=7. MVTER= _F1_ _Bodleianus Canon. lat. 1, saec xiii Barberinus lat. 26, saec xiii_. _Muter_ is so much choicer than the better attested _mittar_ that I have followed editors from Ciofanus to Merkel in printing it.

Gronovius (_Obseruationes_ III 1) made a strong case for _muter_, citing Virgil _G_ II 50 (where however the meaning of _mutata_ is disputed), Hor _Sat_ II vii 63-64 'illa tamen se / non habitu _mutatue_ loco peccatue superne', Claudian _Rap Pros_ I 62 'rursus corporeos animae _mutantur_ in artus' (where _mittuntur_ is a variant reading, which Hall prints), and from Ovid _Tr_ V ii 73-74 'hinc ego dum _muter_, uel me Zanclaea [_Politianus_: Panchea _codd_] Charybdis / deuoret aque [_Heinsius_: atque _codd_] suis ad Styga mittat aquis', and _EP_ I i 79 'inque locum Scythico uacuum _mutabor_ ab arcu'; compare as well Cic _Balb_ 31 'ne quis inuitus ciuitate _mutetur_' and Livy V 46 11 'quod nec iniussu populi _mutari_ finibus posset'.

=11. SI QVID EA EST.= See at i 17 _si quid ea est_ (p 153).

=11. BENE.= 'Profitably'. Compare Tac _Ann_ III 44 'miseram pacem uel bello _bene mutari_'. The word in this sense is generally used in describing good commercial investments: see Plautus _Cur_ 679-80 'argentariis _male credi_ qui aiunt, nugas praedicant, / nam et _bene_ et male _credi_ dico', Sen _Suas_ VII v 'si _bene_ illi pecunias _crediderunt_ faeneratores', Cic _II Verr_ V 56 'ut intellegerent Mamertini _bene_ se apud istum tam multa pretia ac munera _conlocasse_', and Livy II 42 8.

=11. COMMVTABITVR.= _Commutare_ was a commercial term: it is used of selling at Cic _Clu_ 129 'ad perniciem innocentis fidem suam et religionem pecunia _commutarit_', Columella XII 26 2 'reliquum mustum ... aere _commutato_', _Dig_ II xv 8 24 'si uinum pro oleo uel oleum pro uino uel quid aliud _commutauit_', and _CIL_ I 585 27.

=12. SI QVID ET INFERIVS QVAM STYGA MVNDVS HABET.= Professor R. J. Tarrant notes another instance of the same idea at Sen _Thy_ 1013-14 'si quid infra Tartara est / auosque nostros'.

=13. GRAMINA.= 'Weeds'. Compare _Met_ V 485-86 'lolium tribulique fatigant / triticeas messes et inexpugnabile _gramen_' and _Tr_ V xii 24 'nil nisi cum spinis _gramen_ habebit ager'; _TLL_ VI.2 2165 65 notes as well Columella IV 4 5 'omnesque herbas et praecipue _gramina_ extirpare, quae nisi manu eleguntur ... reuiuiscunt'.

CARMINA, the reading of _C_, is a frequent corruption of _gramina_, occurring as a variant at _Met_ II 841 & XIV 44 and _Fast_ VI 749; it gives no obvious sense in this passage. Bentley's FLAMINA is ingenious but unattractive.

=14. MARTICOLIS= is possibly an Ovidian innovation, being found elsewhere only at _Tr_ V iii 21-22 'adusque niuosum / Strymona uenisti Marticolamque Geten'.

=14. NASO.= The use of the third person adds to the emotive power of the tricolon 'ager ... hirundo ... Naso'.

=15-16. TALIA SVSCENSENT PROPTER MIHI VERBA TOMITAE, / IRAQVE CARMINIBVS PVBLICA MOTA MEIS.= For the similar omission of the _est_ of a perfect passive, even in the presence of a parallel finite verb, see _Met_ VII 517-18 'Aeacus ingemuit tristique ita uoce _locutus_: / "flebile principium melior fortuna secuta est"'.

=15. SVSCENSENT.= The word is foreign to high poetry. It occurs in Ovid only here and at _EP_ III i 89-90 'nec mihi _suscense_, totiens si carmine nostro / quod facis ut facias teque imitere rogo'; the only instances from other poetry cited at _OLD suscenseo_ are from _Her_ XVI-XXI and Martial.

SVSCENSENT is the spelling of _C_; the other manuscripts have SVCCENSENT. I print _susc-_ because that is the spelling given by the ninth-century Hamburg manuscript at _EP_ III i 89 (cited above), where most manuscripts offer _succ-_. _Succ-_ is, however, quite possibly correct, for although _susc-_ is the spelling of the ancient manuscripts of Plautus and Terence (and of the older manuscripts of the _Heroides_), _succ-_ is found at Livy XLII 46 8 in the fifth-century Vienna codex.

