The postponement of _permeat_ to the following line made the corruption of _dum ... perueniens_ to _dum ... peruenit_ simple enough.

=17. TEMPORIS OFFICIVM EST SOLACIA DICERE CERTI.= Here Ovid says that words of comfort should not be offered too late; at _RA_ 127-30 he says they should not be offered too early: 'quis matrem, nisi mentis inops, in funere nati / flere uetet? non hoc illa monenda loco est. / cum dederit lacrimas animumque impleuerit aegrum, / ille dolor uerbis emoderandus erit'.

For the same concern with time as in the present passage and medical imagery similar to that in 19-20, see _Cons Marc_ 1 8 and _Cons Hel_ 1 2 'dolori tuo, dum recens saeuiret, sciebam occurrendum non esse, ne illum ipsa solacia irritarent et accenderent; nam in morbis quoque nihil est perniciosius quam immatura medicina. expectabam itaque, dum ipse uires suas frangeret et ad sustinenda remedia mora mitigatus tangi se ac tractari pateretur'. See as well the passages cited at Kassel 52-53: from modern literature he quotes Sterne _Tristram Shandy_ III 29 'Before an affliction is _digested_ consolation ever comes too soon;--and after it is digested--it comes too late: so that you see ... there is but a mark between those two, as fine almost as a hair, for a comforter to take aim at'.

=18. DVM DOLOR IN CVRSV EST.= Compare _RA_ 119 _'dum furor in cursu est_, currenti cede furori' and _Met_ XIII 508-10 (Hecuba speaking) '_in cursuque meus dolor est_: modo maxima rerum ... nunc trahor exul, inops, tumulis auulsa meorum'.

=18. AEGER.= The substantive _aeger_ is quite common in both verse and prose, but always with the meaning 'physically ill'; even when used, as here, with a transferred meaning, the sense of metaphor is still present. Compare _RA_ 313-14 'curabar propriis aeger Podalirius herbis, / et, fateor, medicus turpiter _aeger_ eram', _EP_ I iii 17 'non est in medico semper releuetur ut _aeger_', and _EP_ III iv 7-8 'firma ualent per se, nullumque Machaona quaerunt; / ad medicam dubius confugit _aeger_ opem'.

The adjective, however, is used by the poets from Ennius on (_Sc_ 254 & 392 Vahlen3), particularly in the phrases _mens aegra_ and _animus aeger_, to indicate a state of mental anguish. Compare, from Ovid, _Tr_ III viii 33-34 'nec melius ualeo quam corpore mente, sed aegra est / utraque pars aeque', _Tr_ IV iii 21, IV vi 43 & V ii 7, _EP_ I iii 89-90 'uereor ne ... frustra ... iuuer admota perditus _aeger ope_', I v 18 & I vi 15 'tecum tunc aberant _aegrae solacia_ mentis', and _Ibis_ 115; from other poets, compare _Cons ad Liuiam_ 395, Hor _Ep_ I viii 8, and _Aen_ I 208 & IV 35. The same use of the adjective is found occasionally in the historians (Sallust _Iug_ 71 2, Livy II 3 5, etc).

=19. LONGA DIES= = _tempus_. Compare _Met_ I 346, _Met_ XIV 147-48 (the Sibyl to Aeneas) 'tempus erit cum de tanto me corpore paruam / _longa dies_ faciet', and _Tr_ I v 11-14 'spiritus et uacuas prius hic tenuandus in auras / ibit ... quam subeant animo meritorum obliuia nostro, / et _longa_ pietas excidat ista _die_'.

=19. VVLNERA MENTIS.= Ovid is fond of this metaphorical sense of _uulnus_; see _Met_ V 425-27 'Cyane ... inconsolabile _uulnus_ / _mente_ gerit tacita', _Tr_ IV iv 41-42 'neue retractando nondum coeuntia rumpam / _uulnera_: uix illis proderit ipsa quies', _EP_ I iii 87-88 'nec tamen infitior, si possent nostra coire / _uulnera_, praeceptis posse coire tuis', and _EP_ I v 23 'parcendum est animo miserabile _uulnus_ habenti'. To judge from Seneca, the metaphor was usual in treatises of consolation: 'antiqua mala in memoriam reduxi et, ut scires [_Schultess_: uis scire _codd_] hanc quoque plagam esse sanandam, ostendi tibi aeque magni _uulneris_ cicatricem' (_Cons Marc_ 1 5), 'itaque utcumque conabar manu super plagam meam imposita ad obliganda _uulnera_ uestra reptare' (_Cons Hel_ 1 1).

