lumen_ here ('ornament'), _OLD lumen_ 11 cites among other passages Cic _Sul_ 5 'haec ornamenta ac _lumina_ rei publicae' and _Phil II_ 54 (of Pompey) 'imperi populi Romani decus ac _lumen_ fuit'.

=42. PRAESIDIVMQVE FORI= = 'defender of the law'. Compare vi 33-34 'cum tibi suscepta est _legis uindicta seuerae_, / uerba uelut taetrum singula uirus habent'.

=43. MATERNOS COTTAS.= This passage should be taken in conjunction with _EP_ III ii 103-8 (to Cotta) 'adde quod est animus semper tibi mitis, et altae / indicium mores nobilitatis habent, / quos Volesus patrii cognoscat nominis auctor, / quos Numa maternus non neget esse suos, / adiectique probent genetiua ad nomina Cottae, / si tu non esses, interitura domus'. The simplest explanation of these two passages is that Cotta had been adopted by a maternal uncle, the last surviving Aurelius Cotta.

The question of Cotta's maternal ancestry is a vexed one; for a full discussion see Syme _HO_ 119-21.

The present passage was written with Prop IV xi 31-32 in mind: 'altera _maternos_ exaequat turba _Libones_, / et domus est titulis utraque fulta suis'.

=44. NOBILITAS INGEMINATA.= In a famous study (_Kleine Schriften_ I 1 ff.; trans. _The Roman Nobility_ [1969]), Matthias Gelzer demonstrated that the usual meaning of _nobilis_ was 'descended from a consul'. Cotta was descended from a consul on both sides.

At _Met_ XIII 144-47 Ovid uses _nobilitas_ to mean 'descent from a god': (Ulysses speaking) 'mihi Laertes pater est, Arcesius illi, / Iuppiter huic ... est quoque _per matrem_ Cyllenius _addita_ nobis / _altera nobilitas_: deus est in utroque parente!'.

=44. INGEMINATA.= A verbal echo of _EP_ I ii 1-2 (to Fabius Maximus) 'Maxime, qui tanti mensuram nominis imples, / et _geminas_ animi _nobilitate_ genus'.

=46. ATQVE INTER TANTOS QVAE LEGERETVR ERAT.= This is the end of the sentence that began at 5.

=46. INTER TANTOS.= Compare _EP_ III i 55-56 (Ovid has just compared himself to Capaneus, Amphiaraus, Ulysses, and Philoctetes) 'si locus est aliquis _tanta inter nomina_ paruis, / nos quoque conspicuos nostra ruina facit'.

=47. SVMMOTVM= _codd_ SVBMOTVM _edd_. The assimilated _summ-_ is standard in the manuscripts of Virgil and Lucretius, and should not be altered.

=47. PROSCINDERE= = 'revile, defame'. This seems to be the first instance of the word in this sense; the other examples cited by _OLD_ _proscindo_ 3 are Val Max V iii 3, Val Max VIII 5 2 'C. Flauium eadem lege accusatum testis _proscidit_', Pliny _NH_ XXXIII 6, and Suet _Cal_ 30 2 'equestrem ordinem ut scaenae harenaeque deuotum assidue _proscidit_'. The word connects with _laceras_ in the first line of the poem, and with _neu cineres sparge, cruente, meos_ in 48.

=49. OMNIA PERDIDIMVS.= The same phrase at _Met_ XIII 527-28 (Hecuba speaking) '_omnia perdidimus_: superest cur uiuere tempus / in breue sustineam proles gratissima matri'.

=49. TANTVMMODO= is a prose word. It occurs elsewhere in Ovid only at _Fast_ III 361 'ortus erat summo _tantummodo_ margine Phoebus' and at _Tr_ III vii 29-30 'pone, Perilla, metum; _tantummodo_ femina nulla / neue uir a scriptis discat amare tuis'. Being a colloquial term, it is found in satire (Hor _Sat_ I ix 54) and comedy (Ter _Ph_ 109).

