Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:48:16.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Elegiac En

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Allan Kershaw
Allan Kershaw
Affiliation:
Penn State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The recent editors, Luck (Zürich, 1964), Hanslik (Leipzig, 1979), and Goold (Cambridge, Mass., 1990), allow into the text these emended instances of en

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , May 1992 , pp. 282 - 284
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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.