The Mirror of Catullus: Poems 12, 22, 39, 41, 42 and 84

The Mirror of Catullus: Poems 12, 22, 39, 41, 42 and 84 Susan O. Shapiro Syllecta Classica, Volume 22 (2011), pp. 21-37 (Article) Published by Department of Classics, University of Iowa DOI: 10.1353/syl.2011.0006 For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/syl/summary/v022/22.shapiro.html Access Provided by Utah State University Libraries at 06/28/12 7:29PM GMT SYLLECTA CLASSICA 22 (2011): 21–37 THE MIRROR OF CATULLUS: POEMS 12, 22, 39, 41, 42 AND 84 Susan O. Shapiro Abstract: In poems 12, 22, 39, 41, 42 and 84, Catullus ridicules his characters for a variety of annoying habits (writing bad poetry, stealing others’ belongings, inappropriate smiling, and chronic mispronunciations). he poems have been interpreted as attacks upon their subjects’ provincial or low-class origins, but these habits do not result from accidental circumstances. Catullus’ characters have purposefully cultivated their habits in order to show of their beauty, wit or talent. Unfortunately, their attempts at self-promotion have the opposite efect; their actions demonstrate that they are far less talented, handsome or witty than they believe themselves to be.* In poem 41 Catullus attacks a woman named Ameana, whom he calls ugly (turpiculo naso, 41.3) and well worn (defututa, 41.1), because she has demanded ten thousand sesterces from him.1 In this poem, Catullus criticizes Ameana, not so much for her lack of beauty and questionable reputation per se, but because, considering her unattractive face and dubious reputation, she has priced herself so highly. Ten thousand sesterces was a large sum of money; as we can see from pro Caelio 17, it amounted to one year’s rent for a small apartment on the Palatine.2 * I gratefully acknowledge the valuable help I have received from Craig Gibson and Peter Green, co-editors of Syllecta Classica, and from the two anonymous readers for the journal. he text used is Mynors, with exceptions as noted. All translations are my own. 1 See Neudling 3 and Skinner (1978–79) 110 n. 1 for discussions regarding the textual difficulties surrounding Ameana’s name. References to “Catullus” in this article refer to the first person speaker in Catullus’ poems, not the poet himself. For a thoughtful discussion of Catullus’ poetic persona, see Gaisser 45–71, with a full bibliography. 2 Arkins 166 n. 31. Catullus uses the same amount in poem 103, in which he advises a man named Silo either to return the money he received from Catullus or to admit that he is a pimp and be more accommodating. Here, too, the point is not Silo’s overbearing 22 SYLLECTA CLASSICA 22 (2011) Ameana seems to have demanded the money in return for sexual favors.3 Catullus’ comments in lines 3 and 4 imply that, as an ugly woman who has had many sexual partners, she is foolish to request so high a sum. As Skinner notes, “Ameana thinks of herself as a polished courtesan. In poem 41 the four-times-repeated puella hints at her dogged persistence in these delusions of grandeur. Decoctoris amica Formiani discloses the sleazy reality: she is only the hired sleeping partner of a small-town bankrupt.”4 In lines 5–8 Catullus addresses Ameana’s relatives (propinqui) who are responsible for her welfare, advising them to summon her friends and doctors (line 6); these are people whom she would presumably trust, even if they told her something she did not want to hear. Catullus then explains the problem: the girl is not sane (non est sana puella) and she refuses to see herself for what she really is (lines 7–8).5 he words nec rogare qualis sit solet raise the level of Catullus’ criticism from a snide comment on Ameana’s pretentiousness to the deeper question of selfknowledge: if Ameana took a good look in the mirror, she would see how unattractive she is.6 he nec in line 7 implies a close relationship between the two clauses: because she refuses to acknowledge the truth about herself, the girl has become non sana: she has lost touch with reality. But, despite her illness, the appeal to Ameana’s friends and doctors provides some hope; if they can persuade her to see herself as she really is, Catullus implies, she might be restored to her senses. behavior per se, but rather his refusal to acknowledge the reality of his own situation. On Catullus’ use of exaggerated numbers as a form of satire, see Newman 76–78. 3 Skinner (1978–79) 111. 4 Skinner (1978–79) 113. he decoctor Formianus (41.3 and 43.5) is Mamurra, a native of Formiae and Caesar’s praefectus fabrum in Gaul, whom Catullus attacks by name in poems 29 and 57, and through the derisive pseudonym “Mentula” in poems 105, 114, and 115 (see Neudling 112 and Hornblower). As we learn from poem 114, Mamurra is called rich because he owns a wealthy estate, but, because he spends far more than his farm can produce, he actually has nothing. Mamurra thus seems guilty of the same sort of posturing as his girlfriend. 5 Froelich’s emendation of aes for et of manuscript V is now regarded as certain; see Fordyce 192; Quinn 214; Skinner (1978–79) 111–12 n. 5; homson 311. 