User:Umimmak/sandbox/Catullus 42

Catullus 42, historically sometimes given the title In Quandam or referred to by its incipit adeste, hendecasyllabi, quot estis is a poem by the Roman poet Gaius Valerius Catullus. It is written in hendecasyllabic verse and is 24 lines. In this poem, Catullus addresses his personified verses, ordering them to shame and insult a woman who will not return his writing tablets. She remains unfazed, so the poem ends with them trying to flatter her instead. This poem depicts the Roman folk justice practice of flagitatio, and also has has been singled out for its comedy.

The poem was written in Classical Latin. Like many of Catullus' works, textual criticism has shown various manuscripts have had different versions, and various Catullan scholars have proposed ways to emend the texts to better reflect what Catullus might have actually written. Michael C. J. Putnam has called Catullus 42 "one of his wittiest and most famous" poems. Jean-Pierre Cèbe has also called it "célèbre" ('famous'). Classics and literature scholars have found connections between C. 42 and the works of various authors, both in antiquity and later, including homages and pastiches.

Text
The Latin text in R. A. B. Mynors's 1958 book for Oxford Classical Texts is generally seen as the standard text of Catullus in the Anglosphere; variations in the text of Catullus are often framed in terms of deviations from Mynors. However, Mynors' text is often viewed as being conservative, hesitant to adopt conjectures to address corruptions in the text. Catullus's works have only survived from one manuscript which itself noted how corrupt it was. There still remain various unsolved problems in the text of Catullus. It has been said that the works of Catullus "may well hold the record for textual corruption among classical Latin texts". There are still many disagreements as to how to best reconstruct the original passages of Catullus. Thus, while Mynors is often used as a working text, there is not a single definitive text of Catullus since many conjectures remain controversial. The Latin text of C. 42 has several points where scholars differ.

(4) vestra/nostra
One point of contention concerns line 4 and whether the fourth word should be or, i.e., if the tablets are "ours" (belonging to Catullus and the verses) or "yours" (just belonging to the verses). The scribal abbreviations for both words, ñra and ũra, are easily interchanged. This has been considered one of the "notoriously troublesome" passages in Catullus' works. The earliest available manuscripts all wrote vestra; Girolamo Avanzi's 1535 edition is the first published work to propose the emendation to nostra. The Italian classical scholar Poliziano (1454–1494) had also independently come up with this conjecture in his personal annotations of the 1472 edition of Catullus. Mynors follows Avanzi in having nostra.

In a 1961 paper, Eduard Fraenkel argues that Catullus probably wrote vestra, i.e., that the Renaissance emendation was incorrect. Fraenkel wrote: "The poems are themselves considered the legitimate owners of the codicilli, the pugillaria ... it is the poems who are their masters and owners". Various scholars cite Fraenkel and also use vestra. Kenneth Quinn's edition of Catullus agrees with Fraenkel, writing "the poems are the legitimate owners of the tablets on which they originally came into existence". and other have similar argumentation

vestra means "yours" -- because they contain hendecasyllabic verse, like those Catullus is addressing.
 * vestra}
 * the tablets belong to the poetry, so vestra. Cites Quin and

Other Catullan scholars acknowledge Fraenkel's arguments, but instead use nostra. Gordon Williams wrote "there seems to be little point in attributing ownership of the tablets to the lines only; their function is to help the injured person who is Catullus". Hans Peter Syndikus thinks that, as the verses Catullus is addressing must be newly composed ones, the stolen tablets cannot belong to them; rather the tablets belong to Catullus. The plural possessive nostra is used as he and these new verses form a group of collaborators. Sander M. Goldberg follows Williams and Syndikus, noting Catullus is addressing new verses. Werner Eisenhut's edition of Catullus' poems uses nostra without commentary. Paul Claes argues for nostra due to the principle of "lexical concatenation"; nostra also appears in c. 43.7 and, the masculine form, appears in c. 44.1 noster.

also secondary source for Thomson 1978 picking nostra going against
 * (but also see )

(9) ringentem
Another proposal with some 21st century support is emending ridentem 'laughing' in line 9 to ringentem 'snarling'; this was initially tentatively proposed as an option by Ludwig Schwabe in 1886, and argued for by Trappes-Lomax in 2007. Trappes-Lomax notes Catullus only uses the verb in positive contexts and that dogs cannot smile but they do snarl and bare their teeth. Reviews of Trappes-Lomax's book have included this as one of his more convincing conjectures.

