Morales 1

Written for CLA 393 (Honors Thesis Writing)

Submitted to the Undergraduate Writing Colloquium

in the category of Humanities

The Ponderous, Portentous Prick:

Sociopolitical Invective in the Mamurra Poems of Catullus

Mario G. Morales

Class of 2011, B.A. History/Classics Morales 2

Analysis of Invective in the Mamurra Poems

Nowhere is the sociopolitical dimension of Catullan poetry more present than in the poems attacking Mamurra, or, as Catullus eventually settles on calling him, Mentula. By all accounts a capable officer historically, Mamurra becomes a contrapositional figure to the speaker of the poems, whether that speaker is Catullus himself or a persona created in order to reinforce the invective character of the poems. The hyperbolic rhetoric used to describe his sexual, financial, and literary exploits further caricatures him, making him a near-farcical exaggeration of the quintessential vir – the ambitious and efficient man every good Roman aspired to be. This makes him the absolute opposite of Catullus, or at least of the Catullan persona, whose literary, intellectual, and moral concerns set him against the traditional idea of Roman virility.

The obvious question to settle, then, is who Mamurra was in the first place. He was a member of the Roman equestrian class, hailing from Formiae, a town along the Appian Way and the site of Cicero's assassination in 43.1 In being of noble birth and a Roman citizen, he already presented an opposite figure to Catullus, who hailed from Transpadane Gaul, a province that would not acquire full Roman status until 49. Furthermore, the province was also known for a high percentage of settlers from Hellenized central Italy. Wiseman suggests that this Greek influence, combined with the traditional morality of rural communities, heavily influenced

Catullus' poetry, not simply in his choice to adopt Hellenized forms but in the moral values he espouses through his invective.2 Since Catullus served as a staff officer to Memmius Piso, however, he must have at least obtained or received Roman citizenship, probably through his

1 Green, Peter. The Poems of Catullus: A Bilingual Edition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. p. 289. 2 Wiseman, T.P. Catullus and His World: a Reappraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. pp. 110- 111. Morales 3

father's service as a magistrate in Verona.3

During his career, Mamurra served as an engineer to two of the triumvirs, first to Pompey

during the Mithridatic War (66), then to Julius Caesar, both in Spain (61) and Gaul (58). During

the latter campaign, he was made Caesar's praefectus fabrum (i.e., chief engineer) and performed

efficiently enough to build a 1,500-foot bridge across the Rhine in ten days.4 His efficiency in

service resulted in his amassing enough wealth to scandalize Cicero,5 though in Catullus he is most commonly portrayed as the decoctor Formianus – that is, the “bankrupt from Formiae”6 –

in contrast to his general image of a wealthy young officer. Once again, this stands in direct

opposition to Catullus, who, despite his service on Memmius Piso's staff in Bithynia, was

apparently unable to acquire any impressive wealth,7 and who, unless emancipated from his

father, would have been in potestate and thus living in Rome on an allowance.8 While Catullus seems to have resigned himself to poverty, such as in his humorous invitation to Fabullus in 13, he paints Mamurra as an insatiable machine, seeking only wealth that he then hastens to disintegrate. As Fordyce notes, however, Caesar was unlikely to have appointed such a spendthrift to serve as his chief engineer. The fact that Mamurra served as praefectus fabrum, particularly during a campaign like Caesar's conquest of Gaul, thus suggests that Catullus'

3 Konstan, David. "The Contemporary Political Context." A Companion to Catullus. Ed. Marilyn B. Skinner. Chichester: Blackwell, 2011. p. 72. 4 Green, p. 296. 5 Cic., Att. 7.7.6.: “Annorum enim decem imperium et ita latum placet? Placet igitur etiam me expulsum […] et Labieni divitiae et Mamurrae placent et Balbi horti et Tusculanum.” (“Do the ten years of command please [me], or that it was so borne? Then it pleases me to be exiled […] and the riches of Labienus and Mamurra please me, and the gardens of Balbus and his Tusculanian [estate].” Cited in Green, p. 296; Konstan, p. 74. 6 Catul. 41.4, 43.5. 7 Catul. 10.8-13. 8 Green, p. 2. Morales 4

depiction of the man is, at best, biased.9 At worst, it would have been bald hypocrisy: while

Catullus righteously lobs invective verses at Mamurra for attempting to enrich himself through campaigning, he had before attacked Memmius Piso, his own superior, for preventing him from doing exactly that.10 It is hard to believe that Catullus would have been incognizant of the

dissonance.

Fordyce suggests that Catullus most likely took offense not to Mamurra's actual conduct

or his political alignment with Caesar and Pompey. Rather, Mamurra attracted the poet's ire “by

cutting a figure in society in Rome and in Cisalpine Gaul,” the latter of which becomes the

provincia mentioned in 43.6.11 In other words, what Catullus found objectionable was Mamurra's

own social persona, and refined his own persona in order to counter it. The poems that attack

him, whether addressed to him or to his various relations, emphasize the contrasts between their

author and their target. The Catullan portrait of Mamurra paints him as an undiluted appetite with

no thought for the consequences of his licentiousness. He is relentless in his pursuit of wealth

and sex, both markers of masculine power among Roman men involved in politics. Thus, to

Catullus, he became much more than “a pretentious upstart,”12 though that may certainly have

been the basis of the character who appears in the poems. He becomes instead an absurd, near-

comedic exaggeration of the Roman vir. Catullus' barbs, written in the voice of a man

demonstrably a failure in the same sort of endeavors, thus serve to mock this hyperbolic figure as

an example of ambition gone wild.

Catullus first mentions Mamurra in poem 29, as part of a longer iambic work usually

9 Fordyce, C.J. Catullus: a commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. p. 160. 10 Fordyce, ibid. 11 Fordyce, ibid. 12 Fordyce, ibid. Morales 5 thought to be addressed to Caesar and Pompey.

