CATULLUS 44:
THE VULNERABILITY OF WANTING TO BE INCLUDED
Catullus' poem on the frigidity of Sestius' style and the cold which
the poet caught from it has attracted considerable scholarly attention.1
His commentators have divided their time between setting a poetic
context for Cat. 44 and sorting out the types of parody to be found in it.
Catullus' parody of religious language within the frame of an apotropaic
prayer, his use of legal language, as well as his parody of Sestius' style
have all elicited comment.2 With regard to the poem's dramatic back-
ground, critics have envisioned four basic poetic contexts:3 1) Catullus
read Sestius' speech in the hope of getting invited to dinner (Benoist,
'The text I shall follow unless otherwise stated is D. Thomson, Catullus a Critical
Edition (Chapel Hill 1978). I shall cite the following by name only: A. Baehrens, Catulli
Veronensis Liber (Leipzig 1893) 2 vol.; B. Benoist, Poesies de Catulle (Paris 1890); E.
DeAngeli, "A Literary Chill: Catullus 44," CW 62 (1969) 354-56; R. Ellis, A Commentary
on Catullus (Oxford 1889); C. Fordyce, Catullus: A Commentary (Oxford 1961);P For-
syth, The Poems-A Teaching Text (Univ. Press of America 1986); G. Friedrich, Catulli
Veronensis Liber (Leipzig and Berlin 1908); G. Goold, Catullus (London 1983); T. Haar-
hoff, "On Catullus XLIV.21," CP 29 (1934) 255-56; H. Karsten, "De Catulli Carmine
XLIIII," Mnemosyne 19 (1891)222-28; W. Kroll, C. Valerius Catullus (Stuttgart 1968); G.
Lafaye, Catulle-Poesies (Paris 1966); M. Lenchantin de Gubernatis, II Libro di Catullo
Veronese (Torino 1928); E. Merrill, Catullus (Cambridge, MA 1893); C. Murley, "Was
Catullus present at Sestius' Dinner," CP 33 (1938) 206-8; R. Mynors, C. Valerii Catulli
Carmina (Oxford 1958; corrected 1960; 1967); E. Paratore, "Una Nuova Edizione di
Catullo" Rivista di Cultura Classica 5 (1963) 394-455; G. Pighi, Catullo Veronese (Verona
1961) 3 vol.; K. Quinn, Catullus: The Poems (London 1970); M. Schuster, "Catulls Ge-
dicht an sein Landgut (c. 44) in [email protected] zur 25 jdhrigen Stiftungsfeier des
Vereines Klassischen Philologen in Wien (Wien 1924) 42-48; L. Schwabe, Quaestiones
Catullianae (Giessen 1862); L. Schwabe, review of Ellis' commentary in A. Fleckeisen,
ed., Jahrbucher fur Classische Philologie 117(1878) 257-68; S. Small, Catullus: A Read-
er's Guide To The Poems (London 1983); G. Williams, Tradition and Originality in Roman
Poetry (Oxford 1968) 139-40.
2For parody of prayer form, see: J. Granarolo, L'oeuvre de Catulle (Paris 1967) 64;
C. Jones, "Parody in Catullus 44," Hermes 96 (1968) 379-83; D. Ross, Jr., Style and
Tradition in Catullus (Harvard 1969) 66-67. For the parody of Sestius' style, see: V.
Buchheit, "Catulls Dichterkritik in c. 36," Hermes 87 (1959) 309-27; DeAngeli as does A.
Ronconi, Studi catulliani (Brescia 1971) 173-92, esp. 183-84 = "Atteggiamenti e forme
della parodia catulliana," Atene e Rome 18 (1940) 141-58, esp. 151-52, argue that the first
lines are a parody of the language of the courts.
3Karsten (note 1 above) neatly summarizes all of the positions and possible permu-
tations of poetic contexts to his day.
