Bryn Mawr Classical Review

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2002.08.38

T.J. Leary, Martial Book XIII: The Xenia. Text with introduction and commentary.   London:  Duckworth, 2001.  Pp. xiii + 209.  ISBN 0-7156-3124-1.  £40.00.  



Reviewed by Farouk F. Grewing, Harvard University (grewing@fas.harvard.edu, f.grewing@uni-koeln.de)
Word count: 4409 words

Research on Martial has been growing constantly in recent years. The commentary under review here is T.J. Leary's (henceforth: L.'s) second one on a book of Martial's, an achievement so far matched only by Peter Howell, who took both Books I and V under his wings. We ought to be indebted to L. for having taken up so painstaking a task as making accessible the two perhaps most underestimated and ignored books of Martial, that is, first the Apophoreta (L.'s commentary of six years ago is henceforth referred to as 'L. 1996') and now the Xenia. These two books, that basically consist of two-line poems only, pose a particular challenge to the scholar and general reader alike.

I may have to apologize for the excessive length of this review, but given the complex nature of the Xenia and the fact that still too few Latinists appear to be willing to view this collection (or the Apophoreta, for that matter) as a complex piece of literature, which deserves to be interpreted appropriately, it seemed justified to point to the multi-layered (esp. literary) aspects involved in it and to examine to what extent the new commentary provides insight and offers help for future investigations.

L.'s Introduction (pp. 1-21), not the least due to the similar nature of this particular kind of epigram collection, basically contains the same sections as his 1996 Apophoreta, so, understandably enough, L. (with some afterthoughts) draws most material from his own work on the latter and from his piece "Martial's Early Saturnalian Verse" in my Toto notus in orbe (Stuttgart 1998).

Section (i) deals with the book's title, which like the one of the Apophoreta is the author's own; and so are those of the individual items tituli (pp. 1-3, 37, 47). Reference is made to the use of the term 'xenion' in literature, especially Roman (most noteworthy, of course, Plin. epist. 6.31.14). Discrepancies in grammatical number between a poem's lemma and its actual lines usually can be explained quite simply (metrical reasons; generalizing singular vs. plural lemma, etc.; see the survey on p. 58).

Section (ii) briefly summarizes basic facts about the Roman Saturnalia (origins, celebration, license, lotteries and gifts); it also touches upon the sociological dimensions of the festival and gift-giving in the context of the conventions of patronage (p. 7, see also 15).1 Lucian's Saturnalia (mentioned by L., p. 6; cf. p. 101), especially the 'Kronosolon' section (ch. 10-18), yield further insight into festival-bound gift-exchange, some of which is covered by L.2

Section (iii), on the arrangement and structure of the book, is significantly shorter than the same chapter in L.'s Apophoreta, as the manuscripts in the Xenia apparently do not make us raise too many questions about misplaced items and odd lacunae -- fortunately so, because a restoration of the 'original' order might have been much more complicated than in the case of Book XIV, where editors get some help from the author's statement at 14.1.5 as to the principle of alternating pairs (see L. 1996, pp. 13-21). In Book XIII, the rich-poor contrast is not a structural device; yet, 'rich' and 'poor' are occasional features of gifts, e.g. in items 6, 27, 76, 106, and, implicitly, 45 and 103 (cf. pp. 51-52 and 96-97). Either way, in the Xenia, we seem to be confronted with only one tiny distortion of the order, that is, at 98-99, where Lindsay's transposition of Schneidewin's 99-98 allows us to view 99-100 as a mini-unit (see pp. 11 and 162-164). L. offers a neat and comprehensive overview of the book's arrangement, with attention being paid to the opening section, various groupings and sub-groupings, as well as to its closure.3 Speaking of which, it is certainly true that, as L. states (pp. 11 and 194), the book's last item (127, Coronae roseae) markedly signals the end of the collection by (a) addressing the emperor (like the first item, 4, after the triple proem!), and (b) by recalling the notion of 'garlands' of epigrams (like the ones by Philip and Meleager), and that Martial thus dedicates the entire book to the princeps (cf. 8.82). In his discussion of this poem, L. usefully explains the function and meaning of flower garlands and the 'unseasonal' luxury of winter roses in Rome. Inter alia, he refers to Horace, c. 1.38, whose first stanza probably deserves more attention than L. admits: Persicos odi, puer, apparatus, / displicent nexae philyra, coronae, / mitte sectari, rosa quo locorum / sera moretur. D. Fowler, in his "Martial and the Book" (Ramus 24 [1995], pp. 31-58, here: 55), has pointed out that Horace's poem like Martial's contains a reference to roses and, again like Martial's, closes a book -- plus, one should add, the 'garland motif'. Is this a mere coincidence? Either way, some reference to the rapidly growing research on 'closure' would have been in order.4