Quis hoc potest videre, quis potest pati, nisi impudicus et vorax et aleo, Mamurram habere quod Comata Gallia habebat ante et ultima Britannia? cinaede Romule haec videbis et feres? et ille nunc superbus et superfluens perambulabit omnium cubilia, ut albulus columbus aut Adoneus? cinaede Romule, haec videbis et feres? es impudicus et vorax et aleo. eone nomine, imperator unice, fuisti in ultima occidentis insula, ut ista vestra diffututa mentula ducenties comesset aut trecenties? quid est alid sinistra liberalitas? parum expatrauit an parum (h)elluatus est? paterna prima lancinata sunt bona, secunda praeda Pontica, inde tertia Hibera, quam scit amnis aurifer Tagus: nunc Galliae timetur et Britanniae. quid hunc malum fouetis? aut quid hic potest nisi uncta devorare patrimonia? eone nomine urbis o piissimi, socer generque, perdidistis omnia?

Who can see this, who can suffer it, unless he were shameless, voracious, a gambler, that Mamurra holds what Transalpine Gaul and faraway Britain had before? Faggot Romulus, will you see this and put up with it? Now he, haughty and overflowing, will pass around the marriage beds of all, like some little white dove or Adoneus? Faggot Romulus, will you see this and put up with it? You are shameless, and voracious, and a gambler. Was this why, O generalissimo, you were in the world's westernmost island, so this thoroughly-fucked-out prick of yours would eat two hundred or three hundred times? What is it if not improper generosity? Has he not gobbled enough or gone through enough? First he tore his inheritance to pieces, then the booty of Pontus, from there, third the Spanish treasure, as the gold-bearing river Tagus knows. Now he is feared in Gaul and Britain. Why do you cherish this evil man? What can he do except swallow oiled patrimonies? Was this why, you holier-than-thou citizens, father-in-law, son-in-law, destroyed everything?

Written in a style reminiscent of Archilochean iambics, particularly at its opening, 29 is Morales 6 one of the more direct invective pieces in the Catullan corpus. Moreover, as the first poem to make any mention of Mamurra in the corpus, 29 serves as an introduction both to him specifically and to Catullus' more explicitly political poetry in general, and establishes Mamurra as the dominant character among those that populate this thematic division of his work.13

Elements first essayed in this poem recur throughout the later corpus. First, the word mentula will become directly associated with Mamurra in the epigrams. Second, the theme of Mamurra as an unstoppable appetite, always in pursuit of sex or treasure and careless of the cost he incurs in acquiring them, will appear in two different sets of poems. Mamurra's profligate habits14 lead

Catullus to nickname him “bankrupt from Formiae” in poems 41 and 43, hurled at his mistress,

Ameana. Much later in the published order of the corpus, when he is first addressed by the nickname Mentula, he is attacked for his adulterous habits,15 for his lack of poetic skill,16 and for the contrast between the wealth of his property and his inability to properly exploit it.17

The stark language of vituperation Catullus utilizes in this poem is difficult to overstate.

First, and most obviously, Mamurra's relentless desire for money and land cast as an unfavorable reflection upon Caesar, to say the least. Second, Caesar himself is not spared, as Catullus calls him both “faggot Romulus” and “shameless, and voracious, and a gambler.” All of these terms emphasize recklessness and lack of self-control, thus casting Caesar as the opposite of the hypothetical virtuous Roman who eschews such displays of immoderation as a matter of course.

13 Wiseman places the introduction of invective poetry in Catul. 27, with the calices amariores (27.2) representing a metaphorical acceptance of invective themes to be essayed in future poems. See Wiseman, T. P., Catullan Questions. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1969. pp. 10-11. 14 Profligate habits, it should be noted, with which Caesar, his ostensibly superior officer, had little trouble. Cic. Att. 13.52.1: “Tum audivit de Mamurra, vultum non mutavit.” (“Then [Caesar] heard of Mamurra, without changing countenance.”) Cited in Konstan, p. 74. 15 Catul. 94, passim. 16 Catul. 105, passim. 17 Catul. 114, 115, passim. Morales 7

Furthermore, the use of cinaedus (“faggot”) here also suggests a fundamental effeminacy or

weakness in his addressee. While a standard insult in the Catullan arsenal, it also has the benefit

of fitting well with accounts of Caesar's common derision as effeminate or lacking in

masculinity.

Third, after Caesar and Mamurra have been sufficiently savaged, Catullus introduces

Pompey as a third target (29.13), in the same line where he first equates Mamurra with the

epithet of mentula. After listing the charges he lays against Mamurra, he closes off by once again

addressing both Caesar and Pompey. In particular, Fordyce calls attention to perdidistis omnia as

a possible slogan of the political opposition to the triumvirs.18 Combined with the date of the poem – between 55 and 54 BC – this use of political vocabulary suggests that Catullus was at least aware of the contempt in which Caesar and Pompey's recent violent and constitutional excesses were held.19 In fact, given that the poem itself is mainly concerned with the

licentiousness of one of their subordinates, such an explicitly political interpretation would recast

the poem as a piece in which Caesar and Pompey themselves are seen not simply as permissive

where Mamurra's profligacy is concerned, but are also likened to him through the favor they

show him.

The complexity of this poem – and perhaps the political climate of Rome at the time

Catullus wrote it – have led scholars to propose various alternatives to this standard theory. In

particular, the target at whom Catullus intended to direct the vocative cinaede Romule has come

18 Fordyce, p. 164. 19 Tatum, W. Jeffrey. "Social Commentary and Political Invective." A Companion to Catullus. Ed.. Marilyn B. Skinner. Chichester: Blackwell, 2011. p. 341. Morales 8

under debate, with arguments for its identification with Pompey the Great20 as well as for a general addressee, using the name of Romulus to evoke the average Roman citizen.21 Here the

Romans themselves prove scarcely able to provide an easy answer, since in invective usage,

Romulus could be used more or less for any ambitious Roman politician.22

Both of these interpretations, as a result, expand the versatility of cinaedus to mean not simply pathic effeminacy, but general weakness, and thus symbolic of the political inefficacy of their target. They are also buttressed by the fact that Catullus could not have had in mind the literal meaning of cinaedus every time he used it, or he could scarcely describe a woman as cinaedior (10.24). Pompey, for instance, was condemned as effeminate just as his fellow triumvir, even to the point of being satirized as scratching his finger with one hand, a habit of which Caesar was also often accused.23 Furthermore, if the poem was indeed written between 55 and 54 BC, Pompey seems the more natural target as he was then consul for the second time, and thus present in Rome, while Caesar was across the Alps and thus out of the immediate reach of

Catullus' invective. Though this alternate theory therefore enjoys a certain amount of linguistic support, Catullus continues to link Mamurra to Caesar in later poems, suggesting that the two were on some level inseparable to the poet.

