A Critical Edition with Introduction, Translation and Textual Commentary

Summary: This article presents a new critical edition of Catullus’ Carmen 66 along with an introduction, a translation and a textual commentary. The text, based on fresh colla-tions of the manuscripts O and G , deviates from the Oxford text by R.A.B. Mynors in 27 cases. Furthermore, it is the first edition to consider the conventional first two lines of Catullus 67 as the last two lines of Catullus 66, an idea independently conjectured by Alex Agnesini in 2011 and Ian Du Quesnay in 2012. 1


INTRODUCTION
This article presents a new critical edition of Catullus' Carmen 66 with an introduction, a translation and a textual commentary. The introduction is divided into five sections. The first section gives a brief survey of the textual transmission of Catullus from the fourteenth to the twentieth century. The second section provides more detailed information on the three principal manuscripts of Catullus, O, G and R. In the third section I describe my editorial principles. The fourth section presents a stemma, a description of sigla codicum and a bibliography of the works mentioned in my apparatus criticus. Finally, in the fifth section I list my 27 deviations from R.A.B. Mynors' Oxford edition (corrected reprint, 1960) which I take to be the standard edition of Catullus in the English-speaking world. The translation is meant to express my understanding of the sense of the poem as closely as possible. I have therefore chosen to translate the poem into prose rather than within the metrical restrictions of verse. In the textual commentary I explain the reasons behind my choice of a broad selection of readings. All translations from Latin and Greek into English are my own.

THE TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION OF CATULLUS
The textual transmission of Catullus' poetry is almost uniquely sparse and famously corrupt. 2 From late Antiquity until the fourteenth century Catullus has not left many traces. 3 One of the few and very significant traces is the Carolingian manuscript T (Codex Thuaneus after its sixteenth-century owner Jacques-Auguste de Thou), a late ninth-century florilegium which includes 66 lines of poem 62. T is the oldest direct witness we possess to Catullus' poetry; but since the manuscript does not contain Catullus 66 I do not make use of it in this paper. Shortly after 1300 an extant manuscript of Catullus was discovered in Verona; but by the end of the century it had disappeared again, a fate shared by numerous codices in that period. 4 This manuscript, commonly referred to as V (Codex Veronensis from its place of discovery), is consid-2 Propertius seems to be the only other major Latin poet with an equally sparse and corrupt transmission. For convenient surveys see Tarrant 1983a: 43-45 (on Catullus) and 1983b: 324-26 (on Propertius). 3 For recent accounts of the reception of Catullus from Antiquity to the fourteenth century see Kiss 2015a: xiii-xvii;Gaisser 2009: 166-75;1993: 1-18;Butrica 2007: 15-30. Ullman 1960: 1028 gives a comprehensive survey of the scattered reception of Catullus in medieval writers. 4 Cf. Reynolds & Wilson 2013: 141: "the humanists also had a capacity for losing manuscripts. Once they had carefully copied a text, they were liable to have little interest in the manuscript which had preserved it." ered the pre-archetype of all the preserved extant manuscripts of Catullus. 5 Its rediscovery is famously described in an enigmatic epigram probably written between 1303 and 1307 by the Vincentine notary Benvenuto dei Campesani (1250Campesani ( -1323. 6 Before the disappearance of V, the equally lost A was presumably copied directly from it. A is considered the archetype of the manuscripts O (Codex Oxoniensis from its current location), undated but from approximately 1360, and X, now also lost. By the end of the fourteenth century the manuscripts G (Codex Sangermanensis after its former location), dated to 1375, and R (Codex Romanus of the Vatican Library), c. 1390, were copied from X. R was copied for the influential Florentine chancellor Coluccio Salutati, whose hand, identified as R 2 , has added 133 variant readings to the manuscript. 7 In comparison, G contains 93 variant readings (G 1 , the hand of the scribe, and G 2 , a later hand), while O does not contain any. The three late fourteenth-century manuscripts OGR, all written in Northern Italy, constitute our principal extant witnesses to the text of Catullus. I will describe these manuscripts in further detail in section two of this introduction. 