The Screen and Sign of Desire:
Propertius 4.1.70 and the Meta Sudans

Richard J. King (Ball State University)

Propertius 4.1 portrays cultural conflict between the poet celebrating Rome’s rebirth under Augustus (1-70) and Horos, a foreign astrologer warning the elegist to restrict himself to elegy’s fallax opus, its erotic castra (71-150).  Previous scholars describe this contrast (e.g. Welch), but have not observed that line 70 at the interchange between the two speakers portrays this conflict through allusion to the Meta Sudans, a little known fountain in the form of a pointed pillar at the heart of Rome.  While some would divide 4.1a and b (Murgia), this paper suggests that this allusion to the Meta figures a symbolic axis (“quilting point”) in Rome’s symbolic landscape: behind symbolic stability, however, the monument intimates cultural incongruities within Rome, but also in Propertian elegy between his new patriotic program for Book 4 and desire, essential to Roman elegy.

The paper adopts a Lacanian approach to 4.1 (cf. Janan 2001) that assumes that parts of Book 4 (esp.4.1.1-70, 4.6, 4.11) herald patriotic celebration of Augustan rule, while repressed desires or longing, as Horos warns (4.1.71-150), return from behind this symbolic “screen” of order (cf. the Lena’s ghost, 4.5; Cynthia’s ghost 4.7; Tarpeia’s tomb, 4.4).  Suppressed desires are traceable behind surface patriotism through symptoms in language.  The paper examines 4.1.70 as an example: visual-auditory plays signal conflict between Propertius’ projected patriotic screen (expressed aims) and desires behind it. 

After presenting these assumptions, the paper interprets the play of sound around the caesura of line 70 (closing Propertius’ speech) as “echoed” in Greek-speaking Horos’ (mis-) interpretation of the elegist’s Latin.  Horos’ first statement (Quo ruis imprudens, vage 71) identifies Propertius as “rushing” – relevant if Horos has heard in metas-sudet something like mete/ssuto (metaseu/omai “to rush towards”).  Deliberately or not, Horos’ miscue “observes” Propertius’ vocal “liason” across a caesural (pentameter) pause to form metassudet around a metrical “turning post.”  Horos’ linguistic “mistake” provides, deliberately or not, a Greek interpretation of Propertius’ name from properare.  Finally, Horos’ Greek name means “boundary”; metae were horoi, boundary marker in centuriated land.

Next, powerpoint maps and pictures supplement explanation of why this wordplay is relevant.  Liaison between metas and sudet “screens” the divide in the final pentameter of Propertius’ discourse by alluding to the Meta Sudans, a tall conical fountain at the center of Rome.  Recent excavations (Panela) show this monument, once considered Domitianic, had an Augustan phase and stood at the center of 4 (possibly 5) regions in Augustus’ reorganized city.  Also it stood at the Curiae Veteres, assembly ground of the old tribal units in Romulus’ city important in 4.1a.  Finally, Augustus was born at the Curiae Veteres.  So, Propertius alludes to the Meta Sudans at a climactic moment, when he is declaring his “topographic” program for an innovative book of civic elegies (69-70): the Meta Sudans marks the center of an ideological screen depicting rebirth of Rome under Augustus and projecting reformation of elegiac aims.

But Horos’ warning offers a counter-symbol.  The paper concludes by tentatively arguing that Propertius’ metas (70) alludes to obelisks.  Obeliskos is a Greek word, not used in Latin until Pliny (36.64); but meta supplies a gloss (cf. Amm. 17.4.7).  Horos seems Greco-Egyptian, via his descent from Conon (78), the astrologer who identified the Coma Berenices comet (Cat. 66.7-14).  Finally, his name recalls Horos the god of Pharonic rule, appearing as a falcon atop each column of hieroglyphics on obelisks.  Uncannily named, Horos speaks at a well-timed moment.  Declaring his thematic “circus” metae (70; rituals, festivals and ancient place names 69), the poet appeals for divine favor: “May a bird sing favorably upon my undertakings!” (68)  Horos then conveys Greco-Roman Apollo’s warning (73, 133; cf. Apollo in Propertius’ recusatio 3.3) that desire will return within Propertius’ patriotic elegies.