The idea that cinaede Romule was instead a term of vituperation for the average Roman citizen likewise has a certain defensibility, especially if taken together with other indications that

29 is not, as seems at first blush, a single poem. Phyllis Young has suggested that lines 1 – 10 form one poem, in which the individual Roman citizen is addressed as cinaede Romule, and

20 Cameron, Alan. "Catullus 29." Hermes. 104.2 (1976): 155-63. p. 159. 21 Young, Phyllis R. "Catullus 29." Classical Journal. 64.7 (1969): 327-328. p. 327. 22 Green, p. 222. 23 Cameron, p. 162. Morales 9 concerned mainly with the exploits of Mamurra. In this division, lines 11 – 24 comprise a separate poem, addressed jointly to Caesar and Pompey, and concerned with exploits of a similar nature by a man whom Catullus only identifies as ista vestra diffututa mentula. As Young notes, the only direct evidence within the corpus for equating Mamurra with Mentula is their presence within the same poem.24 Thus, if 29 is divided, Mentula presumably becomes an entirely different character within the corpus, albeit one who shares Mamurra's predatory bent. Catullus, meanwhile, is spared what Young calls “undeserved reproach for having written a single poem with two addressees, two themes, and two structural climaxes.”25

While this theory is attractive on aesthetic grounds, it does not logically follow that

Mamurra and ista vestra diffututa mentula must thus be separate characters. That would require that the reader ignore the clear links between the two parts Young would create from the poem.

The repetition at 29.20 of Gallia . . . et Britannia, first mentioned in 29.3–4, suggest an association with Caesar's career in particular.26 Meanwhile, 29.16 calls to mind the imagery of

29.6–8, in which Mamurra is depicted as possessed of insatiable sexual appetites, to say nothing of his reduction to a mentula, the very sexual organ with which he satisfies his desires. The language of 29, taken as a single unit, calls to mind “a gluttonous devouring of men and resources in spendthrift profligacy.”27

William C. Scott makes a similar argument for the target of cinaede Romule. In his view, this does not damage the unity of the poem, as similar changes of addressees occur in Poems 1, 4

24 Young, p. 328. 25 Young, ibid. 26 deAngeli, Edna S. "The Unity of Catullus 29." Classical Journal. 65.2 (1969): 81-84. p. 82. 27 deAngeli, p. 83. Morales 10

and 14.28 To support this version of the theory, Scott dismisses the charge of impudicus as a

common jest, and those contained in et vorax et aleo as inapplicable to Caesar, who, according to

Suetonius, was far from a voracious eater and did not engage in gambling.29 Accepting this

theory, however, requires that the charges in question be meant literally, and as already shown,

Catullus was known to utilize hyperbolic insults such as cinaedus and pathicus for targets who

did not always exemplify them. It is therefore not difficult to infer that while Caesar may well

have been known for neither shameless, nor excessive appetites, nor perhaps even recklessness,

Catullus' intentions in poem 29 demanded that he be cast as such. Indeed, these terms were quite

common in political invective of the time, just as impudicus itself was.30 Notably, Cicero used similar terminology to allude to Antony in the Philippics, suggesting that these particular insults were, in fact, “a commonplace of conventional vituperation.”31

Nor is it necessarily true that Catullus intended to accuse Caesar of excessive eating – at least not in terms of food. The use of cinaede Romule already marks Caesar as pathic, but by calling him vorax, Catullus places further emphasis upon the sexual character of his invective.

Though Mamurra is relentless in pursuing all luxuries, not simply gustatory ones, Catullus consistently uses vocabulary evocative of eating, or more generally, of the mouth. Comesset in

29.14, (h)elluatus est in 29.16, and devorare in 29.22, when placed among the other crimes

Catullus attributes to Mamurra, suggest that while he may be generally insatiable, he treats everything, from treasure to sex, as if it were food – that is, something to be finished off, consumed entirely.

28 Scott, William C. "Catullus and Caesar (C. 29)." Classical Philology. 66.1 (1971): 17-25. p. 21. 29 Scott, p. 18. 30 Tatum, ibid. 31 Fordyce, p. 162. Morales 11

Similarly, vorax here once again suggests a link with hunger and eating, but it also calls

to mind the os impurum, the mouth defiled by oral sex, and thus reinforces the existing charge of

Caesar as pathic and feminized.32 Using the verb vorare to suggest fellatio is not unusual in the

corpus – it occurs in 80 and 88, two of the Gellius poems, to mean much the same thing – nor

even uncommon in Catullus' politically-minded invective. In fact, 57, the next poem concerned

with Mamurra and Caesar takes a similar tack:

Pulcre convenit improbis cinaedis, Mamurrae pathicoque Caesarique. Nec mirum: maculae pares utrisque, urbana altera et illa Formiana, impressae resident nec eluentur: morbosi pariter, gemelli utrique, uno in lecticulo erudituli ambo, non hic quam ille magis vorax adulter, riuales socii puellularum. Pulcre conuenit improbis cinaedis.

They get along beautifully, those blatant faggots, Caesar and Mamurra, such sodomites, nor is it strange: the same stains on both of them, one from the city, the other Formian, live stamped on them, nor will they be washed out: equally sick, twins to each other, both semi-educated idiots on the same little bed, this one no more a cheating gobbler than the other, rivals and allies with the lasses. They get along beautifully, those blatant faggots.

If poem 29 was a clear attempt to attack Caesar for associating with, and failing to rein in,

Mamurra, 57 equates and identifies the two, not only with each other, but with their common

sexual appetites, depicted here as insatiable. Not only are Caesar and Mamurra voraces adulteri,

but also cinaedi and pathici, a description that for the modern reader creates a sense of “a certain tension, not to say outright contradiction,”33 between the hypermasculinity of the former and the

32 Tatum, p. 343. 33 Konstan, p. 77. Morales 12

passive homosexuality suggested by the latter.

