PROPERTIUS; Oliffe Legh RICHMOND, editor.
Sexti Properti quae supersunt opera, edidit novoque adparatu critico instruxit Oliffe Legh Richmond.
Cambridge, University Press, 1928.
8vo, pp. [x], 430, [2]; a very good copy in publisher’s maroon cloth, spine lettered in gilt; spotting to endpapers; front free endpaper inscribed ‘A F Scholfield | King’s College | Cambridge | 1928’, with 3 loosely inserted autograph letters signed from Richmond to Scholfield (see below).
Added to your basket:
Sexti Properti quae supersunt opera, edidit novoque adparatu critico instruxit Oliffe Legh Richmond.
First edition of Richmond’s controversial Propertius, A. F. Scholfield’s copy, with three letters from the editor.
Oliffe Legh Richmond (1881–1977) proposes a comprehensive restructuring of Propertius’ Elegies with significant transpositions and lacunae introduced on the hypothesis of reconstructing an uncial or earlier manuscript source, which he suggests must have been severely damaged and defective before transmission; the hypothesis has not been widely accepted.
The present copy belonged to Richmond’s contemporary at Eton and at King’s College Cambridge, the classicist and librarian Alwyn Faber Scholfield (1884–1969). Scholfield served as librarian to the Imperial Library in Calcutta from 1913 and at Trinity College Cambridge from 1919, before being appointed University Librarian in 1923; he remained in post until 1949, overseeing the construction of the new Library and the move out of the Old Schools.
Richmond’s first letter, dated Christmas Eve 1928, thanks Scholfield for his congratulations on the publication of the book (‘with a postcard from Sheppard, they were the first to arrive’), expresses apprehension for ‘the onslaught of the reviewers’, asks for corrections (‘I have found about six very small misprints even now’), and writes that he won’t publish his ‘nearly complete’ translation unless the edition meets with approval, comparing translating Propertius to Hercules’ labours (‘Translationis spes in Agro Scholae sic nutriatur; difficiles enim versus Properti, interpretari Herculeus labor adnotata’).
The following two letters, dated 18 and 21 March 1930, discuss the book’s largely unfavourable reviews – Klotz ‘began with a page of complete misunderstanding’ and Stewart ‘knows nothing about MSS’ – and plans to publish an article in response.
