Chapter 1 of 21 · 3938 words · ~20 min read

Part 1

THE LAST POEMS OF OVID

A New Edition, with Commentary, of the Fourth Book of the _Epistulae ex Ponto_

by Mark Bear Akrigg, Ph.D.

* * * * *

This edition and commentary are dedicated to

ROB MORROW

_"quo non mihi carior alter"_

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments i

Preface ii

Introduction 1

Textual Introduction 23

P. OVIDI NASONIS _EPISTVLARM EX PONTO_ LIBER QVARTVS 54

I. Ad Sextum Pompeium 56

II. Ad Seuerum 59

III. Ad ingratum 63

IIII. Ad Sextum Pompeium 68

V. Ad Sextum Pompeium 72

VI. Ad Brutum 76

VII. Ad Vestalem 81

VIII. Ad Suillium 86

IX. Ad Graecinum 93

X. Ad Albinouanum 105

XI. Ad Gallionem 113

XII. Ad Tuticanum 115

XIII. Ad Carum 120

XIV. Ad Tuticanum 125

XV. Ad Sextum Pompeium 131

XVI. Ad inuidum 136

COMMENTARY 144

I. To Sextus Pompeius 146

II. To Cornelius Severus 161

III. To an Unfaithful Friend 177

IV. To Sextus Pompeius 199

V. To Sextus Pompeius 213

VI. To Brutus 226

VII. To Vestalis 244

VIII. To Suillius 258

IX. To Graecinus 286

X. To Albinovanus Pedo 325

XI. To Gallio 359

XII. To Tuticanus 370

XIII. To Carus 389

XIV. To Tuticanus 410

XV. To Sextus Pompeius 429

XVI. To a Detractor 446

Bibliography 471

Index of topics discussed 477

Index of textual emendations 489

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Editor gratefully acknowledges the permission of the Herzog August Bibliothek for the use of Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel: Cod. Guelf. 13.11 Aug. 4° (fragmentum Guelferbytanum).

PREFACE

It is a pleasure to present to the public this digital edition, with commentary, of _Ex Ponto_ IV, the final poems written by the Roman poet Ovid, published after his death as a posthumous collection quite separate from the earlier _Ex Ponto_ I-III.

These poems have a special place among Ovid's works, but have not received the attention which they deserve. In particular, there has been no full modern commentary on these poems.

This text presented in this edition is based on my personal examination of ten manuscripts. I have also restored to the text certain readings commonly accepted by editors until the nineteenth century. Finally, the edition contains several dozen new textual conjectures by myself and others.

The intended audience of this edition

This edition is intended to serve as a guide to the poems for intermediate and advanced students of Latin poetry. However, I have deliberately made it as straightforward as possible, and my hope is that even a beginning student of Latin poetry embarking on the study of these poems will find the commentary helpful.

This edition is also directed towards present and future Latin textual critics.

My expectation when starting my research for this edition was that I would be presenting a text that differed little from that to be found in current editions. However, I made two discoveries during my research into the text.

The first discovery was that many important textual corrections generally accepted in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had been suppressed by editors in the course of the nineteenth century. I have restored many of these readings to the text, and others will be found in the textual apparatus.

The second discovery was that there was a surprisingly large number of passages which appeared to be corrupt and for which it was possible to suggest corrections. Given the long history of Latin textual criticism, and Ovid's central position in Roman literary history, it was surprising to find that so much remained to be done. Yet such was the case.

Nothing is more certain than that this book of poems as well as the three earlier books of the _Ex Ponto_ represent an outstanding opportunity for future editors and commentators to contribute to the progress of Latin scholarship.

History of this edition

I originally prepared this edition and commentary during my time as a graduate student at the University of Toronto. Upon its completion (and my graduation) in 1985, a copy was deposited at the National Library of Canada.

Had I followed a university teaching career after graduation, I would undoubtedly have taken the necessary steps to publish the edition, if only in pursuit of academic promotion. But I instead chose a career in the software industry, which both removed the external incentive to publish the edition, and denied me the time that I would have needed to prepare it for publication.

