Catullus and Caesar (C. 29) Author(s): William C. Scott Source: Classical Philology, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Jan., 1971), pp. 17-25 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/269245 Accessed: 03/09/2008 13:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org CATULLUS AND CAESAR (C. 29)

WILLIAM C. SCOTT

C ATULLUS'attack on Caesar and Pom- fields. These verses are regarded as being pey in Poem 29 is for many reasons little more than politically colored invective famous. Historians cite it as an ex- and are, therefore, abandoned to historians pression of contemporary opinion on the and metricians.6 two chief triumvirs.1 In addition, the pic- Such a judgment underestimates the ture of the oily Mamurra slipping through artistic skill of Catullus. There is much countless-indeed, all-provincial beds has of redeeming literary merit in this poem; a luster of its own which immortalizes this yet the discomfort of literary critics is poem as continuing evidence of Roman understandable. There is one major prob- provincial managementin the Verrinespirit. lem which must immediately strike any Caesar himself most probably felt the sting reader: to whom is Catullus writing this in Catullus' words; it may have been some poem? Who is the cinaede Romule con- such poem as this which caused Caesar to demned as "impudicus et vorax et aleo" feel so irredeemably slandered.2Metricians (5 and 9f.)? Is he the same person as the turn to this poem as one of the few re- imperatorunice of line 11, undeniably Julius maining examples of the pure iambic Caesar? In line 13 when the possessive trimeter, a welcome reminiscence of the adjective vestra reveals that the object of iambophile Archilochus.3 Structuralists the address has changed once again, have have a special love for this poem, which we merely an introduction (subtle or falls into two halves neatly delimited by clumsy) of a second or third person who will repeated lines.4 Biographers of Catullus not appear properly until the final line of are pleased to have a poem which can be so the poem, the triumvir and son-in-law easily dated: "The poem was written after Pompey? Because of such confusion it is the first invasion of Britain .... which took difficult to interpret the intention of the place in 55 B.C., and during the lifetime of poet; and, therefore, literary critics have left Julia, Caesar's daughter and Pompey's this poem to others who could deal with wife (v. 24), whose death in the fall of the its more precise and definable features. year 54, weakened the bond between the There have been several solutions sug- two leaders."5 Indeed varied types of gested to clarify the confusion in the scholars have a reason to be particularly addressee. Most scholars maintain that gratified by the survival of this poem. It is, Julius Caesar is the sole addressee and that however, striking that literary critics have Pompey would naturally be understood as left this poem to their colleagues in other a coaddressee in a poem with a political

1. Cf. Mommsen, RG5, V, 319; V. Durry, Histoire des idea by O. Hezel in Catull und das griechische Epigramm Romains2(Paris, 1881), III, 239; W. E. Heitland, The Roman (Stuttgart, 1932), p. 46. Republic(Cambridge, 1909), III, 465. 4. Lafaye (above n. 3), pp. 14 f.; A. L. Wheeler, Catullus 2. Suet. Iul. 73. Cf. Plin. NH 36. 48. and the Traditions of Ancient Poetry (Berkeley, 1934), pp. 51 f.; 3. L. P. Wilkinson, Golden Latin Artistry (Cambridge, and I. Schnelle, Untersuchungen zu Catulls dichterischer Form 1963), p. 101: "His [Catullus'] skill is particularly shown in (Leipzig, 1933), p. 44. the case of Phaselus ille (4) and Quis hoc potest videre (29), 5. Merrill's introduction to Poem 29. Cf. Wheeler (above, in which, for 27 and 24 lines respectively, he writes pure iam- n. 4), p. 103. bics-a considerable feat in Latin with its high percentage of 6. See the brief treatment by T. Frank, Catullus and Horace long syllables...." G. Lafaye, Catulle et ses modeles (Paris, (New York, 1928), pp. 87 ff., and Wheeler (above, n. 4), 1894), chap. i, tries to define Catullus' relationship to Archilo- pp. 44 f. chus in terms of meter and spirit; but see the rejection of this 17 18 WILLIAMC. SCOTT

aim.7 A problem immediately arises in title "Romulus"; they interpret the use of trying to associate the adjectives impudicus, this name to be a charge of ambition which vorax, aleo, and cinaeduswith Caesar. The could be applied to any man who was charges of impudicitiahave some substance striving for great power in the state. In at least in popular political gossip and this way "Romulus" becomes a typical verse, jesting soldiers' songs, and public charge, too. jokes of the time ;8 such public acknowledg- It seems clear that the very attempt to ment is all that is required to make the make Caesar the addressee throughout this allegations effective. Catullus has never poem in itself reduces the poem to a been known for being scrupulous in typical and crude piece of political slander; handling his sources of