aken place in 56 B.C., instead of in the fall
of 54. Furthermore, c. 11, which was surely
written toward the close of 55
B.C., shows a decided change in the feeling
of Catullus toward Caesar, and accords well with the
statement of Suetonius (Iul.
73), that after Catullus had angered Caesar
by his epigrams concerning him and Mamurra, a
reconciliation with the poet took place, apparently at
his father's house at Verona. It is hardly credible that if
Catullus lived during the exciting years that followed
55 B.C., the only
indication of his new feeling toward Caesar should be
the reference in c. 11, and
that this was followed by silence. Such neutrality was
not the fashion among the young friends whom Caesar was
constantly winning to himself from the ranks of his
political opponents. There seems, indeed, to be an
indication in c
urvivals of the orgiastic rites
of most ancient times (cf. Preller l.c.), but
even such rites as these are not to shake the new bridge.
maximi risus: with this
genitive of characteristic cf. Catul. 15.17n.
evidently, then, a Veronese; the keen interest of Catullus
in this local affair (and perhaps even the meter, used only
here) point to a time when he was yet residing at Verona; cf. introductory
note to Catul. 67.1
per caputque pedesque:
I.e. over head and ears, soused completely under,
— and that too (Catul.
17.10) in the deepest part of the slough. This
marks the end of the movement begun by ire praecipitem. Yet per
caput in Liv. Per.
22 is explained in Liv.
22.3.11 by equus consulem
super caput effudit to be equivalent to
ition of vv. 20ff.
of 68a in 68b (vv. 92ff.) shows that the two poems were not far
separated in time, but is more consistent with the theory of
division than of unity (see also heading 5). 68a was evidently
written (at Verona or
Sirmio) not long
before 68b (see 5 above, and later notes), and both before
Catullus had become thoroughly aware of Lesbia's real character,
and had finally broken away from her. Perhaps her loose life
duringeference to love-affairs in v. 26 leads Catullus to the
second part of the letter of Manlius, wherein the writer,
desiring the personal presence and sympathy of Catullus, and
not knowing any reason for his long tarrying in Verona, endeavored to
draw him thence by a warning (though using no names) that
his duty to himself in the protection of his honor summoned
him back to Rome;
Catullus replies that his grief makes it impossible for even