Friday, October 25, 2024
Hispid and Uncouth?
John B. Van Sickle, review of Paul Claes, Concatenatio Catulliana: A New Reading of the Carmina (Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 2002), in Classical World 99.1 (Autumn, 2005) 86-87 (at 87):
Gould is a mistake for Goold, i.e., G.P. Goold. See his defence of Bergk's conjecture in "Catullus 3.16," Phoenix 23.2 (Summer, 1969) 186-203 (at 197-198).
Newer› ‹Older
Finally Claes employs the described structures "to support or to correct the reading of the received text" (131), e.g., 1.9, favoring qualecumque quod <est>, patrona uirgo and ruling out patroni ut ergo (Bergk, Fordyce, Goodwin), which Gould once favored in a talk at Yale, causing Clausen to mutter, "My learned colleague has a penchant for readings that are hispid and uncouth"...Clausen is Wendell Clausen, who also in print called Bergk's conjecture uncouth — "Catulli Veronensis Liber," Classical Philology 71.1 (January, 1976) 37-43 (at 38, n. 2).
Gould is a mistake for Goold, i.e., G.P. Goold. See his defence of Bergk's conjecture in "Catullus 3.16," Phoenix 23.2 (Summer, 1969) 186-203 (at 197-198).
Labels: typographical and other errors