As if such a contrastive approach were insufficient, Catullus also suggests both in the

phrase vorax adulter. Although the latter refers specifically to a man who had sexual relations

with another citizen's wife,34 the former, once again, calls to mind the os impurum, feminizing its target in doing so. Notably, the epithet need not refer to oral sex with men. Catullus would have been equally within the bounds of common Roman invective to accuse Caesar of engaging in cunnilingus. As a figurative irrumation at the hands (and by the genitals) of a woman, this would have been more feminizing, not less, than casting him as pathic and homosexual.35

The image of Caesar and Mamurra as erudituli ambo in uno lecticulo is of particular

interest in terms of their depiction as nearly indistinguishable from one another. Though erudituli

is unmistakably a pejorative epithet hurled at the literary aspirations of both men, a lecticulum

could serve as either a bed or a study couch, thus affording Catullus the opportunity to criticize

the pair on both literary and sexual grounds.36 Furthermore, if the word is taken to mean a small bed or couch, their placement on it becomes invective in and of itself, of a piece with their characterizations as pathici and cinaedi. In particular, because of Mamurra's preexisting identification as the diffututa mentula of Pompey and Caesar, it suggests that the latter, the most probable cinaede Romule of 29, is the pathic one of the two, defiled by his own subordinate.

Thus, the imperator unice is reduced to nothing more than a sex toy, the instrument of Mamurra's pleasure.37 Caesar, who had already acquired reputations among the citizenry for bisexuality and

34 Konstan, p. 76. 35 Wiseman, Catullus and His World, p. 41. 36 Thomson, D.F.S. Catullus. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. p. 342; see also Green, p. 231. 37 Tatum, p. 343. Morales 13

love of young girls, would have been particularly vulnerable to such charges.38

As in Poem 29, however, it is also unlikely that Catullus meant the literal application of his charges. As Thomson notes, the logical tension between the charges of passive homosexuality and adultery would derail both, if meant literally. Taken purely as a piece of invective meant to declare Catullus' opposition to Caesar and his faction, however, the seeming contradiction becomes instead hyperbole, and thus a legitimate rhetorical device.39

These two poems are also at the center of one of the larger questions about the chronology of the corpus. Suetonius records that Caesar openly acknowledged that Catullus' verses about Mamurra had cost him some degree of political standing, that Catullus apologized, and that Caesar responded by inviting the poet to dinner.40 Unfortunately, Suetonius tells us neither which poem of the two had hurt Caesar politically nor when Catullus apologized and dined with Caesar, thus leaving two rather impressive gaps for later scholarship. Furthermore, establishing the date of Catullus' reconciliation with Caesar would presumably help determine which of the two poems made it necessary in the first place.

The commentaries differ on this question. Green,41 Fordyce and Quinn (whose

chronological arguments Green accepts) all argue that 57, as the more “scurrilous and impudent”

38 Suet. DJ 52: “At ne cui dubium omnino sit et impudicitiae et adulteriorum flagrasse infamia, Curio pater quadam eum oratione omnium mulierum virum et omnium virorum mulierem appellat.” (“But lest there be any doubt at all that the infamy of [Caesar's] shamelessness and adulteries burned, the elder Curio, in a certain speech, called him 'the man of all women' and the 'woman of every man.'”) Cited in Green, p. 230. 39 Thomson, p. 341. 40 Suet. DJ 73: “Valerium Catullum, a quo sibi versiculis de Mamurra perpetua stigmata imposita non dissimulaverat, satis facientem eadem die adhibuit cenae hospitioque patris eius, sicut consuerat, ut perseveravit.” (“Valerius Catullus, [Caesar] did not conceal, inflicted lasting marks on him with his verses about Mamurra. The same day he apologized, Caesar invited him to dinner and continued, as was his custom, his friendship with Catullus' father.”) Cited in Fordyce, p. 160. 41 Green, p. 230. Morales 14

of the two,42 was far more likely to damage Caesar's reputation, enough so to attract his attention.

In fact, the triumvir himself may have answered the question when he referred to the lasting stains (perpetua stigmata imposita) Catullus' verses had left. Assuming Suetonius rendered

Caesar's words more or less accurately, they could be taken as an allusion to the maculae impressae mentioned in 57.43

On the other hand, Thomson considers 57 a piece of pure, rhetorical invective. On those grounds, he argues that 29, which incorporates substantial criticism of Caesar's ability to stop his subordinate's depredations, was more likely the poem that led to Catullus' apology.44 This would mean that Caesar clearly recognized the difference between the rhetoric-laden hyperbole of 57 and the more reality-based criticisms leveled in 29, a distinction he would likely be perfectly able to make, as an expert politician, especially one with literary aspirations. Furthermore, the substitution of mentula for Mamurra in the epigrams, seemingly after Catullus had apparently promised not to directly attack Caesar or his entourage, suggests a link to poem 29.45

Either way, as Wiseman notes, if Catullus had not published his collection of poems before this reconciliation, the fact that he included both 29 and 57 in it suggests that he was not entirely decided in Caesar's favor.46 The placement of 29, presumably the later poem, before 57, then, seems to indicate that Catullus considered the former to be a better introduction to the characters of Mamurra and Caesar (and secondarily Pompey), at least as they appear in the arranged corpus. By establishing them as cinaedi and pathici, he alerts the reader to his use of

42 Fordyce, p. 160. 43 Konstan, p. 76. 44 Thomson, p. 341. 45 Thomson, p. 523. 46 Wiseman, Catullan Questions, p. 35. Morales 15 rhetorical conventions and hyperbolic invective. By equating Mamurra and mentula in his first appearance, he prepares the reader to expect later identification of the two.

Moreover, the long disappearance of both characters from the corpus – Caesar does not appear again until 93, and then resurfaces only briefly; Mentula does not appear until the very next epigram – suggests a long separation of the persona from political invective, perhaps reflecting Catullus' own decision to abstain from this thematic division until a later, more personal return to the genre.

In fact, Wiseman suggests that poem 93 is an introduction to the last cycle of poems, in which Catullus singles out various members of the Caesarian faction as targets for his invective.47 As such, it clearly announces Catullus' intent:

Nil nimium studeo, Caesar, tibi velle placere, nec scire utrum sis albus an ater homo.

I'm not too zealous, Caesar, to want to please you, nor to know whether you're a black or white man.

