A rumour in Propertius*

Paulo Martins
Universidade de São Paulo

mixtaque cum ueris passim commenta uagantur

milia rumourum confusaque uerba volutant1

This paper investigates the relationship between historical

reality and personae poeticae as fiction in Propertius 2.7. 2 Besides
its poetic value, this elegy shows us precisely the border between
reality and fiction in which Roman elegy is situated. On the one
hand, we observe the personae poeticae as fictional constructions,
and, on the other hand, we can glimpse referential aspects of the

*
I would like to thank my students, Cecilia Gonçalves Lopes and Lya Valéria
Grizzo Serignolli, the work with the originals and the corrections and
suggestions of Jessica Anne Wasterhold.
1
Ov., Met. 12.54–55.
2
I use for this analysis Teubner’s edition, elaborated by Fedeli in 1984, and
reviewed by him in his commentaries, in 2005, to Propertius’ second book,
but not forgetting other editions (Giardina (2010), Goold (1990), Heyworth
(2007b), Moya and Ruiz de Elvira (2001), Viarre (2005) and commentaries
Butler (1905), Camps (1966), Richardson, Jr. (1977), Fedeli (2005), Heyworth
(2007c) and Shackleton Bailey (1956).
38 AUGUSTAN POETRY

Roman society of this period. Nevertheless, the personae may

be impregnated with real characteristics as well, since we can
neither deny the historical existence of Propertius, Maecenas
and Augustus, nor that historical events may be nuanced by
rumour, which can be considered as a rhetorical kind of proof.
Gavisa es[t] certe sublatam, Cynthia, legem,
qua quondam edicta flemus uterque diu,
ni nos diuideret: quamuis diducere amantis
non queat inuitos Iuppiter ipse duos.
‘At magnus Caesar.’ sed magnus Caesar in armis: -5
deuictae gentes nil in amore ualent.
nam citius paterer caput hoc discedere collo,
quam possem nuptae perdere more faces,
aut ego transirem tua limina clausa maritus,
respiciens udis prodita luminibus. -10
a mea tum qualis caneret tibi tibia somnos,
tibia funesta tristior illa tuba!
unde mihi patriis natos praebere triumphis?
nullus de nostro sanguine miles erit.
quod si uera meae comitarem castra puellae, -15
non mihi sat magnus Castoris iret equus.
hinc etenim tantum meruit mea gloria nomen,
gloria ad hibernos lata Borysthenidas.
tu mihi sola places: placeam tibi, Cynthia, solus:
hic erit et patrio nomine pluris amor. -20

Four questions, beyond the textual surface of the elegy

2.7, arise: a) In what terms may the information – seemingly
historical – about the annulment and the edition of a law,
presented in a fictional text, give us concrete elements about this
law? b) Up to what point may this text present an opinion – in
favor or against – Augustus? c) What does, in the elegiac genre,
this essentially referential information mean when we consider
that this genre is essentially fictional? d) If this information has
any historical value, may the roman elegy be considered a genre
between reality and fiction?
 A RUMOUR IN PROPERTIUS 39

Even though Maria Wyke works essentially with the

construction of the persona Cynthia, I believe she builds up a
premise applied to referential aspects in the elegies that may be
useful when it comes to the use of the revoked law (presented by
Propertius as the poem’s motor force, according to Wyke): the
poetic discourse, of which Cynthia is a part, is firmly informed
by political, moral and literary discourses of the Augustan period.
Thus, even if we deny Cynthia an extra-poetic existence, we
cannot deny her relationship with the society.3
I begin, then, with this: even if the law does not exist, it
is unquestionable that its representation as a constituted law in
a text (as part of the poetic discourse) is involved with political,
moral and literary discourses of the period. I go beyond: it is
not possible to deny its involvement with discourses, that is,
rumours spread in that society as public opinion.4 As Wyke
shows Cynthia participates in a poetic language of love and,
in this way, although she is not related to the poet’s actual love
life, she is related to the grammar of this poetry.5 It seems to
me that all the referential elements translated in the elegiac
poetical discourse are connected with this elegiac grammar that
presupposes those rumours.
In the republican and imperial Rome, rumour may be
considered an institution, that is, it has a legal statute and is
observed when justice is applied, since it is a kind of proof. We
can find it in Seneca the Elder’s Controuersiae, in formulations

3
Wyke (1989, 27).
4
Bettini (2008, 351) presents an excellent relationship between the sense of verb
fari and its gerund fandus and the idea of rumour, hearsay: We should recognize
that in an oral culture such as Rome was, systems of belief and cultural repre-
sentation are constructed primarily on the basis of verbal communication–in
other words, hearsay. But “hearsay” is not simply gossip; rather, it is a source of
knowledge for the formulation of shared rules. “Hearsay” defines what is fandus,
that which is at the same time both “sayable” and “just.”
5
Wyke (1989, 35).
40 AUGUSTAN POETRY

like rumour erat de adulterio matris et procuratoris,6 in which

the death of a pater familias is discussed (two suspects are
presented, the son and the attorney of the family, possibly the
widow’s lover). More than simple exercises of declamation, the
institutionalization of rumour as a kind of proof is presented
by Quintilian in Institutio Oratoria, supported by Aristotle and
Cicero. The orator stresses that, among the non-artificial proofs,
rumour possesses the same credibility of previous judgements,
evidences extracted from torture, documents, oaths and
witnesses. So, if rumour is a kind of proof, we have to consider
its power and its penetration among the Romans and even
among the Greeks.7
On the other hand, nowadays many have studied this trans-
historical phenomenon – the rumour. It does not interest me,
here, to review its treatment by Social Psychology or Sociology,
but to stress some important characteristics of the phenomenon
and how we can look at it in this poetic and political context. It
is known that rumour exists if the subject has any importance
to the person who listens to it and who spreads it. This is why
rumour moves around in a given environment - besides, of
course, all the interests that people have in transmitting it.8
There are three kinds of rumour, which are divided into three
pairs: a1) retrospective rumors focused upon the implications of past events;
a2) prospective or predictive rumors anticipating the future; b1) rumors
planted and systematically transmitted to serve the ends of special group; b2)
spontaneous; c1) rumors which represent extreme flights of imaginative
fantasy; c2) rational. Facing so many possibilities, I do not aim to
classify or establish a taxonomy to rumour, but to understand that
it serves the collectivity (whose voice represents common sense
or a belief ). That is, rumour as a discourse has no author or source;

