¹ I have also taken into account the editions of Barber, (Oxford, 1960)Google Scholar, Camps, (Cambridge, 1961–1967)Google Scholar, Richardson, (Oklahoma, 1977)Google Scholar, and Fedeli, (Stuttgart, 1984).Google Scholar

² At both 2.12.15 and 2.22b.44 heu has been proposed. This particle does not so readily admit of classification as do a and en. These last, which have also been suggested here, should be rejected; at both passages, of the exclamatory particles, heu seems least objectionable. Cf. Shackleton, Bailey, ‘heu seems the least unsatisfactory substitute for et’ (Propertiana [Cambridge, 1956], p. 109).Google Scholar

³ Cf. Ovid's use of en (fifteen times) in the Metamorphoses where he is much less restrictive.

⁴ I would not underestimate trivialisation, but the Propertian passages suggest a belief in some that en is always a good bet when it would be followed by initial n.

⁵ And at Prop. 4.6.60 Markland's sum deus, en is plausible (not so Lachmann's turn deus: en) but unnecessary.

⁶ For heu nimium cf. Ovid, Tr. 2.180; 3.1.8; 4.1.86. Slightly less attractive here is a! nimium (for which see my note CPh 75 [1980], 71–2), since the speaker, Apollo, might be expected to use the I more ‘elevated’ heu nimium, an expression frequent in epic: cf. Virgil, Aen. 4.657; 6.189; 11.841; Lucan 8.139; Silius 8.169; 11.6; Statius, Theb. 7.547; 9.624.

⁷ I note the following 1.19.22; 2.12.18; 2.29.30; 3.13.47; 3.16.1; 4.1.81; 4.1.87; 4.1.116; 4.6.40; 4.8.81; 4.9.36; 4.9.70; 4.11.32; 4.11.97.

⁸ Again, I do not suggest that these emendations are correct simply because they accord with usage.

⁹ I thank the editors and anonymous referee for helpful criticisms and suggestions.