=13. OPES ... PATERNAS.= Pompeius appears to have been very wealthy. Seneca speaks of the wealth of a Pompeius (presumably the son of Ovid's patron--so Syme _Ten Studies_ 82, _HO_ 162), who was murdered by Gaius Caligula (_Tranq_ 11 10).

=13. REM PARVAM= _MHIT_ PARVAM REM _BCFL_. Either reading is possible enough. On balance, I believe _paruam rem_ to be an intentional scribal alteration to avoid the incidence of a spondaic word in the fourth foot of the hexameter; for a discussion of the phenomenon, see at i 11 _uellem cum_ (p 150).

In an older poet, the alliteration of _paruam pone paternas_ would be a strong argument for the reading (see page 15 of Munro's introduction to his commentary on Lucretius), but Ovid did not use the device in his poetry.

=15. TRINACRIA= = _Sicilia_, unusable because it begins with three consecutive short vowels; compare _Met_ V 474-76 (of Ceres) 'terras tamen increpat omnes / ingratasque uocat nec frugum munere dignas, / _Trinacriam_ ante alias'.

Andre avoids the literal meaning of the passage, joining _terra_ with _Trinacria_ as well as with _regnataque ... Philippo_ and taking it to mean 'estate': 'ta terre de Trinacrie et celle ou regna Philippe'. But this sense of _terra_ is rare in Latin (Martial IX xx 2, Apuleius _Met_ IX 35), it is difficult to see how _regnataque ... Philippo_ could stand as an epithet in such a case, and it is clear enough that Ovid is imitating _Aen_ III 13-14 '_terra_ ... acri quondam _regnata Lycurgo'_, as he does at _Her_ X 69 'tellus iusto regnata parenti', _Met_ VIII 623 'arua suo quondam regnata parenti', and _Met_ XIII 720-21 'regnataque uati / Buthrotos Phrygio'. In these lines Ovid states that Pompeius owns Sicily, Macedonia, and Campania, and by the hyperbole indicates the size of Pompeius' holdings. Seneca similarly mentions how the Pompeius murdered by Gaius Caligula possessed 'tot flumina ... in suo orientia, in suo cadentia'.

=16. QVAM DOMVS AVGVSTO CONTINVATA FORO.= Compare v 9-10 'protinus inde domus uobis Pompeia petetur: / _non est Augusto iunctior ulla foro'_.

=18. QVAEQVE RELICTA TIBI, SEXTE, VEL EMPTA TENES.= The line seems rather prosaic. For the thought, compare Cic _Off_ II 81 'multa _hereditatibus_, multa _emptionibus_, multa dotibus tenebantur sine iniuria'; for this sense of _relicta_, compare Nepos _Att_ 13 2 'domum habuit ... ab auunculo hereditate _relictam_', Livy XXII 26 1 'pecunia a patre _relicta_', and Martial X xlvii 3 'res non parta labore, sed _relicta_'.

=19. TAM TVVS EN EGO SVM.= Professor A. Dalzell notes the play on the dual sense of _tuus_ (devoted/belonging to you) which is probably the basis of the entire poem. For _tuus_ 'devoted' compare _Tr_ II 55-56 '[iuro ...] hunc animum fauisse tibi, uir maxime, meque, / qua sola potui, mente fuisse _tuum_' and the other passages cited at _OLD tuus_ 6.

=19. MVNERE.= The word is difficult. 'Gift' seems strange in view of the stress placed on Pompeius' ownership of Ovid. Professor E. Fantham suggests to me that the phrase could mean 'by virtue of whose sad _service_ you cannot say you own nothing in the Pontus', while Professor R. J. Tarrant suggests that _munere_ could mean 'responsibility, charge', with _cuius_ (=_mei_) as an objective genitive.

=21. ATQVE VTINAM POSSIS, ET DETVR AMICIVS ARVVM.= This elliptical use of _posse_ seems to be colloquial. The only instance cited by _OLD_ _possum_ 2a from verse is Prop IV vii 74 'potuit [_uar_ patuit], nec tibi auara fuit'; there as well the tone is that of lively speech.

=21. AMICIVS ARVVM.= The same phrase at _Met_ XV 442-43 (Helenus to Aeneas) 'Pergama rapta feres, donec Troiaeque tibique / externum patrio contingat _amicius aruum_'. The use of the adjective _amicus_ of things rather than person is in the main a poetic usage, but compare Cic _Quinct_ 34 'breuitas postulatur, quae mihimet ipsi _amicissima_ est', _ND_ II 43 'fortunam, quae _amica_ uarietati constantiam respuit', and _Att_ XII xv 'nihil est mihi _amicius_ solitudine'; other instances in the elder Pliny and Columella.

