For _quem ... an uiuam_ compare _EP_ III vi 57 '_te_que tegam, _qui sis_'.

=17. VIVAM.= Heinsius' VIVAT is unnecessary: the assimilation of person seems reasonable enough in view of such passages as _EP_ I ii 129-31 'ille ego sum qui te _colui_ ... ille ego qui _duxi_ uestros Hymenaeon ad ignes'.

The Last Poems of Ovid — Part 98

=18. SVBIT= _Heinsius_ FVIT _codd_. The preceding _nescis_ requires a verb with present meaning; and _fuit_ seems impossible to construe as a true perfect (with present result). Heinsius' _subit_ seems an elegant solution: certain manuscripts offer the same corruption of _subit_ to _fuit_ at _Met_ IX 93-94 'lux _subit_, et primo feriente cacumina sole / discedunt iuuenes' and _Met_ XIV 827-28 'pulchra _subit_ facies et puluinaribus altis / dignior'.

The Last Poems of Ovid — Part 98

=19-20. SIVE FVI NVMQVAM CARVS, SIMVLASSE FATERIS; / SEV NON FINGEBAS, INVENIERE LEVIS.= For a similar opposition (either alternative being discreditable), see _Met_ IX 23-24 'nam, quo te iactas, Alcmena nate, creatum, / Iuppiter aut falsus pater est aut crimine uerus'.

The Last Poems of Ovid — Part 98

=21. AVT.= 'Otherwise'. For the use of _aut_ as a disjunctive adverb rather than a conjunction compare xii 3 'aut ego non alium prius hoc dignarer honore' and the passages there cited. Here, as at xii 3, the idiom has been misunderstood by scribes, with such resulting variants in late manuscripts as EIA ('uterque Medonii pro diuersa lectione'; accepted by Heinsius) and DIC (_Gothanus II 121_; printed by Burman).

=21. IRAM.= 'Cause for anger'. This seems to be the only instance of the meaning, _ira_ not being found even as a predicative dative; but compare the use of _laudes_ to mean 'acts deserving praise', as at viii 87 'tuas ... laudes ... recentes'.

=23. QVOD TE NVNC CRIMEN SIMILEM= seems to be the correct reading; the line connects with the _an crimen ..._ of 24. QVAE TE CONSIMILEM RES NVNC (_FIL_) looks like a rewriting of the line, perhaps following the loss of _crimen_ by haplography (_cr_iM _s_im_ilE_). There seems no good reason why Ovid would have used the emphatic _consimilem_ instead of the more usual _similem_.

=25. SI ... OPEM NVLLAM ... FEREBAS.= 'If you had no intention of assisting me'--the inceptive or conative imperfect (Woodcock 200). Similar phrasing at _Tr_ I viii 9-10 'haec ego uaticinor, quia sum deceptus ab illo / _laturum_ misero quem mihi rebar _opem_' and _EP_ II vii 46 'et nihil inueni quod mihi _ferret opem_'.