Part 11

=2. QVI SIS.= The boundary between adjectival _qui_ and pronominal _quis_ in Latin was not absolute; and just as one finds such forms as _quis clamor_ (_Met_ III 632), so it seems to have been Latin practice to use _qui_ before forms of _esse_ in indirect discourse, perhaps in order to avoid a double _s_-sound. Some instances of this from verse are _Ecl_ I 18 'iste deus _qui sit_ da, Tityre, nobis', _Ecl_ II 19 'nec _qui sim_ quaeris, Alexi', _Aen_ III 608-9 '_qui sit_ fari ... hortamur', _Met_ XIV 841 'mihi nec _quae sis_ dicere promptum est', _Met_ XV 595 'is _qui sit_ signo, non nomine dicam', _Fast_ V 191 'ipse doce _quae sis_', _Ibis_ 52 'teque breui _qui sis_ dissimulare sinam', _Ibis_ 61 '_qui sis_ nondum quaerentibus edo', and _EP_ III vi 57 'teque tegam, _qui sis_'. In some of these passages _quis_ is found as a variant reading; given the ease of corruption, the rule should perhaps be made canonical, and such passages as _Met_ I 248-49 '_quis sit_ laturus in aras / tura' supplied with forms of _qui_ even when, as in this instance, there is only weak manuscript support. (Professor R. J. Tarrant prefers, however, to retain _quis_ at _Met_ I 248, seeing a difference between expressions of identity [_qui sis ... dicam_] and of description [_sit_ and _laturus_ go closely together]).

The use of _qui_ seems to have extended to past subjunctives of _esse_ as well as present: compare _Met_ XI 719 'qui [_uar_ quis] foret ignorans'. For discussions see Löfstedt II 79-96 and Shackleton Bailey on _Att_ III x 2 'possum obliuisci _qui fuerim_, non sentire qui sim?'.

In preclassical Latin _qui_ is found for _quis_ even in direct questions: _OLD qui_ A4a cites Pl _Capt_ 833 'qui uocat', Ter _Ph_ 990 'qui nominat me', and Scipio minor V 19 Malcovati3 'qui spondet mille nummum'. The usage must have continued in spoken Latin, for it is found at Vitruvius VII 5 6 and Petronius 62 8.

=3. NOMINE NON VTAR, NE COMMENDERE QVERELA.= An interesting indication of the confidence Ovid felt in his poetry. In his earlier poems of reproach, Ovid had represented his not naming the person as an act of forbearance (_Tr_ IV ix 1-4; _Ibis_ 51-54).

=3. COMMENDERE QVERELA.= Oxymoron.

=5. DVM MEA PVPPIS ERAT VALIDA FVNDATA CARINA.= The common ancient metaphor of shipwreck also used of Ovid's exile at _Tr_ I i 85-86, _Tr_ II 99-102, _Tr_ III iv 15-16 'dum tecum uixi, dum me leuis aura ferebat, / haec mea per placidas cumba cucurrit aquas', _Tr_ V xii 50, and _EP_ II iii 25-28.

=7. CONTRAXIT VVLTVM.= See at i 5 _trahis uultus_ (p 149).

=9-10= form a tricolon, where each phrase represents the same action in progressively more specific terms: (1) 'dissimulas etiam' (2) 'nec me uis nosse uideri' (3) 'quisque sit audito nomine Naso rogas'.

=9. DISSIMVLAS.= The same word in similar contexts at _Tr_ I i 62 'dissimulare uelis, te liquet esse meum', _Tr_ III vi 2, _Tr_ IV iii 54, _Tr_ IV iv 28, and _EP_ I ii 146.

=9. NEC ME VIS NOSSE VIDERI.= 'You don't want others to think you know me'. Similar thought and language at _Tr_ IV iii 51 'me miserum si turpe putas mihi nupta uideri!' and _EP_ II iii 29-30 'cumque alii _nolint_ etiam _me nosse uideri_, / uix duo proiecto tresue tulistis opem'.

