The article pleads the authenticity of three Catalepton poems. At the beginning arguments against two schools of criticism are submitted. Substantial evidence is available neither for the older one which regarded most of the poems as un-Virgilian on the basis of the poet’s presumed character (cherry-picking a few pieces as Virgilian), nor for the newer one, which declares the unauthenticity of all the poems on the basis of the existence of pseudepigraphic literature. Both schools support their cause by the alleged occurrence of post- Horatian and post-Virgilian features (quotations and allusions to Horace and Virgil and metrical dependence). Then the three poems are translated, analysed and interpreted, their quality, originality, and specific interest demonstrated and their proximity to Catullus and transformation of Catullan motifs are given prominence. From all the philological procedures of the article the conclusion to be drawn is that the most plausible candidate for the poems' author is the young Virgil himself. – An old crux in Catalepton 13, 6 is healed: et lingua qua mas sim tibi.