CATULLUS 68 - Scuola Normale Superiore

nos For ‘we’ meaning ‘I’ see line 17n. nostri. Trappes-Lomax (2007: 230) would write me with the first
Aldine edition, as everywhere else in this poem Catullus would be using the singular (but see line 17) and
because the alliteration in me mente would be preferable (but would it not sound like a stutter?).
The Augustan poets often use the polite plural when turning down a request in a formal act of recusatio, as at
Prop. 1.7.5, Hor. Od. 1.6.5 and Ov. Am. 2.18.3.
mente maligna When applied to a person, malignus can mean ‘grudging, niggardly’ (OLD s.v. 1 and TLL
IA, and note the antonyms malignus largus at Pl. Bac. 401), but from this period onwards also ‘ill-disposed,
unkind’ (OLD 3 and TLL IIA, and compare Cat. 67.3-5 ianua, quam Balbo dicunt seruisse benigne ...
quamque ferunt rursus gnato seruisse maligne); here a hint of the latter meaning may already be present. In
Latin, mente is often used with an adjective in its proper sense to describe a state of mind, as here (see further
TLL 8.728.45-730.40); in the vulgar language this construction comes to be used more widely and gives rise
to the adverbs of the Romance languages (see Väänänen 1963: 98f.).
38 id facere Not colloquial, pace Thomson, but just unpoetic: well attested in comedy (Pl. Asin. 67, 213
and 853, Mil. 1277, Poen. 24, etc., Ter Andr. 613, Eun. 1070 and Hec. 266) and prose (Cic. Ver. 2.5.151, Inv.
1.70, Rep. 1.10 and Fam. 2.1.1, Caes. B.G. 4.16.6, Var. L.L. 6.67 and R.R. 9.96, Liv. 22.56.4, Vell. 2.71.3,
Plin. N.H. 24.181 and Epist. 2.5.10, Quint. Inst. 4.2.87, etc.; not in Sallust or Tacitus), but in classical poetry
only found here and at [Sen.] Oct. 454. Other similar phrases are equally rare in non-comic poetry: note Cat.
85.1 id faciam, Lucr. 2.141 id faciant and 2.292 id facit, and Ov. Tr. 3.14.7 ita fac.
animo non satis ingenuo A characteristic or action is ingenuus if it befits a free-born Roman, as do
bashfulness (61.79 ingenuus pudor), keeping one’s part of a deal (110.5) and being generous to a friend in
distress (here). The use of ingenuus to mean ‘generous’ is post-classical and rare (TLL 7.1.1548.6-10).
39 non utriusque utriusque indicates unambiguously that Manlius has made two requests, and that
munera et Musarum et Veneris in line 10 must be taken to refer to two different items. In fact, this is also
suggested by the rest of the poem (cfr. on line 10, and see also the Introduction, p. 52). This removes the
raison d’être of the conjectures of Hermes (1888: 14) and Nisbet (1978: 105), who assume that utriusque
must be corrrupt, since there can have been made only one request. There may have been a similar rationale
to the conjecture of Nicolaus Heinsius (ap. Santenius). In any case, all three can be excluded on quite
unconnected grounds. Heinsius’ prius usque and Hermes’ penite usque are hard to understand, in particular
usque, the use of which would be unparalleled here (Hermes compares Prop. 2.8.15f. usque / in nostrum
iacies uerba superba caput?, but there usque simply means ‘always’). Nisbet considers rewriting much of
the line to read quod tibi non (or nulla) hucusque petenti exempla paraui; his substitute for utriusque is
hucusque, but that is not attested in this temporal sense until the 4 th century A.D.: see TLL 6.3.3072.46-58.
utriusque is surely correct.
However, there has been controversy about the meaning of non utriusque: does it indicate that Catullus
rejects both Manlius’ requests, or only one of them? Should it be interpreted as neutrius ‘of neither’ or as
148