=1. MEMORANDE= _BMFHILT_ NVMERANDE _C_. For _memorande_ compare _Tr_ I v 1 'O mihi post nullos umquam _memorande_ sodales'. _Numerande_ is in itself acceptable enough: see ix 35 'hic ego praesentes inter _numerarer_ amicos'.

=2. QVI QVOD ES, ID= _BCFI_ QVI QVOD ID ES _MH_ QVIQVE QVOD ES _LT_. For the use of _id_, Ehwald (_KB_ 47) cited _Fast_ II 23-24 'quaeque capit lictor domibus purgamina uersis ['swept out'] / torrida cum mica farra, uocantur _idem_ [_sc_ februa]', Hor _Sat_ II iii 139-41 (of Orestes) 'non Pyladen ferro uiolare aususue sororem / Electram, tantum male dicit utrique uocando / hanc Furiam, hunc _aliud_', Sen _Ben_ I 3 10 'id quemque uocari iubent', and Tac _Germ_ 6 'definitur et numerus: centeni ex singulis pagis sunt, _id_que ipsum inter suos uocantur' ['they are called "The Hundred"']'.

_Quique quod es_ is, however, an attractive reading: compare _Tr_ I v 1-2 'O mihi post nullos umquam memorande sodales, / _et cui_ praecipue sors mea uisa sua est'. _Quique quod_ is obviously prone to haplography; on the other hand, it could be a rewriting of _qui quod id es_, which is itself presumably a simple corruption through interchange of _qui quod es id_. I therefore print _qui quod es id_, although with some hesitation.

=2. VERE.= 'Justly'. For the same adverb used once again of names "properly" applied, see _Tr_ V x 13-14 'quem tenet Euxini mendax cognomine litus, / et Scythici _uere_ terra _sinistra_ freti'.

=2. CARE.= Luck among others believes that Carus is also addressed at _Tr_ III v 17-18 'sum quoque, _care_, tuis defensus uiribus absens / (scis "carum" ueri nominis esse loco)'; but it seems excessively ingenious to make Ovid say 'I call you _carus_ instead of your real name, Carus'.

Still, as Professor R. J. Tarrant points out to me, the passage is odd, in that Ovid elsewhere uses _care_ only in conjunction with another vocative (compare viii 89 '_care_ Suilli' and _Tr_ III iv 1-2 '_care_ quidem ... sed tempore duro / cognite'); _care_ may have been used as a metrical equivalent to the suppressed name, in the way the "cover names"

in elegy correspond to the shape of the alleged actual names of the women. Unlike _care_, _carissime_ is often found by itself (_Tr_ I v 3, III iii 27, III vi 1, IV vii 19 & V vii 5; _EP_ II iv 21 & IV x 3).

=2. AVE= occurs in Ovid only here and at _RA_ 639-40 'nec ueniat seruus, nec flens ancillula fictum / suppliciter dominae nomine dicat "aue!"', and is not common in writing. It was, however, frequent in everyday speech, as is clear from Sen _Ben_ VI 34 3 'uulgare et publicum uerbum et promiscuum ignotis "aue"'.

=3. SALVTERIS= _MFT_ SALVTARIS _BCHIL_. Ovid usually employs the subjunctive in indirect questions; this is demonstrated by metre at such passages as _Fast_ VI 385-86 'increpat illos / Iuppiter et sacro quid _uelit_ ore docet', _Tr_ II 294 '_sustulerit_ quare quaeret Ericthonium', _Tr_ II 297-98 'Isidis aede sedens cur hanc Saturnia quaeret / _egerit_ Ionio Bosphorioque mari', _Tr_ V xiv 1-2 'Quanta tibi _dederim_ nostris monumenta libellis ... uides', _EP_ I i 55-56 'talia caelestes fieri praeconia gaudent, / ut sua quid _ualeant_ numina teste probent' and _EP_ II vii 3 'subsequitur quid _agas_ audire uoluntas'.

I have found two passages where metre demonstrates that Ovid used the indicative in an indirect question, _Met_ X 637 'quid _facit_ [_codd plerique_: quod facit _recc_ quidque agat _Heinsius_ quid factum _Merkel_ quid uelit _Nick_ quid facti _Rappold_ dissidet _Korn_ quid sciat _Slater_] ignorans amat et non sentit amorem' and _EP_ I viii 25-26 'sed memor unde _abii_ queror, o iucunde sodalis, / accedant nostris saeua quod arma malis'. But in the first passage _faciat_ would have an ambiguous meaning, since it could represent either _quid facio_ or _quid faciam_, and in the second _abierim_, with its short 'a', 'i', and 'e', would be metrically intractable.

