Catullus I, His Poetic Creed, and Nepos J.P. Elder Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 71. (1967), pp. 143-149. Stable URL http: flinksjstor-org/sici%sici= 173-0688% 2819679297 153C143%3ACIHPCA %3E2.0.CO%3B2-C Harvard Studies in Classical Philology is eurrently published by Departn nt of the Classies, Harvard University Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at bhupulwww.jstororg/about/terms.hunl. 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 « journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial us. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hutp:/ www jstor.org/joumnals/dehu.htm 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 an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to ereating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @jstor.org, hupshvwwjstororg/ Mon Dee 11 07:24:38 2006CATULLUS I, HIS POETIC CREED, AND NEPOS J.P. Euper (Cui dono lepidum nour libellum arida modo pumice expolitum? Corneli tibi: namaue tu solebas meas este aliquid putare nugas jam tum, cum ausus es unus Tealorum ‘omne aeuum tribus explicare carts, doctis, luppiter, et laboriosis. ‘Quare habe tibi quidquid hoe libel qualecumque quod, (0) patrona ui 10 plus uno maneat perenne sueclo. WE should naturally expect the fist poem ina collection which is extraordinarily varied in subject and form and which is often highly personal to reveal something, obliquely or openly, about its author's general artistic or aesthetic attitude. Thus, in Catullus’ open- ing poem we might reasonably look for something more than the literal fact that the slim new book is attractive —in itself this intelligence would seem almost coy—and for something more than a justified dedication and a final request of a nameless Muse that the collection ‘may live for more than one generation. We should expect, in short, not just “amiable but aimless verse”! but some sort of information about the whole collection’s spirit and style. It is my persuasion that in his first poem, on a second and meta- phorical level, Catullus is indirectly announcing to those who looked ‘to Ennius as a model his own adherence to Callimachus’ poetical credo. ‘This declaration would be understandably indirect, for Catullus, so far as we know, in this respect would then be truly a pioneer. Callimachean declarations will come more easily later on to Virgil, Horace, and Propert T suggest, too, that Catullus is also inviting the Neposes, the literate clders of Rome, to accept this admittedly ‘‘new” kind of Latin poetry. If respected literary leaders like Nepos, who despite probable personal claims would thus also be a generic figure in this poem, will accept the44 J.P. Blder ‘New Poetry, then Catullus’ collection (whatever it was) will indeed live ‘plus uo saeco. “Though we may well be prompted by a natural expectation, yet what specific items in the poem itself the tradition of dedicatory poems is of litle ono help here) * might actually ead us to suspect that it contains more than meets the eye, more than a cluster of literal facts — that it also speaks on a metaphorical plane, albeit its precise meaning on this level ie not immediatly clear? First of al, the second line, if read only literally, seems a bit out of proportion. It may be a mildly amusing intrusion, but iti too big an Item for such a litle poem. Moreover, the fact of outward polish i in itself no commendation of a book's contents; witness Suffenos: pumice ‘omnia aequata (22.8). Unless we agree with the ironical Henry Tilney in Northanger Abbey when Catherine Morland remarked: “But now really, do not you think: Udolpho the nicest book in the world?” "The nicest; — by which T suppose. you mean the neatet, ‘That must depend upon the binding.” “Then, fo, the lst ine is troublesome: dangling and apparently not closely connected with what preceded i? Somehow this equest of the ‘Muse should be more intimately joined to Nepos and the 1's of Hines and 8. 