Who Wins in Catullus 62?

Word count: 6,432

1

Commentators have claimed that the choir of young males is victorious over that of maidens in the

poetic contest in Catulllus 62.1 Though the masculine viewpoint prevails, in the sense that the wedding

goes forward, the contest is not just an aesthetic competition, but also one of argument and

counterargument. Thus the logical features of this poem are directly relevant to its interpretation. The

arguments that can be certainly attributed to the males commit fallacies of relevance described as early

as Aristotle, and one of these fallacies was recognized by Cicero in the De Inventione.2 On the other

hand, the arguments clearly attributed to the maidens are persuasive, and not fallacious. From a

rhetorical and logical point of view (a stance that should have been accessible to an educated Roman),

the girls win. They do not stop the wedding, but then they never express an intention of doing so. Since

it has been plausibly maintained that Catullus often expresses a feminine voice, it is an attractive

hypothesis that the maidens were intended to be the victors in Catullus 62.

Catullus 62 and 45 are the poet's two “amoebean poems.” That is, the poems portray an exchange in

which each set of speakers is portrayed as attempting to better the other, within an equal number of

lines. The exchange may be an explicit contest, in which one participant is a victor, as indicated by a

judge or the award of a prize. Prior to Catullus the form was most notably utilized by Theocritus,

who put singing contests in Idylls 5 and 8; he also has a somewhat similar competition in Id. 7 (in

which, however, the competitors do not have an equal number of lines, though there is what

appears to be a prize, at line 128). The Theocritean contests are aesthetic, the winner being determined,

it would appear, on purely poetic grounds. Catullus 62, on the other hand, has a feature which adds

another dimension. The competitors engage in a debate, advancing arguments in a logician's sense.

That the maidens and the youths are engaged in an activity in which one side will win, while the other

will lose, is explicit at two and perhaps three places. In line (9) the leader of the maidens says of the

2

youths,

...canent quod vincere par est.

...they will sing something it is suitable to defeat.3

In line (11) the leader of the youths says

Non facilis nobis, aequales, palma parata est

No easy palm is prepared for us, agemates.

it will not be easy to to obtain the palma, the palm of victory. The language of competition continues

in line (16), where, after an admission of unpreparedness, the leader of the youths continues:

iure igitur vincemur; amat victoria curam

then we will be rightly defeated; victory loves care.

In line (16) we have the verb “vincere.”, and the noun “victoria,” both of which connote competition.

It is significant that at one point the youths explicitly describe the charges of the maidens as false:

At libet innuptis ficto te carpere questu. 36.

It pleased the maidens to use a false complaint of you.

The identity of the false complaint will emerge below; for present purposes the point is that the youths

differ with the maidens regarding the truth of an assertion. The competitors do not differ in attitude

alone. The opponents make claims, which, as will emerge, are backed up by various considerations. In

a word, they advance arguments.

3

In a logician's sense, an argument can be roughly understood as a set of sentences, one of which is a

conclusion from the others. Normally the point of an argument will be to make a conclusion more

likely than not, but in poetry and fiction arguments can have other roles. In drama, for example, the

function of argument may be to express character, as Sophocles does when he puts arguments into the

mouths of Antigone and Kreon, or argument may be used in humor.4

If we count arguments by distinct premiss sets, rather than by the number of conclusions, there are

nine arguments in Catullus 62, and it is to the consideration of these that I shall now turn.

Argument One (Speakers: Maidens)

Hespere, qui caelo fertur crudelior ignis? 20

Qui natam possis conplexu avellere matris,

Conplexu matris retinentem avellere natam

Et iuveni ardenti castam donare puellam.

Quid faciunt hostes capta crudelius urbe? 24

Hersperus, what fire borne by heaven is more cruel, 20

you who can take clinging daughter from the embrace of mother,

from the embrace of mother take clinging daughter,

and to ardent youth give the pure girl?

4

What more cruel do enemies do to a captured city? 24

Line (20 ) asks a rhetorical question, the point of which is to assert that Hesperus is the most cruel light

in the sky. Since nothing more is said about kind or cruel objects in the heavens other than Hesperus,

presumably what is at issue is Hesperus' being cruel, rather than his being superlatively so, and this

decorative trimming can be safely ignored.. Examples of the cruelty of Hesperus follow. Given the

context of a competition in which the opponents are about to claim that Hesperus is kind, rather than

cruel, it would appear that the examples given by the maidens are supposed to warrant that he

is cruel, rather than as mere illustrations of the claim. That is, lines (20) to (24) advance an argument.

