Catalepton 10 (Sabinus ille) is a unique survival from antiquity: it is the only parody of an entire poem to reach us, and is written in pure iambic trimeters, a near intractable metre. Addressed to Sabinus, an upstart muleteer, the poem launches a stinging attack at him, and draws attention to his status as a parvenu. It remains incredibly close to its charming model—Catullus 4 (Phaselos ille)—in structural, lexical, stylistic and metrical terms, but rather different in purport. In attempting to reassess a number of problems in the text of the poem, the textual critic ought largely to be guided by the relationship of Sabinus ille to its model, as it is clear that the author of Catalepton 10 was an incredibly close reader of the Catullan text and sought not only to imitate through parody but also to subvert and deflate his predecessor's poem.

(1) Catal. 10.9–11:Footnote ²

The dura … iuba of the paradosis seems odd. The adjective is used nowhere else to describe hair or fur of any sort, and quite why the ‘hardness’ or ‘harshness’ of the mane should be in question is unclear.Footnote ³ I very tentatively conjecture densa … iuba. The adjective densus is apposite for describing hair and the like (TLL 5.1.545–7), and the collocation is found elsewhere of a pullus (for example Verg. G. 3.86 and Columella, Rust. 6.29.2; cf. Varro, Rust. 2.7.5 iuba crebra). It also gives greater saliency to the shearing spoken of in v. 9: it is precisely the quantity of hair that is at issue. The densa iuba of the pullus may be a positive feature in Virgil, but the horse of Georgics Book 3 is not intended as a draft-horse, for which an excessive mane may cause difficulties. As Telleen notes of equids used for drafting in the modern day, ‘[c]lipping the shoulders of long-haired horses and mules just where the collar fits on seems to help prevent sore shoulders because it keeps the hair from matting on the collar. This condition, if unchecked, sometimes irritates the skin and starts a collar sore … If the mane and tail are too long and thick, they should be thinned out by using a pocketknife or pulling some of the extra hair out with the fingers.’Footnote ⁴ The corruption from densa to dura is straightforward enough given the similar shape of the words.Footnote ⁵

(2) Catal. 10.20–1:

Since the 1517 Aldine edition, facta, extracted from the text of Catullus (neque ulla uota litoralibus deis | sibi esse facta, 4.22–3), has been printed by all editors; this is, however, problematic. It is perhaps easiest to understand uota as referring to ‘votive offerings’ here, rather than ‘vows’ in the light of the mention of the lora and the pecten in v. 22 (cf. Verg. Aen. 3.279; Petron. Sat. 89 with Habermehl ad loc.).Footnote ⁶ That being said, the phrase uotum facere properly means ‘to make a vow’, not ‘to make a votive offering’. The model is thus of little use here, as the author of Catal. 10 is concerned with votives, not with vows (as at Catull. 4.22): a different verb is needed. (Trappes-Lomax suggests that uotum facere may be taken as effectively meaning ‘to make a vow to dedicate [a votive offering]’ in and of itself; such a sense, however, is unparalleled.)Footnote ⁷ The manuscripts all read sancta. The verb sancire, however, is rarely attested with uota as its object and, where it does occur, it comes to mean ‘to make a vow’: feralia sanxi | uota deis (Stat. Theb. 11.344–5).

I propose reading posta. Whilst rare, the collocation uotum ponere—‘to make an offering’—is paralleled (for example Prop. 2.19.17–18 ipse ego uenabor: iam nunc me sacra Dianae | suscipere et Veneri ponere uota iuuat). The syncopated posta is at home in a poem that admits the forms attodisse (9) and deposisse (16), and is found elsewhere (for example Lucr. 3.857, 6.965). A medieval scribe's ignorance of the form may have resulted in attempted emendation; alternatively, the not infrequent liturgical use of sancta may well have allowed the word to creep in quite unintentionally after uota. (Stephen Harrison has suggested pacta to me as another possibility, adducing Hor. Carm. 3.29.59 uotis pacisci, but uota refers to ‘vows’ in this context, rather than to ‘votive offerings’ of the sort found in Catal. 10.)

