M. Valerii Martialis Liber spectacvlorvm 9780198144816, 0198144814

Citation preview

M . VAL E R I I M A RT I A L I S L I B E R S P E C TAC V LO RV M

This page intentionally left blank

M. VALERII MARTIALIS LIBER SPECTACVLORVM EDITED WITH INTRODUCTION TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY BY

KAT H L E E N M . C O L E M A N

1

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With oYces in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York ß Kathleen M. Coleman, 2006 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2006 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd., King’s Lynn, Norfolk ISBN 0-19-814481-4

978-0-19-814481-6

1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

Preface A project that has taken many years is thick with memories. I laid the groundwork for this commentary during the tenure of an Alexander von Humboldt Fellowship in Munich in 1987–8 and 1992, spoilt for choice between the welcoming libraries of the Institut fu¨r Klassische Philologie, the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, the Kommission fu¨r Alte Geschichte und Epigraphik, the Institut fu¨r Klassische Archa¨ologie, and the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek. There can be few cities in the world that combine such rich scholarly resources with such a beguiling setting. To the von HumboldtStiftung; to Professor Wilfried Stroh and Professor Paul Zanker, my learned and generous academic hosts; and to Dr Hugo Beikircher, Generalredaktor of the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, an institution for which I have developed a profound respect and affection, I offer my heartfelt thanks for the immense stimulation afforded me by those two years. At home among my colleagues at the University of Cape Town and, later, Trinity College Dublin I enjoyed close companionship and provocative discussion that kept the wheels of this project oiled; and regular trips to the libraries in Oxford, where I received warm hospitality from numerous friends and from the President and Fellows of Corpus Christi College, kept its engine running. Now it has finally completed its journey on high-octane fuel supplied by the stimulating companionship of my colleagues and students at Harvard University; and by the incomparable collections of the Harvard College Library, and the dedication and expertise of the librarians to whose care they are entrusted. To the outside world, classical scholarship may seem a very solitary occupation; yet all of us who practise it know that it is truly a communal endeavour. The sense of a shared enterprise is perhaps especially evident in a commentary, where intimidatingly diverse detail may require explication. On my behalf audiences in universities on several continents have patiently and constructively turned their attention to some of the more intractable difficulties in Martial’s text. Numerous friends and colleagues, and some total strangers, have responded promptly and generously to my queries, offered me useful references, and sent me publications of which I might otherwise have remained ignorant. For the privilege of allowing me to read their manuscripts prior to publication I should like to thank Michael Carter, Lucia Floridi, Kathryn Gutzwiller, Stephen Hinds, and Niklas Holzberg. This Preface would, however, turn into an immense catalogue if I were to name everyone else who

vi

Preface

has given me help in these various capacities, and so I shall simply register here, with profound sincerity, my appreciation for the generosity of spirit that has been invested in this commentary by so many people. Some particular forms of assistance enabled me to meet challenges that have proved unexpectedly rewarding. After editing Siluae 4, which is transmitted in a single manuscript, I had not anticipated the pleasure to be derived from working on a text that has several. The scribes who wrote them have startlingly distinctive handwriting, and their thought-processes are sometimes—though by no means always—endearingly transparent (‘oops’, one can occasionally hear them say), so that the process of collation, which I expected to be very dry and exacting, was certainly exacting but far from dry. I am therefore most grateful to the staff of the libraries in Bologna, Leiden, London, Paris, and Vienna who supplied me so promptly with microfilms and photocopies, especially Miss Christine Reynolds and Dr Tony Trowles, who sent me the photograph of W that is reproduced on the jacket and in the text, and Professor Ernst Gamillscheg, who personally checked some of the rubricated headings in Vindob. 3 that were too faint for me to read on a photocopy. Martial lived in a material world of objects and images, and even when the surviving evidence of that world is not precisely contemporary, it can still illuminate scraps of verse that are frustratingly opaque on the page. Oxford University Press has graciously allowed me to have as many plates as I deem necessary, and many friends have helped me to acquire them. In addition to the staff of the institutions that are credited in the list of illustrations, I owe a special debt to Carmen Arnold-Biucchi, who gave me invaluable guidance on numismatic collections, and Katherine Dunbabin and Annewies van den Hoek, both of whom have allowed me to reproduce photographs of their own and given me precious advice on acquiring permissions. Patrick Florance created the maps with consummate patience and care, and Martin Gamache of the Alpine Mapping Guild brought the highlands of Ethiopia into perspective with shaded relief. On every aspect of scholarly production that is covered by that compendious term ‘information technology’, Ivy Livingston proved expert, creative, patient, and funny. I am especially privileged to have had detailed comments on the entire commentary from H. D. Jocelyn, who—very sadly—did not live to see how much he had improved it, and from R. G. M. Nisbet and William Slater; all of them gave my work unstinting attention and lavished upon it their capacious wisdom and learning. Nicholas Horsfall commented vigorously upon an early draft of portions of the commentary; Michael Pfanner delivered a useful critique of the discussion of topographical issues in Spect. 2; and Marco Fantuzzi and David Petrain both read a draft of the General Introduction,

Preface

vii

and gave me valuable suggestions on matters to do with Martial’s Hellenistic predecessors and much else. In the closing stages T. V. Buttrey, having read the General Introduction as well as portions of the commentary pertaining to the date, sent me, along with much advice both bracing and salutary, a draft of his own article on the topic, arguing for unitary composition under not Titus, as hitherto supposed, but Domitian, thus provoking me to reconsider the whole question. Throughout these last months, working with Leofranc HolfordStrevens at Oxford University Press has been a unique privilege. He has engaged selflessly with every detail of this work, filling the margins of the electronic files with his fabled learning—quotations from authors ranging from Hesiod to Housman, linguistic comparanda in exotic scripts, witty anecdotes from more modern periods of history—and offering crisp solutions to innumerable difficulties, great and small. To him, and to every other person who has read my manuscript in whole or in part, I express my deep appreciation, as I do also to Kathleen McLaughlin and Maggi Shade, whose vigilance and efficiency greatly eased the transformation of the digital files into print, and to Hilary O’Shea, who has exercised editorial patience for so long. Having described what I have got out of this project, I will be brief about what I have put into it in trying to ensure that others will get something out of it too. First, in instances where no definitive solution suggests itself, or where some light may be shed by a broader context, I have gone into more detail than is perhaps usual in a commentary; I am aware that the proportion of comment to Latin text is rather high, but these poems bristle with important and interesting difficulties that demand thorough treatment. Second, since there is no point in pretending that the users of commentaries have most of classical literature by heart any more, I have glossed the context for many of my comparanda, so as to make it easier to see how they illustrate the point in question. Third, in the hope of making this commentary accessible to specialists from different areas within classical scholarship (and perhaps even some outside it), I have eliminated acronyms from the bibliography. Similarly, recognizing that the commentary is a medium both dense and bitty, in order to create a semblance of flow I have kept abbreviations to a minimum. I should also point out that, since there is no virtue in maintaining positions that now appear plainly misguided, I have changed my mind on some issues that I have already addressed in print. The hydra of bibliographical completeness is an unvanquishable beast, and so at the head of the commentary on each epigram I have drawn attention to selective discussions, rather than listing every instance in which I have found a particular epigram mentioned. I hope it will be obvious from the commentary how much I owe to the scholars who have tackled these tricky poems before me; still, I shall undoubtedly have missed useful publications. Because of the vagaries of publishers’ delays and vendors’ deliveries, I am aware that some

viii

Preface

material that I have not yet seen has already appeared on another continent but could not cross the seas in time for me to benefit from it; in this category I most urgently regret that only at the very last minute was I able to skim Sven Lorenz’s rich survey of scholarship on Martial 1970–2003 in Lustrum 45. Last of all, let me state the obvious: a commentary is never finished; the potential for distortion and error lurks in every note; and it is hard to let go. K. M. C. Cambridge, MA 28 March 2006

Contents List of Illustrations List of Tables Abbreviations Editions, Commentaries, and Translations Cited General Introduction 1. The Numbering in this Edition 2. The Transmission of the Text 3. Title 4. Headings 5. Scope and Characteristics of the Transmitted Collection 6. The Identity of ‘Caesar’ 7. The Flavian Amphitheatre 8. Spectacle and the Imperial Image 9. Monuments and Occasions as a Theme in Epigram 10. Spectacle and Imperial Panegyric in Martial’s Oeuvre 11. The Author and his Book 12. A Humanist Legacy: the Cornu copiae of Niccolo` Perotti Sigla Editorial Note Text, Translation, and Commentary Appendix: The Source of the Nile Concordances Bibliography Index Verborum Index Nominum et Rerum

x xii xiii xvi xix xx xxi xxv xxix xxxiii xlv lxv lxxii lxxvi lxxix lxxxi lxxxv lxxxvii lxxxvii 1 267 271 277 305 308

List of Illustrations Figures Fig. 1 The chief Flavian landmarks in the Colosseum Valley superimposed upon the remains of the Domus Aurea. Map: Patrick Florance Fig. 2 The course of the Nile. Map: Patrick Florance. Shaded relief: Alpine Mapping Guild

16 268

Plates Pl. 1 Westminster Abbey, cod. 15, fo. 48r . Copyright: Dean and Chapter of Westminster Pl. 2 Bronze sestertius issued by the senatorial mint under Titus, ad 80–1 (BMCRE ii, Titus 190). Copyright: British Museum Pl. 3 Bronze sestertius issued by the senatorial mint under Domitian, ad 81–2 (BMCRE ii, pl. 70. 1). American Numismatic Society 1954.203.170 Pl. 4 Quadrans issued by the senatorial mint under Domitian, ad 83–5. American Numismatic Society 1944.100.54620 Pl. 5 Reconstructed dedication superimposed over fifth-century inscription recording repairs to the Flavian amphitheatre (CIL vi. 40454a). Reproduced with permission from Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum vi. 8/2 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996), 4429 fig.
Pl. 6 North-west fac¸ade of the Flavian amphitheatre. Fototeca Unione 6260 Pl. 7 Model of the Flavian amphitheatre. DAI Rome 73.1000 Pl. 8 Remains of the hypogeum of the Flavian amphitheatre. Fototeca Unione 12182 Pl. 9 Medallion of Gordian III. DAI Rome 10796 F Pl. 10 Model of the Colosseum Valley in the fourth century. DAI Rome 73.1081 Pl. 11 View east through the Arch of Titus. DAI Rome 79.2198 Pl. 12 Terracotta mask of a German. Blacas Collection, GR 1867.508.644, neg. no. 241766. Copyright: British Museum

xxxii

lii

lii

lv

lxvi lxvii lxvii lxix lxxi 17 25 50

List of Illustrations Pl. 13 Castra Praetoria, Rome, mosaic of two magistri (or bestiarii) and a tiger. Alinari/Art Resource, NY; ART301197 AN23761 D00048522 Pl. 14 Caseggiato di Bacco e Arianna (III 17, 5), Ostia, mosaic: Bacchus and Ariadne. Soprintendenza Archeologica di Ostia, Archivio Fotografico b 990 Pl. 15 Terme di Porta Marina, Ostia, mosaic: athletes. Soprintendenza Archeologica di Ostia, Archivio Fotografico a 1998 Pl. 16 Zliten, Libya, amphitheatre mosaic, east frieze, left-hand side: beast displays. DAI Rome 61.1889 Pl. 17 Serdica, Bulgaria, marble relief: bears performing in the arena. National Archaeological Museum, Sofia, 5926 Pl. 18 Lagynos: bear mauling damnatus hoisted on pole. Mainz, Ro¨misch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, O.39628. Photograph: Annewies van den Hoek. Reproduced by courtesy of the Museum Pl. 19 Perugia, mosaic: Orpheus enchanting the animals. DAI Rome 76.1849 Pl. 20 Piazza Armerina, Sicily, mosaic of the Great Hunt (detail): capture of bison and rhinoceros. Ministero per i Bene e le Attivita` Culturali, ICCD F10278 Pl. 21 Templum Divi Vespasiani, Rome, frieze: urceus decorated with scenes from the arena. Musei Vaticani Archivio Fotografico, XXXI.45.3 Pl. 22 Torlonia Collection, Rome, sarcophagus: magister and lion. DAI Rome 31.957 Pl. 23 Piazza Armerina, Sicily, mosaic of the Small Hunt (detail): bird-liming scene. Fototeca Unione 11796 Pl. 24 Salona, Croatia, mould decorated with gladiators and palm-fronds (impression). National Archaeological Museum, Split, A 826 Pl. 25 Annaba, Algeria, mosaic: hunting scene. DAI Rome 36.1089 Pl. 26 Monastery of S. Anselmo, Rome, mosaic: Orpheus enchanting the animals. DAI Rome 67.471 Pl. 27 Zliten, Libya, amphitheatre mosaic, north frieze, left-hand side: gladiatorial combat. DAI Rome 61.1891 Pl. 28 Zliten, Libya, amphitheatre mosaic, north frieze, right-hand side: gladiatorial combat. DAI Rome 61.1892 Pl. 29 Cos, mosaic (detail): gladiatorial combat. After M. Junkelmann, Das Spiel mit dem Tod (Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2000), 38 fig. 51. Reproduced with permission Pl. 30 Smirat, Tunisia, mosaic: rewards for a display of leopards. Photograph: Katherine Dunbabin. Reproduced by courtesy of the Institut National du Patrimoine, Tunis

xi

72

73

74 76 88

89 105

106

108 117 124

147 167 179 224 225

229

231

List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4

Distribution of epigrams in the manuscripts Chronology of the rest of Martial’s oeuvre Headings attested in the manuscripts Events recorded in the Liber spectaculorum and in the sources for the inauguration of the Flavian amphitheatre Table 5 Distribution of sample categories in the numbered books of Epigrams

xxiv xxvii xxx xlix lxxx

Abbreviations A–B ¼ C. Austin and G. Bastianini (eds.), Posidippi Pellaei quae supersunt omnia (Biblioteca classica; Milan, 2002) AE ¼ L’Anne´e ´epigraphique (Paris, 1888– ) Anth. Lat. R ¼ A. Riese (ed.), Anthologia Latina sive poesis latinae supplementum. Pars prior: Carmina in codicibus scripta, Fasciculus I: Libri Salmasiani aliorumque carmina. Fasciculus II: Reliquorum librorum carmina, edn.2 rev. (Teubner; Leipzig, 1894–1906) —— SB ¼ D. R. Shackleton Bailey (ed.), Anthologia Latina I. Carmina in codicibus scripta. Fasc. 1 Libri Salmasiani aliorumque carmina (Teubner; Stuttgart, 1982) Arndt–Gingrich ¼ W. Bauer, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich (Chicago, 1957) Barrington Atlas ¼ R. J. A. Talbert (ed.), Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (Princeton, 2000) BMCRE ¼ H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, i (London, 1923; repr. 1965), ii (London, 1930; edn.2 1976), iii (London, 1936; repr. 1966) CIG ¼ Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum (Berlin, 1828–77) CIL ¼ Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin, 1862– ) CLE ¼ F. Bu¨cheler and E. Lommatzsch (eds.), Carmina Latina Epigraphica (Leipzig, 1895–1926) Corp. Gloss. Lat. ¼ G. Goertz (ed.), Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, 7 vols. (Leipzig, 1888–1923; repr. Amsterdam, 1965) D–S ¼ C. Daremberg and E. Saglio (eds.), Dictionnaire des antiquite´s grecques et romaines d’apre`s les textes et les monuments, 5 vols. (Paris, 1877–1919) Duden ¼ Das große Wo¨rterbuch der deutschen Sprache 3, 10 vols. (Mannheim, 1999) EAA ¼ Enciclopedia dell’arte antica, classica e orientale, 7 vols. (Rome, 1958–84) EAOR ¼ Epigrafia anfiteatrale dell’Occidente romano, 6 vols. so far (Vetera, 2, 4, 6, 11, 14, 15; Rome, 1988– ) Encyclope´die berbe`re ¼ Encyclope´die berbe`re, 27 vols. so far (Aix-en-Provence, 1984– )

xiv

Abbreviations

Ernout–Meillet ¼ A. Ernout and A. Meillet, Dictionnaire e´tymologique de la langue latine (Paris, 1951) FGE ¼ D. L. Page, Further Greek Epigrams: Epigrams before a.d. 50 from the Greek Anthology and Other Sources, Not Included in ‘Hellenistic Epigrams’ or ‘The Garland of Philip’ (Cambridge, 1981) GP ¼ A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, The Greek Anthology: The Garland of Philip, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1968) HE ¼ A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, The Greek Anthology: Hellenisic Epigrams, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1965) H–Sz ¼ J. B. Hofmann (1965), Lateinische Grammatik, ii: Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik, rev. A. Szantyr (Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, 2. 2. 2; Munich) IBer ¼ Inscriptiones Macedoniae Inferioris, fasc. 1 ¼ L. Gounaropoulou and M. B. Hatzopoulos (eds.), Inscriptiones Beroeae (Athens, 1998) IG ¼ Inscriptiones Graecae (Berlin, 1903– ) IGRRP ¼ Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes (Paris, 1906–27) IGUR ¼ Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae, 4 vols. (Rome, 1968–90) ILS ¼ H. Dessau (ed.), Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (Berlin, 1892–1916) Kaibel ¼ G. Kaibel (ed.), Epigrammata Graeca (Berlin, 1878) KlP ¼ Der kleine Pauly, 5 vols. (Munich, 1979) K–S ¼ R. Ku¨hner and C. Stegmann, rev. A. Thierfelder (1962), Ausfu¨hrliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache 4, 2 vols. (Munich, 1962) LGPN ¼ P. Fraser and E. Matthews (eds.), Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, 4 vols. so far (Oxford, 1987– ) LIMC ¼ L. Kahil (ed.), Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, 8 vols. (Zurich and Munich/Dusseldorf, 1981–97) L–S ¼ C. T. Lewis and C. Short (eds.), Harper’s Latin Dictionary (New York, 1879) ¼ A Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1879) LSJ ¼ H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. S. Jones (eds.), A Greek–English Lexicon 9 (Oxford, 1940; with revised supplement by P. G. W. Glare, 1996). LTK ¼ W. Kasper and K. Baumgartner (eds.), Lexikon fu¨r Theologie und Kirche 3, 11 vols. (Freiburg, 1993–2001) LTUR ¼ E. M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, 6 vols. (Rome, 1993–2000) MAMA ¼ Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua (Manchester/London, 1928– )

Abbreviations

xv

N–H ¼ R. G. M. Nisbet and M. Hubbard, A Commentary on Horace Odes Book I (Oxford, 1970); A Commentary on Horace Odes Book II (Oxford, 1978) N–R ¼ R. G. M. Nisbet and N. Rudd, A Commentary on Horace Odes Book III (Oxford and New York, 2004) N–W ¼ F. Neue and C. Wagener, Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache 3, 4 vols. (Leipzig, 1892–1905; repr. Hildesheim, Zurich, and New York, 1985) OLD ¼ P. G. W. Glare (ed.), Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1982) Pack2 ¼ R. A. Pack, The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt 2 (Ann Arbor, 1965) PLM ¼ A. Baehrens (ed.), Poetae Latini Minores, 6 vols. (Leipzig, 1879–83) RE ¼ Real-Encyclopa¨die der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart, 1893–1978) RIC ¼ H. Mattingly et al. (eds.), The Roman Imperial Coinage, 10 vols. (London, 1923–94) Roscher ¼ W. H. Roscher (ed.), Ausfu¨hrliches Lexikon der griechischen und ro¨mishen Mythologie, 6 vols. (Leipzig, 1884–1937) SEG ¼ Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (Amsterdam, 1923– ) SG ¼ L. Friedla¨nder, Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms in der Zeit von August bis zum Ausgang der Antonine 9, 4 vols. (Leipzig, 1919–21) SgO ¼ R. Merkelbach and J. Stauber (eds.), Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, 5 vols. (Stuttgart/Munich and Leipzig, 1998–2004) Suppl. Hell. ¼ H. Lloyd-Jones and P. J. Parsons (eds.), Supplementum Hellenisticum (Texte und Kommentare, 11; Berlin and New York, 1983) TLL ¼ Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Leipzig and Stuttgart, 1900– )

Editions, Commentaries, and Translations Cited Note: Items in this section that are quoted in the commentary by author and date are listed also in the Bibliography, for ease of reference. (i) Martial’s complete oeuvre (in chronological order) D. Calderini, Commentarium in Martialem (Rome, 1474) F. G. Schneidewin, M. Val. Martialis Epigrammaton Libri (edn.1 Grimma, 1842; edn.2 Leipzig, 1853) J. Elphinston, The Epigrams of M. Val. Martial, in Twelve Books: with a Comment (London, 1782) L. Friedla¨nder, M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Libri, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1886) W. Gilbert, M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Libri (Biblioteca Teubneriana; Leipzig, 1886) W. M. Lindsay, M. Val. Martialis Epigrammata (Oxford Classical Texts; Oxford, edn.1 1903, edn.2 1929) J. D. Duff, ‘M. Valeri Martialis Epigrammata’, in J. P. Postgate (ed.), Corpus Poetarum Latinorum, ii (London, 1905), 434–531 W. Heraeus, M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Libri (Biblioteca Teubneriana; Leipzig, 1925) H. J. Izaac, Martial, E´pigrammes, 2 vols. (Bude´; Paris, 1930–3) P. Richard, Les E´pigrammes de Martial, 2 vols. (Classiques Garnier; Paris, 1931) D. R. Shackleton Bailey, M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammata (Biblioteca Teubneriana; Stuttgart, 1990) —— Martial, Epigrams, 3 vols. (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge, MA, and London, 1993) R. Moreno Soldevila (intro.), J. Ferna´ndez Valverde (ed.), and E. Montero Cartelle (trans.), Marco Valerio Marcial, Epigramas: Volumen I (Libros 1–7) (Alma Mater, Coleccio´n de autores griegos y latinos; Madrid, 2004) (ii) Selections E. Post, Selected Epigrams of Martial, Edited, with an Introduction and Notes (Boston, 1908; reissued Norman, OK, 1967) L. Watson and P. Watson, Martial: Select Epigrams (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics; Cambridge, 2003) (iii) The Liber spectaculorum (in chronological order) N. Perotti, Cornu copiae (Venice, 1489) F. Schmieder, M. Val. Martialis de spectaculis libellus (Brieg, 1837)

Editions, Commentaries, and Translations Cited

xvii

L. Friedla¨nder, ‘Martialis Liber Spectaculorum cum Adnotationibus’, in Index lectionum in Academia Albertina habendarum 1884/85 (Ko¨nigsberg, 1884) U. Carratello, M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Liber. Introduzione e testo critico (Rome, 1981) F. Della Corte, ‘Gli spettacoli’ di Marziale tradotti e commentati (Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto di Filologia Classica e Medievale dell’Universita` di Genova 90; Genoa, edn.1 1946, edn.2 1969, edn.3 1986) F. Fortuny Previ, Marcial, Libro de especta´culos: texto, traduccio´n y notas (Murcia, 1983) V. Hunink, Martialis: Spektakel in het Colosseum (Leuven, 2003) (iv) The numbered books of the Epigrams (in numerical order) 1: M. Citroni, M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Liber Primus. Introduzione, testo, apparato critico e commento (Biblioteca di studi superiori, 61; Florence, 1975) P. Howell, A Commentary on Book One of the Epigrams of Martial (London, 1980) 2: C. A. Williams, Martial: Epigrams Book Two, Edited with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (New York, 2004) 5: P. Howell, Martial Epigrams V: Edited with Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Warminster, 1995) 6: F. Grewing, Martial, Buch VI (Ein Kommentar) (Hypomnemata, 115; Go¨ttingen, 1997) 7: G. Gala´n Vioque, Martial, Book VII: A Commentary, trans. J. J. Zoltowski (Mnemosyne Supplement 226; Leiden, Boston, and Cologne, 2002) ¨ bersetzung, Kommentar (Palingen8: C. Scho¨ffel, Martial, Buch 8: Einleitung, Text, U esia, 77; Stuttgart, 2002) 9: C. Henrikse´n, Martial, Book IX: A Commentary, 2 vols. (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Latina Upsaliensia, 24; Uppsala, 1998–9) 10: G. Damschen and A. Heil (eds.), Marcus Valerius Martialis. Epigrammaton liber ¨ bersetzung, Interpretationen. Mit einer decimus. Das zehnte Epigrammbuch. Text, U Einleitung, Martial-Bibliographie und einem rezeptionsgeschichtlichen Anhang (Studien zur klassischen Philologie, 148; Frankfurt am Main, 2004) 11: N. M. Kay, Martial Book XI: A Commentary (London, 1985) 13: T. J. Leary, Martial Book XIII: The Xenia. Text with Introduction and Commentary (London, 2001) 14: —— Martial Book XIV: The Apophoreta. Text with Introduction and Commentary (London, 1996) (v) Other authors (excluding works cited under ‘Abbreviations’ above) Accius: E. Courtney, The Fragmentary Latin Poets (Oxford, 1993) Aeschylus: E. Fraenkel, Aeschylus: Agamemnon. Edited with a Commentary, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1950) Ausonius: N. M. Kay, Ausonius, Epigrams: Text with Introduction and Commentary (London, 2001) Caesar: H. Meusel, C. Iulii Caesaris Commentarii De Bello Civili 12 (Berlin, 1959) Callimachus: F. J. Williams, Callimachus, Hymn to Apollo: A Commentary (Oxford, 1978)

xviii

Editions, Commentaries, and Translations Cited

Catullus: R. Ellis, A Commentary on Catullus 2 (Oxford, 1889) —— C. J. Fordyce, Catullus: A Commentary (Oxford, 1961) Ennius: E. Courtney, The Fragmentary Latin Poets (Oxford, 1993) Herodotus: A. B. Lloyd, Herodotus, Book II, 3 vols. (E´tudes pre´liminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain, 43; Leiden, 1975–88) Horace: J. Pre´aux, Epistulae. E´pıˆtres. Horace. Livre I. E´dition, introduction et commentaire (E´rasme, collection de textes latins commente´s, 20; Paris, 1968) —— D. West, Horace, Odes III: Dulce periculum (Oxford, 2002) Juvenal: E. Courtney, A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London, 1980) —— J. E. B. Mayor, Thirteen Satires of Juvenal with a Commentary 2, 2 vols. (London, 1877–8; repr. New York, 1979) Manilius: A. E. Housman, M. Manilii Astronomicon, 5 vols. (London, 1903–30; edn.2 Cambridge, 1937) Ovid: F. Bo¨mer, P. Ovidius Naso Metamorphosen: Kommentar, 7 vols. (Wissenschaftliche Kommentare zu griechischen und lateinischen Schiftstellern; Heidelberg, 1969–76) —— J. C. McKeown, Ovid: Amores. Text, Prolegomena and Commentary in Four Volumes. Volume II. A Commentary on Book One (ARCA Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs, 22; Leeds, 1989) Seneca: R. J. Tarrant, Seneca, Agamemnon: Edited with a Commentary (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, 18; Cambridge, 1976) Statius: K. M. Coleman, Statius, Silvae IV: Edited with a Translation and Commentary (Oxford, 1988) —— H.-J. van Dam, P. Papinius Statius Silvae Book II: A Commentary (Leiden, 1984) —— D. E. Hill, P. Papinii Stati Thebaidos Libri XII (Mnemosyne Supplementum 79; Leiden, 1983) Suetonius: K. R. Bradley, Suetonius’ Life of Nero: An Historical Commentary (Collection Latomus, 157; Brussels, 1978) Tacitus: F. R. D. Goodyear, The Annals of Tacitus Volume II (Annals 1.55–81 and Annals 2) (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, 23; Cambridge, 1981) Tibullus: K. F. Smith, The Elegies of Albius Tibullus, the Corpus Tibullianum, Edited with Introduction and Notes on Books I, II and IV, 2–14 (Morris and Morgan’s Latin Series; New York, 1913) Virgil: R. G. Austin, P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Liber Sextus (Oxford, 1977) —— R. G. G. Coleman, Vergil, Eclogues (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics; Cambridge, 1977) —— R. A. B. Mynors, Virgil, Georgics: Edited with a Commentary (Oxford, 1990) —— E. Norden, P. Vergilius Maro Aeneis Buch VI (Sammlung wissenschaftlicher Kommentare zu griechischen und ro¨mischen Schriftstellern; Leipzig, 1903) —— R. F. Thomas, Virgil, Georgics, 2 vols. (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics; Cambridge, 1988) [Virgil]: R. O. A. M. Lyne, Ciris: A Poem Attributed to Vergil, Edited with an Introduction and Commentary (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, 20; Cambridge, 1978)

General Introduction All that one can say with moderate certainty about this book of epigrams is that it comprises an untitled collection of uncertain length celebrating a series of unspecified occasions in honour of ‘Caesar’ (unnamed); and it is attributed to Martial. Many of the unknowns are the result of transmission in a patchwork of florilegia, so that we cannot be sure whether all the epigrams ascribed to this collection actually belong there;1 nor, given the need to reconcile editors’ competing systems of numeration, is it always clear to which epigram a modern discussion refers. Hence a standard order of introductory topics, proceeding from the author’s life and work to the manuscript tradition and editorial conventions, seems unlikely to bring clarity, and I propose instead to chart a course in the opposite direction, starting with the numbering and ending with the author, in the pose he assumes in this work;2 one of the most extraordinary achievements of Renaissance scholarship will supply a brief coda.

1 A comprehensive history of the scholarship on this collection would require a separate volume. For a summary of the main strands of scholarly opinion down to the early 19th c. see Kehrein (1836: 541–9), whose own view is that, while the individual epigrams are by Martial, he did not compile the collection. By sketching the main outlines of the manuscript tradition of Martial’s entire oeuvre, Schneidewin (1842) put the study of the collection on a new footing. Friedla¨nder (1884) composed a text with brief commentary that was reprinted in substantially the same form in his twovolume edition, with commentary, of the whole of Martial’s oeuvre (1886). Weinreich (1928) made a major contribution in tracing the influence of Hellenistic epigram. Brief commentaries have been published by Della Corte in Italian (three editions, 1947–86) and Fortuny Previ in Spanish (1983). The edition by Carratello (1981a), which does not contain a commentary, is accompanied instead by a substantial apparatus criticus and a detailed introduction, including important discussion of ‘questioni testuali e esegetiche’. 2 As distinct from the Roman citizen from Bilbilis, M. Valerius Martialis, for whom biographical details, including external evidence (e.g. Plin. Epist. 3. 21), are fully documented in standard reference works.

xx

General Introduction 1 . T H E N U M B E R IN G I N T H I S E D I T I O N

Editors have employed various systems of numeration for the epigrams in the Liber spectaculorum, and calculated the total number of epigrams differently. There are three main causes for this. The first stems from uncertainty whether consecutive epigrams on what is apparently a single theme should be considered as one epigram or two. A single number was assigned to paired epigrams on the same theme until Carratello in his edition (1981a) assigned separate numbers to each member of a pair.3 This is the system adopted by Shackleton Bailey in his Teubner text (1990) and Loeb edition (1993), and it is the system that I follow throughout this introduction and the commentary below. The second cause of confusion is the absence of two epigrams (Spect. 31 and 33) from one branch of the tradition, represented by the descendants of the lost archetype K. This lacuna caused disruption in the sequence of Spect. 31–4 in printed editions well into the twentieth century. The numbering of these four epigrams was eventually restored to reflect the order in which they are transmitted in the sole surviving manuscript to contain them all (H). The correct order was recorded by Lindsay in an article on the text of Martial (1903d: 50) and in a footnote on the fifth page of the unpaginated preface to his Oxford Classical Text (1903a); but in both the first and the second edition of the OCT the epigrams were printed in the same order as in previous editions. The first editor to restore the order preserved in H was Heraeus (1925). The third problem with the numeration of the epigrams is caused by a rank intruder: a scurrilous epigram about Domitian, attributed to Martial by the scholiast to Juv. 4. 38: ‘Flauia gens, quantum tibi tertius abstulit heres! j paene fuit tanti, non habuisse duos.’ This poem obviously cannot have been published while Domitian was alive. Petrus Scriverius inserted it at the end of the Liber spectaculorum in the seventeenth century, non suo at uacuo loco.4 It was conventionally retained until Carratello excised it from his edition; Shackleton Bailey includes it in his Teubner and Loeb with a clear rider that it is not 3 The text and French translation by Pierre Richard (1931) goes halfway, by treating the constituent elements of three of the pairs as two separate epigrams (4–5; 7–8; 28–9 ¼ 27–8 Richard), retaining one in two halves (24–5, numbered by Richard 23a–b) and conflating one pair into a single epigram with a single number (18–19 ¼ 18 Richard). 4 Carratello (1974b: 142 n. 1). The elegant formulation (Sen. Phaedr. 1268) I owe to T. V. Buttrey.

The Transmission of the Text

xxi

original to the collection. Since it manifestly does not belong here, I have followed Carratello in omitting it altogether. Scholarship on the Liber spectaculorum variously reflects all the different systems of numeration employed by editors.5 In the running-heads in the commentary I give the former systems in parentheses; but, rather than overload this introduction and the commentary with a plethora of alternatives, I append concordances so that readers can match my discussion to the numeration adopted by the scholars to whose work I refer.

2. THE TRANSMISSION O F THE TEXT The Liber spectaculorum is transmitted in one branch only of the tripartite manuscript tradition of Martial: the branch that Schneidewin (1842), followed by Lindsay (1903b: 8–12) called AA , more simply termed Æ by Duff (1903: 220).6 The archetype of the surviving witnesses was a florilegium. Six descendants survive. (i) A fragment of an anthology from the turn of the ninth century, found ¨ sterreichische Nationalby Sannazaro ‘in finibus Aeduorum’, is preserved in the O bibliothek in Vienna, Vindobonensis Lat. 277 (¼ H). The excerpts from Martial are on fos. 71r ---73v .7 The fragment contains nothing in the Liber spectaculorum before 21. 5 and nothing in the entire collection of Epigrams after 1. 4. 2. (ii) A ninth-century manuscript, emanating from central or southern France, belongs to the Bibliothe`que nationale de France, ms. lat. 8071. It was formerly the property of the French historian Jacques-Auguste de Thou (1553–1617), and hence is known as the florilegium Thuaneum (¼ T). It contains more than 800 epigrams by Martial as well as a wide range of excerpts from other verse authors, both pagan and Christian.8 In this manuscript the 5 Carratello (1997: 237–40) provides a brief survey of the conflicting systems and their manuscript origins. 6 Lindsay (1903b : 18) suggests that the omission of the Liber spectaculorum from the other branches of the tradition might be the fault of a scribe who started copying his exemplar where he found the heading INCIPIT LIBER PRIMVS EPIGRAMMATON, i.e. it need not mean that ancient collections of Martial’s epigrams circulated without it. For a scholion that may derive from another branch of the tradition see Spect. 17, Introduction. 7 As Leofranc Holford-Strevens points out to me, an exemplar from an Irish foundation (Luxeuil?) is suggested by the errors at 25. 2, 31. 5. 8 For a list see Citroni (1975: xlvi).

xxii

General Introduction

Liber spectaculorum is treated as ‘Lib. I’, and the rest of the books are numbered accordingly (e.g. Book 6 is numbered ‘Lib. VII’, etc.). The poems from the Liber spectaculorum are on fos. 24r--- 25v. From Spect. 21. 5 onwards T contains nothing that is not in H. Although T has been widely considered a copy of H (so that Lindsay 1903b: 10 uses the symbol H for both H and T), too little of H survives for this assumption to be confirmed;9 and indeed a case has recently been made for their independence from one another, postulating comparison with a third manuscript (now lost) as the source of those readings in T that differ from H.10 (iii) A fragment of an anthology from the beginning of the ninth century, largely confined to individual couplets, was formerly the property of Isaac Voss. It is preserved in the Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden, Leidensis Vossianus Lat. Q 86 (¼ R). The extracts from Martial number approximately 275. Those from the Liber spectaculorum are contained in fos. 105v ---106r . Like T, from Spect. 18. 5 onwards R contains nothing that is not in H, but remarkably none of the extracts from the Liber spectaculorum in T and R overlap: R has only Spect. 12, 28, 29, 31, and 33; T has none of these.11 (iv) A thirteenth-century florilegium is preserved in a manuscript in the Library of the Dean and Chapter at Westminster Abbey in London, cod. 15 (¼ W).12 This manuscript contains Books 1–14 of Martial, the Liber proverbiorum by Godfrey of Winchester (written in imitation of Martial c.1100, and labelled in a second, near-contemporary hand ‘Liber XV’), the Liber spectaculorum (labelled ‘Liber XVI’: fos. 47r ---48v ), and Ausonius, Caesares 1–41 (attributed to Sidonius). This manuscript was discovered by Lindsay,13 but it was never properly assimilated into the manuscript history of Martial until it was fully reported by Reeve (1980: 193–9).14 Since the text of Books 1–14 in W follows the ª tradition, this manuscript is evidence that contamination between Æ and ª had occurred at least as early as the thirteenth century. W in turn seems to be the ancestor of a group of Italian manuscripts dating from the late fifteenth century.15 9 Reeve (1983: 241). For a summary of the debate about the relationship between H and T see Citroni (1975: xlvii). 10 Richmond (1998: 92–3). 11 Carratello (1974b: 145). 12 Not to be confused with W in Schneidewin’s sigla, which represents the ‘fragmentum Perusinum Wittii’: see Carratello (1981b: 236 n. 7). 13 Lindsay (1905: 89). 14 Too late to be taken into account by Carratello (1981a). 15 Reeve (1980: 197) suggests that Poggio may have taken a copy of W back to Italy after visiting Salisbury Cathedral in 1420, and that this copy might have entered the Italian tradition after he settled in Florence in the 1450s.

