CATULLUS 68 - Scuola Normale Superiore

even printed by Lachmann and later editors, but many others have been ignored. There is no reason to revive
most of these. In short, even in an edition on this scale it is inevitable to be selective when quoting
conjectures. Still my apparatus is probably more full than that of any other edition of this text. The
inconvenience caused by its bulk is hopefully counterbalanced by the value of the information that it
contains.
Orthography One problematic aspect of the constitution of the text involves choices regarding spelling.
Current editions of Catullus generally follow the spelling conventions of the later Roman Empire. The
evidence of inscriptions and nuggets of information conserved by later writers show that earlier authors used
a different orthography, or rather orthographies: conventions not only changed over time, but they were
flexible to the point that one can sometimes find different forms of the same word within the same text. This
makes it very difficult to infer what orthography Catullus would have used. The problem has been studied by
Cremona in an important article that has not received the attention that it deserves. 177 The forms that he
studies fall into two groups. In the case of the first group we know that only one form was used in the late
Republic, but it became obsolete only later. Here Catullus must have evidently used the earlier forms, such
as initial uo- rather than uu- (uolturius), quoi rather than cui, quom rather than the conjunction cum, and
double intervocalic s (caussa, diuissio, cāssus). 178 The second group comprises alternative forms which
existed alongside each other in the mid-1 st century B.C., sometimes even within one and the same text. In
these cases Cremona tries to determine with the help of the MSS which form Catullus will have used. He
suggests that in line 82 of poem 68 we should write hiemps rather than hiems, since O writes hyemps, while
G and R have hyems. 179 It is certainly probable that the archetype should have read hyemps – O was in the
rule more conservative than X – but it is in any case impossible to tell whether the p was inserted by Catullus
himself or by a later copyist (see ad loc.). Still more problematic is the choice between ei and i. In an earlier
period the spelling ei was reserved for genuine diphtongs such as deico and bonei nom. pl., but by this time
ei had already merged with ī in the spoken language, and ei and i were often used indiscriminately in writing.
Cremona infers from the evidence of the MSS that in rare cases Catullus wrote ei, using the archaic spelling
generally in order to give a touch of antiquarianism to what he wrote, as when a modern English pub is
called ‘The Olde Taverne’. 180 But I find it hard to believe that Catullus with his racy style should have
followed such a strategy. In general, there is very little reason to trust the manuscripts in questions of
spelling: the archetype A was already extremely corrupt, and it contained medieval forms such as the dative
michi, so it is not certain and not even probable that its orthographical archaisms should go back to Catullus.
177
Cremona 1958.
178
Cremona 1958: 408f., 410f. and 425f. On double intervocalic s see on line 67 clausum.
179
Cremona 1958: 426f.
180
Cremona 1958: 414-418.
80