thought that _M_'s _quoque uiam facias ad mea uota modo_ was correct.
_Modo_ is weak and does not fit well with the preceding _qua ... parte_,
but at least is acceptable Latin; for _quo ... modo_ compare _Med_ 1-2
'Discite quae faciem commendet cura, puellae, / et _quo_ sit uobis forma
tuenda _modo_' and _Ibis_ 55-56 'nunc _quo_ Battiades inimicum deuouet
Ibin, / _hoc_ ego deuoueo teque tuosque _modo_'.
The image in _quoque ... uado_ ['ford'] is rather strange, and for this
sense of the word Ovid seems to have used the plural (_Met_ III 19;
_Met_ IX 108). At _Fast_ IV 300 'sedit limoso pressa carina _uado_',
_uado_ means 'river-bottom'.
Ovid does not end any one of his dozens of verse epistles with _uale_,
so the reading of _FTI2ul_ must be discounted.
If my restoration is correct or nearly correct, the original corruptions
would have been of _uia_ to _uiam_ and of _uenias_ to _facias_; the
latter corruption might have been a deliberate interpolation to procure
a governing verb for _uiam_, or might have been a misreading of or
conjectural restoration for a damaged archetype. The variant _quoque_
for _quaque_ and the different variants for _uide_ would have been
secondary corruptions, unless they also were the result of a damaged
archetype.
=50. VIDE.= For _uide_ at the end of the pentameter, compare _EP_ II ii
55-56 'num tamen excuses erroris origine factum, / an nihil expediat
tale mouere, uide'. It must however be said that _uide_ is somewhat
strange following the subjunctive _quaeras_.
XIII. To Carus
Nothing is known of the Carus to whom this poem is addressed beyond what
Ovid tells us: that he wrote a poem on Hercules (11-12; xvi 7-8) and
that he was teacher of the sons of Germanicus (47-48).
The poem begins with a pun on the meaning of Carus' name (1-2). This
opening will in itself demonstrate to Carus who his correspondent is
(3-6). Carus can himself be recognized through his style (7-12). Ovid
does not claim that his poetry is excellent, only that it is individual;
if his poetry is poor, it is because he is almost a Getic poet now
(13-18). He has written a poem in Getic, which was well received
(19-22). It was a description of the apotheosis of Augustus and a
laudation of the members of the imperial family (23-32). When he
finished reciting the poem, he was applauded; one person even suggested
that his piety merited a recall (33-38). But it is now the sixth year of
his exile, and poems will not assist him, since in the past they have
done him harm. Carus should use his influence to secure Ovid's recall
(39-50).
Certain elements of the poem, such as the flattering references to
Carus' poetry and the request for his help, are commonplaces of the
poetry of exile; the list of the members of the imperial family is
similarly paralleled in Ovid's other poems (see at 25-32 [p 400]). Ovid
nowhere else explicitly describes any of his Getic poems.
=1. MEMORANDE= _BMFHILT_ NVMERANDE _C_. For _memorande_ compare _Tr_ I v 1
'O mihi post nullos umquam _memorande_ sodales'. _Numerande_ is in
itself acceptable enough: see ix 35 'hic ego praesentes inter
_numerarer_ amicos'.
=2. QVI QVOD ES, ID= _BCFI_ QVI QVOD ID ES _MH_ QVIQVE QVOD ES _LT_. For
the use of _id_, Ehwald (_KB_ 47) cited _Fast_ II 23-24 'quaeque capit
lictor domibus purgamina uersis ['swept out'] / torrida cum mica farra,
uocantur _idem_ [_sc_ februa]', Hor _Sat_ II iii 139-41 (of Orestes)
'non Pyladen ferro uiolare aususue sororem / Electram, tantum male dicit
utrique uocando / hanc Furiam, hunc _aliud_', Sen _Ben_ I 3 10 'id
quemque uocari iubent', and Tac _Germ_ 6 'definitur et numerus: centeni
ex singulis pagis sunt, _id_que ipsum inter suos uocantur' ['they are
called "The Hundred"']'.
