No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
As the majority of the editors read the text of Catullus 61.90–6, it contains a couple of emendations, among which the most significant is the addition of the line prodeas nova nupta after v.90 in order to complete the strophe.
1 This refrain cannot be supplied at the end of str.16, because it would introduce a second person between the transmitted third persons adest and flet.
2 Kroll, W., C. Valerius Catullus (Stuttgart,5 1968), ad loc.Google Scholar
3 Ellis, R., A commentary on Catullus (Oxford, 1889), ad loc.Google Scholar
4 Fordyce, C. J., Catullus (Oxford, 1961), ad loc.Google Scholar
5 Syndikus, H. P., Catull: Eine Interpretation, Zweiter Teil (Darmstadt, 1990), 32.Google Scholar
6 Fedeli, P., Catullus' carmen 61 (Amsterdam, 1983), 74.Google Scholar
7 Cf. Fedeli ad loc.:‘ The words si videtur (videbitur) are actually found, besides Plautus (Capt. 218), in polite expressions of some of Cicero's correspondents… and in a letter from Fronto to Marcus Aurelius (Epist. 84.6 van den Hout).’Google Scholar
8 I cite from the 1680 Utrecht Variorum edition.
9 Tarrant, R. J., TAPhA 117 (1987), 295: ‘… its distinctive mark is a desire to prolong, to elaborate or even to surpass the text which inspires it.’Google Scholar
10 Knoche, U. was the first to point out suspect versus repetiti in Catullus; cf. RhM 85 (1936), 26, particularly n. 1.Google Scholar
11 This is, of course, only a welcome additional result of the deletion, and not a point upon which the argumentation can be based.