CATULLUS 68 - Scuola Normale Superiore

describes two symptoms of Manlius’ misfortune, a lack of sexual relief (lines 5f.) and of suitable readingmatter
(7f.). These are introduced by nec … nec … , which stands in parallel to et … et … here. There is a
similar bipartite division in the central part of the poem, in which Catullus describes why he is unable to
comply with Manlius’ requests: he explains first that he has no love-life to speak of (lines 15-32) and then
that he has only a couple of books to hand (33-36). Evidently Manlius has made two requests, one for
munera Musarum and one for munera Veneris.
Catullus does not describe directly Manlius’ requests in any other part of the poem. One can only make
conjectures about what Manlius may have asked, and in order to do so one has to interpret the poem as a
whole: this is done in the Introduction.
hinc petis The monosyllable hinc is strongly emphatic: coming after a somewhat harsh elision, it coincides
with the heavy ictus after the diaeresis in the pentameter. Catullus is grateful for the fact that Manlius is
asking for the gifts of the Muses and Venus from him.
For hinc ‘from here (where I am)’, ‘from me’ compare Pl. Truc. 525 sauium sis †pete† hinc (perhaps we
should read sauium pete hinc sis with Bothe; in any case the emendations that have been proposed do not
affect the parallel) and Capt. 964 dic quid fers, ut feras hinc quod petis. The usage seems to have belonged to
the language of conversation (thus also at Pl. Most. 1025, Poen. 1351 and Pseud. 969 as well as Sen. Benef.
6.11.4) and to that of letters (thus here, at Sen. Epist. 68.9 and at Fronto Epist. p. 24.12 Naber = 21.5 van den
Hout 2 ). In Augustan poetry hinc is only used for ab hoc or ab his, and never in a spatial sense but only in a
causal or a genealogical one (thus at Ov. Am. 2.9.16 and Verg. Aen. 1.234f.; see further TLL 6.3.2802.28-43).
The other attestations of hinc ‘from me’ in Catullus are doubtful: at 63.74 the Renaissance emendation huic
seems preferable to the MSS’ hinc, as the line already contains an ablative of separation, while at 116.6 hinc
could be taken in this sense (thus Kroll) or it could mean something else (“on these grounds”, Thomson), or
else one could emend it to huc with Muretus or to hic with an anonymous humanist (Mynors and Fordyce
may be right to accept hic). However we have istinc = ab ista at 76.11 (cfr. Kroll ad loc., and note the
conversational tone of poem 76).
Veneris Giardina (2007) proposed to emend this to Cereris, as munera Cereris is a well-attested
circumlocution for ‘wheat’ and it would be more straightforward than munera Veneris. But as far as we can
tell, the problems of the addressee of Catullus 68a are amorous and not financial or dietary: there is no
reason to question the soundness of the text, and in fact the emendation would change it for the worse (thus
Kiss 2008 and Olszaniec 2008).
11-14 ‘But hear about my own troubles, so that you will not suspect me of being a neglectful friend and will
no longer seek happy gifts from an unhappy man.’ This is the transition from Catullus’ recapitulation of
Manlius’ letter and his immediate reaction to it to his reply: note sed in line 11.
Rather than denying his friend’s request outright, the poet tactfully sets out the reasons for which which he
cannot comply with it. Manlius has asked him for dona beata, but he is miser and therefore not in the
116