AmericanJournalof Philology112(1991)247-250? 1991by TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress
248 DAVIDB. GEORGE
Paratore, Schwabe 1878, Williams). 2) Sestius invites Catullus to din-
ner-either a) with a copy of the speech (Baehrens, Ellis, Goold, Kar-
sten, Kroll, Lenchantin, Merrill, Quinn, Small), or b) thus the poet feels
obliged to read one of Sestius' speeches (DeAngeli, Fordyce, Murley,
Schwabe 1862). 3) At dinner a) Sestius reads Antius' speech, Catullus
Sestius' response (Pighi),4 or b) Catullus reads only Sestius' speech
(Haarhoff). And finally 4) the poet made the whole thing up: a) Sestius
had told Catullus that he would only invite him to dinner if the poet
would read his speech, so Catullus gets mad-he is no parasite (Frie-
drich), or b) Catullus makes fun of Sestius as an exemplum of those who
only invite people who will praise their work (Schuster).
In all discussions, however, scholars have given too little import to
lines 2-4, which question whether or not the Fundus noster is Sabine or
Tiburtine, for shaping the poetic context. All comment on the lines-
some to adduce evidence for where the poet's farm really was, some to
provide parallel references for the relative worth of the bits of real
estate, and a few to note that the poet might be poking fun at himself for
claiming to live in a higher rent district than he really does.5 They then
set the lines aside to get on to the pun and proceed to explicate the poem
as if it had begun with line 5. Lines 1-4 are thus a parenthetic false
start-little more than a humorous attempt to get the "god's" name
right.6 But the lines do more; they are an organic part of the poem.
4Thus he reads legit in 21 and takes the malus liber to refer to Antius' speech, not
Sestius'. Pighi seems to be the only one who would defend the legit reading of V (ORG) in
21 against Lachmann's emendation legi. Friedrich's explanation of how legei became legit
is persuasive. Baehrens' emendation of legit to fecit (not even cited by Thomson) is
required only if one accepts his poetic context (followed by Benoist, Goold, and Karsten)
that Sestius was simply following the fashion of the day by sending around a copy of his
speech to the famous literati. All ignore Cornelissen's "Satura," Mnemosyne 6 (1978) 306
needless (though clever) emendation of otioque to alioque in line 15.
5Schuster holds that these verses are a "Pendantmotiv" and aim at saying nothing
more than that whether his lands are rich or poor the poet is thankful to them. Friedrich
thinks that the poet intends for the lines to prove that he is rich. The terms of Sestius'
invitation are good for einen armen Schlucker aber nicht fir einen Mann like Catullus
who owns land. DeAngeli noting that 2-5 sounds like "a lawyer's quibble" argues that the
lines are in Sestius' style. Quinn notes correctly on 2-3 that "there'd be no point in
denying C. a fashionable address if he were not anxious to possess one."
6Cf. e.g., inter alios Fordyce's comments on the sed in 5, "resumptive after paren-
thesis" or Kroll's "1-9 eine durch die Parenthese V.2-4 schleppende Periode, die den
ersten, zeitlich spateren Teil der narratio enthalt." Indeed most editors set parentheses
around 2-4. Quinn modifies Mynors' parentheses to dashes. But the nam both here and at
CATULLUS 44: WANTING TO BE INCLUDED 249
Indeed, they establish the tone in which the poem is to be interpreted-
one of self-bemusement for the vulnerability caused by the poet's de-
sire to belong to the fashionable set.7
As he opens his poem, Catullus uses lines 2-4 to reveal three
things about his poetic persona: One, there were those who did not wish
to hurt his feelings (quibus non est I cordi Catullum laedere, 2-3) and
those who did (at quibus cordi est, 3). Two, Catullus distinguished these
people by whether or not they would accept his claim that his land was
up-scale Tiburtine rather than mid-scale Sabine. And three, it mat-
tered to Catullus (autumant, 2; quovis . . . pignore, contendunt, 4; and
the petulant verius8of 5). Thus as the reader moves from these introduc-
tory lines into the rest of the poem, he must take with him a Catullus
who is eager to be perceived as well-to-do, yet one who is vulnerable
to being checked by those who would deflate his self-portrait.
This then supplies the context needed to understand the much
disputed phrases dum sumptuosas appeto . . . cenas (9) and nam, Ses-
tianus dum volo esse conviva (10). Catullus (ever eager to get a free meal,
be accepted, and be viewed as well off)9 was trying to secure a dinner
invitation from Sestius. Appeto and volo show clearly that it was he who
was seeking the invitation. It is true that he wants the meal because it
will be a good one (sumptuosas, 9). But he gives equal weight to his
desire to be counted in the company of Sestius (Sestianus conviva, 10).
