Socration or Philodemus? Catullus 47 and Prosopographical Excess

THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL 109.4 (2014) 385–405

SOCRATION OR PHILODEMUS? CATULLUS 47 AND PROSOPOGRAPHICAL EXCESS∗

Abstract: Since 1908, scholars have been fascinated by the possibility that the name Socration in Catullus’ poem 47 might be a pseudonym for the Greek poet and Epicurean philosopher, Philodemus. This article first traces the history of the identification of Socration with Philodemus, placing it within the context of late nineteenth and early twentieth century Catullan scholarship; the context of the Catullroman helps to explain why the identification became so popular. The article then reviews the arguments that have been used to uphold the identification, concluding that there is no credible evidence to support it.

atullus 47 is rarely discussed and, on those few occasions when scholars do mention the poem, they seem drawn to the question of whether Socration, one of the two people to whom the poem is addressed, might

really be Philodemus.

ration

1 Philodemus (c. 110–40 BC) was a Greek poet and important Epicurean philosopher; he studied philosophy in Athens, but spent most of his life in Southern Italy.2 The suggestion that Soc might be Philodemus was first made in 1908 by Friedrich in his edition and commentary of Catullus’ poems.3 Frank endorsed Friedrich’s suggestion in his 1928 book,

∗ I would like to thank Ronnie Ancona, Charlie Chiasson, and Darryl Phillips, each of whom

read an earlier version of this paper, as well as Laurel Fulkerson and the anonymous readers for CJ, for their helpful criticisms and insightful suggestions. I would also like to thank Michael C. J. Putnam, in whose classroom I first read Catullus.

1 Scholars who argue for the identification include: Bloch (1940) 490 and 492; Tait (1941) 12; Neudling (1955) 140; Quinn (1973) 231; Dettmer (1985) 577 and (1989); Minyard (1985) 74; Sider (1987) 322–3, (1997) 23–4 and (2005) 6 and 100 n. 4; Champlain (1989) 122 n. 52; Thomas (1994); Fitzgerald (1995) 242 n. 12 and 266 n. 27; Nappa (2001) 98 n. 25; Skinner (2003) 196–7 n. 51; and Cairns (2003). Discussions of Catullus’ poem 47 apart from the Socration/Philodemus controversy include Skinner (1979) 140–2; Wiseman (1982) 40–1; Pedrick (1993) 180–2; Nappa (2001) 93–105; Konstan (2007) 81–2; and Uden (2007).

2 For a good introduction to Philodemus’ life and work, see Sider (1997) 3–40 and Tsouna (2007) 1–3. Other helpful discussions of Philodemus include Gigante (1995); Sider (1995); Konstan et al. (1998) 1–24; and Armstrong (2004) 1–22.

3 Friedrich (1908) 228. For the precise wording of Friedrich’s claim, see note 14 below.

C

386 SUSAN O. SHAPIRO

Catullus and Horace,4 and since then, the identification has garnered a great deal of support.5 Some scholars favor the identification because it allows us to establish a connection between two important contemporary poets living in Italy;6 others enjoy being “in on the joke” with Catullus and his literary circle.7 Support for the identification has not abated and seems likely to continue. Despite the enthusiasm of its adherents, however, the conjecture that Socration is a stand-in for Philodemus has remained just that; no one has taken a careful look at the evidence in order to establish, as definitively as possible, the truth or falsehood of the identification. And yet the issue is an important one. If the identification of Socration with Philodemus can be established as probable, then scholars, feeling confident that Catullus and Philodemus knew one another, can pursue the more interesting question of mutual literary influences. If, on the other hand, the identification is shown to be dubious or false, then commentators can turn their attention to other aspects of the poem. Because this question has not yet been satisfactorily resolved, however, it has become an impediment to other, more substantive discussions.

In this article, after investigating the arguments used to defend the identification, I conclude that there is no credible evidence to support the claim that Socration is a pseudonym for Philodemus. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that both Porcius and Socration are type characters with speaking names (redende Namen) designed to reflect their one-dimensional personalities. I first consider the origin of the Socration/Philodemus question in the context of Catullan scholarship of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The Origin and Early History of the Identification

Friedrich’s thesis that Socration was a pseudonym for Philodemus was based on three assumptions. First, Friedrich assumed that the Piso on whose staff Catullus’ friends, Veranius and Fabullus, served (as mentioned in poems 28 and 47) was L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, the father-in-law of Julius Caesar and one of the consuls of 58 BC.8 This point is crucial because Piso Caesoninus is

4 Frank (1928) 82–4. 5 See n. 1. 6 E.g., Sider (1997) 23–4 and Skinner (2003) 196–7 n. 5. 7 E.g., Thomas (1994) 148; Fitzgerald (1995) 266 n. 27; Nappa (2001) 98 n. 25; Cairns (2003)

181–7. 8 On Piso Caesoninus see Münzer (1897); Syme (1939) 135–7; Nisbet (1961) v–xvii and 172–

80; Champlain (1989); and Badian (1996).

SOCRATION OR PHILODEMUS? 387

known to have been Philodemus’ patron.9 Piso Caesoninus thus provides the crucial link between Philodemus and Catullus: Veranius and Fabullus could have become acquainted with Philodemus while serving on Piso’s staff in Macedonia; they, in turn, could have introduced Philodemus to Catullus.10 If the Piso in poems 28 and 47 is not Piso Caesoninus, there is no way to connect Philodemus with Catullus, and the identification falls apart. Unfortunately, however, the identification of the Piso in poems 28 and 47 with Piso Caesoninus is not at all secure, as I will show below.

Friedrich also assumed that Cicero’s in Pisonem, a diatribe against Piso Caesoninus, could be accepted as a valid historical source. In the speech, Cicero vilifies Piso as an unrestrained hedonist, and he portrays Philodemus as Piso’s house philosopher who must pander to the powerful senator’s desires (in Pisonem 68–70).11 To Friedrich, Cicero’s assertion that Philodemus catered to Piso’s unceasing desire for pleasure implied that the relationship between Philodemus and Piso was similar to the relationship that Catullus portrays between Socration and Piso in poem 47. Thus, Cicero’s in Pisonem was a key piece of evidence supporting Friedrich’s identification. 12 But should the information in Cicero’s in Pisonem be taken as historical evidence? Contemporary scholars read Cicero’s rhetoric more critically, and although there is some controversy about the best way to interpret the orator’s attack against Piso (some scholars maintain that it is an exaggeration of basic facts, while others argue that the entire speech is a work of rhetorical fiction): no one today would accept Cicero’s words at face value.13

9 Piso Caesoninus’ patronage of Philodemus is not disputed. For evidence, see points i, ii, iii, and

v in Sider (1997) 5 n. 11 and points i–iii in Sider (2005) 5–6. 10 All scholars who support the identification accept this scenario, explained most clearly in

Dettmer (1989) 77–81. 11 Cicero does not actually name Philodemus, but the identification is provided by Asconius (ad

in Pisonem 68, Stangl 20) and is universally accepted. 12 Friedrich (1908) 228. 13 For the speech, see Nisbet (1961). On interpreting Ciceronian oratory, see, for example, May

(1988) and (1996); Corbeill (2002); Craig (2004) and (2010); and Riggsby (2010). On the use of Cicero’s speeches as historical evidence, see Lintott (2008). Those who consider Cicero’s allegations against Piso in this speech to be completely false include DeLacy (1941), who points out the contradictions in Cicero’s allegations (57); and Nisbet (1961), who calls the speech “a masterpiece of misrepresentation” (xvi). Sider (1997) 6 n. 13, on the other hand, claims that it is possible to discover “the truth behind Cicero’s exaggeration,” while acknowledging that “some would argue that his slander owes nothing whatsoever to the truth.”


