AN AVXILIVM.= This distich does not belong in the text: it is in itself
unintelligible, and interrupts a natural progression from 24 to 27. I am
not certain that the distich is a simple interpolation, since there is
nothing in the context to which it is an obvious gloss. Possibly it has
been inserted from another letter from exile, in which its meaning would
have been clear from context.
_Argumentum_ is difficult. Wheeler translates, 'For 'tis hard to
distinguish whether you are more the proof of my mistake or the relief',
and notes 'Apparently Pompey could prove (_argumentum_) that "error"
which Ovid regarded as the beginning of his woes'. But this seems a
strange thing to say, for Ovid's _error_ was hardly in need of
demonstration.
_Auxilium_ is used in its medical sense, _erroris_ being equivalent to
_morbi_ or _uulneris_; compare _RA_ 48 'uulneris auxilium' and the
passages collected at _OLD remedium_ 1.
=25. DISCERNERE.= Gronovius argued (_Obseruationes_ III xiii) that
DECERNERE (_MI1_) should be read here, since _decernere_ has the
required sense 'uel decertare uel iudicare et certum statuere', whereas
_discernere_ means 'separare, dirimere, distinguere, diuidere'. On the
evidence of the lexica, however, Gronovius' distinction breaks down,
since _discernere_ meaning 'decide, determine, make out' is common
enough: compare Sallust _Cat_ 25 3 'pecuniae an famae minus parceret
haud facile _discerneres_', Cic _Rep_ 2 6 'ne nota quidem ulla pacatus
an hostis sit _discerni_ ac iudicari potest', Varro _LL_ VII 17 'quo
_discernitur_ homo mas an femina sit', and Livy XXII 61 10 'quid ueri
sit _discernere_'. I therefore let _discernere_ stand.
=29-30. ET PVDET ET METVO SEMPERQVE EADEMQVE PRECARI / NE SVBEANT ANIMO
TAEDIA IVSTA TVO.= Compare _EP_ III vii entire (an apology to his friends
for the monotony of his verse), and especially the opening lines: 'Verba
mihi desunt eadem tam saepe roganti, / iamque pudet uanas fine carere
preces. / taedia consimili fieri de carmine uobis, / quidque petam
cunctos edidicisse reor'.
=30. SVBEANT ANIMO.= _Subire animo_ occurs also at _Tr_ I v 13. Ovid
uses _subire_ with the dative several times in the poetry of exile
(_Tr_ I vii 9, II 147, III iii 14 & V vii 58; _EP_ I ix 11, II x 43
& IV iv 47), but not beforehand; earlier he has the accusative (_Met_
XII 472) or the simple verb (_Met_ XV 307). The dative construction is
taken up by the author of the later _Heroides_ (XVI 99, XVIII 62).
=31. RES IMMODERATA CVPIDO EST.= _Cupido_ similarly called _immoderata_ at
Apuleius _Plat_ II 21; elsewhere qualified as _immodica_ (Livy VI 35 6)
and _immensa_ (_Aen_ VI 823, Tac _Ann_ XII 7).
=33. DELABOR.= Cicero uses the word for moving from one subject to another
(_OLD delabor_ 5b); here the metaphorical sense 'fall' is still active.
=34. IPSA LOCVM PER SE LITTERA NOSTRA ROGAT.= This line as it stands is
clearly corrupt. I do not understand Wheeler's 'my very letters of their
own accord seek the opportunity'; André's 'c'est la lettre qui,
d'elle-meme, demande le sujet' seems equally difficult, although _locus_
can certainly have the meaning 'subject, topic of discussion' (_OLD_
_locus_ 24b).
