David Wray - Catullus and The Poetics of Roman Manhood

CATULLUS AND THE
POETICS OF
ROMAN MANHOOD
DAVID WRAY
Cambridge University Press
This page intentionally left blank
CATULLUS AND THE FOETI CS OI
ROMAN MANHOOD
This book applies comparative cultural ano literary mooels
to a reaoing ol Catullus` poems as social perlormances ol a
poetics ol manhooo``: a competitively, olten outrageously,
sell-allusive bio lor recognition ano aomiration. Earlier reao-
ings ol Catullus, baseo on Romantic ano Mooernist notions
ol lyric`` poetry, have tenoeo to locus on the relationship
with Lesbia ano to ignore the majority ol the shorter poems,
which are insteao oirecteo at other men. Frolessor Wray
approaches these poems in the light ol new mooels lor unoer-
stanoing male social interaction in the premooern Meoiter-
ranean, placing them in their specincally Roman historical
context while bringing out their strikingly postmooern`` qual-
ities. The result is a new way ol reaoing the nercely aggres-
sive ano oelicately renneo agonism perlormeo in Catullus`
shorter poems. All Latin ano Greek quoteo is supplieo with
an English translation.
d v i d wr y is Assistant Frolessor ol Classical Languages
ano Literatures at the University ol Chicago. He receiveo his
ooctorate lrom Harvaro ano has previously taught at Georgia
State University ano Kennesaw State University. He has
publisheo articles on Roman ano Hellenistic Greek poetry
ano literary translation ano is currently an Associate Eoitor
ol the journal Clotcol P/tlolo ,.
CATULLUS AND THE
FOETI CS OI ROMAN
MANHOOD
DAVI D WRAY
ab
iuniisuio n\ rui iiiss s\xoicari oi rui uxiviisir\ oi caxniioci
The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom
caxniioci uxiviisir\ iiiss
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK
40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
Ruiz de Alarcn 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain
Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa
http://www.cambridge.org
First published in printed format
ISBN 0-521-66127-7 hardback
ISBN 0-511-01802-9 eBook
David Wray 2004
2001
(netLibrary)
D
.
M
.
S
Louise Scott Wray
:q::qq
Detret Mottet Seele c/.e/t cotoo.
Detret Mottet Seele /tlft ote òc/t omc/ter,
Rt om Rt.
Faul Celan
Cortert
Ptefoce Poe ix
: Catullan criticism ano the problem ol lyric :
. A postmooern Catullus? 6
Manhooo ano Lesbia in the shorter poems 6
Towaros a Meoiterranean poetics ol aggression ::
Cooe mooels ol Catullan manhooo :6:
1otk ctteo .:
Pooe otcoeo .
Geretol troex .
vii
Ptefoce
Like Catullus himsell, this book about his poems came to maturity
in exciting times. A nrst version ol it, well unoer way when the
monographs ol Faul Allen Miller ano Micaela Janan gave their
names to a Catullan year, hao only just been submitteo as a ois-
sertation when William Iitzgeralo`s Ptococottor nrst came into my
hanos. Since that time, ongoing oialogue with these renneo ano
complex Catullan voices, ano with others as well, has brought
luller elaboration ano sharper locus to the critical views expresseo
in these pages. But exciting times never come as an unmingleo gilt
ol lortune, ano what began as a revision lor publication took, in
the event, nearly as long as the original writing. The eno result is
not so much a rewritten book as a new one.
By all accounts, Catullus still commanos a wioer auoience than
any other Latin poet. I have written with a varieo reaoership in
mino throughout, perhaps especially in the nrst two chapters on
literary ano critical constructions ano receptions ol the Catullan
corpus ano its author. The secono chapter`s oiscussion ol Louis
Zukolsky ano postmooern poetics, while ultimately crucial to the
broaoer arguments ol the book, keeps Catullus` own woros largely
out ol the oebate lor a longer time than some reaoers may have
expecteo. Fatience ano inoulgence, il testeo in Chapter ., will, I
hope, be compensateo in Chapter , where the contours ol a
Catullan poetics ol manhooo are traceo through a sustaineo ano
nearly exclusive locus on the text ol the poems. Chapter brings
comparative material orawn lrom the work ol cultural anthro-
pologists to bear on a oelineation ol what has always seemeo to
me a oenning ano irreoucible aspect ol Catullus` poems: the
aggression personateo by their speaker. It was Marion Kuntz who,
as a oissertation reaoer, nrst suggesteo to me the ioea ol eventually
attempting to situate Catullan invective in a comparative Meoi-
ix
terranean context. That aovice is among the many oebts I owe
her, ano the line ol inquiry is one I think might lruitlully be taken
much lurther in a separate stuoy. The nlth ano nnal chapter, on
Archilochian ano Callimachean intertextual presences as cooe
mooels`` ol manhooo in Catullus, poses the question ol what re-
mains ol the Catullan persona`` alter the collapse ol the critical
ano metaphysical certainties that unoerpinneo Mooernist per-
sona criticism,`` ano ohers a partial answer to that question in a
postmooern mooel ol Roman manhooo, ano sellhooo, as perlor-
mance. Translations are my own unless otherwise noteo.
I come to the eno ol this project owing much to many, ano
owning no coin ol payment other than gratituoe. Richaro Thomas
,as oirector,, Marion Kuntz ano Richaro Tarrant reao the oisser-
tation ano maoe all manner ol unlikely things possible. Others
who have kinoly reao all or part ol various ano variant versions,
ano who have improveo the eno result by encouragement, aovice,
championing or challenge incluoe, in more or less chronological
oroer, Gregory Nagy, Ralph Johnson, Robert Kaster, Feter
White, Richaro Saller, Shaoi Bartsch, Robert von Hallberg,
Niklas Holzberg ano Brian Krostenko. I am gratelul to the Fress`s
two anonymous reaoers lor their thorough, insightlul ano every-
where helplul criticism, to Michael Sharp lor unnagging patience
ano enthusiasm as eoitor, ano to Muriel Hall lor expert, pain-
staking copy-eoiting. Many colleagues at the University ol Chicago
,alongsioe those alreaoy nameo,, ano many ol my stuoents as well,
have contributeo to this book in subtler but no less real ways. A
book that announces so sparkling a list ol lrienos ano benelactors
runs the risk ol setting its reaoer`s expectations lar too high. Re-
sponsibility lor any ano all hopes oasheo by what lollows herein
must ol course rest with the author alone.
The cover jacket image, Davio Iraley`s Goloen Boy`` a rivet-
ing perlormance, ano aptly illustrative ol this book`s concerns by
its Hellenistic allusivity ano sell-allusivity, by its palimpsest`` tech-
nique ol competing textures ano lines, ano by the oelicately nerce
wit ol its title is a gilt ol the artist, graciously connrmeo by his
estate alter his suooen ano untimely oeath. His woros, lrom our
twenty years ol conversation about art ano the postmooern, have
superimposeo their rhythms, like the Epicurean cltromero ol his
canvases, across these pages. As lor his works, oeath will not put
a hano on his nightingales.
Ptefoce x
Alongsioe the oebt recoroeo in the oeoication, I wish also to
thank the lollowing people lor help ano support ol every kino: my
lather Jack Wray, my late granomother Grace Scott, my Latin
teacher Ruth Wells, Earnest ano Mariana Atkins, Bruce Mattys,
James Fowell ano Elizabeth Vanoiver.
Ano the most important thing ol all: Kristen, you loaneo me
your copy ol Ioroyce`s Catullus that summer ano I never returneo
it. Gooo thing you marrieo me. The next book is lor you. So is
everything else.
Ptefoce xi
c n\ r + r n :
Cotollor cttttctm oro t/e pto/lem of l,ttc
All the new thinking is about loss. In this it resembles the olo
thinking.
Robert Hass, Meoitation at Lagunitas``
cr r r n n\+ r votn c\+ tr r ts ``
New thinking lrom a new book: a lair enough expectation, even
when the new book is a literary stuoy ol an ancient poet, ano even
when the ancient poet is Catullus. But il new thinking`` is to
mean thinking away the intervening centuries to reveal a timeless
classic preserveo unoer the aspic ol eternity, then new thinking
about Catullus is neither possible nor even oesirable. The traoi-
tion ol an ancient text both the oiscourse that transmits ano
meoiates that text ,reception, ano the oiscourse that the text itsell
meoiates ,intertext, is not an obstacle to its proper unoerstano-
ing, something to be set asioe, got over. Rather, its ancient ano
mooern traoition is precisely that thing which renoers Catullus`
text comprehensible in the nrst place. Iorgetting reception history,
incluoing scholarly reception ,starting with all those emenoations
ol a garbleo text,, woulo be as helplul to a reaoing ol Catullus as
lorgetting the Roman alphabet.'
Still, there is a sense within Catullan stuoies that surely we can
oo better than the Romanticism ol the nineteenth century ano the
neo-Romanticism ol much ol the twentieth.` Surely we have oone
better alreaoy. The work ol T. F. Wiseman, combining oetaileo
:
' On reception, see Jauss ,:qqo, ano, notably among literary Romanists, Martinoale ,:qq,
:, on intertext, Still ano Worton ,:qqo, with relerences there.
` The oanger ol overcompensating lor the excesses ol Romantic reaoings, as ol any earlier
critical stance, is ol course a real one. Wiseman ,:q8, ::6 ano Thomas ,:q88, sug-
gest that Catullans may have lallen into it long since. On Romanticism ano the critical
valuation ol Latin literature, see Habinek ,:qq., ano ,:qq8, :.
historical reconstruction, inlormeo speculation, ano an insistence
on reaoing Catullus` text as a poetry collection rather than the
novelistic journal ol a love ahair with its entries shumeo, is one
example ol how much better we have oone. A more recent
example, to cite only one among several, is William Iitzgeralo`s
Cotollor Ptococottor: the work ol a sensitive reaoer who takes
poetry seriously, even as his Ioucauloian teerttmert teases ano
proos us, with elegant churlishness, towaros an escape lrom over-
sentimentalizing ol a poet we have taken rather too much to our
hearts.``
Il it seems that at last something close to the palette ol its true
colors is being restoreo to Catullus` poetry, then a question
imposes itsell, homerically: How oio that image nrst begin to be
oenatureo? When oio the smoke start to clouo the lresco beyono
recognition? I seem alreaoy to have laio the blame implicitly at
the leet ol Romanticism, ano probably many reaoers will have
accepteo that attribution as just. Was it Luowig Schwabe who leo
us astray, then, Schwabe with his seouctive ,in its way, amalgam
ol empirical historicism, encyclopeoic philology, gushing sentiment
ano perhaps most importantly keen novel writer`s instinct,
expresseo in elegantly clear Latin prose?` Il it is true that the
lounoing act ol mooern scholarship on Catullus is |Schwabe`s|
ioentincation ol the woman behino the name Lesbia,`` it is also
true that there are mooernities ano mooernities. Schwabe`s act,
at the heao ol a century-long mooernity now several oecaoes past,
consisteo in mapping Catullus` written Lesbia onto Clooia Metellt,
wile ol Q. Metellus Celer ano the only one ol Clooius` three
sisters about whom enough is known to tell a really gooo story.
Cicero`s Pto Coelto is a conspicuous source,`` ano a oamning one
lor Lesbia`` construeo by ioentincation with Cicero`s Clooia.` His
portrait ol a two-bit Clytemnestra``' has provioeo plentilul grist
lor a misogynist mill, one that olten mystineo the mechanics ol its
Wiseman, esp. ,:q6q, ano ,:q8,.
Iitzgeralo ,:qq, ..
` Schwabe ,:86.,, esp. :, oe amoribus Catulli.`` Other nineteenth century Catullans
whose voices continueo to resonate in the twentieth incluoe Ribbeck ,:86, ano Westphal
,:86,.
Iitzgeralo ,:qq, .:.
` On the allure ol the conspicuous source,`` Wiseman ,:q8, :.
' The nickname oootortotto Cl,toemretto, given by Caelius to Clooia, is preserveo by
Quintilian ,Irt. 8.6.,. On Cicero`s smearing ol her character through oerisive humor in
the Pto Coelto, see Austin ,:q6o,, Gehcken ,:q, ano esp. Skinner ,:q8,.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo .
own grinoing behino an exalteo veneration lor the tenoerest ol
Roman poets.`` Mooernities ano mooernities: when the long``
mooernity, now hall a millenium olo ano counting, welcomeo
Catullus into its ranks as a printeo book, what it took aboaro was
a text alreaoy receiveo, with an author alreaoy precookeo lor
reaoerly consumption, alreaoy constructeo even alreaoy
romanticizeo.``
The eottto pttrcep, oateo :., came out ol the printing house ol
Wenoelin von Speyer at Venice.' None ol the chapbook intimacy
ol our slenoer scholarly Catulluses: this is a large quarto volume
containing, along with all ol Catullus, the elegies ol Fropertius
ano Tibullus ano the Stlcoe ol Statius. On the verso opposite the
nrst page ol the Catullan collection stanos this notice:
Valerius Catullus, scriptor lyricus, Veronae nascitur olympiaoe crxiii
anno ante natum Sallustium Crispum oiris Marii Syllaeque temporibus,
quo oie Flotinus Latinam rhetoricam primus Romae oocere coepit.
amauit hic puellam primariam Clooiam, quam Lesbiam suo appellat in
carmine. lasciuusculus luit et sua tempestate pares paucos in oicenoo
lrenata oratione, superiorem habuit neminem. in iocis apprime lepious,
in seriis uero grauissimus extitit. erotica scripsit et epithalamium in
Manlium. anno uero aetatis suae xxx Romae moritur elatus moerore
publico.
Valerius Catullus, lyric writer, born in the :6ro Olympiao the year
belore the birth ol Sallustius Crispus, in the oreaolul times ol Marius
ano Sulla, on the oay Flotinus |tc| nrst began to teach Latin rhetoric at
Rome. He loveo Clooia, a girl ol high rank, whom he calls Lesbia in his
poetry. He was somewhat lascivious, ano in his time hao lew equals, ano
no superior, in verse expression. He was particularly elegant in jests, but
a man ol great gravity on serious matters. He wrote erotic pieces, ano a
marriage-song to Manlius. He oieo at Rome in the thirtieth year ol his
age, with public mourning at his luneral.''
This publisher`s blurb was composeo or compileo, we now know,
by one Gerolamo Squarzanco, a mooest ano ill-paio humanist
who workeo lor Wenoelin.``'` The oates ol birth ano oeath come
lrom Jerome, the rest may be invention, or extrapolateo lrom the
poems, or possibly orawn lrom an ancient source available to
Squarzanco but now lost to us.' Ol course Squarzanco is lollow-
Tennyson, Irater Ave atque Vale.`` ' Gaisser ,:qq, .:.
'' Text ano translation lrom Wiseman ,:q8, .o. '` Gaisser ,:qq, .6.
' Jerome C/tortco :o:H, Wiseman ,:q8, .o:.
ing the traoitional lorm useo by ancient tommottct in composing
similar Lives ol the Foets: lile, works ano literary colot. But even
within that convention, the glamor ol the Lile seems alreaoy to
have encroacheo upon the artistry ol the Foet. Alter the ,probably
labricateo ano in any case inaccurate, synchronicities accompany-
ing the nativity comes a sentence with its verb emphatically
lronteo: that he loveo`` ,omoott ,, we are to unoerstano, is the cen-
tral lact ol Catullus` existence. Ano the object ol his love is ioen-
tineo nrst as Clooia presumably on the authority ol Apuleius,
Apol. :o, though the oescription pttmottom poellom ,girl ol high
rank``,, not louno in Apuleius, sounos genuinely ancient. Only
subsequently ooes Squarzanco give the name Lesbia`` ,we are to
unoerstano a simple one-to-one corresponoence,, glosseo as the
name by which Catullus relerreo to her tr /t poett,, that last
phrase tackeo on almost as an alterthought. Eerily mooern ,or is it
eerily Romantic?, ol Squarzanco to have writen Clooia`` belore
Lesbia.`` Apuleius, at least, hao hao the gooo taste to say it the
other way arouno: by the same token they shoulo inoict Gaius
Catullus lor using the name Lesbia` to stano in lor Clooia`.``'
Alreaoy present, somehow, in Squarzanco`s early mooern woros
is our Catullus,`` intact ano entire, biographical lallacy`` ano all:
lile privilegeo over work, ano the Lesbia poems ,or shoulo we say
Clooia poems``?, over the rest ol the collection.'` This construc-
tion ol an author nameo Catullus aooresseo to the users ol a new
technology has become lamiliar to us, through lrequent citation,
as part ol the story we tell about the journey ol Catullus ,the
name ol a book ano an author, through the centuries into our
hanos.' The story is an ooo one, oramatic lor all its lamiliarity: il
a single manuscript containing all the poems ol our mooern eoi-
tions hao not turneo up at Verona in the late thirteenth century or
the nrst lew years ol the lourteenth, Catullus woulo be lor us little
more than a name ano a series ol lragments ano testimonia. Tex-
tual criticism calls that manuscript V, lor Vetorert: Veronese,``
like Catullus himsell, though in lact we have no ioea where it hao
been or where it was actually oiscovereo, or by whom ,except in
an unsolveo rioole,. V was copieo at least once belore it ois-
' Apuleius Apoloto :o: eooem opeto occoert C. Cotollom ooo Le/tom pto Clootom romtrottt.
'` Gaisser ,:qq, .8.
' The entire paragraph is reproouceo in Wiseman ,:q8, .o, Gaisser ,:qq, .6 ano Miller
,:qq, ..
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo
appeareo again, this time apparently lor gooo. Irom a copy ol V,
oenoteo as A ,also now lost,, we have one oirect oescenoant ,O,
ano two granochiloren ,G ano R, by a oiherent parent ,calleo X,
also lost,.'`
Catullus the book, then, reacheo us just belore our mooernity.
Sometime in the nrst oecaoe ol the lourteenth century possibly
in the same year that Dante, recently exileo lrom Ilorence, was
taking consolation in the hospitality ol the Scaligeri at Verona a
contemporary witness ol Catullus` return, Benvenuto Campesani,
composeo a Latin poem to mark the occasion:
Ao patriam uenio longis a nnibus exsul,
causa mei reoitus compatriota luit,
scilicet a calamis tribuit cui Irancia nomen
quique notat turbae praetereuntis iter.
quo licet ingenio uestrum celebrate Catullum,
cuius sub mooio clausa papirus erat.
I who was an exile am come to my country lrom a laraway lano. The
cause ol my return was a lellow countryman: namely, the one to whom
Irance gave a name lrom colomt ,reeos, ano who marks the path ol the
passing crowo. With all the wit you may, celebrate your Catullus, whose
poptto ,papyrus]light, hao been hiooen unoer a bushel.
This epigram, like many ol Catullus` own poems, is inhabiteo by a
series ol inoeterminacies.'' Iirst, the mioole couplet appears to
oher a pair ol etymological riooles, presumably on the given ano
lamily names ol the manuscript`s oiscoverer, whose ioentity re-
mains unoiscovereo to oate. Compotttoto ,., woulo seem to assign
him Veronese origin, though in that case Ftorcto ,, is a oimculty.'
Next there is the Ioucauloian question: Who is speaking?```
To answer that the verses are put into the mouth ol Catullus
himsell `` is unobjectionable, but what ooes Catullus`` mean in
that answer?`' I who was an exile am come . . .``: the thing that
was missing ano now returneo is alter all the /ook of poem in the
reaoer`s hanos. At least in its opening woros, the epigram harks
'` McKie ,:q, 8q oemonstrateo that O ano also X, the lost parent ol R ano G, were
copieo not oirectly lrom V but rather lrom a lost copy ol V, now oesignateo A. See
Thomson ,:q,, ,:q8, 6 ano ,:qq, ..8.
'' On Catullan inoeterminacy, Seloen ,:qq.,.
' Gaisser ,:qq, :8 suggests, towaro solution ol the rioole, a given name ol Irancesco.
` Ioucault ,:qq,.
`' Ioroyce ,:q6:, xxvi.
back to a very ancient mooe ol writing: a nrst-person inscription
by which the inscribeo artilact or surlace is turneo into a speak-
ing object.```` Such inscriptions make sense only when attacheo to
the objects they ventriloquize: in this case, a copy ol Catullus.
Ancient poetry bookrolls olten bore similar prelatory inscriptions,
some turning the book into a speaking object, others ventrilo-
quizeo in the voice ol the author. An example ol the lormer type,
written by the author himsell, was attacheo to Ovio`s Amote in its
secono eoition: Qot mooo òort foetomo otroe lt/ellt, | tte omo
,We who hao recently been Naso`s /ce books are now three``,.
An example ol the secono type is the spurious ,probably non-
Virgilian, that is, but genuinely ancient, opening ol the Aereto: Ille
eo ot ooroom toctlt moooloto ooero | cotmer ,I am he who once
composeo a song upon a slenoer oaten pipe``,.`
The speaker ol Benvenuto`s epigram sits inoeterminately be-
tween these two choices, neither choice has its lull meaning with-
out the pressure exerteo by the other one. Both those choices, ol
course, are subsumeo unoer the name Catullus.`` The corporeal
presence ol the poet, ano the trace ol his absence in his cotpo, are
both representeo by the signiner ol the proper name.` English
still says reaoing Catullus`` or liking Catullus`` when it means the
poem. Latin employeo this ehaceo trope even more reaoily than
our language, the Roman author saio, not my works are reao,``
but I am reao.`` The mistaking ol the verses lor the poet, lor the
author, that we generally ascribe to outmooeo ,Romantic``, lorms
ol literary criticism, ano that Catullus` Foem :6 seems to attribute
to Iurius ano Aurelius, is in lact alreaoy imbeooeo in the lan-
guage useo, in both our own tongue ano Catullus`, to oescribe the
act, oesire ano enjoyment ol reaoing.
A lurther locus ol inoeterminacy in Benvenuto`s poem resioes at
the level ol its Catullan intertext. The nrst verse speaks ol absence
`` Burzachechi ,:q6.,, also Svenbro ,:qq, .6, a chapter entitleo I Write, Therelore I
Ehace Mysell.``
` Conte ,:q86, 8 has argueo compellingly that Ovio`s epigram at the heao ol the
Amote, when reao together with the opening ol the nrst poem ol the collection, makes an
allusive gesture both towaro the lake`` opening ol the Aereto ,which Ovio must therelore
have known, perhaps as the inscription beneath a portrait lozenge at the heao ol a oe-
luxe eoition, ano towaro the epic`s real`` opening. On the lake`` opening ol the Aereto
ano its ,in,authentication, see Austin ,:q68,.
` On the ,Derrioean, trace`` as the textual presence ol an absence, Barchiesi ,:q8,, also
Rihaterre ,:q8ob,.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo 6
ano ol laraway lanos: ooes Benvenuto ,Benvenuto`s Catullus, have
in mino Foem :o: on Catullus` brother`s luneral rites, or perhaps
a passage or two lrom Foem 68? The nrst couplet`s joy in home-
coming: might this be an echo ol Catullus` verses on his own re-
turn to Sirmio ,Foem :, or on a lrieno`s homecoming lrom Spain
,Foem q,? Fossibly, but the lact is that there is no verbal amnity
close enough to guarantee that Benvenuto hao actually reao or,
given poem ol Catullus ,though it is likely on the lace ol it that he
wrote the epigram lresh lrom a reaoing ol all or part ol the col-
lection,. Certainly there are no outright Catullan ollotor here,
ano it may be that the perceiveo reminiscences are instances ol
reaoerly`` rather than writerly`` intertextuality.`` The closest ano
most obvious mooel lor the situation ol V`s ,Catullus`, return is
the Oo,e,, unknown to Benvenuto as a text but unooubteoly
known to him as a mooel, just as it was known as a mooel to his
alorementioneo contemporary who, without having reao Homer,
woulo soon put a series ol Homeric`` relerences into the mouth
ol Ulysses at Irfetro .6.qo:..`
There is however one unambiguously clear intertextual pres-
ence in the epigram, ano the relerence Benvenuto makes to it is,
in the most classical sense ol the term, an allusion. Learneo ano
witty, it woulo be tempting to call it Callimachean`` ,since that is
what Catullan scholars olten say when they mean learneo ano
witty``,, il only it sent the reaoer`s memory to any ancient text
other than the one that the traoition ol mooern classical philology
has tenoeo to rope oh ano quarantine, whether lor reasons ol
Frotestant relorm, ol secularism or, in a woro, ol mooernity. The
relerence to a gospel parable, coming at the eno ol the nnal verse,
gives a pointeo epigram its point, its pirouette.`` The presence ol
the irregular woro poptto, ano even more so the syllepsis upon the
woro`s two meanings one common ,paper``,, the other recon-
oite ,lamp``, perlormatively mark the poem`s author as oocto
`` The oichotomy reaoerly``]writerly`` invokes the work ol Barthes, esp. ,:qo, ano ,:q,.
Both reaoerly`` ano so-calleo writerly`` intertextuality are ol course construeo in the
only place they can be: at the point ol reaoing, by the reaoer. The comparable oistinc-
tion between explicit`` ano implicit`` intertextuality, orawn by Jenny ,:q6,, is critiqueo
by Culler ,:q8:, :oo::8. On the heuristic value ol reintrooucing intersubjectivity into a
pure , Kristevan, intertextual mooel, Hinos ,:qq8, :.
` Foem :o: itsell makes an intertextual gesture towaro the opening ol the Oo,e,, as Conte
,:q86, .q has shown. See o: below.
`` Skutsch ,:qo,.
,learneo``,, oeroto ,sophisticateo``,, ano, in short, a worthy
reaoer ol Catullus.
The epigram`s point is in lact still sharper, ano cuts oeeper. The
poptto unoer the bushel,`` once reao, retrospectively lights up the
entire epigram. Recontextualizeo by this Christian allusion, the
oistant lanos`` to which the epigram`s speaker hao been exileo
now represent, metaphorically, not merely the centuries ouring
which there was no Catullus ,manuscript,, but rather the bourne
ol oeath, that place lrom which,`` at least in Catullus` poetry,
they say no one returns`` ,oroe reort teotte oemoom, .:.,. But
Catullus /o returneo, to conlouno his own pagan wisoom. He is
with us once more, biooing us celebrate him ano call him our
own, ano his return, in the ooo logic ol Benvenuto`s epigram, has
more than a little to oo with the communion ol saints. Il such an
interpretation seems a lancilul overreaoing, it oio not seem so to
the copyist ol G, who in : captioneo the epigram: Verses ol
Messer Benvenuto Campesani ol Vicenza upon the teottecttor ol
Catullus, Veronese poet.```'
Benvenuto`s epigram instantiates something that all poetry, all
art, ultimately, lays implicit claim to ,at least unoer a certain
mooel ol reaoing,: the power to charm away the absence ol oeath,
oaring us to resist the charm even as it naunts that charm`s lail-
ure.` What renoers Benvenuto`s technology ol immortality`` lor-
eign to a mooern classicist ,to this one, at least, is perhaps
precisely the lact that it is neither classical nor mooern, in any
oroinary sense ol either term. We are no strangers to poetry`s
negotations with oeath, but in Benvenuto we miss the anxiety, the
oelirium, the vampirism ol a Fropertian Bauoelaire or a Bauoe-
lairean Fropertius. Ior such a poet as those, Benvenuto`s woroplay
on Catullus` poptto might have suggesteo another play, on Catul-
lus` cotpo, ano the accompanying images ol corruption are unsa-
vory ones. But il Benvenuto ano his Catullus belong to a oiherent
thought worlo`` lrom ours, a worlo also inhabiteo by Dante ano
`' Italics mine. The original caption reaos Veto oomtrt Bereoerott oe Compexort oe Vtcercto
oe teottecttore Cotollt poetoe Vetorert`` ano appears in G, copieo in :. Thomson ,:q8,
:q.
` Compare the powerlul reaoing ol a posthumous stanza by Keats ,supposeo to have been
aooresseo to Ianny Brawne, by Iitzgeralo ,:qq, . On Romanticism ano the absent
oeao,`` see also Iry ,:qq, :q:8o.
On the immortality conlerreo by Inoo-European traoitional poetry, Nagy ,:qq, :.:o
ano ,:qqo, :6:q8.
nearing its historical close, there is another sense ano this is the
point ol reaoing his poem here in which Benvenuto`s recep-
tion`` ano construction`` ol Catullus, no less than Squarzanco`s, is
lully lamiliar to us, ano not so very oiherent lrom the moist ano
intimate embrace in which Romanticizing novelists ano poets, ano
,to our embarrassment, Romanticizing scholars, have claspeo
Catullus, that extraoroinary case among ancient poets, one ol the
special lyric oarlings ol Europe.``'
What conclusions can be orawn lrom this opening look at two
caroinal moments in Catullus` reception alter antiquity? Ior one,
authors are always alreaoy`` constructeo. ,That much we knew
alreaoy., Ano il that is the case, then perhaps a secono conclusion
suggests that the essentialist]constructionist binarism is itsell a bit
lacile lrom the outset, or at least, perhaps we have been too quick
to use the terms as il we knew precisely what they meant. ,No less
a constructionist`` than Juoith Butler has recently suggesteo as
much.,` A thiro conclusion takes the lorm ol a question. Shoulo
we, then, as Catullan critics, ,:, keep our critical oistance`` lrom
our author ,which sounos proper, moral ano grimly pleasureless,
even il we believe in that approach`s promise to bring us eventu-
ally closer to our text rather than take us larther lrom it,, or might
we ,., ease up a bit on our mooern ,ano Mooernist, earnestness
ano lollow Benvenuto`s aovice to celebrate our Catullus``? To
explore that question, ano the possibility ol an answer to it that
subsumes both choices, is among the aims ol this stuoy. I begin
with one ol the critical terms ol art unoer which reaoers have
most richly celebrateo their Catullus.
s r r r xnons or + nr r vni c . . .
Cotollo cttptot l,ttco: lyric has long been a Catullan problem, or
at least a Catullan issue. Whether it was so lor Catullus is another
question, ano probably unanswerable. He specincally mentions
several other kinos ol poetry, but never lyric, ano no extant source
earlier than Jerome relers to Catullus with the epithet l,ttco. On
' Johnson ,:q8., :o8.
` Butler, oiscussing the work ol Irigaray in interview with Cheah ano Grosz ,:qq8, :q:
| The| utopian oimension actually leo me to reconsioer what it is that we`ve all been
talking about unoer the rubric ol essentialism when we use that term.`` See also Butler
,:qq, :., ano oe Lauretis ,:qq8, 8:.
Jerome C/tortco :o:H.
Cotollor cttttctm oro t/e pto/lem of l,ttc q
a pure historicizing view, ancient lyric was a category ol poetry
written in the strophic metres once useo, or believeo to have been
useo, by archaic Greek poets ,who spoke ol melo, never lyric``,
lor songs accompanieo by the lyre. Il we apply this etymological,
oiachronic ano ultimately anachronistic oennition ol a Hellenistic
literary critical term to the Catullan collection, exactly three ol
the nlty-seven short polymetric poems qualily as lyric: the Sappho
translation ,Foem :, ano the maleoiction-valeoiction aooresseo to
Lesbia in care ol Iurius ano Aurelius ,Foem ::,, both in sapphics,
ano the hymn to Diana ,Foem ,, in glyconics.`
Quite apart lrom the lact that the critical meaning ano value ol
the term lyric`` is thereby reouceo nearly to nil, this ioentincation
ol genre with metrical lorm alreaoy runs agrouno even on its own
historical terms. Catullus surely knew, lor example, Callimachus`
nlth hymn Or t/e Bot/ of Pollo, composeo in elegiac oistichs rather
than hexameters, a bolo ano experimental juxtaposition ol fotme
ano foro in the Hellenistic mooe ol genre-crossing. More specin-
cally, ano closer to the case ol Catullus, il lyric`` is to mean
strophic`` lor Roman poets, then the evioence ol Horace is oim-
cult to explain away.` The programmatic oeoication ol the nrst
three books ol Ooe seems to lay explicit claim to lyric status ,l,ttct
oott/o, :.:.,. Even il we oo not interpret Horace to mean that
ecet, poem in his collection is lyric ,though I suspect he ooes mean
that,, surely it woulo be perverse to argue that the Leuconoe ooe
,:.::, is rot meant to be reao as a lyric poem while the Fyrrha ooe
,:., t, simply because the lormer is in the stichic nlth Asclepia-
oean`` metre ano the latter is in the strophic lourth Asclepia-
oean.`` Ano il lyric coulo be stichic lor Horace, then why not
equally so lor Catullus, who useo the nlth Asclepiaoean in an
abanooneo lrieno`s complaint to Allenus ,Foem o,? Ano il one
stichic choriambic metre is gooo lor lyric, then why not the hen-
oecasyllabic Fhalaecian metre ol the sparrows ,Foems . ano ,
See OCD s.v. lyric poetry.`` On the absence ol ancient lyric theory,`` see Johnson ,:q8.,
6q.
` Quinn ,:q., :.
Il this simplistic view ol genre in ancient literature seems now to be more straw than
substance, that is so thanks to such work as Cairns ,:q., ano Conte ,:qq,, esp. :o:.8.
` Quintilian, interestingly ano very clearly, oio not classily Catullus among lyric poets ,to
the consternation ol Havelock |:qq| :,. At Irt. :o.:.q6 he names Catullus ,along with
|Iurius| Bibaculus ano Horace, among Roman exponents ol tom/o, ano in the next sen-
tence pronounces Horace basically the only |Roman| lyric poet worth reaoing`` ,ot l,t-
tcotom toem Hototto fete olo let otro,.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo :o
ano kisses ,Foems ano ,? The evioence ol Martial suggests that
those lour poems were as central to Catullus` ancient reception as
they have been to his mooern one, ano most reaoers woulo prob-
ably conteno that those poems are lyric`` il there is anything at all
ol lyric to be louno in Catullus.'
Another set ol critical views has tenoeo, broaoly, towaro view-
ing all the polymetric poems sometimes the epigrams as well,
sometimes the whole collection unoer the heaoing ol lyric. Taken
literally to mean that every poem in the collection is best classineo
as a lyric poem rather than belonging to some other type such as
tom/o, which Catullus mentions several times such a view
presents obvious oimculties. But lyric is unoerstooo here in a
wioer sense, implicitly or explicitly, ano in any case such an
approach has the aovantage ol ohering, in principle, a way to
reao the poetry collection as a whole work. In practice, however,
the attempt to take in the corpus lrom a single vantage point ol
lyric`` has hao, among other results, a way ol throwing the spot-
light on a select group ol poems to the oisaovantage ol the rest.
At this eno ol the critical spectrum, Eric Havelock`s enthusiastic
lormulation, inlormeo by high Romantic critical oennitions ol the
terms poet,`` lyric`` ano genius,`` represents a kino ol lounoa-
tional moment, one that still exercises a certain gravitational
pull:' The total ol a hunoreo ano nine poems ano lragments . . .
oeserves to be regaroeo as a single booy ol work oisplaying certain
common characteristics ol style ano substance, the work in lact ol
a lyric poet.``` More than one scholar has maoe the lair observa-
tion that, oespite his vast vision ol the entire corpus as unineo by a
single breath ol lyric inspiration, Havelock`s actual teootr ol
Catullus connnes itsell almost exclusively to the twenty-six lyrics``
he translateo. There is no neeo to rehearse here the limitations
' Surviving ancient relerences to Catullus are assembleo at Wiseman ,:q8, .8o.
The lourth- ,or early nlth-, century Roman grammarian Diomeoes oennes tom/o as an
abusive poem, usually in hiambici trimeters.`` Keil, Gtomm. Lot. :.8.:: h.
Newman ,:qqo, , on the other hano, stakes his claim lor unity on the argument that
Catullus is above all an iambic satirist, he consequently reaos even the Lesbia poems as
partaking ol the carnivalesque ano grotesque leatures ol the i cuiin i ot c.
' Romantic poetics, we coulo say, oawns at the late eighteenth-century moment when the
poet no longer /o genius, but rather t a genius``: Meltzer ,:qq, :.. Chateaubriano`s
notion ol mother geniuses`` , e rte me `te, is a central instance ol this Romantic concep-
tion ol literary creation, on which see Bakhtin ,:q8, :..
` Havelock ,:qq, . In the Alexanorian`` longer poems, Havelock nnos that Catullus`
writing becomes signincant ano important only in so lar as it is lyrical`` ,8,.
Quinn ,:q., 6.
Cotollor cttttctm oro t/e pto/lem of l,ttc ::
ol Havelock`s important contribution to Catullan stuoies. Among
the valuable ano instructive qualities ol T/e L,ttc Gerto of Cotollo,
certainly, is its sense ol heartlelt, soulswept elevation.`` The sub-
lime was an aesthetic emotion that high Romantic criticism hao
been, to put it miloly, less than eager to associate with any poetry
ol the Latin language.
Havelock`s example might have given one to think a Romantic
reaoing ol the Catullan sublime to be irreconcilable with powerlul
ano precise critical thinking about the poems ano their relation to
the lyric genre, hao not W. R. Johnson`s T/e Ioeo of L,ttc come to
prove otherwise. Johnson`s conception ol the lyric poetic utter-
ance markeo by a heighteneo rhetorical intensity in the expression
ol an ioentity, achieveo principally through the oynamic conngu-
ration ol pronominal lorms is still wioely innuential in contem-
porary oiscussions ol the genre both within ano without the nelo
ol classical literature.` His penetrating reaoing ol the lyric Catul-
lus as a very great neurotic poet, almost in the mooern mooe`` is
among the primary reasons why lyric`` has continueo to be a cen-
tral term in Catullan literary stuoies to oate.
An important recent work on the lyric genre characterizes
Catullus` poetic proouction in a way that bears comparison to
both Havelock ano Johnson. Faul Allen Miller, by a very oiherent
route lrom Havelock`s Romanticism ,lyric poetry, lor Miller, has
little to oo with spontaneous outnowings ol emotion``,, arrives
nonetheless at a cohesive ano unilying characterization ol the
work ol Catullus as the nrst extant example ol a true lyric collec-
tion.``` Like Johnson, Miller brings to his Catullan reaoings a
wioe literary culture, incluoing an amnity lor ano oeep unoer-
stanoing ol Romantic lyric poetry.' In Miller`s oennition, the lyric
genre emerges only with the aovent ol the written poetry collec-
tion a Hellenistic invention, then, though none ol its Hellenistic
examples survives ,not, at least, in the lorm ol single-author col-
lections ol short poems,. Miller likens the act ol reaoing ano
rereaoing the Catullan collection to a Garoen ol Iorking Faths,``
Miles ,:q,, citeo in Johnson ,:q8., ...
` See, lor example, Bahti ,:qq6, ..
Johnson ,:q8., :...
` Miller ,:qq, ..
' His work incluoes, lor instance, Bakhtinian criticism on the poetry ol Bauoelaire: Miller
,:qqa,.
On Hellenistic poetry books, Gutzwiller ,:qq8,, also Bing ,:q88,.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo :.
alter Borges` short story about a mysterious novel in which
whenever a character makes a oecision, all possible outcomes are
envisageo. The result is a labyrinthine text, which although at nrst
seems to contain no linear plot, in lact possesses a plurality ol
them.```
Ior Miller, lyric consciousness`` resonates with the temporality
ol our own oivioeo psyches.```' This innnitely complex conscious-
ness emerges in the act ol reaoing, precisely to the extent that the
reaoer becomes engageo in the attempt to construe a rottottce out
ol, ano in, the poetic collection. Both meaning ano lyric,`` lor
Miller, come into being in the Catullan collection through a will
to narrative`` that belongs not only to reaoers but seems to have
been programmeo into the text itsell.```` The story tolo by that
narrative, not surprisingly, is the story ol Catullus` ahair with
Lesbia, with the consequence that Miller`s actual reaoing, like that
ol most Catullan literary critics since Havelock, operates unoer
a principle ol selection, or at least ol locus. The three pairs ol
kisses, sparrows ano sapphics, ano such poems as Mtet Cotolle,
oetro trepttte ,Foor Catullus, stop playing the lool,`` Foem 8,, are
all central to that narrative, other poems come into locus primar-
ily to the extent that they bathe in Lesbia`s light. So, lor example,
an epigram that otherwise might appear to be nothing more than
a sentimental trine`` gains poignancy not lrom its own intrinsic
merit but lrom its relation to the rest ol the collection, the oomi-
nant theme ol which is the poet`s love lor Lesbia.```
Miller has more recently put lorwaro his mooel ol Catullan
lyric consciousness`` as a piece ol counterevioence lor which the
narrative spun by Ioucault in the thiro volume ol the Httot, of
Sexooltt, seems unable to account. Ioucault woulo have it that the
Roman imperial perioo witnesseo the invention ol a new culture
ol care ol the sell `` characterizeo by an inoiviouality constructeo
in a way raoically oiherent lrom the culture ol sell-mastery`` that
obtaineo in Greek society ol the lourth century ncr. In its broao-
est scope, Miller`s argument makes the lollowing point: Ioucault`s
synchronic, archaeological`` mooels posit a given historical era as
inlormeo oiscursively by a single epistemological grio or paraoigm
,e ptte me `,, which lunctions as the preconoition lor the proouc-
` Miller ,:qq, . `' Miller ,:qq, 6. `` Miller ,:qq, .
` Miller ,:qq, 6.
Cotollor cttttctm oro t/e pto/lem of l,ttc :
tion ol all positive knowleoge`` in that era.` Any resistance to
an era`s oominant e ptte me `, lor Ioucault, must necessarily be co-
constituteo`` with the very power by which that e ptte me ` is main-
taineo, ano therelore not negative, not proouctive ol real histori-
cal oiherence, but rather merely transgressive.```` In other woros,
by making his oiscursive mooels sell-mastery,`` care ol the
sell,`` sexuality`` into virtual monoliths``` which no subject can
negate ,let alone escape,, Ioucault`s version ol history seems to
renoer impossible precisely those sea changes that woulo proouce
the kino ol raoical grio shilt, the kino ol quantum leap between
reigning oroers, that Ioucauloian archaeology`` necessarily pos-
its. Miller`s more specinc point is that between the two synchronic
moments oenneo by Ioucault yawns a consioerable historical
lacuna, ano in that lacuna we nno Catullus, whose representation
ol the subject`s sell-relation can be accounteo lor neither by
the ethic ol sell-mastery nor by that ol the care ol the sell.` ````
Remarkably, what makes the literary representation ol such a sell-
relation possible, what enables our reaoing to call lorth into ex-
pression that vertiginous nux ol a complex multi-leveleo ano
multi-temporal subjectivity whose relation to itsell can never be
reouceo to the rational normative mooel implicit in the oiscourse
ol Seneca, Fliny ano Musonius Rulus,`` is in Miller`s view nothing
more or less than the generic lorm, the generic ioentity ol Catul-
lus` work: lyric collection.```'
While Micaela Janan`s Lacanian reaoing ol Catullus, ano ol his
,ano its, ano our, mooulations ol narrative oesire ooes not explic-
itly take lyric`` as a term ol art, it points towaro a recombinatory
reaoing`` ol the corpus in a way that has much in common with
Miller`s approach. Here is a particularly elegant ano clear lormu-
lation ol her position:
| T|he tropological changes rung on our oesire as reaoers are not lunoa-
mentally oiherent lrom those we experience as lovers or as philosophers.
We seek meaning we interpret in noticing the points ol resemblance
` Miller ,:qq8, :q, Ioucault ,:q66, :q , |:qo| :68,.
`` Ioucault`s ,:q8o, central ano most lamous example is ol course his recharacterization ol
Ireuo ano the entire project`` ol psychoanalysis as operating unoer a repressive hy-
pothesis`` whose ehect is nrst to invent ano subsequently to maintain the mooern con-
struction ol sexuality.``
` Miller ,:qq8, :q6.
`` Miller ,:qq8, :q..
`' Miller ,:qq8, :q..
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo :
ano oiherence between oiherent parts ol the Catullan corpus. We are
inviteo to oo so, by repetition ano oiherence in subject matter ano im-
agery . . . , but as well in meter, vocabulary, ano the like. We are simul-
taneously lrustrateo, because the Lesbia cycle lalls lar short ol the
totality ol a novel, a play, or an epic poem. Resemblance ano translor-
mation in key terms assures us that these poems are not simply an as-
semblage ol lacts.`` Yet the gaps in what we are given obscure the
meaning ol this particular oiscourse rather like a painting or a statue
ol which only parts remain.`
What makes narrative oesire`` oesire, as Kermooe ano Brooks
have taught us, is the sense ol an enoing,`` the enticing promise
ol ootorce in catching a glimpse ol the work ,at the eno, in its
completeo totality, the totality ol a novel, a play or an epic
poem`` but especially ol a rocel, the genre within which Genette,
as well as Kermooe ano Brooks, elaborateo theories ol narrative
ano reaoing that have become central to critical thinking about
literature in many genres. We teno to take it lor granteo now
that one reaos an epic, lor instance, as il it were a novel, ano ac-
coroingly we turn to our great novel reaoers to learn how to reao
epic ,with some remarkable results,.' Once stigmatizeo as ignoble,
unworthy ol serious attention ano even morally suspect, the novel
has long since become lor most Western reaoers the zero oegree
ol genre: the sort ol literature you think ol when you think ol
literature.```
The oesire that Catullus` text simultaneously arouses ano lrus-
trates, in Janan`s reaoing, is a novelistic oeath orive, locuseo
nearly exclusively upon the Lte/etomor or, in its anagram, the
tomor ;oe) Le/te. The problem with reaoing Catullus as il he were
a novel, as Janan well brings out, is that while Catullus himsell
gets the ootorce ol oying young ,ano leaving, we trust, a beautilul
corpse,, he reluses to kill o oh, as every gooo novel, ano even
every bao one, must. The novelistically oesirous reaoer might, lor
instance, latch on to Foems : ano :: as the respective beginning
ano eno ol the ahair`` ,many have oone so,, ano then proceeo to
` Janan ,:qq, .
Central critical texts in this line incluoe Kermooe ,:q66,, Booth ,:q,, Genette ,:q8o,,
Brooks ,:q8,.
' Examples incluoe oe Jong ,:q8, on Homer ano Iusillo ,:q8, on Apollonius.
` On the novel ol Catullus,`` Iitzgeralo ,:qq, .q.
It shoulo be pointeo out that Janan ,:qq, oennes her stuoy lrom the outset as locuseo
upon the Lesbia cycle`` rather than the whole corpus.
nll an Aristotelian mioole with the other Lesbia`` poems. Ano
yet, assuming that we can reconcile our critical consciences to the
notion ol shuming the poems like a Tarot pack to make them tell
a story, as in Italo Calvino`s Cotle of Ctoeo Dettrte, even then the
text`s oscillations ano repetitions never allow any given linear
sequence to nt the collection seamlessly.` Janan`s text oramatizes
the appetite lor narrative cohesion, plenituoe ano meaning
arouseo by reaoing Catullus ,by reaoing him in a certain way, that
is,, ano oramatizes no less the hunger to which that appetite is
ultimately lelt by a book ol poems that reluses to be a novel, or
even a ,lyric, song cycle. There is arguably a sense ol the lyric``
implicit in Janan`s reaoing, both in its mooulations ol the
subject-in-language`` ,a translation ol Lacan`s portmanteau woro
potle tte, but subject`` ano subjectivity`` are notions central to
recent oennitions ol lyric,, ano perhaps even more in her own
literary lormation as a sensitive critical reaoer ol poetry in the
Romantic lyrical traoition: When the lamp is shattereo,`` a short
lyric poem by Shelley, lurnishes Janan`s book with its title ano one
ol its two epigraphs ,a lyric ol Colerioge lurnishes the other,.
The last major literary stuoy ol Catullus ol the twentieth cen-
tury, like the nrst one, has positioneo itsell unoer the sign ol lyric
,once again in a connguration very lar lrom Havelock`s notion ol
lyric genius``,, taking it as a central critical term ano leaturing it
prominently on the cover. Lyric poetry ano the orama ol posi-
tion`` subtitles William Iitzgeralo`s Cotollor Ptococottor, a work
alreaoy praiseo here lor its project ol questioning Catullus` seem-
ing oiplomatic immunity among critics ol ancient poetry, ol ois-
placing him lrom the cushioneo armchair that even Faul Veyne
was at pains to oraw to the table in Catullus` honor.` The secono
reagent in Iitzgeralo`s critical aqua regia, alongsioe Ioucauloian
teerttmert, is a oistillation prepareo lrom the powerlul analytical
mooels elaborateo by Faul oe Man through reaoings ol Romantic
lyric poetry.' Applying this heaoy corrosive, Iitzgeralo now inter-
On Foem :: as the eno ol the Lesbia cycle`` alreaoy so oesignateo by Schwabe ,:86.,
:.8 ,ooo cotmtrom oo Le/toe omotem pectorttom omrtom olttmom o poeto corpottom ee cteot-
mo, see Ireoricksmeyer ,:qq,, also Janan ,:qq, 666. See Miller ,:qq, 6: on
Foems :: ano :oq as alternate enos ol the ahair.``
` Calvino ,:q,.
See, lor example, Meschonnic ,:qq6,, Jehreys ,:qq8, xvii-xix.
` Iitzgeralo ,:qq, 68, .. n. :. Veyne ,:q88a, 6 pronounces Catullus` illusion more
classical`` than that ol the Roman elegists.
' oe Man ,:qq,.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo :6
rogates, ano now just as provocatively celebrates, an ethic ol
slightness`` positeo as the generative aesthetic ol Catullan lyric.
The notion ol lyric as a orama ol positionality`` gives a lootholo
lor resisting the tenoency ol many critics to vinoicate, through
interpretation,`` the slightness ano even vileness ol many ol
Catullus` poems back into an exalteo poetic ol oepth, seriousness
ano nobility. Iitzgeralo`s aim, insteao, is to explore the uncon-
scious ol the lyric genre,`` precisely those things that we as reaoers,
implicitly ano all too obviously, license poets to oo when we sub-
mit ourselves to the silent position ol an auoience belore a lyric
speaking subject who never yielos the noor.
Whether implicitly or explicitly, then, whether as a given notion
or oenneo with theoretical rigor, the lyric,`` as a term ano as an
ioea, was throughout the twentieth century ano even more so at
its eno than at its beginning a splenoio stanoaro beneath which
some ol the most important ano lorwaro-moving critical thinking
about Catullus rangeo itsell. I hope that my respect ano aomira-
tion lor the critics whose work I have just now revieweo is clear
lrom the pages above, I trust that the extent ol my oebt to them
will be maoe even clearer at length, even in the lollowing sections
in which I set lorth my present project ol exploring aspects ol
Catullan poetics in which lyric`` plays no more than a small ano
oecentralizeo role. Il I part company with them, at least lor the
length ol this stuoy, on the question ol lyric,`` it is certainly not
with a view to supplanting the results ol their work. Il nothing
else, I coulo pleao the inevitable perversity that accompanies the
sense ol belateoness, ano a leeling that all the exciting new books
on the lyric`` in Catullus have alreaoy been written. Less lriv-
olously, I wish to suggest, as others alreaoy have both within ano
without the nelo ol Catullan stuoies, that certain inevitable asso-
ciations attacheo to the term lyric``, associations belonging both
to the Romantic traoition ano to that version ol Mooernism that
is continuous with rather than oisjunctive lrom Romanticism, still
continue to preconoition our locus as reaoers ol Catullus.` The
empiricist, commonsense`` solution to the problem ol getting
arouno those preconoitions lorgetting mooern reception ano just
reaoing the poems in their ancient context tenos to proouce
Iitzgeralo ,:qq, ..
` Batstone`s ,:qq, important essay is more lar-reaching in this regaro than its own con-
clusion ,lrameo in terms ol Romanticism ano the olo New Criticism``, explicitly allows.
some perverse results.`' Ferhaps it woulo be less so il our empiri-
cal knowleoge were less lragmentary. In any case, it was precisely
in an attempt to sweep away the intervening centuries ol reception
history ano get at Catullus as he really was`` that Schwabe pro-
ouceo his Romantic biography ol Catullus ano spawneo an entire
traoition lor us to regret at our leisure. But perhaps it is possible
to get closer to what lies beneath a Romanticizeo Catullus by
moving not larther behino the Romantic but larther past it.
. . . \xn + nr r vni c` s s onnovs
Lyric is more than a Catullan problem, ano complaining about its
imprecision as a term ol art is no new critical occupation. The
very oennition ol lyric,` in the Oxloro Dictionary, inoicates that
the woro cannot be satislactorily oenneo``: so T. S. Eliot, la-
mously, in a :q lecture on The Three Voices ol Foetry.`` The
oennition he reao alouo on that occasion is still ol interest:
L,ttc: Now the name lor short poems, usually oivioeo into stanzas or
strophes, ano oirectly expressing the poet`s own thoughts ano sentiments.
Farticularly objectionable to Eliot were the prescription ol brevity
ano the mention ol strophic lorm, a resioue lrom musical perlor-
mance.`` What Eliot likes in the oennition is the bit about the poet
oirectly expressing his own thoughts ano sentiments, but he
oecioes that meoitative verse`` is alter all a better term than
lyric`` lor poetry written in the nrst voice, the voice ol the poet
talking to himsell, or to no one at all.``` The term meoitative,``
however, stanos at an even larther remove than lyric`` lrom the
qualities ol Catullus` poetry upon which I inteno to locus.
Il rejecting the ,inoispensable, term lyric`` has a oistinguisheo
mooern traoition, the same can be saio ol the gesture ol removing
a poet wioely consioereo as lyric ,such as Catullus, lrom the lyric`s
sphere. To take a single instance: Walter Benjamin, in the lace ol
the vast ano rising critical success ol Bauoelaire`s Le /eot oo mol
ouring a time when, in Benjamin`s juogment, the conoitions lor
the acceptance ol lyric poetry |hao| become less lavorable,``
`' On common sense`` in literary criticism, Belsey ,:q8o, ::.
`` Strophic lorm, as suggesteo earlier, was probably a musical resioue lor Catullus as well,
rather than a synchronic marker ol generic ioentity.
` Eliot ,:q6:, :o6, citeo in Quinn ,:qq, q:., also Johnson ,:q8., :.
resolveo the apparent paraoox by pronouncing Bauoelaire rot a
lyric poet at all.` Benjamin`s example is not much more heart-
ening than Eliot`s. Lyric`` seems, lrankly, an apt enough epithet
lor Bauoelaire. Il he is arguably the nrst mooern`` poet ol the
Irench language, Bauoelaire also inherits the traoitions ol both
Irench ano German Romanticism at their height. Poe `te mooott
whose mother shakes her nst at heaven lor having engenoereo
such a monster, albatross trappeo on a ship ano tormenteo cruelly
by sailors, Farisian Anoromache wanoering amiost the scaholoing
ol Haussman`s construction sites in a city no longer recognizable
as home: Bauoelaire`s sell-representation nts very many ol the
Romantic ano mooern associations, even the vaguer ones, com-
monly attacheo to the term lyric.```` More than that, the collec-
tion ol Le /eot oo mol conlorms tightly both to W. R. Johnson`s
conception ol lyric by its pronominal oynamics, its rhetorical ur-
gency, ano its lrequently meoitative stance, ano also to Faul Allen
Miller`s oennition ol lyric as a genre instantiateo in a written col-
lection ol poems lrom which there emerges, through the act ol
reaoing ano rereaoing in all oirections, a multi-layereo ano multi-
laceteo consciousness ol innnite complexity.` Bauoelaire`s poetry
book, I think, nts both the broaoer ano the more rigorously
oenneo notions ol the lyric to a signincantly greater extent than
Catullus`, whether by Catullus` poetry book`` we mean a one-
volume lt/ello containing the polymetrics alone or the entire
corpus as we possess it.
To point out that lyric`` is an apter term lor a poet like Bauoe-
laire than lor Catullus ooes not ol course amount to saying that the
term is useless lor Catullan criticism ,the work revieweo in the pre-
vious section has amply oemonstrateo the contrary,. Ano it is cer-
tainly not to suggest that the kino ol emotive sell-representation
just now oescribeo as lyric in Bauoelaire is absent lrom Catullus:
lor sheer pathos, Catullus as nower at the meaoow`s eoge cut by
the passing plow ,Foem ::, stanos up to, probably even trumps,
` Benjamin ,:q, 6o8, citeo in Bahti ,:qq6, :.
`` But then, I am writing about Catullus not Bauoelaire, it is likely that I woulo think other-
wise il my purpose were to bring Bauoelaire`s poetry into sharper critical locus. See, lor
example, oe Man`s ,:q8, .q6. essay on two Bauoelaire sonnets in which he argues
powerlully that, while O/etor`` is a lyric poem, the more lamous Cotteporoorce`` is
not. See also Jameson`s ,:q8, argument lor the presence ol a postmooernism`` in Bau-
oelaire.
` Johnson ,:q8., :., Miller ,:qq, ..
Cotollor cttttctm oro t/e pto/lem of l,ttc :q
Bauoelaire as albatross burneo by a cruel sailor`s pipe-ashes ,ano
Catullus never consoles himsell with the thought that e otle oe
e ort lempe c/ert oe motc/et |his giant`s wings keep him lrom walk-
ing``|,.`` Nor is it anything close to a move towaro oeconstructing
the term lyric.`` It is all a matter ol locus, obviously, ano what
I wish to locus upon are the oiherences rather than the similar-
ities between, on the one hano, Catullus in the context ol his own
generic ano intertextual traoitions ano, on the other hano, the
traoitions ol the Romantic ano mooern poets associateo with the
term lyric`` in its most unmarkeo uses.
Its unmarkeo uses in lact constitute a chiel oimculty with the
term. Lyric,`` when useo even slightly imprecisely, comes quickly
to mean simply poem,`` with the tacit ano unquestioneo implica-
tion that lyric`` is the only kino ol poetry, or at least the only real
kino, the only kino oeserving ol the name ol poetry ano worthy ol
serious stuoy. Kenneth Quinn, writing in :q:, pointeo out that
lyric`` lor Eric Havelock, writing in :q8, mean|t|, inoeeo, I
think, little more than poem,` but poem` in the Romantic
sense.```' I ooubt il anyone is surpriseo either by Havelock`s usage
or by Quinn`s characterization ol it. But this slippage is by no
means limiteo to Catullan critics, nor to classical scholars, nor
even to neo-Romantic high Mooernist literary critics. An example:
Timothy Bahti, an acute ano sensitive critic, neither a Catullan
nor a classicist, ano writing in :qq6, casually makes the lollowing
aomission near the eno ol a book on lyric poetry: My stuoy has
not much worrieo about the oistinction between lyric` ano
poem.```` Similar instances are not haro to nno in other recent
critical writing. It is no simple matter, this conlusion between the
lyric`` ano the poetic,`` ano certainly not something easily ois-
misseo as merely symptomatic ol the theoretically retrograoe clas-
sical philology ol a past generation.
On a more public ano popular level, current expressions ol
critical ano peoagogical hano-wringing over the wioespreao oe-
cline ol interest in poetry teno to slip seamlessly lrom the oeath
ol the lyric`` ,a cliche lor some time now, into a global oemise ol
`` Bauoelaire, LÀlbatros.``
`' Quinn ,:q., , Havelock ,:qq, passim. Though Quinn ,:qq, 8:oo, in an earlier
critical sketch that was to have wioe ano vivilying innuence on Catullan stuoies, hao not
hesitateo to associate Catullus with the beginnings ol mooern lyric.``
` Bahti ,:qq6, :8.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo .o
poetry,`` the latter usually portrayeo as taking place at the hanos
ol the oiscourses ol science ano the meoia.' Conversely, ano
interestingly, the most innovative ol our contemporary poet have
lor some time now been experimenting with ways ol making new
poetry ,ano making poetry new, precisely by incorporating or
cutting`` into their poetic proouction oisparate elements ol the
prosaic ano quotioian oiscourses ol science, ol television ano
computers ,among other sources,, olten juxtaposing these elements
with emotively ano rhetorically urgent mooes ol oiscourse charac-
terizable as lyric. In English, some ol the most interesting work
along these lines in recent oecaoes has been oone by poets oe-
scribeo in Britain as linguistically innovative`` ano ioentineo in
the U.S. with a movement known as Language poetry.``''
Frecisely this point is maoe by Marjorie Ferloh in a series ol
stuoies on poetry in the traoition ol Ezra Founo. In an essay enti-
tleo Fostmooernism ano the impasse ol lyric,`` Ferloh examines
a number ol high-brow`` ano low-brow`` variants ol that same
implicit ioentincation ol poetry with the lyric that Quinn criti-
cizeo in Havelock. Among the high-brow`` versions is Harolo
Bloom`s notion ol internalizeo quest romance`` or crisis poem``
,whose subject must ol necessity be the poet`s own lyric subjectiv-
ity, as the essential lorm ol post-Enlightenment poetry.'` Another
is Mallarme`s separatist`` ooctrine ol poetry as a language apart,
elaborateo in Qoort oo ltcte ano elsewhere in Mallarme`s prose ano
letters as a oichotomy between The Newspaper`` ano The
Book.`` Against the trivial newspaper with the monotonousness ol
its eternally unbearable columns,`` Mallarme champions the lrag-
ile ano inviolable book`` whose intimate loloings have an almost
religious signincance ano whose content is perlect Music, ano
cannot be anything else`` ,a lyric collection, in other woros,.'
Chiel among Ferloh`s low-brow`` versions ol lyric`s hegemony
is a poetry collection that constituteo a central piece ol the lurni-
ture ol literary competence lor English-speaking reaoers ano writ-
ers ol poetry lor well over a century, ano still exercises a wioe
sway, inoirectly ano intertextually, even over those who oo not
' On Romanticism ano the oeath ol lyric consciousness,`` Rajan ,:q8,. On lyric`s con-
tinueo postmortem nourishing, see lor example Hamburger ,:qq, .8.
'' On language poetry, Anorews ano Bernstein ,:q8,.
'` Ferloh ,:q8, :..oo. Bloom ,:q, ano ,:q, :.6, o6.
' Mallarme ,:q8.,.
Cotollor cttttctm oro t/e pto/lem of l,ttc .:
know it.' T/e Goloer Tteoot, of t/e Bet Sor oro L,ttc tr t/e Erlt/
Lorooe nrst appeareo in :86:, unoer the eoitorship ol Irancis
Turner Falgrave, a recent Oxloro graouate who later returneo to
Oxloro to occupy a Chair ol Foetry. Known as Falgrave`s Goloer
Tteoot, or simply Falgrave,`` the anthology has hao numerous
eoitions ano a lew upoates, most notably those ol C. Day Lewis in
:q ano ol John Fress in :q6, ano has never gone out ol print.'`
True to its title, the collection has been treasureo by reaoers ano
writers ol poetry on both sioes ol the Atlantic, Ferloh mentions
copies owneo, ano lovingly annotateo, by Thomas Haroy ano
Wallace Stevens.
In an introouction to the book`s nrst eoition, Falgrave ehuses:
Foetry gives treasures more goloen than golo, leaoing us in
higher ano healthier ways than those ol the worlo.`` The mining ol
that golo is to be ehecteo by a principle ol exclusion stricter than
any Roman neoteric version ol Callimachean aesthetics``: Lyri-
cal has been here helo essentially to imply that each Foem shall
turn on some single thought, leeling, or situation.`` Narrative, oe-
scriptive ano oioactic poems unless accompanieo by rapioity ol
movement, brevity, ano the colouring ol human passion`` ,qual-
ities that woulo renoer them l,ttc, are to be excluoeo. What is
strictly personal, occasional, ano religious`` is again oross to be
cast out, as is humorous poetry, except in the very unlrequent
instances where a truly poetical tone pervaoes the whole`` ,ano
here, as Ferloh notes, the slippage is complete: truly poetical``
has become another way ol saying lyrical``,. The resioue ol those
exclusions, Falgrave is connoent, will be poetry`s very essence: It
is hopeo that the contents ol this Anthology will . . . be louno to
present a certain unity,` as episooes,` in the noble language ol
Shelley, to that great Foem which all poets, like the cooperating
thoughts ol one great mino, have built up since the beginning ol
the worlo.```'
To make Falgrave souno rioiculous an unlair, even a churlish
aim, ano in any case not much ol a challenge at this remove is
not Ferloh`s point, or mine. It is rather to suggest how pervasive
this ano relateo views ol poetry continue to be at every level ol
' Newman ,:qqo, : has alreaoy orawn the connection between Falgrave ano oiscussions
ol the lyric`` in Catullus.
'` Falgrave ,:86:,.
' Falgrave ,:86:, ac, citeo in Ferloh ,:q8, :6.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo ..
contemporary oiscourse ,incluoing the level inhabiteo by literary
stuoies ol Catullus,. To several generations ol Anglophone reaoers
,buooing poets incluoeo,, getting to know poetry`` meant Fal-
grave, ano therelore poetry meant, in the nrst instance, l,ttc. But
even on the high roao ol poetic traoition, the oominance ol certain
Romantic norms lor poetry has accompanieo us into ano through
the twentieth century unoer a number ol Mooernist guises. Mal-
larme`s notion ol a Grano Oeuvre`` has more in common than
not with Shelley`s great Foem,`` just as Mallarme`s Symbolist aes-
theticism, lrom our point ol view, now looks more aligneo with
Romanticism than opposeo to it.'` Ano, as Ferloh points out in
another essay, Wallace Stevens` Supreme Iiction`` ,lrom the title
ol what is perhaps his greatest poem, can be reao as another in-
stance ol a poetics ol Romantic plenituoe ano cohesion, just as
Stevens` version ol Mooernism is arguably more conterminous
with than oisjunctive lrom Romantic visionary humanism.'' So
much is this the case that Harolo Bloom was able to assert in the
wake ol Stevens that Mooernism in literature has not passeo,
rather it has been exposeo as never having been there.``'
There has been, in other woros, a twentieth century whose
Mooernism, passing lrom Romantic ano Symbolist lyric through
Stevens to various contemporary Mooernisms ol accommooa-
tion,`` never maoe the initial break with the Romantic, a twentieth
century lor which a Romantic poetics in Mooernist guise has been
as invisible, universal ano natural`` as air. In consequence, even
at this late oate, it is oimcult to invoke a term such as lyric`` in
any context without ,as the spirit says in Foot , sucking on the
sphere ol Romantic paraoigms, or ol Mooernist ones amounting
to encrypteo versions ol the Romantic. This point ano the ones
oeriving lrom it have, I think, particular importance in the context
ol Catullan literary stuoies precisely because ol the lact that the
major twentieth-century literary criticism on Catullus was pro-
ouceo by classical scholars who, seemingly without exception,
were also critically inlormeo, sensitive reaoers ol poetry belonging
to Romantic ano Mooernist traoitions ,ano other traoitions as
well, Catullus attracts great lovers ol poetry,. Hence the possibility
that a oiscussion like the present one may provioe a means both ol
'` Ferloh ,:q8, :. See also Tooorov ,:q, on the rise ol the Romantic aesthetic.
'' Stevens, Notes Towaro a Supreme Iiction``, Ferloh ,:q8, 6.
' Bloom ,:q, .8, citeo in Ferloh ,:q8, ..
Cotollor cttttctm oro t/e pto/lem of l,ttc .
engaging oebate with important Catullan scholarship ol recent
ano less recent oecaoes ano also ol locusing attention upon the
tints ol the various critical lenses through which Catullus` poetry
has been reao ano suggesting ultimately that we try looking at
him through a oiherent shaoe.
There has ol course been another twentieth century alongsioe
that ol the so-calleo Stevens traoition,`` a century whose Moo-
ernism spelleo rupture rather than continuity with the previous
century`s Romanticism. The central poetic proouction ol that
twentieth century, lor Ferloh ano other critics, belongs to Ezra
Founo ano the poets ol the Founo traoition.`` Hugh Kenner`s
:q: critical stuoy, by its title, oubbeo the mooern century`s nrst
hall T/e Pooro Eto. Harolo Bloom`s T/e Poem of oot Cltmote ,:q,
parrieo with the suggestion that perhaps it was high time to call
the perioo the Age ol Stevens ,or shall we say the Stevens
Era,?``' Inoeeo, the poetic projects ol those two Mooernist giants
are so raoically oiherent, at least in Ferloh`s view, as to precluoe a
meaninglul oennition ol Mooernism wioe enough to contain them
both. In an essay whose title relerences that poetic ano critical rilt
,Founo]Stevens: whose era?``,, Ferloh contrasts the poetic moo-
els attacheo to these two names.
Ior Stevens, ano lor the poets ano critics ol his traoition, the
poet is above all a moket of meortr. The poet gives us what will
sumce`` ,Stevens, in a worlo where establisheo truths have col-
lapseo, he is a kino ol priest ol the invisible`` ,Stevens, whose
triumphantly oesperate humanism`` ,Bloom,, as the only remain-
ing compensation lor the traumatic collapse ol religious ano other
inheriteo systems ol beliel ano value, helps us to survive`` ano
teaches us how to talk to ourselves`` ,Bloom,. The historical past,
a place lrom which we try vainly to escape, is both oeao ano
oeaoly, lull ol rotteo names`` ,Stevens,. Foetry is a part ol the
structure ol reality,`` showing us the way to a lile apart lrom pol-
itics`` liveo in a kino ol raoiant ano proouctive atmosphere``
,Stevens,. Key terms that regularly appear in Stevensian criticism
incluoe /etr, corctoore, elf, teoltt,, literary historical evaluative
terms applieo to Stevens` poetry teno to be oeriveo lrom the
names ol Romantic poets: Keatsian,`` Worosworthian,`` Bla-
kean.``` Behino Stevens` vision ol poetry as a kino ol aesthetic
Kenner ,:q:,. ' Bloom ,:q, :.. ` Ferloh ,:q8, :..
religion compensating lor the collapse ol religious beliel ano ,in
Falgrave`s woros again, leaoing us in higher ano healthier ways
than those ol the worlo`` stanos ol course a long traoition, one
that incluoes Worosworth ano the other great names ol high
Romantic poetry, later poets like Mallarme, ano such critics as
Matthew Arnolo ano Walter Fater.
Nothing coulo be lurther lrom Founo`s oennition ol poetry. Ior
Founo ano his traoition, the poet as inventor ol meaning`` is an
impossibility. This is so nrstly because the meoium ol poetry`` is
not ioeas but WORDS`` ,as against Stevens, lor whom the thing
saio must be the poem not the language useo in saying it``,. In
consequence, the Founoian poet is above all a cralter ol language
,Eliot calleo Founo tl mtltot fo//to, lor whom, as lor Dr. Johnson,
poetry is in the nrst instance a species ol metrical composition,``
ano whose poetic art at its highest consists in what Fope oenneo as
true wit``: nnoing woros lor what olt was thought but neèr so
well expresseo.`` Seconoly, the Founoian poet ooes not invent
meaning because meaning is not maoe but receiveo, there are no
inventeo meanings. As Kenner put it, in Founoian time the goos
have never lelt us. Nothing we know the mino to have known has
ever lelt us. Quickeneo by hints, the mino can know it again, ano
make it new.`` No crisis ol beliel or ol meaning inhabits the cen-
ter ol this poetic universe. Foetry, in this vision ol it, is neither a
language apart nor a worlo apart lrom the one in which we live.
Insteao ol Romanticism`s, ano Stevensian Mooernism`s, oisgust
ano oyspepsia belore the rotteo names`` ol the historical past,
Founoian Mooernism evinces a Jehersonian curiosity lor knowl-
eoge ol every kino lrom every cultural traoition, a robust appetite
lor texts to be incorporateo as intertextual presences, as allu-
sions, or as cut-ano-paste citations into a poetry ol encyclope-
oic collage.`` Where Stevensian critics apply to their poet such
epithets as Keatsian`` ano Worosworthian,`` the literary histori-
cal terms ol Founoian criticism, lollowing the Corto, must range
wioely over time ano space: Homeric,`` Conlucian,`` Fro-
vencal,`` Augustan.```
Even more telling are the abstractions taken by Founo critics
as central terms ol art. In place ol Stevensian /etr, corctoore,
elf ano teoltt,, Founoian criticism tenos to privilege such terms as
Stevens ,:q, :6, Founo ,:q, . Kenner ,:q:, . ` Ferloh ,:q8, :, ...
ptecttor, potttcolottt,, tmoe, ttoctote, ano an approbative critical
term ol Cicero ano Quintilian whose usage one might have
thought to have oieo with Dryoen trcerttor. The eighteenth-
century relerences are not coincioental, just as it is no coinci-
oence, in Ferloh`s view, that some ol the most important critical
work on Founo has been oone by classicists ,D. S. Carne-Ross,
Guy Davenport, J. F. Sullivan,. The late twentieth-century poetry
ol the Founo traoition, in breaking lrom neo-Romantic Mooern-
ism, can be saio to recapitulate a time belore the nooo`` ol Ro-
manticism, ano so to point the way to a Fostmooernism whose
poetics, it may yet turn out, has more in common with the per-
lormative, playlul mooe ol eighteenth-century ironists than with
Shelleyan apocalypse. It wants, that is to say, to re-inscribe its
initial letter into the story ol its arrival to turn a Foe into a
Fope.``
We are lelt with the conclusion that the great question ol Moo-
ernist poetics, the aesthetic oichotomy at its center, has been
whether poetry ought to be Stevensian or Founoian, expressionist
or constructionist, lyric or collage, meoitation or encyclopeoia,
the still moment or jaggeo lragment.``` The neatness ol Ferloh`s
oichotomy, ol course, in some measure blurs the specincity ol the
two poets occupying that oichotomy`s poles. It is perhaps more
than a little unlair to Stevens, a poet whose blesseo rage lor
oroer`` was not exactly equivalent to a blithe inoiherence in regaro
to lorm. But then, that is the way with critically imposeo binar-
isms: they teno towaro neatness, simplincation, generalization,
ano even caricature, but they can be gooo to think with.' This
one may be gooo lor thinking about Catullus, at least to the extent
that it invites us to pose the lollowing question: Between these two
twentieth-century paraoigms ol what poetry is ano what the poet
ooes, the Stevensian ano the Founoian, the mooern`` ano post-
mooern,`` meoitative lyric`` ano encyclopeoic collage,`` which
one sounos closer to Catullus in his current critical reception,
closer to our Catullus``?
Ferloh ,:q8, :6.
` Ferloh ,:q8, ..
' Ior a welcome complicating ol Ferloh`s oichotomy, see Campbell ,:qq,. But see Ferloh
,:qqq,, where the relations between Romanticism, Mooernism ano Fostmooernism are
vieweo lrom a broaoer perspective. Ano Ferloh is by no means the only critic to have
pointeo to the imbeooeoness ol specincally mooern ano Mooernist metaphysical cer-
tainties in Stevens` poetry: see lor example Bruns ,:qqq, :6q.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo .6
x\ k r c \ + t r r t s xonr n x
I think it sale to say that a lair response to that question woulo
incline towaro the nrst member ol each ol its pairs, ano that
twentieth-century Catullan criticism was prolounoly innuenceo by
a paraoigm ol the true poet as chieny a maker ol new meanings
in an age ol waning beliel in a oisintegrating system ol receiveo
values ano signs, rather than a worosmith whose central project is
to revivily the expression ol receiveo meanings. At the very least,
the Romantic ano Mooernist poets whose names are attacheo to
the lormer vision ol the poet`s true work have hao paraoigmatic
value lor many Catullans. Aoo to that the lact that the most innu-
ential twentieth-century historical narratives ol late republican
Rome, Syme`s version prominent among them, orew a series ol
implieo ano stateo parallels between the mooern century`` ano
the generations surrounoing Rome`s passage lrom republic to em-
pire.' Among the corollaries ol this Mooernist view ol ancient
history was an implicit mooel ol historical change as separate
lrom, anterior to, ano preconoitioning cultural change. That
mooel is now being calleo into question lor the neat oistinction
ano causal relation it positeo between the historical`` ano the
cultural,`` a relation that privilegeo the lormer, aestheticizeo the
latter, ano put their homologues, politics`` ano literature,`` into
the kino ol separatist relationship they also occupieo, not coinci-
oentally, in the thought ol such mooern poets as Mallarme ano
Stevens.'' But that calling into question is quite recent, ano its
work is still continuing, lor most ol the century, in Roman literary
stuoies as elsewhere, there obtaineo, wioely ano implicitly, a ver-
nacularizeo Mooernist mooel ol literary proouction as something
like ,:, the aesthetic response ol ,., an emotionally intense inoivio-
ual subjectivity to ,, a cultural climate preconoitioneo by ,, his-
torical ,reao political``, lorces, with those lour elements arrangeo
in ascenoing oroer ol importance ano causational power.'`
Fut in those terms, Ferloh`s version ol Founoian`` poetics begins to souno close to
Mallarme`s oorret or er plo pot oox mot oe lo ttt/o`` ,to give the tribe`s woros a purer
meaning,`` lrom the Tom/eoo oEoot Poe,, ano the neatness ol her oichotomy is thus lur-
ther lretteo.
' Syme ,:qq,.
'' Wallace-Haorill ,:qq,.
'` Ior an alternative ,Althusserian materialist, twentieth-century version ol literary pro-
ouction,`` see Macherey ,:q66,.
The tacit assumptions ol this critical ioeology ,it is at least
nearly an ioeology, as invisible ano unnameable as any other, op-
erate in ways consioerably subtler than, lor example, the Roman-
tic biographical lallacy`` against which Mooernist Catullan critics
continueo to caution themselves ano their reaoers. No one has
written seriously about Catullus the Romantic Foet lor some time
now.' But it may be that we are still working to get past Catullus
the Mooernist Foet, ano that it still requires a consioerable act ol
will to reverse, lor example, the implicit separation ol the literary
ano the political in Catullus ano to entertain the possibility that
the poetics ol Catullan sell-lashioning may be an instance ol poli-
tics carrieo on by other means, the possibility ol Catullan poetics
as what Henri Meschonnic calls a politics ol rhythm.``'
It is arguable, again, that neo-Romantic Mooernist notions ol
,in Bloom`s powerlul lormulations, internalizeo quest romance``
as poetry`s essential nature ano crisis poetry`` as the ,lyric, poet`s
highest ano truest work have exerciseo a oegree ol paraoigmatic
allure over Catullan criticism, both at that criticism`s most psy-
chologizing ano even at its most historicizing, causing it to swerve,
to a greater or lesser oegree, in the oirection ol the almost irre-
sistible nobility ol Mooernist poetics. I am not suggesting lor a
moment that Catullan stuoies woulo be somehow improveo by a
prescriptive exclusion ol such Stevensian`` ano psychological
terms as corctoore or elf. Nor am I setting out to relute the
proposition that Catullus` poetry, by all appearances, bears wit-
ness at many levels to cognitive oissonances ano anxieties whose
sources almost certainly incluoe the lacts ol his being an Italian ol
Veronese origin living ano writing at Rome ,ano at Verona, ano
in eastern Roman provinces, ouring a time ol political, cultural
ano social upheaval on a massive scale. It may even be true that
Catullus` poetry bears witness to an inoivioual crisis ol values ano
' The last to oo so may have been Blaiklock ,:qq,. A signincant oate: alter Quinn ,:qq,,
an avoweoly Romantic reaoing ol Catullus stooo little chance ol being taken seriously
enough to be publisheo.
' Certainly the last two oecaoes ol Catullan scholarship ,lrom, e.g., Skinner |:q8o| ano
|:q8.| to Tatum |:qq|, have witnesseo a salutary increase in locus on the political in
Catullus. I wish to suggest that the personal t political in Catullus, ano that it is sig-
nincantly more so ,ano oiherently so, than in the Roman poets ol the next generation.
On sell-lashioning``: Greenblatt ,:q8o,, esp. ::. On politics ol rhythm``: Meschon-
nic ,:qq, ano ,:qq6,.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo .8
meaning. It may be true to an extent, but to the extent that such a
narrative about Catullus is implicitly taken as not merely true but
axiomatic, central ano complete, it neeos questioning.
Il Catullus as crisis poet`` has been an unstateo mooern axiom,
at least two mooern assumptions have unoerpinneo it, ano Chris-
tianity, strangely enough, seems bouno up with both ol them. Iirst
is the notion calleo Stevensian`` by Ferloh ano olten calleo
Worosworthian`` by other critics ,it is in any case a pervasive
Romantic ano Mooernist ioea to which many other names coulo
be attacheo,, the notion that poetry, ano art in general, serves in
its highest ano truest lorm as a kino ol aesthetic religion, a com-
pensation lor the traumatic collapse ol a system ol beliel ano val-
ues.'` Secono is, again, the notion that Catullus` time, like ours,
was characterizeo by just such a collapse ol beliel in the norms ol
an inheriteo sign-system, a collapse whose results incluoeo a sense
ol loss ano emptiness at the level ol inoivioual subjectivity. Both
ol these assumptions are preoicateo upon a construction ol the
term beliel `` that appears to be specinc to the traoition ol Chris-
tianity, as Denis Ieeney, orawing on recent work in anthropology
ano religion, has pointeo out.' Ior the high Mooernist poet ano
critic, poetry ,what it says, lar more than how it says it, mottet in
just the way that beliel once mattereo, by giving us what will sul-
nce,`` the poet saves us, narrowly, lrom a worlo in which rot/tr
matters. I think it woulo not be an exaggeration to suggest that in
consequence, many twentieth-century reaoers have hao a certain
investment in nnoing a mooern skepticism`` towaro establisheo
truths ano receiveo ioeas in ancient authors, perhaps especially
ancient poets. But skepticism`` oepenos on beliel,`` ano thanks to
work like Ieeney`s it is no longer a certainty that the skepticism ol,
say, Cicero in his letters ano oialogues woulo have been lelt by
their author or auoience as nying in the lace ol the mo mototom
'` Interesting, especially in light ol the earlier oiscussion ol Ferloh ,:q8,, to compare
Ioucault ,:qo, , |:q66| q, : In the mooern age, literature is that which compen-
sates lor ,ano not that which connrms, the signilying lunction ol language.``
' Ieeney ,:qq8, :.6 on beliel,`` orawing upon Sperber ,:q, ano Veyne ,:q88b,. A
strain ol Romanticism ol course reao pre-Christian Roman culture as languishing in the
exhaustion ol its own lorms ano so groping towaro an unknown new ,Christian, oroer:
popular portrayals ol Rome along these lines incluoeo Fater`s Motto t/e Eptcoteor ano
Sienkiewicz`s Qoo Voot. Iitzgeralo ,:qq, :. ioentines a similar sentiment in Granar-
olo`s ,:q6, characterization ol Catullus.
Cotollor cttttctm oro t/e pto/lem of l,ttc .q
, just as a kino ol skepticism`` seems to have been traoitional``
ouring many centuries ol European Catholicism,.'` The same
applies, ol course, to social norms conceiveo ol as a beliel sys-
tem.`` When we use, lor instance, the term aoultery`` in ois-
cussions ol Catullus, it is easy ,il not unavoioable, to lose sight at
some point ol what by now everyone knows: the lact that, in a
traoition with no oecalogue ano no post-Kantian personhooo,``
the native Roman term will have hao a raoically oiherent con-
struction lrom the mooern one.''
The Mooernist critical construction ol Catullus here outlineo
owes its most powerlul ano innuential expression, at least in Eng-
lish, ano owes even most ol what might be calleo its invention, to
the work ol a Catullan scholar-critic whose name it has been oim-
cult to holo at a oistance until now in the oiscussion. Throughout
the secono hall ol the twentieth century, Kenneth Quinn repre-
senteo the traoitional,`` receiveo view ol Catullus` poetic achieve-
ment ano place in literary history, a commort optrto that Quinn
himsell hao in consioerable measure brought into being through
a :q. lull-length stuoy, through a :qo commentary on all the
poems, ano perhaps most innuentially through a :qq monograph
that proclaimeo, as it launcheo, T/e Cotollor Recolottor.' One
brilliant young man`s poetic manilesto about another, this slenoer
volume by its provocative title helo out a Yeatsian promise to vin-
oicate an ancient poet against the generations ol balo heaos
lorgetlul ol their sins`` ano so give back to the worlo Catullus in all
his lresh ano oazzling power.
Manilesto`` is a woro chosen aoviseoly. Quinn`s critical bomb-
shell ,whose lallout we still breathe, has more than a tenuous
generic amnity with the innumerable manilestoes proouceo by
Mooernist literary ano artistic movements ol the early ano mioole
twentieth century. The book`s central thrust may be charac-
terizeo, I hope without unlair oversimplincation, as a mooernizing
or upoating ol Catullus. This was to be accomplisheo by applying
'` Ieeney ,:qq8, :6: ano 8o on Cicero ano brain-balkanisation.`` On Catholicism
ano the oimculty ol nnoing a historical age ol laith,`` Greeley ,:qq,.
'' On aoultery in Roman law, Eowaros ,:qq, 6.. It seems important to remark here
that such a recognition neither bars nor excuses the reaoer lrom making moral juog-
ments. See Richlin ,:qq., xxiii on this point, ano Iitzgeralo ,:qq, .:.. well oocu-
ments a long misogynist traoition ol occluoing the reprehensible qualities ol the speaker
ol Catullus` poems.
' Quinn ,:qq,, ,:qo,, ,:q.,.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo o
recent ,in :qq, literary critical principles to a reaoing ol the
poems in such a way as to bring out Catullus` own revolutionary
mooernness. In Quinn`s woros:
The poetry |Catullus| wrote is close in lorm, style ano spirit to much ol
our own contemporary poetry ano, like our own poetry, it oihers sharply
in lorm, style ano spirit lrom the poetry it largely superseoeo. It is this
up-to-oateness that makes Catullus popular with us ano causes us to re-
garo him as important. Because ol it we approach the stuoy ol his poetry
with a sympathy that his interpreters in the nineteenth century seem not
always to have possesseo. On the other hano, the shape ano nature ol
the revolution in Roman poetry that Catullus represents teno to be con-
cealeo lrom us by this very up-to-oateness, in circumstances that shoulo
insteao heighten our interest in their analysis.''
Broaoly, T/e Cotollor Recolottor`s aim was to correct two sets ol
views within Catullan criticism that Quinn louno unsatislactory:
nrst, a set ol gushingly moist Romantic notions about poetic
creation ano the nature ol poetic genius``, ano secono, a set ol
ory-as-oust philological opinions about Catullus` inoebteoness ano
close ties to Greek, especially Hellenistic, poetic traoitions. The
generation belore Quinn hao given strong expression to both
these sets ol views, in the respective works ol Eric Havelock ano
A. L. Wheeler ,preoecessors whom Quinn treats with exemplary
respect even as he argues against their conclusions,.''' In place ol
Havelock`s Romanticism, Quinn put lorwaro a mooel ol poetic
creation inlormeo by his own enthusiastic reaoing ol Mooernist
poets ano critics.
Havelock`s notion ol lyric genius,`` olo-lashioneo at the time ol
Havelock`s writing, was by :qq easy to oismiss out ol hano, along
with the cant ol romantic criticism`` representeo in the assump-
tion that the true lyric poet, like Shelley`s skylark, pours his
lull heart in proluse strains ol unpremeoitateo art.``''` Quinn
eloquently maoe the point that even a poem like the couplet
beginning oot et omo ,I hate ano I love,`` Foem 8, was not a
spontaneous cry ol the heart, as it might appear taken in isolation,
but rather an instance ol the quickening introspection ano the
subtleties ol sell-analysis that Catullus learneo to express more
ano more perlectly.``'' The Romantic paraoigm ol poet as ge-
nius,`` a sincere, authentic songbiro with nature his only tutor, is
'' Quinn ,:qq, . ''' Havelock ,:qq,, Wheeler ,:q,.
''` Quinn ,:qq, o. '' Quinn ,:qq, :.
here replaceo with the high Mooernist mooel ol poetry as the
locus ol a oiherent kino ol sincerity, one ol introspection`` ano
sell-analysis.`` Quinn`s invocations ol Romantic poets are not
connneo to negative contexts. But when they are nameo with ap-
proval, their conjuring is ehecteo once again in a high Mooernist
mooe. The lollowing instance appears in a oiscussion ol Catullus`
personal`` use ol mythology in Foem 6 ,as against the imper-
sonal`` use ol mythology maoe by Hellenistic poets,:
Catullus, like Keats, was a barbarian who so translormeo the raw mate-
rial ol his own lile in his poetry that it attaineo heroic stature, ano who
contrariwise experienceo the excitement ol personal involvement in re-
creating what a mooern poet has calleo approvingly
leero t/ot ttot tr cete oot of t/e pot,
because the stuh ol legeno has an organizeo tension about it that the
rawer material ol contemporary lile seems to the poet to lack.''
Keats stanos as the nrst term in an almost Emersonian chain ol
approbation that incluoes barbarian,`` heroic,`` personal,`` ano
organizeo tension.`` Catullus` miniature epic on the weooing ol
Feleus ano Thetis, a poem bristling with hermetic oimculty ano
Hellenistic learning, is thus recharacterizeo as just the sort ol
thing that a barbarian like Romantic Keats or any mooern`` poet
ought to love to throw his vibrantly heroic personality into.''` We
are ol course here alreaoy in the thick ol the secono part ol
Quinn`s project, the more oimcult one with the higher stakes,
namely his attempt to overturn the view, then best representeo by
Wheeler, ol Catullus as a poet steepeo in a continuous poetic tra-
oition that incluoeo Hellenistic poetry.
Earlier criticism`s lormulation ol two Catulluses one a lyric
genius`` or, as Kroll hao put it, a spontaneous, primitive chilo ol
nature,`` the other Alexanorian`` ano therelore negligible hao
maoe matters more oimcult lor Quinn here, at least to the extent
that he hopeo to rehabilitate such Catullan poems as the minia-
ture epic without giving way on his contempt ,the woro is not too
strong, lor Hellenistic poetry.'' Throughout his work, Quinn is at
'' Quinn ,:qq, :. The line ol poetry quoteo is ioentineo in a lootnote as belonging to
Through Literature to Lile,`` by L. D. Lerner. I quote this poem,`` Quinn aoos, be-
cause Mr Lerner`s reaction to lile ano literature seems to me thoroughly Catullan.``
''` Ano Quinn was in large measure successlul: the oecaoes to come proouceo a series ol
reaoings ol Foem 6 as personal poetry,`` ol which notable examples incluoe Futnam
,:q6:, ano Daniels |Kuntz| ,:q6,.
'' Kroll ,:q68, vii ,nrst publisheo in :q..,, citeo in Quinn ,:qq, o.
pains to oemonstrate that wrongheaoeoness`` ano lormalism``
are at the root ol the view then prevalent among classicists con-
cerning Catullus` relation to his poetic traoition, a view that
Quinn sets lorth in these terms: The common view may be sum-
marizeo brieny. Iirstly, Catullus` mooels`` ,as classical criticism
likes to call the writers who shape the poetry even ol a genuinely
creative poet, are Greek, ano in particular Alexanorian, not
Roman.``''` Note that the woro mooel`` provokes a parenthetic
oelense ol Catullus against the philologists in the name ol a
Romantic ,high Romantic this time, rather than neo-Romantic
Mooernist, notion ol originality`` ano a oistaste lor allusivity ano
seconoariness.``'''
Quinn`s aim ol oriving a weoge between living, mooern ,Ro-
man, Catullus ano oeao, rotting ,Alexanorian``, poetic traoition
requireo nothing less than a recasting ol the history ol ancient lit-
erature accoroing to Mooernist paraoigms. This he carrieo out
with quiet authority in his nrst two chapters, Backgrouno`` ano
The Traoition Re-Shapeo.`` A nrst gesture, alter the character-
ization ol the Hellenistic backgrouno`` as a time when chance
hao silenceo the voice ol poetry,`` was to separate Catullus lrom
poetry ol ctoft.'' The epic-tragic traoition, vehicle ol most serious
Roman poetry belore Catullus, was a style shapeo by craltsmen,
olten loreigners, gooo at their traoe, but not pretenoing to any in-
sight into the worlo about them oeeper than that neeoeo to ma-
nipulate stock types.``'` Catullus ano his generation representeo a
new kino ol poet. The phenomenon that proouceo them was
perhaps primarily a social one``, a combination ol inoepenoent
social status ano oisahection lor contemporary political ioeals leo
the new poets to turn ,like Symbolists ano other /r-oe-te `cle poets,
away lrom the service ol the community`` to a more esoteric,
more purely poetic kino ol poetry.``'`' The historical ano political
upheavals ol Catullus` time, which Quinn explicitly compares to
''` Quinn ,:qq, :q.
''' On Roman seconoariness`` ano its aesthetic, Bryson ,:qqo, ano Iitzgeralo ,:qq,
:68, on its woes, Habinek ,:qq.,.
'' Quinn ,:qq, . Strange to consioer that these woros were written lour years alter
Fleiher ,:q, hao given voice to an enthusiastic optimism , justineo in the event, con-
cerning the luture ol stuoies in the nelo ol Hellenistic poetry.``
'` Quinn ,:qq, q.
'`' Quinn ,:qq, ., .6. Esoteric`` ol course invokes Yeats, but also the Symbolists ,Axel
Cotle ano the like,, more purely poetic`` is reminiscent not only ol Mallarme ,Quinn
speaks olten ol lttte totote pote, but also ol Falgrave`s introouction.
those ol the early twentieth century, hao proouceo a new spiri-
tual atmosphere`` ,Quinn uses this phrase more than once, which
in turn pervaoes Catullus` poetry ol petoroltt,.'``
The theories ol poetic composition that Quinn lavors are taken,
again, lrom Mooernist sources. Citing T. S. Eliot ano Robert
Graves, he espouses a mooel ol poetry as something between reli-
gious epiphany ano autopsychotherapy. While in the throes ol
writing ol writing poetry that is neither instructive,`` ora-
matic`` or narrative`` ,meoitative lyric, then, the poet, in Eliot`s
woros, is oppresseo by a buroen which he must bring to birth in
oroer to obtain reliel.`` Graves is calleo in lor corroboration, with
his lormulation ol a pathology ol poetic composition`` in which
the work ol writing a poem begins when a poet nnos himsell
caught in some baming emotional problem, which is ol such ur-
gency that it senos him into a sort ol trance.`` The poem is either a
solution or at least a clear statement ol that problem. Graves
explains: Some poets are more plagueo than others with emo-
tional problems, ano more conscientious in working out the poems
which arise lrom them that is to say more attentive in their ser-
vice to the Muse.``'`
It is clear enough lrom the above that the poet the ttoe poet
was to be, in Quinn`s view ,ano perhaps in the view ol most
Catullan critics lor the rest ol the century,, not a playlul, per-
lormative ano technically brilliant worosmith in the manner ol a
Fope or a Founo, but rather an intensely personal maker ol new
meaning in the manner ol Worosworth ano Stevens. The writing
ol genuine poetry, unoer this mooel, hao to be a matter ol oeep,
olten painlul involvement ol the poet`s own personality rather
than a matter ol eruoition, painstaking cralt ano intellectual oe-
light. It is equally clear that Catullus` age, in Quinn`s narrative ol
it, was an age ol oespair, lull ol the upheaval that is proouctive ol
personal crisis the ooo kino ol personal crisis, that is, the kino
experienceo by Roman neoterics ano twentieth-century Mooern-
ists. Both ol these healthy mooern`` oespairs, one contemporary
ano one ancient, were to be sharply oistinguisheo lrom the ois-
ease`` whose symptoms were the poetic proouctions ol Hellenistic
Alexanoria ano whose causes lay in a more complete oespair ol
society ano a more passive escapism than the social upheavals ol
'`` Quinn ,:qq, ., . '` Quinn ,:qq, q..
the last century ol the Republic, which arouseo stronger, less oec-
aoent emotions, emotions more uselul to poetry.``'`
While Catullan scholarship has oone anything but stano still
since T/e Cotollor Recolottor, Quinn`s Mooernist paraoigm ol
Catullan poetics has continueo to be one ol the most pervasive
innuences in subsequent literary stuoy ol the poet. This is so, I
think, partly because ol the very high quality ol Quinn`s critical
writing ,ano il I have been somewhat harsh towaro him here, it
was precisely in an ehort to counteract at least some ol the pow-
erlul charm ol his woros,, partly because ol the persistence ol a
kino ol vernacularizeo Mooernism ol accommooation`` at most
levels ol both scholarly ano public oiscourse about poetry, with
the result that an occluoeo high Mooernism comes to stano in the
place ol ahistorical ttot/ about poetics, ano partly because ol a
tenoency ,relateo to the invisibility ol a vernacular Mooernism,
among latter-oay Catullan scholars to continue to write against
the same Romantic critical baggage ,biographical criticism,``
poetry as cry ol the heart``, that early twentieth-century scholars
hao alreaoy cast over their shouloers, while Mooernist critical
tenets, closer to home, go largely unquestioneo.
Quinn`s association ol Catullus with the beginnings ol mooern
lyric`` is still central to Catullan criticism, ano even his notion ol
oiherent levels ol intent,`` though somewhat oiscreoiteo in those
specinc terms, perhaps still has its renex in a continueo tenoency
,a tenoency oloer than Quinn`s work, certainly, to go about reao-
ing Catullus by locusing the attention upon the important`` ,reao
Lesbia``, poems ol the collection.'`` Iinally, Quinn`s oistaste lor
Hellenistic poetry in general ano Callimachus in particular ,that
name never appears in T/e Cotollor Recolottor, the later Cotollo: Ar
Irtetptetottor mentions it a lew times, gruogingly ano oisapprov-
ingly, is probably a major lactor in the continueo reluctance ol
recent literary stuoies to treat the intertextual presence ol Calli-
machus` poetry in the Catullan corpus as a prolouno ano enliven-
ing innuence.
'` Quinn ,:qq, .6, also q6o. '`` Quinn ,:qq, ., 8:oo.
h p t e r .
A potmooetr Cotollo
MAKE I T NEW.
Ezra Founo
m k e t u l l u s n e w
Everyone knows that the Romans,`` though perhaps closer to us
than the Greeks,`` still were not like us, ano that Catullus liveo in
a worlo not ours.`Ì Iurther, most prolessional reaoers ol litera-
ture both ancient ano mooern have been persuaoeo by some ver-
sion ol the argument that a text is never lully extricable lrom its
reception history, ano that new critical attempts to get at ancient
texts as they really are`` will consequently either introouce new
critical misprisions or, more likely, recapitulate olo ones. All the
new thinking,`` precisely because it is about loss`` about our
irretrievable oistance lrom the texts to whose stuoy we are orawn
by love, oesire, nostalgia ,but also by curiosity, appetite, oelight,
inevitably in some measure resembles the olo thinking.``P
Then again, it may be that the passing lrom one set ol critical
preconceptions to another, the superimposing ol one para-
oigmatic grio over another, represents a privilegeo moment, one
that ohers us the clearest view we can hope to get, through the two
competing trellises that almost cancel each other out, ol the thing
itsell. Il that insight, lrom T/e Otoet of T/tr, has any valioity on
the grano historical scale ol Ioucault`s subject, then perhaps a
somewhat new misreaoing ol Catullus` poetry has the possibility
ol saying something right about it, at least in the way that a mot
ote or a colltoo torctoto manages to say something right.Q Since the
6
I Wiseman ,:q8, ::.
P On love ano the stuoy ol ancient literature, Most ,:qq8,.
Q Ioucault ,:qo, xixxxi ,|:q66| :::,.
oiscussion has thus lar been lrameo in the globalizing ano gen-
eralizing terms ol literary historical periooization ,terms whose
problems are evioent enough,, I may as well here explicitly char-
acterize my project as an attempt to approach a premooern ano
preromantic Catullus by reaoing a postmooern Catullus. By that
epithet I inteno a set ol notions that are both precisely oennable
ano rather oiherent lrom its now most common associations. The
previous chapter has hinteo at what a postmooern Catullus might
look like, ano why a classicist might nno interest ano utility in the
sight. The present one will spell out the interpretive gain I seek in
pursuing this avenue ol approach, ano how such a lramework will
interact with my reaoing ol the poems.
Fostmooern`` is a contesteo, even a contentious term, whose
problems go well beyono those ol historical periooization.R It
woulo be surprising il all reaoers greeteo its presence here with
eagerness. Nor is all resistance to the term ,ano its relerent, baseo
on uninlormeo prejuoice or unthinking reaction. At the broaoest
ano most general level, any observer coulo be parooneo lor con-
cluoing that while postmooernism may have hao a valuable lesson
to teach, acaoemic culture ano the culture at large have conneo
that lesson patiently ano long since learneo it thoroughly, so much
so that lurther repetition can only have the perverse ehect ol
emphasizing the movement`s most negative aspect: the lalse irony
ano lacile cynicism ol the know-it-all hipster poeot. Fostmooern-
ism on this view ,to aoopt lor a moment some ol its own reaoy-
to-wear wit, woulo appear to be a woro with a bright luture behino
it, a mooe that, belore it hao a chance to amass a history, .o
history.S
At the level ol our own specialty oiscipline, one still encounters
the opinion, ano not just among oloer scholars, that being post-
mooern`` lor a classicist amounts in practice to a glittering oistrac-
tion lrom the haro ,ano real, work ol philology ,the art ol
R Two central theoretical enunciations ol the postmooern are Lyotaro ,:q8, ano Jameson
,:qq:,. See also Vattimo ,:q8, ano Harvey ,:q8q,. More to my own purposes are its ear-
lier literary enunciations, chiel among them Antin`s ,:q., essay on mooernism ano post-
mooernism in American poetry. See also Calinescu`s ,:q8, survey ol mooernism ano
postmooernism reao as two laces ol mooernity`` ,alongsioe the avant-garoe, oecaoence
ano kitsch,. Simpson ,:qq, reaos the acaoemic postmooern`` as a triumph ol the liter-
ary,`` in the sense that terms ano approaches oeriveo lrom the stuoy ol ,largely Romantic,
literature are applieo by postmooern acaoemics to non-literary oisciplines.
S Ferloh ,:qqq, remarks on postmooernism`s apparent obsolescence in the :qqos.
A potmooetr Cotollo
reaoing slowly``, ano an arrogation ol the noble oignity ol philos-
ophy ,without the inconvenient labor ol lormally stuoying philos-
ophy, to what is a respectable but ultimately lar humbler pursuit.T
This latter set ol objections to the postmooern is not to be ois-
misseo out ol hano, but rather engageo in meaninglul oebate. Il
those objections are to be answereo ano their proponents` minos
altereo, what will convince, ultimately, is not so much counter-
argument as counterexamples. Ol these there is an increasing
supply, in the lorm ol work that, through critical ano juoicious
application ol theoretical concepts ano lrameworks to a painstak-
ing ano rigorous control ol ancient source material, aovances
knowleoge ano unoerstanoing in ways that situate themselves rec-
ognizably within the aims ol the oiscipline ol classical scholarship.
Such work olten simultaneously makes important contributions to
other nelos, incluoing critical theory itsell. Catullan criticism has
alreaoy benenteo lrom work ol this nature, ol which several
examples have been mentioneo here.
While the present reaoing ol Catullus aligns itsell with certain
aspects ol postmooern critical theory ano makes gratelul use ol
the theoretical alignments ol recent Catullan scholarship, my own
invocation ol the postmooern aims principally at recuperating an
earlier moment in the woro`s history, prior to its acaoemic appro-
priation as a mooe ol oiscourse ano prior to the vernacularization
ol Anglophone oeconstructionism as a mooe ol universal oebunk-
ing.U I am less interesteo, lor present purposes, in postmooern
theory than in postmooern poettc. It bears pointing out that the
earliest articulations ol the postmooern belong historically not to
European theorists but rather to American poets.V The woro`s nrst
certain attestation is olten creoiteo to the poet Charles Olson.
Writing in North Carolina in :qo, Olson proclaimeo himsell an
archaeologist ol the morning`` who celebrateo the post-mooern,
the post-humanist, the post-historical, the going live present, the
T On this oennition ol philology, attributeo to Roman Jakobson, Watkins ,:qqo, ., also see
oe Man ,:q86, . on Reuben Brower`s reaoing in slow motion.``
U On oeconstruction`` in American journalism, Johnson ,:qq, ..
V The point is worth stressing in the particular case ol Ioucault. While American post-
mooernists, especially in the plastic arts, have olten invokeo him as a lounoing hero,
postmooernism was a label he lamously oerioeo thus shortly belore his oeath: What is it
that they mean by postmooernity? )e re ot po oo cootort.``` Recounteo by Bouroieu ,:qqq,
6.
Beautilul Thing.```W Marjorie Ferloh has oescribeo a number ol
the characteristics that oistinguish postmooernist poets lrom their
Mooernist ano Romantic preoecessors, ano these have been
sketcheo earlier: a prelerence lor the perlormative ano luoic over
the sincere ano introspective, lor emotional volatility over emo-
tional intensity, lor eruoition, verbal wit, invention ano allusivity
over immeoiacy ano originality``, lor encyclopeoic collage over
meoitative lyric.IH Another recent critic ol postmooern poetry,
Joseph Conte, locates the central achievement ol these mioole ano
late twentieth-century poets, ano their crucial break with such
Mooernist poets as Founo, in the oiscovery ol a new lormalism, an
exercise ol that new perception ol lorm which is essential in any
poetry ol oistinction.`ÌI This new sense ol lorm, lor Conte, is most
powerlully instantiateo in the postmooern long poem,`` ol which
the chiel examples incluoe Olson`s Moxtmo Poem, William Carlos
Williams` Potetor, ano the most eccentric, oimcult, ano in many
ways the most interesting ol the three Louis Zukolsky`s A.IP
Zukolsky`s long poem , just over eight hunoreo pages,, written
in twenty-lour sections accoroing to a plan conceiveo by the poet
in his youth, represents the systematic work ol hall a century.IQ
A-. was written in :q.8, A-. was completeo in :q8, the year ol
Zukolsky`s oeath. A rate ol composition that a Roman poet, ano
Catullus in particular, woulo have respecteo ano aomireo ,though
Catullus aomitteoly might have juogeo the single volume lar too
lat,, ano a methooical manner ol poetic creation that nts ill with
both Romantic ,Shelley, Keats, ano Mooernist ,Eliot, Graves,
paraoigms ol poetry as shaggy outburst or introspective meoita-
tion. Both ouring his lile ano since his oeath, Zukolsky has
remaineo very much a poet`s poet.`` Despite some important crit-
ical essays on his achievement ,Davenport, Taggart, ano the re-
cent appearance ol a number ol scholarly monographs, Zukolsky`s
W Olson ,:q, o, citeo in J. Conte ,:qq:, 6. Beautilul thing`` is a recurring phrase lrom
William Carlos Williams` Potetor. On Olson`s relation to Williams ,ano Founo, ano his
anti-symbolism,`` von Hallberg ,:q8, 8:.
IH See .6 above.
II J. Conte ,:qq:, .
IP Olson ,:q8,, Williams ,:qq.,, Zukolsky ,:qq,.
IQ The earliest sketch lor A, conceiveo alreaoy as a long poem in twenty-lour parts, oates
lrom :q.8 ano still exists, on a single creaseo page. Ahearn ,:q8, 8. See also Scrog-
gins ,:qq8, ..
A potmooetr Cotollo q
work ano even his name are still all but unknown outsioe the spe-
cialty nelo ol twentieth-century avant-garoe American poetry.IR
Catullan scholars are ol course the exception here. A Zukolskian
translation`` ol the entire Catullan corpus appeareo in :q6q, the
proouct ol a spousal collaboration between Celia ano Louis
Zukolsky ,as are parts ol A ,. Thanks to this work, any Catullan
specialist can be presumeo to know at least the name ol Zukolsky
ano probably to have glanceo into the :q6q volume ano perhaps
thereupon to have resolveo never to think ol it again. There are
very lew things in literature to prepare a reaoer lor the Zukolskys`
Catullan renoerings ,certainly not Founo`s comparatively sober
ano oecorous Mooernist version ol Fropertius,.IS As a sample ol
this work at its most extreme, here is the nrst stanza ol Foem :, in
Catullus` Latin translation ol Sappho :, ano in the Zukolskys`
version. This latter is a piece that Louis Zukolsky hao alreaoy in-
corporateo, collage-style, alongsioe some ol his own earlier writ-
ing ano some corresponoence with W. C. Williams, into the eno
ol A-.,, composeo in :q6:IT
Ille mi par esse oeo vioetur, He`ll hie me, par t he?
the Goo oivioe her,
Ille, si las est, superare oivos, he`ll hie, see lastest,
superior oeity,
qui seoens aoversus ioentioem te
spectat et auoit.
quiz sitting aoverse
ioentity mate,
inspect it ano auoit
Zukolsky`s stateo aim to breath the literal` meaning with
|Catullus|`` is here realizeo in a poetic utterance that con-
spicuously places the souno ol the source text on a par with its
sense, renoering now the one, now the other, juxtaposing them
without choosing between them, ano consequently baming the
reaoer who searches lor a hierarchical signilying relation between
woro ano meaning at the level ol language, or between lorm ano
content at the level ol poetry.IU Bamement is perhaps too milo a
IR Essays: Davenport ,:q8:,, Creeley ,:q8q, Taggart ,:qq,, ano now a collection eoiteo by
Scroggins ,:qq,. Monographs: Ahearn ,:q8,, Stanley ,:qq,, Scroggins ,:qq8,.
IS On Founo`s Fropertius, Sullivan ,:q6,.
IT Zukolsky ano Zukolsky ,:q6q,, Zukolsky ,:q8, 88.
IU On Zukolskian translation,`` Scroggins ,:qq8, .. Interesting to note that Forter
,:qq, has oiscerneo a similar baming ol the lorm]content binarism in the poetic theory
ol Catullus` exact contemporary Fhilooemus.
woro: Zukolskian translation`` seems almost engineereo to pro-
voke lright ano outrage. Not the least lrightening thing about this
proouction is its sheer quantity. Apart lrom the complete Catullus
in a separate volume, A leatures scattereo snippets lrom Greek
ano other Roman authors, a long passage lrom the Hebrew ol the
Book ol Job opens A-., ano A-.. is a line lor line version ol the
entire text ol Flautus` Rooer. All ol these are oone in a manner
whose ehect suggests that ol being hall asleep while hearing a ra-
oio broaocast in a loreign language ano construing native sense
out ol loreign speech sounos. Or again, the woros ol the transla-
tion proceeo like a running gag, a ,bao, punning answer to the
question What ooes this text say?`` The joke is at least as olo as
Flautus` Poerolo, in which a character claims to unoerstano Funic,
but in lact simply interprets every Funic phrase he hears as the
sense equivalent ol a Latin phrase that it resembles in souno.IV
Unlike Flautus` Milphio, however, the Zukolskian translator in
lact has ,or has cribbeo, a competent knowleoge ol the lexical ano
literal`` meaning ol the source language. It is simply that, insteao
ol choosing only among synonyms ,as a sensible,`` reasonable``
translator ooes,, Zukolsky throws phonetic homonymy with the
original utterance into the mix together with lexical synonymy,
juxtaposing them along the same axis ol selection ano giving them
lully equal priority, lully equal likelihooo ol being selecteo at each
oecision-making moment in the process ol translating.IW
Zukolsky`s translation`` methoo vexes ano problematizes the
sets ol binary oppositions arouno which the act ol reaoing ano the
act ol linguistic communication itsell are ngureo, at least in oroi-
nary unoerstanoing: souno]sense, lorm]content, exterior]interior
ano the binarism that woulo appear to oenne the act ol trans-
lation loreign]native. While Zukolsky`s renoerings ol loreign
poetry into English are haroly comparable to Catullus` ,or any pre-
mooern poet`s, poetic translations, at least one instance ol Catul-
lus translating loreign souno into native sense has recently been
suggesteo. It appears, startlingly enough, in the text that so many
reaoers ol Catullus have taken as most oenning ol his lyricism
IV Flautus, Poerolo q6::oo.
IW On linguistic axes ol selection, Jakobson ,:q8,. In the Zukolskys` translation ol the
Catullus stanza above, not only phonetic but also graphic similarity goes into the mix:
note, lor example, that mate`` represents [toerttoe]m te, as though a letter hao lallen out
ol the printer`s plate.
A potmooetr Cotollo :
,or personality, ano his sincere anguish ,or meoitative introspec-
tion,: when Catullus sings I hate ano I love`` ,8.:,, it may be that
the sounos lrom his lips are engineereo to echo, in reverse, the
eno ol the nrst verse ol a thematically similar epigram by Fhil-
ooemus: |Xanthippe`s| harp playing, her speech, her speaking
eyes ano voice`` ,Fhil. Eptt. : Sioer |AP .::| :: cuo , ici
ci n ici io:i ov o uuc ici o on , cl. 8.:: oot et omo,.PH In any
event, the loreign]native binarism lights up an interesting ano im-
portant point ol amnity between the two poets. Both Catullus ano
Zukolsky stooo in a problematic ano paraooxical relation to the
insioe`` ano outsioe`` ol their cultural contexts ano poetic traoi-
tions. Zukolsky spent his chilohooo ano youth in Manhattan`s
Lower East Sioe. He grew up at least bilingual, in Yiooish ano
English, with a thorough grounoing in Hebrew. His nrst encounter
with the high culture ol Western literature`` was through theatri-
cal proouctions ol Shakespeare in Yiooish translation, though he
went on later ,at age eleven, his biographers tell us, to reao all ol
Shakespeare in English. Entering Columbia at age sixteen, with
John Erskine ano John Dewey among his teachers ano Mortimer
Aoler among his classmates, Zukolsky belongeo to the nrst class ol
unoergraouates to be traineo unoer Erskine`s newly conceiveo
Great Books`` curriculum. Among the lruits ol that eoucation
was an easy, almost aristocratic lamiliarity with central artilacts
,e.g. Aristotle, Spinoza, Shakespeare, Bach, ol this new American
humanist vision ol Western culture,`` a lamiliarity bewrayeo by
the encyclopeoic allusivity ol nearly every page ol A.PI Yet his
acquisition ol the symbolic capital ol high culture ano a presti-
gious university oegree, though it gave him a position ano liveli-
hooo ,as a college English instructor,, never lully removeo
Zukolsky lrom the status ol outsioer, either in the public context
ol his career as a poet ano his relations with reaoers, critics ano
lellow poets, or in the private context ol the subjective experience
representeo in his poetry.PP
What we can gather ol Catullus` lile ano career, both lrom his
PH Sioer ,:qq, 6.
PI Ahearn ,:q8, ::, :q.6.
PP On symbolic capital,`` Bouroieu ,:q.,. A chiel lactor in Zukolsky`s outsioer status was
ol course anti-Semitism, ol which Founo oelivereo some particularly monstrous expres-
sions in Zukolsky`s regaro. On the relations between the two poets, Stanley ,:qq, :
:o8.
poetry ano by inouction lrom external evioence, suggests an inter-
estingly similar ano similarly paraooxical status within his culture
ano society. The site ol Catullus` birth, ano probably ol more
than hall his lile, was the mioole northern Italian city ol Verona.
That city ano its surrounoing region were in Catullus` liletime
only lairly recently, ano thus only incompletely, romanizeo. Ver-
ona was however long since hellenizeo, long since a participant in
what was still very much the prestige culture ol the entire Meoi-
terranean basin. Verona`s hellenization at the time, through com-
merce ol every kino, may thus have been more prolouno than that
ol Rome.PQ Il the young Catullus came to his tommottco at Ver-
ona alreaoy speaking Greek, then he will have acquireo the liter-
ary versions ol that language ano its high culture literary artilacts
at a signincantly lower cognitive cost than many ol the elite Ro-
mans who were later to become his lellow poets, his auoience, ano
his lrienos ano enemies.PR That is ol course speculative. What is
certain, however, is that Catullus` exquisite ano sensitive renoer-
ings ol Sappho ,Foem :, ano Callimachus ,Foem 66,, as well as
the pervasive intertextual presence ol Greek literature throughout
the Catullan corpus, bespeak a thorough knowleoge ol the Greek
language ano a very high oegree ol the sense ol ownership ol that
language`s culture. Even more telling is the lact that Catullus` po-
etry, so rich in Greek elements, nowhere explicitly articulates the
simultaneous aomiration ano suspicion, the cognitive oivision ano
anxiety ct-o`-ct the loreignness ol a loreign tongue more culturally
prestigious ,ano so more expressive`` than one`s own, that we nno
louoly voiceo in the writings ol Cicero ano Lucretius, Catullus`
exact contemporaries.PS
It is certain that Catullus` nrst language, the oialect he grew up
speaking in Verona ano to which he perhaps reverteo on visits
home, though probably a oialect ol Latin, was not ioentical to the
prestige oialect ol Rome. It is likewise all but certain that by the
time ol his mature poetic proouction, Catullus hao acquireo a lull
mastery ol stanoaro Roman Latin. Catullus was a master player
PQ On the hellenization ol central Italy: Coarelli ,:q6, q ano ,:q8,, also Zanker
,:q8,, both citeo in Wiseman ,:q8, q n. 6, q n. . On Catullus` bilingual culture:
Horslall ,:qq,, also Wiseman ,:qq, :6: ano ,:q8, q, ::o.
PR Though Crassus` spoken Greek, lor example, was saio to be so gooo that listeners took
him lor a native speaker ,Cic. oe Otot. ...,.
PS On Roman bilingualism ano its anxieties, Dubuisson ,:q8:, ano MacMullen ,:qq:,, also
Veyne ,:qq,.
A potmooetr Cotollo
,perhaps t/e master player, but we lack the recoros ol his oppo-
nents` perlormances, at the high stakes game ol invective verse. It
is haro to believe that Catullus woulo have so nercely rioiculeo
Arrius` hypercorrect`` misplaceo aspirates ,Foem 8, il he hao lelt
himsell open to easy retaliation in kino on the basis ol Veronese
oialect leatures that he hao laileo to eraoicate lrom his own Latin
speech.PT But however correct his spoken Latin ano thorough his
Hellenistic culture, however exquisite his poetry ano sparkling his
ot/ortto, it remaineo that Catullus at Rome coulo never lay lull
claim to the status ol native ot/oro, nor even to the romer Lottrom,
at least not without the reservation ol a oivioeo loyalty.PU
The point oeserves emphasis, il lor no other reason than the
lact that we are still coming oh a long stretch ol reception history
ouring which the Veronese Catullus, like the Mantuan Virgil, was
classeo as a Roman poet`` plain ano simple, with no problematic
attacheo to the epithet.PV It is not haro to oiscern, beneath the
laughter, seamlines ol specincally Italic anxiety ano resentment
along the labric ol representeo subjectivity perlormeo by the
speaker ol Catullus` poems. In aooition to an ear hyperattuneo to
oialect lormations, there are such moments as the comic conlusion
,Foem .:, over the geographic attribution ol some larmlano
owneo by Catullus` lamily ,those who oon`t want to oheno Catul-
lus call it Tiburtine, those who oo are reaoy to swear by anything
that it`s Sabine,. Then there is the louo protestation, maoe ouring
a visit home to Verona, that Rome is the poet`s true home ano seat,
ano that being helo back at Verona is not only a negative status
mark ,totpe, 68.., but a positive torment ,mtetom, 68.o,. Ano
Catullus` taunting cries ol raw invective, maoe in the context ol
political satire ano aimeo ,probably, at Fompey in the person ol
Rome`s lounoing culture hero ,ctroeoe Romole, /oec otoe/t et fete
Romulus you laggot, are you going to look at this ano just take
it?`` .q.,q,, point silently to the lact that the voice uttering those
cries belongs to no scion ol Romulus. The same is true ol Catul-
lus` sarcastic praise ol Cicero ,who, though not born at Rome, was
PT On Foem 8, Vanoiver ,:qqo,.
PU The same, ol course, can be saio ol all the great poets ol the next generation, though the
construction ol Romortto hao arguably become a oiherent thing by this point.
PV Exceptions to the general response have incluoeo those lor whom cultural, social ano
political amliations connicteo in a comparable way: e.g. in the seventeenth century, the
Catholic Dryoen, ano in the twentieth, Allen Tate ano the other American Southerners
ol the Iugitive movement.
every bit a Latin ano the voice ol a new construction ol Romortto,
as the most eloquent ol Romulus` oescenoants`` ,q.:,.PW It is per-
haps even truer ol his inoignant ano oisgusteo oescription ol the
men shuckeo`` by Lesbia in alleyways ano crossroaos as oescen-
oants ol great-hearteo Remus`` ,8.,.QH
Catullus thus appears in his poems as an imperlectly colonizeo
Italian subject ol Rome ano ol a Roman oiscourse that he pos-
sesses lully by mastery, but never lully owns by membership. This
simultaneous presence, at the level ol representeo subjectivity, ol
a sense ol superiority, through possession ol the symbolic capital
ol prestigious high culture,`` ano a sense ol inleriority, through a
problematically partial outsioer status with respect to the sur-
rounoing culture ,in the other sense,, makes an interesting ano
potentially lruitlul point ol comparison between Catullus ano
Zukolsky. That comparison is one aspect ol a wioer application ol
postmooern poetics to a reaoing ol premooern Catullus, which I
shall now oelineate broaoly unoer the rubrics ol the next three sec-
tions: intertextuality, the notion ol a poetry collection, ano, what
is lor my reaoing the most pervasive ano important, perlormance.
i nt e rt e xt ul i t y
Unoer this wioe ano now wioely useo term I incluoe the appro-
priation ol poetic texts alongsioe that ol other non-poetic ano
even non-literary speech genres`` such as legal or military oic-
tion.QI A given instance may take the lorm ol, or be most uselully
classineo as, poetic relerence,`` citationality ,incluoing intra-
textual sell-citation,, translation ,whether literal`` or lree``,, or
allusion`` in one ol several senses ol the term.QP Frecisely what
aspect or leature ol an intertext is being appropriateo into a text
in a given occurrence varies wioely, ano arriving at the answer to
PW Ol course, the poem is open to two mutually contraoictory reaoings ,as sincere`` or
ironic``,. Critics have rangeo on both sioes, ano the text ol the poem itsell reluses to
pronounce: Seloen ,:qq., 6. On the politics ol Foem q, Tatum ,:q88,.
QH Aoams ,:q8., :68 on lo/o ,strip ol its bark``,.
QI On speech genres,`` Bakhtin ,:q86,. Among writings on intertextuality outsioe ol clas-
sics, I have benenteo particularly lrom Still ano Worton ,:qqo, ano Genette ,:q8.,.
Within Roman literature, see especially Barchiesi ,:q8,, Conte ,:q86,, Iarrell ,:qq:, ano
Hinos ,:qq8,. On explicit`` ano implicit`` intertextuality, Jenny ,:q6,. Also see Riha-
terre ,:q8oa, on intertextuality as an instance ol syllepsis.``
QP It is chieny thanks to the work ol Hinos ,:qq8, that the oivergent oiscourses representeo
by these terms are now in oialogue within the stuoy ol Latin literature.
A potmooetr Cotollo
that implieo question is part ol the reaoer`s act ol interpretation.QQ
The intertext`s presence within a text may point primarily, lor
example, to the intertext`s author, who is thus put lorwaro as
an aomireo ,or revileo, preoecessor or as the representative ol a
genre, a style or a theory ol poetic composition ,Conte`s cooe
mooel``,.QR Conversely, the intertext`s importance may lie chieny in
the area ol narrative content or structure, as lor example in the
sustaineo presence ol both the Iltoo ano Apollonius` Atoroottco
,alongsioe other Greek ano Roman intertexts, in Foem 6.QS The
intertext may emphasize ano intensily the text`s surlace meaning.
It may insteao contraoict, problematize, or lorce a raoical reinter-
pretation ol that text, sometimes in a manner that reluses to aoju-
oicate among these reaoerly choices.
Examples ol all these versions ol intertextuality are easily louno
in the poetry books ol both Zukolsky ano Catullus, but with an
important oiherence. In the case ol Zukolsky, most ol the inter-
texts are easily accessible to the reaoer, their tracks`` are easily
traceable.QT They are, alter all, orawn in large measure lrom
Great Books`` ano lrom other intact ano lamiliar artilacts ol high
culture such as the music ol Bach ano Hanoel. Zukolsky`s A
ooes not yet have a commentary to answer C. I. Terrell`s on
Founo`s Corto.QU Nonetheless, many ol Zukolsky`s most ephemeral
ano personal`` intertexts are now available through critical arti-
cles ano monographs, all ol them lar more reaoer-lrienoly ano
immeoiately accessible than Zukolsky`s own poetic text. The exact
opposite is true lor Catullus. Our interpretation ol Catullan inter-
textuality is necessarily controlleo by the loss ol much, inoeeo
most, ol what Catullus reao. To that extent, Catullan inter-
textuality is ol necessity olten more reaoerly`` than writerly.``
Sometimes we have occasion to prove Michael Rihaterre`s point:
the competent reaoer can snih`` the presence ol intertextuality
QQ No particular reason, then, to avoio the rhetoric ol intentionality. Interpretation consists
precisely in construing meaning,`` which is nothing other than a reaoerly account ol
what is intenoeo`` by the text`s woros. On the act ol reaoing, Iish ,:q8o, esp. .:6 ano
Iser ,:q8,.
QR On mooello-cootce: Conte ,:q86, :, on its near equivalent, mooello-erete, Barchiesi ,:q8,
q::...
QS On Foem 6: Thomas ,:q8., on its polemics ol poetic relerence,`` Clare ,:qq6, on the
intertextual presence ol Apollonius, ano Stoevesanot ,:qq, on the poem`s relation ,as
prequel, to the Iltoo.
QT Rihaterre ,:q8ob,, Barchiesi ,:q8,.
QU Terrell ,:q8o,.
without having precise knowleoge ol the intertext.QV Our igno-
rance, our lack ol lull reaoerly competence`` as reaoers ol Catul-
lus is lorceo upon us by historical accioent.QW Sometimes we have
only a lragment ol the intertext, as in the case ol Foem o, or the
anonymous ,to us, not to Catullus or Cicero, Hellenistic hexame-
ter verse preserveo by Cicero ,ano chance, whose literal transla-
tion makes a bizarre ,to us, appearance in Catullus` epyllion
,6.:::,.RH Unooubteoly there are many other intertexts present in
the Catullan corpus ol whose existence every external trace has
been lost.
The paraoox is strange. Zukolsky`s olten impenetrably hermetic
text gestures towaro intertexts that are themselves both traceable
ano reaoable. The text ol Catullus, conversely, gives an impres-
sion ol searing immeoiacy that wins it passionate partisans in
every generation, ano yet the reaoer wishing to trace its traoition
is immeoiately conlronteo with a booy ol material quite inoigest-
ible to anyone without a philologist`s lormation, temperament ano
cult ol the lragment.`` In this light, it is not oimcult to unoerstano
why twentieth-century poetic translators ol Catullus have tenoeo
to ignore scholarship`s increaseo locus upon the allusive, the
learneo, the perlormative ano even the hermetic in Catullus` verse
oiction ano poetic cralt, continuing insteao to give us an Englisheo
Catullus rhyming out woros in love`s oespair`` lor young lovers
tossing in their beos.``RI Recent poetic translators ol Catullus, in
other woros, have lor the most part chosen to engage neither con-
temporary Catullan scholarship nor contemporary poetics ,the
Zukolskys` translation`` being the most notable exception to the
latter,. Even within classical scholarship, the importance ano cen-
trality ol Catullan otte ollotco to Catullan poetics is a contesteo
issue, with new enunciations ol the Catullan poetics ol allusivity
still resisteo in some quarters as revivals`` ol that same Alexan-
orian Catullus`` that Quinn hao louno so oistastelul in Wheeler.RP
QV Rihaterre ,:qqo,.
QW On reaoerly competence,`` Culler ,:q8:, o.
RH On Archilochus, :8q below. The unoerlying Greek hexameter verse is preserveo at
Cic. Att.8..:. See Ioroyce ,:q6:, ano Thomson ,:qq, ao loc., both suspect Callimachean
authorship lor the line.
RI The observation about translations ol Catullus has recently been maoe by Vanoiver
,:qqq,.
RP See, lor example, Nappa ,lorthcoming,, who is less than enthusiastic about Thomson`s
,:qq, emphasis, throughout his commentary, upon the Alexanorian`` in Catullus.
A potmooetr Cotollo
Applying a postmooern poetics to Catullan intertextuality will
not grino us a more powerlul lens through which to go allusion
hunting,`` nor will it lessen the complexity ol the philological ap-
paratus that must be brought to bear in analyzing the lragmentary
evioence ol a given poetic relerence. What it can oher specincally
to Catullan criticism is a way towaro a luller ano more satislying
oet/ettc account ol Catullus` poetics ol intertextuality. Within both
ancient ano mooern literary stuoies, intertextuality, lor all the
literature`` it has proouceo in the last lew oecaoes, still labors, I
think, unoer a vague sense ol bao laith, even ol bao conscience.
A kino ol aesthetic scanoal attaches to it, ano this is not the
case merely among those who regaro ooing intertextuality,`` like
ooing theory,`` as a oistraction lrom the scholar-critic-reaoer`s
real work. Certainly part ol the problem lies in a vernacularizeo
ano mooernizeo version ol Romanticism`s cult ol poetic genius``
ano its authenticity ol originality.``RQ But that cause alone seems
only partly to account lor critical anxiety in the lace ol the oim-
culty ol oistinguishing between exemplar mooels`` ano cooe
mooels,`` ano between oirect relerence ,explicit`` intertextuality,
ano a topo. Stephen Hinos suggests that il we push haro enough,
the oistinction eventually gives way in every case.RR The lragmen-
tary state ol our evioence is obviously a lactor, but even when we
possess both text ano intertext intact ano entire, our tenoency as
reaoers has long been to reouce one ol the two to a lragmentary
state through oetextualizing.`` So, lor example, until recently, in
critical accounts ol the intertextual presence ol Apollonius` Ato-
roottco in the Aereto, the prestige ol the ,central, Virgilian text in
large measure overpowereo the ,extracanonical, Apollonian inter-
text, oisintegrating it into lragments placeo in Aereto commentaries.
Hinos` astute observations, ano the corollaries oerivable lrom it,
point towaro what is lunoamentally an aesthetic problem, one that
has an interesting counterpart in the criticism ol twentieth-century
collage art. When newspaper lragments appear in a Ficasso col-
lage, or when Joseph Cornell wraps boxes in pages lrom the Fo/le
ol La Iontaine, are the lragments to be registereo by the viewer
simply as printeo text,`` or ooes it matter what that text says? The
answer to that question, twentieth-century artists ano critics have
suggesteo, is simultaneously Yes-ano-No not either-or`` to both
RQ Meltzer ,:qq,. RR Hinos ,:qq8, .
parts ol it.RS A similar aesthetic ol simultaneity ano juxtaposition
obtains in such postmooern long poems as A ano Potetor, where
newspaper articles, personal letters ano postcaros, snippets ol per-
lormances, aovertisements ano celebrateo remarks ol the oay take
their place alongsioe poetic allusivity ano lyric`` expressivity, in a
manner that reluses to point the reaoer towaro a hierarchical or
syntactical relation between the two. Reaoing Catullus in this
light, I suggest, stanos to enrich critical unoerstanoing ano appre-
ciation ol Catullan intertextuality.
Alongsioe the oloer resistance to the intertextual, in Catullus
ano elsewhere, oeriving lrom a Romantic authenticity ol original
genius, we can also oiscern a subtler resistance in the name ol a
Mooernist authenticity ol earnest sincerity. The scanoal ol inter-
textuality, lor many twentieth-century reaoers, has been not only
aesthetic but to a certain oegree also ethical, an issue not so much
ol thelt as ol oecorum. Richaro Thomas` well-known rejection ol
the term allusion`` as too luoic a name lor serious business was
not lor nothing.RT The instinct behino that gesture is a sure one. Il
the sensibility ol a late twentieth-century reaoer ol Latin poetry
was maoe uncomlortable by its relentless poetic relerence,`` the
oiscomlort arguably more olten stemmeo not lrom a high Roman-
tic revolt against the eruoition embooieo in those relerences, but
rather lrom a high Mooernist sense ol scanoal at their insolently
playlul lrivolousness. ,Eliot`s T/e 1ote Loro, alter all, hao shown
just how serious, how Mooernist, allusivity coulo be maoe to be, in
the right hanos.,
Here again comparison with the postmooern may recuperate
an aesthetic valorization ol the Alexanorian`` poetics ol intertex-
tuality that has troubleo the reception ol Roman ano Hellenistic
poets. Here is a passage lrom one ol the earliest sections ol
Zukolsky`s A :
At ecerttoe, cool /oot
Your oeao mouth singing,
Ricky,
Automobiles speeo
Fast the cemetery,
RS Cage ,:q6, q, citeo in Ferloh ,:q8, :8.
RT Thomas ,:q86,, oiscusseo by Hinos ,:qq8, .:.
No meter turns.
Sleep,
With an open gas range
Beneath lor a pillow.RU
Most reaoers will agree that these lucio ano simple verses embooy
a lyric`` intensity, an elegiac sorrow ano a narrative situation ol
the highest ethical seriousness. Ricky`` was the nickname ol a
younger brother ol a close lrieno ol Zukolsky who hao in lact
recently committeo suicioe.RV It seems lair to make the comparison
to some ol Catullus` powerlully moving verses on his own broth-
er`s oeath ,in Foems 68 ano :o:,. The Zukolskian passage`s nrst
verse, however, contains a remarkable surprise. The italics ,pres-
ent in the original text, make it immeoiately clear to the attentive
reaoer ol the previous sections ol A that this line alluoes explic-
itly to the text ol Bach`s St. Mott/e. Potor, since all woros in ital-
ics up to this point in A have belongeo to that same intertext.
The exact relerence is easily locatable as the nrst line ol a bass
recitative near the eno ol the work, marking the moment when
Christ`s booy is hanoeo over lor burial. The German text reaos:
Am A/ero, .o e ko/le .ot ,at evening, when it was calm``,. Reaoing
that intertext alouo ,with a bao American accent, gives the reaoer
who has trackeo it oown the suooen ano startling realization that
Zukolsky`s cool hour,`` which seemeo at nrst a simple mistrans-
lation`` ol the German aojective, is in lact a sonic approximation
ol the unoerlying phrase: ko/le .ot. This is an early instance, then,
ol that bilingual punning that Zukolsky`s later translations`` were
to practice on a granoer ano lar more relentless scale.
The aesthetic question immeoiately implies an ethical one.
How, as reaoers, are we to interpret the presence ol this unques-
tionably luoic moment ol perlormative verbal wit alongsioe the
intense seriousness ol both text ,Ricky`s suicioe, ano intertext
,Christ`s burial,? Surely not as an instance ol New Criticism`s
aesthetic oistance`` or Eliot`s objective correlative.``RW Il any-
RU A-, Zukolsky ,:qq, q.
RV Richaro Goolrey Chambers, the younger brother ol Whittaker Chambers, committeo
suicioe in :q.6. Ahearn ,:q8, 668, also o: on A-.
RW Eliot ,:q, 8 ,originally publisheo in :q:q,. On Eliot`s objective correlative`` as the
clearing ol an ahective space in which to live out his personal crisis,`` see Miller ,:q,.
Its best known application to Roman poetry is Williams ,:q8o, :, 6 ano passim.
thing, the sonic syllepsis gives the leel ol an intensincation, a
going live present`` that allows the poet, through verbal play, to
impersonate, breathe with,`` both the oeao young man ano the
bass soloist in the Bach Potor. What registereo on nrst reaoing as
a jarring breach ol poetic oecorum comes, on lurther renection
ano reinterpretation, to suggest that the lault in my initial juog-
ment lay insteao with my own reaoerly notion ol oecorum.
Two luoic moments ol Catullan intertextuality in the lace ol
oeath have operateo similarly upon the sensibilities ol at least
some twentieth-century reaoers. The elegiac larewell to his oeao
brother cleverly echoes the proem ol the Oo,e,:
too v o` c vpo tov iotv c o:tc ici vo ov t ,vo,
toc o` o ,` t v to v:o tc tv c ,tc o v ic:c uuo v
,Oo. :.,
ano he saw many cities ol men ano learneo how they
thought,
ano he suhereo many pains on the sea, pains within his heart
Multas per gentes et multa per aequora uectus
aouenio has miseras, lrater, ao inlerias ,:o:.:.,
Alter traveling through many countries ano many seas,
here I am, brother, I`ve come to your sao remains.
Ano perhaps even more remarkably, the elegiac consolation to
Calvus on the oeath ol his beloveo enters into oialogue with a line
ol Calvus` own poetry, echoing it, responoing to it ano a gesture
we have learneo to associate with Hellenistic poetics correct-
ing`` it, though the point here in oispute is something very lar lrom
the name ol a river in Asia or the kino ol wooo useo to make oars
lor the Ato:SH
SH Thomas ,:q86, :8: Ferhaps the quintessentially Alexanorian type ol relerence is
what I woulo call orretion, Giangranoe`s oppottto tr tmttoroo. This type, more than
any other, oemonstrates the scholarly aspect ol the poet, ano reveals the polemical atti-
tuoes that lie close beneath the surlace ol much ol the best poetry ol Rome`` ,bololace
original,.
A potmooetr Cotollo :
. . . lorsitan hoc etiam gauoeat ipsa cinis
,Calvus ::6 Courtney,
. . . who knows? maybe her ashes are even getting some
enjoyment lrom this
certe non tanto mors immatura oolori est
Quintiliae, quantum gauoet amore tuo. ,q6.6,
Ol this much I`m sure: her early oeath ooes not give
Quintilia as much pain as your love gives her enjoyment.
The lragment ol Calvus is a pentameter verse in elegiac oistich.
Catullus has thus placeo his inoicative certainty , oooet not with-
out a wink in the oirection ol the erotic, in the precise metrical
position ol Calvus` subjunctive tentativeness , oooeot ,. Gian Biagio
Conte, who has sheo light on the intertextual presences in these
two poems ol Catullus, has remarkeo, I think rightly, that both ol
them are likely to seem jarring ano even contextually inappropri-
ate to mooern reaoers.SI The lault, again, woulo seem to lie in our
own sense ol poetic oecorum, the result ol Mooernist ano neo-
Romantic lormations. Ferlormative verbal wit in the lace ol oeath
ano griel oio not seem any more out ol place to Catullus than it
hao to his Hellenistic preoecessors.SP Nor oio it seem so to Zukol-
sky, or lor that matter to Milton ,L,ctoo,, poets who seem to have
shareo with Catullus a conviction that the cry ol the heart`` neeo
not silence the play ol the mino. The postmooern, with its aes-
thetic ol simultaneity ano juxtaposition, nnos itsell again in league
with the time belore the nooo`` ol Romanticism.SQ The lormer
stanos to oher the mooern`` reaoer`s sensibility a path back to the
latter.
SI On Foem :o: ano the opening ol the Oo,e,, see Conte ,:q86, .. On Foem q6 ano
Calvus lr. ::6 Courtney, Conte ,:qq, :6 writes tellingly: The sophisticateo habit ol
allusion is so innate to this poetics that it makes an appearance even where the emotional
circumstances must have been so strong as to make it seem almost out ol place.``
SP On aspects ol wit ano the perlormative in the Hellenistic sepulchral epigram, Lattimore
,:q6.,, Thomas ,:qq8,, Gutzwiller ,:qq8, :::. ano passim.
SQ Bloom ,:q, ::.
ol l e t i on
Dio the manuscript that turneo up at Verona ouring Dante`s lile-
time renect, in whole or part, an oroering ol Catullus` poems oone
by the poet himsell ? The Catullan question`` is still with us, ano
not likely to oisappear soon. All the surviving major Latin poetry
ol the generation alter Catullus Virgil, Horace, the elegists has
come to us groupeo in collections whose authorial integrity as
poetry books is lor the most part both clear lrom the books them-
selves ano guaranteeo by external evioence. Catullus` ancient re-
ception points to the plausibility ol a collection ol poems unoer
his name known as the Spotto. , poet,.SR Poet is the nrst woro ol
Foem . ,Foem : is a prelatory oeoication,, ano ancient poetry
books were sometimes known by their nrst woros ,e.g. Fropertius`
C,rt/to,. There is room, then, to builo a tolerable argument lor the
poet`s own hano in the arrangement ol at least the polymetric
poems ,Foems :6o,.SS As lor arguments lor authorial arrange-
ment ol the entire corpus, these are lor the most part baseo on the
internal evioence ol thematic ano lormal structure, at oroers ol
magnituoe ranging lrom pairs ano triplets ol inoivioual poems to
schemes taking in all the poems ol the corpus.ST Neither the inge-
nuity nor the complexity ol such arguments is necessarily a strike
against them. Foem 6, lor example ,the prime example, but
many shorter poems can be compareo as well,, is clearly the work
ol a poet in love with structure ano the complex interplay ol sym-
metry ano asymmetry.SU
Ano yet it has to be aomitteo that il even part ol what we pos-
sess ol Catullus is a series ol poems oroereo by their author, it is a
strange sort ol collection, one whose principle ol organization is
SR The case is argueo vigorously by Skinner ,:q8:, lor the polymetrics ano ,:q88, lor the
entire corpus. Quinn ,:q., q is crucially important as well. The arguments lor a
posthumous eoitor are given their strongest statement by Hubbaro ,:q8,.
SS Many a clever scheme has been oeviseo. See most recently Jocelyn ,:qqq,, who argues
against reaoing Foems :6o as polymetrics,`` contenoing insteao that Foems :6:
constitute an authorially oesigneo unit consisting ol three types ol poetry: Fhalaecian``
t ti,pc uuc:c, icuoi ano ut n.
ST Wiseman ,:q6q, sketches such a scheme. More recent ano lar more elaborate, both
structurally ano biographically, is Dettmer ,:qq,. Important to note that in antiquity,
the stanoaro eoition ol Lucilius, which oateo lrom republican times, consisteo ol three
rolls, arrangeo accoroing to metre``: Ruoo ,:q86, 8..
SU On the passionate virtuosity`` ol Foem 6`s concentric arrangement, notable is Martin
,:qq., :::. Baroon ,:q, remains classic on the structure ol many shorter poems.
A potmooetr Cotollo
not reaoily apparent. Throughout the corpus there reigns an
astonishing heterogeneity ol thematic content, poetic oiction,
implieo occasion or context, tone ano speech genre.`` Even more
oisconcerting than the oiversity ol the poems is the ehect ol their
oroering. No surviving ancient Latin poetry collection even
approximates the kaleiooscopic oiversity ol the Catullan corpus.SV
The lrequent juxtaposition ol starkly contrasting poems is itsell a
tolerable argument lor the likelihooo ol authorial arrangement: it
is not impossible to imagine a posthumous eoitor ol Catullus` Col-
lecteo Poem so laborious ,ano so sell-connoent, as to strive lor the
bolo avant-garoe ehect in arrangement, but it is certainly easier to
imagine the poet himsell ooing so. This is particularly true in the
several cases ol triplets lormeo by two poems ol similar theme ano
oiction making bookenos arouno a jarringly oiherent piece in the
mioole.SW
Irom whatever angle vieweo ano at whatever scope, the
Catullan question`` is ultimately inseparable lrom an aesthetic
question: namely, what shoulo a poetry collection look like?`` As-
sume lor a moment that we hao establisheo conclusively that the
receiveo corpus laithlully renects a single literary artilact con-
ceiveo by the poet ano executeo as three bookrolls to be kept
together in a single cttrtom ,book crate,.TH Even in that case, as
critics we woulo still have belore us the task ol giving a viable aes-
thetic account ol that work ol literary art in the lace ol its consio-
erable oistance both lrom Augustan poetry collections ano lrom
the expectations ol many mooern reaoers ol ancient poetry. It is
precisely here that the work, ano the poetics, ol such post-
mooernist poets as W. C. Williams ano Louis Zukolsky may oher a
new angle ol approach towaro positive aesthetic valuation ol
those Catullan poems, ano those qualities ol Catullus` poetic out-
put as a whole, that have most resisteo critical interpretation.
Irom Schwabe to the eno ol the twentieth century, the best ano
most sensitive critical accounts ol the corpus as a whole have
largely been inlormeo by some version ol Romantic ,or Mooern-
SV Certainly not that ol Martial, whose collections contain many imitations ol Catullan
rooe ,trines``,, but nothing ol Catullus` lyric intensity. On Catullus ano Martial, New-
man ,:qqo, :o.
SW Most recently, Jocelyn ,:qqq, locuses on the triplet`` maoe by Foems :o through :..
TH On the material experience ol reaoing an ancient bookroll, Van Sickle ,:q8o,. On reao-
ing culture at Rome, Dupont ,:qq, ano Iantham ,:qq6,.
ist, plenituoe ano cohesion, whether in the guise ol autobio-
graphical narrative, lyric intensity, Coleriogian organicism`` or
meoitative consciousness.TI While many ol Catullus` inoivioual
poems have sparkleo brilliantly unoer the light sheo by these criti-
cal accounts, the collection as a whole ,even in the hanos ol critics
who argueo strongly lor unity, has tenoeo to take on the look ol a
truncateo statue or ruineo temple upon which the viewer is inviteo
to gaze with a Winckelmannian nostalgia. Fostmooernist poetics
reminos us that whole`` neeo not mean organic.`` Those same
qualities that give the Catullan corpus the look ol a shattereo
lamp`` , Janan, may, when regaroeo with a oiherent set ol appe-
tites than those ol narrative oesire, look insteao like a oelightlully
tessellateo surlace ol a thousano lacets.TP Alongsioe a will to nar-
rative`` ,Miller, instantiateo in Catullus` poetry book, might we not
also posit something ol the will to absolute play`` that Greenblatt
oiscerns in Marlowe, ano il not that then at least a positive will to
fottoo?TQ This last suggestion is not out ol keeping with what we
know or can surmise about the aesthetic values both ol Catullus`
poetic traoitions ,Lucilian fottoo, Hellenistic potktlto, ano ol his
contemporary low culture`` entertainments ,mime,.TR Our own
culture ohers us access to what is in many ways a comparable sen-
sibility, both through the meoiatic oiscourses ol television ano
hypertext ano also through such literary works as A ano Potetor,
works which, like the Catullan corpus, present narrative ano lyric
elements bamingly juxtaposeo with elements ol raoically oiherent
speech registers. The example ol Quinn`s work is at hano to oem-
onstrate how much we may hope to gain by continuing to oo what
Catullan scholarship can by now claim as a traoition: to supple-
ment philological slow-motion reaoing ol the text with a poetic
sensibility lormeo by the bravest poetry ol every age.
p e rf ormne
In the lace ol an ancient or postmooern serial poetic collection`s
oispersal ol the speaking subject,`` perlormativity itsell can olten
TI J. Conte ,:qq:, . on Colerioge ano organic lorm.``
TP Janan ,:qq,. See ::6 above.
TQ Miller ,:qq, ano :.: above. On Marlowe`s will to absolute play`` ,reao as oarkly
sinister,, Greenblatt ,:q8o, :q..:. Ior an alternate ,though still politically aware, reao-
ing ol Marlovian exuberance, see Heaney ,:qq,.
TR On mime ano Roman literature, Iantham ,:q8q,.
A potmooetr Cotollo
be seen as the unilying ano oriving lorce shaping a book`s lorm
ano provioing its generic ioentity.TS Several recent stuoies have
highlighteo the specinc importance ol the perlormative, ano pos-
sibly ol actual perlormance, to Catullus` poetry ano poetics. Unoer
the rubric ol literal perlormance, T. F. Wiseman has suggesteo
that the hymn to Diana ,Foem , ano the Attis narrative ,Foem
6, may each represent the text ol an actual perlormance given at
a specinc occasion.TT Similar theories hao ol course long since
been put lorwaro about the two weooing poems ,Foems 6: ano
6.,, ano many scholars hao ol course long since oismisseo these
theories out ol hano.TU Here again it is possible to oiscern the
operation ol ,unstateo, normative, aesthetic axioms about what
poetry lunoamentally is ,a worlo apart``,, how it ought to lunc-
tion in a society, ano by whom ano unoer what circumstances it
ought to be consumeo.
Wiseman`s speculative ioentincation ol Catullus mtmotop/o
,whose existence is not speculative but well attesteo, with our poet
also oeserves mention here, as ooes his lurther suggestion about
the nnal verse ol the corpus: ot /xo rottt to oo/t oppltctom ,but
,oo, run through by m, missiles, will get summary punishment``
::6.8,. The line`s prosooy has a nnal sibilant ,in oo/t, lailing to
make position`` ,i.e., lengthen its syllable, when lolloweo by a
woro beginning with a consonant ,oppltctom,. Common in oloer
poetry ol both high ,Ennius, ano low ,Flautus, register, the leature
was by Catullus` time a mark ol archaizing or otherwise looser
oiction ,it is common, lor example, in Lucretius,. Asioe lrom this
parting shot at the eno ol Foem ::6, no other instance ol it occurs
in Catullus` poetry. To these lacts Wiseman aooeo the observation
that this same verse may possibly contain what I woulo call a met-
rical pun. The verse scans lully correctly as a pentameter ,apart
lrom the aomission ol a metrical leature elsewhere oisalloweo by
Catullus, ano so properly lulnlls the lormal constraints ol the ele-
giac couplet. At the same time, thanks to its exceptional prosooy,
the same verse can also be scanneo as an iambic line ol a type ap-
TS Golo ,:qqq, has recently suggesteo something along these lines in the case ol Juvenal.
TT Wiseman ,:q8, q.:o:, :q8.o6, though in the latter case Wiseman concluoes with the
certainty that the Attt brought to the stage a orama whose origins lay oeep in its
author`s psychological experience`` ,.o6,.
TU On context ano possible perlormance ol Catullus` weooing poems,`` Ieoeli ,:q., ano
Thomsen ,:qq.,.
propriate to comeoy ano, it seems, to mime. Ior Wiseman, the
pun`` is a possible wink to the auoience signaling Catullus` career
change, now that his collection is oone, to lull-time mim-
ographer.TV Il there is anything to this intriguing observation, it
ohers a view ol Catullus enoing his poetry book by cracking open
its own oictional oecorum ano the constraints ol its own genre,s,,
as il to burst out ol the bookroll onto the boaros. A lurther com-
parison to Zukolsky`s poetry book suggests itsell here. The nnal
section ol A also presses the perlormative beyono the generic
limits ol its own collection ano into the area ol literal perlor-
mance, though it ooes so on a scale as sustaineo ,nearly .o pages,
ano outrageous as Catullus` is momentary ano subtle. A-. is a
kino ol sonic collage constructeo by Celia Zukolsky unoer the title
L. _. Mooe. What appears at the eno ol A is thus, on one reao-
ing, not the artilact itsell but rather the script, or better, the score
ol an actual perlormance piece consisting ol lour separate voices
simultaneously reciting lour oiherent poetic texts by Louis Zukol-
sky, to the accompaniment ol harpsichoro suites by Hanoel.
Catullus` neeting gesture at the eno ol his book may possibly have
signaleo a comparable blurring ol generic bounoaries in the name
ol perlormance.TW
Quite apart lrom the arguments lor Catullus as a composer ol
any number ol pieces lor actual oramatic or choral perlormance,
recent Catullan critics have highlighteo various aspects ol the per-
lormative within the poems themselves. J. K. Newman, applying
mooels oeriveo chieny lrom Russian lormalism, has reao the en-
tire corpus as the iambic-satiric perlormance ol a carnival gro-
tesque.`ÙH William Iitzgeralo has reao Catullan lyric ano its
mooulations as a orama ol positionality.`ÙI Still more recently,
Brian Krostenko`s semantic stuoy ol approbative aojectives such
as /ello ano oeroto oubbeo co` terie`` epithets by earlier schol-
arship has given new insights on how those terms hao been
coopteo nrst as evaluative terms ol rhetorical art ano then, in the
last generation or two ol the republic, as markers ol a very specinc
TV Wiseman ,:q8, :88q. This suggestion has not been greeteo with enthusiasm, but it
bears unoerscoring that in any case the existence ol a writer lor the stage calleo Catullus
ano never oistinguisheo lrom the poet is securely attesteo by both Martial ,.o.:,
:..8, ano Juvenal ,:..::o:, .:88,.
TW I suggest another possibility about this metrical ehect in Foem ::6 at :88q below.
UH Newman ,:qqo, :q8.oo, .68 ano passim.
UI Iitzgeralo ,:qq, : ano passim.
A potmooetr Cotollo
brano ol Hellenizeo Roman perlormative excellence whose con-
text, ano whose perlormance, seem to have come to an abrupt eno
with the generation that witnesseo the rise ol the principate.UP
The woro perlormative,`` applieo to Catullan poetics, raises
the question perlormative ol what?`` My answer to that question
gives this stuoy both its title ano its central locus on Catullus` po-
etry as a multilaceteo ano complex perlormance ol Roman man-
hooo,`` the literary renection ol a social ano cultural construction
ol manhooo that obtaineo among elite males at Rome ouring the
liletimes ol Caesar, Cicero ano Catullus. That construction`s
broaoest contours are ol course not specinc to the particular time
ano place in which Catullus wrote. Recent work in anthropology
ano sociology has maoe it increasingly possible ,ano meaninglul,
to speak ol a continuous ancient Meoiterranean`` or even simply
a Meoiterranean`` manhooo, though the specincity ol a given
point along that continuum is not to be elioeo.UQ The specinc
moment within which history situateo Catullus appears to have
witnesseo a new intensity in the Hellenization ol the Roman elite,
through increaseo access to Greek luxury gooos ano high culture
artilacts ol every kino, ano owing perhaps even more to the
increaseo presence at Rome ol purveyors ol Greek literary culture
who hao immigrateo or been brought as captives.UR That moment
reacheo its terminus with the cultural revolution`` that ,whether
as symptom, as cause or as co-constituteo event, accompanieo the
passage lrom republic to principate, a revolution that appears to
have raoically translormeo the cultural context ano social con-
straints within which inoivioual excellence coulo be perlormeo.US
In any case, as Krostenko`s work suggests, the approbative lexicon
with which the republic`s last generations hao evaluateo social
perlormance seems to have lost its semantic context ano lunction
in the nrst generation ol the principate. An important aspect ol
that social perlormance ,with a longstanoing Roman traoition ol
otcoctto behino it, hao been the relatively lree exchange ol spoken
UP Krostenko ,.oo:,.
UQ Herzlelo ,:q8,, Gilmore ,:qqo,, Bouroieu ,:q., ano ,:qq8,. Stewart ,:qq, 8 is justi-
nably skeptical about the broao application ol the term Meoiterranean culture,`` but his
objections are locuseo chieny on the inclusion ol Arabic-speaking societies in a Meoiter-
ranean continuum.
UR On republican Rome`s Hellenism, see lor example Gruen ,:qqo, ano ,:qq., ..:. On
the importance ol Greek-speaking slaves as eoucators at Rome, Rawson ,:q8, 66q.
US Wallace-Haorill ,:qq, ::.
ano written invective, a lively commerce ol wit that, il it oio not
set all its players on a precisely equal looting, hao at least
emboloeneo Catullus to oirect some ol his most scathing barbs
against Caesar`s lavorites, ano Caesar`s own person.UT How raoi-
cally the events ol the three oecaoes alter Catullus` oeath hao
altereo the constraints ol social perlormance may be juogeo lrom
a remark ol Asinius Follio. When askeo why a man ol his reputa-
tion lor wit hao laileo to respono in kino to a satiric invective
poem oirecteo at him by Augustus, Follio responoeo: it`s haro to
write a poem against a man who can write your oeath warrant.`ÙU
No comparable consioeration ever stayeo Catullus` hano. Julius
Caesar is saio to have responoeo to Catullus` invective smear
campaign with neither retaliation in kino nor threats ol a oirer
vengeance, but rather with an attempt at personal ano lamilial
reconciliation.UV
The extent to which the elite Roman man`s manhooo was an
acutely perlormative business, ano carrieo out unoer the con-
straint ol constant surveillance, has been highlighteo by such work
as Catharine Eowaros`.UW A toga hikeo up too high ano tight
markeo the man insioe it a bumpkin ,o/tottco,. Drapeo too low,
its nowing lolos presenteo to the observer an irrelutably obvious
metonym ano metaphor ,with all the obviousness`` ol every cul-
tural construct, ol the soltness ano looseness ol its wearer`s ehem-
inacy.VH The sight ol the young Julius Caesar in a tunic with a
loose belt oroopeo letchingly about the hips is saio to have so
exciteo the hypermasculine ire ol Sulla that the conquering gen-
eral hao to be helo back lrom latally bashing the youth who woulo
UT Esp. Foems .q ano q.
UU ror et foctle tr eom ctt/ete ot potet ptoctt/ete ,Macrob. Sot. ....:,. An unoerstanoable
reticence Follio`s own lather-in-law, L. Quinctius, hao been proscribeo ,Appian, BC
...::, but note that Follio`s response perlormatively assureo the interlocutor that his
lameo wit hao suhereo no oiminution.
UV Suetonius, )ol. . None ol this is to suggest that public lile unoer the empire was less a
theatrical matter, or manhooo a less perlormative one. The contrary seems to be true.
See, on imperial theatricality ano manly perlormance respectively, Bartsch ,:qq, ano
Gleason ,:qq,.
UW Eowaros ,:qq,, esp. 6q.
VH Cicero accuses Catiline`s lollowers ol, among other traoitional marks ol eheminacy,
wearing sails not togas`` ,Cot...:o...,. Ano a young man ooing his internship in the lo-
rum ,tttoctrtom fott , was requireo to wear his toga in such a manner that its upper lolos
constraineo his arms lrom broao gesticulation: a way, presumably, ol protecting a lree-
born Roman youth lrom exposing the oelicate boyishness ol his movements to the oesir-
ous or contemptuous ,or both, eyes ol Roman men. Austin ,:q6o, ao Cic. Pto Coelto ::.
one oay give his name to the emperors ol Rome, Cicero, lor his
part, claimeo to have juogeo that the state woulo have nothing to
lear lrom Caesar alter he hao seen the latter scratch his heao with
a single nnger.VI A oisproportionate number ol similar contempo-
rary animaoversions on eheminacy attach themselves to the name
ol Caesar, but then Caesar was the most conspicuous ano lor a
time the most powerlul man ol his oay. There is no reason to
think that any elite Roman male was exempteo lrom observations
on his social perlormance, ano conclusions about his manhooo, ol
the type that Catullus claims in Foem :6 to have receiveo lrom
Iurius ano Aurelius. Even Cicero, lor all the manly tootto ano all
the intolerance ol everything eheminate that his lorensic speeches
seem to embooy, came unoer criticism lor a certain looseness in
the hips ,elom/t, ano perhaps an unseemly rhetorical overuse ol
the higher registers ol his tenor voice.VP Attention to the external
perlormance ol manliness operateo at a level ol intensity that, in a
mooern context, woulo likely be attributeo to a given inoivioual`s
obsessional pathology. In Catullus` Rome it was rather the norm
ol social interaction among men. Inoivioual perlormance ol man-
hooo, lor an elite Roman male, was thus both compelleo ano con-
straineo. Keen competition lor oistinction necessitateo constant
ano conspicuous public social perlormance. At the same time,
every semiotic element ol that perlormance, in oress, comport-
ment ano speech, was subject at every moment to ioeological
evaluation along the binary spectrum ol virility]eheminacy, an
evaluation whose vigilance maoe no allowances or exceptions.
Recent work in cultural anthropology ohers instructive compar-
isons to this agonistic ano perlormative construction ol manhooo
as well as a uselul vocabulary lor oescribing it. Michael Herzlelo`s
T/e Poettc of Mor/ooo, a stuoy ol social interaction among men in
a Cretan village, theorizes social perlormance as embooying a
rhetoric ol the sell.`` Drawing on sociologist Erving Gohman`s
Pteertottor of t/e Self tr Ecet,oo, Ltfe as well as Roman Jakobson`s
structuralist oennition ol the poetic lunction in language`` as a
VI Dio ..: ano Flutarch Coe. ., citeo at Eowaros ,:qq, qo, 6. An epigram ol
Calvus ,lr. :8 Courtney Schol. Juv. q.:, comments similarly on Fompey`s eheminate
heao-scratching technique.
VP Calvus again ,interesting that Catullus` lrieno seems to have set himsell up as something
ol an arbiter ol virility,. He is saio to have pronounceo Cicero limp ano naccio`` ,oloto
et eretot,. Brutus was still harsher, calling Cicero emasculateo ano loose in the hips``
, ftocto otoe elom/t,. Tacitus, Dtol. :8..
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo 6o
loregrounoing ol the meoe itsell ano a concomitant back-
grounoing ol that message`s relerent, Herzlelo characterizeo the
sell-presentation ano interactional strategies he witnesseo among
Cretan village men as perlormances ol sellhooo``:
| T|he successlul perlormance ol sellhooo oepenos on an ability to ioen-
tily the sell with larger categories ol ioentity. In any encounter, the skilleo
actor alluoes to ioeological propositions ano historical anteceoents, but
takes care to suppress the sense ol incongruity inevitably createo by
such granoiose implications, as with virtually any trope, the projection ol
the sell as a metonymical encapsulation ol some more inclusive entity
rests on the violation ol oroinariness. A successlul perlormance ol per-
sonal ioentity concentrates the auoience`s attention on the perlormance
itsell: the implicit claims are accepteo because their very outrageousness
carries a revelatory kino ol conviction. It is in this sell-allusiveness ol
social perlormances, ano in the concomitant backgrounoing ol everyoay
consioerations, that we can oiscern a poetics ol social interaction. The
sell is not presenteo within everyoay lile so much as in lront ol it.VQ
In Glenoiot men`s creations ol meaning`` ,tmoto, through outra-
geous tales ol animal thelt acts sometimes vaunteo as leats ol
macho bravaoo ano e/otmo, at other times justineo as motivateo
by hunger, ano at still other times oescribeo as carrieo out lor the
purpose ol making lrienos`` Herzlelo oiscerneo the operation ol
a rhetoric ol sell-justincation balanceo against sell-recognition,``
which in turn renecteo an imbalance between center ano peri-
phery`` at the heart ol the speaker`s sell-ioentincation.VR The
Glenoiot man`s manhooo is thus oenneo ano evaluateo in terms
lar more aesthetic ano poetic than characterological ano ethical:
In Glenoiot ioiom, there is less locus on being a gooo man`` than on
being gooo at being a man`` a stance that stresses petfotmottce excellerce,
the ability to loregrouno manhooo by means ol oeeos that strikingly
speak lor themselves.`` Actions that occur at a conventional pace are not
noticeable: everyone works haro, most aoult males oance elegantly
enough, any shephero can steal a sheep on some occasion or other. What
counts is . . . ehective mocemert a sense ol shilting the oroinary ano ev-
eryoay into a context where the very change ol context itsell serves to
invest it with suooen signincance. Thus, insteao ol noticing ./ot men oo,
Glenoiots locus their attention on /o. the act is perlormeo. There must
be an occeletottor or t,ltttc ttor/otottor ol action, the work must be oone
VQ Herzlelo ,:q8, :o::. Also Gohman ,:qq,, Jakobson ,:q8,.
VR Herzlelo ,:q8, ..
A potmooetr Cotollo 6:
with nair, the oance executeo with new embellishments that oo not ois-
rupt the basic step ol the other oancers, ano the thelt must be perlormeo
in such a manner that it serves immeoiate notice on the victim ol the
perpetrator`s skill: as he is gooo at stealing, so, too, he will be gooo at
being your enemy or your ally so choose! Both the act ol thelt ano the
narration that lollows it locus on the act itsell. They announce the qual-
ity ol the thelt, the skill with which it has been perlormeo ano recounteo,
as primary components ol the author`s claim to a manly sellhooo that
captures the essence ol Glenoiot, Cretan, ano Greek ioentity all at the
same time. To the extent that they succeeo, they are saio to have tmoto,
meaning.VS
How oirectly applicable is a Herzleloian poetics ol manhooo`` to
the poetry ol Catullus? Even at their most universalizing, Herz-
lelo`s lormulations are obviously orienteo towaro the oescription
ol social interaction within the specinc community that was the
object ol his stuoy. Work in cultural anthropology since Herzlelo
has continueo to corroborate a constructionist view, at least ol a
sort, ol genoer ano more specincally ol manhooo. Il most societies
,though, interestingly, not all, evince a oiscourse ano an ioeology
ol manhooo as a lragile ano elusive possession to be earneo, won
ano carelully guaroeo, the ways in which that manhooo is oenneo
ano evaluateo show the wioest imaginable oiversity lrom culture
to culture.VT The two passages citeo above sumce to make it clear
that Herzlelo`s Cretan villagers construe not only manliness ano
unmanliness along signincantly oiherent griolines lrom those in-
scribeo in the text ol Catullus` poems, but also such lactors as the
relation to property ,thelt, work, wealth ano scarcity, ano to looo
,hunger, satiety, gluttony,.VU Diherences in cultural context, social
position, ano a host ol other consioerations make lor raoically
oiherent oiscourses ol sellhooo, ol excellence ano ol manhooo.
These qualincations, I think, are unobjectionable ano obvious.
But the same qualincations apply equally well to the oiherences
between the cultural constructs inlorming Catullus` poems ano
those ol all his mooern reaoers, ano it is precisely these oiherences
that the act, ano the pleasure, ol reaoing Catullus teno all too
easily to elioe, however critically ano historically inlormeo the
reaoer inoeeo, sometimes as a result precisely ol the reaoer`s
VS Herzlelo ,:q8, ::8.
VT Surveyeo in Gilmore ,:qqo,.
VU On systems ol looo imagery`` in Catullus, Richlin ,:q88,.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo 6.
sympathetic ano richly imaginative critical tact. Hence the possi-
bility ol an interpretive gain through triangulation, the possibility
that introoucing a thiro term between text ano reaoer may relax
the insistence, il only momentarily, ol those binarisms that haunt
the criticism ol literature, ano haunt all the more insistently the
criticism ol a text that we receive alreaoy unoer the looming
power ol its constructeo author`s personality: likeness ano oiher-
ence, attraction ano aversion, celebration ano resentment, excus-
ing ano oeconstructing.`` In the nrst part ol this stuoy, where the
locus has been on Catullan reception, I have attempteo to holo up
such a thiro term primarily through explicit invocation ol a poet-
ics ol the postmooern as elaborateo by its poets ano critics. In
what lollows, where the locus will be on reaoing the Catullan col-
lection ano inoivioual poems, a lurther point ol relerence, an al-
ternate thiro point ol the triangle, will be sought in a Herzleloian
perlormative poetics ol manhooo.
A potmooetr Cotollo 6
h p t e r
Mor/ooo oro Le/to tr t/e /ottet poem
c vo vuuo, :u,yc vti ou oc ut ypi :ou vu v
Aristotle, Poettc :qb
,| The object ol poetics| remains nameless to oate.``,
t he o j e t of t u l l n p oe t i s
It still remains to show in what sense Catullus` text embooies a
Herzleloian poetics ol manhooo.`` We might begin with its un-
mistakably positive aesthetic valuation ol the extraoroinary ano
the conspicuous as evioenceo in hyperbolic claims whose very
outrageousness carries a revelatory kino ol conviction.`Ì Ferlor-
matively outrageous claims about sell ano other coulo plausibly be
calleo a oenning leature ol the poems. Most ol these claims are
centereo arouno the appetites ano senses ol the speaker or inter-
locutor`s booy.P At times the object ol perlormance is a renneo
aesthetic connoisseurship, as when Catullus pronounces an oint-
ment`s lragrance so nne that it will make Iabullus wish himsell
all nose`` ,Foem :,, or complains that his lile is in oanger lrom
the ehect ol a book ol bao poems he has receiveo as a Saturnalia
gag gilt lrom Calvus ,Foem :,. Elsewhere it is the Catullan
speaker`s own insatiable appetites, whether oral ,as in Foem `s
sell-avoweoly mao`` hunger lor a series ol innnituoes ol kisses, or
genital ,as in Foem .`s notice serveo on Ipsitilla that she prepare
hersell lor nine copulations without a pause,. Even the lrustration
or mortincation ol an appetite is thrown into the reliel ol per-
lormative excess, as when Catullus, having stolen a single kiss
lrom the boy Juventius, oescribes himsell hung high upon a cross
lor more than a whole hour`` ,qq.,, weeping ano pleaoing while
6
I Herzlelo ,:q8, ::. See 6o. above. P Richlin ,:q88,.
the boy washes Catullus` kiss oh his lips as though it were the
loul spittle ol a woll that smelleo ol piss`` ,qq.:o,. Two classes ol
hyperbolic claim, however, outstrip the rest lor unlorgettable in-
sistence: nrst, a series ol violently obscene invective threats ano
insults ol every kino scattereo throughout the corpus, ano secono,
a series ol oeclarations ol passionate ano laithlul love. Neither ol
these classes ol Catullan perlormance has its match lor expressive
lorce elsewhere in the surviving literature ol the language. The
nrst has been a scanoal ano an embarrassment lor most ol Catul-
lus` mooern reception history. Ano it is the claims ol the secono
kino, in the Lesbia poems,`` many ol them so close on their lace
to expressions ol mooern romantic`` love, that have given their
poet his uniquely lavoreo status as the tenoerest ol Roman
poets,`` the lyric oarling,`` ce ctcort,`` ano even, like Virgil ,a poet
more revereo but less beloveo,, an ortmo rototolttet cttttoro.Q
Il the rhetoric ol Catullan sell-representation oepenos in large
measure on the staking ol outrageous claims, the articulation ol
those claims lenos itsell easily enough to oescription in Herzlelo`s
poetic ano rhetorical terms. Catullus` allusivity to ioeological
propositions ano historical anteceoents`` was sketcheo in the ear-
lier section on intertextuality, ano this aspect ol his poetry will
structure the nnal chapter in which a pair ol character intertexts``
will be reao as cooe mooels`` ol a manhooo perlormeo through
oscillatory mooulations ol nerce aggression ano exquisite oelicacy.
Iurther, Catullus` relentless sell-allusivity,`` in Herzlelo`s Jakob-
sonian sense ol a poetic loregrounoing ol the perlormance act
itsell through its stylistic transnguration,`` is precisely what the
previous chapter attempteo to articulate by loregrounoing Catul-
lan wit ano invention over the qualities ol originality, sincerity,
intensity ano introspection that centuries ol reaoers have cele-
brateo in their Catullus.
What ol Herzlelo`s suggestion that the skilleo actor`` ol a per-
lormeo sellhooo takes care to suppress the sense ol incongruity
inevitably createo`` by his granoiose claims``? The question is
subtler than the previous ones. Its answer in Catullus` case, I
think, is complicateo precisely by Catullus` reception history. On
my own reaoing, the poems haroly urge a characterization ol their
speaker as highly ehective at suppressing incongruity, ano I shoulo
Q ce ctcort: Granarolo ,:q,.
Mor/ooo oro Le/to tr t/e /ottet poem 6
be very surpriseo il many reaoers were awaiting an elaborate
oemonstration ol that assertion. It seems lrankly impossible to
sustain creoence in the piety, chastity ano noelity to which the
speaker ol the Lesbia poems`` lays claim in a series ol sublime
oeclarations ol love tenoerly ohereo ano tragically spurneo. It is
not so much the illicit, aoulterous status ol the union so envisageo
that sticks in the craw ,on that count it has long been easy to builo
a cohesive ano even satislying reaoing ol the poems as the cry ol a
Hegelian beautilul soul in revolt against a sick society,.R It is rather
the cynical ano even brutal connoisseurship ol the objectineo
booies ol women ano boys in other poems, ano the violent misog-
yny ol those Lesbia poems`` in the mooe ol rejecteo oespon-
oence, that has leo most ol us, the current interpretive com-
munity`` ol Catullus` reaoers, to ooubt the valioity ano even
the seriousness ol Catullus` claims to pteto ano /oe in Lesbia`s re-
garo. Ano to the extent that we take the Catullan corpus to be a
collection organizeo by its author, the strioently oissonant juxta-
positions ol its arrangement only serve to throw its speaker`s sell-
contraoiction into sharper locus.
Il this reaoing represents the majority opinion ol current
Catullan scholarship, it is important to remember that we possess
its vantage point only because we stano on the shouloers ol the
great Catullan skeptical reaoers`` ol the late twentieth century.S
Ior most ol his ,long, mooern reception history, Catullus was
inoeeo a skilleo actor,`` so skilleo in the art to conceal art that
reaoers were quick to come to his aio, excusing what they coulo
ano simply eoiting out ol the oiscussion ,or the school text, what
they coulo not. The poet`s skill was ol course not the only lactor at
work. As William Iitzgeralo has pointeo out, many ol Catullus`
earlier mooern reaoers have hao an investment in maintaining the
assignment ol an ahistorical truth value to ioeological propositions
about culture ano society that were ioentical or close to the prop-
ositions embooieo ano personateo by the Catullan speaking sub-
ject.T Losing sight ol this, by elioing reception history ano
R Ferhaps the strongest reaoing ol Catullus as poetry ol social commentary is Konstan
,:q, on Foem 6. See also Fetrini ,:qq,. Il Lesbia was Clooia Metelli, she may have
been wiooweo at the time ol Catullus` writing. In any case, Foem 8 seems to oepict
Lesbia talking to her husbano.
S Along with Skinner, other important skeptical reaoers ol Catullus incluoe Seloen ,:qq.,,
Richlin ,:qq.,, Iitzgeralo ,:qq,, Hallett ,:qq6, ano Greene ,:qq8,.
T Iitzgeralo ,:qq, .:..
proceeoing oirectly to an ethical`` reaoing, runs the risk ol trivi-
alizing the important work in Catullan scholarship that maoe such
a reaoing possible. Each age has its own morality ano its own
hypocrisies. Catullus` poems present a persona that manages to
run aloul ol those ol his own historical moment as well as ours. It
is haro to say which is the greater oanger at the current juncture:
to conoemn Catullus too hastily on the grounos that he ought to
have conlormeo to a mooern liberal ethics ol human rights ano
personhooo, or to excuse him too hastily by the strategem ol pos-
iting, just behino the persona, the presence ol a poet`` who oto
conlorm to it.
Iinally, what I take to be the central leature ol Herzlelo`s
poetics ol manhooo`` seems not only present but pervasive
through the Catullan corpus: a prioritizing ol the perlormative
over the ethical, so that there is less locus on being a gooo man`
than on being gooo at being a man.``` A Catullan poem, on this
reaoing, is above all a coptotto ,a play`` lor approbation,, a loceo-
tto ,challenge``,, a perlormance ol excellence. Being gooo at,``
through a ot ano oeroto ,lorce`` ano wit``, that leave the inter-
locutor gasping lor breath, is the answer I propose to the question
what are Catullus` poems about?`Ù Their contexts are inoeeo po-
litical ano social, but they participate in those contexts as per-
lormances in lront ol them rather than as critiques lrom without.
They are spoken on a stage. Theirs is a poetics ano even a politics
ol perlormance rather than a Stevensian lile liveo apart lrom
politics,`` ano the perlormative excellence lor which they strive
belongs, in the nrst instance, to the social ,homosocial``, interac-
tion among Roman elite males.V It is in this sense that it is both
possible ano appropriate, I think, to speak ol a poetics ol man-
hooo in Catullus, ano even to suggest that, setting asioe lor a
moment the Lesbia poems, the object ol Catullan poetics his
politics ol rhythm`` consists in the perlormance ol manly excel-
lence.W In lact, as this chapter will suggest, even many ol the
U Cicero, recounting in a letter his public stanooh with Clooius ,Att. :.:6.8,, tells Atticus
that he will not give a play by play account ol the verbal exchange, since outsioe the per-
lormance context ol the contest itsell ,c ,o v, they retain neither their lorce`` nor their
wit`` ,reoe otm reoe oerototem,. This paragraph has benenteo lrom oiscussion with
Eleanor Leach.
V Coineo by Seogwick ,:q8,.
W Folitics ol rhythm``: Meschonnic ,:qq,.
poems leaturing Lesbia are similarly homosocial,`` ano similarly
motivateo ano inlormeo by a Catullan poetics ol manhooo.
m n t o m n @t he p ol y me t r i p oe msA
Poem tr t/ett Ploce: T/e Irtettextooltt, oro Otoet of Poettc Collecttor is a
:q86 volume ol essays oevoteo chieny to English ano American
poetry collections lrom early mooernity ,Sioney ano Jonson, to the
twentieth century ,Flath,. Ancient poets ano their collections are
representeo by some remarks in an introouctory essay ano by W.
S. Anoerson`s chapter on The Theory ano Fractice ol Foetic Ar-
rangement lrom Vergil to Ovio.`` Catullus thus misses the book`s
purview by a generation, but a single mention in the eoitor`s in-
troouction presents an instructive long-range snapshot ol the ma-
jority opinion on his place in the history ol the poetic collection.
We reao: Centuries belore Fetrarch ano Dante, Horace ano his
preoecessor Catullus hao shown how a recognizable narrative ol
love coulo emerge lrom a collection ol oiscrete lyrics arrangeo in
temporal sequence.`` A lootnote elaborates:
The Catullan corpus begins with a sequence ol poems ,.::, oesigneo
to trace the progression ano nnal oissolution ol a love ahair . . . We
cannot be sure, however, that Catullus arrangeo his corpus as we now
know it.IH
Lyric,`` narrative,`` love ahair`` ano temporal sequence``: the
oenning preoccupations ol so much twentieth-century Catullan
criticism. A new reaoer ol Catullus` poetry who hao seen this
remark woulo, I think, reasonably expect to nno there, alter the
oeoicatory Foem :, a series ol oiscrete lyrics in temporal sequence
relating the narrative ol a love ahair. Ano what woulo she actually
nno?
Iirst, the two sparrow poems, one ,Foem ., aooresseo to my
girl`s sparrow`` ano steamily erotic whether or not it encooes a
penis joke, the other ,Foem , ano containing a witty lament on
the sparrow`s oeath ,a Hellenistic topo, ano again quite possibly a
penis joke,.II Next, Foem , recounting to an auoience ol guests``
IH Iraistat ,:q86, , : ,n. :.,. Obvious that the characterization ol Horace given here
woulo be even haroer to sustain upon close reaoing ol the Ooes.
II Ior the cause ol oecency, Jocelyn ,:q8o,, lor that ol ribalory, in a learneo Hellenistic
vein, Thomas ,:qq,.
in a breezily aristocratic tone the career ol a small boat , p/oelo,
in the manner ol Hellenistic epigrams on pets or, lor example,
conch shells. Then the nrst kiss poem ,Foem ,, aooresseo to
Lesbia, mao ano giooy ano lull ol cotpe otem ,belore Horace, ano
thousanos ol kisses. Then Foem 6, in which Catullus upbraios, or
teases, a man nameo Ilavius in an attempt to make him reveal the
ioentity ol his lemale lover, Catullus prohers the opinion that,
since Ilavius won`t say who she is, she must be a oiseaseo
whore.`` Then a secono kiss poem ,Foem , aooresseo to Lesbia,
this one lull ol innnituoes ,sanos ol the oesert, stars ol the sky, ano
containing a riooling relerence to Callimachus. Then Foem 8, in
which Catullus aooresses nrst himsell ano then the poello ,girl``,,
seeming to try to convince them both ,whether slyly or no, that he
is saying gooobye lor gooo, since she no longer wants him. Then
an outburst ol unaoulterateo joy ,Foem q, at the news ol the re-
turn lrom Spain ol a lrieno nameo Veranius, Catullus looks lor-
waro to hugging Veranius` neck, kissing his mouth ano eyes, ano
orinking in his traveler`s tales.IP Then Foem :o, in which a lrieno
nameo Varus takes Catullus out ol the lorum to meet Varus` new
girllrieno ,not a charmless little whore`` is how Catullus nrst sizes
her up, at :o.,, Catullus lakes ownership ol a lrieno`s parkeo
seoan chair with its team ol bearers ano is embarrasseo when the
woman calls his bluh. Ano nnally Foem ::, aooresseo to Iurius
ano Aurelius, to whom, alter a geographical excursus upon the
enos ol the earth to which they woulo lollow their lrieno, Catullus
entrusts a briel message ol larewell to my girl``: woros ol violent
obscenity ,oirecteo towaro the woman ano her other lovers, ano
oelicately compassionate tenoerness ,oirecteo towaro Catullus
himsell ,.
Ol the ten poems, two are aooresseo to Lesbia by name ,Foems
ano ,, ano another aooresses her as poello ,Foem 8,. Three more
reler to her, again as poello, oescribing her oesire or sorrow ,Foems
. ano , ano, in the last poem, senoing her a nasty message ,Foem
::,. The remaining lour poems ,Foems , 6, q ano :o, have no
connection with Lesbia, at least none that emerges lrom either the
text ol these ten poems or the rest ol the collection. It is oimcult
to imagine that a reaoer innocent ol Catullan criticism who put
oown the book at this point woulo come away with the impression
IP On Veranius, see Syme ,:q6, :.q.
Mor/ooo oro Le/to tr t/e /ottet poem 6q
ol having reao the narrative ol a love ahair`s progress ano ois-
solution, even in a jumbleo or lragmentary version. One might
object that continueo reaoing ano rereaoing ol the entire corpus
woulo eventually throw the opening sequence into a oiherent
light. It is certainly true that the collection both invites ano
rewaros continueo rereaoing in all oirections.IQ Lesbia`s presence
in Foems . through :: carries more poignancy ano import, cer-
tainly, lor a reaoer who comes back to them alter having reao all
the epigrams. But it is less certain that a reaoing ol all the poems
woulo necessarily bring the nonspecialist reaoer to the conclusion
that the Lesbia poems`` oominate the collection ,they oo not oo
so numerically, in any case,, ano even less certain that she woulo
characterize this poetry book as the proouction ol an emotionally
intense ,or lyric``, inoivioual subjectivity whom we overhear``
,Mill, talking to himsell, or to no one at all`` ,Eliot,.IR
But let us continue the experiment ol a Winklerian nrst reao-
ing`` ol Catullus though it will almost immeoiately break oown
belore the collection`s insistence on being reao in several oirec-
tions at once.IS Fushing on through the corpus alter Foem ::, the
reaoer next encounters thirty-seven poems ol which the vast
majority ,twenty-nine by my count, just over three quarters, are
aooresseo to, or take as their subject, a man or pair ol men,
almost always calleo by name.IT None ol these thirty-seven poems
is aooresseo to Lesbia. Her name makes only one appearance
among them, ano that in an unsavory context. Foem is
aooresseo to the omtco ,girllrieno,` but not a nice woro lor it, ol a
oecoctot lrom Iormia`` generally ioentineo with Julius Caesar`s
IQ Miller ,:qq, 6, 6. Also Wiseman ,:q8, :.
IR Mill ,:q6, :., citeo in Batstone ,:qq, :, Eliot ,:q6:, :o6.
IS Winkler ,:q8,.
IT The poems are those numbereo :. through o, counting :b as a separate poem, with
no poems between : ano .:. The .q poems to males or about males are: Foems :. ,to
Asinius Marrucinus,, : ,to Iabullus,, : ,to Calvus,, : ,to Aurelius,, :6 ,to Aurelius ano
Iurius,, : ,on an unnameo cuckoloeo husbano lrom the region arouno Verona,, .: ,to
Aurelius,, .. ,to Varus, on Suhenus the poetaster,, . ,to Iurius,, . ,to Juventius,, . ,to
Thallus,, .6 ,to Iurius,, . ,to his wine stewaro slave,, .8 ,to Veranius ano Iabullus,, .q
,to Romulus the ctroeoo,`` on Mamurra, Caesar ano Fompey,, o ,to Allenus,, ,to
Vibennius ano his ctroeoo son,, ,to Caecilius, by way ol an apostrophizeo papyrus let-
ter,, 6 ,on Volusius, aooresseo to his Arrole,, ,to the patrons ol a tavern ano in par-
ticular to Egnatius,, 8 ,to Cornincius,, q ,on Egnatius,, o ,to Ravious,, ,aooresseo
to Catullus` larm, but aimeo at the poetaster Sestius,, 6 ,a larewell to his provincial co-
hort,, ,to Potcto ano Soctottor |Figgy`` ano Little Socrates``|,, 8 ,to Juventius, a kiss
poem,, q ,to Cicero, ano o ,to Calvus,.
lrieno Mamurra, whom Foem .q hao alreaoy lambasteo.IU Catul-
lus nrst greets the woman ano then proceeos to inventory her booy
parts: nose, leet, eyes, nngers, mouth, tongue.IV Iinoing them all
lacking in beauty, he expresses his inoignation at a tasteless, wit-
less age`` that oares compare this woman to his Lesbia:
te provincia narrat esse bellum?
tecum Lesbia nostra comparetur?
o saeclum insapiens et inlacetum! ,.68,
The province tells the tale that ,oo`re a beauty?
My Lesbia`s, then, to be compareo to ,oo?
O age without a orop ol taste or wit!
In Foem :, on the same woman, Catullus hao expresseo a mock
concern lor her sanity alter she hao proposeo to him the price ol
ten thousano sesterces.IW Commentators, ever quick to excuse
Catullus, have tenoeo to reao Foem ,like the similar Foem 86,
on Quintia, as a backhanoeo but gallant compliment to Lesbia,
whose beauty is here oeemeo a peerless stanoaro.PH Surely Foems
: ano are at least open to a oiherent interpretation, as a bit ol
very lorehanoeo invective sexual, nnancial ano even political
oirecteo principally at the oecoctot lrom Iormia.`` The pair ol
poems serves notice ,:, that Mamurra`s omtco has trieo to prosti-
tute hersell to Catullus, ,., that she has askeo him lor an exorbi-
tant sum, presumably because Mamurra hasn`t an o to speno on
her ano she knows that Catullus, unlike Mamurra, is not only
richly propertieo but also solvent, ,, that Catullus` Lesbia is
lar more oesirable than Mamurra`s omtco, ano nnally ,, that
IU Crook ,:q6, :: Decoction, then, in Republican times, was oeclareo or aojuogeo in-
solvency, ano it was in all circumstances inlaming, though it was aomitteo that some
people were unlucky.``
IV The /loor orotomtoe was a topos ol Hellenistic poetry, on which see Sioer ,:qq, on
Fhilooemus Eptt. , AP .:.,.
IW She is apparently calleo by name here something like Ameana,`` but the text is cor-
rupt beyono sure repair.
PH But as Ierguson ,:q8, :. remarks, we cannot oisassociate the attack on Ameana`s
looks ano the attack on Mamurra`s politics.`` Fapanghelis ,:qq:, closes a programmatic
ano Callimachean reaoing ol Foem 86 with the suggestion that Foem may encooe a
similar statement. I agree with Skinner ,:qq, :: that Foems : ano are expert
variations on a satiric theme,`` but I am less connoent that reaoing the poems in that
light will temper their personal acerbity`` or give them the viewpoint ol the man ol
rennement.``
Mor/ooo oro Le/to tr t/e /ottet poem :
Mamurra`s omtco is being praiseo extravagantly by a generation
ol Veronese provincials low on connoisseurship ol leminine
charms ano perhaps more to the point, a generation eager to
natter an associate ol Caesar by making his omtco out to be a great
beauty.PI On this reaoing, ol course, both Mamurra`s omtco ano
Lesbia are commooineo, maoe into units ol enjoyment ano ex-
change, while the real players, the subjectivities, are the two men
involveo: Catullus, the message`s senoer, ano Mamurra, its ulti-
mate aooressee.
In aooition to that single mention ol Lesbia`s name in the thirty-
seven poems between :: ano :, there are three relerences to a
poello almost universally ioentineo by reaoers as Lesbia ,the logic
ol the collection again seems to insist upon the ioentincation, ano
to argue otherwise seems again perverse,. All three ol these reler-
ences appear in poems aooresseo to or aimeo at men: Foem : ,to
Iabullus,, Foem 6 ,to Volusius` Arrole, ano Foem ,to the
sleazy bar ano its sleazy barnies``,. In Foem :, Catullus invites
his lrieno Iabullus to come to oinner ano to bring the oinner
along, not without a corotoo poello ,:., sparkling girl``,. Fleaoing
a purse lull ol nothing but cobwebs, Catullus ohers insteao to
repay Iabullus lor the oinner with a remarkable gilt:
seo contra accipies meros amores
seu quio suauius elegantiusue est:
nam unguentum oabo, quoo meae puellae
oonarunt Veneres Cupioinesque,
quoo tu cum ollacies, oeos rogabis,
totum ut te laciant, Iabulle nasum. ,:.q:,
But in return you`ll get the very stuh ol love,
or something il there be such sweeter, nner:
I`ll give to you a scent that all the goos
ano goooesses ol love gave to my girl.
Ano when you take a whih, my oear Iabullus,
you`ll pray the goos to make you nothing but nose.
Whatever interpretation is put on the scent promiseo to Iabullus
by Catullus, it seems a simple statement ol lact to say that the
poello in this poem serves as a coin ol exchange passeo between the
PI Maselli ,:qq, q: on this poem.
senoer ano receiver ol the poem, both aoult males, this time in a
lrienoly rather than a ,serious or mock, hostile relation.PP
The next twenty poems or so ,Foems :, leature no poello
susceptible ol ioentincation as Lesbia. The erotic lile ol Catullus,
however, is here representeo as anything but inactive in Lesbia`s
absence. One ol these poems takes the lorm ol a message on a
tablet ,to/ellom, .., aooresseo to my sweet Ipsitilla, my oarling,
my oelight`` ,meo oolct Iptttllo, | meoe oeltctoe, met lepote, ..:.,,
asking her to invite him over at miooay ano to be reaoy lor nine
luckerations in a row`` ,roooem corttroo fotottore ..8, because
Catullus has hao his lunch, is lying on his back, ano has a bulge
bursting through his tunic ano cloak.PQ Three ol the same twenty
poems mention the boy Juventius. In a pair ol invective poems to
Aurelius, one ol two rivals lor the boy`s attention, Catullus relers
,apparently, to Juventius twice as my loves`` ,:.:, .:.,. A thiro
poem is aooresseo to the boy as little nower ol the Juventii`` , flo-
colo . . . Iocerttotom, ..:,, urging him not to respono to the
aovances ol the other rival who, though /ello ,nice-looking``,,
possesses Catullus says it three times neither slave nor money-
chest`` ,.., 8, :o,.PR The ioentincation ol that rival will have been
maoe clear by the previous poem as one Iurius ,ioentineo by some
scholars with the poet Iurius Bibaculus,.PS Foem . hao begun
Iurius, you who possess neither slave nor money chest`` ,Fott, cot
PP Very lull oiscussion ol the poem ano its scholarship in Gowers ,:qq, ..q. The two
most arresting suggestions ,neither out ol keeping with Catullus` sell-presentation, as to
what is meant by the oroertom belong to Littman ,:q, ,the poello`s vaginal secretions,
ano Hallett ,:q8, ,an anal lubricant,. Witke ,:q8o, has ,over,argueo against both. Still, I
am inclineo to take the ointment as chieny ,not exclusively, representing poetry itsell.
Fhilooemus asks a woman lor a song with the woros strum me some myrrh with your
oelicate hanos`` ,n o v uoi ytpoi opooivci, uu pov, Eptt. Sioer | AP q.o| ,, ano
Foem : closely resembles Fhilooemus Eptt. . Sioer , AP ::.,, in which Fiso is
inviteo to the Epicureans` monthly celebration ol their lounoer. Sioer suggests, ao loc.,
that the Latin invitation poem`` ,Eomunos :q8., may thus renect not Roman social
conventions`` but rather Epicurean ones.
PQ Here again it is possible to reao Catullus perlorming a oialogue with Fhilooemus, who
complains thus ol his oiminisheo sexual powers: O Aphrooite! I who lormerly ,oio, nve
,acts, ano even nine, now scarcely ,oo, one lrom ousk to oawn`` ,o tpi v t ,o ici tt v:t
ici t vvt c, vu v, A qpooi :n, | t v uo i, t i tpo :n, vui:o , t , n t iov Eptt. :q Sioer ,AP
::.o, :.,.
PR Beck ,:qq6, ..88 has argueo that the Juventius poems constitute a separate cycle ano
were even publisheo as a separate Iurius ano Aurelius lt/ello`` consisting ol Foems :a
.6.
PS See e.g. Faratore ,:qo, .:q. Il the ioentincation is correct, then the oate ol his birth in
Jerome ,:o e, is too early.
reoe etoo et reoe otco, ..:,, nor beobug nor spioer nor nre,``
ano hao gone on to urge Iurius to count his blessings ,I para-
phrase literally,: a lather ano a stepmother whose teeth can eat
nint, an excellent oigestive system, no lear ol nre, crumbling
builoings, crime or poison ,the reason, we are to unoerstano, is
that he owns nothing,, a booy oryer than horn, without sweat,
saliva, snot or phlegm, ano something even purer than all this
purity, an asshole cleaner than a salt-oish. Iurius ooesn`t shit ten
times a year, ano when he ooes, what comes out is haroer than
beans or pebbles. You can rub it between your nngers without
getting them oirty.
What can be the point ol this stream ol nerce invective poureo
out with Rabelaisian gusto upon Iurius` oryness? The nnal lines ol
the poem, linking back to the opening, give the answer:
haec tu commooa tam beata, Iuri,
noli spernere nec putare parui,
et sestertia quae soles precari
centum oesine: nam sat es beatus. ,....,
Such aovantages, Iurius, such gooo lortune:
these are not things to scorn or unoervalue.
Ano as lor the sesterces you keep begging lor
the hunoreo give it up. You`re well enough oh alreaoy.
The oryness ol Iurius` booy is both metaphor ano metonym ol his
nnancial oistress.PT This pair ol poems ,. ano ., responos on
several levels to comparison with the pair on Mamurra`s omtco ,:
ano ,. Both pairs have their members linkeo by a scorchingly
scornlul, memorably snappy invective lormula oirecteo by Catul-
lus at another man: neither slave nor money-chest,`` relerring to
Iurius in Foems . ano ., oecoctot lrom Iormia,`` relerring to
Mamurra in Foems : ano . In both instances, the brunt ol the
scorn is nnancial. Both pairs leature a love`` object, whether
woman or boy, whose lunction in the text is primarily as a con-
testeo property ano a coin ol invective exchange. The invective
PT In Foem .6 we learn that Iurius` small villa ,otllolo, .6.:, is set against`` ,oppotto, .6.:,
but the woro is also a nnancial technical term meaning mortgageo against``: Maselli
|:qq| :6, a horrible ano pestilential wino: neither North, South, East nor West, but
rather :,.oo sesterces.
message in both cases is sent by a solvent Catullus to a bankrupt
,or at least insolvent, male enemy.
p re t t y p i r of di r t y l e s i p oe ms ``
The two remaining relerences to Lesbia ,calleo poello rather than
by name, between Foems :: ano : come in Foems 6 ano , both
ol which bear comparison to the invective pairs just oiscusseo. As
inoivioual pieces ano as a pair, these two poems are as carelully
constructeo as anything in the corpus, though it woulo be oimcult
to argue ,as twentieth-century critics have olten oone lor other
Catullan poems, that their intricacy ol lorm lunctions primarily as
a vessel lor intensity ol leeling. Each poem consists ol exactly
twenty verses ,Fhalaecians or henoecasyllabics`` in 6, scazons or
choliambics`` in ,, ano each is oivioeo into precisely equal
halves by a strong paragraph break coming at the exact miopoint.
The poello, entering both poems in a causal clause ,rom, lor``:
6., .::,, appears as a character only in the nrst ten lines ol
Foem 6, ano only in the last ten lines ol Foem . Lexical ano
structural parallelisms make both poems into rings. Each poem
leatures a striking intratextual citation lrom a jarringly oiherent
context within the Catullan collection. Each poem is an invective
message oirecteo at a nameo inoivioual male enemy ano, in what
is perhaps the most insolently Rabelaisian ,though by no means
the most obscene, touch ol the entire corpus, each poem is situ-
ateo unoer the sign ol a ruling excretory element``: Foem 6 is a
shit poem aimeo at Volusius, Foem a piss poem aimeo at
Egnatius.PU
Foem 6 is aooresseo to the annals ol Volusius, sheet alter
sheet ol shit,``PV calleo upon to lulnll a vow lor my girl.`` Its pic-
tureo scene is the moment belore Volusius` poetry is thrown into
the nre. Alter the opening apostrophe to the ooomeo bookrolls,
the nrst ten lines analeptically give the narrative backgrouno:
Annales Volusi, cacata carta,
uotum soluite pro mea puella.
nam sanctae Veneri Cupioinique
PU On obscenity`` Roman ano Catullan: Lateiner ,:q,, Richlin ,:qq., :: ano :6,
Skinner ,:qq.,, Barton ,:qq, ano Iitzgeralo ,:qq, q86.
PV This inspireo translation is Krostenko`s ,.oo:,.
uouit, si sibi restitutus essem
oesissemque truces uibrare iambos,
electissima pessimi poetae
scripta taroipeoi oeo oaturam
inlelicibus ustulanoa lignis.
et hoc pessima se puella uioit
iocose lepioe uouere oiuis. ,6.::o,
Arrol by Volusius, sheet alter sheet ol shit,
time to pay the vow now lor my girl.
You see, she maoe a vow to Venus ano to Cupio,
that il I woulo be reconcileo to her
ano leave oh hurling sharp invective iambs,
she woulo oher in turn to the limping nre-goo
the writings the choicest ol the worst ol poets,
giving them over to kinole unlucky logs.
Ano it seemeo to her, it seemeo to that worst ol girls,
that the vow that she voweo to the goos was a charm ol a
joke.PW
The narrator-poet recounts that this worst ol girls`` , petmo
poello, 6.q, voweo to Venus ano the Cupios thinking her vow
clever ano witty ,tocoe leptoe, 6.:o, that il Catullus be reconcileo
to her ano stop branoishing his nerce iambs, she woulo in turn
consign to the names the choicest writings ol the worst poet``
,electttmo petmt poetoe | cttpto 6.6,. The worst poet,`` in Catul-
lus` t,le trottect lt/te recounting ol the poello`s woros, is implicitly
unoerstooo to be Catullus himsell. A nice symmetry ol localiza-
tion seems to obtain at this point: Lesbia ,in her woros as re-
counteo by Catullus, has oescribeo Catullus as petmo poeto, ano
Catullus seems to have retaliateo in kino by relerring to Lesbia as
petmo poello. Petmo, in both instances, appears to have an ethi-
cal, characterological meaning: each ol the two quarreling lovers
attributes meanness,`` nastiness`` to the other.
The secono hall ol the poem takes place in the narrative pres-
ent, as Catullus nrst acquits himsell ol an astonishing mock-
sacrincial prayer to Venus whose oiction ano line length swell the
henoecasyllable`s slenoer sails to unparalleleo epic-hymnic pro-
portions, ano then enos the poem with an envoi to Volusius`
PW Buchheit ,:qq,, still the lullest reaoing ol the poem, takes it as chieny a piece ol poetic
program. See also Clausen ,:q8, .
poetry, closing the poem`s ring with a nnal verse ioentical to the
initial one:
nunc o caeruleo creata ponto,
quae sanctum Ioalium Vriosque apertos
quaeque Ancona Cnioumque harunoinosum
colis quaeque Amathunta quaeque Golgos
quaeque Durrachium Haoriae tabernam,
acceptum lace reooitumque uotum,
si non illepioum neque inuenustum est.
at uos interea uenite in ignem,
pleni ruris et inncetiarum
annales Volusi, cacata carta. ,6.::.o,
But now, o goooess ol wine-oark sea`s conception,
thou ol Ioalium`s peak, ol Uria`s open sky,
thou who by Ancon`s reel, by Cnious` reeoy banks
owellest, thou ol Amathus ano Golgi,
thou ol Durrachium, tavern ol the Aoriatic,
pray count this vow as tenoereo, paio in lull,
il there by any charm in it, any grace.
Ano as lor you, then, into the nre with you
ano the witless reoneck platituoes you`re stuheo with:
Arrol by Volusius, sheet alter sheet ol shit.
The lour hymnic verses ,6.:.:, are a oazzling oisplay ol Helle-
nistic eruoition, both by the hermetic exoticism ol their geography
ano also by the symmetry ol their arrangement ano construction:
note especially the cletic`` anaphora ol the relative pronoun in
each line, the perlect oistribution ol two place names per line, ano
the main verb ,colt |owellest``|, 6.:, loogeo like a pearl at the
opening ol the thiro verse, the inventory`s precise miopoint. This
is a poet`s programmatic announcement ol his ability to oo or,-
t/tr in any metre ano in any context. Even in Fhalaecians,
Catullus can show Volusius how hexameter poetry ought to souno,
ano how it ought to souno, accoroing to Catullus, is like Calli-
machus, Theocritus, Apollonius ano, ol course, like Catullus him-
sell when he writes hexameters. His miniature epic similarly
aooresses Venus as ooeoe tet Golo ooeoe Iooltom ftorooom
,you who rule Golgi ano lealy Ioalium,`` 6.q6, cl. 6.:., :,. It is
quite impossible to say which ol these two Catullan poems is
intratextually citing the other, which passage has been cut ano
which one pasteo.
The line at Foem 6 is probably a oirect renoering ol the nrst
verse ol a lemale singer`s hymn to Aphrooite at Theocritus Io,ll
:.:oo: At otoiv`, c Io,o , :t ici l oc iov t qi noc, ,Laoy who
lovest Golgi ano Ioalium``,. In the lace ol this Theocritean inter-
text, it is all the more oangerous even to speculate as to the oroer
in which Catullus composeo the two passages, since il Foem 6`s
cultic epithets are burlesque in tone, they may just as well be a
burlesque ol Theocritus` poem as ol Catullus` own miniature epic.
It is however interesting ano perhaps signincant that Io,ll : ano
Foem 6 both prominently leature lemale speakers as connoisseurs
passing aesthetic juogment in specializeo terms ol approbation:
Catullus` poello thinks her own vow to have been voweo leptoe ano
tocoe, in Theocritus, Gorgo aomires the palace`s tapestries with a
pair ol Alexanorian`` terms ol art expresseo in a Homeric tag
,tt:c ici o , ycpi tv:c |light ano so lovely``|, Io. :.q, that
Catullus woulo have recognizeo ,ano ol which his tocoe leptoe may
just possibly be a renex,. Theocritus` secono laoy, the unsophisti-
cateo Fraxinoa, remarks insteao on the artists` exact lines`` ,:c i-
pit c ,pc uuc:c, 8:, ano marvels at the lilelike realism ol the
ngures with a nai ve outburst worthy ol Monsieur Jouroain: What
a clever thing is man!`` ,ooqo v :i ypn u` c vpoto,, 8,.QH Just as
the poello`s sell-congratulating tocoe leptoe is immeoiately lolloweo
by Catullus` own hymnic perlormance, so the Theocritean laoies`
remarks are lolloweo nearly immeoiately a briel comic scene
intervenes when a bystanoer asks the women to stop chattering in
their Doric accent by the beginning ol the hymn on Aoonis that
opens with the two cultic epithets in a single line citeo above. Il
we are willing to entertain the possibility that Catullus at Foem 6
hao in mino the entire context ol the Theocritean poem, ano not
just the lragment`` citeo in our commentaries, then the intertext
might seem here to reinlorce Catullus` implieo oig at the poello:
she may think hersell to have pulleo oh an urbane ano charming
perlormance ol wit, but in lact her wit is as urbane as Fraxinoa`s
broao Doric vowels ano as charming as Volusius` lat annals.
The ioentincation ol Foem 6`s poello as Lesbia seems inevita-
ble. The vow to Venus ano Cupio`` recalls both the secono spar-
row poem ano the invitation to Iabullus ,Verete Coptotreoe, .:
QH Hunter ,:qq6, ::6, conversely, takes it that the two women share a single register ol
aomiration.
ano :.:.,. Iurther, once the epigrams have been reao, the men-
tion ol Catullus reconcileo to Lesbia ,tetttoto eem, 6., seems to
point to Foem :o, where Catullus emits a cry ol joy in the oppo-
site situation: Lesbia has been reconcileo to him. But the present
poem haroly bears witness to erotic obsession, or even omoot-
potor. The secono hall ol the poem subverts, supplants ano
almost preempts the poello`s utterance as reporteo in the nrst hall.
By the poem`s eno, the speaker has establisheo nrst that the pet-
mo poeto is not Catullus but Volusius, ano secono that the epithet
petmo is to be taken perlormatively, ol poetic or rhetorical ex-
cellence, rather than ethically, ol character or personality.`` Pe-
tmo poello, on the other hano, now seems to signily in both senses.
Lesbia`s nasty attempt at wit ,nasty to Catullus, that is,, ol which
she was prouo, has been shown up by Catullus to be just as lacking
in taste as her literary juogment. Catullus, not Lesbia, is the one
who knows what is leptoom ,charming``, ano oerotom ,nicely put
together,`` an aojectival lorm lrom oero,, ano it is consequently
Catullus ,by an etymological ngure, who has an ear with the goo-
oess hersell: his prayer has been hearo, he has paio ano canceleo
the vow maoe by Lesbia, precisely by the superior lorce ol his own
poetic power.QI There is even an implicit threat: il Lesbia persists
witlessly in a war ol wits with Catullus, he always has his sharp
iambs at hano to hurl in her oirection. Everything in Catullus`
stance here bespeaks a hypermasculine, aggressive mastery a
mastery that expresses itsell both in scatological corctctom ,verbal
abuse``, against Volusius ano in the perlormance ol verbal wit ano
exquisite poetic lorm.
Foem 6 is one ol seven in the corpus containing attacks by
Catullus on the poetic proouction ol other poets. The other six
are Foem : ,against Caesius, Suhenus ano Aquinus, along with
any others containeo in the book given to Catullus by Calvus,,
Foem .. ,against Suhenus,, Foem ,against Sestius,, Foem q
,against Volusius again, in the context ol praising Cinna`s _m,tro,,
Foem qb ,against the Hellenistic poet Antimachus, ano Foem :o
,against Mamurra unoer the pseuoonym Mertolo |prick``|,. Foem
6 is the only such programmatic attack to leature any connection
to a poello. There is no inoication anywhere in the corpus that
Volusius, or any ol the other poets whom Catullus attacks oo
QI Krostenko ,.oo:, on oeroto, also Seager ,:q,.
Mor/ooo oro Le/to tr t/e /ottet poem q
poets, was a rival in love.QP To juoge lrom the rest ol the collec-
tion, then, Lesbia`s role in Foem 6 woulo seem to be at best that
ol a minor character, ano at worst that ol a ,seconoary, co-victim
with Volusius, making a pair ol targets lor Catullus to strike with
one invective stone.
It is ol course always possible to argue that the open hostility ol
Catullus` stance towaro Lesbia in Foem 6 represents the tragic
result ol an impassioneo ano possessive lover`s long anguish sul-
lereo at the hanos ol a nckle, promiscuous woman, a worthless
mistress.`` The misogynist guess`` or conjecture,`` as Janan
reminos us, emerges lrom resentment at the impossibility ol the
sexual relation relegateo to Woman`s sioe ol the equation, as lan-
tasizeo whore, castrating bitch, ano the like.``QQ Courtly love is the
conjecture at the opposite eno ol the spectrum lrom misogyny,
ano both those conjectures are easy enough to tease out ol the
Catullan corpus through critical interpretation.QR On that level,
Foem , the last Lesbia poem`` belore Foem :, almost seems
by its text ano by its connections to other poems in the collection
to invite a reaoing as an exposure ol the absuroity ol both those
conjectures, in a raucous larce that spares none ol its players, least
ol all its speaker:
Salax taberna uosque contubernales,
a pilleatis nona lratribus pila,
solis putatis esse mentulas uobis,
solis licere, quioquio est puellarum,
conlutuere et putare ceteros hircos?
an, continenter quoo seoetis insulsi
centum an oucenti, non putatis ausurum
me una oucentos irrumare sessores?
atqui putate: namque totius uobis
lrontem tabernae sopionibus scribam.
puella nam mi, quae meo sinu lugit,
amata tantum quantum amabitur nulla,
pro qua mihi sunt magna bella pugnata,
conseoit istic. hanc boni beatique
omnes amatis, et quioem, quoo inoignum est,
QP Gellius seems to be a rival ,Foem q:,, presumably lor Lesbia, ano also a poet ,Foem ::6,,
but Catullus never attacks Gellius as a poet. On the Gellius poems, see :86q below.
QQ Janan ,:qq, :.
QR On Woman as Thing,`` Lacan ,:q86, .6, Zizek ,:qq,.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo 8o
omnes pusilli et semitarii moechi,
tu praeter omnes une oe capillatis,
cuniculosae Celtiberiae nli,
Egnati, opaca quem bonum lacit barba
et oens Hibera oelricatus urina. ,Foem ,
Sleazy bar, ano you, its sleazy barnies
column number nine lrom the Twins in caps
you think you own the only pricks in the worlo?
You think you get to gangluck every girl
there is, ano say that other guys are billygoats?
Just because there are a hunoreo or two ol you
losers sitting there, you think I won`t oare
to laceluck all two hunoreo in your seats?
Think again: I`m going to give your bar
a paint job. Fricks all over the lront.
It`s because my girl, who`s run lrom my lap,
more loveo than any girl will ever be,
the girl I lought lor, lought great wars lor her,
has taken a seat at the bar. You`re loving her, too,
all ol you so nne ano happy ano the worst ol it
all ol you such puny little streetscum luckers.
Especially you, Egnatius, one ol the hairy ones,
scion ol rabbit-riooen Celtiberia,
with that swarthy bearo that makes you look so nne
ano those teeth: your Spanish piss-paste makes them shine.
This masterpiece ol comic writing, a brilliant mime in miniature,
is both shockingly violent ano at the same time an exquisitely
cralteo poetic composition. Note the anaphora ol olt ,,,,
answereo symmetrically in lorm ano sense by the anaphora ol
omre ,:,:6,, also the sputtering repetition ol the prenx in corto/et-
role ,:,, corfotoete ,,, corttrertet ,6, ano climaxing, as the poello`s
presence in the bar is revealeo, in coreott ,:,. The repetition ol
to/etro;e) ,:,:o, lrames the nrst hall, ano perhaps connects the
poem to the other member ol the pair it lorms ,see 6.:,. The
poello ,::, nrst enters the poem`s narrative at the very opening ol
the secono hall. The motion ol the piece starts with the collectivity
ol the tavern crowo ano enos by zeroing in on its Celtiberian
victim.QS
QS Egnatius is to be attackeo a secono time in Foem q, on the same charge ol using urine
lor oentilrice, though without any mention there ol the poello.
Mor/ooo oro Le/to tr t/e /ottet poem 8:
Foem recalls at least two poems lrom earlier in the collection.
Like the more lamous Foem :6, this one contains a Friapic threat
ol violent sexual retaliation ,tttomote, .8, against a group ol men
who are saio to have impugneo the speaker`s manhooo. Just as
Foem :6`s Iurius ano Aurelius hao thought Catullus insumciently
pootco`` ,:6., ano haroly a man`` ,mole motem, :6.:,, so the bar-
nies`` ol Foem seem to think that they are the only men, the
only ones with penises.QT There Catullus hao promiseo to irrumate
ano peoicate Iurius ano Aurelius, here he threatens to irrumate
all two hunoreo ol the tavern`s patrons ano then come back ,il we
unoerstano the Latin correctly, to paint obscene gramti on the
tavern`s outsioe wall as a public aovertisement ol his perlect
squelch.QU Taken literally, Catullus` threat to perlorm oral rape on
a group ol two hunoreo men is wilo hyperbole, the barnies``
woulo ol course kill or at least incapacitate Catullus il not at
once by retaliatory assault ,the more likely,, then at length by ex-
haustion. The threat is either absuro bluster or else ngurative,
meaning that Catullus will irrumate the eote, luck them over,``
precisely by painting penises all over the lront ol the bar, or per-
haps , perlormatively, by the writing ol this poem itsell.QV In any
event, this Friapic threat is unique in the Catullan corpus in being
physically impossible ol literal realization.
Foem , like Foem 6, also leatures a close verbal link to an-
other poem in the collection, this time a central Lesbia poem`` on
which critical attention has been lavisheo:
lulsere quonoam canoioi tibi soles,
cum uentitabas quo puella oucebat,
amata nobis quantum amabitur nulla. ,8.,
There was a time when suns shone bright on you,
when you woulo go wherever the girl woulo leao,
the girl I loveo more than any will ever be loveo.
QT You think you`re the only one . . .`` seems to be a topos ol republican Latin verbal
abuse. Compare Cicero lr. .: Crawloro ,to Clooius,: to olo ot/oro.
QU We have examples ol such gramti lrom Fompeii, as CIL .q: Qotrtto /tc fotott ceoerte et
otott ot oolott. Aoams ,:q8., ::q, ano see Williams ,:qqq, .6 n. on the interpretation ol
fotott ano ceoerte.
QV Other examples ol Fompeian gramti similarly peoicate`` the reaoer perlormatively.
Aoams ,:q8., :..
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo 8.
puella nam mi, quae meo sinu lugit,
amata tantum quantum amabitur nulla,
pro qua mihi sunt magna bella pugnata,
conseoit istic. ,.:::,
It`s because my girl, who`s run lrom my lap,
more loveo than any girl will ever be,
the girl I lought lor, lought great wars to win her,
has taken a seat at the bar.
This instance ol intratextual citation woulo perhaps have been a
scanoal lor the Romanticizing ,ano neo-Romantic Mooernizing,
strano ol interpretation ol Foem 8, hao that strano ol interpreta-
tion paio much attention to Foem . The mooern reception ol
Foem 8 suggests that its text permits or even invites ,in Daniel
Seloen`s tight lormulation, two equally coherent, yet simulta-
neously incompatible unoerstanoings ol the poem``: Foem 8`s
speaker is either tragically sincere ,ano Macaulay`s tears were not
sheo in vain, or else comically ironic, but he cannot be both.QW The
best arguments against the sincerity`` ol Foem 8 have been, as is
olten the case, intertextual ones: Richaro Thomas ano Marilyn
Skinner have pointeo to amnities between Foem 8`s oiction ano
the language ol comic lovers in Hellenistic New Comeoy as pre-
serveo ,lor the most part, in Menanoer, ano in Flautus` aoapta-
tions ol that comic theatre to the Roman stage.RH
Ano what ol Foem ? Does it, like Foem 8, generate a pair ol
equally coherent, yet simultaneously incompatible`` reaoings? It
is certainly true that this poem has been conscripteo into service as
a ,minor, moment in the tale ol impassioneo anguish that is the
Lesbia novel, but I think it lair to say that the small critical atten-
tion paio to the sleazy bar`` has hao a greater investment ol in-
terest in preserving the integrity ol the Lesbia novel than in
reaoing Foem as a poem. One oetail in particular has resisteo
interpretation: the speaker claims to have lought great wars``
,moro /ello, .:, lor the woman insioe the bar. Earlier commen-
tators tenoeo to brush this verse asioe, to explain it away rather
QW Seloen ,:qq., o. On Macaulay, Ioroyce ao loc.
RH Skinner ,:q:,, Thomas ,:q8,.
than explicate it.RI Quinn, alter characterizing this poem ,rightly, I
think, as important ano exciting,`` recognizing it as a lampoon``
ano calling its opening verse rollicking,`` gives an account ol the
moro /ello that lolos itsell seamlessly back into the narrative ol
poor Catullus ano wickeo, wickeo Lesbia:RP
We are not tolo what the many battles were, here or anywhere else in the
collection. But they are part ol the hypothesis ol Foem , they help to
narrow the context, to set that context somewhere oown the long line ol
oescent lrom the laoing illusions ol Foem 8 towaro the oull anger ano
oisgust ol nnal oismissal ol Foem ::.RQ
The Lesbia novel is taken as a narrative alreaoy nxeo, tragically
preoroaineo. Minor poems like , however exciting,`` are not
alloweo to alter or eoit that narrative, ano Catullus` stance as
victim ,in poems other than , is taken in lull seriousness ano
applieo throughout the corpus.RR The Catullus ol Foem , how-
ever, seems to be as much at pains to paint himsell as a comically
absuro blusterer as many reaoers have been at pains to give him
back his high moral seriousness ano his tmpottco as a tenoer lover
roughly wrongeo.
Nothing in the rest ol the corpus ahoros an explicit context lor
the great wars`` Catullus claims in Foem to have lought.
Something in the poem itsell, however, ooes. Though my transla-
tion has obscureo it, the nrst two lines ol Foem play on military
language. The barnies`` ol .: are corto/etrole, comraoes-in-
arms`` or more literally tent-mates,`` a term applieo to soloiers
who shareo a single tent ,to/etro, ten men ano their captain to a
tent ano applieo more broaoly to those who serveo in the mili-
tary together.RS The etymological pun in .: is in lact treble, since
RI E.g. Merrill ,:8q, 68: probably relerring only in general to the great oimculties
accompanying a successlul ltotor with a marrieo woman, ano one ol Lesbia`s social po-
sition``, Kroll ,:q68, :: Die /ello sino natu rlich in u bertragenem Sinne zu verstehen uno
beziehen sich aul oie U
berlistung oes Gatten uno oie U
berwinoung oer Nebenbuhler.``

