The Iconography of Amor in Propertius

“quicumque ille fuit, puerum qui pinxit Amorem,
     nonne putas miras hunc habuisse manus?
is primum vidit sine sensu vivere amantes
     et levibus curis magna perire bona.
idem non frustra ventosas addidit alas,
     fecit et humano corde volare deum:
scilicet alterna quoniam iactamur in unda,
     nostraque non ullis permanet aura locis.
et merito hamatis manus est armata sagittis,
     et pharetra ex humero Cnosia utroque iacet:
ante ferit quoniam, tuti quam cernimus hostem,
     nec quisquam ex illo vulnere sanus abit.
in me tela manent, manet et puerilis imago:
     sed certe pennas perdidit ille suas;
evolat, heu, nostro quoniam de pectore nusquam
     assiduusque meo sanguine bella gerit.
quid tibi iucundum est siccis habitare medullis?
     si pudor est, alio traice tela tua!
intactos isto satius temptare veneno:
     non ego, sed tenuis vapulat umbra mea.
quam si perdideris, quis erit, qui talia cantet
    (haec mea Musa levis gloria magna tua est),
qui caput et digitos et lumina nigra puellae
    et canat, ut soleant molliter ire pedes?“  (Prop. 2.12)

Any critical study or analytic treatment of the iconography of Amor in Propertius must begin with elegy 2.12. Described as clever and admired for its simple yet elegant structure, the poem presents a subject that is rooted in the Hellenistic tradition, particularly in art. ¹ This paper will not be concerned with the Hellenistic background of the poem, a subject well synthesized in the major commentaries, but will explore the Propertian treatment and contribution to a well-known theme.² In the first half of the elegy Propertius depicts Amor as the willful boy with bow and arrows striking his victim who is unaware of his destructive powers. After he makes this somewhat familiar sketch of Amor, in the second part of the poem Propertius turns to present a vivid picture of the effects of love upon him and ends by commenting upon his mistress’ striking qualities.

In Book I Propertius had previously alluded to the god Amor as an armed boy. Specifically, in 1.7, a poem addressed to the epic poet Ponticus, Propertius doubts the efficacy of epic should Love strike with unerring aim: “te quoque si certo puer hic concusserit arcu,

     quod nolim nostros eviolasse deos.   (15-16)

“The metonomy of the boy smashing Ponticus with his bow and the reference to the gods of Propertius’ own experience leave no doubt that the puer is none other than Amor. Similarly, in poem 1.9, also addressed to Ponticus and wherein the poet defends the elegist’s lifestyle and poetry against the claims of epic, Propertius again envisions the portrait of Amor armed with a bow by which weapon he strikes the innards of his victim: “quam pueri totiens arcum sentire medullis.   (21)

“Tellingly, Propertius reuses the image of love’s power affecting the marrow in 2.12 where he questions the effects of love in his own experience [quid tibi iucundum est siccis habitare medullis? (17)]. In Book I of the Elegies there are only two other references to the god as a boy (1.6.23 and 1.19.5). In neither case does Propertius describe or specify the iconographic features of wings, bow, arrows, or quiver. However, in both passages the allusion to Amor refers to the divine possession or power of the god. In no other instances does Propertius delineate Amor as a boy. The four passages in Book I which have been cited and the reference in line one of 2.12 to Love as a boy (puerum … Amorem) reiterated later in line 13 (puerilis imago) complete Propertius’ first aspect of the iconography of Amor.

