Copyright (C) 2006 by Mark Bear Akrigg
THE LAST POEMS OF OVID
A New Edition, with Commentary, of the Fourth Book of the _Epistulae ex
Ponto_
by Mark Bear Akrigg, Ph.D.
* * * * *
Original (unpublished) edition Copyright 1985 by Mark Bear Akrigg
First published edition, corrected and augmented Copyright 2006 by Mark
Bear Akrigg
* * * * *
This edition and commentary are dedicated to
ROB MORROW
_"quo non mihi carior alter"_
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments i
Preface ii
Introduction 1
Textual Introduction 23
P. OVIDI NASONIS _EPISTVLARM EX PONTO_ LIBER QVARTVS 54
I. Ad Sextum Pompeium 56
II. Ad Seuerum 59
III. Ad ingratum 63
IIII. Ad Sextum Pompeium 68
V. Ad Sextum Pompeium 72
VI. Ad Brutum 76
VII. Ad Vestalem 81
VIII. Ad Suillium 86
IX. Ad Graecinum 93
X. Ad Albinouanum 105
XI. Ad Gallionem 113
XII. Ad Tuticanum 115
XIII. Ad Carum 120
XIV. Ad Tuticanum 125
XV. Ad Sextum Pompeium 131
XVI. Ad inuidum 136
COMMENTARY 144
I. To Sextus Pompeius 146
II. To Cornelius Severus 161
III. To an Unfaithful Friend 177
IV. To Sextus Pompeius 199
V. To Sextus Pompeius 213
VI. To Brutus 226
VII. To Vestalis 244
VIII. To Suillius 258
IX. To Graecinus 286
X. To Albinovanus Pedo 325
XI. To Gallio 359
XII. To Tuticanus 370
XIII. To Carus 389
XIV. To Tuticanus 410
XV. To Sextus Pompeius 429
XVI. To a Detractor 446
Bibliography 471
Index of topics discussed 477
Index of textual emendations 489
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Editor gratefully acknowledges the permission of the Herzog August
Bibliothek for the use of Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel: Cod.
Guelf. 13.11 Aug. 4° (fragmentum Guelferbytanum).
PREFACE
It is a pleasure to present to the public this digital edition, with
commentary, of _Ex Ponto_ IV, the final poems written by the Roman poet
Ovid, published after his death as a posthumous collection quite
separate from the earlier _Ex Ponto_ I-III.
These poems have a special place among Ovid's works, but have not
received the attention which they deserve. In particular, there has been
no full modern commentary on these poems.
This text presented in this edition is based on my personal examination
of ten manuscripts. I have also restored to the text certain readings
commonly accepted by editors until the nineteenth century. Finally, the
edition contains several dozen new textual conjectures by myself and
others.
The intended audience of this edition
This edition is intended to serve as a guide to the poems for
intermediate and advanced students of Latin poetry. However, I have
deliberately made it as straightforward as possible, and my hope is that
even a beginning student of Latin poetry embarking on the study of these
poems will find the commentary helpful.
This edition is also directed towards present and future Latin textual
critics.
My expectation when starting my research for this edition was that I
would be presenting a text that differed little from that to be found in
current editions. However, I made two discoveries during my research
into the text.
The first discovery was that many important textual corrections
generally accepted in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had been
suppressed by editors in the course of the nineteenth century. I have
restored many of these readings to the text, and others will be found in
the textual apparatus.
The second discovery was that there was a surprisingly large number of
passages which appeared to be corrupt and for which it was possible to
suggest corrections. Given the long history of Latin textual criticism,
and Ovid's central position in Roman literary history, it was surprising
to find that so much remained to be done. Yet such was the case.
Nothing is more certain than that this book of poems as well as the
three earlier books of the _Ex Ponto_ represent an outstanding
opportunity for future editors and commentators to contribute to the
progress of Latin scholarship.
History of this edition
I originally prepared this edition and commentary during my time as a
graduate student at the University of Toronto. Upon its completion (and
my graduation) in 1985, a copy was deposited at the National Library of
Canada.
Had I followed a university teaching career after graduation, I would
undoubtedly have taken the necessary steps to publish the edition, if
only in pursuit of academic promotion. But I instead chose a career in
the software industry, which both removed the external incentive to
publish the edition, and denied me the time that I would have needed to
prepare it for publication.
However, I wished to ensure that future editors and commentators were
aware of the edition and would be able to make use of it. I therefore
decided to publish two short articles drawn from the edition. These
articles were intended to make generally available two textual
conjectures which I considered likely to be correct. But the articles
were also intended to make future editors aware that I had worked on the
text of Ovid, so that they would seek out my unpublished edition.
The first article ("An Intrusive Gloss in Ovid _Ex Ponto_ 4.13")
appeared in _Phoenix_ (vol. 40, p. 322) in 1986: it reported the
restoration of IV xiii 45 discussed at page 408 of the commentary.
_Phoenix_ is published by the Classical Association of Canada, and since
my own training in the classical languages had taken place almost
entirely in Canada, it seemed appropriate that my first publication
should be in a Canadian journal.
To my surprise and pleasure, my short article attracted a critique by
Professor Allan Kershaw ("_Ex Ponto_ 4.13: A Reply", _Phoenix_, vol. 42,
p. 176), followed by a learned defense of my conjecture by Professor
James Butrica ("Taking Enemies for Chains: Ovid _Ex Ponto_ 4.13.45
Again", _Phoenix_, vol. 43, pp. 258-59).