A recent exception: M. Johnson ,:qqq, takes the moro /ello as a relerence to the Trojan
War, with Catullus as Menelaus ano Lesbia as Helen ,Lesbia is thus Other`` in the
Lacanian sense,. Johnson concluoes on a strongly mooernist characterization ol the
poem as one ol mixeo, complex emotions,`` giving insight into |Catullus`| inner worlo
ano the crumbling worlo outsioe`` ,q,.
RP Rollicking``: Quinn ,:q., o, q6, two ol no lewer than thirty relerences to Foem in
this work.
RQ Quinn ,:q., q.
RR On Catullus` stance as victim, Iitzgeralo ,:qq, ::q.
RS Noteo by Johnson ,:qqq, 86, also Thomson ,:qq, ao loc. The woro to/etro, it bears not-
ing, appears in the Catullan corpus only in Foems 6 ano .
corto/etrolt has the aooitional meaning ol sexual partner,`` saio
,olten scornlully, ol slaves, who were barreo legally lrom contract-
ing marriage ,coro/tom, ano so joineo in unions ol cohabitation
,corto/etrtom,.RT The sexual connotation is ol course activateo by
the poem`s nrst woro: the to/etro is olox ,ranoy``, because its cor-
to/etrole are so.RU The military context ano the etymological pun-
ning both continue into the secono verse: lrom the cap-wearing
, ptlleott, brothers the ninth column , ptlo,.`` The pun is baseo on a
lalse etymology this time ,not that it matters ano Catullus may
have thought it a true one,. Its point has never been satislactorily
explaineo.RV The brothers are Castor ano Follux, the relerence is
to their temple in the Roman lorum, ano the epithet pictures them
wearing a cap known as the ptlleo ,or ptlleom,. This lelt cap was
worn at lestivals such as the Saturnalia ano by recently manu-
mitteo slaves ,the origin ol the Irench Revolution`s Fhrygian
cap``,.RW Neither ol these uses explain the cap`s connection to the
Dioscuri, but a later grammarian`s gloss ooes: the ancients gave
Castor ano Follux lelt caps , ptlleo, because they were Laconian
,Spartan,, ano the Laconians have the custom ol nghting in lelt
caps , porote mo et ptlleott,.``SH To call the Dioscuri ptlleott ftotte is
thus to picture them in military unilorm.
Let us return to Catullus` great wars.`` Given that this poem
opens by setting a burlesque, even carnivalesque context through
a pair ol puns involving military imagery, given that the charac-
terization ol the barnies`` as corto/etrole reaos both as playlul
nction ,since they are no soloiers, ano as bawoy comeoic gag ,by
the sexual relerence pitcheo at the lowest social register,, ano
given that Catullus` Friapic threat to irrumate two hunoreo men is
on its lace a venting ol wiloly absuro braggaoocio, it seems at least
worth suggesting that the claim to have lought great wars`` lor
the poello be taken not as a veileo relerence to be ntteo by the
RT Braoley ,:qq, o, Treggiari ,:qq:, ..
RU Solox: a term applieo, lor example, to roosters, rams ano Friapus ,see OCD s.v.,, ano so
lairly equivalent to its Elizabethan oerivative saucy.`` Corto/etrolt: Flautine comeoy hao
alreaoy playeo bawoily upon the woro in the context ol a grisly joke. At Mtl. :8 the
crucinxion ol slaves is oescribeo as their being given in corto/etrtom to crosses`` ,ctoct/o
corto/etrolt oott ,.
RV Herescu ,:q6o, calls the pun ptlleott-ptlo evioent mais mysterieux , pour nous,.``
RW At Flaut. Am. 6., a slave looks lorwaro to the oay he will shave his heao ano put on the
ptlleo.
SH Iest. .o, citeo by Kroll ,:q68, ao loc.
reaoer into the collection`s novelistic narrative, but rather as a line
spoken in character,`` as an instance ol Catullus getting into``
the rioiculous stock role ol mtle lottoo ,Braggart Soloier``, in
which his miniature mime has cast him. On that reaoing, the poello
is cast in a role rather oiherent lrom that ol a goooess turneo
whore. She reaos more like an omtco lrom Flautine comeoy, per-
haps even a captive slave who has run away. The woros ooe meo
tro fott ,who has run lrom my embrace``, are olten compareo to
Foem 8`s rec ooe fott ectote ,8.:o, ano oon`t chase alter her who
runs lrom you``,, with the oiherence in tense taken to inoicate that
Catullus` sick ano oying hope ol Foem 8 has now slio lurther
oown the long line ol oescent`` to oisillusioneo oespair. It is at
least worth pointing out that fott, in the perlect tense, is what
Latin says ol a runaway slave, ano that tro ,lap``, is open to a
bawoily sexual interpretation.SI
Moro /ello poroto ,great wars lought``,, too, is open to a sexual
interpretation in a comic-satiric vein: a grammarian`s gloss cites a
passage lrom Lucilius in which poro ,a nght``, is useo nguratively
lor illicit sex ,toptom,.SP Amote is no less susceptible to a sexual
interpretation maoe more likely by the woros omre omott ,.:,
you`re all loving` her``, spoken to the corto/etrole later in the
same poem which raises at least the possibility that the line cut
lrom Foem 8 has been pasteo into a context where it reaos less like
an anguisheo lover`s proclamation ol a love that will go oown in
history, ano more like a smuttily hypermasculine boast in the
manner ol Henry Miller, or ol Catullus` note to Ipsitilla ,Foem
.,.SQ
To the extent that we allow this reaoing ol Foem as a per-
lormance, a personation,`` with Catullus as Fyrgopolynices ,or a
burlesque Achilles, ano the poello as his runaway omtco, it becomes
oimcult to sustain broao claims lor social comment`` or intensity
SI Stro in the sexual sense is more olten ,though not exclusively, useo ol a woman: possibly
an inoication that the speaker experiences being besteo by his amorous rivals as lemini-
zation. Compare Fhiloo. Eptt. . Sioer , AP .:o, 8: n uti, o` t v io toi, n utc Ncic -
oo, ,but I sit in the lap ol Naias``,. Seoete probably has a similarly erotic sense in Foem
: Herescu ,:qq,.
SP Lucilius :. M, Donatus ,ao Ter. Eor. ...6o,, citeo by Newman ,:qqo, :88, who takes
Catullus` /ello poroto as a surprise variant on the expecteo /ello eto. The poto ptoooktor,
on this reaoing, loregrounos the ambiguous woro.
SQ Ior a contemporary use ol omote ano omot in a purely sexual sense, Cicero Cot. ..8: olto
tpe omo/ot totpttme, oltotom omott /otttottme etote/ot,`` citeo in Aoams ,:q8., :88.
ol ,representeo, introspection attacheo to this poem. Those things,
or something like them, are ol course present in the corpus, to
argue otherwise woulo be pointless. But not all the poems in the
collection are spoken lrom the same stance, ano not even all the
Lesbia poems`` tell the same Lesbia story. It is perhaps important
in this regaro to note that Foem contains no explicit or even
implieo moral conoemnation ol the poello. Inoeeo, there is simply
no question ol her subjectivity. The speaker ooes not wonoer how
she coulo have been so cruelly unleeling, nor ooes he oher a pic-
ture ol his own suhering lor love. The exchange or message, as in
the poems oiscusseo above, is homosocial``: an ahair between
men, between Catullus ano the corto/etrole, ano ultimately be-
tween Catullus ano Egnatius. What the Catullus ol Foem has
lost is chieny extttmotto ,lace``, ano only seconoarily the poello, his
manhooo has been impugneo, ano it is lor that reason that the loss
ol the poello smarts. The corto/etrole now think themselves the
only ones with penises, Catullus reasserts his own Friapic man-
hooo against the collective through the threat ol irrumation ano
painting the tavern`s lront with penises, ano against Egnatius by
portraying him with a mouth belouleo with his own urine a kino
ol oisplaceo irrumation.
On this reaoing, neither courtly love`` nor even misogyny``
lunctions in the representeo interiority ol the poem`s speaker. Ano
this is so not because he has lolloweo the Epicurean aovice ol
Catullus` contemporary, Lucretius, ano reacheo a point beyono
obsession ano oisgust,`` but rather because he occupies a stance
conceptually anterior to any notion ol a sexual relationship`` be-
tween a man ano a woman whose ,Lacanian, impossibility woulo
orive him to oscillate between oivinization ano oemonization,
those two versions ol Woman as Thing.SR But the woman ol Foem
haroly seems to occupy in the speaker`s interiority the status ol
Lacan`s object raiseo to the oignity ol the Thing.`` Il she is let-
ishizeo here, the position she occupies, on the reaoing I have pro-
poseo, is lar more that ol a Marxian commooity a prize, like
Briseis to Achilles ,whose relationships`` were with other men, as
lrienos or enemies, than that ol a traumatic kernel.``SS
SR Nussbaum ,:qq, :oq:, ano oiscussion in Janan ,:qq, :66 n. .:.
SS On the Lacanian Thing ,calleo oo Dtr by Zizek, as traumatic kernel,`` Zizek ,:q8q, :.
ano passim.
p s s i ng not e s
Alter the pair lormeo by Foems 6 ano , the polymetric poems
leature three lurther mentions ol Lesbia, all ol them by name.
The nrst ol these, Foem , on Mamurra`s omtco, has alreaoy been
oiscusseo.ST The thiro, Foem 8, aooresseo to Caelius, complains
that Lesbia, whom Catullus loves more than himsell ano all his
people, is now shucking`` the oescenoants ol Remus in crossroaos
ano alleys. The secono occurrence ol the name comes in Foem ::
Ille mi par esse oeo uioetur,
ille, si las est, superare oiuos,
qui seoens aouersus ioentioem te
spectat et auoit
oulce rioentem, misero quoo omnis
eripit sensus mihi, nam simul te
Lesbia, aspexi, nihil est super mi
. . .
lingua seo torpet, tenuis sub artus
namma oemanat, sonitu suopte
tintinant aures, gemina teguntur
lumina nocte.
otium, Catulle, tibi molestum est:
otio exsultas nimiumque gestis:
otium et reges prius et beatas
peroioit urbes.
That man there I say is a goo on earth. No:
That man ,oare I say it?, is more than gooheao.
He`s the man who sits there besioe you, sits there,
looks at you, hears you
Gently laughing, laughter that takes my senses
out with pain whenever I hear you laughing.
Just one look at Lesbia: all my senses
register nothing,
but my tongue is lrozen, a reo-hot wire is
subtly introouceo in my veins, my ears make
music all their own, ano then night comes, night comes
putting my lights out.
ST See o. above.
Too much time`s your problem, Catullus. That`s it:
too much time. You loll in a bath ol too much
time, ano time brings oeath to a king, they say, ano
oeath to a kingoom.
Irresistible to scholars, critics ano translators alike, this version ol
Sappho competes with the sparrows ,Foems . ano , ano kisses
,Foems ano , lor the oistinction ol being the best known ano
loveo ol Catullus` lyrics.`` More than that, it resioes at the center
ol a long-stanoing critical construction ol the speaking subject be-
hino this parcel ol poems, a subjectivity all ol passionate nre ano
leminine`` tenoerness. Critical shilt lrom a Romantic mooel ol
poetry as sincere outburst to a Mooernist one ol poetry as meoi-
tative introspection has oone little to alter the contours ano color-
ation ol that subjectivity. So much is this the case that it might still
seem nothing short ol impertinence to speak ol this poem as an
embooiment ol Catullan poetics ol manhooo,`` except perhaps
insolar as the poem`s speaker manilests passionate jealousy in the
lace ol a male rival enjoying the privilege ol speaking to the
woman calleo Lesbia.SU
Many reaoers ol Catullus have been orawn to take Foem : as
the beginning ol an autobiographical narrative ol the poet`s ahair
with Clooia Metelli, with Foem ::, the corpus` only other poem in
Sapphic strophes, bringing a symmetrical eno to the story by its
oire leavetaking aooresseo to Lesbia in care ol Iurius ano Aur-
elius. This theory exercises its appeal even over reaoers who have
lelt Romantic biographical criticism lar behino.SV It may well be
correct. The pseuoonym Lesbia ,woman ol Lesbos``, can easily be
thought to have its motivation ano origin in this Catullan transla-
tion lrom the Greek poet ol Lesbos. That consioeration is still
SU The rival, tlle, is olten taken to be Metellus Celer, Clooia`s husbano. ,Wilamowitz |:q:|
66: hao thought Sappho :`s occasion a weooing, Wiseman |:q8| : thinks this
likely., But Metellus Celer oieo in q e: an early oate lor the composition ol Foem :,
ano impossible il we take Foem : to reler ,metrically ano symmetrically, back to Foem
:: ,composeo no earlier than e,. Shipton ,:q8o, has proposeo an intriguing alterna-
tive: take tlle insteao as F. Clooius Fulcher, Clooia`s brother, ano Foem : thus becomes
a oevilish bit ol invective against brother ano sister along the same lines as Cicero`s Pto
Coelto.
SV Schwabe ,:86., q8 hao surmiseo that Foem : was written about the same time as the
kisses ano sparrows. Quinn`s ,:q., 6 opinion that the name Lesbia seems to have been
inventeo lor poem :`` is now very wioely shareo: see e.g. Miller ,:qq, 6. ano Thomson
,:qq, ..
Mor/ooo oro Le/to tr t/e /ottet poem 8q
olten taken as an argument lor placing the poem nrst in the chro-
nology ol the love ahair,`` though the lact that the poem appears
to motivate the pseuoonym coulo just as easily leao, unoer a oil-
lerent set ol presuppositions, to the suggestion that Catullus oio
the translation, ano came up with the name Lesbia, belore he hao
ever met Clooia, ano only subsequently hao the ioea ol applying
the poetic name to the biographical beloveo. Il that purely hypo-
thetical, ano probably to many reaoers unappealing, suggestion
were to be entertaineo, it woulo ol course leave open the question
ol the ioentity ol the aooressee whose name was encooeo in Foem
: at the time ol its composition. One possible, though again hy-
pothetical, answer to that question is that Catullus has here
lrameo his translation as a love poem to the woman ol Lesbos``:
Sappho hersell. The conceit, a perlormatively outrageous ano
simultaneously oelicate one, woulo be quite in keeping with the
traoitions ol Hellenistic epigram, which lavoreo lauoatory inter-
pellation ol oeao poets.
In any case, three well-known consioerations about this remark-
able piece complicate ano problematize the application ol Ro-
mantic or Mooernist poetic paraoigms to a reaoing ol it. The nrst
ano most obvious ol these is the lact that the poem is not an
original`` work but a translation lrom Sappho`s Greek, albeit a
translation strikingly relracteo ano personalizeo by the insertion
ol the names Lesbia ano Catullus into the poem.SW Critics those,
that is, who have resisteo a straightlorwaro ano transparent attri-
bution ol Sappho`s sentiments ano even Sappho`s symptoms to
Catullus have negotiateo the poem`s status as a translation in
variously ingenious ways, suggesting lor instance that literary
translation was a perlect vehicle lor Catullus` nrst tentative oecla-
ration ol a love still uncertain ol requital: il he hao revealeo too
much too soon, he coulo always explain the woros away as a mere
literary exercise.TH Two assumptions can be seen at work here: ,:,
SW See the powerlul arguments lor a oiherence between the ,lyric, subjectivity embooieo in
Catullus` translation ano Sappho`s original in Miller ,:qq, :o6 ano passim. See also
Greene ,:qqq,. Ior Miller, the chiel oiherence lies in the lact that Foem : interacts with
the other poems in the Catullan collection. One might respono that Catullus reao his
Sappho just as we reao our Catullus: in a poetry collection. ,He may have suspecteo that
Sappho hao no hano in the oroering ol that collection. But then, our reaoing ol our
Catullus labors unoer a comparable oimculty., On Sappho ano Sapphic subjectivity,
Stehle ,:qqo, ano ouBois ,:qq,.
TH Iirst suggesteo by Wilkinson, in oiscussion lollowing a conlerence paper: Bayet ,:q6,
8. Aoopteo ano elaborateo by Quinn ,:qo, .: ano ,:q., 6o.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo qo
that the poet who prouoly applieo the woro rooe ,trines,`` :., to
his poetic proouctions woulo have recognizeo the implicit oichot-
omy between a literary exercise ano a genuine ,because lyrically``
sincere or intense, poem, ano ,., that Catullus in lact sent, as a
love letter, a copy ol Foem : to the woman he calleo Lesbia
, perhaps even substituting the name Clooia lor the metrically
equivalent pseuoonym,.TI
Catullus` translation has rather more ol the luoic ano perlor-
mative than it is sometimes given creoit lor.TP Sappho`s poem hao
begun with the lollowing strophe:
qci vt:ci uoi in vo, ioo, t oioiv
t uutv` o vnp, o ::i, t vc v:io , :oi
i ooc vti ici tc oiov c ou qovti -
oc, u tciou ti Sappho :.:
He seems to me to match the goos,
that man, the one who sits belore
your lace ano hears, up close, the sweet
souno ol your voice . . .
It is olten remarkeo that the simple oeclarative assertion ol Sap-
pho`s nrst verse ,I think him the equal ol goos``, is in Catullus`
version nrst literally renoereo in the opening verse, only to be
answereo in the secono verse by a hyperbolic outbiooing ,I think
he otpoe the goos``, which is itsell qualineo by a louoly pious
apology ,il it be right to say it``,. Neither the stakes-raising claim
nor the apotropaic piety orawing attention to it renects anything
in the Sapphic original, ano many have pointeo to this secono
verse as an instance ol Catullus` Roman`` sensibility oenecting
ano mooulating the stark simplicity ol Sappho`s archaic Greek.TQ
It is true that a similar gesture, in a similar context, is to be louno
in one ol the lew surviving pieces ol Roman erotic epigram pre-
oating Catullus, but it shoulo be kept in mino that that earlier ep-
igram is itsell prolounoly Hellenistic in sensibility ano sentiment,
TI A suggestion as olo as Fage ,:8q6, ao Hor. Cotm. ..:..:. More recent enunciations by
Williams ,:q68, o, q6 ano Lyne ,:q8, :q. Overview ol the question in Ranoall
,:qq,. Miller ,:qq, :o. ano Greene ,:qqq, both lavor the hypothesis.
TP Sensitive appreciation ol Catullus` achievement in translating Sappho in Ierguson ,:q8,
:o.
TQ Ierrari ,:q8, q, also Ioroyce ,:q6:, ano Quinn ,:qo, ao loc. Ior Quinn, however, the
oiction expresses not Catullus` Romanness but rather his intensity ol leeling.``
Mor/ooo oro Le/to tr t/e /ottet poem q:
ano that the louoly pious`` protestation was in lact a common
enough leature ol Hellenistic poetry in more than one genre.TR
Still, unless we are content to say that Catullus hao manageo to
renoer into the terser Latin all or enough ol the Greek ol Sap-
pho`s nrst strophe in the three other lines ano so aooeo the secono
verse simply as a c/ectlle, there ought to be some aesthetic account
lor it. At least part ol that account, I suggest, may resioe in the
sonic play ol the two Catullan verses. They leature, remarkably,
perlect assonance in their nrst nve syllables: tlle mt pot e;e) ,:.:, is
echoeo by tlle t fo et ,:.., The ehect might be compareo to the
practice ol later Roman poets such as Ovio, who maoe the nrst
verse ol his nrst elegy assonate with the opening ol the Aereto.TS It
might even be compareo to Louis Zukolsky`s translation`` tech-
nique, though what Catullus` secono verse breathes with`` is not
Sappho`s original but rather Catullus` own nrst verse, as il to
throw a spotlight on both original`s ano translation`s trctptt by a
oelayeo, recapitulateo, stuttereo beginning. A lurther sonic ehect:
the pronominal beginnings ol the nrst strophe`s nrst three verses
lorm an assonating ,ano grammatical, triplet tlle ,:.:,, tlle ,:..,,
ot e;oer) ,:., that nnos its symmetrical answer in the nnal
strophe`s triple anaphora ol the woro ottom ,leisure,`` :.::,.
Catullus` last strophe appears not to be a oirect translation ol
anything in the Sappho, though the lragmenteo state ol the origi-
nal renoers this uncertain.TT In any case, the secono problematiz-
ing consioeration in interpreting the poem is precisely this abrupt
change ol tone, theme ano sentiment in its closing stanza. The
previous strophes, lollowing Sappho`s Greek lairly closely, hao
shown the Catullan speaker not only renoereo powerless by love
ano so by the logic ol binary genoer ioeology leminizeo,`` but
also speaking woros ol love originally lrameo ano authoreo by a
TR Q. Lutatius Catulus .. Courtney: Poce mt/t ltceot, coelete, otcete oetto: | mottolt oto
polc/ttot ee oeo ,Grant me your leave, heavenly powers, to say it: the mortal |a beautilul
boy| lookeo lairer than the goo |the rising sun|``,. On the louoly pious`` apotropaic ges-
ture in Apollonius ol Rhooes, Hunter ,:qq, :o:.q, also Wray ,lorthcoming,.
TS McKeown ,:q8, ao Ov. Am. :.:.:.
TT Sappho lr. : contains a lourth strophe, which Catullus seems not to have translateo ,on
this see Vine |:qq.|,, ano the ,corrupt, opening verse ol a nlth. Wilkinson ,in Bayet
|:q6| 8, argueo that Catullus` poem enoeo at the thiro strophe. Ioroyce ,:q6:,
agreeo, though without going so lar as to orphan the nnal strophe in his printeo text.
Thomson ,:qq, ao loc. withholos juogment but provioes a rich bibliography.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo q.
woman poet.TU The nnal strophe, in sharp contrast, seems to turn
away lrom the leminine ano lrom the erotic, personating insteao a
most masculine concern lor wealth ano power, the lessons ol his-
tory, the proper use ol lree time, ano the blano moral maxims ol
the reality principle.`` It is lrom this that so many reaoers ol the
poem concluoe that at the eno ol his Greek translation exercise
Catullus, like Shakespeare`s Antony, has suooenly hao a Roman
thought.TV
Lament, however, ano in particular erotic complaint, veering
oh at the eno into the gnomic is a common enough leature ol
Greek literature. A Hellenistic example ol specincally erotic con-
text, one we can expect Catullus to have hao in memory or at his
nngertips, appears in Theocritus` ioyll on the Cyclops. Bringing
himsell up abruptly at the eno ol a lengthy ano somewhat comical
Lover`s Complaint, Folyphemus, like the Catullan speaker ol
Foem :, closes his poem-within-the-poem with an aooress to
himsell ano a call lrom the worlo ol love`s ioleness back to the
routine ol work:
o Ku io Ku io, tc :c , qpt vc, t ittto :coci,
ci i` t vo v :cc po, :t tt ioi, ici co v c uc oc,
:ci, c pvtooi qt poi,, :c yc ic tou uc ov t yoi, vo v.
:c v tcptioiocv c ut,t :i :o v qtu ,ov:c oio iti,,
tu pnoti, Icc :ticv ioo, ici ici ov` c cv.
toci ouutci ootv ut io pci :c v vu i:c it ov:ci,
TU Janan ,:qq, :6 compellingly reaos Catullus` Sappho translation alongsioe Lacan`s
reaoing ol St. Teresa ol Avila to show Foem :`s speaker oscillating between the erotic
takeover`` ol the persistent skepticism ol ootorce fe mtrtre`` ano the masculine certainty
ol the ioiot`s ootorce.`` Inoeeo, the Catullan speaker`s genoer seems ot toe in a way
quite unlike anything in Sappho. Note that in Foem :, the speaker`s masculine genoer is
louoly announceo at the opening ol the secono strophe ,mteto, :., renecting nothing in
Sappho`s Greek, as noteo by Thomson |:qq| ao loc.,, ano only subsequently is the
aooressee`s genoer revealeo ,Le/to, :.,. In the Sappho, conversely, the aooressee`s
leminine genoer is clear lrom the opening strophe, while that ol the speaker remains
ambiguous until the lourth strophe ,yopo:t pc, Sappho :.:,.
TV Foem :`s closing ottom strophe`` may however be more Sapphic than critics generally
allow. Fasserini ,:q, .6 ano Iraenkel ,:q, .::: saw that unoer Catullus` ottom lies
a set ol Hellenistic notions connecteo with the term :puqn ,oecaoence``, not attesteo in
archaic Greek,. But the surviving line ol Sappho`s last strophe ,c c tc v :o uc:ov t tti
. . . , but everything is ,to be, enoureo, since . . .``, ooes seem to introouce a gnomic con-
solation ,Lattimore |:q|,, ano as Knox ,:q8, argues, that consolation may have been
lrameo arouno the term c poou vc, a near synonym ol :puqn ]ottom, ano attesteo in
Sappho.
iiyi ov:i ot tc oci, t tti i` cu :ci, u tciou oo,
on ov o :` t v :c ,c in ,o v :i, qci vouci n utv.
,Theoc. Io. ::..q,
O Cyclops, Cyclops, where have you wanoereo in your wits?
Il you woulo go plait cheese-crates ano gather greens
to take to your lambs, youò show more sense by lar.
Milk the one that`s at hano, why chase the one that runs
away?
Maybe you`ll nno another Galatea, a better one, too.
A lot ol girls are asking me to play with them all night long,
ano they all giggle whenever I listen to them.
It`s clear that on lano, at least, even I am somebooy.
The Theocritean Cyclops` closing moment ol sell-interpellation
,lamously imitateo by Virgil, might seem on its lace to belong to a
very oiherent register lrom that ol Foem :`s Catullus.TW On a
wioer view ol the two contexts the comparison begins to seem
apter. Io,ll :: opens in its poet`s own voice, with a witty gnomic
statement aooresseo to a physician lrieno ,ano lellow poet, lol-
loweo by an announcement ol the poem`s buroen:
Ou ot v to::o v t po:c ttqu iti qc puciov c o,
Niii c, ou :` t ,ypio:ov, t ui v ooiti, ou :` t ti tco:ov,
n :ci litpi ot, iou qov ot :i :ou :o ici c ou
,i vt:` t t` c vpo toi,, tu ptiv o` ou p c oio v t o:i.
,ivo oitiv o` oi
uci :u ico , i c:po v t o v:c

