Catullus and Caesar

[Gladius]

Hello. I'm a huge admirer of Catullus' poetry and a few of the most appealing and amusing poems of his are his verses attacking Julius Caesar and Caesar's engineer Mamurra. Could anyone tell me why Catullus scorned Caesar, and would anyone inform me more on who Mamurra was and what made him the object of the bard's great disdain? Thanks.

[Nathan Ross]

Not a great deal is known about Mamurra - his praenomen was possibly Caius, nomen unknown - but he's usually presented as Caesar's Praefectus Fabrum or chief engineer in Gaul, and before that in Spain and under Pompey in his campaign against Mithridates. We know that he was from Formiae, and was an equestrian. He was, however, a real person rather than a Catullan pseudonym. Pliny writes, in the Natural History:

The first man in Rome to cover with marble veneer whole walls of his house,
which was on the Caelian hill, was according to Cornelius Nepos, Mamurra, a
Roman knight and native of Formiae, who was Julius Caesar's chief engineer in
Gaul. That such a man should have sponsored the invention is enough to make it
utterly improper.

We can guess from this that Mamurra was an especially odious individual - no doubt a good engineer, or Caesar would not have trusted him, but possibly of less than pristine character. Perhaps Catullus' attacks on Caesar are no more than ire that supposedly great men should associate themselves with such grubby and charmless company.

There is a theory, originally that of TP Wiseman IIRC, that Catullus' abusive verses on Caesar might be a matter of hurt pride. Suetonius writes that Caesar was very injured by them, and that as he knew Catullus' father he was able to arrange a meeting and a mutual reconciliation. From this we deduce that Catullus' family would have been amongst the most prominent in Cisalpine Gaul, still at that point composed largely of non-citizens. Even as equestrians, the Valerii Catulli would have been big rich fish in a small pond, accustomed to entertaining the likes of Caesar. In Rome, however, Catullus would have found himself surrounded by much more wealthy and well-established families, and by men on the make like Mamurra, and might have been offended that such people were better able to command the attentions of the powerful than a relatively unimportant provincial poet. Thus Catullus pretends not to know Caesar (or even know what he looks like - a grave slur in a society addicted to the high public profile! - think of all those statues everywhere...), then lambastes him for wanton sexual activities with Mamurra and Pompey. Almost the spite of a rejected friend, you might think...

Anyway, all this is but fascinating speculation. Until somebody digs up the lower floors of the Villa of the Papyrii (or somewhere similar) and finds a lost biography of the poet (there was one by Cornelius Nepos, IIRC), we'll never know just what went on and why.

[Gladius]

Thanks for the informative reply Nathan. I just wonder, is there a statue or bust of Catullus that exists? I have yet to see one. I find it quite strange that we know the way Homer, Plato, and Socrates looked yet have to find one on a later literary figure like Catullus. I also get the impression that there are no surviving objects that could show us how Horace and Ovid appeared. One wonders why images of Roman literary figures are scarcer than those of the Greeks.

[popularis]

We can guess from this that Mamurra was an especially odious individual - no doubt a good engineer, or Caesar would not have trusted him.

In fact, he must have had a fair bit of military experience: we know he was in Pontus in 66, in Spain in 61, in Gaul in 58, and in Britain (or at least benefiting from the invasion of it) in 55. I don't think it's taking it too far to assume that he did more that we don't hear about explicitly (the only description of his career outside of his service as praefectus fabrum is Catullus 29, after all). He presumably knew what he was doing, and Catullus' blackening of his name should probably not be taken too far (it was highly successful in antiquity, true [cf. Horace, Suetonius, Pliny], but that might be more because the poems were funny than any other reason!).

In addition, "praefectus fabrum" should probably be left untranslated. Whatever praefecti fabrum in the late Republic were, they don't seem to have been engineers - there's no mention of a praefectus fabrum actually doing any engineering work. The references to them generally show them as close confidants of the commander: Cornelius Balbus (Caesar's close friend), L. Clodius (presumably a relative, possibly a freedman, serving under Ap. Claudius in Cilicia), Q. Lepta (Cicero's praefectus fabrum and close friend), C. Flavius (one of the two people closest to Brutus who died at Pharsalus, the other was his legate), etc..

