Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:18:47.455Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CATULLIANA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2015

Marc Dominicy
Marc Dominicy*
Affiliation:
Université libre de Bruxelles
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the following, I will propose and/or defend new or previous emendations for a set of passages in Catullus, most of which are deemed corrupt or even beyond repair by many, if not all, philologists. For the sake of simplicity, I will first quote Mynors's OCT text, except for possible changes in punctuation that will be justified, either implicitly or in their own terms, in the ensuing discussion. Those sections I consider incorrect I will put between obeli (which, on several occasions, are also Mynors's ones). In addition, I will reproduce the relevant manuscript readings recorded in Mynors's apparatus, checked against Thomson's more complete collations. In each case, I will begin with summarizing the state of the question; nevertheless, owing to the vast amount of corrections or conjectures to be examined for many passages, I will concentrate on the most significant proposals. Next, I will try to show that the correction suggested conforms to the constraints of metre and language, and (in some cases at least) sheds some light on the symbolic or intertextual dimension of the poem at hand. Finally, I will provide an account of the corruption process that presumably operated, with the aim of establishing the palaeographical verisimilitude of my proposal.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 65 , Issue 2 , December 2015 , pp. 628 - 654
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2015 

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

1 In order not to multiply footnotes, I will adopt the following bibliographical policy. Editions of Catullus (with or without commentary), and easily accessible editions of other ancient writings, will be referred to by the name(s) of their author(s) only, with the mention ad loc. left implicit. When necessary, dates will be added; page numbers and other details will only be mentioned when the passage at hand is difficult to locate. The same convention will apply to the following works: R. Ellis, A Commentary on Catullus (Oxford, 18761, 18892); C.J. Fordyce, Catullus: A Commentary (Oxford, 19611, 19732); Froehlich, J.v.G., critical notes on Lachmann's 1829 text, Abhandlungen der I. Classe der königlichen Akademien der Wissenschaften in München 5 (1849), 233–75Google Scholar; J.H. Gaisser, Catullus and His Renaissance Readers (Oxford, 1993); Harrison, S.J. and Heyworth, S.J., ‘Notes on the text and interpretation of Catullus’, PCPhS 44 (1998), 85–109 Google Scholar (each note is written by one of the two contributors); L. Havet, Manuel de critique verbale appliquée aux textes latins (Paris, 1911); A.E. Housman, Classical Papers, edd. J. Diggle and F.R.D. Goodyear (Cambridge, 1972), 3 vols.; D. Kiss, review of McKie (see below), ExClass 15 (2011), 257–71; W.M. Lindsay, An Introduction to Latin Textual Emendation Based on the Text of Plautus (London, 1896); V.P. McCarren, A Critical Concordance to Catullus (Leiden, 1977); D.S. McKie, Essays on the Interpretation of Roman Poetry (Cambridge, 2009); H.A.J. Munro, Criticisms and Elucidations of Catullus (Cambridge, 1878); Nisbet, R.G.M., ‘Notes on the text of Catullus’, PCPhS 24 (1978), 92–115 Google Scholar, reprinted in Collected Papers on Latin Literature, ed. S.J. Harrison (Oxford, 1995), 76–100; P. Oksala, Adnotationes criticae ad Catulli carmina (Helsinki, 1965); M.B. Skinner (ed.), A Companion to Catullus (Oxford, 2007); H.P. Syndikus, Catull. Eine Interpretation (Darmstadt, 1984–90), 3 vols.; J.M. Trappes-Lomax, Catullus: A Textual Reappraisal (Swansea, 2007); Watt, W.S., ‘Notes on Catullus’, ZPE 131 (2000), 65–8Google Scholar; J. Willis, Latin Textual Criticism (Urbana, Chicago and London, 1972); M. Zicàri, Scritti catulliani, ed. P. Parroni (Urbino, 1978).

2 The reader interested in the detail may consult the invaluable Catullus Online website (http://catullusonline.woodpecker.hu/CatullusOnline/), built up under the leadership of Dániel Kiss, where precise information can also be found on the readings transmitted by recentiores (referred to here by means of the usual cover letter ς).

3 The first solution, which goes back to J.F. Gronovius, De Sestertiis (Amsterdam, 1656), 551, is advocated by Ellis, Merrill, Fordyce, Quinn, Thomson; the second, by H. Magnus (quoted, without further reference, by Friedrich), Lenchantin de Gubernatis, Pighi, Bardon.

4 See also F. Bellandi, Lepos e Pathos. Studi su Catullo (Bologna, 2007), 403–14; Kroll; Lenchantin de Gubernatis; Syndikus, 1.117 n. 12.