=10. QVISQVE SIT. QVIQVE SIT= (_HacP_) could be defended, _sit_ determining the form _qui_, even with the intervening enclitic, but given the prevalence of relative _quique_ at line-beginnings in Ovid (compare xvi 9, 11, 15, 19 & 23) it seems better to take it as a trivial error.

=11, 13, 15, 17. ILLE EGO.= The same idiom to stir someone's memory at _Fast_ III 505-6 '_illa ego sum_ cui tu solitus promittere caelum: / ei mihi, pro caelo qualia dona fero' and _EP_ I ii 129-32 '_ille ego sum_ qui te colui, quem festa solebat / inter conuiuas mensa uidere tuos: / _ille ego qui_ duxi uestros Hymenaeon ad ignes, / et cecini fausto carmina digna toro'. R. G. Austin, discussing the spurious proem to the _Aeneid_ (_CQ_ LX, n.s. XVIII [1968] 110-11), cites _Tr_ V vii 55-56 '_ille ego_ Romanus uates--ignoscite, Musae!-- / Sarmatico cogor plurima more loqui', _Met_ I 757-58 '_ille ego_ liber, / ille ferox tacui', Statius _Sil_ V v 38 & _Theb_ IX 434, and Silius XI 177-82: 'It will be noticed ... that all these examples represent the new situation as a fall from grace'.

=12. AMICITIA.= Ovid allows pentasyllabic words to end the pentameter only in the poetry of exile (Platnauer 17). There are eight such words in the _Tristia_, and four in the _Ex Ponto_: I ii 68 _patrocinium_, II ix 20 _Ericthonius_, this passage, and xiii 44 _amicitiae_ (Platnauer 17; Riese vii). This distribution contrasts with Ovid's increasing fondness in the _Ex Ponto_ for trisyllabic and quadrisyllabic endings, for which see at ix 26 _tegeret_ and ii 10 _Alcinoo_.

The later _Heroides_ have two pentasyllabic pentameter-endings, XVI 290 _pudicitiae_ and XVII 16 _superciliis_.

=13-14. ILLE EGO QVI PRIMVS TVA SERIA NOSSE SOLEBAM, / ET TIBI IVCVNDIS PRIMVS ADESSE IOCIS.= The same joining of _seria_ and _ioci_ (or _lusus_) at _Tr_ I viii 31-32, _EP_ I ix 9-10, _EP_ II iv 9-10 '_seria_ multa mihi tecum conlata recordor, / nec data _iucundis_ tempora pauca _iocis_', and _EP_ II x 41-42. It is found in prose and early Latin: Luck at _Tr_ I viii 31-32 cites Cic _Fin_ II 85 'at quicum _ioca, seria, ut dicitur_, quicum arcana, quicum occulta omnia? tecum, optime', Pliny _Ep_ II xiii 5 'cum hoc _seria_, cum hoc _iocos_ miscui', Pliny _Ep_ IV xvii 5 'nihil a me ille secretum, non _ioculare_, non _serium_, non triste, non laetum', and Ennius _Ann_ 239-40 Vahlen3 'cui res audacter magnas paruasque iocumque / eloqueretur'.

=15. CONVICTOR.= The word belongs properly to prose, the only other occurrences in verse being two passages in Horace's _Satires_: I iv 96 'me ... _conuictore_ usus amicoque' & I vi 47 'quia sim tibi, Maecenas, _conuictor_'. _Conuictus_ is similarly found in verse twice only, in Ovid's poetry of exile (_Tr_ I viii 29-30 '_conuictu_ causisque ualentibus ... temporis et longi iunctus amore tibi' & _EP_ II x 9-10 'quam [_sc_ curam] tu uel longi debes _conuictibus_ aeui, / uel mea quod coniunx non aliena tibi est').

=15. DENSOQVE.= 'Frequent, often recurring'. This sense of _densus_ is not found elsewhere in Ovid, but compare Virgil _G_ IV 347 '_densos_ diuum numerabat amores', Statius _Theb_ VI 421, and Juvenal IX 35-37 'quamuis ... blandae assidue _densaeque_ tabellae / sollicitent'. The closest parallel for the poetic singular cited by _OLD densus_ 3a is Martial IX lxxxvii 1-2 'Septem post calices Opimiani / _denso_ cum iaceam triente[19] blaesus'.