ici :ci, t vvt c on ttqinut vov t oyc Moi oci,.
ou :o ,ou v p c io:c oic ,` o Ku io o tcp` c uiv,
o pycio, lou qcuo,, o i` n pc:o :c , Icc:ti c,,
c p:i ,tvtic ooov ttpi :o o:o uc :o , ipo:c qo, :t.
n pc:o o` ou uc oi, ou ot p o oo ou ot iiii vvoi,,
c ` o pci, ucvi ci,, c ,ti:o ot tc v:c tc ptp,c.
,Theoc. Io. ::.:::,
There is no remeoy lor love, Nicias no ointment,
I think, no cream other than the Muses. A painless one
lor mortals. Fleasurable, even. But not an easy one to nno.
But I think you know that well, being a ooctor,
ano being a beloveo lavorite ol the Muses nine.
Ano yet the Cyclops, you know, my countryman ol ancient
times,
TW Ecl. ..6q: o, Cot,oor, Cot,oor, ooe te oemertto ceptt
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo q
Folyphemus he manageo quite easily, when he loveo
Galatea,
as he was sprouting his nrst oowny whiskers about the mouth
ano cheeks. Ano he loveo, not with apples, or roses, or
ringlets,
but with out ano out maoness, counting everything else
worthless.
Folyphemus, lor all the Colin Clout burlesque ol his perlormance
within the poem, is set lorth in the poem`s opening lrame as an
exemplom ol a specinc meoical problem.UH The patient`s complaint
is precisely that erotic maoness whose symptoms Sappho`s poem
hao oescribeo so unlorgettably.UI Its only reliel, Theocritus claims,
is to be sought in the arts not ol ooctors but ol poets. Folyphemus`
abrupt ano impatient sell-aooress at the eno ol his song ,Io. ::..
q, citeo above, thus represents, on one reaoing, the process ol his
poetic therapy arriving at the resolution ol a cure. The Theocri-
tean speaker returns in the nnal two verses to make this explicit,
echoing the woros ol the poem`s opening ano getting in one last
gleelul oig at his well-heeleo ooctor-poet aooressee:
ou :o :oi lou qcuo, t toi ucivtv :o v t po:c
uouoi ooov, p c ov ot oic ,` n ti ypuoo v t ooitv.
,Theoc. Io. ::.8o:,
Ano so, you see, Folyphemus corralleo his passion by making
it
music. Ano he manageo more easily than il heò spent his
money.
Catullus` poetic perlormance, like Theocritus`, appears to leature
poetry as a therapy, or at least a response, a working through,`` in
the lace ol a passion whose symptoms are portrayeo in a language
close to clinical symptomatology. It also leatures a poem sur-
rounoeo by a lrame aooresseo to a lellow poet ano whose two
enos echo each other verbally. It ooes so, that is, il we take Catul-
lus` perlormance unit to consist not in Foem : by itsell but in
UH On exemplarity ano lraming in Io,ll ::, ano on the ooubtlul success ol Folyphemus`
poetic cure, Golohill ,:qq:, .q6:.
UI Devereux ,:qo, went so lar as to renoer an expert meoical`` oiagnosis ol Sappho`s
seizure`` ano, even more regrettably, a characterization ol the unoerlying psycho-
physiological pathology ,inversion``, evioenceo by it.
the pair lormeo by reaoing it together with the poem immeoiately
belore it in the collection:
Hesterno, Licini, oie otiosi
multum lusimus in meis tabellis,
ut conuenerat esse oelicatos:
scribens uersiculos uterque nostrum
luoebat numero mooo hoc mooo illoc,
reooens mutua per iocum atque uinum.
atque illinc abii tuo lepore
incensus, Licini, lacetiisque,
ut nec me miserum cibus iuuaret
nec somnus tegeret quiete ocellos,
seo toto inoomitus lurore lecto
uersarer, cupiens uioere lucem,
ut tecum loquerer simulque ut essem.
at oelessa labore membra postquam
semimortua lectulo iacebant,
hoc, iucunoe, tibi poema leci,
ex quo perspiceres meum oolorem.
nunc auoax caue sis, precesque nostras,
oramus, caue oespuas, ocelle,
ne poenas Nemesis reposcat a te.
est uemens oea: laeoere hanc caueto. ,Foem o,
Yesteroay, Licinius, while we were at leisure,
we playeo at length upon my tablets.
,We hao maoe an agreement to be oeltcott.,
Scribbling out verses, each ol us
woulo play now in this mooe, now in that,
renoering like lor like in wit ano wine.
Ano I went away, Licinius, so
ennameo by your charm ano your jokes
that looo coulo give no pleasure in my pain
ano sleep reluseo to put my poor eyes to rest.
Insteao, wilo with utter maoness, I tosseo
in beo, kept waiting lor the oaylight
to talk to you ano be with you again.
But when my limbs, exhausteo lrom their struggle,
were lying, nearly oeao, on the mattress,
I maoe you this poem, my oear,
so you coulo see lrom it the extent ol my pain.
Now, oon`t you oare be brazen, my oarling,
ano oon`t you oare reject my prayers,
or Fayback might just come arouno ano get you.
She`s one wilo goooess: oo not oare oheno her.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo q6
Cast as a letter lrom Catullus to C. Licinius Calvus, lellow poet
ano lrieno ,the two names are very olten paireo in Catullus` an-
cient reception,, Foem o`s narrative ol a oay spent with Calvus in
poetic improvisation turns to a sell-oepiction ol its speaker in the
throes ol erotic maoness.UP An enumeration ol symptoms con-
cluoes with a petulant plea cast in the traoitional language ol an
abanooneo lover. With Foems o ano : taken as a pair, their
progression is remarkably similar to that ol Theocritus` ioyll on
the Cyclops, the chiel oiherence being that Catullus assumes the
speaking role in both lrame ,Foem o ano the last stanza ol Foem
:, ano internal poem ,the nrst three stanzas ol Foem o,. Just as
the Theocritean lrame is loregrounoeo by verbal repetition that
the Cyclops manageo easily`` thanks to his poetic therapy is
announceo nrst proleptically in the opening aooress to Nicias ,,
ano then analeptically in the closing verse ,8:, ol the ioyll so
Foem o`s initial opening ol a poetic ano ahective space in the
name ol leisure`` ,ottot, o.:, is answereo ano closeo by the
abrupt sell-assessment ano moralizing warning on the oangers ol
ottom that enos Foem : ,::6,.UQ
To compare this Catullan pair to Theocritus` eleventh ioyll
not as an explicit intertext or a mooel oirectly alluoeo to, but
rather as a structurally ano thematically similar example that
Catullus is certain to have known is, so lar as I know, to say a
new thing about it. Continueo resistance to nnoing still more
Alexanorian`` elements in Catullus is almost certainly a lactor
here, especially where it is a question ol Catullus not only at his
most lyrical but also basking in the archaic light ol burning Sap-
pho.UR On the other hano, to take Foems o ano : as a pair, ano
even to reao Foem o as the cover letter`` to the Sappho transla-
tion, is a suggestion now several oecaoes olo, citeo olten enough
ano probably known to anyone writing on Catullus, but one that
seems not to have resonateo with the best recent literary treat-
ments ol Foem :.US The possibility ol reaoing these two poems as
UP Important oiscussions ol this poem incluoe Fucci ,:q6:,, Segal ,:qo,, Burgess ,:q86, ano
Williams ,:q88,.
UQ On Catullus` announcement ol ottom as the programmatic opening ol a poetic space
, Blanchot`s epoce lttte totte``,, see Flatter ,:qq, .:8:q. On the ambivalence ol ottom ano
the resulting semiotic slippage`` embooieo in Catullus` oeployment ol the term, Miller
,:qq, :8. On ottom in Roman thought, Anore ,:q66,.
UR A resistance most recently expresseo in regaro to Foem : by Vine ,:qq., n. ..
US The notion ol Foem o as the lettte oercot `` to Foem : was nrst suggesteo in print by
Lavency ,:q6,, who attributes the ioea ol reaoing the poems as a pair to an unpublisheo
suggestion ol J. Mogenet. See also Clack ,:q6,.
a pair is the thiro ano last ol the problematizing consioerations to
be taken into account, ano it is here that there emerges, through
comparison with a number ol other poems in the corpus, the pos-
sibility ol reaoing Foem :, this central Lesbia poem,`` as a lur-
ther instance ol an intensely perlormative Catullan poetics ol
manhooo.
The argument lor reaoing Foems o ano : as a pair, baseo on
evioence in the text ol the two poems, in the text ol the corpus
ano in the wioer context ol Roman epistolary practice, is rather
more compelling than might seem at nrst glance, perhaps even
more compelling than it has seemeo to those who have put it lor-
waro. In aooition to the lraming programmatic announcement ol
ottom that opens Foem o ano closes Foem : ,taken as signincant
even by critics who reject the suggestion ol Foem o as a covering
letter,, there is the strikingly similar oescription in both poems ol
erotic oistress, elaborateo in physical ano almost clinical terms.
Both poems` speakers portray the pleasure ol merely conversing
with the beloveo ,Calvus in Foem o, Lesbia in Foem :, as a
blisslul attainment, ano their oeprivation ol that pleasure as the
root cause ol their symptoms. More specinc, ano still more strik-
ing, is the lact that Foem o`s speaker begins the enumeration ol
symptoms, the revelation ol his illness, by calling himsell mtetom
,wretcheo,`` o.q,. Foem :`s speaker oescribes himsell with the
same woro ,mteto, :.,, ano the epithet there is a purely Catullan
aooition to the poem, renecting nothing in Sappho`s original. The
announcement that he is miserable`` thus stanos in each poem as
the nrst inoication ol its speaker`s erotic suhering. Iurther, in
Foem :, the appearance ol the woro is the only moment, apart
lrom the poet`s own name in the nnal strophe, in which the
speaker`s genoer is inoicateo. It is here that the reaoer nrst
becomes aware that Foem : is not so much a translation, one
might say, as a perlormeo imitation ol Sappho`s original poem, an
appropriation or ventriloquizing ol her woros in the male ,Catul-
lan, speaker`s own voice.
Il the two pieces stano as a single epistolary missive, then the
oeictic pronoun at o.:6 /oc , tocoroe, tt/t poemo fect ,I maoe you
this poem, oelightlul man``, will reler not to the poem containing
it but to the translation lollowing it. The bilingual etymological
ngure in poemo . . . fect, il it relers to Catullus` Latin version ol
Sappho`s Greek, ooes more than take on special appropriateness
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo q8
in this context.UT It nashes oh the page as a moment ol perlor-
mative wit throwing a loregrounoing spotlight onto the virtuoso
perlormance about to come in the lorm ol the Sappho renoition.UU
This oemonstrative pronoun within a preluoe poem relerring to
the subsequent poem, as others have alreaoy noteo, has an exact
parallel in the covering letter to the only other lull-scale transla-
tion within the corpus.UV Foem 66 is Catullus` translation ol a long
passage lrom Callimachus` Aetto on a lock ol hair sacrinceo by
Berenice, Ftolemy III Euergetes` queen. Immeoiately preceoing
the translation is a oeoicatory epistle in which Catullus protests
that griel over his brother`s oeath has kept him lrom poetic com-
position, but not so completely as to keep him lrom lulnlling a
poetic outy to a lrieno:
seo tamen in tantis maeroribus, Ortale, mitto
haec expressa tibi carmina Battiaoae,
ne tua oicta uagis nequiquam creoita uentis
emuxisse meo lorte putes animo ,6.::8,
But even in so great a griel, Ortalus, I am senoing you
these presseo out ,i.e., translateo, verses ol Battus` son,
so that you won`t think your woros, without ehect, entrusteo
lor salekeeping to roving winos, to have walteo lrom my
mino.
These verses`` ,6.:6, belong not to Foem 6 but rather, unam-
biguously, to the version ol Callimachus that constitutes the lol-
lowing poem ,Foem 66, in the collection.UW The passage citeo here
is preceoeo ano lolloweo by similes ol exquisite oelicacy, both ol
them putting Catullus implicitly in a leminine role.VH The tone is
wheeoling, oelicately petulant: very close, in other woros, to the
tone aoopteo by Catullus in Foem o to Calvus.
Ortalus` woros`` ,otcto, 6.:,, as Catullus` response to them
UT Greek toio , root verb ol toi nuc, is the equivalent ol Latin focto, so that the woros poemo
fect mean I composeo a composition.``
UU On Catullan virtuosity,`` Iitzgeralo ,:qq, :: ano passim.
UV Lavency ,:q6, :q.
UW Foem : leatures a lurther Catullan instance ol a oeictic pronoun relerring not to the
poem in which it sits but rather to what lollows: the oeoication to Nepos ohers him this
little book, such as it is, ol whatever quality it may be`` ,otooto /oc lt/ellt | oolecomoe,
:.8q,.
VH More on this passage in Chapter , :q.o.
Mor/ooo oro Le/to tr t/e /ottet poem qq
inoicates, seem to have been a request, conveyeo to Catullus by
speech or writing, lor a piece ol poetry. A written request is per-
haps the likelier, an epistolary poetic challenge,`` a perlormative
request lor poetry that is itsell a poem. The Catullan corpus con-
tains at least one certain example ol this type ol poetic writing, a
piece aooresseo to a lellow poet ol whose poetic proouction ano
lile we possess a lew lragments:VI
Malest, Corninci, tuo Catullo,
malest, me hercule, et laboriose,
et magis magis in oies et horas.
quem tu, quoo minimum lacillimumque est,
qua solatus es allocutione?
irascor tibi. sic meos amores?
paulum quio lubet allocutionis,
maestius lacrimis Simonioeis. ,Foem 8,
Cornincius, things are bao lor your lrieno
Catullus. Things are bao, by Goo, ano things are haro,
ano things are getting worse with every passing oay ano
hour.
Ano ,oo it`s the smallest thing, the easiest thing in the
worlo
what consolation have you given your lrieno?
I`m angry at you. T/t is how you value my love?
Iò like a little something in the way ol consolation,
something saooer than Simonioean tears.
The biographical or nctive experience ol suhering to which this
poem`s speaker relers is unspecineo ano unrecoverable. Commen-
tators like to speak here ol mental oistress`` ano even crisis ol
emotion,`` not entirely implausibly, ano so leave the reaoer`s
imagination to revert to the poet`s two great losses ol beloveo ano
brother.VP On the other hano, it may be noteo that the poet ol
these verses also wrote, lor example, a poem beginning ano enoing
with the line Qoto et, Cotolle oto motott emott ,What, then,
VI Q. Cornincius, quaestor in 8, mentioneo by Cicero ,Fom. 8..:., ano Ovio ,Tt. ..
6,. Iragments ol his poetry in Courtney. See also Ioroyce ,:q6:, :8..
VP Thomson ,:qq, o: mental or, less probably, physical oistress.`` Ioroyce ,:q6:, :8.:
crisis ol emotion.`` But Quinn ,:qo, .o6 writes astutely: There is a wry note in C.`s
protestation ol amiction which shoulo warn us against supposing him on his oeathbeo, or
even prostrate with overwhelming griel.``
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo :oo
Catullus? Why not go aheao ano oie?`` ..:,,, ano that the subject
ol that poem is no oeeper crisis ol intensely personal emotion than
the speaker`s oissatislaction with two contemporary political ng-
ures. Most speakers ol English ,some regional oialects oher excep-
tions, simply have no access to a comparable native rhetorical
register. This Meoiterranean perlormative outrageousness is per-
haps yet another aspect ol Catullus` sell-representation that we
have taken rather too much to our hearts,`` another place where
our reaoing has eraseo Catullus` loreignness by overestimating his
sincerity.VQ In any case, what can be saio with certainty is that the
petulantly guilt-inoucing woros ol Foem 8, similar in some
respects to the language Cicero ano Fliny aoopt in letters to a ne-
glectlul corresponoent, explicitly request ano even oemano lrom
the speaker a response in the lorm ol a poetic perlormance.VR The
last verse goes so lar as to throw oown a glove, issuing a specinc
aesthetic challenge ,with a Greek mooel as aesthetic stanoaro, to a
lellow poet: let`s see you top Simonioes lor saoness.``VS
Foem o, whose aooressee may possibly be ioentical to the
,Allenus, Varus aooresseo in the more lamous Foem .. on the
aristocratic poetaster Suhenus, the same Varus leatureo as Catul-
lus` lrieno ano lellow ottoo in the still more lamous Foem :o, is
similarly petulant, though pitcheo consioerably higher:VT
Allene immemor atque unanimis lalse sooalibus,
iam te nil miseret, oure, tui oulcis amiculi?
iam me prooere, iam non oubitas lallere, pernoe?
nec lacta impia lallacum hominum caelicolis placent.
quae tu neglegis ac me miserum oeseris in malis.
eheu quio laciant, oic, homines cuiue habeant noem?
certe tute iubebas animam traoere, inique, me
inoucens in amorem, quasi tuta omnia mi lorent.
ioem nunc retrahis te ac tua oicta omnia lactaque
uentos irrita lerre ac nebulas aereas sinis.
si tu oblitus es, at oi meminerunt, meminit Iioes,
quae te ut paeniteat postmooo lacti laciet tui. ,Foem o,
VQ Iitzgeralo ,:qq, ..
VR Gunoerson ,:qq,.
VS See Carson ,:qqq,, esp. qq, on Simonioes` ancient reputation lor :o ouutct ,. It
bears mention that the thiro book ol Callimachus` Aetto leatureo an episooe on the tomb
ol Simonioes ,Aet. . lr. 6 Fleiher,, spoken in the voice ol the oeao poet himsell.
VT On the ioentincation ol the poem`s aooressee, Ioroyce ,:q6:, ao loc. Wiseman ,:q8,
:.. reaos Foem o as straightlorwaroly sincere ano so too uncomlortably sell-pitying
to be an artistic success.``
Mor/ooo oro Le/to tr t/e /ottet poem :o:
Allenus, thoughtless ano lalse to your comraoes who care lor
you,
have you no shreo ol mercy lelt, haro heart, lor your sweet
little lrieno?
Not a single scruple lelt, to betray him, laithless man, to
oeceive him?
But heaven ooes not smile on the impious oeeos ol men who
oeceive.
This truth you ignore, ano abanoon poor me in my pains.
Alas! what are men to oo? tell me in whom are they to
put their laith?
You certainly kept telling me to give you my heart, you
traitor, you
leo me along into your love, as il all woulo be sale lor me
there.
Ano now you pull away, ano everything you saio ano
everything you oio,
you let it all be carrieo away, meaningless, on the winos ano
the mists ol the air.
Il you`ve lorgotten, the goos still remember. Iaith still
remembers,
ano Iaith will one oay make you sorry lor what you`ve oone.
The saccharine sell-pity ano shrill sell-righteousness ol my trans-
lation renect my reaoing ol the original. The transvestite ventrilo-
quism ol this abanooneo lover`s complaint might seem even to
pass into something ol the parooic misogyny ol bao orag.VU Com-
mentators, working haro to help Catullus maintain his e tteox,
speak ol bitter reproach born ol melancholic oistemper, ol an
ohense on the aooressee`s part more ol omission than commission,
ano ol a certain acaoemic stilteoness in the tone, perhaps owing to
Catullus` experimental use here the sole instance in the corpus,
ano possibly lor the nrst time in Latin poetry ol a Greek metre
that only Horace among Latin poets ever hanoleo with the grace
ol lull mastery.VV Catullus ano his contemporaries woulo have
associateo the nercely oimcult ,in Latin, greater Asclepiaoean``
metre with the Lesbian poets Sappho ano Alcaeus, they woulo also
have known Hellenistic examples lrom Callimachus ano Theocri-
tus as well as the epigrammatist who gave the metre its scholarly
VU On transvestite ventriloquism,`` Harvey ,:qq6,.
VV Also calleo nlth Asclepiaoean,`` this is the metre ol, e.g., the cotpe otem ooe ,Hor. Cotm.
:.::,: see :o:: above. Horace has lighteneo the otherwise awkwaro ,in Latin, rhythm by
lorcing the nrst two choriambs` enos to coincioe with woro enos.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo :o.
name.VW The experimental use ol a oimcult metre ano the wiloly
hyperbolic oiction, I think, are keys to ioentilying this poem`s
occasional context ano the type ol writing to which it belongs. It
seems likely that this poem`s only sell-revelation is precisely the
revelatory kino ol conviction`` that, in Herzlelo`s lormulation,
attaches to the implicit claims ol a perlormative outrageousness.WH
Foem o`s message, on this reaoing, is equivalent to that ol Foem
8: it is again a request lor poetic perlormance that itsell takes the
lorm ol a poetic perlormance, this time a consioerably more vir-
tuosic ano loregrounoeo perlormance. Allenus` laithlessness,``
then, has consisteo in a lag in the epistolary exchange ol poems
enjoyeo by the two poets, a commerce portrayeo by the Catullan
speaker as a love ahair ,in the same way that Foem 8`s speaker
hao crieo tc meo omote |t/t is how you treat my love?``|, 8.6,.
This lover`s complaint is at once a oemano ano a challenge, invit-
ing its aooressee to a poetically perlormeo requital ol like lor like.
It is signincant that the climax ol the Catullan speaker`s guilt-
inoucing accusations takes the lorm ol precisely the same charge
that Foem 6`s speaker assures his aooressee he is at pains to avoio
meriting: to lapse in the exchange ol poems is to let one`s own
promises, ano the other`s pleas, be carrieo away on the wino
,o.q:o, 68.::8,.
Foems o ano 8 have shown Catullus ohering a poetic chal-
lenge. Foem 6 has presenteo him on the receiving eno as he
responos to, or perhaps anticipates, a similar challenge. Similarly,
Foem 68a, an elegy to a lrieno ,representeo as, written lrom Ver-
ona, relers explicitly to this little letter composeo with tears``
,corcttptom /oc locttmt . . . epttoltom, 68a.., sent to Catullus by his
aooressee.WI The lrieno`s epttoltom, whether in verse or prose, will
VW Sappho ano Alcaeus ,Lobel Fage, are notable lragmentary examples. Book ol
the Hellenistic eoition ol Sappho ,the lyric collection`` Catullus knew, seems to have
consisteo entirely ol poems in this metre. Ol Callimachus we have lr. oo Fleiher, ol
Theocritus, Io,ll .8 ano o, the latter spoken by an aging etote in the throes ol love-
sickness lor a beautilul boy, in a tone strikingly close to that ol Foem o. It begins
o ci :o yct to ici vouo po :o ot voon uc:o, ,alas lor this haro ano oire-lateo sick-
ness``,. Ol greater Asclepiaoeans`` lrom the hano ol Asclepiaoes we have no surviving
examples.
WH Herzlelo ,:q8, ::. See 6o. above.
WI I take Foem 68`` as two separate poems to oiherent aooressees lorming a juxtaposeo
pair ,so Vretska |:q66| .8,. Many ol the structural arguments lor a unineo ano
symmetrical Foem 68`` are strong, but they point, I suspect, to the unity ol two poems
as yet another Catullan pair. Thomson ,:qq, ao loc. lor summary ol arguments ano
bibliography.
Mor/ooo oro Le/to tr t/e /ottet poem :o
have containeo a certain amount ol consolation ,68a.:, together
with a certain amount ol witty, perhaps even lightly invective, an-
imaoversion on the inappropriateness ol a straight-laceo provin-
cial town as a owelling place lor the young ano last-living Catullus
,68a..o,. It will also have containeo a specinc request lor the
gilts ol the Muses ano Venus`` ,moreto . . . Mootom . . . et Verett,
68a.:o,, a request that Catullus pronounces himsell at pains not to
lail to recognize, though griel keeps him lrom lulnlling it properly
,68a.:::.,.WP
Two more evioences ol a lively epistolary commerce ol poems
may be aooeo here, one certain ano one speculative. The last
poem ol the corpus, aooresseo to the Gellius whom earlier invec-
tive epigrams have repeateoly skewereo, represents a nctive or real
moment at which the Catullan speaker, having trieo senoing Gel-
lius some songs ol Battus` son`` ,cotmtro Botttoooe, ::6.., precisely
what Catullus hao sent to Ortalus in Foem 66 ano announceo at
6.:6, in hopes ol inclining their recipient to lrienoship, sees now
that his labor ,ol poetic translation, has been unoertaken in vain
,::6., ano that his prayers have hao no ehect here`` ,rec rotto /tc
oolote ptece, ::6.6,.WQ The nnal ano speculative example has al-
reaoy been oiscusseo brieny in this chapter. Foem : is Catullus`
invitation to a house without looo lrom a host without money.
Nearly all the poem`s reaoers agree that this is no proper oinner
invitation.WR Some have gone a step lurther ano wonoereo how the
recipient ol such a missive, even il only in the nctive logic ol the
poem, coulo be expecteo to respono to it. Il a poet nameo Catul-
lus actually oio seno the poem, as it stanos, to a lrieno nameo
Iabullus, the letter was almost certainly ehective as a practical
joke. The poem`s speaker will have awakeneo in Iabullus the hope
ol oinner at the house ol a man whose lather possesseo the
wherewithal to welcome the visit ol Julius Caesar, only to oash
that hope with a protestation ol poverty ,taken seriously now by
almost no one,, then to appear to oher the essence ol love`` ,meto
omote, :.q, as a consolation prize, ano nnally to close with what is
perhaps an implicit unlavorable aesthetic juogment on the pro-
portions ol the aooressee`s physiognomy.WS How, by the logic ol
WP On Venus ano the Muses,`` compare the anecoote recounteo at .:o:: below.
WQ On the Gellius poems, :86q below.
WR above.
WS On Roman mockery ol inoivioual physical peculiarities, Corbeill ,:qq6, :6.
the poem, was Iabullus to respono to this porcupine ol challenges
tosseo into his lap? Dimcult to think ol any way but one: to sit
oown with tablet ano stylus ano set about trying to match ,out-
ooing seems unlikely, the outrageousness, ano the high-spiriteo
malice, ol Catullus` poem. On that reaoing, what Foem : invites
its aooressee to enjoy with its senoer is precisely a least ol woros, a
competitive exchange ol poetic perlormances.
All these Catullan instances ol poetic epistolarity ,Foems o, 8,
6, 66, 68, ::6, ano possibly :, share two leatures in common.WT
Iirst, each ol them makes sense only in the lorm ol a poem. They
cannot be reao as poetic recastings, verse transcriptions, ol letters
originally written in prose. Such a prose original`` woulo not have
counteo as a valio perlormance in the playing nelo ol exchange: a
poetic challenge, or the response to one, must itsell be a perlor-
mance ol poetic utterance. Catullus` poetic missives oiher in this
way lrom, lor example, Ovio`s Hetotoe. There the elegiac lorm,
while exerting its lull pressure at the thematic ano oictional levels
ol generic convention, is eraseo, renoereo transparent ano invisi-
ble, at the level ol narrative. We oo not imagine Ariaone or Fene-
lope writing elegiac verses.WU Catullus` letters-in-verse, conversely,
stano in the collection just as il they hao been pasteo into the col-
lection, or copieo there verbatim lrom the poet`s epttolottom. The
presence ol actual corresponoence with other poets in the long
poems ol Williams ano Zukolsky ohers a parallel, ano arguably
a way towaro aesthetic oescription ano evaluation ol the striking
ehect ol cut-ano-paste collage, ol fottoo, proouceo by the scat-
tereo presence ol these poems in the Catullan corpus.WV
The secono leature common to these Catullan letter`` poems is
that the epistolary commerce they represent ano imply is trans-
acteo exclusively between men. In lact, setting asioe Foem : lor a
moment, the only poem in the corpus that allows itsell to be reao
as an actual letter to a lemale aooressee is Foem . to Ipsitilla.
Ano there, the speaker`s request, while arguably perlormative ol a
poetics ol manhooo`` in the sense ol embooying a hyperbolic
outrageousness, issues no challenge, invites no response in kino
lrom its aooressee. Inoeeo, its hypermasculine boast has the look
WT Foem 6o might belong to the same category, but it contains no aooress by name ano no
other mark ol epistolarity.
WU On epistolarity ano perlormativity in the Hetotoe, Connelly ,.ooo,.
WV above.
ol being intenoeo more lor ,male, reaoers ol the poetry collection
than ol representing an unoerlying real or nctive note to Ipsitilla.WW
The poetic epistles to men, on the other hano, all seem to invite
,or constitute, a response in the lorm ol specincally poetic perlor-
mance. Iurther, all these poems portray the exchange ol poetic
letters as a kino ol love relation, in terms either openly or implic-
itly erotic, ano all ol them portray their Catullan speaker in the
throes ol a misery whose mooe ranges lrom the wiloly histrionic
,Foem o, to the somberly sincere ,Foems 6 ano 68,. In Foem :
the misery portrayeo is that ol literal ,though almost surely ncti-
tious, poverty, in Foem ::6, the misery ol aggrievement at injury
has turneo to angry hostility.
Let us return to Foems o ano :. In light ol the other poetic
epistles in the collection, two previously mysterious aspects ol the
eno ol Catullus` letter to Calvus now aomit, I think, plausible ano
even satislying explanation:
hoc, iucunoe, tibi poema leci,
ex quo perspiceres meum oolorem.
nunc auoax caue sis, precesque nostras,
oramus, caue oespuas, ocelle,
ne poenas Nemesis reposcat a te.
est uemens oea: laeoere hanc caueto. ,o.:6.:,
I maoe you this poem, my oear,
so you coulo see lrom it the extent ol my pain.
Now, oon`t you oare be brazen, my oarling,
ano oon`t you oare reject my prayers,
or Fayback might just come arouno ano get you.
She`s one wilo goooess: oo not oare oheno her.
The nature ol the speaker`s pain`` is clear enough. Like the
speaker ol the lollowing poem, his oistress has resulteo lrom the
onslaught ol erotic maoness. But what ol his prayers`` , ptece,
o.:8,, ano why the threatening invocation ol the oivinity ol retri-
bution ,èmet, o..o,? No explicit prayer, supplication or request
has been conveyeo by the poem`s relerential content. Ano il, as
some critics have thought, the poem belongs to a moment early in
the lrienoship between the two poets, it is not immeoiately appar-
WW On Foem ., Heath ,:q86,.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo :o6
ent why an ancient writer, any more than a mooern one, woulo
choose to signal a growing ahection lor a new acquaintance by
threatening, even in jest, a oire retribution lrom heaven sure to
lollow upon the interlocutor`s rejection ol lrienoship.IHH But Foem
::6, to Gellius, also speaks ol prayers,`` at a moment when those
prayers have proveo bootless ,rec rotto /tc oolote ptece, ::6.6,,
ano the prayers in that instance hao been accompanieo by hao
inoeeo perhaps taken the lorm ol translations lrom the Greek ol
Callimachus sent to a lellow poet in token ol lrienoly leeling. The
act ol supplication , ptece, oescribeo in Foem o, I suggest, con-
sisteo precisely in prooucing ano senoing this poem`` ,/oc poemo,
o.:6,, namely the Sappho translation. The closing recourse to
Nemesis, so unoermotivateo ano overblown in appearance, is a
leature ol the same oictional register that has maoe Foem o seem
tentative ano a bit lormal to critics. Foem o, to Allenus, is a more
extreme example playeo upon this register. Its invocation ol retri-
bution in the name ol personineo Iioelity`` ,Ftoe, o.::, occupies
the same position ,the penultimate verse, in its poem ano lulnls, I
think, the same lunction as the presence ol Nemesis in Foem o.IHI
Both poems aoopt the stance ol an abanooneo lover to invoke
heaven`s justice, ano both oo so at the climax ol a sell-allusive ano
sell-consciously outrageous poetic perlormance that issues a oe-
mano lor recognition ol the excellence ol the man who perlormeo
it: recognition nrst in the lorm ol hilarious oelight ano aesthetic
approbation, ano ultimately through the response ol a competing
perlormance in kino.IHP
Iinally, a question that coulo only be oelerreo so long: what,
unoer the present reaoing, becomes ol Lesbia in Foem :, this
central Lesbia poem,`` this incomparable lyric ol the Catullan
collection? The scholar who nrst proposeo the theory ol Foem o
as the covering letter to Foem :, ano ol Calvus as the recipient ol
IHH E.g. Buchheit ,:q6,, Quinn ,:qo, .6, Thomson ,:qq, ..
IHI Catullus, again, may have associateo the metre ol Foem o specincally with Sappho.
See n. 8q above.
IHP Burgess ,:q86,, with an elucioating comparison to the reciprocal poetry contests repre-
senteo in Theocr. Io,ll ano 8, arrives at a similar conclusion about Foem o as a
poetic challenge. Ior Burgess, however, Catullus invokes Nemesis as the unoeroog`s
champion, ano so aoopts a position ol poetic inleriority ct-o`-ct Calvus. The compliment
seems to me so strong as to run the risk ol Calvus taking it as sarcasm, ano what Neme-
sis is being calleo on to guarantee is not the outcome ol the contest, I think, but rather
Calvus` participation in it. Reciprocal poetic competition is a phenomenon ol pan-
Meoiterranean pervasiveness. See e.g. Dunoes ,:qo, on Turkish boys` oueling rhymes.
both poems, expresseo a hope not to have betrayeo Catullus too
abunoantly.`ÌHQ The concern ooes not seem entirely misplaceo.
Whatever liveo experience the poet may have attacheo to the sig-
niner ol her name at the time ol his writing, it is clear that Foem
:`s Lesbia, ano the Catullan speaker`s stance in relation to her,
belongs to an altogether oiherent oroer lrom the larcical pair
,Foems 6 ano , examineo in the previous section. This Lesbia,
inoeeo, is something altogether Other, in the Lacanian sense. It
haroly seems excessive to speak here ol oivinization Catullus
calls her elsewhere a shining goooess`` ,corotoo otoo, 68.o, or ol
Lesbia as an object raiseo to the oignity ol the Thing`` ano as the
traumatic kernel`` arouno which the symptom ol Catullus` repre-
senteo interiority lorms itsell. Recent powerlul reaoings ol Foem
: in the lyric mooe take their place in a traoition many centuries
oloer than Romanticism, ano it has not been my aim here to argue
that there is vastly less to this poem than has met nearly every
reaoer`s eye.IHR Quite the contrary: I hope to have shown that the
same collection that inclines the reaoer, through the logic ol
responsion ,with Foem ::,, to place this poem at the narrative be-
ginning ol a biographical love ahair also aomits ano even urges
the possibility, through a oiherently locuseo reaoing, ol placing its
composition in an altogether oiherent context. Holo both reaoings
in the mino, ano the simultaneity ol their juxtaposition is com-
plete: like a lragment ol newsprint in collage, the poem reaos`` as
coherently in the context lrom which it was cut`` , poems to poets,
as it ooes in the context into which it has been pasteo`` , poems to
Lesbia,.
Still, il Foem : shines with a splenoor that lorces us ultimately
to restore to the lyric Catullus his ,ultimately inalienable, lyricism,
it neeo not be at the price ol robbing the skeptical reaoer ol her
skepticism. An object raiseo to the oignity ol the Thing,`` we may
point out in the name ol that skepticism, is no less an object lor
that. Il Lesbia is Catullus` poello ototro ,oivine woman``,, she is
also what Cynthia woulo be to Fropertius: his cttpto poello ,writ-
ten woman``,.IHS Il the epiphany ol her insertion into the Sappho
IHQ Lavency ,:q6, :8., in a closing apotropaic gesture ol piety towaro the high Romantic
norms ol his own lormation as a reaoer ol poetry ano ol Catullus: Mais cet aoaptateur
etait un grano ecrivain, tragiquement tourmente par la passion humaine oereglee, un
vrai poe`te aussi, que jèspe`re ne pas avoir trop abonoamment trahi.``
IHR Esp. Janan ,:qq, 666 ano Miller ,:qq, :o:: ano passim.
IHS poello otctro: Lieberg ,:q6., 8..8, cttpto poello: Wyke ,:q8,.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo :o8
translation ooes inoeeo renoer present to us the moment ol her
nrst lormation on Catullus` lips, il the page transcribes the name
lor our eyes in the place where his stylus nrst scrapeo its letters
into wax by lamplight, the Lesbia whose birth we are thus privi-
legeo to witness is a creation in the image not ol a woman but ol a
male poet`s oesire. Ano il we reao the Sappho translation as here
suggesteo, then its salutation ol Lesbia as love`s oivinity shares
more than its Sapphic metre in common with Foem ::`s valeoic-
tion to her as oesire`s oemon: both poems are notes passeo, quite
behino her back, lrom one man`s hano to another.
m n t o m n @t he e p i gr msA
Il the epigrams oio inoeeo lollow the long poems in a publisheo
three-volume set, then the passage lrom Foem 68, vessel ol the
most intense ano impassioneo personal poetry`` in the long
poems, to the nrst ol the epigrams a reaoerly act punctuateo by
putting oown one roll ,lor a slave to rewino, ano opening another
will have oealt their reaoer the jolt ol a characteristically raoical
ano suooen change ol register. That oisorienting ehect is sus-
taineo through the nrst lour epigrams by the markeo oictional ano
thematic oscillation ol their arrangement ano again the poet
seems the likelier author ol such an arrangement than a posthu-
mous eoitor.IHT Foem 6q oilates gleelully, though with a oiscern-
ible elegance ano even propriety ol oiction, on the loul booy ooor
that makes women reluse sex with a certain Rulus.IHU The thiro ol
the epigrams, Foem :, appears to be oirecteo at the same man,
though in somewhat rawer oiction, he is not calleo by name but
ioentineo only as that rival ol yours who works your love`` ,oemo-
lo tte too, ot oettom exetcet omotem, :.,.IHV Here the man in
question, though now portrayeo as luckier in love, suhers lrom
gout as well as booy ooor, so that whenever he lucks, he punishes
both parties: he tortures /et with his smell, ano he himsell all but
IHT The case lor Catullus` own hano in arrangement has been argueo less vigorously lor the
epigrams ,Foems 6q::6, than lor the polymetra. But see Schmiot ,:q,, Wiseman
,:q6q, ..8 on Foems 6qq.. Dettmer ,:qq, ::..6 argues lor elaborately interlocking
symmetries throughout the epigrams ,ano the entire corpus,. Most convincing ol
Dettmer`s charts are those highlighting localizeo potktlto ol the kino that a reaoer coulo
note while holoing a bookroll in two hanos ,such as p.:, showing Foems 6q8,.
IHU On the Rulus epigrams, see esp. Feorick ,:qq, :8o, whose reaoing however nnos
their oiction coarser than ooes mine.
IHV The oiction is openly sexual but probably not obscene. Similar language appears at
6:.., where the newlyweos are exhorteo to exercise`` their youth ,exetcete tooertom,.
Mor/ooo oro Le/to tr t/e /ottet poem :oq
oies ol the gout`` ,:.6,.IHW The secono ano lourth epigrams,
loloeo like nngers into the pair on Rulus, are Lesbia poems. Both
complain ol her nckleness: the nrst ,Foem o, is witty, elegant, ano
loosely aoapteo lrom an epigram ol Callimachus ,Ep. . Fleiher,,
the secono ,Foem ., is more intense, or at least more insistent,
ano in any case aomits a reaoing as personal ano even conles-
sional poetry.IIH
The two categories representeo in the opening quartet, Lesbia
poems ano poems oirecteo at men, account lor all but two ol the
nlty epigrams.III It is in this section ol the corpus that Catullus is
olten saio to have articulateo an uncannily mooern-sounoing am-
atory subjectivity through the vocabulary ol alliance ano amlia-
tion, seeming to grope towaro a place beyono the Latin lexicon in
a series ol impassioneo pleas lor mutuality ano reciprocal noelity
in love whose intensity has struck nearly every reaoer ol the short
elegiac poems to Lesbia.IIP So much is this the case, ano the locus
ol criticism has wioeneo the skew, that a reaoer may easily be
parooneo lor remembering Lesbia as the oominant theme, in
every sense, ol the epigrams. At least by poem counts aomitteoly
a somewhat vulgar ano clumsy gauge the proportions are in lact
remarkably close to those ol the polymetrics: barely over a quarter
ol the epigrams leature Lesbia, while poems oirecteo at men, in-
vective lor the most part, make up the other three quarters.IIQ
In the thirteen Lesbia poems`` among the epigrams, her name
appears eight times in as many poems, the other nve either ao-
oress her oirectly, imply her presence or, il they mention her, re-
ler to her as moltet ,woman``,, never poello ,girl``,.IIR Ol course,
the mutuality`` ano reciprocal noelity`` oeclareo by the speaker
ol these poems, ano celebrateo as so strikingly mooern`` by much
IHW rom ootter fotott, totter olctcttot om/o: | tllom ottt ooote, tpe pettt poooto.
IIH Foem . is so reao by, e.g., Wiseman ,:q8, :66 ano Greene ,:qq8, 8:..
III Iilty epigrams, that is, taking Foems 8b ano qb as separate poems ,more out ol con-
venience than conviction,.
IIP A classic statement ol this reaoing is Copley ,:qq,.
IIQ There is some overlap ,Foems , q, 8. ano 8 are Lesbia`` poems oirecteo at men,,
ano two epigrams reler neither to Lesbia nor to any man other than the Catullan
speaker ,Foems ::o ano :::, to Aunllena,.
IIR Mentions ol Lesbia by name occur at ..., .:, q.:, 8.:, 86., 8.., q... ano :o..
She is calleo moltet at o.: ano o., ano again implicitly at 8.: ,where she is also nameo
in the lollowing verse,. She is aooresseo oirectly as meo otto ,my lile``, at :oq.:, ano sim-
ply as to ,you``, at :o. ano 6.:: ,later in the same poem, at 6.., she is tllo |she``|,.
The thirteenth Lesbia poem`` is Foem 8, the lamous oistich beginning oot et omo ,I
hate ano I love``,, no love]hate object is nameo or even pronominalizeo there, but the
traoitional reception ol this poem seems borne out by the logic ol the collection.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo ::o
important mioole twentieth-century scholarship ,scholarship that
reao Catullus as groping beyono his own Romanness towaro o,,
looks rather oiherent to the contemporary reaoer, ano that is so
thanks to recent skeptical reaoings ol Catullus that take their
place within a lar broaoer revision ol sensibilities ano sensitivities
in the matter ol genoer.IIS The master terms ol Catullan love
only ioeology coulo have obscureo so obvious a point are always
subject to the oennition ano manipulation ol the ,male, Catullan
speaker`s mastery. The promiscuous Lesbia always manages to
come out a worthless mistress,`` while the promiscuous Catullus
never once in the poems to Lesbia takes a step outsioe the stance
ol love`s pious saint, never avers a speck on his conscience in re-
garo to his treatment ol her. It is true that Catullus` conscience
ooes not seem entirely clear: there are intimations, ano a number
ol critics have brought them out, that the speaker ol these poems
experiences the illicit nature ol his relation to a Roman matron as
a source ol internal connict ano guilt.IIT But that is a question ol
the speaker`s relation not to his love object but to his society, to
internalizeo paternal prohibition, to what Lacan calls the Sym-
bolic oroer. What is remarkable, ano worth emphasizing again, is
the Catullan speaker`s complete absence ol sell-reproach o o locet
in regaro to Lesbia.
On this point Catullus may be oistinguisheo lrom, lor example,
the love elegists ol the Augustan generation. Fropertius ano Ovio
own up to a roster ol ethical inaoequacies as lovers: these incluoe
innoelity, callous inoiherence ano even cruelty.IIU In Catullus`
poetry, conversely, these ano all other laults, ano all the moral
turpituoe unoerlying them, are on Lesbia`s sioe. Her ohense``
,trtotto, .., ano her blameworthiness`` ,colpo, .:, have so
cheapeneo Lesbia ,..6,, ano so oerangeo his own mino ,.:.,,
Catullus claims, that he can never again respect her, ano yet he
will never leave oh pining with love ano burning with oesire lor
her ,.,. The only consolation he can look lorwaro to is the
satisneo contemplation, in olo age, ol a blameless lile, his only
prayer to the goos, since even the goos cannot be expecteo to
IIS 66 above.
IIT Catullus as a poet ol provincial mores living ano writing in a sophisticateo capital is a
narrative at least as olo as Havelock ,:qq,. Wiseman ,:q8, :o oevelops an espe-
cially compelling version ol it.
IIU E.g. Frop. :. ,he returns late to Cynthia`s beo alter a revel, ano, most notoriously, Ov.
Am. :. ,he has struck Corinna in the lace ano torn her hair,. Tibullus` abject stance is
closer to that ol Catullus.
Mor/ooo oro Le/to tr t/e /ottet poem :::
make /et want to recover a shreo ol oecent shame, is to be cureo
ol the passion that has become lor him a torment, a monstrous al-
niction ,Foem 6,.IIV The speaker`s amatory claims pass, in Foem
, into a kino ol sell-mythologizing: no woman was ever so loveo
as Catullus loveo Lesbia, no laithlulness in a bono ol love was
ever so great as his. Remarkable as that claim is, perhaps even
more astounoing, in the Roman cultural context, is the claim at
.. to have loveo Lesbia as a lather loves his sons ano sons-in-
law: here it is as il love ol Lesbia hao taken the place ol pteto ano
even ol rototo in Catullus` subjectivity. An unsubstantiateo but
longstanoing view ol Roman paternity as a tyrannical ano grimly
loveless exercise ol pottto poteto has arguably obscureo this asser-
tion`s lull lorce.IIW
Il we set asioe lor a moment the oiherent genoer ol their
aooressees ano reao the Lesbia epigrams in light ol the poetic
epistles to men oiscusseo earlier in connection with Foem :, the
petulantly sell-righteous ano hyperbolically sell-aggranoizing
claims ol the two sets ol poems souno, I think, remarkably similar.
The sense ol rhetorical outbiooing is arguably even stronger in the
Lesbia epigrams: they olten give an impression ol racing towaro
the single most invincibly outrageous oeclaration ol a blighting,
withering passion a oeclaration perlormeo with all the epigram-
matic pith ol their genre. Racing towaro it, planting a nag in it
ano oaring all comers to top it: other poets ol Catullus` generation
were almost surely making comparable, perhaps even explicitly
competitive, claims in similar poems.IPH A male auoience is
implicitly but palpably present in the epigrams to Lesbia. Their
speaker even seems olten to turn away lrom her to aooress his
claims ol all-surpassing amatory excellence to them. On this reao-
ing, the aggressively outrageous sell-abasement manilesteo in
those claims is thus paraooxically the very leature that makes
them most perlormative ol a poetics ol manhooo.
IIV Booth ,:qq, has recently reao Foem 6 as the account ol its author`s classic case ol
reactive oepression`` ,:6,.
IIW No evioence supports the mooern popular view ol the late republican potetfomtlto.
Roman pteto was reciprocal between lamily members ano regaroeo as natural,``
belonging to the to erttom ,Saller |:qq| :o.,. I think it likely that a Roman reaoer
woulo have regaroeo this statement as Catullus` strongest oeclaration ol love lor Lesbia
in the poems.
IPH Interesting in this regaro to note that Catullus appears to link poetic excellence to ex-
cellence in love ,through attractiveness or noelity, in his praise ol two lellow poets:
Caecilius ,Foem , ano Calvus ,Foem q6,.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo ::.
h p t e r
To.oto o Meottettoreor poettc of otetor
I`ll tell you.
About my poettc
Louis Zukolsky, A-..
t ul l us nd t he p ro l e m of ggre s s i on
Clinical psychology gives the name aggression`` to any action
oelivering noxious stimuli to another organism`` with intent to
cause physical or psychic injury, incluoing acts ol speech ano ges-
ture proouctive ol shame or humiliation.I On that oennition, well
over hall the poems ol the corpus ,I count sixty-nine, leature
Catullus perlorming or threatening aggression against an interlocu-
tor or thiro party, or else oecrying, suspecting or learing aggres-
sion in the behavior ol others.P No getting arouno it: the speaker
ol Catullus` poems is not a nice man, by any stretch ol imagina-
tion or interpretation. Aggression poses an ethical problem in any
context. Catullus` aggression, the question ol how he came to be
such a gooo hater, continues to pose a critical problem as well.
A Romantic answer to that question, alreaoy rehearseo here,
locateo the source ol his norio outbursts in the personal oisillu-
sionment ol a heart broken ano a lile wreckeo at the hanos ol a
worthless mistress.``Q Much ol the nercest Catullan vituperation
::
I Buss ,:q6:, :6, citeo in Gilmore ,:q8, ..
P Aggression is the perlormance ol an ahective state, ano juoging the ahect ol a poem is
inevitably a subjective matter. The sixty-nine poems I have in mino are: , 6, , 8, :o, ::,
:., :, :, :6, :, .:, .., ., ., ., .6, ., .8, .q, , 6, , q, o, :, ., , , q, .,
, , 6, , 8, q, 6:, 6, 6q, :, , 8, 8b, 8o, 8:, 8, 8, 88, 8q, qo, q:, q., q, q,
q, qb, q, q8, :o, :o, :o8, ::o, :::, ::., ::, ::, :: ano ::6. That count seems to me a
conservative application ol the stateo oennition. A broaoer application woulo aoo many
others to the list, e.g. Foem . to Ipsitilla or even Foem , where Iitzgeralo ,:qq, :o:o
has oiscerneo, rightly I think, an aristocratic contempt in the speaker`s portrayal ol the
little boat.
Q Quinn ,:q., ..o.
can be, ano was, woven prosopographically back into the Lesbia
novel, chieny by making the male victims ol his poetic aggression
into rivals lor her love, what coulo not be conscripteo into that
service ,or characterizeo, alternately, as political invective``, was
taken as an inoicator ol the oepths to which a young man so lately
callow hao sunk.R On the one hano, that interpretation is ol
course not entirely without basis in the poems themselves. Catul-
lus` sell-representation gives us Catullus` version ol whatever story
we construe lrom the poems, ano we shoulo not be surpriseo il
those poems respono to a reaoing ol their speaker as a sympa-
thetic character, even on cultural terms other than those ol late
republican Rome. On the other hano, most ,though not all,
Catullans have by now put the ironizing oistance ol one or more
critical]theoretical mooels between their own Catullus ano the
strong version ol a Romantic one. The application ol newer moo-
els ol reaoing, however, has haroly maoe the insistent presence ol
verbal aggression on nearly every page ol the shorter poems less
ol a question to be answereo or less ol a problem to be negotiateo.
Il Romantic reaoings ol Catullus tenoeo to excuse his aggres-
sion where they coulo not ignore it, postromantic ones have
tenoeo either to attempt to explain it or else, more recently, to
oecry it. The nrst ol these mooern strains, lor the most part ,ver-
nacularizeo, Ireuoian or at least psychologizing in approach, has
been preoicateo in each instance on some version ol poetry in
general, ano Catullus` poetry in particular, as sell-revelation``
rather than sell-representation or sell-lashioning, as more conles-
sional ,or at least introspective``, than perlormative.S Those moo-
els, it has alreaoy been suggesteo here, are closely amliateo with a
neo-Romantic Mooernist poetics ol the kino typineo, in Ferloh`s
view, by the poetry ol Wallace Stevens.T The recent critical work
ol Laura Quinney has traceo a poetics ol oisappointment`` run-
ning as a continuous line through Anglophone poetry lrom
Worosworth to mioole ano late twentieth-century poets like John
R Arkins ,:q8., makes a particularly thoroughgoing attempt to reao Catullan invective as
stemming lrom rivalry lor the love ol Lesbia. As lor political invective,`` in the wake ol
Syme ,:qq, :q6: it has olten serveo critics as an all-purpose lormula lor ethical white-
washing ol Roman verbal aggression, since it was a point ol honour in a liberal society
to take these things gracelully`` ,:.,.
S Aoler ,:q8:,.
T . above.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo ::
Ashbery.U What Quinney calls oisappointment`` a oistinct,
learsome psychological state`` ol the sell estrangeo lrom the
hopes ol the sell `` is not haro to nno in Catullus, il our literary
lormation has taught us to reao poetry with the expectation ol
nnoing it. The canonically central poetry ol Romantic ano moo-
ern oisappointment, it is true, ohers lew parallels to Catullus`
scatological ehusions. But with our Catullus`` aomitteo into the
ranks ol the mooerns, it has been only natural to take even the
harshest invective poems, wherever possible, as expressive ano
symptomatic ol a oistinct, learsome psychological state`` ol oe-
ioealization ano oisenchantment at the level ol inoivioual subjec-
tivity, rather than as social perlormances belonging to a raoically
loreign cultural context.
A secono line ol response to Catullan aggression, that ol show-
ing it up ano oecrying it on ioeological grounos, is more recent
than romanticizing or mooernizing explanations, ano has in large
measure arisen in response to these, especially in light ol height-
eneo sensitivity in contemporary public oiscourse to the ways in
which the use ol language marginalizes ano stigmatizes those
whose ioentity stanos outsioe a culturally oenneo center, or whose
behavior or other characteristics are perceiveo to oeviate lrom
stateo or implicit social norms. Il we take the lowest level consen-
sus ol opinion among citizens ol postinoustrial Western societies
as to what constitutes ethical behavior ano human oecency, the
person or persona`` construeo by a straightlorwaro reaoing ol
Catullus` poems comes oh by that stanoaro as a morally repre-
hensible one.V The thing neeoeo saying, ano a oebt ol gratituoe is
oweo to the critics who have saio it.
That such a critical stance applies contemporary ethical stan-
oaros ahistorically ano anachronistically to an ancient author goes
without saying ,though perhaps it goes better, as Voltaire once
quippeo, il we oo say it,. But ahistoricism is a charge that can
equally well be leveleo against earlier Catullan criticism. Ahistori-
cism is arguably a conoition ol literary stuoy itsell: most critics
have by now accepteo, with varying oegrees ol enthusiasm or res-
ignation, the proposition that a raoical ano completely successlul
U Quinney ,:qqq, ix.
V In lact, an earlier ,:q
th
ano early .o
th
century, moralizing strain ol criticism hao con-
oemneo Catullus` pornography.`` Granarolo ,:q6, :6o.o responos aomirably to that
charge.
To.oto o Meottettoreor poettc of otetor ::
historicizing, il it were possible, woulo necessarily reouce a text`s
interpretability to zero, ano that interpretation ol a text always
proceeos by elioing historical oiherence to some extent. Still unoer
this secono rubric, an alternate ano somewhat more complex ver-
sion ol an ethically engageo reaoing ol Catullus` aggressive verbal
abuse has been put lorwaro by some ol his best recent critics.
Here it is still a matter ol applying mooern stanoaros to an ancient
text, but that text, insteao ol being oenounceo lor the ethical
stance it voices, is reao as a critique`` or oeconstruction`` ol the
ethical norms ol its own cultural context.W Catullan aggression it-
sell is still oecrieo on this reaoing, but our Catullus`` is oetacheo
lrom that aggression, maoe to stano critically alool lrom it ano to
verge towaro the ethical stance ol his mooern reaoers.
In all these romantic ano mooern reaoings ol Catullan aggres-
sion, whether Catullus is taken as culpable, paroonable, or criti-
cally oetacheo, the nature ano character ol aggression itsell, as an
ill to be conoemneo in whatever lorm it takes, remains immune
to question. To suggest that things might be regaroeo otherwise
seems at best an impertinence ano at worst an act ol treason
against mooernity itsell. We are not certain where human aggres-
sion comes lrom: perhaps it is inheriteo instinct ,Darwin, by way
ol biologist Konrao Lorenz,, or possibly a psychic orive ,Ireuo,,
though one that, unlike the libioinal orive, cannot be sublimateo
ano maoe into a civilizing lorce, but must insteao be mitigateo as
best it can or else oenecteo into less oangerous channels such as
public sporting events, or again, perhaps it is learneo behavior
imprinteo on a to/olo too ol chilohooo innocence by corrupt ano
corrupting social institutions ,sociologist C. Wright Mills, ano ulti-
mately Rousseau,.IH To these theories ol aggression`s origin are
attacheo the names ol thinkers who stano as so many milestones in
our coming to mooernity. They oiher as to whether aggression
belongs to nature`` or culture,`` whether its roots lie in the inoi-
vioual human subject or in human communities.II They agree,
however, that aggression serves no gooo or uselul purpose, but is
rather a symptom ol malaoaptive oislunction at the level ol the
W Two ol the most sophisticateo examples ol this gesture: Skinner ,:q8q,, lor whom Foem
:o oeconstructs its own ot/ortto`` ano Seloen ,:qq., 8, lor whom Foem . ohers a
wry critique ol /ottotto as a juoicial institution.``
IH Gilmore ,:q8, ::8 ano relerences there.
II Corbeill ,:qq6, ::6.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo ::6
inoivioual, ano a oangerous toxin at the level ol the social group.
Aggression, whatever lorm it takes, is a problem. Nor is an ex-
ception to be maoe lor speech or gestural acts ol symbolic``
aggression ,such as poems,: nrst, because ol a nearly axiomatic
assumption that nonphysical aggression is either a preluoe to, or
at least an inoicator ol a propensity towaro, acts ol physical vio-
lence, ano secono, because ol a recognition that abusive acts ol
speech ano gesture proouce suhering no less real, ano olten have
personal ano social consequences no less grave, than the ehects ol
a physical wouno.
p r o l e m t i z i n g t he p r o l e m
Consensus on at least that last point woulo seem to incluoe not
only Western mooerns but ancient Romans as well. Roman law
took a oim view ol ot ,lorce, assault, ano trtotto ,wronglul injury,
in every lorm, ano it appears that the Roman republic`s constitu-
tive oocument hao provioeo the harshest ol sanctions against ver-
bal abuse in the lorm ol poetry:IP
nostrae inquit contra ouooecim tabulae cum perpaucas res capite sanxis-
sent, in his hanc quoque sancienoam putauerunt, si quis occentauisset
siue carmen conoioisset quoo inlamiam laceret nagitiumue alteri. prae-
clare: iuoiciis enim magistratuum oisceptationibus legitimis propositam
uitam, non poetarum ingeniis, habere oebemus, nec probrum auoire nisi
ea lege ut responoere liceat et iuoicio oelenoere. ,Cic. Rep. .:., in
Augustine, Ctc...q,
|Scipio, in Cicero`s oialogue on the republic| saio: Our twelve tables,
on the other hano, while provioing lor the oeath penalty in very lew
matters, provioeo it in this one: il anyone have sung or composeo a song
against another so as to give oelamation or public oisgrace.` Excellently
so: lor we ought to have our lives laio bare not by the genius ol poets,
but by magistrates` juogments ano legal oisputations, nor shoulo we be
spoken to insultingly except on conoition that we have the opportunity to
respono ano to oeleno ourselves at trial.``
Apart lrom the severity ol its contemplateo penalty, this apparent
guarantee ol lull protection ano recourse against verbal aggres-
sion ,at least ol the kino that scans, provioeo by the Twelve Tables
ano explicateo by Cicero in the persona ol Scipio Alricanus
IP The Twelve Tables containeo provisions against both ot ano trtotto. On violence in re-
publican Rome, Lintott ,:q68,.
sounos remarkably similar to mooern Western legislation against
slanoer ano libel. Citizens ol mooern egalitarian oemocracies are
not in the habit ol taking laws with a grain ol salt, to say the least,
ano lor over a century now, mooern Catullans in oiscussing the
social context ol Roman invective have tenoeo to take Roman
law on oelamation`` at lace value.IQ That lace, lor all its seeming
lamiliarity, is almost surely oeceptive. A nrst question: precisely
whom oio the law protect, ano lrom whom?
We know very little about the tabular law`s scope ano applica-
tion, but Augustine gives us the context ol Cicero`s ,Scipio`s,
remarks on it: a comparison between the unbrioleo oo /omtrem
attacks ol Attic Olo Comeoy ano the constraints put on such
utterances by the Romans ol the early republic ,oetete Romort ,.IR It
is signincant, I think, that Scipio`s ,Cicero`s, examples ol persons
to be protecteo by law lrom such abuse are all patricians ol the
highest nobility, with the hypothetical ohenoers very much their
social inleriors. While gruogingly accepting Olo Comeoy`s lam-
pooning ol such seoitious`` popolote as Cleon ano Cleophon
,though aooing that an imposition ol censorial trfomto woulo have
oone the job better than a poet`s attack,, Scipio oraws the line
at invective against opttmote, or Greek equivalents thereol: to oo
violence in verse`` ,otolott oett/o, on stage to a man like Fericles,
alter he hao governeo the state with the greatest ooctottto lor
many years, woulo have been as improper, he opines, as il our
own Flautus or Naevius hao chosen to insult ,moleotcete, Fublius or
Gnaeus Scipio, or as il Caecilius hao chosen to oo the same to
Marcus Cato.``
Ol the tabular law it is oimcult to say more than this: there is
no evioence ol anyone being put to oeath at Rome lor invective
poetry, ano not a single extant instance ol a juoicial proceeoing
unoer it. By the late republic, however, oelamation ol every kino
seems to have been subsumeo into the more general law ol trtot-
IQ Lalaye ,:8q, ::: La loi romaine etait seve`re pour le genre oe poesie quÀrchiloque
avait cree.`` ,Ior Lalaye, the license alloweo to poets in the late republic was something
new, the result ol a weakening ol the aristocratic spirit,`` political chaos, the nerce pas-
sions arouseo by the civil wars ano the loosening ol social ties., Seloen ,:qq., 8, ois-
cussing Foem .: To the Roman mino, insults ol this type were not a trining matter,
but explicitly lorbiooen ano policeo by law. Unoer the xii Tables, slanoer was punish-
able by oeath, ano intermittent prosecution impresseo upon the populace the gravity ol
the ohense.``
IR See OCD s.v. trtotto ano oelamation`` with relerences there.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo ::8
toe.IS In principle, then, recourse unoer that law shoulo have been
available to the parties injureo by this not uncharacteristic piece
ol Catullan aggression:
O lurum optime balneariorum
Vibenni pater et cinaeoe nli
,nam oextra pater inquinatiore,
culo nlius est uoraciore,,
cur non exilium malasque in oras
itis? quanooquioem patris rapinae
notae sunt populo, et natis pilosas,
nli, non potes asse uenoitare. , Foem ,
O nnest ol the thieves that haunt the baths,
Vibennius Sr., ano you too, little laggot Jr.
,Sr.`s the one with the itchier nngers,
Jr.`s the one with the hungrier hole,,
why not heao lor exile ano some sick
shore? I mean, alter all, Sr.`s pillering is
public knowleoge by now. Ano Jr., you can`t get a
oime lor those hairy buttcakes.
The circulation ol this poem ought to have constituteo, at the
very least, an actionable trtotto, a public perlormance belore its
aooressees woulo conceivably also have come unoer more specinc
legislation. But il Vibennius pe `te et /l ,assuming they were actual
persons, were inclineo to seek reoress against the author ol Foem
, there woulo have been consioerable lactors to oiscourage them,
perhaps even to bar them, lrom ooing so.
Il the poem`s accusations were grounoeo even partially in truth,
or simply wioely believeo to be likely, then Roman legal process,
that crossnre ol vituperative wit, woulo have been at best a point-
less exercise lor the Vibennii ano at worst a grave risk. The pros-
IS Three recoroeo incioents are generally brought lorwaro in connection with this tabular
law: ,:, a poetic leuo between Naevius ano Q. Caecilius Metellus ,consul .oq e, that
was saio ,centuries later, by Aulus Gellius ..:, who calls it a fo/olo, to have enoeo with
the poet thrown into chains by the tmpettom ol the triumvirs ,ano so no juoicial proceeo-
ing,, ,., an unsuccesslul suit brought by the poet Lucilius ,secono century, against a lel-
low poet who hao lampooneo him on stage, ano ,, a suit nleo by the poet Accius ,nrst
century, on similar charges, successlully this time. The source lor these last two incioents
,R/et. oo Het. ..:q, implies that both cases were trieo unoer the law ol trtottoe ,ano so not
the tabular law against abusive poetry, which appears by this time to have been sub-
sumeo into trtotto,. Koster ,:q8o, q ano Seloen ,:qq., o nn. :o6::o with relerences
there, esp. Daube ,:q8,.
To.oto o Meottettoreor poettc of otetor ::q
pect ol losing lace`` was an important lactor inhibiting every
manner ol civil litigation at Rome. Conoemnation on particularly
oisgracelul charges ,like the ones nameo in Catullus` poem,
brought with it a mark ,roto, ol praetorian`` trfomto or tromtrto,
ano this carrieo certain lasting legal consequences lor its bearer.IT
In the instance imagineo here, however, it is lrankly haro to be-
lieve that things woulo ever have reacheo that point. Irfomto, not a
legal technical term, was simply oisgrace.`` Its taint coulo be ap-
plieo by the community as well as by a praetor or a censor. ,Ano
though Cicero`s Scipio oislikes the thought, a memorably snappy
poem probably in lact oio the job better than the mark ol a severe
olo censor., Catullus` claim that the eloer Vibennius` thievery at
the baths was well known to the people`` ,., seems to imply
that the community hao long since placeo such a oamning mark
on the latter`s reputation. In any case, the prosopographical si-
lence surrounoing his lamily name suggests that the eloer Viben-
nius was a person ol relatively little consequence. As lor the social
stanoing ol Catullus, he belongeo to a lamily whose name appears
on public builoing projects in the area ol Verona.IU He calleo
Julius Caesar a pot/tco ,anal receiver``, in his poetry ,..,, ano il
we believe Suetonius, Caesar responoeo by attempting a reconci-
liation with the young poet by way ol his lather at Verona.IV
It is questionable whether a Roman praetor woulo have hearo
a case brought by the Vibennii against Catullus, ano il one hao,
controlling laughter`` woulo perhaps have brought the proceeo-
ings to a quick close, with oire social consequences lor the plain-
tihs, perhaps so oire as to necessitate the sell-exile recommenoeo
in Catullus` poem.IW Iurther, il the eloer Vibennius was the lowly
IT On ottopetotto as the norm in Roman litigation ,incluoing oroinary civil cases,, on trfomto
,not a legal technical term, ano on loss ol lace`` as a lactor inhibiting litigation at Rome,
Kelly ,:q6, q:::. See also Barton ,:qq, :8 n. :.
IU Wiseman ,:q8, :o:. On the social ano economic status ol Roman poets, see White
,:qq,.
IV Suet. )ol. .
IW Corbeill ,:qq6, :o6. on Cicero`s use ol oerisive humor in litigation. Laughter ooes not,
as a rule, bring court proceeoings to a close in mooern postinoustrial communities or
even ,in principle, innuence their outcomes. Herzlelo ,:q8, .6 cites an instance ol
laughter successlully overturning a case in a small Meoiterranean community. An eloerly
ano crippleo man, while accompanying his son on a sheep raio, hao beaten a police om-
cer senseless with his stick. The omcer brought charges. When the case nnally came up
lor aojuoication, the juoge askeo the suspecteo sheep thiel `s lather to stano up. The olo
man oio so. Was t/t the Glenoiot who hao so baoly mauleo the healthy young police
omcer? Assureo that inoeeo it was, he oismisseo the case amiost oerisive laughter.``
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo :.o
personage I have speculateo, ano il his reputation alreaoy laboreo
unoer taint ol trfomto, then there is room to question whether he
coulo ever in the nrst instance have successlully brought Catullus
to trial.PH At the other eno ol the spectrum, a vastly superior
plaintih like Julius Caesar obviously coolo have compelleo an
annoying young municipal equestrian to answer charges lor Foem
ano similar verses. That is, il Caesar was willing to become a
laughingstock: he coulo never have liveo oown the rioiculous
ngure he woulo have cut at such a trial. Il it is true, as Mauss
pointeo out, that we owe the concept ol person`` to Roman law,
it remains that Roman law was a respecter ol persons, ano ol per-
sonal honor ano shame, to a oegree that makes its operation quite
alien to mooern unoerstanoing.PI
Il Vibennius was really so unequal an opponent, then we may
wonoer why Catullus chose to attack him ano his son so bitterly in
Foem .PP It is haro to make a case lor the poem`s abusive lan-
guage as justineo by a political motivation. To be sure, the text
constitutes a social ano political act ol a sort: the invitation to opt
lor sell-exile ,.6,, with its silent threat ol unlovely things to
come il that invitation is oeclineo, recalls some ol the rhetoric ol
Cicero`s nrst speech against Catiline. But Foem resists classin-
cation as political invective`` ol the kino that wins the mooern
reaoer`s sympathy when Catullus takes on Caesar ano Fompey, or
when the young Zukolsky goes alter Henry Ioro.PQ Reasons ol the
heart oher no better justincation than those ol politics. Neither
PH Kelly ,:q66, .q: the irreoucible lact remains that a powerlul ano intractable oelenoant
who was not sensitive about his public reputation`` ,or who, while sensitive about it, hao
nothing to lear in its regaro lrom his opponent, coulo ano ooubtless very olten oio
lrustrate the just claim ol a plaintih by resisting summons or execution, ano this situa-
tion must have continueo to exist lor so long as the State took no hano in physically
assisting the wrongeo plaintih.`` The Roman state began provioing such assistance only
about the time ol Antoninus Fius.
PI Mauss ,:q8,.
PP On equal opponents,`` Barton ,:qq, :8.
PQ Zukolsky ,:q8, .6 in A-, inveighing against Ioro: ,Disposeo ol: the short change ol
labor., As lor labor,]There are more people]Who won`t try to oo anything,`]Says
Henry,]Than there are who oon`t know what to oo,]I am in the business ol making
automobiles]Because I believe I can oo more gooo that way]Than any other.``` In later
sections ol A Zukolsky invokes Catullus` Caesarian invective against Mamurra, making
the ancient poet a political ally by intertextuality, in A-8: Lollai, lollai, litil chilo, Whi
wepistou so?]Ior the estates Mentula hao, that you will have?]Lollai, lollai, litil chilo,
Chilo, lolai, lullow!]Now orinkes he up seas, ano he eates up nocks,`` ,o,, ano again:
Whether a Cincinnatus conoucts]the labor process by tilling his little larm,]Or whether
Tom Dick]Wears his vest in summer]Ano sells relrigerators to the Eskimos . . .`` ,6.,.
To.oto o Meottettoreor poettc of otetor :.:
eloer nor younger Vibennius comes oh as the kino ol oescenoant
ol great-souleo Remus`` ,8., towaro whom the tastes ol Lesbia
ran, as Catullus` poetry represents her, ano in any case no one, so
lar as I know, has ventureo the suggestion that either ol the
Vibennii was Catullus` amatory rival. We are ol course at liberty
to imagine the poem`s speaker as one ol the eloer Vibennius` vic-
tims, ano still smarting lrom the embarrassment ol having to seno
a slave home lrom the baths to letch a spare tunic. Ferhaps, but
elsewhere, when he has lost an expensive ano treasureo napkin
,Foem :., to thelt ,or perhaps better to say, to an aristocratic
practical joke, or a set ol writing tablets , Foem ., to a borrower`s
contempt ol a loan, the Catullan speaking subject is only too
lorthcoming with oetails on the nature both ol his loss ano ol the
reoress sought or retribution threateneo.
I have suggesteo that the Vibennii were as real as the persons
behino most or all ol the other names ol male aooressees in the
corpus, ano that they were not members ol an elite lamily whose
power the society hao an interest in curbing, through mockery ol
the kino that assigneo insulting hereoitary coromtro.PR I suggest as
a lurther possibility that Catullus mentions no personal injury ol
any kino at their hanos because he has receiveo none, ano that the
Vibenii were neither personal rivals, nor personal lrienos, nor
even personal enemies. That reaoing is speculative, ol course, but
nothing in the poem or elsewhere in the corpus argues against it.
Nothing, that is, other than the oark picture it paints ol our
Catullus.`` Whether Foem is obscene is an interesting question.
The speech act here representeo is not oevoio ol what the juoicial
ruling in a lamous American obscenity trial calleo reoeeming so-
cial value``: its language amrms social norms ol behavior ano
harshly punishes oeviance lrom those norms through public ois-
grace. But at the level ol the inoivioual composing or reciting it,
the poem appears chieny to express ano embooy the sheer enjoy-
ment ol heaping communally shareo oerisive laughter upon vic-
tims who lack recourse or oelense ol any kino.PS Its speaker, so
PR Corbeill ,:qq6, q8.
PS On enjoyment , ootorce, as a political lactor, Zizek ,:qq:,. Corbeill ,:qq6, 8 aptly quotes
Irye ,:q, ..: It is an establisheo oatum lor literature that we like hearing people
curseo ano are boreo with hearing them praiseo, ano almost any oenunciation, il vigor-
ous enough, is lolloweo by a reaoer with a kino ol pleasure that soon breaks into a
smile.``
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo :..
construeo, ohers a perlormance rather than a oetacheo ano wry
critique ol the aggressive act ol public shaming that the poem
represents. It is in this sense that Foem can be saio to oher one
ol the strongest ano most unmitigateo instances ol a poetics ol
aggression`` that pervaoes the Catullan corpus.
The poem to the Vibennii is not a nice one, ano critics have lor
the most part shown it their backs. Is it a bao one?PT The tightly
interlocking structure ol the series ol responsions between lather
ano son make it oimcult to reao these eight giooy verses alouo
twice without getting them by heart: souno ano lorm burn their
woros onto the memory like the reo-hot lommtro ,metal plates``,
applieo by the Roman torturer. A nrst verse aooressing the lather
alone ano a nnal one aimeo only at the son stano as symmetrical
poles highlighting the two-part structure ol the composition. The
poem`s nrst hall strings together two repetitions ol the paireo vic-
tims with perlect symmetry ol epithets ano booy parts. The secono
hall begins by inviting the aooressees into exile in the lorm ol a
question precisely the tack so ehectively taken by Cicero in the
nrst speech against Catiline.PU Iitzgeralo has noteo that rott ptloo
,hairy buttcakes,`` .,, oirectly beneath the prior verse`s pottt
toptroe ,lather`s thelts,`` .6, might be taken as a near pun ,with
oiherent quantities ol the nrst vowel, between rott ,buttocks``,
ano an implieo rott ,ol the son``,.PV There is a similar pun be-
tween rotoe ,the lather`s thelts are kro.r to the people,`` ., ano
the roto ,mark,`` again with oihering quantity ol the nrst vowel, ol
trfomto branoeo on the booies ol lather ano son by the perlor-
mance ol the poem. The last two verses contain a treble allitera-
tion ol a consonantal pair that might suggest the speaker actually
spitting in the oirection ol the aooressees , rotoe . . . popolo, rott
ptloo, ror pote,.
The poem`s eight verses make a oemonstrably well-wrought
urn, then. Is there anything more, any better reason why Catullus
,il the eoiting hano was his, incluoeo the piece in his collection? I
think there is. The poem enos on a poto ptoooktor ,surprise``, with
teeth, one that probably woulo have raiseo uproarious laughter
PT Quinn ,:q., .:8 on Catullus` bao verse.``
PU Cic. Cot. :.:.o ano passim.
PV Iitzgeralo ,:qq, 8., who says ol this poem: Son ano lather are both complementary
ano interchangeable, as a unit they are obscene because they proouce a conlusion ol cate-
gories ano a promiscuous prolusion ol relations that coulo also be oescribeo as poetic.``
To.oto o Meottettoreor poettc of otetor :.
lrom a contemporary Roman auoience ano almost certainly com-
pelleo its aesthetic aomiration. By closing on the observation that
the son`s peoerastic charms have laoeo ano so no longer constitute
a prontable asset ol the lamily enterprise, the speaker rechar-
acterizes his utterance in a remarkable way. This parting shot
lunctions as a kino ol jump back lrom the stance ol sternly moral
public upbraioing , /otttom, to that ol a blanoly helplul remark, it
might even be thought to preserve the speaker`s oeniability`` on
the lormer count.PW Up to the last verse the poem`s message hao
reao: you, lather, are known lor a thiel, ano you, son, lor a ctroe-
oo, you are both oisgraceo, leave town.`` Now it aomits a secono
reaoing: since the people are on to your thieving, lather they`ll
be on their guaro now ano since your garoen is overgrown
with weeos, son, you both have lost your marketable traoes here,
your two means ol support by thelt ano commerce: perhaps it`s
time to consioer relocating your operations.`` To put the thing
into Roman terms: this Catullan cooa, tackeo on in the guise ol a
thoughtlul piece ol nnancial aovice ano career counseling to a
youngster, has all the air ol unstuoieo improvisation, ol inevitable
but quite unloreseeable brilliance, ano ol perlect contextual apt-
ness, that Catullus` auoience woulo have associateo with an ele-
gant perlormance worthy ol the name focettoe ,wit``,.QH Ano focettoe
in place ol petolortto ,brute violence``,, as Cicero teaches us in a
well known passage in the speech lor Caelius, is the quality that
promotes moleotctto ,insulting language``, lrom mere corotctom
,verbal abuse``, to the aesthetic rank ol ot/ortto.QI
Foem , I wish to suggest, is a taste ol Catullan ot/ortto. Its
ot/ortto, lurther, is precisely the quality that can be saio to make
this act ol poetic aggression into the perlormance ol a Herzleloian
poetics ol manhooo``: a sell-allusive bio lor recognition ol the
aesthetic excellence ol its perlormer. The stylistic translorma-
tion`` ol perlormative verbal wit loregrounos the poem`s aesthetic
value over its ethical content. Foem `s relerential meaning, its
primary message,`` alter all, is the same thing that other members
ol Catullus` community can be imagineo to have crieo or mut-
PW Corbeill ,:qq6, :: Fart ol the accuser`s skill oepenos upon his ability to expose the
laults ol a oelenoant without slipping into slanoer.`` Compare the remarks ol Iitzgeralo
,:qq, . on staining without being staineo``, also Richlin ,:q8, .6:.
QH Cic. oe Otot. ...:qo ,Caesar Strabo`s oiscourse, on the theory ano practice ol wit ohers
numerous examples. Discussion in Corbeill ,:qq6, .o. ano passim.
QI Cic. Coel. 6: Moleotctto ootem rt/tl /o/et ptopottt ptoetet cortomeltom, ooe t petolortto toctotot,
corotctom, t focetto, ot/ortto romtrotot.
tereo when such persons as the Vibennii passeo by in the street.
What oistinguishes Catullus` utterance is not an ethical being
gooo`` that makes him a social critic, but rather a perlormative
being gooo at,`` summeo up in the woro ot/ortto, that gives him
social mastery.QP
A oistressing critical result. Or at least a problematic one, ano
not merely lor those critics who seek lrom poetry the Falgravian
lunction ol leaoing us in higher ano healthier ways than those ol
the worlo.``QQ Can Foem , lor all its bao taste, lor all its ethical
vileness, really be counteo as a perlormance ol Roman ot/ortto?
Il Cicero`s lorensic speeches against Vatinius, notable lor their
gleelul mockery ol the ttomoe ,bloooy pustules``, on the latter`s
lace ano neck, coulo be characterizeo by a later author as Cicero`s
ot/ortto against Vatinius, then perhaps it is our unoerstanoing ol
the term within Catullan criticism that neeos reevaluation.QR The
perlormative being gooo at`` calleo ot/ortto by the Romans, it
appears, not only hao very little to oo with being gooo,`` by
almost any mooern reaoer`s unoerstanoing ol ethical norms, it
hao just as little to oo with what the last lew centuries have meant
by gooo taste.``
Catullus` mooern critical reception has helo a very oiherent
view ol what constituteo ot/ortto, ano ol how Catullus embooieo
it in social perlormance: ot/ortto, that aura ol sophistication that
elite Romans oeemeo essential lor the lashionable man ano that
Catullus ano his circle in turn elevateo into a guioing aesthetic
ano moral principle.`` Unoer that construction ol ot/ortto, Foem
:o in which Catullus claims ownership ol a lrieno`s parkeo seoan
chair ano bearers, only to be shown up when another lrieno`s cot-
ttllom ,little whore,`` :o., calls his bluh by asking to borrow it
responos aomirably to a reaoing accoroing to which it ohers a
parable ol lalse ot/ortto chastiseo ano simultaneously manilests
the ironic sell-awareness that oistinguishes the urbane gentleman
at his civilizeo best.``QS
QP Herzlelo ,:q8, :6, 6o. above.
QQ Falgrave ,:86:,, .:. above.
QR Sen. Dtolot ..:6. :. Mockery that Catullus seems to have known ano remembereo with
enjoyment at .... Corbeill ,:qq6, .
QS Skinner ,:q8q, 8q. At the time ol its writing, this enunciation ol Catullan ot/ortto rep-
resenteo the critical commort optrto, supporteo by a respectable booy ol scholarship ,see
esp. Ramage |:q|,. Other examples ol a similar tone coulo easily be collecteo in the
writing ol twentieth-century Catullans. Skinner`s version stanos out chieny by its clarity,
elegance ano critical tact.
This twentieth-century Catullan critical take on ancient Roman
ot/ortto is preoicateo, I think, on a number ol sweeping social
ano cultural changes most ol which hao taken place in mooern
Western inoustrializeo nations ouring the previous century. At
least in Britain ano the Uniteo States, the nineteenth century
witnesseo, along with the continuing rise ol a mioole class, the
crystallization ol a ioeology ol gentility baseo not on nobility ol
birth but on such consioerations as ethical conouct ano manners.QT
The class oistinctions markeo by those externals ol behavior were
themselves increasingly occluoeo, allowing lor a new construction
ol the gentleman`` ,ano the laoy``, baseo on a collapsing ol
moral, aesthetic, ano even religious criteria ol valuation ano
approbation into social ano economic ones. The same century, not
coincioentally, witnesseo an unpreceoenteo rise in the criminal-
ization ol ,largely male, aggression.QU By the beginning ol the
twentieth century, on both sioes ol the Atlantic, physical violence
hao become in theory ,ano, in many places, to a consioerable oe-
gree in practice, an almost exclusive legal monopoly ol the state,
through the criminalization ol a wioe range ol aggressive ano vio-
lent behaviors that the juoicial institutions ol earlier centuries hao
treateo as personal matters between the parties involveo, or at
least punisheo with relative leniency. High Romantic gentle-
men,`` unlike Renaissance ano Baroque ones, oio not nght each
other in taverns ano alleys with nsts or knives.QV A continuation ol
that same civilizing process`` ,what Marx calleo capitalism`s
science ol renunciation``, came to its nower in the mooern gen-
tleman,`` ol prolessional rather than leisure class, a man who not
only neither brawls nor ouels, but carelully eschews every coarse-
ness ol speech ano gesture.QW
Catullan criticism, in the wake ol such powerlul narrative moo-
els as Quinn`s ot/ort ano their mistresses,`` has in ehect been
QT The process was ol course alreaoy unoerway belore the nineteenth century ano con-
tinueo into the twentieth. On English ano American gentlemen,`` Castronovo ,:q8, ano
,:qq:,. On the meoieval genealogy ol mooern manners, Aroiti ,:qq8,. Bouroieu ,:qq,,
though locuseo on contemporary Irench society, has provioeo a vocabulary ano theo-
retical lramework now wioely applieo in the sociology ol class ano oistinction.``
QU On Victorian criminalization ol men,`` Wiener ,:qq8,.
QV On early European ,specincally Irench, manhooo as a culture ol the sworo,`` ano its
nineteenth century mooincation, Nye ,:qq8,. On similar oevelopments in mooern Ger-
many ano Italy, Irevert ,:qq8, ano Hughes ,:qq8,.
QW Civilizing process``: Elias ,:qq,. Science ol renunciation``: Marx ,:q6, ano oiscussion
in Aoams ,:qq, :o.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo :.6
lorceo to oeal with the problem ol how a mooern urbane gentle-
man`` coulo have written such pieces as Foem :o or an even
longer stretch Foem ., in which Catullus calls his henoecasyl-
lables to swarm ano publicly shame , peteoomot eom et te/ottemo,
..6, the stinking slut`` ,moec/o pottoo, ..::, :., :q, .o, who re-
luses to return his tablets. A solution to that problem, the only
workable one unoer the given assumptions, was sought in an intri-
cate elaboration ol something that Quinn, again, hao alreaoy
suggesteo: the notion ol Catullus as a poet ol social comment.``RH
On that view, the poet`` oion`t mean these poems, saw through
their ugly aggression ano stooo alool lrom it. Ano the oetach-
ment ol the ethical stance ol Catullus the poet lrom that ol
Catullus`` the persona coulo be carrieo out in the name ol a criti-
cally sophisticateo mooernist rejection ol nai ve Romantic bio-
graphical criticism.`` Foem , however, ano others like it in the
corpus reproblematize the ethical problem ol Catullan aggression.
They oher no lootholo lor a critical saving ol the appearances by
positing ironic sell-awareness`` ,a strano in the labric ol the
meoitative introspection`` ol mooernist poetics, at the center ol
the Catullan speaking subject.
The mooern ano mooernist connoence in the ethically enno-
bling power ol sell-awareness may have been overly optimistic
lrom the outset. As Slavoj Zizek has put it, the lormula lor ioeol-
ogy is not they know not what they oo,`` but rather they know
what they oo, ano they oo it anyway.``RI In his luneral orations
pronounceo over the corpses ol seventeenth-century Irench
nobles ano royals, Bossuet gave thunoering voice to a Christian
oiscourse on earthly vanity that, lrom a postchristian mooernist
viewpoint, might just conceivably be construeo as a sell-aware cri-
tique or even a oeconstruction`` ol the artinciality ano unreason
ol the oistinction ol a nobility ol birth. But no one is likely to
claim the staunchly royalist bishop ol Meaux, or any other prelate
ol the orcter te tme, as an unsung precursor ol revolution ano the
Rights ol Man. Likewise, il I am a nineteenth-century English
urbane gentleman`` poet, my allowing that Gunga Din is a better
man than I am, lor all its civilizeo ano ironic sell-awareness, is not
a term in a syllogism whose conclusion will relieve my shouloers ol
the white man`s buroen that I continue to take up every oay with
RH Quinn ,:q., .o8.. RI Zizek ,:qq:,.
an imperially worlo-weary sigh. Awareness ol the contraoictions
inherent in ioeology proouces cognitive oissonance but only to
the extent that the ioeology unoer scrutiny is not m, ioeology.
That Catullus` own resentments, lrustrations ano anxieties ct-o`-
ct the Roman Symbolic oroer will have engenoereo in his con-
science, by algebraic substitution or categorical imperative, an
ethical concern lor women, slaves, or overtaxeo Bithynian provin-
cials, is neither a certainty nor even a likelihooo. Il by social cri-
tique`` we mean a stance outsioe the ioeology ol the society in
which he liveo, I question whether we may hope to nno social cri-
tique at all in Catullus` poetry.RP In any case, my reaoing ol the
poems oiscerns in them no voice groping towaro an ethical stance
I wish to embrace or recognize as kinoreo. Ano yet I continue to
reao these poems with pleasure, to teach them with all the persua-
siveness I can muster, ano to celebrate them through literary criti-
cism ,always a celebratory act, even in its most oenunciatory ano
oebunking versions,. This is by now a recognizable ano lamiliar
oilemma, one that leminist classical scholarship grappleo with
over the last lew oecaoes ol the twentieth century. Among the
conclusions ol that oebate was a nearly universal, ano I think
clearly correct, rejection ol the ingenious but ultimately too com-
lortable ethical solution ol oiscerning a leminism ocort lo lettte in,
lor example, Euripioes, ano so conscripting him as an ally ,or at
least a oouble agent, lor the critic`s own cause.RQ
Il the problem ol a genuinely noble ano beautilul literary text
ol impossible valuation as ethically normative is not solveo by that
complex solution, the same is truer still ol the two straightlorwaro
solutions to the same problem.RR Simple ano outright ethical oe-
nunciation ol an ancient Greco-Roman text sits ill, even a little
bizarrely, on the lips ol one ol its purveyors in the context ol a
literary market lrom whose center the classics`` have long since
been oisplaceo. The other simple solution, the commonsense``
one ol closing oh the possibility ol ethical comment on ancient
literature by raising the wall ol cultural relativism, ultimately cre-
RP The olo New Historicist relrain, perhaps, but a proposition still very lar lrom the banal-
ity ol axiom within Catullan stuoies.
RQ Michelini ,:q8, :, also Rabinowitz ,:qq, :: It woulo be a mistake, even a waste ol
time, to try to oecioe whether Euripioes was a misogynist or a leminist.``
RR The phrase impossible value`` is lrom a stuoy ol Nahum Tate`s Leot by Strier ,:qq,
.o..
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo :.8
ates more problems than it solves. Il it were oesirable in any in-
stance, this stance is particularly problematic in the case ol a text
in whose critical reception, at every point, assertion ol cultural
authority ano overthrow ol that same authority have been com-
mingleo, ano in the case ol an author whose relation to canonicity
has manilesteo a Klein bottle`s paraooxical conlusion between in-
sioe ano outsioe.RS
Il it is ,:, impossible to excuse Catullan aggression ano ,.,
equally impossible to oenounce a character whom centuries ol
reception history have louno invincibly sympathetic, ano il the
stratagem ol making Catullus into our man in Rome, our secret
periscopic eye viewing his worlo lrom our own ethical viewpoint,
is louno out, then how are we to proceeo towaro an account ol
the poetics ol aggression`` embooieo in a text whose genuine
poetic status we reluse to reject? I have suggesteo one avenue ol
response to impossible critical binarisms by triangulating them,
ano ooing so in Catullus` case specincally through the introouc-
tion ol a thiro term lrom other moments in literary history ano
lrom Meoiterranean cultural anthropology. I return now to the
latter ol the two, in the lorm ol recent work on the role ol aggres-
sion in Meoiterranean communities. I put lorwaro this compara-
tive material ano the conclusions orawn lrom it as one possible
way ol heartening the aesthetic appetite lor cultural oiherence
without putting the laculty ol ethical juogment into an overleo
stupor. Contemporary Meoiterranean evioence has the lurther
aovantage ol ohering a cultural context that is not only compara-
ble but also cognate with Catullus` own, a worlo inhabiteo by
many ol the same structures ano constructs, even calling them by
names that Catullus woulo have recognizeo.
ve rone s e t ul l us s n ndl us i n dog
In the social interaction ol a small poe/lo in Anoalusian Spain,
cultural anthropologist Davio Gilmore came to oiscern, just be-
neath a smooth ano unbroken surlace ol ahability, the ever pres-
ent threat ano lear ol aggression. Every public interchange he
witnesseo manilesteo the highest oegree ol gentility in manners.
RS Three narratives ol three very oiherent aspects ol Catullus` , long, mooern reception:
Gaisser ,:qq,, Wiseman ,:q8, .::, Iitzgeralo ,:qq, .:..
To.oto o Meottettoreor poettc of otetor :.q
Every social gathering ol men gave voice, with lyric loquacity,``
to pronouncements ol neighborly civic solioarity ano mutually
loyal lrienoship baseo on masculine honor. Only later,`` says Gil-
more, oio I realize such oeclarations are prophylactic lormulae
to waro oh suspicion, betrayal, ano anxiety about others`
motives.``RT The mooern, acaoemically traineo urban intellec-
tual,`` Gilmore suggests, experiences the shaoow presence ol ag-
gression in the small Meoiterranean community through silently
implieo, vigilantly leareo threats ol betrayal by lrienos ano result-
ing public oisgrace as a prolouno cognitive oissonance. Knowl-
eoge ol travelers` tales about Anoalusian Juoas kisses,`` ano a
specialist`s lamiliarity with the consioerable booy ol previous an-
thropological literature on the ethos ol agonism`` in Meoiterra-
nean culture, proveo insumcient to buher the shock ol liveo
experience. The straightlorwaro connoence in lace values that
Gilmore brought to his nelowork was quickly unsettleo.
Gilmore recounts a private conversation with a particularly
amiable ano gregarious young male inlormant that took place in
the month ol his arrival. At the eno ol an alternoon spent in a
neighborhooo bar where conversation over glasses ol sherry hao
centereo arouno the obligations ano rewaros ol masculine
lrienoship loyalty, honor, ano all that,`` the young man excuseo
himsell ano, with a concealeo gesture, inviteo Gilmore to lollow.
Once out ol the bar ano in an alleyway lar lrom observers, the
young man began to ask aovice on a nnancial matter involving a
local merchant. Frooucing at length lrom his pocket a crumpleo
ounning letter he hao receiveo alter lalling behino in payments on
the time purchase ol a television set, he askeo the visiting proles-
sor lrom America by what way a poor man, but an honorable one,
ano entirely without experience in the newlangleo ways ol con-
sumer nnance, might be able to obtain a oelay in his payment
scheoule without compromising his honor ano reputation.`` Gil-
more continues:
Uneasily, I inquireo il the matter coulo not best be resolveo by mobiliz-
ing Allonso`s network ol lrienos. Alter all, we hao just spent hours lis-
tening to expressions ol unoying support ano loyalty. Ol course I will
intervene il you want,`` I stammereo, but surely your pals in the bar ``
With a wave ol his hano, Allonso cut me short. My lrieno, you must be
RT Gilmore ,:q8, .
joking,`` he retorteo, shooting me a reproachlul look. They`re the last
people I woulo connoe in. It woulo be all over town in ten seconos. Ano
Dto mto |my Goo|, the lies they woulo tell to torment me with!`` He con-
cluoeo this oenunciation ol the same men he hao just warmly embraceo:
Damn them, the worst enemies ol all are your lrienos.``RU
Allonso`s cynical statement,`` lollowing so quickly on the heels ol
louo protestations ol mutual loyalty, proouceo in Gilmore a briel
sense ol unreality.`` The sentiment expresseo by Allonso towaro
his lrienos is loreign in more ways than one. In the cultural con-
text ol a postinoustrial Western urban community, asking lrienos
lor a petty loan ooes not oroinarily provioe material lor oelama-
tion, nor is it immeoiately obvious how the report ol having oone
so coulo be elaborateo with lies in such a way as to torment the
unlortunate oebtor. Reaoers ol Catullus, however, will know a
striking pair ol examples ol the kino ol abusive speech Allonso
appears to have hao in mino. In two invectives aooresseo to Iur-
ius, Foems . ano .6, Catullus publicizes his victim`s shamelul in-
solvency with verve ano precision ,whether truthlully or not we
shall never know,. In both poems, the punch line, the climax ol
the speaker`s aggressive enjoyment, comes in the revelation ol the
exact sum ol money involveo: in Foem ., a petty loan ol one
hunoreo sesterces, in Foem .6, a mortgage on Iurius` villa in the
amount ol two hunoreo nlteen thousano. In Foem ., oiscusseo
earlier, not only is Iurius` penury metaphorizeo as an obscenely
excessive booily oryness, his lather ano stepmother are implicateo
as well: the whole lamily is contaminateo by the taint ol a loully
healthy oryness ano haroness, not without vague hints ol an inces-
tuous me roe o` ttot.RV Il Allonso coulo envisage something resem-
bling Catullus` gleelully oelaming exposure ol the nnancial ,ano
lamilial, situation ol one ol his so-calleo comtte ,companions,``
::.:,, the young man`s mistrust ol his lrienos at the bar was any-
thing but misplaceo.
Some weeks alter that incioent, oinner at the neighboring house
ol a wioow ano her unmarrieo oaughter operateo a similar ehect
ol cognitive oissonance on Gilmore ano his wile. At the eno ol a
long ano pleasant conversation whose topics hao incluoeo the sense
ol obligation, mutual loyalty ano interoepenoence among neigh-
bors, Gilmore`s wile receiveo a surprising answer to an innocent
RU Gilmore ,:q8, 6. RV On Foem ., see above.
question about their hosts` social lile. No inviteo guests hao ever
belore been receiveo into the wioow`s house, lor oinner or any
other social reason. Feople oo not ertettotr here, as you call it,``
the wioow explaineo, aooing that Gilmore ano his wile must be
mao`` to think otherwise. The oaughter gave the reason: il a neigh-
bor gains access to the secret sanctuary ol your house, she con-
oucts a minute surveillance ol the place like a lerret.`` Anything
out ol place, any loible or eccentricity in the house or its inhab-
itants, woulo be public knowleoge by the next morning, ano neigh-
bors are worst ol all in this regaro. ,Visiting loreigners, on the
other hano, were sale enough lor curiosity to outweigh mistrust.,
These lears ano suspicions were no more unlounoeo than
Allonso`s. Continueo observation brought home to Gilmore the
truth, in its own cultural context, ol the proverb: lo leroo ro ttere
oterte, , mo oe ello moetoe ,the tongue has no teeth, yet bites
oeeper``,.RW He recounts, lor example, the story ol Conchita, a
young woman whose upcoming marriage was overshaooweo by
the ,apparently true, report that she hao been seen in an alley
ouring a lestival necking, or skinning the turkey`` , peloroo lo poco,,
with her young nance. ,Both the scene ano the quaint culinary
metaphor are strangely reminiscent ol Catullus` oepiction, at 8.,
ol Lesbia shucking`` the men ol Rome in alleyways ano street-
corners., As rumors escalateo, men began to stare at Conchita
with insulting bluntness when she passeo in the street, sometimes
whistling or howling, olo women covereo their mouths ano spoke
to each other in stage whispers. Rumor, true to its oescriptions in
the Aereto ,.:q, ano Don Basilio`s aria on lo colorrto ,cal-
umny``, in T/e Bot/et of Sectlle, hao quickly snowballeo by the
accretion ol elaborate lalsehooos: it was over town that Conchita
was pregnant, that the marriage hao been lorceo by her lather
ano its oate moveo up on the calenoar. The witness ol Conchita`s
moment ol lestive inoiscretion, ano the ultimate source ol the
ensuing gossip, it turneo out, hao been the girl`s best lrieno Maria,
spurreo on by envy ol Conchita`s beauty ano carelree happiness.
Conchita ano her lamily launcheo a retaliatory campaign ol gos-
sip against Maria ano hers. Conchita`s weooing, in the event, took
place as originally planneo, ano her story, lrom the viewpoint ol
the poe/lo`s ethical norms, can be saio to have hao a oesirable ano
RW Gilmore ,:q8, .
even a happy conclusion: she no longer wore sleeveless oresses, no
longer entereo bars where ,like the poello in Foem , she was the
only woman among men, whether to oeliver a message to her new
husbano or lor any other reason. She no longer manilesteo her
quick wit ano easy laughter in public. Conchita hao become, in
short, ano with no irony about it, mooest ano upright`` , pootco et
pto/o, ...,: an exemplary mooel ol the leminine probity that the
power ol gossip hao extorteo lrom her through the punishment ol
exposure ano the threat ol worse things to lollow.
Not every aggressive exercise ol the communal power ol gossip
ano verbal abuse proouces a mutually tolerable ,albeit grim, reso-
lution lor all parties. At the time ol Gilmore`s visit, townspeople
still tolo the story ol Juanillo oe la Quiniela ,Lottery Johnny``,.SH
Some years belore, a lucky number at the soccer lottery hao maoe
poor Juanillo suooenly a rich man. He hao bought a lancy new
car, reoecorateo his home, ano even gone so lar as to have the
bars on his ooors ano winoows ,a leature ol every Anoalusian
house, replaceo with a new set. Custom-oesigneo by an artist lrom
Seville, the new iron grates bore the crest ol the beloveo soccer
team that hao enricheo Juanillo: a pretentious`` oetail ol the sort
to oraw hostile attention, to give envy its locus ano mockery its
luel. Alter a lew months ol perlorming the generosity implicitly
oemanoeo ol him in his new circumstances, Juanillo realizeo that
his winnings woulo soon be oepleteo il he continueo to buy orinks
ano give gilts at the expecteo rate. He began to charge interest on
loans, grew irritable ano quarrelsome, ano eventually stoppeo lre-
quenting the neighborhooo bar altogether. Soon he hao acquireo
the reputation ol living like a erottto ,a contemptuous term lor the
rich,, ol being cott ,pretentious``, ano, perhaps worst ol all, ol
being cettooo ,closeo,`` secretive``, rather than o/tetto ,open``,.
Juanillo`s wile, lor her part, was now known as an obnoxious hag-
gler in the marketplace. Along with Juanillo, she ano their chil-
oren became objects ol rioicule ano ol increasingly hostile pranks.
An invective song, lovingly composeo in aovance, was oirecteo at
Juanillo at the next carnival. During that same lestival, a group ol
maskeo revelers cornereo him ano, with no act ol physical aggres-
sion other than relusing to let him pass, hurleo verbal abuse at
him lor hours, calling him a whoreson ano worse names than that:
SH Gilmore ,:q8, q.
To.oto o Meottettoreor poettc of otetor :
a precise enactment ol /ottotto, the public shaming by swarming
that Catullus wittily invokes in Foem . ano that Catullans since
Usener have oescribeo, quaintly, as a manilestation ol Italische
Volksjustiz.``SI By the close ol the year, Juanillo ano his lamily hao
opteo lor precisely what Catullus recommenoeo to the Vibennii
in Foem : sell-imposeo exile. Lottery Johnny hao relocateo to
Barcelona, ano his house, empty ano lalling into ruin no one
hao been willing to purchase it stooo in the mioole ol town at
the time ol Gilmore`s stay, the invioious soccer crests on its iron
grating still provoking passersby to gloating merriment over the
lortunes ol their ruineo owner.
This is perhaps the moment to state what is obvious enough:
there are lunoamental cultural ano social oiherences between late
twentieth-century Anoalusian Spain ano late republican Rome.
Iurther, Catullus` elite status within his society was very lar lrom
the social class ol most ol Gilmore`s inlormants, ano the macho
pruoery perlormeo so vivioly in Catullus` sexual invective is lar
lrom being the only strano in his poetics ol manhooo. There is a
Catullan manhooo ol oelicacy as well, one that the next chapter`s
oiscussion will characterize as a stance ol cosmopolitan ano eru-
oite elegance thrust perlormatively lorwaro to the point ol pro-
vocative eheminacy. Though I shall argue that this aspect ol
Catullan manhooo too is inlormeo by a recognizably Meoiterra-
nean competitive ethos ol agonism,`` its oistinctly Hellenistic ano
metropolitan glamor nnos no oirect counterpart in the small rural
communities where cultural anthropologists ol the Meoiterranean
carry out their nelowork.
Those caveats having been stateo, however, it remains that
Catullus` representations ol the power ,ano the powerlully oeli-
cious appeal, ol private gossip ano public verbal aggression re-
semble, to a remarkable oegree ano with a nearly encyclopeoic
completeness, the mooulations ano even the lexicon ol verbal
abuse in small Meoiterranean communities ol the kino stuoieo by
Gilmore. , But then, encyclopeoic completeness is easily achieveo
where the circle ol concerns is claustrophobically small., The
Friapic`` Foem :, lor example, with no other eoiting than the
necessary geographic ano cultic alterations, woulo be perlectly
SI Usener ,:qo:,. On the Anoalusian public shaming ritual known as ctto, Fitt-Rivers ,:q6:,
:: ano Gilmore ,:q8, q.
suitable lor perlormance at an Anoalusian carnival.SP Its speaker
targets a certain countryman , presumably at Verona, as a prime
canoioate to be thrown oh an olo brioge into the muooy river
beneath it. The poem`s allegations incluoe sexual neglect ol a
beautilul young wile, impotence, ano cuckolory born either ol
compliance or ol ignorance. The closing lines suggest that a
ounking might oo the victim some gooo, making him shake oh the
stupio ano shamelul laziness ol his member ano his mino alike,
leaving both behino in the muo:
O Colonia, quae cupis ponte luoere longo
et salire paratum habes, seo uereris inepta
crura ponticuli axulis stantis in reoiuiuis,
ne supinus eat cauaque in paluoe recumbat:
sic tibi bonus ex tua pons libioine nat,
in quo uel Salisubsali sacra suscipiantur,
munus hoc mihi maximi oa, Colonia, risus.
quenoam municipem meum oe tuo uolo ponte
ire praecipitem in lutum per caputque peoesque,
uerum totius ut lacus putioaeque paluois
liuioissima maximeque est prolunoa uorago.
insulsissimus est homo, nec sapit pueri instar
bimuli tremula patris oormientis in ulna.
cui cum sit uirioissimo nupta nore puella
et puella tenellulo oelicatior haeoo,
aoseruanoa nigerrimis oiligentior uuis,
luoere hanc sinit ut lubet, nec pili lacit uni,
nec se subleuat ex sua parte, seo uelut alnus
in lossa Liguri iacet suppernata securi,
tantunoum omnia sentiens quam si nulla sit usquam,
talis iste meus stupor nil uioet, nihil auoit,
ipse qui sit, utrum sit an non sit, io quoque nescit.
nunc eum uolo oe tuo ponte mittere pronum,
si pote stolioum repente excitare ueternum,
et supinum animum in graui oerelinquere caeno,
lerream ut soleam tenaci in uoragine mula. ,Foem :,
Colonia! You`re eager lor some lestal lun on your long
brioge,
you`ve got everything reaoy lor oancing, but you`re alraio
she`s still
SP Among recent stuoies ol Foem : see esp. Cenerini ,:q8q,, Ieoeli ,:qq:, ano Kloss ,:qq8,.
stanoing, the olo brioge, but on wobbly legs, with recycleo
timbers
she`s about to go belly up ano lie oown in the bottom ol the
swamp.
Here`s wishing you a nne brioge, the brioge ol your oreams,
a brioge where even the leaping priests ol Salisubsalus
coulo carry out their rites. But Colonia, you`ve got to give
me a laugh
as a gilt in return, a big one. I want to see a certain
countryman ol mine go
heaolong oh your brioge, into the muo, heao to toe,
,ano I mean that part ol the whole lake ano stinking swamp
where the quagmire`s oeepest ano the muo muooiest,.
He`s an ioiot, this one, without the sense ol a two-year olo
boy asleep in the oanoling craole ol his lather`s arms.
He`s got a wile, though, a girl at the peak ol her nower,
,ano I mean a girl more skittish than a youngling kio,
a girl lor guaroing with care like a harvest ol the very
blackest grapes,,
but he lets her play as she will, he ooesn`t give a nip.
Ano lor his own part, he ooesn`t give himsell a lilt. He just
lies there,
like an aloer in a oitch when a Ligurian hatchet`s hackeo its
hams.
He`s as aware ol what`s going on as il the woman oion`t exist
at all.
This lrieno ol mine, the walking stupor, sees no evil, hears
no evil,
isn`t sure ol his own name isn`t even sure whether he`s
oeao or alive.
Now, /e`s the one I want to throw heao nrst oh your brioge.
It`s worth a try. Maybe it`ll stir up his stupio torpor.
Maybe he`ll leave his olo mino behino in the heavy slime
like a mule losing an iron shoe in sticky clay.
The message is ol course unmistakable, ano it is a message appro-
priate to the poem`s Friapic metre. Yet the propriety, the lastioi-
ous inoirection, ol Catullus` oiction here surprises the reaoer ol
the whole collection, ano may perhaps point to an actual public
perlormance ol this piece at a lestival in Colonia.``SQ In any case,
SQ Wiseman ,:q8, notes that contemporary inscriptions lrom the region incluoe the
names ol Valerii on public builoing projects ano speculates that Catullus` lamily may
have receiveo a request lor lunos towaro the new brioge. Il so, Foem : takes on a
sharper point, as ooes its aggression, thanks to its speaker`s consioerable position ol
power ano innuence.
we may easily compare Foem : to an invective song written lor
actual perlormance at Trebujena`s :q6 carnival. The Anoalusian
poem takes a similar approach to the same theme as Catullus`,
though in somewhat more explicit terms ano on a more mooest
scale poetically:
El ti o oe las escobas The lellow with the brooms
esta loco por un nin o is mao lor a son,
pero gasta un zoquetito but his prick is tiny ano
arrugao como un pestin o. shriveleo like a honey
ooughnut.
Eso lo sabe to Trebujena All Trebujena knows this
lact:
que oe sarasa tiene una vena, he has a queer streak,
a su sen ora, a la pobre, la
trae lrita
his poor wile is leo up with
him
porque oice que no llega al
siti o
because, she says, he can`t
get there
acon que? con su cosita. with what? with his little
thing.SR
The victim ol this nercely aggressive oelamation, though not
mentioneo by name or even nickname, was lully ioentinable to
the auoience lrom the nrst line ol the poem as a certain vineyaro
worker who, as a sioeline, also maoe brooms lrom palm leaves.
The ioentity ol Catullus` victim, though unrecoverable to us,
woulo presumably have been similarly ioentinable to a Veronese
auoience ,though not to a Roman reaoer ol the collection,. Iur-
ther, the carnival song clarines what was almost certainly the im-
plicit oeparture point ano ultimate trigger ol the Catullan poem`s
attack. It is a point not likely to leap to the mino ol the post-
inoustrial urban reaoer, but Gilmore`s nelowork maoe him acutely
aware ol it. Il the nrst year ol a marriage ooes not proouce a
chilo, people in the Anoalusian poe/lo, ano in many other Meoi-
terranean communities, take notice, ano they begin to talk. A
young marrieo couple connoeo to Gilmore with an air ol resigna-
tion that although they wanteo a small lamily ano were in no par-
ticular hurry to start one, they hao not begun to use artincial birth
control until their marriage hao proouceo a nrst chilo.SS They
knew what manner ol attention a chiloless marriage, ano particu-
larly a chiloless young husbano, coulo be expecteo to attract.
SR Mintz ,:qq, :. SS Gilmore ,:q8, 6q.
Foem : woulo have hao little lorce, ano probably woulo never
have been written, il its young victim hao been granteo the wish
that Catullus expresses lor Torquatus, the new brioegroom in
Foem 6:: the speeoy arrival ol a son whose unmistakable resem-
blance to his lather leaves no room lor wickeo tongues to oo their
work ,6:..oh ,.
The opposite situation, that ol a brioe no longer a virgin ano
perhaps alreaoy pregnant, while a common enough occurrence in
rural Anoalusia, is also a locus ol anxiety lor the parties involveo
ano ol hostile attention lrom the community.ST Here again Catul-
lus ohers a point ol comparison in another poem set in his own
native town. Foem 6 is a oialogue with the talking lront ooor ol a
house in Verona. The poem opens with an interlocutor, appar-
ently male, greeting the ooor with wheeoling politeness ano beg-
ging it to speak. The ooor at length complies, ano its revelations
proceeo in the oroer ol an escalating campaign ol gossip against
the householo owelling behino it, starting with the newlyweo
mistress:
primum igitur, uirgo quoo lertur traoita nobis,
lalsum est. non illam uir prior attigerit,
languioior tenera cui penoens sicula beta
numquam se meoiam sustulit ao tunicam,
seo pater illius gnati uiolasse cubile
oicitur et miseram conscelerasse oomum,
siue quoo impia mens caeco nagrabat amore,
seu quoo iners sterili semine natus erat,
ut quaerenoum unoe unoe loret neruosius illuo,
quoo posset zonam soluere uirgineam. ,6.:q.8,
Well, then. Iirst ol all, as lor her having been brought to us
a virgin: that`s a lie. Ano it woulon`t be her /o/oro toucheo
her nrst
not him, with his little oagger that hangs limper than a beet
root
ano never yet has lilteo itsell up to the mioole ol his tunic.
No: they say it`s his lather. Violateo his son`s beochamber,
he oio,
ano brought the stain ol sin on an unlucky householo,
either because his criminal mino was on nre with secret lust,
ST Mintz ,:qq, :66o.
or else because his son was born worthless, with barren seeo,
so they hao to go looking somewhere, anywhere, lor
something
haroer, something that coulo unoo a virgin`s belt.
Alter a maliciously amuseo response lrom the interlocutor cast
sarcastically in the language ol moral approbation, the ooor goes
on to catalogue earlier inoiscretions committeo by the brioe in her
hometown ol Brixia ,mooern Brescia,, belore her arrival at Ver-
ona. Anticipating the question how a ooor attacheo to a house at
Verona coulo have news ol events at Brixia, she assures the inter-
locutor that her source is the young woman hersell, who has been
overhearo whispering to her hanomaios about her crimes. The
ooor`s speech, ano the poem as well, climax ano close by slyly nn-
gering a male victim whose ioentity, like that ol the victim ol the
Anoalusian carnival song, looks to have been unambiguously clear
in context.SU Ol course, no one is romeo, ano il the man in ques-
tion were to proceeo against Catullus, or even merely to protest,
he woulo thereby be owning up to the poem`s accusation ol aoul-
terous oalliance with the materlamilias behino the ooor:SV
praeterea aooebat quenoam, quem oicere nolo
nomine, ne tollat rubra supercilia.
longus homo est, magnas cui lites intulit olim
lalsum menoaci uentre puerperium. ,6.8,
| The brioe| also aooeo a certain party, someone I oon`t
want
to mention by name, heò raise those reo eyebrows ol his.
A tall man, he is, ano involveo some time ago in a big
lawsuit about a lakeo oelivery lrom a lying womb.
SU Richlin ,:qq., : notes that many Catullan invectives oher similarly concrete but non-
specinc oetails`` about their victims ano suspects the obscurity may be oeliberate. Our
prosopographical ignorance makes it impossible to pronounce either way in most in-
stances, but the Anoalusian material here citeo ohers examples ol similar invectives
whose victim`s ioentity was maoe unambiguously ano brutally clear in the context ol
perlormance.
SV Mintz ,:qq, :: recoros an Anoalusian carnival poet`s reasoning along these lines: I
won`t mention his name to avoio lurther charges. Because, il he catches me in a slip,
he`ll turn me in again, ano I`ll be in a bigger jam. I`ll oo it so that he`ll say: That one
was meant lor me.` Yet he won`t be able to turn me in because I won`t use any names.
No one will be able to bring up any charges.``
To.oto o Meottettoreor poettc of otetor :q
Many critics have tasteo a oistinctly small-town navor in the petti-
ness ol this poem`s gossip.SW Frobably rightly so, though Cicero`s
speech lor Caelius makes it clear that rumors ol incest, at least,
coulo still set the most sophisticateo Roman tongues wagging with
as much gusto as the provincial ones representeo in Catullus`
poem.TH That consioeration points towaro a question that seems to
have gone unanswereo ano even unaskeo here: precisely ./oe
tongue is wagging in Foem 6? Who is speaking this poem, ano
what is the nature ol the scenario it represents? Commentators
remino us that Roman elegiac poets also have conversations with
ooors, ano inoeeo they oo, but lor a very oiherent reason.TI The
Veronese ooor is certainly not being askeo to swing open, ano
Foem 6 has nothing to oo with the song ol the lrustrateo lover
outsioe a lockeo ooor known as potocloott/,tor.TP What ooes it
mean, oramatically, to approach a ooor, to greet it with ingrati-
ating commiseration, to beg it tenoerly to speak, to listen to it
attentively ano eagerly, ano then to recount its conversation, a
conversation in which the ooor claims to have hearo the laoy ol
the house within whispering her sins to her slaves? There is ol
course a very real ano potentially oire social sense in which a
house`s lront ooor can be saio to have an ear ano a tongue ,6.,
ano to serve its masters well or baoly ,6.6,, incurring their an-
gry blame ,6.q:, in the latter case. The ooor ol a house is its
sensitive ano vulnerable membrane. It lunctions as both conouit
ano seal ,though not a hermetic one, between the guaroeo worlo
within ano the oangerous one without. Catullus, I think, has given
us in Foem 6 a thinly tropeo poetic representation ol a scene ol
eavesoropping.TQ
SW Iitzgeralo ,:qq, .o on Foem 6 as an expression ol Transpaoane`` prioe ano anxiety.
TH In the same speech in which he seems to warn against unbrioleo oelamation ,Coel. 6, see
n. :, ano complains that no one can escape gossip , fomo,, especially in so baomouthing
a town`` , ptoeetttm tr tom moleotco ctottote, Coel. 8, as Rome, Cicero makes his lamous
comic slip,`` relerring to F. Clooius Fulcher, Clooia Metelli`s brother, as her husbano.
He corrects himsell: I always make this mistake`` ,empet /tc etto, Coel. .,.
TI Quinn ,:qo, 6q ano Thomson ,:qq, 66 compare Frop. :.:6. Kroll ,:q68, places the
oialogue with the ooor in the context ol Hellenistic epigram.
TP Frop. :.:6 has the ooor speaking, but the story it tells is still that ol a paraclausithyron, a
lover is complaining outsioe, but no inlormation about happenings within the house is
revealeo. The ooor ooes however complain , Frop. :.:6.q::, that she has been unable to
protect her mistress lrom oelamation.
TQ Feorick ,:qq, arrives by a oiherent route ,not in the context ol Foem 6, at a strikingly
similar picture ol the invective Catullus as an eavesoropper who abuses his internal au-
oience`` ,what I have calleo the aooressee``, while nattering the wioer auoience.
The poem`s relation to genoer ioeology becomes, on this reao-
ing, satislyingly complex in a way that appears to be culturally ac-
curate as well. At the surlace ol Foem 6 is a oialogue between a
male interlocutor ano a lemale ooor. While no pronoun or mooi-
ner oisambiguates, the interlocutor`s speech is lairly clearly gen-
oereo male Cicero coulo easily have saio, in a lorensic speech,
etetom rotto mtto ptetote potertem ,an excellent lather, that, whose
tale you tell, a man ol wonorously strong lamily leeling,`` 6..q,,
with just the same moralizing sarcasm ano on some level he
seems to be a version ol the Catullan speaking subject. As lor the
ooor, its leminine genoer is maoe insistently clear ,tocoroo . . .
tocoroo, 6.:, belore its nature as a ooor is ever revealeo, so that
the nrst time reaoer initially assumes that the interlocutor`s ao-
oressee is a literal woman. Just beneath that surlace oialogue,
however, is a narrative spoken entirely in the male voice ano
recounting publicly the secrets ol a householo, secrets whose
veracity he authenticates lor his auoience by impersonating the
ooor lrom which ,at which, he has hearo them. The interlocutor`s
poetic conceit is thus, in ehect, that I hearo it lrom the ooor,`` or
the ooor tolo me hersell.`` Note too that in the last lour lines ol
the poem ,6.8, citeo above,, the two voices seem almost to
merge oialogically surely it is both the ooor ano the interlocutor
giving the gleelully teasing physical oescription ol the poem`s nnal
victim ano lrom there it is only a step to reaoing the entire poem
as a oialogue spoken in a single voice.TR
Commentators, trusting in what Gilmore calleo the luminous
surlace ol things,`` have tenoeo to reao the talking ooor as the
simple personincation ol a gossipy maioservant ano consequently
to interpret Foem 6 by transcribing the blanoly tolerant misog-
yny ,women are gossips``, ol its surlace.TS The poem`s ventrilo-
quizeo ooor serves, I suggest, as a ruse to cover an uncomlortable
but inevitable lact about invective poetry: while the perlormance
ol poetic verbal aggression belongs to the blazing sunlight ol the
public lorum ano is as such both the exclusive province ol men
ano a perlormance, in the most literal sense, ol a poetics ol man-
hooo, it remains that the aggressive act ol shaming regularly
TR On oialogism, Bakhtin ,:q8:,. On its application to Catullus, Miller ,:qqb, ano ,:qq,
: ano passim.
TS Kroll ,:q68, .:.: on Foem 6`s ooor as a gossipy housekeeper.
involves publicizing pttcote oetails about the victim. In conse-
quence, the material, the message, ol male-genoereo invective
utterance ,unless completely without basis in lact or likelihooo, in
which case it is lar less ehective, can have been obtaineo only
through the male speaker`s prior involvement in the shaoy, clan-
oestine ano unmanly`` activities ol peeping, snooping ano gossip-
ing. In the case ol Foem 6, we as critics have been only too eager
to lurther the ruse, to help the Catullan speaking subject put the
best lace on things.
Anoalusians also say that women are the ones who gossip. They
say it ano presumably on some level even believe it, but like the
Ethiopian Christian shephero who believes`` that wolves are
practicing Christians ano therelore abstain lrom eating nesh meat
on Irioays they oo not enjoy the luxury ol applying that ioeo-
logical proposition with nai ve earnestness to the context ol guaro-
ing against the real oanger ol aggression ,ano the Ethiopian
shephero ooes not lail to guaro his nocks on Irioay,.TT Men, no
less than women, are oevoteo practitioners ol the nne art ol
muroer by language`` ,Barthes` oennition ol gossip,, ano in the
small Meoiterranean community they are in lact the more to be
leareo: men can stroll or loiter unaccompanieo in the oay without
attracting attention, ano they can prowl at night with relatively
little lear ol scanoal.TU Ano ol course, they are the ones who
compose ano perlorm the invective carnival songs that are re-
membereo ano quoteo throughout the year. Gilmore tells ol a
voluntary association that, until the authorities shut it oown, hao a
thriving activity in his Anoalusian poe/lo, a community where
being a joiner`` ,ltoo, was otherwise regaroeo as oespicable ano
oangerous. The club`s membership was restricteo to men, ano the
sole business ol its meetings consisteo in going about the poe/lo
alter sunset to peep through winoows ano listen at ooors.TV
Nonviolent aggression, as Gilmore argues, can inoeeo lunction
as a positive lorce lor social cohesion in small communities, rather
than being always a symptom or cause ol oislunction.TW That
social cohesion is bought at consioerable cost to each member ol
the community, ano lew urban intellectuals`` woulo consioer the
traoe-oh a lavorable one. The inoivioual, motivateo by the lear ol
TT Sperber ,:q,, citeo in Veyne ,:q88b, xi. TU Barthes ,:q, :6q.
TV Gilmore ,:q8, q. TW Gilmore ,:q8, :o.8.
verbal aggression to guaro lamily matters ano other private busi-
ness with the tightest possible secrecy, is simultaneously con-
straineo by that same threat to manilest a public behavior that
gives every appearance ol living lully in the open, with nothing to
hioe, ano no oistinctive ioiosyncratic excesses ol any kino. Cicero
is perhaps the only inoivioual lrom whom we have enough mate-
rial to evaluate that lormulation as a oescription ol the elite
Roman man`s subjective experience. Even there the evaluation is
itsell inevitably subjective, but in light ol the sell-allusivity so
clearly ano louoly embooieo in Cicero`s public perlormances ,ano
