centre. Professor R. J. Tarrant has noted the presence of the _Ex Ponto_
in book-lists of the eleventh and early twelfth centuries from
Blaubeuern, Tegernsee, Bamberg, Egmond, and Cracow (_Texts and
Transmission_ 263); he suggests Tegernsee to me as a probable candidate
for the production of _B_ and _C_.]
_B_ and _C_ on the whole offer a better text than any other manuscript.
At iii 44 _B1_ and _C_ omit the lost pentameter, where the other
manuscripts offer interpolations. At iv 11 they alone give the probably
correct _solus_ for _tristis_, at xii 3 _aut_ for _ast_, and at xvi 31
_tyrannis_ (conjectured by Heinsius) for _tyranni_. At v 40 _C_ and _B2_
alone have the correct _mancipii ... tui_ for _mancipium ... tuum_.
Both manuscripts naturally have readings peculiar to themselves. _B_ has
about fifty unique readings. It places iii 11-12 after 13-14, omits v
37-40, and interchanges viii 49-50 and 51-52. At iv 34 _B_ alone has
_erunt_ (for _erit_), conjectured by Heinsius; _C_ omits the word.
Similarly, at xi 21 _B_ and _F1_ have _mihi_, omitted by _C_; the other
manuscripts have _tibi_. _B_ has _ab_ at i 9 for the other manuscripts'
_in_; _ab_ is possibly the true reading.
Under the influence of Ehwald, modern editors have wrongly taken some of
_B_'s other readings to be correct, placing _aspicerem_ in the text for
_prospicerem_ at ix 23, _ara_ for _ora_ at ix 115, and _illi_ for
_illum_ at ix 126. At ix 73 editors print _B_ and _T_'s _quem_, which is
clearly an interpolation for the awkward transmitted reading _qua_.
Unlike _C_, _B_ has been quite heavily corrected by later hands.
_C_ has more than one hundred readings peculiar to itself. Two of them I
have accepted as correct: _summo_ (for _summum_; _H_ has _mundum_) at
iii 32, and _horas_ (that is, _oras_) at vii 1; the reading is also
given by _I_. It is possible that _C_'s _correptior_ should be read at
xii 13 for _correptius_. At xiv 38 _C_'s _sceptius_ is the manuscript
reading closest to the correct _Scepsius_ restored by Scaliger.
Most of _C_'s errors are trivial, but at some points it departs widely
from the usual text. It omits ix 47 and xiv 37, and interchanges the
second hemistichs of iii 26 and 28; xvi 30 is inserted by a later hand,
perhaps in an erasure. At viii 43 it has _in uita_ for _officio_, at
xiii 12 _contra uiam_ for _nouimus_, at xiv 36 _in_ for _loci_, and at
xv 31 _colloquio_ for _uerum quid_.
_C_ also contains a greater number of purely palaeographical errors than
any other manuscript: _hunc_ for _nunc_ (i 25), _humeris_ for _numeris_
(ii 30), _hec_ for _nec_ (ix 30), _lucos_ for _sucos_ (x 19), _hasto_
for _horto_ (xv 7), _ueiiuolique_ for _ueliuolique_ (xvi 21), _pretia_
for _pr(o)elia_ (xvi 23).
_B_ and _C_ sporadically offer the third declension accusative plural
ending _-is_ (ix 4 _fascis_ _C_, ix 7 _partis_ _C_, ix 73 _rudentis_
_B_, x 17 _cantantis_ _B_, xii 30 _albentis_ _B_). But more usually all
manuscripts, including _B_ and _C_, have the accusative in _-es_:
compare for example ii 27 _partes_, iii 53 _purgantes_, ix 35
_praesentes_, and ix 42 _fasces_. The manuscripts show a similar
variation in the earlier books of the _Ex Ponto_. The ninth-century
Hamburg manuscript (_A_) sometimes offers accusatives in _-is_ where the
other manuscripts, even _B_ and _C_, have _-es_ (I iv 23 _partis_, I v
11 _talis_, I vi 39 _ligantis_, I vi 51 _turris_). At I ii 4, _A_ has
_omnes_, where _C1_ has _omnis_, and in general even in _A_ the
accusative in _-es_ is the predominant form. For example, _A_ offers
_auris_ at II iv 13 and II ix 25, but _aures_ at I ii 127, I ix 5, II v
33, and II ix 3. In view of the instability of the manuscript
evidence[10], I have normalized the ending to _-es_ in all cases,
considering the instances of _-is_ to be scribal interpolations.