[Footnote 19: A drinking-vessel holding one third of a _sextarius_ (_OLD_ _triens_ 3).]

=15. DOMESTICVS.= Apparently the only instance of the substantive in verse. The word is common enough in prose, and formed part of the spoken language, for it is found in reported speech at Petronius 45 6.

=17. QVEM= _Leidensis Heinsii_ QVI _codd plerique_. _Qui_ cannot be connected with _nescis_, and so is without antecedent. The scribe was probably influenced by 11, 13, and 15, in which _ille ego_ is completed by a nominative clause.

For _quem ... an uiuam_ compare _EP_ III vi 57 '_te_que tegam, _qui sis_'.

=17. VIVAM.= Heinsius' VIVAT is unnecessary: the assimilation of person seems reasonable enough in view of such passages as _EP_ I ii 129-31 'ille ego sum qui te _colui_ ... ille ego qui _duxi_ uestros Hymenaeon ad ignes'.

=18. SVBIT= _Heinsius_ FVIT _codd_. The preceding _nescis_ requires a verb with present meaning; and _fuit_ seems impossible to construe as a true perfect (with present result). Heinsius' _subit_ seems an elegant solution: certain manuscripts offer the same corruption of _subit_ to _fuit_ at _Met_ IX 93-94 'lux _subit_, et primo feriente cacumina sole / discedunt iuuenes' and _Met_ XIV 827-28 'pulchra _subit_ facies et puluinaribus altis / dignior'.

=19-20. SIVE FVI NVMQVAM CARVS, SIMVLASSE FATERIS; / SEV NON FINGEBAS, INVENIERE LEVIS.= For a similar opposition (either alternative being discreditable), see _Met_ IX 23-24 'nam, quo te iactas, Alcmena nate, creatum, / Iuppiter aut falsus pater est aut crimine uerus'.

=21. AVT.= 'Otherwise'. For the use of _aut_ as a disjunctive adverb rather than a conjunction compare xii 3 'aut ego non alium prius hoc dignarer honore' and the passages there cited. Here, as at xii 3, the idiom has been misunderstood by scribes, with such resulting variants in late manuscripts as EIA ('uterque Medonii pro diuersa lectione'; accepted by Heinsius) and DIC (_Gothanus II 121_; printed by Burman).

=21. IRAM.= 'Cause for anger'. This seems to be the only instance of the meaning, _ira_ not being found even as a predicative dative; but compare the use of _laudes_ to mean 'acts deserving praise', as at viii 87 'tuas ... laudes ... recentes'.

=23. QVOD TE NVNC CRIMEN SIMILEM= seems to be the correct reading; the line connects with the _an crimen ..._ of 24. QVAE TE CONSIMILEM RES NVNC (_FIL_) looks like a rewriting of the line, perhaps following the loss of _crimen_ by haplography (_cr_iM _s_im_ilE_). There seems no good reason why Ovid would have used the emphatic _consimilem_ instead of the more usual _similem_.

=25. SI ... OPEM NVLLAM ... FEREBAS.= 'If you had no intention of assisting me'--the inceptive or conative imperfect (Woodcock 200). Similar phrasing at _Tr_ I viii 9-10 'haec ego uaticinor, quia sum deceptus ab illo / _laturum_ misero quem mihi rebar _opem_' and _EP_ II vii 46 'et nihil inueni quod mihi _ferret opem_'.

=25. REBVS ... FACTISQVE.= 'Through financial help or action on my behalf'. Ovid does not use this sense of _res_ elsewhere in his poetry.

