Lustrum Band 57 – 2015: Internationale Forschungsberichte aus dem Bereich des klassischen Altertums [1 ed.] 9783666802300, 9783525802304

Citation preview

LUSTRUM INTERNATIONALE FORSCHUNGSBERICHTE AUS DEM BEREICH DES KLASSISCHEN ALTERTUMS

herausgegeben von MARCUS DEUFERT und MICHAEL WEISSENBERGER

Band 57 · 2015

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. ISSN 2197-3849 ISBN 978-3-666-80230-0 Weitere Ausgaben und Online-Angebote sind erhältlich unter: www.v-r.de © 2017, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen /  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U. S. A. www.v-r.de Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Satz: textformart, Göttingen | www.text-form-art.de

Inhalt Phaedrus 1975–2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Ursula Gärtner / Potsdam A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015 Marilyn B. Skinner / Tucson, Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Phaedrus 1975–2014

von Ursula Gärtner / Potsdam

Vorbemerkung Die Fabeln des Phaedrus standen lange nicht im Zentrum der Forschung. Über die Gedichte wie über ihren Verfasser wurden z. T. vernichtende Urteile gefällt. In der Forschungsliteratur lag ein Schwerpunkt lange auf der Motiv- und Rezeptionsgeschichte; die Deutung der Fabeln erfolgte zumeist unter politisch-soziokulturellem Aspekt; man sah ein Werk eines Angehörigen der unteren Schichten, der aus der Sicht des ›Kleinen Mannes‹ die Anpassung predige. Erst im letzten Teil des hier vorzustellenden Zeitraums hat sich das Interesse an Phaedrus nicht nur gesteigert, in der Forschung traten auch neue Ansätze in den Vordergrund, die die Gedichte in einem anderen Licht erscheinen lassen. Der vorliegende Forschungsbericht schließt sich an die kurze Übersicht To r t o r a s (1967–74) an.1 Vollständigkeit wurde bei den speziell zu Phaedrus veröffentlichten Arbeiten erstrebt.2 Abhandlungen allgemein zur Fabel sowie rezeptionsgeschichtliche Arbeiten wurden nur aufgenommen, wenn der lateinische Fabeldichter ausführlicher behandelt wurde. Im fachdidaktischen Bereich ist recht viel zu den Phaedrusfabeln erschienen, was einen eigenen Bericht rechtfertigte; hier sind nur Arbeiten genannt, die aus fachwissenschaftlicher Sicht Neues bringen. Beiträge, die sich auf unten aufgeführte übergreifende Aspekte beziehen, sind dort zu finden; betreffen sie jedoch nur eine einzige Fabel, sind sie unter der jeweiligen Fabel eingeordnet.

Abkürzungen Periodika werden nach L’Année philologique, antike Autoren und ihre Werke nach dem Neuen Pauly abgekürzt. 1 T o r t o r a , L., Recenti studi su Fedro (1967–1974), BStudLat 5, 1975, 266–73. Verwiesen sei zudem auf die älteren Forschungsberichte: Zu den Jahren 1873–87: H e y d e n r e i c h , E., Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der class. Alterthumswiss. 39, 1884, 1–33; 39, 1884, 205–49; 43, 1885, 100–24; 55, 1888, 170–4; zu den Jahren 1888–1924: D r a h e i m , H., Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der class. Alterthumswiss. 59, 1889, 107–21; 68, 1891, 210–25; 84, 1895, 235–58; 100, 1899, 142–7; 126, 1905, 149–58; 143, 1909, 55–62; 183, 1920, 195–203; 204, 1925, 223–32; zu den Jahren 1925–37: P o r t , W., Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der klass. Altertumswiss. 240, 1933, 63–94; 265, 1939, 1–29. 2 Dies betrifft die Arbeiten bis einschließlich 2014. Danach erschienene Titel konnten nur vereinzelt aufgenommen werden.

Inhalt 1. Bibliographien / Forschungsberichte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2. Ausgaben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3. Kommentare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. Lexika / Nachschlagewerke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. Übersetzungen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.1. Deutsch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.2. Englisch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.3. Französisch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.4. Galizisch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.5. Italienisch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.6. Russisch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.7. Spanisch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.8. Ukrainisch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6. Gesamtinterpretationen (Monographien) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7. Einzelaspekte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.1. Einführendes / Allgemeines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.2. Textkritik / Überlieferungsgeschichte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 7.3. Zu Autor und Publikum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7.4. Zu Form und Gattung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7.5. Zu Sprache, Stil und Metrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 7.6. Zu Quellen, Vorbildern und Subtexten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 7.7. Zur Aussage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 7.7.1. Politisch-soziokulturell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 7.7.2. Moralisch-philosophisch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 7.7.3. Poetologisch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 7.8. Zur Rezeption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 7.8.1. Allgemein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 7.8.2. Antike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 7.8.3. Mittelalter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 7.8.4. Neuzeit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 7.9. Spezielle Aspekte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 7.9.1. Tierrollen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 7.9.2. Geschlechterrollen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 7.9.3. Römisches Recht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

10

Inhalt

8. Einzelne Gedichte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 9. Fachdidaktik (Auswahl) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 10. Vermischtes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Nachtrag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

1. Bibliographien / Forschungsberichte 1.  C a r n e s , P., Fable Scholarship. An annotated bibliography, New York / London 1985. Rez.: D o w d e n , CR 36, 1986, 319–20; K ö h l e r - Z ü l c h , Fabula 27, 1986, 334–6; G a i d e , Phoenix 41, 1987, 455–8. 2.  L a m b , R. W., Annales Phaedriani 1596–1996. A bibliography of Phaedrus, Lowestoft 1998. Rez.: H e n d e r s o n , CR 49, 1999, 569. Mögen auch die Forschungsberichte zwischen P o r t und To r t o r a eine empfindliche Lücke von fast 30 Jahren aufweisen, so wird dies durch zwei umfangreiche Bibliographien ein wenig ausgeglichen. C a r n e s (1) bietet eine alphabetisch geordnete kommentierte Bibliographie etwa von 1880 bis 1982 allgemein zur Fabel (1457 Titel; mit einem Schwerpunkt auf der aesopischen Fabel), die sich durch ein Register auch für Phaedrus schnell erschließt; Ausgaben sind nicht aufgenommen. L a m b (2) liefert eine nach Forscherepochen gegliederte 400 Jahre umfassende Bibliographie allein zu Phaedrus (1128 Titel), die bei grundlegenden Arbeiten mit nützlichen Anmerkungen versehen ist.3

2. Ausgaben 3.  Phaedrus, Pisa 1975 (Scriptorum Romanorum quae extant omnia 222–3). 4.  B a e z a A n g u l o , E., Fedro. Fábulas esópicas. Introducción, edición crítica, traducción y notas, Madrid 2011. Die zum Teil  heftig kritisierte Ausgabe G u a g l i a n o n e s blieb lange Zeit unersetzt.4 Bei der 1975 bei Giardini unter F. S e r r a erschienenen Ausgabe (3) erschloss sich nicht, wer für die Textgestaltung verantwortlich ist. Der ohne textkritischen Apparat wiedergegebene Text stützt sich mit wenigen, angegebenen Abweichungen auf die Ausgabe von M ü l l e r;5 die aktuellste zitierte Literatur stammt von 1917. B a e z a A n g u l o (4) legt eine Ausgabe vor, deren Wert unterschiedlich ist. Der Text selbst ist ausgesprochen konservativ und weicht selten von Guaglianone ab. Der Apparat ist 3 Übersichten zur Forschungsgeschichte finden sich ferner bei H o l z b e r g (59, 55 f., 184) und G ä r t n e r (9, 37 ff.). 4 Phaedri Augusti liberti liber fabularum. Recensuit G u a g l i a n o n e , A., Torino 1969. Kritisiert wurde vor allem, dass Guaglianone die späteren Prosaparaphrasen, d. h. besonders Ademar, nicht hinreichend herangezogen habe. 5 Phaedri fabularum Aesopiarum libri quinque. Emendavit, adnotavit, supplevit M ü l l e r , L., Leipzig 1877.

12

Ursula Gärtner

sehr ausführlich, zumal er zahlreiche Konjekturen verzeichnet, ist aber leider nicht immer zuverlässig. Die umfangreiche Einleitung (ca. 100 S.) ist insofern originell, als sie auch die Literatur des 19. Jh.s miteinbezieht; ansonsten bietet sie eine traditionelle Darstellung zu Leben und Werk, eine sich auf A d r a d o s (42–47) stützende Überlieferungsgeschichte sowie eine ausführliche Beschreibung der Handschriften. Irritierend ist, dass Baeza Angulo zwar am Ende der Einleitung (CXII) darauf verweist, dass er für seine Anmerkungen auf eine Reihe von Werken zurückgreife wie z. B. auf P i s i (116), L u z z a t t o (5), d e M a r i a (189), S o l i m a n o (35), dass diese dann aber in den Anmerkungen ohne weitere Hinweise meist schlicht wörtlich übersetzt erscheinen. Mit Spannung darf man daher eine neue Ausgabe erwarten, in die die Ergebnisse der letzten Jahrzehnte insbesondere zu den Prosaparaphrasen und zu den Neuentdeckungen (vor allem Vat. lat. 5190) miteinbezogen werden müssen.6

3. Kommentare 5.  L u z z a t t o , M. J., Fedro. Un poeta tra favola e realtà. Antologia, Torino 1976. 6.  H e n d e r s o n , J., Anecdote and Satire in Phaedrus. Commentary and discussion, Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Oxford 1977. 7.  O b e r g , E., Phaedrus-Kommentar. Mit 18 Abbildungen, Stuttgart 2000. Rez.: H e c k e l , Fabula 42, 2001, 172–3; K i ß e l , Gymnasium 109, 2002, 2­ 44–6; S a n t i n i , GIF 54, 2002, 237–9; A d r a d o s , Gnomon 75, 2003, 267–9. 8.  H e n d e r s o n , J., Telling Tales on Caesar. Roman stories from Phaedrus, Oxford 2001. Rez.: D e h o n , LEC 69, 2001, 330; H o l z b e r g , CR 52, 2002, 299–300; K r a u s , BMCRev 2002.10.16. 9.  G ä r t n e r , U., Phaedrus. Ein Interpretationskommentar zum ersten Buch der Fabeln, München 2015 (Zetemata 149). Während die Phaedrusfabeln nach dem ersten Druck umgehend und bis in das 19. Jh. häufig kommentiert wurden, fehlte im 20. Jh. ein wissenschaftlicher Gesamtkommentar und fehlt bis heute. H e n d e r s o n s (6) Dissertation wurde nicht veröffentlicht und ist daher nur beschränkt einsehbar, was zu bedauern ist, da sich hier ein Schatz an Informationen findet. In einer ausführlichen Einleitung behandelt Henderson das originale Corpus der Phaedrusfabeln, Autor und Werk sowie das Corpus Phaedrianum als Folklore. Ein eigener Abschnitt ist den Quellen des Texts gewidmet. Den Hauptteil nimmt der Kommentar zu einer Reihe von Gedichten ein (1.: 14; 18; 2.: 2; 3; 5; 3.: 1; 3; 4; 5; 8; 9; 10; 11; 14; 17; 19; 4.: 1; 5; 7; 10; 11; 12; 15; 16; 18; 22; 23; 24; 26; 5.: 1; 2; 5; 6; 7; 8; app.: 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 13; 15; 16; 17; 20; 23; 27; 29); die Aus

6 Angekündigt ist eine Teubneriana von Z a g o , G. für 2017.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

13

wahl ergebe sich durch den Ausschluss der Tierfabeln, um eine überschaubare Stoffmenge zu erhalten, um ein Gebiet zu beleuchten, das bis dahin wenig beachtet war, um die Untersuchung zur Gattung Anekdote voranzubringen, um die heterogene Gruppe an Ausdrücken popularer Ethik zu erforschen und um die kostbare Konzentration an Spuren in die Subkultur der Klassik auszuschöpfen ([4]). Die Frage nach dem Corpus greift Henderson später ausführlicher auf (79). Nützlich ist die Übersicht zu den Fabeln. Die Bemerkungen zum Leben sind zurückhaltend; die Angabe der Handschriften Augusti libertus ist für Henderson aber essenziell (s. u.). Während Henderson später (8) die zahlreichen intertextuellen Bezüge herausstreicht, geht er hier von einem Text aus, der abgesehen von »the odd Vergilian echo or touch« »essentially a translation« sei ([41]). Der Kommentarteil besteht aus Text, Übersetzung, einer Einführung, die auf Kernaussagen und Themen konzentriert ist, die sich motivgeschichtlich in den Grundbestand der Gattung einordnen lassen, sowie einem lemmatischen Kommentar mit einem Schwerpunkt in der Motivgeschichte. O b e r g (7) legt den einzigen Gesamtkommentar jüngerer Zeit vor. Er verzichtet auf eine sonst übliche Einführung. Was Lebenszeit und soziale Stellung betrifft, bleibt Oberg wohlweißlich zurückhaltend. Anregend, wenn auch ungeordnet, sind die einleitenden ›Quer­ themen‹. Zu den einzelnen Fabeln findet sich kein lemmatischer Kommentar, sondern es folgen je eine recht wörtliche Übersetzung mit Glossen (ÜG), eine Analyse zum Aufbau mit Interpretationshinweisen – vor allem stilistisch und realienkundlich (AN) –, Verbindungen zu anderen Autoren (AU), Verbindungen zu anderen Phaedrusfabeln (PH), thematische Parallelen bei anderen Autoren (PA), Bemerkungen zu einzelnen Versen (VE) und Literaturhinweise (LI). Einer Einordnung in die griechische Fabeltradition geht Oberg nicht nach. Ein Schwerpunkt liegt auf dem rechtlichen Aspekt mit hilfreichen Hinweisen auf entsprechende Rechtstexte (s. 7.9.3.). Kritischen wissenschaftlichen Ansprüchen wird der Kommentar kaum gerecht. Dennoch ist man dankbar, besonders für die zahlreichen Hinweise auf Parallelstellen. Nützlich ist der Kommentar von L u z z a t t o (5), die allerdings nur eine Auswahl von Fabeln behandelt (1.: prol.; 1; 2; 14; 15; 17; 27; 28; 30; 31; 2.: prol. 1–12; 4; 5; 6; epil.; 3.: prol. 1–3, 15–63; 7; 10; 12; epil. 15–35; 4.: prol.; 2; 5; 6; 7; 11; 12; 21; 22; 23; 26; epil.; 5.: prol.; 1; 4; 5; 7; 8; app.: 2; 5; 7; 8; 10; 16; 20; 26). Die Deutung erfolgt in der Regel traditionell aus politisch-soziokultureller Sicht (s. 7.7.1.); die Einzelinterpretationen sind gut begründet und werden durch einen sorgfältigen lemmatischen Kommentar ergänzt. H e n d e r s o n s auf seiner Dissertation (6) aufbauendes, später erschienenes Buch (8) gehört zu den originellsten Arbeiten zu Phaedrus. Auch wenn der Titel es so nicht erwarten lässt, verbirgt sich dahinter ein fortlaufender Kommentar, in dem Henderson die Gedichte behandelt, die sich seiner Meinung nach durch Aussagen über Herrscher in der politischen Realität der augusteisch-tiberianischen Zeit, insbesondere in der Atmosphäre des Kaiserhofs verorten lassen (ausführlich: 1.: 14; 2.: 5; 3.: prol.; 10; 5.: 1; 5; 7; app. 10; knapp: 1.: 1; 2; 31; 4.: 13; 14). Zu den Gedichten liefert Henderson jeweils Text und Übersetzung, eine umfassende Einführung sowie eine nach Abschnitten gegliederte Detailinterpretation. Grundlage ist ein biographischer Ansatz, auf dessen Anfechtbarkeit Henderson selbstironisch verweist (195 Anm. 6). Einwenden ließe sich z. B., dass gerade in der Fabel nicht nur das Dich-

14

Ursula Gärtner

ter-Ich als persona zu betrachten ist, sondern ebenso die Herrscher als Figuren der Fabel zu deuten sind. Folgt man freilich Hendersons Prämisse, ergibt sich eine in sich schlüssige Gesamtdeutung; doch auch wen dieser Ansatz und die Heranziehung von Anekdoten aus der antiken Geschichtsschreibung als historische Belege nicht überzeugen, wird durch die höchst lehrreiche, amüsante und inspirierende Lektüre belohnt. Neben den Beobachtungen zu Textkritik und Stil sei vor allem auf die Betonung des Spielcharakters verwiesen, was z. B. den Pakt zwischen Dichter und Leser oder den Umgang (und die Umsetzung) mit Fabeltheorie in der Fabel selbst betrifft; daneben kann Henderson die Vielschichtigkeit der Texte durch zahlreiche intertextuelle Bezüge belegen, die so noch nicht nachgewiesen wurden (z. B. Hesiod, Platon, Kallimachos, Ennius, Vergil, Gallus, Horaz, Ovid) und auch die poetologische Dimension der Texte erkennen lassen. Mein eigenes Buch, G ä r t n e r (9), ist der erste Teil  einer neuen Gesamtkommentierung. Es ist als Interpretationskommentar ein Hybrid zweier wissenschaftlicher Textgattungen. Ziel ist, mehr Interpretation als ein üblicher lemmatischer Kommentar und zugleich mehr Material als eine übliche Textanalyse zu liefern. Die Einleitung informiert in kritischer Auseinandersetzung mit den vorherrschenden Thesen über die antike Fabel und ihre Tradition sowie über Phaedrus’ Leben und Werk (Leben; Gönner; Publikum; Überlieferungsgeschichte; Forschungsgeschichte; Quellen, Vorbilder und Subtexte; Auseinandersetzung mit dem Dichtungsprogramm der Vorgänger; Aufbau der Fabeln und Bücher; Protagonisten; Themen und Aussagen; Versmaß und Stil; Verortung im 1. Jh. n. Chr.; Rezeption). Behandelt werden die Gedichte des ersten Buchs in der uns überlieferten Reihenfolge; der Haupttext liefert eine fortlaufende Interpretation der einzelnen Gedichte; die ausführlichen Anmerkungen bieten als eine Art Kommentar Parallelstellen, weiterführende Beobachtungen und Auseinandersetzungen mit anderen Interpretationsansätzen. Die herkömmlichen Ansätze einer biographischen und zumeist politisch-soziokulturellen Deutung (s. 7.3. u. 7.7.1.) werden dabei berücksichtigt, allerdings hinterfragt, da gezeigt wird, wie viele der ›biographischen Daten‹ in einem Zirkelschluss aus den Fabeln herausgelesen wurden oder sich als poetologische Topoi zu erkennen geben (s. 7.3. u. 7.7.3.). Im Zentrum stehen somit literarische Gesichtspunkte. Die Fabeln werden nicht nur in die Fabeltradition eingeordnet, sondern auf ihre zahlreichen intertextuellen Bezüge hin untersucht. Sie erweisen sich dabei als Texte, die sich spielerisch, witzig und eigenwillig in die literarische Tradition und den Diskurs ihrer Zeit einreihen und so selbstreflektiert auch zu Fabeln über die Dichtung werden.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

15

4. Lexika / Nachschlagewerke 10.  C r e m o n a , C. A., Lexicon Phaedrianum, Hildesheim / New York 1980 (Alpha  – Omega. Reihe A. Lexika. Indizes. Konkordanzen zur Klassischen Philo­ logie 15). Rez.: C u p a i u o l o , BStudLat 13, 1983, 92–3. 11.  S t o c c h i , Chr., Dizionario della favola antica, Milano 2013. Auch in Zeiten digitaler Hilfsmittel ist das Lexikon, das C r e m o n a (10) vorlegt, unverzichtbar. Unter dem jeweiligen Lemma findet man nach Bedeutungen differenziert lateinische Synonyme, den Wortlaut bei Phaedrus sowie sprachliche und sachliche Erklärungen. Cremona führt hierbei auch abweichende Lesarten sowie Konjekturen und Emendationen an. S t o c c h i (11) richtet sich in seinem Lexikon zur antiken Fabel an ein weiteres Publikum. Nach einer informativen Einführung zur Fabel und einer sinnvollen Auswahlbibliographie findet man in alphabetischer Reihenfolge Lemmata zu den Protagonisten der antiken Fabeln (Tiere, Personen, Götter, Sachen etc.). Einleitend werden jeweils mit Belegen kulturelle Einordnung, Mythen, symbolische und religiöse Bedeutung sowie der historische Hintergrund skizziert. Es folgen Beobachtungen zur Motivtradition und Rezeption der Fabeln. In italienischer Übersetzung liest man schließlich die wichtigsten Fabelversionen, zumeist Aesop und Phaedrus, sowie zweisprachig entsprechende Sprichwörter. Die Artikel liefern selten neue Erkenntnisse, sind jedoch stets fundiert und erfüllen somit die Funktion eines Lexikons. Register zu den Protagonisten, den Fabeln und zitierten Autoren erschließen das nützliche Buch.

5. Übersetzungen 5.1. Deutsch 12.  M a r q u a r d t , H. (Hrsg.), Die Diebe und der Hahn. Fabeln des Äsop und Äsopische Fabeln des Phädrus. Mit Tusch- und Federzeichnungen von H e g e n b a r t h , J., Leipzig 41975. 13.  I r m s c h e r , J., Sämtliche Fabeln der Antike. Aus dem Griechischen und Latei­nischen übers. u. hrsg., Berlin / Weimar 1978 (Ndr. Köln 2006). 14.  S c h ö n b e r g e r , O., Phaedrus. Liber Fabularum. Fabelbuch. Lateinisch und deutsch, übers. von R ü c k e r t , F. F. u. S c h ö n b e r g e r , O., hrsg. u. erl. von S c h ö n b e r g e r , O., Stuttgart 41987. Rez.: R e h e r m a n n , Fabula 16, 1975, 178–9; A n d r é , RPh 50, 1976, 145. 15.  R i e d e l , V. (Hrsg.), Phaedrus. Der Wolf und das Lamm. Fabeln. Lateinisch und deutsch, Leipzig 1989.

16

Ursula Gärtner

16.  R u p p r e c h t , H., Phaedrus Libertus Augusti. Fabulae. Die Fabeln. Latei­ nischer Text mit Einleitung, Übersetzung im Versmaß des Originals, kurzen Erläuterungen und Nachwort, Mitterfels 1992. Rez.: B u r c k , Gnomon 65, 1993, 723–5. 17.  O b e r g , E., Phaedrus. Fabeln. Lateinisch-deutsch, hrsg. u. übers., Zürich /  Düsseldorf 1996 (u. ö.). Rez.: K o h l , Anregung 43, 1997, 200–1. 18.  S c h n u r , H. C., Fabeln der Antike. Griechisch – Lateinisch – Deutsch, hrsg. u. übers., überarbeitet von K e l l e r , E., Düsseldorf 31997 (Ndr. nur deutsch: Düsseldorf 2004). Rez.: L i é n a r d , AC 48, 1979, 280–1; W a l c o t , G&R 26, 1979, 211; W e i t z e l , Vox Latina 56, 1979, 216; H e n d e r s o n , CR 30, 1980, 145–6; W a g n e r , MLatJb 16, 1981, 373. Die Ausgabe von M a r q u a r d t (12) enthält eine Auswahl von Aesop- und Phaedrus­ fabeln in deutscher Übersetzung; diese stammt zu Aesop von W. B i n d e r und H.  M ö l l e r , zu Phaedrus von E.  S a e n g e r . Die Ausgabe richtet sich nicht an ein wissenschaftliches Publikum; leider fehlen Verweise auf sonst übliche Fabelzählungen. I r m s c h e r (13) bietet eine recht wörtliche (Prosa-)Übersetzung sämtlicher Fabeln der Antike. Schon diese Zusammenstellung (Hesiod, Archilochos, Sophokles, Herodot, Aesop, Ennius, Lucilius, Livius, Horaz, Phaedrus, Babrios, Romulus, Avian, Ignatios Diakonos) ist von praktischem Wert. Die Einleitung hingegen ist sehr knapp und z. T. stark wertend, was die Qualität der Werke betrifft; die Anmerkungen zu einzelnen Fabeln sind rar und eklektisch. Von S c h ö n b e r g e r (14) stammt die Reclamausgabe. Hierzu liefert er einen eigenen lateinischen Text ohne kritischen Apparat, der im Vergleich mit modernen Ausgaben und einer Photokopie der Handschrift P auf der Ausgabe von M ü l l e r basiert. Die Übersetzung stammt von F. F.  R ü c k e r t aus dem Jahr 1879 in Jamben und hat ihren eigenen literarischen Reiz. Fehlende Übersetzungen ergänzt Schönberger in Prosa. Hilfreich sind die Anmerkungen zu den einzelnen Fabeln mit Verweisen auf die sonstige Überlieferung des Fabelmotivs, nützlichen Einzelerläuterungen und interessanten Interpretationsansätzen. Ein fundiertes Nachwort sowie Literaturhinweise schließen das Buch. R i e d e l (15) ist Herausgeber einer zweisprachigen Ausgabe, zu der er einen eigenen lateinischen Text ohne kritischen Apparat erstellt; hierzu stützt er sich vor allem auf die Ausgaben von M ü l l e r , G u a g l i a n o n e und S c h ö n b e r g e r (14). Als deutsche Übertragung greift Riedel auf die in fünffüßigen Jamben gesetzte Version E. S a e n g e r s aus dem Jahr 1929 zurück; einige Fabelübersetzungen stammen aus der Feder J. S i e b e l i s ’, die der Appendix von I r m s c h e r (13). Die Saengersche Version hat ihren Reiz, ist aber notgedrungen recht frei. Insgesamt ergibt die Zusammenstellung freilich einen uneinheitlichen Eindruck. Ein Nachwort, knappe Anmerkungen zu einzelnen Fabeln, eine Zusammenstellung zur Nachwirkung einzelner Fabelmotive, Register und Literaturverzeichnis ergänzen die Übersetzung. R u p p r e c h t (16) greift in seiner Ausgabe bis auf wenige Abweichungen auf G u a g l i a -

Phaedrus 1975–2014

17

n o n e s Text zurück. Überzeugen kann die lebendige Übertragung im Versmaß des Originals. Einleitung zur Fabel, Nachwort zu Dichter und Werk sowie Anmerkungen sind äußerst knapp gehalten. O b e r g (17) liefert eine solide zweisprachige Ausgabe; der Text stützt sich mit wenigen genannten Ausnahmen auf G u a g l i a n o n e . Die deutsche Übersetzung ist Wort-Folge, Wort-Bedeutung und Wort-Laut des Originals verpflichtet und nähert sich, wo es möglich ist, einer leicht rhythmisierenden Prosa. Von manchen Unschärfen abgesehen, liest sie sich gut. Beigegeben sind knappe, aber hilfreiche Erläuterungen zu den einzelnen Fabeln. Die Einführung beschränkt sich auf zurückhaltende Bemerkungen zu Phaedrus als ›Mensch‹ und ›Literat‹ mit einem Schwerpunkt auf der Überlieferung. Register und Literaturverzeichnis beschließen das Buch. S c h n u r (18) bringt in seiner Auswahl von antiken Fabeln (Altes Testament, Hesiod, Archilochos, Aesop, Syntipas, Babrios, Avian) auch zahlreiche Phaedrusfabeln. Worauf sich der lateinische Text stützt, ist nicht ersichtlich. Die deutsche Übertragung erfolgt im Vermaß des Originals und trifft dessen Ton. Nur zu einzelnen Fabeln finden sich Anmerkungen. Eine Einleitung informiert sachlich; allein zu Phaedrus’ Leben ist Schnur allzu stark von d e L o r e n z i beeinflusst (s. 7.3.). 5.2. Englisch 19.  W i d d o w s , P. F., The Fables of Phaedrus. Translated, Austin 1992. Rez.: G o i n s , CW 87, 1993/4, 245–6. 20.  S m a r t , Chr., A Poetical Translation of the Fables of Phaedrus, edited by W i l l i a m s o n , K. Introduction and bibliographical appendix by B e c h e r , A., Oxford 1996 (The Poetical Works of Christopher Smart 6). 21.  G i b b s , L., Aesop’s Fables. Translated with an introduction and notes, Oxford 2002. Rez.: H a n s e n , CR 54, 2004, 55–6. 22.  H e n d e r s o n , J., Aesop’s Human Zoo. Roman stories about our bodies. Translated from Phaedrus’s Latin. With illustrations by B e w i c k , Th., Chicago /  London 2004. Die Ausgabe von W i d d o w s (19) bietet eine knappe Einleitung sowie eine recht wörtliche Prosaübersetzung, die sich hauptsächlich auf den lateinischen Text von P o s t g a t e stützt.7 Die Nachdichtung Christopher S m a r t s (20) aus dem Jahr 1765 sei hier erwähnt, da sie in einer kritischen Ausgabe mit ausführlicher Einleitung, Appendices und Register vorliegt. G i b b s (21) richtet sich mit ihrer Übersetzung aesopischer Fabeln an einen weiteren Leserkreis. Mit 600 Fabeln eröffnet sich dem Leser ein Einblick in die Fabeltradition, über die man in der Einleitung informativ unterrichtet wird. Neben den üblicherweise Aesop zugeschriebenen Fabeln sind hier 7 Corpus Poetarum Latinorum a se aliisque denuo recognitorum et brevi lectionum varietate instructorum eddidit P o s t g a t e , J. P., Tom. 2, London 1905.

18

Ursula Gärtner

Fabeln anderer Autoren übersetzt, die sich unter Aesops Namen (so) nicht finden lassen, darunter auch eine große Zahl der Phaedrusfabeln. Die Übersetzung ist in moderner englischer Prosa verfasst und mit kurzen Anmerkungen versehen; sie stützt sich auf P e r r y s Loeb-Ausgabe.8 Die Fabeln sind thematisch geordnet, lassen sich jedoch über die Register leicht finden. H e n d e r s o n (22) hat seinem Kommentar (8) eine englische Übersetzung von 50 Phaedrusfabeln folgen lassen. In lockerem Ton richtet er sich an ein weites Publikum. Heiter, aber bestens fundiert erhält man eine Einführung, wobei Henderson den speziell römischen Kontext betont. Die Fabeln sind abwechslungsreich und launisch übersetzt, sind jedoch immer am lateinischen Text nachvollziehbar; worauf dieser basiert, wird allerdings nicht angegeben. Erläuterungen mit Kurzinterpretationen sowie ein Index runden das Werk ab. 5.3. Französisch 23. To u r n i e r , H., Fables grecques et latines. Babrius et Phèdre, Aix-en-Provence 2006. Rez.: S v e l o , BStudLat 37, 2007, 290–2; G a i d e , Latomus 67, 2008, 558–9. *24.  P a n c k o u c k e , E., D e s g r u g i l l e r s - B i l l a r d , N., R o u x , É., Phèdre. Les fables, trad. du latin par P., E., revue par D.-B., N., Clermont-Ferrand 2007. Von To u r n i e rs (23) groß geplantem Projekt zur griechisch-lateinischen Fabel entstanden nur Grundzüge. Hiervon wurde die Übersetzung zu Babrios und Phaedrus postum ediert. Zu Phaedrus stützt sie sich vor allem auf den Text G u a g l i a n o n e s und liefert eine kongeniale Übertragung in Alexandrinern. Beigegeben sind eine knappe Einführung sowie je ein Kapitel zu Tieren und Menschen sowie zur Frau in den Fabeln (s. 7.9.1. u. 7.9.2.), die in der jetzigen Fassung kaum Neues bringen. 5.4. Galizisch *25.  C a r b a l l u d e B l a n c o , X., G a r c i a V i l a r i ñ o , R. M., L i ñ e i r a R e b o r e d o , X .  M., Fedro. Fábulas, revisada por A l v a r e z C a m p o s , S., Santiago de Compostela 1988 (Clásicos en galego 2). Rez.: B e a t o , Euphrosyne 18, 1990, 470–1. * 26.  R i v e r o L ó p e z , V., D i g ó n L o m b a r d í a , L., R o d r í g u e z S a n t í n , A., Fedro. Fábulas, Becerreá 2008.

8 Babrius and Phaedrus. Edited and translated by P e r r y , B. E., Cambridge, Mass. / London 1965.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

19

5.5. Italienisch *27.  Te s t a f e r r a t a , L., Phaedrus. Le favole. Nel testo latino e nella versione italiana. Con trenta litografie colorate a mano di Ordavo, A., Firenze 1977. 28.  L a P e n n a , A., R i c h e l m y , A., Fedro. Favole. Versione di R i c h e l m y , A. Aggiunte le trenta ›Favolae novae‹ a cura di L a P e n n a , A. Testi latini a fronte. Introduzione di L a P e n n a , A., Torino 31978. Rez.: N a m i a , Vichiana 1, 1972, 181–3. 29.  M a n d r u z z a t o , E., Fedro. Favole. Introduzione, traduzione, note, Milano 1979. 30.  B o s s i , E., Fedro. Le favole. Traduzione in versi, Bologna 1982 (=1964). Rez.: M a r s i g l i o , Latinitas 13, 1965, 231–2. 31.  S o l i n a s , F., Fedro. Favole, Milano 1992. 32.  S a g l i m b e n i , S., C a v a r z e r e , A., Fedro. Le favole. Introduzione di­ C a v a r z e r e , A. Traduzione di S a g l i m b e n i , S.  Edizione integrale con testo latino a fronte, Roma 1995. 33.  C e r r u t i , M. G., P u l v i r e n t i , S., Fedro. Favole, Milano 1996 (BIT 81). 34.  G u a g l i a n o n e , A., I favolisti latini, Napoli 2000. Rez.: F i c c a , BStudLat 30, 2000, 687–9. 35.  S o l i m a n o , G., Favole di Fedro e Aviano, Torino 2005 (nur Phaedrus: Milano 1996). Die zweisprachige Ausgabe von L a P e n n a  / R i c h e l m y (28) wurde hier, obschon in der 3. Auflage, aufgenommen, da La Penna durch die beigegebene Einleitung einen besonders in Italien kaum zu überschätzenden Einfluss auf die Forschung zu Phaedrus nahm; dieser liegt insbesondere in der Betonung der Fabeldichtung als Ausdrucksform der subalternen Gesellschaftsschichten (s. 7.7.1.). Ebenfalls wirkungsvoll war die Übersetzung M a n d r u z z a t o s (29). Ihr ist eine ausführliche Einführung zu Gattung, Leben und Werk sowie Überlieferung beigegeben, zum Teil freilich in direkten Auszügen z. B. von La Penna; eine Auseinandersetzung mit moderner Sekundärliteratur fehlt. Zu den einzelnen Fabeln finden sich nützliche Anmerkungen. Die Übersetzung in Versen aus der Hand der Dichterin Edda B o s s i (30) bietet eine recht wörtliche Wiedergabe; Einleitung und Fußnoten sind nützlich, nehmen jedoch auf Forschungsliteratur keinen Bezug; es handelt sich zudem um einen Nachdruck von 1964. Eine ebenfalls wörtliche Prosaübersetzung liest man in der zweisprachigen Ausgabe von S o l i n a s (31). Der lateinische Text folgt der alten Ausgabe von B a s s i .9 Beigegeben ist eine traditionelle, aber gründliche Einführung zur Fabel, zu Phaedrus’ Leben und Werk und zur Aussage. Die zweisprachige Ausgabe von S a g l i m b e n i (32) liefert eine recht lebendige, textnahe Übersetzung. Text 9 Phaedri Fabulae ad fidem codicis Neapolitani denuo excussi edidit, praefatus est, appendice critica instruxit B a s s i , D., Torino 1920.

20

Ursula Gärtner

grundlage ist die Ausgabe B r e n o t s .10 Beigegeben sind sehr knappe Angaben. Lesenswert ist die kurze Einführung C a v a r z e r e s , die auch poetologische Aspekte streift. Die zweisprachige Ausgabe von C e r r u t i  / P u l v i r e n t i (33) bietet den Text von B r e n o t und eine wörtliche Prosaübersetzung. Beigegeben sind eine kurze Einführung in traditioneller Ausrichtung sowie ein Index. In G u a g l i a n o n e s (34) zweisprachiger Ausgabe der lateinischen Fabelautoren sind auch sämtliche Phaedrusfabeln aufgenommen. Der Text entstammt seiner Ausgabe, die Übersetzung ist eine Prosawiedergabe. Die Einleitungskapitel sind ausführlich, lassen jedoch neuere Literatur gänzlich außen vor; Ähnliches gilt für die knappen Anmerkungen. Erheblich ertragreicher ist die ebenfalls zweisprachige Ausgabe von S o l i m a n o (35). In der ausführlichen Einleitung wird der Leser zur Gattung, literarischen Umsetzung und Überlieferung fundiert unterrichtet; die biographische Skizze ist angenehm zurückhaltend. Der Text ist der G u a g l i a n o n e s ; Abweichungen sind ausführlich begründet. Die Übersetzung ist in wörtlicher Prosa. Die Anmerkungen zu den einzelnen Fabeln gehören neben S c h ö n b e r g e r s (14) zu den besten der hier aufgeführten Übersetzungen. 5.6. Russisch 36.  G a s p a r o v , M. L., Phaedri Fabulae. Βαβρίου μυθίαμβοι, Moskau 1995. G a s p a r o v (36) bietet eine Übersetzung im Vermaß mit knappen Anmerkungen. 5.7. Spanisch 37.  M a ñ a s N ú ñ e z , M., Fedro y Aviano. Fábulas. Edición, Madrid 1998 (Akal / Clásica 54). Rez.: G o n z á l e z L u i s , Fortunatae 10, 1999, 307–9; M o n s e r r a t R o i g , AFB 21, 1998–9, 159–60; R u i z V i l a , CFC(L) 17, 1999, 298–301; B e a t o ,­ Euphrosyne 29, 2001, 440–1. 38.  Z a p a t a F e r r e r , A., Fedro. Fábulas. Introducción, traducción y notas,­ Madrid 2000. 39.  C a s c ó n D o r a d o , A., Fedro. Fábulas. Aviano. Fábulas. Fábulas de ­Rómulo. Introducciones, traducción y notas, Madrid 2005 (Biblioteca clásica gredos 343). Von M a ñ a s N ú ñ e z (37) stammt eine Prosaübersetzung. Hier findet man eine sehr ausführliche Einleitung zum Leben, zum Verhältnis zu Aesop, zur Fabel, zu Quellen und Typologie, zur Erzähltechnik, zur Aussage, zu Sprache, Stil und Metrik, zum Nachleben, zur Überlieferung und zur Übersetzung. Dies bietet einen guten Einstieg, ist jedoch einseitig in der biographischen bzw. politisch-soziokulturellen Auslegung. Auffällig ist der starke Einfluss der Thesen A d r a d o s ’ (s. 7.1.), vor allem zu Tradition, Form und der Rolle des kynischen Einflusses. Neben kurzen Anmer 10 Phèdre. Fables. Texte établi et traduit par B r e n o t , A., Paris 1924.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

21

kungen zur Übersetzung gibt es zu jeder Fabel einen erläuternden Abschnitt, der häufig ohne Angabe die Anmerkungen S o l i m a n o s (35) ausschreibt. Z a p a t a F e r r e r (38) legt eine weitere Prosaversion mit knapp gehaltener Einführung vor; auch hier fehlt eine Auseinandersetzung mit neuerer Literatur. C a s c ó n D o r a d o (39) übersetzt Phaedrus, Avian und Romulus vollständig in recht wörtliche Prosa. Dem Abschnitt zu Phaedrus sind eine ausführliche Einleitung zu seinem literarischen Schicksal, seiner Biographie, zur Eigenheit seiner Fabeln (Typen, Definition, Struktur), zu seinen Quellen, zur Ideologie, zum Stil, zur Komik, zum Senar, zur Überlieferung und zur Übersetzung sowie eine Bibliographie beigegeben. Dies ist in weiten Teilen fundiert, bewegt sich dabei in traditionellen Bahnen; der Ansatz ist streng biographisch, die Deutung politisch-soziokulturell (s. 7.7.1.). Neuere Ansätze fehlen, wie auch das Literaturverzeichnis zeigt. Die Anmerkungen bringen zahlreiche Parallelstellen; die Literaturhinweise sind unausgewogen. Auf die zweisprachige Ausgabe B a e z a A n g u l o s (4) wurde schon verwiesen. 5.8. Ukrainisch *40.  L y t v y n o v , V. D., [Einleitung und Übersetzung], Kyjiv 1986.

6. Gesamtinterpretationen (Monographien) 41.  R e n d a , C., Illitteratum plausum nec desidero. Fedro, la favola e la poesia, Napoli 2012 (Studi Latini 80). Es ist bezeichnend, dass neben den Werken H e n d e r s o n s (8) und meiner selbst, G ä r t n e r (9), die man auch hier hätte einordnen können, da sie eine Gesamtdeutung nahe legen, lediglich ein weiteres Buch zu verzeichnen ist, das gänzlich dem Werk des Phaedrus gewidmet ist. R e n d a (41) greift die vorherrschenden Thesen (s. 7.7.1.) auf und entwickelt sie weiter. Während man bisher bei Phaedrus nur den Wunsch gesehen habe, ein neues Gewand für bekannten Inhalt zu schaffen, dabei aber einen Kontrast zu den Qualitätsansprüchen in Pro- und Epilogen erkannt und somit ein negatives Urteil erlangt habe, sei es ihr Ziel zu zeigen, wie Phaedrus die traditionelle Fabel neu interpretiere, wie er mit anderen Autoren kommuniziere, wie sich hier authentisch und exklusiv eine Spur der Freigelassenenkultur greifen lasse, die gerade in dieser Zeit eine besondere Ausprägung erfahren habe, und wie der Dichter in einen Dialog mit dem Publikum trete (7–12). Insgesamt ist Renda stark von der italienischen Phaedrusdeutung, vor allem L a P e n n a (28) und d e l l a C o r t e, geprägt. So neuartig, wie sie selbst meint (11 f.), ist ihr Ansatz nicht; das wird umso auffälliger dadurch, dass sie Untersuchungen, die neue Fragestellungen oder literaturtheoretische Ansätze an den Text herantragen, entweder nicht kennt, (s. 7.7.3), so z. B. H o l z b e r g (59) und vor allem H e n d e r s o n (8), J e n n i n g s (162), K o s t e r (151), M o r g a n (146, 147) oder nicht rezipiert, so z. B. G ä r t n e r (97, 145, 165, 166),

22

Ursula Gärtner

G l a u t h i e r (160) oder P i e p e r (98). Die Nähe der Phaedrusgedichte zur Satire wurde schon oft herausgestrichen. Ihr widmet Renda ein lesenswertes einführendes Kapitel, in dem sie am Ende den kynisch-stoischen Zug sehr stark herausstreicht. Die Gefahr eines Zirkelschlusses verbirgt sich im zweiten Kapitel, in dem Renda, die unhinterfragt einen biographischen Ansatz verfolgt, in den Gedichten die Moralauf­ fassung eines Freigelassenen untersucht; in der Konzentration auf die Kultur der Freigelassenen präzisiert sie die zuvor oft undifferenziert proklamierte Behauptung von Phaedrus als Stimme des ›Kleinen Mannes‹. Der dritte große Abschnitt ist dem Verhältnis des Dichters zum Leser sowie dem literarischen Erfolg und seiner Polemik gewidmet; Renda nähert sich diesen Fragen durch eine Interpretation vor allem der Pro- und Epiloge, in denen sie u. a. eine an eine Verteidigungsstrategie in einem Gerichtsverfahren erinnernde Argumentationsstruktur nachweisen will. Diese beiden Hauptabschnitte bestehen aus paraphrasierenden Interpretationen einzelner Gedichte. In ihrer Zusammenfassung entwirft Renda ein Bild der sozialen Stellung und der daraus resultierenden Moralvorstellung der Freigelassenen im 1. Jh. n. Chr., für die Phaedrus eine einmalige Innenansicht liefere. Seine Weltsicht zeichne sich nicht durch den Verlust von Werten aus, sondern durch ›neue Werte‹. Sein Misserfolg lasse sich dadurch erklären, dass sich unter seinem Publikum nur bei wenigen Zustimmung finden ließ. Ursachen sieht Renda zum einen in der ungewöhnlichen ästhetischen Vision, die sich einerseits in der kurzen direkten Kommunikationsweise, andererseits aber auch in der stolzen literarischen Langform zeige. Zum anderen habe Phaedrus bei den Freien kaum Beifall finden können, doch auch die Freigelassenen hätten gerade in ihrem Streben nach sozialem Aufstieg in seinen Fabeln keine Bestätigung gefunden. Das Buch bietet eine in sich geschlossene Lesart der Phaedrusfabeln; eine Gefahr besteht in dem doch sehr einseitigen biographischen Ansatz, der den Gedichten ihre Vielschichtigkeit nimmt, da beispielsweise poetologischen Deutungen kaum nachgegangen wird. Dem widmen sich H e n d e r s o n (8) und G ä r t n e r (9) in deutlich größerem Maße.

7. Einzelaspekte 7.1. Einführendes / Allgemeines 42.  A d r a d o s , F. R., Historia de la fábula greco-latina. I: Introdución y de los­ orígines a la edad helenística, Madrid 1979. Rez.: G e l z e r , MH 37, 1980, 250; G u i l l é n , Helmantica 31, 1980, 441–2; D e l a u n o i s , LEC 49, 1981, 171; L a p l a c e , REG 94, 1981, 261–3; P e t e r s m a n n , WS 15, 1981, 252–3; W a l c o t , G&R 28, 1981, 114; d e l l a C a s a , Salesianum 44, 1982, 912; H e n d e r s o n , JHS 103, 1983, 188–9; S a l l e s , Latomus 42, 1983, 705; N ø j g a a r d , Gnomon 58, 1986, 193–8; B y l , AC 56, 1987, 357–8.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

23

43.  –, Historia de la fábula greco-latina. II: La fábula en época imperial romana y medieval, Madrid 1985. Rez.: G a i d e , REL 63, 1985, 327–8; D o n n e t , LEC 54, 1986, 200. 44.  –, Historia de la fábula greco-latina. III: Inventario y documentación de la­ fábula greco-latina, Madrid 1987. Rez.: D o n n e t , LEC 56, 1988, 115; L a s s e r r e , MH 45, 1988, 260–1; H e n d e r s o n , JHS 110, 1990, 245–6. 45.  –, History of the Graeco-Latin Fable. I: Introduction and from the origins to the Hellenistic age. Transl. by R a y , L. A., revised and updated by the author and v a n D i j k , G.-J., Leiden / Boston / Köln 1999 (Mnemosyne Suppl. 201). Rez.: M a r t í n , Tempus 2000, 53–62; P ò r t u l a s , Emerita 68, 2000, 174–6; C a r l s o n , BMCRev 2001.05.01; I r w i n , JHS 122, 2002, 171–3; M o r a l e s , CR 52, 2002, 169; V a i o , CW 95, 2002, 458–9. 46.  –, History of the Graeco-Latin Fable. II: The fable during the Roman empire and in the middle ages. Transl. by R a y , L. A., revised and updated by the author and v a n D i j k , G.-J., Leiden / Boston / Köln 2000 (Mnemosyne Suppl. 207). Rez.: M a r t í n , Tempus 2001, 85–96; H e c k e l , Fabula 43, 2002, 146–7; V a i o , CW 95, 2002, 458–9; L u z z a t t o , Gnomon 75, 2003, 631–2. 47.  –, History of the Graeco-Latin Fable. III: Inventory and documentation of the Graeco-Latin fable. Transl. by R a y , L. A. and R o j a s d e l C a n t o , F., supplemented and edited by the author and v a n D i j k , G.-J. Indices by v a n D i j k , G.J., Leiden / Boston 2003 (Mnemosyne Suppl. 236). Rez.: K u c h , AAHG 56, 2003, 189–91; G a i d e , RPh 78, 2004, 372–3; H a n s e n , CR 55, 2005, 174–5; V a i o , CW 99, 2005–6, 87–8. In seinem monumentalen dreibändigen Werk, das erst auf Spanisch (42–44), dann in englischer Übersetzung (45–47) erschien, legt A d r a d o s ein Arbeitsmittel vor, das für jeden Fabelforscher unentbehrlich ist, insbesondere durch den dritten Band, der ein umfassendes Verzeichnis aller antiken Fabeln samt Dokumentation enthält. Adrados untersucht vornehmlich unter einem motivgeschichtlichen Aspekt sämtliche Fabeln der Antike bis ins Mittelalter. Ziel ist dabei die Erforschung des Ursprungs, eine Rekonstruktion der verlorenen Fabelsammlungen des Hellenismus, eine Übersicht über die Beziehungen der Fabelschreiber der Kaiserzeit untereinander sowie eine Untersuchung der mittelalterlichen griechischen und lateinischen Fabeln (45, XIV). Großer Raum ist den Phaedrusfabeln in Bd. 1 und 2 gewidmet.11 Adrados geht davon aus, dass man Phaedrus beim Wort nehmen müsse, wenn er meine, die Fabel habe ihren Ursprung in der satirischen und moralischen Intention gegen die Mächtigen (46, 173). Er sei zwar der originellste der antiken Fabeldichter, übernehme aber seinen Stoff verschiedenen Sammlungen; zum Teil könnten manche Fabeln freilich 11 So z. T. auch zu lesen in A d r a d o s (118) und A d r a d o s , F. R., La fábula de la golondrina de Grecia a la India y la Edad Media, Emerita 48, 1980, 185–208.

24

Ursula Gärtner

auch von ihm selbst stammen, wozu Adrados Übersichten anbietet. Die Wahl der Fabel als Waffe im moralischen und politischen Kampf entspreche deren kynischer Verortung, die mit Phaedrus’ eigener kynisch-stoischen Orientierung übereinstimme (46, 121). Eine Interpretation der Fabeln oder eine tatsächliche Einordnung in das politische, soziale oder kulturelle Umfeld erfolgt allerdings nicht. Aus dem motivgeschichtlichen Ansatz heraus postuliert Adrados ein – im Bereich der Handschriftenüberlieferung sinnvolles  –  Abhängigkeitsverhältnis; seiner Meinung nach folgten spätere Autoren der vorliegenden Fabel streng, kontaminierten gelegentlich und schufen nur in Ausnahmefällen Eigenes. Er erstellt daher ein Stemma (z. B. 46, 725 f.), nach dem die Fabelsammlung des Demetrios die Grundlage bildete, der im 3.  Jh. v. Chr. eine  – stark kynisch geprägte  – Sammlung in Iamben folgte, die im 2. Jh. v. Chr. die Grundlage für dann wieder in Prosa gewandelte verschiedene Fassungen bildete, auf die sich Phaedrus z. T. stütze; die diesen ebenfalls folgende Sammlung ›aesopischer‹ Fabeln, die sog. Augustana, stamme erst aus dem 4.–5. Jh. n. Chr. Besonders zweifelhaft erscheint die aus den Prosafassungen erschlossene hellenistische Fabelsammlung in Iamben, denn ›iambische‹ Bruchstücke lassen sich in jedem Prosatext finden. Diesem Stemma wird man nur mit Vorbehalt folgen, da es von vielen Spekulationen geprägt ist. Zurückhaltend sollte man m. E. ferner bei einer engen Zuordnung in einen kynischen Kontext sein. Auch wenn mancher Fabelstoff in seiner Entstehung sicher auf ein solches Umfeld verweist, muss dies für die Interpretation einer späteren Behandlung des Stoffs, z. B. bei Phaedrus, nicht automatisch bedeuten, dass man die Fabel ausschließlich in diesem Sinne zu verstehen hat.12 Adrados’ Werk wurde dennoch besonders im spanischen Sprachraum meist unkritisch rezipiert. Es ist als Einführung bzw. für Fabelneulinge wenig tauglich, zumal es sich in Teilen nur über das Register erschließt und die zahlreichen Abkürzungen und Formeln nicht leserfreundlich erklärt werden. Es ist aber bei jeder intensiveren Auseinandersetzung mit den Phaedrusfabeln heranzuziehen. 48.  C a n c i k , H., Die kleinen Gattungen der römischen Dichtung in der Zeit des Prinzipats, in: F u h r m a n n , M. (Hrsg.), Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft. Bd. 3: Römische Literatur, Frankfurt 1974, 261–89. *49. To u r l i d è s , G. A., Γάϊος Ἰούλιος Φαῖδρος (Ὁ ἀπο Θρᾴκης Ἕλλην μυθοποιός), Athen 1976. 50.  S o u d é e , M. M. G., Quatre fabulistes. Phèdre, Avianus, Marie de France et La Fontaine, Diss. George Washington Univ. Washington, D. C. 1977. 51.  D ’ E l i a , S., Fedro. Un liberto fallito, Riscontri 2, 1980, 33–9. 52.  G o o d y e a r , F. R. D., Minor Poetry. I. Phaedrus, in: K e n n e y , E. J., C l a u s e n , W. V., E a s t e r l i n g , P. E. (Hrsgg.), Latin Literature, Cambridge 1982 (The Cambridge History of Classical Literature 2), 624–6. 12 Diesen kynischen Hintergrund nannte Adrados als zentral für die nicht erhaltenen, von ihm aber postulierten und ausführlich behandelten hellenistischen Fabelsammlungen (z. B. 45, 604 ff.). Zum kynischen Kontext s. 7.7.2.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

25

53.  C u r r i e , H. MacL., Phaedrus the Fabulist, ANRW 2,32,1, 1984, 497–513. 54.  B e r t i n i , F., Favolisti Latini, in: d e l l a C o r t e , F. (Hrsg.), Dizionario degli scrittori greci e latini. II, Milano 1988, 981–91 (Ndr. in: B e r t i n i [180, 3–15]). 55.  K o s t e r , S., Art. Phaedrus, in: S c h ü t z e , O. (Hrsg.), Metzler Lexikon antiker Autoren, Stuttgart / Weimar 1997, 522–4. 56.  K ü p p e r s , J., Art. Fabel. III. Lateinische Literatur, DNP 4, 1998, 356–63. 57.  S c h m i d t , P. L., Art. Phaedrus, DNP 9, 2000, 708–11. 58.  A l b r e c h t , M. v., Phaedrus, in: ders., Geschichte der römischen Literatur. Von Andronicus bis Boethius und ihr Fortleben. II, Berlin / Boston 32012, 847–51. 59.  H o l z b e r g , N., Die antike Fabel. Eine Einführung, Darmstadt 32012. Üb.: The Ancient Fable. An introduction. Translated by J a c k s o n - H o l z b e r g , Chr., Bloomington 2002. Rez.: F r i t s c h , Mitteilungsblatt des DAV 36, 1993, 164–6; W a g n e r , Fabula 36, 1995, 345–6; W o j a c z e k , Die alten Sprachen im Unterricht 42.3, 1995, 31; B a r t o ň k o v a , Sborník Prací Filoz. Fak. Brnĕnské Univ. 41, 1996, 124; B r u m b e r g e r , Anregung 42, 1996, 128; M o r g a n , CR 46, 1996, 168; G o i n s , CW 90, 1997, 386–7; v a n D i j k , Mnemosyne 50, 1997, 603–9; F i c k , Latomus 57, 1998, 713–4; D o n n e t , AC 70, 2001, 301; J e n n i n g s , BMCRev 2001.09.29; K ü p p e r s , Plekos 3, 2001; M é t h y , RBPh 80, 2002, 264–5; S c h m e l i n g , IJCT 10, 2003–4, 295–7; G a i d e , Latomus 63, 2004, 504; A n d r e a s s i , ElectronAnt 2004–5, 51–60; F o u b e r t , LEC 73, 2005, 259. Einführungen allgemeiner Art zu Gattung, Leben und Werk, Vorbildern, Rezeption u. Ä. finden sich wie vermerkt in oben angeführten Übersetzungen. Die hier gelisteten Werke bringen Ähnliches; obwohl die meisten eher kurz gefasst sind, waren sie zum Teil  recht wirkungsträchtig, da sie an prominenten Orten veröffentlicht wurden. Das gilt etwa für das negative Verdikt durch C a n c i k (48), der die »Verslein des guten armen Phaedrus« (261) als Dokumentation der Sklavensprache sieht; die Fabel wähle dieser als notwendige Tarnung. Der Abschnitt zu Phaedrus bei S o u d é e (50) gibt ohne Auseinandersetzung mit der Sekundärliteratur eine paraphrasierende Interpretation einer Auswahl von Fabeln. D ’ E l i a (51) gibt eine knappe, sehr traditionelle Einführung ohne Belege oder Verweise. Herablassend negativ ist der Artikel G o o d y e a r s (52), der sogar bezweifelt, dass man sich mit dem Autor wieder stärker befassen werde. Einen wichtigen Gegenbeweis dazu liefert C u r r i e (53). Zwar liest man hier ebenso fast durchgängig negative Beiklänge wie »Phaedrus took seriously his small talent … suffered from a sense of inferiority« (502), doch findet eine gründliche Auseinandersetzung mit der Sekundärliteratur up to date statt. Der Leser wird über Fabelsammlungen, Leben und Werk, Sprache und Stil, Versifizierung und Weltanschauung genau unterrichtet, auch wenn man nicht allen Schlüssen zustimmen mag wie etwa der biographischen Deutung (s. 7.3.). Herablassend ist auch das Urteil K o s t e r s (55). Einen sehr knappen Überblick bietet K ü p p e r s (56). Zuverlässig informiert S c h m i d t (57), der ebenfalls einen biographischen Ansatz zugrunde legt

26

Ursula Gärtner

(s. 7.3.). Traditionell, aber umsichtig ist die Darstellung v. A l b r e c h ts in der dritten Auflage seiner Literaturgeschichte (58). Unter den einführenden Arbeiten ragt zweifellos die H o l z b e r g s (59) heraus, die für Studierende wie Spezialisten eine informative und anregende Lektüre darstellt. Die Einleitung gibt einen sicheren Weg­ weiser durch die z. T. verwirrende Lage der vorhandenen Textcorpora und Ausgaben. Im ersten Kapitel behandelt Holzberg die Herkunft sowie die Verwendungsweise der Fabel in der griechischen und lateinischen Literatur; in den folgenden werden jeweils die Versfabel- und die Prosafabelbücher vorgestellt. Neben dem literaturhistorischen Überblick wird hier einmal keine Quellenforschung im herkömmlichen Sinn betrieben, sondern nach Funktion und Wirkung der Fabeln im jeweiligen literarischen und soziokulturellen Kontext gefragt, was durch Musterinterpretationen verdeutlicht wird; wichtig ist hierbei, dass den jeweiligen Autoren, insbesondere auch Phaedrus, nicht nur eigene Intention, sondern auch Kreativität und Kunstfertigkeit zugesprochen werden. Genretypisch ist auf eine Auseinandersetzung mit der Sekundärliteratur in Anmerkungen verzichtet; diese findet sich jedoch im ausführlichen Literaturverzeichnis und wird für den Leser jeweils am Abschnittsende durch kommentierende Leseempfehlungen erschlossen. 7.2. Textkritik / Überlieferungsgeschichte 60.  B e r t i n i , F., Un perduto manoscritto di Fedro fonte delle favole medievali di Ademaro (Note a Phaedr. I 3,9; I 1,8; I 22,8), Helikon 15/6, 1975/6, 390–400. 61.  S h a c k l e t o n B a i l e y , D. R., Phaedriana, AJPh 99, 1978, 451–5. 62.  G a t t i , P., Le favole del monaco Ademaro e la tradizione manoscritta del corpus fedriano, Sandalion 2, 1979, 247–56. 63.  M i l a n e s e , G., Due note all’ ›Appendix Perottina‹, GIF 12, 1981, 231–3. 64.  R a n k , L. Ph., Duo loci Phaedriani emendati, in: d e n B o e f t , J.,­ K e s s e l s , A. H. M. (Hrsgg.), Actus. Studies in honour of Nelson, H. L. W., Utrecht 1982, 337–41. 65.  B o l d r i n i , S., Perotti e le favole di Fedro (la formazione dell’Epitome), RPL 8, 1985, 9–20. 66.  M u n k O l s e n , B., Phaedrus, in: ders., L’étude des auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles. II: Catalogue des manuscrits classiques latins copiés du XIe au XIIe siècle. Livius-Vitruvius. Florilèges-Essais de plume, Paris 1985, 227–8. 67.  B o l d r i n i , S., Vicende urbinati delle ›favole nuove‹ di Fedro (Cod. Neap. IV F 58), in: C e r b o n i B a i a r d i , G., C h i t t o l i n i , G., F l o r i a n i , P. (Hrsgg.), Federico di Montefeltro. Lo stato, le arti, la cultura. III, Roma 1986, 137–48. 68.  Ö n n e r f o r s , A., Textkritisches und Sprachliches zu Phaedrus, Hermes 115, 1987, 429–53. 69.  G a t t i , P., Note al testo di alcune favole della raccolta di Ademaro, Sandalion 10/11, 1987/8, 165–70.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

27

70.  B o l d r i n i , S., Un nuovo testimone di Fedro. La Cornucopia del Perotti, RPL 11, 1988, 19–25. 71.  –, Fedro e Perotti. Ricerche di storia della tradizione, Urbino 1988. Rez.: C h a r l e t , REL 66, 1988, 260–2; G a r b a r i n o , CCC 9, 1988, 384; D a v i e s , JRS 79, 1989, 264; G a i d e , RPh 63, 1989, 322–3; G a t t i , Maia 41, 1989, 167–8; D o n n i n i , GIF 42, 1990, 157–8; G a s t i , Athenaeum 69, 1991, 686–7; R ä d l e , Gnomon 63, 1991, 644–5; R e y n o l d s , CR 41, 1991, 484–5. 72.  –, Il codice di Fedro usato da Niccolò Perotti, RPL 12, 1989, 9–16. 73.  –, Il codice fedriano modello di Ademaro, in: P r e t e , S. (Hrsg.), Memores tui. Studi di letteratura classica ed umanistica in onore di Vitaletti, M., Sassoferrato 1990, 11–9. 74.  –, Una testimonianza delle ›favole nuove‹ di Fedro prima di Perotti. Gualtiero Anglico XLVIII, RPL 13, 1990, 19–26. 75.  –, Note sulla tradizione manoscritta di Fedro (i tre codici di età carolingia), Roma 1990 (BollClass Suppl. 9). Rez.: M e l c h i o n n a , GIF 45, 1993, 162–4. 76.  M i n c i o n e , G., Le ›Fabulae Novae‹ di Fedro. Introduzione di D e N o n n o , M., Chieti 1990. 77.  B o l d r i n i , S., Fedro in Ademaro, Maia 43, 1991, 47–9. 78.  –, Il prologo dell’Epitome e la versificazione ›giambica‹ di Niccolò Perotti, RPL 14, 1991, 9–18. 79.  H e n d e r s o n , J., Phaedrus’ Fables. The original corpus, Mnemosyne 52, 1999, 308–29. 80.  P o l a r a , G., Appunti per una ricerca sul Perotti studioso di Fedro, Stud UmanistPiceni 20, 2000, 3–19. 81.  G a t t i , P., Fedro ›nuovo‹ da Ademaro?, Paideia 59, 2004, 197–214. 82.  B e r n a r d i P e r i n i , G., Note a Fedro, Paideia 60, 2005, 37–43. 83.  G n i l k a , Chr., Bemerkungen zum Phaedrustext, in: ders., Philologische Streifzüge durch die römische Dichtung, Basel 2007, 17–36. 84.  G i l a r r o n d o M i g u e l , O. L., Las fábulas fedrianas del manuscrito Madrid BAH 39, in: G o n z á l e z C a s t r o , J. F., S i l e s R u i z , J., d e l a V i l l a P o l o , J. u. a. (Hrsgg.), Perfiles de Grecia y Roma. Actas del XII Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos. I, Madrid 2009, 225–34. 85.  Z a g o , G., Phaedriana, MH 69, 2012, 190–3. 86.  –, Fedro, Perotti  e Lorenzo Astemio. Contributo alla storia del testo delle favole fedriane, Hermes 140, 2012, 96–103. 87.  C a r d i n i , F., La favola medievale nella ricerca di Ferruccio Bertini, in: M o r d e g l i a , C. (Hrsg.), Lupus in fabula. Fedro e la favola latina tra antichità e medioevo. Studi offerti a Bertini, F., Bologna 2014, 11–20.

28

Ursula Gärtner

88.  F i e s o l i , G., Le raccolte favolistiche antiche nei manoscritti e negli inventari medievali, in: M o r d e g l i a , C. (Hrsg.), Lupus in fabula. Fedro e la favola latina tra antichità e medioevo. Studi offerti a Bertini, F., Bologna 2014, 101–24. 89.  G a t t i , P., Ancora su Fedro, Ademaro, Perotti, in: M o r d e g l i a , C. (Hrsg.), Lupus in fabula. Fedro e la favola latina tra antichità e medioevo. Studi offerti a Bertini, F., Bologna 2014, 125–30. 90.  M o r d e g l i a , C., Aldo Manuzio il Giovane e un nuovo manoscritto umanistico di Fedro. Indagini preliminari, in: M o r d e g l i a , C. (Hrsg.), Lupus in fabula. Fedro  e la favola latina tra antichità  e medioevo. Studi offerti  a Bertini, F., Bologna 2014, 131–61. 91.  Z a g o , G., Per la storia e la costituzione del testo delle Favole di Fedro. Un nuovo manoscritto, il Vat. lat. 5190, e un nuovo testimone indiretto, gli Hecatomythia di Lorenzo Astemio, MD 74, 2015, 53–118. Bekanntlich sind die Phaedrusfabeln sehr schlecht überliefert.13 In der Forschung herrscht über folgende Grundzüge Einigkeit: Petri Pithou legte der Erstausgabe 1596 den Codex Pithoeanus (=P) zugrunde, der aus dem 9.  Jh. stammt, lange Zeit in privatem Besitz war und nun in der Pierpont Morgan Library wieder zugänglich ist. Verwandt mit ihm und ungefähr gleich alt ist der Codex Remensis (=R); er verbrannte 1774, nachdem er allerdings von Herausgebern zuvor kollationiert worden war. Die Scheda Danielis (=D) stammt ebenfalls aus etwa derselben Zeit, ist aber wohl von P und R unabhängig und beinhaltet nur die Fabeln 1,11–3 und 17–21. Die aus P erschlossene Einteilung in fünf Bücher ist heute als die ursprüngliche akzeptiert; die unterschiedliche Buchlänge wird durch den Verlust zahlreicher Fabeln erklärt. Was in den heutigen Ausgaben als Appendix Perrotina zusammengestellt ist, stammt aus einer Anthologie des Humanisten Nicolò Perotti aus der zweiten Hälfte des 15. Jh.s, die 158 Fabeln umfasste; hierin lassen sich 64 Phaedrusfabeln finden, von denen 32 aus den Büchern 2–5 bekannt, 32 jedoch unbekannt waren.14 Die Handschrift (=N) dieser Anthologie ist heute kaum mehr lesbar; allerdings besteht eine Abschrift durch D’Orville (=Dorv.) aus dem Jahr 1727. Der Codex Vaticanus (V; Vat. lat. Urb. 368) aus dem 15. Jh. enthält nur die Seiten 100–147 der Perotti-Anthologie. Umstritten ist bisweilen das Verhältnis der Handschriften untereinander und besonders die Frage, welche Bedeutung den Prosafassungen und hierbei vor allem dem sogenannten Ademar zukommt,15 in dessen Sammlung sich 30 Fabeln als Prosaauflösungen der Phaedrustexte zu erkennen geben. 13 Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte vgl. aus der Literatur vor dem Berichtszeitraum: F i n c h , Ch. E., The Morgan Manuscript of Phaedrus, AJPh 92, 1971, 301–7; G u a g l i a n o n e (s. Anm. 4), VIIff.; Z w i e r l e i n , O., Der Codex Pithoeanus des Phaedrus in der Pierpont Morgan Library, RhM 113, 1970, 91–3; Überblicke geben z. B.: B a e z a A n g u l o (4, LXXff.); C a r d i n i (87); G ä r t n e r (9, 36 f.); H o l z b e r g (59, 43 ff.); zum neuesten Stand s. Z a g o (91). 14 Die 32 neuen Fabeln wurden 1809 und 1811 von C. I a n n e l l i ediert. 15 Benannt nach dem Presbyter Ademar von Chabannais, der die Sammlung um 1025 schrieb (Cod. Vossianus lat. 8° 15 Leiden).

Phaedrus 1975–2014

29

Eine knappe Übersicht zu den Handschriften findet man bei M u n k O l s e n (66). Ö n n e r f o r s (68) beleuchtet das Verhältnis der Handschriften P, R und D neu. Er kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass man als Archetyp eine spätrömische Anthologie in scriptura capitalis festmachen könne; daraus ließen sich zwei Hyparchetypen ableiten: α, vulgärlateinisch in Unziale oder Halbunziale, und β, in korrektem Latein. P und R stammten voneinander unabhängig von α, D stamme hingegen von β. Insgesamt pflichtet er der Vorgehensweise G u a g l i a n o n es bei, von den zahlreichen Schönbesserungen Abstand zu nehmen und P in vielen Fällen den Vorzug zu geben. Freilich fügt er zu einzelnen Fabeln scharfsinnige textkritische Anmerkungen zur Ausgabe Guaglianones hinzu (zu 1,2,19 f.; 1,3,12; 1,5,7; 1,7,2; 1,22,12; 2,2,8; 3 prol. 45 ff.; 3,12,5; 4,3,1 f.; 4,5,38; 4,15; 5,7,11 ff.). B o l d r i n i, der sich auf die Überlieferungsgeschichte der Phaedrusfabeln spezialisierte, unterzieht wenig später die Handschriften und ihr Verhältnis untereinander einer ausführlichen Untersuchung (75). In einer genauen Beschreibung (Hände, Linierung, Textpräsentation, Punktierung, Majuskeleinsatz) datiert er die Handschrift P nach 882 in Reims. Vorsichtig geht er den Spuren von R nach, deren Ursprung er etwas früher auf 830–50 wohl auch in Reims ansetzt; D schließlich datiert er in das zweite Drittel des 9. Jh.s.; hier betont er zudem die Nähe zu Ademar. Schließlich vergleicht er die Verwendung der Titel in den Handschriften; er vermutet, dass diese sich allmählich aus einfachen Personenaufzählungen am Rand entwickelten. Sein Stemma ist differenzierter. Bei ihm gehen P und R auf eine gemeinsame Quelle δ zurück, welche wieder von dem nicht erhaltenen θ abhängt; D und Ademar gehen ebenfalls auf eine gemeinsame Quelle α zurück, wobei dies bei D über einen weiteren Zwischenschritt β erfolgt. θ und α schließlich führt Boldrini auf einen Hyparchetyp φ zurück, der von dem Archetyp Φ abhängt. Über Schriftart und Zeilenzahl der verlorenen gemeinsamen Quellen stellt er ebenfalls Vermutungen an. Der Leser kann sich durch Abbildungen aus den Handschriften einen zusätzlichen Eindruck verschaffen. Den neuesten Überblick zu den Handschriften liefert Z a g o (91) in seiner Vorarbeit zur seiner Ausgabe. Fortschritte wurden auf dem Gebiet der Ademar-Forschung erzielt.16 Deutlich wurde, dass trotz der Prosafassung dieser Text häufig eine Variante bietet, die näher am Urtext zu sein scheint als die Varianten bei P und R. Vor allem B e r t i n i äußert sich in einer großen Zahl von Arbeiten hierzu. Schon früh (60) schließt er aus dem Vergleich dreier Stellen bei Phaedrus (1,3,9; 1,1,8; 1,22,8), dass Ademar nicht wie bisher vermutet ein Abschreiber einer älteren Sammlung war, sondern eine eigene Prosasammlung von Fabeln bot, wobei er auf Phaedrus und Romulus zurückgriff. Phaedrus selbst habe Ademar in einer Handschrift aus dem 9.  Jh. gelesen, die sich von R und P unterschied und, wenn sie auch nicht mit Sicherheit ihr Archetyp sei, so doch häufig bessere Lesarten biete. C a r d i n i (87) gibt einen Überblick zu den wichtigsten Ergebnissen Bertinis und somit zugleich über die komplexe Überlieferungsgeschichte der Phaedrusfabeln. G a t t i (62) baut auf Bertinis Ansatz auf. Alle Fabeln bei Ademar, die direkt auf Phaedrus zurückzuführen sind, stammten aus Buch 16 Hier wird nur auf die Arbeiten zu Ademar eingegangen, in denen die Textgestalt bei­ Phaedrus im Vordergrund steht; andere sind in Auswahl unter 7.8.3. behandelt.

30

Ursula Gärtner

1; aus Romulus stammten die Fabeln, die auf die anderen Phaedrusbücher zurückgeführt werden könnten, wenige allerdings auch auf Buch 1. Gatti folgert daraus, dass Ademar eine Phaedrushandschrift vorliegen hatte, die ausschließlich das Buch 1 umfasste und in Teilen zerstört oder unlesbar war. Aus der Tatsache, dass von den aus Phaedrus bekannten Fabeln, die Perotti wiedergibt, sämtliche in die Bücher 2–5 gehören, stellt Gatti die Vermutung auf, dass zwischen dem 10. und 11. Jh. eine Handschrift geteilt wurde, deren erster Teil dann von Ademar, deren zweiter von Perotti benutzt wurde. B o l d r i n i (73) sieht die engste Verbindung der erhaltenen Handschriften zu Ademar in D (vgl. 78). Er widerspricht ferner (77) G a t t i s These (62) mit dem Hinweis, dass sich in einigen Ademarfabeln, die sich auf Romulus stützten, auch Kontaminationen mit Phaedrussequenzen aus anderen Büchern fänden; ferner wäre das Buch 1 bei Phaedrus ungewöhnlich lang, wenn auch die 15 nur aus Ademar bekannten Fabeln, die man Phaedrus zuschreiben kann, alle in dieses Buch gehörten. In einer Erörterung einiger Ademarstellen betont G a t t i (69) die Wichtigkeit der Lesart für den Phaedrustext (1,28,12). Seine These (62) greift er später (81) wieder auf und versucht, in Ademars Prosafabeln iambische Verselemente zu finden, die den metrischen, sprachlichen und inhaltlichen Eigenheiten des Phaedrus entsprächen; diese Fabeln seien wohl auf Phaedrus zurückzuführen (Ad. 13; 30; 34; 35; 36; 37; 38). G a t t i (89) differenziert seine These jüngst noch einmal: Die auf den Archetyp zurückgehende Handschrift, die dann geteilt worden sei, wodurch in Folge Ademar und Perotti je nur ein Teil der Fabeln vorgelegen habe, sei später wieder zusammengefügt worden; die Handschriften P und R gingen auf diese wieder zusammengesetzte Handschrift zurück; durch das unachtsame Zusammenstellen seien auch die in beiden festzustellenden irritierenden Bucheinteilungen zu erklären. G i l a r r o n d o M i g u e l (84) verweist bei einer Untersuchung zweier Prosafabeln auf einem spanischen Codex des 11.  Jh.s auf eine mögliche Beziehung nach Frankreich, und zwar zu Ademar. F i e s o l i (88) versucht die Texttradition neben der handschriftlichen und indirekten Bezeugung (vor allem Ademar) anhand mittelalterlicher Inventare nachzuzeichnen. Eine Sammlung der Prosafabeln aus Ademar, dem Codex Wissemburgensis und Romulus, die u. a. von Zander17 Phaedrus zugewiesen und bisweilen als fabulae nouae bezeichnet wurden, legt M i n c i o n e (76) in italienischer Übersetzung samt ausführlicher Einleitung, Parallelstellen und Erläuterungen vor. Perottis Fabelsammlung widmen sich recht viele Untersuchungen. Grundlegend sind hierbei die Arbeiten B o l d r i n i s ; nach Vorarbeiten zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Phaedrushandschriften und zur Entstehung der Perotti-Sammlung (65) und zur Überlieferung (67) sowie zur weiteren Bezeugung der Fabel 3,7 und app. 4 in Cornucopia (70) mit Schlussfolgerungen auf den Wert der übrigen Bezeugungen der Appendix legt er 1988 eine Monographie zum Thema vor (71), die zum größeren Teil die Ergebnisse vorheriger Aufsätze aufgreift. Im ersten Teil behandelt er die Überlieferungsgeschichte der fabulae nouae; er versucht nachzuweisen, dass N die direkte Vorlage für V war, dass Perotti nicht verschiedene Handschriften als 17 Phaedrus solutus vel Phaedri fabulae novae 30. Quas fabulas prosarias Phaedro vindicavit recensuit metrumque restituit Z a n d e r , C., Lund 1921.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

31

Vorlage benutzte, sondern dass sich die lockere Reihenfolge durch die spätere spontane Zusammenstellung einer losen Blattsammlung erklären lasse, ferner dass Mai die Entdeckung des Codex V fälschlicherweise für sich beanspruchte, dass Perotti Pround Epimythien durch Prosaüberschriften ersetzte, die den Inhalt der Gedichte wiedergeben; des Weiteren gibt er eine Übersicht für die Varianten zu allen 32 Fabeln der Appendix; schließlich behandelt er die Frage nach Perottis Geburtsstadt (Sasso­ ferrato) und nach dem Ort eines Dankschreibens an Papst Nikolaus V. (Trapozzo). Wenig später (72) zieht er Rückschlüsse auf die Vorlage Perottis; sie sei kolometrisch in Minuskeln geschrieben und umfangreicher als P und R gewesen, bisweilen bewahre sie die exakte Lesart gegenüber den verderbten P und R. Wahrscheinlich gehe sie direkt auf den verlorenen Kodex α zurück (s. o.); als Hypothese ließe sich vermuten, dass sie aus der gleichen Gegend stammen könnte wie P und R. Ferner glaubt B o l d r i n i (74) nachweisen zu können, dass mit Gualterus Anglicus aus dem 12. Jh. vor Perotti eine Bezeugung für die in P und R nicht überlieferten Phaedrusfabeln vorliegen könne, da dieser auf verschiedene Quellen zurückgegriffen habe, wie die Fabel 48 (Witwe und Soldat; vgl. Phaedr. app. 15) zeige. Perotti hingegen habe den Iambus als 12-Silbler aufgefasst, wodurch sich auch Eingriffe in den Phaedrustext erklären ließen (78). P o l a r a (80) greift vor allem Boldrinis Thesen auf und differenziert dessen Stemma: N ließe sich über eine nicht erhaltene Handschrift (π), die mit der nicht erhaltenen Handschrift (α), auf die wiederum D und Ademar zurückgingen, eine nicht erhaltene Handschrift (ψ) als gemeinsame Quelle habe, in das Stemma einordnen. Z a g o (86) versucht, Boldrinis Stemma zu untermauern, indem er aufgrund von Parallelen zwischen Lorenzo Astemio und Ademar auf eine Verwandtschaft der­ Phaedrus-Handschrift, die Ademar vorlag, und der Vorlage Perottis schließt. Insgesamt schließt er (91) sich B o l d r i n is Stemma an, differenziert es jedoch, indem er u. a. den neu entdeckten Codex M (Vat. lat. 5190) sowie die indirekte Bezeugung durch Lorenzo Astemios Hecatomythia (Abst) einbezieht. M o r d e g l i a (90) gewährt einen ersten Einblick in diese neu entdeckte humanistische Handschrift (Vat. lat. 5190)18, die 23 Phaedrusfabeln bietet und bisher für die Textüberlieferung nicht herangezogen wurde. Neben einer Beschreibung und Einordnung liefert Mordeglia eine erste knappe Übersicht der abweichenden Lesarten, die die Wichtigkeit des Funds erkennen lassen. Etwa zeitgleich hat sich Z a g o (91) des Codex angenommen. Bei ihm liest man eine akribische Kollationierung sowie einen umfassenden textkritischen Kommentar zu den betreffenden Fabeln. Angeschlossen sind weitere Beobachtungen zu Lorenzo Astemios Hecatomythia, die die Thesen der vorherigen Arbeit (86) zu deutlichen Bezügen auf Phaedrus untermauern und somit die Bedeutung der Handschrift für die Textüberlieferung der Phaedrusfabeln belegen. 18 Auf den Fund verwiesen wurde bereits in: B a l d z u h n , M., Schulbücher im Trivium des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit. Die Verschriftlichung von Unterricht in der Text- und Überlieferungsgeschichte der ›Fabulae‹ Avians und der deutschen ›Disticha Catonis‹, Berlin / New York 2009 (Quellen und Forschungen zur Literatur- und Kulturgeschichte 44/1.2 [278/1.2]), Bd. 2, 432 f.; G i l l e s - R a y n a l , A.-V., D o l b e a u , F., F o h l e n , J. u. a. (Hrsgg.), Les manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane. Tome III/2: Fonds Vatican latin, 2901–14740, Cité du Vatican / Paris 2010, 504 f.

32

Ursula Gärtner

Ferner liefert Zago einige wichtige Korrekturen zur Kollationierung der Handschrift D. Er schließt mit einer Vermutung, dass Macciavelli in einem Brief an Francesco Vattori auf Phaedrus anspielen könnte. Insgesamt könne man schlussfolgern, dass die Phaedrusfabeln in dieser Zeit bekannter waren, als heute zumeist angenommen. Mit dem ursprünglichen Aufbau des Werks beschäftigt sich H e n d e r s o n (79). Zu Recht verweist er auf den hypothetischen Charakter, den die heute übliche Bucheinteilung hat, da die Handschriften die Pro- und Epiloge z. T. an anderen Stellen aufführen und die Bücher unterschiedlich unterteilen. Aus der Appendix und den Prosaparaphrasen versucht Henderson, die ursprüngliche Form der fünf Bücher zu rekonstruieren, wobei er eine Entwicklung des Autors miteinbezieht, was freilich eine Hypothese bleiben muss. Hilfreich ist der Exkurs zur Entstehung der Prosaparaphrasen. Zahlreiche Arbeiten behandeln textkritische Einzelprobleme, die hier nicht im Detail vorgestellt werden können, so etwa S h a c k l e t o n B a i l e y (61, zu 1,5,6; 2 prol. 5; 2,5,14; 2,9,15; 3 prol. 39; 4,5,36; 4,7,25; 4,11,12; 4,18,13; 5,7,32; app. 13), M i l a n e s e (63, zu app. 10,17; 32,10–2), R a n k (64, zu 1,16,2; 4,14), B e r n a r d i P e r i n i (82, zu 5,10; 8,9 f.), Z a g o (85, zu 4 prol. 14–9). G n i l k a (83) geht der Frage der Interpolationen von Pro- und Epimythien nach und schlägt Athetesen derselben vor (1,13; 1,26; 1,27; 1,28; 3,15; 3,17). 7.3. Zu Autor und Publikum Bemerkungen zum Autor und seinem Leben bieten nicht nur die oben genannten Einführungen, sondern fast alle Arbeiten zu Phaedrus. Hier werden allein Arbeiten genannt, die neue Impulse in die Forschung brachten. 92.  C h r i s t e s , J., Reflexe erlebter Unfreiheit in den Sentenzen des Publilius­ Syrus und den Fabeln des Phaedrus. Zur Problematik ihrer Verifizierung, Hermes 107, 1979, 199–220. 93.  G r i m a l , P., Du nouveau sur les fables de Phèdre?, in: V a l l e t , G., L e B o n n i e c , H. (Hrsgg.), Mélanges de littérature et d’épigraphie latines, d’histoire ancienne et d’archéologie. Hommage à la mémoire de Wuilleumier, P., Paris 1980 (Collection d’études latines 35), 143–9. 94.  B a l d w i n , B., The Non-fabulous Side of Phaedrus. Some thoughts on his date, content, and style, in: ders., Roman and Byzantine Papers, Amsterdam 1989, 6–9. 95.  v . H e i n t z e , H., Das Grabrelief des Phaedrus, Gymnasium 96, 1989, 1–12 mit Tafeln I–VIII. 96.  C h a m p l i n , E., Phaedrus The Fabulous, JRS 95, 2005, 97–123. 97.  G ä r t n e r , U., levi calamo ludimus. Zum poetologischen Spiel bei Phaedrus, Hermes 135, 2007, 429–59. 98.  P i e p e r , C., Phaedrus’ Ironie. Anmerkungen zum Prolog des dritten Fabelbuches, Gymnasium 117, 2010, 33–48.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

33

Der größte Teil der älteren wie auch der neueren Forschung trennt nicht zwischen abstraktem bzw. implizitem und empirischem bzw. realem Autor. Ferner dient der in den Handschriften überlieferte Hinweis, Phaedrus sei ein Freigelassener des Augustus gewesen, dann zum Anlass, die Fabeln aus der Perspektive dieses Freigelassenen zu deuten und dabei weitere biographische Informationen über den Autor aufzudecken. Zuverlässige Dokumente zum Leben des empirischen Autors sind indes nicht erhalten. Anführen ließe sich neben den Fabeln selbst die Angabe in den Handschriften, dass Phaedrus ein Freigelassener des Augustus gewesen sei, die (nicht nur textkritisch) unklare Anspielung bei Martial auf die improbi iocos Phaedri (3,20,5) und Senecas und Quintilians Schweigen.19 Ferner wird bisweilen auf folgende Grabinschrift aus Rom verwiesen: C. Iulius C. F. Phaeder et Iulia C. F. Capriola patri optimo D. S.20 Eindeutig rezipiert werden die Phaedrusfabeln erst bei dem um 400 schreibenden Avian sowie in den Prosafassungen. Diese durchaus unbefriedigende Lage hat man durch die Suche nach ›Fakten‹ biographischer Art in den Fabeln auszubessern versucht.21 Dieses Vorgehen wurde in der Regel nicht hinterfragt, sodass man heute in Einführungen zumeist Folgendes liest: Der Dichter heiße Phaedrus (3 prol. 1), er sei um 20–15 v. Chr. in Makedonien geboren (3 prol. 17), er sei Sklave gewesen und noch jung nach Rom gekommen; am Hof habe er vermutlich eine pädagogische Funktion erfüllt; von Augustus sei er später freigelassen worden (Anmerkung in den Handschriften); er habe in Rom zunächst zwei Fabelbücher verfasst; Seian, der sich persönlich angegriffen fühlte, habe ihn angeklagt (3 prol. 41 ff.); nach dessen Tod habe Phaedrus bis ins Alter (5,10) Gedichte verfasst; er emanzipiere sich zunehmend von Aesop (3 prol. 38 f.; 4 prol. 11 ff.; 5 prol. 1 ff.), zeige aber eine immer pessimistischere und enttäuschtere Grundstimmung wegen mangelnder Anerkennung (z. B. 1 prol. 5; 2 epil. 10 f.; 3,9,4; 4 prol. 15 f.; 4,7; 4,22; 4 epil. 3 f.; 5 prol. 9; app. 2); hinter den Gönnernamen ließen sich Freigelassene identifizieren; Phaedrus nutze die Fabel als die einzige Möglichkeit des ›Kleinen Mannes‹, gefahrlos, nämlich verhüllt Protest bzw. schonungslose Moral­kritik zu äußern (3 prol. 33 ff.); durchgängige Aussage sei nicht der Aufruf zum Aufstand, sondern hinter allem Spott die bittere Mahnung zur Anpassung (s. 7.7.1.).22 C h r i s t e s (92) warnt zwar davor, in den Fabeln nach konkreten Anspielungen auf zeitgenössische Ereignisse zu suchen, interpretiert aber ansonsten die Fabeln traditionell aus der Sicht des freigelassenen Sklaven. G r i m a l (93) argumentiert me 19 Sen. dial. 11,8,3; Quint. inst. 1,9,2; 5,11,19 ff.; beide äußern sich über lateinische Fabeln, erwähnen Phaedrus aber nicht. 20 CIL 6,20181. 21 Dies hat in Arbeiten vor dem Berichtszeitraum zu wilden Spekulationen geführt; vgl. z. B. H e r r m a n n , L., Phèdre et ses fables, Leiden 1950; d e L o r e n z i , A., Fedro, Firenze 1955; deren z. T. romanhafte Ausmalungen geistern noch immer durch die Sekundärliteratur. 22 Vgl. mit z. T. unterschiedlichen Ansätzen z. B. v . A l b r e c h t (58); B a e z a A n g u l o (4, XVff.); B l ä n s d o r f (144); C a n c i k (48); C u r r i e (53); D e f l o r i o (143); D e m a n d t (128); K ü p p e r s (168); L a P e n n a (28); O b e r g (7); R e n d a (41, 200, 201); S c h m i d t (57); u. v. a.; differenzierter H o l z b e r g (59, 53 ff.); gegen eine biographische Deutung vgl. z. B. E d w a r d s (139); G ä r t n e r (9, 97, 145, 165, 166); P i e p e r (98); P o l t (211); W i e g a n d (137).

34

Ursula Gärtner

thodisch nicht anders als seine Vorgänger, vermutet in dem Gönner Eutychus (3 prol.; epil.) jedoch einen Freigelassenen des Claudius und erkennt in den Fabeln Anspielungen auf die frühe Regierungszeit Neros. B a l d w i n (94, 7) äußert zu vergleichbaren Ansätzen: »People take Phaedrus too literally on his own misfortunes«. Er selbst weist die üblichen Identifizierungen des Eutychus und die wörtlichen Interpretationen z. B. über die Heimat des Dichters oder den Seianprozess mit dem Hinweis auf literarische Motive zurück. v . H e i n t z e (95) glaubt, in dem auf einem Grabrelief dargestellten Mann Phaedrus zu erkennen, da jener einen Lorbeerkranz trägt, eine Schreibrolle in den Händen gehalten haben könnte und eine Maus mitabgebildet ist. Diese Identifizierung wurde i. d. R. nicht akzeptiert. Die vorherrschende Phaedrusbiographie hat in jüngerer Zeit C h a m p l i n (96) grundlegend hinterfragt. Er wendet sich gegen die übliche biographische Deutung, doch geht er methodisch nicht anders vor, nur mit anderem Ergebnis.23 Hinter dem Dichter-Ich sieht er nicht einen Freigelassenen aus Makedonien, sondern einen aus Rom selbst stammenden Aristokraten aus der 2. Hälfte des 1. Jh.s. Dieser sei nicht nur literarisch gebildet, sondern seine großen Rechtskenntnisse ließen auf einen Rechtsgelehrten schließen.24 Noch ohne den Ansatz Champlins zu kennen, habe ich selbst, G ä r t n e r (97; vgl. 9) gezeigt, dass sich die ›biographischen‹ Aussagen zu Heimat, Seianprozess, Gönner, Publikum u. Ä. in den Gedichten poetologisch deuten lassen (s. 7.7.3.), dass der Dichter uns zwar mit Aussagen wie hoc quo pertineat, dicet qui me nouerit (3,1,7) reizt, nach biographischen Angaben zu suchen, als Dichterfigur jedoch nur eine Chiffre bleibt und sich uns gezielt entzieht. Die Fabel 5,1 warnt zudem selbst davor, sich aus den Schriften eines Dichters ein Bild des Verfassers zu schaffen. Die geistige Nähe zu Martial und Petron lässt eher an die zweite Hälfte des 1. Jh.s. n. Chr. denken. Das würde sich mit Z a g os (85) Vermutung einer Anspielung auf Manilius decken. P i e p e r (98) weist Champlins Ansatz mit dem gleichen methodischen Argument zurück, mit dem jener die übliche biographische Deutung widerlegt hatte, nämlich dass auch jener seine ›Daten‹ aus den Fabeln herauslese,25 und plädiert für eine poetologische und vor allem (selbst-)ironische Deutung der entsprechenden Passagen. Verwiesen sei an dieser Stelle noch auf W i e g a n d (137), die zwar die Kritik an der üblichen biographischen Deutung vor allem im Rückverweis auf C h a m p l i n (96) übernimmt, aufgrund der Fabel 2,5 jedoch von einer Datierung unter Tiberius ausgeht, die sie dann der gesamten Deutung zugrundelegt (s. 7.7.1.).26 E d w a r d s (139) hingegen weist die biographische Deutung, aber auch Champlins Methode und Datierung zurück, hält

23 Vgl. P i e p e r (98, 36); M a t t i a c c i (164, 169 Anm. 8, 167, 53 ff.); E d w a r d s (139, 168 ff.). 24 Akzeptiert u. a. von M o r d e g l i a (138); P o l t (211); S c i a r r i n o (136). 25 Z. B. zur Identifizierung des Musarum limen (3 prol. 16) konkret mit der aedes Herculis­ Musarum auf dem Marsfeld, dem Sitz des Dichterkollegiums, wodurch der Geburtsort des Dichters als in Rom befindlich markiert werde. 26 M. E. bedeutet die Bezeichnung uera fabella (2,5,6) freilich keineswegs, dass die Anekdote einen historischen Kern hat noch dass sie sich zu Phaedrus’ Lebzeiten abgespielt hat oder er gar Augenzeuge gewesen ist. Auch sie kann als ›echtes Ereignis‹ frei erfunden sein.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

35

jedoch ebenfalls eine Datierung unter Tiberius zumindest für die ersten drei Bücher für wahrscheinlich (s. 7.7.2.). Weniger oft wird die Frage nach dem Publikum behandelt. Zumeist wird implizit davon ausgegangen, dass sich der ›Freigelassene‹ an die unteren Schichten wende, d. h. Freigelassene, Sklaven oder Angehörige der Plebs. Sieht man einmal davon ab, dass es sich explizit um Leseliteratur handelt und höchstens der reiche Freigelassene ge­nügend Mittel und Möglichkeiten hatte, um Zugang zu Literatur zu haben, wird in neueren Arbeiten durch Aufdeckung zahlreicher intertextueller Bezüge deutlich, dass das Zielpublikum höchst belesen sein musste, um die subtilen Bezugnahmen auch goutieren zu können; vgl. G ä r t n e r (9, 35 f.). Fragen nach ›realen‹ Personen hinter den Namen der Gönner (Eutychus, Particulo, Philetus) sind oft behandelt, aber wenig zielführend. Meiner Meinung nach, G ä r t n e r (9, 33 f., 97), sind die sprechenden Namen Teil des poetologischen Spiels (s. 7.7.3.). Einigung zwischen biographischem und poetologischem Ansatz wird kaum zu erwarten sein; gerade in Einführungen u. Ä. ist ersterer vorherrschend, auch wenn sich ein reflektierterer Zugang abzuzeichnen scheint. 7.4. Zu Form und Gattung 99.  S v e l o , A., La novella in Fedro, AAPel 54, 1978, 379–99. 100.  A d r a d o s , F. R., Les collections de fables à l’époque hellénistique et romaine, in: ders., La fable. Huit exposés suivis de discussions, Vandœvres-Genève 1984 (Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique 30), 137–95. 101.  R o o s , P., Fedro  e la tradizione esopica, in: ders., Sentenza  e proverbio nell’antichità  e i ›Distichi di Catone‹. Il testo latino  e i volgarizzamenti italiani,­ Breschia 1984, 142–51. 102.  S l u ş a n s c h i , D., Phèdre et les noms de la fable, Voces 6, 1995, 107–13. 103.  v a n D i j k , G.-J., ΑΙΝΟΙ, ΛΟΓΟΙ, ΜΥΘΟΙ. Fables in archaic, classical, and hellenistic Greek literature. With a study of the theory and terminology of the genre, Leiden / New York / Köln 1997 (Mnemosyne Suppl. 166). Rez.: A d r a d o s , Emerita 66, 1998, 404–6; G i b b s , BMCRev 1998.5.18; H o l z b e r g , CR 48, 1998, 337–8; N. N., Mnemosyne 51, 1998, 762–3; P a r a s o g l o u , Hellenika, 1999, 161–4; S k a f t e J e n s e n , Fabula 41, 2000, 326–8; N a k a t s u k a s a , JCS 43, 2001, 136–9; I r w i n , JHS 122, 2002, 171–3. 104.  S t o c c h i , Chr., Publilio Siro nella struttura  e nel lessico del promitio  e dell’epimitio di Fedro, BStudLat 34, 2004, 410–21. *105. L e f k o w i t z , J. B., Aesop’s Pen. Adaptation, authorship, and satire in the Aesopic tradition, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 2009. 106.  M o r d e g l i a , C., Fedro. Dalla favola al proverbio. Dal proverbio alla favola. Genesi  e fortuna dell’elemento gnomico fedriano, in: L e l l i , E. (Hrsg.), ΠΑΡΟΙΜΙΑΚΟΣ. Il proverbio in Grecia e a Roma, Introduzione di To s i , R., postfazione di d i D o n a t o , R. II, Pisa / Roma 2010 (PhilAnt 3), 207–30.

36

Ursula Gärtner

107.  To s i , R., Favola e proverbio nella cultura classica. Alcune osservazioni, in: M o r d e g l i a , C. (Hrsg.), Lupus in fabula. Fedro e la favola latina tra antichità e medioevo. Studi offerti a Bertini, F., Bologna 2014, 35–47. Generell besteht Einhelligkeit darüber, dass Phaedrus, soweit dies die Überlieferungslage erkennen lässt, als Erster Fabeln in Senaren verfasst und in Büchern als eigenständige Literaturgattung veröffentlicht und somit zum Begründer der Gattung der Versfabeln wird. Die von A d r a d o s (42–47, 100) postulierte nicht erhaltene griechische Versfabelsammlung aus dem 3. Jh. v. Chr. lässt sich nicht nachweisen. Eine grundlegende Einführung zur Fabel und Fabeldefinition in der griechischen Literatur liefert v a n D i j k (103). Unumstritten ist ferner, dass Phaedrus seine Gedichte unterschiedlich bezeichnet ( fabula, fabella, exemplum, ioci, neniae, argutiae, carmen, labor, studium) und sich damit in die verschiedenen literarischen Traditionen einschreibt, wie z. B. S l u ş a n s c h i (102) zeigt; zur Übersicht vgl. G ä r t n e r (9, 13, 34). Einigkeit besteht zudem über die Grundstruktur der Fabel (Promythion, Exposition, Actio, Reactio, Schluss, Epimythion), die freilich von Phaedrus stark variiert wird, insbesondere in den späteren Büchern; zur Übersicht vgl. G ä r t n e r (9, 47 f.). Die vordem häufig diskutierte Frage nach der Herkunft von Pro- und Epimythion allgemein27 ist für Phaedrus wenig relevant. Bei ihm findet sich entweder Prooder Epimythion; häufig fällt Letzteres mit einer Schlussrede einer Figur zusammen. Besonderheiten stellen sie bei Phaedrus dar, weil sich häufig eine Spannung zwischen Pro- bzw. Epimythion und Fabelinhalt zu erkennen gibt; vgl. G ä r t n e r (9, 51 ff.). Aufgrund des Überlieferungszustands lassen sich Vermutungen zum Aufbau der Bücher nur sehr vorsichtig anstellen. Anzunehmen ist, dass der Dichter die Tradition des kunstvollen Buchaufbaus fortsetzt. H o l z b e r g (59, 44 ff.) hat mit gutem Grund auf mögliche strukturelle Verknüpfungen innerhalb der Bücher – und damit zugleich auf einen intertextuellen Bezug zu Horaz  – aufmerksam gemacht; vgl. G ä r t n e r (9, 48 f.). Ebenfalls Spekulation bleiben Thesen zur Anlage des Werks in fünf Büchern. Dass die Pro- und Epiloge eine zunehmende Emanzipation des Dichter-Ichs vom Vorbild Aesop zu erkennen geben, ist einhellig anerkannt. Fragen lässt sich, ob sich dies biographisch als Entwicklung erklären lässt oder ob man hier ein Gesamtkonzept vermuten kann, bei dem in Pro- und Epilog zu Buch 3 nicht nur zentrale Aussagen in der Mitte des Werks zu stehen kommen, sondern der Dichter auch mit dem Motiv des angekündigten Endes zu spielen und die Aussagen des Ovid zu Beginn seiner Amores auf den Kopf zu stellen scheint: Dieser behauptet, seine ehemals fünf Bücher auf drei gekürzt zu haben, um den Leser nicht zu langweilen, Phaedrus kündigt an, nach dem dritten Buch aufzuhören, lässt aber mit abenteuerlichen Argumenten zwei weitere folgen; vgl. G ä r t n e r (9, 49 f.; s. 7.7.3.). Gefragt wird ferner, wie sich hier Verbindungslinien zu Sprichwörtern ziehen lassen. R o o s (101) gibt einen Überblick zur Frage und führt zu etwa 20 Aussagen aus Phaedrusfabeln vergleichbare Sprichwörter an. S t o c c h i (104) zeigt, wie Phaedrus 27 Vgl. z. B. P e r r y , B. E., The Origin of the Epimythium, TAPhA 71, 1940, 391–419; L u z z a t t o , M. J., Art. Fabel. II. Griechische Literatur, DNP 4, 1998, 356–60.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

37

sich in den Pro- und Epimythien in Stil und moralischer Aussage an Publilius Syrus orientiert. M o r d e g l i a (106) behandelt die Wechselwirkung zwischen Sprichwort und Fabel und legt durch zahlreiche Beispiele nahe, welche Sprichwörter sich in den Phaedrusfabeln bereits finden lassen und wie sich in der Tradition aus den Phaedrusfabeln Sprichwörter ableiten. Unabhängig von ihr untersucht auch To s i (107) diese Wechselwirkung an einigen Beispielen mit zahlreichen Belegen. Die Nähe zur iambischen Dichtung, vor allem aber zur römischen Verssatire bestreitet niemand. Offensichtlich ist zudem, dass Phaedrus andere Gattungen miteinbezieht wie zum Beispiel die historische Anekdote bzw. die Novelle oder sich mit diesen spielerisch-kritisch auseinandersetzt. Der Erzählform der Novellen widmet S v e l o (99) einen Aufsatz (zu 2,2; 2,5; 3,10; 4,5; app. 10; 15), in dem sie die narrativen Fähigkeiten des Dichters herausstreicht. Ich selbst, G ä r t n e r (166), zeige, dass Phaedrus höchst anspielungsreich für ein gebildetes Publikum schreibt und sich in einer Form, die als niedrig angesehen war, spielerisch mit den traditionell anerkannten Gattungen wie Tragödie, Komödie, Lyrik, Epos und Satire auseinandersetzt (s. 7.7.3.). 7.5. Zu Sprache, Stil und Metrum Angeführt sind an dieser Stelle Arbeiten, die sich dem formalen Aspekt von Sprache, Stil und Metrum widmen; sofern dies die Aussage betrifft, sind die Arbeiten unter 7.7.3. behandelt; die entsprechenden Abschnitte in Übersetzungen und Einführungen werden nicht dezidiert aufgeführt.28 108.  C r a v e n , T. C., Studies in the Style of Phaedrus, Diss. McMaster Univ. Hamilton, Ontario 1973. 109.  M a s s a r o , M., Variatio e sinonimia in Fedro, InvLuc 1, 1979, 89–142. 110.  V i š n e v s k a j a , N. A., Многозначность имен существитепьньіх в баснях Федра и ее связь с синонимиеи, in: T a h o - G o d i , A. A., N a c h o v , I. M. (Hrsgg.), Образ и спово, Moskau 1980, 251–8. 111.  B a r a b i n o , G., Osservazioni sul senario giambico di Fedro, in: F a b i a n o , G., S a l v a n e s c h i , E. (Hrsgg.), Δεσμὸς κοινωνίας. Scritti di filologia  e filosofia. Per Bartolini, G. nel secondo anniversario della scomparsa 1979–1981, Genova 1981, 89–122. 112.  M a s s a r o , M., Una caratteristica dello stile di Fedro. La variatio sermonis, QuadFoggia 1, 1981, 49–61. 113.  P u g l i a r e l l o , M., Appunti di sintassi fedriana, SRIL 4, 1981, 109–21. 114.  –, Appunti di sintassi fedriana. II, SRIC 5, 1982, 101–17. 115.  C h a p a r r o G ó m e z , C., Aportación  a la estética de la fábula grecolatina. Análisis y valoración de la brevitas fedriana, Emerita 54, 1986, 123–50. 28 Beispielshalber seien erwähnt: B a e z a A n g u l o (4, LIIIff.); C a s c ó n D o r a d o (39, 53 ff.); C u r r i e (53, 504 ff.); G ä r t n e r (9, 54 f.).

38

Ursula Gärtner

Auch in diesem Bereich herrscht weitgehend Einigkeit: Sprache und Stil scheinen dem Metrum angemessen schlicht; doch mag die Schlichtheit täuschen, denn der sermo ist von urbanitas geprägt, wie Wortwahl, Wortstellung, Stilhöhe u. Ä. erkennen lassen. Verwiesen wird i. d. R. darauf, wie subtil Phaedrus semantische Felder, Synonymik und Metonymie (vor allem mit Verweis auf die epische Sprache) einsetzt und wie die Wortstellung spannungssteigernd und abbildend sein kann. Meist angeführte Merkmale sind etwa die Voranstellung zentraler Wörter vor Konjunktionen oder die Stellung der Hauptfiguren an zentralen Positionen im Vers. Auch Stilhöhen verwendet Phaedrus nach einhelliger Meinung gekonnt, indem er etwa durch epische Sprache und Bilder spielerisch Brüche zum Wesen der Fabel inszeniert, sei es durch epische Epitheta, Metonymien oder durch Einfügen epischer Motive. Die von Phaedrus selbst betonte breuitas sieht man i. d. R. im Ausdruck, in der Darstellung und in der Gedankenführung zum Ausdruck gebracht. Die umfassendste Arbeit zu Phaedrus’ Stil ist leider schlecht zugänglich; C r a v e n (108) zeigt, dass Phaedrus mit Ictus und Wortakzent arbeitet; fallen beide ausein­ ander, diene das der Aufregung, Überraschung, Beschleunigung u. Ä., fallen sie zusammen, bewirke das das Gegenteil. Die Wiederholung von Versenden nehme im Laufe der Bücher ab. Hapax legomena seien im ersten Buch selten und begegneten eher in den längeren Nicht-Tierfabeln. Die Verwendung griechischer Aus­drücke nehme allmählich zu, was mit einer Veränderung der Gedichtarten einhergehe. Phaedrus benutze häufig unpoetische Wörter, vor allem in direkter Rede und persönlichen Aussagen. Er sei sich ferner der Wirkung von Reim bewusst; Alliterationen benutze er seltener. Was die Aussagen zur Struktur der Bücher betrifft (s. 7.4.), ist Craven zurückhaltend. Da 1/8 der Fabeln eine Länge von sieben Versen aufweise, kommt er zu dem Schluss, dass dies für Phaedrus die ideale Minimallänge dargestellt habe. Die Ergebnisse sind alle fundiert und können überzeugen. In zwei Aufsätzen widmet sich M a s s a r o (109, 112) der Variatio bei Phaedrus. Er zeigt an zahlreichen Fabeln, wie Phaedrus diese durch Verwendung von Synonymen bewirkt. Den Besonderheiten der Syntax in den Phaedrusfabeln widmet sich P u g l i a r e l l o (113, 114). Sie gibt keinen Gesamtüberblick, sondern geht hier einzelnen Auffälligkeiten nach, wie etwa reuertier mit dem Dativ der Richtung, per me (te, se) = ipse, dem Ablativus modi allein durch ein Substantiv ohne Adjektiv u. Ä., die sie als Erscheinungen des Lateins des 1. Jh.s n. Chr. erklärt. Die Spannung zwischen Archaismen und poetischer Syntax einerseits und den Elementen gesprochener Sprache andererseits erklärt sie durch Phaedrus’ Unterfangen, die Gattung der Fabel in eine wohl definierte literarische Tradition einzufügen. Recht einseitig deutet C h a p a r r o G ó m e z (115) die viel behandelte breuitas des Phaedrus zum einen als eine breuitas selectiua, die Elemente weglasse, die keine moralische Wertung brächten, und zum anderen als eine breuitas compendiosa, die gerade solche Elemente ausweite. Die Sicht auf den Senar bei Phaedrus ist ebenfalls recht einheitlich.29 Er verwendet ihn weniger frei als die frühen römischen Dichter. So kennt er keine Iambenkürzung 29 Zum Senar des Phaedrus vor dem Berichtzeitraum vgl. A x e l s o n , B., Die zweite Senkung im jambischen Senar des Phaedrus. Beobachtungen über Versrhythmus und Wortstellung,

Phaedrus 1975–2014

39

mehr und setzt weit seltener Auflösungen, lässt aber eine Länge bzw. Doppelkürze in der zweiten und vierten Senkung zu. Gleichwohl wird darauf verwiesen, dass Phaedrus höchst kunstvoll mit dem Metrum spielt. Man denke an den ›Medeaprolog‹ in 4,7 in iambischen Trimetern;30 zudem sind Zäsuren und Längen wie Auflösungen, und dabei vor allem die Auflösungen in der Hebung, zur Unterstützung der Aussage eingesetzt. Eine Detailstudie zur Verwendung des Senars legt B a r a b i n o (111) vor, indem sie vor allem der Realisierung im dritten, siebten, neunten und zehnten Element nachgeht; sie versucht zu zeigen, dass sich der Einfluss der Volksdichtung und des strengeren iambischen Trimeters in etwa die Waage halten. 7.6. Zu Quellen, Vorbildern und Subtexten Aufgenommen wurden hier Arbeiten, in denen die direkte Auseinandersetzung mit Quellen, Vorbildern und Subtexten im Vordergrund steht. Untersuchungen, in denen vornehmlich Fragen nach den poetologischen Aussagen solcher Bezüge behandelt werden, sind unter 7.7.3. zu finden. Der Übergang ist freilich fließend. 116.  P i s i , G., Fedro. Traduttore di Esopo, Firenze 1977 (Università degli Studi di Parma. Pubblicazioni della facoltà di magistero 4). Rez.: C o l l a r t , REL 55, 1977, 491; d ’A g o s t i n o , RSC 25, 1977, 333–4; To r t o r a , BStudLat 7, 1977, 376; M a g g i u l l i , Maia 29–30, 1977–8, 188–9; K n e c h t , AC 47, 1978, 641; S a n t i n i , GIF 30, 1978, 228–9; S v e l o , Vichiana 7, 1978, 386–8; H e n d e r s o n , CR 29, 1979, 311–2; L u z z a t t o , A&R 24, 1979, 187–9; S t e n u i t , LEC 47, 1979, 193; d ’A n g e l o , Orpheus 1, 1980, 203; H e r r m a n n , Latomus 39, 1980, 278–9. 117.  S t i n t o n , T. C. W., Phaedrus and Folklore. An old problem restated, CQ 29, 1979, 432–5. 118.  A d r a d o s , F. R., Fedro y sus fuentes, in: Bivium. Homenaje a Díaz y Díaz, M. C., Madrid 1983, 251–74. 119.  G a l l i , R., Fedro e Orazio, Paideia 38, 1983, 195–9. 120.  d e l l a C o r t e , F., Orazio favolista, C&S 25, 1986, 87–93. 121.  B e r n a r d i P e r i n i , G., ›Cui reddidi iampridem quicquid debui‹. Il debito di Fedro con Esopo secondo Fedro, in: ders. (Hrsg.), La storia, la letteratura e l’arte a Roma. Da Tiberio a Domiziano. Atti del convegno (Mantova, Teatro Accademico, 4–7 ottobre 1990), Mantova 1992, 43–59.

Vetenskaps-Soc. i Lund Arsbok, Lund 1949, 43–68; P i g h i , I. B., De Phaedri senariis, Latinitas 2, 1954, 107–14; G u a g l i a n o n e , A., Fedro e il suo senario, RSC 16, 1965, 91–104; K o r z e n i e w s k i , D., Zur Verstechnik des Phaedrus. Aufgelöste Hebungen und Senkungen in seinen Senaren, ­Hermes 98, 1970, 430–58. 30 4,7,6 ff.; die dort ›fehlerhaften‹ Längen lassen sich inhaltlich als absichtliche ›Schwerpunkte‹ erklären; s. G ä r t n e r (263, 671 f.).

40

Ursula Gärtner

122.  G e o r g a k o p o u l o u , S., Ο Φαίδρος ως μεταφραστής, in: Επιστημονική επετηρίδα της φιλοσοφικής σχολής. Τεύχος τμήματος φιλολογίας 10, Thessaloniki 2003, 199–220. Die Aussage des Dichters im Prolog zu Buch 1, dass er die materia des Aesop in­ Senaren aufpoliert habe, wird i. d. R. so gedeutet, dass der Dichter auf eine griechische Prosasammlung zurückgriff, die unter dem Namen Aesops im Umlauf war, oder dass er damit allgemein auf griechisches Fabelgut verwies, das man unter diesem Namen zu subsumieren pflegte. Die uns erhaltene Sammlung griechischer Prosafabeln unter Aesops Namen ist in verschiedenen Recensiones überliefert und wird nach der bedeutendsten häufig als Augustana bezeichnet. Die Datierungen gehen auseinander; wahrscheinlich ist eine Verortung im 2./3. Jh. n. Chr. Die Datierungsfrage ist für das Verhältnis zu den Phaedrusfabeln insofern von Belang, als die Fassung in jedem Falle später ist als die Phaedrusfabeln, sodass bei einem Vergleich methodische Sorgfalt vonnöten ist. Die griechische Quelle des Phaedrus bleibt demnach schwer zu greifen; was er als Vorbild unter Aesops Namen las, wissen wir ebenfalls nicht.31 Was uns hingegen als ›Aesopfabeln‹ vorliegt, kann nicht als Subtext bezeichnet werden. Diese methodische Gefahr missachtet P i s i (116) in ihrem ansonsten lesens­ werten Beitrag. Nach einführenden Kapiteln zu Phaedrus in der Forschung, ­Phaedrus und die Fabel, Phaedrus und das uertere, behandelt sie einige Fabeln im Vergleich mit Aesopfabeln (1,7; 1,8; 1,11; 1,12; 1,13; 1,20; 4,3; 4,9), wobei die Besonderheiten bei Phaedrus in Lexik und Stil wie in der moralischen Aussage herausgestellt werden. Durchweg kann sie Phaedrus als sorgfältig arbeitenden Künstler präsentieren; überzeugend sind dabei auch die Nachweise intertextueller Bezüge zu lateinischen Dichtern. Die Verifizierung der Aussagen zur typischen Arbeitsweise eines lateinischen Dichters im Sinne der imitatio / aemulatio bleibt aber aufgrund der unklaren Lage, was die ›Aesop‹-Vorlage des Phaedrus betrifft, unter starkem Vorbehalt.32­ A d r a d o s (118) kritisiert dieses Vorgehen und gibt eine Übersicht zur Einordnung der Phaedrusfabeln in das von ihm auch sonst postulierte Stemma der Fabelüberlieferung (42–47, u. ö.). Zahlreiche Arbeiten behandeln die vom Dichter-Ich selbst skizzierte ›Entwicklung‹ seines Verhältnisses zu seinem Vorbild Aesop; dies wird zumeist unter poetologischen Aussagen behandelt (s. 7.7.3.). B e r n a r d i P e r i n i (121) und G e o r g a k o p o u l o u (122) seien hier stellvertretend angeführt; beide deuten die Aussagen der Pro- und Epiloge traditionell als Emanzipation vom Vorbild Aesop

31 Zu Spekulationen vgl. A d r a d o s passim; zu Spekulationen bzgl. des Pap. Ryl. 493 vgl. H o l z b e r g (59, 49); J e d r k i e w i c z , S., Sapere e paradosso nell’antichità. Esopo e la favola, Roma 1989 (Filologia e critica 60), 30 Anm. 51 u. 418. 32 Zur Recht verweist L u z z a t t o in ihrer Rezension (1979), 187, darauf, dass man bei Pisis Vorgehen davon ausgehen müsste, dass z. B. die Augustana schon zur Zeit des Phaedrus in der jet­ zigen Form vorgelegen habe, dass er sich nicht auf allgemein unter dem Namen Aesop laufendes Fabelgut beziehe und dass, wenn eine der Augustana vergleichbare Sammlung mit ihren ca. 230 Fabeln bereits existierte, die Behauptung aus 4 prol. 13 paucas ille (scil. Aesopus) ostendit, ego plures fero? schwer zu deuten wäre.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

41

– in sieben Schritten; Letztere legt den Schwerpunkt auf Phaedrus als Übersetzer und versucht dies durch Ansätze der modernen Übersetzungstheorien zu unterfüttern. Ennius und Vergil wurden aufgrund der wörtlichen Zitate (3 prol. 27 f.; 3 epil. 34) schon immer als Belege für die Belesenheit unseres Dichters angeführt; doch hat man in der neueren Forschung gezeigt, dass Phaedrus zahlreiche intertextuelle Bezüge zu der frühgriechischen (z. B. Hesiod), der klassischen (z. B. Aristophanes, Euripides, Platon), der hellenistischen (z. B. Kallimachos) und der gesamten römischen Literatur vor ihm, insbesondere der augusteischen, herstellt. Dieses kunstvolle Gewebe aufzuzeigen ist z. B. ein Anliegen meines Kommentars, G ä r t n e r (9). Dies wirft ein entsprechendes Licht auf den impliziten Leser, an den höchste Ansprüche gestellt werden (s. 7.3. u. 7.7.3.). Dass sich Phaedrus besonders nachdrücklich in die Tradition der Satire und vor allem des Horaz stellt, wird nie bezweifelt. Ausführlich ist dies zuletzt von R e n d a (41, 13 ff.) behandelt. Speziell auf das Verhältnis zu Horaz gehen im Berichtszeitraum ferner zwei Arbeiten ein. G a l l i (119) zeichnet unter den Aspekten von breuitas, uarietas, aemulatio, labor doctus und urbanitas die Annäherung des Phaedrus an Horaz nach. d e l l a C o r t e s (120) Anliegen ist es, Horazens Eigenheiten als Fabeldichter herauszuarbeiten; dabei dient Phaedrus als Vergleich (bes. 1,24; 4,4); die Unterschiede (z. B. ein schärferer Ton, populäre Einflüsse, kynische Gedanken bei Phaedrus) erklärt d e l l a C o r t e u. a. durch die anderen Zeitumstände sowie die zwar ähnliche, aber doch unterschiedliche soziale Herkunft der Dichter. Verwiesen sei an dieser Stelle noch auf Arbeiten, die der Frage nach verwandten Motiven in der Folklore nachgehen. H e n d e r s o n (6) führt solche Parallelen an, allerdings ohne eine mögliche Erklärung für diese zu geben. Zu app. 16 zieht er (293) mit einem strukturalistischen Ansatz den morphologischen Zugriff einem historischgeographischen vor. Dies weist S t i n t o n (117) als Erklärung für eine gleiche Geschichte (story) zurück. 7.7. Zur Aussage Arbeiten, die sich dezidiert mit der Aussage der Fabeln beschäftigen, nehmen er­ wartungsgemäß einen großen Raum ein. Hier können nicht alle einzeln besprochen werden. Es wurde daher versucht, sie in drei größere Kategorien zusammenzufassen. Es ist selbstverständlich, dass diese sich zum Teil überschneiden. 7.7.1. Politisch-soziokulturell 123.  F i s i c h e l l a , R., Appunti per un saggio su Fedro, Orpheus 23, 1976, 3–31. 124.  B o r e t s k y , M. I., K r o n i k , A. A., Attempt at  a social-psychological­ analysis of the ancient literary fable, VDI 145, 1978, 157–68. 125.  S c h m i d t , P. L., Politisches Argument und moralischer Appell. Zur Historizität der antiken Fabel im frühkaiserlichen Rom, Der Deutschunterricht 31,6, 1979, 74–88.

42

Ursula Gärtner

126.  C h a p a r r o G ó m e z , C., La ›parresía‹ y ›anaídeia‹ fedrianas. Contenido y originalidad, Anuario de Estudios Filológicos 5, 1982, 33–43. 127.  C a s c a j e r o , J., Lucha de clases e ideología. Introducción al estudio de la­ fábula esópica como fuente histórica, Gerión 9, 1991, 11–58. 128.  D e m a n d t , A., Politik in den Fabeln Aesops, Gymnasium 98, 1991, 397–419. 129.  B l o o m e r , W. M., Latinity and Literary Society at Rome, Philadelphia 1997. Rez.: H e n d e r s o n , JRS 88, 1998, 187–8; K r a u s , CR 48, 1998, 335–7; D o m i n i k , EMC 18, 1999, 442–5; R o c c a , Maia 51, 1999, 308–9; D u b u i s s o n , Latomus 61, 2002, 226–7. 130.  F i t z g e r a l d , W., Animal and Slave, in: ders., Slavery and the Roman­ Literary Imagination, Cambridge 2000, 99–102. 131.  S c h i n d e l , U., Der ›Sturz des Mächtigen‹ in der antiken Fabel, in: W o l p e r s , Th. (Hrsg.), Der Sturz des Mächtigen. Zu Struktur, Funktion und Geschichte eines literarischen Motivs, Göttingen 2000 (AAWG 234), 63–71. 132.  L e l l i , E., Pindaro, Fedro e la protesta degli umili, GIF 53, 2001, 69–72. 133.  C a m a s t r a , P., La favola esopica antica: fissità o evoluzione? Da Esiodo alle parafrasi medievali, Aufidus 18, 2004, 79–100. 134.  M a r c h e s i , I., Traces of  a Freed Language. Horace, Petronius, and the rhetoric of fable, ClAnt 24, 2005, 307–30. 135.  S t o c c h i , Chr., La dialettica socioeconomica nei promiti fedriani (Phaedr. 1.24.1; 1.27.1 s.; 1.28.1 s.; 1.30.1), Lexis 23, 2005, 295–303. 136.  S c i a r r i n o , E., What ›lies‹ behind Phaedrus’ Fables?, in: Tu r n e r , A. J., C h o n g - G o s s a r d , J. H. K. O., V e r v a e t , F. J. (Hrsgg.), Private and Public Lies. The discourse of despotism and deceit in the Graeco-Roman world, Leiden / Boston 2010 (Impact of Empire 11), 231–48. 137.  W i e g a n d , I., Neque libere neque vere. Die Literatur unter Tiberius und der Diskurs der res publica continua, München 2013 (Classica Monacensia 45). Rez.: R e i t z , BMCRev 2014.10.47. 138.  M o r d e g l i a , C., Fedro, Augusti libertus (?), e il potere, Paideia 69, 2014, 119–53. 139.  E d w a r d s , R. M., Caesar Telling Tales. Phaedrus and Tiberius, RhM 158, 2015, 167–84. Bei der Frage nach der politisch-soziokulturellen Einordnung lassen sich deutlich zwei Richtungen erkennen. In den meisten Arbeiten zieht man i. d. R. keine Trennungslinie zwischen dem ›Ich‹ bzw. der persona und dem empirischen Dichter. Hinzukommt die unhinterfragte Annahme, dass die Angabe in den Handschriften,­ Phaedrus sei ein Freigelassener des Augustus gewesen, als historisches Faktum zu deuten sei. Meist sieht man dann in dem Dichter ein ›Sprachrohr‹ der Unterdrück-

Phaedrus 1975–2014

43

ten. Hier kann nicht auf jeden, der diese häufig, z. B. in den Einführungen, vertretene These vorbringt, eingegangen werden. Diese Einschätzung wird gerade in jüngerer Zeit durch literaturwissenschaftliche Herangehensweisen angezweifelt. Eine traditionelle Deutung legt z. B. F i s i c h e l l a (123) vor: Phaedrus’ litera­ rischer Eifer und sein moralisches Engagement seien untrennbar miteinander verbunden; seine Weltsicht sei von schmerzlichem Fatalismus geprägt: Der Obere bleibe oben, dem Unteren bleibe nur die Unterwerfung. Daher predige Phaedrus auch keine Revolution, biete aber auch keinen Trost; app. 6 biete einen Einblick in seine wahre Moralvorstellung. Zu nennen ist vor allem L a P e n n a (28), dessen Einführung in erster Auflage zwar vor dem Berichtszeitraum erschien, dessen Einfluss aber nach wie vor besonders in der italienischen Forschung sehr stark ist. Nachdrücklich verfolgt er einen biographischen und zugleich sozial-politischen Ansatz: »La schiavitú […] è il primo dato biografico essenziale per capire l’opera: vedremo presto che la favola è secondo Fedro il simbolo necessario per esprimere la verità scoperta e denunziata dagli schiavi« (VIIIf.); »L’altro dato biografico essenziale per capire l’opera è la calamitas« (XII), in der er eine Anklage durch Seian sieht. Auf dieser Grundlage interpretiert La Penna eine große Zahl an Fabeln als Ausdruck eines aus der gebildeten Gesellschaft Ausgeschlossenen, der anspielungsreich auf zeitgenössische Geschehnisse Bezug nehme. Eine offene Kritik sei aber nicht möglich, weshalb die Fabel das geeignete Ausdrucksmittel sei. Grundstimmung sei ein mit Resignation verbundener Pessimismus. Dieser Ansatz hat insbesondere die italienische und spanische Forschung nachhaltig bestimmt. Differenziert ordnet S c h m i d t (125) Phaedrus in die historische Entwicklung der Fabel in der antiken Literatur ein. Er zeigt, dass die Fabel ursprünglich als rhetorisches Argument diente, in Rom als eher unwürdig galt und gerade nicht der heute üblichen Etikettierung als ›Kampfmittel der Unterdrückten und Entrechteten‹ entsprach. Zu Phaedrus versucht er an 1,2 (s. 8.) nachzuweisen, dass der Rahmen der Fabel nicht zur Aussage der Fabel passt; Aesops Name sei eher eine Chiffre für einen unterhaltend-belehrenden Erzähltyp; die Analogisierung passe aber vom Rahmen in den politischen Diskussionskontext der frühen Kaiserzeit. Das Epimythion fordere auf, die augusteische Friedensherrschaft als das kleinere Übel und als Folge eigenen politischen Versagens zu akzeptieren, denn es könne nur schlimmer kommen (Wasserschlange / Tiberius). Phaedrus rate »nicht als distanziert Analysierender, sondern als Betroffener aus der Perspektive der kleinen Leute zur Akzeptierung der neuen Monarchie, weil sie bei einer Systemveränderung allenfalls auf bessere Machthaber, nicht aber auf einen Wegfall der Abhängigkeit an sich hoffen können […] Diese Empfehlung politischer Bescheidung fügt sich einer gerade im ersten Buch durchgehenden Linie von Moralitäten ein, die ganz allgemein empfehlen, mit dem nun einmal Gegebenen sich abzufinden und die kleine Sicherheit im Streben nach Neuem, Fremdem, Riskantem nicht aufs Spiel zu setzen« (84). In Phaedrus selbst sieht er jedoch nicht den Klassenkämpfer, sondern ein Beispiel »für eine Auffassung der römischen Sozialstruktur, die gesellschaftlichen Aufstieg an individuelle Leistung bindet« (88). In produktions- und rezeptionsästhetischen Bemerkungen erkennt Schmidt die Besonderheit des Werks, das »nur im Nachvollziehen seiner historischen Gewordenheit voll«

44

Ursula Gärtner

(88) verständlich sei. Der Vorstellung, dass die Fabel als solche in unteren Schichten entstanden sei, um Sozialkritik zu üben,33 wird heute allerdings wider­sprochen. Genauso wenig sollte man davon ausgehend folgern, dass die Fabel diese Funktion durch alle Jahrhunderte hindurch beibehielt, und dann von ›der Aussage der Fabel‹ schlechthin sprechen; dieser Ansatz wurde vor allem von L a P e n n a begründet, der der Fabel formale Konstanten und wesentliche Aussagen zuwies; Aufgabe sei die Demaskierung der Fehler, und damit sei die Fabel für Schwache und Wehrlose ein Erfahrungsschatz.34 Ganz vergleichbar geht D e m a n d t (128) vor, der von ›Fabeln Aesops‹ spricht, ohne zwischen den verschiedenen Autoren zu unterscheiden; bei Phaedrus folgt er dem üblichen biographischen Ansatz und versucht, in Fabeln zeitgenössische Bezüge zu entdecken. ›Aesops‹ Weltsicht sei desillusionierend. Ähnlich ist die Vorgehensweise C a s c a j e r o s (127), der die Fabel als unverzerrte historische Quelle aus Sicht der Unteren und Ausgebeuteten verstehen will, dabei aber etwas differenzierter verfährt; zudem liefert er eine nach gesellschaftlichen Fragen gegliederte Klassifizierung der Aesopfabeln. Mein methodischer Vorbehalt bleibt aber auch hier bestehen, dass nämlich die historischen Bezüge nicht genau auszumachen sind und die Fabel in ihrer Geschichte unterschiedlich eingesetzt wurde. Begrüßenswert ist es daher, wenn C a m a s t r a (133) der Frage nachgeht, ob die ›aesopische‹ Fabel von Hesiod bis zu den mittelalterlichen Paraphrasen starr bleibt oder einer Entwicklung unterliegt. Sein Ergebnis ist überzeugend, wenn er von einem fortwährenden Prozess der Aktualisierung sowohl auf mentaler wie auf soziokultureller Ebene spricht. In traditionellem Fahrwasser befindet sich C h a p a r r o G ó m e z (126), der eine Reihe von Fabeln unter den Aspekten ›parresía‹ und ›anaídeia‹ ohne wirklich neue Erkenntnisse untersucht. Dem traditionellen Ansatz folgt auch B l o o m e r (129), der die Gedichte des Phaedrus ganz aus der Sicht eines Freigelassenen versteht; Identifizierungen mit aktuellen zeitgenössischen Begebenheiten sowie Rückschlüsse auf biographische Einzelheiten (Heimat, Seianprozess) weist er zwar als nicht sinnvoll zurück, doch sieht er in den Fabeln die soziale und kulturelle Welt des Freigelassenen porträtiert.35 Eine Schwierigkeit für Phaedrus sieht er in dessen Bestreben, in die hohe Gesellschaft der lateinischen Literatur aufgenommen zu werden; anders als Petron gehe es ihm nie um Lächerlichmachung der Freigelassenen, doch sollten ihre Kultur und Stellung angemessen, z. T. auch negativ, erkannt werden. Als Adressa 33 So etwa C r u s i u s , O., Aus der Geschichte der Fabel, in: Das Buch der Fabeln, zusammengestellt v. K l e u k e n s , C. H., eingeleitet v. C., O., Leipzig 1913, I–LXI; S p o e r r i , Th., Der Aufstand der Fabel, Trivium 1, 1942/3, 31–63; M e u l i , K., Herkunft und Wesen der Fabel, Schweizerisches Archiv für Volkskunde 50, 1954, 65–88; L a P e n n a , A., La morale della favola esopica come morale delle classi subalterne nell’antichità, Società 17, 1961, 459–537; G u a g l i a n o n e (34, 7 f.); u. v. a.; dagegen zu Recht z. B. P e r r y , B. E., Fable, Studium Generale 12, 1959, 17–37, 23 ff.; C a m a s t r a (133); C h r i s t e s (298, 5, 92, 210); H o l z b e r g (59, 18 f.); S c h n u r (18, 12 ff.). 34 L a P e n n a (s. Anm. 33). 35 Dies wird nicht hinterfragt; ohne Diskussion geht Bloomer davon aus, dass »the title of the work declares Phaedrus a freedman of Augustus«; ähnlich auch über einen Adressaten: »one is recognizably an imperial Freedman« (75).

