Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T05:30:05.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Propertius' Vein of Humour: In Which Some Discrimination is Proposed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

P. J. Connor
P. J. Connor*
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Get access

Extract

There is a general acceptance now that Propertius was able to mingle the humorous with the passionate and almost manic earnestness. Disagreement, of course, still flourishes about whether this or that poem can be said to be in whole or in part humorous, but by and large each of the four books contributes some poems describable under this head. Within each book, moreover — and here we have to take account of the general opinion that Propertius' work is often experimental, patchy, of uneven quality — some of the best poems are serious and some are humorous.

A further aspect of the common view is that as his writing progresses, Propertius turns more and more to humour, inventing the comic lover as L. P. Wilkinson claims, until by a steady progress he comes to the great humorous poems of Book Four. Again, there is no agreement on the humorous quality of some of the poems of this book (e.g. poem 7 and poem 6), though none would now, I think, opt for seriousness of intent in poems 8 and 9.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ramus , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , 1976 , pp. 103 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Aureal Publications 1976

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. Humour: Sullivan, J. P., ‘Propertius: a preliminary essay’, Arion 5 (1966) 5–22Google Scholar: ‘This quality is not of course as pervasive or as obvious in Propertius as is, say, metaphysical wit in Donne or rhetorical wit in Juvenal’ (p. 10). Experimentation: Quinn, Kenneth, Latin Explorations (London, 1963) 130Google Scholar: ‘Propertius’ Latin is difficult because he is the only Roman poet to experiment consistently with the non-rational possibilities of language. ‘Uneven Quality: Murdoch, Iris, The Nice and the Good (Harmondsworth, 1968) 52Google Scholar: ‘He read out at random a couplet from the open page. “Quare, dum licet, inter nos laetemur amantes non satis est ullo tempore longus amor.” “Stuff, stuff, stuff,” said Willy. “These were cliches for Propertius. In couplets like that he was talking in his sleep.” ’

2. Wilkinson, L. P., rev. of Binns, J. W. (ed.), Ovid (London, 1973Google Scholar), in CR 25 (1975) 216.

3. Sullivan, op. cit. 10: ‘It is my suggestion that the Roman and Propertian equivalent of this Callimachean style becomes more and more noticeable and controlled between the Monobiblos, where its presence at all is very debatable, and Book IV … that it is there in Book IV seems undeniable, and whether it appears earlier is simply a subject for inspection.’

4. Lefevre, E., Propertius ludibundus (Heidelberg, 1966Google Scholar); Pillinger, H. E., ‘Some Callimachean influences on Propertius, Book 4’, HSCP 73 (1969) 171–199Google Scholar; Becker, C., ‘Die spaten Elegien des Properz’, Hermes 99 (1971) 449–480Google Scholar; Luck, G., Gnomon 39 (1967) 698–702Google Scholar; Sullivan, J. P., Arion 5 (1966) 5–22Google Scholar. Eliot, T. S. (ed.), Ezra Pound selected Poems (London, 1959Google Scholar), ‘It is also a criticism of Propertius, a criticism which in a most interesting way insists upon an element of humour, or irony and mockery, in Propertius, which Mackail and other interpreters have missed’ (p. 19).

5. Hubbard, Margaret, Propertius (London, 1974) 152Google Scholar; Sullivan 9f.; Pillinger 177. See also Currie, M. L., Latomus 22 (1973) 616–622Google Scholar, on the humour of Propertius 4.8.

6. Evans, S., ‘Odyssean echoes in Propertius IV 8’, G&R 18 (1971) 51fGoogle Scholar.

7. Yardley, J. C., ‘Comic influences in Propertius’, Phoenix 26 (1972) 134fCrossRefGoogle Scholar., at p. 136 n.10.

8. The translations are taken from Musker, R., The Poems of Propertius (London, 1972Google Scholar).

9. See Goold, G. P., ‘Noctes Propertianae’, HSCP 71 (1966) 61Google Scholar.

10. Tränkle, H., Die Sprachkunst des Properz und die Tradition der lateinischen Dichtersprach (Wiesbaden, 1960Google Scholar).

11. Margaret Hubbard again appears to set the poem in a series seriously exploring love-relationships: ‘Penelope could complain of much in Odysseus’ behaviour, but not this much. And Propertius, moved by insult and outrage, was less long-suffering than she; to console himself, he invited in two girls’ (p. 155). ‘4.8 … insinuates the question whether, if we could give more context to the high passions and actions of antiquity, they would look so very high’ (p. 155).

12. See White, R. E., ‘Descriptive power and humor in Propertius’, Studies in honor of B. L. Ullman (1964) 155Google Scholar, for comments on the topography and the girls.

13. I give the text of Barber’s OCT editio altera (1960). I am, however, much attracted by the manuscript reading Magnus (i.e. as the dwarf’s name, Lofty). The character of the description at this point, as well as the whole passage, as I endeavour to explain, well accommodates this ‘speaking name’.