=22. REMQVE TVAM PONAS IN MELIORE LOCO.= Compare _EP_ I iii 77-78 'liquit Agenorides Sidonia moenia Cadmus / poneret ut muros _in meliore loco_'.

=24. NVMINA PERPETVA QVAE PIETATE COLIS.= Tiberius and Germanicus are meant. For Pompeius' devotion to Germanicus, compare v 25-26 'tempus ab his uacuum Caesar Germanicus omne / auferet; a magnis hunc colit ille deis'.

=25-26. ERRORIS NAM TV VIX EST DISCERNERE NOSTRI / SIS ARGVMENTVM MAIVS AN AVXILIVM.= This distich does not belong in the text: it is in itself unintelligible, and interrupts a natural progression from 24 to 27. I am not certain that the distich is a simple interpolation, since there is nothing in the context to which it is an obvious gloss. Possibly it has been inserted from another letter from exile, in which its meaning would have been clear from context.

_Argumentum_ is difficult. Wheeler translates, 'For 'tis hard to distinguish whether you are more the proof of my mistake or the relief', and notes 'Apparently Pompey could prove (_argumentum_) that "error"

which Ovid regarded as the beginning of his woes'. But this seems a strange thing to say, for Ovid's _error_ was hardly in need of demonstration.

_Auxilium_ is used in its medical sense, _erroris_ being equivalent to _morbi_ or _uulneris_; compare _RA_ 48 'uulneris auxilium' and the passages collected at _OLD remedium_ 1.

=25. DISCERNERE.= Gronovius argued (_Obseruationes_ III xiii) that DECERNERE (_MI1_) should be read here, since _decernere_ has the required sense 'uel decertare uel iudicare et certum statuere', whereas _discernere_ means 'separare, dirimere, distinguere, diuidere'. On the evidence of the lexica, however, Gronovius' distinction breaks down, since _discernere_ meaning 'decide, determine, make out' is common enough: compare Sallust _Cat_ 25 3 'pecuniae an famae minus parceret haud facile _discerneres_', Cic _Rep_ 2 6 'ne nota quidem ulla pacatus an hostis sit _discerni_ ac iudicari potest', Varro _LL_ VII 17 'quo _discernitur_ homo mas an femina sit', and Livy XXII 61 10 'quid ueri sit _discernere_'. I therefore let _discernere_ stand.

=29-30. ET PVDET ET METVO SEMPERQVE EADEMQVE PRECARI / NE SVBEANT ANIMO TAEDIA IVSTA TVO.= Compare _EP_ III vii entire (an apology to his friends for the monotony of his verse), and especially the opening lines: 'Verba mihi desunt eadem tam saepe roganti, / iamque pudet uanas fine carere preces. / taedia consimili fieri de carmine uobis, / quidque petam cunctos edidicisse reor'.

=30. SVBEANT ANIMO.= _Subire animo_ occurs also at _Tr_ I v 13. Ovid uses _subire_ with the dative several times in the poetry of exile (_Tr_ I vii 9, II 147, III iii 14 & V vii 58; _EP_ I ix 11, II x 43 & IV iv 47), but not beforehand; earlier he has the accusative (_Met_ XII 472) or the simple verb (_Met_ XV 307). The dative construction is taken up by the author of the later _Heroides_ (XVI 99, XVIII 62).

=31. RES IMMODERATA CVPIDO EST.= _Cupido_ similarly called _immoderata_ at Apuleius _Plat_ II 21; elsewhere qualified as _immodica_ (Livy VI 35 6) and _immensa_ (_Aen_ VI 823, Tac _Ann_ XII 7).

=33. DELABOR.= Cicero uses the word for moving from one subject to another (_OLD delabor_ 5b); here the metaphorical sense 'fall' is still active.

=34. IPSA LOCVM PER SE LITTERA NOSTRA ROGAT.= This line as it stands is clearly corrupt. I do not understand Wheeler's 'my very letters of their own accord seek the opportunity'; Andre's 'c'est la lettre qui, d'elle-meme, demande le sujet' seems equally difficult, although _locus_ can certainly have the meaning 'subject, topic of discussion' (_OLD_ _locus_ 24b).

