64. CESANDSTRÖM, emendatt. in Prop., Lucan., Valer. Fl., Ups. 1878. HKNAUTH, quaestt. Prop., Halle 1878. CPEIPER, quaestt. Prop., Creuzburg 1879. HAJMUnro, journ. of phil. 6, 28. JPPOSTGATE, ibid. 9, 62. JJCORNELISSEN, Mnemos. NS. 7, 98. INMADVIG, adv. crit. 2, 62. APALMER in Hermathena b. 1 sq., Dublin 1873 sq. 11, 318. EDIETRICH, quaestt. Tib. et Prop. (transpositions in 2, 6. 2, 8. 2, 11). Marb. 1873. LKRAHNER, Phil. 27, 58 (on 5, 1). FLEO, RhM. 35, 431. CBRANDT, quaestt. Prop., Berl. 1880. LPOLSTER, qu. P., Ostrowo 1881. RSCHARF, qu. P., Gött. 1881. JWEIDGEN, qu. P., Cobl. 1881-82 II. JVAHLEN, Beitrr. z. Berichtigg. des P., Berl. SBer. 1881, 335. 1882, 263, (on 1, 8. 2, 1); die Pätus-Elegie d. P. (4. 7), ib. 1883, 69; Berl. ind. schol. 1886/87. AOTтo, die Versumstellungen bei Prop. I, Glogau 1884; die Versumstellungen b. Prop. 4, 1-4, in the commentatt. in hon. Reifferscheidii, Bresl. 1884, 11; Berlph Wschr. 5, 481; d. Reihenfolge d. Gedd. d. Prop., Herm. 20, 552; neue Beitr. z. Erkl. d. Prop., Herm. 23. 21. THKORSCH, de interpolatt. Prop., Nord. Tidskr. f. fil. 5, 257. FAPALEY, journ. of phil. 16, 183. WEHOUSMANX, ibid. 16, 1. RIBBECK, RhM. 10, 481. OTAPPE, anall. ad Prop. 1. I, in the Festschr. d. Königst. Realsch., Berl. 1882, 75. GKÜHLEWEIN, in the Festpr. an HHeerwagen, Erl. 1882, p. 1. THBIRT (b. I), RhM. 38, 196. FPLESSIS, études critiques sur Prop. et ses élégies, Par. 1886; Propertiana. extr. du bull. de la fac. de Poitiers, Par. 1886. HFLEISCHMANN, Wien. St. 10, 150. AKIESSLING, commentariolum Propert. (on 5, 11), Greifsw. 1889.

8. On Propertius see e.g. GRUPPE, röm. Eleg. 1, 274. FJACOB, Properz, Lüb. 1847. WTEUFFEL, PRE. 6, 99. MHAUPT, op. 3, 205. THFKYLANder, Prop., en lit.-historisk Studie I, Upsala 1877. POSTGATE (n. 6) in his introduction. PLESSIS, étud. 281. BÜCHELER, Properz, in the deutsche Revue 8 (1883), 187.

9. Translations by CLvKNEBEL (Lpz. 1798; new ed. Lpz. 1882 Reclam), FCVSTROMBECK (Brunswick 1822), JHVoss (Brunswick 1830), WHERTZBERG (Stuttg. 1838; ausgewählte Elegien, Class. d. Alt. 1855, p. 137), FJACOB (Stuttg. 1868). In English (verse) 6, JCRANSTOUN, Lond. 1875.

247. P. Ovidius Naso, of an equestrian family at Sulmo (a. 711/43 B.C.-770/17 or 771/18 A.D.), received an extensive rhetorical training, but at an early age devoted himself exclusively to poetry, for which he possessed an uncommon formal talent. Yet he remained rhetorical even in poetry, dallying with thought and subject-matter, rejoicing in brilliant figures and witty turns, without any seriousness, higher aims or firmness, indifferent to the claims and problems of life, but ingenious, piquant and original, showing unsurpassed mastery in all points of form, and inimitable lightness, adroitness and grace. In his first period he treated almost exclusively of sensual love, in the manner of the Alexandrine elegiac poets, though he always imparted to mythology, elegy and didactic poems a dash of irony by his frivolous selection of subjects. In his second period he wrote on subjects of Greek mythology and Italian legends, in nearly the same manner, but with greater care and earnestness. The works of his third period were composed at Tomi, and contain endless.

complaints about his exile alternating with humble prayers for pardon.

