¹ ‘Noctes Propertianae’, HSCP 71 (1966), 59–106; ‘On Editing Propertius’, Papers in Honour of Otto Skutsch, BICS Suppl. 51 (1987), 27–38; ‘Problems in Editing Propertius’,Google Scholar in Grant, J. N. (ed.), Editing Greek and Latin Texts (New York, 1989); ‘Paralipomena Propertiana’, HSCP 95 (1992), 287–320; and the new Loeb Propertius (Cambridge, MA, 1992).Google Scholar

² It is perhaps worth pointing out that Scaliger's major rearrangements of Propertian elegies appear to be influenced by his appreciation of the complex structure of Tibullus' poems. Where Scaliger proposed major transpositions in Propertius he normally united two or more elegies separated in the ms. tradition (for a survey of Scaliger's major rearrangements, cf. W. R. Smyth, Thesaurus criticus ad Sexti Propertii textum [Mnemosyne Suppl. 12; Leiden, 1970]). In Propertius Scaliger often found himself confronted with textual units such as 2.18 which, in their transmitted form, could not stand as a single poem. On the other hand, sometimes two or three separately transmitted poems formed a thematic unity, as certainly is the case with 2.20/21,2.22–4 and 3.4/5. Thus he tried to integrate several seemingly disintegrating blocks into one larger poem, presumably on the model of the large disparate units he encountered in Tibullus. To suspect that some disconnected smaller units in the second book of Propertius may be accommodated more convincingly in larger, less concise structures on the Tibullan model is a reasonable supposition, and it is perfectly correct that, in sharp contrast to the short almost epigrammatic poems of book I, Propertius' second book includes poems (like 2.34) which in their complicated intertwined structure appear to come quite close to Tibullus.

³ Grafton, A. in his monograph on Scaliger (Joseph Scaliger [Oxford, 1983], pp. 178f.) has rightly pointed out that the Ovidian parallel furnished Scaliger with some documentary evidence for his theory of major dislocations in Tibullus and Propertius.Google Scholar

⁴ denique ab incauto nimium petit ille marito.l se quoque uti seruet, peccet ut ilia minus (Trist. 2.457f).Google Scholar

⁵ Smyth in his commentary (New York, 1913) prints the complete Ovidian passage.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. 1.2.97f., 7.63f, 8.77f., 9.81flf., 10.67f.Google Scholar

⁷ Zu augusteischen Dichtern in Philologische Untersuchungen 2 (Berlin, 1881);Google Scholarstill important on the structure of Tibullan elegy is Schuster, M., Tibull-Studien: Beitrage zur Erklarung und Kritik Tibulls und des Corpus Tibullianum (Wien-Leipzig, 1930); among more recent studies I mention onlyGoogle ScholarCairns, F., Tibullus: A Hellenistic Poet at Rome (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 111 ff. and W Wimmel's detailed analysis of 1.1 and 1.2 in his Tibull und Delia I (Wiesbaden, 1976), II (Wiesbaden, 1983).Google Scholar

⁸ See my ‘Tibullus ludens’ in Eikasmos 5 (1994), at p. 251, n. 1.Google Scholar

⁹ See Richter, R., De Albii Tibulli tribusprimis carminibus disputatio (Zwickau, 1873), pp. 3ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See his appendix pp. 298f.Google Scholar

¹¹ Murgatroyd himself rightly points to exiguol exigui (33/22).Google Scholar

¹² Cf. adsiduus (3/6), pomum (8/13; pomosis 17), ponere (14/17). pomum-ponitur in 13f. may be a pseudo-etymological word-play; for this feature of Tibullus’ poetic technique, cf. my paper in Eikasmos (n. 8), 25Iff.Google Scholar

¹³ Neumeister, Ch., Tibull (Heidelberg, 1986), pp. 75f. even takes 1.4 as a prime example of lucid composition in contrast to Tibullus’ normal technique and states: ‘Daβ Tibull sehr wohl fahig war, einen Gedankengang in dieser Weise (i.e. in methodischen Schritten) zu organisieren, beweist im groBen der Lehrvortrag fiber die Ars amandi, den er 1,4 dem Priap in den Mund legt.’Google Scholar

