Owen's second edition has the misprint 'nec sumus hic odio', reproduced by Wheeler. The error was induced by nec at the start of the pentameter.
90. NEC CVM FORTVNA MENS QVOQVE VERSA MEA EST. For Ovid's use of syllepsis, see at vi 16 spem nostram terras deseruitque simul ([p 234]). For the sentiment of this line, compare Sen Med 176 'Fortuna opes auferre, non animum potest', where Costa cites Accius 619-20 Ribbeck2 'nam si a me regnum Fortuna atque opes / eripere quiuit, at uirtutem non quiit', Sen Ben IV 10 5, Sen Ep XXXVI 6, and Euripides fr. 1066 Nauck.
91. ILLA QVIES ANIMO. Animo is locative; or perhaps in should be supplied from the following line: for the joining of a noun with a following preposition already with a complement, see Clausen on Persius I 131 'abaco numeros et secto in puluere metas'. I read animo (found in one of Heinsius' Vatican manuscripts) because of the parallel structure it gives with the following in ore, but ANIMI (BCMFHILT) is possible enough: OLD quies 7 cites quies animi at Celsus III 18 5.
91. QVAM TV LAVDARE SOLEBAS. The same phrase at Her XV 193 'haec sunt illa [sc pectora], Phaon, quae tu laudare solebas'. For the persistence of Ovid's old habits, compare EP I x 29-30 (he remains a moderate drinker, as formerly).
93-94. SIC EGO SVM LONGE, SIC HIC, VBI BARBARVS HOSTIS / VT FERA PLVS VALEANT LEGIBVS ARMA, FACIT is clearly corrupt, as will be seen from Wheeler's 'Such is my bearing in this far land, where the barbarian foe causes cruel arms to have more power than law' and André's 'Je vis au loin, ici, où un ennemi barbare donne aux armes cruelles plus de force qu'aux lois'. Merkel ejected the distich, which seems the best solution; it is not necessary to the poem's structure, and the iterated facit ut in unrelated clauses at 94 and 97 is suspicious. Also, as Professor R. J. Tarrant notes, the ut in 94 makes one expect that ut in 95 will be correlative, when it in fact continues the thought of 93 (or rather of 91-92, after 93-94 are excised).
Heinsius thought 93 alone to be suspect; if so, the meaning lying behind the text is probably something like 'What I once was at Rome, I still am here'.
93-94. HIC, VBI BARBARVS HOSTIS, / VT FERA PLVS VALEANT LEGIBVS ARMA FACIT. Similar statements at Tr V vii 47-48 'non metuunt leges, sed cedit uiribus aequum, / uictaque pugnaci iura sub ense iacent' and Tr V x 43-44; see also Otto lex 3.
93. BARBARVS HOSTIS. The same phrase at Tr III x 54, Tr IV i 82, and EP II vii 70.
95. RE ... NVLLA MHIL REM NVLLAM BCFT. The verb queri can take a direct object, or be constructed with de + ablative, but not both; this would in effect give the verb two objects. Re ... nulla removes this difficulty and is obviously prone to corruption, the true object de nobis being postponed to the following line.
96. FEMINA ... VIRVE PVERVE = 'anyone'; compare Tr III vii 29-30 'pone, Perilla, metum: tantummodo femina nulla / neue uir a scriptis discat amare tuis', and Ovid's use of femina uirque 'everyone' at Met VI 314-15 'femina uirque timent cultuque impensius omnes ... uenerantur numina', RA 814, Tr I iii 23, and Tr II 6. The repeated u in uirue would not have offended the Romans: compare for instance Tr III vii 30 'neue uir', Am I viii 97 'uiri uideat toto uestigia lecto', and Met XII 204 'poteratque uiri uox illa uideri'; conscious alliteration at Am III vii 59 'uiuosque uirosque' and Met XIII 386 'inuictumque uirum uicit'.