In 1963 Georg Luck published the Artemis edition of the _Tristia_ and _Ex Ponto_, with a German translation by Wilhelm Willige. Luck shows some independence from Lenz, at i 16 printing _hanc_ for _ah_, at iii 27 _sed et_ for _subito_, at viii 71 _mauis_ for _maius_, at viii 86 _distet_ for _distat_, at ix 73 _laxate_ for _iactate_, at xii 13 _producatur_ for _ut dicatur_, and at xiv 7 _muter_ for _mittar_, each time rightly. He suggests a new conjecture for the incurable xvi 33, and a new and possibly correct punctuation of xii 19. The apparatus is misleading, consisting of isolated readings from _B_ and _C_ and a small number of readings from other manuscripts. No indication is given that _hanc_ at i 16 or _pars_ at i 35 are found only in a few manuscripts, and not in _B_ or _C_. Luck criticizes modern editors for ignoring the discoveries of their predecessors, and rightly prints Heinsius' _Gigantas_ (codd _-es_) at viii 59. However, he shows no direct knowledge of Heinsius' notes or of the Burman vulgate, making no mention of such readings as _Gete_ for _Getae_ at iii 52, _leuastis_ for _leuatis_ at vi 44, or _fouet_ for _mouet_ at xi 20. The oldest edition named in his apparatus is that of Riese. In 1977 F. Della Corte published an Italian translation of the _Ex Ponto_ with an accompanying commentary, of which fifty-eight pages are devoted to the fourth book. Most of the commentary consists of extended paraphrase of the poems; I have found it of little assistance. The most recent text of the _Ex Ponto_ is the 1977 Budé edition of Jacques André. His text is essentially that of Lenz, although at ix 23 he rightly prints _prospicerem_ instead of _B_'s _aspicerem_. There are a significant number of misprints in the text, apparatus, and notes, and other signs of carelessness as well. André makes full reports of only four manuscripts in his apparatus, _B_, _C_, _T_, and _Gothanus membr. II 121_[17]. This is an inadequate sampling. _B_ and _C_ form a distinct group, and the Gotha manuscript is too corrupt to merit a central part in an apparatus. The result is that _T_ is the sole good representative of the vulgate class of manuscripts that is regularly cited. [Footnote 17: He collated four other manuscripts, _M_, _Bernensis bibl. munic. 478_, _Diuionensis bibl. munic. 497_, and _British Library Burney 220_, but gives their readings only occasionally.] For knowledge of many of his secondary manuscripts, André seems to have depended on the edition of Lenz. Since much of Lenz's information was drawn from Heinsius and other earlier editors, this means that André is often giving unverified information from collations made more than three centuries previously. He did not realize that the Antwerp manuscript he collated (our _M_) was Heinsius' _codex Moreti_, whose readings Lenz sometimes reports; the result is that he reports the same manuscript twice, under the sigla _M_ and _N_.