The Transmission of the Text

xxiii

(v) In Italy by the fourteenth century a text of the Liber spectaculorum, almost identical (in its surviving portion) with that of W, was prefixed to a copy of the fourteen numbered books of Martial that derives from the ª tradition. This manuscript is preserved in the Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna, cod. 2221 (¼ Bonon.). Only one leaf of the two that originally contained the Liber spectaculorum survives, fo. 1r–1v. It is in a different hand from the rest of the manuscript. (vi) In the second half of the fifteenth century a scribe copied the whole ¨ sterreichische Nationalof Bonon. in a manuscript now preserved in the O bibliothek, Vindobonensis Lat. 316 (¼ Vindob. 3).16 The poems from the Liber spectaculorum are on fos. 1v–6r. After Spect. 34 Bonon. has the following garbled subscriptio: ‘Hii uersus in quodam uetustissimo iasiali inuenitur qui ab aliis deerant.’ The obvious correction for iasiali (or however the word is deciphered)17 is Martiali (and, for inuenitur, inueniuntur). The codex uetustissimus to which the subscriptio refers was given the designation K by Sabbadini (1905: 216). Sabbadini did not know what W contained, but it is now clear that it shares with Bonon. and Vindob. 3 a common ancestor, presumably the same codex uetustissimus, i.e. K. A full collation (minus headings) of the three witnesses to K, combined with the readings of four incunabula that he characterizes as ‘piu´ notevoli’,18 has been made by Carratello (1981b: 236–41).19 In Table 1, illustrating the distribution of epigrams in the manuscripts, I have grouped W, Bonon., and Vindob. 3 together within vertical lines to indicate that they represent the sum total of the evidence for K in the preceding column. An isolated pair of epigrams from the Liber spectaculorum is included in the collection of medieval florilegia known as the Florilegium Gallicum,20 compiled at or near Orle´ans in the twelfth century.21 These two epigrams are the 16 Although Carratello (1974a: 7; 1981a: 25; 1981b : 245) maintains that Vindob. 3 is independent of Bonon., Reeve (1980: 198) points out that all the differences except one stem from corruptions introduced by Vindob. 3, and the remaining one is an obvious transposition for the sake of the metre. 17 Carratello (1981a: 26 n. 19). 18 Rome c.1470, printed by the same house as produced an edition of Silius Italicus after 26 April 1471: see Casciano et al. (1980: xv, 12 no. 70, 18 no. 115); Ferrara 1471–5 (Andre´ Belfort); Venice c.1472 (Vindelino da Spira); Rome 1473 (Conrad Sweynheym and Arnold Pannartz). 19 Carratello (1975: 222–4) reports two minor codices derived from K that were annotated by the humanist scholar Panormita (Antonio Beccadelli) and now belong to the Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbu¨ttel. 20 Ullman (1932: 22–6). 21 Rouse (1979).

xxiv

General Introduction

Table 1. Distribution of epigrams in the manuscripts H 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

T

R

* * * * * * * * * * * *

5–6 * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * 1–3 * * * * * * *

K

W

Bonon.

Vindob. 3

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

10–12 * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * *

* * * * *

* * * * *

* * * * *

* * * * *

1, 3–7, 10–12

1, 3–7, 10–12

1, 3–7, 10–12

1, 3–7, 10–12

*

*

*

*

Flor. Gall.

* *

* * * *

* *

second and third of a cycle of three about a sow who was wounded in the arena and gave birth to a piglet while she was dying (Spect. 15–16). In the Florilegium Gallicum they are placed immediately after the extracts from Books 1–14 of Martial. They are followed by another pair of epigrams that is attested nowhere else (Spect. 35–6). Adriaen De Jonghe (1511–75), whose name was Latinized as Hadrianus Junius, included this pair at the end of the Liber spectaculorum in his edition of the Epigrams published in Antwerp in

Title

xxv

1568. Junius’ knowledge of these epigrams derived ultimately from Pierre Daniel, who owned a copy of the Florilegium Gallicum now in the Bibliothe`que nationale de France, ms. lat. 7647.22 We cannot be sure that these two epigrams belong in the Liber spectaculorum, but their position in the Florilegium Gallicum, straight after two epigrams that do indubitably come from the Liber spectaculorum, makes this a reasonable working assumption; otherwise we have to postulate either that they emanate from an otherwise entirely unrepresented area of Martial’s corpus23 or else that they were not composed by him at all. The existence of a florilegium sharing two epigrams with H and W, as well as containing two epigrams not attested anywhere else, suggests that all the florilegia are descended from an anthology with more epigrams than any of its descendants; and that the Liber spectaculorum as transmitted is incomplete.24 When the collection began to be excerpted seems at present to be an unanswerable question; but a collection of short poems virtually invited excerption, as is now tantalizingly evident from the new ‘Milan’ papyrus of Posidippus, upon which a second hand has inscribed a mark—FðÞ—next to a few of the epigrams, identifying them for reading or, perhaps, copying afresh in a new anthology.25 The instability of a collection of short poems in Antiquity raises the possibility that competing editions circulated, perhaps arranged in various ingenious ways.26 It is not beyond the bounds of probability that our versions of the Liber spectaculorum may have their roots in a very distant selection, or perhaps more than one.27

3 . T IT L E The florilegia usually do not give the extracts from the Liber spectaculorum their own title, but simply ascribe all the extracts from Martial to libri 22 Ullman (1932: 25). 23 An inference permitted by Epigr. 1. 1. 1–3 ‘Hic est quem legis ille, quem requiris, j toto notus in orbe Martialis j argutis epigrammaton libellis’. 24 Ullman (1932: 23). 25 Johnson (2005: 77). 26 As suggested, with reference to Catullus, by Barchiesi (2005: 337–8). 27 It has been suggested by Niklas Holzberg (cit. Hunink 2005: 174 n. 30) that a Christian excerptor might have been selecting gruesome epigrams in order to illustrate Roman decadence; but it is not clear why such a polemicist would not rather have discarded the collection altogether, thereby saving himself time, trouble, and materials. Besides, he would not have cared about animal, as opposed to human, suffering.

xxvi

General Introduction

Martialis epigrammaton.28 The exception is W, which treats it as the sixteenth book in Martial’s corpus (see Section 2). A copy of the Ferrara incunabulum that belonged to Isaac Voss and is now in the Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden preserves the first four folios missing from the other exemplars. These folios, containing the Liber spectaculorum, are headed M. Valerii Martialis epigrammaton liber incipit. Carratello (1973: 298 n. 19) conjectures that the humanist who gave the poems this heading may by chance have replicated the wording of the original title; he deduces from the absence of a title in the surviving manuscripts that Martial simply called the collection epigrammaton liber. Given that this collection, unlike the rest of Martial’s corpus, is transmitted exclusively through florilegia, it may be more profitable to look at Martial’s own practice elsewhere rather than to rely on an argumentum ex silentio deduced from a haphazard manuscript tradition. The book that is commonly numbered 13 in modern editions was referred to by Martial himself as libellus Xeniorum: 13. 3. 1–2 ‘omnis in hoc gracili Xeniorum turba libello j constabit nummis quattuor empta tibi.’ Xenia (ØÆ, ‘guest-gifts’) refers to the content of the epigrams. We do not know for certain how Martial referred to the book commonly numbered 14, which some of the manuscripts call Apophoreta (I æ Æ, ‘presents to take away’). This title could plausibly go back to Martial himself; the word was current at Rome, occurring twice in Suetonius (Calig. 55. 2, Vesp. 19. 1). It corresponds neatly to the Greek title of its companionbook, Xenia; both consist almost exclusively of couplets designed to accompany gifts. The twelve heterogeneous collections, which were published after the Xenia and the Apophoreta (see Table 2), were designated numerically by Martial himself: cf. 5. 2. 5–6 ‘lasciuos lege quattuor libellos: j quintus cum domino liber iocatur’, 6. 1. 1 ‘Sextus mittitur hic tibi libellus’, 8 praef. ‘hic [libellus] tamen, qui operis nostri octauus inscribitur’, 10. 2. 1 ‘Festinata prior, decimi mihi cura libelli j elapsum manibus nunc reuocauit opus.’ Hence, for each of the heterogeneous collections a number takes the place of a title. If our collection had already appeared before Martial published Book 1 (as argued in Section 6), the implication is that it was known by a name, rather than a number. Moreover, the name must have been sufficiently specific for there to be little possibility of confusion once Martial started numbering his sequence of twelve books. This is one reason why it seems to me unlikely that it was called simply Liber epigrammaton. Or, to put it another way, Martial 28 T has the inscriptio ‘ex libris M. Valeri Marcialis epigrammaton breuiatum’; R has ‘incipit excerptio de libris Martialis epigrammaton’: for these inscriptiones and the title given to the corpus in the incunabula see Carratello (1965b: 298–9).

Title

xxvii

Table 2. Chronology of the rest of Martial’s oeuvre Book Xenia Apophoreta 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 edn.1 11 10 edn.2 12

Datea Saturnalia 83/84b Saturnalia 84/85c late 85/early 86 late 86/early 87d 87/88 Saturnalia 88 Saturnalia 89e summer/autumn 90 f Saturnalia 92g late 93/early 94h late 94/early 95i Saturnalia 95 Saturnalia 96 mid-98/early 99 j spring 102 onwardsk

a

The fundamental chronology was established by Friedla¨nder (1886: i. 50–67). A further step forward was the demonstration of significant coincidences with the Saturnalia: Citroni (1989: 214–25). This table registers subsequent refinements. b Leary (2001: 12–13). c Leary (1996: 9–13). d For a brief summary of the chronological relationship between Books 1 and 2, and the possibility that both were later reissued in revised form, see Williams (2004: 4–5). e Citroni (1989: 221–2). f The unprecedented gap between Books 5 and 7 requires explanation: Nauta (2002: 442 n. 4) suggests the Saturnalia of 91, on the grounds that illness mentioned in Book 6 caused Martial to skip a year; Coleman (2005b) suggests the Matronalia of 91. g Friedla¨nder (1886: i. 58), Citroni (1989: 216). h Scho¨ffel (2001: 35). i Henrikse´n (1998: 12–13). j Damschen–Heil (2004: 3–8). Martial’s apologia at 10. 2. 1–4, explicitly formulated to accompany a revised version, defies the attempt by Holzberg (2002: 140–8) to argue that Book 10 was published in a single edition. k Friedla¨nder (1886: i. 65–7).

could conceivably have referred to it like that at the moment of compilation, but he is unlikely to have continued to do so once he started publishing further books. Still, it was probably never designated Liber epigrammaton at all: if the transmitted collection preserves the character—although not the scope—of the original (see Section 5), its homogeneous contents would seem to invite a thematic descriptor; indeed, Martial’s use of the word epigramma(ta), which never occurs outside the twelve numbered books, seems to imply thematic variety.29 The name Xenia, describing what the book is about, 29 Puelma (1996: 136–9).

xxviii

General Introduction

suggests an analogous name for our collection. The most obvious one is Spectacula. Such a title would be supported by a reference that Cicero makes to his Tusculanae disputationes (Tusc. 5. 1 ‘quintus hic dies, Brute, finem faciet Tusculanarum disputationum’), although it is noteworthy that this name is derived from a generic description rather than a definition of the contents. A thematic descriptor was employed by Ovid, and perhaps by Cornelius Gallus: Amores. The combined evidence of Martial himself (13. 3. 1, cit. above) and contemporary practice suggests that these named books would usually have been referred to as ‘the book of such-and-such’, rather than simply ‘such-andsuch’.30 Hence we can legitimately postulate Liber spectaculorum as a name for our collection. While such formulations often specify the genre (e.g. Porph. on Hor. Serm. 1. 1 ‘hos priores duos libros Sermonum, posteriores Epistularum inscribens’), some are derived from the content: cf. Sabinus Tiro’s ‘book of gardening stuff ’ mentioned by Pliny (NH 19. 177 ‘Sabinus Tiro in libro Œ ıæØŒH, quem Maecenati dicauit’), Cicero’s reference to what we know as the Origines of Cato (Sen. 38 ‘septimus mihi liber Originum est in manibus’), Augustine’s remark about the Antiquitates of Varro (Ciu. 6. 3 ‘quadraginta et unum libros scripsit antiquitatum’), etc. The locution liber de þ ablative is arguably even more common than liber þ genitive.31 Nevertheless, on the analogy of Martial’s own reference to his libellus Xeniorum, and for the marginally useful expedient of distinguishing Martial’s book from Tertullian’s very different work De spectaculis, I refer to our collection as Liber spectaculorum.32 Whether that is precisely how Martial and his readers referred to it we cannot know for sure. It may have had no title at all, but simply a dedication to the emperor, as Josephus’ Bellum Iudaicum probably did.33

30 Bearing in mind, of course, that when a work comprised more than one book the simple descriptor (‘such-and-such’) would no longer have been possible, since the specification of the book-number would have required the formula ‘the so-manieth book of such-and-such’. 31 Cf. numerous examples cited by Schro¨der (1999: 12–13). 32 For the range of titles that the collection has been given in modern printed editions see Carratello (1981a: 34–5). 33 For discussion of a title to Josephus’ work see Rajak (2002: 201–2). I infer from the ‘seal’ that Titus set upon the Bellum Iudaicum that it was in some sense dedicated to him (Jos. Vita 363).

Headings

xxix

4. HEADINGS We can be certain that Martial affixed headings to the poems of the Xenia and Apophoreta, since this practice allows him to joke that his readers are free to skip the epigrams and make do with the headings alone:34 cf. 13. 3. 7–8 ‘addita per titulos sua nomina rebus habebis: j praetereas, si quid non facit ad stomachum’, 14. 2. 3–4 ‘lemmata si quaeris cur sint ascripta, docebo: j ut, si malueris, lemmata sola legas.’ In each case the heading identifies the gift described in the witty (and sometimes riddling) epigram that follows.35 This much is clear, even though some of the headings have become distorted in transmission. These remarks by Martial seem to imply that affixing descriptive headings to epigrams was unusual, although perhaps what he means is that his (ostensible) purpose in doing so is what is unusual.36 The epigrams here stand for the objects that they describe, and the headings perform the same function as labels inscribed beneath objects on display.37 Headings are also transmitted for the rest of the corpus in all three families of manuscripts.38 These titles follow two basic patterns: (i) the type restricted mainly to brief phrases comprising ad þ name of addressee or de þ topic of poem; (ii) more comprehensive titles summarizing the thrust of the epigram.39 The Latinity of the headings to the epigrams of Books 5–12 in ,

34 Fowler (1995: 54–6). 35 Providing the solution before stating the riddle plays with the characteristic ‘setup and resolution’ structure of epigram: the resolution has become the set-up, and the expectations formed by the heading are trumped by the wit in the epigram itself. The conclusion of Lindsay (1903b: 37), that the headings served the practical function of enabling the reader to find an epigram to match his intended gift, risks overlooking their integral role in the structure of the book as a whole: see Leary on 14. 2. 3. 36 Although descriptive headings to individual epigrams are known from papyri before the time of Meleager, it is noteworthy that the ‘Milan’ papyrus of Posidippus does not contain such headings; it does, however, contain section-headings identifying thematic groups of epigrams, tantamount to mini-books within the whole anthology (see further Section 5). Anthologies tend, naturally, to have headings in the form of ascriptions. Descriptive headings to poems from the Garlands of Meleager and Philip (often erroneous) are probably later accretions: see Gow (1958: 17–18). The scribe known as J who contributed to the Palatine manuscript seems to have added explanatory headings for the benefit of the casual reader: Cameron (1993: 102). 37 Schro¨der (1999: 19). 38 The standard account is by Lindsay (1903b: 34–55). 39 Schro¨der (1999: 284–93).

xxx

General Introduction

Table 3. Headings attested in the manuscripts Note: This table comprises a straightforward list; for a hierarchical ordering of the headings to an individual epigram, information on the reasons for absence (whether because the epigram is omitted or because it is conflated with its neighbour), and the use of the collective siglum K, see apparatus criticus. 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

De amphitheatro T Vindob. 3 De operibus amphitheatrum cingentibus T : De opibus circa amphitheatrum W Vindob. 3 De consensu nationum TW Vindob. 3 De delatoribus T Vindob. 3 : De latoribus W De Pasiphae TW Vindob. 3 De Iul. Aprel. qua die omnes uenatio per mulieres confecta est T : De mulieribus que confitebant uenatorem W : De mulieribus quae conficiebu.nt uenationem Vindob. 3 De uenatrice quae leonem primae formae uenabulo excepit T : De ea quae leonem uenari exceperat Vindob. 3 De Laureolo TW : De laureo Vindob. 3 De Daedalo T Vindob. 3 De rhinocerotis pugna prima T : ad Caesarem Vindob. 3 De leone qui magistrum uexauerat R De urso uiscato T De apro praegnante per cuius uulnus excidit partus T : De sue praegnante W Bonon. Vindob. 3 Idem T : De eadem Bonon. Vindob. 3 De Carpophoro qui pariter inmissos aprum ursum leonem pardum confecit T : De Meleagro W Bonon. Vindob. 3 De Hercule qui insidens tauro raptus est TW Bonon. Vindob. 3 De elephanto qui Caesarem adorauit T De tigride aduersus leonem missam T : De leone et de tigride Vindob. 3, ([tig]i de) Bonon. De elephanto et tauro HTW Bonon. Vindob. 3 De Myrino et Triumpho HTW Bonon. Vindob. 3 De Orpheo HTW Bonon. Vindob. 3 Idem HT De rinocerotis pugna secunda HT : De rinocerote W Bonon. Vindob. 3 7–12 sep. cum tit. De carpophoro W De naumachia priore HT : De naumachia W Bonon. Vindob. 3 De Leandro HRW Bonon. Vindob. 3 De eodem Bonon. Vindob. 3 De natatoribus HTW Bonon. Vindob. 3 De Prisco et Vero HR De Carpophoro qui XX irsos pariter inmissus confecit H : De Carpophoro qui XX ircos pariter inmissos confecit T : De Carpophoro W Bonon. Vindob. 3 De damma quam Caesar dimisit HR De naumachia minore HT

Headings

xxxi

which are of the more comprehensive type, suggest that they were compiled in the fourth or fifth century, i.e. around the time of the person called Torquatus Gennadius whose subscriptiones are fixed to the individual books in this branch of the tradition.40 Since the Liber spectaculorum is not transmitted in  (see Section 2), we do not have Gennadian witness to any of the headings that have come down to us. The headings in Æ are usually the same as in ª. The headings transmitted for the Liber spectaculorum, set out for ease of comparison in Table 3, display some noteworthy features.41 (i) The simplest expedient is not always chosen: e.g. for Spect. 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 17, 21 the heading ‘ad Caesarem’ is not attested, even though it could be extrapolated from the text. (ii) The headings in H and Twere composed by someone who had already read all the way through, since they contain cross-references: e.g. Spect. 11 tit. ‘De rinocerotis pugna prima’, 26 tit. ‘De rinocerotis pugna secunda’, 27 tit. ‘De naumachia priore’, 34 tit. ‘De naumachia minore’, and the habitual idem of lemmatists (Spect. 15, 25);42 perhaps this might suggest that the headings were composed once the original excerptor had made his selection and was copying his choices into his florilegium. (iii) Some of the headings summarize the theme of the epigram, or simply paraphrase a line: e.g. Spect. 20 tit. ‘De elephanto qui Caesarem adorauit’
20. 1 ‘elephas te, Caesar, adorat’. (iv) Sometimes the heading misses the point altogether, merely fastening on a detail in the text: e.g. Spect. 17 tit. (K) ‘De Meleagro’, 24 tit. ‘De Orpheo’, 25 tit. ‘Idem’. In such cases it seems likely that by the time the headings were composed the context was already understood as little as it is today; we should probably think of these headings less as titles to the epigrams than as aide-me´moires (24 ‘The one about Orpheus’, 25 ‘Ditto’, etc.). One exception is the heading affixed to Spect. 7 in T: ‘Iul. Aprel. qua die omnis uenatio per mulieres confecta est’, which seems to disguise a date and hence could evince evidence of contemporary knowledge;43 the equivalent headings in the surviving witnesses to K, corrupt

40 Landgraf (1902). Lindsay (1903b: 51) judges these headings to be ‘exactly what might be expected from a young amateur scholar of the fifth century’. 41 Carratello (1981a: 35–8, 1981b: 241–2), Schro¨der (1999: 287 n. 312). 42 Variants on idem are also employed by two of the witnesses to K (cf. Spect. 15, 29). Schro¨der (1999: 178) points out that the use of idem was probably an ancient practice, analogous to the ¼ºº attested on papyri. Idem admittedly implies only that the lemmatist was proceeding in order, rather than that he had read all the way through; but appellations noting priority (De rinocerotis pugna prima, De naumachia priore) suggest at the least that when the lemmatist came to the subsequent example he went back to the earlier one (and probably that he read all the way through first). 43 Lindsay (1903b: 54).

xxxii

General Introduction

Pl. 1. Westminster Abbey, cod. 15, fo. 48r ¼ Spect. 14. 6–24. 8, 26. 1–2, displaying ruled guidelines, marginal headings, and a decorative capital to signal the beginning of a new epigram

Scope and Characteristics

xxxiii

though they are, demonstrate their habitual simplification via the locution ‘De mulieribus quae . . .’: see further ad loc.44 One final point seems worth making. A detached analysis of the banal headings affixed to these poems reveals one glaring limitation of the medieval transmission; but it does not reflect the painstaking care with which the physical artefact of a manuscript was accomplished. A single leaf from W (Pl. 1) is a particularly good example of the care with which the scribe ruled guidelines, vertical and horizontal, to keep the verses and the headings— economically inserted in the margin—regular on the page; allowed space for elegant capitals which, even in the absence of a heading, demarcate one epigram from another;45 and wrote with such astonishing clarity that, with elementary understanding of his system of abbreviations, a modern reader can have direct access to the sense that he made of his exemplar three-quarters of a millennium ago.

5. SCOPE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TRANSMIT TED COLLECTION Martial’s older contemporary, the Neronian poet Lucillius, composed more than 100 satiric epigrams that are transmitted in Book 11 of the Greek Anthology;46 it seems reasonable to infer that these may have been culled from a thematically unified collection. Rufinus, who may also have been Neronian, wrote a sequence of erotic epigrams whose legacy is contained in Book 5 of the Anthology. Strato of Sardis, probably writing soon afterwards, produced a F Æ ÆØØŒ, preserved in Book 12 of the Anthology, that consisted exclusively of pederastic verse in elegiac couplets.47 And Martial 44 The impulse to affix headings is not an exclusively pre-modern phenomenon; in his text with facing translation Richard (1931) composes elegant headings in Latin, with equally elegant French translation: cf. Spect. 3 ‘De gentium confluxu et congratulatione’, ‘Sur l’affluence des e´trangers a` Rome et leurs actions de graˆces’. 45 This leaf (48r ¼ Spect. 14. 6–26. 2) treats Spect. 19 as part of Spect. 18, and omits Spect. 25 altogether. 46 Satiric strategies: G. Nisbet (2003: 36–81); parody of athletes: Robert (1968); political wit directed at Nero: G. Nisbet (2003: 113–33). 47 The chronology of Rufinus and Strato is disputed. On the basis of his vocabulary Rufinus was dated to the late Empire by Page (1978: 49); a radically earlier date was proposed independently by Cameron (1982), postulating a date in the early seventies ad, and Robert (1982), placing Rufinus in the time of the Apostle Paul, i.e. in the reign of Nero. Strato has traditionally been dated to the age of Hadrian because of his

xxxiv

General Introduction

himself published two thematically unified collections of verses to accompany gifts, edible (Book 13, Xenia) and various (Book 14, Apophoreta). For the Liber spectaculorum the word ‘collection’ is something of a misnomer, given the pattern of transmission of these epigrams in the florilegia in which they have been variously preserved. But they do provide an impression of thematic unity that sets them apart from the numbered books of epigrams (or, indeed, from the selections of those books as anthologized in the florilegia).48 How far are we justified in regarding what survives of the Liber spectaculorum as the rump of a thematically unified collection? It is the practice of Martial’s florilegia to excerpt book by book, rather than excerpting thematically across books, and it is therefore likely that the collection as transmitted has been excerpted from a single book, and that the excerpts reflect the general character of that book. Its length is difficult to guess. Lindsay (1903d: 49) points out that the florilegia tend to excerpt just over half the epigrams in the earlier books, and rather less in the later books. The exception is Xenia and Apophoreta, which are transmitted in full in H— that is to say, as fully as anywhere else; the absence of the corresponding element in some of the sequences of paired epigrams in these books proves that the archetype had already suffered damage.49 Xenia and Apophoreta are significantly shorter than the numbered books of Epigrams. With allowances for lacunae and at least one passage that may be spurious, the transmitted epigrams of the Liber spectaculorum amount to approximately 214 lines. Xenia comprises 274 lines and Apophoreta 458. Comparison with these two collections therefore allows a wide margin for speculation about the original scope of the Liber spectaculorum. If it was about the same length as Xenia, we may have most of it; if it was about the same length as Apophoreta, Lindsay’s estimation that we have just over half of it may be rather too generous. But of course it may have been much longer. epigram about a doctor named Capito (AP 11. 117), who has been identified with Artemidorus Capito, a doctor who gained the favour of Hadrian with an edition of Hippocrates. This identification has now been shown to be insecure: see Cameron (1993: 65). If Martial knew the epigrams of Strato (AP 12. 175
Mart. 9. 25; AP 12. 191
Mart. 4. 7), and we are to fit him in to the early Flavian period before Martial started composing his numbered books of epigrams, we have to assume that Strato’s collection had circulated to the west within ten years of composition: see Floridi (forthcoming). 48 Compare the Alexandrian editions of the lyric poets, which seem mostly to have been arranged by
Y , ‘forms’, on the basis of content and, hence, context of performance (dithyrambs, epinicia, etc.), with further subdivisions where appropriate (e.g. epinicia grouped according to festival): see Fantuzzi–Hunter (2004: 25). 49 Leary (1996: 13–21).

Scope and Characteristics

xxxv

What evidence is there that anything is missing? The events described in the extant epigrams resemble accounts of the opening of the Flavian amphitheatre (i.e. the Colosseum) in Suetonius and Dio (see Section 6). The overlap, however, is not exact, and it is reasonable to suppose that, if this occasion were indeed celebrated in our collection, events such as the restaging of the Athenian attack on Syracuse described in depth by Dio (66. 25. 4) probably prompted a more detailed reaction from Martial than a single epigram referring to the harnessing of Augustus’ stagnum for the occasion (Spect. 34).50 If, however, the collection celebrates instead, or in addition, some other occasion(s) in the career of the amphitheatre, we have no detailed knowledge of the programme from an external source, and therefore no basis on which to guess what might be missing. Nevertheless, some omissions can be surmised from structural considerations. Martial’s technique of approaching a single event from more than one angle, and hence composing two or even three epigrams on a single theme, would suggest that companion-pieces to some of the individual epigrams in the book may have fallen victim to the excerptor’s taste. It also seems unlikely that we have the entire closing sequence to the collection. The pair of epigrams that are uniquely attested in the Florilegium Gallicum (see Section 2) effect closure of a sort (see Spect. 35, Introduction); it would be characteristically self-deprecating for Martial to excuse abrupt closure on the grounds that he is rushing into print, so to speak, to glorify the emperor’s beneficence. But the opening to the collection, with its carefully calibrated sequence of three substantial epigrams introducing the venue and the spectators (a total of sixteen couplets), would seem to justify a comparably mannered sequence of closure, and it may be that, if Spect. 35–6 do indeed belong in this collection, they are quotable couplets from more substantial concluding epigrams,51 or traces of valedictory verses that were appended to short sequences of occasional epigrams for presentation to the emperor before their inclusion in a published collection (see Section 6). Without knowing what the original collection looked like, it is hard to guess the excerptor’s principles of selection. One criterion that has been 50 Scherf (2001: 73–4) suggests that the motif of ‘surpassing Augustus’ could provide appropriate closure for the collection, although he expects Martial to close with a reference to the book itself, as in the numbered books of Epigrams. As Lorenz (2002: 77) observes, the reference to the stagna Neronis sets up ring-composition with 2. 6; one might therefore expect, if we really are near the end of Martial’s liber, a poem or two on the amphitheatre to match the beginning. 51 Friedla¨nder (1886: i. 140, 161), Carratello (1965b: 304–5 n. 65), and see further on Spect. 35, Introduction.

xxxvi

General Introduction

suggested is metre.52 All the extant epigrams are in elegiacs, and no other book of Martial is entirely restricted to this metre, although it is by far the most common. The entire corpus of 1,556 epigrams comprises 79% elegiacs, 15% hendecasyllables, 5% choliambics, and 1% hexameters or iambics. But in the thematically unified collections of Xenia and Apophoreta the proportion of elegiacs is even higher: of 127 epigrams in Xenia, all but two are in elegiacs (i.e. approximately 98%); of 223 epigrams in Apophoreta, all but nine are in elegiacs (i.e. approximately 95%). Hence, while it is possible that the poems that the excerptor omitted were in other metres, it does not seem likely that this principle alone would have shed many poems. In any case, among its excerpts from the entire corpus of epigrams, at least one florilegium includes poems in other metres; this is T, the fullest witness to our collection, and so it is likely that, if the Liber spectaculorum had included a significant number of poems in other metres, some of them would appear in this manuscript. And, even if most of the closing sequence is missing, comparison with the rest of Martial’s corpus suggests that elegiacs would have featured here; so the excerptor has not made elegiac couplets the criterion for inclusion. Comparison between the florilegia and the manuscripts that have preserved the rest of the books in toto shows that the excerptors generally kept to the order of the original book from which they were making their excerpts, although a subsequent copyist might rearrange the extracts according to theme or any other structural principle.53 It is therefore likely that this was the case with the Liber spectaculorum as well. The carefully articulated introductory sequence of the first three epigrams progresses with increasingly closer focus from the status of the Flavian amphitheatre as a Wonder of the World (Spect. 1), to its physical location in Rome (Spect. 2), and then to the audience inside it (Spect. 3), thereby leading naturally to the spectacles in the epigrams that follow.54 The next two epigrams (Spect. 4–5) concern the 52 Scherf (2001: 72 n. 197), Holzberg (2002: 40). 53 This habit is illustrated in, for instance, manuscripts of the Florilegium Gallicum, where t (Tortosa, Biblioteca de la Catedral 80) concludes its excerpts from Martial with 9. 92, whereas n (Paris, BNF, ms. lat. 17903) continues with four more folios of extracts after that (Hamacher 1975: 29), while the scribe of s, or his immediate source, re-arranges the excerpts in an entirely fresh order, whose rationale is not easy to detect (Burton 1983: 96, 330, 367). Compare Nonius Marcellus’ strict adherence to the order of his sources in compiling the data within each category of his dictionary (c.ad 400): see Lindsay (1901: 1–7). 54 Lorenz (2002: 66) suggests that the repetition of barbara in the first line of Spect 1 and 3 is meant to underline the unity of the opening triad, and that turba at Spect. 4. 1 establishes a link with the topic of the preceding epigram, the multi-cultural audience at the amphitheatre.

Scope and Characteristics

xxxvii

parade of delatores that presumably took place before the regular programme began.55 There is then a short sequence involving female protagonists (Spect. 6–8), followed by a longer sequence of animal displays (Spect. 9–26). Some of the epigrams in both these sequences seem to involve damnatio ad bestias (Spect. 6, 9–10, 24–5). The animal-sequence is interrupted by a single epigram about two named protagonists, Myrinus and Triumphus, that does not mention an animal at all (Spect. 23); whether it is about gladiators or bestiarii56 is debated (see Spect. 23, Introduction). Then comes a sequence of four epigrams about aquatic displays (Spect. 27–30).57 After this the sequence of groupings by spectacle-type breaks down; this is also the point at which the manuscripts show the greatest divergence from one another (Table 1). H, the only manuscript that preserves all four of the epigrams that come next, presents them in the following order: gladiatorial contest (Spect. 31); exploits of the bestiarius Carpophorus (Spect. 32; cf. 17 and 26, the latter probably contaminated); a beast display (Spect. 33); an aquatic display (Spect. 34). The aquatic display is specifically attributed to a different venue, Augustus’ stagnum, which may explain why it is separated from the aquatic sequence (Spect. 27–30); initially, whether in one series of games or several, the spectacles were presumably staged at the venue that the collection celebrates, the Flavian amphitheatre.58 Indeed, if the occasion were the inaugural celebration, the whole sequence after the apparent disruption in the order might reflect events at Augustus’ stagnum, culminating in the naumachia that is described in detail by Dio (cit. in Section 6);59 even if it 55 Scherf (1999: 71–6) offers a detailed analysis of the arrangement of the Liber spectaculorum. He treats Spect. 4–5 as part of the introductory sequence, although to my mind there is a distinct shift in topic and scale after Spect. 1–3. 56 For the distinction in classical Latin between bestiarius (someone who fights beasts in the arena) and uenator (someone who hunts beasts in the wild), and the gradual transfer of the term uenator to the context of the arena from the 2nd c. ad, see Coleman (2000b: 251 n. 169). 57 Ville (1981: 147) develops the suggestion of Friedla¨nder (1886: i. 138) that the book is broadly designed to reflect the order in which a day’s spectacles were presented, i.e. pompa at dawn, uenationes in the morning, damnati at midday, gladiators in the afternoon. This progression is less clear to me; in particular the gladiatorial element is virtually absent, and beast-displays and damnationes are interwoven (in his analysis Ville admits damnati into the morning as well). 58 For the difficulty of ascertaining the location of the spectacle described in Spect. 30, see Introduction ad loc. 59 See Ville (1981: 147), building on the foundation laid by Friedla¨nder (1886: i. 137–8), but countering Friedla¨nder’s doubts about the position of Spect. 32 (exploits of the bestiarius Carpophorus) by linking it with the massive uenatio that is located at

xxxviii

General Introduction

were a different occasion, or several such occasions, more than one event might have been staged at the stagnum, and more than one poem might deal with the events at this venue. Grouping by category is the ordering principle in Xenia and Apophoreta. In Xenia the major groupings cover dishes served for the gustatio (6–60), fowl (61–78), sea-food (79–91), game (92–100), seasonings and sweeteners (101– 5), and wine (106–25); within these categories, like are grouped with like, e.g. (under the general rubric gustatio) legumes and cereals (6–12), salads and vegetables (13–14, 16–21), fruit (22–9), cheeses (30–3); sometimes epigrams are arranged in pairs, e.g. products from Picenum (35–6).60 In Apophoreta Martial himself tells us that the order alternates between expensive and inexpensive items: cf. 14. 1. 5 ‘diuitis alternas et pauperis accipe sortes’. Just as in Xenia, these pairs operate in conjunction with overarching categories of related items: writing-equipment (3–11), games (14–19), items of personal hygiene and skin-care (22–9), weapons (30–5), lighting-equipment (39–44), sports-equipment (45–9), toiletries and cosmetics (56–60), foodstuffs (69– 72), pet birds and items for their care (73–7), furniture and furnishings (84–5, 87–90), cups and containers (93–119), clothing and textiles (124–53), wool (154–8), mattress-stuffing (159–62), works of art (170–82), works of literature (183–96), domestic animals (197–200), slaves and their equipment (201– 23).61 Within, and between, these categories there are items arranged by pairs: e.g. two sorts of writing-case (20–1), a sunshade and a hat (28–9), etc. In a sequence comprising ten items of clothing (126–35), every alternate item is specified by its colour.62 So, in Martial’s thematically unified books, which is what we are concerned with here, arrangement in categories and pairs is an organizing principle.63 the stagnum by Suetonius (Tit. 7. 3 ‘in ueteri naumachia’). For the structure cf. LTUR iii. 336 s.v. Naumachia Augusti (A. M. Liberati). The ancient sources variously refer to this basin as a stagnum nauale (Stat. Silu. 4. 4. 5–6, Tac. Ann. 14. 15. 2) or simply stagnum (Tac. Ann. 12. 56. 1), or a naumachia (Suet. Tit. 7. 3, cit. above). Naval engagements staged there are called naualis proeli spectaclum (Augustus, RG 23), nauale proelium (Suet. Aug. 43. 1, Tit. 7. 3), naumachia ([Augustus], RG App. 4, Vell. 2. 100. 2). I reserve the potentially ambiguous term naumachia for the spectacle: see Coleman (1993: 50). 60 Leary (2001: 10–11). 61 This analysis does not differ significantly from the categories suggested in Leary’s commentary (1996). 62 Lorenz (2002: 106). 63 Sophisticated principles of arrangement shape the heterogeneous collections of the numbered books of Epigrams as well. For a concise account see Watson–Watson (2003: 29–31).