Four years later, I published a second article ("A Palaeographical
Corruption in Ovid, _Ex Ponto_ 4.6"), which appeared in the May 1990
issue of the _Classical Quarterly_ (pp. 283-84). This article reported
the restoration of IV vi 38 discussed at pages 240-41 of the commentary.
I selected the _Classical Quarterly_ because of its prominence within
the world of classical scholarship, and in particular because of its
close association with the modern history of Latin textual criticism: it
was in the _Classical Quarterly_ that many of the learned articles of A.
E. Housman first appeared.
My hope had been that these two articles would serve as a signpost that
would lead editors to my edition. The publication of J. A. Richmond's
Teubner edition of the _Ex Ponto_ in 1990 proved that this plan was
inadequate. Professor Richmond had indeed discovered the existence of my
edition: it received a prominent and flattering mention at the end of
his preface. However, he stated that he received the microfilm of the
edition too late for use in his edition!
In his review of Richmond's Teubner edition in the _Classical Review_
(n.s. 42, 2 [1992], pp. 305-06), Professor James Butrica highlighted a
number of proposed emendations from my edition.
It had become clear there was considerable outside interest in the work
that I had done, and that simply having a copy of an unpublished edition
on deposit at the National Library of Canada was not a sufficient means
of making the edition available to the public, so over the years that
followed I gave some consideration to how I might publish the edition so
that it would be conveniently available to students of Latin poetry.
Early in 2006, I was working as a volunteer proofreader for the Project
Gutenberg digital library: I noticed that the Project Gutenberg library
included some public domain classical editions comparable in scope to my
own. Prompted by this, I decided that I would publish my edition online
in order to make it instantly accessible free of charge to anyone
wishing to use it. This seemed in every way preferable to seeking out a
university press, going through the time-consuming process of seeking
the necessary grants to subsidize publication, in order to produce a
printed book so expensive that no student and not many libraries could
afford to purchase a copy.
Nature of this edition
In essence, this is a corrected version of the original typescript.
Typing errors have been corrected, and minor errors have been set right.
All statements made and conjectures proposed should be considered to
have been made in 1985.
The HTML and Text versions of this edition
This digital edition is being made available in two versions.
The _HTML version_ takes advantage of the Unicode character set to
present Greek passages using the Greek alphabet, and to present certain
other special characters, such as the macron. It also offers hyperlinks
from the table of contents and from the indices to the relevant sections
of the edition.
Popular and useful as HTML is, it does not offer the universality of
ASCII text. Essentially every computer can display plain ASCII text
correctly. The _Text version_ is presented so that the edition can be
read on any computer, large or small, new or old. However, this
portability comes at a price. The ISO 8859-1 ASCII character set does
not include the Greek alphabet, nor does it include certain special
characters which form part of this edition.
Therefore, the Text version of this edition presents Greek passages
transliterated into the Latin alphabet. Similarly, in the textual
apparatus any capital letter occurring in the report of a manuscript
should be considered to be that letter in lower case, with a macron
(dash) above.
When the textual apparatus reports a manuscript correction where
the original reading is no longer legible, the HTML version underlines
the corrected letters, but the Text version uses capitalization.
For example, the Text version reports "facTisque _B2c_" at iii 25:
a later hand in _B_ has erased the original fourth letter, and has
replaced it with "t".
In the commentary, when metre is being discussed and a Latin word is
quoted, any vowel in that word which is capitalized is long, and any
vowel which is not capitalized is short. I have occasionally pointed out
explicitly that a word is metrically inconvenient because it has a
series of short vowels: in the HTML edition, because the actual letters
are marked short, these statements will appear to be redundant.
In the Latin text, the start and end of passages which are deeply
corrupt and therefore difficult to correct are indicated by an
asterisk, instead of the usual dagger (obelus).
Finally, in the critical apparatus, 'æ' is used where a manuscript has
'e' with a cedilla.
Enhancements made: the indices
In order to make the digital edition as useful as possible, I have added
this preface, a full table of contents, and two indices.
The first index (starting on page 477) is an index of _topics
discussed_. It is a selective rather than an exhaustive index for the
following two reasons:
(1) A commentary is already in effect indexed by the text it is linked
to. If, for instance, readers wish to find what the commentary has to
say about a certain passage, all they need do is turn to the part of the
commentary dealing with that passage.
(2) A digital edition can be searched online very quickly and easily. A
reader wishing to find any mention of the eminent Dutch textual critic
Nicolaus Heinsius could find every mention of Heinsius in the edition
simply by using "Heinsius" as a search argument.
However, some of the discussions in the commentary do not have an
obvious link to the text, nor would they necessarily be found quickly by
an electronic search. An example would be the discussion of "Simple
verbs used for compound ones" at page 281.
Also, there were some parts of the introduction and commentary which I
wanted to highlight to the reader as being of possible interest:
including references to these in the index would serve this purpose.
For similar reasons, I have included (starting on page 489) an index of
textual emendations first proposed in this edition. Some of these
emendations involve works other than _Ex Ponto_ IV, and authors other
than Ovid. The index of textual emendations makes these corrections easy
to find.
The debt I owe to others
I was able to create this edition only because of the help that I have
received over the years from others.
My basic training in the classical languages took place at the
University of British Columbia, where I completed my B.A. in 1974, and
my M.A. in 1977. It is impossible to repay the debt I owe to every
single member of the Classics Department at that time.
Professor Charles Murgia of the University of California (Berkeley)
initiated me into the mysteries of Latin palaeography and textual
criticism.
