Concatenatio Catulliana: A New Reading of the Carmina

Citation preview

CONCATENATIO CATULLIANA

AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY EDITORS

ALBERT RUKSBARON lRENE J.F. DE JONG HARM PINKSTER VOLUMENINE

PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED 1.

2.

3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

A. RIJKSBARON, Grammatical Observations on Euripides' Bacchae. 1991. R. RISSELADA, Imperatives and other Directive Expressions in Latin. A Study in the Pragmatics 0/ a Dead Language. 1993. G. W AKKER, Conditions and Conditionals. An Investigation 0/ Ancient Greek. 1994. C. KROON, Discourse Particles in Latin. A Study o/nam, enim, autem, vero and at. 1995. H. DIK, Word Order in Ancient Greek. A Pragmatic Account 0/ Word Order Variation in Herodotus. 1995. J.E. V.D. VEEN. The Significant and the Insignificant. Five Studies in Herodotus' View 0/ History. 1996. A. RIJKSBARON (ed.), New Approaches to Greek Particles. 1997. R. RISSELADA (ed.), Latin in Use. 1998.

PAUL CLAES

CONCATENATIO CATULLIANA A NEW READING OF THE CARMINA

J.C. GIEßEN, PUßLISHER AMSTERDAM 2002

No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher.

© by P. Claes, 2002 I Printed in The Netherlands I ISBN 90 5063 288 2

Catullum nunquam ante lectum ... lego Ratherius of Verona, Sermo de Maria et Martha

occulta quaedam est concatenatio Giovanni Pico de la Mirandola, Apologia

CONTENTS INrRODUcnON

3

CIIAPTER I: The Arrangement of the Carmina

5

1. General Structure of the Collection 2. Contents of the Collection 2.1 The Unity of Poem 2 2.2 The Unity of Poem 14 2.3 Poem 58b 2.4 Other Fragments of Catullus? 3. The Editor of the Collection 4. The Tripartition of the Collection 5. The Arrangement of the Collection 5.1 Chronological Arrangement 5.2 Metrical Arrangement 5.3 Cyclical Disposition 5.4 Ring Composition 5.5 Thematic Arrangement 6. The Principle of Variation

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 17 18 19 21 22 22 23

CHAPfER II: The Principle of Concatenation

27

1. Thematic Concatenation 1.1 Simple Thematic Concatenation 1.2 Disjunctive Thematic Concatenation 2. Lexical Concatenation 2.1 The Principle of Lexical Concatenation 2.2 Some Examples of Lexical Concatenation 2.3 Devices of Lexical Concatenation 2.4 An Inventory of Lexical Concatenation 2.5 Functions of Lexical Concatenation 2.6 Concatenation in Classical Poetry

27 27

29 30 30 31 34 35 49 51

2

CHAPTER III: A Concatenary Reading of Catullus

57

1. Thematic and Lexical Concatenation in the Carmina 2. A Summary of Thematic Links 3. Principles of the Arrangement 4. Concentric Composition 4.1 Poems 76-92 4.2 Poems 92-107 4.3 Poems 1-36 4.4 Internal Annular Composition 5. Towards a New Edition of Catullus 6. Eight Conclusions

58 111 117 120 121 122 124 126 131 149

EPILOGUE

151 153 167

BmuooRAPHY INDEX OF TERMs

INTRODUCTION The arrangement ofCatullus' Carmina is one of those controversial issues that incite respectable commentators to take up extreme positions. In 1914, the German scholar Bernhard Schmidt described the collection as 'a wild chaos'. Forty-five years later, his compatriot Otto Weinreich riposted with the laconic statement: 'Chaos? Cosmos!' Former attempts to detect a structure in the volume were based on rather subjective assumptions. The principle of concatenation, which I discovered while translating Catullus' poetry into Dutch, has an objective foundation, viz. the recurrence of motifs and phrases in consecutive poems. The generality of the phenomenon proves that the poet conceived of the volume as a coherent collection, in which the poems fit like links in achain. The discovery of this coherence suggests a new reading of the Carmina. The first chapter of this study presents a status quaestionis. The principle of concatenation is discussed in the second chapter. In the third chapter, I intend to read the volume as a structured whole by examining thematic interactions and lexical connections between the poems. If my solution of this old philological problem is correct, the entire approach to Catullus' poetry should be revised. As regards textual criticism, lexical concatenation will enable us to defend or to correct the received text. As to the interpretation of the poems, thematic concatenation can c1arify the exact meaning of numerous passages. Indeed, far from being a chaotic compilation the collection is a sophisticated concatenation, whose concordia discors should be studied in detail by future scholars. Finally, I hope that my redefinition of the concept of variation may prove fertile in exploring the coherence of other ancient authors and anthologies. I should like to thank Professor T.P. Wiseman (Exeter) for his valuable comments. I am also indebted to Dr Rudi van der Paardt (Leiden) for his careful reading of my manuscript. Leuven (Belgium), August 2001

CHAPTERI

THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE CARMINA The structure of Catullus' Cannina raises a number of intricate problems. The most fundamental questions appear to be the following: (1) What is the general structure of Catullus' Cannina? (2) Do the present contents of the Cannina correspond to the original collection? (3) Who edited the Cannina? (4) Was the collection divided into books? (5) In what way were the poems arranged? Some of these problems seem to be interrelated. For convenience's sake they are dealt with separately in the following discussion. The most recent status quaestionis is to be found in Beck (1996). His comprehensive study relieves me of the tiresome task of expounding the numerous contradictory theories in detail. Since my own investigation offers a brand-new approach to the question, I do not wish to enter into a polemic with my predecessor. Suffice it to notice that his criticism of the 'unitarians' does not exclude the possibility that the poet edited the Carmina himself. Helen Dettmer's study Love by the Numbers (1997) presents many valuable insights and illuminating remarks, which happily confmn my own research. Unfortunately, she maintains her hypothesis of a division into nine successive 'rings' (see Chapter 1.5.4). Both Beck and Dettmer were harshly criticized by Holzberg (2000); I hope to convince the reader that my theory has been built on a more solid base. My reference-text is R.A.B. Mynors' C. Valerii Catulli cannina (Oxford Classical Texts), Oxford: Clarendon Press 1958 (repr. 1986). Several textual corrections are proposed in section 5 of Chapter III. Works of Greek and Latin authors are abbreviated as in Liddell & Scott' s GreekEnglish Lexicon (1996) and Glare's Oxford Latin Dictionary (1982), periodicals as in L'Annee philologique. Sigla are explained at the beginning of Chapter III.

6 1. GENERAL SmuCTIJRE OF TIIE COLLECTION

The poems of Catullus are conspicuously heterogeneous as to genre, metre, and length. Wheeler (1964: 15ff.) described the collection as 'a sort of hodgepodge', emphasizing that no other extant ancient book of poetry approximates its extreme variety. He conc1uded that 'Catullus hirnself is not responsible for the three main groups of poems as they stand in our collection', and that the 'arrangement of the poems in detail is, with few exceptions, probably not his'. According to Wheeler's influential 'compilation theory', Catullus' book is a posthumous collection consisting of published and unpublished poems loosely arranged by an unknown editor. (a) It is unquestionable that the volume displays a wide variety of genera: satirical, amatorial, epigrammatical, epical, lyrical, and hymnical pieces seem to be scattered at random. But this generic alternation or polyeideia (Callimachus fr. 203 Pfeiffer) reflects Alexandrian poikilia or variety (Fuhrer 1994:105) and should not be used as an argument against the coherence of the collection. (b) In the matter of metries, Catullus uses no less than twelve different metres, viz. dactylic hexameters and pentameters, Phalaecian and Sapphic hendecasyllabics, adonics, iambic trimeters and septenaries, choliambics (scazons), priapeans, galliambics, glyconics and major asc1epiads. Moreover, he experiments with pure iambic trimeters (poems 4 and 29) and with decasyllabics varying on Phalaecian hendecasyllabics (poems 55 and 58b). Qnly the elegies and epigrams 65-116 written in elegiacs combine in a tight unity. The sequence of poems 1-60, the polymetrics, consists for the two thirds of hendecasyllabics, altemating with poems in (chol)iambic and lyrical metres. Seetion 61-64 contains two poems in hexameters, alternating with one poem in glyconics and one poem in galliambics. This diversity recalling the varied structure of Callimachus' Iambics (Puelma Piwonka 1978:3IOff.) announces the polymetry of Horace's Odes. Comparable Latin polymetric collections inc1ude the Appendix Vergiliana, the Priapea, and Statius' Silvae (Coppel 1973: 170). By combining heterogeneous metrics Catullus c1early wishes to prove his mastery of prosody. A typical technique is the Kreuzung der Gattungen 'blending of genres', i.e. generic composition in unusual metres (Kroll 1924:202ff., Fuhrer 1994). (c) In the matter of length, the sequence of longer poems 61-68b, the carmina maiora, contrasts with both sequences of shorter poems 1-60 and 69-116, the carmina minora. Wiseman (1979: 178) emphasized that the

7

collection was designed as a whole, pointing out several thematical crossreferences between cannina minora and cannina maiora. Note, e.g., c. 7.3ff. and 61.199ff. (similes of sand and stars); c. 30.10 uentos irritaferre ac nebulas aereas sinis and 64.142 quae cuncta aerii discerpunt irrita uenti; c. 64.218-219 quandoquidemfortuna mea ... eripit ... mihi te and 101.5 quandoquidem fortuna mihi tete abstulit ipsum; c. 68a.20, 68b.92 and 101.6 frater adempte mihi. The central position of the longer and more important poems has raised doubts as to the originality of the arrangement. But some scholars (Svennung 1945:20, Granarolo 1973-1974:62) have discemed a 'mesodic' order in the symmetrical architecture of the whole. Weinreich (1959a:248; see Coppel 1973:148-150, Scherf 1996:69-73) compared its 'triptych' structure with the Epigrammata Bobiensia (ca. 400 A.D.). The arrangement of poems around a longer central piece is a common practice in ancient poetry. Compare, e.g., the long elegy on Marcus Valerius Messalla Corvinus in the centre of Virgil' s Catalepton, and the Augustus-poem in the centre ofthe fourth book ofPropertius' Elegies. Consequently, everything suggests that the heterogeneous structure of the volume is a conscious application of the Hellenistic technique of variation.

2. CONTENTS OFTHE COUECTION

All modem editions of Catullus are based on transcripts of the lost codex Veronensis, written in the late thirteenth century (ca. 1280 A.D., according to Thomson 1997:25). In comparison with the archetype this manuscript must have contained a number of gaps. Apparently, lines or parts of lines have been left out in poems 34, 51, 61, 62, 64, 65, 68b, 95. The omissions are fewer than some hypercritical philologists have assumed. I agree with Schuster (1948:2365), who stated that nothing of vital importance has been lost in spite of lacunae. Most recent editors regard pieces 54 and 60 as complete poems. A different problem arises with the so-called fragments 2b, 14b, 58b, and 78b. The Italian humanist Battista Guarino (1425-1513) detached 2b and 14b from poems 2 and 14 respectively, and regarded 58b as a stray fragment of poem 55. His interferences strengthened the general view that Catullus' volume is an incomplete and chaotic collection. I contend that the first two fragments link up with the preceding poems whereas the third fragment is a separate poem. The cases of poem 51 and fragment 78b will be exarnined in Chapter III.5.

8

2.1 THE UNITY OF POEM 2

The manuscripts give the last lines of poem 2 without any spacing or gap after curas: tecum ludere sicut ipsa possem et tristis animi leuare curas. tam gratum est mihi quam ferunt puellae pernici aureolum fuisse malum quod zonam soluit diu negatam.

Editors failing to detect any connection between the final three lines and the preceding lines have proposed different emendations and transpositions to fit 'fragment' 2b (Le. c. 2.11-13) somewhere. Some years ago Felgentreu (1993) defended the disputed unity of poem 2 by identifying the aureolum malum 'golden apple' with the malum passerinum 'sparrow-quince'. The passer 'sparrow', a wanton bird sacred to Aphrodite, was a well-known love token whereas the malum 'apple' had a similar erotic function (compare c. 65.19 missum sponsi furtiuo munere malum 'an apple sent as a secret gift by her fiance', and see Wirth 1986). The choice of the sparrow-quince as a love-apple stresses the sirnilarity between animal and fruit. The addition of fragment 2b to 2 results in internal annular composition (see Chapter 111.4.4), marked by: (a) the repetition of puellae, and the synonymy of deliciae and [quod] gratumest; (b) the parallel between Passer and malum (sc. passerinum); (c) the sexual innuendo of in sinu tenere and zonam soluit. There remains one weak point in Felgentreu's argumentation; he must adrnit the harsh transition from the subjunctive mood of tecum ludere sicut ipsa possem to the indicative mood of tam gratum est mihi. But some forty years ago Barwick (1958:313) explained the indicative as a modal form, meaning Es wäre mir so lieb 'It would be as welcome to me' (cf. the German translation Auch mir wär' es so lieb in Schöne 1941:1 and EIlis' commentary 1876:6). The indicative mood seems to be used here as in the impersonallocutions aequum est, longum est, par est, melius est, satius est. The Latin indicative emphasizes the real existence of the modality expressed whereas modern languages use the subjunctive, stressing the fact that the event does not actually take place (Hofmann & Szantyr 1965:327, Ernout & Thomas 1964:247). Barwick did not exemplify this use of gratum est. But there is a very sirnilar instance in Seneca Med. 552-553: liceat ultimum amplexum dare: gratum est et illud 'grant me to give the last embrace; even that would be welcome'. Here also most translators are embarrassed by the abrupt

9

transition from optative to indicative, translating, e.g., 'cela aussi me sera doux' or 'that will be aboon'. In fact we should use the subjunctive: 'that would be nice' . This is exactly what Catullus means. While seeing bis girl play with the sparrow the poet wishes that he might do likewise in order to soothe his pangs oflove. So he would welcome his girl' s bird as a love token comparable with the 'golden apple', i.e. quince, offered to Atalanta. The very word gratum 'received with gratitude, appreciated, welcome' alludes to a gift. Striking parallels are Ovid Met. 10.259-261: grata puellis munera fert ... paruas uolucres 'he brings gifts pleasing to girls ... little birds' and Petronius' poem 43 Aurea mala ... mittis ... Omnia grata putem 'You send me golden apples ... I should be grateful for all these'. Failing to understand the mood of est and the subtle ellipse biding in gratum most editors regard the finallines as a fragment. After this demonstration of the unity of poem 2 they should not curtail Catullus' sparrow anymore (Claes 1996b). 2.2 THEUNITYOFPOEM 14 uos hinc interea ualete abite illuc, unde malum pedem attulistis, saecli incommoda, pessimi poetae, si qui forte mearum ineptiarum lectores eritis manusque uestras non horrebitis admouere nobis.

These are the closing lines of poem 14. Again, Guarino proposed to separate the final three lines from the rest of the poem. Most editors regard them as the beginning of a truncated poem ('fragment 14b'), which Wiseman (1969:7, 1997:1038) interpreted as a programmatic prologue to a series of obscene poems. On closer exarnination, the separation of 14a and 14b seems rather arbitrary. Grammatically, the conjunction si qui 'if any [of you]' and the plural forms eritis, uestras, horrebitis match very weH with the preceding apostrophe uos... abite... pessimi poetae. The future tense of eritis and horrebitis in the conditional clause is quite normal with a present imperative in the main clause (for Plautine examples see Lodge 1962:636). As regards contents, the expression manus admouere in 14b shows a pointed parallelism with the expression pedem attulistis in 14a. In fact, 14a and 14b seem to deal with the same subject, viz. dreadful books of poetry; compare horribilem ... libellum at line 12 with ineptiarum lectores ... horrebitis at lines 24-25. Internal annular composition (discussed in

10

Chapter III.4.4) confmns the unity of the poem, which starts and ends with a negative conditional clause, viz. Ni (i.e. si non) and si ... non. All commentators seem to miss Catullus' point in this passage. The poet, receiving a collection of bad poems as a Satumalia present, addresses these poems as if they were unwanted guests (Syndikus 1984: 138). The apostrophe recalls poem 36 (uenite in ignem ... Annales Volusi). The poems are described as real persons, i.e. poets (poetae), who can move like human beings (abite, pedem attulistis). The personification of literary works by narning the author instead of his work is a well-known metonymy (cf. Quintilian 8.6.26). For poetae used in the sense of poemata see, e.g., Furius Bibaculusfr. 6 Courtney Cato grammaticus, Latina siren,l qui solus legit ac facit poetas 'Cato the grammarian, the Latin siren, the poets' sole reader and critic' (see Thomson 1997:16). Playful Catullus exaggerates the anthropomorpbism inherent in the trope. At this point the poet seems to realize that his orders are only written words. As a result, bis imaginary interlocutors can hear and obey hirn only if they are able to read bis work. But if poems have feet to approach hirn, they may also have hands to take bim (i.e. his book, the fmal nobis being another example of our metonymy). The writers will catch his angry speech by becoming readers, i.e. by reading his work aloud (as most Roman readers used to do). Impressed by his poetical power they will flee hirn. The grotesque imagery suits with the Satumalian situation discussed by Newman (1990:307-308). Adding fragment 14b to 14a without explaining the point of the poem, he translates: 'For the moment, off with you, back whence you intruded your ugly feet, nuisance of the age, worst of poets if possibly some of you are going to read my idle stuff, and not shudder from pawing even me with those hands.' Far from being a spurious fragment these lines are a funny ending to a carnivalesque poem. 2.3

POEM 58B

Non custos si fingar ille Cretum, non si Pegaseo ferar uolatu, non Ladas ego pennipesue Perseus, non Rhesi niueae citaeque bigae, adde huc plumipedas uolatilesque, uentorumque simul require cursum, quos iunctos, Cameri, mihi dicares, defessus tamen omnibus medullis et multis languoribus peresus essem te mihi, amice, quaeritando.

11

Fonner editors inserted these lines following poem 58a into poem 55, which is likewise addressed to Camerius. Recent editors (e.g. Mynors 1958, Bardon 1973, Eisenhut 1983) and commentators (e.g. MacLeod 1983 :296, Benediktson 1986, Forsyth 1986) regarded them as aseparate poem, without solving, however, the grammatical problems posed by the received text. Thomson (1997:344) lately stated: 'There is no logical syntax to be found by any rearrangement of the lines' . Lines 2 and 3 are often shifted. Benoist & Thomas (1890:505) and Klotz (1931 :348) proposed the following construction of lines 3-4: non Ladas ego [sim} pennipesue Perseuslnon [sint mihi} Rhesi niueae citaeque bigae. For the ellipse of esse compare c. 10.31 utrum illius an mei [sit}. But the more conspicuous crux is the four times repeated non, which makes the interpretation of the main sentence problematical or even impossible. The paraphrase offered by Garrison (1989:123) sounds quite illogical: 'Not even if I were a mythological phenomenon (1-7), even then I would be worn out looking for you.' The anacoluthic sentence would be sound without a negation. But if non is not a negation, what else can it be? I surmise that non is to be interpreted as nonne introducing a question expecting an afftnnative answer. In such questions Catullus does not use nonne (Hofmann & Szantyr 1965:648), but non, e.g. c. 12.6 non credis mihi?, c. 24.7 non est homo bellus? For an example with repeated non see, e.g., Horace Carm. 1.15.21-22 non Laertiaden ... , non Pylium Nestora respicis? 'Have you no thought for Laertes' son, no thought for Nestor of Pylos?' So we may put a question mark behind line 10 and understand: 'Even if I became as rapid as an mythological marvels taken together, I would be exhausted by pursuing you, wouldn't I?'

2.4 ÜTHER FRAGMENTS OF CATULLUS?

In his Catullus edition (1554), the French poet and scholar Marc-Antoine Muret (1526-1585) incorporated three Priapea, which he ascribed to Catullus (poems 18, 19, and 20), viz. a poem quoted by Terentianus Maurus (G.L. p. 406 Keil) and two poems from the Appendix Vergiliana (85, 86 Bücheler). Once again this unhappy insertion strengthened the view that the Carmina are a fragmentary collection. The three Priapea were removed by Lachmann (1829) in his epochmaking edition. The first poem is now relegated to the fragments. It may have been written by Catullus, but this does not imply that it was part of the Carmina since it may proceed from an anthology of other neoterici or from aseparate Priapean collection (Kroll 1980:290, Bardon 1970:14). Other fragments ascribed to Catullus, viz. fr. 11, III, IV, V in Mynors (1958:106), are 'even if genuine, so slight as to be insignificant' (Merrill

12

1893:xxxvi, cf. Scherf 1996:47ff.). Authors of the first centuries A.D., e.g. Quintilian and Aulus Gellius, often quote verses from the collection as we know it, without quoting any of these fragments. Apparently, they had the same Catullan corpus as we have. The question whether the present collection of Carmina corresponds with the original volume must be answered affmnatively (pace Della Corte 1951, whose idea of 'another Catullus' was refuted by Ziem 1978:29-42). 3. TIm EDITOR OF THE COLLECTION

According to scholars such as Birt (1882:408), Catullus is not the editor of the Carmina. In their view, the dedicatory poem to Comelius Nepos cannot have introduced the entire collection; they feel that the word libellus 'little book' at c. 1.1 can hardly refer to Catullus' bulky volume, and that the expression nugae 'trifles, bagatelles' does not suit serious longer poems such as the Marriage of Peleus and Thetis (poem 64). They also stress the abnormity of a single volume consisting of at least 2,300 lines whereas the average 'book' or roll of c1assical poetry would contain only 700 to 1,100 verses. These scholars infer that our volume was composed of published and unpublished material after the poet' s death and that the order of the compilation does not represent Catullus' intention. This 'separatist' version of the origin of the Carmina, first proposed by Bruner (1863) and fervently defended by Wheeler (1934), was, in various shapes, the most current and influential hypothesis till a few decades ago. Defenders inc1ude Riese (1884), EIlis (1889), Baehrens-Schulze (1893), Merrill (1893), Friedrich (1908), Schrnidt (1914), Della Corte (1951), Fordyce (1961), Bardon (1970), Coppel (1973), Giardina (1974), Clausen (1976), Pöschl (1977), Stoessl (1977), Goold (1983), Small (1983), Hubbard (1983), and Traina (1993). Adversaries of the posthumous compiler hypothesis inc1ude Süss (1878), Vahlen (1904), Schanz (1909), Wilamowitz-Moellendorf (1913), Jachmann (1925), Schuster (1948), Weinreich (1959, 1960), Tränkle (1967), Wiseman (1969, 1985, 1997), Quinn (1972), Granarolo (197374), Offermann (1977), Zidui (1978:25), Most (1981), Schrnidt (1985), Rambaux (1985), Syndikus (1984, 1996), Ferguson (1986, 1988), Rieks (1986), Skinner (1987-1988:338n2, revoking her view expressed in 1982), Minyard (1987-1988), Dion (1993, 1997), Clauss (1995), Scherf (1996), Dettmer (1997), and Holzberg (2000). I summarize the counterarguments adduced by these 'unitarians " completing and correcting them if and where necessary.

13

(a) The Dedicatory Poem

In the dedicatory poem, libellus does not necessarily refer to a small collection. The term is often used as a metrical equivalent of libero compare, e.g., Ovid Tristia 1.1.1 liber vs. 1.1.9 libellos; Martial 2.1.2 liber vs. 2.1.3 libelli. Even Wheeler (1934:20n22) must concede that the 'terms liber and libellus were not always distinguished as clearly as Birt would have us believe' . Catullus is fond of diminutives; a collection of tot poetae and tanturn impiorum is called libellus in poem 14. The diminutive might be interpreted as a modesty topos intended to extol Nepos' voluminous historical work. Besides, it corresponds with the Alexandrine and neoteric cult of the short book (contrast Callimachus fr. 465 Pfeiffer mega biblion mega kakon Obig book, big evil' with c. 95b.l parua ... monimenta 'smaliliterary monument'). The 2,300 lines of our poeta nouus are indeed rather modest in comparison with Suffenus' 'ten thousand and more verses' (c. 22.4) and the 'five hundred thousand' lines mentioned at c. 95.3, even if we regard these figures as hyperbolic. According to some scholars (e.g. Vahlen 1904:1074 and Syndikus 1984:56), the term nugae 'trifles' does not necessarily apply to light poetry since Horace called his Odes nugae at Ep. 1.19.42 and 2.2.141. Another solution of the problem was offered by Wilamowitz-Moellendorf (1924:306) and E.A. Schmidt (1979:220), who stated that Catullus' nugae refer only to former poems that met with Nepos' approval whereas his present collection includes also more serious kinds of poetry. (b) The Format

The big volume poses no real technical problems (pace Wheeler 1934:17 and Clausen 1982:195). According to Van Sickle (1980), who reexarnined the case, the size of Catullus' book (31 leaves measuring about 7 metres) is conceivable. His view is shared by Minyard (1987-1988:343), who confirms that the collection 'could have been held in a roll of little more than 20 feet and easily in one of less than 25 feet'. The format of books, however, is not only deterrnined by material factors, but also by editing conventions. In fact, no surviving book or roll of Roman poetry contains more than 2,000 lines. Latin poets appear to have followed a practice introduced by Alexandrian editors (Scherf 1996:16-25). Schrnidt (1979:216-219) and Syndikus (1984:57-58) mention the Garlands of Meleager and Philip (running to 4,000 lines each) as opposite examples. But both collections were probably subdivided into several books (Cameron 1968 and 1993). The single volume of Ovid's Heroides (2,414 lines) is another rather questionable example of a longer book (Hubbard 1983:231nI2).

14

An attractive compromise was proposed by Wiseman (1985:265-266), who, following Baehrens (1885:57ff.) and Wilamowitz-Moellendorf (1913:292n2), suggested that the work may have consisted of 'several volumina in one box'. This subdivision will be discussed in the next section. The arguments proposed by the separatists are not really cogent; all anomalies may be explained in one way or another. Until further notice there is no need to suppose that Catullus did not compose and edit the Carmina himself. 4. THE TRIPARTITION OF THE COlLECfION

It has been noticed since Süss (1876, 1878) and Baehrens (1885) that the collection divides metrically into three parts of about the same length, viz.: (a) the polymetric poems (1-60); (b) the longer poems in non-elegiac metres (61-64); (c) the longer and shorter poems in elegiacs (65-116). According to Ullman (1973:93ff.), traces of three books are discernible in the codex Oxoniensis, which is our most reliable manuscript: five lines are left blank after poem 60, whereas poem 61 starts on the next page; beginning with poem 65 the poems have an illuminated initial followed by a capitalized second letter. The scholar conc1udes: 'it may be that the Veronensis or one of its ancestors was put together from separate libelli. ' Apparently, he was thinking of a posthumous editor, but we might as well suppose that the division goes back to the poet himself. In a manuscript of Terence (British Library Harleianus 2525, fo1. 11 r), a note probably stemming from Petrarch quotes c. 52.1 quid est, Catulle as appearing apud Catullum prope finem primi operis 'in Catullus near the end of the first (part of his?) work' (Billanovich 1988:38). This could 'imply that by the first half of the fourteenth century, and perhaps very long before that, the codices of Catullus showed the results of descent in three parts' (Thomson 1997:7). According to Ferguson (1986:2), the tripartition and the number of lines (863, 802, 646, adding up to 2,311 lines) are imitated in the three books of Horace's Odes (876, 572, 1,014, adding up to 2,452 lines). Quinn (1972:1819) interpreted the three rolls ofNepos' Chronica mentioned at c. 1.6 as an allusion to the division of Catullus' own book. An argument against the tripartite edition is that aneient grarnmarians do not eite Catullus by book number (Skinner 1981:4). But Weinreich (1959:88n3), observing that several quotations refer to metre (e.g.

15 Catullus in hendecasyllabis, in galliambis, epigramma), remarked that the three volumes were metrically distinguished; as a result 'readers who wanted to verify a quotation, did not have to read all from A to Z, as they were given a metrical hint' (i.e. as to the part of the collection they had to consult). Another counter-argument is the singular libellum at c. 1.1 where we might expect libellos 'books, rolls'. It is not to be excluded that only the first volume was explicitly dedicated to Cornelius Nepos (Benoist & Thomas 1890:360, Kranz 1967:69). Pliny the Younger (Ep. 4.14) dedicated an opusculum of light poetry (referred to as meas nugas with a clear hint at c. 1.4) to his friend Patemus and called the volume Hendecasyllabi. This passage suggests that Catullus' own libellus of nugae consisted mainly of hendecasyllabics. So we might identify the 'little book' mentioned at c. 1.1 with the first part of our collection (poems 1-60). Yet the dedication of this book of hendecasyllabics to Cornelius N epos does not exclude its insertion into a larger collection. One may think of Horace's dedicatory poem to Maecenas, which introduced the first three volumes of his Odes, but headed the complete edition afterwards. In fact, other dedicatory poems occur in Catullus' collection. Poem 65, introducing the elegiacs, is dedicated to Ortalus, whereas poem 116 is an 'inverted dedication' to Gellius (MacLeod 1983:181-186). It is possible that the second book containing nuptial poetry is implicitly dedicated to Manlius Torquatus, the bridegroom of poem 61 (Süss 1878:24). Again, we may compare Horace, who placed the ode dedicated to Pollio at the head of his second book of Odes, whereas the dedication to Maecenas continued to dominate the whole collection (Benoist & Thomas 1890:360).

A elose reading of the initial and final poems of each seetion reveals significant details. The first words of poem 1 Cui dono? 'To whom do I give?' are reversed in the last words of poem 116 tu dabis [supplicium] 'you will give me [satisfaction]' so that the ending of the Cannina reflects the beginning (Dettmer 1983a). There are several other verbal links between the initial dedication (poem 1) and the final 'inverted' dedication (poem 116), viz. dono/mittere 'to dedicate', tibi, tibiltibi, tu/tu, meas/meum, laboriosis/studiosos, laborem, esse/esse (see Van Sickle 1981). Analogously, nouum in the initial poem is repeated in the final poem of the first section as nouissimo (c. 60.4) - a clever variation, since nouus means 'new' whereas nouissimus means 'last'. In the second section, the ending reverses the beginning (Wiseman 1979:177): the words inviting Hymenaeus to the wedding feast (c. 61.9 huc ueni) contrast with the complaint that gods will not come to festivals anymore (c. 64.407 nec talis dignantur uisere coetus). In the third section, the phrase mitto ... tibi cannina Battiadae of the first poem (c. 65.15-16) is varied by the phrase

16

tibi ... carmina ... possem mittere Battiadae of the last poem (c. 116.2). The variation announces areversal: the poet sardonically explains that Gellius' rejection ofthe Callimachean poetry gratefully accepted by Ortalus forces bim to send, i.e. 'to offer and to direct', the satirical poems of the third section to bis enemy. As in Horace's Odes, each of the three books is introduced by the Muse(s) (Ferguson 1986:2). At c. 1.9, patrona uirgo may point to Clio, the Muse of history and farne (recalling the bistorical work of Catullus' friend Comelius Nepos; see Nemeth 1972:27). At c. 61.2, the Muse Urania is invoked as the mother of Hymenaeus, the god of wedding-songs and the real inspirator of the second book. In the opening words of poem 65, Catullus, while trying to make poetry out of his poetical impotence, paradoxically describes the Muses as virgin mothers (uirginibus, Musarum ... fetus). Notice that the very word uirgo occurs in the initial poems of the three seetions (c. 1.9 uirgo, 61.4 uirginem, and 65.20 uirginis), whereas the second poem of each seetion describes a defloration (c. 2.13 zonam soluit, 62.46 amisit ... florem, 66.15 uirgineis ... exuuiis), which may symbolize the opening of each of the 'virgin', i.e. c1osed, books (see my commentary on poem 2 in Chapter 111.1). In ancient poetry, the ending of a book is often marked by the mention of death and sepulture (Smith 1980). Typical exarnples include Horace Ep. 17.79 crematos ... mortuos; Od. 2.20.21 funere, sepulcri, 3.30.1 monumentum, moriar, Propertius 1.22 sepulcra, ossa, 3.25 fatalis, 4.11 ossa; Tibullus 2.6 morior, Virgil Aen. 4.705, 5.871, 9.818, 10.908, 12.952; Ovid Am. 1.15.39 fata, 2.19.56 perisse, 3.15.20 fata; Statius Theb. 12.819 occidet. Even the penultimate poems of separate books may contain these fatal allusions, e.g. Horace Od. 1.37 morte (Cleopatra's suicide), 2.19.16 exitium, 3.29.43 uixi, 4.14 funera; Propertius 1.21 (Gallus' epitaph), 2.34 funera, mortuus. Martial put two sepu1cral epigrarns near the ending of his first book (1.104 and 106). The sarne technique is used at the end of each of Catullus' three sections. The funeral setting of the satirical poem 59 (sepulcretis, rogo, prosequens) foreshadows the end of seetion I. The c10sing position of the erotic poem 60 is described by the arnbiguous phrase in nouissimo casu 'in mortal danger' or 'at the very last'. In a similar way, the surprisingly pessimistic conc1usion of poem 64 announces the end of section 11 by creating an atmosphere of death and sadness (e.g. mortali, procumbere, letifero, extinctos, lugere, funera). The final supplicium of poem 116, a word often employed with the pregnant meaning supplicium summ um, ultimum 'death penalty', is an apt ending to the menacing satires of seetion III. Moreover, the words supplicis uocem at c. 60.4 prepare for uoces, supplicium at c. 64.202-203 and supplicium at c. 116.8. As a result a kind of symmetry links the final poem of seetion I with the middle of the final

17

poem of section II and the last line of the final poem of section III. Each section ends with a refusal: the addressee of poem 60 refuses Catullus' love; the gods in poem 64 refuse to visit the mortals; Gellius in poem 116 refuses the poet' s dedication. These three refusals might be interpreted as marking poetical breaks. If so, the phrases contemptam (c. 60.5), auertere (c. 64.406), and euitabimus (c. 116.7) are autoreferential indications that the poet turns away from the different kinds of poetry practised in the respective sections of his collection. The contents of these sections are described in their initial poems. At c. 1.4, the term nugas 'trifles' points to the light poetry of section I; at c. 6l.12-l3, the phrase nuptialia carmina 'wedding songs' announces the marital theme of section II; at c. 65.12, the phrase maesta carmina 'sad songs' refers to the elegiacs of section III. At c. 116.7, the term tela 'missiles', which seems to translate the Greek iamboi (sometimes linked with Gr. iaptein, 'to launch', cf. c. 36.5 uibrare iambos 'to dart iambics') retrospectively refers to the satirical attacks in the second part of section III. All these c1ues point to the tripartition of the Carmina. According to Thomson (1997:9), 'the general conc1usion that there are three sections, divided at 6l.1 and 65.1, is reasonable'. Since Catullus hirnself calls the first part of his collection a libellus (c. 1.1), the other parts may also be called libelli or books (Gaisser 1993:5). After five centuries of heated debate, we are obliged to return to the view expressed by Poliziano's pupil, Pietro Crinito, in De poetis latinis (1505), 11. 27: Diuiditur autem in libros tres: ut Primus Lyricos; Secundus Elegiacos; Tertius Epigrammata contineat 'It divides in three books, the First containing Lyrics, the Second

Elegiacs, the Third Epigrams'.

5. THE ARRANGEMENT OF TIIE COll.ECTION

Perhaps the most insidious argument to regard the volume as a posthumous edition is the puzzling arrangement of the poems. Wheeler (1908: 194) stated: 'Poems li-VII, and perhaps some parts of the epigrams, show traces of variatio. Aside from these few poems utter planlessness seems to prevail.' The German scholar Bernard Schmidt (1914:278) was even sharper: Niemand kann in Abrede stellen, daß die uns vorliegende Sammlung ein wüstes Chaos ist, in der nach Inhalt, Stimmung und Zeitfolge völlig verschiedene Gedichte durcheinander geworfen sind, welche, wenn sie von Catull selbst herrührte, uns nötigen würde, ihn einer wahrhaft tollen Laune für fähig zu halten 'Nobody can deny that the pre-

sent collection is a wild chaos, in which poems totally different as to

18

subject-matter, mood, and chronology are thrown together; if this arrangement stemmed from Catullus, we should think him capable of a really mad whim.' These words were intended as areaction against Wilamowitz' assertion (1913:292): Sein Gedichtbuch hat er mit sorgsamster Überlegung geordnet (wer's nicht merkt, tant pis pour lui) 'His book of poems has been arranged with the most careful attention (if there is anyone who cannot see it, so much the worse for hirn)'. Unfortunately, the famous scholar did not condescend to clarify his pontifical obiter dictum. Modern scholars try to conciliate the divergent opinions by stressing variation as a principle of arrangement (Weinreich 1960:167). According to Syndikus (1984:60), the volume is composed according to the principle of the highest possible diversity. As a matter of fact, this kind of arrangement is typical of Roman books of poetry (compare Kroll 1964:225-246 on 'Das Gedichtbuch'). It may be exemplified by the works of Horace, Tibullus, and Propertius (Weinreich 1959:226). Holzberg (2000:436), endorsing Wiseman's findings, summarizes this new way of reading: 'What used to be viewed as madness proves, when compared with similar Roman collections, to be method'. In the following discussion different possible ways of arrangement will be exarnined in order to elucidate Catullus' technique.

5.1 CHRONOLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT

If we date the poems by objective events, most of Catullus' poems seem to have been composed in the years 56-54 B.C. (Rothstein 1923, Maas 1942, Wiseman 1969:48). Philologists of the old biographical and historie al schools have looked in vain for a chronological order in the volume. It seemed astonishing to them that an 'early' poem such as the Sapphotranslation (poem 51), viewed traditionally as describing the first meeting of Catullus and Lesbia, was preceded by a 'late' poem such as the farewell-poem to Lesbia (poem 11). In fact, ancient poetry has never produced a volume chronologically composed. As a rule, Catullus' poems should not be interpreted as biographie al documents. Ross (1975:8), though admitting that Catullus had an affair with Lesbia, stated that the poems present her as a 'poetic fiction'. Veyne (1988: 174) feIt that even the author's name is a kind of fiction: 'Catullus took his own name, Catullus, as his stage name.' The poet is not aiming at sincerity, as he tries to give a 'personal form to typical experience' (Allen 1950: 157, in his fundamental article on the practice of Roman elegists). He creates dramatic effects by putting hirnself and other real persons in fic-

19

tional roles and contexts (MacLeod 1983:302). Rather than being a diary Catullus' collection is a catalogue of typical erotic and satirical situations.

5.2 MEnuCAL ARRANGEMENT Other commentators have been looking for a disposition on metrical grounds. In the polymetrics of book I, hendecasyllabics alternate with poems in other metres. This diversity has already been noticed by the glossator of the codex Oxoniensis (ed. Mynors 1966) in the margin of poem 2:

Completo prohemio opus suum inchoat quod uario metrorum genere prosequitur 'After having completed his proem he starts his work, which he pursues in a variety of metres' . It is noteworthy that many poems in unusual metres find themselves isolated between sequences of hendecasyllabics, viz. poems 4, 8, 11, 17, 22, 25, 34, 37, 39, 44. The poet avoids juxtaposition of such poems (Süss 1878:28, Weinreich 1960:167, Syndikus 1984:60), the only exception being the pair of poems in choliambics 59-60. The technique was imitated by Horace and Martial (Weinreich 1959:85-86). Mette's proposal (1956) to distinguish three metrical sequences in book I, viz. poems 1-21, 22-38, 39-60, each disposed concentrically around one poem, was rightly dismissed by Horvath (1966:148-149) and Wiseman (1969:3). A more promising approach was offered by Skutsch (1969), who noticed that the hendecasyllabics in the first part of book I (poems 2-26) show deviant metrics as opposed to the hendecasyllabics in the second part (poems 27-60). In the first part, 260 out of 263 lines have a spondaic 'base', i.e. beginning (whereas c. 1.4,2.4,3.17, and 7.2 begin with an iamb); in the second part only 200 out of 279 lines start with a spondee (whereas 33lines begin with an iamb and 30 with a trochee). The contrast between both parts is even more apparent if we consider the number of trochaic beginnings: there is not a single trochaic base in the sequence 2-26 whereas there are no less than 30 trochaic bases in the sequence 27-60. This metrical break, which can hardly be the result of coincidence, proves that the polymetrics were meticulously arranged, probably by the poet himself. The function of the device is uncertain. According to Skutsch (I969:38), it 'looks as though in the process of composing the poet had relaxed his technique.' If so, the difference would give a clue as to chronology. But it is far from sure that the second part of the polymetrics was written later than the first. Poems 31 and 46, for instance, are to be dated

20

56 B.C. whereas poem 11 is to be dated 55-54 B.C. (Hubbard 1983:234, compare Scherf 1996:77). According to Skinner (1981:23), the looser metre marks a more aggressive tone in the second part of the polymetrics. The change coincides with the prograrnmatic poem 27, which announces a more spicy approach (Wiseman 1969:7ff.). Whereas love and friendship are evoked in the first part, political attacks are characteristic of the second part (e.g. poems 28, 29,41,44,47,49,52,53,54,56,57). Caesar's irritation (Suetonius Jul. 73) proves that Catullus' provocations did not miss the mark. The iambic bases of the hendecasyllabics in the second part would remind the ancient reader of satirical iambics. The Greek prosodist Hephaestion (10.62) followed by Varro (G.L. 6.261 Keil) described the hendecasyllable as a catalectic (i.e. incomplete) iambic trimeter. Catullus calls his hendecasyllabics 'iambics' in poem 40, a piece with three initial iambic feet. Poem 1 displays the three possible metrical bases of hendecasyllabics, viz. a spondaic foot (lines 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10), an iambic foot (line 4), and a trochaic foot (lines 2, 8, 9). The combination may be interpreted as prograrnmatic. Scherf (1996:78) proposed a refinement of Skutsch' discovery by distinguishing four sequences, viz. 2-14 (3 non-spondaic bases, 1.7%), 15-26 (0 non-spondaic bases, 0%), 27-45 (54 non-spondaic bases, 34.5%), and 46-60 (14 non-spondaic bases, 11.3%). Scherfs break after poem 14 is arbitrary. In fact, the sequence without non-spondaic bases starts with poem 9. Consequently, the first sequences are poems 2-8 (only 3 out of73lines have non-spondaic viz. iambic bases, 4.1 %), and poems 9-26 (all bases are spondaic). Note that there is a thematic break after poem 8, which is a farewell to Lesbia (see my commentary in Chapter III.2). Variation characterizes also the metrics of book II: poems 61 and 63 are in lyrical metres, and 62 and 64 in hexameters. The lyrical metres appear to point back to book I (the hendecasyllabics are in fact extended glyconics), whereas the hexameters announce the elegiac distichs (consisting of hexameters and pentameters) of book III. In book III, there is a striking variation oflength. Distichs (poems 85, 93, 94, 95b, 105, 106, 112) alternate with longer elegiacs of four to twelve lines. Poem 99 has sixteen lines whereas the elegy-like poem 76 has twenty-six lines.