5 H. Avancius, Emendationes (Venice, 1495), 2v.

6 K. Pleitner, Studien zu Catullus (Dillingen an der Donau, 1876), 104.

7 A point made by Bellandi (n. 4), Friedrich, McKie, Syndikus, 1.117 n. 12, Trappes-Lomax.

8 This proposal, which goes back to Muretus (dubitanter), was defended by Housman, 2.624, 3.1091.

9 Froehlich proposed hinc; G. Giri, De locis qui sunt aut habentur corrupti in Catulli carminibus (Turin, 1894), 74–6 proposed hic (adopted by Bellandi); Ellis (dubitanter) and R. Westphal, Catulls Gedichten in ihrem geschichtlichen Zusammenhange (Breslau, 1867) [21870], 184 proposed nunc.

10 See †inmortalibus† for iam mortalibus at Lucr. 5.53 and, in Sen. (Viansino), †iam† for in at Herc. F. 161 and Tro. 188, iam omitted before iudicium at Dial. 5.12.4, iam or in alone for iam in at Dial. 5.18.2, †immortalitas† for iam mortalitas at Dial. 5.43.5.

11 G.P. Goold, ‘A new text of Catullus’, Phoenix 12 (1958), 93–116, at 103.

12 O. Skutsch, ‘Notes on Catullus’, BICS 23 (1976), 18–22, at 19; H.D. Jocelyn, ‘The arrangement and the language of Catullus’ so-called polymetra with special reference to the sequence 10–11–12’, in J.N. Adams and R.G. Mayer (edd.), Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry (Oxford, 1999), 335–75, at 361–2.

13 W.M. Lindsay, Early Latin Verse (Oxford, 1922), 40–4; C. Questa, La metrica di Plauto e di Terenzio (Urbino, 2007), 99–100; J. Soubiran, Prosodie et métrique du Miles gloriosus de Plaute. Introduction et commentaire (Louvain and Paris, 1995), 18–19.

14 See P. Burmannus Jr., Miscellaneae (Amsterdam, 1734), 10, followed by Zicàri, 255–6; F. Hand, Observationum criticarum in Catulli carmina specimen (Leipzig, 1809), 53–5.

15 J. Soubiran, L’élision dans la poésie latine (Paris, 1966), 207–21. On Lucil. 1071 (Marx), see Non. 277.21 (Lindsay) and Housman, 2.693–4.

16 On the metrical and lexical singularity of 6.11, see Tracy, S.V., ‘Argutatiinambulatioque (Catullus 6.11)’, CPh 64 (1969), 234–5Google Scholar.

17 C. Barthius, Observationes, ed. F. Fiedler (Wesel, 1827), 118.

18 This account echoes, in some way, the absurd hypothesis, put forward by Schulze, Lenchantin de Gubernatis and the TLL (3.1924.15–19), that commoda might be a fem. adjective qualifying the girl; see Housman, 1.307 and Skutsch (n. 12), 19.

19 Skutsch, O., ‘Metrical variations and some textual problems in Catullus’, BICS 16 (1969), 38–43 Google Scholar has shown that, provided one prints illuc at 3.12 (what most editors do), no phalaecian appearing between poems 2 and 26 (both included) has a trochaic base; though very unfrequent, iambic bases are attested (2.4, 3.17, 7.2).

20 A point made by Trappes-Lomax, J.M., ‘Three suggestions in Latin poetry’, CQ (2002), 609–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 610 n. 3.

21 Agar, T.L., ‘Emendationes Catulli’, Mnemosyne 53 (1925), 171–6Google Scholar, 273–82, at 275–6.

22 Skutsch (n. 12), 19; Goold; Thomson; Jocelyn (n. 12), 366; Trappes-Lomax.

23 The imperative mood conveys the same ironic overtones as e.g. at 28.13 pete nobiles amicos! or Ov. Am. 3.9.37–9.

24 For other examples of pronouns functioning as stop-gaps, see Ov. Tr. 1.10.21 and Juv. 13.49 (Housman, 3.966, 3.1016–17, 3.1258), both mentioned by S.J. Heyworth, Cynthia: A Companion to the Text of Propertius (Oxford, 2007), 122.

25 See H. Drexler, Plautinische Akzentstudien (Breslau, 1932), 2.292–342; Lindsay (n. 13), 226–9, 331–4; Questa (n. 13), 185–93; Soubiran (n. 13), 25; id. (n. 15), 329–85; id., Essai sur la versification dramatique des Romains. Sénaire iambique et septénaire trochaïque (Paris, 1988), 113, 115, 148–9, 182–3, 229.

26 T. Bergk, ‘Philologische thesen’, Philologus 12 (1857), 578–81, at 581, reprinted in Kleine philologische Schriften, ed. R. Peppmüller (Halle, 1886), 2.730.