=18. PLECTAR.= Similar uses at _Tr_ III v 49 'inscia quod crimen uiderunt lumina, _plector_' and _EP_ III iii 64 (Ovid to Amor) 'meque loco _plecti_ commodiore uelit'.

=18. AB INGENIO= is parallel to _per carmina_ in the preceding line; for the idiom, see at x 46 _ab amne_ (p 346).

=20. TELAQVE ... QVAE NOCVERE SEQVOR.= See at xiii 41 _nocuerunt_ (p 406).

=23. SED NIHIL ADMISI.= 'But I have committed no crime'--Wheeler. Compare _EP_ III vi 13 'nec scelus _admittas_ si consoleris amicum'. _Admittere_ in this sense belonged to daily speech: _TLL_ I 752 77 cites Plaut _Trin_ 81, Ter _HT_ 956 'quid ego tantum sceleris _admisi_ miser', Lucilius 690 Marx, and Hor _Ep_ I xvi 53.

=25. EXCVTIAT.= See at viii 17 _excutias_ (p 263).

=25. NOSTRI MONIMENTA LABORIS= is rather grand, perhaps because Ovid intended the poem to come near the end of the collection. At _Tr_ III iii 78 Ovid's _libelli_ are called his most lasting _monimenta_, and at _EP_ III v 35 Ovid flatteringly refers to Maximus Cotta's _monimenta laboris_.

=26. LITTERA DE VOBIS EST MEA QVESTA NIHIL.= This, of course, is manifestly untrue. See _Tr_ V x entire, and compare for instance _Tr_ V vii 45-46 'siue homines [_sc_ specto], uix sunt homines hoc nomine digni, / quamque lupi saeuae plus feritatis habent'.

=28. ET QVOD PVLSETVR MVRVS AB HOSTE QVEROR.= Compare _EP_ III i 25 'adde metus _et quod murus pulsatur ab hoste_'.

=30. SOLVM= _BCFILT_ LOCVM _MH_. The interchange is very common (examples at _Met_ I 345 & VII 57); the reverse corruption in some manuscripts at _EP_ II ii 96 'sit tua mutando gratia blanda _loco_'.

=31-40.= The argument Ovid here employs ("other have done what I have done, and not suffered for it") is that used at _Tr_ II 361-538 to excuse the _Ars Amatoria_.

=31-40. VITABILIS.= A. G. Lee has ingeniously conjectured VITIABILIS (_PCPhS_ 181 [1950-51] 3). It would have the sense _uitiosa_; Lee compares such words as _aerumnabilis_, _perniciabilis_, and _lacrimabilis_. He argued that Hesiod nowhere said that Ascra was 'always to be avoided' (although this is a natural inference from _Op_ 639-40) and that the variants _miserabilis_, _mirabilis_, and _mutabilis_ 'point to the conclusion that the archetype was here difficult to make out'. For _uitium_ used of localities he cited _EP_ III ix 37 'quid nisi de _uitio_ scribam regionis amarae', and for the word _uitiabilis_ (in the sense 'corruptible') Prudentius _Apoth_ 1045 and _Ham_ 215 (there is a variant _uitabilis_ in a ninth-century manuscript of the _Hamartigenia_).

Lee's argument is a good one, but _uitabilis_ does not seem in itself objectionable enough to be removed from the text. The variant readings he cites are from unnamed manuscripts of Burman, and are not safe evidence for the condition of the archetype. It can be said in Lee's favour that Heinsius and Bentley before him clearly found _uitabilis_ somewhat strange: Heinsius considered the verse suspect, while Bentley conjectured VT ILLAVDABILIS.

=31. ASCRA= _MFILT_. I take ASCRE (_BCH_) to be a hypercorrect formation by the scribes; _Ascra_ is metrically guaranteed at 34 'Ascra suo' and _AA_ I 28 'Ascra tuis'. It is possible that _Ascre_ is correct, although its use would be strange so close to _Ascra_ in 34: Ovid certainly used both _nympha_ and _nymphe_ (_Her_ IX 103; _Met_ III 357).

=32. AGRICOLAE ... SENIS.= For Hesiod as an old man compare _AA_ II 3-4 'laetus amans donat uiridi mea carmina palma, / praelata Ascraeo Maeonioque _seni_', Prop II xxxiv 77 'tu canis Ascraei _ueteris_ praecepta poetae', and _Ecl_ VI 69-70 'hos tibi dant calamos, en accipe, Musae, / Ascraeo quos ante _seni_'.

=35. SOLLERTE ... VLIXE.= _Sollerte_ could represent either [Greek: polymechanos] (_Il_ II 173) or [Greek: polytropos] (_Od_ I 1). I believe that Ovid was translating [Greek: polytropos], since Livius Andronicus in translating _Od_ I 1 had used _uersutus_ to represent the adjective: 'Virum mihi, Camena, insece _uersutum_'. It is clear from Cic _Brut_ 236 'genus ... acuminis ... quod erat in reprehendendis uerbis _uersutum et sollers_' that the Romans regarded the two adjectives as having much the same force.