The only parallel I have found is _Fast_ II 861 'iure uenis, Gradiue:
_locum tua tempora poscunt_'. If _littera_ is retained in the present
passage, this parallel is of little assistance, since _locum_ there
means 'a place within a larger work', and Ovid's poetry cannot ask for a
_locus_ in that sense. Taking the passage from the _Fasti_ as a
parallel, I once thought that Ovid wrote _ipsa locum pro se tristia
nostra rogant_ (or _petunt_); for the noun _triste_ compare _Fast_ VI
463 'scilicet interdum miscentur _tristia_ laetis', _Ecl_ III 80-81
'_triste_ lupus stabulis, maturis frugibus imbres, / arboribus uenti,
nobis Amaryllidis irae', and Hor _Carm_ I xvi 25-26 'nunc ego mitibus /
mutare quaero _tristia_'. I now consider this unlikely, since the
personal adjective _nostra_ with _tristia_ seems unidiomatic; but I
still believe that _littera_ is the key to the corruption.
Professor R. J. Tarrant has tentatively suggested something like _inque
locum ... redit_, but questions whether _in locum_, even just after
_eodem_, can have the sense _in eundem locum_. Professor Tarrant also
points out to me the possible relevance of _locus_ in the sense _locus
communis_ (compare Sen _Suas_ I 9 'dixit ... _locum_ de uarietate
fortunae'); Ovid might be saying that his poetry had made rather
frequent use of the _locus de exilio_. In this case, _rogat_ would
require emendation.
One of Heinsius' manuscripts read _per se ... facit_, which is just
possibly correct. Heinsius proposed _pro se ... facit_, which I do not
understand.
=35. HABITVRA= is a good instance of the future participle used to express
what is inevitably destined to happen (with _Parca_ balancing in the
pentameter); for the sense, see Tarrant on Sen _Ag_ 43 'daturus coniugi
iugulum suae'.
=37. INOBLITA= = _memori_. Apparently the only instance of the word in
classical Latin.
=39. CAELO ... SVB VLLO.= Bentley oddly conjectured ILLO, the reading of
_Mac_, which gives the sense 'under the Tomitan sky'. This obviously
contradicts the following _transit nostra feros si modo Musa Getas_.
=41. SERVATOREM= occurs in Ovid only here and at _Met_ IV 737-38 (of
Perseus) 'auxiliumque domus _seruatoremque_ fatentur / Cassiope
Cepheusque pater'. In prose it is several times used in a civic context
(Cic _Pis_ 34, _Planc_ 102, Livy VI 20 16 & XLV 44 20; _CIL_ IX 4852 in
a dedication to _Ioui optimo maximo seruatori conseruatori ... ex uoto
suscepto_). The solemn overtones of _seruatorem_ must be part of what
Ovid means for his own land and for the rest of the world to hear and
know; the poem thus ends with an implied pronouncement to balance the
public statement of the opening.
=42. MEQVE TVVM LIBRA NORIT ET AERE MAGIS.= This line clearly refers to
_mancipatio_, the receiving of property (including slaves), which is
described by Gaius as follows: 'adhibitis non minus quam [_Boeth._: quod
_cod_] quinque testibus ciuibus Romanis puberibus, et praeterea alio
eiusdem condicionis qui libram aeneam teneat, qui appellatur libripens
['scale-holder'--de Zulueta], is qui mancipio accipit, aes [aes _add
Boeth._] tenens, ita dicit: "hunc ego hominem ex iure [_Boeth._: iUst
_cod_] Quiritium meum esse aio isque mihi emptus esto hoc aere aeneaque
libra", deinde aere percutit libram, idque aes dat ei a quo mancipio
accipit quasi pretii loco' (I 119).
