This book develops a new interpretation of Propertius’ use of Greek myth and of his relationship to Virgil, working out the implications of a revised relative dating of the two poets’ early works. It begins by examining from an intertextual perspective all of the mythological references in the first book of Propertius. Mythological allegory emerges as the vehicle for a polemic against Virgil over the question of which of them would be the standard-bearer for Alexandrian poetry at Rome. Virgil began the debate with elegy by creating a quasi-mythological figure out of Cornelius Gallus, and Propertius responded in kind: his Milanion, Hylas and several of his own Galluses respond primarily to Virgil’s Gallus. In the Georgics, Virgil’s Aristaeus and Orpheus are, in part, a response to Propertius; Propertius then responds in his second book via his own conception of Orpheus and Adonis. The polemic then took a different direction, in the light of Virgil’s announcement of his intention to write an epic for Octavian. Virgilian pastoral was no longer the antithesis of elegy, but its near neighbour. Propertius critiqued Virgil’s turn to epic in mythological terms throughout his second book, while also developing a new line of attack. Beginning in his second book and intensifying in his third, Propertius insinuated that Virgil’s epic in progress would turn out to be a tedious neo-Ennian annalistic epic on the military exploits of Augustus. In his fourth book, Propertius finally acknowledged the published Aeneid as a masterpiece; but by then Virgil’s death had brought an end to the fierce rivalry that had shaped Propertius’ career as a poet.
Combination of a Green and a Traditional Method for Estimating Relative and Absolute Ink Age: A Case Study of Ballpoint Pen Ink Dating in Vietnam