(13/14) facit/potest
Two additional, related, points of contention concern the grammatical person of facis (l.13) and potes (l.14). The earliest manuscripts of Catullus have these second person forms; it has been conjectured that these be changed to third person forms facit and potest. Using the second person would mean Catullus is speaking directly to the woman; the third person would mean Catullus is just talking about her. The Vatican Library's manuscript Vat.lat.1630, written c. 1430, is the earliest example with potest in line 14. T.J. Halbertsma was the first to propose the change to facit in an 1877 paper. Mynors uses the second person forms as in the earliest manuscripts.

Harrison argued the third person forms should be used in a 1999 paper. He notes that moecha is the subject of other third person verbs in the poem like putat (l.3) and negat (l.4), and if the poem had facit and potest then Catullus is only ever addressing the hendecasyllables in this poem instead of both the hendecasyllables and the woman at various times. He claims o lutum, lupanar is "an expostulatory exclamation", and should not be taken as a direct address. Goold and Lee both use the third person forms. Goldberg uses Mynors' text, but says facit and potest are "plausible" citing Harrison. Trappes-Lomax also argues for both third person forms, in part citing Halbertsma's arguments.

The Veronensis manuscript had 2nd person potes (l.14).

. In a 1877 paper he notes that ... and also that third person is also used in movetur (l.21).


 * Harrison in


 * has facis but potest "makes the expression much more forcibile and idiomatic"

secondary source on +  facit/potest;  facis/potes(t) (hedges on latter); and  facis/potes. Becker himself goes with facit/potest.


 * re


 * notes "Catullus may well have written potest", noting he likes the phrase aut si quid -ius est.


 * has potes in L.14

(16-17) Line order
The poem is generally presented with the lines in order from 1–24, however an alternate order where lines 16–17 are transposed to be between lines 23 and 24 has been proposed. The 19th century German classicist Rudolf Westphal was the first to propose this order; and Alexander Riese agreed with Westphal's transposal, agreeing with his reasoning. Munro notes the reasoning for this transposal, but provides a different solution involving the word ut. Bardon mentions Westphal's and Riese's transposal, additionally commenting "nec recte" ("not correctly"). Goold has also used this transposed order in his works, including in the Loeb Classical Library. Antonio Ramírez de Verger's translation of Catullus into Spanish follows Goold's line order for c.42, calling it "more logical". In the 21st century, Trappes-Lomax also follows Westphal in recommending this order of lines in his 2007 book. Thomas's review of Trappes-Lomax's book includes this transposal as one of its conjectures with convincing arguments. This ordering has been called "intrigu[ing]". Stephen Harrison has noted moving these lines would alleviate some grammatical complications, but instead argues Catullus is making use of aposiopesis. In a 2012 paper, Trappes-Lomax conjectured lines 16–17 only had to be moved to be after line 18 instead of after line 23.

(22) nobis/vobis
The earliest available manuscripts have nobis ("us".) in line 22 concerning who the poet says needs to change their strategy; a 15th century scribe emended this to vobis ("you".). This change was first made in the marginalia of the British Library's manuscript Egerton 3027, written in Perugia in 1467. The words nobis and vobis would be easily confused for each other in miniscule writing. In a 1931 paper, Gennaro Perrotta argued that the Renaissance emendation was correct for similar reasons to the emendation to vestra in line 4; he found it astonishing that Kroll and Elmer Truesdell Merrill used vestra in l.4 but nobis in l.22. Robinson Ellis and Phyllis Forsyth have both said that vobis "seems required" due to potestis ('you can') in line 23. Mynors and Fraenkel both use vobis; Quinn lists these two in his critical apparatus as scholars adopting this emendation. Various other editions of Catullus published after Mynors also use vobis, including Goold, Bardon, Fordyce, Quinn, and Thomson; Eisenhut's edition, however, uses nobis.

Summary
This poem beings with Catullus calling out to his hendecasyllables to assemble (ll.1–2). He explains that a woman, whom he refers to as a moecha turpis "shameful slut", refuses to return his writing tablets (ll.3–5). Catullus describes the woman to the verses, insulting her walk, her laugh, and compares her to a Gallic dog (ll.7–9) He orders them to surround her and to shout at her "Rotten slut, return the tablets; return the tablets, you rotten slut!" (ll.9–10) Catullus continues insulting her. (ll.13–17) He orders his verses to shout the same refrain again, louder. (ll.18–20) She remains unfazed so he tells the verses to change their strategy (ll.22–23), and ends with him telling the verses to tell her "Pure and proper one, return the tablets" (l.24)

The poem does not explain what, if anything, was written on the tablets, how the woman got the tablets, or who she is in relation to Catullus.

Some have surmised that this woman is a former lover of Catullus who has refused to return love poems after a break-up, or that Catullus had given her erotic poetry and then changed his mind.

