No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
CONJECTURES AND OBSERVATIONS ON CATULLUS 63
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 March 2024
Abstract
This article discusses textually problematic passages in Catullus 63, a particularly corrupt poem from a particularly corrupt manuscript tradition. It proposes new conjectures and revives several old ones. Throughout there are notes on punctuation, conjecture attribution and an analysis of the structure of Attis’ lament.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Footnotes
This article is a substantial revision of my Master's thesis, and I thank Stephen Harrison for his supervision.
References
1 Butterfield, D.J., ‘Duae coniecturae Catullianae’, Paideia 66 (2011), 541–4Google Scholar; Diggle, J., ‘On the text of Catullus’, MD 51 (2006), 85–104Google Scholar; Harrison, S.J. and Heyworth, S.J., ‘Notes on the text and interpretation of Catullus’, PCPhS 44 (1998), 85–109Google Scholar; Kokoszkiewicz, K., ‘Catullus 63.74: roseis ut hinc labellis sonitus adiit’, Mnemosyne 62 (2009), 108–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kokoszkiewicz, K., ‘Catullus 63.40 atque obiter Ennius’, Eranos 106 (2010), 88–9Google Scholar; Kokoszkiewicz, K., ‘Catullus 63.5: devolsit?’, CQ 61 (2011), 756–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Trappes-Lomax, J.M., Catullus: A Textual Reappraisal (Swansea, 2007), 159–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; White, H., ‘Observations on the text of Catullus’, Veleia 27 (2010), 339–45Google Scholar.
2 Thomson, D.F.S., Catullus: Edited with a Textual and Interpretive Commentary (Toronto / Buffalo / London, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 White (n. 1), 339.
4 Fordyce, C.J., Catullus (Oxford, 1973), 264Google Scholar.
5 tua is an early necessary correction of tu.
6 Trappes-Lomax (n. 1), 159–60.
7 Catullus would have written d(e)iuolsit, which is closer to the archetype, but the modern orthography is -uu-.
8 R. Pastore, Catullo Tibullo e Properzio d'espurgata lezione, vol. 1 (Bassano, 1805), 70.
9 Kokoszkiewicz (n. 1 [2011]).
10 Werthes, F.A.C., Ueber den Atys des Katull (Münster, 1774), 7, 23–4Google Scholar.
11 I owe this observation to the anonymous reviewer.
12 Currie, B., ‘A note on Catullus 63.5’, CQ 46 (1996), 579–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 Palmer, A., Catulli Veronensis liber (London, 1896), xxxixGoogle Scholar.
14 D. Kiss, www.catullusonline.org (2015).
15 J. Passeratius, Ioannis Passeratii professoris et interpretis regii Commentarii in C. Val. Catullum, Albium Tibullum, et Sex. Aur. Propertium (Paris, 1608), 32.
16 Muretus, M.A., Catullus et in eum Commentarius M. Antonii Mureti (Venice, 1554), 78Google Scholar.
17 Thomson (n. 2), 48.
18 -e Hor. Carm. 1.16.5 (guaranteed by metre); -es Mart. 8.81.1.
19 As a comparison, Ovid freely admits homoeoteleuton of final short -a in metrically identical words in the fourth and fifth feet of a hexameter (Met. 1.192; 2.16; 3.123, 251, 638; 7.141, 284; 8.247), but other types are much rarer (2.178, 322; 3.79; 4.760; 6.104). I have taken the first eight books of the Metamorphoses as my sample.
20 Sandy, G.N., ‘The imagery of Catullus 63’, TAPhA 99 (1968), 389–99Google Scholar, at 392–3.
21 Cf. Plin. HN 8.76; Stat. Theb. 6.120–1, 6.667, 10.263; Valerius Flaccus 7.591; Apul. Flor. 17.
22 This variation is not to be found in Terentianus Maurus’ analysis (second century c.e., lines 2885–900). His analysis holds good except that the opening pyrrhic in the second hemistich may be contracted (lines 18, 22, 34, 73, 83, 86).
23 Axelson, B., Unpoetische Wörter: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der lateinischen Dichtersprache (Lund, 1945), 70–3Google Scholar.
24 Nisbet, R.G.M., ‘Notes on the text of Catullus’, PCPhS 204 (1978), 92–115Google Scholar, at 100.
25 Postgate, J.P., ‘Addendum to Catulliana’, JPh 18 (1889), 145–9Google Scholar, at 145.
26 Diggle (n. 1), 100–2; Nisbet (n. 24), 100.
27 Harrison and Heyworth (n. 1), 104.
28 Trappes-Lomax, J.M., ‘Seven suggestions in Catullus’, Mnemosyne 55 (2002), 73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 76.
