Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:37:37.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re-Constructing Relationships: The Significance of Name and Place in Propertius 3.22

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Barbara P. Weinlich
Barbara P. Weinlich*
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University
Get access

Extract

Why does the Propertian speaker include a celebration of Rome, Elegy 3.22, in his third book of love elegies? Why does he address himself to Tullus, a name that appeared the last time in Elegy 1.22, the closing poem of the Mono-biblos? By paying attention to the nature of the elegy's topic rather than to the nature of the elegiac discourse, past and current Propertian scholarship fails to recognise the subtle and, at first sight, hidden links between the praise of Rome, the choice of the addressee, and the Propertian speaker's effort to re-locate himself in the realm of elegiac love and poetry in Elegy 3.22.

Past scholarship has read Elegy 3.22 either as a palinode to Elegy 3.21, the Propertian speaker's decision to leave Rome, or as an indication that Cynthia has been substituted by Rome as another theme. The latter interpretation entailed a discussion about whether Elegy 3.22 should be considered pro- or anti-Augustan or a sincere but unsuccessful elegiac tribute to Rome. All contributions offer hermeneutic readings that stem from a time before the critical tools of the ‘New Latin’ movement provided new possibilities for the re-contextuali ation of Roman poetry. Furthermore, both the past and the most recent interpretations of Elegy 3.22 are theme-centred as they focus on the praise of Rome, and not on the nature of the Propertian speaker's discourse.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ramus , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , 2003 , pp. 102 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © Aureal Publications 2003

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

I would like to thank Alessandro Barchiesi, John F. Miller, and the anonymous reader of Ramus for their invaluable comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

1. See Courtney, E., ‘The Structure of Propertius Book III’, Phoenix 24 (1970), 48–53, at 51f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Juhnke, H., ‘Zum Aufbau des zweiten und dritten Buches des Properz’, Hermes 99 (1971), 91–125, at 116–21Google Scholar; Jacobson, H., ‘Structure and Meaning in Propertius Book 3’, ICS 1 (1976), 160–73, at 170Google Scholar; and Neumeister, K., Die Überwindung der elegischen Liebe bei Properz (Buck I-IIl) (Frankfurt 1983), 113Google Scholar.

2. Baker, R.J., ‘Miles Annosus: The Military Motif in Propertius’, Latomus 27 (1968), 322–49, at 339Google Scholar.

3. Stahl, H.-P., Propertius: ‘Love’ and ‘War’: Individual and State under Augustus (Berkeley 1985), 206Google Scholar, deems Elegy 3.22 ‘another document of disguises (or self-denials) Propertius was forced into’, and Fedeli, P., Properzio, il libro terzo delle Elegie: Introduzione testo e commento (Bari 1985), 628Google Scholar, assesses Elegy 3.22 as the poet’s sincere, but elegiac tribute to Rome. The same position has been taken by Paratore, E., L’Elegia 111,11 e gli atteggiamenti politici di Properzio (Palermo 1936), 157–69Google Scholar; LaPenna, A., ‘Properzio e i poeti Latini dell’età aurea’, Maia 4 (1951), 43–69, at 50Google Scholar; Williams, G., Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry (Oxford 1968), 422–26Google Scholar; and Nethercut, W.R., ‘The Ironic Priest. Propertius’ “Roman Elegies,” 111,1–5: Imitations of Horace and Vergil’, AJP 91 (1970), 385–407, at 405Google Scholar. For a reading of Elegy 3.22 as a critique of Augustan politics, see Putnam, M.C.J., ‘Propertius 3.22; Tullus’ return’, ICS 2 (1977), 240–54Google Scholar.

4. Sharrock, A., ‘Constructing Characters in Propertius’, Arethusa 33 (2000), 263–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. Oliensis, E., ‘The Erotics of amicitia: Readings in Tibullus, Propertius, and Horace’, in Hallett, J.P. … Skinner, M.B. (eds.), Roman Sexualities (Princeton 1997), 151–71Google Scholar.

6. Kennedy, D.F., ‘“Augustan” and “Anti-Augustan”: Reflections on Terms of Reference’, in Powell, A. (ed.), Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus (London 1992), 26–58Google Scholar.

7. Wyke, M., “Written Women: Propertius’ Scripta Puella’, JRS 77 (1987), 47–61, at 59Google Scholar.

8. Sharrock (n.4 above), 265.

9. Sharrock (n.4 above), 267.

10. My interpretation is based on the observations of Putnam, M.C.J. in ‘Propertius 1.22: A Poet’s Self Definition’, QUCC 23 (1976), 93–123Google Scholar.

