The Mirror of Catullus: Poems 12, 22, 39, 41, 42 and 84

Susan O. Shapiro

Syllecta Classica, Volume 22 (2011), pp. 21-37 (Article)

Published by Department of Classics, University of Iowa

DOI: 10.1353/syl.2011.0006

For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/syl/summary/v022/22.shapiro.html

Access Provided by Utah State University Libraries at 06/28/12 7:29PM GMT

 SYLLECTA CLASSICA 22 (2011): 21–37

THE MIRROR OF CATULLUS: POEMS 12, 22, 39, 41, 42

AND 84

Susan O. Shapiro

Abstract: In poems 12, 22, 39, 41, 42 and 84, Catullus ridicules
his characters for a variety of annoying habits (writing bad poetry,
stealing others’ belongings, inappropriate smiling, and chronic mis-
pronunciations). he poems have been interpreted as attacks upon
their subjects’ provincial or low-class origins, but these habits do
not result from accidental circumstances. Catullus’ characters have
purposefully cultivated their habits in order to show of their beauty,
wit or talent. Unfortunately, their attempts at self-promotion have
the opposite efect; their actions demonstrate that they are far less
talented, handsome or witty than they believe themselves to be.*

In poem 41 Catullus attacks a woman named Ameana, whom he calls

ugly (turpiculo naso, 41.3) and well worn (defututa, 41.1), because she
has demanded ten thousand sesterces from him.1 In this poem, Catullus
criticizes Ameana, not so much for her lack of beauty and question-
able reputation per se, but because, considering her unattractive face
and dubious reputation, she has priced herself so highly. Ten thousand
sesterces was a large sum of money; as we can see from pro Caelio 17,
it amounted to one year’s rent for a small apartment on the Palatine.2
*
I gratefully acknowledge the valuable help I have received from Craig Gibson and
Peter Green, co-editors of Syllecta Classica, and from the two anonymous readers for the
journal. he text used is Mynors, with exceptions as noted. All translations are my own.
1
See Neudling 3 and Skinner (1978–79) 110 n. 1 for discussions regarding the textual
difficulties surrounding Ameana’s name. References to “Catullus” in this article refer
to the first person speaker in Catullus’ poems, not the poet himself. For a thoughtful
discussion of Catullus’ poetic persona, see Gaisser 45–71, with a full bibliography.
2
Arkins 166 n. 31. Catullus uses the same amount in poem 103, in which he advises a
man named Silo either to return the money he received from Catullus or to admit that
he is a pimp and be more accommodating. Here, too, the point is not Silo’s overbearing
22 SYLLECTA CLASSICA 22 (2011)

Ameana seems to have demanded the money in return for sexual favors.3
Catullus’ comments in lines 3 and 4 imply that, as an ugly woman who
has had many sexual partners, she is foolish to request so high a sum.
As Skinner notes, “Ameana thinks of herself as a polished courtesan. In
poem 41 the four-times-repeated puella hints at her dogged persistence
in these delusions of grandeur. Decoctoris amica Formiani discloses the
sleazy reality: she is only the hired sleeping partner of a small-town
bankrupt.”4
In lines 5–8 Catullus addresses Ameana’s relatives (propinqui) who
are responsible for her welfare, advising them to summon her friends
and doctors (line 6); these are people whom she would presumably trust,
even if they told her something she did not want to hear. Catullus then
explains the problem: the girl is not sane (non est sana puella) and she
refuses to see herself for what she really is (lines 7–8).5 he words nec
rogare qualis sit solet raise the level of Catullus’ criticism from a snide
comment on Ameana’s pretentiousness to the deeper question of self-
knowledge: if Ameana took a good look in the mirror, she would see
how unattractive she is.6 he nec in line 7 implies a close relationship
between the two clauses: because she refuses to acknowledge the truth
about herself, the girl has become non sana: she has lost touch with real-
ity. But, despite her illness, the appeal to Ameana’s friends and doctors
provides some hope; if they can persuade her to see herself as she really
is, Catullus implies, she might be restored to her senses.

behavior per se, but rather his refusal to acknowledge the reality of his own situation.
On Catullus’ use of exaggerated numbers as a form of satire, see Newman 76–78.
3
Skinner (1978–79) 111.
4
Skinner (1978–79) 113. he decoctor Formianus (41.3 and 43.5) is Mamurra, a
native of Formiae and Caesar’s praefectus fabrum in Gaul, whom Catullus attacks by
name in poems 29 and 57, and through the derisive pseudonym “Mentula” in poems
105, 114, and 115 (see Neudling 112 and Hornblower). As we learn from poem 114,
Mamurra is called rich because he owns a wealthy estate, but, because he spends far
more than his farm can produce, he actually has nothing. Mamurra thus seems guilty
of the same sort of posturing as his girlfriend.
5
Froelich’s emendation of aes for et of manuscript V is now regarded as certain; see
Fordyce 192; Quinn 214; Skinner (1978–79) 111–12 n. 5; homson 311.
6
Commager 103; Green 225.
 SHAPIRO: THE MIRROR OF CATULLUS 23

