I.

István Károly Horváth argues for the vulgar sources of Catullus short poems in his paper Catulle et la tradition populaire italique.¹ Me, too, touched this topic in my study Bemerkungen zur Invektive.² We both found these sources in the popular administration of justice, in the so called occentatio and flagitatio, that is invective. Recently W. Jeffrey Tatum gave a comprehensive survey on Catullan invective.³ Neither Horváth, nor me, nor Tatum examined the terminology of Catullus’ invective. In my paper I would like to give compensation of this gap. So much the morebecause Joshua Whatmough stresses in his article Pudicus Poeta: Words and Things, The Vocabulary of Catullus, that Catullus’ “commonplace vocabulary – is remarkably low”, that is, “his vacabulary is anything but commonplace”.⁴ For example in the line: gaudete vosque, o Lydiae lacus undae (31. 13) Lydiae occurs nowhere else in Catullus, therefore the editors wanted to change it, from Scaliger to Palmer.⁵ For example, recently Thomson changes it in such a way: gaudente, vosque lucidae lacus undae.⁶ But it is a fault because Catullus likes strange words, as Whatmough remarks: “There are 150 words in Catullus which occur once only in his writings, and of these more than 70 per cent are rare in the whole of Latin literature…”⁷

According to Whatmough we have to distinguish between genuine and apparent once-words. The true once-word never recurs; the number of them is exceedingly small. The once-words in Catullus were well enough known, but non in writing. “Their very appearance in the manuscripts of Catullus led to the almost complete disappearance of all the copies, of every single copy of the works of Catullus.”⁸ Their brevity is an indication that they are not genuine “once-words” of the spoken language. But because of their obscenity they have always been under taboo.⁹

After quoting this poem, Whatmough states: “Of peculiar interest are one of two taboo words that, while not all frequent anywhere, are relatively so in Catullus, and actually

All these obscene words are vulgar.

“But ploxenum (6) is a different story. It is an absolut hapax legomenon, for the mention by Quintilian and by Festus is merely an unsuccessful attempt to explain the word in this very place in Catullus, not an independent occurrence.”¹⁴ According to Whatmough “there is nothing in the phonematic pattern of the word ploxenum that might not be Latin, except the medial short -e- instead of -i- that certainly does point to a dialect source. In fact Quintilian (1. 5. 8) locates it in the vicinity of the river Po, and there are possible cognates in the Raetic ploum “plough”¹⁵ and in Latin plaustrum, and a variant spelling -in- is recorded¹⁶ – evidently ploxenum has something to do with a wheeled vehicle. Another modern etymology connectes the word with plectere, which suits the ancient definition capsa in cisio better. Now crates stercoriae, apparently the same as sirpeae, are known from Cato and Varro as wicker contraptions used in carting farm manure from the dung pits to the fields. In the city, cesspools (foricae) were emptied by despised contractors (Juvenal 3. 38). Here, I believe, is the answer: ploxenum is a two-wheeled cart carrying a wicker bascet used for this purpose; as the basket was worn by use, brocken withies stuck out as much as half a yard, and the mouth, gums, and theeth of Aemilius, foul and diseased, reminden Catullus, he says, of a much used cratis stercoria.”¹⁷ All this means that ploxenum is vulgar once-word.

II.

This poem of Catullus consists of 26 lines. Thomson divides it into three parts: part 1: 11 lines, part 2: 11 lines, and part 3: 4 lines. I am not satisfied with this division, because in such a way the structure of the poem is not enough clear. I divide it in 5 parts.

In part 1, Catullus addresses the town, which wanted to organize a festival in honour of a god on a long bridge, but it is afraid that the the poor old bridge will fall in the deep bog (1–4. lines).

In part 2, the poet wishes them a new strong bridge, on which they can arrange a festival in honour of god Salisubsalus, provided that they slap a fellow townsman from the bridge into the mud (5–11).

In part 3, Catullus tells why they have to slap his fellow townsman: because he is perfect fool with less sense than a suckling child (12–13).

Out of part 4, will be evident, why is this fellow townsman is so fool. Because he is married to a girl who is beautiful and frivolous, therefore she needs careful wathing, but her dolt husband sees nothing and hears nothing (14–22).