Section (iv), pp. 12-13, concerns the dating of the book. L. follows Citroni's argument that the Xenia and Apophoreta appeared separately, in 83/4 and 85 respectively. Attempts by some scholars to challenge this chronology (especially R. Pitcher, Hermes 113 [1985], pp. 330-339) L. may have the right to leave unmentioned as he already tried to reject them in 1996 (there, pp. 10-13). I myself am inclined to accept this dating (Gnomon 71 [1999], p. 598): item 4 (cf. 14.170) establishes a 'terminus post quem' (83/84 C.E.) as it mentions Domitian's cognomen 'Germanicus', which he took on after the victory over the Chatti. As the 'terminus ante quem' scholars like quoting the pax mentioned in 14.34 as referring to the time before the Dacian wars, i.e. before 86 C.E. (so L., ibid.). Two caveats: can we securely take a poem from Book XIV to help date XIII? That is, can we really PROVE that both books appeared together or within a very short period of time? It is tempting to think so (with Friedländer, Citroni, Leary, and probably others), but is it evident? Secondly, does 14.34 necessarily HAVE to refer to the pre-Dacian war period? Admittedly, I cannot prove either side, but neither can L.

Section (v) is on "Martial's poetic purpose". The collection (as in L. 1996, pp. 21-23) is viewed in the light of 'catalogue poetry' (for which see also below, on item 3.8) and dedicatory epigram. L. justly reiterates his view that Citroni's understanding of Books XIII and XIV as 'mock-didactic' (ICS 14 [1989], pp. 207-209) cannot be the whole story. In addition to this, the literary closeness of the Xenia (and the Apophoreta) to Symphosius' riddles still needs further exploration (see Gnomon 71 [1999], p. 596; Prometheus 25 [1999], pp. 263, 267-269). The Aenigmata, to which I could find only one reference (p. 40, on drunkenness as a 'Saturnalian motif' in the opening poem, 1.4), as well as the riddles of Book XIV of the Greek Anthology, have more in common with Martial than L. is willing to acknowledge, even though he does mention the fact that quite a few of the items in the Xenia have the form of (typically 'Saturnalian') riddles, with the tituli supplying the answer (p. 57 on item 11; see also p. 8). One may find somewhat odd the question why a poet "should want to write" this kind of poetry "at all" (p. 15); my answer would be 'why not?'. I cannot really follow L.'s contention that "the subject matter [is] generally unpoetic" (ibid.) as (a) the term 'unpoetic', a prejudiced Romantic stereotype, remains utterly unexplained, and (b) this would, then, also have to be true of many poems in Books I-XII and innumerable other texts, ancient and modern; I cannot really see any great difference between the subject matter of Kallimachos' 'salt-cellar epigram' (epigr. 47 Pf.) and the 'pepper' of item 5 (or the chamber pot of 14.119, for that matter). Is it true that "Martial was all too aware in the case of Books 13 and 14 [of] the possibility that his readers might become bored or lose patience with long strings of couplets" (ibid., and p. 16 n. 10)? It should be obvious that the poet's self-defense against ignorant readers and his suggestion to skip poems if they so desire (13.3.7-8, 14.2) is part of his epigrammatic poetics and interplay with the readership;5 more than that: it explicitly tells us that the collection is meant to be a complex entity whose poetic quality depends on being read and appreciated as a coherent piece of literary art.

On meter, section (vi), L. can be brief. Only two items out of 127, that is 61 (choliambics) and 81 (hendecasyllables) do not exhibit elegiac couplets.6 Interpretive details are dealt with where they occur, such as 'interchangeable' pentameter halves (at 9.2, 84.2), prosodic peculiarities of Palatinus (91.2), or other metrical effects (e.g., in item 72, pp. 129-130).