11. Oliensis (n.5 above), 154.

12. Oliensis (n.5 above) does not make a distinction between Propertius the poet and the Propertian speaker.

13. For the subversive play with the relationship of patron and client in neoteric and Augustan poetry in general and in Elegy 1.6 in particular, see Zetzel, J.E.G., ‘The Poetics of Patronage in the Late First Century B.C.’, in Gold, B.K. (ed.), Literary and Artistic Patronage in Ancient Rome (Austin 1982), 87–102, at 99Google Scholar.

14. Oliensis (n.5 above), 158.

15. The Latin text is cited from Fedeli, P., Sexti Propertii Elegiarum Libri IV, ed. corr. (Stuttgart and Leipzig 1994Google Scholar). All translations are my own.

16. Oliensis (n.5 above), 158.

17. Paratore (n.3 above), 157–69.

18. The terms ‘quotation’ and ‘system’ belong to the terminology of Edmunds, L., Intertextuality and the Reading of Roman Poetry (Baltimore 2001Google Scholar).

19. Hubbard, M., ‘Propertiana’, CQ n.s. 18 (1968), 315–19, at 319CrossRefGoogle Scholar, advocated an emendation of septenae in line 16 and suggested serpentes, thus replacing the Nile in Egypt with the Maeander in Asia Minor. She referred to Tacitus, according to whom it was forbidden for a Roman of senatorial or equestrian rank to enter Egypt without any permission (Ann. 2.59.4). However, since line 16 is not the only passage that refers to Egypt in Elegy 3.22, it makes sense to stay with septenae.

20. I owe this expression to Fedeli (n.3 above, 635), who calls the Propertian passage ‘una testimonianza della “espressione mitologica” della geografia’.

21. Propertian scholarship repeatedly has ventured to trace down lines 7–14 to real places of geography. See Rothstein, M., Die Elegien des Sextus Propertius, 2. Teil, 2nd ed. (Berlin 1924), 168f.Google Scholar; Butler, H.E. & Barber, E.A., The Elegies of Propertius (Oxford 1933), 316f.Google Scholar; Camps, W.A., Propertius Elegies Book III (Cambridge 1966), 155f.Google Scholar; Richardson, L., Propertius: Elegies I-IV (Norman 1976), 405Google Scholar; and Fedeli (n. 3 above), 635–40.

22. In this point I agree with Williams (n.3 above), 422f., whose controversial assessment of Propertius 3.22 had come under severe criticism. He pointed out that ‘Propertius is not describing visible places, but he is envisaging mythological events associated with those places….[T]he promised visual element is totally eliminated in favor of a manipulation of mythological symbols.’ See also Jacobson (n.1 above), 168, who with regard to aspicias (7) and signa (9) suggested that ‘the idea of viewing works of art’ is underlying this passage.

23. The terms ‘target text’ and ‘source text’ are again part of Edmunds’s terminology (n. 18 above).

24. The Latin text is cited from Mynors, R. (ed.), Vergilii Opera (Oxford 1969Google Scholar). All translations are my own.

25. For an identification of nympha salubris as the Juturna spring on the Forum Romanum, see Fedeli (n.3 above), 647.

26. See Diodorus 3.15 and Lucan 9.704–16.

27. I truly agree with Goold, G.P., Propertius: Elegies, rev. ed. (Cambridge MA 1999), 279Google Scholar, and Slavitt, D.R., Propertius in Love: The Elegies (Berkeley 2002), 189Google Scholar, in this translation of nouis. Contra Fedeli (n.3 above), 646, who chose ‘straordinari’; Shepherd, W.G., Propertius: The Poems (Harmondsworth 1985), 128Google Scholar, who took ‘exotic’; and Lee, G., Propertius: The Poems (Oxford 1994), 100Google Scholar, who interpreted nouis as ‘weird’.

28. Propertius seems to refer to the myth’s version as told in Aeschylus Suppliants 291–99.

29. With regard to lines 37f., I follow Rothstein (n.21 above), 174, and Fedeli (n.3 above), 654, who suppose that Propertius chose the legend’s version reported in Strabo 9.1.4. According to Strabo, Sinis did not live on the Isthmus of Corinth, but nearby the Scironian Rocks. If we follow Strabo, arboreas cruces (‘crosses formed from trees’, 37) and curuatas in sua fata trabes (‘planks shaped for doom’, 38) refer to Sinis’ maltreatment of travellers, whereas non hospita Grais saxa (‘rocks inhospitable to Greeks’, 37f.) refer to his place of living. There is no need in adding Sciron and/or Procrustes. Contra Butler/Barber (n.21 above), Camps (n.21 above), and Richardson (n.21 above) ad loc.