27 See Questa (n. 13), 359.

28 Pace J. Schrader, Liber emendationum (Leeuwarden, 1776), 14–15, Pighi and Trappes-Lomax, insulsa should not be corrected into salsa. Firstly, †insula† (X) for insulsa is paralleled by †insuliissimus† or †insulisissimus† (X) for insulsissimus at 17.12 and †insula† (V) for inura(t) at 25.11 (see below); insulsissima was also altered into †insulissima† at Priap. 10.1 (Clairmont). Secondly, even if the girl proved astute, the speaker's anger will naturally lead him to call her stupid (Syndikus, 1.116).

29 See Solodow, J.B., ‘ Raucae, tua cura, palumbes: study of a poetic word order’, HSPh 90 (1986), 129–53Google Scholar, at 136, who dismisses 64.184 praeterea nullo litus, sola insula, tecto by adopting colitur (A. Palmer, review of Ellis's 1878 edition, Hermathena 3 [1879], 293–363, at 344–5); for a defence of this correction against Trappes-Lomax's objections, see Dominicy, M., ‘De Catulle 113 à Properce IV, 11, 65–66’, Latomus 71 (2012), 392–403 Google Scholar, at 396–7 n. 18.

30 Rudd, N., ‘Colonia and her bridge. A note on the structure of Catullus 17’, TAPhA 90 (1959), 238–42Google Scholar, reprinted with the same pagination in K. Quinn (ed.), Approaches to Catullus (Cambridge and New York, 1972). See also B. Arkins, Sexuality in Catullus (Hildesheim, Zurich and New York, 1982), 4–6.

31 In Aristotelian terms (Poet. 1457b), we would say that the arches (made of ill-adapted recycled freestones) are to the bridge what the inepta crura are to x (the provisionally unknown value of the equation). A. Henry, Métaphore et métonymie (Brussels, 19832), 123–7 provides several examples of such configurations, e.g. Aux mâchoires de feu de l’âtre qui se creuse (Victor Hugo), where the flames are to the hollow hearth what the jaws are to x (implicitly, a human or non-human animal that aims at filling his/her/its stomach).

32 On metathesis involving r in the Catullan tradition, see McKie, 17–18 n. 68, and below, on 25.11 and 36.12. More generally, A.E. Housman, M. Manilii Astronomicon Liber Primus (Cambridge, 19372), liv–lix; Housman, 1.50–1, 1.108, 1.147–8, 1.150, 1.158–60, 1.167, 1.170, 1.382, 2.435, 2.441, 2.711–2, 3.911; Willis, 81–4. On corruptions produced by the search for rhymes (esp. between hemistichs or subverses), see Willis, 102–8 and below, on 68.158. On b and li, see Havet, 156.582, 162–3.633, and e.g. †getalia sternaeque† for Geta Basternaeque at Avien. Orb. terr. 442 (van de Woestijne). Housman's (3.991–2) plausible emendation arcubus for †auribus/aureis† at Mart. 10.24.9 is quite similar to what I am proposing here.

33 See W.S. Allen, Accent and Rhythm. Prosodic Features of Latin and Greek: A Study in Theory and Reconstruction (Cambridge, 1973), 210–13, 217–18. Exceptions in Greek: Pind. Nem. 8.7; Aesch. Cho. 589 (West), Supp. 761 βύβλου; Soph. El. 440, OC 533, OT 717, Phil. 1311; Delph. Or. 2.2 (Parke-Wormell); Lycoph. 577. In Latin, where this principle does not hold for words in contact (see e.g. mixtaquĕ blanditiis at Ov. Met. 6.626), the only (post-classical) counter-examples I am aware of occur at Anth. Lat. 196.7 (Riese) tăblistis and Drepanius Florus (Migne, PL 61.1089) tăblis.

34 Contrary to what is suggested by Housman (3.1245), lăbra occurs at Pl. Am. 444 and Cas. 452.

35 Havet, 159.600; Lindsay, 84; see †bauilla/baiula(s)† for Daulias at 65.14.

36 A. Turnebus, Adversariorum tomus tertius (Paris, 1573), 26.

37 On capital p and c/g (hence e, i, etc.), see Friedrich, 331; Havet, 160.607; Housman 1.149; Housman ad Luc. 7.419; M. Dominicy, ‘L’élégie III, 22 de Properce. Propositions pour une nouvelle édition critique’, AC 79 (2010), 137–62, at 154, and id., ‘Notes critiques sur l’élégie 4, 3 de Properce’, MH 72 (2015), 34–48, at 46–7. To the examples quoted in those works, add †apsi† T for †ac si† = at si V at 62.54, †tuignare† T = †cu(i)gnare† for pugnare V at 62.64 and, in Sen. (Viansino), insulam for pusulam (Dial. 5.43.4), ipsumque for l(a)esumque (Phaed. 187), expulit for excutit (Tro. 457).

38 See †scis† X for sis at 34.21 and 78b.4; also Lindsay, 77. On the corruption of graphic sei(-), see F. Buecheler, ‘Zur Kritik der Ciceronischen Briefe’, RhM 11 (1857), 509–35, at 515, reprinted in Kleine Schriften, ed. O. Hense and E. Lommatzsch (Leipzig–Berlin, 1915), 1.59.