The poem begins with Catullus calling out his hendecasyllablesconceit of




 * He calls out to an "unlimited" number of hendecasyllabi, "all that happen to be in existence." (ll.1–2)
 * "summons the hendecasyllables as he composes"

Catullus describes her using various invective such as moecha 'adultress',


 * The circumstances surrounding who this woman is and how she got this are "obscure".

writes "The fact that certainty is impossible should warn us that we are letting our curiosity extend beyond what C. has fixed as the relevant data for his poem".


 * "presumably a poem of solicitation" (also summary)


 * Poem has conceit of addressing hendecasyllables like a gang.
 * "act as a gang of street urchins"


 * Postulates Catullus is mad because he has unfinished drafts on his tablets which might be mocked/copied. Irony of completed poem about draft poems.


 * "presumably contained nearly finished drafts"


 * thinks she "presumably" stole tablets because they contained invectives against her.

e
 * C doesn't say what moecha might do, suggests she might destroy them like C.36, but might also circulate poems he might wish to keep private, circulate under another's name, or make them worse and circulate them under C's name. Also goes into detail about pugillaria and codicilli being forms prior to circulation.


 * tablets "not a common format for literary works", "choicide of writing material and the urgency" "may have contained early copies of his poems, pre-publication versions as it were, which may have circulated in one or a few neat copies among the author and his acquaintences"


 * Catullus is upset that his initial drafts are no longer under his control, where they might be subject to mockery or plagiarism. Godwin notes there's an irony that Catullus 42 is a final product about a draft.

Twist

 * "final twist", in public setting " undercuts and threatens to ruin reputation which could not have been based on chastity". makes sense in a public setting.
 * "punchline"
 * notes efforts fail, so he resorts to "disingenuous compliments"
 * "sarcasm hits us like a club"
 * "surprise ending", like epigram. See also Poem 10.
 * "joke of the last line" "comically changed"
 * ratio modusque ("theory and technique") suggests a serious tone, "to make the final line all the more bathetic"
 * There is a phonetic similarity between pudica and putida, hence the earlier insults are still suggested.
 * There is a phonetic similarity between pudica and putida, hence the earlier insults are still suggested.

Scansion/Meter
C.42 was written in phalaecian hendecasyllable, Catullus' most-used meter. Lines in this meter begin with an "aeolic base", with the possibilities of a spondee (––), trochee (–⏑), or iamb (⏑–); lines could not begin with a pyrrhic (⏑⏑). Each line consisted of eleven syllables: ××–⏑⏑–⏑–⏑–×.

The poem opens with a direct address to its own hendecasylables signaling one should pay attention to the meter.


 * HAS MUCH MORE

Eleven of the twenty-four lines begin with a trochee or an iamb, Pliny the Elder calles these "harsh" (citing ; ).


 * Poem 42 has "overwhelming preference" for a caesura after the fifth syllable, with this happening in twenty of the twenty four lines. In general Catullus placed caesura after the fifth or sixth syllable at roughly equal rates. Goldberg thinks this is to create repeated ithyphallic metrical phrases (–⏑–⏑––) after the caesura. These care seen are "aggressive" and "dramatic". The poem also lines up syntactic units with these repeated phrases, for example: (ll.2,5,8,13) in particualar si pati potestis, mimi ac moleste, and o lutum, lupanar.
 * disagrees with this analysis. Standard breaks it up into glyconic and bacchiac (cf. Barchiesi 1994:209–210

Hendex can be used for anger

"clearly iambic" per

Elision
M. Owen Lee has noted Catullus often has used elision in order to emphasize imagery of in his poems of being bound and enclosed. Among other lines from Catullus' poetry, Lee points to lines 42.10 and 42.18 which highlight how the verses surround and attack the woman: circumsistite‿eam‿et reflagitate... (l.10), conclamate‿iterum‿altiore voce. (l.18). The pronoun eam "her" in l.10 is literally surrounded by the verses which are ordered to "gather around" (circumsistite) her. If read with prodelision then the word eam, and by extention the woman, "would virtually disappear. The word eam also undergoes elision in line 6, where it "is almost swallowed up" after persequamur ("let's persue"): persequamur eam‿et reflagitemus (l.6).

Comedy
Suggests scene in comedy or mime (citing: ; ; ).


 * Comedy from personification of hendecasyllables.




 * funny


 * "joke" from using form of flagitatio


 * humor, pace Fedeli who thinks negative tone.

Rhetorical devices

 * goes through all the verbs poems are subject of


 * falso talks about the use of grammatical person.

Catullus utilizes asyndeton in 42.13, lutum lupanar is an alliterative invective phrase with the second term being stronger.

