# Catullus 68: frigida deserto tepefactet membra cubili



## Fenoxielo

This has been puzzling all three of us (including the teacher) in my AP Latin class. We're reading Catullus 68, lines 27-30:

Quare quod scribis Veronae turpe Catullo
     esse, quod hic quisquis de meliore nota
frigida deserto tepefactet membra cubili,
     id, Mani, non est turpe, magis miserum est.

There's no problem with the literal meaning of the text, only the interpretation. In our edition (Garrison, 2004), the following note is given on these lines: "Manius' reason for thinking it a shame (27 _turpe_) for Catullus to be in Verona: *provincials sleep alone. *_quisquis de meliore nota:_ anyone who is anyone, i.e. of the upper crust." (emphasis mine)

However, the editor seems to directly contradict the text, as far as we can see, which says _quod hic quisquis de meliore nota / frigida deserto tepefactet membra cubili_— "because here anyone of better note is accustomed to warming their frigid limbs in a deserted bed." Now, we're interpreting "provincials" in Garrison's note to be a negative thing. The other commentaries we're consulted make no note of this line either way (Quinn 1985 & Thomson 2003) and the apparatus criticus of Mynors' Oxford text gives only alternate tenses for "tepefactet" and one instance of a present indicative rather than a subjunctive, so none of these help us. Can anyone shed any light on this, or is my question so awkwardly and verbosely worded that you can't understand what I want?


----------



## Cagey

Here is my understanding of the line:

"because here [in Rome] anyone of better note is accustomed to warming their frigid limbs in a deserted bed [= Lesbia's bed now deserted by Catullus]."​
I understand your editor's comment "*provincials sleep alone*" to reflect Manius' point of view.   When Catullus is in Verona, he is a provincial, and like them, sleeps alone, in contrast to those he left behind in Rome.  Manius thinks this is a shame.


----------



## Fenoxielo

So you're interpreting _quisquis de meliore nota_ to be referring to Lesbia, rather than Catullus? That's certainly a possibility we hadn't considered.

The other thing I also thought about was that that whole phrase (_quod hic...membra cubili_) was simply explaining that Catullus is currently sleeping alone, i.e. _quisquis de meliore nota_ is Catullus, _hic_ is Verona, and this is only what he's doing at the moment, not a general habit of anyone of note in this area. Although it would seem to me that this interpretation would make more sense if the verb were _tepefacit_, rather than a frequentative, no?


----------



## Cagey

I am afraid my comments were not clear. 

First, I take the lines you are asking about to report the content of a note written by Manius (in Rome) to Catullus (in Verona).  Note the construction (indirect discourse) of "_quod scribis turpe esse_".  The poem goes on to define the "_quod_" that is "_turpe_" from Manius' point of view.  Hence (I think) _hic_ = Rome, where Manius is writing the note. 



Fenoxielo said:


> So you're interpreting _quisquis de meliore nota_ to be referring to Lesbia, rather than Catullus? That's certainly a possibility we hadn't considered.



I think that _quisquis_ refers to all the well known people who are warming their limbs in the bed that Catullus deserted when he left Rome for Verona.   (This also explains the frequentive that you so astutely noted.  A series of these people "fequent" the bed.)  That bed (I assume) is the bed of Catullus' girlfriend, Lesbia.



Fenoxielo said:


> The other thing I also thought about was that that whole phrase (_quod hic...membra cubili_) was simply explaining that Catullus is currently sleeping alone, i.e. _quisquis de meliore nota_ is Catullus, _hic_ is Verona, and this is only what he's doing at the moment, not a general habit of anyone of note in this area. Although it would seem to me that this interpretation would make more sense if the verb were _tepefacit_, rather than a frequentative, no?



I wonder what you think of the idea that this is the content of Manius' note. Does it make sense to you?

Added in edit:
As I see it, the basic structure is "_quod scribis turpe esse ... id Mani, non est turpe..._."  That is, Catullus is giving Manius' opinion first, then responding with his own.


----------



## Fenoxielo

Yes, I understand that this is the content of Manius' note, although since it is indirect (_quod)_, i.e. rephrased by Catullus, couldn't _hic_ still possibly refer to Verona, where Catullus is? I realize there doesn't seem to be any way to confirm this; I'm only playing devil's advocate.

It seems we're in need of some definitive scholarly commentary on this issue.


----------



## Cagey

Fenoxielo said:


> Yes, I understand that this is the content of Manius' note, although since it is indirect (_quod)_, i.e. rephrased by Catullus, couldn't _hic_ still possibly refer to Verona, where Catullus is? I realize there doesn't seem to be any way to confirm this; I'm only playing devil's advocate.
> 
> It seems we're in need of some definitive scholarly commentary on this issue.



My interpretation has precedents in scholarship.  Harrington is one scholar who saw it this way, but many subsequent readers have agreed.  For various reasons, I think it correct.

However, it is not the only plausible interpretation.  Certainly you should  follow your teacher's lead.  The scholarly way you approach the question is a credit to your teacher as well as to you.   

To get back to your original question: Could you understand *provincials* to simply mean "those who live in the provinces", as opposed to the city, and not to carry a derogatory sense?

All the best.


----------



## Fenoxielo

Naturally, provincials could have that sense and not be derogatory, although it wouldn't seem to be a logical explanation for why Manius thought it _turpe_ if it didn't carry the derogatory meaning.

Thank you for all your help!


----------



## wonderment

Cagey’s reading makes perfect sense to me. This is how I would break down the sentence (and I’m really just repeating what Cagey has already said ). 

Quare (Therefore) 

quod (the fact that) scribis (you write) Veronae turpe Catullo esse (that it is shameful for Catullus to be in Verona), quod hic (because here [in Rome]) quisquis de meliore nota (anyone who’s anyone) frigida deserto tepefactet membra cubili (warms his cold limbs in [Lesbia's] bed abandoned [by Catullus]), 

id (this [fact]), Mani (Manius), non est turpe (is not shameful), magis miserum est (but rather miserable).

The first ‘quod’ introduces a substantive clause (one that is used like a noun) = the fact that (yada...yada...yada) = what Manlius writes in his letter = ‘id’ (content of the letter). 'Hic' refers to Rome; Catullus is quoting Manlius directly. 

So what’s ‘turpe’ is the fact that Catullus is not home in Rome to defend his turf and honor (not that he's sleeping alone, that's just plain miserable). As for the provincials, unless they were all celibates the idea that they could be accustomed to sleeping alone seems goofy to me (with apologies to Garrison, the editor of Fenoxielo's book).


----------