Finally, Friedrich assumed that Philodemus must have accompanied his patron to Macedonia; this is the only way that he could have become acquainted with Veranius and Fabullus, who could then have introduced him to Catullus.14 Friedrich’s evidence for Philodemus’ presence in Macedonia is a line in Cicero’s in Pisonem, where Cicero claims that Philodemus was so devoted to Piso that he “lived with him and hardly ever left his side” ([Philodemus] dedit se in consuetudinem sic ut prorsus una viveret nec fere ab isto umquam discederet, Pis. 68). But, as Nisbet points out, Cicero probably did not intend his comment to be taken literally.15 And in any case, Cicero’s in Pisonem is no longer accepted as a valid source of historical evidence, as has been noted above.

Thus, two of Friedrich’s three assumptions are unreliable: there is no evidence outside of Cicero’s in Pisonem that Piso and Philodemus had a relationship similar to that of Piso and Socration in Catullus’ poem 47, nor is there any evidence that Philodemus accompanied his patron to Macedonia, where he could have become acquainted with Veranius and Fabullus. Friedrich’s first and most important assumption, that Veranius and Fabullus’ Piso was Piso Caesoninus, while accepted by many scholars, is also doubtful, as I shall argue below. But in 1908, scholars read Ciceronian invective far less critically, and found little reason to question Friedrich’s assumptions. Frank certainly accepted them; he agreed with Friedrich’s conclusions, and he bolstered Friedrich’s identification of Socration and Philodemus with arguments of his own.16

Frank argues that the name Socration should be interpreted to mean “Pseudo-Socrates,” and that such a name would be appropriate for a man who served as Piso’s house philosopher.17 Frank also argues that Catullus’ poem 13, a dinner invitation to his friend Fabullus, may have been modeled on Philodemus’ dinner-invitation poem to Piso, which has been preserved in the Greek Anthology (AP 11.44 = Sider 27).18 But if Catullus admired Philodemus’ poetry so much that he

14 Friedrich (1908) 228: “Wir haben nach dem Wortlaut unseres Gedichtes keinen Grund, uns

den Socration anders vorzustellen als den Philodemus von Gadara, der auch bei Piso in Macedonien war . . ..”

15 Nisbet (1961) 183. 16 Frank (1928) 82 and 282 n. 26. 17 Later commentators have interpreted Socration to mean “Little Socrates,” rather than

“Pseudo-Socrates,” but the general point is the same, namely that any Greek philosopher in this period could be reasonably compared to Socrates. For the argument that this was in fact the case, see Sider (1987) 322; for a rebuttal, see pp. 398–400 below.

18 Frank (1928) 29 and 83. Frank’s argument has been accepted by Tait (1941) 43–4; Marcovich (1982); and Dettmer (1989) 78–9. For Philodemus’ poem, see Sider (1997) 152–60.


used one of Philodemus’ poems as a model for one of his own, he would have been unlikely to disparage him as Piso’s thief and parasite as he disparages Socration in poem 47.19 Furthermore, since Catullus and Philodemus were contemporaries, Philodemus’ poem might just as easily have been modeled on Catullus’.20 The most likely scenario, however, is that both Catullus’ and Philodemus’ dinner-invitation poems derive from Hellenistic models.21 Frank’s point that the name Socration might be an appropriate nickname for Piso’s house philosopher does makes some sense, however, and it will be discussed below. But before moving on to examine the specific arguments made by those who argue for the identification of Socration with Philodemus, I would like to make two methodological points.

The first point is that Friedrich’s assumptions and Frank’s arguments have provided the basis for all subsequent claims that Socration is a pseudonym for Philodemus. For more than one hundred years, the same arguments have been repeated, sometimes with slight variations and sometimes with references to previous scholars, but always with the same basic plot-line: Philodemus accompanied his patron, Piso Caesoninus, to Macedonia as his house poet and philosopher. As a member of Piso’s household, Philodemus was known by the “fine coterie nickname” of Socration.22 In Macedonia, Philodemus became acquainted with Catullus’ friends, Veranius and Fabullus, who also served on Piso’s staff; Veranius and Fabullus, in turn, introduced Philodemus to Catullus.23 Catullus read Philodemus’ poems and admired them for their “precision and delicacy,”24 but despite his admiration for Philodemus’ poetry, he disapproved of Piso’s preference for Philodemus over his friends Veranius and Fabullus, and he wrote poem 47 to complain about this unfair treatment.25 This, in essence, is the scenario that explains how Catullus came into contact with Philodemus, and the identification stands or falls on its validity.

The second point I would like to make is that the identification of Socration with Philodemus is an outgrowth of the now-discarded “biographical approach”

19 For a more detailed discussion of these issues, see pp. 396–7 below. 20 As noted by Neudling (1955) 140 and Sider (1997) 153. 21 See Nisbet and Hubbard (1970) 244–5, who note that Horace’s Odes 1.20 and Epistles 1.5 also

belong to this genre. Edmunds (1982) argues that Philodemus’, Catullus’ and Horace’s dinner-invitation poems reflect “Roman social convention” rather than a literary model.