L.'s Latin text (pp. 23-35; see also section (vii) of the intro.) principally is that of Shackleton Bailey's (SB's) 1990 Teubner, the sole deviation explicitly mentioned being 118.2 (p. 18), where L. rightly accepts Gilbert's conjecture Latiis against the MSS reading Tuscis (cf. p. 185). And so does SB in his 1993 Loeb (vol. iii, pp. 321-322). The other discrepancies between L. and the Teubner are trivial:7 Personally, I prefer SB's gallus over L.'s Gallus in the untranslatable pun on cockerels who become eunuchs at 63.2 (see below), as well as his capitalized giant in the Porphyrion couplet at 78.1 (nomen magni Gigantis, as at 9.50.6).

As for the MSS tradition, L. favors the suggestion that the ultimate archetype from which the three families derive is a late antique edition (pp. 19-20), whose details will forever remain in the dark. Nigel Kay's wild guess, in his commentary on Book XI, that this archetype was an autograph should not be considered probable, regardless of the (allegedly) trivial nature of the errors the three families share. Hence, further discussion as to the impact of such an assumption on the textual constitution is pointless. Finally, L. is certainly right in rejecting the theory that takes divergent readings to be author-variants (p. 21 n. 8).8 -- Wisely, L. did without collating the relevant manuscripts anew as previous attempts have proven not to lead to any further insight. He does not give a critical apparatus, either; instead, in the commentary he discusses extensively virtually all instances where the MSS disagree or seem to offer incorrect readings. Since SB in his Teubner quite frequently by using an asterisk refers the reader to Heraeus' apparatus for further help, which makes his edition inconvenient to work with, it was a good decision of L.'s to recall and elucidate SB's resolutions. A good example is 69.2, where domino certainly is superior to dominae, and L., pace P. Howell, justly defends SB's decision (p. 125): Pudens' toy-boy, to whom he sends gifts, is called dominus, which (as elsewhere in Martial) appears to invert intentionally the well-known servitium amoris of elegy. Other textual discussions include 10 tit. [p. 56], 65.2 [p. 120], 68 tit. [p. 123], etc. As the Xenia are often hard to understand, the text has undergone a considerable amount of attempts by Humanists and later scholars to improve it: L. rightly accepts such conjectures at, e.g., 2.2 (p. 43), 44.2 (p. 96), 109.2 (p. 174). At the same time, many conjectures turned out to be unnecessary or simply wrong. Heinsius in particular, to whom our text of Martial as a whole owes a lot, rather aggressively healed where there was often no need to heal, and it is handy to have L.'s valuable discussions on 2.9, 7.2, 76.2, 79.2, 98.1, 125.2; the same is true of anonymous Humanist conjectures (L. on 20.1, 66 tit., and probably also 91 tit.).

The English translations are printed with each item's commentary, that is, separately from the Latin. L. states that he is greatly beholden to SB's Loeb, "poems 12 and 119 being reproduced exactly" (p. vii). Indeed, translating Martial is particularly burdensome, at times even impossible. I quite like L.'s pun at item 63, ... gallus, / amisit testes. nunc mihi Gallus erit, which becomes "... the cockerel ... has lost his testicles. Now I will consider him - a cock!" (p. 117): that is not quite Martial's line of thinking, but certainly congenial. Most differences between L. and SB, however, concern rather technical details of 'Realien': e.g., for the fruits of the 'service tree' at item 26, L. has 'service berries', SB 'sorb apples'. Pace SB, L. seems to have a point in taking the petalium caryotarum of poem 27 as 'dates wrapped in metal foil' (pp. 77-78) rather than 'stems of dates' (SB, hesitantly). The apyrina, pomegranates (items 42 and 43), by their name seem to suggest that they are 'seedless' (so L., p. 93, quoting Columella; one could add references to Theophr., hist. plant.). In contrast, see Seneca, epist. 85.5: apyrina dicuntur, non quibus nulla inest duritia granorum, sed quibus minor; hence, maybe, SB's 'soft-seeded'. At 46, L. follows Friedländer in taking the persica praecocia to be peaches that are grafted onto an apricot tree (p. 98), whereas SB (following Steier's article in PW) interprets them as 'early peaches'.