Phaedrus 1975–2014

45

ten der Fabeln sieht Bloomer hohe Bürokraten in der familia Caesaris. Noch einseitiger verfährt F i t z g e r a l d (130), der Aesop wie Phaedrus in ihrer Rolle als freigelassene Sklaven sieht und sogar wieder das Argument einbringt, dass man in dieser Funktion nur verhüllt, und deshalb in Fabelform, die Wahrheit sagen konnte. Der Tierfabel schreibt er dabei eine besondere Funktion zu: »So it may be that slaves appropriated the animal status assigned to them by the official culture of their masters as a position from which to voice their own perspective« (99). Auf R e n d a (41), die differenzierter, aber im Grunde mit dem gleichen Ansatz verfährt, wurde schon eingegangen. S c h i n d e l (131) betont die sozialkritische Dimension und das politische Potential bestimmter Phaedrusfabeln und zeigt u. a. an 1,28, wie Phaedrus das Motiv vom Sturz des Mächtigen aufgreift, aber »im Sinne einer affirmativen Sozialisation entschärft« (66 f.). L e l l i (132) nimmt die Aussage in 3 epil. 33 ff. ernst, zeigt aber auch durch einen Vergleich mit Pind. Pyth. 11,28 ff., wie eine solche Gnome je nach Perspektive, d. h. von oben oder von unten verwendet werden kann. M a r c h e s i (134) stützt sich u. a. auch auf B l o o m e r und will zeigen, dass die Behandlung der Fabel durch Horaz und Petron Phaedrus’ Genealogie der Gattung unterstütze. Die Fabel »performs as a freed genre – that is, it situates itself in the same ambiguous cultural space defined by the intersection of freedom and servitude in which Roman society located the freedmen« (308). S t o c c h i (135) konstatiert, dass die Arbeiten von L a P e n n a , D e m a n d t , C a s c a j e r o u. a. unter sozial-politischen Gesichtspunkten ein recht einheitliches Bild der antiken Fabel zeichnen. Er verweist nun auf Unterschiede, die sich aus historisch-kultureller wie strukturell-morphologischer Sicht ergeben. Grundlage seiner Phaedrusstudie sind dabei die Pro- und Epimythien, die einen Schlüssel zur römischen Lesart liefern sollen. Demonstriert wird dies am Stil, der sich deutlich mit dem des Publilius Syrus vergleichen lässt, an thematischen und kulturellen Aspekten, die in Rom ihre Verankerung finden, und an der Ideologie, die vor allem vier Promythien am Ende von Buch 1 (1,23–1,30) durch ihre starke sozioökonomische und politisch-soziale Ausrichtung zu erkennen geben. Dass sich dies später nicht mehr so stark findet, erklärt Stocchi durch die Entwicklung der persönlichen Aussicht des Autors. Stellt man den biographischen Ansatz in Frage, muss man die zuvor skizzierten Forschungsergebnisse z. T. mit Vorsicht betrachten, wie neuere Arbeiten nahe legen. S c i a r r i n o (136) baut auf C h a m p l i n s (96) These auf und sieht im Verfasser einen römischen Aristokraten um 70 n. Chr.; ihr Ziel ist es zu zeigen, dass sich in der aggressiven Verwendung der aesopischen Fabel der Aristokrat im Hintergrund erkennen lasse, und »how his claim to poetic authorship dovetails with an exclusive use of fable as an unconstrained space for reflecting upon the impact of autocratic rule on elite social relations and cultural practices alike« (233); zur Kritik an C h a m p l i n s (96) Ansatz s. 7.3. Ich selbst, G ä r t n e r (165), zeige, wie in den Fabeln der Prinzipat als neue Regierungsform sowie dessen erste Vertreter thematisiert werden. Weder an diesen lässt sich Kritik finden noch an der neuen Herrschaftsform als solcher; gerade die Fabel erweist sich in ihrer Offenheit als literarisches Kommunikations­ mittel ihrer Zeit, nicht jedoch als Instrument soziopolitischer Wirkung (s. 7.7.3.). M o r d e g l i a (138) geht der Frage nach, inwieweit wir berechtigt sind, in Phaedrus

46

Ursula Gärtner

einen Freigelassenen zu sehen und ihn aufgrund dieser sozialen Rolle als Sprachrohr der unteren Schichten aufzufassen. Sie umreißt die Entwicklung der Fabel und der Aesopfigur und möchte nach einer neuen Lektüre der Phaedrusfabeln und einer Kontextualisierung in eine ›historisch-kulturelle diachrone Dimension‹ zeigen, dass der Dichter sich zwar deutlich in die Tradition Aesops stelle, die Einordnung als Freigelassener aber eine spätere – falsche – Zuschreibung sei, dass die Fabeln demnach weniger sozialkritisch zu deuten seien als vielmehr in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der kynischstoischen Tradition. Hierbei sollte jedoch beachtet werden, dass sich Mordeglia zwar m. E. zu Recht gegen die meist übliche biographische Deutung wehrt, aber unkritisch den Ansatz A d r a d o s ’ übernimmt, der die Fabelgattung einseitig auf eine kynische Ausrichtung festlegt. Doch selbst wenn man dem folgt, sollte man beachten, dass die Phaedrusfabeln nicht automatisch in diesem Kontext gelesen werden müssen; eine Übersicht zur Lexik sowie eine – einseitige – Klassifizierung der Fabeln können die These nicht weiter unterstützen. W i e g a n d (137) liefert eine Art Synthese der beiden Forschungsrichtungen, denn sie datiert Phaedrus unter Tiberius, weist aber eine biographische Lesart der Fabeln zurück und betont das Vexierspiel, durch das Phaedrus immer die Möglichkeit eines doppelten Bodens vermuten lasse. Dies ist alles einleuchtend, doch umso komplizierter wird dann ihre leitende Frage nach der Darstellung der Politik bei Phaedrus. Wiegand kommt daher auch zu dem Ergebnis, dass Phaedrus kein verstecktes politisches Programm verfolge und auch nicht Partei für die Unterlegenen nehme, sondern »das unbedingte Verharren des Individuums in seiner gesellschaftlichen Schicht« (212) fordere; er zeige somit »eine zutiefst konservative Haltung […] gegenüber der sozialen Ordnung, welche sich während der römischen Republik herausgebildet hatte, die aber bereits in der frühen Kaiserzeit immer stärker aufgeweicht wurde« (213 f.). Zu Recht betont Wiegand, dass man daher nicht einmal von Resignation sprechen könne, wenn man nicht wisse, wer sich hinter Phaedrus verberge. Der Prinzipat werde nicht in Frage gestellt, die Republik hingegen sei »– zugespitzt ausgedrückt – keine Epoche, sondern ein Synonym für intakte Moral und exemplarische Verhaltensmuster« (225 Anm. 329). Der Übergang von Republik zum Prinzipat spiele für Phaedrus keine Rolle. Wiegand verweist durchgängig auf die gattungsgeschuldete Offenheit der Texte; dies ist erfrischend. Phaedrus als typischen Vertreter seiner Zeit anzusehen, bleibt aber m. E. unsicher, da die Datierungsfrage auch von Wiegand nicht unwiderlegbar gelöst werden kann (s. 7.3.). Wie beantworteten wir die Frage nach der Politik bei Phaedrus, wenn wir ihn als Zeitgenossen z. B. des Petron nähmen? Auch E d w a r d s (139) datiert die Phaedrusfabeln unter Tiberius. Eine biographische Deutung weist sie zurück (s. 7.3.) und betont u. a., dass seruitus obnoxia in der oft zitierten Stelle in 3 prol. 33 ff. sich nicht auf den ›Sklaven‹ Phaedrus beziehe, sondern einen politischen Terminus darstelle, der den Verlust der libertas der herrschenden Klasse in der frühen Kaiserzeit bezeichne; dieser Aspekt durchziehe auch zahlreiche andere Fabeln des Phaedrus. Schließlich habe sich Tiberius selbst als einen Sklaven der eigenen Position gesehen. Interessant ist der Hinweis, dass Tiberius dabei auf Fabeln zurückgriff (vgl. z. B. Suet. Tib. 24,1; 25,1; Cal. 11), um wie Phaedrus seine wahre Meinung zu verschleiern. »Both men feel a sense of enslavement, one fearing

Phaedrus 1975–2014

47

literary censorship, the other performing acts of self-sacrifice for the common good. Both men use fables and similar types of figured speech to cope« (184). Den Darstellungen zwischenmenschlicher Beziehungen in den Fabeln des ­Phaedrus, Babrius und Avian gehen B o r e t s k y   /   K r o n i k (124) nach; eine Systematisierung nach neun Typen lässt sie eine je eigene sozial-psychologische Atmosphäre in den Fabeln der Autoren erkennen. Insgesamt gehen die Deutungen im politisch-soziokulturellen Bereich am weitesten auseinander. 7.7.2. Moralisch-philosophisch 140.  C a s c ó n , A., Fatum y fortuna en las fabulas de Fedro, in: F e r n á n d e z G a l i a n o , M. (Hrsg.), Auguralia. Estudios sobre lenguas y literaturas griegas y latinas, Madrid 1984, 53–9. 141.  N ø j g a a r d , M., La moralisation de la fable. D’Ésope à Romulus, in: A d r a d o s , F. R. (Hrsg.), La Fable. Huit exposés suivis de discussions, VandœuvresGenève 1984 (Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique 30), 225–51 [vgl. The Moralisation of the Fable. From Aesop to Romulus, in: B e k k e r - N i e l s e n , H.  (Hrsg.), Medieval Narrative. A Symposium. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium organized by the Centre for the Study of Vernacular Literature in the Middle Ages, Odense 1979, 31–43]. 142.  A d r a d o s , F. R., Política cínica en las fábulas esópicas, in: Filologia e forme letterarie. Studi offerti a della Corte, F., I, Urbino 1987, 413–26. 143.  D e f l o r i o , A., Fedro e il suo mondo. Vizi e virtù, RAL 9a ser., 8, 1997, 273–336. 144.  B l ä n s d o r f , J., Lecture pédagogique-morale-politique? Problèmes herméneutiques des fables de Phèdre, REL 78, 2000, 118–38. 145.  G ä r t n e r , U., consulto inuoluit ueritatem antiquitas. Zu den Werten bei Phaedrus, Gymnasium 114, 2007, 405–34. 146.  M o r g a n , T., Fables and the Teaching of Ethics, in: D e l g a d o , J. A. F., P o r d o m i n g o , F., S t r a m a g l i a , A. (Hrsgg.), Escuela y Literatura en Grecia Antigua, Cassino 2007, 373–404. 147.  –, Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire, Cambridge 2007. Rez.: C a l d w e l l , NECJ 35, 2008, 310–2; M é t h y , REA 110, 2008, 336– 7; W i e g a n d t , Sehepunkte 2008; G o l d e n , BMCRev 2009.03.54; G o u r e v i t c h , AC 78, 2009, 431–2; K i v i s t ö , Arctos 43, 2009, 271–2; B l o o m e r , Phoenix 64, 2010, 186–8; L a n g l a n d s , CR 50, 2010, 237–9; S a l l e s , Latomus 70, 2011, 920–1. 148.  F r i t s c h , A., Die Gefühlswelt in den Fabeln des Phaedrus, in: B o r m a n n , D., W i t t c h o w , F. (Hrsgg.), Emotionalität in der Antike. Zwischen Performativität und Diskursivität. Festschrift für Christes, J., dargebracht von Freunden und Kollegen, Berlin 2008 (Körper. Zeichen. Kultur 23), 225–45.

48

Ursula Gärtner

Auch unter dem Aspekt moralisch-philosophischer Aussagen lassen sich grundsätzlich divergierende Richtungen erkennen. Eine Rolle spielt hierbei wiederum die Gewichtung des biographischen Ansatzes; ferner ist von Bedeutung, inwieweit man ›die Fabel‹ als weitgehend unverändertes Aussagemedium auffasst oder den einzelnen Autoren eigenen Gestaltungswillen zuweist, indem man sie in die Diskurse ihrer Zeit reiht; dies betrifft in gleichem Maße die Zuordnung zu einzelnen philosophischen Richtungen. In zahlreichen Arbeiten wird eine Verbindung zum Kynismus hervorgehoben. Einen eher summarischen Überblick über die Verwendung von Begriffen aus dem Wortfeld fatum / fortuna gibt C a s c ó n (140); er kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass Phaedrus ein besonderes Interesse an diesem Thema habe und dass er vor allem durch den Kynismus und daneben auch schwächer durch den Stoizismus beeinflusst sei. Es ist vor allem A d r a d o s , der in seinen zahlreichen Werken, hier z. B. (142), immer wieder auf die enge Verbindung der Fabel zum Kynismus verweist und dies u. a. durch eine von ihm vermutete Fabelsammlung in Versen aus dem Hellenismus begründet (s. 7.1.). Phaedrus, dem er bisweilen durchaus eigene Gestaltungskraft zuschreibt, ordnet er in dieser Hinsicht ganz dem Kynismus zu. Selbst wenn es eine solche griechische Fabelsammlung gegeben haben mag, heißt dies noch nicht, dass sämtliche späteren Fabeln kynisch zu deuten sind. Schon L a P e n n a hatte ferner auf den deutlichen Unterschied zum Kynismus verwiesen;36 denn dort beinhaltet die Wahl des armen Lebens zugleich die Autarkie, d. h. die Unabhängigkeit von der Umgebung. Im Gegensatz dazu finden wir schon in den aesopischen Fabeln nicht den Gedanken der Wahl, sondern eher den der Nützlichkeit – das Leben der Armen kann schlichtweg ungefährlicher als das der Reichen oder herausragenden Persönlichkeiten sein. Der Gedanke der kynischen Ausrichtung ist dennoch stark in zahlreichen Arbeiten insbesondere aus dem italienisch-spanischen Raum vertreten. D e f l o r i o (143) möchte mit einer Zusammenstellung der dargestellten Tugenden und Laster essenzielle Charakteristika der Welt des Phaedrus erhellen und so das Portrait des Autors allmählich freilegen samt seiner Gedanken, seiner Gefühle, seines Gemütszustands und seiner »psychologie inquiéte« (273). Es ist verständlich, dass eine solche Arbeit, die gänzlich dem biographischen Ansatz verpflichtet ist, nicht alle überzeugen kann. Nicht nur die Pro- und Epiloge werden auf biographische und somit ›psychologische‹ Aussagen hin gelesen, die soziokulturellen Bezüge erschließen sich für Deflorio ebenfalls aus der traurigen Lebenserfahrung des Dichters. Auch wenn man dem nicht folgt, ist die Auflistung mit anschließender Stelleninterpretation zu einzelnen Tugenden und Lastern nützlich. Einer solchen einseitigen Deutung wird durch verschiedene Ansätze entgegengetreten. Der Beitrag von N ø j g a a r d (141) ist z. B. hier zu nennen, da dieser durch eine strukturelle Analyse am Beispiel der Fabel von Wolf und Lamm zu zeigen versucht, wie sich in der Entwicklung der antiken Fabel eine zunehmende Moralisierung erkennen lässt. Für Phaedrus stellt er fest: »En résumé, l’art de Phèdre reproduit ainsi une vision tragique de l’existence humaine. Le tragique réside dans la dualité 36 L a P e n n a (s. Anm. 33), 517 f.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

49

fondamentale d’un monde régi par la force physique, mais évalué selon des valeurs éthiques« (238). Einen Einfluss bestimmter Philosophenschulen lehnt er hierbei ab. Einen neuen Akzent setzt B l ä n s d o r f (144). Während Fabeln heute häufig als Kinderlektüre angesehen werden, zeigt er, dass die antike Fabel generell nicht für pädagogische Zwecke geeignet sei. Sie sei politisch oder moralisch ausgerichtet und zeige eine brutale Welt. Sie diene der Entlarvung der Motive der Akteure. Phaedrus stehe nicht nur in dieser Tradition, sondern betone auch, dass seine Fabeln schwierig zu deuten seien, wodurch er zur Reflexion anregen wolle. Die Fabel sei ein Bild der Schwierigkeiten der Erkenntnis, die das Leben stelle. Nur eine der Phaedrusfabeln habe daher eine pädagogische Situation zum Gegenstand (3,8), nur wenige könnten Kinder amüsieren (z. B. 1,3; 1,13; 4,3). Um der eigenständigen Ausformung der Fabeln durch Phaedrus in moralisch-politischer Hinsicht gerecht zu werden, versuche ich, G ä r t n e r (145), zu zeigen, wie Phaedrus typisch römische Wertvorstellungen, die in der Republik eine zentrale Rolle spielten wie uirtus, fides, gloria, fortitudo oder dignitas, thematisiert, diese dabei ironisiert und nahelegt, dass sie ihre ehemalige reziproke Wirkung verloren haben. Dies erhält seine besondere Aussagekraft durch die zahlreichen intertextuellen Bezüge u. a. zu Lucilius, Vergil und Horaz, durch die sich der Dichter eher heiter in den literarischen Diskurs über den Werteverfall einschreibt. M o r g a n (146, 147) geht hingegen in einem eher allgemeinen Ansatz der Frage nach, woraus sich die ›ethische Landschaft‹ der Sprichwörter, der Fabeln (Babrios und Phaedrus), der Gnomai und der Exempla in der frühen Kaiserzeit zusammensetzt, d. h. in unserem Falle, welche Themen in den Fabeln behandelt werden, was Fabeln als gut oder schlecht identifizieren, wie sie moralische Handlung evozieren und wie und durch welche Autorität sie Ethik lehren. Zu Recht weist Morgan eine zu enge Anbindung an eine der Philosophenschulen zurück mit dem Hinweis, dass sich die Gemeinsamkeiten eher durch die Behandlung von Grundfragen menschlicher Existenz erklären lassen. Für Phaedrus vermerkt sie u. a. ein besonderes Anliegen, was absolute Werte betrifft. Sie kommt insgesamt zu dem Ergebnis, dass Fabeln zu spezifisch oder zu allgemein sind, um nützlich zu sein, dass sie aber zum Nachdenken provozieren. Auch wenn die Art der erzieherischen Wirkung schwer zu bestimmen sei, schließt Morgan aus der weiten Verbreitung der Fabeln in der Antike, dass ihre Ideen die Grundzüge populären ethischen Denkens widerspiegeln. So überzeugend der Gesamtentwurf der Untersuchung ist, stellt sich wie häufig auch hier die Frage, in welchem Maße sich Phaedrus für die Suche nach allgemeinen, in der breiten Bevölkerung vertretenen Aussagen, d. h. hier einer ›popular morality‹, eignet, da Morgan z. B. eine literarische Verortung der Fabeln sowie die Frage nach der Rezeptionsbedingung außen vor lässt. F r i t s c h (148) zeigt vor dem Hintergrund der stoischen Affektlehre, dass die Darstellung von Emotionen in den Phaedrusfabeln einen wichtigen Platz einnimmt und das Erregen von Gefühlen zur Fabel gehört, ohne die eine Rezeption und insbesondere eine belehrende Funktion nicht möglich ist. Einigkeit in diesem Punkt wird aufgrund der grundsätzlichen Unterschiede in der Herangehensweise schwer zu erreichen sein, solange man den Autor nicht auch

50

Ursula Gärtner

als Dichter ernst nimmt. Die Ergebnisse, die der folgende Absatz zeigt, sollten hierfür eine Grundlage bieten. 7.7.3. Poetologisch 149.  L a m b e r t i , G., La poetica del lusus in Fedro, RIL 114, 1980, 95–115. 150.  J e d r k i e w i c z , S., Fedro e la verità, QUCC 63, 1990, 121–8. 151.  K o s t e r , S., Phaedrus. Skizze seiner Selbstauffassung, in: N e u k a m , P. (Hrsg.), Die Antike im Brennpunkt, München 1991 (Klassische Sprachen und Literaturen 25), 59–87. 152.  M a ñ a s N ú ñ e z , M., Aproximación  a la poética de Fedro, Anuario de Estudios Filológicos 19, 1996, 321–36. 153.  C a r n e s , P., How Phaedrus’s Fables ›Mean‹. Notes on Aesop in  a contextual model, Reinardus 13, 2000, 49–65. 154.  H a m m , U., Illiteratum plausum nec desidero. Phaedrus über sich als Dichter, Classica Cracoviensia 5, 2000, 275–96. 155.  C a v a r z e r e , A., Ego Polivi Versibus Senariis. Phaedrus and iambic ­poetry, in: C a v a r z e r e , A., A l o n i , A., B a r c h i e s i , A. (Hrsgg.), Iambic Ideas. Essays on a poetic tradition from archaic Greece to the late Roman empire, Lanham 2001, 205–17. 156.  G ä r t n e r , U., Von Esel und Zikade. Überlegungen zu Phaedrus, LGBB 51, 2007, 23–31. 157.  M a t t i a c c i , S., Marziale e il neoterismo, in: B o n a d e o , A., R o m a n o , E. (Hrsgg.), Dialogando con il passato. Permanenze e innovazioni nella cultura latina di età flavia, Firenze 2007, 177–206. 158.  –, Fedro, Marziale e il nuovo impegno del lusus poetico, in: A r d u i n i , P., A u d a n o , S., B o r g h i n i , A., C a v a r z e r e , A., M a z z o l i , G., P a d u a n o , G., R u s s o , A. (Hrsgg.), Studi offerti a Perutelli, A. II, Roma 2008, 191–203. 159.  S p a h l i n g e r , L., Künstleranekdoten bei Phaedrus. Zum Selbstverständnis des kaiserzeitlichen Fabeldichters, Gymnasium 115, 2008, 251–81. 160.  G l a u t h i e r , P., Phaedrus, Callimachus and the Recusatio to Success, ClAnt 28, 2009, 248–78. 161.  G r a v e r i n i , L., K e u l e n , W., Roman Fiction and its Audience. Seriocomic assertions of authority, in: P a s c h a l i s , M., P a n a y o t a k i s , S., S c h m e l i n g , G. (Hrsgg.), Readers and Writers in the Ancient Novel, Groningen 2009, 197–217. 162.  J e n n i n g s , V., Borrowed Plumes. Phaedrus’ fables, Phaedrus’ failures, in: D o m i n i k , W. J., G a r t h w a i t e , J., R o c h e , P. A. (Hrsgg.), Writing Politics in Imperial Rome, Leiden / Boston 2009, 225–48. 163.  L i b b y , B. B., The Intersection of Poetic and Imperial Authority in P ­ haedrus’ Fables, CQ 60, 2010, 545–58.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

51

164.  M a t t i a c c i , S., Ad cothurnum ascendere. Fedro, Marziale, Apuleio e le tentazioni del sublime, Prometheus 36, 2010, 168–84. 165.  G ä r t n e r , U., palam muttire plebeio piaculum est. Die Fabeln des Phaedrus als literarische Kommunikationsform in der frühen Kaiserzeit, in: H a l t e n h o f f , A., H e i l , A., M u t s c h l e r , F.-H. (Hrsgg.), Römische Werte und römische Literatur im frühen Prinzipat, Berlin / New York 2011 (BzA 275), 253–77. 166.  –, Maske, Perle, Feile, Lyra. Phaedrus, die literarische Gattung und die klassische Bildung, Hermes 139, 2011, 216–48. 167.  M a t t i a c c i , S., Il liberto ›greco‹ in cerca di un’identità romana. Auto­ rappresentazione  e programma letterario in Fedro, in: M o r d e g l i a , C. (Hrsg.),­ Lupus in fabula. Fedro e la favola latina tra antichità e medioevo. Studi offerti a Bertini, F., Bologna 2014, 49–71. Erst in den letzten Jahrzehnten hat man sich der Gedichte des Phaedrus unter Kriterien angenommen, die bei anderen lateinischen Dichtern schon lange selbstverständlich sind. Dies betrifft vor allem die intertextuellen Bezüge sowie die poetologischen Aussagen.37 Auf die beiden Monographien, H e n d e r s o n (8) und G ä r t n e r (9), die diesen Aspekten passim nachgehen, wurde oben schon verwiesen. Ferner hat H o l z b e r g in seinen Arbeiten (59, 184, 297) immer wieder den literarischen Anspruch der Phaedrusfabeln betont und die Diskrepanz zwischen literarischem Anspruch und anspruchslosen Themen der Kleinpoesie als absichtliche Übertreibung interpretiert, durch die der Dichter wie ein Narr die Wahrheit hinter der Wahrheit verbergen könne. Grundlegend ist der Beitrag L a m b e r t i s (149), die als eine der Ersten zeigt, dass Phaedrus in seiner Auseinandersetzung mit den Dichtungsprogrammen der Alexandriner in die Reihe eines Catull, Horaz, Vergil oder der Elegiker einzureihen ist. Sie weist überzeugend nach, dass Phaedrus die ästhetischen Ansprüche des alexandrinischen Programms aufgreift und in origineller Weise umformt; die Leichtigkeit (leuitas) dieses lusus sei aber nicht als Spaß zu verstehen, sondern sei vom Dichter ganz ernst gemeint. Denn der Dichter entwickle den alexandrinischen Ansatz einer ›sapienza del verso‹ weiter und gelange zu einer ›sapienza umana‹. J e d r k i e w i c z (150) führt diesen Gedanken nicht weiter, betont jedoch ebenfalls den literarischen Charakter der Phaedrusfabeln; nur durch den ästhetischen Wert könne der Autor beim Leser die Überzeugung schaffen, dass er die Wahrheit sage. ­K o s t e r (151) unterzieht die Pro- und Epiloge einer genauen Analyse, wobei er unter poetologischen Gesichtspunkten zahlreiche Verbindungslinien zu den augusteischen Dichtern, aber auch zu Kallimachos sieht; anders als Lamberti, deren Aufsatz er offensichtlich nicht 37 Von der Literatur vor dem Berichtszeitraum sei verwiesen auf D a m s , P., Dichtungskritik bei nachaugusteischen Dichtern, Diss. Marburg 1970, der die poetologischen Aussagen des­ Phaedrus mit denen der augusteischen Dichter in Beziehung setzte; es ging ihm hierbei darum, dem Fabeldichter ein ernstes dichterisches Anliegen nachzuweisen. Leider wurde Dams in der nachfolgenden Literatur wenig rezipiert.

52

Ursula Gärtner

kennt, kommt er jedoch zu einem völlig gegensätzlichen Ergebnis: »Für alle seine Aussagen und Ansprüche konnte er Vorbilder anführen und annehmen, es müsse ihm recht sein, was diesen billig gewesen ist, nur hat man es nicht zugelassen, daß er es so tut, wie er es getan hat: unpassend und widersprüchlich […], sicher ist, daß er in erster Linie Opfer seiner selbst gewesen ist und mehr gewollt hat, als er zu leisten imstande war« (84). Begründet ist dies in einem durchgehend negativen Urteil über den Dichter, sowohl was seinen Charakter wie seine Fähigkeit zu dichten betrifft. Ähnlich geht M a ñ a s N ú ñ e z (152) vor, allerdings ohne die negative Konnotation; er sieht Phaedrus im literarischen Charakter in der alexandrinischen wie horazischen Tradition. H a m m (154) verweist in Weiterführung der Ansätze von D a m s und L a m b e r t i auf Phaedrus’ vergleichsweise hohen Anspruch an die eigenen poetischen Erzeugnisse vor allem in Hinblick auf die Rezeption des alexandrinischen Dichtungsprogramms bei den Neoterikern und Augusteern und betont daneben zu Recht, dass dieser Anspruch spielerisch, d. h. in ironischer Selbstsicherheit präsentiert werde, wobei man Phaedrus’ Bemerkungen zu seiner Person und seinem Werk nicht allzu wörtlich nehmen dürfe; dies zeigt er an Pro- und Epilog des vierten Buchs. C a v a r z e r e (155) verfährt ähnlich, wenn er in 1 prol. 1 f. nachweist, wie der Ausdruck ego poliui uersibus Senariis sowohl durch die Metapher des polire wie die Wahl des Senars auf kallimacheisches Dichtungsideal (vgl. πεζòς νομóς) verweist, wie der Dichter sich aber zugleich durch das Metrum in die Tradition der iambischen Dichtung einreiht. Ich selbst, G ä r t n e r (9, 97, 156), führe die Frage nach dem poetologischen Spiel weiter und meine, dass Phaedrus mit den Dichtungskriterien seiner Vorgänger bestens vertraut ist und in einem durchaus heiteren Spiel die Ansprüche der römisch-­ kallimacheischen Dichtung aufgreift, übersteigert und anhand eines ›unangemessenen Gegenstands‹ – die Fabel galt als niedrige Ausdrucksform – ad absurdum führt. Dies lässt sich an den übersteigerten Ansprüchen an den Leser in 3 prol. 1 ff. sowie an zahlreichen Stellen zeigen, die nicht biographisch zu lesen sind, sondern sich als überkommene literarische Topoi in der römischen Tradition der Kallimachosrezeption deuten lassen, wie etwa die ›Musenweihe‹ (3 prol. 17 ff.), die Armut, der Neid bzw. die kritische Rezeption, die Wegmetaphorik (3 prol. 38 ff.), das Motiv von Esel und Zikade (Kallim. ait. 1,25 ff.; Phaedr. 3,16; app. 14) oder die breuitas. Hinzukommen Überlegungen zur Gesamtkonzeption; die verblüffende Aussage in 4 prol., in der der Dichter seine Absage an die Dichtung aus 3 epil. wieder zurücknimmt, ließe sich in heiterer Verkehrung der breuitas als Umkehrung der ovidischen Aussage zu Beginn seiner Amores verstehen: Statt fünf Bücher auf drei zu kürzen, ergänzt Phaedrus seine drei um zwei weitere (s. 7.4.). Es stellt sich daher die Frage, ob die in der Forschung zumeist, vor allem in Verbindung mit einem biographischen Ansatz, vertretene Auffassung von der ›allmählichen Emanzipierung des Dichters vom Vorbild Aesop‹ nicht ein von Beginn an verfolgtes Gesamtkonzept des Dichters ist. Die Frage nach den Personen hinter den Gönnernamen scheint gleichfalls müßig. Die Figuren gehören ebenso zum poetologischen Spiel, in das schließlich auch der Rezipient einbezogen wird, bei dem es sich um einen höchst gebildeten Leser handeln muss (s. 7.3.). P i e p e r (98) greift meinen Ansatz auf und zeigt in kritischer Auseinandersetzung mit der These C h a m p l i n s (96) vor allem an 3 prol., wie der Dichter sein Programm

Phaedrus 1975–2014

53

ironisch bricht und den Leser durch widersprüchliche Aussagen zur kritischen Reflexion des Gelesenen anregt. G l a u t h i e r (160) verfolgt den gleichen Ansatz, indem er auf Phaedrus’ Aneignung kallimacheischer Topoi eingeht. Gerade dadurch, dass der Dichter solche Topoi ›falsch verwende‹ oder ›missbrauche‹ und somit ›zurückweise‹, zeige er seine Fähigkeit innerhalb der kallimacheischen Tradition. Diese Art einer ironischen, durchaus kallimacheischen recusatio nehme die Dichter satirisch aufs Korn, die uninspiriert die Topoi wiederholten. Eindrucksvoll wird etwa die Kallimachosimitation (Hymn. 2,105 ff.) in 2 epil. gerade durch das Scheitern im Zurückweisen des Neids als geistreiche Inszenierung des eigenen Scheiterns interpretiert; aufgegriffen und ausgeführt wird ferner der kallimacheische Bezug zu Esel und Zikade. Überdeutlich wird, dass dadurch auch das gesamte Werk im literarischen Kontext gelesen werden muss. Etwa zeitgleich kommt M a t t i a c c i (157, 158, 164) zu durchaus vergleichbaren bzw. ergänzenden Ergebnissen, indem sie vor allem auf die Parallelen zwischen Martial und Phaedrus (daneben auch Apuleius) in der Rezeption der Kallimachos-Catull-Horaz-Tradition, d. h. vor allem der elitären Dichtung und des doctus labor verweist. Im poetischen Spiel seien sie jedoch von den Neoterikern zu trennen, und zwar durch den Ernst der menschlichen Erfahrung, d. h. durch die Kombination des literarischen Programms von iocus, lusus, nugae mit wichtigem Inhalt: Beide wollten uita bzw. mores lehren, nicht ad personam vorgehen. Mattiacci betont dabei den durchgehenden Aspekt der Selbstironie sowie das Vorhandensein einer ­persona (zum Aspekt der Rezeption bei Martial s. 7.8.2.). Dies greift sie später noch einmal auf (167); sie weist eine enge biographische Deutung ebenfalls zurück, aber auch C h a m p l i n s Ansatz. Wie zuvor betont sie die persona; Phaedrus konstruiere sie gezielt als eine gemischt-kulturelle Identität, um sein literarisches Projekt umzusetzen: Zum einen sehe man den Freigelassenen, der stolz auf seine ›fast griechische‹ Herkunft sei, zum anderen den Dichter, der die niedrige Gattung der Aesopfabeln versifiziere und romanisiere und in feindlichen intellektuellen Kreisen Roms anerkannt werden möchte. Dadurch könne der Dichter eine ›niedrige‹ Perspektive einnehmen (Martial und Apuleius vergleichbar) und so den Blick auf die Beziehung zwischen verschiedenen Kulturen und sozialen Klassen wie auch zwischen Zentrum und Peripherie des römischen Reichs werfen. S p a h l i n g e r (159) versucht über eine Analyse von Künstleranekdoten (4,23; 4,26; 5,1; 5,7) zu einer Art impliziter Poetologie des Phaedrus vorzudringen. Zu Recht stellt er fest, dass diese Gedichte oft nicht als typische Phaedrusfabeln angesehen und daher wenig rezipiert werden. Der Ansatz selbst jedoch, dass diese Gedichte ein Medium künstlerischer Selbstaussage darstellten, ist in dieser Form unreflektiert. Denn sowohl in den Gedichten über Simonides wie in dem über Menander wird m. E. weit kritischer über diese Dichter und ihr jeweiliges Umfeld reflektiert, als Spahlinger dies skizziert. Kern der Gedichte ist nicht, Simonides oder Menander als ›freien, innerlich unabhängigen Geist zu charakterisieren‹, und auch nicht, ihre ›hohe gesellschaftliche Anerkennung‹ zu demonstrieren, was Phaedrus für sich selbst auch in Anspruch nehmen wolle. Vielmehr setzt sich der Dichter in den Simonidesgedichten kritisch mit dem Aspekt der finanziellen Abhängigkeit von Förderern auseinander, während es in 5,1 darum geht, dass man sich aus den Schriften eines Autors kein

54

Ursula Gärtner

Bild von dem empirischen Autor schaffen soll, wie ich selbst, G ä r t n e r (166), nachweise. Zusammenhang meiner Untersuchung ist die Auseinandersetzung des Dichters mit den literarischen Gattungen wie der klassischen Bildung überhaupt auch in Gedichten, die nicht explizit poetologisch sind. Es zeigt sich zunächst, dass es einen Typ Fabeln gibt (Tier trifft für es selbst unnützen Gegenstand), die implizit poetologische Aussagen liefern (z. B. 1,7; 3,12; 4,8; app. 14), besonders auffällig in app. 14, wo ein verständiger Esel sich von der Lyra abwendet, während eine Grille in 3,16 mit ihrer vermeintlichen Apollberufung nervt – eine deutliche Umkehrung der poetologischen Bilder des Kallimachos (ait. 1,25 ff.). Ferner lässt sich zeigen, dass Phaedrus spielerisch den anderen Dichtungsgattungen (Tragödie, Lyrik, Komödie; weniger stark auch Epos und Lehrgedicht) eine Absage erteilt. Diese ist jedoch nur erkennbar, wenn man eine allgemeine Kenntnis derselben voraussetzt, wodurch Phaedrus selbst wieder zum Vermittler eben dieser Bildung wird. Die Strategie der Selbstdarstellung bei Phaedrus und Apuleius untersucht G r a v e r i n i (161); auch er spricht von einem ›sophisticated literary game‹, da der Autor seine Autorität durch Selbstironie und -herabsetzung darstelle, seine Rezipienten aber vom literarischen, philosophischen und moralischen Wert seines Buchs versichern wolle, dies umso mehr, als die Fabel als niedrige Gattung galt. J e n n i n g s ’ (162) Beitrag hätte man auch unter anderen Gesichtspunkten behandeln können; sie liefert ein Kaleidoskop an Gedankensplittern, die sich je um einzelne Aspekte drehen und eine zwar anregende, doch mühsame Lektüre bieten, da verschiedene mögliche Lesarten (etwa unter den Gesichtspunkten: safety; fama; slippery speech) vorgestellt und zugleich hinterfragt werden. Überzeugend ist ihre These, dass jegliche allzu enge Lesart durch Phaedrus’ Strategie des Schreibens aufgehoben wird. L i b b y (163) hingegen versucht nachzuweisen, dass Phaedrus vor allem in 2,5 und 3,10 Dichter- und Herrscher-Autorität miteinander verschränke. Die Fabelaussagen seien uneindeutig. Stattdessen finde man ein kompliziertes Spiel mit der Interpretation, das ständig Freiheit gegen Autorität ausspiele und mehr literarische und höfische Raffinesse bei Phaedrus voraussetze als gemeinhin angenommen. Unter einem etwas anderen Aspekt habe ich selbst, G ä r t n e r (165), u. a. diese Fabeln behandelt, nämlich unter der Frage, ob die neue Literaturgattung der Fabel als Kommunikationsform die unmittelbare Folge des soziopolitischen Transformationsprozesses darstellen kann. Der Leser bekommt hier Gedichte geboten, die auf den ersten Blick eine neue Gattung präsentieren, die man als Reaktion auf die neue Staatsform deuten könnte. Betrachtet man die Hintergründe jedoch genauer, kann die Gattung so nicht wirken und wird zur rein literarischen Kommunikationsform ohne soziopolitische Wirkung. P o l t (211) wehrt sich mit Verweis auf C h a m p l i n (96) gegen die biographische Deutung, freilich ohne viele der hier skizzierten Arbeiten und Ergebnisse zu rezipieren. Seine eigenen Ergebnisse fügen sich dabei gut ein; durch eine Analyse von 1,2 zeigt er, dass man sich auch poetologisch nicht von den Aussagen des Ichs täuschen lassen und die Entwicklung von Griechisch zu Römisch, von Aesop zu Phaedrus und von Sammlung / Übersetzung zu Innovation / Kreativität nicht wörtlich nehmen dürfe. Neue wichtige Ansätze legt schließlich C a r n e s (153) in einem wenig rezipierten Aufsatz vor, in dem er die Frage nach dem Verhältnis von Text und Kontext aufwirft. Fabeln in einer Sammlung wie der des Phaedrus

Phaedrus 1975–2014

55

sind erst einmal ihres Kontextes beraubt. Carnes zeigt, wie Phaedrus durch Pro- und Epimythien sowie kurze Rahmenerzählungen die Lesererwartung zu lenken versucht, etwa durch Verweise auf Aesop oder durch sprichwortartige Einleitungen, die auf eine weite Auslegungsmöglichkeit deuten. Die Ergebnisse, die in diesem Kapitel vorgestellt wurden, sind m. E. diejenigen, die am stärksten zu einem neuen und gerechteren Phaedrusbild beitragen. 7.8. Zur Rezeption Ein Gesamtüberblick über die Forschung zur Phaedrusrezeption kann hier nicht geboten werden. Im Folgenden sollen daher anhand ausgewählter Beispiele Richtungen der Forschung aufgezeigt werden. 7.8.1. Allgemein 168.  K ü p p e r s , J., Zu Eigenart und Rezeptionsgeschichte der antiken Fabeldichtung, in: K ö n s g e n , E. (Hrsg.), Arbor amoena comis. 25 Jahre Mittellateinisches Seminar Bonn, Stuttgart 1990, 23–33. 169.  v a n D i j k , G.-J., Transmission and Reception of the Classical Fable Tradition, in: B e r t i n i , F. (Hrsg.), Favolisti Latini medievali e umanistici XIII, Genova 2005 (Pubblicazioni del D.AR.FI.CL.ET. Nuova serie 223), 9–31. 170.  B e r t i n i , F., Le trasformazioni della favola latina antica in età medievale, umanistica e moderna, SMed 46, 2008, 11–23. 171.  S t o f f e l , Chr., Art. Phaedrus (Gaius Iulius Phaedrus) Fabulae Aesopiae, DNP Suppl. 7, 2010, 635–44. Zahlreiche Arbeiten zur Rezeptionsgeschichte der Phaedrusfabeln beschäftigen sich durch Darstellungen der Motivtradierung eher mit einzelnen Fabeln oder der Gattung an sich. Der folgende Abriss lässt solche Arbeiten zum größten Teil  aus. Als Beispiel für Ersteres sei B e r t i n i (170) angeführt, der rein motivgeschichtlich die Tradierung zweier Phaedrusfabeln (1,12; 3,12) verfolgt, für Letzteres v a n D i j k (169), der unter den Aspekten collections, transitions, originals, translations, paraphrases, variations, anti-fables und new fables auch Phaedrus behandelt und auf den reichen, aber extrem komplexen Rezeptionsvorgang der klassischen Fabel verweist: »The study of these sheer endless and intricate interrelationships calls for patient comparatists« (30). In einer übersichtlichen Skizze informiert S t o f f e l (171) über Rezeption und Transformation; neben der Literatur gibt er hier auch einen Ausblick auf Musik und Bildende Kunst. K ü p p e r s (168), der ein recht negatives Bild von Phaedrus als Dichter zu erkennen gibt, versucht die unterschiedliche Rezeption Avians und Babrios’ vor allem im Mittelalter im Gegensatz zu der des Phaedrus durch die Eigenarten der Dichtung zu erklären; Phaedrus habe durch breuitas, polemisch-aggressive und zeitkritische Ausrichtung weniger rezipiert werden können, wohingegen z. B. Avian, bei dem Schärfe und Polemik zugunsten einer stärke-

56

Ursula Gärtner

ren Verallgemeinerung verloren gingen, der mittelalterlichen Verwendung der Fabel als Exempel in verschiedensten Kontexten und als Einstieg in die poetische Technik entgegenkomme. Eine umfassende Aufarbeitung der Rezeptionsgeschichte, die dem Dichter P ­ haedrus gerecht wird, ist noch ein Desiderat der Forschung. 7.8.2. Antike 172.  S z e l e s t , H., Kanius Rufus i Fedrus (Mart. III 20,5), in: L e w a n d o w s k i , I., L i m a n , K. (Hrsgg.), ›Litteris vivere‹. Księga pamiątkowa ofiarowana Profesorowi Wójcikowi, A., Poznań 1996, 95–101. 173.  S c a n z o , R., Aviano. I suoi modelli, le sue fonti, Maia 53, 2001, 51–61. 174.  P u g l i a r e l l o , M., Fedro nella scuola del grammaticus, in: M o r d e g l i a , C. (Hrsg.), Lupus in fabula. Fedro e la favola latina tra antichità e medioevo. Studi offerti a Bertini, F., Bologna 2014,73–85. Die meisten Hinweise auf eine frühe Rezeption sind bei Phaedrus selbst zu lesen. Doch sind solche ›Hinweise‹ auf Rezeption und Reaktion einzelner wie allgemeiner Leser oder Hörer Bestandteil des Repertoires der spätrepublikanisch-augusteischen Dichtung. Es ist daher umstritten, ob dies reale Züge trägt oder Bestandteil des­ poetologischen Spiels ist (s. 7.3. u. 7.7.3.). Dass Seneca (dial. 11,8,3) und Quintilian (inst. 1,9,2; 5,11,19 ff.) Phaedrus im passenden Kontext nicht erwähnen, wird stets hervorgehoben; die Erklärungen und Rückschlüsse sind unterschiedlich: Sie schweigen ihn absichtlich tot, sie halten ihn für einen Griechen und zählen ihn daher nicht zu den römischen Autoren oder sie kennen sein Werk nicht (weil er unbekannt ist oder später lebte). Das Verhältnis zu Seneca verdiente eine umfassende Untersuchung, da sich hier zahlreiche Parallelen finden, die sich nur schlecht als allgemein popularphilosophisches bzw. stoisches Gedankengut erklären lassen; zahlreiche Verweise auf solche Parallelen bietet O b e r g (7).38 Viel behandelt ist Martials textkritisch umstrittene Aussage über Canius Rufus (3,20,5): an aemulatur improbi iocos Phaedri. In der Regel verweist man hier auf den Fabeldichter; so auch S z e l e s t (172) mit dem Hinweis auf die Verwendung von improbus und iocus / ioculare bei Phaedrus. Die geistige Nähe der beiden Autoren spricht durchaus dafür: Beide betonen als Schöpfer neuer Gattungen kleiner Gedichte Kürze und Spiel als literarisches Programm verbunden mit einem belehrenden Aspekt; vgl. z. B. M a t t i a c c i (157, 158, 164, 167, 274) und G ä r t n e r (9, 56 ff.). Mattiacci schlägt ferner vor, das Martialgedicht als eine polemische Auseinandersetzung mit Senecas Ratschlägen an Polybios zu verstehen: Martial gebe mit logos Phaedri39 den

38 Vgl. aus der Zeit vor dem Berichtszeitraum: P o s t g a t e , J. P., Phaedrus and Seneca, CR 33, 1919, 19–24; D a d o n e , M., Appunti sulla fortuna di Fedro, RSC 2, 1954, 3–12 u. 76–86. 39 Die in den Handschriften weit öfter als iocos überlieferte Variante locus / locos könne ein verschriebenes logos / logus darstellen.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

57

Hinweis, dass es sehr wohl eine lateinische Antwort auf die Aesopeos logos gebe, die Seneca als Fehlstelle ausweist. Geistig verwandt wirkt ferner Petron; die Novelle der ›Witwe von Ephesos‹ ist im Verhältnis der beiden Versionen zueinander zwar umstritten (s. 8. app. 15). Doch scheint mir, G ä r t n e r (9, 55 f.), eine enge geistige Nähe zu bestehen. So lässt ­Petron u. a. in ironischer Umsetzung kallimacheischer Ideale mit Eumolp eine Figur auf­ treten, die wie ein Zerrbild eines Dichters wirkt, der bei jeder passenden und unpassenden Gelegenheit zu dichten anhebt und gleichzeitig der Dichtung das Höchste abverlangt; dies ließe sich durchaus mit der Dichter-persona vergleichen, die Phaedrus in seinen Fabeln entwirft.40 Auch zu Apuleius wird eine Verwandtschaft vermutet, wenn auch schwächer; so etwa G r a v e r i n i   /   K e u l e n (161) und M a t t i a c c i (164, 167). Dass Babrios die Fabeln des Phaedrus kannte, wird in der Regel nicht angenommen. Somit gilt als der erste unzweifelhafte Nachweis einer Rezeption der Verweis des Avian auf seine Vorbilder, zu denen er auch Phaedrus zählt. Inwieweit er sich dabei nicht nur motivisch, sondern auch z. B. poetologisch anregen ließ, bedarf noch einer Untersuchung, wie Avian ähnlich wie Phaedrus in seinen Dichtungskriterien überhaupt erst erschlossen werden muss. Erste Ansätze bietet hierzu S c a n z o (173). P u g l i a r e l l o (174) zeigt, wie die Phaedrusfabeln in Kaiserzeit und Spät­antike zwar nicht zum Lektürekanon gehörten, aber im propädeutischen Unterricht beim Grammaticus verwendet wurden und wie dabei der Autor selbst in Vergessenheit geriet. Die meist als ›Romulus‹ bezeichneten Prosaparaphrasen greifen zu großen Teilen auf Phaedrusfabeln zurück. Nachdem man sich zu Beginn des letzten Jahrhunderts ausgiebig mit der Quellenfrage beschäftigte, hat sich im Berichtszeitraum wenig Neues ergeben.41 Auch hier ist eine Gesamtbehandlung über die Art der Rezeption, die den Eigenheiten des Phaedrus wie der Paraphrasen gerecht wird, noch ein Desiderat. 7.8.3. Mittelalter 175.  B e r t i n i , F., Il monaco Ademaro e la sua raccolta di favole fedriane, Genova 1975. Rez.: P o l a r a , MedRom 3, 1976, 139–41; S i v o , QM 2, 1976, 299–300; H e r r m a n n , Latomus 37, 1978, 977–8; N a s c i m e n t o , RBPh 56, 1978, 272–4. 40 Vgl. zu Eumolp: 83; 88; 90; 118. Das poetologische Spiel ist vergleichbar in 118 ff., wo­ Eumolp sich dichtungstheoretisch äußert und deutlich u. a. auf Horazens odi profanum uulgus et arceo verweist, obwohl er selbst in zweifelhafter Begleitung auf einem ausgetretenen Weg (!) nach Kroton spaziert, wobei er sein Epos Bellum Ciuile rezitiert; zur Wegmetapher s. 7.7.3. Da jedoch auch Datierung und Verfasserschaft der Satyrica umstritten sind, lässt sich nicht sehr viel mehr daraus schließen. 41 Zur Übersicht vgl. etwa V á m o s , H., The Medieval Tradition of the Fables of Romulus, Graeco-Latina Brunensia 18, 2013, 185–97.

58

Ursula Gärtner

176.  G r u b m ü l l e r , K., Meister Esopus. Untersuchungen zu Geschichte und Funktion der Fabel im Mittelalter, Zürich / München 1977 (Münchener Texte und Untersuchungen zur deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters 56). 177.  G a r b u g i n o , G., Alessandro Neckam, Novus Aesopus (Favolisti latini medievali 2), Genova 1987 (Pubblicazioni del D.AR.FI.CL.ET. Nuova serie 111). 178.  B e r t i n i , F., La raccolta di favole, in: B e r t i n i , F., G a t t i , P. (Hrsgg.), Favolisti Latini Medievali III. Ademaro di Chabannes. Favole, Genova 1988 (Pubblicazioni del D.AR.FI.CL.ET. Nuova serie 118), 30–9 [Ndr. in: B e r t i n i (180, 41–52)]. 179.  G a r b u g i n o , G., Il ›Novus Aesopus‹ di Alessandro Neckam, in: C a t a n ­ z a r o , G., S a n t u c c i , F. (Hrsgg.), La favolistica latina in distici elegiaci. Atti del convegno internazionale, Assissi 1990, Assisi 1991, 107–32. 180.  B e r t i n i , F., Interpreti medievali di Fedro, Napoli 1998 (Nuovo Medioevo 57). Rez.: B o r g o , BStudLat 29, 1999, 695–6; D e M a r c o , GIF 51, 1999, 356–7; G i o v i n i , RPL 22, 1999, 233–6; F e d e l i , Aufidus 14, 2000, 133; L e o n e , Orpheus 21, 2000, 216–21; B i s a n t i, StudMed 43, 2002, 733–51. 181.  K l e i n , Th. A.-P., Der Novus Esopus des Alexander Neckam in der Tradition der spätantiken Phaedrus-Paraphrase Romulus, Maia 52, 2000, 127–51. 182.  M o r d e g l i a , C., La tradizione fedriana nella Fecunda ratis de Egberto di Liege (sec. XI), in: B e r t i n i , F., M o r d e g l i a , C. (Hrsgg.), Favolisti latini medievali e umanistici XIV, Genova 2009 (Pubblicazioni del D.AR.FI.CL.ET. Nuova serie 232), 123–46. Phaedrus wurde im Mittelalter wenig direkt rezipiert; in der Regel erfolgte eine indirekte Rezeption über die Prosaparaphrasen. Die meisten Arbeiten beschäftigen sich daher mit Ademar oder gehen einzelnen Spuren nach. G r u b m ü l l e r (176) legt eine umfassende Monographie zur Fabel im Mittelalter vor; doch sind die einführenden Bemerkungen auch für Altphilologen hilfreich; die Rezeption einzelner­ Phaedrusfabeln wird jeweils vermerkt. B e r t i n i (175, 178, 180) hat als Spezialist für Ademar diesem Autor zu einer gerechten Einschätzung verholfen. Indem er u. a. die direkte Auseinandersetzung mit dem Phaedrustext verfolgt, liefert er vor allem für die Textüberlieferung wertvolle Ergebnisse, da er zeigen kann, dass Lesarten bei Ademar gegenüber den Lesarten der Handschriften häufig der Vorzug zu geben ist (s. 7.2.). Dass im 11. Jh. neben einer reichen und gefestigten literarischen Tradition der­ Phaedrusfabeln auch eine mündliche Tradition bestand mit einem narrativen Zug, der auf das Original zurückweist, und einem gnomisch-sprichwortartigen Zug, der sich im Lauf der Überlieferung aus bestimmten Motiven bei Phaedrus entwickelte, zeigt M o r d e g l i a (182) durch eine Untersuchung der Fecunda ratis des Egbert von Lüttich; durch Egberts freie Gestaltung könne man diesen jedoch nicht zur Texterschließung bei Phaedrus heranziehen. Ob Alexander Neckam (12./13. Jh.) sich in seiner elegischen Fabelsammlung direkt auf Phaedrus bezieht, ist umstritten (G a r b u g i n o [177, 179] vs. K l e i n [181]).

Phaedrus 1975–2014

59

7.8.4. Neuzeit 183.  R i e d e l , V., Lessing und die römische Literatur, Weimar 1976. 184.  H o l z b e r g , N., Phaedrus in der Literaturkritik seit Lessing. Alte und neue Wege der Interpretation, Anregung 37, 1991, 226–42. 185.  B e c h e r , A. G., Un de ›ces grands hommes‹. Phaedrus, a percursor of La Fontaine, Papers on French Seventeenth Century Literature 23.44, 1996, 115–22. 186.  B e c h e r , A., Phaedrus,  a New Found yet Ancient Author. The rise and fall of Phaedrus as a standard school author, 1668–1828, Paradigm 23, 1997 (http:// faculty.education.illinois.edu/westbury/paradigm/becher.html; Zugriff 2015-08-22). 187.  Z a g o , G., Fedro, Orwell  e il pessimismo fatalistico degli schiavi  e delle classi subalterne, in: C a p p e l l e t t i , L. (Hrsg.), I diritti dell’uomo. Contemporaneità e antichità a confronto, Pontassieve (Firenze) 2008 (Edizioni dell’assemblea 16), 123–8. Nach der Editio princeps durch Pithou im Jahr 1596 wurde Phaedrus stark rezipiert. Lessing leitete mit seiner Kritik an Phaedrus dann eine Umbewertung ein. R i e d e l (183) zeigt, wie Lessing »das moral- und sozialkritische Wesen der Gattung und ihre Stilmerkmale neu zu bestimmen unternahm, den allzu poetischen Charakter der modernen Fabel angriff und das Genre, bisweilen bis zu extremer Einseitigkeit, der Verkündung der bürgerlichen Moral dienstbar machte« (154). Er legt dar, wie sich Lessing in seiner Definition der Fabel an Phaedrus orientierte, was er an dessen Fabeln kritisierte, wo er in seiner Auslegung irrte und wie er in seinen Umdichtungen die moralische Kritik verschärfte. Nach Lessing bestimmte ein negatives Phaedrusbild Literatur und Forschung, wie es z. B. H o l z b e r g (184) skizziert. Er zeigt, wie im 19. und frühen 20. Jh. die Fabeln inhaltlich kritisiert wurden, Stil und Sprache aber Gefallen fanden. Quellenkritische Fragen standen oft im Vordergrund; bei nicht erhaltenen Vorlagen schloss man häufig auf eine bessere literarische Qualität, die ­Phaedrus dann verdorben habe. Ferner zeigt er mit Verweisen auf D a m s (s. Anm. 37) und S c h m i d t (125), welche Wege die Phaedrusforschung einzuschlagen habe, wofür er eigentlich selbst das beste Beispiel abgibt (59). Als Beispiel für die Rezeption einzelner Züge aus Phaedrusfabeln in der modernen Literatur sei die Vermutung Z a g o s (187) angeführt, der in der Figur des Esels Benjamin in Orwells Animal Farm einen Verweis auf den Esel in 1,15 sah, der angesichts eines Herrscherwechsels nur resigniert die Anpassung lehre, da sich nichts ändere. B e c h e r (185) versucht zu erklären, weshalb die Hochschätzung, die La Fontaine Phaedrus entgegenbrachte, später, vor allem in England, nicht mehr nachvollzogen wurde. Der Rezeption speziell in England geht B e c h e r (186) gesondert nach; die Beliebtheit hielt nach den ersten Übersetzungen im 17. Jh. bis zum Ende des 18. bzw. zum Beginn des 19. Jh.s an, dann erfolgte ein Einbruch; Becher erklärt dies durch das Interesse an Babrios, das der allgemeinen Hinwendung zum Griechischen in dieser Zeit entsprach, durch die Ablehnung der Fabel als Erziehungsmittel unter dem Einfluss Rousseaus und durch die Veränderungen im Buchwesen, das sehr viel schneller auf die Bedürfnisse des P ­ ublikums

60

Ursula Gärtner

reagierte. Vergleichbare Überblicke zur Rezeption in den einzelnen europäischen Ländern fehlen leider.

7.9.1. Tierrollen

7.9. Spezielle Aspekte

Die Bedeutung der Tierrollen wird häufig angesprochen; Überblicke bieten z. B. O b e r g (7, 20 ff.), P u g l i a r e l l o 42, S t o c c h i (11) und To u r n i e r (23). In der Regel entsprechen die Charaktere der auch sonst in der antiken (Fabel-)Literatur üblichen Zeichnung; Abweichungen von der aesopischen Tradition sind dann entsprechend auffällig, wie etwa S t o c c h i (238) beim Rind nachweist, dem bei Phaedrus Reichtum und Sozialprestige zugesprochen werden. Phaedrus spielt jedoch mit der Erwartung des Rezipienten und erzielt besondere Wirkung, wenn sich z. B. der Esel in app. 14 als klug zu erweisen scheint (G ä r t n e r [166]). Ferner können durch die Wahl der Tiere die Themen der Fabeln miteinander verknüpft und dadurch ihre Deutung gegenseitig beeinflusst werden; zeigen lässt sich dies an den Froschfabeln (1,2; 1,6; 1,24; 1,30), die sich alle politisch verorten lassen und erst zusammen ein Gesamtbild ergeben (G ä r t n e r [9, 50 f.]). 7.9.2. Geschlechterrollen 188.  C a s c ó n D o r a d o , A., Misoginia en Fedro, in: G a r r i d o G o n z á l e z , E. M. (Hrsg.), Actas de las V jornadas de investigación interdisciplinaria. La mujer en el mundo antiguo, Madrid 1986, 281–7. 189.  d e M a r i a , L., La femina in Fedro. Emarginazione e privilegio, Lecce 1987. Rez.: F o r m i c o l a , Vichiana 16, 1987, 313–7; B o r g o , BStudLat 18, 1988, 136–8; F u r i a n i , GIF 40, 1988, 302–3; A r i c ò , Orpheus 10, 1989, 211–2; B o ë l s - J a n s s e n , REL 67, 1989, 301–2; C o n t i n i , Maia 41, 1989, 78–9; C o r s a r o , SicGymn 42, 1989, 339–40; R e b e l o G o n ç a l v e s , Euphrosyne 17, 1989, 437–8; F a s c e , Sandalion 12–3, 1989–90, 267–8; D e s b o r d e s , Latomus 49, 1990, 184–5; O p e l t , AAHG 43, 1990, 176–8; P i s i , Paideia 46, 1991, 74–9. 190.  O b e r g , E., Mulier mala dicendi perita. Die Frauen bei Phaedrus, in:­ C z a p l a , B., L e h m a n n , T., L i e l l , S. (Hrsgg.), Vir bonus dicendi peritus. Festschrift für Weische, A., zum 65. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden 1997, 311–20. 191.  H i e l s c h e r , K., Geschlechterbilder in den Fabeln des Phaedrus, AU 42, 2, 1999, 44–8. 192.  O b e r g , E., Frauen und andere ›Merkwürdigkeiten‹. Sokratische Züge in den Fabeln des Phaedrus, in: K e s s l e r , H. (Hrsg.), Das Lächeln des Sokrates. Sokrates-Studien IV, Zug 1999, 103–28. 193.  S i r t o r i , I., Fedro misogino, Maia 53, 2001, 387–98. 42 P u g l i a r e l l o , M., Le origini della favolistica classica, Brescia 1973.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

61

194.  B a e z a A n g u l o , E., Misogynia aut oppressa mulier apud Phaedrum?, Euphrosyne 39, 2011, 113–25. 195.  R e n d a , C., La retorica dell’eros nella raccolta favolistica di Fedro. Tra terminologia e paradosso, in: G r i s o l i a , R., M a t i n o , G. (Hrsgg.), Arte della parola e parole della scienza. Tecniche della comunicazione letteraria nel mondo antico, Napoli 2014, 193–220. Einen allgemeinen Überblick gibt To u r n i e r (23). In den Fabeln des Phaedrus hat man oft Misogynie erkennen wollen. C a s c ó n D o r a d o (188) geht nach einer Analyse der Fabeln 2,2, 3,15, app. 4, app. 11, app. 15, app. 17 und app. 27 von einem möglichen Einfluss der Fabeltradition, der römischen Gesellschaft und dem Leben des Dichters aus, da dieser eventuell von seiner Mutter verlassen worden oder homosexuell gewesen sei.43 Ausführlicher, aber durchaus vergleichbar sind die Arbeiten O b e r g s zum Thema, der meint nachweisen zu können (190), dass Frauen, wenn sie in den Fabeln zu Wort kommen (gute dürfen in den Fabeln nicht reden), sich dadurch als schlecht erweisen; er versucht dies durch Tierfabeln zu untermauern, bei denen das weibliche Geschlecht der Tiere nicht allein durch das grammatische Geschlecht begründet sei, sondern durch die Ausgestaltung auch als natürlich weiblich dargestellt werde. Hier benützten die Sprecherinnen in der Regel das Wort als Waffe. Auch in anderen Fabeln (z. B. 2,2; 4,17; app. 11; app. 15) will O b e r g (192) ein mehrheitlich negatives Frauenbild sehen. H i e l s c h e r (191) möchte durch 2,2, 3,15 und 4,17 Geschlechterbilder des Phaedrus Schülern vermitteln; die Sicht bleibt dabei jedoch sehr eindimensional. Ansätzen wie diesen entgeht dabei die durchaus ironische Brechung, denn die Männer, die hier als ›Opfer‹ dargestellt werden, sind an ihrer Situation durchaus mitschuldig. Der Blick richtet sich eher auf die lächerlichen Geschlechterstereotypen. d e M a r i a (189) widmet der Darstellung der Frauen bei Phaedrus eine Monographie. Sie möchte zeigen, inwieweit der Dichter der dem Genus eigenen Misogynie verpflichtet sei und inwieweit die reale Stellung der Frau in der römischen Gesellschaft widergespiegelt werde. Sie legt dafür eine sinnvolle Gliederung zugrunde: Mutter und Geburt (1,18; 1,19; 1,28; 2,4; 3,15; app. 4; app. 19), Frau und Familie (3,8; 3,10; 4,5; app. 8; app. 16), Lust der Frauen (2,2; app. 11; app. 15; app. 17; app. 29). Nach gründlicher Analyse und Kommentierung der einzelnen Fabeln zieht de Maria den Schluss, dass die Betonung der Mutterrolle, d. h. des Gebärens, Schützens und Aufziehens, durchaus der Sicht der römischen Gesellschaft entspreche; Leidenschaft außerhalb der Ehe sei verwerflich ebenso wie Macht über den Mann oder gar die Gesellschaft. Das Bild sei daher nicht gattungsbestimmt, sondern zeige Phaedrus’ Bild der Gesellschaft. S i r t o r i (193) liefert gewisse Umakzentuierungen zu d e M a r i a , ohne gänzlich neue Aspekte aufzuzeigen. B a e z a A n g u l o (194) greift das Thema nach zehn Jahren noch einmal auf, kommt aber zu einer gänzlich anderen Sicht: Phaedrus dürfe nicht als misogyn bezeichnet werden, da er – in app. 29 der Liebeselegie ver 43 Ersteres schloss d e L o r e n z i (s. Anm. 21) in einer seiner wilden Phantasien aus 3,15, Letzteres vermutet Cascón Dorado wegen der Aussagen von 4,16, 5,1 und app. 10. 

62

Ursula Gärtner

gleichbar – das Bild der Frau im 1. Jh. n. Chr. zeichne, die die Regeln der Gesellschaft verachte, ihre passive Unterordnung aufgebe und gegen die Unterdrückung in der Gesellschaft rebelliere. Gerade die zahlreichen literarischen Bezüge machen eine solche Deutung durchaus plausibel. R e n d a (195) interpretiert die Fabeln 4,15, 4,16 und app. 11 unter dem Gesichtspunkt einer Rhetorik des Eros. Überzeugend ordnet sie Phaedrus hierbei in die literarische Tradition der menippeischen Satire, des Mimus und der Atellane ein. Der Dichter zeige eine verkehrte Welt und wolle so mit ironischem Lächeln zum Nachdenken anregen. 7.9.3. Römisches Recht 196.  M o r e t t i , G., Lessico giuridico e modello giudiziario nella favola fedriana, Maia 34, 1982, 227–40. 197.  O b e r g , E., Römische Rechtspflege bei Phaedrus, RhM 139, 1996, 146–65. 198.  S e g u r a d o   e C a m p o s , J. A., Ética y derecho. Ensayo sobre la fábula de Fedro, in: C r u z A n d r e o t t i , G., P é r e z J i m é n e z , A. (Hrsgg.), ›Y así dijo la zorra‹. La tradición fabulística en los pueblos del Mediterráneo, Malaga 2002 (Mediterránea 10), 89–118. 199.  P a n d o l f i , C., Il tribunale degli animali. Favole ›giuridiche‹ da Fedro al Medioevo latino, Annali Online di Ferrara – Lettere 1, 2007, 80–105. 200.  R e n d a , C., Fedro e la calumnia. Il lessico giuridico per l’interpretazione del messaggio al lettore, GIF 1, 2010, 139–71. 201.  –, Come in un’aula di tribunale. Lessico giuridico, autodifesa  e ironia nei prologhi e negli epiloghi dei primi tre libri dell’opera di Fedro, in: G r i s o l i a , R., M a t i n o , G. (Hrsgg.), Forme e modi delle lingue e dei testi tecnici antichi, Napoli 2012, 255–86. Dass Phaedrus erstaunlich häufig römisches Recht anklingen lässt, ist seit langem bekannt.44 M o r e t t i (196) zeigt durch eine Analyse zahlreicher Fabeln, dass eine Gruppe von Fabeln durch den Rechtsaspekt in der Struktur als Prozess bestimmt ist, eine weitere durch juristische Terminologie geprägt ist, sich der Einfluss auch in der Präsentation durch Pro- und Epimythien festmachen lässt und dass schließlich zwischen Autor und Leser eine Art juristischer Pakt geschlossen wird. Offensichtlich ohne diese Arbeit zu kennen, belegt O b e r g (197) an einer Reihe von Fabeln, dass das Thema für Phaedrus zentral ist. Höchst aufschlussreich sind die Erörte­ rungen des jeweiligen Rechtsverhalts sowie die zahlreichen Querverbindungen zu römischen Rechtstexten; dies nimmt auch in seinem Kommentar (7) einen durchgehenden Strang ein. Überblickscharakter hat die Arbeit von S e g u r a d o   e C a m p o s (198), der in einem Abschnitt auch das Recht behandelt. P a n d o l f i (199) baut auf M o r e t t i s Arbeit auf und verfolgt die Rezeption der juristischen Fabeln im Mittelalter (z. B. Ademar, Romulus vulgaris, Liber Esopi, Neckam). Für C h a m 44 Vgl. schon S c h m i d , C. F., De iurisprudentia Phaedri, Wittenberg 1788.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

63

p l i n (96) ist das auffällige juristische Wissen, dem er im zweiten Teil seines Auf­ satzes nachgeht, grundlegend für seine Identifizierung des Phaedrus als römischen Aristokraten (s. 7.3.). R e n d a (200, 201) greift M o r e t t i s letzten Aspekt auf und versucht ausgehend von dem Begriff der calumnia nachzuweisen, wie in den Pro- und Epilogen zwischen Dichter und Leser eine Beziehung aufgebaut werde, die einem Prozess vergleichbar sei, in dem der Autor sich gegen Kritiker verteidige und das Publikum zum Richter rufe, wobei sich das Verhältnis der Rollen zunehmend verkompliziere, da der Leser z. B. zum Komplizen werde. Die Lesart ist in sich geschlossen, basiert allerdings auf einem biographischen Ansatz (s. 7.3.) und ist als neue These einer Kommunikationsstrategie eher schlicht.

8. Einzelne Gedichte Im Folgenden sind zu den einzelnen Gedichten Arbeiten vermerkt, die sich i. d. R. ausschließlich mit diesem einen beschäftigen. Beiträge aus Monographien oder um­ fassenderen Arbeiten konnten hier leider nicht einzeln aufgeführt werden, auch wenn sie einzelne Gedichte ausführlich behandeln, werden aber bisweilen in die Diskussion miteinbezogen. Diese ist aus Platzgründen auf einzelne Aspekte beschränkt. Pro- und Epiloge Mit den Aussagen der Pro- und Epiloge beschäftigen sich Arbeiten, die unter 7.3. und 7.7. genannt wurden. 1 prol. 202.  B o l d r e r , F., Fedro, la favola esopica e gli alberi parlanti (I prologo e fab. nov. 16 Z.), in: L e o n a r d e l l i , F., R o s s i , G. (Hrsgg.), Officina humanitatis. Studi in onore di de Finis, L., Trento 2010, 45–54. B o l d r e r (202) greift die viel behandelte Frage nach dem Verständnis von 1 prol. 5 ff. auf, wo der Dichter sich im Voraus gegen Kritik verteidigt, weil auch Bäume sprächen. Boldrer weist Erklärungen wie Scherz des Autors oder Interpolation zurück (zur Übersicht vgl. G ä r t n e r [9, 65 ff.]) und vermutet eher traditionell einen Überlieferungsfehler. Dies begründet sie mit vergleichbaren Aesopfabeln sowie der Prosafassung (16 Zander), in der sie Phaedrus’ Vorgehensweise als Auseinandersetzung mit Aesop durch aemulatio, uariatio und contaminatio erklärt. 1,1 203.  D e d e k , R., Le Loup et l’Agneau. Eine Fabel La Fontaines im Unterricht, Anregung 21, 1975, 41–8.

64

Ursula Gärtner

204.  Q u i n t i n o d e A l m e i d a , M., A proposito de uma fábula de Fedro (I,1), L&L 4, 1975, 391–407. 205.  B e r n a r d i P e r i n i , G., Il lupo e l’agnello. Una questione di stile, ZAnt 45, 1995, 45–52. 206.  G r u b m ü l l e r , G., Contra calumniosos. Die Phaedrus-Fabel von ›Wolf und Lamm‹ im Mittelalter, in: M o r d e g l i a , C. (Hrsg.), Lupus in fabula. Fedro e la favola latina tra antichità e medioevo. Studi offerti a Bertini, F., Bologna 2014, 87–99. 207.  R o d l e r , L., Morfologia della favola, in: M o r d e g l i a , C. (Hrsg.), Lupus in fabula. Fedro e la favola latina tra antichità e medioevo. Studi offerti a Bertini, F., Bologna 2014, 21–34. Q u i n t i n o d e A l m e i d a (204) liefert ohne Berücksichtigung der Sekundärliteratur eine traditionelle Deutung der Fabel. N ø j g a a r d (141) zeigt an dieser Fabel, wie sich die moralische Ausrichtung in Tradition und Rezeption verändert (s. 7.7.2.). B e r n a r d i P e r i n i (205) behält gegen T a h o v s k i , d e l l a C o r t e und B e r t i n i in 1,1,8 die Lesart ad meos haustus bei u. a. mit der Begründung des Stils. D e d e k (203) bietet als Schullektüre einen Vergleich zwischen La Fontaine und Phaedrus, wobei Letzterer ungerechtfertigt schlecht beurteilt wird. G r u b m ü l l e r (206) führt vor, wie die Fabel durch das Mittelalter hin bis zu Luther offen für Adaptation, z. B. für christliche allegorische Deutung ist, zugleich aber Stabilität beweist. Bei der Frage nach der Morphologie der Fabel untersucht R o d l e r (207) in der Abgrenzung der Fabel vom Märchen u. a. die Fabel von Wolf und Lamm bei Phaedrus, La Fontaine und L. Sciascia. 1,2 208.  A d r a d o s , F. R., ›Las ranas pidiendo rey‹. Origen y evolución de una fábula política, Emerita 52, 1984, 25–32. 209.  Z w i e r l e i n , O., Jupiter und die Frösche, Hermes 117, 1989, 182–91. 210.  H ö f e r , A., Die Fabel von den Fröschen. Eine Studie zur Intertextualität zwischen Phaedrus und Robert von Ranke Graves, in: H o l z b e r g , N., M a i e r , F. u. a. (Hrsgg.), Ut poesis pictura I. Antike Texte in Bildern. I: Essays, Interpretationen, Projekte, Bamberg 1993, 101–8. 211.  P o l t , Chr., Polity Across the Pond: Democracy, republic and empire in Phaedrus fables 1.2, CJ 110, 2014, 161–90. A d r a d o s (208) versucht anhand dieser Fabel seine auch sonst geäußerte Meinung zu belegen, dass es eine metrische Fassung kynischen Ursprungs aus dem 3. Jh. v. Chr. gegeben habe (42–47). Die Fabel von den Fröschen, die sich einen König suchen, ist auch deshalb viel behandelt, weil Phaedrus hier einen Rahmen liefert, in dem Aesop den über Peisistratos unzufriedenen Athenern diese Fabel erzählt, in der nach einem verlorenen bonum das malum zu ertragen ist; irritierend ist dabei, dass Rahmen und

Phaedrus 1975–2014

65

Erzählung nicht ganz in Übereinstimmung zu bringen sind, denn im Rahmen wird geraten, das malum zu ertragen, damit kein maius malum komme. Z w i e r l e i n (209) verweist daher darauf, dass eine leichte Verschiebung der Perspektive in Kauf zu nehmen sei, da einerseits uestrum bonum (= kleiner Balken) und hoc malum (= Peisistratos), andererseits malum (= Wasserschlange) und maius malum (= ein künftiger grausamerer Tyrann) gleichzusetzen seien. Ich selbst, G ä r t n e r (165; vgl. 9, 91 ff.), vermute, dass an dieser prominenten Stelle durch eine Kontextualisierung, die durch die leichten Diskrepanzen auffällig ist, auf etwas Fabeltypisches verwiesen und somit eine Leseanleitung für die Fabeln generell gegeben wird: Fabeln lassen sich nie eins zu eins auf ihren Kontext beziehen; ferner verleitet der deutliche Verweis auf eine ›historische‹ Begebenheit dazu, Bezüge zur römischen Gegenwart herzustellen, ohne dass diese festzumachen wären. Freilich hat diese Fabel besonders zur Annahme einer zeitgenössischen Anspielung herausgefordert: S c h m i d t (125, 83) betont, dass »die Analogisierung zwar nicht von der Fabel auf den Rahmen, wohl aber von dem Rahmen hinein in den politischen Diskussionskontext der frühen Kaiserzeit funktioniert. Die athenischen Republikaner, die die libertas zur licentia hatten verkommen lassen, sind unschwer mit den Römern der späten Republik und der Bürgerkriegs­ epoche zu identifizieren, der Tyrann Peisistratos mit dem Princeps Augustus; […] Das Epimythion fordert also indirekt dazu auf, die Augusteische Friedensherrschaft als – immerhin tragbare – Konsequenz vorhergehenden politischen Versagens zu akzeptieren«. H e n d e r s o n (8, 190) sprach von »an absurd (funny?) contrast between Augustus Log and Tiberius Watersnake«; M a n d r u z z a t o (29, 22) sah in der Schlange Seian, in dem Holzstück indes nicht Tiberius, sondern einen Verwaltungsbeamten, wohingegen Tiberius mit Iuppiter gleichzusetzen sei; zustimmend S o l i m a n o (35, 143). Gegen eine Suche nach aktuellen Anspielungen durch die ›pseudohistorische Fixierung‹ der Fabel hat sich zu Recht C h r i s t e s (92, 212) gewendet. Auf P o l t s (211) Arbeit wurde oben (s. 7.7.3.) schon verwiesen. Auch er sieht in dem Gedicht programmatische Aussagen, dass Phaedrus nämlich bereits hier seine aemulatio und vor allem seine Romanisierung ankündige, bevor er sie später in den Prologen explizit nenne. Besondere Bedeutung komme hierbei der Bezugnahme auf Cic. rep. (1,68 ff.) zu. Indem Phaedrus das geschichtliche Bild Athens verzerre, markiere er sein ›Athen‹ als fiktiv und als Metapher für ›anderswo‹; diese Kodierung werde aber durch Anspielungen dechiffrierbar und versetze die Fabel in das kaiserzeitliche Rom, in dem es keine Alternative zum Prinzipat gebe. Die Resignation, die aus diesem Gedicht spreche, sei kynisch-stoisch begründet. Die Herrschaft des Augustus sowie des Tiberius werde dabei als positiv angesehen, die Zukunft düster. H ö f e r (210) verweist in Robert von Ranke Graves Werk ›I, Claudius‹ in dem Gedicht des Claudius (Kap. 30; Str. 23–8) auf die Bezüge zur Fabel von den Fröschen; denn Claudius erhofft sich als »Old King Log«, dass die politische Entwicklung eskaliert. Die Bedeutung der intertextuellen Bezüge wird allerdings nicht weiter erklärt.

66

Ursula Gärtner

1,3 212.  H a m b l e n n e , P., Le choucas chez les paons (Phaedr., 1, 3). Phèdre, Séjan ou Pallas?, LEC 49, 1981, 125–33. 213.  M a ñ a s N ú ñ e z , M., Ensayo de crítica literaria y comparada. A propósito de algunas versiones de la fábula ›El grajo soberbio y el pavo‹ (Phaedr. I 3), Anuario de Estudios Filológicos 22, 1999, 225–44. 214.  P i z z i m e n t i , F., Ademaro XXVI ~ Fedro I 3, in: B e r t i n i , F. (Hrsg.), Favolisti Latini medievali e umanistici XIII, Genova 2005 (Pubblicazioni del D.AR. FI.CL.ET. Nuova serie 223), 33–53. H a m b l e n n e (212) sucht nach zeitgenössischen Anspielungen in der Fabel von der Dohle, die sich mit Pfauenfedern schmückt. Er meint hier eine Anspielung auf M. Antonius Pallas festmachen zu können, einen Griechen königlicher Herkunft, aber im Rang eines libertus am Hof des Claudius; die falschen Federn seien die ihm verliehenen praetoria insignia im Jahre 52; er lehnte die zusätzlichen 15 Mio. Sesterzen ab und erhielt eine Erztafel zum Ruhm für seine antiqua parsimonia, obwohl er selbst 300 Mio. besaß. Die superbia der Dohle sieht Hamblenne in Tac. ann. 13,2,3 und 13,23,2 bestätigt. Als nota und contumelia betrachtet er die Zurücksetzung des Pallas unter dem jungen Nero (Tac. ann. 13,14,1); da Pallas im Jahr 62 wohl auf Neros Geheiß ums Leben kam, setzt Hamblenne die Abfassungszeit der Fabel zwischen 55 und 60/1 an. Doch lässt sich für all dies kein Beweis finden. Die Parallelen sind zu allgemein, und wenn man parallelisieren wollte, müsste man auch für die Pfauen und Dohlen stärkere Entsprechungen nachweisen. M a ñ a s N ú ñ e z (213) gibt einen Überblick über die Entwicklung der Fabel bei Phaedrus (im Vergleich mit Aesopfabeln, die Phaedrus kontaminiere), Babrios, Ademar, Neckam, María de Francia, La Fontaine, de Samaniego und Lessing. P i z z i m e n t i (214) zeigt in einem Vergleich der Fabel mit Ademar 26, dass in 1,3,9 mulcatus statt multatus zu lesen ist und wie die Fabel in der christlichen Literatur rezipiert wurde, nämlich dass der bestraft werde, der aus Eitelkeit seinen von Gott zugewiesenen Platz verlasse. 1,4 215. N a v o n e , P., Il cane e l’ombra. Appunti sulla fortuna della favola nei bestiari mediolatini e romanzi (Phaedr. I 4), in: V i t a l e - B r o v a r o n e , A., M o m b e l l o , G. (Hrsgg.), Atti dei V Colloquio della International Beast Epic, Fable, and Fabliau Society, Torino-St. Vicent, 5–9 settembre 1983, Alexandria 1987, 191–200. 216.  B e r t i n i , F., Phaedr. I 4 dall’antichità latina all’epoca contemporanea, in: B e r t i n i , F., M o r d e g l i a , C. (Hrsgg.), Favolisti Latini medievali e umanistici XIV, Genova 2009 (Pubblicazioni del D.AR.FI.CL.ET. Nuova serie 232), 63–74. N a v o n e (215) wie B e r t i n i (216) widmen sich der Rezeption der Fabel; Navone betont dabei die Nähe zu den mittelalterlichen Bestiarien; Bertini gibt einen Überblick bis in die Neuzeit; er konstatiert, dass jeder Autor gewisse Elemente abändere,

Phaedrus 1975–2014

67

um sich von den Vorgängern zu unterscheiden, dass die Substanz der Erzählung sich aber nicht ändere. 1,5 217.  T a r t u f e r i , P., Phaedr. I 5 [Vacca, capella, ovis et leo]. Nota su Fedro e la tradizione esopica, AFLM 17, 1984, 321–33. 218.  M ø l l e r J e n s e n , B., Societas leonina or the lion’s share. An analysis of Aesopica 149, Phaedrus I.5 and Babrius I.67, Paideia 59, 2004, 197–204. 219.  R i z z o , I., Étude littéraire et comparée de la fable ›Le loup et l’agneau‹ d’Ésope, de Phèdre, de l’Isopet de Lyon et de La Fontaine, Thélème 25, 2010, 235–50. T a r t u f e r i (217) legt einen Vergleich der Versionen bei Phaedrus, Aesop und Babrios vor und hält die Version des Phaedrus für brutaler und zynischer; Phaedrus zeige schon hier seine bewussten Abweichungen vom Vorbild. M ø l l e r J e n s e n (218) vergleicht ebenfalls diese drei Versionen und versucht die Darstellungen der societas leonina zu deuten. Phaedrus weise als Exsklave seine Mitunterdrückten darauf hin, dass man sich mit den Überlegenen nicht anlegen solle, sondern mit seinem Anteil zufrieden sein müsse. Abgesehen davon, dass die Durchführung bei Phaedrus ein gutes Beispiel für die Romanisierung und rhetorisch ein Glanzstück ist, muss m. E. bedacht werden, dass die schwächeren Tiere in jedem Fall eine Mitschuld tragen, da sie sich auf eine Gemeinschaft eingelassen haben, die von vornherein unausgeglichen war; was hätte denn ein Lamm zur Jagd beitragen können – wie überhaupt die Vorstellung der jagenden Weidetiere grotesk ist (vgl. G ä r t n e r [9, 115 ff.]; C h a m p l i n [96, 114]). R i z z o (219) vergleicht vier Versionen der Fabel (Aesop, Phaedrus, Isopet de Lyon, La Fontaine) und versucht, ohne Rückgriff auf vorliegende Sekundärliteratur die Unterschiede strukturell zu erklären. 1,7 220.  R e n d a , C., Fedro, la volpe  e la maschera tragica (1,7), GIF 3, 2012, 195–224. Die Fabel vom Fuchs, der eine Theatermaske findet, lässt sich den Fabeln zuordnen, in denen ein Tier einen für es unnützen Gegenstand findet und die poetologisch zu deuten sind. Hier wird der Gattung der Tragödie wie in 4,7 eine Absage erteilt (vgl. G ä r t n e r [166]; vgl. [9, 130 ff.]). R e n d a (220) unterzieht die Fabel einer ausführlichen Analyse und kommt zu einem vergleichbaren Ergebnis, dass nämlich Phaedrus die Fabel in Auseinandersetzung mit der literarischen Polemik sowie den sozialen Anforderungen (bes. gloria und honos) in seine Zeit und sein persönliches Umfeld einordne und sich zugleich zum Diskurs über die Rezeption der Tragödie positioniere.

68

Ursula Gärtner

1,8 221.  C u r l e t t o , S., Il lupo e la gru da Esopo a La Fontaine, in: B e r t i n i , F. (Hrsg.), Favolisti Latini Medievali I, Genova 1984 (Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto di Filologia Classica e Medioevale 84), 11–24. C u r l e t t o (221) wehrt sich gegen Klassifizierungen der Fabeln nach W i e n e r t und T h o m p s o n und vergleicht in Anlehnung an P r o p p die Versionen des­ Aesop, Phaedrus und La Fontaine unter Heranziehung zahlreicher mittelalterlicher Varianten und erklärt dadurch die unveränderte Grundstruktur sowie die Unterschiede im Detail. 1,10 222.  K l o i b e r , H., Der Affe als Richter. ›Verkehrte Welt‹ bei Phaedrus I 10? Oder: Warum Fabeln als Schullektüre nicht zu unterschätzen sind, in: S c h a u e r , M., T h o m e , G. (Hrsgg.), Altera Ratio. Klassische Philologie zwischen Subjektivität und Wissenschaft. Festschrift für Suerbaum, W. zum 70. Geburtstag, Stuttgart 2003, 62–7. 223.  P i s e l l i , B., Analisi e fortuna della favola XXVIII di Ademaro, in: B e r t i n i , F. (Hrsg.), Favolisti Latini medievali e umanistici XIII, Genova 2005 (Pubblicazioni del D.AR.FI.CL.ET. Nuova serie 223), 69–102. Die Fabel 1,10 gehört zu den zahlreichen Fabeln bei Phaedrus mit Gerichtsbezug. K l o i b e r (222) argumentiert, dass die Fabel Phaedrus’ Vorliebe für Doppelbödigkeit entspreche, da sie vordergründig eine Parodie auf das Gerichtswesen darstelle, zugleich aber ein idealtypisches Beispiel für Phaedrus’ Dichtungskonzept des ridentem dicere uerum sei. Die verkehrte Welt sei nötig, um der Wahrheit gerecht zu werden. Vielleicht handelt es sich aber auch um Spott über den Zustand der Gerichtshöfe und die Streitsucht seiner Zeit; vgl. G ä r t n e r (9, 143 ff.). P i s e l l i (223) liefert eine ausführliche Analyse zu möglichen Quellen und späterer Rezeption der Fabel. 1,13 224.  M a n d r u z z a t o , E., Traduzione in re, in: C o p i o l i , R. (Hrsg.), Tradurre poesia, Brescia 1983, 232–4. 225.  B a r t e l i n k , G. J. M., Vulpes et corvus. De lotgevallen van een fabel uit de oudheid, Kleio 15, 1985, 18–36. 226.  S c h ö n b e r g e r , O., Phaedrus. Zwei Fabeln (I 13; V 7), in: ders., Von­ Catull bis zu den Carmina Burana. Interpretationen poetischer Texte, Bamberg 1987 (Auxilia 15), 90–117. 227.  G a r c í a G u a l , C., El zorro y el cuervo. Diez versiones de una famosa­ fábula, Madrid 1995. Rez.: F e r n á n d e z - S a v a t e r M a r t í n , Epos 12, 1996, 602–5.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

69

228.  M u z z o l o n , M. L., La favola XXX di Ademaro di Chabannes, in: B e r t i n i , F. (Hrsg.), Favolisti Latini medievali e umanistici XIII, Genova 2005 (Pubblicazioni del D.AR.FI.CL.ET. Nuova serie 223), 123–41. Die Fabel von Fuchs und Rabe gehört zu den bekanntesten. M a n d r u z z a t o (224) legt hier exemplarisch einige seiner Überlegungen zur Übersetzung dar. S c h ö n b e r g e r (226) zeigt in einer Detailanalyse, wie durchgefeilt die Darstellung bei Phaedrus ist. B a r t e l i n k (225) gibt einen Überblick über die Fabelversionen seit der Antike. Dies wird von G a r c í a G u a l (227) ausführlich abgehandelt; er interpretiert zehn Versionen (Aesop, Phaedrus, Babrios, Roman de Renard, Don Juan­ Manuel / Juan Ruiz, La Fontaine, Samaniego, Lessing / Hartzenbusch, Crespo, Grillparzer, mündliche russische Version) und zieht am Ende die Verbindungslinien nach. M u z z o l o n (228) schließlich bietet innerhalb einer eingehenden Untersuchung zur Darstellung bei Ademar (30) auch einen Vergleich mit Phaedrus. 1,14 229.  C a r l s o n , G. I., Phaedrus, a Fable, and Fun, in: H e i l , A., K o r n , M., S a u e r , J. (Hrsgg.), Noctes Sinenses. Festschrift für Mutschler, F. H. zum 65. Geburtstag, Heidelberg 2011, 12–4. 230.  G ä r t n e r , U., De lusu et severitate. Zum Wert des Spiels bei Phaedrus, in: H e i l , A., K o r n , M., S a u e r , J. (Hrsgg.), Noctes Sinenses. Festschrift für Mutschler, F. H. zum 65. Geburtstag, Heidelberg 2011, 294–302. Die Fabel von Aesop, der mit Nüssen spielt, war lange nicht behandelt und wurde dann zufällig zweimal in der gleichen Festschrift Gegenstand genauer Analysen. C a r l s o n (229) und ich selbst, G ä r t n e r (230), kommen zu ganz ähnlichen Ergebnissen, nämlich dass Phaedrus kunstvoll die Motive Geist, Spiel, Entspannung und Rätsel vereint. Von Phaedrus scheint die Zuschreibung zu Aesop zu stammen sowie die erheiternde Umsetzung der Allegorie vom entspannten Bogen in ein realistisches Rätsel – hier ist das Spiel mit den Kommunikationsformen offensichtlich: Statt der erwarteten Veranschaulichung durch die Verlegung in das Tierreich wird in dem Gedicht eine andere Form beschrieben, nämlich die des realisierten Rätsels. Die Fabel wird somit zugleich zum Träger einer poetologischen Aussage: In ihrer Mischung aus ernstem Inhalt, kunstvoller Form und heiterer (Selbst-)Ironie sind die Fabeln, die so gerne als Kinderlektüre gehandelt werden, wie das Nüssespielen für Erwachsene geeignet. 1,15 231.  C a m a s t r a , P., Quid refert mea cui serviam? Nota a Fedro I, 15, AFLB 29, 1986, 63–72. 232.  O l s h a u s e n , E., Der Bürgerkrieg und die Betroffenheit des einfachen Mannes. Eine Interpretation der Phaedrus-Fabel vom alten Mann und dem Eselchen (Phaedrus 1, 15/16 B.), in: W e i n m a n n - W a l s e r , M. (Hrsg.), Historische Inter-

70

Ursula Gärtner

pretationen. Walser, G. zum 75. Geburtstag dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern, Stuttgart 1995, 123–30. Die Fabel vom Esel, der angesichts eines möglichen Besitzerwechsels gelassen bleibt, wird i. d. R. sozialkritisch interpretiert. C a m a s t r a (231) stellt den negativen Aspekt, dass es für den kleinen Mann immer nur schlechter kommen könne, stark h ­ eraus; O l s h a u s e n (232) sieht dies differenzierter und betont das Pragmatische an der Handlungsweise des Esels. Offen bleibt, ob es sich bei dem Alten um einen Mitsklaven oder den jetzigen Besitzer des Esels handelt. In ihm ist wohl der Überängstliche zu sehen (vgl. 1,30). Das Promythion ist m. E. zynisch, da man ihm gerade keine Lehre entnehmen kann. Nimmt man die Fabel mit 1,2, 1,30 und app. 20 zusammen, wird deutlich, dass die unteren Stände, haben sie einmal ihre Freiheit verspielt, im Prinzipat keinen Handlungsspielraum mehr haben, sodass das pragmatische Verhalten des Esels verständlich ist; vgl. G ä r t n e r (9, 178 ff.). 1,19 *233. N i e d e r m a y r , H., Eine Fabel mit ›Sitz im Leben‹. Die gebärende Hündin (Phaedrus 1, 19 und Iustin 43, 4, 4), Latein Forum (Innsbruck: Institut für Klassische Philologie) 26, 1995, 21–33. 1,20 234.  L u z z a t t o , M. J., Teocrito ed Esopo (Id. X 11 e il cane impazzito), Maia 53, 2001, 355–8. L u z z a t t o (234) zieht die Fabel von den Hunden, die einen Fluss austrinken wollen, um eine Haut, die dort ist, fressen zu können, heran, um eine Stelle bei Theokrit neu zu deuten (eid. 10,11). 1,22 235.  P e r r o n e , S., La donnola e l’uomo. Note alla favola XXIX di Ademaro di Chabannes, in: B e r t i n i , F. (Hrsg.), Favolisti Latini medievali e umanistici XIII, Genova 2005 (Pubblicazioni del D.AR.FI.CL.ET. Nuova serie 223), 103–22. P e r r o n e (235) untersucht in einem Vergleich mit Phaedrus und Romulus die Vorgehensweise Ademars, der in diesem Fall beide Quellen unauflöslich miteinander verbunden habe.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

71

1,24 236.  M a n z i n i , V., De rana et bove. Una favola di Gualtiero Anglico e le sue­ origine, in: B e r t i n i , F. (Hrsg.), Favolisti Latini medievali e umanistici VII, Genova 1998 (Pubblicazioni del D.AR.FI.CL.ET. Nuova serie 178), 29–37. 237.  B e c k , M., Torquatus und Otacilius, WJA 25, 2001, 209–12. 238.  S t o c c h i , Chr., Fedro, le rane e i bovini. Decostruzione e ricostruzione di un paradigma esopico?, Paideia 58, 2003, 345–54. 239.  F a n t i n o , E., La rana e il bue. Fedro I 24 e Ademaro XXXIII. Rapporto di dipendenza della parafrasi ademariana dal modello fedriano. Tradizione e fortuna del motivo della rana rupta nella letteratura europea, in: B e r t i n i , F. (Hrsg.), Favolisti Latini medievali e umanistici XIII, Genova 2005 (Pubblicazioni del D.AR.FI.CL.ET. Nuova serie 223), 189–220. Bei den Untersuchungen zu der Fabel des Froschs, der sich aufbläst, um so groß wie ein Rind zu werden, geht es zumeist um Motivvergleiche. So untersucht M a n z i n i (236) ausgehend von Gualterus Anglicus die Darstellungen bei Aesop, Babrios, ­Horaz (sat. 2,3,314 ff.), Phaedrus und Ademar. S t o c c h i (238) folgert aus einem ähnlichen Vergleich, dass es eine Vorlage in aesopischer Tradition gegeben habe, der Horaz und Babrios enger folgten als Phaedrus. Dieser bringe kulturelle römische Merkmale (Macht, Reichtum) und den Aspekt der inuidia neu hinein, kontaminiere eine Sentenz des Publilius Syrus (U 15) mit der Fabel von Frosch und Rind sowie der von Wurm und Schlange (Aes. 208 P. = 237 Hsr.) und verarbeite den Anfang der ursprünglichen Fabel, nämlich das Zertrampeln der Frösche, in 1,30. B e c k (237) meint in Martial 10,79 eine Anspielung auf Phaedrus zu erkennen. F a n t i n o (239) schließlich gibt nach einem Vergleich mit Ademar einen weiten Ausblick auf das Motiv der rana rupta in der europäischen Literatur. 1,25 240.  A c e t i , C., La favola XXXI di Ademaro di Chabannes, in: B e r t i n i , F. (Hrsg.), Favolisti Latini medievali e umanistici XIII, Genova 2005 (Pubblicazioni del D.AR.FI.CL.ET. Nuova serie 223), 143–68. A c e t i (240) stellt in einem detaillierten Vergleich mit Phaedrus die Besonderheit der Fassung des Ademar bei der Fabel von den Hunden und den Krokodilen heraus. 1,27 241.  M a r g a r i n o , S., Favola XXXII di Ademaro di Chabannes, in: B e r t i n i , F. (Hrsg.), Favolisti Latini medievali e umanistici XIII, Genova 2005 (Pubblicazioni del D.AR.FI.CL.ET. Nuova serie 223), 169–87.

72

Ursula Gärtner

M a r g a r i n o (241) stellt in einem detaillierten Vergleich mit Phaedrus die Besonderheit der Fassung des Ademar bei der Fabel von dem Hund, dem Goldschatz und dem Geier heraus. 1,28 242.  C a p u t i , R., La volpe e l’aquila in Fedro e in Gualtiero Anglico, in: B e r t i n i , F. (Hrsg.), Favolisti Latini medievali e umanistici VII, Genova 1998 (Pubblicazioni del D.AR.FI.CL.ET. Nuova serie 178), 17–28. 243.  v a n D i j k , G.-J., 1094 VD. The Fable of the Fox and the Eagle in World Literature, in: M o r d e g l i a , C. (Hrsg.), Lupus in fabula. Fedro e la favola latina tra antichità e medioevo. Studi offerti a Bertini, F., Bologna 2014, 277–87. C a p u t i (242) bietet einen Vergleich der Fabel von Fuchs und Adler bei Phaedrus und Gualterus Anglicus. v a n D i j k (243) zeigt an 1,28, wie langlebig die Fabel aufgrund ihrer Flexibilität in Gestalt, Form und Funktion sein kann. Die Spanne reicht von frühen mesopotamischen und ägyptischen Versionen bis in die Moderne. 1,29 244.  B e r t i n i , F., Fortuna medievale ed umanistica della favola dell’asino e del cinghiale (Phaedr. I 29), in: Letterature comparate. Problemi e metodo. Studi in onore di Paratore, E., Bologna 1981, 1063–73. B e r t i n i (244) zeigt an einem Vergleich der Fabel von Esel und Eber bei Phaedrus und Ademar exemplarisch die Vorgehensweise des Letzteren und verweist auf weitere mittelalterliche und humanistische Nachdichtungen. 1,30 Auf die Zusammengehörigkeit der Fabel mit 1,24 verweist u. a. S t o c c h i (238); s. o. 2,2 245.  G ä r t n e r , U., Anus diligens iuuenem, item puella. Phaedrus und die Elegie, LGBB 59, 2015, 79–85. Ziel meiner Arbeit, G ä r t n e r (245), ist es zu zeigen, wie Phaedrus in der Fabel der zwei Frauen, die den gleichen Mann lieben, deutliche Bezüge zur römischen Liebeselegie und Ovids ars amatoria herstellt und durch die überraschende Verbindung der Gattungen der Fabel für seine Zeitgenossen einen besonderen Reiz verlieh, sie für die Rezeption jedoch offensichtlich unattraktiv machte.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

73

2,8 246.  A l b r e c h t , M. v., Fabel. I. Phaedrus: Das Auge des Herrn. Fab. 2,8:­ Cervus ad boves. II. Rückblick: Ennius, sat. 21 ff. (in der Wiedergabe durch Gellius), in: ders., Römische Poesie. Texte und Interpretationen, Heidelberg 1977, 236–45. v . A l b r e c h t (246) zeigt in einer Detailanalyse den spannungsreichen und kunstvollen Aufbau der Phaedrusfabel, was durch einen Vergleich mit der Enniusfabel noch unterstrichen wird. 3 prol. Der Prolog zum dritten Buch gehört zu den am meisten behandelten Passagen bei Phaedrus, da dort zentrale Aussagen fallen. Die Arbeiten sind hier unter 7.3. und 7.7. aufgenommen. 247. V e r d i è r e , R., Notes critiques, Sileno 8, 1982, 78–9. V e r d i è r e (247) liest in Vers 20 paene. Die Stelle wurde allerdings schon 1713 von H e u m a n n geklärt. 3,1 248. B a j o n i , M. G., Un esempio di autoapologia in Phaedrus, III, 1?, AC 66, 1997, 289–91. Die Fabel von der alten Trinkerin, die eine leere Amphore findet, hat sehr viele Deutungen erfahren. Am häufigsten ist die biographische, die B a j o n i (248) aufgreift, dabei jedoch differenziert: Der Autor beziehe sich auf die zukünftige Rezeption seiner Werke: »i posteri avranno solo il sentore della sua grandezza passata« (291); so fast wörtlich auch R e n d a (41, 201 f.). Es lässt sich aber fragen, ob die Fabel nicht viel eher poetologisch verstanden werden kann: Die Amphore könnte für die Fabel stehen, die ihren (hier fehlenden) Gehalt, d. h. ihre tiefere Aussage nur dem Kenner offenbart; so auch P i e p e r (98, 46 Anm. 46). 3,7 249.  V i a n i , A., Quam dulcis sit libertas, breviter proloquar. (Phaedr. III 7, 1), in: B e r t i n i , F. (Hrsg.), Favolisti Latini medievali e umanistici VII, Genova 1998 (Pubblicazioni del D.AR.FI.CL.ET. Nuova serie 178), 7–15. 250.  B a t a n y , J., Une liberté ambiguë. Le loup et le chien, Reinardus 12, 1999, 3–17. V i a n i (249) gibt einen Überblick über die Versionen der Fabel bei Aesop, Babrios, Phaedrus, Avian, Romulus, Ademar, Gualterus Anglicus und Alexander Neckam. B a t a n y (250) geht der Frage nach, wie die Fabel von Hund und Wolf bei den ver-

74

Ursula Gärtner

schiedenen Autoren ihre Aussage ändert; bisweilen stehe die Freiheit im Vordergrund wie bei Phaedrus und La Fontaine, der Text des Romulus sei offen, im Mittelalter stehe der Hund mitunter für die christliche Ordnung, bisweilen werde die Schwäche des Hunds, bisweilen der innere Konflikt des Wolfs betont. 3,10 251.  G u a g l i a n o n e , A., Nota a Fedro, AFLM 9, 1976, 368–73. G u a g l i a n o n e (251) belegt, dass die Formulierung mendacium subtiliter limare (3,10,48 f.) bedeutet: die Lüge genau untersuchen. 3,12 252.  S p e c k e n b a c h , K., Die Fabel von der Fabel. Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Fabel von Hahn und Perle, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 12, 1978, 187–229. 253.  B i s a n t i , A., Fortuna di un epimythion fedriano nella favolistica medio­ latina, Pan 8, 1987, 105–19. 254.  K e t e l a a r s , A., De Parel in de Mesthoop. Phaedrus’ positie in de GrieksRomeinse traditie van de fabel, Hermeneus 76, 2004, 254–64. S p e c k e n b a c h (252) vermutet, dass die Fabel von Hahn und Perle schon bei­ Phaedrus poetologisch zu deuten sei, nämlich als Aufforderung an die Leser: Die Kritiker hätten den Dichter falsch verstanden und seine wahre dichterische Absicht unbeachtet gelassen – wie der Hahn die Perle. Die Leser sollten daher einsichtig sein und anders handeln als der Hahn. Speckenbach sieht seine Deutung dadurch bestätigt, dass die Fabel in den späteren Corpora zur allgemeingültigen Eingangsfabel wird. Diese Deutung legt auch B i s a n t i (253) ohne Kenntnis der Arbeit Speckenbachs vor. K e t e l a a r s (254) möchte ausgehend von der vorliegenden Fabel Phaedrus’ Qualitäten als Fabeldichter allgemein herausstellen. Ich selbst, G ä r t n e r (166), denke, dass die übliche Lesart der Fabel differenziert werden muss, denn die Perle wird immerhin von einem überaus verständigen Hähnchen gefunden. Es ist ja gerade die Pointe der Fabel, dass selbst ein Hähnchen den objektiven Wert einer Sache erkennen und schätzen kann, auch wenn der Wert für es selbst subjektiv gering ist, d. h. wenn es selbst auf Grund seiner eigenen Veranlagung nichts mit dem Gegenstand anfangen kann – es ist durchaus selbstkritisch; ja es bedauert sogar umgekehrt, der Perle nicht nützen zu können. Die Kritiker des Dichters dagegen scheinen nicht einmal dazu im Stande zu sein und einen geringeren Verstand als ein Hähnchen zu besitzen. Eine solche Deutung legt auch der Bezug zu Varro nahe (375 C. [= 379 B.-H.]) sowie die Parallelen zu 1,2, 4,8 und app. 14, wo jeweils ein Tier einen für es unnützen Gegenstand findet, der es zu Reflexionen anregt, die sich auf die Dichtung übertragen lassen.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

75

3,13 255.  B a j o n i , M. G., Una nota a Phaedr. 3. 13, ACD 36, 2000, 93–8. B a j o n i (255) versucht zu zeigen, dass Phaedrus in der Fabel vom Rechtsstreit zwischen Bienen und Drohnen vor der Wespe als Richterin Bezug auf Aristophanes’ Wespen nehme und dass die drei Tiere allegorisch gedeutet werden könnten: die Drohnen als Plagiatoren, die Bienen als der literarisch gebildete Dichter und die Wespe als Vertreterin einer positiv anzusehenden rusticitas. 3,15 256.  O b e r g , E., Wer ist meine Mutter? Phaedrus III 15 im Lateinunterricht, AU 31,1, 1988, 40–54. 257.  G i o v i n i , M., ›L’inconveniente di essere nati‹ secondo Fedro (III 15) e i suoi fraintendimenti medievali, StudUmanistPiceni 27, 2007, 207–31. O b e r g (256) gibt Anregungen, wie das Gedicht vom Lamm, das eine Ziehmutter in der Ziegenherde findet, statt seine natürliche Mutter zu suchen, unter sprachlichen, anthropologischen und sozialhistorischen Aspekten aufbereitet für Schüler von Interesse sein kann. G i o v i n i (257) verweist in einer ausführlichen Untersuchung der Fabel auf einen kynischen und stoischen Hintergrund und zeigt, dass sich die mittelalterlichen Umdichtungen durch die Unvereinbarkeit der Aussage mit der christlichen Lehre erklären lassen. 3,16 Dass die Fabel von der Eule und der nervenden Grille in Kombination mit der Fabel vom Esel mit der Lyra (app. 14) als Umkehrung der poetologischen Metaphern des Kallimachos (ait. 1,25 ff.) gelesen werden kann, zeigen ich, G ä r t n e r (166), und G l a u t h i e r (160); s. 7.7.3. 4,3 258.  P i e t s c h , W. J., Der Fuchs und die Traube. Ein Plädoyer für die Fabel, Jahresbericht des Akademischen Gymnasiums Graz 1988/9, 3–12. 259.  D u n s c h , B., Phaedrianische Ambiguitäten. Zur Interpretation von De vulpe et uva (fab. 4,3), Forum Classicum 56, 2013, 124–9. P i e t s c h (258) zeigt, welche Möglichkeiten diese Fabel und ihre späteren Nachdichtungen im Lateinunterricht bieten. D u n s c h (259) verweist auf die Ambiguitäten der Fabel. Eine sexuelle, metapoetisch-polemische oder existentielle Deutung lehnt er ab und sieht in einer handlungstheoretischen Deutung gerade im Unterricht den größten Gewinn.

76

Ursula Gärtner

4,5 260.  O b e r g , E., Phaedrus. Drei Töchter als Erbinnen (Buch IV, Gedicht 5), Anregung 44, 1988, 2–8. 261.  H e n d e r s o n , J., The Law is Not Mocked. Straightening out a crooked will (Phaedrus 4.5), in: M c K e c h n i e , P. (Hrsg.), Thinking Like a Lawyer. Essays on legal history and general history for Crook, J. on his eightieth birthday, Leiden /  Boston / Köln 2002 (Mnemosyne. Suppl. 231), 213–30. O b e r g (260) gibt eine kurze Skizze, wie sich die Fabel von den drei Töchtern und dem Testament des Vaters im Unterricht umsetzen ließe. H e n d e r s o n (261) zeichnet in einer ähnlichen Herangehensweise wie in seiner Monographie (8) nach, wie in der Fabel mit der Lesererwartung gespielt wird (Länge / Kürze; Rom / Athen;­ Phaedrus / Aesop; Satire; Misogynie; Rechtssystem; Patriarchat). 4,7 262.  C o l e m a n , K. M., Silvae 4.  9. A Statian name-game, PACA 14, 1978, 9–10. 263.  G ä r t n e r , U., Phaedrus tragicus. Zu Phaedr. 4, 7 und seinem Selbstverständnis als Dichter, in: S t ä r k , E., V o g t - S p i r a , G. (Hrsgg.), Dramatische Wäldchen. Festschrift für Lefèvre, E. zum 65. Geburtstag, Hildesheim / Zürich / New York 2000 (Spudasmata 80), 661–82. 264.  H e r r m a n n , K., Ein ganz besonderer Kritikaster. Der Lector Cato in Phaedrus IV 7, Aevum 78, 2004, 91–6. 265.  P e l l u c c h i , T., Il prologo della Medea come paradigma teatrale. Il caso di Fedro IV 7, in: A r i c ò , G., R i v o l t e l l a , M. (Hrsgg.), La riflessione sul teatro nella cultura romana, Milano 2008, 229–51 [=Aevum(ant) 4, 2004, 229–51]. 266.  D u n s c h , B., In cothurnis prodit Aesopus. Phaedrus’ literarische Selbstverteidigung (Fab. 4, 7), Millennium 7, 2010, 37–50. Die Fabel, in der der Dichter vor einem Kritiker den Anfang einer Medea-Tragödie vorträgt, stellt sich deutlich in die literarkritische Auseinandersetzung mit der Tragödie. C o l e m a n (262) belegt, dass nasutus mit ›mangelndem Literaturgeschmack‹ gleichgesetzt wurde. Ich selbst, G ä r t n e r (263), zeige, wie Phaedrus kunstvoll die Vorlagen des Euripides und Ennius und sogar die Literarkritik daran seiner ›Tragödie‹ einverleibt und dabei auch mit dem Metrum spielt. Die Tragödienparodie erweist ihn als poeta doctus und ist zugleich programmatisch als Zurückweisung der Großform zu verstehen. Zu vergleichbaren Ergebnissen kommen P e l l u c c h i (265), die die Aussagen noch stärker in den literarkritischen Diskurs einbindet, und D u n s c h (266), der für den überlieferten Ausdruck caelum uituperant (26) vorschlägt, caelum als ›(Ziselier-)Meißel‹ und somit als poetologische Metapher zu übersetzen. Dies ist durchaus erwägenswert, weil es zur poetologischen Metapher der Feile, auf die in

Phaedrus 1975–2014

77

4,8 m. E. angespielt wird, passt. H e r r m a n n (264) meint, dass in dem als ›Cato‹ bezeichneten Kritiker nicht Cato Uticensis oder Valerius Cato zu sehen sei, sondern Cato, der Ältere. 4,25 267. A n z a n i , M., La favola XXVII di Ademaro, in: B e r t i n i , F. (Hrsg.), Favolisti Latini medievali e umanistici XIII, Genova 2005 (Pubblicazioni del D.AR. FI.CL.ET. Nuova serie 223), 55–67. A n z a n i (267) legt dar, dass die Fabel des Ademar direkt auf die Version des Romulus zurückzuführen sei, der wiederum die Phaedrusfabel in Prosa setzte. Hervorgehoben werden die gezielten Veränderungen. 5 prol. 268.  B a e z a A n g u l o , E., Non est in toto Phaedro depravatior locus (Phaedrus V pr.), Latomus 69, 2010, 740–44. B a e z a A n g u l o (268) liefert einen vollständigen textkritischen Apparat zu ­dieser Fabel und schlägt vor, in Vers 7 mit Bergk (1860) detrito Myn argento, tabulae Zeuxida zu lesen. 5,3 269. B o a t t i , A., La simbologia della favola De musca et calvo del Novus Aeso­ pus di Alessandro Neckam, in: B e r t i n i , F. (Hrsg.), Favolisti Latini medievali e umanistici VII, Genova 1998 (Pubblicazioni del D.AR.FI.CL.ET. Nuova serie 178), 39–51. B o a t t i (269) behandelt die Fabel vom Kahlkopf und der Stechfliege und ihre Rezeption. Von den zahlreichen Bearbeitungen ist die Nackams in ihrer typisch mittelalterlichen und christlichen Moral am originellsten. 5,7 270.  B a e z a A n g u l o , E., Phaedrus V 7, 17–19, Maia 60, 2008, 405–7. B a e z a A n g u l o (270) liefert zu der Fabel einen vollständigen textkritischen Apparat und schlägt vor, in den Versen 17–9 et incipiebat Princeps ingredi ipse. Eum | reducit pretio precibus ut tantummodo | ipso ludorum ostenderet sese die zu lesen. Zu S c h ö n b e r g e r (226) s.o zu 1,13.

78

Ursula Gärtner

5,8 271. S o l i m a n o , G., Fedro 5, 8, in: B e r t i n i , F. (Hrsg.), Favolisti Latini medievali e umanistici VII, Genova 1998 (Pubblicazioni del D.AR.FI.CL.ET. Nuova serie 178), 195–245. 272.  B a j o n i , M. G., Il tempo dello schiavo. Alcune osservazioni a Phaedr. 5.8, Philologus 143, 1999, 317–22. 273.  M a t t i a c c i , S., Da Kairos  a Occasio. Un percorso tra letteratura  e iconografia, in: C r i s t a n t e , L., R a v a l i c o , S. (Hrsgg.), Il calamo della memoria. Riuso di testi e mestiere letterario nella tarda antichità. IV, Trieste 2011 (Polymnia 13), 127–54. 274.  M a t t i a c c i , S., Favola ed epigramma. Interazioni tra generi ›minori‹ (a proposito di Phaedr. 5, 8; Auson. epigr. 12 e 79 Green), SIFC 9, 2011, 197–232. In der ausführlichsten und ertragreichsten Behandlung der Fabel ordnet S o l i m a n o (271) die Darstellung des Kairos in die sonstigen antiken Zeugnisse ein und zeigt im Vergleich zu diesen jeweils die Besonderheiten der Phaedrusfabel. Auch B a j o n i (272) gibt einen Überblick über die verschiedenen Darstellungen und folgert, dass die Allegorie des Kairos zur Erzählweise des Phaedrus passe; originell sei, dass die occasio (5) einen Schimmer des anthropozentrischen Optimismus ermögliche, und zwar in einer Welt ohne Gerechtigkeit. M a t t i a c c i (273, 274) weist in ihren Überblicken über literarische und bildliche Darstellungen des Kairos Phaedrus eine wichtige Rolle zu. app. 4 275.  B i s a n t i , A., Il motivo novellistico dei ›desideri sprecati‹. In margine a Phaedr. app. 4, in: B e r t i n i , F., M o r d e g l i a , C. (Hrsgg.), Favolisti Latini medievali e umanistici XIV, Genova 2009 (Pubblicazioni del D.AR.FI.CL.ET. Nuova serie 232), 75–105. B i s a n t i (275) liefert nach einer Analyse der Fabel, in der Merkur zwei Frauen ihre törichten Wünsche erfüllt, einen Überblick über die Motivgeschichte. app. 5. 276.  M a c j o n , J., Jeszcze jeden motyw antyczny w poezji juliusza słowackiego, Meander 44, 1989, 53–67 (lat. Zus. am Ende). M a c j o n (276) liefert einen Vergleich der Fabel mit einem Gedicht des polnischen Dichters Juliusz Słowacki, dem er große Eigenständigkeit zuspricht.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

79

app. 8 Das Gedicht, in dem Religio selbst spricht und einen Katalog von Verhaltensregeln gibt, die man sich römischer nicht denken kann, wird meist als eine Art Glaubensbekenntnis des Phaedrus bzw. Klage über den Verlust der Werte interpretiert. Meiner Meinung nach, G ä r t n e r (145), führt Phaedrus mit deutlichen intertextuellen Bezügen und in Übersteigerung nicht so sehr den Niedergang der Werte vor als vielmehr auch die ständige Klage über den Niedergang derselben und den überhöhten Anspruch, der erhoben wird. Er hält nicht nur den Römern den Spiegel vor, weil sie ihre Fehler nicht erkennen, sondern auch den Schriftstellerkollegen, die sich zu kaum einem Thema so häufig geäußert haben. app. 10 277.  L a P e n n a , A., La ritratto ›paradossale‹ da Silla a Petronio, RFIC 104, 1976, 270–93. 278.  G r o t t a n e l l i , C., Tricksters, Scapegoats, Champions, Saviors, History of Religion 23, 1983, 117–39. L a P e n n a (277) streift in seinem Artikel auch die Fabel des schwulen Soldaten im Heer des Pompeius; Phaedrus habe hier wohl den Abstand zwischen Erscheinung und Realität zeigen wollen, aber auch, dass eine tapfere Tat Fehler überdecken könne. G r o t t a n e l l i (278) sieht in dem Zweikampf die Umkehrung eines älteren Topos (Liv. 7,9 f. 26) und in der Diebstahlepisode eine Version des homerischen Hermeshymnos. Der Soldat erscheine als ›trickster‹, ›scapegoat‹, ›champion‹ und ›savior‹; seine Fähigkeit liege darin, Grenzen zu überschreiten und damit davonzukommen, ›achieving salvation through sin‹. app. 11 279.  G i o v i n i , M., Donne e galline. Phaedr. app. 11 e le sue riscritture medievali, Maia 59, 2007, 352–68. G i o v i n i (279) ordnet die Fabel von den Hennen und der Lust der Frauen motivgeschichtlich ein und gibt einen Überblick über die mittelalterlichen Nachdichtungen. app. 12 280. G i o v i n i , M., Padri, figli, buoi, vitelli e il fantasma di Esopo. Phaedr. app. 12 e la sua ricezione medievale, FuturAntico 6, 2007, 9–31. G i o v i n i (280) ordnet die Fabel über die Empfehlung der Milde bei der Er­ziehung mit dem Vergleich eines wilden Jungstiers in den antiken Kontext ein (z. B. Terenz, Cicero, Seneca, Columella) und gibt einen Überblick über die mittelalterlichen Nachdichtungen.

80

Ursula Gärtner

app. 15 281.  C o l t o n , R. E., The Story of the Widow of Ephesus in Petronius and La Fontaine, CJ 71, 1975, 35–52. 282.  P e c e r e , O., Petronio. La novella della matrona di Efeso, Padova 1975 (Miscellanea erudita 27). Rez.: D u p o n t , REL 54, 1976, 421; G u i d o , Paideia 31, 1976, 75–9; P a c ­ c h i e n i , Prometheus 2, 1976, 186–91; P e n n a c i n i , RFIC 104, 1976, 350–2; S o v e r i n i , BStudLat 6, 1976, 123–8; S a n d y , Phoenix 31, 1977, 93–4; V i n c h e s i , A&R 22, 1977, 179–84; C o s c i , Athenaeum 56, 1978, 215–7; B o l g a r , JRS 69, 1979, 234–5; D e l z , MH 37, 1980, 258. 283.  M ü l l e r , C. W., Die Witwe von Ephesus. Petrons Novelle und die ›Milesiaka‹ des Aristeides, A&A 26, 1980, 103–21. 284.  M a s s a r o , M., La redazione fedriana della ›Matrona di Efeso‹, in: Atti del convegno internazionale ›Letterature classiche e narratologia‹, MSCN 3, 1981, 217–37. 285.  F e d e l i , P., La matrona di Efeso. Strutture narrative  e tecnica dell’in­ versione, in: Semiotica della novella latina. Atti del seminario interdisciplinare ›La novella latina‹, MCSN 4, 1986, 9–35. 286.  S e g a , G., Due milesie: La matrona di Efeso e l’efebo di Pergamo, in: Semiotica della novella latina. Atti del seminario interdisciplinare ›La novella latina‹, MCSN 4, 1986, 37–81. 287.  P a r a t o r e , E., Il tema della matrona d’Efeso nell’Esopo toscano, RCCM 30, 1988, 109–22. 288.  H u b e r , G., Das Motiv der ›Witwe von Ephesus‹ in lateinischen Texten der Antike und des Mittelalters, Tübingen 1990 (Mannheimer Beiträge zur Sprachu. Literaturwiss. 18). Rez.: A n d e r s o n , CR 41, 1991, 363–4; H a r r i s o n , JRS 81, 1991, 248; R a t k o w i t s c h , WS 104, 1991, 322; W a l s h , Gnomon 65, 1993, 728. 289.  P e r o t t i , P. A., Note all ›Matrona di Efeso‹ (Petronio, 111–112), Rudiae 13–4, 2001–2, 245–67. 290.  S i e w e r t , W., Petrons ›Witwe von Ephesos‹ als Vergil-Parodie, AU 50,2, 2007, 20–6. 291.  V a n n i n i , G., Petronii Arbitri Satyricon 100–115. Edizione critica e commento, Berlin 2010 (BzA 281). Rez.: L e e , BMCRev 2010.12.76; C i p r i a n i , BStudLat 41, 2011, 344–51; G r a v e r i n i , Athenaeum 101, 2013, 789–92; C a l l e b a t , Latomus 71, 2012, 1166–7; H a b e r m e h l , AncNarr 10, 2012, 133–40; H o l z b e r g , CW 105, 2011–2012, 278–9. 292.  R e n d a , C., mulier vidua et miles (Phaedr. app. 15). Aspetti e problemi di una storia ›borghese‹, in: D e V i v o , A., P e r r e l l i , R. (Hrsgg.), Il miglior fabbro. Studi offerti a Polara, G., Amsterdam 2014, 143–68.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

81

Die Novelle der Witwe von Ephesos ist in der Sekundärliteratur häufig behandelt. Im Zentrum steht jedoch zumeist die Darstellung bei Petron. C o l t o n (281) versucht zu zeigen, dass La Fontaine Petron eng folgt, lässt aber erstaunlicherweise Phaedrus’ Darstellung dabei außen vor. P e c e r e (282) liefert einen ausführlichen Kommentar zur Novelle Petrons; im Verhältnis zu Phaedrus geht er von einer gemeinsamen Quelle aus; die Darstellung des Phaedrus hält er für weniger gelungen. M ü l l e r (283) geht von einer griechischen Vorlage späthellenistischer Zeit für Petron wie Phaedrus aus; Ziel seiner Untersuchung ist es, die Eigenarten der Novelle Petrons wie die ihrer griechischen Vorlage erkennbarer zu machen – ein Ansatz, der für die Einschätzung des Phaedrus symptomatisch ist. Auch wenn Müller Phaedrus eigene Gestaltungsprinzipien zuerkennt, bezieht er diese nur auf die Kürze und geht davon aus, »daß alle Abweichungen von Petron, die sich nicht aus solcher Kürzungsabsicht erklären lassen, bis zum Beweis des Gegenteils der Vorlage zuzuweisen sind« (116). Dazu komme, dass Phaedrus die Fabel schlecht erzähle. Durch diese – m. E. willkürlichen – Prämissen gelangt Müller zu dem Schluss, dass Phaedrus in der Wirklichkeitsgestaltung realistischer und somit näher am Original sei. M a s s a r o (284) hingegen unterzieht die Darstellung des Phaedrus einer Detailanalyse und folgert zu Recht, dass hier eine spannungsreiche und kunstvolle Erzählung vorliege, die sich ebenso wie Petron intertextueller Anspielungen bediene (allerdings anderer, so z. B. Ovid) und dass die Unterschiede charakteristisch für die jeweilige Gattung seien. F e d e l i (285) liefert eine detaillierte Analyse des Petrontexts, streift die Darstellung bei Phaedrus dabei nur am Rande. S e g a (286) lässt das quellenkritische und zeitliche Verhältnis der Versionen des Phaedrus, Petron und Romulus bewusst offen und verfolgt methodisch eine semiotische Lesart, die den einzelnen Versionen gerecht wird, doch vermisst man als Leser einen Vergleich. P a r a t o r e (287) geht in einem Vergleich den Eigenheiten der Erzählweisen bei Phaedrus, Petron und einer toskanischen Vulgärfassung der elegischen Distichen des Gualterus Anglicus nach. Den ausführlichsten Vergleich bietet H u b e r (288), der aber deutlich zu Ungunsten des Fabeldichters ausfällt; ferner sieht sie einen misogynen Zug in seiner Darstellung. Interessant ist ihr weiter Ausblick auf die Versionen des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit. P e r o t t i (289) vertritt die Meinung, dass Phaedrus der Erste gewesen sei, der die Novelle erzählt habe, nach ihm habe Petron geschrieben. Bei beiden fänden sich deutlich (ironische) intertextuelle Bezüge zu Vergils Dido-Aeneas-Erzählung. S i e w e r t (290) versucht oben genannte Ansätze für den Unterricht nutzbar zu machen und will zeigen, dass Petron Vergil parodiert, während Phaedrus eine konservativere Variante des Stoffs bringe. R e n d a (292) möchte zunächst die Authentizität der Fabel gegen die Behauptung, Perotti habe sie mit einem Rückgriff auf Romulus selbst verfasst, beweisen. Anschließend hebt sie in Rückgriff auf M a s s a r o (284), aber offensichtlich ohne Kenntnis der Arbeit P e r o t t i s (289) die literarische Qualität der Phaedrusversion hervor, die z. B. durch intertextuelle Bezüge auf die Lucretiadarstellungen bei Livius und Ovid wie auch auf die Liebesdichtung des Horaz, Properz und Tibull deutlich wird. Bei der anhaltenden Diskussion um das Verhätnis der Versionen scheint die Vorstellung, dass Petron den Stoff von Phaedrus übernommen haben könnte, nur selten

82

Ursula Gärtner

auch nur erwogen zu werden, was an dem vorherrschenden negativen Bild des Fabeldichters liegen mag. H o l z b e r g (59, 50 f.) hat zu Recht darauf hingewiesen, dass es im Bereich des Vorstellbaren ist, dass es Phaedrus war, der – wie so oft – einen aus Aesop bekannten Stoff (vgl. vit. Aes. 129: Als ein Bauer eine am Grab ihres Mannes trauernde Frau verführt, werden ihm seine Ochsen gestohlen.) in römisches Milieu verpflanzte und dabei durch Ovidanspielungen und Verwendung der Topoi der römischen Liebeselegie (militia amoris, exclusus amator) seine Fabel in parodistischer Absicht erfand. Einen Überblick zur Diskussion um die verschiedenen Versionen gibt V a n n i n i (291, 23 ff.), der selbst streng quellenkritisch vorgeht; Gemeinsamkeiten bei Petron und Romulus gegen Phaedrus lassen ihn zu dem Schluss kommen, dass alle drei lateinischen Versionen unabhängig voneinander auf einen nicht erhaltenen lateinischen Archetyp zurückgingen, welcher wiederum mit der Fabel aus der Aesopvita (vit. Aes. 129) auf eine griechische Quelle, vielleicht die aesopischen Fabeln, zurückzuführen sei.45 So verdienstvoll eine genaue Aufarbeitung der Parallelen auch ist, muss man bei der Bewertung – anders als bei einem Handschriftenstemma – den Autoren mehr Eigenständigkeit einräumen. Die Diskussion um das Verhältnis von Phaedrus und Petron in diesem Falle ist m. E. noch offen, wird vielleicht auch offen bleiben; ergiebiger sind Ansätze, die die Eigenheiten der jeweiligen Versionen vor allem durch intertextuelle Bezüge in den zeitgenössischen Diskursen verorten. app. 16 293.  H e n d e r s o n , J., The Homing Instinct. A folklore theme in Phaedrus, App. Perott. 16 Perry / 14 Postgate, PCPhS 23, 1977, 17–31. H e n d e r s o n (293) legt anhand der Fabel von dem armen und dem reichen Freier nahe, dass in der Motivforschung eine ›historisch-geographische‹ Methode weniger zielführend ist als eine ›morphologische‹ Methode mit einem strukturalistischen Ansatz; dagegen S t i n t o n (117); dazu s. 7.6. app. 28 294.  P u g l i a r e l l o , M., Lepus in fabula (Fedro, app. 28), in: B e r t i n i , F., M o r d e g l i a , C. (Hrsgg.), Favolisti Latini medievali  e umanistici XIV, Genova 2009 (Pubblicazioni del D.AR.FI.CL.ET. Nuova serie 232), 107–15. P u g l i a r e l l o (294) geht der Frage nach, wie sich bei einer Fabel die Veränderungen der Figuren bei den einzelnen Autoren erklären lassen, so wie in app. 28 bei Phaedrus ein Hase, bei Romulus und Ademar ein Wolf und bei Babrios ein Fuchs die Haupt 45 Vgl. V a n n i n i , G., La ›Matrona di Efeso‹ di Petronio e le altre versioni antiche dell’aneddoto, in: C a r m i g n a n i , M., G r a v e r i n i , L., L e e , B. T. (Hrsgg.), Collected Studies on the Roman Novel. Ensayos sobre la novela romana, Córdoba 2013, 77–95.