Scope and Characteristics

xxxix

Thematic arrangement is the principle behind the Garland compiled by Philip of Thessalonica in the time of Nero, in which the epigrams are arranged in alphabetical order according to the first word in each poem, and then subdivided by theme within each letter-group. Its predecessor, the Garland compiled by Meleager in the first century bc, seems to have consisted of at least four sections, comprising the standard epigrammatic categories of epitaph, dedication, erotic poetry, and epideictic; the whole has been estimated at c.6,000 lines, which suggests that each section may have constituted a separate, generically cohesive book.64 But thematic arrangement is older than the Garlands of Meleager and Philip; it is already evinced in the traces of Hellenistic collections surviving on papyri.65 Our oldest extant collection of epigrams, the ‘Milan’ papyrus of Posidippus, dates back to the last three decades of the third century bc, i.e. only one generation later than Posidippus himself (c.315–250 bc). 112 epigrams (the last two very fragmentary) are grouped into sections, each with its own heading:66 ½ºØŁØŒ (‘Poems on __ stones’),67 Nø ŒØŒ (‘Poems on augury’), IÆŁ
ÆØŒ (‘Dedications’), [KØØÆ] (‘Epitaphs’), IæØÆØØŒ (‘Poems on statues’), ƒØŒ (‘Equestrian poems’), Æıƪ، (‘Poems on shipwrecks’), NÆÆØŒ (‘Poems on remedies’), æ Ø (‘Traits of behaviour’ [?]);68 a tenth heading (possibly KæøØŒ)69 is lost. Scholarly opinion is divided on the question whether all the epigrams in the ‘Milan’ papyrus are by the same author or whether we have to do with an anthology by multiple authors, perhaps the øæ  (‘Heap’) known to Aristarchus in the second century bc;70 the balance of probability argues for a 64 Cameron (1993: 24–33), Gutzwiller (1998: 278–321). 65 For remnants of thematically arranged collections on papyri other than the ‘Milan’ Posidippus see Cameron (1993: 3), Argentieri (1998: 17). 66 The closest parallel known from papyri is the heading º
ØŒ above fragmentary elegiacs copied in the 3rd c. bc (P. Strassb. WG 2340 ¼ Pack2 1749): Johnson (2005: 71 n. 3). Apart from æ Ø and the restored KØØÆ, the section-headings comprise neuter plural adjectives formed with the suffix -Œ, just like headings to entire books in the Greek Anthology : Krevans (2005: 86–7). 67 Not even the last two letters are visible to Stephens–Obbink (2004: 13). 68 Only two of the eight epigrams in this section are systematically legible, which makes it hard to infer the meaning of æ Ø here. Obbink (2004: 298) suggests ‘modes of discourse’. 69 Obbink (2004: 292). 70 Recorded in a scholion on Iliad 11. 101 (Suppl. Hell. 701 ¼ 144 A–B) that derives from the commentary by Didymus. For identification of the ‘Milan’ papyrus with the Soros see Lloyd-Jones (2003). Multiple authorship of the Soros is disputed; for the view that it contained epigrams exclusively by Posidippus see Gutzwiller (2005b: 7 n. 19).

xl

General Introduction

single author.71 A second question is related to the first: if all the poems are by Posidippus, was it he or an editor who arranged the poems in this way, each section carefully articulated to form an artistic arrangement both in its own right and in relation to elements in the arrangement of other sections?72 Authorial arrangement (and hence single authorship) seems a distinct possibility, since some of the epigrams explicitly draw attention to their position within the overall category. The category on stones serves as an example (numeration following Austin–Bastianini): 1 (perhaps) and 3–7 are about gems belonging to women (2 is too fragmentary for analysis);73 8–10 are on gems belonging to men, with 8 marking the transition by specifying that its gem was never worn by a woman;74 11–15 are on items of special craftsmanship; 16–17 are on remarkable unworked stones; 18 seems to be about a very large object associated with a symposium, perhaps a krater of marble75 or else a stone kline or a gem-encrusted table;76 19 is about a boulder cast up onto the

;

71 Consistency of style; similarity in structure; metrical practice; arrangement within sections: Gutzwiller (2005b : 2). Furthermore, papyrological evidence suggests that, if multiple authors were involved, ascriptions affixed to the individual epigrams would identify them (ibid. n. 2). Subjective arguments about the ‘quality’ of the epigrams in the ‘Milan’ papyrus (i.e. they are not worthy of Posidippus) are countered by Sider (2004: 40–1). 72 On closural correspondences between different sections see Hutchinson (2002: 1); on the arrangement in the section on statuary, which divides into two groups of four epigrams, with a ninth epigram echoing the first, see Gutzwiller (2002); for an overview of the arrangement in all nine complete sections, see Gutzwiller (2004); for parallels between the end of the contiguous sections on stones and augury see Hunter (2004: 98); for the principle of ‘keeping like with like’ (noted above in the Xenia and Apophoreta, and perceptible in the surviving arrangement of the Liber spectaculorum) see Krevans (2005: 93–4); for the observation that each of the sections apparently both opens and closes with a reference not only to its topic but also to the thematic treatment of that topic see Gutzwiller (2005c : 290–3); for detailed examination of the structure of KØØÆ, ºØŁØŒ, and Nø ŒØŒ, ibid. 293–312. 73 The crucial ˘ ;[ of 1. 4, if it does not represent the first syllable of a female name, might refer to Zeus, ‘good to begin with’: see Hunter (2004: 95). For the suggestion that 2–3, and perhaps 1, are about banquet vessels, balancing the concluding sequence on enormous objects (18–20), see Kuttner (2005: 147–9). 74 First noted by Gutzwiller (2004: 87). Since the absence of female ownership is a relatively obvious point to make about a man’s jewel, the position of this epigram does not prove authorial arrangement; an editor could have seen that it would fit well here, or even composed it himself for the purpose. But authorial intention remains an attractive inference. 75 ‘craterem lapideum (vel aliquid simile) loquentem poeta fingit’, A–B ad loc. 76 Bing (2005: 136–7).

Scope and Characteristics

xli

shores of Euboea by Poseidon; and 20, which starts with a reference to another prodigious accomplishment by Poseidon, concludes with a prayer to him as ‘lord of (Euboean) Geraestus’ to protect the Ptolemaic kingdoms from earthquakes, the Euboean allusion neatly linking the Euboean context of the previous epigram with the wider world of the Ptolemaic empire.77 References throughout the collection to Ptolemaic rulers and their affairs serve to anchor the entire collection within the purview of the court;78 while the Liber spectaculorum has a more insistent focus on the ruler, this aspect of the Posidippus papyrus has an echo in the numbered books of Martial’s epigrams, where entirely disparate material is threaded through with the presence of the emperor. ‘Variations on a theme’ are a favourite trope of epigram, the most notorious example being thirty-seven epigrams on Myron’s lifelike statue of a heifer; one from the new Posidippus papyrus (66 A–B) has now been added to a total of thirty-six preserved in two sequences in the Greek Anthology. Of the first sequence (AP 9. 713–42) two are attributed to Anacreon, two to Euenus, two to Antipater of Sidon, four to an unspecified Antipater, and two to Julian, Prefect of Egypt; the rest are anonymous. In the second sequence (AP 9. 793–8) all six are attributed to Julian. Elsewhere in his oeuvre Martial employs the technique of ‘theme and variation’ to create what are often referred to as ‘cycles’ within his work, although these sequences are typically interspersed with epigrams about other things rather than following sequentially one after another: e.g. 1. 6, 14, 22, 48, 51, 60, 104 (on the ‘lion and the hare’), 2. 10, 12, 21–3, 67, 72 (on the fellator Postumus), 3. 16, 59, 99 (on the cobbler at Bononia who put on a gladiatorial show), 5. 8, 14, 23, 25, 27, 35, 38 (on attempts to cheat the seating-regulations in the theatre).79 This pattern seems to be reflected in the Liber spectaculorum: fourteen epigrams lie between two about a rhinoceros (Spect. 11, 26), of which the second clearly refers to the first (see Spect. 26. 6 n.); fourteen epigrams also lie between two about the bestiarius Carpophorus (Spect. 17, 32), both of which employ a mythological comparison to his advantage.80 77 On the unifying function of the last epigram in the sequence see D. Thompson (2005: 283). For the ºØŁØŒ as the epigrammatic equivalent of cosmological poetry see Gutzwiller (2005c: 303–4). 78 Sketched, and subsequently developed, by Bing (2002, 2005). Kuttner (2005) demonstrates the correspondence between the ºØŁØŒ and Ptolemaic gem-collecting and exploitation of mineral deposits in Egypt and beyond. 79 For further examples see Scherf (1999: 46–53). 80 Carpophorus’ third appearance in the collection is probably the result of contamination: see Spect. 26, Introduction.

xlii

General Introduction

In the transmitted version of the Liber spectaculorum epigrams on the same theme usually come in pairs arranged contiguously: 4–5 (the parade of delatores); 7–8 (bestiariae); 18–19 (a stunt involving ‘Hercules’);81 24–5 (‘Orpheus’); 28–9 (‘Leander’). There is one triplet: Spect. 14–16 (a piglet born from a dying sow).82 In the Posidippus papyrus there are two instances of poems on the same theme placed one after the other: 6–7 A–B (Nikonoe’s necklace), 11–12 (jewellery made of shell). This pattern too is a feature of Martial’s arrangement in his numbered books: e.g. 3. 44–5 (Ligurinus’ obsession with reciting his own poetry), 56–7 (the price of wine at Ravenna). Sometimes the second poem comments on the first: e.g. 1. 4–5 (an address to the emperor, followed by his retort), 34–5 (an obscene poem, followed by a response to criticism of obscenity), 109–10 (23 hendecasyllables, followed by a single couplet answering a complaint about excessive length), 2. 91–2 (a poem requesting the ius trium liberorum, followed by one acknowledging the grant), 6. 64–5 (an epigram comprising 32 hexameters, followed by a threecouplet elegiac poem commenting on long epigrams in hexameters, one line of which is itself a hexameter of 17 syllables—only one of them elided). And sometimes paired poems are separated by one on a different theme: e.g. 1. 99– 103 (the outermost pair are on the nouveaux riches, and the central poem is on wealth conferred by patronage), 114–16 (the outer pair are on the tomb of Antulla, prematurely deceased).83 It would therefore occasion no surprise if Martial composed a work thematically united and arranged broadly according to categories, with contiguous pairs of poems (and one triplet) treating a single topic from a variety of angles. Usually one of the members of a pair comprises a single couplet; and other poems in the collection comprise single couplets as well. The tour de force involved in compressing an epigram into two lines harks back to the 81 Spect. 17, addressed to Meleager, mentions Hercules as another example of a hero outstripped by the bestiarius Carpophorus. The position of this epigram may explain why the pair about Hercules comes next in the florilegia (whether or not they were originally contiguous), although it is somewhat misleading to regard the three epigrams as a triplet, as suggested by Scherf (1999: 75). 82 A further triplet, in which three alternate poems in a sequence are on an aquatic theme, is observed by Holzberg (2002: 40) on the strength of the arrangement in the Oxford Classical Text; but this has no manuscript basis (24/26/28 Lindsay ¼ 27/30/34 Carratello): see Section 2. 83 On patterns of contiguous and alternating pairs in Martial see Szelest (1986: 2602–4). On some Hellenistic prototypes for these patterns see Kirstein (2002), using the term ‘Fortsetzungsepigramme’ for companion pieces that form a sequential narrative, and ‘Parallelepigramme’ for sequences where the constituent epigrams comment on one another.

Scope and Characteristics

xliii

beginnings of inscribed epigram, and is very much a` la mode in the early Empire. One of the surviving epigrams by Martial’s older contemporary, Leonides of Alexandria, is an ‘isopsephic’ couplet declaring that the author is tired of writing quatrains (AP 6. 327 ¼ FGE Leonides 6); it may possibly be the dedicatory epigram of an entire book of isopsephic couplets.84 Xenia and Apophoreta are built upon the notion of a compact two-line inscription accompanying a gift, and in his heterogeneous collections Martial himself frequently exploits the witty compression of a single couplet to score points off critics who complain that his epigrams are too long (e.g. 1. 110, 3. 83).85 His fondness for, and facility with, two-line epigrams is another reason to treat the contiguous pairs in the Liber spectaculorum as separate epigrams. What is markedly different from Xenia and Apophoreta is the panegyric aspect of the Liber spectaculorum, although this is a feature of the numbered books of Epigrams too and a product of the contemporary climate in which epigram was composed and delivered. The more fantastic the compliment, the better the patron was pleased; the encomiast’s ingenuity and wit were what mattered, not his sincerity.86 In the Liber spectaculorum Martial addresses ‘Caesar’ eleven times, and the epigrams repeatedly stress the emperor’s miraculous power over nature and his authority in the human realm (see further Section 8). Imperial Greek epigram had already been harnessed for this purpose: cf. AP 9. 562 ¼ GP Crinagoras 24 (on a caged parrot that escaped into the woods, where it taught the other birds to pronounce the name of Caesar and greet ‘the god’, ÆØ ‘‘ÆEæ ’’ K
Ø, line 6), 11. 184 Lucillius (on the fate of the thief who stole apples from the emperor’s garden). This latter example exhibits the same glib Schadenfreude that is evident in some of Martial’s witty epigrams on gruesome topics, both in the Liber spectaculorum and in the numbered books: cf. Spect. 6, 9, 10, 24 (enactments of the fate of Pasiphae, Laureolus, Daedalus, and Orpheus), Epigr. 8. 30 and 10. 25 (enactments of the fate of Mucius Scaevola). The overall structure of each epigram is discussed in the Introduction to the commentary on each poem, but it seems appropriate here to remark on the feature most readily associated with Martial’s epigrams: his characteristic ‘sting in the tail’. In our collection this feature is latent rather than overt. Caesar’s dignity inhibits endless humour at others’ expense; the occasion calls 84 Page, FGE 506. In an isopsephic couplet the numeric values of the letters in each line add up to the same total. 85 On single couplets in Martial see Lausberg (1982: 44–56). 86 On this rhetorical imperative, with examples from the ‘grander’ genres, see Dewar (1994).

xliv

General Introduction

for sophisticated wit, but not bawdy or scurrilous jokes.87 Almost every epigram ends with an elegant inversion or juxtaposition, often employing a parallel structure or paired oppositions. Some of these have a sententious ring: e.g. Spect. 12. 5–6 (how should men behave under an emperor who can even soften the character of wild beasts?). Exclamation, quotation, and exhortation are all found as closural features: cf. 10. 2, 11. 4, 12. 6, 16. 4, 23. 4, 35. 2 (exclamation); 27. 6, 29. 4 (quotation); 26. 12 (exhortation). Martial looks for the paradoxical and the unexpected, and exploits it. Even an accident (Spect. 12, 13, 21) can be turned to epigrammatic advantage. The arena displays themselves were predicated on risk and unpredictability, so that the matter of these poems is ideally suited to the poet’s manner. Just as the arena displays comprised a well-defined repertoire, so this collection employs a single metre and a relatively restricted vocabulary repeating a series of key motifs (noted in the Commentary ad loc.);88 but, at the same time, just as the arena provides one thrill after another, so Martial’s rhetoric caps every turn with a new conceit. Hellenistic epigram had of course long exploited paradox and incongruity, and our collection is very obviously informed by this heritage, to the point where we need to ask ourselves whether any of this happened at all: could Martial not simply be inventing a string of scenarios as vehicles for his wit and ingenuity? Is it missing the literary point to try to imagine the spectacles that he is purporting to describe? I think not, since there is enough historically verifiable detail, especially in the opening trio of epigrams, for us to assume that actual events prompted Martial’s responses in these poems. Still, some of the epigrams remain very difficult to interpret: on a purely literary level the point frequently appears obscure, and the actual mechanics of display defy explanation. Prime examples of these difficulties are the epigram about the bear trapped in ‘birdlime’ (Spect. 13) and the pair about the bull elevated in the arena (Spect. 18–19). The fragility of the text may be partly to blame, since there are some evident lacunae in the transmitted epigrams, and some of what we have—especially the independent couplets—may have themselves been excerpted from longer epigrams. But another problem is that the arena, and its technical and ideological scope, was familiar to Martial’s readers; but it is almost entirely alien to us. Within its own cultural context

87 Some have seen the Liber spectaculorum as a jejune and unsuccessful attempt at ‘point’: cf. Prinz (1926–7: 93). 88 Similarity of subject-matter partly explains the lack of lexical variety, but in a collection of short, discrete items it may be a deliberate structural device to create continuity, as has been suggested for the repetitive vocabulary that is a marked feature of the ‘Milan’ Posidippus: see Gutzwiller (2004: 86 with n. 12).

The Identity of ‘Caesar’

xlv

a poem may be completely self-contained and provide all the clues for interpretation, but outside that context its wit and punch may depend upon assumptions that an audience in another time and place cannot share. And in any case Martial’s goal is to be elliptical and witty; spelling out what happened is not what epigram is for. Rather, the epigrammatist says just enough to tease the reader to indulge in speculation.89

6 . T H E I DE N T I T Y O F ‘C A E S A R’ The emperor who is eulogized in the epigrams of the Liber spectaculorum is never named. Nor is this surprising: Caesar is the standard mode of address in a formal context (see Spect. 2. 11 n.), and it is consistently the most frequent designation for the emperor in all the books in Martial’s corpus, overtaken in just one (statistically insignificant) instance by dominus.90 Some details suggest that the ‘Caesar’ of the Liber spectaculorum is Titus, whereas others point rather to Domitian, so that the identity of ‘Caesar’ has been vigorously debated since the earliest works of humanist scholarship.91 I shall discuss the case for each of them in turn, and then consider the implications.

(i) Titus? (a) The second epigram in the collection makes it clear that the Flavian amphitheatre is being celebrated; hence that is the inference to be drawn also for the first, acclaiming an amphitheatrum Caesareum as a Wonder of the 89 Bing (1995: 123 n. 26), quoting Hunter (1992: 114): ‘Perhaps no literary genre makes such a direct appeal to the reader’s powers of intellectual reconstruction, to the need to interpret, as does that of the epigram; the demand for concision makes ‘‘narrative silences’’ an almost constitutive part of the genre. In these circumstances, the refusal to speculate amounts to no less than a refusal to read.’ Bing calls this process ‘Erga¨nzungsspiel’. 90 For a comprehensive record of the individual instances in each book see Martin (1986: 202–4), and for the same statistics grouped into five categories (Spect., Xenia, and Apophoreta, 1–3, 4–9, and 10–12) see his table (1986: 205); dominus trumps Caesar in Apophoreta by a single instance (3 against 2). 91 E.g. Calderini (1474) had inferred that Spect. 1 was probably dedicated to Titus, whereas Perotti (1489) maintained that it was addressed to Domitian: for their feud see Section 12. Buttrey (2007) traces to Lipsius (1584: 28–9) the attribution of the whole collection to the reign of Titus, although he exaggerates the influence of Lipsius’ opinion: for instance, James Elphinston (1782), arranging his translation of Martial in twelve categories, assigned most of Spect. to a section entitled ‘The exhibitions of Domitian’.

xlvi

General Introduction

World, and for the third epigram, comprising a list of exotic peoples that are represented by a spectator in Caesar’s urbs. The first epigram need not imply that the amphitheatre is brand-new, although to be effective the encomiastic tribute would seem to depend upon some freshness and immediacy. The second poem is built upon a ‘then and now’ contrast, comparing Nero’s greedy appropriation of the Colosseum Valley with the public amenities that the Flavian dynasty has erected there. The atmosphere in this epigram is highly topical: if pegmata (2) refers to scaffolding (see ad loc.), construction in the area is still proceeding apace; the verb applied to the amphitheatre itself, erigitur (6), may imply that it is not yet complete; and a set of baths— presumably the Thermae Titi, given the location—are described as a ‘swift benefaction’ (‘uelocia munera thermae’, 7) and are therefore presumably only just finished. The third epigram, describing the international audience that has flocked to Rome, does not require us to assume that the building is newly opened; but it does encourage that inference. In addition, another venue is celebrated in the extant collection: the stagnum nauale, the enormous artificial lake that Augustus built in Trastevere (Spect. 34). Hence these clues may point to the candidacy of Titus as Martial’s ‘Caesar’ in this book. (b) In what survives of the collection no occasion is specified. The communis opinio at present, however, is that a single event is celebrated: the inauguration of the amphitheatre under Titus in 80.92 Suetonius alludes very briefly to this event in the context of Titus’ reputation for keeping his hands off other people’s property (Tit. 7. 3): nulli ciuium quicquam ademit; abstinuit alieno, ut si quis umquam; ac ne concessas quidem ac solitas conlationes recepit. et tamen nemine ante se munificentia minor, amphitheatro dedicato thermisque iuxta cele{b}riter extructis munus edidit apparatissimum largissimumque; dedit et nauale proelium in ueteri naumachia, ibidem et gladiatores atque uno die quinque milia omne genus ferarum. He never took anything away from any citizen, but he refrained from laying hands on other people’s property, if any man ever did; and he would not even accept the customary contributions that were his right. Yet he fell short of none of his prede92 Cf. (e.g.) Della Corte (1986: 5–7), Carratello (1981a: 11), Fortuny Previ (1983: 20), Sullivan (1991: 6), Shackleton Bailey (1993: i. 2), Coleman (1998), Hunink (2003: 31), Moreno Soldevila–Ferna´ndez Valverde–Montero Cartelle (2004: XX). For a salutary warning that, although the inauguration is an attractive candidate, there is no certainty as to its identity or that of ‘Caesar’ see Lorenz (2002: 59), Holzberg (2002: 40). Hunink (2005: 167), stressing the lack of certainty about the occasion, even floats the possibility that the entire collection might be purely literary invention about an imaginary building; but the topographical specificity of the second epigram on its own would seem to rule that out.

The Identity of ‘Caesar’

xlvii

cessors in munificence, and upon the dedication of the amphitheatre and the rapid completion of the adjoining baths he put on a most sumptuous gladiatorial show on a very lavish scale; he also gave a naval battle in the old basin, and in the same place he also displayed gladiators and, on a single day, 5,000 wild beasts of every kind.

It is a reasonable, though not inevitable, inference that these events were all part of the same spectacle. The context in Dio is somewhat similar, coming straight after his account of the reparations following the eruption of Vesuvius, for which Titus would not accept any contributions from private individuals. Dio supplies far more detail about the inaugural games than Suetonius (66. 25): ˚Æd Kd b E ¼ººØ Pb KÆæ
 æÆ
, e b c ŁÆæ e Œı ª
ØŒe  
ƺÆ
E e Kı ÆPF ƒ
æ Æ ººa ŒÆd ŁÆıÆ a K


: ªæÆ 
ªaæ IºººØ KÆ Æ ŒÆd KºÆ
 

Ææ
, ¼ººÆ 
K KÆŒØ ºØÆ ŒÆd a ŒÆd Ł æÆ I
ª , ŒÆd ÆPa ŒÆd ªıÆEŒ
, P Ø KØÆ
E, ıªŒÆ
Øæª Æ: ð2Þ ¼æ
 
ººd  K

Æ, ººd b ŒÆd IŁæ Ø  

ÆÆØ ŒÆd K ÆıÆÆØ Mªø Æ: e ªaæ ŁÆæ ÆPe KŒ
E oÆ KÆ  º æ Æ K ªÆª
b ŒÆd ¥ ı ŒÆd Ææı ŒÆd ¼ººÆ Øa 
ØæŁ , 
ØƪÆ Ł  ‹ Æ Kd B ªB æ
Ø ŒÆd K fiH ªæfiH, K ªÆª
b ŒÆd IŁæı Kd ºø: ð3Þ ŒÆd yØ b KŒ
E, ‰ ƒ b ˚
æŒıæÆEØ ƒ b ˚æŁØØ Z
, KÆı

Æ, ¼ººØ b ø K fiH ¼º
Ø fiH F ˆÆı F 
¸ıŒı, ‹ 
› `hªı  K ÆPe F TæÆ: ŒÆd ªaæ KÆFŁÆ fiB b æfi æfi Æ ÆÆ 
ŒÆd Ł æø ƪ, ŒÆØŒ Ł
  Æ Ø B ŒÆa æ ø H
NŒ ø º  ŒÆd NŒæÆ æØ ºÆ , ð4Þ fiB b 
ıæfi Æ ƒæÆ ŒÆd fiB æfi ÆıÆÆ æØ غø IæH ŒÆd 
a F ήd 
ÆÆ Kª
: ØŒ Æ
 ªaæ ƒ !Ł ÆEØ f ıæÆŒı ı ðØ ªaæ E O Æ Ø æ


Ø KÆı

ÆÞ K
BºŁ K e 

Ø, ŒÆd æ ƺ 
 

Ø Ød 
æd e  
E 
Ø fiø
x º ÆP : ÆFÆ b K ZłØ lŒÆ ŒÆd K "ŒÆe æÆ Kª
, Ææ 
 ØÆ ŒÆd K Tº
ØÆ æÆ ÆPE: ð5Þ ÆØæÆ ªaæ ºØÆ ØŒæa ¼øŁ
 K e ŁÆæ Kææ
Ø, º Æ e b Køı Øe e b K ŁB e b IæªıæF Œ
ı, ¼ºº æı F ¥ø ıªø  Œ ø IæÆ ø, L ±æ Æ ØÆ 
Ø æe f BæÆ ÆPH I

ªŒ
E ŒÆd ºÆ
E e Kت
ªæÆ. In the rest of what he did nothing in particular stands out, although in dedicating the hunting-theatre and the baths that were called after him he provided many remarkable spectacles. Cranes fought against each other, and so did four elephants; a total of nine thousand animals, both tame and wild, were despatched, and women (although not distinguished ones) participated in despatching them. (2) Large numbers of individuals fought in single combat, whereas others competed against each other in groups in infantry and naval battles. Titus had suddenly filled this same theatre with water, and he had brought in horses and bulls and other domesticated animals that had been taught to do in water everything that they could do on land. He also brought in people on ships; (3) they engaged in a naval battle there representing Corcyra versus

xlviii

General Introduction

Corinth. Others gave a similar display outside the city in the grove of Gaius and Lucius, which Augustus had once excavated for this purpose. There, too, on the first day—once the lake in front of the images had been covered with a platform of planks, and wooden stands had been erected around it—there was a gladiatorial display and a slaughter of wild beasts; (4) on the second day there was a horse-race, and on the third day a naval battle involving three thousand men, followed by an infantry battle: ‘Athens’ conquered ‘Syracuse’ (these being the designations the men fought under), landed on the island, and stormed and captured a wall that had been built around the monument. These were the spectacles that were presented, and they lasted one hundred days. But Titus also provided some things of practical value to the spectators: (5) he threw down into the theatre from above little wooden balls inscribed with the name of something edible, or a piece of clothing, or a vessel of silver or gold, or horses, pack-animals, cattle, or slaves. The people who caught them had to take them to the staff dispensing the largesse and claim the article named on their token.

In what survives of our collection Martial does not allude to any battle between cranes or elephants, although he does stress the appearance of bestiariae (Spect. 7–8); nor does he mention massed battles on land. But the naval battle that he describes taking place in the Flavian amphitheatre (Spect. 27) could be the event that Dio specifies as a re-enactment of the battle between Corcyra and Corinth, i.e. not the shadowy engagement of the seventh century that Thucydides calls the ‘earliest sea-battle on record’ (Thuc. 1. 13. 4), but the battle of Leukimme in 435 bc at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War (Thuc. 1. 29. 4–5). The uetus naumachia mentioned by Suetonius must be Augustus’ stagnum; there was no other in Rome at the time. Suetonius and Dio both mention a gladiatorial show and a beast-fight there, as well as a naval battle; in what remains of Martial’s collection only a naval battle is attributed to that site, but the poem that celebrates it seems to include mention of the dressage events that are recorded by Dio (Spect. 34. 3–4
Dio 66. 25. 2). In short, nothing that is described in the Liber spectaculorum contradicts the reports of Suetonius and Dio, nor do Suetonius and Dio contradict one another;93 yet, if there is an absence of contradiction, there is also an absence of corroboration. A tabulation of the events recorded in the Liber spectaculorum and those attributed to the inaugural programme in the surviving sources (Table 4) shows that the spectacles recorded in the Liber spectaculorum are compatible with the inaugural programme, as described in the historical record; but since we do not have a complete list of the imperial events staged in the Flavian 93 The different statistics for beasts despatched refer to different totals: 5,000 killed in a single day (Suetonius), as opposed to 9,000 altogether (Dio). Jerome seems to fuse the two statistics (5,000 altogether): see Table 4. Given the vulnerability of numerals in transmission, discrepancies are almost inevitable.

The Identity of ‘Caesar’

xlix

Table 4. Events recorded in the Liber spectaculorum and in the sources for the inauguration of the Flavian amphitheatre Event

Source

1

Parade of delatores

2 3

Lottery Venationes

Spect. 4–5/Suet. Tit. 8. 5/Plin. Pan. 35. 4 Dio 66. 25. 4–5 Spect. 7–8/ Dio 66. 25. 1 Spect. 13 Spect. 14–16 Spect. 17/32 Suet. Tit. 7. 3 Hier. Chron. a.Abr. 2095 Dio 66. 25. 1 Dio 66. 25. 4 Spect. 11 Spect. 22 Spect. 26

4

5

6 7

8

9

Beast-fights

Spect. 33 Dio 66. 25. 1 Performances by trained Spect. 12 animals Spect. 18 Spect. 20 Spect. 21 Dio 66. 25. 2 Horse-racing Dio 66. 25. 4 Mythological Spect. 6 enactments Spect. 9 Spect. 10 Spect. 24–5 Spect. 28–9 Spect. 30 Gladiatorial combat Spect. 23 Spect. 31

Naumachiae

Suet. Tit. 7. 3 Suet. Tit. 7. 3/ Dio 66. 25. 3 Dio 66. 25. 2 Dio 66. 25. 4 Spect. 27 Dio 66. 25. 3 Spect. 34 Suet. Tit. 7. 3 Dio 66. 25. 4

Detail

Bestiariae Bear trapped in ‘birdlime’ Sow killed bearing piglet Bestiarius Carpophorus 5,000 animals killed in 1 day 5,000 animals killed 9,000 animals killed Venatio at Augustus’ stagnum Rhinoceros vs. bull Bull vs. elephant Rhinoceros vs. bear, bullocks, aurochs, bison, lion Hounds vs. doe Cranes, 4 elephants Tame lion (accident) ‘Flying’ bull Kneeling elephant Tame tiger (accident) Trained horses, bulls, et al. Horse-race at Augustus’ stagnum ‘Pasiphae’ ‘Laureolus’ ‘Daedalus’ ‘Orpheus’ ‘Leander’ ‘Nereids’ Duel: Myrinus vs. Triumphus 2 victors in 1 engagement: Priscus vs. Verus Munus apparatissimum largissimumque Combat at Augustus’ stagnum Combat in pairs and gregatim Infantry battle at Augustus’ stagnum Naumachia in Flavian amphitheatre Corcyra vs. Corinth in Flavian amphitheatre Naumachia at Augustus’ stagnum Nauale proelium at Augustus’ stagnum Athens vs. Syracuse at Augustus’ stagnum

l

General Introduction

amphitheatre during the reign of any single emperor, we have to allow that similar (if less lavish) programmes might have been mounted on other occasions. After a series of spectacles at which he presided Titus is said to have wept openly; the sources (Suet. Tit. 10. 1, Dio 66. 26. 1) disagree about the chronology, but if Suetonius is right to date the occasion shortly before Titus’ death on 13 September 81, it must have been different from the inaugural display. Suetonius’ other two references to gladiatorial shows (Tit. 8. 2, mentioned below, and 9. 2, an example of Titus’ mercy towards conspirators) are too vague to permit firm deductions about the context, although it seems clear that in the latter instance Titus was the sponsor, since he allowed the conspirators to test the sharpness of the gladiators’ weapons, a privilege usually reserved for the editor—if the story, which has its doublet in a tale recorded by Dio about Nerva (68. 3. 2), is not apocryphal. (c) One important feature of Dio’s account of the inaugural programme should be stressed: the performance by bestiariae. None are attested for the reign of Domitian (see Spect. 7, Introduction). This does not prove that the mention of bestiariae in the Liber spectaculorum corresponds to their performance under Titus, but it does at least indicate that it may so correspond; and that such a display was sufficiently rare to receive special mention in Dio’s account of the inauguration. (d) Titus paraded delatores in the amphitheatre, just as Martial’s ‘Caesar’ does (Suet. Tit. 8. 5). It is true that Domitian, athough he employed the services of delatores, also took measures against them and is famous for a bon mot about the necessity for doing so (Suet. Dom. 9. 3): ‘princeps qui delatores non castigat, irritat.’ But he is nowhere said to have paraded them, whereas Pliny, discussing Trajan’s treatment of delatores, which included a parade (Pan. 34. 1), specifically alludes to Titus’ precedent in guaranteeing securitas and ultio by his policy towards them (Pan. 35. 4); this does not prove that Domitian did not similarly parade delatores, but it does at least demonstrate that Titus was specifically associated with this practice. For quotation of the relevant passages see the Introduction to Spect. 4. (e) At a gladiatorial show Titus promised to fulfil the spectators’ wishes rather than his own (Suet. Tit. 8. 2), just as ‘Caesar’ does in acceding to popular demand in allowing both ‘Myrinus’ and ‘Triumphus’ to appear in the arena (Spect. 23). While it is standard practice to praise emperors for providing spectators with what they ask for (a trope that Pliny caps by saying that Trajan even provides what the spectators do not ask for: Pan. 33. 2), Suetonius’ locution, ‘proposito gladiatorio munere, non ad suum, sed ad spectantium arbitrium editurum’, suggests a specific occasion, which may conceivably be the display celebrated by Martial: see Spect. 23. 2 n. and, for the nature of the crowd’s request (to be distinguished from the request

The Identity of ‘Caesar’

li

recorded of Domitian at Suet. Dom. 4. 1), see Spect. 23, Introduction. These coincidences do not prove that ‘Caesar’ is Titus; but they could be taken to point in that direction. (f ) The picture of an emperor whose firmness is tempered by compassion, the royal virtue par excellence,94 has an analogue in Josephus’ portrayal of Titus in the Bellum Iudaicum.95 Yet this is an impressionistic argument that has little evidentiary value, not least because Domitian himself was renowned for protestations of clementia; while Suetonius argues that such claims on his part invariably heralded the opposite outcome (Dom. 11. 2 ‘numquam tristiorem sententiam sine praefatione clementiae pronuntiauit, ut non aliud iam certius atrocis exitus signum esset quam principii lenitas’), an encomiast could easily promote this rhetoric of clemency, whatever Domitian’s actual behaviour. (g) There is a crucial literary consideration: the comparison with Nero upon which two of the epigrams are built (Spect. 2, 34; see Introductions ad loc.). The Flavian emperor under whom the amphitheatre was inaugurated would seem the obvious candidate to be contrasted with Nero; if Domitian were meant, the occlusion of Titus’ association with the amphitheatre would look like a very crass attempt to gloss over a record that was surely famous throughout the world—celebrated on coins issued not only in his lifetime but also posthumously under Domitian (Pls. 2–3), and commemorated epigraphically in the monument itself (see Section 7). (h) The evidentiary value of a medieval scholion attributing the exploits of the bestiarius Carpophorus to the reign of Titus is potentially significant, but inestimable: see Spect. 17, Introduction. While the above arguments strongly suggest that certain epigrams are to be ascribed to the reign of Titus—notably 1–3, 4–5 (perhaps), and 34—and demonstrate that the content of others corresponds, whether fortuitously or not, to details of the inaugural games for the Flavian amphitheatre, they do not prove definitively that the whole book celebrates the inauguration, or indeed that ‘Caesar’ is inevitably to be identified with Titus. Other arguments speak, rather, for his identification as Domitian, and to these I shall now turn.

