S B M 057 555 jQ THE BOOK DIVISION OF PROPEKTIUS By B. L. Ullman The problem of the book division of Propertius is one that is familiar to all students of that author.' Lachmann was the first to challenge the division into four books which the MSS show, and to propose a division into five books. His views brought on a controversy which has lasted to the present day. Only one serious objection, outside of the testimony of the MSS, has been raised against Lachmann's theory. Nonius Marcellus (169M) under the word sccitmlare has Properiius ElegiariDn lib. Ill followed by a quotation of iii, 21. 1-i according to the MS division, or iv. 21. 14 according to Lachmann's division. The Lachmann adherents met this by saying that the MSS were wrong, that Nonius wrote iiii not iii. Mtiller and Lindsay, accordingly, adopted this change in their editions of Nonius, the former noting that the vulgate reading was iii, the latter making no comment whatever in his scanty apparatus. Quicherat and Onions retained iii, with- out comment. Birt,"* after a very careful and searching investi- gation, found another solution. His theory is that the first book was published separately and was called the Monohiblos, a name which is supported by MS authority and by an ancient title to one of the apopJioreta of Martial. The rest of the poems were published, perhaps two books at a time, to make up one volume under the title of Elegia. Naturally they were numbered from 1 to 4, not from 2 to 5, as in Lachmann's scheme. In this arrangement the citation in Nonius actually comes in the third book of the Elegies, as Nonius calls them. It seemed to me desirable to make sure that the MSS of Nonius actually had iii, not iiii. Lindsay,^ in discussing the Nonius tra- dition says: "Our original authorities for the text are thus reduced to (1) L, (2) H'^, and for books i-ii med. PE, (3) the 1 See Plessis, Mudes eritiqites sur Properce, for a r^suni^ of the arguments brought to bear. ^Das anfike Bxichwesen, pp. 41S-26. [Classical Philology IV, January, 1909] 45 3 Class. Kev. IX, p. 357. 29Hno 46 B. L. Ullman extract MSS, (4) Fl" The extract MSS do not concern us in the question under discussion, because they omit the Propertius citation. P stops before this point, and E in this part is a copy of F/ Of the rest I have examined all but V, and in addition all the MSS in Leyden. They all have III uncorrected, except L, the most important one, which originally had IIII, corrected by erasure to III, a state of affairs which nobody appears to have noticed. It is impossible to determine who made the correction. It may have been L\ L^ (who used a MS of the "extract" class), or L* (who used a MS of the "doctored" class). ^ The question to decide is whether the common archetype of all the MSS had III or IIII. The evidence is at least two to one in favor of the former, i.e., that of F' (which does not change III to IIII),^ and ffV (though I have not seen V, it is practically certain to have III. H has III, not touched by H"). I say at least, because the correction in L may have been made by L' or L^ from the arche- type. We must therefore decide that the common archetype probably had III. There is one other question that seemed worth investigating in this connection. Hosius* cites three MSS of Propertius which quote the Nonius passage and have m quarto libro written out. I examined the three and found that Vatic. 1612 is dated 1480, Neapolit. IV. F. 22 (270) is dated 1465, while Barber. VIII. 58, though not dated, clearly was written toward the end of the fifteenth century. On the other hand, I found that Ambros. H 46 sup., which appears to have been written about 1450, also contains the Nonius passage, but has Propertius in III. li'^. It gives the Propertius line {lam nitidum iiautis aura secundd: iter) which the others omit, and besides, the whole passage is phrased a little differently. Probably the three later MSS give a changed (and corrupted) version of the Ambrosian MS. At 1 Onions' edition of Nonius, p. xx, Lindsay's