Although the term does suggest some historical connection with the fabri (carpenters), there isn't anything to really suggest that they were in charge of engineers by the late Republic. They were probably something closer to an aide-de-camp.

blue skies

Tom

[Nathan Ross]

A good point - it's surprising how often these 'translations' of latin titles are used for convenience and left unexamined. Mamurra was no Vitruvius, clearly. The comparison with Balbus is apt, however - another very rich man, with wide ranging commercial interests. Praefecti Fabrum were always civilian, (as far as 'civilian' and 'military' had any clear demarkation at the time) perhaps for this very reason: I do think it likely that they had a specific area of competence within the army - there are other terms for a general companion or aide-de-camp - and supply and logistics seems most sensible. A wealthy equestrian with a rather ruthless commercial streak would be the ideal choice to deal with civilian contractors, allied cities, tribute payments and so on. Caesar in Gaul spent an inordinate amount of time organising the grain supply for his campaigns, and I'd expect somebody like Mamurra would have been needed to oversee it.

Incidentally, I recall in one of the biographies of Caesar a note to the effect that, while the dictator was in Campania (c.45BC) he was 'brought the news about Mamurra' and remained untroubled by it - this has been taken to mean that Mamurra had either just died or just done something especially despicable!

There are no statues of Catullus - the bust of him at Verona (I think) is modern and not based on evidence. Roman public statuary was almost always intended to glorify exploits in war or government, and served an important official function - unlike the Greeks, the Romans awarded no public plaudits to writers. There may well have been busts or statues of poets commissioned by private individuals or patrons of the arts, but none have survived as identifiable. Even Virgil remains faceless - despite his tomb later being turned into a shrine by Silius Italicus. The only (as far as I know) genuine representation of a Roman poet made in his own lifetime is the coin series struck by Catullus' friend Q Cornificius when governor of Africa - a full figure dressed in toga and augural accoutrements - but there's no way of telling whether the blunted features are intended as a portrait or not, and tell us little even so.

[popularis]

The comparison with Balbus is apt, however - another very rich man, with wide ranging commercial interests. Praefecti Fabrum were always civilian, (as far as 'civilian' and 'military' had any clear demarkation at the time) perhaps for this very reason: I do think it likely that they had a specific area of competence within the army - there are other terms for a general companion or aide-de-camp - and supply and logistics seems most sensible. A wealthy equestrian with a rather ruthless commercial streak would be the ideal choice to deal with civilian contractors, allied cities, tribute payments and so on.

Agreed, there was a lot of commercial activity which surrounded campaigning, and it may have been that the praefectus fabrum was in ultimate control of it - it's an interesting idea, although a quaestor might also have been equally suited to this (during the Republic, at least). Given, say, Brutus' behaviour while quaestor in the East (cf. loans in Cyprus, let alone Deiotarus), I wouldn't rule this out. Quaestors were ultimately responsible for a lot of the accounting, and official payments to the state would have gone through them, wouldn't they?

However, I'd be surprised if there was one post in Caesar's army responsible for all civilian contracting, as well as logistics and supply: the civilian equivalent for contracting alone would be the censors, and the commander would have his sticky mitts all over something so profitable. He'd also have a camp full of ambitious equestrian "friends" looking for something interesting and profitable to do, who an ambitious man would want to keep on side.

After all, making a whacking great big profit from campaigning is what everybody tried to do - officers, legates, and 'hangers on'. There's evidence of praefecti fabrum making money, but it's no different from the profit every other high status Roman is trying to make. While Lepta (Cicero's praefectus fabrum in Cilicia) was involved in some risky financial speculating while in service, it's fairly clear he was doing this on his own account, and Mamurra's profits (as well as his involvement in the quarries at Luna) could have been made by anybody in Caesar's retinue (cf. Cicero's advice to Trebatius "you will never find a better opportunity [...] of enjoying a richer province").

The trouble with praefecti fabrum, and Mamurra is a perfect example, is that it's hard to find them doing any actual work! There is evidence about late Republican military dealings with cities, civilian suppliers, etc. and praefecti fabrum don't seem to be responsible for it, at least not specifically. It's one of those questions that might just have to be marked "unresolved: lack of evidence at present".

blue skies

Tom

[Gladius]

Thanks for the reply Nathan.

Incidentally, I recall in one of the biographies of Caesar a note to the effect that, while the dictator was in Campania (c.45BC) he was 'brought the news about Mamurra' and remained untroubled by it - this has been taken to mean that Mamurra had either just died or just done something especially despicable!

That information was most likely taken from Cicero's letter to Atticus.