This volume collects the proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Conference on Propertius, focusing on the relationship between Propertian elegy and various literary genres, but also on the influence of non-literary forms of expression (epigraphic and artistic languages, Augustan propaganda, legal terminology). Like all conferences, this meeting provided an opportunity to review recent developments in Propertian studies and, in some cases, to suggest new perspectives by presenting different views concerning Propertius’ attitude towards various genres as well as his gradual assumption of Augustan ideology.
Following an introduction detailing the focus of the conference by Bonamente, the first paper (id., ‘Properzio in Assisi e a Roma’), dealing with archaeology and prosopography, reconstructs the social position of the gens Propertia at Assisi as revealed by recent epigraphic findings. Thanks to these, we know that in the Augustan or Julio-Claudian age a Sextus Propertius built a theatre in Assisi. This would indicate the family's high social status, lost for only a brief period after the bellum Perusinum.
In the next chapter, ‘Tra genere letterario e ideologia politica’, Cristofoli offers an interesting analysis of the Propertian descriptions of the battle of Actium. The first one (2.16) features a perspective far removed from the official version and perhaps taking issue with it. Later (4.6), the battle is described from the Augustan point of view, as a clash of civilisations and moral values. Cristofoli's analysis validates Propertius’ gradual rapprochement with Augustan ideology, accomplished in Book 4, where his elegy is radically transformed in its acceptance of celebratory themes.
A specific case is represented by Ovid's erotic epistolography, where Propertius assumes the role of precursor. R. Dimundo, in ‘Ad coniugem suum, da Properzio a Ovidio’, examines Ovid's debts (especially for Penelope in Her. 1) to the Arethusa of 4.3, which to some extent is the archetype of the genre. Ovid's indebtedness to Propertius also extends to certain portrayals of Cynthia (1.3; 3.6).
P. Fedeli's ‘Properzio e l'epos virgiliano’ is one of the most interesting papers in the volume. Propertius’ relationship with the work (and the poetic career) of Virgil emphasises the younger poet's admiration. In Book 2, even before the famous proclamation about the Aeneid (2.34.65–6), Fedeli detects allusions to Virgil's epic, which Propertius probably got to know when he joined the circle of Maecenas. For Propertius Virgil's career appears to be a model. In 2.34 he describes Virgil's debut as an erotic poet, reading the Eclogues as love poems, and he proclaims the broadening of his own poetical horizons, presenting his elegiac work as a completed achievement. Fedeli's reading of vv. 93–4 is intriguing. Propertius’ orientation vis-à-vis the ‘Hesiodic’ model has been anticipated in the Ascraei fontes of 2.10.25, and it becomes concrete in Book 3, where the divergence from epic is less pronounced. Propertius’ alignment with Augustan ideology finally appears realised in Book 4, where he confidently demonstrates his ability to treat high epic themes in elegy.
The influence of some literary genres on Propertius does not seem especially strong, and so the papers on this topic are limited to reviewing current studies. Thus, the poet's interest in didactic poetry is not great (L. Landolfi, in: ‘Varcare i confini? “Palinsesti didascalici” nel terzo libro delle Elegie di Properzio’): he ‘reads’ Lucretius through Virgil and confronts the Georgics in his laus Italiae (3.22). Compared to Virgil's impersonal tone, however, Propertius finds a warmer language, due also to his friendship with the dedicatee Tullus.
To archaic Latin epic, and specifically to Ennius, Propertius’ debt is primarily linguistic and metrical. This is shown by P. Mastandrea, in ‘L'epos latino arcaico e Properzio’, analysing some passages.
It is difficult to delineate the influence of Greek theatre on Propertius. In the realm of tragedy (M.P. Pattoni, ‘Influssi della tragedia attica sull'elegia di Properzio’) the most influential author for Propertius is Euripides, whose presence, however, can be perceived only in specific allusions. As examples, Pattoni cites the analogies between Helen in the Troades and Cynthia in 1.15. In 2.34.29–30, reading Erechthei = ‘Athenian’ (v. 29), Pattoni proposes a possible confrontation of Propertius with the civil and educational commitment of Aeschylus. Less plausible is her suggestion that Propertius also takes issue with Horace because of this poet's ideological affinity with Aeschylean poetics in his Epistles. In fact, too much time separates Prop. 2.34 (datable to 27/26 bce, thanks to the mention of Gallus’ recent suicide) from the Horatian Epistles, written many years later.