=26. VERBIS ... TRIBVS.= 'A few words'. For the idiom Williams cites Plautus _Mil_ 1020 '"breuin an longinquo sermoni?" "tribu' uerbis"' and _Trin_ 963 'adgrediundust hic homo mi astu.--heus, Pax, te tribu' uerbis uolo'; from comedy, _OLD tres_ b cites Ter _Ph_ 638. From the classical period compare Sen _Apocol_ 11 3 'ad summam, tria uerba cito dicat, et seruum me ducat', Sen _Ep_ 40 9, and Quint IX iv 84 'haec omnia in tribus uerbis'; Camps sees _tres_ as having the same indefinite meaning at Prop II xiii 25-26 'sat mea sit magno [_Phillimore_: sit magna _uel_ sat magna est _codd_] si tres sint pompa libelli / quos ego Persephonae maxima dona feram'.

=27. SED ET= was the standard reading until Ehwald's defence (_KB_ 63) of SVBITO, the reading of (_B1_) and _C_.

Ehwald's reasoning was that _sed et_ would indicate that the news of his friend's slandering him was additional information, and that Ovid already knew something of his friend's behaviour. But this is precisely the case: Ovid has just finished saying that his friend has done nothing to help him (9-10), and now he gives the additional information that his friend is even working against him. Ehwald supported the asyndeton that _subito_ creates by quoting _Met_ XV 359-60 'haud equidem credo: sparsae quoque membra uenenis / exercere artes Scythides memorantur easdem', where in fact _quoque_ seems a convincing parallel to _sed et_.

=27. INSVLTARE IACENTI.= 'Torment in my misery'. Ovid plays on the literal meanings of _iacere_ and _in-saltare_; for the latter, see _Aen_ XII 338-39 'caesis / hostibus insultans'. Ovid uses _insultare_ in only three other passages. All are from the poems of exile, and all are about the ill-treatment accorded Ovid: _Tr_ II 571 'nec mihi credibile est quemquam _insultasse iacenti_', _Tr_ III xi 1, and _Tr_ V viii 3-4 'curue / casibus insultas quos potes ipse pati?'.

=29. A DEMENS.= _A_ indicates a certain amount of sympathy with the person addressed, as can be seen from _Tr_ V x 51-52 'quid loquor, _a demens_? ipsam quoque perdere uitam, / Caesaris offenso numine, dignus eram' and _Ecl_ II 60-61 'quem fugis, _a demens_? habitarunt di quoque siluas / Dardaniusque Paris'. _O_ (_M1FILT_) would indicate rather less sympathy: compare _Met_ III 640-41 'dextera Naxos erat: dextra mihi lintea danti / "quid facis, _o demens_? quis te furor" inquit "Acoete?"'.

=29. RECEDAT= (_TM2_) is no doubt a scribal conjecture, but a correct one: 'Why, in case disaster should strike ...'. Most manuscripts have RECEDIT.

=31. ORBE= probably means 'wheel'; compare Tib I v 70 'uersatur celeri Fors leuis orbe _rotae_' and _Cons ad Liuiam_ 51-52 (quoted in the next note). However, Professor E. Fantham points out to me that it could also mean 'sphere': she cites Pacuvius 366-67 Ribbeck2 (_Rhet Her_ II 36) 'Fortunam insanam esse et caecam et brutam perhibent philosophi, / _saxoque_ instare in _globoso_ praedicant _uolubilei_'. Smith at Tib I v 70 gives numerous instances of both images.

=32. QVEM=, found in Heinsius' _fragmentum Boxhornianum_ (=Leid. Bibl. Publ. 180 G), must be right as against the QVAE of the other manuscripts; if a definition is to be given after the preceding 'haec dea non stabili quam sit leuis orbe fatetur', it should be a definition of the wheel, not the goddess. But the resulting _quem summum dubio_ seems very awkwardly phrased, and further emendation is probably needed.