6 Commager 103; Green 225. SHAPIRO: THE MIRROR OF CATULLUS 23 Catullus’ exposition of his characters’ self-delusory behavior is the subject of this paper. I will argue that, not only in poem 41, but also in poems 12, 22, 39, 42 and 84, poems in which Catullus ridicules his characters for a variety of annoying habits, the real target of his scorn is not so much the habits themselves, but rather the pretentiousness and self-delusion that such habits reveal (Scott 25). Such habits do not result from provincial or low-class origins; on the contrary, the characters in these poems have carefully cultivated their habits as a way to call attention to their beauty, wit or talent. Unfortunately, their attempts at self-promotion have the opposite efect; not only do others ind their behavior tiresome and annoying, their very actions demonstrate that they are far less talented, handsome or witty than they believe themselves to be.7 he subjects of these poems have not only lost touch with reality, but they all (like Ameana who refuses to look in her mirror) deliberately reject the evidence that could enable them to see themselves more clearly. hus, insofar as Catullus’ poems force their subjects to face the diicult truth, they function as a kind of mirror, through which these characters are inally compelled to see themselves as others see them. In several of these poems Catullus also universalizes the problem; as he exposes his subjects’ self-delusions, Catullus holds his mirror up to his readers as well.8 In poem 22 Catullus describes a man named Sufenus who is charming (venustus), witty (dicax), and polished (urbanus) in social conversation, but whose poems reveal him to be just the opposite: awkward, inelegant, rough and unreined. Since urbanus and the terms closely associated with it (e.g. venustus, lepidus, bellus, dicax, and salsus) are such key terms in Catullus’ poetic vocabulary, and since the nexus of char7 A similar case of self-delusion is neatly summed up in a single line (97.9): hic futuit multas et se facit esse venustum (“he fucks a lot of women and considers himself charming”); see Dettmer 189. 8 As Commager notes (110 n. 87), the image of poetry as a mirror was a familiar one in the ancient world. Cf. Aristotle (Rhet. 1406b12): τὴν ᾿Οδύσσειαν καλὸν ἀνθρωπίνου βίου κάτοπτρον and Cicero (in Pisonem 29.71): delicatissimis versibus … in quibus qui si velit possit istius tamquam in speculo vitam intueri. Mirrors were also closely associated with the maxim, “Know thyself,” e.g. Seneca (Nat. Quaest. 1.17): inventa sunt specula ut homo ipse se noscet; and Diog. Laert. 2.33 on Socrates’ advice to young men “to continually look in the mirror (συνεχὲς κατοπτρίζεσθαι).” 24 SYLLECTA CLASSICA 22 (2011) acteristics that they describe has been the subject of so much scholarly discussion, a brief analysis of their meaning and usage seems appropriate here.9 While these terms (and their corresponding nouns) do describe a complex ideal of witty and reined behavior, the Romans did not consider this concept to be elusive or indeinable, as has sometimes been claimed.10 he frequently-cited Ciceronian passage (Brutus 171), in which Cicero claims to be unable to say what urbanitas is (Nescio, inquam; tantum esse quendam scio), is belied by many other passages, from Cicero and others, in which urbanitas and related terms are described with clarity and precision. In one such passage (De Natura Deorum 2.74), the Stoic speaker compliments his Epicurean interlocutor as being “reined by personal character and Roman sophistication” (te … moribus domesticis ac nostrorum hominum urbanitate limatum), in contrast to Epicurus himself, who is characterized as being “a man without skill or education, insolent toward all, lacking any discernment, dignity, or grace” (hominem sine arte, sine litteris, insultantem in omnes, sine acumine sine auctoritate sine lepore). While the model disposition being delineated here is certainly complex, the type of behavior that the speaker inds praiseworthy is quite clearly described. Note that the ideal disposition includes both intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics; the socially desirable qualities of grace (lepos), reinement (limatus [sc. homo]), and the proper social relationships (nostrorum hominum urbanitas) correspond to the intrinsic qualities of a good personal character (mores domestici), education (ars, litterae), discernment (acumen) and dignity (auctoritas). hus, while some aspects of the polished man-about-town may depend upon an urban (and speciically Roman) social milieu, the personal qualities of education, dignity and discernment are important as well. In a letter to Atticus (7.2.3) Cicero particularly emphasizes such qualities, praising a mutual acquaintance, Manius Curius, whom he had visited at Patrae, because “there is a native reinement in the man” (αὐτόχθων in homine urbanitas est). Cicero’s use of this paradoxical phrase suggests that urbanitas can be something innate and not neces9 Ramage (1973) remains the standard full-length treatment of urbanitas and the qualities related to it. Other notable discussions include Austin 53–54; Havelock 97–121; Ross 104–12; Seager; Wiltshire; Watson; Adamik; Wray 122–29; and Gaisser 9–10. Although I do not always agree with the views expressed by Fitzgerald and Krostenko, I have learned much from their analyses. 