The Propertii

Home , Perusia

Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-86457-2 - Sextus Propertius the Augustan Elegist Francis Cairns Excerpt More information

CHAPTER 1

The Propertii

It was once standard for commentaries and monographs on Greek and Roman poets to start with biographies, which drew, often uncritically, on the apparently personal revelations in their subjects’ works, and which usually gave credence to ancient Lives where they existed.1 Propertius did not escape such biographical treatment, even though no ancient Life of him survives.2 The Renaissance fantasized freely about him;3 and his name, birthplace, birth and early years, liaisons with Cynthia (and Lycinna!), and links with contemporaries continued to fill scholarly introductions up to the mid-twentieth century.4 The last fifty years have seen a retreat from the excesses of such biographies, and for good reasons: ancient poets’ accounts of their personal ex- periences are now generally recognized as actually or potentially con- ventional and fictional;5 and the limited credibility of ancient Lives of poets is now well understood.6 But, while the virtual disappearance of the biographical fallacy and the emergence of a more sophisticated approach to ancient biographical information are both welcome, another concomitant trend is not. This is a tendency to neglect the facts

1 For the acme (or nadir) of such biographizing see Becker (1898), combining a sentimental and novelistic ‘life’ of C. Cornelius Gallus (3–147) with useful Realien (151–523). 2 He is unlikely to have featured in Suetonius’ De Poetis (cf. Rostagni (1964) xxiii–xxiv), perhaps because he was not popularly regarded as the leading Roman elegist: cf. Quint. Inst. Orat. 10.1.93. 3 Cf. Pizzani (1996). 4 Cf., e.g., Butler and Barber (1933) xviii–xxv – ‘The Life of Propertius’ under the subheadings ‘His name’, ‘His birthplace’, ‘Birth and early years’, ‘The liaison with Cynthia’, and ‘The poet and his contemporaries’; for similar material in analogous cate- gories cf. Ch. I (De Properti vita = I.3–16) of the Prolegomena of Enk (1946). Rothstein (1920–4) I.1–14 also treats Propertius’ life and writings, but more soberly. 5 See below, pp. 66–8. This has long been generally understood: cf., e.g., already K. F. Smith (1913) 26–9, 43–58. Among recent reiterations of the unhistorical nature of Propertius’ Cynthia see, e.g., Newman (1997) Ch. 7. 6 Thanks in particular to Fairweather (1974) and Lefkowitz (1981). 1

2 SEXTUS PROPERTIUS, THE AUGUSTAN ELEGIST

of ancient poets’ lives, and even to deny that they have value for the understanding of the poets’ works. There are of course notable ex- ceptions to this trend: for example, among Republican and Augustan Latin poets Catullus has been well served,7 and Ovid, because of the wealth of autobiographical and contemporary material in his poetry, has attracted major scholarly attention to his life and historical background.8 But more such attention would have been welcome as a pre- liminary to the finest commentaries on Horace’s Odes 1 and Proper- tius’ Monobiblos,9 particularly since they do comment meticulously and in detail on the historical aspects of individual poems. With authors such as Horace and Propertius the tendency goes no further than relative neglect. But outright denial reveals itself nakedly and unashamedly in an important study by a leading Virgilian scholar who writes: ‘If we turn out to know next to nothing of Virgil’s “life and times”, that matters little if at all to our understanding of the poetry’.10 Experience with an ancient writer distant in time and location from Propertius but not alien to him suggests that this last attitude is an impediment to progress: in the case of Callimachus, investigations into his antecedents and social standing have thrown much new light on his works.11 Propertius’ interactions with some of the leading figures of his age also feature in his poetry, and, if anything, his life and ambience impinge more sharply on it. So, if Propertius’ background can be further investigated, refusal to do so risks depriving Propertian exegesis of valuable new insights. Three additional reasons further authorize such an investigation: first, up-to-date, detailed discussions of Propertius’ life and background are unavailable;12 second, there exists epigraphic, archaeo- logical, and historical evidence relevant to the poet and his context which has been under-exploited of late by Propertian scholarship;13 and third, even known facts about Propertius familiar to earlier

