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.
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.
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].
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.
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.
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).
Two of Ovid's correspondents were orators. Gallio, the addressee of the eleventh poem, is frequently quoted by the elder Seneca. He was a senator; both Tacitus and Dio give accounts of how he fell into disfavour with Tiberius for proposing that ex-members of the Praetorian guard be granted the privilege of using the theatre seats reserved for members of the equestrian order (Ann VI 3; LVIII 18 4). Brutus, the recipient of the sixth poem and dedicatee of the first three books of the Ex Ponto, is not mentioned by other writers, but it appears from vi 29-38 that he had a considerable reputation as a forensic orator, although some allowance must be made for possible exaggeration in Ovid's description of his close friend. The poem contains six lines on the death of Fabius Maximus, to whom Ovid had addressed EP I ii and III iii; perhaps he and Brutus had been associates.
Five epistles are addressed to Ovid's fellow poets. Cornelius Severus, the recipient of the second poem, was one of the most famous epic poets of the day; he is mentioned by Quintilian (X i 89), and the elder Seneca preserves his lines on the death of Cicero (Suas VI 26), Albinovanus Pedo, the recipient of the tenth epistle, was known as a writer of hexameter verse and of epigram. He served in Germanicus' campaign of AD 15 (Tac Ann I 60 2), and the elder Seneca preserves a fragment of his poem on Germanicus' campaigns (Suas I 15). It might be argued that in addressing him Ovid is once again trying to win Germanicus' favour. But in view of his intimacy with Ovid (mentioned at Sen Cont II 2 12), Albinovanus seems a natural choice to receive one of Ovid's letters. Tuticanus, the recipient of the twelfth and fourteenth poems and author of a Phaeacid based on Homer (mentioned at xii 27 and again in the catalogue of poets at xvi 29), is known only through the Ex Ponto; the same is true of Carus, author of a poem on Hercules and, as already mentioned, tutor of the sons of Germanicus.
Vestalis, the recipient of the seventh poem, is in a class separate from the other recipients of Ovid's verse epistles. As primipilaris of the legion stationed in the vicinity, he would of course have been without influence at Rome, but as (apparently) the prefect of the region around Tomis, he presumably had some control over Ovid's circumstances.
The traitorous friend to whom the third poem is addressed was a real person, for Ovid is quite explicit when speaking of their past together and of the friend's perfidy towards him; the same cannot be said of the inuidus to whom is addressed the concluding poem of the book, a defence of Ovid's reputation as a poet.
Cotta Maximus, the younger son of Tibullus' patron Messalla, is prominently mentioned at xvi 41-44 as an unpublished poet of outstanding excellence. He is the recipient of six letters in the earlier books of the Ex Ponto. Syme finds it significant that there is no poem in EP IV addressed to Cotta: 'Ovid ... was now concentrating his efforts elsewhere: Germanicus, the friends of Germanicus, Sextus Pompeius ... The tardy tribute may perhaps be interpreted as a veiled reproach' (HO 128). But arguments from silence are dangerous; and Ovid's mention of Cotta seems flattering enough.
It is perhaps safer to postulate a change in Ovid's feelings towards his wife. She is never mentioned in EP IV, although she had been the recipient of some eight earlier letters from exile (Tr I vi, III iii, IV iii, V ii, xi, xiv, EP I iv, III i; Tr V v was written in honour of her birthday). At EP III vii 11-12 Ovid indicates that his wife's efforts on his behalf had not matched his hopes:
nec grauis uxori dicar, quae scilicet in me
quam proba tam timida est experiensque parum.
The fact that Ovid chose not to address any verse epistle to his wife during his final years at Tomis may well reflect a cooling in his attitude towards her.
Differences between Ex Ponto IV and the earlier poetry from exile
The criticism most often made of Ovid's poems from exile is that they are repetitive and therefore monotonous. EP III ix 1-4 shows that the same criticism was made while Ovid was still alive:
Quod sit in his eadem sententia, Brute, libellis,
carmina nescio quem carpere nostra refers:
nil nisi me terra fruar ut propiore rogare,
et quam sim denso cinctus ab hoste loqui.
Ovid does not attempt to deny the criticism, but explains that he wished to obtain the assistance of as many people as possible:
et tamen haec eadem cum sint, non scripsimus isdem,
unaque per plures uox mea temptat opem.
(41-42)
nec liber ut fieret, sed uti sua cuique daretur
littera, propositum curaque nostra fuit.
postmodo collectas utcumque sine ordine iunxi:
hoc opus electum ne mihi forte putes.
da ueniam scriptis, quorum non gloria nobis
causa, sed utilitas officiumque fuit.
(51-56)
Ovid's explanation is reasonable enough, and is confirmed by the speed with which he composed the first three books of the Ex Ponto once he knew that it was safe to name people in his verse. The first three books of the Ex Ponto, like the Tristia, were written with the single objective of securing Ovid's recall, and this naturally caused a certain repetition of subject-matter.
By the time Ovid wrote the poems that would form the fourth book of the Ex Ponto, he had lived in Tomis for six or more years, and it must have been clear to him that his chances of recall were slight. The result of this is a diminished use of his personal situation as a theme for his verse. Often he introduces his plight in only one or two distichs of a poem, subordinating the topic to the poem's main theme. The result of this technique can be seen in such extended passages as the descriptions of the investiture of the new consul (iv & ix), the address to Germanicus on the power of poetry (viii), or the catalogue of poets that concludes the book. In all of these passages Ovid's desire for recall is only a secondary theme.