Catullus 29: A Poetic Analysis

The only thing there seems to be more of in our present day than political issues is commentary surrounding them. For every one controversial decision even tangentially related to the political sphere, an exponentially greater outpouring of discourse, satire, and argument arises. With social media democratizing the consumption of news, although with the caveat that many circulating headlines can be misconstrued or fabricated altogether, anyone from any walk of life can participate in political debate. Cue the lengthy Twitter threads, which, although participating members' most innocuous trait tends to be closed-mindedness, do attest to the power of democracy. After all, freedom of speech is a cornerstone value of Western democracy, and online forums absolutely facilitate it.

Unfortunately for the Romans (particularly those living during the imperial era), these freedoms were not as highly valued, and democracy was viewed as merely an outdated Greek system rather than a fundamental aspect of political life. The typical Roman would be aware of policies pertaining to his governing forces, but would, by and large, be removed from discourse surrounding them. While the Senate, a pseudo-democratically elected body, continued to exist, it was largely relegated to the duties of an advisory and ceremonial body and tightly constrained via the emperor's absolute authority and powerful bureaucratic network. Therefore, commentary could only be done by wealthy Romans with ties to the political sphere. In stark contrast to most artists today, the poets of ancient Rome fit this description. Roman poets, in their unafraid criticism of the empire, were the vessel through which political discourse issued from. And Catullus 29 is the most notorious vestige of this disapproval.

The Poem Itself

*English is translated by A.S. Kline, chief translator of "Poetry in Translation"

Latin Text

Quis hoc potest uidere, quis potest pati,

Nisi impudicus et uorax et aleo,

Mamurram habere quod comata Gallia

Habebat ante et ultima Britannia?

Cinaede Romule, haec uidebis et feres?

Et ille nunc superbus et superfluens

Perambulabit omnium cubilia

Ut albulus columbus aut Adoneus?

Cinaede Romule, haec uidebis et feres?

Es impudicus et uorax et aleo.

Eone nomine, imperator unice,

Fuisti in ultima occidentis insula,

Ut ista vestra diffututa mentula

Ducenties comesset aut trecenties?

Quid est alid sinistra liberalitas?

Parum expatrauit an parum elluatus est?

Paterna prima lancinata sunt bona;

Secunda praeda Pontica; inde tertia

Hibera, quam scit amnis aurifer Tagus.

Nunc Galliae timetur et Britanniae.

Quid hunc malum fouetis? aut quid hic potest

Nisi uncta deuorare patrimonia?

Eone nomine urbis opulentissime

Socer generque, perdidistis omnia?

English Translation

Who could see it, who could endure it,

unless he were shameless, greedy, a gambler?

Mamurra owns riches that Transalpine Gaul

and furthest Britain once owned.

Roman pervert, do you see this and bear it?

And now shall the man, arrogant, overbearing,

flit through all of the beds

like a whitish dove or an Adonis?

Roman pervert, do you see this and bear it?

You’re shameless, greedy, a gambler.

Surely it wasn’t for this, you, the unique leader,

were in the furthest western isle,

so that this loose-living tool of yours

might squander two or three hundred times its worth?

What is it but perverted generosity?

Hasn’t he squandered enough, or been elevated enough?

First his inheritance was well and truly spent,

then the booty from Pontus, then

Spain’s, to make three, as the gold-bearing Tagus knows:

now be afraid for Gaul’s and Britain’s.

Why cherish this evil? What’s he good for

but to devour his rich patrimony?

Was it for this, the city’s wealthiest,

you, father-in law, son-in-law, wasted a world?

Part I: Theme & Voice

Catullus 29, upon first reading, is ostensibly a denunciation of the excessive avarice and consumption of Mamurra, a Roman military officer who served under Julius Caesar. Yet, Catullus emphasizes that it is not Mamurra specifically that he has qualms with, but rather the deteriorating political system, ripe with corruption, that Mamurra is merely a symptom of. Rather than one officer divesting from the norm, Mamurra's name could feasibly have been exchanged with that of any bureaucratic or military official; by arguing that corruption within the Roman empire was not isolated but persistent, Catullus asserts that it is, in fact, the norm. This poem, however, does not attack the ideals upon which the Roman Empire is founded, namely the reverence of the state, but instead declares the Roman political system currently antithetical to those ideals. At the expense of the Roman imperium, powerful men are prioritizing individual gain, rendering the accomplishments of the empire obsolete.

