Jeffrey Gibson

Here are some of the reviews of Wisemen's thesis -- which, I trust, will show you the lengths he has to go in order to make his claim:

Catullus in a Context Catullus and His World: A Reappraisal T. P. Wiseman
Review author[s]: G. B. Townend
he Classical Review, New Ser., Vol. 37, No. 1. (1987), pp. 13-15.

The belief that we have the poems in the order intended by Catullus may be strengthened by what appears to be W.'s main addition to his account of the poet's life: that he survived the date of the latest traceable event. in August 54 B.c., to give up the composition of iambi and elegiac epigrams unless we may place here some of those poems attributed to him but not found in the surviving collection), and to develop the dramatic skills bservable in such poems as 10 and 55 by turning to mime and by writing among others the Pllasma and Laureolus, the latter first mentioned in accounts of Caligula's reign. while the attribution of mimes to 'Catullus' occurs nowhere before the second century A.D. It is far from certain that the 'Valerius' referred to by Cicero, along with the mimographer Laberius. in Fam. 7.1 1.3 as the possible presenter of persona Britannici iurisconsulti actually wrote mimes, any more than Laberius. cited alongside Lucilius in Hor. Sat. 1.10. 5, wrote satires; nor is it clear why Cicero should uniquely refer to Catullus as 'Valerius'. as he is never called in the 109 ancient references conveniently set out in the Appendix (pp. 24660). all from well after Catullus' death, nor as sodaleni nostrum, when there is no trace of the poet elsewhere in Cicero's works. Might this not more easily be taken of Valerius Cato whose cognomen. unlike Catullus', was hardly available in this decade to be used on its own without confusion? The weakest of all W.'s arguments for the identification of the two Catulli is that the savage language of 108, on the appropriate disposal of various parts of Cominius' body after his death, would in some way parallel the crucifixion and blood-vomiting which occurred in the Laureolus (p. 199).

Nothing in the catalogue on pp. 5-10 of public manifestations of Roman cruelty suggests that such a show as Laureolus would be acceptable under the Republic. let alone within the capacity of the Catullus we know from the poems. The fact that many of the works were clearly written for public delivery is no proof that he would have written for the stage, in a genre which even for Statius was evidently not regarded as serious literature.

Much more plausible is the suggestion that poem 34 might have been written for an actual religious festival, perhaps even on Delos (pp. 969). and 63 for a specifically Roman version of the cult of Cybele on the Palatine (pp. 198-206).

Finally, the attempt to explain the metrical oddities in 116 as a promise of a change from elegiacs to dramatic senarii is little more cogent; for line 3. with its six consecutive spondees. cannot represent any sort of iambic line, whether senarius or scazon, each having an absolute requirement of an iamb whether in fifth or sixth place. The genre to which this sort of hexameter, with the elided -s of dabis, belongs is pre-Horatian satire, with lines somewhat rougher than anything in Lucretius; and here. as in the penultimate line of 36. Catullus is surely parodying the inartistic metrical technique of a subrustic
poet.

If the argument for Catullus finishing his career (apparently between 54 and 51?) as a popular dramatist fails to carry conviction, the main pretext for the book perhaps vanishes.

Catullus and His World: A Reappraisal T. P. Wiseman
Review author[s]: P. Y. Forsyth
Phoenix, Vol. 40, No. 2. (Summer, 1986), pp. 220-223.

It is, however, Chapter 6 ("The Unknown Catullus") that will raise the most eyebrows, advancing as it does the "heresy" that Catullus the lyric poet of our text is identical to "Catullus the mimographer", traditionally thought to have lived in the age of Nero (although, to be sure, there is virtually no hard evidence for that date) and considered the author of such farces as the Phasma and the Laureolus (cf. P.-W. Catullus no. 2). The starting-point for this theory is poem 116, the final piece of our collection, which Wiseman sees as announcing a change in genre: Catullus will next try his hand at mimes for the stage. There is indeed in poem 116 a threat of future vengeance (against Gellius), but more than this and the metrical peculiarities of the poem is needed to bolster Wiseman's case, and he does bring together "external evidence" (189-198) which, he argues, places Catullus' death later than 54 B.c., thereby giving the poet time to build a new poetic career. Some of Wiseman's evidence is evidence from omission: e.g., "it is striking that no author bothers to distinguish between Catullus the mimographer and Catullus the love poet" (192). Wiseman also argues that poem 63 (the "Attis") supports his theory since it was probably a choral hymn written for actual performance at the Megalesia (206). Wiseman's Catullus, in fact, ends his career not only as a playwright of some note, but also as an essayist (198).

