صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

The conclusion is obvious. The true Present belonging to λov, ἐξελήλυθα, etc., is not ἐξέρχομαι, but ἐκπορεύομαι (as φέρω is the Present belonging to oiow, etc.), and similarly in the other cases.

This may be confirmed by passages in which the Present or Imperfect occurs in close proximity to the other tenses which really belong to it. Thus in Polyb. X. 15, 3-4 (see above) the persons designated as oi dià tŷs túλNS εἰσπορευόμενοι are referred to a little later as τοὺς εἰσεληλυθότας, and in Polyb. IV. 17, 9-18, 1, the words tŵv kataπopevoμévwv are followed at a short interval by παραχρῆμα κατελθόντες and τῶν κατεληλυθότων. In Ezekiel 46, 10, we read: ἐν τῷ ἐκπορεύεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἐξελεύσεται μετ ̓ αὐτῶν.

Other compounds have been purposely omitted from the table because their figures are too low to permit of any conclusion.

The uncompounded epxoμal is not at all rare in Hellenistic Greek, and maintains its existence as the true Present belonging to ἦλθον, ἐλήλυθα, etc. It is found about 200 times (Present and Imperfect) in the Septuagint. RODERICK MCKENZIE.


EVERYONE interested in Latin Etymology knows the last word on mehercle, that the old vocative of meus is prefixed to the old Second Declension form Herc(u)lus, Voc. -le. Without discussing whether this explanation is wholly true or partly wrong, I wish here to disqualify two pieces of evidence. Both originate from a marginal annotation on Rufinus' translation of Eusebius' Church History (4, 9, 3 'illud mehercule magnopere curabis') in, I think, a seventh-century English MS. These marginalia were used for the Leyden Glossary and for the common source of the EE (Épinal and Erfurt) and Corpus Glossaries. The compiler of Leid. transferred them unaltered to his pages; and in the section devoted to Rufinus glosses we find (§ 35, 19) Mehercule: mi fortis. The other compiler often recasts them for dictionary purposes. He gave this item the form Herculus: fortis (Ep. 11 A 26= C.G.L. V. 364, 23=Corp. H. 54). But of course the original annotation mi fortis was a mere lucky guess, and the substitution of Herculus' for Hercules was sheer ignorance.

Latin Glossaries have many such pitfalls for the unwary. Occasionally a young scholar who intends to spend his life in the pleasant sport of conjectural emendation tries his prentice hand on glosses, but with comical results. Knowledge is necessary for successful emendation. In all cases, knowledge of 'Ueberlieferungsgeschichte' and the practice of medieval scribes. In the case of an author, knowledge of his diction and style. In the case of glosses, knowledge how the glossary was compiled.




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.

In the first place it is my design to prove beyond doubt that the received text of Propertius has suffered serious dislocation; thereafter I hope to establish more than a probability that this dislocation befel a manuscript (which was an ancestor of our archetype), written upon pages and leaves of a certain discoverable number of lines; and in the third place I shall indicate, by examples perhaps too few to establish proof, a subsidiary theory which I believe to be capable of proof in detail, a theory of the technique of the poet which attributes to him a ́numerical scheme of composition' for each several poem. By combining these three ideas in the reconstruction of one particular portion of the next I shall present in little a type of my work as a whole.

(a) For the proof of dislocation I have chosen out of many the following poems (old notation): II. x. xi. xiii. xiv. with reference to II. xx. 21; xxiv. I.

(b) For the recovery of the pagination of the archetype I add II. iv.; iv. i. 38-70 (III. xviii. 8; xx. 10; I. xxii.).

(c) I analyze the numerical schemes of II. xii.; I. xiv.; III. xii.; with reference to III. i. 39, iii. 21; IV. ii. 57; also II. xxvi.; II. xxxiv. 67-94.


The theory of dislocation is of course nothing new; but to English readers, accustomed to the texts of Palmer, Phillimore, and Hosius, almost no hint of it is given. I recommend the text of Baehrens as that which will best assist the following of my arguments.