10 E.g. Austin 53; Fitzgerald 88–99; Gaisser 9. SHAPIRO: THE MIRROR OF CATULLUS 25 sarily tied to the Roman social milieu. In a subsequent letter (ad Fam. 13.17), Cicero provides speciics, praising Manius Curius’ kindness (humanitas), reverence (observantia), character (mores), honesty (probitas) and modesty (verecundia).11 he attributes of modesty or understatement are frequently included in descriptions of urbanitas and related characteristics.12 In de Oratore 1.17 Cicero describes the ideal orator as one who possesses a certain grace and wit (lepos quidam facetiaeque), an education appropriate to a free man (eruditio libero digna), and a swiftness and brevity in both rebuttal and challenge combined with a delicate charm and sophistication (subtili venustate atque urbanitate). Not only does this description combine social graces with intellectual ability, but the phrase subtilis venustas atque urbanitas implies that a polished speaker’s charm should be reined or understated. Quintilian, too, understands urbanitas as including an “understated learning” (tacitam eruditionem), whose “opposite is boorishness” (rusticitas, 6.3.17–19). Quintilian’s phrase, tacita eruditio, corresponds to Cicero’s subtilis venustas atque urbanitas; together they suggest that the Roman who was truly sophisticated would not be especially eager to show of his learning, skill or talent. Moderate and self-restrained rather than pushy or over-stated, conident in his education, character and judgment as well as his social graces, such a person would feel comfortable in any social situation. Now that we have clariied the meaning of urbanus, urbanitas, and closely related terms, let us now turn to poem 22, in which these concepts igure prominently. Catullus outlines several problems with Sufenus’ poetry. First of all, there is much too much of it. he phrase longe plurimos versus (line 3) connotes a super-superlative quantity, while milia aut decem aut plura perscripta (lines 4–5) implies, by slowly rolling out the ever-increasing numbers, that there could be no quality control for such an enormous output.13 And that is precisely the point. his tremendous body of work implies a certain self-indulgence; because Sufenus takes such great joy in composing his poems (lines 15–17), he does not take the trouble to reine and polish his work. Catullus’ own small book 11 See also ad Fam. 7.28, written to Curius himself. 12 E.g. Havelock 108–12; Wiltshire 323; Syndikus 12; Adamik 80; and Krostenko (2001a). 13 Watson 13. Compare Horace’s complaints about Lucilius in Sat. 1.4.6–13. 26 SYLLECTA CLASSICA 22 (2011) of poems (libellus), described in poem 1 as lepidus (charming) and expolitus (thoroughly polished), provides an instructive contrast. An even sharper contrast appears in poem 95, in which Cinna’s highly-crafted Zmyrna, nine years in the making, is praised as being destined to attract readers in future ages, long after Volusius’ turgid historical verses have been consigned to the dust heap. he point here is that reined poetry is characterized by charm (venustas), discernment (acumen) and polish (urbanitas), just as reined people are (Wiltshire 320–21). But in poem 22 Catullus does not criticize the poor quality of Suffenus’ poetry (cf. poem 14.19) or even the excessive quantity of it, as much as he focuses on Sufenus’ misplaced pride in his own poetic creations (Commager 105). While others jot down their verses on re-used scraps of papyrus (palimpsesto), Sufenus lovingly records his poems in the inest of fancy new editions (lines 6–8), and he is inordinately proud of himself for writing them (tam gaudet in se tamque se ipse miratur, line 17). Sufenus’ urbanitas is thus only skin-deep. While he may be witty and charming in polite conversation (homo est venustus et dicax et urbanus, line 2), his poems reveal that he lacks the more intrinsic qualities of understated learning (tacita eruditio), dignity (auctoritas) and discernment (acumen), which, as we have seen, were considered indispensable attributes of the one who is truly urbanus. Sufenus continues to rate his poems highly despite the fact that those around him hold a very diferent view. Lines 9–11 imply that Varus, Catullus, and others have read Sufenus’ poetry and share a common opinion of it (cf. quem probe nosti in line 1). Like Ameana, who refuses to acknowledge “what sort she is,” Sufenus refuses to recognize his lack of talent, despite the easily available criticism from others in his circle. Sufenus’ books are thus metaphors for the man himself: polished and reined on the outside, but coarse and uncultivated within (Putnam 554). But the focus of this poem is not limited to Sufenus; the last four lines broaden its context and reveal its larger signiicance. As homson (262) has noted, the word nimirum (line 18) indicates that what follows provides the answer to the central question posed in line 12: how are we to understand this? he answer is that we all make the same mistake that Sufenus does. Referring to Aesop’s well-known fable, in which each person is said to carry others’ faults in a bag on his chest (where he can easily see them), but to carry his own faults on his back (where they are SHAPIRO: THE MIRROR OF CATULLUS 27 visible only to others),14 Catullus explains that everyone is like Sufenus in some respect; our own errors are almost impossible for us to see, although they may