I created this edition while a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of
Classics at the University of Toronto. I owe an enormous debt of
gratitude to Professor Richard Tarrant, who encouraged me to undertake
the edition, posed many excellent questions, and offered many excellent
suggestions.
I owe a similar debt to Professor Alexander Dalzell, Professor Elaine
Fantham, Professor J. N. Grant, and Professor C. P. Jones, all of them
members of the Graduate Department of Classics at the University of
Toronto when I was creating the edition.
I have known Rob Morrow for twenty-one years, and he has touched every
aspect of my life. The study of Latin poetry is a field of endeavour far
removed from his usual interests: but even here he has made an important
contribution in the work he did in scanning the original typescript, and
in his continuing encouragement and support during the months I worked
on creating this digital edition. It is to him, with deep affection and
gratitude, that I dedicate this edition.
INTRODUCTION
In AD 8, when he was fifty years of age, Ovid was abruptly banished from
Rome to Tomis, an exile from which he never returned. In his poetry from
exile, he gives two reasons for the banishment: the publication of the
_Ars Amatoria_, and an unnamed error (_Tr_ II 207; _EP_ III iii
71-72)[1]. The _Ars Amatoria_ had been published some years previously,
being generally dated on the basis of _AA_ I 171-72 to 2 BC or shortly
thereafter; compare _Tr_ II 545-46. The error was clearly the real cause
of the banishment; what precisely this _error_ was Ovid does not reveal,
but it appears from _Tr_ II 103-4 and _Tr_ III v 49-50 to have been the
witnessing of some action that was embarrassing to the imperial family.
Beyond this nothing is known, for Ovid was careful to avoid compounding
his original mistake by mentioning what it consisted of.
[Footnote 1: The evidence for Ovid's _error_ and the many theories
advanced to explain it are gathered and fully discussed in J. C.
Thibault's _The Mystery of Ovid's Exile_ (Berkeley: 1964).]
The catastrophe which befell Ovid did not put an end to his poetic
activity; from the eight or nine years of his exile we possess a corpus
of elegiac verse that substantially exceeds in bulk the combined
production of Tibullus and Propertius.
The first work produced by Ovid was book I of the _Tristia_. Although it
is perhaps not literally true that Ovid wrote much of the poetry on
shipboard (_Tr_ I xi 3-10), all of the poems are directly related to the
circumstances of his downfall and his journey to exile; and it is
reasonable to suppose that the book was published shortly after Ovid's
arrival in Tomis.
In his first poems from exile, Ovid had attempted to engage the sympathy
of the public on his behalf; his next production was a direct appeal to
Augustus in the 578-line elegiac poem that comprises the second book of
the _Tristia_. The poem is written with Ovid's usual clarity and
elegance, but its failure to secure his recall is not surprising. The
poem deals only with the publication of the _Ars Amatoria_, which was
not the true cause of the exile; and rather than admitting his guilt and
appealing to Augustus' clemency, Ovid tactlessly argues that Augustus
had been wrong to exile him.
The years 10, 11, and 12 saw the publication of the final three books of
the _Tristia_. The charge of monotony that is generally brought against
Ovid's poetry from exile (and was brought by his friends at the time;
Ovid makes his defence in _EP_ III ix) is most nearly true of these
three books of verse. He was unable to name his correspondents and vary
his poetry with personal references as he was to do in the _Ex Ponto_;
and the pain of exile was so fresh as to exclude other topics.
Not all of Ovid's literary efforts in exile were devoted to his letters.
It appears from _Fast_ IV 81-82 and VI 666, as well as from the
dedication to Germanicus at the start of the first book (at _Tr_ II 551
Ovid says he dedicated the work to Augustus) that the _Fasti_ in the
edition we possess is a revision produced by Ovid in exile after the
death of Augustus.
In AD 12 Ovid produced the _Ibis_. The greater part of the poem is a
series of curses showing such minute mythological learning that many of
them have not been explained; but the poem's lengthy exordium is a
powerful treatment of Ovid's circumstances and Ibis's perfidy that has
been considered Ovid's most perfect literary creation (Housman 1041).
Many scholars also ascribe the composition of the final six _Heroides_
to the period of Ovid's exile; but although the literary appeal of these
three sets of double epistles is considerable, I believe that their
comparative diffuseness of manner indicates that Ovid was not their
author. They are, however, clearly modelled on the _Heroides_ written by
Ovid, and I have frequently quoted from them in the commentary.
In AD 12 Ovid must have received some indication that it was safe for
him to name his correspondents. He took full advantage of this new
opportunity to induce his friends to work on his behalf; it is clear
from Ovid's references to his fourth year of exile (I ii 26, I viii 28)
and to Tiberius' triumph of 23 October AD 12 (II i 1 & 46, II ii 75-76,
II v 27-28, III i 136, III iii 86, III iv 3)[2] that all three books
were written within the space of a single year: as fast a rate of
composition as can be proved for any part of Ovid's life. The three
books were published as a unit: the opening poem of the first book and
the closing poem of the last are addressed to Brutus, who was therefore
the dedicatee of the collection; both poems are apologies for Ovid's
verse. No such framing poems are found at the start of books II or III,
or at the end of books I and II, although the addressees of II i and III
i, Germanicus and Ovid's wife, were clearly chosen for their respective
importance and closeness to Ovid.
[Footnote 2: For these references I am indebted to page xxxv of A. L.
Wheeler's excellent introduction to the Loeb edition of the _Tristia_
and _Ex Ponto_. For the date of Tiberius' triumph, see Syme _History in
Ovid_ 40.]
_Ex Ponto_ IV
The fourth book of the _Ex Ponto_ constitutes a work separate from the
three books composed in AD 12. The earliest datable poem in the book is
the fourth, written shortly before Sextus Pompeius' consulship in AD 14;
the latest is the ninth, written in honour of Graecinus' becoming
suffect consul in AD 16. Of the books of Ovid's verse which are
collections of individual poems, the fourth book of the _Ex Ponto_ is
the longest, being some 926 lines in length (excluding the probably
spurious distichs xv 25-26 and xvi 51-52). The mean average length of
such books is 764 lines; and the next longest after _Ex Ponto_ IV is
_Am_ III, with 824 lines (excluding the spurious fifth poem). I take the
length of the book as an indication that in its present form it is
probably a posthumous collection: Ovid's editor either gathered the
individual poems to form a single book that was unusually long, or
added a few later poems to a book previously assembled by Ovid[3].
[Footnote 3: Professor Tarrant notes however that unlike I-III the
fourth book was not written within a very short time; if Ovid had
collected what he thought worth publishing of his output over several
years, it would not be surprising to find it longer than the preceding
collections.]
Syme (_HO_ 156) argues that the order of the poems indicates that Ovid
survived to publish or at least to arrange the book: the fact that the
first and penultimate poems are addressed to Sextus Pompeius indicates
that Ovid dedicated the book to him. Professor R. J. Tarrant points out
to me correspondences of structure between _EP_ IV and some of Ovid's
earlier books. If the sixteenth and final poem of _EP_ IV is considered
a _sphragis_-poem, as is indicated by _Nasonis_ in the opening line, we
are left with a fifteen-poem book of which the first and last poems are
addressed to Sextus Pompeius, and in which the middle poem is addressed
to Germanicus through his client Suillius[4]. The same structural
outline of 1-8-15 appears in _Amores_ I and III--the opening and closing
poems of both books are concerned with Ovid's verse, while the eighth
poem of each book stands somewhat apart from the other poems: _Am_ I
viii is about the procuress Dipsas, while III ix (the eighth poem in the
book after the removal of the spurious fifth poem) is the elegy on the
death of Tibullus.
[Footnote 4: Professor E. Fantham notes as well the central placement of
poem ix, with its _laudes Augusti_.]
Ovid's addressees in _Ex Ponto_ IV
Sextus Pompeius, _consul ordinarius_ in 14, and himself a relative of
Augustus, is the recipient of no less than four letters in _EP_ IV[5].
It is significant that he is not the recipient of any of Ovid's earlier
letters from exile; this is discussed in the next section.
[Footnote 5: Full information on what is known of each of the addressees
will be found in the introductions to the poems in the commentary.]
In the attention Ovid gives Sextus Pompeius there can be seen, according
to Syme (_HO_ 156), a deliberate attempt to gain the favour of
Germanicus, who is mentioned in connection with Sextus Pompeius at v 25.
It is interesting that in viii Ovid addresses Germanicus' quaestor
Suillius (and in the course of the poem addresses Germanicus), and that
the recipient of xiii is Carus, the tutor of Germanicus' sons. But it is
only natural that Ovid, when at last permitted, should address so
influential a man as his benefactor Sextus Pompeius; and it does not
seem strange that he should address his fellow poet Carus, still less
that he should send a letter to Suillius, husband of his stepdaughter
Perilla.
C. Pomponius Graecinus, the recipient of ix, must have had some
political influence, since the poem is in celebration of his becoming
suffect consul in 16. But he probably owed this influence to his brother
Flaccus, a close friend of Tiberius who succeeded Graecinus as _consul
ordinarius_ for 17, and whom Ovid gives prominent mention at ix 57 ff.
Graecinus must have been an old associate of Ovid, since he has the rare
distinction of being mentioned by name in a poem written by Ovid before
his exile (_Am_ II x 1).
Two of Ovid's correspondents were orators. Gallio, the addressee of the
eleventh poem, is frequently quoted by the elder Seneca. He was a
senator; both Tacitus and Dio give accounts of how he fell into
disfavour with Tiberius for proposing that ex-members of the Praetorian
guard be granted the privilege of using the theatre seats reserved for
members of the equestrian order (_Ann_ VI 3; LVIII 18 4). Brutus, the
recipient of the sixth poem and dedicatee of the first three books of
the _Ex Ponto_, is not mentioned by other writers, but it appears from
vi 29-38 that he had a considerable reputation as a forensic orator,
although some allowance must be made for possible exaggeration in Ovid's
description of his close friend. The poem contains six lines on the
death of Fabius Maximus, to whom Ovid had addressed _EP_ I ii and III
iii; perhaps he and Brutus had been associates.
Five epistles are addressed to Ovid's fellow poets. Cornelius Severus,
the recipient of the second poem, was one of the most famous epic poets
of the day; he is mentioned by Quintilian (X i 89), and the elder Seneca
preserves his lines on the death of Cicero (_Suas_ VI 26), Albinovanus
Pedo, the recipient of the tenth epistle, was known as a writer of
hexameter verse and of epigram. He served in Germanicus' campaign of AD
15 (Tac _Ann_ I 60 2), and the elder Seneca preserves a fragment of his
poem on Germanicus' campaigns (_Suas_ I 15). It might be argued that in
addressing him Ovid is once again trying to win Germanicus' favour. But
in view of his intimacy with Ovid (mentioned at Sen _Cont_ II 2 12),
Albinovanus seems a natural choice to receive one of Ovid's letters.