=50. SENSVM MATERIAMQVE MALI.= 'An occasion for pain, and the ability to feel it'. For _sensum_ compare _EP_ I ii 29-30 'felicem Nioben ... quae posuit _sensum_ saxea facta _mali_ [_uar_ malis]' and _EP_ I ii 37 'uiuimus ut numquam _sensu_ careamus amaro'. For _materiam_ compare _Her_ VII 34 'materiam curae praebeat ille meae!', _Met_ X 133-34 'ut leuiter pro materiaque doleret / admonuit' and _EP_ I x 23-24 'dolores, / quorum materiam dat locus ipse mihi'.

=51-52. QVID IVVAT EXTINCTOS FERRVM DEMITTERE IN ARTVS? / NON HABET IN NOBIS IAM NOVA PLAGA LOCVM.= I believe this distich is an interpolation for the following reasons:

(1) Lines 49-50 form an effective ending, which 51-52 weaken. In 49-50 Ovid says that life is all that is left to him; and in 52 it is stated that he is already wounded in every place possible. These statements are contradictory.

(2) The use of a weapon in 51 is at odds with the rending metaphor of _laceras_ (1) and _proscindere_ (47).

(3) There seems something peculiar about _ferrum demittere in artus_; the examples of _demittere_ with this sense in the _Metamorphoses_ involve _ilia_ (IV 119, XII 441), _armi_ (XII 491), and _iugulum_ (XIII 436; similar phrasing at _Her_ XIV 5).

The distich's fabrication was assisted by _EP_ II vii 41-42 'sic ego continue Fortunae uulneror ictu, / _uixque habet in nobis iam noua plaga locum_'.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

_1. Editions and commentaries_

F. Puteolanus, _P. Ovidii Nasonis Opera Omnia_. Bologna, 1471.

J. Andreas de Buxis, _P. Ovidii Nasonis Opera Omnia_. Rome, 1471.

N. Heinsius, _P. Ovidii Nasonis Opera Omnia_. Amsterdam, 1652.

_Electa minora ex Ovidio, Tibullo, et Propertio_. London, 1705.

P. Burman, _P. Ovidii Nasonis Opera Omnia_. Amsterdam, 1727.

T. Harles, _Publii Ovidii Nasonis Tristium Libri V Ex Ponto Libri IIII_. Erlangen, 1772.

W. E. Weber, _Corpus Poetarum Latinorum_. Frankfurt, 1833.

R. Merkel, _P. Ovidius Naso_, vol. 3: _Tristia. Ibis. Ex Ponto Libri. Fasti. Halieutica_. Leipzig, 1853.

O. Korn, _P. Ovidii Nasonis Ex Ponto Libri Quattuor_. Leipzig, 1868.

A. Riese, _P. Ovidii Nasonis Carmina_, vol. 3: _Fasti. Tristia. Ibis. Ex Ponto. Halieutica. Fragmenta_. Leipzig, 1874.

W. H. Williams, _Ovid. The Pontic Epistles. Book IV_. London, 1881.

R. Merkel, _P. Ovidius Naso_, vol. 3: _Tristia. Ibis. Ex Ponto Libri. Fasti._ Leipzig, 1884, reprinted 1902.

S. G. Owen, in J. P. Postgate's _Corpus Poetarum Latinorum_, vol. 1. London, 1894.

S. G. Owen, _P. Ovidi Nasonis Tristium Libri Quinque Ibis Ex Ponto Libri Quattuor Halieutica Fragmenta_. Oxford, 1915, reprinted 1963.

G. Némethy, _Commentarius Exegeticus ad Ovidii Epistulas ex Ponto_. Budapest, 1915.

G. Némethy, _Supplementum Commentariorum ad Ovidii Amores, Tristia, et Epistulas ex Ponto_. Budapest, 1922.

R. Ehwald and F. W. Levy, _P. Ovidius Naso_, vol. 3: _Tristium Libri V. Ibis. Ex Ponto Libri IV_. Leipzig, 1922.

A. L. Wheeler, _Ovid. Tristia. Ex Ponto_. Cambridge (Massachusetts) and London, 1924, reprinted 1975.

F. W. Lenz, _P. Ovidi Nasonis Epistulae ex Ponto_. Turin, 1938.

G. Luck, _Publius Ovidius Naso. Briefe aus der Verbannung_, with a German translation by W. Willige. Zurich and Stuttgart, 1963.