The commentary on the individual poems exhibits the standard format. Needless to say, it abounds in 'Realien' of almost every kind. This also includes accurate elucidation of the few proper names of the poet's friends or acquaintances (addressees and other personae). I may add one further observation: Q. Ovidius (for whom see p. 186) and Martial's long-term friend Nepos (for whom see p. 191) are both mentioned in the 'wine section' (poems 106-125) of the book (items 119 and 124), as they are both the poet's neighbors at Nomentum. Moreover, their mention seems to also function as a structural device within the 'wine section' as 119 and 124 serve as a frame for the sub-section (119-124) that deals with inferior brands.9 -- L.'s contention that the vintner from Vienne mentioned in item 107 may be identical to the one at CIL xii 5686.752 can, of course, be no more than an attractive guess.

With some refinement, L. follows Alan Ker's (CQ 44 [1950], pp. 23-24) hypothesis that items 1 and 2 do not originally belong to the Xenia, but that poem 3 is the collection's (only) genuine proem (p. 37), a view also accepted by SB. I strongly object to this assumption: not only does this triplet contain familiar aspects of Martial's poetics, but it also appears to be a coherent thematic unit (1: the impoverished poet's devaluation of his own poetry; poetic apology; perverted invocation of the Muse; 2: defense against a would-be literary critic; finally, item 3 takes up the ideas of poverty and literary criticism), as has convincingly and in great detail been shown by H. L. Fearnley (Reading Martial's Rome, diss. Univ. of S. Calif., pp. 17-24.).10 Ker's and L.'s arguments regarding the confused MSS tradition at the beginning of Book XIII cannot, I think, stand to reason, either. This brings up another related issue: Unlike the tituli of items 4-127, the headings of 1-3 -- note: not just 1-2! (pace p. 37) -- are spurious (Lindsay, Ancient Editions, Oxford 1903, p. 38).

Intertextuality in the Xenia is more momentous than most scholars usually concede (see already above, on item 127 and Hor. c. 1.38). I am positive, e.g., that the opening of poem 33, Trebula nos genuit, interacts (not just 'perhaps' [p. 83]) intentionally with Vergil's famous epitaph, that is, the cheese from the town Trebula brags about its Vergilian flavor. Intertextuality with inscriptional material, anyway, seems particularly appropriate for the Xenia. Implicitly, this comic inversion makes fun of Vergil, who is the representative of epic poetry, which is precisely one of the genres Martial elsewhere takes issue with. A similar example, not mentioned by L., is item 116: Potabis liquidum Signina morantia ventrem? / ne nimium sistas, sit tibi parca sitis. The second pentameter half recalls the common formula found all too often on gravestones, sit tibi terra levis. Taking into account the fact that wine from Signia according to Pliny (nat. hist. 14.65) indeed helps check loose bowels (for which see L., p. 182), the punch-line of this couplet becomes particularly funny. The same is true of 6.47.8, sit mihi sana sitis, this time, however, in the context of the speaker's furtively drinking water from a fountain.11 In many instances when Martial interacts with previous poetry he deliberately alters (inverts or perverts) the reference text's logic or poetic intention.12 -- Not all cases of potential intertextuality are equally obvious. Some might, with L. (p. 15), compare the wine-section of the Xenia (items 106-125) with the 'catalogue' at Verg. georg. 2.89-102; others, myself included, may be skeptical; however, Martial may seem to occasionally take up idiomatic features of epic catalogue, as L. observes on misit, 23.2 (p. 73). -- Following Friedländer and SB, L. records the parallel between poem 75 and Luc. 5.711-716 (p. 134). There seems to be a lot more influence of Lucan over Martial than scholars have so far acknowledged.13 Martial's tercentum Libyci modios de messe coloni at 12.1 may recall Ov. med.fac. 53, hordea quae Libyci ratibus misere coloni (p. 60). Of Ovid Martial is particularly fond anyway (see here, n. 12). At 45.2, the phrase chortis = 'cohortis' aves, both as to form and idiom calls for a note; apart from Martial (see also 7.31.1, 54.7, 11.52.14), the phrase in poetry occurs, I think, only at Ov. fast. 4.704. At 3.8, it is interesting to notice Fearnley's (see above) observation that Martial's humorous invitation to skip any poem whose title is not 'to one's taste' (cf. also 14.2.3-4) has a striking parallel in the Elder Pliny's Natural History, pr. 33: quia occupationibus tuis publico bono parcendum erat, quid singulis contineretur libris, huic epistulae subiunxi summaque cura, ne legendos eos haberes, operam dedi. Are we to assume that Martial thus gives his 'catalogue poems' a Saturnalian-like would-be encyclopedic touch? We may recall the opening poem of Martial's favorite model, Catullus, who contrasts his nugae with the 'Chronica' of Nepos, to whom he dedicated his collection (c. 1.5-6).