Alliteration and assonance
C.42 makes use of alliteration and assonance. The phrases pugillaria, si pati potestis (l.5), mimice ac moleste (l.8) lutum, lupanar (l.13), perditius potes (l.14), and pudica et proba (l.42) have all had their alliteration pointed out. There is also assonance of /u/ and /a/ in lutum, lupanar (l.13). Fraenkel has argued the repetition of r, which the Romans called the, in ruborem / ferreo canis exprimamus ore (ll.16–17) creates a growling with the imagery of a snarling, growling dog. This use of r is first connected with the woman in the word ridentem (l.9) and is reinforced with the repitition of reflagitate and reddere.

Line 7 quae sit, quaeritis? illa quam videtis has both alliteration (q-s-t-q-t-s-q-[d]-t-s) and assonance (ae-i-ae-i, i-i-a-a, i-e-i), which, along with metrical effects, has been argued to "giv[e] marked acoustic intensity to the line and its rhetorical question."

Ferguson notes "the primary letter of this pieces is p; it is an explosive letter which expresses all the force of Catullus's feelings". This use of p is first set up with pugillaria, si pati potestis / persequamur (5–6), and continued with putida throughout, as well as perditius potes (14). The ending of the poem siquid proficere amplius potestis: / 'pudica et proba, redde codicillos.' continues this pattern, keeping up the tone even though the words have changed.

N. I. Herescu's analysis of Roman poetry argues Roman poets made use of "vocalic rhyme", i.e., assonance of the final stressed vowel across lines. Herescu analyzed c.42 to demonstrate this effect, writing that this poem had a "parade of assonances" only interrupted by the refrain (ll.11–12, 19–20, 24) or other repetitions (ll. 1–2). He calls this "an almost mechanical embellishment". L. P. Wilkinson's review of Herescu's book for Gnomon is skeptical of this being a technique widely used by Roman poets, but does note the analysis does work well for c.42. Herescu draws attention to the patterns of repetition of the following final, stressed vowels: turpis (3), redituram (4), potestis (5), reflagitemus (6), videtis (7), moleste (8), Gallicani (9), reflagitate (10), lupanar (13), esse (14), putandum (15), ruborem (16), ore (17), voce (18), movetur (21), nobis (22), and potestis (23).

Vine also discusses the "vertical" repitition of /p/ throughout the poem

discusses alliteration

Repetition of words/phrases
There's repetition of omnes.
 * “omnes undique, quotquot estis omnes” has "chiastic symmetry"

Moecha...
 * "chiastic" order
 * There is antimetabole in lines 11–12
 * "same words, different order"

repitition of quot estis ... quotquote estis, as well as repeated omnes

nihil
 * the "lightly corrupted" nil ... nihil is a "classic Catullan combination" (17.21, 42.21, 64.146).

"most [of C.'s] poems have a ring-like structure marked by lexical repetition", cites Elder 1966:149n20 "It is Catullus' wont, I believe to tie togetehr the beginning and end of a poem". Braces also mark link w/ center of poem.
 * reddituram - {redde, redde} - redde; potestis - {potes, potest} - potestis.

notes that there is repetition an the beginning and end of a line in 1–2:ad, hendecasyllabi quot // undique, quotquot estis.

also notes the entire cola gets repeated (potentially with slight changes) in 19–20: moecha putida, redde codicillos; redde, putida moecha, codicillos. (a colon is "regular elements of acoustic structure such as verse lines in poetry)


 * 1-2: 88, 428
 * 11-12; 19-20: 96, 181, 422
 * 18-21: 464

Flagitatio
Commentary of Catullus 42 often includes a connection with the Roman practice of flagitatio. The German philologist Hermann Usener wrote a 1901 paper on popular justice strategies in Ancient Rome where he wrote Catullus is emulating the practice of flagitatio in c.42; he was the first to describe c.42 in terms of being a flagitatio. Fraenkel summarized Usener's analysis of flagitatio in relation to c.42. Catullus 42 has been called "perhaps the best example" of a depiction of flagitatio in Roman literary sources.


 * also looks at flagitatio.}
 * maybe
 * follows Williams maybe
 * also see C. 55. Cites, , , , and . Follows in disagreeing with  &  in noting it doesn't matter how true he is.


 * 12, 25, and 42 are flagitatio

is not convinced.

Grammar

 * the comparative form perditius is also found in various works by Cicero, pace Riese and Lenchontil who say it's not found elsewhere.
 * has various notes

Iocus

 * Baehrens and Fordyce both quote Prop. 2.24.16 & Petron 57.4 on that use of iocus. Fletcher also says to look at Hor. Sat. 2.5.37.

OLD quotes Cat. 42.3; Hor.S.2.3.37; Prop. 2.24.16 among others for this sense of "an object of derision, laughing stocks", vs general sense of "joke, jest, sport". OLD 964.