_Quique quod es_ is, however, an attractive reading: compare _Tr_ I v
1-2 'O mihi post nullos umquam memorande sodales, / _et cui_ praecipue
sors mea uisa sua est'. _Quique quod_ is obviously prone to haplography;
on the other hand, it could be a rewriting of _qui quod id es_, which is
itself presumably a simple corruption through interchange of _qui quod
es id_. I therefore print _qui quod es id_, although with some
hesitation.
=2. VERE.= 'Justly'. For the same adverb used once again of names
"properly" applied, see _Tr_ V x 13-14 'quem tenet Euxini mendax
cognomine litus, / et Scythici _uere_ terra _sinistra_ freti'.
=2. CARE.= Luck among others believes that Carus is also addressed at _Tr_
III v 17-18 'sum quoque, _care_, tuis defensus uiribus absens / (scis
"carum" ueri nominis esse loco)'; but it seems excessively ingenious to
make Ovid say 'I call you _carus_ instead of your real name, Carus'.
Still, as Professor R. J. Tarrant points out to me, the passage is odd,
in that Ovid elsewhere uses _care_ only in conjunction with another
vocative (compare viii 89 '_care_ Suilli' and _Tr_ III iv 1-2 '_care_
quidem ... sed tempore duro / cognite'); _care_ may have been used as a
metrical equivalent to the suppressed name, in the way the "cover names"
in elegy correspond to the shape of the alleged actual names of the
women. Unlike _care_, _carissime_ is often found by itself (_Tr_ I v 3,
III iii 27, III vi 1, IV vii 19 & V vii 5; _EP_ II iv 21 & IV x 3).
=2. AVE= occurs in Ovid only here and at _RA_ 639-40 'nec ueniat seruus,
nec flens ancillula fictum / suppliciter dominae nomine dicat "aue!"',
and is not common in writing. It was, however, frequent in everyday
speech, as is clear from Sen _Ben_ VI 34 3 'uulgare et publicum uerbum
et promiscuum ignotis "aue"'.
=3. SALVTERIS= _MFT_ SALVTARIS _BCHIL_. Ovid usually employs the
subjunctive in indirect questions; this is demonstrated by metre at such
passages as _Fast_ VI 385-86 'increpat illos / Iuppiter et sacro quid
_uelit_ ore docet', _Tr_ II 294 '_sustulerit_ quare quaeret
Ericthonium', _Tr_ II 297-98 'Isidis aede sedens cur hanc Saturnia
quaeret / _egerit_ Ionio Bosphorioque mari', _Tr_ V xiv 1-2 'Quanta tibi
_dederim_ nostris monumenta libellis ... uides', _EP_ I i 55-56 'talia
caelestes fieri praeconia gaudent, / ut sua quid _ualeant_ numina teste
probent' and _EP_ II vii 3 'subsequitur quid _agas_ audire uoluntas'.
I have found two passages where metre demonstrates that Ovid used the
indicative in an indirect question, _Met_ X 637 'quid _facit_ [_codd
plerique_: quod facit _recc_ quidque agat _Heinsius_ quid factum
_Merkel_ quid uelit _Nick_ quid facti _Rappold_ dissidet _Korn_ quid
sciat _Slater_] ignorans amat et non sentit amorem' and _EP_ I viii
25-26 'sed memor unde _abii_ queror, o iucunde sodalis, / accedant
nostris saeua quod arma malis'. But in the first passage _faciat_ would
have an ambiguous meaning, since it could represent either _quid facio_
or _quid faciam_, and in the second _abierim_, with its short 'a', 'i',
and 'e', would be metrically intractable.
It is difficult to say whether the scribes were more prone to influence
by the subjunctive normal in classical Latin prose, or by the indicative
of the Romance languages and of ecclesiastical Latin. I print the
subjunctive in view of Ovid's usual practice, and in particular because
of _EP_ I ii 5 'forsitan haec a quo _mittatur_ epistula quaeras' and
_EP_ III v 1 'Quam legis unde tibi _mittatur_ epistula quaeris?'. But
Professor R. J. Tarrant notes that the need for a dependent subjunctive
would be more strongly felt with _quaerere_ in these two passages than
with the _index_ of the present passage.