7 See esp. Wiseman (1969); (1974); (1979); (1985). 8 Esp. Syme (1978). 9 I.e. Nisbet and Hubbard (1970); Fedeli (1980). 10 Horsfall in Horsfall (1995) 1. 11 Meillier (1979); Cameron (1995) Ch. 1; S. A. White (1999). 12 The best post-1960 treatment is La Penna (1977) 5–15 (with bibliography), the best earlier account Rothstein (1920) I.1–14. 13 Among older Propertian scholars Hertzberg (1843–5) I.3–12 assembled such material, but among more recent commentators and monographists only Rothstein (1920) I.1–14 and Enk (1946) I.3–5 show more than mild interest in it. It naturally features more largely in such works as Elisei (1916) and Fortini (1931), where its main function is to support Assisi’s claim to be the ‘patria di Properzio’.

1. THE PROPERTII 3

scholarly generations seem to be fading from currency as a result of the curiously casual attitude of some recent Propertian scholars to- wards Propertius’ vita. For example, Propertius has in the last few decades been allocated at least four different birthplaces.14 One scholar (on no grounds whatsoever) has him born in Urvinum Hor- tense.15 Another, without citing any evidence, writes of ‘Perusia, the home of Propertius’s family’,16 a view which is, of course, incom- patible with Propertius’ own clear statements (quoted below) that he was born in Umbria.17 ‘Mevania [modern Bevagna], the birthplace of Propertius’ asserts a third scholar.18 The communis opinio, repeated by a fourth scholar, ‘Propertius in fact came from Assisi’,19 is correct. The confusion has, of course, been fostered from the Renaissance on by the local patriotism of various towns in the region of Assisi;20 but Propertian scholars once knew better. Propertian scholars also agreed not so long ago on another point, that the relative social standing of the poet and the ‘Tullus’ to whom he dedicated four elegies of Book 1 and one of Book 3 meant that (Volcacius) Tullus was Propertius’ patron in the Monobiblos. Of late, however, there has been dissension in print over this question: in addition to reassertions of this, which is in essence the correct view,21 Tullus has been described as a ‘friend’ to whom the poems were written ‘on terms of equality’, since (allegedly) ‘The Volcacii were of similar social standing to the Propertii’ and ‘They are not the poems of patronized to patron’. This approach stoutly maintains that ‘Propertius did not address a patron in his first book’.22 A third line of inter- pretation compounds these two views, and makes Tullus ‘Propertius’ main friend and patron’.23 These differing assessments of the relation- ship between Propertius and Tullus, which will be discussed more

14 Rothstein (1920) I.1 noted that fourteen different towns had claimed Propertius! 15 Modern Collemancio, see Maddoli (1963). 16 Gold (1987) 143, presumably misled by Prop. 1.22.3. 17 The source of some of this confusion may be that, whereas Perugia is part of the modern Italian province of Umbria, ancient Perusia was part of Etruria. 18 Du Quesnay (1992) 77–8 and 234 n. 104, adducing CLE 803 (irrelevant) and Prop. 4.1.123, and perhaps basing his conclusion on a more complex misunderstanding of 4.1.121–6. 19 Lyne in G. Lee (1994) xi. 20 See Elisei (1916) passim; Salvatore (1965) 381–92. 21 E.g. Cairns (1983a) 91; Gold (1987) 143: ‘Tullus, Propertius’ earlier patron’. 22 The quotations are from Lyne in G. Lee (1994) x; see also Syme (1986) 359: ‘a “sodalis” of equal years, not a patron’ – as if age was the criterion. 23 Du Quesnay (1992) 76; cf. Stahl (1985) 49: ‘friend’, 79: ‘probable patron’.

