¹ At 10.1.96 Quintilian’s choice of Catullus as a model iambic poet and his express failure to mention him among the Roman lyricists prompted Havelock, E. A., The Lyric Genius of Catullus (Oxford 1939), 175Google Scholar, to declare: ‘The omission conveys a judgment on the limitations of the Roman temper as severe as any that could be pronounced by modern taste.’ In The Catullan Revolution (Melbourne 1959), 32–34Google ScholarPubMed, K. Quinn conjectured that in the short invective poems ‘Catullus’ poetic intent was at its lowest level.’ Corollary to both views is the assumption that the political polemics are inspired by personal spleen and should not be regarded as professions of a civic ideal—a widely held notion most recently restated by Deroux, C., ‘A propos de l‘attitude politique de Catulle’, Latomus 29 (1970), 608–631Google Scholar, and by Quinn, , Catullus: An Interpretation (London 1972), 267Google Scholar. Jr.Allen, W., ‘The Political Career of Catullus’, CO 24 (1947), 65–66Google Scholar, is one of very few scholars who take Catullus’ political interests seriously. This brief but valuable article came to my attention only after my essay was written; I am glad to find my reading of the poems confirmed by Allen’s arguments. In my references to the text of Catullus, I follow Mynors’ 1958 OCT edition, except where noted.

² R. Syme’s analysis of the motifs and conventions of Republican Roman invective is invaluable for an understanding of that esoteric art form; see The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939), 149–161Google ScholarPubMed. Later discussion of invective topoi include Vretska, K., C. Sallustius Crispus: Invektive und Episteln I (Heidelberg 1961), 9–12Google Scholar; Nisbet, R. G. M., M. Tulli Ciceronis in L. Calpurnium Pisonem oratio (Oxford 1961), 192–197Google Scholar; and the comprehensive study by Opelt, I., Die lateinischen Schimpfwörter und verwandte sprachliche Erscheinungen (Heidelberg 1965), 125–189Google Scholar. Cicero’s remarks at De Or. 2.59.240–241 in praise of Crassus’ hilarious, but totally fictitious, narrative of an opponent’s disgraceful brawl should caution us against putting too much faith in the historical truth of any of these accounts of rampant vice.

³ In poem 12, Veranius and Fabullus seem to be abroad in Spain; some critics have therefore doubted that the Piso of 28 and 47 is Piso Caesoninus, proconsul of Macedonia in 57–55 B.C. Yet Caesoninus conforms to the picture drawn by Catullus so perfectly that it is hardly likely that a different Piso, unknown to any other source, could be meant. We must assume that Veranius and Fabullus went overseas twice—once to Spain and later, in 57 B.C., to Macedonia. After due consideration of the evidence, both Syme, R., ‘Piso and Veranius in Catullus’, CM 17 (1956), 129–134Google Scholar, and Nisbet (above, note 2), 181, defend this conclusion.

⁴ lnanis is usually translated as ‘unburdened’ and explained by sarcinulis … expeditis (‘with duffle bags lightly packed for marching’); so Kroll, W., Catull (1922; 3rd ed., Stuttgart 1959), 51Google Scholar, and Lenchantin de Gubernatis, M., II libro di Catullo Veronese (Turin 1928), 54Google Scholar. But Quinn, K., Catullus: The Poems (London and Basingstoke 1970), 173Google Scholar, notes that the meanings ‘penniless’ and ‘useless, silly’ are equally applicable here.

⁵ See Hiltbrunner, O., ‘Zur Terminologie des romischen Rechnungswesens’, Hermes 77 (1942), 379–381Google Scholar, for an explanation of the bookkeeping terms, and Quinn (above, note 4), 173–174, for the implications of the metaphor.

⁶ For inanis as ‘hungry’, compare Plautus, Stick. 231, parasitum inanem (‘hungry parasite’), and Horace, Sat. 2.2.14–15, siccus, inanis/sperne cibum vilem (‘thirsty and hungry, disdain cheap food’).