Moecha
The Greek word μοιχός was borrowed into Latin becoming the masculine word moechus. The feminine form moecha was first found in the works of Catullus. Catullus both used this word to mean "adultress" as well as "whore". Catullus 42 is the earliest instance of moecha not having its technical sense of adultress, but rather as "a generalised hyperbolic term of condemnation".

The Latin word moecha is the feminine form of

property so this is likely a generic insult.
 * calling her an adultress/whore has nothing to do with the charge of not returning

The word moecha only appears six times in all of Catullus's works; five of these six are within this poem. The sixth occurance is in Catullus 68 referring to Helen of Troy, who was a literal adulterous. The related verb moechor appears once in Catullus 94.

also notes Helen described as "moecha"

"foul slut", literally "adultress"

"vile adultress" is the strict sense but in this context "whore"


 * Goldberg takes this to indicate she took on a new lover, refusing to return old poems.

Lupanar
lupanar, literally "brothel", is a "collective intensification of lupa. Apuleius's Apologia also used lupanar in a similar way.

"Not just a whore—she is an entire whorehouse"

"terms of stronger invective" "the 'tart' is now a whole brothel"

Dog imagery
Catullus insults the woman by comparing her to a dog with canis (l.17) and ridentem catuli ore Gallicani. This comparison also appeared in Catullus 84, where he described Lesbia as having "barked".

Dogs don't laugh so what this means is her laugh makes her look her face look like that of a dog, specifically a Gallic one. Gallic dogs were known to be ugly (Arrian Cyn. 3.1–5)

Gallic dogs notes "puppy" / "whelp" is maledicitive in various languages, pointing to the term "Insolent puppy!". He also notes the use of the word canis highlights the use of catuli earlier.




 * dogs where thought to be shameless
 * cf. Homer Il. 3.180 & 1.225




 * the comparison between her mouth and that of a dog primarily evokes the idea of ugliness, her big mouth is made even uglier, distorted from laughter. However it also signals disapproval of her moral character, her way of being/acting like a "bitch". Ancient Roman physiognomy connected a "dog mouth" with being irascible, impudent, tending to yell, and loving to be outraged. Since Homer, dogs have been associated with their shamelessness.

Judith P. Hallett was the first to proposed that catuli ... Gallicani "... of a little dog from Gaul" (l.9) is perhaps a self-referential pun on Catullus' part; the word, "puppy", resembles Catullus' cognomen, and Catullus himself was from Cisalpine Gaul. This has been called a "nearly unavoidable pun" or "potential" wordplay. Stephen John Heyworth has also pointed out that Catullus had said the woman acted "like a mime artist" mimice (l.8) and then is immediately described in terms of "an almost exact reproduction" of Catullus. He also argues this helps show "a sense of equivalence between the poet and victim". Hallett finds a "possible parallel" with c.42 and the ancient comedic play Pseudolus by Plautus; Plautus makes use of maccis, an invented nonce-word used as the name of a spice, which bears a similarity to Plautus' nomen Maccius.

Gait
In line 8, turpe incedere...


 * per Ovid's Ars Amatoria, the ancient Romans found a light, graceful gait important.


 * If this is Lesbia, Cicero has also commented on her shameless/indedent gait.


 * has spoken about this; this is used to describe prostitutes (cf. Cicero Cael. 49).


 * affected way

Relationship with other Carmina
It's unknown whether Catullus himself placed the poems in their conventional order or not. FIND BETTER SOURCE

Early manuscripts of Catullus included poems 40-48 as being unseparated. Leonardo Bruni thought 41-43 were a distinct poem because all are similar, invectives against a women.

Catullus 42 was the last composition of Catullus to be identified as a distinct composition. Previously, Catullus 41–42 were considered a single poem; even earlier Catullus 40–42 were unseparated. The Florentine Renaissance classical scholar Poliziano annotated his personal copy of the 1472 Vindelinus de Spira edition of Catullus by drawing a line separating the two, suggesting he thought of Catullus 42 as a distinct poem. However, Marc-Antoine Muret's 1554 book was the first to print Catullus 42 as its own poem; he gave it the title "In Quandam".

Wendell Vernon Clausen has noted within the first sixty poems, the polymetra, that there is a tendency to separate two similar poems with one which differs. He notes that the arrangement of Poems 41–43 "seems especially careful" as C. 41 and C. 43 are both 8-line poems about "an ugly whore", separated by C. 42 which is a longer poem of 24 lines, and all three are in the same meter. Thomas K. Hubbard has also noted the sequence of 42–42–43 as an instance of variatio, the practice of putting a contrasting poem between two similar ones.

Forsyth thinks 41-43 form a "Catullan triad".

