=15. CONVICTOR.= The word belongs properly to prose, the only other occurrences in verse being two passages in Horace's _Satires_: I iv 96 'me ... _conuictore_ usus amicoque' & I vi 47 'quia sim tibi, Maecenas, _conuictor_'. _Conuictus_ is similarly found in verse twice only, in Ovid's poetry of exile (_Tr_ I viii 29-30 '_conuictu_ causisque ualentibus ... temporis et longi iunctus amore tibi' & _EP_ II x 9-10 'quam [_sc_ curam] tu uel longi debes _conuictibus_ aeui, / uel mea quod coniunx non aliena tibi est'). =15. DENSOQVE.= 'Frequent, often recurring'. This sense of _densus_ is not found elsewhere in Ovid, but compare Virgil _G_ IV 347 '_densos_ diuum numerabat amores', Statius _Theb_ VI 421, and Juvenal IX 35-37 'quamuis ... blandae assidue _densaeque_ tabellae / sollicitent'. The closest parallel for the poetic singular cited by _OLD densus_ 3a is Martial IX lxxxvii 1-2 'Septem post calices Opimiani / _denso_ cum iaceam triente[19] blaesus'. [Footnote 19: A drinking-vessel holding one third of a _sextarius_ (_OLD_ _triens_ 3).] =15. DOMESTICVS.= Apparently the only instance of the substantive in verse. The word is common enough in prose, and formed part of the spoken language, for it is found in reported speech at Petronius 45 6. =17. QVEM= _Leidensis Heinsii_ QVI _codd plerique_. _Qui_ cannot be connected with _nescis_, and so is without antecedent. The scribe was probably influenced by 11, 13, and 15, in which _ille ego_ is completed by a nominative clause. For _quem ... an uiuam_ compare _EP_ III vi 57 '_te_que tegam, _qui sis_'. =17. VIVAM.= Heinsius' VIVAT is unnecessary: the assimilation of person seems reasonable enough in view of such passages as _EP_ I ii 129-31 'ille ego sum qui te _colui_ ... ille ego qui _duxi_ uestros Hymenaeon ad ignes'. =18. SVBIT= _Heinsius_ FVIT _codd_. The preceding _nescis_ requires a verb with present meaning; and _fuit_ seems impossible to construe as a true perfect (with present result). Heinsius' _subit_ seems an elegant solution: certain manuscripts offer the same corruption of _subit_ to _fuit_ at _Met_ IX 93-94 'lux _subit_, et primo feriente cacumina sole / discedunt iuuenes' and _Met_ XIV 827-28 'pulchra _subit_ facies et puluinaribus altis / dignior'. =19-20. SIVE FVI NVMQVAM CARVS, SIMVLASSE FATERIS; / SEV NON FINGEBAS, INVENIERE LEVIS.= For a similar opposition (either alternative being discreditable), see _Met_ IX 23-24 'nam, quo te iactas, Alcmena nate, creatum, / Iuppiter aut falsus pater est aut crimine uerus'. =21. AVT.= 'Otherwise'. For the use of _aut_ as a disjunctive adverb rather than a conjunction compare xii 3 'aut ego non alium prius hoc dignarer honore' and the passages there cited. Here, as at xii 3, the idiom has been misunderstood by scribes, with such resulting variants in late manuscripts as EIA ('uterque Medonii pro diuersa lectione'; accepted by Heinsius) and DIC (_Gothanus II 121_; printed by Burman).