unnecessary or wrong, but many had been necessary to make sense of the
text; and Korn is often guilty of damaging the text by excluding
readings not found in _B_. The supreme example of this is his
restoration of the manuscripts' reading _iactate_ for _laxate_ at ix 73.
Korn used the collation of _B_ by Harles, which had errors and omissions
(in his preface Harles had warned that his report might contain
errors[13]), so that at i 9 Korn prints _in istis_ and at x 83
_perstas_, without noting in his apparatus that _B_'s false readings
were _ab istis_ and _praestas_ respectively. He was aware that at xi 21
_B_ read _mihi_, but printed _tibi_ nonetheless, although Burman had
already explained why _mihi_ was the correct reading.
[Footnote 13: 'Diligenter autem et religiose tractaui codicem et
singulas epistolas bis, et in locis uexatis saepius contuli. Neque
tamen, quae hominum est imbecillitas, aciem oculorum quaedam effugisse,
negabo' (xi-xii).]
A curious feature of Korn's edition is its dual apparatus: below the
report of manuscript variants is a listing of passages where his text
differs from those of Heinsius and Merkel: 'Lectiones discrepantes
editionum Heinsii et Merkelii adposui, ut et quantopere Ouidius
Heinsianus a genuina forma discrepet dilucide perspiciatur, et quibus
locis a Merkelio discesserim facilius adpareat' (xxxii). Korn ejects
such obviously correct readings as _leuastis_ at vi 44 and _laxate_ at
ix 73; in each instance the true reading is printed in large type at the
bottom of the page. In addition, Korn rather unfairly included as
different readings what were in fact only spellings which did not
conform to the purified orthography then coming into use. _Cymba_ does
not differ from _cumba_ (viii 28), nor is _Danubium_ a variant for
_Danuuium_ (ix 80), nor again is _Vlysses_ different from _Vlixes_ (x
9). Finally, the second apparatus at several points misrepresents what
Heinsius actually thought.
Korn's confusion on this point is understandable, since determining
Heinsius' textual preferences is often more difficult than it might at
first appear. Editions were published under his name which did not
incorporate all his preferred readings[14]; even the lemmas to his notes
are taken from the edition of Daniel Heinsius, and are not a guide to
Heinsius' own view of the text, which can only be discovered by reading
the actual notes[15]. A good example of this can be found at x 47. Here
Heinsius' text reproduces the standard reading _Cratesque_. The lemma in
his note is _Oratesque_, the reading of Daniel Heinsius' edition. In the
note itself Heinsius indicates his preference for the conjecture
_Calesque_, communicated to him by his friend Isaac Vossius. Here Korn,
along with all modern editors, prints _Calesque_ in his text; he reports
_Cratesque_ as Heinsius' reading.
[Footnote 14: A. Grafton has noted that Heinsius' publisher Elzevier
seems to have been unwilling to alter the text as it already existed
(_JRS_ LXVII [1977], 173). I owe my knowledge of Heinsius' editorial
practices as here described to Professor R. J. Tarrant, who has examined
the Harvard copies of the 1664 edition of Heinsius' text (without
notes), the 1670 Leiden edition of Bernard Cnippingius, which reproduces
Heinsius' notes, and the 1663 reprint of Daniel Heinsius' edition.]
[Footnote 15: Consequently any statements I make on Heinsius' editorial
practices are based on explicit statements in his notes.]
Korn made one important conjecture in _Ex Ponto_ IV, printing _decretis_
at ix 44 for the manuscripts' _secretis_.
For the third volume of his complete edition of Ovid, published at
Leipzig in 1874, Alexander Riese drew on Korn's edition, but was less
radical in following the readings of _B_: 'nec eclecticam quam dicunt N.
Heinsii nec libri optimi rigide tenacem O. Kornii rationem ingressus
mediam uiam tenere studui' (vii). Riese restores Heinsius' preferred
reading in only about a quarter of the places where it was deserted by
Korn; even so, no editor since has shown such independence in the
selection of readings.