Catullus’ exposition of his characters’ self-delusory behavior is the

subject of this paper. I will argue that, not only in poem 41, but also
in poems 12, 22, 39, 42 and 84, poems in which Catullus ridicules his
characters for a variety of annoying habits, the real target of his scorn is
not so much the habits themselves, but rather the pretentiousness and
self-delusion that such habits reveal (Scott 25). Such habits do not result
from provincial or low-class origins; on the contrary, the characters in
these poems have carefully cultivated their habits as a way to call at-
tention to their beauty, wit or talent. Unfortunately, their attempts at
self-promotion have the opposite efect; not only do others ind their
behavior tiresome and annoying, their very actions demonstrate that they
are far less talented, handsome or witty than they believe themselves to
be.7
he subjects of these poems have not only lost touch with reality,
but they all (like Ameana who refuses to look in her mirror) deliberately
reject the evidence that could enable them to see themselves more clearly.
hus, insofar as Catullus’ poems force their subjects to face the diicult
truth, they function as a kind of mirror, through which these characters
are inally compelled to see themselves as others see them. In several of
these poems Catullus also universalizes the problem; as he exposes his
subjects’ self-delusions, Catullus holds his mirror up to his readers as
well.8
In poem 22 Catullus describes a man named Sufenus who is charm-
ing (venustus), witty (dicax), and polished (urbanus) in social conversa-
tion, but whose poems reveal him to be just the opposite: awkward,
inelegant, rough and unreined. Since urbanus and the terms closely
associated with it (e.g. venustus, lepidus, bellus, dicax, and salsus) are such
key terms in Catullus’ poetic vocabulary, and since the nexus of char-
7
A similar case of self-delusion is neatly summed up in a single line (97.9): hic
futuit multas et se facit esse venustum (“he fucks a lot of women and considers himself
charming”); see Dettmer 189.
8
As Commager notes (110 n. 87), the image of poetry as a mirror was a familiar one in
the ancient world. Cf. Aristotle (Rhet. 1406b12): τὴν ᾿Οδύσσειαν καλὸν ἀνθρωπίνου
βίου κάτοπτρον and Cicero (in Pisonem 29.71): delicatissimis versibus … in quibus
qui si velit possit istius tamquam in speculo vitam intueri. Mirrors were also closely
associated with the maxim, “Know thyself,” e.g. Seneca (Nat. Quaest. 1.17): inventa
sunt specula ut homo ipse se noscet; and Diog. Laert. 2.33 on Socrates’ advice to young
men “to continually look in the mirror (συνεχὲς κατοπτρίζεσθαι).”
24 SYLLECTA CLASSICA 22 (2011)

acteristics that they describe has been the subject of so much scholarly
discussion, a brief analysis of their meaning and usage seems appropriate
here.9 While these terms (and their corresponding nouns) do describe a
complex ideal of witty and reined behavior, the Romans did not consider
this concept to be elusive or indeinable, as has sometimes been claimed.10
he frequently-cited Ciceronian passage (Brutus 171), in which Cicero
claims to be unable to say what urbanitas is (Nescio, inquam; tantum
esse quendam scio), is belied by many other passages, from Cicero and
others, in which urbanitas and related terms are described with clarity
and precision. In one such passage (De Natura Deorum 2.74), the Stoic
speaker compliments his Epicurean interlocutor as being “reined by
personal character and Roman sophistication” (te … moribus domesticis
ac nostrorum hominum urbanitate limatum), in contrast to Epicurus
himself, who is characterized as being “a man without skill or educa-
tion, insolent toward all, lacking any discernment, dignity, or grace”
(hominem sine arte, sine litteris, insultantem in omnes, sine acumine sine
auctoritate sine lepore). While the model disposition being delineated
here is certainly complex, the type of behavior that the speaker inds
praiseworthy is quite clearly described. Note that the ideal disposition
includes both intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics; the socially desirable
qualities of grace (lepos), reinement (limatus [sc. homo]), and the proper
social relationships (nostrorum hominum urbanitas) correspond to the
intrinsic qualities of a good personal character (mores domestici), educa-
tion (ars, litterae), discernment (acumen) and dignity (auctoritas). hus,
while some aspects of the polished man-about-town may depend upon
an urban (and speciically Roman) social milieu, the personal qualities
of education, dignity and discernment are important as well.
In a letter to Atticus (7.2.3) Cicero particularly emphasizes such
qualities, praising a mutual acquaintance, Manius Curius, whom he
had visited at Patrae, because “there is a native reinement in the man”
(αὐτόχθων in homine urbanitas est). Cicero’s use of this paradoxical
phrase suggests that urbanitas can be something innate and not neces-
9
Ramage (1973) remains the standard full-length treatment of urbanitas and the
qualities related to it. Other notable discussions include Austin 53–54; Havelock
97–121; Ross 104–12; Seager; Wiltshire; Watson; Adamik; Wray 122–29; and Gaisser
9–10. Although I do not always agree with the views expressed by Fitzgerald and
Krostenko, I have learned much from their analyses.
10
E.g. Austin 53; Fitzgerald 88–99; Gaisser 9.
 SHAPIRO: THE MIRROR OF CATULLUS 25