=20. FOVET= _Heinsius_ MOVET _codd_. For the meaning of _fouet_ see at 4 _fouisti_ (p 361). _Mouet_ here is to some extent supported by Ovid's use of such verbs as _tangere_ and _tractare_ in contexts like that of the present passage; compare _EP_ I vi 21-22 'nec breue nec tutum peccati quae sit origo / scribere; _tractari uulnera_ nostra timent', _EP_ II vii 13, and _EP_ III vii 25-26 'curando fieri quaedam maiora uidemus / uulnera, quae melius non _tetigisse_ fuit'. But _tractare_ and _tangere_ are neutral in force, while _mouet_ here would mean 'disturb', as at Hor _Carm_ III xx 1-2 'Non uides quanto _moueas_ periclo, / Pyrrhe, Gaetulae catulos leaenae?' and Lucan VIII 529-30 'bustum cineresque _mouere_ / Thessalicos audes bellumque in regna uocare?'. As Professor R. J. Tarrant comments, if _mouet_ were read in the present passage, _intempestiue_ would lose the appropriateness it has when _fouet_ is read: there is no proper time to "disturb" a wound.

=20. NOVAT.= Similar phrasing at _Tr_ II 209 'nam non sum tanti _renouem_ ut tua _uulnera_, Caesar' and _RA_ 729-30 'admonitu refricatur amor, _uulnusque nouatum_ / scinditur'.

=21. ADDE QVOD.= Professor E. Fantham points out to me how extraordinary the occurrence of this phrase in the last distich of the poem is. Of the twenty-five instances of the idiom in Ovid's poems[25], none except the present passage occur in the final distich of a poem or book. The other examples all occur in the middle of an argument, or lead into another distich containing a final injunction or proof of an argument. As Professor J. N. Grant suggests to me, this poem therefore furnishes another example of Ovid's favourite device of unexpectedly altering a poem's tone in the final distich, for a discussion of which see at xiv 61-62 (p 427).

[Footnote 25: Instances at _Her_ VI 99, _Am_ I xiv 13 & II vii 23, _AA_ II 675, III 81 & III 539, _Met_ XIII 117, XIII 854 & XIV 684, _Fast_ III 143, III 245 & VI 663, _Tr_ I v 79, II 135, V x 43, V xii 21 & V xiv 15, _EP_ I vii 31, II xi 23, III ii 103, III iv 45, III vi 35, IV x 45, the present passage, and IV xiv 45. (Ovid's imitator uses the expression at _Her_ XVII 199.) The preponderance of this presumably colloquial expression in the poems of exile is noteworthy.]

=21. MIHI= _BF1_ TIBI _MHILTF2_ _om C_. As Burman saw, _mihi_ must be the correct reading, the perfect subjunctive acting as a past optative: 'certe ego _mihi_ praeferrem: utinam mihi, mentionem facienti noui tui coniugii, uerum illud omen uenerit, neque fallar, sed tu iam uxorem duxeris, ut ego uoueo'. _Tibi_ is hardly possible, since an omen to Gallio indicating that he had remarried would be superfluous.

XII. To Tuticanus

Tuticanus[26] (known only from the _Ex Ponto_) seems from the testimony of the poem (19-30) to have been a close friend of Ovid; he is mentioned again at xiv 1-2 and xvi 27. It is reasonable to suppose that, like Sextus Pompeius, he had previously been unwilling to allow Ovid to mention him in his verse.

[Footnote 26: _PIR_1 T 314; PW VII A,2 1611 62; Schanz-Hosius 272 (-- 318 16)]

The poem opens with a discussion of the difficulty of fitting Tuticanus'

name into elegiac verse: Ovid could split the name between verses, or alter the quantity of one or another of the name's syllables, but neither procedure would be acceptable to Ovid or to his readers (1-18).

He has known Tuticanus since early youth; they assisted each other in their verse (19-30). He is quite certain that Tuticanus will not desert him (31-38). He should use his influence with Tiberius to assist Ovid; but Ovid is so confused after his hardships that he cannot suggest precisely what Tuticanus should do; he leaves this to Tuticanus'

judgment (39-50).

The appeal for assistance is a constant theme of the poetry of exile; and the recalling of their assisting each other with their poetry is paralleled by _EP_ II iv, in which Ovid recalls how he used to submit his verse to Atticus for criticism, and by _Tr_ III vii, Ovid's letter to his stepdaughter Perilla, whom he assisted when she first began writing verse. The opening discussion of the metrical difficulty of Tuticanus' name finds parallels elsewhere in Latin and Greek literature (see at 1-2), but is remarkable for its fullness. The explanation for this fullness may well be Tuticanus' being a fellow poet: he would be amused by the use of his own name for the witty discussion of the handling of metrical difficulties with which he himself would be familiar enough.