Given Caesar's disappearance from Catullus' verse nearly forty poems prior, his sudden resurgence suggests some programmatic intent. Given the striking change in attitude between the indifference in this poem and the hyperbolic invective of 57, it is difficult to argue with

Wiseman's assertion that it most likely reflects the reconciliation between poet and triumvir. With this in mind, 93 becomes a cautious retrenchment; Catullus informs Caesar that he does not intend to be any better disposed to him than in the past, but neither will he continue to strike at

Caesar.48 The second verse may even go so far as to say that Catullus, if he wishes to abstain

47 Wiseman, Catullan Questions, pp. 28-29. 48 Wiseman, Catullan Questions, p. 35. Morales 16

from criticizing Caesar, can only do so through determined indifference.49 Taken as an allusion to

Aristophanic comedy, it could also indicate Catullus' indifference to Caesar's sexual preferences.50 Considering the level of sexual invective to which he has already subjected both

Caesar and Mamurra, such a declaration would both reinforce his continuing abstention from direct attacks on Caesar himself and, perhaps, serve as a final insult, revealing that he never cared much whether Caesar was actually virile or pathic.

With this in mind, then, the fact that 93 is placed before the first of the Mentula poems naturally invites comparison between the two on various levels. First, both are elegiac couplets, closed on either side by longer, thematically unrelated epigrams. This, aside from isolating them from the rest of the corpus, suggests a highly localized version of ring-composition, centering on these two couplets among the larger corpus of the epigrams. Second, both make use of generally conversational language, notably including proverbs in their pentameters. Depending on the reading, these either restate the point made in the hexameter of each couplet, or otherwise are used as a final insult. Lastly, there is a possible clue to Mentula's identity in this placement: the two times Catullus attacks Caesar by name, in poems 29 and 57, he is either likened to or equated with Mamurra.

Though Catullus did not consider the terms of his reconciliation with Caesar to extend to other Caesarians, he seems to have extended to Mamurra the dubious courtesy of attacking him under an obscene nickname, perhaps precisely because he had in the past identified the two as

49 Schmidt, Ernst. Catull. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 1985. p. 65-66. Cited in Konstan, p. 84. 50 Thomson (p. 524) cites in support of this theory Ingemann's reading of Aristoph. Thesm. ll. 33, “μ μ  ” (“Surely he is the dark, powerful one?”) and 191, “       μ ” (“And you are fair-faced, white, clean-shaven . . .”), identifying μ  (“dark,” lit. “black”) with homosexuality and   (“white”) with virility. Morales 17

essentially equivalent to one another.

The obscene nickname Catullus chose for his target both recalls the first piece of political

invective in the corpus and makes clear his intent in writing the Mentula epigrams. The word

mentula itself served not only as the basic obscenity for the male organ, but according to Martial

and the author of the Priapea, it was considered an archetypal obscenity, along with cunnus.51 By

using such a basic obscenity to obscure the identity of his target, and moreover by placing it as

the first word in 94, Catullus introduces an obvious pejorative intent.

The use of mentula in epigram also represents a break with, or perhaps an adaptation of,

the Greek forms Catullus and the other poetae novi emulated. In fact, according to Martial again,

it was Catullus himself who introduced obscenity into the Latin epigram,52 in sharp contrast to its

Greek counterpart, which preferred to use figurative terminology whenever possible. Notably,

however, Greek iambics did not lack obscenity; Catullus had precedent there, in the form of

Archilochus and Hipponax.53 Carrying over obscene language to the later part of the corpus

could then serve to indicate that he would continue to essay the same themes in the epigrams as

he had in the polymetrics – another subversion of his apparent indifference in 93.54

Thus, poem 94 serves as a reintroduction to the reader, both of the character of Mentula

51 Mart. Epi. 3.69.1-3: Omnia quod scribis castis epigrammata verbis inque tuis nulla est mentula carminibus. (“You write all your epigrams with chaste words, and in your poems there is no mentula.”) Cited in Adams, J.N., Latin Sexual Vocabulary. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982, p. 9. See also Priap. 29, cited in ibid. 52 Mart. Epi. 1. praef.: Lascivam verborum veritatem, id est epigrammaton linguam, excussarem, si meum esset exemplum: sic scribit Catullus . . . sic quicumque perlegitur. (“I will justify the lascivious truth of [my] words, if mine should be an example, that it is the tongue of epigrams: so wrote Catullus . . . thus each one is read aloud.”) Cited in Adams, p. 12. 53 Adams, pp. 219-20. 54 This idea of a thematic turn may be fortified by Catullus' language itself. The only occurrence of obscenity in the epigrams before Catul. 94 is a single mention of irrumatio (74.5), couched in a similar piece of invective directed at Gellius, another social superior of Catullus. This suggests that Catullus had highly specific intentions in utilizing obscene vocabulary. Morales 18

and of themes visited earlier in the corpus.

Mentula moechatur. Moechatur mentula? Certe. Hoc est quod dicunt: ipsa olera olla legit.

Prick's committing adultery. Committing adultery, Prick? Well, of course. It's what they say: the pot chooses its own potherbs.

The obvious joke, of course, is that Catullus has identified the nickname he has chosen

for his target with the function of said nickname. That is, Mamurra, now equated with a penis

(mentula), cannot but behave as a penis does.55 The use of moechari here recalls Mamurra's characterization as a vorax adulter in 57, while the proverb in the second verse likens his insatiable sexual appetites to gluttony, much as comesset, elluatus est, and devorare were employed in 29. The alliteration of the m sound in the first four words of the poem conveys

Catullus' disapproval of such behavior.56

Notably, despite the fact that this poem in theory serves as a reintroduction to politically-

minded poetry, Catullus dispenses here with the usual forms of political invective. Beyond the

use of mentula to refer to his target, he does not make use of the same rhetorical conventions he

previously aimed at his political enemies. Instead, he resorts to suggesting, through his choice of

verb, that Mamurra is a moechus, a lascivious, uncontrollable adulterer, implying that the speaker

is himself in a position to judge him as one. This implicit comparison between Mamurra and

Catullus recalls the prior contest between Ameana, Mamurra's mistress, and Lesbia, in which,

unsurprisingly, Catullus declares Lesbia superior.57 Likewise, while Catullus casts Mamurra's established relationship with Ameana in the worst possible terms – no better than common adultery – in the same epigrams he couches his relationship with Lesbia in terms of amor, love,

55 Thomson, p. 525; see also Green, p. 263. 56 Thomson, p. 524. 57 Catul. 43.6-8. Morales 19

and fides, trust.58

This interpretation is further buttressed by the presence of the proverb in the second

verse. Generally, ipsa olla olera legit is taken to mean something close to the English proverb