characterizeo by so many mooern reaoers as an unbearable arro-
gance,, ano in light ol the suspicion ano ouplicity towaro lrienos
ano associates so lrankly avoweo in his private letters ,by which
even Cicero`s oevoteo aomirers have been scanoalizeo all mooer-
nity long, starting with Fetrarch,, it seems at least plausible that
comparative material lrom agonistic`` Meoiterranean commu-
nities ol the kino oiscusseo in this section can move us towaro a
richer cultural contextualization ol the most aggressively hyper-
masculine aspects ol Catullus` own poetics ol Roman manhooo.UH
wi ke d t ongue s nd e vi l e ye s
Mauo Gleason has oescribeo Greco-Roman elite male social in-
teraction as the inoivioual`s oangerous passage through a lorest
ol eyes.`ÙI A revelatory ano instructive lormulation, but perhaps
the lull picture is something still more oire. Work like Gilmore`s
suggests that Meoiterranean eyes ,ano ears, oo more than merely
lie in wait as passive observers: they prowl ano oevour. In Anoa-
lusian Spanish, to give someone a haro look`` ,mttooo foette, is to
eat him with the eyes`` ,come telo cor lo oo,, ano it is unoerstooo
that wickeo tongues`` ,molo leroo, will soon pour out into the
light ol oay what eyes have eaten ano ears have orunk in the
shaoows.UP The haro stare ol aggressive eyes is both a symptom
ano an embooiment ol erctoto, a woro that in Catullus` Latin ,trot-
oto,, as in Anoalusian Spanish, is connecteo ioeologically with the
lear ol what wickeo tongues will say. Latin trototo, ol course,
UH agonistic society``: Fitt-Rivers ,:q, q., Gilmore ,:q8, q6.
UI Gleason ,:qq, .
UP Gilmore ,:q8, , :6:.
means both envy`` ano the evil eye.`ÙQ It means both, arguably,
because the two are precisely the same thing. The ioeology ol
the evil eye, a spiritual construct`` ol the greatest antiquity ano
nearly pan-Meoiterranean pervasiveness, gives a magical lorce,
metaphorically ano metonymically, to what is at the same time a
social inevitability: il I overstep communal norms in a way that
oraws attention, or il someone merely looks askance at my exces-
sive happiness ano gooo lortune, I can expect to suher lrom it.UR
That is perhaps a valio principle in most or all human com-
munities, but one whose oiscursive construction varies wioely
among cultures. What separates Catullus` worlo lrom ours on this
point, perhaps, is not only the lact that we nno it quite inconceiv-
able even to joke about the brutally violent retributions threat-
eneo or perlormatively accomplisheo in Meoiterranean messages
ol nonviolent verbal aggression: lor example, orally raping , Foem
.:, a toptotot ,sexual miscreant,, tying his leet to ooorposts ano
sooomizing him with raoishes ano mullet ,Foem :,, or merely
terrorizing him by wiring his ooor shut in the mioole ol the night
ano then singing invective songs into a rine barrel inserteo
through a hole in the ooor.US It is not only that, it is also that the
so-calleo puritanical`` Anglophone ano northern European mor-
alizing oiscourses ol the nineteenth ano twentieth centuries have
tenoeo to mystily something that victims ano perpetrators ol
verbal aggression in the premooern Meoiterranean olten express
openly ano with perlect lucioity: namely, that the inoivioual ag-
gressor is motivateo not so much by love ol righteousness as by
envy, jealousy or hatreo towaro the victim, ano perhaps even
more lunoamentally by an overwhelmingly strong libioinal invest-
ment in the pure enjoyment ol aggression itsell.UT
Catullus, I think, perlorms the ootorce ano the potential terror
UQ On Roman envy ano lascination``: Barton ,:qq, 8:.
UR On the evil eye in the Meoiterranean: Maloney ,:q6,, Herzlelo ,:q8:,, Di Stasi ,:q8:,,
Gilmore ,:q8, ::o, Dunoes ,:qq., q:.
US Fitt-Rivers ,:q6:, ::., citeo in Gilmore ,:q8, q.
UT Gilmore ,:q8, 68: The motive |lor gossip| is envy or simply spite. The Anoalusians are
the nrst to aomit this.`` Mintz ,:qq, :o recoros a carnival poet`s statement ol his moti-
vation in composing oelamatory verses: I say things that people woulo rather keep
unoer wraps. They oon`t want gossip . . . gossip. Say a brother ano sister are looling
arouno. Well, they oon`t want anyone to know. Boy! That`s the sort ol thing I like about
carnival.`` Compare Catullus` similar tone, at once apologetic ano oenant, at .6:
you`ll be angry again at my iambs, though they oon`t oeserve it, O one ano only
general.``
ol haro looks ano haro woros with that same lucioity, ano nowhere
in the corpus more explicitly ano elegantly than in a sequential
triplet ol poems that are almost never oiscusseo together, since the
bookenos ol the set are central Lesbia poems ano its mioole mem-
ber contains primary obscenity ano not a hint ol Lesbia`s pres-
ence. When they are reao in their receiveo oroer, however, these
three pieces take on the look ol a remarkably coherent ano sat-
islying mime in miniature on the aggressive power ol evil eyes ano
wickeo tongues:
Viuamus, mea Lesbia, atque amemus,
rumoresque senum seueriorum
omnes unius aestimemus assis.
soles occioere et reoire possunt:
nobis cum semel occioit breuis lux,
nox est perpetua una oormienoa.
oa mi basia mille, oeinoe centum,
oein mille altera, oein secunoa centum,
oeinoe usque altera mille, oeinoe centum.
oein, cum milia multa lecerimus,
conturbabimus illa, ne sciamus,
aut ne quis malus inuioere possit,
cum tantum sciat esse basiorum. ,Foem ,
My Lesbia, let us live, ano living love,
ano give all outcries lrom severe olo men
lull oue consioeration: one reo cent.
The sun that sets tonight can rise again,
but we, when once our too briel light is set,
must sleep a single night that never enos.
Give me a thousano kisses, next a hunoreo,
another thousano, plus another hunoreo,
then yet another thousano, next a hunoreo.
Ano when we`ve rackeo up thousanos alter thousanos,
we`ll lose count, we`ll make sure that we`re not sure,
ano that some neno can`t cast an envious eye
with knowleoge ol how many are our kisses.
Ilaui, oelicias tuas Catullo,
ni sint illepioae atque inelegantes,
uelles oicere nec tacere posses.
uerum nescio quio lebriculosi
scorti oiligis: hoc puoet lateri.
nam te non uiouas iacere noctes
nequiquam tacitum cubile clamat
sertis ac Syrio lragrans oliuo,
puluinusque peraeque et hic et illic
attritus, tremulique quassa lecti
argutatio inambulatioque.
nam nil ista ualet, nihil, tacere.UU
cur? non tam latera eclututa panoas,
ni tu quio lacias ineptiarum.
quare, quioquio habes boni malique,
oic nobis. uolo te ac tuos amores
ao caelum lepioo uocare uersu. ,Foem 6,
It`s about your girllrieno, Ilavius. Irom where
Catullus sits, either she`s not exactly what youò call class
or youò be telling me about her, coulon`t shut up.
No. It`s some working-girl health risk that`s won your
ahection ano esteem: that`s what you`re ashameo to aomit.
Ano no, you`re not spenoing nights all alone these oays.
Your quiet beoroom ooesn`t convince: it cteom,
all reeking ol garlanos ano olive oil lrom Syria.
So ooes your beoroll with its twin oepressions.
So ooes your crackeo ano creaky beosteao: it`s walkeo
out into the mioole ol the room to oenounce you.
No use, trust me, keeping quiet in the lace ol all that.
Why inoeeo? Your thighs woulon`t be luckeo oown
to the bones il you weren`t in some business on the nasty
sioe.
So look. Whatever you`ve got going, gooo or bao,
come on ano tell me. I want to seno you ano your oarling
up to the sky on a surge ol lovely poetry.
Quaeris, quot mihi basiationes
tuae, Lesbia, sint satis superque.
quam magnus numerus Libyssae harenae
lasarpicileris iacet Cyrenis
oraclum Iouis inter aestuosi
et Batti ueteris sacrum sepulcrum,
aut quam sioera multa, cum tacet nox,
UU Lachmann`s emenoation. Mynors prints ano obelizes the transmitteo text ol the verse`s
opening: rom trtto pteoolet.
lurtiuos hominum uioent amores:
tam te basia multa basiare
uesano satis et super Catullo est,
quae nec pernumerare curiosi
possint nec mala lascinare lingua. ,Foem ,
You ask me, Lesbia, how many kissings ol you
woulo be enough ano more lor your Catullus.
So great a number as grains ol Libyan sano
that lie in Cyrene, the lano where silphium grows,
between the oracle ol Jove ol the Burning Heat
ano ancient Battus` ancient halloweo tomb,
or as many as the stars that, when night is quiet,
look oown upon the lurtive loves ol mortals:
that`s how many kisses to kiss you with
your crazeo Catullus woulo count enough ano more,
a count that prying minos coulo never complete
or lay their curse on with a wickeo tongue.
The speaker ol both Foems ano is a young man in love ano in
open oenance ol societal norms, incluoing norms ol masculine
behavior. The last point is one worth stressing, since it is only in
light ol recent work on Roman sexuality that it is possible to see it
clearly. Similar ehusions ol amorousness in a mooern context are
unlikely to register as behavior inappropriate lor a man. Quite the
contrary: it is always possible to reao mooern male expressions
ol unbrioleo omoot-potor as perlormances ol the machismo ol a
Romeo ,il truthlul, or a Don Juan ,il not,, ano the very intensity
ol the oesire expresseo may be taken as a measure ol the speaker`s
manhooo. The Roman man, conversely, il he was true to the
letter ol his ioeology ol masculinity, oio not languish in oesire. He
took sexual pleasure, to his nll but no more, ano without relin-
quishing control either to the object ol his appetite or to oesire``
itsell.UV The speaker ol Foems ano , by his abject oepenoence
on the beloveo, by his turn away lrom phallic pleasure to oral, ano
perhaps most ol all by the uncontrolleo unrestraint ,tmpotertto, ol
his gluttony lor kisses, impersonates ano perlorms a provocative
UV On sexual excess ano Roman heterosexual`` eheminacy: Richlin ,:qq., :q, ... ano
passim, Cantarella ,:qq., :.o, Eowaros ,:qq, 8:, Farker ,:qq,, Williams ,:qqq,
:8q ano passim.
eheminacy that has been ehectively invisible to much ol Catullus`
mooern reception.UW
Foem begins by inviting Lesbia to join Catullus in a society ol
two, in oenant oeviance lrom the norms ol the community
expresseo in the outcries ol overly stern olo men.`` The thiro
line`s verse-nnal poto ptoooktor the unexpecteo appearance ol an
o, the smallest unit ol Roman currency retrospectively gives a
sylleptic, or punning, sense to the verb ol the last member ol the
norioly rhetorical ascenoing tricolon that opens the poem. Aett-
mote is to value,`` to assign worth.`` A Roman man`s oettmotto
,more commonly extttmotto, was his gooo name,`` his lace,`` what
Anoalusian men ol earlier generations , less so now,, oescribeo,
without irony, as the thing a man must at all costs not lose, ano all
is not lost il that one thing is not lost.VH But oettmote ano its cog-
nate lorms, precisely like English value`` ano worth,`` aomit,
alongsioe their ethical sense, a purely economic one. It is this lat-
ter sense that Catullus` perlormative wit brings nashing out at the
eno ol the thiro verse, cracking the tail ol its whip in the lace`` ol
the ere eoettote ,overly stern olo men``, ano openly oebunking
their louoly proclaimeo ethical norms.VI
The Roman ethical quality ol eoettto might be renoereo as
censoriousness.`` Seoeto seems in lact to have been a common
epithet ol the Roman censor, the omcial who policeo the morals
ol senatorial men, punishing misconouct either by placing a mark
ol trfomto ,oisgrace``, by their names or else by removing them
lrom the senatorial roster altogether.VP Latin cero ano its cog-
nate lorms manilest a semantic nexus interestingly similar to that
ol oettmotto. As Dumezil showeo, cer- is the Latin renex ol an
Inoo-European root signilying the approbation ol ,chieny poetic,
praise, ano so represents a survival ol prehistoric ioeology ol
praise ano blame.VQ That aspect ol the root surviveo in the ceroto
,the omce ano lunction ol the censor,, ano in the verb ,cereo, with
UW Quinn ,:qo, :: Can anyone ooubt, alter reaoing Foems ano , that Catullus is a
man?`` Discusseo at Iitzgeralo ,:qq, .: n. :o.
VH On Anoalusian honor, Fitt-Rivers ,:q66,. On its recent mooincation, Gilmore ,:q8, :.8.
VI On oettmotto ano extttmotto as economic terms coopteo into the ethical sphere, Habinek
,:qq8, q.
VP Cerotom eoettto: Cic. Rep. .6.:, Val. Max. ..q, Gell. ..o.:. On censors ano senators,
Suolahti ,:q6,.
VQ Dumezil ,:q, ano ,:q6q, :o..
which a Roman senator omcially put lorwaro a motion. At the
same time, cero, like oettmotto, aomits a nnancial sense, ano ooes
so in a way that lays bare one ol the ioeological connections be-
tween the two meanings. A Roman man`s cero was the value ol
his property, ano since membership in the senatorial ano eques-
trial oroers requireo minimum levels ol wealth, his nnancial worth
,cero, coulo come unoer the censor`s severe scrutiny no less than
his publicly perceiveo moral worthiness ,oettmotto,.VR
The Latin name, then, both lor the process ol kiss-counting that
Foem `s Catullus perlorms with louo outrageousness ano lor the
nnal tally ol kisses he claims, just as outrageously, to be at pains to
conlouno ,many reaoers have seen here the image ol an abacus
being shaken to spoil the count, is the same woro: what the poem`s
speaker is perlorming, ano making a great luss ol concealing, is
the cero ol his kisses.VS Nothing in that lormulation, I think, is apt
to jar the mooern ear. It might even souno a bit hackneyeo. The
kiss poems look ano leel remarkably like European sonnets, ano
kisses-as-coins ano love-as-wealth are, in that subgenre, stanoaro
ano very oroinary lare inoeeo. In the poem`s own cultural context,
however, the thought ol a cero ol kisses, ano one so great as to
oely exact count, woulo almost certainly have been an image so
striking as to rivet the attention upon the speaker who hao lrameo
it. A Roman reaoer coulo easily have louno something vaguely
obscene in the image ol counting all those thousanos. Showy ex-
cess ol ,literal rather than ngurative, wealth was associateo with
eheminacy ano with the laxness ol morals saio to have lolloweo
upon the eno ol the wars with Carthage ano the concomitant ois-
appearance ol a salutary meto /ottlt ,lear ol an enemy``,.VT Iur-
ther, there was even a lamous story involving a kiss ano a censor.
Cato the censor, paragon ol eoettto ano all the other olo Roman
virtues, was saio to have struck lrom the senatorial roster a certain
Manilius, on the grounos that the man hao ohenoeo public oe-
cency by kissing his own wile in public.VU Whether the story was
true or believeo to be so in Catullus` time is not the point. The
VR Shatzman ,:q,, Nicolet ,:q6,.
VS Many reaoers have seen in Foem a relerence to the image ol calculating on an abacus.
Levy ,:q:,.
VT Sallust Cot. q:o is the locus classicus.
VU Flut. Coto Motot :., oiscusseo in Segal ,:q68, q8 ano Williams ,:qqq, ::8, .66 n. :.
oecaoent Catullus ol Foem is going against a cultural grain quite
alien to our own.VV
Foem `s Catullus, as Iitzgeralo has pointeo out, is a tease.VW
This is one ol the poems that, as the speaker ol Foem :6 boasts,
can stir up an itch`` ,ooo ptottot trcttote poort, :6.q,. What is
being oangleo belore the reaoer, just out ol the reach ol knowl-
eoge, is the cero ol Catullus` kisses, kisses that have all the un-
reality ol unlulnlleo oesire, ano all its powerlul sway over the
imagination. Frecisely by the insolent absuroity ol its poetic logic,
the poem takes reaoers in, compelling us to assign the valuation
,oettmotto, ol burning interest to this incalculable cero that is both
an enviably vast magnituoe ano a countable but tantalizingly in-
accessible quantity. Il we reao the poem with hypermasculine ano
hostile Roman eyes, oisgusteo ano rouseo to punitive aggression
,like Sulla belore the young Caesar, or like the Catullus ol Foem
:, at the sight ol a man reouceo to inlantile orality, the state ol a
two-year-olo boy asleep in his lather`s oanoling arms`` ,:.:,,
then the poem nicks two apotropaic spurs in our laces: one at the
beginning, with the news that our outcries`` ,tomote, .., have
been appraiseo ano louno to possess the value ol a single penny
,orto . . . ot, ., lor the whole lot, ano another at the eno, with
the brusque oemystincation ol our moralizing as pure viciousness
,molo, .:., ano envy ,trotoete, .:., ol a young lover`s happiness
ano gooo luck in love.WH
On the other hano, il our eyes are lrienoly, il we reao the poem
sympathetically, giving in to the aesthetic oettmotto ol Catullus`
mao passion ol kisses ano sharing Catullus` glee at the scanoal ol
the eoettote, we are no less suspecteo ano leareo by the poem`s
speaker. Il we reao the poem as il we were ,that most oangerous
kino ol enemy, Catullus` lrieno, or as il we were Lesbia, or even il
we ioentily with Catullus himsell, our eyes must still be kept lar
VV Valerius Maximus ,early nrst century e, recoros another story ol a punisheo kiss, per-
haps oating lrom the late republic ,see Fauly-Wissowa s.n. Maenius :,, ano tolo in mor-
alizing language strangely reminiscent ol Catullus` mockery in Foem : Fublius Maenius
is saio to have punisheo ,how severely we are not tolo, a beloveo lreeoman when the lat-
ter hao given Maenius` oaughter an innocent kiss. Maenius kept a severe guaro over
mooesty`` ,eoetom pootctttoe cotooem ett , ano so counteo it worth much`` ,mort oettmoott ,
to teach his oaughter by so grim an example that she shoulo keep not only her virginity
untoucheo lor a husbano, but her kisses intact as well`` , Val. Max. 6.,.
VW Iitzgeralo ,:qq, .
WH On Sulla`s urge to kill the young Caesar lor his eheminately giroeo tunic, Dio ..:,
oiscusseo in Eowaros ,:qq, qo.
lrom the knowleoge ol the precise number ol kisses that the poem
teasingly incites us to try ano calculate. Two can keep a secret,
this poem seems to say, but only il neither ol them knows it. What
.e ,Catullus ano Lesbia, must not know ,re ctomo, .::, is pre-
cisely what none ol t/em must know ,re ctot, .:,: the exact nu-
merical quantity ol our kisses. Ior what is known is seen, what is
seen can be given a haro look, ano what is given a haro look sick-
ens ano withers unoer the aggressive power ol trototo: the evil eye,
synonymous ano conterminous with envy, just as tortom . . . /oto-
tom ,.:, is both the lact ol the kisses being enviably numerous
ano also their exact number, a sum whose knowleoge woulo give
an enemy magic power ,ano excellent material lor invective,.
On the other sioe ol Foem 6 comes a secono kiss poem. Foem
is thematically a recapitulation ol Foem ,a reprise,`` as Iitzger-
alo calls it, though with some important oiherences.WI While Foem
began by orawing an apotropaic circle arouno Catullus ano
Lesbia, separating us`` lrom them,`` Foem opens with Catullus
repeating or ventriloquizing a question lrom Lesbia: How many
kisses are`` not just enough, but enough ano more`` ,ott opetoe,
..,? Reaoers have, as always, taken the tone variously, but many
have seen in this opening question a nrst hint ol exasperation on
,the representeo, Lesbia`s part, ano ol suspicion on the part ol the
speaking Catullus: a suggestion that the apotropaic cartouche that
set Foem `s Lte/epoot oh lrom the rest ol humanity has alreaoy
begun to reconngure itsell as a line ol oemarcation between the
pair`s two members, a maoly oesirous Catullus ano an unreci-
procating Lesbia.WP On this reaoing, Foem can be seen to stano
in a linear narrative relation to the immeoiately lollowing Foem 8,
whose speaker claims to have experienceo some manner ol oenni-
tive rejection lrom the poello ano urges himsell to respono in kino.
The structure ol Foem seems to corroborate that reaoing. Il
Foem implicitly ioentineo the envious neno`` ,molo, .:., in its
last verse but one with the ere eoettote ,.., ol its secono verse, a
comparable symmetry in Foem seems to range Lesbia at verse
two, with her unwelcome question, among the oangerous cottot
,.::, ol the poem`s penultimate verse.WQ
Foem closeo by waroing oh trototo: envy ano the evil eye.
WI Iitzgeralo ,:qq, .
WP E.g. Rankin ,:q.,.
WQ On the ioentincation ol Foem `s ot molo with the ere eoettote, Ireoricksmeyer ,:qo,.
Foem , in a similar enoing, locates the leareo threat in the curse
or bewitchment , foctro, ol wickeo tongues ,.:.,. Foctro was the
Latin name given both to magic spells ano also to the phallic
charm worn arouno the neck to avert them.WR Signincantly, Catul-
lus may have regaroeo the Latin woro as a calque or equivalent ol
Greek coicvi c, a woro that, like trototo, carries the social mean-
ing ol envy`` alongsioe the magical one.WS What are these poems`
apotropaic gestures protecting? An expression ol passionate love,
certainly, ano one that a Roman reaoer coulo have chosen to nno
grotesquely eheminate, but there are other tenoer presences in
both poems as well. Catullus` poetics ol Roman manhooo in these
two poems, provocatively ano agonistically oelicate, seems to be
inlormeo by what we might call a Callimachean poetics ol art ano
an Epicurean poetics ol lile.WT
Foems ano have long stooo at or near the center ol Catullus`
reception, lor scholars, critics ano poets alike. The poem they
nank is somewhere at the opposite eno ol the spectrum ol valua-
tion, excluoeo not only lrom critical oiscussion ol the kiss poems
but lrom the memory ol many reaoers ,ano excluoeo, notoriously,
lrom at least one scholarly eoition ol the poems,.WU The interlaro-
ment ol Foem 6 between the kiss poems is arguably the single
most striking ano aesthetically jarring instance ol juxtaposition in
the entire collection that is, il we reao against Catullus` mooern
reception ano insist on taking these three poems together in their
receiveo oroer.WV I have alreaoy swerveo lrom that aim by oiscus-
sing the two kiss poems nrst, but a sequential nrst reaoing`` ol the
triplet woulo have been not only uneconomical but artincial: the
kiss poems are simply too well known lor the exercise to have its
ehect. Ano again, the translation ol Foem 6 here ohereo, like
many other versions, has obscureo the external lormal similarity
WR OLD s.v. foctrom.
WS Callimachus in the Aetto prologue ,:. Ir. :.: Fleiher, hao relerreo to the Telchines`` as
Bcoicvi n, o oo v ,t vo, ,envy`s oire spawn``,. Cairns ,:q, suggests that Foem may
alluoe specincally to this passage.
WT Foem `s speaker is, I think, at least a vernacular`` Epicurean, with a mortal soul. On
Catullus` possible Epicurean connections or leanings, see Giuhrioa ,:q8, pto ano Gran-
arolo ,:q6, .o. cortto.
WU Iitzgeralo ,:qq, observes that the themes ol hioing ano revealing link Foem 6 to
Foems ano . The eoition ol Ioroyce ,:q6:, omits Foem 6.
WV See most recently Thomson ,:qq, ..:: Intercalateo between two ol the most aroent
poems arising out ol C.`s own passion lor Lesbia, this occasional piece removes us tem-
porarily lrom all oeeper ano more personal leeling.``
ol all three poems. In Catullus` Latin, all three poems share the
Fhalaecian ,henoecasyllabic, metre ol the opening oeoication ano
the sparrow poems ,Foems : through ,, ano Foem 6 begins ano
enos with verses whose preciousness ol oiction seems to link it with
that paraoe ol elegant perlormances. Floot, oeltcto too Cotollo
,Ilavius, your oeltctoe to Catullus . . . ,`` 6.:, recalls the opening ol
the nrst sparrow poem poet, oeltctoe meoe poelloe ,sparrow, oelt-
ctoe ol my girl,`` ..:, not only by the presence ol oeltctoe ,oe ltce,
the joys`` ano toys`` ol sixteenth-century English poets,, but also
by setting lorth an intriguing threesome ol players, with a oirect
aooress to one ol them, in the poem`s nrst verse. At the eno ol
Foem 6 comes the promise to put Ilavius` loves to verse ,or, what
is more likely, the sell-allusive claim to have now oone so, by the
perlormance ol the present poem, oo coelom leptoo oocote oeto ,to
call |you ano your loves| to the sky in verse that is leptoo,`` 6.:,
ano the epithet woulo seem to assign to Catullus` perlormance the
same mark ol aesthetic approbation he claimeo lor his lt/ello at
the opening verse ol its oeoication: cot ooro leptoom rooom lt/ellom
,To whom oo I give this little book that is leptoo?`` :.:,. But
alongsioe this aesthetic meaning ,charming``,, leptoo, as the R/et-
ottco oo Heterrtom attests, hao in Catullus` time the plainer mean-
ing ol comical``: a joke, even a cruelly aggressive one, coulo be
leptoo simply by being lunny, by raising a laugh.WW
A lurther point ol similarity between Foem 6 ano the kiss poems
is the one I take as crucial. Like Foems ano , Foem 6 strongly
oemarcates between insioe ano outsioe, between a public ano pri-
vate space, the two being conngureo as a tenoer center lrameo by
a haro exterior. Il anything, the oemarcation is in Foem 6 orawn
with brighter lines ano markeo with a more perlect symmetry. At
the precise center ol this piece in seventeen verses comes a oe-
scription ol Ilavius` beochamber, opening ano closing ,il the nrst
woro ol a garbleo text at line :. is right, on verses beginning with
the same causal conjunction ,rom, lor,`` 6.6, 6.:.,. This oetaileo
excursus on Ilavius` love nest, poiseo at the poem`s oeao center, is
a caoenza ol Hellenistic elegances evoking specinc images louno
also in the epigrammatists ol the Falatine Anthology, but with an
important oiherence.IHH In those epigrams, the symptoms ol love
WW R/et. Het. ...
IHH Kroll ,:q68, ao loc. aoouces epigrams ol Meleager ,AP .:,, Callimachus ,AP :..:,
ano Runnus ,AP .8,. Morgan ,:q, o n. aoos Asclepiaoes ,AP :..:,.
were on the lover`s person: sleeplessness, oisheveleo hair still
bearing the imprint ol a garlano, panting breath, a laltering gait.
In Foem 6 Catullus has insteao translerreo those symptoms, or
evioences, ol love ano lovemaking to the beochamber itsell ano its
lurnishings.IHI Though the conceit is unquestionably elegant ano
the poem unmistakably learneo, this personincation, rather like
that ol the ooor in Foem 6, is both strange ano strangely insis-
tent. Still, we have so lar seen nothing in Foem 6 to compel us to
the conclusion that the Catullus who wrote the kisses ano the
sparrows the Catullus we love as the worlo loves a lover has
attacheo anything other than a positive valuation to Ilavius ano
his oalliance.
What critical oiscussion this poem has receiveo is locuseo in
large measure on precisely this question: is the Catullan speaker`s
oisposition towaro Ilavius ultimately a nice or a nasty one? Reao
the poem lrom the outsioe in, ano lrom both oirections the
speaker seems carelul to leave that question open as long as possi-
ble. At the poem`s extremities stano two symmetrical nve-line seg-
ments, locateo not in Ilavius` beochamber but in lull public view
ano earshot ,as is, ol course, the whole poem,. Alter a potentially
nattering nrst verse comes a nrst hint ol trouble in the secono:
Ilavius` companion must be charmless`` ano inelegant,`` ,6..,,
the speaker suggests, ano the prool that she is so lies in Ilavius`
silence, oescribeo in a line whose hyperbolic rhetorical outbiooing
is intensineo by the grammatical palinorome ,mooal, innnitive,
conjunction, innnitive, mooal, ol its structure: oelle otcete rec tocete
poe ,6..,. Dio I say you woulo .ort to tell me? Immo oeto ,rec
ooes the outy ol a Ciceronian nay rather`,, silence woulo be tm-
pot/le.`` On the lace ol things, the aggression seems milo enough
at this point, vaguely comparable to the speaker`s blunt sizing up
ol a lrieno`s little whore`` ,cotttllom, :o., in another poem, ano in
any case the envisageo object ol any possible abuse woulo so lar
appear to be not Ilavius but his unknown ano completely invisible
beloveo. Similarly, at the eno ol the poem, just belore the ostensi-
bly nattering announcement ol an intent to make Ilavius ano his
loves into lovely poetry, there is a nnal attempt to conjure Ilavius
out ol his silence: otc ro/t ,tell me,`` 6.:6,. What Ilavius is inviteo
to tell is whatever you have, gooo or bao,`` oote, otooto /o/e
IHI Morgan ,:q, o.
/ort moltoe ,6.:,. The phrase, while not exactly nattering, is even
more innocuous than the secono verse`s uncharitable surmise.
Horace, as commentators have noteo, uses part ol the same
phrase in a remarkably similar context.IHP What the Horatian
speaker says to /t young lrieno, however, is instructively oiherent
lrom Foem 6:
quae te cumque oomat Venus,
non erubescenois aourit
ignibus ingenuoque semper
amore peccas. quioquio habes, age,
oepone tutis auribus ,Hor. Cotm. :...::8,
Whatever Venus is taming you,
she never burns you with nres that give you
cause to blush, the love by which you sin
is always high-born. Whatever you have, come,
entrust it to sale ears.
Horace may well have hao Catullus` poem here in mino. Inoeeo,
the best argument lor oirect relerence, apart lrom the shareo
phrase, is the lact that Horace`s speaker seems at pains specincally
to unwrite Foem 6.IHQ Unoer his garlanoeo grey hair, with a /ter-
e orce that is autumnal, Augustan ano Anacreontic, he reassures
his young lrieno that ,:, he has no cause to blush, since ,., his love
ol the moment is, as ever, a person ol gooo birth, ano in any case
,, the Horatian speaker`s ears can be trusteo with a secret. It was
precisely those three points that Catullus` speaker in Foem 6 hao
sharpeneo into prongs at the eno ol a verbal pitchlork lor skewer-
ing Ilavius. Ilavius, accoroing to Foem 6, is silent because ,:, he is
ashameo to conless the truth ,/oc pooet fotett, 6.,, ano ,., the truth
is that Ilavius` new love is not only charmless ano inelegant ,tll-
eptooe otoe treleorte, 6.., but worse: the object ol Ilavius` tenoer
ahection must be some lever-stricken whore ,recto oto fe/ttcolot
cotttotltt, 6.,. Iurther, Catullus` stateo reason lor proooing
IHP Horace`s ooe instantiates the same commonplace situation as the Hellenistic epigrams
citeo above ,n. :o:,: a young man is obviously in love, but the ioentity ol his beloveo re-
mains mysterious. On the topos, see Leo ,:q:., :, Jacoby ,:q:, q8o ano Wheeler
,:q, ...
IHQ An instance ol what Newman ,:qqo,, viewing Latin literature through the strong lens
ol Russian lormalism, calls the Augustan oelormation`` ol Roman recapitulation ol
genres.``
ano poking Ilavius is that ,, he intenos to write ,ano, in the event,
has alreaoy written, a clever poem publicly senoing Ilavius ano his
love up to the sky ,6.:,.
Evaluating just how aggressive Foem 6 is hangs ,ano critics have
seen this, on the precise interpretation ol the phrase recto oto
fe/ttcolot cottt.IHR Il the lever`` lrom which the cottom suhers can
be taken as a metaphor lor sexual heat, as in the popular speech
ol the mioole twentieth century, then it is just possible to construe
the poem`s abuse as roughly congratulating`` ano an instance ol
male bonoing``: an utterance, in other woros, that one English-
speaking, city-owelling, twentieth-century straight boy coulo have
oirecteo at another in a comparable circumstance.IHS There is in
lact only one prior Latin attestation ol the aojective fe/ttcoloo,
ano it occurs in a comic , but rounoly oamning, inventory ol the
attributes ol the lowest class ol prostitutes.IHT The lever`` that
Ilavius` cottom has to oher him is oecioeoly not that ol constant
sexual excitation. The woro almost certainly oescribes someone
suhering lrom malaria.IHU Though the speaker has never seen
Ilavius` new love ano ooes not know his or her name, he claims to
oeouce the lover`s vile oegraoation to Ilavius` shame lrom a
series ol clues: ,:, Ilavius` silence, ,., his beochamber which,
though silent, screams out ,clomot, 6., oamning evioence, ano ,,
Ilavius` luckeo-out thighs,`` emaciateo in the way that only
shamelul sex can emaciate. Compare another poem where Catul-
lus constructs a similar evioentiary argument lrom silence, but this
time to sting his victim with a lar more shamelul charge:
Quio oicam, Gelli, quare rosea ista labella
hiberna nant canoioiora niue,
mane oomo cum exis et cum te octaua quiete
e molli longo suscitat hora oie?
nescio quio certe est: an uere lama susurrat
granoia te meoii tenta uorare uiri?
sic certe est: clamant Victoris rupta miselli
ilia, et emulso labra notata sero. ,Foem 8o,
IHR Ano they have generally oownplayeo the phrase`s aggressivity: esp. Irieorich ,:qo8, ao
loc., Quinn ,:q., ..6. But see Morgan ,:q, q.
IHS Johnson ,:q8., :o8:o, to whose reaoing ol Foem 6 I owe much.
IHT Morgan ,:q, o, Thomson ,:qq, ao loc.
IHU So Kroll ,:q68, ano Lenchantin ,:q, ao loc.
To what shoulo I attribute the lact, Gellius, that those
rosy-pink
lips ol yours come out whiter than winter snow
when you emerge lrom your house ol a morning
ano when the eighth hour, on a long summer oay, rouses you
lrom a sweet little siesta?
It`s got to be omet/tr. Can it be that it`s true what rumor
whispers:
that you`re munching the big haro-on between a man`s legs?
That`s what it`s got to be. Ano what screams it out is Victor`s
busteo nuts,
poor soo, ano your lips, markeo with the mark ol the semen
you milk.
Foem 8o positions Gellius on the other sioe ol a sexual grioline
lrom Foem 6`s Ilavius, both lor a mooern reaoer, since the sexual
partners are unambiguously ol the same biological sex, ano also
lor an ancient Roman one, since Gellius is here maoe a ctroeoo:
penetrateo rather than penetrating, ano that in the more shamelul
ano oegraoing ol the two possible orinces.IHV The poem`s tech-
nique ol shaming by inouction is nonetheless remarkably similar
to that ol Foem 6. ècto oto ,8o., 6., again serves as the place-
marker ol unseen but suspecteo sexual misconouct. Silent evi-
oence is again maoe to shout`` ,clomort, 8o., clomot 6., through
the operation ol the speaker`s hostile eyes ano tongue. What-
ever the precise anatomical location ano nature ol the symptom
oescribeo as Victor`s topto . . . tlto ,8o.8,, it appears to represent,
like Ilavius` loteto ecfototo ,6.:,, something that the poem`s speaker
,ano imagineo auoience, can ee ano take as evioence ol excessive
sexual activity. The ooo-sounoing name ol Gellius` beolellow is
unknown to us. Might Victor have been a glaoiator? Il so, then
not only woulo the poem`s speaker be pointing to a man whose
booy everyone woulo have an opportunity to scrutinize, he woulo
also make Gellius share with Ilavius the shame ol having taken a
lover lrom the very lowest eno ol the social spectrum.
Foem 6 may be oistinguisheo instructively lrom Foem 8o on two
lurther relateo points. Iirst, in Foem 6, the Catullan speaker has
gaineo access to Ilavius` house, ano so can use the state ol his
IHV Williams ,:qqq, :88 argues that the term ctroeoo relerreo not only to men who were
anally penetrateo but more generally to male genoer oeviants.``
beochamber, along with his loteto ecfototo, as irrelutably oamning
evioence. In Foem 8o, conversely, the interior ol Gellius` house
remains sealeo oh lrom the public eye, ano what takes the place
ol Ilavius` beochamber, as corroboration ol publicly visible phys-
ical symptoms, is the presence ol fomo ,8o.,: personineo gossip. In
Foem 8o, then, the speaker ooes not aoouce any evioence that is
not alreaoy public knowleoge, he simply applies his eye ano
tongue to silent ,but lully visible, evioence in a way that converts
the whisper ol gossip to the shout ol public shaming. Secono,
Ilavius, unlike Gellius, ano unlike most victims ol Catullan invec-
tive, is being proooeo into speech, at least ostensibly though it is
aomitteoly haro to imagine what Ilavius coulo have ohereo by
way ol reply, except ol course by composing an invective poem ol
his own against Catullus. But Gellius, so lar lrom being inviteo to
speak, is silenceo by Foem 8o. Or rather, he is teoo as alreaoy
having been silenceo by submitting orally to Victor ,irrumation
silences, ano Foem has alreaoy accuseo Gellius ol silencing
his own uncle in precisely this manner,. Gellius is silenceo, but
the community, through gossip , fomo,, has alreaoy spoken, alreaoy
ruleo on his case, ano alreaoy constituteo the mark ol whiteness
on his lormerly rosy ,ano so alreaoy eheminate: the materiality ol
the ctroeoo, lips as a oisenlranchising roto ,mark``, ol trfomto upon
his oettmotto.IHW
The charge against Ilavius is, again, lar less shaming than that
against Gellius. Ano in the case ol Gellius, Catullus proceeos in
the manner ol an openly avoweo enemy ,it is on that open avowal,
Foem ::6, that the collection closes,, having access to no material
lor verbal aggression other than what public eyes ano ears can
know. Against Ilavius, conversely, Catullus has been able to ma-
neuver lrom a lar more oangerous ano insioious position: that ol
lrienoship. The mioole section ol Foem 6 proclaims to the worlo
that Catullus has entereo Ilavius` house, presumably by invitation,
ano has even been aomitteo to ,or was able to sneak a glimpse ol ,
the master beochamber, an area ol the Roman house not oroi-
narily open to guests.IIH Frecisely as Gilmore`s wiooweo neighbor
leareo, Catullus has gaineo access to Ilavius` house unoer guise ol
IHW Richlin ,:qq,.
IIH On public ano private spaces within the Roman house, Wallace-Haorill ,:qq, :o::,
: ano passim. On public`` ano private`` in late republican Rome, Treggiari ,:qq8,.
lrienoly or neighborly sentiment only to scour every inch ol its
interior with a haro look, like a lerret,`` ano he has oeparteo with
a pair ol eyes glutteo on oamning sights, bloateo with them like a
leech lull ol blooo, ano eager to pour hiooen knowleoge out into
the public sky`` upon the charming verse`` ,6.:, ol a wickeo
tongue. Foem 6 is all the more ehective as an act ol aggression lor
beginning ano enoing on a tone that can be construeo as a lrieno`s
sincere gooo wishes.III Inoeeo, il Ilavius is a member ol Catullus`
circle ol lrienos, part ol the Catullan ootorce ol the poem ,its
choicest part, may be reao to resioe in the oelicious knowleoge
that Ilavius must now submit to the poem`s abuse unoer the social
obligation to take a joke.``
Foem 6 is inhabiteo, then, by the same themes ano concerns as
Foems ano : two versions ol a lover`s secret carelully concealeo
lrom the malice ol eyes ano tongues nank a lover`s secret gleelully
betrayeo through the omnipresent ano powerlul aggression ol eyes
ano tongues. What Foem 6`s Catullus personates ano carries out is
precisely what the Catullus ol Foems ano simultaneously waros
oh ano invites: a stern, severely moralizing public exposure lueleo
by personal envy, prurient curiosity ano pure malice. The twin
guilty secrets nowhere revealeo, but helo up, oangleo, just be-
yono the reach ol our eyes ano ears in nurries ol languio Helle-
nistic elegances are in both instances a single ano specinc piece
ol knowleoge, a number ano a name: in Foems ano , the
shamelul multituoe ol kisses that Catullus oesires lrom Lesbia, in
Foem 6, the shamelul ioentity ol Ilavius` new love. Both secrets
are subject to oiscovery, or at least to the suspicion that leaos to
oiscovery, through the twin routes ol sight ano speech. The ag-
gression ol a malevolent gaze ,trototo, ano maliciously lrameo
poetic speech , foctrotto, that Catullus waros oh in Foems ano
all the while oelying it, tempting its envy ano teasing its curiosity
with virtuoso bravura is exactly the aggression he perlorms in
Foem 6. Foem 6`s perlormance is oistinguisheo lrom the ones
lraming it by a Herzleloian stylistic translormation`` ol a stun-
ning sort, a sell-allusive bio lor what the chess masters call bril-
liancy points``: without having gaineo access to the kino ol
III Inoo-European blame poets, it seems, likeo to couch invective in language that coulo be
construeo on nrst hearing as praise, ano whose invective sting, once lelt, was thus all the
sharper. Waro ,:q, :6.
oamning certainty about Ilavius` love that the Catullus ol the kiss
poems is carelul to protect in his own case, the Catullus ol Foem 6
has pillorieo Ilavius, naileo him to the wall poetically, ano has
oone so as successlully ano conclusively as il his eyes, his ears ano
his aggression hao penetrateo lar oeeper than into Ilavius` empty
ano silent beoroom.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo :6o
cn\r + r n
Cooe mooel of Cotollor mor/ooo
We nll pre-existing lorms ano when we nll them we change
them ano are changeo by them.
Irank Bioart, Borges ano I``
+ nr + r x+ t\r i + v or c\+ tr r \x x\xnoon
Il Foems through respono to a reaoing that takes them as a
triplet, with the Catullan speaking subject moving lrom the stance
ol a learlully oenant lover ,in Foem , to that ol an aggressive
moralizer ,in Foem 6, ano back again ,in Foem ,, what poetic
meaning, ano inoeeo what social ano ethical meaning, are we to
attach to this nashing oscillation? Despite the last chapter`s argu-
ment against reaoing a Catullus critically oetacheo lrom his own
poetically perlormeo aggression, surely there is some kino ol role
playing , ptoopopoeto, in this three-act mime, ano hence surely it is
possible, here ano elsewhere in Catullus` poetry, to oraw some
kino ol oistinction between role ano actor, between mask ano
man. Some kino ol oistinction there is, but I think it neeo not
take the lorm ol the neat oemarcation, oeriveo lrom mooernist
persona criticism,`` between Catullus the poet ano Catullus`` the
persona, a binary oivision that a generation ol Catullan criticism
taught its stuoents to make ano maintain carelully, on pain ol lall-
ing back into what it saw as the hopeless nai vete ol Romantic
biographical criticism.``' It is a question, again, ol who is speak-
ing, ano ol the nature ol the speaker`s engagement with the woros
being spoken, especially where those woros are ethically unpalat-
able to the reaoer by the aggression they perlorm. Here again a
postmooern critical stance may oher a richer ano oeeper reaoing
:6:
' Sarkissian`s ,:q8, interpretation ol Foem 68 is perhaps the most thoroughgoing applica-
tion ol this critical binarism, showing its possibilities as well as its limitations.
ol ancient Catullus than was provioeo by mooernism`s saving ol
the appearances through positing a literary persona.```
Fersona`` is an authentically ancient critical term, ano a subject
on which one coulo likely have hao an interesting oiscussion with
the poet lrom Verona. Catullus ano his more learneo ancient
reaoers surely knew the Hellenistic Greek technical term ptoopo-
poeto, which appears in Fhilooemus` treatise on poetics. Cicero
amply attests a contemporary sell-consciousness about the act ol
speaking rhetorically unoer an assumeo or introouceo`` persona.
His oressing oown ol Clooia unoer the trttooocto petoro ol Appius
Clauoius Caecus, in the speech lor Caelius, is only the most mem-
orable ol numerous examples. Outsioe the speeches, two late
philosophical oialogues, on olo age ano lrienoship, begin with
prologues in which Cicero tells his oeoicatee Atticus ,ano the
reaoer, explicitly that in what lollows he will oiscourse unoer the
assumeo persona ol Cato or Laelius.` Ferhaps even more intrigu-
ing is Cicero`s explanation, in De Ototote, ol how he prepares lor
an upcoming court case, alter the interview with his client, by pri-
vately acting out the entire trial, assuming in turn the three roles,
or personae, ol the plaintih`s counsel, the oelenoant`s counsel
,here Cicero impersonates Cicero,, ano the praetor hearing the
case.
These instances ol Ciceronian rhetorical ptoopopoeto, however,
oiher crucially lrom the operation ol a mooernist literary per-
sona`` on two relateo counts. Iirst, the woros uttereo through
Cicero`s personae, in the philosophical oialogues no less than in
the speeches, cannot be saio to belong, by virtue ol their status
as literary artilacts, to that worlo apart`` that was the province
ol poetry ano ol literature in general unoer the mooernist critical
mooels oiscusseo in previous chapters. Secono, the Ciceronian
speaker cannot be saio to stano in a relation ol aesthetic ois-
tance`` or critical oetachment towaro his speech perlormances
` On the literary persona,`` Elliott ,:q8.,.
Fhilooemus Po. .:., the nrst extant Latin attestation comes much later, ano just where
we might have expecteo it, in Quintilian`s treatise on the training ol an orator ,Irt. :.8.
ano passim,.
Coel.
` Ser. :.., without mention ol the term petoro, Am. :., with oiscussion ol both oialogues
ano their petoroe.
oe Otot. ..:o.. Trenoelenburg ,:q:o,, Elliott ,:q8., . ano Gill ,:q88, oiscuss various
aspects ol petoro in Cicero ano elsewhere in Latin writings.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo :6.
unoer assumeo personae. His utterances are in every case purpo-
sive, urgently so. Cicero ooes not impersonate both sioes ol a case,
lor example, in oroer to show up, through social critique,`` the
moral bankruptcy`` ol the society or the legal system ol his oay,
but rather to prepare himsell to win his case. Nor, obviously
enough, ooes this lack ol oetachment make his relation to his
perlormance one ol ,Romantic, sincerity,`` ol inspireo emotion
getting the better ol intellect ano sell-interest. It is true that an
oratorical speaker`s woros may stano in oirect opposition to that
speaker`s interests, as when Cicero impersonateo his legal oppo-
nent ,or when Catullus seems to betray his own guiltiest secrets to
the reaoer,. They may be, alternately, a matter ol relative inoil-
lerence to those interests, as when a Roman youth practiceo the
ruoiments ol argumentation through corttooettoe on historical sub-
jects.` In all these instances, however, the petfotmorce ol the speak-
er`s woros, quite inoepenoently ol what the woros say, constitutes
a bio lor social ano hence political mastery on the part ol the
speaker, ano it is precisely through perlormance that that mastery
is attaineo. I have argueo in previous chapters lor the prevalence
ol a similar bio lor social mastery in Catullus` poetic perlormances
ol his manhooo.
In the hanos ol the literary critics who lormulateo it, most no-
tably R. F. Blackmur, the mooernist concept ol the literary per-
sona ohereo a prolouno ano sophisticateo tool lor thinking about
the process ol literary creation.' But in its subsequent application
to inoivioual texts both ancient ano mooern , Juvenal ano Catullus
were chiel targets within Latin literature,, it olten tenoeo to serve
a oiherent purpose, as a way ol rehabilitating, ol naturalizing
canonical authors ,ano especially the questionably canonical ones,
like Juvenal ano Catullus, by reassuring the mooern reaoer that
whatever oreaolul things great writers might have oto in their
Great Books, what they really meort ano this coulo be seen once
the necessary aojustments lor oetacheo irony were maoe never
laileo to embooy the cultural ano ethical values ol the mooernist
new humanism. While lor Blackmur the persona hao been both
I`` ano not I`` a lormulation reminiscent ol Rimbauo`s )e et or
` See examples at Irc. :.:.
' Blackmur, in T/e Lorooe of Stlerce: a petoro is the invokeo being ol the muse: a siren
auoible through a liletime`s wax in the ears, a translation ol what we oio not know that
we knew ourselves: what we partly are.`` Citeo by Elliott ,:q8., :.
Cooe mooel of Cotollor mor/ooo :6
ootte this simplineo ano oioactic version ol persona criticism
orew the brightest ol lines between poet`` ano persona.`` Gilbert
Highet`s conoemnation ol persona criticism as a oistorting nction
achieveo through the introouction ol a ventriloquist`s oummy``
contains, I think, a consioerable grain ol truth. The nctional con-
struct positeo by this working version ol persona criticism is to
be louno, however, not in the persona but rather in the poet``: a
stable, serenely omniscient I`` whose ethical viewpoint ano pre-
suppositions, in the last analysis, are those ol ,who else`s coulo
they be?, the critic reaoing the poem.'
Not only twentieth-century critics, but a consioerable number
ol twentieth-century writers, lurthereo this seouctive ano even
oooly comlorting`` binary opposition ol I`` ano author,`` with its
implicit presupposition ol an I`` that remains always protecteo,
essential ano ioentical to itsell in lile`` ,i.e., non-literary utter-
ance,, but is always oerangeo, lalsineo, exaggerateo ,i.e., aestheti-
cizeo,, solely ano uniquely in the act ol making literature.``'' In a
prose poem nameo alter ,ano in some measure parooying, Borges`
short story Borges ano I,`` Irank Bioart has raiseo a strong voice
in critique ol that remarkable certituoe:'`
The oesolating lanoscape in Borges` Borges ano I`` in which the voice
ol I`` tells us that its other sell, Borges, is the sell who makes literature,
who in the process ol making literature lalsines ano exaggerates, while
the sell that is speaking to us now must go on living so that Borges may
continue to lashion literature is seouctive ano even oooly comlorting,
but, I think, lalse.
The voice ol this I`` asserts a oisparity between its essential sell ano its
worloly secono sell, the sell who seeks embooiment through making
things, through work, who in making takes on something lalse, inessen-
tial, inauthentic.
. . . When Borges` I`` conlesses that Borges lalsines ano exaggerates it
seems to oo so to cast asioe lalsity ano exaggeration, to attain an entire
canoor unobtainable by Borges.
Highet ,:q,, invoking Cherniss ,:q6., ano polemicizing against Anoerson ,:q6,.
' I am gratelul to Faul Allen Miller lor showing me a manuscript in progress in which he
expresses similar reservations, ano comes to similar conclusions, about the application ol
persona criticism to Roman love elegy.
'' See Halpern ,:qq, lor essays on the authorial I`` by oistinguisheo twentieth-century
authors, incluoing Borges ano Bioart.
'` Bioart ,:qq, 8q places this poem, interestingly, just alter a version ol Catullus` Foem
8, unoer the title Catullus: Excrucior.``
The I`` therelore allows us to enter an inaccessible magic space, a hith-
erto inarticulate space ol intimacy ano honesty earlier oenieo us, where
voice, lor the nrst time, has replaceo silence.
Sweet nction, in which bravaoo ano oespair beckon lrom a colo pa-
nache, in which the protecteo essential sell suhers nashes ol its existence
to be immortalizeo by a writing sell that is incapable ol perlorming its
actions without mixing our essence with what is lalse.
Bioart has put his nnger squarely on what is at stake in this twin
selves`` theory ol literary creation, the notion that whoever writes
has a sell that has remaineo the same ano that knows what it
woulo be il its writing sell oio not exist,`` ano no less squarely on
its nostalgic appeal ano the brave oespair ol its ahect. The oroers
createo by his own poetry books, Bioart suggests, are not parallel
universes proouceo by a phantom author-sell but mirrors ol his
own universe, albeit crackeo ano oirty`` ones. Everything in art
is a lormal question,`` Bioart says, ano what he seems to put lor-
waro in place ol a Irank ano I`` binarism is the statement that
gives this chapter its epigraph: We nll pre-existing lorms ano
when we nll them we change them ano are changeo.``'
Bioart`s lormulation, ano his oescription ol his poetry as lorm-
ing an oroer,`` are more than a little reminiscent ol T. S. Eliot`s
essay on Traoition ano the Inoivioual Talent`` ,ano the present
stuoy has taken enough shots at Mooernism, its author is long
overoue to quote one ol its giants with oue respect,:
|W|hat happens when a new work ol art is createo is something that
happens simultaneously to all the work ol art which preceoeo it. The
existing monuments lorm an ioeal oroer among themselves, which is
mooineo by the introouction ol the new ,the really new, work ol art
among them. The existing oroer is complete belore the new work
arrives, lor oroer to persist alter the supervention ol novelty, the ./ole
existing oroer must be, il ever so slightly, altereo, ano so the relations,
proportions, values ol each work ol art towaro the whole are reaojusteo,
ano this is conlormity between the olo ano the new. Whoever has
approveo this ioea ol oroer . . . will not nno it preposterous that the past
shoulo be altereo by the present as much as the present is oirecteo by the
past.'
' This apothegm appears three times in Bioart ,:qq,: at the beginning ,q, ano near the
eno ,::, ol Borges ano I,`` ano near the eno ,6, ol a long poem inspireo by Ovio`s
Myrrha episooe in the Metomotp/oe.
' Eliot ,:qo, . See Martinoale ,:qq, .q on Eliotic ano Gaoamerian mooels ol traoi-
tion.
Bioart`s woros resonate with Eliot`s as oo Eliot`s with Bioart`s,
so that Eliot`s text is altereo lor the reaoer who comes or returns to
it by this route ano both texts resonate with the late twentieth-
century , postmooern, but the periooizing terms have grown oim-
cult to sustain, critical stance that views all lorms ol signincation,
without oistinction between literary ano non-literary, as taking
place within an intertextual universe ol oiscourse.'` Eliot`s mooel
ol traoition,`` like Bioart`s pre-existing lorms,`` seems startlingly
close to inoeeo seems to explicate, in language less openly tech-
nical the notion ol an intertext that inlorms a new text, gives
that text its signilying lorce, renoers it oecipherable, ano is itsell
in turn maoe new by the inscription ol that new text upon itsell.
The text that Catullus inscribeo upon his intertext-traoition,
ano that we reao inscribeo upon ours, is both a series ol poems
ano a perlormance through those poems ol sell ano manhooo, a
perlormance whose poetics I have attempteo here to trace. The
Catullan sell that we construe by reaoing the poems, the Catullan
persona ,in Cicero`s sense ol the term,, has its own textuality,
is itsell a text. My reaoing ol that text has pointeo to specinc
moments ol intertextuality at the level ol character,`` as when the
speaker ol Foem momentarily nlls the boots, ano the pre-exist-
ing lorm, ol the stock comic Braggart Soloier.' Other reaoers
have highlighteo the presence ol other character intertexts,`` such
as the comic lover in Foem 8.'` These intertextual gestures appear
to be orawn not so much towaro a specinc textual mooel ,Foem
, lor example, ooes not seem to ollooe to Flautus` Mtle Glottoo,
as towaro what might be calleo recognizable speech genres. But
alongsioe the momentary appearances in Catullus ol stock char-
acters ano inoivioual literary`` characters like Ooysseus ,in Foem
:o:,, there are moments in the Catullan persona-text where it is
possible to oiscern character intertexts whose leatures, ano whose
names, are those ol poetic personae belonging to specinc poets in
Catullus` traoition. These presences are ol course in ome measure
textually imbeooeo in the woros ol Catullus` poems ano thus
'` One ol the early enunciations ol this Kristevan mooel whose currency remains wioe is
Barthes ,:q,.
' On the notion ol character intertext`` as a potentially lruitlul approach awaiting explo-
ration, see the suggestive remarks ol Lairo ,:qq,. On Foem , see 8o above.
'` See ch. , n. o ano text.
oescribable, at least in places, by a philological rhetoric ol allu-
sivity,`` but they cannot be so entirely, ano neeo not be.'' In the
attempt to oiscern those presences we inevitably unoerreao at
moments, because ol the lragmentation ol our evioence, ano
overreao at others, through the nostalgia ano enthusiasm that im-
pel towaro restoration ol the lragmentary. To hope that the two
tenoencies will ohset each other woulo be optimistic, to view them
as oangers to be avoioeo ,ano avoioable,, ano to try ano steer a
conservative mioole course between them, woulo preconoition the
results as insumciently interesting to merit the ehort ol attempt.
This nnal chapter will examine the presence, in the text ol
Catullus` perlormeo manhooo, ol two specinc poets lrom very oil-
lerent historical moments in Catullus` poetic traoition. Both have
been oiscusseo, at various points in the history ol Catullus` schol-
arly reception, as Catullan literary mooels. While I shall inevitably
be renewing some ol those oiscussions in their turn, my chiel in-
terest will be in their presences as persona-intertexts in Catullus`
persona-text, or I as preler to call them, borrowing a term ol
Conte`s, cooe mooels`` ol Catullan manhooo.' These cooe moo-
els lorm part ol the speech ano gestural lexicon ol Catullan sell-
lashioning, as markers lor inoivioually recognizable mooes ol
Catullus` poetic perlormance ol manhooo: an Archilochian mooe,
characterizeo by aggressively hypermasculine invective ol the kino
oiscusseo in the previous chapter, ano a Callimachean mooe,
stanoing or appearing to at the antipooes ol the Archilochian,
lragrant with the sophistication ol eruoition ano with the man-
hooo ol a leminine`` oelicacy, but ultimately no less agonistically
perlormative ol its own excellence.
\ncn\i c n r \xr \xn + nr s n\xr or n r i xo \ncni r ocnts
No other ancient Greek poet, not even Sappho, presents a starker
contrast than Archilochus between the luster ol the ancient reputa-
tion ano the present oecomposition into lragments ol the receiveo
corpus. The seventh-century poet lrom Faros was throughout an-
tiquity regularly assigneo a place at the top ol the poetic roster ol
the Greek language, alongsioe Homer himsell ,sometimes with the
'' On rhetoric ol allusivity``: Hinos ,:qq8, :o ano passim. ' Conte ,:q86, :.
aooition ol Hesioo,.` The invention ol tom/o seems to have been
creoiteo to Archilochus ,though it was by no means the only ge-
neric lorm in which he composeo,, giving him the status as loun-
oer ol a genre to answer Homer`s paternity ol epo.`' A later
epigram composeo in Greek by that most conspicuous Hellen-
ophile among the Romans, the emperor Haorian, lrameo the con-
ceit that Archilochus` genius hao been oenecteo lrom epic into
raging iambs`` ,uooo v:c, i c uou,, by the Muse in answer to a
prayer ol Homer, who presumably hao oivineo that il his epigone
were to lollow in his lootsteps, the primacy ol the Iltoo ano Oo,e,
was at risk.``
That eoucateo Romans ol Catullus` generation took Archi-
lochus` preeminence lor granteo is suggesteo by a passing remark
ol Cicero near the opening ol the Tocolor Dtpotottor, in one ol
those moments ol Roman anxiety vis-a` -vis the superior prestige ol
Greek literature so common in Cicero ano other Latin writers
,ano so conspicuously absent lrom Catullus,. The three pinnacles
ol archaic Greek poetry are here taken as given, beyono oispute:
Greece useo to outstrip us in learning ano in every genre ol literature. It
was easy to outoo us in this area: we were not competing. Ior while
among the Greeks, the class ol the poets was composeo ol learneo per-
sons lrom the earliest antiquity ,Homer ano Hesioo liveo belore Rome
was lounoeo, ano Archilochus while Romulus was king,, we have been
comparatively late in taking up the poetic art. ,Toc. Dtp. :.,
Archilochus` ancient critical reception seems to have proouceo a
booy ol work commensurate in volume with the centrality ol his
position in the canon. Three librarians lrom the Museum at
Alexanoria, lor example, appear to have written on Archilochus.
Catullus will have known something , probably a great oeal, ol this
critical literature, as oio Cicero, who recoros in passing a witticism
ol Aristophanes ol Byzantium, one ol Archilochus` Alexanorian
exegetes, to the ehect that the best ol that poet`s tom/ot were those
that went on the longest.`
` Taroiti ,:q68, . catalogues the ancient testimonia naming Homer ano Archilochus
together.
`' A claim attesteo no earlier than Clement ol Alexanoria Sttom. :..:.::, but surely renect-
ing earlier traoition.
`` AP .6.
` The three librarians who appear to have written on Archilochus are Apollonius ol
Rhooes ,Ath. :o.:o,, Aristophanes ol Byzantium ,Cic. Att. :6.::.., also Ath. .8e, ano
Aristarchus ,Et. Goo. o.8,.
Aristophanes` remark has a oelensive ring, ano apologia pre-
supposes attack or at least critique. Critical censure ol Archilochus
or rather, what coulo have appeareo as such to Hellenistic reao-
ers is attesteo as early as Finoar, locuseo on just that ethical
character ol his iambic poetry hinteo at in Haorian`s epigram: the
unbrioleo, albeit stunningly artlul, invective expression ol vio-
lently aggressive rage.` In one ol Finoar`s ooes to Hieron, tyrant
ol Syracuse, the epinician speaker seems to assert that being
Archilochus,`` or being an Archilochian blame poet, is bao busi-
ness, in every sense as inoeeo it is, lor a praise poet.`` Ano later,
in Hellenistic Egypt, while the heao librarians at Alexanoria were
pleaoing Archilochus` case, their colleague Callimachus seems to
have taken the other sioe ol the oebate, insisting on the ethical
vileness ol Archilochian iambic invective, calling its poet-speaker
wine-orunk`` in one lragment ano likening his poisonous mouth
to that ol a oog or wasp in another.` Il the epithet wine-orunk``
relers, as seems likely, not only to literal intoxication but also to
the hypermasculine, aggressive railing associateo with a orunken
bout, then Callimachus` remark can be situateo within the traoi-
tion ol a poetic conceit that was to become common coin among
Hellenistic epigrammatists belore Catullus, imperial ones alter
him, ano Augustan poets in Latin as well: the oivision ol male
poets into wine-guzzling he-men ,like Homer ano Archilochus,
ano water-sipping nellies ,like the renneo Callimachus himsell ,.``
Catullus oraws this same line between wine ano water in a short
poem near the miopoint ol the polymetrics as we have them:
` Heraclitus hao alreaoy conoemneo Archilochus, but as a poet toot coott rather than as a
blame poet: his blanket rejection covereo Homer as well ,D. L. q.:, Heraclit. lr. .
Guthrie,. Ior a sketch ol Archilochus` critical reception, both ancient ano mooern, see
Bossi ,:qqo, :. See also Rankin ,:q, :q on the ancient reception. We probably oo
not possess any characteristic samples ol Archilochus at his most nercely aggressive ,even
with the aooition ol the Cologne epooe, which won him Merkelbach`s |:q| :: char-
acterization as ein schwerer Fsychopath``,, ano il he was as loul-moutheo at his worst as
the ancient critics seem to suggest, the gap in our traoition is probably not accioental.
`` Finoar, P,t/tor ...6: I must nee the constant bite ol wickeo speech, lor, though being
oistant lrom it mysell, I have seen Archilochus the blamer ,o,tpo v, olten reouceo to a
state ol loss ,:c to` t v c unycvi c , through lattening himsell on heavy-woroeo enmities
,cpuo ,oi, t ytoiv ticivo utvov,.`` Finoar`s characterization most likely renects an
antithesis between praise ano blame belonging to the traoition ol the genres rather than
a personally helo authorial opinion. See Nagy ,:q6, :q6.
` Call. lrs. , 8o Fleiher.
`` Wimmel ,:q6o, .., Degani ,:q, ::oh., Crowther ,:qq,, Knox ,:q8,, Bossi ,:qqo,
, Cameron ,:qq, 6.
Cooe mooel of Cotollor mor/ooo :6q
Minister uetuli puer Ialerni
inger mi calices amariores
ut lex Fostumiae iubet magistrae
ebrioso acino ebriosioris.
at uos quo lubet hinc abite, lymphae,
uini pernicies, et ao seueros
migrate. hic merus est Thyonianus. ,Foem .,
Cup-bearer boy ol nnely ageo Ialernian,
bring me in some bitterer cups to orink.
Fostumia`s in charge now, ano here`s her law:
orunker than the orunken grape itsell.``
Ano as lor you, water: Away! Make tracks,
you spoiler ol wine, go visit the strait-laceo.
The goo ol wine is here, ano here we take him straight.
Il Catullus hao written it in Greek couplets insteao ol Latin Fha-
laecians, this poem woulo be lully at home in the pages ol the
Falatine Anthology by its structure, its theme ano its oiction. A
Greek epigram written in Augustan Rome by Antipater ol Thessa-
lonica comes perhaps the closest to Catullus` version ol the topos,
ano Antipater`s version nicely renoers explicit what is almost
certainly the poetic ano programmatic meaning ol the Catullan
imagery:
1tu ,t`, o ooi o iic, n oqvi oc, n icucon vc,
c ot:t, toin:o v qu ov c icvoo ,ov,
oi :` t tt ov io ouov tu,iout vov c oin ocv:t,
ipn vn, t i tpn , ti vt:t i:o v u oop.
on utpov A pyio yoio ici c potvo, n ucp O un pou
ott vooutv o ipn:n p ou ot yt` u opoto :c,.
,AP ::..o,
Away, you tribe ol poets that sing ol mantillas,``
tapers,`` tunnies`` every woro a prickle!
ano, lretting every verse`s tortureo structure,
sip simple water lrom a sacreo spring.
Tooay we orink to Archilochus, to Homer: men.
No place arouno the wine-bowl lor orinkers ol water.
The same nexus ol symbols appears in numerous Hellenistic epi-
grams well preoating Catullus.`' Given all the evioence, in lact, it
`' Gutzwiller ,:qq8, :8. cites examples ano oiscusses Foem . in their context..
seems likely that this poetic stanooh between wine ano water
harks back to a thiro-century Alexanorian critical oebate ,il not
a lull-blown Qoetelle,. Archilochus, by the nerce aggression ol his
verse ano perhaps also thanks to his colorlul ancient biography,
looks to have been chiel ano eponymous hero among the poets ol
rough ano reaoy wine-orinking inspiration ,ano hence, presum-
ably, all the critical apologetics in his lavor,. On the other sioe ol
the oebate, we seem to oiscern Callimachus occupying the lront
lines ,or at least conscripteo into them later,, both as a critical
voice ano as a poetic exemplar ol the water-orinking mooe ol
oelicate rennement.`
The nrst-time reaoer ol the receiveo corpus is not maoe to wait
an instant lor the lulnlment ol Foem .`s promise ol bitterer cups
nlleo with the unmitigateo wine ol manly aggression. The next
two poems make gooo the promise, by personating a recognizably
Archilochian mooe.' The tightly linkeo pair lormeo by Foems .8
ano .q strikes a new note, not so much by its violent sexual
aggression alone ,we have alreaoy seen Foem :6 ano the others to
Iurius ano Aurelius, as by its politicizing ano inoeeo universaliz-
ing ol that sexual aggression. Sexual violence is here imbeooeo in
the poet`s personal history ano in the Roman political oroer itsell
,lrom which Catullus is anything but critically alool ,. The aristo-
cratic political system ol patron-client alliance is here charac-
terizeo as a promiscuous economic exploitation ,operating in both
vertical oirections,, ano that exploitation is in turn ngureo, at
every turn, as brutally aggressive sexual penetration:
Fisonis comites, cohors inanis,
aptis sarcinulis et expeoitis,
Verani optime tuque mi Iabulle,
quio rerum geritis? satisne cum isto
uappa lrigoraque et lamem tulistis?
ecquionam in tabulis patet lucelli
` Antipater`s simple water lrom a holy spring`` ,AP ::..o., seems to recall Callimachus`
stream that creeps, pure ano unoenleo, lrom a holy spring, the choicest ol waters`` lrom
the eno ol the hymn to Apollo ,n :i, iccpn :t ici c ypc cv:o, c vt ptti | ti ocio, t
i tpn , o i ,n ic , c ipov c o:ov, H. ..:::.,. Cameron ,:qq, 66, Gutzwiller ,:qq8, :68.
Latin omoto, like Greek tiipo , ,ano English bitter``,, oescribeo both a taste upon the
tongue ano an ethical quality. It is perhaps worth remarking that a Hellenistic epigram
attributeo to Meleager, ano so probably known to Catullus, uses the epithet tiipo , ol
Archilochus ,AP ...,.
' Wiseman ,:q6q, 8, Skinner ,:q8:, .8
Cooe mooel of Cotollor mor/ooo ::
expensum, ut mihi qui meum secutus
praetorem relero oatum lucello?
o Memmi, bene me ac oiu supinum
tota ista trabe lentus irrumasti.
seo, quantum uioeo, pari luistis
casu: nam nihilo minore uerpa
larti estis. pete nobiles amicos!
at uobis mala multa oi oeaeque
oent, opprobria Romuli Remique. ,Foem .8,
Fiso`s retinue, empty-hanoeo cohort,
traveling light, just a hanoy little rucksack,
excellent Veranius ano you my oear Iabullus,
how are you making out? Hao enough lreezing
colo ano hunger along with that nat-wine loser?
Do your checkbooks show substantial revenues . . .
spent? Just like me: I went ano serveo with my
praetor, ano I count to my creoit what I gave.
Memmius, you really threw me oown on my back
ano rammeo me slowly, gooo ano haro, in the mouth
with that big, heavy two-by-lour ol yours.
But it looks like you two hao the same gooo luck
as me: you both got stuheo with no less oick.
Get yoursell some noble lrienos.`` Yeah, right.
But may the goos ano goooesses oamn you all
hanosomely, you blots on the names ol Romulus ano Remus.
Quis hoc potest uioere, quis potest pati,
nisi impuoicus et uorax et aleo,
Mamurram habere quoo Comata Gallia
habebat ante et ultima Britannia?
cinaeoe Romule, haec uioebis et leres?
et ille nunc superbus et supernuens
perambulauit omnium cubilia,
ut albulus columbus aut Aooneus?
cinaeoe Romule, haec uioebis et leres?
es impuoicus et uorax et aleo.
eone nomine, imperator unice,
luisti in ultima occioentis insula,
ut ista uestra oihututa mentula
oucenties comesset aut trecenties?
quio est alio sinistra liberalitas?
parum expatrauit an parum helluatus est?
paterna prima lancinata sunt bona,
secunoa praeoa Fontica, inoe tertia
Hibera, quam scit amnis auriler Tagus:
nunc Gallicae timetur et Britannicae.
quio hunc, malum, louetis? aut quio hic potest
nisi uncta oeuorare patrimonia?
eone nomine, urbis o potissimi
socer generque, peroioistis omnia? ,Foem .q,`
Who can watch? Who can bear the sight
,someone who lives lor sex ano looo ano oice,
that`s who, ol Mamurra owning everything
that long-haireo Gaul ano lar Britannia useo to?
Iaggot Romulus, will you just watch ano take it?
There he is now, swollen up ano spilling over,
coming to oo the tour ol every man`s beoroom
like the little white oove, like the goo Aoonis,
ano laggot Romulus, will you just watch ano take it?
That someone who lives lor sex ano looo ano oice
is you. Was it really lor him, O one ano only
general, you went to the isle at the worlo`s west eno,
so that your lrieno, this Dick that`s all oickeo out,
coulo munch his millions two ano three at a time?
You have to aomit it`s a strange kino ol generosity.
Hasn`t he piggeo out, hasn`t he oaooieo out enough?
Daooy`s lortune was the nrst he busteo through,
the secono one the spoils ol Fontus, ano thiro
was Spain`s, where the Tagus nows with yellow golo.
Now we`re alraio lor Gaulish lortunes, British ones:
they`re next. Why the hell oo you cherish this man?
What talents ooes he have apart lrom a oeep throat
lor swallowing oown big, juicy patrimonies?
You mightiest men ol Rome, by marriage son ano lather,
was it really lor /tm you wasteo the worlo?
All the players in this pair ol poems are aoult Roman males, ano
none ol them escapes the stinging skewer ol emasculation in some
lorm. Certainly not Catullus himsell: Foem :o`s Catullus hao
` The text printeo here is not Mynors` but Thomson`s, renecting two important emenoa-
tions on which the sense ol the poem turns: Schwabe`s orte at line ,orctt was a conjec-
ture as well, lor V`s nonsensical com te, ano orte seems inevitable in light ol Fliny`s remark
at Htt. òt. 6.8, ano Baoian`s ,:q, brilliant restoration ol line .o ,Golltcoe ano
Btttorrtcoe lor Golltoe ano Btttorrtoe,. I have altereo Thomson`s text only to make its
orthography consistent with other Latin texts citeo here.
Cooe mooel of Cotollor mor/ooo :
calleo his praetor Memmius an tttomotot ,oral penetrator``,, ano
Foem .8 makes clear how keenly ano materially the Catullan
speaker leels that emasculation. Certainly not Catullus` lrienos:
Veranius ano Iabullus have suhereo unoer Fiso the penis ,oetpo,
.8.:., the same treatment that Memmius accoroeo to Catullus.
Not Fompey, the most likely canoioate lor ioentincation with
laggot Romulus`` ,.8., q,. Not the men ol Rome, who are
about to be cuckoloeo universally by Mamurra`s Aoonaic proces-
sion through their beorooms ano who are implicateo in Foem
.q`s opening ot, since they, like Fompey, look on ano just take
it.` Not Caesar: he is ol course implicateo here as well, ano Foem
.q lorms part ol the Catullan smear campaign that Caesar is sup-
poseo to have trieo to abate by conciliation through the poet`s
lather. Not even the Great Fenetrators themselves: by the logic
ol the ioeology ol Roman manhooo, that very excess ol appetite
with which Fiso, Memmius ano Mamurra are pumping the system
is itsell a symptom ol ethical weakness, tmpotertto.` Fiso ,ano so
too Memmius by analogy, is not only a oetpo ,.8.:., but also a
ooppo ,.8.,: the wine`` ol his manhooo is stale, nat, vapio. Ano
Mamurra, Caesar`s oetachable penis, is by that same logic oickeo
out`` ,otototo, .q.:, ano renoereo orally receptive ,/ellooto, .8.:6,
The Catullan speaker`s reaoiness to characterize being wrongeo by a social ano political
superior as sexual penetration seems to renect the hypermasculine aggression ol such
violently policeo hierarchical communities as men`s prisons ano barracks. Walters ,:qq,
:. has suggesteo that military service being unoer oroers`` ano unoer threat ol cor-
poral punishment poseo a particular problem to the elite Roman man`s stance ol
manhooo. Ittomotot, as Richlin ,:q8:, has argueo, never loses its literal lorce or at least
il it ooes momentarily, that literal lorce ,as Catullus shows us here, is always subject to
immeoiate reactivation. As Lenchantin ,:q, suggesteo ao loc., the woro probably
belongeo to the etmo cottert ,military slang``, ol Catullus` time.
On ortce tmpetotot as possibly echoing an imperial acclamation given to Caesar, ano on
the ioentincation ol ctroeoo Romolo as Fompey, see Cameron ,:q6,, also Lenchantin
,:q, ao loc. Young ,:q6q, ano Scott ,:q:, take Romolo to stano lor the Roman
people.`` I consioer that the men ol Rome are ultimately implicateo in the poem`s invec-
tive, but Romolo seems to have been a common ironic insult lor hurling at a politico:
see Quinn ,:qo, ao loc.
` On Aoonis ano the oove in this poem, see Allen ,:q8,.
Foem .q was the most memorable ol Catullus` Caesarian poems lor subsequent reaoers,
as Quintilian ,Irt. q..::, ano Fliny ,Htt. òt. 6.8, seem to attest, ano it is here that
the ioentincation ol the sobriquet Mentula with Mamurra is maoe explicit. Suet. )ol.
claims that Catullus hao permanently staineo Caesar`s reputation: its relrain woulo have
been suitable lor quoting in Caesar`s lace or behino his back ,the woros ocet eretoe
woulo recall the entire poem ano so sumce to raise a laugh,.
` See ch. n. q.
oeootote .8...,, precisely by his ravenous ingestion ol lortunes on a
global scale.
What, then, is specincally Archilochian about the mooe ol
manhooo personateo in this pair ol poems? Archilochus may well
have been a great political lampooner the lragments leature
some animaoversions on the wealth ol tyrants ano a memorable
bit ol grumbling about one Leophilus but we lack the evioence
to juoge the extent ol Archilochus` presence as an exemplary
mooel`` in Foems .8 ano .q.' Certainly the bite ano sting ol the
two poems coulo have leo an ancient reaoer to the juogment that
Catullus hao oippeo his stylus in Archilochian bile ano so oeliv-
ereo on the promise ol unmitigateo wine hinteo in Foem .. But a
lurther ano more specinc aspect ol Archilochian cooe mooeling is
oiscernible here, in a trait that mooern reaoers notice in Catullus
ano that ancient ones were unlikely to miss. Catullus` iambic``
rage in these poems, as inventorieo above, heaps emasculating
shame not only upon his enemies, but also upon himsell ano,
perhaps even more signincantly, upon his lrienos as well. These
were precisely the charges leveleo against Archilochus by the nlth-
century Athenian tyrant Critias, his sternest moralizing critic
whose opinions are preserveo to us. Here the grounos lor con-
oemnation, lrom a sort ol man that Archilochus ano Catullus can
both be imagineo lampooning with gusto, are themselves put lor-
waro in a mooe ol macho pruoery ano so rather oiherent lrom
those to be lrameo later by the partisans ol water:
Critias reproaches Archilochus lor speaking extremely ill ol himsell. Ior
,so he says, il Archilochus himsell hao not given out so evil a report ol
himsell among the Greeks, we woulo never have known any ol the lol-
lowing: that he was the son ol one Enipo, a slave-girl, that he lelt Faros
because ol oestitute poverty ano moveo to Thasos, that he lell into ois-
lavor with the inhabitants ol this latter place, ano that he spoke as abu-
sively ol his lrienos as he oio ol his enemies. What is more ,so Critias,,
we woulo never have known, hao we not learneo it lrom the man him-
sell, that he was a philanoerer ,uoiyo ,,, a lecher ,c ,vo,,, a sex criminal
' On Leophilus: Archil. :: West.
We oo have a bit ol evioence lor Archilochus` ancient reception in this regaro. Aristioes
,Ot. 6, ..8o..:, lists Archilochus` lrieno Fericles among the targets ol the poet`s invec-
tive, alongsioe Lycambes ano Charilaos. Athenaeus ,l , preserves a briel sample ol that
lrienoly`` invective, accusing Fericles ol gluttonously hurrying to symposia like the
,impoverisheo, Myconians`` ,Archil. :. West,.
,u pio:n ,,, ano lurther, what is most shamelul, that he threw oown his
shielo. Archilochus, then, was not a lavorable witness in his own behall,
given the report ol himsell ano the reputation he lelt behino. These
reproaches are not my own, but rather those ol Critias. ,Archil. .q
West Critias 88 B Diels-Kranz Aelian, Vot. Htt. :o.:,
Catullus elsewhere oelights in coating himsell ,ano his native Ver-
ona, with a liberal application ol sleaze, ano he elsewhere takes
his lrienos to task ano attacks his enemies, but Foems .8 ano .q
arguably present the corpus` most concentrateo ano relentless
conoemnation ol sell, lrienos ano enemies to scanoalous shame, in
a voice that coulo be characterizeo as hoarse with rage il only its
oiction were not so artlul. But then, artlulness ol oiction ooes not
ol itsell mitigate Archilochian bile: no critic seems ever to have
oareo call into question Archilochus` mastery ol his own poetic
lorms.
Iorm, specincally metrical lorm, may be a lurther aspect ol
Archilochian intertextuality in the secono poem ol this pair. Foem
.q is one ol three poems in the corpus composeo in iambs. Ol the
other two, Foem ., in lour verses, shares with Foem .q both its
political subject matter ,though its satire is meek in comparison,
ano the relrain-like repetition ol an entire verse.' Foem on the
little boat, conversely, is very much a water-orinking poem, Helle-
nistic in style ano tone ano owing much to the Hellenistic topos
exemplineo in Callimachus` epigram on a conch shell.` Foem
ooes however share a lormal trait with Foem .q that makes them
both remarkable as metrical toot oe fotce in the Hellenistic style.
With a single exception, both poems are composeo entirely in
perlect iambic leet, rather than in iambic metra allowing, as was
the traoition ol the lorm, lor substitution ol a long syllable in the
nrst, nlth ano ninth positions. The single reversion to a more
relaxeo prosooy, a sponoee at the beginning ol the twentieth verse
ol Foem .q ,rorc Golltcoe ttmetot et Btttorrtcoe, has olten been
It is a twist worthy ol a short story ol Borges that the critique ol the nlth-century ncr
Athenian Critias against seventh-century Archilochus is preserveo lor us only in a work
written long alter Catullus` oeath, by the secono- ano thiro-century cr Hellenizing
Italian writer Clauoius Aelianus. Aelian`s insistent oistancing ol himsell lrom Critias`
opinion probably renects his knowleoge ol the critical polemics on Archilochus that
occupieo the intervening centuries.
' On Foem ., see :oo: above.
` Call. Eptt. Fleiher.
Noteo alreaoy by Lalaye ,:8q, :.
attributeo to textual corruption. Corruption in the text ol Catul-
lus we shall always have with us, but il this ,emenoeo, verse is
souno as it stanos, then its opening sponoee serves arrestingly to
mark a climactic moment in the poem by the same kino ol burst-
ing ol lormal bounoaries that Wiseman has pointeo out in Foem
::6.
Foem .q is thus by lar the most Archilochian ol Catullus` three
iambic poems, the one where Catullus coulo be saio to be lol-
lowing Archilochus`` by being ,thematically, iambic, in the way
that a writer ol hexameter poetry coulo be saio to be lollowing
Homer`` by being epic or lollowing Hesioo`` by being oioactic.
Catullus speaks ol his own tom/t three times in the corpus.` All
three instances, strangely, occur in poems whose meter is not iam-
bic but Fhalaecian. What is meant by iambs`` is however maoe
clear in each case: invective poetry ol the oangerously aggressive
kino. Catullus most likely thought Archilochus to have inventeo
the metrical lorm ano so the genre ol tom/o. When Catullus
speaks ol iambs he ooes so to invoke iambic`` Archilochus as a
cooe mooel lor his own perlormance ol masculine aggression.
Let us review the three instances.
Foem oetails the physical abnormalities ol three persons
probably connecteo with Caesar or Fompey or both. The text is
corrupt ano oimcult to interpret. Alter an apparent gap, the poem
enos with the two lines: you will once again be angry at my tom/t,
though they oon`t oeserve it, O one ano only general`` ,ttocete
ttetom met tom/t | tmmetertt/o, ortce tmpetotot, .6,.` The gen-
eral`` is clearly Julius Caesar, aooresseo with the same woros
,reverseo, to nt the iambic metre, at .q.::, ano it seems most likely
that Foem relers specincally to that earlier poem. Il so, then
tom/t can be construeo here ,ano here alone in the corpus, as re-
lerring to a poem actually written in an iambic metre.
Working backwaros through the poems, the secono appearance
ol tom/t comes at Foem o:
See 6 above.
` A lragment contains a lourth occurrence, citeo at :8q below.
See Newman ,:qqo, on the i cuiin i ot c in Catullus, also Fuelma Fiwonka ,:qq,
:. On icuo, as a thematic oesignation belore it was ever the name ol a metrical
lorm, see Dover ,:q6, :8qo, West ,:q, .., Nagy ,:q6, ano ,:qq, ...
` Others mark the eno ol Foem at the previous verse, counting these lines as a separate
poem or lragment ,so, most recently, Thomson |:qq|,.
Quaenam te mala mens, miselle Rauioe,
agit praecipitem in meos iambos?
quis oeus tibi non bene aouocatus
uecoroem parat excitare rixam?
an ut peruenias in ora uulgi?
quio uis? qualubet esse notus optas?
eris, quanooquioem meos amores
cum longa uoluisti amare poena. ,Foem o,
Miserable little Ravious, what mental instability
is pushing you heao nrst into my iambics?
What goo, ohenoeo by improper prayer,
is stirring you to a nght that`s pure oerangement?
What oo you want? Celebrity at any price?
That`s what you`ll get, since you`ve oecioeo to love
a love that`s mine, at a price you won`t stop paying soon.
Establishing the presence ol Archilochus as cooe mooel here
requires no elaborate argument, since this is one ol the very lew
places in Catullus` text where we can point to Archilochus` real
presence as an exemplary mooel, active in the text ol the poem as
well as the text ol the persona.' The extant Archilochian intertext
is lrom an epooe aooresseo to Lycambes, the jilting lather-in-law-
to-be:
tc :tp Auic uc, toiov t qpc oo :o ot,
:i , oc , tcpn tipt qpt vc,
n , :o tpi v n pn pnoc, vu v ot on tou ,
c o:oioi qci vtci ,t o,. ,Archil. :. W,
Olo papa Lycambes, just what were you thinking here?
Who unhitcheo the hinges ol your brains?
They useo to nt together. But now you`re a big
joke to everybooy in the city.
It was Scaliger who nrst remarkeo that Foem o is altogether
similar`` ,omrtro tmtle, to the Archilochus lragment. Scaliger pos-
sesseo only the lragment`s nrst two lines. There alreaoy the
' The other notable instance is Foem 6 ,o tem ttotcolom., ano Archil. lr. :68 West. See
Newman ,:qqo, :q6.
Henorickson ,:q., :6. Most commentators agree that the similarity is too striking to be
other than a genuine allusion. Ioroyce ,:q6:, ao loc. is unconvinceo, but it seems lair to
say that Ioroyce`s is a critical stance particularly inhospitable to what is most Archi-
lochian, wine-orinking, ano iambic`` in Catullus.
points ol kinship are striking, at levels ol speaking stance, theme,
oiction, ano even melopoeia.`` Both poems accuse their victim ol
oerangement by taking that conoition as an establisheo lact ano
wonoering alouo, rhetorically, what coulo have causeo it ,Catul-
lus` ot oeo seems to explicate Archilochus` :i ,: the oivine agent
ol an inspireo`` maoness,. Both poems open by aooressing the
victim oirectly ,Auic uc, Rootoe, with a contemptuous term ol
mock pity ,mtelle, or respect ,tc :tp,. Ano both poems intensily
that contempt by the epithet`s inclusion in a pounoing alliterative
series ,tc :tp, toiov, t qpc oo, tcpn tipt, qpt vc,, molo, mer, mt-
elle, meo, tom/o,. Aoo the secono pair ol Archilochian lines ano
the similarity is more striking still. Both poems point to the vic-
tim`s wreckeo reputation in his community ,c o:oioi, oto oolt ,,
ano in so ooing, both appear to invoke ,Catullus again more
explicitly, the ancient Inoo-European blame poet`s power to
aojust an inoivioual`s reputation ano community stanoing. Both
poems are thus perlormative, in the strictest Austinian sense: both
poems oesignate or oub`` their victims as laughably mao by the
speech act that is the poem itsell.` Lycambes is a laughingstock``
,,t o,, to the townspeople because Archilochus nnos him so, ano
Ravious` unsavory celebrity has been guaranteeo ano memorial-
izeo by the poetic perlormance that is Foem o. Frecisely because
ol the Catullan poem`s perlormativity, it seems lair to take the
tom/t into which Ravious has been pusheo heao nrst as the verses
ol Foem o itsell, Fhalaecian in metre but iambic`` by the Archi-
lochian sting they personate.
A lurther piece ol evioence ,once again lrom a Greek author
postoating Catullus, strengthens the argument that by tom/t in
Foem o Catullus means Archilochian invective.`` Lucian`s Peo-
oolotte begins with an explicit invocation ol the Archilochian
mooe so closely resembling the situation ol Foem o that scholars
have been tempteo to apply this passage by triangulation to a res-
toration ol the Archilochus lragment:`'
:o ot :ou A pyio you t itivo n on ooi t ,o, o :i :t ::i,c :ou t:tpou
ouvti nqc,. ici ou on , t qn, o icio ociuov c vpott, :i ouo utvo,
toin:n v c ov tcpou vti, t ti otcu:o v ci :i c, n:ou v:c ici u tot oti,
:oi, i c uoi,, ,Lucian, Peoool. :,
` Austin ,:q6.,. `' See esp. Henorickson ,:q.,.
Cooe mooel of Cotollor mor/ooo :q
That lamous saying ol Archilochus is just what I`m saying to you now:
you`ve grabbeo holo ol a cicaoa by the wing.`` You poor maoman,`` he
saio, what oo you hope to accomplish by stirring up, against ,oo, a poet
who loves to talk ano is on the lookout lor grievances ano subjects lor his
iambs?``
It is impossible to say whether Lucian`s quip about the invective
poet`s iambic chip on the shouloer renects lost material lrom the
epooe to papa Lycambes`` ,or some other poem ol Archilochus,,
or lost material lrom the intervening centuries ol Archilochus`
reception, chieny in Hellenistic poetry ano criticism. In either
case, however, the traoition renecteo here by Lucian is likely to
have been known to Catullus ano so points again towaro the pre-
existing lorm`` ol an iambic,`` specincally Archilochian, mooe ol
hypermasculine aggression lamiliar enough that Catullus coulo
invoke it with a subtle gesture.
The remaining occurrence ol tom/t belongs to a Catullan poem
alreaoy oiscusseo here in oetail.`` In Foem 6, Lesbia`s vow as
reporteo by the Catullan speaker hao been to burn the worst
poet`s choicest writings`` ,6.6, il Catullus woulo be reconcileo
to her ano leave oh branoishing`` or hurling`` his nerce iambs.``
Lesbia is here portrayeo as talking back,`` responoing to Catullus`
iambic`` blame poetry by a perlormance ol her own verbal wit, a
perlormance that Foem 6 attempts to turn back upon Lesbia ano
so reestablish Catullus` mastery. The poetic representation ol a
woman responoing to a poet`s verbal attack upon her reputation
was not a Catullan innovation. Catullus ano his contemporary
reaoers will have known such epigrams as this one, attributeo ten-
tatively to Meleager ano spoken in the personae ol Lycambes`
oaughters, who were saio to have been oriven to suicioe along
with their lather by Archilochus` invective shaming.` Their woros
rise with measureo oignity lrom the grave:
`` See 8o above.
` The preceoing epigram in the Anthology, ol Dioscorioes ,AP .:,, similarly personates
Lycambes` oaughters on the same theme. It is impossible to say how biographical`` or
nctional`` Archilochus` poems, ano the stories attacheo to them, are. Lycambes is prob-
ably a meaninglul name`` ,West |:q| .o,, as is perhaps Neobule ,she who changes
her mino``,. But as Irwin ,:qq8, points out, a meaninglul name can be coineo ano
attacheo to a real person. Irwin suggests that Archilochus criticism may have orawn too
stark a oichotomy between biography ano nction. In any case, I think the comparative
material lrom the previous chapter is enough to suggest the social verisimilituoe ol the
Archilochus narrative in the context ol a small Meoiterranean community.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo :8o
Ati:t pnv A i oco tou yt pc ici :c itcivc
o uvuutv c ppn :ou ot uvic ltpotqo vn,,
tc ptvoi o , t :uuov ici u to yovi toc o` o tiipo ,
ci oypc ic` n ut:t pn, t uot tcptvi n,
A pyi oyo, t tt ov ot icn v qc :iv ou i t ti icc
t p,c, ,uvciitiov o` t :pcttv t , to tuov.
litpi ot,, :i io pn oiv t q` u pio:n pc, i c uou,
t :pc tt:`, ou y o oi o qo:i ycpio utvci, ,AP ..,
By the right hano ol Haoes, by the black beo
ol Fersephone, we oo solemnly swear: we are
virgins, most truly, even beneath the earth.
Archilochus in his bitterness speweo bluster
ol abuse upon our maioenheaos. He turneo lovely
verse to unlovely matter: to war on women.
Muses, why oio you turn ravaging iambs
upon maioens? Why grant an unholy man your lavor?
Lycambes` oaughters show Archilochus` poetics ol manhooo`` in
its grimmest light. Ravaging`` is not a strong translation lor the
act ol /o/tt wrought by his poetry, through the perlormative, aes-
thetic excellence ol poetic charm granteo by the Muses to their
soloier-squire.` The poetic aggression ol his iambic shalts, it is
not excessive to say, has rapeo ano muroereo the oaughters ol
Lycambes.``
While Foem 6 cannot be saio to alluoe`` to this epigram, the
two poems resonate intertextually, by the common theme ol a
woman oelenoing hersell against poetic abuse, ano by two prom-
inently shareo tropes: one on the paraooxical oistinction between
ethical goooness]baoness`` ano perlormative being gooo]bao
at`` ,t tt ov ot icn v qc :iv ou i t ti icc | t p,c, electttmo petmt
poetoe | cttpto . . . petmo poello, 6.6, q,, ano another on invective
` The speakers ol this poem seem in the nnal couplet to recall the lamous boast ol Archi-
lochus` sphragis: I am the squire ,tpc tov, ol Loro Ares, ano I possess by knowleoge
the Muses` lovely gilt`` ,: West,. See oiscussion ol this epigram, ano ol AP .: as well,
in Irwin ,:qq8, :8o:.
`` The epithet u pio:n , seems to renect an ancient critical commonplace about the ex-
pression ol sexual oesire in Archilochus. Compare Critias` remark that Archilochus hao
characterizeo himsell as u pio:n , ,:6 above,, ano also the ethical conoemnation ol
Maximus ol Tyr: To Archilochus` oesire I say no thanks: it`s violent`` , A pyio you
t po:c, u pio:n , ,c p, yci ptiv t o , Archil. .q West Max. Tyr. :8.q, p. .o, :o
Hobein,.
Cooe mooel of Cotollor mor/ooo :8:
iambs as weapons ol physical violence ,u pio:n pc, i
c uou,, ttoce
ot/tote tom/o, 6.,. Just as the Hellenistic epigram presupposes
knowleoge ol Archilochus` poetry as part ol its reaoer`s compe-
tence`` ano probably incorporates more ol that poetry by specinc
relerence than we can see so Foem 6 invites its reaoer to cast
about in the collection lor a specinc piece ol Catullan abuse
towaro Lesbia as the narrative motor ol its oramatic situation. A
lew canoioates present themselves Foem 8, lor instance, ano
perhaps t opttmo /o ,il you shoulo become gooo as gooo can be,``
., in the epigrams coulo be thought to recall this poem`s petmo
poello but none is more memorable, ano none more harshly
oamning, than the only instance preceoing Foem 6 in the corpus:
Foem :: to Iurius ano Aurelius. Here again it is possible to argue
that this nnal larewell`` ,to whose nnality a Catullan reaoer ooes
well to give the same creoence she puts in his lover`s oaths,,
this unlorgettable instance ol Catullus at his most Catullan, owes
rather more ol its rhetorical ano lyrical`` power to archaic Greek
mooes ol invective than is commonly recognizeo.
The attribution ol the lollowing epooic lragment is oisputeo
between Archilochus ano Hipponax:
iu u|c:i| tc|o u|tvo,
ic v 2cuuo|noo|o ,uuvo v tu qpovt |
Opn iit, c ipo |i|ouoi
c oitv t vc to ` c vctn oci icic
oou iov c p:ov t oov
p i ,ti tttn,o :` cu :o v t i ot :ou yvo ou
quii c to ` t tt yoi,
ipo:t oi o` o oo v:c,, o , |i|u ov t ti o:o uc
iti utvo, c ipcoi n
c ipov tcpc p n,uivc iuuc . . . . oou
:cu :` t t oiu` c v i otiv,
o , u` n oi inot, |c | o` t t` o pii oi, t n,
:o tpi v t :cipo, |t |o v.
,F. Argent. , lr. :.::6 Hippon. :: W,`
. . . oriven oh course by a wave,
ano then at Salmyoessos I hope
Thracians with mohawks get him when he`s
nakeo, not a lrienoly lace in sight,
` West attributes the epooe to Hipponax. Diehl ,:q.., hao assigneo it to Archilochus.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo :8.
ano there he`ll have a bellylul ol pain,
eating the breao ol slavery
ano lrozen stih with colo.
Clumps ol seaweeo lrom the saltwater
shoulo cling to him, his teeth shoulo
chatter as he lies lace oown
like an incontinent oog
at the eoge ol the crashing sea,
|vomiting| a wave. Ano I shoulo be there
to see it, to see the man who oio me wrong,
the man who trampleo on his promise,
the man who was my lrieno belore.
The passage lrom rage to lament owes much ol its ehect, ano
much ol its psychological verisimilituoe, to its stunning abrupt-
ness. Both those ahects, ol course, mooulate the speaker`s sell-
righteous inoignation, with the nostalgic griel at abanoonment put
lorwaro as the implicit justincation lor the invective reoress. The
Catullan speaker enos Foem :: by mooulating through precisely
the same keys:
pauca nuntiate meae puellae
non bona oicta.
cum suis uiuat ualeatque moechis,
quos simul complexa tenet trecentos,
nullum amans uere, seo ioentioem omnium
ilia rumpens,
nec meum respectet, ut ante, amorem,
qui illius culpa cecioit uelut prati
ultimi nos, praetereunte postquam
tactus aratro est. ,::.:.,
Take a message to my girl. It isn`t long.
It isn`t pretty.
Tell her she shoulo lare well with her luckers,
taking them on three hunoreo at a time,
giving gooo love to no one ano busteo groins to everyone,
every time.
Tell her she shoulon`t look lor love lrom me,
the way it was belore. My love is lallen
the way a nower lalls on the eoge ol a nelo: the plow
touches, ano plows on.
The Dioscorioes epigram alreaoy mentioneo has Lycambes`
oaughters oeltly reluting Archilochus` charges in a manner to sug-
gest that his poems on them hao similarly toggleo between invec-
tive attacks on their mooesty ano expressions ol griel at rejection
ano loss:
c c ic` n ut:t pn, ,tvtn , p i,no v o vtioo,
qn unv :t o:u,tpn v t quotv A pyi oyo,.
A pyi oyov, uc tou , ici oci uovt,, ou :` t v c ,uici,
tiooutv ou ` H pn, t v ut,c o :tut vti.
ti o` n utv uc yoi ici c :c ocoi, ou i c v t itivo,
n ttv t n ut ov ,vn oic :t ivc :titiv. ,AP .:.:o,
. . . but Archilochus babbleo terrinc slanoer
ano ill report against our lamily name.
By all the goos ano spirits, we never saw Archilochus
in the streets, or in Hera`s great temple precinct.
Il we really .ete wantons`` ano scounorels,`` we oaresay
the man woulo never have wanteo us to bear
his legitimate chiloren.
Il the mioole couplet here citeo ,lines 8, renects something in
Archilochus` poetry ano it is haro to see its point il it ooes not
then a specinc Archilochian intertext may unoerlie the Catullan
speaker`s claim at Foem 8 that Lesbia is ooing nasty things with
Romans in streetcorners ano alleyways`` ,8.,.
Catullus` poetic reception ol Archilochus, his personation ol
an Archilochian mooe ol manhooo, is woven ol three separate
threaos, all ol them largely mysterious to us: ,:, the text ol Archi-
lochus` poetry, as Catullus reao it ano construeo an Archilochian
persona lrom it, ,., Catullus` knowleoge ol the Hellenistic ,ano
earlier Roman, critical ano literary reception ol Archilochus
available in his time, ano, no less importantly, ,, the extent to
which Catullus`s perlormance ol sellhooo woulo have been
Archilochian`` even il he hao never hearo the name ol Archi-
lochus: many ol the ancient Meoiterranean social ano cultural
constructs embooieo in archaic Greek invective woulo have
seemeo natural ano transparent to Veronese Catullus. These three
strains make lor the possibility ol a rich mapping`` ol Archi-
lochian signincance onto Catullus` poetry, ano onto his poetic
persona. It is precisely its richness that makes it oimcult to expli-
cate with precision.
A nnal speculation. It is remarkable that the oaughters ol
Lycambes, at AP ...8, take the Muses to task lor granting lavor
to an unholy man`` ,ou i o oi o qo:i ,. Doubly remarkable, since
we now know lrom the Mnesiepes inscription that Archilochus hao
an important cultic role at Faros ouring his lile ,some have specu-
lateo that he was a priest ol Demeter, he was in any case palpably
o oio,,, ano we know lurther, lrom the same source, that in oeath
he was honoreo alongsioe the goos, presumably as a hero ,ano so
only marginally a qo ,,.`` Might this epigram renect a line ol
Hellenistic critique lrom the Callimachean water-orinkers to the
ehect that Archilochus` wickeo tongue sat ill insioe so sanctineo
a heao?`' Il so, then Foem :6, again to Iurius ano Aurelius, may
present a lurther instance ol Catullus being Archilochus,`` this
time in a oistinctly oiherent mooe. As Daniel Seloen`s brilliant
reaoing ol that poem has shown, the Friapic threat on which it
begins ano enos , peotco/o eo oo et tttomo/o, I`ll luck your hole,
I`ll luck your little lace,`` :6.:, :, perlormatively exposes its two
victims, ano the reaoer ol the collection as well, to the penetra-
tive lerocity ol the aggressive acts it names.` This poem most
amply merits the epithet given by the , personateo, oaughters ol
Lycambes to Archilochian invective: Foem :6`s henoecasyllabic
Fhalaecians are ravaging`` ano inoeeo raping`` iambs ,u pio-
:n pt, i c uoi ,. Ano yet it is at the center ol this poem that Catul-
lus lays claim, astonishingly, to a personal purity ol lile that seems
all out ol keeping with the lubricious salt`` ol this ano other
poems, ano with his gleelully sleazy accounts ol himsell:
nam castum esse oecet pium poetam
ipsum, uersiculos nihil necesse est. ,:6.6,
See, the holy poet must keep his lile pure.
His ltfe. His occasional verses labor unoer no such
obligation.
`` Burnett ,:q8, :: it is strikingly clear that antiquity oio not regaro Archilochus as a
rebel or an iconoclast.`` Ior the Mnesiepes inscription ano Sosthenes, see Taroiti ,:q68,
:: ano Treu ,:qq, :.. On Archilochus as priest ol Demeter, see Miller ,:qq,
.6 ano relerences there.
`' The criticism woulo presumably have been meaningless to Archilochus ano his con-
temporaries, but the priestly holiness`` ol the poet`` seems to have been programmatic
lor Callimachus ,e.g. H. ..:::,, as it was to be lor his Augustan imitators ,Hor. Cotm.
.:, Frop. .:,.
` Seloen ,:qq.,.
In writing those lines, Catullus may have hao belore his eyes, ano
expecteo his reaoer to see as well, the most conspicuous example
known to antiquity ol a holy poet who wrote oirty poems.
nr r r r xi s + i c nr r i c\cv \xn + nr i xr on+ \xcr or
n r i x o c \ r r i x\ c nt s
Il the presence ol an Archilochian intertext in Catullus` poem-text
ano persona-text seems beyono controversy ano has been ao-
mitteo, in one lormulation or another, by nearly every Catullan
critic, the attempt to trace that presence`s contours is inevitably in
consioerable measure a reaoerly`` enterprise. Catullus ohers no
poetic relerence to Archilochus so explicit as to excluoe all ooubt.
The presence ol Callimachus, by contrast, is realizeo in Catullus`
text richly ano even, it seems, systematically. Two ol the three
mentions ol Callimachus by , patronymic, name, roughly symmet-
rically arrangeo in our corpus, have alreaoy been oiscusseo. A
riooling one stanos near the beginning ol the polymetrics, in the
secono ol the kiss poems. A transparent one stanos in the mioole
ol the long poems, in the covering letter to the most explicit in-
stance ol Catullus` being Callimachus,`` in his translation ol an
episooe lrom the Aetto, a crucial intertext ,ano a crucially impor-
tant translation as well, in the subsequent oevelopment ol Latin
poetry.' The thiro ano nnal mention comes in the last poem ol
the corpus. It is here that the speaker most clearly ano sell-
allusively invokes Callimachus as the cooe mooel ol a very partic-
ular mooe ol male lrienoship, ano it is here that he cuts the neat-
est binarism between the mooe ol being Callimachus`` on one
sioe, ano an iambic or Archilochian mooe ol invective aggression
on the other.
Foem ::6, the closing epigram ol our corpus, is also the last in a
series ol seven invectives aooresseo to Gellius.` By its program-
matic theme the poem promises abuse ol Gellius to come it
has olten been reao as making bookenos with Foem :`s oeoication
to Cornelius Nepos, ano reasonably so. Iurther, by the opera-
Discussion at ::. above.
' On Foem 66 ano Latin love elegy, Fuelma ,:q8.,.
` The other six are Foems , 8o, ano 88 through q:. Their aooressee, il Wiseman ,:q,
::q.q is right, was no inconsioerable personage: L. Gellius Fublicola, granoson ol a
consul ano consul himsell in 6 ncr.
Macleoo ,:q,. Also see Dettmer ,:qq, ...6 with relerences there.
tion ol a reaoerly oesire to make these poems tell a story , Janan`s
point, ano Miller`s as well, about the Lesbia cycle``,, Foem ::6
has regularly been placeo at the Gellius cycle`s narrative begin-
ning, since it merely threatens abuse, while the six previous epi-
grams have alreaoy given perlormances ol an abuse so outrageous
that it is haro to see what poetic threats Catullus has lelt to
make. Unoer a rhetorical reaoing, however, rather than a narra-
tive one, these poems in their receiveo oroer can be seen to trace
a psychologically satislying arc, in a recognizably Archilochian
mooe: aggression gives way to a grieving inoignation put lorwaro,
climactically ano analeptically, as that aggression`s justilying
motive.` Alter the charges ol lellating Victor ,in Foem 8o, alreaoy
oiscusseo, ano ol incest with all the women in his lamily, comes
Foem q:, in which Catullus seems to give the narrative back-
grouno motivating this most relentless rouno ol invective salvos
in the entire corpus. Here the speaker reveals that he too, like
Gellius` uncle ano lather, has been betrayeo ano cuckoloeo.
Foem q: makes three sell-allusively outrageous revelatory claims
about Gellius` motivation. Iirst, Gellius` choice ol lemale erotic
objects lrom among his own kin is psychologizeo as the result ol
something in his et/o, a very particular sort ol perversion``: Gel-
lius gets his oootom ,q:.q, precisely lrom the criminality ,colpo . . .
oltoto celett, q:.:o, ol his incestuous acts. Secono, Catullus claims
to have thought his own love sale lrom Gellius because she was no
relation to him ,ooo mottem rec etmorom ee otoe/om, q:.,, ano so
no paternal prohibition coulo be transgresseo by Gellius in having
her.` The thiro claim, taken together with the secono, gives this
epigram its nash ol comic perlormative brilliance: Gellius, Catul-
lus implies, has beaten a path to oootom with Catullus` beloveo by
likening the act ol seoucing her to one ol incest. This Gellius has
accomplisheo through construing the relation between himsell
ano Catullus as a bono ol lrienoship so close ano holy, so like a
bono ol kinship, that betraying it can ahoro Gellius a bit ol the
So most recently Thomson ,:qq, ao loc.
` See :8. above.
On Foem 8o, see :8 above. In Foem qo the object ol Catullus` love remains unin-
oicateo, but the language ol the poem makes Lesbia by lar the most likely choice.
` Incest, in its Greco-Roman construction, seems to have been in this sense more homo-
social,`` in that its horror lay lar more in its cuckoloing ol the lather ,ano mixing gen-
erations, than in the mooern version, which places the chiel point ol taboo aversion in
the kinship ol the two persons physically involveo.
olo obscene thrill ,his supply ol unseouceo kinswomen having per-
haps been exhausteo,: ano though I was joineo to you in consio-
erable intimacy ,oo,, I haon`t thought that woulo be sumcient
cause lor you. You counteo it sumcient: that`s how much you get
oh on crime ol every kino`` ,q:.:o,.
The emotional locus ol Foem q:`s speaker is thus centereo not
upon anguish at loss ol the unnameo beloveo, but rather upon the
lrienoship between the two aoult males ano that lrienoship`s be-
trayal. Lesbia, il she is the beloveo in question, is thus once again
relegateo to a status ol importance seconoary to the homosocial``
one. In the next ano nnal poem to Gellius, the beloveo`s existence
is lorgotten entirely, ano the speaker`s message announces ano
justines his shilt lrom lrienoship to enmity in a way comparable
to Herzlelo`s Glenoiots, ano even more closely comparable to an
iambic maxim ol Archilochus: I know how to be a lrieno to a
lrieno. I also know how to be an enemy to an enemy: by harming
him with my mouth, like an ant.``' By a perlormative play on two
senses ol the verb mtttete to seno`` poems ,as letters, but also
to hurl`` them ,like weapons, enmity ano lrienoship between
men are characterizeo as two mooes ol epistolary commerce. The
one whose imminent oelivery Catullus promises Gellius, as oue
punishment, is invective, iambic ano Archilochian. The one whose
loss Gellius is implicitly inviteo to mourn as his lost opportunity
to enjoy a charmeo ano charming lrienoship with ,a suooenly
clean-hanoeo, Catullus, appears, remarkably, to consist in being
Callimachus``:
Saepe tibi stuoioso animo uenante requirens
carmina uti possem mittere Battiaoae,
qui te lenirem nobis, neu conarere
tela inlesta meum mittere in usque caput,
hunc uioeo mihi nunc lrustra sumptum esse laborem,
Gelli, nec nostras hic ualuisse preces.
contra nos tela ista tua euitabimus acta,
at nxus nostris tu oabis supplicium. ,Foem ::6,
' Herzlelo ,:q8, :6, see 6o. above. Archilochus: t ti o:cuci :oi :o v qit ov:c ut v
qit tiv, | :o v o` t ypo v t yci ptiv :t ici icioo:out tiv | uu pun ,lr. ..:6 West,.
A oimcult receiveo text here. I lollow Thomson ,:qq, except in the nrst verse, where I
reao V with Mynors , Thomson accepts Guarinus` tootoe, oisambiguating the verse`s
syntax with minimal alteration ol meaning,.
So many times I`ve cast about, my heart`s gone
hunting lor how I coulo seno the scholar that you are
some songs ol Battus` son to make you be kino
to me, ano make you stop trying to seno
hostile shalts whizzing towaro my heao.
This task I`ve set mysell is hopeless. I see that now.
I see my prayers have meant nothing here.
Every shalt you aim at me, I`ll oooge.
But mine will hit. You`ll give me satislaction.
The entire poem tropes on the physicality ol poetry`s ehect, lor
gooo or ill, upon its aooressee. Catullus` search lor poetic inspira-
tion is likeneo to the hunt ,::6.:,, his stateo aim in senoing songs
ol Battus` son`` is to solten`` Gellius ,::6.,, ano the rest ol the
poem has the two poets battling like glaoiators or Homeric cham-
pions, with Catullus the certain victor. The nnal verse may be
compareo thematically with an iambic trimeter ol Archilochus,
a one-verse lragment probably relerring to Lycambes ,t utu o`
t itivo, ou ic:ctpoit:ci, he won`t get oh unpunisheo by me,``
.oo West,, ano with a Fhalaecian lragment ol Catullus ,ot ror
eote meo tom/o, but you won`t escape my iambs,`` lr. ,.` This
same verse`s ambiguous scansion, as either a oactylic pentameter
or a comic`` iambic trimeter, may thus point not so much to
Catullus` luture mime-writing career ,Wiseman`s suggestion, as to
his ability, now lully oemonstrateo, to write both poetry ol tenoer
oelicacy ano iron-tippeo iambs,`` ano to write both kinos ol
poetry in a multiplicity ol poetic lorms.`'
That Foem ::6 programmatically announces Catullus` ability to
perlorm in two very oiherent poetic mooes, presenteo as oeliber-
ately contrasteo alternatives,`` has seemeo evioent to many reaoers
ol the poem.`` Iurther, to call the hypermasculine ano aggressive
mooe threateneo in Foem ::6 ano perlormeo in the earlier Gellius
poems Archilochian`` ,in the sense ol cooe mooel, at the very
least, ano iambic`` ,in the sense that Catullus himsell gives the
woro, haroly seems overbolo. But in what sense ano to what ex-
tent can Callimachus really be claimeo to lunction lor Catullus as
cooe mooel ol the opposite mooe? Given his well-known oelense
` Newman ,:qqo, 6 argues lor an Archilochian mooel lor Foem ::6.
`' Wiseman ,:q8, :88q, 6 above.
`` Macleoo ,:q, o.
Cooe mooel of Cotollor mor/ooo :8q
ol himsell, in the Aetto prologue, against the malicious gaze
,coicvi c, ol the rivals ano critics he calls Telchines,`` given his
representation, in the hymn to Apollo, ol the goo giving envy
,qo vo,, a gooo swilt kick, ano given that he composeo not only a
collection ol Iom/ot but also a poem nameo alter a coprophagous
biro ,I/t, ano nlleo, it seems, with elaborate curses, Callimachus
might seem an ooo choice lor the eponym ol an anti-iambic``
oelicacy presseo to the point ol eheminacy. One might respono by
pointing out that this is precisely what Catullus seems to evoke by
each mention ol Callimachus` name in the corpus, ano that the
images surrounoing those mentions, by their operation in other
Catullan poems, appear to have a similar lorce. But the suggesteo
objection oeserves a luller answer.
Our text ol the apologia against the Telchines in the Aetto pro-
logue is incomplete, but well enough preserveo to give the navor
ol Callimachus` speaking stance.` The Telchines are nrst charac-
terizeo as ignorant ano no lrienos ol the Muse`` ano later
aooresseo as a race knowing how to waste away in its heart`` ,the
text is oamageo here,.` Alter the well-known statement ol his
aesthetic program come the haroest extant woros Callimachus has
lor the Telchines:
. . . t vi :oi, ,c p c ti ooutv oi i,u v n yov
:t::i ,o,, |o puov o` ou i t qi nocv o vov.
npi ut v ou c:o tv:i tcvti itov o ,in oci:o
c o,, t ,o o` tinv ou cyu ,, o t:tpo ti,,
c tc v:o,, ivc ,n pc, ivc opo oov n v ut v c ti oo
tpoi iio|v t i oi n, n t po, ti
ocp t oov,
cu i :o o` t iou oiui, :o uoi c po, o ooov t tto:i
:pi,o yiv o oo vn oo, t t` L ,itc oo .
. . . Mou oci ,c p o oou, ioov o uc:i tcioc,
un oo , toiou , ou i c tt tv:o qi ou,.
,Call., Aetto :, lr. :..q8 Fleiher,
. . . lor I sing to those who love the cicaoa`s
tenor chirp, not the braying ol asses.``
` On the question ol whether Callimachus gave the Aetto a secono prologue`` in a later
eoition, see Cameron ,:qq, :o. ano relerences there.
` vn iot, oi Mou on, ou i t ,t vov:o qi oi . . . :n itiv n tcp t tio:c utvov ,Call. Aet. : lr. :.., 8
Fleiher,.
`` :t ::i ,see LS) s.v., is a common oesignation lor a poet.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo :qo
Others may intone like the long-eareo beast.
Me, I shoulo like to be the slight,`` the wingeo,``
yes, ano learn to leeo my song on looo
ol oeworops, lreely given ol air oivine,
ano cast oh tattereo age: age weighs on me
like the three-cornereo isle on Encelaous the monster.
. . . when once the Muses have lookeo upon a chilo
not unkinoly, they oo not reject him, now grey, as a lrieno.
The speaker`s abuse ol his anonymous critics is no harsher than
what eoucators in every century belore the twentieth ooleo out to
their stuoents. Consioerably less harsh, in lact, since Callimachus
never calls the Telchines asses outright, prelerring insteao to pass
quickly to a sell-characterization as a oainty`` cicaoa-poet sipping
oeworops out ol the oivine air ano enjoying the Muses` lasting
lrienoship.
Envy`s unpleasant conversation with Apollo at the eno ol H,mr
. casts the Callimachean speaker in a similar light. The poet`s
purity ano sanctity is again symbolizeo by water, ano his outright
rejection ol blame poetry is here renoereo lully explicit:
o 1o vo, A to ovo, t t` ou c:c c pio, ti
ttv
òu i c ,cuci :o v c oioo v o , ou o` o oc to v:o, c ti oti.`
:o v 1o vov o to ov tooi :` n cotv o ot :` t tittv
`Àooupi ou to:cuoio ut ,c, p o o,, c c :c toc
u uc:c ,n , ici too v t q` u oc:i oupqt:o v t iti.
Anoi o` ou i c to tcv:o , u oop qopt ouoi ut iooci,
c ` n :i, iccpn :t ici c ypc cv:o, c vt ptti
ti ocio, t i tpn , o i ,n ic , c ipov c o:ov.`
ycipt, c vc o ot Mo uo,, iv` o 1o vo,, t vc vt oi:o.
,Call., H. ..:o:,
Envy whispereo in Apollo`s ear:
When a poet`s poems are less than oceanic
in scope, I remain less than impresseo.``
Apollo answereo Envy with a kick ano a lesson:
Mighty the nooo ol Euphrates: what it orags
on its water is vastness ol muo, vastness ol trash.
It isn`t just any water the Bee-priestesses carry to Deo.
No. It must be pure ano unoenleo, must inch
its slenoer stream lrom a holy lountain.
It must be, in a woro, ol the highest water.``
Hail, gracious loro! ano Blame begone: go live with Envy.
Cooe mooel of Cotollor mor/ooo :q:
Frobably the leature ol this lamous passage best remembereo by
most reaoers is Apollo`s kick, partly because ol its vivioness ano
partly because recent classical scholarship, reacting to earlier
unsympathetic portrayals ol Callimachus as a milksop, has tenoeo
to emphasize the vigor ol Callimachus` critical agonism.` The
aesthetic program is inoeeo stateo with vigor, but the victim ol
Apollo`s physical ano verbal aggression is not one ol the poet`s
enemies ,even unoer a pseuoonym, but rather personineo Envy.``
By the time we arrive at the closing rejection ol Blame,`` the locus
ol the speaker has shilteo, as in the Aetto prologue, to an implicit
characterization ol his own poetic perlormance as renneo ano
oelicate, stateo this time in terms that Antipater ol Thessalonica
seems to have hao specincally in mino in his epigram against the
water-orinking poets.`'
As lor Callimachus` iambic ano invective`` poetry, nothing that
we know ol the lragmentary Iom/ot or the lost I/t suggests that
either poetic proouction ever gave voice to verbal aggression in
anything like an Archilochian mooe. The collection ol Iom/ot was
introouceo by its poet speaking not tr ptoptto petoro but rather in
the voice, ano the limping iambic`` ,choliambic, or scazon, metre,
ol Hipponax. The iambic poet secono in the canon ,alter Archi-
lochus, announces his return lrom the oeao bringing tom/o that
sings no battle against |his chiel victim| Boupalos`` ,qt pov icuov
ou uc ynv c ti oov:c | :n v Boutc tiov, Iom/. :. Fleiher,. An
extant summary ,Dteet, ol the collection tells us that Hipponax`s
opening speech continueo with an injunction to the Alexanorian
p/tloloot to put oown their ootom p/tlolotcom ano treat each other
kinoly: a suggestion very much in keeping with Callimachus`
stance in the passages alreaoy quoteo, ano comparable to nothing
extant in Archilochus or Catullus, even at their most sell-righteous
ano sell-justilying.` It ooes appear lrom the Dteet that Calli-
` The cutting eoge ol Callimachus` iambs is not olten acknowleogeo``: Clayman ,:q8o,
8, who points to a traoition ol presenting Callimachus as a most milo-mannereo
iambicist,`` beginning with I. Jung in :q.q ano continuing as recently as Iraser ,:q.,
. ,In lact, Lalaye |:8q| 6 hao alreaoy spoken ol le oelicat, le oiscret Callimaque.``,
`` Foem q on Cinna`s _m,tro ano Volusius` Arrole, perhaps inspireo in part by this Calli-
machean passage, highlights Catullus` oiherence in this regaro: Catullus, like Fope in the
Dorctoo, ooes not hesitate to name other poets by name ano to heap the muo ol shame
on their heaos.
`' See :6q: above.
` Dte. 6.6: n iouoi o` cu :oi, ic:` tic, c tc,optu ti qovtiv c n oi,. Clayman ,:q8o,
: nnos in this a most ironic spectacle.`` Kerkhecker ,:qqq, .. acknowleoges that the
tone ol Hipponax` aooress is less than nattering,`` but nnos ultimately that Hipponax`s
iambic criticism has turneo conciliatory`` ,,.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo :q.
machus` iambics incluoeo blunt ano even inoecent expression, but
there is no evioence that the oiction was at any point other than
intricately learneo, or that any living inoivioual was subjecteo to
verbal abuse by name or unoer a recognizable pseuoonym.'
The same can be saio, ano with even stronger conviction, ol the
I/t, though we possess not a single lragment ol that poem. The
I/t almost certainly containeo elaborate ano even oire curses, but
curse poems`` ,c pci , seem to have been at the time a recognizeo
vehicle lor perlormances ol eruoite wit.'' That the poem`s internal
aooressee was either anonymous or nonexistent is strongly inoi-
cateo by the oooly rounoabout language in which the the text ol
the Ilorentine scholia ioentines l
i, as Apollonius ol Rhooes.'`
Still more persuasive on this point is Ovio`s exilic poem ol the
same name, in a passage echoing Foem ::6 ano making explicit
what Ovio reao there, namely a positing ol being Archilochus``
ano being Callimachus`` as polar opposite mooes ol male social
ano poetic interaction:
pax erit haec nobis, oonec mihi uita manebit,
cum pecore innrmo quae solet esse lupis.
prima quioem coepto committam proelia uersu,
non soleant quamuis hoc peoe bella geri,
utque petit primo plenum nauentis harenae
nonoum callacti militis hasta solum,
sic ego te lerro nonoum iaculabor acuto,
protinus inuisum nec petet hasta caput,
et neque nomen in hoc nec oicam lacta libello
teque breui qui sis oissimulare sinam.
postmooo, si perges, in te mihi liber iambus
tincta Lycambeo sanguine tela oabit.
nunc quo Battiaoes inimicum oeuouet Ibin,
hoc ego oeuoueo teque tuosque mooo,
utque ille historiis inuoluam carmina caecis,
non soleam quamuis hoc genus ipse sequi.
illius ambages imitatus in Ibioe oicar
oblitus moris iuoiciique mei,
' Clayman ,:q8o, 8: Callimachus` Iom/t are lull ol personal abuse oirecteo at nameo ot
mote pto/o/l, peoooromeo inoiviouals`` ,italics mine,. Kerkhecker ,:qqq, q6o compares
Archilochus` sell-assertion against overwhelming ooos`` with Callimachus` mooest
morality ol social graces.``
'' On Hellenistic c pci , Watson ,:qq:, ::. See also Williams ,:qq6, :o:. who, while
conceoing that even an eruoite ano witty curse can take oelight in wounoing gravely,
nnos it haro to believe that Callimachus shareo this saoistic relish.``
'` Cameron ,:qq, ..6 ano relerences there.
et, quoniam qui sis nonoum quaerentibus eoo,
Ibiois interea tu quoque nomen habe,
utque mei uersus aliquantum noctis habebunt,
sic uitae series tota sit atra tuae. ,Ovio, I/t :6,
As long as I live, we`ll have the kino ol peace
that obtains between wolves ano helpless sheep.
Still, I`ll enter the lray in the verse lorm I`ve aoopteo,
though it`s an unaccustomeo rhythm lor waging war.
Ano, just as a soloier`s spear, belore he`s hot,
is pointeo at the grouno covereo in yellow sano,
so I won`t yet hurl at you with an iron point,
ano a spear won`t heao straight lor the heao I hate.
Your name ano your oeeos will go unsaio in the present
book. I`ll conceal your ioentity lor now.
Later, il you keep it up, lree-wheeling tom/o will give me
shalts against you staineo with the blooo ol Lycambes.
Ior now, I`ll curse you ano yours in the mooe
the son ol Battus useo to curse Ibis, his enemy.
I`ll wrap my poetry up, like him, in obscure
tales, though I`m unaccustomeo to lollowing this genre.
Ior having imitateo his riooles in his I/t
I`ll be saio to have lorgotten my own character ano
juogment.
Ano since I oon`t yet give your name when people ask,
meantime take the name ol Ibis yoursell.
Ano just as my lines will have some oarkness in them,
so may the whole course ol your lile be blackeneo over!
Ovio`s characterization ol tom/o as giving shalts soakeo in
blooo`` ,ttrcto . . . orotre telo oo/tt , openly alluoes both to Foem ::6
ano also, by winoow relerence,`` to Catullus` own allusion there
to the woros spoken by lratricioal Romulus to his brother in
Ennius ,an anti-neoteric allusion to match the anti-neoteric pros-
ooy ol the Catullan verse,:'
contra nos tela ista tua euitabimus acta
at nxus nostris tu oabis supplicium. ,::6.8,
Every shalt you aim at me, I`ll oooge.
But mine will hit. You`ll give me satislaction.
' On Catullus ano Ennius, Zetzel ,:q8,.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo :q
nec pol homo quisquam laciet impune animatus
hoc nec tu: nam mi calioo oabis sanguine poenas
,Ennius, Arr. q Skutsch,'
No man, I swear, will oare this ano his oaring
go unpunisheo. Not even you: you`ll give me payment
in warm blooo.
Ovio seems clear on the point that Callimachus` Ibis remaineo
unioentineo ano unioentinable in that poem. He shows as well
that a Roman poet coulo mention Archilochus` oeaoly iambs
in the same breath as Callimachus without leeling impelleo to
conceoe that Callimachus too hao composeo iambs. As a sell-
proclaimeo non-invective poet, Ovio claims that taking even the
small nrst step ol lollowing Callimachus` non-oelamatory I/t rep-
resents a guilty oeparture lrom his own gooo-natureo character.
Ior Catullus, conversely, author ol the nercest invective extant in
his language, Callimachean invective`` may have seemeo to be no
invective at all: there is arguably no corctctom or even moleotctto
where no one is moleotcto, no aggression where no aooressee is
exposeo to the harm ol public shame.
Foem ::6`s Catullus, then, as Ovio reao him, placeo Calli-
machus ano Archilochus at opposite enos ol a spectrum ol manly
perlormance, ano what we know or can oeouce about Calli-
machus` poetics ol manhooo at its most aggressive ooes not
compel us to qualily the justice ol that placement. At his most
incomparably oelicate, as in the lollowing epigram, Callimachus
comes very close to a sell-allusive unwriting ol Archilochus` perso-
nateo et/o, a speaking stance always hubristic in aggressive public
shaming ano hubristic even in love itsell:
Li ut v t io v, A pyiv`, t ttio ucoc, uupi c ut uqou,
ti o` c iov n io, :n v tpott :ticv t c.
A ipn:o, ici L po, u` n vc ,icocv, o v o ut v cu :o v
ti
itv, o o` ou i tic :n v tpo:t :ticv t c v.

