CATULLUS 68 - Scuola Normale Superiore

poem; in effect it would not be much more than a metrical stopgap. Other sorts of words have been
conjectured as well. A Renaissance manuscript contained auctor, which is also conjectured by Rossbach;
Vossius suggested auctore (to go with a quo). Both words would be unnecessary, as principio and primus
would already make it clear that this man was the first to do what he did; and they would also fit rather oddly
into this context: one is the auctor of something not if one has made it possible but if one has created it
oneself, and lovers rarely attribute responsibility for their love-affair to anybody else. Cremona (1967:
264f.), on the other hand, combines Mitscherlich’s te tradidit with Lipsius’ auspex, a word that was used for
a functionary at a wedding ceremony (OLD s.v. 2). Cremona argues that an auspex was present in order to
ensure an auspicious (auspicatus) outcome for the nuptial union, but this does not appear to have been the
case: an auspex is an ‘augur’ (OLD), and he was surely present at the ceremony not as a man of good omen,
but to check the auspices. In any case, if one adopts Mitscherlich’s conjecture, then the person in question
must have introduced Allius to Catullus (nobis te tradidit), in an event that probably did not resemble a
wedding ceremony.
Another possibility is to leave terram dedit intact and emend only aufert to auspex (Lipsius), ubertim
(Wetstein), audens (Friedrich), a quo (Perrotta), haustis (Herzog), Allius (Viejo Otero), my aufertque or any
of the supplements discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Lipsius’ conjecture was adopted hesitantly by
Thomson in his 1978 edition on the grounds that an auspex could set out a templum on the ground (Varro
L.L. 7.8 in terris dictum templum locus augurii aut auspicii causa quibusdam conceptis uerbis finitus) – but
creating a templum is never called terram dare, and it is hard to see in what sense a literal or a metaphorical
auspex could have given earth to Catullus and his beloved. In his edition of 1997 Thomson relinquished the
conjecture. Another proposal was made by Oksala (1965: 88), who suggested that we should write terram
dedit auspex and take auspex to refer to Allius himself in his role of the ‘best man’ in the context of Catullus’
relationship with Lesbia (for this meaning of the word see the previous paragraph). However, Allius was
already greeted two lines before, so he cannot be greeted here as well.
It is sometimes assumed that terram dedit evokes an image of a shipwreck: thus Lafaye translates the phrase
as “m’a permis d’aborder”, “allowed me to reach the shore”. In fact there appear to be no close parallels for
such an usage. There are cases in which someone is said to provide one with a safe shore or haven in an
image of shipwreck: thus most importantly Val. Fl. 2.316-322 tunc etiam uates Phoebo dilecta Polyxo …
‘portum demus’ ait (she recommends that the Argonauts should be given a friendly reception on Lesbos) and
Lucan. 8.192 portum Fortuna dabit; the same image is used metaphorically at Ov. Pont. 1.2.59f. cum subit,
Augusti quae sit clementia, credo / mollia naufragiis litora posse dari. Less close are Ov. Pont. 2.9.9f. excipe
naufragium non duro litore nostrum, / ne fuerit terra tutior unda tua and Sen. (?) epigr. 15.3f. Baehrens
(PLM 3.60) Crispe … naufragio litus tutaque terra meo; in the first passage Ovid is asking Cotys, King of
Thrace, to ensure that he gets a friendly reception when he reaches the country (cfr. Prop. 1.17.25-28 at uos,
aequoreae formosa Doride natae, … mansuetis socio parcite litoribus, quoted by Oksala 1965: 88, n. 1),
while the author of the epigram attributed to Seneca simply states that Crispus is for him what a shore is for a
shipwrecked man. Baehrens infers from these parallels that terram dare appears to be a suitable expression
256