4 SEXTUS PROPERTIUS, THE AUGUSTAN ELEGIST

fully in Chapter 2, are, of course, in part terminological.24 But they also in part reflect the current lack of consensus about fundamental details of the life of Propertius, and so illustrate further the need for more information about Propertius and his ambience. Such information cannot, of course, in itself ensure a sensible assessment of the functions of Propertian elegy within its contemporary society: for this a sound understanding of the ways in which inter-personal relationships were described in antiquity is also re- quired (see below, pp. 35–8), as is an awareness of the overall historical context of Propertius’ works. All too many contemporary inter- pretations of Propertian elegies are fundamentally flawed because they start from anachronistic assumptions: it is just as essential to integrate literary approaches to his works with their historical background as to recognize the difference between truth and fiction in Propertian elegy. But it may be useful at this time to set down what facts can be established about Propertius, and to try to reconstruct further his family background, life, and personal contacts. Given the state of the evidence, this enterprise will inevitably involve speculative hypotheses. However, if the results of these converge with known facts and with each other, they can gain strength thereby, and at the end of the day even unconfirmable speculations may be preferable to absence of enquiry or to downright error. Propertius’ nomenclature and birthplace have been fought over so frequently since the late nineteenth century and the basic facts about them have been established so firmly that they would not even require restating were it not for the uncertainties of some modern scholarship; hence this area can be dealt with briefly, if dogmatically. The poet’s first, i.e. personal, name (praenomen) was ‘Sextus’ and his second, i.e. gentile, name (nomen) was ‘Propertius’. The additional nomen ‘Aure- lius’, and the third name (cognomen) ‘Nauta’ conferred on him by cer- tain manuscripts (AFPV) are pure absurdities which lack any authority.25 Propertius originated in Umbria and he describes himself as Umbrian: at 1.22.9–10 he declares Umbria …/ me genuit; at 4.1.64 he calls Umbria Romani patria Callimachi; and his interlocuter Horus

24 Latin amicus can cover both ‘friend’, and ‘patron/client’: see below, pp. 36–7, where a further potentially complicating factor is also discussed. 25 They were ‘authenticated’ by two inscriptions (CIL XI 4443 and 5308) now generally recognized as forgeries: see Forni (1985) 205–7. ‘Nauta’ derives from O’s reading (navita) at Prop. 2.24.38, which is usually corrected to non ita. The sympathy for this nomenclature implied by Newman (1997) Ch. 4 esp. 141 is unwarranted.

1. THE PROPERTII 5

subsequently asserts Umbria te … edit (4.1.121).26 The claims to be the birthplace of Propertius advanced, sometimes even in recent scholarship, on behalf of towns other than Asisium have already been mentioned; there is not a scrap of genuine evidence to favour any of them,27 and it is astonishing that they can still sometimes mislead.28 Taken in combination the same three Propertian passages which de- signated the poet as Umbrian also establish Asisium unequivocally as his birthplace, with the third stating this explicitly:

1. proxima supposito contingens Umbria campo me genuit terris fertilis uberibus. (1.22.9–10) [Perusia’s] neighbour, adjacent with its low-lying plain, Umbria, fertile with its rich lands, bore me.

2. mi folia ex hedera porrige, Bacche, tua, ut nostris tumefacta superbiat Umbria libris, Umbria Romani patria Callimachi! scandentis quisquis cernit de vallibus arces, ingenio muros aestimet ille meo! (4.1.62–6) Give me leaves from your ivy, Bacchus, so that Umbria may be swollen with pride at my books, Umbria native land of the Roman Callimachus! Whoever sees the citadels rising from the valleys, let him prize the walls because of my poetic genius.