t o v o` ou i t o noc, :i , n :i vo,, c ` t qi noc
:n v qin v ti :ou :` t o:` c oi inu`, c oiit o.
,Call., Eptt. . Fleiher AP :..::8,
' Iirst noteo by La Fenna ,:q6,, see oiscussion at Newman ,:qqo, 6.
Il I came ol my will to your house in my cups, Archinus,
blame me ten thousano blames. Il against my will,
let my rashness be.
Unmingleo wine ano Desire compelleo me. The one
orew me on, the other woulo not let me
let my rashness be.
I came. But I never shouteo your name, or your lather`s.
All I oio was post a kiss on your ooorpost. Il that
is a crime, I am a criminal.
Eros ano waterless wine have here combineo lorces to orive the
Callimachean speaker to a gesture he calls rash.`` By so calling
it he only throws into sharper reliel the restraint, the oiscretion,
the water-orinking`` oelicacy ol this poetic perlormance ol milo
lrenzy.``'` The three extant Augustan elegists woulo attempt this
provocatively oelicate mooe, with Tibullus perhaps the most suc-
cesslul personator ol a Callimachean`` manhooo, since he por-
trays himsell as the least successlul in love.' But Catullus hao
alreaoy shown his mastery ol the manhooo ol oelicacy in love, in
several ol the most exquisite poems ol the corpus: the poem ol the
single kiss, lor example, whose speaker oescribes himsell spenoing
over an hour hanging on the cross`` ,qq.,, begging lorgiveness
while Juventius purgeo his lips with water.'` The poems ol the
many kisses ,Foems ano to Lesbia, ano Foem 8 to Juventius,,
ano the sparrow poems as well ,Foems . ano , can easily be reao
as partaking ol the same mooe. Unoer stress or threat, however,
the Catullan persona ooes not oeleno himsell with quiet Calli-
machean oignity, but insteao snaps like a whip lrom one eno ol
his spectrum ol manly perlormance to the other, acting out Foem
::6`s Archilochian threat by hurling iambic shalts ol aggression at
rivals ano enemies.
We might have expecteo a Callimachean manhooo ol oelicacy
to be somewhat oiherently genoereo in the cultural context ol
Catullus` Rome than at Callimachus` Alexanoria, ano Catullus`
text seems to renect this. The other relerence to songs ol Battus`
'` Garrison ,:q8,. tpott :tic ,rashness``, is a technical term in Stoic moral philosophy
,Diogenes Laertius .6,.
' Tibullus, unlike Fropertius ano Ovio, never enjoys the embrace or even the conversation
ol either ol his poelloe.
'` Ross ,:q6q, . noteo the tone ol oelicacy`` that oistinguishes this most remarkable ol
the Juventius poems lrom the other epigrams. Many critics ,e.g. Arkins |:q8.| :::6,
have locuseo on the poem`s literary qualities as a way ol heterosexualizing`` Catullus.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo :q6
son`` in the corpus oepicts its speaker`s larthest retreat lrom the
male`` into a oelicious, but also oangerously vulnerable, leminin-
ity. In being Callimachus,`` Catullus becomes a woman`` more
explicitly ano insistently here than anywhere else in the corpus:''
numquam ego te, uita lrater amabilior,
aspiciam posthac? at certe semper amabo,
semper maesta tua carmina morte canam,
qualia sub oensis ramorum concinit umbris
Daulias, absumpti lata gemens Ityli.
seo tamen in tantis maeroribus, Ortale, mitto
haec expressa tibi carmina Battiaoae,
ne tua oicta uagis nequiquam creoita uentis
emuxisse meo lorte putes animo,
ut missum sponsi lurtiuo munere malum
procurrit casto uirginis e gremio,
quoo miserae oblitae molli sub ueste locatum,
oum aouentu matris prosilit, excutitur,
atque illuo prono praeceps agitur oecursu,
huic manat tristi conscius ore rubor. ,6.:o.,
Brother I loveo better than lile, will I never
see you again? Yet I`ll love you lorever still,
lorever I`ll sing my song to mourn your oeath,
a song like the Daulian biro`s, unoer thick shaoe ol branches,
lamenting the late ol her Itylus, taken away.
Even so, Ortalus, even in sorrow like this,
I seno you this renoereo song ol Battus` son,
lor lear you might think your woros all vain,
entrusteo to sweeping winos, oraineo lrom my heart
like the apple her suitor sent, a secret token,
that tumbles lrom the young girl`s virgin lap
, poor thing lorgot she hio it beneath the soltness
ol her cloak,. Her mother arrives, she jumps, it`s shaken
out, ano as its noootioe rushes oown,
reo shame comes trickling up her saooeneo cheeks.
In this prologue to an episooe translateo lrom Callimachus` Aetto
ano spoken in the voice ol a lock ol hair cut lrom a queen`s heao,
the Catullan speaker externalizes his two ruling ano connicting
ahective states in a pair ol extenoeo similes, both in the vehicle ol
'' Retreat lrom the male``: Stehle Stigers ,:q,. The leminine`` has ol course been a cen-
tral Catullan critical term since Havelock ,:qq,.
a leminine persona ano both evoking specincally Callimachean
images. Iirst, griel at his brother`s oeath makes Catullus into the
Daulian biro,`` a woman metamorphoseo into the nightingale,
her cry an eternal lament lor a muroereo boy.' The tenoerest
expression ol griel in Callimachus` poetry ,as we possess it,
ruminates, like Foem 6, on a lile cut short, on a bereaveo poet`s
lilelong memory, ano on poetic remembrance as the only thing to
escape oeath`s oblivion:
Li
tt :i,, H pc iti:t, :to v uo pov, t , ot ut oc ipu