be obvious to others. he last four lines transform the poem from an ad hominem attack to a thoughtful critique of human nature.15 Catullus’ poem has become a mirror through which we may be able to see the reflected image of our own bag of faults. Poem 12 is addressed to a certain Asinius Marrucinus, who spoils the atmosphere at dinner parties by stealing other people’s napkins when their attention is focused on the wine and witty conversation (in ioco atque vino, 12.2; cf. 50.6). By taking advantage of those who are otherwise engaged (neglegentiorum), Marrucinus prevents them from fully enjoying the relaxed and gracious atmosphere that should prevail at a dinner party (Seager 891). Catullus’ use of the present tense (uteris, putas) and the plural (tua furta) indicates that this is a habitual problem; napkin theft is part of Marrucinus’ modus vivendi (Quinn 131). he chronic nature of Marrucinus’ thefts is what makes them a serious issue; it also raises the question of why he persists in such rude and unwelcome behavior. Catullus answers this question in line 4: Marrucinus thinks he is being witty (salsum). his line is the key to the poem, and it corresponds to lines 14–17 of poem 22. Just as Sufenus is particularly proud of his verses, Marrucinus is proud of his practical jokes and believes that others ind them amusing. But Catullus bluntly tells him the truth: Marrucinus has completely misjudged the situation (fugit te, inepte); his actions are disgraceful (sordida) and unattractive (invenusta). Just as the focus of poem 41 is on Ameana’s misplaced pride in her appearance, and the focus of poem 22 is on Sufenus’ misplaced pride in his poems, so the focus in this poem is on Marrucinus’ unwarranted pride in his behavior. In this regard, it is noteworthy that Catullus assumes that Marrucinus will not believe him (line 6). he reason for this assumption is explained by the fable in poem 22. Because we are inherently disinclined to recognize our own faults, we have diiculty 14 15 Aesop 266; Phaedrus 4.10; Babrius 66; see Perry (1952) 424 and (1965) 82, 316. I take issue with Krostenko’s claim (2007, 225) that, by addressing the poem to a third party (Varus), Catullus implies that the two men share a separate set of standards from which all others are excluded: “his is their conversation and their aesthetic appraisal, and it excludes us as surely as it excludes Sufenus.” On the contrary, I would argue that the universalizing message of lines 18–21 is quite explicit. 28 SYLLECTA CLASSICA 22 (2011) believing others when they tell us about them, even if they spell it out plainly and directly, as Catullus does here. In poem 41, Ameana refuses to look at herself in the mirror, although she just might listen to the truth from her trusted friends and doctors. Similarly, in this poem, Catullus appeals to Asinius’ brother, Pollio. Not only is Pollio himself witty and charming (lines 8–9), but his close familial connection to Asinius might encourage Asinius to believe him. Catullus represents Pollio’s disapproval of Asinius’ actions in the strongest terms: he is so embarrassed by his brother’s thefts that he would be willing to pay a large sum of money to make him stop.16 Catullus threatens to punish Asinius with three hundred hendecasyllables if he does not stop his ofensive behavior, the irst seventeen of which are artfully represented by the poem itself. But in the very process of threatening Asinius, Catullus also tries to help him. Catullus explains that the napkin is important to him, not because of its cost, but because it was a gift from dear friends. Because Catullus’ friends Veranius and Fabullus are thinking fondly of him, even though they are far away, they have taken the time to send him a special gift.17 And Catullus misses his friends as well; he values their gift as a token of their friendship (mnemosynum sodalis). True friends send gifts to one another; they don’t steal each other’s belongings. hus, while chastising Marrucinus for his inappropriate behavior, Catullus also provides a positive model of appropriate social interaction. Some recent interpreters of this poem have stressed the arbitrary nature of Catullus’ distinctions between socially appropriate and inappropriate behavior, arguing that the poem carries an exclusionary and exclusivist message. According to Fitzgerald (94–95), “Asinius thinks that his behavior is witty, and by the end of the poem we are none the wiser as to why it isn’t, nor as to what distinguishes it from his brother’s lepores and facetiae.” Krostenko (2007, 218–19) argues similarly that Catullus uses words like salsus, (in)venustus, lepos and facetiae arbitrarily, and that Marrucinus is therefore “sidelined by a verbal dexterity that 16 he fact that Asinius’ brother, Pollio, is held up as a model of wit and charm casts doubt on the claim that Catullus opens his poem with Asinius’ cognomen, Marrucinus (commemorating the family’s origin on the Adriatic coast), in order to cast aspersions on Asinius’ non-Roman lineage; see Quinn 130–31 and Fitzgerald 265 n. 18. Pollio’s lineage is just as non-Roman as his brother’s. 17 Skinner (1981) 60; see also Wiltshire 321. SHAPIRO: THE MIRROR OF CATULLUS 29 manipulates and even creates reality.” But I would argue not only for a more