3. Umbria te notis antiqua Penatibus edit. mentior? an patriae tangitur ora tuae, qua nebulosa cavo rorat Mevania campo, et lacus aestivis intepet Umber aquis, scandentisque Asis consurgit vertice murus, 125 murus ab ingenio notior ille tuo? (4.1.121–6) 123 quam O: qua õ 125 Asis O: Asisi Lachmann

26 For this reason it is incorrect to claim that Propertius was an ‘Etruscan’ simpliciter: cf., e.g., ‘un altro poeta etrusco dell’età augustea’ (Sordi (1964) 100), although the characterization ‘l’umbro etrusco Properzio’ (Sordi (1981) 53, 56) accords with what is proposed (below, pp. 61–2) about Propertius’ possible maternal ancestry. 27 See Elisei (1916); Salvatore (1965) 387–92, who records alternative candidacies more briefly (‘a tacere di svariate altre ipotesi, più o meno assurde’, 387), and refutes all of them; Forni (1985) 205–7; Pizzani (1996). Bonamente (2004) 70 n. 170 assembles some further bibliography. 28 In addition to the cases noted above see La Penna (1977) 15 and Gabba (1986) 101 n. 15, mentioning the suggestion of Maddoli (1963), and seeming to admit that some doubt is possible.

6 SEXTUS PROPERTIUS, THE AUGUSTAN ELEGIST

Ancient Umbria bore you to a distinguished house. Is this untrue? or have I touched on the boundary of your native land, where foggy Me- vania spreads dew on the low-lying plain, and the Umbrian Lake sheds warmth from its summer waters, and the wall of rising Asisium mounts up on the summit, a wall more famous because of your poetic genius?

Strict attention to the contexts, syntax, and content of these passages, both here and in the complementary discussion of them below (pp. 54–9), is essential if erroneous inferences are to be avoided.29 First (pseudo-)etymologies of Umbria feature largely in the passages: 4.1.123–4, with their references to ‘clouds’, ‘dewing’, the lacus Umber, and ‘waters’, manifestly evoke the standard ancient derivation of Umbri from Greek ‘Ombrii’, possibly through the intermediacy of imber.30 Again, Isidore’s linkage of ubera with moisture (humor) at Origines 11.1.76 suggests that 1.22.9–10 contain a second derivation of Umbria from uber, referring to its fertile soil.31 In addition antiqua (4.1.121) alludes to the (non-etymological?) claim of the Umbrians to be the ‘oldest race in Italy’.32 The physical topography of the Valle Umbra is sketched graphically in 4.1.65–6: anyone looking from the valleys (the plural perhaps refers to the different river valleys within the overall Valle Umbra) and seeing the citadels of the walled Umbrian towns rising all around it is invited to associate the height of those walls with Propertius’ poetic genius (ingenium). In 4.1.125–6 Propertius’ interlocutor Horus restricts this concept, applying it to Asisium proper: as the town climbs, the wall of Asisium rises on its summit, and, according to Horus, it is ‘better known’ because of Propertius’ ingenium. As well as implying that Propertius has elevated Asisium above other Umbrian cities through his poetry, this characterization of Asisium is vivid and realistic.33 The town is

29 See Salvatore (1965) 384–7 for a useful discussion of their syntactical difficulties. 30 For the Greek derivation of Umbria/Ombria cf. Plin. NH 3.112; Solin. 2.11; LALE s.vv. Umbri, Umbria; Stok (1996) 576–82; Santini (1996) 520–2. For the possible role of imber see LALE s.v. imber. 31 If so, Propertius’ etymologizing would partly answer the question of Parker (1992) 89: ‘Why does Propertius lay such stress on the fertility of Umbria …?’ Hendry (1997) 602–3 proposes that Propertius is deriving Umbria from umbra (hence ‘Land of Shades’), but this derivation is unattested and implausible. 32 Umbrorum gens antiquissima Italiae existimatur (Plin. NH 3.112). For further documenta- tion of this and of other ancient beliefs about Umbria and its inhabitants see esp. Stok (1996). 33 Lest this account of the walls of the Umbrian cities (4.1.66) and of Asisium (4.1.125–6) seem laboured or obvious, I note that, according to Newman (1997) 269, the arces of 4.1.65 are those of Rome.