30. Gurval, R., Actium and Augustus: The Politics and Emotions of Civil War (Ann Arbor 1995), 184Google Scholar. For a reading of lines 37–40 as a description of the disastrous outcome of a turpis amor, see Nethercut, W.R., ‘Propertius 3.11’, TAPA 102 (1971), 411–43, at 422Google Scholar, and Gurval, 184. Contra Griffin, J., ‘Propertius and Antony’, JRS 67 (1977), 17–26Google Scholar, and Stahl (n.3 above), 235.

31. Nethercut (n.30 above), 414.

32. Contra Griffin (n.30 above), Stahl (n.3 above), 229f., and Gurval (n.30 above), 184f, who do not apply a dynamic reading. Miller, P.A., Subjecting Verses: Latin Erotic Elegy and the Emergence of the Real (Princeton 2003), 132Google Scholar, does apply a dynamic reading, but does not consider a connection between the Marc Antony-story and the ensuing praise of the Emperor. He rather focuses on the nature of the praise itself.

33. Nethercut (n.30 above), 414.

34. For a thorough discussion of the controversial scholarship on Elegy 11, see Gurval (n.30 above), 189–208.

35. See Fedeli (n.3 above), 361.

36. For the connotation of addicere, see TLL 1.574.49; 81.

37. See Wyke, M., The Roman Mistress: Ancient and Modem Representations (Oxford 2002), 195–243Google Scholar.

38. Stahl (n.3 above), 238, interprets lines 29–32 as an ‘open break in the train of thoughts’ and as an indication that ‘from this point on open thought (and speech) stops and disguise begins’.

39. Gurval (n.30 above), 195, admits that the description of Cleopatra is ‘startling and different in style’.

40. Stahl (n.3 above), 239.

41. Gurval (n.30 above), 195.

42. Stahl (n.3 above), 238.

43. Miller (n.32 above), 132, does apply a dynamic reading, but does not consider a connection between lines 29–32 and the Propertian speaker’s situation. As in the case of Elegy 2.16, he focuses on the event mentioned in these lines.

44. Stahl (n.3 above), 239.

45. Baker (n.2 above), 335f..

46. See Putnam (n.3 above), 243: ‘A proper balance between ferrum and pietas, supplementing and correcting the previous distinction between armis and noxae, is at the core of the Augustan ideology—piety toward state and family based on restrained martial strength.’

47. For the modes of representation and the rhetoric of reality in poetry, see Kennedy, D.F., The Arts of Love: Five Studies in the Discourse of Roman Love Elegy (Cambridge 1992), 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48. On Propertius’ technique of shattering of the reality effect through the use of myth, see Sharrock (n.4 above), 275–82.

49. For a discussion of a dynamic view of language and the terms ‘pro- and anti-Augustan,’ see Kennedy (n.6 above), 26–58.

50. See Baker (n.2 above), 339.

51. Sharrock (n.4 above), 271.

52. The significance of the addressee and the topic, which the speaker shares with the addressee, in Elegy 1.22 has been pointed out previously by Putnam (n.10 above), 95, as he notes: ‘Depending on his reader to sense the power of this summary structure, Propertius will proceed further to characterize himself to Tullus through concise yet expansive notions of unity, diversity and a proximity which will regularly illuminate both.’

53. Butrica, J.L., ‘The Amores of Propertius: Unity and Structure in Book 2–4’, ICS 21 (1996), 87–158Google Scholar.

54. Butrica (n.53 above), 100.

55. An examination of the usage and meaning of frigidus in the other elegies of Propertius shows that, in Books 1–3, the adjective is either used in the sense of ‘cold’ (Elegies 1.16.24; 2.22a.l2; 2.26.36) or ‘isolated’ (Elegies 1.18.27; 1.20.13). The connection between ‘isolated’ and ‘far away from civilisation’ is shown in Elegy 1.18.27f.: pro quo diuini fons et frigida rupeslet datur inculto tramite dura quies. Only in Book 4 does frigidus prove to have an erotic connotation. Thus see Elegy 4.7.6 (cum…l…querer lecti frigida regna mei) and Elegy 4.10.18 (parens…/qui tulit a parco frigida castra lare. In Elegy 4.7.66, however, frigidus is again used in the sense of ‘cold’: queritur liuere…/…nec meritas frigida saxa manus. Contra Nethercut (n.3 above), 403, and Jacobson (n.1 above), 168. According to both frigida has an erotic connotation.