information or the allegations made against Caesar become meticulous in spreadinga measuredamount so typical that they seem created far more of satiric salt once he has opened a small by the general public of Rome than by wound. There is, however, no evidence to Catullus. show that Caesar was a glutton; rather, I suggest that there is much more to the all evidence suggests that Caesar was poem than these explanations will admit: I notably abstemious in his diet. Perhaps he propose to examine Poem 29 under three was even quite lacking in taste for food; headings: (1) the satiric picture of Ma- there is a tale that Caesar willingly con- murra; (2) the rhetorical organization of sumed the rancid oil which had repelled the poem; (3) the problem of the addressee. the other guests at a party.9 Similarly, there I hope to demonstrate that these verses is no indication that Caesar was a gambler; are actually the imaginative, sincere, and in fact, Ellis notes as significant Suetonius' personal statement of a sensitive writerwho omission of the customary reference to is definitely not acting as a mere mouth- gambling proclivities in his biography of piece for public indignation. Caesar. The mere phrasing of the famous comment, "The die is cast," scarcely proves 1. THE SATIRIC PICTURE OF MAMURRA Caesar a gambler, and the mention of his The Mamurra of Poem 29 is one of the large debts from some unspecified source triumphs of Catullan satire. He is pilloried is a desperate attempt to grasp at any in a series of small scenes which stamp him possible straw. There is simply no evidence as an unscrupulous, insatiable voluptuary, that the general readers of Rome would embraced and supported by the two tri- recognize the words vorax and aleo as umvirs. The satire is subtle and incisive. meaningful charges against Caesar.10 Only in line 21 is Mamurra directly called Baehrens and Kroll acknowledge the an outrage; yet the total picture painted by weakness of this case and adopt the Catullus so far outweighs the simple adjec- expedient of making "impudicus et vorax tive malum that the mere word at the end et aleo" typical charges which need bear of the poem seems almost an afterthought. no relation to the personal habits of Caesar. The most consistent theme underlying Yet these critics are further troubled by the the description of Mamurra is that of 7. This seems undeniable and is easily accepted by the Catullus (Cambridge, 1878), pp. 92 ff., makes a vigorous commentators (cf. Baehrens on line 21). Baehrens and Schwabe defense of Caesar's indifference to food concluding with a think that vestra must be explained in advance and place lines ringing dismissal of all such charges: "Emperor, minister, 21-24 (Schwabe only lines 23-24) after line 10. See further generalissimo, lawgiver, censor, restorer of lost rights and n. 18 below. creator of new ideas, he was at the same time destroying with 8. Suet. lul. 49-52. his right hand the world that was and building up in his mind 9. Ibid. 53. the world that was to be. Any excess in any direction must have 10. H. A. J. Munro in his Criticisms and Elucidations of destroyed his delicate organization." CATULLUS AND CAESAR 19 excess or lack of measure. Everything vincials by supporting Mamurra, these men Mamurra does is in the extreme-so ex- are appropriately called political gamblers treme that it is repulsive. He is super-bus (aleo). and super-fluens as he strolls through the This connection of agent and supporter beds of all, not several, of the provincials -or, at least, tolerator-is brought out (6f.). When he devours the money of the even more clearly in the repeated references provinces he takes 20,000,000 or 30,000,000 to eating. Catullus brands as gluttonous sesterces (14). The implication is that his anyone who can endure the behavior of rapine is so great that the difference Mamurra (2 and 10). This theme is picked between the two figures is really of little up in the second part of the poem. In line significance: he took an indefinitely large 14 Mamurra "consumes" (comesset) quan- amount. At line 16 the poet inquires if he tities of money. Then in a series of words has devoured too little as though the he is said to have devoured and gobbled amount might not suffice a man with up (helluor and lancino) whatever goods he Mamurra's demands. Then in a series of could get his hands on. In line 21 f. he is separate entries the amount is listed. It pronounced expert in this one area: a comprises the spoils of three countries and gluttonous gourmand of other people's two more nations remain threatened. By wealth, all of it. Of course, he eats only such a list Catullus implies that this man those dishes which are rich or sumptuous needs all that can be obtained-all the (uncta). Always in the background is the women and all the money of a nation. In man who has tolerated Mamurra, and who line 3 he has "that which" (quod) Gaul and is, by his tolerance, equally debased: es Britain possess. Without using the word vorax. omnia Catullus implies that he has every- There are other