F. della Corte, _Ovidio. I Pontica_ [translation and commentary], 2 vols. Genoa, 1977.

J. André, _Ovide. Pontiques._ Paris, 1977.

_2. Works cited_

Austin, R. G., ed. _P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Liber Secundus_. Oxford, 1964; reprinted 1966.

Axelson, B., _Unpoetische Wörter. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der lateinischen Dichtersprache_. Lund, 1945.

Bardon, H., _La littérature latine inconnue_. Tome II: _L'époque impériale_. Paris, 1956.

Bell, A. J., _The Latin Dual and Poetic Diction. Studies in Numbers and Figures_. London and Toronto, 1923.

Birt, T., "Animadversiones ad Ovidii heroidum epistulas", _RhM_ 32 (1877), 386-432.

Bömer, F., _P. Ouidius Naso. Die Fasten_. 2 vols. Heidelberg, 1957-58.

Bömer, F., _P. Ouidius Naso. Metamorphosen. Kommentar_. Heidelberg, 1969-(in progress).

Bonner, S. F., _Education in Ancient Rome. From the elder Cato to the younger Pliny_. London, 1977.

Brink, C. O., ed. _Horace on Poetry. The 'Ars Poetica'_. Cambridge, 1971.

Buckland, W. W., _A Text-book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian_. Third edition, revised by Peter Stein. Cambridge, 1963; corrected reprint, 1975.

Chatelain, E., _Paléographie des classiques latins_. Paris, 1894-1900.

Cope, E. M., ed. _The Rhetoric of Aristotle_. London, 1877; reprint edition, New York, 1973.

Costa, C. D. N., ed. _Seneca. Medea_. Oxford, 1973.

Ehrenberg, V. and A. H. M. Jones, _Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius_. Second edition. Oxford, 1955; reprinted 1963.

Ehwald, R., "Jahresbericht über Ovid von Mai 1894 bis Januar 1902", _JAW_ 109 (1901), 162-302.

Ehwald, R., _Kritische Beiträge zu Ovids Epistulae ex Ponto_. Gotha, 1896.

Fordyce, C. J., _Catullus. A commentary_. Oxford, 1961; corrected reprint, 1968.

Gain, D. B., ed. _The Aratus ascribed to Germanicus Caesar_. London, 1976.

Getty, R. J., ed. _M. Annaei Lucani De Bello Ciuili Liber I_. Cambridge, 1940; reprint edition, New York, 1979.

Goold, G. P., "Amatoria Critica". _HSPh_ 69 (1965), 1-107.

Gow, A. S. F., ed. _Theocritus_. 2 vols. Cambridge, 1950.

Gronovius, J. F., _Observationum Libri Quattuor_, ed. F. Platner, Leipzig, 1755; reprint edition, Leipzig, 1831. (_Observationum Libri Tres_, Leiden, 1639; second edition, 1662).

Haupt, M., _Opuscula_. Leipzig, 1875; reprint edition, Hildesheim, 1967.

Hedicke, E., _Studia Bentleiana_. Part V: _Ovidius Bentleianus_. Freienwald, 1905.

Henderson, A. A. R., ed. _P. Ovidi Nasonis Remedia Amoris_. Edinburgh, 1979.

Hilberg, I., _Die Gesetze der Wortstellung im Pentameter des Ovid_. Leipzig, 1894.

Hofmann, J. B., _Lateinische Umgangsprache_. Third edition. Heidelberg, 1951.

Housman, A. E., _The Classical Papers of A. E. Housman_, edited by J. Diggle and F. R. D. Goodyear. 3 vols. Cambridge, 1972.

Kassel, R., _Untersuchungen zur griechischen und römischen Konsolationsliteratur_. Munich, 1958.

Kenney, E. J., "Nequitiae Poeta", in _Ovidiana_, pp. 201-9, ed. N. I. Herescu. Paris, 1958.