The maidens ask a rhetorical question in line (24): what more cruel do enemies do in the sack of a city?

The answer is of course supposed to be that there is nothing more cruel, that marriage and rape in war

are equally cruel, and hence the cruelty of Hesperus is established, as concluded in line (20). Marriage

and rape in war are alike in that women and their mothers are separated by force, and so on. The fate of

women after an ancient sack is obviously an evil for them, so, by argument from analogy, marriage is

as well.

Argument Two (Speakers: Youths)

Hespere, qui caelo lucet iucundior ignis? 26

5

Qui desponsa tua firmes conubia flamma,

Quae pepigere viri, pepigerunt ante parentes

Nec iunxere prius quam se tuus extulit ardor. 30

Quid datur a divis felici optatius hora?

Hesperus, what fire of heaven shines more pleasantly? 26

Whose flame confirms the marriage arrangements

which were made by men, arranged in advance by parents,

not to wed before your flame was raised.

What happier hour is given by the gods? 30

It will be seen that at this stage of the poem the truth of lines (20) and (26) is what is at issue between

the maidens and the youths. The speech by the latter is apparently supposed to support (26), as a way

of refuting (20); if the youths are to win, both argumentatively as well as aesthetically, they must show

the falsity of the charge the maidens bring against Hesperus. (The youths' line (30) is presumably

equivalent in import to ((26)). The youths are portrayed as arguing as though (20) and (26) were

incompatible. That Hesperus is the most pleasant is taken to be contrary to his being the most cruel,

that is, that the two claims could not be true at the same time. However, the two claims are not in fact

contraries. Being pleasant and being cruel are relative terms; one may be pleasant to animals, but not to

6

people, for example, or vice versa. The problem is especially clear, given that what is at issue is

whether marriage is an evil for women. The youths argue in effect that marriage is a good for men and

the fathers who have arranged it. The maidens argue that marriage is an evil, but it is clearly the welfare

of women that is at issue for them. Hesperus might be both cruel to maidens but kind to men, or to put

matters another way, marriage might be both en evil for women and a good for males. Lines (20) and

(26) are not are not contraries after all. The argument of the youths is worthless as a response to the

maidens,being a case of ignoratio elenchi.

Ignoratio elenchi has been used as a label for various fallacies of relevance, but in this context it

is perhaps best explained as presenting an argument for one conclusion as though it were an argument

for another; contemporary logic textbooks often speak of the fallacy of “missing the point.” (See, e.g.,

Copi and Cohen (2009:133-134.))The recognition of the fallacy can be traced back to Aristotle, but

more relevantly for present purposes Catullus' older contemporary Cicero recognizes the same fallacy

in De Inventione (On Invention) 1.47, though without giving it a name.5

Cum autem, his concessis, complexio ex his non conficiatur, haec erunt consideranda: aliud

dicature, hoc modo: si, cum aliquis dicat se profectum esse ad exercitum, contra eum quis velit hac

uti argumentatone: “Si venisses ad exercitum, a tribunis militaribus visus esses; non es autem ab his

7

visus : non es igitur ad exercitum profectus.”

But when these things [the assumptions in an argument] are granted, the conclusion does not follow,

it should be considered whether another does, in this way. Suppose someone says he set out for the

army, and against him someone wants to use this argument: “If you had come to the army, you

would have been seen by the military tribunes, but you were not seen by them. Therefore, you did

not set out for the army.”

The conclusion that really does follow is that the person in question did not come to, that is, reach, the

army, but that is not the same thing as his not having set out, or started. A bogus conclusion is

substituted for the genuine one. This is a paradigm case of ignoratio elenchi.

For present purposes it matters little whether Catullus was explicitly aware of such logical fine points;

people can reason without being self-conscious about it. However, it is likely that Catullus knew

what he was doing when it came to argument. He must have had the higher education of the time;

Catullus was, after all, able to translate from Greek, as in the famous poem 51, from an original by

Sappho, and he moved in educated circles. He knew Cicero, who is the subject of poem 49. Cicero's

studies of oratory apparently summarized the rhetorical theory of the time. See Rubinelli and Levene

8

(2009: 94). The ability to argue successfully in court was an important part of the higher education of

elite Roman males, and the relevant rhetorical training included the study of argument, at least

sometimes based on Cicero's De Inventione. See Marrou (1956: 285), and Rubinelli and

Levene (2009: xxii). It is likely that when Catullus included the arguments in poem 62, he was aware of

the logical nuances involved.