L. also takes into account Martial's possible impact on later poetry, e.g. on Dracontius (at 1.2, p. 39), on Ausonius (5.1 and 59, pp. 50, 112), and on Luxurius (at 19.1 and 33.1, pp. 69, 83). Often, what looks like a mere verbal echo, at a second glance reveals itself as being a far-reaching and complex intertextual reference.

L. pays due attention to stylistic devices (figures, tropes, levels of language, etc.) as well as epigrammatic word play in general (see the Index, s.vv. 'figures of speech' and 'Martial: word play', pp. 200 and 204), double entendres (e.g., p. 85), and particularly patterns of poetic etymology (e.g., pp. 58, 73, 102, 114, 127-129), which is a common feature anyway, but especially apt for a collection whose subject matter is 'objects of every-day life' and their 'names' (see, in the proem, 3.7).

Traces of the book's 'dedicatory nature' (see above) manifest themselves in the formulaic use of accipe and similar (pp. 14, 16 n. 6, 80; cf. p. 47), so in items 9, 11, 45, 102. Imperatives like these are a means of communication, as is aspice in item 58, where L. justly points to the importance of visuality (pp. 111-112). In this context Martial's use of deictic pronouns (especially at the very beginning of a poem's first line) deserves attention (16.1, 20.1, 28.1, etc.; see Gnomon 71 [1999], p. 598). Furthermore, the frequent personification of otherwise inanimate objects (such as the cheese and sausages of items 33 and 35) and animals (like dormice and woodcocks in 59 and 76) is a phenomenon that L. touches upon, but, as it seems, without any inclination to attempt a further systematization. The reverse case (objects being addressed) is rarely found: in the Xenia see only item 85 (cf. 14.74 and 14. 134). It may be obvious that this has originally developed from a type of anathematic / dedicatory inscription, which was taken up in literature (and literary accounts have then, in turn, influenced later inscriptions), but it would positively be rewarding, if not necessary, to at least outline the various stages of 'animation' of such objects in Martial. Finally, quite a few poems contain, or consist of, questions (see L.'s brief note, p. 63) which remain 'un-answered', that is, they initiate an open speech-act. Often this dialogic feature is combined with the use of deictic reference to a first or second person ('I, we, you'), so in items 14, 43, 49, 58, 71, 94. Items 24 and 58 exhibit an equal quasi-dialogic form, often found in epigram: in both cases, Martial fakes / anticipates a response by an interlocutor, for which cf. E. Siedschlag, Zur Form von Martials Epigrammen (Berlin 1977), pp. 106-110 (esp. 109).14 Pragmatic situations like these are not L.'s comfort-zone; further precision is no doubt called for.15

Unlike in the Apophoreta, sex, aischrologia, and obscenity are 'surprisingly' (p. 77) rare in the Xenia, despite the fact that the book, like XIV, XI and others, was written for the Saturnalia (ibid.). Item 26 (boys with loose bowels are unpleasant to bugger) is one of the few more drastic pieces. For the coupling in literature of defecation and anal sex, see H. P. Obermayer, Martial und der Diskurs über männliche 'Homosexualität', Tübingen 1998, pp. 183-189. L. (ibid.) also records poems 71 (sexual connotations of the flamingo tongue; see p. 128) and 65, where the pun seems to evolve from the etymological derivation of perdix ('partridge') from Greek πέρδομαι, 'to fart'.16 L.'s alternative explanation is perhaps as tempting: citing O. Probst (Philologus 68 [1909], p. 320), he favors the idea that Martial had in mind the homosexual predilections of the male partridge (reported by Isidor), so hanc (sc. perdicem) in piscina ludere would refer to under-water sodomy in a swimming pool (p. 120). The two explanations are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Either way, hanc, that is perdicem ludere could use a brief linguistic note: 'play the partridge' is not, I think, parallel to aleam -- alea ludere (ThLL i 1521.25ff.) but rather to rare cases such as Apul. met. 11.8.2: nec ille deerat, qui magistratum fascibus purpuraque luderet (see further ThLL vii 2.1781.29-48). -- Other sex-related poems are 34, 63f., 67. L. occasionally applies his own (subjective) scale of 'obscenity': item 34, e.g., is 'mildly rude' (p. 85), whereas 26 is just 'rude' (p. 77); here, language level and register are important measures (as L. is not unaware of, e.g. p. 117); J. N. Adams, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary, pp. 1-4 should be consulted.

