One of Heinsius' manuscripts read _per se ... facit_, which is just possibly correct. Heinsius proposed _pro se ... facit_, which I do not understand. =35. HABITVRA= is a good instance of the future participle used to express what is inevitably destined to happen (with _Parca_ balancing in the pentameter); for the sense, see Tarrant on Sen _Ag_ 43 'daturus coniugi iugulum suae'. =37. INOBLITA= = _memori_. Apparently the only instance of the word in classical Latin. =39. CAELO ... SVB VLLO.= Bentley oddly conjectured ILLO, the reading of _Mac_, which gives the sense 'under the Tomitan sky'. This obviously contradicts the following _transit nostra feros si modo Musa Getas_. =41. SERVATOREM= occurs in Ovid only here and at _Met_ IV 737-38 (of Perseus) 'auxiliumque domus _seruatoremque_ fatentur / Cassiope Cepheusque pater'. In prose it is several times used in a civic context (Cic _Pis_ 34, _Planc_ 102, Livy VI 20 16 & XLV 44 20; _CIL_ IX 4852 in a dedication to _Ioui optimo maximo seruatori conseruatori ... ex uoto suscepto_). The solemn overtones of _seruatorem_ must be part of what Ovid means for his own land and for the rest of the world to hear and know; the poem thus ends with an implied pronouncement to balance the public statement of the opening. =42. MEQVE TVVM LIBRA NORIT ET AERE MAGIS.= This line clearly refers to _mancipatio_, the receiving of property (including slaves), which is described by Gaius as follows: 'adhibitis non minus quam [_Boeth._: quod _cod_] quinque testibus ciuibus Romanis puberibus, et praeterea alio eiusdem condicionis qui libram aeneam teneat, qui appellatur libripens ['scale-holder'--de Zulueta], is qui mancipio accipit, aes [aes _add Boeth._] tenens, ita dicit: "hunc ego hominem ex iure [_Boeth._: iUst _cod_] Quiritium meum esse aio isque mihi emptus esto hoc aere aeneaque libra", deinde aere percutit libram, idque aes dat ei a quo mancipio accipit quasi pretii loco' (I 119). MAGIS is found as a secondary reading in _F_ and in the thirteenth-century _Barberinus lat. 26_; the reading of most manuscripts is MINVS, which seems to me impossible. Several explanations of _minus_ have been advanced: (i) Gronovius took the line to mean 'tuus sum, immo mancipium tuum, nisi quod sola libra et aes mea mancipatione abfuerunt'. This retention of _minus_, however, involves Ovid in a qualifying retraction just when he seems to be aiming for a ringing conclusion. As well, the instances of _minus_ cited by Gronovius do not in fact illustrate this passage: among them are _EP_ I vii 25-26 'uno / nempe salutaris quam prius ore minus', _Met_ XII 554-55 'bis sex Herculeis ceciderunt me minus uno ['except for me alone'] / uiribus', and Manilius I 778 'Tarquinio ... minus reges', 'the kings, except for Tarquin'.