James E. G. Zetzel Reviewed Work(s): Catullus and His World: A Reappraisal by T. P. Wiseman Classical Philology > Vol. 83, No. 1 (Jan., 1988), pp. 80-84.

By far the most novel and interesting section of Catullus and His World is chapter 6. "The Unknown Catullus." in which W. argues that Catullus wrote not only the extant collection but also mimes and possibly a prose treatise on the mime. As far as the mimes themselves are concerned (the Phasma and Laureolus referred to by Juvenal, his scholiast, and Tertullian: all ancient references to Catullus are collected by Wiseman in a very valuable appendix). W. is almost certainly right, and his recognition of the mime as a serious literary form in the late Republic (here and in "Who Was Crassicius Pansa?" TAPA 115 [1985]: 187-96) is of considerable interest. What is more, there is no reason to deny the authenticity of the treatise on niinies assigned to Catullus by the Berne scholia on Lucan 1. 544, although its precise title is lost in a textual corruption. But the larger argument that W. sets out concerning Catullus the niimographer is neither convincing nor consistent in itself. W. begins his chapter by arguing, from a structural use of Callimachean allusions at the beginnings of the three "books" of the Catullan corpus (1-60, 61-64, 65-1 16), that the future tenses in the last lines of the last poem (1 16. 7-8) allude to the last line of the Aetia's epilogue, ctljrup Eyh Mouotwv rcerbv [ t l r c e ~ pv~op 6v (frag. 112. 9). The weaknesses of the argument are obvious: the encis of the other two "books" do not refer to Callimachus: and in any case the explicit reference in 116. 2 to carmina Battiadae would by itself satisfy such a structural pattern. W. then argues that, just as Callimachus' line looks ahead to the Iambs, so 116. 7-8 must promise a future attack, in another work, on the Gellius of poem 116. And finally, froni the fact that the entirely spondaic (and thus defective) hexameter in 116. 3 can be read as an equally defective senarius, W. argues that this putative next work was to be in senarii: in short, a niinie. The tenuousness-to use no stronger word-of this argument is obvious. It may also be pointed out that, as usual, there is a perfectly good literary explanation for the future tenses in poem 116, as a method of avoiding closure. Or would W. suggest that the last word of Horace Odes 4, canemus, indicates that the poet intended to go on to write another Aeneid?

But although poem 116 does not announce future minies, W. is surely right to reject firmly the unexamined belief that Catullus could only have written what we have, or more poems like the extant poems. Both in this book and elsewhere, W.'s ability to adduce long-neglected ebidence about the world of letters in the late Republic and his willingness to ignore preconceptions about what is possible or probable in literary history are both rare and stimulating. In the interest of turning Catullus into a man of the theater, howeber, W. pushes his evidence further than it can go. Phasma and Laureolus are certain titles for Catullan minies; but W. wants miore. He finds in the elder Pliny's reference to Catullus' imitation of erotic spells (HN 25. 19 " . . . Theocriti apud Graecos, Catulli apud nos proxinieque Vergilii incantamentoruni aniatoria imitation) an indication that Catullus wrote a mime Pharmake~itria,related to Theocritus I&11 2 and Vergil Eclogue 8. That is possible but by no means necessary. When, in his wish to enforce a theatrical interpretation of the dramatic elements in Alexandrian and Roman poetry, W. goes so far as to suggest (p. 193) that Eclogue 8 was "written in some sense for the stage," even he has to hedge. Another Catullan mime that W. invents is a Priapus, which would include the extant Priapean fragments; he cites as evidence for this a line cited by Nonius Marcellus from "Catullus in Priapus" (p. 194). Unfortunately, the text of Nonius as cited by W. himself (appendix, no. 91) does not justify this translation: the reading of the manuscripts is Cat~ill~tiPs riopot, and W. proceeds by circular reasoning from emendation to mime and back again.
Throughout the book, and in this chapter in particular, W. rightly emphasizes dramatic elements both in Roman society and in Catullus, but he is surely wrong to identify some of the extant poems as works written for the stage.

