No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
A glance at Enk's commentary will show how much dispute there has been about the poem's coherence. In the past several scholars have proposed transpositions, but no scheme has won acceptance, and no modern expert advocates that procedure.1 Another way of understanding the poem's design might be through its modes of expression-exclamation, narrative, threat, etc.2 But this also proves unsatisfactory; for although a number of clear divisions can be made, the sections are too short and fragmented to be regarded as structural units. (We will find, however, that at three important points a change in the mode of expression accompanies and reinforces the divisions suggested by a different method of analysis.) A third approach might be made by following the direction of the poet's address-now to himself, now to Cynthia, now to the reader. But it is not always clear where the divisions come, and even when we agree on an approximation (i.e. ‘somewhere between line x and line y’), the break rarely coincides with a break in thought.3 So it is worth trying instead the approach indicated by the title. In doing so we shall note half a dozen cases where the method supports one textual reading against alternatives proposed.
1 The proposals by Jachmann, G. in Rhein. Mus. 84 (1935). 193–240Google Scholar were resisted by Reitzenstein, E. in Philologus-Supplementband 29 (1936), 71–93, reprinted in Properz, ed. Eisenhut, W. (Darmstadt, 1975), pp. 134–59,Google Scholar and by Barwick, K. in Philologus 99 (1955), 112–32,Google Scholar but tentatively supported by Marzolla, P. B. in Maia 7 (1955), 170–7. Neither of the two foremost experts on Propertius’ text -Google Scholar Bailey, D. R. Shackleton in Propertiana (Cambridge, 1956)Google Scholar and Goold, G. P. in ‘Noctes Propertianae’, Harv. Stud, in Class. Phil. 71 (1966) - urges transposition. There is much to agree with in Barwick's article; it seems to have been unduly neglected.Google Scholar
2 Thus one might distinguish exclamations (1–10), interspersed with narrative (5–8); persuasive general assertion, supported by examples (11–16); threats (17–20); and so on, ending with exhortation (49), corroborative assertion (50), and hypothetical general statement (51–4).
3 At the start Propertius is thinking aloud, recalling his night of joy. He continues to do so at least to the end of 8. With quantum (9) he has begun to address Cynthia, as is plain from tuis (10). But what of quam uario amplexu mutamus bracchia? These words could go either with what precedes or with what follows. There is no clear division, nor do we need one, for there is no break in thought. Again, how long does the address to Cynthia continue? In view of tibi (27) certainly to the end of 28. In 36 huius makes it clear that the direct address is finished; but quam (35) brings us back to prius (31). So the direct address must be over by the end of 30. Where exactly it finishes is not clear; nor does it matter, for again there is no break in thought. After that Propertius’ observations continue to be general down to 48. But this time we encounter the opposite objection, for everyone agrees that a new thought begins in 41.
4 It is worth recalling Housman's convincing suggestion that the fragment of Ticidas should be completed thus:
felix lectule, talibus
sole (conscia) amoribus.
The mistake would have arisen from the confusion of CI with OL. Other examples of this confusion are given by Housman: see CQ 1 (1907), 158.
5 The conjectures are collected by Smyth, W. R. in his Thesaurus Criticus (Brill, 1970). Tantum (Camps) gives greater intensity but lacks the advantage of secum mentioned above; interdum (Housman) is flat; centum (Smyth) does not give a proper contrast to multas; and si tales iterum (Baehrens) assumes a further stage of corruption. Surely talis noctes by itself may be taken to imply ‘in the future’.Google Scholar
6 Housman's objection was this: ‘The metaphor of lucet is poetical to a modern taste but hardly possible in a Latin writer unless there has preceded something leading up to it’, J. Phil. 22 (1894), 93. One eases this difficulty by pointing to the images of light in the first half of the poem. So, rightly, L. Richardson in his commentary (Oklahoma, 1977), ad loc.
7 Richardson offers a second explanation: ‘which you see drifting scattered here and there from their baskets’. But this hardly brings out the force of natare, and it removes the image of wine, which we have argued to be part of the structure.
8 Butler, H. E. and Barber, E. A., The Elegies of Propertius (Oxford, 1933), p. 216.Google Scholar