5 ‘This in turn leads us to ask whether there is some kind of relation ship implicit between the jurstic formula, inverted here, of abe tb (line 8) and a possible patron-cient relationship hinted at in the mysterious patronawirgo ofthe next line. Further, there seems to emerge a group of apparent contrast: ‘ome aewom* (a solemn word) vs. mugae ‘ome aes vs mo saeclo Uibellum va. tribue artis Iepidum noun vs. doctislaborioss ow xs. perenne® ‘Why these seeming oppositions? What may they intend to say to us? Finally, the poem stylistically divides itself into three parts: lines 14, 5-7) and 8-10, The first and the third parts are written in a tight, economical manner, with no verbiage or padding. But the middle portion, that about Nepos’ work, is puffed and somewhat pompous ‘writing (e.g. iam tum, cum ausus or doctis, Iuppiter, et laborioss); the period is longer, more involved.Catullus 1, His Poetic Creed, and Nepos 4s division, made on stylistic grounds, is born terminal sounds: umjum and as/as in the first part, and oa in the third (plus the internal gu-sounds). ‘Then we notice that the first and third sections both deal with CCatullus’ book and Nepos (with the request of the patrona uirgo added in the third), but that the second deals only with Nepos’ Chronica Further, the first and third parts are linked by the tii’ (lines 3 and 8) and by libellum and libelli (ines 1 and 8), just as the umus of line 5 and ‘the uno of line 10 may in some fashion bring together the second and third parts, In fine, these contrasts seem to propose some sort of difference be- tween the kind of writing Nepos now practiced or admired in others, and. the kind Catullus supports, ‘They seem, too, to propose a possible con- nection between Nepos and the ultimate reception of Catullus’ poetry. Holding these contrasts and their unclear implications in our minds, let us now return to the question of Catullus’ adherence to Callimachean poetics. ‘There is no need here to restate Callimachus’ views on good and bad poetry, or his influence on Latin poetry. ‘These matters have received ‘thoughtful treatment. Hence we may at once move on to ask how far Catullus, in his praise or damnation of poets, subscribes to Callimachus’ notions. ‘When we seck to discover what kind of poetry Catullus admired, we shall find Poem so (to Calvus) and Poem 95 (on Cinna’s Zmyrna) the ‘most instructive. In the first we mark the emphasis upon oun (neces- sary for fusus or mugae), upon ludere, upon uersicula, and upon ex- perimentation with a variety of meters. ‘The second poem is more explicit. Cinna, who took nine years to complete his epyllion, is favor- ably contrasted with Hortensius, who took one (year or month or day) to turn out five hundred thousand (verses). Then in Poem gsb — I use ‘Mynors’ numbering — comes a clear Callimachean echo: Parua mei mihi sint cord monimenta . at populus tumido geudeat Antimacho.” Antimachus wrote a lengthy epic and the narrative Lye, which seems ‘to have been chiefly clegiac in its meter, and which Callimachus declared to be moyt pune ne 0 ropb (398 PL).* “When we pate te ind of poetry Caullus dated, we find, as we found in Poem 95, that his chief object of disapproval isthe long poem,146 J.P. Elder probably historical epic. In Poem 95 Hortensius is criticized for length.* In the same poem the unknown Volusius is condemned for his pre- sumably Ennian-like Annales; they are to die where no doubt Volusius hailed from — by the (muddy) Po. ‘The descriptive phrase applied to ‘these same Annales in another poem speaks for itself. The same charge ‘of length is made, too, against the otherwise pleasant Suffenus: idemque longe plurimos facit uersus. Prolixity and celerity of composition are the objectionable features.1° But we may guess that for Catullus such long historical poems also represented a dull and monotonous style of narrative, and a lack of ‘emotional focus—qualities which he and his fellow poets, like Callimachus before them, found insipid and unattractive. In general, then, Catullus emerges as an orthodox follower of CCallimachus in his judgments upon other poets. And his own practice? Orthodoxy here, too. But we might add that Catullus not only brought Callimachus into his poetry by name no less than