Most extraordinary is his reading of poem 63, the Attis. W. believes that it was, on the one hand, a genuine hymn. written to be performed at the Megalesia (in itself an argument that needs much special pleading, given the content of the poem) and, on the other, a dramatic text to be performed by actors and chorus. Needless to say, there is no evidence at all for either half of this inconsistent interpretation.

It should also be mentioned that it is not reasonable to divide the putative corpus of Catullus into poems and dramas (the mimes that followed poeni 116) and then to argue that one or more of the central group of longer poems was designed for the stage. Either Catullus arranged his works generically. or he did not.

R. G. M. Nisbet Reviewed Work(s): Roman Studies: Literary and Historical by T. P. Wiseman The Classical Review > New Ser., Vol. 38, No. 2 (1988), pp. 380-383

W. identifies our Catullus with the mimographer of the same name (p. 346, cf. his Catullus and his World[1985], pp. 192-6); but such boisterous and melodramatic pieces as the Phasmrr and Laureolus hardly suit what we know of his social and literary attitudes (cf. H. P. Syndikus. JRS 77 [1987]. 249). The history of later Valerii Catulli is intriguing. but connections with Sirmio are inferred rather than proved; here W. cites the sinister and blind L. Valerius Catullus Messalinus (cos. A.D. 73). whose description in Juvenal (4.114 'qui numquam visae flagrabat amore puellae') seems to make a piquant
contrast with the family poet.

Catullus and His World: A Reappraisal T. P. Wiseman

Review author[s]: Hans Peter Syndikus
The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 77. (1987), pp. 247-250.

Im Mittelpunkt des sechsten Kapitels (183-210) steht eine uberraschende Hypothese. W. farjt das letzte Gedicht der Sammlung (c. I 16) mit seiner Drohung eines literarischen Angriffes auf Gellius nicht, wie man das bisher gesehen hat, als Androhung von Schmahgedichten auf, wie sie sich vorher in groBer Zahl unter den kleinen Gedichten und den Epigrammen finden, sondern als die Ankundigung des Ubergangs zu einer ganz anderen, unkallimacheischen Art der Dichtung, die Catull im Anschlurj an sein gedichtbuch verfarjt habe, von der aber nichts erhalten sei. W. glaubt namlich, Catull habe die Mimen des Mimographen Catullus verfaBt, von denen Martial, Juvenal, Sueton und Tertullian wissen, die man bisher fur kaiserzeitlich hielt. Neben diesen Stellen fuhrt W. fur seine Hypothese eine Briefstelle Ciceros an (fam. 7, I I, 3). Cicero droht hier zu Beginn des Jahres 53 v. Chr. im Scherz seinem jungen Freund Trebatius, daB ihn, wenn er noch langer in Gallien bleibe, der Mimendichter Laberius zur Zielscheibe seines Spottes wahlen konne. Dann fahrt er fort, er furchte auch 'sodalem nostrum Valerium', von dem nach dem Zusammenhang wohl auch Mimen zu erwarten waren. W. schlieBt nun, daB dieser Valerius der bisher als kaiserzeitlich angesehene Mimendichter Catullus gewesen sei; der aber sei kein anderer als C. Valerius Catullus aus Verona gewesen, der nach seinem erhaltenen Werk eben Mimen verfaBt habe.

Mehrere Grunde lassen an dieser These zweifeln. Zunachst deutet in c. I I 6 nichts auf die Ankundigung einer kunftigen Mimenproduktion: Die formalen Lassigkeiten in Vers 3 und 8 haben schwerlich das Gewicht einer offiziellen Absage an ein Dichten in der Form des Kallimachos, und die Waffenmetapher ist seit Archilochos fr. 126 West und auch bei Catull (c. 36, 5; 40, 2) fur die Ankundigung eines Angriffs mit jambischen Spottversen ublich. Man zweifelt auch, ob Ciceros freundliches 'sodalis noster' Catull gegolten haben konne; sonst redet Cicero immer in abschatzigen Worten von den 'neuen Dichtern', fur die er wenig Sympathie hat. Ferner muBte Catull, wenn er zu Beginn des ahres 53 bereits als Mimenschreiber bekannt gewesen ware, nicht nur nach seinen Gedichten, sondern schon langst daneben Mimen verfaBt haben; wir mueten also in sehr unwahrscheinlicher Weise eine gleichzeitige Produktion von hochartifizieller und von banaler Literatur annehmen. Es miinten aber auch Hieronymus' Daten uber Catulls Lebenszeit voliig aus der Luft gegriffen sein, und seine Charakterisierung Catulls als 'scriptor lyricus' ware ein Irrtum. Vor allem aber ist es schwer vorstellbar, daB der Kallimachos' strenger Kunstauffassung verpflichtete Verachter trivialer Literatur auf einmal ein Massenpublikum mit trivialster Volksbelustigung habe unterhalten wollen; die Mimen des Mimographen Catullus waren ja nicht irgendwelche geistreichen SpaDe: Sein Phasma war ein Gespensterstuck und sein Laureolus war ein blutrunstiges Rauberdrama, das mit einer schauerlichen Hinrichtung des 'Helden' endete (Mart. spect. 7). Und was solche Themen mit Gellius zu tun haben sollen, fragt man wohl besser nicht.