The obvious solution would be to read 'quem summo [_C_ in fact reads _summo_] _dubium_ sub pede semper habet'. This would give _orbis_ a standard epithet, as at _Tr_ V viii 7-8 'nec metuis _dubio_ Fortunae stantis in _orbe_ / numen' and _Cons ad Liuiam_ 51-52 'nempe per hos etiam Fortunae iniuria mores / regnat et _incerta_ est hic quoque nixa _rota_'. In support of the rather more difficult _summo ... pede_ (='toes') Professor R. J. Tarrant cites Sen _Suas_ II 17 'insistens _summis digitis_ ['toes']--sic enim solebat quo grandior fieret', Sen _Tro_ 1090-91 'in cacumine / erecta _summos_ [_uar_ summo] turba librauit _pedes_', and _Met_ IV 562 'aequora destringunt _summis_ Ismenides _alis_'; compare as well _Met_ IX 342-43 'in adludentibus undis / _summa pedum_ taloque tenus uestigia tingit'.

A second solution might be to read 'quem _dubio summum_ sub pede semper habet'; the transfer of _dubius_ from _orbis_ to _pes_ seems acceptable enough, and _Met_ IV 134-36 'oraque buxo / pallidiora gerens exhorruit aequoris instar, / quod tremit exigua cum summum stringitur aura' offers a good parallel to _summum_.

The image of Fortune standing on her wheel occurs elsewhere in Ovid's poems of exile at _Tr_ V viii 7-8 (quoted above) and _EP_ II iii 55-56 'scilicet indignum, iuuenis carissime, ducis / te fieri comitem stantis in orbe deae'.

=33. QVOLIBET EST FOLIO ... INCERTIOR.= For the proverb, see Otto _folium_ 1; and from Ovid compare _Am_ II xvi 45-46 'uerba puellarum, foliis leuiora caducis, / inrita qua uisum est uentus et unda ferunt', _Her_ V 109-10 'tu leuior foliis tum cum sine pondere suci / mobilibus uentis arida facta uolant', and _Fast_ III 481-82 (Ariadne speaking) 'Bacche leuis leuiorque tuis quae tempora cingunt / frondibus'.

=33. QVAVIS INCERTIOR AVRA.= Compare _Her_ VI 109-10 'mobilis Aesonide uernaque incertior aura, / cur tua polliciti pondere uerba carent?'. Otto (_uentus_ 1) cites as well Prop II v 11-13 'non ita Carpathiae uariant Aquilonibus undae, / nec dubio nubes uertitur atra Noto, / quam facile irati uerbo mutantur amantes', _Her_ XVIII 185-86 (Leander to Hero) 'cumque minus firmum nil sit quam uentus et unda, / in uentis et aqua spes mea semper erit?', and Calpurnius _Ecl_ III 10 'mobilior uentis o femina!'.

The _folium_ and _uentus_ images of the present line are found together at Prop II ix 33-35 'non sic incerto mutantur flamine Syrtes, / nec folia hiberno tam tremefacta Noto, / quam cito feminea non constat foedus in ira'.

=34. PAR ILLI= = _par illius leuitati_. Similar compressions at vi 40 'mollior est animo femina nulla tuo' and commonly.

=37-38.= Ovid gives four instances of unexpected catastrophe, two from Greek history, two from Roman; the greater importance of the Roman examples is emphasized by their position and by the doubling of the space allotted to each example from two lines to four. There is a similar transition at Prop II vi 19-20 'cur exempla petam Graium? tu criminis auctor / nutritus duro, Romule, lacte lupae'.

The Greek examples may have been a traditional pairing: Croesus and Dionysius are mentioned together at Lucian _Gall_ 23 as notable instances of personal catastrophe.

=37. OPVLENTIA CROESI.= Croesus as the archetype of wealth also at _Tr_ III vii 41-42 'nempe dat ... Fortuna rapitque, / Irus et est subito qui modo Croesus erat'.

The story of Croesus' downfall and the subsequent sparing of his life by Cyrus is taken from Herodotus I 86-88.

It is clear from his poetry that Ovid had a good knowledge of at least the first book of Herodotus:

(1) _Met_ III 135-37 'sed scilicet ultima semper / expectanda dies homini est, dicique beatus / ante obitum nemo supremaque funera debet' may have been drawn from Solon's advice to Croesus at Herodotus I 32 7: '[Greek: ei de pros toutoisi] [if in addition to having prosperity while alive] [Greek: eti teleutêsei ton bion eu, houtos ekeinos ton su zêteeis, ho] [[Greek: ho] _add Stein_] [Greek: olbios keklêsthai axios esti; prin d' an teleutêsêi, epischein mêde kaleein kô olbion, all' eutychea]'.

