1996, pp. 21-23) are viewed into the light of a€?catalogue poetry’ (which is why read furthermore below, on object 3.8) and dedicatory epigram. L. justly reiterates his view that Citroni’s knowledge of Books XIII and XIV as a€?mock-didactic’ (ICS 14 , pp 
. 207-209) should not be the complete story. In addition to this, the literary nearness from the Xenia (plus the Apophoreta) to Symphosius’ riddles nonetheless requires additional exploration (discover Gnomon 71 , p. 596; Prometheus 25 , pp. 263, 267-269). The Aenigmata, to which I could get a hold of only one guide (p. 40, on drunkenness as a a€?Saturnalian motif’ inside orifice poem, 1.4), in addition to the riddles of Book XIV of this Greek Anthology, convey more in common with Martial than L. is actually willing to acknowledge, although he does mention the point that many regarding the items in the Xenia experience the kind of (typically a€?Saturnalian’) riddles, aided by the tituli providing the clear answer (p. 57 on item 11; read in addition p. 8). One may come across somewhat peculiar practical question why a poet a€?should want to writea€? this sort of poetry a€?at alla€? (p. 15); my address might be a€?why maybe not?’. I cannot really stick to L.’s assertion that a€?the material [is] normally unpoetica€? (ibid.) as (a) the term a€?unpoetic’, a prejudiced intimate label, remains entirely unexplained, and (b) this could, after that, also need to getting genuine of a lot poems in courses I-XII and numerous various other messages, ancient and modern; I can not really discover any big difference between the subject case of Kallimachos’ a€?salt-cellar epigram’ (epigr. 47 Pf.) and the a€?pepper’ of object 5 (or even the chamber cooking pot of , even). Is-it true that a€?Martial got all too aware in the case of guides 13 and 14 [of] the possibility that their subscribers might being bored or shed persistence with extended strings of coupletsa€? (ibid., and p. 16 n. 10)? It should be obvious that the poet’s self-defense against unaware people with his recommendation to skip poems as long as they so want (13.3.7-8, 14.2) is part of their epigrammatic poetics and interplay together with the audience; 5 more than that: they explicitly tells us that range is supposed to end up being a complex entity whose poetic high quality depends upon are review and valued as a coherent bit of literary artwork.
The range (as with L
On meter, part (vi), L. is quick. Just two stuff regarding 127, definitely 61 (choliambics) and 81 (hendecasyllables) don’t exhibit elegiac couplets. 6 Interpretive info become addressed in which they occur, particularly a€?interchangeable’ pentameter halves (at 9.2, 84.2), prosodic peculiarities of Palatinus (91.2), or other metrical impacts (age.g., in product 72, pp. 129-130).
Are you aware that MSS heritage, L
L.’s Latin text (pp. 23-35; read furthermore section (vii) in the intro.) principally is the fact that of Shackleton Bailey’s (SB’s) 1990 Teubner, the only real deviation explicitly discussed getting 118.2 (p. 18), where L. appropriately allows Gilbert’s supposition Latiis resistant to the MSS learning Tuscis (cf. p. 185). And do SB within his 1993 Loeb (vol. iii, pp. 321-322). Another discrepancies between L. and also the Teubner were trivial: 7 privately, I prefer SB’s gallus over L.’s Gallus inside the untranslatable pun on cockerels just who come to be eunuchs at 63.2 (discover below), and additionally his capitalized large for the Porphyrion couplet at 78.1 ( nomen magni Gigantis, as at 9.50.6).
favors the suggestion that the supreme archetype from where the 3 households get was a late classic version (pp. 19-20), whoever details will permanently stay in the black. Nigel Kay’s crazy estimate, in the discourse on guide XI, that archetype ended up being an autograph really should not be thought about probable, regardless of (allegedly) trivial characteristics on the errors the 3 families express. Thus, more discussion as to the impact of such an assumption in the textual constitution try pointless. Eventually, L. is certainly inside rejecting the idea that takes divergent indication are author-variants (p. 21 n. 8). 8 – sensibly, L. did without collating the appropriate manuscripts anew as earlier efforts prove never to trigger further understanding. He cannot offer a critical device, either; rather, in the discourse the guy talks about extensively almost all circumstances where the MSS differ or apparently provide incorrect indication. Since SB in his Teubner quite frequently simply by using an asterisk relates the person to Heraeus’ apparatus for additional assistance, making their edition awkward to work alongside, it absolutely was a decision of L.’s to remember and clarify SB’s resolutions. A good example is 69.2, where domino truly is actually superior to dominae, and L., pace P. Howell, justly defends SB’s decision (p. 125): Pudens’ toy-boy, to who the guy directs gifts, is called dominus, which (as in other places in Martial) seems to invert intentionally the famous servitium amoris of elegy. Some other textual conversations put 10 breast. [p. 56], 65.2 [p. 120], 68 breast. [p. 123], etc. Because Xenia are usually difficult to discover, the written text keeps encountered a considerable amount of attempts by Humanists and later scholars to improve it: L. correctly allows these conjectures at, e.g., 2.2 (p. 43), 44.2 (p. 96), 109.2 (p. 174). Likewise, lots of conjectures ended up being unneeded or completely wrong. Heinsius specifically, to who all of our book of Martial in general owes many, rather aggressively healed where there was clearly often you don’t need to treat, and it’s really convenient to possess L.’s useful conversations on 2.9, 7.2, 76.2, 79.2, 98.1, 125.2; the exact same will also apply to anonymous Humanist conjectures (L. on 20.1, 66 tit., and most likely furthermore 91 breast.).
