Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T12:55:02.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Catullus 61.109–13 (again)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

S. J. Harrison
Affiliation:
Balliol College, Oxford

Extract

      quae tuo ueniunt ero,
      quanta gaudia, quae uaga 110
      nocte, quae medio die
      gaudeat! sed abit dies:
      prodeas noua nupta.

In these lines, addressed by the poet to the wedding-couch of Junia and Manlius, a difficulty presents itself: uaga nocte does not cohere with medio die, since the epithets characterizing this polar pair of nouns belong to different categories. This was pointed out by R. G. M. Nisbet (PCPS n.s. 24 (1978)99) who saw medio die as the culprit on three grounds: (i) the incoherence of the pair of epithets, (ii) the inappropriateness of a reference to ‘sex in the afternoon’ in an epithalamium and (iii) the pointless repetition of dies in 112 after die in 111. As a solution he suggested emerito for medio, ‘when the day has done its service’, repeating the essential sense of uaga nocte (another reference to night rather than a change to day) but with a contrasting nuance of epithet: uaga would suggest the vagabond flightiness of night, emerito the solid service of the sun during the day. In a reply to Nisbet (PCPS 25 (1979) 69-70), Roland Mayer answered (i) by asserting the principle of an ‘illogical doublet’ (the incoherence between epithets is real but acceptable), regarded (ii) as mistaken and did not deal with (iii). More, I think, remains to be said, and elements of both these views may contribute to a different solution.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

2. On this double role see Fordyce, C. J., Catullus: A Commentary (1961) 236Google Scholar, Fedeli, P., Catullus Carmen 61 (1983), 144 n.41.Google Scholar, and in general Nisbet and Hubbard's introduction to Horace, Odes 1.27.