However, I wished to ensure that future editors and commentators were aware of the edition and would be able to make use of it. I therefore decided to publish two short articles drawn from the edition. These articles were intended to make generally available two textual conjectures which I considered likely to be correct. But the articles were also intended to make future editors aware that I had worked on the text of Ovid, so that they would seek out my unpublished edition.

The first article ("An Intrusive Gloss in Ovid _Ex Ponto_ 4.13") appeared in _Phoenix_ (vol. 40, p. 322) in 1986: it reported the restoration of IV xiii 45 discussed at page 408 of the commentary. _Phoenix_ is published by the Classical Association of Canada, and since my own training in the classical languages had taken place almost entirely in Canada, it seemed appropriate that my first publication should be in a Canadian journal.

To my surprise and pleasure, my short article attracted a critique by Professor Allan Kershaw ("_Ex Ponto_ 4.13: A Reply", _Phoenix_, vol. 42, p. 176), followed by a learned defense of my conjecture by Professor James Butrica ("Taking Enemies for Chains: Ovid _Ex Ponto_ 4.13.45 Again", _Phoenix_, vol. 43, pp. 258-59).

Four years later, I published a second article ("A Palaeographical Corruption in Ovid, _Ex Ponto_ 4.6"), which appeared in the May 1990 issue of the _Classical Quarterly_ (pp. 283-84). This article reported the restoration of IV vi 38 discussed at pages 240-41 of the commentary. I selected the _Classical Quarterly_ because of its prominence within the world of classical scholarship, and in particular because of its close association with the modern history of Latin textual criticism: it was in the _Classical Quarterly_ that many of the learned articles of A. E. Housman first appeared.

My hope had been that these two articles would serve as a signpost that would lead editors to my edition. The publication of J. A. Richmond's Teubner edition of the _Ex Ponto_ in 1990 proved that this plan was inadequate. Professor Richmond had indeed discovered the existence of my edition: it received a prominent and flattering mention at the end of his preface. However, he stated that he received the microfilm of the edition too late for use in his edition!

In his review of Richmond's Teubner edition in the _Classical Review_ (n.s. 42, 2 [1992], pp. 305-06), Professor James Butrica highlighted a number of proposed emendations from my edition.

It had become clear there was considerable outside interest in the work that I had done, and that simply having a copy of an unpublished edition on deposit at the National Library of Canada was not a sufficient means of making the edition available to the public, so over the years that followed I gave some consideration to how I might publish the edition so that it would be conveniently available to students of Latin poetry.

Early in 2006, I was working as a volunteer proofreader for the Project Gutenberg digital library: I noticed that the Project Gutenberg library included some public domain classical editions comparable in scope to my own. Prompted by this, I decided that I would publish my edition online in order to make it instantly accessible free of charge to anyone wishing to use it. This seemed in every way preferable to seeking out a university press, going through the time-consuming process of seeking the necessary grants to subsidize publication, in order to produce a printed book so expensive that no student and not many libraries could afford to purchase a copy.

Nature of this edition

In essence, this is a corrected version of the original typescript. Typing errors have been corrected, and minor errors have been set right.

All statements made and conjectures proposed should be considered to have been made in 1985.

The HTML and Text versions of this edition

This digital edition is being made available in two versions.

The _HTML version_ takes advantage of the Unicode character set to present Greek passages using the Greek alphabet, and to present certain other special characters, such as the macron. It also offers hyperlinks from the table of contents and from the indices to the relevant sections of the edition.

Popular and useful as HTML is, it does not offer the universality of ASCII text. Essentially every computer can display plain ASCII text correctly. The _Text version_ is presented so that the edition can be read on any computer, large or small, new or old. However, this portability comes at a price. The ISO 8859-1 ASCII character set does not include the Greek alphabet, nor does it include certain special characters which form part of this edition.

