CATULLUS 68 - Scuola Normale Superiore

principio is considered genuine by most scholars. Palladius printed praecipue, but this would require not an
absolute gift (‘he gave us this or that’) but a relative one (‘more than others he did this or that to us’) and it is
not clear how the line could be interpreted in such a way. Another alternative would be Bernhard Schmidt’s
conjecture quam primo, but this is far from the transmitted text, and the Latin for ‘as soon as possible’ is
quam primum; nor would any phrase with such a meaning bring tangible gains above the transmitted text.
In fact, et qui principio found at the start of another Catullan hexameter at 66.49. This makes it likely that
here too it should be genuine.
nobis This word has been modified to quam by Birt (1904: 157) and to uobis by Fröhlich (1849: 266).
Birt would write the verse as et qui principio quam terriculam dedit aufert. This is ingenious, as terricula is
indeed attested in Lucilius, Accius and Seneca the Younger in the sense ‘object of terror, bogy’ (OLD s.v.).
However, it is hard to see what terriculam dedit would mean: a terricula is not equivalent to terror, fear
itself, but something that evokes fear, and it is hard to imagine what kind of fear Catullus could be writing
about in this happy passage, and why he would thank a person who had frightened him. Last but not least,
quam terriculam is quite far from the transmitted reading nobis terram.
Fröhlich’s conjecture uobis, on the other hand, is palaeographically very close to nobis; as it is connected
with his reading of the following words, it is discussed in the next note.
terram dedit aufert These puzzling words are manifestly corrupt because they are ungrammatical (aufert
cannot follow on dedit without a connective), even though they are not unmetrical. A variety of remedies
have been tried out on them, which will be discussed here more or less in a chronological sequence.
Avantius or another humanist conjectured dominam dedit. It is followed by a quo in the first Aldine edition
of 1502 and by auream in MS 106, which displays its influence. In any case it is completely implausible,
because domina has already been used in the previous line. No more convincing is Achilles Statius’
conjecture teneram dedit: the adjective teneram can hardly mean ‘a tender girl’, ‘a tender girl-friend’, and
‘tender’ would have been a singularly unsuitable epithet for the experienced adulteress Lesbia.
These two emendations rest on the not unreasonable assumption that the object of dedit must have been
Catullus’ mistress; in more recent times most scholars have assumed that its object must be something else.
It is notable that practically all of them are in favour of conserving dedit or -didit (Kinsey conjectures erat
omnia): a verb is a valuable commodity that is not easily jettisoned.
Statius’ great rival Scaliger conjectured te trandedit Oufens. This is a feat of ingenuity because it is close to
the transmitted reading terram dedit aufert and therefore palaeographically plausible, and it yields what
appears to be acceptable Latin; and it also displays an impressive erudition. However, on closer inspection
neither Oufens nor trandedit turn out to be convincing. The name Vfens (written like this) only appears to
have been used for a river and for epic characters in Virgil and Silius, and there existed an administrative
division of the Roman nation called the tribus Oufentina; but no historical figure appears to have been called
Oufens or Vfens (thus RE s.v. Ufens). As for trandedit, it should be compared with forms such as transque
dato in the Law of the Twelve Tables (ap. Fest. p. 402.33 Lindsay), transdare at Terence Ph. 2, transdito in a
law from 123 or 122 B.C. (CIL 1.583.54), transdes and transdunt in Accius (trag. 366 and 630) and
254