=38. BARBARVS HISTER.= The same phrase in the same position (leaving space for the disyllable) at _EP_ III iii 26 'et coit astrictis _barbarus Hister_ aquis'.

_Hister_ was the name of the lower course of the Danube (Pliny _NH_ IV 79). Ovid uses the metrically convenient _Hister_ fifteen times in the _Ex Ponto_, as against two instances only of _Danuuius_ (IV ix 80 & x 58).

=38. OBIT= _Damste_ HABET _codd_. In support of _obit_ Damste cited x 22 'gentibus obliqua quas _obit_ Hister aqua' (_Mnemosyne_ XLVI 32). As Professor R. J. Tarrant points out, the only meaning that can be attached to _quasque alias gentes barbarus Hister habet_ is 'the other people that live in the Danube'; he compares _Her_ VI 135-36 'prodidit illa patrem; rapui de clade Thoanta. / deseruit Colchos; me mea Lemnos habet' and _Aen_ VI 362 (Palinurus speaking) 'nunc me fluctus habet'.

_EP_ III ii 43-44 'nos ... quos procul a uobis Pontus et [_uar_ barbarus]

Hister habet', cited by Lenz in support of _habet_, is not a good parallel in view of the different subject (_Pontus et Hister_ instead of _Hister_ alone).

Lenz cited _Tr_ II 230 'bellaque pro magno Caesare Caesar obit' for a variant _habet_; Professor Tarrant cites another instance of the corruption at _Met_ I 551-52 'pes modo tam uelox pigris radicibus haeret, / ora cacumen obit'.

=39. MATERIA= = 'means' (_OLD materia_ 8).

=41. NEC VINVM NEC ME TENET ALEA FALLAX.= The same statement at _EP_ I v 45-46 'nec iuuat in lucem nimio marcescere uino, / nec tenet incertas alea blanda manus'. For Ovid's temperance, compare _EP_ I x 30 'scis mihi quam solae paene bibantur aquae'.

_Me tenet_ in the present passage should perhaps be translated 'holds my attention' (_OLD teneo_ 22) rather than 'attracts' (Wheeler).

=41. VINVM.= For wine as a diversion from sorrow, compare Tib I ii 1 'Adde merum uinoque nouos compesce dolores' (with Smith's note) and Tib I v 37 'saepe ego temptaui curas depellere uino'.

=42. TACITVM TEMPVS.= Similar phrases at _AA_ II 670 'iam ueniet _tacito_ curua senecta pede', _Fast_ VI 771 '_tacitis_ ... senescimus annis', _Tr_ III vii 35-36 'senectus / quae _strepitus passu non faciente_ uenit', _Tr_ IV vi 17 '_tacito_ pede lapsa uetustas' and _Tr_ IV x 27 '_tacito_ passu labentibus annis'.

=43. QVOD CVPEREM.= At _EP_ I viii 39-62 Ovid, having detailed the urban pleasures he has lost, speaks of his agricultural pursuits in Italy, and laments that this diversion is not available to him at Tomis. The two passages add personal meaning to his description at _Met_ XIV 623-34 of Pomona's gardening and his prescription at _RA_ 169-98 of agriculture as a diversion from an unhappy love-affair.

=43. SI PER FERA BELLA LICERET.= Compare _EP_ II vii 69-70 'tempus in agrorum cultu consumere dulce est: / non patitur uerti barbarus hostis humum' and _EP_ III viii 6 'hostis ab agricola uix sinit illa [_sc_ loca] fodi'. At _Tr_ III x 57-66 Ovid gives a vivid description of what could happen to the farmers of Tomis in a raid.

=44. NOVATA= = 'restored to fertility through ploughing'. Ovid more commonly uses _renouare_, as at _Tr_ V xii 23-24 'fertilis, assiduo si non renouetur aratro, / nil nisi cum spinis gramen habebit ager', _Am_ I iii 9, _Met_ I 110 & XV 125, _Fast_ I 159, and _Tr_ IV vi 13.

=45. RESTANT= is not strictly logical, but a similar attraction of number is confirmed by metre at _Tr_ I ii 1 'Di maris et caeli--quid enim nisi uota _supersunt_?'; RESTAT (_IP_) must therefore be rejected.

