Selected Epigrams

by Martial

  AP Anthologia Palatina; collection of Greek poems and epigrams discovered in 1606 in the Palatine library in Heidelberg, Germany.

  APl Anthologia Planudea; collection of Greek epigrams made by the Byzantine scholar Maximus Planudes in the thirteenth century.

  CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum; founded in 1853 in Berlin by Theodor Mommsen and still in progress; collection of Latin inscriptions in seventeen volumes; each volume is divided in subvolumes; the allocation of inscriptions to each volume is made on the basis of geographical origin, with the exception of volumes 1 (the oldest Roman inscriptions until the death of Julius Caesar), 15 (instrumentum domesticum; inscriptions on objects for daily use and domestic utensils); 16 (military diplomas); and 17 (milestones).

  Notes

  1. For a useful discussion in English of the development of the site and its public buildings, see Mierse 149–73. For the suggestion that the temple was dedicated to the imperial cult, see Mierse 159. The site has been excavated by Manuel Martín-Bueno and a large group of collaborators from the University of Zaragoza. Their findings have been published in numerous articles and chapters in books, all of them in Spanish.

  2. See Curchin 82.

  3. See Noy.

  4. In his attacks on undesirable social and moral behavior Martial claims to focus on vices rather than on individuals (10.33.9–10), suggesting that the latter, even though they appear in a world that seems to be Rome, only exist to convey the vices of the time.

  5. It is interesting that this comment appears in an epigram addressed to the emperor Domitian. It deliberately complicates a reading of Martial’s poetry.

  6. With the significant exception of the poems in the Liber Spectaculorum (“The Book of the Games”); see Coleman, M. Valerii Martialis Liber Spectaculorum lxxxi–lxxxii. A different kind of exception is provided by 1.5, where the speaker is Domitian, an experiment that is not repeated.

  7. These are generally accepted to be Martial’s parents, despite an attempt by Mantke to make them the parents of Martial’s dead slave Erotion. As Howell (Martial: Epigrams V 117) has demonstrated, this low social status is incompatible with the highly formal label patronos of 5.34.7.

  8. The fact that the poet calls his parents stulti (lit. “stupid”) should be read in an ironic way (“simplistic” or “simple-minded”). The virtuous principle of a good education is worthless in contemporary Rome where money decides everything.

  9. Bridge and Lake vii; Post xi; Sullivan, Martial 2; Henriksén 90. Inscriptions from Hispania Tarraconenis provide evidence for the existence of teachers of grammar and literature: CIL 2.7.336 (Cordoba; the only grammaticus Graecus thus far attested in Spain); CIL 2.14.377 (Saguntum); CIL 2.2892 (Tritium Megallum); CIL 2.5079 (Astorga); CIL 2.14.3.1282 (Tarraco); CIL 2.2892 (a grammaticus Latinus from Clunia who taught in Tarraco; see Fear). Teachers of rhetoric have been attested in Gades (CIL 2.1738; Cadiz), Tarraco, and Collippo; see Keay 86. Tarraco was also the city where the emperor Augustus heard Gavius Silo declaim in 26–25 BCE (Seneca the Elder, Controversiae 10 pref. 14).

  10. Pliny the Younger (Letters 2.14.10) quotes Quintilian: adsectabar Domitium Afrum (“I attached myself to Domitius Afer”); cf. Quintilian, The Orator’s Education 5.7.7: Domitio Afro ... quem adulescentulus senem colui (“Domitius Afer with whom I trained when he was an old man and I was an adolescent”). Quintilian (The Orator’s Education 10.1.118) praises Domitius Afer. The verb assector is the correct technical term for a kind of internship with a trained orator; Tacitus (A Dialogue on Oratory 2.1) had attached himself as a young man to Marcus Aper and Julius Secundus.

  11. Sullivan, “Was Martial Really Married?”; Sullivan, Martial 25–26; Williams 280; Howell, Martial 16.

  12. Bell (22) argues for multiple marriages and at least one daughter, possibly Erotion. Ascher points out that, with the exception of the grant of the ius trium liberorum, it is virtually impossible to derive any information on Martial’s domestic life from his poetry. See Sullivan’s reply to Ascher’s article: Sullivan, “Was Martial Really Married?”

  13. Martial refers to this privilege in a series of epigrams: 2.91; 2.92 [page 22]; 3.95; 9.97.

  14. Pliny the Younger (Letters 10.94.2) requested the privilege for his friend the biographer Suetonius who was married but had not produced any offspring. Watson and Watson (3) read quod Fortuna vetat (“what Fortune has denied me”) in 2.91.5 as a reference to an infertile marriage. However, in 2.92.2 (page 22) the poet argues that he received the privilege for his literary output.

