Sallust’s description of Catiline’s profligate retinue at Catiline 14.2-3 contains a well-known textual problem. It is certain that the prodigals at the beginning of the sentence wasted their property by means of three body parts (manu ventre pene). Problematic, however, are the three types of wastrel that immediately precede the body parts, printed in most editions as inpudicus adulter ganeo. Because of the imprecise correspondence between these characters and the body parts, a number of remedies have been proposed, ranging from various emendations that create a more straightforward chiastic structure to complete deletion of inpudicus adulter ganeo as glosses. This paper proposes to shed light on the passage by examining the Greek models that Sallust imitated in constructing it: Theopompus’ description of Philip’s courtiers in Macedon and a passage of invective by the orator Lycurgus. It is concluded that emendation, rather than radical truncation, is the best remedy.
Nitzschner188416. See also McGushin 1977 106-7 ad loc. The suggestion that the tricolon of epithets is a series of glosses was proposed earlier however by Leutsch (1869 237).
Jacobs185230ad loc. Paul 1985 158; Kritz 1856 52 ad loc. Subsequent revisions of Jacobs by Wirz and Kurfess reflect this view. See also Vretska 1976 and McGushin 1977.
Nitzschner188415; Paul 1985 158 n. 7.
Wölfflin18731662. In the Loeb edition (1931) Rolfe prints aleator in the third position instead of aleo misattributing this conjecture to Wölfflin. (See also Rolfe 1920 405.) McGushin (1976 ad loc.) calls Wölfflin’s suggestion “attractive” observing that “clearly articulated chiasmus is a notable feature of S.’s style” but remains hesitant. Wölfflin is usually credited with the adoption of aleo but was anticipated by the Renaissance critic Beroaldus (Filippo Beroaldo 1453-1505) who according to a note quoted in the Delphin Classics variorum edition of Apuleius (Valpy 1825 vol. 5 2078-9 ad subit aleam) made the following comment (apparently this is drawn ultimately from Beroaldus’ own celebrated commentary on Apuleius published in Bologna in 1500 to which the present author does not have access): “Aleatores a Veteribus aleones dicti. Catullus: ‘Quis hoc potest videre quis potest pati Nisi impudicus et vorax et aleo?’ Ita apud Salustium legendum est illud ex Catilina: ‘Quicunque impudicus adulter ganeo aleo manu ventre pene bona patria laceraverat.’ Sincerior enim lectio est et tersior ut legatur aleo quam alea: sicut in pervulgatis codicibus scriptum invenitur.” It is noteworthy that Beroaldus does not strike adulter but instead if the punctuation reflected in the Delphin edition is correct takes impudicus adjectivally with adulter rather than substantivally as it appears in Catullus 29.
See Carroll199183-7for possible authors and dates. Cf. also Purcell 1995 18.
On Sallust and chiasmus see Steele189013-29and Latte 1962 4-5. However in neither of these useful studies it appears is the possible chiasmus of inpudicus etc. in 14.2 mentioned (perhaps due to the textual uncertainties); surprisingly the undisputed example of 14.3 is also neglected (quos manus atque lingua periurio aut sanguine civili alebat).
See the studies of Perrochat (1949) and Avenarius (1957).
So Kritz185652ad loc.; alternatively Cicero’s mention of adulteri and impudici in the same litany may have prompted scribal revision of Sallust’s figure.
Avenarius195756; Latte 1962 38-9; McGushin 1977 105; Paul 1985 161.
Jacobs-Wirz-Kurfess1922ad loc. Büchner 1982 329.
See also Syme1964244n. 25.
See Wankel 1976 1258 ad loc. Usher (1993) compares Cat. 14.2. See also Worman 2008 270. Athenaeus quotes a line from Timon’s Silloi which ridicules Epicurus: γαστρὶ χαριζόµενος τῆς οὐ λαµυρώτερον οὐδέν (Ath. 7.279f ); on Timon of Phlius (c. 320-230 BC) and his Silloi see OCD3. On inspiration of this line by Od. 7.216 cf. Canfora et al. 2001 ad loc. See also Cic. ND 1.113 and Pease’s commentary ad loc. for parallels.
See Koestermann1971ad loc. See also Sallust’s pecora that are ventri oboedientia (Cat. 1.1). Comparable are Philo De Somniis 2.147-8 and Aelian F 114 (Domingo-Forasté).
Nisbet195830; Schindel 1980 86. Readers of Virgil will note the resemblance of lingua vana . . . pedes fugaces in both Sall. Inv. in Cic. 3.5 and Ep. ad Caes. 2.9.2 to Turnus’ rebuke of the orator Drances (the latter character thought by many to be modeled on Cicero but see Horsfall 2003 116 ad Verg. A. 11.122-32) at Verg. A. 11.389-91: an tibi Mavors/ventosa in lingua pedibusque fugacibus istis/semper erit? Horsfall (2003 ad loc.) citing correspondence from Nisbet endorses the view that Sallust’s imitators modified Rutilius’ rendition of Lycurgus using Virgil’s line as opposed to Virgil being influenced by Sallust.
Adams1982128132; OLD s.v. impudicus 1b. Presumably the adulterer dissipated his fortune by paying for the services of married women; cf. Hor. Carm. 3.7.29-32; Prop. 3.13.11-2; Sen. Ben. 1.9.4; 2.14.4; or by paying damages.