6
Sen. Contr. 7.5. pr.
7
Quint., Inst. 5.1.2; 5.9.1. Cic., Inu. 2.46; De Or. 2.27.116; Arist., Rhet. 1418a.
8
Allport; Postman (1946–7, 503 – 4).
 A RUMOUR IN PROPERTIUS 41

for, rumour transmits temporary and floating attitudes or, beliefs

that people form in order to interpret new emerging situations.9
More recently rumour was defined by Rosnow; Kimmel10 as a
proposition, not verified, of a belief that has relevance to people
actively involved in its dissemination. So, rumours are supposedly
factual, but lack authenticity and confirmation. This way we may
see the difference between rumour and news (the last one being
verified and confirmed). Rumour shares, with gossip, the aspect
of not being proved – although they differ in importance and
relevance--rumours are related to topics which are noteworthy
to a group, while gossip is chitchat.11
Taking this into consideration, we are led to think that
rumor or rumores are, sometimes, to the History produced by
the Romans and may show up in Livy, Tacitus or Suetonius
(no matter how different they may be). Vitruvius, on the other
hand, discussing a monumentum, a source of water, refers to a
rumour about it: is autem falsa opinione putatur uenerio morbo
inplicare eos, qui ex eo biberint. sed haec opinio quare per orbem terrae
falso rumore sit peruagata (...).12 I do not consider it important
whether this spring source passed any venereal disease. The
falsus rumour interests me. If there is a falsus rumour, there is
also a uerus rumour. Rumour is “hearsay,” which may be truth or
deception. Horace, in Sat. 2.6.50-60, talking about his friendship
with Maecenas, shows us how useful he was to the general,
his friend, answering his nugae during his trips. Such nearness
would have caused envy among people in Rome. Once, when
they met him in Campus Martius, they asked him questions
of a sort which could be answered by anyone who was close to
the source/event (?):

9
Peterson; Gist (1951, 159).
10
Rosnow; Kimmel (2000, 122).
11
Bordia; DiFonzo (2004, 33).
12
Vitr. 2.8.12.
42 AUGUSTAN POETRY

‘fortunae filius’ omnes.

frigidus a rostris manat per compita rumor:
quicumque obuius est, me consulit: ‘o bone – nam te
scire, deos quoniam propius contingis oportet –,
numquid de Dacis audisti?’ ‘nil equidem.’ ‘ut tu
semper eris derisor.’ ‘at omnes di exagitent me,
si quicquam.’ ‘quid? militibus promissa Triquetra
praedia Caesar an est Itala tellure daturus?’
iurantem me scire nihil mirantur ut unum
scilicet egregii mortalem altique silenti.13

In this passage of the Satires, it is easily observed that

rumour is used as information, but it needs reliable confirmation--
it is not a trustworthy source by itself. In this situation, Horace’s
acquaintances, knowing how close he was to Maecenas, ask him
to guarantee the information which came out of rumour. That
is, rumour may be untrue, true, or lack confirmation. It is worth
noticing that what Nisbet tells us:
An ancient reader would understand the urban environment,
and sympathise with the concern of the crowd. When
public life is conducted in the open air, ‘a chill rumour’ in
Horace’s phrase ‘seeps from street-corner to street-corner’
(Satires 2.6.50 frigidus a rostris manat per compita rumor). If
trouble came in the middle of the night, a public-spirited
or curious citizen went outside to see what was happening,
as when Propertius had a row with Cynthia (4.8.2). In
the alleys of an old city a crowd soon built up, and Cicero
needs only a few words to communicate a sense of crisis.
It is unlikely that he had precise evidence for the details,
but most readers would be content with an account that
seemed plausible in the situation. Much ancient oratory,
and history, is neither obviously true nor obviously false,
but a reasonable guess at the sort of thing that might well
have happened.14

13
Hor., Serm. 2.6..49-58.
14
Nisbet (1992, 8).
 A RUMOUR IN PROPERTIUS 43

Nisbet’s last statement (Much ancient oratory, and history,

is neither obviously true nor obviously false, but a reasonable guess
at the sort of things that might well have happened) seems to me
essential for understanding rumour among the Romans and
understanding how this social phenomenon passes through
various genres (in this case, the epistolary genre). I believe
that rumour is crucial in the construction of the verisimilitude
in Roman literature, even if such representation may distort
historical reality. Livy, when talking about Scipio’s disease, admits
that rumours may aid the anticipation of actual outcomes - as
a sort of trial balloon:
Scipio ipse graui morbo implicitus, grauiore tamen fama
cum ad id quisque quod audierat insita hominibus libidine
alendi de industria rumores adiceret aliquid, prouinciam
omnem ac maxime longinqua eius turbauit; apparuitque
quantam excitatura molem uera fuisset clades cum uanus
rumor tantas procellas exciuisset. non socii in fide, non
exercitus in officio mansit.15

Another point that this passage reveals is the proximity

between rumour and fama. It is common to associate fame
with something true, consolidated by public opinion. But in the
Roman World fama may be based on information without any
evidence – thus, it is unbelievable. OLD’s second definition of
fama puts it near hearsay, rumour, gossip – that is, we have the
same problem: we do not identify a trustworthy source. Another
detail that may help us see the difference between them is that
rumour is the result of rumination – linked to the sound animals
make when masticate (there is, then, a distinction between
rumour and fama). While fama is the product of a powerful voice
that replaces others by the presence of a second speaker – which

15
Liv. 28.24.
44 AUGUSTAN POETRY

may be society or a group -, rumour may seem the product of

a slow process of accumulation from one person to another.16
There is a passage in Julius Caesar about the proliferation
and the effects of rumours: Haec Afranius Petreiusque et eorum
amici pleniora etiam atque uberiora Romam ad suos perscribebant.
multa rumores adfingebant, ut paene bellum confectum videretur.17
Here, the rumour that is spread is false and produces a uisio, for
multa rumoures adfingebant. This same uisio, then, is associated
with political communication in the city of Rome, according
to Laurence, the results of the elections and the assemblies
seem to have been dependent on the political knowledge and
on the behavior of the Roman citizens informed by rumours
spread by word-of-mouth. Then: In this chain communication the
process was not lineal. Each time the information was conveyed to
another person that person interpreted and speculated about what the
information meant, prior to communicating with another person.18
The addressees would delete what was not important and would
emphasize what they believed was important, adding more
information than they possessed.
The term rumour among the elegists is very relevant,
especially in Propertius and in Ovid, 19 and to a lesser extent
in Tibullus too.20 In Propertius 1.5, for example, the “ego”,
addressing himself to Gallus – and this is very meaningful,
for the persona poetica Galo may be identified with the elegiac
poet – warns Cynthia that any track (uestigia) of her infidelity
will become rumour: quod si parua tuae dederis uestigia culpae,/
quam cito de tanto nomine rumor eris!,21 and still reaffirms that,

