Propertiana_, Greifswald, 1875) proposed that he was the "Demophoon"
addressed in Prop II xxii; this suggestion has won support from Birt
[_RhM_ XXXII [1877] 414), Bardon (61; I owe these references to him),
and André, but does not seem extremely convincing, especially since
Propertius had been writing some three decades earlier. Merkel, in his
edition of the _Tristia_ (p. 373), identifies him with the grammarian
Clodius Tuscus, without offering a reason.
=21. VELIVOLIQVE MARIS VATES.= It is not known who this was, or what the
precise subject of the poem might have been; perhaps it resembled the
_Halieutica_. André mentions that Varro Atacinus has been proposed, but
does not name the author of the suggestion, which seems rather fanciful;
as he points out, Varro had died some fifty years previously. Luck in
his edition has proposed Abronius Silo, of whom two hexameters survive
(Sen _Suas_ II 19 = Morel 120), but, as André remarks, the fact that he,
like Ovid, was a follower of the rhetor Porcius Latro is hardly
sufficient evidence for the identification.
For _ueliuolique_ see at v 42 _ueliuolas_ (p 224).
=22. CAERVLEOS ... DEOS= = 'the gods of the sea'. Compare _Met_ II 8
'_caeruleos_ habet unda deos'.
=23. ACIES LIBYCAS ROMANAQVE PROELIA.= The poem may have concerned the
Jugurthine war, or Caesar's African campaign; compare _Fast_ IV 379-80
'illa dies Libycis qua Caesar in oris / perfida magnanimi contudit arma
Iubae'.
For the juxtaposition of opposing proper adjectives (_Libycas Romana_),
see Tarrant on Sen _Ag_ 613-13a _Dardana tecto / Dorici ... ignes_.
=24. ET MARIVS SCRIPTI DEXTER IN OMNE GENVS.= For the phrasing compare
_Tr_ II 381-82 '_omne genus scripti_ grauitate tragoedia uincit: / haec
quoque materiam semper amoris habet' and _Tr_ II 517-18 'an _genus hoc
scripti_ faciunt sua pulpita ['stage'] tutum, / quodque licet, mimis
scaena licere dedit?'. _C_'s MARIVS SCRIPTOR and _B_'s SCRIPTOR MARIVS
were no doubt induced by the hyperbaton of _scripti ... genus_.
Marius is not otherwise known.
=25. TRINACRIVSQVE ... AVCTOR.= In view of the following _auctor ... Lupus_,
_Trinacrius_ should be taken as a proper name, and not as an adjective.
The adjectival form of the name is, however, suspicious, and may be a
corruption far removed from what Ovid wrote.
=25. SVAE= seems strange, and is probably corrupt. Wheeler translated
'Trinacrius who wrote of the _Perseid_ he knew so well', while André
ignored _suae_ altogether: 'l'auteur trinacrien de la "Perséide"'.
=25-26. AVCTOR / TANTALIDAE REDVCIS TYNDARIDOSQVE LVPVS.= Lupus (otherwise
unknown) apparently wrote of the return of Menelaus and Helen to Sparta.
_Tantalides_ is used only here of Menelaus. Elsewhere in Latin verse it
is used of Agamemnon, Atreus, and Pelops: see _OLD Tantalides_. Ovid is
here using the diction of high poetry.
=27. ET QVI MAEONIAM PHAEACIDA VERTIT.= Tuticanus; his translation of the
Phaeacian episode of the Odyssey is mentioned at xii 27-28. As that poem
explains, his name could not be used in elegiac verse: hence the
periphrasis in this passage.
=27. ET VNE= _HLB2_ ET VNe _M2c_ ET VNA _IT_ ET VNI _B1C_ IN ANGVEM _F_.
_Vne_ was liable to corruption because of the hyperbaton with _Rufe_ in
the next line, and because of the rarity of the vocative of _unus_. For
_unus_ in the sense 'unique, outstanding', compare Catullus XXXVII 17
'tu praeter omnes _une_ de capillatis' ('you outstanding member of the
long-haired set'--Quinn) and Prop II iii 29 'gloria Romanis _una_ es tu
nata puellis'.
=27-28. VNE / PINDARICAE FIDICEN TV QVOQVE, RVFE, LYRAE.= An imitation of
Hor _Carm_ IV iii 21-23 'totum muneris hoc tui est / quod monstror
digito praetereuntium / _Romanae fidicen lyrae_'.