39 On confusions between cum/quom, (-)quam and -que, or between -que and -ce, see Buecheler (n. 38), 518 = 1.61; Havet, 180.747–9, 181.756–60, 190.808, 215–6.914–18, 252.1060; Housman ad Luc. 9.591; below, on 29.20, 36.12, 107.1. One finds †-que† for cum at Propertius 2.3.22 and 4.1.18 (see M. Dominicy, ‘Notes critiques sur l’élégie 4, 1 de Properce’, MH 71 [2014], 85–99), †cum/-que† for quam at Ciris 123 (Knecht), †feraque† for fera quam at [Sen.] Oct. 87 (Viansino), and quinte for q(u)umce/cumce = cumque at Cic. Div. 2.149 (Giomini).

40 Statius (see Gaisser, 414–5); Ellis, R., ‘Adversaria’, Journal of Philology 17 (1888), 128–41Google Scholar, at 132–3.

41 See F. Thomas, ‘Autour d'un passage de Plaute: Mén. 141 sqq.’, Hommages à Léon Herrmann (Brussels, 1960), 705–14.

42 Froehlich, J.v.G., ‘Ueber Catullus’ Carmen XXIX’, Gelehrte Anzeigen [München] 23 (1846), 131.23–133.36 Google Scholar, at 133.34 (dubitanter).

43 See H. Quellet, Les dérivés latins en -or. Étude lexicographique, statistique et sémantique (Paris, 1969), 29–30. But serious objections have been formulated by Housman, 2.667 and Soubiran (n. 15), 210, 217–8.

44 See R.D. Williams, P. Papini Stati Thebaidos Liber Decimus (Leiden, 1972), 92–3.

45 See J. Clarke, Imagery of Colour & Shining in Catullus, Propertius, & Horace (New York, 2003), 18–19, 106–12.

46 See TLL 9.2.468.21–6 and 41–3; Quellet (n. 43), 29–30, 41, 60–1.

47 Deroux, C., ‘Catulle, 29, 15’, Latomus 28 (1969), 486–7Google Scholar; the Catullus Online website attributes this proposal to R. Verdière, who borrowed it from Deroux in 1976. A more elaborate defence can be found in Deroux, C., ‘Encore sur la sinistra liberalitas des Triumvirs (Catulle XXIX, 15)’, Latomus 72 (2013), 221–3Google Scholar. T. Birt, Commentariolus Catullianus tertius (Marburg, 1895), xiii already proposed quid istum alit (erroneously quoted as ‘Birt 1894’ in the apparatus of the Catullus Online website).

48 See G. Paci, ‘Una nuova dedica dei pueri alimentari di Cupra Montana’, in C. Deroux (ed.), Corolla Epigraphica. Hommages au professeur Yves Burnand (Brussels, 2011), 2.589–601.

49 See D. Konstan (‘The contemporary political context’) and W.J. Tatum (‘Social commentary and political invective’), in Skinner, 73–8, 339–43.

50 E. de Clercq van Jever, Selectarum observationum in M. Annaei Lucani Pharsaliam specimen alterum (Leiden, 1772), 68.

51 Wiman, G., ‘Ad Catulli textum critica’, Eranos 62 (1963), 29–37 Google Scholar, at 30.

52 T. Marcilius, In C. Valerium Catullum asterismi (Paris, 1604), 7.

53 Havet, 159.598–9; Lindsay, 84; †totam† from †tocam† for togam at Macr. 1.6.14 (Willis, 7); see below, on 73.4.

54 Minyard, J.-D., ‘Critical notes on Catullus 29’, CPh 66 (1971), 174–81Google Scholar; Deroux, C., ‘Un nouveau personnage catullien: de la philologie à l'histoire’, RBPh 55 (1977), 56–78 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 See 9.3, 28.4, 63.58, 64.28–9, 64.178, 66.15. To capture this point intuitively, consider the following acceptability contrast in English: Does chemotherapy work against cancer stem cells? This would be contrary to all we know (ok), Chemotherapy does not work against cancer stem cells. This would be contrary to all we know (ok), Chemotherapy does work against cancer stem cells. This would be contrary to all we know (nonsense). For a theorical approach to such data, see J.-C. Anscombre and O. Ducrot, L'argumentation dans la langue (Brussels–Liège, 1983), 8, 115–37. In vv. 11 and 23, the question focusses on eo nomine; see Goold's and Lee's translations: ‘Was is for this/on this account …?’.