Not all poets were as strict as Ovid in using the subjunctive in
indirect questions. Propertius at III v 26-46 has the following verbs
in a series of indirect questions: _temperet_, _uenit_, _deficit_,
_redit_, _superant_, _captet_, _sit uentura_, _bibit_, _tremuere_,
_luxerit_ (from _lugere_), _coit_, _exeat_, _eat_, _sint_ (uar _sunt_),
_furit_, _custodit_, _descendit_, _potest_.
=3. COLOR HIC.= 'The style of this opening'. Ovid is presumably referring
to its playful tone. Compare _Tr_ I i 61 (to his poem) 'ut titulo
careas, ipso noscere _colore_', at which Luck cites Martial XII ii 17-18
'quid titulum poscis? uersus duo tresue legantur, / clamabunt omnes te,
liber, esse meum'.
_Color_ is not found in precisely this sense until Horace. For a
discussion of its development, see Brink at Hor _AP_ 86 _operumque
colores_.
=4. STRVCTVRA.= This passage is the first instance cited by _OLD_
_structura_ 1b of _structura_ in this transferred sense, which becomes
common in Silver prose, particularly Quintilian (I x 23, VIII vi 67, IX
iv 45). Lewis and Short point out that Cicero uses the word in similar
contexts only as a simile: compare _Brut_ 33 'ante hunc [_sc_ Isocratem]
enim uerborum _quasi structura_ et quaedam ad numerum conclusio nulla
erat', _Or_ 149 '_quasi structura quaedam_', and _Opt Gen_ 5 'et
uerborum est _structura quaedam'_.
There are two instances in Ovid of _struere_ with a similar meaning,
both from the _Ex Ponto_. One is from line 20 of this poem ('_structa_
... uerba'), while the other is at II v 19 '_structos_ inter fera proelia
uersus'.
=5. MIRIFICA= is a colloquialism. Common in the letters of Cicero, the
word (according to _TLL_ VIII 1060 52) is not found in Livy, Vitruvius,
Celsus, Curtius, or Tacitus. The only poets apart from Terence and Ovid
cited as using the word are Accius, Ausonius, and the author of the
_Ciris_ (although the passage where the word occurs, 12-13, is corrupt);
see also Catullus LIII 2, LXXI 4, and LXXXIV 3. For a discussion of
_mirificus_, see Axelson 61, and of the similarly colloquial _mirifice_
Hofmann 78.
=5. PVBLICA= = 'usual, ordinary'. Compare _Am_ III vii 11-12 'et mihi
blanditias dixit dominumque uocauit, / et quae praeterea _publica_ uerba
iuuant', _AA_ III 479-80 'munda, sed e medio consuetaque uerba, puellae,
/ scribite: sermonis _publica_ forma placet', and Sen _Ben_ VI 34 3
(quoted at 2 _aue_).
=6. QVALIS ENIM CVMQVE EST.= A common phrase in the poets when they speak
of their own verse: compare Catullus I 8-9 'quare habe tibi quidquid hoc
libelli / _qualecumque_', Hor _Sat_ I x 88-89 'quibus [_sc_ amicis]
haec, sunt _qualiacumque_, / arridere uelim, doliturus, si placent spe /
deterius nostra' (at which Bentley cited the present passage), Martial V
lx 5 '_qualiscumque_ legaris ut per orbem', and Statius _Sil_ II praef
'haec _qualiacumque_ sunt, Melior carissime, si tibi non displicuerint,
a te publicum accipiant; sin minus, ad me reuertantur' (both passages
cited by Munro, _Criticisms_ 5).
=7. VT TITVLVM CHARTAE DE FRONTE REVELLAS.= The same hypothetical case at
_Tr_ I i 61-62 '_ut titulo careas_, ipso noscere _colore_; / dissimulare
uelis, te liquet esse meum' and _EP_ II ix 49-52 (to King Cotys) 'nec
regum quisquam magis est instructus ab illis [_sc_ the liberal arts]
... carmina testantur, quae _si tua nomina demas_ / Threicium iuuenem
composuisse negem'.