Phaedrus 1975–2014

83

rolle übernimmt. Phaedrus und Babrios gingen auf eine gemeinsame Quelle zurück, wobei Phaedrus mehr Originalität zeige und die Neuerungen aufeinander, vor allem aber mit den Aussagen seiner anderen Fabeln abstimme. app. 29 295.  G i o v i n i , M., La consapevole illusione o l’auto-inganno d’amore secondo Fedro (app. 29) e le sue riletture medievali, Sandalion 29/30, 2006/7, 163–86. 296.  B a e z a A n g u l o , E., Una fábula elegíaca. Comentario a Fedro, App. 29, Maia 65, 2013, 3–16. G i o v i n i (295) verweist auf die Nähe dieser Fabel zur römischen Liebeselegie, vor allem zu Ovid, sowie zur römischen Komödie, vor allem zu Terenzens Eunuchus; im Folgenden gibt er einen Überblick zur Rezeption dieser Fabel in der mittelalterlichen Literatur. B a e z a A n g u l o (296) greift den Faden auf und zeigt durch eine eingehende Analyse der Fabel, wie Phaedrus hier zahlreiche Motive der römischen Liebeselegie von Tibull, Properz und Ovid einflicht. Ad. 13 297.  H o l z b e r g , N., Die Fabel von Stadtmaus und Landmaus bei Phaedrus und Horaz, WJA 17, 1991, 229–39. H o l z b e r g (297) zeigt als einer der Ersten, dass man aus der Bearbeitung des Ademar nicht nur Rückschlüsse auf Motive oder textkritische Probleme ziehen kann, sondern auch – ohne die Fabel wie T h i e l e , P o s t g a t e oder Z a n d e r Vers für Vers zu rekonstruieren – im Vergleich mit den Varianten bei Romulus und dem Weißenburger Codex wertvolle Erkenntnisse über Ausgestaltung und Aufbau der ursprünglichen Phaedrusfabel gewinnen kann. Dies demonstriert er anhand der Fabel von der Landmaus und der Stadtmaus, die sich gerade auch in ihrer Aussage deutlich von der horazischen Variante unterscheidet.

9. Fachdidaktik (Auswahl) Zu den Phaedrusfabeln gibt es eine sehr große Zahl an Schulausgaben und fach­ didaktischen Aufbereitungen. Im Folgenden ist eine Reihe von Arbeiten lediglich auf­gelistet, die zum einen lesenswerte Einführungen bieten und zum anderen grundsätzliche Fragen der Interpretation und Vermittlung anschneiden. 298.  C h r i s t e s , J., Phaedrus. Die Fabel. I. Darstellung des Gegenstandes, in: N i c k e l , R. (Hrsg.), Aditus. Neue Wege zum Latein. Lese- und Arbeitsbuch für die ersten Lektürejahre, Teil III. Lehrerhandbuch, Würzburg 1975, 1–9.

84

Ursula Gärtner

299.  F u h r m a n n , M., Über kleine Gattungen als Gegenstand der Anfangs­ lektüre, AU 18,5, 1975, 24–43. 300.  N i e m a n n , K.-H., Die Fabel als Spiegel menschlichen Verhaltens und als Anstoß zur Verhaltensänderung, AU 22,3, 1979, 57–81. 301.  L ü h r , F.-F., K r ü g e r , J., Probleme politischer Bildung im altsprachlichen Unterricht, AU 24,2, 1981, 5–28. 302.  F i r n k e s , M., Phädrus als Autor in der Mittelstufe / Sekundarstufe I, in: B r a n d h o f e r , F. J., F i r n k e s , M., R i e g e r , E., Lateinische Dichterlektüre I. Unterrichtsprojekte zu Phädrus und Ovid, Bamberg 1982, 4–53. 303.  F r i t s c h , A., Phaedrus als Schulautor, Latein und Griechisch in Berlin 29, 1985, 34–69. 304.  –, Phaedri libellos legere. Weitere Anregungen zur Phaedruslektüre, Latein und Griechisch in Berlin 32, 1988, 126–46. 305.  –, De sermone familiari e Phaedri quoque libellis discendo, in: A l b e r t , S. (Hrsg.), Latine sapere, agere, loqui. Miscellanea Eichenseer, C. dedicata, Saarbrücken 1989, 9–20. 306.  –, Äsop und Sokrates bei Phaedrus. Ein Beitrag zur thematischen Orientierung der Phaedruslektüre, Latein und Griechisch in Berlin 34, 1990, 218–40. 307.  S c h ö n b e r g e r , O., Vita humana. Zur Leistung der Fabel-Lektüre, in: G r u b e r , J., M a i e r , F. (Hrsgg.), Humanismus und Bildung II, Bamberg 1991 (Auxilia 28), 95–105. 308.  F r i t s c h , A., Fabeln im Lateinunterricht, in: D i t h m a r , R. (Hrsg.), Fabeln und Parabeln im fächerverbindenden Unterricht, Ludwigsfelde 2002, 136–67. 309.  –, Fabeln im altsprachlichen Unterricht, AU 56,3, 2013, 2–11.

10. Vermischtes 310.  K r a g e l u n d , P., K r o g h , J., S k a f t e J e n s e n , M., F r i i s - J e n s e n , K., Fabel og samfund, MT 32–33, 1978, 55–75. 311.  M o r d e g l i a , C., La fable latine, véhicule de transmissions littéraires et folkloriques dans l’histoire de la culture européenne. À propos d’un récent colloque (Trente, 22–23 octobre 2013), Le fablier 25, 2014, 109–12. 312.  – (Hrsg.), Lupus in fabula. Fedro e la favola latina tra antichità e medioevo. Studi offerti a Bertini, F., Bologna 2014. Rez.: J e n n i n g s , BMCRev 2016.01.29. K r a g e l u n d , K r o g h , S k a f t e J e n s e n und F r i i s - J e n s e n (310) versuchen (unter Auslassung der Fachliteratur) moderne Methoden der Literatur­analyse an einzelnen Phaedrusfabeln vorzustellen (z. B. Pro-, Epiloge; 1,3; 1,5; 1,24; 1,27;

Phaedrus 1975–2014

85

3,18; 4,6). M o r d e g l i a (311) gibt einen Überblick über eine Tagung, die zu­ Phaedrus und seiner Überlieferung stattfand und deren Beiträge in einen Sammelband (312) eingeflossen sind. Die relevanten Titel sind hier unter den jeweiligen Aspekten aufgeführt.

Nachtrag Folgende Titel wurden mir erst nach Drucklegung zugänglich; sie seien zumindest noch erwähnt: zu 4,16: 313.  M a t t i a c c i , S., Prometeo ebbro e i suoi monstra (a proposito di Mart. 14.182 e Phaedr. 4.16), Lexis 32, 2014, 315–30. zu app. 10: 314.  C r a c a , C., Fedro app. 10: storia di un soldato paradossale, BolStudLat 43, 2013, 457–75. zu app. 16: 315.  C r a c a , C., Fedro app. 16: il trionfo dell’amore, C & C 9, 2014, 433–57.

Index Aceti  71 Adrados  12, 20, 22–24, 35 f., 39 f., 46–48, 64 Albrecht, v.  25, 26, 33, 73 Alvarez Campos  18 Anderson  80 André  15 Andreassi  25 Anzani  77 Aricò  60 Axelson  38 Baeza Angulo  11, 21, 28, 33, 37, 61, 77, 83 Bajoni  73, 75, 78 Baldwin  32, 34 Baldzuhn  31 Barabino  37, 39 Bartelink  68, 69 Bartoňkova  25 Bassi  19 Batany  73 Beato  18, 20 Becher  17, 59 Beck  71 Bernardi Perini  27, 32, 39, 40, 64 Bertini  25, 26, 29, 55, 57, 58, 64, 66, 72 Binder  16 Bisanti  58, 74, 78 Blänsdorf  33, 47, 49 Bloomer  42, 44, 45, 47 Boatti  77 Boëls-Janssen  60 Boldrer  63 Boldrini  26, 27, 29, 30, 31 Bolgar  80 Boretsky  41, 47 Borgo  58, 60 Bossi  19 Brenot  20 Brumberger  25 Burck  16 Byl  22 Caldwell  47 Callebat  80 Camastra  42, 44, 69, 70 Cancik  24, 25, 33 Caputi  72

Carballude Blanco  18 Cardini  27, 28, 29 Carlson  23, 69 Carnes  11, 50, 54, 55 Cascajero  42, 44, 45 Cascón Dorado  20, 21, 37, 47, 48, 60, 61 Cavarzere  19, 20, 50, 52 Cerruti 19, 20 Champlin  32, 34, 45, 52, 53, 54, 63, 67 Chaparro Gómez  37, 38, 42, 44 Charlet  27 Chong-Gossard  42 Christes  32, 33, 44, 65, 83 Cipriani  80 Coleman  76 Collart  39 Colton  80, 81 Contini  60 Corsaro  60 Cosci  80 Craca 85 Craven  37, 38 Cremona  15 Crusius  44 Cupaiuolo  15 Curletto  68 Currie  25, 33, 37 Dadone  56 d’Agostino  39 Dams  51, 52, 59 d’Angelo  39 Davies  27 Dedek  63, 64 Deflorio  33, 47, 48 Dehon  12 Delaunois  22 D’Elia  24, 25 della Casa  22 della Corte  21, 39, 41, 64 de Lorenzi  17, 33, 61 Delz  80 Demandt  33, 42, 44, 45 De Marco  58 de Maria  12, 60, 61 De Nonno  27 Desbordes  60

Phaedrus 1975–2014 Desgrugillers-Billard  18 Digón Lombardía  18 Dolbeau  31 Dominik  42 Donnet  23, 25 Donnini  27 Dowden  11 Draheim  7 Dubuisson  42 Dunsch  75, 76 Dupont  80 Edwards  33, 34, 42, 46 Fantino  71 Fasce  60 Fedeli  58, 80, 81 Fernández-Savater Martín  68 Ficca  19 Fick  25 Fiesoli  28, 30 Finch  28 Firnkes  84 Fisichella  41, 43 Fitzgerald  42, 45 Fohlen  31 Formicola  60 Foubert  25 Friis-Jensen  84 Fritsch  25, 47, 49, 84 Fuhrmann  84 Furiani  60 Gaide  11, 18, 23, 25, 27 Galli  39, 41 Garbarino  27 Garbugino  58 García Gual  68, 69 Garcia Vilariño  18 Gärtner  11, 12, 14, 21, 22, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 60, 63, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 79 Gasparov  20 Gasti  27 Gatti  26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 58 Gelzer  22 Georgakopoulou  40 Gibbs  17, 35 Gilarrondo Miguel  27, 30 Gilles-Raynal  31

87

Giovini  58, 75, 79, 83 Glauthier  22, 50, 53, 75 Gnilka  27, 32 Goins  17, 25 Golden  47 González Luis  20 Goodyear  24, 25 Gourevitch  47 Graverini  50, 54, 57, 80 Grimal  32, 33 Grottanelli  79 Grubmüller  58, 64 Guaglianone  11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 28, 29, 39, 44, 74 Guido  80 Guillén  22 Habermehl  80 Hamblenne  66 Hamm  50, 52 Hansen  17, 23 Harrison  80 Heckel  12, 23 Heintze, v.  32, 34 Henderson  11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 27, 32, 39, 41, 42, 51, 65, 76, 82 Herrmann, K.  76, 77 Herrmann, L.  33, 39, 57 Heumann  73 Heydenreich  7 Hielscher  60, 61 Höfer  64, 65 Holzberg  11, 12, 21, 25, 26, 28, 33, 35, 36, 40, 44, 51, 59, 80, 82, 83 Huber  80, 81 Iannelli  28 Irmscher  15, 16 Irwin  23, 35 Jackson-Holzberg  25 Jedrkiewicz  40, 50, 51 Jennings  21, 25, 50, 54, 84 Keller  16 Ketelaars  74 Keulen  50, 57 Kißel  12 Kivistö  47 Klein  58 Kloiber  68

88 Knecht  39 Kohl  16 Köhler-Zülch  11 Korzeniewski  39 Koster  21, 25, 50, 51 Kragelund  84 Kraus  12, 42 Krogh  84 Kronik  41, 47 Krüger  84 Kuch  23 Küppers  25, 33, 55 Lamb  11 Lamberti  50, 51, 52 Langlands  47 La Penna  19, 21, 33, 43, 44, 45, 48, 79 Laplace  22 Lasserre  23 Lee  80 Lefkowitz  35 Lelli  42, 45 Leone  58 Libby  50, 54 Liénard  16 Liñeira Reboredo  18 Lorenzi  17 Lühr  84 Luzzatto  12, 13, 23, 36, 39, 40, 70 Lytvynov  21 Macjon  78 Maggiulli  39 Mañas Núñez  20, 50, 52, 66 Mandruzzato  19, 65, 68, 69 Manzini  71 Marchesi  42, 45 Margarino  71, 72 Marquardt  15, 16 Marsiglio  19 Martín  23 Massaro  37, 38, 80, 81 Mattiacci  34, 50, 51, 53, 56, 57, 78, 85 Melchionna  27 Méthy  25, 47 Meuli  44 Milanese  26, 32 Mincione  27, 30 Möller  16 Møller Jensen  67 Monserrat Roig  20

Ursula Gärtner Morales  23 Mordeglia  28, 31, 34, 35, 37, 42, 45, 46, 58, 84, 85 Moretti  62, 63 Morgan  21, 25, 47, 49 Müller  11, 16, 80, 81 Munk Olsen  26, 29 Muzzolon  69 Nakatsukasa  35 Namia  19 Nascimento  57 Navone  66 Niedermayr  70 Niemann  84 Nøjgaard  22, 47, 48, 64 Oberg  12, 13, 16, 17, 33, 56, 60, 61, 62, 75, 76 Olshausen  69, 70 Önnerfors  26, 29 Opelt  60 Pacchieni  80 Panckoucke  18 Pandolfi  62 Parasoglou  35 Paratore  80, 81 Pecere  80, 81 Pellucchi  76 Pennacini  80 Perotti  80, 81 Perrone  70 Perry  18, 36, 44 Petersmann  22 Pieper  22, 32, 33, 34, 52, 73 Pietsch  75 Pighi  39 Piselli  68 Pisi  12, 39, 40, 60 Pizzimenti  66 Polara  27, 31, 57 Polt  33, 34, 54, 64, 65 Port  7, 11 Pòrtulas  23 Postgate  17, 56 Propp  68 Pugliarello  37, 38, 56, 57, 60, 82 Pulvirenti  19, 20 Quintino de Almeida  64

Phaedrus 1975–2014 Rädle  27 Rank  26, 32 Ratkowitsch  80 Ray  23 Rebelo Gonçalves  60 Rehermann  15 Reitz  42 Renda  21, 22, 33, 41, 45, 61, 62, 63, 67, 73, 80, 81 Reynolds  27 Richelmy  19 Riedel  15, 16, 59 Rivero López  18 Rizzo  67 Rocca  42 Rodler  64 Rodríguez Santín  18 Rojas del Canto  23 Roos  35, 36 Roux  18 Rückert  15, 16 Ruiz Vila  20 Rupprecht  16 Saenger  16 Saglimbeni  19 Salles  22, 47 Sandy  80 Santini  12, 39 Scanzo  56, 57 Schindel  42, 45 Schmeling  25 Schmid  62 Schmidt  25, 33, 41, 43, 59, 65 Schnur  16, 17, 44 Schönberger  15, 16, 20, 68, 69, 77, 84 Sciarrino  34, 42, 45 Sega  80, 81 Segurado e Campos  62 Serra  11 Shackleton Bailey  26, 32 Siebelis  16 Siewert  80, 81 Sirtori  60, 61 Sivo  57 Skafte Jensen  35, 84 Sluşanschi  35, 36 Smart  17

Solimano  12, 19, 20, 21, 65, 78 Solinas  19 Soudée  24, 25 Soverini  80 Spahlinger  50, 53 Speckenbach  74 Spoerri  44 Stenuit  39 Stinton  39, 41, 82 Stocchi  15, 35, 36, 42, 45, 60, 71, 72 Stoffel  55 Svelo  18, 35, 37, 39 Szelest  56 Tahovski  64 Tartuferi  67 Testaferrata  19 Thompson  68 Tortora  7, 11, 39 Tosi  36, 37 Tourlidès  24 Tournier  18, 60, 61 Vaio  23 Vámos  57 van Dijk  23, 25, 35, 36, 55, 72 Vannini  80, 82 Verdière  73 Viani  73 Vinchesi  80 Višnevskaja  37 Wagner  16, 25 Walcot  16, 22 Walsh  80 Weitzel  16 Widdows  17 Wiegand  33, 34, 42, 46 Wiegandt  47 Wienert  68 Williamson  17 Wojaczek  25 Zago  12, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 59 Zander  30 Zapata Ferrer  20, 21 Zwierlein  28, 64, 65

89

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

Marilyn B. Skinner / Tucson, Arizona Abbreviations: The abbreviations used in this work are those employed by l’Année Philologique. Those items marked with an asterisk I was unable to examine directly.

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 I. Bibliographies, Editions, Textual Criticism and Exegesis, and Commentaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 A. Bibliographies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 B. Editions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 1. Complete Editions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 2. Editions of Individual Poems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 3. School Editions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 C. Textual Criticism and Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 1. Textual History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 2. Conjectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 3. Textual Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 D. Commentaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 II. General Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 A. Biography and Prosopography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 1. C. Valerius Catullus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 2. Clodia Metelli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 3. Juventius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 4. Neoteric Poets: C. Licinius Calvus, C. Helvius Cinna . . . . . . . . 124 5. Other Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 B. Introductions to the Poet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 C. Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 1. Single-Authored Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 2. Festschriften, Special Journal Issues, and Other Multiple-Authored Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 III. Arrangement of the Corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 A. Arrangement of Individual Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 1. The Polymetric Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 2. The Longer Poems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 3. The Elegiac Poems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 B. Arrangement of the liber Catulli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 1. Physical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 2. Ring-Composition (Annular) Patterning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 3. Sequential Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 4. Indeterminability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 IV. Critical Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 A. Overviews: Critical Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

94

Contents

B. Unifying Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 1. Generic Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 2. Rhetorical Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 3. Persona and Performativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 4. Psychoanalytic Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 5. Russian and Continental Theory: Catullus and Theory, Bakhtin, Foucault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 C. Cultural and Historicist Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 1. Physical Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 2. Cultural Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 3. Intellectual, Economic, and Social Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 4. Political Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 D. Formalist Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 1. Genres: Polymetrics, Epic / Epyllion, Elegy, Epigrams . . . . . . . . 182 2. Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 3. Meter, Rhythm, and Sound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 4. Language: Semantics, Diction and Syntax, Stylistics . . . . . . . . . 195 5. Imagery and Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 E. Themes and Motifs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 1. Lesbia and Love . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 2. Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 3. Sexuality and Obscenity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 4. Friendship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 5. Poetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 6. Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 7. Religion and Myth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 8. Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 9. Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 10. Marriage and the Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 11. Miscellaneous Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 F. Individual Poems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Catullus 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 Catullus 2 and 2b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Catullus 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Catullus 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 Catullus 5 and 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 Catullus 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 Catullus 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Catullus 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 Catullus 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Catullus 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 Catullus 12–14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Catullus 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 Catullus 14b–26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Contents

95

Catullus 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Catullus 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Catullus 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Catullus 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 Catullus 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Catullus 23 and 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Catullus 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 Catullus 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 Catullus 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Catullus 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Catullus 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 Catullus 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Catullus 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Catullus 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 Catullus 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 Catullus 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Catullus 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 Catullus 37 and 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Catullus 38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 Catullus 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 Catullus 41 and 43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Catullus 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Catullus 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 Catullus 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 Catullus 46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 Catullus 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Catullus 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 Catullus 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Catullus 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 Catullus 52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 Catullus 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 Catullus 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Catullus 55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Catullus 56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Catullus 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 Catullus 58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Catullus 58b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Catullus 59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Catullus 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 Catullus 61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Catullus 62 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 Catullus 63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 1. Textual Suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 2. Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278

96

Contents

Catullus 64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 1. Monographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 2. Textual and Exegetical Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 3. Formalist Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 4. Comprehensive Thematic Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 5. Prologue and Invocation of the Heroes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 6. The Ariadne Episode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 7. Ekphrasis and Visual Reception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 8. The Wedding of Peleus and Thetis and the Song of the Parcae . . 294 9. Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 10. Intertextual Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 Catullus 65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Catullus 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Catullus 67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 Catullus 68a–b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 1. Textual Suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 2. Catullus 68a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314 3. Catullus 68b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316 4. Comprehensive Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 Catullus 69 and 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 Catullus 70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 Catullus 72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 Catullus 73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 Catullus 74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 Catullus 75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 Catullus 76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 Catullus 77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 Catullus 78 and 78b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330 Catullus 79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330 Catullus 83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 Catullus 84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 Catullus 85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 Catullus 86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 Catullus 87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 Catullus 88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 Catullus 89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 Catullus 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 Catullus 94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 Catullus 95 and 95b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 Catullus 96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 Catullus 97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 Catullus 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 Catullus 101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 Catullus 102 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

Contents

97

Catullus 103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 Catullus 105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 Catullus 107 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 Catullus 109 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 Catullus 111 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 Catullus 112 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 Catullus 114 and 115 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 Catullus 116 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344

Introduction In the year 1985, the notional starting date for this survey, I was still compiling notes, bibliography, and index items on handwritten 4x6 inch file cards. Thirty years later, by far the greatest part of the research for it was done on-line, using electronic databases, chiefly l’Année philologique and JStor, while consultation of materials not immediately available was facilitated by search engines, journal website archives, and PDF retrieval. Those vast technological changes in scholarly practice have been matched by drastic shifts in our approach to ancient authors, Catullus among them. The same three decades saw the rise and fall of ‘theory’, whose most lasting effect, at least upon me, seems a rueful cognizance of the underlying weakness of foundational propositions. Apart from such epistemological skepticism, the present catalogue reflects another kind of ‘Catullan revolution’ gradually taking place during those decades, modifications to our mental picture of the author and to the questions we ask of his text. For few Catullan scholars nowadays – though there may be holdouts – is the young man from Verona merely the disastrously wronged lover and brash nonconformist he appeared at an earlier time. We no longer hunt clues in the poems to discover whether Juventius came chronologically before or after Lesbia or what personal grievance provoked the lampoons against Mamurra; even the Callimachean adherent whose every third poem is programmatic has lately been interrogated. The Catullus often encountered today descends to the forum alongside Cicero, like him steeped in the language of social performance and participating in poetic gift-exchange among patrons, like him  a domi nobilis measuring himself against the tacit rules of Romanitas. Alternatively, in his study, he looks back appreciatively upon his Greek models, reweaving snippets of them into elegant patterns while self-consciously acknowledging his belatedness. He has travelled far during this period, and the implicit narrative arc of this bibliography explains how he arrived there. Readers should consequently anticipate basic differences between my canvass of scholarly production and the predecessors listed under its initial subheading. Some problems of Catullan scholarship, of course, remain central and perhaps intractable. Textual criticism has again surged to the foreground in recent years; prosopographical issues, though fewer, are still being decided; and the question of authorial arrangement now merits  a unit of its own. In the domain of literary criticism instructive formalist and thematic analyses continue to appear. Along with the application of new theoretical models, however, the proliferation of systematic approaches to the corpus, especially in the fields of cultural and gender studies, required expansion of the categories of classification employed by previous compilers. As  a glance at the contents will show, this is the area of investigation where the greatest amount of work on Catullus has been done – and, in my opinion, the most encouraging progress has been made. Organizing contributions under given rubrics admittedly involved some arbitrary judgments and some decisions made for reasons of expediency. There are, for example, no sections devoted to ‘intertextuality’ or to ‘reception’, as those groupings seemed too unwieldy. Although I have attempted to be comprehensive, it is very likely

100

Marilyn B. Skinner

that I have missed some newly published contributions and I apologize in advance for inadvertent omissions. In the interests of brevity, I left out journal articles later appearing as book chapters with little or no revision. Dissertations in the process of being revised for publication were also not listed. I am deeply indebted to the American Academy in Rome for its hospitality to me as a Visiting Scholar in 2010 and for permission to use its library during other sojourns in Rome. Those opportunities greatly facilitated my research. My chief obligation, however, is to the document delivery and interlibrary loan staff at the University of Arizona libraries, who tirelessly endeavored to track down even the most obscure Festschriften and reviste. That there are so admirably few asterisks among so many entries is entirely due to them.

I. Bibliographies, Editions, Textual Criticism and Exegesis, and Commentaries A. Bibliographies Jean Granarolo’s previous bibliographies in Lustrum furnish the point of departure for this overview of Catullan scholarship produced in the past three decades. 1.  J. G r a n a r o l o , Catulle 1948–1973, Lustrum 17, 1973–1974, 27–70. 2.  –, Catulle 1960–1985, Lustrum 28–29, 1986–1987, 65–106. G r a n a r o l o (1) surveys contributions on textual transmission and emendation; editions, translations, and commentaries in English and other European languages; work dealing with historical and literary contexts of production, including interpretative studies; biographical and chronological inquiries; fundamental issues surrounding the arrangement of the corpus; and, finally, explorations of Catullan subjectivity (psychology, ethical and religious convictions). His subsequent report (2) is confined to investigations of poetological and technical aspects of Catullus’ artistry, including sources and influences; structures, within the collection and in individual poems (there is, inevitably, some overlap with his earlier account of work on Catullan arrangements); language and syntax; stylistics; and, lastly, metrical patterns. Since then, a number of other comprehensive or more focused bibliographies have appeared in print and online: 3.  J. P. H o l o k a , Gaius Valerius Catullus: A Systematic Bibliography, New York and London 1985. 4.  J. F e r g u s o n , Catullus, Greece & Rome New Surveys in the Classics 20, Oxford 1988. Rev.: A r k i n s , LCM 13, 1988, 148–151; B e n e d i k t s o n , CW 83, 1989–1990, 132. 5.  D. F. S. T h o m s o n , Catullus (ed. with textual and interpretative commentary), Toronto 1997. Rev.: C o u r t n e y , CJ 93.3, 1997–1998, 325–330; G a i s s e r , Phoenix 52.1–2, 1998, 163–165; H o l z b e r g , CR n.s. 50.2, 2000, 438–439; A s c h e i , Athenaeum 90.1, 2002, 274–277. 6.  D I O T I M A : Materials for the Study of Women and Gender in the Ancient World, http://www.stoa.org/dio-bin/diobib?catullus, 2000, last update 2011. 7.  M. S c a r s i , Rassegna catulliana (1985–1999), BStudLat 30, 2000, 143–203. 8.  J. J. V a l v e r d e A b r i l , Bibliografía Clodiana. 1, Nota bibliográfica sobre la figura de Clodia-Lesbia, FlorIlib 20, 2009, 309–343; 2, Creación artistica y literaria entorno a la figura de Clodia-Lesbia, FlorIlib 21, 2010, 445–464.

102

Marilyn B. Skinner

9.  M. C u y p e r s , A Hellenistic Bibliography: Catullus, https://sites.google. com/site/hellenisticbibliography/latin-authors/catullus, 2007, updated July 2012. 10. D. K o n s t a n , Catullus: Oxford Bibliographies Online Research Guide, http://www.oxfordbibliographiesonline.com, 2011. 11.  D. K i s s , Catullus Online: An Online Repertory of Conjectures on Catullus, http://www.catullusonline.org, 2013. H o l o k a (3) includes all relevant scholarship on Catullus in Latin, English, and a wide range of modern European languages from 1878 up through volume 52 (1981) of l’Année philologique; scattered items from 1982 and 1983 are mentioned. Items are classified under nine major headings: I, Biography and Prosopography; II, Editions, Commentaries, and Translations; III, Language; IV, Poetics and Metrics; V, Manuscript Tradition and Text History; VI, Literary and Textual Criticism; VII, Literary Forebears and Contemporaries; VIII, After Times [reception]; and IX, Bibliographical Aids. The last section lists all previous bibliographies of Catullus from 1887 up to date of publication. In sections II and VI entries appear under subheadings of general or comprehensive studies, criticism of selected poems, and criticism of individual poems, passages, and lines. Cross-references are frequently provided, though not exhaustively, and annotation is employed only to indicate topics or passages discussed when not indicated by title or grouping. For identifying relevant work before 1980 this bibliography is the obvious place to start. F e r g u s o n (4) is a helpful guide in a series designed for undergraduate-level students and teachers. He presents brief narrative accounts of recent contributions on key topics: textual tradition; the poet’s life (with  a strong defense of authorial arrangement, still the minority view at the time); literary inheritance and Weltanschauung; the poems themselves, including the Lesbia cycle and readings of individual polymetric pieces, longer poems, and epigrams; finally, translations and modern reception. The text of T h o m s o n ’ s new edition (5), which replaces his Critical Edition of 1978, is discussed in the following section. In addition to a general bibliography and a shorter bibliography on the history of the text, Thomson follows commentary upon each poem with  a list of secondary sources, conservative in its selection. The Catullus bibliographical page on the online site D I O T I M A (6) cites monographs and articles of particular interest to researchers on ancient women, gender, and sexuality. S c a r s i (7) offers summaries of select contributions under the following headings: 1) Biografia  e produzione poetica, including historical context, publication of the collection, and the communicative aspects of the poetry; 2) I carmina docta, chiefly studies of c. 63, 64, and 68; 3) Polimetri ed epigrammi, discussions of a limited number of commonly read poems; 4) Linguistica e filologia; 5) Antropologia e folklore; 6) Il tema religioso, focusing on readings of c. 76; 7) L’ambiente della cultura cisalpina, synopses of four essays in C r i n i t i ’ s collection (90); 8) Fortleben. Emphasis is, ­naturally, on work in Italian, though Scarsi shows familiarity with scholarship in English and in other European languages. V a l v e r d e A b r i l (8) is  a two-part bibliography, arranged thematically, on Clodia-Lesbia, identified with the wife of Metellus Celer. Categories in the first installment include: historical and social

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

103

context (Clodia’s family and its connections); Clodia-Lesbia in classical scholarship, i. e. comprehensive treatments and particular aspects of this figure; Cicero’s view of Clodia and Catullus’ use of Lesbia in general and in specific poems; prosopographical identification of Lesbia; and reminiscences in other ancient classical and Christian texts. The second installment, dealing with the reception of Clodia-Lesbia in later Western culture, is divided into three sections covering, respectively, poetic, dramatic, and musical treatments; prose narratives; and scholarship on influence. Arrangement under rubrics is chronological and an index of authors’ names is supplied at the end of each part. Consultation will benefit anyone dealing with the historical Clodia, the representation of Lesbia, the composite, or her afterlife.1 C u y p e r s (9) is an online bibliography primarily concerned with Hellenistic influences on Catullus, but the extensive list of entries contains many peripherally related items of interest. ­K o n s t a n (10) is an online starter bibliography designed for faculty preparing courses and researchers in corollary fields as well as undergraduate and graduate students; while covering a full range of topics, it lists only a few major studies in each area. Entries will be regularly updated. K i s s ’ online bibliography (11) lists sources for all readings in his critical apparatus, which attempts to note every conjecture on Catullus published in print since the editio princeps of 1472. Links to explanations of the website and repertory are provided on the left-hand side of the home page. B. Editions Descending as it does from a single exemplar corruptissimum (as a scribal note in G famously complains), the text of Catullus, even after five centuries of continuous labor, remains a welter of fiercely contested problems. Critics differ radically not only on readings or emendations of given passages but even on the merits of standard editions, as the two following essays indicate. 12.  L. C a s s a t a , Due nuove edizioni di Catullo, A&R 31, 1986, 13–22. 13.  S. J. H a r r i s o n , The Need for a New Text of Catullus, in: C. R e i t z (ed.), Vom Text zum Buch (Subsidia Classica 3), St. Katharinen 2000, 63–79. C a s s a t a (12) evaluates the recent texts of G o o l d 2 and E i s e n h u t 3 by comparing their handling of several well-known cruxes. Neither edition, in Cassata’s view, marks advancement over the Teubner text of Schuster (1949) or Mynors’ 1958 OCT; Goold in particular exhibits a ‘systematic banalitá’ in his choices. H a r r i s o n (13) argues that a new critical edition is urgently needed. Mynors’ edition, though it remains the accepted one for English-speaking scholars, is, Harrison believes, excessively conservative, reluctant to admit conjecture in the face of probable corruption and so omitting many noteworthy conjectural solutions from the text and apparatus criticus. 1 V a l v e r d e A b r i l 2009: 313 n.  1 mentions  a website (www.ugr.es/~filatina/valverde. htm) containing a larger collection of items, but the link is broken. 2 G. P. G o o l d , Catullus, London 1983. 3 W. E i s e n h u t , Catulli Veronensis Liber, 1st ed., Leipzig 1983.

104

Marilyn B. Skinner

Insisting that  a poorly transmitted text justifies extensive surmise, he pronounces Goold’s edition ‘perhaps the best text of Catullus to date’ (68), its radical idiosyncrasies and lack of full scholarly apparatus notwithstanding. Like Mynors, Harrison thinks, both Eisenhut and T h o m s o n (5) are too willing to tolerate evident corruption; he also finds fault with the respective apparatus provided by each editor. Hence he ends with a plea for a widely-available modern text containing a full body of good conjectures in its apparatus criticus. 1. Complete Editions Four attempts to improve the complete text of Catullus, including T h o m s o n ’s 1997 edition (5), fall within the chronological scope of this survey: 14.  L. T r o m a r a s (ed.), Catulli carmina. Εισαγωγή, κείμενο, μετάφραση, σχόλια, Thessaloniki 2001. Rev.: K o r e n j a k , AAHG 55.3–4, 2002, 253; F y n t i k o g l o u , Latomus 62.3, 2003, 718–719. 15.  A. P é r e z V e g a  – A. R a m í r e z d e V e r g e r , (ed., trans., and comm.), Catulo. Poemas, Huelva 2005. 16.  J. M. T r a p p e s - L o m a x , Catullus: A Textual Reappraisal, Swansea 2007. Rev.: H e y w o r t h , BMCRev 2008.9.32; L u c k , MH 65.4, 2008, 233–234; S k i n n e r , Vergilius 54, 2008, 178–183; W h i t e , Myrtia 23, 2008, 483–485; B u t t e r f i e l d , CR n.s. 59.1, 2009, 117–120; H o l z b e r g , Gymnasium 116.4, 2009, 381–382; K i s s , CFC(L) 29.2, 2009, 227–231; T h o m s o n , Mnemosyne ser. 4 62.4, 2009, 679–685; D e t t m e r , NECJ 37.1, 2010, 212–214; M o n t o n e , Vichiana 4a ser. 12.1, 2010, 115–125. T h o m s o n (5) incorporates recent codicological research and weighs emendations, suggested or revised, that have found favor since his 1978 critical edition; a three-page table of changes from the previous text is included. Summaries of textual history and of the progress of Catullan studies from the editio princeps to the present day, the latter drawing upon G a i s s e r ’s invaluable study of the poet’s reception in the Renaissance (38), precede the revised text, along with a comprehensive table of manuscripts and a stemma codicum. While reviewers welcomed discussion of manuscript history, they found fault with the interpretive notes and bibliographies, which, they felt, paraphrased handbook knowledge and ignored recent theoretical work. T r o m a r a s (14) is the first philologically rigorous commentary on Catullus in Modern Greek. The Latin text with facing Greek translation is based on Mynors, though Tromaras prefers  a number of variant readings, printing, e.g., Lachmann’s nam nil ista valet at 6.12. Textual issues are discussed in the notes; there is no apparatus. Poems are ­accompanied by a lengthy introduction and copious interpretive comments. Reviewers commend the author’s familiarity with current scholarly issues. In addition to text, apparatus criticus, facing Spanish translation, and commentary, the edition of

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

105

P é r e z V e g a  – R a m í r e z d e V e r g e r (15) contains an introduction reviewing the ms. tradition and introducing the poet and his work; a select (but generous) bibliography; a chronological list of editions and commentaries from the 15th through the 21st centuries; a reference list of authorities cited in the apparatus; three appendices on chronology, meters, and literary terms; and an index of proper names. In their apparatus and textual choices, the editors resort to obelization far less than Mynors does and incline toward recent conjectures by English-speaking critics, printing, for example, Skutsch’s nil perstare valet at 6.12 and eine Gallia estur et Britannia? at 29.20, as suggested by H e y w o r t h (50, 90–91). Commentary on the polymetric poems and epigrams consists of  a short interpretive paragraph,  a structural outline, and a listing of recent secondary sources without annotation; line-by-line notes are provided for the longer poems. No doubt the most controversial new contribution to textual studies (although, strictly speaking, not an edition) is T r a p p e s - L o m a x ’s (16) reconsideration of Mynors’ OCT, containing a twelve-page schedule of alternative readings, many his own, for which arguments are provided in a subsequent poem-by-poem commentary. While Trappes-Lomax asks thought-provoking questions, and while his collection of previously proposed emendations is extremely handy for reference, reviewers were dismayed by his insistence on widespread interpolation in the Catullan corpus and consequent deletion of more than 70 suspect lines. Nevertheless, the attention given to his readings in Anglo-American scholarship of the last seven years (e.g. M c K i e [74]) suggests that his reappraisal has already had a considerable impact. Two older standard editions have been revised and reissued: 17.  F. W. C o r n i s h  – J. P. P o s t g a t e  – J. W. M a c k a i l (trans.), Catullus, Tibullus, Pervigilium Veneris, Loeb Classical Library, 2nd ed., rev. by G. P. G o o l d , Cambridge, MA and London 1988. Rev.: B l o c k , CW 84, 1990–1991, 256; R o b e r t s , NECN 18.3, 1990–1991, 42. 18.  G. L a f a y e (ed. and trans.), Catulle, Poésies, Société d’Éditions Les Belles Lettres, 12th printing rev. and corr. by S.  V i a r r e , Paris 1992; 13th printing, 1996. Rev.: G r a n a r o l o , REL 71, 1993, 258–259. The venerable Loeb,  a mainstay for an English speaker with small Latin, has been considerably improved. G o o l d (17) incorporates many of his preferred readings (some already printed by Mynors), into the text without comment, mentioning other conjectures in the notes. Obscene passages, previously left untranslated, are now rendered literally. V i a r r e (18), updating the 1923 Budé edited by L a f a y e , also replaces paraphrases of obscenities with frank translations, makes minor alterations to the text, revises some notes to reflect more recent scholarship, and appends a list of meters and a short bibliography. To the disappointment of the REL reviewer, however, he preserves most of Lafaye’s original readings despite the considerable amount of textual scholarship published in the interval.

106

Marilyn B. Skinner

2. Editions of Individual Poems 19.  A. A g n e s i n i , Il carme 62 di Catullo (critical ed. and comm.), Quaderni di Paideia 5, Cesena 2007. Rev.: B o r g o , BStudLat 39.1, 2009, 268–269; M a n z e l l a , Vichiana 4a ser. 11.2, 2009, 306–312. 20.  L. M o r i s i , Gaio Valerio Catullo, Attis (carmen LXIII) (introd., text, trans., and comm.), Testi e Manuali per l’Insegnamento Universitario del Latino 62, Bologna 1999. Rev.: B o l d r e r , Eikasmόs 11, 2000, 435–440; F a b r e - S e r r i s , REL 78, 2000, 274; F o r m i c o l a , BStudLat 30.1, 2000, 294–298; A r r i b a s H e r n á e z , Emerita 69.1, 2001, 155–157; C o v a , Paideia 56, 2001, 192–195; R a d i f , Maia 53.3, 2001, 701–704; R a m b a u x , REA 103.3–4, 2001, 562–563; R i c h m o n d , CR n.s. 51.2, 2001, 397–398. 21.  S. J. H a r r i s o n , Catullus 63, Text and Translation, in: Attis (172), 2–7. 22.  G. N u z z o (ed.), Gaio Valerio Catullo, Epithalamium Thetidis et Pelei (c. LXIV), introd., crit. text., trad., and notes, Hermes n.s. 3, Palermo 2003. Rev.: V i d e a u , REL 81, 2003, 340–341; A r m s t r o n g , CR n.s. 56.1, 2006, 93–95; C a s t a g n a , Aevum 80.1, 2006, 231–234. 23.  N. M a r i n o n e (crit. text, trad., and comm.), Berenice da Callimaco a Catullo, new rev. and updated ed., Bologna 1997. Rev.: F i c c a , BStudLat 28.1, 1998, 214–216; B e v e g n i , Orpheus 19–20.2, 1998–1999, 486–488; A m b ü h l , MH 56.4, 1999, 254; B u r z a c c h i n i , Eikasmόs 10, 1999, 415–419; C a r r a t e l l o , GIF 51.2, 1999, 378–379; M a g n e l l i , Prometheus 25.1, 1999, 86–87; H u n t e r , BMCRev 2000.4.24; J a c k s o n , CR n.s. 50.2, 2000, 579–580; R o c h e t t e , Latomus 59.3, 2000, 676–677; C i t t i , Lexis 21, 2003, 438–439. 24.  G. M a g g i a l i , Il carme 68 di Catullo (crit. ed. and comm.), Quaderni di Paideia 11, Cesena 2008. *25. D. K i s s , Catullus 68 Edited with a Textual and Interpretative Commentary, diss. Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa 2009. A g n e s i n i ’s critical edition of c. 62 (19) contains an introductory chapter on the structure, genre, meter, and ms. tradition, foregrounding the relationship of the ninth-century Thuaneus to the Veronensis. Text and profuse line-by-line commentary, interpretive rather than textual, are followed by chapters on Greek and Roman elements in the poem, on its particular handling of the marriage theme, and on the leitmotif of marriage (which Agnesini regards as  a key Catullan preoccupation) in the other carmina maiora. His chief departure from the orthodox text is at line 63, where he prints the reading of G and R, tertia pars patri data, pars data tertia matri; on metrical grounds, as he shows, it may well be preferable. Poem 63 presents unique textual problems, not least the fluctuation in Attis’ grammatical gender. At four points

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

107

M o r i s i (20) follows the mss. in retaining the masculine where Lachmann emended to feminine forms; otherwise he adheres fairly closely to Mynors’ text. Preliminary sections contain good introductions to the myth and the meter, though Morosi’s treatment of the poem as a psychic allegory of the Lesbia experience is unconvincing. H a r r i s o n (21) departs more drastically from Mynors in printing several bold conjectures, including Schwabe’s deplorable iuvenis in place of mulier at line 63. N u z z o ’s edition (22) is  a meaningful contribution to research on poem 64. The introduction, which takes account of much contemporary scholarly discussion, adds yet another layer of intertextuality by tracing intriguing parallels with Lycophron’s Alexandra (36–42). Having text, apparatus criticus, and notes on the same page facilitates evaluation of his readings. Some, like prora (11), Scyros (35), and Ramnusia (395), will continue to be disputed, but all are defended vigorously. M a r i n o n e (23) is an expanded edition of  a volume that received little attention when first published in 1984 but has since become a stock tool for work on c. 66. The notes, which often contain extended discussions of problems in both the Greek and the Latin texts, are quite informative; those on the ‘winged horse of Arsinoë’ (54) and on the vexed last distich (93–94) are indispensable. M a g g i a l i ’s critical edition of c. 68 (24) gives an extensive apparatus criticus listing variant readings from numerous mss. Several times the editor makes an unusual decision, for example in printing mi Alli at 11 and 30. Notes, particularly on difficult points, are comprehensive and display wide familiarity with primary and secondary sources. While I disagree with some of Maggiali’s choices, this edition should be consulted by anyone working on the poem. 3. School Editions Increasing adoption of Catullus as a school author in the United States and British educational systems has led to  a proliferation of teaching texts and handbooks;  a sampling of these is given here. 26.  L. M. K a i s e r , Catullus: Love and Hate. Selected short poems (ed. with notes and vocab.), Oak Park, IL 1986. Rev.: R e x i n e , Platon 39, 1987, 187–188; S a r k i s s i a n , CW 82, 1988, 51–52. 27.  P. Y. F o r s y t h , The Poems of Catullus: A Teaching Text, Lanham, MD 1986. Rev.: S k i n n e r , CW 80.6, 1987, 450–451. 28.  D. H.  G a r r i s o n , The Student’s Catullus (Oklahoma Series in Classical Culture 5), Norman, OK 1989. Rev.: T r a i l l , CW 84, 1990–1991, 260; Y a r d l e y , Phoenix 45, 1991, 89–90; P i e t q u i n , LEC 60, 1992, 172–173; M a y e r , CR 43, 1993, 426–427. 29.  A. T. Z a n o n i  – M. del C a r m e n C a b r e r o , Un acercamiento a Catulo a través de la crítica moderna, Bahía Blanca 1992.

108

Marilyn B. Skinner

30.  D. H. G a r r i s o n , The Student’s Catullus, 2nd ed., Norman 1995; 3rd rev. ed., Norman 2004; 4th rev. ed., Norman 2012. Rev.: To r d e u r , AC 69, 2000, 350; A r k i n s , Classics Ireland 8, 2001, 133–134. 31.  J. G o d w i n , Catullus, Poems 61–68 (ed. with intro., trans., and comm.), Warminster, 1995. Rev.: F a b r e - S e r r i s , REL 74, 1996, 338; E g u i a r t e , Augustinus 42, no. 164–165, 1997, 173; T a t h a m , Prudentia 29.2, 1997, 78–82; To r d e u r , AC 66, 1997, 430; LEC 65.2, 1997, 191; C l a r k e , CR n.s. 48.1, 1998, 192–193; S y n d i k u s , Gnomon 71.8, 1999, 726–727. 32.  –, Catullus, the shorter poems, ed. with intro., trans. and comm., Warminster 1999. Rev.: G a r r i s o n , JRS 91, 2001, 225–226; H a c k f o r d , CR n.s. 51.1, 2001, 166–167; F o s t e r , NECJ 30.1, 2003, 57–58; P a s e t t i , Lexis 21, 2003, 439–441; To r d e u r , AC 72, 2003, 386–387. 33.  R. A n c o n a , Writing Passion: A Catullus Reader, Mundelein, IL 2004; 2nd rev. ed., Mundelein 2013. 34.  H. V. B e n d e r  – P. Y. F o r s y t h , Catullus Expanded Edition, Mundelein, IL 2005. Though it is still in print, K a i s e r (26) was old-fashioned even at the time of original publication and is cited here only as a reminder of how Catullus was once taught. Designed for the beginning Latin student, its presentation of seventeen lyrics and epigrams chiefly from the Lesbia cycle, with very basic notes and vocabulary, emphasizes the poet’s sincere and direct expression of universal emotions and retells the traditional biography as straightforward fact. In contrast, F o r s y t h (27) and G a r r i s o n (28), published in the same decade, promote appreciation of the literary complexity of the corpus while issuing warnings about the gaps in our knowledge of the author and what he wrote and the necessity of maintaining a critical detachment from the poetic speaker. The handiness of the latter textbook, containing maps and appendices explaining names, meters, terms, and poetic usage as well as notes and a full Catullan lexicon, encouraged widespread adoption and further editions with additions and corrections (30); at present it is probably the reader most generally employed in the American college curriculum. The introductory textbook by Z a n o n i   – C a r m e n C a b r e r o (29) contains the first eleven poems with Spanish explanatory comments and additional notes; bibliographical items, mainly in English, are listed under the journal in which they appear. G o d w i n ’s editions (31, 32) seem intended for the advanced British student, as they have a simplified apparatus criticus but no lexicon; both incorporate a large number of Goold’s conjectures. Introductions and notes to each volume show welcome familiarity with current interpretive approaches but also expect considerable background knowledge. A n c o n a (33) and B e n d e r  – F o r s y t h (34) are examples of American secondary school textbooks produced in response to  a 1993–94 revision of the syllabus for the Advanced Placement Latin

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

109

Literature Examination given by the Educational Testing Service, which included 42 poems of Catullus in combination with selections from one of three other authors. Both readers were designed to prepare high school upper-level Latin students to earn college credit by translating passages from Catullus and answering questions about content, meter, tropes, rhetorical figures, and grammar; although the depth of information conveyed is impressive, each could be said to ‘teach to the test’, overlooking other considerations. In 2009 Catullus was removed from the AP Latin syllabus, which may have stemmed the flow of materials into an already oversaturated teaching market. C. Textual Criticism and Exegesis The apparatus criticus of Catullus Online (11) is now the most convenient resource for conjectures on specific lines and passages. The following by no means exhaustive list of representative publications on aspects of textual history, proposed solutions to notorious cruces, and longstanding interpretive dilemmas will indicate how energetic discussion has become in the last few decades. The 2011 international conference at Munich on ‘What Catullus Wrote’ (64) confirms that textual issues are re-emerging as one of the urgent concerns in the field. One crucial focus of interest is the usefulness of Mynors’ text, on which opinion remains sorely divided. 1. Textual History 35.  G. B i l l a n o v i c h , Il Catullo della Cattedrale di Verona, in: S. K r ä m e r  – M. B e r n a r d (eds.), Scire litteras = BAdW, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Abh. 99, Munich 1988, 37–52. 36.  W. L u d w i g , Kannte Lovato Catull? RhM 129, 1986, 329–359. 37.  D. S. M c K i e , Salutati, Poggio, and Codex M of Catullus, in: J. D i g g l e  – J. B. H a l l  – H. D. J o c e l y n (eds.), Studies in Latin Literature and its Tradition. In Honour of C. O. Brink. Cambridge 1989, 66–86. 38.  J. H. G a i s s e r , Catullus and His Renaissance Readers, Oxford 1993. 39.  J. L. B u t r i c a , History and Transmission of the Text, in: Companion (177), 13–34. 40.  J. H.  G a i s s e r , Catullus in the Renaissance, in: Companion (177), 438– 460. 41.  G. G. B i o n d i (ed.), Il “Liber” di Catullo: tradizione, modelli e “fortleben”, Cesena 2011 [‘Liber di Catullo’]. Rev.: B a r b a u d , REL 90, 2012, 383–384; P a l a d i n i , Vichiana 4a ser. 15.1, 2013, 66–76; C o s e n z a , BStudLat 44.2, 2014, 717–718; D u Q u e s n a y , CR 65.2, 2015, 440–442. 42.  M. B o n v i c i n i , Il Novus libellus di Catullo: trasmissione del testo, problematicità della grafia e dell’interpunzione, Cesena 2012.

110

Marilyn B. Skinner

Rev.: B a r b a u d , REL 90, 2012, 317; P a l a d i n i , Vichiana 4a ser. 15.1, 2013, 66–76; C o s e n z a , BStudLat 44.2, 2014, 719; K i s s , Gnomon 86, 2014, 746–748; H e y w o r t h , CR 65.2, 2015, 442–444. 43.  D. K i s s , Towards  a catalogue of the surviving manuscripts of Catullus, Paideia 67, 2012, 607–622. B i l l a n o v i c h (35) presents a conjectural history of the Verona codex (V), including the adventures of its predecessor ‘v’, its reception by early humanists including Petrarch, its alleged ‘repatriation’ (greeted with skepticism) as commemorated in an epigram by Benvenuto Campesani, and the circumstances under which our earliest surviving mss. O, G, and R were produced. Though his own textual history follows Billanovich’s account, T h o m s o n (5, 23–38) disagrees on a number of issues, including dates of mss., the historical reliablity of Campesani’s epigram, and the direct derivation of O from V. B u t r i c a (39, 24–32), in a discussion aimed at the general classicist, takes a more cautious position overall than either Billanovich or Thomson. L u d w i g (36) disputes the claim that the early Paduan humanist Lovato Lovati (d. 1309) knew and imitated Catullus. If so, that would anticipate the conventional date of Catullus’ rediscovery by approximately fifty years, but Ludwig’s objections to the presumed imitations are now thought to be decisive.4 M c K i e (37), whose unpublished 1977 dissertation is a significant contribution to the poet’s codicology, assesses the textual history and importance of M, the Codex (Venetus) Marcianus (Thomson no. 115, ca. 1399), and concludes that the scribe was not Poggio Bracciolini, as T h o m s o n had previously surmised (5, 35–36). G a i s s e r (38) is the most important study of Catullan reception and the earlier history of the text published in the past thirty years. After summarizing the textual history from antiquity to the first printed edition (1472), she traces the efforts made by Renaissance scholars and literary men to comprehend and correct  a highly corrupt text and assimilate its poetic content. Her chapters review the gradual progress made through the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in emending, interpreting, and commenting on Catullus and discuss imitations by Neo-Latin poets such as Giovanni Gioviano Pontano and later parodists. The debt present-day readers owe the humanists is evident throughout. Gaisser’s Oxford Readings collection (176, 305–313) contains a shortened treatment of Angelo Poliziano’s obscene interpretation of Catullus’ sparrow and negative reactions to it by Jacapo Sannazaro and Pierio Valeriano; the 2007 chapter (40) is a condensed version of her monograph. While the ten contributors to B i o n d i ’s collection (41) are mainly concerned with echoes of Catullus in later authors, ancient and modern, several also propose emendations or weigh humanist conjectures. B o n v i c i n i (42) attempts to reconstruct Catullus’ original spelling, summarizes modern editors’ approaches to orthography, and discusses traces of late antique and medieval forms of punctuation found in 4 E.g. by L. D. R e y n o l d s   – N. G. W i l s o n , Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, 3rd ed., Oxford 1991, 125: ‘the evidence for Lovato’s knowledge of Catullus…has largely dissolved’.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

111

the mss. Within the wider contexts of ms. transmission and palaeography, she outlines the vicissitudes of the Catullan text from antiquity to the Aldine edition. At the time Catullus was writing, Bonvicini then shows, there were wide variations in rendering vowels, aspirations, and consonant clusters, creating uncertainty about what form or forms the poet might have used. There is also no indication that Roman authors of his era employed the complex system of punctuation and diacritical signs invented by Alexandrian critics; apart from  a few conventional practices (the first-century BCE Gallus papyrus separates words with an interpunct, begins a verse with a more prominent letter, and indents the pentameter of an elegiac couplet), punctuation was rudimentary and comprehension of an unfamiliar text correspondingly difficult. Designed to introduce university students to these and related problems in textual criticism, this monograph fills an obvious need. K i s s (43) demonstrates the need for a detailed catalogue of all surviving Catullan manuscripts and takes a first step by describing two codices in Ferrara and Munich not listed in T h o m s o n ’s inventory (5) and a third (no. 53) that Thomson could not locate in 1997. 2. Conjectures Textual passages discussed, if not included in title, are indicated after bibliographical notice; for some but not all items supplementary comments follow the list of entries. 44.  G. W. M o s t , Catulliana (zu C. 6, 14, 55, 107), in: V. G i u f f r è (ed.), Sodalitas. Scritti in onore di Antonio Guarino. Naples 1984, 161–175. 45.  W. A. C a m p s , Notes on Catullus and Ovid, CQ n.s. 37, 1987, 519–521. At c. 67.12 read istuc populi fabula iniqua facit. 46.  W. S. W a t t , Notes on Three Latin Poets, CPh 85, 1990, 129–131. On cc. 66.72–74 and 68.89–92. 47.  B. A r k i n s , Textual Questions in Catullus, in: C. D e r o u x (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History VII, Brussels 1994, 211–226. Discussion of hiatus at cc. 11.11, 67.44, 76.10, 99.8, 114.6; alternative readings at 8.6; 36.19; 58.5; 61.40; 63.42, 45, 88 and 89; 64.35, 119, 287, 395; 66.77–78; 95.3; 107.7–8; firm defense of V’s readings over those of Mynors at 29.23; 42.4; 64.14, 37, 184, 402, 404; 68 (two poems, not one, divided at line 41); 68.145; 85.5; 112. 48.  A. E. R a d k e , Textkritische Anmerkungen zu Catull, Hermes 123, 1995, 253–256. On cc. 1.9, 2.9, 6.12, 8.4, 9.1–2, 26.1, 50.2, 51.1, 58.5, 104.4, 110.4, 110.7. 49.  J. D e l z , Zu lateinischen Dichtern, MH 55, 1998, 60–64. On c. 64. 343–344. 50.  S. J. H a r r i s o n  – S. J. H e y w o r t h , Notes on the Text and Interpretation of Catullus, PCPhS 44, 1998, 85–109. On cc. 2, 10, 14, 29, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 44, 45, 50, 55, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 84. 51.  H. J a c o b s o n , Notes on Catullus, Mnemosyne ser. iv, 55, 2002, 92–94. On cc. 12.4–5, 46.4–5, 47.1, 62.9.

112

Marilyn B. Skinner

52.  R. O. A. M. L y n e , Notes on Catullus, CQ n.s. 52, 2002, 600–608 (= Collected Papers on Latin Poetry [Oxford 2007] 283–292). On cc. 10, 28, 30, 34, 61 (and 68, and others). 53.  W. S. W a t t , Notes on Catullus, ZPE 131, 2000, 65–68. On cc. 2, 6.5–17, 14.4–15, 37.11–14, 64.110–111, 66.11–17, 66.75–78, 84.5–6, 89.1–4. 54.  G. C. G i a r d i n a , Contributi di critica testuale. Da Catullo alla Historia Augusta, Rome 2003. On cc. 3.13–18; 55.1–10; 116.1–2; 44.1; 68.1–40; 97.3; 8.15–18; 107.7–8; 55.2, 9.  55.  A. R a m í r e z d e V e r g e r , Five critical notes on Catullus, ExClass 8, 2004, 39–48. On cc. 1.2, 66.15, 68.145, 68.157, 115.5. 56.  J. D i g g l e , On the Text of Catullus, MD 57, 2006, 85–104. On cc. 2.1–10; 36.1–10; 44.10–21; 62.20–22, 26–29, 39–58b; 63.6–7, 50–54, 69, 74–75. 57.  F. B e l l a n d i , Appendice II: Il carme 10 e il problema esegetico-testuale dei versi 9–13, in: Lepos e Pathos (164), 403–414. 58.  K. M. K o k o s z k i e w i c z , Catullus 14b, 16, 41, 43, 55, 58B: Adnotationes criticae, Mnemosyne ser. iv, 60, 2007, 608–627. Inserts c. 14b into c. 16 and unites cc. 55 and 58b; offers several other conjectures on c. 55. 59.  –, Catullus 10.27; 14.14; 40.1: Critica Minora, AAntHung 47, 2007, 433–435. 60.  E. C o u r t n e y , Notes on Catullus and the “Appendix Vergiliana”, MD 59, 2008, 185–188. In 63.74–75 read geminas deae usque ad aures. 61.  D. J. B u t t e r f i e l d , Three Catullan Emendations, Emerita 78, 2010, 67–76. On cc. 36.9 (read duxit for vidit); 51.8; 62.15 (direximus for divisimus). 62.  G. C. G i a r d i n a , Contributi di critica testuale II. Da Catullo  a Shakespeare, Pisa and Rome 2012. Previously published notes on cc. 68.10, 46.3, 64.92, 1.9–10 and a new chapter proposing several emendations to 68 as well as to 6.8, 16–17; 8.9; 27.2, 4; 31.11; 45.7–8; 61.46–47, 51–52; 63.82; 66.55; 68.68–69, 145–146, 158; 87.3–4; 109.1–2. 63.  J. M. T r a p p e s - L o m a x , Further Thoughts on Catullus, Paideia 67, 2012, 633–645. 64.  D. K i s s (ed.), What Catullus Wrote: Problems in Textual Criticism, Editing and the Manuscript Tradition, Swansea 2015. Pronouncing a ‘Platonic’, i. e. definitive, text of Catullus ‘out of the question’ (211), A r k i n s (47) attempts to show that Mynors can nevertheless be used as a working text if particular passages are re-examined. In twenty passages discussed, alternatives to Mynors’ readings are tentatively offered for consideration; in twelve other passages, the proposed emendation is pronounced correct. With its clear explanations and commonsense approach to textual corruption, this is an excellent reading assignment for undergraduates and graduate students, but the instructor should be sure to point out that it contains numerous typos, especially in proper names (both ‘Quin’ and ‘Minors’ on p. 214). Platonic texts are indeed not to be found in this world.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

113

H a r r i s o n  – H e y w o r t h (50) pay tribute to a homonymous ground-breaking article by Robin Nisbet5 and revisit some of the passages Nisbet examines. Note­worthy proposals include Heyworth’s suggestion to unite 2 and 2b, his endorsement of taking continuo at 14.14 as adverbial, and his response to G r a t w i c k (655) on c. 45, along with Harrison’s suggestion of estur at 20.20 and their mutual attempt to repair c. 55. At the end the authors supply a handy list of their previous published conjectures on Catullus. L y n e (52) credits Don Fowler with the unpublished conjecture Romulam at 34.22 and provides further support; that reading has since been endorsed by T r a p p e s - L o m a x (16, 99). G i a r d i n a (54) is  a collection of textual articles originally published in Museum Criticum, five of which deal with Catullus. Both he and Goold independently propose aufertis…? for †avelte† at c. 55.9 (5). R a m í r e z d e V e r g e r (55) defends five of the readings from his forthcoming edition (now 15). D i g g l e (56) follows Nisbet in construing desiderio meo at 2.5 as ‘longing for me’ (cf. H e y w o r t h [50, 85]); at 6 he suggests castum instead of carum. His correction of 63.54 directly responds to H e y w o r t h (50, 104), which itself continues a conversation with Nisbet. Taking ipsis with praetoribus, B e l l a n d i (57) reads hic for nec in line 10. In support of three conjectures K o k o s z k i e w i c z (59) assumes palaeographical confusion between the letters D (or ID) and M, e.g. at c. 40.1, where V offers dens, corrected in R 2 to mens. At 68.68 G i a r d i n a (62, 228) reads thalamum for V’s dominam vs. Fröhlich’s dominae and in the next line in quo for ad quam, thereby cutting the Gordian knot. T r a p p e s - L o m a x ’s abstract (63) neatly summarizes: ‘The article updates the author’s Catullus: A Textual Reappraisal (Swansea 2007 [16]). Some conjectures are reattributed; some arguments are reinforced; some recommended readings are changed: 2,5–8; 10,34; 29,16; 31,5; 36,15; 42,15–22; 50,21; 62,53; 63,90; 64,164; 64,192; 64,206; 64,210; 64,287; 66,43; 66,55; 68A,3; 68B,77–78; 96, 3–4’. K i s s (64) contains an introduction and six substantially revised papers originally presented at a 2011 conference ‘What Catullus Wrote’ held at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich.6 The express aim of the conference was to set an example of  a collaborative approach to textual criticism in which choices are based upon scholarly debate rather than left to the judgment of a sole authoritative editor. Kiss’ introduction (xiii–xxx, with 8 plates) offers a short overview of the textual transmission incorporating the latest discoveries. His own paper (Chap. 1, 1–27) investigates three additional problems in the ms. history: the identity of the Codex Veronensis described in Benvenuto dei Campesani’s epigram; the source value of the codices recentiores; and the causes of extensive corruption in the Catullan manuscripts. By comparing corruptions in the text of Catullus 62 already present in the ninth-century Codex Thuaneus 5 R. N i s b e t , Notes on the Text and Interpretation of Catullus, PCPhS 24, 1978, 92–115 (= Collected Papers on Latin Literature, Oxford 1995, 76–100). 6 O. P o r t u e s e , What Catullus Wrote. An international conference on the poems of C. Valerius Catullus: München, Center for Advanced Studies LMU, 20–21 maggio 2011, BStudLat 44, 2011, 762–767, provides a detailed report on this conference including a précis of each presentation.

114

Marilyn B. Skinner

with those appearing only later in OGR, Kiss shows that incorrect readings are not superficial and have accumulated gradually over the centuries. Two other chapters apply specific methodological principles to working with the text. In revisiting the precepts of Giorgio Pasquali, G. G. B i o n d i (Chap. 2, 29–52) distinguishes between scripta lectio and impressa lectio, a reading attested for the first time in a printed edition, which may go back to an earlier scribal variant. S. J. H e y w o r t h (Chap. 6, 129–155) studies changes of speaker in the four Catullan dialogue poems (cc. 10, 45, 62, 67). He finds that errors in transmission can be caused by repeated elements, agrees with prior proposals that the first couplet of c. 67 should be reassigned to the close of c. 66 (see A g n e s i n i [894]), and offers a detailed exegesis of c. 62. The remaining three chapters discuss contributions made by Pontano, Heinsius, and Baehrens and Housman. The volume also contains an index of Catullus’ surviving mss. and an index of mss. and annotated copies. 3. Textual Exegesis 65.  E. C o u r t n e y , Three Poems of Catullus, BICS 32, 1985, 85–100 [‘Three Poems’]. 66.  D. W. T. V e s s e y , Some thoughts inspired by Bergk’s emendation gaudente in Catullus 31.13, BICS 32, 1985, 101–108. 67.  W. C l a u s e n , Catulliana, in: N. H o r s f a l l (ed.), Vir Bonus Discendi Peritus, Supp. 51, BICS 35, 1988, 13–17. 68.  S. J. H a r r i s o n , Mythological incest: Catullus 88, CQ 46.2, 1996, 581–582. 69.  H.  T r ä n k l e , Exegetische Quisquilien zu Catulls 64. Gedicht, MH 54, 1997, 115–124. 70.  H. D. J o c e l y n , Catullus, Mamurra and Romulus cinaedus, Sileno 25, 1999, 97–113. 71.  F. C a i r n s , Catullus 45: text and interpretation, CQ 55.2, 2005, 534–541. 72.  I. T a r , Vergleich als vollständiges Gedicht? (Catull c. 2a), in: Studia Catulliana (174), 39–43. 73.  F. B e l l a n d i , Chap. 4: Lettura dei carmi 1, 16, 36, 95, in: Lepos e Pathos (164), 97–163. 74.  D. S. M c K i e , Notes on the Text of Catullus, in: Interpretation (165), 1–190. C o u r t n e y (65) discusses possible Sapphic echoes in c. 62, including the Greek origin of noli pugnare duobus (739); posits that Hellenistic epigrams on the encounter of a Gallus with a lion may have inspired c. 63 (752); and remarks that the com­ positional schemes of cc. 66, 64, 17, 4, and 68a and 68b are based on mathematically corresponding patterns (941). More epistemological meditation than exegesis, V e s s e y ’s article (66) warns that the choice of a textual reading, when affected by the editor’s desire to understand the poem in a certain way, may foreclose other interpretive

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

115

options. C l a u s e n (67) unpacks the subtexts of two Catullan addresses, Marrucine Asini (12.1) and O funde noster (44.1), and pinpoints the unusual aspects of Minotauro at c. 64.79, picked up by Vergil at Aen. 6.26. Mythological reference to the incestuous divinities Oceanus and Tethys, according to H a r r i s o n (68), suits an epigram accusing Gellius of incest with all his female kin. T r ä n k l e (69) tries to clarify four passages in c. 64: lines 204–206, 267–277, 320–322, and 382–383. J o c e l y n (70) proposes that cinaede Romule at 29.9 is directed neither at Caesar or Pompey, nor at the ordinary Roman citizen, but rather at a hypothetical public image of Rome’s founder popularly supposed to resemble an Oriental dancer. C a i r n s (71) returns to the sneeze problem, dismissing both G r a t w i c k ’s idea of a Greek calque (655) and H e y w o r t h ’s revival (50, 96–97) of Scaliger’s conjecture amans at 45.8; he endorses Baehrens’ explanation of sinistra ante as a technical term in augury or land measurement and reads, with him, et for ut and dextram in the identical lines 8–9 and 17–18. B e l l a n d i (73) offers a continuous commentary on the poems mentioned in his title. Among other intriguing ideas, he proposes that his pilosis (16.10) refers to Furius and Aurelius themselves and that the electissima…scripta of 36.6–7 means that Lesbia has vowed to sacrifice Catullus’ love poetry, not his iambics. In contrast to the pessimism of H a r r i s o n (13) and T r a p p e s - L o m a x (16), M c K i e (74, 44–45 n. 152, 167) believes corruption in the text of Catullus, though extensive, is ‘largely superficial’ and that significant progress has been made since Mynors’ 1958 edition. His ambitious inquiry tackles many key passages still requiring attention, listed in an index of readings at the back of the volume. In keeping with his claim that textual criticism is ultimately the interpretation of an author (vii), one appealing feature of his discussions is sensitive attention to the unfolding of the poet’s thought both logically and imaginatively. Thus he is able to offer valuable exegetical comments, especially on the longer poems cc. 63, 64, and 66. Because of his interest in recent proposals, McKie’s study can be usefully consulted alongside that of Trappes-Lomax, who offers a larger history of past emendations. D. Commentaries 75.  H.-P. S y n d i k u s , Catull: Eine Interpretation. Erster Teil: Die kleinen Gedichte (1–60), Impulse der Forschung 46, Darmstadt 1984. Rev.: G r a n a r o l o , REL 65, 1987, 325–326; N e c h a t o v á , SPFB E32, 1987, 179–180; T r a i n a , Paideia 42, 1987, 283–285; K u ť á k o v á , LF 111, 1988, 234–235; N i s b e t , JRS 78, 1988, 218; W ó j c i k , Eos 77, 1989, 147–150; S c h o o n h o v e n , GB 19, 1993, 263–267. 76.  –, Catull: Eine Interpretation. Dritter Teil: Die Epigramme (69–116), Impulse der Forschung 48, Darmstadt 1987. 77.  –, Catull: Eine Interpretation. Zweiter Teil: Die großen Gedichte (61–68), Impulse der Forschung 55, Darmstadt 1990. Rev.: E i s e n h u t , Gnomon 64, 1992, 224–227.

116

Marilyn B. Skinner

78.  –, Catull: Eine Interpretation, vols. I–III, special ed. with biblio. suppl. in vol. III. Darmstadt 2001. Rev.: L o b e , Gymnasium 109.6, 2002, 537; M a l e u v r e , LEC 70.4, 2002, 417–418; To r d e u r , AC 72, 2003, 387–388; D e l a u n o i s , RBPh 83.1, 2005, 205–206. 79.  C. J. F o r d y c e (ed.), Catullus: a commentary, 7th repr., Oxford 1990. Rev.: G r a n a r o l o , REL 68, 1990, 207; D e h o n , Latomus 52, 1993, 930. 80.  K. Q u i n n , Catullus: A Commentary, 2nd ed., rpt. Bristol 1996. S y n d i k u s intended his three volumes of commentary (75, 76, 77) as  a reliable introduction to the corpus based upon traditional philological methods. Instead of remarks on consecutive lines or passages, he offers  a continuous explanation of each poem in succession. Consequently he is able to discuss its technical features – structure, language, meter – within a unifying thematic scheme that also takes into account the generic background and the historical context. Citations of primary and secondary literature are for the most part confined to footnotes. The opening section of volume I summarizes major issues: biographical data and social circumstances, Lesbia as poetic representation, the literary tradition and its later development, the controversy over authorial arrangement, and the formal aspects of Catullan genres. For the most part Syndikus follows the communis opinio; his own views are sensible and pragmatic. In 2001 the three volumes were conveniently reissued with an updated bibliography (78). The commentaries of F o r d y c e (79) and Q u i n n (80) republished in the 1990s are paperback reprints with no changes to content.

II. General Studies 1. C. Valerius Catullus

A. Biography and Prosopography

81.  T. P. W i s e m a n , Catullus, His Life and Times, rev. of F. Stoessl, C. Valerius Catullus: Mensch, Leben, Dichtung (1977), JRS 79, 1979, 161–168. DOI: 10.2307/299066. 82.  –, Catullus and His World: A Reappraisal, Cambridge 1985. Rev.: C a i r n s , TLS 84, 1985, 1245; G r a n a r o l o , REL 63, 1985, 308–311; F o r s y t h , Phoenix 40, 1986, 220–223; F o w l e r , G&R 33, 1986, 89; C o n n o r , AUMLA 68, 1987, 306–308; G ó m e z i P a l l a r è s , Faventia 9.1, 1987, 123–127; S y n d i k u s , JRS 77, 1987, 247–250; To r d e u r , AC 56, 1987, 365–366; To w n e n d , CR 37, 1987, 13–15; B l o d g e t t   – N i e l s e n , AC 57, 1988, 290–295; G i l u l a , Athenaeum 66, 1988, 248–249; Z e t z e l , CPh 83, 1988, 80–84; D e e , CW 82, 1988–1989, 465–466; G r a n a r o l o , Latomus 48, 1989, 449–451.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

117

Declining interest in author-centered approaches to literature has caused  a corresponding drop in the biographical scholarship so popular during the first half of the twentieth century. K o n s t a n (10) correctly notes that naïve attempts to extract such data from Catullus’ poems, once an orthodox preoccupation of researchers, have been ‘superseded’. Much of the credit for discouraging that approach, at least among Anglo-American academics, belongs to W i s e m a n (81), who demonstrated its methodological futility before successfully showing, as an alternative, what can be learned through the legitimate practices of social history. His monograph (82), the culmination of that research trajectory, is without doubt the most influential study of Catullus produced in the last three decades. The first chapter (1–14), which draws attention to the alien elements in the poet’s cultural environment, its cruelty and frank sexuality, has achieved classic status in its own right (reprinted in Oxford Readings [176], 343–355). Situating Catullus within the realities of his own time and place, Wiseman emphasized the importance of the family’s financial and business connections and traced out in the poetry a complex of attitudes that had all but passed unnoticed: concern with traditional values, pride in Transpadane origins, and sensitivity to innocence. He then proposed a sequential reading of the Lesbia poems as narrative based on the assumption that Catullus himself had ordered the entire collection. Lastly, he identified the poet with  a mime writer Catullus known from Imperial sources, citing Cic. Fam. 7.11.3, an apparent reference to the mimes of sodalem nostrum Valerium (82, 188–189, 192–193). Though it merits consideration, this last suggestion has generally been dismissed. Reviewers disagreed with other claims too, such as Wiseman’s insistence upon authorial arrangement and upon public performance of the longer poems, and some questioned the methodological validity of treating artistic works as reflections of topical reality, however refracted. Under the growing influence of the cultural studies movement, however, the latter strategy has become more acceptable. Hence Wiseman’s monograph can be said to have sparked off the historicizing treatments, so popular today, that examine Catullus in the context of larger Roman discursive networks, ethnic, linguistic, political, rhetorical, and sociocultural. Those investigations will be described below. The same researcher’s pioneering contributions to the prosopography of the Valerii Catulli and the history of their estate at Sirmio have also shaped subsequent trends: 83.  T. P. W i s e m a n , The Masters of Sirmio, in: Roman Studies (160), 307–372. 84.  –, Sirmio, Sir Ronald, and the Gens Valeria, CJ 88.3, 1993, 223–229. 85.  –, The Valerii Catulli of Verona, in: Companion (177), 57–71. In c. 31.12 Catullus styles himself the erus of Sirmio, implying that his family held title to the entire peninsula. It was a highly desirable property and one no owners would be likely to let go. The wealth and increasing eminence of the Valerii Catulli in the first century CE, culminating in the ascendency of L. Valerius Catullus Messallinus, confidential advisor to the emperor Domitian, makes it likely that the great imperial-age

118

Marilyn B. Skinner

villa overlooking the Lago di Garda, its ruins known today as the Grotte di Catullo, belonged to them. W i s e m a n ’s two accounts of the family (83 and 85, a condensed version), whose territorial connections were widespread and whose descendants can be traced through inscriptions into the third century CE, are at the same time chronicles of this ancestral estate. His brief prosopographical essay (84) shows the density of kinship links among branches of the Valerian gens, including the Valerii Catulli, during the early Imperial period. Other studies dealing with Catullus’ background and geographical milieu include: 86.  A. C o r s o , Ambiente e monumenti della Cisalpina in Catullo, AN 57, 1986, 577–592. 87.  R. V e r d i è r e , Catulle était-il d’ascendance celtique?, Latomus 46, 1987, 188–190. 88. E. B u c h i , Porta Leoni e la fondazione di Verona romana, MusPat 5, 1987, 13–45. 89.  F. D e l l a C o r t e , I carmi veronesi di Catullo, Maia 41.3, 1989, 229–234. 90.  N. C r i n i t i (ed.), Catullo e Sirmione: società e cultura della Cisalpina alle soglie dell’impero, Brescia 1994 [‘Catullo e Sirmione’]. Rev.: A l b a s i , InvLuc 15–16, 1993–1994, 333–335; V i p a r e l l i S a n t a n g e l o , BStudLat 24, 1994, 672–673; D e f l o r i o , RCCM 37,1995, 311–315; W i s e m a n , JRS 85, 1995, 281–282. 91.  E. R o f f i a , Sirmione in età romana, in: Catullo e Sirmione (90), 111–131. 92.  L. W a t s o n , Catullus, inurbanitas, and the Transpadanes, in: Lepos  e mores (179), 151–169. From local references in the poems, C o r s o (86) concludes that Cisalpine Gaul, already romanized to some degree, was, in Catullus’ eyes, affiliated with the rest of Italy, though the poet alludes to its special geographical features. Efforts to discover a Celtic ancestry for Catullus have often been made (especially by Celts); V e r d i è r e (87) suggests that both his nomen and his cognomen, despite their Roman appearance, may be of Celtic derivation. B u c h i (88) dates the Veronese inscription CIL V.3434 (= AE 1987.450) recording the erection of a city wall, gates, and other amenities by decree of  a board of quattorviri to 49 BCE or immediately thereafter. He suggests (41–42) that Caesar, while proconsul, already might have authorized leading men acting as unofficial magistrates to undertake such a project even before Verona became  a municipium in 49. On that assumption he identifies the first name on the inscription, P. Valerius C. F., with Catullus’ father, whose cognomen, presumably also Catullus, would fit perfectly into the lacunae in the first and seventh line.7 The elder Catullus’ wealth and friendship with Caesar justify his position as one of the two senior magistrates. Accepting Buchi’s suggestion, D e l l a C o r t e (89) integrates 7 See, however, C a v a l i e r i M a n a s s e (610), another epigraphical attestation of  a P. Valerius, which came to my attention too late to be included at this point in the survey.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

119

the poems written at Verona into that political background, assigning them to two periods: after the death of Catullus’ brother (58 BCE?), and during the years between his return from Bithynia and his death, when he came home to visit. C r i n i t i (90) is a collection of papers and lectures delivered at a 1993 conference on the poet and his environment held at Sirmio. The most exciting contribution is that of R o f f i a , who reports the recent archaeological discovery of  a first-century BCE dwelling, similarly oriented, beneath room 88 of the Imperial-age villa (91, 128). Identified as a triclinium, that older room may have been the very setting in which Catullus’ father entertained Caesar. W a t s o n (92) argues that Catullus distances himself throughout his poems from his home territory, which he regards as provincial and unsophisticated. Although Catullus names  a great number of contemporary individuals in his poems, resorting to prosopography in order to determine his political views produces indecisive results. 93.  Y. B e n f e r h a t , Catulle et les affrontements politico-littéraires à Rome à la fin de la République, in: Présence de Catulle (173), 131–148. B e n f e r h a t (93) reviews the public careers and literary pursuits, if any, of those lesser-known persons whom Catullus mentions and concludes that problems of identification along with indeterminacy of motive and lack of firm chronology limit understanding of his political position. One last factual query: when did Catullus die? 94.  M. B. S k i n n e r , Catullus in Verona: A Reading of the Elegiac Libellus, Poems 65–116, Columbus, OH 2003. Rev.: H o l z b e r g , IJCT 11.4, 2004–2005, 654–658; G a l e , CR n.s. 55.2, 2005, 511–514. 95.  K. H a m m o n d , Lost Voices in the Poetry of Catullus: A Study in Persona and Politics, diss. Open University 2006 (PDF available at https://www.academia. edu/562160/Lost_Voices_in_the_Poetry_of_Catullus_A_Study_in_Persona_ and_Politics) [‘Lost Voices’] The date of death usually given, 54 BCE, is a correction of an obviously erroneous notice in Jerome made plausible by lack of any unambiguous reference in the poems to events later than that year. From time to time scholars have questioned it, citing either an allusion in c. 52.3 to Vatinius’ actual, rather than promised, consulship of 47 BCE or the emphatic repetition Pharsalum…Pharsalia tecta at c. 64.37, supposedly a pointed recollection of Caesar’s victory at Pharsalus in 48 BCE. In 1985 (82, 191) W i s e m a n , presuming the accuracy of Jerome’s testimony to age at death (Catullus XXX aetatis anno Romae moritur, Chron. 154H), was ready to accept 82–53, 81–52, or 80–51 as possible life spans. Yet his 1987 treatment of the Valerii Catulli and their villa implicitly raised another provocative point: why did the line not become extinct upon Catullus’ demise (85, 349)? Paternal adoption or remarriage, though hypothetically possible, appear unlikely. Noting that the poet was a son still in potestate

120

Marilyn B. Skinner

(Suet. Div. Iul. 73), S k i n n e r (94) proposed that after losing his brother he might have yielded to family obligation, returning to Verona to marry and have children. W i s e m a n too now finds that credible (85). Independently of Skinner, H a m m o n d (95, 72) surmised a time span from 87 to 46 BCE, with Catullus being a iuvenis of 41 at death. Other recent studies concede that the 54 BCE date is no longer firm (M a l e u v r e [284, 15–16, 231–240]; H o l z b e r g [241, 18]; H u t c h i n s o n [182, 208]; K o n s t a n [285, 72]; P é r e z V e g a [ 15, 26–27]; D u Q u e s n a y in: Poems, Books, Readers [178, 160 n. 38, cf. 262]). Willingness to entertain doubts on this point seems to accompany the growing tendency to situate the poems within their historical and cultural context. Finally,  a few representative items that still assume the traditional biography or treat the poetry as a confessional expression of feeling. *96.  M. C a n c r o , Catullo attraverso i suoi carmi, Euresis 1985: 49–55. 97.  R. Th. v a n d e r P a a r d t , Catullus in analyse, Lampas 20, 1987, 237–251 [in Dutch]. 98.  G. D ’A n n a , La concezione etica dell’ultimo Catullo. Catullo e Sirmione (48), 47–52. 99.  A. B u r l , Catullus. A Poet in the Rome of Julius Caesar, with a selection of poems transl. by Humphrey Clucas, New York and London 2004. 100.  O. S e r s , Le roman de Catulle: poésies complètes, émendées, trad., mises en ordre, commentées et romancées, Paris 2004. V a n d e r P a a r t (97) believes Catullus fits the pattern of erotic attachment described in Freud’s essay ‘Über einen besonderen Typus der Objectwahl beim Manne’ (not an original observation), finds castration imagery in the last stanza of c. 11, and sees in Attis (c. 63) a projection of Catullus’ own unconscious (homosexual?) anxieties. Through his admission of adultery in c. 68 and his appeal for a permanent foedus in c. 109, the poet expresses, according to D ’A n n a (98), a deepening ethical consciousness. B u r l ’s full-length biography, padded with many digressions, is long on imagination, short on accuracy; one is bemused to read that ‘Catullus almost disappeared as a poet when copies of his poetry on their dry papyrus rolls were destroyed in the burning of the famous library at Alexandria in 47 BC’ (99, 4). Meanwhile the title of S e r s ’ volume (100) says it all: a florid prose retelling of the Catullroman accompanies the poems, translated and grouped according to the editor’s own chronology. 2. Clodia Metelli W i s e m a n ’s reservations about identifying ‘Lesbia’ with Clodia Metelli, as opposed to either of her two sisters (82, 136), were influential when they were first broached in 1969 but the communis opinio seems to be swinging back in favor of the traditional view. While scholarly accounts from the 1980s and early 1990s adhere to the com­ posite picture of Clodia / Lesbia as degenerate aristocrat, present-day discussions in-

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

121

creasingly receive Cicero’s allegations in the Pro Caelio with a great degree of mistrust and define Catullus’ sketch of his unfaithful mistress as a generic topos. 101.  T. W. H i l l a r d , Republican Politics, Women, and the Evidence, Helios 16, 1989, 165–182. 102.  G. A g n e l o t t i   – E. S t e l l a , Clodia: la nemica di Cicerone, Florence 1991. 103.  G. A n t o n e l l i , Clodia, Terenzia, Fulvia: Tre donne, tre matrone romane dell’età tardo-repubblicana, tre diversi tentativi di emancipazione femminile, I volti della storia 18, Florence 1996. 104.  E. C a n t a r e l l a , Passato Prossimo. Donne romane da Tacita a Sulpicia, Milan 1996. Rev.: S e r v o d i o , InvLuc 17, 1995, 231–232; S a l v a d o r e , RFIC 124, 1996, 475–483. 105.  G. E. F. C h i l v e r  – R. J. S e a g e r , Clodia (RE 66), OCD 3rd ed., 1996, 350; 4th ed., 2012, 336. 106.  R. D. G r i f f i t h , The Eyes of Clodia Metelli, Latomus 55, 1996, 381–383. 107.  H. S t e g m a n n , Clodia, DNP 1997, vol. III, 36. 108.  S. D i x o n , Reading Roman Women: Sources, Genres and Real Life, London 2001. Rev.: H u g h e s , Mouseion ser. 3, vol. 1, 2001, 83–87; B l i g h , Prudentia 34, 2002, 238–239; M o l i n i e r - A r b ò , REL 80, 2002, 366–367; S c h e e r , Plekos 4, 2002, 85–90; M c M a n u s , JRS 93, 2003, 308–309; O ’ B r i e n , Classics Ireland 10, 2003, 102–107. 109.  A. M. R i g g s b y , Clodius / Claudius, Historia 51, 2002, 117–123. 110.  M. K u n t h , Sexualisierung einer Frauen-Biografie – Zu Ciceros Angriffen gegen Clodia Metelli (56 v. Chr.), Munich 2006. 111.  M. M c C o y , The Politics of Prostitution: Clodia, Cicero, and Social Order in the Late Roman Republic, in: C. A. F a r o n e  – L. K. M c C l u r e (eds.), Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World, Madison, WI 2006, 177–185. 112.  J. D. H e j d u k , Clodia: A Sourcebook, Oklahoma Series in Classical Culture 33, Norman 2008. Rev.: V e r s t r a e t e , BMCRev 2008.09.41; W h i t e , CR n.s. 62.1, 2012, 316–317, DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X11004082. 113.  M. B. S k i n n e r , Clodia Metelli: The Tribune’s Sister, Oxford 2011. Rev.: G l e n d e n n i n g , BMCRev 2011.07.50; H a m m o n d , JRS 102, 2012, 318–319; V a n d e r B l o m , CR 62, 2012, 582–583, DOI: 10.1017/S0009840 X1200114X.

122

Marilyn B. Skinner

The second chapter of W i s e m a n ’s Catullus and His World (82, 15–53) attempts to substantiate Cicero’s attack by presenting the historical Clodia as a typical member of the gens Claudia, arrogant and indifferent to public opinion. In Cicero and other late Republican witnesses, H i l l a r d (101) maintains, images of women exercising authority and influence are rhetorical tropes designed to impute weakness to male kin and not independent evidence for the power of noblewomen like Clodia. A g n e l o t t i  – S t e l l a (102), a popular biography lacking scholarly documentation, purports to deal with relations between Clodia and Cicero. In actuality, it sketches a flamboyant portrait of its subject against a wide-ranging, though episodic and non-linear, political backdrop. Clodia is presented as intelligent, educated, sensitive and artistic, a courageous rebel against the constraints of society who chooses to live authentically, receiving ‘nourishment, energy, and spirituality’ (185) from her love affairs. For this she is ultimately destroyed by Cicero, the embodiment of orthodoxy, who is motivated perhaps as much by envy of her autonomy as by the threat she poses to patriarchal mores. Shaped by a cursory acquaintance with feminism and vague recollections of the fin de siècle ‘New Woman’, this stereotype is hardly an advance over the ‘degenerate aristocrat’ cliché. Also intended for the general reader, A n t o n e l l i ’ s volume (103, 111–116) profiles Clodia, ‘la licenziosa Lesbia di Catullo’, along with her contemporaries Terentia and Fulvia, as three distinct examples of Roman women seeking emancipation (in the modern sense). Unlike the previous authors, Antonelli thinks Clodia’s infidelities were always subordinated to her ambition and thirst for power. He is inclined to accept the truth of all the sexual charges Cicero levels at her, even incest, although he balks at her poisoning her husband. While C a n t a r e l l a too (104, 113–126) regards Clodia as ‘una ribelle’ against the deportment expected of widows, she warns that Catullus’ hostile descriptions of her are provoked by thwarted passion and that Cicero’s primary aim in blackening her character was to get his client acquitted. S e a g e r ’s 1996 revision of C h i l v e r ’s short OCD article (105) carefully notes rumor and gossip, though it accepts the affairs with Catullus and Caelius as fact; the entry in the fourth edition (2012), otherwise unchanged, adds a single bibliographical item. G r i f f i t h (106) plausibly suggests that the orator’s public references to her oculi…flagrantes (Har. Resp. 38) and flagrantia…oculorum (Cael. 49) insinuate sexual immorality. S t e g m a n n (107) observes that a Roman matron might associate publicly with other men for political and literary, not erotic, motives. D i x o n (108, 133–156) analyses generic elements in the hybrid literary construction of ­Clodia / Lesbia and surveys scholarly and popular readings in an effort to determine why the stereotype remains so attractive. R i g g s b y (109) marshals new linguistic research to show that P. Clodius Pulcher adopted an already widespread pronunciation of his gentilicium to curry popular favor; his sisters were so designated because of their close ties with him. K u n t h (110) posits that Clodia, as a widow formerly in a manus-marriage, enjoyed a degree of freedom from tutelage that enabled her to act independently of agnate oversight while rewarding, with funds and useful contacts, the iuvenes barbatuli who supported her brother Publius. It is this behind-the-scenes political activity that laid her open to defamation.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

123

For M c C o y (111), Cicero’s assimilation of Clodia to a meretrix is parallel to his earlier depiction of Verres in thrall to his mistress Chelidon: in both cases control by a meretrix inverts the social order. H e j d u k ’s sourcebook (112) presents all the surviving ancient texts referring to Clodia, including Catullus’ Lesbia poems, in an accessible English translation, along with selections from love elegy and epigram constituting her ‘legacy’. S k i n n e r ’s biography of Clodia (113) seeks to contextualize evidence from primary sources and weigh the reliability of contemporary historical testimony. She argues that in addition to casting Clodia as  a whore and murderess, Cicero successfully tapped into longstanding public resentment of wealthy women to bias jurors against her. Meanwhile, Cicero and Catullus cannot be taken as independent witnesses to her conduct, since it is possible that Catullus based his construction of Lesbia on Cicero’s ‘Palatine Medea’. In the end, Skinner concludes, Clodia Metelli differed from other prosperous female aristocrats of her era only in manifesting  a remarkable degree of public support for the political career of her youngest brother. 3. Juventius 114.  L. T r o m a r a s , Catull  – Interpretationen: Die Aurelius-, Furius- und Iuventius-Gedichte, Thessalonika 1984. 115.  C. E. M u r i e l  – F. S. V e n t u r a , Veronae amantes: Catullus et Juventius, in: G. P e r e i r a M e n a u t G e r a r d (ed.), Actas del I Congreso peninsular de historia antiqua, Santiago de Compostela 1988, vol. III, 61–78. 116.  W. S t r o h , Lesbia und Juventius: Ein erotisches Liederbuch im Corpus Catullianum, in: P. N e u k a m (ed.), Die Antike als Begleiterin. Klassische Sprachen und Literaturen 24, Munich 1990, 134–158. 117.  U. C a r r a t e l l o , Catullo e Giovenzio, GIF 47, 1995, 27–52. 118.  J. W. B e c k , ‘Lesbia’ und ‘Juventius’: Zwei libelli im Corpus Catullianum, Hypomnemata 111, Göttingen 1996. Rev.: M a l e u v r e , LEC 66, 1998, 173; To r d e u r , AC 67, 1998, 347–348; K o s t e r , Gymnasium 106, 1999, 255–257; H o l z b e r g , CR 50.2, 2000, 436–437. 119.  S. H a w k i n s , Catullus’ Furius, CPh 106.3, 2011, 254–260. Questions of Juventius’ reality/identity still preoccupy researchers, though not as much as formerly. T r o m a r a s (114, 13) approaches the cycle of poems (see 194) featuring the boy and his suitors Furius and Aurelius as scenarios in which living acquaintances are cast in dramatic situations framed by literary tradition. M u r i e l  – V e n t u r a (115, 72) propose a connection with the Juventii known from inscriptions as a leading Veronese family; they accept as plausible the suggestion that the young man was in Rome completing his education and regard his involvement with Catullus as an instance of elite Roman adoption of a Greek lifestyle. S t r o h believes cc. 15 through 26 constitute the last part of a single erotically-themed libellus; in his view the boy was not a freeborn citizen, with whom a sexual relationship would consti-

124

Marilyn B. Skinner

tute stuprum, but instead a freed slave (116, 137). C a r r a t e l l o , in reconstructing the literary affair, independently concurs with Stroh on the civic status of the beloved (117, 37–38). While focused on Catullan arrangements (see below), B e c k (118, 284–288) in passing deems the prosopographical riddle insoluble and leans toward the notion that ‘Juventius’ is at best a redender Name, at most a complete fiction. On a corollary point, H a w k i n s (119) suggests that punning mention of Furius’ culus in c. 23.7 and related puns in Mart. 1.92 support the longstanding identification of M. Furius Bibaculus as a rival lover of Juventius. 4. Neoteric Poets: C. Licinius Calvus, C. Helvius Cinna In keeping with R. F. T h o m a s ’ observation (CQ n.s. 31.2 [1981] 371) that ­Licinius Calvus and Helvius Cinna constitute ‘the missing two-thirds of the neoteric movement’, this section will concentrate upon those two authors. C o u r t n e y (120, 189) warns against employing the label ‘neoteric’ because he denies the existence of  a ‘unified school’ of poets. I will use it here, however, as a term of convenience, insofar as the poetry of Calvus and Cinna undeniably displays features in common with that of Catullus. Study of neoteric artistry has been greatly facilitated by publication of two major collections of Latin fragments: 120.  E. C o u r t n e y , The Fragmentary Latin Poets (ed. with comm.), Oxford 1993 (pb. version with additions, 2003). Rev.: G r a n a r o l o , Latomus 53, 1994, 417–418; O ’ H a r a , CPh 89, 1994, 384–391; G r i e s , CW 88.3, 1994–1995, 227; D e h o n , AC 64, 1995, 312–314; P o s s a n z a , BMCRev 1995.10.06; H a l l , JRS 85, 1995, 270; H a m b l e n n e , LEC 63, 1995, 187; J o c e l y n , Hermathena 159, 1995, 53–77; Z e t z e l , AJPh 116, 1995, 327–331; G a l á n V i o q u e , Habis 27, 1996, 325–326; R o s e l l i n i , RFIC 124, 1996, 110–124; M a r i o t t i , Gnomon 70, 1998, 204–209; R e e v e , CR 49, 1999, 42–45. 121.  A. S.  H o l l i s , Fragments of Roman Poetry, c. 60 BC–AD 20 (ed. with intro., trans. and comm.), Oxford 2007. Rev.: B u t t e r f i e l d , BMCRev 2007.12.30; S t é n u i t , LEC 75, 2007, 271; V i a r r e , REL 85, 2007, 315; W h i t e , GIF 59, 2007, 335–336; H a b e r m e h l , Altertum 53, 2008, 224–225; P o s s a n z a , JRS 98, 2008, 227–229; Z e t z e l , CW 102.3, 2008–2009, 347–348; S c h r i j v e r s , Mnemosyne 62, 2009, 686–688; W i e g a n d , Gymnasium 116, 2009, 286–288; B e c k , Gnomon 82, 2010, 593–596; T h o m a s , CR 60, 2010, 128–130. C o u r t n e y ’s discussions of Calvus (120, 201–211) and Cinna (212–224) include a prosopographical note, fragmentary text and apparatus, and commentary with brief review of interpretive questions; those by H o l l i s (121, 11–48 on Cinna, 49–86 on Calvus) in addition supply testimonia, translations, and lengthier line-byline commentaries.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

125

122.  L. N o s a r t i , Filologia in Frammenti, Bologna 1999. Rev.: M o r e l l i , A&R 45.3–4, 2000, 188–189. N o s a r t i (122, 195–207) provides textual and exegetical comments on two fragments of Calvus (frr. 12 and 18 M) and two of Cinna (frr.4 and 6 M). Equally pertinent to work on the neoterics are two new editions of Parthenius and other Hellenistic poets and one monograph exploring Parthenius’ relations with them: 123.  J. L. L i g h t f o o t , Parthenius of Nicaea (ed. with intro. and comm.), Oxford 1999. Rev.: F r a n c e s e , BMCRev 2000.04.14; H u n t e r , CR 50, 2000, 426–429; B a r c h i e s i , CW 94.4, 2000–2001, 403–404; N a r d e l l i , Gaia 5, 2001, 177–­ 182; P e r d i c o y i a n n i , LEC 69, 2001, 443–444; W h i t e , Myrtia 16, 2001, 341–343; S e n s , CJ 97.3, 2001–2002, 305–309; C o z z o l i , RFIC 130, 2002, 484–504; H u x l e y , Hermathena 172, 2002, 110–117; B e r n s d o r f f , Gnomon 75, 2003, 12–18; H u y s , Mnemosyne 56, 2003, 232–236. 124.  –, (ed. and trans.), Hellenistic Collection: Philitas, Alexander of Aetolia, Hermesianax, Euphorion, Parthenius, Cambridge, MA and London 2009. Rev.: Tu e l l e r , CW 104.4, 2010–2011, 512–513; D ’A l e s s i o , BMCRev 2011.05.62. 125.  C. F r a n c e s e , Parthenius of Nicaea and Roman Poetry, Studien zur klassischen Philologie 126, Frankfurt a. M. 2001. In the introduction to her text of Parthenius (123, 50–76), L i g h t f o o t re-examines critical assumptions regarding Parthenius’ responsibility for introducing the works of Alexandrian poets to Roman readers and shaping artistic conventions. While his contribution, she argues, was not as broad as has been claimed, his popularization of Euphorion and his promotion of erotic mythological narrative and elegiac lament had considerable impact. The new Loeb (124) replaces the old Parthenius and Longus volume with a selection of Hellenistic authors, some of whom have not been translated into English before, supplying introductions and bibliography for each. Having Philitas, Euphorion and Parthenius readily available in translation should stimulate interest in their reception by Catullus and his contemporaries. By comparing the handling of story patterns in the Erotica Pathemata with earlier classical and Hellenistic treatments of erotic myth, F r a n c e s e (125) reveals the pecular features of Parthenius’ poetic sensibility and its subsequent influence on Roman literature. In his mythography a taste for the sensational, as in incest narratives, is combined with vigorous realism and a detachment occasionally tempered by urbane humor. Cinna, Propertius, and Ovid were the primary beneficiaries of Parthenius’ approach, while Catullus and Vergil remain less affected by it.

126

Marilyn B. Skinner

C. Licinius Calvus 126.  P. d e l P r e t e , Licinio Calvo (Problemi biografici ed autobiografici), in: Analecta critica (221), 27–41. 127.  L. G a m b e r a l e , Aspetti dell’amicizia poetica fra Catullo  e Calvo, in: Lepos e mores (179), 203–245. 128.  R. H ö s c h e l e , A Virgo Infelix: Calvus’ Io vis-à-vis Other Cow-and-Bull Stories, in: M. B a u m b a c h  – S. B ä r (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Epyllion and Its Reception, Leiden and Boston 2012, 333–354. D e l P r e t e (126) defends the accuracy of Calvus’ birth date, 28 May 82 BCE, given by the elder Pliny (NH 7.165). The orator’s poor health, to which he himself arguably testifies and his abstemious habits bear witness, makes death shortly after 54 plausible. Unlike C o u r t n e y (120, 208) and, more guardedly, H o l l i s (121, 69), del Prete thinks Quintilia was Calvus’ wife, not his mistress, and possibly  a sister of Quintilius, whom he identifies as the Varus mentioned in Catullus c. ­10.  G a m b e r a l e (127) examines the poems mentioning Calvus, cc. 14, 50, 53, and 96, in order to determine how the friendship worked despite considerable diversity of interests; Catullus’ language, he finds, shows warm affection, irony, and an awareness of common concerns. After considerable effort in previous decades, attempts at reconstructing the content and tone of Calvus’ lost epyllion Io from possible reminiscences in later authors have abated. H o l l i s (121, 60–64) surveys motifs and language that might be plausibly ascribed to it. H ö s c h e l e (128) observes the unusual number of Hellenistic and Roman epyllia dealing with females in love with bulls, transformed into cows, or carried off by gods in bovine form, starting with Moschus’ Europa. In this regard, she argues, Calvus’ Io is  a pivotal text, citing echoes of the epyllion in Vergil’s Bucolics (6.45–60) and Aeneid (7.789–792) and Ovid’s Metamorphoses (1.583–791). Discussions of Calvus’ other poems include 129.  H. D. Jocelyn, C. Licinius Macer Calvus, fr. 18 Büchner, Eikasmόs 7, 1996, 243–254. 130.  T. G ä r t n e r , Überlegungen zur Geneses der römischen Liebeselegie aus der hellenistischen Dichtung, AAntHung 46.3, 2006, 213–237 [abs. in English]. Jocelyn (129) surmises that Calvus’ single-distich jibe against Pompey is taken from a longer lampoon. Punctuating the second line quid? dicas…?, he argues for the authenticity of the wording transmitted in scholia to Lucan (7.726) and Juvenal (9.133) as opposed to that of Seneca the Elder (quo credas, Cont. 7.4.7). G ä r t n e r (130) locates Calvus’ epicedion for Quintilia within a Hellenistic tradition of lament for deceased partners and postulates that poetic obsession with a relationship terminated by death was transformed by the Roman love elegists into death-like desolation resulting from the beloved’s infidelity.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

127

Current attention to the career of Calvus, though, focuses on his role in the Atticist vs. Asianist dispute in oratory and the metonymic associations between his rhetorical stance and the male body and its personal care. 131.  J. W i s s e , Greeks, Romans, and the Rise of Atticism, in: J. G. J. A b b e n e s  – S. R. S l i n g s  – I. S l u i t e r (eds.), Greek Literary Theory after Aristotle: a collection of papers in honour of D. M. Schenkeveld, Amsterdam 1995, 65–82. 132.  A. M. K e i t h , Slender Verse: Roman Elegy and Ancient Rhetorical Theory, Mnemosyne 52, 1999, 41–62. 133.  J. D u g a n , Preventing Ciceronianism: C. Licinius Calvus’ Regimens for Sexual and Oratorical Self-Mastery, CPh 96.4, 2001, 400–428. W i s s e (131) regards Atticism as a classicizing attempt to restore the oratorical standards of a lost Athenian golden age. Despite the prevailing belief in its Greek origin, he thinks it arose in Rome about 60 BCE among Calvus and his associates and was continued by adherents like Brutus after its founder’s death; having spread to Greek intellectuals through their contacts with Romans, it emerged as a Greek movement under Dionysius of Halicarnassus around 25 BCE. According to K e i t h (132), Roman elegists’ elaboration of Callimachean aesthetics includes drawing analogies between the human body and rhetorical style,  a tactic permeated with reflections of Calvus’ theoretical pronouncements on oratory. D u g a n further characterizes Calvus’ austere medical regimen, which no doubt included cold-water therapy (on which he wrote a libellus, Mart. 14.196) as well as the application of lead plates to the kidneys to prevent nocturnal emissions, as ‘an instantiation of his Atticist rhetorical program within his very body’, since ‘each is concerned with the maintenance of a masculine vigor through self-mastery’ (133, 400, 422). On the linkage between Catullan poetics and Attic oratorical theory, see 134.  W. W. B a t s t o n e , Dry Pumice and the Programmatic Language of Catullus I, CPh 93.2, 1998, 125–135. 135.  F. B e l l a n d i , Appendice I: Su Catullo e L’Oratoria, in: Lepos e Pathos (164), 385–401. B a t s t o n e (134) establishes that arida, applied in c. 1.2 to the pumice used to polish Catullus’ libellus, is an Attic stylistic term associated with restraint and purity of expression. B e l l a n d i (135) observes a significant correlation between the Callimachean virtues of brevitas and λεπτότης extolled by Catullus and his friends and the Attic predilection for tenuitas, exilitas and gracilitas. Conversely, the frigidity of Sestius’ oratory (c. 44) may arise from violations of Attic tenets. The point of Catullus’ cryptic joke salaputium disertum (53.5) has also been explained by H a w k i n s (718) in terms of the Atticist-Asianist controversy.

128

Marilyn B. Skinner

C. Helvius Cinna 136.  J. D. M o r g a n , The Death of Cinna the Poet, CQ 40.2, 1990, 558–559. 137.  E. C o u r t n e y , Catullus’ Yacht (Or Was It?), CJ 92.2, 1997, 113–122. 138.  C. D e r o u x , Helvius Cinna et ses huit porteurs bithyniens (Catulle 10, 29–30: ‘grauis’ et non ‘Gaius’), Latomus 59.4, 2000, 850–857. 139.  M. P. P i e r i , Mirra fra alba  e tramonto. (Cinna, fr. 6 Büchner), in: P. A r ­d u i n i et al. (eds.), Studi offerti ad Alessandro Perutelli, 2 vols., Roma, 2008, 373–383. To confirm Wiseman’s identification of him as the ποιητικὸς ἀνήρ Cinna dismembered by a mob after Caesar’s assassination (Plut. Brut. 20.4; T. P. W i s e m a n , Cinna the Poet and Other Roman Essays [Leicester 1974] 44–58), M o r g a n (136) cites Ovid Ib. 539–540, which allusively recalls that the conditor…Myrrhae (i. e. ‘author’ of the Zmyrna) met just such a fate. That contribution seems to have settled the question. C o u r t n e y (137) speculates that the yacht in Catullus 4 was actually Cinna’s, which he used on an earlier visit to Bithynia around 66 BCE when he brought Parthenius to Rome. D e r o u x (138) defends gravis, the paradosis, because it supplies  a rationale for Cinna’s purchase of a litter: his corpulence. P i e r i (139) suggests that Cinna’s fragment describing the incessant grief of Myrra derives ironic poignancy from the use of a motif employed by Callimachus (fr. 291 Pf.) and Catullus in epithalamic contexts. 5. Other Figures 140.  N. B. C r o w t h e r , Varro Atacinus: Traditional or Neoteric Poet? AC 56, 1987, 262–268. Despite composing an Argonautica and love poems to a Leucadia, Varro, C r o w ­ t h e r (140) concludes, is a traditional versifier in the style of Cicero, not that of the neoterics. 141.  R. R i e k s , Prosopographie und Lyrikinterpretation. Die Gedichte Catulls auf M. Caelius Rufus, Poetica 18, 1986, 249–273. 142.  J. J. C l a u s s , The Ignoble Consistency of M. Caelius Rufus, Athenaeum 78, 1990, 531–540. 143.  A. C a v a r z e r e , Celio “Veronensis” in Catullo e Cicerone, in: P. B a s s o  – A. B u e n o p a n e  – A. C a v a r z e r e  – S. P. M a t t i o l i (eds.), ‘Est enim ille flos Italiae…’: vita economica e sociale nella Cisalpina romana: atti delle giornate di studi in onore di E. Buchi, Verona 2008, 403–409. The most accessible recent biographical accounts of M. Caelius Rufus and the circumstances surrounding his trial can be found in W i s e m a n ’s Catullus and His World (82, 54–91) and in S k i n n e r ’s life of Clodia (113, 99–105). R i e k s (141)

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

129

proposes reading Veronenses for Praetuttiani, the generally accepted emendation for the corrupt name of Caelius’ home town in Cicero, Cael. 5, allowing the conjecture that the Caelius of cc. 58 and 100 and the Rufus of cc. 69 and 77 refer to the same person, Catullus’ fellow citizen and Clodia’s lover. (On palaeographical grounds, Rieks also identifies Caelius as the subject of the seven invective epigrams directed at ‘Gellius’.) However, Rieks’ suggestion, in C a v a r z e r e ’s eyes (143), is historically as well as palaeographically unlikely, since Cicero also calls the place a municipium and at the time Verona did not possess that status. C l a u s s (142), after weighing evidence, including Caelius’ own testimony, for his initial decision to support Caesar in 50 BCE and his subsequent break with the dictator and sponsorship of radical legislation, decides that in both cases he was driven by excessive ambition and rash personal animosity. 144.  W. J. T a t u m , The Patrician Tribune: Publius Clodius Pulcher, Chapel Hill and London 1999. Rev.: C o n n e r t y , CR n.s. 50.2, 2000, 514–516; F e z z i , RSA 30, 2000, 254–260; R i c h , BMCRev 2000.03.18; M c D o n o u g h , CO 78.3, 2000–2001, 136; H i l l a r d , Phoenix 55.1–2, 2001, 189–193; H ö l k e s k a m p , Gymnasium 108.5, 2001, 471–472; R o s e n s t e i n , AJPh 122.4, 2001, 592–596; S p i e l v o g e l , Gnomon 73.8, 2001, 681–684; E v a n s , Mnemosyne ser. 4 55.6, 2002, 764–767; R a u h , AHR 107.1, 2002, 262–263; Z e c c h i n i , Athenaeum 90.1, 2002, 309–311; D e R o s s i , StudRom 51.1–2, 2003, 168; D e n i a u x , Latomus 63.2, 2004, 488–490. T a t u m ’s authoritative biography (144) views Clodius as a volatile but increasingly canny crowd mobilizer whose self-aggrandizing use of popularis tactics heightened the consciousness of the urban plebs and developed in it a sense of political identity and entitlement that became, ironically, his historical legacy. B. Introductions to the Poet The works listed below are addressed to non-specialist readers and students first confronting the Latin text. Most cover the same array of general topics – life, political and literary background, poetics, formal ingredients of the corpus, themes, and influence – and contain limited notes and bibliographies. 145.  J. F e r g u s o n , Catullus, Lawrence, KS 1985. Rev.: B o u g h n e r , CW 80, 1987, 216–217; P u l b r o o k , Hermathena 142, 1987, 66; R e x i n e , Platon 39, 1987, 187–188. 146.  E. A. S c h m i d t , Catull, Heidelberger Studienhefte zur Altertumswissenschaft, Heidelberg 1985. Rev.: D e f o s s é , LEC 53, 1985, 486; H e r i n g , DLZ 106, 1985, 666–669; G r a n a r o l o , REL 65, 1987, 326–327; L é o n a r d , AC 56, 1987, 365; O f f e r m a n n , GB 15, 1988, 257–261.

130

Marilyn B. Skinner

147.  P. F e d e l i , Introduzione a Catullo, Gli scrittori 20, Bari and Rome, 1990. Rev.: P o l a r a , Orpheus 12, 1991, 602; R u i z S á n c h e z , Myrtia 6, 1992, 172–173; R o s a r i o D e l i c a d o M é n d e z , Helmantica 47 N°. 142–143, 1996, 342–343. 148.  J. G r a n a r o l o , Introduction à Catulle, Poésies: présentation de l’œuvre et des problèmes qu’elle pose, VL 119, 1990, 2–14. 149.  C. M a r t i n , Catullus, New Haven and London 1992. Rev.: K u b i a k , CW 86, 1992–1993, 524; F o w l e r , G&R 40, 1993, 86–87; G r a n a r o l o , Latomus 52, 1993, 726; F r e d r i c k s m e y e r , CJ 89, 1993–1994, 408–410; K e n n e d y , CR n.s. 44, 1994, 40–41. 150.  M. v o n A l b r e c h t , Catull – Dichter der Liebe und Gestalt einer Epoche, AU 35. 2, 1992, 4–24. 151.  G. B. C o n t e , Neoteric Poetry and Catullus, in: Latin Literature: A History, trans. J. B. S o l o d o w , rev. D. F o w l e r   – G. W. M o s t , Baltimore 1994, 136–154. 152.  H.-P. S y n d i k u s , Catullus (1), Gaius Valerius, OCD 3rd ed., 1996, 303–304. 153.  T. P. W i s e m a n , Catullus [1] Valerius C., DNP 1997, vol. II, 1035–1039. 154.  B. A r k i n s , An Interpretation of the Poems of Catullus, Lewiston, NY 1999. 155.  A. K. H u r l e y , Catullus, London 2004. Rev.: Arkins, Classics Ireland 12, 2005, 97–99; N a p p a , BMCRev 2005.01.05. 156.  J. G o d w i n , Reading Catullus, Exeter and Devon 2008. 157.  J. H. G a i s s e r , Catullus, Blackwell Introductions to the Classical World, Oxford and Malden, MA 2009 [‘Catullus’]. Rev.: R a m í r e z d e V e r g e r , BMCRev 2009.12.05; H i l l , G&R 57.1, 2010, 130; T r i m b l e , CR n.s. 60.2, 2010, 432–434; N e s h o l m , CJ 106.4, 2011, 491–494. 158.  –, Catullus (1), Gaius Valerius, OCD 4th ed., 2012, 292–293. Working on the assumptions that Catullus’ poems do reflect his private life and are arranged in an order he determined, F e r g u s o n (145) provides close individual readings of each poem in sequence. These interpretations condense much earlier New Critical scholarship but still include original insights. While S c h m i d t (146) claims his volume is intended as a primer for students, it is really a manual for instructors. After a very short bibliography, thirteen chapters summarize the following topics: contemporary scholarly reception; literary influence from Catullus’ own day to the present; authorial arrangement, which Schmidt defends; meters (definitely too technical for the beginning student); vocabulary and style; Catullus’ life in its historical context; invective against Caesarians; neoteric poetics and the epyllion as its

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

131

characteristic product; the other carmina maiora; Lesbia’s identity, the meaning of her pseudonym, and the cycles organized around poems about her; finally, the polymetrics and the epigrams as contrasting expressions of Sinnlichkeit and Sittlichkeit. Absence of current bibliography notwithstanding, Schmidt’s handbook is well worth consulting for its many sound metrical, stylistic, and literary observations. F e d e l i ’s contribution (147) offers, first, an account of the chronological problems involved in dating Catullus’ life and poems; second, a review of expert opinion on authorial arrangement (he accepts Francesco D e l l a C o r t e ’s suggestion that Cornelius Nepos was the posthumous editor of the collection); third, a narrative of the Lesbia affair as it unfolds from beginning to end; fourth, analyses of friendship, erotic rivalry, political hostility, and literary aesthetics as recurrent themes; lastly, a survey of the varied voices within the corpus providing space for discussion of selections not mentioned earlier (including most of the longer poems). A concluding section in which Fedeli reviews the major trends in French and Italian scholarship on Catullus from the 1940s through the 1980s usefully summarizes debates largely overlooked by Anglo-American researchers, including controversy over the poet’s religious and ethical convictions. G r a n a r o l o ’s introduction (148) comprises a bibliographical review of scholarly questions from the 1950s and 1960s. In presenting the ‘New Poetry’ of Catullus and his associates to non-specialist readers, M a r t i n (149) draws parallels with the Modernist revolution of twentieth-century Anglo-American poets such as Ezra Pound and William Carlos Williams. He insists on the playfulness and wit of the polymetrics, with their constant challenge as to whether the poet ‘really means’ what he says, and identifies one major theme: how a man should behave in society. In the longer poems, he finds chiastic structures both internal (corresponding sections of c. 64 surrounding  a five-line bridge passage) and external (responsion between cc. 61–63 and cc. 65/66–68, with c. 64 at the center). Lack of attention to major theoretical movements already impacting Catullan scholarship, such as feminism, poststructuralism and New Historicism, unfortunately made Martin seem dated even at the time of publication. Published in a pedagogical journal, v o n A l b r e c h t ’s article (150) provides all the background for  a lecture on Catullus, summarizing the historical and literary context of the poetry, with an excursus on the structure of the collection and its cycles, and explaining aspects of poetic technique such as generic composition, variatio, metaphor, and shifts in tonality and stylistic registers. This is still a useful preparatory essay for any instructor who reads German. C o n t e (151) is one of the two standard surveys of Latin literature regularly consulted in English-speaking schools and universities.8 It offers  a still attractive introduction to Catullus, providing solid literary and historical background before 8 The other is W. V. C l a u s e n , The new direction in poetry, in: CHCL II.2, Cambridge 1982, 4–32. Perhaps in keeping with his own interests, Clausen devotes the longest sections of his chapter to c. 64 and the question of Catullan arrangement, touching only in the last pages on the shorter poems – a handful of Lesbia lyrics, c. 31, and c. 50.

132

Marilyn B. Skinner

giving orthodox accounts of the short poems, the carmina docta, poetic style, and ancient and modern reception. As a product of its own scholarly times, however, it may disappoint current instructors in foregrounding Catullus’ disdain for politics, immersion in feeling, and romantic commitment to poetry and love. In the third edition of the OCD, S y n d i k u s (152) offers a capsule version of standard information; his blunt denial of Catullus’ political ambitions is probably too extreme. W i s e m a n ’s DNP entry (153) highlights issues explored in his earlier studies of the poet: social and financial standing; authorial arrangement; composition of mimes and prose works. The opening chapter of A r k i n s ’ monograph (154) promises  a reading of the corpus based upon a unifying approach, namely the similarity of ancient and modern experience. Catullus is like twentieth-century poets in several respects: the importance he assigns to art, his idiosyncratic voice, his focus on sexuality, and the brevity, clarity, and virility of his writing. Subsequent chapters deal with the Lesbia poems, the longer poems, and interaction with friends and enemies. In his love poetry, Catullus anticipates the contemporary idea of a physical, emotional, and intellectual relationship between equals. Among the ‘friendship’ poems, those on Juventius are in Arkins’ view artificial generic experiments. After the second chapter parallels with modernity are not drawn (except for occasional comparisons to Yeats) and no attempt is made at the end to integrate conclusions. Despite its title, then, this volume consists of four discrete, largely descriptive essays. H u r l e y (155) is an ideal supplementary assignment for an undergraduate author course. While presenting just enough basic material to enable better understanding of the texts normally read in a semester, it also touches upon major scholarly concerns such as the question of authorial arrangement; the ambiguities present in the longer poems, especially 63, 64, and 68; and the confusion generated by applying a ‘language of aristocratic obligation’ to an adulterous liaison. Shorter poems selected are predictably those concerned with Lesbia, though Hurley does devote one provocative chapter to viewing male friendship in Catullus through the lens of feminist theory. Her treatments of the epithalamia, the Attis poem, and 68b may seem perfunctory, raising more questions than they answer; on the other hand, she produces a coherent and original reading of c. 64, making it more accessible to a first-time reader. G o d w i n ’s book (156) assumes no earlier acquaintance with Latin poetry and is written in a colloquial style to appeal to an undergraduate audience. His first chapter, which examines the context of Roman poetic production, focuses upon oral delivery as the dominant mode of reception and rhetoric as the basis of elite secondary education. In the next chapter he deals with the neoteric aesthetic programme, using representative texts such as poems 50 and 51, 95, 16, 11, 2 and 3, and 31 to illustrate aspects of Roman Alexandrianism. Love, heterosexual and homoerotic, as a dominant theme of the collection is the subject matter of chapter 3, which contains a long and perceptive reading of poem 68 as a work exploring the slippage between ‘the language of poetry and the language of truth’ (156, 75). Analysis of the ‘learned’ features of Catullus’ poems centers upon close readings of poems 63 and 64 that treat irony as a strategy for engagement with a sophisticated audience. Godwin’s appraisal of obscenity and

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

133

humor approaches these prominent ingredients of the poems as devices to entertain; even abuse of Caesar and Mamurra has an amusing, rather than a politically earnest, flavor. The final chapter concerns the arrangement of the collection, noting effective placements, considering the operations of poem 1 as preface and dedication and ending, appropriately, with a review of closural methods, a reading of poem 116 as closure to the corpus, and  a final paragraph accounting for Catullus’ enduring freshness. More of an appreciation than a detailed study, Godwin’s book could be assigned when encountering the poet in a survey course. Reviewers deem G a i s s e r (157) ‘elegant’ and ‘the best existing survey on Catullus’. Writing first of all ‘for people who like poetry—in any language’ (ix), she includes one chapter on the physical and aesthetic qualities of poetry books, another introducing readers to the aural and rhythmic effects of the verse and yet another on poetic structuring devices. Historical data about the author and his times is confined to the introduction; the rest of the book guides us, as contemporary readers, through the process of experiencing Catullus’ poetry and then informs us how audiences in other times and places, from the early Renaissance to the modern era, have received it. Lastly, Gaisser’s analysis of the complexity of the invented Catullan persona, ­beginning with recognition of its ‘absolute believability’ (46–47), is an effective antidote for the insiduous romanticism of the Catullroman. Her article in the fourth edition of the OCD (158) is, not surprisingly, more attuned to the artistic and rhetorical sophistication of the poetry than Syndikus’ 1996 entry, which it replaces. C. Collections This section comprises special journal issues and single- or multiple-authored collections devoted primarily to Catullus or of interest to specialists for other reasons. Solitary contributions to Catullan studies in miscellaneous volumes such as Festschriften will be discussed under appropriate headings below. 1. Single-Authored Collections 159.  V. C i a f f i , Il mondo di Gaio Valerio Catullo e la sua poesia, Bologna 1987. Rev.: F e d e l i , Aufidus 5, 1988, 173–174; V a l e n t i P a g n i n i , BStudLat 18, 1988, 120. 160.  T. P. W i s e m a n , Roman Studies: Literary and Historical, Collected Classical Papers 1, Liverpool 1987 [‘Roman Studies’]. Rev.: M o r e a u , REL 65, 1987, 425–427; C o r b i e r , RPh 52, 1988, 384–385; H ö l k e s k a m p , Gymnasium 95, 1988, 470–472; N i s b e t , CR n.s. 38, 1988, 380–383; P r i c e , TLS 1988, 476; W a c h t e l , Eirene 29, 1993, 150–151. 161.  P. d e l P r e t e , Analecta critica, Studi e Testi di Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità, Università degli Studi di Lecce, Serie Latina 3, Lecce 1990 [‘Analecta critica’]. Rev.: C o r s a r o , Orpheus 12, 1991, 602–603.

134

Marilyn B. Skinner

162.  M. R u i z S á n c h e z , Confectum carmine: en torno a la poesía de Catulo, 2 vols., Murcia 1996 [‘Confectum carmine’]. Rev.: A r c a z P o z o , CFC(L) 13, 1997, 187–189; C a l l e j a s B e r d o n é s , EClás 39, 1997, 177–178; E g u i a r t e , Augustinus 42 no. 164–165, 1997, 416–417; A r r i b a s H e r n á e z , Emerita 66.2, 1998, 419–420. 163.  A. G h i s e l l i , Catullo. Il passer di Lesbia e altri scritti catulliani, Testi e manuali per l’insegnamento universitario del latino 85, Bologna 2005 [‘Passer’]. Rev.: A g n e s i n i , BStudLat 36.2, 2006, 612–615; R o c c a , Maia 59.1, 2007, 182–183; S c h m i t z e r , Gymnasium 114.4, 2007, 364–365; V o c e , Paideia 63, 2008, 525–530. 164.  F. B e l l a n d i , Lepos  e pathos. Studi su Catullo, Testi  e manuali per l’insegnamento universitario del latino 101, Bologna, 2007 [‘Lepos e pathos’] Rev.: G a i s s e r , BMCRev 2008.10.30; C e r m a t o r i , Prometheus 35.3, 2009, 285–287; F o r m i c o l a , Vichiana 4a ser. 11.1, 2009, 119–135; R a m í r e z d e V e r g e r , Emerita 77.2, 2009, 376–377; To r d e u r , AC 78, 2009, 323; A g n e s i n i , Paideia 65, 2010, 575–648. 165.  D. S. M c K i e , Essays in the Interpretation of Roman Poetry, Cambridge 2009 [‘Interpretation’]. Rev.: H e y w o r t h , CR 62.2, 2012, 493–496. Assembled from notes and published posthumously, the C i a f f i collection (159) contains an introductory biography by F. D e l l a C o r t e , two abbreviated seminar presentations, several more ambitious thematic investigations, and  a reprinted essay by A. P e n n a c i n i tracing the development of Roman lyric poetry from Q. Lutatius Catulus to Catullus and the neoterics. As an exhibition of collegial respect the volume is commendable, but it is unclear why the opening instructional material and the recycled Pennacini essay should have been included. Ciaffi’s discussions of the two epithalamia, the Attis poem, and the epyllion are formalistic and descriptive, little more than preparatory notes, and his chapter on ‘Lesbia’ simply enumerates positive traits assigned to her in the poems. However, those chapters analyzing references to Veronese life, studying the theme of fraternal bereavement in conjunction with the erotic associations of the domus, and sketching a recurrent motif in the corpus involving dysfunctional families are all suggestive and anticipate much later criticism. The final essay, ‘Odi et amo: un poete maudit nella Roma classica’, despite its provocative title, argues in the end that pietas is the quality unique to Catullus’ poetic sensibility (143–144). In addition to his definitive history of the Valerii Catulli (83), printed here for the first time in English, W i s e m a n ’s collection (160) contains twenty-eight papers that appeared prior to 1983, including one on c. 16, another on c. 55, and a prosopographical essay on Catullus’ friend Camerius. D e l P r e t e (161) includes four short essays, one on the meaning of foedus in Catullus (353), one on Licinius Calvus (126), and two on Martial. R u i z S á n c h e z (162) is  a two-volume collection, originally presented as  a doctoral thesis, including three lengthy and not entirely cohesive thematic investigations.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

135

G h i s e l l i (163) contains two revised and updated essays published earlier in Festschriften, one on c. 3 (511) and the other on c. 107 (1037), accompanied by  a previously unpublished textual and structural explication of c. 2 (336). B e l l a n d i (164) is  a collection of old and new essays on various subjects unified by the thematic contrast of lepos and pathos, which he defines as central to Catullan poetics. The first chapter (262) examines the poet’s terms for writing materials employed at successive stages from first drafts to publication. His central thesis is laid out in the second chapter (456), where, following ancient rhetorical and philosophical theory, he analyzes the employment of Callimachus and Sappho as partly antithetical models, Callimachus as an exemplar of ethos and Sappho of pathos. In the third chapter (190) he investigates the arrangement of the liber, probably the product of a ‘curatore postumo’ performing an act of pietas after the poet’s death. The fourth through sixth chapters offer a commentary upon cc. 1, 16, 36, and 95 (73), a thematic reading of the Lesbia poems 51 and 11 (412), and of poems 101 and 96 with their common funerary motifs (471). In separate appendices, Bellandi discusses Catullus and oratory (135) and offers a textual explication of c. 10.9–13 (57). Of the three essays in M c K i e (165), two deal with Catullus: the first chapter (74) contains notes on numerous textual passages, the second (925) proposes  a new and quite interesting interpretation of c. 68a. 2. Festschriften, Special Journal Issues, and Other Multiple-Authored Collections 166.  M. R e n a r d   – P. L a u r e n s (eds.), Hommages à Henry Bardon, Coll. Latomus 187, Brussels 1985 [‘Hommages Bardon’]. Rev.: C u p a i u o l o , BStudLat 15, 1985, 163–164; C o r s a r o , Orpheus 8, 1987, 222–227; D e s c h a m p s , REA 90, 1988, 261–263; L é o n a r d , AC 58, 1989, 352–354. 167.  M. B. S k i n n e r (ed.), Aesthetic Patterning in Catullus: Textual Structures, Systems of Imagery and Book Arrangements, special issue of Classical World 81.5, 1988 [‘Aesthetic Patterning’]. 168.  W. W. B a t s t o n e (ed.), Catullan Lyric, special issue of Helios 20.2, 1993 [‘Catullan Lyric’]. 169.  P. D e f o s s e (ed.), Hommages à Carl Deroux, I  – Poésie, Coll. Latomus 266, Brussels 2002 [‘Hommages Deroux’] Rev.: C u p a i u o l o , BStudLat 33.1, 2003, 290–292; V a n L a n g e n h o v e n , AC 73, 2004, 371–373; M a r t i n , REL 82, 2004, 453–454. 170.  D. B r a u n d  – C. G i l l (eds.), Myth, History and Culture in Republican Rome: studies in honour of T. P. Wiseman, Exeter 2003 [‘Myth, History and Culture’]. Rev.: G o l d b e r g , BMCRev 2003.08.08; H o r s f a l l , SCI 22, 2003, 320–323; S t e v e n s o n , Prudentia 35.2, 2003, 195–199; E v a n s , NECJ 31.2, 2004, 175– 176; V a n H a e p e r e n , AC 73, 2004, 535; F o x , CR n.s. 55.2, 2005, 615–617; P o u l l e , REL 83, 2005, 449–450.