Therefore, the Text version of this edition presents Greek passages transliterated into the Latin alphabet. Similarly, in the textual apparatus any capital letter occurring in the report of a manuscript should be considered to be that letter in lower case, with a macron (dash) above.

When the textual apparatus reports a manuscript correction where the original reading is no longer legible, the HTML version underlines the corrected letters, but the Text version uses capitalization. For example, the Text version reports "facTisque _B2c_" at iii 25: a later hand in _B_ has erased the original fourth letter, and has replaced it with "t".

In the commentary, when metre is being discussed and a Latin word is quoted, any vowel in that word which is capitalized is long, and any vowel which is not capitalized is short. I have occasionally pointed out explicitly that a word is metrically inconvenient because it has a series of short vowels: in the HTML edition, because the actual letters are marked short, these statements will appear to be redundant.

In the Latin text, the start and end of passages which are deeply corrupt and therefore difficult to correct are indicated by an asterisk, instead of the usual dagger (obelus).

Finally, in the critical apparatus, 'æ' is used where a manuscript has 'e' with a cedilla.

Enhancements made: the indices

In order to make the digital edition as useful as possible, I have added this preface, a full table of contents, and two indices.

The first index (starting on page 477) is an index of _topics discussed_. It is a selective rather than an exhaustive index for the following two reasons:

(1) A commentary is already in effect indexed by the text it is linked to. If, for instance, readers wish to find what the commentary has to say about a certain passage, all they need do is turn to the part of the commentary dealing with that passage.

(2) A digital edition can be searched online very quickly and easily. A reader wishing to find any mention of the eminent Dutch textual critic Nicolaus Heinsius could find every mention of Heinsius in the edition simply by using "Heinsius" as a search argument.

However, some of the discussions in the commentary do not have an obvious link to the text, nor would they necessarily be found quickly by an electronic search. An example would be the discussion of "Simple verbs used for compound ones" at page 281.

Also, there were some parts of the introduction and commentary which I wanted to highlight to the reader as being of possible interest: including references to these in the index would serve this purpose.

For similar reasons, I have included (starting on page 489) an index of textual emendations first proposed in this edition. Some of these emendations involve works other than _Ex Ponto_ IV, and authors other than Ovid. The index of textual emendations makes these corrections easy to find.

The debt I owe to others

I was able to create this edition only because of the help that I have received over the years from others.

My basic training in the classical languages took place at the University of British Columbia, where I completed my B.A. in 1974, and my M.A. in 1977. It is impossible to repay the debt I owe to every single member of the Classics Department at that time.

Professor Charles Murgia of the University of California (Berkeley) initiated me into the mysteries of Latin palaeography and textual criticism.

I created this edition while a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Classics at the University of Toronto. I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Professor Richard Tarrant, who encouraged me to undertake the edition, posed many excellent questions, and offered many excellent suggestions.

I owe a similar debt to Professor Alexander Dalzell, Professor Elaine Fantham, Professor J. N. Grant, and Professor C. P. Jones, all of them members of the Graduate Department of Classics at the University of Toronto when I was creating the edition.

I have known Rob Morrow for twenty-one years, and he has touched every aspect of my life. The study of Latin poetry is a field of endeavour far removed from his usual interests: but even here he has made an important contribution in the work he did in scanning the original typescript, and in his continuing encouragement and support during the months I worked on creating this digital edition. It is to him, with deep affection and gratitude, that I dedicate this edition.

INTRODUCTION

In AD 8, when he was fifty years of age, Ovid was abruptly banished from Rome to Tomis, an exile from which he never returned. In his poetry from exile, he gives two reasons for the banishment: the publication of the _Ars Amatoria_, and an unnamed error (_Tr_ II 207; _EP_ III iii 71-72)[1]. The _Ars Amatoria_ had been published some years previously, being generally dated on the basis of _AA_ I 171-72 to 2 BC or shortly thereafter; compare _Tr_ II 545-46. The error was clearly the real cause of the banishment; what precisely this _error_ was Ovid does not reveal, but it appears from _Tr_ II 103-4 and _Tr_ III v 49-50 to have been the witnessing of some action that was embarrassing to the imperial family. Beyond this nothing is known, for Ovid was careful to avoid compounding his original mistake by mentioning what it consisted of.