  15. Sullivan (Martial 44) suggests that it was published in mid-98, but it is not clarified on what basis this can be established.

  16. For the date of publication of the original book, see Fearnley 617. Watson and Watson (1n2) assume that the original book 10 was published in 95.

  17. Most scholars argue that Martial’s year of birth fell between 38 and 41; cf. Watson and Watson 1, 1n2; Williams 4. Sullivan (Martial 2) departs from the same point of view but admits that 41 is more likely than any of the other years. Howell (Martial 9) opts for 40.

  18. In other poems (9.52 [page 73]; 12.60) Martial also makes his birthday the topic of his poetry, but he only indicates his age in 10.24.

  19. For Otho’s suicide, see Edwards 35–39.

  20. They are briefly mentioned together in an epigram that celebrates Domitian’s victory over the Chatti (2.2). The objective of the epigram is to praise Domitian for single-handedly achieving military glory, whereas the triumph over the Jews had to be shared between Vespasian and Titus. Vespasian is mentioned alone, but not by name, in an epigram highlighting the monument and temple dedicated to the Flavian family (9.34). Titus is only mentioned by name in connection with his baths on the Esquiline Hill (3.20.15; 3.36.6).

  21. See Watson and Watson 2: “honing his skills as an epigrammatist.”

  22. On two occasions Sullivan calls a Spaniard in Rome “one of Martial’s many Spanish connections”: Martial 16 (on Decianus); 19 (on Valerius Licinianus).

  23. For the reasons of the ban, see Gresseth; Ahl; Griffin (278) places the ban around mid-64.

  24. Griffin (148) and Sullivan (Martial 3) explicitly accept that all four named individuals were from the reign of Nero. Piso should then be identified as Caius Calpurnius Piso, the leader of the anti-Neronian conspiracy of 65; Memmius as Caius Memmius Regulus (Sullivan mistakenly has Gemellus), the consul of 63; Crispus as Q. Vibius Crispus, the suffect consul of 61. The last two individuals have no reputation as patrons of the arts and it is therefore more plausible that Memmius should be identified as Caius Memmius, the patron of Lucretius. If this is correct, the theory of four patrons from the reign of Nero is already seriously weakened.

  25. For a detailed discussion of the relationship between Martial and Seneca, see Kleijwegt. For a restatement of the argument that Seneca was Martial’s patron, see Nauta 52, 86–87.

  26. This is the main point for Nauta to argue that Lucan may have been Martial’s patron; see Nauta 87.

  27. The first three books of the Silvae were published as a set in the early part of 93; see Newlands 3.

  28. The suggestion that the poems were intended to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Lucan’s birthday was made by Buchheit, “Statius’ Geburtstagsgedicht zu Ehren Lucans” 231n3. See also Buchheit, “Martials Beitrag zum Geburtstag Lucans als Zyklus.” For the date of publication of book 7 (December 92), see Sullivan, Martial 39; cf. 7.8. This does not mean that the poems were not written for the occasion in 89.

  29. It is therefore imperative to examine in more detail Martial’s conceptualization of literary patronage and to adopt a fresh perspective on this issue. One of the options that needs to be considered is that the epigrams do not automatically present a comprehensive narrative of Martial’s patronal relationships. It is possible that Martial regarded someone as his patron after one successful commission.

  30. Sullivan (Martial 317) has the relationship start in 64.

  31. The addressee of 4.55 is one Lucius
who is traditionally identified by many scholars as Lucius Valerius Licinianus because he features in two other poems on Bilbilis.

  32. For a detailed discussion of the identification, see Howell, Commentary 213–14. Howell eventually concludes that the two are one and the same person. The condemnation of the Vestal Virgin Cornelia and the exile of Licinianus took place in the period between 89 and 91. The Licinianus of 1.49, published in 86, appears to return to Spain permanently, which seems in conflict with the other information listed here. Howell (Commentary 214) suggests that the planned retirement was not carried through or that he changed his mind after having returned.

  33. While in exile Licinianus taught rhetoric on Sicily (Pliny the Younger, Letters 4.11.1–4).

  34. It has been suggested that he is identical with Marcus Cornelius Nigrinus Curiatius Maternus, though this individual is not from Bilbilis but originates from Liria near Valencia (AE 1973.383).