sarily tied to the Roman social milieu. In a subsequent letter (ad Fam.
13.17), Cicero provides speciics, praising Manius Curius’ kindness
(humanitas), reverence (observantia), character (mores), honesty (probitas)
and modesty (verecundia).11
he attributes of modesty or understatement are frequently included
in descriptions of urbanitas and related characteristics.12 In de Oratore
1.17 Cicero describes the ideal orator as one who possesses a certain
grace and wit (lepos quidam facetiaeque), an education appropriate to
a free man (eruditio libero digna), and a swiftness and brevity in both
rebuttal and challenge combined with a delicate charm and sophistica-
tion (subtili venustate atque urbanitate). Not only does this description
combine social graces with intellectual ability, but the phrase subtilis
venustas atque urbanitas implies that a polished speaker’s charm should
be reined or understated. Quintilian, too, understands urbanitas as
including an “understated learning” (tacitam eruditionem), whose “op-
posite is boorishness” (rusticitas, 6.3.17–19). Quintilian’s phrase, tacita
eruditio, corresponds to Cicero’s subtilis venustas atque urbanitas; together
they suggest that the Roman who was truly sophisticated would not be
especially eager to show of his learning, skill or talent. Moderate and
self-restrained rather than pushy or over-stated, conident in his educa-
tion, character and judgment as well as his social graces, such a person
would feel comfortable in any social situation.
Now that we have clariied the meaning of urbanus, urbanitas, and
closely related terms, let us now turn to poem 22, in which these concepts
igure prominently. Catullus outlines several problems with Sufenus’
poetry. First of all, there is much too much of it. he phrase longe pluri-
mos versus (line 3) connotes a super-superlative quantity, while milia aut
decem aut plura perscripta (lines 4–5) implies, by slowly rolling out the
ever-increasing numbers, that there could be no quality control for such
an enormous output.13 And that is precisely the point. his tremendous
body of work implies a certain self-indulgence; because Sufenus takes
such great joy in composing his poems (lines 15–17), he does not take
the trouble to reine and polish his work. Catullus’ own small book
11
See also ad Fam. 7.28, written to Curius himself.
12
E.g. Havelock 108–12; Wiltshire 323; Syndikus 12; Adamik 80; and Krostenko
(2001a).
13
Watson 13. Compare Horace’s complaints about Lucilius in Sat. 1.4.6–13.
26 SYLLECTA CLASSICA 22 (2011)

of poems (libellus), described in poem 1 as lepidus (charming) and ex-

politus (thoroughly polished), provides an instructive contrast. An even
sharper contrast appears in poem 95, in which Cinna’s highly-crafted
Zmyrna, nine years in the making, is praised as being destined to attract
readers in future ages, long after Volusius’ turgid historical verses have
been consigned to the dust heap. he point here is that reined poetry
is characterized by charm (venustas), discernment (acumen) and polish
(urbanitas), just as reined people are (Wiltshire 320–21).
But in poem 22 Catullus does not criticize the poor quality of Suf-
fenus’ poetry (cf. poem 14.19) or even the excessive quantity of it, as
much as he focuses on Sufenus’ misplaced pride in his own poetic cre-
ations (Commager 105). While others jot down their verses on re-used
scraps of papyrus (palimpsesto), Sufenus lovingly records his poems in
the inest of fancy new editions (lines 6–8), and he is inordinately proud
of himself for writing them (tam gaudet in se tamque se ipse miratur,
line 17). Sufenus’ urbanitas is thus only skin-deep. While he may be
witty and charming in polite conversation (homo est venustus et dicax
et urbanus, line 2), his poems reveal that he lacks the more intrinsic
qualities of understated learning (tacita eruditio), dignity (auctoritas)
and discernment (acumen), which, as we have seen, were considered
indispensable attributes of the one who is truly urbanus.
Sufenus continues to rate his poems highly despite the fact that those
around him hold a very diferent view. Lines 9–11 imply that Varus,
Catullus, and others have read Sufenus’ poetry and share a common
opinion of it (cf. quem probe nosti in line 1). Like Ameana, who refuses
to acknowledge “what sort she is,” Sufenus refuses to recognize his lack
of talent, despite the easily available criticism from others in his circle.
Sufenus’ books are thus metaphors for the man himself: polished and
reined on the outside, but coarse and uncultivated within (Putnam
554).
But the focus of this poem is not limited to Sufenus; the last four
lines broaden its context and reveal its larger signiicance. As homson
(262) has noted, the word nimirum (line 18) indicates that what follows
provides the answer to the central question posed in line 12: how are
we to understand this? he answer is that we all make the same mistake
that Sufenus does. Referring to Aesop’s well-known fable, in which each
person is said to carry others’ faults in a bag on his chest (where he can
easily see them), but to carry his own faults on his back (where they are
 SHAPIRO: THE MIRROR OF CATULLUS 27