In the other poems there are scant references to the remaining parts of the pictorial description of Love outlined in the first half of elegy 2.12. At 2.30.31, in a poem whose central theme is the inescapable might of Love, Propertius alludes to Amor as the “Winged One” with weapons (quod si nemo exstat qui vicerit Alitis arma). Similarly, in the same 1.9 mentioned above, Propertius warns Ponticus that “Love never offered his wings to anyone without a price” [nullus Amor cuiquam facilis ita praebuit alas (23)]. Finally, at the beginning of the very next poem following 2.12, Propertius mentions the darts that are part of Amor’s armory and with which the god affects him [spicula quot nostro pectore fixit Amor (2.13.2）]. At this point we can say that very few passages prepare the reader for a look at the iconography of Amor before 2.12 and after this elegy there are even fewer references to the pictorial image of the god. Yet Propertius personifies the figure of Amor numerous times in the corpus, particularly in Books I and II. No reader of Propertius should be surprised at this observation as the first two books show a preponderance of poems that center around the theme of love, especially detailing Propertius’ imagined depiction of the vicissitudes of the love affair with Cynthia. The numerous personifications of Amor in Propertius, often modified by adjectives, underscore the Propertian conception of his love. Adjectives such as improbus, tardus, vacuus, nudus, durus, serus, adversus, labens, and iniquus, all found in Book I, do not illustrate Love’s physical appearance and attributes, but comment on the god’s power and Propertius’ perception of this power upon his experience as lover and poet.³ Also, those occurences in which the word Amor is not modified relate more directly to Propertius himself and can be thematically integrated or linked to the drama and poetic conception of the individual poems where the personified figure of Amor is introduced. Quite often in these situations Propertius inserts the figure of the god in a gnomic statement underscoring a basic theme of his power. For example, 1.5.23 (nescit Amor priscis cedere imaginibus) mocks Gallus’s noble birth and emphasizes by way of contrast the life of the poet different from that of the arrogant Gallus. That is to say, Propertius suggests that Love is a force or obsession that overpowers the lure of wealth and good breeding.

As indicated previously, in the personifications of Amor that precede 2.12 Propertius is more concerned with intimating the independent force of Amor that affects him and defines his relationship. Therefore, when readers reach 2.12, whose evocative image is that of Amor and his representation in art, they should not be too surprised to discover that Propertius will not concentrate on some traditional portrait but proceed to delineate the power of the god, to recall previous themes, and to fashion a new poem consistent with the perception and treatment of his imagined experience.

After the introductory couplet that sets the scene for the iconography of Amor, the second distich provides an unexpected turn. We seem to be promised a detailing of the artist who painted Love as a boy, but the next couplet furnishes us a description of the god’s power upon lovers. It would be extremely difficult, if not entirely impossible, for a painter or sculptor to represent lovers living without thought or wasting great goods in petty cares or concerns. Commentators have noted the impossibility of depicting these qualities in art and some have been puzzled by the confusion of imagery and the juxtaposition of the youthful archer with a tormenting force. ⁴ The subsequent couplet continues to mix these two separate ideas. The hexameter (line 5) returns to the pictorial representations of the god; in the pentameter (line 6) Amor is envisioned as fluttering in the human heart or flitting from heart to heart, depending upon how one construes humano corde of line six. ⁵ No matter which of these two interpretations is chosen, one is forced to admit that neither scene is found in the repertory of art or could be represented in painting or sculpture. Propertius deliberately leads us not only to view a picture but also to consider the implications of the iconography of the god. The verbs vidit (3) and fecit (6) introduce aspects of Love’s effect and the words, although they can be considered apt in describing the activity of an artist, are neutral enough to be applied to almost any observer or artifex.

One should recognize, then, that even in the first section of the elegy, ostensibly a pictorial account of the god Amor, Propertius engages the reader to consider the power of Amor upon the emotions of all and prepares him for the specific reactions to the god’s influence and the plight of the poet that are detailed in the last half of the poem. For example, the phrase sine sensu vivere amantis (3) recalls the description of Propertius’ furor outlined in 1.1 where Propertius claims that he lives a life without scheme [nullo vivere consilio (6)] as a result of the violent activity of Amor improbus. Later in the poem the medical image in nec quisquam ex illo vulnere sanus abit (22) evokes the metaphor of love as a sickness frequently exploited in previous poems and reinforces the idea of mental instability mentioned in line 3. Also, in line 7 the allusion to the mutability of love, expressed metaphorically as the up and down action of a wave (alterna … unda), reminds us of the “wheel of love” of 2.8.8 (vinceris aut vincis, haec in amore rota est). The image may be different but the idea is the same: in love the lover faces an ever-changing situation--a theme that King has shown occupies Propertius and his poetry in the first half of Book II.⁶