=28. RVFE.= Otherwise unknown. André correctly points out that he is
unlikely to be the Rufus addressed in _EP_ II xi, 'dont Ovid n'aurait
pas manqué alors de vanter le talent poétique'. Bardon (59) mentions
that A. Reifferscheid ("Coniect. noua", _Ind. lect. Bresl._, 1880/81,
p. 7) identified this Rufus with the Pindaric poet Titius of Hor _Ep_ I
iii 9-10, thereby creating 'le très synthétique Titius Rufus'. But there
is nothing very compelling about the identification.
=29. MVSAVE TVRRANI.= The poet is not otherwise certainly known. Bardon
(48) reports the conjectures of Hirschfeld ("Annona", _Philologus_,
1870, p. 27) identifying him with C. Turranius, _praefectus annonae_ at
the time of Augustus' death (Tac _Ann_ I 7) and of Munzer (_Beitr. zur
Quellenkritik_ 387-89), identifying him with the geographical writer
Turranius Gracilis mentioned by the elder Pliny (_NH_ III 3, IX 11).
=29. INNIXA COTVRNIS.= The _coturnus_ was distinguished by its high sole;
hence _innixa_ ('supported by'). Compare _Am_ III i 31 (of Tragedy)
'pictis _innixa coturnis_' and Hor _AP_ 279-80 'Aeschylus ... docuit
magnumque loqui _nitique coturno_'.
=29. COTVRNIS.= As Brink at Hor _AP_ 80 points out, _coturnus_ (not
_cothurnus_) is the spelling favoured by the best manuscripts of Virgil
and Horace.
=30. ET TVA CVM SOCCO MVSA, MELISSE, LEVIS.= _H_ offers LEVI, also
conjectured by Heinsius, which may be right: the epithet with _socco_
would provide a pleasing balance with the preceding _tragicis
... coturnis_. On the other hand, Professor R. J. Tarrant in support of
_leuis_ cites _RA_ 375-76 'grande sonant tragici, tragicos decet ira
coturnos: / usibus e mediis _soccus_ habendus erit' and Hor _AP_ 80
'_socci_ ... grandesque coturni'; in both passages _soccus_ has no
adjective.
Propertius uses _Musa leuis_ of his verse (II xii 22); compare as well
_Tr_ II 354 'Musa iocosa' (Ovid's amatory verse), _EP_ I v 69 'infelix
Musa', Lucretius IV 589 & _Ecl_ I 2 'siluestrem ... Musam', and
Quintilian X i 55 'Musa ... rustica et pastoralis' (the poetry of
Theocritus).
_Leuis_ is used of comedy at _Fast_ V 347-48 'scaena _leuis_ decet hanc
[_sc_ Floram]: non est, mihi credite, non est / illa coturnatas inter
habenda deas' and Hor _AP_ 231 'effutire _leues_ indigna Tragoedia
uersus'.
=30. MELISSE.= Thanks principally to Suetonius _Gram_ 21, we are
comparatively well informed about Melissus (Schanz-Hosius 176-77 [§
277]; Bardon 49-52). Brought up a slave (his father had disowned him at
birth), he was given a good education by the man who accepted him, and
was given to Maecenas, who manumitted him. He wrote one hundred and
fifty books of _Ineptiae_. 'Fecit et nouum genus togatarum inscripsitque
trabeatas'; it is no doubt these plays that Ovid is here referring to.
=31. VARIVS.= Possibly the famous author of the _Thyestes_ and editor of
the _Aeneid_ (Schanz-Hosius 162-64 [§ 267]; Bardon 28-34; fragments at
Morel 100-1 and Ribbeck 265). Riese objected to the identification on
chronological grounds (the _Thyestes_ was produced in 29 BC), but the
date of his death is unknown, and he may have survived to the time of
Ovid's exile.
=31. GRACCHVSQVE.= The manuscripts omit the aspirate, and Ehwald cites
_CIL_ VI 1 1505 for a mention of _Ti. Sempronius Graccus_, but in his
discussion of the aspirate Quintilian makes it clear that _Graccus_ was
an obsolete spelling (I v 20).