22 Thomas (1994) 148. 23 Dettmer (1989) 77–8. 24 Frank (1928) 83–4. 25 Neudling (1955) 140.


to Catullus’ poetry.26 While some aspects of this approach go back to the late seventeenth century, the Catullroman had its formal beginnings with Schwabe’s Quaestiones Catullianae.27 Inspired both by romanticism and by the systematizing approach to classical philology that arose in Germany during this period, Schwabe identified Catullus’ Lesbia with Clodia Metelli and he identified the Caelius in Catullus’ poems with the Caelius Rufus of Cicero’s pro Caelio. He then combined the references to Clodia and Caelius in Cicero’s pro Caelio with inferences drawn from Catullus’ poems to construct a detailed biography of the poet. Although Schwabe’s biography was largely invented, it had, as Wiseman notes, “the great advantage of offering a coherent and dramatic story of love and jealousy.”28 Schwabe also arranged Catullus’ poems in order (following the story of his life), and assigned specific dates to them.29 The biographical approach to Catullus quickly became popular, and for many years it remained the standard interpretation.30 Although it was criticized as early as the 1950s, it dominated Catullan scholarship until the 1980s,31 and remains influential even today.32

As early as 1954, however, Levens pointed out that significant differences in various scholars’ versions of Catullus’ life revealed “the large part played by fancy in this game of reconstruction.”33 Levens also argues that these imaginative biographies were based on circular reasoning: scholars treat the identification of Lesbia with Clodia and Caelius with Caelius Rufus as established facts and then use those “facts” to date the poems, even though there is no external evidence to

26 For helpful discussions of the biographical approach (sometimes called the Catullroman), see

Wiseman (1985) 213–25; Skinner (2003) xix-xxii and (2007) 1–3, and Gaisser (2009) 201–3 and 212–5.

27 Schwabe (1862). 28 Wiseman (1985) 217. For the two intellectual influences on the Catullroman, see Wiseman

(1985) 213–7. On the concept of Altertumswissenschaft and its role in revolutionizing classical philology in this period, see Lloyd-Jones (1982).

29 Skinner (2007) 1–2 and Gaisser (2009) 212–3 provide summaries of Schwabe’s “biography” of Catullus.

30 Skinner (2003) xix–xx. A good example is Maas (1942), which assumes the biographical approach as the basis for discussion.

31 Skinner (2007) 1. 32 For a discussion of some of the scholars who continue to follow this approach (in whole or in

part), see Gaisser (2009) 212–5 and 220 nn. 60 and 61. 33 Levens (1954) 289; reprinted without change as Levens (1968).


support the identifications.34 And Levens names Friedrich and Frank as being among those scholars who make the greatest use of the biographical approach.35

My point here is not to discredit the biographical approach to Catullan scholarship; that has been done long ago. I am arguing that the identification of Catullus’ character Socration with the poet and philosopher Philodemus developed as part of the biographical approach and shares in its circular reasoning. Commentators use the “fact” that Philodemus knew Catullus’ friends Veranius and Fabullus in Macedonia to argue that they must have given him the nickname, Socration.36 But this “fact” is nothing more than an inference from the questionable assumptions that the Piso of poems 28 and 47 must be Piso Caesoninus and that Philodemus must have accompanied his patron to Macedonia. Scholars who have rightly rejected the biographical approach to Catullus’ poetry should be wary of uncritically accepting the identification of Socration with Philodemus.

But just as we should not uncritically accept this identification, so too we should not uncritically reject it. Even if the arguments used to support it rest on shaky foundations, we should examine them on their merits. In the next section I present the four main arguments in favor of identifying Socration with Philodemus, and assess the evidence for each one. The first three arguments form a coherent whole: that the Piso of Catullus’ poems 28 and 47 is Piso Caesoninus (and that Catullus became acquainted with Philodemus through his friends, Veranius and Fabullus who served on Piso’s staff in Macedonia); that “Socration” is not a real name, but rather a nickname for Philodemus meaning “Little Socrates” or “Pseudo-Socrates”; and that the name of Socration’s partner, Porcius (meaning “Piggy” or “Glutton”), is also the nickname of a real person. The final argument focuses on the name of Philodemus’ wife, Xanthippe; it assumes the validity of the first three arguments, but maintains that Philodemus might have chosen the nickname Socration for himself. Which Piso?

As noted above, the theory that Socration is a pseudonym for Philodemus rests on the assumption that the Piso on whose staff Veranius and Fabullus served

34 Levens (1954) 289–91. 35 Levens (1954) calls Friedrich’s commentary “an eccentric work, inspired by a romantic

temperament,” that is “best used in conjunction with others,” (286); and, of the four examples he gives of the biographical approach, two are taken from Frank’s Catullus and Horace (289–90).

36 Dettmer (1989) 78.


(and about whom Catullus complains in poems 28 and 47), was Piso Caesoninus. But this assumption is by no means as certain as is sometimes supposed. There is no controversy about the dates of Veranius’ and Fabullus’ service under Piso because it coincides with Catullus’ service on C. Memmius’ staff in Bithynia. C. Memmius is known to have served as praetor in 58 BC.37 Since Catullus refers in poem 28.7–9 to his service under Memmius as (pro)-praetor, and since he also mentions his service on a governor’s staff in Bithynia (10.6–13; cf. 31 and 46), we can safely conclude that Catullus served on C. Memmius’ staff in Bithynia in 57–56 BC.38 In poem 28 Catullus represents his service abroad with Memmius as more or less concurrent with Veranius and Fabullus’ service under Piso. Although Catullus seems to have already returned home while Veranius and Fabullus are still abroad, their tour of duty seems to be nearing its end, and the two trips seem to have taken place at about the same time, i.e. during 57–56.39 So far, there is general agreement. The consensus breaks down, however, when we ask who this Piso was and what province he governed.

Since poems 9 and 12 place Veranius and Fabullus in Spain (specifically, Hispania Citerior), and since there is no indication in Catullus’ work that Veranius and Fabullus made more than one foreign trip together, the natural inference is that poems 28 and 47 also refer to Nearer Spain, and that the two men served there on the staff of a man named Piso. Although the governor of Hispania Citerior for 57 is unknown,40 there were many men named Piso, and there is no reason why the governor of Hispania Citerior in 57 could not have been one of them.41 Two members of that clan have in fact been suggested as possibilities. Maas proposes that M. Pupius Piso, who governed Spain in 70/69

37 Broughton (1952) 203. 38 Thomson (1997) 5; cf. Syme (1957) 129; Quinn (1973) 123; Wiseman (1979) 162. 39 Schmidt (1887) 48–9; Syme (1957) 129; Fordyce (1973) 113; Quinn (1973) 172;

Thomson (1997) 275. 40 Maas (1942) 80 n. 2; Syme (1957) 131; Fordyce (1973) 113; cf. Broughton (1952) 202–4. 41 As Schmidt (1887) 49 notes: “ . . . cum non omnes certe Pisones nobis in notitiam venerint, quidni

aliquem de ea familia illam provinciam eo quem diximus anno rexisse e Catullo concludamus?” (Since all of the Pisos have certainly not come to our acquaintance, why should we not conclude from Catullus that someone from this family governed that province in the year that we have mentioned?)


and held a consulship in 61, might have governed Hispania Citerior in 57/56, 42 while Wiseman suggests L. Piso Frugi, the elder brother of Cicero’s son-in-law.43

