Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-495rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-06T18:43:44.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Lover and the Lena: Propertius 4.5

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Kathryn J. Gutzwiller
Kathryn J. Gutzwiller*
Affiliation:
University of Cincinnati
Get access

Extract

In Propertius 4.5 the lena (‘procuress’) Acanthis gives advice to nostra arnica (‘my girlfriend’, 63), almost certainly Cynthia, to cultivate rich lovers and avoid the poet who offers only verses. For Georg Luck the purpose of Propertius' ‘caricature’ of Acanthis is a moralizing condemnation of Rome's decadent demi-monde. According to Judith Hallett, ‘Propertius and his ideals are vindicated’ when at the close of 4.5 ‘Acanthis dies penniless and unmourned.’ Gordon Williams remarks on the poem's ‘vividness and drama’, the active effort it demands of the reader, through ‘the gradual revelation of the lena's death and the realization that the poet is actually standing on her grave’. Margaret Hubbard rightly challenges the overly dramatic readings made by many scholars and insists that the point of the poem is not ‘a genre picture of a bawd’ but an expression of ‘the lover's reactions’, his fear of Acanthis' powers conveyed by the lines leading up to her speech (1-20) and his relishing of her death at the poem's close (63-78).

Type
Research Article
Information
Ramus , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , 1985 , pp. 105 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © Aureal Publications 1985

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. The sources of the quotations in this paragraph are Luck, , ‘Das Acanthisgedicht des Properz’, Hermes 83 (1955), 436Google Scholar; Hallett, , ‘The Role of Women in Roman Elegy’, Arethusa 6 (1973), 119Google Scholar, reprinted in Women in the Ancient World, ed. John Peradotto and J. P. Sullivan (Albany 1984), 257Google Scholar; Williams, , Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry (Oxford 1968), 544Google Scholar; Hubbard, , Propertius (London 1974), 141Google Scholar.

2. Luck (n.l above) 436–38 has even argued that the elegy was composed between 28 and 22 B.C., probably in 28–27, at the time of the first poems in Book 2. But Tränkle, Hermann, Die Sprachkunst des Properz und die Tradition der lateinischen Dichtersprache, Hermes Einzelschriften 15 (Wiesbaden 1960), 140fGoogle Scholar. and n.2, has shown that both the level of diction (a greater number of colloquial and unpoetic words) and the frequency of certain metrical practices connect 4.5 with the other poems in Book 4 and indicate that it was composed after Books 1–3; see also Lefèvre, Eckard, Propertius Ludibundus: Elemente des Humors in seinem Elegien (Heidelberg 1966), 100–8Google Scholar.

3. On 4.7 see Warden, John, Fallax opus: Poet and Reader in the Elegies of Propertius (Toronto 1980), 22f.Google Scholar, 32f., 70–78; on Book 4 in general, see K. J. Gutzwiller, ‘Changing Personae and Cohesive Design in Propertius’ Book 4’, forthcoming.

4. Shackleton Bailey, D. R., Propertiana (Cambridge 1956), 244Google Scholar, taking up the objection of Lütjohann, Christian, Commentationes Propertianae (Kiel 1869), 44Google Scholar, to velit, poterit and moverit (9–11), supposes that Acanthis is still alive and so writes fuerint in 71 (as does Barber in the OCT). But Williams (n.I above), 543–44, points out that vis in 2 and the verbs in 9–11 treat the lena’s powers and desires as if they are still operative, even though she is already dead. We need not assume, however, as Williams does, that the poet is actually standing on her grave.

5. See the references in Fedeli, Paolo (ed.), Properzio: Elegie Libro IV (Bari 1965), 153–54Google Scholar. The curses recall both devotiones and the curse poetry of Callimachus, Euphorion and Ovid.

6. For abuse of old women, especially old prostitutes, see Ale. fr. 73 and 306.14 LP; Ar. Eccl. 877–1111, Plut. 1042–96; Hor. Epod. 8, 12, Carm. 1.25, 3.15, 4.13; for the procuress as a witch, see Eur. Hipp. 509–16; Tib. 1.5.49–60; Ov. Am. 1.8.5–18; Lucian Dial. Meret. 1.2,4. Additional references may be found in Oeri, Hans, Der Typ der komischen Alien in der griechischen Komödie, seine Nachwirkungen und siene Herkunft (Basel 1948Google Scholar).

7. Hippomanes, ‘horse-madness’, is a mucous secretion of mares on heat; cf. Vergil, Georg. 3.280ff. Shackleton Bailey (n.4 above), 241, argues that the striges, which he takes as witches, not owls, plot against the lover’s virility, while the hippomanes is used as an aphrodisiac to turn his affections elsewhere. But the draining of blood and poisoning (cf. Ov. Am. 1.8.8 and the Georgics passage cited above) are more appropriate here, the effect bordering on metaphor. For screech-owls as vampires, see Smith, Kirby F. (ed.), The Elegies of Albius Tibullus (New York 1913Google Scholar), ad 1.5.52.