The example used by Cicero differs from argument two in that the conclusion of the latter is

ambiguous. The conclusion that is warranted, and that would naturally be drawn, is that

Hesperus/marriage is pleasant for grooms and parents. This would of course be of no help in refuting

the maidens' line (20). To refute line (20), line (26) should mean that Hesperus/marriage is kind to

maidens. However, on that reading line (26) is about benefits to maidens, while its premisses concern

benefits for husbands and parents. Argument two either commits the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi

because its premisses are irrelevant to its conclusion, or it commits the same fallacy because its

conclusion is irrelevant to that of the maidens.

What would be relevant to refutation of the maidens' argument for line (20) would be to claim that

Hesperus/marriage is not cruel to maidens, because, for example, they acquire the wealth and status as

members of the husband's family, a point that is actually made at line (58) in Catullus' other wedding

9

song, poem 61. Or the youths could attack the analogy the maidens draw between marriage and rape in

war. One way of responding to an argument from analogy is to claim that there are important

differences between the things being compared, such that the strength of the argument is weakened.

However, the youths do not do this. At best the youths could have been portrayed as pointing out that

the marriage, but not the rape, is in accordance with the agreement made between the groom and the

parents, and that this difference could have been exploited to weaken the maiden's argument. But this is

what could be done for the youths rather than what they are actually portrayed as doing for themselves.

In any case this tack does little to show that the disruption of the maiden's life is not an evil; an evil fate Is not less evil for being consented to by one's relatives beforehand.

. Argument Three (Speakers: Maidens)

Hesperus e nobis, aequales, abstulit unam 32

Hesperus, agemates, has stolen away one of us.

Only line (32) survives. However, given the context, it is reasonable to read another argument here for

line (20). Hesperus is a thief, having stolen the bride, and thus he establishes his cruelty.

. Argument Four. (Speakers: Youths)

Namque tuo adventu vigilat custodia semper.

10

Nocte latent fures, quos idem saepe revertens,

Hespere, mutato conprendis nomine Eous. 35

For at your coming the guard is always vigilant.

Thieves skulk at night, whom often you on returning,

Hesperus, catch under your changed name, Eous.

The youths now argue in response to argument three; presumably their conclusion is again that the

arrival of Hesperus is a happy event, that is, line (26). The last speech by the maidens portrayed

Hesperus/marriage as a thief, while the youths now argue that he is a guard, rather than a thief. The

youths badly overwork a metaphor. It is strained to portray Hesperus as responsible for the vigilance of

the watch, simply because of its presence in the sky, and it is jarring to identify Hesperus with marriage

at this point. Perhaps the idea is that marriage is a guardian of the home, but the connection is tenuous

enough that the message is not easily deciphered. On the other hand, Hesperus' rising can be sensibly

though metaphorically said by the maidens to be the thief of one of their number, given the connection

between the rising of the planet and its use as a signal for the impending wedding. Moreover, the

argument of the youths in (34)-(35) relies on the false assumption that Venus often (saepe) appears as

the morning star and the evening star on the same day.6 If Catullus is fully in control of his material at

11

this point, the youths' reasoning is awkward at best. Worse is to come in argument five.

Argument Five (Speakers: Youths)

At libet innuptis ficto te carpere questu. 36

Quid tum, si carpunt, tacita quem mente requirunt?

It pleased the maidens to use a false complaint of you.

What if they pick at him whom they secretly now want?

The youths maintain that the maidens have made a false charge that the maidens themselves do not

accept. Since lines are missing from the maidens' speech there is some uncertainty as to what the

charge is; it might be the allegation that Hesperus is a thief, or that he is cruel, or something that has

been lost. In any case the youths attempt to refute line (20) by claiming that even their opponents do

not accept it. The maidens really want Hesperus/marriage, even while complaining about him.