21 5.3 CYCLICAL DIsposmoN

According to Barwick (1958), the coherence of the volume is assured by 'cycles', Le. groups of non-contiguous poems in which the same characters appear. He distinguishes five cycles, viz. a Lesbia-cycle (poems 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11), a Furius- and Aurelius-cyc1e (poems 11, 15, 16, 21, 23,24,26), a Veranius- and Fabullus-cyc1e (poems 9, 12, 13, 28, 47), a Gellius-cycle (poems 74, 80, 88, 89, 90, 91, 116), and a Mentula-cyc1e (poems 94, 105, 114, 115). Recent researchers have proposed other cyc1es and 'mini-cyc1es' (Ferguson 1988:15). E.A. Schmidt (1973; 1985:120), enlarging the concept, discerned a cyc1e of object-apostrophes (poems 31, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44). Forsyth (1976-1977a and 1980-1981) added an Ameana-cycle (poems 41, 42, 43), and an Aufillena-cyc1e (poems 100, 110, 111). According to Thomson (1997:213, 257, 264), the Juventius-cycle includes poems 15, 21, 24, 48, 81, 99, whereas the 'return from Bithynia cyc1e' includes poems 4,10,31,46. A Mamurra-cyc1e inc1uding poems 29, 41, 43,57,94, 105, 114, 115 was discussed by Deuling (1999). If we accept Barwick' s definition, we might discern also a Calvus-cycle (poems 14,53, 95b?, 96), a Cinna-cyc1e (poems 10, 95a, 113), a Rufuscycle (poems 59, 69, 71, 73?, 77), a Caesar-cyc1e (poems 29,54,57,93, 113?), a Quintius and Quintia cyc1e (poems 82, 86, 100), an Egnatiuscyc1e (poems 37 and 39), and even a Clodius-cyc1e (poems 56, 79, 80, 83,106; see my commentary in Chapter 111.1). Offermann (1978) rightly emphasized that Barwick's device cannot be a primary princip1e of arrangement since it leaves unexplained the linear succession of the Carmina. In fact, the poems composing the different cycles are often quite dispersed. Although some kind of logical or narrative evolution may be observed (Forsyth 1972-1973 and 1976-1977a), the specific position of each of these 'cyclic' poems remains as puzzling as the place of any other poem in the collection. Schmidt (1973) tried to reconcile the cyclical and linear approaches by discerning three sequences in the carmina minora, viz. 2-11, 15-26, and 31-44, whose kerneis consist of the Lesbia-cyc1e (2,3,5,7, 8, 11), the Aurelius- and Furius-cycle (15, 16, 21, 23, 24, 26), and the object apostrophe-cyc1e (31, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44) respectively, whereas the other poems are regarded as contrasting pieces. However, by calling the sequence of epigrams 69-92 the Lesbia-, Rufus-, and Gellius-cycle, he subverts the very concept of cycle - which is based on one central character (or two linked characters). It seems difficult to give a rigorous definition of the phenomenon. So, when used for the sake of commodity, the term will be put between inverted commas.

22

5.4 RING COMPOSmON

Symmetrical patterns have been noticed in several Latin poetry books, e.g. Propertius' Monobiblos (Skutsch 1963), Virgil's Eclogues (Skutsch 1969a), Tibullus' Elegies (Dettmer 1980), and Horace's Odes (Dettmer 1983). According to Dettmer' s paper 'Design in the Catullan Corpus: A Preliminary Study' (1987-1988) and her recent book Love by the Numbers (1997), the technique plays also an important part in the arrangement of Catullus' poems. She discerns nine consecutive 'rings' of thematically related poems and a final five-poem tag, viz. poems 1-14, 1524,25-33,34-44,45-60, 61-68b, 69-78a, 78b-99, 100-111, and 112116. Poems within each ring correspond to each other. In the ring of poems 1-14, for instance, 1 corresponds to 14, 2 and 3 to 12 and 13, 4 to 9 and 11, 5 to 7 and 8, 6 to 10,9 to 11. Dettmer' s book contains useful remarks on the linear order of the poems, but her division of the collection into rings has not convinced other scholars. The following criticisms may be formulated: (a) Since none of the nine rings is strictly symmetrical, it is impossible for the reader to discern precise patterns. (b) Many thematic correspondences between poems seem unclear or contrived. (c) Dettmer is obliged to postulate a lacuna after poem 17 in order to secure her scheme. Forsyth (1992-1993), criticizing Dettmer' sattempt, advises 'those who seek such mathematical symmetry in the Catullan corpus to plant their scholarly feet on firmer ground, and to avoid reducing each poem to so vague a 'theme' that it could easily be linked to any other poem.' In my opinion, ring-composition should be strictly symmetrical or concentric. In Chapter 111.4, three examples of regular concentric composition are discussed.

5.5

THEMATIcARRANGEMENT

The thematic arrangement of the volume is characterized by variation. This 'dialectic between diversity and order' (Tromaras 1984:113) is demonstrated by the general structure: the erotico-satirical poetry of the hendecasyllabics and epigrams is more personal and much lighter than the marital poetry ofthe central part (Quinn 1972:15). The same principle operates within the parts of the collection. In the carmina minora, Catullus regulariyalternates satirical or scatological pieces

23

with laudatory or amatorial poetry (Horvath 1966:159). The carmina maiora present subtle variations on the marital theme (Lieberg 1958, Wiseman 1969:20-25). They inc1ude a Roman wedding-song (poem 61), a Greek hymenaeum (poem 62), a poem on the unhappy relationship between Attis and the mother goddess (poem 63), and an epyllion on the happy marriage of a mortal and a goddess (poem 64). The theme is pursued in the next poems with the simile of the love-present in poem 65, the dedication of the lock in order to obtain the return of the bridegroom in poem 66, the story of the adulterous bride in poem 67, and the secret 'marriage' of Catullus and his mistress in poem 68b. Variation also appears to determine the succession of single poems. Sudden changes in tone and mood are very frequent in book I, as is demonstrated by contrasting terms in consecutive poems, e.g. 8/9 miser/beati, 12/13 inuenusta/uenuste, 13114 amoreslodio, 30/31 miserum/laetus, 33/34 cinaede jililintegri pueri, 35/36 uenuste ... incohata/cacata, 38/39 lacrimislrisu, 46/47 dulces ... coetuslsinistrae Pisonis. In book III, poems on enemies and friends alternate in an almost systematical way, e.g. 69170 and 71/72 (Rufus/Lesbia), 74175 (Gellius/Lesbia), 83/84 (Lesbia/Arrius), 85/86 (Lesbia/Quintia),86/87 (Quintia/Lesbia), 87/88 (Lesbia/Gellius), 91/92 (Gellius/Lesbia), 94/95a (Mentula/Cinna), 96/97 (Calvus/Aemilius), 107/108 (Lesbia/Cominius), 1081109 (Cominius/ Lesbia), 1091110 (Lesbia/Aufillena). Consequently, whoever tries to describe the thematical coherence of Catullus' collection, should rather look for contrasts than for similarities. 6. TIm PRINCIPLE OF VARIATION

The previous examination has made c1ear that the arrangement of Catullus' poetry is characterized by extreme variation. The technique may surprise the modem reader, but must have been expected and admired by the ancient connoisseur. According to Fitzgerald (1995:25), 'Roman audiences positively relished the chaotic variety with which the author displayed the range of his off-duty ffi'Jods and attitudes' . To prove this view he quotes 'Pliny's descriptions of collections of poetry descended from Catullus, inc1uding his own.' Indeed, Pliny the Younger, obviously assuming that our poet arranged the volume hirnself, remarks that the poet Pompeius Saturninus imitated Catullus' alternation of soft and harsh verse: lnserit ... mollibus leuibusque duriusculos quosdam [sc. uersusj, et hoc quasi Catullus 'He mingles some harsher verses with the soft and light ones, like Catullus did' (Ep. 1.16.5). In another letter, Pliny describes the variety of the hendecasyllabic genre: His iocamur, ludimus, amamus, dolemus, querimur,

24

iraseimur, describimus aliquid pressius modo elatius atque ipsa uarietate tentamus efficere ut alia aliis, quaedamfortasse omnibus placeant 'In these verses we jest, play, grieve, complain, get angry, expressing ourselves in a dense or elevated way and trying, through variation, to appeal to different tastes and to please each reader in turn' (Ep. 4.14.2-3). The enumeration splendidly summarizes the varying contents of Catullus' Carmina, viz. epigrams, satirical pieces, love poems, laments, and invectives. Pliny's characterization of Sentius Augurinus' Poematia (Ep. 4.27.3) applies to Catullus' collection as well: Multa tenuiter, multa sublimiter, multa uenuste, multa tenere, multa duleiter, multa cum bile 'Many pieces are simple, many lofty, many charming, many tender, many sweet, many choleric' . Weinreich (1959:85) pointed out that ekklinein to homoeides 'to avoid the similar' (the phrase sterns from an Homeric scholiast, quoted by Kroll 1924:226n5) is a typical Hellenistic technique. The method is mentioned in Servius' commentary on Virgil Buc. 3.1: qui enim bucolica scribit, curare debet ante omnia ne similes sibi sint eclogae 'for the writer of bucolic poetry should primarily make sure that his eclogues are not similar' . As a matter of fact, the device occurs in Callimachus' Iambi (Schmidt 1973:239), Meleager's Garland (Wifstrand 1926, Cameron 1968:325), and other Hellenistic collections (Gutzwiller 1999). A similar diversity has been noticed by the editors of Gallus' elegiacs (Anderson, Parsons, Nisbet 1979:149), who state: 'The surviving epigrams seem to have been composed as a sequence dealing in turn with the ruling passions and dominating personalities of the poet' s life.' According to Kroll (1924:226), the sophisticated arrangement of Hellenistic books of poetry was intended to prevent the reader' s lassitude. This sounds as an understatement. The unexpected order was meant to astonish the connoisseur and to test his acumen. Granarolo (1982:95-96) rightly described the extraordinary arrangement of Catullus' Carmina as a triumph of the unexpected, keeping the reader in constant suspense. Catullus, like Callimachus and other Hellenistic poets, tries 'to achieve the maximum variety of metre, length, tone, subject-matter' (Wiseman 1969:2). Yet the principle of variation does not exclude the presence of a central theme as described by Quinn (1972:51): 'The Lesbia poems form the major theme, the rest the contrasting context. For the contrast to work, theme and context must be interwoven, not just succeed one another. Hence the complex arrangement.'

25

A

PROVISIONAL CONCLUSION

The preceding discussion enables me to formulate the following tentative answers to the problems under examination: 1. The heterogeneous structure of the volume is not a result of chance. 2. The present collection corresponds by and large to the original volume. 3. The most probable editor of the poems is Catullus himself. 4. Catullus' collection divides into three sections or books. 5. The arrangement of the poems is based on maximal variation.

CHAPTERII

THE PRINCIPLE OF CONCATENATION The principle of variation, as discussed in Chapter 1, could easily threaten the coherence of Catullus' Carmina. A way to counteract the disintegrating force of the technique is concatenation. This complementary principle interlinks consecutive poems by repeating themes and phrases. Thematic concatenation (TC) is based on repetition of similar themes or motifs. It may be reinforced by lexical concatenation (LC), i.e. repetition of identical or similar phrases or words. Both types of concatenation will be discussed successively. 1 hope that my investigation will confmn a casual remark of Williams' (1987-1988:130n9): 'Very little in Catullus - indeed, in Latin literature - is accidenta1; 1 believe that this calculation extends to the placement of poems in the corpus Catullianum.' 1. 'fHEMATICCONCATENATION

1.1

SIMPLE 'fHEMATIC CONCATENATION

Even researchers who claim that Catullus' collection is chaotic must admit that thematically related poems are sometimes put together (e.g. Wheeler 1934:28). According to Davis (1977:13), 'the thematically linked pair of poems is the basic building block' in several ancient poetry books (e.g. Herodas and Virgil). Barwick (1947, compare 1932) emphasized that 'inner connection of juxtaposed poems' is a form of composition in Roman elegy and epigram (e.g. Propertius, Ovid, Martial). Unfortunately, he restricted himself, in the case of Catullus, to a discussion of the links between poems 68a and 68b. But the phenomenon is more general than is usually acknowledged. Albrecht (1997:338 and 1995:222) linked more than thirty poems of Catullus on thematic grounds, viz. 2-3, 12-13, 15-16, 23-24, 50-51, 5253, 61-62, 75-76, 85-86-87, 88-89-90-91, 93-94, 95-96, 97-98, 110111, 114-115. Another commentator convinced that 'meaningful juxtapositions are to be found not only in the polymetrics, but also in the long poems and epigrams' is Forsyth (1986:9), who discerned several 'companion-pieces' .

28

The following list enumerates sequenees of two or more poems whieh even superficially examined present thematie links (Claes 1996a:I64). 2-3 9-10-11 12-13-14 15-16-17-21 23-24 25-26 28-29 33-34 35-36 38-39 40-41 41-42-43 46-47 49-50 52-53-54 56-57 61-62 63-64 65-66 72-73 79-80 88-89-90-91

93-94 95-96 97-98-99 110-111 112-113 114-115

: life and death of the sparrow : friends and joumeys : parties and gifts : sexual punishments : the poor rival : metaphorieal storms : poor and rieh staff members : impurity and purity : good and bad writers : weeping and laughing : stupid man and woman : mistresses : staff members : bad and good poets : politieal enemies : sexual miseonduet : wedding songs : unhappy relation and happy marriage : dedieation and translated poem : unfaithfulness of mistress and friend : oral sex : Gellius' misbehaviour : Caesar and his protege : poems addressed to friends : foul mouths : Aufillena : sedueer and seduetress of men : Mentula' s estate

It ean hardly be the result of sheer eoincidenee that sixty-seven juxtaposed poems are joined by thematie eoneatenation. Linked poems are only rarely mere variants of eaeh other, as, e.g., the Gellius-'eyc1e' (88-89-90-91) and Mentula's estate (114-115). More often than not the relations are based on thematie contrast, e.g. life and death (2-3), poor and rieh (28-29), impure and pure (33-34), good and bad (35-36, 49-50), weeping and laughing (38-39), man and woman (40-41, 112-113), friend and enemy (52-53-54). The eombination of juxtaposition and eontrast seems to aim at concordia discors 'harmony in diseord', which is an essential feature of Hellenistie aestheties.

29

1.2

DISJUNCI1VE 'fHEMATIC CONCATENATION

A variation on simple concatenation is disjunctive concatenation. Throughout the collection several thematically related poems are separated by one or more contrasting pieces. This technique is also to be found in Callimachus' Iambi (Schmidt 1973:239), Horace's Odes (Santirocco 1986:10), and Martial's epigrams (Barwick 1932:75). It is called Sperrung 'separation, disjunction' by German scholars. The phenomenon was discovered by Westphal (1870), the German translator of Catullus, who mentioned eleven instances, viz. poems 2-3, 57, 16-21, 21-23, 34-36, 37-39, 41-43, 69-71, 70-72, 85-87, 107-109. We should eliminate the pair of poems 2-3 because there is no separating poem ('fragment' 2b was shown to be the end of poem 2 in Chapter 1.2.1). Yet Westphal's list may be substantially extended: 5-7 12-14 16-21 21-23 24-26 25-27 34-36 37-39 38-40 40-42 41-43 52-54 56-58 69-71 70-72 79-81 83-85 100-102 107-109 111-113

: kissing : gifts of friends : anal and oral penetration : poor rivals : Furius : party scenes : hymns : Egnatius : poetical friend and adversary : iambics and hendecasyllabics : Ameana : proteges of Caesar : lovers of Lesbia : malodorous men : Lesbia' s promise of faith : attractive men : love's ambiguity : friendship : reconciliation : adultery of women

Since no less than forty thematically related poems are separated by one single deviant poem, we may infer that disjunction is another form of thematic concatenation. Seeing that 80 poems out of 116 are linked up by either simple or disjunctive concatenation, it can no longer be denied that our collection has some kind of order. Even poems that at first sight have nothing in common may present thematic similarities. The commentators observe that poem 7 is a

30

companion-piece to poem 5 since it repeats the theme of the innumerable kisses. Further investigation shows that the deviant poem 6 develops a motif of both surrounding poems. In poem 5 the poet wishes to bide his love in order to avert envy; the motifs of secret love and harmful curiosity reappear in poem 7. Poem 6 varies on poems 5 and 7 by applying the motif of secret love to the poet' s friend Flavius, whereas the poet bimself plays the part of the inquisitive outsider (Forsyth 1986: 122). This instance shows that thematic relations between poems may remain unobserved if we ignore the principle of concatenation. The reader will find many other instances of hidden links in the concatenary reading presented in Chapter III.1.

2. LEXICAL CONCATENATION

2.1 THE PRINCIPLE OF LEXICAL CONCATENATION Thematic concatenation based on similarity or contrast is often stressed by lexica1 concatenation, i.e. repetition of identica1 or similar words or phrases in poems that are elose to each other. Repetition is one of the most prominent stylistic features in Catullus' work (Van Gelder 1933, Evrard-Gillis 1976, Traina 1978). Most poems contain verba1 echoes, often creating intema1 annular composition (see Chapter III.4.4). Moreover, Catullus sometimes repeats entire phrases in consecutive poems, e.g. c. 2.1 Passer, deliciae meae puellae repeated at c. 3.4; c. 23.1 cui neque seruus est neque arca reappearing at c. 24.5. Analogously, the poet loves repeating single words in consecutive poems: e.g. Zubet occurs at c. 38.7, 39.14, and 40.6. There may be some morphological variation: e.g. nox at c. 5.6 appears as noctes at c. 6.6, and reappears as nox at c. 7.7; basiare at c. 7.9 is taken up by basiabis at c. 8.18. Synonymica1 variation mayaiso occur. The copulation-motif in the sequence of poems 69-72 is expressed by synonyms, viz. cubet at c. 69.8, nubere at c. 70.1,futuit at c. 71.5, and nosse at c. 72.1. Offermann (1978:59ff.) incidenta1ly mentions the 'method of repetition' quoting some fifteen instances of WortankZänge 'verba1 reminiscences', whereas Dettmer (1987-1988) signals a few 'verba1 elues' in consecutive poems. It seems that both scholars underestimate the extent and the structuring force of the phenomenon. In fact, the principle may be exemplified by hundreds of instances. I was struck by Catullan concatenation myself while translating the complete collection of Carmina into Dutch (Claes 1995:18). Trying to render the same words in the same way I noticed many lexica1 echoes in adjacent poems. I a1so noticed that the poet a1temates simple repetition of words

31

with synonymy and antonymy. I proposed to call the principle concatenation because it connects consecutive poems like links in achain (Claes 1996). 2.2 SOME ExAMPLES OF LExIcAL CONCATENATION In order to c1arify Catullus' method I shall first examine both companionpieces on Mentula's estate. 114

Firmano saltu nonfalso Mentula diues fertur, qui tot res in se habet egregias, aucupium omne genus piscis prata arua ferasque. nequicquam: Jructus sumptibus exuperat. quare concedo sit diues, dum omnis desint. saltum laudemus, dum modo ipse egeat.

115

Mentula habet instar triginta iugera prati, quadraginta arui: cetera sunt maria. cur non diuitiis Croesum superare potis sit, uno qui in saltu tot moda possideat, prata arua ingentes siluas saltusque paludesque usque ad Hyperboreos et mare ad Oceanum? omnia magna haec sunt, tamen ipsest maximus ultro, non homo, sed uero mentula magna minax.

The similarity of vocabulary is striking. No less than ten words are identical, viz. Mentula, saltus, qui, tot, habet, omnia, prata, arua, sit, ipse. To these lexical repetitions we can add two etymological cognates, viz. diuesldiuitiis and exuperat/superare. Obviously, uero mentula at c. 115.8 is a variant of non falso mentula at c. 114.1. This example shows that lexical concatenation may inc1ude synonyms, e.g. genus/moda, and antonyms, e.g. egeat/possideat. The mss. reading moda (Mynors proposes bona) at c. 115.4 may be defended by the verbal echo modo at c. 114.6 (see Chapter III.5). These observations will enable us to detect several instances of lexical concatenation in the four epigrams on Gellius, described by Newman (1990:263) as a short cyc1e, linked up by verbal reminiscence.

32

89

90

91

Gelli

Gellius

Gelli

Gelli

matre

mater

matris, -e

matrem

sorore

soror

patruum

patruus

sceleris

fas

nefando

cognatis

gnato

88

quantum

quantumuis

quid

quid

nihil

nihil

germanam

sceleris

tantum

We notice the same devices as with our ftrst example, viz. literal repetition (Gelli/Gelli), etymological variation (cognatislnatis, quantumltantum), synonymy (soror/germanam), and antonymy (jas/nefando). It is a remarkable fact that even trivial, thematically insigniftcant words such as quantum, quid, and nihil seem to occur in lexical concatenation. Lexical concatenation occurs also in successive poems that are not simple variations. An interesting instance is the couple of poems 15/16, which shows several instances of verbal repetition (the words not italicized in the text).

15

Commendo tibi me ac meos amores, Aureli. ueniam peto pudentem,

ut, si quicquam animo tuo cupisti, quod castum expeteres et integellum, conserues puerum mihi pudice, non dico a popuZo - nihil ueremur

istos, qui in pZatea modo huc modo illuc in re praetereunt sua occupati, uerum a te metuo tuoque pene infesto pueris bonis malisque. quem tu qua Zubet, ut Zubet, moueto quantum uis, ubi eris foris paratum: hanc unum excipio, ut puto, pudenter. quod si te mala mens furorque uecors

33

in tantam impulerit, sceleste, culpam, ut nostrum insidiis caput lacessas, a turn te miserum malique fatif quem attractis pedibus patente porta percurrent raphanique mugilesque. 16

Pedicabo ego uos et irrumabo, Aureli pathice et cinaede Furi, qui me ex uersiculis meis putastis, quod sunt molliculi, pa rum pudicum. nam castum esse decet pium poetam ipsum, uersiculos nihil necesse est; qui turn denique habent salem ac leporem, si sunt molliculi ac parum pudici, et quod pruriat incitare possunt, non dico pueris, sed his pilosis qui duros nequeunt mouere lumbos. uos, quod milia multa basiorum legistis, male me marem putatis? pedicabo ego uos et irrumabo.

We notice that six verbal repetitions occur in the same lines ofboth poems, viz. c. 15.2/16.2 Aureli, 4 quod, 6 nihil, 10 pueris, 11 mouetolmouere, 13 putolputatis, whereas two repetitions occur in lines 4-5, viz. castum and pudicelpudicum. Mere coincidence seems to be excluded since no less than six of the eight corresponding words are in the same metrical position. By using strict parallelism the poet clearly wants to draw our attention to the repetitions. In this way we may detect less obvious instances of lexical concatenation, e.g. non dico, tum, mala, malisque, maliquelmale. There is also some phonic similarity: many words of both poems show palliteration followed by repetition of dentals, e.g. peto, pudentem, expeteres, pudice and pedicabo, pathice, puta(s)tis, pudicum. Finally, thematic links become apparent: we notice that the motif of sexual threat (pedicabo ... et irrumabo i.e. anal and oral penetration) in poem 16 is announced by the phrases caput lacessas (oral penetration) and percurrent (anal penetration) in poem 15. This example is far from isolated. Dettmer (1986) points out similar literal echoes in the couple of poems 12/13, viz. uinoluino, salsumlsale, inuenustaluenuste, namlnam, ut ... Fabullumlut ... Fabulle. There is also synonymy, viz. ioco, facetiarumlcachinnis, exspectalaccipies, miseruntl donarunt, and antonymy, viz. non belle/bene, tollislattuleris. A striking instance of syntactical parallelism is c. 12.8-9 est enim leporum differtus puerl13.7-8 nam tui Catulli plenus sacculus est aranearum, where est =

34

est, enim = nam, differtus = plenus (both adjectives are followed by plural genitives). The similarities between poems 50 and 51 have been stressed and examined by several scholars (Lavency 1965, Segal 1970, Finamore 1984-1985, Dettmer 1987-1988). Lexical echoes include me miserumlmisero ... mihi (morphological variation), tegeret ... ocellos/teguntur lumina (synonymous variation), dealdeo (antonymous variation). These striking examples of lexical concatenation should encourage the investigator to look for other verbal repetitions in the rest of the collection.

2.3

DEVICES OF LEXICAL CONCATENATION

The most prominent device of lexical concatenation is literal repetition of words and phrases. Repetition may occur in identical forms (e.g. c. 6.1 Catullo17.10 Catullo), or in different forms (e.g. c. 7.10 Catullo/8.1 Catulle). Compare the polyptoton or 'repetition of a word with morphological variation' as discussed by Wills (1996:189). Literal repetition may be thematically relevant, or it may have an almost formal character. The phrase cui ... dare at c. 2.3 varies on cui dono at c. 1.1 without retaining the original meaning of the phrase; cui is alternately used as an interrogative pronoun and as a relative pronoun; dare alternately means 'to dedicate' and 'to give, to offer' . This technique may be called homonymous concatenation. Compare the 'repetition with a change in meaning' as discussed by Wills (1996:469ff.). A second device is repetition of etymological cognates. The antonymous cognate substantives dea and deo, for instance, occur in poems 50 and 51; the verb discupere and the cognate adjective cupido occur in poems 106 and 107. Compare the 'derivational variation' as described by Wills (1996:238). A third device is the use of synonyms. The verb basiabis at c. 8.1 8 announces suauiabor at c. 9.9. Catullus employs synonymy for the sake of variation. The device is exemplified by the alternation of sinus and gremium in poems 2/3/4, and of sodalis and comes in poems 10/11/12 and 46/47. A fourth device is the use of antonyms. Negated antonyms can be considered synonyms, e.g. 35/36 uenuste/neque inuenustum. Otherwise, antonymy marks a thematic contrast, e.g. 12/13 inuenustaluenuste, 13/14 tibi di fauentlisti di mala multa dent.

35 2.4 AN INvENroRY OF LExIcAL CONCATENATION

The following inventory proves that lexical concatenation connects almost all poems of the volume. The enumeration is not exhaustive. Common or trivial words such as pronouns and conjunctions are mentioned only if they seem to be functionally significant: e.g. 12/13 nam/nam (introducing the finallines), 13/14 tui Catu!UJtuum Catullum (autoreferential), 22/23 auf si quid/aut si quid (followed by a comparative). The longer poems 61-68b are not fully excerpted. Their lexical links are less conspicuous to the reader, even though they are not lacking: e.g. the repetition of Hymen (0) Hymenaee in poems 61/62 and of casto ... gremio in poems 65/66. Instances of lexical concatenation in poems that do not directly follow each other are left aside for the moment: e.g. meos amores (38/40); decoctoris amica Formiani (41/43); alarum (69171); Iuppiternouem (70172). These examples of disjunctive concatenation will be discussed in the linear commentary of Chapter IH.l. The same applies to instances of phonic repetition, e.g. paeniteat/paene (30/31); amare/Ameana (40/41); praecipitem/praeconem (105/106). The list was compiled with the help of the word-indexes made by Schwabe (1886) and Wetmore (1912), and the concordance composed by McCarren (1977). Quicherat's Thesaurus poeticus linguae latinae (1893) enabled me to detect several poetical synonyms and metrical variants, e.g. uirgo/puella, corpus/membra, amor/amicitia, ocellillumina, gremium/sinus, amare/diligere, comes/sodalis/amicus, plenus/dijJertus.

Typographical Conventions

Synonyms are between round brackets ( ). Antonyms are between angle brackets < >. Etymological cognates are between square brackets [ ]. 1/2

2/3

Cui/cui dono/{ da re} solebas/solet uirgo/(puellae) Passer/passer, passer, passer deliciae meae puellae/deliciae meae puellae sinu/( gremio) puellae/puellae, puella, puellae ipsa/ipsam, (dominam) tam ... mihi/tam ... mihi tam ... quamltam ... quam

36

3/4

4/5

5/6

6/7

7/8

8/9

feruntl negatam/negant illa, illiuslille noratl[cognitissima j gremiol( sinum) ad ... usque/ad usque ipsam, dominam/ nunc, nunclnunc it ... iter, [redire jl[praeterire j negantlnegat, negare abstulistisl factum/esse facta opera/[opusj uidetisl nequissel praeterirel[redire j esse cognitissima/(sciat esse) secunduslsecunda usque/usque esse facta/fecerimus senetl[senumj amemusl[amores j, (diligis) rumoresl( argutatio) possuntlposses noxlnoctes una/(non uiduas) dormienda/(iacere noctes) fecerimus/jacias ne sciamus, lnescio maluslmali CatullolCatullo tacere, tacitum, tacereltacet posseslpossint iacereliacet nocteslnox malilmala amoreslamores [basiationesj, [basiaj, basiarelbasiabis multa, multa/multa noxl uidentluides, uideberis amoresl[amata, amabitur, amabisj CatullolCatulle, Catullus, Catulle miser, miserl uides, uideberisluisam uentitabasl[uenistine, uenisti j

37

9/10

10/11

11/12

12/13

13/14

quantumlquantum basiabis/( suauiabor) labellal( os) meis amicis/meus, (meus sodalis) ad tuos/ uenistine, uenistiluenimus uisamluisum, uisum est narranteml( sermones) beati, beatiorum, beatiusuelbeatiorem collumlcollo hominumlhomines, homines quid me/quid ad me amores/amorem, [amans] uisum, uisum est/uisens dicitur, dixeramldicta parare, parauit, [comparasti], pararimlparati Catulle/Catulli puellae/puellae sodalis/( comites) illius/illius uiuis/uiuat comites/( sodalis) monimental(mnemosynum) non bonal(non belle) trecentos/trecentos amans/amem non belle/ ioco/( sale) salsuml[sale] uino/uino tollis/ inuenustal< uenuste > differtus/(plenus) facetiaruml( cachinnis) Fabullus/Fabulie exspectal( accipies) nam ... miserunt ... munerilnam ... (donarunt) ameml[amores] ut/ut meum ... Fabullumlmi Fabulle bene, beneIbene, (non ... male) fauent/ di, deos/di, di diebus/die, die rum attuleris, attuleris/attulistis bonaml

38

14/15

15/16

16/17

17/21

uenuste/( iucundissime) sale/[salse} omnibus/omnia tui Catulliltuum Catullum contra accipies/( remunerabor) amores/[amarem}, seu quid/quidue dabo, donarunt/dat, dent faciantlfeci amareml[amores} male, mala, malumlmalis, mala, mali istilistos quod silquod si non male, benelbonis quem tu/quem tu curraml[percurrent} illuc/illuc pedemlpedibus non horrebitis/(nihil ueremur), admouere/[moueto} AurelilAureli quod/quod castumlcastum puerum, pueris/pueris pudice!pudicum, pudici non dico/non dico nihil/nihil malis, mala, mali1male moueto/mouere puto/putastis, putatis caput lacessas/( irrumabo) tumltum ipsumlipse nihil/nil, nihil habentlhabes saleml[insulsissimus} incitare/[excitare} pueris/pueri pilosis/[pili} nequeunt mouere!(nec se subleuat) cupis/cupis ludere/( iocaris) puerilpuer puella/ patris/pater sinitl

39

21/22

22/23

23/24

24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28

28/29

facit/faceres omnia/omnia ipse/ipsum modo/modo simullsimul omnia/omnia tangaml[ attigit ] face res, facias/facit ipsumlipse puto, putemus/putare deceml[deciesJ omnia, omnes/omnes aut si quid/aut si quid neque ... umquamlnon umquam beatuslbeate, beata, beatus nimiruml(nec mirum) possis/possunt, posses cui neque seruus est neque arca/cui ... etc. alios/aliis habetislhabet in anno/in annis beate, beata, beatus/(Midae) haec tulhoc tu noli spemerel putare paruil( eleua) desinel[ sineres ] flosculus/(Thalle) dedisses/ habetlhabere uento/uentum ostendit/(opposita est) uesanientel( saeui) pestilenteml(pe micies) saeuil(Thyonianus) inger/[geritisJ uini/(uappa) at uos/at uobis pe m icies/( obprobria) ad ... migratel(pete) quid/quid, quid, quid tulistis, /feres ista trabe/(ista mentula) irrumastil uideo/uidere, uidebis uerpa/(mentula) mala/malum,

40

29/30

30/31

31/32

32/33 33/34

34/35

35/36

Romuli/Romule habere, habebatlhabeant fereslferre omnium, omnialomnia, omnia quid, quid, quidlquid sinistralsinis malumlmalis miseruml deseris/(liquisse) in malis/ quidlquid tutalin tuto ferrelfert paeniteat/ ipse!ipsicilla (see Chapter III.5) quidlquid uenimus ... adlad ... ueniam larem ad nostruml acquiescimus lecto/( iaceo) domildomi neu ... abire/(non ... itis) pransus/( uoraciore) 0/0 optime, /bonis, bona pater, pater/ inquinatiore/ fili, filius, filil(progenies) itis/[iter] notae/[nomine] populo/( gentem) non potes/ puellae, puellae!puella, puella magna ... mater/Magna ... Mater dominaldominam potens/ dicta, es dictaldicas iter/[euntem], (uiam) Triuial[ uiam] poetae!poetae papyre!( carta, carta) ueniat/uenite accipiat/acceptum moraril( tardipedi) puella, puellalpuella, puella ignes/ignem uenuste!neque inuenustum

41

36/37

37/38 38/39 39/40

40/41 41/42

42/43 43/44

44/45

45/46

46/47 47/48

puella, puellalpuella, puellarum scriptalscribam tabemamltabema, [contubemales}, tabemae jace/jacit amata, amabitur, amatis/[amores} boni, bonuml quod ... est/quod ... est malest, malest/ quidlubet/quilubet lacrimis/(fletum, flet) usque quaque/( qualubet) uentum est/[peruenias} excitat/excitare bone/ quilubet/qualubet agit/agit mala, (uecordem)/(non ... sana) aduocatus/[ conuocate} amores/( amica) poposcit/( reflagitemus, reflagitate) turpiculo/[turpis, turpe} conuocate/( conclamate ... uoce) ro gare qualis sit/( quae sit quae ritis) turpe/(nec bello), ore, ore/ore 0/0 nec minimo/maximas ten ... esse/te esse narrat/(autumant, contendunt) nostraInoster 0/0 malam, maluml jrigidal usque/usque sinuml(gremio) jrigus/ tostal( aestuosae) obuius/[uiae} dulcis/dulces ab ... projectila ... projectos beatiores/(laeti) aequinoctialis/ comituml( sodales) uiae/[triuio J sinistrae/[sinatJ lautal( satur)

42 48/49 49/50 50/51

51/52 52/53 53/54 54/55

55/56

56/57 57/58a

58a/58b 58b/59 59/60 60/61

61/62

numquaml futurusle runt poeta, poeta/{poema} otiosi/{otium, otio, otium} incensusl(flamma) me miserumlmisero ... mihi tegeretlteguntur ocellos, ocellel(lumina) luceml uidereluidetur, (spectat, aspexi) membra/(artus) dea/, {diuos} sedenslsedet CatullelCatulle, Catulle perdiditl VatiniuslVatiniana magni/ pusillumlminore, omnia/omnibus, omnes, omnes si non/si ... non displicerel si non molestum est, si uisl( si placet) prendi/{deprendi} pupuluml puellae, puellaelpuellae Venusl(Dionae) si uisl( quicquid amas) amoris, amorisl{amas} puellael{puellularum} illa, illelilla, illa uno, lunam quamlquam uorax/(glubit) illa, illa/ille omneslomnibus amauitl{amice} quaeritandol(prosequens ) in/in (see my commentary on poem 60 in Chapter III.l) montibusl(collis) procreavitl( genus) mentelmentem uocemluoce nouissimolnoui, nouus, noua ferolfero etc. o Hymen HymenaeelHymen 0 Hymenaee (passim)

43

62/63

63/64

64/65

ueni, uenit etc.lueniet uirum, uir, etc.luiri, uiro coniugis, coniugeslconiuge uirginem, uirgo etc.luirgo, uirgo parens, parenslparentes, parenti, parentum maritus, marite, etc.lmarito [puellulam, puellulae]lpuellam, puellae, puellis iuueni, [iuuentam]liuuenes etc. matris, matre etc.lmatris, matre, matri [hortulo ]lhortis floribus, floslflos, florem uiden utluiden ut uitisluitis complexumlcomplexu, complexu pueri, pueris, puerislpueri, pueri, pueris tollite jacesl(lumina tollit) patrem, patrilpater, pater, patri adestladest, ades etc. etc. canentlcanere, canit, cecinit mentelmente, mente animoslanimis, animum etc. iuuenci, iuvencil matris, matris, matre, matrilmater uiri, uiroluiro floslflos ponderelpondera pueri, puerilpuer etc. celeri ratel(cita ... puppi, celeri ... classe) furentilfurentem, furebant uectus ... ratiluecta rati pelagi, pelagilpelagi, pelagi thiasuslthiaso typanum, tympana, tympanum, tympanoltympana Idam, Idae, Idael[Idaeos] furor, furorislfurore Somnus excitamlexcita somno uirluiri incitatosl[cita] columinibuslcolumen etc. unda, undaslunda Troical[Troia] maestalmaesta carminalcarmina, carmina

44

jratresljratris, jrater assiduis, assiduoslassiduo mentemlmens jluctuatljluctuat

etc. 65/66

assiduolassiduus curalcura uirginibusluirgine, uirgo jratris, jraterljratris litorellitoribus ereptumlereptis maestalmaestas, maesta fatalfata gemenslg~munt

tegamlteg~m munerelmunere, munera, muneribus casto ... e gremiol uestelueste tristiltristi ruborl(flammeus ... nitor)

etc. 66/67

dulcis, dulcia, dulcildulci amor, amorlamore, amore uirgineisluirgineam parentumlparenti, parentem non italnon ita liminallimine uiro, uirumluir cubile, cubililcubile uirgine, Virginis, uirgoluirgo Iuppiter, Iuppiterlluppiter in gremiolin gremium adulterioladulterium dominaeldomini iucundaliucunda, iucunda sedeslsedes

etc. 67/68a

iucunda, iucundaliucundum dulcildulci, dulcem sedeslsedes cubilel(lecto), cubili domum, domumldomus, domus amore, amorelamor Veronae/Veronae liminellimine domumldomus

45

68a/68b

68/69

69170

70171

71172

72173

73174

74175

75176

etc. misero frater adempte mihilmisero etc. tecum una tota est nostra sepulta domusltecum etc. omnia tecum una perierunt gaudia nostralomnia etc. quae tuus in vita dulcis ale bat amorlquae etc. haec tibi ... munera/hoc tibi ... munus iucundumliucundum desertoldeserto etc. perlucensl[perluciduZi] lapide, lapide/lapidis uallelualle ferturIJertur raralrarae miral[admirari], mirum, [admirari] muneralmunere [], ueZitl[malle] feminal(muZier, muZier) nullalnulli non silnon si cubetl( nubere) fugiuntl nuberel(futuit) amantil[amorem] rapidal< ta rda > iure bonol amoreml[amicam, amantem, amare] utrumquel futuit, exercetl( nos se) soluml(unum atque unicum) amicamlamicum impensiusl(grauius) magislmagis iniurial( ingrata) bene uellelbene uelle uelleluoluit fecisseIJaceret, fecit, faciet [aZiquem]lquis faceret, fecit, facietIJacias ipsi, ipsam, ipsumlipsa uoluitluelle menslmenti se ... perdiditl(perierunt) ipsalipsa, ipse bene/bene (see benefacta) uellelueZit

46

76/77

77/78a 78a/79 79/80 80/81 81/82 82/83 83/84 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89

89/90

desistere/( desinis) amare/[amore, amorem} omnialomnia, omni faciaslfacere, facta sunt, facias amore, amoreml[amicitiae} omnia, omnilomnia creditalcredite miser, miserumlmisero uitamluitae eripite/eripuisti, eripuisti pestemlpestis subrepens/subrepsti imos ... in artus/(intestina) eripuistil amicitiae/[amores} bellus, bello, bellal(pulcer) [for 78b see Chapter III.5] quid/quid, quid notoruml[nota ta} candidioral(pallidior) nescio/nescis uiril(homo) cordi est, (praeponere)/(carius ... est) quid/quid multo ... est/multo ... est illi est/illi ... est dicit/dicebat, dicere, dixerat, dixerat [obloquitur}, loquitur/esse locutum non ... sed/non ... sed non ... sed/ne-scio ... sed LesbialLesbia nulla, nullalnulla, nulla, nullo tam magnoltanta quantum, quantalquantum, quantum Quid, quid, [ecquid}lquid is, islis Gelli, GelliiGellius matre/mater sororelsoror patruumlpatruus is ... non sinit esse/fis desinat esse} quantum, quantuml[quantumuis} nihiVnihil GelliuslGelli mater/matris, matre

47

cognatis/[gnato, gnatus} Jas ... non/[neJando} 90/91 GelliiGelli matris, matre/matrem coniugio/[coniungerer} liqueJaciens/(edebat) perdito/(dispeream, dispeream) 91/92 amore, amor/[amat, amo} bene/male constanteml(assidue) amo/(velle placere) 92/93 93/94 placere/(moechatur, moechatur) 94/95a ipsa/ipsam 95a/95b meilmei at/at laxas/ gaudeat/gaudet 95b/96 sint cordil(gratum), monimenta/(sepulcris) quicquamlquicquam 96/97 potest/posse uetereslueteris amores, amore/[ament} 97/98 quicquamlquemquam immundius/(putide) diffissus/( deiscas) posse/pote, possis culum lingere/culos ... lingere 98/99 putide/ quemquamlquicquam possis/possum omnino, omnin%mni ... modo omnes/omnibus 991100 dulci dulcius/dulce amori, amoril[amicitia}, amore illud/illud miserum, misero/ 1001101 depereunt/( mortis) jTatremljTate~jTate~Jrater