(2) At _Fast_ II 79-118 Ovid tells the story of Arion found at Herodotus I 23-24.

(3) At _Fast_ II 663-66 there occurs the clearest instance of borrowing: Ovid uses the story of the border dispute between Sparta and Argos (Herodotus I 82) in the course of his discussion of the god Terminus: 'si tu signasses olim Thyreatida terram, / corpora non leto missa trecenta forent, / nec foret Othryades congestis lectus [_Barth_: tectus _codd_] in armis. / o quantum patriae sanguinis ille dedit!'.

=37. AVDITA EST CVI NON.= Compare _Met_ XV 319-20 '_cui non audita est_ obscenae Salmacis undae / Aethiopesque lacus?'.

=38. NEMPE TAMEN VITAM CAPTVS AB HOSTE TVLIT.= 'Even so, it is undeniable that he became a prisoner, and received his life as a gift from his enemy'. _Vitam ferre_ also at _EP_ II i 45 (from a description of Germanicus' triumph of AD 12) 'maxima pars horum _uitam_ ueniamque _tulerunt_'.

=39. ILLE ... FORMIDATVS.= Equivalent to _ille_ with a defining _qui_-clause: 'The famous man who had once been feared ...'. Ovid is referring to Dionysius II, the student of Plato, who was expelled from Syracuse in 344 and became a schoolmaster in Corinth. Valerius Maximus (VI ix ext 6) also gives Dionysius as an example of unexpected disaster, and Plutarch (_Timoleon_ 14) cites him as an example of the operations of Fortune. For an account of Dionysius' life at Corinth, see Justinus XXI v. There was a Greek proverb '[Greek: Dionysios en Korinthôi]' (Cic _Att_ IX ix 1; Quintilian VIII vi 52), apparently referring to his continued lust for power: 'Dionysius ... Syracusis expulsus Corinthi pueros docebat: usque eo imperio carere non poterat' (Cic _Tusc_ III 27). Discussions of the proverb at Otto _Dionysius_ and Shackleton Bailey on _Att_ IX ix 1.

=39. SYRACOSIA ... IN VRBE.= Restored by Heinsius from the manuscripts' unmetrical SYRACVSIA, as at _Fast_ VI 277. The same confusion between [Greek: Syrakosios] and [Greek: Syrakousios] is found in the manuscripts of Pindar (_Ol_ I 23), the Attic form supplanting the original Doric. The same corruption is found in some ninth-century manuscripts of Virgil at _Ecl_ VI 1 'Prima Syracosio dignata est ludere uersu' and in the Veronese scholia, and in the manuscripts of Claudian _carm min_ LI 6 (Housman 1273).

=40. HVMILI ... ARTE.= For the low social position of the schoolmaster in antiquity, see Bonner 146-62, and compare especially Juvenal VII 197-98 'si Fortuna uolet, fies de rhetore consul; / si uolet haec eadem, fiet de consule rhetor' and Pliny _Ep_ IV xi 1 'nunc eo decidit ut exul de senatore, rhetor de oratore fieret'.

=41. MAGNO MAIVS.= 'Greater than (Pompey) the Great'. Even in the letters of Cicero, Pompey is occasionally called _Magnus_ without further identification (_Att_ I xvi 12). Other plays on the name at _Fast_ I 603-4 'Magne, tuum nomen rerum est mensura tuarum; / sed qui te uicit nomine maior erat' and Lucan I 135 'stat magni nominis umbra', where Getty cites Velleius II 1 4 'Pompeium magni nominis uirum'.

=42. CLIENTIS OPEM.= After the final defeat at Pharsalus, Pompey fled to Egypt and sought the protection of Ptolemy XIII (Caesar _BC_ III 103, Plutarch _Pomp_ 77).