=7. CHARTAE.= See at xii 27 _chartis_ (p 380).
=7. REVELLAS= 'tear away' is surprisingly strong in its overtones. It is
found only here in the poems of exile, six times in the other elegies,
and fifteen times in the _Metamorphoses_.
=8. QVOD SIT OPVS VIDEOR DICERE POSSE TVVM.= 'I think I could say which
work was yours'. Heinsius' QVID SIT OPVS VIDEAR is a strange error: the
interrogative adjective is acceptable enough, while the notion of the
subjunctive must of course be contained in _posse_, not in the verb that
governs it.
=11. PRODENT AVCTOREM VIRES.= 'His strength will reveal the poet's
identity'. The same sense of _prodere_ at _Met_ II 433 'impedit amplexu
nec se sine crimine _prodit_', _Met_ XIV 740-41 'adapertaque ianua
factum / prodidit', and _Am_ I viii 109 'uox erat in cursu, cum me mea
_prodidit_ umbra'. _Vires_ again used of poetic skill at _Tr_ I vi 29
'ei mihi non magnas quod habent mea carmina _uires_', _Tr_ IV ix 16
'Pierides _uires_ et sua tela dabunt', _EP_ III iii 34, and _EP_ III iv
79.
=13. DEPRENSA.= _Deprendere_ 'recognize, detect' is also found at _Met_ II
93-94 'utinamque oculos in pectore posses / inserere et patrias intus
_deprendere_ curas' and _Met_ VII 536-37 'strage canum primo uolucrumque
ouiumque boumque / inque feris subiti _deprensa_ potentia morbi', as
well as at Livy XLII 17 7 (_uenenum_) and Celsus III 18 3 '[phrenetici
...] summam ... speciem sanitatis in captandis malorum operum
occasionibus praebent, sed exitu _deprenduntur_'. This seems to be a
semi-medical sense; Professor R. J. Tarrant suggests that _colore_ may
bear the secondary meaning 'complexion' in this passage.
=15. TAM MALA THERSITEN PROHIBEBAT FORMA LATERE.= For Thersites' ugliness,
see _Il_ II 216-19 '[Greek: aischistos de anêr hypo Ilion êlthe· /
pholkos eên, chôlos d' heteron poda· tô de hoi ômô / kyrtô, epi stêthos
synochôkote· autar hyperthe / phoxos eên kephalên, psednê d' epenênothe
lachnê]'.
For the modern reader, Thersites' ugliness is hardly his leading
characteristic; but at _EP_ III ix 9-10 Ovid again refers to his
appearance: 'auctor opus laudat: sic forsitan Agrius [his father] olim /
Thersiten facie dixerit esse bona'. Other mentions of Thersites'
ugliness at Lucian _Dial Mort_ XXV (Thersites argues that he is now as
handsome as Nireus) and Epictetus _Diss_ II 23 32 (Thersites is
contrasted with Achilles), to which Professor C. P. Jones adds from
Greek epigram _Greek Inscr. Brit. Mus._ IV ii 1114; other citations from
late Greek authors at PW V A,2 2457 18-38 & 2464 23-66 and Roscher V 670
23 ff.
