Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:06:53.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CATULLUS 66.53 AND VIRGIL, ECLOGUES 5.51

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2017

Kristoffer Maribo Engell Larsen
Kristoffer Maribo Engell Larsen*
Affiliation:
Corpus Christi College, University of Oxford, Department of Greek and Latin, University of Copenhagen
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Modern editors of Catullus all agree on the text of line 53. The manuscripts also agree on the line, the only difference being R transmitting mutantibus, while O and G transmit nutantibus. Nevertheless, a few scholars have in the past questioned the reading of nutantibus. As the lines quoted above illustrate, Catullus generally translates Callimachus’ poem closely. But neither of the words suggested in the manuscripts seems wholly to describe the rapid and vigorous movement of Callimachus’ κυκλώσας βαλιὰ πτερά, ‘having whirled its swift wings’. The reading of nutantibus is somewhat supported by Apuleius’ pinnarum nutantium (Met. 6.15.5). But there too the nodding, swaying and wavering sense of nutare does not seem to illustrate the hurried and rapid action of Jupiter's eagle. Additionally, the wording of the passage is sufficiently disputed to make it possible that nutantium is not the correct reading.

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , May 2017 , pp. 304 - 307
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

1

I am very grateful to Professor Stephen Harrison for his generous supervision and helpful suggestions on this piece. I am also grateful to CQ’s anonymous referee for several interesting observations, e.g. that Catullus’ nutantibus might be a nod towards Callimachus’ θῆλυς ἀήτης, rather than an incorrectly transmitted translation of the action in Callimachus’ κυκλώσας βαλιὰ πτερά, as I suggest in this article.

References

2 Editions cited: Harder, A., Callimachus Aetia Volume 1: Introduction, Text, and Translation (Oxford, 2012)Google Scholar; Mynors, R.A.B., C. Valerii Catulli Carmina (Oxford, 1958)Google Scholar; Ottaviano, S. and Conte, G.B., P. Vergilius Maro: Bucolica; Georgica (Berlin; Boston, 2011)Google Scholar.

3 Marinone, N., Berenice da Callimaco a Catullo (Bologna, 1997), 68Google Scholar; Thomson, D.F.S., Catullus (Toronto, 1997), 167Google Scholar; Godwin, J., Catullus. Poems 61–68 (Warminster, 1995), 82Google Scholar; Lafaye, G., Catulle. Poésies (Paris, 1992), 71Google Scholar; Lee, G., The Poems of Catullus (Oxford, 1990), 108Google Scholar; Eisenhut, W., Catulli Veronensis Liber (Leipzig, 1983), 53Google Scholar; Goold, G.P., Catullus (London, 1983), 168Google Scholar; Bardon, H., Catulli Veronensis Liber (Stuttgart, 1973), 103Google Scholar; Kroll, W., C. Valerius Catullus (Stuttgart, 1959 3), 207Google Scholar; Mynors, R.A.B., C. Valerii Catulli Carmina (Oxford, 1958), 77Google Scholar.

4 O = Oxoniensis Canonicianus class. lat. 30; G = Parisinus lat. 14137; R = Vaticanus Ottobonianus lat. 1829. The reading of R was soon corrected into nutantibus by the first owner of the manuscript, Coluccio Salutati. The hand of Salutati is generally referred to as R2.

5 For a wider discussion of Catullus’ translation of Callimachus’ poem, see recently I. Quesnay, Du, ‘Three problems in poem 66’, in Quesnay, I. Du and Woodman, T. (edd.), Catullus. Poems, Books, Readers (Cambridge, 2012), 163–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bing, P., The Scroll and the Marble: Studies in Reading and Reception in Hellenistic Poetry (Ann Arbor, 2009), 66–82 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gaisser, J.H., Catullus (Oxford, 2009), 147–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 I thank CQ’s anonymous referee for the interesting suggestion that nutare could be used in Catullus ‘for the action of landing, in Apuleius for taking off in haughty disdain; both actions requiring the same sort of hovering action’. However, since the action in Callimachus’ κυκλώσας βαλιὰ πτερά seems to be rapid and vigorous rather than hovering, I do think that nutantibus is the wrong reading in Catullus. In the case of Apuleius, CQ’s referee might indeed be right.