In 1881 there appeared at London a text of _Ex Ponto_ IV with
accompanying commentary by W. H. Williams. The text, which Williams says
is drawn from the "Oxford variorum edition of 1825", seems in general to
be a reprint of the Heinsius-Burman vulgate with some readings drawn
from Merkel's first edition. In spite of occasional conjectures and
notes on variant readings, based on information drawn from Burman and
Merkel, Williams is not generally concerned with the constitution of the
text: his note on x 68 _curasque fefelli_ is 'so Tennyson in the "In
Memoriam'". The commentary, which is about eighty pages long, consists
largely of discussions of the cognates of various Latin words in other
Indo-European languages, 'though the limits of the work preclude more
than the _data_ from which a competent teacher can deduce the principles
of comparative philology'. A typical note is that on i 11 _scribere_:
'from [root] skrabh = to dig, whence scrob-s and scrofa = 'the grubber,'
_i.e._ the pig; Grk. [Greek: graphô] by loss of sibilant and
softening'. The edition has been only occasionally useful in editing the
poems or writing the commentary.
In 1884 Merkel published his second edition of the poems of exile. In
his previous edition he had in general followed Heinsius and Burman in
the fourth book; in the new edition, without specifically saying so
(although in his introduction he mentions the "codex Monacensis
uetustior"), he generally alters his text so as to conform with _B_'s
readings. He does not always desert his former text, rightly retaining
_hanc_ at i 16, _quamlibet_ at iv 45, and _tempus curasque_ at x 67; he
also keeps _lux_ at vi 9 and _domitam ... ab Hercule_ at xvi 19.
In his 1874 monograph _De codicibus duobus carminum Ouidianarum ex Ponto
datorum Monacensibus_ Korn had made known the existence of _C_. S. G.
Owen's first edition of the _Ex Ponto_, printed in Postgate's _Corpus
Poetarum Latinorum_ in 1894, was the first edition to report this
manuscript as well as _B_. His text is unduly partial to the readings of
_B_ and _C_, and his well-organized apparatus is so abbreviated as to be
deceptive. It cannot be relied upon even for reports of _B_ and _C_. At
ix 73 it gives no hint that for four centuries editors had read
_laxate_; many of Heinsius' preferred readings are similarly consigned
to oblivion. At vi 5-6 he reports Housman's ingenious repunctuation,
presumably communicated to him by its author.
In 1896 Rudolf Ehwald published his monograph _Kritische Beiträge zu
Ovids Epistulae ex Ponto_. I am often indebted to Ehwald for references
he has collected; my notes on i 15 _ad summam_ and xiii 48 _quos laus
formandos est tibi magna datos_ could not have been written without the
assistance of his monograph. This said, the fact remains that Ehwald's
judgment and linguistic intuition were exceptionally poor. He had not
relied on Korn's apparatus for his knowledge of _B_, but had collated it
himself; and the intent of his monograph was to establish _B_'s
authority as paramount. A typical example can be seen at ix 71. Here
_FILT_ offer _cum ... uacabit_ and _MH_ have _ut ... uacabit_, while the
reading of _B_ and _C_ is _quod uacabit_. In one of the examples Ehwald
adduces, _Fast_ II 18, _uacat_ is found in only a few manuscripts, and
it can easily be seen how it arose from _uacas_; all the other examples
are instances of _quod superest_ or _quod reliquum est_. The cumulative
effect of these examples is to demonstrate that _quod ... uacabit_ is not
a possible reading. This insensitivity to the precise meaning of the
passages he discusses is usual with Ehwald, and his book, although
useful, is an extremely unsafe guide to the textual criticism of the
poems. It has unfortunately exercised a decisive influence on all
succeeding editions.
The first of these editions was Owen's 1915 Oxford Classical Text of the
poems of exile. In the preface Owen acknowledges the influence of
Ehwald: "adiumento primario erat R. Ehwaldi, doctrinae Ouidianae iudicis
peritissimi, uere aureus libellus ... in quo excussis perpensisque
codicibus poetaeque locutione ad perpendiculum exacta rectam Ponticarum
edendarum normam uir doctus stabilire instituit' (viii). In most
instances Owen follows Ehwald's recommendations, altering _in_ to _ab_
at i 9, _prospicerem_ to _aspicerem_ at ix 23, and at ix 44 abandoning
Korn's _decretis_ for the manuscripts' _secretis_.