traditional reading of the evaluative terms used in the poem (that stealing others’ belongings is a breach of basic politeness and that regard for friends and friendship, symbolized by both the napkin itself and the ability to participate in the relaxed social atmosphere of a dinner party, were well-recognized values of late Republican elite society), but also for a non-exclusivist reading of the poem. Marrucinus has separated himself from the other dinner-party guests by stealing their napkins, and Catullus, while taking him to task, is also encouraging him to face the truth about his own behavior and to see himself as others see him. Lines 10–11 give Asinius a choice between two opposing consequences (aut … aut), implying that if he stops his annoying behavior, the abusive poetry will stop as well. he poem, despite its ridicule, has not only shown Marrucinus exactly what is wrong with his behavior, it has also has pointed out a better path for him to follow. Egnatius, the target of poem 39, smiles as frequently as possible because he believes his white teeth make him handsome (cf. 37.19).18 Catullus describes Egnatius’ grins on two highly inappropriate occasions: in a courtroom and at a funeral. For Egnatius to smile in court, just when the advocate for the defense is pleading for everyone’s sympathy (39.3), not only shows extraordinarily poor taste and judgment, it would also, by seeming to contradict the orator’s statements, cause considerable harm to the defendant whose cause he is supposed to be supporting. Egnatius also smiles at a funeral, when the bereaved mother is weeping at the loss of her only son. he inappropriateness of Egnatius’ smiles on these occasions is particularly reprehensible because both of these situations involve public weeping (fletum in line 3 and flet in line 5); both involve communal expressions of loss and grief intended to evoke feelings of sympathy among those present. In such situations of extreme emotion, if a participant is not genuinely moved, he should at least be respectful of others’ emotions. Egnatius, however, is so self-absorbed that he can neither feel sympathy for others nor respect their emotions; his only concern is to show of his shining white teeth so that others may 18 See OLD s.v. “bonus.” he phrases une de capillatis and opaca barba (37.17–19) may also be cutting references to Egnatius’ misplaced pride in his appearance; as Christenson has shown, dainty and well-trimmed little beards (not thick and bushy ones) were considered fashionable for young men-about-town in the late Republic. For the notion that anyone who had beautiful teeth would be inclined to smile in order to show them of, see Krostenko (2001a) 245 n. 27. 30 SYLLECTA CLASSICA 22 (2011) admire him. As a result, his smiling is not only inelegant and unreined (neque elegantem … neque urbanum, line 8), it is a sign of real sickness (morbum, line 7). Just as Ameana’s refusal to acknowledge what she is actually like (qualis sit) resulted in a charge of insanity (non est sana puella), so Egnatius’ sickness lies in his self-delusion; the aspect of himself in which he takes the greatest pride (his shining white teeth) is the very thing about him that reveals his unsavory character. In lines 10–16 Catullus makes the point that smiling all the time would be socially inappropriate for anyone, no matter where he came from. Catullus lists several types of people from a variety of diferent places as examples of those who might be faulted for inappropriate smiling. Interestingly, most of these personal descriptions depict unflattering physical characteristics: an oily Umbrian, an obese Etruscan, and a dark and toothy Lanuvian. his catalogue of unattractive physical qualities implies that Egnatius is mistaken about his physical appearance. His white teeth do not make him particularly handsome; he is as unprepossessing as the average person. he fact that Catullus speciically refers to his own provincial origins in this passage (39.13), and the fact that he includes both Romans and Transpadanes in his list of ordinary people, indicates that he is not mocking Egnatius’ foreign origins per se, as has sometimes been supposed.19 Catullus would be unlikely to emphasize his own provincial background in the very same poem in which he casts aspersions on someone else’s. On the contrary, the inclusion of people on this list with a wide variety of backgrounds is a way of de-emphasizing their place of origin. Inappropriate behavior is unbecoming no matter where one is from, and this is the point of lines 14–16. Egnatius’ origin is noteworthy only because it reveals the disgusting nature of his habits: the residents of Celtiberia whiten their teeth with urine. he personal attribute of which Egnatius is most proud (his shining white teeth) is the very thing that most clearly reveals his ilthy and anti-social actions. In poem 42 an unnamed woman has borrowed (or stolen) Catullus’ writing tablets and refuses to give them back. Catullus seeks the help of his blame poems (hendecasyllabi) in an efort to retrieve them. he conceit is that while the poems are addressed as if they were Catullus’ friends, the method they use to retrieve the writing tablets is the special 19 E.g. Ramage (1973) 74; Dettmer 75; Nappa 81; Tatum 337. SHAPIRO: THE MIRROR OF CATULLUS 31 forte of abuse poems, i.e. public shame.20 hus, while the verses are anthropomorphized they also retain their function as hendecasyllables. Because some of the hendecasyllables don’t know the woman in question (quae sit, quaeritis?), Catullus provides a helpful description: illa, quam videtis turpe incedere (she’s the one you see walking shamefully, lines 7–8). Garrison interprets turpe incedere to mean that the woman “walks in an afected way, meant to be impressive.”21 his interpretation is strengthened by the description of her laugh: mimice ac moleste ridentem catuli ore Gallicani (laughing annoyingly, like an actress, with the mouth of a Gallic dog, lines 8–9). Garrison notes: “she tries to look like a celebrity … but succeeds only in looking like a particularly hideous little dog.”22 Because her afected walk and ostentatious laugh are used as identifying characteristics, they seem to be habitual. hus, the woman of poem 42 has much in common with the subjects of poems 22, 12, and 39: their annoying habits indicate that they are always trying to put on a show. At the same time, the adverbs turpe and moleste reveal that her act fools no one, except perhaps herself. Although she continually tries to impress those around her with her style and sophistication, others regard her afectations as shameful and annoying. Scholars have frequently noted that the poem takes the form of a flagitatio, an informal institution of Italian folk justice in which a thief, debtor or other petty criminal was publicly harassed by the victim and his friends until he admitted his guilt and atoned for the crime (see Fraenkel). But few have discussed the fact that this particular flagitatio is (at least at irst) remarkably unsuccessful.23 In lines 10–12 the poems surround the woman and, calling her a shameful adulteress, they demand that she give back the writing tablets. But the woman does not care what they think (non assis facis?); not only is she unmoved by such epithets, she chooses not to even acknowledge them. On a deeper level, she does not understand that her action (i.e., her refusal to return another per20 For discussions of Greek iambic (or blame) poetry and Catullus’ relationship to it, see Heyworth; Wray 67–86; Tatum 337-38; and, most recently, Lavigne. 21 Garrison 116; see also Ellis 149: “conceited strut.” 22 Garrison 117. Quinn 217 notes that Gallic dogs looked unusually repulsive. 23 Fraenkel (51) notes the “inimitable χάρις” with which Catullus accepts defeat; Tatum (348) attributes the hendecasyllables’ lack of success to “feminine resistance.” 32 SYLLECTA CLASSICA 22 (2011) son’s property) is shameful and damaging to her reputation. Catullus, somewhat helplessly, reacts by doing more of the same. He calls her “mud, whorehouse, or whatever can be more corrupt” (o lutum, lupanar, aut si perditius potest quid esse, lines 13–14), but he gets no reaction.24 Catullus next exhorts his hendecasyllables to try to “force a blush on the shameless face of the bitch” (ruborem ferreo canis exprimamus ore, lines 16–17) by repeating the same thing, but in a louder voice (conclamate iterum altiore voce, line 18); predictably, this has no efect.25 he point of Catullus’ (and his poems’) helplessness is that a flagitatio cannot succeed if the subject is incapable of feeling shame. Such inefective name-calling does not reflect well on Catullus (since he is unable to take revenge on those who have hurt him), but it is an even more damning criticism of the woman herself, who has so little self-awareness that she cannot be humiliated. Catullus inally advises his poems to change their approach (mutanda est ratio modusque vobis, line 22), and, in the last two lines they do just that. he hendecasyllables address her as “a chaste and honest woman” (pudica et proba, line 24) in the hopes that she might appreciate the more flattering (though clearly false) description of her, and respond by acting accordingly. In the poems we have discussed so far, Catullus goes to great lengths to tell his subjects the unpleasant truths about themselves in the hope that they will change their ways, but in poem 42 Catullus takes the opposite approach, suggesting that the only way to prevail upon this woman is to corroborate her favorable picture of herself. he fact that Catullus must resort to false flattery in order to influence this woman emphasizes her willful self-deception. We are not told whether Catullus’ specious compliments succeed in obtaining their objective, but, since the flattery concludes the poem (and thus the flagitatio), we are permitted to suspect that they do. In poem 84 Catullus makes fun of a man named Arrius whose mispronunciations are insistent and annoying. Arrius adds the “h” sound to words beginning with a vowel (insidias becomes hinsidias) and he aspirates consonants that should properly be left unaspirated (commoda becomes chommoda). he “h” sound in Latin (pronounced before an initial vowel) was closely associated in the Roman mind with the aspira24 25 Reading potest with homson in line 14. As Fordyce notes (citing Iliad 8.423 “κύον ἀδεές” and 3.180 “κυνῶπις”), the dog was “the type of shamelessness as early as Homer” (195). SHAPIRO: THE MIRROR OF CATULLUS 33 tion of the consonants c, p, and t (as