visible only to others),14 Catullus explains that everyone is like Sufenus

in some respect; our own errors are almost impossible for us to see,
although they may be obvious to others. he last four lines transform
the poem from an ad hominem attack to a thoughtful critique of human
nature.15 Catullus’ poem has become a mirror through which we may
be able to see the reflected image of our own bag of faults.
Poem 12 is addressed to a certain Asinius Marrucinus, who spoils
the atmosphere at dinner parties by stealing other people’s napkins
when their attention is focused on the wine and witty conversation (in
ioco atque vino, 12.2; cf. 50.6). By taking advantage of those who are
otherwise engaged (neglegentiorum), Marrucinus prevents them from
fully enjoying the relaxed and gracious atmosphere that should prevail
at a dinner party (Seager 891). Catullus’ use of the present tense (uteris,
putas) and the plural (tua furta) indicates that this is a habitual problem;
napkin theft is part of Marrucinus’ modus vivendi (Quinn 131).
he chronic nature of Marrucinus’ thefts is what makes them a
serious issue; it also raises the question of why he persists in such rude
and unwelcome behavior. Catullus answers this question in line 4:
Marrucinus thinks he is being witty (salsum). his line is the key to the
poem, and it corresponds to lines 14–17 of poem 22. Just as Sufenus
is particularly proud of his verses, Marrucinus is proud of his practical
jokes and believes that others ind them amusing. But Catullus bluntly
tells him the truth: Marrucinus has completely misjudged the situation
(fugit te, inepte); his actions are disgraceful (sordida) and unattractive
(invenusta).
Just as the focus of poem 41 is on Ameana’s misplaced pride in her
appearance, and the focus of poem 22 is on Sufenus’ misplaced pride
in his poems, so the focus in this poem is on Marrucinus’ unwarranted
pride in his behavior. In this regard, it is noteworthy that Catullus as-
sumes that Marrucinus will not believe him (line 6). he reason for
this assumption is explained by the fable in poem 22. Because we are
inherently disinclined to recognize our own faults, we have diiculty
14
Aesop 266; Phaedrus 4.10; Babrius 66; see Perry (1952) 424 and (1965) 82, 316.
15
I take issue with Krostenko’s claim (2007, 225) that, by addressing the poem to a
third party (Varus), Catullus implies that the two men share a separate set of standards
from which all others are excluded: “his is their conversation and their aesthetic
appraisal, and it excludes us as surely as it excludes Sufenus.” On the contrary, I would
argue that the universalizing message of lines 18–21 is quite explicit.
28 SYLLECTA CLASSICA 22 (2011)

believing others when they tell us about them, even if they spell it out
plainly and directly, as Catullus does here. In poem 41, Ameana refuses
to look at herself in the mirror, although she just might listen to the truth
from her trusted friends and doctors. Similarly, in this poem, Catullus
appeals to Asinius’ brother, Pollio. Not only is Pollio himself witty and
charming (lines 8–9), but his close familial connection to Asinius might
encourage Asinius to believe him. Catullus represents Pollio’s disapproval
of Asinius’ actions in the strongest terms: he is so embarrassed by his
brother’s thefts that he would be willing to pay a large sum of money
to make him stop.16
Catullus threatens to punish Asinius with three hundred hendeca-
syllables if he does not stop his ofensive behavior, the irst seventeen of
which are artfully represented by the poem itself. But in the very process
of threatening Asinius, Catullus also tries to help him. Catullus explains
that the napkin is important to him, not because of its cost, but because
it was a gift from dear friends. Because Catullus’ friends Veranius and
Fabullus are thinking fondly of him, even though they are far away,
they have taken the time to send him a special gift.17 And Catullus
misses his friends as well; he values their gift as a token of their friend-
ship (mnemosynum sodalis). True friends send gifts to one another; they
don’t steal each other’s belongings. hus, while chastising Marrucinus
for his inappropriate behavior, Catullus also provides a positive model
of appropriate social interaction.
Some recent interpreters of this poem have stressed the arbitrary
nature of Catullus’ distinctions between socially appropriate and inap-
propriate behavior, arguing that the poem carries an exclusionary and
exclusivist message. According to Fitzgerald (94–95), “Asinius thinks
that his behavior is witty, and by the end of the poem we are none the
wiser as to why it isn’t, nor as to what distinguishes it from his brother’s
lepores and facetiae.” Krostenko (2007, 218–19) argues similarly that
Catullus uses words like salsus, (in)venustus, lepos and facetiae arbitrarily,
and that Marrucinus is therefore “sidelined by a verbal dexterity that
16
he fact that Asinius’ brother, Pollio, is held up as a model of wit and charm casts
doubt on the claim that Catullus opens his poem with Asinius’ cognomen, Marrucinus
(commemorating the family’s origin on the Adriatic coast), in order to cast aspersions
on Asinius’ non-Roman lineage; see Quinn 130–31 and Fitzgerald 265 n. 18. Pollio’s
lineage is just as non-Roman as his brother’s.
17
Skinner (1981) 60; see also Wiltshire 321.
 SHAPIRO: THE MIRROR OF CATULLUS 29