Owen's reliance on Ehwald was noticed by Housman (903-4) in his short
and accurate review of Owen's edition: 'In the _ex Ponto_ Mr Owen had
displayed less originality [than in his 1889 and 1894 editions of the
_Tristia_] and consequently has less to repent of. Most of the changes
in this edition are made in pursuance of orders issued by R. Ehwald in
his _Kritische Beiträge_ of 1896; but let it be counted to Mr Owen for
righteousness that at III.7.37 and IV.15.42 he has refused to execute
the sanguinary mandates of his superior officer'.
As in Owen's earlier edition, the apparatus is so short as to be
misleading. His choice of manuscripts is too small, and exaggerates the
importance of _B_ and _C_; even of these two manuscripts his report is
inadequate. At ix 73 he rightly prints _laxate_; the apparatus gives no
indication that this is a conjecture, and that all manuscripts,
including _B_ and _C_, read _iactate_, which he had printed in 1894. At
xi 21, where _B_ gives _mihi_, indicated by Burman as the correct
reading, Owen prints _tibi_ and does not mention the variant in the
apparatus. The situation is naturally worse with readings of manuscripts
other than _B_ and _C_, and with conjectures. In general, Owen's
apparatus can be trusted neither as a report even of the principal
readings of the few manuscripts he used, or as a register of critics'
views of the constitution of the text.
In the same year as Owen's second text there appeared at Budapest Geza
Némethy's commentary on the _Ex Ponto_, of which twenty-six pages are
devoted to the fourth book. The notes are too sparse and elementary to
form an adequate commentary, consisting largely of simple glosses. They
are a useful supplement to a plain text of the poems, however, and
Némethy sometimes notices points missed by others: he correctly glosses
_Augusti_ as "Tiberii imperatoris" at ix 70. The notes are based on
Merkel's second edition; Némethy lists in a preface his few departures
from Merkel's text.
In 1922 Friedrich Levy published his first edition of the _Ex Ponto_ as
part of a new Teubner edition of the works of Ovid. The apparatus was a
reduced version of that prepared by Ehwald, 'Qui ut totus prelis
subiceretur ... propter saeculi angustias fieri non potuit'. Levy's text
is virtually identical to Owen's, but the apparatus is more complete.
It contains a full report of _B_ and _C_, and also of the
thirteenth-century _Gothanus memb. II 121_. This last manuscript has the
correct _cernet_ at ix 46, where most manuscripts read _credet_; but
otherwise its readings are of very poor quality, consisting of simple
misreadings (i 24 _magnificas_ for _munificas_, vii 30 _uento_ for
_uenit_, viii 37 _habendus_ for _abunde_), simplified word order (vi 25
_tuas lacrimas pariter_ for _tuas pariter lacrimas_, xvi 39 _et iuuenes
essent_ for _essent et iuuenes_), and intrusive glosses (viii 61
_captiuis_ for _superatis_, xvi 47 _me laedere_ for _proscindere_). The
manuscript does not deserve the important place it has in the editions
of Levy, Luck, and André[16]; Ehwald presumably included it in his
apparatus because of its easy accessibility to him at Gotha, where he
lived. No other manuscripts are regularly reported, so Levy's apparatus
gives a false impression of the evidence for the text, although he often
reports isolated readings from the manuscripts of Heinsius.
[Footnote 16: My knowledge of the manuscript is drawn from André's
apparatus.]
Levy omitted conjectures 'quatenus falsae uel superuacuae uidebantur';
the result is that Korn's elegant _decretis_ does not appear even in the
apparatus at ix 44, and the same fate befalls Scaliger's _coactus_ at
xiii 27.
In 1924 the Loeb Classical Library published A. L. Wheeler's text and
translation of the _Tristia_ and _Ex Ponto_. His text is based on
Merkel's second edition, on Ehwald's _Beiträge_, and on Owen's Oxford
Classical Text. In several places he rightly abandons _B_'s reading,
printing _hanc_ for _ah_ at i 16 and _perstas_ for _praestas_ at x 83;
at iv 45 he was clearly tempted to print Heinsius' _quamlibet_. His
judgment is good, and if Ehwald and Owen had supplied him with more
information on other manuscripts and on the Heinsius-Burman vulgate, his
text might well have superseded all previous editions. His translation
is accurate, and in corrupt passages indicates the awkwardness of the
original; I have often quoted from it.