Catullus has never been one for subtlety, and Catullus 29 is no exception. With a voice composed of pernicious outrage and disgust, Catullus assumes his role as moral commentator. In Catullus 29, Catullus positions himself as a lone voice fighting the collective, artless hypocrisy of Rome's political institutions; he asserts that Roman politicians' powers were so entrenched as to be accepted dogmatically by all but his enlightened self. His invective tone is complemented by humor, with descriptions of Mamurra's excesses bordering on histrionic and absurd. This mixture of moral seriousness and comedy coalesces into a voice that is simultaneously delivering important political commentary and intensely personal. Simply put, in Catullus 29, Catullus is your disillusioned, impassioned uncle transforming Thanksgiving dinner into a political minefield.

Part II: Meter

Unlike the majority of Catullus's invectives, Catullus 29 is not written in hendecasyllabic meter, but in iambic trimeter. This metrical form consists of lines that are composed of three iambs, a two-syllable metrical foot. These iambs are consistent: an unstressed (or short) syllable, followed by a stressed (or long syllable), creating a familiar da-DUM sound pattern repeated throughout the poem. In ancient Roman poetry, the iambic trimeter (also known as the iambic senarius), was primarily utilized in Roman comedies and tragedies, especially when pertaining to spoken, unaccompanied dialogue within these plays. By employing it within Catullus 29, Catullus therefore situates the verse within the realm of performance, rather than lyric. This choice is critical: audiences would be familiar with the rough banter and scurrilous accusations delivered in plays-- exactly the register Catullus aims to access here.

Additionally, the meter reflects the emotion prevalent within Catullus 29. The quick, hammering beat of the trimeter mirrors the tone of a heated confrontation, evoking the image of Catullus in a direct standoff with the wily political officials he chastises-- exactly the situation he wants his audience to envision. Additionally, the meter also suggests that of a fist pounding against a table, or even a gavel banging against a desk. When considered in light of this imagery, Catullus 29 transforms from a simple airing of grievances into a public exposé of scandal. Here, poetry is transformed from an independent art form to one with a civic duty to illuminate political scandals. Finally, the choice of trimeter over traditional hexameter, the form characteristic of epics and other heroic narratives, Catullus resists dramatizing the conquests of Caesar and Pompey. Instead, he casts them in a comedic light and diminishes Roman triumph, exactly what he accuses the greed of Mamurra and other officials of accomplishing.

Part III: Rhetoric

Weaponizing Shame: Refrain & Apostrophe

Throughout Catullus 29, Catullus relies on the repetition of one rhetorical question that serves as a throughline throughout the poem. The line, "Cinaede Romule, haec uidebis et feres?," which can be idiomatically translated as "Roman sodomite, do you see this and bear it?," functions as a chorus in a comedy, forcing the audience to acknowledge and contend with its question. It is implied that Romans are indeed ignoring the pervasive political corruption of their institutions, and this line transforms bystanding into its own offense. Indeed, by referring to Romans as a "cinaedus," Catullus invokes a powerful insult. This word, translated as pervert above, carries with it additional connotations. Namely, it refers to those who partake in homosexual intercourse. As this practice was not accepted in ancient Rome, the use of this descriptor would have immediately threatened the masculinity of Roman audiences, who would, as Catullus hoped, direct this anger at their corrupt government. After all, by keeping quiet, they were admitting to their inclusion in this group of "perverted Romans."

A crucial component of this refrain is its use of apostrophe. Rather than indirectly referring to its subject, the refrain is a direct attack. The use of the vocative dissuades readers from merely skimming over the sentence, as it appears to be addressed to them directly. Indeed, this apostrophe's power stems not only from its mere inclusion but from the simultaneous broadness and specificity of its subject. Although seemingly counterintuitive, this apostrophe can be interpreted as addressing all Romans, or as addressing one in particular: Romulus (the founder of Rome, and a thinly veiled reference to Caesar). The former reading, which addresses all Romans who have stayed silent, functions as an attack on audiences and urges their mobilization against corruption. The latter, however, serves as a powerful accusation: Caesar- the father of the current state of Rome- deserves to be denigrated via association with a sexual slur because he tolerates the corruption within his regime.