1. THE PROPERTII 7

indeed markedly higher than its surrounding plains, and it possessed in Propertius’ day a complete circuit wall: murus, 4.1.125, 126.34 Proper- tius’ repeated emphases on ‘height’, viz. scandentis (of arces, 4.1.65; of Asis, 4.1.125), consurgit, and vertice (4.1.125) suggest, however, that more is involved than an accurate description of Asisium. If ety- mology is again present, the toponym being glossed cannot be ‘Umbria’, but might be (?)As/Asis/Asisium, always provided that its Umbrian root meant ‘high’.35 Lachmann’s emendation of Asis (NLF) to Asisi at 4.1.125 would be acceptable only if the town was always called As(s)isium. But a growing body of opinion favours the view that Asisium is a Romanization of an original Umbrian toponym As or Asis and that Propertius employed the latter form in line 125, thus in part fulfilling his declared intention to sing of ‘the old names of places’ (cognomina prisca locorum, 4.1.69).36 Whatever name Propertius gave to Asisium, his emphatic references to its wall in 4.1.125–6 bring us close to the Realien of Asisium. The wall of Asisium, which was of some antiquity even in Propertius’ day,37 must have been a major source of civic pride, justifiably since it was a considerable feat of construction extending for 2,500 metres, and hence not much less extensive than Perusia’s wall of 2,900 metres. But the link Propertius makes between the wall and his own poetic genius hints that something more personal is also involved. To follow up this hint a brief digression on the second- and first-century BC epigraphic evidence for wall-building at Asisium is needed; it

34 On the wall of Asisium cf. Strazzulla (1985) 18–24; Manca (1996); Coarelli (1991); (1996) esp. 243–8. 35 There is no independent evidence of this, although Catullus’ altas … Alpes (11.9) and Virgil’s aërias Alpis (Georg. 3.474), which show awareness that ‘Alpes is a Gallic word for high mountain’ (O’Hara (1996) 53), reveal what would be a parallel interest. 36 Salvatore (1965) 389–92, although accepting Lachmann’s emendation, offers useful parallel material from Tibullus and Ovid. See however Bonamente (1984) 121–4; Poccetti (1986), with additional linguistic confirmation; ERAssisi p. 18. For the form Asis cf. esp. Aesis, as an Umbrian river name (e.g. Strab. 5.1.11, etc.; Plin. NH 3.112), and as the ancient toponym of modern Iesi (= Romanized Aesium or (?)Aesulum), on which see Forni (1982) 24–5.) 37 For what follows see Bradley (2000) 163–71, with full bibliography, referring esp. to Coarelli (1991) and (1996), who challenges the view that most city-wall building in Umbria (and Italy in general) belongs to the mid-first century BC, proposes commence- ment dates in the later third century BC for a number of Umbrian city walls, including that of Asisium, and sees the invasion of Hannibal as the event which stimulated this activity rather than the troubled conditions of the first century BC. The concept that walls had be- come the ‘indispensable and defining element entitling a human settlement to claim the status of a real city’ (‘l’elemento indispensabile e carraterizzante perché un insediamento umano si qualificasse con la dignità di vera città’, Gabba (1972) 108) can, of course, easily be retrojected.