16
Bettini (2008, 361).
17
Caes., Ciu. 1. 53.
18
Laurence (1994, 63).
19
Prop. 1.5.26; 1.13.13; 2.18D.38; 2.32.24; 4.4.47 e 4.5.7. Ov., Ep. 16.141; Fast.
3.543; 4. 307; 6. 527; Trist. 3.12.43; Pont. 2.1.49; 3. 1. 82; 3.4.59; 4.4.19.
20
Tib. 3.20.1 e 3.20.4.
21
Prop. 1.5.25-26.
 A RUMOUR IN PROPERTIUS 45

in such a circumstance, he will only be able to offer a shoulder

for her to cry on. This situation shows how strong rumour
could be, especially if we think about the place where it is born
– nequitia--, an element that frames those elegiac actions. In
Propertius 1.13, the “ego”, before the same person, Gallus – says
he is an expert in matters of love and that this knowledge has
not come from bad rumour, nor from any omen. He says his
knowledge comes from seeing, and he asks Gallus whether he
has a witness that may refute him: haec ego non rumore malo,
non augure doctus;/ uidi ego: me quaeso teste negare potes? .22 Here
we find some shading of rumour--there may be a malus rumour
(but there may also be a bonus rumour). Malus rumour is parallel,
in fides, to the omen whose frailty is derived from the lack of
evidence (which is proved by line 14, with its uidi ego, that is,
the “ego” is the eyewitness of the events). This construction of
the verdict ascribed to the “ego” seems to me to be essential in
elegiac discourse; for, it effects truth (whose association with the
nomen Propertius contributes to verisimilitude, which confused
the critics so much).
For decades, scholars treated this law that is announced
in Propertius 2.7 as historical data, that is, as a poetic element,
which would reflect the specific reality of a biographical truth
of the elegiac personae. So, as Propertius is a historical fact in
the poems, Cynthia is a pseudonym for Hostia23 (following
Apuleius, Apol. 10). By this approach the revoked law in 2.7
would be social, institutional and legal data, which would frame

22
Prop. 1.13.13-14.
23
Wyke (1989, 35): “The Propertian elegiac narrative does not, then, celebrate
a Hostia, but creates a fictive female whose minimally defined status as mis-
tress, physical characteristics, and name are determined by the grammar of erotic
discourse in which she appears. The employment of terms like “pseudonym” in
modern critical discourse overlocks the positive act of creation involved in the
depiction of elegy’s mistresses. Therefore, when reading Augustan elegy, it seems
most appropriate to talk not of pseudonyms and poeticized girlfriends but of
poetic or elegiac woman.”
46 AUGUSTAN POETRY

those non-fictional characters. The anti-biographical criticism

of Allen,24 Veyne25 and Wyke26, - to which I subscribe27 -, rejects
this hypothesis– or, at least, minimized. If we do not take the
law as concrete and real, this elegy becomes fiction in totum.
However, I believe this anti-biographical interpretation may be
too extreme – converting the hypothetical law into a synthesis
of events and/or concrete aspirations of the historical moment
which reverberates in the elegiac discourse as verisimilitude in
the poetic grammar, a rumour, so to speak.
For example, Gordon Williams28 assumes a reckless posi-
tion, in my point of view, when he understands that Propertius is
a historical source for this law which would have been approved
(edicta) and revoked (sublata). On the one hand, it presupposes
the existence of the subject affected by a positive legal docu-
ment whose credibility is unquestionable and, on the other,
it disregards the generic expression of the literary text. Thus,
the lack of evidence about the law in historical sources argues
against the adamant position of Williams: The fact seems gene-
rally to have been suppressed and is missing in the main historical
sources.29 It seems obvious to me that the fact that there are not
any references about this law strengthens the possibility that
it has never existed formally. However, it is not safe to assume
that the discussion about the appropriateness and relevance of
this law in the period is unreasonable, since it is widely known
that there was an intention of restoration of the Republic’s
moral standards during the Augustan Principate,30 which will

24
Allen (1950).
25
Veyne (1983).
26
Wyke (2002).
27
Martins (2009); (2015a); (2015b).
28
Ver Goddard (1923, 153-6).
29
Williams (1962, 28).
30
Bowditch (2009, 403).
 A RUMOUR IN PROPERTIUS 47

publish in 18 and 17 BC,31 the Lex Iulia Maritandis Ordinibus

and Lex Iulia Adulteriis Coercendis, respectively, and in 9 AD, Lex
Papia Poppaea, laws.32 For, in the years preceding these laws, the
intention of moral reform, along with other effective political
actions of Octavius, may not constitute historical acts, but did
bolster the program of moralization of Rome. As for these laws
specifically, we have concrete information in Justinianus’ Digesta
23.2: De ritu nuptiarum, and 38.11: Vnde Vir et Vxor, and in the
Isidorus’ Origins.33 Their stories are not sufficiently clarified yet.
Del Castillo, besides defending, for example, the existence of the
28 BC law, draws a hypothesis that it would be more extensive
in marriage bans than the one from 18 BC, so that in addition
to prohibiting marriage between free men and courtesans or
actresses and between senators and freed women, it extended
the latter to equites.
More recently, and this may be significant, some scholars
continue taking as reasonable the thesis that Propertius is a
historical source and, therefore, the proposition that elegy 2.7
is the only source that has survived, despite severe criticism of
this thesis produced from the 1950’s on. Syndikus has already
warned us in this regard:
Octavian (...) there was also one that was intended to revive
the morality in marriage and family relations customary in
Ancient Rome. When this law caused resentment in the totally
changed society he withdrew the law, without, however,
abandoning his intention forever.34

31
Cohen (1990, 124).
32
See Frier; McGinn (2004, 34-9).
33
Isid. Orig. 5.15.1.
34
Sindikus, 2006, 260.
48 AUGUSTAN POETRY