5 D.S. McKie was the first to suggest the existence of a manuscript between V and OX in his doctoral dissertation (Cambridge 1977). McKie's unpublished dissertation has not been available to me, but his view of V as the pre-archetype and A as the archetype of OX is widely accepted. See recently Kiss 2015a: xviii andTrappes-Lomax 2007: 16. 6 The epigram, preserved in the fourteenth-century manuscripts G and R, runs as follows (the codex is the narrator): Ad patriam uenio longis a finibus exul. / Causa mei reditus compatriota fuit, / scilicet a calamis tribuit cui Francia nomen, / quique notat turbe pretereuntis iter. / Quo licet ingenio uestrum celebrate Catullum, / cuius sub modio clausa papirus erat; 'As an exile I arrive to my fatherland from distant borders. / The cause of my return has been a fellow-citizen, / that is, a man to whom France has given her name on account of his writing, / and who notes the journey of the crowd that passes by. / Thanks to his intelligence you may celebrate your Catullus, / whose papyrus has been shut beneath a bushel.' See Kiss 2015b: 2-6 for a recent discussion of the epigram. 7 Ullman 1960: 1040: "The ownership is attested by Coluccio's peculiar pressmark on fol. 1: "71 carte 39", the word carte standing for chartae, leaves or folios, the number before it being the number in Coluccio's library, apparently. This same type of entry appears in most of Coluccio's books, of which I have seen well over one hundred." Catullus' poetry might have been rediscovered in the fourteenth century; but his poems were in a very poor condition. The corrupt state of the manuscript tradition was a source of frustration for its earliest scribes. Thus, the scribe of G wrote an apology to the reader on the last page of his edition (folio 36r). Whether the scribe formulated the complaint himself or copied it from X is not entirely clear; 8 but it certainly bears witness to just how poorly preserved Catullus' poetry was in the century of its rediscovery: During the fifteenth century a considerable amount of manuscripts were copied from R, a few were copied from G, while none were copied from O. The fertility of R is probably explained by Coluccio Salutati's influential position in the Italian cultural classes. 10 Of these manuscripts, commonly known as the codices recentiores, more than 120 are identified. 11 8 Thomson 1997: 32 argues with reference to McKie's unpublished dissertation (Cambridge 1977) somewhat convincingly that the unscholarly scribe of G can hardly be the author of the complaint. 9 'You, the reader into whose hands this little book has come, please excuse the scribe, if the book will seem corrupt to you. For he has transcribed it from a highly corrupt exemplar. There did not exist anything else, from which he could have had the opportunity to copy this book. And in order to take anything out of this rough exemplar he decided that it was better to have it in a corrupt condition than to lack it altogether, in the hope that another copy might emerge from which he could correct it. Farewell, if you will not curse him.' 10 Kiss 2015b: 14. Kiss further suggests that O "may have seemed a hopelessly corrupt manuscript of Catullus rather than one of the best ones available, so there seems to have been no reason to copy it." 11 For a recent study of the codices recentiores see Kiss 2015b and 2015c, where the manuscripts are numbered and listed.
Due to the corrupt state of the manuscript tradition the scribes usually compared and added readings from other manuscripts, which resulted in a high degree of contamination. Accordingly, the codices recentiores do not seem to contribute significant information on Catullus' textual transmission. Their chief and very significant contribution lies in their conjectures and emendations, to which the apparatus criticus of every modern edition of Catullus bears solid witness. The great age of Catullan conjectures, however, arose in the subsequent centuries. After the publication of the Venice editio princeps in 1472 manuscripts quickly stopped being copied. Instead, humanist scholars began producing commentaries and emending the corrupt text. 12 The vigorous activities of these Renaissance humanists can hardly be overestimated. 13 Numerous conjectures of theirs are today accepted readings; and even when they are wrong, their conjectures can be of great help in showing the modern reader and editor where the paradosis might be corrupt. 