Catullus

Alexander David Kurke is a criminal lawyer in Sudbury, Ontario.

This edition replaces Thomson’s 1978 Chapel Hill Catullus; what was
200 pages then is now nearly 600 pages, with the addition of a
commentary and fuller introduction.

As in 1978, Thomson’s greatest contribution to the study of Catullus
is his erudite and painstaking effort to relate the many manuscripts of
Catullus and to bring this information to bear on the task of producing
a more accurate text. The commentary offers prodigious assistance to
anyone who is interested in learning about the text of Catullus and
current interpretation of his oeuvre. Thomson brings to his task a
minute knowledge of variant readings and the causes of textual
corruption. While other critics may disagree at times with Thomson’s
text, they will welcome his dedication. Students of textual criticism
will also benefit from the bibliographies that appear in the
introduction and at the conclusion of the commentary on each poem.

Those same students had better have on hand their other editions and
commentaries. Although Thomson at times provides excellent summaries of
critical argument in support of his textual readings or interpretation,
very frequently he merely refers readers to the discussions of other
scholars and commentators.

A brief comparison between this and the 1978 edition highlights some of
difficulties in Thomson’s annotations. At 62.56, the note “Goud
1995: n. 9 demonstrates that Weber was right to read innupta here”
certainly directs the student to a source of assistance, but an
additional brief summary of the argument would be preferable in a
commentary. More frustrating still are those places where Thomson alters
his text without explanation. For example, at 63.54 operta replaces
opaca, which appeared in the 1978 edition. Why the change? At 64.153, we
do not even hear Ellis’s iniacta mentioned; instead, Thomson uses
iniecta, contrary to his own earlier reading. In the same poem, at 175,
Thomson uses haec instead of the previous hic. His note explains a
possible source of error, but offers no reason to prefer one reading
over the other. One would expect to see these textual choices justified
in a textual commentary.

While these omissions may detract from the overall utility of the book,
this edition and commentary nevertheless represent a substantial
contribution to Catullan studies.