CATULLUS 68 - Scuola Normale Superiore

y Ellis, Thomson, Goold and Godwin, is accepted by Syndikus (1990: 289, n. 205) and is advocated by
Trappes-Lomax (2007: 239f.).
None of the other proposals on offer are nearly as good. Pohl’s condidit iram is unconvincing, as condo is
not attested in this sense, while Baehrens’ concipit iram ‘she conceives anger’ and colligit iram ‘she builds
up anger’ make Juno angry where the logic of the text needs her to be tolerant. A more drastic solution was
proposed by Birt (1904: 429), who conjectured custodibat and took it with flagrantem to mean ‘she guarded
him as he was inflamed by passion’; but once again this would make Juno shrewish where she has to be
broad-minded.
In short, Hertzberg’s contudit iram is the most convincing conjecture. Santenius’ continet iram also deserves
mention, but Trappes-Lomax (2007: 243) notes that a verb in the perfect tense is more suitable, as “Jupiter
was not still seducing mortal women in Catullus’ time, and saepe makes it clear that the reference is to the
past events of the mythological age.”
140 The line is echoed by Prop. 2.30.28 et canere antiqui dulcia furta Iouis and probably also by Ov. Met.
1.605f. atque suus coniunx ubi sit circumspicit, ut quae / deprensi totiens iam nosset furta mariti (also of
Juno).
noscens This can be interpreted in two ways: (i) ‘becoming aware of’, ‘hearing of’ each infidelity in turn or
(ii) ‘knowing of’, ‘being aware of’ Jove’s many infidelities. The present tense of nosco ‘I get to know’ is
inchoative (see OLD s.v., 1c), unlike the perfect noui ‘I know’, which argues for interpretation (i). However,
the present participle would imply contemporaneous action, while Juno presumably suppressed her anger not
while but after she discovered some peccadillo of her husband’s. One possibility, then, is to interpret the
participle as if it were a perfect. This type of substitution is known and comes naturally in view of Latin’s
lack of a perfect participle active: see Kühner-Stegmann 1.757, who quote Tac. Ann. 12.48 Quadratus
cognoscens proditum Mithridaten … uocat consilium. Hofmann-Szantyr 386f. go as far as stating that there
is no firm rule for the temporal relationship between the action expressed by the finite verb and that
expressed by the present participle; in their view this relationship has to be inferred from the context from
case to case and the crucial aspect of this participle is only that it expresses a durative action, i.e. it stands for
a present or an imperfect rather than a perfect (cfr. Neue-Wagener 3.134). Alternatively, we could go for
interpretation (ii): Juno forgave her husband, since she already knew about a thousand and one peccadilloes
of his; her past experience taught her to be tolerant. This is the line of thought in Ov. Met. 1.605f., which
echoes the present passage (see the previous note).
Others concluded that the line must be corrupt and tried to emend it: Nicolaus Heinsius proposed omniuoli
ignoscens, while Baehrens thought of perfida pacta, turpia probra and turpia facta. Baehrens’ conjectures
would weaken the potential tautology, as his conjectures would add either new information or elements of
moral shock, while Heinsius’ ignoscens would remove it altogether. The transmitted text is confirmed by the
echoes of the line in Propertius and Ovid (see the previous note).
236