14. Anderson, W. S., AJP 85 (1964) 1–12Google Scholar; Pillinger, op. cit. 182f. Becker, op. cit., also brings out the humour with which Propertius handles the theme. Fedeli, Paolo, ‘Osservazione sullo stile di Properzio’, SIFC 41 (1969) 81–94Google Scholar, after pointing to the elevated language, is led to conclude that the poem is ‘una delle piu solenni del quarto libro di Properzio’ (p. 90).

15. Pillinger 184: ‘Propertius has cast the description of the Palatine, invictos pecorosa Palatia montis, in the form of a parenthetic or “Hellenistic” appositional construction, one of the exquisite figures of neoteric verse, but a stylish embellishment apparently not at home in epic’ Pillinger continues with examples from Vergil’s Eclogues.

16. Discussed by Fedeli, op. cit. 90f.

17. Pillinger 185–186: ‘It is surely no accident that the bucolic Hercules addresses his cattle with the same cadences that those elegant rustics, Thyrsis and Meliboeus use: he boves, Herculis ite boves (16–17). The reader can fairly hear the refrains in the Eclogues of the order of he domum saturae, venh Hesperus, ite capellae (10–77).’

18. Muecke, Frances, ‘“Nobilis historia”. Incongruity in Propertius 4.7’, BICS 21 (1974) 124–132Google Scholar, at p. 124.

19. Solmsen, F., Philologus 105 (1961) 287CrossRefGoogle Scholar; he writes further that 4.7 has a ‘tone of genuine emotional depth’ (p. 289).

20. Baker, R. J., Latomus 29 (1970) 696Google Scholar.

21. Lake, A. K., ‘An interpretation of Propertius IV.7’, CR 51 (1937) 53–55Google Scholar.

22. Syndikus, H. P., Die Lyrik des Horaz. Eine Interpretation der Oden (Darmstadt, 1972Google Scholar).

23. Wilkinson, L. P., ‘Propertius 11.19’, G&R 22 (1975) 39–41Google Scholar. Wilkinson has missed the brief comments by White, R. E., ‘Descriptive power and humour in Propertius’, Studies in honour of B. Ullman (1964) 152Google Scholar, and La Penna, A., Properzio. Saggio critico (Florence, 1951) 10Google Scholar. See also F. Cairns, , Generic Composition (Edinburgh, 1972) 236–239Google Scholar.

24. Enk, P. J., Sex. Propertii Elegiarum, Liber secundus (Leiden, 1962) II, 262Google Scholar. Wilkinson, op. cit., and White, op. cit. 152: ‘Several lines on idyllic rural life’, follow Enk’s general attitude.

25. L. P. Wilkinson, op. cit. 41.

26. R. E. White, op. cit 152.

27. A. La Penna, in his first chapter, op. cit., seems to me, at times, to speak of this joyousness in the same breath as his attempts to define the humour of Propertius’ poetry.

28. Curran, Leo C., ‘“Nature to advantage dressed”: Propertius 1.2’, Ramus 4 (1975) 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29. On this point, see Hubbard, op. cit. 22–23.

30. Curran, op. cit. 8.

31. Muecke, op. cit. Ill, ‘While I would not like to maintain that Propertius’ love-poetry is entirely humourless, Otis’s comments do not strike me as adequate.’

32. Hubbard, op. cit. 23–24.

33. Solmsen, F., ‘Three elegies of Propertius’ First Book’, C? 57 (1962) 73–88Google Scholar, now also in his collected papers, Kleine Schriften II (Hildesheim, 1968) 283–298; Leach, E. W., ‘Propertius 1.17: the experimental voyage’, YCS (1966) 211–232Google Scholar.

34. Hubbard, op. cit. 6.

35. Taylor, Andrew, The cool change (Brisbane, 1971) p. 44Google Scholar. Buckley, Vincent, The Melbourne Age, 4 July 1970Google ScholarPubMed.

36. Nethercut, W. R., ‘Propertius’ Elegy 2.10’, Symbolae Osloenses 47 (1972) 79–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For further discussion, Commager, Steele, A Ptolegomenon to Propertius (Semple Lectures, Cincinnati, 1974) 56–62Google Scholar.

37. A detailed examination of the irony of this poem can be found in Wilkinson, L. P., ‘Propertius III, 4’, Studi in onore di Luigi Castiglioni (Florence, 1960) 1093–1103Google Scholar.

38. Quinn, Kenneth, Latin Explorations (London, 1963) 187–197Google Scholar. Baker, R. J., ‘Law in amore mori: love and death in Propertius’, Latomus 29 (1970) 670–698Google Scholar, esp. 684f.

39. La Penna, op. cit. 79, drawing attention also to similar views held by Rothstein.

40. For a short summary, see La Penna, op. cit. 87. Sullivan opts for 4.8.

41. 1 rely, without further discussion here, on the central arguments of my discussion of the Amores, Connor, P. J., ‘His dupes and accomplices: a study of Ovid the illusionist in the Amores’, Ramus 3 (1974) 18–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42. Otis, Brooks, ‘Propertius’ single book’, HSCP 70 (1965) 1–44Google Scholar, at p. 34.