Kenney, E. J., "Ovid and the Law", _YClS_ XXI (1969) 243-63.

Kenney, E. J., "Ouidius Prooemians", _PCPhS_ 202, n.s. 22 (1976), 46-53.

Kiessling, A. G., _Coniectanea Propertiana_. Greifswald, 1876.

Kirfel, E.-A., _Untersuchungen zur Briefform der Heroides Ovids_. Bern and Stuttgart, 1969.

Korn, O., _De codicibus duobus carminum Ouidianorum ex Ponto datorum Monacensibus_. Breslau, 1874.

Lattimore, R. A., _Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs_. Urbana, 1962.

Lejay, P., ed. _Horace. Satires_. Paris, 1911; reprint edition, Hildesheim, 1966.

Lenz, F. W., "Die Wiedergewinnung der von Heinsius Benutzten Ovidhandschriften in den letzten fünfzig Jahren", _Eranos_ 51 (1953) 66-88 & 61 (1963) 98-120.

Löfstedt, E., _Syntactica_. Vol. 2: _Syntaktisch-Stilistische Gesichtspunkte und Probleme_. Lund, 1933; reprinted 1956.

Lowe, E. A., _Codices Latini Antiquiores_. 12 vols. Oxford, 1934-71.

Luck, G., ed. _P. Ovidius Naso. Tristia_. 2 vols. Heidelberg, 1967-77.

Madvig, J. N., _Adversaria Critica_. Vol 2: _Emendationes Latinae_. Copenhagen, 1873.

Martin, R. H., ed. _Terence. Adelphoe_. Cambridge, 1976.

Marx, F., ed. _C. Lucilii Carminum Reliquiae_. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1904; reprint edition, Amsterdam, 1963.

Merkel, R., ed. _P. Ovidii Nasonis Tristium libri quinque et Ibis_. Berlin, 1837.

Mommsen, T., _Römische Staatsrecht_. 3 vols. Third edition. Leipzig, 1887; reprint edition, Graz, 1952.

Morel, W., ed. _Fragmenta poetarum Latinorum epicorum et lyricorum praeter Ennium et Lucilium_. Leipzig, 1927.

Munari, F., _Catalogue of the MSS of Ovid's Metamorphoses_. London, 1957.

Munari, F., "Supplemento al catalogo dei manoscritti delle Metamorfosi ovidiane", _RFIC_ 93 (1965) 288-97.

Munari, F., "Secondo supplemento al catalogo dei manoscritti delle Metamorfosi ovidiane", _Studia Florentina Alexandro Ronconi Sexagenario Oblata_, pp. 275-80, Rome, 1970.

Munro, H. A. J., _Criticisms and Elucidations of Catullus_. Cambridge, 1878; reprint edition, New York, 1938.

Munro, H. A. J., ed. _T. Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura Libri Sex_. 3 vols. Fourth edition. London, 1886; reprinted 1908; reprint edition, New York, 1978.

Murgatroyd, P., _Tibullus I_ [commentary]. Pietermaritzburg, 1980.

Nash, E., _Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome_. 2 vols. London, 1961.

Nisbet, R. G. M. and M. Hubbard, _A Commentary on Horace: Odes Book 1_. Oxford, 1970.

Otto, A., _Die Sprichwörter und Sprichwörtlichen Redensarten der Römer_. Leipzig, 1898; reprint edition, Hildesheim, 1962.

Owen, S. G., ed. _P. Ovidi Nasonis Tristium liber secundus_. Oxford, 1924.

Palmer, A., ed. _P. Ovidi Nasonis Heroides_. Oxford, 1898.

Platnauer, M., _Latin Elegiac Verse. A study of the metrical usages of Tibullus, Propertius & Ovid_. Cambridge, 1951; reprint edition, Hamden (Connecticut), 1971.

Radermacher, L., "Das Epigramm des Didius", _SAWW_ 170,9 (1912) 1-31.

Reeve, M. D., "Heinsius's Manuscripts of Ovid", _RhM_ 117 (1974) 133-36 & 119 (1976) 65-78.

