CATULLUS 68 - Scuola Normale Superiore

(d) All of carmen 68 is addressed to one person, one Allius; at line 11 there stood originally amice
(‘my friend’) or mi Alli (’my Allius’), and at line 30, mi, Alli (’to me, Allius’).
This was proposed by Schöll, who thought that line 11 originally contained the vocative amice,
which was supplanted by the gloss mali (a corrupt form of mi alli, encountered by a scribe in line 30
and added above amice in line 11). 50 Most other proponents of the theory prefer to read mi Alli in
line 11 as well as in line 30.
MIALLI > MALLI > MALI is not implausible as an iter corruptionis and what is more, Catullus
does use the forms of address mi Catulle (10.25), mi Fabulle (13.1, 28.3) and Lesbia, mi cupido
(107.4), though he uses the plain vocative much more often. Schöll does not resort to this expedient
for the reason that possessive mi would not seem to be elided by the poets in this period, unlike the
short dative mi (the latter is elided at 31.5, 76.26, 77.3 and 99.13); consequently he writes mi, Alli in
line 30 and amice in line 11, but that is evidently very far from the transmitted reading mali and is
awkwardly repetitive after amicum in line 9. He may well be excessively scrupulous here. If
possessive mi is not used before a vowel by poets in the 1 st century B.C., that might simply be
because (unlike Catullus) they do not use it often; in fact there are no examples of the word in
Horace, Virgil, Propertius, Tibullus or Ovid. Cicero still uses it before a vowel in the phrases mi
Attice (14x in ad Atticum), mi Antoni (Att. 14.13b.3), mi Oppi (Fam. 11.29.3) and mi optime et
suauissime frater (Q.fr. 2.15.2) – and he will hardly have deviated from standard Latin practice and
admitted hiatus at this point. The unelided possessive is found in Scaliger’s conjecture mi amice at
Cat. 58b.10, but that hardly proves anything.
The real problem with all this is that elision does not occur in the sixth foot of any other Catullan
hexameter. 51 Elision in the sixth foot of the hexameter is also avoided by Tibullus, Ovid and
Propertius, and apparently also by Virgil, though it is allowed on occasion by Horace. 52 It should
hardly be introduced into the text by conjecture.
(e) All of carmen 68 is addressed to one person, called Mallius or Manlius. In the first part of the
poem, which is a private letter in verse (lines 1-40), he is addressed by his real name; but after
line 41 he is referred to under a pseudonym, Allius (apparently echoing alius ’another’): in
thanking him for helping an adulterous affair get off the ground, Catullus uses a pseudonym so
as not to embarrass him publicly.
50
Schöll 1880: 472f.
51
An apparent exception is constituted by the enclitics es (e.g. 66.27 adepta es│; also at 66.29) and est (e.g. 62.11
parata est│; also at 62.57, 61 and 62; 64.147 and 301; 68.39, 141 and 159; 69.7; 86.5 and 96.5); but they do not appear
to be treated as distinct words.
52
Not in Propertius, Tibullus or Ovid: Platnauer 1951: 82-86. Platnauer disregards es and est, as do I in the following.
A survey of Verg. Ecl., Geo. and Aen. 1-5 yielded no examples. In Horace note Sat. 1.3.39 ipsa haec │, 1.4.43 atque
os │, 2.6.13 hac prece te oro │, 2.8.92 narraret earum et │, Epist. 1.7.27 decorum et │ and A.P. 49 rerum et │.
26