Similar confusions occur in the manuscripts at _Met_ XIV 396 'nec quicquam antiqui [_Berolinensis Heinsii_: antiquum _codd plerique_] Pico nisi nomina _restant_' and _Tr_ IV x 85 'si tamen extinctis aliquid nisi nomina _restant_'.

=47. TV, CVI BIBITVR FELICIVS AONIVS FONS.= For the image of the poet drinking from Hippocrene see Prop III iii 5-6 'paruaque tam magnis admoram fontibus ora, / unde pater sitiens Ennius ante bibit'. Both here and at II x 25 Propertius speaks of Hippocrene as the spring of epic poetry specifically.

=47. FELICIVS.= 'With happier result'; compare _Ibis_ 559 'nec tibi, si quid amas, felicius Haemone [=_quam Haemoni_] cedat'.

=47. AONIVS FONS.= Platnauer (13) cites only four instances from the elegiac poets of hexameters ending in monosyllables: Prop II xxv 17 'amor, qui', _Am_ II ix 47 'Cupido, est', the present passage, and _EP_ IV ix 101 'quibus nos'. Ehwald and Levy compare _Met_ V 573 'quae tibi causa fugae, cur sis, Arethusa, sacer _fons_'. The coincidence suggests that in both passages Ovid was recalling a line-ending from an earlier poet. Alternatively, Professor E. Fantham suggests to me that Ovid may here have deliberately created an awkward line-ending so as to mock himself and bear out his claim of waning inspiration.

=47-50.= Ovid returns to the subject of his poem's opening, Severus'

poetry.

=48. VTILITER ... CEDIT.= Similar phrasing at _EP_ II vii 19 '[iam liquet ...] obseruare deos ne quid mihi _cedat amice_'.

=49. MERITO.= 'With justification'; Severus' previous service to the Muses has brought him fame and not, as in Ovid's case, disaster.

=50. HVC ALIQVOD CVRAE MITTE RECENTIS OPVS.= A similar request at _EP_ III v 29-30 (to Cotta Maximus) 'quod licet, ut uidear tecum magis esse, legenda [_Burman_: legendo _uel_ loquendo _codd_] / saepe precor studii pignora mitte tui'.

=50. CVRAE= = 'poetic toil', as at _Tr_ II 11-12 'hoc pretium _curae_ [_fragmentum Treuirense (saec x)_: uitae _codd plerique_] uigilatorumque laborum / cepimus', _EP_ I v 61 'cur ego sollicita poliam mea carmina _cura_?', and _EP_ III ix 29. At xvi 39 and _Tr_ II 1 the word means 'product of poetic toil'.

III. To An Unfaithful Friend

By the time Ovid wrote this poem, the letter of reproach was a genre familiar to him: each book of the _Tristia_ (with the obvious exception of II) contains such a poem (I viii; III xi; IV ix; V viii), and in the _Ibis_ Ovid had, by the extended treatment of a number of standard topics within the subject, created a poem of over six hundred lines.

Ovid begins the poem by stating that he has heard about his friend's faithlessness; he asks what possible excuse there might be for this behaviour (1-28). He then warns his friend that Fortune is changeable, and gives four examples of famous men who fell from prosperity (29-48).

He ends the poem by stating once again that Fortune is undependable, and gives his own catastrophe as an instance; his friend should remember this, and moderate his behaviour accordingly (49-58).

The poem has points of contact with the earlier poems of reproach. _Tr_ I viii is addressed to a friend who failed to visit Ovid after his disaster: he can scarcely believe his friend is human. In _Tr_ III xi, Ovid asks his enemy why through his actions he makes his punishment even worse. _Tr_ IV ix is a warning that if Ovid's enemy does not cease attacking him, he will through his poetry make his enemy's name infamous throughout the world. _Tr_ V viii, the poem closest in theme to the present one, is a warning to his enemy that Fortune is changeable and Augustus merciful, so he and Ovid might one day change situations.

The _Ibis_, being primarily a catalogue of literary curses, stands somewhat apart from the other poems of reproach in structure as in size; yet the opening of the poem, in which Ovid describes his enemy's conduct and the ways he might respond, offers a number of parallels to the present poem.

=1. CONQVERAR AN TACEAM.= Kenney (_Nequitiae Poeta_ 204-5), commenting on _AA_ I 739 'conquerar an moneam', cites other instances of the same rhetorical device at _Aen_ III 39 ' eloquar an sileam?' and _Met_ IX 147 'conquerar an sileam?', as well as the present passage.