See also Two Studies in Roman Nomenclature by D. R. Shackleton Bailey and Elaine Fantham's entry s. v. "Catullus (2)" from OCD3:

Catullus (2) (/RE/ 2), writer of *mime in or before the mid-1st cent. AD (Juv. 8. 185ff., 13. 111; Mart. 5. 30. 3) whose lost works include /Phasma/ ('The Ghost'), called /clamosum/ ('noisy') by Juvenal, and /Laureolus/, the tale of a notorious bandit, whose crucifixion was staged live (Mart. /Spect./ 7. 4; Suet. /Calig./ 57, Joseph. /AJ/ 19. 94). Despite *Cicero's reference
to a mimographer Valerius in /Fam./ 7. 11. 3, Wiseman's arguments that the mime- writer Catullus was the poet Valerius *Catullus (1) cannot be proved.

T. P. Wiseman, /Catullus and his World/ (1985), 192-8, 258; K. M. Coleman, /JRS/ : 1990, 44-73 ["Fatal Charades: Roman Executions Staged as Mythological Enactments"]

and the entry on Catullus in the PW.

Looks like, as I've noted, my "all" was, for all practical purposes, right on the money. It was certainly far closer to the truth than was the claim made here that in her dissertation on Josephus "Honora Howell Chapman lists several mimes that included crucifixions", let alone the one made (and yet to actually be retracted) by a certain "scholar" about what "is generally agreed" in mainstream scholarship vis a vis Heb. 13:20-25!

Anyway, I'm still waiting for Jay or Toto to show me hard evidence, not questionable "if ... then" suppositions, that crucifixions were, as Jay claimed, a stock theme/scene in mimes.

And where's any evidence that "resurrections" were as well?

Jeffrey

andrewcriddle

There is a discussion here http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/10/forum.html as to how much of the early stories about Arthur have to be true in order for one to speak meaningfully about a Historical Arthur

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

Thank you for making this excellent point on the identity of Catullus the poet who was quite possibly Catullus the writer of mimes.

Incidentally, in case you were wondering, I did the research for this hypothesis several years ago, when I was a visiting professor at the University of Central Florida, primarily utilizing their library, which contained several hundred thousand books. If a particular book or magazine article was unavailable within the library, I could use library-lend to request it or magazine articles, from any of the 24 other libraries in the Florida State University System. It would usually take about a week to get them. When that failed, they would borrow the text from virtually any public library in the country, but that often took two weeks or more.

I find for most points I now discuss, I no longer have to go to the library for assistance, but can find most of the relevant information on the internet.

Here is another relevant quote from Fatal Charades: Roman Executions Staged as Mythological Enactments,K. M. Coleman,
The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 80. (1990), pp. 44-73. :

Note that Coleman talks of "theatrical performances of mimes involving crucifixion."

In a footnote (182), he writes, "We know that Christ's crucifixion was the subject of a mime played before the emperor Maximian by one Ardalion..."

Rather than believe that this was a special mime written for Maximian (circa 250), we may suspect that this was a version of the original mime play that inspired the gospels.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

andrewcriddle

I have a suspicion (which I can't immediately verify) that the martyrdom of Ardalion is legendary rather than historical.

Andrew Criddle

Jeffrey Gibson

Yes, "he" does. But "he" produces no evidence for a pluraity of them. And his footnote to this assertion does not document that there was a plurality of such mimes, does it. Nor does Coleman support your idea that crucifixion was a stock theme of mimes, let alone mimes written before 46 CE.

