CATULLUS 68 - Scuola Normale Superiore

One possible parallel is Nepos Ages. 4.4 tantaque usus est celeritate ut quod iter Xerxes anno uertente
confecerat, hic transierit triginta diebus, where transierit simply means ‘he passed’, ‘he made the trip’; it is
not clear whether it should be construed as transitive with iter or as intransitive. In any case, in the present
passage transit iter ‘it accomplishes its journey’ would be unpleasantly contorted.
medium is connected with iter only in interpretations (iia) and (iib), which is a significant advantage in a
passage in which practically every noun carries an epithet. In interpretation (iia) iter has to mean ‘road’ or
‘path’, as at Sisenna frg. 74 HRF impedimentum omne de cunctis itineribus amoliuntur, Cic. Q. fr. 1.1.25
itinerum atque agrorum … latrocinio, Caes. Gal. 7.11.8 pontis atque itinerum angustiae multitudini fugam
intercluserant, in the Lex Vrsoniensis from 44 B.C. at CIL 1.2.594.77.34-78.38 quae uiae publicae itineraue
publica sunt fuerunt … eae uiae eique limites eaque itinera publica sunto, and often elsewhere (see OLD
s.v., 6a and TLL 7.2.539.44-68). Ellis and Kroll compare Il. 15.682 λαοφ〉ρον καψ ⌡δ〉ν, and Ellis also
refers to Nicander Alex. 218 λαοφ〉ροι!ιν ⁄νιξρ⇔μπτου!α κελε⎛ψοι! (here a priestess of Rhea is
‘approaching a much-travelled road’), which are thematic rather than verbal parallels. One disadvantage is
that it is rather absurd to speak of crossing through the middle of a road; but perhaps per medium … iter
means something like ‘right across’. All in all, this may be the most attractive interpretation on offer.
For interpretation (iib) transit has to mean not ‘it crosses’ but ‘it passes by’. Baehrens compares Lucilius 758
Marx persuade et transi, sed da quam ob rem transeas, but the context and even the general meaning of this
fragment are absolutely unclear, so it cannot count as a parallel. In fact, Latin distinguishes carefully between
trans- and praeter-, and here per guarantees that trans- should be taken to mean ‘across’.
Interpretation (iii) requires iter to refer to ‘the course’ of the stream. The word is found in this sense in
Catullus at 64.357-60 Scamandri … cuius iter caesis angustans corporum aceruis / alta tepefaciet permixta
flumina caede, and is well attested elsewhere: compare Varro R.R. 1.51.1 ut si pluerit, non consistat aqua et
quam breuissimo itinere extra aream defluere possit, the Lex Vrsoniensis at CIL 1.2.594.104.16f. quo minus
suo itinere aqua ire fluere possit and Verg. Aen. 7.801f. per imas / quaerit iter uallis atque in mare conditur
Vfens (see further OLD s.v., 5c and TLL 7.2.541.43-61). The one problem with this interpretation is that the
subject changes from the previous line (where the subject is the stream itself) through the present one (where
the subject is the iter) to the next one (where it must be the stream and not its course that refreshes the
traveller).
Alternatively, one could try to emend. per strongly suggests that the prefix trans- is genuine, so one can try
to replace transit iter by a verb starting with trans- that makes sense in the context and has the right metrical
shape. The possibilities are transgreditur and transuehitur. Both verbs are first attested in this sense over a
century after Catullus in Pliny the Elder, at N.H. 6.128 transuectusque occurrente Tauro monte in specum
mergitur (of the river Tigris crossing Lake Aretissa) and 18.200 sole Scorpionis duodecim partes
transgresso, but this may be due to chance; there are simply not that many occasions to write about the
movements of an inanimate subject. It is a problem, however, that neither transgreditur nor transuehitur is
particularly close to transit iter.
174