As Merrill (1893: 115) pointed out, the youths commit an ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem argument,

recognized as a fallacy as early as Aristotle, consists in arguing against an opponent by appealing to

some irrelevant fact about the arguer.7 Here it is alleged that the maidens do not believe their own

conclusion, and this is supposed to cast doubt on their case. I have already argued that the youths

commit the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi; now in line (36)-(37) Catullus once more has them reasoning

12

fallaciously. Catullus is not above using the theme that maidens hide their true feelings about love, as

he does in 66.15-17. There the poet asks rhetorically whether brides hate Venus, even when they cry at

the bedroom door. But here in poem 62 the alleged fact is put to work in an illegitimate way. The

deficiencies in so many of the arguments attributed to the youths must raise the question of whether

Catullus intended for them to fare poorly in the competition. I shall return to this issue below.

Argument Six (Speakers: Maidens)

Vt flos in saeptis secretus nascitur hortis,

Ignotus pecori, nullo convolsus aratro, 40

Quem mulcent aurae, firmat sol, educat imber

Multi illum pueri, multae optavere puellae:

Idem cum tenui carptus defloruit ungui,

Nulli illum pueri, nullae optavere puellae:

Sic virgo, dum intacta manet, dum cara suis est; 45

Cum castum amisit polluto corpore florem,

Nec pueris iucunda manet, nec cara puellis. 47

Like a flower grown in a fenced-in secret garden, 39

13

unnoticed by cattle, plucked by no plow,

breezes lightly touch it, the sun sustains it, the rain nourishes it,

many boys, many girls, desire it:

the same flower plucked, when decayed by a thin nail,

neither boys nor girls desire it.

So a virgin, while she remains untouched, so long she is dear to her own. 45

When she has lost her pure flower with a polluted body,

she remains a pleasure no longer to boys, nor dear to girls.

Lines (39)-(47) contain an analogy, that between the virgin and the flower. However, this is not

plausibly taken as an argument from analogy. Presumably we are not being told that since virgins and

flowers are alike, and flowers are no longer cared for when decayed, virgins will not be cared for either

when they are “decayed.” Such a weak analogy is probably intended as explanatory and decorative

rather than as probative. However that may be, the context of this portrayal of the girl who has lost her

virginity is that of a debate over the desirability of marriage, initiated in line (20). When a girl marries,

she loses what is here valued as a great good; the point is that the rising of Hesperus is cruel indeed. .

Argument Seven. (Speakers:Youths)

14

Vt vidua in nudo vitis quae nascitur arvo 49

Numquam se extollit, numquam mitem educat uvam,

Sed tenerum prono deflectens pondere corpus

Iam iam contingit summum radice flagellum;

Hanc nulli agricolae, nulli coluere iuuenci:

At si forte eadem est ulmo coniuncta marito,

Multi illam agricolae, multi coluere iuuenci: 55

Sic virgo dum intacta manet, dum inculta senescit;

Cum par conubium maturo tempore adepta est,

Cara viro magis et minus est invisa parenti. 58

As an unwed vine which grows in a bare field 49

never raises itself up, never produces a ripe grape,

but bending to the ground under the weight of its body,

now already its topmost shoot touches its root,

neither farmers nor cattle tend it;

but if by chance an elm is joined to it in marriage,

many farmers and many cattle tend it. 55

15

Thus a virgin, while she remains untouched, meanwhile grows old untended;

when she comes into an equal marriage at the right time,

she is more dear to a husband and less a curse to her father. 58

In lines (49)-(56) an analogy is drawn between a virgin who remains unmarried and a grape vine that

is never properly supported by being attached to a tree. Is there a conclusion? Thomsen (1992: 206)

identifies (56)-(58) as the conclusion from lines (49)-(55), but this is not persuasive, even if the

premisses are read as including (56). The argument would then be: “An unmarried virgin is like an

unsupported vine; when the vine is joined to a tree, it is beneficial to farmers and cattle. Therefore, the

virgin will be beneficial to husband and parents once she is married.” When objects are compared that

are spectacularly different it is better to see elaboration rather than an argument from analogy. There is

a comparison here, but not the smell of an argument based on the alleged fact that the two cases are

alike. In any case the point of the lines is that marriage benefits the virgin's husband and parents.