14 As in many other fields of classical philology, Catullan studies flourished in the nineteenth century, and another great age of Catullan conjectures arose. 15 My present edition of Catullus 66 has benefited greatly from conjectures by scholars such as Emil Baehrens (1848-1888), Theodor Heyse (1803-1884) and Karl Lachmann (1793-1851. The nineteenth century also saw the revival of the principal manuscripts OGR and the first employment of O and G in critical editions. Ludwig Schwabe (1866) was the first editor to base his text on G, while O was rediscovered in the Bodleian Library and presented by Robinson Ellis (1867), who famously failed to acknowledge its importance. Emil Baehrens (1876) was the first editor to make full use of the manuscript in his edition. Finally, R was rediscovered in the Vatican Library by William Gardner Hale in 1896. 16 But it was 12 Gaisser 1992: 207-16. 13 Cf. Reynolds & Wilson 2013: 142 on the fifteenth-century humanists: "A glance at the apparatus criticus of many classical texts -Catullus is a good example -will show how frequently scholars of this period were able to correct errors in the tradition." 14 This principle applies to conjectures in general. Cf. Nisbet 1991: 70, 75. 15 Goold 1983 counts 147 corrections to the text made in the nineteenth century compared to 37 in the seventeenth and 16 in the eighteenth. 16 Hale 1896. not until the middle of the twentieth century that the relationship between OGR was fully realised and utilised in a critical edition, namely R.A.B. Mynors' edition from 1958. 17 The twentieth century has seen ten critical editions of Catullus' opera, 18 and several editions devoted to single poems. 19 Additionally, Robin Nisbet's seminal article "Notes on the Text and Interpretation of Catullus" (1978) has inspired a new wave of conjectures and revivals of forgotten conjectures on Catullus. This conjectural activity has in recent years been greatly helped by Dániel Kiss' online repertory of conjectures on Catullus, which has also made high resolution digital images of O and G available to its readers. 20 However, two important tasks on the text of Catullus still need to be done. First, there is a need for a new critical edition of Catullus, which employs more conjectural solutions than usual in the text and apparatus criticus. 21 Secondly, the codices recentiores need to be further identified, analysed and put into a stemma. Dániel Kiss is currently working on the codices recentiores; and I hope that with this edition of Catullus 66 I may be able to demonstrate, however modestly, some of the editorial principles from which a future edition of Catullus might benefit.  Thomson 1978Thomson (revised 1997Goold 1983;Eisenhut 1958Eisenhut (new edition 1983; Bardon 1970Bardon (revised 1973Mynors 1958Mynors (revised 1960Schuster 1949;Cazzaniga 1941;Kroll 1923;Lafaye 1922;Ellis 1904. 19  The Codex Oxoniensis is the oldest of the three principal manuscripts. It was probably written in Venice in 1360. The manuscript is written on parchment in Italian Gothic minuscule, also known as Rotunda. Its unknown scribe is considered to have been a competent copyist but a poor Latinist. 22 The scribe appears to have focused more on the layout of his codex than on the text itself. 23 As a result O does not contain any of the variant readings assumed to have been present in V. 24 O is not known to have left any descendants. The manuscript was rediscovered at the Bodleian Library in 1867 by Robinson Ellis, who did not recognize the importance of his discovery. In 1876 Emil Baehrens acknowledged the importance of O, which he used as the foundation of his text alongside the manuscript G.  G (Parisinus lat. 14137 in the Bibliothèque National de France) The Codex Sangermanensis is the second oldest of the principal manuscripts. It was written in 1375, most likely in Verona. 25 Its scribe has been identified as Antonio da Legnago, who wrote the manuscript on parchment in Italian Gothic minuscule and added a few titles and marginal readings to the text, which he otherwise left unfinished. The other variant readings in G are by a later scribe, commonly referred to as G 2 , who took the readings from the manuscript m, an early copy of R. 26 Seven of the 93 variants are on poem 66. 27 G is held to have been copied from the lost manuscript X, a brother of O. C.I. Sillig (1830) was the first modern editor to make use of G, but the manuscript was not used properly until Schwabe's edition in 1866.