There isn't much of philosophy in Book XIII, and what there may be is mock-philosophy, such as perhaps in item 86 (p. 146). For possible Epicurean undertones of item 126 (p. 193), add esp. W. Heilmann, A & A 30 (1984), pp. 47-61.

A group of poems is related to hunting (92-98; 68 is on fowling). J. K. Anderson's Hunting in the Ancient World (Berkeley 1985) helps visualize some scenes, such as hounds coursing hare (item 92) or fowlers with lime-rods and nets (item 68). For the power and speed of the wild ass (poems 97 and 100), see also Arr. cyn. 24.1. Boar-hunting, to which 93 refers, is extensively described by Xenophon (cyn. 10); helpful is the commentary by Phillips and Willcock (Warminster 1999, pp. 158-161).

Let me conclude with one of my favorite trifles: What kind of fruit the Cydonea mala (quinces from Crete) of item 24 are, has been the object of much debate; one may consult S. Döpp's "Quitte oder Apfel", Hermes 123 (1995), pp. 341-345.

The bibliography (pp. ix-xiii) of works cited 'more than once' is useful, especially as, due to the nature of the Xenia, it contains quite a lot of pieces that are probably less well-known. Entries range from Drachmann's Ancient Oil Mills and Presses to Mrs Beeton's All About Cookery. The same Mrs Beeton (I assume) recurs p. 103 on tender-headed truffles, which, witness her Book of Household Management of 1861, are seasonable from November to March. Finally, while the Elder Pliny recommends using urine to heal wounds inflicted by sea-urchins, we learn (p. 147) that nowadays hot water is preferred (60 C, that is 140 F, if we believe P.M. Leary's Don't Die in the Bush, Cape Town 1994). To the list of commentaries on Martial we can now add the brand-new edition of Book VII by G. Galán Vioque (see n. 14), which postdates L.'s book. Commentaries other than on Martial are referred to suo loco, with the exception of Nisbet-Hubbard on Horace's Odes.

Finally, the index (pp. 197-209) is a true treasure-house that contains almost everything imaginable, from 'aphrodisiacs' and 'anaphrodisiacs' over 'gluttony' and 'knucklebones' to the 'zodiac'. For the sake of systematization, L. has produced many entries that are then split up into sub-items (such as 'metre', 'sex', 'vessels', 'wine'). The reader may find some entries too unwieldy and, thus, a little unsystematic: e.g., 'gift' occupies a column and a half, and contains almost everything conceivable. The entry 'Martial' certainly is over-packed, too: it comprises, e.g., 'allusion', 'irony', and 'word play', while 'ambiguity', 'figures of speech' and 'word order' got separate entries of their own.

As usual with Duckworth, the book is extremely well produced: the slip in the title of item 34 ('14.34' instead of '13.34', p. 84) is almost natural in a book whose author previously worked on Book XIV. As for the layout of the introduction, I still think footnotes are preferable over endnotes, and in the commentary section, one could have included item numbers in the running header.

To sum up: L. has provided us with a commentary that is always clear or at least as lucid as one can expect it to be, when dealing with a collection that often eludes its modern readers or leaves them in the lurch. Where there are competing interpretive attempts in previous scholarship, L. plainly discusses their pros and cons and contributes a great deal of insight and original thought. 'Realien' and language, which have the greatest share in this book, are truly the strongest side of the commentary. On the other hand, the collection we are dealing with is a highly sophisticated and complex product of literature, some aspects of which L. explores in greater detail, whereas others have been neglected or underestimated by him. At any rate, this book certainly is a stepping-stone for future work on this challenging corpus of epigrams.