  35. The name Maternus also appears as a respondent in two satirical epigrams, 1.96 and 2.74. No certainty can be had that all three poems refer to one and the same person. Howell (Commentary 306) has no doubts that they do, while Williams (234) is more cautious.

  36. Albrecht 1039, where he appears in a list of sponsors of Martial’s work; Stadter 8; Watson and Watson 90, where he is listed as a patron featured in 1.49 and 7.47.

  37. It is argued by some (Nauta 62n70; Watson and Watson 90–91) that his first consulate was held in 86 or earlier, which suggests that he may have been politically active under Domitian. The argument in favor of a first consulate in 86 was made by Barnes but was refuted by Syme (272).

  38. This is the conclusion drawn by Sullivan (Martial 19).

  39. Williams 19.

  40. Watson and Watson 2: “In all likelihood he circulated individual poems and small collections privately among potential patrons over a number of years, including them in the first two books of epigrams when these were published in 86–7.”

  41. Howell, Commentary 5.

  42. Howell, Commentary 316.

  43. Most scholars assume that Martial entered Rome as a poet looking for a network of patrons to sell his poetry. Sullivan (Martial 4) argues that by the time he produced the epigrams on the opening of the Colosseum, i.e. 80, he must already have had a considerable backlog of epigrams.

  44. For Philodemus’ epigrams, see Sider. Antipater of Thessalonica is the author of more than one hundred epigrams in the Greek Anthology, one of which (AP 7.626) was addressed to one of the grandsons of Augustus, either Lucius or Gaius; see Gow and Page, The Garland of Philip 2:419.

  45. The Villa of the Papyri has revealed a large number of papyri scrolls, among which were found previously unknown works by Philodemus of Gadara. The architecture of the John Paul Getty Museum is based on the villa.

  46. See Macrobius, Saturnalia 2.4.31, for an exchange between Augustus and an epigrammatist that leads to the payment of a monetary reward for an epigram (in this case by the epigrammatist for an epigram composed by the emperor); cf. Fitzgerald 29–30.

  47. See Bowersock 36–37, who refers to AP 9.224 (a poem on a goat that traveled with the emperor because he liked goat’s milk so much); AP 9.419 (an epigram on the healing springs of Dax in southwest France, presumably in connection with a serious illness that forced Augustus to withdraw from the Cantabrian War in 25 BCE; cf. Suetonius, Life of the Deified Augustus 81.1).

  48. For the chronology of the epigrams, see Gow and Page, The Garland of Philip 2:212.

  49. For the identification of the recipient of the gift as Antonia, see Gow and Page, The Garland of Philip 2:217; Hemelrijk 103–4.

  50. Cameron chooses the Elder Julia, Augustus’ daughter, as the addressee of AP 6.345.

  51. See Kokkinos 11.

  52. Sullivan (Martial 84) and Fitzgerald (29) call him a client of Octavia.

  53. For instance by Syme (346), but the idea itself is much older; see Bowersock 36: “The household of Augustus could boast its own Greek poet to provide occasional verse.”

  54. Sullivan (Martial 85) suggests that Crinagoras should be identified as a court poet and that he “might well be taken as a model.” This is also the viewpoint of Gow and Page, The Garland of Philip 2:239.

  55. It is unknown whether he originated from the Greek speaking part of the Roman Empire or whether he was an educated Roman who wrote poetry in Greek. For an English translation of Lucillius’ epigrams, see Nystrom. For the influence of Greek epigram on Martial’s poetry, see Neger, “‘Graece numquid’ ait ‘poeta nescis?’ ”

  56. The idea that Lucillius was a direct influence on Martial has been developed in detail by Holzberg (100–109).

  57. The subject of the poem is a parrot that has escaped from its cage and continued to practice what it had been taught in the imperial palace: to say Hail Caesar. Inadvertently, all the other birds learn the same greeting from the parrot and are ready to pay obeisance to the emperor without being instructed to do so.

  58. For the relationship between Lucillius and Nero, see Nisbet 113–34.

  59. For a discussion of this poem, see Nisbet 37–47. Of course, the image of Nero that Lucillius has produced is that of a cheapskate; see Nisbet 40.

  60. This is noted and commented upon by many scholars, among them Albrecht 2:1042. For Callimachus’ influence on Martial, see Cowan.

