Full citation – Référence complète:
Ullrich, H. “Textkritische Überlegungen zu Catull. 64,64”. Živa Antika / Antiquité Vivante 75.1-2 (2025), pp. 17–52.

DOI: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Download this article – Téléchargez cet article

Abstract. – The paradosis of Catull. 64,64 (non contecta leui †uelatum† pectus amictu) has been contested by various conjectures, most notably by uelandum (Schwabe), niueum per (Mähly), uiolatum (Peiper?), leuatum (Fröhner?), and praeclarum (McKie), none of which made it into the text recently established by Trimble – and perhaps rightly so. But Trimble is equally right in her statement that uelatum (which she nevertheless retains following Kroll and Fordyce) spoils the detailed syntactic and semantic parallelism of Catull. 64,63-65. The following note therefore presents seven more conjectures on the same crux: uexatum (comparing 64,80 and Iuv. 6,611), lymphatum (comparing 64,62 and Ov. met. 11,3f.), formosum (comparing 64,313 and Catull. 86), procerum (comparing 64,261.289 and Ov. met. 13,789f.), dentatum (comparing 64,48 and Cic. ad Quint. 2,14,1), chernitu (comparing 64,61 and Theophr. lap. 6), and cretatum (comparing 64,65 and Cic. ad Att. 2,3,1), hoping to inspire further discussions on the problem.