¹⁴ I mention here only Ritschl's contribution in Ber. d. phil. hist. Cl. d Kön. Sächs. Ges. d. Wiss. 18 (1866), 56–74 (= Opuscula philologica iii [Leipzig, 1877], 616–36); other proposals are collected and discussed by Hubner in Hermes 14 (1879), 307ff. and Karsten in Mnemosyne 15 (1887), 230ff.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Still important is Vahlen's treatment in: Monatsberichte d Berliner Akademie 1878, 343–56 (= Gesammelte Philologische Schriften ii [ Leipzig-Berlin, 1923], 32–45); see also Hubner loc cit.; modern commentators and critics normally skip over the difficulties.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The following division corresponds to that indicated in the edition and translation of G. Lee (²Liverpool, 1982), pp. 40ff., mutatis mutandis also to that of Cairns, Tibullus, p. 207; cf. also Jacoby, RhM 65 (1910), 56; Schuster, Tibull-Studien, pp. 29f.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The text appears to have been understood correctly by Delia, F.Corte in his commentary (Fondazione Lorenzo Valla, 1980) who writes on pp. 15–16: ‘parerebbe in contraddizione col precetto iniziale (v. 9: O fuge...), col quale si consigliava di diffidare deipueri.’ I fail to see the point of Murgatroyd's objection against ofuge in 1. 9 (see his critical appendix, p. 306); he then opts for nefuge, already found in the so-called excerpta Perrei (cf. the preface of Luck's [Stuttgart, 1988] edition, p. XVIII) and also accepted by Cartault (Paris, 1909); but surely the questioner of Iff. is not in need of any further encouragement not to shun the company of lovely boysGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ To interpret artes as anything other than ‘the arts, poetry’, as does Stroh, W., Die romische Liebeselegie als werbende Dichtung (Amsterdam 1971), p. 113 with n. 10, is plainly absurdGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ As regards Ritschl's objection that 57ff. do not fit in the mouth of Priapus see below (n. 33).Google Scholar

²⁰ Even Schuster, Tibull-Studien, p. 30 speaks of ‘ein weniger glatter Übergang’.Google Scholar

²¹ A.A. 2.179–183 recall Tib. 1.4.17–19; in particular 183 (obsequium tigrisque domat Numidasque leones) is close to 17 and 179–82 (flectitur obsequio curuatus ab arbore ramus;l... I obsequio tranantur aquae, nee uincere possisl flumina, si contra quam rapit unda nates) recall the imagery of 18f. A. A. 2.189 (saepe tulit iusso fallacia retia collo) and 193f. (non te Maenaiias armatum scandere siluasl nee iubeo collo retia ferre tuo) may be compared to Tib. 1. 4. 49f. (nee, uelit insidiis altos si claudere uallesj dum placeas umeri retia ferre negent), A.A. 2. 203–206 (seu ludet numerosque manu iactabit eburnos,/ tu male iactato, tu male iacta datoj seu iacies tabs, uictatn ne poena sequaturj damnosi facito stem tibi saepe canes) to 51f. (si uolet arma, leui temptabis ludere dextra;l saepe dabis nudum, uincat ut ille, latus). The passage immediately preceding A.A. 2.181 also shows distinct affinities to Tibullus's poem (A.A. 2.161fF. Ovidius presents himself as a praeceptor amandi for the poor; 177f. echo Tib. 1.4.55f). The use of the anaphora or epanalepsis is common to Tibullus and Ovid (cf. also obsequio in Tib. 1.4.40). A.A. 2.193f. could be seen as an ironic reference to the Tibullan passage.Google Scholar

²² Lachmann's tardueris for the transmitted tardus eris is too easy for me to renounce this remedy. For the lengthening of future perfect endings (or shortening of perfect subjunctive endings) in classical LatinGoogle Scholarsee Sommer, F., Handbuch der Lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre (²Heidelberg, 1914), p. 583;Google ScholarLeumann, M., Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre (München, 1963), p. 340;Google Scholar cf. also Platnauer, M., Latin Elegiac Verse (Cambridge, 1951), p. 56.Google Scholar

²³ Satura Vidrina (Breslau, 1896), p. 49 with the approval of Stroh (Die römische Liebeselegie) with further references in p. 113, n. 9.Google Scholar

²⁴ Die poetische Kunst Tibulls, Studien zur klassischen Philologie 18 (Frankfurt, 1985), 79; similarly also Schuster, Tibull-Studien, p. 30.Google Scholar

²⁵ On this motif in homoerotic epigram see Táran, S.L., JHS 105 (1985), 90–107;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

cf. also Kiessling and Heinze (⁷Berlin, 1930) on Hor. C. 4.10; Nisbet and Hubbard (Oxford, 1970) on Hor. C. 1.25 (p. 289ff.);

Macleod, C., inWest, D. A. and Woodman, A. (edd.), Creative Imitation and Latin Literature (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 94ff. = Collected Essays (Oxford, 1983), pp. 250ff.Google Scholar

²⁶ But see also below p. 506.Google Scholar

²⁷ Correctly understood, as it seems, by Delia Corte who paraphrases (ad loc): ‘Chi agisce con lentezza, sbaglia: sflorisce presto l'età del ragazzo.’Google Scholar

²⁸ Cf. Oppermann, H. in Festschrift Altheim, F. (Berlin, 1969),Google Scholar pp. I.459ff. (= H. Oppermann [ed.], Wege zu Horaz [Darmstadt, 1972], pp. 349ff.); Ancona, R., Time and the Erotic in Horace's Odes (Durham, NC, 1994), cf. in particular pp. 31–36 on C. 2.5.Google Scholar

²⁹ It has often been doubted that the person addressed in 2.5 is the speaker himself; Nisbet and Hubbard (in their introduction to the poem) seem to me to have shown definitely that the poem is a monologue.

