1. Cf. the alliteration and onomatopoeia (if such is the correct term) at 32.11 and 59.5. The phrase also charmed Horace. At C. 2.6.4, a poem in Sapphics which also begins with a similar theme, he has the phrase aestuat unda, paralleling Catullus in metrical position and, partially, in sound and sense. For an interpretation of the echo see Segal, C. P., ‘Horace, Odes 2. 6: Poetic Landscape and Poetic Imagination’ Philologus 113 (1969), 246sCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. A Roman of the 50s B.C. would have associated the adjective magnus automatically with Pompey, not Caesar (as we see from 55.6, Cic. ad Att. 33 [=11.13]). See Shackleton Bailey on ad Att 161B (= VIII. 11B) and cf. Calvus’ epigram beginning Magnus quern metuimt omnes (frag. 18 FPL Morel). For the history and further examples of the attribute see Ellis on Cat. 55.6. It is not out of the question to see in Catullus− usage an attempt to undercut the pretensions of ‘great’ Caesar which, in the present view, the context fully complements. The problem of Catullus’ relationship with Caesar has recently been reconsidered by Wiseman, T. P. (Catullon Questions [Leicester, 1969] 35ff.Google ScholarPubMed) who feels that the reference in poem 11 implies a reconciliation.

3. Catullus seems to have initiated in Latin the association of seven with the mouths of the Nile. Ovid varies a similar designation (septemfluus: M. 1. 422, 15.753; septemplex: M. 5.187). Cf. Moschus 2. 51.

4. In an important but different reading S. Commager (‘Notes on some Poems of Catullus’, HSCP 70 [1965], 83–110) stresses the romantic coloring of these opening stanzas (‘a mood of splendid and exotic romance’, 100; ‘…the romantic possibilities of Catullus’ and Lesbia’s love’, 101; ‘the romantic journey that Catullus repudiates’, ibid.; and, of the final stanza, ‘Like 58, it conjures up a romantic ideal only to shatter it’, ibid.).

For another interpretation of the poem that treats both the beginning and the end as essentially light and, in part, humorous, see Kinsey, T. E., ‘Catullus 11’, Latomus 24 (1965), 537–44Google Scholar. Specific reasons for the presence of Furius and Aurelius are offered by Richardson, L., ‘Furi et Aureli, comites Catulli’, CP 58 (1963), 93–106Google Scholar.

There is yet another possibility, suggested to me by Professor Christopher Dawson: the presence of irony is so intense and pervasive that the poem should be viewed primarily as a jeu d’artifice. The point is well taken, but we also need no longer treat the union of poetic craft and emotional impulse in Catullus as an unholy alliance. Rather poem 11 is a notable example of their power when joined.

5. The relationship is discussed among many others, by Page, D., Sappho and Alcaeus (Oxford, 1955), 65fL, 72ff.Google Scholar; Harvey, A. E., ‘Homeric epithets in the Greek lyric’, CQ 7 (1957), 206–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. One need only refer to poem 29 for Catullus’ commentary on the interrelationship of politics and erotic behavior. For Catullus’ linking of ‘motion’ and sexuality see 29.7 (perambulabit) and 6.11 (inambulatio). This is perhaps a secondary reason why, given the context at 55.6, the portico of Pompey’s theatre is called Magni ambulatio.

7. But does simul, by hinting that the thoughts of joint enterprise occurred only once, also prepare for the supposedly sudden reversal of the next line?

8. See also 36.5 and frag. 3, quoted from Porphyrion on Hor. C. 1.16.22: ‘denique et Catullus, cum maledicta minaretur, sic ait “at non effugies meos iambos”.’

9. This tension, as well as others, is pointed out by Commager, op. cit., 102.

10. The irony here, of course, is that the flower, which ordinarily stands for the maiden, falls victim to her finger.

11. It is also possible that Catullus means flos ultimus, by hypallage, or even a series of meadows, one spoiled after another. In each case the effect of distancing is important.