Tuticanus, the recipient of the twelfth and fourteenth poems and author
of a _Phaeacid_ based on Homer (mentioned at xii 27 and again in the
catalogue of poets at xvi 29), is known only through the _Ex Ponto_; the
same is true of Carus, author of a poem on Hercules and, as already
mentioned, tutor of the sons of Germanicus.
Vestalis, the recipient of the seventh poem, is in a class separate from
the other recipients of Ovid's verse epistles. As _primipilaris_ of the
legion stationed in the vicinity, he would of course have been without
influence at Rome, but as (apparently) the prefect of the region around
Tomis, he presumably had some control over Ovid's circumstances.
The traitorous friend to whom the third poem is addressed was a real
person, for Ovid is quite explicit when speaking of their past together
and of the friend's perfidy towards him; the same cannot be said of the
_inuidus_ to whom is addressed the concluding poem of the book, a
defence of Ovid's reputation as a poet.
Cotta Maximus, the younger son of Tibullus' patron Messalla, is
prominently mentioned at xvi 41-44 as an unpublished poet of outstanding
excellence. He is the recipient of six letters in the earlier books of
the _Ex Ponto_. Syme finds it significant that there is no poem in _EP_
IV addressed to Cotta: 'Ovid ... was now concentrating his efforts
elsewhere: Germanicus, the friends of Germanicus, Sextus Pompeius ... The
tardy tribute may perhaps be interpreted as a veiled reproach' (_HO_
128). But arguments from silence are dangerous; and Ovid's mention of
Cotta seems flattering enough.
It is perhaps safer to postulate a change in Ovid's feelings towards his
wife. She is never mentioned in _EP_ IV, although she had been the
recipient of some eight earlier letters from exile (_Tr_ I vi, III iii,
IV iii, V ii, xi, xiv, _EP_ I iv, III i; _Tr_ V v was written in honour
of her birthday). At _EP_ III vii 11-12 Ovid indicates that his wife's
efforts on his behalf had not matched his hopes:
nec grauis uxori dicar, quae scilicet in me
quam proba tam timida est experiensque parum.
The fact that Ovid chose not to address any verse epistle to his wife
during his final years at Tomis may well reflect a cooling in his
attitude towards her.
Differences between _Ex Ponto_ IV and the earlier poetry from exile
The criticism most often made of Ovid's poems from exile is that they
are repetitive and therefore monotonous. _EP_ III ix 1-4 shows that the
same criticism was made while Ovid was still alive:
Quod sit in his eadem sententia, Brute, libellis,
carmina nescio quem carpere nostra refers:
nil nisi me terra fruar ut propiore rogare,
et quam sim denso cinctus ab hoste loqui.
Ovid does not attempt to deny the criticism, but explains that he wished
to obtain the assistance of as many people as possible:
et tamen haec eadem cum sint, non scripsimus isdem,
unaque per plures uox mea temptat opem.
(41-42)
nec liber ut fieret, sed uti sua cuique daretur
littera, propositum curaque nostra fuit.
postmodo collectas utcumque sine ordine iunxi:
hoc opus electum ne mihi forte putes.
da ueniam scriptis, quorum non gloria nobis
causa, sed utilitas officiumque fuit.
(51-56)
Ovid's explanation is reasonable enough, and is confirmed by the speed
with which he composed the first three books of the _Ex Ponto_ once he
knew that it was safe to name people in his verse. The first three books
of the _Ex Ponto_, like the _Tristia_, were written with the single
objective of securing Ovid's recall, and this naturally caused a certain
repetition of subject-matter.
By the time Ovid wrote the poems that would form the fourth book of the
_Ex Ponto_, he had lived in Tomis for six or more years, and it must
have been clear to him that his chances of recall were slight. The
result of this is a diminished use of his personal situation as a theme
for his verse. Often he introduces his plight in only one or two
distichs of a poem, subordinating the topic to the poem's main theme.
The result of this technique can be seen in such extended passages as
the descriptions of the investiture of the new consul (iv & ix), the
address to Germanicus on the power of poetry (viii), or the catalogue of
poets that concludes the book. In all of these passages Ovid's desire
for recall is only a secondary theme.
The mixing of levels of diction
As well as variety of subject, the fourth book of the _Ex Ponto_ shows a
variation in style that is typical of Ovid's letters from exile. The
poems use the metre and language of elegiac verse. But at the same time
they are _letters_, and are strongly influenced by the structure and
vocabulary of prose epistles. This influence is naturally more obvious
at some points than at others; and even within a single poem there can
be a surprising degree of variation in the different sections of the
poem.
Some poems tend more to one extreme than the other. The eleventh poem, a
letter of commiseration to Gallio on the death of his wife, is
extensively indebted to the genre of the prose letter of consolation;
this prose influence is evident in such passages as:
finitumque tuum, si non ratione, dolorem
ipsa iam pridem suspicor esse mora
(13-14)
At the opposite extreme is the final poem of the book, a defence of
Ovid's poetry; as this was a traditional poetic subject, the level of
diction throughout the poem is extremely high, particularly in the
catalogue of poets that forms the main body of the poem.
An interesting result of the mixture of styles is the presence in the
poems of exile of words and expressions which belong essentially to
prose, being otherwise rarely or never found in verse. Some instances
from _Ex Ponto_ IV are _ad summam_ (i 15), _conuictor_ (iii 15),
_abunde_ (viii 37), _ex toto_ (viii 72), _di faciant_ (ix 3), _secreto_
(ix 31), _respectu_ (ix 100), _quominus_ (xii 1), _praefrigidus_ (xii
35), and _tantummodo_ (xvi 49).
