CATULLUS 68 - Scuola Normale Superiore

indomitumque regem … ad mortem … ire coegi, Pompey of Mithradates). In fact, indomitus does not appear
to be used anywhere else for a virgin, which provides further confirmation for the case against the traditional
interpretation of this distich (that usage is only attested in Greek: TLL 7.1.1224.29f. compares Od. 6.109
παρψϒνο! δμ→!). The reconstruction of a form of indomitus here is confirmed by the similar juxtaposition
of iugum and indomitus at 63.33 ueluti iuuenca uitans onus indomita iugi (there iugi is a convincing
humanistic conjecture for luci).
Between quod and indomitum there should probably stand a noun that agrees with the latter – a word
meaning ‘the god’, ‘the hero’ or something of the sort. Unfortunately, heroa would be unmetrical, as would
deum; diuum would not, but it would turn Hercules into a god when he is still human – a point that was
emphasized just three lines earlier. dominum is palaeographically far from tuum. Alternatively, one could
write tunc, but that is less attractive not only because it is a meaningless stopgap, but also because the
adjective indomitum would be rather abrupt on its own, especially since Hercules has not been mentioned
directly since line 112.
This line drove even Scaliger (1577: 120) to despair; he commented “(neque enim dissimulare sustineo)
nullum idoneum sensum ex hoc uersu elicere possum.”
119-124 The affection of the aging paterfamilias for his sole late-born grandson who saves the family
fortune from falling into the hands of strangers is used as a foil for Laodamia’s love for Protesilaus (line
128).
There were precedents for the image in Greek poetry. A simile involving the love of a rich father for his one
late-born son is found in the Iliad (9.481f. κα⇐ μ∋ ⁄φ⇔λη!∋ ⊃! ε◊ τε πατ↓ρ ⎤ν πα⇑δα φιλ→!ηι / μο⎝νον
τηλ⎛γετον πολλο⇑!ιν ⁄π⇐ κτε τε!!ι), while Pindar describes the delight of an aging father in his son, “as
wealth that receives the imposition of an alien shepherd as its share is most hateful for one who is dying” (Pi.
Ol. 10.86-90 λλ∋ ⊄τε πα⇑! ⁄ϕ λ〉ξου πατρ⇐ / ποψειν∫! 〈κοντι νε〉τατο! τ∫ π λιν ≥δη, / μ λα δϒ ο⇓
ψερμα⇔νει φιλ〉τατι ν〉ον: / ⁄πε⇐ πλο⎝το! ⌡ λαξ∅ν ποιμϒνα / ⁄πακτ∫ν λλ〉τριον / ψν ι!κοντι
!τυγερ⊕τατο!). Newman (1990: 234) also compares Euripides Ion 478-480, but there the chorus merely
comments on the joy caused by children that will inherit one’s wealth. Catullus follows in the first place
Pindar (thus Sarkissian 1983: 29 and also Steiner 2004: 275, who sees a whole series of echoes of the Tenth
Olympian in the present poem, though the resemblances that she points out appear too weak to convince), but
perhaps also the Iliad (thus Kroll on line 119).
Catullus remodels the traditional image, making the newborn child not the son of the paterfamilias, but his
grandson, the son of his only daughter; and he gives it a “wholly Roman cast” (Newman 1990: 234) by
adding the details of the young man having his name entered in his grandfather’s will, restoring the glory of
the family name and chasing away the ‘vulture’ who has been waiting eagerly for the death of the old man to
get hold of his property. While there is certainly a Roman flavour to each of these details, taken together they
describe a situation that is absolutely unrealistic.
220