CATULLUS 68 - Scuola Normale Superiore

are solved by Scaliger’s brilliant emendation qua me Allius in re. The gentile name Allius is well-attested
(see TLL 1.1687.21-1688.11) and it is also found at lines 50 and 66 below, and Scaliger (1577: 84) also
inserted it into line 150 with another convincing emendation; qua … in re ‘in what matter’ is anticipatory, so
that it is no longer a problem that the res has not yet been defined; and me supplies the accusative that goes
with iuuerit. It is possible to reconstruct a straightforward and simple iter corruptionis: someone copying a
capital manuscript has evidently misread QVAMEALLIVS as QVAMFALLIVS, having overlooked the
lowest vertical stroke of the E. (It distracts little from Scaliger’s achievement that in fact he reconstructed
QVA M’ ALIVS: he was using inferior MSS that read quam falius and in this case he was misled by his
interest in archaic orthography.)
Scaliger’s conjecture is almost universally accepted, though Newman (1990: 229, n. 1), who believes that
Catullus 68 is one unitary poem, proposes to write quam Manlius in re / iuuerit, which he translates as “How
much Manlius helped in a practical matter.” To illustrate his interpretation of in re he adduces Cic. Ver. 2.5.8
cum nihil tam coniunctum sit quam negotiatores nostri cum Siculis usu, re, ratione, concordia, but that can
hardly count as a parallel: there we have not in re but the simple causal ablative re, and refers not simply to
an unspecified matter or business but to financial interests. The same applies to another potential parallel, Pl.
Pseud. 19 iuuabo aut re aut opera aut consilio bono. Furthermore, in re ‘in a practical matter’ would be
bland and meaningless (what other ways of helping are there?) and quam manlius could not have given rise
to the principal MSS’ quam fallius in any straightforward way. The same applies to quam Mallius (a
humanistic conjecture) and qua Mallius (Politian). Scaliger’s conjecture may be regarded as certain (thus
also Wiseman 1974b: 88).
It appears impossible to identify our Allius with any known individual. His nomen gentilicium was especially
common not only in Campania, Samnium and Umbria, but also in Catullus’ native Cisalpine Gaul (TLL
1.1687.30-32). It may have an Etruscan origin (ibid. 1687.20f.). The spellings Alius and Alia are also attested
on occasion (ibid. 1687.82-1688.4), but the correct was probably Allius, and here that is supported both by
the testimony of the MSS (the corruption preserved an earlier form, so a capital MS, that is, one written not
after the 6 th century A.D., must have written Allius) and by the metre. Alternatively, we could be dealing
with an alternation of the type littera/lītera.
qua … in re ‘in what business’, ‘in what matter’ is significant: Allius has helped Catullus in what he
considered the most important matter of all, in his love affair with Lesbia. His help is precious because of
this (qua … in re) and because of the size (by Catullus’ standards) of the service that he rendered to the poet
(quantis … officiis in the following line). For the idiom of helping someone in aliqua re compare Pl. Epid.
113 is est amicus, qui in re dubia re iuuat, ubi rest opus.
42 iuuerit ... iuuerit This is the reading of X, which no doubt reflects that of the archetype; O’s inuenit …
uiuerit looks like a simple slip. In order to avoid the repetition Cornelissen proposed to read fouerit for the
second uiuerit, while Usener suggested auxerit. As far as I know, all editors continued to print iuuerit …
155