136

Marilyn B. Skinner

171.  M. J a n k a (ed.), Ἐγκύκλιον κηπίον (Rundgärtchen): zu Poesie, Historie und Fachliteratur der Antike, Festschrift H. Gärtner, Munich 2004 [‘Festschrift Gärtner’]. 172.  R. R. N a u t a  – A. H a r d e r (eds.), Catullus’ Poem on Attis. Text and Contexts, special issue of Mnemosyne 57.5, 2004 (= Leiden and Boston 2005) [‘Attis’]. Rev.: F u r i y a , BMCRev 2005.12.2; S k i n n e r , Vergilius 51, 2005, 87–92; H o l z b e r g , CR n.s. 56.1, 2006, 92–93. 173.  R. P o i g n a u l t (ed.), Présence de Catulle et des élégiaques latins: actes du colloque tenu à Tours (28–30 novembre 2002): à Raymond Chevallier in memoriam, Tours 2005 [‘Présence de Catulle’]. Rev.: E v e n e p o e l , RBPh 86.1, 2008, 181–182. 174.  I. T a r (ed.), Studia Catulliana: in memoriam Stephani Caroli Horváth (1931–1966), Acta Universitatis Szegediensis. Acta antiqua et archaeologica, 29, Szeged 2005 [‘Studia Catulliana’]. 175.  M. J o h n s o n (ed.), Catullus in Contemporary Perspective, special edition of Antichthon 40, 2006 (available at Literature Online, http://lion.chadwyck.co.uk) [‘Contemporary Perspective’]. 176.  J. H. G a i s s e r (ed.), Catullus, Oxford Readings in Classical Studies, Oxford 2007 [‘Oxford Readings’]. Rev.: B a s i l e , BStudLat 38.1, 2008, 264–266; O ’ B r i e n , BMCRev 2008. 4.34; T r i m b l e , CR n.s. 60.2, 2010, 432–434; H a r r i s o n , CW 104.2, 2010– 2011, 261–262; N e s h o l m , CJ 106.4, 2010–2011, 491–494. 177.  M. B. S k i n n e r (ed.), A Companion to Catullus, Malden, MA and Oxford 2007 [‘Companion’]. Rev.: B r a u n d , BMCRev 2008.09.59; T h o m , AClass 51, 2008, 220–223; To r d e u r , AC 77, 2008, 423–424; V a n S i c k l e , CW 102.4, 2008–2009, 516–517; J o h n s o n , NECJ 36.1, 2009, 57–61; L a i g n e a u , Phoenix 63.3–4, 2009, 404–406; O ’ H a r a , CR n.s. 59.1, 2009, 120–122; P e t r a i n , Mnemosyne ser. 4, 62.3, 2009, 497–501. 178.  I. D u Q u e s n a y   – T. W o o d m a n (eds.), Catullus: Poems, Books, Readers, Cambridge 2012 [‘Poems, Books, Readers’]. Rev.: T r i m b l e , TLS April 5 2013, 28; D e B r o h u n , CR 65.2, 2015, 438–440. 179.  A. M. M o r e l l i (ed.), Lepos  e mores. Una giornata su Catullo. Atti del Convegno Internazionale. Cassino 27 maggio 2010. Cassino 2012 [‘Lepos e mores’]. Rev.: K i s s , BMCRev 2013.10.20; S t e v e n s , CR 64.1, 2014, 119–121. Hommages Bardon (166) includes  a study of Catullus’ association of his love for Lesbia with paternal love in c. 72.3–4 (399) and critical readings of c. 49 (671) and the odi et amo motif in c. 85 (986). S k i n n e r ’s special issue (167) combines essays on arrangement of the corpus, partial or complete (197, 202), with investigations into the physical form of the book-roll (200), internal structures (331), and codes of imagery associated with food (384), altogether a somewhat mixed bag. In his Helios special

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

137

issue ‘Catullan Lyric’, B a t s t o n e (168) invites four colleagues to join him in offering papers illustrating very disparate theoretical and practical approaches: New Criticism (553), feminist criticism (421), attention to the literary tradition (387), deconstruction (225), and resisting-reader skepticism (226). He makes no effort to reconcile diverse positions, but instead showcases the collection as a forum for ongoing debate. Appropriately enough, in view of the honorand’s record of contributions to the field, Hommages Deroux (169) features eight essays on Catullan topics: studies of cc. 17 (583), 49 (679), 63 (769), 64 (797), and 75 (334), together with  a limited treatment of alliteration (380), an etymological note on the word basium (355), and a thematic account of the Muses’ function in the corpus (452). Chapters in Myth, History and Culture (170) chiefly pay tribute to Wiseman’s other interests, but two recognize his prominence in Catullan studies: W o o d m a n ’s analysis of c. 1 (in company with Horace O. 2.1) as a response to a work of historiography (495), and C a i r n s ’ examination of the Bithynia poems 68, 10, 28 and 47 (474). Festschrift Gärtner (171) contains essays on intertextual links between c. 10 and Roman comedy (545) and a ribald reading of c. 31 (609) based on its proximity to cc. 30 and 32. Attis (172) combines four papers on Catullus 63 presented at  a 2003 ‘Text-inContext day’ at the University of Groningen with an earlier lecture by H a r r i s o n (308) that inspired the event; the five essays are accompanied by H a r r i s o n ’s text and translation (21) and an appendix revisiting Hephaestion’s evidence for  a Hellenistic model (347). Originally published as a special journal issue, the collection was also brought out in book form. Topics addressed include Hellenistic antecedents (307), a text linguistic approach to the poem (346), the history of the myth and cult of Attis (465), and contemporary Roman views of galli (466). Although each chapter contains pertinent observations, the collection as a whole is not unified or integrated enough to advance discussion significantly. Présence de Catulle (173) is an impressive gathering of thirty-three essays devoted to Catullus and his elegiac successors, grouped under five headings: 1) authors and their poetics in their own temporal settings; 2) subsequent receptions in antiquity; 3) modern rereadings; 4) reception in the plastic arts; 5) editions and literary criticism. Limitations of space preclude a synopsis of all the contributions, but a representative selection is cited under applicable rubrics. Studia Catulliana (174) contains nine essays on Catullus and his reception. Four are concerned with individual poems, cc. 2a (72), 62 (745), 68 (948) and 109 (1038). Two thematic studies address the poet’s concept of love (410) and his use of incest as a leitmotif (437). One (Havas) posits a publication date of 54/53 BCE for his poetic collection (288). The last two chapters discuss imitations of Catullan texts in the Ciris and in the Liber Basiorum of the Dutch Renaissance poet Johannes Secundus. Contemporary Perspective (175), edited by J o h n s o n , is a collection of seven papers, the majority given at  a one-day symposium at the University of Newcastle in 2004. Like Catullus’ liber, this special issue has  a tripartite structure. The first section, Individual Poems and Cycles, begins with a study of personification in cc. 17 and 67 (394), followed by an examination of cc. 5 through 8 as a quartet focused upon concealment and exposure (486), and concludes with an analysis of the comic

138

Marilyn B. Skinner

adulescens figure in c. 75 (965). Thematic Issues, the next section, considers Catullus’ employment of incest motifs in the Gellius poems (439), his male self-fashioning in the Caesar poems (289), and his position on female authorship (428). The last section, Influence, explores possible echoes of Catullus in the late antique poet Prudentius’ Peristephanon 3 (737) and ends with the personal reflections of  a contemporary woman poet, A nna J a c k s o n , on her creative project of adapting Catullus’ themes to present them from a child’s point of view. Preceded by an exemplary introduction tracing the major trends in Catullan criticism from 1950 to 2000 (216), G a i s s e r ’s edited Oxford Readings (176) contains twenty-five representative essays on Catullus published during the past half-century and three short excerpts from Renaissance discussions of possible obscenity in the sparrow poems. For chapters included in this survey, page references in Gaisser’s volume are supplied. S k i n n e r ’s Companion (177) appears in a series designed to provide instructors and students with comprehensive, accessible surveys of recent scholarship on authors, subjects and fields. Following a brief introduction summarizing present directions in research (217), twenty-six chapters address major issues in Catullan studies grouped under eight rubrics: I. The Text and the Collection, dealing with textual transmission and arrangement; II. Contexts of Production, reviewing the history of Catullus’ family and the political, intellectual, and psychosexual questions of the time; III. Influences, treating two dominant models, Sappho and Callimachus; IV. Stylistics, focused on neoteric poetics, techniques, and vocabulary; V. Poems and Groups of Poems, addressing the so-called ‘programmatic’ pieces, the Lesbia poems, the wedding poems 61 and 62, poems 64 and 68, and the poems of social commentary and invective; VI. Reception, tracing Catullus’ influence on Horace, Vergil, love elegy, Martial, Renaissance readers, and modern poets; VII. Pedagogy, analyzing strategies for presenting the poems in the secondary and college classrooms; and VIII. Translation, defining the special challenges of rendering Catullus into contemporary English. Poems, Books, Readers (178) is a collection of ten specially commissioned essays by internationally known scholars dealing with the most current trends and pre­ occupations in the field. Authors weigh the consequences of contemporary work on Hellenistic poetry for our understanding of Catullus’ reception of his predecessors; discuss the implications of viewing some of the longer poems in  a sociopolitical context; extend prior investigations of references to the materiality of the physical text; analyze configurations of sexual desire in diverse parts of the corpus; identify generic and programmatic models for several of the polymetrics and epigrams; find new intertexts that deepen the resonances of cc. 65, 66, and 68; and discover structural as well as verbal indebtedness to Catullus in both Vergil and Ovid. In an illuminating epilogue (218), the editors, D u Q u e s n a y   – W o o d m a n , draw together points made by the contributors and relate them to other recent developments in Catullan studies. Lepos e mores (179) contains seven papers presented at a one-day conference on Catullus at the Università di Cassino in 2010. The focus of discussion was the rapport between Catullan lepos (elegance, humor, and learning) and the characterization

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

139

(ethos) of the speaker, his addressees, and other personalities in the collection, particularly in the polymetrics and the epigrams. M o r e l l i , who edited the collection, singles out four key ideas developed by presenters: 1) patterns of deportment for the speaker and secondary figures; 2) the influence of genre and tradition on characterization; 3) iambic abuse and civic morality; 4) sexual elements in the discourse of moral degredation. Contributions by G a m b e r a l e on the friendship of Catullus and Calvus (127), and W a t s o n on Catullus’ opinion of his native province (92) are abstracted elsewhere; other essays include a contrast between aspects of passionate and conjugal love, an overview of Catullan obscenity, close readings of cc. 69 and 71, and a demonstration of the varied application of devices such as archaism, allusion to Ennius, and metaliterary references.

III. Arrangement of the Corpus 180.  M. B. S k i n n e r , Authorial Arrangement of the Collection: Debate Past and Present, in: Companion (177), 35–53. Did Catullus arrange his own book(s) of poems or is the layout of the corpus as we know it the product of postmortem editorship? S k i n n e r (180) provides a narrative history of this controversy (often designated die Catullfrage, ‘the [consummate] Catullan question’) from its nineteenth-century beginnings to 2005. After 150 years of discussion, she concludes, some limited consensus seems to have been reached: following the dedication to Cornelius Nepos, the initial series of poems in the poly­ metric section, cc. 2–14 or, alternatively, 2–26, preserves an elegant pattern of metrical and thematic organization and may be identified in whole or part with the libellus presented to Nepos. Whether any other portion of the liber Catulli exhibits authorial planning is as yet undecided. Though specific approaches have met with doubt and though it is agreed that some of the corpus (e.g. cc. 52–60) shows little cohesion, few authorities still express total skepticism about Catullan arrangement. This shift in the communis opinio has taken place within the past thirty-five years. As late as 1979, T. P. W i s e m a n , the most prominent supporter of comprehensive authorial design, had conceded that belief in Catullus’ early death, forestalling publication of his collection, and in  a consequent posthumous editor were ‘deeply rooted’ even as he advised proponents of those claims that the ‘onus of proof ’ was on them.9 In 2012, conversely, D u Q u e s n a y  – W o o d m a n (218, 265), while expressing some scruples, could nevertheless pronounce Wiseman’s own view ‘the orthodox position’. Before turning to bibliography generated during that intervening period, we need to review earlier scholarship in order to see why the conventional verdict, in force for over fifty years, was able to be reversed so quickly.

9 Clio’s Cosmetics, Leicester 1979, 179 and 181.

140

Marilyn B. Skinner

Certain contributions published before 1985 had already established alternative frameworks for inquiry aside from those long dominating the dispute, the length and heterogeneity of the liber Catulli and the absence of chronological progression. In 1969 Otto S k u t s c h observed that hendecasyllabic verses found in the first section of the polymetrics, cc. 2 through 26, almost invariably open with a spondee, while those in the second section, cc. 27–60, follow earlier Greek practice by allowing iambs and trochees in the aeolic base.10 As the dedicatory c. 1 would have been composed subsequent to the other pieces in the libellus, the presence of one iambic and three trochaic bases in its ten lines implies that Catullus had relaxed his originally strict metrical practice. Three occurrences of a lighter base in the ‘Lesbia cycle’, at 2.4, 3.17, and 7.2, however, form a significant exception inviting conjecture that the sparrow and kiss poems, set early in the affair, were written closer to publication but put at the head of the collection to orient the reader. The tripartite division of the liber Catulli into a polymetric group, a sequence of four or eight carmina maiora, and a group of poems in elegiac meter had always been recognized, but in 1972 Kenneth Q u i n n suggested that these units comprise  a three-volume ‘collected edition’ on the model of Horace’s Odes, introduced by a commendation of Nepos’ own three-volume world history.11 Others rejected this idea, thinking it more likely that assemblages of short poems preserving Catullus’ internal designs and individual longer poems circulated independently and were compiled only after his death. If the author did organize at least some part of the corpus, the issue of whether his collection was published all at once becomes  a crucial matter. Among those who advocate complete Catullan editorship, as we will see below, argument over unified or separate publication, with the corollary problem of whether or not the liber Catulli makes sense when read through uninterruptedly, is the chief area of disagreement. Cycles of poems linked by subject matter though not necessarily adjacent had regularly been cited as indications of meaningful placement, but John v a n S i c k l e ’s 1980 analysis of the material features of the book-roll and the conventions of poetic books devised for that medium introduced the refinement of linear reading, and with it notions of ‘internal sequence and progressive variation’ (199, 31). That threads of meaning might be extracted from continuous associations unfolding across juxtaposed texts added another dimension to the concept of unity. Meanwhile,  a 1984 dissertation by Nita K r e v a n s offered fruitful insights into the relationship between the composition of the book and the individual poems it contains.12 Although Krevans doubted that traces of patterning in Catullus’ polymetrics were the work of their author, her full account of the book-roll and its 10 Metrical Variations and Some Textual Problems in Catullus, BICS 16, 1969, 38–43. 11 K. Q u i n n , Catullus: An Interpretation, London 1972, 9–20. 12 The Poet as Editor: Callimachus, Virgil, Horace, Propertius and the Development of the Poetic Book, diss. Princeton 1984. Subsequent work on Hellenistic poetry books  – Calli­ machus’ Iambs, Meleager’s Garland, and the Posidippus epigram collection – reinforces Krevans’­ conclusions.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

141

development and her analysis of structures in Callimachus’ Aetia, a strategic model for Roman poetry books, supplied a historical context and a set of comparanda previously missing. Thus elements were now in place for  a thorough re-examination of the controversy. Let us begin, however, by listing studies that still argue against Catullan editorship or express at least theoretical doubts over pronouncing the order of the poems genuine. 181.  B. N é m e t h , The Question of Arrangement in Virgil’s Catalepton and Catulli Veronensis Liber, AAntHung. 39, 1999, 215–224. 182.  G. O. H u t c h i n s o n , The Catullan Corpus, Greek Epigram, and the Poetry of Objects, CQ 53.1, 2003, 206–221 (= ch. 5 in: Talking Books: Readings in Hellenistic and Roman Books of Poetry, Oxford 2008, 109–130). 183.  A. B a r c h i e s i , The Search for the Perfect Book: A PS to the New Posidippus, in: K. G u t z w i l l e r (ed.), The New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book, Oxford 2005, 320–342. Citing the Eclogues, compiled by Vergil himself, and the Catalepton, supposedly edited by Varius and Tucca, as his examples, N é m e t h (181) maintains that setting complementary pairs of poems in order beginning from opposing ends of a libellus was a familiar and obvious template. While the liber Catulli contains many paired poems, the fact that they are mostly scattered and out of expected sequence establishes posthumous editorship of a mechanical kind. Unfortunately, in both the Catalepton and Catullus Németh’s grounds for linking poems often seem strained. By 2007, B u t r i c a (39, 19–24) thought it advisable to re-argue the question. He observes no explicit aesthetic indicators of unity or structure in the collection. References and quotations in other ancient authors, our only witnesses to how the poems might have been arranged, suggest that they circulated in separate rolls. Individual editions prepared by grammatici might have differed in content or placement of poems, raising the prospect that what has come down to us is ‘one man’s Catullus’, an assemblage of whatever works the compiler could find brought together sometime during the transition from roll to codex. The possibility of competing non-authorial collections in circulation leads others to utter caveats even as they toy with the notion of Catullan patterning. H u t c h i n s o n (182) proposes  a division of the corpus into three parts,  a (1–60),  b (61–64), and c (65–116). While b is comprised of originally independent poems put together when the codex was assembled, a and c constitute books circulated by the author. However, he thinks that cc. 52, 59, and 60 were attached to a later. Despite endorsing authorial arrangement, he therefore feels insecurity about the structure of the surviving libelli, since papyri extracts suggest that ‘collections of epigrams were easily modified’ (207). Starting from the specific example of the ‘New Posidippus’ (P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309), where authorial editorship is also uncertain, B a r c h i e s i (183, 333–342) goes further. Although he regards cc. 65–116 as  a probable Catullan elegiac collection, he still proposes a ‘fuzzier’ model of Roman book arrangements in which ‘the idea of the controlling author as editor and architect is complicated by the activity of

142

Marilyn B. Skinner

readers, imitators, scribes, and scholars’.13 Even if Catullus did oversee publication of one or more libelli, then, we have no absolute guarantee that later readers or copyists respected a volume’s integrity. Advocates of authorial organization, in the meantime, have been tracing out  a plethora of internal schemes based on various aesthetic principles. The diversity of these proposals makes it advisable to subdivide them into partial and all-inclusive systems. A. Arrangement of Individual Sections 1. The Polymetric Group 184.  T. K. H u b b a r d , The Catullan libellus, Philologus 127, 1983, 218–237. 185.  M. P u l b r o o k , The Lesbia Libellus of Catullus, Maynooth Review 10, 1984, 72–84. 186.  P. Y. F o r s y t h , Catullus 14b, CW 83.2, 1989, 81–85. 187.  J. S c h e r f , Untersuchungen zur antiken Veröffentlichung der Catullgedichte, Hildesheim 1996. Rev.: B e c k , Gnomon 71, 1999, 368–370. 188.  H. D. J o c e l y n , The Arrangement and the Language of Catullus’ so-called polymetra with Special Reference to the Sequence 10–11–12, in: J. N. A d a m s   – R. G. M a y e r (eds.), Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry, Oxford 1999, 335–375 (= Proceedings of the British Academy 93) [‘Language of Latin Poetry’]. 189.  T. K. H u b b a r d , The Catullan libelli Revisited, Philologus 149.2, 2005, 253–277. 190.  F. B e l l a n d i , Chap. 3: Struttura e Composizione del liber Catulliano, in: Lepos e pathos (164), 63–96. 191.  S.  H a w k i n s , Catullus 60: Lesbia, Medea, Clodia, Scylla, AJPh 135.4, 2014, 559–597. Since almost all subsequent discussions of the polymetrics take it as a starting point, H u b b a r d ’s diagrammatic analysis of cc. 1–14 (184) has been the most influential contribution to the debate during this period. Those first fourteen poems (counting fragment 2b as a separate poem), which follow internal thematic patterns both linear and concentric to make up a series of three interrelated pentads, constitute, he says, the 13 One other instance of arguably pertinent data should be cited here. After the above essays were written, papyrologists announced the 2004 discovery of the ‘New Sappho’, a third-century BCE anthology containing two genuine works by Sappho and  a Hellenistic composition adopting her literary persona. One of the Sappho poems is an apparently shortened version of a piece already partially known from earlier papyri and testimonia and printed in Voigt’s edition as fr. 58. The find casts new light on the degree of mouvance (textual variation) affecting works in the oral performance tradition; whether it bears on written texts too is open to consideration.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

143

booklet presented to Nepos. Poems 14b through 26 form the introductory sequence of  a second libellus ending with 50 or 51 and perhaps left unfinished at the time of the poet’s death. In the following year, this scheme gained support from the independent conclusions of other investigators. P u l b r o o k (185) also identified cc. 1–14 as the core of the libellus dedicated to Nepos but speculated that it had contained elegiac pieces later extracted. S y n d i k u s devotes a part of his introductory chapter (75, 52–62) to the composition of the Gedichtbuch. After countering the traditional arguments for posthumous arrangement and publication, he identifies metrical variation accompanied by thematic associations as the key organizational principle of the polymetrics. The Lesbia cycle with its introjected poems 4, 6, 9, and 10 serves as an ‘Ouvertüre’ sounding the major themes of the entire corpus. Responding to Hubbard, F o r s y t h (186) maintains that the theme of cc. 15–26 is not Juventius but the ineptiae programmatically mentioned in c. 14b. Also drawing on Hubbard, S t r o h (116) expands Catullus’ initial collection to include the Juventius cycle, which corresponds to the Lesbia cycle metrically and schematically, forming an intricate ring-composition. The contrasted love affairs, one romantic and elevated, the other comic, thus become the book’s controlling framework. B e c k (118, 275–276), on the other hand, posits that cc. 1–14, the ‘Lesbia’ libellus, and cc. 14a–26, the ‘Aurelius- und Furius’ libellus, were two discrete publications, the second mirroring the first in structure and posing as an ironic self-parody responding to critics of the first. Seeking an underlying metrical structure for the corpus, S c h e r f devotes considerable space to the polymetric group (187, 65–85). Instead of assuming, with Skutsch, that Catullus eventually relaxed his handling of the aeolic base, he explains metrical variation in hendecasyllabic poems as non-chronological, reinforcing a fourfold division based on content. His first two sequences, cc. 2–14 and cc. 14a–26, follow the lead of earlier scholars; the third series, cc. 27 to 45, predominantly invective, is most free in its initial employment of iambs or trochees, while in cc. 46–60, conversely, a decline in lighter bases parallels a return to prior themes. Including the epithalamium for Torquatus in his study because of its formal similarities to c. 34, J o c e l y n (188) concentrates upon the six poems in lyric measures (cc. 11, 17, 30, 34, 51 and 61) found in this part of the collection (the term polymetra, is, he fulminates, ‘worse than a nonsense’). These melē belong to a higher linguistic register and possess distinct lexical and stylistic features, as shown by a comparison between c. 11 and the two Phalaecian epigrams that flank it. Both lyric and iambic items occur at regular intervals among the poems in Phalaecian hendecasyllables, creating a metrical distribution easily recognized by a first-century reader, but Jocelyn declines to say whether the poet himself or a scholarly editor was responsible. H u b b a r d (189) returns to his earlier idea that c. 14b, in combination with cc. 15–26, introduces a second authorially arranged collection. Published about the same time as the first, this libellus takes as its main theme what W r a y (240) terms the ‘poetics of manhood’, or verbal competition for social and literary status among elite males. Poem 51 concludes the volume by renouncing Lesbia as a poetic theme. B e l l a n d i (190, 64–65) rejects the notion that the liber Catulli as a whole preserves the

144

Marilyn B. Skinner

poet’s designs, but grants with reservations that 1–14a and 15–26 have the appearance of originally autonomous libelli. Adopting  a suggestion of F. d e l l a C o r t e , 14 he hypothesizes that Cornelius Nepos, as Catullus’ posthumous editor, placed the dedicatory poem and its libellus at the head of the collection before appending other works in metrical order. T h o m s o n (5, 6–7) concedes the same point: ‘All the same, who has not been struck, independently, by the tight coherence and pleasing balance of the first few poems when they are read together? This surely must be C.’s doing’. Acknowledgement that cc. 1–14 preserve a scheme laid out by the poet appears to be the fallback conservative stance. Conversely, other scholars have turned their attention to the final sequence of poems in the polymetric group in an effort to justify the contribution of cc. 52–60 to the design of the whole. After identifying Lesbia as the addressee of c. 60 and tracing the closural operations of those verses, Hawkins (191) proceeds to argue for thematic unity and sequential progression from c. 46 onward, highlighting lexical recurrences in cc. 49–53 and the stereotype of the wanton woman in cc. 58, 59, and 60. 192.  P. Y. F o r s y t h , The Lady and the Poem: Catullus 35–42, CJ 80.1, 1984, 24–26. 193.  –, Catullus 79, Latomus 44, 1985, 377–382. 194.  L. T r o m a r a s , Die Aurelius- und Furius-Gedichte Catulls als Zyklen (cc. 11, 15, 16, 21, 23, 24, 26), Eranos 85, 1987, 41–47. These three items exemplify past work, popular especially during the 1970s, that followed Barwick15 in tracing cycles and thematic clusters among contiguous short poems. In her first article F o r s y t h (192) contends that cc. 35–42 are unified by a general concern with poetry and mistresses. In the second (193) she postulates that the ancephalous c. 78b, predicting future noteriety for someone who sullies the kisses (suavia) of a pura puella with his os impurum, anticipates the revelation of Lesbius’ identity in c. 79, where he is said to seek in vain for kisses (suavia) from three acquaintances. The motif of fellatio is continued in c. 80, where the notion of infamy broached in 78b ( fama loquetur, 4) is also reintroduced ( fama susurrat, 5). T r o m a r a s (194; see also 114) argues that the arrangement of the seven Furius-Aurelius poems displays characteristics that meet the structural criteria of an ‘open cycle’. 2. The Longer Poems In contrast to design in the polymetrics and elegiacs, patterning in the longer poems 61 through 68b received little attention during the period under review. Earlier opinion had been evenly split over taking cc. 65–68b with the preceding pieces, creating  a ring-composition arrangement with the poet’s masterwork c. 64 at its 14 Personaggi Catulliani, 2nd ed., Florence 1976, p. 44. 15 K. B a r w i c k , Zyklen bei Martial und in den kleinen Gedichten des Catull, Philologus 102, 1958, 284–318.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

145

center, or alternatively grouping them with the shorter epigrams.16 The last three decades have seen a growing tendency to regard the longer elegiac pieces as the o­ pening sequence of an elegiac collection. Consequently, the two epithalamia, the Attis poem, and the Peleus and Thetis epyllion are usually treated as originally independent works, even when postulating that Catullus himself later assembled them into  a unit. Shared hymenaeal, religious and erotic themes then suffice to explain their association. 195.  M. P. P a r k e r , The cyclical unity of Catullus 61 to 68, diss. McMaster University 1991. N e w m a n (220) devotes  a chapter (204–247) to exploring lexical and thematic links in the ‘Central Poems’ and M a r t i n (149, 172–185) considers them a chiastic suite. During the past three decades, however, P a r k e r (195) has been the sole fulllength discussion. Comparison between Newman’s and Parker’s studies is instructive. Starting with the premise that the longer poems constitute a cycle preoccupied with amor, both trace the equivocal handling of that subject from the ideal presented in c. 61 – a happy and fruitful marriage – through the increasingly darker treatments of sexual desire and obsession in cc. 62 and 63 to the culminating betrayal of Ariadne in c. 64 and the gross disgust with human wickedness articulated in its epilogue. From that nadir, c. 65 strikes off in a new direction, introducing the motifs of poetic composition and bereavement. Its immediate successors reprise earlier nuptial themes, albeit in starkly contrasting fashion. Poem 68 crowns the cycle by drawing language from the epithalamium for Manlius Torquatus into the speaker’s personal ambit and overlaying the familial associations of domum and domina with heroic myth and personal loss. Despite these strikingly parallel yet independent readings, however, Newman and Parker express opposite opinions regarding the ultimate implications of c. 68: while the former interprets it as an affirmation of the artist’s vocation purchased at the cost of private happiness, the latter sees it as a reconciliation with reality attained through a more mature understanding of love. Presumably it could be both – or neither, since the manifold problems surrounding the text of 68 do not seem to permit many conclusive pronouncements. 3. The Elegiac Poems That the assemblage of elegiac poems was  a self-contained unit marked off at beginning and end by the repetition of carmina Battiadae (65.16 and 116.2) had been suggested as early as 1877,17 but full readings of a proposed elegiac libellus had to wait until more than  a century later. One obstacle was the dissimilarity of the metrical technique in cc. 69–116 and cc. 65–68b, where, among other differences, elision is less frequent; greater metrical harshness could imply that Catullus distinguished his 16 Ring-composition is the unifying armature in G. W. M o s t ’ s influential On the Arrangement of Catullus’ Carmina Minora, Philologus 125, 1981, 109–125. 17 J. S ü s s , Catulliana, Erlangen 1877.

146

Marilyn B. Skinner

epigrams from his longer elegies generically.18 The example of Propertius’ Monobiblos shows, however, that short epigrammatic pieces might be included in the same volume with lengthier works, and thematic resonances between numerous epigrams and the key preoccupations of cc. 65 and 68a–b, the loss of a brother and the infidelities of the beloved, encourage perceptions of overall continuity. 196.  E. B l o c k , Carmen 65 and the Arrangement of Catullus’ Poetry, Ramus 13.1, 1984, 48–59. 197.  J. K. K i n g , Catullus’ Callimachean carmina, cc. 65–116, in: Aesthetic Patterning (167), 383–392. 198.  E. M. Y o u n g , Chap. 5: Constructing Callimachus, in: Translation as Muse (232), 139–165. Though Block (196) assumes a one-volume liber Catulli, her analysis of programmatic elements in c. 65 heightens the likelihood that, despite its connections with preceding poems, it introduces  a distinct group within the corpus. In her brief essay, King (197) could not lay out  a complete scheme for the elegiac libellus, but she argues cogently that its five longer poems (taking 68a and 68b as discrete compositions) are an opening cycle evoking Callimachus’ Aetia while the remaining pieces owe a debt to the Alexandrian poet’s epigram collection. Scherf (187, 86–90) believes that the longer elegiac pieces, with their unique metrical features, bridge the gap between the neoteric epyllia and the epigrams, further evidence for authorial design. Based upon the same metrical differences, Hutchinson (182) further subdivides his third section, c, into two contrasting parts, c1 (65–68b)  and c2 (69–116), and also distinguishes them thematically. While the poems in c1 are modelled on Greek epigrams dealing with material objects, c2, hearkening back to Hellenistic amatory and scoptic verse, focuses instead on body parts, speech, and the mouth. S k i n n e r (94) follows King in construing the longer elegies as a programmatic cycle introducing Callimachus as a literary model. However, her interpretation of the cycle and of Catullus’ elegiac libellus as a whole finds progressive disillusionment with Callimachean aestheticism due to cynicism over politics, personal confrontation with mortality, and the demands for family survival precipitated by his brother’s death. H u b b a r d (189, 265–275) observes correspondences between the structures of cc. 65, 68a, and 68b, all of which have the brother’s death as their central topic, and the epigrams, where c. 101, the elegy at the brother’s grave, occurs at approximately the center of the group. The emotional reorientation in 68b, in which the speaker at last resigns himself to a non-exclusive relationship with Lesbia, parallels the development of a more sober attitude in the epigrams, since in c. 109 he finally accepts love on her terms. By the same token, the elegiac sequence at the beginning of the libellus deals not with marriage but with marital rupture, foreshadowing the general conclusion that no unproblematic marriage is possible. Sequences in the epigrams are not organized 18 D. O. R o s s , Jr., Style and Tradition in Catullus, Cambridge MA 1969, 115–137; J.­ D u h i g g , The Elegiac Metre of Catullus, Antichthon 5, 1971, 57–67.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

147

chronologically: the Lesbia poems are arranged to reinforce the paradox of odi et amo, and successive poems on false friends gradually reveal the rationale for enmity. In cc. 93–115, pairing of epigrams by addressee or subject matter appears to be the prevailing scheme; Hubbard suggests that the looser organization of this section may be explained by its unfinished state at the time of the poet’s death. B a r c h i e s i (183, 336) observes that c. 116, alluding in its first line to the opening line of Callimachus’ Aetia prologue, adheres to the neoteric practice of reversing beginnings and endings. Likewise, the opening poems cc. 65 and 66 quote Callimachus’ Acontius and Cydippe, occuring in book 3 of the Aetia, and his Lock of Berenice, the closing poem of book 4. Although the elegiac libellus is patently interested in the structure of the Aetia as an exemplar of book planning, that interest is ‘subversive’, because it mixes up beginnings, middles, and ends. Y o u n g (198) adopts Barchiesi’s line of argument: the diptych of cc. 65 and 66 and the concluding epigram c. 116 confirm that the elegiac poems, whether or not they were ordered by Catullus himself, as a group were inspired by Callimachus’ Aetia. Like other Catullan appropriations of Greek source texts, however, they must be viewed as original creations, not translations. B. Arrangement of the liber Catulli 1. Physical Considerations The question of whether Catullus’ corpus could be contained on a single book-roll, strongly denied by Theodor B i r t , 19 has been reopened and answered affirmatively on the basis of new papyrus discoveries and technical examination of book hands. At the same time, the perceived presence of ordered sequences in the polymetric and elegiac sections of the corpus raises the corollary matter of when the entire collection was assembled. If we posit that the liber Catulli consists of independent libelli not brought together until the age of the codex, projects tracing responsion across its three divisions – e.g. pairing c. 1 with c. 116, cc. 2 and 3 with cc. 114 and 115 – elicit skepticism, and so do sequential readings proposing that cc. 61–64 (or cc. 61–68, for that matter) expand polymetric leitmotifs into large-scale movements as  a prelude to fresh transpositions in the elegiac section. Assuming the authorial publication of a one-volume or three-volume oeuvre, on the other hand, would make unifying approaches theoretically viable, though not necessarily valid. Citations of Catullus and his neoteric counterparts in later ancient writers could meanwhile indicate that their works circulated as separate books rather than in single volumes, but the terminology employed leaves room for controversy. 199.  J. V a n S i c k l e , The Book-Roll and Some Conventions of the Poetic Book, Arethusa 13.1, 1980, 5–42. 200.  J. D. M i n y a r d , The Source of the Catulli Veronensis Liber, in: Aesthetic Patterning (167), 343–353.

19 Das antike Buchwesen in seinem Verhältnis zur Litteratur, Berlin 1882.

148

Marilyn B. Skinner

201.  A. M. M o r e l l i , Il Liber Catulli di Terenziano Mauro: L’Attis e le convenzioni del libro latino, Segno e Testo 3, 2005, 71–91. Even given a length of 2500 lines for the undamaged Catullan oeuvre, V a n S i c k l e calculates, including it on one papyrus roll would have been physically feasible (199, 6–7, 15–16). Re-examination of the material evidence and the ancient citations leads M i n y a r d (200) to postulate that  a one-volume edition might have existed in antiquity, organized by the poet and known by the title ‘Catulli Liber’. S c h e r f (187, 12–29) agrees that the length of the book is no longer an objection to authorial arrangement but inclines toward publication in discrete libelli, since absence of references to book numbers in antiquity argues against a three-volume ‘collected edition’. B u t r i c a (39, 21) reckons that titles, for the most part generic, indicate that the small books of Catullus and his fellow neoterics were similar in format – assortments of hendecasyllabic and lyric verse, epyllia and epithalamia, long and short elegiac poems – and warns nevertheless that such titles may have been supplied by booksellers, not authors. M o r e l l i (201) argues that the liber mentioned by Terentianus Maurus when discussing Catullus’ use of galliambics (servasse quae Catullum probat ipse tibi liber, 2899) refers not to c. 63 but to our surviving liber Catulli, already circulating as a three-volume collection during the first century of the Imperial era. 2. Ring-Composition (Annular) Patterning 202.  H. D e t t m e r , Design in the Catullan Corpus: A Preliminary Study, in: Aesthetic Patterning (167) 371–381. 203.  P. Y. F o r s y t h , The Fearful Symmetry of Catullus’ Polymetrics, CW 86.6, 1993, 492–495. 204.  H. D e t t m e r , The First and Last of Catullus, SyllClass 5, 1994, 29–33. 205.  –, Love by the Numbers: Form and Meaning in the Poetry of Catullus, Lang Classical Studies 10, New York 1997. Rev.: M a l e u v r e , LEC 67, 1999, 96–97; H o l z b e r g , CR 50.2, 2000, 436– 437; S a r k i s s i a n , CO 78, 2000–2001, 87; R a d i f , Maia 53, 2001, 223–225. 206.  P. C l a e s , Concentric Composition in Catullus, CW 94.4, 2001, 379–383. Annular organization had been observed in author-edited Augustan poetry books such as Vergil’s Bucolics and proposed for individual Catullan poems (c. 68b is the classic example) and poem clusters, but D e t t m e r pioneered efforts to chart structural and thematic reciprocity across the whole collection. In an early article (202) she sketches out the general approach, offering a diagram of nine successive rings of paired poems corresponding to each other thematically. The overall arrangement coincides with the three major divisions of the corpus: five cycles in the polymetrics, the last ending with c. 60; one cycle of longer poems, cc. 61 through 68b; and three cycles in the epigrams, concluding with cc. 110–111. Following the close of the final ring, cc. 112–116 constitute  a five-poem tag. Although she incorporates many thematic

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

149

links previously acknowledged, Dettmer’s own connections are sometimes vague or arbitrary, and her blueprint requires her to explain away three of the polymetric poems with no matching piece (cc. 17, 30, and, astonishingly since it is a basia poem, 48) as deliberate attempts to create imbalance, an odd strategy for a layout otherwise so regularly proportioned. F o r s y t h (203), replying to the article, judges these to be major difficulties. Responding in turn to Forsyth’s doubts, C l a e s (206) submits three diagrams of his own in which long sequences of verbally associated poems (cc. 77–91, cc. 92–107, cc. 1–36) are concentrically positioned around an innermost omphalos. In a second article (204), D e t t m e r finds verbal and thematic bonding together with motif-inversion in cc. 1 and 116, which would seem to contradict her previous claim that the last poem is extraneous to the ring-composition structure. She incorporates that proposal in her subsequent monograph (205, 223–226) without, however, abandoning her original notion that the last five poems are, as it were, a postscript. To her symmetrical and thematic model she now adds a system of mathematical correspondences in which ‘the sum of, or the difference between, the number of verses in groups of poems creates  a pattern of near or exact equality’ (244), proving that correlations have been properly identified. Unfortunately, to make numerical totals in the polymetrics come out, lacunae otherwise unsuspected must be conjectured (246–247), hinting at the Procrustean nature of the undertaking. Reviewers also found questionable her prosopographical assumptions about the identities of persons in the corpus, such as her assignment of poems naming Caelius and those naming Rufus to one and the same individual, Caelius Rufus, on the basis of  a postulated linear and circular arrangement (151–69) that may also contain a circular argument. 3. Sequential Readings 207.  J. F e r g u s o n , The Arrangement of Catullus’ Poems, LCM 11.1, 1986, 2–6 and 11.2, 1986, 18–20. 208.  J. D i o n , La composition des Carmina de Catulle: défense de son unité, BAGB 2, 1993: 136–157. 209.  P. C l a e s , La concaténation comme principe de composition chez Catulle, LEC 64, 1996, 163–170. 210.  G. I v e r s e n , The text and the tapestry: three remarks on the composition of the ‘Catulli Veronensis liber’, C&M 52, 2001, 257–275. 211.  P. C l a e s , Concatenatio Catulliana: a new reading of the carmina, Amsterdam 2002. 212.  K. G u t z w i l l e r , Catullus and the Garland of Meleager, in: Poems, Books, Readers (178), 79–111. Adopting the position of a first-time reader, W i s e m a n (82, 137–182) construes the Lesbia poems as an unfolding narrative of a lover’s psychological journey: from idealization of the beloved to realization of her unworthiness, through distortions imposed by fantasy and struggles with obsession to an equivocal closure in a promise

150

Marilyn B. Skinner

of renewed happiness. D y s o n (414) also regards these poems as a fictive chronicle of emotional experience forming the ‘dramatic core’ of the collection and presenting separate constructions of the Lesbia figure in each division of the corpus. In the first installment of his two-part analysis, F e r g u s o n (207) traces out in the polymetrics a complex pattern of interlaced cycles involving major personalities and motifs; the second part deals briefly with the universalizing sequence of four longer poems before turning to the elegiacs and finding a comparably intricate set of thematic sequences. Reading the collection in linear fashion, D i o n (208) groups the polymetrics, the two hexameter poems 62 and 64, and the galliambic c. 63 into numerical divisions marked by changes in meter. Elegiac ensembles are organized by subject, the first five poems (counting c. 68a and c. 68b as two poems) according to Greek models, the remainder into three assemblages of sixteen poems, each divided into two halves. Psychologically, the collection shows an evolution from  a carnal understanding of Venus, progressing through the hymns to Diana and Hymen, to the foedus amicitiae concluding the Lesbia poems. Its aesthetic scheme is articulated through mathematically corresponding poem clusters. Concatenation, or the chaining together of juxtaposed poems through thematic and lexical repetition, is, according to C l a e s (209, 211), the ordering principle of the liber Catulli. Abrupt shifts in tone and mood between poems are explained by variation, an expected and admired compositional technique. Thematically connected poems may be separated by one or more contrasting pieces, while lexical connections are forged by the reappearance of identical or similar words. Applying these tenets (211, 57–120), he identifies systematic thematic and formal links between sequential poems throughout the collection, then summarizes devices for achieving variation: alternation of male and female characters, alternation of poems on friends and enemies, and alternation of opposite or equivalent actions. Lexical repetition allows us to find patterns of concentric composition among poems (see above, 206), which are mirrored by similar patterns within poems (internal annular composition). Finally, if accepted as a principle of organization, concatenation may be applied to solve textual problems. Defending the thesis that Catullus arranged and published the entire collection in three rolls, I v e r s e n (210) presents ingenious arguments: motif inversions between the initial and concluding poems 1 and 116; the expressive chiastic structure of the last hendecasyllabic poem c. 58; and the function of the ekphrasis in c. 64. At the center of the epyllion, the focal point in the collection when read sequentially, the tableau of the betrayed Ariadne together with the faithless Theseus and the sympotic Bacchus is, she contends, emblematic of Catullus’ poetry itself, while the refrain in the song of the Parcae is a self-conscious reference to his work as a textural composition. G u t z w i l l e r (212) identifies salient allusions to Meleager’s epigrams at strategic points in the collection, indicating that the Garland not only inspired Catullus’ social world of lovers and friends and his erotic subjectivity but also served as a model for the arrangements of the polymetrics and the epigrams. Finally, H o l z b e r g ’s linear reading (241) is framed as a ‘journey of discovery’ through the three-volume collection. In the debate over arrangement, his key contribution is to divide the polymetrics into five successive thematic blocks, marked off

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

151

by the lyric poems cc. 11, 34 and 51. The first two subdivisions, cc. 1–14 and 14a–26, concide with those of H u b b a r d (184); in the third, cc. 27–34, invective poems dominate; the fourth, cc. 35–45, returns to Lesbia, with Ameana as a prominent foil; the last block, cc. 46–60, though heterogeneous, is again greatly preoccupied with the Roman political scene. For the other parts of the collection Holzberg tends to follow earlier scholarship, reading cc. 61–64 as a second volume concerned with aspects of marriage, and the elegiacs, cc. 65–116, as a mixture of erotic, social, and political material in which the speaker’s pose as moral critic is undercut by his own dubious ethics. 4. Indeterminability In a poststructuralist age, it is not surprising to encounter claims that temporal flow in the liber Catulli is not constrained by linear readings, and, insofar as that flow can be directed in multiple ways, no one narrative sequence is correct. One may choose between Borgesian and Lacanian models of aporia. M i l l e r (221, 75–77) compares the corpus to the novel in Borges’ short story ‘The Garden of Forking Paths’, which envisages all possible outcomes of any choice made by any of its characters. Working like a hypertext, the collection releases meanings that, as they branch, respond, and proliferate, lead us along multileveled interpretive routes. To J a n a n (248, ­143–146), who approaches it from a Lacanian standpoint, the liber Catulli is a symptomatic text revealing a split in the human subject, both the speaker of the poems and the reader of them. Like Miller, Janan conceives of the collection as a locus of inconclusive explanatory trajectories that, in the end, can only invite audiences to continue rereading.

IV. Critical Interpretations Due to its diversity, arranging the following large body of work under suitable rubrics is not easy. To obtain a general impression, we begin with a few specialists’ attempts to identify key trends in Catullan criticism from the mid-1980s to the present. After that we turn to comprehensive methodological explorations, chiefly in the form of monographs, and then to efforts, both conventional and New Historicist, to place the poet within his historical milieu. In the following sections formalist inquiries engaging with just one or a few poems and restricted thematic investigations make up the majority of essays and book chapters surveyed. The final lengthy section is given over to additional bibliography on single poems or groups of poems. A. Overviews: Critical Trends 214.  W. W. B a t s t o n e , Introduction, in: Catullan Lyric (168), 83–87. 215.  C. M a r t i n d a l e , Foreward to the 1999 Edition, in: K. Q u i n n , The Catullan Revolution, 2nd ed., London 1999, vii–xxv.

152

Marilyn B. Skinner

216.  J. H. G a i s s e r , Introduction: Themes in Catullan Criticism (c.1950–2000), in: Oxford Readings (176), 1–24. 217.  M. B. S k i n n e r , Introduction, in: Companion (177), 1–9. 218.  I. D u Q u e s n a y  – T. W o o d m a n , Epilogue, in: Poems, Books, Readers (178), 255–272. Writing in the early 1990s, B a t s t o n e (214) observed a persistent lack of consensus: ‘In recent years no general interpretation or reinterpretation of Catullus has emerged which one would call standard or authoritative. In fact, no general interpretation has emerged in recent years despite the work of the past two decades’ (83). He instead notes some burgeoning fields of investigation: attention to the order of the collection and to forces of society and culture that impact poetic expression; exploration of individual poems as competitive responses to the literary tradition; study of the reader’s part in complying with or resisting the poet’s rhetorical moves. At the end of the same decade, M a r t i n d a l e agrees (215, xxi) that there is no adequate replacement for Kenneth Quinn’s Catullan Revolution (1959), with its comprehensive, though now problematic, assignment of the poems to ‘levels of intent’. Like Batstone, he enumerates several points of recent inquiry: historical context; Callimacheanism, with  a concomitant stress on poetic reflexivity; obscenity, an important facet of Catullus’ oeuvre that would benefit from a broader theoretical consideration; sexuality and gender and their intriguing relation to textuality: in some modern criticism ‘sex and text are elided’ (xxiv). G a i s s e r ’s historical and thematic introduction to the Catullan scholarship of the past fifty years (216) also identifies obscenity as an emerging preoccupation of researchers during the 1980s, along with attention to structure, neoteric poetics, and allusivity. From the 1990s on, however, three fundamental axioms of New Criticism – the unity of the text, the universality of human emotion, and the assumption that a single correct meaning will reveal itself to scrutiny  – are radically questioned. The ‘new hermeneutics’, as she terms it, also denies the objectivity of the interpreter and the reality of textual representations, which are no more than constructs. Although it is difficult to predict what forthcoming decades have in store, increases in theoretical methods in combination with Catullus’ own variety should continue to prompt new insights. S k i n n e r ’s introduction (217) foregrounds the socio-historicist approach to Catullus as the major scholarly development of the past twenty-five years, but also singles out performance, especially convivial recitation in banquet contexts, as  a growing interest among interpreters. D u Q u e s n a y   – W o o d m a n (218), conversely, begin by reconsidering the long-standing assumption that the first-person speaker is a rhetorically crafted persona and the reality conveyed so vividly in the personal poems  a fiction heightened by literary devices. Their position instead is that subjectivity can be effectively expressed through texts shaped by generic expectations and prior tradition. Turning to that tradition, they observe that current research has demonstrated the extent of the Alexandrian poets’ engagement with the ancient Egyptian cultural and religious

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

153

heritage and with Ptolemaic Egypt’s place among competing Hellenistic kingdoms. This consciousness of the external environment on the part of his models may have led Catullus to incorporate topical references to Roman political interests, especially in the eastern territories, into his longer poems. As for the corpus itself, it is unified, the editors claim, by the personality of its author, whose relationships with contemporaries create a network binding individual poems together. They reaffirm Catullus’ interest in the media whereby his poems are transmitted and suggest an underlying implication that the physical qualities of the book reflect qualities of the author and its recipient. On the ordering of the collection, as observed above, Du Quesnay – Woodman decide that defenses of authorial arrangement have prevailed, although they add that many disputes remain unresolved and that suggesting abstract connecting themes as  a linking device can blur relevant differences between poems. Moreover, they express deep unease about the corrupt condition of the text, warning that readers ‘need to be alert to variations in the tradition and make their own choices as best they can’ (267). While the two essays in the volume concerned with later reception establish convincingly that Vergil and Ovid read particular poems together in meaningful ways, the editors conclude that present-day readers who do so ‘should perhaps resist the temptation’ (271) to appeal to the poet’s own authority as a justification for the choices being made. Fair enough. B. Unifying Approaches In the last three decades Catullus’ poetry has been subjected to an abundance of theoretical interpretations. Apart from traditional philologists, proponents of New Criticism, formalism, gender theory, poststructuralism, psychological criticism, New Historicism, cultural studies and, among Anglo-American classicists, practitioners of what Don F o w l e r has termed the ‘New Latin’20 have all had their say. Indeed, efforts to find  a controlling theme or to fit the corpus into an overall conceptual framework constitute the bulk of contemporary scholarly literature on the poet. Strategies, however, vary widely. If genre is foregrounded, as it was earlier in this period, Catullus can be regarded as a neurotic (if scurrilous) lyricist and indeed as the actual inventor of the lyric collection; conversely, one can follow Quintilian in labeling him an iambographer. Rhetorical studies, popular in the last two decades, present him with a certain degree of uniformity as a manipulator of language playing positional games with readers, while sociolinguistic analyses contextualize the operations of that language. Performative approaches view him, or rather his persona, as an insightful critic of social attitudes and beliefs, a competitive enacter of masculinity, or a producer of raunchy and titillating light verse. Through a psychoanalytic lens he emerges as  a fragmented Lacanian desiring subject or an artist eerily attuned to Freudian mechanisms of repression. Unsurprisingly, this welter of proposed master systems generates confusion: one outcome of critical disagreement has been the abandonment 20 D. P. F o w l e r , Modern Literary Theory and Latin Poetry: Some Anglo-American Perspectives, Arachnion 2, 1995, not paginated (http://www.cisi.unito.it/arachne/num2/fowler.html).

154

Marilyn B. Skinner

of searches for the all-inclusive meaning, particularly in greatly contested texts like c. 64. Yet, as theoretical positions multiply, close reading, a holdover from New Critical preoccupation with the poem-in-itself, nevertheless remains most analysts’ tool of choice, and attentiveness to intertextual dynamics continues to be popular, especially among Italian and English-speaking scholars. 1. Generic Readings 219.  W. R. J o h n s o n , The Idea of Lyric: Lyric Modes in Ancient and Modern Poetry, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London 1982. Chap. 4: In the Birdcage of the Muses: Ancient Literary Lyric, 96–145. 220.  J. K. N e w m a n , Roman Catullus and the Modification of the Alexandrian Sensibility, Hildesheim 1990. Rev.: G r a n a r o l o , REL 68, 1990, 208; R u i z S á n c h e z , Myrtia 5, 1990, 135–147; D e s c h a m p s , REA 93, 1991, 171; To r d e u r , AC 60, 1991, 390–391; B r a u n d , JRS 82, 1992, 247–248; D o b e s c h , Tyche 7, 1992, 65–74; N e l i s , CR 42, 1992, 39–40; S k i n n e r , CPh 87, 1992, 174–178; K o s t e r , AAHG 46.1–2, 1993, 27–29; R a m b a u x , Gnomon 65.3, 1993, 269–272. 221.  P. A. M i l l e r , Lyric Texts and Lyric Consciousness: The birth of a genre from archaic Greece to Augustan Rome, London and New York 1994 [‘Lyric Texts and Lyric Consciousness’]. Chap. 4: The Garden of Forking Paths: Catullus and the birth of the collection, 52–77; Chap. 5: Sapphica Puella: The triple-faceted object of Catullan desire, 101–119. Rev.: H a m b l e n n e , LEC 63, 1995, 377–378; I n s t o n e , CR 45.2, 1995, 267–268; N e l i s , JRS 85, 1995, 269–270; L i e b e r g , Klio 78.1, 1996, 235–239; G u t z w i l l e r , CW 90.1, 1996–1997, 72–73; J a n a n , CO 74, 1996–1997, 40–42; K r e v a n s , BMCRev 1997.2.11. 222.  M. C. J. P u t n a m , Poetic Interplay: Catullus and Horace, Princeton 2006. Rev.: A n d e r s o n , Vergilius 53, 2007, 167–171; F i t z g e r a l d , JRS 97, 2007, 310–311; M c D e r m o t t , NECJ 34.1, 2007, 87–89; N a u , BMCRev 2007.01.04; S t a r i k o v s k y , CW 101.4, 2007–2008, 557–558; G o u d , Phoenix 62.3–4, 2008, 395–397; H o l z b e r g , Gnomon 80.1, 2008, 59–61; M c N e i l l , CJ 104.2, 2008–2009, 177–179. J o h n s o n (219), published slightly before the commencement date of this survey, is included because of its impact upon subsequent work, particularly M i l l e r (221) and F i t z g e r a l d (227). In antiquity, Johnson maintains, the prevailing form of lyric is ‘I-You’, in which the poet speaks his thoughts to an addressee who stands in for the reader. As  a rule, Catullus’ lyric poetry follows that pattern, even when the addressee is himself. Like H a v e l o c k before him,21 Johnson perceives a lyric 21 E. A. H a v e l o c k , The Lyric Genius of Catullus, New York 1967 (rpt. of the 1939 ed.).

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

155

sensibility throughout the collection, including the longer poems, as he traces emotive changes from the brashness and élan of the polymetrics (issued as  a libellus under the title Passer [The Sparrow]) to the morbid alienation of the uncollected epigrams. On the assumption that lyric discourse, however aesthetically tempered, mirrors subjective experience, he reads the corpus as psychic biography. To the genre, then, his Catullus bequeaths the figure of a self-conscious speaker undertaking ‘to probe the unconscious springs of his life and of his art, to try to master what is invisible and essentially unknowable in himself ’ (122). Rejecting popular impressions of Catullus as a ‘love-poet’, N e w m a n (220, viii) catalogues him generically as  a satirist, ‘the heir of Lucilius and the ancestor of Martial’, faithful in his inspiration to his primitive Roman roots despite his exposure to Alexandrian finesse. Newman then affiliates satire with the presumed religious origins of iamb, which in its Eleusinian mode is said to be ‘derived from the ritual, threshold provocation of laughter in the face of mourning and death, intended in its turn to precede resurrection from the lower world’ (44). Catullus’ four mentions of his iambi (at 36.4–5, 40.1–2, 54.6–7 and fr. 3) and Quintilian’s classification of him as an iambographer (Inst. 10.1.96) involve this expanded idea of the genre, identified as the ‘single rubric’ unifying his poetry (63). Using that definition of ‘iamb’, Newman is able to account for not only conventionally abusive or obscene verse but also for the redemptive features of the central poems, where Catullus writes ‘iambically and comically, and yet also religiously, about marriage, children, perversion, death, resurrection’ (245–246). Critical explanation of c. 68 as a renewed self-dedication to art, once the speaker has grappled with the double loss of brother and beloved, crowns this triumphalist exposition. Impressive grounding in Russian literary theory, particularly the tenets of Bakhtin and the Formalist school, gives Newman an informed perspective on matters of genre. Unfortunately, he makes his case through sweeping assertions and frequently ignores evidence pointing in a contrary direction. In this lengthy and rather disorganized book, then, there are many fruitful insights, but the total picture is not convincing. M i l l e r ’s treatment of Catullus (221) forms part of a larger inquiry into the history of the lyric genre. Defining ‘lyric’ as a short poem projecting the image of a distinct, self-reflexive subjective consciousness (1), he maintains that it can only originate in a culture of writing, as part of a collection permitting new temporal relations to emerge and new aspects of the self to surface when, through re-reading, textual components enter into altered narrative configurations. With its chronological discontinuities, the liber Catulli, he argues, is historically the first such surviving collection. Whether or not Catullus himself edited it is immaterial, for nothing is expected of the reader beyond familiarity with the other poems it contains. Dialogical relations with Sappho, not only in cc. 11 and 51 but in the epithalamic or quasi-epithalamic contexts of cc. 61 through 64 and in cc. 65, 66, and 68 underscore themes of marriage, abandonment, and sex-role reversal, lending a lyric dimension to the longer poems. To be precise, P u t n a m (222) is concerned with Horace’s indebtedness to Catullus, especially in the Odes, but is included here because the issue of genre bears directly upon the two poets’ intertextual relations. Putnam explains Horace’s neglect

156

Marilyn B. Skinner

to acknowledge Catullus as  a lyric precursor in terms of meter: together with his acerbitas, the predominance of iambic forms in the polymetrics in effect disqualified Catullus from being classified as a lyricist and thus allowed Horace to claim priority in that genre. The ubiquity of Horace’s verbal and contextual borrowings, however, indicates that he perceived in the earlier poet a broader lyric sensitivity that he could adapt for his expressive purposes, often by implicitly contrasting Catullus’ intensity and emotional energy with his own aestheticized restraint. Having traced this ongoing poetic rivalry through clusters of odes on  a variety of recurrent themes, Putnam concludes with an elegant synopsis of the patterns of reception he has uncovered (140–144), which provides subtle insights into both Catullus’ and Horace’s lyric artistry. 2. Rhetorical Analyses In contrast to the previous studies, which found a unifying basis for the poetry in a prescribed genre, the next group of investigations probes the reader’s engagement with the text’s rhetorical dynamics. 223.  V. P e d r i c k , Qui potis es, inquis? Audience Roles in Catullus, Arethusa 19.2, 1986, 187–209. 224.  D. L. S e l d e n , Ceveat lector: Catullus and the Rhetoric of Performance, in: R. H e x t e r   – D. S e l d e n (eds.), Innovations of Antiquity, New York and London 1992, 461–512 (reprinted in: Oxford Readings [176], 490–559). 225.  W. W. B a t s t o n e , Logic, Rhetoric, and Poesis, in: Catullan Lyric (168), 143–172. 226.  V. P e d r i c k , The Abusive Address and the Audience in Catullan Poems, in: Catullan Lyric (168), 173–196. 227.  W. F i t z g e r a l d , Catullan Provocations: Lyric Poetry and the Drama of Position, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London 1995 [‘Provocations’]. Rev.: M i l l e r , CO 73.4, 1995–1996, 141–142; J a n a n , Phoenix 50.3–4, 1996, 344–345; N a p p a , CJ 92.2, 1996–1997, 199–200; B r a u n d , CR n.s. 47.2, 1997, 298–300; D e s c h a m p s , REA 99.1–2, 1997, 234–236; E g u i a r t e , Augustinus 42 no. 164–165, 1997, 168–169; N e w l a n d s , AJPh 118.3, 1997, 468–470; R e a y , BMCRev 1997.2.23; To r d e u r , AC 66, 1997, 430–431. P e d r i c k (223) cautions that Catullan poetry is anxious to control audience re­ actions to the text and highly successful at doing so; her readings of cc. 45, 85, 10, 70, and 72 illustrate how easily the reader’s perceptions are manipulated. In a groundbreaking essay that continues to influence twenty-first century receptions of Catullus, S e l d e n (224) applies speech act theory to the poet’s discourse. He regards Catullan speech as intrinsically self-contradictory: ‘If we ask what a text is for Catullus, we find that it is principally a site for the intersection of two irreconcilable systems of ­meaning’ (475). This semantic pattern, in itself definitive, is illuminated by J. L. A u s t i n ’s

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

157

linguistic analysis of speech effects.22 Most of the poems are not what Austin terms ‘constative’, that is, they are not factual propositions whose truth value can be tested. Instead, they are performative, accomplishing by their very utterance an intended act (481). The impetus for Catullus’ project is the rise of oratory as a school discipline in the first century BCE, with its attendant emphasis upon verbal self-fashioning; his poems demonstrate the illogicalities arising from the prevailing ‘politico-discursive system’ and the authority it granted to character portrayal (497–498). Independently of Selden, B a t s t o n e (225) applies the contemporary notion of lyric as a public staging of self to analyze cc. 16 and 49 as logical enigmas that reflect the dilemmas of human interactions with language. In c. 16, the problems of the art-life dichotomy are reconfigured as a problem of self-presentation, while in c. 49 the two languages of Ciceronian eloquence and neoteric trifling are conflated, creating an indeterminacy that wavers between parody and praise. Again adopting the stance of ‘resisting reader’, P e d r i c k (226) examines the effectiveness of one abusive tactic Catullus routinely employs, that of openly addressing the target of his invective. Audiences are directed to accept the speaker’s position because they are cast in the role of eavesdroppers. F i t z g e r a l d (227) begins with the premise that any work of art sets up a position from which its consumer is able to access it (1). His exploration of ‘aesthetic positionality’ as it is encountered in Catullan lyric pursues three objectives. First, he maps the strategies by which the poet locates himself strategically in relation to his reader, creating a power drama in which the latter unconsciously invests; second, he further maps this dialectic of author and reader onto the complicated hierarchies of Roman society and the ambiguous cultural position of Catullus himself; third, he exposes the ways in which modern scholars and writers have constructed an image of Catullus authorizing them to speak on the poet’s behalf. In his opening chapter Fitzgerald shows how constructions of the author have been used not only to unify the collection but to control disturbing ingredients such as obscenity and homosexuality. Chapters 2–5 examine assorted inflections of poetic speech  – erotic, obscene, and urbane language and the much-discussed ‘rhetoric of aristocratic obligation’ – as vehicles for engaging the reader and probing the operations of power within the social system and the transactions between performer and audience. Roman cultural contexts are the focus of the following three chapters, in which Fitzgerald studies the ‘belated’ stance toward Greek myth taken in c. 64, the victimized posture of the persona in cc. 10 and 11, and, in cc. 65–68b and 101, the problems of Transpadane identity raised by the death of Catullus’ brother in the Troad. The last chapter, ‘Between Men’, by far the most provocative and refreshing, unmasks the misogyny underlying twentieth-century writers’ reception of Catullus as a surrogate brother or confidant. For Selden, Batstone, Pedrick, and Fitzgerald the poet is wholly in control of the language he deploys; this assumption is also present in early twenty-first century sociolinguistic and stylistic analyses. 22 J. L. A u s t i n , How to Do Things with Words, 2nd ed., J. O. U r m s o n   – M. S b i s à (eds.), Cambridge, MA 1975.

158

Marilyn B. Skinner

228.  B. A. K r o s t e n k o , Cicero, Catullus, and the Language of Social Performance, Chicago and London 2001. Chap. 7: Leporum Disertus Puer: The Language of Social Performance in Catullus, 233–290. Rev.: F i t z g e r a l d , CPh 97.4, 2002, 394–398; T h e o d o r a k o p o u l o s , JRS 93, 2003, 359–361; To r d e u r , AC 72, 2003, 388; B i o n d i , Gnomon 76.2, 2004, 120–125; D e l b e y , REA 106, 2004, 659–660; M a l e u v r e , LEC 72, 2004, 145–146. 229.  Th. B a r b a u d , Catulle, une poétique de l’indicible, Bibliothèque d’études classiques 47, Paris 2006. Rev.: V i a r r e , REL 84, 2006, 368–369; B o r g o , BStudLat 36.2, 2007, 713–714. 230.  B. A. K r o s t e n k o , Catullus and Elite Republican Social Discourse, in: Companion (177), 212–232. 231.  B. E. S t e v e n s , Silence in Catullus, Madison, WI 2013 [‘Silence’]. Rev.: N a t o l i , BMCRev 2014.12.12; H a w k i n s , CR 65.2, 2015, 444–446. 232.  E. M. Y o u n g , Translation as Muse: Poetic Translation in Catullus’ Rome, Chicago and London 2015 [‘Translation as Muse’]. Rev.: P o l t , BMCRev 2016.05.50. K r o s t e n k o (228) identifies  a cluster of lexemes  – elegan(s), lep(idus), festiv(us), venust(us), bell(us), facet(us) and their derivatives  – central to what he terms ‘the social performance of identity through aesthetic means’ (1) in upper-class Republican Roman circles. Under the influence of Hellenistic cultural practices, an increasingly self-conscious political elite began in the late third and second centuries BCE to recognize manifestations of style and refinement as indicators of social worth and to employ this set of terms to express approbation. Because aestheticism, with its Greek connotations, remained under ideological suspicion, however, the same vocabulary could also be used pejoratively. In some passages where the terms occur, ambiguity of tone reflects the tensions associated with social performance; in others, either approval or dis­approval predominates. Through semantic extension, this language was appropriated for technical rhetorical criticism in order to justify the value of linguistic embellishment. Instances of the vocabulary in Cicero’s speeches reveal  a variety of distinct ideological stances; although negative uses prevail, it is obvious that aestheticism had become ‘a dominant paradigm for social interaction’ (201). Meanwhile, his use of the language of social performance in rhetorical treatises, most notably de Oratore, embeds it in contexts that emphasize its contributions to elite social cohesion. ­Catullus, finally, commandeers this aesthetic vocabulary and applies it unconventionally to the private sphere of poetry, erotics, and sympotic entertainment; by making it programmatic for Callimachean poetics, he destabilizes it as a medium for political self-fashioning. K r o s t e n k o (230) is a shortened version of this influential chapter. In the first part of his 2006 monograph (expanded from a 1966 doctoral dissertation), B a r b a u d (229) investigates what he terms the ‘imaginative frameworks’

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

159

(structurations imaginaires) of the Catullan collection; in the second part, he discusses formal features of Catullan discourse, including rhetorical and stylistic effects, and reviews programmatic statements. Although he considers the polymetric poems and the epigrams, he is chiefly preoccupied with lexical and syntactical analysis of the carmina maiora, paying particular attention to c. 64. The short poems, he maintains, evoke the quotidian, while the longer poems open out in another dimension, between autobiography and allegory (x). Along with the recurrence of personal names such as ‘Lesbia’, repeated phrases, metrical formulas and leitmotifs bridging the short and long poems impart unity to the collection; thus language from Catullus’ laments for his brother returns in Aegeus’ parting speech to Theseus. Barbaud makes perceptive observations on the effects of lexical repetition and the function of time in the longer poems. Conclusions drawn in the second part of the study are more diverse. Rhetorical analysis of speeches given to characters in cc. 63 and 64 reveals that each speaks in his or her own voice. Ornamental epithets enhance the aural and visual texture as well as the descriptive color of verse passages, adding semantic, grammatical, and rhythmic correspondences. The longest and most substantial chapter, ‘Aspects d’une poétique’ (149–237), covers neoteric aesthetics; employment of Callimachus, Sappho, and other models; use of poetic devices such as apostrophe and anaphora; and the associations of the elegiac meter, ending with Catullus’ reception by later poets. This is a sophisticated display of the latest formalist strategies. Silence, according to S t e v e n s (231), constitutes an essential feature of Catullus’ poetry. His interpretation poses an opposition between sociocultural silence – silence enforced as part of social exchange, including linguistic taboos  – and the absolute silence of death. Close readings of c. 6 and of several poems involving oral sex show the poet dexterously making verse out of what should not be said; other ‘metapoetic’ pieces use criticism of poetry, and the silences it imposes, to figure social interaction in terms of rhetorical performance. In contrast, the ‘death’ poems 65, 68a and b, 101 and 96 (see below, 473) confront transience as an existential phenomenon over which speaking subjects have no control: ‘whereas the poet seeks to produce charming or witty poetry in response to the sorts of sociocultural silences that characterize ordinary social interaction, he is, like any ordinary language user, stymied by the natural silence of death’ (161). In his concluding chapters (711 and 834), Stevens examines Catullus’ adoption of ‘feminized’ voices, such as those of Ariadne, the Parcae, Attis, and finally Sappho, as a way of further underscoring his own exclusion from discourse. Stevens fashions an ahistorical story of reading enacting the poet’s realization, by way of his brother’s death, that language is inadequate and then examines the artistic consequences of that discovery: temporally, he charts a progression from the polymetrics to the elegies to the longer poems as one of a multiplicity of undocumented ‘forking paths’. While occasionally a bit strained, Stevens’ interpretations are highly suggestive, and his identification of death as a nullifying factor in Catullan poetics is original and convincing. If this monograph foreshadows larger interpretive trends, future work on Catullus may venture into deeply metaphysical terrain. Y o u n g (232) is another recent monograph reflecting current academic fashions, in this case a growing interest in translation studies. She posits that Roman authors

160

Marilyn B. Skinner

approached translation not as a service to the original, demanding lexical fidelity, but rather as a source of inspiration in its own right. Technical terms like exprimere and vertere convey a sense of a transformative process (imitatio) whereby the poet appropriated the precursor text and made it his own through creative adaption. Taking this view of Roman translation practice as her point of departure, Young examines a range of poems in which Catullus reworks his models, beginning with c. 64, viewed as an exercise in generic reconstitution. Concluding analyses of Catullus’ translations of complete poems by Callimachus and Sappho reveal that each Latin rendering is a self-conscious proclamation of mastery over the Hellenic literary corpus. 3. Persona and Performativity Corollary outcomes of treating Catullus’ texts as vehicles of rhetorical self-presentation are the recognition that the speaker is a fictive character and the perception of their aptness as performance scripts. These two approaches can be considered together because in practical criticism they are frequently inseparable. 233.  J. S a r k i s s i a n , Catullus 68: An Interpretation, Leiden 1983. Rev.: B a r d o n , Gnomon 66, 1984, 771–772; D e t t m e r , CW 78, 1984, 63–64; F i l é e , LEC 52, 1984, 370; R o b e r t s o n , G&R 31, 1984, 210–211; B r i g h t , Mnemosyne 39, 1986, 509–513; T h o m s o n , EMC 30, 1986, 315–319. 234.  P. V e y n e , Roman Erotic Elegy: Love, Poetry, and the West, trans. D. Pellauer, Chicago and London 1988 (= L’élégie érotique romaine: L’amour, la poésie et l’Occident, Paris 1983). 235.  M. B. S k i n n e r , Catullus in Performance, CJ 89.1, 1993, 61–68. 236.  M.-K. G a m e l , Reading as  a Man: Performance and Gender in Roman Elegy, Helios 25.1, 1998, 79–95. 237.  L. E d m u n d s , Intertextuality and the Reading of Roman Poetry, Baltimore 2001. Chap. 4: Persona, 63–82. 238.  C. N a p p a , Aspects of Catullus’ Social Fiction, Studien zur klassischen Philologie 125, Frankfurt am Main 2001 [‘Aspects’]. Rev.: W r a y , JRS 92, 2002, 234; S y n d i k u s , Klio 85, 2003, 511–512; M a l e u v r e , LEC 72, 2004, 145; G a l e , CR n.s. 55, 2005, 508–511. 239.  M. B. S k i n n e r , Among Those Present: Catullus 44 and 10, Helios 28.1, 2001, 57–73. 240.  D. W r a y , Catullus and the Poetics of Roman Manhood, Cambridge 2001. Rev: F i t z g e r a l d , CPh 97.4, 2002, 394–398; S k i n n e r , CR n.s. 53.1, 2003, 94–96; T h e o d o r a k o p o u l o s , JRS 93, 2003, 359–361; To r d e u r , AC 72, 2003, 388; B i o n d i , Gnomon 76, 2004, 120–125; D e l b e y , REA 106, 2004, 659–660; M a l e u v r e , LEC 72, 2004, 145–146. 241.  N. H o l z b e r g , Catull: Der Dichter und sein erotisches Werk, Munich 2003.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

161

Rev.: K a u f m a n n , MH 59, 2002, 258; L a i g n e a u , REL 80, 2002, 343–345; K o n s t a n , JRS 93, 2003, 358–359; P i z z i m e n t i , Maia 55.1, 2003, 197–199; To r d e u r , AC 72, 2003, 388; M c G o w a n , CW 97.4, 2003–2004, 457–458; M a l e u v r e , LEC 72, 2004, 256–257; Z a u s , Gymnasium 111, 2004, 416–417; M o r e l l i , A&R 50, 2005, 34–36; N e w m a n , Latomus 64.3, 2005, 763–765. 242.  J. K. G a i s s e r , The Catullan Persona, in: Catullus (157), 45–71. Persona theory has played a major role in Catullan studies since the 1960s, but its most well-known product is S a r k i s s i a n ’s critical analysis of c. 68 (233), summarized here as  a classic example of the approach. In Sarkissian’s reading, the first-person narrator Catullus is unreliable, characterized by the poet as fatuous and deluded, prone to making lofty assertions not supported by facts. Asked by his friend Allius for consolatory erotic verses, he responds after initially refusing with an encomium of Allius’ previous help in a difficult love affair. In the act of composing that poem, which turns from personal reminiscence into romantic mythological narrative and then back to a grittier appraisal of circumstances, he struggles with grief over his brother’s death and reluctant admission of his mistress’ infidelities. Audiences are expected to pick up internal clues offering insights into the speaker’s character and psychology and providing a more informed understanding of the situation. This scenario allows the poet, independently from ‘Catullus’, to pursue two major thematic objectives: first, following upon his bereavement, to confront the relationship with Lesbia from a new perspective; second, to delineate the conflict between the world created by art and the real world in which the artist must live (7, 39). Sarkissian thus shows how c. 68 functions as a self-conscious inquiry into the nature of poetic fabrications, an insight furthered by hypothesizing the existence of a fictive persona. E d m u n d s (237) examines persona as the source of intertextual phenomena. In addition to the persona, the poet speaking in the first-person singular, he adduces another textual construct, the ‘implied poet’, who communicates with the implied reader over the heads of his characters, possibly including the speaker (e.g. in S a r k i s s i a n ’ s interpretation of c. 68 [233], although Edmunds warns against identifying the implied poet with the historical author, as Sarkissian does). After studying different applications of the persona, such as the exchange between two modes of the persona in c. 8 and the detached persona describing, as a third party, someone else’s love affair (c. 45), he notes that any of the constructs mentioned can activate an intertextual allusion, and sometimes it is difficult to decide whether implied poet or persona is doing so. When an allusion occurs in  a speech given to a character, the character may or may not be conscious of the allusion. Edmunds cites intertextual passages in the embedded narratives of Ovid’s retelling of the Aeneid story in the Metamorphoses (Met. 13.644–14.511), as well as Aeneas’ own reading of the Trojan War scenes in Juno’s temple (Aen. 1.441–493), as cases of complicated metatextual allusivity. He concludes by postulating that the implied poet is the likely source of any allusion that ‘makes no sense, or has no dramatic or narrative function’ (82), which is as close as we can get, he thinks, to the empirical, historical author.

162

Marilyn B. Skinner

N a p p a (238) is the most far-ranging application of persona theory to the Catullan corpus. The fictional speaker of the poems, he maintains, is portrayed as ethically marginalized in order to present ‘a sophisticated and sustained critique of traditional Roman morality’ (18). It is this ethical program that unifies the disparate voices of the collection. The persona aggressively defends his masculinity with bravura threats against those who have slighted it but at the same time undercuts himself by elsewhere displaying weakness, vacillation, and effeminacy in poems linked through cross-reference, as in the case of c. 37 with its pointed quotation of c. 8. Failure of masculinity is frankly confessed in those texts (cc. 10, 28, 47) where he and his friends are shown as disappointed victims of the Roman administrative system. Other poems locate the persona within the world of the Hellenized convivium and express the value he places on friendship. Finally, emphasis upon the physicality of the poetry-book in cc. 1, 22, and 42 separates the author from his creation and underscores the uncertainty of reception; it also indicates that the poet, as social critic, must be ‘firmly implicated in society’ (148). Nappa concludes with the assertion that Catullus’ poems are ‘a potent attempt to put the powers of the skilled artist at the service not of his emotional wounds but of his intellect, his awareness of his society, and his insights into its problems’ (162). H o l z b e r g ’s handling of persona theory could not be more different. For him, Catullus’ purpose in creating a compromised fictive self, a cinaedus-figure (241, 12–14), was not to present an indirect critique of Roman society but instead to make the reader laugh. Holzberg appears to take at face value the assertion that versiculi posessing sal and lepos should be able to arouse a sexual itch, quod pruriat incitare possunt (16.7–9), and to consider that declaration programmatic for the corpus (a risky assumption, given the poem’s tone). Hence ‘Lesbia’, as a designation for the poetic mistress, does not, he says, allude to the poet Sappho of Lesbos, but instead to portrayals of Sappho as a hetaera, in keeping with the alleged proclivity toward fellatio attributed to women from that island. Holzberg’s linear reading of the polymetrics, divided into thematic blocs, attempts to classify the majority as iambic; the speaker, figuratively impotent in the passer-poems, is to be regarded as unmanly throughout. The second section of the corpus, cc. 61–64, is dominated by variations on the theme of marriage, yet even in these presumably more ambitious poems – c. 63 the case in point – gender slippage is, he insists, amusing. Lastly, he warns that in the elegiac collection the fervent moral reproaches directed at Lesbia and others are disingenuous, for the speaker himself remains a source of comic irony. Holzberg’s notion of the Catullan persona is very close to V e y n e ’s concept (234) of the elegiac lover, Ego, or to a currently prevailing view of the Juvenalian satirist – a droll, exaggerated character, to be taken with a grain of salt. As an issue in Catullan scholarship, performativity made its debut in the mid1980s. Slightly before then, Kenneth Q u i n n had suggested that Catullus was the first Roman author to assume an audience of readers.23 W i s e m a n (82, 124), however, claimed that what mattered artistically was the oral performance and proposed 23 K. Q u i n n , The Poet and his Audience in the Augustan Age, in: ANRW II.30.1, 1982, 75–180.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

163

that c. 63 was a hymn composed for public presentation at the Megalesia (198–206). N e w m a n (220, 343–366) in turn identified c. 63 as  a tragic pantomime script. V e y n e ’s comparison of Catullus to modern popular singers and his observation that ‘Catullus took his own name, Catullus, as his stage name’ (234, 173–174) have been immensely influential. In presupposing that Catullus recited his poems at convivia V ä i s ä n e n (282) was followed by S k i n n e r (235), who thought networking  a reasonable motive: by such public displays of talent Catullus showcased his rhetorical abilities. G a m e l (236) is  a wider inquiry into the interpretive consequences of considering elegiac poems as scripts. She points out, among other things, that reading texts as librettos opens up the range of staging possibilities and moves the focus of interpretation to the effect of the text upon its audience, a view more in keeping with ancient literary criticism. Questions of voice and power raised by the writing and reading / performance of texts are formulated by ancient as well as modern observers in terms of sexual dynamics (e.g. cc. 16 and 37; cf. F i t z g e r a l d [227, 34–55]), creating public occasions fraught with potential gender instabilities. S k i n n e r (239) is a trial study taking the hypothesis of public recitation a step further. She distinguishes between two ‘recipient positions’ offered by specific texts (cc. 44 and 10) in which a historical listener appears: that of the ideal projected audience and that of the named individual. By citing outside testimony to the temperament of those persons, she shows how the presumption of delivery in their presence further enhances the ironies of reception. W r a y ’s notion of performance (240) is more akin to self-fashioning. He begins by denying ‘lyric’ its centrality to Catullan criticism and repudiating the idea of Catullus as a ‘Modernist’ poet in the tradition of Wallace Stevens, a maker of meanings within a disintegrating cultural framework (9–35). Opting, rather, for Ezra Pound’s notion of poets as crafters of verbal collages, he advocates seeing Catullus in a ‘postmodern’ light and prioritizing his ‘performative and ludic’ qualities, his ‘emotional volatility’, and his ‘erudition, verbal wit, invention and allusivity’ (39). This shift in appreciation and emphasis brings Wray to his central thesis, which is that much Catullan verse should be understood as engaging in a competitive performance of manhood. Working with anthropological descriptions of how adult males in modern Cretan villages project claims to superior masculinity, he reads Catullan invective as an aggressive exercise of wit designed to prove superiority by humiliating its victim; furthermorre, he classifies many of the Lesbia poems as manifestos addressed to a male audience, affirming the speaker’s excellence as a lover and faithful partner. He concludes the monograph by examining two distinct ‘code models’ of Catullan manhood taken from the earlier literary tradition: an ‘Archilochean’ paradigm associated with vehement rage, on display in Catullus’ own iambic verse, and a more refined ‘Callimachean’ archetype privileging homosocial male bonding over agonism. The presence of both models is an indication of contemporary unease over Hellenistic high culture and likewise of Catullus’ dexterity in oscillating between the two modes. (Note that K r o s t e n k o [230] finds a similar ambivalence present in the elite linguistic register.) G a i s s e r (242, 41–42) sums up the training in oral performance elite consumers brought to the reading experience before turning to how the fictional persona was

164

Marilyn B. Skinner

viewed by Roman audiences. She observes, tellingly, that the Catullan persona is credible to a degree far greater than that of other ancient poets, accounting for the illusion that we know him thoroughly. The remainder of her chapter is  a valuable ‘character analysis’ of the mask operating in the poetry. Catullus is a figure anxious about his masculinity, who takes his calling as poet seriously, but who is frequently misunderstood or undervalued; who has a passionate disposition tempered by a deep concern for traditional Roman values; who can show unattractive traits, such as the pettiness displayed in c. 10, yet be charming and forthright enough to persuade audiences to like him anyway; whose aspirations and emotions as a lover differ considerably in the Lesbia and Juventius poems, even though he is treated badly by each. This description, Gaisser concludes, does not exhaust the roles in which the persona appears, which are ‘diverse but complementary components of a single personality… both appealing and realistic’ (67). Although notions of the persona and of Catullan performativity are leading concepts in present-day criticism, the working premises of both approaches have nevertheless been challenged. Questioning of persona theory is identified by D u Q u e s n a y  – W o o d m a n (218, 255–256) as an important new development in Catullan studies. 243.  D. C l a y , The Theory of the Literary Persona in Antiquity, MD 40, 1998, 9–40. 244.  R. G. M a y e r , Persona Problems. The Literary Persona in Antiquity Revisited, MD 50, 2003, 55–80. 245.  C. G. L e i d l , Autor und Werk. Metaphern in der Konstitution literarischer Kategorien, Dictynna 2, 2005, 2–15 (posted 30/11/2010, accessed 08/01/2013, URL: http://dictynna.revues.org/135). In antiquity, C l a y asserts (243), readers normally assumed that poetic first-person statements were an unmediated expression of the author’s subjectivity. Plato’s and Aristotle’s discussions of Homer and drama distinguish between narrative and mimetic modes but still identify the narrator with the poet himself. The rise of literacy and the invention of the book allow the poet to distance himself from his writings, as Catullus, Ovid and Martial do, but only insofar as those writings putatively mirror his life. Persona, as an ancient critical term, is primarily used of  a fictive speaking character; only rarely in late antiquity is it applied to the representation of either the author or the addressee. Hence there is no ancient parallel for conceiving of speaker or addressee as literary constructs. Although Clay allows for their presence as rhetorical devices in the texts, such constructs went unrecognized by contemporaries. M a y e r (244, 57) contends that the modern concept of the disassociated authorial persona was ‘demonstrably unavailable’ to an ancient audience. The persona or mask was used for other purposes, such as reasons of decorum; in regard to êthos, Aristotle (Rhet. 3.1418b.23–33) advises employment of a fictitious spokesman when saying unpleasant things about oneself or others. Thus the artist was always regarded as voicing his own thoughts even when speaking in character. Surveying the reception of texts by Greek

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

165

and Roman readers, often writers themselves, Mayer concludes that first-person poetry was conventionally taken as autobiographical, and attempts by Roman authors to draw a distinction between their private selves and their writings are merely defensive maneuvers. Persona theory is consequently inapplicable to ancient literature. L e i d l (245) classifies ancient metaphors for authorship and examines the degree to which they convey the author’s presence in the text and his control over it. On the basis of earlier reception traditions, H a m m o n d (95, 51–59) maintains that Catullus would have expected his audience to identify the speaker of his poetry with himself. This is an important consideration for interpreting his attacks on prominent public figures, which were impelled, she believes, by his own ambition to play a part in the turbulent political world of the fifties. 246.  H. N. P a r k e r , Books and Reading Latin Poetry, in: W. A. J o h n s o n  – H. P a r k e r (eds.), Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome, Oxford 2009, 186–229 [‘Literacies’]. P a r k e r (246) challenges the ‘widely held consensus’ (186–187) that poetry in the late Roman Republic and early Augustan age was principally written for oral performance at convivia and formal recitations. He argues instead for solitary private reading in book form as the main kind of reading event; occasions for listening to poetry, although important, were secondary. While it is worthwhile to correct any belief that ‘recitations and other forms of performance before a group were the usual or indeed the only way in which Romans experienced poetry’ (192; italics mine), most exponents of performance only go so far as to imagine that some (not all) poems were orally delivered prior to inclusion in a finished libellus, which would indeed have been the means by which they were disseminated throughout the world and handed down to posterity. 4. Psychoanalytic Studies In contrast to the idea of the rhetorically trained poet consciously exploiting the full resources of language, orthodox Lacanian criticism casts him as an example of the subject’s inability to overcome the fundamental dilemmas language creates. French feminist psychoanalytic criticism, on the other hand, emphasizes the diffuse nature of his eroticism. Meanwhile Oliensis’ absorbing neo-Freudian study demonstrates how richly meanings are enhanced when readers become attentive to the workings of  a subtextual layer of signification resembling a psychic unconscious. 247.  E. M a n w e l l , Slips of the Tongue: Catullus’ Oral Aesthetic, diss. Chicago 2003. 248.  M. J a n a n , ‘When the Lamp Is Shattered’: Desire and Narrative in Catullus, Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL 1994. Rev.: W a l d e , MH 51, 1994, 241–242; M o n t a g u e , JHSex 5.3, 1994–1995, 451–453; B o y d , AJPh 116.4, 1995, 664–668; B u t r i c a , EMC 39.3, 1995,

166

Marilyn B. Skinner

422–428; C l a r k e , ElectronAnt 3.1, 1995, n.p.; D e u l i n g , Prudentia 27.1, 1995, 81–84; F o r s y t h , Phoenix 49.2, 1995, 166–168; H a r r i s o n , CR 45.2, 1995, 441–442; J o r g e , Scholia 4, 1995, 121–126; M c M a h o n , BMCRev 1995.07.13 (I); M i l l e r , CPh 90.4, 1995, 389–393; P e a r c y , BMCRev 1995.07.14 (II); S p e n t z o u , JRS 85, 1995, 281; K u b i a k , CW 89.6, 1995–1996, 503; B o n v i c i n i , BStudLat 26.2 1996, 611–614. 249.  P. A. M i l l e r , Subjecting Verses: Latin Love Elegy and the Emergence of the Real, Princeton and Oxford 2005. Chap. 2: The Catullan Sublime, Elegy, and the Emergence of the Real, 31–59. 250.  E. O l i e n s i s , Freud’s Rome: Psychoanalysis and Latin Poetry, Cambridge 2009. Chap. 1: Two Poets Mourning, 14–56; Chap. 3: Variations on a Phallic Theme, 92–126. Rev.: L o w r i e , Vergilius 56, 2010, 80–83; Z a g o r s k i , BMCRev 2010.09.07; J a m e s , AJPh 132.2, 2011, 327–330. M a n w e l l (247) investigates the significance of the mouth as  a privileged organ in complexes of Catullan imagery. In her first chapter, she invokes Luce Irigaray’s psychoanalytic model of sexuality together with object-relations theory to show that Catullan oral eroticism is non-phallic and polyvalent, allowing for other economies of desire in addition to the penetrative. The second chapter demonstrates that Catullus’ employment of oral terminology is unique – prior tradition offered him only a few examples of such imagery, and the elegiac poets, his immediate thematic successors, did not follow his lead. His adoption and employment of an oral vocabulary thus allows him to construct a different pattern of human interaction. In the third chapter, Manwell studies the extensive use made of personified speaking objects – the yacht, the lock of Berenice’s hair – and finds that oral personification is a way of articulating both desire and the separation and loss accompanying it. The next chapter is devoted to the os impurum, the mouth characterized as polluted, and the threat of reciprocal staining inherent in the employment of invective. The last chapter examines Catullan oral eroticism, focusing on his handling of the divine apparatus. When invoked by herself, Venus is the mistress of phallic activity; she and Cupid together represent the inconsistencies of phallic sexual desire. Multiplication of the two divinities as Veneres Cupidinesque creates  a triangular situation of gods, poet, and puella and transforms desire into circular energy. Orality, Manwell concludes, allows the poet to make sense of the world around him, to make loss and desire comprehensible, and to espouse countercultural views of love, friendship, and masculinity, but it also enables him to engage with the production of poetry by likening the latter to fluid oral desire. Drawing upon Plato, Freud, and Lacan in conceptualizing desire as a motive force for creativity, J a n a n (248) aligns Catullus’ destabilized images of his longed-for ‘Other’ Lesbia as both goddess and whore, and his failed attempts to make sense of her speech, with the reader’s efforts to impose epistemological certainty upon a lacunose, incoherent text. ‘The text’, she observes, ‘solicits the reader’s desire for narrative closure

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

167

and completeness,  a desire ultimately doomed (like all desire)  to frustration’ (ix). Successive chapters apply psychoanalytic tools to the fractured account of the love affair in cc. 2–11; the positioning of cc. 11 and 51, which continually oscillate between opposed illusions of Woman; the impossibility, staged in the epigrams, of knowing what Lesbia wants or means; and the allegorical portrayals of the relationship in the carmina maiora cc. 63 and 64, reprising issues of gender, selfhood and temporality posed in the shorter poems. Mythological fantasy allows transcendence of limitations set by the Lacanian Symbolic order, the sphere of language, through creating models of creative autonomy – in the case of c. 68, the figure of Hercules, who unites the roles of female and male, mortal and god. Hercules, in turn, epitomizes a resumption of poetic productivity driven by desire, but acknowledging the gap between what is wanted, in the case of Lesbia, and what is attained. Thus Janan regards Catullus’ text as ‘the dramatized insufficiency of prevailing modes of thought (of his time and ours) on self, gender, authority’, which simultaneously invites us to see ‘what accomodation can be made with such inadequacy’ (145). M i l l e r (249) offers a complementary reading in which Catullus becomes an elegiac precursor as he responds to the ideological crisis of the Roman Republic. Confronted with a historically situated gap between the Lacanian orders of the Imaginary and the Symbolic (the subject’s self-conception, on the one hand, and on the other his recognition as a subject according to the codes and signifying practices of the world he inhabits), Catullus creates an erotic discourse that reproduces the experience of ‘ontological rupture’ (35). By examining numerous problems of reference in c. 68, Miller illustrates how that text anticipates elegiac representations of a divided subjectivity. Unlike Janan and Miller, O l i e n s i s (250) is not concerned with communicative failure as a symptom of a fractured consciousness; in an exercise of practical criticism, she instead investigates textual phenomena using psychoanalytic methods. For her purposes, she defines psychoanalysis as ‘a general orientation toward the unconscious and (in the largest sense)  sexuality’. Candidly admitting the strong resistance to Freudian theory within the discipline of Classics, she defends the usefulness of her approach apart from its suspect scientific basis. Her ‘minimalist credo’ is that ‘discourse regularly outruns the designs of the one deploying it; and this excess is structured and interpretable’ (4). Hence something like a ‘textual unconscious’ exists, even though it is not attributable to the author, the culture at large, or the reader. Operating on that assumption, Oliensis examines in her initial chapter a displaced memory of Catullus’ dead brother in the closing simile of c. 65 and suppressed emotions of rage at his ‘soiled’ mistress, private guilt over his brother’s death, and a problematic conflation of that brother with the addressee in the convoluted language of c. 68b. The third chapter, which takes up the dodgy motifs of penis envy and hidden castration anxiety, surprisingly locates the latter not, as one might expect, in c. 63 (where such anxiety is ‘right at the surface’), but in cc. 61, 62, 64, and 66, troping the separation from family and loss of virginity inflicted upon the bride. As a coda, Oliensis ranges through other instances of Catullan figuration, pointing out cases of fetishized body parts (feet, a lock of hair, red and swollen eyes) that, like the missing Lacanian phallus, stand in for other losses, and ultimately linking the poet’s persistent vocalization of inanimate

168

Marilyn B. Skinner

objects to the bereavement explored in the opening chapter. Reviewers appear to agree, and I would concur, that Oliensis has successfully legitimated her version of psychoanalysis as a literary approach; it will be interesting to see if the next generation of Latinists takes it up. 5. Russian and Continental Theory: Catullus and Theory, Bakhtin, Foucault As a rule, attempts to apply Bakhtinian and poststructuralist approaches to Catullus have been limited to readings of one or a few texts and will consequently be listed in bibliographies for specific poems. Generalizing discussions are noted below. Catullus and Theory 251.  P. A. M i l l e r , The Classical Roots of Poststructuralism: Lacan, Derrida, and Foucault, IJCT 5.2, 1998, 204–225. 252.  –, Reading Catullus, Thinking Differently, Helios 27.1, 2000, 33–52. 253.  –, Why Difference Matters: Catullus and Contemporary Theory, CW 95.4, 2002, 425–431. In these three essays, M i l l e r takes on the job of making poststructuralism accessible to the general classicist and demonstrating its pedagogical utility. The earliest study (251) contends that poststructuralist thinkers are deeply indebted to classical culture and in dialogue with many of its philosophical concepts. Miller differentiates the projects of Lacan, Derrida, and Foucault on historical and ethical grounds from the totalizing vision of Sausurrian linguistics and structuralism. In showing how all three theorists engage with ancient, primarily Greek, texts, he contests the widespread charge that poststructuralism is antithetical to Classics; rather, he proposes, it should be deemed  a revitalizing contribution to the classical tradition. Although he does not mention Catullus, this article is recommended preliminary reading for anyone interested in using contemporary theory as an interpretive tool. M i l l e r ’s 2000 article (252) advocates ‘a critical classical pedagogy that would aim…at constructing a new way of looking at the self and the world’ (34). Catullus, he observes, is remarkably successful as an introductory author in his intermediate fourth-semester Latin classes, which are largely made up of first-generation racially and ethnically mixed working-class students. He argues that careful reading of this poet, including the unanthologized pieces, can provide insights into the cultural specificity of discourses on sexuality, gender, and power, thereby enabling marginalized students to ask searching questions of the society in which they live. While Miller’s use of c. 16 as an illustrative text draws on F i t z g e r a l d (227, 53) for its basic premises, Foucault’s History of Sexuality underpins his entire argument. In a second pedagogical discussion (253), M i l l e r again promotes Catullus as an effective text for a demographically diverse student body, now demonstrating how readings of c. 11 from various theoretical positions – those of Bakhtin, Foucault, and Lacan – open up Latin poetry in ways that directly speak to students’ personal experiences.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

169

Bakhtin 254.  W. W. B a t s t o n e , Catullus and Bakhtin: The Problems of  a Dialogic Lyric, in: R. B racht B r a n h a m (ed.), Bakhtin and the Classics, Evanston 2002, 99–136. 255.  M. M i n k o v a , ‘Carmina Amoris Pilleata’ and Internal Dialogical Dynamics in Catullus, Hermes 130.3, 2002, 255–264. In what is to my knowledge the sole book-length investigation of Catullus in the light of M. M. Bakhtin’s formulations, N e w m a n (220, 58–59, 277–317) attaches the notions of ‘dialogic style’ and ‘the grotesque body’ to the iambikê idea which he believes is the generic foundation of the corpus. Dialogism involves the creation of a polyphony of voices in place of a single privileged voice, a phenomenon found in Catullus’ use of conversational modes and employment of direct address, often to himself, as well as his verbal and syntactic cross-references to other poems. Grotesque bodies are  a recurrent motif in the polymetrics, where Catullus’ eye, Newman says, resembles that of Dickens (199); in poems such as cc. 25, 43, 52, 53, and 54, physical peculiarity is mined for comic effect. The grotesque is an offshoot of carnivalism, likewise present throughout the collection: associated with the public inversion of social norms and celebration of disorder on festival occasions, this concept manifests itself, for example, in the Saturnalia exuberance of c. 14 and the mock-human sacrifice of c. 17. Newman’s remarks on Bakhtinian elements in the corpus are suggestive, but whether his delineation of the iambic genre can bear the weight of Russian theory is problematic. On the grounds that his view of lyric was too indebted to Romanticism, B a t s t o n e (254) meanwhile challenges Bakhtin’s dismissal of it as monologic, citing the polymetrics as a case in point. In poems such as c. 8, Catullus represents a divided consciousness contending with itself, which Batstone convincingly identifies as  a mode of dialogism. Parody of Cicero’s distinctive style in c. 49 produces a ‘point of dialogic equipoise’ paradoxically confirming the addressee’s achievements (116). In c. 35, similarly, we cannot choose between the two value centers of the poem – that of Caecilius’ puella and that of the speaker – ‘because they coinhere; they represent each other and speak each other’s language’ (123). Yet, by leaving much else unexplained, the text invites readers to interrogate it closely with the aim of achieving what Bakhtin would term ‘creative understanding’. Batstone’s essay constitutes a radically sophisticated critique of Bakhtin’s notorious proclamation on poetry. Without mounting any validating arguments, M i n k o v a (255) appropriates Bakhtinian notions of dialogism and carnivalism to explain the abrupt tonal shifts, graphic obscenities, and arresting juxtapositions that undercut Catullus’ graver pronouncements. For her, a ‘massive tension between the serious and the parodic’ (258) expresses the spirit of a turbulent era in which the poet found himself free to disrupt traditional norms of form and content. Carnivalesque laughter is an essential dimension of his work and is related to its revolutionary character.

170

Marilyn B. Skinner

Foucault 256.  C. L. P l a t t e r , Officium in Catullus and Propertius: A Foucauldian Reading, CPh 90.3, 1995, 211–224. 257.  P. A. M i l l e r , Catullan Consciousness, the ‘Care of the Self,’ and the Force of the Negative in History, in: D. H. J. L a r m o u r   – P. A. M i l l e r   – C. P l a t t e r (eds.), Rethinking Sexuality: Foucault and Classical Antiquity, Princeton 1998, 171–203. 258.  –, The Suppression of the Negative Moment in Foucault’s ‘History of Sexuality’, Arcadia 33, 1998, 190–213. As one effect of the way in which power and sexuality are mutually implicated, Foucault in the first volume of his History of Sexuality posits that political and erotic discourses are organically linked. P l a t t e r (256) uses that model to clarify the dual employment of officium, ‘duty’, in Catullan epigram and Propertian elegy. The discourse of politics does not, contrary to general scholarly opinion, override a subordinate discourse of eros; Platter’s readings show instead that both poets derive strategic advantages from using a vocabulary of power to express their worlds of private pleasure. At the same time, however, they open up their own texts to the influence of the traditional Roman political values they claim to reject. M i l l e r (257) argues that the relationship to self Foucault postulates for the Imperial Roman male subject, designated as the ‘care of the self ’, overlooks other forms of subjectivity that achieved expression in the Roman world. The poetry of Catullus is a case in point: it presents ‘a clearly articulated image of a subject with a complex and clearly delineated relation both to itself and the world around it’ (173). Catullus’ work, along with that of Juvenal, calls into question Foucault’s methodology for tracing the history of the constitution of the ethical subject, confined to studying prescriptive, scientific, and philosophical forms of discourse. Since different discursive genres represent subjectivity in fundamentally different ways, restricting the inquiry to texts that portray subjects as positive and normative exemplars distorts the impact of conflicting discourses, often representing ‘negative moments’ of consciousness, that compete for attention within a single community. Consequently, Foucault’s vision leaves no room for active counterforces whose presence in society is necessary in order to account for historical change. Catullus’ lyric subjectivity, meanwhile, provides an alternative model of self characterized by temporal complexity, internal self-contradiction, and radical incommensurability between the affective states of love and lust. In an expanded version of the same essay (258), M i l l e r adds that moments of negation are given a positive cast through Lacan’s theory of the emergence of the Real, or that which escapes inclusion within the explanatory frameworks available to a given cultural system. By marking the limits of the Symbolic and thereby opening up fissures in the prevailing ideology, the eruption of the Real makes historical transformation possible.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

171

C. Cultural and Historicist Readings The scholarship discussed below investigates Catullus’ response to his cultural milieu, relating the poems to existing material and historical conditions of production as far as those can be determined. Classicists are of course accustomed to take non-literary evidence, including material culture, into account when interpreting texts. Instead of according literary products  a privileged status, however, the cultural materialist and New Historicist movements of the 1970s and 1980s advocated treating them as just one element of the larger discourses whereby power was negotiated within the surrounding system. Readings based on those approaches ask what social and political goals Catullan poetry accomplished. As a witness to the struggles among elites during the 50s BCE, this author offers us a unique perspective – that of a younger cohort of talented provincials seeking to make their mark at Rome, in the same way that Cicero, and Marius before him, had done in earlier decades. His writings register the dilemmas of identity and social mobility faced by his contemporaries. The shorter invective poems directed against Caesar, Mamurra, and other prominent personalities can be regarded, therefore, as committed political criticism, not effusions of spite. Likewise, the hypothesis that certain of the longer poems have a topical dimension over and above their mythical and literary significance, once a marginal position, is now increasingly entertained. 1. Physical Text Starting with his dedicatory poem, Catullus foregrounds the physical features of books, his own and those of others, and the materiality of verbal and pictorial media. His preoccupation with the text as physical object has been noted frequently during the past fifteen years. 259.  E. A. M e y e r , Wooden Wit: tabellae in Latin poetry, in: E. Ty l a w s k y  – C. W e i s s (eds.), Essays in Honor of Gordon Williams: Twenty-five Years at Yale, New Haven 2001, 201–212. 260.  C. N a p p a , Chap. 6: The Substance of Song: Catullan Conceptions of Poetry, in: Aspects (238), 133–149. 261.  L. R o m a n , A History of Lost Tablets, ClAnt 25, 2006, 351–388. 262.  F. B e l l a n d i , Chap. 1: Poesia e Scrittura: tabellae, codicilli, palimpsesti, libelli e libri, in: Lepos e pathos (164), 13–32. 263.  F. D u p o n t , The Corrupted Boy and the Crowned Poet, or, The Material Reality and the Symbolic Status of the Literary Book at Rome, trans. H. N. P a r k e r , in: Literacies (246), 143–163. 264.  J. F a r r e l l , The Impermanent Text in Catullus and Other Roman Poets, in: Literacies (246), 164–185. 265.  M. L o w r i e , Hic and Absence in Catullus 68, CPh 101.2, 2006, 115–132.

172

Marilyn B. Skinner

266.  E. Z a i n a , Materialidad de la escritura en los poemas de Catulo, Classical and Byzantine Monographs 70, Amsterdam 2009. Rev.: M i r a n d a , Circe 14.2, 2010, 219–223. 267.  S. C. S t r o u p , An Object of Catullan Affection, in: Society of Patrons (278), 216–236. 268.  D. C. F e e n e y , Representation and the Materiality of the Book in the Polymetrics, in: Poems, Books, Readers (178), 29–47. M e y e r (259) reviews the various appearances of tabellae in Latin literature, observing that, in contrast to papyrus epistulae, they were  a writing medium that ‘traditionally captured and conveyed essence’ (210). Catullus, according to N a p p a (260), employs ‘significant objects’ capable of being handled as thematic symbols. Physical manipulation of those objects modulates the theme. Accordingly, books, papyrus leaves, and tablets serve as concrete images for poems and the act of their production. By figuring his work in material terms, Catullus reaffirms that he is deeply invested in the world he portrays. R o m a n (261) studies the loss of writing tablets, a recurrent topos in first-person Latin poetry, as a device for creating authorial presence. In c. 42, theft of the speaker’s tablets prompts the ostensibly spontaneous oral composition of a flagitatio demanding their return. The creator of the polymetric nugae only emerges, Roman observes, when occasions of mockery and aggression call him forth: he is ‘an accidental author’ (355). Improvisation, though, is a staged pose ultimately succeeded by the finished poem preserving the author’s voice. Since both Nappa and Roman identify the physical depiction of writing materials as a key metapoetic strategy in the hendecasyllabics, it is helpful to read both studies alongside B e l l a n d i ’s complementary account (262) of the media associated with each step in producing a poem. Using cc. 50, 42, 22 and 1 as his sources, Bellandi identifies tabellae as the vehicle for ephemeral improvisations, codicilli and pugillaria for drafts sent to individuals, palimpsest for revision, and papyrus for the publicly circulated libellus or liber. D u p o n t (263) discusses the functions and social symbolism of the poetic volumen as gift, library holding, and item for sale in bookshops. In the same collection, F a r r e l l (264) investigates Catullus’ anxieties about the survival of the book as a material object. Because it is physically open to destruction, and is in any case alientated from its author as soon as it is released in final form, it epitomizes his concerns regarding immediate reception and future posthumous reputation. Yet L o w r i e (265) shows that successive uses of the deictic hic in c. 68 mark a growing sense of the literary work’s independence from material considerations. Z a i n a ’s point of departure (266) is the difference of opinion on whether Catullus’ poetry was primarily intended to be heard or read. He opts instead for a complex synthesis of orality, writing, and the material support by which the written poem is transmitted. The last group of objects includes not only wax tablets, parchment or papyrus, and the finished libellus or volumen but also the shopfront of c. 37, the wind and running water of c. 70, Thallus’ marked body in c. 25, the excretions of

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

173

Volusius in c. 36, and the voices of Furius and Aurelius commissioned to give a notice of renuntiatio amoris in c. 11. The talking papyrus of c. 35 and the woven image of the lamenting Ariadne in c. 64 are instances of a triangular relationship between voice, writing, and inscribed substance (155–158). S t r o u p (267, 217) maintains that the Catullan text is ‘fetishized’. Emphasis upon its materiality turns it into an ‘object through which desire and value are constructed’. It can therefore fulfill a social contract (cc. 1, 16, 49, 68b), erotically broker homosocial affection (c. 50), or become a fully realized personification of the textual content (cc. 35, 36, 42, 66). F e e n e y (268, 44) encapsulates critical observations to date: portrayals of writing in the polymetrics contribute to a ‘reality effect’ but also emphasize the fragility of the medium and call attention to the fact that poems are constructed objects with a fictive dimension. In this regard he finds a sharp distinction between the polymetrics and the epigrams, which instead emphasize speech as the vital medium of communication. 2. Cultural Identity Several recent studies have examined how Catullus manages his plural identities as a Roman citizen moving in the highest social circles of the metropolis; a domi nobilis from Transpadane Gaul, a province still subject to a military governor; and a proponent of Hellenistic Alexandrianism. Following upon W i s e m a n ’s influential sketch of the poet’s background (82, 107–115), the investigations below seem especially pertinent. 269.  W. F i t z g e r a l d , Chap. 8: The Death of  a Brother: Displacement and Expression, in: Provocations (227), 185–211. 270.  W. J. T a t u m , Friendship, Politics, and Literature in Catullus: Poems 1, 65 and 66, 116, CQ n.s. 47.2, 1997, 482–500 (reprinted in: Oxford Readings [176], 369–398). 271.  E. D e n c h , Romulus’ Asylum: Roman Identities from the Age of Alexander to the Age of Hadrian, Oxford 2005, Chap. 5: Languages and Literatures (= Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2007, DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/978019 8150510.001.0001, accessed 17/04/2014). As a theme of cc. 65, 68, and 101, displacement is, according to F i t z g e r a l d (269), both artistic and physical: the speaker strives to find expression for his grief over his brother while also coming to terms with geographical and cultural conflict. Rome, ­Verona, and Alexandria are the locations where Catullus positions himself in the longer elegies, while Troy is the place of his graveside lament. The chapter primarily addresses anxieties surrounding poetic speech, but one section (203–207) analyzes doubts of cultural legitimacy underlying cc. 17 and 67, both of which shed comic light on the tight little society of colonial Verona. Fitzgerald intriguingly posits a close metonymic association between complicated cultural affiliations and experimental poetic forms generated by new problems of expression. Appealing to the New Historicist concept

174

Marilyn B. Skinner

of literature as his theoretical justification, T a t u m (270) probes how politics, in an extended sense, figures in Catullus’ writings. Tatum recognizes amicitia as a key theme in the corpus and literary composition as one strategy for sustaining it; in the four poems selected, he studies how poetic gift-giving operates to define social bonds. Emphasis on Cornelius Nepos’ Transpadane origins configures the dedicatee of the libellus as Catullus’ alter ego and ideal reader; sent to the orator Hortensius, on the other hand, cc. 65 and 66, the cover letter and translation of Callimachus’ courtly Lock of Berenice, acknowledge uncertainties in relations between the municipal elite and the senatorial hierarchy. The closing poem of the elegiac collection, c. 116, resembles c. 65 in proffering carmina Battiadae as a gesture of friendship, for Catullus’ apologetic posture is partly conditioned by Gellius’ superiority as Roman nobilis. D e n c h (271, 328), finally, observes the irony in having  a ‘studiedly dislocated’ persona, possessed of a north Italian upbringing and Alexandrian Greek aesthetic principles, pronounce upon issues of urbanity. Contrasts of Roman, as opposed to local, identity are self-consciously paired with negative assessments of taste and sophistication (e.g. c. 43); at the same time, recurring use of Sirmio or Verona as geographic foils introduces multiple perspectives, questioning metropolitan values as well as local pretensions. 3. Intellectual, Economic, and Social Contexts 272.  E. R a w s o n , Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Empire, Baltimore 1985. 273.  G. M a s e l l i , Affari di Catullo: Rapporti di proprietà nell’immaginario dei Carmi, Bari 1994. Rev.: V o z z a , BStudLat 25, 1995, 214–216; D e s y , AC 65, 1996, 319–320. 274.  M. C i t r o n i , Poesia e lettori in Roma antica, Roma – Bari 1985. Chap. 3: Ambiti di destinazione e attegiamenti espressivi nella poesia di Catullo I, 57–117; Chap. 4: Ambiti di destinazione e attegiamenti espressivi nella poesia di Catullo II, 119–205. 275.  E. F a n t h a m , Roman Literary Culture: From Cicero to Apuleius, Baltimore 1996. Chap. 1: Rome at the End of the Republic, 20–54. 276.  T. H a b i n e k , The Invention of Sexuality in the World-City of Rome, in: T. H a b i n e k   – A. S c h i e s a r o (eds.), The Roman Cultural Revolution, Cambridge 1998, 23–43. 277.  A. F e l d h e r r , The Intellectual Climate, in: Companion (177), 92–110. 278.  S. C. S t r o u p , Catullus, Cicero, and a Society of Patrons: The Generation of the Text, Cambridge 2010 [‘Society of Patrons’]. Rev.: V a n d e n B e r g , BMCRev 2011.04.12. In her survey of intellectual life at Rome during this period, R a w s o n (272) mentions Catullus only in passing. Her volume is still foundational, however, for appreciating

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

175

the heady climate of inquiry, much of it owed to learned Greek immigrants, that permeated the city in the fifties and forties BCE. M a s e l l i (273) studies economic vocabulary and themes in the Catullan corpus and the inventive uses to which language drawn from the economic, commercial, and legal spheres is put. He conducts his investigation on three levels: the terminology itself, its poetic activation and its function. Part I, ‘La Terminologia economica’, establishes the semantic reference of technical commercial terms, colloquial expressions, and some idiomatic formulas. Part II, ‘Processi di iperconnotazione’, demonstrates how phraseology connected with relations of ownership is enhanced through ambiguity, specificity (use of prosaic words), proverbs, and metaphors. In Part III, ‘Economia ed immaginario’, Masalli analyzes such running themes as poverty (that of the speaker and others), commercial sex, money and friendship, and Mamurra’s expenditures before evaluating the few references to wealth in the longer poems. The final section, Part IV, ‘Dall’ego a Catullo’, investigates economic attitudes displayed by the poetic speaker  – associating eros and money, connecting poverty with the absence of dignitas, disliking patronage of the undeserving and theft, and linking friendship and personal interests. Catullus’ own class background may explain why relations of ownership are given unusual prominence in his work. Masalli’s study concludes with three appendixes providing fuller discussions of passages in cc. 28, 115, and 61. C i t r o n i (274) is interested in how the Roman poetic text is affected by its dialogue with the public and, in the case of Catullus, how diction and style reflect the shared aesthetic values of the neoteric circle. After considering the poet’s intended audience and aesthetic program, the third chapter examines the elegies lamenting the deaths of Quintilia (c. 96) and his brother (cc. 101, 68a and b, 65) to show that the handling of the funerary element varies in poems composed for different occasions and directed to different addressees. In the fourth chapter, Citroni turns to certain poems whose tone seems ambiguous. Ironies permeating cc. 3 and 4 arise from a tension between their nugatory qualities and, for the Catullan coterie, their ritual associations as epicedion or dedicatory inscription. The finely calibrated hyperbole in poems based on a stock scenario, the love affair of a friend (cc. 45, 6, 55, 58a, 35), marks the speaker’s urbane distance from his subject. The epithalamium for Torquatus and Aurunculeia (c. 61) fuses the same topos of celebrating a friend’s love with the ritual solemnity of the epithalamic tradition. In the Lesbia poems, erotic experience is also integrated with the communicative forms of the neoteric circle. He notes, for example, that in c. 100 Catullus refers to his own love when again congratulating one or two couples and suggests that c. 68b may be a more complex and profound variation on that formula. Citroni ends by emphasizing the function of poetry written for friends, which is implicated in the net of courteous obligation attached to the poetic munus; he observes parallels with the correspondence of Cicero, an investigative trajectory further developed by S t r o u p (278). Though F a n t h a m ’s chapter (275) on the social history of Roman Republican writing speaks mainly of Cicero, Varro and Caesar, her capsule descriptions of education, book culture, amateur literary production, and literary history and scholarship are informative. H a b i n e k (276) locates Catullus at the start of a transformation

176

Marilyn B. Skinner

of urban life that gave rise to sexual discourses comparable to those of modernity: although the Republican poet shows the alienation associated with removal to an impersonal metropolis, his notion of sex, unlike those of late Augustan and imperial-age authors, remains embedded in a network of political, economic, regional, and affective relationships. Observing that the bookish, polemic Catullus of 1980s scholarship uncomfortably mirrors the self-image of professional academics, ­F e l d h e r r (277) attempts to identify what purposes learning actually served for the poet and his associates. In the competitive atmosphere of the convivium, the knowledge of Greek literature displayed in the shorter poems testifies to the social dexterity of their author, to the network of friendships he enjoys, and to the exclusivity of his community. Contemporary anxieties about the consequences of Hellenization, on the other hand, emerge in c. 64, where the mythical past is fraught with contradictions, imaginative escape from the present is subjected to scrutiny, and cultural destabilization is  a major outcome of foreign conquest. Feldherr, in company with other scholars discussed above, believes that the ambiguities of Catullus’ social position are reflected in his equivocal view of Hellenic literary culture; nevertheless, learning offered him an opportunity for self-realization independent of traditional routes to upward mobility. Using Catullus and Cicero to illustrate practices, S t r o u p (278) explores the circulation of dedicated texts and their social function within the late Republican patronal class. In the first section, connotative analysis of three terms  – otium or ‘leisure to write’, munus, the ‘obligatory gift’, and libellus, the ‘finished product’  – offers insight into the code governing literary production and exchange. The next section examines various factors surrounding the employment of texts as means of social display, including the replication of forensic debate in written dialogues and authorial obligation as a dedicatory theme. In the final section, Stroup discusses the representation of texts as material objects in each man’s writings (on Catullus, see 267). 4. Political Context The old-fashioned conception of the lyric poet struggling to communicate private feeling requires, as a corollary, that he (seldom a she) be seen to concentrate wholly upon his art, leaving mundane concerns like business or politics to less gifted individuals. Even when Catullus was considered an exemplary lyricist, though, some critics felt that his invective against powerful personages had to be motivated by more than personal spite. Present-day readings of the corpus exhibit  a spectrum of opinions regarding his investment in politics. The following selection of monographs and essays by no means exhausts the range of attitudes. 279.  H.-P. S y n d i k u s , Catull und die Politik, Gymnasium 93, 1986, 34–47. 280.  W. O l b r i c h , Catull und die Politik (oder: Wie politisch ist das Unpolitische), Gymnasium 93, 1986, 47–51. *281. L. C. D u x b u r y , Some attitudes to Julius Caesar in the Roman Republic: Catullus, Cicero and Sallust, diss. Oxford 1988. http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

177

2.library.arizona.edu/pqdtft/docview/303596163/abstract/5FFA68B247AB40 FFPQ/1?accountid=8360 (accessed June 6, 2014). 282.  M. V ä i s ä n e n , La Musa dalle molte voci. Studio sulle dimensioni storiche dell’arte di Catullo, Studia historica 30, Helsinki 1988. Rev.: C e n e r i n i , RSA 17–18, 1987–1988, 325–327; A d a m , REL 67, 1989, 340–345; D e l l a C o r t e , Maia 42, 1990, 85; S c h m i t z e r , Gymnasium 97, 1990, 577–578; S y n d i k u s , Gnomon 62, 1990, 593–596; M o r e a u , Annales (ESC) 47, 1992, 408–410. 283.  M. V i n s o n , Party Politics and the Language of Love in the Lesbia Poems of Catullus, in: C. D e r o u x , (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History VI, Brussels 1992, 163–180. 284.  P. A. M i l l e r , Chap. 6: Rome, Alexandria, and the Politics of Lyric, in: Lyric Texts and Lyric Consciousness (221), 120–140. 285.  J.-Y. M a l e u v r e , Catulle ou l’anti-César. Perspectives nouvelles sur le “Libellus”, Paris 1998. Rev.: M a r t i n , REA 101, 1999, 568–570; D e h o n , LEC 68, 2000, 106–107; D e l a u n o i s , RBPh 78.1, 2000, 218–219; D e s y , AC 69, 2000, 350–352; ­K o s t e r , Gymnasium 106, 2000, 538–541. 286.  D. K o n s t a n , Self, Sex, and Empire in Catullus: The Construction of a Decentered Identity, in: V. B é c a r e s B o t a s  – F. P o r d o m i n g o  – R. C o r t é s To v a r   – J. C. F e r n á n d e s C o r t e (eds.), Intertextualidad en las literaturas griega y latina, Classica Salmaticensia 2, Madrid 2000, 213–231 (online at: http:// test.stoa.org/diotima/essays/konstan4.pdf). 287.  K. H a m m o n d , Chap. 4: The Explicit Political Voice in Catullus’ Poems, in: Lost Voices (95), 185–243. 288.  L. H a v a s , Catull und die Jahresfeier der Gründung Roms, in: Studia Catulliana (174), 63–76. 289.  E. G r e e n e , Catullus, Caesar, and Roman Masculine Identity, in: Contemporary Perspective (175), 49–64. 290.  D. K o n s t a n , The Contemporary Political Context, in: Companion (177), 72–91. 291.  W. J. T a t u m , Social Commentary and Political Invective, in: Companion (177), 333–353. 292.  F. B e l l a n d i , Catullo e la politica romana, in: M. C i t r o n i (ed.), Letteratura e Civitas. Transizioni dalla Repubblica all’ Impero. In ricordo di Emanuele Narducci. Testi e studi di cultura classica 53, Pisa 2012, 47–72. 293.  I. D u Q u e s n a y , Three Problems in Poem 66, in: Poems, Books, Readers (178), 153–183. 294.  D. P. N e l i s , Callimachus in Verona: Catullus and Alexandrian Poetry, in: Poems, Books, Readers (178), 1–28.

178

Marilyn B. Skinner

That Catullus was seeking political advancement in coming to Rome and was possibly actively involved in contemporary political disputes is not an unusual proposition today. However, the first two entries above, dating from three decades ago, reveal how radically opinion was split at that time. Catullus’ decision to accompany C. Memmius abroad, S y n d i k u s (279) contends, was motivated by partisan considerations: had he merely sought profit, service with Memmius’ enemy Caesar would have been the more logical choice. His attacks on Caesarians like Vatinius and Mamurra and on Caesar himself were public expressions of the same optimate position taken by the younger Cato. O l b r i c h (280), conversely, borrows from Thornton Wilder’s novel The Ides of March the plot device of  a report on Catullus’ activities submitted to Caesar as dictator by his secret police. Although the investigators find no evidence of subversive thinking in Catullus’ poetry and pronounce him harmless, Caesar reckons that this young man’s indifference to public affairs and pursuit of private satisfaction, expressed in verse of exceptional merit, does pose great danger to the traditional Roman way of life. After apologizing for his frivolity, Olbrich concludes by quoting Günter Eich: ‘Lyrik spricht nicht die Sprache der Macht, – das ist ihr verborgener Sprengstoff’. That final pronouncement encapsulates the stock modernist notion of a politically disengaged Catullus. D u x b u r y (*281) provides this abstract: ‘Catullus does not exhibit a ‘political attitude’ but makes apolitical personal and satirical observations. A tentative chronology is constructed for the Caesar poems around Suetonius Caesar 73’. Extending an approach previously applied to c. 4,24 V ä i s ä n e n (282) proposes that a number of the occasional polymetric pieces contain hidden topical commentary. When he read his poems aloud at banquets to a select audience ‘in the know’, Catullus, she argues, was able to convey subtextual meanings through rhythm, inflection, and gesture (47). Given that premise, purported lexical ambiguities can be mined for their supposed allusions to current events. If in line 23 of c. 34 bona is construed as nominative and ope in the next line as ablative of separation with sospites, the closing strophe of the hymn to Diana might refer to failed Transpadane demands for citizenship. Similar grammatical sleight-of-hand allows the name ‘Veranius’ to be a pseudonym for L. Cornelius Balbus and that of ‘Fabullus’, his sidekick, to conceal the identity of C. Oppius; the poems in which the two appear are then ironic attacks on their service with Caesar in Spain. The problematic nature of Väisänen’s methods should be clear from those examples. While references to existing political issues are indisputably present in the corpus, she goes much too far in forging unlikely connections between texts and historical circumstances. According to V i n s o n (283), both Catullus’ invective against leading personages and his application of political terminology to his relationship with Lesbia protest against the destabilization of Roman institutions resulting from cutthroat competition for office among the senatorial aristocracy. The sexual charges launched

24 M. V ä i s ä n e n , La Musa poliedrica. Indagine storica su Catull. carm. 4, Helsinki 1984.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

179

at politicians are metaphors for self-serving abuses of authority. Representing his union with Lesbia as  a foedus and her betrayal of it as  a breach of fides indirectly critiques the politicization of marriage alliances, pragmatically formed and broken as power struggles dictated. M i l l e r (284) mounts the strongest recent defense of an apolitical Catullus. For him the lyric genre requires a group of educated practitioners of sufficient status to claim a voice in state affairs but who are conscious of themselves as individuals and artists outside the inner circles of power. As a wealthy provincial of equestrian status, Catullus occupied precisely such  a position. Since traditional Roman morality considered love a distraction from the more serious business of power and politics, the poet faced the challenge of creating ‘a radically new subjective and lyric space within a pre-existing ideological environment fundamentally hostile to his intent’ (130). His revolutionary contribution to the development of Roman poetry was the rejection of the public realm in order to pursue private artistic and emotional satisfactions. Though he may express personal animus toward leading politicians, Catullus’ verse is indifferent to current affairs. M a l e u v r e ’s study (285) was originally submitted as a doctoral thesis in 1992, and one wonders how he got it past his advisor. Although charmed by his elegant style, reviewers for their part seem to have had difficulty maintaining scholarly composure. Borrowing the allegorical techniques of V ä i s ä n e n (282), Maleuvre weaves intricate links among apparently unrelated poems that lead him to startling conclusions. ‘Lesbia’ and ‘Juventius’ are cover-names for one and the same person, Licinius Calvus, who is subsequently identified with both Catullus’ dead brother and Lesbia’s dead sparrow. Beginning with cc. 5 and 7, meanwhile, there is  a recurrent juxtaposition of masks ‘entre l’ego catullien et l’ego anti-catullien’, the latter sometimes designated ‘l’Ennemi, ou le Rival’, who turns out to be Julius Caesar. There’s more, but I don’t want to spoil the ending. Ph.D. candidates blocked on their dissertations might take a day off, sit down with this book and an online French dictionary, and make out the gist. They should feel better after that. In one of the most widely-cited essays on this topic, K o n s t a n (286) reads the Mamurra poems (cc. 115, 114, 29, and 57) alongside c. 11 to extract  a general condemnation of Roman imperialism over and above charges specific to Mamurra and his protectors. Portrayal as a monstrous phallus (mentula magna minax, 115.8) conveys, of course, the gross appetites and rapaciousness of Caesar’s subordinate. Moreover, Konstan argues, it transforms him into  a figure for Roman territorial expansion, since wars of conquest are allegedly undertaken on his behalf and since both his possessions and his sexual organ are equated with the vastness of Rome’s empire. Allusions to conquest as penetration in the opening stanzas of c. 11 reprise that link between sexual violence and imperialism, reinforced by the assimilation of Lesbia’s predatory sexuality to military aggression. In the flower simile of the last stanza, Catullus constructs for himself a marginalized subject position reflecting his inability to function in such a polarized erotic world. N a p p a (238) regards Catullus’ critique of Roman society as predominantly moral and sexual, but devotes one chapter (85–105) to the poet’s treatment of the hierarchical political system in which profit and personal advancement are allegedly

180

Marilyn B. Skinner

gained through the surrender of social and moral integrity. S k i n n e r (94), on the other hand, believes the corruption of leading men and their subordinates is one crucial theme of the elegiac epigrams. While cc. 69–92 focus on the infidelity of Lesbia and her lovers, Catullus’ former friends, cc. 93–116 deal in large part with venality in the political realm. These two spheres, the private and the public, are equally implicated in  a breakdown of meaningful language and thus  a frustration of poetic purpose, leading to Catullus’ withdrawal from Rome and renunciation of art. Given Clodia Metelli’s demonstrable public visibility, H a m m o n d (287) postulates that Catullus’ affair had political ramifications: using family connections, she was in  a position to promote his career, while he could supply slogans to her brother and perhaps deliver Cisalpine support. In the literal, as well as the erotic and figurative, sense their relationship was an amicitia. Betrayal by sister and brother, as he regarded it, prompted his ‘highly politicized’ (183) attacks on both. Hammond goes on to trace the implications of his assaults on Caesar, Pompey, and Mamurra, on other prominent figures like Piso, Memmius, and Vatinius as well as the Clodii, and on lesser individuals. She concludes that Catullus’ invective poems, circulating widely, might have had an impact in the political arena, earning him a reputation and the protection of powerful men (including Caesar, once they were reconciled). More speculatively, she raises the possibility of his election to the quaestorship or tribunate. From temporal references in the poems, H a v a s (288) concludes that Catullus timed the publication of his poetic collection in 54/53 BCE to coincide with the 700th anniversary of the founding of Rome, which was newly reckoned to occur at that time. G r e e n e (289) contends that Catullus’ attacks on Caesar in c. 57 and Lesbia in c. 11 do not merely express the speaker’s sense of outrage at their depravity; they also highlight the contradictions in Catullus’ own persona, particularly his ambivalence about Roman imperial values and his ongoing conflict between moral principles and desire. In his Companion essay (290), K o n s t a n states that the poems reveal ‘a complex and profound view of the contemporary political scene’ (73). He reiterates his previous claim that the poems attacking Caesar and Mamurra / Mentula attribute Rome’s program of conquest to the self-indulgence and economic rapaciousness of her generals and their followers, again connecting Lesbia’s sexual voracity in c. 11 with their no less insatiable appetites. Another topical reference may be found in c. 64, which, according to Konstan, could allude to the marriage of Pompey and Julia, daughter of Caesar, and specifically, in the Song of the Parcae, to a child expected in 54.25 Dating this poem, as well as others mentioning Pompey and Vatinius (cc. 52, 53, 113), to 55–54 BCE allows for a set of invectives that might have been prompted by immediate events, though Konstan admits the circularity of the argument. Further, he suggests

25 This suggestion was first made by L. H e r r m a n n in 1930 and revived by K o n s t a n in 1977 without, he notes wryly, winning universal consent (290 n. 27); this time around, though, it is attracting favorable attention (see N e l i s [294]).