=1-2. QVOMINVS IN NOSTRIS PONARIS, AMICE, LIBELLIS, / NOMINIS EFFICITVR CONDICIONE TVI.= A constant problem for the Latin poets was the impossibility of using words with cretic patterns (a long syllable, followed by a short syllable, followed by another long syllable) in hexameter or elegiac verse. The fact played an important part in determining Latin poetic vocabulary; for instance, such an ordinary word as _femina_, cretic in its oblique cases, is usually represented through metonymy by such words as _nurus_ and _mater_. Proper names presented a special problem, which could however occasionally be solved through the use of special forms or circumlocutions; hence such lines as 'cumque _Borysthenio_ liquidissimus _amne_ [=BorYsthenE] Dirapses' (x 53) and '_Scipiadas_ [=ScIpiOnes], belli fulmen, Carthaginis horror' (Lucretius III 1034). Sometimes, as in the present passage, such avenues were not available, and the poet was simply unable to use the name he wanted. From Greek authors Marx, commenting on Lucilius 228-29, cites Critias fr. 5 '[Greek: ou gar pos en tounoma epharmozein elegeioi]' Archestratus fr. 29 (Brandt) '[Greek: ichthyos auxethentos hon en metroi ou themis eipein]' and _Ep Gr_ 616 (Kaibel) '[Greek: ou gar en hexametroisin hermosen tounom' emon]' In Latin, the best-known reference to this difficulty is Hor _Sat_ I v 86-87 'quattuor hinc rapimur uiginti et milia raedis, / mansuri oppidulo, quod uersu dicere non est'. On the passage Porphyrion comments 'Aequum Tuticum significat [this is disputed by modern commentators, since the town's known location does not fit with Horace's indication; no certain candidate has been proposed], cuius nomen hexametro uersu compleri [_codd_: contineri _fort legendum_] non potest. hoc autem sub exemplo Lucili posuit. nam ille in sexto Saturarum [228-29 Marx] sic ait: "seruorum est festus dies hic, / quem plane hexametro uersu non dicere possis"'. In his comment on the passage from Horace, Lejay cites Martial IX xi 10-17 (Martial wanted to mention Flavius Earinus, whose name starts with three consecutive short vowels) 'nomen nobile, molle, delicatum / uersu dicere non rudi uolebam: / sed tu, syllaba contumax, rebellas. / dicunt Eiarinon tamen poetae, / sed Graeci, quibus est nihil negatum, / et quos [Greek: ares Ares] decet sonare: / nobis non licet esse tam disertis / qui Musas colimus seueriores', Rutilius Namatianus 419-22 (of Volusianus [short 'o', 'u', and 'i'] Rufius) 'optarem uerum complecti carmine nomen, / sed quosdam refugit regula dura pedes. / cognomen uersu ueheris [_Prechac_: ueneris _uel_ uenens _codd_], carissime Rufi; / illo te dudum pagina nostra canit', and Apollinaris Sidonius _Carm_ XXIII 485-86 'horum nomina cum referre uersu / affectus cupiat, metrum recusat'.

Professor C. P. Jones cites the discussion at Pliny _Ep_ VIII iv 3-4.

Pliny, writing to Caninius, who is composing a poem in Greek on the Dacian war, discusses the difficulty of using _barbara et fera nomina_ in the poem: 'sed ... si datur Homero et mollia uocabula et Graeca ad leuitatem uersus contrahere extendere inflectere, cur tibi similis audentia, praesertim non delicata sed necessaria, non detur?'.

For a further discussion of the topic, see L. Radermacher, "Das Epigramm des Didius", _SAWW_ 170,9 [1912] 1-31.

=1. QVOMINVS= is rare in Augustan verse; but compare _AA_ II 720 'non obstet tangas quominus illa [_sc_ loca] pudor'.

=3. AVT= _BC_ AST _MFHILT_. The false reading was probably induced by a failure to understand the meaning of _aut_ 'otherwise', for which compare iii 21 '_aut_ age, dic aliquam quae te mutauerit iram', _Met_ VII 699, _Met_ X 50-52 'hanc [_sc_ Eurydicen] simul et legem Rhodopeius accipit heros, / ne flectat retro sua lumina donec Auernas / exierit ualles; _aut_ inrita dona futura', and _Tr_ I viii 43-45 'quaeque tibi ... dedit nutrix ubera, tigris erat. / _aut_ mala nostra minus quam nunc aliena putares'.