[Footnote 10: G. P. Goold ("Amatoria Critica", _HSPh_ 69 [1965] 10) has
an interesting discussion of the problems in establishing Ovid's
orthography. For accusative plural endings in the third declension, he
concludes that _-is_ for Ovid can be neither established nor excluded.]
Similarly, I have used the form _penna_ at iv 12 and vii 37, where _C_
offers _pinna_. _Penna_ is the form given in the ancient manuscripts of
Virgil, and attested by Quintilian.
_MFHILT_
The other manuscripts I have collated belong to the vulgate class. They
are not related to each other in the sense that _B_ and _C_ are related,
nor does any of them possess independent authority as does _G_. Within
the group firm lines of affiliation are hard to establish, and each of
the manuscripts attests a handful of good readings that are found in few
or none of the others, either by happy conjecture, or because a reading
that was in circulation at the time as a variant chanced to get copied
into a few surviving manuscripts. Professor R. J. Tarrant has noted that
the presence of the _Ex Ponto_ in north-central France 'can be traced
from the eleventh century onwards, first from echoes in Hildebert of
Lavardin and Baudri de Bourgeuil, later from the extracts in the
_Florilegium Gallicum_, and finally from the complete texts [which
include our _H_ and _F_] ... that emanate from this region toward the end
of the twelfth century' (_Texts and Transmission_ 263); the vulgate
manuscripts seem to have been propagated from the text current in the
region of Orléans.
_M_ and _F_ show some originality. Their readings at xvi 33 differ
somewhat from the version of that passage in _HILT_. _F1_'s
interpolation for the missing pentameter at iii 44 differs from that of
_MHILT_, while _M_ has an interpolated distich following x 6 that is
not otherwise attested.
Of the other manuscripts, _I_ agrees with _C_ in reading _horas_
(=_oras_) for _undas_ at vii 1, while _T_ is the only manuscript
collated to have the correct _laeuus_ at ix 119 in the original hand
(_F2_ gives it as a variant reading). Similarly, _H_ and _L_ each have a
few peculiar variants.
As a group _MFHILT_ offer a good picture of the readings current in the
later mediaeval period, and only rarely have I been obliged to cite a
vulgate manuscript from the editions of Heinsius, Burman, or Lenz as
testimony for a variant.
_M_
Heinsius did not have knowledge of _B_ or _C_, and seems to have
considered his _codex Moreti_ (preserved at the Museum Plantin-Moretus
in Antwerp as 'Latin, n° 68 [anc. 43] [salle des reliures, n° 32]' in
Denucé's catalogue of the museum's collection) to be the best of the
poor selection of manuscripts available; at xvi 33, understandably
despairing of restoring the true reading, he accepted _M_'s reading
pending the discovery of better manuscripts.
_M_ was dated by Heinsius to the twelfth or thirteenth century; Denucé
assigns it to the twelfth century.
At viii 85 _M_ alone has the correct _ullo_ for the other manuscripts'
_illo_; this could naturally have been recovered by conjecture. At x 1
it has _cumerio_, the closest reading in the manuscripts collated to
the correct _Cimmerio_; but Professor R. J. Tarrant informs me that
_Cimmerio_ is also found in _British Library Harley 2607_.
_M_ has suffered from a certain degree of interpolation. Following x 6
there is the spurious distich _set cum nostra malis uexentur corpora
multis / aspera non possum perpetiendo mori_. At ii 9 _Falerno_ is a
deliberate alteration of _Falerna_. At x 49 _Niphates_ is an
interpolation from Lucan III 245. At xiii 47 _duorum_ (also given as a
variant reading by _F2_) looks like an attempt to correct the cryptic
transmitted reading _deorum_, and at xv 15 _tellus regnata_ is
presumably a metrical correction following the loss of _-que_ from
_regnataque terra_, the reading of the other manuscripts. At xvi 25
_eticiusque_ looks to be a deliberate alteration of _Trinacriusque_, but
I am not sure what the interpolation means.
