In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Elegia i.3 PROPERTIUS Translated by Steven J.Willett Just as she lay when Theseus’ keel was sliding seaward, the Cnossian maid languid on the desolate shore; just as Cepheus’ daughter reclined in her first slumber, Andromeda, now freed from jagged rocks; just as the Thracian bacchant, weary from incessant dancing, slumps on the grassy bank of the Apidanus; even so Cynthia seemed to breathe a soft repose, her head (...) pillowed on open unruly hands, when I came dragging footsteps wobbly with too much wine, the boys waving burnt-out torches in the late night. Against her I tried, not all my senses utterly derelict, to advance gently on the compliant couch; and, though seized by a double ardor—each was commanding me, love here and wine there, both implacable gods— to assault her by slipping my arm lightly beneath her body and with a hand advanced take kisses and arms, yet I lacked the courage to shatter my mistress’ repose, fearing the brawls whose savagery I’d tasted; so I remained standing there motionless with rapt eyes, like Argus at the strange sight of Io’s horns. And now I was untying the garlands from my forehead and placing them, Cynthia, around your temples; and now I was finding it pleasant to smooth your fallen tresses; then I was giving you stolen apples in hollow palms; but I was lavishing all these gifts on ungrateful sleep, gifts that often tumbled from your sloping lap; and every time you heaved a sigh stirring fitfully, arion 28.2 fall 2020 98 elegia 1.3 I froze, foolishly credulous of an empty sign, fearful that some dream was bringing you strange terrors, or some man was forcing you reluctantly to be his: until the moon drifting across the opposite windows, the meddling moon whose eyes incline to linger, drew her closely-lidded eyes open under its delicate beams. Then, her elbow propped on the soft couch, she asked: “Has another’s rejection finally brought you back to my bed, chucked out with the doors slammed in your face? Where have you squandered the long hours of my night, languid, alas for me, as the stars are waning? Oh, I pray that you may endure, you beast, such nights as you are always making poor me to suffer! Just now I was cheating sleep with purple yarn at the loom, and then, exhausted, with song on Orpheus’ lyre; and sometimes, quite desolate, I softly complained to myself of the long waits your outside loves often cost me. Till sleep with gentle wings brushed me down to oblivion. That was the last concern of all my tears.”... (shrink)

When Propertius tells Cynthia in 2. 29A that, on his drunken way to another woman the previous night, he was seized and hauled back to Cynthia by a band of Cupids, it is fairly clear that the poet is giving dramatic embodiment to the erotic commonplace that the lover fired by wine is unable to stay away from his mistress but is dragged back to her perforce by love.The nature of the drama in which the topos is embodied is, (...) however, not at all clear. Most commentators have seen it as nothing more than a fantasy or fairy-tale having no connection whatsoever with real life. Two, while recognizing that elements of fantasy are present, nevertheless have felt that the action of the drama is derived from real life with the Cupids playing a real-life role.I believe that those who have seen 2. 29A as merely fantasy are incorrect. This is not to say that pure fantasy does not occur in Propertius’ work. But when it does it takes place in a dream or fantasy landscape. In 2. 29A the scene is the streets of Rome and this realistic setting suggests that, as in another realistic setting Propertius although giving rein to his fantasy links it with reality by taking on himself the role of triumphator, so here it is more likely that the characters in a drama with a real setting will have real-life roles to play. (shrink)