(ii) Domitian? (a) The adulatory atmosphere in the Liber spectaculorum ascribes to ‘Caesar’ godlike qualities that are commonly associated with Domitian; similarly, the 94 Sen. Consol. ad Polyb. (¼ Dial. 11). 13. 2 (of Claudius) ‘quae ex uirtutibus eius primum obtinet locum, promittit clementia’. 95 Rajak (2002: 212–13). On consistency in the portrayal of Titus in the sources, among which he includes the Liber spectaculorum, see Deschamps (1983).

lii

General Introduction

(a)

(b)

Pl. 2. Bronze sestertius issued by the senatorial mint under Titus, ad 80–1: (a) observe, showing (left) the Meta Sudans, (centre) the Flavian amphitheatre, with a dot representing the emperor in his box, and (right) a two-storey structure; (b) reverse, showing Titus, togate, seated on a sella curulis surrounded by weapons and armour, legend: [Imp(erator) T(itus) Ca]es(ar) Vesp(asianus) Aug(ustus) p(ontifex) m(aximus) tr(ibunus) p(lebis) p(ater) p(atriae) co(n)s(ul) VIII s(enatus) c(onsulto)

(a)

(b)

Pl. 3. Bronze sestertius issued by the senatorial mint under Domitian, ad 81–2: (a) observe, showing (left) the Meta Sudans, (centre) the Flavian amphitheatre, with a dot representing the emperor in his box, and (right) a two-storey structure; (b) reverse, showing Titus, togate, seated on a sella curulis surrounded by weapons and armour, legend: Diuo Aug(usto) T(ito) Diui Vesp(asiani) f(ilio)Vespasian(o) s(enatus) c(onsulto)

The Identity of ‘Caesar’

liii

emperor’s power over nature is a Domitianic theme.96 In particular, Spect. 20, on proskynesis performed by an elephant, contains the phrase ‘nostrum . . . deum’ (l. 4), which is reminiscent of Suetonius’ claim that Domitian required he be referred to as dominus et deus (Suet. Dom. 13. 2).97 But the emperor’s godlike power over nature is a theme already well attested in Greek epigram,98 and in expressing it Martial is displaying an attitude already anticipated by Valerius Maximus (towards Tiberius) and the elder Pliny (towards Titus).99 Hence, while this attitude is widely expressed in literature addressed to Domitian, if literary sources for the reign of Titus were not so sparse we might find it expressed quite frequently there too (see further Spect. 20. 4 n.). (b) In referring to ‘Caesar’ Martial employs epithets strongly associated with Domitian in the surviving sources, notably inuictus, which is particularly attested in connection with his return from the Sarmatian expedition in January 93 (Spect. 23. 4 n.). This epithet occurs in an epigram naming a protagonist called ‘Myrinus’. It has been argued that, if this is the same Myrinus as the gladiator who fought under that name during the reign of Trajan (Epigr. 12. 28(29). 7), he cannot have been pursuing his career as early as ad 80; there would then be two reasons for ascribing this epigram to the reign of Domitian.100 (c) If mention of an ursus Caledonius in Spect. 9 depended upon Roman contact with Scotland following the formal campaign in which Agricola penetrated the region in 83–4, a Domitianic date for this epigram would be secure;101 but if it were prompted by his preliminary skirmish in that region in 80, a date under Titus would be just as plausible. (d) There may be a hint later in Martial’s oeuvre (5. 65) that one of the few human protagonists in the collection, the bestiarius Carpophorus, was at the height of his career under Domitian, despite a medieval scholion (mentioned under (i) above) ascribing his career to the reign of Titus.102 (e ) Spectacles by night are attested under Domitian (Stat. Silu. 1. 6. 85–90, Suet. Dom. 4. 1, Dio 67. 8). Hence it has been suggested that the nocturnal 96 7. 2, 20. 4, 31. 8, 33. 7, nn. (godlike qualities), 28, Introduction (power over nature). 97 Hence this epigram is ascribed to the reign of Domitian by Dau (1887: 16–20). 98 Cf. Crinagoras’ parrot, cit. in Section 5, and see Laurens (1965: 329–30). 99 Weinreich (1928: 21–3). 100 Dau (1887: 20–4); alternatively, Trajan’s Myrinus could be called after the one celebrated in our epigram: see Introduction to Spect. 23. 101 Hence Dau (1887: 25–6) dates this epigram to 84 or later. For the possibility of trade between Rome and Scotland before this date see Spect. 9. 3 n. 102 Hence Dau (1887: 31–2) tentatively ascribes Spect. 17 and 32 to the reign of Domitian: for full discussion see Spect. 17, Introduction.

liv

General Introduction

swimming-feat performed by ‘Leander’ (Spect. 28) was one of them; a more compelling argument is the similarity between the companion-piece to this epigram (Spect. 29) and a poem in the Apophoreta (14. 181).103 (f ) Both Titus and Domitian are associated with uenationes, so that displays involving animals cannot automatically be ascribed to either emperor without additional evidence to support the attribution.104 But it is indeed one of the animals starring in the Liber spectaculorum that supplies the most compelling argument for a Domitianic date: the rhinoceros that is the subject of Spect. 9 and 26. Precisely this species is featured on a bronze quadrans issued by the mint of Rome under Domitian.105 Being the smallest denomination in circulation, it was very widely disseminated and therefore likely to reach a vast public, so that the choice of the image it was to carry would be crucial in shaping popular perception of the emperor’s reign.106 On the obverse, where normally one would expect the emperor’s portrait, a rhinoceros with two horns is depicted;107 on the reverse is the emperor’s nomenclature ‘Imp(erator) Domit(ianus) Aug(ustus) Germ(anicus)’ and the traditional reverse legend ‘S(enatus) C(onsulto)’: cf. Pl. 4, BMCRE ii. 411 nos. 496–500 and pl. 81/17, RIC ii. 208 nos. 434–5 and pl. VII/108, Gnecchi (1916: 69 and pl. III. 25, where the beast is mistakenly identified as a hippopotamus). This coin cannot be dated before 83, the year in which Domitian adopted the title Germanicus to commemorate his defeat of the Chatti;108 and it cannot have been issued after 85, when the imperial legend on the fractional coinage was revised to include the consular year.109 Martial himself in the Apophoreta, datable to 84 or 85 (see Table 2),110 mentions a rhinoceros recently displayed by Domitian (‘Nuper in Ausonia domini spectatus harena’, 14. 53. 1). It seems highly doubtful that Domitian

103 Nocturnal coincidence: Dau (1887: 24–5); association with 14. 181: Spect. 28, Introduction. 104 Yet Dau (1887: 26) favours a Domitianic date for Spect. 14–17 and 33. 105 The importance of the coin, already recognized by Friedla¨nder (1886: i. 135–6), is forcefully restated in far greater detail by Buttrey (2007), to whose arguments I am indebted in my discussion of its significance. 106 Buttrey (2007). 107 On the significance of depicting the rhinoceros on the obverse see Buttrey (2007), who argues that numismatic commemoration of games is very rare; with Titus’ inauguration of the amphitheatre he associates the issue of an aureus and a denarius depicting a cuirassed elephant: BMCRE ii. 231 nos. 42–8 and pl. 45. 6–8. 108 Holder (1977: 151). 109 Buttrey (2007). 110 Leary (1996: 9–13).

The Identity of ‘Caesar’

lv

Pl. 4. Quadrans issued by the senatorial mint under Domitian, ad 83–5: (a) observe, showing African rhinoceros advancing left with head lowered; (b) reverse legend: Imp(erator) Domit(ianus) Aug(ustus) Germ(anicus) s(enatus) c(onsulto)

would have minted a series depicting his recently displayed rhinoceros if one had been shown a few years earlier under Titus; in particular, the rarity of the rhinoceros (none had been seen in Rome since the reign of Augustus), coupled with Martial’s emphasis on the impressive fight that—contrary to initial appearances—our specimen put up in the arena, suggests that its performance was an extraordinary coup de the´aˆtre, worthy of commemoration upon a coin whose low denomination guaranteed virtually universal dissemination of whatever message was advertised upon it.

lvi

General Introduction

It has been argued that the display of a rhinoceros by Domitian need not preclude a similar display two or three years earlier by Titus.111 Indeed, we might consider whether the same specimen could conceivably have survived from one reign into the other.112 At his Alban villa, where he hunted numerous species of wild animal (Suet. Dom. 19), Domitian may have had a menagerie or game-park (like Hortensius’ therotrophium, Varr. RR 3. 13. 2– 3) in which he kept exotic veterans from the arena, and he was sentimental enough to weep over a tame lion killed in the arena (and to have Statius commemorate its career in Silu. 2. 5). If a rhinoceros displayed by Titus had survived to make a veteran appearance under his successor,113 it might well have been felt to have earned what was virtually mascot-status on Domitian’s coinage. Yet the potential longevity of the species does not invalidate the evidence of Domitian’s coin, which is a powerful argument for supposing that Domitian was the only Flavian to display a rhinoceros in the arena, and we should therefore dismiss the possibility that Titus had displayed the species himself. Hence, while the arguments that can be made for dating some of the other epigrams to the reign of Domitian are not definitive, a Domitianic date seems to be guaranteed for the two poems whose subject recurs on the quadrans issued between 83 and 85. If, therefore, the book contains material that dates from Domitian’s reign, in what circumstances was it published? Three main theories have been advanced: 111 This possibility is canvassed by Friedla¨nder (1886: i. 136) and Carratello (1965b: 296). 112 Rhinoceroses can live 40–45 years in a modern zoo. Having a digestive system similar to a horse, both the two-horned species (on which see Spect. 11, Introduction) can flourish on a diet of clover or lucerne, bulked up with hay in the case of the White Rhinoceros (a grazer) or grass and vegetables in the case of the Black Rhinoceros (a browser). Given dry and draftproof shelter, an ambient temperature generally no lower than 5 8C, access to grassy areas for exercise, and regular soaking to prevent the skin from cracking, an imperial rhinoceros should have been able to survive quite well for a few years. On these requirements, all of which the Romans could have perceived and met, see D. M. Jones (1979). 113 It is noteworthy that the Romans did not always display rhinoceroses with the express intention of killing them: Pausanias in the Antonine age saw some alive at Rome (9. 21. 2); some were exhibited by Antoninus Pius, perhaps in the games of 149 (SHA Ant. 10); Elagabalus imported some from Egypt (SHA Heliog. 28. 3); those intended for Gordian III’s Persian triumph were eventually displayed by Philip the Arab at the celebrations for Rome’s millennium (SHA Gord. 33. 1–2). Only under Commodus (Dio 72. 10. 3, 18. 1, 19. 1) and Caracalla (Dio 77. 6. 2) do we know for certain that rhinoceroses were killed in the arena.

The Identity of ‘Caesar’

lvii

(a) A collection of epigrams celebrating the inauguration of the Flavian amphitheatre was reissued in a second edition that included poems on themes associated elsewhere in Martial’s poetry with Domitian. Such poems, it is argued, would certainly include Spect. 11 and 26, and perhaps 29, whose verbal similarities to 14. 181, on a Leandros marmoreus, are discussed in the Introduction to Spect. 28.114 If, however, such an expanded collection was, like the coin-issue, intended to celebrate the appearance of Domitian’s rhinoceros at Rome,115 it is not clear why Domitian should have been flattered by a transparent makeover of a book that had already been circulated in public in honour of a different emperor. (b) Most of the surviving collection was composed to celebrate Domitian’s triumph over the Dacians in 89, but the illness of which Martial complains in Book 6 delayed its publication until Domitian’s return from the Sarmatian campaign in January 93, which apparently earned him the epithet inuictus, attested also at Spect. 23. 4 (see discussion above). After his death, the argument goes, a posthumous compiler conflated with this collection a few epigrams which, as discussed above, seem to sit more comfortably with the reign of Titus, i.e. 1–3, 4–5 (perhaps), and 34; whereas Martial would have arranged the inaugural epigrams consecutively, the posthumous compiler, recognizing the aquatic context of Spect. 34 but not its role in the inauguration, put it after the aquatic sequence of Spect. 27–9.116 This ingenious theory seems, however, inadequate to explain why the poems composed for the triumph of 89 were omitted from the numbered books that Martial published when those events were topical. (c) The entire collection is to be identified with an otherwise undocumented series of games given by Domitian between 83 and 85, and has nothing at all to do with the inauguration or any other displays sponsored by Titus.117 If this were the case, however, we should have to assume that the similarities with the extant accounts of the programme at Titus’ inauguration were entirely 114 Friedla¨nder (1886: i. 136). 115 Blanchet (1941: 8). 116 Dau (1887: 29–35). Converted to the numeration that I follow here, his tentative chronological table (1887: 28) comprises: 4 epigrams definitely to be attributed to the reign of Titus (Spect. 1–3, 34), and 2 probably (Spect. 4–5); 9 epigrams definitely to be attributed to the reign of Domitian (Spect. 7, 9, 11, 20, 23, 26, 28–30) and 9 probably (Spect. 14–19, 32–3, 36); 12 epigrams lacking chronological pointers (Spect. 6, 8, 10, 12–13, 21–2, 24–5, 27, 31, 35). Following Schneidewin’s numeration (see Concordance 1), Dau thought that only one epigram intervened between the consecutive aquatic series (Spect. 24–6 in his numeration) and the occasion celebrated at Augustus’ stagnum (Spect. 28 in his numeration); for the error see Section 1 above. 117 At the time of writing this is the position of Buttrey (2007).

lviii

General Introduction

fortuitous. Doubtless many generic spectacles were repeated under successive rulers, and Domitian is on record as having held a naval battle in the Flavian amphitheatre (Suet. Dom. 4. 1) and having sent delatores into exile (Dom. 9. 2– 3); but he is not said to have paraded the delatores in the arena first, as Titus did, and there is no record that he held a celebration that combined spectacles of the scope and variety celebrated in the Liber spectaculorum. As noted above, we lack a comprehensive record of the spectacles sponsored by any of the emperors, not only Titus or Domitian; and we do not even know how frequently spectacles were mounted in Rome—or indeed in any other city, even relatively well-documented Pompeii.118 The sources imply that not only the duration of Titus’ inaugural spectacles, but also their variety, was exceptional, and it therefore seems strained to postulate an otherwise undocumented occasion to account for the provenance of a collection celebrating spectacles that bear marked similarities to an already well-documented series, i.e. the inauguration of the Flavian amphitheatre under Titus. At the same time, however, it bears repeating that several of the incidents commemorated in the Liber spectaculorum, especially the remarkable behaviour—whether anticipated or not—of various species that were regularly on display at the games, could just as well have occurred under Domitian, or indeed at a spectacle sponsored by Titus other than the inauguration. Furthermore, if we were to date the entire collection to the reign of Domitian, we should have to accept that Martial had completely elided the amphitheatre’s association with Titus in order to interpret it as redounding to Domitian’s credit. Granted, one late source, the Chronographer of 354, ascribes the Thermae Titi (traditionally so identified at Spect. 2. 7) to Domitian, and indeed he claims that the amphitheatre was erected in three stages, Domitian being responsible for the finishing touches to the attic storey which, like the Basilica Aemilia, was decorated with shields (Chronica minora, i. 146 Mommsen): ‘Diuus Vespasianus . . . hic prior tribus gradibus amphitheatrum dedicauit . . . Diuus Titus . . . hic amphitheatrum a tribus gradibus patris sui duos adiecit . . . Domitianus . . . hoc imp. multae operae publicae fabricatae sunt . . . thermas Titianas et Traianas, amphitheatrum usque ad clipea.’119 If the Chronographer is right in claiming that Domitian finished the building, it is not impossible that he held a grand inauguration that has left no trace in 118 The evidence from Pompeii shows that few spectacles were held during the depths of winter (November–February) or at the height of summer (July–August); most clustered between April and June: see Sabbatini Tumolesi (1980: 133–5). 119 The anacoluthon presumably results from conflation of sources in which the individual monuments were objects of an active verb. For an attempt to harmonize the Chronographer’s claims with the various architectural levels of the amphitheatre see von Gerkan (1925).

The Identity of ‘Caesar’

lix

our sources other than (on this theory) the Liber spectaculorum. Yet the more prominently Titus’ name was displayed on the building (see Section 7), the more closely it would be associated with him by the public, so that praise of its construction would naturally refer to his achievement rather than to finishing touches added by his successor.120 In any case, the atmosphere of immediacy in the second epigram is much better suited to Titus’ inauguration than to an event several years later (see commentary on Spect. 2) and, given the parallels between the events of the Liber spectaculorum and the extant sources for Titus’ inauguration, it seems perverse to postulate an entirely unattested ceremony under Domitian as the occasion celebrated in the book.

(iii) ‘Caesar’ or ‘Caesars’? We might suspect the rhinoceros-poems of being interpolations in the tradition, were it not for their position in the collection, with fourteen epigrams between them; such an arrangement accords with Martial’s habit of separating thematically related material as well as juxtaposing it, whereas one might expect interpolated material to be contiguous. It should also give us pause that, in the case of displays in which the protagonists were more familiar, there is no likelihood of recovering any external evidence that would pin a specific display to a later series of spectacles; in other words, the coin-issue commemorating the rhinoceros is a salutary reminder that, in the case of most of the spectacles commemorated in the Liber spectaculorum, we lack any certainty whatsoever concerning the occasion to which they belonged. In short, with the probable exception of the pair about the rhinoceros, all the epigrams could have been composed to celebrate the dedication of the Flavian amphitheatre by Titus; but if two of them probably belong to an occasion under his successor, then others may very well celebrate Domitianic spectacles too. We seem to have reached an impasse: the opening trio of epigrams (1–3), the pair celebrating a parade of delatores in the amphitheatre (4–5), and the poem celebrating a naumachia at Augustus’ stagnum (34) point to the inauguration of the Flavian amphitheatre under Titus, and general similarities with the recorded spectacles on that occasion are discernible elsewhere in the

120 It is frequently observed that Statius emphasizes not the architecture of the amphitheatre but the displays that Domitian staged there in association with his grand cena (Silu. 1. 6): see Scheithauer (2000: 131), Nauta (2002: 397), Leberl (2004: 185).

lx

General Introduction

collection too; yet the pair of epigrams about the exploits of a rhinoceros (11 and 26) point to a date under Domitian. One may therefore reasonably suggest that it is an unwarranted and a priori reductivism to suppose that all the surviving epigrams were composed for a single occasion and a single Caesar. It has been pointed out that Martial may have conceived the idea of compiling a thematically unified book once he had already composed a few epigrams celebrating displays.121 Should we perhaps envisage him combining into one substantial collection a series of minicollections of spectacle-epigrams inspired by various events that were staged in the first four or five years after the Flavian amphitheatre was inaugurated? We know very little about the immediate context for the dissemination of epigrams before they became combined into a liber, but a topical poem such as birthday-wishes for the emperor (Epigr. 4. 1) must surely have been presented to its addressee on the occasion celebrated, just like the original performative context that Statius’ prefaces describe for individual poems in the Siluae.122 For the imperial epigrams composed early in Martial’s career it seems realistic to envisage limited circulation in libelli within the intimate circle of the emperor’s court.123 In Book 1 Martial remarks that the handwriting of his late secretary, Demetrius, was ‘known to the Caesars’ (1. 101. 1–2): ‘Illa manus quondam studiorum fida meorum j et felix domino notaque Caesaribus’. This suggests that before he published this book he had presented manuscripts to both Titus and Domitian.124 Since neither Xenia nor 121 Holzberg (2002: 40): ‘Es wa¨re . . . denkbar, daß der Autor der Epigrammaton libri XII das Konzept einer ‘‘Monobiblos’’ de spectaculis entwickelte, als er schon einzelne Gedichte u¨ber Spiele verfaßt hatte.’ 122 As observed by Nauta (2002: 365), Domitian’s birthday was on 24 October (Suet. Dom. 1. 1), whereas Book 4 was published for the Saturnalia of ad 88, i.e. two months later (see Table 2). 123 For the hypothesis of limited pre-publication circulation in brochures, distinct from the practice of distilling published work into a collection of excerpts (for which Martial also uses the term libellus), see White (1974, 1996: 402–5), the latter study conducted in response to the emphasis laid by Fowler (1995) upon Martial’s published libri as artefacts testifying to the author’s own considered arrangement of his material. Rigorous analysis of the evidence for pre-publication circulation by Nauta (2002: 105– 20, 365–74), to whose scrupulous study I am indebted, concludes that Martial presented as yet unpublished collections to the emperor (although not to private patrons); that such collections were presented on a specific occasion, and that the contents celebrated that occasion; and that once Martial started publishing his corpus of heterogeneous books of epigrams he may no longer have offered ‘bijou’ collections to the emperor, since the books themselves provided an adequate means of communication with him. 124 Cf. Martial’s reference to ‘Caesar uterque’ in the context of his grant of the ius trium liberorum (3. 95. 5, 9. 97. 5).

The Identity of ‘Caesar’

lxi

Apophoreta carries an imperial dedication, Martial is presumably referring to material presented to the emperor privately, rather than to libri that he released to the public at large.125 From an epigram addressed to Domitian in Book 2, it can be inferred that this material comprised short series of epigrams composed at speed to celebrate particular occasions (2. 91. 3–4): ‘si festinatis totiens tibi lecta libellis j detinuere oculos carmina nostra tuos’. One of the pair of couplets from the Florilegium Gallicum that Junius added to the Liber spectaculorum also speaks of haste, using the same word, festinare (Spect. 35);126 perhaps this couplet is a remnant of the valediction to just such a libellus, later incorporated into the collection from which our anthology was excerpted (see Spect. 35, Introduction). Important testimony for the presentation of thematically unified material to the emperor to celebrate a particular occasion comes from one of the epigrams in the middle of the ‘cycle’ about the lion and the hare (1. 44): ‘Lasciuos leporum cursus lususque leonum j quod maior nobis charta minorque gerit j et bis idem facimus, nimium si, Stella, uidetur j hoc tibi, bis leporem tu quoque pone mihi.’ It seems likely that charta maior refers to Book 1 and charta minor to a small roll comprising nothing but the cycle; this ‘bijou’ roll, presented initially to the emperor, must subsequently have entered general circulation, since Martial’s addressee, Arruntius Stella, knew about it.127 Hence Stella would have read the epigrams celebrating this marvel bit by bit, interspersed with the heterogeneous material of the rest of Book 1 in its published form, whereas the emperor would already have read them all together, a virtuoso example of ‘theme and variation’, in the mini-collection with which Martial had presented him as soon as the marvel was performed.128

125 See Nauta (2002: 366–7); even though he assumes that the Liber spectaculorum was dedicated to Titus, he infers that Martial must have presented to Domitian work that no longer survives in an independent format. 126 Observed by Nauta (2002: 367–8). 127 Nauta (2002: 369). Lindsay (1903d: 49 n. 4) had suggested that the charta minor was the Liber spectaculorum, which he therefore postulated must have contained at least one poem on the ‘lion-and-hare’ theme; Prinz (1929: 110) countered that, if the Liber spectaculorum were published under Titus, Domitian would hardly have been flattered by a cycle on a theme that was already associated with praise of his brother. Rather than assuming that the Liber spectaculorum represents a charta minor, however, we should perhaps envisage it composed of several chartae minores along the lines of the emperor’s private manuscript of the ‘lion-and-hare’ cycle, as conceived by Nauta. 128 Nauta (2002: 369–70) interprets the next epigram as expressing Martial’s anxiety about the ephemeral nature of work that circulates only to individual recipients (1. 45): ‘Edita ne breuibus pereat mihi cura libellis, j dicatur potius: #e  IÆ
Ø 
.’

lxii

General Introduction

What would the Caesars do with libelli that they received from Martial? Would they have them copied for the entertainment of their associates? Did a libellus on a series of spectacles or the festivities accompanying the emperor’s return from campaign, as in the expanded cycle that may be discernible in Book 8,129 function a little like a memento of a state occasion, disseminated beyond the limit of the circle of people who actually witnessed the event, perhaps anticipating Martial’s later popularity in some of the more remote corners of the Empire?130 Or was this precisely why Martial compiled a collection like the Liber spectaculorum? At all events, libelli presented in advance to the emperor did not preclude subsequent incorporation into a published book, whether homogeneous or heterogeneous in theme; in a ‘cycle’ such as the lion and the hare in Book 1, we can see the essence of the Liber spectaculorum flavouring a more adventurous cocktail in a less concentrated solution. If the Liber spectaculorum is, in fact, descended from a published collection that Martial put together from shorter sequences that he had already presented to the emperors on the occasion of various series of spectacles,131 it should presumably pre-date his numbered books, which themselves contain epigrams about spectacles interpersed among other material; and it might have appeared either before or after the Apophoreta, where the incidental remark about Domitian’s ‘recent’ display of a rhinoceros comes in the context of a couplet about a flask of rhinoceros horn (14. 53) that is paired with one about a flask of common-or-garden cattle horn (14. 52). Rather than an

129 Nauta (2002: 371–3), cautioning against the assumption that every discernible ‘cycle’ honouring the emperor must have been presented to him in a libellus prior to its inclusion in a publicly disseminated liber. 130 Howell on Mart. 1. 1. 2 ‘toto notus in orbe’. A parallel practice is attested in more modern times in the tournaments mounted in specially constructed amphitheatres by rival Italian duchies in the 17th c.: marvels of engineering accommodated special effects, often creating a context for the jousting that was either fantastic or mythological (knights disgorged from the mouth of a huge mechanical whale, for instance, or personifications of the winds flying in on wires stretched from the four corners of the arena), and the occasions were commemorated in pamphlets—both prose and verse, sometimes illustrated, sometimes not—that were widely disseminated at home and abroad to advertise the duke’s power and influence: see Jarrard (2003: 11–52). 131 Authorial selection is Martial’s attested practice throughout his published oeuvre, and poems ‘for the Caesars’ cannot be equated with the youthful nugae collected by his agent, Q. Pollius Valerianus, that he mentions so disparagingly at 1. 113.

The Identity of ‘Caesar’

lxiii

updated edition of a collection that essentially honoured Titus, we should then envisage a volume that also celebrated displays sponsored by Domitian, who had a strong record in spectacle (Suet. Dom. 4. 1 ‘spectacula assidue magnifica et sumptuosa edidit’);132 and imperial identity is in any case subsumed under the deferential title ‘Caesar’. It would be the rump of such an ‘omnibus’ edition, united by the theme of spectacle and apparently manifesting traces of Martial’s own characteristic modes of juxtaposition and arrangement, that the florilegia have preserved.133 If Martial himself arranged the original Liber spectaculorum by combining material from shorter imperial libelli, the analogy of such a ‘cycle’ as the lion and the hare from Book 1 suggests that he probably interspersed material celebrating one series of displays with epigrams about others, possibly grouping together chronologically disparate epigrams that celebrate the same category of spectacle; such an arrangement is discernible in the surviving groupings that have come down to us in the florilegia, and would explain why epigrams about displays that seem to correspond to events recorded in the sources for the inauguration of the Flavian amphitheatre are not arranged contiguously (e.g. Spect. 27 and 34, both apparently commemorating naval battles held respectively in the Flavian amphitheatre and at Augustus’ stagnum). Is it conceivable that Martial could have composed a book that incorporated material honouring two different emperors or that, if he had done so, Domitian would not have objected to the public circulation of a volume that interwove commemoration of his own spectacles with those of his brother? In Book 12 Martial included epigrams for Nerva as well as Trajan;134 admittedly, Trajan cultivated his connection with Nerva, to whom he owed the adoption that elevated him to the position of emperor, whereas Domitian is reputed to have harboured odium fraternum towards Titus (Suet. Tit. 9. 3, Dio 67. 2). But fatal sibling rivalry, a beˆte noire of the Roman dynastic legacy inherited from Romulus and Remus, is at variance with the evidence for Domitian’s deification of Titus, and his confirmation of privileges that both Vespasian and Titus had granted;135 indeed, emphasis upon the heritage and longevity

132 Cutting down on ŁÆØ was one of his successor’s cost-cutting measures (Dio 68. 2. 3). Ville (1981: 149–55) has eleven entries for munera and uenationes sponsored by Domitian (nos. 116–26). 133 On this theory the three manifestly introductory poems need not have been composed together, although for our collection they seem to have been purposefully arranged together. 134 Holzberg (2002: 145), Lorenz (2002: 232–46). 135 Waters (1964: 64–5).

lxiv

General Introduction

of the Flavian dynasty is a marked feature of Domitian’s reign, and Martial himself can gracefully combine a compliment to the military achievements of Vespasian and Titus with the conceit that Domitian’s triumph over the Chatti is equal to their combined triumph over Judaea (2. 2. 5–6 ‘frater Idumaeos meruit cum patre triumphos, j quae datur ex Chattis laurea, tota tua est’). Hence the enmity towards Titus that is attributed to Domitian by hostile sources is a flimsy basis for supposing that he would object to the public circulation of a collection that celebrated spectacles associating both of them with the greatest architectural achievement of the Flavian dynasty—arguably, indeed, the greatest Roman building of all time. In terms of readership, such a collection would be designed to appeal to the broad reading-public, rather than the reigning emperor, whose ear and eye Martial had already attracted with mini-collections. The focus on ‘Caesar’, implying an authorial connection with the imperial house, should confer some glamour on the author; and the imperial theme might itself attract an audience.136 It is conceivable that for some further-flung readers it may not have been apparent that epigrams honouring Titus and Domitian had been juxtaposed in one and the same volume; but those who recognized this fact may have found it entirely natural for two representatives of the dynasty responsible for the amphitheatre to be glorified together in the context of spectacles performed in it.137 In any case, readers in either category may have been less preoccupied with imperial prosopography, or even with amphitheatrical Realien, than with the marvels of Man’s mastery over the natural world, and Martial’s skill in adapting the tropes of Hellenistic epigram to convey these wonders. For scholars today who are preoccupied with historical specificity, the ‘Caesar’ of most of the epigrams, and the occasion of any particular manifestation of his wizardry, must remain a tantalizing puzzle. Yet, if one sets that conundrum aside, Martial’s ‘Caesar’ starts to look almost like an idealized abstraction, above identification; maybe that impression is not so far from the experience of some of the readers among Martial’s wider public, especially those further afield, as the instances of imperial largesse in the capital merged into one glorious legend of theatrical marvels on the sands of the arena.

136 Nauta (2002: 378, 385). 137 As Leofranc Holford-Strevens points out to me, attitudes towards the popes during the period of their secular power (i.e. before 1870) may provide an instructive parallel: while people living in Rome itself were intensely interested in the personality of an individual pope and the way he treated the city, the Catholic faithful elsewhere revered the holder of his office, irrespective of his personal identity.

The Flavian Amphitheatre

lxv

7 . T H E F L AV I A N A M P H I T H E AT R E The monumental new amphitheatre was constructed by Vespasian, allegedly realizing an intention that had originally been cherished by Augustus: cf. Suet. Vesp. 9. 1 ‘[fecit Vespasianus] amphitheatrum urbe media, ut destinasse compererat Augustum.’138 Since the Great Fire of 64, which destroyed both Statilius Taurus’ stone structure of 29 bc (rather small) and Nero’s wooden one (enormous), Rome had had no amphitheatre.139 In fulfilling this need, Vespasian simultaneously countered two of the major planks of Nero’s reputation: his fame as a provider of entertainment, and his selfishness in sequestering the centre of Rome for his palace.140 Not every detail of the architecture and function of the building is relevant to an appreciation of the Liber spectaculorum; but the circumstances of its dedication matter, and so do certain aspects of its design.141 Vespasian built his amphitheatre on the site of the ornamental lake in the grounds of Nero’s Domus Aurea. He evidently intended to dedicate it himself, but death cheated him of his dues, and his elder son was able to seize the credit. This much can be inferred from a recently restored inscription, traces of which survive beneath a fifth-century record of repairs to the building (Pl. 5). The original was probably displayed above one of the main entrances to the amphitheatre, replicating in abbreviated form the lengthy dedication that was presumably inscribed around the podium wall (CIL vi. 40454a ¼ AE 1995, 111b ¼ EAOR vi, no. 1a): ‘I[mp(erator)] T(itus) Caes(ar) Vespasi[anus Aug(ustus)] j amphitheatru[m nouum (?)] j [ex] manubIs142 (vac.) [fieri iussit (?)]’ (‘The emperor Titus Caesar Vespasian Augustus ordered the new amphitheatre to be constructed out of the spoils of war’). But Titus’ credit for this achievement rests upon the insertion of a single slender initial. We are

138 Coleman (2003: 61). 139 Coleman (2000b: 228–9), LTUR i. 36 s. v. Amphitheatrum Neronis (D. Palombi), 36–7 s. v. Amphitheatrum Statilii Tauri (A. Viscogliosi). 140 Probably the plebs held more tenaciously to the first of these memories, and the Senate to the second: for the antipathy towards the Domus Aurea see Spect. 2. 3 ‘inuidiosa . . . radiabant atria’, n. 141 Discussions are legion: for recent overviews see Richardson (1992: 7–10), Darwall-Smith (1996: 78–82), Coleman (2000b: 229–39); for a dense account LTUR i. 30–5 s.v. Amphitheatrum (R. Rea); for lavish detail Gabucci (2001). Recent discoveries in the hypogeum, discussed below, must now be taken into account as well. 142 For the use of the tall I, commonly employed in imperial Latin to represent inter alia the geminated letter in the combination ˘ı¯ı, see Oliver (1966: 166).

lxvi

General Introduction

Pl. 5. Reconstructed dedication superimposed over fifth-century inscription recording repairs to the Flavian amphitheatre (CIL vi. 40454a): I[mp(erator)] T(itus) Caes(ar) Vespasi[anus Aug(ustus)] j amphitheatru[m nouum (?)] j [ex] manubIs (vac.) [fieri iussit (?)]

dealing with a double palimpsest, since the traces of the older inscription consist of peg-holes that would have kept the original bronze lettering in place, and at the beginning of the first line the peg-holes are too numerous and too close together to correspond to a single set of letters. Evidently the crucial ‘T’ distinguishing Titus’ nomenclature from Vespasian’s was inserted afterwards, destroying the even spacing of the initial letters and ensuring that posterity would regard the Flavian amphitheatre as the son’s achievement, rather than his father’s.143 Moreover, this ghostly inscription reveals that the building was conceived, anachronistically, as a manubial benefaction; the phrase ex manubIs, with its Republican overtones, must refer to the spoils of the campaign waged by Vespasian and Titus in Judaea that culminated in the sack of Jerusalem in 70.144 Hence Martial’s conception of the amphitheatre as a gift to the people (‘deliciae populi, quae fuerant domini’, Spect. 2. 12) is entirely consonant with the triumphant general’s obligation to spend his share of the booty in the public interest. What the building is called is striking too: the designation amphitheatrum nouum gives the lie to the conventional assumption that it was known as the Flavian Amphitheatre, Amphitheatrum Flauium.145 Since it was the only amphitheatre in Rome at the time, contemporaries may simply have referred to it as amphitheatrum (Spect. 1. 7 n.); on the Marble Plan its 143 For the restoration and interpretation of the original inscription see Alfo¨ldy (1995). 144 The amphitheatre thereby joins a series of Flavian monuments in the heart of Rome commemorating the Jewish War, viz. the Templum Pacis, and the arches to Titus in the Circus Maximus and on the Velia: Millar (2005). 145 Hence I give ‘amphitheatre’ a small A, to show that ‘Flavian amphitheatre’ is not titular but descriptive.

The Flavian Amphitheatre

lxvii

Pl. 6. North-west fac¸ade of the Flavian amphitheatre in 1960. The human figures at the bottom illustrate the scale

Pl. 7. Model of the Flavian amphitheatre. Museo della Civilta` Romana

lxviii

General Introduction

label is just that, [AMPHITHE]ATRVM. The later nickname ‘Colosseum’, attested in the Collectanea of pseudo-Bede, may have been coined from the proximity of the colossal statue (originally of Nero: see on 2. 1 ‘sidereus . . . colossus’), or from the colossal dimensions of the building, rising four storeys above the ground to a height of 52 m, its major axes measuring 188  156 m, its arena covering 3,357 m2 .146 For a photograph of the towering hulk of the modern ruin, dwarfing the cars and pedestrians below, see Pl. 6; for a model of the original monument see Pl. 7. It was not only the size of the building, and its undoubtedly sumptuous decor, that was impressive. It was also equipped with all the latest technology. Martial alludes to the towering height of the structure as though it were open to the sky and the stars (Spect. 18. 1 ‘ad aethera’, 19. 2, 22. 2 ‘in astra’); but these tropes for ‘immeasurable height’ conceal the reality of the awning, unfurled over the cauea to keep the sun off the spectators.147 A system of cables or pulleys must have been installed to enable the elevation of tableaux in the arena; but the structure may have been portable, and no traces remain (see Spect. 18, Introduction). Scenery should probably be envisaged (see Spect. 10, Introduction; 24. 3 n.). Yet Martial studiously avoids any reference to the mechanisms behind the displays; everything is presented as a marvel of the emperor’s making. The aspect of the Flavian amphitheatre that is most critical for the interpretation of the Liber spectaculorum is the nature of the hypogeum, the basement that is today an open pit beneath the level where the arena-floor was originally installed (Pl. 8). The pit is 6 m deep, laid out with a series of elliptical corridors of brick two storeys high that housed a system of pulleys and cages to elevate animals and equipment into the arena through trapdoors in the floor. If we are to believe Dio and, potentially, Martial, the amphitheatre hosted several aquatic displays at its inauguration alone, including a naval battle (see Section 6). Yet the hypogeum was too deep to be flooded all the way to the top, and its installations would have got in the way of the enactments. Various hypotheses have been canvassed, including the theory that the hypogeum was constructed by Domitian.148 This is a plausible suggestion, in that Domitian built his own stagnum near the Vatican for hosting aquatic displays (Suet. Dom. 4. 1–2), and he also built the Ludus Magnus, the gladiatorial school next door to the amphitheatre on the east side that was connected to it by an underground passageway (unexcavated). So Domitian may indeed have been responsible for the hypogeum as we know it today, in which case the nauale proelium that he held there (Suet. Dom. 4. 1) must have 146 Canter (1930). 147 Graefe (1979), Goldman (1982). 148 See e.g. Golvin (1988: 335).