Gracchus (Bardon 48-49) is mentioned by Priscian, Nonius, and the author
of the _De dubiis nominibus_, who among them preserve four fragments and
three titles (Ribbeck 266). One of the titles is a _Thyestes_; Professor
R. J. Tarrant plausibly suggests that Ovid may here be alluding to the
plays by Varius and Gracchus on the theme with his words _cum ... darent
fera uerba tyrannis_, Atreus being the archetype of the tyrant in
tragedy.
Nipperdey proposed that Ovid's Gracchus was the Sempronius Gracchus
implicated in the disgrace of Julia (Vel Pat II 100 5); see Syme _HO_
196 and Furneaux on Tac _Ann_ I 53 4. The identification is however far
from certain.
=32. CALLIMACHI PROCVLVS MOLLE TENERET ITER.= Proculus is otherwise
unknown. Ehwald suggested (_JAW_ 43 [1885] 141) that he was a dramatic
poet like Varius and Gracchus, citing a mention of the '[Greek: satyrika
dramata, tragôidiai, kômôidiai]' of Callimachus in the _Souda_. But
Callimachus' primary reputation was hardly that of a tragedian; and
_molle ... iter_ must be a reference to _Aetia_ 25-28: '[Greek: kai tod'
anôga, ta mê pateousin hamaxai / ta steiben, heterôn d' ichnia mê kath
homa / [_Hunt: _diphron el]ain mêd' hoimon ana platyn, alla keleuthous /
[_Pfeiffer: _atripto]us, ei kai steinoterên elaseis]'.
For _mollis_ used specifically of elegy (the _Aetia_ were in elegiac
verse), see _EP_ III iv 85 and Prop I vii 19 (cited by André); for the
word in an overtly Callimachean context, see Prop III i 19 '_mollia_,
Pegasides, date uestro serta poetae'.
_Tenere_ here has the sense 'keep to', as at _Met_ II 79 'ut ... uiam
_teneas_' and Q Cic (?) _Pet_ 55 'perge _tenere_ istam uiam quam
institisti [_Gruterus_: instituisti _codd_]'; Professor R. J. Tarrant
rightly sees a suggestion of conscious artistic preference, and a faint
allusion to the places where Augustan poets renounce the attractions of
higher poetry.
=33. TITYRON ANTIQVAS PASSERQVE REDIRET AD HERBAS= _B1C_. For the many
variants and emendations proposed, see the apparatus.
Housman has offered a defence of _B_ and _C_'s version of this line
(937-39). He accepted Riese's printing of _Passer_ as a proper name ('M.
Petronius Passer' is mentioned at Varro _RR_ III 2 2), and took the
passage to mean 'He wrote bucolics, or, as Ovid puts it, he went back to
Tityrus and the pastures of old': the construction is 'cum Passer
rediret ad Tityron antiquasque herbas'. In writing the line, Ovid
resorted to three devices, 'each of them legitimate, but not perhaps
elsewhere assembled in a single verse'. The first is the delay of the
preposition _ad_ after _Tityron_, which it governs; the second is the
delay of _-que_, which properly belongs with _antiquas_; and the third
is the placing of the verb between its two objects. For each of these
devices Housman furnishes convincing parallels.
Housman's argument is ingenious and informative, but I do not believe
that he is right in defending the line: the accumulation of difficulties
is suspicious, and the divergence of the manuscripts is greater here
than at any other point in the book. Heinsius wrote of the line, 'haec
nec Latina sunt, nec satis intelligo quid sibi uelint'. Like Heinsius, I
believe the line to be deeply corrupted and, in the absence of further
evidence, impossible to correct.
=34. APTAQVE VENANTI GRATTIVS ARMA DARET.= Compare Grattius 23 'carmine et
arma dabo et uenandi [_cod_: uenanti et _Vlitius_] persequar artis'.
=34. GRATTIVS.= The manuscripts have GRATIVS (_CFLT_) or GRACIVS (_BMHI_);
and _Gratius_ is what editors both of Ovid and Grattius printed until
Buecheler pointed out (_RhM_ 35 [1880] 407) that _Grattius_ is the only
form found in inscriptions, and is what is given in the oldest
manuscript of Grattius, _Vindobonensis 277_ (saec viii/ix), which
predates the manuscripts of _EP_ IV by at least four hundred years.
