CATULLUS 68 - Scuola Normale Superiore

furtum amoris), while he is imitated in turn by Propertius at 2.29b.40 prosilit in laxa nixa pedem solea, and
perhaps also by Ovid as he describes the Muse at Am. 3.1.31f. mouit pictis innixa cothurnis / densum
caesarie terque quaterque caput and Pont. 4.16.29 Musaque Turrani tragicis innixa cothurnis. Here innixa is
not superfluous before constituit (pace Kroll) but indicates that Lesbia lets her weight rest on her sandal.
arguta A puzzling word. Achilles Statius, Ellis, Baehrens, Merrill, Kroll, Fordyce, Quinn, Goold, Thomson
and Pérez Vega take it to mean ‘shrill’, ‘harsh’, describing the sound made by Lesbia’s sandals. Goold
(1983) translates arguta … solea as ‘with a tap of her sandal’. On the other hand, Muretus took arguta to
characterize not the sound but the shape of Lesbia’s footwear, and he was followed by Santenius and Riese.
argutus comes from arguo; and Ernout and Meillet s.v. explain that the original meaning of the verb was
‘faire briller, éclaircir, éclarer’; thus argutus would have meant initially ‘brilliant, shining, conspicuous’. The
classical uses of the adjective are well explained by Fordyce: “argutus and argutiae can be applied to
anything that makes a sharp impression on one of the senses – most often of hearing (Virg. Ecl. 8. 22
‘argutum nemus’, Georg. i. 143 ‘arguta serra’, i. 294 ‘argutum pecten’, Prop. i. 18. 30 ‘argutae aues’) but
also of sight (Cic. Leg. i. 27 ‘oculi arguti’, ‘quick eyes’, de Or. iii. 220 ‘manus arguta’, ‘restless hands’
[surely ‘conspicuous hands’ or ‘gestures’ – D.K.]: Virg. Georg. iii. 80 ‘argutum caput’, ‘with clear-cut
lines’), and even of smell (Pliny, N.H. xv. 18) and of taste (Palladius iii. 25.4 ‘argutos sapores’): their
metaphorical uses correspond – of quickness of mind, incisiveness of style, expressiveness in art.” Catullus
does not use argutus anywhere else, only the derivative argutatio in the acoustic sense at 6.10f. tremulique
quassa lecti / argutatio inambulatioque, but it is hard to infer from this with Ellis that like Propertius he
would be confining argutus to the sense of sound.
The question is then: did Lesbia’s sandal catch Catullus’ eye or his ear? (Fordyce also considers the
alternative translations ‘quick-moving’ and ‘twinkling’, but there may be parallels for neither.) Both
interpretations are possible, but a reference to how Lesbia’s sandal looked (‘neat’, ‘elegant’, ‘shapely’) may
suit the context better: there is already a strong visual quality to candida and fulgentem in the previous two
lines. Catullus sees Lesbia arrive, as the reader is to imagine, and he is stunned. Alternatively, arguta …
solea could indeed describe the creaking of Lesbia’s sandal, whether as an omen of some sort (but this is
unlikely: see above on 71f.) or to indicate her arrival: as Baehrens puts it, „Catulus amasiam expectans ecce
audit signum optatissimum aduenientis, solearum crepitum“, comparing Priap. 83.40f. = ‘Quid hoc noui
est?’ 40f. sed ille cum redibit aureus puer, / simul sonante senseris iter pede…
Brenk (1983) suggests that arguta here may stand for the Greek adjective λιγ⎛!, which has associations of
sharpness, fineness, and precision; but a Roman reader could hardly have caught the allusion.
constituit I.e. fulgentem in limine plantam … constituit, ‘she set her shining sole on the threshold’: from
constituo ‘to place’ rather than consisto ‘to stand’; Lesbia does not stand on the threshold, but puts her foot
on it. The use of constituo with a body part is unusual (TLL 4.511.53 lists no parallels), but the sense is clear.
The verb regularly takes in with the ablative and not, as one would perhaps expect, with the accusative:
compare Rhet. Her. 3.34 in loco constituere … Domitium, Cic. Ver. 6.3 arripuitque M.’ Aquilium
constituitque in conspectu omnium and Lucr. 4.132 constituuntur in hoc caelo; see further TLL 4.510.60-
192