_F_
_Francofurtanus Barth 110_, used by Burman, shows some signs of
independence. At iii 44, where a pentameter has been lost, _B_ and _C_
omit the line, while the other manuscripts, including _M_, have the
interpolation _indigus effectus omnibus ipse magis_; _F_ has the
separate interpolation _Achillas Pharius abstulit ense caput_, also
found in Heinsius' _fragmentum Louaniense_. _F_ omits viii 51-54, at xi
1 reads _Pollio_ for _Gallio_, and at xvi 33 has a reading somewhat
different from those offered by the other manuscripts.
_F_ alone of the manuscripts collated offers the correct _audisse_ (for
_audire_) at x 17. At xi 21 it and _B_ alone have the correct _mihi_
for _tibi_ (omitted by _C_). At xiv 7 it has the probably correct
_muter_ for _mittar_, also found in _Bodleianus Canon. lat. 1_ and
_Barberinus lat. 26_, both of the thirteenth century. With the exception
of _muter_, these readings could have been recovered by conjecture;
given the separative interpolation at iii 44, _F_ differs surprisingly
little from the other manuscripts.
_H_
The thirteenth-century _Holkhamicus 322_, now _British Library add.
49368_, contains (with _I_) the correct _hanc_ at i 16, the other
manuscripts having _ha_, _ah_ (_B_), or _a_ (_C_). At xvi 30, where I
have printed _leuis_, the reading of most manuscripts, _H_ has _leui_,
the conjecture of Heinsius; Professor R. J. Tarrant informs me that the
same reading is found in _Othob. lat. 1469_. At iv 45 _H_'s _qua libet_
is the manuscript reading closest to Heinsius' correct _quamlibet_; most
manuscripts have _quod licet_.
Most other variants in _H_ are trivial errors, although there seems to
have been deliberate scribal alteration at x 18 (_sucus amarus erat_ for
_lotos amara fuit_), xiv 38 (_Celsius_ for the usual _Septius_; Scaliger
restored _Scepsius_), xvi 3 (_ueniet_ for _uenit et_; presumably the
intermediate step was _uenit_), and perhaps at xiv 31 (_miserabilis_ for
_uitabilis_).
_I_
The thirteenth-century _Laurentianus 36 32_, Lenz's and André's _m_, has
the correct _perstas_ at x 83 for _praestas_; its reading is also found
in _P_ and as a variant of _F2_. At vii 1 it shares with _C_ the reading
_horas_ (=_oras_), which I have printed in preference to the usual
_undas_.
At viii 15 _I_ has the hypercorrect _nil_ for _nihil_, and at xiii 26
_ethereos ... deos_ for _aetherias ... domos_, but in general has few
signs of deliberate alteration.
_L_
_Lipsiensis bibl. ciu. Rep. I 2° 7_, of the thirteenth century, has
_haec_ at ix 103 for the other manuscripts' _et_. _Haec_ restores sense
to the passage, and was the preferred reading of Heinsius; I consider it
a scribal conjecture, now rendered obsolete by Professor R. J. Tarrant's
more elegant _quae_. _L_'s text has clearly been tampered with at xiv 41
(_populum ... uertit in iram_ for _populi ... concitat iram_), but in
general seems to have suffered little from interpolation. It is,
however, of little independent value as a witness to the text.
_T_
_Turonensis 879_, written around the year 1200, was first fully collated
by André for his edition; Lenz had earlier reported its readings for IV
xvi and part of I i. At ix 119 only _T_ and _F2_ of the manuscripts
collated have the correct _laeuus_, although other manuscripts come
close, and the reading could have been recovered by conjecture. At xv 40
_T_ reads _transierit saeuos_ for _transit nostra feros_; clearly
_nostra_ was at some point lost from the text, and metre forcibly
restored.