1. Ovid's description of himself: tr. 4, 13. His name rests on the authority of the MSS.; he often calls himself Naso, e.g. am. 1, 11, 27. 2, 1, 2. He was born 20 March (trist. 4, 10, 13. cf. fast. 3, 813) 711/43 (trist. 4, 10, 6 cf. HIERON. on Eus. chron. a. Abr. 1975) at Sulmo (am. 3, 15, 11. Pont. 4, 14, 49 and elsewhere) in Paelignis (am. 2, 1, 1. 2, 16. 37. 3, 15, 3. 8 and elsewhere), being the second son of a well-to-do (trist. 2, 113) father. His brother died as early as 730/24 at the age of 20 (ib. 4, 10, 31). He studied rhetoric: see SEN. controv. 2, 10, 8 hanc controversiam memini ab Ovidio Nasone declamari apud rhetorem Arellium Fuscum, cuius auditor fuit; nam Latronis admirator erat, cum diversum sequeretur dicendi genus. habebat ille comptum et decens et amabile ingenium. oratio eius iam tum nihil aliud poterat videri quam solutum carmen. adeo autem studiose Latronem audiit ut multas illius sententias in versus suos transtulerit (9) tunc autem cum studeret habebatur bonus declamator. (12) declamabat autem Naso raro controversias, et non nisi ethicas; libentius dicebat suasorias. molesta illi erat omnis argumentatio. verbis minime licenter usus est, nisi in carminibus, in quibus non ignoravit vitia sua, sed amarit. ... adparet summi ingenii viro non iudicium defuisse ad compescendam licentiam carminum suorum, sed animum. aiebat interim decentiorem faciem esse in qua aliquis naevos fuisset.-Ov. tr. 1, 7, 1.8 mentions portraits of himself (busts and gems).

2. The official career of Ovid: (twice) XXvir, i.e. triumvir capitalis (trist. 4, 10, 33) and decemvir (stlitibus iudic., fast. 4, 383), a member of the court of the centumvirs (trist. 2, 93. Pont. 3, 5, 23); judge (trist. 2, 95). There are, however, but very slight traces in his writings of special knowledge of the ius civile. A further continuation of this career was prevented by Ovid's laziness and preference for poetry (trist. 4, 10, 35). He undertook a journey to Athens, Asia, and Sicily (trist. 1, 2, 77. Pont. 2. 10, 21). He was twice married at an early age and soon divorced (trist. 4, 10, 69); his third wife, Fabia (cf. HPETER on Ov. fast. 6, 802), remained faithful to him in exile. Ovid had a legitimate daughter who was twice married, trist. 4, 10, 75; cf. 1, 3, 19. SEN. dial. 2, 17 Fidum Cornelium, Nasonis Ovidi generum. This daughter cannot be the Perilla alluded to in trist. 3, 7, whose poetical taste was encouraged by Ovid. VLOERS, de Ovidii filia, RhM. 1 (1833), 125. ΣΚΣακελλαρόπουλος, ἡ θυγάτηρ τοῦ Οβιδίου in the ̓Αττικὸν ἡμερολόγιον 1879, 14. SGOWEN on trist. p. xvII, XXIX. Friends and intimates: Propertius (trist. 4, 10, 45), Gallio (Pont. 41, 1. SEN. Suas. 3, 7. p. 27 K.), Hyginus (SUET. gr. 20), the poets Ponticus, Bassus, Macer, Sabinus, Tuticanus (see § 252, 1 sqq.), Cotta (§ 267, 6), Graecinus (am. 2, 10. Pont. 1, 6), Atticus (am. 1, 9, 2.

others; MKOCH, prosographiae Ovidianae elementa, Bresl. 1865. Ovidii sodalibus (=the contemporary poets mentioned in Ovid), further references § 250, 1.