The acceptance of the elegy as a document is grounded,

according to him, in the fragile argument of his opponents:35 “the
arguments (...) would have to be more convincing.” Interestingly,
I find it clear that it is precisely this scholar who does not
present more convincing arguments. Based on Williams,
Wallace - Hadrill said that the issue of laws that encouraged
procreation and ensured military power is explicitly clear in the
Augustan poets and, accordingly, presents as an illustration of
this argument this elegy of Propertius and Horace’s Ode 3.6.
However, he does not relativize the historical use of this poetic
source, as we should expect from the historian.36
Del Castillo also supports the hypothesis of the existence
of the 28 BC law, based on an argument formulated from Dio
Cassius,37 who, accustomed to the imperial constitutions, would
report as if the emperor legislated for himself. He, therefore,
makes reference to this Augustan legal project without specifying
it more clearly. He says only that Augustus had given orders that
provincial governors be elected by groups, except those who had
had some privilege as a result of marriage and descendants.38
The difficulty in finding a truth between historical and literary
sources is further complicated by legal sources, making it an
increasingly difficult discussion.39
Badian,40 when dealing with this law as a phantom law
of marriage, finds Gordon Williams and others’ arguments for
the existence of a law in 28, citing a passage in Tacitus, Annals
3.25, persuasive: Historically, serious discussion seems to have
come from the direction of Tacitus and only gradually moved to

35
Kienast (1982, 137 ss.) e Beck (2000, 303-24).
36
Wallace-Hadrill (2009, 251).
37
DC 53.13.2.
38
Del Castillo (2005, 180).
39
Raditsa (1980, 280).
40
Badian (1985, 82).
 A RUMOUR IN PROPERTIUS 49

Propertius. According to the author of the Annals, Rome sees,

in these first three years after Actium, the enactment of a series
of moralizing laws:
Relatum dein de moderanda Papia Poppaea, quam senior
Augustus post Iulias rogationes incitandis caelibum
poenis et augendo aerario sanxerat. nec ideo coniugia et
educationes liberum frequentabantur praeualida orbitate:
ceterum multitudo periclitantium gliscebat, cum omnis
domus delatorum interpretationibus subuerteretur,
utque antehac flagitiis ita tunc legibus laborabatur. ea res
admonet ut de principiis iuris et quibus modis ad hanc
multitudinem infinitam ac uarietatem legum peruentum
sit altius disseram.41

Tacitus continues forward:

sexto demum consulate Caesar Augustus, potentiae
securus, quae triumuiratu iusserat aboleuit deditque iura
quis pace et principe uteremur. acriora ex eo uincla, inditi
custodes et lege Papia Poppaea praemiis inducti ut, si
a priuilegiis parentum cessaretur, uelut parens omnium
populus uacantia teneret.42

The first passage in Tacitus points to a series of actions

that Octavius would have performed after their triumvirate.
However, at the end of his government they had not had the
desired effects, so Octavius revoked and created certain laws that
would afterwards need reforms, including those that regulated
celibacy and encouraged procreation. In the second passage,
such actions have their historical period, since they continue
into the sixth consulate. This would, therefore, be a period of
reformulation of customs and the creation of laws and taxes
that would have restored the moral standards of the Republic,
having had the effect needed at the time, while opening the way

41
Tac., Ann. 3.25.
42
Tac., Ann. 3.28.
50 AUGUSTAN POETRY

for the laws of 18 and 17 BC and 9 AD. About this historical

moment, Suetonius, in turn, approves:
Leges retractauit et quasdam ex integro sanxit, ut
sumptuariam et de adulteriis et de pudicitia, de ambitu, de
maritandis ordinibus. hanc cum aliquanto seuerius quam
ceteras emendasset, prae tumultu recusantium perferre non
potuit nisi adempta demum lenitaue parte poenarum et
uacatione trienni data auctisque praemiis.43

In this passage he leads the discussion of reforms to its

reception, and therefore, to its impact. Fundamentally, the idea
contained in the expression prae tumultu recusantium points to
it. That is, certain reforms carried to term in the sixth consulate
had to be revised almost immediately and, among them, the
laws of marriage, celibacy and procreation. This same expression
seems to me to be linked with the idea of rumour, since the
biographer does not specify clearly what kind of uprising, riots
or disorder they are and who effectively rejected the measures.
This inaccuracy, in my view, supports the idea that Octavius’
actions, not just a law, may have contributed to a rumour in
Rome.
In the preface of Ab urbe condita, Livy, when making a
referenceto the moral circumstances of the Republic, sums up
the period:
ad illa mihi pro se quisque acriter intendat animum,
quae uita, qui mores fuerint, per quos uiros quibusque
artibus domi militiaeque et partum et auctum imperium
sit; labente deinde paulatim disciplina uelut desidentes
primo mores sequatur animo, deinde ut magis magisque
lapsi sint, tum ire coeperint praecipites, donec ad haec
tempora quibus nec uitia nostra nec remedia pati possumus
peruentum est .44

43
Suet., Aug. 34.
44
Liv. 1 pr. 9-10.
 A RUMOUR IN PROPERTIUS 51

There is, in the sentence donec ad haec tempora quibus nec

uitia nostra nec remedies pati possumus peruentum est, an interesting
assessment of the late Republic and early Empire, since it reveals
the general circumstances and the moral issues which concerned
the social actors of the momentin Rome. It must be remembered
that the first five books of Livy were published between 27-25
BC, so the preface may be dated approximately to these years.
Collares, commenting on Livy ‘s preface, says: “the term remedia
appears as a representation of a specific context, suggesting, as has
envisaged Petersen (1961, 440), a veiled criticism to the set of reforms
articulated by Octavius, especially those proposed in the year 28 BC
concerning the moral precepts of marriage.”45 Curiously, although
Livy is composing History and Propertius Elegy, both of them
refer to the moral reforms with reservations, despite the fact that
both had access to power. Livy identifies two opposing ideas
--vices and cures for them--, noting that the Roman people can
endure neither. Propertius, in his turn, is happy with the uitia
and saddened by its end, the remedia. The fact is that, even if
they disagree about the vices, both disapprove of the measures
meant to solve them. Yet, for both authors, as in Suetonius, the
reference to reforms are veiled, not explicit, ensuring once again
some place to rumour.
Another historical source often alluded to, and which can
be taken as an argument in favor of the existence of this 28 BC
law, is an aureus coined in the same year, the sixth consulship
of Octavius. The artifact refers to the princeps’ restoration of a
law and a right, but we do not know which law it is and which
law was restored in this specific case. We have to consider
the changes in the political system, since we are in a time of
transition--the end of the triumvirate and the beginning of the
Principate (princeps senatus). New rights ask for new laws.

