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: 28 February 2013
This note offers an answer to the problem of apparent disorder in Book 2 of Propertius by disclosing a principle of order that underlies it. The observations that follow tend to confirm the internal unity of some elegies, to indicate the divisions to be perceived at some points between one elegy and the next, and to suggest the probability or otherwise of some conjectured transpositions. They may also aid interpretation by suggesting what movement within an elegy was intended by the poet to be felt.
The area of observation has been restricted to Elegies 1–25 because it is possible to show that within that area an identifiable principle of composition has been applied consistently. It cannot be assumed without further consideration that a principle found to be applicable within the defined area is applicable outside it, even in this book, still less in the other books of the Elegies.
1. There are, in fact, noticeable differences between Elegies 2–25 and 26–33. For example, in the earlier group most of the elegies are arranged in pairs on a quite distinctive principle: in 2 and 3 he is dazzled by her magnificence; in 5 and 6 he is made anxious by her flirtatiousness; in 8 and 9 he is supplanted by a rival; in 14 and 15 he is exultant in a success; in 20 and 21 he is reacting to a charge of infidelity; in 22 and 23 he is resorting to promiscuous amours; in 24B and 25 he is slighted but persistent still. Also, the prevalent tone throughout this group, despite notable exceptions, is of indignation and complaint. From Elegy 26 on both these features disappear and new forms of subject and treatment appear, not observable hitherto. For example, we have phantasy in Elegies 26 and 29A, and in Elegies 29B and 31 we have objective narrative or description. And in Elegies 30 and 32 we have defence of his proceedings and hers against the objections of hostile critics. On the other hand, Elegies 1 and 34 both exhibit the same kind of distinctive and elaborate structural organisation.
2. Elegy I would have been better shown on p. 12 with the Oxford text's assumption that a couplet has been lost after line 38 and a reference to the note on p. 65 in the Cambridge edition of 1967. The elegy can then be seen to exhibit a sequence both complicated and exact, an initial unpartnered ‘paragraph’ of 16 lines followed by 10 lines + 14 + 8 + 10 + 14 + 8. Elegy 6 might have been shown with the transposition recommended in Phoenix 43.4 (1989) 359–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar as a sequence of 8 lines + 6 + 8 + 6 + 8 + 6. In Elegy 15 the change between lines 24 and 25 should have been more firmly indicated by spacing. The movement in this elegy (24 lines + 6 + 24) is like that in Elegy 16 (26 lines + 4 + 26) and in Elegy 22A (18 lines + 6 or 4 + 18). In Elegy 25 there ought to have been marked spacing after lines 10 and 20 and 28 and 38.
3. haec Lachmann: at nescioquis: et codd.
4. interdum Phillimore: iratum codd.