The Flavian Amphitheatre

lxix

Pl. 8. Remains of the hypogeum of the Flavian amphitheatre in 1967, showing the double-storey brick structures in situ

pre-dated his renovations. But what lay underneath the arena before the construction of the hypogeum in its present configuration? A hypogeum would certainly seem the most efficient way of introducing into the arena all the animals that star in the Liber spectaculorum, although temporary installations at ground level might have been employed without leaving any permanent trace. There is no definite allusion to an animal coming up from underneath, although an emendation to one of the epigrams would require such an inference (Spect. 25, Introduction). Recent investigations have plotted a grid-system of square postholes in the basement-floor that align with brackets in the retaining wall around the edge.149 It has been 149 Rea et al. (2000), Garello (2004: 118–20).

lxx

General Introduction

conjectured that four square posts could have fitted into each posthole, tall enough and strong enough for their combined weight to support the beams underneath the arena floor, but sufficiently light and manageable to be removed when the floor was not required. Traces of water-proofing in the lower third of the perimeter wall give credence to the idea that these wooden installations, the precursors of the permanent brick structures that are there today, could have been removed and the area flooded to a modest depth.150 Remarkably, despite the 6 m drop to the basement-floor, the sight-lines for most of the spectators seem unlikely to have been compromised much, because the hypogeum was so large.151 Martial’s epigrams stress the visual experience of the spectators; an amphitheatre was designed for all-round visibility (hence the term, an Augustan neologism from Greek roots, I, ‘on both sides’, and ŁÆæ, ‘theatre’, literally ‘seeing-place’).152 The ancient Regionary Catalogues calculate the capacity of the Flavian amphitheatre at 87,000 loca; modern estimates allow 45,000–50,000 spectators.153 If the seating in the amphitheatre was demarcated as rigidly as it was in the theatre, every social group sat in its own section, allocated on the basis of status (slave or free, soldier or civilian, layman or priest), rank (plebs, equestrian, or senator), age (child or adult), marital circumstances, and gender.154 Individual collegia probably had their own seats too; likewise delegations from foreign cities (see Spect. 3, Introduction). The cosmopolitan atmosphere is conjured up with chauvinistically vivid hyperbole in Spect. 3.

150 The hypogeum was evidently intended from the beginning to be completed in two phases, since foundations for the permanent structures were already installed underneath the platform that supported the footings for the temporary wooden structure: see Lancaster (2005: 60–1, 81). 151 Conclusion based on experiments with a three-dimensional computer-model created at the University of California at Los Angeles. For a cross-section of the entire building, including the hypogeum, see Golvin (1988: pl. XXXVII/2). 152 In compounds I carries the root meaning ‘on both sides’, and the nominal element therefore maintains the singular form: cf. IŁıæ ¼ Id ƃ ŁæÆØ, ‘with a door on both sides’: see Petersen (1986: 211–13). For the original designation spectacula, and its gradual replacement by amphitheatrum, see E´tienne (1965). 153 i.e. the ancient calculation exceeds the modern estimate by a ratio of 3.5:2. This discrepancy is about average: for the Theatre of Marcellus the ancient figure (20,500 loca) exceeds the modern estimate (13,000–14,000 spectators) by a ratio of 3:2. Modern spectators have more flesh to accommodate, and more fastidious notions of ‘personal space’. 154 The standard treatment of seating is by Rawson (1987).

The Flavian Amphitheatre

lxxi

Pl. 9. Medallion of Gordian III, reverse, showing (left) the radiate Colossus behind the Meta Sudans, (centre) the Flavian amphitheatre, with the emperor seated among the spectators watching a contest between a bull (?) and an elephant mounted by two mahouts, and (right) an arched structure with a peaked roof. Legend: Munificentia Gordiani Aug(usti)

Throughout the collection we are constantly reminded of the presence of one spectator in particular, whose munificence guaranteed every marvel, from the building itself to the spectacles performed in it. His title (Caesar), or its adjectival form (Caesareus), appears in eighteen of the thirty-six poems. Regardless of precisely which emperor is meant in any given context, ‘Caesar’

lxxii

General Introduction

is still present, even when unnamed, as in the epigram where it is implied that Thetis learnt the technique of aquatic mime from a higher authority (Spect. 30. 8 n.). The amphitheatre was indeed one of the locations where emperor and people came into contact face to face. The position of the emperor’s box on the short axis not only afforded him the most advantageous view of the arena; it was also the place where he was visible to the rest of the spectators at closest range.155 The encounter between ruler and subjects was exploited by both parties: by the emperor to manipulate his own image, and by the people to express their will. The ubiquity of references to spectacle in the imperial biographies testifies to the importance of such events in moulding the emperor’s reputation.156 An emperor sensitive to his people’s desires and generous in providing for them is a pervasive image within our collection. He dominates the book; just so, the emperor’s representative dot, sometimes inflated to recognizable human shape, dominates the coins issued to commemorate his exclusive responsibility for the building whose amenities thrilled and impressed the world (Pls. 2a, 3a, 9).157

8. SPECTACLE AND THE IMPERIAL IMAGE From its earliest manifestation at the funerals of prominent citizens, gladiatorial combat at Rome had been a way for the heirs of the deceased to display the family’s wealth and importance. E´lite associates donated slaves and prisoners of war (Serv. on Aen. 3. 67). Tribute was paid to the deceased by a display of physical courage. These events attracted huge crowds. Maeniana, one of the terms for the horizontal bands of seating in the cauea, was derived from the name of a enterprising citizen, Maenius, who built elevated galleries in the Forum to increase the viewing capacity (Fest. p. 120 Lindsay). The introduction of staged hunts (uenationes) mirrored the expansion of Rome’s territory abroad. As exotic lands came under her control, their fauna were displayed in the metropolis as curiosities and despatched in thrillingly authentic encounters: for the uenatio at Rome sponsored by Sulla as praetor in 93 bc, the first in which lions were the quarry, King Bocchus of Mauretania supplied native spearmen to do the hunting (Sen. Breu. uit. [¼ Dial. 10]. 13. 155 Perhaps on the south side, so that the sun did not shine into his eyes. From numismatic evidence Elkins (2004) argues for the north. 156 Bradley (1981: 136–7). 157 The die-master has moved the box into the centre of the cauea from its ringside position: Rea (1988: 23).

Spectacle and the Imperial Image

lxxiii

6). Venationes, being the responsibility of the aediles, were an obvious votecatcher, as is evident from the increasingly frantic tone of Curio’s letters between June and September 51 bc to Cicero in Cilicia requesting pantherae for his aedilician games (Cic. Fam. 8. 2. 2, 6. 5, 8. 10, 9. 3). The late Republican competition to display exotic species shows the ideological power of the æH
æ
 claim: M. Aemilius Scaurus displayed five crocodiles and Rome’s first hippopotamus (Plin. NH 8. 96); Pompey her first lynx and rhinoceros (Plin. NH 8. 70–1, 84). The ludi uotiui associated with Julius Caesar’s quadruple triumph in 46 bc, and the games he mounted to celebrate the dedication of the Forum Iulium, set a new standard in extravagance. Five days of uenationes associated with his ludi culminated in a massed land battle in the Circus Maximus, with 500 infantry, 20 elephants, and 30 cavalry on each side (Suet. Iul. 39. 3); the impulse towards realistic re-enactment is an important signal of what was to come. The combined role of military ruler and civic patron par excellence produced its own tensions: a few people complained at the cruelty of the displays, but far more objected to the massive expenditure—especially the soldiers, who felt that donatives owing to them had been commuted into entertainment for the populace (Dio 43. 24. 1, 3). Caesar also displayed Rome’s first giraffe, and excavated an (impermanent) basin in the Campus Martius for a naval battle between ‘Tyre’ and ‘Egypt’, in which biremes, triremes, and even quadriremes were deployed (Suet. Iul. 39. 4). He held a lavish munus funebre for his daughter Julia, even though she had died eight years previously (Dio 43. 22. 3).158 But in the provision of arena spectacles he failed to engage with the public enthusiasm, incurring opprobrium by taking paperwork to do while the show was on (Suet. Aug. 45. 1). In the realm of spectacle, as in so many others, Augustus consolidated his adoptive father’s legacy. Gladiatorial combat and uenationes became combined in a single, standardized programme, the munus legitimum. Exotic species were imported and put on display. In twenty-six uenationes Augustus had a total of 3,500 beasts killed (RG 22. 3). A permanent basin for aquatic displays was built in Trastevere (RG 23). Without banning privately sponsored gladiatorial displays outright, he curbed the potential for senators to use this means to capture a popular following: senatorial permission was to be required for all such events; nobody was to hold more than two per annum; and the number of gladiators to be deployed was capped at 120 (Dio 54. 2. 4).159 Augustus surpassed all previous munerarii in the scale of his displays. 158 He had first announced this intention two years after her death (Suet. Iul. 26. 2). For the chronology see Ville (1981: 68–72). 159 Edmondson (1996: 80), Ville (1981: 121–2).

lxxiv

General Introduction

In the Res Gestae he boasts of mounting eight gladiatorial shows during his reign, at which a total of 10,000 gladiators were displayed (RG 22. 1); presumably he obtained a dispensation from the Senate to exceed the limit that he had himself imposed. The Res Gestae records as innumerabilis the expenditure that he devoted to spectacles (RG App. 4). He regulated the behaviour of the spectators: where they could sit, when and where they could eat and drink (Suet. Aug. 44, Quint. Inst. 6. 3. 63). He himself attended regularly, taking care to be seen behaving as an engaged spectator (Suet. Aug. 45. 1). He responded attentively to requests from the crowd; even if he orchestrated the encounters in advance, that in itself demonstrates the importance that he attached to this opportunity. He recognized the potential of the arena as a cultural symbol with which to impress foreign potentates, who might simultaneously become a feature of the display themselves—as happened with the four sons of Phraates of Parthia, paraded by Augustus at a gladiatorial show and then given seats of honour immediately behind him (Suet. Aug. 43. 4). Augustus set a benchmark for his successors in the provision and role of spectacle. Tiberius fell short, despising the spectacles of the arena and providing insufficiently for them; his son mismanaged this responsibility too, appearing too bloodthirsty (Tac. Ann. 1. 76. 3–4). Caligula clearly saw the importance of providing spectacles, embarking on a lavish project to build a new amphitheatre (Suet. Calig. 21), and digging a basin in the Saepta for the display of a single ship, which earned him ridicule (Dio 59. 10. 5); but the record of his behaviour at the games damned him as a sadist (Suet. Calig. 26. 5). Claudius, despite his bookish and antiquarian interests, clearly recognized the potential of spectacle to engage the public; but the attention that the arena attracted meant that the emperor’s behaviour there was put under a relentless spotlight, and Claudius’ reputation suffered from various displays of irritation, Schadenfreude, and petulance (Suet. Claud. 21. 6, 34). It was Nero who calibrated to perfection the provision of spectacles, both lavish and innovative, and buildings in which to mount them, equipped with daring technological devices to make ‘Icarus’ fly over the arena (Suet. Nero 12. 2) or introduce a menagerie of aquatic animals to provide verisimilitude for a naval battle (Suet. Nero 12. 1, Dio 61. 9. 5). We cannot know whether Vespasian’s reputed meanness (Suet. Vesp. 16) would have caused him to underestimate Rome’s expectations for the provision of spectacle; but the booty from the sack of Jerusalem enabled him to invest in the most lavish entertainment structure in the Empire. The amphitheatre would stand as a permanent monument to Flavian patronage and prouidentia. But its spectacles were fleeting examples of conspicuous consumption. We have no other collection comparable to the Liber spectaculorum, in which ephemeral displays are monumentalized in verse. The

Spectacle and the Imperial Image

lxxv

role of epigram in commemorating acts of patronage and civic aggrandizement is discussed in Section 9; here my concern is with the way in which our collection reflects the imperial image in the realm of spectacle. First, it is striking that, while the size of the amphitheatre is stressed, the only item on the programme whose scale is emphasized is the political display, the parade of delatores, who were almost too numerous to fit into the arena. Playing with numbers is a conspicuous feature of epigram: cf. the IæØŁ ØŒ of the Greek Anthology, and specifically Catullus’ hendecasyllables on counting kisses (Cat. 5, 7), reworked by Martial in Epigr. 6. 34, to Diadumenos. In a celebration of notably grand games one might have anticipated sycophantic reference to lavish statistics, expressed by witty verbal gymnastics; but instead the stress is upon the individual display of a few protagonists, usually just a single pair. The focus has shrunk to the individual, the personal, the specific. The spotlight is trained, intensely, on one display at a time. When massed displays are the topic, it is their skill and ingenuity that is emphasized, rather than their scale (Spect. 30, 34). Martial regularly employs the past tense of record; the present tense is used sparingly, and in conjunction with such tropes as apostrophe of a latecomer (Spect. 27), to create an atmosphere of special immediacy by means of an arresting Kæª
ØÆ. Every detail of the displays in the amphitheatre is given an encomiastic twist: nature—both animal and human—bows to Caesar’s command,160 so that he can conjure up such novelties as bestiariae (Spect. 7–8) and display the unpredictable behaviour of that most exotic of beasts, the rhinoceros (Spect. 11, 26). Caesar’s aura casts a spell over wild animals, who instinctively recognize both his might and his capacity to protect the weak (Spect. 20, 33). And he is a miracle-worker who can bring the stories of mythology to life (Spect. 6), or even trump the canonical version (Spect. 24–5, 28–9).161 He gives criminals their fabled deserts (Spect. 9). His protagonists surpass the feats of their mythological prototypes (Spect. 17, 32). His displays combine the paradox of birth from death (Spect. 14–16). His technology defies what we know today as the laws of gravity (Spect. 18–19). He can turn land into sea and back again (Spect. 27), and elicit from the deep a display to impress the marine deities themselves (Spect. 30). Behind these compliments lies the same ideological significance that the Julio-Claudians had already recognized and exploited in arena-spectacles, magnified and distilled by the conceits and antitheses of epigram.

160 Whether he is Titus or Domitian is here not the issue. 161 On the stress upon the emperor’s mastery over nature and myth see Moretti (1992).

lxxvi

General Introduction 9. MONUMENTS AND OCCASIONS AS A THEME IN EPIGRAM

Hellenistic epigram praises monuments erected by the Ptolemies: cf. Posidippus on the Pharos at Alexandria (HE 11 ¼ 115 A–B), the shrine of Arsinoe Zephyritis (HE 12–13 ¼ 116, 119 A–B; 39 A–B), a nymphaeum built in honour of Ptolemy III Euergetes and Berenice II (Suppl. Hell. 978 ¼ 113 A– B), and a statue of Philitas of Cos commissioned by his former pupil, Ptolemy II (63 A–B); Antipater of Thessalonica on the temple of Artemis at Ephesus (AP 9. 58 ¼ GP Antip. Thess. 91), Diodorus on the Pharos (AP 9. 60 ¼ GP Diodorus 17). Dedication, being one of the original functions of epigram, remained associated with this genre, and a large corpus of epigrams dedicating buildings, especially baths, survives.162 Audacious feats of engineering, however strictly utilitarian, could prompt the epigrammatist’s admiration: e.g. the harbour-mole at Puteoli, the subject of epigrams by Antiphilus (AP 7. 630 ¼ GP Antiphilus 3) and Philip (AP 9. 708 ¼ GP Philip 57). In the Greek Anthology a lengthy and almost unbroken sequence of anonymous epigrams, many probably Byzantine, commemorates buildings and monuments ranging from aqueducts to obelisks (AP 9. 670–2, 674–6, 679, 682, 686, 688–94, 696–7, 701–2, 704). At the other end of the spectrum, ruined buildings or entire cities frequently prompt epigrammatic meditation upon the transience of civilization (e.g. Bianor on the fate of Sardis, destroyed by an earthquake: AP 9. 423 ¼ GP Bianor 16).163 Among the Ptolemaic achievements celebrated in epigram are the royal victories at the Panhellenic Games that are strikingly commemorated in two sequences within the section of the Posidippus papyrus headed ƒØŒ (78– 82, 87–8 A–B).164 As in the Liber spectaculorum, spectacle is here a vehicle for encomium of the ruler, although it is not as miracle-workers staging the displays that the queens are praised but as the victors in the race,165 which 162 Busch (1999: 99–274). 163 For an interesting study of the cities represented in the Greek Anthology— Athens, for instance, is virtually absent, perhaps because, never having been destroyed, it did not illustrate the paradox, beloved of epigrammatists, that is inherent in the theme ‘how are the mighty fallen’—see Hartigan (1979). 164 On the position of these sequences, recalling the placement of tributes to Berenice in the Aetia of Callimachus, see Fantuzzi (2004). 165 The queens—Berenice the Syrian (so identified by D. Thompson 2005: 278) and Berenice I—were not actually driving, of course (even today owners do not typically ride their own race-horses); then, as now, successful racing stables were ‘the stuff of queens and kings’: D. Thompson (2005: 272). The function of the ƒØŒ

Monuments and Occasions in Epigram

lxxvii

gives the encomium a slightly different flavour. The ƒØŒ also convey a dynastic emphasis—no fewer than five members of the Ptolemaic royal house are mentioned for their racing successes—that is entirely absent from the Liber spectaculorum, with its gaze trained unblinkingly on ‘Caesar’ himself, regardless of the precise identity of any person so addressed in this collection (see Section 6).166 The important point, however, is that from the Hellenistic period onwards epigram is considered an appropriate vehicle for flattery of a royal patron. Hence, now and again in the early Empire epigram commemorates events and circumstances associated with the emperor and his family: cf. Antiphilus of Byzantium on Tiberius’ presence on Rhodes (AP 9. 178 ¼ GP Antiphilus 6), Crinagoras on the marriage between Juba II and Cleopatra Selene (AP 9. 235 ¼ GP Crinagoras 25), Leonides of Alexandria on Julia Agrippina’s birthday (AP 6. 329 ¼ FGE Leonides 8), or on a sacrifice conducted by the Egyptians in thanksgiving for Nero’s safety (AP 9. 352 ¼ FGE Leonides 29). In a single epigram an alert epigrammatist might combine allusions to several of his patron’s circumstances at once: in a scant two couplets addressed to Vespasian on his birthday in 72, which he was spending in therapy at his favourite spa, Aquae Cutiliae in Sabine territory (modern Contigliano), Leonides combines birthday wishes with prayers for Vespasian’s recovery, and simultaneously looks forward to the birth of the emperor’s third grandchild (AP 9. 349 ¼ FGE Leonides 26).167 Animals are a common theme in epigram; so are individual actors and athletes. Sometimes the animal is itself the athlete, as with the horses commemorated in Posidippus’ ƒØŒ: Here, as in the Liber spectaculorum, the spotlight is trained on the individual display—even on the idiosyncratic behaviour of a single star performer, the filly on the victorious team who picks up the umpire’s rod to the acclaim of the spectators (74. 7–11 A–B). Under the Empire, Greek epigram occasionally commemorates a spectacle in the arena, e.g. the anonymous epigram on a beast-fighter who vaulted over his adversary to spontaneous applause (AP 9. 533), or the epigram by Philip on athletes from Thessaly performing the ÆıæŒÆŁÆłÆ (AP 9. 543 ¼ GP Philip 54). An anonymous epigram put in the mouth of the emperor prays for the beasts to excite the spectators without killing anyone (AP 9. 581); whether or not Planudes is right to identify the emperor as Leo I, the epigram is probably a late composition. Probably Augustan is an anonymous epigram praising Caesar for making Africa safe for pasture by capturing its lions for uenationes in reflecting the ideology surrounding the Ptolemaic queens is demonstrated by Fantuzzi (2005). 166 For the dynastic emphasis in the ƒØŒ see Fantuzzi (2005: 266–7). 167 Busch (1999: 566).

lxxviii

General Introduction

in the Circus (AP 7. 626 ¼ GP adespota 1).168 But of an entire collection of epigrams devoted to a single building or public occasion there is in Greek epigram down to Martial’s day no trace. A sequential display such as the grand procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus might have seemed an ideal subject for a series of courtly epigrams; yet no such commemoration has survived to set beside the compendious account in prose by Callixeinus of Rhodes, a literary creation composed some one hundred years after the official records (ªæÆÆ) upon which it is based.169 In the late Republic and early Empire epigrams in Latin commemorating a building or a public occasion are scarce. There are two reasons why we should probably discount a cycle of eight poems in elegiac couplets concerning Claudius’ triumph over Britain that is transmitted within a long series of epigrams conventionally attributed to Seneca (Anth. Lat. 419–26 R ¼ 417–24 SB): (i) the ‘cycle’ about Claudius’ triumph does not describe moments in the triumphal procession itself, but focuses exclusively on the triumph as an abstract concept and exploits its symbolism,170 and (ii) if similarities of diction show that the whole series is influenced by Martial, rather than vice versa, the author posing as the exiled Seneca may have written during the reign of Hadrian, if not later.171 But the impulse to commemorate a remarkable feat in verse is strikingly illustrated by a Republican inscription comprising five elegiac couplets carved on a marble block at Corinth (CIL i2 /2. 2662).172 The occasion was an expedition by Mark Antony’s homonymous grandfather against the pirates 102–100 bc, during which he hauled the Roman fleet across the Isthmus. The epigram, boasting (justifiably) that nobody had ever done this before (‘Quod neque conatus quisquanst’, l. 1) and inviting the onlookers to celebrate a hero’s accomplishments (‘noscite rem, ut famaa facta feramus uirei’, l. 2), shares the same atmosphere of mingled pride and encomium as the opening to the Liber spectaculorum— except that, as the Liber spectaculorum unfolds, it becomes clear that ‘Caesar’ is not a uir but a deus.

168 Cichorius (1922: 332–4). 169 Athen. 197 c–203 b ¼ FGrH 627 Kallixeinos von Rhodos F 2 Jacoby. See Rice (1983) and, for an illuminating comparison with the accession of Queen Victoria as Empress of India in Delhi in 1877, D. Thompson (2000). 170 Coleman (1998: 18). 171 Holzberg (2002: 55–8, 2004: 431, 436–7). 172 Text, translation, bibliography, and photograph are conveniently assembled by Gordon (1986). For a commentary accompanying text and translation see Courtney (1995: no. 15).

Spectacle and Imperial Panegyric in Martial

lxxix

10. SPECTACLE AND IMPERIAL PA NEGYRIC I N M A RTI A L’ S O E U V R E Spectacle is treated in the rest of Martial’s work, but not very often; discounting incidental details, in the numbered books of Epigrams only twenty-six poems have spectacle as their theme.173 This total is strikingly low in comparison with prominent themes such as imperial flattery, dinner-parties, and obscenity (Table 5).174 But the principle of ‘variation upon a theme’, writ large in the entire concept of the Liber spectaculorum, seems to find its echo in the arrangement of the epigrams about spectacle in the rest of the corpus, more than half of which are clustered together in groups: the cycle about the lion and the hare in Book 1, the lesser cycle about Cerdo in Book 3, the paired (but not contiguous) poems about the dammae in Book 4, and the loosely related series about spectacles prompted by Domitian’s return from the Sarmatian campaign in Book 8. The focus, however, is less upon the emperor as a purveyor of marvels: although many of the epigrams about spectacle in the numbered books are associated with Domitian, the panegyric element is less prominent than in the Liber spectaculorum. Nevertheless, the panegyric element is there, employing many of the same tropes as our collection. The familiar antithesis between what is natural and what is unnatural creates the framework for the two epigrams mentioned above about a pair of dammae, proverbially timid and docile creatures 173 Epigr. 1. 6, 14, 22, 48, 51, 60, 104 (the cycle on the lion and the hare); 2. 75 (a lion attacks ministri in the arena); 3. 16, 59, 99 (the cycle on the cobbler’s munus at Bononia); 4. 2 (spectators watching during a snowstorm), 35, 74 (two epigrams on dammae fighting); 5. 24 (the gladiator Hermes), 31 (ÆıæŒÆŁÆłÆ), 65 (synkrisis between Domitian’s spectacles and the Labours of Hercules); 8. 26 (Domitian’s tigers), 30 (a charade featuring ‘Mucius Scaevola’), 49 (a cena given by Domitian), 53 (Domitian’s lion), 74 (an opthalmicus turned hoplomachus, a variation of the ‘death-dealing doctor’ theme familiar from Greek epigram: Laurens 1965: 333, Watson–Watson 2003: 286–90), 78 (a spectacle sponsored by Arruntius Stella to celebrate Domitian’s ouatio over the Sarmatae), 80 (Domitian’s restoration of unarmed combat in the arena); 9. 83 (people attend the amphitheatre who would otherwise be delivering recitations); 10. 25 (another charade featuring ‘Mucius Scaevola’). Incredibly, Herrmann (1962), in total defiance of the manuscript tradition, entirely reorganized the order of the epigrams in the Liber spectaculorum as transmitted, and doubled its length by combining them with the epigrams on spectacle culled from the numbered books. 174 The categories are not mutually exclusive, i.e. the same poem may be counted in more than one category. Even by this generous method of calculation, spectacle is only sparsely represented in the numbered books.

lxxx

General Introduction

Table 5. Distribution of sample categories in the numbered books of Epigrams Book

Total

Spectacle

Imperial panegyric

Cena

Obscenitya

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

118 93 99b 89 84 94 99 82 103 104 108 98

7 1 3 3 3 0 0 7 1 1 0 0

9 3 0 6 9 9 12 23 27 5 6 5

2 8 8 2 3 2 2 0 0 3 2 1

9 22 22 4 0 10 7 0 11 5 38 9

1171

26

114

33

137

Total a b

Generously defined to include anything with a whiff of indecency. Omitting Epigr. 3. 3, shown by Schneidewin (1853) to be spurious.

(see Spect. 33. 1 n.), which fought to the death (Epigr. 4. 35, 74). In the Liber spectaculorum, a damma was miraculously spared by the hounds; Martial says that they felt the emperor’s aura. In 4. 74, likewise addressed to the emperor, Martial suggests that the dammae will suffer a less painful death if the hounds are set upon them; the paradox enables the flattering inference that the emperor is capable of turning saeuitia into clementia.175 Another point of similarity is the catalogue technique. This is employed in the Liber spectaculorum in (for example) two epigrams claiming that the feats of the bestiarius Carpophorus outdo those of the great figures of mythology (Spect. 17, 32). The same technique is employed at Epigr. 5. 65, asserting that the emperor’s contests in the arena are on a much grander scale than those of myth.176 Sometimes, however, instead of a compliment to the emperor Martial opts for a different effect. Epigr. 2. 75, on a tame lion that mauled two harenarii, is predicated on an accident, just like Spect. 12 (the lion that savaged its keeper), 13 (the bear trapped in ‘birdlime’), and 21 (a tame tigress that savaged a lion). But, instead of drawing a moral lesson—if the emperor controls the beasts, his human subjects should behave themselves (Spect. 12); animals are more 175 It seems to me less likely that Martial intended intertextual references between volumes of epigrams written several years apart than that he sometimes clothed the same motifs over again in much the same phrasing as before. 176 A reference to Carpophorus has been suspected at 5. 65. 12 ‘est tibi qui possit uincere Geryonen’: see Spect. 17, Introduction.

The Author and his Book

lxxxi

savage once they come into contact with human beings (Spect. 21)—in 2. 75 Martial makes a witty analogy turning on the phrase ‘Martia . . . harena’ (l. 8): the lion who did not spare the two pueri in the arena should note that the shewolf spared Rome’s founding twins. Or, to take another example: corresponding to the series of epigrams in the Liber spectaculorum describing fatal ‘charades’ in the arena are two epigrams (8. 30 and 10. 25) on a ‘charade’ in which the self-sacrifice of Mucius Scaevola is re-enacted. In contrast to the focus in the corresponding epigrams of the Liber spectaculorum (cf. Spect. 6. 3–4, 9. 11–12, 24. 1–2), no attempt is made in either of the Scaevola epigrams to attribute the enactment to the emperor’s ingenuity or to interpret it as a credit to him. Instead, on both occasions Martial makes his epigrammatic point out of paradoxes inherent in the display: ‘never mind what Scaevola did, I am content to see him suffer’ (8. 30), ‘it isn’t so brave to see Scaevola put his hand in the flames when the alternative is crematio’ (10. 25). The difference between the treatment of spectacle in the Liber spectaculorum and in the numbered books is most obviously that between a collection that is thematically homogeneous and those that are heterogeneous; and Martial was striving for a different effect. Apart from Books 8 and 9, with their prominent imperial atmosphere, the numbered books of the Epigrams reflect the world of the private citizen, a world which the emperor shares but does not monopolize. The aim of appealing to as wide a public as possible would set a natural limit on themes directed at the emperor, except in a book explicitly dedicated to him. Despite Domitian’s strong record in providing public entertainment, it plays a minor role in the numbered books of Epigrams; even if more of his spectacles are commemorated in the Liber spectaculorum than simply the feats of what is likely to have been his rhinoceros (see Section 6), as time went on he evidently expected other aspects of his rule to be given prominence. Given his preoccupation with moral legislation, it seems appropriate that the longest ‘cycle’ to do with public entertainment in the numbered books concerns Domitian’s edict regulating the seating in the fourteen rows for Equites.177

1 1 . T H E AU T H OR AN D H I S B O O K One very striking aspect of the Liber spectaculorum, in marked contrast to the rest of Martial’s oeuvre, is the dual absence of (i) the ‘I’ composing the text and (ii) a readership receiving the epigrams through the medium of a book. 177 Domitian as moral legislator: M. Griffin (2000: 79–80). On the ‘seating edict’ cycle (Epigr. 5. 8, 14, 23, 25, 27, 35, 38, 41) see Canobbio (2002).

lxxxii

General Introduction

Even if we admit Spect. 35 to the collection, the allusion to the author as an eager encomiast is entirely oblique, and there is no allusion at all to the textual nature of the medium. The emphasis on the book, and on reading as the means of reception, is evident in Xenia and Apophoreta—understandably so, since these epigrams purport to be gift-tags (see Section 4)—and it is a recurrent theme in the numbered books of Epigrams. But in the Liber spectaculorum the emphasis is upon neither reading nor hearing, but watching.178 The tone is that of breathless reportage. The poet is encapsulating the experience of the spectacles for an audience of vicarious spectators. Who is this poet? The ‘I’ of the numbered books of Epigrams runs the gamut from the autobiographical ‘I’, through the ‘I’ of a frequently recurring (and hence recognizable) literary persona, to a series of ‘I’s adopted to precipitate various jokes, often rude.179 In the Liber spectaculorum we constantly hear the author’s voice, but his persona is entirely effaced; his function is to direct our gaze upon ‘Caesar’ and his spectacula.180 The first person is never used in the singular in this collection; the author is part of a collective audience witnessing Caesar’s marvels (2. 7 ‘miramur’; 6. 2, 8. 4 ‘uidimus; 20. 4 ‘nostrum . . . deum’). The emperor is explicitly addressed thirteen times, either in the vocative (‘Caesar’),181 or as the subject of a verb in the second person singular (3. 12 ‘diceris’), or through the use of a pronoun (2. 11 ‘te praeside’; 6. 4, 34. 10 ‘tibi’; 8. 3 ‘tua munera’). The poet addresses the ‘you’ of the audience via the generalizing second person singular (5. 2 ‘adnumeres’, 20. 4 ‘crede’), or by an explicit address to a spectator (27. 1–6 ‘Si quis ades . . . spectator . . . j . . . j ne te decipiat . . . Enyo j . . . j non credis? . . . j . . . dices’), or by addressing the collective audience in the vocative (26. 12 ‘i nunc et lentas corripe, turba, moras!’).182 He repeatedly apostrophizes characters or personifications associated with the spectacles (9. 10 ‘Roma’, 10. 1 ‘Daedale’, 14. 4 ‘o Lucina’, 17. 1 ‘Meleagre’, 19. 3 ‘Fama’ [conjectural], 28. 2 ‘Leandre . . . desine mirari’). Some of his questions are rhetorical; but they still contribute to the sense of a voice engaging the attention of an audience (14. 7 ‘quis neget?’, 30. 7 ‘quis . . . inuenit?’, 34. 3 ‘pars est quota?’). Exclamation is also part of the poet’s insistent, epideictic tone (‘15. 3 ‘o quam certa . . . dextera!’, 16. 4 ‘o quantum est . . . ingenium!’, 23. 4 ‘o dulce . . . ingenium!’). This anonymous encomiast is a far cry from the partisan, opinionated ‘I’s of the Epigrams. 178 Pailler (1990), Lorenz (2002: 69). 179 Watson–Watson (2003: 5–7). 180 This aspect of the Liber spectaculorum is treated through the lens of Lacanian optics by Gunderson (2003). 181 Spect. 2. 11, 3. 1, 6. 3, 7. 2, 8. 3, 11. 1, 20. 1, 24. 1, 32. 1, 34. 10. 182 The spectators and Martial’s own audience are indistinguishably blended at Spect. 33. 8 ‘credite: mentiri non didicere ferae’.

The Author and his Book

lxxxiii

Whether Martial composed the original collection in honour of a single emperor (which seems highly unlikely; see Section 6), or put it together from several series of epigrams celebrating events that spanned more than one reign, it may be too blunt to imagine the circumstances of composition as imperial commission. When Leonides of Alexandria dedicated his third book of epigrams to ˚ÆE Ææ (either Nero or Vespasian), he represented this as a spontaneous gesture (AP 6. 328 ¼ FGE Leonides 7): c æØ  $Ææø Ææ K
F ºØ ºÆ
º, ˚ÆE Ææ; N æŁı º
P
 . ˝
Eº ‹ºø (Page: ‹ø codd.) ŒÆd 
Ø & ¯ºº NŁı Æ BØ Łd BØ ł
Ø Hæ IØ Æ. Accept from me, Caesar, the third volume of my Graces, this token of my skill in composing isopsepha. The Nile will in any case send it speeding through Greece to your country, a most poetic gift.

Even though the second couplet as emended by Page suggests otherwise, Leonides’ spontaneity may be a pose; but, given the convention of approaching the emperor with petitions and gifts of all sorts,183 a poet might well have risked offering him an unsolicited literary novelty in a suitably deferential manner. Whether or not Leonides’ book as a whole focused on the emperor we have no way of telling. Of the forty-two surviving epigrams that are attributed to him, six (including this one) are concerned with the imperial house: the other five celebrate the emperor’s birthday (AP 6. 321 ¼ FGE Leonides 1), accompany gifts to Agrippina and Poppaea (AP 6. 329 ¼ FGE Leonides 8, AP 9. 355 ¼ FGE Leonides 32), pray for the emperor’s recovery from illness (AP 9. 349 ¼ FGE Leonides 26), and celebrate his delivery from an unspecified danger (AP 9. 352 ¼ FGE Leonides 29).184 There is no trace of a public occasion such as the dedication of a building, although in a wider sense any event associated with the life of the emperor qualified as ‘public’, and a tactful subject would make sure to take proper note of it. An alert client (or would-be client) was on the watch for opportunities to deploy his talents. The ephemeral nature of spectacle challenged its sponsors to perpetuate the memory of their generosity: painting and sculpture was one way; literature was another, a medium both compact and portable.185 We should not underestimate the pride of the Flavians, and indeed the whole city, in the construction of the Flavian amphitheatre and the novelty, ingenuity, and scale of its spectacles. An epigrammatist

183 Millar (1977: 139–44, gifts; 240–52, 537–49, petitions). 184 For FGE Leonides 8 and 26 see Section 9. 185 Coleman (1998: 24–9).

lxxxiv

General Introduction

offering spontaneous commemoration might have expected appropriate recompense, not necessarily monetary.186 The Flavians cultivated literary figures.187 Traditionally it has been assumed that the Liber spectaculorum at least earned Martial Titus’ approval and, ultimately, the ius trium liberorum.188 Perhaps what caught his attention was, instead, a libellus which one day, together with similar libelli celebrating spectacles under Domitian, would form the liber from which our surviving collection was excerpted; Martial’s subsequent relationship with Domitian, a vigorous literary patron,189 is well attested in the rest of the Epigrams.190 If the epigrams of the Liber spectaculorum did bring Martial imperial attention and material reward, it was, however, his heterogeneous collections that exerted the most profound influence upon his successors. Remarkably, no book like the Liber spectaculorum is known to have been composed by anyone after him, although its atmosphere of paradoxical coincidences and the freakish behaviour of nature finds its occasional echo in the Epigrams of Ausonius,191 and the Hellenistic theme of praise of a building that gives the Liber spectaculorum its initial impetus survives into Late Antiquity and beyond.