45
Collares (2010, 119-20).
52 AUGUSTAN POETRY

The reverse of this aureus (coined in the province of Asia)

is significant, since it shows us Octavius in his toga and sitting
at a curialis sella - the official seat of the higher judiciary, the
consulate - holding a uolumen of laws enacted by him, which
is confirmed by the legend LEGES ET IVRA P[OPVLO]
R[OMANO] RESTITVIT (‘He has restored to the People
of Rome their laws and their rights’). The obverse of the coin
features a typical legend, that is, IMP[ERATOR] CAESAR
DIVI F[ILIUS] (Emperor Caesar son of the divine), and the
date of the coin, i.e., VI COS - sixth consulate.46 Richardson
proposes a general thesis, and therefore not specific, to the
context of this currency when he argues that the coin refers
to a return to the old ways, marked by a series of actions –
symbolic ones, in my point of view.47 The return to normal
laws and the restitution of people’s rights in general (and not
by a specific law of adultery) are presented to the people in a
monetary form, in the formal register of legal jargon, so that
purely bureaucratic and informal events that would mark the
end of a regime receive a high, official tone. In a way, therefore,

46
See Rich; Williams (1999, 169-213); Martins (2011, 139-50). Hor., Carm. 4.15.
47
Richardson (2012, 85).
 A RUMOUR IN PROPERTIUS 53

we may link this information to rumours, especially because the

currency has a provincial coinage. When reading the term iura,
any Roman would understand the set of rights, duties, powers,
and obligations, that were related to him according to his place
in the civic community,48 the life in society returned to normal,
and then his group would have again their rights guaranteed.
This same use of a currency can be seen a few years earlier, when
Octavius issues a series of coins with the image of a comet that
was associated with deified Julius Caesar.49 So, in this case, a
planted rumour (b1) became propaganda.
Badian, although asserting that sublata lex refers to an
obsolete tax measure, and not to a “law,” as the poem suggests,
concludes that, based on historiographical information, we may
not say anything about the content of this legal document. In
particular, it is not possible to state how the taxes were assessed
for celibacy or on the absence of children. We do not know how
the uxorium aes worked. Could any censor take it, whenever he
wanted? Then, he adds: “Propertius’ whole elaboration in that
sense is mere poetic treatment: Dichtung and not Wahrheit”. Thus,
we should not expect: “an unreasonable amount of reality in
poetry”. After all, he continues:
critics and historians have perhaps been guilty of doing just
this: to deduce the nature and purpose of the law alluded to
from its treatment by the poet is not sound method either
literary or historical interpretation.50.

Finally, Galinsky, when dealing with the laws of 18 and 17

BC and AD 9, said this was a gradual process in order that they
be approved, as they were approved after some stages (including
the years 28 and 27, which were important). He continues to
present his position on Propertius 2.7: “Whether there was in

48
See Cizek (1990, 52-3).
49
See Gurval (1997) e Pandey (2013).
50
Badian (1985, 97-8).
54 AUGUSTAN POETRY

fact such a law has been a matter of heated controversy (Badian vs.
Williams). There are no references to it in other writers (…). This
indicates that such matters were certainly on his mind from early on.51
Interpretation of poetic references as historical ones,
in fact, can generate a double mistake: the poetic analysis is
restricted, or rather, subordinated, limiting the universal, to
paraphrase Aristotle in the Poetics,52 to what it was - as the
historical event loses its authority when it draws upon a genre
that deals with what could be.
Another biographical fact that is discussed in this elegy,
is the nominal reference to Octavius in vv . 5-6 and the value
judgment that the elegy may be making. As we have seen, there
are a few immediate implications made by the text; however,
two issues must be observed more carefully, not necessarily in
this order: the direct speech that opens the couplet; and the
existence or not of historical critics to Octavius through the kind
of analytic treatment that should be given to a poetic -historical
persona as Octavius which may be inferred from a poem.
The question of direct speech at magnus Caesar, despite
having been sidelined by Butler, Camps, Goold, Moya y Ruiz
Elvira, was discussed by Fedeli and Richardson, Jr. The latter
states: “the implication that Caesar sets out to outdo Jupiter in
these matters is light and deft. The speaker is still the poet; he is
simply quoting a catch phrase that lent itself to quotation with
either admiration or irony.”53 In this case, it is interesting to
associate this direct speech to the concept of rumour that I
mentioned before. Whether the statement can be read as an
ironic or admiring quotation, in both cases, it may just be a
rumour, reflecting current political opinion. In turn, Fedeli says:
“Properzio prevede una facile obiezione da parte di un interlocutore

51
Galinsky (1996, 131).
52
Arist, Poet. 1451a to 1452a.
53
Richardson, Jr (2006, 231)
 A RUMOUR IN PROPERTIUS 55

f ittizio (non certo da parte de Cinzia, che mal ci s’immagina

impegnata in una discussione sui massimi sistemi) ... .54 The same
argument can be associated with Fedeli´s statement, introducing
a fictional character to this party, which does not preclude, of
course, the character of rumour.
Boucher, in turn, reaffirms the biographical-referential
interpretation of Roman elegy: “mais il reste un point où Properce
s’est opposé au prince de façon visible et indiscutable; celui de la reform
des moeurs. Pour rester l’ amant of Cynthie refuse il le mariage et
la paternité, il refuse to donner des soldats à sa patrie.”55 Stahl also
has a contrary position: “this ( ... ) does not (yet) change Propertius
‘ stand (as expressed in 2.7) against authoritarian interference with
his personal and poetic sphere to the pro-Augustan position”.56 Both
Stahl ‘s and Boucher’s views endorse biographical readings,
support the invariance of types or genres of discourse, poetry
or prose, undermine the detail of specific textualities of poetic
discourse, giving it possibilities that were not foreseen and
removing from it its fictional character.
Gale notes that there are a variety of interpretations of 2.7
--both pro- and anti-Augustan.57 Thus, pro-Augustan readings,
as Cairns’ (2007), and anti-Augustan, as Lyne’s (1980) and
Stahl’s (1985), are controversial. Gale finds attractiveness and
weaknesses in both, for example, arguing that this poem shares
general and strategic errors in the treatment of militia amoris. The
poet, according to her, is neither in favor nor against Augustus,
for he is interested in presenting ambivalence to the reader. We
are asked to decide which parts are sincere:
The literary and political (or ideological) levels of
meaning are not separable, and we should not simply