There is, however, a prominent Piso who is known to have governed a province during that year. L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus was proconsul of Macedonia from 57–55, and many scholars assume that he must be the Piso of poems 28 and 47. The problem with identifying Catullus’ Piso with Piso Caesoninus is that Catullus says nothing about Veranius and Fabullus traveling to Macedonia; he mentions only that they went to Spain. It has been suggested that Veranius and Fabullus might have taken two foreign trips together: an earlier trip to Spain (alluded to in poems 9 and 12) and a second trip in 57 BC to Macedonia with Piso Caesoninus (who could then be identified as the Piso of poems 28 and 47). While such a scenario is certainly possible, there is no evidence to support it; there is not the slightest hint in any of Catullus’ poems that Veranius and Fabullus made more than one trip abroad in one another’s company. Syme, one of the strongest proponents of the view that Veranius and Fabullus made two trips abroad, can argue only that it is distasteful to countenance an unknown Piso as governor of Spain:44

What shall be the solution? Two voyages abroad [for Veranius and Fabullus] or only one? If one, a Piso will have to be conjured up, a proconsul governing Hispania Citerior in 57/6 BC, about the time when Catullus himself was in Bithynia with Memmius (and L. Piso in Macedonia). Which can hardly be done. Therefore, two voyages, the earlier to Spain.

Syme’s position is, essentially, that Catullus’ Piso must be Piso Caesoninus because he is the only Piso we know of who governed a province in that year. Although this argument could hardly be called a strong one, many scholars follow Syme in assuming that Veranius and Fabullus did take two foreign trips together, and that the Piso of poems 28 and 47 can therefore be identified with Piso Caesoninus.45

42 Maas (1942) 80 and n. 2; see also Broughton (1952) 133. 43 Wiseman (1969) 38–40; cf. Wiseman (1979) 163 and (1985) 2. The identification of

Catullus’ Piso with L. Piso Frugi has been accepted by Lintott (1993) 51; see also Garrison (2004) 172.

44 Syme (1957) 132. 45 Scholars who accept the premise that Catullus’ Piso is Piso Caesoninus include Neudling

(1955) 42–3; Fordyce (1973) 113; Nisbet (1961) 181–2; Quinn (1973) 172; Skinner (1979)


As noted above, the contention that Socration is a pseudonym for Philodemus depends upon the assumption that Veranius’ and Fabullus’ Piso was Piso Caesoninus. And while it is possible that Veranius and Fabullus served in Macedonia with Piso Caesoninus, since there is absolutely no evidence suggesting that they did, it seems best not to build an elaborate theory on this assumption. As Levens argues with regard to the identification of Catullus’ Lesbia with Clodia Metelli (“This hypothesis is . . . by no means so firmly established as to be capable of supporting a superstructure of inference”),46 so I would argue concerning the identification of the Piso in poems 28 and 47 with Piso Caesoninus: given the lack of supporting evidence, we should not use it to establish the identity of other Catullan characters. Socration: Real Name or Nickname?

In addition to claiming that Veranius and Fabullus served with Piso Caesoninus in Macedonia, those who believe that Socration is a nickname for Philodemus must also argue that the name itself, “Socration,” is a nickname, rather than a real name. If Socration existed as an actual name, Catullus would probably not have used it as a pseudonym. As several scholars have noted, Galen mentions a physician named Σωκρατίων (12.835 Kühn) and the name appears in the Latinized form, “Socratio,” in two 2nd century AD inscriptions from Dacia.47 Although “Socratio” (rather than “Socration”) would be the most common Latinized form of the name, the final “n” is occasionally retained when a Greek name is converted into Latin (e.g. Arion, Deucalion, Orion, etc.). Thus, the Latin form “Socration” would be a possible name, although it is not actually attested.48 Others argue, however, that the name Socration is a Latin transliteration, not of Σωκρατίων, but rather of Σωκράτιον, which would be a possible diminutive of Σωκράτης.49 These scholars claim that such a diminutive, meaning “Little

137 and n. 3; Dettmer (1985) 577 and (1989) 82–3 and n. 26; Syndikus (1984) 243 n. 2; Frischer (1991) 57 and n. 19; Pedrick (1993) 181 and n. 50; Thomas (1994) 147–8 and n. 1; Fitzgerald (1995) 266 n. 27; Sider (1997) 23–4 and n. 37; Thomson (1997) 276 and 320; Nappa (2001) 94 and n. 15; Skinner (2003) 196–7 n. 51; Cairns (2003) 179–80; Konstan (2007) 81; and Tatum (2007) 345.

46 Levens (1954) 291. 47 Mommsen (1873) 948; for analysis, see Nisbet (1961) 182; Fordyce (1973) 211; and Ellis

(1988) 166. 48 Nisbet (1961) 182; see Neue-Wagner (1902) 1.246–60, especially 249–53 for examples and

citations. 49 Sider (1997) 23–4 and (2005) vi, 6 and 93.


Socrates,” would be an appropriate pseudonym for a philosopher. But while such a diminutive is certainly possible, it is not actually attested in either Greek or Latin.50 Thus, while the name Socration does seem to evoke the philosopher, Socrates, the question as to whether it is more likely to be a real Latin name or a nickname has not been settled. Both uses are possible but unattested. Porcius: Real name, Nickname, or Character Type?

Because the status of the name Socration is so unclear, some have turned to Porcius, the character with whom Socration is paired in poem 47, to see whether his name can shed light on the name of his partner. Since Porcius is the name of a prominent Roman clan, some scholars argue that Socration is likely to be a real name as well.51 But the fact that no one has been able to satisfactorily identify Catullus’ Porcius with any known member of the clan weakens the argument that both Porcius and Socration are real names.52

Thomas, however, argues that both Porcius and Socration are not real names, but pseudonyms. Noting that Catullus had a penchant for witty nicknames, Thomas proposes that Porcius might be a pseudonym meaning “Piggy” or “Glutton.”53 Thomas cites, as an example of such a pseudonym, Horace’s Satires 2.8.23–4, in which a dinner guest named Porcius makes himself a laughingstock by gobbling up entire cakes at a single gulp.54 As Thomas notes, Horace seems to introduce this character “purely . . . for the sake of a joke on his name.”55 And, since Epicureans were frequently compared to pigs, the pseudonym “Piggy” would be particularly appropriate in an Epicurean context. 56 But Thomas’ suggestion is also problematic. First of all, the argument that Epicureans are often compared to pigs is circular, since there is no reason to assume an Epicurean context for the poem unless it has already been established that Socration was a pseudonym for Philodemus. Furthermore, a study of Horace’s use of names in

50 Nisbet (1961) 182. At Clouds 222 Aristophanes uses Σωκρατίδιον, not Σωκράτιον as a

diminutive of Σωκράτης. 51 Nisbet (1961) 182 and Fordyce (1973) 211. 52 For an innovative attempt to identify this Porcius, see Neudling (1955) 147–8, rightly rejected

by Nisbet (1961) 182; for the rejection of other possible Porcii, see Fordyce (1973) 211. 53 Thomas (1994) 148–9. 54 Horace Satires 2.8.23–4: Porcius . . . ridiculus totas semel absorbere placentas. 55 Thomas (1994) 149. 56 Thomas (1994) 151–2. Other scholars who support the identification of Socration with

Philodemus because Porcius would be appropriate in an Epicurean context include Tait (1941) 12; Nisbet (1961) 98; Dettmer (1985) 577; Sider (1997) 16–17; Sider (2005) 4 and 100 n. 4.


the Satires suggests that the Porcius in Horace’s Satires 2.8 is much more likely to be a character type than a pseudonym for an actual person.