12. See also Vir. Geo. 1.289, 3.521; Aen. 6.707. The ‘pastoral’ (as opposed to ‘georgic’) sense of prata is well illustrated by Lucretius at 5.785 (florida … viridanti prata colore).

13. Pindar P. 4.254. Cf. Theognis 582; Aes. Sept. 753; Soph O. T.; Plautus Asin. 874; Lucr. 4.1107 (and cf 4.1272–3). For Catullus himself as a ‘flower’ in his youth, see 68.16.

14. The very difference between convolsus (62.40), carptus (62. 43) and tactus est points up the distinctiveness of the latter’s use.

15. On Catullus’ fascination with this creature, ‘his simultaneous alienation and involvement’, see the important article by Bagg, R., ‘Some Versions of lyric impasse in Shakespeare and Catullus’, Arion 4 (1965), 64–95Google Scholar, esp. 63 ff.

16. At the same time the erotic implications of temptare also play their part, even at line 14. For further uses of the verb in a sexual sense see Tib. 1. 2.17, 1.3.73.

17. An examination of the poem’s course specifically in terms of its verbs shows a parallel mutation from future to past via present reality. Penetrabit and gradietur (hypothetic future, the imagined desire of Catullus mocked by Furius and Aurelius) are summarized in feret (hyperbolic, mock epic cause). Nuntiate, the lyric present, absorbs all from the start and leads to vivat and valeat, which deflect the command of nuntiate into optative and distance the reader by changing from a Furius and Aurelius near at hand to a Lesbia apart. Feret maintains the absolute present while respectet turns toward the lyric impulse as it had arisen in the past (ut ante). Cecidit and tactus are the present now frozen with finality into the past definite. The future is impossible, the present equally so. Only the past held love and yet, again ironically, only past tenses can now signal love’s demise.

18. See also 89.5, Hor. C. 3.11.10 etc. At. 15. 4 Catullus asks Aurelius to preserve Iuventius castum et integellum.

19. For Catullus’ tendency to take upon himself feminine roles, see Putnam, M. C. J., ‘The Art of Catullus 64’, HSCP 65 (1961), 167ft.Google Scholar; R. Bagg, op. cit. 78ff.; Van Sickle, J., ‘About Form and Feeling in Catullus 65’, TAP A 99 (1968), 499Google Scholar. Of more general bearing is Devereux, G., ‘The Nature of Sappho’s seizure in fr. 31 LP as evidence of her inversion’, CQ 20 (1970), 17–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

20. Cf. Catullus’ allusions to his own pietas at 76.26.

21. Both text and interpretation of this passage are still much in doubt. See Fordyce and Quinn ad loc.

22. For more detailed treatment of the negative aspects of the wedding ceremony see Curran, L., ‘Catullus 64 and the Heroic Age’, YCS 21 (1969), 171–92Google Scholar, esp. 186ff. See also Leach, E. W.; ’Eclogue 4: Symbolism and Sources’, Arethusa 4 (1971), 167–84Google Scholar, esp. 173ff.

23. One simple connection of the Peneios and Achilles is to be found in the territory of Thessaly through which the river flowed and over which Peleus ruled.

24. The wood of the Argo is also specified at 64.10. Catullus makes the transition from trees in a mountain’s crest to the manufacturing of the phasellus of some importance in poem 4, and we remember that Diana, who does not attend the wedding, is styled cultricem montibus Idri (300). For a more detailed discussion of the reasons behind the presence (or absence) of the divinities mentioned, see now Bramble, J. C., ‘Structure and Ambiguity in Catullus LXIV’, PCPS 16 (1970), 22–41Google Scholar, esp. 29ff.

25. Wood was of course used for the construction of the Argo. Cf. Virgil’s verses devoted to the heroic age at Eel. 4. 3 Iff. (pauca tamen suberunt priscae vestigia fraudis / quae temptare Thetim ratibus, ‘yet a few traces of the primal error will remain, prompting to try the sea with ships’).

26. Cf. the contexts of flumen at 89 and 281.

27. I owe thanks to Professors J. P. Elder and J. Van Sickle for their careful criticisms.