=21. LAESTRYGONOS= _BC_ LE(-I-)STRYGONIS _MFHILT_. _Laestrygonos_ = [Greek: Laistrygonos] (_Od_ X 106). At _Met_ XIV 233 (cited above) all manuscripts offer _Laestrygonis_; the Greek genitive should probably be read as here.
=22. GENTIBVS OBLIQVA QVAS OBIT HISTER AQVA.= Similar wording at ii 37-38 'hic mea cui recitem nisi flauis scripta Corallis, / quasque alias gentes barbarus Hister obit?'.
=22. OBLIQVA= apparently refers to the swirling of a river's eddies. The sense 'winding' generally given the word would fit at _Met_ IX 17-18 (Achelous to the father of Deianira) 'dominum me cernis aquarum / cursibus _obliquis_ inter tua regna fluentum', but not at _Met_ VIII 550-53 (Achelous to Theseus) '"succede meis" ait "Inclite, tectis, / Cecropide, nec te committe rapacibus undis: / ferre trabes solidas _obliquaque_ uoluere magno / murmure saxa solent"' or _Her_ VI 87 'illa refrenat aquas _obliquaque_ flumina sistit'. At _Met_ I 39 'fluminaque _obliquis_ cinxit decliuia ripis', _obliquis_ should be taken with _flumina_, and _decliuia_ with _ripis_; or possibly both adjectives should be taken with both nouns.
=23. VINCET.= Like _superare_, _uincere_ has the twin meanings of 'surpass' and 'defeat'.
=23. CYCLOPS.= The same pairing of the Laestrygonians and Polyphemus at _EP_ II ii 113-114 (to Messalinus; he should address Augustus on Ovid's behalf) 'nec tamen Aetnaeus uasto Polyphemus in antro / accipiet uoces Antiphatesue tuas'.
=23. FERITATE= goes with _uincet_: 'will surpass in savagery'. I once thought PIETATE (_BCIac_) was the correct reading, connecting the word with _saeuum_ and taking it as a reference to human sacrifice; but this seems strained and obscure. _Pietate_ may be an intrusion from ecclesiastical Latin; Professor R. J. Tarrant suggests that it is possibly an anticipation of the following _Piacchen_.
=23. PIACCHEN= _B_ PIAECHEN _C_. See the critical apparatus for the other forms offered by the manuscripts. As the king's name is not elsewhere recorded, its true form must remain in doubt.
=24. QVI QVOTA TERRORIS PARS SOLET ESSE MEI.= With Burman, Weber, and Wheeler I take the line as a statement: compare _EP_ II x 31 'et _quota pars_ haec sunt rerum quas uidimus ambo' (cited by Williams), where _quota_, as here, takes the meaning 'how small' from context. Most editors take it as a question, for which compare _Am_ II xii 9-10 'Pergama cum caderent bello superata bilustri, / ex tot in Atridis _pars quota_ laudis erat?'.