Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:43:24.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes on Propertius, Books III and IV

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

S. J. Heyworth
S. J. Heyworth
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I offer further notes on the text of Propertius. In the apparatus Ω is employed to indicate the archetype, i.e. the consensus of N and two separate groups of humanistic manuscripts that I denote by the letters Π and Λ. The Π MSS (FLP) derive from a lost manuscript of Petrarch, itself copied from the manuscript A (which is not extant after 2.1.63). The Λ MSS are largely a group isolated by J. L. Butrica (The Manuscript Tradition of Propertius, Phoenix suppl. vol. 17, Toronto, 1984, 62–95), which derive from a third medieval source discovered by Poggio and brought to Italy, apparently in 1423. The oldest Λ manuscript is Vat. lat. 3273, copied by Panormita in Florence in 1427, here called T. Another independent descendant is S (Monacensis Univ. Cim. 22), written in Florence c. 1460 by Poggio's son Jacopo. Three other Florentine copies of the 1460s descend from a single source later than Λ: M (Paris. B. N. lat. 8233, formerly μ); U (Vat. Urb. lat. 641, formerly υ); and R (Bodmer. 141, once Abbey 5989). Butrica would cite also C (Romanus Casanatensis 15), written by Pomponio Leto c. 1470; but its witness is vitiated by the frequency both of error and of interpolation and its presence would confuse rather than clarify our picture of Λ. On the other hand I include the pair J (Parmensis Palat. Parm. 140, Florence, c. 1440) and K (Vratislauiensis Univ. Akc. 1948 KN 197, Padua 1469).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , May 1986 , pp. 199 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1986

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

1 Butrica uses lower-case letters for these MSS, which might suggest, quite wrongly, that they are less authoritative than, for example, P. Accordingly I adopt the equivalent capitals; but Vat. lat. 3273, for Butrica v, must have a new letter to avoid confusion with the traditional V, Vat. Ottob. lat. 1514, now discredited.

2 He does, however, give them the siglum γ in his list of sources of conjectures (p. 173).

3 Studia Enniana (London, 1968), 141 n. 10Google Scholar.

4 Propertius has tot 18 times, tam multi 6 or 7 times (2.8.13 being the doubtful case); tantus some 40 times, tam magnus never. iam usefully points the structure of the long sentence.

5 Propertius has imperfect at 4.8.47–8 and 2.26.19, imperfect and pluperfect at 4.6.25–6.

6 CQ 33 (1983), 464–8Google Scholar. It will be clear that I reject Butrica's theory that the poem presents a chronological outline of a planned annalistic epic, although I do not draw out specific objections.

7 Brut. 78; Sen. 14.

8 As attempted recently by d'Anna, G.: Athenaeum 51 (1973), 355–76Google Scholar; RFIC 107 (1979), 243–51Google Scholar. Cf. also Skutsch, 's rejoinders: BICS 24 (1977), 6Google Scholar; BICS 27 (1980), 103–4Google Scholar.

9 A sophisticated version of this has recently been proposed by Martina, M., QFC 2 (1979), 13–74 (esp. 45–61)Google Scholar, and accepted by Skutsch, , The Annals of Quintus Ennius (Oxford, 1985), 552Google Scholar.

10 CQ 33 (1983), 464 n. 2Google Scholar.

11 Studia Enniana 138–41, and, less confidently, in his commentary, p. 408. (Skutsch's reference in n. 18 to Lebek, W. D.'s article on the alleged fragment of Lucan should apparently read Mittellat. Jahrbuch 18 [1983], 226–32Google Scholar.)

12 I.e. the enclosure of an appositional phrase between adjective and noun, so named by Skutsch, O.RhM 99 (1956), 198Google Scholar. Propertian examples occur at 1.11.30; 1.19.13; 2.3.14; 2.29.3 (reading minuti); 2.31.8; 3.3.31; 3.22.24; 4.1.12; 4.9.3, 18. Cf. also Williams, , Tradition and Originality (Oxford, 1968), 317–18, 726–8, 770–1Google Scholar, and Change and Decline (Berkeley, 1978), 236Google Scholar.

13 rixis does not imply a fight, but the noise and violence of the comus itself: cf. Ov. Ars 3.71.

14 TAPhA 111 (1981), 23–30Google Scholar.

15 A similar idea is expressed by Catullus in poems 83 and 92.

16 CQ 18 (1968), 315–16Google Scholar.

17 The Manuscript Tradition, 85Google Scholar.

18 Jacoby, , RhM 69 (1914), 443–63Google Scholar, noted that timidam (15), miseram (16) echo timidus, miser at 2.6.13–14.

19 Op. cit. 455 n. 1.

20 CQ 18 (1968), 316Google Scholar.

21 See Postgate, J. P., JPh 21 (1893), 66–8Google Scholar; he talks of ‘the numerical reference which unus always imports’.

22 Cf. 4.11.102; Sen. Herc. 132–3 ‘iam caeruleis euectus aquis | Titan summa prospicit Oeta’: aquis recc.: equis E: deest A (a reference I owe to Professor Reeve).

23 Oddly enough, Burman's Vaticanus quintus is reported to have read Argoduce: a second gloss has extirpated the one surviving letter of the original word.

24 In addition to the Fasti passages, cf. also Varro, L.L. 5.29Google Scholar.

25 I accept Schrader's totum de, anticipated by an unknown Italian, to preserve the punning nature of the prologue; but this decision does not affect the current argument.

26 Cf. e.g. Fantham, E., Comparative Studies in Republican Latin Imagery (Toronto, 1972), 159–60Google Scholar.

27 RhM 105 (1962), 349Google Scholar.

28 See Anderson, W. S., AJPh 85 (1964), 1–12, esp. 4Google Scholar.

29 I owe sincere thanks to Mr W. A. Camps, Professors E. J. Kenney, F. H. Sandbach, and J. L. Butrica, and the editors of CQ, for their encouragement and critical comments.