The only parallel I have found is _Fast_ II 861 'iure uenis, Gradiue: _locum tua tempora poscunt_'. If _littera_ is retained in the present passage, this parallel is of little assistance, since _locum_ there means 'a place within a larger work', and Ovid's poetry cannot ask for a _locus_ in that sense. Taking the passage from the _Fasti_ as a parallel, I once thought that Ovid wrote _ipsa locum pro se tristia nostra rogant_ (or _petunt_); for the noun _triste_ compare _Fast_ VI 463 'scilicet interdum miscentur _tristia_ laetis', _Ecl_ III 80-81 '_triste_ lupus stabulis, maturis frugibus imbres, / arboribus uenti, nobis Amaryllidis irae', and Hor _Carm_ I xvi 25-26 'nunc ego mitibus / mutare quaero _tristia_'. I now consider this unlikely, since the personal adjective _nostra_ with _tristia_ seems unidiomatic; but I still believe that _littera_ is the key to the corruption.

Professor R. J. Tarrant has tentatively suggested something like _inque locum ... redit_, but questions whether _in locum_, even just after _eodem_, can have the sense _in eundem locum_. Professor Tarrant also points out to me the possible relevance of _locus_ in the sense _locus communis_ (compare Sen _Suas_ I 9 'dixit ... _locum_ de uarietate fortunae'); Ovid might be saying that his poetry had made rather frequent use of the _locus de exilio_. In this case, _rogat_ would require emendation.

One of Heinsius' manuscripts read _per se ... facit_, which is just possibly correct. Heinsius proposed _pro se ... facit_, which I do not understand.

=35. HABITVRA= is a good instance of the future participle used to express what is inevitably destined to happen (with _Parca_ balancing in the pentameter); for the sense, see Tarrant on Sen _Ag_ 43 'daturus coniugi iugulum suae'.

=37. INOBLITA= = _memori_. Apparently the only instance of the word in classical Latin.

=39. CAELO ... SVB VLLO.= Bentley oddly conjectured ILLO, the reading of _Mac_, which gives the sense 'under the Tomitan sky'. This obviously contradicts the following _transit nostra feros si modo Musa Getas_.

=41. SERVATOREM= occurs in Ovid only here and at _Met_ IV 737-38 (of Perseus) 'auxiliumque domus _seruatoremque_ fatentur / Cassiope Cepheusque pater'. In prose it is several times used in a civic context (Cic _Pis_ 34, _Planc_ 102, Livy VI 20 16 & XLV 44 20; _CIL_ IX 4852 in a dedication to _Ioui optimo maximo seruatori conseruatori ... ex uoto suscepto_). The solemn overtones of _seruatorem_ must be part of what Ovid means for his own land and for the rest of the world to hear and know; the poem thus ends with an implied pronouncement to balance the public statement of the opening.

=42. MEQVE TVVM LIBRA NORIT ET AERE MAGIS.= This line clearly refers to _mancipatio_, the receiving of property (including slaves), which is described by Gaius as follows: 'adhibitis non minus quam [_Boeth._: quod _cod_] quinque testibus ciuibus Romanis puberibus, et praeterea alio eiusdem condicionis qui libram aeneam teneat, qui appellatur libripens ['scale-holder'--de Zulueta], is qui mancipio accipit, aes [aes _add Boeth._] tenens, ita dicit: "hunc ego hominem ex iure [_Boeth._: iUst _cod_] Quiritium meum esse aio isque mihi emptus esto hoc aere aeneaque libra", deinde aere percutit libram, idque aes dat ei a quo mancipio accipit quasi pretii loco' (I 119).

MAGIS is found as a secondary reading in _F_ and in the thirteenth-century _Barberinus lat. 26_; the reading of most manuscripts is MINVS, which seems to me impossible. Several explanations of _minus_ have been advanced:

(i) Gronovius took the line to mean 'tuus sum, immo mancipium tuum, nisi quod sola libra et aes mea mancipatione abfuerunt'. This retention of _minus_, however, involves Ovid in a qualifying retraction just when he seems to be aiming for a ringing conclusion. As well, the instances of _minus_ cited by Gronovius do not in fact illustrate this passage: among them are _EP_ I vii 25-26 'uno / nempe salutaris quam prius ore minus', _Met_ XII 554-55 'bis sex Herculeis ceciderunt me minus uno ['except for me alone'] / uiribus', and Manilius I 778 'Tarquinio ... minus reges', 'the kings, except for Tarquin'.

Gronovius seems to have realized that difficulties remained, and proposed to read NOVIT in 42 and make 41-42 a relative clause dependent on _tellus_ in 38, so that the concluding lines of the poem would mean 'mea tellus, Sulmo, Roma, Italia, me tuum esse audiet. sed audiet idem etiam, quaecumque sub alia quauis caeli parte terra posita est, et te, meum seruatorem, meque, libra et aere tuum, minus nouit'. Once again, _minus_ seems to weaken the poem fatally.