_P_
I have also collated the thirteenth-century _Parisinus lat. 7993_,
Heinsius' _codex Regius_. At ix 46 _P_ offers the correct _cernet_ for
_credet_; _cernet_ is also the reading of _M_ after correction by a
later hand and of the thirteenth-century _Gothanus membr. II 121_. At vi
7 _P_ alone of collated manuscripts agrees with _C_ in reading
_praestat_ for the correct _perstat_. _P_ agrees with _L_ in reading
_niuibus_ for the other manuscripts' _nubibus_ at v 5, _adeptum_ for
_ademptum_ at vi 49, _signare_ for _signate_ at xv 11, and in the
orthography _puplicus_ for _publicus_ at ix 48, ix 102, xiii 5, and xiv
16. The manuscript has many corruptions: a few examples are i 30 _igne_
for _imbre_, ii 18 _supremo_ for _suppresso_, iv 6 _pace_ for _parte_,
vi 34 _uirtus_ for _uirus_, vii 15 _piacula_ for _pericula_, ix 42
_praeterea_ for _praetextam_, x 63 _in harena_ for _marina_, xiv 39
_conuiuia_ for _conuicia_, and xvi 24 _sacri_ for _scripti_. However,
_P_ has no unique variants with any probability of correctness. To have
given a full report of _P_ would have involved a considerable expansion
of an already long apparatus, and I have cited the manuscript only
occasionally, where a reading is only weakly attested by the other
manuscripts.
Titles
_MF_ and _B2H2I2T2_ usually supply titles for the poems. As will be seen
from the apparatus, there is considerable variation among the titles,
and there is no reason to suppose that they form an authentic part of
the transmitted text.
The manuscript authority for the text of _Ex Ponto_ IV
By and large the manuscripts of the fourth book of the _Ex Ponto_ offer
a remarkably uniform text of the poems, and one which, considering the
late date of the manuscripts, is in surprisingly good condition. I
believe that all the manuscripts, with the exception of _G_, are
descended from a single archetype. _B_ and _C_ are the best witnesses to
the text of the archetype, although the other, more heavily contaminated
and interpolated manuscripts are indispensable, since they correct the
peculiar errors of _B_ and _C_.
The present edition
The apparatus of this edition is intended to be a full report of
_BCMFHILT_ and of the fragmentary _G_; some reports are also given of
_P_. It includes corrections by original and by later hands.
When no manuscripts are specified for the lemma in an entry, the lemma
is the reading for those manuscripts not otherwise specified. For
instance, the entry
deductum carmen] carmen deductum _M_
indicates that _deductum carmen_ is the reading of _BCFHILT_, while
_carmen deductum_ is the reading of _M_.
I have from time to time cited from earlier editions readings of
manuscripts which I have not collated. To make it clear that I have not
personally verified these readings, I have added in parentheses after
the citation the name of the editor whose report I am using. Professor
R. J. Tarrant has inspected some nine manuscripts to see what readings
they offered in some particularly vexed portions of the poems; I have
similarly indicated when I am obliged to him for information on a
manuscript.
The _excerpta Scaligeri_ mentioned at xiii 27 I know of through
Heinsius' notes as printed in Burman's edition; according to M. D. Reeve
(_RhM_ CXVII [1974] 163), the original excerpts are still extant in Diez
8° 2560, a copy of the _editio Gryphiana_ of 1546. Reeve also gives
identifications of certain of Heinsius' manuscripts; when citing
Heinsius' codices, I give the modern name when the manuscript has been
identified and is still extant.
The greater number of the manuscripts dealt with have been corrected,
some heavily. In my apparatus _B1_ means "the original hand in _B_" and
_B2_ means "a correcting hand in B". _B2ul_ indicates that the reading
of _B2_ is clearly marked as a variant reading. _B2gl_ indicates that
the entry is marked in the manuscript as a gloss; _B2(gl)_ indicates a
gloss not marked as such. I have reported glosses where they contribute
to the understanding of a textual problem.
If different correctors have been at work in different passages, both
are called _B2_. If a later hand has made a correction after _B2_, the
later hand is called _B3_. When I place _B1_ in an entry but do not
report _B2_, it can be assumed that _B2_ has the lemma as its reading.