56 Various solutions have been proposed: hunce (L. Spengel, ‘Specimen lectionum in C. Valerii Catulli carmina’, Neues Archiv für Philologie und Pädagogik (Hannover) 3 [1828], 93–127, at 114); eunce (Heyse); huice (E. Baehrens, Analecta catulliana [Jena, 1874], 43); timentque (Avancius); fiuntque (A. Tartara, Animadversiones in locos nonnullos Valeri Catulli et Titi Livi [Rome, 1881], 29–31; dubitanter); sciuntque (Birt [n. 47], xiv); eumque (G.B. Pighi, ‘Emendazioni catulliane’, RFIC 30 [1952], 38–48, at 39); fluuntque (Goold, in his 1973 edition).

57 T. Bergk, Lectiones Catullianae (Halle, 1863), iii–iv; Housman's handwritten notes in a copy of Schwabe's 1886 edition (see the Catullus Online website); Ellis; Birt (n. 56).

58 According to Putnam, M.C.J., ‘Catullus 11: the ironies of integrity’, Ramus 3 (1974), 70–86 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in Essays on Latin Lyric, Elegy, and Epic (Princeton, 1982), 13–29, at 28 n. 11, ‘[i]t is … possible that Catullus means flos ultimus, by hypallage, or even a series of meadows, one spoiled after another’; these lethal overtones are made explicit at Verg. Aen. 9.433–7.

59 See Friedrich, 211–2; Havet, 177.726; Lindsay, 74, 85; McCarren, s.v. e(x)-es(t)-et; below, on 107.7. Some additional examples: Prop. 1.5.6 and 2.5.5 (Heyworth [n. 24], 129 n. 24); Ciris 175 (Knecht); Sen. (Viansino), Phaed. 890, Dial. 3.1.4 (†et aestuante† for exaestuante); Luc. 9.649 (Housman).

60 On the alternation between ut and et, see Lindsay, 74; McCarren, s.v. et/ut; for the reduction of ae to e, see e.g. aestu radiorum corrupted into †est cura deorum† at Avien. Orb. terr. 70 (van de Woestijne) and below, on 107.8.

61 See above, on 29.4; hosque and hosce alternate at Cic. Arat. 33.285 (Soubiran).

62 Laber. 21 in Ribbeck, CRF; but C. Panayotakis, Decimus Laberius (Cambridge, 2010), 169, 175–6 prefers hunc; see also Non. 122.11 (Lindsay). For the corruption of -a et to †ae†, see e.g. †poenae† for poena et at Prop. 3.6.20 (Heyworth), †percussaque† or †percussa e(s)t† for percussae at Luc. 3.564 and †locuta est† for locutae at Luc. 5.210 (Housman); also see below, n. 82.

63 M. Haupt, Quaestiones Catullianae (Leipzig, 1837), 20–1.

64 Thompson, E. Maude, ‘Catulliana’, AJPh 21 (1900), 78–9Google Scholar; Giri (n. 9), 132–5. Similar wordplays between optimus and omnis occur at 49.5–7 and 75.3–4; see M. Dominicy, ‘Une analyse poétique de Catulle 75’, in P. Defosse (ed.), Hommages à Carl Deroux I – Poésie (Brussels, 2002), 171–82.

65 G. Liberman, Stace Silves (Paris, 2010), 272 objects to Vollmer's analysis (‘die Zweiheit ist zum Prädicat gezogen’) that bis means ‘d'abord sous le poids de l'Ossa, puis sous celui du Pélion, lui-même posé sur l'Ossa’; but what matters in such examples is the fact that two individuals or objects exhibit the same moral or physical property (of excellence, dignity, or weight), so that their simultaneous presence at some spatio-temporal point results in a ‘doubling’ of that quality or quantity.

66 See Juv. 4.40 on Ancona. Catullan scholarship traditionally emphasized the lack of any corresponding evidence concerning Durrachium – which led Fordyce to add this unexpected remark (inspired from Baehrens, Kroll, or Lenchantin de Gubernatis) in his notoriously prudish commentary: ‘the cult of Venus, which is mentioned only here, is not surprising in a large seaport’; see also G. Williams, Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry (Oxford, 1968), 222–3. In his 2007 book, Trappes-Lomax deleted v. 15, but he changed his mind after discovering that archaeological testimony supports the hypothesis that ‘Dyrrachium did have a major shrine of Venus’; see his ‘Further thoughts in Catullus’, Paideia 67 (2012), 633–45Google Scholar, at 637.

67 For the evidence available, see T.P. Wiseman, Catullan Questions (Leicester, 1969), 42–5; Cinna the Poet and Other Roman Essays (Leicester, 1974), 50; and his contribution in Skinner, 58; Thomson's edition ad loc.

68 See Wiseman, Catullan Questions (n. 67), 41 n. 3. This would militate in favour of the substitution of Hadriaticus for Hortensius at 95.3 (for the scansion, see Avien. Orb. terr. 139, 561); but other solutions are available (see Solodow, J.B., ‘On Catullus 95’, CPh 82 [1987], 92–5Google Scholar).