7 motantium molibus would certainly give an attractive alliteration. For motare see further down.

8 Apart from a few ancient testimonia Callimachus’ poem was unknown until the publications by Vitelli, G., ‘Frammenti della “Chioma di Berenice” di Callimaco in uno papiro della Società Italiana’, SIFC 7 (1929), 3–12 Google Scholar, and Lobel, E., ‘2258. Callimachus’, in Lobel, E., Wegener, E.P. and Roberts, C.H. (edd.), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Part XX (London, 1952), 69–107 Google Scholar. For a schematic presentation of the transmission of the poem, see Hansen, P. and Tortzen, C.G., ‘Berenikes plokamos – coma Berenices’, Museum Tusculanum 20 (1973), 29–54 Google Scholar, at 32.

9 Muretus, M.A., Catullus, et in eum commentarius (Venice, 1558), 15Google Scholar: ‘Memnonis Aethiopis unigena, id est, Aurora, quæ unum Memnonem ex Tithono genuit, impellente aera natantibus pennis, (ita enim hoc postremum in ueteribus non nullis legitur) id est, exoriente.’

10 Recently Harder, A., Callimachus Aetia Volume 2: Commentary (Oxford, 2012), 852Google Scholar: ‘For Zephyrus and Memnon as sons of Eos, cf. Hes. Th. 378ff. … and 948f.’

11 Cf. Bailey, C., Titi Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura. Libri Sex. Volume I. Prolegomena, Text and Critical Apparatus. Translation (Oxford, 1947), 556Google Scholar; Martin, J., T. Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura (Leipzig, 1963), 262Google Scholar; Buechner, C., T. Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura (Wiesbaden, 1966), 284Google Scholar.

12 Bentley, R., ‘Notae ad elegiam Catulli de coma Berenices’, in Graevius, T.J.G.F. (ed.), Callimachi Hymni, Epigrammata, et Fragmenta (Utrecht, 1697), 437Google Scholar: ‘Omnino nutans & languidum est illud epitheton nutantibus: sed a librariis profectum est, non a Catullo; qui sine dubio scripsit. Unigena impellens NICTANTIBUS aera pennis. Quid sit nictari, vide apud Festum: Lucretius lib. VI. Cujus ubi e regione loci venere volantes; | Claudicat extemplo pennarum NISUS inanis, | Et conamen utrinque alarum proditur omne: | Hic ubi NICTARI nequeunt, insistereque alis. Virgilius IV. Hic primum paribus NITENS Cyllenius alis.’

13 Martyn, J.R.C., ‘Catullus 66.53’, Eranos 72 (1974), 193–5Google Scholar, at 195: ‘I suggest that Catullus wrote nictantibus (“flashing”), thus adding movement to the mock-epic assault, and giving the full force [along with impellens] of κυκλώσας.’

14 According to D. Kiss, Catullus Online. An Online Repertory of Conjectures on Catullus (http://www.catullusonline.org/CatullusOnline/index.php?dir=poems&w_apparatus=1) (2013, apparatus criticus on Catull. 66.53, consulted 14 November 2016) Johannes Schrader suggested nitentibus ‘ante 1784’. Unfortunately, Schrader's handwritten notes on Catullus have not been available to me.

15 Guarinus, A., Alexandri Guarini Ferrariensis in C.V. Catullum Veronensem per Baptistam Patrem Emendatum Expositiones … (Venice, 1521), LXXXVIIIGoogle Scholar: ‘ales unigena memnonis æthiopis impellens aera pennis motantibus uel nutantibus obtulit se’; and further down on the same page: ‘impellens aera, uolans pennis motantibus frequenter aera ipsum mouentibus uel pennis mutantibus.’