54
Fedeli (2005, 228).
55
Boucher (1980, 135).
56
Stahl (1985, 162).
57
Gale (1997, 78-9).
56 AUGUSTAN POETRY

dismiss Propertius’ use of the militia amoris, and his

anti-establishment stance more generally, as literary
conventions. On the other hand, the very overt ‘literariness’
of elegy opens up levels of irony which make it impossible
(or at least inadequate) to regard the poet as offering us a
straightforward ideological program or political message.58

Dealing with the general issue involving the relationship

between writers and the princeps, Heyworth contributes much
when pointing to an argument about the Ovidian text and its
modern reception. He says that, while an ancient poet could
not have total control over the reception of his texts, it does
not mean that he has written it without any specific intention.
He also informs us that, in his attempt to rebuild the sense
of several poems by Propertius, he assumes that they were
originally written by a single individual, whose character and
attitudes had a consistency and unity similar to what we expe-
rience within ourselves, either through personal knowledge or
by other means. His poetry expresses a façade and an identity
with a name, Propertius. The attitudes of this persona are soon
established initially, leading us to interpret whatever he wrote
from the perspective of an elegiac lover.59
A possible relationship between the princeps, the elegiac
poet and the Leges Iuliae is presented by Della Corte. First, it
is shown that the main feature of these laws is to treat celibacy,
that is, the singleness of Roman citizens. It states that if the
single man did not marry because of a desire for chastity, there
would be nothing wrong. However, many of them did so in
order to have a concubine per sfogare così la propria immonda
libidine, hindering the country’s ability to survive in the future.
In this sense, the laws of moral austerity, before worrying about
morality, were founded on population growth. Hence, one of its
precepts was to reduce the marriageable age of puellae. Augustus

58
Gale, 1997, 91).
59
Heyworth (2007a, 94-5).
 A RUMOUR IN PROPERTIUS 57

was actually worried as pochi intendessero sposarsi and pochissimi

volessero mettere figli al mondo.60 It is precisely these men, or at
least the image of these young people to which the elegiac lover
refers and, hence, by similarity, to the elegiac poet himself. It is
around these elements that Della Corte mistakenly proposes
that the Roman elegiac poets refused the cursus honorum and
the subsequent military involvement and declared themselves
pacifists. They also endured infamy while continuing to live next
to their own dona or puella.
The fact that Gale’s statement somehow considers the
position of Cairns does not make it less reasonable; however, her
second position is closer to mine. For, I start from the premise
that we must reject the tacit assumption underlying many inter-
pretations-- that Propertius’ poemsare equivalent to, or at least
can be equated with confessional statements, with a journal, or
even with a communicative practice of single recipient - there-
fore, absolutely personal and real. Rather, the elegy is directed
to a wider audience than their nominal recipients - all very well
constructed - and it is necessary for the poet to adopt and adapt
its elegiac persona to the appropriate set of elegiac conventions,
assuming specific res and uerba. It is precisely in this sense that
Cairns proposes a a constructed persona, adapted to the precon-
ditions of his own speech.61 This persona, completely built from
the first book, maintains a clear relationship with Augustus.
If there is an explicitly ethical construction around the
elegiac self, despite the nominal identification, and, therefore,

60
Della Corte (1982, 540-2).
61
Cairns (2006, 322): his solution was to depict himself as an unhappy lover of
an ‘antisocial’ cast, disliking war, reluctant to marry, and generally shirking civic
obligations. Johnson (2014, 43): The Propertian lover is not a husband and not a
father, nor is he cursed with that patriarchal temper, so revered in the past, one
of whose chief obligations is to keep control of one’s women (wives, daughters,
concubines). Rather, he is – or pretends to be – not the master of his mistress
but her slave, and that voluntary (and unreal) slavery allows him to claim that he
has liberated himself from the stern voices of the implacable fathers.
58 AUGUSTAN POETRY

historical construction, one has to understand Propertius as a

hybrid and liminal figure, whose way of being simultaneously
embraces two different worlds: the rumour and the reality,
without either one moving away from the verisimilar at any time.
It seems to me that the other equally historical figures, which are
targets of the elegiac texts, such as Gallus, Ponticus, Maecenas,
Caesar, or Tullus, undergo the same process of composition. So,
the essentially poetic mechanism, in this sense, takes advantage
of the given framework, i.e., the historical nomen, and applies to
it elegiac colors and flavors - be they lyrical, satirical, epistolary,
epic, etc. Even though Maecenas and Augustus are present in
the elegy as historical characters, or historically guided, their
êthe present themselves as contaminated, so to speak, by generic
fictionality of the elegy itself and this fictionality is recognized
by the audience, at least since Catullus. Octavius, being part of
that cultured and literate reception, recognizes «his elegiac role,»
and is aware of the general dimension of this kind of poetry.
He realizes the distinction between the princeps who proposes
to carry out the moral reforms in the future (after Actium) and
the rebellious young lovers accustomed to the elegiac demi-
monde, who opposed the reform and participated in the rumores
surrounding the moralization of Rome.
The politicization of the elegiac poets as pro-Augustan
or anti-Augustan, therefore, is a mistake because, I believe, the
presence of historical facts and characters does not endorse this
genre as concrete and real testimony. The most we can ask of this
genre as a source of concrete evidence is to treat them as rumores,
that is, conjectural evidence as presented in the Rhetorica ad
Herenium62 and referenced, for example, in practical perspective
by Cicero in Pro Caelio.63. Soon, any opinions proposed in elegies
in relation to an Augustan policy should not refer poetic ego

62
Her. 2.11.
63
See Dufallo (2000, 121) and Fear (2005, 14-7).
 A RUMOUR IN PROPERTIUS 59

utterance as for or against someone. But this selection must be

made by text reception, reaffirming what Monica Gale said, as
we have seen.
Thus answering the questions that I proposed, we
understand that referential information of historical events
presented in this elegy should be approached carefully and with
attention, as they are not supported by positive historical sources.
Such an idea may only be considered as something credibly
founded in rumour which, as we have seen, can be of service
to a dominant group (b1), or, otherwise, occur spontaneously
as explanation of public opinion or latent opinion (b2). In
the specific case of the law presented as a motivator of happy
and unhappy conditions of the poeticae personae, Cynthia and
Propertius, even if it is clear that, in Octavius’s political objectives
after 31 BC., there is a intention of restoring Republican moral
values, it is certain that there are also not any record of laws that
condemn adultery and, at the same time, encourage procreation,
such as the Julian laws of 17 and 18 BC, or even the Papia Poppea
of 9 AD, with the exception of\ a coin which prevents us from
confirming any data regarding these laws or rights stated in the
legend Leges et Iura restituit.
So, when using elegiac poetry as a historical source, we
may understand that disagreement over Octavius’s project of
moralization does not enjoy unanimous support among citizens,
while Elegy represents a credible opposition in the form of
the elegiac personae in Rome. It also reveals a potential public
opinion about Augustan moral policies in the years that follow
Actium.
The second aspect to which supposedly we have access in
the elegy would be Propertius’ anti-Augustan position – when
he proposes two peremptory statements: a) The denial of a
supreme power to Caesar, saying that he has no power over
love and b) The recusatio of children to add to the legions of
Rome. Although consider Octavius an unquestionable historical
60 AUGUSTAN POETRY