Notes:


1.   See, now, R. Nauta's exhaustive study on patronage in the age of Domitian: Poetry for Patrons, Leiden 2002 (Mnemos. suppl., vol. 206); part one is on non-imperial patronage in Martial, see esp. pp. 148-166 ('Patterns of Exchange').
2.   Instructive is Nauta [n. 1], pp. 184-189.
3.   J. Scherf's Untersuchungen zur Buchgestaltung Martials (Munich-Leipzig 2001) appearing too late to be mentioned in L. Scherf's chapter on the Xenia (pp. 76-88), though not yielding any exciting new insights at all, does show that many structural features of Book XIII are similar or identical to those in Books I-XII.
4.   Suffice it to refer to D. Fowler, MD 22 (1989), pp. 75-122, and the relevant pieces in his Roman Constructions (New York 2000), as well as D. H. Roberts et al. (eds), Classical Closure (Princeton 1997).
5.   Martial's statement at 7.85 (cf. 7.81), in this context, is not that different from what he has to say about Books XIII and XIV.
6.   There is a recent study on Martial's metrics by R. M. Marina Sáez, La métrica de los epigramas de Marcial, Zaragoza 1998.
7.   The differences in punctuation between L. and SB are unimportant (2.8; 96.1; 114.1). At 56.2, SB, in both his Teubner and Loeb, prints the spelling variant vulva, but reads volva in the poem's title. L. is surely right in not copying this arcane idiosyncrasy of SB's (see p. 109). -- SB's Loeb offers a revised Teubner text, but suffers from significantly more typos than his critical edition. In Book XIII, the most noteworthy instance is the lemma of item 72, where, to judge from the apparatus, Phasiani in the Teubner is an odd typo that he corrects in the Loeb, where he introduces yet a different error: Phasinae; see L.'s discussion, p. 129. See also 3.5 (hac); 9.1 (Niliacem); 110.1 (Surentina).
8.   Those unhappy few who still believe in such variants in Martial are referred to the formidable study by W. Schmid, "Textdepravationen in den Epigrammen Martials", in: H. Erbse, J. Küppers (eds), W. Schmid. Ausgewählte philologische Schriften, Berlin 1984, pp. 400-444.
9.   For more details on the sectioning of Martial's 'wine-list', see Scherf [n. 3], pp. 87-88.
10.   Admittedly, Fearnley's dissertation is hard to get a hold of. -- The trouble caused by some manuscripts' 'double subscriptions' after Book XII and again after 13.3 (not 2!) -- both Ker and L. here heavily rely on MS Q -- can sufficiently be explained without doubting the original presence of items 1-2; see O. Pecere, "La tradizione dei testi latini [...]", in: A. Giardina (ed.), Tradizione dei classici, transformazioni della cultura, Bari 1986, pp. 34 ff.
11.   Which once escaped my notice; see Martial, Buch VI, Göttingen 1997, pp. 330-331.
12.   That this is indeed a programmatic feature of Martial's poetics can be deduced from the fact that he employs this technique right in the proemial section of the first book (1.1-4) where he humorously takes up various elements of Ovid's Tristiae, thereby almost impersonating the 'second Ovid in exile'; see the valuable discussion by S. Lorenz, Erotik und Panegyrik. Martials epigrammatische Kaiser, Tübingen 2002, pp. 18-19. More evidence of Martial's debt to Ovid's exile poetry is assembled in R. Pitcher's piece in my Toto nots in orbe, pp. 59-72.
13.   In my commentary on Martial VI, p. 493, I have assembled some parallels. The close relation between Martial and Lucan's widow is well known; further research as to Lucan's impact on the epigrammatist would definitely be rewarding.
14.   Cf. also the new edition of Book VII by G. Galán Vioque (Mnemosyne suppl., vol. 226, Leiden 2002), p. 463.
15.   Nauta [n. 1] has a lot to say about 'deixis' and related communicative aspects in Martial and Statius (see esp. pp. 258-269 and 356-367); regarding 'You' vs. 'I' see his insightful discussion, pp. 39-58.
16.   The ancients are anything but unanimous about this; see F. Grewing, in Toto notus in orbe, p. 351-352.

Read Latest
Index for 2002
Change Greek Display
Archives
Books Available for Review
BMCR Home

HTML generated at 13:28:07, Friday, 03 April 2009