Forsyth also thinks that 35-42 form a "poetic cluster" all speaking to the general theme of poetry and mistresses.

has a cycle from 31-44 about personified objects.


 * also in Cat 12 mentions hendex w/ napkin thief.


 * Cat 14 and 42 goes after thieves


 * 41 & 42 linked by ideas of demand (claiming, reclaiming), and by questioning. 42-44 all share syntactic construction with verb of speaking with an accusative subject, copula and predicative accusative (42.3 iocum me putat esse).


 * finds an "oral motif" linking cc. 40, 42-5, 47-51, 53-5, and 57-60. Claes points to catuli ore and canis...ore.


 * links 41 and 42 "claiming payment for love" / "reclaiming of love poems"; links 42 and 42 "attack on Mamurra's girl" / "praise of the poet's girl"

analyzes Poems 34–44 as being a sequence with a ring structure. She notes, , , and  as other examples who have discussed the reasoning for the order of these poems. She connects Poems 36 and 42 together with both being jeaux d'esprit about a woman having possession of Catullus's poetry.

12, 25, and 42 are flagitatio. C. 25 "looking back to 12 and forward to 42".

41 and 43 deal with Mamurra's mistress Ameana. In between is a magnificent dramatic monologue calling to some girl to give back his poems, a flagitatio. There is no great change of mood, but the mock-courtesy at the end of 42 leads to the mock-courtesy at the beginning of 43.

Per, poems 35-44 are about personified identified objects and form a ring arrangement. Poems 35 and 42 are linked by being "clever pieces" which "invert similar elements". Poem 35 contains personified papyrus as Poem 42 contains personified verse.

Dettmer also draws connection with C. 42 and C. 44.

cf. Catullus 40.2 re personificaiton of verse

Identity of moecha
The woman, referred to not by name but by moecha turpis (l.1) or moecha putida is unnamed.


 * -- has secondary sources for people

E. d'Arbela, F. della Corte (does he??? seems to say people think lesbia or ameana), and Marmorale all identified her as Lesbia. " This older view is rightly rejected my most scholars"

Some people think the woman Lesbia, Catullus' lover mentioned in several of his other poems.


 * Guy Lee thinks it seems to be Lesbia because she is an adultoress (cf. XI. 17 moechis, XXXVII. 16 moechi).
 * says "notably" N. Herescu and G. Lafaye believe she's Lesbia
 * sees 42 as a follow-up to 37 so identifies her as Lesbia.
 * sees 42 as a follow-up to 37 so identifies her as Lesbia.

Some think it's Ameana, mentioned in 41 and 43.
 * -- has secondary sources for
 * Ameana is described as having a rustic appearance (cf. l.9 Gallicani).
 * asserted to be Ameana w/o discussion, the "moecha putida" of Catullus 42 can only be inferred from its tone and position in the collection
 * follows Ellis 116, Kroll 76, Forsyth 1977 "points to Ameana". points to various examples of "lexical concatenation", repetition of similar/related words both between 41&42, annd 42&43.
 * argues for it being Ameana, not Lesbia, citing
 * "possibly"it's Amiana

Some think it can't be Lesbia.
 * says Catullus would never call Lesbia ugly even when he was fighting with her, pointing to Catullus 86.
 * says "certainly not Lesbia", but it might be Ameana.
 * agress with Ellis, can't be Lesbia.
 * Although Lesbia might be insulted for being whorish, Catullus would never insult her appearance.
 * notes she's been speculated to be Ipsitilla, Aufilleana, or Ameana, or perhaps someone else since she's unnamed, but Goold thinks she can'be Lesbia since "even at her most degraded he does not treat as a common woman"

uses the similarities between Cicero's description of Clodia in Pro Caelio and Catullus' description of the 'whore' in Catullus 42 to help argue that Lesbia is Cloda. However has called the connection between Lesbia and 42's moecha as "an adventurous idea" and said it was a weak argument to use to identify Lesbia as Clodia as he does not thing the descriptions are so close enough to warrant the necessity of one copying the other.

T. P. Wiseman has described the identification of the woman in C. 42 as


 * "not convinced" that the language in C.42 like moecha putida/moecha turpis is too strong to refer to Lesbia.


 * notes that Catullus never insults Lesbia for her provincialism so she think it's "improbable" that the woman is Lesbia. Suggests that those surmising she's Amiana are "perhaps right".

says "we need no longer hesitate" to connect Lesbia with the woman in C. 42, noting moecha turpis is "a typical example of the abuse reserved for heterae!", and fits in with Catullus's overal depiction of Lesbia as a hetaera. He cites on one hand and  and

Chester Louis Neudling has suggested that she might be Aufilena, the woman mentioned in cc. 100, 110, and 110. Schmidt

Miquel Dolç acknowledges 's arguments that she's Lebia, but himself thinks she's Ameana.