Among the difficulties in Propertius is the question whether to retain ‘cecinit’ in 3. 3. 7 or to adopt the conjecture ‘cecini’. Propertius dreamed that he was reclining upon Helicon in a grove by Hippocrene and that he was able to compose a Roman historical epic: Visus eram molli recubans Heliconis in umbra, Bellerophontei qua fluit umor equi, Reges, Alba, tuos et regum facta tuorum neruis hiscere posse meis, Paruaque tam magnis admoram fontibus ora Vnde pater sitiens Ennius (...) ante bibit, Et cecinit Curios fratres et Horatia pila Regiaque Aemilia uecta tropaea rate Victricesque moras Fabii pugnamque sinistram Cannensem et uersos ad pia uota deos Hannibalemque Lares Romana sede fugantes, Anseris et tutum uoce fuisse Iouem, Cum me Castalia speculans ex arbore Phoebus Sic ait… According to the paradosis 7–12 constitute a summary of Ennius' Annales. In that I case Propertius' failure to observe historical sequence is peculiar; nor is it defended securely by I supposedly parallel passages. More damaging, however, is that 8 must describe the triumph of L. Aemilius Paullus in 167, two years after the accepted date of Ennius' death. Hertzberg and Postgate claimed that it alludes to the defeat of Demetrius of I Pharos by a L. Aemilius Paullus in 219 ; this is unlikely for some of the same reasons as the rival theory of Butler and Barber, which has found many adherents, that it refers to the victory over Antiochus' navy by L. Aemilius Regillus at Myonnesus in 190. (shrink)

This is our well received text of Propertius' celebrated address to the shades of Callimachus and Philitas at 3.1.1–2: Callimachi Manes et Coi sacra Philitae, in vestrum, quaeso, me sinite ire nemus. Well received it may be, but scholarly worries and disagreements about the precise meaning of sacra, and indeed about the real purpose of the address, perhaps have diverted editors' eyes from a possible corruption. I would like to suggest that the pairing of ethnic adjective and personal name, (...) Coi and Philitae, in line 1 may not be Propertian. (shrink)

At 3.9.37–8, Propertius says that he will not bewail the destruction of Thebes by the Epigonoi or the earlier assault on the city by the Seven: non flebo in cineres arcem sedisse paternos Cadmi, nee septem proelia clade pari. That nec…pari in 38 refers to the Seven, with Lipsius' septem for the manuscripts' semper, J. D. Morgan demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt in his discussion of the couplet in CQ 36 , 186–8. But Morgan's chief concern in that discussion was (...) with paternos at the end of 37, and it is his treatment of that adjective which prompts this note. (shrink)

‘Quot editores, tot Propertii’ has been a familiar—and much misunderstood—phrase in Propertian scholarship ever since it first appeared in the preface to Phillimore′s Oxford Classical Text of 1901. In its original context it described not an existing situation but rather the chaos that Phillimore alleged would result if editors began to adopt significant numbers of transpositions. Such chaos, however, does characterize the current state of Propertian studies; every interpreter seems to create a different Propertius, who in the last twenty-five (...) years has been represented as a feminist, a neurotic traumatized by the siege of Perugia, an anti-Augustan iconoclast, an apostle of love oppressed by a quasi-Stalinist principate, a decadent pre-Raphaelite, and most recently as the ‘modernist poet of antiquity’. (shrink)

In the midst of his fulminations against Cleopatra, Propertius denounces her land of Egypt in the following ‘wholly admirable parenthesis:’ Noxia Alexandria, dolis aptissima tellus Et totiens nostro Memphi cruenta malo, Tres ubi Pompeio detraxit harena triumphos! Toilet nulla dies hanc tibi, Roma, notam. Issent Phlegraeo melius tibi funera campo Vel tua si socero colla daturus eras.

To the host of suggestions I would add the sense of the passage is, ‘I have never annoyed you with petulant language, with the things the mob in the heated forum is accustomed to say, that you suffer me to… But I have often…’ His was, as line 41 explains, the language of poetry. The contrast between the language of the forum and poetry is an obvious one, and is made elsewhere by Propertius ‘turn tibi pauca suo de carmine (...) dictat Apollo et vetat insano verba tonare foro. at tu finge elegos’ . In the present passage the contrast is between the common language typical of the angry mob and the original verses of the exclusus amator. It is particularly bitter that he should be condemned to the ‘trivio’ which, like the forum, is the very milieu of the type of language he has eschewed. (shrink)