8 SEXTUS PROPERTIUS, THE AUGUSTAN ELEGIST

deserves its space since it will lead us directly to Propertius’ family and its status. Five of the six surviving early Latin public inscriptions of Asisium (two of them virtual duplicates)38 concern wall construction.39 Three indubitably concern work on internal terrace walls; the other two (the quasi-duplicates) are perhaps also more likely to be associated with terracing than with the city wall (below); but the distinction is not particularly significant since all five record actions taken by magistrates in their official capacities, and the city wall had an ‘intimate connection … with the terraces supporting the urban layout’.40 The earliest41 of the five inscriptions (ERAssisi 26), preserved in situ in the nave of the cathedral of S. Rufino, documents the construction by six named magistrates (marones) of ‘a wall from the arch to the circus, and the arch and a cistern’.42 This murus was a terrace wall, but part of it connected with a large tower and portico which has been plausibly interpreted as a monumental gateway leading to the arx of Asisium.43 Next in chronological order – from between the Social War and the late republic – comes ERAssisi 29.44 Its initial portion is missing, but it almost certainly named the members of a board of four (quattuor)vi]r(i) i(ure) dic(undo); the preserved portion names a board of five (quinque)vir(i) and records that they mu[rum faciundum (or reficiundum) curarunt probaruntque]. The quattuorviri were in this period the supreme magistrates of Asisium; they probably had ultimate oversight of the building operations, while the quinqueviri had hands-on control of the work. Finally, from the late republican period there are the two quasi-duplicates, ERAssisi 27 and 28, which seemingly employ virtually the same formula as ERAssisi 29. They name four (quattuor)vir(i) i(ure) d(icundo) of Asisium and then five

38 ERAssisi 26, 27, 28, 29, 30. The sixth (ERAssisi 31, of Augustan date), records similar work (paving the forum) and names magistrates in groups analogous to those found in the other five. 39 It is assumed that ‘repair’ would have been memorialized as ‘construction’, and that the susceptibility of Umbria to earthquakes would have stimulated the process. 40 Bradley (2000) 167. 41 The date of this inscription and of the constructions to which it refers has been controver- sial. Estimates, based on architectural features, letter-forms and spelling, and the use of Latin rather than Umbrian, have ranged from the later second century BC to after the Social War (see below, p. 12 n. 59). But the controversy does not affect the present discussion. 42 marones/ murum ab fornice ad circum et fornicem cisternamq(ue) d(e) s(enatus) s(en- tentia) faciundum coiravere. 43 For further bibliography and discussion see Coarelli (1991); (1996); Bradley (2000) 167–8. 44 Found in situ on the perimeter wall of the forum which supported its highest elevation, and so again referring to an internal wall.

1. THE PROPERTII 9

quinquevir(i) in charge of the work, and they record that s(enatus) c(onsulto) murum reficiundum/ curarunt probaruntque.45 If the com- paratively high survival rate of such inscriptions is not fortuitous, it reveals an on-going major programme of wall building and repair at Asisium. So the men named in these inscriptions are a sample of the magistrates – marones, quattuorviri, and quinqueviri – who made up the ‘wall-building’ elite of Asisium. Propertius’ family belonged to this class. The longest of the early Umbrian inscriptions of Asisium, ERAssisi 25, a boundary stone printed and discussed further below (p. 11), mentions four officials, two ohturs and two marones. One of the ohturs, Ner. T. Babr( ), is either the same man as Ner. Babrius T.f.,46 a maro in the earliest of the Latin building inscriptions (ERAssisi 26), or they are grandfather and grandson.47 The second ohtur of ERAssisi 25, T. V. Voisinier, is either the father or the son of another maro of ERAssisi 26, V. Voisienus T.f. One of the two marones of ERAssisi 25, C. V. Vistinie, has two relatives among the quinqueviri of another building inscription, ERAssisi 29: C. Veistinius C.f. Capito, who could be his son, and Cn. Veistinius Cn. f.; and the second maro of ERAssisi 25 is (in his Umbrian nomenclature) the first historically attested member of Propertius’ family, Vois. Ner. Propartie. On the analogy of his three fellow officials of ERAssisi 25, this ‘Propertius’ maro will himself have served on wall building commissions and/or will have had relatives who did so over the first century BC. The poet’s interest in the murus of Asisium suddenly acquires a new dimension: it can be seen to reflect the family pride of the Propertii in their part in the construction and maintenance of walls at Asisium. Persons bearing the nomen ‘Propertius(a)’, both freeborn and freed slaves, appear epigraphically in many parts of the Roman world over the period 100+/– BC on,48 but they are concentrated especially in three localities: Africa Proconsularis and Numidia, Rome, and Asi- sium. The African Propertii are the descendants of Italian emigrants or