(3) Catal. 10.22:

Sabinus describes his lora as paterna: this invites us to recall that he has been a mulio from his earliest days (ultima ex origine [14]), and emphasizes the innate nature of his lowly status. As regards the description of his pecten, the transmitted proximum seems to me to be implausible. It has been understood in a number of ways, most of which are without parallel in describing an object.

Where proximus is used of time in the past (‘the most recent’, ‘the last’, ‘the latest’), it refers to the most recent period of time (for example Plaut. Amph. 548) or instance of something (for example a congiarium [Tac. Dial. 17]; a military campaign [Caes. BGall. 1.44.9]; a letter received [Cic. Att. 11.11.1]; the holding of an office [Cic. Sen. 42]). It is not used to refer to objects, as far as I can see (cf. TLL 10.2.2037.61–2039.8).Footnote ⁸

Birt proposed two possible interpretations of proximum: (i) ‘the next in value [sc. after the paterna lora]’; (ii) ‘the nearest and dearest [to Sabinus]’.Footnote ⁹ Neither of these senses of proximus finds a parallel in relation to a tangible object. Heyne understood proximus to mean ‘iuxta lora suspensum, eodem pariete’;Footnote ¹⁰ he has been followed by Klotz (‘proxumus a loris subiugiis pecten dedicatus erat, qui antea in iugo ipso proxume a loris suspensus fuerat’), by Sabbadini and by Galletier (who unhelpfully adduces Hor. Carm. 3.26, which is concerned not with the proximity of various parts of the votive to one another but with the placement of the offering in relation to the building).Footnote ¹¹ This is the only plausible meaning for proximus, though as Birt rightly noted, ‘der Umstand ist doch gleichgültig, wie nahe der Kamm beim Zügel aufgestellt war’.Footnote ¹²

A number of conjectures have been made. Several identify the material from which the pecten was made as boxwood (Salmasius's buxinumque, Heinsius's buxeumque, Schmid's pyxinumque, comparable to πύξινος; of these buxeus is by far the most well-attested form). This is not implausible in and of itself (cf. Ov. Met. 4.311), but there seems to be little point to it in the context, and it is odd after the circumlocutory use of Cytorius to describe the iugum as ‘made of boxwood’ in v. 10. The suggestion by Garrod that pecten may refer not to a comb but to the teeth of a speedometer (or, perhaps, more properly, an odometer), is ingenious, but I am unable to convince myself that it is what the parodist wrote;Footnote ¹³ less plausible still is the notion of Holland, that Sabinus dedicated a ploxenum (a ‘wagon-box’ or ‘wagon-bed’), a possibility also considered by Scaliger.Footnote ¹⁴

I tentatively conjecture propriumque. This provides good sense: the adjective draws attention to the fact that it is Sabinus’ own comb, not one inherited from his father (cf. paterna lora); for its usage to denote ownership of an object, see Manilius 2.59 (cf. Cic. Rosc. Am. 21; Hor. Carm. 1.1.9). There may also be a supplementary use of proprius here to refer to the appropriateness of sacrifices; cf. Plaut. Capt. 862 with Lindsay ad loc. and CIL 6.32323.Footnote ¹⁵ The first syllable of proprius is, in most cases, treated as short, since the o comes before a mute + r, but its lengthening may be paralleled at Aetna 530 haec prōpria uirtus; cf. prōprietate at Aetna 513. Fittingly for a parodist who emulates Catullan metrical and prosodic practice, vocalic lengthening of this sort is not unusual in Catullus’ iambics; there are two instances in the model of Catal. 10 (cf. Catull. 4.9 Propontidā trucem, 4.18 impotentiā freta, 22.10 cāprimulgus, 31.8 perēgrino). Variation of treatment within the same poem is also Catullan (for example 29.16 expătrauit and 29.22 pātrimonia); it is thus not problematic that the parodist would treat the o of proprium as long, whilst not lengthening the a of lōră before proprium, nor that of Crĕmōnă before frigida (12).Footnote ¹⁶