69 N. Heinsius, Adversariorum libri IV, ed. P. Burmannus Jr. (Harlingen, 1742), 642; see Díaz, J.A. Bellido, ‘Las notas a Catulo de A. Petreius y N. Heinsius’, ExClas 15 (2011), 123–200 Google Scholar, at 148.

70 Bergk, T., ‘Philologische Thesen’, Philologus 30 (1870), 677–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 682, reprinted in Kleine philologische Schriften (n. 26), 2.756.

71 Hydruntum is a (fem. or masc.) nominative at Plin. HN 3.100; on fem. geographical names ending in -um, see Dominicy, M., ‘Propertius, 4.5.19–21’, RhM 153 (2010), 144–87Google Scholar, at 172.

72 At Luc. 5.374–7 Brundisium decumis iubet hanc attingere castris | et cunctas reuocare rates quas auius Hydrus | antiquusque Taras … | … recipit, we should substitute a fem. epithet for the ungrammatical, oddly prosaic and referentially inadequate †auius†, retained by Housman and Shackleton Bailey; nobilis will do the job (see below, on 55.9).

73 See Lindsay, 77; McCarren, s.v. qu(a)e. In particular, one finds †colisque† for colis quaeque in v. 14, †-que† for quae at 61.111–12, †-que† for quicquam at 107.1 (see below). See also above, on 29.4.

74 At Pl. As. 731 satis iam | delu-|sum cen-|seo; | nunc rĕm ut | est e-|loqua-|mur, ia7, ut est should be analysed, phonetically, as an iambic word; see Drexler (n. 25), 2.331; Lindsay (n. 13), 331.

75 See R. Maltby, A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies (Leeds, 1991), 30; A. Michalopoulos, Ancient Etymologies in Ovid's Metamorphoses: A Commented Lexicon (Leeds, 2001), 23–4.

76 Lucr. 4.1133–4 medio de fonte leporum | surgit amari aliquid. For examples of the wordplay in question, see J.J. O'Hara, True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay (Ann Arbor, 1996), 247–8, 251, who quotes Pl. Cist. 68, Trin. 260; Verg. Ecl. 3.109–10, 10.4–6; Rhet. Her. 4.21; Quint. Inst. 9.3.69–70.

77 On the exceptional patterning of elision and word boundaries in the last three feet of this verse, see E. Norden, P. Vergilius Maro. Aeneis Buch VI (Stuttgart, 19705), 266; Soubiran (n. 15), 549–50.

78 Soubiran (n. 15), 374–80 assumes tĕ i- to be equivalent to a long vowel, so that v. 4 would fall within the exceptional ten-syllable phalaecians of poems 55 and 58b. But his analysis rests on the erroneous hypothesis that prosodic shortening of monosyllables always produced a falling diphthong: though this treatment may seem plausible in our case (tei̯-nom being paralleled by e.g. bisyllabic dei̯n(-de) at 5.7–10 and 103.2), basic phonetic principles rule out any such diphthongization in dĭ ament, quĕm ad, mĕ amas, etc.

79 I wonder what reason Trappes-Lomax (n. 20), 610 n. 2 may have for claiming that te, mi amice (Scaliger) ‘runs more smoothly than te mihi, amice’. Nisbet seems to be right when construing mihi with quaeritando; similarly, we find quos iunctos, Cameri, mihi dicares (58b.7), comparable with Camerium mihi, pessimae puellae (55.10, see below).

80 F. Hand, Q. Valerii Catulli Carmen LV in antiquam formam restituere conatus est F.H. (Jena, 1848), 9–10.

81 For a similar phenomenon, see Dominicy (n. 37 [2010]), 143.

82 On the alternation between et and -que, see Havet, 323–4.1319. On the confusion between et and te, see Housman's Manilius I (n. 32), lv; Housman, 1.147. To Housman's examples, add Prop. 2.1.35 (Heyworth) and 4.3.51 (see Dominicy, M., ‘De la métrique verbale à l’établissement du texte’, LEC 75 [2007], 227–48Google Scholar, at 227–30), Avien. Orb. terr. 691 (van de Woestijne). In Catullus, see 107.7 (to be discussed below), 64.253 and 80.8, where ilia et emulso was altered into †illa et et mulso† (Friedrich, 211, 544), then into †illa et te mulso†, and finally into †ill(a)e te mulso† owing to the reduction of -a et to -(a)e (see above, on 29.20). At 76.11 quin tu animo offirmas atque istinc teque reducis, the correction teque istinc ipse reducis (advocated by Trappes-Lomax and McKie) can be justified by an analogous process of corruption: teque was altered into †etque/atque†; the correct reading teque, written in the margin, took the place of ipse.

83 Proposed by Li, S.-Y., ‘Ancora su Catullo 55, 9’, Latomus 69 (2010), 1105–6Google Scholar (not recorded in the Catullus Online website).

