The notes of W. S. Maguinness on the Corpus Tibullianum contain several things which strike me as either true or at least highly plausible. In the above passage, however, I think both he and Postgate have missed the point of the first word. Tibullus has been telling the story of how Apollo turned herdsman for love's sake. He insists several times over that it is a story, not a thing he can vouch for. The infinitives in 14 a-c make (...) it sufficiently evident that the lost pentameter began with fertur or dicitur; in 18, Artemis dicitur to have blushed for her brother's unseemly occupation; in 29, fertur that the gods used to serve Venus openly. The same line reminds us that these stories refer to old days, olim. Now comes the couplet in question. (shrink)

The anonymous panegyrist concludes his prediction of Messalla's future achievements by prophesying that, after his deeds are duly honoured with triumphs, Messalla will be titled the Great :ergo ubi praeclaros poscent tua facta triumphos, 175solus utroque idem diceris magnus in orbe.175 praeclaros A: per claros Scaliger | poscent A: ierint F: tulerint Dyer: cierint Lachmann: noscent uel scierint Postgate: peperint NenciniLine 175 contains a well-known textual problem: A offers a text that is linguistically unobjectionable, but produces a weak sense; F (...) seems to express a more appropriate idea, but in a way that is not idiomatic. Hence the conjectures. (shrink)

This article argues for an emendation to Ovid, Amores 3.9, Ovid's lament for Tibullus. The transmitted text of line 59 would seem to present a contradiction: Ovid speculates about aliquid nisi nomen et umbra surviving death, and then proceeds in the next few lines to identify that aliquid as, precisely, Tibullus’ umbra. Ovid's original text was most likely aliquid nisi nomen et ossa, referring to a burial site and funerary inscription; with this text, Ovid reproduces details from (...) class='Hi'>Tibullus 1.3, a poem which he reworks throughout his elegy. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:The Complete Poems of Tibullus: An En Face Bilingual Edition by Rodney G. DennisRobert J. BallRodney G. Dennis and Michael C. J. Putnam, trans. The Complete Poems of Tibullus: An En Face Bilingual Edition. With intro. by J. Haig Gaisser. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012. x + 159 pp. Hardcover, $52.95, Paperback, $20.95.This welcome edition of Tibullus’ elegies contains a two-page preface, a twenty-eight-page (...) introduction, an en face bilingual text and translation of the elegies of Tibullus, Lygdamus, and Sulpicia, a seven-page section of notes, a ten-page glossary, an appendix containing a text and translation of Ovid Amores 3.9 (Ovid’s memorial to Tibullus), a select bibliography, and a general index.As related in the preface, after the death of Rodney Dennis, Curator of Manuscripts for twenty-five years at Harvard University’s Houghton Library, Michael Putnam and Julia Gaisser agreed to bring to fruition the Tibullus translation Dennis had worked on, which Dennis had wanted Gaisser to help him perfect and for which he had wanted Putnam to write the introduction. Putnam and Gaisser decided to reverse the roles that had been envisioned for them by Dennis, with the revision of the translation (and the addition of the poetry of Lygdamus and Sulpicia) diligently executed by Putnam, Professor Emeritus of Classics at Brown University, and the introduction insightfully authored by Gaisser, Professor Emerita of Latin at Bryn Mawr College.Gaisser’s introduction examines 1) the world of the Roman elegists, especially how, in an era of brilliant poets, the elegists defined their genre; 2) the themes and characters in Tibullus’ elegies and how the characters help shape the [End Page 295] arrangement of his poems; and 3) what the elegies of Lygdamus and Sulpicia have and do not have in common with those of the other elegists. Gaisser’s fine comment, “His [Tibullus’] poems glide easily, some would say dreamily, from theme to theme, moving almost like a slide show through apparently random images and musings” (1), recalls statements of some of the poet’s admirers at the dawn of the twentieth century, such as Johannes Vahlen, who likened the movement of the elegies to the tide of a summer sea. Gaisser takes the middle ground, as appropriate, in seeing Tibullus as a poet who speaks through a persona, yet who has “some (perhaps many) points in common with his creator” (7)—as he very likely does—since even within the context of his alternate universe, he touches on the contemporary world, where he refers to people and events outside the poem’s web of self-reference. Yet one may question Gaisser’s unqualified comment that “Tibullus’ poetic techniques are Alexandrian at almost every level” (17)—a thesis developed by Francis Cairns based on Hellenistic evidence of a fragmentary nature, substantiated by Alexandrian elements in some of Tibullus’ verses but with little relevance to those elegies governed by non-Alexandrian literary sources.The bilingual text and translation include the sixteen elegies written by Tibullus (1.1–10 and 2.1–6), the six by Lygdamus (3.1–6), and the six by Sulpicia (3.13–18 = 4.7–12); not included are the Panegyric of Messalla (3.7 = 4.1), the Garland of Sulpicia (3.8–12 = 4.2–6), and the elegy and epigram of debatable authorship appearing at the end of the corpus (3.19–20 = 4.13–14). In preparing this edition of the elegies, Putnam has followed, appropriately, Georg Luck’s Teubner text (Stuttgart 1988, rev. in 1998)—a text containing the most complete list of Tibullus’ manuscripts ever assembled and the most extensive citation of variants and conjectures for the poems, which Putnam supplements with his own variants. Verse form presents a serious challenge for anyone attempting to translate classical poetry into English, inasmuch as classical meters are quantitative whereas English verse is accentual; although translations of classical verses into the original meters may well result in a metrical tour de force, they tend to have a jingly sound, which can obscure and overshadow the poet’s artistry. Philip Dunlop translated some of Tibullus’ elegies into free... (shrink)