MAGIS is found as a secondary reading in _F_ and in the
thirteenth-century _Barberinus lat. 26_; the reading of most manuscripts
is MINVS, which seems to me impossible. Several explanations of _minus_
have been advanced:
(i) Gronovius took the line to mean 'tuus sum, immo mancipium tuum, nisi
quod sola libra et aes mea mancipatione abfuerunt'. This retention of
_minus_, however, involves Ovid in a qualifying retraction just when he
seems to be aiming for a ringing conclusion. As well, the instances of
_minus_ cited by Gronovius do not in fact illustrate this passage: among
them are _EP_ I vii 25-26 'uno / nempe salutaris quam prius ore minus',
_Met_ XII 554-55 'bis sex Herculeis ceciderunt me minus uno ['except for
me alone'] / uiribus', and Manilius I 778 'Tarquinio ... minus reges',
'the kings, except for Tarquin'.
Gronovius seems to have realized that difficulties remained, and
proposed to read NOVIT in 42 and make 41-42 a relative clause dependent
on _tellus_ in 38, so that the concluding lines of the poem would mean
'mea tellus, Sulmo, Roma, Italia, me tuum esse audiet. sed audiet idem
etiam, quaecumque sub alia quauis caeli parte terra posita est, et te,
meum seruatorem, meque, libra et aere tuum, minus nouit'. Once again,
_minus_ seems to weaken the poem fatally.
(ii) Ehwald (_KB_ 71) followed Gronovius' second explanation, retaining
the manuscripts' _norit_, and glossing 'tellus, quae sub ullo caelo
posita est et te, meae salutis seruatorem, meque, libra et aere tuum,
minus norit'.
(iii) Némethy followed Gronovius' first explanation, adding as an
illustration _AA_ I 643-44 'ludite, si sapitis, solas impune puellas: /
hac _minus_ [_Burman_: magis _codd_] est una fraude tuenda [_Naugerius
ex codd suis_: pudenda _codd_] fides'. The citation does not strengthen
the case for _minus_.
(iv) André wrote '_Minus_ me paraît avoir le sens de _citra_ "sans aller
jusqu'à", i.e. "sans même avoir recours à la mancipation": "tu es mon
maître de ma propre volonté, et non, comme tu l'es de tes autres
propriétés, par achat."' But the meaning seems to weaken the force of
the poem.
I have with reluctance adopted _libra ... et aere magis_, taking it in
the sense _magis quam libra et aere_ ('I am yours even more than I would
be if I had been acquired through _mancipatio_'). The closest parallel I
have found for this compressed use of the ablative is the idiom at v 7
'luce minus decima', 'before the tenth day'.
Of the other readings, _F1_'s _tuum ... datum_ cannot itself be correct,
although it may offer a clue to the truth. Heinsius' _tuum ... tuum_ is
grammatical enough, but (as Professor R. J. Tarrant points out to me)
makes Ovid say that he is Pompeius' literally through _mancipatio_. As
well, the repetition seems odd. Rappold's _tuae ... manus_ cannot be
right, since _manus_ did not have the sense of _mancipium_, except for
the limited meaning of a husband's authority over his wife. Still,
Rappold's conjecture may be a step in the right direction, particularly
in view of v 39-40 'pro quibus ut meritis referatur gratia, iurat / se
fore _mancipii_ tempus in omne _tui_'.
XVI. To a Detractor
The anonymous detractor to whom Ovid apparently addresses this poem is
probably fictional; at 47 he substitutes _Liuor_, dropping the pretence
of speaking to a single enemy.
Ovid begins the poem by asking his detractor why he criticizes Ovid's
verse. A poet's fame increases after his death; Ovid's fame was great
even while he was still alive (1-4). There were many poets contemporary
with Ovid (5-38). There were also younger poets, not yet published, whom
he will not name, with the necessary exception of Cotta Maximus (39-44).
Even among such poets, he had a reputation. Envy should therefore cease
to torment him; he has lost everything but life, which is left only so
that he can continue to experience pain (45-50).
The poem is of particular interest because of the catalogue of the poets
of the earlier part of the reign of Tiberius. It is a reminder of how
much Latin verse has been lost, for of the poets listed only Grattius
survives.