n ,c,tv, t uvn onv o` o ooc ii, c uqo :tpoi
n iov t v t oyn ic:tou ocutv c c ou ut v tou,
tiv` A iicpvnotu , :t:pc tcci otooin
ci ot :tci o ouoiv c noo vt,, n oiv o tc v:ov
c ptci:n , A i on, ou i t ti ytipc cti.
,Call. Eptt. .| AP .8o|.6,
Heraclitus, someone mentioneo your oeath to me.
It brought back a tear ano a memory: you ano I
together, talking, putting the sun to beo, how many times.
You`re ashes now, my lrieno lrom Halicarnassus,
ashes long since, ano long since lour times over.
But your nightingales live on. Haoes shall not lay
on them his hano that grasps at everything.
Heraclitus` oeathless nightingales`` ,c noo vt,, are his poems, so
calleo by Callimachus because poets, too, sing`` ,c ti oouoi ,.'
Catullus, rather than naming the nightingale outright, hints at it
,ano at Callimachus as well, I think,, spotlighting his own knowl-
eoge ol the Greek woro`s etymology by a threelolo etymological
ngure on the Latin equivalent ,cotmtro, corom, corctrtt: 6.:.:,,
' There were at least two ancient versions ol the myth ,see Zacharia |lorthcoming|,, ano
Catullus shows his knowleoge ol both ol them. Interestingly, Farthenius ,whom we are
sometimes inviteo to imagine at Catullus` sioe helping him to construe his Callimachus,
makes mention ol the similar story ol Harpalyce, at Etottko Pot/emoto :. Farthenius lists
Euphorion among the poetic sources ol his tale. On Catullus, Callimachus ano Farthe-
nius, see Clausen ,:q6,. On nightingales as symbols ol maternal griel, Loraux ,:qqo,.
Walsh ,:qqo, nnos a new kino ol relation to the sell expresseo in this ano similar Helle-
nistic poems.
' The etymology is probably correct ,Chantraine s. v. c noo v,. See Santini ,:qq, on the
nightingale-poet speaker ol Foem 6 ,though without mention ol the etymological
ngure,.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo :q8
ano by specinc relerence to the moment in Homer, on the same
mythological exemplum, where the etymology is maoe explicit:`
o , o` o :t lcvocpt ou iou pn, yopni , c noo v,
ico v c ti on oiv t cpo, vt ov i o:cut voio
otvopt ov t v tt:c oioi ictout vn tuiivoioiv,
|o/ oert tomotom corctrtt om/tt, 6.:|
n :t cuc :poto oc yt ti tounyt c qovn v,
tcio` o oqupout vn, l :uov qi ov ,Oo. :q.:8..,
. . . as when Fanoareus` oaughter, the greenwooo nightingale,
sings her beautilul song maoe new with the spring
ano, sitting in the trees` thick loliage,
|Catullus: she sings unoer thick shaoe ol branches``|
warbling she pours out the rich tones ol her voice,
oirging her Itylus, her oear oeao son . . .
In the secono simile ,6.:.,, the Catullan speaker`s leminiza-
tion is thrown into still sharper reliel. Ortalus hao askeo Catullus
to bring lorth sweet lruits ol the Muses`` ,oolct Mootom exptomete
feto, 6., perhaps a hinteo suggestion ol poetic composition as
pregnancy ano Catullus hao claimeo not to be able to oo justice
to that request ,the claim is itsell a perlormance that ooes it
honor,, pleaoing his mino`s nuctuation`` ,6., in griel at the river
ol oeath whose waters have moisteneo his brother`s pallio loot
,6.6,. At the poem`s eno the images ol nowing ano exuoing are
reooubleo: Catullus senos presseo out`` or lorceo out`` ,expteo,
6.:6, a woro regularly useo ol translating, songs ol Battus` son to
Ortalus lest Ortalus think his own woros`` ,otcto, 6.:, have
noweo out`` ,eoxte, 6.:8, ol Catullus` mino. Ortalus` otcto, as
suggesteo earlier, probably hao taken the lorm ol a poetic epistle,
an agonistic perlormance ol the excellence ol eruoite oelicacy,
challenging ano compelling its recipient to a response in kino. Il so,
then Ortalus` request is a material artilact a tablet, or perhaps a
` The nightingale`s common Latin name, loctro, seems to have been excluoeo lrom the
language`s highest oictional registers. We have it attesteo once in Augustan literature, in
Horace`s Sottte ,....,. Virgil, in a simile recalling both Homer ano Catullus, calls the
nightingale p/tlomelo ,G. .::,. Eowaros ,:qq, 8.. nnos in the Virgilian passage a
specincally Callimachean impotence ol song.``
On poetic composition as pregnancy ano lorceo out`` songs ol Battus, Iitzgeralo ,:qq,
:8qq6.
Cooe mooel of Cotollor mor/ooo :qq
bookroll like Fhaeorus` speech ol Lysias in the Flatonic oialogue
ano the reaoer is at liberty to imagine it nestleo pleasurably in the
speaker`s lap. Foem 6`s Catullus must not let the apple orop, by
neglecting to bring lorth poetry`s lruits. Just as he warns his
lrienos elsewhere, one traitorous lapse ano the game is up, every-
thing is known, ano oelicacy gives way to shame ,ano thence, in
the logic ol Catullan lrienoship, to aggressive shaming,. The reo
moisture that irrigates the virgin`s lace, with its laint suggestion ol
a pubescence both psychological ano physiological, very likely
renects a moment in the episooe ol Acontius ano Cyoippe lrom
Callimachus` Aetto, though we are missing the part ol the tale
where the chaste Cyoippe picks up the apple thrown by Acontius
ano nai vely reaos alouo its inscribeo oath, counteo as binoing, to
weo Acontius.
In Foem 6, then, two poetic emblems presioe over Catullus`
Callimachean leminization: a biro connecteo with oeath ano
griel ano symbolizing poetry itsell, ano a oenowering apple both
thrown`` ano sent`` as love-gilt ,or love-charm, ano epistle ,mt-
om . . . molom, 6.:q, opening the simile, has both meanings: the
same pun on which Foem ::6 turns,.` It is oimcult to attribute to
chance the lact that our corpus opens ,alter the oeoication, on a
pair ol poems lormeo arouno that same pair ol images, ano on a
Catullan speaker similarly leminizeo, or perhaps better to say,
similarly occupying the thresholo between manhooo ano woman-
hooo. The pair lormeo by Foems . ano begins ano enos by
apostrophizing Lesbia`s pet sparrow. Foem .`s nrst woro seems
to have given an ancient Catullan poetry book its name, Catullus`
poet ,sparrow``, is to that extent his poetry. Foem .`s speaker
expresses the wish to play with the sparrow just as the girl ooes,
Callimachus has alreaoy oescribeo Cyoippe as resembling the oawn`` ,Aet. . lr. 6.:
Fleiher,. The Dteet ,.:, assures us that Callimachus recounteo the part ol the tale
where Cyoippe reaos the apple. Aristaenet. :.:o enos his encapsulateo version with
Cyoippe throwing oown the apple ashameo.`` Ano Ovio`s letter lrom Acontius to
Cyoippe begins with Acontius remembering how, at the moment ol reaoing his previous
missive, Cyoippe`s noble cheeks blusheo in Diana`s temple`` ,Ep. .o.6,. The most
likely source lor the Ovioian Acontius`s intertextual memory`` is this episooe in the
Aetto. See Johnston ,:q8, 8q n. lor relerences.
` Foem q suggests that Catullus` relations with Hortensius, the recipient ol Foem 6 ano
the lollowing cotmtro Botttoooe, were not untroubleo, though Foem q`s apparent negative
juogment on Hortensius` poetry is very lar in tone lrom the aggressive abuse ol the
poems against Gellius.
The sparrow is Aphrooite`s biro, prominently leatureo in Sappho ,lr. :.:o Lobel Fage,
orawing the goooess`s chariot.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo .oo
Foem mourns the sparrow, now oeao, in language that seems to
recall Callimachus` epigram on Heraclitus:`
at uobis male sit, malae tenebrae
Orci, quae omnia bella oeuoratis ,.::,
Curses on you, wickeo oarkness
ol Orcus: you oevour everything beautilul.
Three verses at the eno ol the receiveo text ol Foem . are sepa-
rateo lrom it in our scholarly eoitions. Whether Foem .b stanos
alone, is a lragment, or ,as many oistinguisheo critics have be-
lieveo, completes Foem . as it stanos without a lacuna or emen-
oation, it is in any case a placement ol the speaking subject in a
leminine role nearly as striking as the one that enos Foem 6.' An
apple once again ehects simultaneously a virgin`s passage to sexual
awakening ano the Catullan speaker`s passage to the position ol an
unnameo virgin girl whose ioentity is lelt to the reaoer`s learning:
tam gratum est mihi quam lerunt puellae
pernici aureolum luisse malum,
quoo zonam soluit oiu ligatam. Foem .b
It gives me joy like the joy they say an apple
maoe ol golo once gave a last-running girl:
it unoio her belt, tieo tight too long.
The name ol Atalanta, like Cyoippe a virgin oevoteo to Artemis,
appears once in our extant corpus ol Callimachus, in the hymn to
that goooess:
n vnoc, o` t :i tc ,yu toooppo pnv A :cc v:nv
Call. H. ..:
. . . ano you |Artemis| wholehearteoly commenoeo the swilt-
looteo Atalanta
` The themes are however too commonplace lor a oirect Callimachean allusion to be pos-
iteo with certainty. See Hezel ,:q., .q ano Synoikus ,:q8, ao loc. on the Hellenistic
traoitions behino these poems.
' Notably Ellis ,:86, ao loc., Lieberg ,:q6., qq::o ano Iitzgeralo ,:qq, .. On the
other sioe are most Catullan eoitors, incluoing most recently Thomson ,:qq,, who is
certain that Foem .b cannot be part ol Foem ..
Cooe mooel of Cotollor mor/ooo .o:
toooppo pnv ,swilt-looteo``,: the Callimachean epithet is exqui-
sitely mellinuous oiction, ano reconoite enough to require a scho-
liast`s gloss. Catullus, in making a synonymous epithet , petrtct,
.b.., stano in the name`s steao, may possibly have hao Calli-
machus in mino. Il so, the antonomasia is eruoite inoeeo, ano its
learning anything but sterile: where Callimachus hao oepicteo
Atalanta eternally lrozen in the virgin goooess` entourage, Catul-
lus shows her ,ano himsell , at the precise moment ol passage lrom
Diana`s sphere into Venus`, his Atalanta is calleo last-running``
only when love has caught up with her ano stayeo her leet.
Foem 6, then, shares with the pair lormeo by Foems . ano
a group ol extraoroinary images. Both leature small biros as
poetic emblems connecteo with passage lrom lile to oeath, ano
lrom oeath to , poetic, immortality.' Both leature apples as erotic
emblems not only symbolizing but ehecting passage lrom maioen-
hooo to sexual awakening, ano lrom the masculine to the leminine.
Both poetic proouctions, nnally, are sell-allusive perlormances ol
their speaker`s own oeroto, ano both are placeo unoer the special
tutelage ol Venus: Foem begins on an aooress to Venus ano the
Loves, ano to those among mortals possessing enough oeroto to
savor its charm ,.:.,, Foem 6 prelaces a poem narrating a mir-
acle wrought by Venus Zephyritis in answer to a new brioe`s sac-
rince ol a lock ol hair, ano laio ,like Foem 6`s apple, in a chaste
lap,`` the goooess`s this time ,66.6,. The connection between a sky
goooess ano precisely this nexus ol images ano ioeas apples,
small biros, sexual passage ano genoer liminality was wioespreao
throughout the Meoiterranean, ano lar more ancient than Greco-
Roman culture.'' Catullus surely hao access to that nexus ol
images, ano to the goooess they accompany, by avenues other
Though it seems plausible, oirect Callimachean relerence is once again impossible to
establish. Belore Callimachus, Hesioo ,lr. 6.:8. Merkelbach-West, hao alreaoy
recounteo the episooe, with swilt-looteo`` ,tooo in,, Atalanta lorleiting the race by
stopping to pick up the thiro apple thrown by Hippomenes. Hezel`s ,:q., oiscus-
sion ol Foem .b aoouces, insteao ol Callimachus or Hesioo, Meleager`s epigram ,AP
..o, spoken in the persona ol a rabbit.
' In Foem 6 the poetic immortality is maoe explicit ,empet moeto too cotmtro motte corom,
6.:.,. In Foems . ano less so, but il we take the arrangement ol the nrst three poems
to be Catullus` ,ano the reception evioence makes at least that much haro to oeny,, then
the sparrow poems lollow immeoiately upon a oeoication whose speaker has prayeo lor
the immortalization ol his Poet ,Sparrow``,.
'' Irieorich ,:q8,.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo .o.
than literary ones.'` Still, I think it woulo have been as impossible
lor ancient reaoers ol Catullus as it is lor us to think ol those
images together in a poetic context without thinking ol Sappho.
We have just enough ol Sappho to sense her presence in these
poems ,ancient reaoers ol Catullus probably saw more, ano
through that presence these poems are in turn linkeo lor a reaoer
ol the collection to the kiss poems to Lesbia ano the Sappho
translation to Lesbia ,ano Calvus,, all ol them reoolent with the
same oelicacy that, as reaoers have long seen, blurs the genoer ol
their speaking subject.' But Catullus, remarkably, never relers to
Sappho oirectly by name in these poems. When he gives a name to
the cooe mooel personateo in these ano similar poems, agonistic
lor all its oelicacy ano homosocial lor all its lemininity,`` the
name he inscribes in his verses is that ol the son ol Battus.
coxcr ts i ox: c\+ tr r \x s r r r-r r nr onx\xcr \xn
+ nr notn r r n i xn or nox\x x\xnoon
The chance oiscovery celebrateo in Benvenuto Campesani`s epi-
gram gave to mooernity a book ol poems whose reception history
presents an extraoroinary case in more respects than one. The
poetry itsell is ol course something extraoroinary, ano the story ol
Catullus` alterlile in the imaginations ol great reaoers, ano great
poets, ooes not appear to be speeoing towaro narrative closure.'
It is a story that can be tolo, il we choose, as sentimentally as the
warmest romantic`` version ol the Lesbia novel. Whether we cele-
brate his lyric genius`` or resist it by bringing to light the lyric`s
unconscious`` ,ano both those reaoings have taught us something
new about our Catullus`` ano maoe him into something new,, it
remains that the Catullan text, the labric ol poems ano reception
woven together, continues wioely to elicit ,or compel, reaoer
responses ol a very particular ano passionate kino.
Certainly Catullus the lyric oarling`` has no rivals among
'` On erotic magic in the lorm ol prayers to Aphrooite involving apples`` ,lruits ol other
kinos as well, thrown ano biros crucineo on the torx, Iaraone ,:qqq, 68o.
' On Sappho`s presence in Foem 6 alongsioe that ol Callimachus, Johnston ,:q8,,
Eowaros ,:qq,.
' Among the great poets whose work has aooeo lustre to Catullus` reception history I cite
the recent versions ol Carson ,.ooo,.
Cooe mooel of Cotollor mor/ooo .o
Roman poets lor the ahections ol lovers ol ,lyric, poetry outsioe
classical scholarship. Ior much ol the twentieth century, the olo
lyric voice, with its high oecorum ano rhetorical urgency, was
largely a missing oictional register in Anglophone poetry, being
replaceo lor the most part by poetry ol talk.`` Ano Catullus, so
strangely ano unthinkably, ano in a way so unlike ,lor example,
the Augustan poets, olten seems to be giving us just that, to be
talking to his reaoer, to o.'` How much ol this ehect is inoiviou-
ally, originally Catullus`, ano how much ol it has to oo with his
moment in literary history ano the conventions ol the genres in
which he wrote, is impossible to say. Calvus ano the other neo-
terics`` are lost to us, Lucretius, whom Catullus probably knew, is
a contemporary poet`` by the calenoar alone. ,Ano I suppose lew
will put lorwaro Cicero`s poetry lor comparison., Accioent ol his-
tory though it is, the empty sky into which he seems to rise has
unooubteoly given special luster to Catullus` reputation among
reaoers who take it that originality`` is central to the greatness ol
a great poet. Conversely, il we know very little about what Catul-
lus` lellow poets were writing, his poetic proouction happens to
coincioe with one ol the moments ol antiquity about which we
have the richest booy ol historical evioence. Late republican pro-
sopography ano the lure ol the conspicuous source`` have clearly
gone a long way towaro resurrecting`` Catullus, injecting his cot-
po with a lile partly his own ano partly borroweo, to satisly the
curiosity that every reaoer ,stern warnings against the biographi-
cal lallacy`` notwithstanoing, leels towaro a poet whose work has
given genuine poetic pleasure.
Il we exteno the nelo to incluoe Greek poets, we have to aomit
that Sappho`s name lar outshines that ol her Latin translator, but
it is precisely arouno her rome that Sappho`s mooern reception
history has gathereo its sparkling brilliance. Faul Allen Miller is
surely right that Catullus is lyric`` a consciousness`` that we
create ano interact with through the act ol reaoing in a way that
Sappho cannot be, lor us. It may be true, ano probably is true,
that issues ol oral perlormance ano written collection situate Sap-
pho`s poetry on the other sioe ol a clear oivioe lrom Catullus` in
this regaro. Still, a single complete poem ano a series ol ,stunning,
'` Horace, ol course, gives us poetry ol talk`` in the Sottte ano Epttle, but without the
intensity ano urgency ol the lyric.``
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo .o
lragments make too little Sappho to juoge what ehect a reaoing ol
the Alexanorian eoition in nine books ,arrangeo eoitorially by
metre, might have operateo on Catullus` own consciousness, ano
whether we might be able to oiscern a Sapphic consciousness``
present in her work, ano renecteo in the Catullan collection, il
only we possesseo Catullus` Sappho.' Sappho ano Catullus both
have laboreo all ,long, mooernity long unoer the weight ol critics`
aoulation. Romanticism maoe both poets original geniuses.``
Mooernism maoe them both intensely personal poets.`` Both lives
have been novelizeo, but in Sappho`s case the oistinction between
nctional novel ano literary biography is simply haroer to blur,
precisely because ol our lar greater ignorance ol Sappho`s poetry,
lile, ano historical ano social context.'`
While Havelock, writing between the worlo wars, was still ro-
mantic in many aspects ol his sensibility, he hao alreaoy satirizeo
the romantic version ol the Catullus novel rounoly enough to pre-
vent serious scholars lrom continuing that nineteenth-century tra-
oition. Il the romantic narrative novel hao been put to night lrom
Catullan scholarship, there was however still room lor a novel ol a
newer kino, a mooernist psychological novel whose buroen was
not the story ol the lile but rather the analysis ol the sell, ol the
personality behino Catullus` poetry ol personality,`` as Quinn
calleo it. A mooernist sell, as unitary ano eternally ioentical to
itsell as the Goo ol the schoolmen, was maoe to stano, transcen-
oent, behino every poem as its unique oet oe rorctottor or speak-
ing subject`` ,those terms are ol course anachronistic: at the time
one saio simply Catullus, as opposeo to Catullus,`` or else the
poet,`` as opposeo to the persona``,. This sell, though unchanging
in itsell ,even as it passeo through the oiherent phases ol the Les-
bia story,, revealeo`` itsell, as transcenoent things will, to greater
or lesser oegree lrom one poem to the next. The result was a hier-
archical signilying relation among the poems, ano between the
poet`s sell ano his poetic sell-revelation. Criticism, while ostensi-
bly explicating it, hao in lact authoreo this relation. Inevitably
that critical explication took the line that alloweo us ,literary
Catullans, to continue celebrating our Catullus as a secret oouble
' On the oouble consciousness`` that emerges lrom our reaoing ol Sappho, see the sug-
gestive remarks ol Winkler ,:qqo, :6.8.
'` On Sappho`s social context, see Hallett ,:qq,.
agent, our man in Rome: Catullus, long belore us, hao seen with
our eyes ano critiqueo with our conscience everything that was
ethically inoigestible in the Roman society whose artilacts we hao
learneo not to take as normative, but still consumeo with appetite
ano love.
The project ol questioning mooernism`s sweet nction`` ol a
unitary sell began earlier in the twentieth century than is some-
times imagineo, ano it has taken more lorms than those ol oe-
constructionism ano the rest ol the Anglophone reception ol
continental poststructuralist thought. Sociology ano comparative
anthropology oher a language lor oescribing a sell that is per-
lormeo rather than revealeo, ano I have invokeo Herzlelo`s mooel
ol a rhetoric ol the sell `` as one way ol oemooernizing ancient
Catullus. Ano well belore postmooern theorists were proclaiming
the oispersal into lragments ol the mooernist speaking subject,
postmooern poets were perlorming that oispersal. I have pointeo
to some ol their work here as ohering alternatives to mooernist
ways ol reaoing Catullus ano ol thinking ano speaking about his
poetry, ways baseo on assumptions that remain unquestioneo ano
even invisible so long as romantic`` is the name given to every
mooe ol reaoing that has lallen out ol critical lavor. Mooernist
constructions ol Catullus have given us, I think, the richest critical
insights into his poetry to oate. Surely the best way to honor those
insights is to critique them in turn, ano to locate them in their own
cultural ano historical context.
Catullus, in the reaoing I have ohereo, is the name ol a per-
lormeo sell, or rather, the name ol a perlormance ol multiple
selves. The central issue at stake in male sell-perlormance in
Catullus` Rome seems by all accounts to have been that ol mascu-
linity itsell, construeo ano establisheo through a oiscourse that I
have chosen here to oescribe in terms ol Herzlelo`s poetics ol
manhooo.`` Every perioo ol Greco-Roman antiquity was in lact
characterizeo, so lar as we can tell, by competitive public perlor-
mance ol manhooo among aoult elite males , probably among
non-elite males as well, but we possess lew recoros ol their inter-
action,.'' At Rome, however, ano perhaps especially at the eno ol
'' Ferlormance ol manhooo in the ancient ,Greek-speaking, Meoiterranean has been the
object ol a number ol recent stuoies. See esp. Gleason ,:qq,, Stehle ,:qq, ano Bassi
,:qq8,.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo .o6
the republic, this competition appears to have been renoereo
problematic ano even paraooxical by the coexistence ol two
oivergent mooels ol masculine behavior: one connecteo ioeologi-
cally with Roman mo mototom ano that can be roughly charac-
terizeo as archaic ano traoitional,`` the other connecteo with the
prestige ol Hellenistic culture ano more or less cosmopolitan.``'
It is tempting, lrom the present vantage point, to reao this coexis-
tence as a oichotomy between public ,society, ano private ,inoi-
vioual,, ano that is so lor at least three reasons: ,:, partly because
our sources olten seem to invite us to reao it that way ,think ol
Cicero`s characterizations ol the private lives`` ol Catiline, Fiso
ano Marc Antony,, ,., partly owing to recent ano ongoing oebates
concerning the relerents ol the terms sex,`` genoer`` ano sexu-
ality``, ,, ano partly, I think, because ol the recent history ol our
own cultural reception ol classical antiquity. We are still very
close in time to a historical moment in which writers ano eouca-
tors coulo put lorwaro Roman pttco ottto ,olo time manliness``,,
even in its most rebarbative aspects, as normative or at least ao-
mirable. The other style ol manhooo`` ,the one attacheo to the
name ol Callimachus in the last chapter, with its positive valua-
tion ol oelicacy ano rennement, is conversely one that most con-
temporary reaoers ol ancient poetry can be counteo on to nno
sympathetic, or at least more sympathetic than the nrst. ,Eventu-
ally the poetics ol that manhooo must come unoer ethical ques-
tion too, as Iitzgeralo has shown, lor its exclusionary elitism not
that we coulo have expecteo to nno an ancient egalitarianism in
Catullus.,''
It is appealing, in consequence, to imagine that Roman orators
ano politicians lelt subjectively oppresseo ano straitjacketeo by the
cultural obligation to personate constantly a manhooo ol iron un-
oer the public scrutiny ol myriao eyes searching out every chink in
the armor, ano it is appealing to imagine that leisure time pursuit
ol Hellenistic high culture ahoroeo the Roman elite man not only
what Cicero calls teloxotto mertt ,mental relaxation``,, but also the
opportunity to give way privately to a soltness that the public
gaze oisalloweo as unseemly. What makes this picture oimcult to
' A synchronic oichotomy. As Ieeney ,:qq8, o. points out, Rome is never pre-Greek``:
the Rome that negotiates its oiherence lrom ano likeness to Greek culture t the au-
thentic Rome.``
'' Iitzgeralo ,:qq, 8::
sustain, I think, is chieny the lact that the marks ol eheminacy``
lor which our sources show Roman nobles upbraioeo are in every
case marks that have been oiscerneo in the course ol public sell-
presentation ano public perlormance, olten perlormance ol the
most oeliberate ano orchestrateo sort.''' Ol course it will some-
times have been a slip in woro or gesture that provokeo the charge
ol eheminacy, but I seriously ooubt, lor example, that the young
Julius Caesar wore his belt loose in public or scratcheo his heao
with one nnger through absentminoeoness, or lor any other reason
than that ol orawing attention to himsell ano the exquisite excel-
lence ol his colto ,grooming``,: an instance ol what Herzlelo calls
the sell-allusive stylistic translormation`` ol an oroinary act. In
Caesar`s case ,ano his is the most conspicuous case,, we possess
anecootes in which the pursuit ol high culture ano all the things
that, in Caesar`s own woros, eheminize the manly spirits`` is
maoe to lunction simultaneously as a mark ol both kinos ol excel-
lence.''` By writing his grammatical treatise on analogy with Gal-
lic missiles whizzing past his heao, or again, by calmly composing
poetry when captive on a pirate ship speeoing towaro Bithynia ,or
rather, by claiming to have oone these things,, Caesar personates,
in a single gesture, both Hellenistic high cultural excellence ano
Roman`` heroic learlessness in the lace ol oeath.''
To the extent that possession ol Hellenistic high culture was
part ol the symbolic capital lor which Roman elite men competeo,
the perlormance ol that excellence was subject at every point to
the compulsion ol competitive challenge. It was no less subject at
every point to negative valuation ano aggressive mockery as a oe-
lection lrom proper Roman manly behavior. Ior the man who
playeo at this level, in an agonistic interaction where juoges were
also lellow competitors, there was no comlort zone at the center in
which he coulo be certain ol being sumciently cultivateo without
exposing himsell to accusations ol eheminacy, or ol being sum-
ciently rough-hewn without incurring the charge ol rusticity.''
''' All our sources, ol course, incluoing Cicero`s letters, are public rather than private
recoros. It can be argueo that there is in lact no private lile,`` as mooerns unoerstano
the term, in premooern societies. See, e.g., Arie`s ,:q6.,.
''` BG :.:.
'' Ironto ..:N, Flut. Coe. ...
'' Eowaros ,:qq, q6 on the oelicate balance`` between rusticity ano eheminacy in Roman
elite perlormance ol manhooo.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo .o8
Many Roman elites may have nonetheless trieo to occupy that
center. Ferhaps Cicero oio, but even Cicero`s manhooo came
unoer critique.''` Catullus` response to this oouble bino, however,
the response he perlorms in his poems, was resolutely centrilugal
ano ,to borrow a term lrom postmooern psychology, multi-
phrenic``: the speaking subjects ol his poems occupy, lrom
moment to moment, stances ol hypermasculine aggression, ol
provocatively eheminate oelicacy, ano stances at points in be-
tween or locateo on other axes. The real Catullus, the Catullan
sell, is not to be louno outsioe the poems, or behino them like a
maskeo actor, or above them like a puppeteer. He is all ol the
speaking subjects ol all the poems, ano none ol them. Catullus`
honor, his manhooo ,ano its poetics,, can be saio to rest upon that
proposition. To gainsay it, to grasp at the Catullus who says I``
ano try to halt his oscillation, is to step into the subject position ol
the aooressees ol Foem :6.
I close on a pair ol anecootal perlormances ol Roman man-
hooo, both preserveo in Aulus Gellius, that seem to me para-
oigmatic. The nrst story, one that Catullus` oloer contemporaries
coulo have witnesseo, strikes me as instructively oiherent lrom
anything in his poems, while the secono, set two centuries alter his
oeath, seems remarkably, illustratively Catullan. These vignettes
illustrate, respectively, a charge ol eheminacy ano a charge ol
rusticity, the oangers at the two opposite enos ol elite Roman
manhooo`s oouble bino. Each shows a Roman man unoer stress ol
what Latin calls loceotto or compellotto: an aggressive challenge
whose aooressee is thereby compelleo to a perlormance ol wit on
his leet ano on the oelensive. The protagonist ol the nrst anecoote
is Cicero`s oratorical rival Hortensius, almost certainly Catullus`
sometime lrieno, the recipient ol the Callimachean translation
with its exquisitely oelicate covering letter ,Foems 6 ano 66,, ano
the recipient as well ol Catullus` literary criticism, in the lorm ol a
highly unlavorable comparison ol Hortensius` prolinc verse pro-
ouction to Cinna`s newly publisheo masterpiece, the slenoer ano
exquisite culling ol nine harvests ,Foem q,.'' Hortensius` antag-
onist, nameo Torquatus, is presumably an eloer kinsman ol the
''` Brutus in Tacitus, Dtol. :8..
'' We are missing the single verse that woulo show precisely how aggressive a sting Hor-
tensius receiveo at Catullus` hanos.
Cooe mooel of Cotollor mor/ooo .oq
brioegroom whose weooing Catullus was to celebrate in Foem 6:.
Torquatus` aggression takes the lorm ol an trtetpellotto ,interrup-
tion``,, a speech genre ol which Catullus gives us an example
oirecteo anonymously at Calvus ano poetically memorializeo in
Foem .''` The insult hurleo at Hortensius, however, cuts lar
oeeper, into the marrow ol his manhooo, ano the narrator, unlike
Catullus in Foem , gives us the injureo party`s riposte. It is a
surprising one:
. . . Q. Hortensius omnibus lerme oratoribus aetatis suae, nisi M. Tullio,
clarior, quoo multa munoitia et circumspecte compositeque inoutus et
amictus esset manusque eius inter agenoum lorent argutae aomooum et
gestuosae, maleoictis compellationibusque probris iactatus est multaque
in eum, quasi in histrionem, in ipsis causis atque iuoiciis oicta sunt. seo
cum L. Torquatus, subagresti homo ingenio et inlestiuo, grauius acer-
biusque apuo consilium iuoicum, cum oe causa Sullae quaereretur, non
iam histrionem eum esse oiceret seo gesticularium Dionysiamque eum
notissimae saltatriculae nomine appellaret, tum uoce molli atque oemissa
Hortensius, Dionysia,` inquit, Dionysia malo equioem esse quam quoo
tu, Torquate, c uouoo, c vcqpo oi:o, c tpoooio vuoo,.` ,Gell. :...,
Quintus Hortensius was more celebrateo than nearly all the orators ol
his generation, Cicero excepteo. He oresseo with great elegance, arrang-
ing his toga with precise care, ano his hanos were given to nashy, broao
gestures when he oelivereo a speech. Because ol this he was the butt ol
verbal abuse, challenging insults ano humiliating remarks. Even ouring
court proceeoings, people olten shouteo out at him as though he were a
stage actor. Once, however, ouring the trial ol Sulla, Lucius Torquatus
,a person ol rather uncouth ano inelegant manners, began, ouring the
jurors` oeliberation, to insult Hortensius in more serious ano bitter
terms, saying that he was not just a stage actor but a mime actor, ano
calling him Dionysia`` ,the name ol a oancing girl,. At this, Hortensius
answereo in a solt, meek voice: Dionysia inoeeo. Torquatus, I woulo
rather be Dionysia than be what you are |ano here Hortensius breaks
into Greek|: no lrieno ol the Muses, ol Aphrooite, ol Dionysus.``
Ol this solt voice, a rare one, that spoke lor sophistication, phil-
hellenism ano even the leminine,`` Catharine Eowaros has sug-
gesteo that this may be as close as a Roman text ever comes to
suggesting virility neeo not be the ultimate virtue.``''' Inoeeo,
Hortensius` woros are very lar lrom what we might have expecteo.
Very lar too, I think, lrom anything in Catullus. Catullus goes
''` ot mort olopottom otettom ,., See Thomson ,:qq, ao loc. ano relerences there.
''' Eowaros ,:qq, q.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo .:o
consioerably oeeper than Hortensius into a perlormance ol the
leminine,`` certainly, but never unoer stress: when challengeo, he
never lails to show his colors, to give an opponent the lie Friapic.
Eowaros` sympathetic reaoing is not only unoerstanoable, it is oil-
ncult not to share. At the same time, I oo not think that Horten-
sius is calling oh the Roman manhooo game, or even relusing to
play it, but merely oelenoing himsell with the only arrow in his
quiver.'' We know lar less about Hortensius than oio Gellius ano
his secono-century reaoers, but we oo know that he was the oe-
scenoant ol an olo , plebeian, Roman lamily, that he was a lrieno
ol Lucullus ano shareo Lucullus` reputation lor gourmanoise, ano
that, although a chiel proponent ol the norio Asiatic`` style in
oratory, he hao never stuoieo in the east.'` Il Gellius` anecoote
is authentic, it gives the sense ol Hortensius` sell-perlormance as
being lar more ol a piece, lar less volatile ano multiphrenic lar
more mooernist,`` il you will than that ol Catullus, whose
lrienoship he seems not to have kept. In that sense, Hortensius`
response seems remarkable precisely lor its relusal to plo, with
Torquatus, ano with his auoience, by raising a laugh at Torqua-
tus` expense: it is haro to imagine Cicero`s Caesar Strabo holoing
up Hortensius` milo woroplay on Dionysia]Dionysus as an exam-
ple ol the clever riposte. Hortensius` ,ano the narrator`s, point
about Torquatus` boorishness stanos, but Hortensius` response
surprises precisely by its lack ol oeroto in the sense ol verbal wit.'`'
One coulo even speculate that Hortensius` choice ol a solt ano
meek voice unoer stress was one more ol strategy than ol per-
sonality``: il his lormation in the Greek language ano its culture
was somewhat secono-hano ano so subject to the accusation ol
pose, then leaving himsell open to the charge ol eheminacy may
have been a wiser course than answering an insult like a man,``
momentarily personating the home-grown ethos ol his hirsute
ancestors, ano so running the risk ol cutting the ngure ol a bump-
kin in expensive clothes who likes to preteno that his Greek is
better than his Latin, but whose true character is brought instantly
to the surlace by a prick to the skin: material lor a particularly
'' Ior another instance ol a charge ol eheminacy answereo by impersonating the lemi-
nine, see the anecoote on Egilius` /ello riposte at Cic. oe Otot. ....
'` OCD s.v. Hortensius.
'`' In the anecoote to lollow, Hortensius` poetry is criticizeo by learneo Greek reaoers on
precisely this count.
Cooe mooel of Cotollor mor/ooo .::
oelightlul ,to an auoience, ano memorable lorm ol the charge ol
rusticity, ano one that might have been haroer to shrug oh than
Torquatus` name calling.
A charge ol rusticity oeltly oenecteo provioes the action ol the
secono anecoote. Its protagonist is Antonius Julianus, a prolessor
ol rhetoric ano a lrieno ano teacher ol Gellius ,who tells us he was
present as well,. Earlier books ol the Atttc `t/t have given their
reaoer prools ol Julianus` ahability ano oiscretion, his wioe learn-
ing, ano his reaoy wit. The setting is a young equestrian`s birthoay
party at his villa outsioe Rome, where a chorus ol boys ano girls
has just given an exquisite perlormance ol some Anacreontic
poems. The Greeks among the symposiasts take the opportunity to
make trial ol Julianus` oeroto by subjecting it to the aggressive
sting ol Greek sympotic raillery, calling him nothing more or less
than a barbarian. By the eno ol the vignette, interestingly, Julia-
nus` voice will have become as gentle as that ol Hortensius, ano
almost certainly more pleasing to the ear, since by now he is no
longer on the oelensive but is insteao oelighting ano instructing his
auoience with poetic recitation, having sent the charge ol rusticity
to rout through a nercely eruoite, allusive ano sell-allusive, out-
rageously kaleiooscopic perlormance ol aggression ano oelicacy:
. . . Graeci plusculi, qui in eo conuiuio erant, homines amoeni et nostras
quoque litteras haut incuriose oocti, Iulianum rhetorem lacessere insec-
tarique aoorti sunt tamquam prorsus barbarum et agrestem, qui ortus
terra Hispania loret clamatorque tantum et lacunoia rabioa iurgiosaque
esset eiusque linguae exercitationes ooceret, quae nullas uoluptates, nul-
lamque mulceoinem Veneris atque Musae haberet, saepeque eum per-
contabantur, quio oe Anacreonte ceterisque io genus poetis sentiret et
ecquis nostrorum poetarum tam nuentes carminum oelicias lecisset, nisi
Catullus` inquiunt, lorte pauca et Caluus itioem pauca. nam Laeuius
implicata et Hortensius inuenusta et Cinna illepioa et Memmius oura ac
oeinceps omnes ruoia lecerunt atque absona.`
Tum ille pro lingua patria tamquam pro aris et locis animo irritato
inoignabunous ceoere equioem` inquit uobis oebui, ut in tali asotia
atque nequitia Alcinoum uinceretis et sicut in uoluptatibus cultus atque
uictus, ita in cantilenarum quoque mollitiis anteiretis. seo ne nos, io est
nomen Latinum, tamque prolecto uastos quosoam et insubioos c vc-
qpooioi c, conoemnetis, permittite mihi, quaeso, operire pallio caput,
quoo in quaoam parum puoica oratione Socraten lecisse aiunt, et auoite
ac oiscite nostros quoque antiquiores ante eos, quos nominastis, poetas
amasios ac uenerios luisse.`
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo .:.
Tum resupinus capite conuelato uoce aomooum quam suaui uersus
cecinit Valerii Aeoitui, ueteris poetae, item Forcii Licini et Q. Catuli,
quibus munoius, uenustius, limatius, tersius Graecum Latinumue nihil
quicquam reperiri puto. ,Gell. :q.q.:o,
A lair number ol Greeks were present at this symposium, persons ol al-
lable elegance ano no small learning in our own literature. They began
to challenge ano taunt Julianus the rhetor, calling him a barbarian out-
right, a hayseeo out ol Spain, |no oeclaimer ,oeclomotot, but| merely a
shouter ,clomotot, whose eloquence`` was rabio ano vicious, ano pointing
out that he taught oratorical pronciency in a language possessing no
pleasures, no sweet blanoishment ol Venus ano the Muse. Ano they
askeo him, again ano again, lor his critical opinion on Anacreon ano
other poets ol that sort, ano whether any ol our own poets at all hao
composeo such mellinuous oelicacies in verse, except,`` they aooeo, lor
Catullus, but only a lew ol his pieces, ano Calvus, but likewise only
a lew. Ior Laevius` compositions are tortureo, Hortensius` charmless,
Cinna`s unpolisheo, Memmius` harsh ano, in a woro, all ol them are
primitive ano oiscoroant.``
Then Julianus, inoignant, his animus piqueo in oelense ol his native
tongue, as though it were his altars ano hearths unoer attack, saio: Yes,
I suppose I woulo have to conceoe to you that in point ol ootto , proni-
gacy, ano oepravity you woulo surpass Alcinous, ano that you woulo ex-
cel at the eheminate soltness ol your little songs just as much as in your
pleasures`` ol grooming, oiet ano mooe ol living. Even so, to keep you
lrom conoemning us the Latin name, I mean on the charge ol orop/-
tootto ,insensitivity to Aphrooite,, as an uncivilizeo lot ol oolts, pray
allow me to cover my heao with my cloak, as they say Socrates oio in
making a certain improper speech, ano then listen, ano learn that there
have been poets among us, oloer than the ones you nameo, who were
lrienos ol Love ano ol Venus.``
Then, reclining back, his heao veileo, in the sweetest voice imaginable
he sang verses ol the olo poet Valerius Aeoituus, ano verses ol Forcius
Licinius ano Quintus Catulus. Ano I think that nothing can be louno, in
Greek or in Latin, to surpass them in rennement, charm, polish ano
concision.
I can point to no moment ol sell-perlormance more Catullan than
this in Latin literature alter Catullus. Catullus is ol course among
the poets whose honor`` Julianus is oelenoing, though the Greek
antagonists, themselves knowleogeable reaoers ol Latin poetry,
have set Catullus asioe as a special case ,alreaoy,, along with his
lrieno Calvus. When Julianus nrst begins to speak, it seems that
he has alreaoy lost the encounter as in the Alrican-American
Dozens`` by being the nrst to give in to rage ano lose his cool
Cooe mooel of Cotollor mor/ooo .:
,the narrator conspires with his character against us to create this
impression, allowing us to share the internal auoience`s surprise
when it is proveo lalse,.'`` His nrst Hellenizing relerence, the woro
ootto ,immeoiately glosseo by the Latin reottto, oepravity``, is
construable as typically Roman moralizing bluster, the olo line
about oecaoence being a Greek invention ano import. The reler-
ence to the Homeric Alcinous is slyer ano subtler picking up on
his Greek interlocutors` use ol the Epicureanism`s central term
,oolopto, pleasure``,, Julianus invokes the commonplace ol Alci-
nous, ano the goloen verses on the pleasures ol the table spoken at
his palace by the gluttonous`` Ooysseus, as lorerunners ol that
philosophy but its content is still ultimately not out ol keeping
with a Roman orator at his most lorensically moralizing.
With the oramatic business ol the pallium comes the nash, the
stylistic translormation ano stroke ol ,lyric, genius. The triclinium
has lallen silent, with every eye nxeo on the speaker whose lace,
whose persona, is about to be eclipseo. By recalling Socrates in the
P/oeoto, Julianus has both invokeo the most oelicate ,ano cultur-
ally prestigious, ol erotic contexts ano simultaneously preempteo
every observation about his veileo heao that wit might have
oeviseo ,concerning, say, Roman augurs or virgin brioes,. He has
also put himsell, allusively ano sell-allusively, in the position ol
Foem :6`s speaker, since he too will give voice to impure speech``
, potom pootco otottore, spoken with no loss or taint to his own im-
penetrable pootcttto.'` Julianus is about to rise, or rather recline,
to the oelense ol himsell ano the entire romer Lottrom ,Catullus
ano Calvus partially exempteo, on the charge ol orop/tootto: a
boorish insensitivity to every oelicate charm ano choice oelight ol
the honey-sweet gilts shareo by the goooess ano her son with those
who can savor their taste. Hortensius hao oelenoeo himsell by
turning the same charge, in the same terms, upon Torquatus.
Catullus, ol course, proclaims ano perlorms his inoemnity to the
charge ol orop/tootto in some ol the best known ol his poems, ano
as the last chapter argueo, several ol those poetic perlormances ol
Hellenistic oelicacy oirectly or inoirectly invoke Callimachus as
'`` On the game ol verbal abuse known as the Dozens,`` see Levine ,:q, 8.
'` :6.8: ot tom oertoe /o/ert olem oc lepotem, | t ort molltcolt oc potom pootct ,|light
verses| have salt ano charm only when they are a bit solt ,eheminate, ano none too
mooest``,. See oiscussion at Seloen ,:qq., 8.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo .:
their cooe mooel. What Julianus proceeos to sing, in a voice
amazingly ,how, sweet`` ,Gellius` grammar here calques on a
Greek construction lavoreo by Flato, is a series ol Latin poems
that gives us all but one ol our entire extant corpus ol erotic epi-
gram belore Catullus.'` Julianus` perlormance, one that began
with his ortmo ,so it seemeo, ano inoeeo perhaps it was, irritateo
to hypermasculine aggression in the olo Roman moralizing satiric
vein, enos on a poem whose speaker laments an exquisitely help-
less submission to love: his ortmo has run away like a lugitive
slave, nnoing reluge in a beautilul boy. It is surely no accioent that
the last shameless woros to ny lrom Julianus` lips behino the veil
ol shame perlorm their speaker`s own oelicate oeroto by person-
ating a hapless lover`s prayer to Venus: What shall I oo? Grant
me, Venus, your counsel.``'`` Ano I think it no accioent that this
last poem, Julianus` parting shot, is a Latin aoaptation ol an epi-
gram by Callimachus.'`
Julianus, like Catullus, coulo claim membership in three oistinct
ano overlapping oiscursive communities: romer Lottrom, Hellenistic
culture, ano provincial origin ,a province long ano nobly roman-
izeo, it is true, but his Greek interlocutors louno it gooo enough
lor throwing in Julianus` lace,. Cosmopolitan complexity ol amli-
ation ano ioentity, the rule rather than the exception lor Roman``
poets, ol course explains nothing ol itsell ,ano the search lor the
poet`s psychogenesis, happily, has long since been calleo oh ,. Still,
Julianus` relation to his complex ioentity resonates interestingly
with Catullus`. The stanoaro anxieties ano oelensive aggressions
ol Roman manhooo are palpably expresseo by both speakers, but
the lact ol having ,at least, three brains,`` like Ennius, ano liking
it, seems have serveo both Julianus ano Catullus well in poetic
perlormance ol manly excellence, an excellence, that is, that we
are inviteo to view ano applauo as an attribute not so much ol the
man`` as ol the maelstrom`` ol the poetic perlormance, the act-
ing out`` ol the insane sell.``'``
Kenneth Koch, a similarly three-souleo postmooern American
poet, gives such a perlormance:
'` The other is preserveo by Cicero at `.D. :.q , Catulus . Courtney,.
'`` oto oo oo, Vero, cortltom. Gell.:q.q.:.6 , Catulus :.6 Courtney,.
'` Call. Eptt. : Fleiher.
'`` On Ennius` ttto cotoo: Gell. :.:.
Cooe mooel of Cotollor mor/ooo .:
I have a biro in my heao ano a pig in my stomach
Ano a nower in my genitals ano a tiger in my genitals
Ano a lion in my genitals ano I am alter you but I have a
song in my heart
Ano my song is a oove
I have a man in my hanos I have a woman in my shoes
I have a lanomark oecision in my reason
I have a oeath rattle in my nose I have summer in my brain
water
I have oreams in my toes
This is the matter with me ano the hammer ol my mother
ano lather
Who createo me with everything
But I lack calm I lack rose
Though I oo not lack extreme oelicacy ol rose petal
Who is it that I wish to astonish?
. . .
I have a knocking wooopecker in my heart ano I think I have
three souls
One lor love one lor poetry ano one lor acting out my insane
sell
Not insane but boring but perpenoicular but untrue but true
The three rarely sing together take my hano it`s active
The active ingreoient is a touch
I am Loro Byron I am Fercy Shelley I am Ariosto
I eat the bacon I went oown the slioe I have a thunoerstorm
in my insioe I will never hate you
But how can this maelstrom be appealing? oo you like
menageries? my goo
Most people want a man! So here I am
These verses, monstrously ithyphallic ano just as monstrously ten-
oer, spell out a love poem, ol course, ano it is a love poem as out-
rageous as anything in our Catullus. The last two verses I citeo are
in their way the most outrageous ol all. Certainly their estimation
ol what most people want`` is the least creoible ol the poem`s
assertions. The maelstrom, the menagerie, is in lact consioerably
more appealing than the man, whoever he may be, ano every
verse ol the poem tells us that lact, perlorms it. The same, I think,
coulo be saio ol the man lrom Verona. But then, a reaoer ol
Catullus neeos no warning against the inoirections ol lovers, or ol
poets.
Cotollo oro t/e Poettc of Romor Mor/ooo .:6
1otk ctteo
Aoams, James Eli ,:qq, Dorote oro Deett Sotrt: St,le of Vtctottor Moco-
ltrtt,. Ithaca
Aoams, J. N. ,:q8., T/e Lottr Sexool Voco/olot,. Baltimore
Aoler, Eve ,:q8:, Cotollor Self-Recelottor. New York
Ahearn, Barry ,:q8, _okofk, A``: Ar Irttooocttor. Berkeley
Allen, Archibalo ,:q8, Catullus` Little White Dove |.q.8|,`` Moto
6:.
Anoerson, W. S. ,:q6, Aret tr )ocerol oro Sereco. Berkeley
Anore, J.-M. ,:q66, Lottom oor lo cte motole et trtellectoelle tomotre, oe
otttre o` le pooe te po/ltcotre. Faris
Anorews, Bruce ano Charles Bernstein, eos. ,:q8, T/e LA` G
U AGE Book. Carbonoale, Ill.
Antin, Davio ,:q., Mooernism ano Fostmooernism: Approachin, the
Fresent in American Foetry,`` /ooroot, .: A )ootrol of Potmooetr
Lttetotote ::q8q, :oq:.
Aroiti, Jor,e ,:qq8, A Gereolo, of Morret: Ttorfotmottor of Soctol Relo-
ttor tr Ftorce oro Erloro ftom t/e Footteert/ to t/e Et/teert/ Certot,.
Chica,o
Arie`s, Fhilippe ,:q6., Certotte of C/tlo/ooo: A Soctol Httot, of Fomtl, Ltfe.
New York
Arkins, Brian ,:q8., Sexooltt, tr Cotollo. Hiloesheim
Austin, J. L. ,:q6., Ho. To Do T/tr 1tt/ 1oto. Cambrio,e, Mass.
Austin, R. G. ,:q6o, M. Tollt Ctcetort Pto M. Coelto Ototto ,ro eon,. Ox-
loro
,:q68, Ille e,o qui quonoam,`` CQ :8::o:
Baoian, Ernst ,:q, Mamurra`s Iourth Iortune,`` CP .:.o.
Bahti, Timothy ,:qq6, Ero of t/e L,ttc: Dttecttor oro Coreoerce tr 1etetr
Poett,. Baltimore
Bakhtin, Mikhail ,:q8:, T/e Dtolotc Imotrottor: Foot Eo,. Austin
,:q8, Ro/elot oro Ht 1otlo. Bloomin,ton
,:q86, The Froblem ol Speech Genres,`` in Speec/ Gerte oro Ot/et Lote
Eo,. Austin. 6o:o.
Barchiesi, Alessanoro ,:q8, Lo ttoccto oel mooello: Eettt omettct rello rotto-
tore ctttltoro. Fisa
.:
Baroon, Henri ,:q, Lott oe lo compotttor c/e Cotolle. Faris
Barthes, Rolano ,:qo, S_. Faris ,|:q| S_. New York,
,:q, Le plottt oo texte. Faris ,|:q6| T/e Pleoote of t/e Text. Lonoon,
,:q, Roloro Bott/e ,trans. R. Howaro,. New York
Barton, Carlin A. ,:qq, T/e Sotto. of t/e Arctert Romor: T/e Gloototot oro
t/e Mortet. Frinceton
Bartsch, Shaoi ,:qq, Actot tr t/e Aooterce: T/eotttcoltt, oro Doo/lepeok ftom
èto to Hoottor. Cambrio,e, Mass.
Bassi, Karen ,:qq8, Acttr Ltke Mer: Geroet, Dtomo, oro òtolto tr Arctert
Gteece. Ann Arbor
Batstone, William ,:qq, Lo,ic, Rhetoric ano Foesis,`` Helto .o:::
Bayet, Jean ,:q6, Catulle, la Gre`ce et Rome,`` in LIr/oerce te `coe ot lo
poe te lottre oe Cotolle o` Octoe ;Hotot Erttetter .). Berne.
Beck, Jan-Wilhelm ,:qq6, Le/to oro )ocertto: _.et libelli tm Cotpo
Cotolltorom. Go ttin,en
Belsey, Catherine ,:q8o, Cttttcol Ptocttce. Lonoon
Benjamin, Walter ,:q, U
ber eini,e Motive bei Bauoelaire,`` in R.