manipulates and even creates reality.” But I would argue not only for a
more traditional reading of the evaluative terms used in the poem (that
stealing others’ belongings is a breach of basic politeness and that regard
for friends and friendship, symbolized by both the napkin itself and the
ability to participate in the relaxed social atmosphere of a dinner party,
were well-recognized values of late Republican elite society), but also
for a non-exclusivist reading of the poem. Marrucinus has separated
himself from the other dinner-party guests by stealing their napkins,
and Catullus, while taking him to task, is also encouraging him to face
the truth about his own behavior and to see himself as others see him.
Lines 10–11 give Asinius a choice between two opposing consequences
(aut … aut), implying that if he stops his annoying behavior, the abusive
poetry will stop as well. he poem, despite its ridicule, has not only
shown Marrucinus exactly what is wrong with his behavior, it has also
has pointed out a better path for him to follow.
Egnatius, the target of poem 39, smiles as frequently as possible
because he believes his white teeth make him handsome (cf. 37.19).18
Catullus describes Egnatius’ grins on two highly inappropriate occasions:
in a courtroom and at a funeral. For Egnatius to smile in court, just
when the advocate for the defense is pleading for everyone’s sympathy
(39.3), not only shows extraordinarily poor taste and judgment, it would
also, by seeming to contradict the orator’s statements, cause considerable
harm to the defendant whose cause he is supposed to be supporting.
Egnatius also smiles at a funeral, when the bereaved mother is weeping
at the loss of her only son. he inappropriateness of Egnatius’ smiles
on these occasions is particularly reprehensible because both of these
situations involve public weeping (fletum in line 3 and flet in line 5);
both involve communal expressions of loss and grief intended to evoke
feelings of sympathy among those present. In such situations of extreme
emotion, if a participant is not genuinely moved, he should at least be
respectful of others’ emotions. Egnatius, however, is so self-absorbed that
he can neither feel sympathy for others nor respect their emotions; his
only concern is to show of his shining white teeth so that others may
18
See OLD s.v. “bonus.” he phrases une de capillatis and opaca barba (37.17–19)
may also be cutting references to Egnatius’ misplaced pride in his appearance; as
Christenson has shown, dainty and well-trimmed little beards (not thick and bushy
ones) were considered fashionable for young men-about-town in the late Republic.
For the notion that anyone who had beautiful teeth would be inclined to smile in
order to show them of, see Krostenko (2001a) 245 n. 27.
30 SYLLECTA CLASSICA 22 (2011)

admire him. As a result, his smiling is not only inelegant and unreined
(neque elegantem … neque urbanum, line 8), it is a sign of real sickness
(morbum, line 7). Just as Ameana’s refusal to acknowledge what she is
actually like (qualis sit) resulted in a charge of insanity (non est sana pu-
ella), so Egnatius’ sickness lies in his self-delusion; the aspect of himself
in which he takes the greatest pride (his shining white teeth) is the very
thing about him that reveals his unsavory character.
In lines 10–16 Catullus makes the point that smiling all the time
would be socially inappropriate for anyone, no matter where he came
from. Catullus lists several types of people from a variety of diferent
places as examples of those who might be faulted for inappropri-
ate smiling. Interestingly, most of these personal descriptions depict
unflattering physical characteristics: an oily Umbrian, an obese Etrus-
can, and a dark and toothy Lanuvian. his catalogue of unattractive
physical qualities implies that Egnatius is mistaken about his physical
appearance. His white teeth do not make him particularly handsome;
he is as unprepossessing as the average person. he fact that Catullus
speciically refers to his own provincial origins in this passage (39.13),
and the fact that he includes both Romans and Transpadanes in his list
of ordinary people, indicates that he is not mocking Egnatius’ foreign
origins per se, as has sometimes been supposed.19 Catullus would be
unlikely to emphasize his own provincial background in the very same
poem in which he casts aspersions on someone else’s. On the contrary,
the inclusion of people on this list with a wide variety of backgrounds
is a way of de-emphasizing their place of origin. Inappropriate behavior
is unbecoming no matter where one is from, and this is the point of
lines 14–16. Egnatius’ origin is noteworthy only because it reveals the
disgusting nature of his habits: the residents of Celtiberia whiten their
teeth with urine. he personal attribute of which Egnatius is most proud
(his shining white teeth) is the very thing that most clearly reveals his
ilthy and anti-social actions.
In poem 42 an unnamed woman has borrowed (or stolen) Catullus’
writing tablets and refuses to give them back. Catullus seeks the help
of his blame poems (hendecasyllabi) in an efort to retrieve them. he
conceit is that while the poems are addressed as if they were Catullus’
friends, the method they use to retrieve the writing tablets is the special