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

181

Pompey’s return from the East in 62 BCE could have inspired c. 66, the translation of Callimachus’ Lock of Berenice, and its subsequent gift to Hortensius; that c. 93, with its first line punctuated differently, may attempt to appease Caesar; and that c. 1, in praising Nepos’ universal history, acknowledges Rome’s world leadership. In the same volume, T a t u m (291, 333) pronounces social commentary ‘a persistent and even essential element of the Catullan poetic program’. Moralizing censure was a vital ingredient of Roman public culture, but Catullan invective is also conditioned by the traditions of Greek iambic, in which the moral posture of the iambicist is sometimes dubious. This contrasts with the position of the speaker in forensic oratory or senatorial debate, who maintains his high-minded stance throughout. While the attacks on Caesar and his associates exhibit a deep sense of moral urgency, the indictments of Piso and Memmius issue from someone whose integrity and masculinity are compromised. Despite such discontinuities, however, Catullan invective, whether directed at the triumvirs, at Lesbia, or at false friends, concentrates on betrayals of faith and trust at every level of Roman society. The poet’s representation of himself as  a municipal equestrian vulnerable to the unscrupulosity of the senatorial order anticipates the impending crisis of civil war and, beyond that, the moral anxieties and moral reforms seen in the reign of Augustus. B e l l a n d i (292) criticizes recent efforts to expand the number of Catullan poems with political significance by imposing allegorical readings (such as those of V ä i s ä n e n [282] and K o n s t a n [286]) or by interpreting metaphorically, which should be done only with extreme caution. Eliminating other texts whose topical slant is uncertain due to problems of dating, prosopography, or tone, he counts only four convincing political statements (cc. 29, 52, 54, and 57), all attacks on Caesar and Caesarian partisans composed between 56 and 54 BCE. Bellandi questions the claim made by Syndikus (279) that Catullus naturally aligned himself from the beginning with the optimates because of his aristocratic background and suggests instead that he and Licinius Calvus were originally among the barbatuli iuvenes who backed Catiline and later Clodius (Cic. Att. 1.14.5), but turned against Caesar and Pompey after the formation of the First Triumvirate. D u Q u e s n a y (293, 153–162) tentatively proposes that Catullus dedicated his translation of the Lock of Berenice to the orator Q. Hortensius Hortalus because of Hortensius’ involvement in senatorial debates over who should restore Ptolemy XII Auletes to the Egyptian throne. Catullus in turn might have been indebted to Hortensius for his appointment to Memmius’ staff in Bithynia. After observing that new directions in the study of Callimachus and Alexandrian poetry will affect future work on Catullus, N e l i s (294) concentrates upon one key aspect of recent research: viewing Callimachus as an author conscious of his political and cultural surroundings. It is not possible, he thinks, to separate Catullus’ politically engaged writings from his experiments with Alexandrianism, for he may have read the court poetry of Callimachus and Apollonius of Rhodes with an eye to its topical as well as its aesthetic properties. If the epyllion is the characteristic product of neotericism, then, it is possible that c. 64 offers ‘a most ambitious and profound meditation about contemporary Roman politics’ (11). He proceeds to support K o n s t a n ’s proposal

182

Marilyn B. Skinner

for a political reading (290) by demonstrating that use of the Argonautic saga to reflect upon present-day issues was already traditional and by appealing to Vergil’s echoes of c. 64 in Eclogue 4 and Georgics 1 for evidence that the Augustan poet detected references to the politics of the 50s BCE in Catullus’ narrative. D. Formalist Studies Formalist approaches treat the literary work as an object of analysis in its own right without consideration of its historical context. Scholars establish the generic properties of a text and, through close reading, uncover patterns of interaction within constitutive elements, in particular its metrical or lexical features and its tropes and figures. While such approaches reached the height of their popularity in North American classical scholarship as part of the New Critical movement of the mid-twentieth century, they are still widely in use there as well as abroad, as items in the following catalogue indicate. 1. Genres: Polymetrics, Epic / Epyllion, Elegy, Epigrams Generic problems in the polymetric collection include finding models for its diversity of genres and meters and defining the nature of Catullan iambi. Though most recent studies of cc. 63 and 64 are entered in this survey under their individual rubrics, a few dealing with generic issues, such as the problematic status of the epyllion as a poetic form, are cited below. Continuities and contrasts between the longer elegiac poems and later Latin love elegy are still being energetically explored. Discussion also continues over the origins of the Catullan epigram – its degree of indebtedness to an indigenous Roman tradition as opposed to Hellenistic predecessors. Polymetrics 295.  J. B. S o l o d o w , Forms of Literary Criticisms in Catullus: Polymetric vs. Epigram, CPh 84.4, 1989, 312–319. 296.  J. S t y k a , Zur Entwicklung der römischen Lyrik in der Zeit der Republik, in: J. S t y k a (ed.), Studies of Greek and Roman Civilization, Classica Cracoviensia. IV, Krakow 1998, 59–68. 297.  Th. F u h r e r , The Question of Genre and Metre in Catullus’ Polymetrics, QUCC 46, 1994, 95–108. 298.  S. J. H e y w o r t h , Catullian Iambics, Catullian Iambi, in: A. C a v a r z e r e  – A. A l o n i  – A. B a r c h i e s i (eds.), Iambic Ideas. Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to the Late Roman Empire, Lanham, MD 2001, 117–140. 299.  J. U d e n , Impersonating Priapus, AJPh 128.1, 2007, 1–26. 300.  F. J o n e s , Catullus’ ‘libellus,’ the Mixing of Genres, and the Evidence of Carm. 1, 50, and 46, Mnemosyne 61.1, 2008, 130–137.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

183

301.  D. E. L a v i g n e , Catullus 8 and Catullan Iambos, SyllClass 21, 2010, 65–92. 302.  F. C a i r n s , Poem 45: The wooing of Acme and Septimius, in: Poems, Books, Readers (178), 112–129. Examining cc. 35, 36, and 95, S o l o d o w (295) notes that literary criticism is presented differently in the polymetrics and the epigrams. In cc. 35 and 36, themselves related through motifs and language, aesthetic judgment is expressed indirectly as narrative and delivered informally. In contrast, the comparison between Cinna’s Zmyrna and Volusius’ Annales in c. 95 is logically structured and stated directly and objectively. S t y k a (296) employs ‘Lyrik’ in the broader sense, as a descriptive category for expressions of subjective feeling; this allows him to begin with the erotic epigrams of Porcius Licinius, Q. Lutatius Catulus, and Valerius Aedituus and posit Sappho as  a dominant influence. Laevius plays an important part in transmitting Alexandrian aesthetic values, and his Erotopaegnia furnish metrical and stylistic models drawn from the lyric passages of comedy and tragedy. For Styka there is no genealogical difference between polymetrics and epigrams; since their thematic range is identical, both are nugae. Elegy and epigram are also closely related; thus Greek love epigrams contribute motifs to Roman elegy. F u h r e r (297) looks to Meleager and earlier Hellenistic epigram for the themes of Catullus’ polymetrics, and to Callimachus’ Iambi for a collection mixing genres and using new meters for poems in standard genres. Among the pieces in the first section of the collection, J o c e l y n (188) differentiates three separate groups on the basis of meter and language – ἐπιγράμματα in ‘Phalaecian’ verse, ἴαμβοι, and μέλη. H e y w o r t h (298) begins by observing that, of Catullus’ twelve poems in iambic meters, only six contain the invective customarily associated with that genre, despite the poet’s interest in generic and metrical markers elsewhere in the corpus. Noting that Catullus’ four references to his iambi occur in hendecasyllabic poems; that two evident allusions to Archilochus, who is associated with iambic invective, are also in non-iambic pieces; and that many non-abusive polymetric poems contain other elements of the iambic tradition, Heyworth concludes that we must extend the category of Catullan iambos more widely, notwithstanding the fact that some characteristic features of the genre are not present. Even the elegies and epigrams show iambic qualities. Heyworth thus concurs with N e w m a n (220) in maintaining that the ἰαμβικὴ ἰδέα permeates much of Catullus’ poetry, although Heyworth’s concept of ‘iamb’ is more limited. In cc. 47, 56, and 16, U d e n argues (299), Catullus critiques the Roman obsession with sexual dominance as rustic and boorish by assuming the farcical perspective of the hyperphallic garden god celebrated in the subgenre of Carmina Priapea. J o n e s (300) contends that the polymetric libellus is revolutionary in both its generic heterogeniety and its shifts in stylistic registers, even within given poems. Generic confusion is increased in the hendecasyllabic c. 46 by employing throughout a more elevated style, close to that of the pieces in lyric measures. L a v i g n e (301) returns to the problem, posed earlier by H e y w o r t h (298), of defining the generic features of Catullan iambic. In addition to the meter itself and the content associated with it, the voice

184

Marilyn B. Skinner

of the iambic persona, he postulates, constitutes a third identifying attribute. Iambic poetry is characterized by the obvious distance it establishes between that narrating voice and the author. It is the versatile employment of the distancing voice, Lavigne appears to think, that is Catullus’ unique contribution to Latin iambic. C a i r n s (302) defines c. 45 as an example of the wooing-poem, for which he invents the generic designation oaristys; cf. his textual proposals in C a i r n s (71). Epic / Epyllion 303.  G. O. H u t c h i n s o n , Hellenistic Poetry, Oxford 1988. Chap. 6: Roman Poetry, 277–354. 304.  D. K o n s t a n , Neoteric Epic: Catullus 64, in: A. J. B o y l e (ed.), Roman Epic, London and New York 1993, 59–78. 305.  C. U. M e r r i a m , The Development of the Epyllion Genre through the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, Lewiston, NY 2001. Chap. 3: Culmination of the Form (Catullus 64), 75–125. 306.  M. F a n t u z z i  – R. H u n t e r , Catullus’ Attis, in: Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry, Cambridge 2004, 477–485. 307.  A. H a r d e r , Catullus 63: A ‘Hellenistic poem’?, in: Attis (172), 65–86. 308.  S. J. H a r r i s o n , Altering Attis: Ethnicity, Gender and Genre in Catullus 63, in: Attis (172), 11–24. 309.  J. J. O ’ H a r a , Inconsistency in Roman Epic. Studies in Catullus, Lucretius, Vergil, Ovid and Lucan. Cambridge 2007. Chap. 2: Catullus 64: Variants and the Virtues of Heroes, 33–54. 310.  G. T r i m b l e , Catullus 64: The Perfect Epyllion?, in: M. B a u m b a c h  – S.  B ä r (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Epyllion and Its Reception, Leiden and Boston 2012, 55–81. In an important early treatment of Roman poets’ indebtedness to Alexandrian models, H u t c h i n s o n (303, 296–325) proposes that the complex interplay of artistry, structure, and emotion basic to Catullus’ poetics is derived from his Hellenistic predecessors. His analysis of c. 64 foregrounds its wilfulness of organization combined with heightened emotion, personal investment in the narrative, and surprising distancing effects. There is  a similar ‘union of excess and dramatic force with conspicuous artistry’ (311) in c. 63, which has structural affinities with Theocritus 26. K o n s t a n ’s chapter on c. 64 (304) summarizes the poem for readers unfamiliar with it while emphasizing its unique features as a product of the neoteric movement. In addition to Callimachus’ Hecale, he suggests, the Hesiodic Shield of Heracles might be a formal model, as there are suggestive structural parallels between the two poems: both contain a proem only loosely attached chronologically and thematically to the main episode, and both contain a lengthy ekphrasis of a manufactured object. Ariadne’s lament, reminiscent of the emotional expressiveness of the shorter poems, imposes a lyric quality upon epic narrative and reflects the mixing of genres found in

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

185

Hellenistic poetry. Throughout the work Catullus is self-consciously shifting generic codes. Konstan concludes that aesthetic artifice and ethical concerns simultaneously coexist within it as positive values, opening up the elegance of Hellenistic verse to an engagement with social issues. M e r r i a m (305) begins her study by acknowledging the critical controversy over the legitimacy of considering the epyllion a genre, but claims it has recognizable characteristics, including a strong focus on female characters and the domestic sphere. Her reading of c. 64 posits a sharp contrast between Thetis and Ariadne, whom she regards as the poem’s two protagonists, and their impact upon their families and communities as determined by their own choices. Catullus omits some details of their myths and changes others in order to enhance this contrast between positive and negative female agency. His resulting ‘mixed picture’ of the heroic age is more balanced and realistic than that of any other epyllion. Catullus’ sixty-third poem is occasionally classified as an epyllion. In  a closing chapter on Roman, and particularly neoteric, reception of Hellenistic poetry, F a n t u z z i  – H u n t e r (306) consider its complicated relations with both earlier Greek literary forms and the epyllion genre. The narrating voice is similar to that of the speaker in Callimachus’ Hymn to Athena and may be that of a gallus. The authors note links to Euripides’ Bacchae and to the Hylas episodes of Theocritus and Apollonius, suggesting that Catullus’ account ‘depends upon its sense of distance from a classic, authorizing version’ like Hylas’ abduction in the first book of the Argonautica (481). They posit a similar hierarchy of model and variant in the parallel treatments of Attis and Ariadne: Attis’ galliambic lamentations can be regarded as a secondary diversion from the ‘authorizing pattern of hexameter female complaint’ found in the neoteric epyllion (484). Lacking the markers of prior tradition found in c. 64 that indicate an aspiration to replicate classic Alexandrian texts, Catullus’ Attis may instead look back to the simplified formal and generic structures of post-Callimachean Greek poetry. After reviewing arguments for a possible Callimachean original and mentions of Attis and galli in other Greek literature, H a r d e r (307) examines broader Hellenistic aspects of c. 63, including its eroticism and pathos, stylistic refinement, few but telling allusions, and mixture of genres. H a r r i s o n (308) discusses three novel features of the Attis poem. First, the ethnic change whereby Attis becomes a Greek rather than an Asiatic youth contrasts the civilized West with the exotic East and reverses the movement of the Bacchic cult from Asia Minor to Greece. Second, Attis’ two great speeches recall those of female Euripidean characters, Agave in the Bacchae and Medea; like his feminine-sounding name, these allusions create gender ambiguity. Third, the genre of the poem seems to be a conflation of epyllion and literary hymn, into which tragic and epigrammatic motifs have been incorporated (cf. F a n t u z z i  – H u n t e r [306]). O ’ H a r a ’s study of (presumably) meaningful inconsistencies in Roman epic (309) begins, after a survey of Greek examples, with a consideration of three notorious cruxes in c. 64: the problem of the ‘first ship’, the narrator’s description of Theseus’ deeds as heroum virtutes, and the deceptive prophecy of the truth-telling Parcae. These difficulties serve to discredit the reliability of the narrator as a character, whose romantic illusions of the heroic past are systematically undercut. Catullus’ poem sets

186

Marilyn B. Skinner

the precedent for the use of striking inconsistencies, chronological conflicts, and incompatible mythic variants in the later Roman epic tradition. T r i m b l e (310) reveals how preconceptions formed by treating c. 64 as a textbook instance of its kind have reflexively shaped critical discussion of the epyllion as a genre. Elegy 311.  P. G r i m a l , Catulle et les origines de l’élégie romaine, MEFRA, 99, 1987, 243–256. 312.  R. K. G i b s o n , How to Win Girlfriends and Influence Them: Amicitia in Roman Love Elegy, PCPhS 41, 1995, 62–82. 313.  U. H a m m  – G. B i n d e r , Die “Locke der Berenike” und der Ursprung der römischen Liebeselegie, in: A. E. R a d k e (ed.), Candide iudex: Beiträge zur augusteischen Dichtung (Festschrift für Walter Wimmel zum 75. Geburtstag), Stuttgart 1998, 13–34. 314.  J.-C. J u l h e , La critique littéraire chez Catulle et les élégiaques augustéens: Genèse et jeunesse de l’élégie à Rome (62 avant J.-C – 16 après J.-C.), Leuven 2004. 315.  P.-J. D e h o n , De “vaga Attis” à “Naso ademptus”: le carmen 63 de Catulle, source des élégies ovidiennes de l’exil, in: Présence de Catulle (173), 195–203. 316.  J. D i o n , Le dialogue des poètes d’ “Amores” de Catulle à Ovide, in: Présence de Catulle (173), 181–193. 317.  A. F o u l o n , Ariane abandonnée: sur quelques réécritures élégiaques du poème 64 de Catulle, in: Présence de Catulle (173), 205–213. 318.  T. O p s o m e r , Excuzez la matière insensée: Catulle et les élégiaques latins dans l’ “Anthologie latine”, in: Présence de Catulle (173), 235–254. 319.  H. Z e h n a c k e r , Catulle et les autres: Aux origines de l’élégie romaine, in: Présence de Catulle (173), 15–24. 320.  H. H. G a r d n e r , Ariadne’s Lament: The Semiotic Impulse of Catullus 64, TAPhA 137.1, 2007, 147–179. 321.  P. A. M i l l e r , Catullus and Roman Love Elegy, in: Companion (177), 399–417. 322.  D. W r a y , Catullus the Roman Love Elegist?, in: B. K. G o l d (ed.), A Companion to Roman Love Elegy, Malden, MA 2012, 25–38. G r i m a l ’s primary purpose (311) is to trace the poet’s artistic evolution. Catullus, he believes, began as a satirist of small-town foibles and ended by creating a new kind of verse steeped in Alexandrian learning and uniting narrative and erotic sentiment. In response to his brother’s death, Catullus turned to elegy as an instrument of catharsis and a means of projecting intense feeling into an imaginary mythic world. The same fusion of myth and emotion permeates his hexameter epyllion. While Catullus did not write elegy in the manner of Propertius or Tibullus, he can accordingly be

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

187

deemed the inventor of the genre. H u t c h i n s o n (303) identifies the explanatory parenthesis of c. 65 and the disorienting structure of 68b as features inspired by Hellenistic poems; in c. 66, he finds, the tonal quality is more grandiose and extravagant, and at the same time more comic, than Callimachus’ relatively restrained Lock of Berenice. One frequently noted difference between Catullus and the Augustan poets is that the latter do not systematically employ the vocabulary of amicitia to erotic relationships.26 Nevertheless, the elegists, according to G i b s o n (312), share Catullus’ ideological interest in the moral code of that institution and its social obligations. Despite their expectation of a reciprocal exchange of services, though, the concept of a relationship between status equals is absent from their poetry, since the poet-lover is inferior to his more powerful puella. She, then, is expected to play the role of patron to her lover, who behaves as a dependent amicus. However, the reader understands that the demands made by the elegist upon his beloved are at once naïve and exploitative. H a m m   – B i n d e r (313) trace back to Callimachus’ Lock of Berenice several motifs of crucial importance for subsequent Roman love elegy. Language depicting Ptolemy III as ardent bridegroom as well as warrior foreshadows the topos of militia amoris; the Lock’s devotion to Berenice, on the other hand, is  a type of servitium amoris. The three-way association of king, queen, and grieving Lock mirrors the triangle of rival, mistress, and poet-lover who likewise complains of his separation from his beloved. Both passionate relationships, that of the royal couple and that of the Lock, reflect the perception of an erotic bond as  a foedus aeternum. While he preserves Callimachus’ combination of humor and deft irony, Catullus elaborates the elegiac tone of these motifs by intensifying the Lock’s expressions of desire and regret. J u l h e (314) aims to discover why Catullus and the elegists devote so much attention to pronouncing literary judgments on their own work and that of others in poetry ostensibly concerned with erotic affairs. In a broad investigation ranging from Catullus’ affirmation of Callimachean principles in c. 1 to Ovid’s self-reflections on his art in the exile poems (a survey requiring methodological reconsideration [34–36] of what the term ‘elegy’ means), the author determines that neoteric ideas of aesthetic refinement, closely linked to urbanitas, are embodied in the figure of the docta puella that the elegists inherit from Catullus (107–123). That observation, while perfectly valid, would be more useful had Julhe taken into account the copious body of Anglo-American scholarship treating the beloved as a metaphor for artistic production.27 Several essays in the collection Présence de Catulle (173) discuss generic aspects of Catullus’ relationship to elegy. In Attis’ description of the snow and cold of Mt. Ida 26 Observed first by R o s s (above, n. 18). 27 See M. W y k e , Written Women: Propertius’ scripta puella, JRS 77, 1987, 47–61, and, for an up-to-date survey of work on the topic, A. M. K e i t h , The domina in Roman Elegy, in: B. K. G o l d (ed.), A Companion to Roman Love Elegy, Malden, MA 2012, 285–302.

188

Marilyn B. Skinner

(63.52–54), D e h o n (315) finds a precursor of Ovid’s elegiac portrayal of Tomis as a locus horridus. By forging a synthesis of lyric and epic expression, Catullus, according to D i o n (316), enabled the Augustan poets, including the elegists, to engage in real and imaginary dialogues among themselves as they sought literary immortality for themselves and their lovers. F o u l o n (317) studies references to the abandoned Ariadne in Lygdamus and Propertius as well as Ovid’s repeated reworkings of Ariadne’s character. O p s o m e r (318) observes intertextual parallels with Catullus in elegiac poems preserved in the Anthologia Latina. Z e h n a c k e r (319) tracks the evolution of Latin love elegy from its epigrammatic origins, observing that ancient authorities did not consider Catullus its creator despite his contributions to its development because he did not produce a substantial body of elegiac works. Using Julia Kristeva’s concept of the semiotic for analytical support, G a r d n e r (320) argues that it is the Ariadne of c. 64, not Lesbia, who is the true precursor of the elegiac puella. As a two-dimensional representation, the marginalized Ariadne forever reenacts  a single moment of abandonment; yet in doing so she disrupts Theseus’ teleological progress toward heroism and destroys the paternal order he represents. She thus occupies a female subject position analogous to that assigned in Kristeva’s system to the semiotic components of language, which proceed from the generative space of the chora and are aligned with the repetitive, cyclic nature of ‘women’s time’. Gardner accounts for the gender play of elegy by postulating that Ariadne’s legacy of marginality and exclusion from the socio-symbolic contract is inherited by the poet-lover as well as his beloved; she, however, cannot escape her isolation from the symbolic order, while he is free to take satisfaction in what is for him only a temporary state. M i l l e r (321) surveys the formal, thematic, and generic affinities between Catullus and the Roman love elegists and, more specifically, the status of c. 68 as a direct elegiac precursor. He begins with an examination of testimonia to elegiac genealogy indicating that its practitioners saw themselves working in a tradition originating with Catullus. Formally, his heterogeneous collection resembles the work of the elegists in just one respect: the poems chronicle the experiences of  a first-person speaker and were meant to be read in terms of one another. Thematically, both he and the elegists recount the events of a passionate love affair in quasi-confessional mode. The problem of genre is resolved if we accept that Roman love elegy is a subgenre of the lyric mode, and that both the Catullan collection and those of the elegists manifest a ‘lyric consciousness’ characterized by recursive reading trajectories, complexity in the depiction of personal experience, and heightened self-reflexion. Catullus 68, as M i l l e r had previously argued in his monograph (249), creates a model for the divided subjectivity of the elegiac lovers and their ambivalent stance toward communal symbolic norms. In these ways Catullus can be legitimately recognized as a precursor of the elegists. While acknowledging that cc. 65, 66, and 68 are examples of genuine subjective-erotic elegy, and that later elegists drew on Catullus’ body of work for models, W r a y (322) notes important differences between the Republican poet and his Augustan successors. Catullus does not treat writing elegy as a vocation or a lifestyle and his poetry creates the illusion of directness rather than exhibiting a self-conscious

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

189

artificiality. On the literary plane, finally, his mode of relationship to lived experience and the surrounding historical milieu is not akin to that of the elegists, as Wray demonstrates by contrasting the sharp rhetorical thrust of c. 93 with the witty indirection of a Propertian recusatio. Epigrams 323.  A. M. M o r e l l i (ed.), Epigramma latino prima di Catullo, Cassino 2000. Rev.: R o s e l l i n i , RFIC 127, 2000, 349–352; A n g i ò , MH 58, 2001, 253– 254; D a n g e l , REL 79, 2001, 285–286; S a b a t o , Aufidus 15, 2001, 267–269; C o r s a r o , Orpheus 23, 2002, 270–273; M o r d e g l i a , Maia 54, 2002, 469–471; R o s a t i , A&R 47, 2002, 113–115; Ö b e r g , Gnomon 75.6, 2003, 509–512; P a o l u c c i , GIF 55, 2003, 283–295; C h a r l e t - M e s d i a n , Latomus 63, 2004, 233–234. 324.  –, L’ eternità di un istante. Presupposti ellenistico-romani della poesia leggera di Catullo tra cultura letteraria, epigrafia e ‘mondana’, A&R 46.2–3, 2001, 59–79. 325.  C. H a r t z , Catulls Epigramme im Kontext hellenistischer Dichtung, Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 246, Berlin and New York 2007. Rev.: H ö s c h e l e , BMCRev 2008.02.50; H o l z b e r g , Gymnasium 115, 2008, 287–289; To r d e u r , AC 77, 2008, 424–425. 326.  D. C. F e e n e y , Catullus and the Roman Paradox Epigram, MD 61, 2008, 29–39 (= R. F e r r i  – J. M i r a S e o  – K. V o l k (eds.), Callida Musa: Papers on Latin Literature in Honor of R. Elaine Fantham, Pisa and Roma 2008, 29–39). 327.  A. M. M o r e l l i , Gli epigrammi erotici ‘lunghi’ in distici di Catullo  e Marziale. Morfologia  e statuto di genere, in: A. M. M o r e l l i (ed.), Epigramma longum. Da Marziale alla tarda antichità. Atti del Convegno internazionale Cassino, 29–31 maggio 2006, Collana Scientifica 21, Cassino 2008, 81–130. M o r e l l i (323), who views early Latin epigram as an adaptation of Hellenistic models, provides  a valuable prehistory of the genre in Rome and  a compendium of known examples, epigraphic and literary. In his 2001 article (324) M o r e l l i directly questions R o s s ’ contention that Catullus’ epigrams, in contrast to his longer elegies cc. 65–68, are primarily indebted to  a native Roman tradition of folkloric, satirical, or occasional verse.28 Through an analysis of cc. 99 and 101, he demonstrates that Catullus integrates already well-used Hellenistic themes and Roman stylistic elements into  a new synthesis. H u t c h i n s o n (182, 214–218) maintains that the epigrams show fewer connections than the polymetrics with one fundamental interest of Hellenistic epigram, the poetry of objects, apart from  a preoccupation with parts of the body. H a r t z (325) grounds his claim that cc. 69–116 are influenced primarily by Hellenistic models and not by indigenous Latin predecessors on a concept of intertextuality derived from the work of twentieth-century theorists, the 28 Above, n. 18. 

190

Marilyn B. Skinner

poststructuralists Kristeva and Barthes and the structuralists Riffaterre and Genette. Conventional philology attempts to establish direct connections between specific texts; his, however, is a blanket approach that draws notably on Kristeva’s psychoanalytic conception of textual production as a dynamic ongoing process involving the semiotic operations of a whole textual system (18–19). For Catullus and his neoteric colleagues, Hellenistic literature provided  a supporting poetics,  a set of categories and expectations, which, following Genette, Hartz terms an ‘architext’. Within the neoteric sociolect, or exclusive register of linguistic practice, that poetics prescribed rules for the epigram: apart from displaying Callimachean λεπτότης, it must be brief, complex, and pointed. Thus even in its employment of obscenity Catullus’ invective, as it passes negative judgment on outsiders, appeals to aesthetic values shared by his neoteric circle. Analyzing the collection individually, Hartz seeks to demonstrate that both the polemic epigrams and the epigrams on love and friendship are equally informed by Hellenistic artistic principles, although their mode of treatment differs. He concludes that the intended audience for this verse was a small circle of friends and fellow poets who would appreciate it all the more for the way in which the architext is put to such versatile use. F e e n e y (326) demonstrates that the ‘paradox epigram’, which states a paradox, poses a question in response, and then resolves the paradox by answering it, is a native Roman form, presumably originating with Ennius. Three examples in Catullus, cc. 92, 72, and 85, are analyzed to show how Catullus plays with the form, moving from a straightforward application to its total collapse. Martial’s ‘Non amo te, Sabidi’ (1.32) is the final reductio ad absurdum of the formula, since it presents no paradox, no question, and no answer. Lastly, M o r e l l i (327) studies longer erotic and sympotic epigrams in Catullus and Martial with regard to their ambiguous status as epigrams or elegiac poems. He examines the structure, language, and meter of cc. 76 and 99 to determine their proper genre. Although he observes multiple correspondences between c. 76 and Theognidean elegy, the didactic element arising from the sympotic context in which Theognis was originally performed is transformed into advice to the speaker imparted by another facet of the poetic ego (99–100). The poem is therefore a crucial experiment in Kreuzung der Gattungen in which the instructional function of ancient Greek lyric is combined with the crisis poetics of psychic fragmentation characteristic of Hellenistic epigram. Conversely, in its thematic and linguistic features c. 99 fits perfectly into the category of epigram but has the length, breadth, and metrical and syntactical regularity of a brief Hellenistic elegy. The two poems address the boundaries between epigram and elegy in wholly different ways. 2. Structure Structural schemes of Catullan poems are provided in T h o m s o n ’s commentary (5), and Syndikus (75, 76, 77) addresses structural features in his individual discussions. This section concentrates upon general aspects of structure, including definitions of the term, as well as studies of the relationship between structural elements and meaning.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

191

328.  F. D e c r e u s , Les changements de la critique littéraire et les études structurales sur Catulle, RBPh 63, 1985, 74–91. 329.  – , Het structuralisme en Catullus, Lampas 24, 1991, 186–198 (abstract in French). 330.  R. P e d e n , Endings in Catullus, in: M. W h i t b y   – P. H a r d i e   – M. W h i t b y (eds.), Homo Viator. Classical Essays for John Bramble, Bristol and Oak Park, IL, 1987, 95–103. 331.  D. A. T r a i l l , Ring Composition in Catullus 63, 64 and 68b, in: Aesthetic Patterning (167), 365–369. 332.  R. S c h m i e l , The Structure of Catullus 8: A History of Interpretation, CJ 86.2, 1990–1991, 158–166. 333.  A. T r a i n a , Compresenze strutturali nei carmi di Catullo, in: P. D ’A l e s s a n d r o (ed.), ΜΟΥΣΑ: Scritti in onore di Giuseppe Morelli, Bologna 1997, 283–296. 334.  M. D o m i n i c y , Une analyse poétique de Catulle 75, in: Hommages Deroux (169), 171–182. 335.  C. F r y , Esthétique de la complexité informationnelle: du moineau de Lesbie aux baisers de Catulle (Catulle 2; 3; 5, 7), Latomus 63.4, 2004, 841–856. 336.  A. G h i s e l l i , Per l’esegesi di carme 2, in: Passer (163), 15–111. 337.  G. L. F a i n , Composition in Catullus and Horace, in: C. D e r o u x (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History XIII, Brussels 2006, 66–76. 338.  –, Writing Epigrams: The Art of Composition in Catullus, Callimachus and Martial, Collection Latomus 312, Brussels 2008. Chap. 1: Composition in the Poems of Catullus, 17–64. Rev.: B o r g o , BStudLat 39, 2009, 269–271; D e s c h a m p s , REA 111.1, 2009, 316–317; O ’ R o u r k e , CR 59, 2009, 415–417; H ö s c h e l e , Gnomon 82, 2010, 562–563; N e g e r , Gymnasium 117, 2010, 599–600. D e c r e u s (328) analyzes European scholars’ responses to and adoption of the structuralist methods of the 1970s. He observes a conceptual fuzziness in the employment of the term ‘structure’, which is used more or less indiscriminately. To determine what value structuralism possesses for literary studies, he examines various strategies including structural linguistics, structural anthropology and semiotics, inquiring how the analysis leads to an understanding of the work as a whole instead of being merely classificatory. Decreus ends by critiquing three pioneering structuralist studies of Catullus and offering his own theoretical reflections on correct applications of structuralist tools. In  a second article (329) D e c r e u s surveys applications of structural linguistics methods to classical poetry before using c. 8 to demonstrate the problems of analyzing a text according to linguistic levels and codes. Among the short poems, P e d e n (330) notes three typically Catullan closural devices: a more abstract pronouncement upon the theme; introduction of  a vignette, with emphasis on  a

192

Marilyn B. Skinner

striking, usually visual, detail; direct address to specific individuals or a group. Within those categories, he observes a tendency to repeat opening lines, construct a logical or temporal sequence leading to a reprise of the main theme, integrate a preceding antithesis, or suppress the main theme until the end. Intellectual control usually emerges at the end of a poem displaying conflicting emotional and intellectual responses to the material. These considerations explain the ‘moralizing’ ending of c. 64. T r a i l l (331) finds uniform elements in the ring-composition technique employed in cc. 63, 64, and 68b. 1) Corresponding sections may be equivalent thematically but not in length; 2) thematic correspondence is not always exact or properly balanced; 3) centers are marked off from adjacent sections by verbal repetitions; 4) centers are also demarcated by a radical change in subject matter or ethos; 5) in sections flanking the center people move toward or away from the object of interest in the center; 6) within the central section there is a movement from universal to particular. Using c. 8 as his example, S c h m i e l (332) tracks changes in ideas of poetic structure from the 19th century onward. Early inquiries looked for symmetry and responsion, though not necessarily exact correspondence of lines; that was followed by more rigid strophic subdivision in which the central section, lines 9–11, served as an omphalos. In the twentieth century, verbal repetition has been emphasized as  a structural marker. Four criteria are useful for plotting structure: thematic responsion; verbal repetition; stylistic, syntactical, or modal correspondence; proportion. For Schmiel, the pivotal expression is vale puella (8.12); the formal reversal, continuing to the end of the poem, is a mere foil, however, to the emotional reversal occuring between lines 15 and 19. T r a i n a (333) investigates the configuration of c. 11, supposedly ‘un modello di asimmetria’. He argues instead for the coexistence of two structures: a referential structure with a reversal after the fourth stanza and a formal structure comprising parallelism in the first three stanzas followed by opposition in the last three. Analogous structures based on the juxtaposition of symmetrical but contrasting principles are found in cc. 49, 5, 8, 72, and 46. In each case, he concludes, structure is a means of communicating meaning. Similarly, as he traces metrical, syntactical, and sound patterning in c. 75, D o m i n i c y (334) demonstrates that lyric intensity is heightened by underlying formal structure. Employing linguistic theory, F r y (335) first analyzes the formal dispositio of cc. 1 through 8, tracking the sequence of events in the affair as they are communicated to the reader. She observes a parabolic design with an ascending movement of seduction complete in itself and the absence of a poem of rupture, whose mere effects are felt in c. 8. Narrative linearity is weak. Examination of the individual paired elements cc. 2 and 3 and cc. 5 and 7, however, reveals a globally symmetrical composition exhibiting weak and strong linearity in chiastic succession. G h i s e l l i (336) attempts to show that the Atalanta-simile in c. 2b is structurally necessary to complete c. 2. F a i n (337) compares compositional elements in Catullus’ polymetrics and Horace’s Odes, finding a striking contrast in employment of organizing frameworks but similarities in  a preference for non-declarative openings, explicit address, and types of concluding strategies. Such correspondences in poets otherwise so distinct indicates a

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

193

general agreement about how short poems should be written. Assessing the same features in Catullus’ epigrams, F a i n (338) again discovers marked stylistic differences from the polymetrics: more declarative statements at the beginning, fewer instances of direct address, strict logical organization instead of narrative fluidity and, in many cases, another simple declarative pronouncement at the close. These results corroborate previous studies showing that polymetrics and epigrams are stylistically distinct. 3. Meter, Rhythm, and Sound 339.  M. P o l i a k o f f , Clumsy and clever spiders on Hermann’s bridge. Catullus 68.49–50 and Culex 1–3, Glotta 63, 1985, 248–250. 340.  A. I b á ñ e z M a l a g ό n , El monosílabo elidido en el pentámetro de Catulo, Alfinge 7, 1991, 25–41. 341.  E. V a n d i v e r , Sound Patterns in Catullus 84, CJ 85.4, 1990, 337–340. 342.  E. E. B a t i n s k i  – W. M. C l a r k e , Word-Patterning in the Latin Hendecasyllable, Latomus 55, 1996, 63–77. 343.  M. T a r t a r i C h e r s o n i , Le incisioni dell’endecasillabo falecio catulliano (C. 5), Eikasmόs 9, 1998, 233–242. 344.  G. A. S h e e t s , Rhythm in Catullus 34, MAAR 46, 2001, 11–21. 345.  D. F r e d r i c k , Haptic Poetics, Arethusa 32.1, 1999, 49–83. 346.  C. K r o o n , The Effect of the Echo. A Text Linguistic Approach to Catullus Carmen 63, in: Attis (172), 121–141. 347.  R. R. N a u t a , Hephaestion and Catullus 63 again, in: Attis (172), 143–148. 348.  G. A. S h e e t s , Elements of Style in Catullus, in: Companion (177), 190–211. 349.  L. M o r g a n , Musa pedestris: metre and meaning in Roman verse, Oxford 2010. Rev.: K a t z , BMCRev 2011.09.14. 350.  M. O n o r a t o , Patterning delle incisioni e strategia retorica nei faleci di Catullo. Studi Latini 84. Naples 2013. P o l i a k o f f (339) argues that Catullus’ violation of Hermann’s Bridge at 68.49, nec tenuem texens sublimis | aranea telam, is a metrical joke. The context speaks of a spider weaving its ‘thin web’ over the addressee’s name, and a comparable metaphor in Culex 1–3 reveals that the spider can be an emblem of the poet. With tenuem Catullus therefore alludes to the Callimachean doctrine of refinement. I b á ñ e z M a l a g ό n (340) studies 18 cases of an elided monosyllable in the Catullan pentameter, giving statistical data on factors such as line position (the smallness of the sample, however, could render differences statistically insignificant). V a n d i v e r (341) shows that Catullus manipulates the letters h and s, the metrical positions of aspirated words, and elision to create the aural effect of Arrius’ mispronunciations.

194

Marilyn B. Skinner

Metrical analysis of the Phalaecian hendacasyllable continues to interest researchers.29 To establish consistency across time-periods, B a t i n s k i   – C l a r k e (342) compare Catullus’ hendecasyllables with those produced in the Imperial period and in late antiquity. Quantitative assessment of the placement of monosyllabic and poly­ syllabic words isolates chronologically uniform preferences: positioning of mono­ syllables in the first half of the line and in a seat allowing a longum; aversion to concluding a line with two words of equal length; refraining from introducing or concluding the ‘phyrric sequence’ in line positions 4 and 5 with a word of four or more syllables. In a complementary investigation of c. 5, T a r t a r i C h e r s o n i (343) studies how word endings alternate between the fifth and sixth elements in the line. Intentional variation is, she believes, mainly driven by ποικιλία, but she also notes that meter underscores content, a subject explored at much greater length by O n o r a t o (350). S h e e t s (344) suggests that the rhythm of c. 34 is drawn from the ritualized speech acts of Roman religion, law, and magic. Three constituent devices – expressional phrases, metrical cola, and responsion – combine to give it a rhythmic structure different from those of cc. 61 and 17, their similar metrical schemes notwithstanding. Its distinctive measures are echoed in Horace’s Odes 1.21, another hymnic composition. F r e d r i c k (345) explores aspects of the ‘extraordinarily dense acoustic texture’ of c. 4, especially links to gender and performance. Situations of temporal and spatial stasis such as that of the moored and now dedicated phaselus are connected with reminiscence and recursive aesthetic patterns and gendered female: the positions of Attis and Ariadne on their respective beaches are similar, and so are the aural textures of their narrative descriptions. Recited in elite dining rooms and cubicula decorated with erotic images, aurally enticing verse is experienced alongside the other sensual pleasures of food, drink, dance, and perfume, likewise morally ambiguous. That ‘dilatory space’ of domestic paintings and emotionally stirring poetry contrasts with the masculine areas of the forum, law courts, and senate, where voice is used to achieve empowerment. K r o o n ’s examination of devices in c. 63 (346) indicates that its most conspicuous cohesive mechanisms are contrast and repetition. Repetition is present at all levels of the text and becomes a pervasive figure in itself, occurring in other linguistic domains such as syntax; lexical patterns (epanalepsis, anaphora, figura etymologica, polyptoton); pleonasm; sound-repetition (alliteration, assonance); and the pulsing galliambic meter. N a u t a (347) defends Hephaestion’s testimony (12.3) that the galliambic meter was widely employed in Hellenistic Greek poems on the Mother of the Gods. One of these, he thinks, might have served as a model for Catullus. Catullan ‘style’, S h e e t s (348) asserts, is characteristically protean and its components do not always fit into discrete categories.30 Traditional associations of genres with given meters allowed the poet to manipulate audience expectations by departing from them. Hendecasyllables are the least thematically constrained of his 29 For an influential earlier discussion see J. W. L o o m i s , Studies in Catullan Verse: An Analysis of Word Types and Patterns in the Polymetra, Leiden 1972. 30 S h e e t s ’ observations on diction and pragmatics will be found in the next section.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

195

meters, choliambs those employed most unconventionally. Varied rhythmic effects are produced by calibrating expressional phrases to metrical periods and employing tropes such as alliteration or assonance to reinforce rhythmic boundaries. M o r g a n (349) also presupposes that Roman poets, aware of the ‘ethos’ attached to particular meters, invoked associations drawn from their history of use to transmit meaning. Applying that principle, he analyzes the connotative metrical dimension of several Catullan poems. In c. 17, the Priapean meter, in telling combination with agricultural imagery, recalls the god Priapus’ function as emblem of male potency and his role of aggressive protector extended to the colonia. Iambics, historically devoted to abuse, are deliberately misappropriated in c. 4, the poet’s affectionate tribute to his speedy yacht, but in the clever parody Catalepton 10 they are restored to their proper function. Otherwise often directed against physically and morally malformed targets, the anomalous choliambics of c. 31 express the weariness and disillusionment of the speaker after his unrewarding sojourn abroad. Finally, the sapphics of c. 11 are not just an ironic reminiscence of c. 51; the total impropriety of employing the sapphic stanza for vituperation heightens the savagery of the fith stanza. Morgan’s monograph is full of original observations, including a stimulating account of Flavian writers’ notions of the hendecasyllable itself and, naturally, of the poet who was inseparably linked to that verse form. O n o r a t o (350) is a highly technical discussion of word-ending placement in the hendecasyllables studied in conjunction with rhetorical strategies. Such patterning, he finds, is extremely irregular; there is no predominant caesura (Hauptzäsur), and no predictable succession of breaks after the fifth, sixth, or seventh syllable can be identified. In his opening chapter he supplies a comprehensive statistical index of line patterns with two, three, four, and five word breaks. The remainder of the monograph consists of pattern analysis in relation to meaning. An index of patterns and passages discussed is included in the back matter, convenient for consulting remarks on soundsense correlation in given lines. 4. Language: Semantics, Diction and Syntax, Stylistics Semantics 351.  R. E d g e w o r t h , Luteus: pink or yellow?, Glotta 63.3–4, 1985, 212–220. 352.  J. F. M a i s o n o b e , A propos de Catulle, lii. Étude sémantique sur emori, AFLNice 50, 1985, 273–282. 353.  P. d e l P r e t e , Il foedus in Catullo, in: Analecta critica (161), 7–25. 354.  D. F i l i m o n , Some stylistic values of the adjectives in Catullus’ poems, Revue roumaine de linguistique 38, 1993, 129–141. 355.  J.-H. M i c h e l , Lat. basium. Une hypothèse étymologique, in: Hommages Deroux (169), 358–361. 356.  P. S a n t i n i , Il termine libellus nei carmi di Catullo, BStudLat 32.2, 2002, 385–394.

196

Marilyn B. Skinner

357.  É. W o l f f , Itinéraire de deux mots catulliens: basium et basiare, in: Présence de Catulle (233), 255–261. 358.  C. A. W i l l i a m s , The meanings of softness: some remarks on the semantics of mollitia, Eugesta 3, 2013, 240–263. E d g e w o r t h (351) argues that luteus at c. 61.195, applied in a simile to the bride’s complexion, there (and elsewhere) means ‘pink’, not ‘yellow’. M a i s o n o b e (352) establishes a semantic difference between emori and the simple and commoner form mori. From an aspectual standpoint, the prefix, which is more emphatic than the root, suggests a sudden death, but it also downplays the length and duration of the process and is euphemistic in contrast to the blunt mori. Catullus’ conception of  a foedus amicitiae, according to d e l P r e t e (353), is that of a freely chosen bond of affection between equals, characterized by ethical qualities such as fides and pietas. The application of foedus to the union of Peleus and Thetis (64.335, 373) indicates that concordia between spouses is essential in marriage. F i l i m o n (354) finds marked divergences in employment of adjectival forms and their antonyms between the longer poems cc. 61–68 and the other poems in the corpus, and, within the latter group, between polymetrics and epigrams.31 M i c h e l (355) suggests the word basium is etymologically linked to Provençal basi ‘fail, die’ and Irish bás ‘death’ and evokes the idea of death in love, or orgasm. S a n t i n i (356) examines the implications of Catullus’ four uses of the noun libellus. Along with the literal idea of a small-sized composition, the two instances in the dedication to Nepos (c. 1) may convey affection, irony, and false modesty and can also be technical terms of neoteric criticism. Application of libellus to the anthology of bad poetry in c. 14 is dismissive, meaning ‘worthless’. Finally, if the text in c. 55.4 is sound, libellis could be the equivalent of inter libellos or a metonymy for taberna librariorum. After distinguishing among the three Latin words for ‘kiss’ (osculum, basium, suauium or sauium), W o l f f (357) observes that, Catullus’ influence notwithstanding, the lexeme basium / basiare is not employed by epic, lyric, elegiac, or tragic poets in subsequent Latin literature. Instead it occurs most frequently in Catullus’ imitator Martial and, though less often, in Petronius and Apuleius, two prose authors characterized by a certain realism and the use of a colloquial linguistic register. The survival of basium and its cognates as standard vocabulary in modern Romance languages is due to their preservation on the popular level. W i l l i a m s (358) applies methods from the field of lexical semantics to the adjective mollis and its cognates, seeking to refine its sexual implications further. Reorganizing the information in standard lexica (TLL and OLD) along the axis of subject vs. object of desire, he finds that ‘softness’ is a valued quality when predicated of any object of desire. Attributed to a female subject of desire, it is normative and to a male subject it is negatively valued. As an antonym, mollis is opposed not only to durus but in certain applications to fortis; these are contrary, gradable pairs, implying a sliding scale of masculinity also attested in texts. Women and boys, rather than females as opposed to males, are the normal objects of masculine desire because 31 Unfortunately, she does not appear to know R o s s ’ work (above, n. 18).

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

197

of their ‘softness’ and ‘weakness’; lexical semantics underscores the binarism of the system. The moll- lexeme is also polysemous, with some senses vague; when senses limited to human beings and their gendering are represented visually on a polysemy network, fundamental semantic processes emerge in the move from sex to gender. The metonymic shift from sense 1 ‘soft’ to sense 2 ‘woman-like’ and thence to all other senses is particularly significant. Placement of the sense ‘sexually attractive’ under sense 2 would configure the feature ‘womanish softness’ as arousing desire in both men and women, giving one kind of feminine desire described in Latin texts, womanish men’s potential attractiveness to women, a homoerotic flavor. Applying these findings, he produces a rich and nuanced reading of c. 16. Diction and Syntax Several publications below, namely D u b r o c a r d (359), S a l a t (363), É v r a r d (371), and P u m e l l e (373), draw on statistical data generated by the Laboratoire d’Analyse statistique des Langues anciennes de l’Université de Liège (LASLA).32 Some metrical studies listed above may shed additional light on lexical phenomena: see, for example, K r o o n (346), S h e e t s (348), and O n o r a t o (350). 359.  M. D u b r o c a r d , Quelques éléments pour une analyse comparée du vocabulaire caractéristique de Juvénal et de Catulle, AFLNice 50, 1985, 239–252. 360.  M. F. W i l l i a m s , Catullus 50 and the Language of Friendship, Latomus 47, 1988, 69–73. 361.  V. C r e m o n a , Sermo cotidianus e sermo poeticus in Catullo, Aevum(ant) 2, 1989, 97–127. 362.  A. M i n a r i n i , Note di onomastica catulliana, in: Mnemosynum, Studi in onore di Alfredo Ghiselli, Bologna 1989, 425–439. 363.  P. S a l a t , Quelques aspects du vocabulaire de Catulle, ALMArv 17, 1990, 37–54. 364.  E. J. P r i e t o , La expresión negativa en Catulo y algunas observaciones psicoestilisticas, AFC 12, 1992, 115–185. 365.  H. D. J o c e l y n , Two Features of the Style of Catullus’ Phalaecian Epigrams, Sileno 21.1–2, 1995, 63–82. 366.  J. N. A d a m s , Nominative Personal Pronouns and Some Patterns of Speech in Republican and Augustan Poetry, in: Language of Latin Poetry (188), 97–133. 367.  R. G. G. C o l e m a n , Poetic Diction, Poetic Discourse and the Poetic Register, in: Language of Latin Poetry (188), 21–93. 368.  M. A. C o r o n e l R a m o s , La retόrica del hexámetro catuliano: los poemas 62 y 64, in: J. L u q u e M o r e n o  – P. R. D i a z y D i a z (eds.), Estudios de métrica latina, Granada 1999, 221–256. 32 Published in L. D e l a t t e et al., Dictionnaire fréquentiel et Index inverse de la langue latine, Liège 1981.

198

Marilyn B. Skinner

369.  B. A. K r o s t e n k o , Arbitria urbanitatis: Language, Style, and Characterization in Catullus cc. 39 and 37, ClAnt 20.2, 2001, 239–272. 370.  A. A g n e s i n i , Plauto in Catullo, Bologna 2004. Rev.: N a n n a , Aufidus 64, 2008, 69–72. 371.  E. É v r a r d , Polymètres et épigrammes de Catulle: Analyse quantitative du vocabulaire et de la syntaxe des propositions, in: Présence de Catulle (173), 65–83. 372.  C. G o n z á l e z V á z q u e z , Elementos de técnica compositiva en la poesía amorosa de Catulo, in: J. C o s t a s R o d r í g u e z (ed.), “Ad amicam amicissime scripta”: homenaje a la profesora María José López de Ayala y Genovés, 2 vol., Madrid 2005, 245–255. 373.  G. P u m e l l e , Mètre et syntaxe dans la pratique de trois poètes latines: Catulle, Virgil et Horace, Papers on Grammar 9, 2005, 909–919. 374.  D. B u t t e r f i e l d , On the Avoidance of ‘eius’ in Latin Poetry, RhM n.f. 151.2, 2008, 151–167. 375.  J. W a r d e n , Taking Back the Text: Poetic Technique in Catullus, Propertius and Tibullus, Toronto 2008. Chap. 1: On Kissing, 6–17; Chap. 2: Loving and Hating, 18–37; Chap. 3: Loving and Grieving, 39–52. Rev.: C h a r l e t , Gnomon 81.7, 2009, 650–652; M a l t b y , BMCRev 2009.01.02. D u b r o c a r d (359) identifies lexical similarities and differences between Catullus and Juvenal, finding that the words most commonly employed by both poets are conjunctions establishing logical subordination, along with the noun homo and the verbs facio and puto. He ascribes these verbal preferences to similar employment of rhetorical strategies. In c. 50, W i l l i a m s (360) argues, Catullus applies the language of erotic infatuation to his newly conceived friendship for Calvus. Laelius’ praise of true friendship in Cicero’s De amicitia 27 displays a comparable degree of affective intensity. C r e m o n a (361) observes that the sermo cotidianus, as opposed to traditional literary language, is both conventional and expressive but also a stylistic elaboration of ordinary usage, conservative in preserving older syntactical and lexical elements. Comic poets provided a model whereby everyday language could be elevated into art. M i n a r i n i (362) investigates the nuances of Catullan nomenclature. The cognomen is the informal style of address; Catullus uses it of himself, or when speaking to or about those to whom he is close. Enemies are designated by nomen gentile,  a strategy for detaching the person from the speaker. S a l a t (363) investigates two quantitative aspects of Catullan vocabulary, key words and word avoidance, using for comparative purposes the corpus of Latin poetic language from the LASLA Dictionnaire fréquentiel. Recurrent lexical items include forms of ego and tu and their possessives, establishing the fundamentally personal character of Catullan poetry. He avoids words expressing violence or fear and nouns used in political or military contexts, along with certain negative abstractions and adjectives denoting excess. His most commonly used substantives are homo, mens, virgo, puella and amor, with its cognate verb amo; among repeated adjectives, one (bel-

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

199

lus) belongs to the so-called ‘language of social performance’ (K r o s t e n k o [228]) and most others have a favorable sense. Verbs already frequent in the general poetic language are also common in Catullus. Turning to his earlier research on Lucretius, Salat notes corresponding positive and negative differentials: key words associated with one poet, such as Lucretius’ natura, are not found in the other and vice versa. Of the key words common to both poets, five belong to the sphere of logical argument employed by each. Although Salat does not cite D u b r o c a r d (359), their results coincide. P r i e t o ’s lengthy inventory of negative expressions (364) starts from the premise that disavowals, when elaborated, evoke the image of the reality negated, which in turn may give us insight into the author’s psychological disposition (116–117). Observing that nullifying turns of phrase are particularly abundant in Catullus and sometimes constitute the very structure of a poem (cc. 23, 43), he furnishes a complete catalogue under four headings: a) litotes and equivalent expressions; b) substitutions like non…sed; c)  rhetorical questions; and d)  emphatic and pleonastic usages. This list is followed by stylistic remarks, poem by poem, on each instance of negation. Both the catalogue and the commentary are worthwhile contributions, but Prieto’s concluding attempt to draw  a picture of the poet’s subjectivity leans too heavily upon the traditional Catullroman. Had he instead discussed the rhetorical function of counterfactuality as a mode of poetic discourse, this would have been a far more interesting essay. J o c e l y n (365) follows up his longer discussion of the arrangement and style of items in the first part of the collection (188) with comments on linguistic artificialities in the Phalaecian epigrams. Many artifices, such as unusual epithets, occur in the context of untypical heroic or exotic themes; the iambic poems also employ heightened language for these motifs. Furthermore, the closing elements of the Phalaecian hendecasyllable exhibit  a distinct stylistic character, marked by reduced incidence of synaloephe of final and initial vowels, greater recourse to alliteration and assonance, and a preference for nasal, liquid, and sibilant consonants. Playing with the rhythmical cadence of the verse is normal only for this group of poems. A d a m s (366) explores the use of the nominative personal pronouns ego and tu. These pronouns are not necessarily emphatic or contrastive, but instead may be called up as part of a formula involving an emphatic, focused or ‘preferential’ term standing at the head of a clause. In his employment of ego and tu, Catullus follows patterns that would have regularly been heard in everyday speech, both colloquial and more formal. In the course of providing a detailed description of Latin poetic diction, C o l e m a n (367) chooses multiple examples from Catullus as well as the other central classical authors. One key finding is that in actuality the number of linguistic phenomena exclusively restricted to poetry is smaller than might be expected. His identification of c. 85 as ‘the most remarkable case of a sequence of prosaic words combining to create a powerful poetic effect’ (55) is therefore all the more noteworthy. For a necessarily concise overview of Catullan diction, see further S h e e t s (348, 191–199), who isolates and comments upon some of its most prominent characteristics: phonological, morphological, and lexical archaisms, used in elevated contexts

200

Marilyn B. Skinner

for solemnity and in mundane settings for irony or parody; vulgarisms, giving his polymetric poems and epigrams edginess and the illusion of candor; Grecisms, found mostly in the long narrative poems and mostly comprised of proper names and case-endings; and diminutives, a neoteric feature, which convey a range of subjective impressions  – affection, delicacy, contempt, pathos. Sheets also calls attention to Catullus’ fondness for pragmatic textual phenomena that communicate meaning independently of formal syntactical or lexical properties, such as figures of thought (discussed in the following section), employment of coded language, and positioning the reader as addressee or eavesdropper. C o r o n e l R a m o s (368) performs a meticulous analysis, both statistical and stylistic, of word endings within the cola of the Catullan hexameter, identifying differences between c. 62 and 64 in occurrence of certain patterns and explaining the semantic effects of those patterns. Drawing upon observations made in his book-length study of elite linguistic social performance (228), K r o s t e n k o (369) analyzes the construction of the speaker’s voice in cc. 37 and 39, both of which display meaningful shifts of tone. A g n e s i n i (370) is a monograph on Catullus’ use of Plautine language and topoi. The introduction lays out  a primary problem of investigation regarding linguistic relations between the authors: determining whether  a Catullan usage is  a direct Plautine borrowing or taken from the Umgangssprache common to both. In cc. 10 and 55 narration of events and dialogue supported by expressions drawn from the palliata induce Agnesini to identify a Catullan comic persona, in 55 that of a servus currens. He also finds Plautine influence on the language of cc. 85 and 99 (metaphors of crucifixion), 72 (bene velle), and 69 (mala bestia). Reuse of Plautine topoi occurs most notably in c. 8, as do linguistic parallels and the dramatic device of self-address. The banquet setting and accoutrements of c. 13 and the theme of return in cc. 9 and 31 are derived from comedy, as is the address to the door in c. 67. Polyptoton of sum and anaphora involving the relative pronoun quot are stylistic devices frequent in Plautus. Some few motifs, most notably the futile search throughout the city, occur in Terence as well, but the overall linguistic coloring of cc. 55 and 58b is Plautine. É v r a r d (371) determines word frequency within the polymetrics and epigrams and then scrutinizes the function of vocabulary items restricted to one or the other section of the corpus. After remarking that Lesbia might seem the excuse for creating a poetic universe with an ideological code and corresponding formal expression, G o n z á l e z V á z q u e z (372) identifies the singular features of Catullan erotic discourse. Technical aspects include employment of syntactic parallelism, chiasmus, closed circular structures, verbal paradox, first and second person pronouns, and the repetition of a concrete expression to mark progression of thought. Ideological motifs comprise the immortality of the moment; contrast of the fleeting and the permanent; ambivalence; opposition of reason and feeling, volition and passion; and a concept of absolute emotional and intellectual love. The originality of all these poetic elements is encapsulated in c. 85. P u m e l l e (373) produces  a comparative study of hexameter techniques in ­Catullus, Vergil and Horace focusing on the relationship between syntax and meter.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

201

In c. 64, he finds, Catullus shows a distinct tendency to treat the verse as a sense-unit, starting  a new thought at the beginning of the line and concluding it at the end. Vergil and Horace, in contrast, employ enjambment more often. In other respects, too, Horace’s hexameter style in the Sermones resembles conversation, with shorter and more numerous sentences. B u t t e r f i e l d (374) reaffirms the observation that Latin poets generally avoided the oblique forms of is, providing data on the small number of actual instances. On that basis he questions eius, the reading of V at 84.5, and proposes aeque instead. Designed to help students appreciate Catullus’ technical artistry, W a r d e n ’s three chapters (375) analyze the lexis, meter, sound, and structure of a group of familiar texts. These discussions are pedagogically helpful, but they are embedded in an anti-theoretical matrix that, as it discounts most scholarship of the past few decades (hence the polemic title), looks back to a nonexistent Golden Age of criticism. Stylistics 376.  A. N. M i c h a l o p o u l o s , Some etymologies of proper names in Catullus, in: F. C a i r n s  – M. H e a t h (eds.), ARCA Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs 34, Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 9, Leeds 1996, 75–81. 377.  J. W i l l s , Repetition in Latin Poetry: Figures of Allusion, Oxford 1996. Rev.: N e l i s , BMCRev 1998.5.17; N i s b e t , CR n.s. 48.2, 1998, 298–300; O ’ H a r a , JRS 88, 1998, 197; P u t n a m , AJPh 119.2, 1998, 295–300; V i n e , CJ 94.2, 1998–1999, 195–200; Z e t z e l , CPh 94.1, 1999, 103–111; D a n g e l , Latomus 59.1, 2000, 149–152. 378.  A. N. M i c h a l o p o u l o s , Etymologising on common nouns in Catullus, Emerita 67.1, 1999, 127–145. 379.  N. A d k i n , Catullus 64.18: ‘nutricum tenus’, MH 59.4, 2002, 209–210. 380.  P. To r d e u r , Catulle et l’allitération: une première approche, in: Hommages Deroux (169), 473–487. 381.  S. E. H o f f e r , The use of adjective interlacing (double hyperbaton) in Latin poetry, HSCPh 103, 2007, 299–340. 382.  J. I n g l e h e a r t , Play on the Proper Names of Individuals in the Catullan Corpus: Wordplay, the Iambic Tradition, and the Late Republican Culture of Public Abuse, JRS 104, 2014, 51–72. M i c h a l o p o u l o s ’ two investigations (376 and 378) cite instances of etymology as  a demonstration of doctrina. In his first article he enumerates fourteen passages in which Catullus glosses a proper name by directly or indirectly referencing one or more explanations of its origin. In the second he discusses twenty-seven instances of the same device being applied to common Latin and Greek nouns, e.g. milia-multa at c. 5.10 and elsewhere. Word positioning at the beginning and end of lines is an

202

Marilyn B. Skinner

etymological marker, as is word coupling. Etymology constitutes a basic thematic and formal feature of Catullus’ poetry, which serves as the intermediary stage for such wordplay between comedy and Augustan authors. W i l l s (377) is an authoritative treatment of word repetition and its relationship to allusion. Instances of repetition are grouped under four major categories, depending upon whether the reiterated forms are identical (gemination) or morphologically different (polyptoton) and whether they occur within a single syntactical unit (parallelism) or across units (modification). Reuse of syntax, it is argued, can be as significant a marker of allusion as the reuse of diction or of narrative settings; Wills’ first chapter, consequently, surveys formal strategies for marking off language as allusive; demonstrates how texts in dialogue generate a ‘grammar of allusion’; and shows how a particular figure of repetition, that of co-ordinated polyptoton, can create a map of defined syntactical patterning across related texts. Single cases of Catullan repetition analyzed by Wills are conveniently listed in the index locorum; his discussion of epanalepsis in c. 64 and its impact on the subsequent literary tradition (130–145) will benefit future scholarship on Latin poetry. A d k i n (379) explains the substitution of nutricum for mammarum as an example of transumptio, the use of one word for another that in a different context would be a synonym. Restricting the term ‘alliteration’ to sound-repetition at the beginning of consecutive words (475), To r d e u r (380) studies its presence in the long poems cc. 61 through 64. After providing a quantitative table of occurrences by letter in each of the four poems, he notes important details: the statistical impact of the refrains in cc. 61 and 62; the ubiquity of alliteration in c. 63 and its comparative infrequency in c. 64, where it turns up chiefly in descriptions of the sea, of sailing, and of mythical persons. H o f f e r (381) investigates the semantic conditions governing line placement of two or more suspended and interlaced adjectives separated from their postponed nouns. Though ornamentation is one aim, the practice also forces audiences to listen with heightened concentration, since even trained listeners might have some difficulty pre-parsing the interlaced style. Thus Hoffer finds that it is frequently used in obvious or repetitive contexts where embellishment is offset by relative simplicity of content. Four types of interlacing are ordered by levels of difficulty relative to syntactic, semantic, structural, and topical criteria and analyzed for ease of mental processing. Since double interlacing is infrequent in Greek poetry, Catullus and other neoteric poets played a key role in popularizing the device. I n g l e h e a r t (382) shows that sophisticated onomastic wordplay is an important element of Catullan invective linked to the iambic tradition of redende Namen. 5. Imagery and Metaphor Coleman (367, 91) singles out imagery and semantic transfer as the two devices most operative in creating a poetic diction distinct from that of literary prose. Together with studies of imagery, then, investigations of all forms of semantic transference, for example allegory, metonymy, synecdoche, and metaphor, are grouped under the present heading. While earlier work in this area traced the literary forerunners or

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

203

symbolic content of figurative systems, newer studies turn to theoretical considerations of metaphor and scientific research on cognition in order to determine their psycholinguistic effects. With its bizarre conglomeration of similes, some patently inadequate to their expressive goals, c. 68b has become central to any cutting-edge examination of troping practices. 383.  M. B. S k i n n e r , Disease Imagery in Catullus 76.17–26, CPh 82.3, 1987, 230–233. 384.  A. R i c h l i n , Systems of Food Imagery in Catullus, in: Aesthetic Patterning (167), 355–363. 385.  M. J. E d w a r d s , Apples, blood, and flowers: Sapphic bridal imagery in Catullus, in: C. D e r o u x (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History VI, Brussels 1992, 181–203. 386.  D. C. F e e n e y , ‘Shall I Compare Thee…?’ Catullus 68b and the limits of analogy, in: T. W o o d m a n  – J. P o w e l l (eds.), Author and Audience in Latin Literature, Cambridge 1992, 33–44. 387.  R. F. T h o m a s , Sparrows, Hares, and Doves: A Catullan Metaphor and Its Tradition, in: Catullan Lyric (168), 131–142. 388.  P. M u r g a t r o y d , The Similes in Catullus 64, Hermes 125, 1997, 75–84. 389.  D. F. K e n n e d y , ‘Cf.’: Analogies, Relationships and Catullus 68, in: S. M. B r a u n d  – R. M e y e r (eds.), amor: roma, Love and Latin Literature, Cambridge 1999, 30–43. 390.  E. V a n d i v e r , Hot Springs, Cool Rivers, and Hidden Fires: Heracles in Catullus 68.51–66, CPh 95, 2000, 150–159. 391.  A. C h i n i , Di alcuni similitudini catulliani, Paideia 58, 2003, 306–312. 392.  J. C l a r k e , Imagery of Colour and Shining in Catullus, Propertius, and Horace, Lang Classical Studies 13, New York 2003. Chap. 2: Colour and Sexuality: Catullus Poem 61, 175–197; Chap. 3: Colours in Conflict: Catullus Poem 63, 199–218. 393.  J. L. R e a d y , A Binding Song: The Similes of Catullus 61, CPh 99.2, 2004, 151–163. 394.  J. D e u l i n g , Catullus 17 and 67, and the Catullan Construct, in: Contemporary Perspective (175), 1–9. 395.  A. d e V i l l i e r s , The Laodamia Simile in Catullus 68: Reflections on Love and Loss, Akroterion 53, 2008, 57–65. 396.  T. J i m é n e z C a l v e n t e , ¿‘Ardemos en llamas’ cuando amamos? la metáfora del fuego amoroso en Catulo, in: A. C a s c ó n D o r a d o et al. (eds.), “Donum amicitiae”: estudios en homenaje al profesor Vicente Picón García, Madrid 2008, 281–304. 397.  D. C. F e e n e y , Catullus 61: Epithalamium and Comparison, CCJ / PCPhS 59, 2013, 70–97.

204

Marilyn B. Skinner

S k i n n e r (383) observes that the ethical language in the opening lines of c. 76 is reinforced through imagery of disease in the closing lines, for both betrayals of private trust (e.g. in c. 77) and public threats to civil order are elsewhere characterized metaphorically as attacks of illness. Those figures give Catullus’ personal misfortune a broader social dimension. R i c h l i n (384) remarks that imagery of food, while used extensively in the polymetric poems and epigrams, is scarcely found in cc. 61–68. Since it is excluded from poems that do not exclude sexual references, eating appears coarser than sex. Positive images of food are restricted, vague, and appear in company with non-food items, while negative images are varied, concrete, and linked to ideas of excretion. These associations may reflect hostility to the human body, which is most often mentioned in invective. This system of gustatory imagery infiltrates other major Catullan topics such as friendship and poetry. On a spectrum between hunger and gluttony, the poet and his friends occupy  a normative position just on the safe side of excess, while the starving and the voracious represent dysfunctional extremes. Sapphic floral imagery, according to E d w a r d s (385), alludes to the bride’s loss of virginity and is therefore a sinister emblem of loss in Catullus’ wedding poems. Even though flower metaphors are not present in the other longer poems, these negative overtones persist, so that marriage is still linked to the shedding of blood. Apples are associated in Sappho with the late-consenting bride; though the apple of c. 2b brings about a positive result, the one in c. 65 that betrays the girl’s secret produces guilt and sorrow. F e e n e y ’s pathbreaking study of similes in c. 68b (386) has led many readers to view this text in an entirely new light as a metapoetic demonstration of the power of analogical language. The essay finds a generic background for c. 68 in the use of comparisons in love poetry and wedding songs. In the latter, divine or mythic models are sought for the nuptial couple and analogies are drawn from the world of nature; such tropes also occur in Catullus’ hymenaeal poems. However, the sheer volume of analogies, as well as their strangeness, sets c. 68 apart from other works of its kind. In the similes themselves, there are radical slippages between tenor and vehicle in the base analogy, the mythic exemplum of Laodamia, and an increasing self-consciousness in the way other figures reveal their mode of operation. ‘The similes of the poem, in calling attention to their capacity to defer reference, provide the ground for questioning the referential power of the poet’s description, in which the event itself remains resolutely undescribed’ (43). The reader’s bafflement in trying to grasp the poet’s meaning reflects the poet’s baffled attempt to recreate experience in words. T h o m a s (387) maintains that interpretation must proceed from understanding of the literary tradition and that parameters for interpretation may be set by models. He cites Meleager (AP 5.207 = 65 G–P), on the death of Phanion’s hare, as a predecessor supporting the presence of a double level of signification in cc. 2 and 3. Meleager’s epigram is part of a cycle consisting of four poems on Phanion, all with demonstrable parallels in Catullus; language in the hare poem allows it to function on an obscene level. Martial’s epigrams suggest that he read the two poems on the passer in that way. Texts in antiquity, Thomas concludes, often exist as parts of larger collectives,

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

205

whose meaning may be elucidated by examining the workings of the referential or allusive systems to which they belong. Through close analysis of the six similes in c. 64, M u r g a t r o y d (388) shows that each substitutes for direct narrative through correspondences that further our understanding of the plot and characters, and each modifies its model in order to achieve its poetic function. In addition, the three similes of the inset tale and the three in the framing story are related by length, subject matter, and lexical reminiscences, and the two groups of similes show corresponding interconnections among themselves. K e n n e d y (389) critiques and complicates F e e n e y ’s reading of c. 68b (386) as a poem whose meaning consists in its analogies. Metaphor, he observes, establishes an essentializing hierarchy of literal to figurative. However, meanings can also be explored in terms of an ongoing dialectic of similarity and difference, where signification can operate in both directions, though not usually simultaneously. As a heuristic experiment, he applies that postulate to the narrative center of the poem, where Allius’ service is explained as opening ‘a closed field with  a broad path’ (67), an apparent metaphor, before supposedly being explained in the next lines as the literal gift of a house. Kennedy shows how opaque and puzzling the transmitted text of lines 68–69 is (Fröhlich’s emendation dominae, in his view, muddies the waters further) and suggests that the que…que coupling Allius’ ostensibly figurative with his ostensibly real actions might contain ‘a parataxis of some sort at the level of imagery’ (37). Marriage can serve as an image for an analogy, that is,  a harmonious blending together of separate elements, and adultery for a failed connection. Kinship is another signifier of ‘genuine’ connection. Like several other scholars (e.g. J a n a n [248]), Kennedy singles out Hercules as a liminal figure who straddles distinctions between separate elements. Such reflections lead him to ponder upon arbitrariness in assertions of similarity, upon the limits of analysis, and upon the nature of interpretation as contingent, so that he finally sees the text’s concerns as precisely those ‘of unity and separation, of necessary and arbitrary relations’ (42). V a n d i v e r (390) demonstrates that Hercules is even more integral to c. 68 than previously thought by showing how a reference to the hot springs of Thermopylae in line 54 is directly connected to the imagery of the cool river in lines 57–58 through a little-known myth associating him with the River Duras nearby. She then parallels the river simile of 57–62 with the later barathrum simile (105–117) as two passages linked by the same motifs: ‘Catullus interweaves images of Heracles, of flowing water, of hidden fires, of obscure toils that helped Heracles gain his union with Hebe, of marriage caused or sealed ultimately by  a pyre’ (156). She concludes by observing that the Greek hero, in achieving immortality and an eternal marriage, is Catullus’ opposite: the speaker’s illusory marriage to a false goddess led only to a sterile union and the extinction of the family line. C h i n i (391) calls attention to Catullus’ use of an extended simile at the close of a poem to encapsulate emotive tensions raised within the poem and resolve them. She studies the effects of the Atlanta simile in c. 2b, modeled uponTheognis 1283–1294; the apple becomes an ‘objective correlative’ of the speaker’s joy at having a love of long duration fulfilled. In Horace, the symbolic meaning of an object has to be intuited,

206

Marilyn B. Skinner

whereas in Catullus it is articulated through a simile. The vignette of the embarrassed girl at the end of c. 65 and the flower simile that concludes c. 11 are two further examples of the strategy. C l a r k e (392) is interested in the stylistic effects of color terminology. After supplying in her first chapter a valuable concordance of color words grouped according to their diverse associations, she turns to instances of chromatic imagery communicating meaning or mood. In Catullus’ wedding song, color not only contributes to the jubilant atmosphere but also heightens the erotic tension. Color imagery is concentrated around the figure of the bride. Colors of happiness, such as the bright clear hues of gold and white, largely predominate; ideas of shining or gleaming are also present; floral motifs, however, introduce purple tints, suggesting the blood associated with the loss of virginity. Color inversions and contrasts, on the other hand, intensify the Attis poem. Images in the first half of the poem are repeated in the second half, acquiring negative overtones in the process. Contrasts of hue include white and black, dark and light, white with red and green with white; in each instance, one color element becomes chromatically stronger and finally submerges the other. In combination with other contrasting sensations such as warmth and cold, such color contrasts draw the reader into Attis’ subjective experience. The similes of c. 61, R e a d y (393) suggests, are disposed in an annular pattern charting an alteration in the bride Junia’s relationship to the natural world. Three similes on each side, set as chiastically arranged pairs, surround a pivotal comparison of the bride to a hyacinth in lines 87–89. In the outermost pair, an initial ominous allusion to the Judgment of Paris is reversed by the subsequent equation of Junia with chaste Penelope. In the succeeding vegetal images, there is a linguistic shift in each of the later components towards metaphor, bringing the tenor, in this case Junia, into closer relationship with the floral language of the vehicle and marking her transition from virgo to matrona. The central hyacinth image, however, preserves a moment of ambivalence about the impending consummation of the marriage. According to D e u l i n g (394), the northern Italian settings of cc. 17 and 67 and the personification of wooden objects in each link the poems together. In addition, the Priapean meter of c. 17 could be considered a variant of the heroic dactylic hexameter with a cretic in the third foot. It is therefore possible that the rickety bridge in the first poem allegorically represents Metellus Celer and the combination of door and mistress in the second looks forward to the tension between idealized and actual Lesbia in c. 68b. In another study inspired by F e e n e y (386), d e V i l l i e r s (395) claims that the slippage between tenor and vehicle in the Laodamia simile reenacts the discrepancy between imagination and reality posited by the entire poem. J i m é n e z C a l v e n t e (396) studies the use of fire imagery as a metaphor for passionate love in Catullus’ poetry. She first cites instances where this imagery is applied to matrimonial love, indicating that it is not a negative trope in and of itself. Used of Catullus’ own feelings, however, and of the emotions of women to whom he is sympathetic, it is reminiscent of medical conditions like fevers and may in fact be influenced by current medical knowledge. She suggests that this modification of traditional descriptions of love as sickness may express a new conception of erotic relationships transcending the purely physical.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

207

F e e n e y (397) analyzes the similes of c. 61 in the course of asking why this trope is so central to the epithalamic genre. The answer, he finds, is that similes locate the human institution of marriage between the poles of myth and nature and offer  a paradigm for thinking about the way in which marriage unifies the disparate entities of male and female. Wedding songs as a genre have an agonistic relationship to the epic tradition and a distinct repertoire of comparisons to myth and the natural world that enable them to calibrate human life on the scale of existence between beasts and gods. Since the language of analogy, like a wedding, brings unalikes together, reflection on the former offers insights into the functioning of the latter. (Here F e e n e y seems to be reciprocally influenced by K e n n e d y ’s remarks [389] on his own earlier article [386]; the three essays should be read together as an illustration of how scholarly exchange can expand the scope of an idea.) In treating the similes of c. 61, Feeney raises the general problem of applicability: elaborating on R e a d y ’s observations (393), he discusses the purpose of disturbing recollections activated by an ostensibly poorly fitting comparison. Unlike Ready, though, he focuses on the work similes do in linking the bride and groom through agricultural imagery and establishing a kind of parity between them. Apart from negotiating the place for human institutions between the worlds of nature and myth and fitting a unique event into cultural history, comparisons grapple with the procedure whereby sameness and difference can be reconciled. E. Themes and Motifs Thematic investigation remains one of the most popular critical approaches to ­ atullus. Since it incorporates systems of lexical and stylistic analysis, many of the C following studies could just have easily been included under previous rubrics. Because of its compatibility with other heuristic strategies, furthermore, theoretical readings summarized above often have a great deal to say about leading themes of the collection. 398.  R. M a r t i n , Réflexions sur Catulle, BAGB 44, 1985, 43–62. Martin (398) first addresses the problem of the heterogeniety of the Catullan corpus. After critiquing earlier attempts to define the collection, he adopts the position that the poems are works of art, not expressions of sincere personal feeling, and defines minor and major themes. Religion, travel, and death are lesser preoccupations, overshadowed by the dominant leitmotifs of literary friendship, love, and hate, and their negative aspects, infidelity and betrayal. Basing his argument on Livy’s account (7.2) of Roman youth engaging in improvised satiric verses, he posits that Catullan invective is a stylised adaptation of a traditional genre of oral entertainment. Finally, he compares the corpus as a whole to a satura lanx, or miscellany, and notes thematic parallels with Petronius’ Satyrica. Even if elements of Catullus’ poetry have a certain flavor of modernity, they are rooted in a far-off past.

208

Marilyn B. Skinner

1. Lesbia and Love The following discussions focus on thematic depictions of Lesbia herself or the representation of erotic experience in the Lesbia cycle. 399.  J. G r a n a r o l o , La dimension familiale de l’amour dans l’âme et la poésie de Catulle, in: Hommages Bardon (166), 163–176. *400.  H.  B a r d o n , Lesbie  – finalement, in: G. V i r é   – H.  B a r d o n (eds.), Grec et latin en 1985 et 1986, Brussels 1986, 17–23. 401.  A. R a m í r e z d e V e r g e r , Una lectura de los poemas a Lesbia y a Cintia, EClás 28, 1986, 67–83. 402.  P. F e d e l i , Donna e amore nella poesia di Catullo, in: R. U g l i o n e (ed.), Atti del convegno nazionale di studi su “La donna nel mondo antico”, Torino 21–23 aprile 1986, Torino 1987, 125–156. 403.  H. R. D e t t m e r , Closure in the Lesbia Polymetra 1–13, CW 82.5, 1989, 375–377. 404.  M. V i n s o n , And Baby Makes Three? Parental Imagery in the Lesbia Poems of Catullus, CJ 85.1, 1989, 47–53. 405.  T. F e a r , Catullus, a poet in transition, LCM 15.2, February 1990, 18–24. 406.  E. Z a i n a , La descripción del cuerpo de Lesbia, Faventia 17.1, 1995, 19–25. 407.  S.  L a i g n e a u , La femme et l’amour chez Catull et les Élégiaques augustéenes, Brussels 1999. Rev.: B o r g o , BStudLat 30.2, 2000, 712–714; R a m b a u x , REL 78, 2000, 300–301; D e s c h a m p s , REA 103, 2001, 561–562; M a l e u v r e , LEC 69, 2001, 301; M o r e a u , RPh 75.1, 2001, 178–179; L i e b e r g , Gnomon 74.5, 2002, 447–450; M a r t i n , RBPh 80.1, 2002, 282–283; J a m e s , BMCRev 2004.06.52; G o u r e v i t c h , AC 74, 2005, 340. 408.  N. H o l z b e r g , Lesbia, the Poet, and the Two Faces of Sappho: ‘Womanu­ facture’ in Catullus, PCPhS 46, 2000, 28–44. 409.  G. L i e b e r g , Amor Catulli poetae utrum verus an fictus sit, quaeritur, Forum Classicum 45, 2002, 265–267. 410.  T. A d a m i k , Amore Catulliano, in: Studia Catulliana (174), 50–55. 411.  M. G a r i b a s h v i l i , Lesbia as a Poetic Paradigm, Phasis 8, 2005, 43–51. 412.  F. B e l l a n d i , Chap. 5: Lesbia o l’amour-passion: i carmi 51  e 11, in: Lepos e pathos (164), 165–269. 413.  J. M. B l á z q u e z M a r t í n e z , El mundo amoroso de Catulo y de la Roma de finales de la República, Gerión, vol. extra (Necedad, sabiduría y verdad: el legado de Juan Cascajero), 2007, 277–310. 414.  J. T. D y s o n , The Lesbia Poems, in: Companion (177), 254–275.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

209

415.  L. C. W a t s o n , Catullus and the Brothel-Creepers: Carmen 37, Antichthon 43, 2009, 123–136. 416.  C. H i l d , Liebesgedichte als Wagnis: Emotionen und generationelle Pro­ zesse in Catulls Lesbiagedichten, Röhrig 2013. Demurring at explanations that find pathological symptoms in Catullus’ comparison of his love for Lesbia to a father’s affection, G r a n a r o l o (399) maintains that he wishes to express his affection in familial terms as opposed to wholly carnal passion. V i n s o n (404) postulates, in addition, that he envisions himself and Lesbia in the role of parents (as evidenced by his treatment of the sparrow as a child in cc. 2 and 3) because production of offspring was the traditional purpose of Roman marriage and the role of wife, which he imagines for Lesbia, involved that of mother as well. R a m í r e z d e V e r g e r (401) traces four phases of the romantic cycle – falling in love, happiness, doubt, and rupture – in respective poems of Catullus and Propertius. F e d e l i (402) proposes that Catullus’ originality as an erotic poet, to which his elegaic successors testify, is characterized by his lascivia, or intensity of passion, and the unusual nature of his relationship with the beloved. The rest of the essay is largely given over to establishing the specific qualities of that relationship through comparisons with portrayals of love in the elegists. D e t t m e r (403) calls attention to a curious pattern in the introductory sequence of Lesbia poems: each piece closes with  a reference to loss of virginity (cc 2b and 11) or  a mention of facial features (cc.  3, 5, 7, 8, and 13). F e a r (405) argues that Callimachean poetics emphasized the intellectual rather than the emotional quality of poetry. Catullus’ Lesbia poems show an artist used to working in  a highly intellectual mode attempting to make rational sense of his irrational feelings, thus producing highly intelligent and subtle love poetry. Z a i n a (406) probes the symbolic implications of the single descriptive detail about Lesbia contained in the poems, her ‘shining foot’ at 68.70–72. In other respects, her appearance is sketched through negation, as an implicit contrast to the illusory ‘realism’ of the portraits of Ameana (cc. 41, 43) and Quintia (c. 86). L a i g n e a u (407) deals with portrayals of the female beloved and erotic desire in Catullus, Tibullus, Propertius, and Ovid. After summarizing the idealized physical and intellectual qualities of the literary mistress and the poet-lovers’ reports of their own erotic experience, she provides  a background synopsis of sociological and legal conditions impinging upon elegiac representations (such as male attitudes towards slaves, prostitutes, and courtesans and the social status and expectations of the matrona). In the last section of the book she argues that the elegists’ conception of love was revolutionary, based on a novel ‘code amoureux’ derived from Catullus and involving reciprocity of pleasure and exchange of gender roles. This innovation brought them into conflict, of course, with the Augustan moral program and its marriage legislation. It is problematic in this and other respects that Catullus is treated simply as a proto-elegist whose very different political and historical circumstances go unacknowledged. In keeping with his conception of the entire Catullan corpus as naughty comic entertainment (241), H o l z b e r g (408) maintains that the Lesbia of the poems is

210

Marilyn B. Skinner

represented as a hetaera whose name alludes to her specialized sexual skills. Catullus’ own effeminized persona is endowed with qualities traditionally ascribed to the female poet Sappho. L i e b e r g (409) rebuts a recent claim that the Lesbia poems narrate  a fictitious experience by arguing that later testimony never questions its reality. A d a m i k (410) takes passages from cc. 62, 76 and other poems as evidence that Catullus knew the Septuagint and derived his concept of a spiritual love from the Song of Songs. G a r i b a s h v i l i (411) argues that Lesbia served as the prototype for the elegiac mistresses of Tibullus, Propertius, and Ovid, but all, being derivative, fall short of the original. B e l l a n d i (412) claims that c. 51 signals  a departure from  a Callimachean poetics of ethos (see below, 456). He discusses how Catullus appropriates Sappho’s transgressive (because antimatrimonial) pathos and applies it to the representation of his own adulterous affair. For the speaker, identification with the Sapphic voice is effeminizing; Sappho’s own text, in contrast, is protreptic, advising girls to accept the pain of separation. In a line-by-line commentary Bellandi reads the fourth stanza as Catullus’ own self-analysis of his psychological state. Discussion of c. 11, the pendant to 51, centers on two scholarly problems, coherence of its structure and the attitude of the speaker to its addressees. Taking up the last issue first, Bellandi suggests that Lesbia is the true internal addressee of the entire poem, which is consequently unified, and that the hyperbolic language of lines 1–16 is fundamentally ambiguous, leaving us in a state of suspended judgment. B l á z q u e z M a r t í n e z (413), accepting texts at face value, supposes that Catullus is accurately describing sexual conduct, his own and that of others, and that Cicero in the Pro Caelio exaggerates but still delivers a credible picture of Clodia’s transgressions. On that basis, he provides a sensational description of sexual life at Rome in the late Republic that does little more than paraphrase ancient sources. Reading the collection as a continuous narrative, D y s o n (414) sees differences in the way Lesbia is represented in each of its three parts. In the polymetric section she is frequently referred to as a puella and associated with a carpe diem motif; along with Catullus’ other love-objects Ipsitilla and Juventius, she is addressed in hyperbolic language that incorporates nonce-words signifying large numbers of physical inter­ actions; and her relationship with Catullus is portrayed almost entirely in physical terms. The Lesbia of c. 68, on the other hand, is a woman who dominates her lover, a goddess upon entering the house provided by Allius, a quasi-wife, but likewise an adulteress. Finally, the Lesbia of the epigrams is accompanied by two main metaphors, marriage and political alliance, interwoven into  a coherent narrative of betrayal, misery, and final reconciliation. In this section the puella has become an adult woman, mulier, while the relationship, figured in political terms, makes demands of fides on both partners equivalent to those of a lasting amicitia between male equals. Dyson reads the final poem, c. 109, as a positive affirmation of this pact. W a t s o n ’s reading of c. 37 (415) protests a recent tendency to treat this poem and other poems in the Lesbia cycle as ‘homosocial’ communications between men, relegating the woman herself to the sidelines. In doing so, critics such as N a p p a (238), W r a y (240), and K r o s t e n k o (369) overlook the major shift in the

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

211

construction of Lesbia marked by this poem, in which she is reduced from the goddess of c. 68b to  a cheap prostitute. Through close reading Watson shows how central the prostitution motif is to the overall workings of the text. He adds that c. 37 may still be read as social commentary if we postulate that ‘the drastic failure of integrity which Catullus detects in the nobility may be seen as instantiated and particularized in the appalling debasement which the poet imputes to Lesbia’ (135),  a suggestion I would readily endorse. Catullus’ neoteric artistry, H i l d (416) theorizes, marks  a generational break with previous Roman literature. The Lesbia poems represent what he terms a ‘venture’ (Wagnis or Risiko) involving  a transgression of traditional norms: making love the center of one’s existence while subjecting oneself to the will of the puella. This, in turn, constitutes  a protest against the social structures of late republican Rome. Studying the poems of the Lesbia group individually, Hild applies modern categories of emotional experience to the feelings expressed by the speaker in order to construct an overall model of psychological development that can be ‘read’ from a narratological perspective and, at the same time, analyzed as a product of generational processes.33 Although much of this monograph replicates work done previously (it offers, for example, a prolonged review of the question of authorial arrangement drawn from other sources) and although it is extraordinarily schematic in assessing kinds and degrees of affect within given poems, it does have much to say about generational tensions as they affected the neoteric movement and about nuances of subjectivity. 2. Gender Work of the 1980s and early 1990s listed here mainly studies the portrayal of females (as distinct from Lesbia) in the Catullan corpus. Under the influence of feminist criticism, scholarship in this area gradually turned its attention to the abstract workings of gender roles, including the construction of masculinity, which has become a popular subject. 417.  R. P e s t a n o , La mujer en Catulo, Tabona 6, 1985–1987, 331–351 [abs. in English]. 418.  H.-J. G l ü c k l i c h , Zwischen Patriarchat und Matriarchat  – Catull als Identifikations- und Kontrastperson, in: H.-J. G l ü c k l i c h (ed.), Lateinische Literatur, heute wirkend I, Göttingen 1987, 65–80. 419.  M. B. S k i n n e r , Ut decuit cinaediorem: Power, Gender, and Urbanity in Catullus 10, Helios 16.1, 1989, 7–23. *420. D. F r e d r i c k , She’s nothing: gender and representation in Catullus and elegy, diss. UCLA 1992. 33 H i l d expressly distinguishes between the persona ‘Catull’ subject to the emotional states analyzed in the monograph and the poet Catullus who created the ‘literarisch-fiktive’ situation (18–19). He does not address recent objections to the employment of persona theory in studying ancient works; see especially C l a y (243) and M a y e r (244).

212

Marilyn B. Skinner

421.  M. B. S k i n n e r , Ego Mulier: The Construction of Male Sexuality in Catullus, in: Catullan Lyric (168), 107–130 (rev. version in: J. P. H a l l e t t  – M. B. S k i n n e r [eds.], Roman Sexualities, Princeton 1997, 129–150, and in: Oxford Readings [176], 447–475). 422.  L. G a l á n , La mujer en los poemas breves polimétricos de Catulo, Estudios de Lirica Latina 18, 1994, 19–45. 423.  T. N i k o l a ï d e s , Puella formosa: τὸ γυναικεῖο κάλλος στὸν Κάτουλλο καὶ τοὺς Ρωμαίους ἐλεγειακούς, Athens 1994 [abs. in English]. 424.  L. G a l á n , Versiones de la matrona (Catulo 66–68), Auster 2, 1997, 91–108. 425.  E. G r e e n e , The Erotics of Domination: Male Desire and the Mistress in Latin Love Poetry, Baltimore 1998. Chap. 1: The Catullan Ego: Fragmentation and the Erotic Self, 1–17; Chap. 2: Gendered Domains: Public and Private in Catullus, 18–36. 426.  J. P. H a l l e t t , Women’s Voices and Catullus’ Poetry, CW 95, 2002, 421–424. 427.  V. P a n o u s s i , Ego maenas: Maenadism, marriage, and the construction of female identity in Catullus 63 and 64, Helios 30.2, 2003, 101–126. 428.  J. P. H a l l e t t , Catullus and Horace on Roman Women Poets, in: Contemporary Perspective (175), 65–88. 429.  Th. F u h r e r , Rollenerwartung und Rollenkonflikt in Catulls erotischer Dichtung, in: E. H a r t m a n n   – U. H a r t m a n n   – K. P i e t z n e r (eds.), Geschlechterdefinitionen und Geschlechtergrenzen in der Antike, Stuttgart 2007, 55–64. 430.  E. M a n w e l l , Gender and Masculinity, in: Companion (177), 111–128. P e s t a n o (417) regards Lesbia as the embodiment of a newly emancipated kind of aristocratic woman, independent and self-willed, emerging in late Republican Rome in the wake of broad changes in customs and morals. Though more two-dimensional than Lesbia, other female figures like Ameana exemplify the same trends. By supplying a précis of the affair as reconstructed from the poems Pestano attempts to show how Lesbia, as she reflects the neoteric emphasis on the poetry of personal feeling, serves as the emblem of Catullus’ poetic originality. G l ü c k l i c h (418) applies to Catullus’ writings a sociological model that ascribes to individual persons traits associated with patrilineal or matrilineal societies and finds that the poet vacillates between ‘paternistischen und maternistischen Polen’. This accounts for the incoherence of his political and philosophical attitudes – a feature appealing to students who, faced with the confusion of the modern world, identify with him (not a good thing, in Glücklich’s opinion). According to S k i n n e r (419), c. 10, while open to appreciation as pure comedy of manners, contains a ‘tightly integrated subtext providing serious moral comment on Roman political and social institutions’ that ultimately deconstructs its own urbanity

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

213

(10). The fundamental parallel between the two main characters  – ‘Catullus’, who resents his purportedly high-handed treatment by his former commanding officer, and the unnamed puella, whose acceptance into a higher social circle depends upon acquiescence in a trivialized self-image – makes the piece into a pointed, if perhaps not altogether wholly intended, comment on the unfair operations of the existing class and gender system and the impossibility of registering  a protest against their oppressiveness. F i t z g e r a l d (227), using Skinner’s interpretation as his point of departure, constructs an alternative explanation in which the poet casts his speaker as victim in order to display a ‘poetic power that quite glories in its own capabilities’ (178–179). Reading the two studies side by side offers additional insights into the poem’s complexity and ultimate indeterminacy. F r e d r i c k (*420) summarizes his thesis: ‘The dissertation analyses the representation of women in Catullus, Propertius, and Ovid (Amores, Ars Amatoria, and Heroides 1–15); cultural evidence is also discussed. Psychoanalytic film theory (Mulvey, Silverman) provides the critical model. The dissertation concludes that woman is defined by symbolic castration (= lack of control over signs), and that interest in her reflects the political anxiety of the Republic’s collapse and poetic anxiety stemming from the Hellenistic transition from orality to writing’. S k i n n e r (421) revives Kenneth Quinn’s reading of c. 6334 as a study in the failure to achieve the ‘ephebic transition’ from boyhood passivity to adult masculinity. The poem incorporates a construction of masculinity hard for present-day readers to grasp because of the radically distinct sex / gender system prevailing in the contemporary Western world. Attis’ rejection of his prescribed adult sexual role and submission to Cybele is an irrevocable abdication of male cultural responsibility, symptomatic of elite despair over real decreases in personal autonomy and diminished capacity for meaningful public action triggered by the political crisis of Republican Rome. Catullus’ depiction of his affair with Lesbia in analogous terms and his sexualization of male and female erotic victims, including himself, may have appealed to male readers by providing alternative subject positions permitting scope for emotive fantasy. G a l á n (422) offers a typology of female figures in Catullus restricted to the polymetric poems. After acknowledging the problems and biases of all ancient evidence regarding Roman women, she attributes changes in the position of elite women to political, religious, and economic shifts and to the growing visibility of the courtesan. Her catalogue of polymetric women includes only one matrona, the young wife of c. 17; the rest are meretrices and courtesans. As such, they have no importance in themselves, but are present merely as erotic appendages of men, particularly members of Catullus’ circle, and are often designated simply as a puella or a scortum. Lesbia, who constitutes the ‘formal center of gravity of Catullan poetry’ (37), becomes even more important through express or implicit contrast with these women. N i k o l a ï d e s (423) surveys elements of physical beauty in Catullus’ and the elegists’ descriptions of their mistresses. He finds some differences in poets’ attitudes, especially toward hair. In the elegiac series cc. 65–68b, G a l á n (424) studies the por 34 Q u i n n (above, n. 11), 249–251.

214

Marilyn B. Skinner

trayals of five women, all matronae: Berenice, the wife of Caecilius, Laodamia, Helen, and the beloved, Lesbia. While Berenice and the unfaithful wife of c. 67 are opposites in all respects, in Laodamia the positive traits of Berenice become liabilities, and Helen proves a more accurate mythic prototype for Lesbia than Laodamia does. In Lesbia, these diverse features of other women are combined into a uniform representation. G r e e n e (425) analyzes the dynamics of gender as they operate in the Lesbia poems. In her opening chapter she demonstrates through analysis of cc. 8, 72, and 76 that poems in which one part of the ego addresses another reveal the fragmenting effects of desire upon the self. Here Greene makes perceptive observations: relationships among those voices are too complex to be reduced to any one experience of selfhood, and they themselves are not gendered – the Catullan lover speaks as a desiring subject in a voice that is neither male nor female. Her second chapter deals with gender hierarchies as they interact with Catullus’ public and private worlds. The submissive feminine persona adopted by the speaker paradoxically, she claims, reinforces conventional male attitudes about power and moral hierarchy in which men are deemed superior to women. In poems such as cc. 5, 7, and 11, then, Lesbia as the dominant figure is associated with public values from which the speaker is trying to distance himself. H a l l e t t (426) attempts to recover previously ‘unheard’ female speech in Catullus’ text, apart from passages already designated as direct quotations (such as the request of the puella at c. 10.25–27) or echoes of Sapphic originals. In addition to his seven explicit references to his beloved speaking, she proposes that c. 2b and the final stanza of c. 51 can be taken as words assigned to Lesbia herself: the first comments approvingly on c. 2.1–10, the second rejects his translation of Sappho. Both are literary (more accurately, perhaps, metaliterary) reactions to Catullus’ verse that characterize Lesbia as a poetic authority in her own right. Extending S k i n n e r ’s argument (421), P a n o u s s i (427) demonstrates that in cc. 63 and 64 Attis’ and Ariadne’s respective enmeshment in maenadism, a ritual condition condemning the participant to permanent exclusion from the community, mark their failures to achieve adult status in marriage. Because marriage guarantees the stability of sex roles within a society, uncertainty surrounding spousal roles and the consequent blurring of boundaries between the sexes call into question the efficacy of marriage as a force for social cohesion. If institutionalized marriage, in turn, can serve as a metonym for an entire complex of state protocols and demands, fragility of gender roles may express anxieties over the definition of individual Roman identity and uneasiness about state encroachment on the self. H a l l e t t (428) contends that Catullus and Horace acknowledge the existence of female poets but do so in different ways, Horace openly, Catullus insofar as he assigns critical judgements on his own poetry to Lesbia, whose statements may paraphrase verses actually written by her real-life counterpart Clodia Metelli. Sulpicia’s frequent homages to Catullus indicate that she,  a poet in her own right, found him more congenial, while her contrast of herself to a paid sexual worker in a toga at [Tib.] 3.3.16 is a ‘grand gesture of resistance’ to Horace’s sneer at the tastes of a Cerinthus in Satires 1.2.80–82. F u h r e r (429) applies gender-role theory to Catullus’ relationship with

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

215

Lesbia. Fuhrer too identifies the marital bond as the statutory basis of the gender system: Catullus’ epithalamia thus articulate conventional gender expectations. For an extramarital liaison, however, there are no socially defined tenets; standards of behavior must be mutually agreed upon and the roles of the partners are genderneutral. Conflicts arise for the male poetic speaker because he attempts to combine the role of lover with that of caring partner and imposes norms and behavior expectations on the woman that do not fit her unconventional gender role. M a n w e l l (430) introduces the reader to current work on male gender identity in ancient Rome. Masculinity studies have identified the values and moral qualities associated with the condition of being a Roman vir and the difficulties involved in performing masculinity convincingly. By comparing two scholarly readings, those of W r a y (240) and S k i n n e r (421), she shows how Catullus fashions a masculine subjectivity for himself by playing upon the polarities of hardness and softness. 3. Sexuality and Obscenity Once forbidden subjects, sexual themes and obscene language in Catullus began to be discussed openly in the early 1980s. Since then, defining their semantic purpose or rhetorical effect has continued to absorb a large share of critical attention. 431.  M. H. L i n d g r e n , Non bona dicta. Obscenity in the poetry of Catullus, diss. U. of Iowa 1983. 432.  M. B. S k i n n e r , The Dynamics of Catullan Obscenity: cc. 37, 58 and 11, SyllClass 3, 1991, 1–11. 433.  A. R i c h l i n , The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor, 2nd ed., New York and Oxford 1992. Chap. 6: Catullus, Ovid, and the Art of Mockery, 144–163 (reprinted in modified form as Catullus and the Art of Crudity in: Oxford Readings [176], 282–303). 434.  F. H i c k s o n - H a h n , What’s So Funny? Laughter and Incest in Invective Humor, SyllClass 9, 1998, 1–36. 435.  W. S t r o h , Sexualität und Obszönität in römischer Lyrik, in: Th. S t e m m ­ l e r  – S t. H o r l a c h e r (eds.), Sexualität im Gedicht, Tübingen 2000, 11–49. 436.  M. B. S k i n n e r , Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture, Malden, MA and Oxford 2005. Chap. 8: Republican and Augustan Rome II: The Soft Embrace of Venus, 212–239 (rev. ed. 2014, 280–314). 437.  K. T h r a e d e , Inzest bei Catull, in: Studia Catulliana (174), 56–62. 438.  C. D e r o u x , Le poème CV de Catulle ou: De l’obscénité comme moyen d’expression littéraire, Latomus 65.3, 2006, 612–627. 439.  L. W a t s o n , Catullus and the Poetics of Incest, in: Contemporary Perspective (175), 35–48. 440.  V. P a n o u s s i , Sexuality and Ritual: Catullus’ Wedding Poems, in: Companion (177), 276–292.

216

Marilyn B. Skinner

441.  F. N a u , Catulle et la censure: les stratégies du plaisir, in: P. G a l a n d H a l l y n   – C. L é v y   – W. V e r b a a l (eds.), Le Plaisir dans l’ Antiquité et à la Renaissance, Turnhout 2008, 257–288. 442.  R. R a w l e s   – B. N a t o l i , Erotic Lyric, in: T. K. H u b b a r d (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Sexualities, Malden, MA and Oxford 2014, 335–351. L i n d g r e n (431) examines forty-eight poems containing sexual or scatological language, categorizing instances thematically: poems about Lesbia and about other women; homosexual, political, and incestuous topics; and wordplay involving synonyms for the male organ. In contrast to those who seek existential or psychological reasons for Catullan obscenity, she prefers to regard it as  a rhetorical strategy for achieving intensity of expression. Though unaware of Lindgren’s study, S k i n n e r (432) comes to similar conclusions: obscenities in three polymetric Lesbia poems, cc. 37, 58, and 11, break into the text at the very point where the speaker, recognizing the futility of his attempt to control his mistress, must confess his baffled disillusionment. Turned against himself, they measure the extent of his own folly. R i c h l i n (433) begins by observing the parallelism between the Catullan speaker of invective and the god in Priapic poetry: both are obsessed with thievery and both threaten offenders with rape. She adds, however, that other poems in the corpus reverse the Priapic pose, mocking hypermasculine figures like Mamurra / Mentula and displaying impotence when confronted with aggression. Her recognition of this dual template has been quite influential (see, e.g., N a p p a [238, 102–105] and U d e n [299]). Further patterns in the invective poems include direct address to the victim coupled with damaging questions; assigning false names; setting the scene in streets and alleys; combining food, sex, and depravity and focusing on the mouths of enemies. Through a close reading of structure and imagery in c. 25, Richlin demonstrates that abusive verse is capable of achieving a high degree of artistic merit. H i c k s o n - H a h n (434) determines that incongruity, together with assumed moral superiority and hostility to the victim, explains why incest, though a serious violation of religious and social taboo, could be a source of humor in certain literary genres. Catullus, one of only four Latin authors (the others are Cicero, Juvenal and Martial) who resorts to this topic, employs  a variety of verbal strategies to draw attention to the discrepancy between social expectations and personal sexual conduct. Important factors in the humor of the poems – those on Gellius, Aufillena, Gallus, Lesbius and the paterfamilias of c. 67 – are repetition of the motif from one item to the next, singling out the authority figure of the paternal uncle for paradoxical treatment, and the amassing and juxtaposition of kinship terms. S t r o h (435), in  a survey intended, it appears, for non-specialists, catalogues the use of sexual motifs in Roman poetry from Lucilius to Ovid. Predictably, he devotes most of his space to Catullus, tracing a change in the function of obscenity from the titillating Juventius cycle (to which he assigns c. 16, denying its validity as a programmatic statement) to its evocative power in the Lesbia poems and the political invectives. Addressing students and general readers, S k i n n e r (436, 284–286) contextualizes Catullus’ invective politically and ethically. In the competitive arena

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

217

of late-Republican elite society, his obscene abuse of prominent politicians, notably Caesar, was attention-grabbing, but it also served the larger purpose of denouncing political corruption in unforgettable terms. In c. 57, for example, his representation of Caesar and Mamurra as egalitarian sexual partners metaphorically charges that Caesar has abandoned his responsibility to police his functionaries and is using his authority to shield extortion. When Catullus portrays himself as sexually exploited by the system, as he does in cc. 10 and 28, he implicitly also blames himself for buying into a rigged scheme and surrendering his integrity. Sexual polemic thus grapples with prevailing anxieties surrounding his reader’s social position. Reading cc. 88–90 as  a buildup to  a comic deflation of the speaker in c. 91, T h r a e d e (437) suggests that those incest jokes undercut the moralizing rhetoric on the mater…impia in 64.403–404. D e r o u x (438) reiterates an earlier claim35 that Roman authors employ obscenity as a potent rhetorical tool, citing c. 105 as an illustration. Because the soubriquet Mentula designates its possessor as the phallus incarnate, any action he undertakes, including writing poetry, becomes attempted rape. Strenuous assault followed by quick detumescence is implied by the metrical scheme of the distich and by risqué puns on scandere and praecipitem, while the pitchforks the Muses wield convert Mentula’s verse to manure, stigmatizing it as rustic. Without the obscenity that informs the couplet, it would not be such a picturesque defense of poetic art. Although the theme of incest is found in approximately ten per cent of Catullus’ poems, W a t s o n (439) remarks that instances occur chiefly in the epigrams, particularly 79 and the Gellius cycle 74 and 88–91. The poet, he concludes, stigmatizes incest as a barbarous, non-Roman sexual atrocity and employs the motif to estrange both Gellius and the Clodii from their aristocratic Roman milieu. P a n o u s s i (440) shows that cc. 61 and 62 are not occasional hymns but explorations of female apprehension over marriage within  a ritual context. That context explains the troubling emphasis on the violence of the sexual act in the first poem and the girls’ resistance to marriage in the second. Both the bride and the groom of c. 61 undergo a psychological transition in which her vulnerability is assuaged and his eagerness tempered so that the union can rest on a firm basis of physical love, though the destabilizing potential of sexual desire is still left open. Despite the opposition between the sexes expressed by the competing choruses of c. 62, female submission is there finally pronounced necessary to promote the good of families and the state. Again, though, there is no true integration of bridal anxieties and social constraints, leaving readers with a lasting impression of feminine fragility. Notwithstanding the subtitle of the essay and the title of the volume in which it appears, N a u (441) is only tangentially concerned with le plaisir. Rather, this is a revolutionary and significant theoretical analysis of the strategies and operations of Catullan invective. Far from simply condemning pleasure, Nau contends, Catullus in voicing blame introduces complexity into traditional judgmental discourse. The 35 C. D e r o u x , Art et vulgarité: le latin qui ‘breve l’honnêteté’, in: P. K u t z n e r (ed.), La vulgarité, Bruxelles 1991, 75–89.

218

Marilyn B. Skinner

exceptional diversity of his invective and its integration with other poetic modes generates its interest and originality. Censure is not a discourse isolated from the rest of the Catullan corpus; Nau casts new light on how it is implicated in pronouncements on urbanitas and in aesthetic and erotic declarations. Most important, his analysis problematizes both the Priapic model of aggression popularized by R i c h l i n (433) and the performance of manhood posited by W r a y (240): though some invective produces gratification by asserting the speaker’s superiority over the victim, much of it recoils upon the speaker himself, betraying his lack of self-control and powerlessness. Catullan invective reveals an identity in crisis: the poet takes up the invective tradition in order to affirm the new values of urbanity, but simultaneously comes up against the equivocality of every message and the reversibility of blame (284). Ultimately this discourse promotes reflection on self and society. R a w l e s   – N a t o l i (442, 343–344) look at the normative Catullan model of activity / passivity before turning to its subversion by the elegists. One of the key issues of sexuality in Roman lyric, they postulate, is how masculinity is performed in response to the socio-political climate. While Catullus can on occasion take  a hyper-virile stance and question the manhood of his adversaries, as in c. 16, he also translates the economic dominance of his military commander into the sexual sphere and represents it as a violation of his physical integrity. In Catullus’ poetry, and even in that of Horace, changes in sexual role mirror the turmoil in the socio-political world. 4. Friendship 443.  S.  K o s t e r , Ille ego qui: Dichter zwischen Wort und Macht, Erlangen 1988. Chap. 1: Catulls Auserwählte, 9–29. 444.  J. F o s t e r , Poetry and Friendship: Catullus 35, LCM 19.7–8, 1994, 114–121. 445.  L. G a m b e r a l e , L’amicizia delusa: una lettura del carme 38 di Catullo, InvLuc 21, 1999, 167–182. 446.  A. Z i e r l , Alte und neue Werte in den Gedichten Catulls, in: A. H a l t e n h o f f  – A. H e i l  – F.-H. M u t s c h l e r (eds.), O tempora, o mores! Römische Werte und römische Literatur in den letzten Jahrzehnten der Republik, Munich and Leipzig 2003, 199–218. 447.  J.-C. J u l h e , La poésie catullienne de l’amitié à la lumière du “De amicitia” de Cicéron, in: P. G a l a n d - H a l l y n (ed.), La société des amis à Rome, Turnhout 2008, 63–92. 448.  C. A. W i l l i a m s , Reading Roman Friendship, Cambridge 2012. Chap. 3: Love and friendship: authors and texts, 174–258. K o s t e r (443) examines cc. 10, 6, 13, and 36 to identify the criteria by which Catullus selects his friends. He detects Epicurean motifs in these poems. In the course of an informal, chatty reading, F o s t e r (444) implies that c. 35 tells us much about the poet’s capacity for friendship by revealing how enthusiastically he responds

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

219

to Caecilius’ unfinished work. G a m b e r a l e (445) construes c. 38 as a request for consolatory verse, possibly on his brother’s death. Lighter aeolic bases, prosaic language, and ellipses suggest that, as in c. 68a, poetic ability is incapacitated by grief. The composition exhibits, simply but elegantly, the degree to which poetry and friendship are unified, so that Cornificius’ failure to respond constitutes a breach of amity. The ‘new’ aesthetic values in Catullus’ world of otium, Z i e r l (446) observes, are never shown as directly opposed to the traditional values of Roman society. She analyzes the tactics of invoking conventional ethical standards in certain types of poems – the political invectives; the complaints against false friends, which indirectly reveal the poet’s ideal of friendship; the Lesbia poems, where standard values are reassessed; and c. 64, in which the negative depiction of Greek mythological heroes allegorically critiques contemporary preoccupation with an idealized Roman past. Reading Catullus’ poetry on friendship in the light of the De amicitia, J u h l e (447) finds several areas of overlap. Traditional concepts of friendship are the backdrop of verse in which Catullus designates friends as sodales and affirms a community of literary taste. Love elegists in their literary genealogies commemorate Catullus’ connection with Licinius Calvus in the same way that Cicero praises the intellectual and philosophical alliance of Laelius and Scipio. Juhle approvingly cites M. F. W i l l i a m s ’ (360) coupling of the erotic language of c. 50 with Cicero’s etymological association of amor and amicitia, but observes that the serenity with which Laelius reflects on his long relationship with Scipio conflicts with the passionate sentiments of the Catullan speaker. While the friendship of Laelius and Scipio is grounded on mutual virtue and that of Catullus and Calvus on shared literary enthusiasm, both relationships are presented as exemplary associations. It is the foedus amicitiae with Lesbia that replicates most fully those traditional ideals of Roman friendship articulated in the De amicitia. In spite of their differences, the two authors, by departing from the complex system of exchanges of services and political alliances linked to amicitia, model a new type of sociability, in its most perfect form a privileged bond between two individuals. C. A. W i l l i a m s (448), who contends that friendship is central to Roman social life, remarks upon the complexities in Catullus’ employment of its terminology. Amor and amicitia are mingled when he is attempting to designate the special character of his feelings for Lesbia; whether directed at her or a false male friend, accusations of ingratitude are couched in exactly the same language. Catullus’ poetry ‘is pervaded with relationships between men’ and ‘much of it invites being read in terms of the homosocial’ (180). Affection for men may be humorously or bitterly cast as erotic passion. Yet a comparable vocabulary can be applied in a derogatory, gendered sense to potential sexual partners (Aufillena in c. 110) and the partners of others (Ameana in cc. 41 and 43). This semantic slippage between amor and amicitia may or may not be original with Catullus, but it obviously takes advantage of pre-existing patterns of conceptualization.

220

Marilyn B. Skinner

5. Poetry 449.  E. F r e d r i c k s m e y e r , Catullus to Caecilius on Good Poetry (C. 35), AJPh 106.2, 1985, 213–221. 450.  R. M. N i e l s e n , Catullus 86: Lesbia, Beauty, and Poetry, Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History VII, Brussels 1994, 256–266. 451.  Th. B a r b a u d , Joies et tristesses de Catulle, BAGB 3, 1998, 223–234. 452.  S. G o g a , Catulle et les Muses, in: Hommages Deroux (169), 237–245. 453.  Th. B a r b a u d , La poésie de Catulle entre venustas et acerbitas, in: Présence de Catulle (173), 103–114. 454.  M. M a r s i l i o  – K. P o d l e s n e y , Poverty and Poetic Rivalry in Catullus (C. 23, 13, 16, 24, 81), AClass 49, 2006, 167–181. 455.  W. W. B a t s t o n e , Catullus and the Programmatic Poem: The Origins, Scope, and Utility of a Concept, in: Companion (177), 235–253. 456.  F. B e l l a n d i , Chap. 2: Ethos e pathos: qualche considerazioni sulla ‘poetica’ di Catullo, in: Lepos e Pathos (164), 33–62. F r e d r i c k s m e y e r ’s influential reading (449) stresses the unfinished (incohatam) condition of Caecilius’ poem on the Magna Mater and opposes the speaker’s rational cogitationes to the impotens amor of the girl, an obstacle to completing the work. Though an occasional piece, the poem deals with central issues of friendship, love, and poetry. N i e l s e n (450) views c. 86 as programmatic: Catullus is speaking not only of the essence of female beauty but also of the essential qualities of poetry. Through a sequential account, B a r b a u d (451) traces abrupt changes of tone and feeling in the polymetrics; happiness and sorrow are expressed in adjacent poems. The epigrams, meanwhile, display consistent cynicism and focus upon the physical aspects of passion. Epicurean influence is present throughout the corpus. According to G o g a (452), the Muses are not a source of inspiration for Catullus. Instead, they are defenders of his poetic speech, depositories of the memories the poet invests in them and guarantors of the immortality of his work (245). His poems combine mimesis of emotion with the intelligent and lucid work of putting emotion into a text. The immediate juxtaposition of seemingly incompatible qualities, venustas and acerbitas, in successive poems and even within poems gives rise, B a r b a u d (453) claims, to an oxymoronic rhetoric. M a r s i l i o   – P o d l e s n e y (454) believe that Catullus’ sneers at the poverty of his rival Furius are literary attacks on Furius Bibaculus. Dryness, lack of sweat and saliva, and cleanliness, traits attributed to him in c. 23, all point to stylistic faults. Allusion to the myth of Midas in c. 24 suggests that Juventius’ preference for Furius is a sign of bad taste. The Midas motif is picked up again in c. 81, whose bombastic language may parody Bibaculus’ epic manner. The conventional theme of the penniless poet is adapted to insinuate that he has nothing to offer to either Juventius or contemporary neoteric poetry. B a t s t o n e (455) questions the utility of ‘programmatic poem’ as  a critical concept. After

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

221

demonstrating how poetic values are mapped, through an allegorizing process, onto particular examples, he tracks the term back to its emergence in the 1970s and argues that it responds to postmodernism by limiting the inevitable slippage of language. In actuality, the approach involves circular thinking and complicates rather than explains Catullan poetics, as it requires one to ‘read one’s own understanding of the corpus and the poet back into the programmatic poem itself ’ (249). Employed properly, however, it can be a heuristic device for helping us to think about the poems in new ways. B e l l a n d i (456) attempts to construct  a coherent Catullan poetics from the scattered expressions of aesthetic taste in the collection. Poetry is defined as a ludic art displaying grace, humor, irony, refinement, and other positive qualities, but also coarseness and vulgarity when intended. There is a correlation between the virtues of this art and those of its audience and its composer. The latter must possess a certain ethos founded on natural gifts and cultivated through education and culture. For Bellandi, this complex of attributes is summed up in the concept of lepos, to which Catullus attached the highest importance, as is evident from c. 1. However, Catullus’ collection also contains moving expressions of pathos associated with silence and the ineffable, for example c. 65. Poems of pathos are never accompanied by overt statements of a poetics, which would interfere with their efficacy. Strategically, c. 51 identifies Sappho as their model while underscoring their departure from adherence to a Callimachean aesthetics of ludus. Thus Catullan poetics is totally Callimachean in both art and tone, for pathos is unable to reflect upon itself or elicit reflection from the reader without raising a suspicion of inauthenticity. 6. Time 457.  J. R a u k , Time and History in Catullus 1, CW 90.5, 1997, 319–332. 458.  S.  L u c i a n i , Temps, amour et poésie chez Catulle, Euphrosyne n.s. 28, 2000, 61–82 [abs. in English]. 459.  T. P o p a , Self and Other in Catullus’ ‘Immortalizing’ Poetry, Classics Ireland 16, 2009, 1–25. Time, R a u k contends (457), is the unifying theme of c. 1, employed as a criterion for measuring the relative value of Nepos’ history and Catullus’ nugae. This theme structures the poem temporally and points a contrast, encapsulated in the two genres, between the enduring and the transitory. While such an opposition would appear to devalue Catullus’ work, his lightly ironic treatment of Nepos’ achievement and his invocation of the muse as a mutual patron unites them as writers in a common cause. L u c i a n i (458) posits that Catullus’ view of affective and familial bonds and his idea of love furnish the key to his concept of time. She studies the treatment of myth in the longer poems before turning to the poet’s attitude toward passion. Associated with traditional values, the marriage poems and the mythological fantasy of c. 64 afford a solution to his moral dilemma as he expresses his desire for a legitimate union. In cc. 107 and 109, he arrives at a purified sense of pleasure in which illusory passion

222

Marilyn B. Skinner

has modulated into philia. Lasting capacity to enjoy the present moment reflects his progress toward Epicurean ataraxia. The composition of the corpus sacralizes time by associating the present moment with the timelessness of myth. P o p a (459) studies the omnia saecla motif in Catullus’ corpus, whereby the poet claims to attain artistic immortality for himself or eternalize others. Three poems (cc. 1, 36, 95) furnish evidence that, on the basis of their intrinsic merit, he earnestly hoped for the survival of his own writings and those of his fellow-poet Cinna. In c. 68b he promises immortality to Allius in return for a beneficium, while elsewhere (cc. 40, 78b, 116) he predicts lasting notoriety for his victims. Both the prophecy of the Parcae and the ekphrasis of c. 64 are self-referential in their subtle references to the immortalizing power of epic. His consciousness of posterity is one of the defining features of his poetic agenda. 7. Religion and Myth 460.  J. B o e s , Le mythe d’Achille vu par Catulle: Importance de l’amour pour une morale de la gloire, REL 64, 1986, 104–115 [abs. in Latin]. 461.  B.-M. N ä s s t r ö m , The Abhorrence of Love: Studies in rituals and mystic aspects in Catullus’ poem of Attis, Uppsala 1989. Rev.: D o w d e n , CR 41, 1991, 501–502; S y n d i k u s , Gnomon 63, 1991, 395–398; M a t t e r , RHPhR 76, 1996, 111. 462.  M. J. E d w a r d s , The Theology of Catullus 68 b, A&A 37, 1991, 68–81. 463.  J. S.  C l a y , Catullus’ ‘Attis’ and the Black Hunter, QUCC 50.2, 1995, 143–155. 464.  G. M i c u n c o , Praesentia numina: Catullo e il ‘dio vicino’, Quaderni di “Invigilata Lucernis” 5, Bari 1996. 465.  J. N. B r e m m e r , Attis: A Greek God in Anatolian Pessinous and Catullan Rome, in: Attis (172), 25–64. 466.  R. R. N a u t a , Catullus 63 in a Roman Context, in: Attis (172), 87–119. 467.  M. J o h n s o n , Off with the Pixies: The Fey Folk of the Long Poems and Catullan Disclosure, Classics Ireland 13, 2006, 23–58. B o e s (460) maintains that the prophecy of the Parcae in c. 64 revealing that Achilles will be a greater man than his father reflects Catullus’ belief that pure conjugal love must be grounded on virtue. Such love does not preclude glory but instead is the surest way for both citizens and the state to attain it. N ä s s t r ö m (461) analyzes poem, myth, and cult from the perspective of comparative religion: the poetic Attis epitomizes a cultural regression to savagery (52), but the mythic figure and his real-life priests function in religious terms as asexual mediators between mankind and the divine realm. E d w a r d s (462) construes c. 68b as a ‘meditation upon man’s helplessness in the face of divine hostility and neglect’ (68). The mythological figures in the poem are not true agents, but victims of a fate exacted by the gods as retribution.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

223

Lesbia’s conduct is explained by her assimilation to  a goddess, since divinities are indifferent to human concerns. C l a y (463) offers an independent mythical and anthropological perspective upon c. 63 that complements S k i n n e r ’s Foucauldian interpretation (421). She argues that Attis fits into  a pattern of aborted transition from adolescence to adulthood exemplified by such figures as Hippolytus and Melanion. Consequently, the poem is about the loss of identity in all its forms  – sexual, familial, social, and cultural, resulting in  a total negation of self. Attis’ flight and self-emasculation are motivated by unwillingness to undertake the transition to heterosexuality and marriage. M i c u n c o (464) is a collection of nine short essays investigating Catullus’ religiosity and sense of an immanent divine presence (‘il dio vicino’). After dismissing speculations that Catullus ultimately became  a follower of Bacchic rites or Epicureanism, Mincuno finds correspondences between c. 76 and the prologue of Plautus’ Rudens (1–30) as expressions of traditional Roman pietas. Nevertheless, he adds (45–53) the concluding prayer for mercy in 76.17–20 is  a sudden departure from convention, recalling Sappho’s invocation of Aphrodite (fr. 1) in its hope of personal divine intervention. B r e m m e r (465) surveys evidence for the myth and ritual of Attis as it existed in Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome up to Catullus’ time; since observances underwent significant changes during the Imperial period, later testimony about the cult is of no value for understanding c. 63. He finds no connection between the Herodotean story of Atys (1.34–35) and Phrygian or Lydian worship. Attis first enters Greek consciousness in the closing decades of the fourth century BCE, but within  a few decades four Greek sources offer versions of his myth. After discussing variations among those versions, Bremmer reviews the scantier evidence for the Oriental ritual and concludes by discussing the rite of Mater Magna in Rome and the religious elements in c. 63. He finds that Catullus’ poem bears no relation to the myth and ritual of Attis as it was understood in his own time; instead, it is strongly colored by Dionysiac literature. In contrast, Nauta (466) maintains that a contemporary reader’s reception would have been affected by the visibility of galli in the rituals of Magna Mater. Citing the mendicant activities of the eunuch priests, as well as Lucretius’ and Varro’s explanations of self-castration as a violation of pietas toward both parents and fatherland, he argues that the audience might associate the protagonist of c. 63 with alien values and beliefs, but at the same time regard the poem itself as an expression of existing concerns about Roman national identity. J o h n s o n (467) equates the presence of supernatural or otherwise non-human creatures in Catullus’ longer poems with that of the ‘fey folk’ of British and Celtic legend as beings evoking the natural uncivilized realm. In cc. 61–68 these figures, she argues, ‘convey emotions that need to be expressed by extraordinary means, by a mythical language that speaks the unspeakable’ (57). The range of anomalies Johnson includes in her survey, however – from nymphs and hamadryads to Bacchus, Procne, Callisto, and the Stymphalian birds – precludes establishing common poetic functions among them, or for that matter finding convincing parallels between them and the products of a foreign cultural imaginary.

