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 June 1922 Rothstein, in his courageous and ingenious attack on Schwabe's generally accepted chronology of Catullus' poems, made these two surprising statements:
(1) The liaison with Lesbia began later than 57 B.C.
(2) All short poems are later than 57 B.C.
To maintain the first statement Rothstein denied (pp. 8ff.), against strong evidence, that poem 68 referred to Lesbia. To explain the second he assumed gratuitously (p. 31) that Catullus carelessly lost all his short poems written before 57 B.C., preserving only long ones, and among these the datable poems 68 and 65+66.
page 79 note 1 Schwabe, L., Quaestiones Catullianae (= Edition vol. i. 1. 1–366), 1862Google Scholar; Rothstein, M., ‘Catull und Lesbia’, Philol. lxxviii (1923), 1–33Google Scholar. Cf. W. Kroll, Ed. with Comm. (1923); Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. v., Hellenistische Dichtung, ii (1924), 305–10Google Scholar; Jachmann, G., Gnomon, i (1925), 200–14Google Scholar; Rothstein, M., ‘Catull und Caelius Rufus’, Philol. lxxxi (1926), 472 f.Google Scholar; Rubenbauer, H., Bursians Jahresb. ccxii (1927), 173–5Google Scholar; W. B. McDaniel, Ed. with Comm. (1931); M. Lenchantin de Gubernatis, Ed. with Comm. 3. 9. 62). So Jerome3 may be right in (1933); Wheeler, A. L., Catullus and the Tradition of Ancient Poetry (1934), 88–106Google Scholar.
page 79 note 2 Upon the general character of these cohortes, cf. van Vliet, J., De praetoria atque amicorum cohortibus (1926)Google Scholar, and Allen, W., Class. Philology, xxxiv (1939), 60Google Scholar. I owe these references to Prof. Momigliano.
page 79 note 3 Cf. Helm, R., ‘Hieronymus Zusatze in Eusebius Chronik’, Philol. Suppl. xxi. 2 (1929), esp. pp. 37–9Google Scholar.
page 80 note 1 Cf. McDaniel's edition (1931), which arranges the poems in the then presumed chronological order and adds an Historical Table.
page 80 note 2 It is still not known who was praetor in Spain in 57 B.C.; cf. Schwabe, p. 245; Wilsdorf, D., Fasti Hispaniarum provinciarum (Leipz. Stud. Class. Phil. i [1878], 63 ffGoogle Scholar.); Ruggiero, , Dizionario epigr. ant. Rom. iii (1915–1919), 794, 873Google Scholar. It may have been M. Pupius Piso Calpurnianus, cons. 61 B.C. (Schwabe, I.e., and Lenchantin-Gubernatis to poem 9).
page 80 note 3 W. Kroll on poem 28; cf. Gelzer, M. in Real-Enc. v. Tullius (1939), 951Google Scholar. 47 ff. Catullus' charges against his own praetor Memmius are of the same character.
page 80 note 4 There is a chronological difficulty about Asinius Pollio (who later became a famous historian) mentioned in 12. 6. If he started from Rome to Cilicia in March 56, as is generally concluded from Cicero, ad Jam. 1. 6. 1 accipies ex Pollione, the Propempticon which Helvius Cinna wrote for him must refer to another voyage, because Cinna was then with Catullus in Bithynia (10. 30). But could not Cicero refer to an enclosed report composed by Pollio? For accipio in this sense cf. Thes.Ling.Lat. s.v. 307.31—308.32.
page 81 note 1 Münzer, in Real-Enc. s.v. ‘Rufus’ (1914Google Scholar) without reference to the Lesbia-problem. There were among the friends of Cicero's Caelius two men called Q. Pompeius Rufus. Other Run of the time belong to the Minucii, Munatii, Numerii, Sulpicii.
page 81 note 2 The Rufus of poem 69 may be identical with the Rufus of poem 77; but the Caelius of poem 58 cannot be Cicero's client because nostra means mea and nothing else, and because he must be identified with the Veronese Caelius of poem 100 who was not Cicero's client; cf. Rothstein (1926), 472.
page 82 note 1 The unity of 68 a and 68 b has been defended again by Prescott, H. W., Transact. Americ. Philol. Ass. lxxi (1940), 473–500Google Scholar. I still belong to the ‘Separatists’, who read Manli in 68 a. 11, 30.