Sometimes a corrector has altered the original text so much (without
however erasing it entirely) that only the altered reading can be made
out. In such cases I have used the siglum _B2c_. Where a corrector has
inserted or altered only certain letters of a word, I have indicated
this in the HTML version of this edition by underlining the letters
involved. In the Text version, these letters are capitalized.
Where the correction is apparently by the original scribe, _Bac_
indicates the original reading, and _Bpc_ the correction.
The asterisk is used to indicate illegible letters, and the solidus (/)
erasures.
When reporting variants, I have tried to indicate the spellings actually
found in the manuscripts, but since mediaeval spellings do not in
themselves constitute variant readings, they have not usually been
reported when the text is not otherwise disturbed. I have been more
generous with proper names, but have often excluded confusions of
_ae_, _oe_, and _e_, of _i_ and _y_, of _ph_ and _f_, of _c_ and _t_,
the doubling of consonants, and the loss or addition of the aspirate.
The apparatus is intended to include a comprehensive listing of all
conjectures proposed. When the author of a conjecture is not a previous
editor of the poems, I have given a reference either to the publication
where the emendation was first proposed, or to the earliest edition I
have consulted which reports the emendation. Conjectures of Bentley are
from Hedicke's _Studia Bentleiana_. Conjectures of Professor R. J.
Tarrant, Professor J. N. Grant, and Professor C. P. Jones were
communicated to me by their authors.
Printed editions
The first editions of the works of Ovid were printed in 1471 by
Balthesar Azoguidus at Bologna and by Conradus Sweynheym and Arnoldus
Pannartz at Rome. The Bologna edition was edited by Franc. Puteolanus,
and the Rome edition by J. Andreas de Buxis. Lenz's edition gives
numerous readings from both editions; to judge from his reports, their
texts of the _Ex Ponto_ were derived from late manuscripts of no great
value. The Roman edition, however, contained the elegant correction of
_iactate_ to _laxate_ at ix 73.
For my knowledge of other early editions of the _Ex Ponto_ I have relied
upon Burman's large variorum edition of the complete works of Ovid,
published at Amsterdam in 1727. The edition contains notes of various
editors of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, among them
Merula, Naugerius, Ciofanus, Fabricius, and Micyllus. Although I have
occasionally quoted from these notes, they are in general of
surprisingly little use, containing for the most part unlikely variant
readings from unnamed manuscripts and explanations of passages not
really in need of elucidation.
The principal event in the history of the editing of the _Ex Ponto_ was
the appearance at Amsterdam in 1652 of Nicolaus Heinsius' edition of
Ovid. Heinsius took full advantage of the opportunity his travels as a
diplomat gave him of searching out manuscripts, thereby gaining a direct
knowledge of the manuscripts of the poems which has never since been
equalled[11]. Heinsius also possessed an unrivalled felicity in
conjectural emendation. Some of his conjectures are unnecessary
alterations of a text that was in fact sound, some of his necessary
conjectures are trivial, and are already found in late manuscripts of
the poems or could have been made by critics of less outstanding
capacities; but many are alterations which are subtle and yet necessary
to restore sense or Latinity. The present edition returns to the text
many conjectures and preferred readings of Heinsius that were ejected by
editors of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
[Footnote 11: In recent years much progress has been made in identifying
the manuscripts Heinsius used. See the monograph of Munari and the
articles of Reeve and Lenz listed in the bibliography.]
The edition of Heinsius formed the basis of all editions published
during the two centuries that followed. Of these editions the most
important was the 1727 variorum edition of Burman already referred to.
It is from the copy of that edition at the University of Toronto Library
that I have obtained my knowledge of Heinsius' notes. Burman was
apparently the first editor to make use of _F_. On occasion he differs
from Heinsius in his choice of readings. At xvi 44 he made the
convincing conjecture _Maxime_ (codd _maxima_), subsequently confirmed
by _B_ and _C_. His notes are informative; and my note on x 37-38 in
particular is greatly indebted to him.
For poem x Burman reproduced some notes from an anthology of Latin verse
for use at Eton, produced by an anonymous editor in 1705[12].