224

Marilyn B. Skinner

8. Death 468.  M. F a n t u z z i , Caducità dell’uomo ed eternità della natura: Variazioni di un motivo letterario, QUCC n.s. 26.2, 1987, 101–110. 469.  R. O. A. M. L y n e , Love and Death: Laodamia and Protesilaus in Catullus, Propertius, and Others, CQ 48.1, 1998, 200–212 (= Collected Papers on Latin Poetry [Oxford 2007], 211–226). 470.  A. F e l d h e r r , Non inter nota sepulcra: Catullus 101 and Roman Funerary Ritual, ClAnt 19, 2000, 209–231 (reprinted in: Oxford Readings [176] 399–426). 471.  F. B e l l a n d i , Chap. 6: Catullo e la morte: i carmi 101 e 96, in: Lepos e Pathos (164), 271–384. 472.  D. R o u s s e l , Catulle et la mort du frère, in: P. L a u r e n c e  – F. G u i l l a u m o n t (eds.), Les écritures de la douleur dans l’ épistolaire de l’ Antiquité à nos jours, Tours 2010, 291–308. 473.  B. E. S t e v e n s , Chap. 4: The Natural Silence of Death, Part 1, 123–160; Chap. 5: The Natural Silence of Death, Part 2, 161–202, in: Silence (231). F a n t u z z i (468) compares Catullus’ antithesis between human perishability and the cyclic recurrence of phenomena in the natural world (c. 5.4–6) with similar uses of the topos in the Lament for Bion, two Odes of Horace (1.4 and 4.7), and the first Elegy for Maecenas. L y n e (469) reads Catullus’ treatment of the Laodamia myth in c. 68b against Propertius’ response to it in his elegy 1.19. Catullus ignores that part of the story in which Protesilaus returns from the dead; he shows us a love so powerful that it can persuade the surviving partner to commit suicide, but makes it clear that love itself cannot overcome death. Propertius, in dialogue with Catullus, allows Protesilaus to come back and love to conquer death; yet language suggesting deception and insubstantiality weakens his claim and betrays a lack of confidence in his belief. F e l d h e r r (470) approaches c. 101 in conjunction with Roman funerary rites to demonstrate how the poem by recalling ritual practices accomplishes similar objectives. In the first part of the essay, he shows that the text, like the ceremony, isolates the survivor from his normal surroundings and momentarily puts him in communication with the deceased before re-establishing at its close the strict division between living and dead. Multivocality blurs that division, allowing the dead to speak: the threefold repetition of frater and the closing ave atque vale are words that might be simultaneously pronounced by Catullus’ brother, analogous to the way in which first-person epitaphs ‘borrow’ the voice of the passerby. Next, Feldherr observes that the text, like a funerary monument, is a means of transcending spatial and temporal distance, bringing the one it commemorates into the here and now and thereby serving as a replacement for the tomb. Finally, its readers participate in an ongoing social network created by Catullus’ poetry that overcomes the isolation of burial in a distant land and, again like the performance of rituals, gives the deceased ‘a place in the continuing life of his society’ (229).

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

225

Beginning his chapter (471) with an exegesis of c. 101, B e l l a n d i finds a model in Meleager’s epigram on Heliodora (AP 7.476 = 56 G–P), compares the laments in c. 65 and cc. 68a–b, assesses the degree of skepticism evidenced by nequiquam (4), and notes epigraphic and performative aspects. He considers the occasion envisioned by the poem and the ritual function of the conclamatio and concludes by discussing the imitations of Landino, Marullo, and Foscolo. In the second part of the essay Bellandi first discusses the problems of reading c. 96 in dialogue with relevant fragments of Calvus (frr. 15 and 16) and testimonia in Propertius and Ovid, then offers a line-byline exegesis emphasizing the structural importance of the central distich. R o u s s e l (472) shows that the epistolatory form is a privileged vehicle for Catullus to express sorrow for his brother; it allows him to break the solitude into which he is plunged and to forge a concrete link between himself and the deceased. In permitting him to affirm his fidelity to his brother’s memory and duly honor him, the letter becomes a poetic tomb. S t e v e n s ’ two chapters (473) are the most comprehensive recent treatment of death as a dominant motif in the collection. Linked as it is to the fact of natural silence, the poet’s bereavement has an invalidating effect, costing him his ability to speak in any but the most stylized modes of expression, and even then ineffectually (125). Stevens produces insightful treatments of cc. 65 and 68a as efforts to overcome the limitations of utterance; he is especially sensitive to the ironic inflections of the speaker’s response to Mallius’ inappropriate remarks. His discussion of c. 101, focused upon its ‘time scheme’, its syntactical irregularities and the condition of frustrated potentiality they create, and their corresponding interface with the elements of funerary ritual incorporated into the poem, is one of the best explications of this text since B i o n d i ’s, to which it owes much but which it ultimately surpasses.36 The fact that F e l d h e r r (470) arrives at a completely opposite conclusion on whether the ritual achieves its purpose is, in my opinion, puzzling; like Stevens (188), I think Feldherr overlooks the degree to which the speaker is conscious of his own inadequacy. 9. Travel 474.  F. C a i r n s , Catullus in and about Bithynia: Poems 68, 10, 28 and 47, in: Myth, History and Culture (170), 165–190. 475.  R. A r m s t r o n g , Journeys and Nostalgia in Catullus, CJ 109.1, 2013, 43–71. Following W i s e m a n ’s lead (81, 100–101; 82, 336–337), C a i r n s (474) postulates that Catullus went with Memmius to Bithynia partly in order to promote family business. Noting that eight poems deal with one aspect or another of this voyage, he brings evidence from mythography, ancient history, and archaeology to bear on the meanings of four. The mythic profile of Protesilaus given in Philostratus’ Heroikos is relevant to the themes of c. 68, as is his putative tomb on the Thracian Chersonese. 36 G. G. B i o n d i , Il Carme 101 di Catullo, L&S 11, 1976, 409–425, translated as ‘Poem 101’ by L. H o l f o r d - S t e v e n s and reprinted in Oxford Readings (176) 177–197.

226

Marilyn B. Skinner

Contrary to B r a u n d ’s ingenious thesis (544), c. 10 is not  a covert apology for Memmius, as is clear from the genuine hostility to Memmius and Piso voiced in cc. 28 and 47. Lastly, Cairns puts forth Plotius Tucca as  a candidate for the ‘Porcius’ mocked under a pseudonym in 47. The experience of travel, as A r m s t r o n g (475) shows, calls up a range of emotions in Catullus. It also intersects thematically with other dominant issues – his friendships, his efforts to position himself socially, and his interactions with other poets. In the end, she finds, even his notion of home is not a constant, but instead changes to suit his needs. 10. Marriage and the Family 476.  B. N é m e t h , Quam puella matrem: Mother and child in Catullus’ poetic world, ACD 24, 1988, 37–45. 477.  O. T h o m s e n , Ritual and Desire: Catullus 61 and 62 and other ancient documents on wedding and marriage, Aarhus 1992. Rev.: E d w a r d s , CR 43, 1993, 43–44; G r a f , MH 50, 1993, 234–235. 478.  M. P e t r i n i , The Child and the Hero: Coming of Age in Catullus and Vergil, Ann Arbor 1997. Chap. 2: Catullus, 3–20. 479.  S. J. H a r r i s o n , Hereditary Eloquence among the Torquati: Catullus 61.209–18, AJPh 117.2, 1996, 285–287. 480.  O. T h o m s e n , An Introduction to the Study of Catullus’ Wedding ­Poems: the ritual drama of Catullus 62, C&M 53, 2002, 255–288. 481.  D. C. F e e n e y , Fathers and Sons: The Manlii Torquati and family continuity in Catullus and Horace, in: C. K r a u s   – J. M a r i n c o l a  – C. P e l l i n g (eds.), Ancient Historiography and its Contexts, Oxford 2010, 205–223. Surveying the numerous passages in which Catullus refers to a mother-child relationship, N é m e t h (476) plausibly concludes that the theme was personally important to the poet, although he never mentions his own mother. T h o m s e n (477), the most influential recent discussion of the wedding poems cc. 61 and 62, is also crucial for work on ancient sexuality because the author makes that subject central to his investigations. In the first section of the study (26–150), Thomsen argues that c. 61 constitutes a drama in which first the bride, then the groom, are aroused to mutual desire. In a controversial exploration of the Fescennina iocatio, he claims that the groom, Manlius Torquatus, is presented as having no heterosexual experience; an effeminate, perfumed youth, he must be persuaded away from his exclusive attraction to glabri. The wedding god Hymenaeus, also depicted as effeminate, nevertheless overcomes the bride’s pudor and through his quasi-female eroticism awakens her sexual feelings. Hymenaeus is thus a type of the asexual mediator whom N ä s s t r ö m (461) studies in c. 63. Manlius, for his part, successfully navigates the passage from boyhood homoeroticism to virile heterosexuality that mythic figures like Attis refuse to undergo. The inclusion of c. 63 among other poems concerned with weddings implies that the current ‘penetration model’ of ancient male sexuality,

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

227

as Thomsen argues (70–71), does not leave sufficient room for liminality. The second section of the book (155–230) takes up the issue of what happens in c. 62: it is an amoebaeon song between competing choruses of girls and boys with opposed views of marriage, followed by an allocutio sponsae on the part of the poet. While not as original as Thomsen’s analysis of c. 61, this interpretation too has met with resistance, chiefly from those proposing other candidates for the concluding speaker (see bibliographical listing for the poem). P e t r i n i (478) examines representations of childhood in Catullus and in Vergil, for whom Catullus served as model. In keeping with his presentation of life as starkly polarized, Catullus represents childhood as a perfect state of innocence and affection, inevitably ruined when the child grows up and becomes tainted by the corruptions of adult life. He reads the girl’s deception of her mother in c. 65, the predicament of the Lock in c. 66, Ariadne’s rejection of her homeland (c. 64), and, in c. 61, the desertion of Manlius’ concubinus in those terms. H a r r i s o n (479) suggests that at 61.218 Catullus expresses a wish that Manlius’ son resemble his father in eloquence (ore). The hope may have been fulfilled, since in Epistles 1.5 and Odes 4.7 Horace addresses a Torquatus who is obviously a well-known orator. T h o m s e n (480) expands his previous treatment of c. 62 as a mimesis of a ritual designed to assuage the sexual fears of young brides. His line-by-line commentary gives particular consideration to the functions of Hesperos: they are virtually identical, he claims, with those of Hymenaios in c. 61 and Plokamos Berenices in c. 66, comprising a trio of divine beings associated with Venus and the night sky. In the historiographical tradition, F e e n e y (481) notes, the Torquati were characterized by paternal harshness, stemming from an incident in 340 BCE when the consul T. Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus executed his son for disobeying orders. The threat to continuity of the bloodline encapsulated in this tradition explains why Catullus emphasizes in c. 61 that the family name must continue. 11. Miscellaneous Themes 482.  G. S t a m p a c c h i a , Ricchezza, povertà, ascesa sociale nei carmi di Catullo, Index 12, 1985, 63–92. 483.  E. P l a n t a d e , Les formes proverbiales chez Catulle, in: F. B i v i l l e (ed.), Proverbes et Sentences dans le Monde Romain, Lyon and Paris 1999, 105–109. 484.  A. E. M a h o n e y , Animals in Catullus, NECJ 32.4, 2005, 313–318. 485.  H.  K r a s s e r , Individuum und Gesellschaft: literarische Inszenierungen im Spannungsfeld von Konkurrenz und Konsens, AU 49.1, 2006, 4–13. 486.  C. Te s o r i e r o , Hidden Kisses in Catullus: Poems 5, 6, 7 and 8, in: Contemporary Perspective (175), 10–18. 487.  A. H. A r w e i l e r , Identity, identification and ‘personae’ in Catull. 63 and other Roman texts, in: A. H.  A r w e i l e r   – M. M ö l l e r (eds.), Vom Selbst-Verständnis in Antike und Neuzeit (= Notions of the Self in Antiquity and Beyond), Berlin and New York 2008, 49–83.

228

Marilyn B. Skinner

488.  –, Souveränität und Einschließung: Catull, Cicero und Vergil über Macht, die Expansion der Herrschaft und die Autorität der Literatur, in: A. H. A r w e i l e r  – B. M. G a u l y (eds.), Machtfragen: zur kulturellen Repräsentation und Konstruktion von Macht in Antike, Mittelalter und Neuzeit, Stuttgart, 2008, 19–77. 489.  R. L. B. M c N e i l l , Cum tacent, clamant: The Pragmatics of Silence in Catullus, CPh 105.1, 2010, 69–82. 490.  G. O. H u t c h i n s o n , Booking Lovers: Desire and Design in Catullus, in: Poems, Books, Readers (178), 48–78. 491.  V. V i p a r e l l i S a n t a n g e l o , Il dono proibito: lo scambio d’amore nella poesia latina, BStudLat 43.2, 2013, 431–438. Wealth and poverty, S t a m p a c c h i a (482) argues, are closely integrated in the Catullan corpus with other dominant themes, most notably the fundamental contrast of venustas and rusticitas and the traditional opposition of vice to virtue. When they are accompanied by good conduct and character, riches are a positive quality; they enhance the stature of the mythic hero Peleus and the fortunate bridal couple of c. 61. Wealth is  a negative, however, when possessed by the invenusti such as Mamurra / Mentula (a paradoxical figure, since he is characterized as both prosperous and poor). Poverty is in itself generally an evil, associated with Catullus’ rivals and therefore with vulgarity and vice; but the elegant destitution of the venusti is a mark of intellectual superiority. This complex set of values marks Catullus as essentially conservative in his ideology. After distinguishing between proverbial expressions, which Catullus uses frequently, and his much rarer use of complete proverbs, P l a n t a d e (483) shows how familiar sayings contribute to epigrammatic point in cc. 93 and 94. M a h o n e y (484) observes that the sparrow of cc. 2 and 3 and the lions of c. 63 are the only real-life creatures in the corpus; mentions of other animals occur only in similes, metaphors, or hypothetical situations. There is a similarity between the sparrow and the lions, since both are under the control of a dominant female figure; the sparrow, consequently, may have a darker side. K r a s s e r (485), published in a pedagogical journal, supplies sociological and historical background for discussing self-fashioning and status competition among the nobility in late Republican and Augustan literature. Catullus, he believes, furnishes a poetic template for elite strategies of displaying power and superiority: Lesbia is not just a symbol of urbanitas and aesthetic values, but also an emblem of connoisseurship; literature is an arena for demonstrating cultural competence, and invective an exercise in policing social boundaries. According to Te s i o r i o (486), references to concealment and exposure, both visual and verbal, are the common thread that runs through cc. 5, 6, 7, and 8. Although the author convincingly tracks the thematic link uniting the first three poems, the connections drawn with c. 8, despite some repeated language, seem forced. ­A r w e i l e r (487) uses the monologue of Attis in c. 63.50–73 and Ovid’s portrayal of himself in his exile poetry as sources for ancient notions of selfhood as expressed through acts of identification. Attis fails to give an accurate account of herself because

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

229

the patterns for biographical narrative supplied by the community are incompatible with her changed circumstances. Drawing on literary tradition, however, and particularly on Lucretius’ explanation of human development in DRN 5, the narrator is able to construct an apotropaic prayer in which Attis’ rejection of society is seen as treasonous. A r w e i l e r ’s second study (488) analyzes through  a New Historicist lens how relations of power (Macht) are depicted in the late Republican texts of Cicero, Catullus, and Vergil and studies the poetological function of that theme. M c N e i l l (489) explores instances of voluntary silence during social interaction and attempts to control the reception of silences when they occur: this pragmatic treatment of silence as a speech act reflects upon the connections between the speaking parties, as McNeill shows in his analysis of cc. 102, 6, and 10. His approach to silence as a contextualized expressive strategy should be distinguished from S t e v e n s ’ (231) more ambitious efforts to formulate a Catullan poetics of silence closely associated with mortality and gender, but the two studies fit together nicely. Presupposing his earlier analysis of Catullan arrangement (182), H u t c h i n s o n (490) now investigates the differing presentations of one theme, sexual desire, in four sections of the corpus: a (1–60), b (61–64), c1 (65–68b), and c2 (69–116). He finds substantial distinctions between  c and  a regarding the sex of the object, whether desired by the narrator or other males; the prominence attached to the narrator’s emotion; and the language used to describe his emotion. While some variations can be explained by genre, Hutchinson intriguingly proposes that the features he notes are ‘part of the way each book builds up its own world’ (73). The relationship of Lesbia and the narrator complicates a conspicuous dissimilarity between the portrayal of other male and female desiring subjects. The emotions of the narrator conform to patterns of female emotion; Lesbia’s emotions are unclear in c and displaced by her actions in a. In an appendix, Hutchinson speculates that Catullus’ division of his individual libelli into a polymetric and an elegiac collection may have been suggested by the metrical division of Archilochus’ works into distinct books. Like M i l l e r (221), W r a y (240), and H e y w o r t h (298), he regards Archilochus as  a significant Catullan predecessor. V i p a r e l l i S a n t a n g e l o (491) examines the theme of reciprocity in the erotic relationships of Catullus and Propertius from an anthropological perspective. The foedus amoris is analogous to gift-giving in its anticipation of exchange, for the poets attempt to bind the beloved to them through gratuitous benefacta while imposing a paradoxical obligation to repay with fides and thus creating a situation in which ‘ingratitude’, as they deem it, is the likely outcome. F. Individual Poems The starting points for the following overviews are S y n d i k u s ’ convenient summaries of the communis opinio on each poem (75, 76, 77) and the updated bibliography in the reissued edition of his commentary (Darmstadt 2001 [78, vol. III, 153–179]). For bibliography through the early 1990s, see also T h o m s o n (5). Listings below are not exhaustive and selected to show trends in opinion on key issues since the mid-1990s.

230

Marilyn B. Skinner

Catullus 1 492.  A. S. G r a t w i c k , Catullus 1. 10 and the Title of His ‘Libellus’, G&R 38.2, 1991, 199–202. 493.  B. J. G i b s o n , Catullus 1.5–7, CQ 45.2, 1995, 569–573. 494.  A. S. G r a t w i c k , Vale, Patrona Virgo: The Text of Catullus 1.9, CQ 52.1, 2002, 305–320. 495.  A. J. W o o d m a n , Poems to Historians: Catullus 1 and Horace Odes 2.1, in: Myth, History and Culture (170), 191–216. 496.  R. J. S t a r r , ‘Cui dono lepidum novum libellum? Corneli, tibi’: Cornelius Nepos and Catullus 1, NECJ 37.4, 2010, 255–265. 497.  A. A g n e s i n i , Una rilettura di Catull. 1, 8 s: lo snodo tra dedica a Nepote e invocazione alla musa, in: Liber di Catullo (41), 1–21. 498.  G. G i a r d i n a , Per il testo  e la interpretazione di Catullo 1.9–10, Prometheus 37.1, 2011, 56–60. 499.  L. M o n d i n , Catullo 1  e Meleagro, in: A. B a l b o   – F. B e s s o n e   – E. M a l a s p i n a (eds.), Tanti affetti in tal momento: studi in onore di Giovanna Garbarino, Alexandria 2011, 659–672. 500.  B. D u n s c h , Omne aevum tribus explicare cartis – Zur Freundschaft von Nepos und Catull, A&A 58, 2012, 37–51. 501.  A. A g n e s i n i , Cornelio Nepote e Catullo; un patrono e… una patrona, in: G. B. P e r i n i  – A. C a v a r z e r e (eds.), Orizzonti culturali di Cornelio Nepote: dal Po a Roma: atti del convegno, Ostiglia, 27 aprile 2012 – Mantova, 28 aprile 2012, Florence 2013, 75–87. 502.  A. M c M a s t e r , Dedications and Status: Catullus 1 and Horace Epodes 1, CW 107.2, 2014, 199–215. G r a t w i c k (492) proposes that Passer was the intended title of Catullus’ libellus (independently of J o h n s o n [219]), his prayer that it endure more than one generation (1.10) wittily alludes to the species’ notoriously short life-span. The programmatic quality of the dedication poem, with its Callimachean proclamation of charm (lepos), novelty, and polish, is widely acknowledged. B a t s t o n e (134) added ‘dryness’, the Atticists’ metaphor for a spare rhetorical style, to the list of terms characterizing the libellus stylistically; however, he later expresses reservations (455) about the critical usefulness of the concept ‘programmatic’. On lepos and its cognates as constituent parts of the ‘language of social performance’, consult K r o s t e n k o (228, 64–72; for rhetorical applications, see also 94–99). Through verbal and structural parallels, M o n d i n (499) shows that c. 1 incorporates elements from both the proem of Meleager’s Garland (AP 4.1) and its concluding coronis poem (AP 12.257). Allusion to this ‘metapoetic frame’ conveys programmatic information about the genre of the pieces that constitute the libellus and possibly about its structure. Following S t r o u p ’s model of elite textual exchange as  a means of defining status (278) and reading

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

231

the dedication poem in that larger context, M c M a s t e r (502) casts light upon Catullus’ choice of dedicatee, affirms the genuineness of his praise, and clarifies the function of the penultimate line. Catullus deferentially represents the libellus as repayment for Nepos’ previous favors but still gains standing from his association with a man of good taste, thus avoiding the pitfall of being thought the lesser amicus. By addressing the Muse, not Nepos, as his patrona virgo, he further deflects any potential loss of dignity in admitting his gratitude. For  a corresponding analysis of beneficia and reciprocity in an erotic context, see V i p a r e l l i S a n t a n g e l o (491). Additional consideration of social exchange as  a Catullan leitmotif could be promising. Other scholars, however, still dispute whether the praise of Nepos is ironic or sincere. G i b s o n (493) and R a u k (457) believe Nepos’ Chronica is being slyly disparaged. W o o d m a n (495) produces an approving reading, seeing Callimachean aesthetic values in the qualities of originality, brevity, learning, and refinement ascribed to that work. T a t u m (270, 485) proposes that Nepos is depicted as Catullus’ ‘ideal reader’, and S t a r r (496) thinks he is commended for the discerning judgment he exercised in selecting writers to mention in his history, among them perhaps Catullus himself. G r a t w i c k (494) likewise dismisses suspicions of irony, arguing that Catullus is presenting his small collection as a master-copy to an established man of letters who will see to its circulation. In explicare (6), finally, D u n s c h (500, 42–44) finds a conspicuous allusion to Nepos, who frequently uses that verb to designate his own literary activities; this hommage is additional evidence of Catullus’ respect for his intellectual distinction. Debate has lately reopened about whether the vulgate quod, patrona virgo (9) should be retained. To suit his interpretation of the poem, G r a t w i c k (494) modifies Bergk’s conjecture patroni ut ergo to patroni ergo, ‘in witness of your [i. e. Nepos’] advocacy’. While T r a p p e s - L o m a x (16) rejects Bergk’s suggestion outright, he suspects patrona virgo is a medievalism and offers instead quod virgo. G i a r d i n a (498) proposes quod, patrone, vulgo (with enjambement), adducing Ovid’s and Martial’s anticipations of widespread fame. In his first essay (497) A g n e s i n i suggests a full stop after libelli (8), concluding the dedication to Nepos, while in line 9 he proposes to read qualecumque quidem, patrona virgo. His subsequent contribution (501) explains the relationship between the two addressees, Nepos and the Muse, at greater length. As the book’s patronus, Nepos will guarantee its erudite reputation among contemporaries, but the goddess must be invoked to guarantee its survival. Directing his irony at his own work, Catullus proclaims that it will endure despite its nugatory quality. Catullus 2 and 2b 503.  T. W i r t h , Catull c. 2: passer und malum als Zeichen der Liebe, RhM 129, 1986, 36–53. 504.  F. F e l g e n t r e u , Passer und malum in Catulls c. 2, Philologus 137.2, 1993, 216–222.

232

Marilyn B. Skinner

505.  P. C l a e s , Catullus’ Sparrow Uncurtailed, Philologus 140.2, 1996, 353. 506.  S.  H a r r i s o n , Swallows and Apples: The Unity of Catullus 2, SCI 22, 2003, 85–92. 507.  J. I n g l e h e a r t , Catullus 2 and 3: A Programmatic Pair of Sapphic Epigrams?, Mnemosyne 4th ser. 56.5, 2003, 551–565. 508.  M. J o h n s o n , Catullus 2b: The Development of  a Relationship in the Passer Trilogy, CJ 99.1, 2003, 11–34. 509.  W. O l s z a n i e c , Catullus 2.8–10, Mnemosyne 4th ser. 62, 2009, 104–107. 510.  –, Vale, Grate Passer. Ad Catulli C. 2b adnotatio, RhM n.f. 152.1, 2009, 106–108. Although there is still no firm consensus on whether c. 2b is a part of c. 2, a number of studies have lately taken a unitarian position. Wirth (503) demonstrates parallelism between birds and apples as love tokens and proposes that the speaker’s unexpressed wish, implied through the comparison with Atalanta, is that the beloved reveal her own desire by entrusting her pet to him. F e l g e n t r e u (504) adds in support that an aureolum… malum might be a quince, associated with Aphrodite and with weddings. Since one variety of quince was called struthium, there is also a possible lexical link between fruit and sparrow (I must confess I find that notion attractive). C l a e s (505) explains the syntactically harsh transition between subjunctive tecum ludere… possem and indicative gratum est by construing the latter as an impersonal modal form with the indicative stressing the real existence of the modality. After reviewing the textual history and previous emendations, H a r r i s o n (506) adopts the Renaissance conjecture gratum es, addressed to the sparrow; 2b is a fitting conclusion to 2, he says, because the elements of implicit myth, simile, and marriage are all strongly closural. I n g l e h e a r t (507) suggests that the passer recalls the struthoi which pull Aphrodite’s chariot in Sappho fr. 1.9–13, that puellae pernici in c. 2b may be a reminiscence of the fleeing beloved in line 21 of the same Sapphic lyric, and that the malum could recall the fruit left on the bough in Sappho fr. 105a. Taken together, then, cc. 2 and 2b may have programmatically announced Catullus’ indebtedness to Sappho.37 Having explained the difficult phrase solaciolum sui doloris, G h i s e l l i (336) concludes that lines 8–10 constitute a prayer for a lasting union symbolized by the passer, which is completed by the Atalanta simile. Incidentally, his comprehensive bibliography on the poem (94–111) is indispensable. Arguing for separation, J o h n s o n (508) postulates that c. 2b is a fragment of an independent poem, originally the second item in a trilogy progressing from courtship through marriage (toward which the simile gestures) to motherhood, with the passer as  a child-substitute. More tentatively, she observes that the mihi of 2b.1 could be 37 She does not appear to have seen F. E. B r e n k , Non primus pipiabat: Echoes of Sappho in Catullus’ passer Poems, Latomus 39, 1980, 702–716 (= Clothed in Purple Light, Stuttgart 1999, 132–146).

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

233

Lesbia, who replies to the Catullan speaker in direct discourse. T a r (72) meanwhile contends that c. 2b is structurally complete in itself. Regarding the text of 2, O l s z a n i e c (509) proposes taking line 8 with lines 9–10, deleting ut, emending possem to posse and translating ardor as ‘wrath’, rather than ‘love’: Catullus believes Lesbia’s anger at him will cool, enabling him to play with the sparrow and relieve the cares caused by their separation. In another article (510), O l s z a n i e c rejects C l a e s ’ syntactical exegesis (505) and H a r r i s o n ’ s conjecture (506). In both cc. 2 and 3 G u t z w i l l e r (212, 93–99) recognizes  a complex set of allusions to several epigrams in Meleager’s Garland. Catullus 3 511.  A. G h i s e l l i , Note al c. 3, in: Passer (163), 121–151 (= ΜΟΥΣΑ, Scritti in onore di G. Morelli, Bologna 1997, 265–282). 512.  A. J. P o m e r o y , Heavy Petting in Catullus, Arethusa 36.1, 2003, 49–60. G h i s e l l i (511) makes excellent observations on acoustic vowel patterning in the opening lines and on the literary antecedents of Veneres Cupidinesque, which he identifies as  a Catullan iunctura. He pronounces the tone lightly ironic but finds Freudian undertones in the assimilation of the sparrow to a child. P o m e r o y (512) compares funerary poems by Martial (5.34) and Statius (Silv. 2.1, 5.5) composed for slave deliciae. Pace a scathing attack by Jocelyn,38 argument over a double-entendre in cc. 2 and 3 persists. 513.  R. W. H o o p e r , In defence of Catullus’ dirty sparrow, G&R 32, 1985, 162–178 (reprinted in: Oxford Readings [176], 318–340). 514.  C. E l e r i c k , On Translating Catullus 3, Scholia 2, 1993, 90–96. 515. W. K i ß e l , Der Spatz und das Mädchen. Catulls Passergedichte, in: P. N e u k a m (ed.), Umgang mit dem Erbe der Antike, Munich 1996, 34–47. 516.  J. W. J o n e s , Jr., Catullus’ ‘Passer’ as ‘Passer’, G&R 45.2, 1998, 188–194. 517.  A. V e r g a d o s   – S.  O’ B r y h i m , Reconsidering Catullus’ Passer, in: C. D e r o u x (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History XVI, Brussels 2012, 101–113. With some exceptions, current readers seem prepared to admit that obscene readings of cc. 2 and 3 may not be altogether inadmissable provided the second layer of meaning is taken as a playful subtext. G a i s s e r ’s analysis of Angelo Poliziano’s scholarship (38, 67–78) and her translation of Poliziano’s note and subsequent reactions to it 38 H. J. J o c e l y n , On Some Unnecessarily Indecent Interpetations of Catullus 2 and 3, AJPh 101, 1980, 421–441.

234

Marilyn B. Skinner

(176, 305–313) allow contemporary audiences to evaluate the original Renaissance suggestion. H o o p e r (513) shows that implications dismissed by Jocelyn as absurd can fit into the allegorical scheme and examines allusions to the sparrow poems in Martial for hints that later ancient readers were aware of the joke. E l e r i c k (514) discusses phonological and lexical evidence in c. 3 supporting the sexual undertones. As noted above, T h o m a s (387) defends the naughty reading by citing a Meleagrian precedent. On the other hand, H o l z b e r g (241, 61–67) goes much too far, I would say, in foregrounding the secondary meanings and making them programmatic. V e r g a d o s  – O ’ B r y h i m (517) state that the puella has been employing her pet for sexual gratification, supporting this claim with parallels from Procopius and the Renaissance Boke of Phyllyp Sparrowe. For one or two of these proposals Ghiselli’s coinage ‘pornocritica’ (336, 36 n. 23) seems apt. From an opposing perspective, K i ß e l (515) mounts a theoretical case against allegory, maintaining that the real addressee of both poems is Lesbia, to whom Catullus is indirectly professing his love. J o n e s (516) expressly rejects Hooper’s arguments; if passer has risqué nuances in Martial’s works, it is the epigrammatist who put them there. Catullus 4 518.  G. N u z z o , Le rotte del phaselus: Per un’interpretazione del c. 4 di Catullo, QCTC 12, 1994, 41–66. 519.  E. C o u r t n e y , Catullus’ Yacht (Or Was It?), CJ 92.9, 1997, 113–122. 520.  G. D a v i s , Ait phaselus: The Caricature of Stylistic Genre (genus dicendi) in Catullus carm. 4, MD 48, 2002, 111–143. 521.  F. N a u , À propos du carmen 4 de Catulle: Problèmes poétiques et esthétiques de registres, in: Présence de Catulle (233), 85–101. 522.  M. O ’ B r i e n , Happier Transports to Be: Catullus’ Poem 4: Phaselus Ille, Classics Ireland 13, 2006, 59–75. 523.  S.  C o n d o r e l l i , Ait fuisse navium celerrimus: la celeritas poetica del phaselus catulliano, BStudLat 37, 2007, 50–68. 524.  R. D. G r i f f i t h , Growing Old Quietly in Catullus’ Poem Four, Latomus 69.3, 2010, 702–705. 525.  M. M a s s a r o , Il phaselus di Catullo e la nave Argo di Apollonio, MD 64, 2010, 9–42. 526.  E. M. Y o u n g , Catullus’s Phaselus (C. 4): Mastering a New Wave of Poetic Speech, Arethusa 44, 2011, 69–88. This poem has been subjected to  a startling range of interpretations. While most readers still consider it  a humorous ‘autobiography’ of the yacht that transported Catullus from Bithynia back to Sirmio, some observe a sub-level of parody directed at contemporary personages and / or issues, with wide disagreement about who or what

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

235

is being parodied. That line of inquiry begins with V ä i s ä n e n ,39 who concludes that the topographical references in lines 6 to 13 apparently unconnected with the poet’s putative route home allude to events of the Mithradatic Wars and unmask the phaselus as the now retired military commander L. Licinius Lucullus. Väisänen’s reading has not been widely accepted, but other critics have adopted her allegorizing approach. N u z z o (518), who does follow her, maps several further inferences on the fundamental equation of Lucullus and phasellus, including a system of obscene puns and wordplay and a scenario in which the primary narrating voice, through intertextual echoes of the second Verrine oration, is identified with that of Cicero. D a v i s (520) argues that this poem intervenes in the rhetorical dispute between Calvus and Brutus, on the one hand, and Cicero on the other by assigning to the voice of the embedded speaker (the phaselus) the inflated, redundant, and turgid speech condemned by Atticist purists. Hortensius’ Asiatic style may in fact be the specific target. Other scholars observe reflections on cultural and literary issues. F i t z g e r a l d (227, 104–110) has produced an influential reading in which the anonymous speaker manipulates the voice of  a social inferior in order to establish his dominant social position. F r e d r i c k (345) links Catullan acoustic technique and its involvement with auditory and visual pleasure to constructions of gender and portrayals of lost figures such as Attis and Ariadne. N a u (521) compares the handling of the ‘voyage’ theme in cc. 4 and 10. In the latter, use of colloquial and vulgar expressions contributes to  a burlesque of official discourse. Conversely, epic allusions in c. 4 add  a note of solemnity undermined by parody of dedicatory and funerary epigrams. Both pieces are ironic metatextual commentary on Catullus’ own poetics. O ’ B r i e n (522) reads c. 4 and the other non-Lesbia poems cc. 6, 9 and 10 as reflections of a current expansion of Roman imperial power: ‘Catullus makes a new myth out of the East’ (75). G r i f f i t h (524) notes the part references to Ennius’ Medea played in M. Caelius’ Rufus’ trial, in which Caelius was dubbed pulchellus Iason; drawing a parallel between the phaselus and the Argo as speaking ships, he suggests that the quiet retirement of the former contrasts with the unhappy end of the latter, doomed to kill its former master with a falling beam. Taking up Nau’s suggestion of epic parody, M a s s a r o (525) argues that Apollonius’ Argonautica is the specific target and cites passages in c. 4 that seem to burlesque incidents in the Hellenistic poem. After weighing the possibility of a reference to the contemporary Latin version by Varro of Atax, Massaro ends by discussing the relationship between c. 4 and c. 64. Y o u n g (526) postulates that the ship is personified as a slave and believes his reported account of his adventures embeds ‘an anxious discourse on Roman authors’ dependence upon books and scholars hailing from the Greek east to deepen their understanding of Hellenistic literature’ (72). Finally, some recent work addresses historical and technical points. C o u r t n e y (519) suggests that the ship was actually Cinna’s, acquired (along with Parthenius) on a first expedition to Asia Minor ten years earlier and now truly ready for retirement. Employment of pure iambic meter, according to C o n d o r e l l i (523), underscores its claim to be navium celerrimus. 39 Above, n. 24.

236

Marilyn B. Skinner

Catullus 5 and 7 527.  M. L ó p e z L ó p e z , ‘Da mi basia’: posible ejemplo inadvertido de ambi­ güedad catuliana, Auster 10–11, 2006, 77–87. 528. E. Z a i n a , Catulo: cc. 1, 5 y 16, Maia 62.1, 2010, 1–23. Although cc. 5 and 7 are not as often discussed now as they were in the heyday of New Criticism, reading them alongside c. 16 and focusing on the likely accusation of mollitia to which Catullus exposes himself in writing so passionately about non-penetrative lovemaking seems to be the current trend in American scholarship. N a p p a (238, 53–56) notes the degree of anxiety about reputation expressed in the basia poems, observing that c. 16, in its turn, disavows personal involvement and transfers the charge of mollitia to its readers the pilosi. W r a y (240, 144–160) takes the sequence of 5, 6, and 7 together as a ‘three-act mime’ on the common theme of a lover’s secret. The flanking poems, even as they tease curiosity, ward off the verbal attacks of malevolent ill-wishers, while the public shame inflicted upon Flavius is exactly the kind of hostile reaction their speaker fears. F o n t a i n e (571), though he does not cite Nappa, comes to a similar conclusion about the causative impact of c. 5 on c. 16. Based on H o l z b e r g ’s suggestion (408) that the name ‘Lesbia’ has unsavory connotations, L ó p e z L ó p e z (527) meanwhile entertains the possibility of an even coarser subtext in the basia poems. One recent theoretical study opens up a promising new trajectory. Corollary to his earlier investigation (266) of the material aspects of Catullan writing, Z a i n a (528) studies portrayals of readers, ‘anti-readers’, and the public in cc. 1 and 16. He then considers the significance of those depictions for appreciating the introductory Lesbia cycle cc. 2–11, and particularly c. 5, its structural center. Distinct from internal addressees, who are the recipients of speech acts, within Catullus’ world readers and anti-readers pass judgment on the nugae. Adopting the position of Cornelius, the ‘expert reader’ who unrolls the papyrus scroll and encounters the poems successively, Zaina weighs the disruptive effect c. 16 produces in retroactively quoting the multa milia…basiorum of c. 5: it breaks the illusion of continuous narrative and foregrounds the author’s sexuality (16). Admission that c. 5 is intended to be erotically stimulating casts the shadow of obscenity over all the Lesbia poems and puts the lover’s voice in tension with that of the speaker of c. 16. In the same poem, the public is strictly defined as hairy males capable of responding to versiculi only physically; Catullus thus deflects inquiry from his own private life to how his poems are received. Through multiple shifts in audience perspective, c. 5 acquires diverse implications as the sequential reading proceeds. Catullus 6 529.  P. Y. F o r s y t h , Catullus 6: theme and context, in: C. D e r o u x (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman history V, Brussels 1989, 94–97. 530.  H. R o h d i c h , Liebe, Gesellschaft, Dichtung: Catull c. 6, A&A 46, 2000, 116–123.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

237

531.  C. F u q u a , The ‘urbanitas’ of Catullus 6, Scholia n.s. 11, 2002, 25–33. 532.  J. U d e n , Scortum diligis: A Reading of Catullus 6, CQ 55, 2005, 638–642. Catullus c. 6 has become central to investigations of silence as trope. Whereas ­M c N e i l l (489) studies Flavius’ reticence in terms of  a pragmatic speech act, S t e v e n s (231, 19–46) regards it as an opening for the poetic imagination to conjure up synaesthetic sense perceptions. Some earlier studies pass hostile judgments. F o r s y t h (529) sets the agenda for criticism, remarking that the speaking persona (carefully distinguished from the poet) intrudes upon the privacy of Flavius and his mistress. In castigating their relationship, he assumes the position of the curiosus considered an enemy of love in cc. 5 and 7. As noted above, W r a y (240) classifies the poem as an instance of verbal aggression. F u q u a (531) thinks the speaker’s dismissal of the girl shows his urbanity in the worst light, and U d e n (532) suggests this is a disguised assault upon the elite woman Flavius loves. R o h d i c h (530), more positively, believes c. 6 affirms the centrality of love to both poetry and Catullus’ poetic society. Catullus 8 533.  R. F. T h o m a s , Menander and Catullus 8, RhM n.f. 127, 1984, 308–316. 534.  P. R a d i c i C o l a c e , Il poeta si diverte. Orazio, Catullo e due esempi di poesia non seria, GIF 16, 1985, 53–71. 535.  H. J. G l ü c k l i c h , Interpretation im Lateinunterricht. Probleme und Begründungen, Formen und Methoden, AU 30.6, 1987, 43–59. 536.  D. P. F o w l e r , First Thoughts on Closure: Problems and Prospects, MD 22, 1989, 75–122 (= Roman Constructions, Oxford 2000, 259–263). 537.  G. L i e b e r g , Una nuova interpretazione di carme 8 di Catullo, Orpheus 10, 1989, 1–12. 538.  F. D e c r e u s , Le poème 8 de Catulle et le conflit de ses codes, Euphrosyne n.s. 20, 1992, 47–72. 539.  S.  T h o m , Catullus 8: arida…pumice expolitum?, Akroterion 37, 1992, 15–22. 540.  C. D e r o u x , Catullus’s eighth poem: the shifting viewpoint and inconsistency of the speaker, in: C. D e r o u x (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History X, Brussels 2000, 162–175. 541.  M. M ö l l e r , The Powers of a Lost Subject: Reinventing a Poet’s Identity in Catullus’s Carmen 8, in: H.  L i s s   – M. O e m i n g (eds.), Literary Construction of Identity in the Ancient World, Winona Lake (Ind.) 2010, 145–164 (= Subjekt riskiert (sich): Catull, carmen 8, in: A. A r w e i l e r   – M. M ö l l e r (eds.), Vom Selbst-Verständnis: Notions of the Self in Antiquity and Beyond, Berlin 2008, 3–20).

238

Marilyn B. Skinner

While the resemblance between c. 8 and lovers’ soliloquies in Roman comedy has long been recognized, T h o m a s ’ demonstration (533) that the poem is directly modeled upon Demeas’ speech in Menander’s Samia (325–356) is  a major breakthrough inviting further analyses of its intertextual relationship to its predecessor. Appropriating  a comic situation, Thomas maintained, did not reduce the poem’s seriousness. However, R a d i c i C o l a c e (534) justifies a humorous reading on the grounds of both its comic antecedents and its parody of mythic Hellenistic dirges. F o w l e r (536, 98–100) remarks that recalling the model intensifies our sense of Catullus’ self-delusion because Demeas turns out to be mistaken about Chrysis’ character. L i e b e r g (537) proposes that the speaker’s question quae tibi manet vita? (15) means ‘what sort of life will be yours?’ as he envisions Lesbia engaged in a degrading new affair. A g n e s i n i (370) remains the most extensive discussion of the poem’s Plautine antecedents. Formal work on c. 8 continues. Through a pedagogical case study, G l ü c k l i c h (535) demonstrates how different approaches to interpretation  – structural and linguistic, historical, or reader-oriented – may be combined with basic Latin instruction. Defining the poem’s structure has been  a preoccupation of scholars since the mid-nineteenth century; while L i e b e r g (537) proposes a division into six symmetrical, corresponding parts, S c h m i e l (332) relates growing awareness of its elaborate and fluid organization around a pivotal center incorporating both a formal and an emotional reversal to  a major shift in aesthetic presuppositions. D e c r e u s (538) uncovers an intricate, not always cohesive system of codification defining a structure for the literary context within which the poem operates. T h o m (539) proposes a rigid five-part ring-compositional structure involving alternation of temporal aspects. Stylistic considerations lead D e r o u x (540) to suggest that the speaker vacillates between renouncing Lesbia forever and envisioning a future in which she, bereft of him, will experience only cheap, crude affairs. L a v i g n e (301) studies the use of multiple voices in c. 8 as an element of the iambic genre. The poem counterposes a strong ‘Catullus’ urging a lovelorn advisee, also ‘Catullus’, to assume the traditional aggressive posture of the iambicist; both, however, fail in their attempts, the one to persuade effectively, the other to escape his state of dependency. Other work focuses upon the literary representation of subjectivity. G r e e n e (425) takes this text as a point of departure for her inquiry into the ‘fragmenting’ effect of desire on the Catullan ego. Her discussion is informed by an awareness of the vacillation of masculine and feminine voices within the poem. M ö l l e r (541) applies contemporary hermeneutic tools to find evidence of a postmodern self-reflexivity: the speaker of c. 8, who views himself from outside, engages in an operation of transference, projecting his own pain upon the beloved, and successfully integrates conflicting aspects of identity without relinquishing a disparity of perspectives. Catullus 9 542.  T. J o s e p h , The Disunion of Catullus’ Fratres Unanimi at Virgil, Aeneid 7.335–6, CQ n.s. 59.1, 2009, 274–278.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

239

Summarizing later testimonia, W i s e m a n (82, 266–269) constructs  a prosopo­ graphical notice for Catullus’ friend L. Veranius Flaccus, whose broad linguistic interests may have ranged from antiquarian studies to oratorical theory, and who, on the evidence of c. 9, was interested in ethnography. No one, unfortunately, has followed up with further literary or historical inquiry. Current studies discuss Veranius in the context of the gift-giving poems cc. 12 and 13 and those on military service and patronage (cc. 28 and 47). In Juno’s celebration of Allecto’s powers to sow familial discord (tu potes unanimos armare in proelia fratres, Verg. Aen. 7.335), J o s e p h (542) finds a poignant allusion to c. 9.4. Catullus 10 543.  R. M. N i e l s e n , Catullus and Sal (Poem 10), AC 56, 1987, 148–161. 544.  D. B r a u n d , The Politics of Catullus 10: Memmius, Caesar and the ­Bithynians, Hermathena 160, 1996, 45–57. 545.  R. B e r n e k , Catull c. 10: Tragikomödie eines Aufschneiders, in: Festschrift Gärtner (171), 81–100. 546.  F. L. M ü l l e r , Catull in Gedicht 10, ACD 40–41, 2004–2005, 223–235. 547.  K. M c C a r t h y , Secrets and Lies: Horace carm. 1.27 and Catullus 10, MD 71, 2013, 45–74. N i e l s e n (543) was among the first to dissociate the socially inept narrator of c. 10 from the author. She regards the poem as a pronouncement upon the ethics of humor: when used, as it is in this anecdote, to promote narrow self-interest, sal loses its charm, becoming  a social liability. Resulting tensions between the poet and his persona, central to current scholarship on the poem, have been explored from various perspectives by S k i n n e r (239, 419), F i t z g e r a l d (227, 173–179), and N a p p a (238, 87–93). That the complaint about Memmius’ unfairness should be taken at face value has been challenged by B r a u n d (544), who reads the poem as Catullus’ proactive defense of his former superior against charges of peculation brought by Caesar, placed in the mouth of a self-discrediting speaker. That thesis is disputed, in turn, by C a i r n s (474). B e r n e k (545) neatly observes that the self-important narrator in bragging falsely about his successful adventure overseas takes on the characteristics of a Plautine miles gloriosus. M ü l l e r (546) produces a finely detailed psychological study of that character, who angrily and illogically blames others (the praetor, the girl) for his misfortunes. Meanwhile, Catullus the author sees his own failings so clearly that he is comfortable exposing them to the reader. M c C a r t h y (547) is  a crucial analytic contribution to the understanding of ancient lyric as well as a highly sophisticated interpretation of c. 10. Employing narrative theory, she distinguishes between the ‘story’ of a poem – the reader’s impression of the characters, events, and physical setting – as distinct from the ‘discourse’, or lexical and rhetorical structures aimed at the internal addressee who is a constituent feature of Greek and Latin first-person poetry. Both Horace’s sympotic ode 1.27 and Catullus’

240

Marilyn B. Skinner

slice-of-life anecdote comment on the addressive convention by foregrounding in an unusual manner the relation between story and discourse. In c. 10, the speaking voice is split into a character who belongs to the storyworld and communicates only with the other characters, Varus and the girl, and a narrator who appeals directly to the reader. In her examination, McCarthy shows how the text plays off the aggressive, risk-taking character against the narrator, who intervenes with us, applying wit and charm, to mitigate the impact of the other figure’s boorishness. In the final lines of the poem, the character emerges as the dominant voice; his bluster challenges readers who have gone along with the narrator’s attempt to make him more palatable. McCarthy’s division of the Catullan persona into a harsher and a more reflective side is reminiscent of, though not wholly parallel to, W r a y ’s ‘Archilochean’ and ‘Callimachean’ code models of Catullan masculinity (240, 161–203). Catullus 11 548.  F. O. C o p l e y , The art of poetry. A study of Catullus, c. 11, AFLNice 50, 1985, 253–260. 549.  E. D. B l o d g e t t  – R. M. N i e l s e n , Mask and Figure in Catullus, Carmen 11, RBPh 64, 1986, 22–31. 550.  D. R. S w e e t , Catullus 11: A Study in Perspective, Latomus 46, 1987, 510–526. 551.  J. R. H e a t h , Catullus 11: along for the ride, in: C. D e r o u x (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman history V, Brussels 1989, 98–116. 552.  P. Y. F o r s y t h , Thematic Unity of Catullus 11, CW 84, 1991, 457–464. 553.  E. F r e d r i c k s m e y e r , Method and Interpretation: Catullus 11, in: Catullan Lyric (168), 89–105. 554.  C. K r e b s , “Magni viri”: Caesar, Alexander, and Pompey in Cat. 11, Philologus 152.2, 2008, 223–229. This poem lent itself perfectly to the formalist and New Critical analyses popular in the 1970s, and during the next decade and a half major studies of its structure, themes, and closing imagery continued to appear. In the course of a classic New Critical reading, for example, C o p l e y (548) traces two successive ‘triangular-pyramidal’ patterns of speech that combine to produce a rhetorically unified whole. Applying persona theory to the figure of the speaker in c. 11, B l o d g e t t  – N i e l s e n (549) contend that his efforts to exonerate himself thwart or break down all other existing relationships. S w e e t (550) addresses the question of irony potentially informing the speaker’s attitudes toward his addressees, his mistress, and Caesar, as well as his own future plans. He argues that the poem, by incorporating multiple perspectives, effects a catharsis whereby eros is channeled into aesthetic release. The geographical catalogue, found elsewhere in professions of love and metapoetic declarations, suggests, according to H e a t h , (551) that Catullus is bidding farewell to Lesbia as the subject of the opening cycle of his libellus and foreshadowing the role Furius and Aurelius will play in the

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

241

following cycle. In an influential study, F o r s y t h (552) demonstrates that the initial stanzas turn military conquest into a symbolic rape; sexual aggression thus becomes the poem’s unifying trope. Lastly, defending the New Critical principles of the autonomy and unity of the literary text, F r e d r i c k s m e y e r (553) reads c. 11 as an irony-free affirmation of friendship for Furius and Aurelius as well as a renunciation of Lesbia. Recent work aligns c. 11 with other poems (such as cc. 29 and 57) in which Catullus voices concerns about the political climate. J a n a n (248, 62–65) notes that the progressive narrowing of geographical expanse from the edges of the known world to the edge of  a field is offset by  a trajectory of desire whereby masculine identity and authority are abruptly overturned. F i t z g e r a l d (227, 180–184) observes that the plough-image aligns Lesbia with the ‘often violent forces of civilization’ and ‘the ruthless indifference that characterizes Roman imperial might’, while the flower stations the wronged Catullus on the periphery of  a brutal world. Like Forsyth, K o n s t a n (286) and G r e e n e (289) equate Lesbia’s sexual voracity with Rome’s hunger for empire. In the epithet magnus applied to Caesar, K r e b s (554) finds allusions to Alexander and Pompey, previously endowed with that title; the priamel itself incorporates reminiscences of Alexander’s victories in the Far East and Pompey’s conquest of the territory ruled by Mithradates. Catullus 12–14 555.  P. Y. F o r s y t h , Gifts and Giving: Catullus 12–14, CW 78, 1985, 571–574. 556.  C. N a p p a , Place Settings: Convivium, Contrast and Persona in Catullus 12 and 13, AJPh 119.3, 1998, 385–397. 557.  A. M c M a s t e r , The Rules of Gift-Exchange, Catullus 12, 13, & 14, Mouseion 10.3, 2010, 355–379. Structurally, this group of three poems is often treated as a transitional unit between the Lesbia-cycle and the Furius-Aurelius cycle, while interpretation centers upon its particular thematic concerns of gift-giving and amicitia. F o r s y t h (555) introduced that twofold approach, tracing modulations on the idea of reciprocity from one poem to the next and demonstrating that the theme is sounded in the final Lesbia poem, c. 11, as well as in the poems that follow. N a p p a (556) argues that cc. 12 and 13 play a key part in the author’s project of social criticism and analysis by showing how highly the speaker esteems friendship. The diptych not only connects his poetry to a specific social milieu, the convivium, but contrasts his values with those of that milieu. S t r o u p (278, 73–82) examines the code of poetic gift-exchange and the implications of reciprocal generosity in the word munus, used of a napkin at 12.15 and of a collection of bad poems at 14.2 and 9. M c M a s t e r (557) argues that Catullus redefines the objects of elite Roman gift-exchange, which played a large role in maintaining aristocratic prestige; instead of political support, loans, and other services, he and his friends exchange poetry, support in love affairs, and companionship in otium. In this way they avoid the moral taint associated with conventional exchanges of favors while affirming their exclusivity and shared aesthetic principles.

242

Marilyn B. Skinner

Catullus 13 558.  W. H. B e r n s t e i n , A sense of taste. Catullus 13. CJ 80, 1985, 127–130. 559.  H. R. D e t t m e r , ‘Meros amores’. A Note on Catullus 13, 9, QUCC 23, 1986, 87–91. 560.  –, Catullus 13: A nose is a nose is a nose, SyllClass 1, 1989, 75–85. 561.  E. G o w e r s , The Loaded Table: Representations of Food in Roman Literature, Oxford 1993. Chap. 4: A Taste of Things to Come: Invitation Poems, 229–244. 562.  B. D. C a s e , Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner: A Note on Catullus 13, Latomus 54, 1995, 875–876. 563.  R. S. K i l p a t r i c k , Nam unguentum dabo: Catullus 13 and Servius’ Note on Phaon (Aeneid 3.279), CQ n.s. 48.1, 1998, 303–305. 564.  E. K a r a k a s i s , Totum ut te faciant, Fabulle, nasum: Catullus XIII reconsidered, in: C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman history XII, Brussels 2005, 97–114. 565.  S. B u t l e r , The Scent of a Woman, Arethusa 43.1, 2010, 87–112. For c. 13, critical opinion divides on the question of how meros amores (9) and unguentum (11) are to be understood. Interpretations of the 1970s had proposed blatantly obscene meanings; later scholarship, in reaction, insisted the nouns were poetological tropes, but not without their own risqué content. Noting the number of accompanying words like candida (4) and sal (5) that might be stylistic references, B e r n s t e i n (558) explains the two expressions as metaphors for the poet’s own sophisticated verse. D e t t m e r (559), who also takes meros amores as poems, perceives an inverse structural relationship of cc. 12 and 13, in which, among other contrasts, the narrative compositions Fabullus will enjoy are positive counterparts to the hendecasyllabics launched against Asinius Marrucinus. In a later essay (560), D e t t m e r hypothesizes that c. 13 parodies Philodemus’ dinner invitation to his patron L. Calpurnius Piso (AP 11.44) and is addressed to the same Fabullus that Catullus elsewhere commiserates (cc. 28 and 47) for his unprofitable military service under Piso. The final line, she concludes, contains a lewd reference to the nose as a phallus. Other studies opt instead for suggestive and evocative readings. For R i c h l i n (384) the alignment of puella with unguentum allows Catullus to serve them up together as consumable items of hospitality. Tracing a conceptual movement, however, from the solidly material bonam atque magnam cenam (3–4) to the nebulous impression of fragrance, G o w e r s (561) rejects both sexually graphic and programmatic notions of what Catullus is offering his guest: the urbanitas of the poem lies in its elusiveness. C a s e (562), on the other hand, returns to cruder explanations of unguentum, claiming it alludes to the content of a pyxis sent as an insult to Clodia Metelli (Cic. Cael. 69, Quint. Inst. 6.3.25). In contrast, K i l p a t r i c k (563) detects a delicate compliment to Lesbia equating the perfume with the irresistable unguentum bestowed by Venus on Phaon. K a r a k a s i s (564) identifies a Callimachean pattern

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

243

in which the impoverished poet offers verse as all he can afford. In a context containing multiple allusions to neoteric ideals, meros amores must have a literary significance, but the associations of dining and perfume with sex imply that the love poetry proffered will be erotically arousing. B u t l e r (565) demonstrates that unguentum, understood in a literal sense, itself calls up the olfactory experience of the perfumed female body. Catullus 14b–26 566.  P. Y. F o r s y t h , Catullus 14b, CW 83.2, 1989, 81–85. F o r s y t h (566) believes c. 14b is  a programmatic introduction not just to the Furius and Aurelius poems that follow but to the entire sequence from c. 15 to c. 26, including the non-hendecasyllabic cc. 17, 22, and 25.  All of these pieces deal with instances of ineptiae, as presaged by mearum ineptiarum (1). The most comprehensive study of this cluster is B e c k (118), who traces links in content and structure among the six Furius and Aurelius poems and draws parallels between the Lesbia and the Furius-Aurelius cycles, regarding them as separately issued libelli. Within the latter cycle, the three poems in other meters also correspond to elements of the Lesbia cycle, e.g. the Priapean c. 17 functions similarly to the pure iambic c. 4 (187–188). Catullus 15 567.  J. R o y , Traditional jokes about the punishment of adulterers in ancient Greek literature, LCM 16.5, 1991, 73–76. 568.  G. M a g g i a l i , Ennio in Catullo 15: dall’apoteosi alla rhaphanidosis, Paideia 63, 2008, 157–161. According to R o y (567), Aurelius’ warning resurrects a joke about punishing adul­ terers already found in Old Comedy. M a g g i a l i (568) observes the alliteration of the phoneme /p/, culminating in pedibus patente porta / percurrent (18–19), and suggests the last line of Ennius’ funerary epigram for Scipio Africanus, mi soli caeli maxima porta patet (Courtney [120] 44 = var. 24 Vahl2), is being parodied. Catullus 16 569.  J. P. H a l l e t t , ‘Nec castrare velis meos libellos’: Sexual and Poetic Lusus in Catullus, Martial and the Carmina Priapea, in: C. K l o d t (ed.), Satura Lanx: Festschrift für Werner A. Krenkel zum 70. Geburtstag, Spudasmata 62, Hildesheim 1996, 321–344. 570.  R. S c h i e v e n i n , Poesia e turpiloquio nel carme 16 di Catullo, MD 44, 2000, 195–209. 571.  M. F o n t a i n e , The Lesbia Code: Backmasking, Pillow Talk, and ‘Cacemphaton’ in Catullus 5 and 16, QUCC n.s. 89.2, 2008, 55–69.

244

Marilyn B. Skinner

572. A. A g n e s i n i , Catull. 16, 10: hispidosis, una probabile lezione negletta, Vichiana 4a ser. 11.2, 2009, 244–257. 573.  C. A. W i l l i a m s , Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity, 2nd ed., Oxford and New York 2010. 574.  P. A. d e V a s c o n c e l l o s , Multa Milia Basiorum Once More, Hermes 143.1, 2015, 57–71. Critical interrogation of c. 16 assumed its urgency in the nineties, in tandem with the rapid growth of ancient sexuality as a subfield of classical studies. T h o m s o n (5, 251) lists just seventeen items, the first from 1962 and the last dated 1977/78, twenty years before publication of that commentary. In the absence of a clear grasp of ancient sexual protocols, it was common for readers in earlier decades to view the speaker’s threats of anal and oral penetration in terms of the modern hetero /  homosexual dichotomy and wonder how he could claim to be castum and  a pium poetam (5) while threatening depraved ‘homosexual’ acts.40 Corollary debate over the recipient of the multa milia basiorum, Lesbia or Juventius, also centered on sexual-object choice. With the dominance / submission paradigm of Greco-Roman sexuality better understood today, and the either / or opposition of Lesbia and Juventius a thing of the past, current discussion of c. 16 turns on two issues: how the poem expresses Roman ideologies of masculinity and how it operates as a metapoetic statement regarding the relationship of text and reader. On the first question, R i c h l i n ’s comparison (433, 144–146) of the speaker with the aggressive god of the Carmina Priapea has been influential. While she herself perceives both hypermasculinity and vulnerability in the speaker’s stance, the analyses of W r a y (240, 185–186) and of H o l z b e r g (241, 25–28) go to opposite extremes: the former treats him as Archilochus redux, the latter postulates that his effeminate (‘weichlich’) pose is designed to stimulate the reader erotically. In contrast, W i l l i a m s (573, 181–183) locates the poem within the larger context of Roman male sexual roles and identities. He points out that the noun vir, in circumstances where masculinity is contested, takes on the notion of ‘real man’; hence threats of penetration can be strategically deployed as proof of masculinity. S e l d e n ’s analysis of c. 16 in terms of speech-act theory (224, 477–489) launched an alternate line of inquiry. In the poem, he claims, constative (i. e. descriptive) utterances are opposed to performative speech: while the versiculi, according to Catullus, give us no information about their author, they succeed at their rhetorical task of arousing and charming audiences. Hence c. 16 can be read as a demonstration of how the persona of the speaker is performatively generated, and how the reader, in turn, submits passively to textual demands. Shortly later F i t z g e r a l d (227, 49–55) took a 40 T. P. W i s e m a n ’s explanation of why Furius and Aurelius should doubt Catullus’ virility is now generally accepted: the love poems in question, mentioning only kisses and nothing more sexually explicit, suggested to them that he was not capable of anything further (‘Catullus 16’, LCM 1.2, 1976, 14–17). Cf. G a i s s e r (157, 49): ‘their point…was that he wrote so extravagantly about kissing’.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

245

similar position: in his view, the poem revels in its capacity to reduce the reading audience to passivity, a mode of textual self-assertion paralleled in Pompeiian graffiti. H a l l e t t (569, 326), challenges Fitzgerald’s claim on the grounds that the ability of the versiculi to stimulate endows appreciative readers themselves with phallic potency. In cc. 16 and 50, she discovers  a conceptual mapping of sexual onto poetic play further developed in the Carmina Priapeia and Martial. S c h i e v e n i n (570) notes that the semantic shift between parum pudicum (‘lascivious’, 16.4) and male…marem (‘unmanly’, 12) is crucial to a changing power dynamic. Catullus accepts the former component as a necessary attribute of poems meant to arouse ‘these unkempt fellows here’ (10). The deictic his, as the reader learns at the end, refers to Furius and Aurelius, who had jokingly propositioned Catullus, assuming wrongly that he was a pathic; the threats of irrumatio and pedicatio in the closing line refer to the revenge he has already taken by writing the poem. A g n e s i n i (572) objects, however, to the deictic itself, since its referent is hard to determine, and instead revives Avancius’ reading hispidosis, which, as he shows, is a variant attested in some lesser mss. B i o n d i (64, 34–35) supports Agnesini’s proposal. Meanwhile, citing a similar pun on Greek glosses in Martial 3.78, F o n t a i n e (571) suggests that  a Latin speaker who translated the opening line of c. 5 into Greek and reversed the first two words (ζῶμεν, Λεσβία) would arrive at λεσβιάζωμεν, ‘let’s fellate’. (Why he should want to translate it into Greek is not fully explained.) The hypothesis gives  a sinister meaning to the speaker’s request for thousands of basia and explains why Furius and Aurelius, after encountering that request (12–13), would assume he was pathic. Fontaine (wisely) concludes the essay by admitting that the existence of such an obscenity is finally ‘undecidable’. In  a more recent study W i l l i a m s (358) shows how identifying cues activating particular senses of the term mollis contributes to interpreting texts: the joke in c. 16, he argues, turns on the implicit tension between two senses of the polysemous moll- lexeme, sense 6 ‘attractive to women’ and sense 9 ‘enjoys being penetrated’. On formalist grounds, d e V a s c o n c e l l o s (574) asserts that the poems referred to in c. 16 are cc. 5 and 7, not c. 48. The distinction drawn between art and life is limited, furthermore, to light amorous verse and does not necessarily hold for more serious first-person poems. Catullus 17 575.  P. G. W a l s h , Catullus 17 and the Priapean, in: Studia in honorem Iiro Kajanto, Arctos Suppl. II, Helsinki 1985, 315–322. 576.  S. P r e t e , A proposito di un verso di Catullo (XVII, 6), Paideia 41, 1986, 48–50. 577.  F. C e n e r i n i , ‘O Colonia, quae cupis ponte ludere longo’ (Cat. 17): Cultura e politica, Athenaeum 67.1–2, 1989, 41–55. 578.  P. F e d e l i , Il carme 17 di Catullo e i sacrifici edilizi, in: Studi di Filologia Classica in onore di Giusto Monaco, 4 vols., Palermo 1991, II.707–722.

246

Marilyn B. Skinner

579.  F. X. R y a n , Sexagenarians, the bridge, and the centuria praerogativa, RhM 138, 1995, 188–190. *580. H. D. J o c e l y n , The Language of Catullus 17 and that of its Immediate Neighbours in the Transmitted Collection, Sileno 22, 1996, 137–163. 581.  G. K l o s s , Catulls Brückengedicht (C. 17), Hermes 126.1, 1998, 58–79. 582.  L. R a d i f , Note catulliane: l’acqua di Colonia, Maia 51, 1999, 405–409. 583.  M. E. V á z q u e z B u j á n , Todavía sobre los sexagenarii de ponte y el poema 17 de Catulo, in: Hommages Deroux (169), 488–498. The two main critical approaches to this poem are: 1) treating it as a dirty joke that draws a parallel between the shaky bridge and the sluggish husband through clever double-entendres and 2) investigating its religious or folkloric associations by elucidating the term Salisubsili sacra (6), comparing the annual rites associated with the Argeorum sacraria, or tracing links with the proverb sexagenarios de ponte in Tiberim deicere. Following the first course, W a l s h (575) rationalizes the proposed immersion of the old man as a reinvigorating baptism, while D e u l i n g (394) ingenuously suggests a personalized roman à clef, the superannuated bridge representing Metellus Celer. Contributions to  a ritual explanation include those of P r e t e (576), who attributes the identification of salisubsulus as a cult title of Mars to the Renaissance humanist L. Caelius Rhodiginus, and R y a n (579), who denies that sexagenarios de ponte had any connection with the walkways leading to the voting enclosures in the Comitia. F e d e l i (578) flatly rejects the existence of a bawdy subtext, arguing that the husband’s dunking is a facetious reference to a propitiatory sacrifice insuring the stability of an edifice under construction. V á z q u e z B u j á n (583) cites passages in Augustine and in a late-antique commentary on Hippocrates’ Aphorisms to establish that the sixtieth year marked freedom from civic obligations. Identifying Verona as the colonia, C e n e r i n i (577) proposes another level of meaning supporting Transpadane demands for citizenship; performance of what was an ancient Roman rite manifests the community’s thorough Romanization and argues for the legitimacy of its political aspirations. From the use of Priapean meter and the rustic setting, K l o s s (581) deduces that the ‘lyrische Ich’ of the poem is the god Priapus himself, offended by the old man’s indifference to his marital duties; obscene punning is characteristic of the carmina Priapea. R a d i f (582) accepts the Renaissance identification of Cologna Veneta as the poem’s setting. Catullus 21 584.  P. S.  P e e k , Feeding Aurelius’ Hunger: Catullus 21, AClass 45, 2002, 89–99. P e e k (584) contends that Aurelius, attacked for his esuritio, is being stigmatized not as a parasite but as a sodomite; the poem threatens a sexually humiliating ‘feeding’ of both belly and sexual appetite through irrumatio.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

247

Catullus 22 585.  L. W a t s o n , Rustic Suffenus (Catullus 22) and Literary Rusticity, in: F. C a i r n s  – M. H e a t h (eds.), ARCA Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs 29, Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 6, 1990, 13–33. 586.  T. A d a m i k , Catullus’ Urbanity: c. 22, AAntHung 36, 1995, 77–86. 587.  J. R o b s o n , ‘Suffenus iste’: a Catullan Riddle?, C&M 58, 2007, 209–214. 588.  S. O. S h a p i r o , The Mirror of Catullus: Poems 12, 22, 39, 41, 42 and 84, SyllClass 22, 2011, 21–37. The contrast between Suffenus’ social urbanitas and his literary rusticity is, according to W a t s o n (585), the defining paradox of c. 22. He traces the ‘rusticity’ metaphor to Philetas fr. 10 Powell, where it is explicitly opposed to Hellenistic standards of doctrina and refinement. In the later Latin tradition rusticity becomes the antithesis, for better or worse, of Callimachean poetics. A d a m i k (586) believes ‘Suffenus’ is a pseudonym. From its resemblance to sufflatus, he deduces that the poetry Suffenus writes is bombastic. Catullus’ target  –  a scurra who produces copious verse in the grand style but is fatuously unaware of its demerits – must therefore be Cicero, and c. 22 is a companion piece to c. 49. While agreeing that it is a false name, R o b s o n (587) proposes that the man’s identity is set as a riddle for Varus to solve and the coda of the poem (18–21) reveals Catullus’ personal opinion of Varus. S h a p i r o (588) discusses c. 22 as one of a number of poems where Catullus criticizes the pretensions of individuals who attempt to appear better than they really are. Here, as in the other poems she examines, he does not cast aspersions on their origins or their physical and intellectual defects, but mocks their lack of insight about themselves. Thus Suffenus is ridiculed not for his clumsy verse but for the misplaced pride he takes in it; his self-delusion is, however, a common human flaw. Catullus 23 and 24 589.  M. M a r s i l i o  – K. P o d l e s n e y , Poverty and Poetic Rivalry in Catullus (c. 23, 13, 16, 24, 81), AClass 49, 2006, 167–181. 590.  S.  O ’ B r y h i m , Catullus 23 as Roman Comedy, TAPhA 137, 2007, 133–145. 591.  M. M a r s i l i o , Mendicancy and Competition in Catullus 23 and Martial 12, 32, Latomus 67.4, 2008, 918–930. R i c h l i n (384) treats c. 23 as a nexus of negative motifs having to do with food – hunger, inedible substances, and, metonymically, bodily wastes such as saliva and excreta. Food and feces are also associated with bad poetry, while gluttony is the dominant vice of Mamurra. This poem reverses the imagery of c. 13, where food, wine, and perfume are linked with friendship. M a r s i l i o  – P o d l e s n e y (589) also identify poverty and hunger as key themes in Catullus, combining them with ideas of sexual

248

Marilyn B. Skinner

desire and poetic creation. In c. 23 the terms siccus, aridus, sudor, saliva, and mundities can be taken as stylistic metaphors insinuating that Furius lacks wit, good taste, and aesthetic polish. Parallels with c. 13 and elements in cc. 16, 24, and 81 suggest a poetic rivalry with Furius Bibaculus. O ’ B r y h i m (590) proposes that Catullus inverts the tropes of Roman comedy to cast Furius, his rival for Juventius, as the impoverished adulescens seeking a loan; in c. 24, its pendant, Juventius becomes a comic meretrix admonished by a lena. In Epigram 12.32, M a r s i l i o (591) argues, Martial expands the theme of rivalry over material and poetic resources as he paints a grim picture of Vacerra’s poverty: both Catullus and Martial represent themselves as impoverished poets, in keeping with Callimachean stylistic principles, but their slender means must be distinguished from their adversaries’ sordid penury. Lastly, Hawkins (119) finds a pointer toward Furius’ identity in a pun on culus at 23.19. Catullus 25 592.  P. T. E d e n , Catullus 25.5: A Reconstruction, Mnemosyne 47.4, 1994, 515–516. 593.  H. R o h d i c h , Bemerkungen zu Catull, Hermes 129, 2001, 225–231. 594.  K. M i t c h e l l , Catullus 25.5: A Gaping Target, Hermes 141.1, 2013, 105–107. There are, to my knowledge, no recent formal analyses of c. 25 apart from R i c h l i n (433, 154–156), who comments upon its tripartite structure, its effective use of language and sound patterns (alliteration and rhyme) and its striking animal and physiological imagery. F i t z g e r a l d (227, 100–103) suggests that the speaker is appropriating Thallus’ tone, mimicking the language of the pathic, and ultimately turning the target’s own body into a medium for writing. Articles, meanwhile, continue to grapple with the refractory crux in line 5. E d e n (592) proposes Laverna cum ostiarios ostendit oscitantes and R o h d i c h (593, 225–226) cum diva [= Luna] maior ambiens ostendit oscitantes. T r a p p e s - L o m a x (16, 81) diffidently offers quom ostendit oscitantes. M i t c h e l l (594) strikes out in another direction by arguing that Thallus is still being attacked as cinaedus, not as thief, and reading cum mulio tibi nates ostendit oscitantes, the muleteer being  a stereotype of vulgarity and brutishness. Unfortunately, Mitchell does not appear to realize that Thallus, who is mollis, would be showing his nates…oscitantes to the brutish muleteer and not vice-versa. Catullus 27 595.  A. V e r g a d o s , Wein, Weib und Gesang: On Catullus 27, C&M 62, 2011, 153–167. Wray (240, 169–171) suggests that Catullus is invoking the Hellenistic opposition of wine to water in this programmatic poem introducing the ‘Archilochian’ lampoons

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

249

cc. 28 and 29. Thinking along similar lines, Vergados (595) proposes that it expressly imitates Anacreon PMG 356a in calling for more wine, stipulating the proportion of wine to water, and ending with a reference to Bacchic frenzy. Catullus 28 596.  G. M a s e l l i , Livelli espressive e secante economica nel c. 28 di Catullo, Aufidus 11/12, 1990, 7–23. 597.  C. N a p p a , Chap. 3: Seeking Noble Friends: The Failure of Masculinity and the Catullan Persona, in: Aspects (238), 85–105. 598.  R. A. K a s t e r , The Taxonomy of Patience, or When is ‘Patientia’ Not a Virtue?, CPh 97.2, 2002, 133–144. M a s e l l i (596) analyzes the financial terminology in c. 28 as an instance of ­Catullus’ preoccupation with economic issues, treated at greater length in his 1994 monograph (273). The intended audience, he suggests, is not the named addressees but persons from  a slightly lower economic level aspiring to make their fortunes through friendships with the ruling class. In a discussion central to his notion of the Catullan persona, Nappa (597) treats cc. 10, 28, and 47 as a set of poems in which the speaker is represented as complicit in his own victimization. K a s t e r (598) demonstrates the moral ambiguity of patientia by citing c. 28, where tolerance of outrageous insult becomes unmanly servility. Catullus 29 599.  K. Q u i n n , Pompey, Caesar and Catullus 29. AFLNice 50, 1985, 261–268. 600.  H.  D e t t m e r , A Fresh Approach to Catullus 29.23, SyllClas 2, 1990, 23–27. 601.  M. A s p e r , Catull, Mamurra und Caesar: eine öffentliche Auseinandersetzung? in: T. B a i e r   – F. S c h i m a n n (eds.), Fabrica: Studien zur antiken Literatur und ihrer Rezeption, Festschrift E. Lefèvre, Stuttgart 1997, 65–78. 602.  A. M. V. P i z z o n e , Memmio e i carmi catulliani contro Mamurra. Una proposta di chronologia, Maia 50.2, 1998, 281–289. 603.  K. L e n n a r t z , Catull 29 und 29A? Philologus 142, 1998, 361–363. 604.  S o n g -Y a n g Li, Nota a Catullo 29, 23, SCO 58, 2004, 349–359. Q u i n n (599) agrees with the communis opinio that c. 29 was composed in mid-55 BCE but maintains, in opposition to many scholars at the time, that Pompey is the cinaedus Romulus attacked in lines 5–10. Son-in-law and father-in-law are denounced successively and then jointly in the concluding lines. Observing close structural and lexical connections between c. 28 and c. 29, D e t t m e r (600) defends Haupt’s conjecture o piissimi because a disparaging apostrophe of Pompey and Caesar would complement the disparaging apostrophe of Caesar’s father-in-law Piso at

250

Marilyn B. Skinner

28.15. A s p e r (601) plausibly surmises that, in order to have so damaging an effect, Catullus’ invectives against Mamurra and Caesar were recited to sympathizers and circulated widely by mouth before eventual publication. The series of poems reveals a two-stage process: Caesar responded to initial attacks such as cc. 29, 57 and the ‘Mentula’ cycle with an offer of reconciliation, which was flatly rejected in cc. 54 and 93. P i z z o n e (602) dates cc. 57 and 94 to 58 BCE, when C. Memmius was conducting a vicious smear campaign against Julius Caesar; Catullus’ assistance in this crusade might have won him a place in Memmius’ gubernatorial retinue the following year. Cc. 114 and 115, on the other hand, were written about the same time as the securely dated c. 29. L e n n a r t z (603) divides c. 29 into two separate poems after line 10. The first lampoons Pompey, the second (29A, lines 11–24) attacks Caesar. For the crux †urbis opulentissime† S o n g -Y a n g (604) reads urbis optimis simul; the optimi would be the entire senatorial class, which Catullus holds responsible along with Pompey and Caesar. Catullus 30 605.  P. R a d i c i C o l a c e , Tra ripetizione, struttura,  e ri-uso: il C. 30 di Catullo, in: Atti del 175° anniversario Liceo Ginnasio Statale ‘T. Campanello’, Reggio Calabria 1989, 137–142. 606.  S. T h o m , Crime and Punishment in Catullus 30, Akroterion 38, 1993, 51–60. 607. P. R a d i c i C o l a c e , Riuso e parodia in Catullo, in: L. M u n z i (ed.), Forme della parodia, parodia delle forme: atti del convegno Napoli, 9 maggio 1995 (A. I. O. N. 18), Naples 1996, 155–167. Because Alfenus’ offense is not stated, the point of c. 30 puzzles critics; if read as a straightforward complaint, furthermore, the speaker’s whiny tone embarrasses the modern reader. Consequently, the poem has not prompted much attention. R a d i c i C o l a c e (605) considers it  a structural, conceptual, and linguistic parody of the lament of the abandoned heroine exemplified by Ariadne (c. 64.132–201). T h o m (606) attempts to make sense of it on its own terms, claiming that it exacts retribution for Alfenus’ indifference to friendship through its personified Fides, perpetually reminding him of his betrayal. In a later study of Catullan parody, R a d i c i C o l a c e (607) notes structural resemblances between c. 3 and c. 8 which invite us to read the one in the light of the other. C. 8 thereby becomes an epicedion in  a parodic key, confirming the obsessive presence in the Catullan imaginary of the semantic field of death. She then returns to the proposal that c. 30 parodies Ariadne’s lament, citing, among numerous other correspondences, the epithets perfide and immemor applied to both Alfenus and Theseus. W r a y (240, 100–103) groups c. 30, together with c. 38, as examples of an epistolary ‘poetic challenge’ in which the speaker, through ‘guilt-inducing’ language, elicits a literary response.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

251

Catullus 31 608.  L. C i l l e r s , C. 31, ‘n Interpretasie (nog eens), Akroterion 32, 1987, 75–83 [in Afrikaans]. 609.  N. H o l z b e r g , Die Villa und die ‘ipsicilla’. Catullus c. 31 und sein Kontext, in: Festschrift Gärtner (171), 101–110. To interpret c. 31 as a poetic product, C i l l e r s (607) applies methods of structuralist analysis, involving lexical elements (meaning, sound, rhythm, syntax), conceptual aspects (situation, time, space, character, perspective), and general structure. In a willfully deviant reading, H o l z b e r g (609) holds that c. 31 does not prove that Catullus’ family owned  a villa on Sirmio. Catullus has eroticized the topos of the wanderer’s return (e.g. Odysseus) for comic purposes. Set in conjunction with c. 30, which complains of Alfenus’ amatory betrayal, the poem confesses his desire for a new partner (desideratoque acquiescimus lecto, 10). Personification of Sirmio as  a sexual object anticipates the address to mea dulcis ipsicilla in c. 32. A r m s t r o n g (475) reads c. 31 as the clearest and most straightforward expression of joy at returning home, one facet in Catullus’ complicated, ambivalent attitude toward travel. 610.  G. C a v a l i e r i M a n a s s e , Un documento catastale dell’agro centuriato veronese, Athenaeum 88, 2000, 5–48 with 4 plates. Archaeological and historical studies of the Imperial-age villa on Sirmione have overshadowed literary analyses of c. 31.  W i s e m a n ’s prosopographical accounts of the Valerii Catulli (83, 84, 85) have been given further epigraphical context by B u c h i ’ s extensive discussion of the Porta Leone monument and its inscription, which names P. Valerius, arguably Catullus’ father, as one of Verona’s quattorviri (88). The essay collection Catullo e Sirmione (90) contains a report of recent excavations at the villa. Furthermore, a fragment of a bronze tablet published by C a v a l i e r i M a n a s s e (610), discovered in 1996 and dated to the second half of the first century BCE, also records a P. Valerius as an owner of land near Verona. While the part of the Porta Leone inscription (CIL V.3434 = AE 1987.450) that would have contained Valerius’ cognomen is missing, none is recorded on the tablet, although space is available and other landholders listed have the conventional tria nomina. I am tempted to conclude that P. Valerius, if it is the same individual, did not use one. The hypothesis that ‘Catullus’ is not  a hereditary but an individual cognomen, maybe  a nickname, could shed light upon the poet’s habitual references to himself in the third person (see especially c. 56, discussed below). Catullus 32 611.  J. R. H e a t h , The Supine Hero in Catullus 32, CJ 82.1, 1986, 28–36. 612.  T. P. W i s e m a n , Catullus’ Belle de jour, in: S.  B o l d r i n i (ed.), Filologia e forme letterarie: studi offerti a Francesco Della Corte, 5 vols., Urbino 1987, II.375–376.

252

Marilyn B. Skinner

613.  A. S. G r a t w i c k , Catullus XXXII, CQ 41.2, 1991, 547–551. 614.  J. A v e l i n e , Catullus 32.8: A Jovian Boast? LCM 19.7 & 8, 1994, 122–123. 615.  R. C o w a n , Boring Ipsitilla: bilingual wordplay in Catullus 32, MH 70.2, 2013, 190–198. Ipsit(h)illa’ s clientele was once exclusively textual critics; now she has admirers in the literary sphere as well. H e a t h (611) observes a paradox. The speaker’s description of himself as pransus suggests military readiness, making him an epic hero; supinus, on the other hand, connotes passivity while also implying that he desires the sexual schema of mulier superior, a particularly degrading service for a woman to perform. Regarding the disputed name, W i s e m a n ’s conjecture Hypsithylla (‘High Festival of Love’) postulates that it is the professional designation of a courtesan (612). Settling for Ipsicilla on linguistic grounds, G r a t w i c k (613), reading luminis, ‘shutters’ for liminis in line 5, infers that she is a married woman because Catullus intends to enter through the window, not the door. The last three lines outline a Plan B: ‘but if you’re doing something this afternoon (si quid ages), bid me come right now’. A v e l i n e (614) catches in novem continuas fututiones (8) an allusion to Zeus’ nine nights of sexual intercourse with Mnemosyne that engendered the nine Muses (Hes. Theog. 56–57). C o w a n (615) establishes that the dominant sense of pertundo in classical Latin is ‘to create a small hole by boring’ and accordingly suggests that the addressee’s name harbors a pun on ἴψ, ‘woodworm’. Catullus 33 616.  M. G. B a j o n i , Alcune noti a C. 33, Euphrosyne 21, 1993, 177–178. The two Vibenni, father and son, are complementary antitheses of urbanitas, according to B a j o n i (616), who also suggests that the poem is a hymnic parody. F i t z g e r a l d (227, 82–83) pursues complementarity even further, noting oppositions of hand and anus, purity and impurity, high and low, and contamination of the subordinate position ( filius = cinaedus). W r a y (240, 118–125), though he appreciates the poem’s construction, finds it an ethically troubling piece of aggressive performativity and speculates gloomily on the unlikely prospect of the lower-status Vibinnii obtaining recourse at law for iniuria. Perhaps some people should follow the lead of Ipsit(h)illa’s readers and lighten up. Catullus 34 617.  N. S c i v o l e t t o , L’inno  a Diana di Catullo, in: S.  B o l d r i n i (ed.), Filologia e forme letterarie: studi offerti a Francesco Della Corte, 5 vols., Urbino 1987, II.357–374. 618.  L. M o r i s i , Diana alla luce della luna (Catull. 34.15s. e le insidie dell’etimologia), Lexis 19, 2001, 283–287.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

253

619.  P. R a d i c i C o l a c e , Innografia e parodia innografica in Catullo, Paideia 64, 2009, 553–561. Whether c. 34 was purely  a literary exercise or composed for actual performance remains unsettled. W i s e m a n (82, 96–99) suggested it was written for the festival of Artemis on Delos when Catullus, returning from Bithynia, may have stopped there. S c i v o l e t t o ’ s structural analysis (617) links Catullus’ identification of a hellenized Diana with Luna and Hecate to contemporary philosophical speculation; he dates the hymn’s composition to the same period as c. 61 and suggests a connection with an August celebration of Diana Nemorensis at Tibur. M o r i s i (618) finds a chiastic paradox in the etymological derivation of luna from lumine, a light merely reflected (notho). In the polymetrics, R a d i c i C o l a c e (619) discovers a common hymnic structure that may be used seriously or parodically in seven poems. She studies c. 34 as a straightforward application of that structure and then observes how it is adapted for lighter effects in cc. 67, 2, 31, 44, and 49. The study concludes by examining c. 61 as another direct use of hymnal form and comparing it with Martianus Capella’s invocation of Hymenaeus in De nuptiis. Catullus 35 620.  E. F r e d r i c k s m e y e r , Catullus to Caecilius on Good Poetry (c. 35), AJPh 106 (1985) 213–221. 621.  J. F o s t e r , Poetry and Friendship: Catullus 35, LCM 19.7 & 8, 1994, 114–121. 622.  G. G. B i o n d i , Il carme 35 di Catullo, MD 41, 1998, 35–69. 623.  V. H u n i n k , ‘Some thoughts of a Friend’: Catul. 35, 5–6, MD 45, 2000, 133–136. 624.  D. K u t z k o , Lesbia in Catullus 35, CPh 101.4, 2006, 405–410. 625.  W. S. H a n s e n , Caecilius’ Response to the Invitation in Catullus 35, CJ 102.3, 2007, 213–220. 626.  L. K r o n e n b e r g , Me, Myself, and I: Multiple (Literary) Personalities in Catullus 35, CW 107.3, 2014, 367–381. This is another poem which provokes disparate readings. F r e d r i c k s m e y e r ’ s classic article (620) applies New Critical tenets presuming that the work is selfcontained and provides its own answers to puzzles arising from it. He discerns a thematic opposition of reason (cogitationes) and passion (impotens amor). Caecilius’ emotive fixation has delayed his finishing a promising project; if he comes to Verona, the critical judgments of his fellow neoteric poets will help him do so. F o s t e r (621) believes c. 35 provides encouragement to a diffident Caecilius, who views his own work as unfinished (inchoata); that it is alluringly written (venuste) is the point of the poem. In a major departure from standard views, B i o n d i (622) takes c. 35 as an ironic exposure of Caecilius, who, while courting a girl, had passed off Catullus’ c. 63, the

254

Marilyn B. Skinner

Dindymi domina, as his own. In retribution, Caecilius’ puella has been seized with a maddened love that entraps and figuratively castrates him, much as Attis himself was unmanned. Biondi’s interpretation depends on the web of double meanings he uncovers, such as legit (35.13), which, with Caecilus as the subject, could mean ‘stole’ rather than ‘read’. Rather than being an unduly arch self-reference, the phrase cogitationes / amici…sui meique (5–6) indicates that a mutual friend informed Catullus of Caecilius’ deception. H u n i n k (623), accepting Biondi’s scenario, suggests that the amicus might instead be the literary figure Attis, and the cogitationes a pointed evocation of his second speech, which ends iam iam dolet quod egi, iam iamque paenitet (63.73). K u t z k o (624) interprets Sapphica…musa (16–17) as an allusion to Catullus’ own source of inspiration, Lesbia. Caecilius’ girl is doctior because she appreciates her lover’s poetry, while Lesbia does not, as we learn from c. 36: the cross-reference shows that the two poems should be regarded as  a diptych. H a n s e n (625) thinks the invitation is a poetic challenge. Caecilius is expected to turn down Catullus’ request by responding with charmingly witty verse in praise of his puella. He would be right to do so, because, as the adverb venuste paradoxically indicates, learned mythological epic on such a dark topic is not his forte. Finally, K r o n e n b e r g (625) sees c. 35 as a ‘metacommentary’ upon the author’s own poetry. Caecilius, otherwise unattested as a poet but creator of both love poetry to a Sapphica puella and learned poetry on the Magna Mater, is the alter ego of Catullus, who playfully chides himself for dallying with the former instead of getting on with the latter. Catullus 36 627.  L. M u n z i , La parodia dell’inno nel Liber di Catullo, in: A. C. C a s s i o  – G. C e r r i (eds.), L’inno tra rituale e letteratura nel mondo antico. Atti di un colloquio. Napoli 21–24 ottobre 1991 (A. I. O. N. 13), Rome 1991, 265–278. 628.  S. D i B r a z z a n o , “Cacata charta”: nota a Catull. 36,1 e a Priap. 59,4, MD 43, 1999, 179–189. 629.  R. S k l e n à ř , Catullus 36: Beyond Literary Polemics, RbPh 74, 1996, 57–59. 630.  L. W a t s o n , Catullan Recycling? ‘Cacata carta’, Mnemosyne 58.2, 2005, 270–277. 631.  M. M a r s i l i o , Catullus 36: Love and Literary Criticism, in: C. D e r o u x (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History XVI, Brussels 2012, 126–133. M u n z i (627) posits that parody of hymn style is  a device borrowed from the palliata. He analyzes the openings of cc. 24 amd 49 as pastiches of hymnic exordia, discusses c. 31 as an imitation of Callimachus’ Hymn to Delos, and then offers  a nuanced reading of the overt parody in c. 36.11–17. Citing Priap. 59.4 as a parallel, and adopting Housman’s explication of the line,41 D i B r a z z a n o (628) argues that 41 A. E. H o u s m a n , Praefanda, Hermes 66, 1931, 402–412.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

255

cacata means ‘expelled from the anus’ rather than ‘befouled’ (= concacata, i. e. simplex pro composito). S k l e n à ř regards the poem as ‘an extraordinarily complex example not only of literary parody, but of literary self-parody, which depends for its effect upon the imaginative conflation of genres and stylistic levels’ (629, 59). W a t s o n (630) believes cacata charta is a ‘scatological recycling’ of Callimachus’ image of the muddy Euphrates river. He expressly contests the notion that the charta serve the purpose of toilet paper. M a r s i l i o (631) sees in Hadriae tabernam (15) a link to the salax taberna of c. 37 that Lesbia frequents. Both poems, then, attack her in truces iambi. Catullus trumps Lesbia’s vow to Venus by offering the goddess his ‘aesthetically brilliant hymn’ in lines 11–15, which negates her harsh judgment of his verses and establishes his own supremacy in both love and poetry. Catullus 37 and 39 632.  A. D. B o o t h , Une de capillatis… Egnati, EMC 29.1, 1985, 111–120. 633.  G. B r u g n o n i , Catull. 39,11, RCCM 33.1, 1991, 81–83. 634.  B. N é m e t h , “Risus ineptus” Cat. 37 bzw. 39: ein Diptychon, AAntHung 38.1–3, 1998, 215–221. 635.  M. J o h n s o n , Catullus, C. 37, and the Theme of Magna Bella, Helios 26.1, 1999, 85–96. 636.  J. T. K a t z , Egnatius’ Dental Fricatives (Catullus 39.20), CPh 95.3, 2000, 338–348. B o o t h (632) suggests the phrase une de capillatis implies that Egnatius is a former male prostitute who worked the alleyways; he now sports an opaca barba as proof of status and virility. N é m e t h (634) identifies him with the author of  a De rerum natura quoted by Macrobius (Sat. 6.5.2 and 6.5.12). He is attacked in cc. 37 and 39 as an incompetent poet and pseudo-philosopher; the military terminology of the former piece meanwhile alludes to Caesar’s campaigns (capillatis, a play on words, recalls caesaries, showing Egnatius to be a follower of Caesar). According to J o h n s o n (635), the same military vocabulary, together with allusions to Cicero’s second Catilinarian oration and to the Pro Caelio, casts Lesbia as  a second Helen, the cause of magna bella, and Egnatius as her Paris. W r a y (240, 82–87), on the other hand, thinks the martial imagery helps to present the speaker in the stock role of miles gloriosus and his puella as a runaway amica. Regarding the text, B r u g n o n i (633) defends V ’s reading parcus. Some attention has been paid to the phonetic and rhetorical patterning of c. 39. K a t z (636) proposes that repetition of the sound cluster -st- in line 20 (ut, quo iste vester expolitior dens est), physically associates its pronunciation with Egnatius’ alleged manner of oral hygene. As Catalepton 2 indicates, moreover, Romans were aware of native Celtic speakers’ inability to utter Latin dental fricatives properly; thus Egnatius’ ‘Celticness’ is exposed. K r o s t e n k o (369) finds that word choice, syntax, and quasi-oratorical structure designate the opening ‘voice’ of c. 39 as that of a

256

Marilyn B. Skinner

dignified gentleman whose linguistic decorum throws Egnatius’ social incompetence into relief. In the second half of the poem, it modulates into an old man’s prescriptive timbre, employing archaisms that themselves might suggest rusticity. In c. 37, on the other hand, tonal variations reflect the paradoxes of mollitia and so ridicule Egnatius’ pretensions to stylish excess. Catullus 38 637.  A. G a v r i l o v , Catull c. 38, 7–8: Mitgefühl vs. Consolatio, Hyperboreus 4, 1998, 362–386 [in Russian; abs. in German]. 638.  L. G a m b e r a l e , L’amicizia delusa: una lettura del carme 38 di Catullo, InvLuc 21, 1999, 167–182. 639.  Th. B u r k a r d , Zu Catullus 38. Gedicht. Ein Interpretationsvorschlag, Hermes 134.2, 2006, 181–194. 640.  L. M. K o w e r s k i , Sadder than Simonidean tears: Cornificius and Simonides in Catullus 38. CW 101.2, 2007–2008, 139–157. Again, there are two distinct ways of reading this poem: it is either a genuine plea for  a consolatio or  a witty, mock-bathetic poetic challenge. G a v r i l o v (637) recommends removing the comma after verse 7, turning the last line (with ellipsis of est) into a predicate: the text concludes not with a request for poetry but with a sad gnomic pronouncement. By referencing Simonides, G a m b e r a l e (638) proposes, Catullus indicates that the occasion for his request is the death of his brother; stylistic deficiencies produce the impression of his own reduced poetic capacity. B u r k a r d (639) construes qua (5) as the equivalent of quali and suggests Catullus is reproaching Cornificus for attempting to cheer him with  a perfunctory verbal address (allocutione)  that has depressed him even more. For c. 38 as poetic challenge, see W r a y (240, 100–101). A newly discovered elegiac fragment of Simonides (fr. 11 W2) recalling the heroes of the Trojan War leads K o w e r s k i (640) to conjecture that Catullus is asking Cornificius to send him extracts from his epyllion Glaucus. Catullus 40 641.  J. H.  N i c h o l s o n , Word Play in Catullus 40, LCM 20.3–4, 1995, 45–50. Observing verbal echoes of c. 15, starting with meos amores (7), N i c h o l s o n (641) assigns this poem to the Juventius group; positing that ‘Ravidus’ (by syncopation = raudus, ‘bronze’) puns on the name ‘Aurelius’, he hypothesizes that the latter is being threatened for making further overtures toward the boy. I n g l e h e a r t (382, 59–62) suggests that ‘Ravidus’, an otherwise unattested cognomen, is a speaking name based on the adjective rabidus, connoting not only madness but animality and thereby paying homage to Archilochus and the iambic tradition.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

257

Catullus 41 and 43 642.  P. M u r g a t r o y d , A note on the structure and punctuation of Catullus 43, EMC 29, 1985, 121–123. Discussion of cc. 41 and 43 as an ‘Ameana cycle’, energetically pursued during the 1970s, has ebbed. Judging by the dearth of recent work, these two poems may not be suited to prevailing theoretically-based approaches. M u r g a t r o y d , in his formalist essay (642) suggests that lines 1–4 and 5–8 are two balancing units, and therefore recommends placing a full stop after line 4. This results in a tricolon diminuendo: nec…nec…nec and te…tecum are capped by line 8, the only sentence occupying a single end-stopped line. S h a p i r o (588) examines c. 41, along with c. 42, as an attack on self-delusory behavior. Catullus 42 643.  G. A u g e l l o , Catullo  e il folklore: la flagitatio nel c. 42, in: Studi di Filologia Classica in onore di Giusto Monaco, 4 vols., Palermo 1991, II.723–735. 644.  S. M. G o l d b e r g , Catullus 42 and the Comic Legacy, in: G. V o g t S p i r a  – E. S t ä r k (eds.), Dramatische Wäldchen: Festschrift für Eckard Lefèvre zum 65. Geburtstag, Spudasmata 80, Hildesheim 2000, 475–489. Present opinion no longer seeks to identify the unnamed target of Catullus’ hendecasyllables with either Ameana or Lesbia. A u g e l l o (643) re-examines flagitatio as a punitive strategy within the larger context of Catullan folkloric motifs. To prove the neoteric poets’ indebtedness to Roman comedy, G o l d b e r g (644) argues on metrical and stylistic grounds that c. 42 is based upon the flagitatio scene in Plautus’ Pseudolus (357–370). The change in tactics in which praise is substituted for ineffective blame involves  a shift in comic values as well as comic strategies. N a p p a (238, 142–147) offers  a metapoetic interpretation in which the woman, by resisting attempts to shame her, transforms the content of the verses and therefore becomes an emblem of the ‘vicissitudes of reception’. In lines 8–9, mimice… / ridentem catuli ore Gallicani, H e y w o r t h (298, 130) and I n g l e h e a r t (382, 52 n. 6) observe a self-referential pun (‘laughing like a mime-actress…with the face of a dog (catulus / Catullus) from Cisalpine Gaul’)42 that, as often in iamb, equates poet and victim.

42 I n g l e h e a r t credits J. P. H a l l e t t , Plautine Ingredients in the Performance of the Pseudolus, CW 87.1, 1993, 22 n. 9, for first making this suggestion. H e y w o r t h apparently proposes it independently. No one goes on to say that mimice might bear on W i s e m a n ’ s contention (82, 188–189, 192–193) that Catullus wrote mimes.

258

Marilyn B. Skinner

Catullus 44 645.  D. B. G e o r g e , C. 44: The Vulnerability of Wanting to Be Included, AJPh 112, 1991, 247–250. 646.  F. X. R y a n , Two Persons in Catullus, GIF 48, 1996, 85–91. 647.  E. Z a i n a , Catullo 44, 50 y 51: el cuerpo atravesado por la litteratura, Emerita 65.2, 1997, 303–307. 648.  B. V i n e , A Hipponactean Echo in Catullus (Frigus, 44.20), CPh 104.2, 2009, 213–216. 649.  W. S.  H a n s e n , Catullus 44: The Invulnerability of Not Caring to Be Included, CW 104.4, 2011, 419–426. Catullus’ direct address to his farm (o funde noster, 1) signifies, in C l a u s e n ’ s view (67, 14–15) that the poem is  a verse epistle. G e o r g e ’ s seminal reading (645) established the Catullus of c. 44 as a status-seeker who ruefully attributes his recent malady to a mistaken attempt at currying favor with P. Sestius. R y a n (646) proposes that Antius, the candidate attacked by Sestius in his speech, sought the aedileship in 54 or 53 BCE; Sestius, he adds, might have been standing for the same office. Z a i n a (647) studies c. 44 as one of three poems in which writing is represented as having a physiological effect upon the speaker. He contrasts the chilling quality of Sestius’ florid Asiatic style with the fever triggered by Calvus’ improvised verse in c. 50 and the disorientation created through reproducing Sappho’s catalogue of erotic symptoms in c. 51. From impressions of Sestius conveyed in Cicero’s letters and other sources, S k i n n e r (239, 59–64) extrapolates his likely reaction, as imagined by readers who knew him personally, to c. 44 if delivered in his company. V i n e (648) thinks frigus may allude to a prominent theme in Hipponax’ choliambs, the discomforts of cold weather. H a n s e n (649) challenges the idea that the speaker of c. 44 wants to move in fashionable circles and maintains instead that he rejects the values of Sestius’ coterie. Turning to textual criticism, B i o n d i (64, 35–38) argues that, for the deprecatio in the last lines to work properly, the reader has to be Sestius; hence V’s transmitted legit, not Lachmann’s legi, must be correct. Following a notation by Avancius, he then takes legit as present tense and transposes the last two words to restore the meter. Catullus 45 650.  D. A u v e r l o t , La représentation de la passion dans le carmen 45 de Catulle. IL 37, 1985, 124–128. 651.  M. F. W i l l i a m s , Amor’s Head-Cold (Frigus in Catullus 45), CJ 83, 1988, 128–132. 652.  E. F r u e h , ‘Sinistra Ut Ante Dextra’: Reading Catullus 45, CW 84, 1990, 15–21.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

259

653.  D. G a g l i a r d i , Un sogno ad occhi aperti (struttura e significato del c. 45 di Catullo), CCC 11, 1990, 65–73. 654.  K. K l a u s , Zu den Gedichten 1 und 45 und 51, Anregung 36.6, 1990, 373–381. 655.  A. S. G r a t w i c k , Those sneezes: Catullus 45.8–9, 17–18, CPh 87, 1992, 234–240. 656.  R. K i t z i n g e r , Reading Catullus 45, CJ 87.3, 1992, 209–217. 657.  R. N e w t o n , Acme and Septimius Recounted: Catullus 45, SyllClass 7, 1996, 99–105. 658.  R. S k l e n á ř , Jaroslav Vrchlický’s ‘Akmé’ and Catullus 45, CJ 94.2, 2001, 173–177. 659.  K. T h o m a m ü l l e r , Anonymus auctor Graecus, Ποίημα περὶ ζεύγους ἐρώντων = Carmen de amantium pare = Gedicht über ein Liebespaar: das Catull zugeschriebene Carmen 45: der Urgrund seines Entstehens, sein Schicksal, sein Wiedererstehen, Scripta Redintegrata 2, Glückstadt 2007. 660.  F. C a i r n s , The Genre ‘Oaristys’, WS 123, 2010, 101–129. The ambiguities of c. 45, syntactic and tonal, continue to spark controversy. A u v e r l o t (650) holds that Septimius is portrayed as  a victim drunk with passion, an example of the erotic obsession condemned by Lucretius. The adjective misellus (21) expresses a judgment on the part of the narrator, indicating how greatly the young man is to be pitied. Septimius incarnates the poet’s experience with the miseries of love. W i l l i a m s (651) feels the reader should be put on guard by the couple’s overblown protestations. Amor’s sneezes may indicate that he too has caught  a cold from the same kind of bombastic ‘frigidity’ that brought on Catullus’ illness in the previous poem. F r u e h (652) considers indeterminacy  a central feature of the text. The refrain sinistra ut ante dextra plays on the essentially ambiguous nature of divination in the Roman world. Meanwhile, elements of syntax in lines 19–26, although they reinforce the notion of reciprocity in the lovers’ posture and language, encapsulate the contradictions in their respective viewpoints. Heatedly rejecting A u v e r l o t ’ s view (650) that the poem depicts a furtivus amor condemned by philosophy and civil society, G a g l i a r d i (653) proclaims it a reverie of ideal love imagined by Catullus shortly before his death. K l a u s (654) is  a straightfoward, irony-free explication of the poem designed (along with cc. 1 and 51) for introductory Latin instruction. G r a t w i c k (655) re­opens the problem of ut ante at 45.8 by transposing to ut dixit, ut ante Amor, sinistra and explaining ut…ut as equivalent to the Greek idiom ὡς… ὡς… indicating simultaneity. K i t z i n g e r (656) likewise emphasizes  a fundamental indeterminacy, which arises, she thinks, from the use of multiple perspectives – those of Septimius, Acme, Amor and a narrator only too inclined to believe in the pair’s perfect harmony, despite evidence to the contrary. The closing questions (25–26) invite readers to be more

260

Marilyn B. Skinner

skeptical about future happiness even with divine favor, a judgment precipitated by the notoriously opaque language of the refrain. Noting the recurrence of numerical imagery in c. 45, and reading it alongside several Lesbia poems in which love is also quantified, N e w t o n (657) concludes that the vignette of Septimius and Acme provides a bittersweet retrospective comment upon the outcome of the author’s affair. S k l e n á ř (658) studies an adaptation of c. 45 by the Czech poet Jaroslav Vrichlický (1853–1912): while the modern artist preserves the tripartite structure of the original, he departs from it in other ways, not least by transforming it into an episode of seduction. T h o m a m ü l l e r (659) postulates that Catullus translated an original Greek poem, itself inspired by visual portrayals of courting couples (e.g. the tondo of a kylix in the Yale University collection [1913.163]), and attempts to reconstruct both the Greek text and Catullus’ own translation, which, he contends, was altered substantially by later editors. In an earlier publication C a i r n s (71) challenges G r a t w i c k ’ s attempt (655) to resolve the problems of the refrain (8–9 and 17–18) by transposing ut ante, and in a second (302) he revives Emil Baehrens’ suggestion that ante must be understood in a spatial sense. He also returns to the question of ‘sincerity’. Generically, c. 45 belongs to the category of courtship poems, for which he proposes the term ‘oaristys’. Having outlined the formulary ingredients of such poems and argued that Roman readers did not expect the genre to treat love cynically, he concludes that an ironic interpretation is erroneous: Catullus intended to celebrate and immortalize the mutual love of Septimius and Acme. For comparative purposes a third C a i r n s essay (660), which enumerates all other ancient examples of the oaristys and discusses individual combinations of topoi in detail, may be useful. Catullus 46 661.  E. G. S i l z e r , Catullus and Spring, Carmen 46, MA thesis, U. Alberta 1985. 662.  C. J. S i m p s o n   – B. G. S i m p s o n , Catullus 46, Latomus 48.1, 1989, 75–85. 663.  F. C a i r n s , Catullus 46, 9–11 and Ancient ‘Etymologies’, RFIC 119, 1991, 442–445. 664.  R. S c h i e v e n i n , Il carme 46 di Catullo, Aufidus 25, 1995, 19–30. 665.  M. v o n A l b r e c h t , Natur und Landschaft in der römischen Lyrik dargestellt an Frühlingsgedichten: (Catull, 46; Horaz, carm. 1, 4; 4, 7; 4, 12), in: G. S i e b e r t (ed.), Nature et paysage dans la pensée et l’environment des civilisations antiques. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 11–12 juin 1992, Université des Sciences humaines de Strasbourg: Travaux du Centre de Recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques, 14, Paris, 1996, 145–157. S i l z e r (661) compares c. 46 with other ancient verses about spring, including Lucretius’ proem to DNR, in order to demonstrate that it constructs a philosophical analogy between the seasonal cycle and human life. S i m p s o n  – S i m p s o n (662),

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

261

on the other hand, find  a tissue of references to neoteric poetry and suggest that, on a second level, it is a poetological announcement of intensified literary endeavor. C a i r n s (663) argues that in the concluding lines Catullus draws on etymologies associating both diversus and varie with via and linking together comitum, coetus, and coire. For S c h i e v e n i n (664), c. 46 juxtaposes two themes, the long-awaited arrival of spring and the parting from friends, which combine to create an emotional paradox. However, the final word reportant recalls refert in the first line, bringing closure to the pattern of lexical, structural, and phonetic analogies and oppositions running through the poem. V o n A l b r e c h t (665) approaches the poem generically, contrasting it with its predecessors, Hellenistic epigrams on spring, and its successors, three Horatian odes on the same topic. Catullus does not mention the opening of the sailing season and suppresses the god Priapus’ usual epigrammatic exhortation to set sail. Instead, he parallels the arrival of spring with reanimated personal feelings; this shift from the external world to private subjectivity is his own invention, stemming from the new emphasis on the individual that arose in late Republican times. Horace’s reflections on spring as a paradigm for the course of human life are, in turn, a departure from Catullus’ poem, replicating Augustan goals of situating the individual within nature, religion, and society. T r a i n a (333, 294–296) bases his structural analysis on a contrast of verbal tenses and moods: descriptive indicatives in lines 1–3 and 7–8 contrast with exhortations in lines 4–6 and imperatives in 9–11. Catullus 47 666.  H. D e t t m e r , A note on Catullus 47, CW 79, 1985, 577–579. 667.  E. B. H o l t s m a r k , A note on logotactic iconicity (Catullus 1 and 47), LCM 12.9, 1987, 130–132. 668.  D. S i d e r , The Love Poetry of Philodemus, AJPh 108.2, 1987, 310–324. 669.  R. F. T h o m a s , This Little Piggy Had Roast Beef (Catullus 47), Prudentia 26.1, 1994, 147–152. 670.  S. O. S h a p i r o , Socration or Philodemus? Catullus 47 and Prosopographical Excess, CJ 109.4, 2014, 385–405. According to D e t t m e r (666), ‘Porcius’ and ‘Socration’ correlate as noms de guerre with the names of the addressees Fabullus and Veranius. Porcius is related to Fabullus, derived from the root fab-, ‘bean’, through a joint tie with foodstuffs; Socration, as a philosophic seeker after truth, is linked to Veranius by  a supposed etymological association with verus. Both fictitious names, in addition, have secondary obscene meanings. H o l t s m a r k (667) proposes an indecent pun involving praeposuit (5). In the first four lines word order places Porcius and Socration before Veranius and Fabullus, both pairs in turn being followed by verpus…Priapus. The last three lines, however, reverse the relative position of the dyads, in ‘an amusing pictorial form of ring composition that is as malicious as it is delicious’. S i d e r (668, 321–323) vigorously defends the identification of Socration with the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus

262

Marilyn B. Skinner

after showing that the woman called Xantho or Xanthippe in his epigrams is to be regarded as his wife. T h o m a s (669) posits that Porcius is the cryptonym of another Epicurean associate of Piso  – possibly Lucretius? J a c o b s o n (51, 93) likewise believes it a derogatory nickname. Conversely, S h a p i r o (670) maintains there is no viable evidence to support the claim that Socration is a pseudonym for Philodemus; she thinks both Porcius and Socration are type characters defined by redende Namen and contests S i d e r ’ s idea (668) that Philodemus himself adopted the aliases Socration and Xanthippe for himself and his Epicurean partner. Catullus 49 671.  C. D e r o u x , Le plus mauvais de tous les poètes et le meilleur de tous les avocats, in: Hommages Bardon (166), 124–138. 672.  –, Catulle et Cicéron ou les raisons d’un silence, LEC 53, 1985, 221–246. 673.  A. S e t a i o l i , Il carme di Catullo a Cicerone. Una messa a punto, Studi in onore di A. Barigazzi, 2 vols., Rome 1986, II.211–217. 674.  W. J. T a t u m , Catullus’ Criticism of Cicero in Poem 49, TAPhA 118, 1988, 221–245. 675.  L. T r o m a r a s , Catull und Cicero (Catulls c. 49), in: Πρακτικά γ’ Πανελληνίου Σuμποσίου Λατινικών Σπουδών. Θέμα: “Ρητορική Τέχνη και Ρητορική Διάσταση στη Λατινική Γραμματεία”, Thessalonika 1989, 17–32. 676.  T. A d a m i k , Catullo e Cicerone: il carmo 49, ACD 25, 1989, 67–72. 677.  C. J. C. F e r n á n d e z , Catulo y Cicerón: (Catulo 49): nuevos argumentos a favor de interpretación irónica, in: L. F e r r e r e s (ed.), Treballs en honor de Virgilio Bejarano, 2 vols., Barcelona 1991, I.201–210. 678.  S. H. S v a v a r s s o n , On Catullus 49, CJ 95, 1999, 131–138. 679.  R. S. K i l p a t r i c k , Quanto tu optimus omnium patronus (Catullus XLIX), in: Hommages Deroux (169), 267–275. In the first of two related studies arguing that c. 49 is ironic, D e r o u x (671) undertakes  a grammatical and logical exegesis of the correlative ablatives of measure tanto…quanto (6–7). His second essay (672) reconstructs the circumstances of composition. Through his successful defense of Caelius in April 56 BCE, Cicero believed he had indirectly done Catullus a favor, but the poet offers evidence of his displeasure. Posing as the munus given in exchange for an unspecified service, c. 49 is a performative utterance. By speaking of himself in the third person Catullus fastidiously distances himself from Cicero. The threefold repetition of omnium recalls the orator’s sly employment of the same word against Clodia, amicam omnium (Cael. 32) and omnium cupiditati (Cael. 49), with the implication ‘no matter whom’. Omnium patronus implies, accordingly, that Cicero in procuring Caelius’ acquital had assisted a blackguard (‘un canaille’).

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

263

S e t a i o l i (673) also thinks omnium patronus an allusion to Cicero’s amicam omnium but unearths  a different insinuation: reviving  a neglected suggestion by F. Schoell,43 he proposes that the exact lexical correspondence of the two phrases makes Cicero into (to quote Schoell’s words) an ‘advokatische Hure’. For T a t u m (674), though, the sting of this squib instead lies in optimus…patronus, because the adjective connotes nobility of (Roman) birth as well as excellence at a skill. Catullus’ irony thus mocks Cicero’s social and political pretensions. T r o m a r a s (675) is  a rhetorical analysis of c. 49. The poem contains an ostensible laudatio of Cicero and an ostensible vituperatio of Catullus, two structurally balanced topoi whose functions are then reversed, so that the laudatio becomes a vituperatio and vice-versa. In the first book of De oratore, published in 55 BCE, Cicero’s spokesman Antonius distinguishes between disertus and eloquens: the latter term connotes rhetorical and moral eminence, the former only  a polished speaking style. A d a m i k (676) consequently perceives  a tension between the superlative form disertissime and the negative coloring of the address. He accepts D e r o u x ’ proposal (672) about the occasion of the poem and also sees a reference to the Pro Caelio in omnium patronus. F e r n á n d e z (677) makes several observations in favor of an ironic interpretation. Morphological and syntactical analysis shows that gratias tibi maximas Catullus  /  agit (4–5) is the pivotal element in the scheme, suggesting  a factual explanation not forthcoming; Catullus applies the formula pessimus poeta to himself in c. 36, where irony is evident; in numerous other poems repetition of the same or similar language as at the beginning asks the reader to take that language in a different sense, so optimus omnium patronus may negate disertissime; finally, c. 49 introduces  a series of other poems, c. 50 and cc. 52–53, which celebrate the wit and oratorical skills of Calvus and denigrate Vatinius, whom Calvus prosecuted and Cicero defended. S v a v a r s s o n (678) believes that, in alleging he is not optimus…patronus, Catullus denies Cicero’s oratorical superiority: his turgid Asian rhetoric makes him old-fashioned in the eyes of contemporary Atticists like Calvus. K i l p a t r i c k (679) responds to D e r o u x ’ two 1985 essays (671 and 672) by suggesting that optimus omnium patronus really means ‘best patron of all poets’, intended as a playful tribute to Cicero for his eloquent defense of poetry in the Pro Archia. The ironists, we see, are clearly in the majority and, if one seeks to explain the text along those lines, Deroux’ and Setaioli’s independent perceptions of an intertextual reference in omnium seem to be gaining followers and may have lasting merit. Catullus 50 680.  D. L. B u r g e s s , Catullus c. 50: The Exchange of Poetry, AJPh 107, 1986, 576–586. 681.  L. L a n d o l f i , I lusus simposiali di Catullo e Calvo, o dell’improvvizazione conviviale neoterica, QUCC 53, 1986, 77–89. 43 F. S c h o e l l , Zu Catullus, Jahrbücher 1. class. Philol. 26, 1880, 471–496.

264

Marilyn B. Skinner

682.  O. S c h ö n b e r g e r , Zwei Catull-Gedichte (carmen 50 und carmen 70), in: P. N e u k a m (ed.), Exempla Classica, Munich 1987, 122–140. 683.  F. D u p o n t , The Invention of Literature: From Greek Intoxication to the Latin Book, trans. J. L l o y d , Baltimore and London 1999 (= L’invention de la littérature, Paris 1994). Chap. 3: The Games of Catullus, 111–127. 684.  E. G u n d e r s o n , Catullus, Pliny, and Love-Letters, TAPhA 127, 1997, 201–231. 685.  M. P a s c o - P r a n g e r , Sustaining Desire: Catullus 50, Gallus, and Pro­ per­tius 1.10, CQ 59.1, 2009, 142–146. B u r g e s s (680) hypothesizes that the poetic game Catullus and Calvus play at the opening of the poem involves responsive composition, in which one party sets a theme and the other caps it. Citing other instances of amoebaean exchange (cc. 45 and 62) and literary requests (cc. 65, 68, 38 and 14), he proposes that Catullus is obligating Calvus to continue the game by writing a poetic reply using the same erotic conceits employed in c. 50. This reading has been enormously influential, setting the pattern for more extensive studies of literary reciprocity by W r a y (240, 98–107) and S t r o u p (278, 66–100). In  a related essay, L a n d o l f i (681) studies the ‘metasymposiac’ features of c. 50, focusing upon the convivial setting of neoteric literary competition. Comparing epigrams by Hedylus preserved in Athenaeus (Deip. 11.472F–473A; G–P 5 and 6), he shows that improvised versification is a traditional motif of Hellenistic sympotic poetry. S c h ö n b e r g e r (682) provides condensed critical treatments of c. 50 and c. 70 for the benefit of Latin teachers, approaching the former as a neoteric literary manifesto and the latter as an introduction to the Lesbia poems. From the similarity between the amatory language in c. 50 and that of friendship in Cicero’s De amicitia (27), W i l l i a m s (360, 72) concludes ‘Poem 50 is about amicitia, its halting beginnings, its pleasures remembered and anticipated’. More recent work interrogates poetic desire and absence. In her book D u p o n t (683) investigates the relationship between ancient orality, models of reading, and writing practices. In antiquity, which she claims had no concept of literature as we know it today, the oral component of poetry was privileged and books were no substitute for the human voice. Thus she understands c. 50, one of her exemplary Roman texts, as the record of a heady face-to-face game of words in which Licinius, through personal charm and wit, emerged the victor; the actual oral performance at the comissatio, which created the lack acknowledged in the body of the poem, cannot be recovered. Applying a Lacanian template, G u n d e r s o n (684) studies Catullus’ and Pliny’s respective literary correspondence as mechanisms for regulating homosocial affect. Catullus’ epistle to Calvus forges a cathexis of love and literature necessary for the emergence of the poetic persona, while Pliny’s letters put Catullus’ intersubjective literary desire ‘onto a moralized axis’, allowing for proper integration within a cultural community. W r a y (240, 95–109) takes cc. 50 and 51 as an epistolatory pair, both concerned with performing masculinity: the first poem opens up space for softness, hedonism and poetic play, the fourth stanza of the second closing it down with a stern

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

265

warning. For P a s c o - P r a n g e r (685), finally, Propertius 1.10 critiques Catullus’ model of literary exchange, dependent as it is upon tablets: taking the place of Nemesis as an enforcer of reciprocity, the puella becomes both the material of verse traded between men and herself the producer of textual / sexual pleasure. Catullus 51 More than any other piece in the polymetric collection, c. 51 continues to provoke an exceptional amount of scholarly discussion. Prior to 1985, much of the literature was devoted to defending or rejecting the authenticity of the fourth stanza, but almost all the studies listed below now take it to be integral to the poem and debate accordingly centers upon its contribution to the meaning. Many discussions are comparatively brief and concerned with minor points, so the following review must necessarily be selective. *686. S. R. R u s s e l l , Studies in Sappho fragment 31 L–P and Catullus, ­poems 11, 50 and 51, diss. NYU 1986 [abs. at http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy2.library. arizona.edu/pqdtft/docview/303440001/Record/5E02B5972B064682PQ/17? accountid=8360]. 687.  E. L e f è v r e , Otium und τολμᾶν: Catulls Sappho-Gedicht c. 51, RhM 131, 1988, 324–337. 688.  R. J. B a k e r , ‘Well Begun, Half Done’: ‘Otium’ at Catullus 51 and Ennius, ‘Iphigenia’, Mnemosyne 42.3–4, 1989, 492–497. 689.  M. J. E d w a r d s , Greek into Latin. A Note on Catullus and Sappho, Latomus 48, 1989, 590–600. 690.  C. S e g a l , Otium and Eros. Catullus, Sappho and Euripides’ Hippolytus, Latomus 48, 1989, 817–822. 691.  D. O ’ H i g g i n s , Sappho’s Splintered Tongue: Silence in Sappho 31 and Catullus 51, AJPh 111, 1990, 156–167. 692.  N. M a r i n o n e , L’acufene di Saffo e di Catullo, in: Analecta Graecolatina, Bologna 1990, 185–189 (= Studi di Filologia Classica in onore di Giusto Monaco, 4 vols., Palermo 1991, I.115–119). 693.  B. V i n e , On the ‘missing’ fourth stanza of Catullus 51, HSCPh 94, 1992, 251–261. 694.  P. A. M i l l e r , Sappho 31 and Catullus 51: The Dialogism of Lyric, Arethusa 21, 1993, 183–199. 695.  S.  T h o m , Confrontation with Reality in Catullus 51, Akroterion 40, 1995, 80–86. 696.  S. R o m a n o M a r t i n , “Perdidit urbes”: Catulo, Safo… y Alceo, in: A. M. A l d a m a (ed.), De Roma al siglo XX, 2 vols., Madrid 1996, 421–428. 697.  M. I. P a p a m i c h a e l , Τὸ ὑπ’ ἀριθμόν 51 ποίημα τοῦ Κατούλλου: (μετάφραση ή μίμηση;) in: D. E. K o u t r o u m p a s (ed.), Imitatio in litteris Latinis, Athens 1996, 205–210 [in Greek; abs. in Eng.].