Our II. x. xi. xii. xiii. xiv. is a region to which Lachmann invited attention. In x. Propertius states that Augustus and his wars will henceforward occupy his Muse, quando scripta puella mea est. In first youth he sang of loves, but émeutes are to be the theme of the end of his life. Yet in the preface to this

book (and prefaces are the latest written portions of books) he confesses that Cynthia is all the theme and inspiration of which he is capable (II. i.), and in vv. 40-42 apologizes to Maecenas for not 'thundering of Gods and Giants' or tracing a Trojan pedigree for Caesar. And in the poem earliest in date of Book II. (written only one month after our Book I., which Martial called the carmen iuuenale Properti) we find him saying turpis de te iam liber alter erit (II. iii. 3, 4). The earliest and latest poems of Book II. thus agree as to its content; poem x. implies recantation and a time of life inconsistent with a iuuenale carmen (v. 7). But x. is confirmed by xi., where in an elegy of six verses, whose brevity is hard to match, he bids Cynthia a stern farewell once more-so final a farewell that it is at least a surprise to find poem xii. amorous, xiii. 1-16 containing a reference to Cynthia as sole worthy critic of his verse, and love and Cynthia the sole subjects of the rest of the book.

xiii. 25 is the verse which chiefly awakened Lachmann's suspicions: sat mea + sit magna † si tres sint pompa libelli, quos ego Persephonae maxima dona feram. (Here I find any part of magnus intolerable with maxima following, and would read sat mea, sat, magici si tres sint pompa libelli. . . .) Lachmann maintained not without reason that tres libelli means three volumes of poetry. In that case we are now in the third, not the second, volume; for the poet is giving to Cynthia directions for his funeral, presumably imminent, and not to be postponed while a complete book is in the writing. Professor H. E. Butler (Propertius, Introd. p. 14) fails of his accustomed felicity when attempting the refutation of Lachmann. 'Libelli,' he says, 'does not necessarily mean books; it may be used quite vaguely in the sense of poems, writings.' He quotes from our Book I. i quaeso et tristis istos compone libellos (ix. 13); but Ponticus is engaged upon a Thebaid, which was presumably divided into books, without undue vagueness. From III. he quotes fortunata, meo si qua es celebrata libello (ii. 17 [15]), but omits the pentameter: carmina erunt formae tot monimenta tuae. Propertius refers to the new book of which this is part of the Introduction, the separate libellus containing tot carmina. Tres,' continues Professor Butler, 'need not be taken literally, though tres libelli might mean no more than three elegies.' 'Tres may equally be regarded as meaning a few. For this equally cogent view he quotes from IV. x. 26 iugera terna Corae; but at Cori to this day the site is divided into three roughly equal parts by the configuration of the rock, and I would venture to suggest that Propertius is here making a learned reference to this fact.' 'Or,' says Professor Butler, 'as the mystic number three,' which, in view of magic-loving Persephone, is indeed part of the truth-but only if it is three and not two. 'The truth of Lachmann's view is a matter of opinion.' I believe it to be rather a matter of courage. Tres libelli means three books;

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 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.

and therefore we must admit that the verse II. xiii. 25 was composed by its author as part of a third book. 'Nonius (p. 169) says of the word secundare: Propertius elegiarum libro tertio, iam liquidum nautis aura secundat iter. The line actually occurs in III. xxi. 14. In view of the general weakness of Lachmann's argument it seems wanton to suppose tertio to be an error for quarto.' On the contrary, I regard Nonius as strongly confirming Lachmann's main contention that there were five books in all. The MSS. of Martial (xiv. 188) call our Book I. Cynthia, siue monobiblos (cf. Prop. II. xxiv. 2). The series of books whose patron was Maecenas begins at II. i. Nonius is evidence that these were known to the grammarians as the Elegiarum libri, of which our third book was actually the third. That these were considered separate from the Cynthia is shown not only by its sub-title monobiblos, but by a fact adduced by Mr. B. L. Ullman. When Caesius Bassus wishes to quote from Propertius a perfect dactylic pentameter to match the first pentameter in Tibullus I. i. dum meus adsiduo luceat igne focus, his choice falls on unde meus ueniat mollis in ora liber, the first in our II. i., not on Cynthia i. 20, still less on 4 or 14 with their Greek sound. This certainly suggests a Liber Elegiarum beginning at II. i. 1. And the good MSS.1 B and H point to the same conclusion, for they bear a double subscription after our Book IV. Propertii Aurelii Nautae monobiblos feliciter explicit uel liber elegiarum Properti finit. The first half refers back to the original title of our Book I., the second seemingly to a second title, more closely connected with our Book IV. (The MSS. μ and u however give elegiarum liber quartus et ultimus explicit (μ), finit (v), which seems to derive from the same source). It is a fair inference that our archetype combined within one cover both Cynthia and Liber Elegiarum; but to the grammarians they were distinct. If our third book is truly third of the periodic elegiarum libelli, which together made up the Liber, our second, which is far longer than any other extant book of Roman Elegies, must contain both the first and the second of the author's arrangement.