JraternumljTaterno Jelixl sis Jelix, sis ... potens/(aue ... uale) 101/102 mutaml(tacito, Arpocratem) nequicquaml tradita sunt/(commissum est) 1021103 commissuml

48 103/104 104/105 105/106 106/107 107/108

108/109 109/11 0

110/111

111/112

112/113 113/114 114/115

115/116

esse, esse/esse delectantl( carior est) esse saeuus/(maledicere) conatur/( discupere) discuperel[ cupido, cupido, cupido} quid/quis, quis Si/Si cupido, cupido, cupido/( auido) candidiore/cana, uiuit, uital intereat/ inimical perpetuum, (aeternum)/( semper) facitelfacere, facis facinus, facere promitterelpromisti, promisse sincere dicat/ totaltoto amicitiael[amicae}, AufilienaiAufiliena laudantur/[laus, laudibus} sed ... plus quam/sed ... (potius) quam sese ... prostituit/(succumbere) uiro ... solo/ succumbere/(descendit) multus/(milia), multus, i.e. molitus/(solebant) fecundum/(diues, diues) milial(tot) saltulsaltu, saltus non falso/( uero) MentulaiMentula, mentula diues, diues/[diuitiis} qui/qui tot/tot habetlhabet, (possideat) omne, omnialomnia pratalprati, prata arualarui, arua exsuperat/[superare} sitlsit modo/moda ipselipsest egeat/ potis sitl[possem} usquelusque

49 mentulal(tela, tela) minax/( infesta)

2.5

F'uNenoNs OF LExICAL CONCATENATION

This inventory shows that lexical concatenation is ubiquitous in the Carmina. As pure chance may playapart in such repetitions, I do not contend that the poet was conscious of an quoted instances. Even so the quantity of the examples and the regularity of their occurrence seem to prove the objective existence of the phenomenon. For the moment, it seems hazardous to distinguish voluntary and involuntary, important and unimportant, serious and non-serious repetitions. The effect of lexical concatenation is enhanced when it links more than two poems. There are triplets, viz.: 2/3/4 3/4/5 5/617

6n18 7/8/9 12/13/14 14/15/16 15/16/17 16/17/18 23/24/25 28129130 38/39/40 42/43/44 55/56/57 64/65/66 65/66/67 74/75/76

75/76/77 108/109/110

sinulgremiolsinu negatamlnegantlnegat usque/usquelusque noxlnocteslnox possuntlposseslpossint CatullolCatullolCatulle basiarelbasiabislsuauiabor salsumlsalelsalse malelmalalmale nihil/nihil/nihil puerum, puerislpueri/puer habetislhabetlhabere quid/quid/quid malalmalumlmalis tulistislfereslferre quidlubetlquilubetlqualubet 01010

puellae/puellaelpuellularum assiduislassiduolassiduus gremiolgremiolgremio uoluitluelleluelit ipsi, ipsam, ipsumlipsalipsa, ipse omnialomnialomnia inimicalamicitiaelinimica

There are even quadruplets, viz.: 7/8/9/1 0

9/10/11112 16/17/21/22 34/35/36/37

uidentluidesluisamluisum amicislsodalis!comiteslsodalis ipsumlipselipsumlipse puellae/puellalpuellalpuella

50

61/62/63/64 uirumluiriluiroluiri 66/67/68a/68b iucunda/iucunda/iucundumliucundum 69/70/71/72 cubetlnubereJfutuitlnosse 73/74/7 5/7 6 fecisseJfaceretifaciasJfacias 88/89/90/91 GellilGelliuslGellilGelli 88/89/80/91 matrelmaterlmatrislmatrem 96/97/98/99 quicquamlquicquamlquemquamlquicquam. There are two quintuplets, viz.: 28/29/30/31/32 quidlquidlquidlquidlquid 72/73/74/75/76 uelleluelleluoluitluelleluelit. Lexical concatenation may have either a thematic or a formal function. The thematic function draws the reader' s attention to thematic similarities and contrasts between consecutive poems. Therefore future commentators should not study any poem without examining the poems preceding and following. Forsyth (1976-1977:315n9) observed that missing background information for one poem is supplied by another: 'poem 24 presents Juventius in love with a man cui neque servus est neque arca (line 5); poem 24 itself does not tell us who this man is, but poem 23 does: Furi, cui neque servus est neque arca (line 1). Clearly Catullus intends his reader to carry over the information given in poem 23 to poem 24.' This casual remark may be transformed into a kind of rule: if the name of a character is lacking in one poem, there is an adjacent poem elucidating the anonymity. For instance, Lesbia is meant in poem 8 (cf. 7), Furius in 24 (cf. 23), Ameana in 42 (cf. 41 and 43), Lesbia in 56 (cf. 58a) and in 70 (cf. 72), Rufus in 71 and 73 (cf. 69), Lesbia in 76 (cf. 75) and 85 (cf. 83 and 86), Clodius in 106 (cf. Lesbia-Clodia in 107), Lesbia in 109 (cf. 107). The phenomenon shows that Catullus' collection is a coherent composition, whose arrangement may elucidate the difficulties of individual poems. Concatenation may enable us to solve interpretative problems. Here are some cases. The parallel between paucis ... diebus at c. 13.2 and continuo ... die at c. 14.14 proves that continuo is an adjective (see my discussion of c. 14.14 in Chapter III.5). The informal sense of nubere 'to sleep with' at c. 70.1 is confirmed by the paralleis with c. 69.8 cubet, c. 71.5 futuit, and c. 72.1 nosse. The sense of ostendere at c. 25.5 is clarified by the synonymous opponere at c. 26.2. The effects of concatenation on the reading of the received text is discussed in Chapter III.5. The formal function of lexical concatenation consists in bridging abrupt thematic transitions in an almost mechanical way. For instance, the phrase bene uelle at c. 72.8 is repeated in the collocation bene uelle mereri at c. 73.1, where uelle is to be taken with mereri. Forsyth (1986:495) rightly

51

observes: 'the repeated words effectively tie these two epigrams together, despite the difference in subject matter.' Especially by using almost insignificant words and phrases the poet exploits the connective force of literal repetition. Typical instances are 12/13 nam/nam (both introducing the final four lines), 14/15 quem tu/quem tu (both at the beginning of a line), 15/16 non dico/non dico (idem), 22/23 aut si quid/aut si quid (both at the beginning of line 13), 87/88 quantum., quanta/quantum, quantum (double repetition), 96/97 quicquam/quicquam (both at the fIrst line), 107/108 Si/Si (both at the beginning of the poem). The connections between poems may often seem strange or even contrived to the modern reader. The elegy for Catullus' brother (poem 101), for instance, is c1early linked with the previous satirical attack (poem 100) by repetition ofJrater andJratemus. The incongruous juxtaposition of a sexual and a sepulchral poem seems rather tasteless, but should be interpreted as a typical example of Hellenistic variation, especially as a mixture of gravity and humour, Le. spoudaiogeloion. In such cases lexical concatenation connects and disjoins at the same time.

2.6

CONCATENATION IN CLAsSICAL POErRY

It is likely that Catullus borrowed the principle of concatenation from bis Hellenistic models. The artful arrangement of Meleager's Garland, for instance, was based on thematic elaboration or contrast, and on verbal repetition or variation. The technique is thoroughly discussed by Wifstrandt (1926), who stresses that an important part of the effect of the epigrams is caused by their arrangement. A typical example is a Meleagrian sequence in the fIfth book of the Greek Anthology, where epigrams 6, 7, 8 (imitated by Catullus in poem 70) are linked by the theme of the lovers' vows and by several verbal echoes, viz.: omose. omosen/omosen/omosamen; philon/philon; mepotelmeketiloupote; horkouslhorkois. horkia; luchne, luchnelluchne. luchne. Other examples of lexical repetition are 10 be found in the Meleagrian sequence of anima! epigrams Anth. Gr. 7.189-203, viz.: 189/190 akrilakridi; 191/192/193 antiphthongonlliguphthongoisilphthengomena; 193/194 tandelhade; 194/195 akrida/akri;

52 195/196/197 Afousa/mousanlmousan;hupnoulhupnonlhupnon; 195/196 luraslluras, krekelkrekOn; 197/198 akris/akrida, hodita/parodita; apophthimenai/phthimenen; 199/200 phthongonlphthoggon; 200/201 hezomenos/ephezomenos, chlOronichlOroisin 200/2011202/203 Ouket(i);

But the technique of concatenation is at least as old as the Theognidea. None other than Friedrich Nietzsehe (1867) showed that more than half of this collection is connected by identical or similar Stichwörter 'keywords'. Presumably, he even underestimates the number of verbal links. In Latin poetry, 'arrangement of two successive poems by verbal connection' is to be found in the Priapea (Goldberg 1992:38; cf. Buchheit 1962:53). This heterometric collection bears many similarities to Catullus' Carmina. Here is an enumeration of the most obvious cases of concatenation: 112

2/3 3/4

4/5 5/6 7/8 8/9 11112 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 17/18 18/19 20/21 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27

carminislcarmina lususlludens soror/sorores hortorumlhorto parti/partem uirgineumluirgo locum/loci da, des, da, dare, dat, da/dat dat/dederis Priapus/Priapus blaesa (Greek 'bandy')/ mentulamlmentula rugas/rugosas barbatolbarbatum puella/puella re/res agello/agelli laxiorllaxa nullalnulla potest/possit tualtuo femina ... puerue/pueroque feminaque hic/Hic olus/olus, olus furlfuris furislfures PriapumlPriapo

53

Priape/Priape carpserislcarpes putantlputem habe re/habue re 33/34 dei/deo PhoebuslPhoebo, Phoebi 36/37 deusldeus PriapolPriape 37/38 dareldederis dixi/dicere uolo, uislmauolt 38/39 39/40 puellalpuellas 40/41 facta estlfiat 41/42 feceritlfac 43/44 VellelNolite dicas, dixitldici 44/45 dicas, dixitldicimus Maurae/Mauro 45/46 puellae, puellalpuella cinaedelcinaedis 46/47 erucarumlerucis 48/49 uidetisluides 49/50 mentulalmentulam uenirelueniet 51/52 hortum, hortilhorto malalmalum salaceslsalax 54/55 eritlero digitisldigitum 55/56 56/57 facit/facta puella, puellalpuella 57/58 JututorlJututorem 58/59 JurlJur 62/63 Siriuslcaniculam custodietlcustos 63/64 uenireluenit 67/68 PenelopeslPenelopea, Penelope 68/69 mentula, mentula, mentula, mentulalmentulam 69/70 mentulamlmentulae 71/72 pomarialpomarii na/nb JuribuslJuraberis nb/73 daboldederitis 73/74 mentulalmentula 77/78 solebamlsolebat 79/80 Priapus ... tentoltente Priape

29/30 30/31 32/33

54

The fragments of Cornelius Gallus' poetry discovered at Qasr Ibrim in 1978 (Courtney 1993:263) show that lexical concatenation may have been an approved neoteric technique in the ftrst century B.C. Indeed, the words tristia and tua in the last line of one of these epigrams (a) contrast with the antonymous words dulcia and mea in the fust line of the next epigram (b): (a)

tristia nequit[ia ... aJ, Lycori, tua.

(b)

fata mihi, Caesar, tum erunt mea dulcia quom tu

The connection of both epigrams was noticed by the ftrst editors (Anderson, Parsons, Nisbet 1979:149): 'The last part of (a) apparently commented on the poet's sad lot (tristia); this is picked up in (b) by fata ... dulcia.' Wills (1996:399nI7), observing repetition in two consecutive poems of Propertius remarks: 'It seems unlikely that Prop. 2.5 and 2.6, related poems about a jealous lover, share this formal and verbal similarity by accident. Whether we suppose rewriting or the composition of a new poem responding to a previous one, some formal features (especially in opening and closing couplets) aid the not uncommon thematic pairing of poems in parts of book 2.' This is an accurate description of the principle of concatenation by a scholar who is obviously not aware of the frequency of the technique. We ftnd similar repetitions in Propertius' fust book, e.g. 1.21/1.22 Etruscis, EtruscislEtrusca, ossaJossa, ignotas/nota. In fact, the lexicallinks of the Elegies corroborate the thematic 'pairings' described by Davis (1977). The technique occurs also in Horace's Odes (Huber 1970, Dettmer 1983:12). Here are a few examples from the beginning ofbook I: 1/2 2/3

3/4 4/5

5/6 6n 7/8 8/9 9/10 10/11

Ioue/loue, Quiritiumlpopulo Quirini, regibus/regis pater/pater, Ioue/louem ignem/igni grato/grato maris/mari, potentilpotens, nigris/nigrum dicere/dicet, laudesllaudabunt oliuamloliuum, patiens/patiens, campus/Campum CampumlCampus reponens/reponis, puer/puerum, gratus/gratus Iouis/luppiter

Nisbet & Hubbard (1978:6) discern a striking example in book 11: poems 6 and 7 begin with mecum and end with amicilo.

55

Other striking cases of lexica1 concatenation occur in Horace's Epistulae. There are obvious verbal links between the ending and the beginning of consecutive poems, e.g.: 1.1.107 1.2.67 1.3.28 1.5.31 1.6.67 1.9.11 1.12.28 2.1.269

regum/2.8 regum militat/3.1 militet opus/4.3 opuscula seruantem/6.2 seruare uale ... rectius17.3 recteque ualentem urbanaellO.l urbis Caesaris/13.2 Augusto uendentem/2.2 uendere

Martial's heterometric books of epigrams present numerous examples of concatenation (compare Barwick 1932), e.g.: Sp.l

unum/2 una/3 una libellis/l.2 libellos cenam/2.19 cena liber/3.2 libelle/3A liber/3.5 liber Ligurine, cenam/3A5 Ligurine, cenam centum/4.68 centum legisse/5.2 lege, legat Libertus Melioris, domini, puer/6.29 libertus Melioris, domini, puer magni, diesl7.22 magno, luxl7.23 luce 7.21 soluet/8.10 soluet 8.9 Quinte, Quinte/9.53 Quinte, Quinte 9.52 libellusll0.2 libelli/l0.3 libellis 10.1 11.106 lege/11.1 07 legisti/11.1 08 Lector 12.95 femina/12.96 femina 12.96 uxor/12.97 uxoris 13.119 bibes/13.120 bibas/13.121 bibat 14.185 Maronis/14.186 Maronem

1.1 2.18 3.1 3.44 4.67 5.1 6.28

These few examples show that the arrangement of classical collections deserves to be re-examined from the point of view of concatenation. While dea1ing with the problem we should remember that ancient poetry was written and read injuxtaposed columns on rolls. Consequently, similarities between consecutive poems were much more conspicuous than in our books, which roust be leafed through.

56 CONCLUSION

The systematical use of thematic and lexical concatenation in the Carmina demonstrates that the arrangement of the volume is not arbitrary. As it seems improbable that a posthumous editor was able to organize the poems in so subtle a way, the arrangement must have been the work of Catullus himself. The interaction of concatenated poems gives the volume additional significance, to be explored in the next chapter.

CHAPTERIII

A CONCATENARY READING OF CATULLUS In the first section of this chapter, I read the Carmina in their traditional linear order, stressing and elucidating thematic and formal links between successive poems. Simultaneously, many new interpretations of single poems are offered. The second seetion summarizes the thematic similarities and contrasts occurring in the collection. In the third seetion, I discuss the different principles underlying the arrangement. In the fourth section, the devices of concatenation are used to detect instances of concentric composition. The fifth seetion describes the effects of a concatenary reading on the text of Catullus. Some condusions are drawn in the final seetion.

SIGLA AND DEFINITIONS

TC: thematic concatenation, Le. repetition of similar themes and motifs in poems dose to each other LC: lexical concatenation, Le. repetition of identical or similar words or phrases in poems dose to each other Simple concatenation: concatenation in consecutive poems Disjunctive concatenation: concatenation in poems separated by one or more other poems Literal LC: LC based on literal repetition of words and phrases (with or without some morphological variation) Homonymous LC: LC based on repetition of homonymous words and phrases Phonie LC: LC based on repetition of sounds Synonymous LC: LC based on repetition of synonymous words and phrases Antonymous LC: LC based on repetition of antonymous words and phrases Thematic LC: LC stressing thematic links Formal LC: LC with a purely connective function

58 1. 1'HEMATIC AND LExIcAL CONCATENATION IN THE CARMINA

F'IRsTBooK

The ftrst poem describes the contents of Book 1 as nugae 'light verse'. Pliny the Younger (Ep. 4.14) uses the tenn for a volume of hendecasyllabies: cogitare me has meas nugas ita inscribere Hendecasyllabos 'I intend to call these trifles of mine Hendecasyllabics'. There are actually 41 hendecasyllabics among the 58 poems of Catullus' ftrst book. 1

This proem is a dedicatory poem (anathematikon) of the ftrst book, and of the whole collection. Catullus' fellow countryman Comelius Nepos was an apt dedicatee since he wrote similar light poetry (Pliny Ep. 5.3.6). Caims (1969) stresses the programmatic function of the proem. The word nouus is topical at the beginning of a book (e.g. Ovid Met. 1.1 in noua; Pont. 1.1.1 non nouus; Martial13.1 nouos). There is a verbal link between the ftrst and the ftnal poem of book I, viz. c. 1.1 nouum/ c. 60.4 nouissimo. The word doctis pointing to Alexandrian sophistication is linked with doctis (uirginibus) at c. 65.2 (in the ftrst poem ofbook III). According to Martin (1992:122), the opening-phrase cui dono is programmatic for 'the theme of gift-giving' in book 1 (e.g. poems 2 dare, 4 dedicat, 5 da, 10 commoda, 12 miserunt, 13 accipies, donarunt, 14 misit, misti, 15 commendo, 17 da, 24 dedisses). The phrase is cleverly reversed at the end of the collection where Gellius must pay the penalty for his refusal of Catullus' poetical gift Le. dedication: c. 116.8 tu dabis. Caims (1995) has shown that Roman poets loved putting bilingual puns in their incipits: e.g. Horace Od. 3.1 Odi (punning on Greek ode), Epod. 1.1. Ibis (punning on Greek ibis). Possibly, Catullus' cui dono or quoi dono alludes to Greek Kudonion (Latin malum Cydonium, late Latin quidonia) 'Cydonian apple, quince'. If so, the ftrst words of the collection hint at a typicallove-gift (compare, in the ftrst poem of book III, c. 65.19 missum ... munere malum 'an apple sent as a gift'). For the etymologizing word play Cydonia < donare compare Propertius 3.13.27-28 illis munus erant ... Cydonia... dare 'they used to give Cydonian apples as a "donation"'. Catullus' pun announces the quince of poem 2 (for the identiftcation of malum aureolum with Cydonium malum see Chapter 1.2.1 and Felgentreu 1993). 2

This request of a love-gift in the shape of a passer 'sparrow' contrasts with poem 1 describing the gift of a volume that was probably called Passer after the ftrst word of poem 2 (see Gratwick 1991, referring to Martial

59

4.14.13-14 ausus est Catullus magno mittere Passe rem Maroni 'Catullus

ventured to send his Sparrow to great Virgil'). TC is stressed by LC: literal (solebaslsolet), synonymous (patrona/ipsa 'mistress', uirgolpuellae 'virgin') and homonymous (cui donolcui dare). Fitzgerald (1995:42) remarks that the endings of poems 1 and 2 deal with virgins, viz. the Muse and Atalanta. It is not impossible that the motif alludes to the c10sed book whose opening is seen as a defloration (compare Martial 1.66.7 uirginis ... chartae 'virgin, i.e. untouched book', with 1.66.9 liber notus "'known" volume'; for notus 'carnally known' see poem 102). The zona, then, might allude to the leather strap tying up the roll (cf. c. 22.7 lora). Love is a leitmotif throughout book I: c. 2.1 deliciae, 3.4 deliciae, 3.5 amabat, 5.1 amemus, 6.1 delicias, 6.5 diligis, 6.16 amores, 7.8 amores, 8.5 amata ... amabitur, 8.17 amabis, 10.1 amores, 11.19 amans, 11.21 amorem, 12.16 amem, 13.9 amores, 14.1 amarem, 15.1 amores, 21.4 amores, 24.6 amari, 30.8 amorem, 32.1 Amabo, 32.2 deliciae, 35.12 amore, 37.12 amata ... amabitur, 37.15 amatis, 38.6 amores, 40.7 amores, 40.8 amare, 41.4 amica, 43.5 amica, 45.1 amores, 45.3 amo ... amare, 45.8,17 Amor, 45.20 amant ... amantur, 55.19,22 amoris, 56.3 amas, 58a.3 amauit. Compare poem 60, which may be addressed to Amor himself. The group of poems 2-4 is linked by formal LC: literal negatam/negant/ negat, negare and synonymous sinulgremiolsinum. The sequence 2-8 is a Lesbia- 'cyc1e' with two contrasting pieces, viz. the travelling-poem 4 and the mistress-poem 6, whose motifs are combined in poem 10. The sequence of friendship-poems 9-14 is linked to the first sequence by the farewell-poem 11. 3

This dirge (epicedium) on the death of the sparrow is a contrasting companion-piece to the laudatory poem 2. TC is reinforced by striking LC passer, deliciae meae puellae/passer, deliciae meae puellae, ipsa/ipsam, in sinulnec a gremio, tam ... quam ... puellae/tam ... quam puella. For in sinu 'in her lap' see the parody of poem 3 in Anthologia Latina 11.2.1512. The malediction ofthe sparrow's abductor in poem 3 contrasts with the words of gratitude for the possible gift of the sparrow in poem 2. Wirth (1986:47n37) draws attention to the lexical repetition and the thematic contrast (viz. gift vs. theft): tam gratum est mihi vs. tam bellum mihi passerem abstulistis.

60 4

This dedicatory poem (anathematikon) describing the last voyage of Catullus' yacht contrasts with poem 3 dealing with the last trip of Lesbia's sparrow (Forsyth 1986:115). Animal and ship used to move to and fro (synonymous LC modo huc modo illuc/laeua sive dextera), but are now (litera! LC sed ... nunc/sed ... nunc) going to their final resting-places, the dark underworld and the limpid lake respectively. The poet playfully stresses the similarity by using the verb uolare 'to fly', more suitable to the movement of the bird, to describe the top speed of the ship. Notice the typical alternation of man and woman in the contrast between the bird's mistress and the yacht's master (antonymous LC ipsa, domina/erus). There is artful variation in LC quem ... illa oculis suis/ille quem uidetis; negant redire quemquam/ait ... neque ullius ... praeterire ... et hoc negat. There may be some kind of phonic LC in passer/phaselus. Most commentators interpret hospites as an address to guests or passers-by, but in a dedicatory poem we expect an address to the gods. Internal annular composition within the poem (see Chapter III.4.4) suggests the Dioscuri as 'hosts', viz. Theoi Soteres (Hornsby 1963:260, Granarolo 1967:384-385). Compare Pindar 01. 3.1 Tundaridais ". philoxeinois 'to the hospitable Dioscuri' and see Decharme (1886:657). If these gods are meant, uidetis may mean 'you look with favour on' (the graecism is discussed by Headlam ad Herodas 4.73 in Knox 1922; compare c. 76.19 me mise rum aspicite 'look upon my misery') and may be opposed to inuidere 'to look with disfavour' in poem 5 (antonymous LC 4.115.12). Poem 4, then, begins with an address to the gods like the previous poem. The reduplicated final mention of Castor, the mortal one of the Dioscuri, may point to the death-motif in the surrounding poems 3 and 5. 5

This incitement to live and love contrasts with the two preceding poems about death and old age (LC 3/5 redire/redire, usque/usque, male, malae, male/malus, 4/5 praeterire/redire). The 'life-story of an old ship' is an apt prelude to the 'theme of the shortness oflife' (Fordyce 1973:98, 106). The motif of the garrulous old man (represented by the personified ship and the jealous gossipmonger) is stressed by LC 4/5 ait, negat, aitlrumores; senet/senum (Forsyth 1986:120). Formal LC 4/5 nequisse/possunt, ne possit, cognitissima/sciamus, secundus/secunda, usque/usque. The motif of the indefinite large number links poems 5, 7, 9, 11, 12: mille,

61

deinde centum, dein mille altera, dein seeunda eentum, etc.lnee pemumerare ... possintlantistans ... milibus treeentis/treeentos/treeentos. The kissing-motif is pursued in poems 7, 8, and 9. 6

In this poem about secret love the speaker plays the part of the tedious outsider, which is a motif of the surrounding poems 5 and 7 (Forsyth 1986:122). Synonymous LC 5/6 rumores/argutatio (from argutari 'to babble'), nox est ... una dormiendalnon uiduas iacere noetes stresses the similarity; antonymous LC sciatlnescio the change of point of view. Formal LC 5/6 malus/mali, possunt, possit/posses, feeerimuslfaeias. Disjunctive TC 4/6 contrasts the loquacious ship with the silent friend (LC ait, dicit/dieere, die; uoearetluoeare). 7

This kissing-poem is a disjunctive companion-piece to poem 5. Birt (1904:432n5), comparing poems 55 and 58b, regards it as a more ornate and sophisticated variation on the same theme. The motif of the indefinite large number in poem 5 (milia multa) is varied by two topical similes (quam magnus numerus ... harenae, quam sidera multa). Compare poem 48, which combines indefinite number and simile (milia treeenta, densior ... aristis). TC 5/7 is emphasized by literal and synonymous LC Lesbia/Lesbia, amemus/amores, senumlueteris, nox/nox, basia, basiorum/basiationes, basia, multa/multa, multa, eonturbabimus/nee pemumerare, malus inuidere/mala fascinare 'to cast the evil eye' (on the equivalence of both phrases see Ronconi 1968:129ff. and Fordyce 1973: 108), possit/possint. Poem 7 echoes the motifs of secret love and the curious outsider in poem 6 (LC tacere, tacitum, taeereltaeet, amores/amores). Notice literal LC 6/7 Catullo/Catullo, nee ... posses/nee ... possint, iacereliacet, mali/mala, and the thematic contrast between the final lines, viz. ad eaelum lepido uoeare uersu 'to praise to the skies with a fine poem' lmala fascinare lingua 'to stigmatize with jealous words' . 8 This farewell to the beloved (renuntiatio amoris) contrasts with the preceding poems 5, 6, and 7, dealing with lovemaking. Thematic links between these poems are reinforced by conspicuous LC: 5 amemusl6 diligis/7 amores/8 amata, amabitur, amabis; 6 Catullo/7 Catul10/8 Catulle, Catullus; 5 uiuamus/8 uiue, uita; 6 ineptiarum/8 ineptire; 7 basiarel8 basiabis; 7 uidentl8 uides; 5 solesl6 noetes/7 noxl8 soles (Le. dies, Birt 1908:433).

62

The sentence uale, puella seems to mark the end of the first Lesbia'cyc1e' (poems 2-8). The second farewell-poem 11 repeats this motif: nuntiate puellae: ... uiuat ualeatque. It should be noted that all hendecasyllabics of the sequence 9-26 have

spondaic bases (see Chapter 1.5.2). 9

This we1come poem (prosphonetikon), which seems to be Catullus' answer to an invitation from his friend Veranius, contrasts with the previous farewell-poem. Notice the typical alternation of woman and man, esp. girl-friend and friend (LC puella amata/amids). Whereas Catullus' girl runs away, his friend comes back (antonymous LC jugitluenisti). The contrast is bridged by LC: synonymous (uentitabasluenisti, basiabislsuauiabor, labella/os) and antonymous (miser/laetius, beati, beatiorum, beatius). This poem introduces a sequence dealing with Catullus' companions (poems 9-14), viz. Veranius (poem 9), Varus and Cinna (poem 10), Furius and Aurelius (poem 11), Asinius Pollio, Fabullus, and Veranius (poem 12), Fabullus (poem 13), Calvus (poem 14). The phrase omnibus e meis amids antistans seems to be prograrnmatic, since antistare, i.e. antestare 'to be superior', also means 'to occupy the first place'. The friendsbip-theme is varied by conspicuous synonymous LC, viz. c. 9.1 amids, 10.29 sodalis, 11.1 comites, 12.13 sodalis, 13.6 uenuste noster, 14.2 iucundissime. Poems 9-11 are linked by the travelling-motif, poems 12-14 by the party-motif. Santirocco (1986: 184n55) describes the links between the poems ofthe first group as 'a surface glide': 'poem 9, on Veranius' return from Spain as a member of Piso' s cohort, leads into 10 which alludes to Catullus' experiences in the Bithynian cohort of Memmius, and thus introduces 11 which opens with a travelogue' . 10

In the preceding poem, Catullus announced his visit to Veranius, in tbis second friendship-poem Varus invites him to visit his mistress (LC 9/1 0 uisam/uisum ). Contrast of setting is stressed by rhyming LC ad tuos/ad suos 'to your [house]' / 'to his [mistress' house]'. Veranius will tell about his adventures in Iberia; the poet bimself relates his experiences in Bithynia (LC narrantem/sermones). Wiseman (1969:13n3), commenting on the repetition of beatior, emphasizes the contrast: 'Veranius is back from Spain, I'm lucky; I'm back from Bithynia, I wasn't lucky'.

63 The analogy is reinforced by litera! and synonymous LC, viz. uenistil uenimus, collumlcollo, hominumlhomines, meis amicislmeus sodalis, beatiorumlbeatiorem, quid melquid ad me. Disjunctive LC 8/1 0 (Catulle, CatulleiCatulle; uides, uideberisluisum, uisum est; ducas, ducebatlduxerat; uentitabasluenimus; amata, amabis/ amores; nulla, nullalnullus; fugitlfugit; uiueluiuis; puella, puellalpuellae, puellae; esse dicerisldicitur esse) links two poems about girl-friends. 11

This second farewell-poem to the beloved (renuntiatio amoris) connects the love theme of the first farewell-poem 8 with the motifs of friendship and travelling appearing in poems 9 and 10. As a farewell-poem it contrasts with the we1come poem 9 (disjunctive LC omnibuslomnia, omnium; trecentis/trecentos; nuntiilnuntiate). The poet who wants to escape from an unhappy love asks his friends (comites varies on amicis and sodalis in the preceding poems) to accompany him to distant countries. The journey of the deceived lover is topical (compare c. 45, Theocritus 14.55, Propertius 1.1.29-30, 1.17,3.21, Ovid Rem. 213-214; see MacLeod 1983:179, Del1a Corte 1992:12, Tromaras 1984:27n54) . Like the previous poem this poem is about a salacious girl. LC 10/11 amoreslamorem, puellaelpuellae, CatulleiCatulli, uiuisluiuat. The association of Varus and Furius (in poems 10 and 11, and in poems 22 and 23) suggests their identification with two fellow-citizens from Cremona, the poets Quintilius Varus and Marcus Furius Bibaculus (Loomis 1969 and 1972:58n2). The incipit of this poem announces the Furius and Aurelius-'cyc1e' (poems 15, 16,21,23,24, 26, and perhaps 17). 12

This reclaiming-poem (jlagitatio) combines the friendship-motif (LC comiteslsodalis) of the sequence with the party-motif, which is pursued in poems 13 and 14. The couple Fabullus and Veranius supersedes the couple Furius and Aurelius (who will reappear in poem 15). The thematic break is bridged by formal LC 11/12 trecentos/trecentos (the motif of the indefinite large number, as in poems 5, 7, 9, 11) and monimentalmnemosynum (LatinGreek alternation; on the equivalence see EIlis 1867:35). Disjunctive TC between both society poems 10 and 12 is stressed by LC inuenustumlinuenusta, fugitlfugit, meus sodalis/mei sodalis, utorl uteris, insulsalsalsum, neglegentemlneglegentiorum, uerum illius [i.e. mei sodalis (cf. c. 10.29)] an meiluerum ... mei sodalis.

64

The group of party-poems 12-14 is connected by the gift-motif (Offermann 1978:39, Forsyth 1984-1985). 13

This invitation-poem (invitatio) pursues the party-motif of poem 12. According to Dettmer (1997:33ff.), the lack of urbanitas of the provincial Asinius Marrucinus is 'contrapuntal' to the urbanitas of Catullus and his friend Fabullus. Structural and thematic paralieis are discussed by Nappa 1998. One of these is the gift-motif (the very word munus is suppressed by way of variation, but reappears in poem 14). Thematic analogy is stressed by LC, viz. Fabullus, meum ... FabullumlFabulle, mi Fabulle, uinoluino, salsumlsale, exspectalaccipies, inuenustaluenuste, namlnam (introducing the final four verses), miseruntl donarunt (Dettmer 1986). The striking instance of syntactical parallelism and rhyming LC est enim leporum differtus puer ac jacetiarumlnam tui Catulli plenus sacculus est aranearum is discussed in Chapter 11.2.2. Synonymy is used by way of variation: enimlnam, differtuslplenus. 14

This poem, in which Catullus refuses a gift (recusatio) and threatens to send a counter-gift, clearly contrasts with poem 13, in which he begs for gifts and promises a counter-gift. Like poems 12 and 13 this is a partypoem: the bad poets (i.e. verses) are unwanted guests (Syndikus 1984:138). Literal LC tui Catulliltuum Catullum, attulerislattulistis alternates with antonymous LC bene/male, tibi di jauentlisti di mala multa dent, paucis diebuslcontinuo die, amoreslodissem odio emphasizing the sudden change of mood. Synonymous LC contra accipieslremunerabor pursues the giftmotif. The gift-motif was initiated in poem 12: disjunctive TC 12/14 is stressed by LC manu1manus, salsumlsalse, ineptelineptiarum, remitte, miseruntlmisit, misti, muneriJmunere, munus, remunerabor, ameml amarem. This mock-attack on a friend is also an attack on Catullus' poetical adversaries. The end of the sequence of friendship-poems 9-14 seems to be marked by the sentence uos hinc interea ualete abite (compare uale, puella at c. 8.12 and uos ... abite at c. 27.5, both marking a thematic break); pessimi poetae may be a programmatic phrase announcing the sequence of satirical poems 15-26 on literary rivals such as Suffenus mentioned at line 19 and attacked in poem 22.

65

15

In the previous poem Catullus is threatening riYal poets approaching him; in this parodic recommendation (commendatio, MacLeod 1983:175) he is threatening a rivallover approaching his boy-friend (contrasting LC pedem attuUstis, manus ... admouere/[penem] moueto). Literal LC 14/15 male, mala/malis, mala, maU, istilistos, quod si/quod si, quem tu/quem tu, pedemlpedibus, illudilluc; synonymous LC horribilem, horrebitislueremur, metuo. Dettmer (1997:40) links manus at c. 14.25 with commendo (= con + manum do) at c. 15.1. The phrase nostrum caput lacessas means irrumes 'you force me to oral sex' (cf. Suetonius Jul. 22 insultaturum omnium capitibus, as explained by Adams 1987:200); the interpretation is corroborated by synonymous LC 15/16Iacessaslirrumabo. The sexual threat motif connects the sequence 15-21. Barwick (1958) and Schmidt (1973) discem an Aurelius- and Furius'cyele' consisting of poems 15, 16, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26. In fact, the sequence 15-26 consists of satirical poems aimed at (poetical) rivals and adversaries, viz. Aurelius (poem 15), Aurelius and Furius (poem 16), an anonymous husband (poem 17), Aurelius (poem 21), Suffenus (poem 22), Furius (poem 23 and 24), Thallus (poem 25), Furius (poems 26). Most of Catullus' attacks seem to be playful blows in a poetical controversy and are not to be taken too seriously. Catullus' young friend appears in poems 15 (meos amores), 21 (meos amores), 24 (flosculus Iuuentiorum). According to Dettmer (1997:48), 'Catullus appears to have postponed revealing the identity of the puer until the elose of the cyele for dramatic effect'. Notice that puer is a leitmotif in the whole sequence (c. 15.5,10, 16.10, 17.12, 21.11, 27.1). Another leitmotif is anal and oral sex, viz. c. 15.16 caput lacessas, 15.18 patente porta percurrent, 16.1,14 pedicabo et irrumabo, 21.8 irrumatione, 21.1 3 irrumatus (and compare my commentaries on c. 17.19 Liguri, 21.1,1 0 esuritionum, esurire, 22.10 caprimulgus, jossor). 16

Like the previous poem, this invective against Furius and Aurelius is a sexual threat (anal rape). The identification of Furius with the poet Furius Bibaculus is defended by Heidel (1901), Green (1939-1940), Neudling (1955:71-73), Loomis (1969), and Lyne (1978:171n31). TC 15/16 is stressed by striking LC (discussed in Chapter 11.2.2), viz. Aureli/Aureli, putolputastis, pudice/pudicum, pudici, castumlcastum, puerum, puerislpueris, mouetolmouere (sexual movements), caput lacessas/irrumabo. Characteristic instances of formal LC are quod/quod, nihillnihil (i.e. minime), non dicolnon dico, maUs, mala/male, tumltum. There may

66

be a punning link betweenfitror and Furius (Nicholson 1995:49n30). Percussive p-alliteration (probably punning on pedicatio, cf. Priapea 7.2 pe-dico) is a leitmotif in both poems: peto, pudentem, puerum, pudice, populo, platea, praetereunt, pene, pueris, paratum, pudenter, pedibus, percurrent and pedicabo, pathice, putastis, parum pudicum, pium poetam, pa rum pudici, pruriat, possunt, pueris, pilosis, putastis, pedicabo. The poetic theme links poems 14 and 16 (disjunctive LC poetis, poetaelpoetam, impiorum/pium, lectores eritisllegistis, male, male/male, multa/multa, admouerelmouere). Notice that milia multa alludes to the heterosexual kissing-poem 5 (where the phrase is exactly at the same metrical place; Lilja 1983:55) and notto the homosexual kissing-poem 48 (pace Thomson 1997:250). Since Catullus' adversaries accuse him of unmanly sex, viz. basiationes 'kissing' instead of fittutiones 'fucking', he threatens to prove his virility by penetrating them both anally and orally. 17

This poem in Priapean metre is areal Priapeum (for a full demonstration see Kloss 1998). The speaker is Priapus himself, who vituperates an impotent man. The god designates himself by the hapax SaUsubsiUus 'jiga-jogging, bouncer' (Walsh 1985:32), which is to be compared with the epithet salax 'lascivious, homy' in Priapea 14.1 and 34.1, with saUre 'to mount', subsilire 'to jump up' (said of the phallus in Plautus Cas. 931), and perhaps with salaputium 'little prick' (c. 53.5). The phallic theme was announced in poems 15 (pene infesto, caput lacessas) and 16 (pedicabo, irrumabo, pruriat, mouere lumbos) and is continued in poem 21 (pedicare, omnia experiris, irrumatione, irrumatus). Poem 17 pursues the phallic p-alliteration of poems 15 and 16: ponte, paratum, ponticuU, palude, ponte, praecipitem, pedes, putidae, paludis, profitnda, patris, puella, puella, pi/i, parte, ponte, pronum. As in poems 15, 16 and 21, a terrible punishment is announced. Contrasting with the previous poem, which was a defence of virility, the present poem offers an example of unmanliness (Offermann 1978:50, Forsyth 1986:170). The allusions to impotence correspond to similar accusations in poem 16. Compare nec se subleuat ex sua parte, in fossa iacet (fossa 'cunt'; Glenn 1970), suppemata 'hamstrung', i.e. impotent, mula (the proverbially barren she-mule symbolizing 'the effeminate man who produces no offspring' , Khan 1969:93), and excitare with nequeunt mouere lumbos, male ... marem (cf. OvidArs 1.524 male uir 'pathic') and incitare. The unexpected geographical name Liguri may pun on Ugurire 'to liek' (cf. Catullusfr. 2, Adams 1987:141), announcing the oral sex motif in poem 21. The sexual innuendoes of the situation are discussed by Rudd (1959), Heine (1967), Khan (1969), and Kloss (1998).

67

Striking LC with poem 15 (animolanimum, eupistileupis, eonserues/adseruanda, puerum, puerislpueri, ueremurluereris, uerum/uerum, bonisl bonus, ut lubetlut lubet, paratum/paratum, unum/uni, eaputleaput, pedibuslpedes) stresses the thematic contrast: whereas Catullus is a passionate protector of his young friend, this impotent husband does not watch his young wife. Both eonseruare and adseruare suggest eustodire 'to keep in custody'. Many Transpadane towns were made colonies by the lex Pompeia (89 B.c.). Our eolonia can be neither Verona nor Cologna Veneta, since these two places have no swampy environments (Syndikus 1984:147nl). EHis (1867:49) suggests Cremona. This town situated on the Po near the bridge of the via Postumia was built in marshland (De Ruggiero 1910:1256: Te terre intorno aUa cittlt, basse e paludose 'the land around the city, low and marshy'). Compare the lines describing Cremona in the CatuIlus-parody addressed to a muleteer (!): Virgil Cat. 10.11-16: Cremona frigida, et lutosa Gallia [. .. J ultima ex origine tua stetisse dieit in uoragine, tua in palude deposisse sarcinas 'Cold Cremona and muddy Gaul, [ ... ] he says that from his earliest days he stood in your mire and deposited bis packs in your marsh' (notice the echoes of c. 17.4 in palude, 17.11 uorago). The single term eolonia can refer to Cremona since the city was the first Latin colony beyond the Po and the virtual capital of Gallia Cisalpina. If the identification is right, a possible assocation with the previous poem is the fact that Furius Bibaculus came from Cremona. Since Catullus uses to identify anonymous characters in surrounding poems (Chapter 11.2.5), the target of this lampoon may be Furius himself. CatuIlus, then, reciprocates his adversary's reproach of unmanliness wbile impersonating potent Priapus. 21 This parodic invective treats Aurelius as a parasite. Whereas the impotent husband of poem 17 neglects his young wife, Catullus tries to protect his young friend (Ferguson 1985 :65). LC 17/21 eupis/eupis, ludere/ioearis, puerilpuer, pueUa/puer, patrislpater. The motif of insatiable voracity evoked by uorago in poem 17 is pursued by esuritio and satur in poem 21. Probably esurire and esuritio allude to poverty and parasitism as weIl as to sexual desire and fellatio (Jocelyn 1996:159nI45). If so, finem facere 'to stop' or 'to come' is deliberately ambiguous (for finis 'orgasm' see Adams 1987:144). The phrase insidias mihi instruentem echoing nostrum insidiis eaput laeessas at c. 15.16 may also have an obscene overtone (compare insido 'I penetrate'). The character of Aurelius and the sexual threat motif link poem 21 with

68

poems 15 and 16 (disjunctive LC 16/21 Aureli/Aureli, pedieabo/pedieare, irrumabo/irrumatione, irrumatus, pueris/puer, pudiei/pudieo, ipsumlipsum). As in poem 15, meos amores points to Juventius (compare the similar phrasing of poem 24 dealing with the same couple). The phrases desine and finem Jaeias seem to mark the end of the Aurelius-sequence. The poverty-motif is pursued in the sequence 23, 24, 26, 28, 29; overabundance in poem 22, theft in poem 25, and water-drinking in poem 27 may be meant as variations. 22

By way of contrast with the surrounding poems 21 and 23, this moralizing satire on the bad poet Suffenus does not deal with poverty, but with overabundance (stressed by the hyperbolic longe plurimos and milia aut deeem aut plura). Synonymous LC 21/22 quot aut fuerunt aut sunt aut ... eruntlmilia aut deeem aut plura, both expressing an indefinite large number (compare 48/49). Formal LC 21/22 tangamlattigit,faeeres,jacias/jacit. Sexual vituperation links this poem with preceding poems (Wiseman 1969: 12n4). Suffenus, like Furius, seems to be a gentleman (homo bellus LC 22.9/24.7), but turns out to be a peasant. He is a eaprimulgus, i.e. a Jellator (cf. c. 80.8), and aJossor, i.e. a pedieator (cf. Ausonius Epigr. 77.7 postieo uulnereJossor 'digging in the anal hole'). 23

This is an ironical panegyric (makarismos) of poor Furius. The poem continues the poverty-theme of poem 21 (disjunctive LC pater/pater, parente, parentis, esuritionum, esurirelesuritione, in annis/in anno, atque id/atque id, desine/desine) and contrasts with the depiction of (poetical) overabundance in poem 22 (LC beatuslbeate, beata, beatus 'rich'). Striking formal LC 22/23 aut si quidlaut si quid (both at line 13), nimirumlnee mirum (or ni mirum, a late suggestion, Thomson 1997:263). As in poems 10 and 11, Varus and Furius are associated in poems 22 and 23. 24 This invective is directed against an unnamed riyal, identified as Furius by the surrounding poems 16,23, and 26. The poverty-theme connects poem 24 with poems 21 (LC non harum modo, sed quot aut fuerunt aut sunt aut aliis erunt in annis/non ho rum modo, sed quot aut fuerunt aut posthae aliis erunt in annis), 23 (LC eui neque seruus est neque arealeui neque seruus est neque arca), and, by contrast, 22 (LC sie/sie, homolhomo, belluslbellus, bello).