Thematically, lines (49)-(58) are a response to the maidens' lines (39)-(47), which liken the married

woman to the decayed flower, uncared for after the loss of her virginity. The corresponding youths'

comparison portrays a wife as a fruitful vine, valued by husband and parents. In argument six, lines

(39)-(47), the maidens were arguing for line (20), asserting the cruelty of Hesperus. In opposition to

16

line (20), the youths have been arguing for line (26), which praises the coming of Hesperus. The

conclusion of argument seven, lines (49)-(58), is thus best construed as line (26), which in turn is

supposed to show the falsity of (20). In other words, the maidens and the youths appeal to two different

agricultural comparisons, one favorable to marriage, one unfavorable, and the conclusions at issue

should be interpreted accordingly. More needs to be said, however, after the discussion of the next

argument.

Argument eight (speaker uncertain)

At (et?) tu ne pugna cum tali coniuge virgo. 59

(60A) Non aequom est pugnare, (60B) pater cui tradidit ipse,

Ipse pater cum matre, quibus parere necesse est.

Do not struggle with such a husband, virgin, 59

(60A) to struggle is not fitting, (60B) your father himself transferred you to him,

your father himself with your mother, whom it is necessary to obey.

It has been alleged that line (59) is an application of a general maxim, given in (57)-(58), to a

particular application, and thus that (59) is a conclusion from what precedes, rather than from what

follows it.8 However, (59) is plainly an imperative that is reiterated as an indicative in the first half of

17

line (60), that is, (60A). Since (60A) is plainly a conclusion from (60B) and (61), presumably (59) is so

as well. Moreover, as argued above, lines (49)-(58) correspond to the maidens' lines (39)-(47). The

symmetry is best preserved if the maidens' case for the undesirability of marriage is balanced by an

argument by the youths for the desirability of marriage, rather than by an argument with a different,

though related, conclusion. The tali coniuge (“such a husband” presumably connotes the qualifications

given in the following lines; the husband has been designated as such by the parents. The struggle to be

avoided concerns the loss of virginity.

There is a controversy concerning the identity of the speaker in argument eight.9 Unlike the arguments

of the maidens, argument eight does not complain of the lot of the bride in marriage, and in effect

adopts the point of view of the youths. One main premiss here is that it is necessary to obey one's

parents; it is questionable whether the appeal is to moral necessity, or physical. Is the bride advised

that it is fitting for her to submit due to an obligation to respect her parents' wishes, or simply because

she is powerless to resist? The non aequom (“not fitting”) in line (60A) could be appropriate in either

case. Argument eight can thus be understood as a veiled ad baculum fallacy, an appeal to force. Cf.

Thomsen (1992: 200). However, it can somewhat more charitably be read merely as an appeal to an

authority it would be shameful to reject; see Aristotle Rhetoric 1398b. The argument probably has the

same conclusion as lines (62) to (64), but deserves separate treatment because it appears to be

18

independent of the peculiar arithmetic of argument nine.

Argument Nine (Speaker uncertain)

Virginitas non tota tua est, ex parte parentum est, 64

Tertia pars patrist, pars est data tertia matri,

Tertia sola tua est: [64B] noli pugnare duobus,

Qui genero sua iura simul cum dote dederunt. 65

Your virginity is not wholly yours, a part belongs to your parents. 62

A third part is your fathers, a third is given to your mother,

only a third is yours alone. Do not struggle with the two,

who gave their rights to their son in law with the dowry.

The conclusion would appear to be (59), also expressed in (64B) and (60A), A striking feature of this

argument is of course the peculiar arithmetic which divides such an abstract object into shared

ownerships. By the nature of the case it would seem that virginity cannot be owned, unless

metaphorically, much less divided into shares with different shareholders. There are grounds for

suspecting that Catullus is whimsical in these lines.10 He plays with arithmetic elsewhere, as in the

calculations involving kisses in Catullus 5.7-13, and concerning the couple's sexual future in Catullus'

19

other wedding song, at 61.199-203. He may be doing something of the sort in argument nine If so, he

is perhaps deliberately parodying what may have been conventional advice to brides: submit, your

parents so order you, and they own more shares down there than you do.

In outline, the arguments in the above passages appear to be as follows:

Maidens:

Arg. One. Premisses: (21)-(24) Conclusion: (20) The coming of Hesperus/marriage is an evil

Arg. Three: Premisses: (32)-? Conclusion: (20)

Arg. Six. Premisses: (39)-(47) Conclusion: (20)

Youths:

Arg. Two:Premisses: (27)-(30) Conclusion: (26), the coming of Hesperus/marriage is a good,

not an evil, so (20) is false

Arg. Four: Premisses: (33)-(36) Conclusion: (26), and the falsity of (20).

