CATULLUS 68 - Scuola Normale Superiore

prefer Gronorius’ conjecture texta) Laevius’ fragment could be translated as ‘let the hides (i.e. sheets) of
papyrus carry tattoo-marks (i.e. writing)’. It could perhaps be a request for inspiration addressed to a
divinity.
47 The lacuna in the principal MSS disrupts the metre, as a hexameter is followed by another. In theory any
odd number of lines could have fallen out, but it is generally assumed that only one pentameter is missing;
and given the fact that lines 46 and 48 make the same point, this is very probably correct. The lost line would
have contained, then, further instructions to the Muses as to how they should make Allius famous. In the
lacunose text the transition is abrupt from the mention of the paper in line 46 (haec charta loquatur anus) to
that of Allius in line 48 (notescatque … mortuus); presumably the lost line contained an element that made
the change of subject much smoother – a pronoun, such as illius in line 44, or a periphrasis of some sort; a
form of his name is unlikely after it has occurred in lines 42 and 50.
A number of supplements have been proposed since the Renaissance:
omnibus et triuiis uulgetur fabula passim (Thomas Seneca?)
omnibus inque locis celebretur fama sepulti (Petrus Odus)
sed scabra intactum seruet rubigine nomen (Johann von Gott Fröhlich)
ut qualis fuerit, dum uixit, carmina narrent (Theodor Heyse)
uersibus ut nostris etiam post funera uiuat (Emil Baehrens)
milibus ut facile in uita noscatur ab ipsis (Giovanni Pascoli)
notescatque magis uiuos uolitetque per ora (Theodor Birt)
The first supplement is found in the MSS βζη and in some later recentiores. In β and 56 it is attributed to
Seneca, i.e. the humanist Thomas Seneca from Camerino (born in 1391 and still alive in 1472), while in 28
the author is identified as Philelphus, that is, Francesco Filelfo from Tolentino in the Marches of Ancona
(born in 1395 or 1398, dead in 1481). Given that β was written in 1423, probably well before 28 and 56, both
of which are dated to 1460-70 by Thomson (1997: 76 and 79), the former attribution inspires more
confidence (thus Mynors 1958: x f., n. 2). It is a lively and attractive verse, though by no means an
impeccable one: passim is little more than a metrical stopgap, there is no reference to Allius, and the
expectation that he should be talked about at every crossroads due to this poem seems wildly unrealistic. The
coup de grâce was delivered to this supplement by Haupt (1837: 42), who pointed out that there are no
examples of postponed et in Catullus (see on 45f. multis / milibus).
The second supplement is found in numerous recentiores and in the Venice edition of 1475, and is attributed
in MS 82 to Petrus Odus (Pietro Odi of Montopoli in Lazio, also known as Odo, Oddo, Oddone and Oddi, a
humanist and Neolatin poet who died in 1463/64: see Graziosi Acquaro 1970: 7-22). It is much less
attractive than the previous one: the enclitic –que is attached not to the first word in the clause, nor to any
important one, but to the humble preposition in; it is hard to catch the meaning of celebretur fama; and the
162