266

Marilyn B. Skinner

698.  J. D a n g e l , Catulle, carmen 51: étude stylistique d’une réécriture de Sapho, Euphrosyne n.s. 24, 1996, 77–97 [abs. in Eng.]. 699.  J. M. M i l l i k e n , What’s otium got to do with it? Catullus 51 and Sappho 31, NECJ 26.1, 1998, 27–34. 700.  E. G r e e n e , Re-Figuring the Feminine Voice: Catullus Translating Sappho, Arethusa 32, 1999, 1–18. 701.  L. R a d i f , Note catulliane: un’equazione ricca di incognite, Maia 51.3, 1999, 401–403. 702.  E. Z a i n a , Nota a Catulo c. 51, RCCM 42.1, 2000, 105–107. 703.  A. P a r d i n i , A Homeric formula in Catullus: (c. 51.11–12, “gemina teguntur lumina nocte”), TAPhA 131, 2001, 109–118 (= Gli occhi di Catullo: una formula omerica nel “carmen” 51, ARF 3, 2001, 5–10). 704.  A. J. D ’A n g o u r , Conquering Love: Sappho 31 and Catullus 51, CQ 56.1, 2006, 297–300. 705.  A. B a r b i e r i , “Otium”: Catullo, Lesbia  e il “mos maiorum”, Habis 37, 2006, 301–317 [abs. in Spanish and English]. 706.  A. J. W o o d m a n , Catullus 51: A Suitable Case for Treatment? CQ 56.2, 2006, 610–611. 707.  C. A. C l a r k , The Poetics of Manhood? Nonverbal behavior in Catullus 51, CPh 103.3, 2008, 257–281. 708.  G. L o t i t o , “Gemina teguntur / lumina nocte”:  a proposito di Catullo 51, 11–12, in: P. A r d u i n i et al. (eds.), Studi offerti ad Alessandro Perutelli, 2 vols., Rome 2008, II.125–136. 709.  O. T h é v e n a z , Procès d’intentions: le cas de Sappho traduite par Catulle (fragment 31 Voigt – poème 51), in: D. van M a l - M a e d e r et al. (eds.), Jeux de voix: énonciation, intertextualité et intentionnalité dans la littérature antique, Bern 2009, 57–88. 710.  T. B e a s l e y , A Homeric Echo in Catullus 51, CQ 62.2, 2012, 862–863. 711.  B. E. S t e v e n s , Chap. 7: ‘Feminized’ Voices and their Silences, Part 2, in: Silence (231), 237–256. 712.  E. M. Y o u n g , Chap. 6: Surpassing the Gods: Infatuation and Agonism in Catullus’s Sappho (51), in: Translation as Muse (232), 166–181. According to R u s s e l l ’s abstract (*686), ‘Poem 50 is understood as referring to and introducing poem 51…Catullus’s rivalry with Calvus leads him to a rivalry with Sappho. His attempt to take over the Greek poem into Latin leads to reflections on the power of Greek poetry over Latin poetry. Poems 50 and 51 are shown to have a peculiarly reciprocal relationship with reference to interpretation’. L e f è v r e (687) regards the fourth stanza of c. 51 as a kind of Hellenistic ἀπροσδόκητον: otium is a consequence of amor, a state of paralysis that Catullus nevertheless accepts. His poem therefore differs fundamentally from its model, for in the Sapphic original the

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

267

speaker not only resigns herself to enduring what is inescapable but also brings her sensations back under control. Sappho speaks to the girl as one member of a community to another; Catullus speaks not to Lesbia but to himself. B a k e r (688) cites a fragment of Ennius’ Iphigenia (ap. Gell. 19.10.12) to support his contention that otium molestum expresses  a failure to pursue love energetically, which has demoralizing outcomes. E d w a r d s (689) also closely compares Sappho’s and Catullus’ texts, finding nuances of expression that differentiate the two speakers, largely along gender lines (Sappho is ‘a feeble but sensitive woman’, Catullus ‘a noted man of letters, and also a man of affairs and some property’). The Roman poet’s departures from the original are personal and the translation is done ‘in character’; that is, the identities of the three principals are presumed to be known to the reader. Finally, Catullus struggles between his duty as an elite Roman male and his temperament; since he cannot accept his condition as a natural state, he does not cultivate Sappho’s ‘impotent detachment’. In Catullus’ closing stanza S e g a l (690) discovers reminiscences of Euripides’ Hippolytus, chiefly Phaedra’s aidôs-speech (373–430). O ’ H i g g i n s (691) contrasts the implications of a silenced tongue in each version of the poem. In an oral culture, Sappho’s inability to communicate amounts to her death as a poet. Catullus, on the other hand, retains his poetic identity even if unable to speak, since his works are already committed to tablets or papyrus. In her concluding lines, Sappho, by resolving that ‘all may be dared’, wills her voice back into existence, while Catullus, after loss of consciousness at the end of his third stanza, needs to shift to another plane of reality outside the Sapphic scenario. The threefold repetition of otium, which O’Higgins takes as referring to a kind of inertia, ‘formalizes the emotional and literary distance between himself and his subject’. M a r i n o n e (692) deduces that Catullus’ Alexandrian edition of Sappho may have contained the variant reading ἐπιβρóμεισι (11–12). V i n e (693) argues that Catullus compresses motifs and expressions from Sappho’s fourth stanza into his third stanza; in gemina teguntur / lumina nocte, for example, he metaphorically conflates her ‘sightless eyes’ (31.11) with the darkness of death. M i l l e r (694) takes up Bakhtin’s distinction between ‘monologic’ poetry and the ‘dialogic’ novel (on this same issue see also B a t s t o n e [254]). Implicit in Bakhtin’s theory, he maintains, is a further distinction between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ dialogism – the former comprising ordinary exchanges of speech acts between fictive or real individuals and groups, the latter involving the way words have previously been used in specific social and historical contexts. That distinction is then mapped onto the difference between lyrics designed for oral performance and lyrics composed for reading, as represented by Sappho 31 and Catullus 51 respectively. These, he argues, are radically distinct genres of composition. Necessarily directed towards an immediate audience, oral poetry must occur within  a performative context in order to have communal meaning; hence Sappho’s poem must have been sung at a wedding, the only occasion on which a man and a woman could publicly interact together. In Catullus’ translation, on the other hand, the dialogical relation has changed; the author is thinking of private readers, and other poems in the corpus supply the primary context in which c. 51 is to be understood. Application of the name Lesbia to the beloved creates reverberations for Catullus’ relationship to both his reading public and his

268

Marilyn B. Skinner

predecessors, while adoption of  a female voice inserts the poem into an inter- and intra-textual web of other Catullan poems involving sex-role reversal. In contrast to the linear temporal movement of Sappho’s performances to her community, each moment of the Catullan ego as presented within the collection is part of a complex dialogue oscillating between the poems as well as moving back and forth temporally in its relationship to the literary tradition. Both Sappho’s and Catullus’ texts, T h o m (695) believes, describe a confrontation with reality in which symptoms of psychosomatic suffering, represented in physical terms, almost overcome the subject, but are mastered by force of will and poetic genius. Sappho’s poem incorporates a cyclic vision of impending revival, Catullus’ a realistic diagnosis of his state. The existence of his own poem, however, indicates that creative control has been re-established. R o m a n o M a r t i n (696) suggests an allusion to Alcaeus fr. 42 V in lines 15–16 of c. 51. P a p a m i c h a e l (697) considers Catullus’ poem a translation of Sappho with adjustments according to his own concepts and requirements. Reading the first three stanzas of c. 51 closely, D a n g e l (698) observes lexical, syntactic, metrical and aspectual deviations from the original in keeping with a different poetic conception: Sappho’s poem entails narrative description, Catullus’ is an argumentative and rhetorical statement. The apparent rupture of continuity in the fourth stanza has the function of closing  a periodic poem. Retrospective reading, in contrast to  a normal linear reading, clarifies that what is meant by otium ­molestum is the condition of otium pulchrum et venustum depicted in the first stanza, the antithesis of the speaker’s own ‘descent into hell’ in the body of the poem. Finally, Homeric language found throughout the poem points to a fusion of epic and lyric genres. M i l l i k e n (699) thinks c. 51 is not to be understood as the first of the Lesbia poems but is associated instead with the later poems of disillusionment. In his translation Catullus systematically overstates Sappho’s description of her condition. The translation and the concluding stanza are couched in separate voices: the former verbalizes his obsession with Lesbia, the latter the destructive nature of that obsession. For G r e e n e (700), erotic triangulation operates differently in the two com­ positions. In Sappho, the figure of the man is subordinated to the speaker’s engagement with her own responses, but in Catullus the speaker and his rival, who is emblematic of the pressures of negotium, are in primary relation to one another. The contrast between ille and the lover represents  a way for Catullus to explore not only two distinct responses to erotic experience but anxiety over pursuing an erotic life in the context of a male public culture that values duty over hedonism. Catullus’ ‘translation’ of Sappho’s poem expresses his own incapacity to enter fully into Sappho’s world of feminine desire and imagination. R a d i f (701) proposes that the final stanza of c. 51, which illustrates the destructive power of otium by alluding to the fates of Priam and Troy, draws on the representation of Helen in Sappho fr. 16 V. Z a i n a (702) finds that Catullus took from Sappho a model of representing amatory relations: a woman of dreadful beauty, a disturbing rival, and the sufferings of the excluded lover. Gemina teguntur / lumina nocte, according to P a r d i n i (703), is a direct translation of the Homeric formula ἀμφὶ δὲ ὄσσε κελαινὴ νὺξ ἐκάλυψε (Il. 5.310 = 11.356), overlaying

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

269

the notion of death on the Sapphic conceit of sightlessness. D ’A n g o u r (704) speculates that Sappho’s final strophe may have concluded by recognizing Aphrodite’s capacity to destroy kings and cities, a power that Catullus transferred to otium. In support of the unity of c. 51, B a r b i e r i (705) studies the implications of otium in the fourth stanza: its association with the neoteric values of c. 50; its echoes of Alcaeus and Euripides’ Hippolytus; its distance from the Ciceronian conception of otium cum dignitate, which is in turn closely aligned with the mos maiorum. W o o d m a n (706) suggests that otium (understood as ‘rest’), prescribed by Celsus as a cure for sickness, continues the medical imagery introduced by misero (5) and the list of symptoms that follows. For Catullus, however, otium is molestum because it adds to his excitation (14) and contributes to the precariousness of his health (15–16). C l a r k (707) demonstrates that the Catullan speaker, while appropriating  a female voice, maintains control of his external appearance. Unlike Valerius Aedituus and Horace, who also imitate Sappho, he shows no affect displays betraying his inner turmoil, thus conforming to the code of masculinity prescribed for elite Roman men. Rigorous scrutiny of bodily behavior in the late Republican era may explain Catullus’ self-policing. L o t i t o (708) reviews prior tragic and epic employment of geminus (= δίδυμος) applied to natural pairs, along with uses of lumina as the equivalent of φάεα. Independently confirming P a r d i n i ’s perception (703) of a Homeric formula underlying the enallage, he believes that it darkly foreshadows the negative con­ sequences of otium. T h é v e n a z (709) explores the dynamics of signification in Sappho’s and Catullus’ texts by asking in each case ‘who is speaking to whom?’ He follows M i l l e r (694, 191–192) in postulating that oral and written poetry are distinguished generically by their separate contexts of utterance (énonciation). Composing for oral performance, whether choral or individual, Sappho’s je is the voice of her female community praising the beauty of  a bride and her tu is addressed to the girl whose wedding is being celebrated, for the lyric may have been re-performed on successive occasions. Classical Greek sympotic reception and later Hellenistic writings changed it, divorced from its social context, into an expression of personal desire. Catullus’ encounter with Sappho reflects that eroticizing tradition. While it is perfectly legitimate to read his poem as a profession of love by the speaker to his mistress and an explanation of the beloved’s name, the piece should also be capable of interesting a larger audience. Accordingly, Thévenaz presents multiple scenarios in which the roles of je and tu are played by others: the voice of a Latinized Sappho may deliver the first three stranzas; conversely, Sappho’s poetry itself may be addressed as tu; Lesbia or, alternatively, Sappho may confront Catullus in the last stanza. If c. 51 is read as a pendant to c. 50, the part assigned to ille at the outset admits of further possibilities. All these ‘jeux de voix’ and more can emerge from following clues presented by the text. This is a cutting-edge study that deserves to be taken into account by subseqent literature. B e a s l e y (710) thinks Catullus’ substitution of deo for Sappho’s plural θεοῖς attempts to render the Homeric formula δαίμονι ἶσος. In c. 51, S t e v e n s (711) believes, Catullus ‘ventriloquizes’ Sappho in order to portray himself as ‘feminized’ and therefore excluded from discourse, as his failing senses indicate. The poem, which

270

Marilyn B. Skinner

captures a moment of desire and, accordingly, absence, can be placed at a late stage in the narrative trajectory. Y o u n g (712) considers the poem a metaliterary statement about the ambivalence of translation itself when regarded as competitive emulation of a foreign model: the Roman artist reworking the Greek text is both awed by it and determined to supplant it. The fourth stanza, on this reading, segues into a general warning about the cultural risks of Hellenistic aestheticism. Catullus 52 713.  A. T r a i n a , Strutture catulliane. Il c. 52, AFLNice 50, 1985, 269–272. 714.  F. X. R y a n , The Date of Catullus 52, Eranos 93.2, 1995, 113–121. T r a i n a (713) traces a perfectly balanced antithetical structure: each line is divided by its caesura into isomorphic hemistiches, with subtle rhythmic variation in the two outer and two inner verses; a scheme of functional and syntactical oppositions determines the chiastic placement of proper names. M a i s o n o b e (352), included under formalist studies, is an instructive semantic analysis demonstrating that emori is more finely nuanced than the simple verb mori. Catullus’ unparalleled resort to the compound proceeds from an intention ‘machiavélique avant la lettre’ to convey the ease and joy of death as an escape from the political creatures he mocks. Because Vatinius did not actually become consul until 47 BCE, meanwhile, this poem is cited as evidence for Catullus’ death sometime later than 54 (see S k i n n e r [94] and H a m m o n d [95]). R y a n (714), however, identifying struma Nonius as Nonius Sufenas, assigns it instead to 56, calculating that he was elected aedile or praetor in the summer of that year. Catullus 53 715.  M. W e i s s , An Oscanism in Catullus 53, CPh 91.4, 1996, 353–359. 716.  C. D e r o u x , A Fresh Look at the Joke in Catullus’ poem LIII, in: C. D e r o u x (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman history XIII, Brussels 2006, 77–86. 717.  –, Petite histoire cocasse d’un mot coquin: “salaputium, -ii”, in: E. D a n b l o n  – M. K i s s i n e (eds.), Linguista sum: Mélanges offerts à Marc Dominicy à l’occasion de son soixantième anniversaire, Paris 2008, 133–146. 718.  S.  H a w k i n s , On the Oscanism Salaputium in Catullus 53, TAPhA 142.2, 2012, 329–353. On linguistic grounds, W e i s s (715) rejects previous explanations of salăpūtium as derived etymologically from pŭtus ‘little’ or morphologically related to praepūtium ‘foreskin’; he also maintains that the first two syllables cannot be linked to salāx. Connecting it instead with the Oscan roots sal- ‘salt’ and pū- ‘pure’, he proposes that salaputium disertum, ‘learned salt-purification’, compliments Calvus’ Atticizing

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

271

oratory. In response, D e r o u x (716) argues that the associations with salax and praeputium, even if etymologically problematic, would have appeared self-evident to Vulgar Latin speakers and suggests, in addition, an obscene association in thought between the adjective calvus and the glans of the penis. He repeats those arguments in his second essay (717), citing parallels from Greek (πóσθων and its derivatives used as proper names) and metaphors for the penis in modern French and Italian. H a w k i n s (718), reaffirming the Oscan etymology, associates the elder Seneca’s belief that salaputium refers to Calvus’ height (parvolus statura, Cont. 7.4.7) with Lucretius’ instance (DRN 4.1162) of  a petite girl (parvola)  being described as tota merum sal. When c. 53 is read in conjunction with the preceding poems cc. 49–52, its primary implication that Calvus, although short, was pure wit works on a deeper programmatic level, defending Atticist rhetorical principles of terseness and refinement against the criticisms of Cicero. See further the studies of Calvus’ oratorical theory enumerated above, especially those of K e i t h (132), D u g a n (133), and B a t s t o n e (134). Catullus 54 719.  P. Y. F o r s y t h , Catullus 54: A Note, CW 80.6, 1987, 421–423. F o r s y t h (719) proposes prosopographical emendations: for †et eri† (2) she suggests Atri, indicating Caesar’s junior officer Q. Atrius (BGall. 5.9.1 and 10.2); for the apparently corrupt Sufficius (5), she reads Sulpicius, referring to P. Sulpicius Rufus, his legate in Gaul from 55 to 49 BCE. Catullus 55 720.  A. L. K u t t n e r , Culture and History at Pompey’s Museum, TAPhA 129, 1999, 343–373. K u t t n e r (720, 350–351) consults c. 55 in reconstructing the content of the statuary programs in the Portico of Pompey and assessing the visual impression created by the art works within their horticultural setting. When the speaker casts himself as Hercules (13), she proposes, he alludes to a statue of the hero located there, and the description of the girls he meets in the ambulatio, with their serene faces and milky (lacteolae) skin (8, 17), suggests the group of famous courtesans supposedly included in the program. Catullus 56 721.  R. V e r d i è r e , L’étrange aventure d’un pupulus, RPh 59, 1985, 189–193. 722.  F. D e c r e u s , La notion de valeur esthétique. Application au poème 56 de Catulle, Philosophica 38.2, 1986, 77–105.

272

Marilyn B. Skinner

723.  G. C e r r i , Il carme 56 di Catullo e un’iscrizione greca di recente pubblicazione, QUCC 31.1, 1989, 59–65. 724.  A. R i c h l i n , Reading Boy-love and Child-love in the Greco-Roman World, in: M. M a s t e r s o n  – N. S. R a b i n o w i t z  – J. R o b s o n (eds.), Sex in Antiquity: Exploring Gender and Sexuality in the Ancient World, London and New York 2015, 352–373. Thirty years ago V e r d i è r e (721) attempted to render c. 56 less objectionable by proposing that trusantem, used as  a substantive, was the object of deprendi, which in turn governed pupulum meaning ‘doll’: the speaker avenges an insult to Dione (= Venus) by punishing the nameless malfeasant whom he caught damaging the toy a young girl had offered to the goddess before her wedding. That this construction is syntactically possible is the best one can say. D e c r e u s (722) employs the poem as a test case in examining the concept of ‘aesthetic value’ in the structuralist philosophy of Jan Mukařovský. Outside the artistic realm, according to Mukařovský, value is subordinated to communal norms, but, in the domain of art, norms are subordinate to value (86). In place of ancient ethical and religious norms that had lost credibility, Catullus, Decreus argues, confronts his readers with poetry based upon an entirely different Callimachean value system. Schematic analysis of c. 56 reveals the intricate relations of sound, meter, syntax and lexemes producing its leptotês. C e r r i (723) cites as a parallel a newly discovered verse inscription on a Greek drinking cup featuring a boy who desires a girl and an adult male pedicator; he suggests that Catullus draws upon a common patrimony of obscene sayings and songs to which the carmina triumphalia also belong. R i c h l i n (724, 356–358) asserts ‘Catullus 56 is explictly presented as a funny joke about raping a boy’ before proceeding to show how nineteenth-century commentators dealt with this and other ancient passages involving the sexual use of small children. Given our culture’s increased concern about sexual abuse of young persons, the text when read literally is indeed troubling. But should we be reading it so literally? If Catullus tells his addressee five times in four lines that what he is about to say is funny, it is conceivably not supposed to be. I also wonder about the (false?) etymology he creates for his cognomen, particularly if it is, as I hazarded above, a personal one. Finally, in view of the agronomist terminology (not just protelo but trusare),44 the Cato addressed, instead of a contemporary, might be Cato the Censor and the reference intertextual. We need to re-examine the first four lines for clues to understanding the tenor of the last three. Catullus 57 725.  J. D e u l i n g , Catullus and Mamurra, Mnemosyne 52.2, 1999, 188–194. 726.  L. M. F r a t a n t u o n o , “Nivales socii”: Caesar, Mamurra, and the Snow of Catullus C. 57, QUCC 96, 2010, 101–111. 44 Cf. molas trusatilis (‘hand-mills’), mentioned as farm equipment (Cat. Agr. 10.4, 11.4).

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

273

D e u l i n g (725) argues that the six Mamurra / Mentula poems form a linear and progressive cycle, which casts their protagonist as a successful foil to the victimized poetic speaker. F r a t a n t u o n o (726) argues for O’s variant reading nivales (9) because it would connote that the two men practice fellatio on each other, and that the unremovable stains (maculae, 3) on each are those of semen; he cites c. 80 as a parallel for describing such traces in terms of snow and then considers the thematic relationship of c. 57 to c. 29. Catullus 58 727.  K. L e n n a r t z , Catull 58,5 und die Wortgeschichte von magnanimus, Philologus 142, 1998, 363–364. 728.  K. M u s e , Fleecing Remus’ Magnanimous Playboys: Wordplay in Catullus 58.5, Hermes 137.3, 2009, 302–313. The textual debate over magnanimi vs. magnanimos remains unsettled: T h o m s o n (5) prints the former, T r a p p e s - L o m a x (16) the latter. L e n n a r t z (727), who opts for magnanimi Remi nepotes, suggests that the adjective does not render Homeric μεγάθυμος, as most commentators believe. Instead Catullus’ phrase is modeled on the description of the Athenians in the Catalogue of Ships, δῆμον Ἐρεχθῆος μεγαλήτορος (Il. 2.547); he may or may not have obtained it from Ennius. M u s e (728) proposes three double meanings for the last line of c. 58.5: nepotes connotes both ‘progeny’ and ‘playboys’; magnanimos, modifying nepotes, is  a heroic epithet used ironically but arguably also a colloquial expression, ‘generous’; and glubit can mean that Lesbia ‘fleeces’ her customers as well as servicing them sexually. Catullus 58b 729.  D. T. B e n e d i k t s o n , Catullus 58b Defended, Mnemosyne 39, 1986, 305–312. B e n e d i k t s o n (729) maintains that 58b is  a complete poem because its ‘brief bathetic structure’ is paralleled in eleven Greek Anthology epigrams; it introduces into Latin literature the genre of the mythological catalogue poem, scaled down to elegiac or lyric size with mythological references forming the poem’s framework; it creates humorous incongruity by introjecting this catalogue into Roman civic life; and it greatly influenced later Roman elegy. Catullus 59 730.  C. N a p p a , Catullus 59: Rufa among the Graves, CPh 94.3, 1999, 329–335. N a p p a (730) contends that Catullus lays a trap for readers by ‘luring them into a pornographic and self-congratulatory voyeurism’. While titillated by unsavory charges

274

Marilyn B. Skinner

leveled at the principal targets, especially Rufa, who is accused of fellatio, incest, theft, and prostitution, they themselves are exposed as witnesses to Rufa’s behavior in the cemetery (saepe…vidistis) and thus customers of bustuariae moechae. Resembling Pompeiian graffiti of the pedicatur qui legit form, this method of tricking the audience by raising and then deflating expectations is a familiar Catullan tactic. Catullus 60 731.  P. F o r n a r o , Amore, belva tragica e belva elegiaca, in: Présence de Catulle (173), 115–129. 732.  C. N a p p a , Num te leaena: Catullus 60, Phoenix, 57.1–2, 2003, 57–66. In appropriating the epic and tragic metaphor of a wild beast and applying it to Lesbia, Catullus, according to F o r n a r o (731), created an original trope for the destructive force of love. Popularized by the elegists, the metaphor experienced a long afterlife in Western literature. N a p p a (732) holds that the poem in employing literary topoi in novel and surprising contexts is characteristically Catullan (see B e n e d i k t s o n [729] for a similar claim regarding c. 58b). Accusations of unnatural birth are traditionally spoken by abandoned lovers or disappointed friends; here, lack of an addressee makes the reader the object of the complaint; the poem’s universality turns the speaker into any betrayed individual; and the topos itself, used in isolation, speaks metapoetically of the relationship between literary tradition and experience. Lastly, the phrase in novissimo casu, ‘in this latest instance’, may reflect the poem’s placement at the end of the polymetric section. Building on Nappa’s final proposal, H a w k i n s (191) constructs an elaborate and dense reading of c. 60 as ‘a devastating farewell to Lesbia and a close to the polymetric collection’. His argument, linear but complex, touches upon its precise imitation of Euripides’ Medea 1342–1345, with reference to the later obscene connotations of αἰσχροποιός (1346); involves exegesis of its acrostic / telistic construction, never before explained, as a wordplay on the name ‘Metelli’; and draws together the numerous mythological incarnations of Scylla, associated etymologies of her name, and a Callimachean pun pointing in the direction of fellatio or preparation for it. In the course of his demonstration, Hawkins incorporates  a number of very recent ideas, including H o l z b e r g ’s notion (241 and 408) that the name ‘Lesbia’ connotes fellatrix; thematic cohesion of poems 46–60 (drawing on observations by several readers); positing  a formal link between cc. 50 and 51 (increasingly popular, and argued at greatest length by W r a y [240, 95–99]); an established consensus on the tripartite nature of the collection; the claim that Lesbia, as a ‘written woman’, is configured differently in each of the three parts (D y s o n [414]); theories of closure (see F o w l e r [536]); and a larger structural design for the polymetrics as a whole, based upon previous book designs by Callimachus and Meleager (G u t z w i l l e r [212]). Being able to end this overview of research on the polymetric poems with an essay so attuned to all the new approaches introduced during the past three decades is a felicitous coincidence.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

275

Catullus 61 733.  S. J. H a r r i s o n , Catullus 61.109–113 (again), PCPhS 31, 1985, 11–12. 734.  B. G e o r g , Catullus 61.90–6, CQ 46, 1996, 302–304. 735.  M. J o h n s o n  – T. R y a n , Catullus’ Epithalamia. Translation and Commentary, Part I: Catullus 61 – The Epithalamium of Junia and Manlius, Classicum 24, 1998, 36–46. 736.  P. H e u z é , Catulle et les Noces Aldobrandines, CEA 37, 2001, 97–101. 737.  J. C l a r k e , Bridal Songs: Catullan Epithalamia and Prudentius Periste­ phanon 3, in: Contemporary Perspective (175), 89–103. 738.  K. W a s d i n , Chap. 5: Catullus: Hymenaeus Comes to Rome, in: The Reluctant Bride: Greek and Roman Wedding Poems, diss. Yale 2009, 125–173. Several indispensable studies of cc. 61 and / or 62 have been discussed above. For c. 62, A g n e s i n i ’s critical text and commentary (19) is a welcome starting-point for any further investigation. T h o m s e n (477; see also 480) is the most exhaustive treatment of both texts; its emphasis on gender-specific sexual transitions for each partner has prompted much follow-up work on sexuality. P a n o u s s i (440) summarizes Thomsen’s observations and combines them with the part played by ritual in effecting  psychic integration into adult social and reproductive responsibility. O l i e n s i s (250, 114–115) provocatively suggests that the bride’s fear of defloration is a displaced form of male castration anxiety. E d w a r d s (385), R e a d y (393), and F e e n e y (397) are perceptive investigations of the manner in which the floral imagery of c. 61 aligns the bride’s beauty with the fecundity of the natural world. H a r r i s o n (733) emends vaga at 61.110 to cava but defends medio die in the following line as appropriate for an epithalamium. Perceiving irregularities in 61.92–96 (repetition of language from the refrain, the singularity of si iam videtur, and redundancy in et audias nostra verba), G e o r g (734) thinks the passage an interpolation. J o h n s o n  – R y a n (735) provide an introduction, English translation, and detailed commentary designed for students. They regard c. 61 as an idealized presentation of marriage set within the context of a real wedding. The tone is joyous and the poem stresses the importance of mutual love, including sexual pleasure. A complementary treatment of c. 62 was then forthcoming (see now 740). Although he does not claim direct influence, H e u z é (736) points out key similarities in theme and treatment between Catullus’ poem and the Aldobrandini Wedding: both foreground the reluctance of the bride, both represent the god Hymenaeus as the metaphoric agent of conjugal desire, both place the marriage bed at the center of the composition. According to C l a r k e (737), Prudentius’ account of the virgin Eulalia’s martyrdom contains epithalamic imagery derived from Catullus’ wedding poems transposed into a new Christian ideal of womanhood. W a s d i n (738) reads cc. 61 and 62 together with c. 64 as three separate meditations on the impossibility of complete union between two individuals mediated by the wedding ceremony.

276

Marilyn B. Skinner

Catullus 62 739.  E. C o u r t n e y , Poem 62 and its Greek Background, in: Three Poems (65), 85–88. 740.  M. J o h n s o n   – T. R y a n , Catullus’ Epithalamia. Translation and Commentary, Part II: Catullus 62 – Hexametric Nuptial Song, Classicum 25, 1999, 22–27. 741.  G. P e n n i s i , C. Valerii Catulli Epithalamium carmen LXII, in: Studi latini e italiani 6, 1992, 45–52. 742.  T. G o u d , Who Speaks the Final Lines? Catullus 62: Structure and Ritual, Phoenix 49, 1995, 23–32. 743.  A. T a y l o r , Forte or Forti? A Note on Catullus 62.54, LCM 20, 1995, 20–21. 744.  G. R o s k a m , Mariage ou virginité? Le carmen 62 de Catulle et la lutte entre deux idéaux de vie, Latomus 59, 2000, 41–56. 745.  J.-W. B e c k , Catulls ‘Epithalamium’: Wer spricht in C. 62? in: Studia Catulliana (174), 20–38. C o u r t n e y (739) remarks that c. 62 combines astronomical motifs from Hellenistic sources with reworkings of Sappho’s epithalamian fragments 105a and 105c, whose close association in the original may be inferred from Longus 3.33–34. Catullus’ corresponding stanzas substitute a vine trained on trees for Sappho’s apple; since Italian farmers referred to that kind of viticulture as a ‘marriage’, it is a specifically Roman element. The notion of paternal and maternal ‘shares’ in a bride’s virginity probably derives from a Hellenistic author, as the Greek proverb πρὸς δύο μάχεσθαι indicates. In their translation and commentary, J o h n s o n  – R y a n (740) assign lines 1–5, 6–10, and 59–66 to a Choral Director. They emphasize the clash between the merits of marriage and the demands of society, voiced by the iuvenes, and the retention of virginity and self-absorption of the individual, preferred by the innuptae. Though the girls’ position is untenable, Catullus in giving it forceful expression reveals his insight into feminine psychology. P e n n i s i (741) is a critical edition of the poem. The strict responsive symmetry prescribed for amoebaean verse leads G o u d (742) to conclude that numerous lines have dropped out: at least seven after line 32; one in the girls’ third stanza, probably after 41; the refrain after 58 and the opening line of the final stanza. Because the poem contains many features of the actual Roman wedding ceremony, we should assume that the leader of the girls’ chorus, performing the office of pronuba, gives the closing advice to the bride. Instead of the transmitted forte in line 54 T a y l o r (743) suggests forti, which adds force to the boys’ argument by stressing the physical strength of the husband. For R o s k a m (744), the competing choruses advocate opposed conceptions of love: the girls champion love between women, which does no harm to virginity, while the boys support marital and reproductive love. In each pair of stanzas, he demonstrates how the boys successfully respond to the claims of the girls while noting how word

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

277

placement rhetorically reinforces the thoughts of the speakers. The final lines are spoken by the boys, who close a debate over the ideal of virginity with the assertion that the bride does not possess a sole right to it. Through a meticulous review of previous opinion, B e c k (745) explains why the assignment of speakers to particular sections is so difficult to resolve. He argues that the amoebaean contest of male and female choruses is framed by opening and closing stanzas spoken by the poet himself, who intervenes at the end because the boys have technically lost the argument. Conversely, H e y w o r t h (64, 129–155), like R o s k a m , gives the final stanza to the boys, though for a different reason: the absence of a refrain after line 58 in the mss. indicates there has been no change of speaker. At the sight of the bride, who has just appeared, the male voices go on to win the contest. Catullus 63 The vast amount of interest in c. 63 exhibited over the past three decades will already be apparent from the number of studies mentioned above, which include two editions of the text, M o r i s i (20) and H a r r i s o n (21); an essay collection edited by N a u t a   – H a r d e r (172);  a monograph by N ä s s t r ö m (461); and individual discussions by McKie (74), N e w m a n (220, 215–217; 360–366); F a n t u z z i  – H u n t e r (306); D e h o n (315), C l a r k e (392), S k i n n e r (421); C l a y (463), and A r w e i l e r (487). Further scholarship listed in this section is divided into two categories, textual and interpretive. 1. Textual Suggestions 746.  A. L i b r i , Catullus 63.54, Studi latini e italiani 6, 1992, 53–58. 747.  B. C u r r i e , A Note on Catullus 63.5, CQ 46.2, 1996, 579–581. 748.  H. S e n g , Zum Text von Catull 63, 74–75, BollClass 17, 1996, 126–128. 749.  A. K e r s h a w , Notes de lecture: Catullus 63, 68, Latomus 56, 1997, 867–868. 750.  K. M. K o k o s z k i e w i c z , Catullus 63.74: roseis ut hinc labellis sonitus adiit, Mnemosyne 62.1, 2009, 108–110. 751.  –, Catullus 63.5: devolsit?, CQ 61.2, 2011, 756–758. T r a p p e s - L o m a x (16) athetizes seven lines of the poem as late antique inter­ polations. For omnia in line 54 L i b r i (746) proposes amore. C u r r i e (747) reads ipse for the textually transmitted but unmetrical iletas, normally corrected to ili, at line 5, a suggestion accepted by H a r r i s o n (21) and T r a p p e s - L o m a x (16). In line 74 S e n g (748) restores V’s reading adiit. He deals with the problematic geminas deorum ad aures in 75 by moving geminas to fill the lacuna in the previous line and inserting matris in its place: …geminas sonitus adiit /  deorum ad aures nova nuntia referens. K e r s h a w (749) believes the colorless et before the diaeresis in line 68 should be replaced by an indignant en. K o k o s z k i e w i c z (750) proposes

278

Marilyn B. Skinner

four corrections to Fordyce’s text of line 74 (reproduced from Mynors’ OCT): he accepts Fröhlich’s sonitus as a supplement; explains how the true reading abiit was probably corrupted; replaces hinc with the masculine pronoun hic, modifying sonus; and for ut substitutes ubi to introduce the temporal correlative ubi…ibi (76). M c K i e (74, 46–75) proffers incisive comments on three vexed passages, 63.50–55, 62–64, and 74–75. In his second article (751) K o k o s z k i e w i c z argues that Haupt’s conjecture devolsit in line 5 should be abandoned because the expected form of the perfect in the Republican era was devellit, an emendation already put forth by Achilles Statius in 1566. 2. Interpretations 752.  E. C o u r t n e y , How Catullus Came to Write the Attis, in: Three Poems (65), 88–91. 753.  K. M. W. S h i p t o n , The Iuvenca Image in Catullus 63, CQ 36.1, 1986, 268–270. 754.  M. M a r t i n a , Odisseo, Attis e l’amore. Nota a Catullo LXIII, 48, Aufidus 3, 1987, 15–19. 755.  K. M. W. S h i p t o n , The Attis of Catullus, CQ 37, 1987, 444–449. 756.  X. B a l l e s t e r , Praeteritum pro perfecto en Catulo lxiii 64?, Faventia 10.1–2, 1988, 53–57. 757.  C. D e r o u x  – R. V e r d i è r e , L’ Attis de Catulle et son excès de haine contre Vénus, Paideia 44, 1989, 161–186. 758.  S. B y l , Appendice: Remarques sur l’auto-émasculation d’ Attis, Paideia 44, 1989, 187–188. 759.  J. T. K i r b y , The Galliambics of Catullus 63: ‘That Intoxicating Meter’, SyllClass 1, 1989, 63–74. 760.  E. N o é , La rabbia furiosa di Attis: note per una lettura semiotica della passione (Catull. 63), GFF 13, 1990, 35–50. 761.  M. T. C a l l e j a s B e r d o n é s , El carmen 63 de Catulo: la cuestión del génario literario, in: F. L a m b e r t (ed.), Treballs en honor de Virgilio Bejanero: actes del ixé simposi de la Secció Catalana de la SEEC, St. Filiu de Guíxols, 13–16 d’abril de 1988, I–II: Barcelona 1991, I.159–166. 762.  J. G r a n a r o l o , Catulle, Poésies, LXIII, 12–34. Explication de texte, Vita Lat. 121, 1991, 18–26. 763.  J. J. O ’ H a r a , Sostratus Suppl. Hell. 733: A Lost, Possibly Catullan-Era Elegy on the Six Sex Changes of Tiresias, TAPhA 126, 1996, 173–219. 764.  A. P e r u t e l l i , Il carme 63 di Catullo, Maia 48, 1996, 255–270. 765.  S. A. T a k á c s , Magna deum mater Idaea, Cybele, and Catullus’ Attis, in: E. N. L a n e (ed.), Cybele, Attis and related cults. Essays in memory of M. J. Vermaseren, Leiden, New York, and Cologne 1996, 367–386.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

279

766.  E. L e f è v r e , Alexandrinisches und Catullisches im Attis-Gedicht (c.63), RhM 141.3–4, 1998, 308–328. 767.  D. G a l l , Catulls Attis-Gedicht im Licht der Quellen, WJA 23, 1999, 83–99. 768.  D. W r a y , Attis’ Groin Weights (Catullus 63.5), CPh 96.2, 2001, 120–126. 769.  P.-J. D e h o n , L’Attis de Catulle et les neiges de l’Ida: fonction et signification d’un paysage hivernal, in: Hommages Deroux (169), 142–147. 770.  M. G. C a r i l l i , Il ruolo di “comites” nell’ “Attis” di Catullo, FuturAntico 1, 2003, 79–113. 771.  V. P a n o u s s i , “Ego maenas”: maenadism, marriage, and the construction of female identity in Catullus 63 and 64, Helios 30.2, 2003, 101–126. 772.  W. F o s t e r , Madness, Pity, and Echoes of Epic in Catullus 63, SyllClass 19, 2008, 155–180. 773.  M. C i t r o n i , “Attis  a Roma  e altri spaesamenti: Catullo, Cicerone, Seneca e l’esilio da se stessi”, Dictynna [on-line] 8, 2011, mis en ligne le 17 novembre 2011, consulté le 20 août 2015. URL: http://dictynna.revues.org/729. C o u r t n e y (752) considers two likely sources of inspiration for c. 63: Varro’s ­Menippian satire ΟΝΟΣ ΛΥΡΑΣ (fr. 364 Bücheler) and a sequence of four epigrams from Meleager’s Garland (AP 6.217–220) commemorating the encounter of a Gallus with a lion.45 Catullus’ decision to employ galliambics may have been prompted by Varro’s use of them in another satire, the Eumenides. However,  a review of extant galliambic fragments casts metrical doubt on the non-anaclastic first halves of lines 54 and 75. S h i p t o n (753) clarifies the comparison of Attis to  a heifer avoiding the yoke: both toss their heads violently, Attis in ecstatic worship and the heifer in an effort to dislodge the yoke from her neck. M a r t i n a (754) perceives a ‘framing citation’ in line 48, maria vasta visens lacrimantibus oculis, to Homer (Od. 5.84 and 158, πόντον ἐπ’ ἀτρύγετον δερκέσκετο δάκρυα λείβων); this draws an ironic contrast between the two protagonists, Attis and Odysseus, both longing for their homelands. Independently of C o u r t n e y ’s investigation (752), S h i p t o n (755) analyzes the four Meleagrean epigrams about galli as sources for Catullus; Attis, moreover, is represented as a runaway slave, like Eros in Moschus, Idyll 1, and Cybele’s lion as a slave-catcher. B a l l e s t e r (756) examines the ‘figure of grammar’ created by the abrupt shift of preterite perfect to preterite imperfect in line 64, ego gymnasi fui flos, ego eram decus olei. This aspectual turn to the descriptive and colloquial heightens pathetic subjectivity. 45 An earlier discussion of the relationship between the four epigrams and c. 63 appears in P. F e d e l i , Dall’epigramma ellenistico al c. 63 del Catullo, in: V. U s s a n i et al. (eds.), Letterature comparate: problemi e metodo. Studi in onore di Ettore Paratore, 2 vols., Bologna 1981, I.247–256.

280

Marilyn B. Skinner

D e r o u x   – V e r d i è r e (757) attempt  a ‘psychocritical’ explanation of the s­peaker’s concluding prayer to be preserved from madness. In c. 63 Venus and ­Cybele are opposing but complementary divinities. Excess hatred of the goddess of love induces in Attis an excessive devotion to the mother of the gods, an irrational manifestation of superstitio. Since, according to the authors, both Venus and Cybele are ‘hypostases’ of Lesbia, the mental state of Catullus’ young hero corresponds to a transfer onto the mythico-religious plane of one possible reaction to Lesbia’s cruelty. In an appendix to their article, B y l (758) discusses perceptions of the eunuch as a notha mulier in Aristotle and other sources. K i r b y (759) is  a clear and accessible introduction to the galliambic meter, covering its origin, its employment of the hemiola, the rhythmic effects produced by contraction and resolution, and the value of recitation. Students should like his comparison of its rhythmic structure to the 6/8 rhythm of the song ‘America’ from West Side Story. Following a speech-act model developed by A. J. Greimas, N o é (760) offers a semiotic analysis of the notions of furor and rabies as applied to Attis’ passion. Rabies, she maintains, is a physical and psychological state of inner disturbance, while furor is the experience of passion viewed as excessive. The narrative development of c. 63 is marked by the progression of rabies manifested externally as furor, which leads to that condition of enslavement associated with emasculation. Through a remark of Cicero (Tusc. 3.5.2), she also links Attis’ disorder to the natural melancholia discussed at [Arist.] Pr. 30.1. On the grounds of its character as a brief mythic narrative and its structural parallels to c. 64, C a l l e j a s B e r d o n é s (761) classifies the poem generically as an epyllion. G r a n a r o l o ’s explication de texte of lines 12–34 (762) concentrates upon the structural and metrical strategies Catullus utilizes to depict orgiastic possession; he also considers the poet’s attitude toward his subject matter. O ’ H a r a (763) is an intriguing exercise in extrapolation. The 12th century CE Homeric commentary of Eustathius (1665.48) contains a prose summary of an elegy on Tiresias attributed to a certain Sostratus (Supp. Hell. 733) in which the hero undergoes six changes of sex before final transformation into a mouse. O’Hara presents a text and translation of the passage, followed by comments on the original poem and a discussion of authorship. Since he favors Sostratus of Nysa, connected with the family of Pompey in the first half of the last century BCE, he considers the possibility that Catullus knew the poem. While the prose summary in Eustathius gives us no idea of how the mythic material was handled, it is conceivable that its portrayal of sexual role reversal influenced Catullus’ exploration of the theme in the Attis as well as the paradoxical treatment of male gender in Roman love elegy. P e r u t e l l i (764) considers the poem a cultic hymn: its repetition of key words designating the violence of divine possession, madness, and feral nature, together with its obsession with speed and its exceptional use of expressive rhetoric, associate it with Cybele’s rites. The myth and the concluding prayer, however, reflect strong emotive tensions perhaps connected with personal subjectivity. T a k á c s (765) distinguishes between the mother goddesses of two adjacent locations, Cybele of Pessinus and the Magna Deum Mater Deorum of Mt. Ida. When the latter divinity was transferred to Rome in 205/4 BCE, she was given some of the attributes of Cybele, including the

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

281

tympanon and the lion. Later, after Pessinus entered Rome’s sphere of control, there was a further merger between the two goddesses. Catullus’ poem shows that in the minds of late Republican Romans the syncretism was complete. L e f è v r e (766) inquires whether Catullus’ personal voice may be heard in c. 63. He investigates the degree to which the poet may have modified an Alexandrian original, then turns to the reception of the poem in Renaissance literature for further clues. Neo-Latin celebrations of Bacchus based on c. 63 suggest that an Alexandrian hymn to Cybele in galliambics might have been Catullus’ point of departure. While the orgiastic features may go back to  a Greek predecessor, Attis’ remorse is Catullus’ own contribution. Veneris nimio odio is analogous to odi et amo, and in this mythic ‘drama of the soul’ Cybele stands for Lesbia (321). Having summarized other variants of the Attis myth and given  a brief history of the cult, G a l l (767) reconsiders Callimachus fr. 761 Pf. (ap. Heph. 12.3.39.1) and ­Meleager’s epigram sequence (see C o u r t n e y [752] and S h i p t o n [755]) as sources for Catullus’ poem. She thinks it probable that Catullus knew the work from which the two-line fragment attributed to Callimachus is taken. Despite sharing certain motifs, though, c. 63 lacks three Alexandrian qualities manifest in the epigrams: learning, mythological allusions, and aetiology. If Meleager’s selections and Catullus’ narrative go back to  a common source, Catullus has creatively departed from his model to realize his own poetic aims. W r a y (768) proposes that Attis, in cutting off his ili…pondera, ‘groin weights’, would activate another mental image, that of a woman slicing the warp weights (also pondera) from a finished piece of weaving hanging on the loom. Metaphor configures Attis’ last act as a man as simultaneously his first act as a ‘bastard’ (notha) woman (125). D e h o n (769) surmises that the perpetual snows of Ida (63.53, 70) conjure up a locus horridus mirroring the protagonist’s despair and symbolizing his sterility. For C a r i l l i (770), Attis’ comrades represent the total loss of humanity and personhood experienced by those enslaved to the goddess. Their disappearance from the poem after line 38 suggests their final state of collective bestial subordination. P a n o u s s i (771) examines Attis and Ariadne in c. 64 as figures prevented from achieving stable gender identity within the institution of marriage. Both instead enter into a perpetual maenadic state that prohibits full integration within the community and results in the destruction of female selfhood. Failure to assume a stable social role through completion of the marital transition encapsulates not only anxieties over elite male disempowerment but also the fear of self-annihilation in the face of an encroaching state. F o s t e r (772) argues that c. 63 juxtaposes two realms of existence, the mythic activity of the first day and the sphere of contemporary Greco-Roman reality, to which Attis returns in memory on the following day. The events of day one parallel an episode in Apollonius’ Argonautica (1.1092–1160) in which Jason and the Argonauts climb Mt. Dindymon to placate Cybele. In this section, inversion of such Homeric scene-types as mourning, arming, exhortation, and sacrifice make Attis into an epic antihero, but the subsequent revelation that he is Greek and his lament for the civilized existence he has lost transform him, though still alienated by madness, into a figure of sympathy. C i t r o n i (773) discusses the portrayal of Attis’

282

Marilyn B. Skinner

loss of self in the light of Roman views on the relationship of the individual to his community reflected in Cicero’s and Seneca’s conflicting pronouncements on exile. His observations on the ambiguous quality of Roman ethnic identity are singularly pertinent. Catullus 64 Among items previously listed, N u z z o ’s edition (22), T r ä n k l e (69), M c K i e (74), F i t z g e r a l d (227), B a r b a u d (229), Y o u n g (232), K o n s t a n (286 and 290), N e l i s (294), H u t c h i n s o n (303), O ’ H a r a (309), T r i m b l e (310), F o u l o n (317), G a r d n e r (320), T r a i l l (331), C o r o n e l R a m o s (368), W i l l s (377), A d k i n (379), M u r g a t r o y d (388), and P a n o u s s i (771) all contribute to understanding and appreciating c. 64. The massive bibliography that follows is divided among several subheadings. 1. Monographs *774. V. I. S t r a d y m o v a , Le genre de l’epyllion dans la littérature antique: les Alexandrins et les neoteroi. Moscow 1989. 775.  L. G a l á n , El carmen 64 de Catulo, La Plata 2003. Rev.: P o c i ñ a P e r e z , FlorLib 15, 2004, 446–448; E r r o , Ordia Prima 4, 2005, 228–229. 776.  M. S c h m a l e , Bilderreigen und Erzähllabyrinth: Catulls Carmen 64, Munich 2004. Rev.: R e i t z , BMCRev 2006.11.38. 777.  M. F e r n a n d e l l i , Catullo  e la rinascita dell’ epos: dal carme 64 all’ “Eneide”, Spudasmata Band 142, Hildesheim, Zürich, and New York 2012. Rev.: N e t h e r c u t , BMCRev 2013.01.31. Together with four collaborators, G a l á n (775) offers Spanish-speaking non­ specialist readers  a text, accessible Castilian translation, and commentary; she also includes an interpretive essay dealing with the ambiguous presentation of the heroic age,  a narrative description of the mythic material, and  a brief summary of ms. questions, including that of authorial arrangement. Starting from the premise that the narrator is untrustworthy, S c h m a l e (776) shows through close reading that he distorts narrative tradition in order to represent the Time of Heroes as an ideal past in contrast to the deficiencies of the present era. His account of the tapestry has the same agenda: the union of Ariadne and Dionysus is intended to confirm Peleus, through his divine marriage, as the exemplar of heroic happiness. During the ekphrasis, however, the silent Ariadne finds her voice and brings about Aegeus’ suicide, a consequence that goes beyond the frame of the picture. Because she is subsumed into the mythos of the abandoned heroine and avenger, like Medea, the parallelism that made the vestis an appropriate cover for the bridal bed breaks

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

283

down. Through problematic allusions to the Iliad, the Achilles narrative is similarly deconstructed. The epilogue cannot be taken as  a naïve key to the meaning of the poem, for it is the narrator’s last attempt to reimpose his failed agenda on the mythic material. With its exhaustive command of the problems and the evidence, Schmale’s monograph is the chief contribution to the literature on Catullus’ epyllion since 1985. F e r n a n d e l l i (777) is an all-inclusive assessment of the poetic devices, sources and models, and narrative approach of Catullus’ work and its influence upon the narrative voice of the Aeneid. Its main contribution to current discussion of the meaning of c. 64 is  a searching re-examination of the hypothesis of an ‘unreliable narrator’ introduced independently by S c h m a l e (776, 45–52, 283–290) and by O ’ H a r a (309, 41–54). Fernandelli finds that the moral narrowness of the narrator’s perspective complements the existential vision of the poet, while the ‘apocalyptic’ epilogue provides the work with its proper sense of an ending. 2. Textual and Exegetical Remarks 778. B. A r k i n s , Catullus 64.287, Latomus 44, 1985, 879–880. 779.  P. Y. F o r s y t h , Catullus 64.400–402: Transposition or Emendation? EMC 31, 1987, 329–332. 780.  A. A l l e n , Catullus LXIV. 287–8, Mnemosyne 42, 1989, 94–95. 781.  D. A. T r a i l l , The Text of Catullus 64.24, CPh 87.4, 1992, 326–328. 782.  P. S a l a t , Catulle 64, 105–111: coniger et corniger, Latomus 52.2, 1993, 418–419. 783.  B. K a y a c h e v , Catullus 64, 94: a textual note, Philologus 156.2, 2012, 392–396. A r k i n s (778) proposes Edonisin for Minosim and defends Friedrich’s reading claris as a correction for doris. To solve the problem of the ‘unwed stepmother’ at line 402, F o r s y t h (779) champions the emendations uti nuptae for ut innuptae (Maehly) and novellae for novercae (Baehrens). A l l e n ’s solution (780) to the crux at 287 is to read vinosis and celebrandis and accept Madvig’s duris (Peneus, an aquatic god, leaves Tempe to the wine-lovers ‘to be thronged with their clumsy dances’). In the next line, he argues that non vacuos, Bergk’s correction of V ’s †non acuos, is right but means ‘not idle’ (OLD s.v. 11) rather than ‘not empty-handed’. According to T r a i l l (781), the reading meo in line 24 found in V is a corruption; he emends to memor, which brings the line even closer to the Homeric tag Catullus imitates and is also germane to the theme of immemor mens in the Ariadne story. If this is the correct reading, it suggests V ’s exemplar was written after 1050 CE. In the epic simile describing Theseus’ struggle with the Minotaur (64.105–111), S a l a t (782) suggests, the hapax conigeram, used of the pine tree about to be uprooted, is intended to evoke cornigeram, an adjective regularly applied to horned animals. The play on words adds a further touch of wit to the comparison.

284

Marilyn B. Skinner

M c K i e (74, 75–123) brings a literary and visual imagination to his textual analysis of c. 64. To weigh the validity of Heinsius’ replacement of alga in lines 60 and 168 with acta, he asks probing questions about Ariadne’s movements upon waking (75–79). Without becoming at all fanciful, he can conjure up the precise colors in the image of waves driven toward shore by a dawn breeze that underlies the celebrated simile of the Thessalian visitors leaving Peleus’ palace (64.269–277). Methodologically, he innovates by showing the degree to which c. 64, more than any other Catullan poem, is pervaded by a tissue of verbal repetitions (84–92) and then weighing the implications of that stylistic observation for critical conjecture. His essay merits consideration by every Catullan scholar, not merely those working to achieve a better text of the epyllion. Lastly, K a y a c h e v (783) suggests changing misere in line 94 to miser and immiti to immitis, on the grounds that Catullus is directly imitating Apollonius’ apostrophe to Eros at Argonautica 4.445–449 and that a passage from Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica, 8.408–409, in turn alludes to Catullus’ text as thus emended. 3. Formalist Studies 784.  J. B l u s c h , Vielfalt und Einheit. Bemerkungen zur Komposition von Catull c. 64, A&A 35, 1989, 116–130. 785.  M. F u s a r o , Lessemi e moduli compositivi nel c. 64 di Catullo, Atti della Accademia Peloritana dei Pericolanti, Classe di Lettere, Filosofia e Belle Arti 65, 1989, 211–218. 786.  F. C u p a i u o l o , Struttura  e strutture formali del carme 64 di Catullo, BstudLat 24.2, 1994, 432–473. 787.  P. J. H e s l i n , The Scansion of Pharsalia (Catullus 64.37; Statius, Achilleid 1.152; Calpurnius Siculus 4.101), CQ n.s. 47.2, 1997, 588–593. 788.  R. F a b e r , Vestis…variata (Catullus 64. 50–51) and the Language of Poetic Description, Mnemosyne, 4th ser. 51.2, 1998, 210–215. 789.  J. W a r d e n , Catullus 64: Structure and Meaning, CJ 93.4, 1998, 397–415. 790.  E. P l a n t a d e , Connecteurs et mouvements rythmiques: (Catulle, c. 64), in: G. C a l b o l i (ed.), Papers on Grammar 9, Bologna 2005, 885–894. B l u s c h (784) finds a unifying principle of composition in the juxtaposition of antithetical but complementary elements: on the mythic plane, the positive framing tale of Peleus and Thetis with its interposed tragic vignette of Theseus and Ariadne, and, in the epilogue, the analogous contrast of an ideal past with present immorality. Key terms defining this contrast are pietas, attention to familial and religious obligations, and immemor, being reckless and self-centered, which brings about suffering. The same compositional principle applies in the Song of the Fates, where seven ‘negative’ strophes predicting the fearsome deeds of Achilles are enclosed at beginning and end by three ‘positive’ strophes promising happiness to the married couple. This thematic clash between an unrealistic ideal and concrete fact pervades the entire corpus. F u s a r o (785) examines ten inchoative verbs that appear just once in the poem; accompanied

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

285

by recurring temporal expressions like simul ac, they create poetic ‘moments’ of varying length. C u p a i u o l o ’s narratological account of the structure (786) differs from B l u s c h ’s thematic analysis (784) in foregrounding ring-composition, though not as strictly as T r a i l l ’s annular scheme (331). Prologue (1–30) and epilogue (382–408) are symmetrically counterposed. Mythic action unfolds in  a succession of scenes, varying in narrative modes, centered on the ekphrasis and the lament of Ariadne. Ariadne’s monologue and the Song of the Fates treat epic themes in lyric manner. As he traces structural components, Cupaiuolo observes many stylistic, lexical, metrical, and rhetorical features that contribute to the tonal quality of a passage. H e s l i n (787) maintains that the ms. reading Pharsaliam is correct because a passage in Statius containing the same metrical anomaly is demonstrably alluding to c.  64. F a b e r (788) points out that variata is  a calque on ποικίλος, which, from Homer on, commonly appears in Greek ekphrastic descriptions. The verbal echo alerts readers to other traditional ekphrastic attributes. Mediating between the framing structural approach typified by B l u s c h (784) and the annular approaches of C u p a i u o l o (786) and others, W a r d e n (789) proposes that the poem falls into two movements, 1–277 and 278–406, which deal with the same thematic issue, the nature of heroism, in contrasting ways. By tracing patterns of correspondence between sections, he arrives at two central heroic exploits, those of Theseus and of Achilles, where a complex interplay of similarities and contrasts permits no easy moral distinctions. Applying Kroon’s ‘functional grammar’ model to the particles at, autem, nam, sed, and vero in c. 64,46 P l a n t a d e (790) investigates their rhythmic and narratological properties. Discursive emphasis may explain different accentual stresses on these connectors, exploiting their potential for focalization. 4. Comprehensive Thematic Studies 791.  C. D e r o u x , Mythe et vécu dans l’épyllion des Noces de Thétis et de Pélée, in: F. D e c r e u s  – C. D e r o u x (eds.), Hommages à Jozef Veremans, Brussels 1986, 65–85. 792.  R. L e s u e u r , Catulle: étude littéraire du poème LXIV, Vita Lat. 120, 1990, 13–20. 793.  J. G r a n a r o l o , Catulle et l’âge d’or, Studi di Filologia Classica in onore di Giusto Monaco, 4 vols., Palermo 1991, II.687–692. 794.  J. G. G a i s s e r , Threads in the labyrinth: competing views and voices in Catullus 64, AJPh 116.4, 1995, 579–616 (reprinted in: Oxford Readings [176], 217–258). 795.  E. T h e o d o r a k o p o u l o s , Catullus, 64: footprints in the labyrinth, in: A. S h a r r o c k  – H. M o r a l e s (eds.), Intratextuality: Greek and Roman Textual Relations, Oxford 2000, 115–141. 46 C. K r o o n , Discourse particles in Latin. A study of nam, enim, autem, vero, and at, Amsterdem 1995.

286

Marilyn B. Skinner

796.  M. M a r i n č i č , Der Weltaltermythos in Catulls Peleus-Epos (C. 64), der “Kleine Herakles” (Theokr. Id. 24) und der römische “Messianismus” Vergils, Hermes 129.4, 2001, 484–504. 797.  J. D a n g e l , Catulle, carmen LXIV: mythe, amour et art poétique. In: Hommages Deroux (169) 127–141. 798.  M. A. M u n i c h , The texture of the past: nostalgia and Catullus 64, in: P. T h i b o d e a u   – H.  H a s k e l l (eds.), Being there together: essays in honor of Michael C. J. Putnam on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, Afton 2003, 43–65. 799.  A. B a r t e l s , Vergleichende Studien zur Erzählkunst des römischen Epyl­ lion, Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft Beihefte 14, Göttingen 2004. Chap. 2: Catulls c. 64, 17–60. 800.  T. J. R o b i n s o n , Under the cover of epic: pretexts, subtexts and textiles in Catullus’ carmen 64, Ramus 35.1, 2006, 29–62. 801.  C. S c h m i t z , Wunschbild und Gegenbilder der Liebe in Catulls Epyllion, WJA 30, 2006, 93–116. 802.  J. C l a r k e , Colour Sequences in Catullus’ ‘Long Poems’, in: L. C l e ­ l a n d  – K. S t e a r s (eds.), Colour in the Ancient Mediterranean World, Oxford 2009, 122–125. 803.  J.-P. D e G i o r g i o  – É. N d i a y e , “Vox poetae noui” dans l’epyllion 64 de Catulle, in: E. R a y m o n d (ed.), Vox poetae: manifestations auctoriales dans l’épopée gréco-latine, Lyon 2011, 57–71. 804.  M. G. E r r o , Justicia y evaluación en el carmen 64 de Catulo, Auster 16, 2011, 49–65. 805.  E. M. Y o u n g , Chap. 1: The Task of Translation in Catullus 64, in: Translation as Muse (232), 24–51. Tension resulting from the clash of a dream world with harsh reality grows throughout the poem, D e r o u x (791) asserts, and is not resolved at its end; such tension is a reflex of the poet’s personal experience of the Lesbia affair. L e s u e u r (792) is  a short overview with remarks on genre, structure, literary techniques (pictorial description, stylistic variation, characterization), formal elements (lexical, figural, and metrical expression), and reception in later Roman literature. G r a n a r o l o (793) thinks Catullus is combining features of Hesiod’s Age of Heroes with traditions of the peaceful Golden Age when Saturn reigned in Italy; cf. the similar notion of M a r i n č i č (796). ‘Wir verstehen c. 64 nicht’, S c h m i d t (146, 77) remarked in 1985, and after thirty years that gloomy assessment may still hold true. In present Anglo-American scholarship, there are two dominant paradigms for approaching Catullus’ epyllion: spectatorship and indeterminacy. Both go back to pathbreaking studies now two decades old whose assumptions have been absorbed into the communis opinio. Spectatorship, as encountered in F i t z g e r a l d ’s influential chapter (227, 140–168), is

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

287

romantic and defined by the gaze, which encodes a frustrated desire for the mythic past rendered in a fundamentally visual mode analogous to that of Campanian wall painting. On  a larger scale, the time of heroes stands for Greek literary culture in all its superabundance, now at the disposal of self-indulgent Roman consumers. Subsequent investigations along the same lines expose underlying ambivalence about the psychic effects of that cultural material (M u n i c h [798]) or analyze the poem as a metapoetic response to it (R o b i n s o n [800], identifying c. 64 as an attempt to re-interpret and revise Homeric epic). Indeterminacy, exemplified by G a i s s e r (794), also involves  a relationship to the past, in this case a literary tradition whose competing claims of fact cannot be drawn together into one authoritative version. She identifies three central paradoxes: the irreconcilable chronologies of frame story and ekphrasis; the separate and contradictory visions of the Ariadne story revealed to the wedding guests and the readers; the two true and mutually exclusive interpretations of Achilles’ exploits as sung by the Parcae. The effect of these multiple contradictions, omissions, and chronological impossibilities is to confuse a knowledgeable ‘neoteric reader’ accustomed to pick up allusive clues from the text and work them into a coherent framework. The labyrinth, Gaisser’s metaphor for this baffling narrative structure, is appropriated by later critics, who convert it into a convenient deconstructive trope. Indeterminacy then begets the final stage of aporia, an unreliable narrator undercut by a ‘hidden author’ who may (or may not) have a discernible purpose in doing so (see O ’ H a r a [309], S c h m a l e [776], D u f a l l o [833], and S c h r ö d e r [842]). T h e o d o r a k o p o u l o s (795) investigates the poem’s lack of teleology, linearity, and, until the close, narrative authority, and its resonance with other texts both inside and outside the corpus. Her idea of the labyrinth is one which contains ‘footprints’, i. e. traces of the past smudged by the invention of  a myth of origins. There is, she states, no stable perspective, any more than there is a straight line of poetic influence or straightforward progression of events, until the Song of the Fates, where we are finally assured of the singers’ veracity. However, the application of irony to their notion of Achilles’ virtus undermines that pronouncement. The hollowness of the moralizing epilogue drives home the authorial point that, morally and aesthetically, the determining of origins and the creation of linear and teleological narratives is itself dishonest. Exploring Vergil’s reception of c. 64 in his fourth Eclogue, M a r i n č i č (796) finds yet another paradox in Catullus’ portrayal of the heroic past: a conflation of Hesiod’s myth of the Heroic Age with Aratus’ incompatible account of Dike’s abandonment of mankind. Substituting Hesiod’s limited span of time, during which conditions were relatively better, for Aratus’ course of progressive human degeneration accounts for the anomalies in the representation. According to D a n g e l (797), five mythic themes play a part in the poem: the Argonauts; the love of Thetis and Peleus; the story of Achilles; and the history of Ariadne and Theseus, which includes that of Aegeus. Ariadne is an example of the abandoned heroine, but her fate is, unlike that of many of her deserted sisters, an ambiguous one. Her lament, with its denunciation of perfidy, possesses a ‘dimension explicative’ (135) that reinforces the speaker’s own moral pronouncements. However,

288

Marilyn B. Skinner

sinister elements, together with the prior histories of all the mythic protagonists and their families, call into question that speaker’s account of a prior golden age, which does not have the authenticity of the Song of the Parcae. M u n i c h (798) identifies c. 64 as a nostalgic text in which the unfulfillable longing to return to a past constructed by desire arises from a felt lack in the present. As it struggles to fit familiar tales into a framework that cannot accommodate them, the poem structurally and rhetorically deconstructs such return fantasies. Recollection distorts the past to make it palatable, but the tragic results of a lapse of memory link accurate recollection to the moral virtues of fides and pietas. Technology is the standard cure for nostalgia because it shifts the tense of desire from past to future, but the Argo, emblem of technological progress, conveys no guarantees of escape as it brings us back to a past already unrecoverable. B a r t e l s (799) is a close narratological analysis of c. 64 in comparison with other Roman epyllia – the Ciris, the Culex, the Moretum, Vergil’s Aristaeus story (G. 4.315–588), and Ovid’s tale of Cephalus (Met. 7.490 through 8.5). Narrative syntax in each text is examined in terms of G e n e t t e ’s categories of time (Zeit), mode (Modus), and voice (Stimme) and their associated subcategories.47 Bartels’ account is descriptive rather than interpretive, but her comparison of c. 64 and the Ciris (108–114) unearths points of resemblance permitting their assignment to a genre distinct from that of epic. R o b i n s o n (800), extending the spectatorship trajectory, locates the Homeric cycle, particularly the events of the Cypria, as the core around which the account of Peleus and Thetis’ marriage is constructed. Systematic imagery of textiles and weaving, recalling in the first place Helen’s symbolic tapestry in Homer (Il. 3.125–128), indicates that the poem concerns itself with the feasibility of fashioning epic that functions as the repository of cultural communication and memory. Departure as a pervasive motif within the poem, along with simile and ekphrasis, literary devices peripheral to Homeric narrative, foreclose traditional endings and indicate that Latin epic must respond in fresh ways to the inherited Homeric mythos. S c h m i t z (801), on the other hand, believes the poem is free of irony and offers three differing perspectives on love. The union of Peleus and Thetis encapsulates Catullus’ wish for lasting mutual affection, while Ariadne’s one-sided love is sacrificed to Theseus’ desire for glory and Polyxena’s literal sacrifice results from a war that made her potential marriage to Achilles impossible. The difference between the heroic age and the present is that the gods no longer rescue or punish mortals because pietas is everywhere despised. In cc. 61–64, C l a r k e (802) finds, colors are grouped into clusters and certain color elements are repeated. By examining white, yellow, and red / purple motifs, she discovers that color sequences link poems in different genres and metres into a nexus of ideas involving natural and unnatural marriages; defloration; fertility and sterility; and consummation and destruction. Between and within poems, there are

47 G. G e n e t t e , Die Erzählung, 2nd ed., Munich 1998 (= Discours du récit, in: Figures III, Paris 1972, 65–282, and Nouveau discours du récit, Paris 1983).

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

289

progressive transitions from positive to negative and female to male, and  a shift in power from the domestic realm to the sphere of war and bloodshed. D e G i o r g i o  – N d i a y e (803) study the incursions of the ‘narrative voice’ for possible clues to the poem’s meaning. During the invocation of the heroes, the poet manifests himself within the universe he creates as producer of the actions celebrated. Lending his voice to the Parcae permits them to offer another perspective on the fabrication of the poet’s own song. It is in the description of the coverlet that the play of voice is most subtle because the poet oversteps textual limits and transgresses narrative codes. Intervening in his ekphrasis by use of the vocative and expressions of sympathy, he modifies the relations between text, image, and speech. E r r o (804) contrasts Jupiter’s punishment of Theseus, which she considers the central act of the poem, with the state of humanity in the epilogue. Through the grief it brought, Theseus could be justly penalized for his perfidia by the loss of his father. Since the human race no longer values familial relations, justice is impossible. Prometheus’ healed scars are a reminder of order restored through the administration and acceptance of righteous punishment. Drawing upon previous studies of the poem’s complexity, Y o u n g (805) claims that Catullus’ epyllion meditates on the act of translation itself. The Argo, the purple tapestry, and the Fleece are ‘self-reflexive emblems’ which travel from East to West, mirroring the arrival of this iconoclastic genre in Rome. The elegant textile at the poem’s center incorporates concerns over the social dangers of hellenization: the youths who view it, bathed, through the simile of the advancing waves, in  a roseate light, embody the Roman aesthetes who eagerly receive Alexandrian works of art. Identifying with the Argonauts, Catullus casts the poet-translator himself as his hero. 5. Prologue and Invocation of the Heroes 806.  R. H u n t e r , ‘Breast Is Best’: Catullus 64.18, CQ n.s. 41.1, 1991, 254–255. 807.  A. T a m a s , The Mythological Metamorphosis of Thetis in Catullus’ Poem 64, CW 107.3, 2014, 405–408. H u n t e r (806) postulates that Catullus’ use of nutrices for the Nereids’ breasts alludes to Apollonius’ Argonautica 4.939–955, where the daughters of Nereus, their skirts raised above their knees, are compared to girls playing ball on a beach; Achilles’ separation from Thetis’ breasts may also be suggested. In any case, the reference is tonally ambiguous. T a m a s (807) argues that the polyptoton Thetidis…Thetis…Thetidi (19–21) is  a ‘morphological realization’ of the unwilling Thetis’ metamorphosis to escape sexual union, an account suppressed in the text. This passage can be interpreted as a mise en abyme of c. 64 itself and its complex play with narrative and (inter)textual illusions.

290

Marilyn B. Skinner

6. The Ariadne Episode 808.  C. T a r t a g l i n i , Arianna e Andromaca. Da Hom. Il. XXII, 460–472 a Catull. 64, 61–67, A&R 31, 1986, 152–157. 809.  H. T r ä n k l e , Die Stellung der Aegeusgeschichte in Catulls 64. Gedicht, in: F. W a g n e r   – U. J. S t a c h e   – W. M a a z (eds.), Kontinuität und Wandel. Lateinische Poesie von Naevius bis Baudelaire. Franco Munari zum 65. Geburtstag, Hildesheim 1986, 6–13. 810.  J. J. O ’ H a r a , Vergil’s Acidalia mater and Venus Erycina in Catullus and Ovid, HSCPh 93, 1990, 335–342. 811.  D. R o m a n o , Catullo  a Nasso: un’ipotesi sulla genesi dell’episodio di Arianna nel c. 64, Pan 10, 1990, 5–12. 812.  G. T a t h a m , Ariadne’s mitra: a note on Catullus 64.61–4, CQ 40, 1990, 560–561. 813.  J. B. D e B r o h u n , Ariadne and the Whirlwind of Fate: Figures of Confusion in Catullus 64. CPh 94, 1999, 419–430 814.  C. R e i t z , Klagt Ariadne?: Überlegungen zur Rede der Ariadne in Catulls “carmen” 64, Gymnasium 109.2, 2002, 91–102. 815.  R. A r m s t r o n g , Cretan Women: Pasiphae, Ariadne, and Phaedra in Latin Poetry, Oxford 2006. Ch. 5: Ariadne in Catullus 64, 187–220. 816.  M. F e r n a n d e l l i , Miti, miti in miniatura, miti senza racconto: note a quattro epilli (Mosch. Eur. 58–62, Catull. 64, 89–90, Verg. Georg. IV 507–515, Ov. Met. XI 751–795), Centopagine 2, 2008, 12–27. 817.  E. P l a n t a d e , “Eheu Theseu!”: le nom propre et son double (Catull. 64, 50–250; Ovid, Her. 10), in: F. B i v i l l e   – D. V a l l a t (eds.), Onomastique et intertextualité dans la littérature latine, Lyon 2009, 95–107. 818.  F. B e l l a n d i , Colpo di fulmine e patologie d’amore da Omero a Catullo: qualche considerazioni, BStudLat 41.1, 2011, 1–30. In lines 63–67, T a r t a g l i n i (808) detects an imitation of the Homeric scene in which Andromache realizes that Achilles is dragging Hector’s corpse. For T r ä n k l e (809), the function of the Aegeus story is to establish Theseus’ guilt in the face of an ambiguous literary tradition by showing him justly punished. O ’ H a r a (810) thinks Vergil’s epithet Acidalia, applied to Venus at Aeneid 1.720, is an etymological pun on Greek ἀκίς, ‘needle’ and hence ‘pang of love’. Indirectly the adjective may allude to Catullus’ spinosas Erycina serens in pectore curas at 64.72, where the reference to the cult of Venus of Eryx in Sicily plays with the noun ericius, a Latin word for ‘hedgehog’ and in military terminology a spiked instrument of war. R o m a n o (811) postulates that the figure of Ariadne abandoned on Naxos may have been inspired by Catullus’ visit to the island in the course of his return from Bithynia to Italy. T a t h a m (812) suggests that the mitra, which has Dionysiac associations, points forward to Ariadne’s transformation into a real bacchante at the end of the story.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

291

In lines 149–157 of Ariadne’s lament, D e B r o h u n (813) finds a series of ‘figures of confusion’ conflating relationships between characters within the poem and, through allusion, outside it. R e i t z (814) analyzes Ariadne’s lament according to the rules of forensic rhetoric while noting its resemblances to the monologue of the shipwrecked Palaestra in Plautus’ Rudens. This passage reveals the poet’s interest in experimenting with the epic genre. For A r m s t r o n g (815), the Ariadne story plays throughout with generic conventions. It combines two independent features of earlier Greek epyllia, telling a hero’s story from an unheroic angle and emphasizing female subjectivity. At the same time, it challenges the Peleus and Thetis episode surrounding it, questioning the reality of heroic values and the very possiblity of epic. Issues about the canonical version of myths, the culpability of both Theseus and Ariadne, and the potential outcome of Bacchus’ epiphany are raised but not finally answered. F e r n a n d e l l i (816) identifies a suggestive allusion to Theseus’ rape of Helen at 64.89–90 and places it within the context of allusive practice in other epyllia. P l a n t a d e (817) compares syntactical positioning of forms of the name Theseus in c. 64 and Ovid, Heroides 10. Ovid’s strategy for employing the hero’s name rivals the cleverness of Catullus’ paronomasia eheu / Theseu. By surveying the ‘coup de foudre’ motif in the prior literary tradition, B e l l a n d i (818) reveals that strongly negative depictions of falling in love at first sight owe much to Sappho’s and Euripides’ conceptions of eros as destructive. Both Ariadne in c. 64 and Laodamia in c. 68 illustrate the pathology of excessive love. 7. Ekphrasis and Visual Reception 819.  C. D e r o u x , Some remarks on the handling of ekphrasis in Catullus 64, in: C. D e r o u x (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History IV, Brussels 1986, 247–258. 820.  R. L. S k a l s k y , Visual Trope and the Portland Vase Frieze: A New Reading and Exegesis, Arion 3rd ser. 2.1, 1992, 42–72. 821.  A. L a i r d , Sounding out ecphrasis: art and text in Catullus 64, JRS 83, 1993, 18–30. 822.  R. R. D y e r , Bedspread for  a “hieros gamos”: studies in the iconography and meaning of the ecphrasis in Catullus 64, in: C. D e r o u x (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History VII, Brussels 1994, 227–255. 823.  R. R e e s , Common Sense in Catullus 64, AJPh 115, 1994, 75–88. 824.  J. L. S e b e s t a , Mantles of the gods and Catullus 64, SyllClass 5, 1994, 35–41. 825.  D. F r e d r i c k , Beyond the Atrium to Ariadne: Erotic Painting and Visual Pleasure in the Roman House, ClAnt 14.2, 1995, 266–288. 826.  L. L a n d o l f i , La coltre “parlante”: Cat. carm. 64 fra ecfrasi ed epillio, Aufidus 12, 1998, 7–35. 827.  J. M o r w o o d , Catullus 64, Medea, and the François Vase, G&R 46.2, 1999, 221–231.

292

Marilyn B. Skinner

828.  M. P a s c h a l i s , Middles in Catullus 64: the pivotal “vestis”, in: S. K y r i ­ a k i d ē s  – F. D e M a r t i n o (eds.), Middles in Latin Poetry, Bari 2004, 51–79. 829.  R. S k l e n á ř , How to dress (for) an epyllion: the fabrics of Catullus 64, Hermes 134.4, 2006, 385–397. 830.  J. E l s n e r , Viewing Ariadne: From Ekphrasis to Wall Painting in the Roman World, CPh 102.1, 2007, 20–44 (11 figs.). 831.  Y. N o w a k , Catulls carmen 64: die Hochzeitsdecke der Thetis als poeto­ logische Textur, in: M. B a u m a n n  – Y. N o w a k (eds.), Vom Wettstreit der Künste zum Kampf der Medien?: Medialitätsdiskurse im Wandel der Zeiten, Marburg 2008, 9–33. 832.  R. L. S k a l s k y , Hiding in Plain Sight, Yet Again: An Unseen Attribute, An Unseen Plan, and A New Analysis of the Portland Vase Frieze, Arion 3rd ser. 18.1, 2010, 1–26. 833.  B. D u f a l l o , The Captor’s Image: Greek Culture in Roman Ecphrasis. Oxford and New York 2013. Chap. 2: Becoming Ariadne: Marveling at Peleus’s Coverlet with the Inconsistent Narrator of Catullus 64, Oxford Scholarship Online, DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199735877.001.0001. 834.  B. E. S t e v e n s , Chap. 6: ‘Feminized’ Voices and Their Silences, Part 1, C. 64, in: Silence (231), 203–236. In the Ariadne episode D e r o u x (819) finds evidence of Catullus’ personal emotional investment in those choices that confound the reader’s expectations: the inordinate length of the ekphrasis and his selection and treatment of the myth. Through architectural cryptograms, S k a l s k y (820) identifies Scene A of the Portland Vase as a visual rendering of c. 64.26–30, showing Peleus, with Eros as escort, welcomed by his future in-laws Tethys and Oceanus while Jupiter looks on. Peleus’ placement against an architectural element tropes him as Thessaliae columen Peleu (26). Scene B, an intentional departure from the poem, contains Paris, Aphrodite and a central ‘bride’ figure, avatar of both Thetis and Helen. The vase was made to commemorate the wedding of Augustus’ daughter Julia and Marcellus in 25 BCE. Revisiting the frieze almost two decades later (832), S k a l s k y now divides the whole program into four dynamic figures (Peleus, Eros, Tethys, and Oceanus, shown as a ketos) and four static figures, Jupiter, Paris, the bride, and Aphrodite. A visual clue to the identity of the dynamic group is provided by the fact that Tethys’ right hand is portrayed as a crab claw, an attribute elsewhere associated with Oceanus. The bride may be recognized as Helen by her torch (punning on Greek elane or elene), but the fact that it falls from her hand indicates that this identification is transitory. L a i r d (821) famously categorizes the Ariadne section as a ‘disobedient ekphrasis’, one which does not contain itself within the limits of what can be consistently visualized. As such, it invites comparison between verbal and pictorial communication while drawing attention to its own medium of expression through devices such as sound effects. The metaliterary use of figurae and other rhetorical terms in reference to the designs on the tapestry (50–51, 265–268) implies that the poem can legiti-

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

293

mately be read as a text questioning the nature and function of ekphrasis. Dyer (822) thinks critical concentration on the sufferings of Ariadne overlooks the hieros gamos with Dionysus, central to ritual ceremony and visual art, that had made the coverlet ostensibly appropriate for the sacred union of Peleus and Thetis. In actuality, though, Theseus’ perfidia toward Ariadne is represented as one of the first violations of pietas that caused the gods to abandon mankind. Under those circumstances, the gift casts ironic shadows on the marriage of Thetis. At the same time, Catullus shows himself a pius poeta by observing silence regarding nefanda. Emphasis on sensual response, according to R e e s (823), shifts in the course of the poem from sight during the Ariadne episode to sound in the Song of the Fates. There are, however, instances of synaesthesia, where two separate sense impressions are evoked at the same time. Citing iconographic evidence for comparison, S e b e s t a (824) argues that the Ariadne tapestry is not a coverlet but a curtain enveloping and protecting the bridal couch and marking the area as sacral space. Applied to this hanging, the words vestis and amictus translate θεῶν περονάματα, ‘mantles of the gods’, Theocritus’ metaphor (Id. 15.79) for the figured cloths in Queen Arsinoë’s Adonis-tableau. While not concerned with c. 64 itself, F r e d r i c k (825) discovers issues of penatrability and pleasure, arising from power hierarchies and gender dynamics, attached to depictions of Ariadne and other erotic heroines in domestic painting programs within elite households. For grasping the sociocultural context of her representation, then, this is a valuable article. L a n d o l f i (826) distinguishes between the rhetorical code of an epyllion, on the one hand, and the conventions of ekphrasis, on the other. Like L a i r d (821), he argues that lines 50–266 violate the internal laws of the latter device. The speech of an object made real through language is a ‘true and proper adynaton’ (28) contradicting the rule that realistic plastic representations lack only speech; it conforms to the arbitrary logic of the epyllion instead of the techniques of enargeia. M o r w o o d (827) suggests that the poem consists of  a number of discrete though related tableaux, evoking in combination the myth of Jason and Medea, which reinforces the darker elements in both the Theseus-Ariadne and the Peleus-Thetis-Achilles stories. The multiple episodes on the François Vase that nevertheless constitute  a coherent program offer  a visual parallel. P a s c h a l i s (828) considers c. 64 the centerpiece of the authorially arranged collection and the coverlet section as the nucleus of the poem itself. Its formal middle is Jupiter’s nod of assent to Ariadne’s curse (204–206); the etymological nexus of the name of Zeus, the island’s name Dia and the name of Dionysus, Ariadne’s rescuer, may bear on the centrality of these lines. Throughout, themes of weaving, textiles, and clothing vs. nudity interact with the metaphoric employment of vegetation imagery. S c h m a l e (776, 45–52) contains incisive theoretical observations about the narrator and narrative theory, about ekphrasis as a poetological device, and about intertextuality. One key point, bearing on the insights of other critics (e.g. L a n d o l f i [826]), is that c. 64 is self-reflexive above all about overstepping the boundaries of description in narrative (48). S k l e n á ř (829) suggests the vestis serves as a metaphor for the poem’s compositional technique. He traces  a lexical web of words related

294

Marilyn B. Skinner

to weaving and cloth in both the framing and the inset narratives, linking them to other image clusters and noting their operations in disparate contexts. Semantic displacement, he concludes, becomes ποικιλία, a principle of composition (396). E l s n e r (830) juxtaposes portrayals of the deserted Ariadne in Roman poetry beginning with c. 64 and in first-century CE Campanian wall painting; he finds that the textual and the visual gaze operate in analogous ways – focalizing subject positions, directing viewer attention, projecting desire, and framing interpretations. This essay recreates the visual ambience within which the epyllion was received. N o w a k (831) contends that Catullus’ departures from the conventions of ekphrasis observable in Homer, Theocritus, Apollonius, and Moschus constitute a demonstration of his poetic skill and an expression of the claims he advances about his art. Catullus eliminates the focus upon the maker of the work, heightens motion and sensory effects, and substitutes narration for description. The central place of the ekphrasis within the poem, analogous to the placement of the marriage bed within the royal palace, and the thematic connections between ekphrasis and framing text indicate that the vestis is the key to understanding the epyllion. Lastly, the Parcae, as they sing and spin, metaphorically replicate the poetic production of the marriage coverlet. D u f a l l o (833) posits an inconsistent narrator who identifies too closely with the visual art he beholds and whose response to the Greek past is capricious. As the ‘hidden author’, Catullus deploys him to present an ironic yet still sympathetic critique of the culture of viewing generated by Hellenistic Second Style painting and its trompe-l’oeil architectural illusionism. S t e v e n s (834) examines the depiction of the Parcae and Ariadne as silenced feminine figures within masculine discourse. The prophecies of the truth-telling goddesses are ineffectual, since they elicit no apparent reaction from listeners; Ariadne, whose voice is heard only through the narrator’s ‘intersubjective ventriloquism’, epitomizes the risk of trusting personal expression to conventional patterns of language. Dufallo’s and Stevens’ studies are both extracts from full-length monographs, and each, while offering an interesting perspective, exhibits the unavoidable Procrustianism that follows from attempting to fit the complexities of c. 64 into the scheme of a wider research trajectory. 8. The Wedding of Peleus and Thetis and the Song of the Parcae 835.  E. K r a g g e r u d , The spinning Parcae: on Catullus 64, 313, SO 68, 1993, 32–37. 836.  M. S t o e v e s a n d t , Catull 64 und die Ilias: Das Peleus-Thetis Epyllion im Lichte der neueren Homer-Forschung, WJA 20, 1994–1995, 167–205. 837.  M. R u i z S á n c h e z , Formal Technique and Epithalamial Setting in the Song of the Parcae (Catullus 64.305–22, 328–36, 372–80), AJPh 118.1, 1997, 75–88. 838.  J. L. S e b e s t a , The wedding gifts in Catullus 64, SyllClass 11, 2000, 127–140. 839.  L. M o r i s i , Ifigenea  e Polissena (Lucrezio in Catullo), MD 49, 2002, 177–190.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

295

840.  I. L. H a d j i c o s t i , The ideal past in Catullus 64: a rejection of Aeschylus’ fr. 350?, Eranos 103.1, 2005, 26–30. 841.  –, Apollo at the wedding of Peleus and Thetis: four problematic cases, AC 75, 2006, 15–22. 842.  B.-J. S c h r ö d e r , “Carmen perfidum”: zu Catulls carmen 64, ACD 43, 2007, 39–50. K r a g g e r u d (835) champions prono pollice, a correction found in nineteenth-century editions but not mentioned in the modern apparatus critici. S t o e v e s a n d t ’s major article (836) establishes, with the help of new research on the Iliad, that the picture of Achilles as ruthless killing machine sketched in the Song of the Parcae is un-Homeric. In the Iliad the recognition achieved by heroes is earned by their bravery in protecting their comrades and their community. Homer’s complex representation of the hero, though largely positive, acknowledges the negative aspects of striving for glory and honor. In Catullus those aspects are foregrounded and portrayed as praiseworthy. Reminiscences of the Iliad in other parts of the poem, such as the echo of Andromache’s grief in the description of Ariadne (see T a r t a g l i n i [808]), forge a link between framing and inset stories, while the incorporation of Hesiod’s ‘Five Ages’ myth into the epilogue establishes the Trojan War as both culmination and end of the Heroic Age. R u i z S á n c h e z (837) analyzes the structural design of the Song of the Parcae as defined by verbal reminiscences. He finds that the epithalamial frame incorporates two different but simultaneous principles of composition, annular parallelism of motifs and the chiastic ordering of verbal echoes. There is also a temporal opposition in the central part of the poem dealing with the wedding day: the morning, in which mortal guests view the bridal tapestry, and the evening, containing the nuptial banquet at which the Parcae sing. Imagery of uniting and binding is prevalent in this part of the epyllion, corresponding to the function of the refrain, which confers on the prophecies a quality of incantation. Following up her discussion of the tapestry (824), S e b e s t a (838) explains the gifts of flowers and trees brought by Chiron and Penios, respectively, as emblematic of important stages in the life of Achilles, who will be conceived in the Hellenistic bridal bower they create. For M o r i s i (839) it is the description of Polyxena’s death, modelled upon the sacrifice of Iphigeneia, that marks the irrevocable break between mankind and divinity. Both Lucretius and Catullus envision a world from which the gods are absent, but in Catullus, as opposed to his Epicurean contemporary, this condition of estrangement came about through mankind’s rejection of pietas. H a d j i c o s t i (840) views the predictions of the Parcae concerning Achilles as a conscious correction of Aeschlylus fr. 360 Radt (ap. Plato Rep. 383 A7), in which Thetis reproaches Apollo for lying to her. In her second essay (841), she compares Aeschlyus’ account of that prophecy with those in Iliad 24 and Quintus Smyrnaeus 3.115–150 before analyzing the import of his absence from the festivities in c. 64. By pointedly omitting Apollo from the wedding party, Catullus reminds readers of his ruthless deception of Thetis in the earlier poetic tradition. S c h r ö d e r (842)

296

Marilyn B. Skinner

expands S c h m a l e ’s argument (776) by hypothesizing that Catullus incorporates the element of perfidia into the basic design of his creation. Deceptions of the reader, departures from known accounts, contradictions, blind alleys, etc., show mastery over the material, the narrator as a character, and the audience. Like Theseus, the artist is perfidus, putting readers in the position of Ariadne complaining that he did not keep his promises. 9. Epilogue 843.  N. S c i v o l e t t o , Nemesi in Catullo, GIF 39, 1987, 59–71. 844.  E. C o u r t n e y , Moral judgments in Catullus 64, GB 17, 1990, 113–122. At 64.395 Nemesis performs  a function distinct from that assigned to her in her other three appearances in the Catullan corpus. Elsewhere she punishes infractions of divine law, especially hybris, but in the epilogue she appears as a war goddess in the company of Mars and Athena. S c i v o l e t t o (843) rejects attempts to emend the text and explains the anomaly as a reflection of Homeric passages in which the same two Olympians, when entering into combat, are accompanied by lesser deities. Already a personified goddess, along with Aidôs, in Hesiod (Op. 197–201), Nemesis in this passage embodies the public censure arising from a dishonorable action. Taking the pronouncements of the narrator as ‘authorial’, C o u r t n e y (844) contests all readings foreshadowing an unhappy outcome of Peleus and Thetis’ marriage (otherwise the prophecies of the Parcae would not be accurate, as we are assured they are). While Catullus views Theseus’ behavior to Ariadne as culpable, his statements in the epilogue, apart from possible references to topical events, are literary or moralizing commonplaces; there is no deep investment of personal feeling in them. 10. Intertextual Studies 845.  T. D. P a p a n g h e l i s , Hoary Ladies: Catullus 64.305 and Apollonius of Rhodes, SO 69, 1994, 41–46. 846.  R. J. C l a r e , Catullus 64 and the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius: Allusion and Exemplarity, PCPhS 42, 1996, 60–88. 847.  M. L o s s a u , De Catullo Homeri lectore, Maia 48, 1996, 37. 848.  E. L e f è v r e , Alexandrinisches und Catullisches im Peleus-Epos (64), Hermes 128.2, 2000, 181–201. 849.  –, Catulls Parzenlied und Vergils vierte Ekloge, Philologus 144.1, 2000, 62–80. 850.  F. P o n t a n i , Catullus 64 and the Hesiodic Catalogue: a suggestion, Philologus 144.2, 2000, 267–276. 851.  J. J. O ’ M e a r a , Recurring themes in Catullus and Virgil: Catullus: Poems 63, 64, 68; Virgil: Aeneid IV, Georgics IV, in: K. M c G r o a r t y (ed.), Eklogai: Studies in honour of Th. Finan and G. Watson, Maynooth 2001, 59–72.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

297

852.  J. B. D e B r o h u n , Catullan Intertextuality: Apollonius and the Allusive Plot of Catullus 64, in: Companion (177), 293–313. 853.  T. G ä r t n e r , Medea im intertextuellen Hintergrund von Catulls Peleus-­ Epyllion, AC 77, 2008, 237–241. 854.  A. N. M i c h a l o p o u l o s , Illa rudem cursu prima imbuit Amphitriten (Catul. 64. 11): The Dynamic Intertextual Connotations of a Metonymy, Mnemosyne, 4th ser. 62.2, 2009, 221–236. 855.  M. F e r n a n d e l l i , Catullo 64  e il Giambo 12 di Callimaco, Incontri triestini di filologia classica 8, 2010, 191–210. 856.  G. T r i m b l e , Catullus 64 and the Prophetic Voice in Virgil’s “Fourth Eclogue”, in: J. F a r r e l l   – D. P. N e l i s (eds.), Augustan Poetry and the Roman Republic, Oxford 2013, 263–277. Catullus’ representation of the Parcae as snowy-haired and tremulous, according to P a p a n g h e l i s (845), borrows heavily from two passages in Apollonius’ Argonautica: the description of Polyxo and the four white-headed virgins who accompany her (1.667–674) and the pathetically aged Phineus (2.197–201). C l a r e ’s influential study (846) determines how the exemplum of Jason and Medea, never expressly mentioned, is evoked through allusions, chiefly to Apollonius Rhodius, and how, once activated, it subverts any forthright moral reading of the poem. Consequently, Clare suggests, ‘Catullus’ purpose is to point up the malleability and ultimately question the very nature of mythological exemplarity’ (82), along the same lines as F e e n e y ’s understanding (386) of how simile as a vehicle of signification is assessed in c. 68. To settle the vexed question of whether lumine claro at line 408 means ‘daylight’ or ‘the human eye’ L o s s a u (847) cites Homer’s Odyssey 10.573–574, where it is said that gods, unless willing, cannot be seen by the eyes (ὀφθαλμοῖσιν). Assuming that Catullus combined two independent Hellenistic poems into one, L e f è v r e (848) attempts to identify which passages of c. 64 follow one or the other model and which originate with Catullus. The two underlying Alexandrian works, he believes, were a court poem on the marriage of Peleus and Thetis (perhaps celebrating the wedding of a Ptolemaic princess) and a frivolous Theseus narrative. The Argo-prologue and the arrival of the wedding guests (1–51) and the epilogue (397–408) apparently had no Greek predecessors, and the depiction of Ariadne is also largely Catullan, although her speech is partially derived from that of Apollonius’ Medea (Argon. 4.355–390). Fusing these Alexandrian sources, Catullus changes them into  a contrasting pronouncement on happy and unhappy love. In  a second essay (849), L e f è v r e proposes that the puer of Eclogue 4 is an anticipated son of Octavian and Scribonia. Vergil’s poem is a rebuttal to c. 64, restoring the public and political overtones that Catullus eliminated when converting his Alexandrian original into an expression of private feeling. Analogies in structure and mythical setting between Catullus’ epyllion and the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women lead P o n t a n i (850) to conclude that the latter is a major intertext. O ’ M e a r a (851) investigates the themes of love and irrevocable loss

298

Marilyn B. Skinner

in Catullus’ myths of Attis, Ariadne and Theseus, and Laodamia and Protesilaus in c. 68 as prototypes for Vergil’s stories of Orpheus in Georgics 4 and Dido in Aeneid 4.  He finds  a common motif of furor linking Attis, Orpheus, and Ariadne, and  a shared heedlessness in Theseus, Orpheus, and Dido. D e B r o h u n (852) argues that Catullus designates Apollonius as his primary model for both the complex structure and the narrative strategy of c. 64 through a rich tissue of opening allusions to the Argonautica. The fact that lines 1–30 form an introduction responding directly to Apollonius explains why a poem on the wedding of Peleus and Thetis should start with the construction of the Argo. In contrast to obvious structural cues borrowed from the Greek epic, the total suppression of the Jason and Medea myth calls attention to the tension between the poet’s desire for continuity with the literary tradition and his awareness that he must strike out in a new direction to make his own place within it; in his ekphrastic showpiece, consequently, he replaces the Argonautica with his account of Theseus and Ariadne. Issues of belatedness and of perversion of family relationships expressed in the epilogue may also have been raised by Catullus’ fellow neoterics, Cinna and Calvus, in their own epyllia. G ä r t n e r (853), meanwhile, focuses upon Catullus’ use of the Medea tragedies of Euripides and Ennius in his prologue and in Ariadne’s speech. M i c h a l o p o u l o s (854) remarks that the use of Amphitriten (64.11) as a metonymy for ‘sea’, its first attested occurrence in Latin literature, evokes the mythological connections of Poseidon and Amphitrite with tales of both Peleus and Thetis and of Theseus and Ariadne. Intertextually the reference forges a link with Bacchylides’ Dithyramb 17: numerous points of contact between Catullus’ epyllion and the dithyramb, which recounts Theseus’ undersea encounter with Amphitrite, establish that it is yet another significant subtext. Finding parallels between the epithalamium and the genethliakon, a poem honoring an infant on its birthday, F e r n a n d e l l i (855) postulates that Callimachus’ Iamb 12 was also one of Catullus’ principal sources. Generically, the genethliakon, celebrating the birth of a child – in Callimachus, the birth of Hera’s daughter Hebe – is closely related to the epithalamion, and the two poems are alike in combining myth and reality, contrasting  a virtuous past with  a corrupt present, and employing a framing device. They also share the following motifs: the presence of the Fates at a celebration; a catalogue of gifts from divine attendees; and an apocalyptic prophecy of rupture between gods and men, modeled on those of Hesiod and Aratus. Catullus’ reminiscence of the age of iron in his epilogue incorporates and romanizes the entire Hesiodic tradition, of which Callimachus is his nearest forebear. T r i m b l e (856) argues that the prophetic speaker of Eclogue 4 echoes and blends the voices of both the Catullan narrator and the singing Parcae in claiming authority for his own vision of the future. Treated as credible, those voices bestow their omniscience upon Virgil’s narrator figure. Catullus himself, though, is located in the past as a writer of his own time, now ended. In contradiction to Catullus’ narrator, the Vergilian prophetic voice insists that the heroic age will once more be accessible because it is returning.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

299

Catullus 65 On c. 65 as a programmatic introduction to the elegiac collection, see S k i n n e r (94), B a r c h i e s i (183), H u b b a r d (189), B l o c k (196), K i n g (197), and Y o u n g (198). The following items concentrate upon its literary features as an independent text. 857.  S.  L a u r s e n , The Apple of Catullus 65: A Love Pledge of Callimachus, C&M 40, 1989, 161–169. 858.  R. H u n t e r , Callimachean Echoes in Catullus 65, ZPE 96, 1993, 179–182. 859.  P. S a n t i n i , Il poeta-usignolo (Catullo 65, 12), Prometheus 20, 1994, 265–268. 860.  C. F o r m i c o l a , Il pomo della concordia (Catull. 65, Callimaco e l’elegia latina), Vichiana 4a ser. 5, 2003, 183–205. 861.  D. R. S w e e t , Catullus 65: Grief and Poetry, in: C. D e r o u x (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History XIII, Brussels 2006, 87–96. 862.  M. F e r n a n d e l l i , Catullo 65 e le immagini, in: L. C r i s t a n t e (ed.), Incontri Triestini di Filologia Classica IV 2004–2005. Atti del convegno internazionale. Phantasia. Il pensiero per immagini degli antichi e dei moderni. Trieste, 28–30 aprile 2005, Trieste 2006, 99–150. 863.  J. C l a r k e , Mourning and Memory in Catullus 65, in: C. D e r o u x (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History XIV, Brussels 2008, 131–143. 864.  B. H o g e n m ü l l e r , Der Tod des Bruders: Bemerkungen zum Vorbild von Cat. c. 65 und 68, Vichiana 4a ser. 14.2, 2012, 203–213. 865.  T. W o o d m a n , A Covering Letter: Poem 65, in: Poems, Books, Readers (178), 130–152. 866.  B. W. B r e e d , Maximum orality: Catullus, 65 and Propertius, 2.13, MD 70, 2013, 37–62. B l o c k (196) reads c. 65 as a transitional poem that, through the speaker’s pledge to sing maesta…carmina and its figure of the nightingale (in marked contrast to the sparrow of the polymetrics), defines the elegiac collection as a memorial to Catullus’ brother. L a u r s e n (857) attempts to identify what each of the elements of the closing simile corresponds to in reality. Catullus is assigned the role of virgo, and Hortensius that of mater; the apple is Callimachean carmina, of which Hortensius presumably disapproves. On the evidence of Aristaenetus (Ep. 1.10.25–49), H u n t e r (858) contends that the simile of girl and apple creatively reworks the lost scene of the apple trick in Callimachus’ Acontius and Cydippe (frr. 67–75 Pf.). Against V’s tegam and the widely accepted alternative canam, S a n t i n i (859) argues in favor of legam, a variant reading in several humanistic mss., conveying a promise to promulgate, rather than merely write, maesta…carmina.

300

Marilyn B. Skinner

Two influential treatments of this poem appear in studies cited earlier. F i t z ­ g e r a l d (227) discovers alternative models for the poetic mind, storehouse and womb, contained in the verb expromere (3) and fused in the final image of the virgin’s lap from which the apple rolls. The girl’s blush, in addition to being  a metaphor for life and remembrance, tropes the self-consciousness of the text in relationship to the reader. Meanwhile, T a t u m (270) acutely notes the ambiguous political implications of offering to a senatorial grandee a translation of a court poem addressed by Callimachus to his monarch. F o r m i c o l a (860) pronounces c. 65 a declaration of a new poetics and a specimen of new Callimachean compositional strategies. Catullus’ grief does not provoke a dearth of inspiration but rather a crisis of poetic identity leading to a creative evolution: in the first of his elegiac compositions a transformed tonal and stylistic register signals the birth of a new literary genre. The allusion to Callimachus’ Acontius and Cydippe in the closing simile may have been anticipated by echoes of the same poem in the opening lines, where the speaker describes his suffering in language reminiscent of Callimachus’ characterization of Acontius. In any case, c. 65 marks the entry of the poetry of the Aetia into Latin verse. S w e e t (861) develops lines of inquiry suggested through metaphor: the poem as both product of the rational mind (mens animi) and offspring of the poet’s union with the Muses; swirling water figuring loss; allusion to the Iliad in the toponyms Troia and Rhoeteo and the spectre of obliviousness raised by Lethaeo gurgite. The opening lines establish an insuperable conflict between grief and poetry, yet by the middle of the poem fraternal love and mourning have become the future inspiration of Catullus’ art: his initial sorrow is ebbing away, leaving guilt in its wake. The nightingale simile expresses those combined pangs of grief and guilt, and the final simile, evoking multiple and conflicting feelings, represents the poem as a spontaneous occurrence rather than a product of cognition. Sweet’s perception of guilt in the figurative language of c. 65 invites comparison with Oliensis’ corollary investigations (250) of that poem and of c. 68b. F e r n a n d e l l i (862) examines the part played by imagery in defining c. 65 as a programmatic introduction to the elegiac genre. He does so through an extremely close reading of what he terms the ‘protasis’ (etsi…Ityli, 1–14) of its single periodic sentence, following C i t r o n i (274, 93–99) in tracing out its Alexandrian design. Structurally, this clause consists of a profession of artistic sterility and its explanation, culminating in the loss of Catullus’ mental image of his brother as a pale foot lapped by the waters of Lethe. In  a psychologically realistic parenthetic digression that quickens poetic tension to its highest point, the speaker then creates a phantasy of the lost person, directly addressed in an epicedion whose pathos is amplified by the simile of the nightingale. That trope, however, transforms the discourse into the elegiac mode, changing pathos into ethos and preparing for the resumption of epistolary style. In a significant textual exegesis (119–135), Fernandelli defends the less well attested reading canam by arguing that the three concatinated terms carmina…canam…concinit comprise  a figura etymologica with significant parallels in Hellenistic epicedia involving ἀηδών / ἀείδειν. Since this essay makes such a key contribution to the literature on the poem, a follow-up study in which

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

301

Fernandelli investigates the workings of the apodosis and the closing simile would be welcome. Throughout the poem, C l a r k e (863) maintains, Catullus experiments with first oral, then written, conventions of mourning, gradually gaining the distance that enables him to sublimate his pain. Although none of his initial strategies of commemoration  – visual, heroic, epigrammatic, or mythological  – is wholly successful, the vignette of the girl shows the demands of everyday life prompting a recollection of extant obligations. This becomes the first step on an emotional journey ending with the speaker bestowing the last gifts upon the dead in c. 101. H o g e n m ü l l e r (864) finds a predecessor of cc. 65 and 68 in Callimachus Epigr. 20 Pf., in which a sister commits suicide immediately after the burial of her brother. He thinks it another instance of Catullus assimilating his own experience to that of  a woman; in c. 65, the Callimachean intertext reinforces the speaker’s comparison of himself to the grieving Procne and ultimately to Penelope. W o o d m a n (865) identifies numerous problems of exegesis confronted by  a hypothetical first-time Roman reader; both indeterminacy and linguistic slippage arise from Catullus’ adoption of a colloquial, ‘stream-of-consciousness’ style suited to a letter written by a grief-stricken mourner. The intertwined notions of forgetfulness and memory emerge as the real theme of the poem. B r e e d (866) studies c. 65 and  a later imitation, Propertius 2.13, as reflections upon contrasting aspects of orality and textuality in which song is ­represented aetiologically as the predecessor and source of elegiac poetry. In Catullus’ simile of the apple, the written text, associated with deferral, is troped as a physical gift sent by an absent lover. The nightingale’s song, on the other hand, serves as  a paradigm for what the elegist does and an originary point for the elegiac tradition, but, being non-verbal, cannot be put into words and thus depends on textuality to become lament. Elegy arises in response to death, but death imposes an unbridgeable distance between author and reader; the materiality of the text thus makes it  a superior venue for mourning that gains in transmissibility what it loses in not being sung. Catullus 66 In recent decades, scholarship on c. 66 has centered on a cluster of issues: the overall accuracy of Catullus’ translation; the authorship of the nuptial rite passage 66.79–88, lines not found in the Callimachean papyrus P.Oxy. 2258; thematic links between c. 66 and other works in the Catullan oeuvre; and explanations for his decision to translate the Lock of Berenice, whether personal or topical. The standard individual commentary is M a r i n o n e , whose chapter ‘L’elegia’ (23, 45–76) offers  a fine introduction to the poem. 867.  S. W e s t , Venus observed? A note on Callimachus fr. 110, CQ 35, 1985, 61–66. 868.  R. M u t h  – K. T ö c h t e r l e , Berenike ohne Parfums?, in: F. D e c r e u s  – C. D e r o u x (eds.), Hommages à Jozef Veremans, Brussels 1986, 224–227.

302

Marilyn B. Skinner

869.  N. M a r i n o n e , Catullus 66.57–62, in: S.  B o l d r i n i (ed.), Filologia e forme letterarie: studi offerti a F. Della Corte, 5 vols., Urbino 1987, II.349–358. 870.  O. Z w i e r l e i n , Weihe und Entrückung: die Locke der Berenike, RhM 130, 1987, 274–290. 871.  N. M a r i n o n e , Richard Bentley e la Chioma di Berenice, ovvero la fortuna degli emendamenti, in: Mnemosynum. Studi in onore di A. Ghiselli, Bologna 1989, 383–391. 872.  M. G. B a j o n i , Ales equos: C. 66.54  e Callimaco 111Pf., 52–54, Aevum(ant) 3, 1990, 163–167. 873.  K. G u t z w i l l e r , Callimachus’s Lock of Berenice: Fantasy, Romance and Propaganda, AJPh 113, 1992, 359–385. 874.  A. S. H o l l i s , The Nuptial Rite in Catullus 66 and Callimachus’ Poetry for Berenice, ZPE 91, 1992, 21–28. 875.  L. H o l m e s , Myrrh and Unguents in the Coma Berenices, CPh 87.1, 1992, 47–50. 876.  A. K e r s h a w , A! at Catullus 68.85, in: F. C a i r n s  – M. H e a t h (eds.), Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar VII, Leeds 1993, 27–29. 877.  P. M. B i n g , Reconstructing Berenike’s Lock, in: G. W. M o s t (ed.), Collecting fragments. Fragmente sammeln, Göttingen 1997, 78–94. 878.  D. L. S e l d e n , Alibis, ClAnt 17.2, 1998, 289–412. 879.  L. R o s s i , La “Chioma di Berenice”: Catullo 66, 79–88. Callimacho e la propaganda di corte, RFIC 128.3, 2000, 299–312. 880.  S.  J a c k s o n , Callimachus: Coma Berenices: Origins, Mnemosyne 54.1, 2001, 1–9. 881.  J. W a r d e n , Catullus in the Grove of Callimachus, in: C. D e r o u x (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History XIII, Brussels 2006, 97–154. 882.  M. D e W i l d e , Catullus’ “Coma Berenices”: an investigation of a “true interpreter’s” poetic licence and its reception by Apuleius, in: C. D e r o u x (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History XIV, Brussells 2008, 144–176. 883.  R. H ö s c h e l e , Catullus’s Callimachean Hair-itage and the Erotics of Translation, RFIC 137, 2009, 118–152. 884.  D. L. C l a y m a n , Berenice and Her Lock, TAPhA 141.2, 2011, 229–246. In Catullus’ handling of Callimachus fr. 110.51–58 and 63–64, W e s t (867) notes, astronomical learning is simplified and other witty details of the fantasy are altered. Callimachus imagines Zephyr carrying the Lock eastwards into the sea, the Κύπριδος κόλπου, to converge with the planet Venus in the sign of Virgo; Catullus instead envisages him winging his way upwards into the stratosphere, thereby suppressing the astrological joke. Taking omnibus expers unguentis to refer to the Lock’s present state, M u t h  – T ö c h t e r l e (868) think lines 77–78 complain of missing the many

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

303

thousand perfumes enjoyed while Berenice was a virgin. In opposition to Robinson E l l i s ’ note ad loc.,48 M a r i n o n e (869) believes the Lock was dedicated in the temple of Aphrodite-Arsinoë at Zephyrium, not in the palace; its metamorphosis occurs when it is deposited by Zephyr in Venus’ bosom (56). He regards eo in 57 as proleptic, referring to the purpose of the new constellation stated in the following couplets, and suggests emending the crux at the beginning of line 59 to sidere uti vario, establishing a logical connection with the preceding distich. Z w i e r l e i n (870) studies passages in which comparison of Catullus’ narrative with that of Callimachus creates problems. In Catullus the Lock is not dedicated in a pantheon at Alexandria, as a couplet from the Greek original (fr. 7 Pf.) appears to say; the mistaken notion that it was removed at night could stem from a corruption to umbras of aetherias…undas (55, rendering Callimachus’ δι’ἠέρα δ’ ὑγρόν); finally, Zephyr is envisioned metaphorically as Arsinoë’s horse (ἵππος, Catullus’ ales equus) because as a winged youth he bears the goddess on his shoulders. In a second essay (871) M a r i n o n e critically weighs eight textual readings proposed by Richard Bentley. Accepting Z w i e r l e i n ’ s literary and visual evidence (870) for conceiving of Zephyr as Arsinoë’s mount, ­B a j o n i (872) subjoins his function as Psyche’s means of transportation in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses. G u t z w i l l e r (873) is a thorough literary analysis of the Callimachean poem, containing insights into narrative technique and tone and assessing its effectiveness as Ptolemaic propaganda. H o l l i s (874) discusses the nuptial rite missing in the Greek original; against previous hypotheses that the passage comes from a second version of the poem, or that the lines are Catullus’ own invention, he suggests that it was taken from another elegy in honor of Berenice now scrappily preserved in frr. 387–388 Pf. H o l m e s (875) defends omnibus at 66.77 by showing that unguenta connotes both perfume and sexual activity, replicating Callimachus’ explicit contrast between the plain hair-oil used by virgins and the perfumed oil of married women. K e r s h a w (876) proposes reading aemula for a! mala at c. 66.85 (wrongly cited in his title and elsewhere in the essay as 68.85). Having reviewed the history of attempts to restore missing Greek lines with the help of c. 66, B i n g (877) concludes that the Latin text is not an authoritative guide: while Catullus sometimes translates with remarkable precision, he also departs freely from his model. Citing parallels in Theocritus and Posidippus, R o s s i (879) argues that the marital ideal of fidelity, chastity, concord, and lasting love expressed in 66.79–88 is a product of Ptolemaic court propaganda. In form and content, the lines may sound Catullan, but they are equally likely to have a Callimachean origin. Similarly, J a c k s o n (880) maintains that the nuptial rite is Callimachean because geographical associations in the passage linking perfumes, onyx, and a type of coral known as the Isidos plokamos have a local specificity of which Catullus would presumably have been unaware. S e l d e n (878, 326–354) unravels the semantic complexity of Callimachus’ Lock of Berenice: in addition to celebrating the accession of Ptolemy Euergetes and Berenice 48 R. E l l i s , A Commentary on Catullus, 2nd ed., Oxford 1889, 386.

304

Marilyn B. Skinner

II for  a Greek audience, it incorporates Egyptian religious and astronomical lore so as to establish the new king and queen, in the eyes of their native subjects, as legitimate heirs to the pharaonic throne. How much of this indigenous background Catullus might know is, I daresay, uncertain, although he does display a superficial acquaintance with Isiac cult (cc. 10.25–27, 74.4, 102.4). W a r d e n (881, 97–120) undertakes a close line-by-line comparison between the surviving passages of Callimachus fr. 110 and Catullus’ text; he finds marked differences in metrical schemes, line structuring (notably a greater Catullan reliance on hyperbaton), and language, which in the Latin version is more sensual and intense. That initial analysis allows him to propose reasons for Catullus’ interest in Callimachus’ elegy despite the two poets’ vastly different ages, backgrounds, social positions, and literary cultures. In Ptolemaic encomia the courtly themes of passionate mutual love and spousal harmony, blended with suggestions of fraternal love and loss, proved congenial to Catullus, as is evident from his own insertion, the Lock’s ten-line request for a perfume libation on the bridal night (131–134). Though all the longer poems display comparable themes, passages of c. 68 are also verbally reminiscent of the apple simile in c. 65. Lastly, the two defining characteristics of the Callimachean Lock of Berenice, its blend of mythological and realistic elements and its employment of a flexible narrative voice, sometimes detached and at other times plangent, manifest themselves as well in c. 68. Callimachus’ elegy, with its sense of distance and its spectrum of heterogeneous moods, gave Catullus the opportunity, Warden concludes, to look at his emotional world in  a wider perspective. Following the exegetical methods of Hans Robert J a u s s ,49 D e W i l d e (882) also takes  a comparativist approach to the two poems while seeking to produce  a ‘historicist’ reading that replicates an ancient audience’s ‘horizon of expectations’. Using data compiled by M a r i n o n e (23, 235–243), he contrasts metrical properties of Callimachus’ elegiac distiches with those of Catullus to ascertain that the latter is not just reproducing rhythmic structures mechanically. He then conducts a lexical analysis to determine how well the literal significance of the source text has been preserved through strategies of transposition, discovering, like other scholars, that Catullus does adopt his model freely. De Wilde concludes, finally, that themes of love and death present in the original only in a subliminal form are augmented by the juxtaposition of c. 65 as well as by the translator’s selection of words. Catullus’ changes to the elegy permit a Platonic reading in which the apotheosis of the Lock symbolizes the journey of the soul to the afterlife, a possibility that may in turn explain Apuleius’ allusions to c. 66. Applying B a r c h i e s i ’s paradigm of how the elegiac libellus was framed (183), H ö s c h e l e (883) finds an intricate web of intertextual connections between c. 66 and numerous other carmina maiora and epigrams, with  a focus on the recurrent motif of brotherly loss. For that reason, she holds, the translation’s programmatic aspects are especially important. Together with its introductory letter, it is crucial to 49 H. R. J a u s s , Pour une esthétique de la réception, Paris 1978.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

305

fashioning Catullus’ stance as a Callimachean poet and eroticizing the relationship between himself and his literary model. Self-reflexively, Berenice’s tress voices the anxiety of the text as it is separated from its author (145) but, like c. 51, the poem also becomes a dialogue between the translator and a literary predecessor, however remote (148). Focusing upon the historical Berenice, C l a y m a n (884) shows how Callimachus, both in the Lock and in the Hymn to Athena, handled questionable aspects of her past, chiefly her complicity in the assassination of her first husband, to make them less blameworthy. As remarked above, D u Q u e s n a y (293, 153–162) connects c. 66 with the topical issue of restoring Ptolemy XII Auletes to the Egyptian throne. He also argues (162–175) for the Callimachean origins of 66.79–88 by postulating that the imaginary cult of the Lock as protector of the marriage bed is modeled on the actual cult of Arsinoë-Aphrodite and perhaps on the cult of Berenice II, instituted in 243 BCE, as well. In keeping with her thesis that Roman translation was adaptation, Y o u n g (198) asks, somewhat counterintuitively, why Catullus chose to render his Greek source so closely. While preserving the content of the original, she proposes, the poet reshaped its meanings by disembedding it from its intricate courtly context, making the voice of the Lock comment metapoetically on its conversion into Latin verse, integrating it into  a Roman social setting with  a preface that transforms it into  a munus, and establishing Callimachus as the forefather of Roman elegy. There is also a lively and ongoing tangential conversation about Vergil’s purposes in alluding to the Lock’s speech at Aeneid 6.460. 885. J. T a t u m , Allusion and Interpretation in Aeneid 6.440–76, AJPh 105.4, 1984, 434–452. 886.  S.  S k u l s k y , ‘Invitus, Regina…’: Aeneas and the Love of Rome, AJPh 106.4, 1985, 447–455. 887.  P. A. J o h n s t o n , Dido, Berenice, and Arsinoe: Aeneid 6.460, AJPh 108.4, 1987, 649–654. 888.  M. J. E d w a r d s , Invitus, Regina, AC 60, 1991, 260–265. 889.  R. A. S m i t h , A Lock and  a Promise: Myth and Allusion in Aeneas’ Farewell to Dido in Aeneid 6, Phoenix 47, 1993, 305–312. 890.  R. O. A. M. L y n e , Vergil’s Aeneid: Subversion by Intertextuality. Catullus 66.39–40 and Other Examples, G&R 41, 1994, 187–204 (= Collected Papers on Latin Poetry [Oxford 2007] 167–183). 891.  R. D. G r i f f i t h , Catullus’ Coma Berenices and Aeneas’ Farewell to Dido, TAPhA 125, 1995, 47–59. 892.  J. W i l l s , Divided Allusion: Virgil and the Coma Berenices, HSCPh 98, 1998, 277–305. 893.  H.  P e l l i c c i a , Unlocking Aeneid 6.460: Plautus’ Amphitryon, Euripides’ Protesilaus and the Referents of Callimachus’ Coma, CJ 106.2, 2010–2011, 149–219.

306

Marilyn B. Skinner

T a t u m (885, 438–444) notes that the Lock’s original protest invita, o regina, tuo de vertice cessi (66.39) is succeeded by an oath of truthfulness and a plea of compulsion; Aeneas follows the same pattern in his speech of self-defense to Dido, in which Vergil combines the sorrow of c. 65 and the rhetoric of apology in c. 66. Furthermore, Tatum remarks, the literary associations of Aeneas’ line invitus, regina, tuo de litore cessi return the reader to the last moment of Dido’s life in which Iris snips a lock of her hair as an offering to Hades (Aen. 4.702–705). Several later critics concur with Tatum in justifying the intertextual echo by citing the parallel hair sacrifices. S k u l s k y (886) offers corollary explanations that also have proved popular. Ironically the line reminds us that Aeneas has succeeded at the queen’s expense: he will achieve apotheosis, she will not. In addition, it anticipates Augustus’ triumph over Cleopatra, depicted on the Shield in book 8, and draws a correlation between the catasterized Lock and the Sidus Iulius. Through these dissonances Vergil removes us to a more objective vantage point from which we can reflect on the cost of Roman imperial achievement. J o h n s t o n (887) thinks the verse prepares us for the surprising news that Dido is accompanied by her husband Sychaeus. Like Ptolemy, he has ultimately been reunited with his wife. Dido, meanwhile, is comparable not only to Berenice because of the hair offering but also to Berenice’s predecessor Arsinoë, whose great funerary pyre described in a fragment of Callimachus’ Ektheosis Arsinoes (fr. 228 Pf.) may have inspired Dido’s blazing pyre seen from shipboard at Aeneid 5.3–5. E d w a r d s (888) thinks Catullus infused the complaint of the Lock with his own erotic suffering, which Vergil sensitively perceived. For S m i t h (889) the context of the original line determines the thrust of the quotation. The Lock curses those who swear falsely and admits to helplessness when faced with a sword; Dido, for her part, falls victim to a curse she had called down upon herself and kills herself with a sword. Moreover, the Lock’s fate associates Aeneas and Dido with the myth of Alcestis (whose hair, in Euripides’ play, is cut by Thanatos); in failing, however, to rescue Dido as Heracles rescues Alcestis, Aeneas significantly falls short of the hero with whom, in the epic, he is regularly aligned. L y n e (890) uses this celebrated crux as a jumping-off point for a theoretical discussion of intertextuality, which he prefers to the term ‘allusion’ because it does not presuppose authorial intention. Prior reminiscences of the Lock of Berenice in Aeneid 4 establish the Catullan poem as a key intertext. The Aeneid compares and contrasts the locks and the fates of Dido and Berenice. For Dido tragic disparities emerge; for Aeneas, significant resonances. Echoing S k u l s k y (886), Lyne remarks that ‘the text insists upon the intertwining of Trojan success with other people’s disaster, the familiar theme’ (193). G r i f f i t h (891) takes a more complicated tack. He reads cc. 65–66 as a diptych that situates Callimachus’ playful elegy within  a funerary context. Berenice’s hair dedication is parallel to that of Achilles, who cuts his hair to mourn Patroclus at Iliad 23.140–151. The shared motifs of geographical location, untimely death, loss of homecoming, and separation from kin make Achilles’ story a ‘typological prefiguration’ (52) of Catullus’ bereavement. With its happy outcome, the Lock of Berenice is, conversely,  a negative counterpart to the speaker’s situation. Through  a window reference looking back from Berenice’s lock to the hair of Achilles, Vergil’s allusion reappropriates Catullus’ Homeric model. W i l l s (892) examines the borrowing

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

307

as a case of ‘divided allusion’, in which the language of the original is woven into more than one passage in the derived text, creating a triangular relationship with the source. Since the whole equals the sum of its parts, closure in which the last reference points back to an element of finality in the prototype is a mechanism built into this device (279) and divided allusion creates the expectation of such a return. The boldness of the echo at Aeneid 6.460 suggests that more of the surrounding context will be found elsewhere in the epic. In book 4, two cases of oath-taking, one by Aeneas (his announcement of his forced departure), the other by Dido (professing her reluctance to resort to magic) replicate the Lock’s protest and anticipate Aeneas’ one-line quotation. The closural instance of unwilling departure, however, is Juno’s abandonment of her plans (et Turnum et terras invita reliqui) and oath attesting to her innocence (adiuro Stygii caput implacabile fontis) before ascending to the sky (Aen. 12.807–818). The tightness of this allusive system, which binds the three instances of oath-taking by Aeneas, Dido, and Juno together via the Lock’s oath, prompts the reader to weigh degrees of tragic culpability. For its theoretical acumen and the elegance of its proposed solution, Wills’ essay is indispensable reading. Restricting the scope of his argument to the single Vergilian line, P e l l i c c i a (893) looks back beyond Callimachus to the earlier literary tradition. He identifies a theme of unwilling departure in archaic Greek literature (Archilochus fr. 5 W, Sappho fr. 94 V) that might have played a large part in Euripides’ Alcmene and his Protesilaus, both lost. In Aeneid 6 he finds a cluster of motifs corresponding to the myth of Protesilaus and Laodamia: ‘a day-pass to the other world; the reuniting of lovers, one dead, the other alive; their second parting’, 200). He concludes that the allusion in line 460 looks back as a ‘window reference’ through the Latin and Greek versions of the Lock to an entire antecedent tradition. In addition, the figures of Ptolemy and Berenice possessed, for Vergil,  a contemporary historical resonance, reminiscent as they were of the union of first Caesar and Cleopatra and then Cleopatra and Antony. At this point it appears that the crux of Aeneid 6.460 has been resolved through the cumulative efforts of scholars over the past three decades (as summed up by W i l l s (892, 287–291) and should require no further discussion. Attention has lately been drawn to the end of P.Oxy. 2258, which contains  a fragmentary line restored as χ[αῖρε], φíλη τεκέεσσι (fr. 110.94a Pf.). Presumably this is  a closing salutation to either Berenice or the deified Arsinoë, honorary ‘mother’ to the royal sibling-couple, which Catullus in his adaptation omitted as irrelevant. F a n t u z z i  – H u n t e r (306, 476) suggest, however, that the opening lines of c. 67 addressing a feminine subject in language suited to a bride (O dulci iucunda viro, iucunda parenti, / salve, teque bona Iuppiter auctet ope)  translate that final distich, connecting the two elegiac works thematically. Several studies take the obvious next step by restoring the couplet to c. 66. 894.  A. A g n e s i n i , Catull. 67, 1 s.: incipit della Ianua o explicit della Coma? Paideia 66, 2011, 521–540. A g n e s i n i (894) argues that the first couplet of c. 67 belongs to the end of c. 66, where it translates the corresponding Callimachean sphragis. While this change

308

Marilyn B. Skinner

removes the playful aprosdoketon of  a door being greeted so ceremoniously, it also solves the anomaly of male kinfolk being attributed to an inanimate object. D u Q u e s n a y (293, 181–183) independently makes the same suggestion, justifying it by the effective ending it furnishes. Berenice is proclaimed iucunda to both her husband Ptolemy and her parent Arsinoë-Aphrodite and the parting prayer that she find favor with Jupiter is cast in solemnly ritual terms. This suggestion has now been endorsed by H e y w o r t h (64, 135–138). Catullus 67 895.  O. P o r t u e s e (ed.), Il carme 67 di Catullo: Introduzione, edizione critica, traduzione e commento, Quaderni di “Paideia” 16, Cesena 2013. P o r t u e s e ’s critical edition (895), based upon a new examination of the mss. tradition, opens with  a chapter on that subject. Unified in OGR and the recentiores, cc. 66–67 were first separated at 67.1 by Coluccio Salutati (R 2). However, an alternative tradition, represented by a3 and D2 , partitions the texts at 67.3, a division Portuese prefers. The second chapter characterizes the poem generically as a mixture of epic, hymnic, and oratorical parody with elements of the paraclausithyron and the epithalamium, further influenced by Plautine comedy (101–102). Turning back to the incipit, Portuese concurs with A g n e s i n i ’ s proposal (894), to transfer 67.1–2 to the end of c. 66 and begin c. 67 with the present line 3, Ianua quam Balbo dicunt servisse benigne: such an opening burlesques hymnic and aetiological invocations. Personification of the door is a topos derived from comedy, but with overtones of the ‘speaking house’ of tragedy. The high concentration of verba dicendi mocks epic, hymnic, and tragic appeals to mythic tradition later employed by Alexandrian poets to display learning. In the final section, the author discusses humanist attempts to distribute passages of dialogue between the Ianua and the interlocutor. Portuese’s line-by-line commentary is extensive and thorough, devoted primarily to textual criticism but with some attention to exegesis. At line 5 he prints †voto† instead of Fröhlich’s commonly accepted nato, dismissing the theory that the house’s latest owner, Caecilius, was the son of the senex Balbus. After Balbus’ death, the house became the property of a second dominus, an unnamed vir who had married a woman from Brixia. Because she was supposedly a virgin at the time of her marriage, prior in line 20 has to be adverbial; there was no previous husband. Portuese opts for a scenario in which she was deflowered by her father-in-law and engaged in affairs with Postumius and Cornelius while merely betrothed and living in Brixia; the nuptials occurred after the move to Verona (246–253). On the other hand, the longus homo whom the Door prefers not to name is presumably known to her by sight and therefore visits the wife in Verona. Portuese suggests that he is an influential personage and the real target of the lampoon. Besides the text and translation, the study also contains several tables: poem divisions in the mss. a3 and D2; a line-by-line synopsis of variant readings, conjectures, and proposers; editorial division of speakers; and editorial opinions on the identity of the questioner (poet, townsperson, or passer-by).

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

309

Literary criticism still struggles to understand the plot of c. 67 and work out the reason for its place among the longer poems. The most comprehensive study to date is a recent monograph: 896.  G. L a g u n a M a r i s c a l , Estudio literario de la poesía 67 de Catulo, Amsterdam 2002. Rev.: A r r i b a s H e r n á e z , Emerita 71, 2003, 359–360; B o r g o , BStudLat 33.1, 2003, 195; M o r e n o S o l d e v i l a  – P é r e z V e g a , BMCRev 2003.06.13; R u i z S á n c h e z , Myrtia 19, 2004, 218–222; G i a n g r a n d e , Veleia 22, 2005, 282–283; R í s q u e z M a d r i d , CFC(L) 25.1, 2005, 204–205; R o s k a m , Latomus 64.4, 2005, 1014–1015. After surveying the numerous problems of interpretation – textual, lexical-semantic, and literary – in a short introduction, L a g u n a M a r i s c a l (896) offers a critical text, translation, and detailed passage-by-passage exegesis followed by a précis of his conclusions. Starting from the premise that Caecilius is Balbus’ son and the impotent husband, he infers from the Door’s allegations that the old man assisted his offspring by deflowering his daughter-in-law on the wedding night. That event took place in Brixia, where the couple lived before moving to Verona after Balbus’ death and where the wife meanwhile conducted adulterous affairs with Postumius and Cornelius. Reference to a lawsuit involving a third unnamed lover and having to do with a falsum mendaci ventre puerperium (48) implicates the matrona herself. The Lex Voconia prohibited  a woman from receiving  a bequest of more than  a hundred thousand sesterces. Since she could not inherit the whole estate, she claimed falsely that she was pregnant by her husband Caecilius, though in actuality the child, who succeeded to the property, was her lover’s. The lawsuit exposing the adulterous union was brought by the disappointed male relative who would have received the estate had she not given birth. This explanation of the closing line rounds the poem off neatly and seems extremely plausible, given that, as Laguna Mariscal observes, a very similar situation, also presupposing the Lex Voconia, occurs in c. 68.119–124. Another feature of this monograph is its focus upon multiple semantic levels (ambigüedades) operating simultaneously within  a poem that is itself  a pastiche of genres – epithalamium, paraclausithyron, and hymn. Taking the language as inherently polysemous, Laguna Mariscal identifies numerous obscenities, some previously undetected, which in his view contribute to the malicious flavor of the poem: thus the syntagma iucunda viro, iucunda parenti (1), hymenaeal at first glance, anticipates the incestuous triangle later revealed; porrecto…sene (6) is an ἀπροσδόκητον inviting a reader to expect porrecto…pene; the interlocutor’s crude characterization of the elder Balbus’ act, ipse sui gnati minxerit in gremium (30) denotes literal, not metaphorical, pedicatio. The most complicated of these jokes is an allegorical reading of the Brixia and Mella ekphrasis (31–34) in which the town represents the errant wife, the river her ineffectual husband. As is often the case, some of these double-entendres may seem very plausible, others less so. Overall, however, they add additional spiciness to Laguna Mariscal’s highly commendable reading.

310

Marilyn B. Skinner

For a possible connection of the Cornelius of this poem with the addressee of c. 102, see E d w a r d s (1027) below. 897.  P. L e v i n e , Catullus lxvii. The dark side of love and marriage. ClAnt 4, 1985, 62–71. 898.  P. Y. F o r s y t h , Catullus 67: poeta chiarissimo? Latomus 45, 1986, 374–382. 899.  F. M c G r e a d y , On Catullus 67, MPhL 7, 1986, 119–121. 900.  W. A. C a m p s , Notes on Catullus and Ovid, CQ n.s. 37, 1987, 519–521. 901.  U. C a r r a t e l l o , Il carme della ianua, in: S.  Boldrini (ed.), Filologia  e forme letterarie: studi offerti a F. Della Corte, 5 vols., Urbino 1987, II.321–338. 902.  P. Y. F o r s y t h , A Note on Catullus 67.12, CW 83, 1989, 30–31. 903.  P. M u r g a t r o y d , Some Neglected Aspects of Catullus 67, Hermes 117, 1989, 471–478. 904.  U. C a r r a t e l l o , Le donne veronesi di Catullo, GIF 44, 1992, 183–201. 905.  R. S. K i l p a t r i c k , Two Notes on Roman elegy: Catullus 67 and Propertius 1.9, in: R. M. W i l h e l m  – H. J o n e s (eds.), The Two Worlds of the Poet. New Perspectives on Vergil, Detroit 1992, 296–302. 906.  E. K r a g g e r u d , Trying to Make Sense of Catullus 67, SO 80.1, 2005, 23–38. 907.  H. W h i t e , On Catullus and Brixia, Veleia 22, 2005, 257–258. 908.  G. G i a n g r a n d e , El Nilo y Brixia, Veleia 23, 2006, 391–392. 909.  M. L e w i s , Audience, Communication and Textuality in Catullus Carmen 67, Antichthon 43, 2009, 34–49. 910.  L. D e g i o v a n n i , Brixia Catulliana (Catull. 67,31–34), Eikasmόs 24, 2013, 159–182. L e v i n e (897) compares c. 67 with the Fescennina iocatio uttered at the Roman marriage ceremony, since its plot inverts the ideals of honorable love and marital fidelity. In its setting and tone it contrasts sharply with the preceding poem c. 66; yet the two share structural and thematic features, leading Levine to conclude that the juxtaposition was deliberate. F o r s y t h (898) famously despairs of  a solution to the poem’s riddle. Pointing to the multitude of ambiguities that take the scenario in diverse directions (vir prior [20] is the most obvious example), she concludes that Catullus deliberately endeavored to obscure its meaning because it was never meant to be circulated except to insiders; that of course begs the question of how it wound up in the collection,  a problem because Forsyth is  a strong proponent of authorial arrangement (see 192 and 555). M c G r e a d y (899) takes issue with arguments advanced by H a l l e t t 50 against G i a n g r a n d e ’s conjecture matronae (34).51 For 50 J. P. H a l l e t t , Ianua iucunda: The Characterization of the Door in Catullus 67, in: C. D e r o u x (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History II, Brussels 1980, 106–122. 51 G. G i a n g r a n d e , Catullus 67, QUCC 9 (1970) 84–131.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

311

the corruption at 67.12, C a m p s (900) proposes istuc populi fabula iniqua facit. In C a r r a t e l l o ’s reconstruction (901), the Door defends herself by assigning all the scandals firmly to Brixia and implying they took place at the house of the son’s fiancée before marriage. After the elder Balbus’ death the Door became marita (6) when his son, Caecilius Balbus, having inherited the paternal house at Verona, moved in and then married; that explains the citizens’ false assumption that the bride came to the house a virgin. Balbus’ defloration of the prospective bride was technically not incest and her affairs with Postumius, Caecilius and the longus homo technically stuprum rather than adultery. The unsavory reputation of the Door would arise from the wife’s continued infidelities in Verona after her wedding. F o r s y t h (902) reviews various previous attempts to heal 67.12 and then suggests emending the entire line so that the Door is asking herself a rhetorical question, verum isto populo ianua quid faciat? The three neglected aspects of c. 67 that M u r g a t r o y d (903) examines are its generic relationship to the paraclausithyron, its characterization of the Door, and its humor. He pronounces the poem an extensive adaptation of the standard locked-out lover’s lament; argues against H a l l e t t ’s theory52 that the Door is depicted as a matrona and advances new arguments for her being  a slave; and lists an array of humorous touches to reinforce his assertion that ‘a piquant mixture of crudity and sophistication, heaviness and subtlety, earthiness and quirkiness is in evidence’ (477). The title of C a r r a t e l l o ’s second article (904) may mislead; while the essay draws together pieces set in Verona that mention women (cc. 17, 67, 100, 82, 86, 110, 111, 41, and 43), it is not concerned with the depiction of provincial female figures but instead engages with scholarly opinion on standard questions and provides biographical explanations of the more obscure poems. K i l p a t r i c k (905, 296–298) revives Macleod’s controversial proposal53 to identify the longus homo with Caecilius, the new owner of the house, who is now revealed as the former materfamilias’ erstwhile lover. He speculates that the poem, composed as a fescennina iocatio, marks the occasion of a marriage at Verona by a Caecilius, perhaps with the cognomen Rufus, possibly also the same Caecilius from Novum Comum whom Catullus invites to Verona in c. 35. As his main objective, K r a g g e r u d (906) defends some disputed readings and proposes new ones. He adopts Fröhlich’s nato…maligne (5) and Badian’s est…pacta marita (6), and for line 12 endorses Kroll’s verum istis populis ianua cuncta facit. For V’s illius at line 23 he suggests the correction incestus and he emends line 27 to read quaerendu’ vir unde. Vir prior (20) refers to an earlier marriage, and the father-in-law with whom the wife became involved was not the blameless Balbus senior but the unnamed sire of her first spouse. Lastly, the longus homo is an inhabitant of Verona who enjoys free access to the younger Balbus’ home. At line 33 the Mel(l)o of the ms. tradition is identified by W h i t e (907) with the Nile on the grounds that Melo, a Latinized form of Μέλας, is an archaic designation for the Egyptian river. The personified Nile is portrayed, according to her, as 52 See above, n. 50. 53 C. W. M a c l e o d , The Artistry of Catullus 67, in: G. F a b i a n o – E. S a l v a n e s c h i (eds.), Δεσμὸς Κοινωνίας, Genova 1982, 71–88 (= Collected Essays, Oxford 1983, 187–195).

312

Marilyn B. Skinner

having ventured to Brixia in pursuit of the indigenous river nymph. In support of the same point, G i a n g r a n d e (908) deploys further ancient evidence regarding the name of the Nile and its connections with other rivers. Citing medieval documents, D i g i o v a n n i (910) states instead that the O reading Melo (Mello in X) was the ancient name of the river Garza, which flows through Brescia (Brixia)  to join the Mella. She also demonstrates that the humanistic conjecture Cycneae (32) accepted in almost all modern editions is not supported by any authentic ancient sources and argues for retaining the transmitted reading chinea, which may conceal  a name of Celtic origin. L e w i s (909) challenges the conventional interpretation of c. 67 as a diffamatio written for a Veronese audience and aimed at real individuals. It addresses the same learned Roman readership, she argues, as the rest of the Catullan corpus. Following a suggestion by F i t z g e r a l d (227, 205–207), she thinks it a parody of the preceding Callimachean translation,54 and, like F o r s y t h (898), though for different reasons, reckons that its ambiguities, the unresolvable semantic instability of vir prior and the consequent slippery time frame, were deliberately manufactured. The Door is cast as another unreliable narrator; the ubiquitous verbs of speaking glance at the Alexandrian and neoteric practice of using such generic verbs as markers of allusion to earlier sources (the so-called ‘Alexandrian footnote’); and the Door’s learned but incongruous mention of Brixia’s geographical features (31–34) burlesques Callimachean narrative style, all in keeping with the poem’s function as a comment on the nature of communication within both  a human society and  a metaliterary world. Lewis’ theory has the merit of removing us from the fruitless tangle of the scenario and calling our attention to the purpose of the poem within the collection. This is no doubt the right place to mention my own second thoughts. In S k i n n e r (94, 48–50) I proposed that c. 67 when orally performed would invite its audience visually to identify the performer, i. e. the poet Catullus, with the tall and auburn-haired last lover of the adulterous wife. The suggestion has been expressly rejected (P a r k e r [246, 190 n. 11]; P o r t u e s e [896, 314]) and I hereby withdraw it; it was stupid anyway. At the time I wrote I was not aware of L a g u n a M a r i s c a l ’s book (895) and of course did not have the benefit of P o r t u e s e ’s commentary. I would now tend to agree with Laguna Mariscal (109–110) that the Lex Voconia holds the key to the riddle, since it connects the adulterous wife to the lawsuit in which the longus homo was involved. I still maintain that the authorial placement of c. 67 as the central panel of a triptych, flanked on each side by an elaborate elegy and its accompanying transmittal letter, is a problem in its own right and requires further explanation, an issue that work subsequent to mine has not yet adequately addressed.

54 Given that premise, the W h i t e  – G i a n g r a n d e hypothesis (907 and 908) that the Nile should be envisioned as flowing underground to Cisalpine Gaul to merge with local waters is curiously relevant, fitting snugly into a metapoetic reading.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

313

Catullus 68a–b Significant publications mentioned earlier in this survey include the critical editions of M a g g i a l i (24) and K i s s (*25); S a r k i s s i a n ’s monograph (233); discussions in books by S k i n n e r (94), N e w m a n (220), J a n a n (248), M i l l e r (249), O l i e n s i s (250), C i t r o n i (274), H u t c h i n s o n (303), and S t e v e n s (473); and influential articles by L o w r i e (265), F e e n e y (386), K e n n e d y (389), V a n d i v e r (390), L y n e (469), and H o g e n m ü l l e r (864). Despite the multiple problems of the text and its interpretation, many of which remain unsolved, some consensus is emerging on the following points. Those who do not believe the addressee of 68a is Manlius Torquatus now tend to call him ‘Mallius’ and refer to his counterpart in 68b as ‘Allius’, but I will follow the choices of a given author. Much recent criticism agrees that cc. 68a and 68b, even if separate compositions, belong together (exceptions are M o r g a n [924] and M c K i e [925]). As  a corollary, the nearly identical ‘brother-passages’ 19–24 and 91–100 are taken as integral parts of the text to which they belong. There is  a tendency to ironize or undercut the indirectly quoted words of Catullus’ correspondent in 68a (F e a r [919]) and an understanding that the speaker of 68b feels his brother’s death must be regarded as the price paid for adultery and art (M i l l e r [249, 54]; O l i e n s i s [250, 49]; G a l e [939, 205]). Currently one major interpretive question is whether 68b is a reaffirmation of the poet’s faith in and acceptance of his calling (see N e w m a n [220, 236–237]; J a n a n [248, 134–135]; T h e o d o r a k o p o u l o s [949, 322]) or a rejection of the transcendent claims of poetry (S k i n n e r [94, 167–169], S t e i n e r [937, 296], S t e v e n s [473, 158–160]). 1. Textual Suggestions 911.  N. F. L a i n , Catullus 68.145, HSCPh 90, 1986, 155–158. 912.  A. A l l e n , Domus data ablataque: Catullus 68.157, QUCC 37, 1991, 101–106. 913.  –, Catullus 68, 157, Maia 53, 1991, 193–194. 914.  B. A r k i n s , Two Notes on Catullus: I. 68.145; II. Crucial Constants in Catullus: Callimachus, the Muses, Friends and Enemies, LCM 17, 1992, 15–18. 915.  G. G i a r d i n a , Munera Cereris in Catullo 68, 10? Philologus 151.1, 2007, 182–183. 916.  D. K i s s , Catullo 68, 10: “munera Veneris”, Philologus 152.2, 2008, 345–347. 917.  W. O l s z a n i e c , “Munera Veneris” sive de Catulli carminis 68 textu defendendo, Philologus 152.2, 2008, 348–349. For V’s often-doubted reading mira at 68.145, L a i n (911) proposes tacita. (T h o m s o n [5, 176] prints media; T r a p p e s - L o m a x [16, 243] opts for nigra, a reading

314

Marilyn B. Skinner

found, according to S c h w a b e ,55 in ω.) A l l e n ’s two notes grapple with the crux †terram dedit aufert† in line 157. In the former (912), after arguing that Catullus’ dead brother should be included in the blessing, he reads et qui principio nobis [domum] nostram dedit, aufert (‘and he [= my brother] who in the beginning gave us our own [home] and now takes it away [in death]’). In the latter (913), however, he endorses a suggestion rejected in the first essay.56 Et qui is epexegetic and refers to Allius, the tu of line 155; thus Allen now emends to operam dedit, auctor (‘he [Allius] who in the first place gave me his support, the engenderer [auctor] of all my blessings’). Apart from his admission of initial doubt about that reading of et qui (913, 193), it is hard to say which are his final thoughts, because both contributions appeared in the same year – a lectio data ablataque. A r k i n s (914, 115–116) defends mira…nocte at line 145, citing as analogous Propertius’ nox…candida (2.15.1) and Ovid’s arcana nocte (Her. 9.40). In the second part of the article, he observes a pattern of references to Callimachus and the Muses, and also to either friends or enemies, at the beginning and ending of certain parts of the collection, e.g. in cc. 1 and 116, 65, 61, and 68b. (Arkins is less convincing when attempting to fit cc. 60, 64, 14b, 14, and 7 into this scheme.) The conclusion he reaches is that Catullus did organize his own poems. Observing that ‘Catullus conceives Junia Aurunculeia in similar terms to Laodamia’ (52, 604), L y n e accepts Fröhlich’s dominae at 68.68, contending, on the basis of 61.31 domum dominam voca, that it refers to Lesbia as the (imagined) mistress of the house, not the elegiac mistress. At 68.89 he finds in commune sepulchrum a reference to the mass burial pits of paupers on the Esquiline and elsewhere (Hor. Sat. 1.8.8–10). On the grounds that munera Veneris is too vague to convey the presumed meaning ‘una ragazza’, G i a r d i n a (915) proposes the more commonplace munera Cereris, without explaining why Catullus’ correspondent should be requesting food instead of a girl as a cure for his troubles. K i s s (916) politely but firmly demolishes G i a r d i n a ’s case and O l s z a n i e c (917) adds a few more objections of his own. The notion of Catullus shipping a gift basket from Verona can, I think, be put to rest. 2. Catullus 68a 918.  P. Y. F o r s y t h , Muneraque et Musarum hinc petis et Veneris: Catullus 68A.10, CW 80, 1987, 177–180. 919.  T. F e a r , Veronae Turpe, Catulle, Esse, ICS 17, 1992, 245–263. 920.  J. G. F. P o w e l l , Two Notes on Catullus, CQ 40, 1990, 199–206. 921.  C. J. S i m p s o n , A Note on Catullus 68A.34 f., LCM 17, 1992, 12. 922.  T. F e a r , Another Note on Catullus 68a, 34 f., LCM 18, 1993, 4. 55 L. S c h w a b e , Catulli Veronensis Liber, Giessen 1866. 56 First proposed by D e l l a C o r t e (above, n. 14), 133 and then by T. D. P a p a n g h e l i s , A Note on Catullus 68.156–57, QUCC 11, 1982, 139–149.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

315

923.  C. J. S i m p s o n , Unnecessary Homosexuality. The Correspondent’s Request in Catullus 68a, Latomus 53, 1994, 564–569. 924.  J. D. M o r g a n , The addressee of Catullus’ poem 68A, CO 85, 2008, 141–150. 925.  D. S. M c K i e , Language and the Poetic Voice: Catullus 68a, in: Interpretation (165), 191–248. Following up an idea broached by K i n s e y ,57 F o r s y t h (918) proposes that with munera Veneris the writer (‘Manlius’) refers to the physical pleasures of sex, and that Catullus is rejecting, in addition to  a request for poetry,  a solicitation to begin or resume a homosexual affair. While expressly dismissing any homoerotic implications, F e a r (919) also insists on the sexual significance of munera Veneris. Together with the humorous diminutive epistolium (2) used of his missive, the bathetic shift from the portentious gravity of Mallius’ language in the first four lines to his commonplace complaint in lines 5–8 informs us that he is joking. Supposing that Catullus is having a better time at Verona than he himself is having in Rome, Mallius requests a new girl friend, to which Catullus responds by describing his present lack of interest in erotic matters (15–26). The poem is built around an effective contrast between each man’s misfortunes achieved as the speaker quotes his correspondent’s own words back at him. Powell’s second note (920, 202–206; the first, on c. 76, will be dealt with below) attempts to clarify the meaning of lines 27–30. He thinks the entire passage from Veronae to cubili is directly taken from Mallius’ letter, and that hic refers to Rome, from where it was sent. In the erroneous belief that Catullus had left Rome because of a quarrel with Lesbia, Mallius tells him he is not alone, that ‘every one of the better class now sleeps in a deserted bed’ – an exaggerated and misguided attempt to cheer him up and bring him back. The forcefulness with which Catullus asserts that his residence is at Rome, S i m p s o n (921) infers, is meant to emphasize his Roman citizenship. It may be a response to  a derogatory implication by his correspondent that his presence at Verona was shameful (turpe, 27) or conferred second-class status. The phrase quisquis de meliore nota (28) may also be a barbed comment. In a rejoinder, F e a r (922) observes that Catullus was being asked for a favor; insulting him, in that context, would have been counterproductive. In another article (923), S i m p s o n challenges F o r s y t h ’s interpretation of munera Veneris (918). Elsewhere in the corpus the goddess Venus appears only in heterosexual contexts; the verb ludere (multa satis lusi, 17), while it is sometimes employed in homoerotic situations (e.g. in cc. 99.1, 50.2 and 5, and 61.126), seems to denote ‘play’ or ‘poetic composition’ rather than sexual activity; and the noun studium (19 and 26) refers to intellectual pursuits, a meaning reinforced by delicias animi (26). However, both Forsyth’s and Simpson’s positions are invalidated by the imposition of  a modern heterosexual / homosexual dichotomy upon ancient erotic 57 T. E. K i n s e y , Some Problems in Catullus 68, Latomus 26, 1967, 36–53.

316

Marilyn B. Skinner

practices. (I also find it revealing that Simpson consistently speaks of ‘heterosexual love’ as distinguished from ‘homosexual lust’.) M o r g a n (924) thinks the addressee is Manius (M’.) Curius, who employs the rare phrase de meliore nota (68.28) in a letter to Cicero (Fam. 7.29.1). Use of the praenomen, though unparalleled elsewhere in Catullus, is not uncommon in correspondence with intimates, as Morgan demonstrates in an appendix (148–149). Through a series of assumptions, this Curius, who cared for a convalescent Tiro at his house in Patrae when Cicero was returning from Cilicia in 50 BCE, is further identified with the aleator and Antonian appointee whom Cicero attacked in his fifth Philippic (13–14) and also as Antony’s procurator of 42–40 BCE, characterized by Octavian as a pathicus in an epigram quoted by Martial (11.20). Taking Octavian’s word for Curius’ sexual inclinations, and noting his residence at Patrae, where Attis was worshipped, Morgan thinks Catullus composed c. 63 to suit his tastes. He also reaffirms Kinsey’s notion that in c. 68a ‘Manius sought to initiate, or more likely to resume, a sexual relationship in which Catullus would have been the active partner’ (148). While Morgan’s initial identification is worth considering, his chain of additional speculations as it unfolds becomes harder and harder to accept. Conversely, M c K i e (925) proposes that Manlius Torquatus, the bridegroom of c.  61, is the addressee of c. 68a. Written later, the epithalamium is  a munus for the poet’s social sponsor. By calling Catullus his amicus and offering him hospitium in Rome, the aristocratic Manlius has placed Catullus in  a position of obligation. The language of Catullus’ response displays marked signs of the deference expected in addressing a correspondent of higher social standing, especially when an offer of patronage is being refused. In the first eight lines, and again in lines 10, 27–29 and 33, Manlius speaks in his own voice, distinct from that of Catullus, while Catullus picks it up and adapts it as he refers back to the content of Manlius’ letter. Lines 27–29 are in oratio obliqua and suggest that Catullus is busy writing consolation poems for the deserted young nobility of Verona – a flight of fancy on Manlius’ part. Utriusque (39) is not a reference back to two things requested in line 10 but to two kinds of poems written by Catullus, those written previously, which brought him to Manlius’ attention, and those he is supposedly writing now. However, 68a is the poem Manlius will receive, incorporating his lively voice and personality as well as Catullus’ voice. ‘Catullus depicts the humour and character of a real Manlius, allowing the lively and engaging nature of Manlius’ mind to shine through the epistolary exchange which poetically he presents to the reader as an intertwining very much of two voices’ (248). This is a provocative reading, one that should be taken into consideration by future scholarship; its implicit upshot is that c. 68a has nothing to do with c. 68b, which was composed for another benefactor. 3. Catullus 68b 926.  E. C a v a l l i n i , Catull. 68, 132 ss., GFF 8, 1985, 123–124. 927.  R. S c h i l l i n g , La paronomase domus-domina dans l’élégie 68 de Catulle, AFLNice 50, 1985, 289–291.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

317

928.  K. M. W. S h i p t o n , Catullus 68 and the myth of Agamemnon, Latomus 44, 1985, 55–71. 929.  –, A successful kômos in Catullus, Latomus 44, 1985, 503–520. 930.  A. A l l e n , Sacrificial Negligence in Catullus, Latomus 45, 1986, 861–863. 931.  F. E. B r e n k , Arguta solea on the Threshold: The Literary Precedents of Catullus, 68, 68–72, QUCC n.s. 26.2, 1987, 121–127. 932.  M. H e a t h , Catullus 68b, LCM 13, 1988, 117–119. 933.  G. M i l a n e s e , Non possum reticere (Catullus 68A.41), Aevum(ant) 1, 1988, 261–264. 934.  M. J. E d w a r d s , The Theology of Catullus 68 b, A&A 37, 1991, 68–81. 935.  B. G. A c k r o y d - C r o s s , Catullus 68, 41–86, in: C. D e r o u x (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History VIII, Brussels 1999, 116–121. 936.  G. J a c k s o n , Catullo 68, 109 (= 69), Vichiana 4a serie, 1, 1999, 39–46. 937.  D. S t e i n e r , Catullan Excavations: Pindar’s Olympian 10 and Catullus 68, HSCPh 102, 2004, 275–297. 938.  A. d e V i l l i e r s , The Laodamia Simile in Catullus 68: Reflections on Love and Loss, Akroterion 53, 2008, 57–65. 939.  M. R. G a l e , Putting on the Yoke of Necessity: Myth, intertextuality, and moral agency in Catullus 68, in: Poems, Books, Readers (178), 184–211. In circumcursans…Cupido (68.133), C a v a l l i n i (926) finds  a reminiscence of S­ appho fr. 22.11–12 V, πόθος…ἀμφιπόταται. S c h i l l i n g (927) defends V ’s dominam, understands is…dedit dominam in an abstract sense, not ‘gave’ but ‘gave access to’, and takes the antecedent of ad quam to be domum. The same paronomasia, of which Catullus was fond, appears at line 158, et domus ipsi in qua lusimus et domina. S h i p t o n (928) observes Aeschylean reminiscences in c. 68b, primarily between Clytemnestra’s speech at Agamemnon 855–913 and Catullus’ imagery in lines 51–72. In each passage we find  a similar dramatic situation and set of events, in which  a confession of past sorrow and present relief is followed by the loved one’s entrance into the house. Both texts employ the same stock images of alleviation:  a cooling stream, rescue from shipwreck, an only son. In both the visitor, upon arriving, literally takes an ominous step. There are further parallels between the retributive sacrifices of Protesilaus and Iphigeneia, complicating the identifications of Catullus and Lesbia with various mythic figures and intensifying the dark undertones of the poem. (For a still more complex handling of the Aeschylean intertext, see G a l e [939]). In a second article (929), S h i p t o n analyzes c. 68b generically, concluding that it is a paraclausithyron or kômos, whose essential feature is the lover’s complaint before the closed door of his mistress. Found in each of the three main sections of the poem, paraclausithyron elements unify the composition structurally while endowing the figure of Heracles with a fitting significance as successful kômast. Catullus alters the paraclausithyron in two important ways, by giving it a happy ending (the lover gains

318

Marilyn B. Skinner

admission to the house) and by conflating it with the marriage motif, thereby elevating the genre above its traditional level. Rejecting a claim by T h o m a s 58 that hostia (76) refers to the sacrifice of Iphi­ge­ neia, A l l e n (930) thinks the clause beginning nondum cum informs us that the gods were already angry with Protesilaus. In ‘a sort of vivid synecdoche’ (862) the salient fact, absence of sacrificial appeasement, stands in for the encompassing idea of divine disfavor. For the arresting glimpse of Lesbia stepping on the threshold (71–73) B r e n k (931) finds an immediate precedent in Theocritus Idyll 2.103–104, where Simaetha recalls Delphis crossing her threshold with ‘light foot’. He notes, however, that the sacral topos of a divinity appearing in a doorway (e.g. Hymn Hom. Cer. 188–190; Hymn Hom. Ven. 173–175) may have been appropriated by romantic literature to transform the entrance of the beloved into a divine epiphany. H e a t h (932), contrary to received opinion, contends that Lesbia is not portrayed as a bride in 68b, that the step on the threshold was consequently not sinister in import, and that the correspondence with Laodamia extends only to each woman’s arrival at a house. Heath finds a lack of integration between the erotic frame and the core lament for Catullus’ brother but defends absence of thematic unity as a quality of ancient art. M i l a n e s e (933) draws together parallels from the Greek Anthology (e.g. Anon., AP 5.56.1, οὐ δύναμαι…) and Tibullan elegy (1.8.1, non ego celari possum…) to demonstrate that οὐ or non followed by  a first-person indicative verb occurs frequently at the beginning of a poem; technically, the phrase non possum reticere can therefore signal a new and independent composition. E d w a r d s (934) proposes that c. 68b is a meditation upon human helplessness in the face of divine hostility or indifference, claiming further that his reading is true to Catullus and central to the poem’s unity. Lesbia resembles the caelestes eri in her remoteness; as a diva she can act in no other way. The death of Catullus’ brother also reflects the gods’ malice, mirrored in the tribulations of Heracles and the tragic losses at Troy. Although cc. 68a and 68b are two poems opposed in spirit, they are unified in their tendency to ascribe the speaker’s personal sorrows to divine agents. A c k r o y d - C r o s s (935) believes lines 41–66 are an ironic prologue to 67 ff. Initial praise of Allius’ great deed, couched in overelaborate imagery, is deflated once the reader learns that his officium consisted in giving Catullus a house and a mistress whom they shared. The back story Ackroyd-Cross postulates involves, in addition, a past homoerotic affair with Allius, who in Catullus’ absence is ‘whining for more sex and more poetry’ (i. e. the munera et Musarum et Veneris of line 10). Enough said. J a c k s o n ( 936), observing the many intertextual echoes of Greek sources in the barathrum simile (107–118), postulates that Cylleneum (109), which forms a spondaic hexameter, alludes to a metrically similar phrase of Aratus, Λύρη τότε Κυλληναίη (597). S t e i n e r (937) explores several borrowings from Pindar’s Olympian 10, which shares the ostensible purpose of commemorative naming. The influence of Pindar’s ode is felt in Catullus’ acknowledgment of indebtedness and his delay (if we read 68a and 68b together) in conferring the munus; in his use of Heracles, associated with the motifs 58 R. F. T h o m a s , An Alternative to Ceremonial Negligence (Catullus 68.73–8), HSCPh 82, 1978, 175–178.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

319

of water and excavation, as heroic comparandum; and in his reflections on the passage of time and the poet’s capacity to defeat the forces of oblivion, seen in the simile of the late-born son at 68.119–124 that elaborates a comparison at O. 10.86–90. The divergent endings of Pindar’s and Catullus’ texts reflect contrasting attitudes toward time and song, the former triumphalist, the latter uncertain. D e V i l l i e r s (938) investigates dissimilarities in the way Laodamia operates as a vehicle of comparison for both Lesbia and Catullus. Citing ancient critics’ teachings that  a simile can be totum simile, dissimile, impar, or contrarium in relation to its referent, she points out that, while Laodamia epitomizes the passionate and loyal wife, Lesbia is not loyal and she is not Catullus’ wife, as he admits near the end of the poem. Furthermore, Laodamia turns out to have two referents: Lesbia and the poet. Catullus teases the reader by comparing Laodamia to Lesbia and then turning out to be more like Laodamia himself than Lesbia could ever be. Building on S h i p t o n ’s observations (928), G a l e (939) identifies further points of contact with Aeschylus’ Agamemnon in the central part of the elegy. Catullus’ version of the Protesilaus / Laodamia myth, with its attribution of the hero’s fate to a neglected sacrifice, is reminiscent of the ‘corrupt sacrifice’ motif permeating the Greek tragedy. Two related themes explored by both poets are the destruction of the bloodline and the relationship between human and divine causation, or human moral autonomy. Those inter- and intratextual connections convey a strong sense of anxiety surrounding the adulterous liaison with Lesbia. Ramifications of the Aeschylean intertext provide new interpretive insights into gender relations, deceptive language, and causality / moral agency as manifested in c. 68. ‘Catullus has taken up the problem of moral agency and over-determination so central to Aeschylus’ play and used it as  a way to point up analogous problems in his own handling of erotic desire and relations between the sexes’ (211). Gale’s essay illustrates  a contemporary tendency to read c. 68 in the light of its preoccupation with the ethical consequences of the Lesbia affair. 4. Comprehensive Treatments 940.  T. K. H u b b a r d , Catullus 68: The Text as Self-Demystification, Arethusa 17, 1984, 29–49. 941.  E. C o u r t n e y , Catullus 68 and its Compositional Scheme, in: Three Poems (65), 92–100. 942.  K. M. W. S h i p t o n , No Alternative to Ceremonial Negligence (Catullus 68.37 ff.), SO 62, 1987, 51–68. 943.  E. L e f è v r e , Was hatte Catull in der Kapsel, die er von Rom nach Verona mitnahm? Zu Aufbau und Aussage der Allius-Elegie, RhM 134.3–4, 1991, 311–326. 944.  J. J. C l a u s s , A Delicate Foot on the Well-Worn Threshold: Paradoxical Imagery in Catullus 68B, AJPh 116, 1995, 237–253. 945.  S. C a s a l i , Il letto celibe: ‘Mallio’, Laodamia, e l’unità di Catullo 68, RFIC 124, 1996, 440–443.

320

Marilyn B. Skinner

946.  D. P. F o w l e r , Catullus 68 and Propertius I, 10: a note, in: V. B é c a r e s B o t a  – F. P o r d o m i n g o  – R. C o r t é s To v a r  – J. C. F e r n á n d e s C o r t e (eds.), Intertextualidad en las literaturas griega y latina, Classica Salmaticensia 2, Madrid 2000, 233–240. 947.  E. Z a i n a , De la capsula de viaje a las tabellae de notas, QUCC n.s. 71.2, 2002, 149–162. 948.  S.  D ö p p , Munera et Musarum et Veneris. Catull c. 68 in der Entwicklungsgeschichte der römischen Elegie, in: Studia Catulliana (174), 5–19. 949.  E. T h e o d o r a k o p o u l o s , Poem 68: Love and Death, and the Gifts of Venus and the Muses, in: Companion (177), 314–332. 950.  M. Ö h r m a n , The Potential of Passion. The Laodamia Myth in Catullus 68, in: I. N i l s s o n (ed.), Plotting with Eros. Essays on the Poetics of Love and the Erotics of Reading, Copenhagen 2009, 45–57. 951.  C. D e r o u x , Quelques remarques grammaticales et autres sur le poème 68 de Catulle, in: M. B a r a t i n (ed.), Stylus. La parole dans ses formes. Mélanges en l’honneur du professeur Jacqueline Dangel. Paris 2011, 95–110. H u b b a r d ’s weighty deconstructive reading (940) starts by rejecting the possibility that the text offers unmediated access to the author’s consciousness; the intentionality of the creative process is complex and the text can rewrite meanings which the author himself may not fully grasp. In the case of c. 68, perceived logical ruptures incorporate authentic moments of self-revelation. Lines 68.41–160,  a richly metaphorical composition, traces a process of demystification in which the speaker, working with the figures of Laodamia and Protesilaus as inadequate paradigms for himself and his mistress, arrives at a degree of self-awareness about the realities of his situation, although that change is not fully valorized over his initial lack of cognizance. Meanwhile, the prologue section 68.1–40, ‘a post-script in the guise of a pre-script’ (39), by reflecting upon the nature of the poetic act and arriving at a denial of poeticity, subverts the energies of 68b. Yet 68b expands and tropes the narrative framework found in 68a. Each part of the composition is always already implicated in the other and each deconstructs the rhetorical strategy of the other; the poetic text as a whole is created out of the unresolvable breach left by their confrontation. C o u r t n e y (941) observes that the intricate compositional pattern of c. 68 is a Hellenistic device repeated in several other Catullan poems, both long and short. In c. 66 there is  a tripartite succession of separate ring-composition units with corresponding elements marked by verbal echoes. The circular framework of c. 64, whose corresponding segments offer similarity of proportion though not precise numerical responsion, is interrupted by the 81 lines of the Song of the Fates, structurally analogous to the 70-line lament of Ariadne. In the polymetric section, c. 17 exhibits exact numerical correspondence of parts, c. 4  a looser relationship to an annular design. With that background in mind, Courtney analyzes 68a and 68b as separate poems. In the latter, he postulates that a section of the second Laodamia unit, lines 119–130, which upsets  a proportional correspondence, was inserted subsequent to

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

321

the composition of the main body of the poem to attribute to Lesbia-Laodamia feelings of greater intensity. For the former poem, he traces an exactly symmetrical scheme: by taking lines 1–10 and 31–40 as parallel elements involving the requests for munera Musarum et Veneris, and by identifying a relationship in thought between lines 11–14 and lines 27–30 signaled by the repetition of misero (14) and miserum (30), he produces a balanced composition with the brother passage at its core. (For another ring-compositional analysis of c. 68b, see T r a i l l [331]). In opposition to Thomas,59 S h i p t o n (942) champions the traditional exegesis of lines 75–76 as  a reference to  a neglected sacrifice on the part of Laodamia and Protesilaus. Close reading of the surrounding context of that couplet and also of the barathrum simile, which associates Laodamia’s passion with disaster, indicates that the myth incorporates a moral lesson about obtaining divine approval for any new undertaking, in this case the real-life ‘marriage’ of Catullus and Lesbia. L e f è v r e (943) answers the question posed in his title by postulating that the capsula contained the Alexandrian original of the Laodamia narrative. Catullus responds to Allius’ request for consolation by framing this source material with an autobiographical account of his affair in which Lesbia functions as a parallel to Laodamia. Like her union with Protesilaus, his relationship with his mistress has not received divine sanction. Mythical and contemporary Troy are associated through the deaths of Protesilaus and his brother; thus Catullus’ lament over the infidelity of his beloved becomes a funerary lament. The theme of marriage, for which c. 68 serves as a sphragis, binds the longer poems together into an independent collection. C l a u s s (944) argues that cc. 68a and  b are opposed in their application of Callimachean poetics. The first poem is a Callimachean-style recusatio that fulfills Manlius’ request for a composition in the modern manner consoling him for his grief. The second inverts the Callimachean aesthetic through contrasting patterns of excess and restraint. In conjunction with P o l i a k o f f ’s discovery of  a violation of Hermann’s Bridge in line 49 (339), the tenuousness of the spider’s web is negated, implying that Allius’ favor requires exuberant acknowledgement. Similarly, Lesbia’s delicate foot is set upon a well-worn threshold, a detail evoking Callimachus’ condemnation of the wide path trodden by the multitude. In the end, however, figurative application of quantitative measures to Laodamia’s immoderate passion allows the speaker to confront his own distress with greater restraint. Comparable inversion can be seen in the way Laodamia and Catullus respond to the deaths of loved ones at Troy. Thus cc. 68a and 68b capture a transition in the poet from despair to hope. C a s a l i (945) calls attention to a clue that the addressees of cc. 68a and 68b are the same person. The Laodamia myth does not correspond to the situation of Allius, the addressee of 68b, who is wished happiness together with his beloved, but it does reflect the position of Mallius in 68a, abandoned by his beloved and lying, like Laodamia, desertum in lecto caelibe (6). This is the initial appearance of the iunctura lectus caelebs, which is found in Latin literature just once more,60 at Ovid’s Heroides 13.107 where 59 Above, n. 58. 60 In Seneca’s tragedies a variation, caelebs torus, appears twice (Agam. 185; Herc. Fur. 245).

322

Marilyn B. Skinner

Laodamia speaks of experiencing false dreams while lying in lecto caelibe. Ovid’s reuse of the Catullan phrase implies he saw a parallel between Laodamia, the heroine of 68b, and the addressee of 68a; this piece of evidence bears, in turn, upon the unity of c. 68 as a whole. Applying a similar intertextual strategy, F o w l e r (946) reasons that successive references to c. 68a.10, munera…Musarum et Veneris, in Propertius 1.10.12, commissae munera laetitiae, and to c. 68b.41, non possum reticere, in vestros…reticere dolores, which occurs immediately thereafter, indicate that the author of the Monobiblos read Catullus’ poem as a unity, or at least as two texts closely connected. The magic powers of helping friends which, as an experienced lover-poet, Propertius claims for himself in lines 15–18 of the same elegy could mean the munera Veneris requested by Catullus’ addressee were comparable kinds of practical assistance. Z a i n a (947) studies images of the writer and his books as metaphors for the process and product of writing. In c. 68 the extensive library left behind in Rome stands for the erudite, demanding text requested by Manlius as  a cure for erotic suffering, whereas the few books in the capsula, the works of the old authors Catullus takes with him for consolation, suggest  a more restricted encounter with intertextuality. The latter image portrays an intermediate stage between highly allusive neoteric compositions and c. 65, which introduces the result of intense focus upon only one text. The converse of scenes of bookish creation is c. 50, in which verses appear to burst forth without recourse to other authors, free from the monumental weight of the past; the wax tabellae suggest their ephemerality. There is a twofold picture of composition in c. 50 as well, since improvisation is followed by another stage in the creative process, the production of a more lasting poema. Such material objects – the library, the capsula, the bookroll and the tabellae – also reflect, as textual metaphors, the power of words to affect the reader. Zaina concludes with a few cautionary remarks about the limits placed upon our appreciation of Catullan intertextuality, first by the loss of his Callimachean models and then by taking the poet’s word that c. 66 is a simple translation. (For other approaches to Catullan texts as material entitities, see ‘IV. Critical Interpretation’, section C.1, above.) Despite the impression given by the title, D ö p p ’s essay (948) is largely a progressive explication, passage by passage, of what he regards as a unified poem. Only in the concluding paragraphs does he mention its two contributions to later Roman elegy: the representation of the mistress as a desiring as well as desired partner, and emphasis on the happiness along with the burdens of the relationship. He could have made a stronger case, I believe, for singling out those particular features as the sole aspects of its legacy. T h e o d o r a k o p o u l o s (949), in an essay introducing c. 68 to non-specialists, walks her reader through its major interpretive issues. On the question of unity, she regards cc. 68a and 68b as separate but related units, and she suggests, citing Anacreon’s praise (fr. 96 Diehl) of the ideal sympotic poet, that Manlius’ petition for the ‘gifts of the Muses and the gifts of Venus’ means, respectively, Catullus’ poetic talent and his charm (venustas) when reciting his work at dinner parties. Refusal of Manlius’ request thus involves a rejection of his former way of life, including convivial performance,

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

323

and a change in the transmission of his poetry, since at Verona he must rely on writing to communicate instead of oral delivery. The proem of 68b establishes that this is a text meant to be read and one that will preserve the name of Allius for generations. Theodorakopoulos insists that Catullus does believe in the immortalizing power of art. She explains Allius’ officium in giving Catullus a domus and a domina as providing him the short-lived happiness of living in a house with Lesbia as his bride. In analyzing the central section, she notes recent opinion that the chasm between experience and literature is fundamental to the entire poem and that the succession of similes upon which the section is built highlights that chasm. The multiple resonances of Troy, combining its literary pedigree with its destructive nature, and the jarring comparison of Laodamia’s grief to  a barathrum produce distancing effects; the similes of the grandfather and the dove illuminate the two aspects of Laodamia’s love for Protesilaus and Catullus’ love for Lesbia. Despite the frank confession of adultery that follows, demolishing the marriage fantasy, Theodorakopoulos defends the transmitted mira at line 145 (cf. L a i n [911]) because at this point it perfectly conveys the self-contradictory position of the lover. She concludes by noting that other, more ambivalent, Lesbia pieces bear the marks of performativity, but in verses meant to be read, ‘viewed from a distance and worked into a densely allusive poem, the beloved’s deficiencies are not insurmountable’ (329) and the poem itself may be a means of defeating death and loss. Theodorakopoulos offers a coherent, judicious and largely compelling interpretation of the elegy that foregrounds performativity – or, rather, its relinquishment – as a defining artistic theme. For Ö h r m a n (950), whether the beloved in 68b is to be identified with Lesbia is a key problem posed by the text, which also sketches alternative versions of the future development of the affair by hinting at a different ending for the myth of Laodamia and Protesilaus. A dichotomy between denied and realized potential, between Laodamia’s unrestrained and insatiable passion and a conjugal love contained within normative patterns of gender behavior, runs throughout the mythic simile, implying that Catullus’ heroine could have learned to accept her moral and social responsibilities had her husband not been taken from her. The likening of the beloved to Laodamia, trapped at one stage of her relationship, suggests that the narrator’s relationship will also fail to reach its full potential. After a lengthy review of earlier scholarly opinion, D e r o u x (951) concludes that the problem of unity posed by c. 68 is far from being resolved and turns instead to a grammatical question, the meaning of nam quod in line 32. Instead of introducing a second reason why Catullus cannot comply with the addressee’s request, quod indicates that he is replying to a statement made in the preceding letter, as established by the parallel expressions quod mihi (1) and quod scribis (27). Deroux infers that his friend, to encourage him to return to Rome, had reminded him of the dearth of literary resources in Verona.61 Nam, for its part, does not justify a preceding statement but, like French quant à, anticipates an underlying thought that follows and, like 61 This is an intriguing suggestion, but D e r o u x does not follow through on all its implications. He takes lines 27–30 to pertain to Lesbia’s behavior in Rome in Catullus’ absence. If that

324

Marilyn B. Skinner

English ‘as for…’ has a dismissive overtone. The death of his brother, not a short supply of books, is the sole justification Catullus provides for declining to send a poem. Catullus 69 and 71 952.  J. H. N i c h o l s o n , Goats and Gout in Catullus 71, CW 90.4, 1997, 251–261. 953.  C. N a p p a , The Goat, the Gout, and the Girl: Catullus 69, 71, and 77, Mnemosyne 52, 1999, 266–276. 954.  A. R a m í r e z d e V e r g e r , Catullus 69, 3, Philologus 148.2, 2004, 362–364. 955.  D. K u t z k o , Catullus 69 and 71: Goat, Gout, and Venereal Disease, CW 101.4, 2007–2008, 443–452. 956.  J. L. F e r r i s s , Catullus Poem 71: another foot pun, CPh 104.3, 2009, 376–384. Recent work regards cc. 69 and 71 as two closely associated epigrams on the theme of ‘personal hygiene’ (T h o m s o n [5] 491, 493) and explores the associations of ‘goatiness’ and gout, the twin afflictions Catullus imputes to his target(s). N i c h o l s o n (952) starts off this line of inquiry by proposing that the speaker’s aemulus in c. 71 is Caelius Rufus and suggesting that body odor and gout are metaphors for moral corruption. N a p p a (953) links the two poems together with c. 77 as examples of iambic verse drawing social and moral boundaries by which the unwanted are excluded from the community. The transgression denounced in cc. 69 and 71 is inelegance, which foreshadows the moral flaw in c. 77, betrayal of friendship. By defining such behavioral norms, the poet implicitly constructs his own persona as one who observes them. For c. 69.3 R a m í r e z d e V e r g e r (954) submits the emendation Coae…vestis. K u t z k o (955) cites ancient medical testimony to bolster his assertion that both foul odors and foot pain are symptomatic of venereal disease. F e r r i s s (956) argues that podagra refers to metrical ineptitude, aemulus to a literary imitator who has acquired bad habits of versification from the addressee, and their shared girlfriend as a body of poetry; the variation in the quantity of podagra each time it appears in the epigram confirms the underlying joke. Catullus 70 957.  P. A. M i l l e r , Catullus, c. 70. A Poem and Its Hypothesis, Helios 15, 1988, 127–132. 958.  M. R u i z S á n c h e z , Tres poemas catulianos (C. LXX, LXXII y LXXV), Myrtia 6, 1991, 95–112. passage corresponds with lines 33–36 in its import as well as in length, hic (28) should also refer to Verona; Catullus would then be responding to an earlier, similarly frivolous, remark about his current place of residence.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

325

M i l l e r (957) questions Kenneth Quinn’s thesis62 that good poems are grounded upon a ‘hypothesis’ which it is the commentator’s task to uncover. This approach, he says, can lead critics to dismiss as failures Catullan epigrams that do not unfold in logical fashion. For example, c. 70, a self-reflexive work that questions its premises, is constructed around a series of oppositions – male and female, mortal and immortal, spoken and written, temporal and eternal – that interrogate one another but offer no set answers. R u i z S á n c h e z (958) examines the relationships of cc. 70, 72, and 75 to their models and shows how Catullus has profoundly transformed each predecessor in tone as well as content. In c. 70, the poet conflates two epigrams adjacent to each other in Meleager’s Garland, AP 5.6 by Callimachus and AP 5.8 by Meleager, adopting in each case the female perspective. Along with giving the speaker a personal involvement in the situation, the suppression of Callimachus’ final distich changes the tone radically. The motif of writing on water taken from Meleager is adapted into a general comment on the impossibility of friendship with a woman. Introduced at c. 72.7–8 and fully developed in c. 75, the odi et amo formulation most closely resembles Theognis 1091–1094. Other instances of this topos in the literary tradition deal with absence of emotional reciprocity, but Catullus gives it a moral coloring by foregrounding the beloved’s want of fides and pietas. Structural parallelism in c. 75 and verbal correlations in c. 72 in each case reinforce tonal alteration. Catullus 72 959.  D. P. K u b i a k , Time and Traditional Diction in Catullus 72, in: C. D e ­ r o u x (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History IV, Brussells 1986, 259–264. 960.  J. J. I s o , Aspectos del amore en Catulo (c.c. LXXII y LXXV), in: Excerpta philologica Antonio Holgado Redondo sacra, 2 vols., Cádiz 1991, 342–352. 961.  R. H.  S i m m o n s , Deconstructing  a Father’s Love: Catullus 72 and 74, CW 104.1, 2010–2011. G r a n a r o l o (399), in an influential essay, analyzes the familial aspects of the affection Catullus expresses for Lesbia. Noting that in the longer poems the adverb quondam joined with a verb of saying is a formula borrowed from Alexandrian narrative and evoking a mythological past, K u b i a k (959) suggests that dicebas quondam locates Lesbia’s onetime declaration in the domain of myth. I s o (960) studies cc. 72 and 75 as examples of ‘paradoxical love poetry’ in which Catullus attempts to determine the reason for his conflicted feelings about Lesbia. He argues that Catullus’ incorporation of such terms as iniuria, amare, and bene velle or officium, foedus, and amicitia into the lexicon of love poetry arise from the absence of precise language to describe his feelings and experiences, not from a desire to map the socio-political onto the amatory sphere for metaphorical purposes. In c. 75 mens…deducta est conveys a stage of moral degradation lower than that portrayed in c. 72. S i m m o n s (961) 62 K. Q u i n n , The Commentator’s Task, Didaskalos 2.3, 1968, 114–126.

326

Marilyn B. Skinner

finds lexical and structural connections in the closely positioned cc. 72 and 74, notably the linkage of pater and patruus, that cast the shadow of incest upon the examples Catullus chooses to illustrate his dispassionate love. Gellius’ oral rape of his uncle, which sexualizes all familial affection, crudely illustrates the poet’s concerns that even the most carefully chosen language may be misunderstood, certainly by literal-minded readers. The structural similarity of c. 74 to the paternal imagery of the earlier poem offers  a correction to the masculinity and seniority that Catullus, quite unusually, attributes to himself in c. 72. Catullus 73 962.  G. M a u r a c h , Catull c. 73, Philologus 148.2, 2004, 364–372. Close reading of the text leads M a u r a c h (962) to interpret the last distich as causal, giving  a reason for the generalizing negation in the first four lines. In denying the ­possibility of any enduring goodwill, the poem calls the basis of all human relationships into question. Catullus 74 963.  K. F. K i t c h e l l , ‘Et Patruum Reddidit Arpocratem’: A Reinterpretation of Catullus c. 74, in: C. D e r o u x (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History III, Brussels 1983, 100–110. K i t c h e l l (963) finds an obscene double-entendre based on ‘a bit of recondite eastern lore’ (107). The Egyptian god Harpocrates (Horus), portrayed as a boy with a finger to his lips, is said by Varro (Ling. 5.10.57) and later authorities to enjoin silence upon bystanders. Egyptian sources, however, state that the child’s finger is in his mouth, and statuettes of the Isis Lactans type show him sucking at his mother’s breast; thus reddidit Arpocratem implies that Gellius has not just shamed his uncle into silence but rendered him speechless through irrumation. S i m m o n s (961) accepts and builds upon this obscene meaning. Catullus 75 964.  W. H a n s e n , Catullus 75 and the Poetics of Separation, NECN 26.1, 1988–1989, 20–26. 965.  J. U d e n , Embracing the Young Man in Love: Catullus 75 and the Comic “adulescens”, in: Contemporary Perspective (175), 19–34. H a n s e n (964) argues for a network of lexical and semantic elements in the poem that call attention to separation and division not only as a poetic construct but also as a metaphor for the poet’s emotional state. Construing mea with mens instead of Lesbia, he thinks the suppression of the regular affectionate epithet conveys the painfulness

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

327

of the rift and considers the essential thematic pivot to be the contrast of mens mea… tua culpa. The ominously vague omnia si facias with which the poem concludes haunts the reader because it leaves all the negative possibilities unsaid. R u i z S á n c h e z (958) traces a community of links between c. 75 and the poems surrounding it: the last part of c. 76, the final distich of c. 72, and, less obviously, the opening lines of c. 73. Like I s o (960) and H a n s e n (964), he focuses upon the poem’s symmetry, analyzing, in particular, the structural pairing of semantic oppositions reinforced by assonance. U d e n (965) is a significant intertextual study of comic influence with ramifications for the whole series of Lesbia epigrams. By the late Republic, he argues, the stock figure of the comic adulescens had become the stereotypical expression of the young man passionately in love, a literary background that would strongly shape a Roman audience’s response to the Catullan persona. Taking c. 75 as his example, he explores the associations with the adulescens a culturally educated reader would make. If those links are acknowledged, c. 75 can be read as both a literary and a political self-definition that appropriates clichés of popular literature for the production of sophisticated verse and reclaims for itself a cultural paradigm contrary to the protocols of elite male behavior. On Catullus’ overall indebtedness to Plautus, see further A g n e s i n i (370). Catullus 76 966.  A. D. L e e m a n , Catulls Carmen 76, in: Form und Sinn. Studien zur römischen Literatur, Frankfurt a. M. and Bern 1985, 123–137. 967.  J. G r a n a r o l o , Catulle “Préchrétien”?, LEC 54, 1986, 29–45. 968.  P. P i e t q u i n , Analyse du poème 76 de Catulle, LEC 54, 1986, 351–366. 969.  N. S c i v o l e t t o , La protasi del c. 76 di Catullo, in: Studi di filologia classica in onore di Giusto Monaco, 4 vols., Palermo 1991, II.737–743. 970.  B. V i n e , Catullus 76.21: ut torpor in artus, RhM n.f. 136.3–4, 1993, 292–297. 971.  A. B a r a b i n o , Ancora sul carme 76 di Catullo: semantica della struttura, Maia 46, 1994, 135–148. 972.  S. J. H e y w o r t h , Dividing Poems, in: O. P e c e r e   – M. D. R e e v e (eds.), Formative Stages of Classical Traditions, Spoleto 1995, 117–148. 973.  J. B o o t h , All in the Mind: Sickness in Catullus 76, in: S. M. B r a u n d  – C. G i l l (eds.), The Passions in Roman Thought and Literature, Cambridge 1997, 150–168. 974.  R. W. C a r r u b b a , The Structure of Catullus 76, PP 57, 2002, 297–302. 975.  L. E. M o l e r o A l c a r a z , Léxico de la enfermedad y léxico del trauma o de la herida en la poesía amatoria de Catulo, Habis 39, 2008, 97–120 [rés. en angl.]. G r a n a r o l o (967) returns to a conviction broached in his 1967 doctoral thesis that Catullus, had he lived in a later age, could have been receptive to Christian teachings.

328

Marilyn B. Skinner

In c. 76, the speaker’s belief in pity as  a divine attribute and his certainty that by righteous conduct he has merited the gods’ help in overcoming his illness provide evidence of a ‘pre-Christian’ disposition. During the first decades of this survey much discussion centered upon the unity of c. 76. L e e m a n (966) uses the poem to illustrate principles of literary interpretation, first by establishing a serviceable text and then by employing formal and rhetorical exegesis to show coherence and intent. After dividing the piece into two sections, a sixteen-line internal monologue and  a ten-line prayer, P i e t q u i n (968) identifies structural, lexical and semantic, and poetic (auditory) resonances that create internal consistency. In the first half of his two-part study (920, 199–202), P o w e l l supplies the philosophical background required for  a correct understanding of the speaker’s claim at the opening. That recollection of virtuous action can be a source of consolation in suffering or at the point of death was one standard argument for the utility of virtue. Catullus invokes this moral dictum ironically, citing his own experience as proof that it does not work. Tracing the progression of thought along those lines, Powell contends that the poem as  a whole is more lucid than it might appear. S c i v o l e t t o (969) also studies the logical relationship between the first and second sections. Catullus justifies his appeal for divine aid through syllogistic demonstration, beginning with  a gnomic ethical statement as his major premise. Although the argument appears at first to be an enthymeme, the ostensibly suppressed minor is contained in the nam clause of lines 7–8 which is placed after the conclusion for greater emphasis. Contrary to the notion of full ring-composition, B a r a b i n o (971) finds the key to the poem in the speaker’s abrupt shift from an optimistic belief in self-mastery to a realization of moral impotence, a corollary of Lesbia’s own inability to change her moral nature. Reprise of introductory elements shows their systematic transposition from a context governed by human will to one in which divine power is the sole means of salvation. After reviewing the numerous structural divisions already proposed, C a r r u b b a (974) opts for a scheme in which the last ten lines are apportioned as 6+4 and the first sixteen lines broken down into two subdivisions: 1–6 and 7–9 in a declarative mode, and 10–16 in the mode of question and answer. Despite so many meticulous efforts to explain how the argument fits together, H e y w o r t h (972, 133–136) disappointingly opines that c. 76 is in fact two separate poems juxtaposed in the mss., largely because the whole composition is too long for an epigram.63 Other essays scrutinize the imagery of illness. Taking her cue from R o s s ’ perception of  a political subtext64 in Catullus’ appropriation of  a ‘language of moral obligation’ for the Lesbia affair, S k i n n e r (383) examines the disease metaphors used for the speaker’s sense of betrayal in the last half of c. 76 and for  a related breach of friendship in c. 77. They connote, she proposes, ‘the breakdown of the code that controls relationships of friendship and obligation within the larger social order’ (232). V i n e (970) observes that  a lexical pattern frequently found in Vergil and Ovid, tremor / timor / torpor / sopor / sudor (etc.) (occupat) artus (the last 63 H e y w o r t h ’s assertion is accepted by T r a p p e s - L o m a x (16, 250–252). 64 R o s s (above, n. 18), 88–90.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

329

element always in line-final position) is an obvious rendering of Homer’s τρόμος ἔλλαβε γυῖα (Il. 24.170). The Catullan original, however, sub(repens)…torpor…artus, recalls c. 51.9, torpet…sub artus and thus adds to the image of disease creeping through limbs like a paralysis the epic association of seizure of the hero’s limbs when in an extreme state of fear. M o l e r o A l c a r a z (975) discusses all images in the Catullan corpus related to sickness, injury, or wounding / loss of blood. In the ancient imaginary, bodily pain is conflated with pain of the soul. Catullus’ references to sickness do not contain common lexical elements, and there is no portrayal of illness as an epidemic or  a collective malady. There is  a relationship between sickness and langour and between amorous frenzy and sleeplessness or madness. Felt as an injury that robs the lover of integrity, love is expressed metaphorically as fire, centered in the bone marrow; similarly, there is a mental association between sickness and torture. Imagery of wounding, though, is limited to the longer poems 63, 64, and 68. Due to accidents of preservation, Catullus is the author who establishes in Latin erotic poetry and its later Western imitators the correlation of love and pain. In contrast to the above approaches, B o o t h (973) takes the language of illness at face value instead of treating it as  a trope for passion. Comparison with traditional literary renderings of lovesickness, with philosophical theories of psychological afflictions, and with medical accounts of psychosomatic ailments shows that Catullus’ condition is none of those. The end of the poem imparts an ‘unprecedentedly deep insight’ into the nature of the state he desires to be free of, not love, however complex, but a mental crippling (torpor) that a modern psychologist might diagnose as reactive depression. Catullus 77 976.  B. A r k i n s , Caelius and Rufus in Catullus, Philologus 127, 1983, 306–311. 977. D. L ό p e z - C a ñ e t e Q u i l e s , Sobre Catulo, 77 (In Caelium), Habis 34, 2003, 123–147. A r k i n s (976) is  a highly cautious attempt to determine which, if any, of the references to the person or persons Caelius and Rufus in cc. 58, 69, [71], 77, and 100 might involve Cicero’s client M. Caelius Rufus. The Caelius of c. 100 is ruled out because he is said to be Veronese; he is possibly the same man as the Caelius of c. 58. If Lesbia was Clodia Metelli, c. 77 perhaps does refer to M. Caelius, while cc. 69 and 71 could do so, though they probably do not. If Lesbia was one of the two other Clodiae, the likelihood of any reference is diminished: c. 77 may or may not refer to M. Caelius, but, if the addressee is another Rufus, he may be identical with the person mentioned in cc. 69 and 71. N a p p a (953) treats c. 77 as the underlying rationale for the iambic campaign against Rufus, capping earlier denunciations of inelegance in cc. 69 and 71 with a moral indictment of his character. L ό p e z - C a ñ e t e Q u i l e s (977) finds clues to the historical context of c. 77 in its opening fiscal language, which tropes friendship as  a loan, and its closing metaphors of poison. Both systems of imagery refer to the charges against Caelius Rufus in the trial of 56 BCE , borrowing money to finance the murder of the ambassador Dio and attempting to poison Clodia.

330

Marilyn B. Skinner

Catullus 78 and 78b 978.  G. M i l a n e s e , Su Catullo, carme 78: unità, ideologia, linguaggio, Maia 40, 1988, 251–261. On stylistic and codicological grounds M i l a n e s e (978) first disputes Giangrande’s proposal65 to unite cc. 78 and 78b. Since separation of two related pieces by an un­related one is  a common pattern in Catullus, the fragmentary c. 78b may have belonged to a second poem against Rufus, the addressee of c. 77. Finally, Milanese presents a structural reading of c. 78 that aligns it with cc. 12, 22 and 50 as works emphasizing the coherence of social and literary codes. Catullus 79 979.  P. Y. F o r s y t h , Catullus 79, Latomus 44, 1985, 377–382. 980.  W. J. T a t u m , Catullus 79: Personal Invective or Political Discourse?, in: F. C a i r n s  – M. H e a t h (eds.), Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar VII, Leeds 1993, 31–45. 981.  J. L. B u t r i c a , Clodius the pulcher in Catullus and Cicero, CQ 52, 2002, 507–516. 982.  J. M. T r a p p e s - L o m a x , ‘Kissing Clodius: A Note on Catullus 79’, PCPhS 49, 2003, 155–157. With few exceptions, scholars now seem to agree that c. 79 identifies ‘Lesbia’ not just as a sister of P. Clodius Pulcher but as his eldest sister, Clodia Metelli. However, the implications of its attack on Clodius, here disguised as ‘Lesbius’, are still strongly contested. F o r s y t h (979) believes that c. 78b is  a poetic prelude to c. 79. With its obvious accusation of os impurum, it implies that the last line of c. 79 contains a charge of fellatio, a motif then picked up by c. 80. According to T a t u m (980), the opening couplet assists the identification of Lesbius by applying the standard invective topos of incest and also reinforces the themes of Claudian exclusivity and Catullan isolation. While he does not deny the obscene implications of the last line, Tatum takes the verb vendat as a reference to Clodius’ seizure and sale of the exiled Cicero’s property and Lesbius’ inability to obtain greetings from noti as  a reminder of his failure at preventing Cicero’s ultimate recall. B u t r i c a (981) denies any reference to sibling incest; the reiterated pulcher, he believes, hints that Clodius’ acquaintances regard him as the equivalent of an exoletus, the role in which he was apparently cast, judging from fragments, in Cicero’s lost speech In Clodium et Curionem delivered in 61 BCE . T r a p p e s - L o m a x (982) questions the reading notorum on the grounds that casual acquaintances in the Republican period did not engage in social kissing and proposes amicorum, implying a warmer degree of intimacy. 65 G. G i a n g r a n d e , Catulls Gedicht auf Gallus, Eranos 74, 1976, 170–173.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

331

Catullus 83 983.  E. J. N e s h o l m , “Uritur et loquitur”: (mis)understanding passionate speech in Catullus 83, Latomus 71.3, 2012, 686–695. Building upon observations by J a n a n (248, 83–85) and S k i n n e r (94, 66–69) regarding Lesbia’s ambiguous language, N e s h o l m (983) maintains that c. 83 shows the dynamics of interpretive instability at work. The unspecified referent mule opens up space for us to observe and resist the speaker’s linguistic manipulation of his reader, permitting us to inquire why that counterintuitive understanding of Lesbia’s words should take precedence over her husband’s more straightforward interpretation. Catullus 84 984.  J. H.  N i c h o l s o n , Catullus 84: in vino veritas, Phoenix 52.3–4, 1998, 299–304. After observing the frequency of the letter s in c. 84 and the effects of its emphatic positioning at line-end, V a n d i v e r (341) opines that it evokes the hissing of ­A rrius’ misplaced aspirates. The interrelations, placements, and sounds of words thus work together with their meanings to recreate, in the poem itself, the impression that Arrius’ speech made on the listener. R y a n (646, 85–86), in the first of two pro­ sopographical notes, rejects an identification of Catullus’ target with the famous orator Q. Arrius commemorated by Cicero (Brut. 242–243) and postulates he is one of the orator’s two sons. N i c h o l s o n (984), on the other hand, believes the epigram does refer to Q. Arrius and mocks, through puns on poterat (= potaverat) in line 4 and liber (= Bacchus) in line 5, his reputation as a heavy drinker; sound-patterns further reinforcing the impression of inebriated speech are capped by the closing witticism (C) hionios, which evokes Chian wine mixed with sea-water. Catullus 85 *985. L. G u i d o b a l d i , Singolare canzoniere di Lesbia: Odi et amo. C. Valerio Catullo (c.LXXXV), Sant’Atto di Teramo 1985. 986.  R. V e r d i è r e , Odi et amo. Étude diachronique et psychique d’une antithèse, in: Hommages Bardon (166), 360–372. 987.  F. D e c r e u s , Le poème 85 de Catulle et les épigrammes 28, 35, et 19 (Pf.) de Callimaque, in: F. D e c r e u s  – C. D e r o u x (eds.), Hommages à J. Veremans, Brussels 1986, 48–56. 988.  H.  H o m m e l , Topos und Originalität in Catulls Zweizeiler (c. 85) in: H. K a l c y k (ed.), Studien zur alten Geschichte, Festschrift S. Lauffer, Roma 1986, 421–436. 989.  B. A r k i n s , A new translation of Catullus 85, LCM 12, 1987, 118.

332

Marilyn B. Skinner

990.  J. F e r g u s o n , Catullus 85, LCM 12, 1987, 138. 991.  G. B. N u s s b a u m , Odi et amo again, LCM 12, 1987, 148. 992.  B. A r k i n s  – D. E g a n , A further translation of Catullus 85, LCM 13, 1988, 61–62. 993.  M. A. G r e e n w o o d , More thoughts on Catullus 85, LCM 13, 1988, 80. 994.  J. G r a n a r o l o , Catulle précurseur de Dostoïevski?, Latomus 48, 1989, 86–92. 995.  J. H. N i c h o l s o n , Chiasmus in Catullus 85, CO 77.2, 1999, 45–47. 996.  S. I h m , Zu G. F. Daumers Übersetzung von Catull c. 85, Latomus, 61.3, 2002, 608–615. 997.  B. A r k i n s , The meaning of “odi et amo” in Catullus 85, BICS 54.1, 2011, 29–30. V e r d i è r e (986) chronologically traces the antithesis of hate and love as  a motif in Greek and Latin literature, presents a selection of critical opinion on the unique quality of Catullus’ formulation, and notes reminiscences in modern writers. After sketching out the sophisticated metrical and phonological construction of the Catullan distich, D e c r e u s (987) finds the same principle of λεπτότης governing the composition of its thematic model, Ep. 35 Pf. of Callimachus, and two other Callimachean epigrams examined for comparative purposes. H o m m e l (988) contends that Catullus’ epigram is indebted to two Hellenistic topoi: the motif of hate and love, with parallels in AP 5.107 by Philodemus and AP 12.172 by Euenus, and the fictive question and answer, for which one possible model might be Philodemus, AP 5.130. During 1987 to 1988 the Liverpool Classical Monthly carried  a lively exchange over the translation of c. 85. A r k i n s (989) initiated the series by proposing that odi be rendered ‘loathe’ and amo ‘lust for’, expressing a conflict between soul and body. F e r g u s o n (990) charged that he had missed the point of the poem, which contrasts not odi and amo but active faciam and passive fieri. Because Catullus chooses for his opening ‘very ordinary, unspecialized words that make a natural pair’, N u s s b a u m (991) believes it better after all to employ ‘hate’ and ‘love’. A r k i n s  – E g a n (992) offer a translation by the Irish poet Desmond E g a n with commentary by Arkins in which the contested odi et amo becomes ‘I both loathe and am in love with her’. G r e e n w o o d (993) attempts to capture the force of the active-passive antithesis by positioning ‘I do’ ( faciam) after ‘hate her and love her’ and isolating ‘it’s done’ ( fieri) as a verbal unit to replicate the Latin caesural pause. G r a n a r o l o (994) finds  a parallel for the interpenetration of love and hate, a fusion forged by  a burning sincerity of feeling, in  a passage from Dostoyevsky’s novella The Eternal Husband (1870). N i c h o l s o n (995) proposes that the latent image governing the construction of the epigram is that of a cross, symbolic of an emotional paradox reinforced through chiastic and synchistic correspondences. Prompted

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

333

by the Liverpool Classical Monthly controversy, I h m (996) evaluates a translation of c. 85 by the German poet Georg Friedrich Daumer. Despite its differences from the original, particularly in meter, Daumer has closely reproduced the sound and sense of the original. A r k i n s (997) draws on the connotations of related expressions in cc. 72 and 75 to support his translation of odi et amo as ‘I loathe and I lust’. Catullus 86 998.  T. D. P a p a n g h e l i s , Catullus and Callimachus on Large Women (A reconsideration of c. 86), Mnemosyne 44.3–4, 1991, 372–386. 999.  R. M. N i e l s e n , Catullus 86: Lesbia, Beauty, and Poetry, in: C. D e r o u x (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History VII, Brussels 1994, 256–266. Comparing uses of venustas-venustus in three other Catullan poems expressing literary judgments (cc. 36, 35, and 22), P a p a n g h e l i s (998) finds associations with the elegant slenderness prescribed by Callimachean poetics. As metaphor, the speaker’s negative pronouncement upon Quintia at 86.4, nulla in tam magno est corpore mica salis, echoes Callimachus’ dismissal of  a rival poet’s composition as  a μεγάλη γυνή in line 12 of the Aetia prologue. The case for Callimachean resonances in c. 86 is supported by the similar aesthetics of exclusion in c. 43. N i e l s e n (999), independently of Papanghelis, also proposes a poetological reading of c. 86, arriving at her conclusions through reader-response strategies. Through subtle cues the speaker leads us to dismiss purely physical aspects of beauty as insufficient, like technically correct but pedestrian verse. Lesbia embodies what is beautiful in the poet’s art, which may be lost on an undiscerning multitude. Catullus 87 1000.  P. H e u z é , À propos du c. 87 de Catulle, CEA 20, 1987, 53–61. H e u z é (1000) studies c. 87 as the product of a Catullan ‘Atticism’ that does not avoid figure but instead uses it to render thought transparent. Two distiches marked by assonance and metrical correspondence make a similar hyperbolic declaration, but with a nuanced transition from an affective to a moral point of view. Catullus 88 1001.  S. J. H a r r i s o n , Mythological Incest: Catullus 88, CQ 46.2, 1996, 581–582. H a r r i s o n (1001) points out that Oceanus and Tethys, subjects of Catullus’ sole mythological reference in the epigrams, are, according to Hesiod (Th. 131–136), an incestuous sibling couple who might be presumed sympathetic to Gellius’ alleged criminal relations with his female relatives.

334

Marilyn B. Skinner

Catullus 89 1002. S. J. H a r r i s o n , Halls Full of Girls? Catullus 89.3, CQ 51.1, 2001, 304–305. H a r r i s o n (1002) proposes the emendation atria for the textually transmitted but vague omnia. Catullus 92 1003.  C. Moussy, À propos de Catulle, (44, 18 et 92, 3): les sens du verbe ‘deprecor’, REL 69, 1991, 70–85. 1004.  S. I n g a l l i n a , Semantica di deprecor in Gellio: (a proposito della deprecatio catulliana di Lesbia in VII 16), in: M. Gabriella A n g e l i B e r t i n e l l i (ed.), Serta antiqua et mediaevalia, Rome 1997, 111–131. Both contributions on c. 92 take their departure from the well-known chapter in Aulus Gellius where the prefix de- of deprecor (92.3) is said to give the verb a meaning other than its standard usage. M o u s s y (1003) distinguishes three different and independent senses of this prefix, connoting distancing, intensification and inversion. Catullus’ use of deprecor to mean maledicere is an example of inversion. In c. 44.18, non deprecor quin, the conjunction quin loses its negative force because deprecor meaning ‘refuse’ is inherently negative. I n g a l l i n a (1004) accepts M o u s s y ’ s tripartite classification of the prefix de- but argues that the synonyms Gellius employs to illustrate Catullus’ meaning of deprecor all share a notion of expulsion otherwise conveyed by depellere. He therefore proposes that Gellius understood the expression deprecatur Lesbiam to mean ‘la respinge, la rifuta, la allontana’. Catullus 94 1005.  P. C l a e s , Catullus c. 94: the penetrated penis, Mnemosyne 49, 1996, 66. 1006.  G. D a m s c h e n , Catullus c. 94: “ipsa olera olla legit”, Mnemosyne 52, 1999, 169–176. C l a e s (1005) explains the point of c. 94 according to ancient sexual protocols: with the feminine subject mentula, the verb moechari has passive implications, ‘to play the adulteress’. Caesar, the subject of the preceding distich, is doubtless the active partner. The proverb ipsa olera olla legit confirms the insinuation of passivity, since an olla is a receptacle and olus is a botanical metaphor for the penis. D a m s c h e n (1006) takes the proverb to mean that the pot gathers vegetables of its own free will. Against C l a e s ’ exegesis he advances three philological arguments: moechari has lost its passive sense in Latin; this verb, which specifically refers to adultery, cannot be applied to a homosexual relationship; elsewhere Mamurra is portrayed as a ladies’ man. The

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

335

epigram, then, attacks him for habitually seducing married women, and the olera of the proverb hints at the punishment of ῥαφανίδωσις imposed on adulterers. Catullus 95 and 95b 1007.  J. D. N o o n a n , Myth, Humor and the Sequence of Thought in Catullus 95, CJ 81, 1986, 299–304. 1008.  J. B. S o l o d o w , On Catullus 95, CPh 82, 1987, 141–145. 1009.  J. D. M o r g a n , The waters of the Satrachus (Catullus 95.5), CQ 85 n.s. 41, 1991, 252–253. 1010.  G. L i e b e r g , L’integrazione di Catullo 95.4, Prometheus 26, 2000, 137–142. N o o n a n (1007) associates Hortensius and Volusius as composers of long-winded historical epics. Cinna’s Zmyrna presumably mentioned the river Satrachus in Cyprus when referring to Adonis’ birthplace. From  a passage in Nonnus’ Dionysiaca (13.456–460), he infers  a rite of bathing an effigy of Adonis in the river and then wrapping it in a blanket. In similar fashion, the papyrus sheets of Volusius’ Annales will be used to wrap fish before cooking. S o l o d o w (1008) supports two textual decisions of Goold:66 printing Housman’s conjecture Hatriensis in at line 3, on the grounds that the transmitted Hortensius violates the symmetry and logic of the whole, and attaching the last couplet, often printed separately, to the remainder of the poem as a capping statement. M o r g a n (1009) follows Nisbet67 in questioning V’s cavas in line 4, proposing sacras,  a conjecture independently arrived at by H e y w o r t h (50, 109). After reviewing a number of other suggestions for the missing third line, L i e b e r g (1010) offers versiculorum anno illepide pepegit or, to avoid hiatus, non lepide. Lepos, he argues, is the distinctive characteristic of neoteric verse, while pandere, in contrast, is ironically used to impart a mock-heroic Ennian flavor. Catullus 96 1011.  G. B r o c c i a , Calv. Fr. 16 Mor., 8 Tra., 16 Büch.-Cat., c., 96, Le ipotesi di lusso di filologia, Euphrosyne 17, 1989, 87–98. *1012. M. D. B u i s e l d e S e q u e i r o s , Catulo 96: el amor mas poderoso que la muerte, Classica (Brasil) 7/8, 1994–1995, 127–140. 1013.  A. L a P e n n a , Una favola esopica e l’interpretazione di Catullo 96, SIFC 15, 1997, 246–249. 1014.  F. B e l l a n d i , Calvo e Quintilia e l’esegesi del c. 96 di Catullo, MD 55, 2005, 123–162. 66 Above, n. 2. 67 Above, n. 5.

336

Marilyn B. Skinner

Disputing the idea that c. 96 responds to Calvus’ elegy or elegies on the death of Quintilia, B r o c c i a (1011) suggests that the epigram makes sense independently as a note of condolence sent upon learning of Calvus’ loss. Echoes of c. 96 in Calvus’ fragments (frr. 15–16 Courtney [120]) may indicate that he was replying to Catullus, not vice versa. L a P e n n a (1013) brings various Greek and Latin versions of Aesop’s fable about the dog who loses the meat to bear on the question of whether missas in line 4 can mean amissas. B e l l a n d i (1014), after reviewing prior extratextual interpretations of the epigram, doubts that Calvus’ elegy expressed regret for infidelity to Quintilia. Internal analysis of the poem reveals the universal validity of its controlling syllogism and the distinction drawn between feelings of love and feelings of friendship. G ä r t n e r (130) studies the Hellenistic antecedents of Calvus’ lament and its reception in later love elegy. Catullus 97 1015.  M. L a m b e r t , Catullus 97: Aemilius is a Real Stinker, Akroterion 38, 1993, 113–122. 1016.  S. O ’ B r y h i m , Malodorous Aemilius (Catullus 97), CPh 107.2, 2012, 150–156. After critiquing four translations of c. 97 and observing that none fully renders the sense of the obscenities, L a m b e r t (1015) offers an interpretation based on the historical and social context. While it is impossible to determine precisely which member of the gens Aemilia is meant, the name has elite associations and would suggest a participant in aristocratic networks of amicitia. The poem may attack a member of the upper classes who has misunderstood what Catullus says about love and about venustas, considering the latter synonymous with incessant fututio; he may even have been one of Catullus’ rivals for Lesbia. Unpoetic and colloquial diction reinforces the absurdity of Aemilius’ delusions. O ’ B r y h i m (1016) suggests that the poem attacks Aemilius’ literary pretensions. The halitosis symptomatic of periodontal disease doubles as an accusation of performing oral sex, and the relative cleanness of his anus implies that that orifice has been used as a receptacle less often. If he is the Veronese poet Aemilius Macer,  a younger contemporary of Catullus, he may fancy himself venustus because his poetry makes him attractive to women. This identification is supported by the regional dialect term ploxinum and the fact that Aemilius Macer is known to have written catalogue poetry on the characteristics of animals, including equids. Catullus 100 1017.  P. L e v i n e , Catullus 100: A Potent Wish for a Friend in Need, Maia 39, 1987, 33–39. 1018.  D. G a g l i a r d i , Un augurio sofferto (dettura del c. 100 di Catullo), Vichiana 18, 1989, 40–44.

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

337

1019.  C. J. S i m p s o n , Catullus 100, Ovid, and the patois of the race track, in: C. D e r o u x (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman history VI, Brussels 1992, 204–214. 1020.  C. J. B a n n o n , Naming Brother and Sister in Catullus 100, Latomus 59.3, 2000, 541–546. This poem has aroused a certain amount of interest lately; attempts to clarify it are surprisingly wide-ranging, though homoeroticism is  a running theme. Contesting F o r s y t h ’s quasi-biographical interpretation,68 L e v i n e (1017) approaches c. 100 from a New Critical perspective, finding answers to its riddles in the data provided. On the basis of Caelius’ ‘homosexual’ attraction to Aufillenus, he deduces that the help given earlier to a Catullus burning with desire amounted to sexual gratification. Caelius is thus unmasked as a submissive partner and the wish for success in his new erotic venture is meant ironically. On Levine’s hypothesis, though, Caelius’ alleged passivity would be controverted by his active pursuit of his new flame; this seems another instance of misreading caused by imposition of modern sexual categories upon ancient practices. G a g l i a r d i (1018) believes the speaker is genuinely wishing Caelius, who is Veronese and therefore not Cicero’s client, the luck and success in love he himself has been unable to find. Quintius, on the other hand, receives no mention because of his false conduct over Lesbia. The epigram, Gagliardi concludes, betrays deep agitation and was probably composed near the end of the poet’s life. S i m p s o n (1019) hears the patois of the racetrack in the poem. With support from Ovid’s Amores 3.2 and Ars Amatoria 1.135–164, he shows that faveam can mean ‘back, bet upon’; felix is frequently used of the winner in  a certamen; and potens, though less associated with the vocabulary of competition, may also describe  a victor. Caelius, Simpson thinks, is not M. Caelius Rufus, nor is Lesbia necessarily alluded to in line 7; like L e v i n e (1017), whose article he apparently does not know, he speculates that Catullus and Caelius might have previously had  a sexual affair. B a n n o n (1020) suggests the centrally placed phrase fraternum…sodalicium unites the epigram around the theme of brotherly friendship. Aufillena’s characterization in cc. 110 and 111 as an incestuous sexual transgressor confuses the plot here. If Caelius is Caelius Rufus, Catullus may be promoting his courtship of Aufillenus out of self-interest; in declining to assist Quintius, likewise, he could be doing that young man a favor. It is possible that the names ‘Aufellinus’ and ‘Aufellina’ refer to one and the same male individual, the feminine form implying passivity; that in turn gives a sexual dimension to frater and soror, as both terms can be applied to male sexual partners (cf. Martial 10.65). This doubling privileges devotion between men, just as the speaker’s choice to favor Caelius does; homoerotic love, Bannon ends, is set in the context of fraternal love. Lastly, just to complicate matters, S k i n n e r (94, 124–127), who sees no hint

68 P. Y. F o r s y t h , The Irony of Catullus 100, CW 70.5, 1977, 313–317. Forsyth assumes that the Caelius of the poem is M. Caelius Rufus and Quintius is the rival accused of attempting to steal Lesbia in c. 82; the speaker’s goodwill toward both is therefore feigned.

338

Marilyn B. Skinner

at all of prior homoerotic relations between the speaker and Caelius, proposes that sodalicium recalls the lex Licinia de sodaliciis of 55 BCE preventing office-seekers from employing illegally organized gangs of supporters to advance their interests. Although the vignette is set in Verona, topical political concerns are being mapped onto an erotic scenario so that its courtship strategies are shown as analogous to electioneering struggles at Rome. Catullus 101 Previously discussed interpretations of c. 101 include F e l d h e r r (470), B e l l a n d i (471), R o u s s e l (472), and S t e v e n s (473, 187–190). 1021.  Th. G e l z e r , Bemerkungen zu Catull c. 101, MH 49, 1992, 26–32. 1022.  I. L. A r c a z P o z o , Estructura y estilo del poema 101 de Catulo, CFC (L) 11, 1996, 8–16. 1023.  L. L a n d o l f i , ‘multas per gentes’ et ‘multa per aequora uectus’ (Cat. ‘carm.’ CI 1). Catullo fra Omero ed Apollonio Rodio, Emerita 64, 1996, 255–260. 1024.  P. B l e i s c h , The Empty Tomb at Rhoeteum: Deiphobus and the Problem of the Past in Aeneid 6.494–547, ClAnt 18.2, 1999, 187–226. 1025.  F. B e l l a n d i , Ad Inferias: Il c. 101 di Catullo fra Meleagro e Foscolo, MD 51, 2003, 65–134. 1026.  P. D i M e o , A proposito di un’“agnizione”: (Catullo, C. 101, 1). RFIC 135.4, 2007, 423–437. G e l z e r (1021) questions the general assumption that Catullus visited his brother’s grave while en route to or from Bithynia because there is no supporting evidence in the other poems from that period; the journey to the tomb could be  a literary fiction, or else the poet made a separate voyage to fulfill his duty to the dead. A r c a z P o z o (1022) analyzes the tripartite structure and the metrical and stylistic features, especially assonance, that make this poem the earliest example of a Roman funerary elegy. B e l l a n d i (1025) is a preliminary version of the opening section of his book chapter (471). C o n t e ’s recognition of an Odyssean allusion in the first line of c. 10169 has aroused further interest in the poem’s intertextual elements. Building upon that reminiscence of Odyssey 1.1–4, L a n d o l f i (1023) postulates three other imitations of Homeric verses (Od. 4.81–82, 15.176–177 and 400–401) as well as a passage from the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius (3.348–349) that is itself a collage of Homeric borrowings. B l e i s c h (1024, 212–218) unpacks a Vergilian reworking of Catullus’ epigram: the empty tomb Aeneas constructs for Deiphobus at Rhoeteum and his 69 G. B. C o n t e , Memoria dei poeti e arte allusiva (A proposito di un verso di Catullo e di uno di Virgilio), Strumenti Critici 16, 1971, 325–333 (English translation reprinted in Oxford Readings [176] 167–176).

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

339

triple invocation of the dead (Aen. 6.500–508) are, like Catullus’ rites, performed in vain; here the deception of epic glory is contrasted with perpetual elegiac lament. Di Meo (1026), after reviewing critics’ elaborations of Conte’s original proposal, suggests one additional Homeric echo: the line multas per gentes et multa per aequora vectus rhythmically replicates ἀνδρῶν τε πτολέμους ἀλεγεινά τε κύματα πείρων, applied three times to Odysseus (Od. 8.183, 13.91 and 264) but also to Achilles when, at the beginning of Iliad 24, he lies sleepless remembering Patroclus. By identifying himself with Achilles and his lost brother with Patroclus, Catullus reinforces the comparison expressly drawn in cc. 65 and 68 between his brother’s death and the fates of the Iliadic heroes. Catullus 102 1027.  M. J. E d w a r d s , The Secret of Catullus 102, Hermes 118.3, 1990, 382–384. According to E d w a r d s (1027), the addressee of this poem is the same Cornelius as the adulterer of c. 67.35 and the epigram is another attempt to smear him. Catullus 103 1028.  P. C l a e s , Who’s Who in Catullus 103?, Latomus 54, 1995, 876–877. C l a e s (1028) suggests that Silo, accused of being a pimp, should be thought of as prostituting himself. In line 4 the adjective saevus takes on the meaning ‘stubbornly resisting sexual abuse’; the speaker extravagantly assumes that a financial gift gives him the right to use the recipient in that fashion. Because Catullus’ invective victims are frequently novi homines attached to the Caesarian party, Claes identifies the addressee as Q. Poppaedius Silo, legate of Antony in 39–38 BCE . Catullus 105 For the place of this poem in a ‘Mamurra cycle’, see D e u l i n g (725). 1029.  R. B o u g h n e r , Mentula in Catullus, c. 105, CB 59, 1983, 29–32. B o u g h n e r (1029) finds sexual connotations in scandere, montem and praecipitem and believes the pitchforks ( furcillis) used by the Muses to expel Mentula allude to the vagina dentata. As a literary pronouncement, the distich states that lust by itself is not capable of generating inspired poetry. D e r o u x (438) acknowledges the puns identified by Boughner but rejects the psychoanalytic notion of the vagina dentata. By arming the Muses with pitchforks, Catullus condemns the rusticity of Mentula’s verse. The metrical scheme of the distich replicates the content, with the heavily spondaic hexameter and first half of the pentameter suggesting Mentula’s laborious climb, the closing dactylic hemistich his precipitous expulsion. Summing up, Deroux

340

Marilyn B. Skinner

characterizes c. 105 as a work that unites ars and ingenium in using obscenity to assert that creating good poetry requires adherence to moral criteria a debauched creature like Mentula cannot meet. Catullus 107 1030.  D. F. S.  T h o m s o n , Catullus 107.3–4 and 109.1–2, LCM 9, 1984, 119–120. 1031.  S. J. H e y w o r t h , Catullus 107.3 – A Response, LCM 9, 1984, 137. 1032.  R. O. A. M. L y n e , The Text of Catullus CVII, Hermes 113, 1985, 498–500. 1033.  H. D e t t m e r , Catullus 107.7–8, CW 80, 1987, 371–373. 1034.  A. J. D ’A n g o u r , Catullus 107: A Callimachean Reading, CQ n.s. 50.2, 2000, 615–618. 1035.  J. M. T r a p p e s - L o m a x , Catullus 107: Removing the Hiatus and Other Textual Suggestions, Phoenix 55.3–4, 2001, 304–312. 1036.  J. L. B u t r i c a , Catullus 107.7–8, CQ 52.2, 2002, 608–609. 1037.  A. G h i s e l l i , Sul carme 107, in: Passer (163), 155–171. Almost all recent work on c. 107 struggles to repair textual corruption. For lines 3–4, T h o m s o n (1030) proposes quare hoc est gratum nobis, quod carius auro est / quod te restituis…, taking the quod of line 3 as ‘which’ and the one in line 4 as ‘the fact that…’. H e y w o r t h (1031) rejoins that quod carius auro would be ‘a feeble piece of writing’ because it merely adds one adjective to another; he recommends et carius auro instead. In his 1997 commentary (5), T h o m s o n prints …nobis quoque, carius auro. L y n e (1032) deals with a number of difficulties. For line 3 he also accepts nobis quoque, carius auro. He puts a comma, rather than a full stop, at the end of line 4, highlighting the epanalepsis restituis…mi cupido, / restituis cupido. In the final couplet †optandum, he thinks, ought to be feminine, modifying vitam, and ducere should be read in place of dicere; lastly, he explains Mynors’ crux †hac est† as originating in a scribal displacement of umquam. His restored text reads …aut magis umquam  /  optandam vitam ducere quis poterit? D e t t m e r (1033) argues in support of L y n e ’s suggestion by pointing to annular patterns of word-repetition in c. 107 and by noting that the proposed vitam ducere in line 8 would anticipate tota perducere vita at 109.5. D ’A n g o u r (1034) objects to umquam, however, because it requires us to jettison the ms. tradition and to accept three successive -am terminations in the last couplet. He ingeniously hypothesizes that the ‘vexed paradosis’ arose because Catullus wrote …magis hac es(se) / optandam vitam, imitating an instance of hypermetric elision in Callimachus Ep. 41.1–2 Pf. T r a p p e s - L o m a x (1035) follows Goold in denying the existence of hiatus in the Catullan corpus and proposes replacing optigit in line 1 with contigit. In line 3, he

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

341

changes the word order to read quare hoc est nobis quoque gratum carius auro. For the final distich he accepts Lyne’s change of the infinitive to ducere and thinks the couplet as a whole greatly improved, but, like D’Angour, finds umquam problematic; his attempted solution is aut mage vitam / hac optandam ducere quis poterit? (also included in his reconsideration of Mynors’ text [16]). B u t r i c a (1036), in turn, hypothesizes that the archetype had magi’ or mage nostra in the final foot of line 7, nostra ultimately being expelled through a complicated process of corruption; the text he offers is aut magi’ nostra / vitam esse optandam dicere quis poterit? In his reprinted essay, written before much of this discussion, Ghiselli (1037) reads aut magis hac  / optandum vita dicere quis poterit? and finds structural, lexical, and thematic parallels between the poem and c. 8. To sum up, there seems to be an emerging consensus that optandam, wherever it occurs in the couplet, must modify vitam, as well as some openness to reading  ducere instead of dicere. Progress is arguably being made. Catullus 109 1038.  L. T a k á c s , Catullus c. 109, in: Studia Catulliana (174), 44–49. T h o m s o n (1030) wishes to substitute usque for V’s -que in line 2 and read perpetuum usque fore; the rhythm of the expression seems ‘characteristic of Catullus’ (cf. c. 5.6, perpetua una dormienda). T a k á c s (1038) maintains that the expression sanctae foedus amicitiae (6) belongs to the legal realm, connoting the idea of a peace treaty, while the speaker’s prayer suggests his inability to maintain  a lasting bond without divine help. Catullus 111 1039.  L. W a t s o n , Aufillena and her uncle: Catullus 111, LCM 10, 1985, 80. It is wrongly believed, according to W a t s o n (1039), that Aufillena is committing adultery with her uncle; on the contrary, he is her vir and she is content with him, but their marriage, being incestuous, is invalid. Catullus 112 1040.  D. F. S. T h o m s o n , Catullus 112, Phoenix 41, 1987, 191–192. The questionable descendit in line 2, T h o m s o n (1040) thinks, cannot mean ‘go down to the Forum’ unless such a meaning is supported by the context; he proposes discumbit. Naso is an unpopular companion on the dinner couch because, first, he is a bore (multus) and, second, a pathic.

342

Marilyn B. Skinner

Catullus 114 and 115 1041.  G. M a s e l l i , Un punitore incompresso: maximus ultor in Catullo (115.7), BStudLat 20, 1990, 3–9. 1042.  P. M a s t a n d r e a , Mamurra “ennianista”: Catullo 115 e dintorni, in: P. A r d u i n i (ed.), Studi offerti ad Alessandro Perutelli, 2 vols., Roma, 2008, 175–190. 1043.  B. P a v l o c k , Mentula in Catullus 114 and 115, CW 106.4, 2013, 595–607. M a s e l l i (1041) defends ultor, the reading of G and O, explaining that its cognate verb ulciscor can mean ‘punish’ without necessarily involving the notion of a vendetta (cf. cc. 44.17 and 71.5). The epigram caps both the leitmotif of profligacy running through the cycle and the preceding squib, in which Mentula’s expenses outstrip the productivity of his estate, by stressing the cause: he is himself the mentula destroying his own prosperity. M a s t a n d r e a (1042) reviews all four ‘Mentula’ epigrams, beginning with c. 115. He remarks upon the density of archaisms in that epigram and its increasingly heightenened style. Ennius’ line machina multa minax minitatur maxima muris (Ann. 620 Skutsch), parodied at the close, echoes the name ‘Mamurra’ in its final clause (maxiMA MURis); such employment of collective poetic memory shared by all wellborn Romans displays a ‘spark of true genius’ (179). It is possible that the recurrence of magna / maximus / magna in the closing distich may be a political allusion to Pompey or Caesar or both. The topographic catalogue in lines 5 and 6, mounting to the hyperbolic usque ad Hyperboreos et mare ad Oceanum shows epic, possibly Ennian, qualities. With their parody of stylistic features like epicisms and antequated expressions, the other epigrams in the series reveal that the principal cause of Catullus’ antipathy is a literary one. This tactic resembles that of the succeeding c. 116, where aspects of Gellius’ style are caricatured: perhaps both Mamurra and Gellius are evoking moral austerity through their old-fashioned language and Catullus shows them up as hypocrites. In both poems, P a v l o c k (1043) demonstrates, ostensible praise of the estate is subverted by puns, etymological figures, semantic ambiguities, tropes, and metrical effects. In  a complicated play on words, modo at c. 114.6 introduces implications of ‘measure’ as moderation and as verse rhythm as well as a notion of proviso, while minax at c. 115.8 summons up the image of Priapus in his garden. These epigrams may look back to the juxtaposition of cc. 43 and 44, where Mamurra’s outrageous comparison of Ameana to Lesbia and his possible devaluation of Catullus’ own property as ‘Sabine’ are now repaid in kind. Catullus 116 For this epigram as the closing poem of the elegiac collection, see B a r c h i e s i (183), K i n g (197) and Y o u n g (198); on its correlation with c. 65 as an offering to an addressee of superior standing, consult T a t u m (270).

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015

343

1044.  D. G a g l i a r d i , Il carme 116 di Catullo, PP 214, 1984, 33–38. 1045.  K. F. K i t c h e l l , Catullus 116.7: amitha / micta, CW 80.1, 1986, 1–11. 1046.  M. D a v i e s , At fixus nostris tu dabis supplicium: Catullus 116 as an “inverted dedication”, Prometheus 26, 2000, 41–46. 1047.  B. A d a m i k , Zur Prosodie, Metrik und Interpretation von Catulls Carmen 116, WS 127, 2014, 151–164. On metrical and stylistic grounds, G a g l i a r d i (1044) pronounces c. 116 an early poem and the first addressed to Gellius; the concluding threats are hyperbolic and the tone ironic. Catullus will have wished only to alarm his friend, who is not yet ‘multo coniunctus usu’ (cf. c. 91.7). K i t c h e l l (1045) submits two possible solutions for the crux at the end of line 7. One proposal is to adopt O’s reading amitha, taking it as a transliteration of Greek ἄμιθα, ‘milk-cake’, used in the vocative; sexual jokes about cakes in Greek Old Comedy allow us to envision a bakery item shaped like a cunnus. The second option, emending to micta, a perfect participle in agreement with tela, has Catullus defiling Gellius’ weapons before dodging them, which would make sense if we think of them as invective poems. Neither proposition has won support. D a v i e s (1046) takes as his point of departure M a c l e o d ’s widely accepted exegesis of c. 11670 as  a programmatic closing poem looking back to Callimachus’ Ibis. As an ‘inverted dedication’ it compares the poet’s abusive verse favorably with that of Gellius. Patent reversals of formulas and motifs become evident when it is read alongside the dedicatory c. 1. In its climactic final couplet, fixus can be construed as ‘publicly exposed’, a witty inversion of the encomium topos whereby the praise poet confers literary immortality upon the laudandus. A newly evolved awareness of poetry as ‘the manipulation of conventions, codes, and illusions’ (46)71 allows readers to uncover hitherto overlooked implications of texts. Challenging Kroll’s assumption of hasty composition, A d a m i k (1047) argues for the refinement of the epigram and explains its metrical and linguistic harshnesses as calculated parodies of Gellius’ poetic style, not as allusions to Ennius. In line 8, elision of -s before an introductory s-,  a practice deemed subrusticum by the poetae novi (Cic. Or. 161), stigmatizes Gellius’ verse as old-fashioned and inelegant. While spondaic hexameters admittedly were a neoteric affectation, the ostensibly holospondaic line 3 does not conform to Ennius’ practice nor to the precepts of the Roman grammarians, since it ends in  a trochee, not  a spondee. Thus Gellius’ verse is also characterized as uncallimachean, and Catullus, for the last time in his poetry book, affirms his allegiance to a more demanding standard of poetic mastery.

70 C. W. M a c l e o d , Catullus 116, CQ 27, 1973, 304–309. 71 Davies quotes from John Bayley’s introduction to the third edition of Edgar Wind’s Art and Anarchy, London 1985, xii.

Index of Authors Ackroyd-Cross, B. G. 935: 317, 318 Adamik, B. 1047: 343 Adamik, T. 410: 137, 208, 210 586: 247 676: 262, 263 Adams, J. N. 366: 197, 199 Adkin, N. 379: 201, 202, 282 Agnelotti, G. 102: 121, 122 Agnesini, A. 19: 106, 275 370: 198, 200, 238, 327 497: 230, 231 501: 230, 231 572: 244, 245 894: 114, 307–308 Allen, A. 780: 283 912: 313, 314 913: 313, 314 930: 317, 318 Ancona, R. 33: 108–109 Antonelli, G. 103: 121, 122 Arcaz Pozo, I. L. 1022: 338 Arkins, B. 47: 111, 112 154: 130, 132 778: 283 914: 313, 314 976: 329 989: 331, 332 992: 332 997: 332, 333 Armstrong, R. 475: 225, 226, 251 815: 290, 291 Arweiler, A. H. 487: 227–228, 277 488: 228, 229 Asper, M. 601: 249, 250

Augello, G. 643: 257 Austin, J. L.  156–157 Auverlot, D. 650: 258, 259 Aveline, J. 614: 252 Bajoni, M. 616: 252 872: 302, 303 Baker, R. J. 688: 265, 267 Ballester, X. 756: 278, 279 Bannon, C. J. 1020: 337 Barabino, A. 971: 327, 328 Barbaud, Th. 229: 158–159, 282 451: 220 453: 220 Barbieri, A. 705: 266, 269 Barchiesi, A. 183: 141–142, 147, 299, 304, 342 Bardon, H. *400: 208 Bartels, A. 799: 286, 288 Barwick, K.  144 Batinski, E. E. 342: 193, 194 Batstone, W. W. 134: 127, 230, 271 168: 135, 136–137 214: 151, 152 225: 139, 156, 157 254: 169, 267 455: 220–221, 230 Beasley, T. 710: 266, 269 Beck, J.-W. 118: 123, 124, 143, 243 745: 137, 276, 277 Bellandi, F. 57: 112, 113, 135 73: 114, 115, 135

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015 135: 127, 135 164: 134, 135 190: 135, 142, 143–144 262: 135, 171, 172 292: 177, 181 412: 135, 208, 210 456: 135, 210, 220, 221 471: 135, 224, 225, 338 818: 290, 291 1014: 335, 336 1025: 338 Bender, H. V. 34: 108–109 Benediktson, D. T. 729: 273, 274 Benferhat, Y. 93: 119 Bernek, R. 545: 137, 239 Bernstein, W. H. 558: 242 Billanovich, G. 35: 109, 110 Binder, G. 313: 186, 187 Bing, P. M. 877: 302, 303 Biondi, G. G.  225 41: 109, 110 64: 109, 112, 113–114, 245, 258 622: 253–254 Birt, T.  147 Blázquez Martínez, J. M. 413: 208, 210 Bleisch, P. 1024: 338–339 Block, E. 196: 146, 299 Blodgett, E. D. 549: 240 Blusch, J. 784: 284, 285 Boes, J. 460: 222 Bonvicini, M. 42: 109, 110–111 Booth, A. D. 632: 255 Booth, J. 973: 327, 329 Boughner, R. 1029: 339

Braund, D. 170: 135, 137 544: 226, 239 Breed, B. W. 866: 299, 301 Bremmer, J. N. 465: 137, 222, 223 Brenk, F. E.  232 931: 317, 318 Broccia, G. 1011: 335, 336 Brugnoni, G. 633: 255 Buchi, E. 88: 118, 251 610: 118, 251 Buisel de Sequeiros, M. D. *1012: 335 Burgess, D. L. 680: 263, 264 Burkard, Th. 639: 256 Burl, A. 99: 120 Butler, S. 565: 242, 243 Butrica, J. L. 39: 109, 110, 141, 148 981: 330 1036: 340, 341 Butterfield, D. J. 61: 112 374: 198, 201 Byl, S. 758: 278, 280 Cairns, F. 71: 114, 115, 184, 260 302: 183, 184, 260 474: 137, 225–226, 239 660: 259, 260 663: 260, 261 Callejas Berdonés, M. T. 761: 278, 280 Camps, W. A. 45: 112 900: 310–311 Cancro, M. *96: 120 Cantarella, E. 104: 121, 122

345

346 Carilli, M. G. 770: 279, 281 Carmen Cabrero, M. del 29: 107, 108 Carratello, U. 117: 123, 124 901: 310, 311 904: 310, 311 Carrubba, R. 974: 327, 328 Casali, S. 945: 319, 321–322 Case, B. D. 562: 242 Cassata, L. 12: 103 Cavalieri Manasse, G. 88: 118, 251 610: 118, 251 Cavallini, E. 926: 316, 317 Cavarzere, A. 143: 128, 129 Cenerini, F. 577: 245, 246 Cerri, G. 723: 272 Chilver, G. E. F. 105: 121, 122 Chini, A. 391: 203, 205–206 Ciaffi, V. 159: 133, 134 Cillers, L. 608: 251 Citroni, M. 274: 174, 175, 300, 313 773: 279, 281–282 Claes, P. 206: 148, 149, 150 209: 149, 150 211: 149, 150 505: 232, 233 1005: 334 1028: 339 Clare, R. J. 846: 296, 297 Clark, C. A. 707: 266, 269 Clarke, J. 392: 203, 206, 277 737: 138, 275

Marilyn B. Skinner 802: 286, 288–289 863: 299, 301 Clarke, W. M. 342: 193, 194 Clausen, W.  131 67: 114, 115, 258 Clauss, J. J. 142: 128, 129 944: 319, 321 Clay, D. 243: 164, 211 Clay, J. S. 463: 222, 223, 277 Clayman, D. L. 884: 302, 305 Coleman, R. G. G. 367: 197, 199, 202 Condorelli, S. 523: 234, 235 Conte, G. B.  338 151: 130, 131–132 Copley, F. O. 548: 240 Cornish, F. W. See Goold, G. P., item 17 Coronel Ramos, M. A. 368: 197, 200, 282 Corso, A. 86: 118 Courtney, E. 60: 112 65: 114 120: 124, 126, 243, 336 137: 128 519: 234, 235 739: 114, 276 752: 114, 278, 279, 281 844: 296 941: 114, 319, 320–321 Cowan, R. 615: 252 Cremona, V. 361: 197, 198 Criniti, N. 90: 102, 118, 119, 251 Crowther, N. B. 140: 128 Cupaiuolo, F. 786: 284, 285 Currie, B. 747: 277 Cuypers, M. 9: 102, 103

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015 D’Angour, A. J. 704: 266, 269 1034: 340 D’Anna, G. 98: 120 Damschen, G. 1006: 334–335 Dangel, J. 698: 266, 268 797: 137, 286, 287–288 Davies, M. 1046: 343 Davis, G. 520: 234, 235 De Giorgio, J.-P. 803: 286, 289 de Vasconcellos, P. A. 574: 244, 245 de Villiers, A. 395: 203, 206 938: 317, 319 De Wilde, M. 882: 302, 304 DeBrohun, J. B. 813: 290, 291 852: 297, 298 Decreus, F. 328: 191 329: 191 538: 237, 238 722: 271, 272 987: 331, 332 Defosse, P. 169: 135, 137 Degiovanni, L. 910: 310, 312 Dehon, P.-J. 315: 186, 187–188, 277 769: 137, 279, 281 del Prete, P. 126: 126, 134 161: 133, 134 353: 134, 195, 196 Della Corte, F.  131, 134, 144, 313 89: 118–119 159: 134 Delz, J. 49: 111 Dench, E. 271: 173, 174 Deroux, C. 138: 128

438: 215, 217, 339–340 540: 237, 238 671: 136, 262, 263 672: 262, 263 716: 270, 271 717: 270, 271 757: 278, 280 791: 285, 286 819: 291, 292 951: 320, 323–324 Dettmer, H. 202: 136, 148–149 204: 148, 149 205: 148, 149 403: 208, 209 559: 242 560: 242 600: 249–250 666: 261 1033: 340 Deuling, J. 394: 137, 203, 206, 246 725: 272, 273, 339 Di Brazzano, S. 628: 254–255 Di Meo, P. 1026: 338, 339 Diggle, J. 56: 112, 113 Dion, J. 208: 149, 150 316: 186, 188 DIOTIMA 6: 101, 102 Dixon, S. 108: 121, 122 Dominicy, M. 334: 137, 191, 192 Döpp, S. 948: 137, 320, 322 Du Quesnay, I. 178: 136, 138 218: 138, 152–153, 164 293: 177, 181, 305, 308 Dubrocard, M. 359: 197, 198, 199 Dufallo, B. 833: 287, 292, 294 Dugan, J. 133: 127, 271 Duhigg, J.  146

347

348 Dunsch, B. 500: 230, 231 Dupont, F. 263: 171, 172 683: 264 Duxbury, L. C. *281: 176–177, 178 Dyer, R. R. 822: 291, 293 Dyson, J. T. 414: 150, 208, 210, 274 Eden, P. T. 592: 248 Edgeworth, R. 351: 195, 196 Edmunds, L. 237: 160, 161 Edwards, M. J. 385: 203, 204, 275 462: 222–223 689: 265, 267 888: 305, 306 934: 317, 318 1027: 310, 339 Egan, D. 992: 332 Eisenhut, W.  103, 104 Elerick, C. 514: 233, 234 Ellis, R.  303 Elsner, J. 830: 292, 294 Erro, M. G. 804: 286, 289 Évrard, E. 371: 198, 200 Faber, R. 788: 284, 285 Fain, G. L. 337: 191, 192–193 338: 191, 193 Fantham, E. 275: 174, 175 Fantuzzi, M. 306: 184, 185, 277, 307 468: 224 Farrell, J. 264: 171, 172 Fear, T. 405: 208, 209

Marilyn B. Skinner 919: 313, 314, 315 922: 314, 315 Fedeli, P.  279 147: 130, 131 402: 208, 209 578: 245, 246 Feeney, D. C. 268: 172, 173 326: 189, 190 386: 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 297, 313 397: 203, 207, 275 481: 226, 227 Feldherr, A. 277: 174, 176 470: 224, 225, 338 Felgentreu, F. 504: 231, 232 Ferguson, J. 4: 101, 102 145: 129, 130 207: 149, 150 990: 332 Fernandelli, M. 777: 282, 283 816: 290, 291 855: 297, 298 862: 299, 300–301 Fernández, C. J. C. 677: 262, 263 Ferriss, J. L. 956: 324 Filimon, D. 354: 195, 196 Fitzgerald, W. 227: 154, 156, 157, 163, 168, 213, 235, 239, 241, 244–245, 248, 282, 286–287, 300, 312 269: 173–174 Fontaine, M. 571: 236, 243, 245 Fordyce, C. J. 79: 116 Formicola, C. 860: 299, 300 Fornaro, P. 731: 274 Forsyth, P. Y.  337 27: 107, 108 34: 108–109 186: 142, 143 192: 144, 310 193: 144

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015 203: 148, 149 529: 236, 237 552: 240, 241 555: 241, 310 566: 243 719: 271 779: 283 898: 310, 312 902: 310, 311 918: 314, 315–316 979: 330 Foster, J. 444: 218–219 621: 253 Foster, W. 772: 279, 281 Foulon, A. 317: 186, 188, 282 Fowler, D. P.  113, 153 536: 237, 238, 274 946: 320, 322 Francese, C. 125: 125 Fratantuono, L. M. 726: 272, 273 Fredrick, D. 345: 193, 194, 235 *420: 211, 213 825: 291, 293 Fredricksmeyer, E. 449: 220 553: 137, 240, 241 620: 253 Frueh, E. 652: 258, 259 Fry, C. 335: 191, 192 Fuhrer, Th. 297: 182, 183 429: 212, 214–215 Fuqua, C. 531: 237 Fusaro, M. 785: 284–285 Gagliardi, D. 653: 259 1018: 336, 337 1044: 343 Gaisser, J. H. 38: 104, 109, 110, 233–234 40: 109, 110

157: 130, 133, 244 158: 130, 133 176: 110, 117, 136, 138, 233–234 216: 138, 152 242: 161, 163–164 794: 285, 287 Galán, L. 422: 212, 213 424: 212, 213–214 775: 282 Gale, M. R. 939: 313, 317, 319 Gall, D. 767: 279, 281 Gamberale, L. 127: 126, 139 445: 218, 219 638: 256 Gamel, M. K. 236: 160, 163 Gardner, H. H. 320: 186, 188, 282 Garibashvili, M. 411: 208, 210 Garrison, D. H. 28: 107, 108 30: 108 Gärtner, T. 130: 126, 336 853: 297, 298 Gavrilov, A. 637: 256 Gelzer, Th. 1021: 338 Genette, G.  288 Georg, B. 734: 275 George, D. B. 645: 258 Ghiselli, A. 163: 134, 135 336: 135, 191, 192, 232, 234 511: 135, 233 1037: 135, 340, 341 Giangrande, G.  310, 330 908: 310, 312 Giardina, G. 54: 112, 113 62: 112, 113 498: 230, 231 915: 313, 314

349

350

Marilyn B. Skinner

Gibson, B. J. 493: 230, 231 Gibson, R. K. 312: 186, 187 Gill, C. 170: 135, 137 Glücklich, H. J. 418: 211, 212 535: 237, 238 Godwin, J. 31: 108 32: 108 156: 130, 132–133 Goga, S. 452: 137, 220 Goldberg, S. M. 644: 257 González Vázquez, A. 372: 198, 200 Goold, G. P.  103–104, 108, 113, 115, 335, 340 17: 105 Goud, T. 742: 276 Gowers, E. 561: 242 Granarolo, J. 1: 101 2: 101 148: 130, 131 399: 136, 208, 209, 325 762: 278, 280 793: 285, 286 967: 327–328 994: 332 Gratwick, A. S. 492: 230 494: 230, 231 613: 252 655: 113, 115, 259 Greene, E. 289: 138, 177, 180, 241 425: 212, 214, 238 700: 266, 268 Greenwood, M. A. 993: 332 Griffith, R. D. 106: 121, 122 524: 234, 235 891: 305, 306 Grimal, P. 311: 186–187 Guidobaldi, L. *985: 331

Gunderson, E. 684: 264 Gutzwiller, K. 212: 149, 150, 233, 274 873: 302, 303 Habinek, T. 276: 174, 175–176 Hadjicosti, I. L. 840: 295 841: 295 Hallett, J. P.  257, 310, 311 426: 212, 214 428: 138, 212, 214 569: 243, 245 Hamm, U. 313: 186, 187 Hammond, K. 95: 119, 120, 165, 270 287: 177, 180 Hansen, W. 625: 253, 254 649: 258 964: 326–327 Harder, A. 172: 136, 137, 277 307: 137, 184, 185 Harrison, S. J. 13: 103–104, 115 21: 106, 107, 137, 277 50: 105, 111, 113, 115, 335 68: 114, 115  See further item 1001 308: 137, 184, 185 479: 226, 227 506: 232, 233 733: 275 1001: 333  See further item 68 1002: 334 Hartz, C. 325: 189–190 Havas, L. 288: 137, 177, 180 Havelock, E. A.  154 Hawkins, S. 119: 123, 124, 248, 274 191: 142, 144 718: 127, 270, 271 Heath, J. R. 551: 240–241 611: 251, 252 Heath, M. 932: 317, 318

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015 Hejduk, J. D. 112: 121, 123 Herrmann, L.  180 Heslin, P. J. 787: 284, 285 Heuzé, P. 736: 275 1000: 333 Heyworth, S. J. 50: 105, 111, 113, 115, 335 64: 114, 277, 308 298: 182, 183–184, 229, 257 972: 327, 328 1031: 340 Hickson-Hahn, F. 434: 215, 216 Hild, C. 416: 209, 211 Hillard, T. W. 101: 121, 122 Hoffer, S. E. 381: 201, 202 Hogenmüller, B. 864: 299, 301, 313 Hollis, A. S. 121: 124, 126 874: 302, 303 Holmes, L. 875: 302, 303 Holoka, J. P. 3: 101, 102 Holtsmark, E. B. 667: 261 Holzberg, N. 241: 150–151, 160, 162, 209, 234, 244, 274 408: 208, 209–210, 236, 274 609: 137, 251 Hommel, H. 988: 331, 332 Hooper, R. W. 513: 233, 234 Housman, A. E.  254 Höschele, R. 128: 126 883: 302, 304–305 Hubbard, T. K. 184: 142–143, 151 189: 142, 143, 146–147, 299 940: 319, 320 Hunink, V. 623: 253, 254 Hunter, R. 306: 184, 185, 277, 307

351

806: 289 858: 299 Hurley, A. K. 155: 130, 132 Hutchinson, G. O. 182: 141, 146, 189, 229 303: 184, 187, 282, 313 490: 228, 229 Ibáñez Malagόn, A. 340: 193 Ihm, S. 996: 332–333 Ingallina, S. 1004: 334 Ingleheart, J. 382: 201, 202, 256, 257 507: 232 Iso, J. J. 960: 325, 327 Iversen, G. 210: 149, 150 Jackson, A.  138 Jackson, G. 936: 317, 318 Jackson, S. 880: 302, 303 Jacobson, H. 51: 111, 262 Janan, M. 248: 151, 165, 166–167, 205, 241, 313, 331 Janka, M. 171: 136, 137 Jauss, H. R.  304 Jiménez Calvente, T. 396: 203, 206 Jocelyn, H. D.  233 70: 114, 115 129: 126 188: 142, 143, 183, 199 365: 197, 199 *580: 246 Johnson, M. 175: 136, 137–138 467: 222, 223 508: 232–233 635: 255 735: 275 740: 275, 276 Johnson, W. R. 219: 154–155, 230

352 Johnston, P. A. 887: 305, 306 Jones, F. 300: 182, 183 Jones, J. W. 516: 233, 234 Joseph, T. 542: 238, 239 Julhe, J.-C. 314: 186, 187 447: 218, 219 Kaiser, L. M. 26: 107, 108 Karakasis, E. 564: 242–243 Kaster, R. A. 598: 249 Katz, J. T. 636: 255 Kayachev, B. 783: 283, 284 Keith, A. M.  187 132: 127, 271 Kennedy, D. F. 389: 203, 205, 207, 313 Kershaw, A. 749: 277 876: 302, 303 Kilpatrick, R. S. 563: 242 679: 137, 262, 263 905: 310, 311 King, J. K. 197: 136, 146, 299, 342 Kirby, J. T. 759: 278, 280 Kinsey, T. E.  315 Kiss, D. 11: 102, 103, 109 *25: 106, 313 43: 110, 111 64: 109, 112, 113–114 916: 313, 314 Kißel, W. 515: 233, 234 Kitchell, K. F. 963: 326 1045: 343 Kitzinger, R. 656: 259–260

Marilyn B. Skinner Klaus, K. 654: 259 Kloss, G. 581: 246 Kokoszkiewicz, K. M. 58: 112 59: 112, 113 750: 277–278 751: 277, 278 Konstan, D. 10: 102, 103, 117 286: 177, 179, 181, 241, 282 290: 177, 180–181, 182, 282 304: 184–185 Koster, S. 443: 218 Kowerski, L. M. 640: 256 Kraggerud, E. 835: 294, 295 906: 310, 311 Krasser, H. 485: 227, 228 Krebs, C. 554: 240, 241 Krevans, N.  140–141 Kronenberg, L. 626: 253, 254 Kroon, C.  285 346: 137, 193, 194, 197 Krostenko, B. A. 228: 158, 198–199, 200, 230 230: 158, 163 369: 198, 200, 210–211, 255–256 Kubiak, D. P. 959: 325 Kunth, M. 110: 121, 122 Kuttner, A. L. 720: 271 Kutzko, D. 624: 253, 254 955: 324 La Penna, A. 1013: 335, 336 Lafaye, G.  See Viarre, S., item 18 Laguna Mariscal, G. 896: 309, 312 Laigneau, S. 407: 208, 209

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015 Lain, N. F. 911: 313, 323 Laird, A. 821: 291, 292–293 Lambert, M. 1015: 336 Landolfi, L. 681: 263, 264 826: 291, 293 1023: 338 Laurens, P. 166: 135, 136 Laursen, S. 857: 299 Lavigne, D. E. 301: 183–184, 238 Leeman, A. D. 966: 327, 328 Lefèvre, E. 687: 265, 266–267 766: 279, 281 848: 296, 297 849: 296, 297 943: 319, 321 Leidl, C. G. 245: 164, 165 Lennartz, K. 603: 249, 250 727: 273 Lesueur, R. 792: 285, 286 Levine, P. 897: 310 1017: 336, 337 Lewis, M. 909: 310, 312 Libri, A. 746: 277 Lieberg, G. 409: 208, 210 537: 237, 238 1010: 335 Lightfoot, J. L. 123: 125 124: 125 Lindgren, M. H. 431: 215, 216 Loomis, J. W.  194 Lόpez-Cañete Quiles, D. 977: 329 López López, M. 527: 236

Lossau, M. 847: 296, 297 Lotito, G. 708: 266, 269 Lowrie, M. 265: 171, 172, 313 Luciani, S. 458: 221–222 Ludwig, W. 36: 109, 110 Lyne, R. O. A. M. 52: 112, 113, 314 469: 224, 313 890: 305, 306 1032: 340 Mackail, J. W.  See Goold, G. P., item 17 Macleod, C. W.  311, 343 Maggiali, G. 24: 106, 107, 313 568: 243 Mahoney, A. E. 484: 227, 228 Maisonobe, J. F. 352: 195, 196, 270 Maleuvre, J.-Y. 285: 177, 179 Manwell, E. 247: 165, 166 430: 212, 215 Marinčič, M. 796: 286, 287 Marinone, N. 23: 106, 107, 301, 304 692: 265, 267 869: 302, 303 871: 302, 303 Marsilio, M. 454: 220 589: 247–248 591: 247, 248 631: 254, 255 Martin, C. 149: 130, 131, 145 Martin, R. 398: 207 Martina, M. 754: 278, 279 Martindale, C. 215: 151, 152 Maselli, G. 273: 174, 175

353

354

Marilyn B. Skinner

596: 249 1041: 342 Massaro, M. 525: 234, 235 Mastandrea, P. 1042: 342 Maurach, G. 962: 326 Mayer, R. G. 244: 164–165, 211 McCarthy, K. 547: 239–240 McCoy, M. 111: 121, 123 McGready, F. 899: 310 McKie, D. S. 37: 109, 110 74: 114, 115, 135, 277, 278, 282, 284 165: 114, 134, 135 925: 135, 313, 315, 316 McMaster, A. 502: 230–231 557: 241 McNeill, R. L. B. 489: 228, 229, 237 Merriam, C. U. 305: 184, 185 Meyer, E. A. 259: 171, 172 Michalopoulos, A. N. 376: 201–202 378: 201–202 854: 297, 298 Michel, J.-H. 355: 137, 195, 196 Micunco, G. 464: 222, 223 Milanese, G. 933: 317, 318 978: 330 Miller, P. A. 221: 151, 154, 155, 229 249: 166, 167, 188, 313 251: 168 252: 168 253: 168 257: 170 258: 170 284: 177, 179 321: 186, 188 694: 265, 267–268, 269 957: 324, 325

Milliken, J. M. 699: 266, 268 Minarini, A. 362: 197, 198 Minkova, M. 255: 169 Minyard, J. D. 200: 136, 147, 148 Mitchell, K. 594: 248 Molero Alcaraz, L. E. 975: 327, 329 Möller, M. 541: 237, 238 Mondin, L. 499: 230 Morelli, A. M. 179: 136, 138–139 201: 148 323: 189 324: 189 327: 189, 190 Morgan, J. D. 136: 128 924: 313, 315, 316 1009: 335 Morgan, L. 349: 193, 195 Morisi, L. 20: 106, 107, 277 618: 252, 253 839: 294, 295 Morwood, J. 827: 291, 293 Most, G. W.  145 44: 111 Moussy, C. 1003: 334 Müller, F. L. 546: 239 Munich, M. A. 798: 286, 287, 288 Munzi, L. 627: 254 Murgatroyd, P. 388: 203, 205, 282 642: 257 903: 310, 311 Muriel, C. S. 115: 123 Muse, K. 728: 273

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015 Muth, R. 868: 301, 302–303 Nappa, C. 238: 160, 162, 179–180, 210–211, 216, 236, 239, 257 260: 171, 172 556: 241 597: 249 730: 273–274 732: 274 953: 324, 329 Näsström, B.-M. 461: 222, 226, 277 Natoli, B. 442: 216, 218 Nau, F. 441: 216, 217–218 521: 234, 235 Nauta, R. R. 172: 136, 137, 277 347: 137, 193, 194 466: 137, 222, 223 Ndiaye, É. 803: 286, 289 Nelis, D. P. 294: 177, 180, 181–182, 282 Németh, B. 181: 141 476: 226 634: 255 Nesholm, E. J. 983: 331 Newman, J. K. 220: 145, 154, 155, 163, 169, 183, 277, 313 Newton, R. 657: 259, 260 Nicholson, J. H. 641: 256 952: 324 984: 331 995: 332 Nielsen, R. M. 450: 220 543: 239 549: 240 999: 333 Nikolaïdes, T. 423: 212, 213 Nisbet, R.  113, 335 Noé, E. 760: 278, 280

Noonan, J. D. 1007: 335 Nosarti, L. 122: 125 Nowak, Y. 831: 292, 294 Nussbaum, G. B. 991: 332 Nuzzo, G. 22: 106, 107, 282 518: 234, 235 O’Brien, M. 522: 234, 235 O’Bryhim, S. 517: 233, 234 590: 247, 248 1016: 336 O’Hara, J. J. 309: 184, 185–186, 282, 283, 287 763: 278, 280 810: 290 O’Higgins, D. 691: 265, 267 O’Meara, J. J. 851: 296, 297–298 Öhrman, M. 950: 320, 323 Olbrich, W. 280: 176, 178 Oliensis, E. 250: 166, 167–168, 275, 300, 313 Olszaniec, W. 509: 232, 233 510: 232, 233 917: 313, 314 Onorato, M. 350: 193, 194, 195, 197 Opsomer, T. 318: 186, 188 Panoussi, V. 427: 212, 214 440: 215, 217, 275 771: 279, 281, 282 Papamichael, M. I. 697: 265, 268 Papanghelis, T. D.  314 845: 296, 297 998: 333 Pardini, A. 703: 266, 268–269

355

356 Parker, H. N. 246: 165, 312 Parker, M. P. 195: 145 Paschalis, M. 828: 292, 293 Pasco-Pranger, M. 685: 264, 265 Pavlock, B. 1043: 342 Peden, R. 330: 191–192 Pedrick, V. 223: 156 226: 137, 156, 157 Peek, P. S. 584: 246 Pelliccia, H. 893: 305, 307 Pennacini, A. 159: 134 Pennisi, G. 741: 276 Pérez Vega, A. 15: 104–105 Perutelli, A. 764: 278, 280 Pestano, R. 417: 211, 212 Petrini, M. 478: 226, 227 Pieri, M. P. 139: 128 Pietquin, P. 968: 327, 328 Pizzone, A. M. V. 602: 249, 250 Plantade, E. 483: 227, 228 790: 284, 285 817: 290, 291 Platter, C. L. 256: 170 Podlesney, K. 454: 220 589: 247–248 Poignault, R. 173: 136, 137 Poliakoff, M. 339: 193, 321 Pomeroy, A. J. 512: 233

Marilyn B. Skinner Pontani, F. 850: 296, 297 Popa, T. 459: 221, 222 Portuese, O.  113 895: 308, 312 Postgate, J. P.  See Goold, G. P., item 17 Powell, J. G. F. 920: 314, 315, 328 Prete, S. 576: 245, 246 Prieto, E. J. 364: 197, 199 Pulbrook, M. 185: 142, 143 Pumelle, G. 373: 198, 200–201 Putnam, M. C. J. 222: 154, 155–156 Quinn, K.: 140, 162, 213, 325 80: 116 599: 249 Radici Colace, P. 534: 237, 238 605: 250 607: 250 619: 253 Radif, L. 582: 246 701: 266, 268 Radke, A. E. 48: 111 Ramírez de Verger, A. 15: 104–105, 113 55: 112, 113 401: 208, 209 954: 324 Rauk, J. 457: 221, 231 Rawles, R. 442: 216, 218 Rawson, E. 272: 174–175 Ready, J. L. 393: 203, 206, 207, 275 Rees, R. 823: 291, 293 Reitz, C. 814: 290, 291

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015 Renard, M. 166: 135, 136 Richlin, A. 384: 136, 203, 204, 242, 247 433: 215, 216, 218, 244, 248 724: 272 Rieks, R. 141: 128–129 Riggsby, A. M. 109: 121, 122 Robinson, T. J. 800: 286, 288 Robson, J. 587: 247 Roffia, E. 91: 118, 119 Rohdich, H. 530: 236, 237 593: 248 Roman, L. 261: 171, 172 Romano Martin, S. 696: 265, 268 Romano, D. 811: 290 Roskam, G. 744: 276–277 Ross, D. O., Jr.  146, 187, 189, 196, 328 Rossi, L. 879: 302, 303 Roussel, D. 472: 224, 225, 338 Roy, J. 567: 243 Ruiz Sánchez, M. 162: 134 837: 294, 295 958: 324, 325, 327 Russell, S. R. *686: 265, 266 Ryan, F. X. 579: 246 646: 258, 331 714: 270 Ryan, T. 735: 275 740: 275, 276 Salat, P. 363: 197, 198–199 782: 283

Santini, P. 356: 195, 196 859: 299 Sarkissian, J. 233: 160, 161, 313 Scarsi, M. 7: 101, 102 Scherf, J. 187: 142, 143, 146, 148 Schievenin, R. 570: 243, 245 664: 260, 261 Schilling, R. 927: 316, 317 Schmale, M. 776: 282–283, 287, 293, 296 Schmidt, E. A. 146: 129, 130–131, 286 Schmiel, R. 332: 191, 192, 238 Schmitz, C. 801: 286, 288 Schoell, F.  263 Schönberger, O. 682: 264 Schröder, B.-J. 842: 287, 295–296 Schwabe, L.  314 Scivoletto, N. 617: 252, 253 843: 296 969: 327, 328 Seager, R. J. 105: 121, 122 Sebesta, J. L. 824: 291, 293, 295 838: 294, 295 Segal, C. 690: 265, 267 Selden, D. L. 224: 156–157, 244 878: 302, 303–304 Seng, H. 748: 277 Sers, O. 100: 120 Setaioli, A. 673: 262, 263 Shapiro, S. O. 588: 247, 257 670: 261, 262

357

358

Marilyn B. Skinner

Sheets, G. A. 344: 193, 194 348: 193, 194–195, 197, 199–200 Shipton, K. M. W. 753: 278, 279 755: 278, 279, 281 928: 317, 319 929: 317–318 942: 319, 321 Sider, D. 668: 261–262 Silzer, E. G. 661: 260 Simmons, R. H. 961: 325–326 Simpson, B. G. 662: 260–261 Simpson, C. J. 662: 260–261 921: 314, 315 923: 315–316 1019: 337 Skalsky, R. L. 820: 291, 292 832: 292 Skinner, M. B. 94: 119, 120, 146, 180, 270, 299, 312, 313, 331, 337–338 113: 121, 123, 128 167: 135, 136 177: 136, 138 180: 139 217: 138, 152 235: 160, 163 239: 160, 163, 239, 258 383: 203, 204, 328 419: 211, 212–213, 239, 328 421: 137, 212, 213, 214, 215, 223, 277 432: 215, 216 436: 215, 216–217 Sklenář, R. 629: 254, 255 658: 259, 260 829: 292, 293–294 Skulsky, S. 886: 305, 306 Skutsch, O.  140, 143 Smith, R. A. 889: 305, 306 Solodow, J. B. 295: 182, 183 1008: 335

Song-Yang, L. 604: 249, 250 Stampacchia, G. 482: 227, 228 Starr, R. J. 496: 230, 231 Stegmann, H. 107: 121, 122 Steiner, D. 937: 313, 317, 318–319 Stella, E. 102: 121, 122 Stevens, B. E. 231: 158, 159, 229, 237 473: 224, 225, 313, 338 711: 159, 269–270 834: 159, 292, 294 Stoevesandt, M. 836: 294, 295 Stradymova, V. I. *774: 282 Stroh, W. 116: 123–124, 143 435: 215, 216 Stroup, S. C. 267: 172, 173 278: 174, 176, 230, 241, 264 Styka, J. 296: 182, 183 Süss, J.  145 Svavarsson, S. H. 678: 262, 263 Sweet, D. R. 550: 240 861: 299, 300 Syndikus, H.-P. 75: 115, 116, 143, 190, 229 76: 115, 116, 190, 229 77: 115, 116, 190, 229 78: 116, 229 152: 130, 132 279: 176, 178 Takács, L. 1038: 137, 341 Takács, S. A. 765: 278, 280–281 Tamas, A. 807: 289 Tar, I. 72: 114, 137, 233 174: 136, 137

A Review of Scholarship on Catullus 1985–2015 Tartaglini, C. 808: 290, 295 Tartari Chersoni, M. 343: 193, 194 Tatham, G. 812: 290 Tatum, J. 885: 305, 306 Tatum, W. J. 144: 129 270: 173, 174, 231, 300, 342 291: 177, 181 674: 262, 263 980: 330 Taylor, A. 743: 276 Tesoriero, C. 486: 137, 227, 228 Theodorakopoulos, E. 795: 285, 287 949: 313, 320, 322–323 Thévenaz, O. 709: 266, 269 Thom, S. 539: 237, 238 606: 250 695: 265, 268 Thomamüller, K. 659: 259, 260 Thomas, R. F.  124, 318, 321 387: 137, 203, 204–205, 234 533: 237, 238 669: 261, 262 Thomsen, O. 477: 226–227, 275 480: 226, 227, 275 Thomson, D. F. S. 5: 101, 102, 104, 110, 111, 144, 190, 229, 244, 273, 313, 324, 340 1030: 340, 341 1040: 341 Thraede, K. 437: 137, 215, 217 Töchterle, K. 868: 301, 302–303 Tordeur, P. 380: 137, 201, 202 Traill, D. A. 331: 136, 191, 192, 282, 321 781: 283, 284 Traina, A. 333: 191, 192, 261

359

713: 270 Tränkle, H. 69: 114, 115, 282 809: 290 Trappes-Lomax, J. M. 16: 104, 105, 113, 115, 231, 248, 273, 277, 313–314, 328 63: 112, 113 982: 330 1035: 340–341 Trimble, G. 310: 184, 186, 282 856: 297, 298 Tromaras, L. 14: 104 114: 123, 144 194: 144 675: 262, 263 Uden, J. 299: 182, 183, 216 532: 237 965: 138, 326, 327 Väisänen, M.  235 282: 163, 177, 178, 179, 181 Valverde Abril, J. J. 8: 101, 102–103 Van der Paart, R. Th. 97: 120 Van Sickle, J. 199: 140, 147, 148 Vandiver, E. 341: 193, 331 390: 203, 205, 313 Vázquez Buján, M. E. 583: 137, 246 Ventura, F. S. 115: 123 Verdière, R. 87: 118 721: 271, 272 757: 278, 280 986: 136, 331, 332 Vergados, A. 517: 233, 234 595: 248, 249 Vessey, D. W. T. 66: 114–115 Veyne, P. 234: 160, 162, 163

360 Viarre, S. 18: 105 Vine, B. 648: 258 693: 265, 267 970: 327, 328–329 Vinson, M. 283: 177–178 404: 208, 209 Viparelli Santangelo, V. 491: 228, 229, 231 von Albrecht, M. 150: 130, 131 665: 260, 261 Walsh, P. G. 575: 245, 246 Warden, J. 375: 198, 201 789: 284, 285 881: 302, 304 Wasdin, K. 738: 275 Watson, L. 92: 118, 119, 139 415: 209, 210–211 439: 138, 215, 217 585: 247 630: 254, 255 1039: 341 Watt, W. S. 46: 111 53: 112 Weiss, M. 715: 270–271 West, S. 867: 301, 302 White, H. 907: 310, 311–312 Williams, C. A. 358: 196–197, 245 448: 218, 219 573: 244 Williams, M. F. 360: 197, 198, 219, 264 651: 258, 259 Wills, J. 377: 201, 202, 282 892: 305, 306–307 Wirth, T. 503: 231, 232

Marilyn B. Skinner Wiseman, T. P.  128, 139, 244 81: 116, 117, 225 82: 116, 117, 119, 120, 122, 128, 149–150, 162–163, 225, 239, 253, 257 83: 117–118, 134, 251 84: 117, 118, 251 85: 117–118, 119, 120, 251 153: 130, 132 160: 133, 134 612: 251, 252 Wisse, J. 131: 127 Wolff, É. 357: 196 Woodman, A. J. 178: 136, 138 218: 138, 152–153, 164 495: 137, 230, 231 706: 266, 269 865: 299, 301 Woodman, T. See Woodman, A. J. Wray, D. 240: 143, 160, 163, 210–211, 215, 218, 229, 236, 237, 240, 244, 248–249, 250, 252, 255, 256, 264–265, 274 322: 186, 188–189 768: 279, 281 Wyke, M.  187 Young, E. M. 198: 147, 299, 305, 342 232: 159–160, 282 526: 234, 235 712: 266, 270 805: 286, 289 Zaina, E. 266: 172–173, 236 406: 208, 209 528: 236 647: 258 702: 266, 268 947: 320, 322 Zanoni, A. T. 29: 107, 108 Zehnacker, H. 319: 186, 188 Zierl, A. 446: 218, 219 Zwierlein, O. 870: 302, 303