^{page 106 note 1} Einleitung zu Ovid (1933), PP. 1–3, 73 ff.

^{page 106 note 2} Ovid had at any rate given philosophy a chance, T. 1. 2, 77.

^{page 107 note 1} Bury, J. H., Greece and Rome, February, 1934, p. 67Google Scholar, writes: ‘If (Horace) had been merely a frivolous fellow and a wine-bibber, we should undoubtedly have found him wasting his substance in the company of Ovid.’ There is little or no evidence that Ovid wasted his substance: and he preferred water to wine, —P. 1. 10, 30.

^{page 107 note 2} T. 2. 340 f., 355 f.; A.A. 1. 29 (the teacher's credentials) is not to be over-stressed, any more than fabula quanta fui in Hor. Epod. 11. 8.

^{page 107 note 3} Ovid and the Spirit of Metamorphosis in Harvard Essays on Classical Subjects.

^{page 107 note 4} Pp. 115 ff. Rand, E. K., Ovid and his Influence, p. 172, credits Ovid with a maturer criticism of life—more often implied than expressed—than Professor Murray allows. I agree. See also D. A. Slater, Ovid in the Metamorphoses (Occasional Publications of the Class. Association, No. 1).Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 5} Ovide, poète de l'amour, des dieux, et de l' exil (Paris, A. Colin, 1921). P. 251.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 6} See the stories collected from Sen. Rhet. and elsewhere by Gwynn, A., Roman Education, pp. 156, 169 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 1} T. 4. 10, 45–50 suggest that Horace, however chary of recitation, sometimes condescended to the same audience as Propertius and Ovid. That Ovid looked to recitation for honest criticism may be seen e.g. from T. 4. 1, 91 f.; P. 4. 12, 25.

^{page 108 note 2} Am. 3. 12, 21 ff.; 1. 3, 21 ff. Cp. F. 6. 3–8, 253–54; P. 4. 8, 55–64.

^{page 108 note 3} Horace, as J. Tate notices (C.Q., XXII, p. 71), records the madness but not the divinity.

^{page 108 note 4} For reff. see K. F. Smith, Tibullus, pp. 281–83.

^{page 108 note 5} Horace, pp. 58–64.

^{page 108 note 6} Tib. 1. 4, 61–66. Prop. 3. 2, 15; cp. 3. 24, 4.

^{page 108 note 7} Tib. 1.4, 61–66; 2. 4, 13–20. Prop. 3. 2; cp. 4. 5, 53 ff. Ovid, Am. 1. 10, 59 ff.; 2. 17, 27; cp. 1. 8, 57–62; A.A. 3. 531–38; cp. 2. 273–76.

^{page 108 note 8} E.g. Am. 1. 10, 59–62; 1. 15; 2. 17, 27 f.; 3. 9, 27–32; 3. 15, 19 f.; A.A. 3. 339 ff.; cp. 533–52; Met. 15. 871 ff.; T. 1. 6, 35 ff.; 3. 3, 77–80; 3, 7, 49–52; 4. 9, 15–26; 4. 10, 121 ff.; P. 4. 8, 43 ff.; cp. 2. 6, 33 f.

^{page 108 note 9} T. 5. 12, 39 f.; Rem. Am. 363 f., 389–96. Cp. Prop. 3. 3, 17.

^{page 108 note 10} Epp. 1. 19, 1–3; A.P. 341–44.

^{page 108 note 11} After Life in Roman Paganism, p. 19 f.

^{page 109 note 1} See Martini, E., Einleitung zu Ovid, p. 7Google Scholar; and esp. S. G. Owen, Tristia II, pp. 26 ff. Also E. Ripert, Ovide, pp. 180 ff.

^{page 109 note 2} Ripert, E., Ovide, p. 207Google Scholar, collects Ovidian passages equating Augustus with Jupiter. Hor. Epp. 1. 19, 43, S. 2. 6, 51, suggest that this equation was common among the tactless persons whom Hor. is quoting; and it may have become commoner after Horace's day. Professor E. Fraenkel, however, has pointed out to me that the Horatian reff. may depend on the proverbial expression in Plaut. Trin. 207.

^{page 109 note 3} Met. 15. 871–79. On the phrase ore legar in 878, see D. A. Slater, op. cit., p. 28. Add to Virg. Aen. 4. 684, Ovid A. A. 3. 746; T. 3. 14, 23 f.; Mart. 3. 95, 7 f.

^{page 109 note 4} Cp. P. 2. 9, 62 (to King Cotys).

^{page 110 note 1} Longmans, 13th impression, 1928, p. 97.

^{page 110 note 2} Horazens Epistel über die Dichtkunst, pp. 1 ff.

^{page 110 note 3} A.P. XI, 322. The translation given is by W. R. Paton (Loeb edition).

^{page 110 note 4} Cp. Kiessling-Heinze (1914) on Hor. Epp. 1. 19, 8; Butler and Barber, Propertius, p. xlii.

^{page 110 note 5} Cp. O. Immisch, op. cit., p. 141.

^{page 110 note 6} Cp. O. Immisch, op. cit., p. 185.

^{page 111 note 1} Roman Literary Theory and Criticism, p. 436.

^{page 111 note 2} New Studies of a Great Inheritance, pp. 140 ff.

^{page 112 note 1} Cp. esp. Am. 2. 19, 37–60. In the ages of Chivalry ‘romantic’ love took a different turn.

^{page 112 note 2} Cp. K. F. Smith, Tibullus, p. 41; and note on 1. 5, 47–48.

^{page 112 note 3} Cp. K. F. Smith, op. cit., pp. 41 ff.

^{page 112 note 4} Cp. Butler and Barber, Propertius, p. xxxix.

^{page 112 note 5} The Poet Ovid in Martial the Epigrammatist, and other Essays, p. 72.

^{page 113 note 1} Ibid., p. 63.

^{page 113 note 2} Hor. C. 3. 26, 2. Tib. 2. 6, 6. Prop. 1. 6, 30; 2. 1, 45; 4. 1, 137 ff.

^{page 113 note 3} Am. 1. 9; cp. A.A. 2. 233 ff.; Am. 2. 12; 1. 2, 19 ff.

^{page 113 note 4} Virgil teaches cultus of the fields, Ovid cultus of the person. Compare the didactic style e.g. of Virg. G. 1. 80 f. and M.F.F. 69 f.

^{page 114 note 1} Here, as on p. 116, I have borrowed a metre from F. A. Wright's Ovid, The Lover's Handbook.

^{page 114 note 2} E.g. in Am. 3. 4, 37–40; Her. 4. 131–34.

^{page 114 note 3} Cp. F. A. Wright, op. cit., p. 88. Suet. Aug. 64, 73. Macr. Sat. 2. 5, 5.

^{page 114 note 4} A.A. 3. 169 ff., esp. 187–88.

^{page 115 note 1} Ovid and his Influence, pp. 18–32.

^{page 116 note 1} Cp. K. F. Smith, The Poet Ovid, p. 50.

^{page 116 note 2} P. 1. 8, 41, where non … desiderat means ‘you suggest that I do not miss …’—the suggestion being that Tomis can at least provide country life. Ovid goes on to show that it cannot.