Similar catalogues of poets are found at Prop II xxxiv 61-92 and _Am_ I
xv 9-30, the poets listed being however not contemporaries but
illustrious predecessors. _Tr_ IV x 41-54 is complementary to the
present poem, being a list of the leading Roman poets at the beginning
of Ovid's career. All of these poems come last in their book, and it
seems clear enough that the present poem was meant to close a published
collection. Other links exist with the earlier poems: mention is
similarly made in them of the poet's fame after his death (Prop II xxxiv
94, _Am_ I xi 41-42, _Tr_ IV x 129-30), and _Am_ I xv (which Professor
R. J. Tarrant suggests may have ended the original edition in five books
of the _Amores_) is, like the present poem, addressed to _Liuor_.
=1. INVIDE, QVID LACERAS NASONIS CARMINA RAPTI.= Compare the question that
opens _Am_ I xv 'Quid mihi, Liuor edax, ignauos obicis annos, /
ingeniique uocas carmen inertis opus'. For _inuide ... laceras_ compare
Cic _Brutus_ 156 '_inuidia_, quae solet _lacerare_ plerosque'.
=1. LACERAS.= _Lacerare_ 'attack verbally' is a prose usage, found in
Cicero, the historians, and the elder Seneca (_OLD lacero_ 5; _TLL_
VII.2 827 50).
The primary meaning of _lacerare_ behind this usage is _mordere_;
_lacerare_ is found in this literal sense at Cic _De or_ II 240
'_lacerat_ lacertum Largi _mordax_ Memmius', Phaedrus I xii 11
'_lacerari_ coepit _morsibus_ saeuis canum', and Sen _Clem_ I 25 1.
For _mordere_ in the same transferred sense, see at xiv 46 _mordenda_ (p
424).
=1. NASONIS ... RAPTI.= 'Of Ovid, who is now dead'. For _rapti_, see at xi
5 _rapti_ (p 362).
=2. NON SOLET INGENIIS SVMMA NOCERE DIES.= The same thought at _Am_ I xv
39-40 'pascitur in uiuis Liuor; post fata quiescit, / cum suus ex merito
quemque tuetur honos' and _EP_ III iv 73-74 'scripta placent a morte
fere, quia laedere uiuos / Liuor et iniusto carpere dente solet'.
=3. CINERES= = _mortem_. Bömer at _Met_ VIII 539 _post cinerem_ (where
_cinerem_, as Bömer saw, means 'cremation'), cites among other passages
Prop III i 35-36 'meque inter seros laudabit Roma nepotes: / illum _post
cineres_ auguror esse diem', Martial I i 2-6 'Martialis ... cui, lector
studiose, quod dedisti / uiuenti decus atque sentienti, / rari _post
cineres_ habent poetae' and Martial VIII xxxviii 16 'hoc et _post
cineres_ erit tributum'.
=3. AT= is my correction for the manuscripts' ET. The point that Ovid was
famous _even_ while alive is made by _tum quoque_ later in the verse;
the only meaning that could therefore be given to _et mihi nomen_ is
'even I had a name, even when I was alive', which is inappropriate,
since in this poem Ovid is not belittling his poetic talent.
_At_ seems to be the obvious solution, giving the sense 'poets usually
become famous after they die; I, _however_, was famous even while
alive'. Compare _Tr_ IV x 121-22 (to his Muse) 'tu mihi, quod rarum est,
uiuo sublime dedisti / nomen, ab exequiis quod dare fama solet' and
Martial I i 2-6 (cited in the previous note). The more usual situation
of obscurity during the poet's lifetime followed by posthumous fame is
described at Prop III i 21-24.
Professor C. P. Jones points out to me that _et_ can have an adversative
sense (_OLD et_ 14a). But the two instances there cited from Augustan
verse are examples of _nec ... et_ (_Fast_ V 530; _Tr_ V xii 63 'nec
possum _et_ cupio non nullos ducere uersus'). Where _et_ alone carries
the adversative sense, it is generally used to join two opposing verbs
or verbal phrases: compare Cic _Tusc_ I 6 'fieri ... potest ut recte quis
sentiat _et_ id quod sentit polite eloqui non possit' and Sen _NQ_ II 18
'quare aliquando non fulgurat _et_ tonat?'.