186 Josephus was probably not paid to write his history; his relationship with the Flavians was characterized by the exchange of a series of services and benefits over an extended period: Rajak (2002: 194–6). 187 Despite his alleged meanness, Vespasian was the first emperor to reward poets and artists out of the imperial purse (Suet. Vesp. 18): ‘praestantis poetas, nec non et artifices, Coae Veneris, item Colossi refectorem insigni congiario magnaque mercede donauit’. 188 Granted by (presumably) Titus and reconfirmed by (presumably) Domitian: cf. Epigr. 3. 95. 5–6 ‘praemia laudato tribuit mihi Caesar uterque j natorumque dedit iura paterna trium’, 9. 97. 5–6 ‘tribuit quod Caesar uterque j ius mihi natorum’ (with Henrikse´n’s n. on the legal complexities). For speculation about the possible role of the emperor in promoting the circulation of Martial’s collection (disregarding his identification as Titus, which now seems impossible) see Coleman (1998: 32–4). 189 Coleman (1986). 190 Studies are legion: in the context of both the Epigrams and the Siluae the ‘functions of poetry for the emperor’ are examined by Nauta (2002: 379–440). 191 Kay on Aus. Epigr. 2, 72 (Green). The monothematic—but polymetric and generically varied—collection of epigrams known as the Priapea, probably more or less contemporaneous with Martial, is less likely to be a riposte to the Liber spectaculorum (as suggested by Holzberg 2002: 53) than a descendant of Hellenistic collections of phallocentric verse.

A Humanist Legacy

lxxxv

1 2 . A HU M A N I S T L E G AC Y: TH E CORNU COPIAE O F ` P E ROT T I NICCOLO One highlight in the Nachleben of the collection stands out, a remarkable work of humanist scholarship and a milestone in Latin lexicography: the Cornu copiae of Niccolo` Perotti (1429/30–1480).192 This work was delivered—in whole or in part—to Federico of Urbino in 1479, the year before Perotti’s death, and first published ten years later. It enjoyed enormous popularity: between 1489 and 1536, thirty-eight separate editions were published. It ostensibly takes the form of a commentary on what we know as the Liber spectaculorum and Book 1 of the Epigrams. The poems are numbered consecutively from 1 to 147, comprising the 28 epigrams of the Liber spectaculorum that were available to Perotti, the epigram contained in the prefatory epistle to Book 1, and the 118 epigrams of Book 1 itself. The lemmata in the Cornu copiae are based on the text that Perotti had constituted for the edition of Martial published by Sweynheym and Pannartz at Rome in 1473. This edition sparked a violent reaction from Perotti’s younger contemporary, Domizio Calderini, who thereupon entered into a violent polemic with him about the principles on which to establish a text.193 Calderini himself published a commentary on Martial that appeared the following year (1474). It in turn prompted Giorgio Merula to respond with a commentary of his own in 1478; the commentaries of Calderini and Merula were subsequently published together, with an accompanying text, and this publication provides an interesting foil to the Cornu copiae. The commentaries of Calderini and Merula recognizably belong to the genre that we call a ‘commentary’ today, comprising explication of the language and historical background, with citation of parallel passages. In the Cornu copiae, however, the lemmata are a springboard for what amounts to an encyclopedia of the Latin language (the barest minimum of historical background is supplied). Each lemma glosses Martial’s use of the word (i.e. the commentary proper), followed by a definition of the root word, analysis of the root meaning and secondary meanings, derivatives, and (sometimes) synonyms and antonyms. Perotti quotes copious parallels. Among its 12,000 citations of ancient authors, the Cornu copiae is notorious for a number that are not attested in our extant sources. Unless they were humanist forgeries, these can only be explained as genuine quotations preserved in an amplified version of the encyclopedic dictionary De compendiosa doctrina by Nonius 192 For a brief summary of Perotti’s life and oeuvre see Charlet (1997). 193 For this feud see briefly Della Corte (1986: 1–4).

lxxxvi

General Introduction

Marcellus that has since been lost.194 The Cornu copiae itself provided the foundation for all subsequent projects of Latin lexicography, starting with the Thesaurus linguae latinae of Robert Estienne, down to Forcellini’s Lexicon.195 In the Cornu copiae the commentary in the strict sense usually comprises no more than one or two lines on a single lemma (very occasionally as many as six or seven), as becomes evident when these portions are excerpted and juxtaposed to approximate to the flow of a modern commentary.196 Calderini and Merula comment on fewer lemmata, but they explicate Martial’s meaning in more detail.197 It was the elucidation of the Latin language rather than Martial’s epigrams that was Perotti’s dedicated intention. The scope of the entire enterprise can be judged from the disposition of the modern edition in seven volumes, of which the commentary on the Liber spectaculorum occupies five and a half, with an entire volume devoted to each of the first three epigrams.198 Hence, even though the scale becomes compressed once Perotti gets past the opening triad of the Liber spectaculorum, the treatment is still hugely compendious. This giant work is a monument to humanist learning, its scope a fitting analogue to the massive building celebrated in the book from which it takes its cue.

194 For a summary of positions in the debate see Charlet (1987: 216). 195 Words attested exclusively in Perotti’s otherwise unknown citations still appear in some modern lexica, glossed with due scepticism, e.g. p[h]alango, ‘to carry away on a pole’, attributed to Afranius by Perotti on Mart. 1. 115. 4: ‘The passage is otherwise unknown’ (L–S), ‘in frg. vix genuino Afranii affert Perotti’ (TLL x/1. 1994. 62 [Spoth]); this word is not included in the OLD. 196 For Perotti’s treatment of Spect. 1, reduced to its essentials, see Furno (1995: 204–6 ¼ App. 4). 197 To compare the digest of Perotti’s commentary on Spect. 1 with the commentary of Calderini–Merula see Furno (1995: 204–9 ¼ App. 4–5). 198 Charlet et al. (1989–2001). The eighth volume in the modern edition comprises indexes. For assistance in tracing scholarship on Perotti I am grateful to Ann Blair in the Department of History at Harvard University.

Sigla H T R K W Bonon. Vindob. 3 '

Hauptii florilegium Vindobonense (277), saec. viii–ix Thuanii florilegium Parisinum (8071), saec. ix Vossii florilegium Leidense (Q 86), saec. ix codex deperditus, ex Bonon., Vindob. 3, W repetendus Westmonasteriensis 15, saec. xiii Bononiensis 2221, saec. xiv Vindobonensis Latinus 316, saec. xv unus pluresve ex codicibus recentioribus

Editorial Note Except in instances where a reading is in doubt, the spelling of the manuscripts, including the headings, has been regularized to conform with classical orthography, and all abbreviations have been expanded.

This page intentionally left blank

M. Valerii Martialis Liber Spectaculorum 1 Barbara pyramidum sileat miracula Memphis, Assyrius iactet nec Babylona labor, nec Triuiae templo molles laudentur Iones; dissimulet Delon cornibus ara frequens, ae¨re nec uacuo pendentia Mausolea laudibus immodicis Cares in astra ferant. omnis Caesareo cedit labor amphitheatro: unum pro cunctis Fama loquetur opus.

5

TK : deest in Bonon. Tit. De amphitheatro T Vindob. 3 : om. W 2 Assyrius ed. Ferr. : assiduus TK 3 Iones ed. Rom. c.1470 : honores TK 4 Delon Gronovius : deion T : -que deum K 6 cares in T Vindob. 3 : cures ad W 7 cedit T Vindob. 3 : cadit W : cedat Panormita 8 pro TK : prae Panormita loquetur TW : loquatur Vindob. 3

Let barbarous Memphis stop talking about the miracle of the pyramids; Assyrian toil is not to vaunt Babylon, and the soft Ionians are not to garner praise for Trivia’s temple; let the altar of many horns say nothing about Delos, and do not let the Carians lavish extravagant praise on the Mausoleum suspended in empty air and exalt it to the stars. All labour yields to Caesar’s amphitheatre: Fame will tell of one work instead of them all. Introduction: This poem is the Wrst of three prefatory epigrams introducing the Flavian amphitheatre.1 It is set Wrst in an international context (Spect. 1): Martial conveys the status of the monument on a global scale by claiming its superiority over the Wonders of the World, a notion that was perhaps a feature of the contemporary reaction to the completed building.2 Next, it is placed in its metropolitan context (Spect. 2), and Wnally the scope is narrowed further to focus on the cosmopolitan audience witnessing the spectacles that are performed in it (Spect. 3). 1 For the question whether all three poems were composed for the inauguration see General Introduction, Section 6. 2 Weinreich (1928: 1).

2

Liber Spectaculorum

The structure of the epigram is that of a catalogue poem, i.e. an accumulation of successive clauses with similar content culminating in a climax. This structure, usually limited in Greek epigram to three elements, is often extended by Martial to include multiple components, chieXy examples that are readily suggested by the context, or a series of mythological comparisons: cf. Spect. 2 (Wve features of Nero’s Rome replaced by Flavian structures), 3 (nine foreign peoples represented among the spectators at the amphitheatre), Epigr. 1. 61 (eight regions distinguished by their native authors). The same technique is employed in the Priapea: e.g. Priap. 9–10 (respectively ten and seven examples of gods associated with a speciWc weapon), 16 (four examples of myths in which apples play a role).3 The structure of our epigram, however, is an example of a particular type of catalogue poem, to which modern scholars have given the name ‘priamel’ (from Latin praeambulum, ‘preamble’). This structure, comprising a ‘foil’ and ‘climax’, is particularly favoured by epigram: ‘its ability to sketch a large context by means of representative parts, and to give force to its ‘‘point’’, gives it a kind of concision which is typical of so many epigrams . . . the Xexibility of the priamel for expansion and contraction makes it easily adaptable for statements from two to ten lines.’4 This is one of Martial’s favourite techniques. For another example in this collection see Spect. 32 (the exploits of the bestiarius Carpophorus surpass the animal-vanquishing Labours of Hercules). Martial characteristically uses the priamel to glorify his own poetry: cf. 1. 61 (the eight regions distinguished by their native authors are eclipsed by Martial’s Bilbilis), 10. 4 (two separate series of mythological themes are listed, each eclipsed by the themes of real life in Martial’s verse). In our example it is not merely Wonders that are at issue, but the praise of them: Martial employs a verb to convey aborted speech in connection with the reputation of each of the canonical Wonders named in this poem (2 iactet, 3 laudentur, 4 dissimulet, 6 laudibus inmodicis . . . ferant). The posture of poet-as-prophet, culminating in a æ

 -style prediction (8 loquetur, future tense), is a feature of priamel: cf. Anchises’ famous prediction at Virg. A. 6. 847–53: excudent alii spirantia mollius aera (credo equidem), uiuos ducent de marmore uultus, orabunt causas melius, caelique meatus describent radio et surgentia sidera dicent: tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento 3 Siedschlag (1977: 42–3). 4 Race (1982: 109). Ivo (1966–72: 349) comments on the oppositional principle that structures this epigram in two unequal parts (three couplets þ one), without explicitly identifying it as a priamel.

Epigram 1

3

(hae tibi erunt artes), pacisque imponere morem, parcere subiectis et debellare superbos. Thus in our epigram Fama ( praegnans, where the nasal even infects the inXected forms (gen. praegnatis > praegnantis). Charisius attests the form in -ns in the context of a debate between second- and third-declension forms (Gramm. 1. 162. 12–16 Barwick): ‘elephans. ns litteris nominatiuo singulari Wnita nomina genetiuo singulari in s litteram necesse est exeant, ut saltantis, ablatiuus singularis ab hoc saltante, quod in elephanto non cadit. itaque elephantus est uocandus. facit enim huius elephanti et ab hoc elephanto.’ Grammarians’ evidence for the nominative singular form in -s is more ambiguous: cf. Prob. GL iv. 21. 35–22. 2 Keil ‘-fas tertiae est declinationis Graecum -tis faciens genetivo n ante eam habens, elefas elefantis: dicitur et elephantus huius elephanti secundae declinationis’, Prisc. GL ii. 216. 9–12 Keil ‘in multis enim inuenimus a genetiuo Graeco factum Latinum nominatiuum, ut ‘‘elephas elephantos, hic elephas (elephans B) huius elephantis’’ et ‘‘hic elephantus’’, a genetiuo Graeco ‘‘elephantos’’, ‘‘huius elephanti’’.’ Hence it seems impossible to determine whether or not Martial would have used the more accurate rendering of the Greek spelling. 2. For the pitting of bulls against elephants see Introduction to Spect. 22. 3. non facit hoc iussus nulloque docente magistro: for the pleonasm cf. 21. 4 ‘res noua, non ullis cognita temporibus’. For magistro see on Spect. 12. 1 ‘magistrum’. For apparently spontaneous obeisance on the part of elephants see Introduction, above. In more general terms, since animals are incapable of deceit, their spontaneous co-operation is regarded as proof that the emperor deserves their respect: cf. Spect. 33. 7–8 n. (a doe prostrates herself supplex before the emperor’s feet), Epigr. 9. 31. 5–6 (a goose hurries to be sacriWced at the altar on the occasion of Domitian’s Sarmatian victory), Sauter (1934: 169). 4. crede mihi, nostrum sentit et ille deum: the variant numen . . . tuum presumably arose in an attempt to make the oblique reference to the emperor cohere more closely with the direct address conveyed by the vocative Caesar (1). The indirect locution nostrum . . . deum, however, is consonant with the politely oblique language of inferiors addressing their betters, and the imperative crede is best understood as a generalizing second-person singular

160

Liber Spectaculorum

marking the shift in address from Caesar to the general reader. For sentit . . . deum, also in the context of adoratio, cf. Ov. Tr. 3. 8. 13–14 ‘si semel optandum est, Augusti numen adora, j et quem sensisti, rite precare deum.’ Because Domitian is known to have demanded that he be addressed and referred to as dominus et deus (Suet. Dom. 13. 2), this line has been adduced to support the argument (addressed in General Introduction, Section 6) that the collection as we have it was published in his reign. The elder Pliny, however, in a self-deprecating passage, attests the contemporary use of religious language to address Titus (NH praef. 11): ‘te quidem . . . religiose adiri etiam a salutantibus scio . . . uerum dis lacte rustici multaeque gentes et mola litant salsa qui non habent tura, nec ulli fuit uitio deos colere quoquo modo posset.’ Furthermore, even though Greek precedents do not prove that the Romans would have employed equivalent language, the eulogistic conventions allowable in Greek epigram may have exerted an inXuence upon Martial: cf. AP 9. 562 ¼ GP Crinagoras 24 (the parrot that taught the other birds to greet the emperor), especially l. 6 ÆØ ‘‘ÆEæ ’’ K
Ø, AP 9. 287 ¼ GP Apollonides 23 (of Tiberius) l. 6 ˘BÆ e K


, AP 9. 307 ¼ GP Philip 5 (Daphne, who spurned Apollo, prefers the emperor) ll. 3–4 KŒ b Ł
F Ł
e
yæ
 I
Æ, ¸   ªæ j KŁæÆ Æ Łº
Ø ˘BÆ e `N
 , AP 9. 778 ¼ GP Philip 6 (Queen Kypros of Judaea sends Caligula a tapestry-map of the Empire) ll. 5–6 w ªaæ I

 j HæÆ æ
Ø a Ł
E ŒÆd æd O
غ 
Æ. Hence, while our line would indeed suit Domitian, we cannot be sure that Martial could not have addressed Titus like this too, and this locution therefore contributes nothing conclusive to the dating of the collection. For the eulogistic titles bestowed on the early emperors see RE Suppl. iv. 816–37 s.v. Kaiserkult (G. Herzog-Hauser).

2 1 ( 1 8) Lambere securi dextram consueta magistri tigris, ab Hyrcano gloria rara iugo, saeua ferum rabido lacerauit dente leonem: res noua, non ullis cognita temporibus. ausa est tale nihil, siluis dum uixit in altis: postquam inter nos est, plus feritatis habet.

5

TK vv. 5–6 adsunt in H Tit. De tigride aduersus leonem missam T : De leone 1 consueta Bonon. Vindob. 3 : et de tigride Vindob. 3, (½tigi de) Bonon. : om. W consuetam TW 3 rabido T : rapido K 4 non Bonon. Vindob. 3 : nec TW

Accustomed to lick her fearless keeper’s hand, a tigress, unsurpassed glory of the Hyrcanian peaks, savagely mauled a Werce lion with her crazed teeth: a novel incident, encountered on no earlier occasion. She did not attempt anything like that as long as she lived in the tall forests: now that she is amongst us she possesses more savagery. Introduction: This epigram employs the topos that wild beasts show more savagery in captivity, expressed via Martial’s familiar structure of ‘incidentand-comment’. Here the tigress does not turn on her trainer, as the leo perWdus does at Spect. 12. Rather, the wonder is that, whereas in the wild she would not have dared to attack a lion, in the artiWcial context of the arena she does so. This poem is eVectively juxtaposed with the previous one, in which the elephant manifests civilized behaviour that it has not been taught. Martial’s approach is reminiscent of the Romans’ fondness for observing the eVect which contact with their civilization had on peoples hitherto stranded beyond the reach of the Empire: cf. Tacitus’ cynical remarks at Agr. 21. 2, cit. below on l. 6 ‘inter nos’. The Wrst tiger seen at Rome was exhibited at the dedication of the theatre of Marcellus by Augustus in 11 bc (Plin. NH 8. 65). This may be the same animal that Augustus exhibited in scaena on an unspeciWed occasion during his reign (Suet. Aug. 43. 4). The next tigers we hear of are four exhibited by Claudius (Plin. NH 8. 65). The tractability of these animals is frequently mentioned: under Nero one allowed its keeper to kiss it in the arena (Sen. Epist. 85. 41). In a list of adynata surpassed by the spectacle of the lion and the hare, Martial mentions tigers that submit to the discipline of the whip (1. 104. 2–3). On Domitian’s return from the Sarmatian campaign in 93, more than one pair of tigers drew chariots in the arena (Mart. 8. 26). See Toynbee (1973: 69–72, 81–2 and pls. 1, 22–4), SG iv. 273 (F. Drexel).

162

Liber Spectaculorum

Detailed discussion: Lorenz (2002: 78–81)

1. Lambere: for animals to lick a human was recognized as a sign of their docility and submission. This topos, although employed here in a straightforward manner, was one that lent itself to humorous exaggeration: cf. 4. 30. 3–5 (warning a Wsherman against poaching from the imperial Wsheries) ‘sacris piscibus hae natantur undae, j qui norunt dominum manumque lambunt j illam qua nihil est in orbe maius’, 14. 107. 1–2 (a tiger in Bacchus’ drunken entourage) ‘ebria tigris, j perfusos domini lambere docta pedes’. In the context of metamorphosis Ovid exploits the motif to incongruous and pathetic eVect: cf. Met. 1. 645–6 (Io, now a cow, shows aVection to her uncomprehending father) ‘decerptas senior porrexerat Inachus herbas: j illa manus lambit patriisque dat oscula palmis’, 4. 59 (Cadmus, now a snake, caresses Harmonia, still a woman) ‘ille suae lambebat coniugis ora j inque sinus caros, ueluti cognosceret, ibat.’ magistri: see on Spect. 12. 1 ‘magistrum’. 1–2. consueta . . . tigris: tigris is masculine in prose, feminine in verse. For gender determined by genre see Renehan (1998: 217–28). 2. ab Hyrcano gloria rara iugo: Hyrcania comprised the plains on the south-eastern shores of the Caspian Sea, the Alburz mountains, and part of the central desert of Iran (Barrington Atlas map 96, Directory ii. 1350); modern Gorgan, the name of both the plain and a city near the south-eastern tip of the Caspian, is the same word, as is Old Persian Vraka¯na. The locus classicus is Curtius’ description of the lush landscape through which Alexander marched: see Curt. 6. 4. 3–7, with Engels (1978: 84). Despite Alexander’s legacy, Hyrcania was considered to be barbarous and teaming with dangerous animals; it was on the fringes of the known world, and potentially hostile to Rome: see Braund (1986: 36). Tigers are the typical embodiment of savagery, and hence suited to the barbarism of this area. The Siberian tiger originated in India, but it spread to Hyrcania and Armenia: see Keller (1909: 62). In 1914 it was still found in the area of ancient Hyrcania: RE ix/1. 458 s.v. Hyrkania (Kiessling). In Latin literature tigers are almost the national product of these parts, denoted by the epithets Caspius, Armenius, and Caucaseus, as well as Hyrcanus. The charge of being as heartless as a Hyrcanian tiger, if not more so, becomes a proverbial metaphor for charges of cruelty, discussed in detail by Pease on Virg. A. 4. 367 ‘Hyrcanae . . . tigres’. Excellence in persons is frequently expressed by naming them as the pride of their community or area. This Wgure occurs chieXy, but not exclusively, in poetry: cf. Virg. A. 6. 767 ‘Procas, Troianae gloria gentis’, Ov. Pont. 2. 11. 28 ‘Fundani gloria, Rufe, soli’, Val. Max. 4. 3. 3 ‘Germanicum, eximiam Claudiae familiae gloriam’. It is a common formulation in Martial, who often reduces the

Epigram 21

163

speciWcity of the compliment through hyperbole: cf. 2. 90. 2 ‘gloria Romanae, Quintiliane, togae’, 2. 91. 1 ‘Rerum certa salus, terrarum gloria, Caesar’, 10. 64. 3 (to Lucan’s widow) ‘ille tuus uates, Heliconis gloria nostri’. The formula can also be applied in poetry to fauna, where the association is often somewhat incongruous and therefore conveys a deliberately inXated tone: cf. Stat. Silu. 2. 4. 24–5 (to Melior) ‘occidit aeriae celeberrima gloria gentis j psittacus’ (imitating Ovid’s address to the corpse of Corinna’s parrot, Am. 2. 6. 20 ‘infelix auium gloria nempe iaces’), Mart. 13. 85 (on a Wsh from the Nile) ‘princeps Niliaci raperis, coracine, macelli: j Pellaeae prior est gloria nulla gulae.’ The incongruity is reduced when, as here, the topos is applied to a species regarded as belonging to the e´lite of the animal kingdom and traditionally associated with the area named: cf. 8. 53(55). 13 (on a lion killed in the amphitheatre) ‘unde tuis, Libye, tam felix gloria siluis?’ For further examples see TLL vi/2. 2080. 1–41 (of mortals and heroes), 42–9 (of animals) (Knoche). The adnominal use of the ablative to denote origin (H–Sz 105) is a mode of expression that is attested in the earliest Latin sources, both verse and prose: cf. Enn. fr. var. 34 Vahlen ¼ 28 Courtney l. 1 ‘omnibus ut Clipea praestat mustela marina!’, Lucil. 446 ‘Syracusis sola’, 1276 ‘Aegypto sargus’, Plaut. Asin. 499 ‘Periphanes Rhodo mercator diues’, CIL i2 . 1793 (conceivably locative) ‘magistri Lauerneis’. Sometimes, as here, the ablative is accompanied by a preposition: cf. Plaut. Capt. 509 ‘Philocratem ex Alide’, CIL i2 . 728 ‘populus Laodicensis af [¼ ab] Lyco’. The above examples demonstrate that the distinction enunciated by Meusel in his n. on Caes. BC 1. 24. 4 ‘N. Magius Cremona’, namely that the preposition is used with the name of a country but not with a town, is not invariable. Note gloria þ unde þ abl. at Mart. 8. 53(55). 13 (cit. in the previous paragraph). 3. saeua ferum rabido lacerauit dente leonem: the juxtaposition of three adjectives before the caesura, each with a diVerent referent, is a tour de main worthy of Ovid, although a parallel is not readily forthcoming. The lion is wild, ferus, not a tame specimen for display. For the rage that characterizes the lion in the wild and makes him the insuperable king of the jungle see Zaganiaris (1977: 26–36). rabidus describes uncontrollably wild creatures, ruled by violent urges and prone to savage behaviour. Virgil uses it to characterize the tigers that are not present to disturb the safety and tranquillity of Italy: G. 2. 151 ‘at rabidae tigres absunt’. In a transferred sense it is applied to the urges themselves: e.g. Virg. A. 6. 421–2 (Cerberus) ‘ille fame rabida tria guttura pandens j corripit obiectam’. Hence it is applied also to the parts of the body that give expression to these urges (notably by biting and mauling): cf. Luc. 10. 445–6 (a caged animal) ‘sic fremit in paruis fera nobilis abdita claustris j et frangit rabidos praemorso carcere dentes.’

164

Liber Spectaculorum

4. res noua, non ullis cognita temporibus: for the pleonasm cf. Spect. 20. 3 ‘non facit hoc iussus nulloque docente magistro.’ 5. siluis . . . in altis: altus, past participle of alo, ‘nourish’, is a polar word, denoting vertical extension either upwards or downwards. Hence this phrase does not mean ‘in the deep forests’ (i.e. ‘deep in the forest’), but must refer to the height of the trees. 6. inter nos: ‘in the company of mankind’ or ‘here in (civilized) Rome’? The contrast with the siluae altae of the previous line invites comparison with the urban setting of the arena, the paradox being that contact with civilization makes savage beasts more savage. A similar inference is to be drawn from an epigram describing a lion that had been trained to allow its keeper to put his hand in its mouth but suddenly reverted to type, more savage than ever before, and mauled two attendants raking the sand in the arena: cf. 2. 75. 3–4 ‘dedidicit pacem, subito feritate reuersa, j quanta nec in Libycis debuit esse iugis’, and see on Spect. 12. 1 ‘magistrum’. The corrupting eVect of Rome is a Tacitean theme: cf. Agr. 21. 2 (civilization ¼ enslavement) ‘inde etiam habitus nostri honor et frequens toga; paulatimque discessum ad delenimenta uitiorum, porticus et balinea et conuiuiorum elegantiam. idque apud imperitos humanitas uocabatur, cum pars seruitutis esset.’ Tacitean cynicism and social criticism do not seem to cohere with Martial’s sycophantic jingoism, but the sentiment is common (‘beasts don’t lie’, etc.), and the witty paradox may have taken precedence over the implication that contemporary Rome exercised a corrupting inXuence on the animal kingdom.1 As pointed out by Lorenz (2002: 79–80), it is far more likely that Martial is indirectly complimenting the emperor for providing the spectators with a thrilling show of violence than that he is implying that the emperor’s inXuence could not control such a savage beast. feritatis: Martial has to present everything that happens in the arena as a marvel, including the tigress’s outbreak of ferocity. For a Stoic philosopher it is the other way round: the innate and ineradicable feritas of large felines illustrates the natural dominance of the passions in the animal kingdom: cf. Sen. Epist. 85. 8 ‘deinde nihil interest quam magnus sit adfectus: quantuscumque est, parere nescit, consilium non accipit. quemadmodum rationi nullum animal obtemperat . . . tigres leonesque numquam feritatem exuunt, aliquando summittunt, et cum minime expectaueris exasperatur toruitas mitigata.’

1 Cf. Tremoli (1983: 388): ‘Argomenti pericolosi questi che un adulatore esperto avrebbe certamente evitato’.

2 2 ( 1 9) Qui modo per totam Xammis stimulatus harenam sustulerat raptas taurus in astra pilas, occubuit tandem cornuto dente petitus, dum facilem tolli sic elephanta putat. HTK Tit. De elephanto et tauro HTK 1 totam . . . harenam HT Bonon. Vindob. 3 : totas . . . harenas W 3 cornuto dente R. G. M. Nisbet : cornuto abore (ad ore Bonon.) W Bonon.pc Vindob. 3 : cornuto adore HT : cornuto optritus ab ore (om. petitus) Housman (1925) : cornuto ut (et Izaac dubitanter) ab ore Friedla¨nder (1886) : cornuto ardore ' : cornuta mole Heraeus : cornu truciore (Lindsay in app. : potiore Heinsius : maiore Gilbert 1886)

Just now a bull, goaded by Xames all over the arena, had seized the toys and tossed them to the stars. He was Wnally laid low, attacked by a tusk of horn, while thinking that an elephant could easily be tossed in the same way. Introduction: Contests between bulls and elephants were Wrst seen in Rome at the aedilician games held by the brothers Luculli in 79 bc (Fenestella ap. Plin. NH 8. 19 ‘[elephantos] aduersus tauros’, Gran. Licin. 36 ‘taurorum proelium aduersus elephantos’). Their popularity persisted into the late Empire. A mosaic from the Aventine that depicts an elephant (kneeling, and mounted by a mahout) wrestling with a bull (which is also kneeling, and is tethered to a ring in the ground) has tentatively been dated to the period between Gordian I and Constantine: see Blake (1940: 116), Scullard (1974: pl. XVII b).1 On Gordian III’s medallion depicting the Flavian amphitheatre an elephant mounted by two mahouts is being confronted by a disproportionately large animal which is probably meant to be a bull (Pl. 9). Single combat between animals of diVerent species, as between gladiators variously armed, would have increased the unpredictability of the odds: the bull had the advantage of speed, the elephant size, weight, and—if the representations cited are typical—human guidance. The elephant that performed proskynesis in front of the emperor is characterized as ‘hic modo qui tauro tam metuendus erat’ (Spect. 20. 2). But it would be rash to reverse the order of the epigrams on this basis, since the same type of spectacle may have been performed more than once during any series of games (not to mention the possibility that this collection deals with more than one series), and in any case at Spect. 20 Martial is concerned to make a

1 The bull has bovine horns and, pace Sperlich (1961), is not to be identiWed as a rhinoceros.

166

Liber Spectaculorum

rhetorical point contrasting the elephant’s Wghting spirit in the arena with its pious demeanour towards the emperor. The structure of this epigram seems to be all incident and no comment, which is presumably why Rutgersius, cit. Schneidewin (1842), suggested adding as a Wnal couplet one of the epigrams that Junius imported to the Liber spectaculorum from the Florilegium Gallicum (Spect. 36): ‘cedere maiori uirtutis fama secunda est: j illa grauis palma est, quam minor hostis habet.’ This, however, Wts a gladiatorial contest better than an animal display (see Introduction to Spect. 36), and we should probably interpret l. 4 of our epigram as representing the authorial ‘comment’ that is customarily appended to the description of an incident. 1. Xammis stimulatus: stimulare, probably from the IE root *stei- ‘to prick’ (cf. sti-lus, in-sti-go), is the word for goading animals: cf. Cat. 63. 77 (Cybele goading a lion) ‘pecoris hostem stimulans’, Liv. 42. 66. 7 ‘iumentis, cum stimularentur, in turba saeuientibus’. Hunters used torches to coerce wild animals that they wanted to trap unharmed. On the hunt mosaic from the Maison d’Isguntus at Hippo Regius2 a team of hunters are brandishing Xares from behind a palisade of shields to prevent Wve trapped felines from escaping: see Pl. 25, Aymard (1951: 229), Dunbabin (1978: 55). per totam . . . harenam: see on Spect. 11. 1 ‘tota . . . harena’. 2. sustulerat . . . in astra: tollo ¼ ‘pick up (and keep hold of)’. But in astra here implies that the bull does not simply brandish the dummies on its horns but actually tosses them into the air (although not necessarily more than a few metres; the idiom is not to be taken literally). In the sense ‘send up into the air’ tollo is usually found with abstract or immaterial objects, or in a metaphorical sense: cf. Plaut. Curc. 277 ‘quod istic clamorem tollis?’, Virg. E. 5. 51 ‘Daphninque tuum tollemus ad astra’, OLD s.v. 5b–c. But for the action of Xinging upwards and letting go cf. Plaut. fr. cit. Non. 220 ‘pilleum j quem habuit deripuit eumque ad caelum tollit.’ pilas: see on Spect. 11. 4 ‘pila’. 3. This line constitutes one of the notorious cruces in the book. A phrase is required that describes the manner of the bull’s defeat: it was gored by an elephant’s tusks. Although cornuto or petitus have also been suspected, there is no need to suppose that the corruption has spread further than the nonsensical adore (or abore). cornu(tus), describing a certain sort of hard protruberant 2 Modern Annaba, formerly known as Boˆne, the French version of Bu¯na, which was in turn the Arabic rendering of Hippo (from Hippone); in the 10th c. the ancient site was abandoned and a new city established on a promontory 2 km to the north, Bu¯na al-h.adı¯tha, ‘New Bu¯na’: see Encyclope´die berbe`re v. 674–85 s.v. Annaba (M. Cote/G. Camps).

Epigram 22 Pl. 25. Annaba, hunting mosaic showing mounted hunters driving felines into a trap of netting disguised with brushwood. Sheep and goats are corralled in the background as bait. A cage stands ready with the door open. Inside the trap flares are being brandished at the quarry from behind a palisade of shields. Probably first quarter of fourth century ad. Hippo Regius Museum

167

168

Liber Spectaculorum

growth, is regularly applied to tusks: cf. Varr. LL 7. 39 ‘cum . . . in Lucanis Pyrrhi bello primum uidissent elephantos, item quadripedes cornutas [appellauerunt]; nam quos dentes multi dicunt, sunt cornua’, Mart. 1. 72. 3–4 ‘sic dentata sibi uidetur Aegle j emptis ossibus Indicoque cornu’, Anth. Lat. 195 R ¼ 186 SB, l. 1 ‘Horrida cornuto procedit belua rostro’, TLL iv. 967. 25–30, 975. 43–8 (Lambertz). In this context the explicit use of cornu(tus) points the irony that the bull with its menacing horns was defeated by an animal deploying a similar weapon. Similarly, peto in the sense ‘go for’, ‘attack’, Wts very well, pace Housman (1925: 201 ¼ 1972: iii. 1101 n. 1): cf. Liv. 26. 31. 3 ‘legatos nostros ferro atque armis petierunt’, Plin. NH 8. 33 (snakes attacking elephants) ‘in aduersos erigunt se oculosque maxime petunt’, OLD s.v. 2. For abore (adore) R. G. M. Nisbet (1992: 51) proposed dente. A similar locution is employed by Martial at 10. 98. 6 ‘Indicos . . . dentes’. It corresponds to Herodotean diction: cf. Plin. NH 8. 7 ‘praedam ipsi in se expetendam sciunt solam esse in armis suis, quae Iuba cornua appellat, Herodotus tanto antiquior et consuetudo melius, dentes.’ Nisbet hypothesizes a marginal gloss (ebore) which replaced dente in the manuscript and was then corrupted in transmission. Nisbet’s neat solution seems preferable to the alternatives that have been tried. Since each of the corrupt readings abore and adore is also written as two separate words, Housman (ibid.) conjectured that cornuto . . . ore might be correct, and suggested cornuto optritus ab ore. Granted, optero is the type of rare word that is prone to corruption into a much commoner word with a similar form; but it means ‘trample’ rather than ‘gore’ (which would be the sense required here), and in any case petitus is perfectly acceptable (see above). A third solution inserts a monosyllable (both intrusive and otiose) between cornuto and ab in an attempt to heal the metre: ut (Friedla¨nder), et (tentatively suggested by Izaac; printed by Carratello).3 ardore is printed in some of the early humanist editions, but it is hardly appropriate, since the abstraction Wts uneasily with the concrete image conveyed by cornuto, despite the defence of the enallage (‘tusked passion’ ¼ ‘passion of the tusked animal’) by Eden (1997: 485). cornuta mole (Heraeus) avoids the abstraction, but moles seems rather too amorphous for the precision of cornutus. A further tactic is to reduce cornuto to cornu and expand ore into a comparative adjective contrasting the elephant’s tusk with the bull’s horn, e.g. truciore (Lindsay’s tentative suggestion in his apparatus). This solution achieves a nice point and the corruption is easy to explain palaeographically, but Nisbet’s solution is even more pointed, and neater.