At Hor _Sat_ II v 3-5 [Greek: polymechanos] is translated by _dolosus_: (Tiresias to Ulysses) 'iamne doloso / non satis est Ithacam reuehi patriosque penates / aspicere?'.

=36. HOC TAMEN ASPERITAS INDICE DOCTA LOCI EST.= At _Od_ IX 27 Ulysses describes Ithaca to Alcinous as '[Greek: trechei'] [=_aspera_] [Greek: all' agathe kourotrophos]'.

=36. DOCTA= (_B_; _C_ has DOCTVS) seems clearly preferable to DICTA, offered by most of the manuscripts, which cannot be construed with _hoc ... indice_. The difficulty with _docta_ is that the passive of _docere_ seems in general to have been used of the person taught, not the thing; this is no doubt what induced Riese to print NOTA, found in certain of Heinsius' manuscripts. Still, the construction seems logical enough in view of the double accusative construction of the verb in the active.

=38. SCEPSIVS.= Metrodorus[28] of Scepsis (a town on the Scamander, about 60 kilometres upstream from Troy) was famous for his hatred of Rome; see Pliny _NH_ XXXIV 34 'signa quoque Tuscanica per terras dispersa quin [_Detlefsen_: quae _codd_] in Etruria factitata sint non est dubium.

deorum tantum putarem ea fuisse, ni Metrodorus Scepsius, cui cognomen [Professor R. J. Tarrant suggests that '[Greek: Misoromaios]' has fallen out of the text around this point] a Romani nominis odio inditum est, propter MM statuarum Volsinios expugnatos obiceret'. According to Plutarch (_Lucullus_ 22) and Strabo (_Geog_ XIII 1 55), he was a close confidant of Mithridates; apparently, when on a mission to Tigranes, he privately advised him not to give Mithridates the requested assistance against Rome. Tigranes reported this to Mithridates; Metrodorus was either executed by Mithridates, or died of natural causes while being sent back to him. Cicero mentions Metrodorus and his phenomenal memory at _de Or_ II 360.

[Footnote 28: PW XV,2 1481 3; Jacoby _FGrH_ no. 184.]

The present passage is more specific than any other surviving reference to Metrodorus' anti-Roman sentiments; Ovid had perhaps read the _scripta_ in question.

As both Cicero and Pliny use the epithet 'Scepsius', Ovid's reference would have been immediately understood: _MEtrodOrus_ could not be used in elegiac verse.

=38. ACTAQVE ROMA REA EST.= Similar verse-endings at _RA_ 387-88 'si mea materiae respondet Musa iocosae, / uicimus, et falsi criminis _acta rea est_', _Fast_ IV 307-8 'casta quidem, sed non et credita: rumor iniquus / laeserat, et falsi criminis _acta rea est_', and _Tr_ IV i 26 'cum mecum iuncti criminis acta [_sc_ Musa] rea est'; other instances of _reus agi_ at _Her_ XIV 120, _Met_ XV 36, _Tr_ I i 24, _Tr_ I viii 46, and _Her_ XX 91. See at xv 12 _nil opus est legum uiribus, ipse loquor_ (p 434) for a full discussion of Ovid's use of legal terminology.

=39. FALSA ... CONVICIA= has a place in the rhetoric of Ovid's argument, balancing _uerissima crimina_ at 29.

=40. OBFVIT AVCTORI NEC FERA LINGVA SVO.= _Obesse_ is used of Ovid's own situation at _Tr_ I i 55-56 'carmina nunc si non studiumque quod _obfuit_ odi, / sit satis', IV i 25 'scilicet hoc ipso nunc aequa [_sc_ Musa], quod _obfuit_ ante', IV iv 39 'aut timor aut error nobis, prius _obfuit_ error' & V i 65-68. Compare as well _Tr_ II 443-44 'uertit Aristiden Sisenna, nec _obfuit_ illi / historiae turpis inseruisse iocos'.

=41. MALVS= = _malignus_.

=41. INTERPRES.= The word probably combines the senses of 'translator' and 'interpreter'; that is, the person intentionally misconstrued the meaning of certain passages.

As Andre points out, Ovid's statement here that his Latin poems have caused him difficulty in Tomis indicates that Latin was not as completely unknown in the city as Ovid claims at, for example, _Tr_ III xiv 47-48, V vii 53-54 'unus in hoc nemo est populo qui forte Latine / quamlibet [_Heinsius_: quaelibet _codd_] e medio reddere uerba queat' & V xii 53-54 'non liber hic ullus, non qui mihi commodet aurem, / uerbaque significent quid mea norit, adest'; compare as well _Tr_ III xiv 39-40.