19
E.g. Ramage (1973) 74; Dettmer 75; Nappa 81; Tatum 337.
 SHAPIRO: THE MIRROR OF CATULLUS 31

forte of abuse poems, i.e. public shame.20 hus, while the verses are
anthropomorphized they also retain their function as hendecasyllables.
Because some of the hendecasyllables don’t know the woman in ques-
tion (quae sit, quaeritis?), Catullus provides a helpful description: illa,
quam videtis turpe incedere (she’s the one you see walking shamefully,
lines 7–8). Garrison interprets turpe incedere to mean that the woman
“walks in an afected way, meant to be impressive.”21 his interpreta-
tion is strengthened by the description of her laugh: mimice ac moleste
ridentem catuli ore Gallicani (laughing annoyingly, like an actress, with
the mouth of a Gallic dog, lines 8–9). Garrison notes: “she tries to look
like a celebrity … but succeeds only in looking like a particularly hideous
little dog.”22 Because her afected walk and ostentatious laugh are used as
identifying characteristics, they seem to be habitual. hus, the woman of
poem 42 has much in common with the subjects of poems 22, 12, and
39: their annoying habits indicate that they are always trying to put on
a show. At the same time, the adverbs turpe and moleste reveal that her
act fools no one, except perhaps herself. Although she continually tries
to impress those around her with her style and sophistication, others
regard her afectations as shameful and annoying.
Scholars have frequently noted that the poem takes the form of a
flagitatio, an informal institution of Italian folk justice in which a thief,
debtor or other petty criminal was publicly harassed by the victim and
his friends until he admitted his guilt and atoned for the crime (see
Fraenkel). But few have discussed the fact that this particular flagitatio
is (at least at irst) remarkably unsuccessful.23 In lines 10–12 the poems
surround the woman and, calling her a shameful adulteress, they demand
that she give back the writing tablets. But the woman does not care what
they think (non assis facis?); not only is she unmoved by such epithets,
she chooses not to even acknowledge them. On a deeper level, she does
not understand that her action (i.e., her refusal to return another per-

20
For discussions of Greek iambic (or blame) poetry and Catullus’ relationship to it,
see Heyworth; Wray 67–86; Tatum 337-38; and, most recently, Lavigne.
21
Garrison 116; see also Ellis 149: “conceited strut.”
22
Garrison 117. Quinn 217 notes that Gallic dogs looked unusually repulsive.
23
Fraenkel (51) notes the “inimitable χάρις” with which Catullus accepts defeat;
Tatum (348) attributes the hendecasyllables’ lack of success to “feminine resistance.”
32 SYLLECTA CLASSICA 22 (2011)

son’s property) is shameful and damaging to her reputation. Catullus,

somewhat helplessly, reacts by doing more of the same. He calls her
“mud, whorehouse, or whatever can be more corrupt” (o lutum, lupanar,
aut si perditius potest quid esse, lines 13–14), but he gets no reaction.24
Catullus next exhorts his hendecasyllables to try to “force a blush on the
shameless face of the bitch” (ruborem ferreo canis exprimamus ore, lines
16–17) by repeating the same thing, but in a louder voice (conclamate
iterum altiore voce, line 18); predictably, this has no efect.25 he point of
Catullus’ (and his poems’) helplessness is that a flagitatio cannot succeed
if the subject is incapable of feeling shame. Such inefective name-calling
does not reflect well on Catullus (since he is unable to take revenge on
those who have hurt him), but it is an even more damning criticism of
the woman herself, who has so little self-awareness that she cannot be
humiliated.
Catullus inally advises his poems to change their approach (mutanda
est ratio modusque vobis, line 22), and, in the last two lines they do just
that. he hendecasyllables address her as “a chaste and honest woman”
(pudica et proba, line 24) in the hopes that she might appreciate the more
flattering (though clearly false) description of her, and respond by act-
ing accordingly. In the poems we have discussed so far, Catullus goes to
great lengths to tell his subjects the unpleasant truths about themselves
in the hope that they will change their ways, but in poem 42 Catullus
takes the opposite approach, suggesting that the only way to prevail
upon this woman is to corroborate her favorable picture of herself. he
fact that Catullus must resort to false flattery in order to influence this
woman emphasizes her willful self-deception. We are not told whether
Catullus’ specious compliments succeed in obtaining their objective,
but, since the flattery concludes the poem (and thus the flagitatio), we
are permitted to suspect that they do.
In poem 84 Catullus makes fun of a man named Arrius whose mis-
pronunciations are insistent and annoying. Arrius adds the “h” sound
to words beginning with a vowel (insidias becomes hinsidias) and he
aspirates consonants that should properly be left unaspirated (commoda
becomes chommoda). he “h” sound in Latin (pronounced before an
initial vowel) was closely associated in the Roman mind with the aspira-
24
Reading potest with homson in line 14.
25
As Fordyce notes (citing Iliad 8.423 “κύον ἀδεές” and 3.180 “κυνῶπις”), the dog
was “the type of shamelessness as early as Homer” (195).
 SHAPIRO: THE MIRROR OF CATULLUS 33

