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.