CATULLUS 68 - Scuola Normale Superiore

address in poem 68 for a number of reasons. 64 These have been discussed above (see pages 24f.); only one of
them stands up to scrutiny, the familiar or informal use of the praenomen among close friends – but line 9 of
this poem suggests that Catullus was not particularly close to the addressee. At any rate, these arguments
would prove not that Mani is the correct reading here, but merely that it is possible. The praenomen needs to
be supported by a concrete argument; and Morgan provides one by pointing out an apparent verbal echo of
line 28 of the present poem in a letter sent to Cicero by the notorious rake Manius Curius during the next
decade. 65 The phrase does not occur anywhere else in surviving Latin literature. Now lines 27-29 of this
poem could constitute a direct quotation from the letter Catullus is replying to. Morgan concludes that “it is
hard to resist the temptation to identify Catullus’ friend and correspondent with Cicero’s friend and
correspondent, Manius Curius.” 66
There are two problems with this run of thought. First of all, Morgan assumes that de meliore nota in line 28
must be a quotation from the letter of Catullus’ addressee. That is a gamble, and in fact lines 27-29 probably
paraphrase a section of the letter of the addressee rather than quoting it ad litteram (see ad loc.), though they
could evidently use individual phrases from it in doing so. Secondly, Morgan believes that the recurrence of
the phrase de meliore nota is significant, that is to say, he sees it as a verbal mannerism of one particular
individual. He dismisses Shackleton Bailey’s view of de meliore nota as “highly colloquial” on the ground
that “a ‘highly colloquial’ ancient Latin phrase should be attested in works of prose by several ancient
authors distributed broadly throughout an interval of several decades or even centuries” and concludes that a
“phrase which is attested only twice, within an interval spanning only a single decade, and which moreover
nicely occupies the second half of a pentameter, is likely to be not a ‘colloquialism’ but rather an
idiosyncratic poeticism.” 67 There are two problems with this line of reasoning. First of all, there is nothing
poetical about Curius’ short note to Cicero. Secondly, Morgan appears to assume that we have a good
knowledge of colloquial Latin, so if a phrase is attested only twice in our sources and not ten, twenty or forty
times, it can hardly be attributed to it. That is not the case: the stylized, formal Latin that was used by most
Roman writers should not be confused with the language that they will have used at dinner parties. The
colloquial Latin of the lower classes only survives in Petronius, in Pompeian graffitti and in a number of
other inscriptions; the colloquial Latin of the educated classes only survives in letters and on occasion also in
other literary genres such as satire and technical prose. The fact that de meliore nota only occurs in Catullus
found it strange that an abbreviated praenomen was not followed by a gentilicium and changed manius to manlius; (iv)
in some MSS this was corrupted further to mamlius, manilius and mimlius. Morgan’s idea that here manlius arose
directly from malius is implausible, as it would not account for the survival of the abbreviated form of the praenomen
alongside its full corrupt form.
64
Morgan 2008: 148f.
65
Curius ap. Cic. Fam. 7.29.1 (written in November 45 B.C.). On Manius Curius see RE s.v. Curius, 6 and Morgan’s
article, which provides rich prosopographical detail.
66
Morgan 2008: 142.
67
Shackleton Bailey 1977: 2.263; Morgan 2008: 149f.
35