⁷ Quinn (above, note 4), 173, observes that sarcinae is the specific word for soldiers’ baggage, and expediti is used of infantrymen in light marching order. Together with the absence of any definite date of publication, conflicting internal evidence makes it difficult to determine whether either or both of Catullus’ Piso lampoons owe anything to Cicero’s in Pisonem. At 28.5 frigoraque et famem tulistis (‘you have put up with cold and hunger’) seems a close echo of in Pis, 40, exercitus nostri interitus ferro fame frigore pestilentia (‘the loss of our army through war, famine, cold and plague’). However, Catullus’ assertion at 47.5 that Piso, Porcius and Socration conduct convivia lauta sumptuose (‘magnificent banquets in the grand manner’) appears to be expressly contradicted by in Pis. 67: nihil apud hunc lautum, nihil elegans, nihil exquisitum (‘nothing at this man’s house is magnificent, nothing elegant, nothing choice’). Nisbet (above, note 2), 199–202, argues for a period of some months between the original delivery of Cicero’s speech in the summer of 55 B.C. and its later publication. If Catullus’ two anti-Piso poems were written and widely circulated during that interval, the phrase frigoraque et famem could be a reminiscence of Cicero’s actual speech, while nihil … exquisitum in the published version of the in Pisonem might respond, in turn, to Catullus’ piece. I am aware of the speculative nature of this hypothesis and offer it only as one possible solution to the problem.

⁸ While in 10.12–13 the jingle irrumator praetor preserves the ordinary colloquial and metaphorical meaning of irrumare, ‘treat with contempt; “screw”’, the detailed description in 28, involving such expressions as supinum, tota ista trabe and lentus, restores the primary notion of forced oral copulation. For a philological analysis of both the literal and the colloquial meanings of the word, see Housman, A. E., ‘Praefanda’, Hermes 66 (1931), 407–409Google Scholar.

⁹ At De prov. cons. 6 Cicero boldly alleges that Piso took advantage of his administration of Byzantium to compel aristocratic maidens to serve his lusts; but these virgins threw themselves down wells rather than submit to him.

¹⁰ Of course farcire can be applied to stuffing pillows, sausages, and other inanimate objects. But the agricultural idea is guaranteed in this context by a telling similarity between the process of cramming poultry and the act of irrumation. At Rust. 89 the elder Cato explains: gallinas et anseres sic farcito … polline vel farina hordeacia consparsa turundas facial, eas in aquam intiguat, in os indat (‘let him cram hens and geese this way: let him make pellets of flour or moistened barley-meal, dip them in water, and put them in [the bird’s] mouth’). The beak must be prized open wide to allow the poultryman to push the pellet down the throat with one finger. See also Columella 8.7; cf. Varro, Rust. 3.9.19–21.

¹¹ At 12.1–2 Asinius the napkin-thief is admonished: manu sinistra/non belle uteris (‘you do not use your hand nicely’). Cf. Ovid, Met. 13.111, nataeque ad furta sinistrae (‘for the left hand born to thievery’).

¹² Verpus is a cross-reference to the verpa of 28, implying that Piso’s preference for Porcius and Socration is tied in with his enjoyment of forced sodomy. The expression verpus Priapus is also a contradiction in terms: while the garden god proudly brandishes his erect uncovered member (Priap. 9), nudity would be quite embarrassing for a verpus (Martial 7.82).

¹³ Lenchantin (above, note 4), 87; Macleod, C. W., ‘Parody and Personalities in Catullus’, CQ n.s. 23 (1973), 299Google Scholar n. 4.

¹⁴ In Plautus, Stick. 620–640, for example, the parasite is tantalized, mocked and finally excluded from the banquet; his despair and threats of suicide contribute to the comic hilarity. The suicide plans of the disappointed parasite are a comic cliché in Alciphron, Ep. Parasit. 3 and 13. For the uninvited parasite envying a rival in favor, see Ep. Parasit. 8—a close parallel to the situation in 47.

¹⁵ Ellis, R., A Commentary on Catullus (Oxford 1889), 168Google Scholar; Kroll (above, note 4), 88; Lenchantin (above, note 4), 87.

¹⁶ Lateiner, D., ‘Obscenity in Catullus’, Ramus 6 (1977), 26CrossRefGoogle Scholar, believes that the sexual metaphor eases Catullus’ sense of shame and humiliation by presenting him as powerless and therefore guiltless. I suspect, however, that even greater shame would accrue to the inability to defend oneself against a sexual assault.