=16. NIREVS.= For the beauty of Nireus, see _Il_ II 671-74 '[Greek: Nireus
au Symêthen age treis nêas eïsas, / Nireus Aglaïês hyios Charopoio t'
anaktos, / Nireus, hos kallistos anêr hypo Ilion êlthe / tôn allôn
Danaôn met' amymona Pêleïôna]'. This is the only mention of Nireus in
the poem; but Demetrius (_Peri Hermeneias_ 62; cited by Cope at
Aristotle _Rhet_ 1414a) remarks that because of Homer's use of
epanaphora (the repetition of Nireus' name) and dialysis (asyndeton)
'[Greek: schedon hapax tou Nireôs onomasthentos en tôi dramati
memnêmetha ouden hêtton ê tou Achilleôs kai tou Odysseôs]'. Ovid
mentions Nireus again at _AA_ II 109-12 'sis licet antiquo Nireus
adamatus Homero ... ingenii dotes corporis adde bonis'; see also Hor
_Epod_ XV 22 'forma ... uincas Nirea', Hor _Carm_ III xx 15 (where Nireus
is paired with Ganymede) and Prop III xviii 27 'Nirea non facies, non
uis exemit Achillem'; from Greek epigram Professor C. P. Jones cites
Peek _Griech. Versinschr._ 1728 (Merkelbach _ZPE_ 25 [1977] 281).
=16. CONSPICIENDVS.= The word is metrically suited to the second half of
the pentameter, before the disyllable: compare Tib I ii 70 & II iii 52,
_Fast_ V 118 & V 170, and _Tr_ II 114.
=17. MIRARI SI= is a colloquialism: most of the passages from verse cited
at _TLL_ VIII 1067 14 are from Plautus and the hexameter poems of
Horace; from Propertius compare II iii 33 'haec ego nunc _mirer si_
flagret nostra iuuentus?' and from Ovid _Her_ X 105 'non equidem _miror
si_ stat uictoria tecum' and _Tr_ I ix 21 'saeua neque _admiror_ metuunt
_si_ fulmina'.
=19. A PVDET, ET GETICO SCRIPSI SERMONE LIBELLVM.= The rest of the distich
after _a pudet_ explains the exclamation ('I have even written ...'),
and so the punctuation should mark the break. The idiom is different
from the _et pudet et_ construction seen at xv 29 'et pudet et metuo ['I
am both embarrassed and afraid'] semperque eademque precari' and _Tr_ V
vii 57-58 'et pudet et fateor ['I confess with embarrassment'], iam
desuetudine longa / uix subeunt ipsi uerba Latina mihi'.
The only other instance of independent _a pudet_ in Ovid is _AA_ III
803-4 'quid iuuet et uoces et anhelitus arguat oris; / a pudet, arcanas
pars habet ista notas', which, however, Professor R. J. Tarrant suspects
is part of an interpolation.
=19. GETICO ... SERMONE.= Ovid repeatedly claims to have learned Getic and
Sarmatian: compare _Tr_ III xiv 47-48 'Threicio Scythicoque fere
circumsonor ore, / et uideor Geticis scribere posse modis', _Tr_ V vii
55-56 'ille ego Romanus uates--ignoscite, Musae!-- / Sarmatico cogor
plurima more loqui', _Tr_ V xii 58 'nam didici Getice Sarmaticeque
loqui', and _EP_ III ii 40 (identical to _Tr_ V xii 58).
It is of course not possible to prove that Ovid did or did not learn
Getic and write poetry in that language. But in the absence of other
evidence, it seems better to suppose that he did learn the language
since (a) he claims to have do so, (b) Latin and Greek would hardly have
been widely spoken in the region, and (c) a man with Ovid's linguistic
facility would have had little difficulty in learning the languages of
the region.
=20. STRVCTAQVE ... VERBA.= Compare Cic _de Or_ III 171 'struere uerba',
and see at 4 _structura_ (p 393).
=20. NOSTRIS ... MODIS.= Ovid did not use native rhythms, but instead used
Latin metres.
=21. ET PLACVI.= Luck compares _EP_ I v 63-64 'forsitan audacter faciam,
sed glorior Histrum / ingenio nullum maius habere meo', but it is clear
enough from the context that Ovid was there speaking of his Latin
poetry.
=21. GRATARE.= _Gratari_ is extremely rare in Latin, being found only in
the poets and historians; _grAtulAri_ was of course not
available (except for _grAtulor_) for use in dactylic verse.
Other instances of the word in Ovid at ix 13 _'gratatusque_ darem cum
dulcibus oscula uerbis', _Her_ VI 119 'nunc etiam peperi; _gratare_
ambobus, Iason!', _Her_ XI 65, _Met_ I 578, VI 434, IX 244 & 312, and
_Fast_ III 418.