figure and not merely a poetic character, the genre makes certain
demands. For example, the Persona Octavius must, because of
the genre, favor the expansion of the empire, while Propertius
and Cynthia should be against the actions that separate the
lovers under the government. This opposition does not reflect,
therefore, Propertius’ actual opposition regarding Octavius, but
it is a scenario necessary to the elegiac genre.
We must also remember that recusatio was more than
a simple assumption of callimachean style. It was part of the
social theater of Rome in the period. The social actors are,
therefore, willing to produce their recusationes, even if under
the power of the princeps. Augustus himself, well exemplified
by Freudenburg, was fruitful in recusationes - imperii recusatio
- that could safely be read along with the recusationes by poets
of literary circles close to him. The proposition undermines
Propertius’s anti-augustan position, since it was a procedure
widely used by Augustus. In this sense, Octavius is fully aware
of the poetic conventions inherent to the genre.
The third issue to be taken up, in conclusion, is the role
of most poetry, including Roman erotic elegy, as a reflection
of historical and cultural circumstances. We must always keep
in mind that poetry is not the genre that serves historical
record -- other genres have been formulated for this purpose.
This seems to have been surpassed at least since Aristotle’s
Poetics, as we have seen. However, it is undeniable that ancient
poetry is full of social and cultural characteristics suited to an
ideal reader’s opinions and lifestyle. This ideal reader acts as
enunciator, receiver and its first translator, so to speak/in a sense.
It is this necessary and privileged interpreter, whom the elegy
of Propertius, therefore, addresses in the voice ofthe a type of
man who is fully immersed in the present state of affairs. That
is, his lifestyle is reflected by the elegiac lover and, accordingly,
any measures that may oppose his modus uiuendi will be
resisted (?).
 A RUMOUR IN PROPERTIUS 61

Propertius 2.7 represents this particular vision, not

as accurate historical record of an event, but as a believable
perspective that may be important for us to understand. Treating
Propertius 2.7 as a particular way of seeing the world allows us
to study the Roman world not as a monolithic block, but as a
sum of characteristics including loving untruths that run into
everyday truths, producing a border genre.

References
Allen, A. W. 1950. ‘Sincerity’ and the Roman Elegists. In: CPh, 45, 3, 145-
60. [<http://www.jstor.org/stable/266153>]
Allport, G. W.; Postman, L. 1946-7. An Analysis of Rumor. In: The Public
Opinion Quarterly, 10, 4, 501-517. [DOI: 10.1093/poq/10.4.501]
Badian, E. 1985. A Phanton Marriage Law. In: Philologus, 129, 82-98.
[DOI: 10.1524/phil.1985.129.12.82]
Beck, M. 2000. Properzens Elegie 2, 7 und die augusteische Gesetzgebung.
In: Philologus, 144, 303-24. [DOI: 10.1524/phil.2000.144.2.303]
Bettini, M. 2008. Weighty Words, Suspect Speech: Fari in Roman Culture.
In: Arethusa, 41, 2, 313-375. [DOI: 10.1353/are.0.0000].
Bordia, P.; Di Fonzo, N.. 2004. Problem Solving in Social Interactions on
the Internet: Rumor as Social Cognition. In: Social Psychology Quarterly, 67,
1, 33-49. [DOI: 10.1177/2F019027250406700105]
Boucher, J.-P. 1965, 1980. Études sur Properce. Problèmes d’Inspiration e
d’Art. 2a ed. Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard.
Bowditch, L. 2009. Palatine Apollo And The Imperial Gaze: Propertius 2.31
and 2.32. In: AJPh, 130, 3, 401-438. [DOI: 10.1353/ajp.0.0064]
Butler, H. E. 1905. Sexti Properti Oera Omnia with a Commentary.
London: Archibald Constable & CO. LTD.
Cairns, F. 1979. Propertius on Augustus’ Marriage Law (II,7). In: Cairns,
F.. 2007. Papers on Roman Elegy (1969-2003). Bologna: Eikasmos, Pàtron
Editore: 141-55. [=Grazer Beiträge 8, (1979):185-204].
______. 2006. Sextus Propertius. The Augustan Elegist. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
62 AUGUSTAN POETRY

Cohen, D. 1991. The Augustan Law on Adultery. In: Kertzer, D. I.; Saller,
R. P., eds. 1991. The Family in Italy. From Antiquity To The Present.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 109-126.
Camps, W. A. 1966. Propertius Elegies Book II. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Collares, M. A. 2010. Representações do Senado Romano na Ab urbe Condita
de Tito Lívio. Livros 21-30. São Paulo: Cultura Acadêmica Editora
Cizek, E. 1990. Mentalités et institutions politiques romaines. Paris: Fayart
Della Corte, F. 1982. Le Leges Iuliae e l’elegia romana. In: ANRW, II.30,
1, 539-558
Del Castillo, A. 2005. “En Torno a la Problemática sobre la Condición
Jurídica de Cynthia, Musa de Propercio” In: Ibañez, J. Ma. N. (2005).
Estudios sobre la Mujer en la Cultura Griega y Latina. León: Universidad
de León: 179-91.
Dufallo, B. 2001. ‘Appius’ Indignation: Gossip, Tradition, and Performance
in Republican Rome. In: TAPhA, 131, 119-142. [DOI: 10.1353/
apa.2001.0005]
Fear, T. 2005. Propertian Closure. In: Ancona, R.; Greene, E., eds. 2005.
Gendered Dynamics in Latin Love Poetry. Baltimore: The Jonhs Hopkins
University Press, 13-40.
Fedeli, P. 1984. Sexti Properti Elegiarum Libri IV. Edidit Paulo Fedeli.
Studigardiae: in Aedibus B. G. Teubneri.
______. 2005. Properzio Elegie Libro II. Introduzione, testo e Commento.
Cambridge: Francis Cairns.
Freudenburg, K. 2014. Recusatio as Political Theatre: Horace’s Letter
to Augustus. In: JRS, 104, 1-28. DOI: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S007543581300124X>.
Frier B. W.; McGinn, T. A. J. 2004. A casebook on Roman family law
(Classical resources series / American Philological Association; no. 5).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Gale, M.R. 1997. Propertius 2.7: Militia Amoris and the Ironies of Elegy
in JRS, 87: 77-91. [DOI: 10.2307/301370]
Galinsky, K. 1969. The Triumph Theme in Augustan Elegy. In: WS 82,
75-107.
______. 1996. Augustan Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
 A RUMOUR IN PROPERTIUS 63

