As in Owen's earlier edition, the apparatus is so short as to be misleading. His choice of manuscripts is too small, and exaggerates the importance of _B_ and _C_; even of these two manuscripts his report is inadequate. At ix 73 he rightly prints _laxate_; the apparatus gives no indication that this is a conjecture, and that all manuscripts, including _B_ and _C_, read _iactate_, which he had printed in 1894. At xi 21, where _B_ gives _mihi_, indicated by Burman as the correct reading, Owen prints _tibi_ and does not mention the variant in the apparatus. The situation is naturally worse with readings of manuscripts other than _B_ and _C_, and with conjectures. In general, Owen's apparatus can be trusted neither as a report even of the principal readings of the few manuscripts he used, or as a register of critics' views of the constitution of the text. In the same year as Owen's second text there appeared at Budapest Geza Némethy's commentary on the _Ex Ponto_, of which twenty-six pages are devoted to the fourth book. The notes are too sparse and elementary to form an adequate commentary, consisting largely of simple glosses. They are a useful supplement to a plain text of the poems, however, and Némethy sometimes notices points missed by others: he correctly glosses _Augusti_ as "Tiberii imperatoris" at ix 70. The notes are based on Merkel's second edition; Némethy lists in a preface his few departures from Merkel's text. In 1922 Friedrich Levy published his first edition of the _Ex Ponto_ as part of a new Teubner edition of the works of Ovid. The apparatus was a reduced version of that prepared by Ehwald, 'Qui ut totus prelis subiceretur ... propter saeculi angustias fieri non potuit'. Levy's text is virtually identical to Owen's, but the apparatus is more complete. It contains a full report of _B_ and _C_, and also of the thirteenth-century _Gothanus memb. II 121_. This last manuscript has the correct _cernet_ at ix 46, where most manuscripts read _credet_; but otherwise its readings are of very poor quality, consisting of simple misreadings (i 24 _magnificas_ for _munificas_, vii 30 _uento_ for _uenit_, viii 37 _habendus_ for _abunde_), simplified word order (vi 25 _tuas lacrimas pariter_ for _tuas pariter lacrimas_, xvi 39 _et iuuenes essent_ for _essent et iuuenes_), and intrusive glosses (viii 61 _captiuis_ for _superatis_, xvi 47 _me laedere_ for _proscindere_). The manuscript does not deserve the important place it has in the editions of Levy, Luck, and André[16]; Ehwald presumably included it in his apparatus because of its easy accessibility to him at Gotha, where he lived. No other manuscripts are regularly reported, so Levy's apparatus gives a false impression of the evidence for the text, although he often reports isolated readings from the manuscripts of Heinsius. [Footnote 16: My knowledge of the manuscript is drawn from André's apparatus.]