Cynthia's apparition is upbraiding Propertius ior having forgotten her so soon. In spite of their former love, he had not been present at her death, and, because of his neglect, her funeral had been a mean affair, lacking not merely any signs of affection, but any semblance of ordinary decent feeling. In a succession of couplets tracing the regular stages of a Roman funeral from the deathbed to the final rites of the cremation, this lack of respect and affection (...) is particularized: no loving voice had been heard in her dying moments ; her body had been laid out to await the funeral with little thought for what was seemly at such a time ; on the day of the funeral Propertius had not put on mourning or shown signs of grief ; the funeral procession had moved with indecorous haste to the city gate ; Propertius had not been present at the cremation, and no perfumes had been poured on the flames ; no customary final offerings had been made to the ashes. (shrink)

This paper sets out in section I the most useful evidence we possess for the dating of Propertius Book 1, Tibullus Book 1, and Propertius Books 2a and 2b.2 The evidence squares with a sequence of publication: Prop. 1, Tibull. 1, Prop. 2a, Prop. 2b, which is what, in my view, literary considerations suggest. The most important, or at least most interesting, of these considerations are the signs of response and counterresponse between the two poets. I detect spirited (...) ripostes by the poets, one to the other. Section II examines some Tibullan responses to Propertius Book 1, and section III some Propertian responses, in ‘Book 2’, to Tibullus Book 1. (shrink)

All editors and translators of Propertius seem convinced that the Roman poet has endowed the horse Arion with the power of speech. I present a few sample translations of the two lines.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:American Journal of Philology 121.2 (2000) 259-277 [Access article in PDF] Propertius 4.2: Slumming with Vertumnus? Kerill O'Neill In her recent study of Ciceronian oratory Ann Vasaly observes that particular activities are associated with the monuments, edifices, and different quarters of Rome, on the basis of the daily practice and literary depiction of each location. Together, these associations constitute a "metaphysical topography" of a location--that is, the network (...) of meanings the place held for a Roman audience in the Augustan age. 1 Attention to the metaphysical topography of a place can enrich or change our appreciation of a literary work that depends in some manner on its setting. The fourth book of Propertius directs the reader's attention to a variety of places in the city, from the Tarpeian Rock (4.4) to the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine (4.6), from the Ara Maxima of Hercules (4.9) to the recently restored Temple of Jupiter Feretrius (4.10). These elegies play a part in shaping our sense of each of these places, but they also draw upon the preexisting metaphysical topography. In 4.2 the statue of Vertumnus on three occasions refers to its specific location in a street shrine on the Vicus Tuscus and voices its preference for this particular spot over any other. In this essay I describe the literary tradition concerning the statue of Vertumnus and the Vicus Tuscus and demonstrate that the metaphysical topography of the location affords this aetiological poem a markedly amatory aspect, which encourages us to read it as a programmatic piece for the entire book and grants some of the narrator's assertions an ironic and witty flavor.The fourth book of Propertius' elegies is characterized by pervasive interplay between amatory and aetiological poetry. This interplay is created in the first elegy, which is split into two halves (4.1a, 4.1b). In the first half an authorial narrator introduces a new program of aetiological elegy, culminating with a promise to sing of sacred rites, festivals, [End Page 259] and the ancient names of places (4.1.69). In the second half Horus, an indignant astrologer, dismisses the poet's lofty ambitions and tells him to stick to the amatory poems that Apollo favored in his earlier books. Thus the two halves of 4.1 seek to establish a strict opposition between programs of aetiological and amatory poetry. 2 How rigorous an opposition this is to be, however, remains a matter of doubt. The recusatio elegies of the earlier books fashion a pattern of false opposition. For example, in 2.1, 3.3, and 3.9 the narrator appears to dismiss the writing of aetiological and nationalistic verse, but this refusal involves writing precisely what he claims to be rejecting. In other words, the discursive praxis usually referred to as recusatio may be more accurately described by the term "generic disavowal," 3 since it allows the disingenuous inclusion of material ostensibly precluded by the poet's antipathy or limited abilities. 4 Furthermore, Propertius has a tendency to set up binarisms that he then problematizes. Thus man appears to be constructed as the opposite of woman until we encounter Vertumnus, a statue who can be both male and female (4.2.23-24), and Hercules, a thoroughly manly god who claims to have been a "pretty good woman" through transvestism and the performance of a woman's tasks (4.9.45-50). 5Throughout book 4 we find a similar collapse of a binary opposition. Many of the elegies blur and transgress the dividing line between the aetiological and amatory programs that Horus' response to the authorial narrator constituted as incompatible. Amatory elements intrude into aetiological poems, and vice versa. For example, in 4.4 Tarpeia plays the role of an amatory heroine, 6 and in 4.9 Hercules dallies with the roles of both the exclusus amator and the puella, 7 while in 4.5 we discover sacred rites, festivals, and ancient names. 8 The Vertumnus elegy, which immediately follows the divided introduction, is ostensibly [End Page 260] an unadulterated... (shrink)