8. For Socrates’ definition of the good mastropos, see Xen. Symp. 4.57–59; cf. P1. Tht. 149d-150a. The earliest appearance of the procuress in Greek literature is at Il. 3.383–420, where Aphrodite disguises herself as an old serving woman to lead Helen to Paris’ bed. A number of features in the scene foreshadow later commonplaces about procuresses: the old woman’s longstanding, affectionate relationship with Helen, her deception for the benefit of a desirous young man, Helen’s reluctance because of renewed interest in her (first) husband Menelaus, and the goddess’s persuasive techniques. Aphrodite’s appearance in this guise suggests that for the Greeks the procuress played a more important part in sexual love than we might suspect.

9. See Cunningham, I. C. (ed.), Herodas: Mimiambi (Oxford 1971), 57Google Scholar. For the contrary view, see Headlam, Walter, Herodas: The Mimes and Fragments (Cambridge 1922), xxxv-viGoogle Scholar, and Williams (n.1 above), 543.

10. For the relationship between 4.5 and comedy, see Leo, Friedrich, Plautinische Forschungen, 2nd ed. (Berlin 1912), 147Google Scholar; Legrand, Ph.-E., ‘Les “Dialogues des courtisanes” comparés avec la comédie’, REG 20 (1907), 201–2Google Scholar; Luck (n.1 above), 430, n.1; Boucher, Jean-Paul, Études sur Properce (Paris 1965), 442Google Scholar. For a fuller treatment of the procuress in comedy, see Oeri (n.6 above), 26–27, 50–53.

11. See Neumann, Rudolf, Qua ratione Ovidius in amoribus scribendis Properti elegiis usus sit (Göttingen 1919), 106–22Google Scholar, esp. 118–22; Courtney, E., ‘Three Poems of Propertius’, BICS 16 (1969), 84–86Google Scholar (‘Ovid wants to accentuate the heartlessness of the advice, to shock more than Propertius,’ 85).

12. Knorr, M., Das griechische Vorbild der Mostellaria des Plautus (Munich 1934Google Scholar).

13. On this see Hubbard (n.1 above), 137–42. Even though Ovid represents the external form of the dramatic scene more faithfully (in Am. 1.8 the lover does eavesdrop), it is Propertius who preserves the dramatic balance of sympathies. On the priority of Propertius, see Neumann (n.11 above), 106–22.

14. Athen. 13.576d-e, Diod. 17.72, Plut. Alex. 38, Curt. 5.7.3–4. In 2.6.1–6 Propertius names Thais in the company of the wealthy hetairae Lais and Phryne (and he is thinking here of Menander’s Thais). Ovid twice mentions Thais in connection with freedom, the freedom to love as a girl chooses (Ars Am. 3.604) and the freedom to write erotic elegy (Rem. Am. 383–86). Menander’s play seems to have established Thais as the master-hetaira (see Mart. 14.187), much like Phronesium in the Truculentus.

15. Propertius’ image of the crone perched on the lover’s bed like a bird of prey may look back to Epicrates’ comparison of the aged Lais to old, hungry eagles (fr. 2–3 Kock, from the Antilais): And when they grow old, in painful hunger they perch on the gods’ temples. This is regarded as a portent (teras). Lais too would rightly be regarded as a portent. (11–14) To my knowledge, this parallel has not been noticed before. But the association with birds may have been somewhat common, since in Ov. Am. 3.5 the lover has a symbolic dream in which the lena appears as a crow.

16. In 1.1.19–22 Propenius himself calls upon witches to increase Cynthia’s love for him.

17. Models of Acanthis’ list apparently existed in New Comedy; cf. Plaut. Truc. 51–56, 530–40. On the style of this passage, see Luck (n.1 above), 429f., Tränkle (n.2 above), 176, and Puccioni, G., ‘L’ elegia IV 5 di Properzio’, Studi di poesia latina in onore di A. Traglia II (Rome 1979), 615–17Google Scholar.

18. For the details, see Tränkle (n.2 above), 112f., 121, 128, 129, 131f., 133, 134, 138, 176.

19. Butler, H. E. and Barber, E. A., eds., The Elegies of Propenius (Oxford 1933Google Scholar), ad 59–62: ‘These lines clash with what has preceded, not so much through abruptness as by reason of their beauty in so sordid and cynical a context.’ Cf. Luck (n.1 above), 429.

20. See Tränkle (n.2 above), 177, who calls the words ‘unerträglich’ in the lena’s mouth; Lefèvre (n.2 above), 103f., who discounts the beauty of the lines by finding a humorous and parodic effect; and Warden (n.3 above), 110 (‘the devil has some of the best metaphors’).