 R (Ottobonianus lat. 1829 in the Vatican Library) The Codex Romanus is the brother of G, copied for the Florentine chancellor Coluccio Salutati, probably in 1390. Like its brother, R was copied from the lost codex X, the brother of O, and like O and G the manuscript is written on parchment in Italian Gothic minuscule. The hand of Coluccio Salutati, commonly referred to as R 2 , has added 133 variant readings to the manuscript. 17 of these variants are on poem 66. 28 R was dramatically rediscovered by William Gardner Hale in 1896 when he realized that the Vatican Library had miscatalogued the manuscript. Hale never managed to publish a full collation of R, which was instead published by D.F.S. Thomson in 1970. The first editor to make use of R was Ellis in 1902, but the importance of R was not acknowledged properly until Mynors' edition in 1958. their apparatus. 29 Harrison argued that, since the textual transmission of Catullus is considerably flawed, there is a greater need than usual for conjectures in the text and for alternative readings in the apparatus. The only edition of Catullus that meets the demands for emending the text, Goold's text from 1983, does not supply an apparatus. Accordingly, the ideal text should combine the conjectural boldness of Goold with an extensive and conjecturally informative apparatus. Harrison summarised his views by suggesting three editorial principles: 30 1. The text should have an apparatus criticus which is free of minor orthographical variants. Since the apparatus will already be more than usually extensive due to the mentioning of variant readings, recordings of orthographical variants without any bearing on the meaning should be avoided. 2. The apparatus should cite the three main manuscripts OGR singly rather than using the sigla V, X or A to indicate accordance between the manuscripts. OGR vary sufficiently at crucial points to make this a significant help to the reader. 3. Due to the poor transmission of Catullus' poetry the text and the apparatus should contain more conjectural solutions than usual. Numerous conjectures worth mentioning have been made in the past; and there are still many unsolved problems and good conjectures to be made. citing the codices recentiores individually rather than using collective sigla like Mynors and Thomson. 32 Since Kiss has identified and listed some 129 of the codices recentiores, 33 I believe that citing the manuscripts individually will be of great help to the reader who wishes to check the references given in the apparatus. I cite the manuscripts in accordance with Kiss' identification of them, and I list them in section 1.4.2 of this introduction. Finally, neither of the manuscripts O, G and R is considered decisively superior to the others in establishing the text of Catullus. When the manuscript readings differ, I therefore choose to print whichever reading (or conjecture) I find is of greatest merit. 34 The present edition is based on my own transcription and collation of the manuscripts O (fols. 28r-29v) and G (fols. 26v-27v) which are accessible in high resolution digital images on Dániel Kiss' Catullus Online. An Online Repertory of Conjectures on Catullus. 35 The manuscript R, located in the Vatican Library, has not been available to me. When referring to R I primarily rely on D.F.S. Thomson He who looked down on all the boundaries of the great universe, Who learnt the risings and settings of the stars, How the flaming brightness of the rapid sun grows dark, How the constellations fade at certain times, How, secretly banishing Selene beneath the rocks of Mount Latmos, 5 Sweet love calls her down from her airy orbit; That man, Conon, saw me in the heavenly light, A flowing lock of hair from Berenice's head, Shining brightly, whom she promised with vows to the gods, As she stretched out her smooth arms, 10 At the time when the king, blessed with a new wedding, Had set out to lay waste the Assyrian borders, As he carried sweet traces of the nocturnal war, Which he had waged over virginal spoils. Is Venus hated by new brides? Or do they deceive 15 The joys of their parents with false tears Which they shed abundantly on this side of the marriage chamber? They do not, so may the gods help me, grieve truly. So my queen taught me with her many laments, When her new husband had gone off to the grim battles. 20 Or did you not, abandoned, weep for your deserted bed, But rather the lamentable separation from your dear brother? How deeply did anguish devour your mournful marrow! How then, as you were troubled in all your heart, Was your mind cut off when your senses failed! Yet certainly I 25 Have known you as courageous since your early maidenhood. Or have you forgotten that noble deed, by which you obtained a royal Marriage, a deed no stronger man would have dared? But when you, depressed, sent your husband away, which words did you speak! By Jupiter, how often did you dry your eyes with your hand! 30 Which mighty god changed you? Or is it because lovers Do not wish to be far away from the body of their beloved?