[Footnote 1: The evidence for Ovid's _error_ and the many theories advanced to explain it are gathered and fully discussed in J. C. Thibault's _The Mystery of Ovid's Exile_ (Berkeley: 1964).]

The catastrophe which befell Ovid did not put an end to his poetic activity; from the eight or nine years of his exile we possess a corpus of elegiac verse that substantially exceeds in bulk the combined production of Tibullus and Propertius.

The first work produced by Ovid was book I of the _Tristia_. Although it is perhaps not literally true that Ovid wrote much of the poetry on shipboard (_Tr_ I xi 3-10), all of the poems are directly related to the circumstances of his downfall and his journey to exile; and it is reasonable to suppose that the book was published shortly after Ovid's arrival in Tomis.

In his first poems from exile, Ovid had attempted to engage the sympathy of the public on his behalf; his next production was a direct appeal to Augustus in the 578-line elegiac poem that comprises the second book of the _Tristia_. The poem is written with Ovid's usual clarity and elegance, but its failure to secure his recall is not surprising. The poem deals only with the publication of the _Ars Amatoria_, which was not the true cause of the exile; and rather than admitting his guilt and appealing to Augustus' clemency, Ovid tactlessly argues that Augustus had been wrong to exile him.

The years 10, 11, and 12 saw the publication of the final three books of the _Tristia_. The charge of monotony that is generally brought against Ovid's poetry from exile (and was brought by his friends at the time; Ovid makes his defence in _EP_ III ix) is most nearly true of these three books of verse. He was unable to name his correspondents and vary his poetry with personal references as he was to do in the _Ex Ponto_; and the pain of exile was so fresh as to exclude other topics.

Not all of Ovid's literary efforts in exile were devoted to his letters. It appears from _Fast_ IV 81-82 and VI 666, as well as from the dedication to Germanicus at the start of the first book (at _Tr_ II 551 Ovid says he dedicated the work to Augustus) that the _Fasti_ in the edition we possess is a revision produced by Ovid in exile after the death of Augustus.

In AD 12 Ovid produced the _Ibis_. The greater part of the poem is a series of curses showing such minute mythological learning that many of them have not been explained; but the poem's lengthy exordium is a powerful treatment of Ovid's circumstances and Ibis's perfidy that has been considered Ovid's most perfect literary creation (Housman 1041).

Many scholars also ascribe the composition of the final six _Heroides_ to the period of Ovid's exile; but although the literary appeal of these three sets of double epistles is considerable, I believe that their comparative diffuseness of manner indicates that Ovid was not their author. They are, however, clearly modelled on the _Heroides_ written by Ovid, and I have frequently quoted from them in the commentary.

In AD 12 Ovid must have received some indication that it was safe for him to name his correspondents. He took full advantage of this new opportunity to induce his friends to work on his behalf; it is clear from Ovid's references to his fourth year of exile (I ii 26, I viii 28) and to Tiberius' triumph of 23 October AD 12 (II i 1 & 46, II ii 75-76, II v 27-28, III i 136, III iii 86, III iv 3)[2] that all three books were written within the space of a single year: as fast a rate of composition as can be proved for any part of Ovid's life. The three books were published as a unit: the opening poem of the first book and the closing poem of the last are addressed to Brutus, who was therefore the dedicatee of the collection; both poems are apologies for Ovid's verse. No such framing poems are found at the start of books II or III, or at the end of books I and II, although the addressees of II i and III i, Germanicus and Ovid's wife, were clearly chosen for their respective importance and closeness to Ovid.