=35. NAIADAS= _C. P. Jones_ NAIADAS A _HLI2_ NAYADES A _MT_ NAIDAS A
_BCFI2_. Ovid elsewhere invariably uses the dative of agent with
_amatus_ (_Am_ I v 12, II viii 12, III ix 55-56, _AA_ II 80, _Tr_ I vi
2, II 400, III i 42, IV x 40).
As Professor Jones notes, following the interpolation of _a_, the
shorter form _Naidas_ was introduced in _BCFI1_ to restore metre.
=35-36. FONTANVS ... CAPELLA.= Neither poet is otherwise known.
=36. IMPARIBVS ... MODIS.= See at 11 _imparibus numeris ... uel aequis_ (p
453).
=37-38. QVORVM MIHI CVNCTA REFERRE / NOMINA LONGA MORA EST.= Similar
phrasing at _Met_ XIII 205-6 '_longa referre mora est_ quae consilioque
manuque / utiliter feci spatiosi tempore belli' and _Fast_ V 311-12
(Flora speaking) '_longa referre mora est_ correcta obliuia damnis; / me
quoque Romani praeteriere patres'.
=39-40. ESSENT ET IVVENES QVORVM, QVOD INEDITA CVRA EST, / APPELLANDORVM
NIL MIHI IVRIS ADEST.= All editors, misled no doubt by 37, mispunctuate
this passage, placing a comma before _quorum_ instead of after: this
destroys the gerundive _quorum ... appellandorum_, leaving the pentameter
without a construction.
Williams proposed excising this distich, the reasons being (1) the
sudden change from _forent_ to _essent_, (2) the use of _inedita_, which
is not found elsewhere, (3) the use of _cura_ in a sense, 'written
work', that is found only in late Latin, and (4) the prose turn of
_quorum ... appellandorum_. To which it can be replied that (1) _forent_
and _essent_ are equivalent, and metrical convenience alone could
justify the change, (2) the use of negatived perfect participles such as
_inedita_, _indeclinatus_ (x 83), and _inoblita_ (xv 37) is a hallmark
of Ovid's style, (3) _cura_ is used in this sense by Tacitus (_Dial_ 3
3 & 6 5; _Ann_ III 24 4 & IV 11 5); its earlier use in verse is not
surprising, and (4) gerundives were allowed in Latin verse; here, as at
ix 12 '_salutandi_ munere functa _tui_', the hyperbaton compensates for
any awkwardness.
=39. CVRA= _unus Thuaneus Heinsii_ CAVSA _BCMFHILT_. The same error in
some manuscripts at _Her_ I 20 'Tlepolemi leto _cura_ nouata mea est',
and _Fast_ I 55 'uindicat Ausonias Iunonis _cura_ Kalendas'; the inverse
corruption at _Am_ II xii 17 and _Fast_ IV 368.
In 1894 Owen printed _causa_. The word can certainly have the meaning he
attributed to it ('[Greek: hypothesis]', 'theme'), as at Prop II i 12
'inuenio _causas_ mille poeta nouas', but this does not seem appropriate
to the context here. In his later edition Owen returned to the usual
reading.
=41. APPELLANDORVM.= _Appellare_ used with the same sense (_OLD appello2_
11) at III vi 6 '_appellent_ ne te carmina nostra rogas';
_nOminAre_ was not available for Ovid's use.
=41-44. COTTA ... MAXIME.= M. Aurelius Cotta Maximus Messalinus[31]
(_Forschungen in Ephesos_ III 112 no. 22; cited by Syme _HO_ 117) was
the younger son of Messalla, the patron of Tibullus; he was the
recipient of six of the _Epistulae ex Ponto_ (I v, I ix, II iii, II
viii, III ii & III v). He is undoubtedly the M. Aurelius or Aurelius
Cotta recorded by Tacitus as consul for 20 (_Ann_ III 2 3 & 17 4). He
was born much later than his brother Messalinus (the addressee of _EP_ I
vii and II ii), who was consul in 3 BC; the chronology is confirmed by a
mention of him as praetor in 17 (_Inscriptiones Italiae_ XIII i p. 298;
see Syme _Ten Studies_ 52), and by Ovid's testimony that Cotta was born
after Ovid had become acquainted with his family (_EP_ II iii 69-80).