69

Synonymous and antonymous LC 23/24 (beatus/Midae; haec tu ... noZi spemere nec putare paruilhoc tu quam lubet abice eleuaque) is used to stress the poverty-theme, but there is also formal LC (in anno/in annis, desine/sineres). The verb amari recalls meos amores (viz. Juventius) in poems 15 and 21.

25 This reelaiming-poem (jlagitatio) varies on the motifs of poverty and gifts in poems 23 and 24 by the related motifs of rapacity and restitution. The link is stressed by formal LC 23/25 araneus/araneoso, manibus/manus, quae soles/quae soles and antonymous LC 24/25 nec habet, cui neque est/habere; dedisses/inuolasti, remitte, remitte. The sympotic situation recalls c. 12; striking verbal echoes manu1manus, inepte/inepte, sudaria Saetaba/sudariumque Saetabum, remitte/remitte, remitte are to be explained by concentric composition (Chapter III.4.3). Thalle 'blossom' may be a bilingual pun onflosculus (c. 24.1; compare c. 100 for a similar pun). If Juventius Thalna is meant in poem 24 (Groag 1919; Shackleton Bailey 1966:345 on Cicero Att. 2.16.6), there is a kind of phonic LC Thalna/Thallus. Although both characters are described as pathics (c. 24.6/25.1 sineres ab illo amarilmollior), we should not identify them (as Schwabe 1862:149 did), for Juventius Thalna was an aristocratic youth, whereas Thallus' Greek name suggests a slave or a freedman. If a slave is meant, there is TC with poems 23, 24, and 27 introducing other slaves. 26

This satirical poem pursues the motif of Furius' financial trouble (ridiculed in poems 23 and 24). Catullus no doubt reacts against Furius Bibaculus' satirical hendeeasyllabics on Valerius Cato, who was compelled by poverty to sell his estate (Courtney 1993:192): Catonis modo, Galle, Tusculanum tota creditor urbe uenditabat. mirati sumus unicum magistrum, summum grammaticum, optimum poetam omnes soluere posse quaestiones, unum deficere: expedire nomen. en cor Zenodoti, en iecur Cratetis! 'Gallus, Cato's creditor lately offered his Tusculan estate for sale throughout the city. We wondered that our unique master, our greatest grarnmarian and our best poet, who could solve all problems, was unable to solve this financial one. 0 Zenodotus' mind, 0 Crates' heart!' Beek (1995:205-206) enumerates several similarities between both poems, viz.

70

initial personal address, financial word play, final exclamation. Fonnal LC 24/26/28 01010. The wind-motif links poems 25 and 26: LC ostendit/opposita est, uentoluentum. The link may include a pun on Furius' name (cf. furens 'raging'); LC turbida, aestues, uesaniente ('for the more conventionaljUrente' Thomson 1997:268)/Furi, saeui, horribilem. 27

This drinking song (skolion) pursues the party-motif of the disjunctive poem 25. The link with poem 26 may be an etymologizing pun on the name of Furius Bibaculus, i.e. 'uncontrolled drinker' (compare Pliny Nat. pr. 24: Bibaeulus erat et uoeabatur 'Bibaculus was bibacious: his name was ominous'). Another link might be LC saeuilseueros since seuerus was derived from saeuus by Latin etymologists (Maltby 1991:564). Fonnal LC ad/ad. The water-motif (symbolizing frugality) may be related with the poverty-motifin the sequence 21-28. The lymphae 'waters' are the insipid poems ofthe aquae potores 'water-drinkers' (compare Horace Ep. 1.19.3, equating sieci 'sober men' with seueri 'austere men', and Cratinus quoted by Nicaenetus Anth. Gr. 13.29). The merus Thyonianus 'unmixed wine of the Thyonian god' is the strong poetry of wine-drinkers such as Catullus. Dionysus' epithet Thyonianus 'son of Thyone' seems to be intended as a bilingual pun on Furius, saeui, and uentum horribilem in poem 26, since it recalls the Greek words thuein 'to rage' and thuella 'hurricane' (both etymological cognates ofjUrere). Wiseman (1969:7-8) and Cairns (1975) emphasize the programmatic function of this poem. The hendecasyllabics of the sequence 9-26 had spondaic bases. The metricalliberties in poem 27 (viz. the iambic base of the first line, the irregular fourth line and, possibly, the iambic base of the seventh line) seem to prepare for the looser metrics and the satirical approach in the second part of Catullus' hendecasyllabics (compare Chapter 1.5.2 and Skinner 1981:27). Afirst sequence ofinvectives includes poems 28,29,33,36,37,39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44. The bitter attacks on Julius Caesar, his father-in-Iaw Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, his son-in-Iaw Pompey, and his protege Mamurra in poems 28 and 29 may explain why Caesar's mistress Postumia (Suetonius Jul. 50.1) is mentioned here. The phrase uos ... hine abite 'away with you' marks the end of the sequence 15-27 (compare uos hine ... abite at c. 14.21, marking the end of the sequence 9-14). Apart from that, abite 'begone' seems to announce the travelling theme in the sequence 28-35, mainly dealing with departure for and return from the provinces, cf. 28.7-8 meum seeutus praetorem, 29.12 jUisti ... in

71

insula, 30.5 me ... deseris, 31.6liquisse, 32.6 foras abire, 33.5-6 in oras itis, 34.18 metiens iter, 35.7 uiam uorabit, poem 36 may be another travelling-poem (see below). The provincialleitmotif is pursued until poem 46. 28

This is the first of the bitter invectives or iambi (cf. Tacitus Dial. 10.4 iamborum amaritudo 'the biting iambie') announced in poem 27. The target is Caesar's father-in-Iaw Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus. As a parodie we1coming poem to starvelings the poem contrasts with the chasing away of water-drinkers in the previous poem. The motif of wine-drinking is stressed by LC 27/28 acina, uini, merus Thyonianusl uappa; formal LC pemicies/obprobria, at uos/at uobis, ad... migrate/pete. The debt-motifrecalls poem 26 (formal LC ducentoslducenties, 010). The whole sequence 28-32 is formally linked by repetition of quid, viz. c. 28.4,29.15,21 (bis), 30.6,31.7,32.9. 29

This poem is an invective against Caesar' s protege Mamurra, who, in contrast to Veranius, Fabullus, and Catullus, has managed to enrich himself in the provinces. Poems 28 and 29 are 'attacks on the Roman system of patronage' (Dettmer 1997:57-58): whereas Piso and Memmius are parsimonious patrons, Caesar and Pompey are perversely generous patrons. LC 28/29 uideoluidere, uidebis, tulistisIJeres, ista trabe/ista ... mentula, irrumastil uorax, uorax, mala/malum, RomuliIRomule, Romule links both political invectives. Thematic contrast is stressed by sexual reversal. In poem 28 Piso and Memmius are irrumatores and in poem 29 Caesar is a pathicus. Riese (1884:56) emphasizes the homosexual innuendo in pati 'to be a pathie', impudicus 'pathie', uorax 'indulging in oral sex'. The financial motif is emphasized by the use of bookkeepers jargon: TC 28 ecquidnam in tabulis patet lucelli expensum 'how much of your profits figures as debts in your balance sheet?', refero datum lucello 'I enter my los ses as profit'/29 eo ... nomine 'on this account' (Thomson 1997:277, 280). Some ofthese links are discussed by Deuling 1999, who notes that Piso is Caesar's father-in-Iaw whereas Caesar himself is Pompey's fatherin-Iaw. 30

I propose to interpret this piece as a plaintive farewell-poem (or 'schetliastie propemptikon', as discussed by Cairns 1972:7,57). In poem 10, Catullus told Alfenus Varus about his Bithynian journey.

72

Now that his friend hirnself is going to depart, the poet jocularly exaggerates his sorrow by playing the part of the abandoned lover (for the sentiment see poem 50). Compare the similar vocabulary of Ariadne's complaints in c. 64.132ff. petfide ... liquisti, neglecto numine diuum, immemor, miserae, aerii ... irrita uenti, caelestumquefidem,facta and ofDido's laments in Virgil Aen. 4.305, 366 perfide, 315, 420, 429 miserae, 323 me ... deseris, 373 tuta fides, 380 dicta. Tbe anima-motif of line 7 announces Horace's animae dimidium 'half of my soul' in his farewell-poem to Virgil (Od. 1.3.8, cf. Nisbet & Hubbard 1970:42ff.), which imitates Meleager's farewell-poem to Andragathos (Anth. Gr. 12.52). Tbe position of this poem after poems 28 and 29 (dealing with return from the province and enrichment in the provinces, respectively) and before 31 (coming back from the province) suggests a departure to the province. If so, the phrase uentos irrita ferre ac nebulas aerias c1everly evokes the maritime atmosphere of a departure (cf. c. 64.58-59 immemor at iuuenis fugiens pellit uada remis, irrita uentosae linquens promissa procellae and c. 64.142 cuncta aerii discerpunt irrita uenti). Disjunctive LC 28/30 comiteslsodalibus, malalmalis, dildi, simple LC 29/30 habere, habebatlhabeant,feresIJerre, omnium, omnialomnia, omnia. 31 This arrival-poem (epibaterion) is a companion-piece to the preceding fareweB-poem. Tbe mention of Alfenus Varus in poem 30 recalls Catullus' Bithynian journey which is commented on in the meeting with Varus (poem 10). Tbematic similarity and contrast are stressed by synonymous and antonymous LC 30/31, viz. me miserum deserisllaetus inuiso, in malislsolutis curis, tutalin tuto, deserislliquisse, ferreIJert, paeniteat/gaude. Tbere may be phonic LC in tute, tutaltuto and paeniteat/Paene. Tbe provincial motif accounts for TC 29/31 stressed by LC insulalinsularum, insularum, uidere, uidebisluidere,fereslJert, cubilia/lecto.

According to Schmidt (1973), this is the first poem of a 'cyc1e' of objectapostrophes, alternating places and literary works, viz. 31 (Sirmio), 35 (papyrus sheet), 36 (papyrus role), 37 (tavern), 42 (hendecasyBabics), 44 (villa).

32 Tbis announcement of Catullus' arrival at his mistress' horne is a funny variation on the previous arrival-poem, developing the motif desiderato acquiescimus lecto 'we rest in the bed we longed for' (c. 31.10) in an unexpected erotic way.

73

LC 31/32 stresses TC: uenimus larem Gd nostrumlGd te ueniam ... foras, acquiescimus lecto/iaceo, domildomi. For the alternation of man and woman, viz. ero 'master' and ipsicilla 'dear little mistress' see my discussion of c. 32.1 in Chapter III.5. Disjunctive LC between the farewell-poem 30 and the arrival-poem 32 (literat dulcis/dulcis, quid/quid, iubebas/iube, iusseris, iubeto) reinforces TC of the sequence. For the alternation tui dulcis amiculilmea dulcis ipsicilla see again Chapter III.5. 33

This attack on Vibennius and his son is arequest to leave the country contrasting with the request to remain at horne in poem 32. The link is stressed by rhyming LC neu foras abire/in oras itis and by the eating motif pransus, satur/uoraciore. Thematically, the desirable mistress alternates with the abominable catamite whereas the theft of clothes was prepared by mentioning tunica palliumque in poem 32. The exile of the Vibennii contrasts with Catullus' homecoming in poem 31 (formal disjunctive LC 0, 0/0). 34

This Diana-hymn is an instance of daring juxtaposition based on multiple contrast. An invective against a father who is a filthy thief and a son who is a catamite is followed by a hymn sung by chaste girls and boys to Jupiter's daughter, the charitable virgin goddess Diana. The thematic contrast is stressed by antonymous LC 33/34, viz. pater, pater, patrislmater, cinaede fililpueri integri, inquinatiore/integri, malasque/ bonis, bona, non potes/potens. Since poem 33 is 'a parody of the traditional hymn of invocation' (Bajoni 1993), the contrastive parallelism between poems 33 and 34 may be structured by the topical elements of the hymnical genre, viz.: (1) solemn invocation (LC 0/0); (2) narne and titles of the addressee (Vibenni/Dianae, Lucina, luno, Triuia, Luna); (3) genealogy (Vibenni pater ... fililLatonia, progenies louis); (4) whereabouts (balneariorumlmontium, siluarum, saltuum, amnium); (5) qualities (jurum optime/bona ... ope); (6) actions (uoraciore, rapinae/exples, sospites) and farne (notae populo/sancta nomine); (7) motivation ofthe request (quandoquidem ... non potes/antique ut solita es); (8) recipient of the request (Populo/gentem) (9) request (cur non ... malasque in oras itis?/metiens iter ... bonis frugibus exples).

74

35

Catullus' panegyric on Caecilius' Cybele-poem is prompted by his own preceding Diana-hymn. TC is stressed by LC 34/35 puellae, puellaeque/puella, domina/dominam (both Diana and Cybele are mountain goddesses), magna ... mater/ magna ... mater, potens/impotente, iter/uiam, es dictaldicas. The literary criticism implied in the situation is explained by Fisher (1971:4): 'Catullus thinks ofthe puella (i.e. the writing of love-poetry) as distracting Caecilius from bis unfinished Magna Mater.' The sequence 35-40 deals with (literary) friends and adversaries, viz. Caecilius (poem 35), Volusius (poem 36), Egnatius (poems 37 and 39), Cornificius (poem 38), and Ravidus (poem 40). 36 Tbis address to a c(h)arta 'papyrus roll' follows an address to a papyrus 'papyrus sheet' . Both poems 35 and 36 are about literary criticism (Fisher 1971 and Buchheit 1959). By way of variation, the praise of Caecilius' poem and mistress is followed by an invective against Volusius' epic poetry and Catullus' mistress (EIlis 1876:xxxix, Riese 1884:69, Forsyth 1986:224). TC is stressed by LC 35/36 poetae/poetae, ueniat/uenite, puellalpuella, accipiat/acceptum, uenuste/neque inuenuste, ignes/ignem. There is also phonic (rhyming) LC incohatalcacata (cf. creata) stressing the contrast between Caecilius' sophistication and Volusius' verbosity (echoing Callimachean criticism). Further correspondences between poems 35 and 36 are discussed by Williams (1968:223, cf. Wiseman 1969:42ff.), who suggest that both pieces describe a trip (compare the geograpbical enumerations in c. 35.3-4 and c. 36.12-15). Fordyce (1973:181) observes: 'The solemn recital of Venus' cult-titles in aseries of relative c1auses parodies the formal hymn style: compare the serious use of the style in poem 34'. The disjunctive poems 34 and 36, viz. the Diana-hymn and the invocation of Venus, are linked by LC puellae, puellae/puella, puella, 0/0, sanctalsanctae, sanctum, dealdeo, rusticalruris.

The mention of iambi at line 5 seems to be programmatic: the sequence 3644 (apart from poem 38, which is only areproach) consists of invectives (cf. c. 40.2 meos iambos). The sequence 36-43 is a second Lesbia-'cyc1e' (c. 36.2 mea puella, 37.11 puella ... mi (i.e. mei), 38.6 meos amores, 40.7 meos amores, 43.7 Lesbia nostra) altemated with invectives against Catullus' rivals Egnatius and Mamurra (via bis mistress Ameana).

75

37 This invective against Catullus' rivals (in particular Egnatius) is a first example of the 'harsh iambics' announced in poem 36 (Forsyth 1986:229, Thomson 1997:297). The hyperbolical phrasing (centum an ducenti, magna bella) suggests a literary controversy rather than a serious attack (Rothstein 1923:31n24). If so, Egnatius may be the poet mentioned by Macrobius Sat. 6.5.2 and 6.5.12 (compare poem 38). The thematic link between poems 36 and 37 is Lesbia' s disloyalty to the poet. LC pro mea puella/puella ... mi... pro qua, scripta/scribam, tabernamltaberna, contubernales, tabernae. Other associations are the excretionmotif (cacata/urina) and the alliterative pompous genealogy (0 caeruleo creata ponto/cuniculosae Celtiberiae jili). Notice that the word jili preceding Egnati is an etymologizing pun on Egnatius' name (cf. gnatus 'son'). The final line alludes to cunnilingus. For the sexual innuendo of defricare compare fricare, i.e. fellare (Adams 1987:184). Egnatius' fictitious Spanishness (Thomson 1997:305) seems to be introduced for the sake of the pun. The allusion is prepared by the double entendre of cuniculosae 'full of rabbits', suggesting cunniculosae 'fond of little cunts' (as the first foot of this line may scan either as an iamb or as a spondee).

The oral motif is pursued and varied in most of the following poems of book I, viz. 39 (orator, obesus, bibisse), 40 (ora), 42 (catuli ore, canis ore), 43 (ore sicco, lingua), 44 (cenas, conuiua, orationem), 45 (ore suauiata), 47 (fames, conuiuia), 48 (satur, osculationis), 49 (disertissime), 50 (cibus, oramus), 51 (uocis in ore if we accept Ritter's conjecture; lingua), 53 (disertum), 54 (caput referring to oral sex), 55 (Oramus, linguam, in ore, palatum), 57 (uorax) , 58a (glubit), 58b (peresus), 59 (fellat, cenam), 60 (latrans, uocem). 38

Catullus' request for poetic consolation (compare the similar theme in c. 68a.1O) seems to be inspired by Lesbia's unfaithfulness in poem 37 (LC mi ... amata/meos amores 'my beloved, my mistress', compare 40 meos amores/41 amica). Egnatius and Cornificius are two poets associated by Macrobius 6.5.12-13. If they are identical with the characters in poems 37 and 38, Catullus may have intended to contrast their divergent styles (comical vs. serious). Compare Horace, Od. 2.1.37-38 relictis ... iocis Ceae retractes munera neniae 'leave light verse and try again the Cean dirge' (cf. Nisbet & Hubbard 1978:30: 'Simonides of Ceos (... ) was regarded as supreme in the pathetic style').

76

LC 37/38 is formal: boni, bonum/malest, malest; quod ... estlquod ... est. Variations on lubet link the sequence 38-40, viz. c. 38.7 quid lubet, 39.14 qui lubet, 40.6 qua lubet (for the spelling see Chapter IH.5). Poem 38 introduces a sequence linked by the illness-motif, viz. c. 38.1-2 Malest, laboriose (Thomson 1997:304),39.7 morbum, 40.1 mala mens, 41.7 non ... sana, 42.14 perditius, 43.1 Salue, 44.7 malam ... tussim, 44.12 plenam ueneni et pestilentiae, 44.13 grauedo frigida et jrequens tussis, 44.15 reeuraui, 44.16 rejeetus, 45.3 perdite, 45.5 perire. 39 This poem is a companion-piece to the invective against Egnatius (poem 37).

Disjunctive TC 37/39 is stressed by the choliambic metre and by LC Egnati ... bonumlbone Egnati, quidquid estlquidquid est, fililfili, Celtiberiae/Celtiberia, densldentes, dentatus, dentes, dentem, dens, defrieatusldejrieare, urinalloti, sedetis, sessores, eonseditlsubsellium. Poem 39 is linked to poem 38 by the contrast crying vs. laughing. TC is stressed by LC: synonymous laerimis/jletum, lugetur, flet, antonymous laerimislrenidet, renidere, risu, and formal quidlubetlquilubet. 40

Another invective against a rival (formal LC 39/40 excitatlexcitare, agitlagit, bonelmala, quilubetlqualubet). According to Dettmer (1997:82), Egnatius suffers from 'a social disorder' (morbus), Ravidus from 'a mental disorder' (mala mens). It is no coincidence that this short piece recalling Archilochusjr. 172 wese and mentioning iambics (the satiric metre par exeellenee) in line 2 has three lines with iambic bases, viz. 2, 5, 7.

There seems to be a sexual overtone in eris [sc. notus] 'you will be (carnally) known', viz. eris pedieatus et irrumatus 'you will be submitted to anal and oral sex'. The aggressor is sexually chastised as in c. 16.1 Pedieabo ego uos et irrumabo. This interpretation is corroborated by synonymous LC 40/41 notusldefututa. Ravidus' 'long punishment' is the fact that Catullus defiles his name in a collection that will not perish (compare poem 1 and 116). This poem is also a disjunctive companion-piece to poem 38. Both pieces have the same length, but express contrasting feelings, viz. plea to a friendly poet vs. threat to a rival poet. LC malestlmala, non bene, meos amoreslmeos amores, quid lubetlqua lubet; a contrastive association is me hereule (i.e. ita me, Bereule, adiuves) vs. deus tibi non bene aduoeatus.

77

41 An invective against Mamurra' s mistress Ameana, who is also the target in poems 42 and 43. Links with poem 40 inc1ude the mistress-motif (LC meos amoreslamica) and the madness of both Ravidus and Ameana (LC mo1a mens Le. amentia 'insanity'; vecordemlnon ... sana). TC is stressed by LC: synonymous notusldefututa, formal aduocatuslconuocate, and phonic (alliterative) amores, amare poena/Ameana, amica, amicos.

42 This reclaiming-poem (flagitatio) is addressed to an unnamed woman. The location between poems 41 and 43 points to Ameana (Ellis 1876:116, Kroll 1980:76, Forsyth 1976-1977a). The identification is corroborated by LC 41/42 defututalmoecha, turpiculolturpis, conuocate/adeste, conuocate/ conclamate ... uoce, and LC 42/43 turpe incedere/nec bello pede, ore/ore. The motifs linking poems 41 and 42 are demand, Le. c1aiming and reclaiming (LC poposcitlrejlagitemus, rejlagitate), and questioning rogare qualis sitlquae sit quaeritis). Note also the contrast tota milia ... decem [sc. sestertiumJlnon assis. The sequence 42-44 is curiously linked by repetition of a particular syntactical construction, consisting of a verb of speaking with accusative subject, copula, and predicative accusative, viz.: c. 42.3 iocum me putat esse; c. 43.6 ten ... narrat esse bellam; c. 44.2 te esse Tiburtem autumant; c. 44.4 (te) Sabinum ... esse contendunt. 43

This fictitious lover's farewell (renuntiatio amoris) to Ameana is meant as an indirect praise of Lesbia. Poem 43 is a companion-piece to poem 41, which has the same length and the same addressee, Le. Mamurra's girl-friend Ameana. Disjunctive LC 41/43 puella nasolpuella naso, decoctoris amica Formianildecoctoris amica Formiani, non ... sanalnec sane, non ... sana/insapiens i.e. insipiens 'foolish'. Simple LC 42/43 turpe incederelnec bello pede and ore/ore corroborates TC, viz. insulting address to a girl.

44 The poet' s invective against Publius Sestius is disguised as a hymn addressed to his own countryhouse. There is TC 43/44 between the inelegant speeches of Ameana (nec sane nimis elegante lingua) and Sestius (orationem ... plenam ueneni et pestilen-

78

tiae). Another link is the rural motif in prouincialsuburbana and Fonniani/l'iburs (many prominent Romans had their villas in Formiae and Tibur). The restoration to health in poem 44 (me recuraui, refectus) was prepared by Salue 'Hail, be healthy' in poem 43. TC is corroborated by formal LC nec minimolmaximas, 010, nostraInoster, ten ... esselte esse. 45

This reconciliation poem contrasts with the rupture described in the disjunctive poem 43 (LC ore/ore, ocellislocellos). A thematic link with poem 44 is the association between tussis and sternuit. Coughing and sneezing are often mentioned together, e.g. Seneca Ep. 47.3 tussis, stemumenta, Dial. 4.25.3 tussis ... aut stemutamentum. Another link is the contrast between chill and heat: LC frigida, frigusltosta, ignis, ardet. Finally, there is a funny association between the names of Sestius ('the sixth') and Septimius ('the seventh'), the speaking name being highlighted by the phrases unam Septimius and uno in Septimio. Thematic contrast between both poems (pernicious vs. auspicious) is stressed by antonymous LC malam, malumlbono; plenam ueneni et pestilentiae, nefarialauspiciatorem. This idyll about left and right omens would be less flat if it referred to a son of senator Publius Septimius Scaevola, whose cognomen was associated with scaeua 'the left-hand side' (auguring weIl or ill, cf. Fordyce 1973:205-206). The motif is pursued and ingeniously varied in poem 46 diuersae 'leading in different directions' and 47 sinistrae 'left hands'. 46

Catullus' return from the province contrasts with Septimius' foiled departure to the province (LC 45/46 profectilprofectos). The juxtaposition suggests that the poet left ltaly because he was disappointed in love (for the motif compare poem 11). After extreme temperatures (jrigus in poem 44 and ignis in 45), a milder atmosphere is evoked (egelidos tepores, cf. aestuosae). This and most of the following poems deal with political clients, viz. Memmius' staff (poem 46), Piso's parasites (poem 47), Cicero's protege Juventius (poem 48), Cicero's indiscriminate patronage (poem 49), Caesar's favourites (poems 52, 53, 54, 56, 57). By way of thematic contrast true friendship and love are evoked in poems 50 and 51. The political ending of book I corresponds with the similar ending of book III (cf. poem 93 below). The Roman setting of the sequence 47-60 contrasts with the provincial scenes evoked in the sequence 28-46 (Italy, Bithynia, Syria, Gaul,

79

Britain). Wiseman (1969:15) puts the break between 47 and 48, but the phrasing of the farewell-poem 46 seerns to be programmatie: refert, linquantur, ualete, reportant. For the metrieal break after poem 45 see Chapter 1.5.2.

47 This invective on Lucius Calpumius Piso Caesoninus introducing the sequenee of urban poems eontinues the provincial and patronal motifs of poems 45 and 46 sinee Catullus' friends were staff-members under govemor Piso (cf. poem 28), who eontinues vexing them in Rome. Simple LC 46/47 aequinoctialis/die, comitumlsodales, uiaeltriuio and disjunetive LC 45/47 sinistralsinistrae, mauult quamlpraeposuit (for this variation compare 79/81). The uocatio-motif reealls poem 44 (conuiua/conuiuia, uocatluocationes). 48

This love-poem addressed to young Juventius may be a eovert dispraise. The food-motif of poem 47 is ingeniously varied by another oral motif, viz. kissing. Both Catullus and his friends are unsatisfied: they are hunting for meals; he is hankering after kisses (TC fames, conuiuia lautalmellitos, satur, aristis, seges). The link is made dear by phonic LC uocationes 'invitations to dinner' /osculationis 'kissing', and by the sophisticated association of both motifs in seges osculationis 'eom of kissing' (Nicholson 1995 :48n20: 'Juventius' kisses are metaphorically equated with food'). For the association see, e.g., Petroniusfr. 33.8 oscula cum pomis mitte: uorabo libens 'send your kisses with the froit and 1'11 gladly devour them', and eompare the topos of kisses sweeter than honey, ambrosia, and neetar Ce.g. poem 99). In Greek epigrams (e.g. Anth. Gr. 12.36), the mention of spikes points to the growth of hair, which makes the riper boy unfit for pederastic love. Catullus seems to parody this motif (compare c. 33.7-8 natis pilosas, fili, non potes asse uenditare 'you son, you can't sell your hairy buttocks for a penny'). There seems to be an insidious ambiguity in densior aridis aristis sinee the connotation of aridus 'dry, shrivelled, old' is not particularly flattering (e.g. Priap. 32.1 uuis aridior puella passis 'a girl more shrivelled than raisins'; Horace Epod. 8.5 inter aridas natis 'between wizened buttoeks'). The ablative may be interpreted either as ablativus comparativus 'more numerous than dry spikes' or as ablativus copiae 'overfull of dry spikes', i.e. hairs. This young man may be Mareus Juventius Thalna (Groag 1919, Shaekleton Bailey 1966:345). He was the son of a friend of Cicero's and apparently the orator's protege (see Att. 13.28, where Cicero informs his correspondent about Thalna' s talent, modest fortune and wedding

80

projects). We may surmise that the whole Juventius affair, as described in poems 15,21,24,48,81,99, is no more than a practical joke devised by Catullus and his friends to ridicule a good-Iooking youngster and his loathed protector. The phrase si quis me sinat 'if one should let me' might be a vague allusion to the protection of the orator, who is mentioned in poem 49. 49

This ironic thanksgiving (gratiarum actio) of Catullus playing the role of a servile dient echoes the patron-theme of 47. Synonymous LC 48/49 milia trecento/quot sunt quotque fuere ... quotque erunt, both expressing an indefinite large number (compare LC 21/22). Dettmer (1997:100) points to the etymologicallink between seges (c. 48.6) and disertus (c. 49.1), both deriving from serere. The iambic beginnings of lines 1 and 5 indicate a satirical poem (for pessimus poeta 'satirical poet' see Ronconi 1968:144). The hymnic wording seems to parody Cicero's grandiloquence. The phrase quot sunt quotquefuere ... quotque post aliis erunt in annis, varying on lines 2-3 of poem 24 addressed to (Marcus) Juventius (Thalna) and on lines 2-3 of poem 21 addressed to Juventius' lover, Aurelius, may allude to Cicero's tutorship of this young man. The combination of past, present, and future (Wills 1996:298) as well as the superlatives disertissime, pessimus, optimus are characteristic of the orator' s emphatic style. The phrase gratias ... agit recalls both gratiarum actiones delivered after Cicero's return from exile in 57 B.C. One of these, Post reditum ad populum, includes the pompous sentence Cn. Pompeius uir omnium qui sunt, fuerunt, erunt uirtute, sapientia, gloria princeps (§7) 'Gnaeus Pompeius, a man who has, had, and will have no riyal in virtue, intelligence, and renown'. By using the ambiguous phrase optimus omnium patronus 'the best of all advocates' or 'the advocate for all and sundry', Catullus suggests that Cicero is a mercenarius patronus 'a mercenary pleader' (Ps. Sallust Cic. 5; Caecina in Cicero Epist. 6.7.4). The orator, who attacked the Caesarian Publius Vatinius in 56 B.C., defended him against Gaius Licinius Calvus two years later (see Ferguson 1988:30-31 and the bibliography in nI5). According to Süss (1878:48), the words might also allude to Cicero's famous pun amica omnium 'everybody's girl friend' on Clodia (Cael. 32, quoted by Quintilian 9.2.99). Deroux (1985), adducing this passage and Cael. 49 Si quae non nupta mulier domum suam patefecerit omnium cupidati 'If a woman without husband opens her house to all men's desires " tries to demonstrate that Catullus ironically thanks Cicero for his Pro Caelio. If so, this poem announces the Lesbia-poem 51. The innuendo might be an additional argument for identifying Lesbia with Clodia Metelli (for other arguments see Deroux 1973).

81

50

The mention of the orator Cicero in poem 49 has prepared for the narning of Catullus' friend, Gaius Licinius Calvus, 'one of Cicero's forensic rivals' (Forsyth 1986:268; but the link has already been noticed by Buchheit 1976:179). Both were opponents in the Vatinius trial (compare poems 49, 52, and 53). For a discussion of their confrontations see Gruen (1966). Catullus implicitly criticizes Cicero's philosophy of life, contrasting the pleader's negotium 'business' and otium cum dignitate 'leisure with dignity' (Pro Sestio 45) with his own delicatum otium 'frivolous leisure' in the company of his patrician friend, who, unlike Cicero, does not despise his poetry (LC poeta/poema). According to Lavency (1965), this poem is a billet d' envoi of poem 51, designated as hoc poema at line 16 (compare c. 65.16 haec ... carmina Battiadae referring to poem 66). Finamore (1984-1985:11-12) points to numerous 'similarities that show that the poems are inextricably linked and that Catullus intended them to be read together' . 51

This version of Sappho 31 (Voigt) shows conspicuous LC with poem 50 (otiosilotium,otio, otium, incensusljlamma, me miserumlmisero '" mihi, tegeret ... ocellos/teguntur lumina, lucem (Le. diem)/nocte, uidere, perspiceres/spectat, aspexi, tecum... simulque ... essemlsedens aduersus ... te, membra/artus, est dea/esse deo (cf. diuos). The links between poems 50 and 51 are fully discussed by Segal (1970), Finamore (1984-1985), and Dettmer (1987-1988). The latter poem may be intended as an example of Catullus' improvisations and/or as the erotic counterpart of the poetic frenzy expressed in the previous poem (Buchheit 1976). Catullus' desire of connecting both poems may account for some peculiarities in his Latin translation. The addition of si Jas est has been criticized by Norden (Gercke & Norden 1912:345), WilamowitzMoellendorf (1913:59n2), and Kroll (1980:92). But the phrase is probably meant as a link with the end of poem 50, which invokes the goddess of vengeance Nemesis against the friend's insolence (cf. Anth. Gr. 12.140, 141); here the poet tries to prevent a similar reproach of neJas 'offence of divine law'. Another addition to Sappho's original is misero, which is a variation on miserum at c. 50.9. Finally, the free translation of Greek chro 'skin' into artus 'limbs' may be explained by synoymous LC with c. 50.14 membra. Shipton's supposition (1980) that the male rival in poem 51 is Publius Clodius Pulcher (cf. poems 56 and 79) creates a link with poems 52 and 53, since Clodius was a notorious supporter of Vatinius'.

82

We should not separate the fourth stanza from the poem (see my discussion of c. 51.13-16 in Chapter III.5). 52 This poem contrasts political negotium with erotic otium as described in poem 51 (LC 51/52 CatullelCatulle, Catulle, sedenslsedet). The tetrastich is an interior monologue like the fourth stanza of the previous poem. LC 51/52 Catulle ... estlest, Catulle, sedenslsedet stresses contrasting TC, viz. dying of jealousy when seeing a godlike man sitting near a mistress vs. dying of indignation when seeing a grotesque politician sitting in the curule chair (on the daring juxtaposition see Chapter II.2.5). According to Ferguson (1985:14), emori alludes to tethnaken 'to die' in the fourth stanza of Sappho 31 (Voigt). The poet, who did not translate this verb in poem 51, restores his omission in a both subtle and impertinent way. Notice that the death-motif is preluded by semimortua in poem 50 and perdidit in poem 51.

Many commentators describe the arrangement of the sequence 52-60 as chaotic. Skinner (1981:75) believes that this group of poems is 'something extraneous to the original design, attached by another hand - presumably by a later editor of Catullus' writings'. But these poems mainly dealing with (obscene) sex and political adversaries show obvious LC, e.g. 52/53 VatiniuslVatiniana, 53/54/55 magnilpusillumlMagni, 54/55 si non/si ... non, 55/56 prendildeprendi, 55/~6/57 puellae, puellae/puellae/puellularum, 57/58a!58b ille/illa/ille, 58b/59 quaeritandolprosequens. So there seem to be few reasons to doubt the poet' s design. 53

This epigram praising Catullus' friend, the patrician Licinius Calvus (mentioned in poem 50), is an indirect attack on his plebejan adversary Publius Vatinius (LC 52/53 VatiniuslVatiniana). Both politicians are also associated in poem 14. Di magni 'Great gods' introduces the paradoxical point: the orator is small but powerful (on little Calvus see poem 95b). There is formal disjunctive LC 51/53 deo, diuosldi, ridentemIRisi.

54 Mter Publius Vatinius (mentioned in poems 52 and 53), other Caesarians are attacked. Julius Caesar was notorious for his plebeian proteges (cf. Caelius in Cicero Fam. 8.4.2 Caesar qui solet infimorum hominum amicitiam sibi qualibet impensa adiungere 'Caesar who tries to make lower dass friends at any cost'). As usual the political attack is disguised as a sexual reproach

83

(cf. poems 80 and 94). The verb displicere uelle has a homosexual connotation (paralleled by c. 83.1 uelle placere 'to try to be sexually attractive to'). According to the poet, Caesar's sex is frustrated by unsuitable partners: his irrumation by Ot(h)o's very small head (Le. mouth; Baehrens 1876:11.266, Adams 1987:212n1), his intercrural sex by Nerius' (?) unwashed legs, his pedication by Libo's farts. Catullus himself turns out to be an unsuitable partner because ofhis intransigence (Glücklich 1980:61). Poems 53 and 54 are linked by phallic allusions: salaputtium 'litt1e prick' Calvus contrasts with Caesar's big prick suggested by the small head of his fellator. Antonymous LC 53/54 magni/pusillum c1arifies the pointed contrast. A corrected text is proposed in Chapter III.5. 55 Poems 54 and 55 are linked by contrasting TC. Catullus' rejection of Caesar's advances (recusatio) is followed by his own unsuccessful search for his friend Camerius (continued in the companion-piece 58b). The mention of Caesar' s colleague Pompey at line 6 may be another link between poems 54 and 55 since both politicians were reconciled in these years (cf. poem 29). The leitmotif omnibus, omnes, omnes recalls omnia in poem 54. Formal LC pusillumlminore, Magni. Disjunctive contrastive TC 53/55 eloquence vs. silence, stressed by LC magniIMagni, disertumluerbosa. The phrase dum uestri sis particeps amoris probably means dum amicae tuae participem me facias 'if you let me share your girl friend' (Rothstein 1923:4, Kroll 1980:99). For inuitatio ad communionem puellae compare c. 68b.69 communes exerceremus amores 'we might love in common', and the story of Lucius Varius Rufus offering to share his mistress with his friend Virgil in Suetonius Vita Verg. 10. It is a topos in love-poetry that the lover tries to hide his new love whereas his friends are eager to find out the identity of the beloved (compare poem 6). Here Catullus teases his friend by pretending to be a rivallover. If my interpretation is correct, poems 55, 56, and 57 are about sexual trios. The sequence 55-60 deals with unfaithfulness. 56 This satirical poem is a characteristic variation on the triangle of poem 55: the poet who tries in vain to trace his boy friend with his girl, now catches his own girl in the act. TC 55/56 is enforced by LC prendi/deprendi, puellae, puellae/puellae, amoris, amoris/amas. Notice synonymous LC si uis/quidquid amas 'please' and Venus/Dionae. Disjunctive LC 56/58a CatullumlCatullus, amasIamauit argues for

84

identifying the puella with Lesbia. In that case, the pupulus 'little boy' may be her half brother Publius Clodius Pulcher, called pusio 'boy' and pulchellus puer 'pretty boy' by Cicero Cael. 36 pusio cum maiore sorore cubitabat 'the boy slept with his eIder sister', and Att. 1.16.10 surgit pulcheUus puer 'up gets this pretty boy'. Clodius was accused of incest by his political adversaries, e.g. Cicero Cael. 78 cum coniuge et Jratre 'with her husband and brother' ; Pis. 28 ille sororius adulter 'this lover of his sisters'. Disjunctive antonymous LC 54/56 displicere/placet, then, connects obscene epigrams on Caesar and his protege Clodius. But this infantile boy is incapable of virile penetration. The participle trusantem means 'pushing often or as strongly as he can, but in vain' (Giangrande 1970:97n40; cf. Doeringius 1826:164 obscene dicitur de iis, qui irrito conatu stuprum puellae inferre allaborant 'it is obscenely said of those who make futile attempts to copulate with a girl'; Pierrugues 1826:494). Even the repeated pu-sound in pupulum puellae illustrates the frequentative and conative sense (cf. pulsare at Martial 11.16.5 rigida pulsabis pallia uena 'you will try to pierce your garment with rigid member'). The dative of direction or goal puellae is a graecism (compare the frequentative ostizesthai 'to jostle against' and c. 64.111 nequicquam uanis iactantem comua uentis 'vainly tossing his horns to the empty air'). According to Buchheit (1961) and Scott (1969), the poem is addressed to Clodius' arch-enemy, Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis. The addressee would understand and appreciate CatuIlus' satire (alluding to Archilochus Jr. 168 wese: Erasmonide Charilae, chrema toi geloion ereo polu philtath' hetairon, terpseai t'akouon 'Charilaos, son of Erasmon, my dearest friend, 1'11 teIl you a funny thing you will love to hear'), since he wrote himself Archilochian iambics about the abduction of his bride (Plutarchus Cato Minor 7). The association of Cato with laughter need not surprise us since Romans considered laughing a form of moral censure (cf. Juvenal 10.31 rigidi censura cachinni 'harsh censorious laughter'). The adjective rigida punningly aIludes to the proverbial severity of the Catones (cf. Livy 39.40.10 rigidae innocentiae 'of inflexible integrity' on Marcus Porcius Cato; Martiallü.20.21 rigidi ... Catones 'stiff men like Cato'). According to Dettmer (I986a:130), the phrase si placet Dionae announces the appearance of Julius Caesar in the next poem since the politician c1aimed descent from Dione, i.e. Venus (cf. Virgil E. 9.47 Dionaei ... Caesaris). The primal reason for mentioning Venus is, of course, the sexual situation. Commentators fail to notice the ambiguity of res, 'thing, affair' and 'sexual act' (i.e. res Veneris) (Adams 1987:62, 203). Archilochus' chrema (l.c.) may be a similar double entendre; compare to theion chrema 'the divine thing', i.e. sex, in the Cologne fragment (jr. 196a.15 Wese).

