'Recovering' Catullus 64

[falmouth]

I am interested in a sort of thought-experiment vis-a-vis Catullus 64 - namely, how much of the text of Catullus 64 could one have hoped to recover had the text itself been entirely lost: from two perspectives - (i) first, if one knew exactly where to look (i.e. with the benefit that we know the text); (ii) second, if one was only proceeding on well-directed guesswork. 

My intuition is that the answer is likely to be 'quite a lot' - given, for example, on the one hand, verbal allusions in Ov. Her. 10; Ov. AA 1.527-64; Ov. Her. 10; Aeneid 4, Geo. 4 (Crabbe, A. M. (1977) 'Ignoscenda quidem ... Catullus 64 and the Fourth Georgic' CQ 27 pp. 342-51) etc. and, on the other hand, what appear to be direct verbal borrowings in the Ciris (many listed in Bellinger, A. R. (1922) 'Catullus and the Ciris' TAPA 53 pp. 73-82 - totalling parts of nearly 50 lines in Catullus 64, often with words reappearing in the exact same sedes).

To take the first lines as an example: 

Peliaco quondam prognatae vertice pinus
dicuntur liquidas Neptuni nasse per undas
Cat. 64.1-2

We can see that Catullus actual words are reflected in both:

Prima malas docuit mirantibus aequoris undis
  *Peliaco pinus vertice* caesa vias,
Ov. Am. 2.11.1-2

nondum caesa suis, peregrinum ut viseret orbem,
montibus in *liquidas pinus* descenderat *undas*,
nullaque mortales praeter sua litora norant;
Ov. Met. 1.94-6

(where reference to these lines are accompanied by allusions to other parts of Cat. 64 - (1) Ov. Am. 2.11.1-2: 'prima' of the Argo - cf. Cat. 64.11; 'mirantibus aequoris' cf. Cat. 64.15 'aequoreae monstrum Nereides admirantes'; (2) Ov. Met. 1.94-6 cf. esp. Cat. 64.16-8; also interesting (reproducing words in same sedes for no particular apparent reason other than to reinforce the allusion?) - compare Ov. Met. 1.95: '*montibus* in liquidas pinus descenderat *undas* with Cat. 64.281 '*montibus* ora creat, quos propter fluminis *undas*' Catullus 64.281; and (3) with the benefit of knowing the text of Cat. 64 - we can see that Ovid seems to point out that he is echoing the *opening* lines of Cat. 64 at Ov. Am. 2.11.1-2 (i) by one opening his poem with these lines; and (ii) with the marker 'prima' as first word).  

Also, 

hic ego ventosas *nantem* delphina *per undas* 
cernere non dubia sum mihi visa fide,
Ov. Her. 19.199-200

(cf. Cat. 64.2 - that this is an allusion to Cat. 64, seemingly confirmed by 'ventosas' cf. Cat. 64.15)

Also?

ut quondam Creta fertur Labyrinthus in alta

parietibus textum caecis iter ancipitemque

Aen. 5.588-9

(is V. echoing Catullus' description of the Argo ('quondam... fertur' cf. 'quondam ... dicuntur') in describing the labyrinth (i.e. the (largely omitted) subject matter of Cat. 64) - cf. for the timberwork Cat. 64.10).

Also?

nos sumus, Idaeae sacro de uertice pinus, 230

nunc pelagi nymphae, classis tua.

Aen. 10.230-1 (Jenkyns notes the allusion)

I.e. it is not impossible that one could come up with at least:

Peliaco quondam              vertice pinus

            liquidas                      per undas

From these allusions alone (and I am sure that there must be other allusions to Cat. 64.1-2 elsewhere). 

Is anyone aware of a systematic listing of allusions to Catullus 64 in Vergil? (Or, I suppose, Ovid - although these are somewhat easier to come by at least in the passages dealing with Ariadne). Or other authors - what about Martial, Statius, Lucan etc.?

What about the grammarians - I'm aware of a handful of references to Catullus in Servius - has anyone collected all references to Catullus in the grammarians? And is there evidence of glosses of Catullan words in the grammarians, but not attached to Catullus by name?

I believe that I have read somewhere that the actual text of Catullus 64 became unknown at a relatively early stage for ancient readers - is that right? Can anyone point me to when that might have been (and how that was demonstrated)? 

Say all one knew of Catullus was that it treated the Ariadne episode, could one ever have hoped e.g. to discern through its ancient reception that it also referred to the voyage of the Argo and the marriage of Peleus and Thetis? 

The point of the thought experiment is mainly as a kind of 'control' on hopes that substantial parts of the actual text of e.g. Cinna's Smyrna and Calvus Io could be potentially recoverable via its ancient reception and in particular the Ciris (an endeavour that of course has already been attempted by many), there being reason to believe that the prospects would be even greater for the Smyrna, in particular, and the Io than for Catullus 64 given (i) that these appear to have been rather more famous poems; and (ii) the Ciris-poet, in particular, seems to have directly borrowed from the Smyrna, especially, and the Io probably to a lesser extent, but both to a greater extent than Cat. 64. Further, one could hope to gain important insights into the techniques of how e.g. Ovid may have responded to these poems, by his response to Cat. 64 - e.g. sometimes leaving words in the same sedes (line beginnings, clausulae, responding to metrical patterns); combining reminiscences from more than one part of the poem; variation and employment of synonyms; compound verbs for simple verbs and vice versa etc. etc.).