three times and here and there plainly echoes him, but also that he translated one of Calli- ‘machus’ poems. (Nothing like this can be said about Catullus and any other Alexandrian poet.) ‘To conclude, Catullus, as I read his first poem, is amiably telling [Nepos that he, Catullus, is not going to do in poetry what Nepos had done in prose, ie. that he is not going to follow the Ennian model of lengthy historical narrative. Nor the style of writing which goes along with that kind of narrative. Such must be the meaning of the puffed-up ‘writing in lines 5-7, lines about Nepos’ Chronica. And the meaning behind the contrasts of omme aeuum with nugae, or of libellum with tribus cartis, or of lepidum nowum with doctis, Iuppiter, et laboriosis. "The declaration is put good-naturedly to Nepos, as not only the purpose behind it would advise, but as also the assistance which Nepos doubtless had given his compatriot would call for. ‘The fact, too, that Nepos wrote his historical work in prose would make it easier for Catullus with some grace to say to Nepos what he did say. ‘We might speculate further. Nepos may well at an earlier time— solebas and iam tum cum —have called Catullus’ verse nugae, in the Plautine, certainly not in a technical, usage. Catullus, groping about for a critical vocabulary,” may well have decided to face the challenge head on by picking up Nepos' mugae and using it deliberately in a newCatullus 1, His Poetic Creed, and Nepos 47 and original sense.1# Wagenvoort, who pronounces mugae to be “practi- cally synonymous with Judus” comes to a conclusion worth quoting: “Ludus and ludere... may indicate playful or trifling versifying in con- trast to serious, true poetry, but also true poetry of a lighter nature contrast to epics and tragedies as a superior kind; it may even — though only in very exceptional cases — include the whole of poetry in contrast to @ political life-work, considered as the more important. Hence the inaccuracy of the assertion that the Romans should have considered all poetry as a mere game.” # It may be that Catullus would have called even his longer poems nugae, though I rather doubt it. At all events, to return to Catullus’ Callimachean allegiance, epidum and nowum and expolitum now take on second meanings. Lepidus implies attractive pull, internal power of charming, and it refers “primarily to qualities of character and personality.” So constantly in Lucretius (the adjective once, the noun eleven times). And so Catullus in regard to poetry (lepidouersu, 6.17, and leparem, 16.7) oF toa poet (tuo Lepore, of Calvus, 0.7). So, too, Ausonius interpreted lepidum lbellum.!* ‘As for nowam, it must mean what Cicero, writing in 46, meant by oui poetae, and just possibly what Virgil meant by Polio et ipse facit noua carmina (Ed 3.86) Now the point of line two becomes clear: the poems themselves are to have p ish ‘There remains the second conclusion to be proposed. ‘The Ennian model was potent in Catullus’ day: Furius Bibaculus’ Bellum Gallicum (2), P. "Terentius Varro’s Bellum Sequanicum, Volusius’ Annales, Hortensius’ Annales (if they were in verse), and Cicero's ‘Marius, De Consulatu Suo, and De Temporibus Meis.¥ Perhaps, too, we should add that apparently Archias was still active, Catullus, realizing the strength of this Ennian tradition, may have chosen Nepos as the one to whom the libellus should be dedicated, not s0 much because Nepos had befriended him (though I do not deny such motivation) nor because Nepos too had written uersiculi, as because he and Nepos were friends, and so were Nepos and Cicero and Atticus.!” Further, if we may judge from a later verdict, Nepos thought Catullus a very good poet.!# Catullus, I sugges, is making an out-and-out plea to Nepos: if you and accept my kind of poetry, then my collection will live.1® Such an interpretation knits together what I called parts 1 and 3, a8 in fact they are stylistically joined, and joined through the tibi's and Uibellum and libelli.