85

57 This satirieal poem vituperates the sexual duo Caesar and Mamurra. The phrase riuales socii puellularum points to trio sex (repeating the motif of poems 55 and 56; Kroll 1980:99). Pulcre conuenit 'they are on good terms' puns on the sexual sense of conuenire 'to eouple'. Aeeording to Dettmer (1986a:130; 1997:296n995), the repeated pulcre appears to point baekward to Clodius Pulcher (Lesbia' s sexual partner in poem 56 and the supposed lover of Caesar's wife Pompeia in the Bona Dea seandal) and forward to Clodia Pulchra (Lesbia of poem 58a). 58a The poet eomplains about the unfaithfulness of Lesbia, who turns out to be an adulte ra uorax, fond of oral sex like Caesar and Mamurra in poem 57, and Rufa in poem 59. Another link with poem 57 may be the phrase Remi nepotes 'Remus' deseendants', eontrasting with Caesar' s descent from Romulus (compare e. 29.9). Notice the innuendo of nepotes 'descendants' and 'playboys'. Catullus, unlike both riuales socii puellularum, is a true lover. TC is stressed by formal LC illa, ille/illa, illa and unolunam. Disjunctive LC 56/58 amas/amauit, CatullumiCatullus stresses TC (Lesbia's perverse sex). The very word glubit 'peeis' , i.e. 'blows, fellates' (Henderson 1991:168) may be a bilingual pun on Lesbia, i.e. fellatrix, as interpreted by Wirshbo (1980). See Martial 2.50.1 for another Lesbia fellatrix. Disjunctive LC 56/58a amoIamauit, CatullumiCatullus indicates that Lesbia is meant in poem 56.

The final poems of book I (58a-60) each eonsist of one single period. 58b This poem addressed to Camerius is a eompanion-pieee to 55. Birt (I904:432n5) describes it as a more sophisticated mythological variation on the same theme. LC 55158b quaesimuslquaeritando, amice, amice/amice, CameriumiCameri,ferre/jerar, lacteolaelniueae. According to Dettmer (1997: 111), the fourfold anaphora of te in in 55 recalls the fourfold anaphora of non in 58b. Comfort (1935) stresses the parodie eharacter marked by high-flown vocabulary, pompous anaphora, and farfetched imagery. Catullus' friend tums out to be as unfaithful as Lesbia in the preceding poem. LC 58a/58b ille/illa and quam ... amauit (i.e. amata)lamice shows the typical alternation of man and woman, mistress and friend. This poem is a supplication like the disjunctive poem 60 (displaying

86 similar mythological allusions). We should read the text as one single interrogative period (see Chapter I.2.3). 59

This pasquinade on Rufa continues the fellatio-motif of poems 57 and 58a. Disjunctive TC 58a/59 is emphasized by striking structural parallelism, VIZ.:

(a) both poems have five lines; (b) each poem consists of one single sentence; (c) each poem has an initial address if we read Bononiensis as a vocative corresponding to Caeli (see my discussion of c. 59.1 in Chapter III.5); (d) there is a woman's name in the first line; (e) a relative c1ause introduced by quam starts in the second line; (f) we have a verb denoting oral sex (glubitlfellat); (g) sexual meeting-places are described by in followed by plural substantives (in quadriuiis et angiportislin sepulcretis). It is possible that semiraso 'half shorn' has a sexual overtone (for radere 'to rub off see Adams 1987:168). 1fthis refers to baring the glans by oral sex, there is an internal annular link withfellat at line 1, and disjunctive LC with c. 58.5 glubit. Both oral sex and eating of funeral gifts were instances of athemitophagia 'eating offorbidden food' (Kroll 1980:105). The eating motif seems to link poem 59 with poem 58b (metaphorical peresus). There is also synonymous LC require, quaeritandolprosequens. The funeral motif announces the ending of book 1 (see Chapter 1.4). 60 A supplication to an anonymous te, probably merciless Amor himself (Glücklich 1980:63-65). The sinister genealogy of the god of love is topical (cf. Antagoras fr. 1 Powell; Theocritus 3.15-16; Meleager Anth. Gr. 5.177; Virgil Ecl. 8.4446 Nunc seio quid sit Amor: duris in cautibus illuml aut Tmaros auf Rhodope aut extremi Garamantesl nec generis nostri puerum nec sanguinis edunt 'Now 1 know what Love is: Tmarus bore him on hard rocks, or Rhodope, or the farthest Garamantes, a child that is not of our race or blood'. Amor' s ferocity is a topos: he is called agrios in Greek (Plato Phd. 81a, Bionfr. 9.1, Meleager Anth. Gr. 5.177.1 and 5.178.6) andferus in Latin (Horace Od. 2.8.14, Ovid Am. 1.2.8 and 3.1.20). This interpretation does not exc1ude the possibility that the personified love of cruel

87

Lesbia is meant. The oral-genital motif of poem 58a is pursued in poem 59 by the phrase Scylla latrans infima inguinum parte 'Scylla barking from her groin below' (according to Dettmer 1997:91, 'a man-eater par excellence'). The interrogative Num varies on the interrogative Non of poem 58b (see Chapter 1.2.3). The death-motif in sepulcretis 'in the graveyard' at c. 59.2 is pursued by in nouissimo casu 'in mortal danger' at c. 60.4. Notwithstanding the difference in tone (satirical in poem 59 vs. melodramatic in poem 60) the motif marks the ending of the book (see Chapter 1.4). The phrase in nouissimo casu may also conceal an autoreferential meaning: 'in the ultimate position' (sc. of the first book of this collection). There may be a similar double entendre in infima ... parte. This poem, generalized by the suppression of the names of the addressee and the desparate speaker, conc1udes book I, which dealt with different kinds of love and love-pain (see my commentary on poem 2). Whereas the term nugas 'trifles' at c. 1.4 hinted at the jocular character of the book, the phrase supplicis uocem describing the prayer of the abandoned lover stresses its serious aspect. Compare the beginning and the ending of book III, referring to its elegiac and satirical contents, respectively (c. 65.12 maesta ... carmina 'sad songs' vs. c. 116.7 tela 'missiles, Le. iambics').

BOOKTwo The contents of the second book are announced in c. 61.12-13: nuptialia carmina. The book consists of four nuptial poems, viz. two weddingsongs, an anti-epithalamium, and an epyllion describing a marriage. According to Forsyth (1986: 11), the common theme of these poems is that of 'union achieved', whereas poems 65-68b are linked by the theme of 'union thwarted'. According to Wiseman (1979:177), one of the unifying motifs is the gods' relationship with men, viz.: (a) Hymenaeus' and Venus' protection of Manlius' marriage (poem 61); (b) Vesper's and Hymenaeus' presence at the Greek wedding ceremony (poem 62); (c) Cybele's relationship with Attis (poem 63); (d) the nuptials of the goddess Thetis and the mortal hero Peleus, and the wedding of Ariadne and the god Bacchus (poem 64). Mountains are another unifying motif. A mountain is mentioned at the beginning of each poem, viz.: (a) c. 61.1 Collis 0 Heliconii (Mount Helicon in Boeotia was sacred to the Muses);

88

(b) c. 62.1 Olympo (Mount Olympus in Thessaly); (c) c. 63.2 Phrygium nemus (Mount Ida in Phrygia was covered with forests, cf. c. 63.52 Idae nemora); (d) c. 64.1 Peliaco ... uertice (Mount Pelion in Thessaly is near Mount Olympus). Catullus links the beginning of book II to the end by mentioning Mount Parnassus in Boetia, sacred to the Muses, at c. 64.390 (Parnasi uertice). As observed in Chapter 1.4, the beginning and the end of this book are also linked by the contrast between Hymenaeus' presence at Manlius' marriage (c. 61.lff.) and the gods' absence at other human festivities (c. 64.407-408). The implicit addressee of book II may be Lucius Manlius Torquatus, a lover ofpoetry (Cicero Fin. 1.7.25) and a poet himself (Pliny Ep. 5.3.5). The spelling Mallius at c. 61.16 may pun upon malum '(love) apple', repeating the motif occurring at c. 2.12 and c. 65.19 (see my discussion of c. 61.16 in Chapter II1.5). 61 The beginning of this wedding-song (epithalamium) varies on a motif of poem 60: the gruesome genealogy of the god of love Amor contrasts with the lofty origins of the marriage god Hymenaeus (TC montibuslCollis 'mountain' ,procreavitlgenus). The mountain-motif of poem 60 is pursued throughout book Ir. Concatenation between poems 60 and 61 does not invalidate the hypothesis that poem 61 marks the beginning af a new baak. In Harace's Odes, for instance, the poetical theme of c. 2.20 (uates) is varied in c. 3.1 (Musa rum sacerdos); Propertius' Elegies have LC between 1.22 and 2.1 (unde ... quaeris/quaeritis unde); Ovid's Ars amatoria has LC between 2.741 and 3.1 (arma dedi). 62

The analogy between the preceding Roman wedding song (poem 61) and the present Greek wedding song is emphasized by extensive LC (Hymen Hymenaee/Hymen 0 Hymenaee;iuuentamliuuenes; uirum, uir, uiris/uiri; coniugis/coniuge; maritus, marite, maritolmarito; uirgines/uirgo; matris, matrelmatris, matre, matri; patrem, patrilpater, patri; pueri, puerislpueri, pueris; complexumlcomplexu; uiden utluiden ut followed by an indicative, etc.). Both poems start with the mention of a mountain, Helicon and Olympus respectively, and liken the bride to a garden flower (c. 61.87-89/62.39) and a vine (c. 61.101-105/62.49-55). Other sirnilarities are discussed by Paratore (1974) and Thomsen (1992). The beginning of poem 62 contrasts with the ending of poem 61:

89

claudite ostia, uirginesliuuenes, consurgite (typical alternation of female and male); iuuenes also echoes iuuentam, the final word of poem 61. 63 This anti-epithalamium (Granarolo 1973-74:61, Ferguson 1985:191) describing the unhappy relationship between Attis and Cybele is Hellenic like poem 62 (LC iuvenciliuvenca,jlosl jlos, etc.) and mythologicallike poem 64. The conjugal theme is hinted at in iugi, iuncta iuga, iuga (c. 63.33,76, 84). In spite of his emasculation Attis is Cybele's paramour (cf. Martial 5.41.2 concubino ... Celaenaeo); his servile submission may be interpreted as a mystic marriage with the mother-goddess. 64

This epyllion describes the marriage of Peleus and Thetis. Like poem 63 it begins with a voyage (LC c. 63.1 super alta uectus celeri rate maria/64.6 uada salsa cita decurrere puppi) and ends with frenzy (LC c. 63.92furor omnis/64.405 omnia ... furore). Ariadne's sleep and the bacchic scene strongly recall the sleep and the trance of Attis and the Galli in the previous poem. Striking LC includes c. 63.42 Somnus excitam/64.56 excita somno; 63.28 thiasus/64.252 thiaso; 63.22 tibicen/64.264 tibia; 63.23 capita/64.255 capita; 63.31,38 furibunda, juror/64.254 furebant; 63.29 caua/64.259 cauis; 63.8,9,21,29,32 ty(m)panum, tympana, tympano/64.261 tympana; 63.33 iuvenca/64.257 iuvenco. Putnam (1961: 169-170) describes the paralleis between Attis and Ariadne, who both wake 'from sleep to bitter truth', betake themselves to the shore and lament 'the loss of horne and family through the excessive furor of devotion'. He also signals verbal and phonic links between c. 63.5-6 and 64.296-297, viz. ponderalpendens, silice/silici, relictal restrictus, membralmembra, deuolsitlpersoluit, which draw a playful parallel between the fates of Attis and Prometheus. The last lines may be read in an autoreferential way: the gods who inspired the epic poetry of book II now turn away from the poet. The motif is echoed at the beginning of book III where the Muses seem to have left the poet (TC 64/65 auerterelseuocat).

BOOKTHREE The third book of the Carmina consists of longer and shorter elegiacs. The mourning motif suggested by this metre is foreshadowed at the end of poem 64 (lugere, funera) and described at c. 65.12 (semper maesta tua cannina morte tegam, compare dolore, maeroribus, tristi). It reappears in

90

poems 66, 68a, 68b, 76, and in the epigrams 73, 77, 78b, 95b, 96, 1Ol. The eIder orator Quintus Hortensius Ortalus, or bis homonymous son (Thomson 1997:526), was an appropriate dedicatee of the elegies. Most epigrams, however, are invectives. So Catullus needed the 'inverted dedication' of poem 116 to aim his satirical missiles (tela) at his enemy Gellius, who is allegedly punished for his refusal to accept the serious carmina Battiadae 'Callimachean poems' (c. 65.16/116.2). According to King (1988), these elegies and epigrams are a 'demonstration of Catullus as a Callimachus Romanus' .

65 This is a dedicatory poem (anathematikon) of the following version of Callimachus (cf. c. 65.16 haec expressa tibi carmina Battiadae). The simile of the love-gift in the last verses links poem 65 with the series of wedding songs in book 11. There is LC between the last part of poem 64 and poem 65: carmina/carmina, carmina; uirgo, innuptaeluirgines, uirginis; tellus/tellus; junera/morte, fata; mente, mentem/mens; fratemo, fratres/fratris, frater, malo/malis. For concatenation between two books compare my commentary on poem 61. The four following carmina maiora are variations on the marriage theme (Lieberg 1958, Wiseman 1969:20ff. and 1985:165), featuring an Egyptian queen and her husband (poem 66), an adulterous bride (poem 67), Manlius and his lost love (poem 68a), Catullus and his mistress (poem 68b). The dramatic Trojan theme announced in c. 64.343ff. reappears in c. 65.5-8 and c. 68b.86ff. (LC Troica, Troiugenum, Phrygiae terrae/I'roia tellus/Iliacos, Troia). Each poem seems to have its particular dedicatee, viz.: (a) Ortalus (c. 65.15-16 Ortale, mitto haec expressa tibi carmina); (b) Caecilius (c. 67.9 Caecilio placeam cui tradita nunc sum); (c) Manlius (c. 68a.11-13 Manli ... accipe); (d) Allius (c. 68b.149-150 hoc tibi ... confectum carmine munus ... , Alli, redditur).

66 The translation of Callimachus' Lock of Berenice announced in poem 65 is a disguised epithalamium (c. 66.11 hymenaeo) linking up with the poems ofbook Ir. Clausen (1970) stresses the 'intimate relationship between 65 and 66' both dealing with 'love (and marriage or fidelity), separation, death'. He interprets poem 66 as 'an oblique elaboration of the mood expressed more directly in 65'. Indeed, the phrase fratris cari jlebile discidium 'the sad

91

departure of your dear brother' (c. 66.22) subtly recalls the death of Catullus' brother in the dedicatory poem (c. 65.5-11). The mourning motif is stressed by LC 65/66 maesta, maeroribuslmaestas, maesta; gemenslgemunt; tristiltristi. Other lexical links (King 1988:387) include munerelmunere, munera, muneribus; semper amabolsemper amor. There may be a pseudo-etymological link between ortus at c. 66.2 and Ortale at c. 65.2, and synonymous LC between decursu at c. 65.23 and obitus at c. 66.2. It is quite possible that lines 79-88, which were absent from Callimachus' original (Thomson 1997:460-461), have been added by Catullus in order to reinforce the marital theme and to announce the adultery-theme of poem 67 (LC adulterioladulterium, iucundaliucunda, cubililcubile, sedeslsedes, amorlamore).

67 This dialogue between a front dOOf and a passer-by is probably dedicated to Caecilius mentioned at line 8 (possibly Catullus' fellow-poet of poem 35, cf. Hallett 1980:107n3; Thomson 1997:465). ParalIeIs between poems 66 and 67 are pointed out by MacLeod (1983:187-195). In both poems a complaining object is speaking; both swear that they will not betray the bedroom secrets of their mistresses. The woman of poem 66 is faithful to her husband whereas the woman of poem 67 is not. There are several instances of LC collocat in gremiolminxerit in gremio, se impuro dedit adulteriolmalum fecit adulterium, dominaeldomini, Iuppiter, Iuppiterfluppiter, etc. 68aand68b The dispute between separatists and unitarians of poem 68 seems to be a never-ending story (CoppeI1973). In my view, the repetition of lines 2024 in lines 92-96 does not prove the unity of the poem, but argues in favour of two separate poems linked by concatenation (Barwick 1947, Clauss 1995). The contrast between the poem of refusal (recusatio) 68a and the poem of gratitude (gratiarum actio) 68b is stressed by antonymous LC, viz. c. 68a.32 haec tibi non tribuo munera, cum nequeo/68b.149 hoc tibi, quod potui, confectum carmine munus. But there are many other instances of TC (e.g. the shipwreck motif of lines 3-4/63-65, the lament of the dead brother in lines 20-25/92-96) and of LC (e.g. lines 1/105 casu/casu, 1190 acerbolacerba, 3/63 naufragumlnautis, 4/48 mortislmortuus, 4/71 liminellimine, 7/61, 106, 160 dulcildulce, dulcius, dulce, 71149 carmine, 7, 10/41 Musae, Musarumldeae, 10,32/154 munera, munera/munera, 12/42, 150 officiumlofficiis, officiis, 16/43, 119 aetas, aetate, 18/51 curis/cura,

92

19, 26/44 studia, hoc studium/hoc ... studium, 22, 34/68, 74, 94, 144, 156 domus/domum, domus, 23/123 gaudia, 24/69, 96 amor/amores, amor). Internal annular composition (see Chapter III.4.4) links the beginning and the end of poem 68b, both thanking Allius for bis services. Compare lines 41-44 Non possum reticere, deae, qua me Allius in re iuuerit auf quantis iuuerit officiis ne fugiens saeclis obZiuiscentibus aetas illius hoc caeca nocte tegat studium with lines 149-152 hoc tibi, quod potui, conjectum cannine munus pro multis, Alli, redditur officiis ne uestrum scabra tangat rubigine nomen haec atque illa dies atque alia atque alia. Notice the verbal echoes possum - potui, Allius - AlZi, officiis - officiis, ne (Calfurnio's correction of V's nec)- ne, illius - illa, hoc - haec and variations deae - diui, quantis - multis, fugiens ... aetas - alia atque alia dies 'day after day', nocte - dies, tegat - tangat. 69 Variation between serious and comical approaches to the same theme is a typical feature of our collection. The thematic contrast between the elegy 68b and the epigram 69 is that Rufus, unlike Catullus, is an unsuccessful lover. The characteristic alternation is stressed by thematic contrast c. 68b.132 lux mea se nostrum contuZit in gremium/co 69.1-2jemina nulla ueZit supposuissse femur. Instances of LC are rara/rarae; mira/admirari, mirum, admirari; munus/munere; lapide, lapide/lapidis; omnes/omnes; perlucens/ perluciduli.

The copulation-theme, wbich is a vulgarizing variation on the marital theme in poems 60-68b, links the sequence 69-72: synonymous LC 69 cubet/70 nubereI71futuit/72 nosse. Poems 69, 71, 73, and 77 seem to be a Rufus- 'cycle' . 70 This epigram is a companion-piece to poem 72 (wbich reveals the name of the addressee, viz. Lesbia). The thematic contrast between poems 69 and 70 is that Rufus' girl friends refuse to go to bed with hirn, whereas Lesbia does want to make love to Catullus (for this sense of nubere see Lenchantin de Gubernatis 1928:228 and Adams 1987:160). Wiseman (1969:25) points to the link with the marriage-theme in poems 61-68b. TC 69170 is stressed by antonymous, synonymous, and literal LC NoZi, ueZitlmalle, femina/muZier, non si/non si, fugiunt/petat. There is also phonic (alliterative) LC NoZi ... nulla/Nulli ... nubere.

93

The sequence 70-79 deals with triangular relations, jealousy, and unfaithfulness (criticized as a form of impietas). The love-theme is systematically varied: LC 70 amanti, 71 aemulus ... qui uestrum exercet amorem, 72 amicam, amantem, amare, 73 amicum, 74 delicias ... jaceret, 75 officio, amare, 76 amore, amorem, diligat, 77 amice, amicitiae, 78 amores, 79 malit. 71

This epigram is a companion-piece to poem 69, which mentions the name of the addressee, viz. stinking Rufus. Disjunctive TC (goatish smell of Catullus' rival) is stressed by LC caper/hircus, admirari, mirum, admirari/mirijice, alarum/alarum, mala, mala/malum, illamlillam, aut, aut, autlaut. The thematic contrast with poem 70 is that the triangular relationsbip declined there is provoked here (LC nuberelfutuit, exercet, amantilamorem, ipse/ipse, antonymous LC rapida/tarda). 72

This epigram about broken faith is thematically linked with poem 70. TC is stressed by disjunctive LC dicit, dicit, dicitldicebas; nubere/nosse ('to know carnally', Adams 1987:190), luppiterflouem, malle/uelle, amantilamantem, amare). The initial distichs ofboth poems are subtle variations on 'Lesbia's protestations of love' (EIlis 1876:xl): Nulli... se dicit ... nubere malle quam mihi, non si se luppiter ipse petatlDicebas ... solum te nosse Catullum ... nec prae me uelle tenere louem (notice the variation by change of tense and person). Poem 71 details the physical consequences of unfaithfulness, whereas poem 72 describes the psychological consequences. TC is stressed by LC iure bono/iniuria,jutuitlnosse, amorem/amicam, amantem, amare. The expression bene uelle at c. 72.8 reappears as a leitmotif at c. 73.1 and c. 75.3 (as already noticed by Birt 1905:468).

73 This epigram on the unfaithfulness of the poet' s former friend contrasts with poem 72 complaining about the unfaithfulness of bis girl friend. TC is stressed by LC iniuria 'unfaithfulness' (Schuster 1954:126, Thomson 1997:495)lingrata 'unfaithful'; amicamlamicum (typical antonymy). The addressee is not named, but the preceding poems 69 (LC desineIDesine, jemina nulla/nemo, uelitlueUe) and 71 (disjunctive LC obstititlobest, merito/mereri, quem/aliquem), and the word amicum suggest Rufus (addressed as amice in poem 77).

94

The repetition bene uellelbene uelle is an instance of formal LC since bene is to be taken with mereri at c. 73.1 (Forsyth 1986:495). LC 72/73 includes the literally repeated comparative magis, the synonymous adjectives solumlunum atque unicum, and the synonymous comparatives impensiuslgravius, acerbius. The word facere is a leitmotif in the sequence 73-76: LC 73 fecisse174 faceret, fecit, faciet175 facias176 facere, facta, facias.

74 This epigram is a comical variation on the triangle-theme. The leitmotif facere of the sequence 73-76 is repeated thrice. The sacred family ties mentioned in poem 72 (pater... gnatos diligit et generos) are violated by cuckoldry of astern uncle. There is disjunctive formal LC 72/74 Dicebasldiceret, uerbum ... faciet; uelleluoluit; nunc/nunc. The echo urget (73.5)/obiurgare (74.1) may be an instance of phonic LC prompted by popular etymology. See Eutyches, G.L. 5.476.13 Keil iurgo [ ... ] iure urgeo, quoted by Maltby 1991:319, and compare the pun in Horace Sat. 2.2.99-100 lure ... Trausius istis iurgatur uerbis 'It is just for Trausius to be injured in such language'. This suggests an associative link in the sequence 71-74, viz. c. 71.1 iure/72.7 iniurial73.5 urget/74.1 obiurgare. 75 This epigram is a variation on poems 72 (and 73). Disjunctive TC with poems 72 and 73 is stressed by LC bene uelle and amicam, amantemlamicumlamare. There is formal LC 74/75 faceret, fecit, facietlfacias, ipsi, ipsamlipsa, uoluitluelle (phonic LC perdepsuit ipsaml perdidit ipsa) and 73/75 Desineldesistere, mererilse officio perdidit, bene uelle/bene uelle. The term culpa (Syndikus 1987:19n2 and 21) and the pregnant euphemism omnia facias, i.e. omnia pessima facias 'you do the worst things that can be done' (Schuster 1954:122) both refer to sexual infidelity, which is the main theme ofthe sequence 69-79. The repetition of omnia links the sequence 75-77 by LC, viz. c. 75.4/76.9/77.4. 76

This short elegy affirming Catullus' faithfulness contrasts with poem 75 on Lesbia's unfaithfulness. The previous poem analyses the speaker's unability to break up with bis mistress; the present poem expresses his

95 determination to do so. The poem takes up several words and motifs of preceding poems. There is TC 73/76 (unfaithful friend vs. unfaithful girl friend) stressed by LC Desineldesinis, quoquamlcuiquam, bene ... mererilbenefacta, bene facere, piumlpium, pietate, omnialomnia, ingratalingrato, ingratae, fecisseljacere, facta sunt, facias, unumluna, and formal LC 74/76 diceret aut faceret/dicere ... aut facere, dictaque factaque, reddiditlreddite. Simple LC 75/76 uelle/uelit, beneIbene, amare/amore, amorem, faciaslbenefacta,facere,facta,facias is concentrated in lines 9-12 of poem 76, which are contrasting variations on poem 75: Huclistinc, menslmenti, est ... deductalte ... reducis, atquelatque, se ... perdidit/perierunt, mens ... se ... perdidit/tu animo offirmas, iamliam, omnialomnia. Notice that desinis esse miser equates with desistere amare since miser means 'lovesick' (compare Ovid Rem. 658 aut amat aut aegre desinet esse miser 'he either loves or will find it hard to end his misery', and see Lilja 1965:106). 77

This epigram on the unfaithfulness of a friend contrasts with poem 76 dealing with Catullus' faithfulness to his girl friend. TC 76/77 is stressed by conspicuous LC, viz. creditalcredite, miser, miserumlmisero, uitamluitae, eripiteleripuisti, pestemlpestis, mihi subrepenslsubrepsti mi, imos ... in artus/intestina. Some of these similarities have been noticed by Schmidt (1973:231) and Forsyth (1986: 505ff.). The variation eripite hanc pestemleripuisti omnia nostra bona seems to be deliberately paradoxical (Ferguson 1985:260). The words Rufe, crudele, and pestis echo Rufe and crudelem ... pestem in the first piece of the Rufus-'cyc1e', i.e. poem 69. Poems 75 and 77 deal with disloyalty in love and friendship; according to Dettmer (1997: 181) 'Lesbia's culpa of c. 75 must surely be her relation with Rufus'. TC perdidit 'has ruined'/pestis 'instrument ofruin'; formal LC omnialomniaboth in emphatic position after an elided word at the diaeresis of the pentameter (Zidui 1978:207). 78a This epigram is another variation on the triangle-theme (comicallike poem 74). The thematic contrast with poem 77 lies in the objective approach and in the opposition eripuisti/iungit viz. depriving vs. joining. LC 76/77/78a amoremlamicitiae/amores is a typical example of synonymous alternation. 78b These lines are c1early fragmentary. In Chapter III.5, I propose to link them with poem 82.

96

The phrase spurca saliua points to oral sex (cf. OLD s.v. spurcus), which is a leitmotif in the sequence 79-81. 79 This lampoon is directed against Lesbia' s brother and alleged lover Lesbius, Le. Publius Clodius Pulcher (Forsyth 1985). Even Clodius' acquaintances fear his kisses because of his preference for oral sex. Notice that the very name Lesbius points to fellatio (cf. Gr. lesbiazein 'to fellate' and Lesbia in poem 58a). Catullus offers a funny explanation of Lesbia's incest: while being a member of the famous aristocratic gens Claudia, she does not want to demean herself and is forced to take a lover in her own family (Albrecht 1995:190, Tatum 1997:499). Poems 78 and 79 are linked by the incest motif. TC is reinforced by synonymous LC bellus, bello, bella/pulcer, pulcer, pursued with typical alternation in poem 81 bellus. For a possible link between c. 78.3 dulces and c. 74.4 suauia (derived from suauis) compare my commentary on c. 99.2 in Chapter III.5.

Thewordquidisaleitmotifin the sequence 79-82, viz. c. 79.1, 80.1, 5, 81.6 (see my discussion of this passage in Chapter III.5), 82.2. 80

This epigram directed against Gellius pursues the theme of oral sex initiated in poem 79 (formal LC quid/Quid, quid). Gellius was a supporter and even a elose confident of Clodius' (Benner 1987:161). Political friendship is often described as sexual submission (cf. poem 54 and 94). Consequently, Gellius' uir 'active homosexual partner' (compare Cicero Red. Sen. 5 eius uir Catilina 'his lover Catilina') might be Publius Clodius Pulcher, the politician alluded to in the previous poem. Since Victor is an unusual cognomen in the Roman republic (Neudling 1955:187), uictor should be read as a common noun. The term designates the active partner in erotic poetry (e.g. Ovid Ars 1.394 perprime temptatam nec nisi uictor abi 'take advantage of the seduced girl and do not depart unless you are victorious'; for other examples see Friedrich 1908:504). Our victor (i.e. irrumator according to Benoist & Thomas 1890:742) is pitiable because he is exhausted by oral stimulation (for rupta ilia compare c. 11.20 ilia rumpens). 81 This epigram is connected with poem 80 by the homosexual theme. The link is stressed by LC candidiora/pallidior followed by ablatives of comparison denoting paleness. A white complexion betrays fellatio (cf.,

97

e.g. c. 93.2; Martial 1.77; Juvenal 2.50). This is also a disjunctive companion-piece to poem 79. Synonymous LC puleer/bellus, quem ... malit quam telquem ... praeponere nobis (compare 45/47) stresses TC (Catullus accusing bis rivals of oral sex). The unnamed hospes may be Catullus' riYal Aurelius, mentioned as Juventius' lover in poems 15, 16,21, and called homo bellus in poem 24. His name recalls the word aurum, wbich is associated with the city of Pisaurum (Servius ad Virgil Aen. 6.825: Pisaurum dicitur, quod illie aurum pensatum est 'the city is called Pisaurum because gold was weighed there'; Miehalopoulos 1996:78). For LC 80/81 nescio quid/nescio quid [sie] see my discussion of c. 81.6 in Chapter III.5. The sequence 81-87 (apart from poem 84) is composed of love-epigrams; the subgroup 81-83 deals with riYal-lovers. 82 This appeal to Quintius is probably aimed at a seducer of Lesbia, since she is mentioned in poem 83 and called earior ... oeulis in poem 104 (Thomson 1997:509). The love-theme is varied by the alternation of boy friend and girl friend. TC 81/82 is stressed by literal LC tibVtibi, quid/quid and synonymous LC diligere, praeponere/carius ... est. If we choose to link fragment 78b with poem 82, we have disjunctive TC (oral sex) and LC 80/82 (fama/fama, uerumluere).

The rival-theme links this poem with the surrounding poems 81 and 83. Quintius' name prepares for the mention of his sister Quintia in poem 86 (linked with poem 82 by concentric composition, see Chapter III.4.1). 83 Like poem 82, this epigram is addressed to a rivallover. Most commentators interpret uir as 'husband', but chronology seems to exclude Clodia's husband Quintus Metellus Celer, who died in 59 B.C., Le. some years before the composition of Catullus' collection (Rothstein 1923, Maas 1942). For the meaning 'recognized lover' see, e.g., Propertius 1.6.10, 2.33.34, and compare c. 80.6. Clodia's lover may be Quintius (mentioned in poem 82) or even her brother Clodius (mentioned in poem 79, cf. Cieero Cael. 32 eum istius mulieris uiro, fratre uolui dieere 'with that woman' s lover - I meant to say brother'). Phonic (punning) LC 82/83 multo quod earius ... est/quae multo acrior est res. If fragment 78b is linked with poem 82 (see Chapter 111.5), we

98

have lexical and syntactical parallelism between poems 82 and 83: si ... . sed nunc ... quod ... noscent ... loqueturl si ... nunc quod ... meminit .. . loquitur. Disjunctive TC (the rival-theme) and antonymous LC moribun da/sana link poem 83 with 81. The theme is varied in poem 92. 84 This lampoon on Quintus Arrius, an upstart of little education (Cicero, Brut. 242; cf. Thomson 1997:512) interrupts the sequence of loveepigrams. The speaking motif creates a formal link with poem 83 (LC dicitldicebat, dicere, dixerat, dixerat; (ob )loquiturlesse locutum; non ... sed/non ... sed). Catullus playfully associates two different ways of speaking badly. The point of this epigram is that Arrius' excessive aspiration disturbs the waves like rough wind (Ferguson 1988:38). Compare sperabat at line 3, which is a pun on spirabat, and c. 68b.64 lenius aspirans aura secunda uenit 'a favouring breeze comes with gentler breath'. An additional joke is that lonian Greek is characterised by psilosis or des aspiration. If 78b is linked with poem 82, there is disjunctive LC loqueturlesse locutum. 85 This epigram pursues the love-hate theme of poem 83. Lesbia pretends to hate her lover, although she loves him in her soul; her lover struggles with a similar contradiction. Disjunctive TC 83/85 is stressed by LC sentislsentio; non ... sed ... etlne[scio] ... sed ... et. More hidden links are created by related verbs, viz. uritur 'she bums with 10ve'lamo 'I love'; mala dicit, loquitur [sc. male] 'shespeaksill'lodi 'I hate'. As in c. 7.1 quaeris and 72.7 quipotis es, inquis?, the addressee of requiris might be Lesbia, whose presence is suggested by TC with poems 83 and 86. Formal LC 84/85 non ... sed/ne[scio]... sed and phonic LC Ionios, Ionios, Hionioslnescio, sentio, excrucior (repetition of io).

86 This comparison (syncrisis) between Quintia and Lesbia continues the sequence of love-epigrams. Quintia's name was announced by the mention of her brother Quintius in poem 82 (linked by concentric composition with poem 86; see Chapter 111.4.1). Lesbia's superior sex-appeal explains Catullus' passionate love in poems 85 and 87. The phrase pulcerrima tota est may conceal an allusion to Clodia, since

99

Puleher was a cognomen in the gens Claudia (compare the similar allusion Lesbius est pulcer in poem 79). 87

This love-epigram is a logical consequence of poem 86: being the most lovely of women, Lesbia is the most beloved. TC 86/87 is stressed by LC Lesbia/Lesbia, nulla ... nulla/nulla ... nulla, tarn magnoltanta. The double elision of mea est at c. 87.2, 4 echoes the elision of tota est at c. 86.5. Disjunctive LC 85/87 amolamatam, amata est. 88

This is the first of four invectives directed against Gellius (LC between these poems is discussed in Chapter 11.2.2). Catullus' pure love for Lesbia in poem 87 is opposed to Gellius' dirty sex with his mother and si ster. Formal LC 87/88 quantum ... quanta/quantum ... quantum. Zicm (1978:208) observes that three of the Gellius-epigrams have 'atypical' elisions at the diaeresis of the pentameter, viz. c. 88.6 Nymphar(um) abluit, 90.4 Persar(um) impia and 91.10 quaeumq(ue) est. These might allude to the adversary's archaic versification, which is also parodied in poem 116 (by the spondaic line 3 and the suppression of final s in line 8). Compare Thomson's poetical interpretation of poem 90, and Townend (1980), who discusses c. 36.19 as another example of a prosodic anomaly mimicking the outrnoded versification of an adversary. 89 Another invective against Gellius. TC is stressed by LC 88/89 Quid, quid, eequidlquid, Gelli, Gelli! Gellius, matre/mater, sorore/soror, patruumlpatruus, quantum, quantumlquantumuis, nihillnihil. There is a striking instance of formal LC: is ... qui non sinit esselis desinat esse (notice the typical metrical variation by switching hexameter and pentameter). The point of the epigram is the ambiguity of tenuis 'thin' and 'poor' (discussed by MacLeod 1983:180). According to Arkins (1982:174n78), the adjective bona 'wealthy' alludes to the charge de bonis Pallae 'about Palla's property' (Cicero Cael. 23), brought against Marcus Caelius Rufus about Gellius' mother Palla (or Polla) in 56 B.C. The epithet ualens might pun on the name of Gellius' half sister Valeria (as identified by Wiseman 1974:129).

100

90 Another invective against Gellius. TC is stressed by LC 89/90 GelliuslGelli, materlmatris, matre, eognatislgnato, gnatus [sie], jas ... non/nejando, antonymous LC tenuis, maeerlpingue. Thomson (1997:519-520) offers a poetical interpretation of this poem. Gellius' 'thick', Le. inelegant, verses can only become 'liquid', Le. fluent (compare Silius Italicus 11.415 earmina ... liquejacta 'flowing songs'), if they are melted and purified in the altar fire. Thomson's interpretation of omentum as writing material may be paralleled by Greek humen 'caul' and 'parchment' , and Latin membrana 'amnion' and 'parchment'. 91 This epigram reveals that the true reason of Catullus' hatred is Gellius' seduction of Lesbia (hinted at in hane ... euius me magnus edebat amor). Forsyth (1972-1973:177) explains: 'Catullus had not expected Gellius to go after his mistress precisely beeause Gellius' inclinations were known to lie within his own family.' In this way a link is established between the four sexual invectives and the present love-poem. TC 90/91 is confirmed by LC GelliiGelli, matrislmatrem, eoniugiol eoniungerer, synonymous LC liquejaciensledebat 'meltinglmelted'.

92 This love-epigram to Lesbia (a variation on poem 83) seems to interrupt the sequence of invectives 88-94. In fact, both dicit... male and deprecor (cf. Aulus Gellius 7.16.2) refer to verbal abuse so that we have a typical variation: after having been Gellius' aggressor Catullus himself falls victim to Lesbia's attacks. LC 91/92: hoe perdito amoreldispeream nisi amo, bene/male. 93 An invective epigram on Julius Caesar (cf. poem 29). Synonymous LC 92/93 amolstudeo... uelle placere points to an erotic link between both poems. Most commentators, however, miss the sexual innuendo in our epigram. We should interpret albus and ater by thinking of their Greek equivalents leukos 'effeminate' and melas 'virile' (Arkins 1982: 164n23, Ingemann 1981-1982, Henderson 1991:211-212): 'I do not want to know whether you are a passive or an active lover'. Most terms are ambiguous: placere 'to be sexually attractive to' (see OW S.v. and compare Greek eharizesthai, Henderson 1991:221; uelle plaeere is the contrary of displicere uelle at c. 54.4); albus 'pathic, passive homosexual partner'; ater 'active homosexual partner'; scire 'to have carnal knowledge' (Vorberg 1965:581). The homosexual motif is pursued in poem 94.

101

According to Wiseman (1969:28-29), most poems of the sequence 93-116 seem to be more or less obscene invectives against politicians, viz. 93 (Caesar), 94 (Mamurra), 97 (Aemilius), 98 (Vettius?), 100 (Caelius), 102 (Gaius Comelius?), 103 (Poppaedius Silo?), 104 (Appuleius Tappo?), 105 (Mamurra), 106 (Clodius Pulcer?), 108 (Cominius), 112 (Sextius Naso?), 113 (Pompey and Caesar), 114 (Mamurra), 115 (Mamurra), 116 (Gellius). The political ending of book III recalls the similar ending of book I (see poem 46 above).

94 Invective against Caesar's protege Mamurra, alias Mentula (cf. poems 29 and 57). As in the previous poem, political dependence is interpreted as homosexual submission. Synonymous LC 93/94 uelle placere/moechatur suggests that Mamurra, unlike Catullus, is sexually complaisant to Caesar' s ambiguous advances. In this epigram moechatur seems to mean 'to behave as a pathic'. Due to sexual asymmetry in antiquity the verb moechari has two opposite meanings. With a masculine subject it means 'to have amistress, to be a seducer'; with a feminine subject it means 'to be amistress, to be seduced'. The feminine subject mentula paradoxically calls for a passive meaning of moechari, i.e. 'to behave as a moecha, a seduced wife, to play the passive role'. As in poem 57, Mamurra is accused of being a pathic (Claes 1996, pace Damschen 1999). The charge is as plain as it is witty: Mr (Mrs!) Prick is penetrated. My interpretation is confmned by the proverb ipsa olera olla legit 'the pot chooses its own vegetables'. It is not by accident that Mamurra is compared with an oUa (another feminine word). As a receptac1e a pot is very apt to metaphorize the female parts or, by analogy, the pathic's anus. The word olera seems to be a botanical metaphor of the penis (Adams 1987:29,87; for the sexual overtone of oie rum compare Plautus Cas. 911). The proverb meaning 'like finds like' conceals a sexual point: Mrs Prick likes pricks.