Tieoemann ano H. Schweppenha user ,eos.,, Geommelte Sc/ttfter, vol.
i... Iranklurt. 6o
Bioart, Irank ,:qq, Dette. New York
Bin,, Feter ,:q88, T/e 1ell-Reoo Moe: Pteert oro Pot tr Colltmoc/o oro
t/e Hellertttc Poet. Go ttin,en
Blaiklock, E. M. ,:qq, T/e Romorttctm of Cotollo. Aucklano
Bloo,ett, E. D. ,:q88, Wiseman`s Catullus: The Darkness Beyono the
Winoow,`` AC :.qo
Bloom, Harolo ,:q, T/e Arxtet, of Ir/oerce: A T/eot, of Poett,. Oxloro
,:q, A Mop of Mtteootr. New York
,:q, 1olloce Stecer: T/e Poem of Oot Cltmote. Ithaca
Booth, Joan ,:qq, Lottr Loce Ele,: A Comportor to Ttorlottor of Go, Lee
.tt/ Irttooocttor oro Commertot,. Bristol
,:qq, All in the Mino: Sickness in Catullus 6,`` in S. Brauno ano C.
Gill ,eos.,, T/e Potor tr Romor T/oo/t oro Lttetotote. Cambrio,e.
:o68
Booth, Wayne ,:q, T/e R/etottc of Ftcttor ,.no eon,. Chica,o
Bossi, Irancesco ,:qqo, Stoot o Atc/tloco. Bari
Bouroieu, Fierre ,:q., Eote oore t/e otte oe lo ptottoe. Geneva
,:qq, Lo otttrcttor: cttttoe octole oo oemert. Faris
,:qq8, Lo oomtrottor mocoltre. Faris
,:qqq, The New Global Vul,ate,`` T/e Boet :.:6q8
Braoley, Keith ,:qq, Slocet, oro Soctet, ot Rome. Cambrio,e
Brooks, Feter ,:q8, Reootr fot t/e Plot: Detr oro Irterttor tr òttottce.
New York
Bruns, Geralo ,:qqq, Ttotc T/oo/t ot t/e Ero of P/tloop/,: Lorooe, Ltt-
etotote oro Et/tcol T/eot,. Evanston
Bryson, Norman ,:qqo, Looktr ot t/e ocetlookeo: Foot Eo, tr Sttll Ltfe
Potrttr. Lonoon
1otk ctteo .:8
Buchheit, Vinzenz ,:qq, Catulls Dichterkritik in c. 6,`` Hetme 8:oq
. ,R. Heine |eo.|, Cotoll, 1ee oet Fotc/or o8. Darmstaot |:q|
66:,
,:q6, Catulls c. o als Fro,ramm uno Bekenntnis,`` R/M ::q::6.8o
Bur,ess, Dana L. ,:q86, Catullus c. o: The Exchan,e ol Foetry,`` A)P
:o:686
Burnett, Anne Fippin ,:q8, T/tee Atc/otc Poet: Atc/tloc/o, Alcoeo, Sopp/o.
Cambrio,e, Mass.
Burzachechi, M. ,:q6., O,,etti parlanti nelle epi,ran ,reche,`` Ept-
top/tco .:
Buss, Arnolo H. ,:q6:, T/e P,c/olo, of Atetor. New York
Butler, Juoith ,:qq, Boote T/ot Mottet: Or t/e Dtcottce Ltmtt of Sex.
New York
Ca,e, John ,:q6, A 1eot ftom Moroo,: è. Lectote oro 1ttttr. Miooleton
Cairns, Irancis ,:q., Gerettc Compotttor tr Gteek oro Romor Poett,. Eoin-
bur,h
,:q, Catullus` Boto Foems ,, , 8,,`` Mremo,re .6::..
Calinescu, Matei ,:q8, Ftce Foce of Mooetrtt,. Durham, N.C.
Calvino, Italo ,:q, Il Cotello oet oettrt trctoctott. Torino ,|:q| T/e
Cotle of Ctoeo Dettrte. New York,
Cameron, Alan ,:q6, Catullus .q,`` Hetme :o::6
,:qq, Colltmoc/o oro Ht Cttttc. Frinceton
Campbell, F. Michael ,:qq, The Comeoian as the Letter Z: Reaoin,
Zukolsky Reaoin, Stevens Reaoin, Zukolsky,`` in M. Scro,,ins
,eo.,, Uppet Ltmtt Motc: T/e 1ttttr of Loot _okofk,. Tuscaloosa.
:q:
Cantarella, Eva ,:qq., Btexooltt, tr t/e Arctert 1otlo ,trans. C. Cuillea-
na in,. New Haven
Carson, Anne ,:qqq, Ecorom, of t/e Urlot: Reootr Stmortoe of Ieo .tt/
Pool Celor. Frinceton
,.ooo, Mer tr t/e O Hoot. New York
Castronovo, Davio ,:q8, T/e Erlt/ Gertlemor: Imoe oro Ioeol tr Ltteto-
tote oro Soctet,. New York
,:qq:, T/e Amettcor Gertlemor: Soctol Ptette oro t/e Mooetr Lttetot, Mtro.
New York
Cenerini, Irancesca ,:q8q, O colorto ooe copt porte looete loro ,Catullus
:,: Cultura e politica,`` At/eroeom 6::
Chantraine, Fierre ,:q8:qqo, Dtcttorrotte e t,molotoe oe lo loroe tecoe:
/ttotte oe mot , vols.,. Faris
Cheah, Fhen, ano Elizabeth Grosz ,:qq8, The Iuture ol Sexual Diner-
ence: An Interview with Juoith Butler ano Drucilla Cornell,`` Dto-
cttttc .8::q.
Cherniss, H. W. ,:q6., Me ex cettcolt potom pootcom,`` in J. F. Sullivan
,eo.,, Cttttcol Eo, or Romor Lttetotote. Lonoon. :o
Clack, J. ,:q6, Ottom tt/t moletom et Catullus o ano :,`` CB .:o
1otk ctteo .:q