¹⁷ Thus Priapus demonstrates his power over garden-robbers: Priap. 6, 13 and 74 are noteworthy examples. In Greek Homosexuality (Cambridge, Mass. 1978), 100–109Google ScholarPubMed, K. J. Dover studies the homosexual behavior of the Athenian elite in terms of dominance-submission relationships. Among his male peers, the sexually submissive man was thought of as having assimilated himself to a woman, thereby resigning his standing as a citizen under the law and forfeiting his political rights. Consequently, Greek political invective focuses upon acceptance of the passive role as an indication of one’s inability to perform the duties of a citizen. The close parallel with Roman invective topoi suggests that the same correlation between effeminacy and civic incompetence was felt in the late Republic.

¹⁸ Instances of homosexual rape as a means of manifesting one’s physical and social superiority to an opponent are cited in Dover (above, note 17), 104–106. Winter, T. N., ‘Catullus Purified: A Brief History of Carmen 16’, Arethusa 6 (1973), 261–263Google Scholar, and Lateiner (above, note 16), 15–16, discuss the male aggression-pattern underlying Catullus’ threat in 16.1, pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo (‘I’ll bugger you and make you both eat it’).

¹⁹ Providentially, the homo effeminatus Clodius attacks a brave, virile Milo and is justly slain for it (Cicero, Mil. 89). At Dom. 139 Cicero’s arch-enemy has shown himself et inter viros saepe mulier et inter mulieres vir (‘often a woman among men as well as a man among women’, with a sly allusion to Clodius’ penetration of the Bona Dea mysteries). The witticism recalls the elder Curio’s slander that Caesar was ‘every woman’s husband and every man’s wife’ (Suetonius, Jul. 52). It is the younger Curio, incidentally, who plays ‘husband’ to a prostitute-wife Antony in Cicero, Phil. 2.44. The implications of cinaedus are illustrated by an anecdote in Suetonius, Aug. 68, which concludes a series of allegations involving prostitution and unmanly conduct: the crowd attending a mime, hearing the line cinaedus orbem digito temperat (‘the eunuch beats the drum with his finger’), applied it to the princeps in the sense ‘the faggot rules the world with his finger’. Juvenal 9.70–90 is the locus classicus for the sexual failings of the pathicus: Naevolus, the rich pathic’s hired companion, must consummate his marriage and impregnate his wife.

²⁰ So Kroll (above, note 4), 101: ‘sich vertragen sich herrlich’; Lenchantin (above, note 4), 100: ‘l’armonia è completa’.

²¹ For convenire used of coition, see Lucretius 2.923 and Pliny, NH 11.29.85. Cicero’s use of the diminutive pulchellus stresses the unfortunate associations of Clodius Pulcher’s cognomen; v. Att. 1.16.10; 2.1.4; 2.22.1.

²² Ellis (above, note 15), 201.

²³ For morbosus as ‘sexually perverse’, see Priap. 46.2, morbosior omnibus cinaedis (‘queerer than any sod’). Schmidt, E. A., ‘Gemelli (Catull. c. 57, 6)’, RhM 119 (1976), 349–351Google Scholar, thinks that the word in this context means biformes; gemelli utrique could then refer to mutual assumption of the active and passive roles (‘each of them AC/DC’ might be a reasonable, if not strictly accurate, English translation).

²⁴ In Suetonius’ well-known anecdote (Jul. 73), Caesar deplores certain verses ot Catullus which have left perpetua stigmata (‘lasting blemishes’) upon his name— referring to them as versiculis de Mamurra (‘lines about Mamurra’). An intense, and quite probably insoluble, controversy has arisen over precisely which lampoon was meant: 57 or 29, or possibly both together? For the purposes of this paper, it is enough to observe that Caesar’s description appears to recognize the satiric importance of Catullus’ Mamurra-figure.