Pont. 2, 4) and OHENNIG, de Berl. 1883 and

3. His exile. Decem lustris peractis (trist. 4, 8, 33 cf. 4, 10, 95. Ibis 1) Tomitas quaerere me laesi principis ira iubet (tr. 4, 10, 97). In Elba he received the first news of his prosecution (Pont. 2, 3, 83). He was relegatus, non exsul (tr. 2, 137), and hence retained his fortune (Ibis 24). The description of his departure from Rome tr. 1, 3. It took place towards the end of 761/8 A.D. In December Ovid was on the Adriatic (trist. 1, 11, 3) and it was probably only in the spring of 762/9 that, after a long and tedious voyage (tr. 1, 10), he arrived at Tomi: he passed there as sexta bruma the winter of 767/14 (Pont. 4, 13, 40). HBRANDES, JJ. 115, 353, CSCHRADER, ib. 846, EMEYER, ZfGW. 32, 451. GGRÄBER, quaestt. Ovid. 1, Elberf.

ences

1881, 111. THMATTHIAS, JJ. 129, 201. GNICK, Phil. Anz. 12, 194 and other refer250, 1. The cause consisted in duo crimina, carmen et error (tr. 2, 207). The first of these, his immoral and dangerous ars amandi, is often mentioned by Ovid, who attempts to justify himself (esp. in b. 2 of the tristia, specially addressed to Augustus, ib. 3, 1, 7. Pont. 2, 9, 69. 2, 10, 15. 3, 3, 69. 4, 13, 41. Ibis 6 and elsewhere), and hence APOLL. SIDON. c. 23, 157, VICT. epit. 1, 27 mention his tres libellos amatoriae artis as the sole cause of his exile (OVID. Pont. 4, 13, 42 says. prima causa). It is indeed quite credible that Augustus should have been highly displeased with a work so greatly opposed to his attempts to promote marriage ́and a moral life (tr. 2, 7 carmina fecerunt ut me moresque notaret iam demum visa Caesar ab arte meos. 2, 212 arguor obsceni doctor adulterii). But ten years had passed since the first appearance of it, and the immediate cause must have consisted in quite a different error. Concerning this (his error, not scelus tr. 1, 3, 37. 3, 1, 52. 4, 10, 90. Pont. 3, 3, 75; cf. 1, 6, 25. 2, 9, 75) Ovid always speaks in mysterious expressions. Even the reason given for his silence, his unwillingness to renew Augustus' pain (trist. 2, 209 cf. 3, 6, 27), shows that the latter must have felt offended in his personal interests (cf. tr. 2, 133 tristibus invectus verbis

ultus es offensas ipse tuas). And as Ovid blames his eyes as the guilty part (tr. 2, 103 cur aliquid vidi, cur noxia lumina feci! cur imprudenti cognita culpa mihi est! cf. 3, 5, 49 inscia quod crimen viderunt lumina plector, peccatumque oculos est habuisse meum; ib. 3, 6, 27. Pont. 3, 3, 74), it is highly probable that he witnessed without preventing the guilty act of some member of the Imperial family, perhaps under the erroneous impression (partem nostri criminis error habet, tr. 3, 5, 52) that Augustus himself knew of it and connived at it. This was probably the younger Julia's (Augustus' grand-daughter) adulterous connection with D. Silanus (Tac. ann. 3, 24). Julia was banished in the same year as Ovid (TAC. ann. 4, 71): Silanus was disgraced and went into voluntary exile (TAC. ann. 3, 24): the principal blame was perhaps laid upon Ovid, against whom Augustus may have been still predisposed on account of his ars amandi. The whole of Ovid's works (not only the ars, cf. v. 65) were removed from the three public libraries (§ 219, 21), see trist. 3, 1, 60 sqq.-ТнDYER, in the Classical Mus. 1847, p. 229. GBOISSIER, rev. des deux mondes 69 (1867) p. 580. Bl. 1854, 185. ADEVILLE, sur l'exil d'Ovide, Par. 1859. Ovid relegatus sit, Lps. 1872. MINICH, atti dell' inst. (1881). GSCHÖMANN, Phil. 41, 171. EKÖRBER, de Ov. relegationis causis, Petersb. 1883. JHUBER, d. Ursachen d. Verbannung Ov.'s, Regensb. 1888. de phil. 13, 47.

CLROTH, württ. Corresp.EAPPEL, quibus de causis Veneto di scienze 6, 5, 10

ETHOMAS, rev.

4. The manner in which Ovid bore his exile can only be compared with the meekness of Schubart when broken down by a lengthy imprisonment; his complaints resemble those of Cicero in his exile; his crouching to Augustus is carried to a délire d'adulation (BOISSIER). In losing Rome, he had lost himself. He now confines himself to the request that at least some other place of exile may be assigned to him (e.g. trist. 2, 577. Ibis 18), or again he cries to be pardoned and recalled. Augustus was already softened or tired out by the continual prayers of Ovid, but he died (Pont. 4, 6, 25 sq.), and his successor's cold heart was inaccessible to sighs and flatteries (Pont. 1.1. 17). So it came that Ovid died at Tomi (on the Black Sea, in Moesia, the modern Kustindje): HIERON. on Eus. chron. a. Abr. 2033=770/17 a.d. (in the Amand. as early as a. 2032, in the Bongars. not until a. 2034) Ovidius poeta in exilio diem obiit et iuxta oppidum Tomos sepelitur. THMATTHIAS, JJ. 129, 214 conjectures from fast. 1, 223 that Ovid must have died during the first four months of 771/18; cf. MERKEL on Ov. fast. p. CCLXVII.

