CATULLUS 68 - Scuola Normale Superiore

so that one would not have to look for the poem or poems that he sent to this friend. These are the classic
“unitarian” and “separatist” positions; but there exist others. One is Ramler’s view that carmen 68 contains
passages that an editor has sewn together from at least three poems of Catullus’. This view has been
discussed and dismissed on the previous pages. Another is that of Ellis, who believes that lines 1-40 and 41-
160 constitute separate poems written on different occasions, but are concerned with the same friend of
Catullus’. A third is that of Tenney, who argues that lines 1-40 were the first draft of Catullus’ reply, while
lines 41-160 were the poem that he actually sent to his addressee. 19 A fourth has been proposed by Kroll, in
whose view Catullus first wrote lines 1-40, in which he rejected his friend’s request, then he recalled this
friend’s past services to him and composed lines 41-148, which he presents to him in the last section of the
carmen as a poetic gift. 20 For simplicity’s sake, I will first discuss the arguments for the two extreme
positions, and it will only take minimal changes to apply them to the theories of Ellis, Frank and Kroll. 21
Arguments in favour of the unity of carmen 68
(U 1) Carmen 68 is one poem in the manuscripts.
This has to be the starting point of any discussion of the problem. However, Catullus’ manuscripts are very
unreliable witnesses when it comes to dividing the poems from one another, so their evidence is of doubtful
value on this matter. 22
The division of the Catullan corpus into individual sections and the titles given (or not) to these in the
principal MSS have been the subject of a thorough analysis by McKie, who distinguishes between several
strata of divisions and titles. 23 McKie assigns the divisions before and after poem 68 to the oldest group of
divisions, which may reflect the paragraphi (marginal signs of various types) that were used to mark the
beginning of a new poem in antiquity, and even in Catullus’ autograph. 24 But if the divisions before and after
poem 68 may go back to Catullus himself, it does not follow that they must therefore enclose one single
poem. Paragraphi are easily lost in transmission, and this must have happened quite often in Catullus’ textual
tradition, as many of his poems are jumbled together in the principal MSS without any concern for sense or
metre: for example these MSS present poems 40-49, 65-67 and 101-116 as one undivided piece of text. 25
19
Tenney 1914.
20
Kroll on c. 68 (p. 218).
21
I thought I would be the first to follow such a strategy, until I encountered it at Pennisi 1959: 92f.
22
This is true for the manuscript tradition of many an author: see Heyworth 1995.
23
The analysis: McKie 1977: 38-95. The division into strata: ibid. 74 and 79-89.
24
Ibid. 74-79.
25
Ibid., 77f., and see the table on pp. 95a-c.
13