edition, p. xx^iii. 2 For these corrections see Lindsay in A. J. P. XXII, p. M, 3 P* would not be likely to overlook this point, as he corrects liqui t/A/ duin inuiie- diately after. I agree with Brown (Class. Rev. IX, p. 450) in assigning the dolotion to F". It is in the light brown ink. Lindsay, by implication, niukos it the same hand. (Class. Rev. X, p. 16.) * Rhein. Mus. XLVI, pp. 687, 588. The Book Division of Pbopebtius 47 any rate the presence of the Propertius line in this MS shows that its text does not come from any of the other MSS or their archetype. I think I have shown that the common archetype of the Nonius MSS had III, not IIII. That does not prove, however, that this is what Nonius himself wrote. The archetype may have been wrong: the intercliange of IIII and III is a mistake easily made. In Book II of Nonius I find twenty-two cases of variation in the MSS cited in Onions' critical apparatus. It may be remarked that seventeen of these show IIII for III, and only five show III for IIII. Birt's other arguments, though plausible, have not convinced all scholars, and further light, if it can be obtained, will not be without interest. After giving evidence tending to show that the fiirst book remained separate from the rest of the elegies during antiquity, Birt (oj9. c/7., p. 425) remarks that the Tetrahiblos was better known and more widely read tlian the Monobiblos. Evi- dence for this is the fact that, of eleven citations by the gramma- rians, none is from the first book, and that only among the wall inscriptions of Pompeii is there a reminiscence of a line from the first book. These facts are still more striking than Birt makes them. Eleven different passages of Propertius are quoted in Latin literature, according to Baehrens' edition, most of them by the grammarians. They are:* ii. 1. 2: Caesius Bassus (K. VI. p. 264, 10) ii. 3. 24: Macrobius (K. V, p. 626, 17) ii. 9. 41 : Servius ad Verg. Buc. v. 21 ii. 13. 35: Charisius (K. I, p. 89, 23) ii. 13. 35. De Dub. Nom. (K. V, p. 588, 5) ii. 14. 1: Charisius (K. I, p. 67, 14) ii. 33. 37: Charisius (K. I, p. 107, 28) ii. 33. 37 : De Dub. Nom. (K. V, p. 590, 24) ii. 34. 65-66: Donatus Vit. Verg. ii. 34. 65-66: Anth. Lat. I. 264 iii. 8. 37: Priscian (K. II, p. 536, 15) iii. 8. 37: Diomedes (K. I, p. 369, 22) iii. 11. 15: Charisius (K. I, p. 103, 17) 1 The manuscript numbering is followed. 48 B. L. Ullman iii. 11. 15: De Dub. Norn. (K. V, p. 576, 22) iii. 21. 14: Nonius Marc. (169 M) iv. 1, 11-14: Lactantius Instit. ii. 6 iv. 1. 13: Isidorus Orig. xviii. 4 Some of these passages are quoted more than once; in only one case is it probable that the quotations are independent: iv. 1. 11-14 are quoted by Lactantius, and line 13 is quoted also by Isidorus, who does not seem to have drawn from Lactantius. In addition it is clear that iv. 10. 44 was originally cited in De Dub. Norn. K. V, p. 592, 5: Torques generis feminini, ut Projyertius* Horquem auream.'^ Keil's note to this line reads: excidit Pro- pertii uersus IIII. 10. 44. torques ab incisa decidit unca gula. torques aureae ex Varrone attulit Nonius.^ Besides, Baehrens gives two quotations from the Pompeian wall inscriptions, one of iii. 16. 13-14 in CIL. IV. 1950 and the other of iv. 5. 47-48 in CIL. IV. 1894. To this may be added a third, ii. 5. 9-10 in Acta inst. arch. R. 1875, p. 190 (Buecheler Carm. epig., p. 823). The grand total is sixteen, divided equally, strangely enough, among the last four books of Lachmann's division or the four books of Birt's Elegia. Actual quotations only are to be taken into account, and imitations cannot be introduced as evidence, because it is not always possible to tell which is the imitation and which the original. For example, CIL. IV. 1520 (cf. add., p. 208) , has the lines Candida me docuit nigras odisse puellas Odero se (= si) potero se (= si) non invitus amabo. The second line is an exact citation of Ovid Am. iii. 11. 35. The first has been compared to Prop. i. 1. 