Finally in part 5, the poet suggests: he would like to throw him down from the bridge to see if he can suddenly shake off his stupid sloth (23–26).¹⁸

There is to be found a vulgar form in this poem, as well: ludere … et salire paratum habes (17. 1–2) instead of ludere … et salire parata es; see Cic. Att. 8. 11b. 1: ita fuimus ut navem paratam haberemus. Fordyce comments on it so: “habere aliquid paratum with a noun object (iter, exercitum, consilium, classem, etc.) is a very common use in which the verb and the participle have each its normal function (‘have an army in readiness’). Here the noun is replaced by an infinitive: ‘have dancing in readiness, all set’. The nearest parallel seems to be Tac. Ann. XI 1. 2 turbare nationes promptum haberet, ‘found it easy to’.”¹⁹ Thomson, too, remarks: “For its much more common use with a noun, cf. 60, 4–5 vocem contemptam haberes.”²⁰

This poem has some vulgar words: Salisubsali (6) occurs nowhere else: it is hapax legomenon. Its reading in the codices O, G is sali subsili.²¹ The interpretation proposed by Fordyce is acceptable: “Salisubsali: if this word is a genitive, Salisubsalus (or -ius) must be taken to be either the title of a god on whose honour cult-dances were performed or the name of dancers who performed them. Its form has suggested a connexion with Salii, the ‘leaping priests’, associated particularly with Mars, who are found not only at Rome but at other places in Italy, Verona among them.”²² The diminutive nouns ponticulus from pons, axulus (3) from axis and the diminutive adjective tenellulus from tener (15) are vulgar and hapax legomena, as well.

The adjective suppernata – [sub+perna+o] “Having the leg cut from below, hamstrung”;²³ it is vulgar and hapax legomen, as well.

III.

In our quotation with the phrase ut dixi – “as I said” Quintilian refers to his former statement: “Harshness, on the other hand, is best produced by Iambi, not only because these consist of only two syllables, so that their beat is more frequent as it were (a feature quite contrary to smoothness), but also because they have a rising motion at each foot, and climb and swell from short to long; this is why they are preferable to Chorei, which drop from long to short” (9. 4. 136).²⁹

Catullus calls Mamurrra diffututa mentula (13) – ‘multifucking tool’;³³ diffututa is hapax and vulgar in Roman literature; from futuere which is vulgar as well.³⁴ It occurs once in inscription: QVD (i.e. quot) TV MVLIERORVM DIFFVTVISTI CIL IV 5213;³⁵ “mentula rustic, … is posssible cognate with membrum, which Catullus uses as a synonym”.³⁶

Another once word is in this poem expatravit (16) – ’he has leched’;³⁷ from patrare (achever, exécuter) which is “peut-être ancien terme rituel, cf. T. L. 1, 24, 6, pater patratus ad iusiurandum patrandum, i. e. sanciendum, fit foedus”.³⁸

Its synonym is helluatus est (16) – ‘he has gormandized’,³⁹ from the verb helluor, helluari – ‘To spend immoderately on eating and other luxuries’.⁴⁰ It is very rare, as the nouns ellio, onis m.; helluatio, onis f. According to Ernout–Meillet “À peu près uniquement dans Cicéron. … Terme d’injure à consonne géminée caractéristique, que Cicéron joint à gurges; cf. Pis. 17, 41, ille gurges atque helluo, natus abdomini suo.”⁴¹

Its second synonym is lancinata sunt – ‘he blued’⁴², from the verb lancino, lancinare [cf. lacer, lacinia]. – ‘To tear in peacis, rend apart, mangle’.⁴³ It occurs only in Catullus, Seneca, and Pliny the Elder. “Premier exemple, semble–t–il, dans Catulle; évité par la prose classique; reparaît dans la latinité impériale (Sén., Plin., Arn.); rare. La forme usuelle et classique est lacero.”⁴⁴ It is also vulgar.

IV.

In conclusion I would like to highlight, that the vocabulary of Catullus’ invectives (that is iambi) consists of rare and vulgar words. This characteristic feature of his lexis is to be found in the invectives on Caesar, as well. And it is not accidental but intended, because Caesar’s ideal of style was clarity and precision (cf. Cicero: Brutus 262), and he was severe literary critic.⁴⁵ In 54 BC, Caesar had written two volumesentitled De analogia which were concerned with purity of diction. In first volume he states a fundamental principle: ‘as the sailor avoids the reef, so should you avoid the rare and obsolete word’ (See Aul. Gellius, Noctes Atticae 1. 10. 4: habe semper in memoria atque in pectore, ut ‘tamquam scopulum, sic fugias inauditum atque insolens verbum.).”⁴⁶ “On this view ‘analogical’ forms and words which were too far from common usage should be avoided.”⁴⁷

Catullus’ rare and strange words were too far from common usage therefore it was a counterblast to Caesar’s purity of diction. There were also two opposites between Catullus and Caesar which this poem mirors: moral and stylistic. W. Jeffrey Tatum highlights the moral opposition, when he writes: “This poem represents Caesar’s familial tie to Pompey as entirely utilitarian and, in the worst sense, political – and with disastrous results for Rome’s subjects and for the integrity of Roman families. In short, Caesar’s connection with Mamurra instantiates a poisonous perversion of fides. Put differently, Caesar is a bad man – and the proof of it is Mamurra’s reprehensible lifestyle.”⁴⁸ What concerns me I regard the stylistic opposition too as important as the moral one between them, as explained above.