[Footnote 12: _Electa minora ex Ovidio, Tibullo et Propertio_, London,
1705. The book was reprinted as late as 1860 (_Brit. Mus. Gen.
Catalogue_, vol. 177, col. 470). I quote some of the notes on x in the
commentary and apparatus.]
In 1772 Theophilus Harles published at Erlangen his edition of the
_Tristia_ and _Ex Ponto_ 'ex recensione Petri Burmanni'. Harles was the
first editor to make use of _B_. In the introduction to his edition
Harles relates how he wrote von Oeffele, librarian to the Elector of
Bavaria, asking if there was any manuscript in the Elector's library
that might be helpful in preparing his edition, and thereby learned of
the existence of _B_. It is clear from Harles' introduction that he
fully appreciated the manuscript's importance; and in his notes he gives
many of its readings, pointing out where it confirmed suggestions of
Heinsius and Burman. However, his text is simply reprinted from Burman's
variorum edition.
W. E. Weber's text of _Ex Ponto_ IV in his 1833 _Corpus Poetarum
Latinorum_ is in effect a reprint of the Heinsius-Burman vulgate, except
that at viii 59 he prints the manuscripts' incorrect accusative form
_Gigantes_ (Heinsius _Gigantas_). But this fidelity to the vulgate text
seems not to have been the editor's intention: in his introduction he
speaks of 'Heinsianae emendationes felices saepe, superuacuae saepius
... quarum emendationum partem Mitscherlichius eiecit [Göttingen, 1796; I
have not seen the edition], maiorem eiicere Iahnius coepit [Leipzig,
1828: the part of the edition containing the _Ex Ponto_ was never
published]. dicendum tamen, etiamnunc passim haud paucas fortasse latere
Heinsii et aliorum correctiones minus necessarias in uerbis Ouidianis,
quas accuratior codicum inter se comparatio, opus sane immensi laboris,
extrudet'. It would be understandable enough if Weber, faced with the
labour of editing the entire corpus of Latin poetry, found himself
unable to effect a radical revision of the text of the _Ex Ponto_.
In 1853 there appeared at Leipzig the third volume of Rudolf Merkel's
first Teubner edition of the works of Ovid, containing his text of the
_Ex Ponto_. The part of Merkel's introduction dealing with the _Ex
Ponto_ is entirely concerned with describing the appearance,
orthography, and readings of the ninth-century _Hamburgensis scrin. 52
F_. The manuscript ends, however, at III ii 67, and Merkel says nothing
of the basis for his text of the later poems, which in general is the
Heinsius-Burman vulgate.
In 1868 B. G. Teubner published at Leipzig Otto Korn's separate edition
of the _Ex Ponto_. Korn's apparatus is the first to have a modern
appearance; but this appearance is deceptive, for of the twenty sigla
Korn uses, ten are for individual or several manuscripts collated by
Heinsius, and only five are for manuscripts collated by Korn himself.
The edition is important, since Korn was the first editor to make
substantial use of _B_ in constituting his text. Usually he printed the
text of _B_ in preference to the vulgate: 'Ceterum eas partes in quibus
_A_ caremus, [Greek: b] [=_B_] libri uestigia secutus restitui, prorsus
neglectis recentiorum exemplarium elegantiis, quorum ad normam N.
Heinsius, cuius in tertio quartoque libro R. Merkelius assecla est,
textum conformauit' (xv).
There was some reason to review critically the vulgate established by
Heinsius and Burman. Even Heinsius was capable of error; examples of
this in _Ex Ponto_ IV include his preference for the inelegant _idem_
for _ille_ at iii 17, for the impossible _ullo_ instead of the better
attested _nullo_ at v 15, and for the obvious interpolation _domitam
... ab Hercule_ at xvi 19 instead of _domito ... ab Hectore_. His most
pervasive fault is a partiality for elegant but unnecessary emendation:
often he is guilty of rewriting passages which are in themselves
perfectly sound. A typical instance is vii 30: Heinsius' _globos_ is
elegant enough, but there is no reason to suspect the transmitted
_uiros_.