satiric elements in the thing. Mamurra in his desire for all is picture of Mamurra. He wanders so easily portrayed as a man who must always be through those many beds. Catullus con- supersatisfied.1 1 siders this an outrage; by this year he was When the poet finishes his poem with well aware of the shattering effects of the words perdidistis omnia, he has pre- betrayal by a woman previously considered pared his audience to know how complete faithful. But Mamurra was the darling of the destruction is. The triumvirs as Ma- Venus, her dove or a veritable Adonis, murra's supporters stand charged of and, therefore, especially entitled to ignore totally destroying the Roman world. By such trivial mortal preoccupations. The his maniacal penchant for completeness in nickname Mentula was probably not in- both the bedroom and the bank vault vented for this poem nor was it necessarily Mamurra acts as the agent of the triumvirs invented by Catullus, but in this poem it is in working their destruction so completely a suitable name describing the major con- on the Roman world. In his excess-loving cern of this agent of Rome. Again Mamurra high jinks Mamurra becomes a type case and his behavior are supported by a man of the degenerate condition of Rome and who declares himself by his continued its empire. The real, but hidden, culprits support impudicus.12 are the men who tolerate such flamboyant These two great appetites, sex and food, and repulsive behavior. Because they are are interwoven neatly in this picture of willing to risk the friendship of the pro- Mamurra as a self-centered, greedy, and

11. Cf. Plin. NH 36. 48. joins Caesar in Mamurra's guilt because of Caesar's continued 12. Cf. Baehrens' comment on line 5 in which he strongly equanimity when confronted with such behavior. 20 WILLIAMC. SCOTT very efficient voluptuary. Both appetites Catullus asks at the beginning of the are joined in lines 13 f. Mamurra has poem who but a man who is "impudicus exhausted himself in the beds of provincial et vorax et aleo" could endure a creature ladies and is appropriatelycalled a diffututa like Mamurra. The proper answer is that mentula. Even the most robust Roman no one could unless he wished to claim official with legions of aid would have had those three adjectives for himself. In line a debilitating schedule if he were to attempt 9 Catullus asks his Romulus if he can en- to make his way through all provincial dure this; the answer seems to be "yes," beds. And now having exhausted, at least for Catullus immediately states that Romu- for the moment, his first great drive, lus is "impudicus et vorax et aleo." It is Mamurra settles in for the banquet: "ut clear that line 10, the only direct statement ista vestra diffututa mentula / ducenties in the first part of the poem, is really not comesset aut trecenties?" And this is the an answer to one of the previous questions. agent who is tolerated, supported, and even The proper answers to the questions are fondled (fovetis) by the triumvirs.13Any implied and must be given by the reader. man who would allow such scenes of Line 10 is a conclusion drawn by Catullus exploitation deserves to be called "impu- on the basis of the unprinted responses to dicus et vorax et aleo."14 the preceding questions.17 The second part of the poem contains a 2. THE RHETORICALORGANIZATION OF THE similar series of questions with no re- POEM corded answers. After the final question: This poem is unique in the Catullan "Is it for this reason that you have de- corpus in that it is almost entirely a series stroyed everything?"there is no conclusion of questions. In twenty-four lines there are drawn by the poet. The lack of conclusion nine questions. Since more than one line for this poem has been so bothersome that is often required to ask a question, such several critics have attempted to cover this numbers are even more surprising. To embarrassment by shifting lines 21-24 to state these figures another way, there are a position following line 10; yet these only five lines out of twenty-four which are critics do not seem to notice that the brusque not involved in direct questions (10 and ending of this poem is perfectly consonant 17-20).15 It is even more perplexing to with the form of the preceding lines.18 find that only one of these nonquestioning Just as Catullus has let the reader supply lines is in any way a response to any of the answers for himself throughout the the questions.16 poem, so now he leaves the concluding 13. Cf. Cic. Att. 7. 7. 