=4. CVM VIVIS ADNVMERARER.= For Ovid's considering himself already dead,
compare _EP_ I ix 56 'et nos extinctis adnumerare potest' and _EP_ I vii
9-10 'nos satis est inter glaciem Scythicasque sagittas / uiuere, si
uita est mortis habenda genus'.
Ovid is the first poet to use _adnumerare_ in this sense ('reckon in
with'), and only in his poems of exile; it is afterwards found at _Her_
XVI 330 and Manilius V 438.
=5-36.= It is possible to discern a rough order in the catalogue of names;
first come the writers of epic and Pindaric verse (5-28), then the
dramatists (29-31), and finally the writers of lighter verse (32-36).
=5. CVM FORET ET= _FHT_ CVMQVE FORET _BCMIL_. Clearly either _et_ or
_-que_ was lost, and one or both inserted to restore the metre. _Cumque_
would be a continuation of _at mihi nomen ..._, which seems an inelegant
construction. _Cum foret et_, introducing a sentence of forty-two lines
ending in 'dicere si fas est, claro mea nomine Musa / atque inter
tantos quae legeretur erat' seems preferable; this very long sentence
serves not as a continuation of the statement in 3-4, but as evidence
for it.
=5. MARSVS.= Domitius Marsus[29] is often mentioned by Martial as a writer
of epigram, sometimes being coupled with Catullus and Albinovanus Pedo
(I praef, II lxxi 3 & lxxvii 5, V v 6, VII xcix 7). A friend of
Maecenas, he wrote an epic poem on the Amazons (Martial IV xxix 8), and
at least nine books of _fabellae_ (Charisius I 72 Keil). Quintilian
quotes from his treatise on _urbanitas_ (VI iii 102 ff.); and he is
cited as an authority by the elder Pliny (_NH_ I 34).
[Footnote 29: _PIR_1 D 131; _PIR_2 D 153; Schanz-Hosius 174-76 (§
275-76); Bardon 52-57.]
The scholiasts and grammarians preserve seven fragments (Morel 110-11),
the most interesting being the four lines on the death of Tibullus: 'Te
quoque Vergilio comitem non aequa, Tibulle, / Mors iuuenem campos misit
ad Elysios, / ne foret aut elegis molles qui fleret amores / aut caneret
forti regia bella pede'.
=5. MAGNIQVE RABIRIVS ORIS.= Similar phrasing at Virgil _G_ III 294 'magno
nunc ore sonandum', Prop II x 12 'magni nunc erit oris opus', and _AA_ I
206 (to Gaius) 'et magno nobis ore sonandus eris'. In the last two
passages, as here, there is a specific reference to epic verse.
=5. RABIRIVS.= Velleius Paterculus (II 36 3) mentions Rabirius
(Schanz-Hosius 267-68 [§ 316]; Bardon 73-74) alongside Virgil: 'paene
stulta est inhaerentium oculis ingeniorum enumeratio, inter quae maxima
nostri aeui eminent princeps carminum Vergilius Rabiriusque'. Quintilian
speaks of him with rather less admiration: 'Rabirius ac Pedo non indigni
cognitione, si uacet' (X i 90). Seneca (_Ben_ VI 3 1) quotes a passage
of his with Mark Antony speaking; presumably one of his poems dealt with
the civil war.
Five short fragments of Rabirius survive (Morel 120-21).
=6. ILIACVSQVE MACER.= Pompeius Macer[30] was one of Ovid's closest
friends; he is the addressee of _Am_ II xviii and _EP_ II x. The son of
Theophanes of Mytilene, Pompey's confidant, he was intimate with
Tiberius (Strabo XIII 2 3); under Augustus he had served as procurator
of Asia and had been placed in charge of the libraries at Rome (Suet
_Iul_ 56 7). Two poems in the Greek Anthology are generally attributed
to him (VII ccxix; IX xxviii).
