^{page 3 note 1} Cf. Bailey, D. R. S., Propertiana, p. 129 Google Scholar.

^{page 4 note 1} lumbi for penis is an indecent metonymy in place in Persius and Juvenal, but unacceptable in Propertius, or indeed any elegist.

^{page 4 note 2} N has exclusit for exclusis. Were it not that this is probably to be explained as an anticipation of the final letter of the following agitat, one might imagine a progression in error: exutis, exusit, exclusit, exclusis. It may be observed that at Ovid, , Met. VII, 777 Google Scholar Heinsius restored excussae for exutae of the MSS.

^{page 4 note 3} This interpretation makes Propertius exaggerate the rapidity of the rise to riches of the slave, a familiar rhetorical turn when speaking of the nouveau riche, cf. Anaxandrides, , Kock, , C.A.F. II, 137 Google Scholar.

^{page 4 note 4} E.g. Cartault, A., Tibulle et les auteurs du Corpus Tibullianum, pp. 103–16Google Scholar, who associates the three passages Prop. 11, 16, 25–8; IV, 5, 49–52; Tib. II, 3, 59–60.

^{page 5 note 1} So W. Kraus corrects the MS. nota, Wiener Studien, LXIX (1956), p. 308 Google Scholar.

^{page 5 note 2} positumque in margine ripae Markland, positumque in gurgite, Venti, Lachmann, positumque in gurgitis ora Baehrens. Postgate adopted the reading positaque, but this is obviously unsatisfactory.

^{page 5 note 3} If that, and not minax, is the right reading.