Catullus 99: A Poetic Analysis

Online spaces and the cultural conscience are bereft of adequate information as to how sex and sexuality functioned in pre-enlightenment eras. Now, queerness and homosexuality are thought of as intrinsic parts of one's identity, which have been, for a large part of Western history, dating from the Middle Ages, scorned and demonized. Harmful stereotypes have proliferated and continue to proliferate as a means to isolate, trivialize, and, in the most dangerous cases, eradicate queer populations. The most recent iteration of homophobia, common when referring especially to younger queer people, is the idea that they are merely "pretending" or "following a trend." Insofar as nearly no one throughout history has experimented with neopronouns or investigated the complexities of the asexuality spectrum, many posit that, rather than being reflective of one's identity, these queer labels are merely meant to signal insolent teenage rebellion. This lack of respect for the fluid and changing nature of human beings, as well as language and labels themselves, is deeply problematic and perpetuates a cycle of rendering queer concerns, and by extension, queer people, irrelevant.

Beyond problematic, however, the notion of queerness being a passing "fad" is simply incorrect. Although the conceptions of homosexuality and the ways in which queer people operated within society have radically changed since Roman times, it would be completely incorrect to argue that the Romans were a completely cisgender and heterosexual population. I hope, with this article, to change the minds of those reading who hold this notion of a cis-het Rome, as well as assist in educating those who were simply ignorant of the complex queer dynamics of the ancient Empire. Although I regrettably do not have adequate knowledge to write about the transgender identity and Rome (I am in the process of learning), I can, through the lens of Catullus 99, explore the nature of homosexuality in ancient times. Intermixed with poetic analysis will be a brief explanation of homosexuality during the period of Roman dominance (the Empire for the most part). But before we begin with that, which I can warn you now will be less structured than our typical entry, let us read a very gay-coded poem by a very prominent Roman poet: Catullus.

The Poem Itself

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

Latin Text

Surripui tibi, dum ludis, mellite Iuventi,

suaviolum dulci dulcius ambrosia.

verum id non impune tuli: namque amplius horam

suffixum in summa me memini esse cruce,

dum tibi me purgo nec possum fletibus ullis

tantillum vestrae demere saevitiae.

nam simul id factum est, multis diluta labella

guttis abstersisti omnibus articulis,

ne quicquam nostro contractum ex ore maneret,

tamquam commictae spurca saliva lupae.

praeterea infesto miserum me tradere amori

non cessasti omnique excruciare modo,

ut mi ex ambrosia mutatum iam foret illud

suaviolum tristi tristius elleboro.

quam quoniam poenam misero proponis amori,

numquam iam posthac basia surripiam.

English Translation

I stole a sweet kiss while you played, sweet Iuventius,

one sweeter than sweetest ambrosia.

Not taken indeed with impunity: for more than an hour

I remember, I hung at the top of the gallows,

while I was justifying myself to you, yet with my tears

I couldn’t lessen your anger a tiny morsel.

No sooner was it done, than, your lips rinsed

with plenty of water, you banished it with your fingers,

so nothing contracted from my lips might remain,

as though it were the foul spit of a tainted whore.

More, you handed me unhappily to vicious love

who’s not failed to torment me in every way,

so that sweet kiss, altered for me from ambrosia,

was more bitter than bitter hellebore then.

Since you lay down such punishments for unhappy love,

now, after this, I’ll never steal kisses again.

Analysis

In Ancient Rome, like in the rest of civilization before the Enlightenment, heterosexuality and homosexuality were not seen as a part of who one is, but rather an act one can perform. In the Latin language, there is no word that refers to heterosexual or homosexual, implying that Ancient Romans did not view the gender of one's preferred sexual partner as a part of their identity. Instead, when Catullus refers to his kiss with Iuventius, a man, as "suaviolum dulci dulcius ambrosia," or "one sweeter than sweetest ambrosia," he was partaking in the action of loving a man, not existing as a queer man. This distinction is of paramount importance, considering the lack of labels in Ancient culture is often weaponized to posit that these cultures lacked homosexual people, or imply that homosexuality was "invented" with the creation of its terminology. People who loved those of the same gender have always existed; they just never felt the need to describe that love as an intrinsic part of who they are. The only change is that, as society has progressed, our conception of homosexuality has morphed into something someone is born with rather than does.

When referring to sexual activities, partners were presented either as active or passive, two adjectives with heavy connections to masculinity and femininity. What mattered in Ancient Rome was that men possessed the agency to choose their sexual partners and could exert dominance over them. Sex was framed as another facet of conquest, understandable given that Rome was a deeply militarized state that rewarded conquest and domination. Therefore, the issue some Roman men held with homosexual activity was that it rendered one partner as the "feminine" partner, submitting to their more masculine counterpart. Because of this dynamic, Roman men were able to engage in sexual activity with a male slave, freedman, prostitute, or anyone of a lower class than them without judgment, but engaging with another man of the same social class was seen as a taboo encroachment on another man's integrity and status. Catullus illustrates the importance of his being the pursuer of someone less esteemed than he is by referring to "Iuventius" as such. His name literally translates to "young man" -- he is by no means of Catullus's rank.

The association of homosexuality in Ancient Rome with pedophilia illustrates the importance of domination within all Ancient Roman relationships. The tradition of older Roman men seeking out younger male counterparts, often between the ages of 12 and 20, was so commonplace that, to an extent, there was a cultural expectation for Roman men to enter into such relationships. Even Emperor Hadrian had a pederastic relationship with the Greek youth, Antinous, from their introduction when Antinous was 13 til Antinous's death at 20. Essentially, class and status were far more important markers of a relationship's viability than gender. This dynamic is expertly illustrated in Catullus 99, as Catullus laments his rejection because it renders him less manly. He writes, "praeterea infesto miserum me tradere amori/non cessasti omnique excruciare modo," translated as "More, you handed me unhappily to vicious love/who’s not failed to torment me in every way," connecting his unreciprocated love to his loss of agency. Having been handed over to love, Catullus was not in control of his circumstances and therefore was tormented. A Roman man was always expected to be the dominant power imposing love on another; Catullus's rejection, not the gender of his rejector, is the true embarrassment.

Crucially, Catullus 99 remains a playful love poem despite Catullus's rejection. Written in elegiac meter-- the meter usually reserved for poems pertaining to love-- Catullus betrays no shame about his homosexual relationship. He writes to Iuventius with the same fervor and love he shows Lesbia, implying that he views them as equals in his heart. Although both were rendered the "passive" partner, undeniably a problematic stereotype, the equality between the two indicates that Roman society was not in the least peeved or surprised by a homosexual relationship; it was just as real and valid as a heterosexual one. Catullus is still distraught that his kiss was rejected and is characteristically hyperbolic about it. He writes, "ut mi ex ambrosia mutatum iam foret illud/suaviolum tristi tristius elleboro," translated as "so that sweet kiss, altered for me from ambrosia/ was more bitter than bitter hellebore then," betraying his deep despair and resentment at not having his love reciprocated. His language here is quite similar when he laments his rejections by Lesbia and the existence of her husband -- Catullus loves them the same.

It is important to note that, despite being potentially emotionally equal, homosexual relationships did enjoy far fewer rights in Roman society. Viewed as "actions," homosexual love was commonplace and accepted, but homosexual marriage did not exist. Marriage, indeed, was not seen as an extension of love, but as an economic arrangement and promise to bear children, therefore requiring a male and female partner. Despite being able to express queer love without risk of judgment, living a queer life under the law, as many do today, was impossible within Ancient Rome. One was expected to marry and produce heirs, relegating their love and attraction to the realms of poetry. As such, Catullus 99 becomes particularly significant, acting as one of the few pieces of evidence to the existence and prevalence of homosexual relationships in Rome. Catullus is honest, vulnerable, and reflects his experiences on an individual level, speaking the truths of Roman society that were never inscribed into law.

Perhaps most crucially, Catullus's love is not "queer love," and his pain is not "queer pain," considering that those concepts did not have to exist. Queer men were not targeted the same way in Ancient Rome as they too often are now, allowing for homosexual love to exist without the constant fear of subjugation and persecution. Rather than queerness being a modern invention, it seems that homophobia is what has undergone terrifying changes over the ages. Catullus 99 reminds us that homosexuality has always existed, but that, importantly, sexuality is fluid. While very much real, the idea of "having a sexuality" is indeed a social construct. The concept was created by human beings to identify and label feelings and, later, people. The proliferation of labels, therefore, is not indicative of queerness itself changing but rather of our vocabulary for describing it adapting.

Throughout this analysis, I've been focusing only on male homosexual love. This narrow view is largely due to the sparse evidence of female love in Ancient Rome (unforuntaky, the preeminent poets in Ancient Rome were men). But what is known about female homosexuality implies that it was not nearly as normalized. Indeed, because sex was a function of power, women choosing not to be dominated by a men threatened to disturb a patriarchal order propelled by penetration. In lesbian sexual relations, one woman was viewed as taking on the dominant role-- a role all women in Ancient Rome were barred from. When lesbianism was permitted, it was largely to amuse and satisfy the desires of male onlookers.

The treatment of lesbians in Ancient Rome and the pedophilic connotations of male homosexuality in Ancient Rome is precisely why modern readers of Catullus 99 and other latin works must allow for nuanced analysis. I do not seek to argue that Roman standards for sexuality were completely accepting of homosexuality, because they were not. Sex was viewed as a vessel for domination, a narrative that is both disheartening and dangerous. Love was either a jockeying for power or, in the case of queer women, commodified for the pleasure of men. But there is much to be learned from Catullus 99 and Ancient Roman conceptions of queerness. Through the understanding that queerness can exist outside of labels, those who have felt lost searching for a subsection of queer labeling that encompasses their complex identity can find solace in knowing that the lack of a label does not render any queer identity less valid. In recognizing that the gender of one's preferred sexual partner has not always garnered the same vitriol it receives now, we realize that there is nothing historical or natural about homophobia. Queer people have always and will always continue to exist; homophobia has not always existed and will hopefully one day be completely eradicated.

We hope you enjoyed this slightly unconventional poetic analysis of Catullus 99. Please leave any comments, questions, or concerns below, and be sure to recommend future prose or poems for us to dive into!