29 Especially so if my analysis of the speech's structure in the next note is accepted.
30 The most in-depth analysis of the repetition is C. Kroon, ‘The effect of the echo. A text linguistic approach to Catullus carmen 63’, in R.R. Nauta and A. Harder (edd.), Catullus’ Poem on Attis: Texts and Contexts (Leiden, 2005), 121–42.
31 Harrison and Heyworth (n. 1), 104.
32 Others would be fish (impossible), birds (Catullus shows no interest in birdlife in this poem) or Cybele (the genitive on its own would be rather vague).
33 animo is not the only way to will the metre (e.g. ipsa), but is the least otiose. See my note on line 5 for the pleonastic animo (here ablative rather than genitive, for which cf. 64.70 and 63.85, where however the early conjecture animum is preferable).
34 There are a few examples of Greek words deeply corrupted to Latin in Catullus: celerum for Chalybon at 66.48 (see Thomson [n. 2], 455–6 for the archetypal readings), ereptum for Erectheum at 64.211 and freti for Erecthei at 64.229.
35 The θαλάμευμα Κουρήτων (‘lairs of the Corybantes’) in Eur. Bacch. 120–1 might also be relevant.
36 e.g. Pacuvius, Periboea fr. 22 TRF; Cic. Verr. 2.5.109, Luc. 108; Sen. Thy. 1033.
37 e.g. Cic. Flac. 31; Phaedrus 1.30.9; Apul. Met. 8.29.
38 et ut was first proposed by Scaliger, J.C., Castigationes in Catullum, Tibullum, Propertium (Paris, 1577), 58Google Scholar.
39 Traill, D.A., ‘Catullus 63: rings around the sun’, CPh 76 (1981), 211–14Google Scholar.
40 I agree with Trappes-Lomax's deletion of line 67 ([n. 1], 167), but that does not affect the structure.
41 Baehrens, E., Catulli Veronensis liber, volumen I (Leipzig, 1876), 351–2Google Scholar.
42 Palmer (n. 13), xl.
43 Statius, A., Catullus cum commentario Achillis Statii Lusitani (Venice, 1566), 229Google Scholar.
44 Thomson (n. 2), 382.
45 For an early example of this, see Alcestis Barcinonensis 41, preserved in a late fourth-century half-uncial codex.
46 Baehrens (n. 41), 352.
47 Rossberg, K., ‘Zu Catullus’, NJPhP 113 (1876), 549–50Google Scholar, at 549.
48 Goold, G.P., Catullus (London, 1983)Google Scholar.
49 A. Willi, ‘Campaigning for utilitas: style, grammar and philosophy in C. Iulius Caesar’, in E. Dickey and A. Chahoud (edd.), Colloquial and Literary Latin (Cambridge, 2010), 229–42, at 232–4.
50 Garcea, A., Caesar's De Analogia: Edition, Translation, and Commentary (Oxford, 2012), 213Google Scholar.
51 Baehrens (n. 41), 352; Nisbett (n. 24), 100; Harrison and Heyworth (n. 1), 105.
52 Thomson (n. 2), 383.
53 In the case of Propertius it would conform more with normal usage if the tenses were reversed, as victory is a single action (perfect tense), and administering justice is a continuous process (imperfect).
54 Diggle (n. 1), 102.
55 Butterfield (n. 1), 541.
56 apud Santen, L., Terentianus Maurus de litteris syllabis pedibus et metris, e recensione et cum notis Laurentii Santenii: opus Santenii morte interruptum absoluit David Iacobus van Lennep (Utrecht, 1825), 379Google Scholar.
57 Wills, J., Repetition in Latin Poetry: Figures of Allusion (Oxford, 1996), 91–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
58 This omission also occurs at 8.8 and 112.1.
59 I cite only the most pertinent examples of this imagery below. It is pervasive. See Sandy (n. 20) for a full treatment.
60 K. Kokoszkiewicz, ‘C. Valerii Catulli carmina prolegomenis, apparatu critico commentarioque instructa’ (Diss., University of Warsaw, 2018), lxxxii proposes uti … uti for ubi … ubi. The omission of est is indeed awkward, though ut … ut may be better.
61 Wills (n. 57), 91–5.