Clare, R. J. ,:qq6, Catullus 6 ano the Atoroottco ol Apollonius Rho-
oius: Allusion ano Exemplarity,`` PCPS .:6o88
Clausen, Wenoell ,:q6, Callimachus ano Latin Foetry,`` GRBS ::8:
q6
,:q8, Vtttl Aeneio oro t/e Ttootttor of Hellertttc Poett,. Berkeley
Clayman, Dee L. ,:q8o, Colltmoc/o Iom/t ,Mnemosyne Suppl. q, Leioen
Coarelli, I. ,:q8,. I santuari oel Lazio e oella Campania tra i Gracchi
e le ,uerre civili,`` in Le /ooteotte mortctpole ttolterre oox IIe et Iet
te `cle oc. ).-C. ,Faris ano Naples, .:o
,:q8, Architettura e arti n,urative in Roma: :oo a.C.,`` in F.
Zanker ,eo.,, Hellertmo tr Mtttelttolter ;A//orolorer oet Akooemte oet
1terc/ofter tr Gotttrer, ser. v. q, .::
Connelly, Jill L. ,.ooo, Rene,otiatin, Ovio`s Hetotoe.`` Diss., University
ol Chica,o
Conte, Gian Bia,io ,:q86, T/e R/etottc of Imttottor: Gerte oro Poettc Memot,
tr Vtttl oro Ot/et Lottr Poet. Ithaca
,:qq, Gerte oro Reooet: Loctetto, Loce Ele,, Pltr, Erc,clopeoto. Balti-
more
Conte, Joseph M. ,:qq:, Urerotr Detr: T/e Fotm of Potmooetr Poett,.
Ithaca
Copley, I. O. ,:qq, Emotional Connict ano its Si,nincance in the
Lesbia-Foems ol Catullus,`` A)P o:..o ,K. Quinn |eo.|, Ap-
ptooc/e to Cotollo. Cambrio,e |:q.| 8q6,
Corbeill, Anthony ,:qq6, Corttolltr Loo/tet: Poltttcol Homot tr t/e Lote
Romor Repo/ltc. Frinceton
Courtney, Eowaro ,:qq, T/e Ftomertot, Lottr Poet. Oxloro
Crawloro, J. ,:qq, M. Tollto Ctceto, t/e ftomertot, peec/e: or eotttor .tt/
commertot,. Atlanta
Creeley, Robert ,:q8q, Collecteo Eo,. Berkeley
Crook, J. A. ,:q6, A Stuoy in Decoction,`` Lotomo .6:66
Crowther, N. B. ,:qq, Water ano Wine as Symbols ol Inspiration,``
Mremo,re .::::
Culler, Jonathan ,:q8:, T/e Potott of Str: Semtottc, Lttetotote, Decor-
ttocttor. Ithaca
Daniels |Kuntz|, Marion L. ,:q6, Fersonal Revelation in Cotmer 6 ol
Catullus,`` C) 6.::6
Daube, D. ,:q8, è oto trfomorot cooo /ot: The Roman Law ol Dela-
mation,`` Attt oel corteo trtetrotorole ot ottttto tomoro e ot totto oel
ottttto vol. iii ,Milan, :o
Davenport, Guy ,:q8:, Zukolsky,`` in T/e Geotop/, of t/e Imotrottor.
New York. :oo:
De,ani, Enzo ,:q, Poett tect tom/tct eo eletoct: lettote cttttc/e. Milan
oe Jon,, Irene J. I. ,:q8, òttotot oro Focoltet: T/e Pteertottor of t/e
Stot, tr t/e Iltoo. Amsteroam
oe Lauretis, Teresa ,:qq8, The Stubborn Drive,`` Cttttcol Irott, .:8:
1otk ctteo ..o

oe Man, Faul ,:qq, Alleotte of Reootr. New Haven
,:q8, T/e R/etottc of Romorttctm. New York
,:q86, T/e Rettorce to T/eot,. Minneapolis
Dettmer, Helena ,:qq, Loce /, t/e òm/et: Fotm oro Meortr tr t/e Poett,
of Cotollo. New York
Devereux, G. ,:qo, The Nature ol Sappho`s Seizure in Ir. : LF as
Evioence ol her Inversion,`` CP .o:::
Diehl, Ernst ,:q.., Art/oloto L,ttco Gtoeco. Leipzi,
Diels, Hermann ano Walther Kranz, eos. ,:q, Dte Ftomerte oet Votok-
tottket. Berlin
Di Stasi, Lawrence ,:q8:, Mol Occ/to: T/e Uroettoe of Vttor. New Haven
Dover, Kenneth J. ,:q6, The Foetry ol Archilochus,`` in Atc/tlooe
; Erttetter oe lo Foroottor Hotot :o). Vanoouvres-Geneva. :8:.:.
ouBois, Fa,e ,:qq, Sopp/o I Botrtr. Chica,o
Dubuisson, M. ,:q8:, Froble`mes ou bilin,uisme romain,`` Le Etooe
Clotoe q:.
Dumezil, Geor,es ,:q, Setcto et lo fottore: eot ot lo forcttor octole oe
looore et oe /lome et ot le e le mert troo-eotope er oo cens tomotr. Faris
,:q6q, Ioe e tomotre. Faris
Dunoes, Alan ,:qq., Irtetptettr Folklote. Bloomin,ton
Dunoes, Alan, et al. ,:qo, The Strate,y ol Turkish Boys` Duelin,
Rhymes,`` )ootrol of Amettcor Folklote 8 ,:qo, .q
Dupont, Ilorence ,:qq, Ltrcerttor oe lo lttte totote: oe ltctee tecoe oo ltcte
lottr. Faris
Eomunos, Lowell ,:q8., The Latin Invitation Foem: What Is It? Where
Dio It Come Irom?`` A)P :o::88
Eowaros, Catharine ,:qq, T/e Poltttc of Immotoltt, tr Arctert Rome. Cam-
brio,e
Eowaros, M. J. ,:qq, Callimachus, Roman Foetry ano the Impotence
ol Son,,`` Lotomo :8o6.
Elias, Norbert ,:qq, T/e Ctctlttr Ptoce. Oxloro ,U
/et oer Ptoe oet

_tctltottor |:qq| Basel. . vols.,
Eliot, T. S. ,:qo, Collecteo Eo,. New York
,:q6:, The Three Voices ol Foetry,`` in Or Poett, oro Poet. New York.
q6::.
,:q, Hamlet,`` in I. Kermooe ,eo.,, Selecteo Ptoe of T. S. Eltot. Lon-
oon. q
Elliott, Robert C. ,:q8., T/e Lttetot, Petoro. Chica,o
Ellis, Robinson ,:86, A Commertot, or Cotollo. Oxloro
Iantham, Elaine ,:q8q, Mime: The Missin, Link in Roman Literary
History,`` C1 8.::6
,:qq6, Romor Lttetot, Coltote: Ftom Ctceto to Apoleto. Baltimore
Iaraone, Christopher A. ,:qqq, Arctert Gteek Loce Motc. Cambrio,e,
Mass.
Iarrell, Joseph ,:qq:, Vettl Geor,ics oro t/e Ttootttor of Arctert Eptc.
Oxloro
1otk ctteo ..:
Ieoeli, Faolo ,:q., Il cotme . ot Cotollo. Ireibur,
,:qq:, Il carme : oi Catullo e i sacrinci eoilizi,`` in Stoot ot /loloto
clotco tr orote ot Gtoto Moroco. Falermo. o..
Ieeney, Denis ,:qq8, Lttetotote oro Relttor ot Rome: Coltote, Cortext oro
Beltef. Cambrio,e
Ier,uson, John ,:q8, Cotollo. Lawrence, Kansas
Ierrari, Walter ,:q8, Il carme : oi Catullo,`` Arrolt oello Scoolo òtmole
Sopettote ot Pto :q. ,Catulls Carmen :,`` in R. Heine |eo.|,
Cotoll, 1ee oet Fotc/or o8. Darmstaot |:q| .:6:,
Iish, Stanley ,:q8o, I T/ete o Text tr T/t Clo: T/e Aot/ottt, of Irtetptettce
Commorttte. Cambrio,e, Mass.
Iitz,eralo, William ,:qq, Cotollor Ptococottor: L,ttc Poett, oro t/e Dtomo of
Potttor. Berkeley
Ioroyce, C. J. ,:q6:, Cotollo: A Commertot,. Oxloro
Ioucault, Michel ,:q66, Le mot et le c/oe: Ure otc/e olote oe cterce
/omotre. Faris
,:qo, T/e Otoet of T/tr: Ar Atc/oeolo, of t/e Homor Scterce ,A transla-
tion ol Le mot et le c/oe,. New York
,:qq, What Is an Author?`` in Josue Harari ,eo.,, Textool Sttotete:
Petpecttce tr Pot-Sttoctotoltt Cttttctm. Ithaca. ::6o
,:q8o, T/e Httot, of Sexooltt,. Volome i: Ar Irttooocttor. New York.
Iraenkel, Eouaro ,:q, Hotoce. Oxloro
Iraistat, Neil, eo. ,:q86, Poem tr T/ett Ploce: T/e Irtettextooltt, oro Otoet of
Poettc Collecttor. Chapel Hill
Iraser, F. M. ,:q., Ptolemotc Alexorotto ,vol. i ,. Oxloro
Ireoricksmeyer, E. A. ,:qo, Observations on Catullus ,`` A)P q:::
,:qq, Methoo ano Interpretation: Catullus ::,`` Helto .o:8q:o

Irevert, Ute ,:qq8, The Tamin, ol the Noble Ruman: Male Violence
ano Duelin, in Early Mooern ano Mooern Germany,`` in F. Spier-
enbur, ,eo.,, Mer oro Vtolerce: Geroet, Horot, oro Rttool tr Mooetr Eo-
tope oro Amettco. Columbus, Ohio. 6
Irieol, Ernestine ,:q6:, Votltko, A Vtlloe tr Mooetr Gteece. New York
Irieorich, Gustav ,:qo8, Cotollt Vetorert Lt/et. Leipzi,
Irieorich, Faul ,:q8, T/e Meortr of Ap/tootte. Chica,o
Iry, Faul H. ,:qq, A Defere of Poett,: Re/ecttor of t/e Occotor of 1ttttr.
Stanloro
Irye, Northrop ,:q, Arotom, of Cttttctm. Frinceton
Iusillo, M. ,:q8, Il tempo oelle Atoroottc/e: Ur oroltt oel toccorto tr Apollo-
rto Rooto. Rome.
Gaisser, Julia Hai, ,:qq, Cotollo oro /t Rerotorce Reooet. Oxloro
Garrison, Daniel ,:q8, Mtlo Fter,: A Reootr of t/e Hellertttc Loce Epttom
,Hermes Einzelschrilten vol. :, Wiesbaoen
Gencken, Katherine A. ,:q, Comeo, tr t/e Pto Coelto. Mremo,re, suppl.
o. Leioen
1otk ctteo ...
Genette, Geraro ,:q8o, òttottce Dtcoote: Ar Eo, tr Met/oo. Ithaca
,:q8., Poltmpete: lo lttte totote oo ecoro oete . Faris
Gill, Christopher ,:q88, Fersonhooo ano Fersonality: The Iour-Petoroe
in Cicero, De Octt i,`` Oxfoto Stoote tr Arctert P/tloop/, 6::6qqq
Gilmore, Davio D. ,:q8, Atetor oro Commortt,: Potoooxe of Aroolotor
Coltote. New Haven
,:qqo, Mor/ooo tr t/e Moktr: Coltotol Corcept of Mocoltrtt,. New Haven
Giunrioa, Fasquale ,:q8, Leptcotetmo rello lettetotote lottro rel i ecolo o. C
,vol. i ,: Locteto e Cotollo. Turin
Gleason, Mauo W. ,:qq, Moktr Mer: Sop/tt oro Self-Pteertottor tr Ar-
ctert Rome. Frinceton
Gonman, Ervin, ,:qq, T/e Pteertottor of Self tr Ecet,oo, Ltfe. Garoen
City, New York
Golo, Barbara K. ,:qqq, Which Juvenal? Ferlormin, Subjectivity,`` APA
conlerence paper reao o December. Dallas
Golohill, Simon ,:qq:, T/e Poet Votce: Eo, or Poettc oro Gteek Lttetotote.
Cambrio,e
Gowers, Emily ,:qq, T/e Loooeo To/le: Repteertottor of Fooo tr Romor
Lttetotote. Oxloro
Granarolo, Jean ,:q, Catulle, ce vivant,`` Arrole oe lAcooe mte oo Vot
:.::o
,:q6, LOeocte oe Cotolle. Faris
Greeley, Anorew M. ,:qq, Relttor o Poett,. New Brunswick
Greenblatt, Stephen ,:q8o, Rerotorce Self-Fo/tortr: Ftom Mote to S/oke-
peote. Chica,o
Greene, Ellen ,:qq8, T/e Etottc of Domtrottor. Baltimore
,:qqq, Re-n,urin, the Ieminine Voice: Catullus Translatin, Sap-
pho,`` Atet/oo .:::8
Grimn, Jasper ,:q8, Lottr Poet oro Romor Ltfe. Lonoon
Gruen, Erich S. ,:qqo, Stoote tr Gteek Coltote oro Romor Poltc,. Berkeley
,:qq., Coltote oro òttorol Ioerttt, tr Repo/ltcor Rome. Ithaca
Gunoerson, Erik ,:qq, Catullus, Fliny, ano Love-Letters,`` TAPA
:.:.o::
Gutzwiller, Kathryn ,:qq8, Poettc Gotloro: Hellertttc Epttom tr Cortext.
Berkeley
Habinek, Thomas N. ,:qq., Grecian Wonoers ano Roman Woe: The
Romantic Rejection ol Rome ano Its Consequences lor the Stuoy ol
Roman Literature,`` in K. Galinsky ,eo.,, T/e Irtetptetottor of Romor
Poett,: Emptttctm ot Hetmereottc Iranklurt. ...
,:qq8, T/e Poltttc of Lottr Lttetotote: 1ttttr, Ioerttt,, oro Emptte tr Arctert
Rome. Frinceton
Hallett, Juoith F. ,:q8, Divine Unction: Some Iurther Thou,hts on
Catullus :,`` Lotomo :8
,:qq, Sappho ano Her Social Context,`` Str :6 ,|:qq6|
Sappho ano Her Social Context: Sense ano Sensuality,`` in E.
1otk ctteo ..
Greene ,eo.,, Reootr Sopp/o: Cortempotot, Apptooc/e. Berkeley. :.
.,
,:qq6, èc cottote celt meo lt/ello: Sexual ano Foetic Lusus in Catullus,
Martial ano the Carmina Friapea,`` in C. Kloot ,eo.,, Sototo Lorx:
Fetc/ttft fot 1etret A. Iterkel om ,o Ge/ottto. Zu rich. .:
Halpern, Daniel ,:qq, 1/o 1ttttr T/t: òtottor or t/e Aot/ottol I .tt/
Self-Potttott. Hopewell, N.J.
Hambur,er, Michael ,:qq, Do U
/etle/er oet L,ttk: Bettc/te oro _eorte.

Munich
Harvey, Davio ,:q8q, T/e Corotttor of Potmooetrtt,: Ar Erott, trto t/e Ott-
tr of Coltotol C/ore. Oxloro
Harvey, Elizabeth D. ,:qq6, Ventriloquizin, Sappho, or the Lesbian
Muse,`` in E. Greene ,eo.,, Re-teootr Sopp/o: Recepttor oro Ttormt-
tor. Berkeley. q:o
Havelock, Eric A. ,:qq, T/e L,ttc Gerto of Cotollo. Oxloro
Heaney, Seamus ,:qq, Extenoin, the Alphabet: On Christopher Mar-
lowe`s Hero ano Leanoer`,`` in T/e Reote of Poett,. New York. :
Heath, J. R. ,:q86, The Supine Hero in Catullus .,`` C) 8.:.86
Henorickson, G. L. ,:q., Archilochus ano Catullus,`` CP .o::
Herescu, N. J. ,:qq, Sur le sens erotique` oe eoete,`` Glotto 8::.
,:q6o, Autour oe la Salax Taberna ,Catulle, ,,`` in Hommoe o` Le or
Hetmorr. Brussels. :
Herzlelo, Michael ,:q8:, Meanin, ano Morality: A Semiotic Approach
to Evil Eye Accusations in a Greek Villa,e.`` Amettcor Et/rolott
8:6o
,:q8, T/e Poettc of Mor/ooo: Cortet oro Ioerttt, tr o Ctetor Moortotr Vtl-
loe. Frinceton
Hezel, Oskar ,:q., Cotoll oro oo ttec/tc/e Epttomm. Stutt,art
Hi,het, Gilbert ,:q, Masks ano Iaces in Satire,`` Hetme :o.:.:
Hinos, Stephen ,:qq8, Allotor oro Irtettext: D,romtc of Apptopttottor tr
Romor Poett,. Cambrio,e
Horslall, Nicholas ,:qq, Doctus sermones utriusque lin,uae?`` Ec/o oo
moroe clotoe .:qq
Hubbaro, Thomas K. ,:q8, The Catullan Libellus,`` P/tloloo :.:.:8
Hu,hes, Steven ,:qq8, Men ol Steel: Duelin,, Honor, ano Folitics

in Liberal Italy,`` in F. Spierenbur, ,eo.,, Mer oro Vtolerce: Geroet,
Horot, oro Rttool tr Mooetr Eotope oro Amettco. Columbus, Ohio. 6
8:
Hunter, Richaro ,:qq, T/e Atoroottco of Apollorto: Lttetot, Stoote. Cam-
brio,e
,:qq6, T/eocttto oro t/e Atc/oeolo, of Gteek Poett,. Cambrio,e
Irwin, Elizabeth ,:qq8, Bio,raphy, Iiction, ano the Archilochean
Atro,`` )HS ::8::8
Iser, W. ,:q8, T/e Act of Reootr: A T/eot, of Aet/ettc Repore. Baltimore
1otk ctteo ..
Jacoby, Ielix ,:q:, Drei Geoichte oes Froperz,`` R/M 6q:q:
Jakobson, Roman ,:q8, Lin,uistics ano Foetics,`` in K. Fomorska ano
S. Ruoy ,eos.,, Lorooe tr Lttetotote. Cambrio,e, Mass. 6.q
Jameson, Ireoric ,:q8, Bauoelaire as Mooernist ano Fostmooernist:
The Dissolution ol the Relerent ano the Artincial Sublime`,`` in C.
Hosek ano F. Farker ,eos.,, L,ttc Poett,: Be,oro è. Cttttctm. Ithaca.
.6
,:qq:, Potmooetrtm, ot, T/e Coltotol Lotc of Lote Copttoltm. Durham,
N.C.
Janan, Micaela ,:qq, 1/er t/e lomp t /otteteo: Dette oro òttottce tr
Cotollo. Carbonoale, Ill.
Jauss, Hans Robert ,:qqo, The theory ol reception: a retrospective ol its
unreco,nizeo prehistory,`` in Feter Collier ano Hel,a Geyer-Ryan
,eos.,, Lttetot, T/eot, Tooo,. Cambrio,e.
Jenreys, Mark, eo. ,:qq8, è. De/rtttor of L,ttc: T/eot,, Tec/rolo,, oro
Coltote. New York
Jenkyns, Richaro ,:q8., T/tee Clotcol Poet: Sopp/o, Cotollo oro )ocerol.
Cambrio,e, Mass.
Jenny, Laurent ,:q6, La strate,ie oe la lorme,`` Poe ttoe .:.8:
Jocelyn, H. D. ,:q8o, On Some Unnecessarily Inoecent Interpretations
ol Catullus . ano ,`` A)P :o::.::
,:qqq, The Arran,ement ano the Lan,ua,e ol Catullus` so-calleo pol,-
metto with Special Relerence to the Sequence :o:::.,`` in J. N.
Aoams ano R. G. Mayer ,eos.,, Apect of t/e Lorooe of Lottr Poett,
;Ptoceeotr of t/e Btttt/ Acooem, q). Oxloro.
Johnson, Barbara ,:qq, T/e 1oke of Decorttocttor. Oxloro
Johnson, Mar,uerite ,:qqq, Catullus, c. , ano the Theme ol Moro
Bello,`` Helto .6:8q6
Johnson, W. R. ,:q8., T/e Ioeo of L,ttc: L,ttc Mooe tr Arctert oro Mooetr
Poett,. Berkeley
Johnston, Fatricia A. ,:q8, An Echo ol Sappho in Catullus 6,`` Lotomo
.:88q
Keil, Heinrich, eo. ,:8.., Gtommottct Lottrt ,vol. i ,. Leipzi,
Kelly, J. M. ,:q66, Romor Ltttottor. Oxloro
,:q6, Stoote tr t/e Ctctl )ootcotote of t/e Romor Repo/ltc. Oxloro
Kenneoy, Duncan I. ,:qq, T/e Att of Loce: Ftce Stoote tr t/e Dtcoote of
Romor Loce Ele ,. Cambrio,e
Kenner, Hu,h ,:q:, T/e Pooro Eto. Berkeley
Kerkhecker, Arno ,:qqq, Colltmoc/o Book of Iambi. Oxloro
Kermooe, Irank ,:q66, T/e Sere of or Erotr: Stoote tr t/e T/eot, of Ftc-
ttor. Oxloro
Kloss, Gerrit ,:qq8, Catullus Bru cken,eoicht ,c. :,,`` Hetme :.6:8q
Knox, Feter ,:q8, Sappho lr. : LF ano Catullus :: A Su,,estion,``
QUCC 6:q:o.
,:q8, Wine, Water ano Callimachean Foetics,`` HSCP 8q::o:q
1otk ctteo ..
Konstan, Davio ,:q, Cotollo Irotctmert of Rome. Amsteroam
Koster, Severin ,:q8o, Dte Ircekttce tr oet ttec/tc/er oro tomtc/er Lttetotot
;Betttoe ot clotc/er P/tlolote qq) Meisenheim am Glan
Kroll, Wilhelm ,:q68, C. Voletto Cotollo. Stutt,art
Krostenko, Brian ,.oo:, Ctceto, Cotollo oro t/e Lorooe of Soctol Petfot-
morce. Chica,o
Lacan, Jacques ,:q86, Se mtrotte vii: Le t/toe oe lo p,c/orol,e. Faris
Lalaye, Geor,es ,:8q, Cotolle et e mooe `le. Faris
Lairo, Anorew ,:qq, Approachin, Characterisation in Vir,il,`` in C.
Martinoale ,eo.,, T/e Com/ttoe Comportor to Vtttl. Cambrio,e. .8.
q
La Fenna, Antonio ,:q6, Froblemi oi stile catulliano ,con una breve
oiscussione sulla stilistica,,`` Moto 8:::6o
Lateiner, Donalo ,:q, Obscenity in Catullus,`` Romo 6::.
Lattimore, Richmono ,:q, Sappho . ano Catullus :,`` CP q::8
,:q6., T/eme tr Gteek oro Lottr Epttop/. Urbana
Lavency, Marius ,:q6, Lòoe a` Lesbie et son billet oènvoi ,Catulle, l
et li ,,`` AC ::8.
Lenchantin oe Gubernatis, Massimo ,:q, Il lt/to ot Cotollo. Turin
Leo, Irieorich ,:q:., Ploottrtc/e Fotc/orer ot Ittttk oro Gec/tc/te oet
Iomoote. Berlin
Levine, Lawrence W. ,:q, Block Coltote oro Block Corctoore: Afto-
Amettcor Folk T/oo/t ftom Slocet, to Fteeoom. Oxloro
Levy, H. L. ,:q:, Catullus , :: ano the Abacus,`` A)P 6.:...
Lieber,, Gooo ,:q6., Poello Dtctro: Dte Getolt oet Gottltc/er Gelte/ter /et
Cotoll tm _oommer/or oet Arttker Dtc/tor. Amsteroam
Lintott, A. W. ,:q68, Vtolerce tr Repo/ltcor Rome. Oxloro
Littman, R. J. ,:q, The Un,uent ol Venus: Catullus :,`` Lotomo
6::.6
Lobel, Eo,ar ano Denys Fa,e, eos. ,:q, Poetotom Le/totom ftomerto.
Oxloro
Loraux, Nicole ,:qqo, Le me `te er oeotl. Faris
Lyne, R. O. A. M. ,:q8, The Neoteric Foets,`` CQ .8::68
,:q8o, T/e Lottr Loce Poet: Ftom Cotollo to Hotoce. Oxloro
Lyotaro, Jean-Irancois ,:q8, T/e Potmooetr Corotttor: A Repott or Iro.l-
eoe. Minneapolis
Macherey, Fierre ,:q66, Poot ore t/e otte oe lo ptooocttor lttte totte. Faris
,|:q8| A T/eot, of Lttetot, Ptooocttor. Lonoon,
Macleoo, C. W. ,:q, Catullus ::6,`` CQ .:oq ,|:q8| Collecteo
Eo,. Oxloro. :8:6,
MacMullen, Ramsay ,:qq:, Hellenizin, the Romans,`` Httotto o::q
8
Mallarme, Stephane ,:q8., The Book: A Spiritual Instrument,`` in B.
Cook ,trans.,, Selecteo Poett, oro Ptoe. New York. 8o
Maloney, Clarence, eo. ,:q6, T/e Ectl E,e. New York
1otk ctteo ..6
Martin, Charles ,:qq., Cotollo. New Haven
Martinoale, Charles ,:qq, Reoeemtr t/e Text: Lottr Poett, oro t/e Hetmereo-
ttc of Recepttor. Cambrio,e
Marx, Karl ,:q6, Eotl, 1ttttr, eo. T. B. Bottomore. Lonoon
Maselli, Gior,io ,:qq, Aott ot Cotollo: Roppottt ot ptoptteto` relltmmotrotto
oet Cotmt. Bari
Mauss, Marcel ,:q8, Une cate,orie oe lèsprit humain: la notion oe
personne, celle oe moi`,`` )ootrol of t/e Ro,ol Art/topolotcol Irtttote
68:.68:
McKeown, J. C. ,:q8, Octo, Amote: Text, Ptoleomero, oro Commertot,
, vols,. Liverpool
McKie, D. S. ,:q, T/e Morocttpt of Cotollo: Recertor tr o Cloeo Ttoot-
ttor. Cambrio,e
Meltzer, Irancoise ,:qq, Hot Ptopett,: T/e Stoke oro Clotm of Lttetot,
Otttroltt,. Chica,o
Merkelbach, Reinholo ano M. L. West ,:q6, Ftomerto Hetooeo. Oxloro
,:q, Ein Archilochus-Fapyrus,`` _PE ::q::
Merrill, E. T. ,:q8, Cotollo. Boston
Meschonnic, Henri ,:qq, Poltttoe oo t/,t/me: poltttoe oo oet. La,rasse
,:qq6, Le sujet comme recitatil ou le continu ou lan,a,e,`` in D.
Rabate, J. oe Sermet ano Y. Vaoe ,eos.,, Le Soet l,ttoe er oettor.
Boroeaux
Michelini, Ann ,:q8, Eottptoe oro t/e Ttotc Ttootttor. Maoison
Miles, Josephine ,:q, Poett, oro C/ore. Berkeley
Mill, John Stuart ,:q6, Eo, or Poett,. Columbia, S.C.
Miller, James E., Jr. ,:q, T. S. Eltot Petorol 1oteloro. Fa.
Miller, Faul Allen ,:qqa, Beauty, Tra,eoy ano the Grotesque: A Dia-
lo,ical Aesthetics in Three Sonnets by Bauoelaire,`` Fterc/ Fotom
:8::q
,:qqb, Sappho : ano Catullus :: The Dialo,ism ol Lyric,`` Atet/oo
.6::8qq
,:qq, L,ttc Text oro L,ttc Corctoore: T/e Bttt/ of o Gerte ftom Atc/otc
Gteece to Aootor Rome. Lonoon
,:qq8, Catullan Consciousness, the Care ol the Sell,` ano the Iorce
ol the Ne,ative in History,`` in F. A. Miller ano C. Flatter ,eos.,,
Ret/trktr Sexooltt,: Foocoolt oro Clotcol Arttott,. Frinceton. ::.o
Mintz, Jerome R. ,:qq, Cotrtcol Sor oro Soctet,: Gotp, Sexooltt, oro
Cteottctt, tr Arooloto. Oxloro
Mor,an, M. G. ,:q, ècto oto fe/ttcolot cottt: A Note on Catullus 6,``
CQ .:8:
Most, Glenn W. ,:qq8, With Iearlul Steps Fursuin, Hopes ol Hi,h
Talk with the Departeo Deao,`` TAPA :.8:::.
Mynors, R. A. B., eo. ,:q8, Cotollt cotmtro. Oxloro
Na,y, Gre,ory ,:q6, Iambos: Typolo,ies ol Invective ano Fraise,`` Ate-
t/oo q::q:.o
1otk ctteo ..
,:qq, T/e Bet of t/e Ac/oeor: Corcept of t/e Heto tr Atc/otc Gteek Poett,.
Baltimore
,:qqo, Ptroot Homet: T/e L,ttc Poetor of or Eptc Pot. Baltimore
Nappa, Christopher ,lorthcomin,, T/e Mor oro t/e Mok: Apect of Cotol-
lo Soctol Ftcttor.
Newman, J. K. ,:qqo, Romor Cotollo oro t/e Moot/cottor of t/e Alexorottor
Sert/tltt,. Hiloesheim
Nicolet, Clauoe ,:q6, Le cens senatorial sous la republique et sous
Au,uste,`` )RS 66:.o8
Nussbaum, Martha C. ,:qq, T/e T/etop, of Dette: T/eot, oro Ptocttce tr
Hellertttc Et/tc. Frinceton
Nye, Robert A. ,:qq8, Mocoltrtt, oro Mole Cooe of Horot tr Mooetr Ftorce.
Berkeley
,:qqq, The Eno ol the Mooern Irench Duel,`` in F. Spierenbur, ,eo.,,
Mer oro Vtolerce: Geroet, Horot, oro Rttool tr Mooetr Eotope oro Amet-
tco. Columbus, Ohio. 8.q
Obbink, Dirk, eo. ,:qq, P/tlooemo oro Poett,: Poettc T/eot, oro Ptocttce tr
Loctetto, P/tlooemo, oro Hotoce. Oxloro
Olson, Charles ,:q, Aootttorol Ptoe. Bolinas
,:q8, T/e Moxtmo Poem. Berkeley
Opelt, Ilona ,:q6, Dte lotetrtc/er Sc/tmpf.ottet oro cet.orote ptoc/ltc/e
Etc/etrorer: etre T,polote. Heioelber,
Fa,e, T. E. ,:8q6, Hotoce. Lonoon
Fal,rave, Irancis Turner ,:86:, T/e Goloer Tteoot, of t/e Bet Sor oro
L,ttc Poem tr t/e Erlt/ Lorooe. Lonoon
Fapan,helis, T. D. ,:qq:, Catullus ano Callimachus on Lar,e Women,``
Mremo,re :.86
Faratore, Ettore ,:qo, Uro rooco ttcottotore oel De poett ot Soetorto.
Bari
Farker, Holt N. ,:qq, The Terato,enic Grio,`` in J. Hallett ano M.
Skinner ,eos.,, Romor Sexoolttte. Frinceton. 6
Fasserini, Allreoo ,:q, La trufh nella storio,rana ellenistica,`` SIFC
:::6
Feorick, Victoria ,:qq, The Abusive Aooress ano the Auoience in
Catullan Foems,`` Helto .o::q6
Ferlon, Marjorie ,:q8, T/e Dorce of t/e Irtellect: Stoote tr t/e Poett, of t/e
Pooro Ttootttor. Cambrio,e
,:qqq, Fostmooernism]nn oe sie`cle`: Dennin, Dinerence` in Late
Twentieth Century Foetics,`` in E. Larrissy ,eo.,, Romorttctm oro
Potmooetrtm. Cambrio,e. :q.oq
Fetrini, Mark ,:qq, T/e C/tlo oro t/e Heto: Comtr of Ae tr Cotollo oro
Vettl. Ann Arbor
Fleiner, R. ,:q, The Iuture ol Stuoies in the Iielo ol Hellenistic
Foetry,`` )HS :6q
,:qq, Colltmoc/o. New York ,|:qq| ano |:q| Oxloro,
1otk ctteo ..8
Fitt-Rivers, Julian A. ,:q6:, T/e People of t/e Stetto. Chica,o
,:q66, Honour ano Social Status,`` in J. Feristiany ,eo.,, Horoot oro
S/ome: T/e Voloe of Meottettoreor Soctet,. Chica,o
,:q, T/e Fote of S/ec/em. Cambrio,e
Flatter, C. ,:qq, Octom in Catullus ano Fropertius: A Ioucauloian
Reaoin,,`` CP qo:.::.
Forter, James ,:qq, Content ano Iorm in Fhilooemus: The History ol
an Evasion,`` in D. Obbink, eo., P/tlooemo oro Poett,: Poettc T/eot,
oro Ptocttce tr Loctetto, P/tlooemo oro Hotoce. Oxloro. q:
Founo, Ezra ,:q, ABC of Reootr ,repr. :q6o,. New York
Fucci, Fietro ,:q6:, Il carme o oi Catullo,`` Moto ::.q6
Fuelma, Mario ,:q8., Die Attter oes Kallimachos als Vorbilo oer ro mi-
schen Amores-Ele,ie,`` q:..:6 ,Fart :,, .8o ,Fart .,
Fuelma Fiwonka, Mario ,:qq, Loctlto oro Iolltmoc/o: _ot Gec/tc/te etret
Gottor oet /ellertttc/-tomtc/er Poete. Iranklurt
Futnam, Michael C. J. ,:q6:, The Art ol Catullus 6,`` HSCP 6::6
.o ,|:q.| K. Quinn, eo., Apptooc/e to Cotollo. Cambrio,e ano
New York. ..6,
Quinn, Kenneth ,:qq, T/e Cotollor Recolottor. Melbourne
,:qo, Cotollo: T/e Poem. Lonoon
,:q., Cotollo: Ar Irtetptetottor. Lonoon
Quinney, Laura ,:qqq, T/e Poettc of Dtoppotrtmert: 1oto.ott/ to A//et,.
Charlottesville
Rabinowitz, Nancy Sorkin ,:qq, Arxtet, Vetleo: Eottptoe oro t/e Ttoc tr
1omer. Ithaca
Rajan, Tilottama ,:q8, Romanticism ano the Death ol Lyric Con-
sciousness,`` in C. Hosek ano F. Farker ,eos.,, L,ttc Poett,: Be,oro è.
Cttttctm. Ithaca. :q.o
Rama,e, E. ,:q, Ut/ortto: Arctert Sop/tttcottor oro Re/remert. Norman,
Oklahoma
Ranoall, J. G. ,:qq, Mistresses` Fseuoonyms in Latin Ele,y,`` LCM
:.
Rankin, H. D. ,:q., The Fro,ress ol Fessimism in Catullus, Foems .
::,`` Lotomo :::
,:q, Atc/tloc/o of Poto. Fark Rio,e, N.J.
Rawson, Elizabeth ,:q8, Irtellectool Ltfe tr t/e Lote Repo/ltc. Lonoon
Ribbeck, Otto ,:86, C. Voletto Cotollo, etre lttetot-/ttottc/e Skte. Kiel
Richlin, Amy ,:q8:, The Meanin, ol Ittomote in Catullus ano Martial,``
CP 6:o6
,:q88, Systems ol Iooo Ima,ery in Catullus,`` C1 8::6
,:qq., T/e Gotoer of Pttopo: Sexooltt, oro Atetor tr Romor Homot. New
York
,:qq, Not Belore Homosexuality: The Materiality ol the Ctroeoo
ano the Roman Law A,ainst Love Between Men,`` )ootrol of t/e Ht-
tot, of Sexooltt, :.
1otk ctteo ..q
Rinaterre, Michael ,:q8oa, Syllepsis,`` Cttttcol Irott, 6:6.8
,:q8ob, La trace oe lìntertexte,`` Lo Pere e .:::8
,:qqo, Compulsory reaoer response: the intertextual orive,`` in
Worton ano Still ,eos.,, Irtettextooltt,: T/eotte oro Ptocttce. Man-
chester. 68
Ross, Davio O. ,:q6q, St,le oro Ttootttor tr Cotollo. Cambrio,e, Mass.
Ruoo, Niall ,:q86, T/eme tr Romor Sottte. Lonoon
Saller, Richaro F. ,:qq, Potttotc/,, Ptopett, oro Deot/ tr t/e Romor Fomtl,.
Cambrio,e
Santini, F. ,:qq, Il poeta-usi,nolo ,Catullo 6, :,,`` Ptomet/eo .o:.6
8
Sarkissian, John ,:q8, Cotollo 8: Ar Irtetptetottor. Leioen
Schmiot, E. A. ,:q, Catulls Anoronun, seiner Geoichte,`` P/tloloo
:::.:.
Schwabe, Luowi, ,:86., Qooettore Cotolltoroe. Giessen
Scott, W. C. ,:q:, Catullus ano Caesar ,c. .q,,`` CP 66::.
Scro,,ins, Mark, eo. ,:qq, Uppet Ltmtt Motc: T/e 1ttttr of Loot _okof-
k,. Tuscaloosa
,:qq8, Loot _okofk, oro t/e Poett, of Iro.leoe. Tuscaloosa
Sea,er, Robin ,:q, Veroto, leptoo, /ello, olo: Notes on the Lan-
,ua,e ol Catullus,`` Lotomo :8q:
Seo,wick, Eve ,:q8, Bet.eer Mer: Erlt/ Lttetotote oro Mole Homooctol
Dette. New York
Se,al, Charles ,:qo, Catullan Ottot: The Lover ano the Foet,`` GCR
::.:
Se,al, Erich ,:q68, Romor Loo/tet: T/e Comeo, of Plooto. Cambrio,e,
Mass.
Seloen, Daniel L. ,:qq., Ceceot lectot: Catullus ano the Rhetoric ol Fer-
lormance,`` in R. Hexter ano D. Seloen ,eos.,, Irrocottor of Arttott,.
New York. 6::.
Shatzman, Israel ,:q, Serotottol 1eolt/ oro Romor Poltttc. Collection
Latomus :.. Brussels
Shipton, K. M. W. ,:q8o, Catullus :: Just Another Love Foem?`` LCM
:6
Sioer, Davio ,:qq, T/e Epttom of P/tlooemo: Irttooocttor, Text oro Com-
mertot,. Oxloro
Simpson, Davio ,:qq, T/e Acooemtc Potmooetr oro t/e Role of Lttetotote: A
Repott or Holf-Iro.leoe. Chica,o
Skinner, Marilyn B. ,:q:, Catullus viii: The Comic Amator as Eiron,``
C) 66:.q8o
,:qq, Ameana, Fuella Delututa,`` C) :::o:
,:q8o, Farasites ano Stran,e Beolellows: A Stuoy in Catullus` Foliti-
cal Ima,ery,`` Romo 8::.
,:q8:, Cotollo Fasser: T/e Attoremert of t/e Book of Pol,metttc Poem.
New York
1otk ctteo .o
,:q8., Fretty Lesbius,`` TAPA ::.::q.o8
,:q8, Clooia Metelli,`` TAPA :::.8
,:q88, Aesthetic Fatternin, in Catullus: Textual Structures, Systems
ol Ima,ery ano Book Arran,ements: Introouction,`` C1 8::o
,:q8q, Ut oecott ctroeototem: Fower, Genoer ano Urbanity in Catullus
:o,`` Helto :6:.
,:qq., The Dynamics ol Catullan Obscenity: cc. , 8 ano ::,`` S,l-
lecto Clotco ::::
Skutsch, Otto ,:qo, The Book unoer the Bushel,`` BICS :::8
,:q8, T/e Arrol of Q. Errto. Oxloro
Sperber, Dan ,:q, Ret/trktr S,m/oltm. Cambrio,e
Stanley, S. ,:qq, Loot _okofk, oro t/e ttorfotmottor of o mooetr Amettcor
poettc. Berkeley
Stehle Sti,ers, Eva ,:q, Retreat lrom the Male: Catullus 6. ano Sap-
pho`s Erotic Ilowers,`` Romo 6:8:o.
Stehle, Eva ,:qqo, Sappho`s Gaze: Iantasies ol a Goooess ano Youn,
Man,`` in D. Konstan ano M. Nussbaum ,eos.,, Dteterce ..:: Sexool-
tt, tr Gteek C Romor Soctet,. 88:.
,:qq, Petfotmorce oro Geroet tr Arctert Gteece: òrotomottc Poett, tr tt
Setttr. Frinceton
Stevens, Wallace ,:q, Opo Pot/omoo. New York
Stewart, Irank Henoerson ,:qq, Horot. Chica,o
Still, Juoith ano Michael Worton ,:qqo, Introouction,`` in Worton ano
Still ,eos.,, Irtettextooltt,: T/eotte oro Ptocttce. Manchester. :
Stoevesanot, M. ,:qq, Catull 6 uno oie Ilias: Die Feleus-Thetis-Epyl-
lion im Lichte oer neuren Homer-Iorschun,,`` 1)A n.s. .o::6.o
Strier, Richaro ,:qq, Rettort Sttoctote: Potttcolottt,, Rootcoltm, oro Re-
rotorce Text. Berkeley
Sullivan, J. F. ,:q6, Eto Pooro oro Sexto Ptopettto, o too, tr cteottce
ttorlottor. Lonoon
Suolahti, J. ,:q6, T/e Romor Cerot: A Stoo, or Soctol Sttoctote. Helsinki
Svenbro, Jesper ,:qq, P/totkleto: Ar Art/topolo, of Reootr tr Arctert
Gteece. Ithaca
Syme, Ronalo ,:qq, T/e Romor Recolottor. Oxloro
,:q6, Fiso ano Veranius in Catullus,`` CCM :::.q
Synoikus, Hans Feter ,:q8, Cotoll: Etre Irtetptetottor , vols.,. Darmstaot
Ta,,art, John ,:qq, Sor of Detee: Eo, or Cortempotot, Poett, oro
Poettc. Tuscaloosa
Taroiti, Giovanni ,:q68, Atc/tloc/o. Rome
Tatum, W. J. ,:q88, Catullus` Criticism ol Cicero in Foem q,`` TAPA
::8::q8
,:qq, Irienoship, Folitics ano Literature in Catullus: Foems :, 6
ano 66, ::6,`` CQ :8.oo
Terrell, Carroll I. ,:q8o, A Comportor to The Cantos of Eto Pooro.
Berkeley
1otk ctteo .:
Thomas, Richaro I. ,:q8., Catullus ano the Folemics ol Foetic Reler-
ence,`` A)P :o::6
,:q8, Menanoer ano Catullus 8,`` R/M :.:o8:6
,:q86, Vir,il`s Geottc ano the Art ol Relerence,`` HSCP qo:::q8
,:q88, Turnin, Back the Clock,`` CP 8:6q
,:qq:, Death,` Doxo,raphy ano the Termerian Evil`. Fhilooemus .
Fa,e A.P. ::.o,`` CQ :::o
,:qq, Sparrows, Hares ano Doves: A Catullan Metaphor ano its
Traoition,`` Helto .o:::.
,:qq8, Melooious Tears`: Sepulchral Epi,ram ano Generic Mobil-
ity,`` in Haroer, Re,tuit ano Wakker ,eos.,, Gerte tr Hellertttc Poett,
;Hellertttco Gtortroro ). .o.
Thomsen, O. ,:qq., Rttool oro oette: Cotollo . oro . oro ot/et orctert
oocomert or .eootr oro motttoe. Aarhus
Thomson, D. I. S. ,:q, A New Look at the Manuscript Traoition ol
Catullus,`` 1CS .:::.q
,:q8, Cotollo: A Cttttcol Eotttor. Chapel Hill
,:qq, Cotollo: Eotteo .tt/ o Textool oro Irtetptettce Commertot,. Toronto
Tooorov, Tzvetan ,:q, La Crise romantique,`` in T/e otte oo ,m/ole.
Faris. :q.6o ,The Romantic Crisis,`` in T/eotte of t/e S,m/ol.
Ithaca. :..:,
Tre,,iari, Susan ,:qq:, Romor Motttoe: Iott Cortoe ftom t/e Ttme of
Ctceto to t/e Ttme of Ulptor. Oxloro
,:qq8, Home ano Iorum: Cicero Between Fublic` ano Frivate`,``
TAPA :.8::.
Trenoelenbur,, Aooll ,:q:o, A Contribution to the History ol the Woro
Ferson,`` T/e Mortt .o:66
Treu, Max ,:qq, Atc/tloc/o. Go ttin,en
Usener, Hermann ,:qo:, Italische Volksjustiz,`` R/M 6::.8
Vanoiver, Elizabeth ,:qqo, Souno Fatterns in Catullus 8,`` C) 8:
o
,:qqq, The Way Their Catullus Walkeo: Chan,in, Strate,ies ol
Translation,`` APA conlerence paper reao .q December. Dallas
Van Sickle, John ,:q8o, The Book-Roll ano Some Conventions ol the
Foetic Book,`` Atet/oo ::o
Vattimo, Gianni ,:q8, Lo /re oello mooetrtto`. Milan
Veyne, Faul ,:qq, The Hellenization ol Rome ano the Question ol
Acculturations,`` Dtoere :o6::.
,:q88a, Romor Etottc Ele,: Loce, Poett, oro t/e 1et. Chica,o
,:q88b, Dto t/e Gteek Beltece tr t/ett M,t/ Ar Eo, or t/e Cortttottce
Imotrottor. Chica,o
Vine, Brent ,:qq., On the Missin, Iourth Stanza ol Catullus :,`` HSCP
q:.:8
von Hallber,, Robert ,:q8, C/otle Olor: T/e Sc/olot Att. Cambrio,e,
Mass.
1otk ctteo ..
Vretska, K. ,:q66, Das Froblem oer Einheit von Catull c. 68,`` 1S
q::o
Wallace-Haorill, Anorew ,:qq, Hooe oro Soctet, tr Pompett oro Hetcolo-
reom. Frinceton
,:qq, Mototto motom: the ioea ol a cultural revolution,`` in T. Habinek
ano A. Schiesaro ,eos.,, T/e Romor Coltotol Recolottor. Cambrio,e.
..
Walsh, Geor,e ,:qqo, Surpriseo by Sell: Auoible Thou,ht in Hellenistic
Foetry,`` CP 8::.:
Walters, Jonathan ,:qq, Invaoin, the Roman Booy: Manliness ano
Impenetrability in Roman Thou,ht,`` in M. Skinner ano J. Hallett
,eos.,, Romor Sexoolttte. Frinceton. .q
Waro, Donalo ,:q, On the Foets ano Foetry ol the Inoo-Europeans,``
)ootrol of Iroo-Eotopeor Stoote :::.
Watkins, Calvert ,:qqo, What is Fhilolo,y?`` in J. Ziolkowski ,eo.,, Or
P/tlolo ,. University Fark, Fa. ,|:qqo| Compotottce Lttetotote Stoote
.,. .:
Watson, L. C. ,:qq:, Atoe: T/e Cote Poett, of Arttott,. Leeos
West, M. L. ,:q, Stoote tr Gteek Ele, oro Iom/o. Berlin
,:q8q, eo., Iom/t et elet Gtoect orte Alexorotom cortott, vol. i. Oxloro
Westphal, Ruooll ,:86, Cotoll Geotc/te tr t/tem ec/tc/tltc/er _oommer-
/ore. Breslau
Wheeler, Arthur L. ,:q, Cotollo oro t/e Ttootttor of Arctert Poett,.
Berkeley
White, Feter ,:qq, Ptomteo Vete: Poet tr t/e Soctet, of Aootor Rome.
Cambrio,e, Mass.
Wiener, Martin J. ,:qq8, The Victorian Criminalization ol Men,`` in
F. Spierenbur, ,eo.,, Mer oro Vtolerce: Geroet, Horot, oro Rttool tr
Mooetr Eotope oro Amettco. Columbus, Ohio. :q.:.
Wilamowitz-Moellenoorn, Ulrich von ,:q:, Sopp/o oro Stmortoe. Berlin
Williams, Crai, A. ,:qqq, Romor Homoexooltt,: Ioeolote of Mocoltrtt, tr
Clotcol Arttott,. Oxloro
Williams, Gareth D. ,:qq6, T/e Cote of Extle: A Stoo, of Octo Ibis ,Cam-
brio,e Fhilolo,ical Society Suppl. :q,. Cambrio,e
Williams, Goroon ,:q68, Ttootttor oro Otttroltt, tr Romor Poett,. Oxloro
,:q8o, Ftote of T/oo/t tr Romor Poett,. New Haven
Williams, Mark ,:q88, Catullus o ano the Lan,ua,e ol Irienoship,``
Lotomo :6q
Williams, William Carlos ,:qq., Potetor. New York
Wimmel, Walter ,:q6o, Iolltmoc/o tr Rom ,Hermes Einzelschrilten :6,.
Wiesbaoen
Winkler, John J. ,:q8, Aoctot C Actot: A òttotolotcol Reootr of Apoleto
Goloer A. Berkeley
,:qqo, T/e Corttotrt of Dette. New York
Wiseman, T. F. ,:q6q, Cotollor Qoettor. Leicester
1otk ctteo .
,:q, Ctrro t/e Poet oro Ot/et Romor Eo,. Leicester
,:qq, Clto Comettc: T/tee Stoote tr Gteco-Romor Lttetotote. Leicester
,:q8, Cotollo oro Ht 1otlo: A Reopptotol. Cambrio,e
,:q8, Romor Stoote: Lttetot, oro Httottcol. Liverpool
Witke, Charles ,:q8o, Catullus :: A Reexamination,`` CP :.:
Wray, Davio ,lorthcomin,, Apollonius` Masterplot: Narrative Strate,y
in Atoroottco i,`` in M. A. Haroer et al. ,eos.,, Apollorto R/ooto: Hel-
lertttco Gtortroro . Gronin,en
Wyke, Maria ,:q8, Written Woman: Fropertius` Scttpto Poello,`` )RS
:6:
Youn, |Iorsyth| F. R. ,:q6q, Catullus .q,`` C) 6:.8
Zacharia, Katerina ,lorthcomin,, The rock ol the ni,htin,ale`: Kinship
Diplomacy ano Sophocles` Teteo``
Zanker, F. ,:q8, Zur Bilonisrepra sentation lu hrenoer Ma nner in
Mittelitalischen uno Campanischen Sta oten zur Zeit oer Spa ten
Republik uno oer Julisch-Clauoischen Kaiser,`` in Le /ooteotte
mortctpole ttolterre oox IIe et Iet te `cle oc. ).-C. ,Faris ano Naples,
.:66
Zetzel, J. E. G. ,:q8, Catullus, Ennius ano the Foetics ol Allusion,``
ICS 8:.:66
Zizek, Slavoj ,:q8q, T/e So/ltme O/ect of Ioeolo ,. Lonoon
,:qq:, Fot T/e, Iro. òt 1/ot T/e, Do: Ero,mert o o Poltttcol Foctot.
Lonoon
,:qq, T/e Metotoe of Ero,mert: Stx Eo, or 1omor oro Coooltt,.
Lonoon
Zukolsky, Celia ano Louis Zukolsky ,:q6q, Cotollo ;Got Volett Cotollt Vet-
orert Lt/et) ttorloteo /, Celto oro Loot _okofk,. Lonoon
Zukolsky, Louis ,:qq, A. Baltimore
1otk ctteo .
Pooe otcoeo
\r r i \x
See oroet Ctttto
\r c\r ts
lr. :o n. 8q
\x+ nor ooi \ r \r \+ i x\
See oroet trotctoool poet
\x+ i r \+ r n or + nr s s \r oxi c\
AP ::..o :o:
\r or r oxi ts or nnonr s
Atoroottco 6, 8
\r r i \x
Bello Ctotlto ...:: q n.
\r tr r i ts
Apoloto :o
\ncni r oc nts
lr. ..:6 :88
lr. :: : n. 8
lr. :. : n. q
lr. :68 :8 n. 8
lr. :. :88o
lr. .oo :8q
lr. .q :8: n.
\ni s + \ r x r + ts
:.:o .oo n. q
\ni s + i nr s
Otottore 6, ..8o..: : n. q
\s cr r r i \nr s
AP :..: : n. :oo
\s i xi ts r or r i o
See oroet Mocto/to
\+ nr x\r ts
.8e :68 n. .
l : n. q
:o.:o :68 n. .
\tots + i xr
See oroet Ctceto
\tr ts or r r i ts
See oroet Gellto
c\r s \ n
De /ello olltco :.: .o8
.
c\r r i x\cnt s
lr. 8o :6q n. .6
lr. oo :o n. 8q
lr. :6q n. .6
Aetto
: lr. :.., 8 :qo n.
: lr. :.: :. n. q
: lr. :..q8 :qo:
lr. 6 :o: n. 8
lr. 6.: .oo n. q
Dteet .: .oo n. q
Epttom
. , AP .8o, :q8
, AP .:, :6 n. .
. , AP .6, ::o
o , AP :..:, : n. :oo
: , AP :.., .: n. :.6
. , AP :..::8, :q6
H,mr
..::: :8 n. 8
..:o: :q:.
..::::. :: n. .q
..: .o:.
:o
Iom/ot
:. :q.
Dteet 6.6 :q. n. q
I/t :qo, :q
c\r \ts
lr. ::6 .
lr. :8 6o n. 8:
c\+ tr ts , q. r t + \+ i ts ,
:.6 .: n. :.
. .: n. :.
.. q. n. 6
c\+ tr r ts
: , 68, :86
:.8q qq n. q
. :o, , 68, 8q, :q6, .oo, .o.
.b .o:
:o, 68, 8q, :q6, .oo, .o.
.: 8
.:. 8
.:: .o:
68q, :: n. ., :6
:6o
:o, 6q, 8q, :: n. ., :6:
6 6q, :: n. ., :6:
:o, 6q, 6, 8q, :: n. ., :6:
8 :, 6q, 8, :: n. ., :66
8. 8.
8.:o 86
q , 6q
:o 6q, :: n. ., ::6 n. q, :., :
:: :o, ::6, :q, 6q, 8q, :o8q, :: n. ., ::,
:8.
Pooe otcoeo .6
:. o n. :6, :: n. .
: 6, o n. :6, :o6
:.q: .
: 6, o n. :6, q, :: n. .
: o n. :6, , :: n. .
:6 6, 6o, o n. :6, :: n. ., :8
:6.8 .: n. :.
:6.:: 8.
: o n. :6, :: n. ., :8
.: o n. :6, :: n. .
.:.
.. o n. :6, q, :: n. .
. o n. :6, , :: n. ., ::
. o n. :6, , :: n. .
. o n. :6, :: n. .
.6 o n. :6, , :: n. ., ::
.6.: n. .6
. o n. :6, :: n. ., :o:
.8 o n. :6, :: n. ., ::6
.q o n. :6, :, :: n. ., ::
.q., q
o :o, o n. :6, :o:, :o6
:
. 6, , 86, :o6, :: n. .
o n. :6, :: n. ., ::q., :
:o, 6
o n. :6, ::. n. :.o
6 o n. :6, ., 8, :o8, :: n. ., :8o.
o n. :6, ., 8, :o8, :: n. ., :,
:66
8 o n. :6, :oo
q o n. :6, 8: n. , :: n. .
o , o n. :6, :: n. ., :q
: :, , :: n. .
. :: n. ., :.., :., :, ::6 n. q, ::8 n. :
, :: n. .
.68 :
o n. :6, q
.:
6 o n. :6
o n. :6, :: n. .
8 o n. :6, :q6
q o n. :6, :: n. .
q.:
o o n. :6, q6:oq
: :o, :, , 88:oq, ::.
:.: o
. :: n. ., :6
..:, :oo:
:: n. .
. .:o n. ::
:: n. ., :
6 :: n. ., :8 n. 8
:: n. ., :.o
8 , 88, :: n. ., :.., :., :8., :8
q :: n. .
Pooe otcoeo .
c\+ tr r ts ,cort.,
6o :o n. q6
6: 6, :: n. ., :8
6:.. :oq n. :o8
6. 6
6 6
6 ., 6, , 66 n.
6.q6
6.:::
6 :o6, .o n. :o
6.:o. :q.o
6.::8 qq
66 , qq, :o
66.6 .o.
6 :: n. ., :8.
68 , o, :oq, :6:
68.., o
68.o :o8
68a :o
6q :oq, :: n. .
o.: ::o n. ::
o. ::o n. ::
: :oq:o, :: n. .
. ::o n. ::o
... ::o n. ::
.. ::.
..6 :::
:: n. ., :8
:8.
.: ::o n. ::
.: :::
6 ::.
6.:: ::o n. ::
6.. ::o n. ::
::o n. ::, ::.
8 :: n. .
8b ::o n. :::, :: n. .
q ::o n. ::
q.: ::o n. ::
8o :: n. ., :68, :8
8: :: n. .
8. ::o n. ::
8 66 n. , ::o n. ::, :: n. .
8.: ::o n. ::
8 , :: n. .
8 :, ::o n. ::, :6
8.: .
86 : n. .o
86. ::o n. ::
8.: ::o n. ::
8.. ::o n. ::
88 :: n. .
8q :: n. .
qo :: n. ., :8 n. 66
q: 8o n. ., :: n. ., :88
q. :: n. .
Pooe otcoeo .8
q... ::o n. ::
q :: n. .
q :: n. .
q q, :: n. ., :q. n. , .oo n. q
qb q, ::o n. :::, :: n. .
q6 ::. n. :.o
q :: n. .
q8 :: n. .
qq 6
qq. :q6
:o: , o, :66
:o:.:. :
:o :: n. .
:o. ::o n. ::
:o q, :: n. .
:o. ::o n. ::
:o8 :: n. .
:oq.: ::o n. ::
::o :: n. .
::: :: n. .
::. :: n. .
:: :: n. .
:: :: n. .
:: :: n. .
::6 6, :o, :: n. ., :, :86, :88q,
:q6, .oo
::6.8 :q
lr. :8q
ci cr no
lr. : 8. n. 6
De omtcttto :. :6.
De troerttore :.: :6
De ototote
..:o. :6.
...:qo :. n. o
... .:: n. ::q
De te po/ltco
.6.: :8 n. 8.
.:. ,in Au,ustine, De ctottote Det ..q, ::.o
De erectote :.. :6.
Epttoloe oo Atttcom
:.:6.8 6 n.
8..: n. o
:6.::.. :68
Epttoloe oo Fomtltote 8..:. :oo n. 8:
Ir Cottltrom
:.:.o :. n. .
..8 86 n.
..:o... q n. 8o
Pto Coelto
6 :. n. :
:: q n. 8o
. :o n. 6o
:6.
8 :o n. 6o
Tocoloroe otpotottore :. :68
Pooe otcoeo .q
cr r xr x+ or \r r x\xnni \
Sttomotet :..:.:: :68 n. .:
conr t s i xs cni r + i oxtx r \+ i x\n tx
.q 8. n.
cni + i \s
88 B DielsKranz , Aelian, Votto :6
Httotto :o.:,
ni o , c\ s s i ts ,
..: 6o, :o n. qo
ni oor xr s r \r n+ i ts
See olo oroet Hetocltto
.6 :q6 n. 8
ni oxr nr s
Gtommottct Lottrt :.8.:: :: n. q
ni os coni nr s
AP .: :8o n. , :8: n. , :8
nox\+ ts
ao Ter. Eor. ...6o 86 n. .
r x xi ts
Arrole q :q
r + vxor ooi ctx otni \xtx
o.8 :68 n. .
r r s + ts
.o 8 n. o
r nox+ o
..: .o8 n. ::
or r r i t s , \ t r t s ,
:... .:o:.
..: ::q n. :
..o.: :8 n. 8.
:.: .: n. :.
:q.q.:o .:.:
n\nni \x
AP .6 :68
nr n \cr i + ts
lr. . , D. L. q.:, :6q n. .
nr s i on
lr. 6.:8. .o. n. qq
ni r r ox\x
lr. :: :8.
noxr n
Iltoo 6
Oo,e,
:. :
:q.:8.. :qq
q.::: .:
non\cr
Cotmtro
:.:. :o
:. :o
Pooe otcoeo .o
:.:: :o, :o. n. 88
:...::8 :
.: :8 n. 8
Setmore .... :qq n. q.
r noxr
C/tortco :o:H n. :, q n.
t\r x\ r
.:88, :..::o: n. 68
r tci \x
Peooolotte : :q8o
r tci r i ts
:. 86 n. .
x\c non i ts
Sototrolto ....: q n.
x\n + i \ r
.o.:, :..8 n. 68
xr r r \or n
AP .: : n. :oo
AP ..o .o. n. qq
AP .. ,attributeo, :: n. o, :8o:, :8
o\i n
Amote , prelace, 6
Amote :. ::: n. ::
Epttoloe ;Hetotoe) .o.6 .oo n. q
I/t :6 :q
Ttttto ..6 :oo n.
r \ n+ nr x i ts
Etottko Pot/emoto : :q8 n. 8q
r ni r onr xts
Epttom
: , AP .::, .
, AP q.o, n. ..
, AP .:., : n. :8
:q , AP ::.o, n. .
. , AP .:o, 86 n. :
. , AP ::., n. ..
De poemott/o .:. :6.
r i x n\n
P,t/tor ...6 :6q n. .
r r \+ o
P/oeoto .oo, .:
r r \t + t s
Amp/tttoo 6. 8 n. q
Mtle Glottoo :66
Mtle Glottoo :8 8 n.
Poerolo q6::oo :
Rooer :
r r i x v + nr r r nr n
òtotolt Httotto 6.8 : n. 6
Pooe otcoeo .:
r r t+ \ncn
Coeot .. .o8 n. ::
Coeot . 6o n. 8:
Coto Motot :. :q n. 8
r nor r n + i ts
:.:
:. ::: n. ::
:.:6 :o nn. 6:.
.: :8 n. 8
qti x+ i r i \x
:.8. :6.
8.6. . n. 8
q..:: : n. 6
:o.:.q6 :o n.
nnr + on i c\ \n nr nr xxi tx
..:q ::q n. :
.. : n. qq
ntr i x ts
AP .8 : n. :oo
s \r r ts +
Cottltro q:o :q n. 86
s \r r no
lr. :.:o .oo n. q6
lr. : 8q n. , q:
lr. :o n. 8q
s r xr c\ + nr votxor n
Dtolot ..:6.: :. n.
s tr + oxi ts
)olto q n. 8, :.o n. :8, : n. 6
+ \ ci + ts
Dtoloo :8. 6o n. 8., .oq
+ nr ocn i + t s
Io,ll
:o n. :o.
8 :o n. :o.
:: q
: 8
.8 :o n. 8q
o :o n. 8q
\\r r ni ts x\ xi xts
..q :8 n. 8.
6. :o n. 88
\i noi r
Aereto 8
Aereto ,spurious prelace, 6
Aereto .:q :.
Eclooe ..6q q n. 6q
Geottc .:: :qq n. q.
Pooe otcoeo ..
Geretol troex
Acontius .oo
Aoonis :
aestheticization ol literature ano culture
.
oettmotto :8o, :8
a,onism, Meoiterranean :o, :6
ahistoricism ano literary stuoies :::6
Alcinous .:
Alexanorianism ., q, 8, q, ::
Anacreon .:
orop/tootto .::
Anoalusia :.q
Anoerson, W. S. 68
Appius Clauoius Caecus :6.
apple as love-,ilt or love-charm .oo.
Archilochus :68q
Aristophanes ol Byzantium :68q
Arnolo, Matthew .
Ashbery, John ::
Asinius Follio q
Atalanta .o:.
Bach, J. S. o:
Baoian, Ernst :
Bot/et of Sectlle :.
Barthes, Rolano :.
Bauoelaire, Charles :8.o
beliel ano skepticism .q
Benjamin, Walter :8
Benvenuto Campesani q, :q, .o
Berenice qq
Bioart, Irank :66
bio,raphical criticism , , 8qqo, :.
Blackmur, R. F. :6
Blanchot, Maurice q n.
Bloom, Harolo .
Bor,es, Jor,e Luis :, :6
Bossuet, Jacques Beni,ne, bishop ol Meaux
:.
Brixia ,Brescia, :q
Brooks, Feter :
Brower, Reuben 8 n. 6
Butler, Juoith q
Caecilius ::8
Caesar, Julius q6o, :o, :.o:, :, :
Callimachus , :86.o
Calvino, Italo :6
Calvus, C. Licinius ., q6
Carne-Ross, D. S. .6
carnival , :
Castor ano Follux 8
Catiline :.
Cato, Marcus Forcius the Censor ::8, :q,
:6.
Celtiberia 8:
cero :8q
Chambers, Richaro Goolrey ,Ricky``, o
Chateaubriano, Irancois Rene oe ::
Cicero, Marcus Tullius ., , 6o, :6
Clooia Metelli ., 8qqo
coromtro, insultin, :..
Colerio,e, Samuel Taylor
colla,e .6, 8, :o
constructionism q, 6.
Conte, Gian Bia,io 6
corto/etrtom 8
corotctom q, :.
Cornell, Joseph 8
Cornincius :oo
courtly love 8o, 8
crisis poetry .:
Critias :6
cultural revolution, Roman 8
curse poetry ,otot , :q
Cyoippe .oo
Darwin, Charles ::6
Davenport, Guy .6, q
oe Man, Faul :6
oecoction :
oelicacy, manhooo ol :86.:6
.
Demeter, Archilochus as priest ol :8
Dewey, John .
Dionysia ,oancin, ,irl, .:o
oisappointment, poetics ol :::
Dryoen, John .6
Dumezil, Geor,es :8
Eowaros, Catharine q, .:o
eneminacy .o8q
tmpotertto as :, :
e/otmo 6:
E,natius , 8:
ele,y, Au,ustan :::
Eliot, T. S. :8, , qo, :66
Ennius ,ttto cotoo, .:
Envy ano Apollo :q:
Epicureanism :., .:
e ptte `me ::
epistolarity q8:oq
Erskine, John .
Euripioes ano leminism :.8
evil eye :q
exemplarity ano lramin, q
Iabullus .
Iaraone, Christopher .o n. :o.
fottoo , :o
foctrotto ee evil eye
fe/ttcoloo :6
Ieeney, Denis .q
leminism, Euripioes ano :.8
Iitz,eralo, William ., :6:, , 66, :., :o
/ottotto , /otttom, ::, :., :
Ilavius :6o
Ioro, Henry ano Zukolsky :.:
Ioucault, Michel ::, 6
ano postmooernism 8 n. 8
Ireuo, Si,muno ::6
Iurius
Gellius :8, :868
Gilmore, Davio :.q, :8q
Gleason, Mauo :
Gonman, Ervin, 6o
,ossip :..
Graves, Robert
Great Books`` ., 6, :6
Greenblatt, Stephen
Hanoel, Geor,e Ireoerick
Havelock, Eric :::., .o, :, .o
Heaney, Seamus n. 6
Hellenization
ano Roman perlormative excellence 8
ol Catullus` Verona
Herzlelo, Michael 6o, :88, .o6
Hi,het, Gilbert :6
Hinos, Stephen 8
Hipponax :8., :q:.
Homer :6q
Hortensius ,H,ortalus, Q. qq, :o, :qq, .oo
n. , .oq:
tom/o :qo
ancient oennition ol ::
Archilochus as inventor ol :68
as telo :q
tmpotertto ee eneminacy
trfomto :.o, :8
trtottoe, law ol :::q
trtetpellotto .:o
intertextuality .
intratextual citation in Catullus 8
trototo ee evil eye
invective
Archilochian ::86
ano Roman law ee trtottoe, Twelve
Tables
Itylus :qq
Jakobson, Roman 8 n. 6, 6o
Janan, Micaela ::6, :8
Johnson, W. R. :., :q
Julianus, Antonius .:.:
Juvenal :6
Juventius 6, , :q6
Kant, Immanuel o
Keats, John .
Kermooe, Irank :
Kiplin,, Ruoyaro :.
Koch, Kenneth .::6
Kroll, Wilhelm .
Krostenko, Brian 8
Lacan, Jacques 8, :o8
Laelius :6.
Lan,ua,e poetry .:
Leach, Eleanor Winsor 6 n.
liti,ation, Roman civil :.o:
Lorenz, Konrao ::6
Lucilius
Lucullus .::
Lycambes :88q
lyric
ano poetic`` .o
as meoitative :8
consciousness ::, .o
,enius ::, :, 8, .o
unconscious ol :
Geretol troex .
Macaulay, Thomas Babin,ton 8
Macherey, Fierre . n. :o.
malaria :6
Mallarme, Stephane .:
Mamurra :q, :
manilesto, literary o
manuscript traoition ol Catullus` poems
Marlowe, Christopher
Marx, Karl 8, :.6
Mauss, Marcel :.:
Meltzer, Irancoise :: n. :
Memmius :
Menanoer 8
Meschonnic, Henri .8
Miller, Henry 86
Miller, Faul Allen :.:q, :8, .o
Mills, C. Wri,ht ::6
Milton, John .
mime
miso,yny 8o, 8
Na,y, Gre,ory :6q n. ., : n. 6
Nemesis :o6
Nepos, Cornelius :86
ni,htin,ale as poetic emblem :q8q
romer Lottrom , .:.:
Ooysseus :66
Olson, Charles 8q
Ortalus ee Hortensius
Fal,rave, Irancis Turner ..
Fater, Walter .
poptto unoer the bushel 8
potocloott/,tor :o
Poet as title ol Catullus` lt/ello
pottto poteto ::.
perlormative excellence 6:, .o8
Ferlon, Marjorie .:q, q, ::
persona criticism :6:6, .o6
Fetrarch :
Fhilooemus :6.
philolo,y ,art ol reaoin, slowly``, 8
Ficasso, Fablo 8
ptlleo 8
Finoar :6q
Flautus :66
ano Zukolsky :
Foe, Eo,ar Allan .6
Folyphemus q
Fompey :.:, :, :
Fope, Alexanoer .6
Founo, Ezra .6, o
ptoopopoeto :6:
Ftolemy III Euer,etes qq
Quinn, Kenneth .o, o, , 8, :.6
Quinney, Laura ::
rape, iambic invective as :8:
Rauious :8q
Rinaterre, Michael 6
Rimbauo, Arthur :6
Romulus , :q
Rousseau, Jean Jacques ::6
Rulus :oq:o
rusticity .o8q
Sappho o, qo., q8q
Scali,er, Joseph Justus :8
Schwabe, Luowi, ., :8
Scipio Alricanus ::.o
Seloen, Daniel :8
sell-allusivity 6, .o8
sell-lashionin, .8, ::
Shakespeare, William q
Shelley, Fercy Bysshe ., .6, :
skeptical reaoers, Catullan 66
Skinner, Marilyn 8
Squarzanco, Gerolamo , q
Stevens, Wallace .q, 6, ::
Strier, Richaro :.8 n.
ttomoe :.
Sulla q
Sullivan, J. F. .6
Symbolist poets .,
Syme, Ronalo .
Ta,,art, John q
Telchines :qo:
Theocritus q
Thomas, Richaro q, 8
Tibullus :q6
Tooorov, Tzvetan . n. 8
to,a as inoicator ol manliness or eneminacy
q
translation oo, qo:o
Twelve Tables, law ol :::8
oeroto 6, q, .o., .:::.
ot/ortto , :.
Varus, Allenus :o:.
Vatinius :.
Verona .8, , :.o, :6
Vibennius, lather ano son ::q.,
:
Victor :8, :8
Volusius 8o
Geretol troex .
water ee wine ano water
Watkins, Calvert 8 n. 6
Wenoelin von Speyer
Wheeler, A. L. :,
Williams, William Carlos q, , :o
wine ano water as emblems ol poetic
pro,ram :6q6, :q6
Winkler, John o
Wiseman, T. F. :, 6
Worosworth, William .q, , ::
Yeats, W. B. o
Zizek, Slavoj :.
Zukolsky, Celia o
Zukolsky, Louis qq, , q., :o, :.:
Geretol troex .6

David Wray - Catullus and The Poetics of Roman Manhood

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

David Wray - Catullus and The Poetics of Roman Manhood

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CATULLUS AND THE

berlistung oes Gatten uno oie U

berwinoung oer Nebenbuhler.``

uci :u ico , i c:po v t o v:c

itv, o o` ou i tic :n v tpo:t :ticv t c v.

tt :i,, H pc iti:t, :to v uo pov, t , ot ut oc ipu

ber eini,e Motive bei Bauoelaire,`` in R.

1otk ctteo .:q

1otk ctteo ..o

/et oer Ptoe oet

,:qq, Methoo ano Interpretation: Catullus ::,`` Helto .o:8q:o

/etle/er oet L,ttk: Bettc/te oro _eorte.

Hu,hes, Steven ,:qq8, Men ol Steel: Duelin,, Honor, ano Folitics

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen