No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Catullus 107: a Callimachean reading*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
‘Excitement struggles with the restraint of form and language and the artifice of verbal repetition… runs riot.’ The repetition is more pronounced and personal here than in another Lesbia epigram, no. 70, where ‘the repetition dicit…dicit makes it certain that Catullus had [Callimachus, Ep. 25 Pf.] in mind’. Poem 70 illustrates how Catullus might allude to and adapt a Hellenistic model in expressing his personal feelings; while the longer elegiac poems in particular (and 66, the translation of Coma Berenices) show the depth of his engagement with Callimachean literary technique. We should not be surprised to find Callimachean elements here too, given the demonstrable correspondences with poem 68 in particular, a composition noted for its use of Alexandrian artifice. But while there are close echoes of the high emotion, the doctus poeta of 68 seems to be largely missing from 107. Here Catullus exults ipsa refers te / nobis (5–6); there his mistress se nostrum contulit in gremium (132).
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 2000
Footnotes
*
I should like to thank Dr C. S. Kraus and CQ's anonymous referee for their comments on the original draft. The following books and articles are referred to below by the authors’ surnames: R. G. Austin, Aeneid, Book 6 (Oxford, 1977); H. Bardon, Catulli Carmina (Paris, 1970); G. Bonazzi, Catulli Carmina (Rome, 1936); J. Ferguson, Catullus (Lawrence, K.S, 1985); C. J. Fordyce, Catullus: A Commentary (corr. edn., Oxford, 1973); A. Ghiselli, ‘Il c.107 di Catullo’;, Filologia e forme letterarie: Studi offerti a F. Delia Corte, vol. 2 (Florence, 1988), 339–48; J. Godwin, Catullus 61–68 (Warminster, 1996); S. J. Heyworth, ‘Catullus 107.3 – a response’, LCM 9 (1984), 137; G. O. Hutchinson, Hellenistic Poetry (Oxford, 1988); R. O. A. M. Lyne, ‘The text of Catullus CVII, Hermes 113 (1985), 498–500; H. A. J. Munro, Criticisms and Elucidations of Catullus (London, 1905); K. Quinn, Catullus, The Poems (2nd edn, Basingstoke/London, 1973); D. O. Ross, Style and Tradition in Catullus (Cambridge, MA, 1969); D. A. Slater, ‘Catullus CVII’, CR 38 (1924), 150–1; J. Soubiran, L'Élision dans la poésie latine (Paris, 1966); D. F. S. Thomson, Catullus (Toronto, 1997); M. L. West, Hesiod: Theogony (Oxford, 1966); G. W. Williams, Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry (Oxford, 1968); M. Zicàri, ‘Some metrical and prosodical features of Catullus’ poetry’, Phoenix 18 (1964), 193–205.
References
1 Fordyce, 393.
2 Ibid., 361.
3 Cf. Ross, 152–3.
4 Cf. Hutchinson, 298–325.
5 ‘Not a translation from Alexandrian poetry like 66 but not less obviously Alexandrian in its inspiration’ (Fordyce, 342); some would divide it into two separate poems (68a = lines 1–40, see e.g. Hutchinson, 314). Williams (229–31) makes a convincing case for unity, further elaborated by Godwin.
6 carior is Walker's suggestion (carius MSS). Fordyce punctuates hoc est gratum, nobis quoque, carius auro, while Heyworth argues for the simpler hoc est gratum nobis, et carius auro. The latter readings take carius auro as referring to the event of self-restitution, but it would be preferable to refer the phrase to Lesbia herself.
7 The Grecizing hiatus is defended by Zicàri.
8 Quinn, 446. However, this has not stopped editors supposing that the MS readings make good sense; e.g. Bonazzi punctuates quis me uno vivit felicior? aut magis hac est / optandus vita, dicere quis poterit? The attempt to construe vita with the impossible sense ‘Who is more fortunate in this life?’ may account for the me (‘than me’) of the MSS.
9 Quinn ad loc.
10 Other conjectures may be found in the editions of Bardon and Thomson, who both opt for Guarinus's hac quid / optandum in vita. It may be argued that since an original optandum would have offered an acceptable predicate with est whereas optandam or optandas would not, the scribe's optandus is more likely to reflect an emendation of the latter; Lyne, quoting Ter. Phorm.164, considers that ‘the agreement of optanda with vita in fact seems strongly probable’. Munro's aut magis aevum / optandum hac vita ducere quis poterit? and Slater's introduction of Acme invita (!) are exercises in ingenuity.
11 Ferguson ad loc. draws attention to Catullus’ identification of Lesbia with his vita, the life/love that he so urgently desires and chooses (cf. 109.1, mea vita, and 68.160, lux mea, qua viva vivere dulce mihi est)—a nuance that is lost if we restore in hac vita with Kroll and Lee.
12 But reading vitä requires us to understand vitam, which is less straightforward than deriving vita from magis hac esse optandam vitam. The omission of a subject after dicere for magis esse optandam, combined with the hyperbaton hac(e)… vita, would create an effect akin to Callimachean ‘dislocation’: Williams (714–16) cites Cat. 68.147–8, quare illud satis est, si nobisis datur unis / quern lapide ilia dies candidiore notat, noting ‘the interest of Catullus in such effects and his willingness not only to experiment but to outdo his models in experimentation’.
13 Call. 1.41 Pf., lines 1–2; for Catulus (Courtney, FLP 75–6 = Morel p. 43 = Aul.Gell. 19.9) see Ross, 150–2.
14 Ancient grammarians draw attention to the Callimachean example when discussing word-division between successive lines of verse (see n. 19 below). The only other example in Greek hexameters seems to be the archaic accusative ζν at line-end (as in εὐροπα ζν). Since in every case the following line starts with a vowel, it was regarded by Aristarchus (and perhaps early rhapsodes) as elided hypermetric ζνα (i.e. ζν). See West on Hes. Th. 884.
15 Sen. ap. Gell. 12.2.10: ‘Vergilius… non ex alia causa duros quosdam versus et enormes et aliquid supra mensuram trahentis interposuit quam ut Ennianus populus adgnosceret in novo carmine aliquid antiquitatis.’
16 Soubiran (466–8) lists a total of thirty-one instances, 80 per cent with -que, in Latin hexameters from Lucilius to Silius Italicus, with twenty-one instances in Virgil; Lucretius's only hypermetre (D.R.N. 5.849) is also a present infinitive (debere).
17 115.5, saltusque paludesque / usque… Fordyce resurrected the Renaissance conjecture altasque paludes I usque…, which is preferred by most editors with good reason.
18 As the journal's referee notes, ‘it is not done in polite society to introduce a metrical anomaly by conjecture, and it would be very neat if a hypermetric elision in Catullus’ final couplet could be shown to echo one in Callimachus’ opening couplet. But I fear this is wishful thinking.’ I hope I may be forgiven any breach of etiquette on this occasion.
19 Choeroboscus, noting πολλᾰ μτρα εἰς μρος λξεως παριζοντα κα π το ἄλλου μρους τς λξεως ρχμενα (ap. Hephaest. 226, 12 Consbr.), divides Call. ο sol; δ’ εἳτ’ An unusual word-division in the text here (e.g. es / se optandam) would have encouraged precisely the kind of emendation found in the MSS.
20 Lyne (498) writes ‘a text that read quis… vivit… aut…est would almost inevitably attract optand- grammatically; so little weight should be accorded to the letters -us’. But note my proviso (n. 10) that optandum would be less likely to force a change to optandus.
21 Fordyce, 396.