In the second part of the poem (13-24) Propertius shifts attention to himself, but continues the military image of the armed god wreaking havoc on his victim. The effect upon Propertius has been particularly damaging: the darts of the god remain fixed in him (13), his marrow is desiccated (17), he has been diseased with poison (18), presumably from the tip of Amor’s arrow, and he has become an unsubstantial shadow of his former self (19). After this litany of ailments, Propertius reminds Amor and his audience that alive he can fashion poetry, a monument to his tormentor (22). He then ends the poem presenting a brief portrait of his mistress that Love has inspired. One should not be too surprised that Propertius directs attention to his love affair and his art as an elegiac poet. His apostrophe to Amor concerning his poetry (22) clearly indicates his interest in linking the god to the making of poetry. The adjective levis modifying Musa characterizes elegiac poetry, as so often in Propertius. The idea of the slight Muse is forshadowed early in the poem with the use of the phrase levibus curis (4). Certainly Propertius could have employed another adjective at his disposal other than levis to describe the lovers’ concerns and to mark the contrast with magna bona in the line. The choice of levis introduces the suggestion that poetic principles are involved in the iconography of the god. Such a possibility is reinforced later by the word tenuis (20). This word recalls and intimates the slender style of Propertius’ Alexandrian predecessors, a debt he later acknowledges employing the verb [tenuare dicite, quo pariter carmen tenuastis in antro? (3.1.5)] ⁷ Propertius is borrowing and appropriating tenuis as a poetic term for Alexandrian style from Vergil [silvestrem tenui Musam meditaris avena （E. 1.2)] who adopted it to describe his own type of poetry drawn from Alexandrian sources. Nor should we overlook the use of cantare (21), a word from the time of Cicero often associated with neoteric and lyric poetry.⁸

The content and direction of the poem have led the poet to comment on the nature of his poetry. The last line that seems so natural in closing Propertius’ elegant but sketchy portrait of his mistress (et canat ut soleant molliter ire pedes?) also evokes associations of elegiac poetry. Pedes not only describes the walk of the mistress but can also refer to metrical rhythm. ⁹ The addition of the adverb molliter confirms the reference to poetry. Propertius uses some form of the adjective mollis, or the adverb molliter, or the verb mollire some 43 times throughout the corpus.¹⁰ He frequently designates his genre of poetry by this term. For example, when he champions his genre and themes to Maecenas in elegy 2.1, Propertius speaks of his mollis … liber (2). And even more importantly for this argument, we return to elegy 1.7 where Propertius derides Ponticus for the uselessness of epic poetry in the face of love. Shortly after the allusion to Amor as the boy with the crack-shot bow (15-16), Propertius predicts to Ponticus that he will lack the ability to compose elegiacs, the “tender verse” necessary for the lover/poet [et frustra cupies mollem componere versum (19)]. Thus, in both poems, 1.7 and 2.12, we meet the pictorial figure of Amor and the reference to elegiac poetry. Therefore, the closing clause of elegy 2.12 suggests the poet’s writing of elegiac verse as well as stating the gentle gait of his lover, and it fittingly concludes Propertius’ concern with the influence of Love on both his affair and his poetry.

Propertius has adroitly prepared the reader to accept his reflection on the nature of his art. Interspersing vignettes of the iconography of Amor with a portrayal of Love’s power and influence, Propertius relates these two features to his own love affair and poetic art. As pointed out earlier in this paper, Propertius alludes to the iconography of Love in Book I. Whenever he does make an allusion, he incorporates the theme of the value of his elegiac poetry. Poems 1.7 and 1.9, which delineate Propertius’ spirited defense of his genre vis à vis epic, contain three allusions to the pictorial representation of Amor. The only other explicit reference to the iconographic aspects of Amor appears in the first section of 2.13, immediately following the more developed treatment in 2.12. 2.13A underscores the themes introduced in 2.12, namely that Propertius is a victim of an overwhelming power that spurs him to write and to express pride in his work.¹¹

If we recognize the importance that Propertius attaches to the iconography of Amor in association with his poetic principles, we can begin to appreciate the outline and aim of elegy 2.12. Critics who have been puzzled by the fact that Propertius includes details of the iconography of Love that could not be represented in painting or sculpture have failed to realize and evaluate the poet’s attention to the depiction of his art. Thus, because of their literal approach to the evocative scene in 2.12, they have missed a possible interpretation in identifying the artifex heralded in the opening couplet. It is true enough that a painter or sculptor cannot portray in his respective medium lovers living thoughtlessly, or Love fluttering in human hearts. However, a poet can represent not only the pictorial qualities of Amor sketched in this poem but also the powerful effects of the god. As Propertius has illustrated by this poem, it is the poet/lover, not the sculptor or painter, who is aware of the true implications of Love. He has correctly understood and depicted Amor’s nature, a nature which defines an emotional attachment and inspires elegiac poetry.