=7. DOMO PATRIAQVE CARENS OCVLISQVE MEORVM.= Similar phrasing at _Tr_ III vii 45 'cum caream patria uobisque domoque', _Tr_ III xi 15-16 'quod coniuge cara, / quod patria careo pignoribusque meis', _Tr_ V v 19 (of his wife) 'illa domo nataque sua patriaque fruatur', _Tr_ I v 83, _Tr_ IV vi 19, _Tr_ IV ix 12, _Tr_ V x 47, _EP_ I iii 47, and _EP_ II ix 79. =7. OCVLISQVE MEORVM.= Compare _Tr_ V iv 27-30 'nec patriam magis ille suam desiderat ... quam uultus _oculosque_ tuos, o dulcior illo / melle quod in ceris Attica ponit apis'. _Oculisque meorum_ seems to mean 'regards des miens' (André) rather than 'the sight of my own' (Wheeler); compare _Aen_ XI 800-1 'oculosque tulere / cuncti ad reginam', _Met_ VII 256 'et monet arcanis oculos remouere profanos', Persius V 33 'permisit sparsisse oculos ['to look where I chose']', and from prose Cic _Fam_ IX ii 2 'ut uitemus oculos hominum'. =9. VVLTVM DIFFVNDERE.= The action opposite to _trahis uultus_ (i 5); compare _Met_ XIV 272 'diffudit uultus' and from prose Sen _Ep_ 106 5 'nisi dubitas an uultum nobis mutent, an frontem astringant, an _faciem diffundant_'. It is probably from this expression that _diffundere_ acquired the extended sense of 'mentally relax' (_OLD diffundo_ 5), for which compare _Met_ IV 766 'diffudere animos', _Met_ III 318 'Iouem ... diffusum nectare', and _AA_ I 218 'diffundetque animos omnibus ista dies'. =9. CAVSAM.= CAVSA (_BCT_) is grammatical enough, but corruption from _qua ... causam_ to _qua ... causa_ is more likely than the inverse. The construction of the sentence is rather complex: Ovid's normal practice would be to employ an objective genitive with _causa_. =10. POSSIM= _BCMHIT_ POSSEM _L_ POSSVM _F_. The clause is in primary tense sequence following the true perfect _inueni_, which represents the present result of a past action. Compare _fecit ... minuant_ in 5-6. =10. NEC MEMINISSE= = _et obliuisci_. _Nec (non) meminisse_ is metrically useful for filling the second hemistich of the pentameter up to the disyllable; so used at vi 50 'arguat ingratum non meminisse sui', _Tr_ IV iv 40 & V xiii 18, and _EP_ II iv 6. =11. SOLVS= _BC_. TRISTIS, the reading of the other six manuscripts, is tempting, as being the less neutral of the two adjectives, and was accepted without question by Heinsius and Burman. If it is accepted, one could argue that Ovid refers back to the word at 21 'dilapsis ... curis'. But _solus_ is shown to be correct by the passage Ovid is here imitating, Virgil _G_ I 388-89 'tum cornix plena pluuiam uocat improba uoce / et _sola_ in sicca secum _spatiatur harena_'. _Solus_ was lost through haplography ('fulua solus': the elongated 's' form common in manuscripts would have facilitated the error) and _tristis_ interpolated to restore the metre. Ehwald believed (_KB_ 63) that the error arose from _tristis_ having been written above _solus_ in the archetype, but there is no reason to accept this, since the one could not stand as a gloss for the other.