21. See the arguments of Hubbard (n.1 above), 137–42, who shows that there is no need to transpose lines (as does Goold, G. P., ‘Noctes Propertianae’, HSCP 71 [1966], 82Google Scholar) to secure a dramatic setting.

22. On Propenius’ exaggeration of the repugnant here, see La Penna, Antonio, L’ integrazione difficile: un profilo di Properzio (Turin 1977), 96Google Scholar (‘realismo crudo e insieme deformante’). It is precisely the excess which directs our attention to the undercurrent of pity.

23. For references, see Smith (n.7 above ad Tib. 1.6.31–32. But in the context of Book 4, Acanthis’ dog recalls Craugis, the puppy that comforts Arethusa in her husband’s absence (3.55–56).

24. Horace’s Epode 5, which Luck (n.1 above), 435–36, believes to have been a model for 4.5, displays just the opposite movement. There Canidia’s central speech, by revealing that she is murdering a boy simply to concoct a love potion, assures our sympathic involvement in the curses which the boy hurls at her and her colleagues as the poem closes.

25. See Griffin, J., ‘Augustan Poetry and the Life of Luxury’, JRS 66 (1976) 102–4Google Scholar. On prostitution in the ancient world more generally, see Herter, H., ‘Die Soziologie der antiken Prostitution im Lichte des heidnischen und christlichen Schrifttums’, JbAC 3 (1960) 70–111Google Scholar.

26. Plutarch (Sull. 2.4) reports that Sulla obtained part of his fortune from the estate of his mistress Nicopolis.

27. Although Williams (n.1 above), 545, who insists the amica is ‘respectable’, argues that it means ‘use a husband as a pretext’.

28. Cf. Neumann (n.11 above), 121: ‘Apud Propertium enim lena puellam ad avaritiam impellere non studet, sed earn avaram esse iam putat.’

29. Lucian, who in his Dialogues of the Courtesans reworks comic scenes to highlight the feminine point of view, portrays sympathetically the practical concerns of even a self-interested procuress. In Dialogue 6 a mother, who instructs her daughter in the art of being a whore, is the widow of a free man and can find no other way of supporting herself.

30. Prop. 2.11.1–2, 2.24.87–94, 3.2.17–18; Ov. Am. 1.10.59–62, Ars Am. 3.403–4.

31. Tib. 1.5.61–66; Prop. 1.19.5–20, 2.15.36, 2.20.17–18, 2.24.33–34.

32. That the lena was herself a courtesan in her younger days is de rigueur, see, for example, Plaut. Cist. 564–65.

33. This distich was suspected as early as the Italian humanists. The arguments brought against it by Knoche, U., ‘Zur Frage der Properzinterpolation’, RhM 85 (1936), 11–63Google Scholar and Jachmann, G., ‘Zur Frage der Verswiederholung in der augusteischen Dichtung’, in Studi in onore di U. E. Paoli (Florence 1956), 414–21Google Scholar, have been refuted by Dornseiff, F., ‘Die römischen Dichter heillos interpoliert?’, Hermes 71 (1936), 459–61Google Scholar; Reitzenstein, Erich, Wirklichkeitsbild und Gefühlsent wicklung bei Properz in Philologus Suppl. 29, Heft 2 (Leipzig 1936), 94–108Google Scholar; and Luck (n.1 above), 430–33.

34. Luck (n.1 above), 432; cf. Knoche (n.33 above), 17.

35. Lines 1–4 convey, with irony, the seductive appeal Cynthia makes, to the poet as well as to others, when she is decked out in her finery. For an interpretation of 1.2 very like mine, see Wheeler, A. L., ‘Propenius as Praeceptor Amoris’, CP 5 (1910), 38Google Scholar.

36. Acanthis’ most appealing argument, 59–62, uses the carpe diem theme so common in lovers’ persuasion (cf. 2.15.49–54). In Aristaenetus 1.14 a courtesan Philematium professes to her lover Eumusus that well-instructed courtesans are persuaded by money alone, not by music; she then quotes the very words of his appeal which she rejects. The resemblance to Propertius 4.5 is striking, and both probably have an antecedent in comedy. Cf. Leo (n.10 above), 147, and Wheeler, , ‘Erotic Teaching in Roman Elegy and the Greek Sources: Pan I’ CP 5 (1910), 450Google Scholar, n.2.

37. Cf. Reitzenstein (n.33 above), 95f. It is hardly insignificant that 4.5 recalls both 1.2 and 3.25, the beginning and the end, so to speak, of Propertius’ affair with Cynthia.

38. Cf. An Am. 3.473–74 with 4.5.30; 3.581–82 with 4.5.47–48; 3.601–2 with 4.5.29; and 3.752 with 4.5.30.