6 where he draws a similar connection there is a series of questions; the poet does, however, draw his between the triumvirs and their agent. conclusion in the final two lines. Poem 52 is too short to be 14. E. S. deAngeli, "The Unity of Catullus 29," CJ, LXV an adequate parallel; the poem does end with a question (1970), 81-84, suggests that impudicus, vorax, and aleo define which is to be answered by Catullus. Poem 29 is the only ex- the central theme of the poem. Mamurra's activities involve ample in the Catullan corpus which contains almost exclusively Caesar in guilt by association. However, she identifies the a series of questions with no answers. addressee as Caesar on the basis of no new evidence and 17. Baehrens (on line 5) states that line 10 is a response extends the meaning of the three epithets too widely in order to the preceding question. He sees so strong a need for to apply them to Caesar. While many of her comments on balanced form that he approves the inclusion of line 10 as line poetic language are good, her total construction of the poem 5b, which was done in the Aldine edition. Yet when it is clear does not solve the problems involved in making Caesar the that line 10 is not a response but rather a reaction, then there addressee in the opening section of the poem. is no need to provide relief to the series of unanswered ques- 15. The unique form of this poem was noted by Schnelle tions. In fact, the pause after line 9 would be very similar to (above, n. 4). She stated that this form provided "allerh6chste the pause after line 5; neither question receives an answer. Lebendigkeit, subjektiver Affekt, und Momentaneitit"; but 18. This transposition was originally made by Mommsen; she did not carry her analysis further. Baehrens argues forcefully for the transposition. He thinks 16. The only comparable poems are 40 and 52. In Poem 40 that the poet should not introduce a plural adjective or plural CATULLUS AND CAESAR 21 statement unwritten. This poem thus re- (unmistakably the imperator unice of line quires that the reader enter into a dialogue 11); or Pompey combined with Caesar in with the poet in order that the progression the vestra of 13 and the fovetis of 21 but from line to line be understood. It should be not formally introduced until the final line pointed out that lines 17-20 provide infor- as the gener. The problem arises in attempt- mation on the basis of which a firm nega- ing to make any one man the addressee tive answer to the question posed in line throughout the poem. This is a problem 16 can be supplied. that is a product of modern thinking. The regularity of the meter reinforces Poem 1 is addressed to both Cornelius and the rhetorical structure of this poem. The Catullus' patrona virgo (cf. lines 3 and 8 meter is pure iambic trimeter, line after ff.); Poem 4 is addressed to the guests, line with no variation.19 In addition, few Amastris and Cytorus, and the Dioscuri lines contain significant internal pauses. (cf. lines 1, 13 f., and 26 f.); Poem 14 Therefore each line is recited to a simple, begins with an address to Calvus but ends unvarying, and easily understood meter. with a curse to the anthology (cf. lines 2 The rhythm soon becomes clear to the and 21 ff.). There are further examples listener. More important is the lack of where Catullus clearly changes the ad- enjambment in this poem. Seventeen out dressee within one poem. of twenty-four contain complete sense units This observation releases a critic from in themselves; there are only 7 lines which the need to find one consistent addressee force a reader to continue into the follow- in Poem 29. I suggest that Catullus is ing line to complete the meaning. This com- addressing the Roman people under the bination of unvaried meter and insistence title of Romulus in the first part of the on the autonomous phrasing of each line poem. This general identification is familiar produces a series of statements, each con- from several other references in his verse. forming to an easily recognizable pattern At the end of 28 Catullus refers to two of meter but each requiring a pause at the Roman governors as opprobriaRomuli Re- end. The metrical scheme of the poem in mique; Cicero is entitled disertissimeRomuli providing constant pauses for answers nepotum (49. 1); in his prayer to Diana emphasizes the rhetorical structure implicit Catullus prays for continued blessings on in a series of questions. the gens Romuli (34. 21 ff.). In each of these cases Romulus is cited as the dis- 3. THE PROBLEMOF THE ADDRESSEE tinguished ancestor of the Roman race. Finally there is the much-discussed prob- The tone used by Catullus in invoking his lem of the addressee. The candidates are name is clear from Poem 28; there he and the Romulus addressed in 5 and 9; Caesar Remus represent the honor and integrity verb without some early mention of Pompey and also that the broadly at Roman society. I am not, therefore, bothered by the poem should end with a reference to Mamurra rather than the early introduction of the plurals and find the explicit address address to the two triumvirs. In his view the poem is an attack to Caesar and Pompey at the end of the poem a fine summary on Mamurra personally rather than a broader criticism of the of the poet's intent. Cf. the arguments for maintaining the state of the government and society; he would place Poem 29 traditional order in Ellis' "Excursus on 29. 20 and 23." with the other poems against Mamurra, including those about 19. The only variations are in line 3 where a long a in Ameana (41, 43, 57, 94, 105, 114, 115). According to this Mamurra would make the first foot a spondee (cf. Horace interpretation Catullus is not attacking Caesar and was not Sat. 1. 