Arg. Five: Premisses (36)-(37) Conclusion: the falsity of (20).

Arg. Seven: Premisses: (49)-(58) Conclusion: (26)

Speaker Uncertain:

Arg. Eight: Premisses: (60B)-(61); Conclusion: (59)=(60A)

20

Arg. Nine: Premisses: (62)-(64A), (65) Conclusion: (59)=(64B)

The logical architecture of lines (20) to (58) would thus seem to be this. The maidens give three

arguments, one, three, and six, for line (20), and on the present interpretation the youths give three

arguments for line (26), namely, two, four and seven, with argument five as a gibe at the maidens'

reasoning for a conclusion they supposedly do not accept. The proof of line (26) is supposed to be a

refutation of line (20). Arguments eight and nine differ so profoundly from those advanced by the

maidens earlier that it is difficult to see how Catullus could have put them in their mouths, though it has

been claimed that the closing sequence of the poem blends opposing viewpoints, apparently because of

the references in lines (63) and (61) to the bride's mother. See Goud (1995: 28). It cannot be ruled out

a priori that arguments eight and nine were a concession of defeat by the maidens, and if so, the

speaker may have been the leader of the maidens' chorus, perhaps speaking as the pronuba, the married

woman who assisted the bride. See Goud (1995: 32).If so, the maidens are no longer opposing the

youths, and their contest material ended at line (47). On the other hand, if the two closing arguments

are advanced by the youths, then the contest either continues all the way to the end of the poem, which

would be highly atypical for such poetic contests, or else they are an epilogue which caps what the

youths regard as their victory. In what follows I shall assume that the contest is between the maidens'

arguments one, three, and six, and the youths' two, four, five, and seven, with arguments eight and nine

21

as an epilogue, probably by the youths. Cf. Thomson (2003: 364).

Who has won the singing contest? It is claimed by Fraenkel (1972: 204) that the maidens lose, because

the case of the youths is so strong as to be unanswerable. Cf. Goud (1995: 28), and Wiseman (1985:

119). In Catullus 62 no prize is awarded. No judge announces a winner, as Morson does in Theocritus

Id. 5.138-140, or the goatherd does in Id. 8.82-87. However, a speaker may get the better in an

exchange without its being explicitly announced. If the maidens' arguments are not adequately

defeated, they have won the day, even though the youths have prevailed in the sense that the wedding

goes forward. Have the youths obtained the victory they are portrayed as coveting in line (16)? It is

unclear whether this is the impression Catullus intends, given the logical peculiarities of the exchange.

Except for the ad hominem fallacy in argument five, all of the youths' arguments for line (26) commit

the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi. What is at issue, from a logical point of view, is whether the rising of

Hesperus is an evil for maidens. The youths persist in arguing that the rising of Hesperus is a good, for

men and parents. The issues raised by the maidens are not addressed. It is perhaps significant that in

Catullus' other wedding poem the bride is consoled by the power and wealth of the house of which she

is to be mistress; see 61.149-151. In poem 62, by contrast, no compensatory benefits are specified for

the wife; the good of marriage is presented by the youths in terms of the goods for husband and parents,

22

as in line (58). No mention is made of the satisfactions of married love, or of motherhood. It appears

that the youths have been set up for defeat by the lack of the defense they could have made. That the

maiden's complaints are made so well, and that they are countered so poorly, raises the question as to

whether the poem is more sympathetic to the maidens' case than has been appreciated. Previous

commentators have detected a “woman's voice” in Catullus' poetry.11

Catullus can be surprisingly sensitive to a feminine point of view. For present purposes, this is perhaps

most adequately shown in poem 64, when Ariadne complains of her abandonment by Theseus, after she

helped him escape from sacrifice to the Minotaur::

Nunc iam nulla viro iuranti femina credat, 143

Nulla viri speret sermones esse fideles;

Quis dum aliquid cupiens animus praegestit apisci, 145

Nil metuunt iurare, nihil promittere parcunt:

Sed simul ac cupidae mentis satiata libido est,

Dicta nihil metuere, nihil periuria curant.