84 Camps, W.A., ‘Critical and exegetical notes’, AJPh 94 (1973), 131–46Google Scholar, at 131–3. The use of cette is deliberately archaic at CLE 2151.5; see E. Courtney, Musa Lapidaria (Atlanta, 1995), ad loc. (151.5).

85 Foster, J., ‘Catullus, 55.9–12’, CQ 21 (1971), 186–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86 See 61.187, 72.1; Turp. 42 (Ribbeck, CRF) = Non. 483.30 (Lindsay); Prop. 2.29.33; Ov. Her. 6.43, 6.133, Fast. 5.525–6; Col. 6.37.9; Tac. Hist. 4.44; TLL 3.1503.82–1504.36; J.N. Adams, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (Baltimore, 1982), 190; P. Fedeli, Catullus' Carmen 61 (Amsterdam, 1983), 119. At 89.3–4, the sexual promiscuity of Gellius' family life is underlined by the phrase puellis | cognatis that punningly points to puellis cognitis; for the topical association between natus and notus, see Cic. Verr. 2.5.156, 2.5.167; Ov. Her. 8.97–100, Pont. 4.5.23–4; Plin. HN 8.88. This makes unnecessary any correction of the passage – pace Harrison, S.J., ‘Halls full of girls? Catullus 89.3’, CQ 51 (2001), 304–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Watt and McKie; see also Kiss.

87 See above, on 10.27 and 14.14. At 21.10–11, I would opt for nunc ipsum id doleo, quod esurire | meus mi puer et sitire discet (I. Meleager dubitanter, in I. Gebhardus, In Catullum, Tibullum, Propertium animaduersiones [Hannover, 1618], 20). As pointed out above (n. 19), an iambic base is acceptable in a phalaecian appearing between poems 2 and 26, notably with possessives (3.17 tuā; 7.2 tuae), while the collocation of a possessive and a dative with an ethical-possessive value imitates spoken language (see Liberman, G., ‘Remarques sur le premier livre des Élégies de Properce’, RPh 76 [2002], 49–100 Google Scholar, at 68, on Pl. Truc. 698 and Prop. 1.6.9); for a convincing rebuttal of MacKie's insane puer, see Kiss. At 37.11–14 puella nam mi, quae meo sinu fugit, | … | consedit istic, S.J. Harrison, ‘The need for a new text of Catullus’, in C. Reitz (ed.), Von Text zu Buch (St Katherinen, 2000), 63–79, at 70–1 and Watt object to mi (M. Marulić [ς], see the Catullus Online website for more details; N. Heinsius, marginalia, see Bellido-Díaz [n. 69], 148) that the ethical-possessive dative should be closely connected to the main verb (relying on a similar argument, Trappes-Lomax deletes v. 12); but see Lucr. 2.500–3; Cic. Verr. 2.3.213 (quoted by Trappes-Lomax), Fam. 9.2.1 at tibi repente paucis post diebus, cum minime expectarem, uenit ad me Caninius mane.

88 See e.g. the well-known †alcos† for golgos/†colcos† at 36.14, †inde corsater† for uidear satur at 48.4, †moenico† for moenia at 64.212, †concillis/conciliis† for ancillis at 67.42 (Friedrich, 168, 360; McKie, 133); also †auius† for nobilis at Luc. 5.375 (see n. 72).

89 See, for instance, Lafaye and Arkins (n. 30), 23–4, who still render Avancius's text as ‘découvrant son sein nu’ or ‘bar[ing] her bosom’. Similarly, Lafaye translates 61.52–3 tibi uirgines | zonula soluunt sinus as ‘c'est pour toi que les vierges dénouent la ceinture de leur sein’. As pointed out by Housman (1.289), the same mistake was made about Prop. 4.4.71–2 illa ruit, qualis celerem prope Thermodonta | Strymonis abscis(s)o fertur aperta sinu; see e.g. J.K. Newman, Augustan Propertius: The Recapitulation of a Genre (Hildesheim–Zürich–New York, 1997), 365–6, as well as D. Paganelli's and S. Viarre's absurd translations in their Budé editions: ‘le sein nu et déchiré’, ‘montrant son sein mutilé à travers son vêtement déchiré’. Most editors correct fertur into pectus (Hertzberg) but fertur operta is an attractive solution (M. Dominicy, ‘Notes critiques sur les élégies IV, 4 et IV, 5 de Properce’, AC [forthcoming]).

90 A. Riese, review of L. Schwabe, Coniecturae catullianae (Dorpat = Tartu, 1864), Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogik 91 (1865), 295–304, at 298.

91 Quinn's and Della Corte's hypotheses of a pun on pectus (‘breast’ and ‘heart’, i.e. ‘thoughts’) or of a parody of tragic diction should be ruled out.

92 Kokoszkiewicz, K.M., ‘Catullus 14B, 16, 41, 43, 55, 58B: Adnotationes criticae’, Mnemosyne 62 (2007), 608–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 620.

