We have already seen an instance of one of our keywords that lacks the overtones produced by political aestheticism: the sparrow of c. 3 is bellus, but this is not Suffenus’ bellus. There are several other instances - though rather less delicate than tam... bel-lumpasserem. In c. 97 the repugnant Aemilius, whose apparently diseased gums make his mouth a fetid rictus, ‘‘fancies himself a ladies’ man’’ (se facit esse uenustum, 9) merely because he is promiscuous. Physical repugnance also figures in c. 69: Rufus’ unclean armpits make him ‘‘a nasty beast, not the kind a modern girl will sleep with’’ (nam mala ualde est/bestia, nec quicum bellapuella cubet, 7-8). In other poems sexual transgression figures. In c. 89 Catullus alleges that a certain Gellius is skinny because he gets a lot of exercise: ‘‘his specialty is touching things that shouldn’t be touched’’ (qui ut nihil attingat, nisi quod fas tangere non est, 5), including his good mother and his lovely sister ( cui tam bona mater/tamque ualens uiuat tamque uenusta soror, 1-2). In c. 78 a certain Gallus has one brother with a ‘‘very pretty wife’’ (lepidissima coniunx, 1) and another with a ‘‘handsome son’’ (lepidusfilius, 2). Indulgent man that he is (bellus homo, 3), he fixes them up, so the pretty boy and the pretty girl can sleep together (cum puero ut bello bellapuella cubet, 4).
Bellus, uenustus, and lepidusin these poems - all elegiacs - do not have quite the same edge as the instances we have surveyed thus far. These passages reflect not the idioms of political aestheticism but other, less subtle meanings. Venustusas simply ‘‘beautiful’’ is a sense we saw above. Bellus could apparently connote simply ‘‘sexually active.’’28 Lepidus as simply ‘‘attractive’’ is an old Plautine use.29 From these uses alone it is fair to say Catullus’ tone of voice in these poems is different - commoner, more comic. The range of Catullus’ tones of voice and its relation to generic distinctions between the elegiacs and polymetrics is a topic beyond the aims of this chapter. Here I would make another observation. C. 16 raises an important semantic point clear since the Dissoi Logoi: the meanings of words depend not only on the words themselves but on the conceptual frame in which they are lodged. Furius and Aurelius used the hostile construction of mollitia attested since Scipio Aemilianus asked whether someone who shaved his thighs was not guilty, too, of being a cinaedus (ORF 21.30). Catullus’ own reinterpretations of molliculus and parum pudicus, and his use of our keywords, adapt the energies of political aestheticism to construct a far different vision of mollitia.
Can the frame manifest in the elegiacs also be specified? In this place, no - not without interpreting the works in detail. But some elements are worth noticing. There is an element of self-presentation. Aemilius puts himself forward (se facit) as uenustus. Gellus is not really a homo bellus: he’s a homo stultus, condoning cuckoldry when that might affect his own marriage (78.5-6). Homo bellus registers his own hopeful self-justification in arranging trysts. There is also an element of stylish modernity, mostly sexual: Rufus’ hygiene excludes him from chic society; Gallus cheerfully embraces modern permissiveness, Gellius even more so.
These elements recall the ethos of urbanity manifest in the polymetrics: aware of itself, stylish and modern, erotically sophisticated. But in the elegiacs that vision is much reduced: the bellus or uenustus person is chiefly a poseur and a sexual libertine - there is nothing here of humor or wit or poetic grace. Perhaps that was what our words connoted on the street, as it were. The echoes of comic language are also clear. But another possibility merits consideration: to someone outside of Catullus’ circle and outside of the stylish life of the city, the fashionable slang those echelons used to describe themselves might well have seemed to connote little more than promiscuity and posing. It is as if Catullus could hear how his cant sounded to people outside his own covey. That is remarkable: having stolen his own language, Catullus could fiercely defend his vision - or look bemusedly upon its misunderstanding. Such a Protean persona is also a kind of commentary on elite discourse: Catullus adopts just the voice he needs to do whatever job he wants to do - perfect decorum.30 Whoever it is exactly who lies behind these personae, his Wille zur Macht is always perfectly clear. There is no more pointed commentary on the meaning of decorum than that.
World History