³⁰ Cf. Fraenkel, E., Horace (Oxford, 1957), pp. 414ff. (on 4.10 and 13)Google Scholar

³¹ It appears prominently in 3.24/25 cf. also 2.18.19f.; as I have tried to show in SBA W1997,2 the poem is profoundly influenced by Horace's Odes; for books 1 and 2 see W Herz, Vergänglichkeit und Tod in der romischen Elegie (Diss. Freiburg, 1955), p. 130, who rightly observes that the motif is rather unimportant in Propertius;Google Scholarcf. also Müller, R., Motivkatalog der romischen Elegie (Diss. Zurich, 1952), p. 46.Google ScholarModern research has not made much of the affinities between Tibullus and Horace in their stance towards death and old age; the contrast between Tibullus and Propertius was observed by Lyne, R. O. A. M., The Latin Love Poets (Oxford, 1980), pp. 66f., who rightly calls Tib. 1.1.69ff. ‘Horatian lines’; cf. also Wimmel's treatment of the topic in 1.1 and 10 (Tibull und Delia I, pp. 62ff.), which he concludes with the remark: ‘Das letzte Bild der Elegie (i.e. 1.10) zeigt Tibulls ego noch einmal unmittelbar, aber in einer Haltung, die ebensogut auch vom befreundeten Horaz formuliert sein konnte. Sehr wahrscheinlich waren es die jüngsten horazischen Dichtungen, die Tibull auf die Fruchtbarkeit des daseinskritischen Themas haben aufmerksam werden lassen.’ For the death-motif in Propertius we possess an excellent modern treatment byGoogle ScholarPapanghelis, T. D., Propertius: A Hellenistic Poet on Love and Death (Cambridge, 1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³² Cf. Müller, Motivkatalog der romischen Elegie, p. 45.Google Scholar

³³ Ritschl, art. cit., (= 621) was right when he noted that the passage is difficult in the mouth of Priapus, and he wanted to transpose 57–70 to the end of the poem (i.e. after 84). Vahlen has rightly pointed out that this transposition deprives 81–4 of much of their effect; moreover the final is a deliberate imitation of the end of Call. Iamb. 9 (see Dawson, AJPh 67 [1946], 12f.: cf. also Jacoby, art. cit., 57 ff.) and Lefevre (RhM 91 [1968], 182 f.) may well be right in detecting an echo of the Tibullan passage in Hor. C. 4.1.33ff. The coherence of 71f. with the preceding has been well explained by Murgatroyd ad loc. Still, Ritschl has made a valid point; the transmitted text is awkward. The transposition advocated by me provides a bridge for this appendix of Priapus‘ speech. Ritschl's treatment also shows implicitly that spoken by Priapus the passage can only be understood with a slight touch of humour.

³⁴ One only needs to think of Prop. 3.20.Google Scholar

³⁵ This was seen by Heyne who emended ipsa to ilia; even after 56 one may consider ilia (ipse in 55 would explain the slip); but after 56 lipsa in 71 is possible, and after a passage marked by anaphora and epanalepsis (53ff.) the repetition ipse (55)/ipsa (71) with different reference may be intentional.Google Scholar

³⁶ See above p. 504.Google Scholar

³⁷ Cf. also A. A. 2.159f. (blanditias molles auremque iuuantia uerbal adfer...).Google Scholar

³⁸ For verbal echoes in Tibullus, see above n. 22; for this elegy in particular, see Murgatroyd in his introduction to 1.4 (p. 129).Google Scholar

³⁹ One may note in particular that the central word Venus is flanked by alliterating words in vicinity like uelit...uolt...fauet...uenti; for sound effects in Tibullus, see e.g. Wimmel's remarks in his Tibull und Delia II, pp. 86ff., cf. also Delia Corte in the appendix of his commentary (pp. 309ff.) and my contribution in Eikasmos cited above (n. 8), p. 261, n. 48.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Seep. 501.Google Scholar

⁴¹ For the most recent survey see Reeve and Rouse in Reynolds, L. D. (ed.), Texts and Transmission (Oxford 1983), pp. 421ff.Google Scholar

⁴² See Butrica, J. L., The Manuscript Tradition of Propertius (Toronto, 1984), p. 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴³ I have dealt with the problem extensively in my recent monograph Quaestiones Propertianae (Mnemosyne Suppl. 169; Leiden, 1997).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Reeve, M. O. in Atti del convegno intemazionale di studi su Albio Tibullo (Rome, 1986), pp. 62ff. and in Phoenix 38 (1984), 235–9.Google Scholar