It is difficult to say whether the scribes were more prone to influence by the subjunctive normal in classical Latin prose, or by the indicative of the Romance languages and of ecclesiastical Latin. I print the subjunctive in view of Ovid's usual practice, and in particular because of _EP_ I ii 5 'forsitan haec a quo _mittatur_ epistula quaeras' and _EP_ III v 1 'Quam legis unde tibi _mittatur_ epistula quaeris?'. But Professor R. J. Tarrant notes that the need for a dependent subjunctive would be more strongly felt with _quaerere_ in these two passages than with the _index_ of the present passage.

Not all poets were as strict as Ovid in using the subjunctive in indirect questions. Propertius at III v 26-46 has the following verbs in a series of indirect questions: _temperet_, _uenit_, _deficit_, _redit_, _superant_, _captet_, _sit uentura_, _bibit_, _tremuere_, _luxerit_ (from _lugere_), _coit_, _exeat_, _eat_, _sint_ (uar _sunt_), _furit_, _custodit_, _descendit_, _potest_.

=3. COLOR HIC.= 'The style of this opening'. Ovid is presumably referring to its playful tone. Compare _Tr_ I i 61 (to his poem) 'ut titulo careas, ipso noscere _colore_', at which Luck cites Martial XII ii 17-18 'quid titulum poscis? uersus duo tresue legantur, / clamabunt omnes te, liber, esse meum'.

_Color_ is not found in precisely this sense until Horace. For a discussion of its development, see Brink at Hor _AP_ 86 _operumque colores_.

=4. STRVCTVRA.= This passage is the first instance cited by _OLD_ _structura_ 1b of _structura_ in this transferred sense, which becomes common in Silver prose, particularly Quintilian (I x 23, VIII vi 67, IX iv 45). Lewis and Short point out that Cicero uses the word in similar contexts only as a simile: compare _Brut_ 33 'ante hunc [_sc_ Isocratem]

enim uerborum _quasi structura_ et quaedam ad numerum conclusio nulla erat', _Or_ 149 '_quasi structura quaedam_', and _Opt Gen_ 5 'et uerborum est _structura quaedam'_.

There are two instances in Ovid of _struere_ with a similar meaning, both from the _Ex Ponto_. One is from line 20 of this poem ('_structa_ ... uerba'), while the other is at II v 19 '_structos_ inter fera proelia uersus'.

=5. MIRIFICA= is a colloquialism. Common in the letters of Cicero, the word (according to _TLL_ VIII 1060 52) is not found in Livy, Vitruvius, Celsus, Curtius, or Tacitus. The only poets apart from Terence and Ovid cited as using the word are Accius, Ausonius, and the author of the _Ciris_ (although the passage where the word occurs, 12-13, is corrupt); see also Catullus LIII 2, LXXI 4, and LXXXIV 3. For a discussion of _mirificus_, see Axelson 61, and of the similarly colloquial _mirifice_ Hofmann 78.

=5. PVBLICA= = 'usual, ordinary'. Compare _Am_ III vii 11-12 'et mihi blanditias dixit dominumque uocauit, / et quae praeterea _publica_ uerba iuuant', _AA_ III 479-80 'munda, sed e medio consuetaque uerba, puellae, / scribite: sermonis _publica_ forma placet', and Sen _Ben_ VI 34 3 (quoted at 2 _aue_).

=6. QVALIS ENIM CVMQVE EST.= A common phrase in the poets when they speak of their own verse: compare Catullus I 8-9 'quare habe tibi quidquid hoc libelli / _qualecumque_', Hor _Sat_ I x 88-89 'quibus [_sc_ amicis]

haec, sunt _qualiacumque_, / arridere uelim, doliturus, si placent spe / deterius nostra' (at which Bentley cited the present passage), Martial V lx 5 '_qualiscumque_ legaris ut per orbem', and Statius _Sil_ II praef 'haec _qualiacumque_ sunt, Melior carissime, si tibi non displicuerint, a te publicum accipiant; sin minus, ad me reuertantur' (both passages cited by Munro, _Criticisms_ 5).

