Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-rbxfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-10T14:24:27.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpretations of Propertius

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

D. R. Shackleton Bailey
D. R. Shackleton Bailey
Affiliation:
Gonville and Caius CollegeCambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

oscula suspensis instabant carpere palmis

oscula et alterna ferre supina fuga.

It has been held that ferre is here to be taken for Φέρεσθαι oscula ferre is a fairly common phrase; I have met with it in twenty-two other passages down to Apuleius, in eighteen of which the meaning dare (as distinct from carpere) oscula is certain and in two more (Ov. Met. 7. 729, Am. 3. 7. 48) it is appropriate. The two exceptions are Ov. Her. 15. 101 non tecutn lacrimas, non oscula nostra tulisti and ibid 16. 253 f. oscula si natae dederas, ego protinus ilia / Hermiones tenero laetus ab ore tuli. Neither offers a true parallel to the use attributed to Propertius (in the second passage the notion of stealing kisses previously given by a third party makes a difference), and in both the sense ‘bear away’ is made unmistakable by other words (tecum and ab ore). As a matter of usage, then, it is justifiable to assume the meaning ‘give a kiss’ for this phrase, unless something else is plainly indicated. Further, the Propertian lines gain in point by the contrast (of word rather than fact, it is true) between carpere ‘snatch’ and ferre ‘bring’.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 41 , Issue 3-4 , July 1947 , pp. 89 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1947

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

page 89 note 1 They are: Plaut. Amph. 716, 800, Stich. 89; Tib. 1.9.78; Prop. 2.6.8,18.18; Ov. Am. 2.5·27, 3·7·48, Her. 3·128, 15. 101, 16. 254, Ars 2. 325, 534, 3·310, Met. 7·729, Ex P. I. 4. 50; Liv. 1. 56.10; Cartn. Epig. 950. 2; Sen. Phoen. 486; Fronto, , Ad M. Caes. 5·33Google Scholar; Gell. 10. 23.1; Ap. Apol. 7.

page 90 note 1 A rule still widely observed: see Golden Bough, vol. 6, pp. 135 ff.

page 91 note 1 The view here taken is borne out to some extent by a passage of Dracontius (de Laud. Dei I. 69 ff.) which came to my notice too late for discussion above. He is treating of presages and portents (with an obvious debt to Lucan and other pagans), among them the rising of ghosts from the underworld:

tertia sors Erebi terrae prorumpit hiatu

et discit perferre diem, uiolare serenum

audet et exsangues caelo produceremanes …

cum niger umbrarum ueniens exercitus orbem

appetit inuadens non umida tempora lunae.

Vollmer's explanatory footnote on the last phrase non noctu sed interdiu is plainly correct, but must be accepted in the light of the connexion between dew and the moon. ‘The time when the moon is not wet’ is, in this context, the time when the sun is up and the dews of night and early morning are over. Similarly Pliny probably means that manure must not be spread while dew is actually falling, i.e. in the evening or early morning. But the Propertian passage, however it be taken, almost certainly refers to dry nights as opposed to damp.