[Footnote 30: _PIR_1 P 473; Syme _HO_ 73-74; Bardon 65-66; J. Schwartz,
"Pompeius Macer et la jeunesse d'Ovide", _RPh_ XXV (1951) 182-94. Macer
is discussed in the section of Schanz-Hosius dealing with Ovid's
catalogue of poets (269-72; § 318); I give references to Schanz-Hosius
below only for poets dealt with outside this section.]
_Iliacus_ is explained by _Am_ II xviii 1-3 'Carmen ad iratum dum tu
perducis Achillem ['while you are writing a poem about the Trojan war up
to the starting-point of the _Iliad_'] / primaque iuratis induis arma
uiris, / nos, Macer, ignaua Veneris cessamus in umbra' and _EP_ II x
13-14 'tu canis aeterno quicquid restabat Homero, / ne careant summa
Troica bella manu'; Macer had written poems narrating those parts of the
Trojan war not covered by the _Iliad_.
The Macer mentioned at Tr IV x 43-44 must be a different person, for he
is described as already being _grandior aeuo_ in Ovid's youth.
=6. SIDEREVSQVE PEDO.= On Albinovanus Pedo, see at x 4 _Albinouane_ (p
327).
For _sidereus_ ('divine' or 'resplendent'), Bardon aptly cited Columella
X 434 (written in hexameters) '_siderei_ uatis ... praecepta Maronis'.
=7. ET, QVI IVNONEM LAESISSET IN HERCVLE, CARVS.= This is the Carus to
whom xiii is addressed: compare xiii 11-12 'prodent auctorem uires, quas
Hercule dignas / nouimus atque illi quem canis ipse pares'.
As Jupiter's son by Alcmene, Hercules suffered from Juno's enmity until
his deification.
=8. IVNONIS SI IAM NON GENER ILLE FORET.= Perhaps Carus' poem included
Hercules' marriage to Hebe.
=9. SEVERVS.= On Severus, the addressee of poem ii, see the introduction
to that poem; for _quique dedit Latio carmen regale_, see at ii 1 _uates
magnorum maxime regum_ (p 162).
=10. SVBTILI ... NVMA.= Numa is otherwise unknown. _Subtilis_ means 'clean
and elegant in style'; compare Cic _De or_ I 180 'oratione maxime
limatus atque _subtilis_' and _Brutus_ 35 'tum fuit Lysias ... egregie
_subtilis_ scriptor atque elegans, quem iam prope audeas oratorem
perfectum dicere'.
=10. PRISCVS VTERQVE.= Only one poet of this name is known, Clutorius (Tac
_Ann_ III 49-51) or C. Lutorius (Dio LVII 20 3) Priscus. All that is
known of him is the manner of his death: in AD 21 he was put to death
for composing and reciting a premature poem on the death of Drusus.
=11. IMPARIBVS NVMERIS ... VEL AEQVIS.= Like Ovid, Montanus wrote both
elegiac and hexameter verse.
For _impar_ used of elegiac verse, compare Hor _AP_ 75 (the earliest
instance) 'uersibus _impariter_ iunctis', _Am_ II xvii 21, _Am_ III i
37, _AA_ I 264, _Tr_ II 220, _EP_ II v 1 (_disparibus_), _EP_ III iv 86
(_disparibus_), _EP_ IV v 3 (_nec ... aequis_), and line 36 of the
present poem.