Between the first eight lines of Propertius 3.7, addressed to ‘pecunia’, and the lover's farewell couplet to Aquilo, the narration of Paetus′ shipwreck and death has first bewildered and then inspired generations of readers either to defend the basic order of verses given in the manuscripts or to create a more satisfactory arrangement through transposition. To some, the inherited poem presents a catastrophe equal to Paetus′ own dismemberment: Aquilo blew the pages around, a scribe playing Neptune took pleasure in (...) his own power to change, while the uncontrollable seas of error scattered couplets far and wide and altered the shape of words and letters. To others, the textual problems of 3.7 can be explained with appeals to parallels or to Propertius′ stylistic intentions. (shrink)

Professor Cairns has suggested that the use of modo in Propertius 1.1.11, which has long been seen as problematic, can be understood in terms of some instances of the Greek modo, he says, here means not but, and the modo clause is prior in time to the clause that follows it just as, in his view, a Greek imperfect with can have the force of a pluperfect and refer to a time prior to that of the verb of a (...) following clause. (shrink)

The most recent commentator on this line, D. R. Shackleton Bailey, states that ‘spiritus is breath rather than odour’ and he has the support of some commentators, Marcilius, for example, who amends notus to motus, and Hertzberg, who takes it as sweet breath, citing Mart. 3. 65. 1. So also most translators : an exception is D. Paganelli who translates ‘aucun souffle, aucune odeur d'adultère’. However, the parallels cited by Shackleton Bailey are irrelevant to this situation: Afranius 243, Ach. Tat. (...) 2. 37. 9, and Claud. Carm. Min. 29. 33 all refer to the period just before, during, or immediately after the sexual act. It is most unlikely that this is the case in Propertius' poem. Propertius has come to see if Cynthia has spent the night alone; it is not a question of catching her inflagrante delicto, but of finding some rival there or the evidence of his stay not yet removed. Cynthia is indignant at her lover's suspicions and lest he should think that his rival had left earlier, she coarsely specifies the evidence that Propertius might expect to find, including spiritus admisso notus adulterio. (shrink)

Towards the start of the elegy which prefaces his third book, Propertius rejects lengthy, martial epic in favour of slender poetry : it is on account of the latter that fame elevates him above the earth, his Muse triumphant ; accompanying him in the triumphal chariot are his Amores , and following the wheels is a crowd of writers . The latter, in the race for glory, rival the poet to no purpose . Many writers will praise Rome and (...) sing of future conquests , but Propertius’ pages, a special delivery from the Muses' mount, are the perfect peace-time reading. (shrink)