=22. INTER INHVMANOS ... GETAS.= The same phrase in the same metrical
position at _EP_ I v 65-66 'hoc ubi uiuendum est satis est si consequor
aruo / _inter inhumanos_ esse poeta _Getas_' and _EP_ III v 27-28 'quem
... fatum ... _inter inhumanos_ maluit esse _Getas_'.
=23. LAVDES DE CAESARE DIXI.= In 1896 J. Gilbert ingeniously proposed the
punctuation 'laudes [potential subjunctive]: de Caesare dixi'. But _laus
de_ + ablative instead of the more usual objective genitive construction
is supported by Tac _Ann_ I 12 'addidit laudem de Augusto'. Nipperdey
there explains _de_ by equating _laus_ with _oratio_ and _sermo_, both
of which take _de_ as a normal construction; but it appears from the
present passage that _laus de_ may have been a special term for
panegyric. Professor E. Fantham notes that Ovid may have been seeking a
synonym for _laudAtiO_.
=24. ADIVTA EST NOVITAS NVMINE NOSTRA DEI.= _Nouitas nostra_ could mean
either 'my novel attempt' (Wheeler, Lewis and Short) or 'my
inexperience'; if the latter, _adiuta_ would bear the uncommon but quite
valid meaning 'compensated for'; _OLD adiuuo_ 7 cites passages from
Cicero (_Fam_ V xiii 5 'ea quibus secundae res ornantur, aduersae
adiuuantur'), Livy, and Ulpian.
=25-32.= Similar catalogues of the imperial family occur at _Met_ XV
834-47, _Tr_ II 161-68, _Tr_ IV ii 7-12, _EP_ II ii 69-74, and _EP_ II
viii 29-34; these passages are quoted from below.
=25-26. NAM PATRIS AVGVSTI DOCVI MORTALE FVISSE / CORPUS, IN AETHERIAS
NVMEN ABISSE DOMOS.= Other mentions of the deified Augustus at vi 15-16
'coeperat Augustus detectae ignoscere culpae; / spem nostram terras
deseruitque simul' and viii 63-64 'et modo, Caesar, auum, quem uirtus
addidit astris, / sacrarunt aliqua carmina parte tuum'. Ovid had
predicted Augustus' apotheosis: see _Met_ XV 838-39 'nec nisi cum senior
Pylios aequauerit annos, / aetherias sedes cognataque sidera tanget',
_Tr_ II 57-58 'optaui peteres caelestia sidera tarde, / parsque fui
turbae parua precantis idem', and _Tr_ V ii 51-52, V v 61-62, V viii
29-30 & V xi 25-26.
Augustus' apotheosis was similar to those of Hercules, Aeneas, Romulus,
and Julius Caesar: compare the descriptions at _Met_ IX 262-72 'interea
quodcumque fuit populabile flammae / Mulciber abstulerat, nec
... quicquam ab imagine ductum / matris habet, tantumque Iouis uestigia
seruat ... maiorque uideri / coepit et _augusta_ fieri grauitate
uerendus. / quem pater omnipotens inter caua nubila raptum / quadriiugo
curru radiantibus intulit astris', _Met_ XIV 603-4 'quicquid in Aenea
fuerat mortale, repurgat [_sc_ Numicius] / et respersit aquis; pars
optima restitit illi', _Met_ XIV 824-28 'abstulit [_sc_ Mars] Iliaden:
corpus mortale per auras / dilapsum tenues ... pulchra subit facies et
puluinaribus altis / dignior', and _Met_ XV 844-46 'Venus ... Caesaris
eripuit membris neque in aera solui / passa recentem animam caelestibus
intulit astris'.
=25. PATRIS AVGVSTI.= _Patris_ to make it clear that Ovid is not speaking
of Tiberius Caesar _Augustus_.
