Clausen article on Callimachus

The poet Callimachus

I read the chapter "Callimachus and Latin Poetry" by Wendell Clausen and answered the following questions about it.

How does Catullus figure in this article?
Catullus is mentioned in only three places in the article, and in none of those does he figure prominently. Catullus is spoken of in the same breath and with the same context and detail as the poet Cinna. Clausen does mention the lines Catullus wrote upon the publication of Zmyrna, but the discussion is still about Cinna and his poem.

What kind of specialized knowledge does Clausen expect from his readers?
Clausen expects his readers to be fluent in both Latin, which should be expected, and Greek, which is slightly more rare. Many of the passages in the article only make sense, and his points only make sense, if the reader is able to read Greek, such as on page 190. Clausen also expects his reader to have a wide and deep knowledge of Latin poetry in general and of the prominent poets in particular. While he does devote time to explaining the works of Virgil, the works of Catullus are referred to off-hand and without depth. Even the person Parthenius himself is referred to without an explanation, as if every reader should be aware of the teachers of these poets, as well as the poems (proems) themselves.

How well does he document his claims with references to ancient sources and modern scholarship?
Clausen makes some piquant claims, such as that Callimachus was ignored until Parthenius showcased him to the hungry, listening poets of his time, and Clausen draws the support for this claim from obscure ancient sources and few modern soures. Oddly enough, the bulk of references to P’s contemporaries focuses on Virgil, the champion of Roman epic poetry, while claiming that Virgil was a devotee of Callimachus and overcame his objections later, only to return to them after finishing work on Aeneid. Clausen also dwells on the poetry of Euphorion, although since little of Euphorion’s poetry remains, there are not many references to draw from him.

Does he limit his purview to close study of a few literary texts, in the fashion of New Criticism?
No, instead of a close study of a very few texts, Clausen mentions many texts in passing and assumes the reader is able to supply the relevant passages. On page 190 he refers briefly to Catullus 95, and then jumps to listing poets like Lycophron and Nonnus and dismissing them in turn. Clausen discusses Callimachus briefly and then compares him to Ennius, repudiating Ovid’s opinion of both but not explaining where Ovid might have received that impression nor citing passages that might support his own conclusions.
Does he attempt to contextualize and illuminate literary texts by careful study of various--literary and non-literary--pieces of evidence, in the fashion of New Historicism?
There are few displays of New Historicism in this article, although the discussion of Greek geography and the mention of the contemporary civil wars in Rome may qualify.

Do you detect any similarities between Clausen's style and approach, and those of his subject Callimachus?
Yes, Clausen also does not see a need to dwell at length on any subject, and he is fond of the epigram and of barbed comments to those with whom he disagrees. The article ends with an accusation by Clausen that Virgil regretted not following the exhortations of Callimachus more closely, a theory which he does not support.

What does this article add to the study of Catullus? of Roman poetry?
This article does explicate the uniqueness of Callimachus in Greek poetry and also fleshes out some of the sources to which Catullus may have looked when he started writing his own decidedly non-epic poetry. .

How might he or we improve it?
This article would be improved by citing fewer poets and instead going into more detail about them. Instead assuming the readers know the work of Catullus and can supply the support for the statements of similarity themselves, the article could cite some passages of Catullus. Similarly, instead of mentioning Ennius and then dismissing him, the article could leave him out altogether. Finally, translating the Greek, even into Latin, would great improve the intelligibility of the article.