5. 37 and Martial 9. 59. 1 and 10. 4. 11). Most editors unfriendly to Caesar. Catullus only went after Caesar's agents are willing to pardon Catullus for this exception because it whom he found personally disagreeable. This paper will make occurs in a proper name; cf. Baehrens, Kroll, and the strong it clear that I do not accept this interpretation and, conse- statements of Ellis. Lines 20 and 23 contain divergent feet, quently, reject the transposition of lines 21-24. I believe that but there is little certainty that editors have recaptured the there is a social concern expressed in the works of Catullus original text in these two vexed lines. (see the end of this paper) and that this poem is directed 22 WILLIAMC. SCOTT

which were active forces in the founding of line 10. I suspect that there have been no the Republic and which are the birthright answers to any of the questions because the of every Roman.20 Men like Piso and proper answer would have been: "No, I Memmius have betrayed that heritage. In can't endure this type of scandalous activity the first part of Poem 29 Catullus speaks going on and I want to do something about to the contemporary Roman who should it!" This statement would be followed by be aware of his ancestor's fine qualities in breaking off one's reading or listening to measuring his own behavior as a citizen.21 the poem and initiating some sort of re- At line 11 he turns to another addressee, form activity. But the reader who sticks Caesar, and asks him about his intentions. with Catullus shows by his lack of activity As he continues to ask questions he involves that he is ready to endure either Mamurra yet another addressee, Pompey. In this way or the charge of Catullus. By his silent ac- the poem becomes a series of questions by quiescence he is self-condemned at line 10. an outraged Catullus to anyone in sight Then Catullus, having despaired of the who wishes to answer them. Roman reader who had docilely followed Catullus first asks who can endure him up to this point, turns to the officials Mamurra's depredations. The perfectly re- of the state, Caesar and Pompey. He asks peated meter comes to the end of line 4 and if it was for this reason that Caesar ex- there is a pause because of the punctuation, tended Roman rule to the furthest reaches but there is no answer. The first three lines of the world? Was it so that men like have establishedthe meter so that the reader Mamurra could indulge their every desire? is prepared to make a major halt at the He confronts Caesar with a Caesarian con- end of line 4. At line 5 Catullus makes his cept, liberalitas.22Surely the tolerance of question more pointed: can you, the Mamurra's behavior is a perverted libera- reader, the man of Rome, the descendant litas or a hypocritical liberalitas or a mis- of great Romulus, endure this man? Again guided liberalitas.Catullus lists the offenses there is no answer unless the individual of Mamurraand asks how the officialsof the reader chooses to provide one. A third Roman state can endure such a man. In the question ending at line 8: will this man last two lines of the poem Catullus inquires continue his excesses? Again, no answer. whether it was for this type of man that Catullus repeats his earlier question from Caesar and Pompey have destroyed every- line 5 and then gives up on his reader in thing. Once again there are pauses at the ends

kind of unified statement. This 20. Similar betrayal of a lofty ideal by contemporary second part in any poetic P. R. Young in Romans is intended in poem 58 where Lesbia glubit magnanimi identification has also been suggested by 327-28, but she concluded Remi nepotes. "Catullus 29," CJ, LXIV, (1969), be into 29a and 29b. 21. An objection to this interpretation is given by Lenchan- that the poem should, therefore, split in Persius only to show tin de Gubernatis: "Contro l'interpretazione che fa dell' Baehrens (on line 5) cites the parallel Catullus who addresses Caesar under espressione R. (omule) c. (inaede) un singolare collettivo 'o the difference between who to the Roman Romani degeneri,' sta il fatto che Romule non pub quale agg. the title of Romulus, and Persius speaks Baehrens states that the question (cfr. Verg. Aen. 6,877 Romula tellus) che essere attributo di people. Later in the same note and later does Catullus cinaede, sicchb l'espressione potrebbe significare solo 'o in line 1 is addressed to everyone only I would with his basic cinedo romano, o cinedi romani,' quasi apostrofe a cotesta turn his questions to Caesar. agree but I think that the shift to genia." Romule in Poem 29 is not an address to the real understanding of the poem, In this case the parellel to Romulus (Lenchantin de Gubernatis acknowledges this); it Caesar does not occur until line 11. must, therefore, be addressed to somebody who can be called Persius is extremely pertinent. the of a "Romulus." I would contend that this addressee could be 22. Various ancient sources comment on generosity 20. and 2. 45. 1. 14. 43; Sall. the average Roman ("Oh, man of Rome") as well as Julius Caesar: Cic. Phil. 2. 50 116; Off. Several sources use the word Caesar. Cf. the parallel usage at Persius 1. 87. Friedrich in his Cat. 54; Suet. Iul. 26 and 54. These comment on verse 1 identifies Romulus as the Roman reader, liberalitas: Suet. Iul. 38 and Cic. Fam. 7. 17. 2 (and 3). to and he associates this reader in the behavior of Mamurra. He passages offer sufficient evidence for Ellis pronounce does not, however, combine this section of the poem with the liberalitas "a word of Caesar's." CATULLUS AND CAESAR 23