=26. CORPVS ... NVMEN.= Precisely the same distinction is found in
Velleius' description of Augustus' apotheosis and the start of Tiberius'
reign: 'post redditum caelo patrem et _corpus_ eius humanis honoribus,
_numen_ diuinis honoratum, primum principalium eius operum fuit
ordinatio comitiorum' (II 124 3).
=27. PAREM VIRTVTE PATRI.= Compare _EP_ II viii 31-32 (to Augustus, about
Tiberius) 'perque tibi _similem uirtutis imagine_ natum, / moribus
agnosci qui tuus esse potest'.
=27-28. FRENA ... IMPERII.= The same metaphor at _Tr_ II 41-42 'nec te
quisquam moderatius umquam / _imperii_ potuit _frena_ tenere sui', _EP_
II ix 33 'Caesar ut _imperii_ moderetur _frena_ precamur', and _EP_ II v
75 (of Germanicus) 'succedatque suis orbis moderator _habenis_'.
At _Fast_ I 531-34 Ovid uses the same metaphor, as here, of Tiberius'
accession to power: (Carmenta is prophesying Rome's future) 'et penes
Augustos patriae tutela manebit: / hanc fas _imperii frena_ tenere
domum. / inde nepos natusque dei [Tiberius was the adopted son of
Augustus, and therefore the grandson of Julius Caesar], licet ipse
_recuset_, / pondera caelesti mente paterna feret'. In all of these
passages Ovid may have had in mind _Aen_ VII 600 (of Latinus) 'saepsit
se tectis _rerumque_ reliquit _habenas_'.
=27-28. FRENA ... SAEPE RECVSATI ... IMPERII.= At _Tr_ V iv 15-16 Ovid had
used _frena recusare_ of a horse: 'fert tamen, ut debet, casus patienter
amaros, / more nec indomiti _frena recusat_ equi'. This perhaps
influenced his choice of words here.
=27. COACTVS= _excerpta Scaligeri_ ROGATVS _codd_. Ovid is referring to
the second meeting of the Senate after the death of Augustus (the first
meeting had been devoted to funeral arrangements); at this meeting there
had been some confusion over Tiberius' intentions. _Rogatus_ is awkward
to construe, since Tiberius must already have been asked to accept
power: otherwise he could not have refused the offer. The difficulty of
_rogatus_ is clearly shown by the description of the scene in Tacitus:
'et ille [_sc_ Tiberius] uarie disserebat de magnitudine imperii sua
modestia. solam diui Augusti mentem tantae molis capacem: se in partem
curarum ab illo uocatum experiendo didicisse quam arduum, quam subiectum
fortunae regendi cuncta onus, proinde in ciuitate tot inlustribus uiris
subnixa non ad unum omnia deferrent: plures facilius munia rei publicae
sociatis laboribus executuros ... senatu ad infimas obtestationes
procumbente, dixit forte Tiberius se ut non toti rei publicae parem, ita
quaecumque pars sibi mandaretur eius tutelam suscepturum ... fessus
... clamore omnium, expostulatione singulorum flexit paulatim, non ut
fateretur suscipi a se imperium, sed ut negare et _rogari_ desineret'
(_Ann_ I 11-13). Scaliger's conjecture is supported by (and is probably
based on) the corresponding description at Suetonius _Tib_ 24
'principatum ... diu ... recusauit ... tandem quasi _coactus_ et querens
miseram et onerosam iniungi sibi seruitutem, recepit imperium'.
Professor A. Dalzell notes, however, that Suetonius' description is an
imperfect parallel, since _coactus_ is there modified by _quasi_; he
suggests to me that _rogatus_ could be accepted, if it is taken closely
with _recusati_--Tiberius finally accepted what he had many times been
offered and had many times refused.
=29. VESTAM.= Ovid similarly equates Livia with Venus and Juno at _EP_ III
i 117-18 'quae Veneris formam, mores Iunonis habendo / sola est caelesti
digna reperta toro', and implicitly equates her with Juno at _Fast_ I
650 'sola toro magni digna reperta Iouis'. These appear to be instances
of metaphor rather than true equations; but PW XIII,1 913-14 cites
inscriptions indicating a cult of Livia-as-Juno.