heard in the Greek letters χ, φ, and θ). By the early Republic, both of these sounds had been dropped from the speech of Italian peasants and the urban lower classes, although they were still used and even cultivated by the educated elite.26 hus, aspirated vowels and consonants became a sign of status and sophistication, while the lack of such aspiration signaled a low-class origin. his disparity of speech along class lines led, in the late Republic, to an opposite tendency, in which aspirated consonants were sometimes artiicially inserted into words that had originally been unaspirated (see Cicero, Orator 160 and Quintilian 1.5.20). As Fordyce (374) explains: “he speaker of Latin who dropped aspirates which the intelligentsia pronounced incurred a social stigma … [and] the man who wanted to improve his position might self-consciously overdo them and make it worse.” his late Republican trend toward excessive aspiration has been dubbed “hyperurbanism,” on the grounds that, in a culture where retention of the aspirate had long been a mark of sophistication and culture, the over-use of that sound was a misguided attempt on the part of the undereducated to appear more high class and sophisticated than they actually were. he speech patterns of Catullus’ Arrius seem to be a perfect illustration of such pretentious behavior.27 Commentators who accept a socio-linguistic interpretation of Arrius’ speech-patterns frequently assume that the point of the poem is to cast aspersions on Arrius’ low class origins.28 But I would argue that, just as in the other poems discussed above, Catullus does not ridicule Arrius’ humble background per se; rather, by focusing on Arrius’ over-zealous attempt to hide his low-class origins under a false mask of urban sophistication, Catullus points to the posturing and self-delusion that such actions reveal. hus, while Arrius believes he is speaking marvelously well (line 3), everyone else is greatly relieved when he takes his excessive aspirations far away from Rome (line 7–9).29 26 For linguistic analyses of Arrius’ speech patterns see Sturtevant 155–60 and Allen 26–27 and 43–45; see also Ramage 1959 and (1973) 66–67; and Fordyce 373–74. On other aspects of Arrius’ mispronunciations, see Rosén, Einarson, and Vandiver. 27 Herescu 136; see also Ramage (1959) 45 and Marouzeau s.v. “hyperurbanisme.” 28 E.g. Ramage (1959) 45; Fordyce 374–75; homson 512; Wray 44; and Tatum 337. 29 Catullus’ Arrius has been plausibly identified with the orator Q. Arrius, Crassus’ associate, whom Cicero (Brutus 242–43) describes as having attained high office, wealth 34 SYLLECTA CLASSICA 22 (2011) Just as Sufenus writes volumes of poetry because he believes he has a true poetic gift, just as Egnatius smiles on every occasion because he believes his white teeth are his best feature, and Asinius constantly steals napkins at parties because he believes he’s being witty, so Arrius hyperaspirates as frequently as possible in the mistaken belief that others will be impressed by his urbanity and sophistication.30 Each of these characters is so proud of his afectation that he shows it of on every possible occasion. Ironically, it is precisely that constantly repeated inappropriate behavior that reveals the falsity of his pretensions. I have argued that in poems 12, 22, 39, 41, 42 and 84, Catullus is not casting aspersions at his characters’ low-class or provincial origins or their lack of beauty, wit or talent, as much as he is criticizing those who claim to be more high-class, handsome, witty, or charming than they actually are. he subjects of these poems are thus being criticized not for what they are, but for what they pretend to be. In addition to disparaging his characters for their pretentiousness, Catullus also takes aim at the self-delusion that their pretentiousness implies. Sufenus and Asinius see themselves as particularly witty and talented, while Ameana and Egnatius mistakenly believe that they are unusually attractive. Arrius would rather change the name of the Ionian Sea than correct his own mispronunciations (84.11–12), while the shameless hussy in poem 42 will only respond if she is addressed as “a chaste and honest woman.” By mocking his characters’ willful self-deceptions, Catullus provides a mirror through which his listeners and readers may be able to see their own. Department of History Utah State University 0710 Old Main Hill Logan, UT 84322 [email protected] and favor, despite being born to the lowest station and possessing neither training nor natural talent; see Skinner (2003) 105–06. 30 he phrase quantum poterat in line 4 is usually understood to mean that Arrius spoke very loudly (e.g. Fordyce 376; Vandiver 338; Ryan 86; Skinner [2003] 104), but this translation conforms neither to the standard, quantitative meaning of quantum (OLD s.v. “quantum”) nor to Catullus’ other uses of this word (e.g. 3.12, 8.5, 15.12, etc.). he phrase quantum poterat should be translated, “as often as he could.” SHAPIRO: THE MIRROR OF CATULLUS 35 Works Cited Adamik, T. “Catullus’ Urbanity: C. 22.” Acta. Ant. Hung. 36 (1995): 77–86. Allen, W. S. Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Arkins, B. Sexuality in Catullus. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1982. Austin, R. G. M. Tulli Ciceronis Pro M. Caelio Oratio: Edited with Text, Introduction and Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960. Christenson, D. “Unbearding Morality: Appearance and Persuasion in Pro Caelio.” CJ 100 (2004): 61–72. Commager, S. “Notes on Some Poems of Catullus.” HSCP 70 (1965): 83–110. Dettmer, H. Love by the Numbers: Form and Meaning in the Poetry of Catullus. New York: Peter Lang, 1997. Einarson, B. “On Catullus 84.” CP 61 (1966): 187–88. Ellis, R. A Commentary on Catullus. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898. Reprint 1988. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag. Fitzgerald, W. Catullan Provocations: Lyric Poetry and the Drama of Position. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. Fordyce, C. J. Catullus: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. Fraenkel, E. “Two Poems of Catullus.” JRS 51 (1961): 46–53. Gaisser, J. H. Catullus. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Garrison, D. H. he Student’s Catullus. 3rd ed. Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 2004. Green, P. he Poems of Catullus: A Bilingual Edition. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2005. Havelock, E. A. he Lyric Genius of Catullus. 2nd ed. New York: Russell & Russell, 1967. Herescu, N. I. “Autour de l’ironie de Catulle.” Revista Clasica 13–14 (1941–42): 128–37. Heyworth, S. J. “Catullan Iambics, Catullan Iambi.” In Iambic Ideas: Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to the Late Roman Empire, edited by A. Cavazere, A. Aloni, and A. Barchiesi, 117–40. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littleield, 2001. Hornblower, S. “Mamurra.” In he Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd edition, edited by S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, 916. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Krostenko, B. A. Cicero, Catullus, and the Language of Social Performance. Chicago: he University of Chicago Press, 2001. 36 SYLLECTA CLASSICA 22 (2011) ———. “Arbitria Urbanitatis: Language, Style and Characterization in Catullus cc. 39 and 37.” ClAnt 20 (2001a): 239–72. ———. “Catullus and Elite Republican Social Discourse.” In A Companion to Catullus, edited by M. Skinner, 212–32. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2007. Lavigne, D. E. “Catullus 8 and Catullan Iambos.” Syllecta Classica 21 (2010): 65–92. Levin, D. N. “Arrius and his Uncle.” Latomus 32 (1973): 587–94. Marouzeau, J. Lexique de la Terminologie Linguistic. Paris: Geuthner, 1933. Mynors, R. A. B. C. Valerii Catulli Carmina. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958. Nappa, C. Aspects of Catullus’ Social Fiction. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2001. Neudling, C. L. A Prosopography to Catullus. Iowa Studies in Classical Philology no. 12. London: Oxford, 1955. Newman, J. K. Roman Catullus and the Modiication of the Alexandrian Sensibility. Hildesheim: Weidmann, 1990. Perry, B. E. Aesopica: A Series of Texts Relating to Aesop or Ascribed to Him or Closely Connected with the Literary Tradition that Bears His Name. Vol. 1. Urbana: he University of Illinois Press, 1952. ———., ed. and trans. Babrius and Phaedrus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965. Putnam, M. C. J. “Catullus 22,13.” Hermes 96 (1968–69): 552–58. Quinn, K. Catullus: he Poems. Second edition. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1973. Ramage, E. S. “Note on Catullus’ Arrius.” CP 54 (1959): 44–45. ———. Urbanitas: Ancient Sophistication and Reinement. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1973. Rosén, H. B. “Arrius’ Speech Again (Catullus 84).” Mnemosyne 14 (1961): 224–32. Ross, D. O., Jr. Style and Tradition in Catullus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969. Ryan, F. X. “Two Persons in Catullus.” GIF 48 (1996): 85–91. Scott, W. C. “Catullus and Caesar (C. 29).” CP 66 (1971) 17–25. Seager, R. “Venustus, Lepidus, Bellus, Salsus: Notes on the Language of Catullus.” Latomus 33 (1974): 891–94. Skinner, M. B. “Ameana Puella Defututa.” CJ 74 (1978–79): 110–14. ———. Catullus’ Passer: he Arrangement of the Book of Polymetric Poems. Salem, NH: he Ayer Company, 1981. SHAPIRO: THE MIRROR OF CATULLUS 37 ———. Catullus in Verona: A Reading of the Elegiac Libellus, Poems 65–116. Columbus: he Ohio State University Press, 2003. Sturtevant, E. H. he Pronunciation of Greek and Latin. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America, 1940. Syndikus, H. P. Catull: Eine Interpretation. Erster Teil: Die kleinen Gedichte (1–60). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984. Tatum, W. J. “Social Commentary and Political Invective.” In A Companion to Catullus, edited by M. Skinner, 333–53. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2007. homson, D. F. S. Catullus: Edited with a Textual and Intepretative Commentary. Corrected edition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998. Vandiver, E. “Sound Patterns in Catullus 84.” CJ 85 (1989–90): 337–40. Watson, L. “Rustic Sufenus (Catullus 22) and Literary Rusticity.” Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 6 (1990): 13–33. Wiltshire, S. F. “Catullus Venustus.” CW 70 (1977): 319–26. Wray, D. Catullus and the Poetics of Roman Manhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.