¹ These observations of Williams are particularly symptomatic of the subjective approach which I am here arguing against. What would Catullus be doing ‘reversing’ an English proverb, one without, as far as I know, any Roman equivalent? And on what grounds are we assured that ‘si vitam puriter egi’ is not meant as a general statement? True, it is not a general statement; it is not a statement at all, but a conditional clause; but general it certainly is, at least to all appearances.

² With this feature of the topos may perhaps be linked Catullus' reference to death at line 18. This is usually taken as highly exaggerated and rhetorical; after all, in line 5 Catullus is apparently looking forward to a long life (‘in longa aetate’). But perhaps, in view of the suggested ironical tone of line 5, we should take ‘in longa aetate’ also as bitter and ironical: ‘in a long life [if I ever have one].’ It is hardly possible to escape the implication, in the appeal to the gods at the end of the poem, that Catullus is actually presenting himself as on the point of death and in the grip of a disease – even if that disease turns out to be the purely nervous malaise caused by disappointed love. There is of course a temptation to put this together with our knowledge, or supposed knowledge, that Catullus did not actually live very much longer; but perhaps, in attempting to read this poem on its own terms, the temptation should be resisted. The idea that in longa aetate refers to the afterlife need not detain us (Renard, M., Latomus 5 [1946], 357Google Scholar, followed by Khan, H. Akbar, Athenaeum 46 [1968], 54ffGoogle Scholar. – an article which, despite its somewhat exuberant interpretations, shows more sympathy with Catullus'; viewpoint than many other modern accounts).

³ cf. Quinn's commentary ad loc.; Moritz, L. A., G & R 15 (1968), 53–8.Google Scholar

⁴ Or Manlius (if one accepts the reading of R in one of the two places where the name occurs): the two forms are probably interchangeable versions of the same name. Not necessarily the same as Manlius Torquatus, the recipient of Catullus 61; one should be cautious in building theories on the hypothesis of this identification, and the more romantic the theory, the more cautious one should be. Both the reading Mani (as if from the praenomen Manias), and any attempt to link this with the Allius of 68b, are in my view quite misguided. It will be clear that I exclude 68b from consideration when attempting to interpret 68a. The two poems are in my view quite separate.

⁵ Wiseman, T. P., Cinna the Poet (Leicester, 1974), p. 67.Google Scholar

⁶ There is a surprising level of influential support for the idea that Catullus could simply provide Mallius with a new girl on request, and that this is what Mallius wanted. Doubtless Catullus had access to slave girls who could be disposed of in this way, but one does not imagine that what Mallius wanted was an ordinary slave girl. It is not squeamishness about the idea of such trafficking that leads one to reject the hypothesis, but the fact that it presupposes a cynical and commercial attitude which is totally at odds with the emotional involvement of both Catullus and Mallius as displayed in the poem. The alternative idea that Mallius had asked Catullus for a share in Lesbia's favours can scarcely be credited. Roman convention appears to have been that such things could be offered, but not asked for without breach of propriety; and this idea is of course excluded by my interpretation of the poem. For this and previous hypotheses see Wiseman ibid. (cited n. 5).