95a This poem is a comparison (syncrisis) between good and bad poets, transferring the Callimachean battle of the books from early Hellenistic Alexandria to contemporary Rome (Lyne 1978:170). Notice the allusion to Callimachus fr. 182 Pfeiffer ep'ennea ... poias 'for nine summers' in nonam post ... messem. The poetical theme may have been prompted by the previous poem since Mamurra was a bad poet (cf. poem 105). The link with poem 93 is that 'Cinna the poet' was a friend of Caesar's (plutarch Brut. 20). Since

102 Gaius Helvetius Cinna is also mentioned in poem 113 alluding to Caesar' s affair with Mucia, Catullus may have had political or personal reasons for linking him with Caesar and his accomplice Mamurra. Another link between poems 94 and 95a is the cooking-motif: whereas pots were used for cooking vegetables, papyrus was used for cooking fish (Thomson 1964; cf. Apicius De re coquinaria 9.10 inuoluitur in charta et sie supra uaporem ignis in operculo componitur 'wrap in paper and cook in the steam in a covered pan'; Martial4.86.8 nec scombris tunicas dabis molestas 'you will not supply tormenting garments for mackereis' , as explained in OLD s.v. tunica). There is also formal LC 94/95a ipsa/ipsam and disjunctive LC 93/95a albus/cana. The sequence 95a-l0l (apart from poem 99, but notice ambrosia, literally 'immortality' at c. 99.2) is linked by the death-motif, viz. c. 95a.7 morientur, 95b.l monimenta, 96.1 sepulcris, mors, 97.12 camificis, 98.5 perdere, 100.2 depereunt, 101.3 mortis. 95b Concentric composition (see Chapter III.4.2) shows that the last distich of poem 95 (Mynors' 95b) is a separate poem. It is to be interpreted as a literary syncrisis in the form of a fictitious sepu1chral epigram. TC between both poetical comparisons is reinforced by LC 95a/95b mei/mei, at/at, laxas/tumido. The phallic overtone of tumidus (cf. Horace S. 1.2.116 tument tibi ... inguina 'your groin is sweIling', Lucretius 4.1045 inritata tument loca semine 'the excited parts swell with seed') suggests disjunctive TC with poem 94 on Mentula. There may be a sexual innuendo in gaudere (for gaudium 'sensual pleasure' see Adams 1987:197-198). Even if we accept the conjecture sodalis in line 1 (for another suggestion see my discussion of poems 95a and b in Chapter III.5), the poet intended may be Catullus' friend Gaius Licinius Calvus addressed in the next poem. This little man (cf. c. 53.5 salaputium 'little prick'; Ovid Tr. 2.431 exigui ... Calui 'of small Calvus'; Seneca Con. 7.4.7 paruulus statura 'of small stature') loved writing short poems, like Callimachus and Catullus: hence the ambiguous parua monimenta 'smali sepu1chre' and 'short writings' (for the double entendre of monimenta compare Horace Od. 3.30.1 Exegi monumentum and Ovid Tr. 3.3.77-78 maiora libelli et diutuma magis sunt monimenta mihi 'my books are a greater and more enduring memorial'). Whereas Antimachus' Lyde was a long-winded poem on his dead mistress, Calvus' elegy on his mistress (cf. poem 96) must have been a neat poem in neoteric style.

103

96 This is a laudatory poem on Catullus' fellow-poet Gaius Licinius Calvus. By juxtaposing poems 95b and 96 Catullus seems to contrast Calvus' fine elegy on Quintilia with Antimachus' inflated elegy on Lyde. The division of poem 95 creates disjunctive LC 95a/96 mitteturlmissas, morienturlmors (according to Dettmer 1997:205, both treat the theme of 'premature' death), and antonymous and synonymous LC 95b/96 sint cordildolori est, monimenta/sepulcris, gaudeat/gaudet. The sequence 96-102 (apart from poem 100) is linked by formal LC, viz. c. 96.1 quicquam, 97.1 Non ... quicquam, 98.1 quemquam, 99.9 ne quicquam, 101.4 nequicquam, 102.1 quicquam. 97 This attack on an adversary sharply contrasts with the preceding praise of a friend. If Aemilius' malodorous mouth suggests a bad orator or poet, TC 96/97 opposes silence (mutis) and speech (os). Both poems are linked by formal LC 96/97: quicquam/quicquam, uetereslueteris, amores, amore/ ament. According to Forsyth (1978-1979), Lucius Aemilius Paullus (consul 50 B.C., accused by Vettius of conspiring to murder Pompey, bribed by Caesar) is meant. If so, the associative link between poems 96 and 97 may be the fact that Calvus was an anti-Caesarian (cf. Suet. Jul. 75). Other candidates include Lucius' brother, the triumvir Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, the poet Aemilius Macer (Thomson 1997:530), and Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, Mucia's husband 9 (cf. poem 113). The sequence 97-99 is connected by the foul mouth theme (Forsyth 1986: 537). Roman invective used to accuse adversaries of oral-genital contact (Fitzgerald 1995:262n66). Notice the typicallexical variation: c. 97 os/98 lingua/99 labella, ore. 98

Epigram on the foul mouth of one Victius, perhaps the notorious informer Lucius Vettius, who accused Lucius Aemilius Paullus in 59 B.e. The thematical connection between poems 97 and 98 has already been noticed by Hezel (1932:44), who also signals the repetition of lingere, comparing the repetition of leichein in Anth. Gr. 11.221-222. Forsyth (1978-1979) explains the juxtaposition of these invectives by the fact that both politicians attacked by Catullus were Caesar' s bumsuckers. TC 97/98 is stressed by lexical and phonic links posse ... culum lingere camijicislpossis culos ... lingere carpatinas and posse putemusl pote putide (with quantitative variation).

104

There is disjunetive LC 96/98 Si quicquam ... potest/si... quemquam ... pote and mutisluerbosis. 99 This poem is an ironie applieation of the foul mouth theme of the sequenee 97-99 to the poet himself (Forsyth 1986:541), with a eharaeteristie reversal ofroles. The setting seems to be a a publie bath where young Juventius is exercising (Lilja 1983:53). Purifieation eontrasts with impurity (TC 97 (im)mundius, mundior/98 putide/99 purgo, diluta, abstersti, spurca). Formal LC 98/99 possislpossum, omnino, omninolomni modo 'by all means', omneslomnibus, quemquamlne quicquam, putide/mellite, dulci. Disjunetive LC 97/99 is literal Non ... quicquam ... oslne ... quicquam ... ore, illud/illud, uerumluerum, praeterea!praeterea, traditurltradere, and synonymous meientislcommictae.

This is the first of a long sequenee of epigrams linked by the leitmotif of (sexual) favour or gift: refused in poems 99, 103, 105, 110, granted in poems 100, 101, 102, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113. 100 This epigram directed against Catullus' rivals Caelius (cf. poem 58) and Quintius (cf. poem 82) eontinues the homosexual theme of poem 99. TC 99/100 is reinforced by LC dulci dulciusldulce, amorilamicitia, amore, and an etymologizing pun on the name of Juventius Thalna (cf. Gr. thallos 'blossom'), viz. Iuventilflos ... iuvenum (compare the similar formal link between poems 24/25 flosculus IuuentiorunVThalle). Caelius' willingness contrasts with Juventius' resistanee. Aeeording to Levine (1987:37), lines 5-6 insinuate that Catullus' adversary is apathie: 'Caelius is being credited with having opportunely provided him with sexual relief. Oral sex is suggested by the preceding 'foul mouth' poems (formal LC 97/99/100 illud/illud/illud, 98/100 quod ... diciturlquod dicitur). As a passive homosexual Caelius needs some encouragement in heterosexual activities. 101 The sequence of satirical epigrams about sexual favours is interrupted by a serious funeral poem. Ferguson (1986:19) explains the unexpected lexica1 links between poems 100 and 101 fratremlfrater, frater, frater, fratemumlfratemo: 'The point of 100 is the clever misapplication of a proverb about brotherly love (100.4), 101 shows true brotherly love'. Compare Horaee Ep. 1.3.35 fratemum ... foedus, applied to friendship (Kroll 1980:273-274). In poem

105

100, Jraternum is playfu11y taken as objective genitive (Quinn 1973:439); here Jraterno is taken as subject genitive. Juxtaposition of comical and serious poems is typical of Hellenistic poetry. Here the leitmotif of the sequence 99-113 is varied by changing the gift into a funeral gift (cf. munere mortis, tristi munere). Synonymous LC 1001101 sis felix, sis ... potens 'be blessed, be succesful'/aue atque uale 'hail and good luck'. Notice the associative link between torreret flamma medullas and cinerem. Disjunctive LC 991101 fletibuslfletu, demerel adempte, multis ... guttis/multum manantia, ne quicquamlnequicquam, tradereltradita sunt, miserum, misero/miseras, miser, tristiltristi. 102 The point of this epigram is that the poet promising secrecy about Cornelius mentions bis name a11 the same. According to Schwabe (1862:320), this Cornelius might be Gaius Cornelius, tribune of the people 67 B.C., accused of lese majesty. His prosecutors, the Cominii brothers, 'sold their silence for big money' (Asconius Corno 52.5 uendidisse silentium magna pecunia). Catullus may suggest that Cornelius paid them with his sexual favours and did the same thing to him (compare the situation in the next poem). The presence of this poem in a sequence of homosexual epigrams, viz. poems 99, 100, 103, points to an obscene meaning. There may be a double entendre in quicquam tacito committere 'to tell something confidentially' or 'to force someone to oral sex' and in penitus nota 'well-known' or 'deeply, Le. carnally, known' (cf. notus at c. 40.6 and intima ... nota in the anonymous epigram on Ludus Crassidus quoted in Suetonius Gram. 18, Courtney 1993:306). Disjunctive LC 100/102 perspecta est ... amicitialamico cuius sit penitus rwta fides (compare Chapter 111.5 on c. 100.6) emphasizes the motif of homosexual favour. In poem 74, Harpocrates is a symbol of oral sex. He is in fact the god of silence, who witnesses lovers' encounters and safeguards their secrets. According to Edwards (1990:384), 'some pathic behaviour on Cornelius' part has made bim the Harpocrates in one sense wbich he would have wished Catullus to be in the other.' After having received Cornelius' oral sexual favours Catullus refuses to play the silent role of Harpocrates, and reveals bis enemy's name. Commentators fail to recognize the irony of the main dause, signalied by puta 'believe you me; you can take my word for it' . Variation between a serious and a satirical epigram is stressed by synonymous and antonymous LC 1011102 mutamlArpocratem; mutam nequicquam alloquerer/quicquam tacito commissum est and TC (the silence-motit). Poems 102, 103, and 104 have four lines.

106

103

A satirical epigram directed against Silo. A possible candidate is the politician Quintus Poppaedius Silo, legate of Marcus Antony 39-38 B.C. (Wisernan 1971:51, 253). Catullus' adversaries are often homines noui 'upstarts', who owe their fortune to Caesar's favours and to the popular party. Silo's name, age, provincial stock, social status, and political sympathies are just what we are looking for (Claes 1995a). Catullus is making fun of the financial situation of his (plebeian?) adversary, who is unable to pay back a relatively small sumo He pretends to claim a payment in kind. The situation is similar to poem 110 where Aufillena is not prepared to sleep with the man who has given her a sum of money. The point of both epigrams is the speaker's extravagant assumption that a financial gift gives him the right to use his adversary as a professional prostitute. In this context, leno means 'seller of his own body, prostituting onesei!. The unexpected reflexive sense is facilitated by the fact that a leno was primarily regarded as adebaucher, a touter (cf. the traditional etymology: lenones ab alliciendo adulescentulos appellati 'bawds derive their name from baiting young men'; lenocinium 'allurement, enticement'). The reflexive meaning reappears in Aufillena's ominous name. The phrase saeuus et indomitus is equivocal. In line 2 it means 'violent and overbearing', i.e. arrogantly protesting against the speaker's claim; in line 4 it means 'stubbornly resisting sexual abuse' (compare Ovid Met. 13.798 saeuior indomitis ... iuuencis 'more obstinate than untamed heifers', said of the inflexible Galatea; Propertius 1.1.10 saeuitiam durae Iasidos 'the obduracy of pitiless AtaIanta'; c. 99.6 saeuitiae 'obduracy, inflexiblity'). There is contrasting TC between Cornelius' sexual willingness in poem 102 and Silo's sexual unwillingness in poem 103. Antonymous LC 1021103 commissumJredde stresses the gift-motif. The syntactical parallelism Si ... , meque esse... et me esse/si... , esse atque idem (esse) suggests the equivalence of esse puta Arpocratem 'to be a real Harpocrates' and leno esse 'to be a pathic'. 104

This epigram is addressed to an anonymous woman, who may be identified as Lesbia. Indeed, the life-motif meae ... uitae announces both Lesbia poems 107 (LC uitaeluita, carior/carius) and 109 (mea uita). The phrase carior est oculis echoes carius est oculis in poem 82. The love-theme seems to interrupt the sequence of political epigrams 102-106, but Wiseman (1969:29) points to Gaius Appuleius Tappo (cf. CIL P 814), who may have been a Caesarian politician like Silo Poppaedi-

107 us (poem 103) and Mamurra (poem 105). There is synonymous LC 103/104 esse ... saeuuslmaledicere Le. saeuire. At first sight Credis seems to continue the debt-motif of poem 103 (credere 'to lend'), but the phrase turns out to introduce a love-poem. There is a similar surprise in poem 106 where praeconem and uendere hint at selling whereas credat has a non-financial meaning. The term carior also echoes the financial motif of poem 103 (compare carius in poem 107). The epigram has a paradoxical point: the poet' s assurance that he is unable to blame his mistress ends with a specific reproach prompted by indignation. The phrase omnia monstra facis means 'you do an sort of monstrous things, i.e. perversities' (Rosivach 1978:212, cf. c. 75.4 omnia facis). 105 This satirical epigram describes Mamurra's poems as perverse attempts to rape the Muses. Notice the sexual overtone in scandere 'to mount' (Adams 1987:205). In contrast with Lesbia, the virgins refuse their favours (TC 104/105). Mamurra was a Caesarlan like Silo (poem 103), Tappo (poem 104), and Clodius (poem 106). 106

In contrast with the Muses (poem 105), the unnamed protagonist of this satirical epigram does offer his sexual favours. TC 105/1 06 is stressed by synonymous LC conaturldiscupere and phonic LC praecipitemlpraeconem). Disjunctive and simple LC with both Clodia-poems 104 (credis/credat, cumlcum, oculis/uidet) and 107 (discupere/cupido, quid/quis, quis) suggests that her brother Clodius Pulcher is meant here. For the identification compare puer bellus with c. 79.1 Lesbius est pulcer and Cicero Att. 1.16.10 pulchellus puer (for Clodius as a puer delicatus see Skinner 1982). Cicero often describes Clodius as selling or even prostituting himself politically: e.g. Sest. 39 cum scurrarum locupletium scorto 'with a prostitute of wealthy rakes', Dom. 49 scortum populare 'a public prostitute' , Bar. 52 se uenditabat 'he used to sell himself. Catullus insinuates that Clodius offers himself to the highest bidder. Both as a tribune (58 B.C.) and as an aedile (56 B.C.) the politician was regularly accompanied by a praeco 'official herald', which word is maliciously interpreted as 'auctioneer' by the poet. Notice the sexual overtone of esse cum 'to have intercourse with' (Adams 1987:177). This epigram echoes the distich on Pompey by Catullus' friend Calvus (Courtney 1993:210):

108

Magnus, quem metuunt omnes, digito caput uno scalpit. Quid credas hunc sibi uelle? uirum. 'Pompey the Great, the terror of everybody, scratches his head with one finger. What do you think he wants? A real man.' Notice quid credat/quid credas, se/sibi, discupere/uelle. Both politicians are accused of being pathics in search of active partners. 107 This poem is a serious variation on the motif of love favours. Clodia, instead of seiling herself like the puer bellus of poem 106 (probably her own brother Clodius), offers herself for nothing (contrasting LC se

uendere/rejers te). The fmancial motif is hinted at in the phrase carius auro. LC 106/107 discupere/cupido, cupido, cupido. There is also disjunctive LC with the Lesbia-poem 104 uitae/uita, carior/carius, potui, possemlpoterit. The contrast life vs. death is a leitmotif in the sequence 107-109, viz. 107

uiuit, uital108 intereatl109 uita, uita. 108 This epigram implicitly contrasts Catullus' happy life (evoked in poem 107) with Cominius' horrible death. TC 10711 08 is stressed by synonymous and antonymous LC cupido/

auido, candidiore/cana, uiuit, uitalintereat.

The invective describes a punishment as a kind of gift: lingua ... sit data (cf. the gift-motif in the sequence 99-113). The different parts of Cominius' body which served as instruments of his lechery are offered to appropriate animals.

109 This love-poem is a companion-piece to poem 107, describing 'Lesbia's return and promise of perpetual reconciliation' (Eilis 1876:xl). Disjunctive TC stressed by LC 1071109 uiuit, uitaluita, uita,

animo/animo, hoc, haclhunc, hoc, dicere/dicat, poteritlpossit, gratum, gratumliucundum, nobis/nobis) enables us to identify the unnamed woman as Lesbia. Antonymous LC 10811 09 inimicalamicitiae, intereatluita, uita contrasts Catullus' future happiness with Cominius' future agony. The final line of the ultimate Lesbia-poem strikes an optimistic note. The formula aetemum hoc sanctae joedus amicitiae, suggesting a marriagelike bond (Schmidt 1985:125), would be a perfect conc1usion of the Carmina, but the poet has a loathing for cliches and prefers a satirical ending to a sentimental finale.

109

110 This satirical epigram directed against Aufillena is a variation on poem 103. Whereas Silo is his own leno, this girl is her own lena. The pun on the name Aufil-lena is explained by sese ... prostituit. To understand the point of sese we should rea1ize that a Roman whore did not prostitute herself, but was prostituted by someone else. Thematic contrast with poem 109 (granting vs. refusing sexual favours) is stressed by synonymous and antonymous LC, viz. perpetuum, aeternum/semper, promitterelpromisti, promisse, amicitiaelamieae, inimiea, jacitelfaeere, jacis jacinus, jaeere, sineere dieatlmentita es, totaltoto. Formal LC 108/110 inimieolinimiea, bonorumlbonae, auidolauarae, sit datoldas, data hints at TC. Cominius and Aufillena are accused of prostituting thernselves in every possible way: toto eorpore in the latter poem summarizes the parts of the body (membra) enumerated in the former.

The sequence 110-113 deals with the leitmotif of sexual surrender. Notice the typical alternation of woman and man, viz. AufillenaINasolMoecilia. 111 This second satirical epigram on Aufillena contrasts with poem 110 since the sexual favours refused in the previous poem are granted here. TC 1101111 is stressed by literal and synonymous LC Aufillena, AufillenolAufillena, laudanturllaus, laudibus, sese ... prostituit/sueeumbere, sed ... plus quam/sed... potius quam. Disjunctive LC 109/111 uita, uitoluiuere stresses the contrast between pure love and perverse sex.

112 This satirical epigram on Naso, perhaps the politician Sextius Naso (Neudling 1955: 132), is another variation on the leitmotif of sexual surrender. LC 111/112 playfully contrasts the incestuous woman with the pathic man: uiro eontentam... sololmultus homo, sueeumbereldeseendit (i.e. deeumbit or inclinat 'he is taking the sexual position of the pathic'; see my discussion of c. 112.2 in Chapter 111.5). For the syncopated form multus (from molere 'to fuck') compare eultus (from eolere). 113 A satirical epigram on Moecilia (on the name see my discussion of c. 113.2 in Chapter III.5). Moecilia may be Mucia Tertia, half sister of Metellus Celer, former wife of Pompey, and mistress to Caesar and perhaps also to Mamurra (if there is some truth in c. 57.9). If so, the epigram is aimed at both triumvirs (Deroux 1970:615 and 1973:398). Another target may be Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, who married Mucia 'by 54 at the latest, and probably much

110

earlier' (Wiseman 1969:58). For Cinna, a friend of Caesar's, see poem 95a. The thematic link with poem 112 is polyandry (LC multuslmilia), with the typical alternation of man and woman. Another association may be the fact that Sextius Naso was a follower of Pompey's (Neudling 1955:132). Disjunctive LC 111/113 uiro.... sololduo solebant (notice the pun) stresses contrastive TC monogamy vs. polyandry. This is the last poem in the long sequence dealing with sexual favours (poems 99-113). 114

This satirical epigram is aimed at Mentula, i.e. Mamurra, perhaps one of Mucia's lovers hinted at in poem 113. Both Mucia and Mamurra are sex maniacs. TC 113/114 stressed by synonymous LC milia/tot includes the fertility motif (semenlfructus, fecundumldiues). Whereas Mucia's adultery turns out to be fertile in an unexpected way, Mamurra's estate is not. There may be an association between adulterio andfalso as the latter is a synonym of adulter(inus) 'false'. 115 This epigram on Mamurra is a companion-piece to poem 114. TC 114/115 (Mentula's estate) is emphasized by striking LC (discussed in Chapter 11.2.2), viz. saltu, saltumlsaltu; non falsoluero; MentulalMentula; diues, diuesldiuitiis, Croesum; qui totlqui ... tot; habet, egeatlpossideat; omne, omnia/omnia; prata, aruaiprata, arua; exsuperatlsuperare; sitlsit; modolmoda, ipse/ipsest. Some of these paralieis are mentioned by Deuling 1999:192. Mentula's excesses reveal his bad taste. To Callimachean Catullus 'smali is beautiful'. 116 This 'inverted dedication' (MacLeod 1983:181-186) is linked with the proem. Here, 'the expected compliment turns out to be an attack' (Ferguson 1988:16). Whereas the collection started with a grateful dedication to a friend who admired Catullus' poems, it ends with a threat against Gellius, who disapproved of his Callimachean poetry (Tränkle 1967:103). We may compare Propertius' curse of Cynthia at the end of book III of his Elegies. TC 1/116 is emphasized by LC donoldabis, tibi, tibiltibi, tu/tu, measlmeum, esse/esse, laboriosislstudioso, laborem. There is also a verbal echo of the first poem of book III (discussed in

111

Chapter 1.4): c. 65.15-16 mitto ... tibi carmina Battiadaelc. 116.1-2 tibi ... carmina ... mitte re Battiadae. Invective poems often threaten with sexual aggression. There is an equivalence between satirical poems and phallic weapons. According to Richlin (1983:150), our poet alludes to irrumatio 'forced oral sex' in the phrases tela infesta ... mittere in usque caput and tela ... acta, and to pedicatio in the phrase fixus nostris sc. telis. Compare c. 15.16 caput lacessas; for telum 'penis' see Adams 1987:17ff. The sexual motif connects poem 116 with the previous satirical epigram describing Mentula as a menacing Priapus (synonymous LC mentula ... minaxltela infesta; formal LC potis sit/possem, usque/usque). Both poems have eight lines. The phrase nec ... ualuisse may be intended as an allusive reversal of the traditional farewell formula uale at the end of poetry-books (e.g. Propertius 3.25.9; Ovid Am. 3.15.19; Martial 10.104.18, 11.108.4; Statius Silv. 4.9.53). If so, it emphasizes the final position of poem 116 and the hostile dedication. These are also marked by the ultimate word supplicium, often pointing to death-penalty. As a result the collection ends with the symbolic execution of Catullus' adversary.

2. A SUMMARYOFTHEMAncLINKs

This new way of reading the Carmina demonstrates that the poems are much more connected than was assumed up to now. Catullus' art consists in combining and varying at the same time. While gathering material as heterogenous as possible the poet suggests subtle associations by concatenary arrangement. The following list refining on the similar enumeration given in Chapter 11.1.1 summarizes the major thematic similarities and contrasts between the poems. BooKI 1/2

2/3 3/4 4/5 5/6

gift of the book to a friend request of a gift from a girl friend consolation by Lesbia's sparrow mourning for Lesbia's sparrow last trip of Lesbia's sparrow last voyage of Catullus' yacht the yacht' s renunciation of life the poet' s exhortation to live aversion of intruders by the amorous poet the poet' s intrusion on private love affairs

112

6n 7/8 8/9 9/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32

inquisitive questioning aversion of inquisitive persons fulfilment of love renunciation of love farewell to the poet' s girl friend welcome to the poet' s friend a friend' s travel stories the poet' s travel story recollections of the province departure to the province demand of a service reclaiming of a keepsake loss of a gift from friends demand of a friend's gift demand of a friend' s gift refusal of a friend's gift refusal of a friend's gift demand of a favour punishment for pederasty punishment for hinting at unmanliness defence of virility derision of lack of virility neglect of a young wife protection of a young friend frugality over-production censure of abundance praise of poverty praise of poverty censure of poverty gift of riches theft of a gift rapacious 'storm' ruining 'wind' Furius' poverty the poet's abundance announcement of bitter invectives sharp invective against Caesar invective against Piso and Memmius invective against Caesar and Pompey enrichment in the province departure for the province farewell-poem for a friend arrival-poem of the poet homecoming announcement of arrival

113

32/33 33/34 34/35 35/36 36/37 37/38 38/39 39/40 40/41 41/42 42/43 43/44 44/45 45/46 46/47 47/48 48/49 49/50 50/51 51/52 52/53 53/54 54/55

request to stay at home request to leave the country invective against a catamite hymn sung by chaste boys and girls the poet's song for Diana the friend's poem for Cybele praise of a good poet censure of a bad poet announcement of invectives example of an invective love pain demand of consolation plea for tears of sympathy plea for abstention from laughing invective against a riYal invective against another riYal Ravidus' madness Ameana's madness claiming payment for love reclaiming of love-poems attack on Mamurra's girl praise of the poet's girl attack on an inelegant girl attack on an inelegant orator maleficent coughing beneficent sneezing no departure for the province departure from the province a farewell to Memmius' staff a welcome to Piso's staff hunting for meals hankering for kisses Cicero's protege Juventius Cicero's patronage ironical praise of Cicero sincere praise of Cicero's riYal poetic frenzy erotic frenzy the poet's idleness his enemies' ambitions attack on Vatinius Vatinius' process attack on Vatinius attack on other friends of Caesar rejection of Caesar's love quest for Camerius' love

114

55/56 56/57 57/58a 58a/58b 58b/59 59/60

the poet, his friend and his mistress the poet, his enemy and his mistress love triangle love triangles fellatores fellatrix Lesbia' s unfaithfulness Camerius' unfaithfulness the poet' s quest for love Rufa's search for sex and food Rufa's perverse sex the poet' s unhappy love

BOOKII 60/61 61/62 62/63 63/64

prayer to the god of love prayer to the god of marriage Roman nuptial song Hellenic epithalamium Hellenic epithalamium Hellenic anti-epithalamium unhappy affair of a man and a goddess happy marriage of a man and a goddess

BOOKill 64/65 65/66 66/67 67/68a 68a/68b 68b/69 69/70 70/71 71/72 72/73

marriage of Peleus and Thetis proposal of marriage to a girl dedicatory poem of the following version version of Callimachus' 'Lock of Berenice' faithful lock unfaithful dOOf unfaithful woman loss of a woman refusal of a poem gift of a poem visit of Catullus' mistress flight of Rufus' mistresses refusal of love promise of love denial of infidelity fatal infidelity physical consequence of infidelity psychological consequence of infidelity the poet' s unfaithful mistress the poet' s unfaithful friend

115

73/74 74/75 75/76 76/77 77/78a [for 78b 79/80 80/81 81/82 82/83 83/84 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95a 95a/95b 95b/96

infidelity adultery Gellius' adultery Catullus' fidelity Lesbia's infidelity Catullus' fidelity betrayal by amistress betrayal by a friend sexual triangle double sexual tri angle see Chapter III.5] Lesbius' cunnilingus Gellius' fellatio homosexual friends homo sexual friend homo sexual triangle heterosexual triangle heterosexual triangle heterosexual triangle speaking ill speaking badly no direct link, but cf. 83/85 hate/love hate-Iove for Lesbia rejection of Quintia and praise of Lesbia Lesbia the most lovely Lesbia the most beloved Catullus' pure love Gellius' perverse sex Gellius' incest with mother and sister Gellius' incest with family Gellius' incest Gellius' incestuous son Gellius as a perverted man Gellius as a perverted riyal Catullus' attachment to Lesbia Lesbia' 's attachment to Catullus Lesbia's passion for Catullus Catullus' indifference to Caesar Caesar' s ambiguous sexuality Mamurra's pathic sexuality attack on the poet's enemy Mamurra praise of the poet' s friend Cinna praise of Cinna praise of another poet praise of a friendly poet praise of another friendly poet

116

96/97 97/98 98/99 99/100 100/101 101/102 102/103 1031104 1041105 1051106 1061107 107/108 108/109 109/110

110/111 111/112 112/113 113/114 114/115 115/116

praise of Calvus attaek on Aemilius inveetive against Caesarian Aemilius inveetive against Caesarian Vietius Vietius' foul mouth Catullus' foul mouth sexual favour refused sexual favour offered love gift of a homosexual 'brother' funeral gift to areal brother silenee of the grave silenee about a seeret favour offered favour refused Silo's refusal of sex Catullus' need for love sexual favour offered sexual favour refused sexual favour refused sexual favour offered Lesbius' favour offered Lesbia's favour aeeepted Catullus' happy life Cominius' horrible death Cominius' future death Catullus' future life willing mistress unwilling mistress unwilling Aufillena willing Aufillena monogamous woman polyandrie man polyandrie man polyandrie woman Moeeilia' s fertile adultery Mamurra's unprofitable estate Mamurra's immense estate Mamurra's enormous phallus Mamurra's sexual menaee punishment of Gellius' menaee

This list is to be regarded as a conveniently arranged summary and not as a compiete interpretation of the poems. I do not pretend to have disentangied an thematic links. Even so, I hope that my discovery of Catullan concatenation will encourage other researchers to correct my flndings and to detect

117

many more connections between Catullus' Carmina, which, according to Otis (1964: 102), constitute 'a narrative of emotional experience and dramatically contrasted feelings' .

3. PRINCIPLES OF THE ARRANGEMENT

What are the principles underlying the arrangement of Catullus' Carmina? In Chapter I, it was made dear that our collection is based on the principle of maximal variation. In Chapter II, it was shown that the principle of concatenation is used to prevent the thematic disintegration of the collection. The concatenary reading of Chapter III.l has demonstrated in great detail that Catullus systematically juxtaposes related poems, stressing resemblance and difference by lexical repetition and thematic association. This reading will enable me to specify Catullus' method of variation. Variation consists of similarity and contrast. Thematic similarities are ubiquitous in our collection: e.g. 1-2 gifts, 3-4 trips, 9-11 travel stories, 40-41 mad adversaries, 61-62 nuptial songs, 69-72 copulation, 79-80 oral sex, 88-91 incest, 95-96 praise of poets, 110-114 sexual surrender. Longer sequences are linked by more general themes, e.g. 2-8 Lesbia, 914 Catullus' companions, 15-26 Catullus' adversaries, 23-29 poverty, 2835 travelling, 35-40 literary friends and adversaries, 46-57 political adversaries, 69-79 unfaithfulness, 81-87 love, 93-116 political invectives, 99113 sexual favours or gifts. Yet even in the case of similarity Catullus likes to introduce some contrast. His method is not Archias' wont 'to express the same thing by different words' (Cicero Arch. 18 eandem rem dicere commutatis uerbis). On the contrary, he prefers to repeat similar words and phrases, while varying on contents. A fIrst typical device of thematic variation is the almost systematic alternation ofmale andfemale characters, viz.: 1/2 (friend/mistress) 5/6 (mistress/friend) 6n (friend/mistress) 8/9 (mistress/friend) 17/21 (wife/boy friend) 50/51 (friend/mistress) 51/52 (mistress/poet) 58a158b (mistress/friend) 69nO (enemy/mistress) 71n2 (enemy/mistress) 72n3 (mistress/enemy)

118

74/75 (enemy/mistress) 87/88 (mistress/Gellius) 91/92 (enemy/mistress) 92/93 (mistress/enemy) 103/104 (enemy/mistress) 104/105 (mistress/Mentula) 1061107 (brother/sister) 107/108 (mistress/enemy) 108/109 (enemy/mistress). Sometimes contrast is stressed by lexical variation, e.g. 3/4 dominamI erum, 8/9 amata/amicis, 111/112 uiro contentam ... solo/multus. The method of altemating male and female characters may account for the disjunction of several companion-pieces, e.g. 517, 69171, 70/72, 71173, 83/85, 107/109. A second typical device is the alternation of poems on friends and adversaries (especially good and bad authors) and, consequently, of poems of praise and vituperation, viz.: 12/13 (AsiniuslFabullus) 23/24 (Furius/Juventius) 32/33 (mistressNibennius) 35/36 (CaeciliusNolusius) 37/38 (Egnatius/Comificius) 46/47 (Memmius' staff/Piso's start) 49/50 (Cicero/Calvus) 52/53 (Vatinius/Calvus) 53/54 (Calvus/Caesar's men) 66/67 (faithful locklunfaithful door) 94/95 (Mamurra/Cinna) 96/97 (Calvus/Aemilius) 98/99 (Victius/Juventius) 1061107 (LesbiuslLesbia) 108/109 (Cominius/Lesbia). Even personal friends can be treated as casual adversaries (e.g. Alfenus in poem 30 or Lesbia in poem 76). In this respect, we should not underestimate the part of playful exaggeration in the poet's attacks on his (literary) 'enemies'. Fordyce (1973: 125) aptly observes: 'We do weH to be cautious about taking light-hearted abuse, however coarse and outrageous, at its face value as evidence of animosity. CatuHus' society is not the only one in which convention has permitted friends to call one another names and write scurrilous verses at one another' s expense.' A third device of variation is the alternation of opposite or correlative actions, e.g.: giftIrequest of gift (1/2)

119

consolationlmouming (2/3) renunciationlexhortation (4/5) farewell/we1come (8/9, 30/31) loss/demand (12/13) neglectlprotection (17/21) announcementlimplementation (27/28, 50/51, 65/66) offeringlrefusal (13/14, 68a/68b, 99/100, 102/103, 105/106).

These three devices are reinforced by other kinds of thematic variation. Even the most casual contrasts and oppositions are used to link juxtaposed poems, e.g. life/death (2/3), poverty/wealth (26/27/28), impurity/purity (33/34), weepingllaughing (38/39), fidelity/infidelity (72/73, 75/76), passionlindifference (92/93), willingness/unwillingness (109/110/111). Thematic contrast is often stressed by lexical antonymy, e.g.: 7/8 noxlsoles 8/9 miserlbeati 12/13 inuenusta/uenuste 13/14 bonamlmala 24/25 dedisses/remitte 30/31 miserumllaetus 33/34 pater/mater 34/35 potens/impotente 38/39 lacrimis/renidet 70/71 rapida/tarda 71/72 utrumque!solum 98/99 putide/mellite 99/10011 0 1 misero/jelixlmiser 10811091110 inimica/amicitiae/inimica 109/110 sincere dicat/mentita ... es.

Our versatile poet displays his virtuosity by putting repeated words in different metrical positions, e.g. Gellius' name in poems 88, 89, 90, 91; Mentula's name in poems 114 and 115; c. 97.12/98.4 culum lingere/culos ... lingere). In book III, he often switches words from hexameter to pentameter, and vice versa, e.g.: 69.3/70.2 non si 72.8/73.1 bene uelle 86.4,5/87.1,3 nulla ... nulla 86.3,4/87.1,3 nulla 87.2,4 quantum ... quanta/88.4,5 quantum ... quantum 94.2 ipsa/95.7 ipsam 100.4/101.9 fraternumlfraterno.

Catullus has been called a doctus poeta 'a sophisticated poet' by Tibullus

120

3.6.41, Ovid Am. 3.9.62, Martial 1.61, 8.73, 14.152, and Terentius Maurus 2562. He does not hesitate to link poems in an artful or even artificial way. For instance, the erotic poem 83 and the satirical poem 84, which are opposites as to subject matter and genre, are juxtaposed because they both contain the motif of speaking badly; the similarity is stressed by lexical concatenation dicit/dicebat, (ob )loquitur/esse locutum. Subsidiary links may be established by using formal repetitions without real thematic function, e.g.: 112 cui dono/cui ... dare 11112 trecentos/trecentos 22/23 nimirum/nec mirum 38/39/40 quid Zubet/qui Zubet/qua Zubet 43/44 0/0 58a/58b illalille 72/73 bene uellelbene uelle 74/75 ipsam/ipsa 80/81 nescio quid/nescis quid 86/87 nulla, nullalnulla, nulla 87/88 quantum/quantum 94/95 ipsalipsam 1011102 nequicquam/quicquam

Concatenation may be stressed by syntactical parallelism, e.g. 12/13 est enim ... differtus puer ... Jacetiarum/nam ... plenus sacculus est aranearum and 43.3/44.6/45.2 me putat esse/ten ... narrat esse/te esse ... autumant, and even by phonic similarities, e.g. 30/31 paeniteat/Paene, 32/33 Joras abire/in oras itis, 35/36 incohata/cacata, creata, 47/48 uocationeslosculationis, 74/75 perdepsuit ipsam/perdidit ipsa, 82/83 multo quod carius illi est/quae multo acrior est res, 97/98 posse putemus/pote putide. This playful use of concatenation risks to become an ars gratia artis, an art for art's sake of a poets' poet. Even so the numerous unexpected links and associations between the poems must have procured a titillating intellectual pleasure to the Roman connoisseur.

4. CONCENTRIC COMPOSmON

Dettmer's attempt to discern ring composition in Catullus' corpus was rejected in Chapter 1.5.4. In my view, lexical repetition between poems as described in Chapter 11.2.3 may help us to demonstrate symmetrical patterns in a more objective and conclusive way.

121

Three simple mIes may avoid arbitrariness in identifying concentric composition: (a) Concentric composition results from symmetrical arrangement of poems around a central pivot or omphalos. (b) There must be a one-to-one correspondence between the surrounding poems. (c) The correspondence between each pair of poems must be signalied lexically and thematically. My discussion of the phenomenon will start with book m since the relative shortness of the epigrams facilitates the recognition of verbal similarities. 4.1 POEMS 76-92

There is a ftrst striking example of concentric composition in book m where sixteen poems are arranged around the omphalos of poem 84. This poem is the longest of the sequence. In most cases the symmetry is emphasized by lexical similarities in the very ftrst line(s) of each pair of linked poems. More often than not the links involve contrasting uses of similar words and phrases: poems 82/86 QuintilQuintia (brother and sister); 81/87 Nemone ... tanto potuit ... homolNulla potest mulier tanturn (man and wife); 80/88 Quid dicam, GellilQuidfacit is, Gelli (I and him); 79/89 Lesbius est ... quid ni?IGellius est ... quid ni? (Lesbius and Gellius); 78/90 coniunx/coniugio (cognate words); 77/91 mihi ... credite amicelNon ... sperabam te mihifidum ... in ... amore fore (conftdence and distrust; notice that credite at c. 77.1 is echoed by credideram at c. 91.7). The lexicallinks between poems 83/85 sentislsentio and 76/92 bene dicereldicit ... male are less apparent because they do not occur in the ftrst lines (but cf. benefacta at c. 76.1). The following diagram visualizes the concentric patterning of the sequence: 76 bene ... dicere 77 mihi ... credite amice 78 coniunx 79 Lesbius ... quid ni 80 Quid ... Ge/li 81 Nemone ... tanto potuit ... homo 82 Quinti 83 sentis 840MPHALOS 85 sentio 86 Quintia

122

87 Nulla potest mulier tantum 88 Quid ... Gelli 89 Gellius ... quid ni 90 coniugio 91 mihi fidum in ... amore, credideram 92 dicit ... male

The symmetry is so conspicuous that any coincidence may be exc1uded. The correspondence is enhanced by several other lexicallinks, e.g. 77/91 magno/magnus, misero/misero, 78/90 jilius/gnato, gnatus, monstret 'he teaches' Idiscat 'he leams', 79/89 cumlcum, reppererit/inuenies, 80/88 uorare/uoret, neseio quid/ecquid scis, 81/87 diligere/amata(m), 82/86 multo/multis, eripere/surripuit, 83/85 non ... sed ... et/ne-seio sed ... et. My hypothesis may be tested by examining thematic links between corresponding poems. The results are no less impressive: 76 Catullus' malediction of Lesbia 77 Catullus' unfaithful friend 78 incest between nephew and aunt 79 incest between Lesbius and his sister 80 perverse sex by day 81 friend more loved than any man 82 Catullus' rival Quintius 83 Lesbia' s contradictory feelings 840MPHALOS

85 Catullus' contradictory feelings 86 Lesbia's rival Quintia 87 mistress more loved than any woman 88 perverse sex by night 89 incest between Gellius and his mother and sister 90 incest between son and mother 91 Catullus' unfaithful friend 92 Lesbia' s malediction of Catullus

Both schemes force us to reexamine the position of fragment 78b. Since there is no corresponding poem in our concentric composition, it seems to be misplaced. We may link it with c. 77 (as J.J. Scaliger did long ago) or with c. 82 (see my discussion in Chapter III.5). 4.2 POEMS 92-107

We discover a second case of concentric composition by taking c. 99 (again the longest poem of the sequence) as the omphalos. The symmetri-

123

cal arrangement is clearly marked by both corresponding pairs of distichs 93-94 and 105-106. Apparently, the last distich of c. 95 is a poem on its own. The division has already been made by Achilles Statius (see my discussion of poems 95a and b in Chapter 111.5). The following diagrarn visualizes the most obvious lexicallinks. 92 Lesbia mi ... nec ... umquam, dispeream, dicit

93 nil ... uelle placere 94 Mentula moechatur 95a mei Cinnae, uno 95b mihi, sint cordi, gaudeat, tumido 96 Si quicquam mutis 97 Non ... quicquam, multas, traditur 98 quod ... dicitur 990MPHALOS

100 quod dicitur 101 nequicquam, Multas, tradita sunt 102 Si quicquam tacito 103 mihi, te delectant, saeuus 104 meae uitae, ambobus 105 Mentula conatur 106 se uendere discupere 107 umquam ... Lesbia mi, uiuit, dicere

This sequence displays more sophisticated forms of lexical concentric composition. Besides litera! links (97/101, 981100) and synonymous connections (95b1103 tumido/saeuus 'intemperate, impetuous', sint cordi, gaudeat/delectant, 9611 02 mutis/tacito) there are antonymous correspondences (92/107 nec umquamlumquam, dispereamluiuit, 931106 Nil uelle placere/se uendere discupere 'to decline/offer one's sexual services', 941105 moechatur 'he is a pathic'/conatur scandere 'he tries active sex', legit 'gathers' leiciunt 'expel', 95a/104 uno/ambobus). Notice also the phonic links 94/105 moechaturlconatur and 95a/104 mei ... Cinnae/meae uitae. There may be abilingual pun 95bl103 Antimacho (Greek) 'resisting' lindomitus 'unyielding'. Thematicallinks are summarized in the following diagrarn: 92 Lesbia's apparent hate 93 sexual unwillingness 94 Mentula 95a immortality of friend's poetry

124

95b Antimachus' impetuosity 96 message to a mute (dead) woman 97 impurity 98 pathic Victius 990MPHALOS

100 pathic Caelius 101 ritual purification 102 message to a mute man 103 Silo's impetuosity 104 Catullus' life and love 105 Mentula 106 sexual venality 107 Lesbia's renewed love

Notice that both omphalos poems 84 and 99 show obvious contrast with the surrounding poems. Formally, they are the longest of their sequences; thematically, they strike a different note (the satirical epigrarn on Arrius interrupts aseries of erotic poems while the erotic Juventius poem interrupts aseries of satirical poems). 4.3 POEMS 1-36

We discover a long sequence of concentric poems in the fIrst part of book I by taking poem 17 (with its unique Priapean metre) as the omphalos. 1 dono, lepidum, cartis 2 puellae, ardor 3 puellae, matrem, dominam, iter, 0, 0 4 esse cognitissima, dextera 5 mea, amemus, redire 6 quidquid (habes), lecti 7 hominum, amores, mala 8 uides, uideberis, perditum, perfer 9 Verani, amicis, uisam, 0, quantum 10 ueteris 11 Furi, horribiles, trecentos 12 manu, inepte, mihi remitte, sudaria Saetaba 13 amores, dabo, donarunt 14 mala, impiorum, bene ac beate, uenena, manus 15 in re, unum, puto 16 pedicabo, irrumabo, Aureli, pudicum, pueris 170MPHALOS

21 pedicare, irrumatus, Aureli, pudico, puer 22 in ... re, unus, puto, putemus

125

23 mala, impia, bene ac beate, ueneni, manibus

24 amari, dedisses

25 manus, inepte, remitte mihi, sudarium Saetabum 26 Furi, horribilem, ducentos 27 uetuli 28 Verani, amicos, 0, quantum 29 uidere, uidebis, perdidistis,feres 30 hominum, amorem, malis 31 quidquid (est domi), lecto 32 Amabo, mea, abire 33 notae sunt, dextra 34 puellae, 0, mater, domina, iter 35 puella, ignes 36 daturum, lepide, non illepidum, carta

In several cases a word of the first line(s) of one poem is repeated in the corresponding poem, e.g. 1/36 lepidumllepide, 2/35 puellae/puella, 3/34 010, 5/32 meaJmea, 9/28 VeranWerani, 11/26 Furi/Furi, 12/25 manulmanusque, 16/21 AurelilAureli. These hints may help the reader to detect concentric composition. There are also synonymous and antonymous connections: 2/35 nitentilcandida, 3/34 male ... opera/bona ... ope, 4/33 litusloras, nobilemlnotae, 6/31 cubilellecto, 9/28 uisamluideo, 11/26 fromlto 'every corner of the world', 12/25 tollislinuolasti, 13/24 plenus sacculus est aranearwn/cui neque seruus est neque arca, 14/23 non est mi male, sed bene ac beatelnon tibi sit bene ac beate?, 15/22 miserumlbeatus, 16/21 irrumaboltangam ... irrumatione. Thematic links are summarized in the following diagram: 1 Catullus' fine book 2 Catullus' amorous girl-friend 3 dirge 4 Catullus' happy return 5 invitation to love 6 bed scene 7 Lesbia's love 8 Catullus' patience 9 happy return of a friend 10 V arus' mistress 11 Furius and Aurelius 12 theft of keepsakes 13 Catullus' poverty 14 refusal of a present 15 Aurelius' back

126

16 sexual threat against Aurelius and Furius 170MPHALOS

21 sexual threat against Aurelius 22 Suffenus' back 23 refusal of a loan 24 Furius' poverty 25 theft of keepsakes 26 Furius 27 Caesar' s mistress 28 unhappy return of two friends 29 Caesar's patience 30 Alfenus' treason 31 bed longed for 32 invitation to love 33 exile of Vibennius & Son 34 hymn 35 Caecilius' amorous girl-friend 36 Volusius' bad book Notice that the omphalos poem 17 shows fonnal and thematic eontrast with the other poems of the sequenee by its unusual metre and eontents. Coneentrie eomposition in Catullus' Carmina deserves further investigation. Some questions remain unanswered: are there other eoneentrie sequenees? how did Roman readers pereeive the eorrespondenees? what was the exaet funetion of the technique? I hope that other researehers will elucidate these and other problems. Even so the phenomenon, which eonfirms the eoneatenary reading of the eollection, is a eomplementary proof that the arrangement of the poems is the work of the poet himself. 4.4 INTERNAL ANNvLAR COMPOSmON

Apparently, eoneentrie eomposition between poems is mirrored by symmetrieal eomposition within separate poems. The technique has alternately been ealled Einschachtelung or Ringkomposition, eoneentrie ring or Chinese box strueture, ring-eomposition or ring-strueture (Thomson 1961:52, 1997:387; Wiseman 1974:60ff.). For clarity's sake, I propose to eall it internal annular eomposition. Poem 16 is a striking example: 1 Pedicabo ego uos et irrumabo 3 putastis 4 me ... parum pudicum (i.e. impudicum 'pathic') 4/8 molliculi

127

9 possunt 11 nequeunt 11 duros 13 male me marem (Le. effeminatum 'unmanly, pathic') 13 putatis 14 pedieabo ego uos et irrumabo Annular composition may demonstrate the unity of poem 14 (discussed in Chapter I.2.2): 1 Ni (Le. si non) 30dissem 4 quid feci ego quidue sum loeutus 5 poetis 6mala 9 munus dat tibi 10 non ... mi 11 dispereunt 14 die 15 dierum 14 periret 16 non... tibi 20 te ... remunerabor 22 malum 23 poetae 24 ineptiarum (Le.faetorum dietorumue ineptorum, cf. OLD) 26 horrebitis 24-26 si ... non Examples may be multiplied. In fact, most poems have a ring-like structure marked by lexical repetition. The following list exemplifies EIder' s obiter dictum (1966:149n20): 'It is Catullus' wont, I believe, to tie together the beginning and end of a poem'. In many cases, there is also a lexicallink (literal or synonymous) with the central part of the poem, which is mentioned between braces { }.