And there to all the gods for the sake of your dear husband Not without blood from bulls you vowed me, If he should come back. In no time at all 35 He had added Asia to the borders of Egypt. For these achievements I, given as due to the heavenly crowd, Discharge those former vows with a new gift. Unwillingly, o queen, did I leave your head, Unwillingly: I swear by you and your head; 40 May anyone who swears falsely by this get what she deserves! But who can claim to be equal to iron? Even that mountain was overthrown, the greatest in the world Over which Thia's illustrious descendant is carried, When the Persians gave birth to a new sea, and when the youth 45 Of the Orient sailed with the fleet through the middle of Mount Athos. What can locks of hair do, when such things succumb to iron? By Jupiter, may the whole race of the mining Chalybes perish, And he who first began to search for veins underground And to increase the hardness of iron. 50 Just after I was severed my sister locks were mourning my fate, When the brother of Ethiopian Memnon showed himself, Beating the air with his rapidly moving wings, The winged horse of the Locrian Arsinoe, And lifting me through the airy waves he flies away, 55 And places me in the chaste bosom of Venus. For this reason Zephyritis herself had chosen him as her messenger, The Greek inhabitant on the Canopian shores. Then, so that not only the golden crown from Ariadne's temples Should be fixed in the diverse light 60 Of the clear sky, but that I too should shine, The devoted spoil of a blond head, As I came a little wet from the billow to the temples of the gods, The goddess placed me as a new constellation among the old. For touching the Virgin's and the savage Lion's 65 Lights, close to Callisto the Bear, daughter of Lycaon, I move to my setting, as a guide before the slow Bear-keeper, Who is barely dipped in the deep ocean late at night. But even though the steps of the gods trample me by night, The dawn, however, restores me to white-haired Thetys; 70 (Allow me at this point to speak, virgin Nemesis, For I will not hide the truth through any fear, Not even if the constellations rend me with their hostile words; I will on the contrary express the secrets from the bottom of my heart:) I am not as happy at this as I am tormented at being absent 75 Forever absent from my mistress' head, With whom I already as a virgin, devoid of matrimonial Perfumes, once drank many cheap scents. Now you, whom the marriage torch has united on the longed-for day, Do not yield your bodies to your loving husbands, 80 While you bare your breasts with your garment thrown away, Until the perfume jar pours delightful presents to me, Your perfume jar, you who honor the laws of the chaste marriage bed. But she who gives herself to filthy adultery, However, I believe that the first line of Callimachus' poem, unknown to Calphurnius, 41 is instructive in establishing the right verb in Catullus. Pfeiffer (1949: 112) notes that γραμμαί is an astronomical terminus technicus: "γραμμαί h.l. non solum lineae, quibus caelum in partes dividitur, sed etiam delineationes 'geometricae' siderum esse videntur". 42 Pfeiffer (1949: 112) goes on to suggest that Callimachus in lines 1 and 7 perhaps juxtaposes the act of looking down on an astronomical map and of looking up at the sky. In a note to his translation of the line Trypanis (1958: 81) also suggests that "on the charts of the stars the sky was divided by lines into sections. This is probably the meaning of ἐν γραμμαῖσιν." Finally, Harder (2012: 802) agrees that Conon "studied the maps of the stars or an astronomical globe and then discovered the shape of [40][41][42]: 'For when those born blind, who have never seen the lights of the sun.' 41 Apart from a few ancient testimonia Callimachus' poem was unknown until the publications by Vitelli 1929 andLobel 1952. For a schematic presentation of the transmission of the poem see Hansen & Tortzen 1973: 32. 42 Pfeiffer 1949: 'γραμμαί seem in this place not only to be the lines, by which the sky is divided into parts, but also the 'geometrical' sketches of the constellations.' the new constellation, which was not yet in the maps, in the sky (cf. 7 ἐν ἠέρι)." This sense of juxtaposition between looking down at the maps and then looking up at the sky is perfectly expressed by the paradosis despexit, but it is lost in Calphurnius' and McKie's conjectures. Barrett (1982: 136) notes that Latin "has no equivalent to γραμμαί" and concludes that despicere "which usually implies looking down from a height, is a splendid verb to use of an omniscient astronomer who can survey the whole universe by looking down at his charts." Although Catullus uses despicere in the sense of 'despise' in 64.20, which is the only other place in his opera where the verb is transmitted, I agree with Barrett that Catullus, in order to elucidate the sense of looking down in Callimachus' ἐν γραμμαῖσιν, might have written despexit in place of the neutral ἰδών, 'having looked at', in Callimachus. Therefore, I think that the manuscripts are right in transmitting despexit, although Calphurnius' conjecture is very elegant indeed.