3 The defence by Carratello (1998: 247–8) addresses only the aptness of the expression cornutum os.

2 3 ( 2 0) Cum peteret pars haec Myrinum, pars illa Triumphum, promisit pariter Caesar utraque manu. non potuit melius litem Wnire iocosam. o dulce inuicti principis ingenium! HTK : v. 4 om. T Tit. De Myrino et Triumpho HTK 2 promisit K : promisce HT : promisti anon. ap. Lemaire utraque manu HTK : utramque manum Heinsius

While some were wanting Myrinus, some Triumphus, Caesar, with either hand, promised both alike. He could not have put a better end to the goodnatured dispute. How amenable is the disposition of our invincible leader! Introduction: The spectators are calling for two diVerent contestants to enter the arena; by allowing both to appear, the emperor demonstrates his generosity and sense of fair play. Were these contestants gladiators or bestiarii ? Friedla¨nder argued (ad loc.) that Myrinus and Triumphus were bestiarii, for two reasons. (i) This epigram occurs in the middle of a sequence about animal-displays (Spect. 9–26). This certainly tells in favour of the interpretation of the protagonists as bestiarii, but it is not a clinching argument, since elsewhere in the collection (particularly Spect. 31–3) there is considerable Xuidity in the categories represented: see General Introduction, Section 5. (ii) Whereas these protagonists were requested individually, gladiators were requested in pairs: cf. Suet. Dom. 4. 1 ‘praeterea quaestoriis muneribus, quae olim omissa reuocauerat, ita semper interfuit, ut populo potestatem faceret bina paria e suo ludo postulandi.’ But Suetonius is describing a unique occasion, since the context is the praetorian games, at which Domitian is being asked a special favour, i.e. to sponsor duels between gladiators from the imperial training-school. In contrast, spectators are indeed known to have called by name for individual protagonists, including gladiators: cf. Suet. Claud. 21. 5 (the gladiator Palumbus) ‘qualis est ut cum Palumbum postulantibus daturum se promisit, si captus esset’, Suet. Calig. 30. 2 (the latro Tetrinius, damnatus ad bestias) ‘cumque Tetrinius latro postularetur, et qui postularent, Tetrinios esse ait.’ The alternative view, that Myrinus and Triumphus were gladiators, requires the following scenario, proposed by Ville (1981: 288 n. 143). An unnamed opponent must have already been chosen to Wght against whichever champion should be nominated by the spectators. Hence, when the spectators’ favour was divided, the emperor solved the dilemma by excluding the

170

Liber Spectaculorum

unnamed opponent so that he could present both the favoured champions simultaneously, and pit them against one another. It is attested practice to make two record-holding champions Wght each other: cf. Porph. on Hor. Sat. 1. 7. 19–20 ‘Bythus et Bacchius gladiatores optimi illis temporibus fuerunt. qui cum multos interemissent commissi inter se mutuis uulneribus conciderunt.’ It is also noteworthy that if the combatants were pitted against one another (which would not be the case with bestiarii), the witticism in l. 3 is more pointed, i.e. the lis iocosa between the spectators is then replaced by a contest between the participants. Gladiators called Myrinus and Triumphus are known from other periods. A murmillo named ‘Triumphus’ was famous for having complained about the paucity of munera during the reign of Tiberius (Sen. Prou. [¼ Dial. 1]. 4. 4). Under Trajan—in approximately 101, if Book 12 appeared by the spring of 1021—another ‘Myrinus’ was awarded his congiarium after being wounded in the arena (Mart. 12. 28(29). 7 ‘nuper cum Myrino peteretur missio laeso’). Artists and performers frequently adopted names held by illustrious predecessors in the same profession. Several pantomimi named Pylades—perhaps as many as six—are attested in the two centuries following the career of their famous namesake under Augustus (to PIR2 P 1093–6 add the valuable discussion and bibliographical references of Caldelli 2005: 66–8), and the Neronian pantomime artist Paris had a succession of namesakes: see RE xviii/2c. 1536–8 s.v. Paris 2–6 (Ernst Wu¨st). Sometimes the associations are rather startling: Columbus, who had a namesake at Nıˆmes (CIL xii. 3325 ¼ EAOR v, no. 20), was a gladiator poisoned by Caligula (Suet. Calig. 55. 2). For discussion of inherited nomenclature among gladiators see Robert (1930: 112 ¼ 1969: 660, 1940: 297); for pantomimi see Bonaria (1959), Courtney on Juv. Sat. 6. 63; for charioteers see Cameron (1973: 171–3); for the phenomenon in general, with special reference to pantomimi, see Solin (1999). Pace Herrmann (1962: 498), it is most unlikely that Myrinus in ad 101 is the same person as his namesake in our poem since, even if our occasion is to be dated to the early years of Domitian’s reign (see on l. 4), the identiWcation would require a Wghting career of more than Wfteen years; and if it is to be identiWed as the inauguration under Titus, the gap lengthens to more than two decades. It is more plausible that our ‘Triumphus’ was called after his namesake under Tiberius, and that Trajan’s ‘Myrinus’ was called after his namesake here: see Ville (1981: 309). The structure of this epigram conforms to the pattern of ‘incident-andcomment’ in which the comment is a vehicle for Xattery of the emperor: cf. AP 9. 562 ¼ GP Crinagoras 24, Spect. 5, 12, 31, 33, Siedschlag (1977: 101–2). 1 See Table 2.

Epigram 23

171

1. peteret: petere ¼ postulare (intractable in dactylic metre), which is regularly used of spectators demanding a particular contestant: cf. examples quoted in the Introduction, above, with TLL x/2. 264. 39–50 (Clavadetscher). Triumphum: the frequency of gladiators’ names recalling moral or physical qualities may suggest that they were adopted for professional reasons. ‘Triumphus’ belongs in the range of names expressing the concept of victory, e.g. ‘Inuictus’, ‘Victor’ (´Œøæ), ˝
ØŒøæ, ˝
ØŒ  æ, —Æ Ø
Œ ,2 Æ: see Robert (1940: 299), Ville (1981: 309). 2. promisit pariter Caesar utraque manu: the emperor’s even-handedness is symbolized by his central position in the middle of the line. Suetonius comments on a gladiatorial show at which Titus promised to honour any request made of him, and stood by his promise (Tit. 8. 2): ‘populum in primis uniuersum tanta per omnes occasiones comitate tractauit, ut proposito gladiatorio munere, non ad suum, sed ad spectantium arbitrium editurum se professus sit; et plane ita fecit. nam neque negauit quicquam petentibus et ut quae uellent peterent ultro adhortatus est.’ Domitian, of course, might have made a similar promise, unrecorded in our sources, and so we cannot assume that Martial is celebrating the occasion mentioned by Suetonius. promittere here has the technical sense of ‘guarantee’ in the context of making a contribution to a public project, like Gr. KƪªººÆØ, ‘to pledge’, Kƪª
ºÆ, ‘pledge/enactment (of a pledge)’: see Parker–Obbink (2001: 260). For the euergetist’s obligation to make good a promise cf. the commemorative inscription for Aelius,  Øıæª  at Side, SEG 27 (1977), no. 901 l. 6, with the supplement of Nolle´ (2001: 357–61), conjectured on the basis of the claims to a prompt generosity in the following three lines:  Æ a½  
Ø IøŒ
 I
ºº
ø j ŒÆd KæŁ ø Ø ½
 (lac. viii fere litt.)3 ŒÆd KŒ H Nø Ææj ø ººa KøŒ
ŒÆ½d Kغ
Ø Æ E jº
ÆØ. promisit pariter occurs in the same place in the line (a hexameter this time) at Mart. 10. 81. 3 (a prostitute distributing her favours equally between two customers) ‘promisit pariter se Phyllis utrique daturam’. As in both the instances just cited, pariter is often combined with a pronoun or adjective expressing mutuality, e.g. uterque: see TLL x/1. 283. 48–70 (Ramminger). Is utraque manu to be taken literally (‘with both hands’) or metaphorically (‘with even-handed generosity’)? The phrase can describe a physical gesture: cf. Tac. Hist. 4. 4 ‘ceteri uultu manuque . . . adsentiebantur.’ It can also denote 2 Originally meaning ‘quarrelsome’ (from 
ØŒø, ‘to quarrel’); but the gladiators heard

Œ in it. 3 Here Nolle´ leaves a gap. On the basis of a photograph of the four fragments of this stone in the original publication by Bean (1965: pl. 18), and from the reconstruction of subsequent lines in instances where more of the stone is preserved, it is evident that approximately eight letters are to be supplied between the two halves of Nolle´’s supplement.

172

Liber Spectaculorum

eagerness: cf. Sen. Ben. 7. 2. 1 ‘haec . . . utraque manu tenere proWcientem iubet, haec nusquam dimittere’, Mart. 1. 15. 9 ‘haec utraque manu conplexuque adsere toto’. In the context of the arena, where gesture was a prime vehicle for communication, it seems likely that Martial’s phrase refers to a physical sign, as assumed by Aldrete (1999: 91). It bears emphasis that Martial is stressing the quality of ciuilitas, since it was normal for the emperor to make his wishes known by means of a herald: cf. the famous story of Hadrian’s herald (Dio 69. 6. 1–2), who silenced the importunate crowd at a gladiatorial show by raising his hand rather than telling them to be quiet (a rude injunction associated with Domitian). Of course, a herald (or an inscribed placard, which the crowd—at least under Claudius—preferred: Dio 60. 13. 5) might have interpreted the emperor’s gesture for the spectators, some of whom doubtless could not see it; Martial’s emphasis, however, is not upon the channel of communication between emperor and people, but upon the communication itself. 3. litem Wnire iocosam: in its strict sense a lis is a dispute at law, i.e. requiring arbitration; it is also used of a more informal dispute, primarily one settled by words rather than by blows: see TLL vii/2. 1499. 70–1500. 39 (Steinmann). Frequently the notion of an arbitrator remains prominent, as it does here: the emperor settles the dispute between the two factions. iocosus, ‘light-hearted’, conveys the notion that the shouting-match between the spectators remained good-humoured; they did not take it seriously enough to stage a full-scale riot. In conjunction with the technical term lis, the adjective iocosa constitutes an oxymoron that had already been employed by Ovid. He used it to describe the quarrel between Jupiter and Juno, ultimately mediated by Tiresias (cf. 15. 5 n.), concerning the question whether men or women get more pleasure out of sexual intercourse: cf. Ov. Met. 3. 332 ‘arbiter hic igitur sumptus de lite iocosa’, Ib. 261–2 ‘qualis erat, postquam iudex de lite iocosa j sumptus, Apollinea clarus in arte senex’. Wnire is the regular word for putting an end to a court-case or dispute: cf. Varr. LL 6. 61 (explaining the etymology of iudex) ‘hinc iudex, quod iudicat accepta potestate, id est quibusdam uerbis dicendo Wnit’, Plin. Epist. 7. 7. 2 (to Saturninus, overwhelmed with court-cases) ‘si tamen alteram litem per iudicem, alteram (ut ais) ipse Wnieris’, TLL vi/1. 782. 7–18 (Bacherler). 4. dulce . . . ingenium: an unexpected quality for an arbitrator, stressing the emperor’s accessibility and his sympathetic behaviour. Behaviour that is dulcis makes the other party in a relationship happy: cf. Phaedr. 3. 15. 16–17 (a lamb explains that it feels more aVection for the goat which has suckled it than for its own mother) ‘cur hac potior quae iacentis miserita est, j dulcemque sponte praestat beneuolentiam’, Stat. Silu. 1. 6. 81–3 ‘tollunt innumeras ad astra uoces j Saturnalia principis sonantes j et dulci dominum fauore clamant.’

Epigram 23

173

At the games the emperor was on display to the people, and the climate was favourable to the granting of petitions, as Josephus remarks (AJ 19. 24):

ıÆ  
æŁø
N e ƒ æ ŒÆd K x æfi Ø
 ÆØ H ÆPŒæÆ æø ŒÆa ºBŁ ı
ºŁ 
, ƒ b IÆغŒı a 

Ø Œæ
 PÆH IÆæØ F Ø. Titus is on record as having promised before a gladiatorial show that he would grant whatever he was asked (Suet. Tit. 8. 2, cit. on 2 ‘promisit pariter Caesar utraque manu’, above), and Pliny praises Trajan for not only granting the people’s requests, but also anticipating their unspoken desires and pressing them to demand more of him (Pan. 33. 2–3). The expectation that the emperor would prove complaisant on these occasions prompted detailed justiWcation when petitions were turned down. Hence at a celebration of the Agon Capitolinus Domitian displayed unforgivable arrogantia in that he not only failed to pardon a man whom he had expelled from the Senate, but he also refused to give a reason (Suet. Dom. 13. 1). Cf. Spect. 31. 3 ‘saepe . . . magno clamore’, n., and for detailed discussion of ciuilitas as a badge of imperial behaviour at the games see Cameron (1976: 157–92). inuicti: ‘invincible’. In literary sources this epithet had already been used of Republican heroes, and in the early Empire it is regularly applied to the princeps in military contexts. It is Wrst extended beyond the purely military sphere to acquire the status of an adulatory epithet at Ov. Tr. 5. 1. 41–2 (of Tiberius) ‘lenior inuicti si sit mihi Caesaris ira, j carmina laetitiae iam tibi plena dabo.’ Tiberius was oVered inuictus as an honoriWc title; he declined (Suet. Tib. 17. 2). It is not used of any of the Julio-Claudians after him. With the Flavian authors it acquires the status of a formulaic epithet, and becomes a stock feature of imperial acclamationes: cf. Mart. 7. 6. 7–8 (to Domitian) ‘rursus, io, magnos clamat tibi Roma triumphos, j ‘‘Inuictusque’’ tua, Caesar, in urbe sonas’, with Gala´n Vioque’s detailed note, Henrikse´n on Mart. 9. 1. 10, Sauter (1934: 155–9). inuictus is a natural choice in contexts that involve some kind of contest: cf. Mart. 9. 23. 5–6 (Carus, who had won the golden olivewreath at Domitian’s Alban festival, places it on a bust of the emperor) ‘Albanae liuere potest pia quercus oliuae, j cinxerit inuictum quod prior illa caput.’ Likewise here the point is that he who arbitrates in the disputes of others is himself inuictus. Whether that person here is Domitian, with whom the epithet is so closely associated,4 or his short-lived predecessor, who is given it nowhere else, cannot be determined beyond all reasonable doubt. 4 Especially on his return from the expedition against the Sarmatae in January 93. Hence Dau (1887: 22–4, 29–35) conjectures that this epigram is to be dated no earlier than that, and ascribes its presence in the collection to a posthumous compiler. For a critique of this theory see General Introduction, Section 6 (ii).

24 (21) Quidquid in Orpheo Rhodope spectasse theatro dicitur, exhibuit, Caesar, harena tibi. repserunt scopuli mirandaque silua cucurrit, quale fuisse nemus creditur Hesperidum. adfuit inmixtum pecori genus omne ferarum et supra uatem multa pependit auis, ipse sed ingrato iacuit laceratus ab urso. haec tantum res est facta Ææ ƒ æÆ.

5

HTK Tit. De Orpheo HTK 5 adfuit HTK : adXuit Heinsius 8 tantum Bodleianus Auct. F. 4. 33 : tamen H : tamen haec TK : tamen ut Iunius Ææ ƒ æÆ Housman (1901) : ita pictoria HT : ita picta alia W : itaque Wcta alia Bonon. Vindob. 3 :  ƒ æÆ Bu¨cheler ap. Friedla¨nder (1886: ii. 542) : ita Wcta alia est Iunius : ita, Wcta (picta Della Corte) prior Schneidewin

Whatever Rhodope is said to have seen in one of Orpheus’ stage-performances, Caesar, the amphitheatre has displayed to you. CliVs crawled and a wood ran forwards, a wonder to behold; the grove of the Hesperides is supposed to have been just like that. Every kind of wild beast was there, mixed with domesticated animals, and above the minstrel there balanced many a bird; but he fell, torn apart by an unappreciative bear. This was the only thing that happened contrary to the story. Introduction: The death of Orpheus is rich in irony, variously exploited in the Greek Anthology: cf. AP 7. 8 ¼ HE Antipater of Sidon 10 (although the son of a god, Orpheus proved mortal), AP 7. 9 ¼ HE Damagetus 2 (although Orpheus charmed even Pluto with his music, still he died), AP 7. 10 ¼ FGE anon. 311 (a pathetic fallacy: nature, which fell under Orpheus’ spell, would eventually mourn him). Our epigram exploits a rather diVerent irony: the idyllic scene of Orpheus charming nature is transformed into an enactment of damnatio ad bestias, similar to the denouement grafted onto the myths of Pasiphae (Spect. 6), Laureolus (Spect. 9), and Daedalus (Spect. 10): see Coleman (1990: 62–3). The particular irony here is that the bear that tore ‘Orpheus’ apart can be characterized as showing lack of appreciation for his spell-binding music (see on 7 ‘ingrato’). While Martial does indeed turn to epigrammatic advantage unscheduled incidents in the arena (see Introduction to Spect. 12), it does not seem to me likely that a savage action by a bear could have come as a complete 1 Ascribed to Damagetus in AP ; ‘plainly of Hellenistic date, and probably by one of Meleager’s authors’ (Page, FGE 335). Possibly by Antipater: Scherer (2002: 192–6).

Epigram 24

175

surprise, as supposed by Salanitro (1984), Fabbri (1979–80), Moretti (1992, 1997: 234–5);2 this bear is set up to maul ‘Orpheus’, just like the bear that mauls ‘Laureolus’, damnatus ad bestias in Spect. 9.3 On the relationship between this epigram and the following couplet see Introduction to Spect. 25. The structure of this epigram is characterized by Siedschlag (1977: 58) as the ‘rule-and-exception’ type in which a rule is stated (here the traditional version of the myth), followed by an exception (the presentation in the arena). Martial appears to recall AP 11. 254 (Lucillius), in which an actor presented authentic versions of the stories of Niobe and Capaneus (ŒÆŁ  ƒ æ ), but altered the denouement of the story of Canace by failing to use the sword with which he was equipped (Ææ ƒ æ ), a clever allusion by Lucillius to the tragic convention regarding the portrayal of suicide on the stage: —Æ ŒÆŁ  ƒ æ  Oæ
, £ e ªØ  H æªø ÆæØg MÆ Æ 
ªºø. c b ªaæ ˝Ø   Oæ
 ‰ ºŁ   , ŒÆd ºØ J ˚ÆÆ
f KÆ  

. Iºº Kd B ˚ÆŒ  IıH, ‹Ø ŒÆd  q Ø ŒÆd H KBºŁ
• F Ææ ƒ æ .

5

Ausonius responds to Lucillius’ epigram by inverting the circumstances (Epigr. 18 Peiper ¼ 95 Green): ‘Deceptae felix casus se miscuit arti: j histrio, saltabat qui Capanea, ruit.’ Detailed discussion: Weinreich (1928: 40–8), Carratello (1965a: 135–44), Burnikel (1980: 10–14), Carratello (1981a: 50–3), Tremoli (1983: 386–7), Salanitro (1984), Coleman (1990: 62–3), Moretti (1992: 58–60, 1997: 231–5), Lorenz (2002: 73–5)

1. Quidquid: Martial frequently begins an epigram with a generalizing statement introduced by omnis, quicumque, quisquis, etc., which is then followed by an accumulation of detail: see Siedschlag (1977: 17). The same technique is employed in Lucillius’ epigram (AP 11. 254), quoted in the Introduction, above, in which the mythological tales are summarized as —Æ in l. 1 and enumerated in the remainder of the epigram.4 Martial 2 Cf. Tremoli (1983: 386), interpreting the enactment as a failure (‘Quindi spettacolo fallito, almeno in un certo senso’) and Martial’s epigram as mockery of the emperor responsible for this failure. 3 If Housman was right to suppose that the corruption in the second line of the accompanying epigram hides a future participle expressing purpose (see Introduction to Spect. 25), this will support the interpretation that the encounter between the bear and ‘Orpheus’ was staged; but this reasoning may degenerate into a circular argument, if the assumption that damnatio ad bestias was being staged is adduced to defend the introduction of a future participle. 4 As observed by Moretti (1997: 233), Martial’s Wrst couplet corresponds quite precisely to Lucillius’ opening phrase, —Æ ŒÆŁ  ƒ æ .

176

Liber Spectaculorum

most commonly employs this structure to describe a person’s conduct, less commonly (as here) an event; an analogous epigram, concerning the imperial treasures dedicated by Trajan to the gods and put on display in the temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline, begins ‘Quidquid Parrhasia nitebat aula j donatum est oculis deisque nostris’ (12. 15. 1–2), followed by a list of individual items. 1–2. in Orpheo Rhodope spectasse theatro j dicitur: spectare is the mot juste for watching a stage-performance, well illustrated by two memorable comments on the dual function of the audience as itself spectacle as well as spectator: Plaut. Poen. 337 ‘sunt illi aliae quas spectare ego et me spectari uolo’, Ov. AA 1. 99 (women at the theatre) ‘spectatum ueniunt, ueniunt spectentur ut ipsae’. Martial treats Orpheus as a stage-performer: his ‘act’ consisted of hypnotizing with his music the Xora, fauna, and inanimate elements in his environment, and his ‘audience’ comprised the surrounding topographical features (here represented by the most prominent, Mt. Rhodope). This metaphor aVords an exact parallel for the actual stage-version mounted by our emperor and, as shown by Hinds (2007), it plays upon the anachronistic simile in Ovid’s account of the death of Orpheus, where his dismemberment at the hands of the Thracian women is likened to the fate of a stag in a uenatio in the amphitheatre (Met. 11. 25–8): ‘structoque utrimque theatro j ceu matutina ceruus periturus harena j praeda canum est; uatemque petunt et fronde uirentes j coniciunt thyrsos non haec in munera factos.’ The evocation of Ovid’s simile joins a further cluster of correspondences with his account in the Metamorphoses (already noted by Della Corte ad loc.): 3 scopuli
11. 2 saxa; 3 silua
11. 1 siluas; 5 genus omne ferarum
11. 21 agmen . . . ferarum; 6 uatem
11. 2 uates, 19 uatis; 6 multa . . . auis
11. 21 innumeras uolucres. While individually unremarkable, together these correspondences suggest that Martial means us to remember Ovid’s passage, and to notice that his distinction between the literal and the metaphorical has now disappeared. For the adjectival form Orphe¯us cf. Spect. 3. 3 ‘ab Orpheo . . . Haemo’. The peaks of Rhodope, modern Zapadni (i.e. Western) Rodopi in Bulgaria, were traditionally associated with Orpheus’ music: cf. Virg. E. 6. 30 ‘nec tantum Rhodope miratur et Ismarus Orphea’, G. 4. 461 ‘Xerunt Rhodopeiae arces’. Hence Orpheus is often called Rhodopeius: cf. Ov. Met. 10. 11–12, 10. 50, AA 3. 321, Sid. Carm. 9. 287. 2. exhibuit sustains the metaphor of spectacle: see on Spect. 11. 1 ‘exhibitus’. 3. Orpheus bewitched rocks, rivers, and woods, as well as animals. In the extant tradition rivers are an addition of the Hellenistic age: cf. Eur. IA 1211– 14 (æÆ), Bacch. 560–4 (æ
Æ, ŁBæÆ IªæÆ), Ap. Rh. Arg. 1. 26–7 ÆPaæ  ª Kı Ø I
ØæÆ hæ
Ø æÆ j ŁºÆØ IØø Kfi B ÆH

Epigram 24

177


Þ
ŁæÆ, Hor. O. 1. 12. 7–12 (with N–H) ‘unde uocalem temere insecutae j Orphea siluae j arte materna rapidos morantem j Xuminum lapsus celerisque uentos, j blandum et auritas Wdibus canoris j ducere quercus?’, 3. 11. 13–14 (to Horace’s lyre) ‘tu potes tigris comitesque siluas j ducere et riuos celeris morari’, Prop. 3. 2. 3–4 ‘Orphea delinisse feras et concita dicunt j Xumina Threicia sustinuisse lyra’, Phaedr. 3 prol. 58–9 ‘qui saxa cantu mouit et domuit feras j Hebrique tenuit impetus dulci mora’. In our passage the slow progress of the rocks is matched by the spondaic opening to the line (repserunt). Martial imagines the diVerent elements of the natural world each responding to Orpheus at its own speed. Any reconstruction of the enactment in the arena has to be entirely hypothetical. Since the Flavian amphitheatre was evidently furnished with a hypogeum from the beginning (see General Introduction, Section 7), scenery was presumably raised from there into the arena and lowered back again: cf. Calp. Sic. 7. 71–2 ‘in isdem saepe cauernis j aurea cum subito creuerunt arbuta nimbo’, Apul. Met. 10. 34. 2 ‘iamque tota suaue fraglante cauea montem illum ligneum terrae uorago recepit.’ For the ‘Orpheus’ display we should probably envisage wooden platforms on which actual rocks and saplings were displayed, as in the event reputed to have been held in the circus by the emperor Probus (SHA Prob. 19. 3): ‘genus autem spectaculi fuit tale: arbores ualidae per milites radicitus uulsae conexis late longeque trabibus adWxae sunt, terra deinde superiecta totusque circus ad siluae consitus speciem gratia noui uiroris eVronduit.’ The ‘mountain’ which Apuleius describes sinking into the hypogeum was a wooden frame constructed for a performance of the judgement of Paris, ‘planted’ with trees and plumbed with fountains to simulate the wooded and watered slopes of Mt. Ida (Met. 10. 30. 1): ‘erat mons ligneus . . . sublimi instructus fabrica, consitus uirectis et uiuis arboribus, summo cacumine, de manibus fabri fonte manante, Xuuialis aquas eliquans.’ Beacham (1991: 183) observes that such a structure would have been very unwieldy unless it were partly composed of Xats, painted in perspective, which could fold up or telescope into one another, and so be rapidly dismantled and removed. Such collapsible elements are mentioned by Seneca in his discussion of stage-devices (Epist. 88. 22): ‘aut dehiscentibus, quae cohaerebant, aut his, quae distabant, sua sponte coeuntibus aut his, quae eminebant, paulatim in se residentibus’. Perhaps we should envisage the scenery in the ‘Orpheus’ display as a combination of three-dimensional props and painted Xats. mirandaque silua: the predicative adjective is in the emphatic position. 4. nemus . . . Hesperidum: Martial compares the scene in the arena to the spontaneous bounty of the grove of the Hesperides. Despite Moretti (1992: 59) the point does not seem to be that the trees in the arena were hung with

178

Liber Spectaculorum

golden apples like the trees in the myth. Rather, the comparison must hinge on the reputation of the Hesperides themselves as singers: cf. Ap. Rh. Arg. 4. 1396–9 x  ƒ
æe , fiz Ø ¸ø j
N Ø ı ŁØe ƪæ
Æ Þ
 BºÆ j æfiø K @ºÆ, Ł Ø ZØ• Id b ÆØ j & ¯ 
æ
 ı K
æ I
ı ÆØ. 5. inmixtum pecori genus omne ferarum: pecus distinguishes domesticated animals from wild beasts. Frequently, as here (5–6), the animal kingdom is further subdivided into a tripartite structure comprising pecus, ferae, and aues/uolucres: cf. Ov. Met. 3. 408–10 ‘[fons] quem neque pastores neque pastae monte capellae j contigerant aliudue pecus, quem nulla uolucris j nec fera turbarat’, Sen. De remediis fortuitorum 10. 1 Rossbach ‘nihil deest auibus, pecora in diem uiuunt. feris in alimentum solitudo sua suYcit’, Stat. Silu. 5. 4. 3 ‘pecus uolucresque feraeque’, TLL x/1. 949. 19–26 (Hillen). genus omne ferarum is a common phrase, convenient at the end of a hexameter: cf. Calp. Sic. 7. 57 (Corydon is dumbstruck by the wonders of the emperor’s wooden amphitheatre) ‘ordine quid referam? uidi genus omne ferarum.’ In fact, quite disparate species may have been displayed; when the keeper in Q. Hortensius’ game-park blew on his horn to give the signal for feeding-time, stags and boars Xocked around him (Varr. RR 3. 13. 2–3). Far from adopting the poses of enchanted obedience familiar from the wide repertoire of Orpheus mosaics (cf. Pls. 19, 26), the animals in the arena were probably milling around anxiously (to say the least). But the combination of animals, man, and musical instrument would have in itself been suYcient to suggest the Orpheus-myth. For the amusement of his master’s picnic-party, Hortensius’ keeper, just mentioned, was dressed as Orpheus in acknowledgement of the similarity between his job and the mythological circumstances. 6. uatem: cf. 14. 165 Cithara, l. 1 ‘reddidit Eurydicen uati’. Although Ovid repeatedly emphasizes Orpheus’ role as uates (Met. 10. 11–12, 82, 89, 143, 11. 2), the risque´ stories that he puts in Orpheus’ mouth undercut the status of digniWed and venerable moral educator that uates confers: see Newman (1967: 107). Similarly, Martial’s use of uates here, with all its portentous overtones, is drastically deXated by the fate that befalls Orpheus in the next line. multa pependit auis: multus/plurimus with the collective singular is found chieXy in poetry, where it is often metrically convenient: cf. Virg. E. 1. 33 ‘quamuis multa meis exiret uictima saeptis’, G. 2. 182–3 ‘oleaster . . . plurimus’, Tib. 2. 5. 72 ‘multus ut in terras deplueretque lapis’, TLL viii. 1608. 69–82 (Buchwald), H–Sz 162. For the birds over Orpheus’ head cf. Simonides 567–8 ¼ fr. 384. 1–2 Page F ŒÆd I
Øæ ØØ j øH ZæØŁ
 bæ Œ
ƺA. In the lively Orpheus

Epigram 24

179

Pl. 26. Mosaic from a Roman house beneath the monastery of S. Anselmo on the Aventine, Rome, depicting Orpheus beneath a bird-laden tree. Second half of second century ad. Museo Nazionale Romano (Terme di Diocleziano)

mosaic from the monastery of S. Anselmo on the Aventine, the tree that is a common landscape-feature of such scenes provides a fragile perch for nine substantial birds, to the frustration of a dog pawing the trunk (Pl. 26). It is hard to see how live birds could be coerced into co-operating in our scenario, or what stance pependit describes. Were they hovering or perching? pendo can denote perching as well as hanging: cf. Ov. Pont. 1. 8. 51 ‘pendentis . . . rupe capellas’. A Xock of birds released in the amphitheatre might hover over the arena if grain had been scattered below. Or they might have been attracted by the fruit hanging on the trees that constituted the scenery, although we may doubt the gullibility of the corui which were so taken in by the realism of the stage erected for Claudius Pulcher’s shows in 99 bc that they tried to perch on the roof tiles painted on to the scenery (Plin. NH 35. 23). Alternatively, perhaps the birds’ wings had been clipped, and they were already perching in the ‘forest’ when it was wheeled in. A scenario along these lines is described by Strabo (15. 718), quoting a description by Cleitarchus of an Indian festival that featured four-wheeled carriages carrying ‘large-leafed trees’ (æÆ . . . H 
ªÆºººø) in which various tamed birds were perching. But we must also admit the possibility that, in our display, birds and animals were simply painted onto props; the resulting lack of realism would be compensated for by the dramatic role of the bear sent in to maul ‘Orpheus’. 7. ingrato . . . urso: it is not the eVorts of a trainer—none is mentioned— that the bear fails to appreciate, as supposed by Salanitro (1984: 147), but the civilizing gift of Orpheus’ spell-binding music: the bear fails to be charmed into a friendly attitude towards ‘Orpheus’.

180

Liber Spectaculorum

If Housman’s emendation ursam at Spect. 25. 2 is accepted (see Introduction to Spect. 25), are we to interfere with a blameless paradosis here and emend to ingrata . . . ursa? This seems rash, given that consistency in gender may not have been keenly felt by a Roman audience, especially across the boundary between two separate (if related) poems. Compare the change in gender of the lions employed in warfare at Lucr. 5. 1310–18 ‘et ualidos partim prae se misere leones . . . irritata leae iaciebant corpora saltu’, and see further on Spect. 25. 2. laceratus: for this term in the context of mauling by an animal, speciWcally a bear, cf. Spect. 9. 5 ‘laceri . . . artus’, 10. 1 ‘lacereris’ (with n.). Here Martial may be pointing to the irony that in the myth Orpheus also dies by being torn apart—but by Thracian women, not a bear. Nevertheless, such an allusion does not imply that the death of ‘Orpheus’ in the arena was an accident, as inferred by Moretti (1997: 234–5). Martial could just as well point the irony if the staging of the death of ‘Orpheus’ was deliberate, as argued in the Introduction, above. For the associated interpretation of the next epigram, see the Introduction to Spect. 25. 8. Bu¨cheler, quoted by Friedla¨nder in the ‘Berichtigungen und Nachtra¨ge’ to his edition (1886: ii. 542), was the Wrst to suggest that a Greek phrase lay behind the crux at the end of this line, although he did not realize that the corruption extended to the Wrst half of the line as well. It was Housman (1901: 154–5 ¼ 1972: ii. 536–7) who saw that at the end of Martial’s epigram an expression is required to convey the contrast between a conventional plot (ŒÆŁ  ƒ æÆ) and an unexpected denouement (Ææ ƒ æÆ). He also realized that, since this denouement is the single maverick factor in the performance, tamen must be a corruption of tantum—which now turns out to be in an Italian manuscript of the early 1460s in the Bodleian Library, Oxford5 (MS. Auct. F. 4. 33): see Reeve (1980: 199 n. 31). Housman adduces the palaeographical argument of the possibility of confusion between majuscule forms of Greek and Latin script (—`-+"#ˇ-+` miscopied as +#`-+C#ˇR+`). In the scholarly apparatus of the ancient critics this phrase was represented by the critical sign — (¼ contra historiam, derived from Ææ ƒ æÆ): cf. Not. Simp. GL vii. 536. 18 Keil, Heraeus (1915: 37), Jocelyn (1985: 161 n. 157). The phrase Ææ ƒ æÆ entered common parlance: cf. Cic. Att. 13. 10. 1 (accusing Atticus of making a factual slip regarding Cicero’s own status as a consular) ‘sed illud Ææa c ƒ æÆ, tu praesertim, me reliquum consularem’. As was Wrst noted by Prinz (1910), it had already been used to provide a witty denouement for an epigram by Lucillius (AP 11. 254, cit. in the Introduction, above). 5 http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/scwmss/wmss/online/medieval/auctarium/auctarium.html

Epigram 24

181

Friedla¨nder (ad loc.) had rejected Bu¨cheler’s original proposal on the grounds that the epigram is not written in the conversational tone required for the inclusion of a Greek phrase. But Weinreich (1928: 161–5) assembled the evidence for categories of Greek words and phrases in Martial that must have been written in the original script rather than in transliterated form. These frequently supply the denouement of an epigram. They include puns on names, quotations from literature, inscriptions, titles of literary works, colloquialisms (e.g. salutations), obscenities, gastronomical terms, proverbs, and, as here, scholarly terminology: cf. (in terminal position) 6. 6. 2 (Paula’s fourth lover equated with the mute role in comedy) ‘et Œøe Paula æ ø amat’, 7. 46. 6 (trying to avoid a gift of a poem from Priscus) ‘pauperibus munera 
 dato’. Nevertheless, Della Corte (ad loc.) persisted in rejecting even Housman’s emendation, maintaining that the ‘carattere di uYcialita`’ of a work dedicated to the emperor would not permit a Greek expression; but, as is evident throughout the Liber spectaculorum, epigram can be deferential and witty at the same time, and there is no reason to suppose that a clever Greek joke would cause oVence. Indeed, part of the success of this ending consists in the contrast between the Greek technical term and the sentimental atmosphere conveyed by the phrase ingrato urso: see Burnikel (1980: 13–14). It has also been suggested that Martial may give special point to the use of a phrase from scholarly criticism (Ææ ƒ æÆ) by employing it in a passage that shows strong awareness of its own literary pedigree (i.e. Ov. Met. 11. 1–43, discussed on ll. 1–2, above): see Lorenz (2002: 74–5). The corrupt transmission of this line has its own Nachleben in Tony Harrison’s play The Kaisers of Carnuntum, which was Wrst performed in a Roman amphitheatre at Carnuntum (modern Petronell, in Austria) on 2 June 1995. The mise en sce`ne is an enactment of the ‘Orpheus’ charade during the reign of Commodus. The emperor himself is made to quote the facta/Wcta contrast that represents an early attempt to heal the corruption in descendants of K: ‘Greek bloodshed was all Wcta, ours is facta j we Romans really kill our tragic actor’ (Harrison 1995–6: 203). In a subsequent address to the Virgil Society, Harrison (2001: 15) remarks of our epigram:6 ‘It is a shocking emblem and blasphemous enactment of where the triumph of durus over mollis (I think inevitably) leads. I have always read it as an elegy for the death of the imagination, and with the imagination the death of compassion.’7 6 Printed with Junius’ version of the last line. 7 I owe my knowledge of this play to Hallie Marshall of the University of British Columbia.