1 2 3 4 5 6

libellum - (eartis) - libelli meae puellae - (desiderio meo) - puellae Lugete - flendo; passer, passer - passe rem, passer; meae puellae, meae puellae - (puella) - meae puellae; oeulis - oeelli (Thomson 1997:208) fuisse - (fuisse) - fuere; maybe hospites - gemelle Castor et gemelle Castoris (see my commentary in Chapter 11.2.4) omnes - (milia multa) - tantum delicias tuas - tuos amores; illepidae - lepido; dieere - (nihil taeere) die

128

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 48

quot, quam magnus numerus - {quam multa} - pernumerare Catulle - {Catullus} - Catulle omnibus - quantum non sane illepidum neque inuenustum - insulsa male et molesta (antonymous) extremos - {ultimos} - ultimi lintea - {linteum} - sudaria mi Fabulle - {uenuste noster} - Fabulle; di - {Veneres Cupidinesque} - deos ni - {si, si} - si ... non peto pudentem - puto pudenter (punning); animo tuo cupisti - {uis} te ... mens ... impulerit Pedicabo ego uos et irrumabo - pedicabo ego uos et irrumabo ponte - {de tuo ... ponte} - de tuo ponte; supinus - {praecipitem} supinum esuritionum - esurire Suffenus - {Suffenus} - Suffenum Furi - Furi cui neque seruus est neque arca - {huic neque seruus est neque arca} nec seruum ... ille habet neque arcam mollior - mollicellas; turbida ... procella - uesaniente uento flatus - uentum amariores - merus (synonyms according to Ellis 1876:70) comites - amicos Quis hoc potest uidere, quis potest pati - {haec uidebis etferes} - quid hic potest; uorax - {uorax} - deuorare immemor - meminerunt, meminit; perfide - {fidemj - Fides Sirmio - Sirmio; liquentibus stagnis - lacus undae iube - {iusseris} - iubeto pater - {pater} - patris;fili - {filius} - fili integri - saneta Caecilio - Caecilio Annales Volusi, cacata carta - annales Volusi, cacata carta uos - {uobis, uobis} - tu magis magis - {minimum} - paulum dentes - {dentes} - dentem, dens te ... mens ... agit - {uis} -uoluisti; meos - meos puella - {puella} - puella, poposcit - rogare reddituram - {redde, redde} - redde; potestis - {potes, potest} potestis bello - bellam tussim - {tussis} - tussim Acmen Septimius - {Acme ... Septimille} - Septimius ... Acmen, Septimio ... Acme refert - reportant basiare - {basiem} - osculationis

129

49 quot sunt - {quot} - omnium, omnium, omnium 50 lusimus in ... tabellis - {scribens uersiculos, ludebat numero} - poema feci 51 mi ... esse - rest ... mi} - tibi est (see Chapter 111.5 on c. 51.13-16) 52 Quid est, Catulle? quid moraris emori? - quid est, Catulle? quid moraris emori 53 mirijice - admirans 54 caput - imperator (punning on caput 'chief') 55 si forte non molestum est - si uis; demonstres ubi sint tuae tenebrae crede luci 56 rem - {res} - rigida cecidi (for res 'sexual act' see my commentary on poem 56 in Chapter m.1) 57 Pulcre conuenit improbis cinaedis - {morbosi pariter} - pulcre conuenit improbis cinaedis 58a Lesbia - {Lesbia} - fellat (punning on Lesbia 'fellatrix' , cf. my commentary on poem 58a in Chapter m.1) 58b require - quaeritando 59 fellat - semiraso (see my commentary on poem 59) 60 leaena - {mente dura} - fero corde 61 uirginem - {uirgines, uirgines, uirgo} - uirgines 62 uirgo - {uirgo, uirgo} - uirgo 63 citato - {citata, citatis, citatis} - incitatos; adiit '" loca - {petentes ... loca} - loca ... adiit; deae - {deae} - dea ... dea ... dea;furenti - {furor, furoris} - furor 64 quondam - quondam; auertere - auertere; diua - deo rum; imbuit - est imbuta; luce - lumine (Traill 1980-1981:234) 65 uirginibus - uirginis 66 sidera - {sidus, sidera} - sidera; lumina, lumine - {lumina} luminibus 67 dicunt, die - {dicitur, dicere, dicere, dicitur, dicit, dixerit} - dicentem, diximus, dicere 68a Quod mihi - quod tibi; restituam - statuas; scriptorum - {scribis} scriptorum; mens - mente; petis - petenti 68b Non possum - potui; Allius - {Alli, Allius} - Alli; quantis ... officiis multis ... officiis; ne - ne; nomine - {nomen} - nomen; domum ... dominam - domus ... et domina 69 Noli admirari - {neque mirum} - admirari desine; quare - quare, cur 70 dicit mulier - {dicit} - mulier ... dicit 71 podagra - {malum} - podagra 72 uelle - uelle 73 quoquam - {aliquem} - nemo 74 patruum - {patruum} - patruum, patruum; diceret aut faceret - {fecit} uerbum non faciet 75 tua culpa - omnia [sc. pessima] facias 76 pium - {puriter} - pietate; diuum - {di} - di 77 amice - amicitiae

130

78 Gallus - {Gallus} - Gallus; alterius - {alterius} - adulterium; eoniunx - maritum 79 puleer - puleer; eum ... gente Catulle - eum gente Catullum 80 labella - labra; dieam - {susurrat} - clamant 81 quem tu diligere inciperes - quem tu praeponere ... audes 83 dicit - {obloquitur} - loquitur; haee ... est - hoe est 84 Arrius - Arrius 85 et - et (linking two verbs) 86 formosa est - {formosa} - formosa est 87 Nulla - nulla; amatam - {amata} - amore; quantum ... mea est - quanta ... mea est 88 abieetis - {suscipiat, suscipit} - demisso 89 tenuis - {macer} - macer; quid - {quare} - quare 90 Naseatur - {gignatur, gnato} - gnatus 91 Non ... sperabam ... fore - non ... eredideram ... esse 92 dispeream nisi amat - dispeream nisi amo 95a edita - morientur (antonymous); messem, hiemem (i.e. annum) annales; Zmyma - Zmyma, Zmyma 95b Parua - tumido (antonymous); sint eordi - gaudeat 96 nostro dolore - {flemus} - dolori 97 putaui - putemus; eulum - {eulus} - eulum 98 Vieti - Vieti; quod - quod 99 Surripui - {demere} - surripiam; suauiolum dulci dulcius {suauiolum tristi tristius} - basia; ambrosia - ambrosia 100 Caelius - {Caeli} - Caeli 101 Multas - {multa} - multum;frater - {frater} - fraterno, frater; ad inferias - ad inferias (Ferguson 1988:39); munere - munere 102 tacito - Arpoeratem 103 esto ... saeuus et indomitus - esse ... saeuus et indomitus 104 potuisse - {potui} - possem 105 seandere - praecipitem (antonymous) 106 praeeonem - uendere 107 optanti - optandus; eupido - {eupido} - eupido 108 eana - atro (antonymous) 109 uita - uita; amorem - amicitiae; perpetuum - {tota uita} - aetemum 11 0 instituunt - prostituit (punning) 111 solo - euiuis 112 Multus homo ... es - {multus homo} - multus es; Naso - Naso 113 duo - duo 114 saltu - saltum; diues - diues; habet - egeat 115 Mentula - mentula; sunt - sunt 116 tibi ... mittere - {mittere} - tu dabis Annular composition within poems may be used to demonstrate the disputed unity of poems 2a and b, 14a and b, 51, 71, 76, and the separation of poems 68 and 95 (discussed in the next seetion).

131

Catullus is a master in variation, who loves repeating without repeating himself. 5. TOWARDSANEWEomoNoFCATUlLUS

The principle of concatenation may be used to support or to correct the reading of the received text. External concentric and internal annular composition may serve the same purpose. This section tries to elucidate more than sixty passages in this way. In fact, my new approach calls for a new edition of Catullus' poems. This section should not be regarded as aseries of complementary 'proofs' of the principle of concatenation. Petitio principii or circular argumentation seems inevitable if alternative readings based on hypothetical links are being used to demonstrate the existence of the phenomenon. Therefore these proposals are intended for those readers who have been convinced by the copious evidence adduced in the preceding sections of this chapter and are ready to consider the consequences of concatenation on textual criticism.

SIGLA OF THE PruNCIPAL CODICES

V: 0: G: G2: R: R2 :

Veronensis (lost archetype of 0, G, and R) Oxoniensis (Bodleianus Canonicianus dass. lat. 30) Germanensis (Pari sinus 14137) manus recentior (see Thomson 1997:36) Romanus (Vaticanus Ottobonianus lat. 1829) manus recentior (= Coluccio Salutati 1331-1406, see Thomson 1997:33ff.)

C. 1.9 Most editors print qualecumque,· quod, patrona uirgo. Bergk's 'uncouth conjecture' (Clausen 1976:38n2) qualecumque quidem est, patroni ut ergo, defended by Fordyce (1961) and retained by Goodwin (2000), should be rejected (for a full argumentation see Thomson 1997:199). The mss. reading patrona uirgo 'virgin patron' is confirmed by double synonymous LC with poem 2, viz. c. 1.9 patrona/2.9 ipsa 'mistress', and c. 1.9 uirgo/2.11 puellae 'virgin, unmarried woman'. Three considerations argue against the traditional supplement (Fordyce 1973:87, Thomson 1997:199):

132

(a) 0 normally denotes strong emotion; (b) the stop after qualecumque gives a very harsh enjambment; (c) the heavy pause after the fourth syllable is unparalleled in Catullus' hendecasyllabics. Achilles Statius' conjecture est (also proposed by Baehrens 1876:11.72 and Williams, quoted by Wiseman 1979:166) meets the three objections. The phrase qualecumque ... est may be defended by Catullus' habit of repeating and varying phrases within the same poem (see Chapter III.4.4), viz. esse aliquid putare 'to value' - qualecumque... est 'for what it's worth'. For paralieis see Ovid Pont. 3.4.6 quale tamen cumque est and Statius praej. Gd 2 Haec qualiacumque sunt (for other examples see om s.v.). Phaedrus' hoc qualecumque est Musa quod ludit mea (Appendix Perrotina 2.1) seems to be an iambic variation: hoc qualecumque est = qualecumque quod est; Musa ... mea = patrona uirgo. I propose to read qualecumque quod , patrona uirgo, with quod as a postponed relative metri causa (compare, e.g., c. 51.5 misero quod). C.2.8

Battista Guarino changed the mss. reading ut cum ... acquiescet into ut tum ... acquiescat (adopted by Schwabe, Mynors, Lafaye, and Thomson). But internal annular composition seems to protect cum (corresponding with cum in line 5). We may either delete ut (possibly amisreading of ul', the compendium of uel introducing a variant reading, e.g. c. 22.15 in 0) or interpret ut cum as a reinforced cum (compare utpote cum), Le. 'as one may expect when'. In both cases we get a parallel construction between two pseudo-divine attributes in a mock hymn: Passer, deliciae meae puellae (Le. quo delectatur mea puella) cum ... lubet iocari et solaciolum sui doloris (Le. quo ea solabitur dolorem suum) credo (ut) cum grauis acquiescet ardor

'You sparrow, in which my girl is taking pleasure now that she likes to play some game ... and by which she will soothe her pain somewhat I suppose when her violent passion will settle down' The parallelism is confirmed by line 9 tecum ludere sicut ipsa possem 'if only I could play with you as she does', which mirrors lines 2-6, and line 10 et tristis animi leuare curas 'and relieve my bitter heartaches', which mirrors lines 7-8 (Williams 1968:142). By interpreting the apposition solaciolum sui doloris as quo ea solabitur

133

dolorem suum we may retain the reflexive sense of sui and the future tense of acquiescet (Le. sedabitur, Birt 1904:426). The latter causes the future sense of the apposition. For a similar case see c. 11.1 Furi et Aureli, comites Catulli (Le. qui comitabimini Catullum) sive (is) penetrabit.

C. 2.11-13 Muret was right to reunite 'fragment' 2b and poem 2 separated by Battista Guarino (see Gaisser 1993:361n46; cf. Chapter 1.2.1). Internal annular composition confirms the unity of 2a and 2b: c. 2.1 Passer - 2.12 aureolum malum (Le. malum passerinum 'sparrow-quince'); c. 2.1 puellae - 2.11 puellae. The sexual overtone of in sinu tenere at line 2 prepares for zonam soluit at line 13. There is also LC 1/2 quod/quod, uirgo/puellae 'virgin'. The echo 2/3 tam ... quam... puellae/tam ... quam puella is reinforced by the formal antonymous link between the endings of both poems tam [grat jum ... mihi ... jerunt/tam [belljum mihi abstulistis. C. 2.13 V' s negatam is adopted by Lenchantin de Gubernatis, Bardon, and Eisenhut while other editors prefer ligatam (Priscianus Inst. 1.22). The lectio difficilior (Fordyce 1973:92) is confirmed by simple LC with c. 3.12 negant, and disjunctive LC with c. 4.6 negat and 4.7 negare. For negare 'to refuse one's sexual favours' see om s.v. (e.g. Propertius 2.32.60 non potuit magno ... negare Ioui 'she could not resist mighty Jove'). The phrase zonam ... negatam is paralleled by Claudian Fese. 1.37-38 cingulum jorti negatum solueret Herculi 'she loosed the girdle refused to strong Hercules' . C. 3.12 O's marginal variant illuc is preferable to V's illud, defended by Zicm (1978: 123ff) and adopted by Mynors, since: (a) it is paralleled by illuc unde at c. 14.22; (b) the sequence ofpoems 2-26 has not a single hendecasyllabic line with a trochaic first foot (Skutsch 1969); (c) there is an annular link with illuc at line 9. C. 12.9 We should adopt Passerat's reading differtus (0 dissertus, most other mss. disertus). The conjecture is confirmed by formal LC 12/13 est enim leporum differtus puerlnam tui Catulli plenus sacculus where plenus and differtus are synonyms.

134

C.14.14

Thomson (1997:109) wrongly puts a comma after continuo. Antonymous LC 13114 paucis diebus 'in a few days' !continuo die 'on the next day' proves that continuo is not to be taken as an adverb, but as an adjective qualifying die (Fordyce 1973:137).

C. 14.16 We should read G's salse 'you witty fellow' (Thomson 1997:243) instead of O'sfalse, adopted by Mynors, but rejected by Fordyce (1973:137). The reading is confmned by double LC with c. 12,4 salsum and c. 13.5 sale (a cognate word). C. 14.24-26 We should reunite poem 14a and 'fragment' 14b separated by Battista Guarino. The connection (discussed in Chapter 1.2.2) is reinforced by synonymous LC 14115 horribilem, horrebitislueremur, metuo, and disjunctive LC 12114 inepte/ineptiarum, manu/manus, non ... mouet/non... admovere and 141161ectores eritis/legistis. Internal annular composition as discussed in Chapter III,4,4 demonstrates the unity of poem 14. C. 21.9 As early as the fifteenth century copyists and editors have changed V's atque ipsi into atqui si, atqui id si or atque id si. Ellis (1904) and Wiman (1963:29) defend the correction atqui id si. Fonnal disjunctive LC with c. 23.21 atque id seems to seeure the correction atque id si. C. 22.13123.13 Mynors' divergent spelling aut si quid/aut siquid should be uniformized in this striking instance of fonnal LC. C. 22.13 Pontanus' conjecture tritius 'more sophisticated' (defended by Putnam 1968) instead ofthe mss. reading tristius may be supported by LC with c. 23.22 teras.

C. 24.9 G' s haec (other mss. hoc; for the frequent confusion between the abbreviated forms see Thomson 1997:501) may be defended by formal LC 23/24 haec tu/haec tu. The plural 'these things' refers to seruus and arm taken together as objects.

135

C. 25.1,4 The interpretation of mss. TaUe as a form of the name Thallus is confmned by bilingual LC with c. 24.1 flosculus translating Gr. tlwllos 'blossom'. The spelling without h paralleled by, e.g., Traicam, Tespiae, and Phaetontis should not be altered (Schuster 1954:X, 17). C. 25.5 o has mulier aries, G mulier alios. With Bardon (1970, 1973) I adopt Haupt's reading cum diua mulierarios ostendit oscitantes, i.e. 'when their goddess exposed inattentive womanizers [sc. to your rapacious gale]'. For the synizesis of mulierarios compare Camerium at c. 55.10 and conubium at c. 62.57. For mulierarius 'womanizer, lady-killer' see Julius Capitolinus Clodius Albinus 11.7 mulierarius inter primos amatores 'one of the foremost lovers of women'; SchoL Hor. Gloss. r, Sat. 2.5.75 scortator: mulierarius; Isidorus Orig. 10.107 jemeUarius, jeminis deditus, quem antiqui mulierarium appellabant 'jemellarius, a man fond of women, called mulierarius by the ancients'. The goddess of womanizers is Venus, here no doubt some beautiful woman seen as the goddess' hypostasis (compare om s.v. uenus 'woman inspiring love'). Lesbia, called mea diua at c. 68b.70, may be intended. Clodia's devotion to Venus was wellknown: Cicero (Caei. 52) jokingly mentions a Venus spoliatrix, astatue covered with her lovers' gifts. The interpretation of ostendere as 'to expose to [the wind]' is paralleled by Virgil G. 2.261 Aquiloni ostendere glaebas 'expose the land to the North wind', and confirmed by synonymous LC with c. 26.1-2 non ad flatus... opposita est 'has not been exposed to the blasts' (cf. om s. v . oppono). I propose to take RG2 ostendit (GO ostendet) as ind. perf. like

inuolasti.

The pathic Thallus, who is indifferent to women, takes bis chance when heterosexual guests (especially Catullus) are fascinated by Lesbia's divine beauty. Koenen (1977) discusses the sympotic situation recalling Hipponaxjr. 115-116 (West).

C. 26.1 We should read O's uestra instead of nostra (other mss.) since Furius' poverty is also ridiculed in the preceding poems 23 and 24 linked by TC. C. 29.23 Haupt's conjecture 0 piissimei (mss. opulentissime), adopted by Quinn (1973), is now supported by antonymous LC with c. 30.4 impia. The corruption may stern from a normalization of the rare form piissim[eji into pientissim[eji; afterwards 0 pientissimi was misread as opulentissimi.

136

Catullus uses pius for filial love in c. 39.4 pii ... fili. Here he ridicules the familial loyalty (pietas) of the fonner adversaries Julius .caesar and Pompey, which was sealed by the marriage of the latter with Caesar's daughter Julia in 59 B.C. (Kroll 1980:56, Deroux 1970:625n3). The (im)piety between the father-in-Iaw Caesar and the son-in-Iaw Pompey is a leitmotif in Lucan's Bellum Ciuile, e.g. 6.305 cum genero pugnasse pio 'to have fought with his pious son-in-Iaw', 8.316 nil socerum jecisse pie 'the father-in-Iaw showed no piety', 8.783 socer impius 'the impious father-in-Iaw', 7.196 impia concurrunt Pompei et Caesaris arma 'the armies of Pompey and Caesar engage into impious combat'. For the use of pius in Roman politics compare the surname Pius adopted by Pompey' s son Sextus in order to demonstrate his filial love, and the surnames of Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius, avenger of his father, and Lucius Antonius Pietas, son of Caesar' s si ster Julia. Cicero (Phil. 13.43), using piissimus in the same derogatory way as Catullus, condemns the vulgar superlative fonn: Tu porro ne pios quidem, sed piissimos quaeris et quod uerbum omnino nullum in lingua Latina est, id propter tuam divinam pietatem nouum inducis 'Moreover, you do not seek the 'loyal', but the 'loyalest' , and this word unheard-of in Latin is introduced as a neologism by your divine loyalty.' Since Cicero himself seems to have employed the vulgar fonn in his letters (G.L. 5.154 Keil), Catullus may have used it in an invective.

C. 32.1 Editors have proposed a piethora of emendations of O's ipsi illa and G's ipsi thila. Friedrich (1908:184-185) preferred ipsicilla 'my little mistress', which occurs both in R as emended by R 2, and in the marginal title of G Ad Ipsicillam. This reading is supported by simple LC with c. 31.5 ipse and c. 31.12 erD 'master'. There is also disjunctive LC with c. 34.9 domina 'mistress'. Moreover c. 30.2 tui dulcis amiculi 'your dear little friend' (disjunctive LC) is an exact counterpart of mea dulcis ipsicilla 'my dear little mistress'. The typical alternation of man and woman is paralleled by c. 3.7 ipsam/4.19 erum. The erotic address 'mistress' matches with the note of simulated submission struck in iube, iusseris, iubeto (Syndikus 1984:191). The hapax ipsicilla is a regular hypocoristic fonn of ipsa (Morgan 1974, Gratwick 1991a). The enlarged diminutive suffix -cill- (for which see Stolz 1894:584 and OLD s.v.) is weIl attested: e.g. penicillus, caesticillus, uerticillus, anicilla, corcillum, crepitacillum, oscillum, and Catullus' own oricilla, a diminutive of auris (c. 25.2). A similar fonnation is issula 'darling mistress' (Plautus Cist. 450), diminutive fonn of issa, i.e. ipsa (cf. c. 2.9).

137

C. 38.7/39.14/40.6 The orthography of quid lubet, qui lubet (Mynors quilubet), and qua lubet (Mynors qualubet) in three eonseeutive poems linked up by LC should be uniformized. C. 41.8 Fröhlieh's 'beautiful restoration' (Housman 1905:122) aes instead of V's et gains point if we realize that decoctor means qui decoquit, i.e. qui conflat aes (Ellis 1876:113). Mamurra and his mistress are similar eharaeters: they have got only 'imaginary bronze' , namely debts and a mirror. The eonjecture is supported by LC with e. 42.13 assis. Both words were linked by ancient etymologists (e.g. Varro L. 5.169 as ab aere 'as derives from aes'). C. 42.4 Avanzi's eonjecture nostra for V's uestra may be defended by simple LC with e. 43.7 nostra and disjunetive LC with e. 44.1 noster. C. 51.13-16 This 'moralizing soliloquy' (Fordyee 1973:219) is not a displaeed fragment, but the final stanza of poem 51. The unity of the poem is eonfmned by internal annular composition (see Chapter 111. 4.4), viz. par ... deo - {misero} - beatas (for par deo 'godlike in happiness' see Thomson 1997:327), and mi esse - fest mi} - tibi est. The coda recapitulates both the exeessive exaltation in the fIrst stanza (eompare sifas est superare with exsultas nimium) and the self-destruetion in the following stanzas (eompare omnis eripit sensus ... nihil est super . .. teguntur lumina nocte with perdidit and Sappho 31 Voigt tethnaken 'to die'). C. 54 Muret declared this poem to be unintelligible. Like poems 52 and 53, it seems to be an attaek on Caesarians. 1 propose the following reading: Otonis caput (oppido est pusillum), Neri rustica semilauta crura, subtile et leue peditum Libonis, si non omnia, displicere uellem tibi et sufficio seni recocto irascere iterum meis iambis inmerentibus, unice imperator? 'I eould wish that Otho's head (very puny it is), Nerius' half-washed peasant legs, and Libo's subtle and soft farting, if not everything else about them, should disgust you; 1 ean eope with a spry old man just as

138

well- will you once again be insulted by my innocent lampoons, my one and only general?' Pretending to offer hirnself as a lover to Caesar instead of tlrree unsuitable partners, Catullus is insulting his adversary by calling him a senex recoctus, i.e. a vieux beau. The bracketing of oppido est pusillum has already been advocated by Munro (1905:125). Ot(h)o and Libo may be Ludus Rosdus Otho and Ludus Scribonius Libo (Neudling 1955). The corrupt eteri may conceal the name of the plebejan politidan Gnaeus Nerius, a supporter of Clodius' (Benner 1987:167; Gaius Lucilius Hirrus and Aulus Hirtius are other candidates; Neri was proposed by L. Müller 1870 and accepted by Riese 1884). The verb displicere means 'to be sexually unacceptable to' (the opposite of placere at c. 93.1). Scaliger's popular conjecture Fufficio instead of Sufficio (a name unknown in Rome) is metrically impossible because of the long second syllable. 1 propose to read sufficio 'I stand up to, 1 am a match for [a sexual partner]'. This sense of sufficere ignored by Latin dictionaries is exemplified by Ovid Am. 2.10.23 sufficiam 'I am going to meet the test' and Martial 9.32.4 hone uolo quae pariter sufficit una tribus 'I want a woman who can cope with three men at once'. The pronoun tibi seems to be used apo koinou with displicere and sufficio, which explains the position of et.

c.

58b We should read the single sentence of this poem as a question (see Chapter 1.2.3). Moreover, we should not insert poem 58b into poem 55. Comfort (1935) has shown that both are companion-pieces similar as to subject and metre, but contrasting as to style (colloquial vs. mock-heroic). The present position of c. 58b after poem 58a is confirmed by the fact that poems LC 58a/58b are linked by LC (illa, illalille, omnes/omnibus, amauit/amice) and associated by the eating motif (TC glubit/peresus).

C. 58b.7 O's uictos is certainly wrong. Bergk, Riese, Kroll, Bardon, and Thomson read GR's uinctos 'tied' (in a bag like Aeolus' winds, cf. Homer Od. 10.17ff.), whereas Schwabe, EHis, Lafaye, and Mynors read G 2 's correction iunctos 'yoked' (Schuster 1954: 126 'ins Joch gespannt', Eilis 1876:154 and Fordyce 1973:234 'harnessed in a team'). The latter reading is to be preferred in view of the annular link with bigae (derived from biiugum).

139

C. 59.1 The absence of address weakens the strong parallelism between poems 58a and 59. The verb uidistis at line 3 suggests a plural addressee, Le. 'the general public of the town' (Ellis 1876: 162). The missing vocative appears by putting a comma after Bononiensis (Le. Bononienses 'You Bolognese'). This may be one of the instances of Catullus' archaic orthography (exemplified by paris, i.e. pares, at c. 57.3, and aequalis, i.e. aequales, at c. 62.11). Nominatives, vocatives, and accusatives ending in -is are far from rare in manuscripts although they are often removed by modem editors (Neue & Wagener 1902:375ff., 381ff.). C. 61.16 Perhaps the mss. spelling Mallio (edd. Manlio, compare c. 68a.11,30 Malz) should be retained since it may conceal a pun on malum (i.e. Paris' apple implied in this passage). The mention of this love-token seems to mark the beginning and dedication of a new book, for it occurs also at c. 2.12 (book I) and c. 65.19 (book III); cf. Dettmer (1984). C.64.324 Housman's brilliant conjecture (1915) tutamen, Opis (V tutum opus, R2 tu tamen opis) is confrrmed by the lexical links between lines 25-26 teque adeo eximie felicibus aucte, Thessaliae columen Peleu, cui Iuppiter ipse and 323-324 0 decus eximium magnis uirtutibus augens, Emathiae tutamen, Opis carissime nato where eximieleximium, aucte/augens, ThessaliaelEmathiae, columenltutamen, IuppiterlOpis ... nato.

C. 65.12 The debated reading of 0 tegam (deteriores canam) is confirmed by LC with c. 66.72 non ullo uera timore tegam. Schulze (1920:5-8) stresses the similarity between the poet biding bis songs of grief in solitude (carmina tegam, i.e. tectus canam) and the song of the invisible nightingale (notice the speaking Greek name Daulias 'leafy'). Since 'sadness' (no doubt public mourning) prevents the poet from publisbing poems of bis own, he confines himself to sending a poetic translation. C. 67.34 V's Veronaeshouldnotbe changed into matronae (Giangrande 1970:115117) since it is protected by LC with c. 68.27. C. 68a and 68b 'After a century of heated debate, modem scholarsbip is predominantly inclined towards separating 'poem 68' into two poems' (Thomson

140

1997:472). The separation is confirmed by internal annular composition within poems 68a and 68b respectively, as discovered by Barwick (1947) and discussed by Courtney (1985). Similarities between both poems are now explained by lexical concatenation (see my commentary on these poems in Chapter III.l). Consequently, Lachmann's Mani or Schöll's mi Alli (V Ma(l)li or Ma(n)lz) at lines 11 and 30 of poem 68a are unnecessary emendations.

C. 68b.43 Calfurnio's correction ne (V nec), adopted by Mynors and defended by Kroll, Fordyce, and Thomson, is supported by the evident links between lines 42-43 officiis ne and 150-151 officiis ne (see my commentary on the annular composition of poem 68b in Chapter III.2). C. 68b.68 Froehlich's correction dominae (V dominam) is improbable in view of the parallelism in internal annular composition (see Chapter III.4.4), viz. c. 68b.68-69 isque domum nobis isque dedit dominam ad quam communes exerceremus amores/68b.156 et domus in qua ... lusimus et domina. Further arguments against the conjecture are offered by Kinsey (1967:4243). Allius has shared his own mistress (69 dominam, 155 tua uita, 156 domina) with Catullus, and has offered a secret meetingplace (67 clausum ... campum, 68 domum, 156 domus, 157 terram) to the poet and his mistress (70 mea diua, 136 erae, 132, 160 Lux mea). Prudish commentators should not frown at communes ... amores 'the love we (Le. Catullus and Allius) share'. For communio puellae 'sharing one's mistress' compare Suetonius Vita Verg. 9-10 Vulgatum est consuesse eum [sc. Vergilium] et cum Plotia Hieria. Sed Asconius Pedianus adfirmat, ipsam postea maiorem natu narrare solitam, inuitatum quidem a Vario ad communionem sui, uerum pertinacissime recusasse 'It is common knowledge that Vergil had also an affair with Plotia Hieria. But according to Asconius Pedianus, she herself used to say afterwards, when getting older, that Vergil, being invited by Varius to share her with hirn, obstinately refused to do so.' For communis 'shared by several men' compare Naevius com. 75 dat se et communem facit 'she gives herself to all men'; Petronius 105 communem amicam 'a girl-friend of ours'; Priapea 34.2-3 puella ... communis 'a girl for all'; Martial 11.81.1 cum sene communem uexat spado Dindymus Aeglen 'Eunuch Didymus and an old man harass Aegle in common'; Aulus Gellius 18.2.8 Plato ... communes esse mulieres censuit 'Plato declared that women should be common property' .

141

C. 68b.156

The pentameter does not scan because of a lacuna in V. Editors hesitate between the later supplements et domus in qua lusimus et domina (EHis, Della Corte, Mynors, Goold, Thomson) and et domus in qua lusimus et domina (Baehrens, Riese, Schuster, Kroll, Quinn, Pöschl, Albrecht). The latter conjecture is preferable because of the annular link with nobis in line 68. Baehrens (1876:534) believes that nos might 'very easily' have been dropped before lus. C. 68b.175 V' s et qui principio nobis terram dedit aufert is one of the most disputed lines of Catullus. Corrections such as Vahlen's dum qui, Scaliger's te tradidit, EHis' rem condidit, Johnson's te era, and Perrotta's et eram are out of place since et qui principio... terram is protected by disjunctive LC with c. 66.49 et qui principio ... terra. The corruption seems to be confined to aufert, which may originate in the frequent association of dare and auferre (e.g. Horace Ep. 1.16.33). Of the numerous suggestions (Scaliger Oufens, Lipsius auspex, Heyse Anser, Baehrens haustis, Munro Afer, Friedrich audens, Merrill absens) the early emendation auctor (adopted by Rossbach and defended by Dettmer 1997:302n75) is the most plausible. Its meaning ('giver, source of a gift, the one who gives increase', om s.v.) and etymology (from augere) correspond to fuit nobis ... auxilium at line 66, which is part of the dear annular link between lines 66-68 and 156-157. Catullus uses the synonyms auxilium and auctor to describe Allius as a kind of protecting god; compare Ovid Fast. 5.249 fer, precor, auxilium, dicit, celabitur auctor 'help me, please, she said, the helper will be kept secret' . C. 68b.145 The mss. reading mira doubted by several editors (Thomson 1997:487) might be defended by LC with poem 69 admirari, mirum, admirari. C. 69.3

EHis' conjecture non illam carae (0 nos illa mare) might be defended by LC with c. 68b.159 carior. C.71

Attempts to introduce a name at line 1 (Parthenius Virro, Palmer Vare, Munro Rufe) or line 4 (Goold Quinti) are unwanted since the addressee Rufus is named in the companion-piece 69 (cf. Chapter 11.2.5).

142

C. 72.7 The reading quod (Berolinensis Datanus and some other transcripts; V quam) is preferable to Achilles Statius' conjecture quia in view of disjunctive fonnal LC 70/72 quod ... amantilquod amantem. C. 76.11 Heinsius' conjecture atque istinc teque reducis i.e. atque istincque te reducis (0 atque instincteque reducis) creates the c1umsy connection atque ... teque (Quinn 1973:408). EHis' atque istinc te ipse reducis, approved by Housman (1905:122) and Thomson (1997:501), may be defended by LC with c. 75.1-2 Huc est mens deducta ... atque ... se ... ipsa. Other links between poem 75 and c. 76.9-12 are enumerated in my eommentary on poem 76. C. 78b In 1566, the Portuguese editor Aquiles Es~o (Achilles Statius) detached the last four lines from poem 78, to whieh they c1early do not belong. Recent editors (Kroll, Lafaye, Mynors, Bardon) believe that 78b is a fragment of a longer poem whose beginning is missing. But concentric composition (see Chapter 1II.4.1) argues in favour of transposition. Sealiger, followed by Laehmann and Haupt, linked the fragment with poem 77. Internal annular eomposition (amice - amicitiae), however, shows that the latter poem is eomplete (EHis 1876:358-359). Aeeording to Quinn (1973:413) and Thomson (1997:505-506), the opening sed nunc 'hut as it is ... ' suggests that the original poem began with a conditional c1ause (compare c. 21.9-11 id si faceres satur, tacerem: nunc ipsum id doleo quod esurire ... puer et sitire discet 'if you did an this upon a full stomaeh, I should say nothing; as it is, I deplore that the hoy williearn to be hungry and thirsty'). If so, this fragment may be the ending of the rather pointless poem 82, which begins with a eonditional c1ause. Compare, in the adjacent poem 83, the similar construction of lines 3-5: si nostri oblita taceret, sana esset: nunc ... irata est 'if she forgot me and said nothing, she would be an right. But as it is ... she is angry'. Taken together poems 82 and 78b seem to mean: Catullus would be most grateful if you should not take away his girl, but now that you have defiled her with your kisses, he will defame you forever. The switch from third to first person (Catullum/doleo) is characteristic of Catullus' style (e.g. poems 6, 11, 13,38,44,56,72). If the transposition is correct, we have simple LC with poem 83 (loquetur/( ob)loquitur, si ... nunc ... quod/si ... nunc quod, noscentlmeminit), and disjunctive LC with poems 80 (labella/suauia 'lips fonned for kissing' ,famalfama, uere/uerum) and 84 (loquetur/esse locutum). There is also a concentric link with poem 86: omnia/omnibus,

143

omnis; qui sis/quae est (Chapter 111.4.1). C. 80.7 We should read uictoris (i.e. irrumatoris) instead of Victoris (see my commentary on poem 80 in Chapter 111.1). C. 81.6 The mss. reading nescis quid (most edd. quod) is protected by formal LC with c. 80.5 nescio quid. The archaism is defended by Kroll (1980:256). C. 83.6 We should retain the reading loquitur against the conjecture coquitur proposed by Lipsius and adopted by Schwabe, Lafaye, Kroll, Weinreich. The compound verb obloquitur 'she rails' reappears in its simple form with the same meaning. Quinn (1973:124) exemplifies the device by c. 10.15120 comparastilparare, 62.113 consurgite/surgere, 89.5 attingaJ!tangere (cf. Clausen 1955:49ff.). The mss. reading is protected by LC with c. 84.3 esse locutum (and c. 82 + 78b loquetur, if my transposition is correct). Moreover, synonymous disjunctive TC links uritur et loquitur 'she is burning with love while speaking (ill)' with c. 85.1 odi et amo 'I hate while being in love'. C. 87.2 We should retain est against Scaliger's conjecture es (Fordyce 1973:380). The mss. reading is defended by LC 86.5 est; compare the similar elisions tota estlmea est. The switch from third to second person estltuo is characteristic ofCatullus' vivid style (cf. c. 8.4 quo puella ducebat - 8.14 tu dolebis; more examples are offered by Evrard-Gillis 1977).

C.90.5 L. Müller's conjecture gratus (accepted by Schwabe, Schuster, Lafaye, Mynors, Thomson) instead of V gnatus is unnecessary. The repetition (Nascatur - {gnato - gignatur} - gnatus) is typical of intemal annular composition (see Chapter 111.4.4). Syndikus (1987:73n11) emphasizes that gratus would be pleonastic with accepto. The fact that gnato of line 3 and gnatus of line 5 do not design the same person adds to the unexpected ending. C. 95a and 95b Achilles Statius' division of poem 95, defended by Lachmann, Haupt, Leo, Schuster and Quinn, and hesitatingly adopted by Mynors (compare Fränkel 1962:263), is now confmned by concentric composition (see Chapter 111.4.2).