limina Rehm 1934, lumina OGR: In connection with magni ... mundi (66.1), 'of the great universe', Rehm's conjecture is a natural translation of Callimachus' astronomical terminus technicus ὅρον, which, according to the parallels to Aristotle's De generatione et corruptione given in Pfeiffer (1949: 112), means something like 'the limit of the sky'; cf. Trypanis (1958: 82)  Goold's reading auctatus, 'enlarged by', avoids the hiatus in the manuscripts; but the transmitted auctus is in better accordance with Catullan practice. Catullus uses the participle of augeo twice (64.25, 64.165) in the sense of 'blessed with' (OLD s.v. 6b), transmitted by the manuscripts, but he does not use the participle of aucto anywhere else; instead he uses the verb once (67.2), transmitted by the manuscripts as well. Thus, the Aldine reading nouis auctus hymenaeis (see previous entry) will be the best way to avoid the hiatus transmitted by the manuscripts.

anne MS 52, atque OGR:
A disjunctive conjunction is needed, since the second question poses an alternative to the first question. The reading anne is in accordance with line 27, and it is palaeographically close to the paradosis.
17. citra Nisbet 1978, intra OGR Catullus uses neither intra, 'within', nor citra, 'on this side of', elsewhere in his poems. Therefore, the choice of reading depends on the tricky sense of thalami. According to LSJ (s.v.) θάλαμος can 49 Cat. 64.141: 'But a happy marriage, but a long-desired wedding.' 50 Cf. for instance the many contracted forms in the lock's speech, such as cognoram for cognoveram (66.25), alis for alius (66.28) and tristi for trivisti (66.30). For morphological contraction as a part of colloquial diction in Roman comedy see Karakasis 2014: 568. mean (i) an inner room or chamber; (ii) a women's apartment in the house; (iii) a bedroom; (iv) a bride-chamber / bedroom of an unmarried son; (v) the house in general. According to OLD (s.v.) thalamus can mean (i) an inner chamber or apartment, esp. for sleeping; (ii) the bedroom or apartment occupied by a married couple. The noun is attested twice in Callimachus (Ep. 5.9; Hymn 6.112), but never in relation to marriage. In Catullus, the noun is attested in two other places:  Cat. 61.185: uxor in thalamo tibi est 51  Cat. 68.103-4: ne Paris abducta gauisus libera moecha otia pacato degeret in thalamo. 52 In 61.185 the sense is clearly (ii) 'marriage-chamber', whereas the sense in 68.104 is probably (i) 'bedroom'. However, as Catullus 61.76-106 tell how noua nupta, 'the new bride' (cf. 66.15), weeps as she walks out of the doors of her family house to the bridegoom's cubile, 'bed', I find Nisbet's conjecture attractive. As a possible parallel Nisbet (1978: 101) points to Medea's return in:  Ov. Met. 7.238: constitit adueniens citra limenque foresque 53 The corruption may have occured through a scribe misreading ci for in or through normalisation, since intra is a commoner preposition than citra.

limina MS 31, lumina OGR
In the context lumina, 'lights', does not make any sense, while limina, 'thresholds', fits well with citra and thalami, marking the boundaries outside of which the brides shed their tears. The noun lumina occurs frequently throughout the poem, but in this place as in 66.1 the manuscripts must have mistaken limina for lumina.
18. iuerint ed. 1472, iuuerint OGR: Fordyce (1961: 332) argues that iuerint "is in origin an s-aorist optative formation" and shows that the form is attested in Plautus, Terence and Propertius. The parallels to Roman comedy fits well with the lock's general manner of speech (cf. entry 12 on ierat). The change into iuuerint has probably occured through normalisation.
21. aut Hertzberg 1862, et OGR (al. at G 2 R 2 ), an Puccius 1502: The paradosis does not seem the right way of beginning the line. What is needed is rather a disjunctive conjunction introducing the question. Puccius' an is certainly a possibility. But given et and the alternative at in the manuscripts, I think that Hertzberg's conjecture is better. The first letter is separated from the rest of the line in O; and monosyllables at the beginning of a line are in general liable to corruption (Kenney 1958: 65). Sometimes (though rarely) aut is abbreviated to a t in medieval manuscripts (Cappelli 1982: 34). If the first letter was lost in the manuscript, the scribe could easily corrupt aut into et. For aut introducing an alternative question see Catullus 29.21.

