Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 16.djvu/519

* PROPERTItrS. 451 PROPERTY. The work of Propertius falls into two classes: first, and by far the more important, love-elegies, and, second, poems of eulogy. Indeed, the great event of the poet's life, and the only one of real importance so far as his literar.y activity is con- cerned, was his love for a mistress, somewhat his senior, whom he celebrated as Cynthia, but whose real name, if we may believe Apuleius (q.v.), was Hostia. She was probably the sister of one Hostius, who is known onl_y as the author of a lost epic entitled Belliim Histricum. In character she seems to have been light, fickle, vain, and mercenary, yet witty and beautiful. In his early youth the poet had had an ephemeral passion for a slave-girl whom he calls Lycinna, but after his acquaintance with Cynthia he appears to have been loyal to her for several years. At last, probably after some five years, there came a break in their union, although they seem to have been reconciled before her death. In the poems ad- dressed to her Propertius appears at his best, although the letter of Arethuse to her husband, Lycotas. foreshadowing the Hrroides of Ovid, has a ring of pathos rarely beautiful. The two domi- nant notes of his poetry are passion and erudi- tion. Less perfect in technique than Horace, he is more real; less. sincere than Catullus, he is more balanced and restrained. The poet with whom one involuntarily compares him is Tibtillus, yet here one misses the delicate sentimentalisni founded on real affection for Delia which Tibullus had. while the erudite touelies of Propertius, which justly won him the epithet of 'the learned.' are happily far less evident' in his fellow. The distinguishing characteristic of Propertius among Latin poets is this erudition, often carried with visible effort. As his models he took the Greek Alexandrine school of poetry, following especially Philetas and Callimachus,' being himself called 'the Roman Callimachus.' In comparison with his love poems his eulogis- tic verse is of slight interest. Urged by JL-ccenas to write in epic strain, he pleaded his unsuit- ability to the task. The justice of his self-judg- ment is confirmed by his elegies on Vertumnus. Tarpeia. Hercules and Cacus. and .Jupiter Fer- etrius, for all of which he probably drew his ma- terial chiefiy from Varro (q.v.). Yet he treated also contemporary events in his poems on the battle of Actium and the deaths of Cornelia and Marcellus, and the preparations of Augustus against the Parthians. The first book of the elegies was published by Propertius, probably about 28, under the name of Cynthia. Although the dates of the remaining books are somewhat uncertain, the second and third seem to have appeared about 20. the fourth about 21. and the fifth about 10. The very nimi- bcr of the books is a disputed question.' They were supposed to be three until the edition o'f Lachmann (q.v.), who divided the second book into two. Despite the arguments in favor of such a division, there are objections which may be al- leged against it. The manuscripts of Propertius are very late and extremely corrupt. His works were appar- ently unknown throughout the :Middle Ages, the earliest mention of a manuscript of them being one in the possession of Petrarch. The best is the Codex Neapolitaiuis, dating from the twelfth or thirteenth century, and now in the lihrarv of Wolfenbiittel. The influence of the poet on litera- ture has been slight, although it is noteworthy that he inspired Goethe to the composition of his Romischc Elegien. The first edition of Propertius was published at Venice, in 1472. Other important old editions were by Scaliger (Paris, 1577); Passerat (ib., 1008) : Broukhus (Amsterdam, 1727) ; Vulpi (Padua. 1755); and Burmann (Utrecht, 1780). The editions of Lachmann (Leipzig, 181G; Berlin, 1829) were epoch-making in Propertian criticism. Other editions have been published by Jacob (Leipzig, 1827) ; Hertzberg (Halle, 1843-45) ; Paley (London. 1872) : Bahrens (Leipzig. 1880) ; Palmer (Dublin, 1880) ; Postgate (London, 1881) ; and the text onlv by Keil (Leipzig, 18.50) ;_Haupt (.5th ed.. ib., 1885): and iluller (ib., 1870). English translations have Ijeen made by Cranstoun (London, 1875) and Moore (Ox- ford, 1870). Consult also: Jacob, Propertius (Lubeek, 1847) : Plessis, Etudes sur Properce et ses elegies (Paris, 1880) ; Davies, Catullus, Tibul- lus, and Propertius (London, 1876). PROPERTY (OF. properte, from Lat. pro- priefas, property, peculiar nature or quality, from proprius, peculiar to one's self). Law of. In the broadest sense (which is also in English the ordinary sense), property includes all rights that are primarily economic in their object — all rights that constitute legally protected wealth. It thus includes all rights in corporeal things, whether immovable or movable; all rights to de- mand from particular persons (debtors) acts or omissions that are primarily of economic value ; and all monopolies, such as patent rights, copy- riglits. franchises/ etc. Excluded in modern law are the rights of a public officer or of a citizen, and the rights of a husband or father or guardian over the person of a wife or child or ward ; be- cause, although these rights may have economic value, modern law does not regard them prima- rily from this point of view. Modern theory, in- deed, regards all public and family relations rather from the point of view of duties thau from that of rights (q.v.). Early Law does not draw these distinctions; all early private rights are, in a broad sense, property rights. Our Aryan ancestors apparently used the same word (Ger. inund, Lat. mauus, the hand ) to indicate legal power over inanimate things, animals, slaves, delinquent debtors, wives, and children; and it is probable that the powers of owners, masters, creditors, husbands, and fa- thers were originally equally unlimited. ( Cf . Mar- riage; Parent and Child.) In early German law the same word {mund] was applied to the power of the King; and throughout the Jliddle Ages governmental powers were generally treated as property rights. Survivals of these early views are found in the English common law ; e.g. in the description of an office as an 'incorporeal heredita- ment' and in the treatment of paternal right as a right to services. Roman Law sharply distinguished public from private law and political from property rights. The Roman law of property, however, originally included family rights. The earliest classifica- tion of property, which appears in the XII. Ta- bles, is ( 1 ) fnmilia. the household, which includes land and agricultural easements, beasts of draught and burden, slaves, wife and children ; and (2) pecunin (from peeus, a herd), which in- cludes all other things. Since things of fnntilia, were capable of conveyance only through a formal