Ribbeck, O., ed. _Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta_. Leipzig, 1897.

Roscher, W. H., _Ausführliches Lexikon der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie_. 6 vols. Leipzig, 1884-1937.

Sandys, J. E., _Latin Epigraphy_. Second edition. London, 1927; reprint edition, Chicago, 1974.

Schoenemann, C. P. C., _Bibliothecae Augustae sive notitiarum et excerptorum codicum Wolfenbuttelensium specimen_. Helmstadt, 1829.

Schwartz, J., "Pompeius Macer et la jeunesse d'Ovide", _RPh_ 25 (1951) 182-94.

Scott, K., "Emperor Worship in Ovid", _TAPhA_ 61 (1930), 43-69.

Shackleton Bailey, D. R., _Propertiana_. Cambridge, 1956.

Smith, K. F., ed. _The Elegies of Albius Tibullus_. New York, 1913; reprint edition, Darmstadt, 1978.

Syme, R., _History in Ovid_. Oxford, 1978.

Syme, R., _Tacitus_. 2 vols. Oxford, 1958.

Syme, R., _Ten Studies in Tacitus_. Oxford, 1970.

Tarrant, R. J., ed. _Seneca. Agamemnon_. Cambridge, 1976.

Tarrant, R. J., "The Authenticity of the Letter of Sappho to Phaon (_Heroides_ XV)", _HSPh_ 85 (1981) 133-53.

Tarrant, R. J., article on "Ovid", section on the _Ex Ponto_, _Texts and Transmission_, ed. L. D. Reynolds, Oxford, 1983, pp. 262-65.

Thibault, J. C., _The Mystery of Ovid's Exile_. Berkeley, 1964.

Wickham, E. C., ed. _Quinti Horati Flacci opera omnia_. 2 vols. Oxford, 1891.

Willis, J. _Latin Textual Criticism_. Urbana, 1972.

Woodcock, E. C., _A New Latin Syntax_. London, 1959; reprinted 1971.

INDEX OF TOPICS DISCUSSED

_The scope of this index is described at pages vii-viii of the Preface._

_ad summam_ = 'in short', 152

addressees in _Ex Ponto IV_, 6-9

advantages offered by digital editions (ebooks), vi-vii

Albinovanus Pedo, 7-8, 327-328

André, J. text and translation of 1977, 51-53

apotheoses of Hercules, Aeneas, Romulus, Julius Caesar, and Augustus as described by Ovid, 401

articles arising from this edition, iv-vi

_aut_ = 'otherwise', 184, 373

Black Sea, freezing of, 339 accuracy of Ovid's account, 341 source for Ovid's account of its freezing, 340-42 Ammianus Marcellinus' explanation, 342 Aulus Gellius' explanation, 342 Lucan's description, 342 Macrobius' explanation, 341 Valerius Flaccus' explanation, 341

Brutus, 7, 16, 226

Burman, Peter folio edition of the works of Ovid (1727), 37-38

_Calypso_ accusative, 332

_candidus_ = 'kind of heart', 421-22

Carus, 8, 20

_certus eras_ = 'you had made up your mind', 228

conative imperfect tense, 185

conative present tense, 148

Cornelius Severus, 7

Cotta Maximus, 8-9, 465-66

Cottius, 244, 253

_coturnus_ vs. _cothurnus_, 459

cretics, impossibility of using in elegiac verse, 371-73

critical apparatus, conventions used in creating, 34-37

_decipere_: _Me decipit error_ = 'I am making a mistake', 231

_deductum_ = (1) 'composed', (2) 'finely spun, delicate', 147

Della Corte, F. translation and commentary of _Ex Ponto_ (1977), 51

deponent verbs, perfect participle of, 290

differences between _Ex Ponto IV_ and Ovid's earlier poems from exile, 9-11

Donnus, ancestor of Vestalis, 253

editions of the _Ex Ponto_ before Heinsius, 37

Ehwald, Rudolf _Kritische Beiträge zu Ovids Epistulae ex Ponto_ (1896), 45-46

_ensis_ vs. _gladius_, 309-310