CATULLUS 68 - Scuola Normale Superiore

(S 3) Lines 20 and 22-24 are repeated with minor variations at lines 92 and 94-96; this is only possible
if the two passages come from two different poems.
This repetition is also used as an argument in favour of the unity of carmen 68: see argument (U 4) above,
and note the conclusion drawn there that this feature of the carmen cannot be used as an argument for or
against unity.
(S 4) From lines 5f. (especially the phrase desertum in lecto caelibe) it transpires that the addressee is a
single man who has been deserted just recently by his beloved; meanwhile in line 155 et tu simul et tua
uita the addressee turns out to have a beloved; therefore they must be two different people, and
carmen 68 has to be divided after line 40.
This would be a strong argument for separation, but unitarians have argued vigorously that the two passages
involved should (or could) be interpreted otherwise.
One may well start with the passages in question. Lines 5f. read:
quem neque sancta Venus molli requiescere somno
desertum in lecto caelibe perpetitur,
This means: “... whom neither holy Venus allows to rest in gentle sleep, left alone as he is in a bed that is a
bachelor …”. desertus has strong overtones of sexual rejection and could either mean ‘left behind’ by one
particular partner, or ‘shunned’ by potential partners in general (see ad loc. and compare line 29n. deserto …
cubili). The passage comes from a description of the troubles of the addressee, who is described as
“overwhelmed by harsh fortune” (line 1) and as a shipwreckling who has been cast ashore and is on the
verge of death (lines 3f.). The distich adds more concrete information about the present situation of the
addressee: he is lying alone on his bed, deprived of sex.
Meanwhile, line 155 reads:
sitis felices et tu simul et tua uita
This means: “be happy, you and your sweetheart”, as uita is a standard term of endearment (see ad loc.).
The addressee of lines 149-160 is not single.
These two passages seem to contradict each other. Kießling tries to resolve the contradiction by suggesting
that with the words et tu simul et tua uita Catullus “expresses his hope that there should be no more need for
his consolation”. 56 But there appear to be no further signs in any other part of carmen 68 that Catullus would
56 „consolatione sua non iam opus esse auguratur”, Kießling 1877: 14.
29