From now on let no woman believe the false promises of a man,

nor expect the words of a man to be true,

23

who, while eagerly desiring to get something,

they fear nothing in swearing, they leave out nothing in promising, 145

but as soon as the desires in their hearts are satisfied,

no words do they fear, no broken promises do they care about.

The arguments of the maidens in lines (21) to (24) and (39) to (47) are themselves examples of the

feminine voice in Catullus, and as Wiseman (1985: 195) points out, it is “the girls' case against

marriage that stays in the reader's mind.” However, in poem 62 that feminine perspective is balanced

by the adverse viewpoint of the youths, however inadequately it is defended. Ariadne's complaint,

however, is not counterpoised by an opposing male voice. The reader or auditor is left with the force

of her charge.

In poem 62 Catullus represents the maidens as having a striking case for their claim that the loss of

virginity is an evil for women. Their complaint is answered only by the fallacies of relevance

committed by the males, and the injunction to get on with the fulfillment of parents' intentions. The

marriage must go forward, but from a logical and rhetorical point of view the maidens win. Catullus

had an ability to imagine and sympathize with a female perspective, and, as argued above, he probably

also had the rhetorical and logical background to see the deficiencies in the youths' case. It is likely that

24

he saw the maidens as the victors.

25

Notes

1. See, e.g., Fraenkel (1972: 204). Cf. Goud (1995: 28), and Wiseman (1985: 119), and apparently

Fordyce (1961: 254). On the other hand it has been maintained that the maidens “do not enter into a

discussion with the youths,” Thomsen (1992: 199), and do not win because they have never competed.

The maidens do, however, present arguments, and it is thus difficult to understand why they cannot be

said to compete. Thomsen (1992: 171) also claims that the youths win because of the “iron law” of

such contests that gives the victory to the second speaker; however, as Edwards (1993: 44) points out,

the so-called law is violated by Ecl. 7.

2.See below; a helpful summary of the fallacies and rhetorical strategies discussed in Cicero's

Iven.Rhet. is in Braet (2007). See especially 426-428.

3. Throughout this paper I follow the Oxford Classical Text of R. A. B. Mynors, unless otherwise noted.

All translations are mine. The ninth century manuscript T preserves “visere,” “see,” instead of

“vincere,” “defeat.” The T reading is preferred in some texts, though not in Mynors' OCT. See Butrica

(1993: 26), and Fraenkel (1972:199). The reading “vincere,” is preferred by Thomson (2003: 366).

4. See, e.g., Griffith (1999: 234, 297), for commentary on the arguments by which Kreon's character is

fleshed out in 639-680, and a summary of the controversy over the argument from Herodotus put into

the mouth of Antigone at 904-15. An example of an argument used for humor is in Archilochus 122,

concerning the lack of certainty about the future because of the occurrence of an eclipse, which was as

unlikely as wild beasts in the sea and dolphins in the woods. It may be that Catullus himself uses

26

argument to express the state of mind of his poetic persona; see poems 83 and 92, where the lovesick

speaker consoles himself with dubious reasoning; as Garrison (1995: 155) put's it, “Catullus wishfully

speculates that if Lesbia speaks angrily to him in front of her husband, she must be infatuated with

him.”.

5. See Aristotle's discussion in De Sop. El. (On Sophistical Refutations) 167a21-30, where he

summarizes at line 23:.

eãlegxoj me£n ga¢r e¦stin a¦nti¢fasij tou¤ au¦tou¤ kai£ e¥no¢j...

refutation... is the contradiction of one and the same thing...

6. It is questionable whether it is true that Venus never appears as morning star and evening star on the

same day, but it is clear that if this does occur, it is a rare event. According to the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration web site, www.nasa.gov, Venus appears for 263 days as the morning star, but

then is invisible for 50 days. On reappearance it is the evening star for another 263 days, and then

finally is invisible for 8 days. It may be that Catullus is simply confused, but it may also be that the

youths are supposed to look foolish, as when they resort to a crude ad hominem appeal in argument

five.