Some have said there's no point in trying to identify her.


 * "The identity of the (real or imaginary) victim is neither revealed nor important"

References and allusions to C. 42
Catullus 42 has been referred to in other writers of the classical world, as well as writers of the Renaissance.

Horace Epode 17
The Roman poet Horace's Epode 17 (30 BCE) contains the line tu pudica, tu proba, which some have taken to be a reference to Catullus's phrase pudica et proba in the final line of C.42.

A fragment by the poet Lucius Afranius contains the phrase proba et pudica. Fordyce cited this fragment to argue Horace was likely making use of a stock phrase rather than specifically alluding to Catullus: "the alliterative phrase was probably conventional". Lindo also thinks this was merely just a stock phrase, and argues the origin of the phrase might go back to the ancient Greek poet Stesichorus' description of Helen of Troy in his Palinode.

Some acknowledge similar phrases were used by other authors but think Horace was still specifically alluding to Catullus, or making a "layered allusion".


 * , citing, , , , , thinks it is a reference. Notes  and  disagree.
 * "quotes", "echoes inversion"
 * "diretly imitated" "all but directly quotes"
 * "heavy-handed allusion" (revised of )


 * : notes, , have all drawn similarity and thought Horace borrowed this from Catullus. However, it goes back to Afrianus , "would seem to be part of the stock of complimentary epithets reserved for descriptions of feminine chastity". Suggests that this might go back to Stesichorus's description of Helen.
 * -- calls it "quotation".
 * -- calls it "quotation".


 * notes Catull. 42,24 "pudica et proba", also Afranius u. 116, p. 179 R. "proba et pudica", also Ov. am. III 14, 13sq. no commentary.
 * notes Catull. 42,24 "pudica et proba", also Afranius u. 116, p. 179 R. "proba et pudica", also Ov. am. III 14, 13sq. no commentary.


 * says it is "possibly" a reference to Cat, but notes Afran. çom. 116 Ribbeck and Ov. Am 3.14.13-14 and quotes Fordyce as saying "the alliterative phrase was probably conventional".


 * Horace echoes the palinode, "equally disingenuous retraction"


 * cites Putnam and
 * citing ; ; ;.

Michael C. J. Putnam. The Classical Journal 92, no. 1 (1996): 86–88. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3298470.

Martial, Statius, inscription, Charisius
Martial's epigram 7.26 (published c. 92 CE) begins Apollinarem conveni meum, scazon ("Go and meet Apollinaris, limping verse"). This has been compared to the first line of Catullus 42 since both contain the author directly addressing his verses using the name of the meter. The final line of this epigram repeats its initial line, which is a technique also used by Catullus, e.g., Catullus 16; it has been argued that Martial apparently borrowing this Catullan feature would reinforce the allusion to Catullus 42 in readers' minds.

Statius's Silvae 4.9 (c.  95 CE) has Catullus 14 as its main influence as both mock a book of poor writing given as a gift. Kathleen Coleman describes the ending of Silvae 4.9 as a "pastiche of motifs in Catullus". The self-referential use of hendecasyllables has been compared to Cat. 12 and Cat. 42; in both these poems Catullus refers to hendecasyllables as a means of attack. The hendecasyllables in Silvae 4.9 and Cat. 42 both ask for something back. The allusions to c.42 in Pliny's 4.10 show this was a poem people were familiar with and Statius can rely on his poem's recipient to note the references. Silvae 4.9 also makes uses of the word codicilli for writing tablets, also used in C.42.4; this is a word generally used in prose; its first appearance in Latin poetry was in Catullus 42 and was only used by Martial before appearing in Silvae 4.9.

A hymn to Priapus found in Tibur dating to the 2nd or 3rd century has been said to "ech[o]" Catullus' Carmina 2b, 3, and 42; Catullus had a holiday home in Tibur so his poetry would likely continue to have been read there. Line 13 of this inscription reads: "convenite simul quot est[is om]nes"; scholars of these fragments have drawn connections with these lines and {{lang|la|opening of Catullus 42. The editions of Catullus by {{ill|Francesco Della Corte|it}}{{sfnp|Della Corte|2006|pp=65, 270}} and {{ill|Miquel Dolç|es||ca}}{{sfnp|Dolç|1997|p=36}} have also made this connection. Emil Baehrens's edition of Catullus says the inscription's author "imitates" 42.1–2, and also that this gets repeated in line 16 of the inscription:{{sfnp|Baehrens|1885|p=230}} "{{lang|la|convenite quot estis atque [be]llo}}".