=7. VT TITVLVM CHARTAE DE FRONTE REVELLAS.= The same hypothetical case at _Tr_ I i 61-62 '_ut titulo careas_, ipso noscere _colore_; / dissimulare uelis, te liquet esse meum' and _EP_ II ix 49-52 (to King Cotys) 'nec regum quisquam magis est instructus ab illis [_sc_ the liberal arts]

... carmina testantur, quae _si tua nomina demas_ / Threicium iuuenem composuisse negem'.

=7. CHARTAE.= See at xii 27 _chartis_ (p 380).

=7. REVELLAS= 'tear away' is surprisingly strong in its overtones. It is found only here in the poems of exile, six times in the other elegies, and fifteen times in the _Metamorphoses_.

=8. QVOD SIT OPVS VIDEOR DICERE POSSE TVVM.= 'I think I could say which work was yours'. Heinsius' QVID SIT OPVS VIDEAR is a strange error: the interrogative adjective is acceptable enough, while the notion of the subjunctive must of course be contained in _posse_, not in the verb that governs it.

=11. PRODENT AVCTOREM VIRES.= 'His strength will reveal the poet's identity'. The same sense of _prodere_ at _Met_ II 433 'impedit amplexu nec se sine crimine _prodit_', _Met_ XIV 740-41 'adapertaque ianua factum / prodidit', and _Am_ I viii 109 'uox erat in cursu, cum me mea _prodidit_ umbra'. _Vires_ again used of poetic skill at _Tr_ I vi 29 'ei mihi non magnas quod habent mea carmina _uires_', _Tr_ IV ix 16 'Pierides _uires_ et sua tela dabunt', _EP_ III iii 34, and _EP_ III iv 79.

=13. DEPRENSA.= _Deprendere_ 'recognize, detect' is also found at _Met_ II 93-94 'utinamque oculos in pectore posses / inserere et patrias intus _deprendere_ curas' and _Met_ VII 536-37 'strage canum primo uolucrumque ouiumque boumque / inque feris subiti _deprensa_ potentia morbi', as well as at Livy XLII 17 7 (_uenenum_) and Celsus III 18 3 '[phrenetici ...] summam ... speciem sanitatis in captandis malorum operum occasionibus praebent, sed exitu _deprenduntur_'. This seems to be a semi-medical sense; Professor R. J. Tarrant suggests that _colore_ may bear the secondary meaning 'complexion' in this passage.

=15. TAM MALA THERSITEN PROHIBEBAT FORMA LATERE.= For Thersites' ugliness, see _Il_ II 216-19 '[Greek: aischistos de aner hypo Ilion elthe / pholkos een, cholos d' heteron poda to de hoi omo / kyrto, epi stethos synochokote autar hyperthe / phoxos een kephalen, psedne d' epenenothe lachne]'.

For the modern reader, Thersites' ugliness is hardly his leading characteristic; but at _EP_ III ix 9-10 Ovid again refers to his appearance: 'auctor opus laudat: sic forsitan Agrius [his father] olim / Thersiten facie dixerit esse bona'. Other mentions of Thersites'

ugliness at Lucian _Dial Mort_ XXV (Thersites argues that he is now as handsome as Nireus) and Epictetus _Diss_ II 23 32 (Thersites is contrasted with Achilles), to which Professor C. P. Jones adds from Greek epigram _Greek Inscr. Brit. Mus._ IV ii 1114; other citations from late Greek authors at PW V A,2 2457 18-38 & 2464 23-66 and Roscher V 670 23 ff.

=16. NIREVS.= For the beauty of Nireus, see _Il_ II 671-74 '[Greek: Nireus au Symethen age treis neas esas, / Nireus Aglaes hyios Charopoio t'

anaktos, / Nireus, hos kallistos aner hypo Ilion elthe / ton allon Danaon met' amymona Peleona]'. This is the only mention of Nireus in the poem; but Demetrius (_Peri Hermeneias_ 62; cited by Cope at Aristotle _Rhet_ 1414a) remarks that because of Homer's use of epanaphora (the repetition of Nireus' name) and dialysis (asyndeton) '[Greek: schedon hapax tou Nireos onomasthentos en toi dramati memnemetha ouden hetton e tou Achilleos kai tou Odysseos]'. Ovid mentions Nireus again at _AA_ II 109-12 'sis licet antiquo Nireus adamatus Homero ... ingenii dotes corporis adde bonis'; see also Hor _Epod_ XV 22 'forma ... uincas Nirea', Hor _Carm_ III xx 15 (where Nireus is paired with Ganymede) and Prop III xviii 27 'Nirea non facies, non uis exemit Achillem'; from Greek epigram Professor C. P. Jones cites Peek _Griech. Versinschr._ 1728 (Merkelbach _ZPE_ 25 [1977] 281).

