No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
NOTES ON THE TEXT OF CATALEPTON 10
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 October 2019
Extract
Catalepton 10 (Sabinus ille) is a unique survival from antiquity: it is the only parody of an entire poem to reach us, and is written in pure iambic trimeters, a near intractable metre. Addressed to Sabinus, an upstart muleteer, the poem launches a stinging attack at him, and draws attention to his status as a parvenu. It remains incredibly close to its charming model—Catullus 4 (Phaselos ille)—in structural, lexical, stylistic and metrical terms, but rather different in purport. In attempting to reassess a number of problems in the text of the poem, the textual critic ought largely to be guided by the relationship of Sabinus ille to its model, as it is clear that the author of Catalepton 10 was an incredibly close reader of the Catullan text and sought not only to imitate through parody but also to subvert and deflate his predecessor's poem.
- Type
- Shorter Notes
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 2019
Footnotes
My sincere thanks to Stephen Heyworth and Stephen Harrison for their comments and discussion, and to my good friend Jessica Carter for explaining various matters relating to the care of equids to me.
References
2 The lemmata are taken from Boerma, R.E.H. Westendorp, P. Vergili Maronis libellus qui inscribitur Catalepton, 2 vols. (Assen, 1946 and 1963)Google Scholar.
3 The reader for CQ notes that, by referring to the mule's iuba as dura, the poet may be referring to a harshness caused by dirt in the hair of the mane (which, I suppose, could lead to matting and irritation); were this the intended sense, it is unclear to me why the poet should not have more straightforwardly referred to the mane as ‘dirty’. αὐχμηρός at Soph. fr. 475 Radt (διὰ ψήκτρας σ’ ὁρῶ | ξανθὴν καθαίρονθ’ ἵππον αὐχμηρᾶς τριχός) is offered as a possible comparandum. A ψήκτρα (a curry-comb), however, is used to rub down equids, not to comb their manes (cf. Eur. Hipp. 1173–5 ἡμεῖς μὲν ἀκτῆς κυμοδέγμονος πέλας | ψήκτραισιν ἵππων ἐκτενίζομεν τρίχας | κλαίοντες; Hippiatr. Cant. 57.11 ἀναξυέσθω δὲ πρότερον μετὰ ψήκτρας ἢ ὀστράκου, μέχρις ἂν ἐκβάλλῃ αἷμα, καὶ οὕτως ἀλειφέσθω; Anth. Pal. 6.233.6 and 6.246.5). In the light of this, the comparandum does not seem to me entirely apt: rubbing (NB ἀναξύω) a mane would achieve little by way of cleaning it.
4 Telleen, M., The Draft Horse Primer (Emmaus, PA, 1977), 181–3Google Scholar.
5 The phrase uolnus ederet is not precisely paralleled elsewhere, but for edere used in this more figurative sense we may compare Verg. Aen. 10.602 edebat funera with Harrison, S.J., Vergil, Aeneid 10 (Oxford, 1991)Google Scholar, ad loc.
6 Habermehl, P., Petronius, Satyrica 79–141: Ein philologisch-literarischer Kommentar, Band I: Sat. 79–100 (Berlin and New York, 2006), 167–8Google Scholar.
7 Trappes-Lomax, J.M., Catullus: A Textual Reappraisal (Swansea, 2007), 43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 pace Zimmermann, F., ‘Virgil und Catull’, Philologische Wochenschrift 52 (1932), 1119–30Google Scholar, at 1128; Wagenvoort, H., ‘Ad Verg. Catal. X 22’, Mnemosyne 1 (1934), 145Google Scholar; Boerma, R.E.H. Westendorp, ‘Adnotationes ad Verg. Catalepton 10’, Mnemosyne 14 (1961), 233–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 236–7; Westendorp Boerma (n. 2), 2.47–8; and N. Zorzetti, ‘L'ironia della differenza (A proposito di Catull. 4 e Catal. 10)’, AFLN 15 (1972–3), 29–54, at 50. Were it possible for proximus pecten to mean ‘his last, or most recent, comb’, Zorzetti's observation that paternalora and proximuspecten juxtapose ‘il primo e l'ultimo degli strumenti del mestiere’ would have been an attractive one.
9 Birt, T., Jugendverse und Heimatpoesie Vergils: Erklärung des Catalepton (Leipzig, 1910), 123Google Scholar.
10 Heyne, C.G., P. Virgilii Maronis Opera uarietate lectionis et perpetua adnotatione illustrata (Leipzig, 1775), 3.154Google Scholar.
11 Klotz, R., De Catulli Carmine IIII Eiusque Parodia Vergiliana (Leipzig, 1868), 7Google Scholar; Sabbadini, R., [P. Vergili Maronis] Catalepton, Maecenas, Priapeum (Turin, 1917), 33Google Scholar; and Galletier, E., (P. Vergili Maronis) Epigrammata et Priapea: édition critique et explicative (Paris, 1920), 200Google Scholar.
12 Birt (n. 9), 123.
13 Garrod, H.W., ‘On the meaning of PLOXINVM’, CQ 4 (1910), 201–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 Holland, R., ‘Vergils Sabinus- und Catulls Phaselusgedicht’, Philologische Wochenschrift 45 (1925), 59–63Google Scholar, at 61; and Scaliger, J.J., Publii Virgilii Maronis Appendix, cum supplemento multorum antehac nunquam excusorum poematum ueterum poetarum (Lyons, 1572), 508Google Scholar.
15 Lindsay, W.M., The Captiui of Plautus (London, 1900), 314Google Scholar.
16 The reader for CQ has drawn my attention to the fact that propriumque has already been conjectured by Watt, W.S., ‘Notes on the Appendix Vergiliana’, Eikasmos 12 (2001), 279–92Google Scholar, at 290, though Watt does not account for the metrical oddity of proprium at all, nor does he indicate the appropriateness of such a solecism to this parody in the light of Catullan practice.