  61. Holzberg 29–30.

  62. Livingstone and Nisbet (105–6) call Martial’s epigram 6.12 (page 49) “a blatant reworking of a Lucillian original”; the original is AP 11.68. Scholarship on Martial has been more charitable toward the Spanish epigrammatist by using terms such as similarities and parallels; see Sullivan (Martial 88n50), who calls them “adaptations.”

  63. For Martial’s response to poets who plagiarized his poetry, see Seo; McGill 74–113.

  64. Fitzgerald (29) suggests that Domitian may have encouraged Roman poets to make inroads into genres traditionally dominated by Greek poets. If that were the case, we should expect a different response attributed to the emperor in Martial’s epigrams.

  65. For Martial’s literary debt to Catullus, see Swann, Martial’s Catullus; Swann, “Sic scribit Catullus”; Lorenz, “Catullus and Martial.”

  66. Holzberg (40) and Lorenz (Erotik und Panegyrik 57–59) already questioned whether the poems in the collection were connected with the opening of the Colosseum. More extensive research was undertaken by Coleman (M. Valerii Martialis Liber Spectaculorum li–lxv) and Buttrey, with the latter providing the key argument based on Domitian’s coinage. One of the key items for associating some of the poems with Domitian is the rhinoceros featured in poems 9 and 26 of the Liber Spectaculorum. A rhinoceros appears on coins issued by Domitian between 83 and 85, and it seems very unlikely that he would do this after his brother had shown a similar animal during the opening of the Colosseum.

  67. See Howell, Martial 15. Some do so with some degree of hesitation; see Neger, Martials Dichtergedichte 74.

  68. Sullivan (Martial 52) argues that book 12 was put together toward December of 101.

  69. Levick (101–13) does her best to show that the image of Vespasian as a parsimonious emperor is incorrect.

  70. The most acidic and hilarious characterization of Martial as a sycophant was done by J. W. Mackail (194; quoted in Howell, Martial 63): “His perpetual flattery of Domitian, though gross as a mountain—it generally takes the form of comparing him with the Supreme Being, to the disadvantage of the latter.”

  71. Webb xv. Sullivan (Martial 76) is quite right in arguing that Martial’s adulation of Domitian never seemed to be a problem for his later admirers who were accustomed to similar autocratic conditions.

  72. Albrecht 2:1050.

  73. See Garthwaite, “Domitian”; “Panegyrics”; “Patronage”; “Putting a Price”; “Ludimus innocui.” For a sociological reading of Martial’s flattery, see Spisak 53–72.

  74. Henriksén 16–21; Coleman, “Martial Book 8.”

  75. In English there are only two biographies of the emperor: Jone
s and Southern.

  76. The Greek historian Dio Cassius (Roman History 66.24.2) has a list of all the buildings that were destroyed or damaged by the fire of 64, most of which were repaired by Domitian, as is proven by archaeological excavations.

  77. For a discussion of the symbolical importance of this building, see Davies 148–58.

  78. Its exact location has not been established; for discussion of the problems that make it difficult to identify its location, see Jones 86; Southern 128; Williams 199–200.

  79. Southern 36, 45; cf. Jones (107–8), who argues that “whilst he did not ask or demand to be addressed as one (a god), he did not actively discourage the few flatterers who did.”

  80. Sullivan (Martial 76–77) highlights that Martial’s apology, if that is what it is, is moving and unique in Roman literature.

  81. Jones (77) points out that confiscations of property of opponents already started in 85, while Southern (114) views the year 89 as the starting point for more open conflict between emperor and Senate.

  82. For an analysis of the conspiracy, see Jones 193–96; Southern 117–18; Grainger 4–28; Collins.

  83. For the visual and artistic evidence of damnatio memoriae, see the discussion by Varner; for a discussion of the historical relevance of the process, see Flower.

  84. Watson and Watson (4–5) give a fair summary of Martial’s dissatisfaction with urban life, but they obviously find the political situation a much more compelling argument.

  85. Dio Cassius (Roman History 68.3.3) mentions the execution of certain people at the insistence of the Praetorian Guard, but no names are mentioned and no connection with the assassination of Domitian is pointed out. One of the other people handed over for execution by Nerva was Petronius Secundus, a former prefect of the Guard; see Grainger 95. The execution of Parthenius is graphically described in the Epitome de Caesaribus 12.8, a work of dubious accuracy from the fourth century.

  86. I therefore disagree with Sullivan, who argues (Martial 46) that Parthenius remained an influential figure during Nerva’s reign because the new emperor must have felt indebted to his services. It is always dangerous to keep the murderers of your predecessor in the same position.