144

I propose to read Parua mei mihi sint cordi monimenta. For mei ... Calui compare c. 53.3 meus ... Caluos. The partial similarity between cordi and Calui may account for the omission of the latter. The tetrasyllabic c1ausula is paralleled by, e.g., c. 66.11 and 110.3. Little Calvus' tiny literary monument (see my commentary on poem 95b in Chapter III.l) pleases Callimachean Catullus.

C. 96.4 We should retain the reading missas (deteriores amissas, Schwabe scissas, Baehrens, and Goold iunctas). The mss. reading is protected by disjunctive LC with c. 95a.5 mittetur. C. 97.1 The variant reading quicquam (most mss. quicquid) is confirmed by literat LC with c. 96.1 quicquam. C. 97.5 V's reading hic 'he', i.e. Aemilius, may be defended by internal annular composition within the poem, viz. hic at line 9. Froehlich's os is too far from the tradition, Schuster's and Mynors' hoc (the reading of some later transcripts) is improbable after hoc referring to culus at line 3. Notice the two tripartite constructions after anaphoric hic, viz. dentis ... gengiuas... rictum - futuit ... facit ... traditur, and the variation mulae - asino.

C. 97.7 Achilles Statius' conjecture diffissus 'split open' (0 deffessus) may be defended by synonymous LC with 98.6 de(h)iscas 'you split open, gape' (Hendrickson 1904, adopted by Lafaye; 0 discas, Voss hiscas). Compare Dettmer 1997:190 on the 'gaping motif. C. 99.2 The mss. spelling suauiolum (Schwabe, Lafaye, Thomson sauiolum) should not be normalized because it puns on suauis 'sweet' (synonym of dulcis occurring in the same line and linked by antonymous LC with c. 98.1 putide 'stinking'). For the etymologizing see Maltby (1991:547) and Wills (1996:232). C. 100.6 Both O's peifecta est igitur est and G's peifecta est exigitur are unmetrical. The old conjecture perspecta 'well-tried' is now confirmed by synonymous disjunctive LC with c. 102.2 penitus nota 'thoroughly known through experience'. The synonymy is confirmed by Cicero Clu. 78

145

persona populo iam nota atque perspecta 'a character now widely known and seen through'. Cicero's phrase Red. Sen. 23 amicitias ... igni perspectas 'friendship tried by rrre' suggests that igitur conceals a form of ignis. Former proposals were perspecta ex igni est (Schöll, criticized by Fordyce because ofthe 'unlikely use ofthe preposition', cf. Mynors' app. crit.), and perspecta est igni tum, proposed by Palmer, approved by Fordyce, but rejected by Zidui (1978:265, cf. 216), because of the elided monosyllable ending in -m after the diaeresis of the pentameter. Pöschl (1977:99) read perspecta est igni I unica amicitia, which may be right although there is no exact parallel of the hiatus. Perhaps perspecta ignibus est should be envisaged. The plural is paralleled by Ovid Met. 14.109 spectata per ignes and Tr. 1.5.25 spectatur in ignibus. Maybe ignibus has been misread as igitur and, by Verschlimmbesserung 'correction for the worse', changed into the verbal form exigitur and, subsequently, into est igitur.

C. 101.4 LC 1011102 necquicquam/quicquam supports the mss. spelling necquicquam against the normalized spelling nequiquam adopted by most editors. This instance shows that orthography may playapart in concatenary effects. As a consequence a new edition should not standardize the remains of archaie spelling in our mss. C. 107.7 Disjunctive LC 107/109 hoc, hac/hunc, hoc protects O's hac est against the unmetrical reading of the other mss. me est. There is also internal annular composition hoc est - hac est. According to Fordyce (1973:395-396), 'the manuscript readings are untranslatable and none of the proposed emendations commends itself. I believe that the text is sound and needs only some punctuation, viz. a question-mark after uita (cf. Pighi, Bardon). Quis me uno uiuit felicior aut magis hac est optandus uita? dicere quis poterit? 'Who lives more happy than I, or who has a more enviable life than mine? Is there anyone who can say that?' Since uiuere and esse are virtual synonyms (Fordyce 1973: 111 , 124), we may interpret quis magis optandus est hac uita? as quis magis optandam uitam uiuit quam hanc uitam? The construction might also be explained as a case of comparatio compendiaria or compact comparison (Menge 1962:169) by taking hac uita as quam qui hanc uitam uiuit. For the general idea compare Terence Ph. 163-164 Amore abundas, Antipho. Nam tua quidem hercle certo uita haec expetenda optandaque est 'You are overwhelmed with love, Antiphon. By Hercules, your present life is really desirable and enviable' .

146

C. 110.7 Calfurnio's supplement est is now supported by LC with e. 111.3 est (standing in the same metrieal position and in a similar eonstruction), viz. plus quam ... est/potius ... par quam. C. 112.2 We should retain the reading descendit against Haupt's te scindit and Peiper's te scindat, adopted by Schwabe and Mynors. V's lacuna in line 1 may be filled up by Scaliger's est qui (adopted by Kroll, Pighi, and Bardon) or EIlis' simple qui (R2 has homoque). The mss. reading is confmned by synonymous LC 111/112 succumbere/descendit. For the homosexual meaning of descendere, Le. inclinare 'to take the sexual position of the pathic' see Eilis (1876:391), Vorberg (1965:142), and Adams (1987:226). Compare multus = molitus 'ground', Le. possessed as a woman or a pathic (Lafaye 1985:95n2, Bardon 1970:218n2). C. 113.2 Perhaps Lenchantin's reading Moeciliam (G Meciliam) should be adopted. By using the 'archaic' speIling ofthe diminutive of Mucia (compare the doublets moenia/munia and moeruslmurus as discussed by Marouzeau 1962:13-14) Catullus seems to pun on moecha 'seduced wife'. This interpretation is eorroborated by synonymous LC 112/113 multus, pathicus/ moecha 'possessed as a passive, female subject' . C. 114.1 The reading Firmanus saltus non falso, Mentula, diues (V' s text with B. Guarino's correction of saluis into saltus) is preferable to Avanzi's Firmano saltu non falso Mentula diues in the Aldine edition 1502. The latter reading introduces the unwanted ambiguity saltu non falso and obscures the construction of the sentence since qui... habet might depend of Mentula taken as a nominative. The adjective diues is a synonym of fecundus 'produetive, prolific' (synonymous LC 113/114). It is unnecessary to change egeat into egeas (Fordyce 1973:400) since Catullus likes switching grammatical persons (see my discussion of c. 87.2 above). C. 114.6 V's modo (defended by Zicm 1978:213) should be protected against emendation (Avanzi tarnen, Lachmann domo, Eilis domi, Ross modio) since there is formal LC 114/115 modolmoda. The 'prosodie hiatus' or shortening of a final vowel before an initial vowel (correptio ante uocalem) may be a prosodic joke illustrating dum

147

modo egeat 'as long as he is in need'. Compare the elision at c. 88.8 see) ipse uoret 'he devours hirnself in another Gellius-epigram.

C. 115.1 V' s habet instar has been suspected by many editors because of: (a) the artificiallenghtening of the second syllable of habet (productio in

arsz); (b) the absence of a genitive going with instar (Fordyce 1973:401-402). As regards (a), it may be observed that several metrical anomalies occur in the three final poems of the collection, viz. the shortening of the final syllable of modo at c. 114.6, the hypermetrical -que at c. 115.5, the entirely spondaic hexameter at c. 116.4, and the suppression of the fmal -s of dabis at c. 116.8. Probably, neoteric Catullus is making fun of the oldfashioned versification of his adversaries. If so, the irrational lengthening of habet may be a prosodic joke on Mamurra's inflated language (cf. modo above). As regards (b), instar has been explained as circiter 'nearly' (Kroll 1959:287, Schuster 1954:126), but the parallels are unconvincing (Fordyce 1973:402). It seems better to interpret habere instar as habere pro 'to have as'. The phrase is paralleled by Velleius Paterculus 1.8.6 centum homines ... instar habuit consili publici 'he had one hundred men ... as a council of state'. The genitive prati is separated from instar 'as, by way of, serving as' for the sake of metre and emphasis. Compare Paterculus' hyperbaton. We may paraphrase: This upstart has got no more than thirty acres as grazing-Iand and forty as plough-Iand, whereas the rest of his estate is as immense as the ocean. For the metaphoric use of mare 'immensity' see Greek pelagos, thalassa, and 6keanos (Killeen 1969), and for the topical identification of land and sea compare Ovid Pont. 3.1.20 in terra est altera forma maris 'the land is another form of the sea'. Line 5 clarifies the meaning by enumerating the cetera, viz. ingentes (!) siluas saltusque paludesque 'vast woods, and forests, and marshes'. Poem 115 pursues the line of thought of poem 114: Catullus, who cannot deny the vastness of Mamurra's estate, pretends that it cannot feed his owner since the amount of productive land is relatively smalI. While speaking as a conservative landowner loathing superfluous luxury and modem game-farming, he criticizes his adversary by portraying him as a bad farmer (Harvey 1979:345). C.115.4 The mss. reading moda may be defended by LC 114/115 modo/moda and omne genus/tot moda. The phrase tot moda or totmoda is to be compared with the formations

148

totiugis, multimodus, and omnimodus. C. 115.5 The mss. reading saltusque (Berolinensis Datanus altasque paludes, Pleitner uastasque paludes) should be retained. The word saltus, protected by LC with c. 114.1 saltu, is also part of obvious annular composition within the poem, viz. Mentula - sunt - maria - super(are) - saltu - saltus - Hyper(boreos) - mare - sunt - mentula. The change of meaning within poem 115 is pointed: uno ... in saltu 'in one estate' vs. saltusque 'and forests' (Le. game-preserve). The hypennetrical -que is an iconic mock-epicism (Wills 1996:376, compare c. 64.298 natisque), which, according to Eilis (1876:395), 'conveys the idea of infinite continuity'. C. 115.8 Thomson, following Guarino and Parthenius, reads uere instead of mss. uero, but uero is synonymous with non falso at c. 114.1 (LC 114/115 non falso Mentulaluero mentula). C. 116.1 The mss. reading uenante (Birt ueni ante, Goold uerba ante) should be retained. The word uenante recalls the hunting motif occurring in poems 114 (aucupium 'game fowl', feras 'four-footed game') and 115 (siluas saltusque 'game preserve', cf. Ovid Ep. 5.17 saltus uenatibus aptos 'hunting grounds'). Game-farming was one of the main functions of Roman villas (Harvey 1979, Green 1996:228ff.).

149 6. EIGlIT CONCLUSIONS

The principle of concatenation may have far-ranging consequences for our understanding of Catullus' poetry. Summarizing my findings I enumerate the eight most important points: (1) Catullus' volume is not an anthology of separate pieces, but a

structured whole, and even a kind of cannen perpetuum 'poetic continuum' based on concordia discors 'harmony in discord' . (2) The coherence between the poems is achieved by concatenation, i.e. by the linking of consecutive c.q. proximate poems. (3) Thematic concatenation aims at variation, i.e. combination of similarity and difference. (4) Lexical concatenation is established by literal repetition, synonymy, antonymy, etymological play, syntactical parallelism, and phonie echoes. (5) Lexical concatenation may either reinforce thematic concatenation or have a purely formal (i.e. connective) function. (6) Separate poems should be interpreted by interrelating them with preceding and following poems - which may enable the reader to identify anonymous characters or to elucidate obscure allusions. (7) Lexical and thematic correspondences may also link poems in concentric composition, Le. symmetrical arrangement around a central poem. (8) Concatenation may provide a final solution to several textual problems.

EPILOGUE Catullus' collection is not a 'wild chaos'. On the contrary, rarely will a volume have been structured as carefully as his. The variation may even seem too formal or mechanical to the modern reader observing, for instance, that a we1come poem is preceded by a farewell poem or an arrival poem, and that a laudatory poem is followed by an invective, or vice versa. Even so the succession remains for the greater part unpredictable: two poems about a sparrow are followed by a poem on a yacht; after a lyrical description of the arrival in Sirmio, a visit to amistress is announced. Such instances reveal the poet's intention of displaying the widest possible variation. As I have tried to show, the constantly threatened unity of the collection is saved by the thematic and lexical interrelation and interaction of juxtaposed poems. The contradictory tendencies towards variation and coherence explain the baffling arrangement of the poems. Where some will discern the stamp of Catullus' split personality, others will discover the typical playfulness of the Alexandrian school. Be that as it may, the calculated complexity accounts for the long concea1ment of the structural principles underlying the arrangement. Ars est celare artern: an artful order is hiding under an apparent disorder. The sophisticated poet challenges his readers to detect hidden correspondences and symmetries in his collection. I hope to have shown that a concatenary reading is the royal road to the secret of this arrangement. The inescapable conclusion of my investigation is that the idea of a romantic, naive, and spontaneous Catullus should be buried once and for all. May the Manes of our elusive poet find peace now that the harmonious disharmony of his perennial monument has been recognized at last.

BffiLIOGRAPHY ADAMs,J.N. 1982, 1987. The Latin Sexual Vocabulary. 2nd ed. London ALBRECHT, M. VON 1995. (ed. & transI.) Catull: Sämtliche Gedichte. Stuttgart 1997. A History 0/ Roman Literature. Leiden-New York-Köln (translation of Geschichte der römischen Literatur. München-London-Paris 1994) ALLEN,A.W.

1950. "Sincerity" and the Roman Elegists. CP 45:145-160 ANDERSON, R.D., PARSONS, P.J., NISBET, R.G.M. 1979. Elegiacs by Gallus from Qasr Ibrim. JRS 69:125-155 ARKINs,B. 1982. Sexuality in Catullus. Hildesheim-Zürich-New York BAEHRENS, E.

1885, 1893. Catulli Veronensis Liber.II. 2nd ed. by K. P. Schulze. Leipzig BAJONI, M.G. 1993. Alcune note a C. 33. Euphrosyne 21:177-178 BARDON, H. (ED.) 1970. Catulli Carmina. Bruxelles 1973. Catulli Veronensis Carmina. Stuttgart BARWICK,K.

1932. Zur Kompositionstechnik und Erklärung Martials. Philologus 87:63-79 1947. Catulls c. 68 und eine Kompositionsform der römischen Elegie und Epigrammatik. WJA 2:1-15 1958. Zyklen bei Martial und in den kleinen Gedichten des Catull. Philologus 102:284-318 BECK,J.-W. 1996. 'Lesbia' und 'Juventius': Zwei libelli in Corpus Catullianum. Göttingen BENEDIKTSON, D.T. 1986. Catullus 58 B defended. Mnemosyne 39:305-312 BENNER,H. 1987. Die Politik des P. Clodius Pulcher. Stuttgart BENOIST, E. & THOMAS, E. (ED.) 1890. Les poesies de Catulle [ ... ]: Avec un Commentaire critique & explicatif, Paris BILLANOVICH, G. 1988. 11 Catullo della cattedrale di Verona. In: (ed.) S. Krämer & M. Bernhard, Scire litteras: Forschungen zum mittelalterlichen Geistesleben. München ABA W NF 99:35-57

154 BIRT, T.

1882. Das Antike Buchwesen in seinem Verhältnis zur Litteratur. Berlin 1904. Zu Catull's Carmina minora. Philologus 63:425-471 BRUNER,E.vON

1863. De ordine et temporibus carminum Valerii Catulli. Acta societatis scientiarum Fennicae 7:599-657 BUCHHElT, V. 1959. Catulls Dichterkritik in c. 36. Hermes 87:309-327 1961. Catull an Cato von Utica (c. 56). Hermes 89:345-356 1962. Studien zum Corpus Priapeorum. München 1976. Catull c. 50 als Programm und Bekenntnis. RhM 119:162-180 CAIRNS,F.

1969. Catullus I. Mnemosyne 22:153-158 1972. Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry. Edinburgh 1975. Catullus 27. Mnemosyne 28:24-29 1995. Horace's First Roman Ode (3.1). Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 8:91-142 CAMERON,A.

1968. The Garlands of Meleager and Philip. GRBS 9:323-349 1993. The Greek Anthology f70m Meleager to Planudes. Oxford CHATELAIN, E. (ED.) 1890. Catulle: Manuscrit de St-Germain-des-Pres. Paris

CLAEs,P. 1995. Catullus: Verzen. Amsterdam

1995a. Who's Who in Catullus 103? Latomus 54:876-877 1996. Catullus c. 94: the Penetrated Penis. Mnemosyne 49:66 1996a. La concatenation comme principe de composition chez Catulle. LEC 64:164-170 1996b. Catullus' Sparrow Uncurtailed. Philologus 140:353 2001. Concentric Composition in Catullus. CW 94:379-383 CLAUSEN,W. 1955. Silva coniecturarum. AlPh 76:47-62 1970. Catullus and Callimachus. HSCP 74:85-94 1976. Catulli Veronensis Liber. CP 71:37-43 (= ed. E.J.Kenney, The Cambridge History of Classical Literature: II Latin Literature. Cambridge 1982: 193-197) CLAuss, J.J. 1995. A Delicate Foot on the Well-Worn Threshold: Paradoxical Imagery in Catullus 68b. AlPh 116:237-253 COMFORT,H.

1935. Parody in Catullus LVIIIa. AlP 56:45-49 COPPEL,B.

1973. Das Alliusgedicht: Zur Redaktion des Catulluscorpus. Heidelberg CORNISH, F.W.

1913, 1988. Catullus: Translated by , ... ] revized by G.P. Goold. 2nd ed. Cambridge-London

155 COURlNEY, E.

1985. Three Poems of Catullus. BICS 32:85-99 1993. (ed.) The Fragmentary Latin Poets. Oxford DAMSCHEN, G. 1999. Catullus c. 94: ipsa olera olla legit. Mnemosyne 52:169-176 DAVIS,J.T.

1977. Dramatic Pairings in the Elegies of Propertius and Ovid. Bem-

Stuttgart DECHARME, P. 1886. Mythologie de la Grece antique. 2nd ed. Paris DEICHGRÄBER, K.

1971. Überlegungen zu den Gedichten und Gedichtbüchern der Neoteriker. Hermes 99:46-70 DELLA CORTE, F. 1951. Due studi catulliani. Genova 1977, 1992. (ed.) Catullo: Poesie. Roma DEROUX,C.

1970. L'attitude politique de Catulle. Latomus 29:608-631 1973. L'identit6 de Lesbie. In: (ed.) H. Temporini, Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt. 11.3. Berlin - New York, 390-416 1985. Catulle et Cic6ron ou les raisons d'un silence. LEC 53:221-246 DE RUGGIERO, E. 1910. Dizionario epigrajico di antichita Romana. 11. Spoleto

DE'ITMER, H. 1980. The Arrangement of Tibullus Books 1 and 2. Philologus 124:6882 1983. Horace: A Study in Structure. Hildesheim-Zürich-New York 1983a. A Note on Catullus 1 and 116. CW 77:19 1984. Catullus 2B from a Structural Perspective. CW 7: 107-111 1986. Meros Amores. A Note on Catullus 13,9. QUCC 23:87-91 1986a. Two Catullan Notes: 56,6, and arido vs. arida in 1.2. LCM 11: 130-131 1987-1988. Design in the Catullan Corpus: A Preliminary Study. CW 81:371-381 1997. Love by the Numbers: Form and the Meaning in the Poetry of Catullus. New York DEULlNG, lK.

1999. Catullus and Mamurra. Mnemosyne 52:188-193 DION, 1

1993. La composition des "carmina" de Catulle: D6fense de son unit6. Bull. Bude 2:136-157 1997. Du multiple a l'unit6. L'reuvre d'infini chez Catulle. REL 74:126144 DOERINGIUS [= DOERING],

F.G. (ED.)

1826. C. Valerius Catulli quae exstant omnia opera. [Annotated by] J. Naudet. Paris

156

EDWARDS, M.J. 1990. The Secret of Catullus 102. Hermes 118:382-384 EISENHUT, W. (ED.) 1983. Catulli Veronensis Liber. Leipzig ELDER,J.P. 1966. Catullus I, His Poetic Creed, and Nepos. HCSP 71:143-149 ELLIS, R. 1876, 1889. A Commentary on Catullus. 2nd ed. Oxford 1904. (ed.) Catulli Carmina. Oxford ERNOUT, A. & THOMAS, F. 1964. Syntaxe latine. Paris EVRARD-GILLIS, J. 1976. La recurrence lexicale dans l'reuvre de Catulle. Paris 1977. Le jeu sur la personne grammaticale chez Catulle. Latomus 36:114-122 FELGENTREU, F. 1993. Passer und malum in Catulls c. 2. Philologus 137:216-222 FERGUSON,J.

1986. The Arrangement of Catullus' Poems. LCM 11:2-6;18-20 1988. Catullus. Oxford FINAMORE, J.

1984-1985. Catullus 50 and 51: Friendship, Love, and Otium. CW 78:1119 FISHER, J.M. 1971. Catullus 35. CP 66:1-5 FrrzGERALD, W. 1995. Catullan Provocations: Lyric Poetry and the Drama

Berkeley-Los Angeles-London

0/ Position.

FORDYCE, C.J.

1961, 1973. Catullus: A Commentary. 3rd ed. Oxford FORSYTH, P.Y.

1972-1973. The Gellius Cycle of Catullus. Cl 68:175-177 1975. Catullus 79. Latomus 44:377-382 1976-1977. The Irony of Catullus 100. CW 70:313-317 1976-1977a. The Ameana Cycle of Catullus. CW 70:445-450 1978-1979. Order and Meaning in Catullus 97-99. CW 72:403-408 1980-1981. Quintius and Aufilena. CW 74:220-223 1984-1985. Gifts and Giving: Catullus 12-14. CW 78:571-574 1986. The Poems oi Catullus: A Teaching Text. Lanham-New YorkLondon 1992-1993. The Fearful Symmetry of Catullus' Polymetrics. CW 86:492495 FRÄNKEL,E. 1966. Nam satis beatus. MH 23:114-117 FRANK, T. 1927. On Some Fragments of Catullus. CP 22:413-414

157 FRIEDRICH, G. (ED.)

1908. Catulli Veronensis Liber. Leipzig-Berlin FUHRER, T.

1994. The Question of Genre and Metre in Catullus' Polymetries. QUCC 46:95-108 GAISSER, J .H.

1993. Catullus and his Renaissance Readers. Oxford GARRISON, D.H.

1989. The Student's Catullus. Norman and London GERCKE, A. & NORDEN, E.

1912. Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft. I. 2nd ed. Leipzig-Berlin GIANGRANDE, G.

1970. Catullus 67. QUCC 9:84-131 GIARDINA, G.c.

1974. La composizione delliber e l'itinerario poetico di Catullo: Contributo alla sistemazione deI problema. Philologus 118:224-235 GLENN,J. 1970. Fossa in Catullus' Simile of the Cut Tree (17.18-19). CP 65:256257 GLÜCKLICH, H.-J. 1980. Catulls Gedichte im Unterricht. Göttingen GoLDBERG, C. 1992. Carmina Priapea. Heidelberg GooDWIN, J. (ED.) 1999. Catullus. The Shorter Poems. Warminster GooLD, G.P. (ED.)

1983, 1989. Catullus: Edited with Introduction, Translation and Notes. 2nd ed. London GRANAROLO, J. 1967. L'CEuvre de Catulle. Paris 1973-1974. Catulle 1948-1973. Lustrum 17:27-70 1982. Catulle, ce vivant. Paris GRATWICK, A.S.

1991. Catullus 1.10 and the Title of his Libellus. G&R 38:199-202 1991a. Catullus XXXII. CQ 85:547-551 GREEN, C.M.C. 1996. Terms of Venery: Ars Amatoria I. TAPA 126:221-263 GREEN,E.H. 1939-1940. Furius Bibaculus. Cl 35:348-356 GROAG,E.

1919. Art. Iuventius Thalna. RE X.2:1370-1371 GRUEN,F.

1966. Cicero and Licinius Calvus. HCSP 71:215-233 GUIZWILLER, KJ. 1999. Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context. Berkeley

158

HAu.ETr, J.P.

1980. Ianua iueunda: the Charaeterization of the Door in Catullus 67. In: (ed.) C. Deroux. Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History. 2 Bruxelles: 106-122 HARVEY,P. 1979. Catullus 114-115: Mentula, bonus agrieola. Historia 28:329-345 HEIDEL, W.A.

1901. Catullus and Furius Bibaeulus. CR 15:215-217 HEINE,R. 1967. Zum 2. und 17. Gedicht Catulls. Gymnasium 74:315-321 1975. (ed.) Catull. Darmstadt HENDERSON, 1. 1975, 1991. The Maculate Muse. 2nd ed. New York-Oxford HENDRICKSON, G.L.

1904. Diseas for deiseas, dehiseas bei Catull 98,6? RhM 59:478 HEZEL,O. 1932. Catull und das griechische Epigramm. Stuttgart 1932 HOFMANN, 1.B. & SZANTYR, A. 1965. Lateinische Syntaxis und Stilistik. München HOLZBERG, N. 2000. More Catullan Answers. CR 50:436-437 HORNSBY, R.A.

1963. The Craft of Catullus. AJPh 84:256-265 HORVATH, I.K. 1966. Catulli Veronensis Liber: Diseussion sur le livre de Catulle et les deux types principaux de son lyrisme. AAntHung 14:141-173 HOUSMAN, A.E. 1905. (ree.) Catulli Carmina ed. Ellis. CR 19:121-123 HUBBARD, T.K. 1983. The Catullan Libellus. Phi/ologus 127:218-237 HUBER,G. 1970. Wortwiederholungen in den Oden des Horaz. Zürich INGEMANN, V. 1981-1982. Albus an ater - a double entendre in C. 93? Classica et Mediaevalia 33:145-150

G. 1925. (ree.) C. Valerius Catullus, ed. W. Kroll. Gnomon 1:200-214 JOCELYN, H.D. 1995. Two Features of the Style of Catullus' Phalaeeian Epigrams. Si/eno 21:63-82 1996. The Language of Catullus 17 and that of its Immediate Neighbours in the Transmitted Colleetion. Si/eno 22:137-163 1999. The Arrangement and the Language of Catullus' so called polymetra with Special Reference to the Sequence 10-11-12. In: (ed.) J.N. Adams & R.G. Mayer. Aspects 0/ the Language 0/ Latin Poetry. Oxford: 335-375

JACHMANN,

159

KHAN,H.A. 1969. Image and Symbol in Catullus 17. CP 64:88-97 KlLLEEN, J.F. 1969. Catullus 115.2. CP 64:178-179 KlNG,J.Y.

1988. Catullus' Callimachean Carmina, cc. 65-116. CW 81:383-392 KlNSEY, T.E.

1967. Some Problems in Catullus 68. Latomus 26:35-53 KLoss,G. 1998. Catulls Brückengedicht (c. 17). Hermes 126:58-79 KLmz,A. 1931. Zu Catull. RhM 80:342-356 KNox, A.D. (ED.) 1922, 1979. Herodas: The Mimes and Fragments. Repr. New York KOENEN,L. 1977. Horaz, Catull und Hipponax. ZPE 26:73-93 KRANz, W. 1967. Studien zur antiken Literatur und ihrem Fortwirken. Heidelberg KROlL, W. 1924, 1964. Studien zum Verständnis der Römischen Literatur. Repr. Stuttgart 1922, 1980. (ed.) C. Valerius Catullus. 6th ed. Stuttgart LACHMANN, K. (ED.) 1829. Q. Valerii Catulli Veronensis Liber. Berlin LAFAYE, G. (ED.) 1923, 1985. Catulle: Poesies. 3rd ed. Paris LAVENCY,M. 1965. L'ode a Lesbie et son billet d'envoi. AC 34:175-182 LENCHANTIN DE GUBERNATIS, M. (ED.) 1928. 11 Libro di Catullo. Torino LEVINE, P. 1987. Catullus c. 100: A Potent Wish for a "Friend" in Need. Maia 39:33-39 LIEBERG,G.

1958. L'ordinamento ed i reciproci rapporti dei carmi maggiori di Catullo. RFIC 36:23-47 1962. Puella divina. Amsterdam LIUA, S. 1965. The Roman Elegist's Attitude to Women. Helsinki 1983. Homosexuality in Republican and Augustan Rome. Helsinki LoOGE,G. 1962. Lexicon Plautinum. Hildesheim LooMIS, J.W.

1969. M. Furius Bibaculus and Catullus. CW 63:112-114 1972. Studies in Catullan Verse: An Analysis ofWord Types and Patterns

in the Polymetra. Leyden

160

LSJ 1996. A Greek-English Lexicon. Compiled by H.G. Liddell and R. Scott,

revised by H.S. Iones with the assistance of R. McKenzie. Oxford LYNE,R. 1978. The Neoteric Poets. CQ 72:167-187 MAAs,P. 1942. The Chronology of the Poems of Catullus. CQ 37:79-82 MCCARREN, V.P. 1977. A Critical Concordance to Catullus. Leiden MACLEOD, C.w. 1983. Collected Essays. Oxford MALTBY,R. 1991. A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies. Leeds MAROUZEAU,l 1962. Traite de stylistique latine. 4th ed. Paris MARTIN,C. 1992. Catullus. New Haven-London MERRILL, E.T. (ED.) 1893, 1951. Catullus. Boston, Repr. Cambridge METIE,HJ. 1956. (ree.) E.V. Marmorale, L'ultimo Catullo. Napoli 1952. Gnomon 18:34-36 (= ed. R. Heine, Catull. Darmstadt 1975,21-23) NfiCHALOPOULos,A. 1996. Some Etymologies of Proper Names in Catullus. Papers ofthe Leeds International Latin Seminar 9:75-81

MINYARD, lD. 1987-1988. The Source of the Catulli Veronensis Liber. CW 81:343-353 MORGAN, M.G. 1974. Ipsithilla or Ipsicilla? Catullus, c. 32 Again. Glossa 52:233-236 MOST,G.w. 1981. On the Arrangement of Catullus' Carmina Maiora. Philologus 125:109-125 MUELLERUS [= MÜLLER], L. (ED.) 1870. Catulli Tibulli Propertii Carmina. Leipzig MUNRO, H.A.I. 1905. Criticisms and Elucidations of Catullus. London-Cambridge MYNORS, R.A.B. (ED.) 1958. C. Valerii Catulli Carmina. Oxford 1966. Catullus: Carmina. Codex Oxoniensis Bibliothecae Bodleianae Canonicianus Class. Lat. 30. Leyden NAPPA,C.

1998. Place Settings: Convivium, Contrast, and Persona. AJPh 119:385397 NEMErn,B. 1972. How Does Catullus' Booklet Begin? Contribution to the Envoy. ACD 8:23-30

161 NEUDLING,

c.L.

1955. A Prosopography to Catullus. Oxford NEUE, F.

& WAGENER, C.

1902. Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. I. Leipzig NEWMAN, J.K. 1990. Roman Catullus and the Modification of the Alexandrian

Sensibility. Hildesheim NICHOLSON, 1.

1995. Word Play in Catullus 40. LCM 20:3-4, 45-50 NIElZSCHE, F.

1867. Zur Geschichte der Theognideischen Spruchsammlung. RhM 22: 161-200 & HUBBARD, M. 1970. A Commentary on Horace: Odes, Book I. Oxford 1978. A Commentary on Horace: Odes, Book II. Oxford

NISBET, R.G.M.

OFFERMANN,

H.

1977. Zu Catulls Gedichtcorpus. RhM 120:269-302 1978. Einige Gedanken zum Aufbau des Catull-Corpus. Eranos 76:3564 OKSALA,P.

1965. Adnotationes criticae ad Catulli carmina. Helsinki OLD 1982. (ed.) Glare, P.G.W. Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford Ons,B. 1964. Virgil: A Study in Civilized Poetry. Oxford PARATORE, E.

1974. Gli epitalami catulliani. Melanges de philosophie, de litterature et d'histoire ancienne offerts a Pierre Boyance. Rome, 529-555. [PIERRUGUES, P.] 1826. Glossarium eroticum linguae latinae. Paris PÖSCHL, V. (ED.)

1960, 1977. Catull. 2nd ed. Heidelberg PvELMA PlWONKA, M. 1949, 1978. Lucilius und Kallimachos. New York-London PurNAM, M.C.J. 1961. The Art of Catullus 64. HCSP 65:165-205 1968. Catullus 22,13. Hermes 96:552-558 QUICHERAT, L. 1836, 1893. Thesaurus poeticus linguae latinae. 10th ed. Paris QUINN, K. 1959, 1969. The Catullan Revolution. Oxford 1970, 1973. (ed.) Catullus: The Poems. Toronto, 2nd ed. London 1972. Catullus: An Interpretation. London 1973. Trends in Catullan Criticism. In: ed. H. Temporini. Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt. 1,3. Berlin-New York, 369-389

162 RAMBAUX,C. 1985. Trois analyses de I'amour. Paris RICHLIN,A. 1983. The Garden 0/ Priapus. New Haven-London RIEKS, R. 1986. Prosopographie und Lyrikinterpretation: Die Gedichte Catulls auf M. Caelius Rufus. Poetica 18:249-273 RIEsE, A. (ED.) 1884. Die Gedichte des Catullus. Leipzig RONCONI,A. 1968. Filologia e linguistica. Roma ROSIVACH, V. 1978. Sources of Some Errors in Catullan Commentaries. TAPA 108:203-216 ROss,D.O. 1969. Style and Tradition in Catullus. Cambridge, Mass. 1975. Backgrounds to Augustan Poetry: Gallus, Elegy, and Rome. Cambridge ROTHs1EIN, M. 1923. Catull und Lesbia. Philologus 78:1-34 RUDD,N. 1959. Colonia and her Bridge: A Note on the Structure of Catullus 17. TAPA 90:238-242 SANTIROCCO, M.S. 1986. Unity and Design in Horace's Odes. Chapel HilI & London SCHANZ,M. 1909. Geschichte der Römischen Litteratur. 1,2. München, 3rd ed. SCHERF,J. 1996. Untersuchungen zur antiken Veröffentlichung der Catullgedichte. Hildesheim-Zürich-New York SCHMIDT, B. 1914. Die Lebenszeit Catulls und die Herausgabe seiner Gedichte. RhM 69:267-283 SCHMIDT, E.A. 1973. Catulls Anordnung seiner Gedichte. Philologus 117:215-242 1979. Das Problem des Catullbuches. Philologus 123:216-231 1985. Catull. Heidelberg SCHÖNE, W. (ED.) 1941. Catull: Sämtliche Gedichte. Urtext und deutsche Übertragung. München

SCHULZE, KP. 1920. Bericht über die Literatur zu Catull für die Jahre 1905-1920. JA W 183:1-72 SCHUSTER, M. 1948. Valerius Catullus. RE VII A:2353-241O 1949, 1954. (ed.) Catulli Veronensis Liber. Leizpig

163 SCHWABIUS [= SCHWABE], L.

1862. Quaestionum Catullianarum liber I. Giessen 1886. (ed.) Catulli Veronensis libero Berlin SCOTI, W.c.

1969. Catullus und Cato (c. 56). CP 64:24-29 SEGAL,C. 1970. Catullus' otiosi: the Lover and the Poet. G&R 17:25-31 SHACKLETON BAILEY, D.R. (ED.) 1966. Cicero's Letters to Atticus.Vol. V. Cambridge 1966 SHIPI'ON,

K.M.W.

1980. Catullus 51: just another love poem. LCM 5:73-76

SKINNER, M.B. 1981. Catullus' Passer: The Arrangement 0/ the Book Poems. New York 1982. Pretty Lesbius. TAPA 112:197-208

0/ Polymetric

1987-1988. Aesthetic Patteming in Catullus: Textual Structures, System of Imagery, and Book Arrangement. Introduction. CW 81:337-340 SKUTSCH,O. 1963. The Structure of the Propertian Monobiblos. CP 58:238-239 1969. Metrical Variations and Some Textual Problems in Catullus. BICS 16:38-43 1969a. Symmetry and Sense in the Eclogues. HCSP 73:153-169 SMALL, S.G.P. 1983. Catullus: A Reader's Guide to the Poems. Lanham-New YorkLondon

SMfl1I, B.H. 1980. Poetic Closure: A Study

0/ How Poems End.

Chicago

STOESSL,F.

1977. C. Valerius Catullus: Mensch, Leben, Dichtung. Meisenheim am Glan STOlZ,F.

1894. Historische Grammatik der Lateinischen Sprache I. Leipzig SOSS, 1.

1876. Catulliana. Diss. Erlangen 1878. Catulliana. Acta Seminarii Philologici Erlangensis 1:1-48 SVENNUNG, J. 1945. Catulls Bildersprache: Vergleichende Stilstudien. Uppsala-Leipzig SYNDIKUS, H.P.

1984. Catull: Eine Interpretation. I. Die kleinen Gedichte (1-60). Darmstadt 1987. Catull: Eine Interpretation. III. Die Epigramme (69-116). Darmstadt 1990. Catull: Eine Interpretation. II. Die großen Gedichte (61-68). Darmstadt 1996. Art. Catullus. Ox/ord Classical Dictionary. 3d ed. Oxford-New York, 303-304

164

TATUM, WJ.

1997. Friendship, Politics, and Literature in Catullus: Poems I, 65 and 66, 116. CQ 47:482-500 THOMSEN,O.

1992. Ritual and Desire: Catullus 61 and 62 and Other Ancient Documents on Wedding and Marriage. Aarhus THOMSON, D.F.S.

1961. Aspects of Unity in Catullus 64. Cl 57:49-57 1964. Interpretations of Catullus - 11. Phoenix 18:30-36 1967. (ed.) Catullus: A Critical Edition. Chapel Hill 1997. (ed.) Catullus: Edited with a Textual and Interpretative Commentary. Toronto-Buffalo-London TOWNEND, G.B. 1980. A Further Point in Catullus' Attack on Volusius. G & R 27:134136 TRÄNKLE,H. 1967. Neoterische Kleinigkeiten. MH 24:86-103 TRAILL, D.A. 1980-1981. Ring-Composition in Catullus 64. Cl 76:232-241 TRAINA,A. 1978. La 'ripetizione' in Catullo. RFC 106:363-374 1982, 1993. (ed.) Gaio Valerio Catullo: I Canti. 6th ed. Milano TROMARAS, L. 1984. Catull-Interpretationen: Die Aurelius-, Furius- und IuventiusGedichte. Thessaloniki ULLMAN, B.L. 1973. Studies in the ltalian Renaissance. Rome VAHLEN,J.

1904. Beiträge zur Berichtigung der Römischen Lyriker. Catullus I. Berliner Sitzungsberichtel:1067-1078 (= Gesammelte philologische Schriften 11, Leipzig-Berlin 1923:708-720) VANDERPAARDT, R. 1993. 'Kuchend in de inkt.' Catullus als poeta doctus. Nexus 7:66-85 V AN GELDER, J. 1933. De woordherhaling bij Catullus. Leiden VAN SICKLE, J.B. 1980. The Book-Role and Some Conventions of the Poetic Book. Arethusa 13:5-42 1981. Poetics of Opening and Closure in Meleager, Catullus, and Gallus. CW 75:65-75 VEYNE,P. 1988. Roman Erotic Elegy: Love, Poetry, and the West. Chicago and London (translation of L'eLegie romaine: L'amour, la poesie et l'occident. Paris 1983) VORBERG,G. 1932, 1965. Glossarium eroticum. Repr. Hanau

165

WALSH,P.G.

1985. Catullus 17 and the Priapean. In: Studia in honorem liro Kajanto. Helsinki (= Arctos Suppl. 2:315-322) WElNREICH, O.

1959. Catull e. 60. Hermes 87:73-90 1959a. (ree.) Epigrammata Bobiensia, ed. Munari. Gnomon 31:239-250 1960. Catull: Liebesgedichte und sonstige Dichtungen. Hamburg WESlPHAL, R. 1870. Catull's Gedichte in ihrem geschichtlichen Zusammenhange übersetzt und erläutert. Breslau WETMORE, M.N. 1912, 1961. Index verborum Catullianum. New Haven, repr. Hildesheim WHEELER, A.L.

1908. Hieremias De Montagnone and Catullus. AlPh 29:186-200 1934, 1964. Catullus and the Traditions of Ancient Poetry. Repr. Berkeley & Los Angeles WIFSTRAND, A.

1926. Studien zur griechischen Anthologie. Lund-Leipzig WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORF, U. VON

1913. Sappho und Simonides: Untersuchungen über griechische

Lyriker. Berlin 1924. Hellenistische Dichtung in der Zeit des Kallimachos. Berlin

WIllIAMS, G. 1968. Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry. Oxford WILUAMS, M.F. 1987-1988. Amor's Head-Cold (frigus in Catullus 45). Cl 83:128-132 WIllS,J. 1996. Repetition in Latin Poetry: Figures of Allusion. Oxford WIMAN,G.

1963. Ad Catulli texturn eritiea. Eranos 61:29-37 WIRSHBo,E.

1980. 'Lesbia': a moek Hypoeorism? CP 75:70 WIRTH, T.

1986. Catull e. 2: Passer und malum als Zeichen der Liebe. RhM 129:3653 WISEMAN, T.P. 1969. Catullan Questions. Leieester 1971. New Men in the Roman Senate. Oxford 1974. Cinna the Poet and other Roman Essays. Leieester 1979. Clio's Cosmetics: Three Studies in Greco-Roman Literature. Leicester 1985. Catullus and his World: A Reappraisal. Cambridge 1997. Catullus. Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike. 2:1036-1039 ZIcm, M. 1978. Scritti Catulliani. Urbino

INDEX OF TERMS alternation: 6, 19, 20, 22, 23, 117 annular links : see internal annular composition antonymous concatenation : 34, 57 companion-piece : 27 concatenation : 3, 31 concentric composition : 22, 120-126, 149 cycle: 21 devices of lexical concatenation : 34 disjunctive concatenation : 29-30, 35, 57 etymological concatenation : 31, 32, 34 formallexical concatenation : 50-51, 57, 149 functions of concatenation : 50-51 homonymous concatenation : 34, 57 internal annular composition : 125-131 LC = lexical concatenation : 27, 30-34, 57 literal concatenation : 57, 149 morphological variation : 30 omphalos : 121 phonic concatenation : 35, 57 programmatic poem: 9, 58, 74 ring composition : 22, 120, and see concentric composition simple concatenation : 27, 28, 57 Sperrung: 29, and see disjunctive concatenation synonymous concatenation : 34, 57 syntactical concatenation : 64, 77 TC = thematic concatenation : 27-30, 57, 149 thematic contrast : 28, 50-51, 111-117 thematic similarity : 50, 111-117 variation: 7, 17-18,20,22-24, 117-120, 131, 149