45 Neither inscription was found in situ. ERAssisi 29, which uses the same formula, was found in situ on a terracing wall, which probably, but not certainly, indicates that ERAssisi 27 and 28 also concern, and were originally affixed to, such a wall. 46 In the Umbrian system of nomenclature the father’s praenomen came immediately after the son’s. 47 The usual assumption is that they are the same person, but for the other view see, e.g., Campanile (1996) 188–90. Another family member, C. Babrius C.f. Chilo, appears as an annual magistrate (a quinquevir) in ERAssisi 29, another wall inscription. 48 Forni (1985).

10 SEXTUS PROPERTIUS, THE AUGUSTAN ELEGIST

of their freedmen, or represent provincials who obtained citizenship through magistrates of that name.49 The presence of one Propertius attested non-epigraphically in Rome around 60 BC was probably tem- porary (see below, pp. 14–16), but by the early principate at the latest there was a Roman branch of the gens Propertia, which belonged to the tribe Fabia, whereas the Propertii of Asisium belonged, like most other citizens of Asisium, to the tribe Sergia. Since there are very few known freeborn Propertii of Asisium and Rome in the first century BC, the most economic hypothesis is that all belonged to a single extended family.50 The tribal difference is not an insuperable impediment to this conclusion: two other Umbrians (not from Asisium) domiciled at Rome were also of the Fabia, although no Umbrian city is known to have belonged to that tribe.51 Their families, like the Roman Propertii, would either have gained their citizenship before the Social War or/and changed their tribal affiliation.52 The Fabia was the tribe of the Iulii, and, if the Roman Propertii were of the Marian/ Caesarian persuasion, a reasonable supposition in view of their Cae- sarian allegiance under the early empire (see below, pp. 37–8, 44–50), their political loyalties could have motivated their enrolment in it.53 The third and most numerous group of Propertii are found at Asisium, where they originated,54 and where they continued to live for centu- ries.55 The distribution of inscriptions from Umbria naming Propertii further confirms their origin in Asisium: there are sixteen published inscriptions of the Propertii from Asisium, plus, it seems, three more as yet unpublished,56 but only two from Sentinum and one from Mevania.57

49 Forni (1985) 209. 50 Forni (1982) 26–7; (1985) 212–16. 51 Forni (1985) 215–16. 52 Forni (1985) 215–16 and Forni (1977) 90–1, listing examples of identical individuals with different tribal affiliations; Wiseman (1964) 131 noted the mutability of pre-Social War tribal affiliations, which suggests that at least the Roman branch of the Propertii gained citizenship before the Social War. On the process in general see Taylor (1960) 23, 280–2. 53 On Julius Caesar’s interest in supplementing numbers in the Roman tribes and in creating local tribes in his new foundations cf. Weinstock (1971) 5, 158–62. 54 The historicity of the ‘Rex Propertius’ of Veii recorded by Cato (Origines 2.17 Chassignet = Servius auct. on Aen. 7.697) cannot be assumed; the name ‘Propertius’ latinises an un- known (?)Etruscan name. 55 An Augustan period inscription (ERAssisi 56) documents as a town-councillor of Asisium Cn. Propertius T.f. Scaeva, and further underlines the family’s commitment to the town. 56 On these see below, p. 30 and n. 143. 57 The Mevania inscription is of the Neronian/Vespasianic Sex. Caesius Sex. f. Propertianus, a Propertius adopted by a Sex. Caesius: see Cenerini (1985) 212–14; Forni (1985) 216–17,