5. The MS. vitae Ovidii (esp. Vindob., Vat. and Farnes.) are of no value, but Ovid's own poems are excellent sources for his life, especially trist. 4, 10. Among modern biographies the best is JMASSON, Ovidii vita ordine chronologico sic delineata ut poetae fata et opera veris assignentur annis etc., Amstelod. 1708. A detailed and elaborate account is given by EVLEUTSCH, in Ersch and Gruber's Allg. Enc. 3, 8 (1836), 39.—ENAGEOTTE, Ovide, Dijon 1872.-No authentic portraits of Ovid (cf. n. 1 ad fin.) are extant: JJBERNOULLI, röm. Ikonogr. 1, 287.

6. On the character of Ovid: SEN. controv. 2, 10 (above note 1) and 9, 28, 17 Ovidius nescit quod bene cessit relinquere. SEN. nat. qu. 3, 27, 13 poetarum ingeniosissimus, nisi tantum impetum ingenii et materiae ad pueriles ineptias reduxisset. QUINT. 10, 1, 88 lascivus quidem in herois quoque Ovidius et nimium amator ingenii sui, laudandus tamen in partibus. Cf. ib. 93 (Ovidius utroque-Tibullus and Propertius-lascivior). 98 Ovidii Medea videtur mihi ostendere quantum ille vir praestare potuerit, si ingenio suo imperare quam indulgere maluisset. Among Ovid's own expressions the following are most significant: trist. 4, 10, 26 quidquid tentabam dicere (in prose) versus erat ; ib. 40 otia iudicio semper amata meo. He feels himself to be the child of his time: (a. a. 3, 121 prisca iuvent alios, ego me nunc denique natum gratulor; haec aetas moribus apta meis. . . quia cultus adest, nec nostros mansit in annos rusticitas). His ideas on the gods are very free: expedit esse deos, et ut expedit esse putemus innocue vivite, numen adest (a. a.

1, 637; cf. 3, 654. am. 3, 3, 23). KRUSE, de Ov. moribus et operibus, Strals. 1856.. AJREICHART, die sittliche Lebensanschauung des Ovid, Potsd. 1867.

7. As his proper domain and chief performance Ovid himself considers (erotic) elegy (am. 2, 18, 13. 3, 1. 3, 15, 13. a. a. 3, 343. rem. am. 389. 395. trist. 4, 10, 54. Pont. 3, 3, 29), in the peculiar metre of which he also treated subjects properly belonging to epic (the Fasti) or iambic poetry (Ibis). Among his predecessors. he thought most of Tibullus (cf. am. 3, 9), from whom he frequently borrowed subjects, thoughts, illustrations, expressions and phrases (AZINGERLE 1, especially 54), though he often turns them to frivolous use (cf. a. a. 2, 669 with Tib. 1, 1), next of Propertius (cf. § 246, 2). There are also reminiscences of the other literature of the time (Vergil, Horace, Lygdamus etc.) and of Lucretius, as indeed may easily be supposed of a poet gifted with such a prodigious memory; he is fond of dressing up citations of this kind mythologically (fast. 3, 465 = CATULL. 64, 132; met. 14, 812, and fast. 2, 487 E ENN. ann. 1, 47 Vahl.). Reminiscences of the epigrammatist Philodemos of Gadara: see below p. 497, 1. 5. The comparisons. and metaphors so frequent in Ovid are also almost all the result of reading. JAWASHIETL, de similitudinibus imaginibusque Ovidianis, Vienna 1883. He also repeats himself very frequently, and sometimes, it may be supposed, quite intentionally (e.g. a. a. 2, 77=met. 8, 217). Cf. SEN. Suas. 3, 7. Cf. AZINGERLE, Ovid u. s. Verhältnis zu den Vorgängern u. gleichzeitigen römischen Dichtern (I Cat. Tib. Prop., II Enn. Lucr. Verg., III Hor.), Innsbr. 1869-71 III. ALÜNEBURG, de Ovidio sui imitatore, Königsberg 1888. All this, and his treatment of his materials, show that Ovid's principal strength lies in his formal style. His. wonderful gift of adaptation and his sensibility enable him to deal with every kind of idea, to transform it with ever-varying modifications, and to illuminate it with all the brilliancy of his skilful rhetoric. After the fashion of an improvisatore, Ovid delights his readers with a display which, like a fine show of fireworks. burns out and leaves no lasting impression. Ovid has a masterly command of the mythological jargon of his time, though he is just as lax in regard to the particulars as he is in all matters of detail (e.g. am. 3, 6, 31. 12, 21. rem. am. 783).