=16. CONSPICIENDVS.= The word is metrically suited to the second half of the pentameter, before the disyllable: compare Tib I ii 70 & II iii 52, _Fast_ V 118 & V 170, and _Tr_ II 114.

=17. MIRARI SI= is a colloquialism: most of the passages from verse cited at _TLL_ VIII 1067 14 are from Plautus and the hexameter poems of Horace; from Propertius compare II iii 33 'haec ego nunc _mirer si_ flagret nostra iuuentus?' and from Ovid _Her_ X 105 'non equidem _miror si_ stat uictoria tecum' and _Tr_ I ix 21 'saeua neque _admiror_ metuunt _si_ fulmina'.

=19. A PVDET, ET GETICO SCRIPSI SERMONE LIBELLVM.= The rest of the distich after _a pudet_ explains the exclamation ('I have even written ...'), and so the punctuation should mark the break. The idiom is different from the _et pudet et_ construction seen at xv 29 'et pudet et metuo ['I am both embarrassed and afraid'] semperque eademque precari' and _Tr_ V vii 57-58 'et pudet et fateor ['I confess with embarrassment'], iam desuetudine longa / uix subeunt ipsi uerba Latina mihi'.

The only other instance of independent _a pudet_ in Ovid is _AA_ III 803-4 'quid iuuet et uoces et anhelitus arguat oris; / a pudet, arcanas pars habet ista notas', which, however, Professor R. J. Tarrant suspects is part of an interpolation.

=19. GETICO ... SERMONE.= Ovid repeatedly claims to have learned Getic and Sarmatian: compare _Tr_ III xiv 47-48 'Threicio Scythicoque fere circumsonor ore, / et uideor Geticis scribere posse modis', _Tr_ V vii 55-56 'ille ego Romanus uates--ignoscite, Musae!-- / Sarmatico cogor plurima more loqui', _Tr_ V xii 58 'nam didici Getice Sarmaticeque loqui', and _EP_ III ii 40 (identical to _Tr_ V xii 58).

It is of course not possible to prove that Ovid did or did not learn Getic and write poetry in that language. But in the absence of other evidence, it seems better to suppose that he did learn the language since (a) he claims to have do so, (b) Latin and Greek would hardly have been widely spoken in the region, and (c) a man with Ovid's linguistic facility would have had little difficulty in learning the languages of the region.

=20. STRVCTAQVE ... VERBA.= Compare Cic _de Or_ III 171 'struere uerba', and see at 4 _structura_ (p 393).

=20. NOSTRIS ... MODIS.= Ovid did not use native rhythms, but instead used Latin metres.

=21. ET PLACVI.= Luck compares _EP_ I v 63-64 'forsitan audacter faciam, sed glorior Histrum / ingenio nullum maius habere meo', but it is clear enough from the context that Ovid was there speaking of his Latin poetry.

=21. GRATARE.= _Gratari_ is extremely rare in Latin, being found only in the poets and historians; _grAtulAri_ was of course not available (except for _grAtulor_) for use in dactylic verse.

Other instances of the word in Ovid at ix 13 _'gratatusque_ darem cum dulcibus oscula uerbis', _Her_ VI 119 'nunc etiam peperi; _gratare_ ambobus, Iason!', _Her_ XI 65, _Met_ I 578, VI 434, IX 244 & 312, and _Fast_ III 418.

=22. INTER INHVMANOS ... GETAS.= The same phrase in the same metrical position at _EP_ I v 65-66 'hoc ubi uiuendum est satis est si consequor aruo / _inter inhumanos_ esse poeta _Getas_' and _EP_ III v 27-28 'quem ... fatum ... _inter inhumanos_ maluit esse _Getas_'.