Propertius’ relationship with aetiological poetry is obviously crucial. A.R. Álvarez Hernández, in ‘Propercio y la poesía etiológica’, views the aetiological choice announced in 4.1 as Propertius’ reconciliation between a Callimacheanism hitherto pursued only stylistically and the celebratory themes to which he is now open. According to the author, Propertius reads the Aeneid in an aetiological sense, but Virgil had already broken a path in this direction in Ecl. 6, with its Callimachean preface and its themes exceeding the bucolic genre. I would add that the mysterious Gallan poem mentioned in Ecl. 6.72 could establish an aetiological inclination as early as Gallus, but the series of insoluble problems created by the allusion in this poem comes into play here. In Book 4, learning Virgil's lesson, Propertius recovers the spirit and the stylistic requirements of Callimachus’ aetiological poetry, but also includes lofty themes in his ‘new’ elegy. At the same time he accepts Horus’ warning (4.1.71–2) not to abandon erotic verse, and so in the aetiological elegies of Book 4 erotic themes find a new space.
The use of legal language in Propertius (P. Pinotti, ‘Scribenda mihi lex in amore novo: il linguaggio del diritto in Properzio’) is fairly predictable: it concerns above all the foedus amoris between the poet and his puella, a Catullan legacy, both when Propertius proposes it (3.20.15–30) and when Cynthia imposes its conditions (4.8.71–82). More interesting is the use of this language by Cornelia (4.11) in her fictional trial before the infernal gods: the paradox should be emphasised that, when Propertius brings the female figure back to the traditional roles of wife and mother, in Book 4, he gives her a freedom of speech and action unthinkable for a real matron.
The epigraphic language, analysed by G. Polara in ‘Properzio e l'epigrafia’, comes to Propertius from the epigrammatic practice of presenting false funeral inscriptions; Propertius adopts it on several occasions, even, I would add, because of the typical elegiac delight in fantasising about the poet's death, but he has a contradictory attitude towards the epitaph: he imagines using it to leave a memory of himself only as an unhappy lover, but on the other hand he would like to renounce it and entrust his immortality only to his poetry.
The relationship between Propertius and Homeric epic is analysed in a fascinating paper by G. Rosati, ‘Il “tempo della bellezza” e la legge della forza’, that overturns the usual view of Propertius’ attitude to Homer. As we know, the opposition to the martial epic of the Iliad (1.7; 1.9) aims to affirm that elegy is preferable because of its practical utility in love. I find more interesting, however, the statement that Propertius uses the comparison with Homer to sharpen by contrast the nature and identity of elegy. In later books, Propertius treats Iliadic characters and events in an erotic sense. Thus, the relationship between Achilles and Briseis is portrayed as erotic, according to the Hellenistic tradition. Reversing roles from his elegiac perspective, Propertius presents the hero as his captive's love slave, finding the link between elegy and epic in the dialectic of strength and submission. This also allows the language of elegy to appropriate epic terminology, opening the way for the topos of militia amoris.
The influence of Aristophanes on Propertius is weak. Santini, in ‘Aristofane e “le aristofaniche fantasie” nel corpus elegiaco di Properzio’, finds Aristophanic influence in the topos of the speaking door (1.16), which he traces back to the Plutus and Ecclesiazusae, and whose development from Aristophanes to Plautus to Catull. 67 he reconstructs. The link of the motif with the Hellenistic komos, however, should not be underestimated. Santini sees another possible Aristophanic hint in the reference to the solidum … opus built by Semiramis (3.11.21–6), which would evoke Birds 551–2 and 1129. Finally, the inversion of death and life in 4.7 and 4.8 (Cynthia dead in 4.7, but alive in 4.8) could show the pattern of the Frogs (Dionysus brings the dead Aeschylus back to life).
A. Wallace-Hadrill, in ‘L'arte nella poesia di Properzio’, examines the influence of painting on Propertius, ranging from Cynthia as an ideal model for painters (2.3) to the condemnation of lascivious paintings with an erotic subject (2.6.27–30) to the controversy pitting the artifice of artistic representation against natural beauty (1.2). First and foremost, however, figurative sources may have inspired many of the poet's mythological exempla. Wallace-Hadrill suggests that the accumulation of myths and allusions in the exempla may reflect a tendency noticeable in Pompeian painting as well. This procedure in Propertius rather seems to me to come from the Hellenistic poets’ fondness for variety and erudition in the most disparate mythological hints.
In the final summary G. Baldo retraces arguments and contributions. He includes a paper by Perrelli on the role of epigram in Propertian elegy, even though this paper is absent from the printed volume.
In short, my initial description can be re-affirmed. For the most part, the contributions summarise the status of Propertian studies in the various directions suggested by poetic genres, but they sometimes offer interesting thoughts and provoke a re-thinking that runs contrary to current opinion. This is the case with Propertius’ attitude towards Homeric and Virgilian epic, which is not necessarily negative and is in any case modified over time. This view results in a dynamic and lively image of Propertius, who, comparing different genres and reflecting on them, is able to define clearly the nature and meaning of his own verse, but also to explore new ways of extending it beyond the limitations of erotic topics, so that it gradually encompasses even Augustan ideology. But the flexibility of the elegiac genre also emerges, showing this poetry to be capable of welcoming and re-working the most disparate influences in the work of a versatile and intelligent poet. These culminate in the unexpected etiological and patriotic productions of Book 4.