5

73

8. His diction is simple, clear and full of natural grace; his verse is smooth, fluent and elegant: no Roman has shown greater mastery of the elegiac metre than Ovid; yet his verse, as applied to all subjects alike, gives a certain impression of monotony.-GVBUCHT, de usu infinitivi ap. Ov., Upsala 1875. ETRILLHAAS, d. Inf. bei Ov., Erlangen 1877. STSOBIESKI (see § 225, 7). RvKITTLITZ, Phil. 11, 283 (part. fut. act. in Ov.). PHAU, de casuum usu Ovid., Münst. 1887. LÖWE, Lexikalisches zu Ov., Strehlen 1888. See further under the various poems.MSCHMIDT, de Ovidii hexametris, Cleves 1856. LMÜLLER, de re metr. 91. 408. THBIRT, hist. hexam. lat. 52. JDRAHEIM, Herm. 14, 253. Cf. above § 19, 2. 32, 4 and 5. On the same or similar verse-endings: EGEIBEL, Hadersleben 1872. HSTSEDLMAYER, Wien. Stud. 2, 293.

9. On Ovid and his writings see EvLEUTSCH in Ersch. and Gruber's Enc. 3, 8, 54. TEUFFEL, PRE. 5, 1028. MHAUPT pref. to his ed. of the met. p. 111. WABHERTZBERG in the ausgew. Gedd. d. röm. Elegiker (Stuttg. 1855) 227. CAVALLIN, ad libros Ov. prolegg., Lund 1859. ARIESE pref. to his ed. 1, v. MSAPPA, Ovidio umorista, Riv. di filol. 11, 347.

248. The most faithful image of Ovid's peculiar character may be gained from his erotic poems, with which he commenced his literary career: the Amores, three books of elegies, lascivious scenes connected with the name of Corinna, the rhetorical Epistulae (Heroides), fictitious love-letters addressed by ladies of the heroic age to their lovers, with the addition of some spurious compositions; then also the Ars amatoria, a humorous didactic poem in three books, wanton in tone and contents though displaying great knowledge of the subject and much psychological refinement—and its companion, the Remedia amoris, also the poem on female toilet (libellus de medicamine faciei). In the same period Ovid wrote his tragedy of Medea and other works which have not come down to us.

1. Lines from the Amores and Ars were found on the walls of Pompeii; see CIL. 4, p. 260. The MSS. of all the carmina amatoria of Ovid are derived from an archetype, where they seem to have been in the following order: ars. am., remedia, amores, epistulae, medicamina (see n. 7). The best MSS. are two Parisini, 8242 P(utanus) s. XI and 7311 R(egius) s. X, and Sangallens. 864 s. XI, Etonensis s. XI (see SEDLMAYER, proleg. crit. ad Ov. her. p. 4) etc. See further under the various works.-Editions: Ovidii amatoria c. var. lect. ed. CGWERNSDORF, Helmstedt 1802; recogn. (without epist. and medic.) LMÜLLER, Berl. 1861. Cf. LMÜLLER, zur Kritik des ersten Teils der ovid. Dichtungen, RhM. 17, 522. 18, 71. 20, 256; de re metr. 43. Ovid's erotic works translated by ABERG, Stuttg. 1867.

2. Early poems, trist. 4, 10, 57 carmina cum primum populo iuvenilia legi, barba resecta mihi bisve semelve fuit. moverat ingenium totam cantata per urbem nomine non vero dicta Corinna mihi (cf. am. 2, 13. a. a. 3, 538. MART. 5, 10, 10. 8, 73, 10 and other passages). AP. SIDON. carm. 23, 159 calls her (manifestly by an error) Caesarea puella. Much of the subject-matter of the amores was no doubt fur