1996, pp. 21-23) was viewed when you look at the light of a€?catalogue poetry’ (for which discover additionally down the page, on item 3.8) and dedicatory epigram. L. justly reiterates their see that Citroni’s comprehension of e-books XIII and XIV as a€?mock-didactic’ (ICS 14 , pp. 207-209) cannot be your whole story. Furthermore, the literary closeness associated with Xenia (together with Apophoreta) to Symphosius’ riddles still demands further exploration (see Gnomon 71 , p. 596; Prometheus 25 , pp. 263, 267-269). The Aenigmata, that I could select just one resource (p. 40, on drunkenness as a a€?Saturnalian motif’ inside the starting poem, 1.4), plus the riddles of Book XIV on the Greek Anthology, do have more in common with Martial than L. is actually ready to recognize, though he do discuss that several regarding the items in the Xenia possess kind (typically a€?Saturnalian’) riddles, using tituli providing the clear answer (p. 57 on items 11; see also p. 8). It’s possible to look for significantly peculiar the question the reason why a poet a€?should wish to writea€? this type of poetry a€?at alla€? (p. 15); my response was a€?why maybe not?’. I cannot actually adhere L.’s contention that a€?the subject matter [is] generally unpoetica€? (ibid.) as (a) the definition of a€?unpoetic’, a prejudiced enchanting label, remains entirely unexplained, and (b) this would, next, also need to become genuine of a lot poems in guides I-XII and innumerable some other messages, old and contemporary; I cannot truly discover any great difference between the subject matter-of Kallimachos’ a€?salt-cellar epigram’ (epigr. 47 Pf.) while the a€?pepper’ of product 5 (and/or chamber cooking pot of , for that matter). Would it be correct that a€?Martial ended up being all as well conscious regarding publications 13 and 14 [of] the possibility that his audience might be annoyed or shed determination with extended strings of coupletsa€? (ibid., and p. 16 letter. 10)? It must be evident your poet’s self-protection against unaware people along with his recommendation to miss poems when they thus longing (13.3.7-8, 14.2) falls under his epigrammatic poetics and interplay making use of readership; 5 a lot more than that: they clearly informs us that collection is meant to become an intricate organization whoever poetic high quality hinges on getting study and valued as a coherent bit of literary artwork.
The range (such as L
On meter, point (vi), L. is quick. Only two products from 127, definitely 61 (choliambics) and 81 (hendecasyllables) don’t display elegiac couplets. 6 Interpretive information become dealt with where they happen, such a€?interchangeable’ pentameter halves (at 9.2, 84.2), prosodic distinct features of Palatinus (91.2), or any other metrical impact (elizabeth.g., in item 72, pp. 129-130).
Are you aware that MSS customs, L
L.’s Latin text (pp. 23-35; read furthermore section (vii) from the intro.) principally is the fact that of Shackleton Bailey’s (SB’s) 1990 Teubner, the sole deviation explicitly talked about being 118.2 (p. 18), where L. rightly accepts Gilbert’s supposition Latiis against the MSS learning Tuscis (cf. p. 185). And so really does SB in the 1993 Loeb (vol. iii, pp. 321-322). Others discrepancies between L. and the Teubner tend to be unimportant: 7 really, I prefer SB’s gallus over L.’s Gallus inside untranslatable pun on cockerels whom being eunuchs at 63.2 (read below), and their capitalized icon for the Porphyrion couplet at 78.1 ( nomen magni Gigantis, as at 9.50.6).
prefers the suggestion that ultimate archetype where the 3 families derive was a belated traditional edition (pp. 19-20), whose information will permanently remain in the darker. Nigel Kay’s crazy imagine, inside the commentary on guide XI, that the archetype is an autograph shouldn’t be regarded as possible, no matter the (presumably) insignificant nature from the errors the 3 households share. Hence, more topic regarding results of such an assumption on the textual structure was useless. At long last, L. is certainly in rejecting the idea which takes divergent readings to-be author-variants (p. 21 letter. 8). 8 – Wisely, L. performed without collating the relevant manuscripts anew as past attempts have proven not to ever lead to any more understanding. He does not bring a crucial apparatus, either; as an alternative, when you look at the discourse he discusses extensively most circumstances where in fact the MSS disagree or seem to provide inaccurate indication. Since SB within his Teubner quite frequently simply by using an asterisk relates your reader to Heraeus’ equipment for additional support, making his release awkward to partner tinder happn with, it absolutely was good decision of L.’s to remember and clarify SB’s resolutions. A good example was 69.2, in which domino truly are superior to dominae, and L., speed P. Howell, justly defends SB’s choice (p. 125): Pudens’ toy-boy, to who the guy directs gift ideas, is known as dominus, which (as in other places in Martial) has a tendency to invert deliberately the popular servitium amoris of elegy. Some other textual conversations consist of 10 tit. [p. 56], 65.2 [p. 120], 68 tit. [p. 123], etc. Due to the fact Xenia are often difficult to understand, the written text has completed a great deal of attempts by Humanists and soon after scholars to enhance they: L. correctly accepts this type of conjectures at, e.g., 2.2 (p. 43), 44.2 (p. 96), 109.2 (p. 174). While doing so, lots of conjectures ended up being needless or just completely wrong. Heinsius in particular, to whom our text of Martial as a whole owes much, fairly aggressively healed in which there is frequently no reason to cure, which is helpful having L.’s useful talks on 2.9, 7.2, 76.2, 79.2, 98.1, 125.2; similar is true of anonymous Humanist conjectures (L. on 20.1, 66 tit., and most likely in addition 91 breast.).