Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T12:26:11.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards a Reconstruction of the Text of Propertivs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

O. L. Richmond
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I Purpose in this essay to declare by means of a few chosen examples the theory and method upon which I have for over twelve years been proceeding to the restoration of the text of Propertius. I had always hoped to present my results first in their final form; but the long delays and the immediate circumstance of war compel me to a partial presentation of what is now in all essentials a finished work. The examples I choose are mostly those which I used in 1911 in a paper read before the Philological Societies of Cambridge and Oxford; nothing but detail has been changed in any part of my theory since that date.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , April 1918 , pp. 59 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1918

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

page 60 note 1 Romulus distributed to his followers bina iugera uiritim, and his own sors and heredium on the Palatine was ‘Roma Quadrata’ or one ager quadratus of two acres in extent. (See the passages discussed in my article on the Palatium: J.R.S., 1914, vol. i.) The king of Cori had an arx in three sections, which Propertius might scornfully call iugera; but if his followers had land distributed to them on the equitable lines of Romulus, each might have possessed three ‘acres,’ of which a conquering Roman dispossessed him. At least, I cannot grant that terna here is loosely used.

page 61 note 1 For these see Journal of Philology, xxxi. pp. 162–196.

page 63 note 1 Preface to his Teubner text.

page 73 note 1 This part of my theory dates from 1908-9, and Professor Phillimore was at work earlier upon a similar idea—but from a fundamentally different standpoint.