Cotta was clearly a very close friend of Ovid; this can be seen
particularly from _EP_ II iii, in which Ovid recounts how Cotta sent the
first letter of comfort after his catastrophe (67-68) and tells how he
confessed his _error_ to Cotta.
[Footnote 31: _PIR_1 A 1236; _PIR_2 A 1488; PW 11,2 2490 13]]
Tacitus gives some information on Cotta's public career. In AD 16, in
the aftermath of the discovery of Libo's plot against Tiberius, Cotta
proposed that Libo's image not be in his descendants' funeral
processions (_Ann_ II 32 1). In 20, as consul, he similarly proposed
penalties against Piso's family (_Ann_ III 17), and in 27 he is
mentioned as attacking Agrippina so as to please Tiberius (_Ann_ V 3).
The most interesting mention of him is at _Ann_ VI 5 (AD 32), where
Tacitus tells of how Tiberius himself intervened in favour of Cotta
after he had been charged with _maiestas_; the eventual result was that
charges were laid against Cotta's chief accuser.
=42. PIERIDVM LVMEN.= At _EP_ III v 29-36 Ovid asked Cotta to send him
some of his poetry.
For the sense of _lumen_ here ('ornament'), _OLD lumen_ 11 cites among
other passages Cic _Sul_ 5 'haec ornamenta ac _lumina_ rei publicae' and
_Phil II_ 54 (of Pompey) 'imperi populi Romani decus ac _lumen_ fuit'.
=42. PRAESIDIVMQVE FORI= = 'defender of the law'. Compare vi 33-34 'cum
tibi suscepta est _legis uindicta seuerae_, / uerba uelut taetrum
singula uirus habent'.
=43. MATERNOS COTTAS.= This passage should be taken in conjunction with
_EP_ III ii 103-8 (to Cotta) 'adde quod est animus semper tibi mitis, et
altae / indicium mores nobilitatis habent, / quos Volesus patrii
cognoscat nominis auctor, / quos Numa maternus non neget esse suos, /
adiectique probent genetiua ad nomina Cottae, / si tu non esses,
interitura domus'. The simplest explanation of these two passages is
that Cotta had been adopted by a maternal uncle, the last surviving
Aurelius Cotta.
The question of Cotta's maternal ancestry is a vexed one; for a full
discussion see Syme _HO_ 119-21.
The present passage was written with Prop IV xi 31-32 in mind: 'altera
_maternos_ exaequat turba _Libones_, / et domus est titulis utraque
fulta suis'.
=44. NOBILITAS INGEMINATA.= In a famous study (_Kleine Schriften_ I 1 ff.;
trans. _The Roman Nobility_ [1969]), Matthias Gelzer demonstrated that
the usual meaning of _nobilis_ was 'descended from a consul'. Cotta was
descended from a consul on both sides.
At _Met_ XIII 144-47 Ovid uses _nobilitas_ to mean 'descent from a god':
(Ulysses speaking) 'mihi Laertes pater est, Arcesius illi, / Iuppiter
huic ... est quoque _per matrem_ Cyllenius _addita_ nobis / _altera
nobilitas_: deus est in utroque parente!'.
=44. INGEMINATA.= A verbal echo of _EP_ I ii 1-2 (to Fabius Maximus)
'Maxime, qui tanti mensuram nominis imples, / et _geminas_ animi
_nobilitate_ genus'.
=46. ATQVE INTER TANTOS QVAE LEGERETVR ERAT.= This is the end of the
sentence that began at 5.
=46. INTER TANTOS.= Compare _EP_ III i 55-56 (Ovid has just compared
himself to Capaneus, Amphiaraus, Ulysses, and Philoctetes) 'si locus est
aliquis _tanta inter nomina_ paruis, / nos quoque conspicuos nostra
ruina facit'.
=47. SVMMOTVM= _codd_ SVBMOTVM _edd_. The assimilated _summ-_ is standard
in the manuscripts of Virgil and Lucretius, and should not be altered.
=47. PROSCINDERE= = 'revile, defame'. This seems to be the first instance
of the word in this sense; the other examples cited by _OLD_ _proscindo_
3 are Val Max V iii 3, Val Max VIII 5 2 'C. Flauium eadem lege accusatum
testis _proscidit_', Pliny _NH_ XXXIII 6, and Suet _Cal_ 30 2 'equestrem
ordinem ut scaenae harenaeque deuotum assidue _proscidit_'. The word
connects with _laceras_ in the first line of the poem, and with _neu
cineres sparge, cruente, meos_ in 48.