In 1938 there appeared the elaborate Paravia edition of F. W. Levy, who
in the period following his earlier edition had altered his name to F.
W. Lenz. The text is virtually unchanged from his edition of 1922, but
has a much larger apparatus, which includes a large number of
conjectures omitted from the earlier edition; I am indebted to Lenz for
many of the conjectures I report, particularly at xvi 33. The large size
of the apparatus is, however, deceptive; most of the manuscripts he knew
of only from the reports of Heinsius, Korn and Owen, and the reports are
therefore incomplete: the only manuscripts reliably reported are _B_ and
_C_. Since Lenz does not usually give the lemma for the variants
reported, it is difficult to tell which manuscripts offer the reading in
the text. Much space is wasted by reports of the readings of several
heavily interpolated mediaeval florilegia; more is wasted by an undue
attention to mediaeval spellings and attempts to reproduce abbreviations
and to show the precise appearance of secondary corrections. These
factors combine to render the apparatus virtually unreadable.
In 1963 Georg Luck published the Artemis edition of the _Tristia_ and
_Ex Ponto_, with a German translation by Wilhelm Willige. Luck shows
some independence from Lenz, at i 16 printing _hanc_ for _ah_, at iii 27
_sed et_ for _subito_, at viii 71 _mauis_ for _maius_, at viii 86
_distet_ for _distat_, at ix 73 _laxate_ for _iactate_, at xii 13
_producatur_ for _ut dicatur_, and at xiv 7 _muter_ for _mittar_, each
time rightly. He suggests a new conjecture for the incurable xvi 33, and
a new and possibly correct punctuation of xii 19. The apparatus is
misleading, consisting of isolated readings from _B_ and _C_ and a small
number of readings from other manuscripts. No indication is given that
_hanc_ at i 16 or _pars_ at i 35 are found only in a few manuscripts,
and not in _B_ or _C_. Luck criticizes modern editors for ignoring the
discoveries of their predecessors, and rightly prints Heinsius'
_Gigantas_ (codd _-es_) at viii 59. However, he shows no direct
knowledge of Heinsius' notes or of the Burman vulgate, making no mention
of such readings as _Gete_ for _Getae_ at iii 52, _leuastis_ for
_leuatis_ at vi 44, or _fouet_ for _mouet_ at xi 20. The oldest edition
named in his apparatus is that of Riese.
In 1977 F. Della Corte published an Italian translation of the _Ex
Ponto_ with an accompanying commentary, of which fifty-eight pages are
devoted to the fourth book. Most of the commentary consists of extended
paraphrase of the poems; I have found it of little assistance.
The most recent text of the _Ex Ponto_ is the 1977 Budé edition of
Jacques André. His text is essentially that of Lenz, although at ix 23
he rightly prints _prospicerem_ instead of _B_'s _aspicerem_. There are
a significant number of misprints in the text, apparatus, and notes, and
other signs of carelessness as well.
André makes full reports of only four manuscripts in his apparatus, _B_,
_C_, _T_, and _Gothanus membr. II 121_[17]. This is an inadequate
sampling. _B_ and _C_ form a distinct group, and the Gotha manuscript
is too corrupt to merit a central part in an apparatus. The result is
that _T_ is the sole good representative of the vulgate class of
manuscripts that is regularly cited.
[Footnote 17: He collated four other manuscripts, _M_, _Bernensis bibl.
munic. 478_, _Diuionensis bibl. munic. 497_, and _British Library Burney
220_, but gives their readings only occasionally.]
For knowledge of many of his secondary manuscripts, André seems to have
depended on the edition of Lenz. Since much of Lenz's information was
drawn from Heinsius and other earlier editors, this means that André is
often giving unverified information from collations made more than three
centuries previously. He did not realize that the Antwerp manuscript he
collated (our _M_) was Heinsius' _codex Moreti_, whose readings Lenz
sometimes reports; the result is that he reports the same manuscript
twice, under the sigla _M_ and _N_.
At ix 127 he cites the sixth-century Wolfenbüttel fragment in support of
the unassimilated spelling _adscite_ (the assimilated form _ascite_ is
supported by the inscriptions and by the ancient manuscripts of Virgil).