Lachmann proposed to end his Book II. before poem x. and to make x. the Preface to his Book III. (He counted the Cynthia as Book I.) But the address to Augustus there is quite inconsistent with what follows, for the rest of his book is concerned with love and Cynthia. And there are still weightier objections. At II. xx. 21 Propertius gives an explicit date: septima iam plenae deducitur orbita lunae, cum de me et de te compita nulla tacent. He looks back over the half-year that separates the day from that of the publication of the Cynthia and the beginning of their notoriety.

Still later in our book (xxiv. 1) he writes: tu loqueris (a friend is speaking) cum sis iam noto fabula libro, et tua sit toto Cynthia lecta foro. One book, the Cynthia, is all that has yet been published. Here too we are within the period of the composition of the immediately succeeding volume, and his popular fame is undiminished.

Let us return to II. xiii. Here at v. 13 he makes one of his two references

1 For these see Journal of Philology, xxxi. pp. 162-196.

to detractors (the other is in the Introduction to Book III.): populi confusa ualeto fabula: nam domina iudice tutus ero. The fabula is now not unequivocal praise. He must then have published, since II. xxiv. was composed, something which has tarnished the fame of the Cynthia. And twelve lines later in our texts comes the reference to tres libelli.

Lachmann then, though right in his suspicions, must be wrong in his constructive criticism, when he constitutes x. the first poem of a third book thence succeeding. For at least two succeeding poems must belong to a second book.

Yet II. x., considered alone, is remarkably like the introduction to a new book, as Lachmann perceived, and moreover provides detail indicating its date. In the Introduction to Book III. (i. 16) he writes of finem imperii Bactra futura. Augustus has not yet reached the limits of Alexander. The Arabian expedition of Aelius Gallus took effect' in the year 23. Since III. xviii. dates from August of that year (Marcellus's death), and the Palatine Library (i. 38) cannot have been opened earlier than 24 B.C., owing to Augustus's absence from Rome, 27-24, and was probably not ready till 23-22 B.C. (see C.Q. XI. p. 104; J.R.S. 1914), we can be sure that this book was being composed during 23. One of its earliest poems (iv. v.) foretells the Eastern expeditions of Gallus and Agrippa. Crassus is not yet avenged: Crassos clademque piate; ite et Romanae consulite historiae (iv. 9):Crassi signa referte domum (v. 48). Arma deus Caesar dites meditatur ad Indos (iv. 1).

But in our poem II. x. the East is already subject: India bows down (15), Arabia trembles (16), Crassus is avenged (24), Euphrates is no more a barrier (13). We seem to be in the period subsequent to 20 B.C., when the standards were recovered, a period which saw the composition (actually in 16 B.C.) of IV. vi., where vv. 79, 80=our 13; 81, 82 our 17, 18; 83, 84 our 13, 14, ire per Euphraten, iam negat Euphrates.


Now if II. x. really dates from any year subsequent to 23 B.C. it can only belong to our Book IV.; for the date of Book III. is firmly fixed in 23 B.C. But we have already noticed that the poet explicitly records in vv. 7, 8 the passing of his youth and the completion of his love-elegies. So let me point out two tentative suggestions by previous critics.

Postgate, unable to accept II. x. 7, 8 in a book concerned chiefly with Cynthia, brackets them, and proposes that they should be inserted in the present first poem of Book IV. But is it likely that a scribe who found this reference to aetas extrema in Book IV. would transplant it to a passage in Book II.? And how else could a single couplet be spirited backwards: the tendency is always to insert omissions at some later point. Baehrens records an even more remarkable proposal of Fonteine with regard to the six verses of xi. immediately succeeding x. 26. He wished to join them to the last couplets of our Book III. and make them part of the conclusion of the Dirae and recantation of III. xxiv. xxv. It is a curious coincidence, perhaps, that two of the acutest Propertian scholars should independently connect verses from this region with the point at which Books III. and IV. now divide; not least because Book IV. is the only one which

« السابقةمتابعة »