7. See Chichi (2002: 336). Here isAristotle De Sop. El. 174B 19-22:

27

ãEti kaqa¢per kai£ e¦n toi¤j r¥htorikoi¤j, kai£ e¦n toi¤j e¦legktikoi¤j o¥moi¢wj ta£

e¦nantiw¢mata qewrhte¢on hä pro£j ta£ u¥f' e¥autou¤ lego¢mena hä pro£j ouáj o¥mologei¤

kalw¤j le¢gein hä pra¢ttein...

Again, just as in rhetorical arguments, likewise in refutations, one must show inconsistencies

either with what the speaker himself says, or with those he agrees speak or act well...

In other words, inconsistencies between the arguer's conclusion and her beliefs or preferences in other

contexts are weapons that can be used in debate, though such a refutation is sophistical. This is the

tactic Catullus attributes to the youths in lines (36)-(37).

8. Issues of textual restoration and grammar enter into this controversy. Some commentators follow

Fraenkel (1972: 204-5), and read the opening of (59) as “et,” rather than “at”, which supposedly marks

the application of a general truth to a specific situation. Cf. Fordyce (1961: 260-1), and Goud (1995:

29-30), but see Thomsen (1992: 224-6). However, these textual and grammatical matters are

sufficiently uncertain that the logical considerations noted above can perhaps be allowed to have more

weight.

9.See the discussion of the problem concerning the last lines of Catullus 62 by Goud (1995: 23-32). It

28

appears that the refrain, marking a change of speaker, has been left out after line (58). (It is supplied as

line (58b) in the OCT of Mynors.)

10. Cf. Fraenkel (1955: 207), though see also Thomsen (1972: 217-218). Thomsen points out that

division into thirds, with the third portion a good, has a long history in Greek and Roman philosophy

and poetry, and argues that accordingly Catullus' use of the same theme should thus be seen as

proverbial and non-humorous. However, it is not just the use of a division into thirds that seems

humorous; it is the kind of object to which it is applied, and most of all the use to which the fancy is

put.

11. See, e.g., Skinner (1993: 452-453), and Manwell (2007: 116-117).

29

Literature Cited

Braet, Antoine, 2007. “The Oldest Extant Rhetorical Contribution to the Study of Fallacies (Cicero On

invention, 1.78-96, and Rhetoric to Herennius, 2.31-46: Reducible to Hermagoras?,” Philosophy

and Rhetoric 40.4, 416-433.

Butrica, J. L. 2011. “History and Transmission of the Text,” in Skinner, 13-34..

Chichi, Graciela Maria. 2002. “The Greek Roots of the Ad Hominem Argument,” Argumentation 16:

333-348.

Copi, Irving M. and Cohen, Carl. 2009. Introduction to Logic, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle

River

Edwards, M. J. 1993. “Catullus' Wedding Hymns,: The Classical Review, New Series,43.1,43-44.

Ellis, Robinson. 1876. A Commentary on Catullus, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Fordyce, C. J. 1961. Catullus, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Fraenkel, Eduard. 1958. “Vesper adest,” JRS 45: 1-8, reprinted in Kenneth Quinn, 1972, Approaches

to Catullus, Heffer, Cambridge: 195-209.

Garrison, Daniel H., 1995. The Student's Catullus, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

30

Goud, T. 1995. “Who Speaks the Final Lines? Catullus 62: Structure and Ritual, Phoenix 49.1: 23-32.

Griffith, Mark. 1999. Sophocles: Antigone (Greek and Latin Classics), Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge

Manwell, Elizabeth, 2007. “Gender and Masculinity,” in Skinner.

Marrou, H. L. 1956. A History of Education in Antiquity. Translated by George Lamb. University of

Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Merrill, Elmer Truesdale. 1893. Catullus, Ginn and Company, Boston.

Rubinelli, Sarah, and David S. Levene. 2009. Ars Topoi: The Classical Technique of Constructing

Arguments from Aristotle to Cicero, Springer,

Skinner, Marilyn B. 1993. “Ego Mullier: The Constuction of Male Sexuality in Catullus,” in Julia Haig

Gaisser, 2007, Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Catullus, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

_______________ 2011. A Companion to Catullus, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Chichester.

Thomsen, Ole. 1992. Ritual and Desire: Catullus 61 and 62, Aarhus University Press, Aarhus

Thomson, D. F. S. 2003. Catullus: Edited with a Textual and Interpretative Commentary by D. F. S.

Thomson, University of Toronto Press, Toronto

31

Wiseman, T. P. 1985. Catullus and His World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

32