tion of the consonants c, p, and t (as heard in the Greek letters χ, φ, and
θ). By the early Republic, both of these sounds had been dropped from
the speech of Italian peasants and the urban lower classes, although they
were still used and even cultivated by the educated elite.26 hus, aspirated
vowels and consonants became a sign of status and sophistication, while
the lack of such aspiration signaled a low-class origin.
his disparity of speech along class lines led, in the late Republic, to
an opposite tendency, in which aspirated consonants were sometimes
artiicially inserted into words that had originally been unaspirated (see
Cicero, Orator 160 and Quintilian 1.5.20). As Fordyce (374) explains:
“he speaker of Latin who dropped aspirates which the intelligentsia
pronounced incurred a social stigma … [and] the man who wanted
to improve his position might self-consciously overdo them and make
it worse.” his late Republican trend toward excessive aspiration has
been dubbed “hyperurbanism,” on the grounds that, in a culture where
retention of the aspirate had long been a mark of sophistication and
culture, the over-use of that sound was a misguided attempt on the part
of the undereducated to appear more high class and sophisticated than
they actually were. he speech patterns of Catullus’ Arrius seem to be a
perfect illustration of such pretentious behavior.27
Commentators who accept a socio-linguistic interpretation of Arrius’
speech-patterns frequently assume that the point of the poem is to cast
aspersions on Arrius’ low class origins.28 But I would argue that, just as
in the other poems discussed above, Catullus does not ridicule Arrius’
humble background per se; rather, by focusing on Arrius’ over-zealous
attempt to hide his low-class origins under a false mask of urban sophis-
tication, Catullus points to the posturing and self-delusion that such
actions reveal. hus, while Arrius believes he is speaking marvelously
well (line 3), everyone else is greatly relieved when he takes his excessive
aspirations far away from Rome (line 7–9).29
26
For linguistic analyses of Arrius’ speech patterns see Sturtevant 155–60 and Allen
26–27 and 43–45; see also Ramage 1959 and (1973) 66–67; and Fordyce 373–74.
On other aspects of Arrius’ mispronunciations, see Rosén, Einarson, and Vandiver.
27
Herescu 136; see also Ramage (1959) 45 and Marouzeau s.v. “hyperurbanisme.”
28
E.g. Ramage (1959) 45; Fordyce 374–75; homson 512; Wray 44; and Tatum 337.
29
Catullus’ Arrius has been plausibly identified with the orator Q. Arrius, Crassus’
associate, whom Cicero (Brutus 242–43) describes as having attained high office, wealth
34 SYLLECTA CLASSICA 22 (2011)

Just as Sufenus writes volumes of poetry because he believes he has

a true poetic gift, just as Egnatius smiles on every occasion because he
believes his white teeth are his best feature, and Asinius constantly steals
napkins at parties because he believes he’s being witty, so Arrius hyper-
aspirates as frequently as possible in the mistaken belief that others will be
impressed by his urbanity and sophistication.30 Each of these characters
is so proud of his afectation that he shows it of on every possible oc-
casion. Ironically, it is precisely that constantly repeated inappropriate
behavior that reveals the falsity of his pretensions.
I have argued that in poems 12, 22, 39, 41, 42 and 84, Catullus is
not casting aspersions at his characters’ low-class or provincial origins
or their lack of beauty, wit or talent, as much as he is criticizing those
who claim to be more high-class, handsome, witty, or charming than
they actually are. he subjects of these poems are thus being criticized
not for what they are, but for what they pretend to be. In addition to
disparaging his characters for their pretentiousness, Catullus also takes
aim at the self-delusion that their pretentiousness implies. Sufenus and
Asinius see themselves as particularly witty and talented, while Ameana
and Egnatius mistakenly believe that they are unusually attractive. Arrius
would rather change the name of the Ionian Sea than correct his own
mispronunciations (84.11–12), while the shameless hussy in poem 42
will only respond if she is addressed as “a chaste and honest woman.”
By mocking his characters’ willful self-deceptions, Catullus provides a
mirror through which his listeners and readers may be able to see their
own.
Department of History
Utah State University
0710 Old Main Hill
Logan, UT 84322
[email protected]

and favor, despite being born to the lowest station and possessing neither training nor
natural talent; see Skinner (2003) 105–06.
30
he phrase quantum poterat in line 4 is usually understood to mean that Arrius spoke
very loudly (e.g. Fordyce 376; Vandiver 338; Ryan 86; Skinner [2003] 104), but this
translation conforms neither to the standard, quantitative meaning of quantum (OLD
s.v. “quantum”) nor to Catullus’ other uses of this word (e.g. 3.12, 8.5, 15.12, etc.).
he phrase quantum poterat should be translated, “as often as he could.”
 SHAPIRO: THE MIRROR OF CATULLUS 35