=2. CONDICIONE.= 'Nature'. Compare Lucretius II 300-1 'et quae consuerint gigni gignentur eadem / _condicione_ et erunt et crescent uique ualebunt'.

=4. SI MODO.= 'If, that is ...' Compare 43-44 'quid mandem quaeris?

peream nisi dicere uix est, / _si modo_ qui periit ille perire potest'.

=5. LEX PEDIS.= 'The rules of metre'. _Lex_ used similarly at Hor _Carm_ IV ii 10-12 'per audaces noua dithyrambos / uerba deuoluit numerisque fertur / _lege_ solutis', Cic _Or_ 58 'uersibus est certa quaedam et definita _lex_', and Columella XI 1 1.

=5. FORTVNAQVE.= The sense of the word is difficult. It seems, as Professor R. J. Tarrant notes, to combine the idea of 'condition, state'

(compare for example _Aen_ II 350 'quae sit rebus _fortuna_ uidetis') with that of 'unfortunate circumstances', giving the general sense 'the fact that you have the bad luck to possess a metrically impossible name'. Three lines before, Ovid used _nominis ... condicione tui_; and in the present line he seems to have been influenced by the common phrase _condicio et fortuna_, 'allotted circumstances of life', for which compare Cic _Off_ I 41 'est autem infima _condicio et fortuna_ seruorum', _Mil_ 92 'in infimi generis hominum _condicione atque fortuna_'. At _II Verr_ I 81 Cicero similarly adapts the expression to suit his context: 'Lampsacenis ... populi Romani _condicione_ sociis, _fortuna_ seruis, uoluntate supplicibus'.

=7. NOMEN SCINDERE.= That is, split the name so that the hexameter (_uersus prior_) would end in _TUti-_ and the following pentameter (_uersus minor_) begin with _-cAnus_. Such word-divisions are not permissible in Augustan verse; from earlier poetry Professor C. P. Jones cites Ennius _Ann_ 609 Vahlen3 'saxo _cere_ comminuit _brum_'.

=8. HOC= = _nomine tuo_.

=9-14.= Ovid lists the three possible ways of scanning the name so as to remove the cretic: _TUticanus_, _TuticAnus_, and _TUtIcAnus_.

=9. MORATVR= = _longa est_. The _TLL_ cites Velius Longus VII 55 5 Keil 'hanc ... naturam esse quarundam litterarum, ut _morentur_ et enuntiatione sonum detineant'.

=11. ET= _BCHIacLT_ NON _M_ NEC _FIpc_. _Nec_, printed by some editors, cannot by itself be correct, for there is no negative with the corresponding _producatur_ in the following distich. A negative is implicitly supplied for _potes ... uenire_ and _producatur_ by 15-16 'his ego si uitiis ...', but Professor R. J. Tarrant is possibly right to suggest that _nec_ should be read both here and (replacing _aut_) at the beginning of 13.

W. A. Camps (_CQ_ n.s. IV [1954] 206-7) has pointed out that it is somewhat odd that 'The first two possibilities are introduced, in lines 7 and 9, in terms that disclaim them at once' and that 'the third and fourth possibilities are added without disclaimer ... in terms that would be quite appropriate to serious suggestions'. He suggests reading _at_, so that 11-12 represent an imaginary rejoinder to Ovid's rejection of the possibilities already suggested; Ovid's rejoinder is given at 15 'his ego si uitiis ...'. But _at potes_ is difficult: Ovid could have written 'at, puto, potes', speaking in his own person to raise an objection he would then counter, or he could have represented Tuticanus as saying 'at ... possum'; but it is hard to see how he could have written 'at potes'.

=13. PRODVCATVR= _MHI_ VT DVCATVR _LTB2F2ul_ VT DICATVR _B1CF1_.

_Producere_ is the correct technical term for 'lengthen'; compare Quintilian VII ix 13 '_productio_ quoque in scripto et correptio in dubio relicta causa est ambiguitatis' & IX iii 69 'uoces ['words']

... _productione_ tantum uel correptione mutatae'. _Vt ducatur_ is unlikely to be right. _Ducatur_ could certainly stand for _producatur_ (although this would destroy the balance with the following _correptius_), but the verb is clearly indicated as a potential subjunctive by the preceding _potes ... uenire_; and _ut_ (which would in any case be taken as correlative with _ut_ in line 12) cannot stand with this construction. _Vt dicatur_, Ehwald's preferred reading ('dicatur et sit secunda [syllaba] producta mora longa'--_KB_ 68), is even less likely to be right, since _dicere_ in this context could only mean 'pronounce', as at Cic _Or_ 159 '"inclitus" dicimus breui prima littera, "insanus" producta'.

