I started this week reading Trappes-Lomax, Catullus: A textual reappraisal, and I got obsessed with this passage from c. 30:
The first problem that editors find is that nec makes little sense here, for it is expected to be balanced with another nec.iam me prodere, iam non dubitas fallere, perfide?
nec facta impia fallacum hominum caelicolis placent,
quae tu neglegis et me miserum deseris in malis. 5
eheu quid faciant, dic, homines cuive habeant fidem?
The second problem is that quae hasn't a natural antecedent.
Ellis have posited a lacuna before 4, to explain both the missing nec and the antecedent of quae.
Trappes-Lomax resolves it another way:
So, he emends nec with num, and quae with quos. (Also he emends placent with latent, because he says that otherwise the verse would be redundant).iam me prodere, iam non dubitas fallere, perfide?
num facta impia fallacum hominum caelicolas latent?
quos tu neglegis et me miserum deseris in malis.
Well, that's a summary, but there are some questions that arose to me, and I'd like to ask your opinion.
First of all, I don't feel bad with facta impia as the antecedent of quae. I wonder why commentaries make so much fuss about that. I just read: "gods don't like evil deeds, which [evil deeds] you make light of", where neglegere would mean to consider meaningless, unimportant. Do you see any problem with this reading?
Secondly, regarding the problem with nec, I had this crazy idea:
"gods don't like evil deeds, which you make light of, nor that you abandon someone to his misery"iam me prodere, iam non dubitas fallere, perfide?
nec facta impia fallacum hominum caelicolis placent
quae tu neglegis nec ut miserum deseras in malis.
(There would be a variatio in the syntax of the sentence governed by placere: inf./acc. ~ ut + subj.)
Is anything wrong with this conjecture? Does it make sense for you? (I mean, metrically and grammatically speaking, and considering also the style of the author). In that case, is there any way to justify, from a textual point of view, the corruption of et me into nec ut?
In case you find it ridiculous, could you explain why? I'm a beginner in textual criticism, and I'd appreciate as well your ruthless sincerity. I consulted Ellis, Mynors and Eisenhut editions, and there is agreement among the manuscripts in this passage, does it mean that I should better refrain from conjecturing here?