=23. LAVDES DE CAESARE DIXI.= In 1896 J. Gilbert ingeniously proposed the punctuation 'laudes [potential subjunctive]: de Caesare dixi'. But _laus de_ + ablative instead of the more usual objective genitive construction is supported by Tac _Ann_ I 12 'addidit laudem de Augusto'. Nipperdey there explains _de_ by equating _laus_ with _oratio_ and _sermo_, both of which take _de_ as a normal construction; but it appears from the present passage that _laus de_ may have been a special term for panegyric. Professor E. Fantham notes that Ovid may have been seeking a synonym for _laudAtiO_.

=24. ADIVTA EST NOVITAS NVMINE NOSTRA DEI.= _Nouitas nostra_ could mean either 'my novel attempt' (Wheeler, Lewis and Short) or 'my inexperience'; if the latter, _adiuta_ would bear the uncommon but quite valid meaning 'compensated for'; _OLD adiuuo_ 7 cites passages from Cicero (_Fam_ V xiii 5 'ea quibus secundae res ornantur, aduersae adiuuantur'), Livy, and Ulpian.

=25-32.= Similar catalogues of the imperial family occur at _Met_ XV 834-47, _Tr_ II 161-68, _Tr_ IV ii 7-12, _EP_ II ii 69-74, and _EP_ II viii 29-34; these passages are quoted from below.

=25-26. NAM PATRIS AVGVSTI DOCVI MORTALE FVISSE / CORPUS, IN AETHERIAS NVMEN ABISSE DOMOS.= Other mentions of the deified Augustus at vi 15-16 'coeperat Augustus detectae ignoscere culpae; / spem nostram terras deseruitque simul' and viii 63-64 'et modo, Caesar, auum, quem uirtus addidit astris, / sacrarunt aliqua carmina parte tuum'. Ovid had predicted Augustus' apotheosis: see _Met_ XV 838-39 'nec nisi cum senior Pylios aequauerit annos, / aetherias sedes cognataque sidera tanget', _Tr_ II 57-58 'optaui peteres caelestia sidera tarde, / parsque fui turbae parua precantis idem', and _Tr_ V ii 51-52, V v 61-62, V viii 29-30 & V xi 25-26.

Augustus' apotheosis was similar to those of Hercules, Aeneas, Romulus, and Julius Caesar: compare the descriptions at _Met_ IX 262-72 'interea quodcumque fuit populabile flammae / Mulciber abstulerat, nec ... quicquam ab imagine ductum / matris habet, tantumque Iouis uestigia seruat ... maiorque uideri / coepit et _augusta_ fieri grauitate uerendus. / quem pater omnipotens inter caua nubila raptum / quadriiugo curru radiantibus intulit astris', _Met_ XIV 603-4 'quicquid in Aenea fuerat mortale, repurgat [_sc_ Numicius] / et respersit aquis; pars optima restitit illi', _Met_ XIV 824-28 'abstulit [_sc_ Mars] Iliaden: corpus mortale per auras / dilapsum tenues ... pulchra subit facies et puluinaribus altis / dignior', and _Met_ XV 844-46 'Venus ... Caesaris eripuit membris neque in aera solui / passa recentem animam caelestibus intulit astris'.

=25. PATRIS AVGVSTI.= _Patris_ to make it clear that Ovid is not speaking of Tiberius Caesar _Augustus_.

=26. CORPVS ... NVMEN.= Precisely the same distinction is found in Velleius' description of Augustus' apotheosis and the start of Tiberius'

reign: 'post redditum caelo patrem et _corpus_ eius humanis honoribus, _numen_ diuinis honoratum, primum principalium eius operum fuit ordinatio comitiorum' (II 124 3).

=27. PAREM VIRTVTE PATRI.= Compare _EP_ II viii 31-32 (to Augustus, about Tiberius) 'perque tibi _similem uirtutis imagine_ natum, / moribus agnosci qui tuus esse potest'.

=27-28. FRENA ... IMPERII.= The same metaphor at _Tr_ II 41-42 'nec te quisquam moderatius umquam / _imperii_ potuit _frena_ tenere sui', _EP_ II ix 33 'Caesar ut _imperii_ moderetur _frena_ precamur', and _EP_ II v 75 (of Germanicus) 'succedatque suis orbis moderator _habenis_'.