^{page 304 note 2} The manuscripts' hinc should never have been questioned. It is equivalent to ex hog labore, and the sense is: ‘all this effort was in vain and did not help make my prayers effective’ (cf. Friedrich, ad loc.).

^{page 304 note 3} I have accepted, without complete certainty, this old conjecture for the manuscripts' evitabimus + amitha. I take contra as adverbial; the antithesis it implies is: ‘I was not able to deter you from insulting me, but I can avoid the shafts of your invective.’

^{page 304 note 4} Enk correctly paraphrases: ‘aliquid excogitamus quo dominae duritiem leniamus’; but the context strongly suggests that this implies writing love-poetry. Compare also Lucr. I. 143 cited below.

^{page 305 note 1} Cf. Kroll, , Studien zum Verständnis der römischen Litteratur (Stuttgart, 1924), 38;Google ScholarPiwonka, Puelma, Lucilius and Kallimachos (Frankfurt am Main, 1949), 116–37;Google ScholarCairns, , Mnemosyne xxii (1969), 154;Google ScholarCameron, , C.R. N.S. xxii (1972), 169.Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 2} Cf. esp. Enn. Ann. 216 Vahlen: nec dicti studiosus quisquam erat ante hunc.

^{page 305 note 3} Cf. also Liban. Or. 18. 17:animo and laborem in Catullus.

^{page 305 note 4} Cf. Ov. Ibis 2, Io, 54, 644 and La Penna ad loc. Mittere in usque caput is a phrase which also belongs in such a context (cf. Ibis 50).

^{page 305 note 5} On this form, sometimes called paraklausithyron, see Copley, , Exclusus Amator (Madison, Wis., 1956), esp. 40–2;Google ScholarCairns, , Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry (Edinburgh, 1972), Index s.v. komos.Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 6} Cf. further Hor. Od. 1. 26. 10 and Nisbet—Hubbard ad loc.

^{page 305 note 7} Deducere, a metaphor from spinning, can be used of poetic composition in general (cf. T.L.L. v [1] 282. 55 ff.); but in some other contexts too it is associated with ‘finespun’ writing like the Neoterics’ (cf. Cornificius frg. 1 Morel; Hor. Ep. 2. 1. 225).

^{page 306 note 1} Love is seen as positively inimical tc learned poetry in Cat. 35; A.P. 52. 91 (Posidippus), 99 (Anon.).

^{page 306 note 2} Philitea in 3. 3. 52 echoes 3. 1. 1 and is equivalent to Callimachea atque Philitea; foi where a pair of words needs repeating, one may do duty for both: cf. Hes. Op. 182; Hdt 5.32. 6; Eur.H.F.1374–81; Soph. O.C. 1335; Ar. Au. 78f.; Hor. Od. 4. 4. 29; Juv. 14.70 f.

^{page 306 note 3} Perhaps also lamb. 3, 4, 5, 9 and fr. 226: see Puelma, op. cit. 248–84.

^{page 306 note 4} See further Puelma, op. cit. 206–17, 236–41.

^{page 306 note 5} For the contrast between Catullus and Callimachus, see further Puelma, op. cit. 263, 277.

^{page 307 note 1} Uti and qui seem also to be archaic (cf. Heusch, , Das Archaische in der Sprache Catulls [Bonn, 1954] 98 f., 133–5);Google Scholar the same may be true of dabis supplicium. Heinze (Arch. f lat. Lex. xv, 99 = Vom Geist des Römertums¹ [Stuttgart, 1960], 36 f.) argued plausibly that this phrase must have here its ancient sense, ‘beg for mercy with expiatory offer. ings’, because Gellius would then be presented as doing what Catullus was doing in lines 1–3; the poet thus deftly turns the tables on his opponent.Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 2} Cf. West, art. cit. 102.

^{page 307 note 3} B. Schmidt (Prolegom., p. lxvi) suggested that Catullus in the last line is actually quoting a phrase of Gellius'.

^{page 307 note 4} Cf. further Archil. fr. 223 West; Cat. 40; Hor. Epod. 6, though here the writers are avowedly specialists in insult. Closer again to our passage is Hor. Epod. 5. 83–6: there it is another speaker who finally breaks into curses; but he thereby does duty for the epode-poet, who deals in In oratory, cf. e.g. Antiphon, Tetral. 2. γ 1 f.; Dem. 44. 1, 53. 1; Cic. Phil. 2. 1.

^{page 308 note 1} Cf. Cic. De inv. 1. 1: saepe et multum hoc mecum cogitavi…; De or. 1. 1: cogitanti mihi saepenumero…; Lucr. 1. 140 ff.; [Virg.] Ciris 46.

^{page 308 note 2} Cat.; 1; Cic. Or. 1; Stat. Silt. 2 praef.; Quintil. 1 praef. 6.

^{page 308 note 3} Lucr. 1. 140 ff.; Stat. Silv. 5 praef.

^{page 308 note 4} Cf. Ov. F. 2. 15, Auson. Technop. 5. 2. This may also be how studium is meant (i.e. ‘zeal’ for a person) in Lucil. 612 Marx: veterem historiam studio inductus scribis ad amores tuos. Here too there is presumably an allusion to a dedication.

^{page 308 note 5} In general on the technique of ‘inversion’ see Cairns, op. cit. 127–37.

^{page 308 note 6} Cf. Cat. 65, 68. 1–40 (where line 41 begins the ‘substitute’ poem); Virg. G. 3. 1–48; Ciris 1–53. More loosely comparable are Prop. 2. 1. 17 ff., 3. 9. 47 ff.

^{page 308 note 7} Cf. Copley, , T.A.P.A. lxxxii (1951), 200–6;Google ScholarElder, , H.S.C.P. lxxxii (1966), 143–8; Cairns, art. cit. As emerges from Cairns's discussion, here too there is a contrast and a balance between two aspects of the poet, as a writer of nugae and as one who appreciates the value of doctrina and labor.Google Scholar

^{page 309 note 1} Already in these poems we see the epode-poet struggling helplessly against love.

^{page 309 note 2} See Grassmann, , Die erotischen Epoden des Horaz (Munich, 1966), 1–12; Hipponax frr. 14, 16, 17, 84 Masson, West.Google Scholar