16 Manuscripts transmit forms of motare in Verg. Ecl. 5.5, Ecl. 6.28 and Gell. NA 11.3.1. Merkel suggested motasse for mutasse in Ov. Met. 4.46, which is accepted by Tarrant, R.J., P. Ouidi Nasonis Metamorphoses (Oxford, 2004), 95Google Scholar, and Barchiesi, A., Ovidio. Metamorfosi. Volume II (Libri III-IV) (Florence, 2007), 66Google Scholar; cf. G. Rosati, ‘Commento. Libro quarto’, in Barchiesi (this note), 254: ‘motasse è correzione palmare di Merkel per il mutasse dei mss., erroneamente indotto dal contesto metamorfico’. Further, Gronovius suggested motatque for mouet atque in Ov. Met. 11.674, rejected by Tarrant (this note), 339 but accepted by Reed, J.D., Ovidio. Metamorfosi. Volume V (Libri X-XII) (Florence, 2013), 106Google Scholar (see argumentation on p. 367). Finally, Forbergerus emended motat for mouet/mouit in Priapea 19.3, accepted by Baehrens, E., Poetae Latini Minores. Volumen I (Leipzig, 1879), 64Google Scholar and most recently by Callebat, L., Priapées (Paris, 2012), 9Google Scholar.

17 Catull. 66.39–40: inuita, o regina, tuo de uertice cessi, | inuita: adiuro teque tuumque caput; Verg. Aen. 6.460: inuitus, o regina, tuo de litore cessi; Aen. 6.492–3: testor, cara, deos et te, germana, tuumque | dulce caput.

18 The song of the Fates (Catull. 64.326–81) is echoed in Verg. Ecl. 4.46–7, while Vesper Olympo (Catull. 62.1) seems to be echoed in Verg. Ecl. 6.86.

19 Servius (= Thilo, G. [ed.], Servii Grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii Bucolica et Georgica [Leipzig, 1878], 54Google Scholar); de la Cerda, J.L., P. Virgilii Maronis Bucolica et Georgica. Argumentis, Explicationibus, et Notis illustrata (Toledo, 1608), 89Google Scholar; Forbiger, A., P. Virgilii Maronis Opera, (Leipzig, 1852), 83Google Scholar. Heyne, C.G., Publius Virgilius Maro. Varietate Lectionis et Perpetua Adnotatione illustratus … (London, 1830), 149–50Google Scholar suggests that we read motantibus transitively, but offers a reflective sense as well: ‘Mode recte accipias Zephyris motantibus scil. eas umbras. Nisi alteram malis motantibus esse mouentibus se.’

20 Wakefield, G., P. Virgilii Maronis Opera. Volumen Prius (London, 1796), 277Google Scholar (unnumbered page) seems to suggest an intransitive use: ‘Minimè autèm ineptum videtur affirmare, umbras “variare” ob Zephyrorum “motum”.’ So do Page, T.E., P. Vergili Maronis Bucolica et Georgica (Edinburgh, 1968), 132Google Scholar; Coleman, R., Vergil Eclogues (Cambridge, 1977), 155Google Scholar; and Williams, R.D., Virgil The Eclogues & Georgics (New York, 1979), 110Google Scholar.

21 OLD s.v. moto cites the passage as transitive, but fails to mention the crucial preposition sub: ‘to set in motion, shaken, stir, etc. incertas Zephyris ~antibus umbras Verg. Ecl. 5.5’.

22 Lewis and Short s.v. moto: ‘to keep moving, move about (poet.): Zephyris motantibus, Verg. E. 5, 5’.

23 TLL 8.1531.82–3, s.v. moto: ‘frequenter, vehementer movere (mediopass. …): Verg. ecl. 5, 5 sub incertas zephyris -antibus umbras’.

24 OLD s.v. moueo 13; Lewis and Short s.v. moueo II.

25 For the sense of swiftness, see Callebat (n. 16), 128: ‘le verbe motare dénotant un mouvement rapide, répété et/ou violent’.