No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009
This has always been one of my favourite poems, but if I were asked why, I should be hard put to it for an answer. I suppose it is because it seems to me the most perfect example of urbanitas in Latin poetry. Others will prefer Horace—those who prefer curiosa felicitas, and I admit at once there is nothing here to match such an exquisite felicity as ‘tange Chloen semel arrogantem’ (o si sic omnia!). But even in Horace such apparently effortless grace is rare; usually we find as much curiositas as felicitas: we marvel at the art, but I for one feel uneasily conscious of the tour de force. In other words, I feel the effects are calculated, whereas I always feel that Catullus dashed down his shorter poems, at least, in a few minutes—as we know Schubert did many of his songs: even Mozart composed in his head, though without the necessity of writing. Of the labor limae the outstanding examples are Horace and Beethoven. For Horace we have his own word: in the case of Beethoven no one would suspect to what an extent he carried it, if his note-books had not been preserved.
However de gustibus non disputandum: it is the old controversy between Munro, who favoured Catullus and Lucretius, and Conington, who preferred Horace and Virgil. (Those who have access to Conington's Miscellaneous Writings will find there a most interesting statement of his views: Munro's reply will be found in Criticisms and Elucidations of Catullus.)
Page 109 note 1 It must be admitted that the use of τἑμɛνoς = ‘temple’ makes the attribution to Plato doubtful, yet I do not think that to any later age A. seemed like that.
Page 109 note 2 The folk-song πλɛiστoν oὖλoν ĩɛτ, ĩɛτ may be older even than Sappho.
Page 109 note 3 It is noteworthy that he also avoided glyconics, in this case, I am sure, because he knew he could not hope to equal Cat. 34 and 61.
Page 110 note 1 There is an inconsistency (intentional or not): if there was nothing for praetors or staff, the fact that Memmius was a swine is immaterial. Munro's punctuation certainly eases (without removing) this.
Page 111 note 1 How far Virgil considered the Eclogues as requiring high dignity may be doubted: ancient commentators class them in the genus tenue, akin to Comedy; Greek critics make Bucolic poetry a branch of the Mime. This, I think, accounts for Virgil's unhappy attempts at humour and explains Horace's molle atque facetum, of which I find a different translation in every explanation I have ever seen, English or foreign. I feel sure it means ‘graceful and witty’, as editors would admit if they saw Bucolic poetry as the ancients saw it. (Cuium pecus, Ecl. 3. 1, is strange—it can hardly be colloquial: is it rusticitas? Compare the parody ‘Dic mihi, Damoeta, cuium pecus anne Latinum?’ ‘Non verum Aegones nostri sic rure loquuntur.’)
Page 111 note 2 e.g. there is no doubt that the first word of Catullus is quoi: Cicero wrote quoi, and so did Virgil, I think, in Ecl. 4. 62 (hinc illae lacrimae!). The ‘correct’ spelling of the ‘best’ manuscripts is of the first century a.d., not b.c.
Page 111 note 3 This illustrates C.'s scansion of Ravide as Raude, exactly as avideo became audeo, and throws some light on his ‘harsh’ elisions: they represent current Latin pronunciation, as in Mime and Comedy.
Page 112 note 1 Suetonius quotes some interesting specimens of the actual speech and writing of the emperors.
Page 112 note 2 A similar survival is dum with the present, of past time. In Plautus temporal conjunctions constantly take a historic present. In the special case of dum, Classical Latin found it convenient to distinguish between dum laboro and dum laborabam.
Page 113 note 1 So velut for velut si (Housman on Manil. 2. 138): on this and similar ellipses see Löfstedt, , Z. Sprache Tert. 36.Google Scholar
Page 113 note 2 Why Lucretius should have paid him the magnificent compliment of a dedication will always be a puzzle; but it is no doubt through his connexion with Memmius that C. was able to read Lucretius before his early death.