=49. OMNIA PERDIDIMVS.= The same phrase at _Met_ XIII 527-28 (Hecuba
speaking) '_omnia perdidimus_: superest cur uiuere tempus / in breue
sustineam proles gratissima matri'.
=49. TANTVMMODO= is a prose word. It occurs elsewhere in Ovid only at
_Fast_ III 361 'ortus erat summo _tantummodo_ margine Phoebus' and at
_Tr_ III vii 29-30 'pone, Perilla, metum; _tantummodo_ femina nulla /
neue uir a scriptis discat amare tuis'. Being a colloquial term, it is
found in satire (Hor _Sat_ I ix 54) and comedy (Ter _Ph_ 109).
=50. SENSVM MATERIAMQVE MALI.= 'An occasion for pain, and the ability to
feel it'. For _sensum_ compare _EP_ I ii 29-30 'felicem Nioben ... quae
posuit _sensum_ saxea facta _mali_ [_uar_ malis]' and _EP_ I ii 37
'uiuimus ut numquam _sensu_ careamus amaro'. For _materiam_ compare
_Her_ VII 34 'materiam curae praebeat ille meae!', _Met_ X 133-34 'ut
leuiter pro materiaque doleret / admonuit' and _EP_ I x 23-24 'dolores,
/ quorum materiam dat locus ipse mihi'.
=51-52. QVID IVVAT EXTINCTOS FERRVM DEMITTERE IN ARTVS? / NON HABET IN
NOBIS IAM NOVA PLAGA LOCVM.= I believe this distich is an interpolation
for the following reasons:
(1) Lines 49-50 form an effective ending, which 51-52 weaken. In 49-50
Ovid says that life is all that is left to him; and in 52 it is stated
that he is already wounded in every place possible. These statements are
contradictory.
(2) The use of a weapon in 51 is at odds with the rending metaphor of
_laceras_ (1) and _proscindere_ (47).
(3) There seems something peculiar about _ferrum demittere in artus_;
the examples of _demittere_ with this sense in the _Metamorphoses_
involve _ilia_ (IV 119, XII 441), _armi_ (XII 491), and _iugulum_ (XIII
436; similar phrasing at _Her_ XIV 5).
The distich's fabrication was assisted by _EP_ II vii 41-42 'sic ego
continue Fortunae uulneror ictu, / _uixque habet in nobis iam noua plaga
locum_'.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
_1. Editions and commentaries_
F. Puteolanus, _P. Ovidii Nasonis Opera Omnia_. Bologna, 1471.
J. Andreas de Buxis, _P. Ovidii Nasonis Opera Omnia_. Rome, 1471.
N. Heinsius, _P. Ovidii Nasonis Opera Omnia_. Amsterdam, 1652.
_Electa minora ex Ovidio, Tibullo, et Propertio_. London, 1705.
P. Burman, _P. Ovidii Nasonis Opera Omnia_. Amsterdam, 1727.
T. Harles, _Publii Ovidii Nasonis Tristium Libri V Ex Ponto Libri IIII_.
Erlangen, 1772.
W. E. Weber, _Corpus Poetarum Latinorum_. Frankfurt, 1833.
R. Merkel, _P. Ovidius Naso_, vol. 3: _Tristia. Ibis. Ex Ponto Libri.
Fasti. Halieutica_. Leipzig, 1853.
O. Korn, _P. Ovidii Nasonis Ex Ponto Libri Quattuor_. Leipzig, 1868.
A. Riese, _P. Ovidii Nasonis Carmina_, vol. 3: _Fasti. Tristia. Ibis. Ex
Ponto. Halieutica. Fragmenta_. Leipzig, 1874.
W. H. Williams, _Ovid. The Pontic Epistles. Book IV_. London, 1881.
R. Merkel, _P. Ovidius Naso_, vol. 3: _Tristia. Ibis. Ex Ponto Libri.
Fasti._ Leipzig, 1884, reprinted 1902.
S. G. Owen, in J. P. Postgate's _Corpus Poetarum Latinorum_, vol. 1.
London, 1894.