“birds of a feather flock together,”59 or, more basically, “like finds like.” This reinforces the idea that Mentula is not only committing adultery, but he is doing so with a woman perfectly suited to him. Ameana has already been established as such a woman, sharing Mamurra's utter repulsiveness, his vanity, and his unsuccessful attempts to climb the social ladder.60 Furthermore,

if, as Adams suggests is possible, olla is taken as slang for the vagina and (h)olus for the penis,61

the sexual imagery is complete: a woman with no sex appeal and a completely unrealistic

conception of her place on the social ladder could scarcely choose anyone but a man with an

indiscriminate sexual appetite and similar delusions of grandeur.62

This poem, then, heralds a change in the way Catullus writes about Mamurra. Before this

epigram, he has been content to attack Mamurra through association with such characters as

Caesar and Ameana. Their flaws and failings, however exaggerated they may be, are thus grafted

onto Mamurra through the artifice of poetry itself. Starting with 94, however, Catullus seems to

have surmised that by avoiding naming Mamurra as his target, he has actually given himself

latitude to criticize him on a personal level, rather than a political one. Though he obviously

disapproved of Mamurra's depredations upon other provinces' booty, he is now free to attack him

on any grounds he wishes, protected by the filmy anonymity of “Mentula.”

58 Catul. 87.2-3. 59 Green, p. 263. 60 Skinner, Marilyn B. ""Ameana, puella defututa"." Classical Journal. 74.2 (1978): 110-14. 112. 61 Adams, p. 29. 62 Skinner, p. 111. Morales 20

As shown in 57, Catullus also disapproved of Caesar's and Mamurra's literary aspirations, calling them erudituli. He would return to this theme as well in 105, another couplet, describing the decidedly inauspicious results of those efforts.

Mentula conatur Pipleium scandere montem: Musae furcillis praecipitem eiciunt.

Prick tries to climb the Pipleian mount: the Muses throw him off headfirst with little forks.

Once again, the couplet's principal thrust is obvious at first blush: despite his literary aspirations, Mamurra has tried and failed to produce worthy poetry. The spring of Pipla, on the northern slopes of Mount Olympus, was sacred to the Muses; Mamurra's efforts are framed as an attempt to summit its lofty heights. As may be expected of a poem in which the main subject is referred to by his genitals, sexual imagery is not altogether absent: scandere here suggests that

Mamurra's approach to poetry is reflective of his usual methodology. That is, just as he destroys his own fortunes and tirelessly circles the bedrooms of faraway provinces, his attempt to compose poetry is derailed by his aggressiveness and immoderation – thus, a figurative attempt to rape the Muses.63 They, in turn, defend themselves with furcillae, a proverbial trope attested in

Horace64 and Cicero65 similar to the English “beat off with sticks.” Once again, as in 93 and 94,

Catullus rounds off an epigrammatic couplet with the use of conversational language.

In fact, this stylistic similarity between the two poems invites a comparison between them. There are exactly six poems in which Mamurra or Mentula are mentioned, and four of them can be neatly paired off. The first pair, 29 and 57, use political invective to satirize

63 Skinner, ibid. 64 Hor. Ep. 1.26.9: “Naturam expelles furca, tamen usque recurret . . .” (“You may drive nature out with a pitchfork, yet it will always return . . .”) Cited in Fordyce, p. 393. 65 Cic. Att 16.2.4: “Sed, quoniam furcilla extrudimur, Brundisium cogito.” (“But, since we are being driven out with a pitchfork, I think of Brundisium.”) Cited in Thomson, p. 542. Morales 21

Mamurra's relationship to Caesar, feminizing the latter and depicting the former as nothing more

than a diffututa mentula, a male organ so hyperbolically active that it has been rendered flaccid

by its near-constant exertions.66 The second pair, 114 and 115, both use the imagery of Mentula's

property at Firmum to further caricature his extravagant habits, calling to mind the many

fortunes he has already destroyed.

With this in mind, 94 and 105 become a third pair of invective poems. While already

linked by having Mentula as a common subject, they also have common structural features. They

are both unitary monodistichs,67 they both make use of proverbial language to finish off the

“barb” of the couplet, and they both begin with Mentula combined with a deponent verb:

moechari in 94.1, conari in 105.1.68 Such close similarity in the language used to introduce the

epigrams suggests a link between the two, further reinforcing the idea that 94 and 105 should be

taken as a pair of their own.69 Once this is acknowledged, the thematic link becomes rather obvious. As discussed above, the main thrust of 94 is that Mamurra legitimizes his phallic nickname by seducing other men's wives, thus acting exactly as a mentula would be expected to do. 105, then, restates this argument in poetic terms: Mamurra's literary efforts are aggressive, forceful, and threatening, much like his sexual appetite.

If ring-composition is taken into account, the placement of 94 and 105 as the middle two

66 Skinner, p. 112. 67 Thomson, pp. 524, 542. 68 Claes argues that the use of moechatur in 94.1 is not deponent, but rather passive, derived from his interpretation of Mentula as feminine, and therefore passive in an adulterous relationship. Ergo, Mentula is being seduced, most likely by Caesar. (See Claes, Paul. "Catullus C. 94: The penetrated penis." Mnemosyne. 49.1 (1996): 66, passim.) Unfortunately, there is no other evidence for the use of moechari as a passive verb in Latin and when adulterium (Gk. μ, the origin of the related Latin verb) referred specifically to a relationship between a man and a citizen's wife. Though Claes' speculative leap is entertaining to consider, particularly in light of Catul. 29 and Catul. 57, the comparative evidence supporting it is not strong enough for unqualified inclusion. (See also: Damschen, Gregor. “Catullus C. 94: ipsa olera olla legit.” Mnemosyne. 52.2 (1999): 169-176, passim.) 69 Deuling, Judy K. "Catullus and Mamurra." Mnemosyne. 52.2 (1999): 188-94. p. 189. Morales 22

poems in the overall Mentula/Mamurra cycle suggest that, while Catullus has plenty of other

grounds on which to criticize his target, these comprise his most direct objections. Mamurra's

social figure, as shown through his conduct and his poems, is “always aggressive and always

threatening, never playful, never plagued with impotency.”70 In other words, he is hyperphallic – a perfect mentula.