Both in subject and style the sixteen poems of _Ex Ponto_ IV show a wide
variety, worthy of the creator of the _Metamorphoses_. The following
section examines the special characteristics of each of the poems.
The letters to Sextus Pompeius
Sextus Pompeius is the recipient of poems i, iv, v, and xv; only Cotta
Maximus and Ovid's wife have more letters from exile addressed to them.
It is clear from the opening of IV i that Pompeius had himself
prohibited Ovid from addressing him; and Ovid is careful to present
himself as a client rather than a friend; the tone is of almost abject
humility, and he shows circumspection in his requests for assistance.
In the opening of the first poem, Ovid describes how difficult it had
been to prevent himself from naming Pompeius in his verse; in the
climactic ten lines he declares that he is entirely Pompeius' creation.
Only in the transition between the topics does he refer to future help
from Pompeius, linking it with the assistance he is already providing:
nunc quoque nil subitis clementia territa fatis
auxilium uitae fertque feretque meae.
(25-26)
The fourth poem is a description of how Fama came to Ovid and told him
of Pompeius' election to the consulship; Ovid then pictures the joyous
scene of the accession. At the end of the poem he indirectly asks for
Pompeius' assistance, praying that at some point he may remember him in
exile. The device of having Fama report Pompeius' accession to the
consulship serves to emphasize the importance of the event and raise the
tone of the poem. Ovid had earlier used Fama as the formal addressee of
_EP_ II i, which described his reaction to the news of Germanicus'
triumph. In the fifth poem Ovid achieves a similar effect through the
device of addressing the poem itself, giving it directions on where it
will find Pompeius and what consular duties he might be performing[6].
Only in the concluding distich does Ovid direct the poem to ask for his
assistance.
[Footnote 6: Ovid had used a similar technique in _Tr_ I i, where he
gives his book instructions for its voyage to Rome, including directions
on how it should approach Augustus.]
The fifteenth poem contains Ovid's most forceful appeal for Pompeius'
assistance. It is interesting to observe the techniques Ovid uses to
avoid offending Pompeius. The first part of the poem is a metaphorical
description of how Ovid is as much Pompeius' property as his many
estates or his house in Rome. This leads to Ovid's request:
atque utinam possis, et detur amicius aruum,
remque tuam ponas in meliore loco!
quod quoniam in dis est, tempta lenire precando
numina perpetua quae pietate colis.
(21-24)
He then attempts to compensate for the boldness of his request. First he
says that his appeal is unnecessary:
nec dubitans oro; sed flumine saepe secundo
augetur remis cursus euntis aquae.
(27-38)
Then he apologizes for making such constant requests:
et pudet et metuo semperque eademque precari
ne subeant animo taedia iusta tuo
(29-30)
He ends the poem with a return to the topic of the benefits Pompeius has
already rendered him.
The letter to Suillius addressing Germanicus
No poem in the fourth book of the _Ex Ponto_ is addressed to a member of
the imperial family, but the greater part of IV viii, nominally
addressed to Suillius, is in fact directed to his patron Germanicus.
Suillius' family ties with Ovid and his influential position would have
made it natural for Ovid to address him in the earlier books of the _Ex
Ponto_ or even in the _Tristia_; and it is clear from the opening of the
poem that Suillius must have distanced himself from Ovid:
Littera sera quidem, studiis exculte Suilli,
huc tua peruenit, sed mihi grata tamen
In the section that follows, Ovid asks for Suillius' assistance, rather
strangely setting forth his own impeccable family background and moral
purity; then he moves to the topic of Suillius' piety towards
Germanicus, and in line 31 begins to address Germanicus with a direct
request for his assistance. In the fifty-eight lines that follow he
develops the argument that Germanicus should accept the verse Ovid
offers him for two reasons: poetry grants immortality to the subjects it
describes; and Germanicus is himself a poet. In this passage Ovid allows
himself a very high level of diction; as the topic was congenial to him,
the result is perhaps the finest extended passage of verse in the
book[7].
[Footnote 7: Professor R. J. Tarrant points out to me in particular that
lines 63-64 on the apotheosis of Augustus being in part accomplished
through poetry are one of the few instances in the poetry of exile of
Ovid's earlier mischievous irony towards Augustus--a sign of a return on
Ovid's part to his earlier form.]
Ovid ends his address to Germanicus by asking for his assistance; only
in the final distich of the poem does he return to Suillius.
The letters to Brutus and Graecinus
Only two of the ten addressees named by Ovid in _EP_ IV were recipients
of earlier letters from him. Brutus, to whom IV vi is addressed, was
also the addressee of _EP_ I i and III ix, while Graecinus, to whom IV
ix is addressed, was the recipient of _EP_ I vi and II vi.
There is some difference between Ovid's treatment of Brutus and
Graecinus in _EP_ IV and in the earlier poems. _EP_ IV vi is highly
personal, being mostly devoted to a lengthy description of Brutus'
apparently conflicting but in fact complementary qualities of tenacity
as a prosecuting advocate and of kindness towards those in need; no poem
in the fourth book of the _Ex Ponto_ is more completely concerned with
the addressee as a person. In contrast, nothing is said of Brutus in
_EP_ I i, where he acts as the mere recipient of the plea that he
protect Ovid's poems, or in III ix, where Brutus is the reporter of
another's remarks on the monotony of Ovid's subject-matter. The address
to Graecinus in IV ix, on the other hand, is much less personal than in
I vi and II vi. The part of _EP_ IV ix concerned with Graecinus
describes his elevation to the consulship, and was clearly written (in
some haste) to celebrate the event. The earlier poems are more concerned
with Graecinus as an individual: in _EP_ I vi Ovid describes at length
Graecinus' kindliness of spirit and his closeness to his exiled friend,
while in II vi Ovid admits the justice of the criticism Graecinus makes
of the conduct which led to his exile, but thanks him for his support
and asks for its continuance.