Giardina, G. 2010. Elegie. Properzio. Pisa & Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore.
Goddard, E. H. 1923. Propertius, Cynthia, and Augustus. In: CR 37,7-8,
153-6. [DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00085152]
Goold, G. P. 1990. Propertius Elegies. Cambridge, Mass. & London:
Harvard University Press.
Gontijo Flores, G. 2014. Elegias de Sexto Propércio. Belo Horizonte:
Autêntica.
Gurval, R. A. 1997. Caesar’s Comet: The Politics and Poetics of an Augustan
Myth. In: MAAR, 42, 39–71. [<http://www.jstor.org/stable/4238747>]
Heyworth, S. J. 2007a. Propertius, Patronage and Politics. In: BICS 50:
93-128. [DOI: 10.1111/j.2041-5370.200.tb00266.x]
______. 2007b. Sexti Properti Elegos. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
______. 2007c. Cynthia. A Companion to the Text of Propertius. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Johnson, W. R. 2012. Propertius. In: Gold, B. K., ed. A Companion to
Roman Love Elegy. Malden: Wiley & Blackwell: 39-52.
Kienast, D. 1982. Augustus. Princeps und Monarch. Darmstadt: Philipp
von Zabern.
Laurence, R. 1994. Rumour and Communication in Roman Politics. In:
G&R, 41, 1, 62-74. [DOI: 10.1017/S0017383500023214]
Lyne, R.O. A. M. 1980. The Latin Love Poets from Catullus to Horace.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Martins, P. 2009. Elegia Romana. Construção e Efeito. São Paulo:
Humanitas. [DOI:10.13140/2.1.3644.9605]
______. 2011a. Breve história da crítica da Literatura Latina in Classica
(Brasil) 21, 2, 189-204.
______. 2011b. Imagem e Poder. Considerações sobre a Representação de
Otávio Augusto. São Paulo: EDUSP. [DOI: 10.13140/2.1.3959.5844]
______. 2015a. O jogo elegíaco: fronteiras entre a cultura intelectual
e a f icção poética. In: Nuntius Antiquus, 11, 1, 137-172 [DOI:
10.17851/1983-3636.11.1.137-172]
______. 2015b. Sobre a metapoesia em Propércio e na poesia erotica romana:
o poeta rufião, Classica (Brasil), 28, 1, 125-159
Moya, F.; Ruiz de Elvira, A.. 2001. Propercio Elegias. Intoducción,
Traducción y Notas (Fedeli, 1984 com alterações). Madrid: Cátedra.
64 AUGUSTAN POETRY

Nascimento, A. A.; Pimentel, M. C.; Alberto, P. F.; Segurado e Campos,

J. A.. 2002. Propércio Elegias. Texto Latino e Introdução de Paolo Fedeli.
Assis e Lisboa: Accademia Properziana del Subasio e Centro de Estudos
Clássicos da Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa.
Nisbet, R. G. M.. 1992. The Orator And The Reader: Manipulation and
Response in Cicero’s Fifth Verrine. Woodman, T.; Powell, J.. Author and
audience in Latin literature, 1-17.
Pandey, N. B. . 2013. Caesar’s Comet, the Julian Star, and the Invention of
Augustus. In: TAPhA, 143, 405–449.
Petersen, H..1961. Livy and Augustus. In: TPAPhA, 92, 440-452.
Peterson, W. A.; Gist, G. P.. 1951. Rumor and Public Opinion. In: American
Journal of Sociology, 57, 2, 159-167. [DOI:10.1086/220916]
Raditsa, L. F.. 1980. Augustus’ Legislation Concerning Marriage, Procreation,
Love Affairs and Adultery. In: ANRW, 2, 13, 278-339.
Rich, J.; Williams, J. H. C.. 1999. LEGES ET IVRA P.R. RESTITVIT. A
new aureus of Octavian and the Settlement of 28-27 B.C.. In: Numismatic
Chronicle, 5, 159, 169-213.
Richardson, J. S.. 2012. Augustan Rome. 44 BC to 14 AD. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Richardson, Jr., L.. 1977. Propertius Elegies I-IV. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press & American Philological Association.
Rosnow, R. L.; Kimmel, A. J.. 2000. Rumor in Encyclopedia of Psychology,
Vol. 7, edited by Alan E. Kazdin. New York: Oxford University Press:
122-23.
Shackleton Baley, D. R.. 1956. Propertiana. Cambridge: At The University
Press.
Sindikus, H. P.. 2006. The second Book in Günther, H.-Ch., ed. 2006. Brill’s
Companion to Propertius. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 246-318.
Smith, W.. 1875. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. London:
John Murray.
Stahl, H.-P.. 1985. Propertius: Love and War. Individual and State Under
Augustus. Berkeley: University California Press.
Veyne, P.. 1983. L’élégie érotique romaine. Paris: Le Seuil.
______. 1985. A Elegia Erótica Romana. O Amor, a Poesia e o Ocidente.
São Paulo: Brasiliense.
 A RUMOUR IN PROPERTIUS 65

Viarre, S. 2005. Properce Élégies. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Wallace-Hadrill, A.. 2009. Family and Inheritance in the Augustan
Marriage Laws. In: Edmondson, J.. 2009. Augustus. Edinburgh Readings
on Ancient World. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. [=PCPhS,
27 (1981): 58-80.]
Williams, G.. 1962. Poetry in the Moral Climate of Augustan Rome. In:
JRS, 52, 28-46. [DOI: 10.2307/297875]
Wyke, M.. 1989. Mistress as Metaphor in Augustan Elegy. In: Helios 16,
25-47.
______. 1989b. In pursuit of love, the poetic self and a process of reading:
Augustan elegy in the 1980s. In: JRS, 79, 167-8. [DOI: 10.2307/301188]