Rudd argues persuasively that the meaningful names of several minor characters in Horace’s Satires refer to character types, rather than real people.57 Rudd suggests that Horace’s character Porcius “belongs to this group,” because he is an unknown character with no distinguishing characteristics aside from his gluttony. Rudd points out that “the aptness of name to context is too good to be true ... He is projected by his situation and we see him just long enough to catch his party piece, which was to polish off a whole cake in a single mouthful.”58 Rudd’s characterization of Horace’s Porcius also applies to Catullus’ Porcius and Socration. They too are minor characters “projected by their situation;” the fact that they are common thieves who have usurped the place that rightfully belongs to Catullus’ friends is all we need to know about them. Of course, there are many fictitious characters with meaningful or speaking names (redende Namen) in Roman comedy. In Terence’s Eunuchus, for example, the parasite is named Gnatho (Jaw), the soldier is named Thraso (Bold), and the Nurse is named Sophrona (Wise Woman). Thraso’s “army” of slaves includes characters such as Donax (Shaking Reed), Simalio (Little Snub Nose), and Sannio (Buffoon).59 Characters with redende Namen are even more common in Plautus. To what extent such names have been taken from Greek originals or whether they were coined by Plautus himself is disputed,60 but the practice of using type names for comic characters would have been familiar to both Catullus and Horace.

Richlin argues specifically that those targets of Catullus’ invective who appear only once in the Catullan corpus and who have redende Namen that define their personalities probably represent “types or effigies rather than victims with individual personalities.”61 Of course, Catullus is known for using the witty nicknames, Lesbia and Mentula, to refer to specific individuals. But both of these characters appear in several poems; they have well-defined characters (their personalities are not summed up in a single characteristic), and most

57 Rudd (1966) 143–4. 58 Rudd (1966) 143; cf. 145. Rudd also points out (149) that Martial acknowledges his own use

of a type character: nomen Athenagorae quaeris, Callistrate, verum,/si scio, dispeream, qui sit Athenagoras (You ask for Athenagoras’ real name, Callistratus, / may I die if I know who Athenagoras is, 9.95b).

59 Terence, Eunuchus 771–81. See Austin (1922) 122–3. 60 See Duckworth (1994) 347–50 for a discussion of this issue. For speaking names in

Aristophanes, see Kanavou (2011). 61 Richlin (1992) 152–3.


importantly, Catullus provides us with keys to their identities.62 Richlin argues that those characters with meaningful names who appear only once and whose personalities are completely defined by their names belong to a different class, and that they are character types, rather than real individuals.63

Although Richlin does not specifically mention Porcius and Socration in her list of likely character types, they fit her description perfectly: they appear only once in Catullan invective, and their names define them completely. Porcius and Socration are described in poem 47 as greedy thieves who have been preferred to Catullus’ friends, Veranius and Fabullus, because they are useful to Piso in helping him steal from his province.64 The name Porcius (Piggy) probably refers (as it does in Horace’s Satires) to a particularly voracious glutton, and Socration (Little Socrates) suggests a loquacious and pretentious Greek parasite. The character type of a parasitical philosopher fits well in the context of a sumptuous daytime banquet.65 Thus, Porcius and Socration in Catullus’ poem 47 may well be character types “constructed imaginatively on the basis of a group,” as Rudd describes some of the meaningfully named characters in Horace’s Satires.66

So far, the main arguments for the identification of Socration with the poet and Epicurean philosopher, Philodemus, have been found to be implausible. While it is just possible that the Piso of Catullus’ poems 28 and 47 may refer to Piso Caesoninus, there is no evidence—either inside the poems or out of them—to suggest that it does. In fact, the evidence in Catullus’ poems suggests that Veranius and Fabullus served abroad in Hispania Citerior (not Macedonia) under a Piso whose identity we do not know. And while Porcius and Socration may be unflattering nicknames for real people, they are more likely to be made-up names (redende Namen) for fictitious character types (like other character types with meaningful names in Catullan invective), whose purpose is to provide a recognizable token of their characters’ one-dimensional personalities.

62 For the identifications, see Thomson (1997) 280 and Wiseman (1969) 50–60 and (1985)

130–6 among many others. Julius Caesar is addressed as imperator unice at 29.11 (Quinn [1973] 174; Fordyce [1973] 162), which provides the key to the identity of the unice imperator in poem 54 (Thomson [1997] 335).

63 Richlin (1992) 152–3: “if these were real people against whom Catullus was expressing his hate, they are unidentifiable. “

64 The characterization of Piso and Socration in line 1 as “two left hands” labels them as master thieves; see Fordyce (1973) 211; Wiseman (1982) 40; and Skinner (1979) 140–1.

65 I owe this point to one of the readers for the journal. 66 Rudd (1966) 148; his discussion of the names in Horace’s Satires is instructive (132–59).


Xanthippe I now turn to a final argument for the identification of Socration with

Philodemus that has been made by Sider. Sider has demonstrated that eight of Philodemus’ epigrams (1–8 Sider) are addressed to a woman named Xanthippe who seems to have had a loving, long-term and even philosophical relationship with the poet. Philodemus and Xanthippe may well have been married.67 Since Xanthippe was famously the name of Socrates’ wife, Sider argues that Philodemus might have used that name as a pseudonym for his own wife in order to compare himself to that famous Athenian philosopher; Philodemus might then have given himself the nickname Socration in order to complete the picture. On this view, Catullus simply used the nickname, Socration, that Philodemus had already given to himself.68 But while Sider’s discovery of a Xanthippe cycle among Philodemus’ epigrams is an important achievement, his further claim that Philodemus might have used the nicknames Xanthippe and Socration to compare his wife to Socrates’ wife, and himself to Socrates, is simply not plausible.