=11. MONTANE.= Iulius Montanus is mentioned in passing at Sen _Cont_ VII 1
27, where he is called _egregius poeta_; in Donatus' life of Virgil (29)
his admiration of Virgil's manner of reciting is mentioned, on the
authority of the elder Seneca. The younger Seneca, calling him
'tolerabilis poeta et amicitia Tiberi notus et frigore', tells some
amusing anecdotes about the length of his recitations and his fondness
for describing sunrises and sunsets (_Ep_ CXXII 11-13). He quotes from
him twice (Morel 120).
=13-14. ET QVI PENELOPAE RESCRIBERE IVSSIT VLIXEM / ERRANTEM SAEVO PER
DVO LUSTRA MARI.= All that is known of Sabinus is what Ovid says here and
in his list of Sabinus' poems at _Am_ II xviii 27-34 'quam cito de toto
rediit meus orbe Sabinus / scriptaque diuersis rettulit ille locis! /
candida Penelope signum cognouit Vlixis; / legit ab Hippolyto scripta
nouerca suo. / iam pius Aeneas miserae rescripsit Elissae, / quodque
legat Phyllis, si modo uiuit, adest. / tristis ad Hypsipylen ab Iasone
littera uenit; / det uotam Phoebo Lesbis amata lyram' (this line, like
the letter of Sappho, has been considered suspect; see R. J. Tarrant,
"The Authenticity of the Letter of Sappho to Phaon (_Heroides XV_)",
_HSPh_ 85 [1981] 133-53).
Since the letter of Ulysses is the first one mentioned in the list at
_Am_ II xviii 29, it was presumably the first poem in Sabinus'
collection of epistles; hence Ovid's use of it here to indicate the
entire collection.
Line 14 may be an echo of one of Sabinus' poems.
=15. TRISOMEN= _C_ TRISOMEM _B1_. For the many other variants, see the
apparatus. The word is clearly corrupt; correction is difficult in the
absence of further information on Sabinus. TROEZENA (a conjecture
reported by Micyllus) seems unattractive. Heinsius had difficulty with
the passage: 'an _Tymelen_? opinor certe nomen puellae a Sabino
decantatae hic latere'. TROESMIN, suggested by Ehwald (_JAW_ CIX [1901]
187), is unlikely--why would Sabinus have wished to recount Vestalis'
capture of the city?--but not, as claimed by Vollmer (PW I A,2 1598 34),
unmetrical: lengthening is common enough before the main caesura
(although I have found no example of lengthened _-in_). Bardon (61)
wished to read TROEZEN (which is in fact the reading of _T_), apparently
not realizing that an accusative form is required.
=15-16. DIERVM ... OPVS.= Sabinus apparently started work on a
calendar-poem, which may have resembled the _Fasti_; compare _Fast_ I
101 'uates operose _dierum_'.
=16. CELERI= = 'premature'.
=17. INGENIIQVE SVI DICTVS COGNOMINE LARGVS.= For the play on the name
compare xiii 2 'qui quod es, id uere, Care, uocaris, aue'. Nothing is
known of Largus beyond what Ovid here tells us.
=18. GALLICA QVI PHRYGIVM DVXIT IN ARVA SENEM.= Largus described Antenor's
migration to Venetia and founding of Patavium, for which see _Aen_ I
242-49 and Livy I 1.
=18. GALLICA ... ARVA.= Patavium was in Cisalpine Gaul.
=18. PHRYGIVM ... SENEM.= At _Il_ III 149-50 Antenor is listed among the
'[Greek: dêmogerontes ... gêraï dê polemoio pepaumenoi]' sitting on the
Trojan wall who see Helen approach.
=19. DOMITO ... AB HECTORE TROIAM.= 'The story of Troy after the death of
Hector'. _Gothanus II 121_ has the interpolation DOMITAM ... AB HECTORE,
which Korn printed.
=19. CAMERINVS.= Nothing is known of this poet.
=20. SVA PHYLLIDE.= Presumably Tuscus' equivalent of Gallus' Lycoris.
However, as Professor A. Dalzell points out, the reference to love
poetry is odd in a sequence of epic and didactic writers.