(ii) Ehwald (_KB_ 71) followed Gronovius' second explanation, retaining the manuscripts' _norit_, and glossing 'tellus, quae sub ullo caelo posita est et te, meae salutis seruatorem, meque, libra et aere tuum, minus norit'.

(iii) Nemethy followed Gronovius' first explanation, adding as an illustration _AA_ I 643-44 'ludite, si sapitis, solas impune puellas: / hac _minus_ [_Burman_: magis _codd_] est una fraude tuenda [_Naugerius ex codd suis_: pudenda _codd_] fides'. The citation does not strengthen the case for _minus_.

(iv) Andre wrote '_Minus_ me parait avoir le sens de _citra_ "sans aller jusqu'a", i.e. "sans meme avoir recours a la mancipation": "tu es mon maitre de ma propre volonte, et non, comme tu l'es de tes autres proprietes, par achat."' But the meaning seems to weaken the force of the poem.

I have with reluctance adopted _libra ... et aere magis_, taking it in the sense _magis quam libra et aere_ ('I am yours even more than I would be if I had been acquired through _mancipatio_'). The closest parallel I have found for this compressed use of the ablative is the idiom at v 7 'luce minus decima', 'before the tenth day'.

Of the other readings, _F1_'s _tuum ... datum_ cannot itself be correct, although it may offer a clue to the truth. Heinsius' _tuum ... tuum_ is grammatical enough, but (as Professor R. J. Tarrant points out to me) makes Ovid say that he is Pompeius' literally through _mancipatio_. As well, the repetition seems odd. Rappold's _tuae ... manus_ cannot be right, since _manus_ did not have the sense of _mancipium_, except for the limited meaning of a husband's authority over his wife. Still, Rappold's conjecture may be a step in the right direction, particularly in view of v 39-40 'pro quibus ut meritis referatur gratia, iurat / se fore _mancipii_ tempus in omne _tui_'.

XVI. To a Detractor

The anonymous detractor to whom Ovid apparently addresses this poem is probably fictional; at 47 he substitutes _Liuor_, dropping the pretence of speaking to a single enemy.

Ovid begins the poem by asking his detractor why he criticizes Ovid's verse. A poet's fame increases after his death; Ovid's fame was great even while he was still alive (1-4). There were many poets contemporary with Ovid (5-38). There were also younger poets, not yet published, whom he will not name, with the necessary exception of Cotta Maximus (39-44).

Even among such poets, he had a reputation. Envy should therefore cease to torment him; he has lost everything but life, which is left only so that he can continue to experience pain (45-50).

The poem is of particular interest because of the catalogue of the poets of the earlier part of the reign of Tiberius. It is a reminder of how much Latin verse has been lost, for of the poets listed only Grattius survives.

Similar catalogues of poets are found at Prop II xxxiv 61-92 and _Am_ I xv 9-30, the poets listed being however not contemporaries but illustrious predecessors. _Tr_ IV x 41-54 is complementary to the present poem, being a list of the leading Roman poets at the beginning of Ovid's career. All of these poems come last in their book, and it seems clear enough that the present poem was meant to close a published collection. Other links exist with the earlier poems: mention is similarly made in them of the poet's fame after his death (Prop II xxxiv 94, _Am_ I xi 41-42, _Tr_ IV x 129-30), and _Am_ I xv (which Professor R. J. Tarrant suggests may have ended the original edition in five books of the _Amores_) is, like the present poem, addressed to _Liuor_.

=1. INVIDE, QVID LACERAS NASONIS CARMINA RAPTI.= Compare the question that opens _Am_ I xv 'Quid mihi, Liuor edax, ignauos obicis annos, / ingeniique uocas carmen inertis opus'. For _inuide ... laceras_ compare Cic _Brutus_ 156 '_inuidia_, quae solet _lacerare_ plerosque'.

=1. LACERAS.= _Lacerare_ 'attack verbally' is a prose usage, found in Cicero, the historians, and the elder Seneca (_OLD lacero_ 5; _TLL_ VII.2 827 50).

The primary meaning of _lacerare_ behind this usage is _mordere_; _lacerare_ is found in this literal sense at Cic _De or_ II 240 '_lacerat_ lacertum Largi _mordax_ Memmius', Phaedrus I xii 11 '_lacerari_ coepit _morsibus_ saeuis canum', and Sen _Clem_ I 25 1.

For _mordere_ in the same transferred sense, see at xiv 46 _mordenda_ (p 424).