First of all, Epicurean philosophers were notorious for their hatred of Socrates. Sider acknowledges that the Epicurean philosophers were highly critical of Socrates, but argues that Philodemus was “more disposed [than other Epicureans] to a favorable consideration of Sokrates.”69 Sider also cites Cicero’s comment in the de Oratore that, although the contemporary philosophical schools differed greatly from one another, “all the philosophers wish to be called Socratics and think of themselves as such” (cum tamen omnes se philosophi Socraticos et dici vellent et esse arbitrarentur, de Oratore 3.61). Thus, Sider concludes, by the late Republic, “if Cicero is to be trusted, Socrates was regarded as a model for philosophers of all persuasions.”70 But Cicero’s statement is not trustworthy. Long has shown that while the Stoics and Academics did see themselves as followers of Socrates (albeit in different ways), and were eager to promote themselves as Socratics (just as Cicero claims), the Epicureans very definitely did not. In extant Epicurean writings—including those of Philodemus—“Socrates was portrayed as the complete anti-Epicurean—a sophist, a rhetorician, a sceptic and someone whose ethical inquiries turn human life into chaos.”71 The

67 Sider (1987) and (1997) 34–8 and 62–94. 68 Sider (1987) 321–3 and (1997) 36–7. Sider’s view is endorsed by Cairns (2003) 181–2. 69 Sider (1997) 36–7. 70 Sider (1987) 322. 71 Long (1988) 155–6.


Epicureans’ disapproval of Socrates was consistent and profound; they rejected his philosophy, his personality, even his way of life. Much of this criticism can be found in the works of Philodemus.

The Epicureans viewed Socrates as an extreme sceptic who rejected the validity of his senses, his experience, and even his thought. Since the Epicureans based all knowledge of the world on sense perceptions and experience (i.e., the memory of previous sense perceptions), their hostility toward Socrates was rooted in a fundamental philosophical disagreement.72 The Epicureans also complained that while Socrates claimed to reject the evidence of the senses, he lived as if the world around him were real. For this reason they charged Socrates with being a hypocrite and a sophist.73 Philodemus expresses many of these criticisms in his work, On Household Management (περὶ οἰκονομίας), extensive fragments of which have been preserved.74 In this work, Philodemus criticizes Socrates for not trusting his own experience, for being evasive, and for contradicting himself; Philodemus also accuses Socrates of disregarding obvious facts and pretending to know nothing while passing off his own opinions as if they belonged to others.75 In the sphere of religion, the Epicureans objected to Socrates’ daimonion because they maintained that the gods are completely unconcerned with human affairs. Philodemus notes in On Piety (περὶ εὐσεβείας) that it was Socrates’ boasts about his daimonion that led to his being charged with impiety and ultimately, put to death.76

The Epicureans also disapproved of Socrates as a person, focusing their criticism on his famous irony. Philodemus brilliantly expresses such criticism in his work, On Vices (περὶ κακιῶν), in which he ridicules Socrates for claiming to know nothing and for lavishly praising others’ wisdom, status, and good looks while (insincerely) deprecating his own. Philodemus also accuses Socrates of mocking and thus mistreating his interlocutors.77

The Epicureans also disapproved of the way that Socrates behaved toward his students. The Epicureans believed that a wise man had an obligation to share his knowledge with his students in order to save them from irrational fears (such as

72 Kleve (1983) 231; on the Epicurean sources of knowledge about the world, see Rist (1972)

15–30. 73 Riley (1980) 58; Kleve (1983) 234. 74 Jensen (1906). Selections are cited and translated by Kleve (1983) 238–41. 75 See also Tsouna (2007) 171. 76 Kleve (1983) 242–3; Rist (1972) 146–9. 77 Kleve (1983) 246–7.


the fear of death) and senseless desires (i.e. desires for sensual pleasures that are inextricably mixed with pain). This basic Epicurean principle clashed with Socrates’ scepticism, his disavowal of knowledge, and his “efforts to make his hearers think for themselves.”78 In an intriguing work, On Frank Criticism (περὶ παρρησίας) Philodemus praises the wise man as someone who can guide his students away from the path of error by gently but firmly pointing out their shortcomings. Philodemus states that sages should also criticize one another, and be “willing to exchange truths without restraint.” Thus, for Philodemus, the use of frank speaking (παρρησία) “is a manifestation of concern and true friendship,” while concealing one’s true thoughts (as Socrates does) “is the most unfriendly of acts.”79 Since the Epicureans saw friendship as a key element in a good and pleasant life, Socrates’ alleged unfriendliness toward his students was a serious failing.80 In view of Philodemus’ consistent animosity toward Socrates, and his harsh judgment of Socrates’ philosophical views, it is difficult to believe that Philodemus would have chosen to identify himself with the Athenian philosopher.

Nor was Philodemus likely to have identified his own wife with Socrates’ wife, who seems to have had an extraordinarily unpleasant personality.81 Sider points out that Xanthippe is not portrayed as a shrew in Plato’s Phaedo, but rather as “a woman who cared deeply for Socrates and respected his relationship to his friends.”82 But what is most striking about the Phaedo passage is the coldness and disdain with which Socrates treats Xanthippe. On the morning of Socrates’ last day, Phaedo and a few of Socrates’ friends enter his prison cell and find the philosopher sitting with his wife and son. When Xanthippe cries out and expresses her sorrow that Socrates will never speak with his friends again, Socrates does not even look at her; glancing at Crito, he remarks: “Crito, have someone lead her home” (Phd. 60a). Plato shows us a Socrates who is completely unmoved by the fact that he will never see his wife again.

Because Xanthippe and Socrates did not have an affectionate relationship, Philodemus would have been unlikely to have given the nickname, Xanthippe, to a woman with whom he was clearly very much in love (epigrams 1–8 Sider). The simplest and most likely explanation for Philodemus’ use of the name Xanthippe

78 Riley (1980) 56; on Epicurean attitudes toward pleasure see Rist (1972) 100–26. 79 Riley (1980) 65–6. See also Konstan et al. (1998) 23–4. 80 On the importance of friendship to the Epicureans see Rist (1972) 127–39. 81 See Xen. Mem. 2.2.7–8 and 2.10. For a discussion of these passages see Walcott (1996) 116–7. 82 Sider (1997) 37 n. 43.


is that it was the woman’s real name.83 Furthermore, since Philodemus shared the Epicureans’ hatred of Socrates and everything he stood for, he would have been unlikely to identify himself with the object of his hatred by giving himself the nickname Socration.

