Appendix <uo> and <uu> in Catullus

In Chapter 8 I have collected epigraphic evidence for an earlier development of /uɔ/ to /uu/ (around the beginning of the first century BC) than of /wɔ/ and /k^wɔ/ to /wu/ and /k^wu/ (around the middle of the first century BC). A possible non-epigraphical source of supporting evidence for this is the spelling of these sequences in the poems of Catullus, who was writing in the 50s BC.Footnote ¹ The key early manuscripts of Catullus from the fourteenth century are the Oxoniensis (O = Oxford, Bodleian Libraries, MS Canon. class. lat. 30), Sangermanensis (G = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS lat. 14137) and Romanus (R = Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Ottob. lat. 1829). The non-extant manuscript from which G and R were copied is known as X, and the manuscript, thought to be in Verona around AD 1300, from which both O and X descend is called V.Footnote ² There is also a much earlier manuscript, the Codex Thuaneus (T = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS lat. 8071), of the ninth century AD, which contains only poem 62 (on all of this see Reference ThomsonThomson 2003: 23–38; Reference Kiss and KissKiss 2015; Reference Oakley, Quesnay and WoodmanOakley 2021). For the manuscript readings, I use Reference ThomsonThomson (2003), who normally prints <uu> for both /wu/ and /k^wu/, and /uu/, and does not note spellings with <uo> in the apparatus unless there is some other variant textual feature, but mentions Caluos (53.3) and nouos (61.54) in the commentary on the latter.Footnote ³ The edition of Reference MynorsMynors (1958) does generally print the spelling <uo> where this can be found or conjectured in OGR or T, and thus provides one additional case, equos at 66.54.Footnote ⁴

In Catullus’ poetry there are 44 instances of /wu/ and /k^wu/, of which 4 are spelt <uo> in all of O, G and R (and hence in V); a further 5 are printed by Mynors on the basis either of one of the principal manuscripts or of highly plausible conjectures. In addition, a spelling seruos also lies behind 23.1 seruus, as noted by Reference ThomsonThomson (2003: 262). By comparison, of 39 instances of /uu/, there is only evidence of 2 instances which may have been spelt <uo> (both conjectures, although highly plausible ones). See Table 46 for all the examples. This distinction, between 10/44 <uo> and <quo> spellings for /wu/ and /k^wu/ and 2/39 <uo> spellings for /uu/, is statistically significant.Footnote ⁵

If the greater frequency of <uo> spellings for /wu/ and /k^wu/ reflects the spelling of Catullus himself (which is of course not certain), it could result from the fact that the <uu> spelling for /uu/ was better established at the time he was writing than <uu> and <quu> for /wu/ and /k^wu/, the latter having only just developed from /wɔ/ and /k^wɔ/. Alternatively, it is possible that Catullus wrote <uo> both for /wu/ and /k^wu/, and for /uu/, and the divergence in the spelling reflects the earlier loss of the spelling <uo> for /uu/ than for /wu/ and /k^wu/. That is, copyists were more likely to replace <uo> with <uu> when it represented /uu/, since <uo> for /uu/ became uncommon relatively early, whereas <uo> for /wu/ and /k^wu/ was maintained for much longer.