The last two Mentula poems, 114 and 115, concern themselves mainly with Mamurra's wealth and abundant property. In these, Catullus eschews the proverbial barb, exchanging it for the framing device of his target's estates. The first serves as an introduction to the pair, establishing both the imagery and the themes that permeate them.

Firmano saltu non falso Mentula dives fertur, qui tot res in se habet egregias, aucupium omne genus, piscis, prata, arua ferasque. nequiquam: fructus sumptibus exsuperat. quare concedo sit diues, dum omnia desint. saltum laudemus, dum modio ipse egeat.

Given his Firman estate, it's no lie that Mentula is rich, as they say; it's got so many wonderful things, every kind of game-bird, fish, pastures, plow-lands and wild beasts. To no use: its fruits are overwhelmed with his expenses. So I don't mind that he's “rich,” so long as he's got nothing. Let's praise the estate, even if he's lacking in grain.

Again, the main thrust is obvious: Mamurra's estate, though large and wealthy, cannot

support the financial demands he makes of it.71 Nor, when the whole cycle is taken into account,

could Catullus consider Mamurra to have come by it legitimately: the estate in 114 is but the

result of his runaway greed, which has demolished the uncta patrimonia of not only his own

inheritance but that of Pontus and Spain. Moreover, saltus, though a general term for “estate,” is

70 Deuling, p. 193. 71 Green, p. 269; see also Thomson, p. 551. Morales 23

more specifically applied to rough pasture and scrub forest,72 suggesting a possible reason for the lack of income from the estate: namely, Mamurra has not taken care to exploit its resources properly. This single piece of property has such varied goods – game-birds and beasts, fish, both pasture and arable land – that it could be profitable in the right man's hands.73 Mamurra's

uncontrollable extravagance, however, renders the point moot.

The grammatical structure of 114.5 lends another dimension to the overall thrust of the

poem. Fordyce notes that, had Catullus meant to express his agreement that Mamurra was rich,

the more likely construction would be concedo divitem esse. By substituting the “subjunctive of

hearsay” for the expected accusative-infinitive clause, Catullus changes the line into an

expression of indifference towards Roman society's view of Mamurra's extravagance.74 In other words, the fact that Mamurra possessed such a choice piece of property made him dives, “rich,” regardless of how much greater his expenditures were than the income he drew from it.75

One might be forgiven for thinking that other Romans would disapprove of such spendthrift ways, especially in this context. (One has only to recall the charge of aleo, laid at

Caesar's feet in 29.10 as political rhetoric.) Yet, while Mamurra certainly horrified Catullus, anecdotal evidence from the late republican era suggests that moderation in spending, of all things, was considered vulgar, even by shining examples of upward mobility like Cicero.

Magnificence, construed as the indiscriminate spending of money, was considered a mark of dignitas in Roman society. Furthermore, to replace such large outlays, the most magnificent of

72 Fordyce, p. 401. 73 Harvey, Paul. "Catullus 114-115: Mentula, bonus agricola." Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. 28.3 (1979): 329-45. pp. 329, 343. 74 Fordyce, p. 401. 75 Skinner, p. 112. Morales 24

Roman men engaged in plunder in the provinces, just as Mamurra stood accused of doing.76

With this in mind, the intent of 114.5, and indeed of 114 as a whole, becomes much

clearer. Mamurra is portrayed as not only uncontrollably profligate, but as a social climber whose

apparent magnificence is sharply at odds with the real wealth contained in his property. If not for

his continual devouring of uncta patrimonia, he would be a failure and a pariah, “defeated by the inexorable laws of economics”77 – but as long as he can maintain his ostentatious image through plunder, he will continue to be considered dives by his peers.

Having now established Mamurra as a parvenu, Catullus closes off the Mentula cycle

with 115, which returns to the descriptive imagery of the saltus and the theme of its abundance.

Mentula habet iuxta triginta iugera prati, quadraginta arui: cetera sunt maria. cur non divitiis Croesum superare potis sit, uno qui in saltu tot bona possideat, prata arua ingentes silvas altasque paludes usque ad Hyperboreos et mare ad Oceanum? omnia magna haec sunt, tamen ipsest maximus ultro, non homo, sed vero mentula magna minax.

Prick's got thirty units of plow-land, forty of pasture: the rest is seas. Why can't he be richer than Croesus, when he's got so much good stuff in a single estate, plow-lands, pastures, huge forests, deep marshes stretching to the Hyperboreans and the ocean sea? All these things are great, but he's by far greatest of all – not a man, but really, a ponderous, portentous prick.78

Surprisingly, Catullus opens this last salvo of the cycle by citing rather unimpressive

measurements for Mamurra's estate. Seventy iugera is equivalent to approximately forty-seven

acres of productive land, hardly the extensive dimensions the reader would come to expect from

76 Wiseman, Catullus and His World, 102-104. 77 Skinner, p. 112. 78 The translation of mentula magna minax here is inspired by Green's (“pompous, portentous PRICK,” p. 209), which preserves admirably the alliteration of the Latin. I have chosen to make the translation of magna slightly more literal, while still retaining the alliterative quality. Morales 25

the previous poems. Yet it would still be a respectably-sized estate, several times what the

average veteran could expect, and seventy iugera of only arable land and pasture certainly

comprised a productive piece of property.79 Or they would, at any rate, were their owner not so

absolutely incapable of frugality.

Such a constriction of what has been previously conceived of as an impressive piece of

property, then, might well signal a change in the persona's principal concerns during this poem.

Thomson and Green both argue that the saltus, with all its rich imagery, is no more than a conceit

meant to hide an extensive series of sexual metaphors.