Conclusion

Although it is impossible to prove that Socration is not Philodemus, I would argue that there is no need to do so. Since our evidence from the ancient world is so limited, it is more appropriate to ask whether Socration is likely to be a nickname for Philodemus. And the answer must be that it is extremely unlikely. There is no reason to believe that Catullus’ friends, Veranius and Fabullus, served with Piso Caesoninus in Macedonia, and, even if they did, there is no evidence that Philodemus accompanied his patron to that province. Furthermore, the redende Namen, Porcius and Socration, are more likely to be made-up names for fictitious characters than nicknames for particular individuals. I have also argued that the motivation for identifying Socration with Philodemus is rooted in an outdated approach to Catullan criticism. Since scholars have rightly rejected the biographical approach to Catullus’ poems, it is time for us to stop constructing elaborate theories about Socration and Philodemus, and focus our attention on the more intrinsic qualities of poem 47. Recent trends in Catullan scholarship have highlighted the social and political commentary inherent in some of Catullus’ poems.84 Our understanding of poem 47 could benefit from this type of analysis. When read in conjunction with poem 28, with which it has close verbal and thematic connections, poem 47 raises serious questions about the proper governance of Roman provinces (is it simply a matter of stealing from one’s province, or should there be something more?), the appropriate relationship between a governor and his staff (why does the self-serving Piso promote lowlife thieves and foreign toadies at the expense of upstanding Romans?), and the complex web of personal and political relationships essential to Roman society (what are the social consequences if amici ignore their traditional obligations to

83 The fact that Philodemus also refers to her as Xantho and Xantharion (epigrams 3 and 7)

points to a similar conclusion, since it would be extremely unusual (if not unprecedented) for an ancient poet to construct a second nickname for a person based upon a previous nickname.

84 See, for example, Konstan (1977), (2000), and (2007); Skinner (1979), (1991), and (2003); Wiseman (1982), (1985) and (1987); Tatum (1988), (1993), (1997) and (2007); Krostenko (2001); Nappa (2001); Wray (2001); McNeill (2010); and Shapiro (2012).


one another?). I hope that conjectures about Socration’s identity will no longer distract us from pursuing such questions.

SUSAN O. SHAPIRO Utah State University, [email protected]

WORKS CITED

Armstrong, David. 2004. “Introduction.” In Vergil, Philodemus, and the Augustans, edited by David Armstrong, Jeffrey Fish, Patricia A. Johnston, and Marilyn B. Skinner, pp. 1–22. Austin, TX.

Austin, James Curtiss. 1922. The Significant Name in Terence. Urbana, IL. University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature VII.4.

Badian, Ernst. 1996. “Calpurnius Piso (RE 90) Caesoninus, Lucius.” In The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd edition, edited by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth, p. 281. Oxford.

Bloch, Herbert. 1940. “L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus in Samothrace and Herculaneum.” AJA 44: 485–93.

Broughton, T. Robert S. 1952. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. Volume II: 99 BC–31 BC. New York.

Cairns, Francis. 2003. “Catullus in and about Bithynia: Poems 68, 10, 28 and 47.” In Myth, History and Culture in Republican Rome: Studies in honour of T. P. Wiseman, edited by David Braund and Christopher Gill, pp. 165–90. Exeter.

Champlain, Edward. 1989. “The Life and Times of Calpurnius Piso.” MH 46: 101–24. Corbeill, Anthony. 2002. “Ciceronian Invective.” In Brill’s Companion to Cicero: Oratory

and Rhetoric, edited by James M. May, pp. 197–217. Leiden. Craig, Christopher P. 2004. “Audience Expectations, Invective, and Proof.” In Cicero the

Advocate, edited by J. Powell and J. Paterson, pp. 187–213. Oxford. ——. 2010. “Means and ends of indignatio in Cicero’s Pro Roscio Amerino.” In Form and

Function in Roman Oratory, edited by D. H. Berry and Andrew Erskine, pp. 75-91. Cambridge.

DeLacy, Phillip. 1941. “Cicero’s Invective against Piso.” TAPA 72: 49–58. Dettmer, Helena. 1985. “A Note on Catullus 47.” CW 78: 577–9. ——. 1989. “Catullus 13: A nose is a nose is a nose.” SyllClass 1: 75–85. Duckworth, George E. 1994. The Nature of Roman Comedy. 2nd edition. Norman, OK.

Original publication 1952. Edmunds, Lowell. 1982. “The Latin Invitation-Poem: What is it? Where did it come

from?” AJP 103: 184–8. Ellis, Robinson. 1988. A Commentary on Catullus. Hildesheim, Germany. Original

publication 1889.


Fitzgerald, William. 1995. Catullan Provocations: Lyric Poetry and the Drama of Position. Berkeley, CA.

Fordyce, C. J. 1973. Catullus: A Commentary. Oxford. Original publication 1961. Frank, Tenney. 1928. Catullus and Horace: Two Poets in Their Environment. New York. Friedrich, Gustav. 1908. Catulli Veronensis Liber. Leipzig. Frischer, Bernard. 1991. Shifting Paradigms: New Approaches to Horace’s Ars Poetica.

Atlanta, GA. Gaisser, Julia Haig. 2009. Catullus. West Sussex. Garrison, Daniel H. 2004. The Student’s Catullus. 3rd edition. Norman, OK. Gigante, Marcello. 1995. Philodemus in Italy: The Books from Herculaneum. Translated by

D. Obbink. Ann Arbor, MI. Jensen, C. ed. 1906. Philodemi περὶ οἰκονομίας qui dicitur libellus. Leipzig. Kanavou, Nikoletta. 2011. Aristophanes’ Comedy of Names: A Study of Speaking Names in

Aristophanes. Berlin. Kleve, Knut. 1983. “Scurra Atticus: The Epicurean View of Socrates.” In Συζήτησις: Studi

sull’ epicureismo greco e romano offerti a Marcello Gigante, edited by G. Macchiaroli, 2 vols, pp. 1.227–53. Naples.

Konstan, David. 1977. Catullus’ Indictment of Rome: The Meaning of Catullus 64. Amsterdam.

——. 2000. “Self, Sex and Empire in Catullus: the Construction of a Decentered Identity.” In Intertextualidad en las Literaturas Griega y Latina, edited by V. Bécares, F. Pordomingo, R. Cortés Tovar, J. C. Fernández Corte, pp. 213–31. Madrid.

——. 2007. “The Contemporary Political Context.” In A Companion to Catullus, edited by Marilyn B. Skinner, pp. 72–91. Malden, MA.

Konstan, David, Diskin Clay, Clarence E. Glad, Johan C. Thom, and James Ware, eds. 1998. Philodemus: On Frank Criticism. Atlanta, GA.

Krostenko, Brian A. 2001. Cicero, Catullus, and the Language of Social Performance. Chicago.

Levens, R. G. C. 1954. “Catullus.” In Fifty Years of Classical Scholarship, edited by Maurice Platnauer, pp. 284–305. Oxford.

——. 1968. “Catullus.” In Fifty Years (and Twelve) of Classical Scholarship, edited by Maurice Platnauer, pp. 357–78. New York.