Totalizing Condemnation: Insult & Metaphor

From the first few lines of Catullus 29, Catullus makes it clear that his fury at Roman political corruption will not be contained within civility. In line two, "Nisi impudicus et uorax et aleo," translated as "unless he were shameless, greedy, a gambler?" Catullus offers criticisms that are not abstract but have profound negative connotations within Roman society. Indeed, "impudicus" evokes sexual corruption, and "vorax" and "aleo" are typically reserved for those with gambling addictions. Those afflicted with these three vices were viewed as the most vile members of society; equating Mamurra's crimes with those of these men constructs him as the embodiment of depravity. Additionally, the tricolon of insult mirrors the exact intemperance it chastises: just as Mamurra continues to siphon off the empire's wealth for his ever-growing catalogue of indulgences, so too do Catullus's continue to accrue.

Yet Catullus's condemnation of Mamura and political corruption writ large is not limited to direct insult. Indeed, he frequently employs metaphor when denouncing these dishonorable actions. He writes, "...aut quid hic potest/ Nisi uncta deuorare patrimonia?" (translated as "What’s he good for/ but to devour his rich patrimony?"), equating Mamurra's actions with animalistic behavior. In doing so, he strips Mamurra of his humanity and reduces him to a savage beast incapable of controlling his voracious, sickening appetite. This imagery helps Catullus render Mamurra and his dishonor unsympathetic; the audience can now only be disgusted by the inhuman gluttony of their political regime.

Broadening the Scope: Historical Allusion

Rather than simply asserting Mamurra's avarice and condemning him for it, in Catullus 29, Catullus carefully lists the history of Mamurra's wealth accumulation. The lines "Paterna prima lancinata sunt bona;/ Secunda praeda Pontica; inde tertia/ Hibera, quam scit amnis aurifer Tagus," which can be translated as "First his inheritance was well and truly spent,/ then the booty from Pontus, then/ Spain’s, to make three, as the gold-bearing Tagus knows," directly tie Mamurra's corruption to historical events the Roman public would have been familiar with. Each conquest of Rome, he argues, has been tainted by the self-interest of politicians and generals. The allusion to the Tagus is particularly evocative, with the river known for its rich deposits of gold. This chronological plundering dramatizes the scale of Mamurra's greed and connects his immoral actions to every Roman who lived through these conquests.

Part IV: Audience Perception

Although political commentary in ancient Rome was a prerogative exclusive to elite circles, it was scarce even within the upper echelon. Therefore, Catullus's scathing critique of a prominent Roman general and the corruption rampant within Roman politics would have been electric. Directly chastising even Caesar himself, Catullus 29 was uncharacteristically bold, thrilling Catullus's contemporaries. Yet, as a poet known for his unabashed self-expression, Catullus authoring this explosive verse would have surprised none. Beyond its shock value, the invective would also resonate with those disillusioned by Rome's rapid expansion and the transgressions it bred. Witnessing the self-serving nature of many prominent officials, the elite Roman reader would find concerns of his government as forgetting its principles and sacrificing the health of the state for personal benefit echoed in Catullus 29. Politicians, and Mamurra, on the other hand, would understandably despise the verse.

In Conclusion...

Unlike ancient Rome, our world is not at all in a dearth of political commentary. In our modern-day equivalent of Catullus's scandalous insults and histrionic language, we can find the sentiments expressed in Catullus 29 in countless online forums, newsletters, and other media outlets. Although these criticisms can be misleading, misinformed, one-sided, and explosive, it is essential that we recognize the crucial role they play in preserving our democracy. Catullus was not so fortunate to live in a society where his vote mattered, and his critiques of an absolute emperor were valuable but rare, and largely incapable of generating substantial change. We are lucky enough to have presidents or prime ministers rather than emperors, but that does not diminish the importance of political criticism. It is necessary that we acknowledge and respond to the mistakes and corruption rampant within our political systems, abrogate power via democratic procedures when necessary, and continue to defend our right to free speech.