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
In this note I wish to reopen discussion of the role of Cornelius Nepos in Catullus' dedicatory poem. The Callimachean features of Catullus' assessment of his own work have been well documented. However I believe that, since this is a poem where Catullus evaluates not only his own work, but also that of Nepos, a closer examination of the latter is called for.
1 For discussions of Callimachean influences on Catullus 1 see Elder, J. P., ‘Catullus 1, his Poetic Creed and Nepos’, HSCP 71 (1966), 143–9Google Scholar (henceforth referred to as ‘Elder’), Cairns, F., ‘Catullus 1’, Mnemosyne 22 (1969), 153–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar (henceforth ‘Cairns’), and Latta, B., ‘Zu Catulls Carmen 1’, MH 29 (1972), 201–13Google Scholar (henceforth ‘Latta’). See also Goold, G. P., ‘Two Notes on Catullus 1’, LCM 6.9 (11, 1981), 233–8Google Scholar (henceforth ‘Goold’) and Arkins, B., ‘Further Thoughts on Catullus 1’, LCM 8.2 (02, 1983), 18–20Google Scholar (henceforth ‘Arkins’).
2 For the programmatic aspect of this word, see Elder 147, who compares Cicero's use of the term ‘poetae novi’, on which see Crowther, N. B.,‘OI NEΩTEPOI Poetae Novi, and Cantores Euphorionis’, CQ 20 (1970), 335–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Tuplin, C., ‘Cantores Euphorionis’, PLLS 1 (1976), 1–23Google Scholar, and Lyne, R. O. A. M., ‘The Neoteric Poets’, CQ 28 (1978), 167–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Compare the tone of Propertius 3.1.3–4 ‘primus ego ingredior puro de fonte sacerdos / Itala per Graios orgia ferre choros’ and Horace C. 3.30.lOff ‘dicar… / … / … / princeps Aeolium carmen ad Italos / deduxisse modos’.
4 Cairns 153: ‘Catullus’ praise of the Chronica is couched (albeit informally) in the language of Alexandrian literary criticism and shows clearly that Catullus is lauding the Chronica as a work conforming to the canons of that school and possessing all the standard Alexandrian virtues’.
5 Elder 144 notes the different tone of these lines, remarking that ‘the middle portion, that about Nepos’ work, is puffed and somewhat pompous writing (e.g. iam tum, cum ausus, doctis, Iuppiter, et laboriosis); the period is longer, more involved’.
6 Wiseman, T. P., Clio's Cosmetics (Leicester, 1979), 171Google Scholar.
7 See e.g. Arkins 19.
8 Goold, , in his contribution (‘O Patrona Virgo’) to Polis and lmperium: Studies in Honour of Edward Togo Salmon, Evans, J. A. S. (ed.), (Toronto, 1974), 262–3Google Scholar, suggests that one may compare Catullus 1 with Catullus 49, where Catullus expresses his thanks to Cicero in the following terms (4–7): ‘gratias tibi maximas Catullus / agit pessimus omnium poeta,/tanto pessimus omnium poeta,/quanto tu optimus omnium patronus.’ Though Goold himself (263) cautions against readings of poem 49 as more than friendly banter, the precise means of comparison between Catullus and Cicero (‘tanto pessimus…/ quanto tu optimus’) do seem to invite us to read Catullus' praise, as well as his self-disparagement, as ironic: Catullus is the worst poet, just as much as Cicero is optimus omnium patronus. See further e.g. Laughton, E., ‘Disertissime Romuli nepotum’, CP 65 (1970), 1–7Google Scholar, and Tatum, W. J., ‘Catullus' Criticism of Cicero in Poem 49’, TAPA 118 (1988), 179–84Google Scholar.
9 Thus Latta (207), who glosses lines 5–7 as follows: ‘Grosser Gott, ein historisches Werk, das dem Forderungen doctrina und labor im Sinne alexandrinisch-neoterischen Dichters gerecht wird.’
10 See further the parallels cited by Fordyce, C. J., Catullus: A Commentary (Oxford 1961, corr. 1978) on 1.7Google Scholar.
11 For the negative qualities of labor, see OLD s.v. 6 and 7. One is reminded of the debate over the interpretation of Vergil Georgics 1.145f ‘labor omnia vicit / improbus et duris urgens in rebus egestas’, on which see Jenkyns, R., “Labor Improbus’, CQ 43 (1993), 243–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 It may be objected that laboriosis, even if it did refer to the reader, might only denote the (positive) labor undertaken in reading a text such as the Chronica. This might be no bad thing; a Callimachean would hope for a receptive and learned audience. In that case, however, laboriosis would add nothing to what has already been implied by doctis.
13 This contrast is mentioned by Elder 144, who also notes, without further comment or analysis, the contrasting pairs omne aevum and nugae, omne aevum and uno saeclo; lepidum novum and doctis laboriosis; novum and perenne.
14 E.g. Praef. 8, Timoth. 4.6, Epam. 4.6, Hann. 13.4.
15 Compare the praise of the short Smyrna of Cinna, and the apparent censure (the text is lacunose) of ‘milia … quingenta’ in Catullus 95.1–4.
16 I support Goold's (233–5) defence of arido (OGR).
17 Goold 235–8 argues for the text ‘qualecumque quidem patroni ut ergo’.
18 If the correct text in line 9 were patrona virgo, the effect would still be a diminution of the importance of Nepos. See Cairns 158 on the effect of such a shift from Nepos to a Muse.
19 Catullus 95.5–8.
20 I am indebted to Dr S. J. Heyworth and the anonymous referee for CQ for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper.