Propertius 3.1.27

Abstract

The paradosis of Propertius 3.1.27: Idaeum Simoenta Iouis (cunabula parui) is either lacunose (N) or nonsensical (all other manuscripts). Gustav Wolff 's celebrated. . . cum prole Scamandro runs against objections in terms of paleographical verisimilitude, intertextual relevance, and conformity with elegiac diction. This paper provides arguments in favor of. . . ruisse in pabula parta , which echoes two Homeric passages ( Il . 5.773-7, 12.19-22) while pointing, intertextually, to Lucretius and the archaic forms of epic poetry. Paleographically, ruisse in pabula parta can easily have yielded Iouis cunabula parua . Moreover, Petrarch's use of cunabula parua in 1342 suggests that his (lost) copy of Propertius, and the (now incomplete) manuscript A from which it was made in 1333, bore parua . If parui is a later correction, the standard theory, according to which the manuscript tradition of Propertius divides into the N and A families, is vindicated against the alternative theory recently put forward by James L. Butrica and Stephen J. Heyworth.