#® And the uno of plus uno saeclo then deliberately plays for indulgence upon the unus of unus Italorum.148 J.P. Elder In this light, t00, perhaps we can make something of patrona uirgo. If uirgo as a Muse is “curiously unexplicit"”#" — she certainly is — one can only ask what specific Muse could ever be invoked to preside over the fortunes of a collection of verse so unusual in both meters and sub- jects, Yet perhaps the very oddness of the adjective patrona clarifies things. “C. schliesst mit dem Gebet an die Muse, seinem Buche ein anges Leben zu verleihen — ein Ersatz flr die sonst ubliche Bitte um Inspiration” (Kroll). Possibly Catullus is the cliens and Nepos the potentially practical patronus.#® If such an idea be present, the last two lines accordingly become a tight and integral part of the whole poem. Hanvano Usvenstry NOTES 1. F.0. Copley, this poem as truly “introductory language.” 2. See Kroll ad lo. the custom of prefxing a dedicatory poem to any such collection could not, it would seem, have arisen atleast any earlier than the Hellenistic age; the’ closest parallel ie Meleager Anh. Pal. 4.1. See also Z. Stewart, "The Song of Silenis,” FESCP 64 (1980) 199. 3. So, for example, M. Lenchantin de Gubernatis, Ii Libro di Catullo (Torino £933) 3: "9. Dopo aver finto cosh poca stima per l'pe poeta, un po ilogicamente se si vuole, invoca per essa Timmor Fran, Horace (Onfrd 1957) 232: “In Catal the fia payer is loosely attached to the dedication to Cornelius Nep “PB, Auclon, Unpoctizhe Wérter (Lind 4045) 126 m8. §. Ck. Hor. C. 3.30.1: aee perenius. 6. See W. Clausen, "Callzmachus and Latin Poetry,” GRBS 5 (1964) 181-96. On Parthenius’ role in making Callimachus known to Latin poets, see Clausen, pp. 187f, and L. Alfonsi, Potae Novi (Como 1043) s6ff. 7. I am tempted, from structural considerations, to believe that 9sb goes with 95. Lines 12 teat of Cinna, 3 (and presumably 4) of an objectionable poet (Hiortensius), 5-6 of Cinna again, 7-8 of another objectionable poet (Volusius), land 9-10 would appear to be a generic coda, dealing both with Cinna and yet Another objectionable poet (Antimachus}. ‘8. R. Peiffer, Callmachus (Oxford 1940) 1 426, ad. Frag. 398, notes the contrast between wdsoray and Aewsehyr in Prag 1-23-24 8) ‘2. Hortensus, like the youthful Cicero, had once tured to Alexandeia; see Alfons (cited in m6) 48. 10. Ck Hor. 5. 1.4.9-t0: "in hora suepe ducentos,| ut magnum, versus dicta- bat stans pede in uno” and 9.23-24: "nam quis me seribere pluvs aut cits posit versus?” 11. For a crtieal vocabulary, he mostly drew upon the clichés of his social soup (listed by C. J. Fordyce, Catullas (Oxford 1961] 197). Cf, Hor. AP 272-73: “si modo ego et wos | scimus inurbanum lepido seponere dict.” Catullus, 6.1," TAPA 82 (1951) 200; Copley too viewed snd laid much stress on its Use of “ordinaryCatullus 1, His Poetic Creed, and Nepos 49 12, Helped slong perhaps, by Phileas’ Paggnia and Lacviue’ Brotpacgnia. 13, H. Wagenvoort, Studies in Raman Literature, Culture and Religion (Leiden 1956) 39 14. Bel. 1.42 "at nos inlepidum, rudem bellum.” So E. Bachtens, Catulli Veronensit Liber (Leipzig 1883) IL 67, interpreted lepdim and novum as re- ferring to the character, not the appearance, of the book. Cf to Ciris 100. 1s. The et here seer significant. 16. See 8. Otis, Ving A Study in Civilized Poetry (Oxford 1963) 24. 17, If there be anything to the chess set forth in the present paper, these may affect our interpretation of Catulls’ poem to Cicero, no. 49. 8, Atticus 12-4. Note, to, that here Nepos brackets Catullus with the most Ennian of poets; Lucretius, thereby showing that he recognized both the CCallimachean and the Ennian traditions 19. Horace makes essentially the same appeal for approbation in C.1.1.35-36- 20, Its Catullus wont, I belive, tote together the beginning and end of @ oem-—even in the cite of number 68! ‘ar. Fordyce (cited in m1) 87 22, We need not debate whether the Muse or Nepos is the patron (cf. A. Riese, Die Gedichte der Catullus(Leipsig 1884) 3); presumably Nepos was CCatuus" patron in the past and hopefully wil be for the present but forthe future the patron must be divine (ef Suet Gram. 6: "quia seriptores ac poetas sub clentela Musarum indicat”)