=13. EXIT.= _Exire_ similarly used of words being uttered at _Her_ VIII 115-16 (Hermione speaking) 'saepe Neoptolemi pro nomine nomen Orestae / _exit_, et errorem uocis ut omen amo'. _OLD exeo_ 2d gives other instances from Cicero (_Brutus_ 265), Seneca (_Ben_ V 19 4), and Quintilian (XI iii 33), but from verse outside Ovid only Martial XII xi 3, where the word has a somewhat different meaning: 'cuius Pimpleo lyra clarior exit ab antro?'.

=14. PORRECTA= is equivalent to _longa_, and belongs to _secunda_ (_sc_ syllaba) by hypallage. Compare Quintilian I vi 32 'aut correptis aut _porrectis_ ... litteris syllabisue' & I vii 14 'usque ad Accium et ultra _porrectas_ syllabas geminis, ut dixi, uocalibus scripserunt [that is, they wrote _uiita_ for _uita_ and so on; such spellings occur sometimes in inscriptions]', and Rutilius Lupus I 3.

=15. VITIIS.= _Vitium_ similarly used for faults of diction at _AA_ III 295-96 'in _uitio_ decor est: quaerunt male reddere uerba; / discunt posse minus quam potuere loqui', Cic _de Or_ I 116, and Quintilian I v 17, a discussion of the shortening and lengthening of vowels; this he includes among the 'quae accidunt in dicendo _uitia_'. Ovid is probably combining this sense with that of 'poetic weakness', for which compare _Tr_ I vii 39-40 'quicquid in his igitur _uitii_ rude carmen habebit, / emendaturus, si licuisset, eram' and the use of _uitiosus_ at xiii 17 and _Tr_ IV i 1 and IV x 61.

=16. MERITO PECTVS HABERE NEGER.= 'People would quite rightly say that I was ignorant'. Compare _Met_ XIII 290-91 & 295 (Ulysses is speaking of Ajax's claim to the arms of Achilles) 'artis opus tantae rudis et _sine pectore_ miles / indueret? neque enim clipei caelamina nouit ... postulat ut capiat _quae non intellegit_ arma!'.

=17-18. MVNERIS ... QVOD MEVS ADIECTO FAENORE REDDET AMOR.= _Adiecto faenore_ = 'with interest added on'; Ovid will make up for his past negligence by sending Tuticanus more than one poem ('tibi _carmina_ mittam'). It is clear from the opening distich of poem xiv that Ovid sent the poem to Tuticanus very soon after the composition of xii: 'Haec tibi mittuntur quem sum _modo_ carmine questus / non aptum numeris nomen habere meis'.

A similar use of _faenus_ at _EP_ III i 79-81 'nec ... debetur meritis gratia nulla meis. / redditur illa quidem grandi cum _faenore_ nobis'.

The variant AGER (_TM2I2_) for _amor_ was clearly induced by such passages as Tib II vi 21-22 'spes sulcis credit aratis / semina quae magno _faenore_ reddat _ager_', _RA_ 173-74 'obrue uersata Cerealia semina terra, / quae tibi cum multo _faenore_ reddat _ager_', and _EP_ I v 25-26 'at, puto ... sata cum multo _faenore_ reddit _ager_': these passages refer to the original meaning of _faenus_ ('faenum appellatur naturalis terrae fetus; ob quam causam et nummorum fetus _faenus_ est uocatum'--Festus 94 Muller, 83 Lindsay).

=18. REDDET= _GCMIT_ REDDIT _BFHL_. Numerous instances of similar corruptions in Lucan and Juvenal given by Willis (166-67), who remarks 'The general trend seems to be from other tenses to the present, and from other persons and numbers to the third person singular'.

=19. QVACVMQVE NOTA.= 'With whatever method of indicating your name is possible'. For the collocation of _nota_ and _nomen_, see _Aen_ III 443-44 'insanam uatem aspicies, quae rupe sub ima / fata canit foliisque _notas et nomina_ mandat'.

Luck joins the phrase with the following _tibi carmina mittam_, but the construction seems somewhat cumbersome; it is probably better to retain the comma after _nota_ and take the phrase with _teque canam_.