=42. INQVE NOVVM CRIMEN CARMINA NOSTRA VOCAT.= _In crimen uocare_ was a normal idiom: compare Cic _Scaur_ (e) 'custos ille rei publicae proditionis est _in crimen uocatus_' and _Fam_ V xvii 2 'ego te, P.

Sitti, et primis temporibus illis quibus in inuidiam absens et _in crimen uocabare_ defendi'.

=42. NOVVM CRIMEN.= The _uetus crimen_ was of course the accusation that the _Ars Amatoria_ was immoral. Professor E. Fantham suggests to me that _nouum_ could have the meaning 'unprecedented', as at Cic _Lig_ 1 '_Nouum crimen_, C. Caesar, et ante hunc diem non auditum propinquus meus ad te Q. Tubero detulit'. Ovid would therefore be saying that the kind of geographical _maiestas_ the Tomitans were accusing him of did not constitute a proper charge.

=43. PECTORE CANDIDVS.= 'Kind of heart'. This sense of _candidus_ is constantly misunderstood by modern commentators. The basic transferred sense of the word is 'kind' or 'generous towards others'. This can be clearly seen in such passages as _Tr_ III vi 5-8 'isque erat usque adeo populo testatus, ut esset / paene magis quam tu quamque ego notus, amor; / quique est in caris animi [_codd_: animo _fort legendum_] tibi _candor_ amicis-- / cognita sunt ipsi quem colis ipse uiro', _Tr_ IV x 130-32 'protinus ut moriar non ero, terra, tuus. / siue fauore tuli siue hanc ego carmine famam, / iure tibi grates, _candide_ lector, ago', _Tr_ V iii 53-54 'si uestrum merui _candore_ fauorem, / nullaque iudicio littera laesa meo est', _EP_ II v 5, _EP_ III ii 21-22 'aut meus excusat caros ita _candor_ amicos, / utque habeant de me crimina nulla fauet', and _EP_ III iv 13 'uiribus infirmi uestro _candore_ ualemus'.

For _pectore candidus_ compare from other authors Hor _Epod_ XI 11-12 'candidum / pauperis ingenium', Val Max VIII xiv praef 'candidis ... animis' and Scribonius Largus praef 5 26 'candidissimo animo'.

=44. EXTAT ADHVC NEMO SAVCIVS ORE MEO.= Ovid makes similar claims at _Tr_ II 563-65 'non ego mordaci destrinxi carmine quemquam ... _candidus_ a salibus suffusis felle refugi' and _Ibis_ 1-8 'Tempus ad hoc, lustris bis iam mihi quinque peractis, / omne fuit Musae carmen inerme meae ... nec quemquam nostri nisi me laesere libelli ... unus ... perennem / _candoris_ titulum non sinit esse mei'. Andre says of the present passage, 'C'est oublier le poeme _Contre Ibis_', but Housman wrote 'Who was Ibis? Nobody. He was much too good to be true. If one's enemies are of flesh and blood, they do not carry complaisance so far as to chose the dies Alliensis for their birthday and the most ineligible spot in Africa for their birthplace. Such order and harmony exist only in worlds of our own creation, not in the jerry-built edifice of the demiurge ... And when I say that Ibis was nobody, I am repeating Ovid's own words.

In the last book that he wrote, several years after the Ibis, he said, ex Pont. IV 14 44, "extat adhuc nemo saucius ore meo"' (1040). Housman is wrong to adduce this line as though it were a statement made under oath (compare the claim made in 26 'littera de uobis est mea questa nihil'). It is nonetheless true that in the extant poems of reproach Ovid does not identify the person he is addressing.

=45. ADDE QVOD.= See at xi 21 _adde quod_ (p 368).

=45. ILLYRICA ... PICE NIGRIOR.= For the formula, Otto (_pix_) cites this passage and _Il_ IV 275-77 '[Greek: nephos ... melanteron eute pissa]'

and from Latin poetry _AA_ II 657-58 'nominibus mollire licet mala: fusca uocetur / _nigrior Illyrica_ cui _pice_ sanguis erit', _Met_ XII 402-3 'totus _pice nigrior_ atra, / candida cauda tamen', _EP_ III iii 97 'sed neque mutatur [_uar_ fuscatur] _nigra pice_ lacteus umor', _Her_ XVIII 7 'ipsa uides caelum _pice nigrius_', and Martial I cxv 4-5 'sed quandam uolo nocte _nigriorem_, / formica, _pice_, graculo, cicada'.

=45. ILLYRICA ... PICE.= A famous mineral pitch was produced near Apollonia; Andre cites Pliny _NH_ XVI 59 'Theopompus scripsit in Apolloniatarum agro picem fossilem non deteriorem Macedonica inueniri', _NH_ XXXV 178, and Dioscorides I 73.