After having been for some while the butt of conservative critics, verse transpositions in Propertius have, mainly thanks to the work of G. P. Goold, again become respectable among scholars. In his edition of Catullus, Tibullus, and Propertius J. J. Scaliger , the great archeget of the method, had subjected the other great elegist of Propertius’ generation to the same treatment,2 and in fact one of Scaliger's transpositions is supported by external evidence: 1.5.71–6 belong after 6.32; this is confirmed (...) by Ovid's imitation in Trist. 2.447ff. Trist. 2. 459–60 echo Tib. 1.6.31f. and 5.73 . That Ovid should have brought together in one distich verses from two different Tibullian poems may not seem wholly impossible, but much less likely than that the lines in Tibullus were also consecutive, in particular because the distich immediately preceding 459f. clearly refers to the situation of Tib. 1.6. (shrink)

It is a view commonly held by Tibullus' commentators and critics that the poet's art consists essentially in the more or less skilful weaving together of disparate themes into a single elegy. Leo, for example, talks of Tibullus' imagination which ‘ihn selbst und somit den Hörer gleichsam unwillkürlich von Bild zu Bilde reisst’’.

That the hiatus in 33 is inadmissible in an Augustan poet has long been recognised by the critical. Of the three other examples, Prop. II xv. 1 ‘o me felicem! o nox mihi Candida et o tu,’ ib. xxxii. 45 ‘haec eadem ante illam inpune et Lesbia fecit,’ and Manil. I 795 ‘emeritus caelum et Clausi magna propago,’ only the first can claim any excuse, on the ground of the speaker's excitement and the pause after felicem, but, metre apart, even (...) there ‘nox, o’ seems a better order. But the corruption has had perforce to be retained in our texts through lack of a reasonable correction. The line is perfectly sound Latin as it stands and, though not poetry, is sense. (shrink)

The Gallus Fragment and the Text of Tibullus 1.10.11.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:...

It was a generally accepted tenet of ancient literary criticism that an excess of sibilants was cacophonous. To discover if and to what extent this antipathy is discernible in the actual practice of the main Latin poets, random samples of 50 lines from each were analysed. The results of this analysis are set out in Table I.

Delia, the name given to Tibullus’ mistress in five of the poems in the first book of his elegies, has long inspired curiosity. Two approaches have dominated discussion. The biographical approach takes its cue from theApologyof Apuleius, which regards Delia as a pseudonym:eadem igitur opera accusent C. Catullum, quod Lesbiam pro Clodia nominarit, et Ticidam similiter, quod quae Metella erat Perillam scripserit, et Propertium, qui Cynthiam dicat, Hostiam dissimulet, et Tibullum, quod ei sit Plania in animo, Delia in uersu.

In a recent issue of CQ, N. J. Lowe refers to the ‘slyly Catullan appeal to the language of pietas’ in [Tib.] 3.7 1–2 . In this he follows Matthew Santirocco, who comments on these lines: ‘significantly, the expression for love here is not just cura as before [sc. in 3.16 [4.10] 3], but pia cura. We recall the pietas Catullus proclaimed in his affair with Lesbia and perhaps also pius Aeneas and all that pietas meant to the Augustan age, (...) and then we realise that Sulpicia is now concerned not so much with the mere fact of Cerinthus’ affection as with its quality. (shrink)

It is well known that the trisyllabic ending of the pentameter, which, with the Augustan elegists, declines in popularity until it is practically rejected by Ovid, meets with a revival in Martial. His pentameters show a considerably higher proportion of trisyllabic endings than those of either Tibullus or Propertius.1 Is it possible to dis-cover any reasons, conscious or instinctive, that conditioned the revival of this type of ending?

The transmitted text of line 13, ‘inter geminas…frontes’, has long presented an anomaly in the description of the decorated papyrus roll. If, in the context of book production, frons means the flat, round cross section located at either end of the rolled up book and if cornu means an ornamental projection attached to the ends of the umbilicus and extending beyond the plane of the frons, then the transmitted text is a physical impossibility. For it is the frontes that lie (...) between the cornua and not the other way round. In the words of Heyne's paraphrase: ‘geminae frontes inter duo cornua, non duo cornua inter geminas frontes.’ Emendation is required not only because an author is unlikely to be inaccurate or imprecise about the physical details of his book but also because the transmitted text can be salvaged only by recourse to tortuous theories about the meaning of cornu and frons, about their locations with respect to one another, and about the interpretation of inter with geminas. (shrink)