quam Bentley 1697, cum OGR:
Bentley's quam turns the line into an exclamation which fits the context. The corruption may have occured through a scribe misreading quam for quom and a later scribe correcting quom into cum. Cf. quom in the sense of cum in the Gallus fragment (Plate IV in Anderson, Parsons and Nisbet 1979 [unnumbered page]). Trappes-Lomax (2007: 19) even argues that Catullus "spelled the conjunction quom not cum."

te add. Avancius
The addition of te is necessary (i) in order to make a long syllable of the naturally short at before the two short syllables <te> ego (with elision) and (ii) as a direct object for cognoram. It has probably been lost due to double haplography: at(te)ego.

quo Puccius 1502, quam OGR:
Puccius' conjecture expresses the instrumental sense of facinus, 'deed'. The medieval abbreviations of qui and its oblique forms are liable to be confused.

fortior GR, forcior O, fortius MS 129a
The reading of the manuscripts qualifies Berenice, while the conjecture qualifies facinus, 'deed'. Both of these readings make good sense in the context. I choose to print the paradosis partly because it is the lectio difficilior (it is easier to imagine fortior being corrupted into fortius because of quod than the other way around), and partly because the adjective fits well with Berenice's display of bravery when she had her adulterous first husband, Demetrius the Fair, killed as she caught him in bed with her mother. 54 31. tantus OGR, tantum MSS recentiores: The conjecture tantum, 'so much', expresses the extent to which Berenice has been changed from her previous brave state of mind (66.27-29) into her present sorrowful condition. The paradosis indirectly expresses the extent to which Berenice has changed by referring to the greatness of the god who has changed her (probably Amor). The reading of the manuscripts could be a corrupted form due to assimilation, agreeing with quis, but it is not unparalleled:  (1908: 419-20) argues that uen in the sense of Venus is "eine übergeschriebene erklärende Glosse" like uen for diua in Cat. 64.8 (O, fol. 21r). This leaves us with the manuscript reading hi dii ibi which is close to hic liquidi, as cl and d are easily confused in the manuscripts (cf. Cat. 7.5: oraclum] oradum OR, ora dum G).

uuidulam Guarinus 1521, uindulum OGR:
The paradosis is unmetrical. The conjecture matches Callimachus' λουόμενον, 'washed', unknown to Guarinus, and is in accordance with Catullus' predilection for coining diminutives. 69 The strokes in -uui-are likely to be read as -uin-by an inattentive scribe. As mentioned above, -a-and -u-are so paleographically close that confusion easily occurs. The antropomorphism of Bentley's conjecture seems to strecth the meaning too much. The lock is the narrator of the poem, and it is therefore natural for her to utter words (and probably also for the stars to understand them). Nisbet 1978, uere OGR, ueri MS 31: As Nisbet (1978 notes, "vere is not an adverb naturally found with euoluere, which is not primarily a verb of speaking." The conjecture ueri is attractive and generally accepted in modern editions, but it is also unparalleled. Nisbet's conjecture imi is palaeographically close to the paradosis (cf. Lachmann's conjecture is closest to enabling this proximity, as the two constellations certainly could be shining next to each other, if all the constellations had fallen from the heaven. Critics sometimes object that this destruction of the universe would kill Berenice and so prevent the lock from optaining her wish to be reunited with the queen; but as Heyworth (2015: 78 Nisbet & Hubbard 1970: 295. Cf. Du Quesnay 2012 136) has recently argued, the line could simply illustrate that the lock is so eager "to return to Berenice's head that it wishes for the destruction of the universe in order to bring this about." The further implications of the proposed catastrophe should probably not be taken too literally. However, although the last part of the poem by Callimachus is in a severely fragmentary condition, the poem seems to have contained two further lines. According to Harder (2012: 852) an initial χαῖρε, 'farewell', "seems fairly certain", while the papyrus also attests the words φίλη τεκέεσσι, 'dear to (your) children'. Lobel (1952: 98), the first editor of the papyrus, suggested in his commentary that the correct reading might have been φίλη τοκέεσσι, 'dear to ( 66.33, and Heyworth (2015: 136) further demonstrates that poem 67 can begin in a perfectly intelligible and Catullan manner with the vocative ianua (67.3). For parallels to the sense of salue as 'farewell' at the end of an address or a hymn and to its similarity to the Greek χαῖρε, see the list and discussion in Heyworth (2015: 136-37).