5. Donee me docuit castas odisse puellas Improbus (Amor) 1 Possibly there is a reference to a lost poem of Propertius in the same treatise, K, p. 587, 18. The MSS read ( 1. 16) "Gotta nunc ad praosepia ^) p U (so V ; M has non ) sunt in praesepibus boucs et Virgilius plena ad praeiscpia ponunt." The tirst words have been emended to Contra ; the j) !> fl conies in the phico wIktc the name of an author should come, asKeil points out. It may be a corruption of proper- tins, through the stages properti', ^) p ti'. This tils in very well with Lachmann's and Birt's theory that some of the poems of the first bt)ok of the Tetrahiblos have not come down to us. The Book Division of Propertius 49 Birt accepts this as a reminiscence of our author. This does not at all mean that the Pompeian wall-scribbler had read the first book of Propertius. The aptness of the lines consists in their being direct quotations. A man is not likely to make up one line and answer it with a quotation from somebody else. Moreover, parts of the first line are found elsewhere (IV. 1523, 1520, 1528, 1536, 30-40 ) apparently written by different people, which makes it probable that it was a well-known line as it stands. In that case, the poet who wrote it may have imitated Propertius or vice versa. But this is not the only evidence to be gleaned from the quota- tions. The one from Caesius Bassus is of particular interest. It necessitates an examination of the nature of the poetical quota- tions to be found in the Roman metricians. In general, it may be said that there are two kinds, first, lines or parts of lines show- ing some exception to a general rule, or some other peculiarity, in which case the choice of lines is, of course, limited; second, lines illustrating a class or a rule, as, for example, a hexameter line. Here the grammarian had thousands of lines to choose from. Naturally he chose the most familiar: the first line of the Acneid. Most of such quotations were undoubtedly made from memory, or from memory refreshed by a glance at the original. Citations of this sort are not confined, however, to the first line or lines of the Aeneid, though these are the ones most frequently found. The first line of the second book also is common. The better known the poet, the more various the quotations. So the first lines of many of the Epodes of Horace are quoted, though those of the first and second Epodes are much more frequently met with. The second Epode seems to have been more popular than the first, to judge from the number of quotations. In the case of the Odes, the first line of the first poem illustrating a cer- tain meter is the one usually given. For less well-known poets, the range from which quotations of this sort are taken is more limited. The use of the first line of the work is the rule. The case of TibuUus is in point. He is quoted five times in what may be called the "general" way (described above) by the metricians. He is quoted once by Diomedes (K. I, p. 484, 19) in illustration 50 B. L. Ullman of his definition of an elegy as a poem consisting of hexameter and pentameter lines in alternation. The verses given are i. 1. 1-2, as was to be expected. The other four quotations are all of the line, i. 1. 6. It is chosen because it is the first "perfect" (i. e., dactylic) pentameter in Tibullus; lines 2 and 4 each have one spondaic foot. In the metrical fragment of Keil VI, p. 612, 12, it is quoted as a normal pentameter line. In the other three cases (K. VI, p. 616, 15, p. 127, 7, and p. 264, 14), it is quoted as a pentameter line for use as a base from which to form other meters. It is now possible to apply the principle just discussed to Propertius. The only quotation in the metrical writers is that in Caesius Bassus, and this occurs in connection with the Tibullus line just mentioned (K. VI, p. 264, 10.) The passage discusses the formation of the choriambic verse, and an illustration is given of the way in which such a verse is formed from a pentameter line:^ ad summam pentametrum heroum, qui hahet dactylos primos duos, velut Mine, unde meus veniat mollis in ora liber, adiedis duahus syllabis longis fades choriambicum ex heroo pentametro sic, unde meus nunc veniat mollis in haec ora liber, et dum meus assiduo, luceat igue focus SIC, dum meus hie assiduo luceat hoc igne focus. The second quotation is the one from Tibullus, the first is from Propertius ii. 1. 