Works Cited
Adamik, T. “Catullus’ Urbanity: C. 22.” Acta. Ant. Hung. 36 (1995): 77–86.
Allen, W. S. Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1965.
Arkins, B. Sexuality in Catullus. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1982.
Austin, R. G. M. Tulli Ciceronis Pro M. Caelio Oratio: Edited with Text, Introduction
and Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960.
Christenson, D. “Unbearding Morality: Appearance and Persuasion in Pro Caelio.”
CJ 100 (2004): 61–72.
Commager, S. “Notes on Some Poems of Catullus.” HSCP 70 (1965): 83–110.
Dettmer, H. Love by the Numbers: Form and Meaning in the Poetry of Catullus. New
York: Peter Lang, 1997.
Einarson, B. “On Catullus 84.” CP 61 (1966): 187–88.
Ellis, R. A Commentary on Catullus. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898. Reprint
1988. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.
Fitzgerald, W. Catullan Provocations: Lyric Poetry and the Drama of Position. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1995.
Fordyce, C. J. Catullus: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961.
Fraenkel, E. “Two Poems of Catullus.” JRS 51 (1961): 46–53.
Gaisser, J. H. Catullus. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
Garrison, D. H. he Student’s Catullus. 3rd ed. Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press,
2004.
Green, P. he Poems of Catullus: A Bilingual Edition. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Uni-
versity of California Press, 2005.
Havelock, E. A. he Lyric Genius of Catullus. 2nd ed. New York: Russell & Russell, 1967.
Herescu, N. I. “Autour de l’ironie de Catulle.” Revista Clasica 13–14 (1941–42):
128–37.
Heyworth, S. J. “Catullan Iambics, Catullan Iambi.” In Iambic Ideas: Essays on a Poetic
Tradition from Archaic Greece to the Late Roman Empire, edited by A. Cavazere, A.
Aloni, and A. Barchiesi, 117–40. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littleield, 2001.
Hornblower, S. “Mamurra.” In he Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd edition, edited by
S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, 916. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Krostenko, B. A. Cicero, Catullus, and the Language of Social Performance. Chicago:
he University of Chicago Press, 2001.
36 SYLLECTA CLASSICA 22 (2011)

———. “Arbitria Urbanitatis: Language, Style and Characterization in Catullus cc.

39 and 37.” ClAnt 20 (2001a): 239–72.
———. “Catullus and Elite Republican Social Discourse.” In A Companion to Catullus,
edited by M. Skinner, 212–32. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2007.
Lavigne, D. E. “Catullus 8 and Catullan Iambos.” Syllecta Classica 21 (2010): 65–92.
Levin, D. N. “Arrius and his Uncle.” Latomus 32 (1973): 587–94.
Marouzeau, J. Lexique de la Terminologie Linguistic. Paris: Geuthner, 1933.
Mynors, R. A. B. C. Valerii Catulli Carmina. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958.
Nappa, C. Aspects of Catullus’ Social Fiction. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2001.
Neudling, C. L. A Prosopography to Catullus. Iowa Studies in Classical Philology no.
12. London: Oxford, 1955.
Newman, J. K. Roman Catullus and the Modiication of the Alexandrian Sensibility.
Hildesheim: Weidmann, 1990.
Perry, B. E. Aesopica: A Series of Texts Relating to Aesop or Ascribed to Him or Closely
Connected with the Literary Tradition that Bears His Name. Vol. 1. Urbana: he
University of Illinois Press, 1952.
———., ed. and trans. Babrius and Phaedrus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1965.
Putnam, M. C. J. “Catullus 22,13.” Hermes 96 (1968–69): 552–58.
Quinn, K. Catullus: he Poems. Second edition. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1973.
Ramage, E. S. “Note on Catullus’ Arrius.” CP 54 (1959): 44–45.
———. Urbanitas: Ancient Sophistication and Reinement. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press, 1973.
Rosén, H. B. “Arrius’ Speech Again (Catullus 84).” Mnemosyne 14 (1961): 224–32.
Ross, D. O., Jr. Style and Tradition in Catullus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1969.
Ryan, F. X. “Two Persons in Catullus.” GIF 48 (1996): 85–91.
Scott, W. C. “Catullus and Caesar (C. 29).” CP 66 (1971) 17–25.
Seager, R. “Venustus, Lepidus, Bellus, Salsus: Notes on the Language of Catullus.”
Latomus 33 (1974): 891–94.
Skinner, M. B. “Ameana Puella Defututa.” CJ 74 (1978–79): 110–14.
———. Catullus’ Passer: he Arrangement of the Book of Polymetric Poems. Salem, NH:
he Ayer Company, 1981.
 SHAPIRO: THE MIRROR OF CATULLUS 37

———. Catullus in Verona: A Reading of the Elegiac Libellus, Poems 65–116. Columbus:
he Ohio State University Press, 2003.
Sturtevant, E. H. he Pronunciation of Greek and Latin. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society
of America, 1940.
Syndikus, H. P. Catull: Eine Interpretation. Erster Teil: Die kleinen Gedichte (1–60).
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984.
Tatum, W. J. “Social Commentary and Political Invective.” In A Companion to Catullus,
edited by M. Skinner, 333–53. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2007.
homson, D. F. S. Catullus: Edited with a Textual and Intepretative Commentary. Cor-
rected edition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.
Vandiver, E. “Sound Patterns in Catullus 84.” CJ 85 (1989–90): 337–40.
Watson, L. “Rustic Sufenus (Catullus 22) and Literary Rusticity.” Papers of the Leeds
International Latin Seminar 6 (1990): 13–33.
Wiltshire, S. F. “Catullus Venustus.” CW 70 (1977): 319–26.
Wray, D. Catullus and the Poetics of Roman Manhood. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2001.