of several lines for answersto the questions; with his own governor to the province of but there are no answers. Once again the Bithynia. reader is left with the responsibility for At the heart of Poem 29 is Catullus' supplying the answers. And yet if anyone concern for honesty and candor in human stops to think of Caesar's answers to these relationships. While there may be no fixed questions, it is clear that they would also moral ethic implicit within the poems of be self-condemnatory. If Caesar tried to Catullus, there is a sense of the limit or the explain his broader and perhaps visionary proportion which must govern the behavior goals for invading Britain, he would still of those who claim to be truly cultured or be confronted with the behavior of his civilized. Laughter is not a bad thing used agent. A ringing defense of liberalitas in the proper place and to the proper would not deal with the antics of Mamurra. measure, but when a person like an Eg- Catullus lists a series of factual charges natius laughs, he surpasses the limit of which make any answer to line 16 hopeless. civilized taste. For men to call a woman To explain why they embrace and favor beautiful or for a woman to think that she this man would require Caesar and Pom- is beautiful seems only natural, but when a pey to admit that Mamurra was an em- woman like Ameana puts an extreme value barrassment. To list his qualifications as on her beauty and men say that she is as an engineer would satisfy no one who had beautiful as Lesbia, then the limit of credi- listened to the charges earlier in the poem. bility has been passed. The problem is Most probably Caesar would have no self-delusion. answer for such questions or would deign Poem 29 is dealing with this attitude on to give none. The only answer is reform. a larger scale. Caesar and Pompey probably The second section of the poem is, there- believe that the affairs of the Roman state fore, much like the first where there was a are being administered fairly well. Caesar series of questions which really could not was having success in Gaul and Britain, be answered except by action. The poem the triumvirate was holding the Roman condemns the person who keeps calmly governmental system together (even though reading and ignores the issues raised. their methods might be a bit rugged as in In such a reading of this poem the the cases of Cicero and Cato), and the addressees are numerous, the Roman people of Rome probably thought that the people and their leaders. The subject of proconsular governors were administering this poem is the quality of government the provinces as well as could be expected. which Rome brought to her provinces. In And yet the plight of the provincials under fact, the provincial system existed not for governors like Verres and at the mercy of the good of the governed but largely for Roman armies like that of Lucullus showed the personal benefit of the governors and that the system was not equitable; Roman officials of the Roman state. In this poem tax collectors and business men often Mamurra as the exemplar of extreme self- further aggravated a bad situation.23 Any indulgence is the symbol of the unconcerned idea that the provincial system was func- attitude of the Roman leaders. This lack tioning well did not correspond to the of concern Catullus himself had been able facts, and, therefore, Catullus resorted to to see firsthand when he followed along this series of difficult questions in order to 23. To be sure the provincial system was not consistently government during these years of the Republic is not a glorious as bad as its worst representatives; see the balanced judgment one. The system was no better than the character of the indi- of G. H. Stevenson in his chapter "The Provinces and Their vidual governor. Government," CAH, IX, 472-74. Yet the record of provincial 24 WILLIAMC. SCOTT

expose the situation in its true perspective. though the dead forms of the old govern- He hoped to let the Roman people and their ment lingered on. This was the ultimate leaders stand condemned by their lack of delusion; Republicanism was alive in name answers. only while the state was actually run by Therefore, in the first part of the poem he autocrats and their henchmen. It was only interrogates the people of Rome with a two years until the mobs that ran the series of questions: in essence, can you Roman state were forced out into the open; really endure a representativeof Rome who the chaotic events of the year 52 B.C. takes excesses of money out of the prov- showed how hypocritical the whole idea inces and compels the provincials to sub- of convening meetings of the senate and mit to his excessive lusts? Only a person of convoking assemblies really was. inferior character and distorted values It may be objected that Catullus is could tolerate such an outrage-and where usually regarded as a personal poet and do you stand, gentlemen of Rome? Then did not have much concern for the society Catullus turns to the leaders of the Roman around him. There are a few phrases in state-Caesar first, but Pompey two lines his poems which can be cited to demon- later-and asks: is this the reason that strate a broader interest: at the end of you have led Roman armies far away from Poem 22 there is a generalizing statement Italy? Is this the reason that you have about men who cannot see their own faults; imposed Roman rule on provincials? Was at the end of Poem 28 Catullus censures it only in order that Mamurra and his propraetorial governors as the opprobria like could get rich? If this is truly the Romuli Remique; Poem 34 is the Hymn to reason for your conquests, then let us Diana which is really a hymn for the whole have it out in the open and not live with of the Roman people; and at the end of any hypocritical talk about extending 64 Catullus comments on the fallen state Roman culture or aiding distressed allies. of his society compared with the days when The final question in the poem enlarges gods deigned to walk among mortals. These the area of criticism: Is this the reason that are the explicit bits of evidence for a social you have destroyed everything (perdidistis concern in Catullus'verse. More important, omnia)? This last phrase seems to have been however, is the general code of civilized a slogan of the Optimates at this time and men which runs throughout his poetry.25 must have been intended by Catullus to For the most part this code is applied to refer to the whole constitutional imbalance individual people like Egnatius, Ameana, of Rome.24 Great changes had been Volusius, Suffenus, and others. But the wrought in the Roman state by the tri- consistent occurrence of a standard of umvirate. A whole new system had sup- tasteful behavior throughout Catullus' planted the Republican constitution even verse implies that he would apply this 24. Munro (above, n. 10), pp. 102 ff. Cf. L. R. Taylor, conventional morality are reduced to matters of taste or Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (Berkeley, 1961), p. 146: accident of character. Personal nicety, suitable to the lover "In the closing line Caesar and Pompey are lumped together and mistress; personal loyalty, which preserves the intimacies as dynasts who had destroyed the state." of friendship unspoiled and does not betray them; a sensitive 25. There have been many formulations of this social code. imagination capable of dealing with the subtleties alike of Perhaps none is as well expressed as Havelock's in The Lyric personal relationships and literary taste. Such are some of the Genius of Catullus (Oxford, 1939), pp. 100 f.: "He [Catullus] unconscious standards of the Catullan ideal, to be illustrated gives no formula for this urban consciousness; to formulate it from his own verse." Cf. also J. P. Elder, "Notes on Some might destroy it, since its essence is a kind of tacit agreement Conscious and Subconscious Elements in Catullus' Poetry," between a certain number of people to speak and behave in a HSCP, LX (1951), 101-36, esp. 129, and F. O. Copley, certain manner. It implies first an attitude and style of be- "Emotional Conflict and Its Significance in the Lesbia-Poems havior, and second a style of expression, a manner of speech. of Catullus," AJP, LXX (1949), 22-40. As to the first, it makes the supreme virtues those which in CATULLUS AND CAESAR 25 measure to all men. Part of this code is a people of Rome. Then he asked a series of perceptive understanding of one's actions. hard questions concerning personal atti- Most of the people mentioned in the pages tudes and goals and state attitudes and of Catullus' verse lack this knowledge and goals. But there were no answers-only are carried away into a hypocritical pos- pauses; either his reader would have pro- turing. When Catullus sees the same sort vided answers in the form of political of hypocrisy in society, he is concerned and awareness and action or else these questions tries by his cold, frank, and often cruel would have remained unanswered in the satiric pictures to encourage change. dusty book of some passing poet. Catullus And therefore Catullus wrote an angry wrote an angry and artful poem. Critics poem to the Roman world at large-high have long commented on his anger; it is and low. He drew an unforgettable por- time that they gave equal recognition to his trait of the sex-crazed, money-mad Ma- art. murra tolerated and supported by the DARTMOUTH COLLEGE