In this conception of the poem, the maria of 115.2 are not “seas,” but rather the plural of

mas, “male.” Pratum and arvum are both attested as agricultural metaphors for genitalia: the

former serves as a stand-in for the anus or culus,80 while the latter could be used either to

euphemize culus or cunnus.81 Thus, what at first blush seems like a second attack on Mamurra's estate is in actuality a hyperbolic exaggeration of his sexual exploits, with seventy women and an indefinite number of men ruled by the mentula magna minax of the last line.82

Given the general tenor of the Mentula poems, the presence of a hidden sexual barb

makes this a tempting interpretation to adopt. Though they do not share structures, like 94 and

105, these epigrams do both make use of a common setting – the saltus – and common

terminology.83 Moreover, 114 and 115, as the antepenultimate and penultimate poems in the collection, may be intended to reflect their opposite numbers, the passer poems 2 and 3. If so, the

79 Harvey, p. 333. 80 Adams, p. 84; see also pp. 113, 220, 228. 81 Adams, p. 24; see also pp. 28, 84. 82 Thomson, p. 552; see also Green, p. 269. 83 Compare prata, arua ferasque (114.3) and prata arua ingentes (115.5). Morales 26

possible sexual metaphors in those poems would point to similar imagery in their counterparts,

though this time with invective, rather than romantic, force.84

The arrangement of the six Mamurra/Mentula poems also serves to support this, though

perhaps in a rather roundabout manner. Each of the six poems can be construed as dealing with

one or two particular facets of Mamurra's character, taking issue with either his financial, sexual,

or literary exploits. The first pair of epigrams, 94 and 105, are respectively straightforward

indictments of Mamurra's sexual conduct and his attempts at composing poetry, thus placing

them neatly within two of these categories. If 115 is taken as containing euphemistic sexual

imagery, then it, too, becomes paired with a non-sexual epigram, in this case 114, which is

clearly financial in character. Thus, though he allowed himself the use of euphemistic or

metaphorical language to hide the exact nature of his invective, Catullus restricted himself to

single-facet criticism in the epigrams.

In the polymetrics, though, he exercised no such restraint. While 29 continually switches

between discussions of Mamurra's complete destruction of every fortune he earns and sexual

hyperbole, 57 heaps abuse upon Mamurra (and Caesar) as both pathic and adulterous and as

erudituli – “semi-educated idiots,”85 clear disapproval of their efforts as writers. Thus, the two polymetrics aimed at Mamurra both incorporate two invective facets: the former combines criticisms of financial and sexual natures, while the latter combines invective directed at

Mamurra's sexual exploits and literary efforts.

Moreover, the criticisms in each poem occur in a specific order. Mamurra is targeted in

29 for his stripping of all of Gaul and Britain's treasure (29.3-4) – in other words, for financial

84 Deuling, p. 193. 85 Catul. 57.7. Morales 27 criticism – before his sexual appetites are mentioned (29.7-8). Meanwhile, in 57, Mamurra and

Caesar are called cinaedi (57.1) and pathici (57.2), regular pieces of sexual invective, before they are named erudituli. The epithet, of course, casts their literary efforts as deficient.

Taking into account the idea of ring composition, it seems as if, beyond the pairing structure already discussed, each of the polymetrics corresponds to one of the epigrammatic pairs that follows it. The sexual and literary criticisms in 57 match the similar sexual invective of 94 and its literary counterpart in 105, in the same order as the specific criticisms appear in the first poem. Likewise, the first attack on Mamurra's insatiable greed in 29, occurring near the opening, anticipates the financial criticisms of 114, while the picture the poem paints of a perambulatory adulterer, relentless in his pursuit of sex, brings the sexual imagery hidden in 115 into greater relief. Thus, each of the polymetric Mamurra poems forms a triad with the two epigrams that match its critical subjects.

The last line of 115, non homo sed vero mentula magna minax, closes off the Mentula cycle in both literary and programmatic terms. The line itself, once again using the alliteration familiar from 94, appears to be a parodic reworking of Ennius' machina magna minax, thus likening Mamurra's organ (and, through it, Mamurra himself) to a piece of siege equipment.86

Beyond the obvious parodic intent, this also serves as an allusion to Mamurra's career as a military engineer. More importantly, however, it is also Catullus' last opportunity to hold forth on his bête noire, and he takes it as a chance to restate the argument of the entire cycle:

“Mamurra/Mentula is sexual and greedy desire personified, menacing to both people and

86 Green, p. 269. Morales 28

goods.”87

To the Catullan persona, Mamurra was nothing more than an arriviste, squandering money carelessly without the means to refill his coffers, except by plunder. Unfortunately, the circles in which he and Catullus both moved saw such extravagance not as ostentatious foolishness, but as the mark of a prestigious man. The persona could do little more than disapprove and write the occasional piece of invective, hoping through it to have the last laugh.

Catullus is certainly correct in his assessment: for a Roman man with uncontrollable sexual and pecuniary desires, and especially for a ruthless social climber whose hopes for advancement relied on massive profits from provincial treasure, there could scarcely be any better weapon in his arsenal than a big, threatening penis.

87 Deuling, p. 192. Morales 29

Works Cited

Adams, J.N., Latin Sexual Vocabulary. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982.

Anonymous. Priapea.

Cameron, Alan. "Catullus 29." Hermes. 104.2 (1976): 155-63.

Cicero. Ad Atticum.

Claes, Paul. "Catullus C. 94: The penetrated penis." Mnemosyne. 49.1 (1996): 66.

Damschen, Gregor. “Catullus C. 94: ipsa olera olla legit.” Mnemosyne. 52.2 (1999): 169-176.

deAngeli, Edna S. "The Unity of Catullus 29." Classical Journal. 65.2 (1969): 81-84.

Deuling, Judy K. "Catullus and Mamurra." Mnemosyne. 52.2 (1999): 188-94.

Fordyce, C.J. Catullus: a commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961.

Green, Peter. The Poems of Catullus: A Bilingual Edition. Berkeley: University of California

Press, 2005.

Harvey, Paul. "Catullus 114-115: Mentula, bonus agricola." Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte

Geschichte. 28.3 (1979): 329-45.

Horace. Epistles.

Konstan, David. "The Contemporary Political Context." A Companion to Catullus. Ed. Marilyn

B. Skinner. Chichester: Blackwell, 2011.

Martial. Epigrammata.

Scott, William C. "Catullus and Caesar (C. 29)." Classical Philology. 66.1 (1971): 17-25.

Skinner, Marilyn B. ""Ameana, puella defututa"." Classical Journal. 74.2 (1978): 110-14.

Suetonius. Vita Divi Juli.

Tatum, W. Jeffrey. "Social Commentary and Political Invective." A Companion to Catullus. Ed.. Morales 30

Marilyn B. Skinner. Chichester: Blackwell, 2011.

Thomson, D.F.S. Catullus. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997.

Wiseman, T.P. Catullus and His World: a Reappraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1985.

Wiseman, T. P., Catullan Questions. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1969.

Young, Phyllis R. "Catullus 29." Classical Journal. 64.7 (1969): 327-328.