S. G. Owen, _P. Ovidi Nasonis Tristium Libri Quinque Ibis Ex Ponto Libri
Quattuor Halieutica Fragmenta_. Oxford, 1915, reprinted 1963.
G. Némethy, _Commentarius Exegeticus ad Ovidii Epistulas ex Ponto_.
Budapest, 1915.
G. Némethy, _Supplementum Commentariorum ad Ovidii Amores, Tristia, et
Epistulas ex Ponto_. Budapest, 1922.
R. Ehwald and F. W. Levy, _P. Ovidius Naso_, vol. 3: _Tristium Libri V.
Ibis. Ex Ponto Libri IV_. Leipzig, 1922.
A. L. Wheeler, _Ovid. Tristia. Ex Ponto_. Cambridge (Massachusetts) and
London, 1924, reprinted 1975.
F. W. Lenz, _P. Ovidi Nasonis Epistulae ex Ponto_. Turin, 1938.
G. Luck, _Publius Ovidius Naso. Briefe aus der Verbannung_, with a
German translation by W. Willige. Zurich and Stuttgart, 1963.
F. della Corte, _Ovidio. I Pontica_ [translation and commentary], 2
vols. Genoa, 1977.
J. André, _Ovide. Pontiques._ Paris, 1977.
_2. Works cited_
Austin, R. G., ed. _P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Liber Secundus_. Oxford,
1964; reprinted 1966.
Axelson, B., _Unpoetische Wörter. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der
lateinischen Dichtersprache_. Lund, 1945.
Bardon, H., _La littérature latine inconnue_. Tome II: _L'époque
impériale_. Paris, 1956.
Bell, A. J., _The Latin Dual and Poetic Diction. Studies in Numbers and
Figures_. London and Toronto, 1923.
Birt, T., "Animadversiones ad Ovidii heroidum epistulas", _RhM_ 32
(1877), 386-432.
Bömer, F., _P. Ouidius Naso. Die Fasten_. 2 vols. Heidelberg, 1957-58.
Bömer, F., _P. Ouidius Naso. Metamorphosen. Kommentar_. Heidelberg,
1969-(in progress).
Bonner, S. F., _Education in Ancient Rome. From the elder Cato to the
younger Pliny_. London, 1977.
Brink, C. O., ed. _Horace on Poetry. The 'Ars Poetica'_. Cambridge,
1971.
Buckland, W. W., _A Text-book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian_.
Third edition, revised by Peter Stein. Cambridge, 1963; corrected
reprint, 1975.
Chatelain, E., _Paléographie des classiques latins_. Paris, 1894-1900.
Cope, E. M., ed. _The Rhetoric of Aristotle_. London, 1877; reprint
edition, New York, 1973.
Costa, C. D. N., ed. _Seneca. Medea_. Oxford, 1973.
Ehrenberg, V. and A. H. M. Jones, _Documents Illustrating the Reigns of
Augustus and Tiberius_. Second edition. Oxford, 1955; reprinted 1963.
Ehwald, R., "Jahresbericht über Ovid von Mai 1894 bis Januar 1902",
_JAW_ 109 (1901), 162-302.
Ehwald, R., _Kritische Beiträge zu Ovids Epistulae ex Ponto_. Gotha,
1896.
Fordyce, C. J., _Catullus. A commentary_. Oxford, 1961; corrected
reprint, 1968.
Gain, D. B., ed. _The Aratus ascribed to Germanicus Caesar_. London,
1976.
Getty, R. J., ed. _M. Annaei Lucani De Bello Ciuili Liber I_. Cambridge,
1940; reprint edition, New York, 1979.
Goold, G. P., "Amatoria Critica". _HSPh_ 69 (1965), 1-107.
Gow, A. S. F., ed. _Theocritus_. 2 vols. Cambridge, 1950.
Gronovius, J. F., _Observationum Libri Quattuor_, ed. F. Platner,
Leipzig, 1755; reprint edition, Leipzig, 1831. (_Observationum Libri
Tres_, Leiden, 1639; second edition, 1662).
Haupt, M., _Opuscula_. Leipzig, 1875; reprint edition, Hildesheim, 1967.
Hedicke, E., _Studia Bentleiana_. Part V: _Ovidius Bentleianus_.
Freienwald, 1905.