With the Tibur / Sabine worries of 1-5, the reader should see in this a
desire to be a member of the fashionable (for whatever reason) circle of
Sestius.10
To secure this invitation, Catullus sets out to read Sestius' speech
in Antium petitorem."1 This allows the poet play for his famous pun on
1.10 must be taken as explanatory, not just a postponing parenthesis. Cf. Jones, Williams,
for comments on getting the address to the "god" right.
7See Small, Friedrich for a discussion of the social anxiety to be found in this
poem.
8Cf. Benoist's comment on verius, "Le poete cherche plaisamment ici a faire
prdvaloir l'opinion qui flatte sa vanit6."
9Cf. Cat. 10 and 13.
'?On the success of the gens Sestia in general see J. DArms, Commerce and
Social Standing in Ancient Rome (Harvard 1981) 55-62.
" For the arguments in favor of Catullus' Sestius being Cicero's P. Sestius and the
poem's Antius being C. Antius C. f. Restio who authored a sumptuary law see inter alios:
F Della Corte, Personaggi Catulliani (Florence 1976) 230-32; C. Neudling, A Proso-
pography to Catullus (Iowa Studies in Classical Philology 12 1955) 5-6, 160-62. All of the
250 DAVID B. GEORGE
the cold he caught from Sestius' style. It is important to note however
that the pun does not end the poem, nor does the twist of the curse
toward Sestius, but rather, the reason why Sestius deserves to get sick:
qui tunc vocat me, cum malum librum legi (21).12Catullus is angry be-
cause Sestius would not invite him on his own account-simply be-
cause he was a nice guy. He would only invite him because the poet
would read and presumably flatter Sestius' work. But more importantly
when one reflects on the first five lines, the point is that the poet was
willing to suffer this indignity. He, as he says, deserved to get sick (non
inmerenti quam mihi meus venter . . . dedit, 7-8). Catullus was willing
to do whatever it took to be considered Tiburtine rather than Sabine. In
doing so he made himself vulnerable to those who would exclude him.
He is hurt by those who would reject his real estate claims; he is made
sick by his attempts to be invited to dinner. Thus he is as much the butt
of his joke as Sestius. The rich well-connected aristocratic orator
showed his bad taste in his style, Catullus in his desperate desire to be
included in Sestius' company.
DAVIDB. GEORGE
SAINTANSELM
COLLEGE
commentators attend to the sense of petitor Earlier commentators (e.g., Ellis and For-
dyce) while holding petitor probably meant "a candidate for office" were troubled by no
attestation of the use in Cicero. But G. Fletcher, "Catulliana," Latomus 26 (1967) 104-6
provides parallels. The word can mean either "a candidate for office" (Merrill, La Faye,
Paratore, Goold, Quinn, Lenchantin, Kroll) or "a plaintiff in a private law suit" (Baeh-
rens-more or less, Benoist, Pighi). Voss' suggestion (1684) that the Antius who passed
the sumptuary law was "a plaintiff" against Sestius for breaking that law is indeed tempt-
ing given the context of the poem. But perhaps C. Sisson, The Poetry of Catullus (New
York 1967) is right to avoid having to choose by not translating the word.
12S. Eitrem, "Varia," SO 5 (1927) 85-87 argues that the malum librum is an allu-
sion to the mali libri (which cause sickness through enchantment) of the XII Tablets. This
last line has been translated in accord with the various poetic contexts in a number of
ways (from a number of texts) inter alios: "who invites me only when I have read his
nasty speech: (Fordyce); "who only invites me when he has produced a nasty book"
(Goold); "who invited me on the occasion when I read his pestilential book" (Haarhoff);
"qui m'invite quand j'ai lu un mauvais livre" (La Faye); "der mich nur einladt, nachdem
ich eine schlechte Rede von ihm gelesen habe" (Kroll); "che m'invita solo quando mi son
sobbarcato a leggere uno dei suoi pestiferi scritti" (Paratore); "che solo allora mi invita,
quando ha letto (brutta cosa) una citazione" (Pighi); "der ladt einen ja nur, wenn man
seine Schriften gelesen hat" (Schuster); "who only asks me when I have read one of his
stupid books" (Sisson).