The 4th century grammarian Charisius wrote in his book {{lang|la|Ars Grammatica}} that "Catullus says {{lang|la|haec pugillaria}} in the neuter gender rather frequently in his hendecasyllables". {{efn|This is generally a masculine noun: {{wikt-lang|la|pugillares}}.{{sfn|Fordyce|1978|p=193}}}} As line 42.5 contains the only extant instance of {{lang|la|pugillaria}} in Catullus' works, this is included as an example of an ancient testimonium of Catullus 42.

Horace C.I.16
cites also ,

WHAT IS THIS???

does talk

Pliny the Younger letter 5.10
Pliny the Younger's letter 5.10 to the historian Suetonius has also been compared to c.42. This letter was written c. 105 and in it Pliny urges Suetonius to publish an unnamed work. The Italian philologist Giorgio Brugnoli said Pliny transferred the motif of hendecasyllables in c.42


 * Power cites Roller and


 * links Ep. 5.10 and Ep. 4.14.1, citing

Propertius III.23
Elegy 3.23 by the Roman poet Propertius concerns the loss of his writing tablets. Williams has argued Propertius "uses the motif of Catullus 42".


 * (cited by )
 * citing &
 * citing Roman re Propertius & Ovid
 * citing &
 * citing Roman re Propertius & Ovid
 * citing &
 * citing Roman re Propertius & Ovid



Pseudolus
Sander Goldberg argues that Catullus 42 alludes to a flagitatio in the ancient comedic play Pseudolus by Plautus. This scene of Pseudolus depicts f
 * f
 * follows saying he "argued persuasively"
 * follows saying he "argued persuasively"
 * follows saying he "argued persuasively"
 * follows saying he "argued persuasively"
 * follows saying he "argued persuasively"

'o lutum, lupanar' has precedent in Plautus and is echoed by Apluleius (citing Thomson 312)

Post-antiquity
The earliest pastiche of Catullus after antiquity was based on Catullus 41–43; it is attributed to Leonardo Bruni. Its title is Incipiunt endecasyllabi Leonardi Aretini" and dates to c. 1405–1415.

The first poem in Giovanni Gioviano Pontano's book of hendecasyllables, published posthumously in 1505, has as its tenth line "Huc, huc, hendecasyllabi, frequente" ('Here, here, you thronging verses'). Rodney G. Dennis, his translator for The I Tatti Renaissance Library, has said this "echoes" the first line of Catullus 42, and "shows how close Pontano can come to Catullus without simply quoting him". Also

Various poets in the French Renaissance were inspired by the works of Catullus as well, with Catullus 42 being a specific influence for several poems. Jean Visagier's 1538 poem "Ad amicos" is in part based on Catullus 42; its first three lines read: Amici rogo vos quot estis omnes, / Omnes undique quotquot estis oro, / Ad nostrum properate, adeste, luctum. Pierre de Ronsard published a book of Folastries in 1553. Part of Folastrie III is an invective against a courtesan which imitates Catullus 42. Joachim du Bellay's 1558 book Poemata includes the poem Voti solutio, which has been described as "a patchwork of Catullan reminisces". This poem includes an exhortation to hendecasyllables (At vos hendecasyllabi / [...] / Adeste huc, precor: et quot estis omnes) which has been seen as a reference to the first two lines of Catullus 42. Jacques Maniquet wrote a poem for Les Epitaphes sur le trespas de Joachim du Bellay Angein, a 1560 book of poems in honor of Du Bellay upon his death. This is a neo-Catullan epigram written in hendecasyllabic verse, and makes use of many expressions associated with Catullus' oeuvre; line 23 of Maniquet's poem begins quotque estis, which reflects quotquot estis in Catullus 42.2.

The 16th century Scottish humanist George Buchanan composed a set of eleven poems Hendecasyllabi which consisted of Catullan imitations.

Francesco Negri (1500–1563) published his Epitome of Ovid's Metamorphoses in 1542 in Zürich, it begins with an unsigned poem, presumably written by Negri, written in "Catullan hendecasyllabics" which was inspired by Catullus 42.

Leigh Hunt wrote a letter to Byron in October 1822 consisting of a loose translation of Catullus 42, adapting it to be about how the publisher John Murray refused to return a manuscript.

The English poet Alfred Tennyson's 1863 poem "Hendecasyllabics" has had part compared to Catullus 42, although some have thought other poems of Catullus have had a greater influence.

The American poet Charles Bukowski was described as being "in a Catullian mood" in reference to his 1960 poem "To The Whore Who Took My Poems". This poem is an imitatio, an imitation-based work impersonating Catullus. Although Catullus wrote about thieves in C. 12 and C. 25, the main inspiration for Bukowski's poem is Catullus 42. David Stephen Calonne has called it "an homage to Catullus 42".