93 H. Hermes, Beiträge zur Kritik und Erklärung des Catull (Frankfurt an der Oder, 1888), 17–19.

94 See A. Rich, A Dictionary of Roman and Greek Antiquities (London, 18936), s.v. nodus; C. Daremberg and E. Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines (Paris, 1877–1919), s.v. cingula.

95 Norden (n. 77), 446–8; L. De Neubourg, La base métrique de la localisation des mots dans l'hexamètre latin (Brussels, 1986), 68–71, 77–9; P. Tordeur, Deux études de métrique verbale (Brussels, 2007), 231–40; O. Skutsch, The Annals of Q. Ennius (Oxford, 1985), 50–1.

96 W. Schulze, Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen (Göttingen, 1904), 104–7.

97 Catullus' attacks on Gellius might well be due to similar reasons; see Wiseman (n. 67 [1974]), 119–29.

98 On Padua, see Polyb. 2.16.11 (Παδόα); on Padusa, see Plin. HN 3.119 and Valg. 3 (Courtney, FLP), quoted in Serv. ad Aen. 11.457. Contrary to Munro, Wiseman (n. 67 [1974]), 49 assumes that the two names refer to the same branch.

99 See auectam at 64.132, and the alternation between (possibly correct) auectus and (possibly corrupt) auctus at 66.11. Li, S.-Y., ‘Nota a Catullo 68, 157’, Maia 62 (2010), 53–6Google Scholar, who advocates auctam while also envisaging augens and auctis (none of those corrections being recorded in the Catullus Online website), has to assume that a purely palaeographical drift led to †aufert†.

100 See above, on 29.19; †magis† for malis at Lucr. 6.1150 (Martin), Ciris 181 (Knecht), [Sen.] Herc. O. 1266 (Viansino), Juvenc. 2.695 (Marold); †malis† for magis at Prop. 3.13.62, Juvenc. 4.563. On the Propertian line, see Dominicy, M., ‘Properce, III, 13, 59–62’, Latomus 66 (2007), 1008–9Google Scholar.

101 O. Ribbeck, Review of F. Ritschl, Prooemiorum Bonnensium decas (Berlin, 1861), Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogik 85 (1862), 369–86Google Scholar, at 378.

102 On this phenomenon, see Soubiran (n. 15), 528; De Neubourg (n. 95), 95–6; and Dominicy (n. 71), 152–3. At 64.193 Eumenides, quibus anguino redimita capillo, the morphological division angu-ino might play the same role.

103 Maehly, J., ‘Zu Catullus’, Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogik 103 (1871), 341–57Google Scholar, at 357.

104 We should rule out the linguistically implausible emendations magis nostra and mage uitam ( Butrica, J.L., ‘Catullus 107.7–8’, CQ 52 [2002], 608–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Trappes-Lomax). For a criticism of Trappes-Lomax's systematic recourse to ecthlipsis, see McKie, 157–9. At 116.8, dabis supplicium is a parody of Enn. Ann. 100 (Vahlen) hoc nec tu: nam mi calido dabis sanguine poenas; see e.g. Tatum (n. 49), in Skinner, 350.

105 On the confusions between te and et, see above, on 55.4. On the confusions between et and est, see †culpa et† D for culpa est at 91.10 (Friedrich, 212); Lucr. 3.992 (Martin); Prop. 3.3.29 (see Dominicy [n. 37 (2010)], 154 n. 59), 3.7.25 (†positaque† from †posita et† for posita est), 3.11.64; Ciris 53 (Knecht); Sen. Oed. 516, [Sen.] Herc. O. 1025 (Viansino); above, on 29.20. On †hac† for ac, see Lindsay, 73, the alternations between †ha† (V) and ac at 22.16 or †hac† (OG) and ac (R) at 61.169, †ad hac me† (V) for at Acme at 45.10.

106 See †adeptos† or †adeptus† for adepta es at 66.27, Lucr. 3.306 (Martin) (†sitas† for sita est); Prop. 4.1.36 (†Fidenas† for Fidena est), 4.1.73 (†cantas† for cantu est), 4.2.19 (†noces† for nota est); Dominicy, M., ‘Notes critiques sur l’élégie IV, 2 de Properce’, Latomus 68 (2009), 923–32Google Scholar, at 928 and id. (n. 39).

107 See Hoenigswald, H.M., ‘A note on Latin prosody: initial s impure after short vowel’, TAPhA 80 (1949), 271–80Google Scholar.

108 O.L. Richmond, manuscript notes quoted in Cornish's 1913 edition.

109 R. Peiper, Q. Valerius Catullus. Beiträge zur Kritik seiner Gedichte (Breslau, 1875), 61–2.

110 I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer and the Editor, whose insighful comments and suggestions on content and language have considerably enriched this article.