The surviving collection of Catullus’ poems evidently derives from a parchment codex edition created probably in the second century AD. This chapter argues that it combined seven previously separate libelli – (1) poems 2–14, (2) poems 14b–53, (3) poem 61, (4) poem 62, (5) poem 63, (6) poem 64, (7) poems 65–116 – that had been designed as Catullus’ self-chosen body of work from 56 to early 54 BC, that is, from the start of his poetic career to the point where his brother’s death changed everything. Poem 1 was a personalized dedication of one particular copy, and poems 54–60, not intended for publication, were added by the owner of one particular copy. The first libellus was the Passer Catulli referred to by Martial, the second was introduced by a poem set in a bookshop. The ‘long poems’ were separate libelli, but their order is probably the poet’s own. Early in 54 BC, persuaded by Caesar to abandon direct abuse and invective, Catullus turned to writing for the stage.

The identification of Catullus’ Lesbia with Clodia Metelli was assumed by Ludwig Schwabe in 1862 and challenged in Catullan Questions (1969); its continued acceptance, most conspicuously in the translations of David Mulroy and Peter Green, is shown to be incompatible with the known dates of the poems. The suggestion in 1969 that Lesbia was one of the sisters of Clodia Metelli is also unlikely, given Catullus’ consistent use of the word puella; more probably Lesbia was one of the daughters of Ap. Claudius the consul of 54 BC, and therefore sister of the man who called himself ‘Pulcher Claudius’ (Catullus 79.1 ‘Lesbius est Pulcher’).

This chapter discusses historical fiction about Clodia Metelli (wrongly supposed to be Catullus’ Lesbia), from Marcel Schwob in 1895 to Kenneth Benton in 1974; a short postscript refers to subsequent treatments of the subject.

In his description of the coverlet in poem 64 Catullus describes Ariadne on the shore with her clothes falling off, a scene not required by the story but explicable if the text was the libretto for a danced performance, as suggested in Chapter 4. This chapter collects the evidence for erotic entertainment on the Roman stage, occasions when actresses and dancers (mimae) might perform naked. The sources make it clear that the modern distinction between poetry and performance did not apply in the Roman world: poetry was categorized as ‘dramatic’, ‘narrative’ or a ‘common or mixed type’ in which ‘the poet himself speaks and speaking characters are introduced’. Just as epic was an example of ‘the common or mixed type’, so too was Catullus 64, too short to be an epic in the Homeric sense but still a mythological narrative to be performed, whether in speech, song, dance or any combination of the three. As was normal in the ancient world, the written text on papyrus was a secondary phenomenon.

Given that short poems were composed in the first instance for viva voce delivery to an audience (e.g. at a dinner party), the hospites of poem 4 can be located in the dining room of the poet’s home at Sirmio, and the contubernales of poem 37 on benches outside a bar on the south side of the Forum piazza. Evidence is provided of the way a poet’s friends would find ‘live audiences’ for his poems; this was the primary form of their ‘publication’, long before collection in a papyrus book. The ‘social history’ context of the poems has been unhelpfully neglected in previous scholarship.

Strabo’s account of Cisalpine Gaul (‘the Keltic land within the Alps’) provides neglected evidence for the changing ethnography of the Transpadane area in the early first century BC. In 102 BC the existing Gallic peoples (Insubres and Cenomani) were dispossessed by the invading Cimbri, who held the whole area until they in turn were defeated by Marius the following year; the land was taken by the Romans for veteran settlements that in 89 BC were given the status of ‘Latin colonies’. By Strabo’s time they were important cities, and one of them was Catullus’ native Verona. Although ‘Catullus’ may be a Gallic name, his father’s ownership of the prime site of Sirmio makes it very likely that he was descended from one of the colonists.

It is an error to suppose that Latin literature was restricted to a small literate elite; performance before a large public audience (e.g. at a festival or the ludi scaenici) was often the primary form of ‘publication’, prior to the distribution of a written text in a book. Catullus’ poems 62 and 67, both written in dramatic form, were presumably meant for performance; poem 61 is a marriage hymn, sung by two choruses as part of the bride’s procession; poem 63 is a narrative hymn, sung and danced probably at the ludi Megalenses. There are good reasons to believe that poem 64, normally cited as the defining example of an ‘epyllion’ (a genre invented by modern scholarship), was composed as the libretto of an elaborate stage performance. Poems 68a and 68b are entirely separate from each other, addressed to different recipients: 68a is a letter of apology, 68b an elaborate mythic celebration of the poet’s doomed love affair, addressed to Allius but in the hope of reaching a more extensive audience.

The book reconsiders the arguments in Catullan Questions (1969), especially those about the publication of Catullus’ poems, in the light of recent work by John K. Schafer and Ian Du Quesnay; adding new evidence and arguments, it aims to provide a more accurate picture of Catullus as a poet in his time.