In 1884 Merkel published his second edition of the poems of exile. In his previous edition he had in general followed Heinsius and Burman in the fourth book; in the new edition, without specifically saying so (although in his introduction he mentions the "codex Monacensis uetustior"), he generally alters his text so as to conform with _B_'s readings. He does not always desert his former text, rightly retaining _hanc_ at i 16, _quamlibet_ at iv 45, and _tempus curasque_ at x 67; he also keeps _lux_ at vi 9 and _domitam ... ab Hercule_ at xvi 19.
In his 1874 monograph _De codicibus duobus carminum Ouidianarum ex Ponto datorum Monacensibus_ Korn had made known the existence of _C_. S. G. Owen's first edition of the _Ex Ponto_, printed in Postgate's _Corpus Poetarum Latinorum_ in 1894, was the first edition to report this manuscript as well as _B_. His text is unduly partial to the readings of _B_ and _C_, and his well-organized apparatus is so abbreviated as to be deceptive. It cannot be relied upon even for reports of _B_ and _C_. At ix 73 it gives no hint that for four centuries editors had read _laxate_; many of Heinsius' preferred readings are similarly consigned to oblivion. At vi 5-6 he reports Housman's ingenious repunctuation, presumably communicated to him by its author.
In 1896 Rudolf Ehwald published his monograph _Kritische Beiträge zu Ovids Epistulae ex Ponto_. I am often indebted to Ehwald for references he has collected; my notes on i 15 _ad summam_ and xiii 48 _quos laus formandos est tibi magna datos_ could not have been written without the assistance of his monograph. This said, the fact remains that Ehwald's judgment and linguistic intuition were exceptionally poor. He had not relied on Korn's apparatus for his knowledge of _B_, but had collated it himself; and the intent of his monograph was to establish _B_'s authority as paramount. A typical example can be seen at ix 71. Here _FILT_ offer _cum ... uacabit_ and _MH_ have _ut ... uacabit_, while the reading of _B_ and _C_ is _quod uacabit_. In one of the examples Ehwald adduces, _Fast_ II 18, _uacat_ is found in only a few manuscripts, and it can easily be seen how it arose from _uacas_; all the other examples are instances of _quod superest_ or _quod reliquum est_. The cumulative effect of these examples is to demonstrate that _quod ... uacabit_ is not a possible reading. This insensitivity to the precise meaning of the passages he discusses is usual with Ehwald, and his book, although useful, is an extremely unsafe guide to the textual criticism of the poems. It has unfortunately exercised a decisive influence on all succeeding editions.