:huh: We may??:huh: Why?? Why not a new one written "circa 250" (which, by the way, cannot be correct, since 250 is when Maximian was born and since he wasn't emperor until March 1, 286! [reigned until] to 305)? Or one that was a version of the popular one about Laureolus by Catullus? And since, as you assert (if I understand you correctly), your purported mime by Mary was not about Jesus' crucifixion, what is the basis of your present claim? The one performed circa "250":banghead: (more like 300 according to the traditions about Ardalion) wouldn't be a version of it. It would be an entirely different mime.

And BTW, Coleman does not support he idea that the Catullus who was the author of the Laureolus was Catullus the poet.

Good grief!

And where is your evidence for your claim that "resurrections" was a stock theme in mines?

And by the way, in regards to "he writes", you may wish to know that Coleman is a woman. See http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~classics...e/coleman.html



JG

Toto

Joseph McCabe thought so. No footnote to identify the "others."

There seem to be multiple versions of St.Ardalion the actor:

Catholic.orgOrthodoxStPatrickDC (link to bibliography is broken)

THE ARTIFICE OF ETERNITY: A STUDY OF LITURGICAL AND THEATRICAL PRACTICES IN BYZANTIUM by Andrew Walker White, PhD

Jeffrey Gibson

Please note that none of this gives the slightest bit of support to the idea that "we may suspect", or have any reason whatsoever to even think, that the mime Ardalion performed for Maximian was a "version" of Jay's purported Vorlage for the Gospels, even if such a thing ever existed. In fact, if the data above supports anything, its that the mimes is based on stores of the Christian martyrs who died under Decius.

And where's Jay's evidence that "resurrections" was a stock theme in 1st century CE mimes?

Jeffrey

Toto

So where are we on this? Catullus the poet of love might or might not have written a mime, but it's not clear what difference that makes.

There was at least one mime involving a crucifixion.

Mime was prevalent in the Roman Empire; we don't know exactly when or where the gospels were written, but it does not seem unreasonable to assume that the gospel writers saw mime plays.

The Romans liked their entertainment to be rather bloody.

Alleged facts about this period in history are often not reliable.

Jeffrey Gibson

You need to show that it is circular, let alone that it is drive, in the light of the facts

1 that Plutarch is aware that the historians and other sources he relies on for his life of Alexander gave conflicting and contradictory and genealogies for Alexander, but that he did not in any way see this as a problem, let alone a problem that could or would be used or viewed by any historian of his day or any contemporary author of "Lives" of his day, including himself, as good reason to deny the historicity of Alexander or anyone else that such contradictory genealogies testified to; and

2. that Plutarch himself gives a genealogy for Alexander that is different from the ones he knows other historians give.

Hmm. Contradictory genealogies by different ancient authors of "lives" of Alexander! On your logic then, we cannot accept anything that Plutarch and any other ancient historian who gives a genealogy of Alexander that is different from Plutarch's about Alexander as source for the life of Alexander, let alone as evidence that Alexander existed! Their differences in genealogies disqualify them as credible historians and render all they say about Alexander as pious crap.

[On the differences between Plutarch's genealogy of Alexander and those of other ancient historians he knows (and which were known by others to whom Plutarch was writing, see (with thanks to TL) the opening pages (on Plutarch's genealogy of Alexander) of - N. G. L. Hammond, Sources for Alexander the Great: An analysis of Plutarch's 'Life' and Arrian's 'Anabasis Alexandrou' (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Cambridge : CUP 1993)

which is a companion volume to

- N. G. L. Hammond, Three Historians of Alexander the Great: The so-called Vulgate authors, Diodorus, Justin and Curtius (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Cambridge : CUP 1983)

where Hammond observes that, while Alexander's descent from the Heraklids and Aiakids (a warning against drawing too sharp a distinction between mythical and historical biography) was not disputed, Plutarch explicitly (and in his view knowingly) contradicts Herodotos (8.137, 139) and Thoukydides (2.100.1) by making Karanos, rather than Perdikkas, the founder of the Macedonian line.]

Jeffrey

JoeWallack

JW:
I wonder if you would be so kind as to inform us as to who these different authors said was Alexander's Father and Father's Father? Thanks in advance.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page