Lintott, Andrew W. 1993. Imperium Romanum: Politics and Administration. London. ——. 2008. Cicero as Evidence: A Historian’s Companion. Oxford. Lloyd-Jones, Hugh. 1982.”Introduction.” In Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von. History of

Classical Scholarship. Trans. Alan Harris. Edited, with an Introduction and Notes by Hugh Lloyd-Jones, pp. v-xxxii. Baltimore, MD.

Long, Anthony A. 1988. “Socrates in Hellenistic Philosophy.” CQ 38: 150–71. Maas, Paul. 1942. “The Chronology of the Poems of Catullus.” CQ 36: 79–82. Marcovich, Miroslav. 1982. “Catullus 13 and Philodemus 23.” QUCC 40: 131–38.


May, James M. 1988. Trials of Character: The Eloquence of Ciceronian Ethos. Chapel Hill, NC.

——. 1996. “Cicero and the Beasts.” SyllClass 7: 143–53. McNeill, Randall L. B. 2010. “Cum Tacent, Clamant: the Pragmatics of Silence in

Catullus.” CP 105: 69-82. Minyard, J. D. 1985. Lucretius and the Late Republic. Leiden. Mommsen, Theodore, ed. 1873. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. vol. 3, part 2. Berlin. Münzer, F. 1897. RE III s.v. Calpurnius 90. Stuttgart. Cols. 1387–1390. Nappa, Christopher. 2001. Aspects of Catullus’ Social Fiction. Frankfurt. Neudling, Chester Louis. 1955. A Prosopography to Catullus. Iowa Studies in Classical

Philology, no. 12. Oxford. Neue, F. and Wagner, C. 1902. Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. Erster Band: Das

Substantivum. Leipzig. Nisbet, R.G.M. 1961. M. Tulli Ciceronis in L. Calpurnium Pisonem Oratio. Edited with Text,

Introduction, and Commentary. Oxford. Nisbet, R. G. M. and Margaret Hubbard, eds. 1970. A Commentary on Horace: Odes, Book

1. Oxford. Pedrick, Victoria. 1993. “The Abusive Address and the Audience in Catullan Poems.”

Helios 20: 173–96. Quinn, Kenneth. 1973. Catullus: The Poems. 2nd edition. New York. Richlin, Amy. 1992. The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor.

Revised edition. New York. Original publication 1983. Riggsby, Andrew M. 2010. “Form as global strategy in Cicero’s Second Catilinarian.” In

Form and Function in Roman Oratory, edited by D. H. Berry and Andrew Erskine, pp. 92-104. Cambridge

Riley, Mark T. 1980. “The Epicurean Criticism of Socrates.” Phoenix 34: 55–68. Rist, J. M. 1972. Epicurus: An Introduction. Cambridge. Rudd, Niall. 1966. The Satires of Horace. Cambridge. Schmidt, Bernhardus, ed. 1887. C. Valeri Catulli Veronensis Carmina. Leipzig. Schwabe, Ludwig. 1862. Quaestiones Catullianae. Giessen, Germany. Shapiro, Susan O. 2012. “Love and War at the Ends of the Earth (Catullus 11).”

Mediterranean Chronicle 2: 31–50. Sider, David. 1987. “The Love Poetry of Philodemus.” AJP 108: 310–24. ——. 1995. “The Epicurean Philosopher as Hellenistic Poet.” In Philodemus and Poetry,

edited by Dirk Obbink, pp. 42–7. New York. ——. 1997. The Epigrams of Philodemos: Introduction, Text, and Commentary. New York. ——. 2005. The Library of the Villa dei Papyri at Herculaneum. Los Angeles, CA. Skinner, Marilyn B. 1979. “Parasites and Strange Bedfellows: A Study in Catullus’

Political Imagery.” Ramus 8: 137–52. ——. 1991. “The Dynamics of Catullan Obscenity: cc. 37, 58, and 11.” SyllClass 3: 1–11.


——. 2003. Catullus in Verona: A Reading of the Elegaic Libellus, Poems 65–116. Columbus, OH.

——. “Introduction.” In A Companion to Catullus, edited by Marilyn B. Skinner, pp. 1-9. Malden, MA.

Syme, Ronald. 1939. The Roman Revolution. Oxford. Revised edition 1982. ——. 1957. “Piso and Veranius in Catullus.” C&M 18: 129–34. ——. 1979. Roman Papers. vol. 1. Oxford. Syndikus, Hans Peter. 1984. Catull: Eine Interpretation. Erster Teil: Einleitung, Die kleinen

Gedichte (1–60). Darmstadt. Tait, Jane. 1941. Philodemus’ Influence on the Latin Poets. Ph.D. dissertation, Bryn Mawr

College. Tatum, W. Jeffrey. 1988. “Catullus’ Criticism of Cicero in Poem 49.” TAPA 118: 179-84. ——. 1993. “Catullus 79: Personal Invective or Political Discourse?” In Papers of the

Leeds International Latin Seminar, vol. 7, edited by Francis Cairns and Malcom Heath, pp. 31-45. Leeds, Great Britain.

——. 1997. “Friendship, Politics, and Literature in Catullus: Poems 1, 65 and 66, 116.” CQ 47: 482-500.

——. 2007. “Social Commentary and Political Invective.” In A Companion to Catullus, edited by Marilyn B. Skinner, pp. 333–53. Malden, MA.

Thomas, Richard F. 1994. “This Little Piggy had Roast Beef (Catullus 47).” Prudentia 26: 147–52.

Thomson, D. F. S. 1997. Catullus: Edited with a Textual and Interpretive Commentary. Toronto.

Tsouna, Voula. 2007. The Ethics of Philodemus. Oxford. Uden, James. 2007. “Impersonating Priapus.” AJP 128: 1–16. Walcot, Peter. 1996. “Plato’s Mother and Other Terrible Women.” In Women in Antiquity,

edited by Ian McAuslan and Peter Walcot, pp. 114–33. Oxford. Wiseman, T. P. 1969. Catullan Questions. Leicester. ——. 1979. “Review of Catullus, His Life and Times.” JRS 69: 161–8. ——. 1982. “Poets and Patrons in Late Republican Rome.” In Literary and Artistic

Patronage in Ancient Rome, edited by Barbara K. Gold, pp. 28–49. Austin, TX. ——. 1985. Catullus and His World. Cambridge. ——. 1987. Roman Studies: Literary and Historical. Liverpool. Wray, David. 2001. Catullus and the Poetics of Roman Manhood. Cambridge.

Copyright of Classical Journal is the property of Classical Association of the Middle West &South Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listservwithout the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,download, or email articles for individual use.

Socration or Philodemus? Catullus 47 and Prosopographical Excess

Documents

Transcript of Socration or Philodemus? Catullus 47 and Prosopographical Excess