²⁵ The metaphors of waste and consumption have been examined in several major studies: de Angeli, E. S., ‘The Unity of Catullus 29’, CJ 65 (1969), 81–84Google Scholar; Minyard, J.-D., ‘Critical Notes on Catullus 29’, CP 66 (1971), 174–181Google Scholar; Scott, W. C., ‘Catullus and Caesar (C. 29)’, CP 66 (1971), 17–25Google Scholar. My interpretation of the poem owes much to Scott’s shrewd analysis of ‘Mamurra’ as an emblem of political corruption.

²⁶ Minyard (above, note 25), 179–180, defends Faernus’ emendation uncti for MS cum te in line 4, observing that this reading would fit in with the predominant motif of greasy gluttony. Horace’s echo at Epod. 5.69, indormit unctis omnium cubilibus(‘he sleeps in all the pomaded bedrooms’), neatly unites the sexual theme of 29 with the key word unctus.

²⁷ Quinn (above, note 4), 176–177; Cameron, A., ‘Catullus 29’, Hermes 104 (1976), 158–163Google Scholar. For additional arguments in favor of Pompey as the addressee of lines 1–10, see Neudling, C. L., A Prosopography to Catullus, Iowa Studies in Classical Philology 12 (Oxford 1955), 89–90Google Scholar and 143.

²⁸ Cameron (above, note 27), 162, rightly perceives that Cinaede Romule is a metaphor for Pompey’s ‘political inefficacy’. As parallels for the accusation, he cites Calvus’ epigram, FPL 18: Magnus quern metuunt omnes, digito caput uno scalpit: quid credas hunc sibi velle? virum. The Great Man, whom all fear, scratches his head with one finger: what do you think he wants? a man. and the incident reported in Plutarch, Pomp. 48, where Clodius’ followers sing out ‘Pompey!’ after each insolent question posed by their leader: ‘Who is a lecherous commander? What man is looking for a man? Who scratches his head with one finger?’ Epigram and anecdote are obviously related; the lampoon was perhaps widely known at the time of Clodius’ harangue. Like Catullus, Calvus builds his poem upon the marked contrast between Pompey’s public image and his private, hidden vice.

²⁹ Kroll (above, note 4), 55.

³⁰ To make inquiries of the dead Teiresias, Odysseus must sail into the zophos, the region of murky darkness at the far western rim of the world. Homer’s conception of the zophos in book 11 of the Odyssey is analyzed by N. Austin, ‘The One and the Many in the Homeric Cosmos’, Arion n.s. 1 (1973/1974), 230–237. Later authors unanimously follow Homer in placing the isles of the dead in the far west: e.g., Sophocles, OT 177, where the souls of the dying flock like birds aktan pros hesperou theou (‘towards the shore of the evening god’). Although ultima in 29.4 and 12 properly means ‘furthermost’, the word is frequently used of what is last in point of time, and then takes on funerary associations—as in Propertius 1.17.20, ultimus lapis, said of a gravestone.

³¹ Opulentissime, the unanimous reading of the witnesses to V, was rejected quite early on the assumption that Catullus wrote pure iambic trimeters. No satisactory emendation has yet been proposed; the numerous suggestions range from the banal to the bizarre. Minyard (above, note 25), 174–178, points to two recognized metrical anomalies within poem 29: line 3, Mamurram, where the first syllable must be long, and the spondee nunc Galliae in the first foot of line 20. Given these admitted violations of the alleged pure iambic scheme, he argues for keeping the MS reading, explaining the scansion as a resolution of the longum of the second metron followed by a long anceps in the third metron—a perfectly normal ordinary iambic trimeter. While Minyard’s reasons for preserving the transmitted reading are convincing, he is wrong, I believe, to interpret opulentissime as masculine vocative singular, a direct address to the third triumvir Crassus: the intrusion of a third satiric target at this late stage would violate the binary symmetry we have observed above. With L. W. Daly (cited in Minyard, 178 n. 15), I think that the final -e conceals opulentissimae—a reading which, as Minyard himself notes, realizes ‘an effective contrast … between the references to wealth and destruction.’ Perdidistis omnia, a familiar catchphrase of anti-Triumvirate propaganda, is thus infused with new meaning. Not only have the usurpers wrecked the constitutional forms of the state, they have also brought about its financial collapse.