=1. CONQVERAR.= The choice of verb is significant: this poem is a rhetorical _conquestio_ transferred to verse. Kenney cites Cicero's definition of _conquestio_ at _Inu_ I 106: 'conquestio est oratio auditorum misericordiam captans ... id locis communibus efficere oportebit, per quos Fortunae uis in omnes et hominum infirmitas ostenditur; qua oratione ... animus hominum ... ad misericordiam comparatur, cum in alieno malo suam infirmitatem considerabit'.

=1. PONAM SINE NOMINE CRIMEN.= 'Shall I put my accusation in my poem without naming you?'. The same sense of _ponere_ at _Tr_ I v 7 '_positis_ pro nomine signis', _Tr_ IV iv 7, and _EP_ III vi 1-2 'Naso suo (_posuit_ nomen quam paene!) sodali / mittit ab Euxinis hoc breue carmen aquis'.

=2. QVI SIS.= The boundary between adjectival _qui_ and pronominal _quis_ in Latin was not absolute; and just as one finds such forms as _quis clamor_ (_Met_ III 632), so it seems to have been Latin practice to use _qui_ before forms of _esse_ in indirect discourse, perhaps in order to avoid a double _s_-sound. Some instances of this from verse are _Ecl_ I 18 'iste deus _qui sit_ da, Tityre, nobis', _Ecl_ II 19 'nec _qui sim_ quaeris, Alexi', _Aen_ III 608-9 '_qui sit_ fari ... hortamur', _Met_ XIV 841 'mihi nec _quae sis_ dicere promptum est', _Met_ XV 595 'is _qui sit_ signo, non nomine dicam', _Fast_ V 191 'ipse doce _quae sis_', _Ibis_ 52 'teque breui _qui sis_ dissimulare sinam', _Ibis_ 61 '_qui sis_ nondum quaerentibus edo', and _EP_ III vi 57 'teque tegam, _qui sis_'. In some of these passages _quis_ is found as a variant reading; given the ease of corruption, the rule should perhaps be made canonical, and such passages as _Met_ I 248-49 '_quis sit_ laturus in aras / tura'

supplied with forms of _qui_ even when, as in this instance, there is only weak manuscript support. (Professor R. J. Tarrant prefers, however, to retain _quis_ at _Met_ I 248, seeing a difference between expressions of identity [_qui sis ... dicam_] and of description [_sit_ and _laturus_ go closely together]).

The use of _qui_ seems to have extended to past subjunctives of _esse_ as well as present: compare _Met_ XI 719 'qui [_uar_ quis] foret ignorans'. For discussions see Lofstedt II 79-96 and Shackleton Bailey on _Att_ III x 2 'possum obliuisci _qui fuerim_, non sentire qui sim?'.

In preclassical Latin _qui_ is found for _quis_ even in direct questions: _OLD qui_ A4a cites Pl _Capt_ 833 'qui uocat', Ter _Ph_ 990 'qui nominat me', and Scipio minor V 19 Malcovati3 'qui spondet mille nummum'. The usage must have continued in spoken Latin, for it is found at Vitruvius VII 5 6 and Petronius 62 8.

=3. NOMINE NON VTAR, NE COMMENDERE QVERELA.= An interesting indication of the confidence Ovid felt in his poetry. In his earlier poems of reproach, Ovid had represented his not naming the person as an act of forbearance (_Tr_ IV ix 1-4; _Ibis_ 51-54).

=3. COMMENDERE QVERELA.= Oxymoron.

=5. DVM MEA PVPPIS ERAT VALIDA FVNDATA CARINA.= The common ancient metaphor of shipwreck also used of Ovid's exile at _Tr_ I i 85-86, _Tr_ II 99-102, _Tr_ III iv 15-16 'dum tecum uixi, dum me leuis aura ferebat, / haec mea per placidas cumba cucurrit aquas', _Tr_ V xii 50, and _EP_ II iii 25-28.

=7. CONTRAXIT VVLTVM.= See at i 5 _trahis uultus_ (p 149).

=9-10= form a tricolon, where each phrase represents the same action in progressively more specific terms: (1) 'dissimulas etiam' (2) 'nec me uis nosse uideri' (3) 'quisque sit audito nomine Naso rogas'.

