Propertius Tragicus: Ennian Allusion in Propertius

Christopher V. Trinacty (Amherst College)

Ennius’ influence on Augustan elegy has been underestimated because of the fragmentary nature of his extant poetry. Jocelyn (1969), Miller (1983), and Goldberg (“Cicero and the Work of Tragedy”, 2000) have noted the fundamental importance of Ennian tragedy on later poetry while admitting that “recognizing tragic references and tragic allusions for what they are can be difficult” (Goldberg, 54). This paper shows how the figure of Ennius works both as a representative of the old style of epic poetry from which Propertius wishes to distinguish himself, while also pointing out moments of intertextuality between Propertius’ elegies and Ennius’ tragic works. While the epic Ennius may have represented an unattractive genre for emulation, the tragic figures of Ennius’ plays resonated with Propertius’ elegiac persona, and helped to highlight the emotional coloring of his poetry (cf. Von Albrecht, 1997 for the differences between Ennius’ epic and tragic works).

Propertius mentions Ennius by name twice in his poetry, each time in the context of a recusatio, indicating the differences between Ennius’ work and his own elegies. At 3.3.6, Ennius is representative of historical epic (Annales), a type of poetry which Phoebus dissuades Propertius from pursuing. In this book, Propertius emphasizes his position as a Roman Callimachus, and, as Callimachus distanced himself from epic, so Propertius will act similarly. In 4.1, Propertius indicates that he will sing about the aetiology of the city of Rome (sacra deosque canam et cognomina prisca locorum, 69), and remarks that his poetry will differ from Ennius’ (Ennius hirsuta cingat sua dicta corona, 61). Once again, the Callimachean nature of this project differs from the epic work of Ennius’ Annales, just as Propertius’ ivy crown bestowed by Bacchus (62) differs from Ennius’ shaggy (hirsuta) mark of honor.

Propertius’ knowledge of Ennius’ work extends to his tragedies, but without the same divisive spirit. Ennius’ Medea Exul may be behind the first lines of the first poem of Propertius’ Monobiblos: Cynthia prima suis miserum me cepit ocellis, / contactum nullis ante cupidinibus (1.1.1-2). In Ennius’ play, the Nurse claims, Cupido cepit miseram nunc me proloqui / caelo atque terrae Medeai miserias (frag. 222-3, Jocelyn). Linguistic parallels (cupido, cepit, miseram, me) indicate a thematic connection, as both Properitus’ poetic ego and the Nurse must detail the sufferings that Love has caused. Why Medea? I believe Propertius is highlighting parallels with Ennius’ play at the start of the poem to help the reader understand a later mention of witches (1.1.19-24), which may allude to Medea (Cytinaeis, cf. Fedeli, 1980 ad loc). In 1.1, Propertius wishes to detail “the poet’s loneliness in a private world hedged about in fear of the intrusion of strangers and the loss of the beloved” (Richardson, 1977 ad loc), and the intertextual source reveals an unlikely comparanda in the figure of Medea. Both have recourse to song to influence their beloveds, but in decidedly different ways.

Propertius’ view of Ennius was clearly two-sided. As a representative of the older school of epic poetry, Ennius was a figure that the neoteric Propertius wished to downgrade. But Propertius also recognized that the emotional depth and learned nature of his tragic characters could be useful in the construction of his allusive, Callimachean poetry. In this guise, Ennius acts as a predecessor and intertextual source for Propertius’ elegies.