2. This is surprising. Why is i. 1 not quoted? Is there no normal dactylic pentameter line in i. 1? But there is: i. 1. 4. Et caput impositis pressit Amor pedibus which can be changed to a choriambic line in this way, Et caput (hoc) impositis pressit Amor (turn) pedibus. Failing this, there were i. 1. 14, i. 2. 6 and many others in the first book. Why was the first book ignored? Two answers are 'The manuscripts are confused here, but Keil's text is probable. The point at issue is not affected . The Book Division of Propektius 51 possible: one, that the first book wns not the first, but was fftrther on, perhaps last, in Caesius' manuscript of Propertius; the other, that it was not a part of the book of elegies which Caesius pos- sessed. When the other evidence is taken into consideration, that of the sixteen quotations from the later books as against none from the first, and that which Birt adduces, we must conclude that the second is the correct answer, and we may say with a great deal more confidence than before that the first book was not a part of the book of Propertian "Elegies" known to antiquity. The University op Chicago THE VERBAL IN -TEO IN POLYBIUS By Hamilton Ford Allen The use of the verbal adjective in -t€o "from Homer to Aris- totle, exclusive" has been studied and the results of that study have been published,' so that we have a sound basis for the exami- nation of the use of this verbal in the Koivq as represented in Polybius. In view of the completeness of Bishop's treatment of the verbal, it will be enough if we present the results of our study of the use of the verbal in -reo in Polybius and refer the reader to Bishop for comparison. 1. Form. — Polybius uses a verbal adjective in -reo 153 times, formed from 70 different verbs, simple 39, compound 31 (B., p. 5). From 48 of these verbs a verbal is formed once, from 11 twice, from 2 three times, from 3 four times, from 1 (Si'Sco/xt) 6 times, from 2 [TidrjfjLt,, ')(^pdofxai) 7 times, from 1 [rjyeoixai) 13 times, from 1 {ecpo), pr)Teov) 15 times, from 1 (vofjii^co^ 17 times. Polybius is not peculiar in using the same verbal many times (B., p. 5). The verbal is formed from 46 &)-verbs, from 12 fxat-yerhs and from 12 /At-verbs in which Polybius shows no decided preference for any one class as compared with the authors examined by B. (p. 4) . Polybius does not form the verbal in any new way (B., pp. 3 f. ). 2. Use. — In spite of the fact that the majority of the verbs from which Polybius forms verbal adjectives are used transitively a verbal used personally is found but once viroSeiKreo'; av etr] rpoirof; 3. 36. 5. In view of the fact that Polybius has studiously avoided the personal use of the verbal, Goetzeler'^ ascribes this one occur- rence to a scribal error and would emend accordingly. He thinks that Polybius uses the impersonal verbal in imitation of Latin, which, at the period at which he wrote, said: oppuc/iuDiduvi est Aihenas; in support of this he quotes Draeger and W()lfllin. lOharles Edward Bishop " The Greek Verbal in -t.o," Am. Joum. r/iil. XX (1899), pp. 1-21, 121-38, 241-53, cited as B. in this article. For literature of the subject see B., p. 2, note. ^Ludovicus Goetzeler De Polybii Eloctitione (Wflrzburg, 1887), pp. 29 f. [Classical Piiiloloqy IV. JHUuary, 1909] 52 fcl U C BERKtLtrLIBhAHltS IHMilii CDMMDMSa^q RETURN TO: CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 198 Main Stacks LOAN PERIOD 1 Home Use 2 3 4 5 6 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS. Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date. Books may be renewed by calling 642-3405. DUE AS STAMPED BELOW. ^R 2 3 2001 FORM NO. DD6 50M UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Berkeley, California 94720-6000