The letters to Tuticanus
The two letters to Tuticanus show a similar dichotomy.
Of the two poems, xii is more personal and more concerned with poetry.
The first eighteen lines are a witty demonstration of the impossibility
of using Tuticanus' name in elegiac verse, while the twelve verses that
follow recall their poetic apprenticeship together. In the final twelve
lines, referring to Tuticanus' senatorial career, Ovid asks him to help
his cause in any way possible.
Poem xiv is far less personal than the earlier epistle. The only mention
of Tuticanus is at the poem's beginning:
Haec tibi mittuntur quem sum modo carmine questus
non aptum numeris nomen habere meis,
in quibus, excepto quod adhuc utcumque ualemus,
nil te praeterea quod iuuet inuenies.
The bulk of the poem is a defense against charges raised by some of the
Tomitans that he has defamed them in his verse. Ovid answers that he was
complaining about the physical conditions at Tomis, not the people, to
whom he owes a great debt. It is characteristic of the fourth book of
the _Ex Ponto_ that Ovid complains less of his exile than in his earlier
verse from exile; this poem furnishes the most explicit demonstration
that the years spent in exile and the dwindling likelihood of recall has
made Ovid reach an accommodation with his new conditions of life.
The topic of the poem clearly has no relation to Tuticanus; Professor R.
J. Tarrant points out to me Ovid's use of the same technique in some of
the _Amores_, such as I ix (_Militat omnis amans_), and II x, to
Graecinus on loving two women at once, where there is no apparent
connection between the addressee and the subject of the poem. Professor
E. Fantham notes that the bulk of xiv could even have been written
before Ovid chose Tuticanus as its addressee.
Other letters to poets
Three other poems in the book are addressed to poets. In all of them
poetry itself is a primary subject.
The letter to Severus
The second poem in the book, addressed to the epic poet Severus, opens
with a contrast of the situations of the two poets. The main body of the
poem is concerned with the difficulty of composing under the conditions
Ovid endures at Tomis, and the comfort that he even so derives from
pursuing his old calling. The poem is well constructed and the language
vivid. A particularly fine example of the use Ovid makes of differing
levels of diction is found at 35-38:
excitat auditor studium, laudataque uirtus
crescit, et immensum gloria calcar habet.
hic mea cui recitem nisi flauis scripta Corallis,
quasque alias gentes barbarus Hister obit?
The emotional height of the tricolon, where Ovid describes poetic
inspiration, gives way to a comparatively prosaic distich where he
explains that the conditions necessary for inspiration do not exist at
Tomis.
At the poem's conclusion Ovid reverts to Severus, asking that he send
Ovid some recent piece of work.
The letter to Albinovanus Pedo
In the tenth poem of the book, poetry is not the main subject; instead,
Ovid describes the hardships he endures at Tomis, and then describes at
length the reasons the Black Sea freezes over. Towards the end of the
letter, however, he explains why he is writing a poem to Albinovanus on
this seemingly irrelevant topic[8]. The language recalls the poem to
Severus:
'detinui' dicam 'tempus, curasque fefelli;
hunc fructum praesens attulit hora mihi.
abfuimus solito dum scribimus ista dolore,
in mediis nec nos sensimus esse Getis.'
[Footnote 8: However, Albinovanus' poem on Germanicus' campaigns may
have had a strong geographical element; as Professor E. Fantham notes,
Ovid may here be appealing to this interest, or demonstrating
competitive skill in handling the topic.]
(67-70)
In the poem's concluding lines he links his own situation with the
_Theseid_ Albinovanus is engaged on: just as Theseus was faithful, so
Albinovanus should be faithful to Ovid.
The letter to Gallio
This letter is remarkable for its economy of structure, and indeed is so
short as to seem rather perfunctory. Only twenty-two lines in length,
it is a letter of consolation addressed to Gallio on the death of his
wife. In the first four lines Ovid apologizes for not having written to
him earlier. Ovid's exile serves as a bridge to the main topic of the
poem:
atque utinam rapti iactura laesus amici
sensisses ultra quod quererere nihil
(5-6)
The remainder of the poem consists of the ingenious interweaving of
various commonplaces of consolation. The poem is a good illustration of
the secondary importance Ovid often gives his own misfortune in the
fourth book of the _Ex Ponto_.
The letter to Carus
The thirteenth poem, like the second letter to Tuticanus, shows Ovid's
acceptance of his life in Tomis. In it he tells Carus of the favourable
reception given a poem he had written in Getic on the apotheosis of
Augustus. The poem's opening is of interest as showing Ovid's
consciousness of verbal wit as a special characteristic of his verse. He
starts the poem with a play on the meaning of Carus' name, then tells
him that the opening will by itself tell him who his correspondent is.
In the lines that follow he discusses the individuality of his own style
and that of Carus; this serves to introduce the subject of his Getic
verse.
