My restoration is based on 6 '_quaque_ meos _adeas_ est _uia_ nulla modos' and _Fast_ I 431-32 (Priapus approaches the sleeping nymph Lotis) 'a pedibus tracto uelamine _uota_ / _ad sua felici coeperat ire uia_'.
Before Professor E. Fantham brought this passage to my attention, I had thought that _M_'s _quoque uiam facias ad mea uota modo_ was correct. _Modo_ is weak and does not fit well with the preceding _qua ... parte_, but at least is acceptable Latin; for _quo ... modo_ compare _Med_ 1-2 'Discite quae faciem commendet cura, puellae, / et _quo_ sit uobis forma tuenda _modo_' and _Ibis_ 55-56 'nunc _quo_ Battiades inimicum deuouet Ibin, / _hoc_ ego deuoueo teque tuosque _modo_'.
The image in _quoque ... uado_ ['ford'] is rather strange, and for this sense of the word Ovid seems to have used the plural (_Met_ III 19; _Met_ IX 108). At _Fast_ IV 300 'sedit limoso pressa carina _uado_', _uado_ means 'river-bottom'.
Ovid does not end any one of his dozens of verse epistles with _uale_, so the reading of _FTI2ul_ must be discounted.
If my restoration is correct or nearly correct, the original corruptions would have been of _uia_ to _uiam_ and of _uenias_ to _facias_; the latter corruption might have been a deliberate interpolation to procure a governing verb for _uiam_, or might have been a misreading of or conjectural restoration for a damaged archetype. The variant _quoque_ for _quaque_ and the different variants for _uide_ would have been secondary corruptions, unless they also were the result of a damaged archetype.
=50. VIDE.= For _uide_ at the end of the pentameter, compare _EP_ II ii 55-56 'num tamen excuses erroris origine factum, / an nihil expediat tale mouere, uide'. It must however be said that _uide_ is somewhat strange following the subjunctive _quaeras_.
Nothing is known of the Carus to whom this poem is addressed beyond what Ovid tells us: that he wrote a poem on Hercules (11-12; xvi 7-8) and that he was teacher of the sons of Germanicus (47-48).
The poem begins with a pun on the meaning of Carus' name (1-2). This opening will in itself demonstrate to Carus who his correspondent is (3-6). Carus can himself be recognized through his style (7-12). Ovid does not claim that his poetry is excellent, only that it is individual; if his poetry is poor, it is because he is almost a Getic poet now (13-18). He has written a poem in Getic, which was well received (19-22). It was a description of the apotheosis of Augustus and a laudation of the members of the imperial family (23-32). When he finished reciting the poem, he was applauded; one person even suggested that his piety merited a recall (33-38). But it is now the sixth year of his exile, and poems will not assist him, since in the past they have done him harm. Carus should use his influence to secure Ovid's recall (39-50).