Pompey similarly treated as the victim of Fortune at Cic _Tusc_ I 86 and through much of Lucan VII-VIII; compare as well _Anth Lat_ Riese 401 'Quam late uestros duxit Fortuna triumphos, / tam late sparsit funera, Magne, tua'.

Compare as well _Anth Lat_ 415 39-40 'spes Magnum profugum toto discurrere in orbe / iusserat et pueri regis adire pedes'; the distich follows a description of the hardships undergone by Marius.

=44.= The line is omitted by _B1_ and _C_; other manuscripts offer (with minor variations) INDIGVS EFFECTVS OMNIBVS IPSE MAGIS or ACHILLAS PHARIVS ABSTVLIT ENSE CAPVT, a line apparently devised with the aid of Juvenal X 285-86 'Fortuna ... uicto _caput abstulit_' and Lucan VIII 545-46 'ullusne in cladibus istis / est locus Aegypto _Phariusque_ admittitur _ensis_?', both passages concerned with Pompey's murder by Achillas. Clearly a line of the poem was lost in transmission.

Heinsius and Bentley felt that the entire distich should be deleted; but 43 seems acceptable enough, and it is appropriate that the description of Pompey's downfall be balanced with the four-line mention of Marius that follows. It would be strange if Pompey's sensational murder were overlooked, as this was regarded by the poets as the ultimate reversal of his fortunes: compare Manilius IV 50-55, Juvenal X 283-86 (which is joined to a mention of Marius' reversal) and _Anth Lat_ 401-3 Riese.

=45. ILLE= goes with Marius two lines on--'the famous Marius'.

=45. IVGVRTHINO ... CIMBROQVE TRIVMPHO.= Marius rose to prominence in the Jugurthine war, celebrating his triumph in 104; in 101 his defeat in the Po valley of the Cimbri, a Germanic tribe originally from Jutland, ended a twelve-year military threat to Rome.

=47. IN CAENO LATVIT MARIVS.= In 88 Sulla, whose command against Mithridates had been transferred to Marius by a special law, marched on Rome and induced the Senate to name Marius an outlaw; Marius was forced to escape to Africa, at one point on the route hiding in the marshes of Minturnae. This ordeal is mentioned by the poets who deal with Marius, but they consider that he reached the low point of his fortunes when he arrived at Carthage. Compare Manilius IV 47-49, Juvenal X 276-77 'exilium et carcer Minturnarumque paludes / et mendicatus uicta Carthagine panis' and _Anth Lat_ 415 33-38 Riese.

=47. LATVIT MARIVS= _M_ IACVIT MARIVS _H_ MARIVS LATVIT _L_ MARIVS IACVIT _BCFIT_. _Iacere_ and _latere_ could each be corrupted to the other with ease: such corruptions occur in certain manuscripts at _Met_ I 338 and _Fast_ II 244 (_iacere_ corrupted to _latere_) and _Fast_ II 467, II 587 & III 265 (_latere_ corrupted to _iacere_). Although it is weakly attested, _latuit_ should be read here in view of the use of _abdere_ at Velleius II xix 2 'paludem Maricae, in quam se fugiens consectantis Sullae equites _abdiderat_' and Lucan II 70 'exul limosa Marius caput _abdidit_ ulua', and of [Greek: kryptein] at Plutarch _Marius_ 37 5: _latere_ is often virtually a passive form of _abdere_.

_Marius latuit_ looks like a normalization of word order from the emphatic _latuit Marius_.

=47. CANNAQVE PALVSTRI.= _Canna palustris_ is a standard feature of Ovid's marshes; see _AA_ I 554, _RA_ 142, and _Met_ IV 298 & VIII 337. At _RA_ 142 Henderson comments 'Ovid probably means the plant called in this country [Scotland] Reed (_Phragmites communis_, a grass), which the Italians call _canna di palude_; smaller than _harundo_ (_Arundo donax_, the Greek [Greek: kanna] and Italian canna), it nevertheless often reaches a height of 6 or 7 feet'.