In fact, the word is not found in the fragment, which preserves only the
first three letters of the line.
Finally, André shows insufficient knowledge of the Heinsius-Burman
vulgate; this is evident not only from the text but from the
introduction, where he prefaces his list of principal editions by saying
'Nous ne mentionnerons que les editions fondées sur des principes
scientifiques, dont la première est celle de R. Merkel, Berlin, 1854'
(the edition was published at Leipzig in 1853).
In spite of what I have said against it, André's edition has
considerable merit. His apparatus is the first to supply a lemma for
each variant reading reported, and is clear and easy to read. His
selection of manuscripts is inadequate, but at least he makes a full
report of the four manuscripts he uses. The apparatus is in every way a
great improvement on that of Lenz. At the same time, he provides a clear
prose translation, an informative introduction, ample footnotes, and
thirteen pages of "notes complémentaires". His notes sometimes come
close to forming a true commentary, and I often quote from them.
In preparing this edition of the fourth book of the _Ex Ponto_, I have
carefully read all the editions discussed above, and have attempted to
include a comprehensive list of conjectures in the apparatus. I have
read Burman's variorum edition with particular attention, and have often
restored readings favoured by Heinsius to the text. A complete
examination of the manuscripts must await a full edition of all four
books of the _Ex Ponto_; but on the basis of published editions I have
selected the nine manuscripts that appeared most likely to assist in
establishing the text, and have included full reports of their readings
in the critical apparatus. I believe that even this preliminary
apparatus gives a clearer picture of the evidence for the text of _Ex
Ponto_ IV than any previous edition.
P. OVIDI NASONIS
EPISTVLARM EX PONTO LIBER QVARTVS
CONSPECTVS SIGLORVM
_G_
Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel: Cod. Guelf. 13.11 Aug. 4°
(fragmentum Guelferbytanum)
saec v/vi
continet ix 101-8 et 127-33, xii 15-19 et 41-44. uersus saepe non integri.
_B_
Monacensis lat. 384
saec xii
_C_
Monacensis lat. 19476
saec xii
_M_
Antuerpiensis Musei Plantiniani Denucé 68
saec xii/xiii
codex Moreti Heinsianus
_F_
Francofortanus Barth 110
saec xiii
_H_
Holkhamicus 322, nunc British Library add. 49368
saec xiii
_I_
Laurentianus 36 32
saec xiii
primus Mediceus Heinsii
_L_
Lipsiensis bibl. ciu. Rep. I 2° 7
saec xiii
_T_
Turonensis 879
saec xii/xiii
* * * * *
Interdum aduocatur:
_P_
Parisinus lat. 7993
saec xiii
Regius Heinsii
I
Accipe, Pompei, deductum carmen ab illo
debitor est uitae qui tibi, Sexte, suae.
qui seu non prohibes a me tua nomina poni,
accedet meritis haec quoque summa tuis;
siue trahis uultus, equidem peccasse fatebor, 5
delicti tamen est causa probanda mei.
non potuit mea mens quin esset grata teneri;
sit precor officio non grauis ira pio.
o quotiens ego sum libris mihi uisus in istis
impius in nullo quod legerere loco! 10
o quotiens, alii uellem cum scribere, nomen
rettulit in ceras inscia dextra tuum!
incipit liber quartus _B2_ incipit quartus sexto pompeio _M_ liber
·iiii· sexto pompeio _F_ incipit ·iiii· sexto pompeio _H2(?)_ ad
pompeium lib ·iiii· _I2_ hanc epistulam mittit sexto pompeio _L_ || 1
deductum carmen] carmen deductum _M_ || qui] cui _Williams_ || seu] si
_ILF2ul_ || 4 accedet] accedat _M_ || summa] summe _C_ || 5 trahis]
trahes _Owen (1894)_ || uultus _om C_ || equidem] equid e _B_ || 7 quin
esset] esset quin _H_ || 9-10 _add F2 in marg_ || 9 o] di _B_ dii _I_ ||
in] ab _B_ || istis] illis _F_ || 10 quod] quid _F2_ || 11 alii] aliis
_L_ aliIS _M2c_ || uellem cum scribere] cum uellem scribere _B_ uellem
conscribere _F1_ uellem describere _P_
ipse mihi placuit mendis in talibus error,
et uix inuita facta litura manu est.