Concentrating on Propertius 3.21 in particular, this article identifies a previously unnoticed network of allusions by three Roman poets (Catullus, Propertius and Ovid) to one another and to Book 1 of Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica. It shows that these intertextual links are pivoted on the three poets’ common use of the verse-ending lintea malo in scenes of departure by sea, and on their common interest in framing other aspects of the nautical context (especially the naval equipment involved and the (...) presence of a favourable wind) in specific ways. Highlighting the presence in all three cases of departing male lovers with traditionally compromised or otherwise dubious claims to heroism, the article argues that each of the three instances shows the poet in question interacting competitively and self-consciously with the usages of his predecessor(s) (and with those usages’ immediate contexts) and exploiting the choices made by them to serve his new context and to advertise his personal skill in the creative deployment of revered poetic models. (shrink)

Propertius' account of this myth contains two major difficulties of syntax and interpretation: modo. When the word modo means ⋯ννοτε μ⋯νand stands in the first of two co-ordinate clauses it requires an answering modo or its equivalent in the second clause. Et and etiam are not satisfactory equivalents. So the necessary second modo—or equivalent—is here absent. ibat uidere is the sole account of Milanion's activities in connection with the hirsutae ferae. As such it appears obscure and abrupt.

In the late nineteenth century and the early decades of the twentieth thematic resemblances to the Roman elegists in Paulus Silentiarius were explained as the result of the poets' reliance on a common Hellenistic source – usually this was identified as the so-called ‘subjective Alexandrian love elegy’ – and this represented a departure from the views of earlier scholars such as Hertzberg and Postgate, who had maintained that Paulus knew and imitated the elegists. In recent years the pendulum has swung (...) back , and the prevailing opinion seems to be that the Roman elegists were known to Paulus. This is the view of, for instance, Giovanni Viansino in his edition of Paulus, of Elmar Schulz-Vanheyden in his important work on Propertius' relationship to Greek epigram, and of Hermann Beckby in his edition of the Greek Anthology. Recently, too, Gordon Williams has put forward a very strong case for earlier epigrammatists like Antipater and Crinagoras imitating the Augustan poets. (shrink)

The manuscript version of this line, apart from a nonsensical variant tutus for bubus, is et Tiberis nostris advena bubus erat. The trouble here has been that scholars have taken advena to mean ‘stranger’, ‘foreigner’, ‘alien’, or German ‘fremd’. Clearly the sentence and Tiber was a stranger to our oxen makes no sense in the context, and for this reason many scholars have either produced strange translations or else have dabbled in dubious emendation.

Further proof of Professor Kenney's assertion that in the case of prodelided est the syncopated form was written by Ovid as well as spoken is provided by Metamorphoses 15.426ff.

The necessity of emending immundas… dapes in 78 to immundos… pedes has long been recognized, but I argue here that the text is unsatisfactory in three further respects: the difficulties of style, sense, and punctuation in 73–75; diuitiis in 76, wrongly retained by most editors and, when emended, wrongly emended to deliciis; and raros in 77, of which no satisfactory explanation has been offered.

The difficulties of this poem have led scholars to employ surgery of various sorts upon it.This article attempts to show that surgery is unnecessary and that, given a fuller exegesis and a partial reinterpretation of subject-matter, the poem can be read as a single and consistent piece.

Université libre de BruxellesThe vulgate text at Prop. 3.10.17–18 reads as follows: et pete, qua polles, ut sit tibi forma perennis inque meum semper stent tua regna caput. 17–18 om. N 17 polles T, uulgo: pelles FLP.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:...

Some time ago I noted that the generally accepted emendations a! fuge , and a! ducere are suspect , 71–2). In his recent Loeb edition , Goold in the latter passage restores the MSS. reading adducere; in the former, quisquis es assiduas aufuge blanditias, he prints Tappe's tu fuge for MSS. aufuge. The best solution, it seems to me, is one which the modern editions, Propertiana included, are of a mind to ignore: Markland's heu fuge.

Line 2 has puzzled editors: ‘The significance of the name is beyond knowledge’ ; ‘Hie versus inter difHcillimos Properti est’ . It should mean, ‘a door known to the chastity of Tarpeia’, i.e. ‘known to Tarpeia when she was still chaste‘, i.e. ‘known to Tarpeia as a girl’; and I suggest it means just that.