[Footnote 2: For these references I am indebted to page xxxv of A. L. Wheeler's excellent introduction to the Loeb edition of the _Tristia_ and _Ex Ponto_. For the date of Tiberius' triumph, see Syme _History in Ovid_ 40.]

_Ex Ponto_ IV

The fourth book of the _Ex Ponto_ constitutes a work separate from the three books composed in AD 12. The earliest datable poem in the book is the fourth, written shortly before Sextus Pompeius' consulship in AD 14; the latest is the ninth, written in honour of Graecinus' becoming suffect consul in AD 16. Of the books of Ovid's verse which are collections of individual poems, the fourth book of the _Ex Ponto_ is the longest, being some 926 lines in length (excluding the probably spurious distichs xv 25-26 and xvi 51-52). The mean average length of such books is 764 lines; and the next longest after _Ex Ponto_ IV is _Am_ III, with 824 lines (excluding the spurious fifth poem). I take the length of the book as an indication that in its present form it is probably a posthumous collection: Ovid's editor either gathered the individual poems to form a single book that was unusually long, or added a few later poems to a book previously assembled by Ovid[3].

[Footnote 3: Professor Tarrant notes however that unlike I-III the fourth book was not written within a very short time; if Ovid had collected what he thought worth publishing of his output over several years, it would not be surprising to find it longer than the preceding collections.]

Syme (_HO_ 156) argues that the order of the poems indicates that Ovid survived to publish or at least to arrange the book: the fact that the first and penultimate poems are addressed to Sextus Pompeius indicates that Ovid dedicated the book to him. Professor R. J. Tarrant points out to me correspondences of structure between _EP_ IV and some of Ovid's earlier books. If the sixteenth and final poem of _EP_ IV is considered a _sphragis_-poem, as is indicated by _Nasonis_ in the opening line, we are left with a fifteen-poem book of which the first and last poems are addressed to Sextus Pompeius, and in which the middle poem is addressed to Germanicus through his client Suillius[4]. The same structural outline of 1-8-15 appears in _Amores_ I and III--the opening and closing poems of both books are concerned with Ovid's verse, while the eighth poem of each book stands somewhat apart from the other poems: _Am_ I viii is about the procuress Dipsas, while III ix (the eighth poem in the book after the removal of the spurious fifth poem) is the elegy on the death of Tibullus.

[Footnote 4: Professor E. Fantham notes as well the central placement of poem ix, with its _laudes Augusti_.]

Ovid's addressees in _Ex Ponto_ IV

Sextus Pompeius, _consul ordinarius_ in 14, and himself a relative of Augustus, is the recipient of no less than four letters in _EP_ IV[5]. It is significant that he is not the recipient of any of Ovid's earlier letters from exile; this is discussed in the next section.

[Footnote 5: Full information on what is known of each of the addressees will be found in the introductions to the poems in the commentary.]

In the attention Ovid gives Sextus Pompeius there can be seen, according to Syme (_HO_ 156), a deliberate attempt to gain the favour of Germanicus, who is mentioned in connection with Sextus Pompeius at v 25. It is interesting that in viii Ovid addresses Germanicus' quaestor Suillius (and in the course of the poem addresses Germanicus), and that the recipient of xiii is Carus, the tutor of Germanicus' sons. But it is only natural that Ovid, when at last permitted, should address so influential a man as his benefactor Sextus Pompeius; and it does not seem strange that he should address his fellow poet Carus, still less that he should send a letter to Suillius, husband of his stepdaughter Perilla.

C. Pomponius Graecinus, the recipient of ix, must have had some political influence, since the poem is in celebration of his becoming suffect consul in 16. But he probably owed this influence to his brother Flaccus, a close friend of Tiberius who succeeded Graecinus as _consul ordinarius_ for 17, and whom Ovid gives prominent mention at ix 57 ff. Graecinus must have been an old associate of Ovid, since he has the rare distinction of being mentioned by name in a poem written by Ovid before his exile (_Am_ II x 1).