The letter to Vestalis
The subordination of the topic of Ovid's exile to another subject can be
clearly seen in the seventh poem of the book, addressed to Vestalis,
_primipilaris_ of a legion stationed in the area of Tomis. As in the
letter to Gallio, mention of Ovid's personal misfortune is confined to
one short passage near the start of the poem:
aspicis en praesens quali iaceamus in aruo,
nec me testis eris falsa solere queri
(3-4)
The descriptions that follow of wine freezing solid in the cold and of
the Sarmatian herdsman driving his wagon across the frozen Danube are so
picturesque that the reader's attention is drawn away from Ovid's
personal situation. Ovid describes the poisoned arrows used in the
region; then, in language recalling his letter to Gallio, expresses his
regret that Vestalis has had personal experience of these weapons:
atque utinam pars haec tantum spectata fuisset,
non etiam proprio cognita Marte tibi!
(13-14)
The remainder of the poem is a description of Vestalis' capture of
Aegissos. The description is conventional and unfelt; Ovid seems merely
to have assembled a few standard topics of military panegyric.
The third poem
Poem iii, addressed to an unidentified friend who had proved faithless,
is a well-crafted but not particularly original warning that Fortune is
a changeable goddess, and his friend might well find find himself one
day in Ovid's position. The familiar examples of Croesus, Pompey, and
Marius are used; as the last and therefore most important example Ovid
uses his own catastrophe. The device recalls the _Ibis_, where Ovid's
final curse is to wish his enemy's exile to Tomis.
Poem xvi
The concluding poem of the book is a defence of Ovid's poetry. The
poem's argument is that poets generally become famous only after their
death, but that Ovid gained his reputation while still alive. The
greater part of the poem is a catalogue of Ovid's contemporary poets,
the argument being that even in such company he was illustrious.
As elsewhere he equates his exile with death; the defence of his poetry
therefore includes only the poetry that he wrote before his exile.
TEXTUAL INTRODUCTION
The Manuscripts
The manuscript authority for the text of the fourth book of the _Ex
Ponto_ is significantly poorer than for the earlier books because of the
absence of _A_, _Hamburgensis scrin. 52 F_. This ninth-century
manuscript has been recognized since the time of Heinsius as the most
important witness for the text of the _Ex Ponto_; it breaks off,
however, at III ii 67.
The manuscript authorities for the fourth book can be placed in three
categories. The fragmentary _G_ is from a different tradition than the
other manuscripts. _B_ and _C_ are closely related, and offer the best
witness to the main tradition. The other manuscripts I have collated are
more greatly affected by contamination and interpolation; of them _M_
and _F_ show some independence, while no subclassification can be made
of _H_, _I_, _L_, or _T_.
_G_
The _fragmentum Guelferbytanum_, _Cod. Guelf. 13.11 Aug. 4°_, generally
dated to the fifth or sixth century, is the oldest manuscript witness to
any of Ovid's poems. Part of the collection of the Herzog August
Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel, it was discovered by Carl Schoenemann, who
published his discovery in 1829; details of his monograph will be found
in the bibliography. The two pieces of parchment are a palimpsest,
having been reused in the eighth century for a text of Augustine; later
they were incorporated into a bookbinding. As a result of this treatment
they are in extremely poor condition.
_G_ contains all or part of ix 101-8, ix 127-33, xii 15-19, and xii
41-44. To make it perfectly clear when _G_ is a witness to the text, I
have not grouped it with other manuscripts, but have always specified it
by name. If _G_ is not mentioned in an apparatus entry, it is not extant
for the text concerned.
_G_ is written in uncial script, with no division between words but with
indentation of the pentameters. Its one contribution to the
establishment of the text is at ix 103, where it reads _quamquam ... sit_
instead of the more usual _quamquam ... est_ found in the other
manuscripts. In general, the text offered by _G_ is surprisingly poor.
At ix 108 it reads _fato_ for _facto_, at ix 130 it has the false and
unmetrical spelling _praeces_, at ix 132 it has _misscelite_ for _misi
caelite_, at xii 17 it reads _lati_ for _dilati_, and at xii 19 _naia_
for _nota_. These errors demonstrate that the rest of the tradition does
not descend from _G_.
Korn gives an accurate transcription of the fragment in the introduction
to his edition; photographs of parts of the fragment can be found at
Chatelain, _Paléographie des classiques latins_, tab. xcix, 2 and E. A.
Lowe, _Codices Latini Antiquiores_, vol. IX, p. 40, no. 1377.
_B_ and _C_
_Monacensis latinus 384_ and _Mon. lat. 19476_, both dated by
editors to the twelfth century, are descended from a common ancestor.
This is easily demonstrated by the large number of shared errors not
found in other manuscripts[9]. At iv 36 _B_ and _C_ have _intendunt_
for the correct _intendent_, at viii 6 _uolo_ for _uoco_, at viii 18
_perueniemus_ for _inueniemur_ (_-ntur_,_-mus_), at viii 44 _illa_ for
_ulla_, at viii 89 _cara_ for _care_, at ix 44 _fingit_ for _finget_, at
ix 71 _quod_ for _cum_ (_FILT_) and _ut_ (_HM_), at ix 92 _praestat_ for
_perstat_, at ix 97 _et_ for _ut_, at xiii 5 _certe est_ for _certe_,
and at xiv 30 _culpatus_ for _culpatis_. In some of these passages _B_'s
still visible original reading has been corrected by a later hand. In
other passages it is clear from the signs of correction that _B_
originally agreed with _C_ in distinctive readings now preserved in C
alone: _subito_ for _sed et_ (iii 27), _erat_ for _eras_ (vi 9),
_occidit_ for _occidis_ (vi 11), _suspicit_ for _suscipit_ (ix 90),
_parent_ for _darent_ (xvi 31).