HKB
[Footnote 17: He collated four other manuscripts, M, Bernensis bibl. munic. 478*, Diuionensis bibl. munic. 497, and *British Library Burney 220, but gives their readings only occasionally.]
For knowledge of many of his secondary manuscripts, André seems to have depended on the edition of Lenz. Since much of Lenz's information was drawn from Heinsius and other earlier editors, this means that André is often giving unverified information from collations made more than three centuries previously. He did not realize that the Antwerp manuscript he collated (our M) was Heinsius' codex Moreti, whose readings Lenz sometimes reports; the result is that he reports the same manuscript twice, under the sigla M and N.
At ix 127 he cites the sixth-century Wolfenbüttel fragment in support of the unassimilated spelling adscite (the assimilated form ascite is supported by the inscriptions and by the ancient manuscripts of Virgil). In fact, the word is not found in the fragment, which preserves only the first three letters of the line.
Finally, André shows insufficient knowledge of the Heinsius-Burman vulgate; this is evident not only from the text but from the introduction, where he prefaces his list of principal editions by saying 'Nous ne mentionnerons que les editions fondées sur des principes scientifiques, dont la première est celle de R. Merkel, Berlin, 1854' (the edition was published at Leipzig in 1853).
In spite of what I have said against it, André's edition has considerable merit. His apparatus is the first to supply a lemma for each variant reading reported, and is clear and easy to read. His selection of manuscripts is inadequate, but at least he makes a full report of the four manuscripts he uses. The apparatus is in every way a great improvement on that of Lenz. At the same time, he provides a clear prose translation, an informative introduction, ample footnotes, and thirteen pages of "notes complémentaires". His notes sometimes come close to forming a true commentary, and I often quote from them.
In preparing this edition of the fourth book of the Ex Ponto, I have carefully read all the editions discussed above, and have attempted to include a comprehensive list of conjectures in the apparatus. I have read Burman's variorum edition with particular attention, and have often restored readings favoured by Heinsius to the text. A complete examination of the manuscripts must await a full edition of all four books of the Ex Ponto; but on the basis of published editions I have selected the nine manuscripts that appeared most likely to assist in establishing the text, and have included full reports of their readings in the critical apparatus. I believe that even this preliminary apparatus gives a clearer picture of the evidence for the text of Ex Ponto IV than any previous edition.
P. OVIDI NASONIS
EPISTVLARM EX PONTO LIBER QVARTVS
CONSPECTVS SIGLORVM
G
Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel: Cod. Guelf. 13.11 Aug. 4° (fragmentum Guelferbytanum) saec v/vi
continet ix 101-8 et 127-33, xii 15-19 et 41-44. uersus saepe non integri.
B
Monacensis lat. 384 saec xii
C
Monacensis lat. 19476 saec xii
M
Antuerpiensis Musei Plantiniani Denucé 68 saec xii/xiii codex Moreti Heinsianus
F
Francofortanus Barth 110 saec xiii
H
Holkhamicus 322, nunc British Library add. 49368 saec xiii
I
Laurentianus 36 32 saec xiii primus Mediceus Heinsii
L
Lipsiensis bibl. ciu. Rep. I 2° 7 saec xiii
T
Turonensis 879 saec xii/xiii
Interdum aduocatur:
P
Parisinus lat. 7993 saec xiii Regius Heinsii
I
Accipe, Pompei, deductum carmen ab illo debitor est uitae qui tibi, Sexte, suae. qui seu non prohibes a me tua nomina poni, accedet meritis haec quoque summa tuis; siue trahis uultus, equidem peccasse fatebor, 5 delicti tamen est causa probanda mei. non potuit mea mens quin esset grata teneri; sit precor officio non grauis ira pio. o quotiens ego sum libris mihi uisus in istis impius in nullo quod legerere loco! 10 o quotiens, alii uellem cum scribere, nomen rettulit in ceras inscia dextra tuum!