'uiderit! ad summam,' dixi 'licet ipse queratur, 15
hanc pudet offensam non meruisse prius.'
da mihi, si quid ea est, hebetantem pectora Lethen,
oblitus potero non tamen esse tui;
idque sinas oro, nec fastidita repellas
uerba, nec officio crimen inesse putes, 20
et leuis haec meritis referatur gratia tantis;
si minus, inuito te quoque gratus ero.
numquam pigra fuit nostris tua gratia rebus,
nec mihi munificas arca negauit opes.
nunc quoque nil subitis clementia territa fatis 25
auxilium uitae fertque feretque meae.
13 mendis] mensis _C_ || 14 manu est] manu _T_ || 15 summam] summum _LT_
finem _F2(gl)_ || ipse _FTP_ ille _BCMHIL_ || 16 hanc _HI_ ha _MFLT_ ah
_B_ a _C_ hunc _J. N. Grant_ || meruisse] merunisse _Mac_ || 18 non] nec
_L_ || 19 _quid pro_ nec _H, incertum_ || fastidita] fastidia _F1_ || 20
putes] putas _L_ puta _I_ puto _Bac, ut uid_ || 21 et] sed _fort
legendum_ || leuis] lenis _L_ || haec meritis] e meritis _F1T_ emeritis
_HM2_ || 23 numquam] non quam _M_ || 24 mihi _om C_ || negauit] negabit
_C_ || 25 nunc] hunc _C_ || quoque] quisque _C_ || nil] non _MpcF1_ nunc
_P_ || 26 feretque _Heinsius_ refertque _MFHILTB2_ referta _C_ refert
_B1_
unde rogas forsan fiducia tanta futuri
sit mihi? quod fecit quisque tuetur opus,
ut Venus artificis labor est et gloria Coi,
aequoreo madidas quae premit imbre comas, 30
arcis ut Actaeae uel eburna uel aerea custos
bellica Phidiaca stat dea facta manu,
uindicat ut Calamis laudem quos fecit equorum,
ut similis uerae uacca Myronis opus,
sic ego sum rerum non ultima, Sexte, tuarum 35
tutelaeque feror munus opusque tuae.
27 unde] un* _B1_ || futuri] futura _ITF2_ || 28 quisque _ex_ quique _C,
ut uid_ || 29 ut] et _T_ || est] et _Iac_ || 30 aequoreo] equoreas _Tac_
|| 31 arcis] artis _LP_ || ut Actaeae] et actee _T_ ut athee _L_
utaaceae _C, ut uid_ || eburna] uberna _C_ || aerea _fragmentum
Louaniense Heinsii (Korn, Lenz), codex Iunianus Heinsii (Korn); uide
Haupt Opuscula 584_ aurea _Heinsius_ enea _(=aenea) BMFHILT, contra
metrum_ anea _C_ || 32 Phidiaca] phasadica _C_ || facta] ficta
_Heinsius_ || 33 Calamis _BCIacL_ calais _MFIpcTP_ cala bis _H, ut uid_
|| laudem] laudes _B2_ || quos] quas _Bac_ que _Iac, ut uid_ || sum]
pars _excerpta Politiani_ res _M2(gl?)_ || non] pars _F_ _om P_ ||
ultima] ultimæ (=ultimae) _C_ || 36 tuae] teuæ (=teuae) _C_
II
Quod legis, o uates magnorum maxime regum,
uenit ab intonsis usque, Seuere, Getis;
cuius adhuc nomen nostros tacuisse libellos,
si modo permittis dicere uera, pudet.
orba tamen numeris cessauit epistula numquam 5
ire per alternas officiosa uices;
carmina sola tibi memorem testantia curam
non data sunt--quid enim quae facis ipse darem?
quis mel Aristaeo, quis Baccho uina Falerna,
Triptolemo fruges, poma det Alcinoo? 10
fertile pectus habes, interque Helicona colentes
uberius nulli prouenit ista seges.
'mittere ad hunc carmen frondes erat addere siluis.'
haec mihi cunctandi causa, Seuere, fuit.