=9. DISSIMVLAS.= The same word in similar contexts at _Tr_ I i 62 'dissimulare uelis, te liquet esse meum', _Tr_ III vi 2, _Tr_ IV iii 54, _Tr_ IV iv 28, and _EP_ I ii 146.

=9. NEC ME VIS NOSSE VIDERI.= 'You don't want others to think you know me'. Similar thought and language at _Tr_ IV iii 51 'me miserum si turpe putas mihi nupta uideri!' and _EP_ II iii 29-30 'cumque alii _nolint_ etiam _me nosse uideri_, / uix duo proiecto tresue tulistis opem'.

=10. QVISQVE SIT. QVIQVE SIT= (_HacP_) could be defended, _sit_ determining the form _qui_, even with the intervening enclitic, but given the prevalence of relative _quique_ at line-beginnings in Ovid (compare xvi 9, 11, 15, 19 & 23) it seems better to take it as a trivial error.

=11, 13, 15, 17. ILLE EGO.= The same idiom to stir someone's memory at _Fast_ III 505-6 '_illa ego sum_ cui tu solitus promittere caelum: / ei mihi, pro caelo qualia dona fero' and _EP_ I ii 129-32 '_ille ego sum_ qui te colui, quem festa solebat / inter conuiuas mensa uidere tuos: / _ille ego qui_ duxi uestros Hymenaeon ad ignes, / et cecini fausto carmina digna toro'. R. G. Austin, discussing the spurious proem to the _Aeneid_ (_CQ_ LX, n.s. XVIII [1968] 110-11), cites _Tr_ V vii 55-56 '_ille ego_ Romanus uates--ignoscite, Musae!-- / Sarmatico cogor plurima more loqui', _Met_ I 757-58 '_ille ego_ liber, / ille ferox tacui', Statius _Sil_ V v 38 & _Theb_ IX 434, and Silius XI 177-82: 'It will be noticed ... that all these examples represent the new situation as a fall from grace'.

=12. AMICITIA.= Ovid allows pentasyllabic words to end the pentameter only in the poetry of exile (Platnauer 17). There are eight such words in the _Tristia_, and four in the _Ex Ponto_: I ii 68 _patrocinium_, II ix 20 _Ericthonius_, this passage, and xiii 44 _amicitiae_ (Platnauer 17; Riese vii). This distribution contrasts with Ovid's increasing fondness in the _Ex Ponto_ for trisyllabic and quadrisyllabic endings, for which see at ix 26 _tegeret_ and ii 10 _Alcinoo_.

The later _Heroides_ have two pentasyllabic pentameter-endings, XVI 290 _pudicitiae_ and XVII 16 _superciliis_.

=13-14. ILLE EGO QVI PRIMVS TVA SERIA NOSSE SOLEBAM, / ET TIBI IVCVNDIS PRIMVS ADESSE IOCIS.= The same joining of _seria_ and _ioci_ (or _lusus_) at _Tr_ I viii 31-32, _EP_ I ix 9-10, _EP_ II iv 9-10 '_seria_ multa mihi tecum conlata recordor, / nec data _iucundis_ tempora pauca _iocis_', and _EP_ II x 41-42. It is found in prose and early Latin: Luck at _Tr_ I viii 31-32 cites Cic _Fin_ II 85 'at quicum _ioca, seria, ut dicitur_, quicum arcana, quicum occulta omnia? tecum, optime', Pliny _Ep_ II xiii 5 'cum hoc _seria_, cum hoc _iocos_ miscui', Pliny _Ep_ IV xvii 5 'nihil a me ille secretum, non _ioculare_, non _serium_, non triste, non laetum', and Ennius _Ann_ 239-40 Vahlen3 'cui res audacter magnas paruasque iocumque / eloqueretur'.

=15. CONVICTOR.= The word belongs properly to prose, the only other occurrences in verse being two passages in Horace's _Satires_: I iv 96 'me ... _conuictore_ usus amicoque' & I vi 47 'quia sim tibi, Maecenas, _conuictor_'. _Conuictus_ is similarly found in verse twice only, in Ovid's poetry of exile (_Tr_ I viii 29-30 '_conuictu_ causisque ualentibus ... temporis et longi iunctus amore tibi' & _EP_ II x 9-10 'quam [_sc_ curam] tu uel longi debes _conuictibus_ aeui, / uel mea quod coniunx non aliena tibi est').