2 5 ( 2 1b ) Orphea quod subito tellus emisit hiatu ursam accituram, uenit ab Eurydice. HT Tit. Idem HT 1 Orphea HT : Orphei Heraeus (1925) in app. 2 ursam Housman (1901), accituram Watt (mersuram Housman 1901 : elisuram Housman 1907 : inuasuram DuV ap. Postgate : scissuram Courtney privatim): uersa miramur T : uersam is amur H : miramur? uersa Gronovius : quorsum miramur? Schneidewin (1853) in app. : mersa (miramur?) Haupt : mersum, miramur? Munro : uersum, miramur? Fabbri : ursam miramur? Heraeus (1925) in app. : alii alia

As for the fact that the earth suddenly gaped open and released a bear to summon Orpheus, it came from Eurydice. Introduction: Once again, we are faced with a cryptic couplet attached to a longer epigram on the same theme (cf. Spect. 5, 7, 18, 28). In this case, a severe crux in the second line of the couplet exacerbates the diYculty of determining the relationship between the two poems. For the sake of clarity, here are the two versions of the epigram as transmitted, both of them evidently corrupt. First here is T : Orphea quod subito tellus emisit hiatu uersa miramur uenit ab Eurydice. Now here is H : Orphea quod subito tellus emisit hiatu uersa is amur uenit ab Eurydice. The transmitted versions of the text agree on the following elements: both Orpheus and Eurydice are involved, and someone (or something) emerges from a chasm in the ground. Spect. 24 looks like an independent epigram, because of its clearly identiWable opening and closure: see on Spect. 24. 1 ‘Quidquid’, 24. 8. In that case, Spect. 25 belongs with 24, but not to it. Martial’s sequences of two or more epigrams on a single display are regularly variations on a theme rather than a sequence contributing cumulative details to a continuous narrative: cf. Spect. 4–5, 14–16, 18–19, 28–9, and Epigr. 1. 6, 4, 22, 48, 51, 60, 104 (the ‘cycle’ of the lion and the hare). Spect. 25 should therefore oVer a variation on the scenario presented in Spect. 24, rather than commenting on a separate display involving the same mythological ‘hero’. In a presentation of ‘Orpheus’, the hypogeum might naturally be taken to represent the Underworld, where Eurydice was conWned. The most obvious

Epigram 25

183

interpretation is therefore to suppose that it is Orpheus who comes out of the ground, and that the explanation for this is that he had been visiting Eurydice. Housman (1901: 155 ¼ 1972: ii. 537) objected that this would be very trite. But if ‘Orpheus’ were suddenly propelled into the arena from the hypogeum, this feat would require explanation; and to say that he had returned from visiting his wife would wittily exploit the myth to account for the technology: see Fabbri (1979–80). We might fret that on this interpretation Spect. 25 alludes to a detail (the arrival of Orpheus in the arena) that precedes the denouement in Spect. 24 (the mauling of Orpheus by a bear), and that we should have to reverse the sequence of the epigrams; but it is better to think of the two epigrams as independent comments on two noteworthy aspects of the same display, rather than ranking them in a chronological sequence to match cause and eVect. In Spect. 25 Martial would therefore be presenting the appearance of Orpheus in l. 1, and explaining it in l. 2. The corruption would need to hide a reference to the remarkable nature of this appearance, i.e. ‘why are we surprised?’ This sense is supplied by Schneidewin’s conjecture: Orphea quod subito tellus emisit hiatu quorsum miramur? uenit ab Eurydice. A variation of this explanation has been oVered by Salanitro (1984: 154–5), reading mersum miramur? with Munro (cit. Friedla¨nder ad loc.), and attaching Spect. 25 to Spect. 24 as the Wnal couplet containing the denouement. Assuming that ‘Orpheus’ was mauled by accident, Salanitro suggests that what was left of him was hastily removed and a substitute ‘Orpheus’ sent into the arena from the hypogeum, aVording Martial the opportunity to smooth over the emergency by remarking that ‘Orpheus’ must have been visiting Eurydice. Although this is a neat solution, it sacriWces the point of 24. 7–8 as a concluding sententia, and it also deWes the evidence for interpreting this scenario as an enactment of damnatio ad bestias. It seems preferable to assume that the bear’s role in Spect. 24 was a deliberate part of the spectacle, and that Spect. 25 is a separate couplet providing a witty comment on the same scenario that lies behind the previous epigram. Schneidewin’s solution meets those criteria. But there are other issues to consider. How deep is the corruption? miramur (T) appears to be right, because quod can be taken to depend upon it, and it is typical of Martial to suggest that a circumstance is peculiar and then provide a reason for it (the ‘riddle and solution’ type of epigram). Compare Spect. 27, where Martial starts by describing how the amphitheatre is suddenly Xooded for a naval engagement (1–4), anticipates incredulity on the part of his audience by asking non credis? (5), and then solves the conundrum by

184

Liber Spectaculorum

claiming that in a trice the water will be drained and there will be terra Wrma in the arena again. But it is precisely because miramur looks so natural that we should beware of assuming its authenticity: it does not Wt in the line as it stands, and it could be an attempt to heal the corruption by introducing the notion of incredulity familiar from other poems in our collection and elsewhere in Martial’s corpus.1 Because Spect. 24 hinges upon a departure from the myth (Ææ ƒ æÆ), it would be a neat reversal if its companion-piece were to cap it by ascribing the unorthodox element to an orthodox detail (ŒÆŁ  ƒ æÆ). Hence the corruption might conceal an unexpected element in the presentation of Orpheus that is then attributed to the conventional feature of Eurydice’s presence in the Underworld. In fact, of course, something that needs explaining has just been described in the previous epigram: the maverick role of the bear. The normal route for releasing animals into the amphitheatre was by raising them from the hypogeum through trapdoors in the Xoor of the arena. In this classic story of tragic love it would be a nice irony to attribute the instrument of Orpheus’ demise to the agency of his wife, whose perpetual exile in Hades was the fault of the husband who could not bear to be separated from her. Hence Housman conjectured ursam mersuram. He defended the change of gender from the male bear of Spect. 24 as a grammatical expedient to avoid ambiguity of the ‘man bites dog’ variety which would arise if the sentence contained both Orphea and another masculine singular noun in the accusative case. Later Housman substituted elisuram for mersuram on the grounds that the meaning is clearer and the rhythm more usual (1907: 230–1 ¼ 1972: ii. 712). scissuram, a suggestion of E. Courtney viva voce, matches the raking of the bear’s claws. But a reference to the physical accomplishment of the action is not the only possibility. Indeed, a more oblique approach would suit Martial’s detached manner, e.g. the witty and ironic accituram, leaving the nature of the ‘summons’ to be inferred, as proposed by Watt (1994: 275); the potential ambiguity created by the elision of the gendered ending of ursam is resolved by the ending of the participle. For the notion of a messenger from the dead summoning the beloved to the Underworld cf. Lucian, Demonax 24 (the wit Demonax delivers a ‘message’ to Herodes Atticus from his favourite slave, Polydeuces, prematurely deceased): `NØAÆ
,  , ‹Ø c X æe ÆPe ¼
Ø. Detailed discussion: Weinreich (1928: 40–8), Carratello (1965a: 135–44), Fabbri (1979–80), Carratello (1981a: 50–3), Salanitro (1984), Carratello (1989: 284–7), Coleman (1990: 62–3), Moretti (1992: 58–60, 1997: 231–5), Lorenz (2002: 73–5) 1 uersam is amur (H) would point to miramur in a script (perhaps Insular; cf. n. on 31. 5 posita) in which r and s were similar, suggesting that the corruption, and the attempt to heal it, had already occurred before H misread miramur.

Epigram 25

185

1. subito . . . hiatu: the way to the Underworld manifests itself as a sudden chasm in the earth: cf. Ov. Her. 3. 63–5 (Briseis to Achilles) ‘deuorer ante, precor, subito telluris hiatu j aut rutilo missi fulminis igne cremer, j quam sine me Pthiis canescant aequora remis’, Stat. Theb. 1. 41–2 (debating the choice of theme) ‘quem prius heroum, Clio, dabis? inmodicum irae j Tydea? laurigeri subitos an uatis hiatus?’ emisit: when beings ascend from the Underworld they are regularly interpreted as being released (emitti) by the powers ruling in Hades: cf. Sen. Ag. 1– 2 ‘opaca linquens Ditis inferni loca j adsum, profundo Tartari emissus specu’ (with Tarrant’s n.), TLL v/2. 502. 44–59 (Rehm). emitto is also the word for unleashing wild animals: cf. Curt. 9. 1. 32 ‘leonem eximiae magnitudinis iussit emitti’, Gell. 15. 22. 9 ‘cerua emissa in cubiculum Sertorii introrupit’, Amm. 31. 10. 19 ‘centum leones in amphitheatrali circulo simul emissos . . . contruncauit’, TLL v/2. 501. 42–71. The coincidence of these two spheres of usage provides further support for Housman’s suggestion that the corruption in the next line hides a reference to the bear of Spect. 24. 2. ursam: on Housman’s conjecture, involving a change of gender from the bear in the previous epigram, see Introduction (above), Spect. 24. 7 ‘ingrato . . . urso’, n. Sometimes the gender of a bear is clearly signiWcant. For example, the female is larger, and therefore tends to be speciWed when an expanse of bearskin is at issue: cf. Ov. Met. 12. 319 ‘fusus in Ossaeae uillosis pellibus ursae’, Apul. Met. 4. 13 ‘immanis ursae comparabat numerum copiosum’. Sometimes, however, bears appear in the feminine gender in Latin verse metri causa when the sex of the beast apparently does not matter: cf. Stat. Ach. 1. 465–6 ‘simul hirtus aper, simul ursa lupusque j cogitur et captos contempsit cerua leones.’ Hence Housman’s bear might not have struck a Roman audience as diVering signiWcantly from the bear of the previous epigram, especially with the elision in front of accituram. For change of gender in the natural kingdom (metri causa) cf. Lucr. 5. 1310–18, cit. on Spect. 24. 7 ‘ingrato . . . urso’.

2 6 ( 2 2 þ2 3 ) Sollicitant pauidi dum rhinocerota magistri seque diu magnae colligit ira ferae, desperabantur promissi proelia Martis; sed tandem rediit cognitus ante furor. namque grauem cornu gemino sic extulit ursum, iactat ut impositas taurus in astra pilas. (23) [Norica tam certo uenabula derigit ictu fortis adhuc teneri dextera Carpophori.] ille tulit geminos facili ceruice iuuencos, illi cessit atrox bubalus atque uison: hunc leo cum fugeret praeceps in tela cucurrit. i nunc et lentas corripe, turba, moras!

5

10

HTK Tit. De rinocerotis pugna secunda HT : De rinocerote K 7–12 sep. cum tit. De carpophoro W 3 promissi K : promissa HT 4 tandem rediit (redii Vindob. 3) HTK : tamen is rediit ' 5 grauem TK : gradem H 6 inpositas vel imp- K : inposita (fortasse inpositas H) HT : obpositas Lipsius 7–8 del. Shackleton Bailey (1990) 7 Norica tam HT : Norica (Horica Vindob. 3 : Dorica W) quam K Shackleton Bailey (1990) : Norica iam Schneidewin derigit DuV : dirigit HTK 9 tulit HTK : ruit Shackleton Bailey (1978) : ferit Watt geminos om. Bonon. : add. Vindob. 3 10 illi HK : ille T 12 i W : et Bonon. Vindob. 3 : om. HT moras K : mores HT

While the trainers were nervously worrying a rhinoceros and the great beast’s temper was taking a long time to gather strength, men began to give up hope of any battles ensuing in the conXict that they had been promised. But Wnally the rage that we had known earlier returned, for he picked up a heavy bear on his double horn like a bull tossing a load of dummies to the stars. [With how sure an aim does the sturdy hand of Carpophorus, still young, launch his Norican spears!]1 He scooped up a pair of bullocks on his pliable neck, the ferocious aurochs and the bison gave in to him; a lion trying to escape from him raced full tilt into the spears: go now, spectators, and carp at sluggish delays! Introduction: A rhinoceros, initially reluctant to Wght, performs feats of strength and ferocity in the arena. This is the second appearance of a rhinoceros in the collection; given the rarity of this species, and verbal 1 I translate these lines because I believe them, although interpolated here, to have been composed by Martial elsewhere in the collection: see n. ad loc.

Epigram 26

187

correspondences between the two epigrams (see ad loc.), it is almost certainly the same animal, putting on a repeat performance. For a short history of the display of this species at Rome see Introduction to Spect. 11; for the identiWcation of this particular beast with a rhinoceros shown by Domitian, and the implications for the dating of the collection, see General Introduction, Section 6. The bestiarius Carpophorus, who is mentioned in l. 8, has appeared before in the collection (Spect. 17), and will appear again (Spect. 32); for possibilities in determining his career see Spect. 17, Introduction. The structure of this epigram conforms to the ‘incident-and-comment’ type, with the variation that the ‘incident’ is really a sequence of similar incidents: the last line appends the comment. The cohesion of the epigram is, however, problematic. It is written continuously in H, Bonon., and Vindob. 3, with a single heading at the beginning; in T it also has only one heading, but a break seems to be indicated after l. 6. In W the epigram is copied as two separate poems of six lines apiece, with the titulus ‘De rinocero(n)te’ preWxed to the Wrst and ‘De Carpophoro’ to the second; this evidence, however, only came to light in 1980: see General Introduction, Section 2. The epigram was Wrst printed in two halves by Merula (Venice, 1475), and continued to be treated as two separate epigrams until Ellis (1885: 92) argued that the theme throughout is the rhinoceros and that the two epigrams therefore are two halves of a single whole. Thereafter, even when these six couplets were treated as one poem, they retained two numbers. While the layout and separate headings in W seem to suggest that the two halves of the epigram were originally separate poems, the evidence of a single late manuscript must be taken in conjunction with other arguments for and against the integrity of the epigram. The main problems are as follows. (i) The sequence of pronouns ille (9), illi (10), and hunc (11) implies that two parties are involved: ille/illi must refer to one party, and hunc to the other. If the poem is treated as a single epigram, candidates are supplied for both parties; but which is Carpophorus, and which the rhinoceros? If ille/illi ¼ Carpophorus, ‘tulit geminos . . . iuuencos’ must be gross exaggeration, which would seem to undermine the comparison with the rhinoceros.2 But it seems very awkward to take ille/illi as the rhinoceros, since the hunc from whom the lion Xees would most naturally be identiWed as another wild animal, and the concluding sententia would seem

2 Milo of Croton was proverbially strong enough to lift a bull: cf. Quint. Inst. 1. 9. 5 (an example of a æ
Æ) ‘Milo, quem uitulum adsueuerat ferre, taurum ferebat.’ When he was a boy, Trimalchio’s family had a slave who could lift an angry bull (Petr. Sat. 63. 5): ‘habebamus tunc hominem Cappadocem, longum, ualde audaculum et qui ualebat: poterat bouem iratum tollere.’ But the feat of lifting two bullocks seems beyond human capacity.

188

Liber Spectaculorum

to require the last couplet to refer to the protagonist of the Wrst couplet. Yet, if the two halves of this poem constitute separate epigrams, only one protagonist (Carpophorus) will be identiWed for the second epigram instead of two, and the sequence ille/illi . . . hic is rendered meaningless. (ii) While the third couplet would bring the Wrst half to satisfactory closure as an independent epigram, the conclusion to the second epigram is meaningless without the introductory couplet to the Wrst poem explaining the slow start to the performance. (iii) Schneidewin (1842) was the Wrst editor to recognize that if l. 7 were the beginning of a new poem, tam would have to be emended, since there would be no previous illustration to which it could correspond. He suggested iam. Gilbert (1884: 512) objected that iam sounds as though this was Carpophorus’ Wrst success after a series of failures. He suggested quam, which now turns out to have manuscript authority (W). In his Teubner and Loeb editions Shackleton Bailey adopts quam in l. 7 (the reading of W), and treats the couplet in which Carpophorus is mentioned as an exclamation which has been interpolated from another epigram that Martial had written about him. He argues that without this couplet the train of thought in the epigram proceeds smoothly, and that in any case the reference to Carpophorus’ youth (8 ‘adhuc teneri dextera’) is meaningless in the context. The retention of these two lines would also obscure the variatio between extulit (5) and tulit (9: see ad loc.). If the couplet describing Carpophorus is deleted, ille and illi will refer to the rhinoceros, which eliminates the diYculty of ascribing to Carpophorus the feat of lifting two bullocks simultaneously. But hunc will refer to the rhinoceros also, which requires us to assume that, contrary to normal Latin usage, no change of protagonist is implied by the metrically necessary shift from ille/illi to hunc. This seems tolerable, once the ambiguity caused by the intrusion of Carpophorus is removed. The central contest featured here, between a rhinoceros and a bear, is a variation upon the popular contest between bear and bull: cf. Sen. Ira 3 (¼ Dial. 5). 43. 2 ‘uidere solemus inter matutina arenae spectacula tauri et ursi pugnam inter se colligatorum.’ Keller (1909: 179) mentions a clay lamp upon which a rhinoceros is represented confronting a bear. The traditional enemy of the rhinoceros in the wild was the elephant, a piece of lore derived from Agatharchides, De mari Erythraeo 72 Burstein ¼ Geographi Graeci Minores 159 Mueller: see Burstein ad loc. But it seems unnecessary to postulate that any lines mentioning an elephant were supplanted by the interpolation, since whatever the original poem looked like it clearly did not accommodate the supremacy of the elephant as Enemy No. 1. There is therefore no reason to suppose that an elephant featured in Martial’s list at all. For decoration from the Templum Divi Vespasiani that may commemorate the exploits of both the

Epigram 26

189

rhinoceros and Carpophorus see Rodrı´guez Almeida (1994: 197–203), discussed in the Introduction to Spect. 11. Detailed discussion: Carratello (1965b: 319–20), Rodrı´guez Almeida (1994: 197–203)

1. Sollicitant: sollicitare, ‘disturb’, commonly with worry: cf. Virg. A. 4. 379–80 (Dido, sarcastically to Aeneas, of the gods’ plans for him) ‘scilicet is superis labor est, ea cura quietos j sollicitat’; here with anger rather than worry: cf. Liv. 1. 31. 8 (the death of King Tullus) ‘ipsum regem tradunt . . . ira Iouis sollicitati praua religione fulmine ictum cum domo conXagrasse’, Sen. Suas. 5. 2 (poohpoohing Xerxes’ threat to invade Athens again if the trophies of the Persian War are not removed) ‘non denuntiaret, si uenturus esset, neque armaret nos nuntio nec instigaret uictricem Graeciam nec sollicitaret arma felicia’, OLD s.v. 4c. 2. se . . . colligit: forces and emotions gain strength while they are apparently held in check: cf. Lucr. 6. 325–6 ‘nubibus ipsa quod omnino prius incita se uis j colligit et magnum conamen sumit eundi’, Ov. AA 2. 455–6 ‘si spatium quaeras, breue sit, quod laesa queratur, j ne lenta uires colligit ira mora’, TLL iii. 1613. 47–84 (WulV). 3. The Wve plodding spondees of this line strikingly match rhythm to sense. promissi proelia Martis: for the metonymy see on Spect. 14. 1 ‘Caesareae . . . Dianae’. While the conXict could have been advertised by the emperor in his role as editor, the following line (‘sed tandem rediit cognitus ante furor’) suggests that the ‘promise’ was guaranteed by the animal’s ferocious appearance and reputation, and it may even be an allusion to the performance described in Spect. 11. 5. extulit: for ecfero in the sense ‘lift up’ cf. Cic. De orat. 1. 228 ‘quod is C. Sulpicii Galli propinqui sui Q. pupillum Wlium ipse paene in umeros suos extulisset’, TLL v/2. 145. 84–146. 17 (Bannier). 6. impositas . . . pilas: impositas implies that the pilae (dummies: see on Spect. 11. 4) were placed on the animal’s horns or draped over its head. Perhaps we should envisage a bull already decked with these irritants before it is sent into the arena. Otherwise we need a word to describe missiles, whereas impositas conveys items placed in proximity. [7. Norica . . . uenabula: Noricum (the Alpine region east of the R. Inn) was one of the principal iron deposits exploited by Rome. Trade in iron between the Romans and the local Celts goes back at least to the Wrst century bc. The region was incorporated as a client kingdom within the Roman Empire during the reign of Augustus, following operations conducted by P. Silius Nerva in Transpadana and Illyricum in 16 bc. Under Claudius it acquired the status of a province, and was entrusted to an equestrian governor. The mines were mainly situated in the area of northern Carinthia

190

Liber Spectaculorum

around the Magdalensberg: see Alfo¨ldy (1974: 43–5), Healy (1978: 64). The steel-like quality of this iron had furnished the Celts with formidable weapons, and the Romans invented a method of preparing steel from it that was adopted elsewhere in the Empire: see Forbes (1964: 203), Alfo¨ldy (1974: 113–14). Hadrian advertised it on coins bearing the reverse legend ‘met(alla) Nor(ica)’ (BMCRE iii. 533 nos. 1850–2, pl. 98 nos. 3–5). The excellence of the metal from this region became proverbial: cf. Ov. Met. 14. 711–14 (the princess Anaxarete, who was turned to stone leaning out of the window to watch her lover’s funeral-procession) ‘saeuior illa freto surgente cadentibus Haedis, j durior et ferro, quod Noricus excoquit ignis, j et saxo, quod adhuc uiuum radice tenetur, j spernit et inridet’. Martial singles out iron from Noricum as one of the types which, he patriotically claims, is surpassed by the variety mined at Bilbilis (4. 55. 11–12): ‘saeuo Bilbilin optimam metallo, j quae uincit Chalybasque Noricosque’. See further RE xvii/1. 1042–3 s.v. Noricum (E. Polaschek). derigit: although the manuscripts have dirigit, medieval scribes are not usually to be trusted to preserve the distinction between de- and di-. Here sense speaks for derigo, ‘direct in a straight line’; the di- form would mean ‘divide up and disperse in diVerent directions’.] 9. tulit: attempts to make Carpophorus the subject (see Introduction, above) have led to some strained interpretations. For example, iuuencos tulit has been interpreted as impetum iuuencorum tulit, involving the matador’s trick of looking the animal straight in the eye and then moving smartly out of its line of vision: see Friedrich (1907: 377–8). Emendation has even been attempted: before he suspected interpolation, Shackleton Bailey (1978: 273) suggested ruit (‘brought down’) for tulit. On the basis that Martial never uses ruo transitively, Watt (1984: 130) countered this suggestion with ferit. But the subject must be the rhinoceros, tulit picking up the gesture in 5, extulit ursum. The repetition of a compound verb in its simplex form to mean the same thing is an ancient Indo-European pattern: see in detail Watkins (1966). It is Wrst attested in Latin in the Twelve Tables: cf. XII Tab. 8. 12 ‘si nox furtum faxsit, si im occisit, iure caesus esto.’ Thereafter it occurs predominantly in verse authors of the Wrst century bc and later. In prose it is preserved in literature from the late Republic onwards: see Shipp (1944). It also occurs in formulaic contexts in late Latin, such as recipes for veterinary cures: see Adams (1992). It is well attested in verse: see Fraenkel (1964: 441), Clausen (1955, 1965), Renehan (1977). For another instance in Martial cf. 5. 5. 3–4 ‘domini cognoscere curas j et secreta ducis pectora nosse licet’. The change from extulit to tulit here supports Shackleton Bailey’s theory that the intervening couplet is an interpolation, since the repeated forms in this type of Wgure occur most frequently in adjacent clauses and are

Epigram 26

191

sometimes directly juxtaposed: cf. Cic. Cat. 4. 1 ‘mihi si haec condicio consulatus data est ut omnes acerbitates, omnis dolores cruciatusque perferrem, feram non solum fortiter uerum etiam libenter.’ The same idiom occurs even when the preWx of a compound verb has to be attached to a simple verb from another root: cf. Virg. A. 1. 698 ‘aurea conposuit sponda mediamque locauit’ (with Servius’ note ‘locavit collocauit’). facili ceruice: the ceruix is the (nape of the) neck: see Andre´ (1991: 70). Regardless whether they hold their heads lowered or horizontal while charging (see Introduction to Spect. 11), both species of African rhinoceros toss their victims in the same way. When the rhinoceros reaches its target, it scoops its horns towards the ground, impales its quarry, and then throws its head sharply backwards so that the victim is thrown into the air over the rhinoceros’ hindquarters to land some distance behind. facili ceruice exactly conveys the suppleness with which this apparently cumbersome animal executes its toss. facilis (‘do-able’), applied to parts of the body, conveys supple action: cf. Mart. 7. 67. 6 (an athletic woman) ‘halteras facili rotat lacerto’, TLL vi/1. 61. 22–68 (Bannier), Wray (2003: 232–3). 10. bubalus: between iuuencos and uison we should expect a reference to an animal comparable to them in size, weight, and type. Although bubalus in classical Latin was properly applied to a species of African antelope (perhaps the haartebeest), Pliny claims that ignorant people use the term bubalus in error for the urus, i.e. aurochs: cf. NH 8. 38 ‘Germania [gignit] . . . iubatosque uisontes excellentique et ui et uelocitate uros, quibus imperitum uulgus bubalorum nomen imponit, cum id gignat Africa uituli potius ceruique quadam similitudine.’ The aurochs (Bos taurus primigenius) was native to the Hercynian forest and is the ancestor of modern domestic cattle. The description oVered of uri by Caesar suggests an animal Wt to be pitted against a rhinoceros: cf. BG 6. 28 ‘hi sunt magnitudine paulo infra elephantos, specie et colore et Wgura tauri. magna uis eorum est et magna uelocitas; neque homini neque ferae quam conspexerunt parcunt.’ Hence it appears that Martial may be guilty of the error censured by Pliny. bubalus was later adopted by the Langobardi to designate the buValo: see Keller (1909: 342), RE iii/1. 992–3 s.v. Bu¨Vel (Wellmann), Toynbee (1973: 148–9). Hyde (1917–18: 242–5) identiWes Caesar’s urus with Bos primigenius, but seems to be mistaken in denying that this is the same animal as the aurochs; instead, he identiWes the aurochs with the bison. uison: Gk.  ø, Lat. uison, Germanic loan-word from the ancestor of the modern German Wisent: see Purnelle (1993). For an etymology from *wesan, ‘devour, eat voraciously’, via a lexicalization of the present participle wesand-/ *wesund-, i.e. ‘big-eater’ (hunters’ taboo), see Stiles (2004: 468–9). The bison (properly wisent, to be distinguished from the American bison, uulgo buValo)

192

Liber Spectaculorum

is the European hump-backed, shaggy-haired ox (Biso bonasus). Native to Germany, Pannonia, and Thrace, at the beginning of the twentieth century the last remaining specimens survived in Russia: see Keller (1909: 341), Hyde (1917–18: 243). Elsewhere Martial alludes to this species in captivity (9. 57. 10 ‘nec rasum cauea latus uisontis’) and pulling chariots (1. 104. 8 ‘turpes esseda quod trahunt uisontes’). It answers to Calpurnius Siculus’ vivid description of an ill-kempt, menacing-looking beast displayed in the arena (7. 60–3): ‘uidimus et tauros, quibus aut ceruice leuata j deformis scapulis torus eminet aut quibus hirtae j iactantur per colla iubae, quibus aspera mento j barba iacet tremulisque rigent palearia saetis.’ Cf. Dio 76. 1. 3–5 (bison displayed in the uenationes of Septimius Severus, ad 202)  ø
 H Ø F
r  ÆæÆæØŒe e ª ŒÆd c ZłØ. The hump and shaggy appearance that Calpurnius emphasizes correspond to a depiction on the right-hand side of the Great Hunt mosaic at Piazza Armerina, where a bovine is being manhandled by means of a rod attached between its horns (Pl. 20). From its woolly hump, its mane, its tufty legs, and its short horns this animal has been identiWed as a bison: see Mielsch (1989: 462). The beast on the mosaic is clearly being captured unharmed. It is depicted immediately behind an elephant that is being loaded on board ship, and the context suggests that the animals are being captured and transported overseas for a uenatio, presumably at Rome. The earliest epigraphic reference to the bison is an inscription on a votive altar from a sanctuary of Diana and Apollo at Montana3 in Moesia Inferior, i.e. NW Bulgaria (AE 1987, 867). It is a dedication to Diana by a tribune of the cohors I Cilicum, Ti. Claudius Ulpianus, recording a successful expedition in 147 at the behest of the governor, Ti. Claudius Saturninus (PIR2 C 1012), to capture bears and bison for an imperial uenatio. This event has been plausibly identiWed as the hunt staged by Antoninus Pius in 148 to celebrate Rome’s 900th birthday: see Velkov–Alexandrov (1988), KnoepXer (1999: 504), Epplett (2001: 212–13). The expedition comprised uexillationes of legio I Italica, legio XI Claudia, and the classis Flauia, the latter presumably involved in shipping the beasts downstream to the mouth of the Danube for the sea-voyage to Rome. Bones of bears and bison have been found in the fortress at Montana, suggesting that the animals were kept there for some time before delivery, and that many did not survive incarceration. The orthography in Martial’s manuscripts varies between u- and b-, and cannot guide us regarding his actual usage. For a trenchant summary of the 3 The Roman name was restored in 1993. From the 15th c. until 1891 it was known as Kutlovica; 1891–1944 Ferdinand; 1944–93 Mihajlovgrad. See the oYcial website: http:// www.montana.bg (in Bulgarian).

Epigram 26

193

situation cf. Lindsay (1903c: 48): ‘The correct spelling uison is retained by BACA, the later bison by AA.’ As early as the Wrst century ad a shift in pronunciation of both the labiovelar semivowel [w] and the labial consonant [b] to [Ł] (the sound spelt w in Dutch) or [b] (Spanish b/v) or [v] was reXected by graphic confusion of and : see Va¨a¨na¨nen (1981: 50), Contino (2000: 29–30), Herman (2000: 38–9, 45–7). Examples of this shift in the initial position are attested from the popular register at Pompeii (i.e. before ad 79): cf. CIL iv. 4186 ‘boco’ (¼ ‘uoco’), 4380 ‘Berus’ (¼ ‘Verus’), 4874 ‘baliat’ (¼ ‘ualeat’). By the second century, confusion between initial b and u is widely attested in inscriptions, especially in Italy: see Grandgent (1907: 133 §316, 135–6 §322). The strictures of the Appendix Probi show that the forms in u- were still regarded as the educated spelling in the later Empire: cf. App. Prob. 215 Heraeus ‘uapulo non baplo.’ Nevertheless, the acta of the Ludi Saeculares in 204 spell uison with a b-: cf. AE 1932, 70 ‘muniWcen[tia] nostra leones, lea[e], leopardi, ursi, bisontes, onagri, str[uthion]es centeni erunt.’ On the Montana inscription, however, uison is spelt with an initial u- (ll. 8– 9 ‘ursis et uison/tibus prospere captis’). This suggests that Martial 67 years earlier spelt it uison too, although we have also to reckon with regional diVerences. A quantitative study of the epigraphic record has suggested that inconsistency in the use of initial b- and u- was higher in North Africa, southern Italy, and Rome than in the rest of the Empire: see Barbarino (1978). Martial, however, was an immigrant from Spain, where the inconsistency was markedly lower, so we cannot tell to what extent his spelling was aVected by metropolitan trends, although his copyists at Rome may have been vulnerable.4 Nevertheless, the possibilities of alliteration with bubalus suggest that, regardless of the spelling, Martial may be exploiting the contemporary trend towards pronouncing the initial letter as b-. 11. hunc: variatio in the anaphora of the pronoun is determined by metrical considerations, and the perspective narrows the focus from ille to hunc. The rhinoceros is meant each time: see Introduction, above. praeceps: see on Spect. 17. 3. 12. i nunc et lentas corripe, turba, moras!: the sense of corripe moras has been disputed. Carratello (1965b: 319) suggested ‘cut short the delays’, on the analogy of Ov. Met. 9. 281–3 (Alcmene to Iole, heavily pregnant) ‘faueant tibi numina saltem j corripiantque moras, tum cum matura uocabis j

4 Modern Spanish has caught up: Leofranc Holford-Strevens mentions to me an act of vandalism perpetrated on a door at All Souls in Oxford in 1966, on which an ignorant visitor carved his name, the date, and ‘Aquı´ estubo’ (for ‘estuvo’). Two common words in Spanish that conveniently represent the distinction are burro and vaca; hence to conWrm which letter is the right spelling, one simply asks ‘donkey or cow?’

194

Liber Spectaculorum

praepositam timidis parientibus Ilithyiam.’ But the sense is rather ‘criticize’, as at Ov. Met. 6. 609–11 (Procne objecting to Philomela’s breakdown) ‘ardet et iram j non capit ipsa suam Procne Xetumque sororis j corripiens ‘‘non est lacrimis hoc’’ inquit ‘‘agendum’’ ’. This is made clear by the injunction i nunc, a colloquial strengthening of the imperative: see Huisintveld (1949: 114). This phrase is frequently employed for ironical or sarcastic eVect when issuing a challenge: cf. CLE 1136. 7 ‘i nunc et quicquam uotis melioribus opta’, Mart. 1. 42. 6 (on Portia, who committed suicide by swallowing burning coals) ‘i nunc et ferrum, turba molesta, nega!’, 2. 6. 1 and 17 (to Severus, who does not read the volume that Martial sends him) ‘i nunc, edere me iube libellos’, H–Sz 471. lentus, properly of sluggish substances, is used in a transferred sense of actions and situations, especially mora: cf. Ov. Her. 3. 137–8 ‘respice sollicitam Briseida, fortis Achille, j nec miseram lenta ferreus ure mora’, Cels. 1. 3. 12 (therapy for people in sedentary occupations) ‘lente ambulandum est. lenta quoque in balineo mora, dein cena exigua prodesse consuerunt’, Mart. 7. 93. 3–4 ‘quid tam saepe meum nobis abducere Quintum j te iuuat et lenta detinuisse mora?’, TLL vii/2. 1164. 41–1165. 3 (Collassero). turba is commonly used of spectators at a show: cf. Mart. 5. 8. 9 (the audience at the theatre), 7. 7. 9 (spectators at the circus), 9. 68. 8 (gladiatorial fans), 13. 99. 2 (spectators indicating missio by Xapping their togas).

2 7 ( 2 4) Si quis ades longis serus spectator ab oris, cui lux prima sacri muneris ista fuit, ne te decipiat ratibus naualis Enyo et par unda fretis: hic modo terra fuit. non credis? specta, dum lassant aequora Martem: parua mora est, dices ‘hic modo pontus erat.’

5

HTK Tit. De naumachia priore HT : De naumachia K 2 ipsa K (prima 3 ne ' : nec HTK . . . ipsa Bonon:ac ): ista HT sacri HK : sacris T 5 specta HT : spectes K

If you have arrived late from distant shores to watch this show, and this was your Wrst day at the sacred spectacle, don’t let the naval warfare deceive you with its craft, and the water that is just like the sea: here a short while ago there was land. You don’t believe it? Watch, while the waters wear Mars out. After a brief delay you will say, ‘Here just now there was sea.’ Introduction: This epigram is the Wrst in a series describing aquatic displays (Spect. 27–30, 34). One describes a naval battle that was explicitly staged on Augustus’ stagnum in Trastevere instead of in the amphitheatre (Spect. 34. 1– 2): ‘Augusti labor hic fuerat committere classes j et freta nauali sollicitare tuba.’ Our epigram also describes a naval engagement: cf. 3 ‘ne te decipiat ratibus naualis Enyo’. But this engagement cannot have taken place on Augustus’ stagnum, because the point of our epigram is that the venue was converted rapidly from land to water and back again. It is clear that Martial is putting forward this paradox as one of the amazing properties of the amphitheatre to which a latecomer has made his way, ignorant of the nature of the spectacle being performed there. It is seminal to his purpose that the technical ingenuity that creates this apparent marvel is not explained: see Moretti (1992: 60). The locus classicus for the IÆ of converting land into sea and vice versa is Xerxes.1 The contrast is made explicit in an epigram attributed to Seneca, De Atho monte (Anth. Lat. 461 R ¼ 459 SB), alluding to the tunnel through Mt. Athos and the bridge over the Hellespont: Xerxes’ army sails through a mountain and marches over the sea. These paradoxes are developed in a series of four couplets addressed to a hypothetical tourist (cf. 1 cernis) and culminating in words put into Xerxes’ mouth in oratio recta: 1 Useful comparanda are collected by Ellis on Cat. 66. 45.

196

Liber Spectaculorum Hic, quem cernis, Athos inmissis peruius undis Xexibus obliquis circumeundus erat. accepit magno deductum Nerea Xuctu perque latus misit maxima bella suum. sub tanto subitae sonuerunt pondere classes; 5 caeruleus cana sub niue pontus erat. idem commisit longo duo litora ponte Xerses, et fecit per mare miles iter. quale fuit regnum, mundo noua ponere iura! ‘hoc terrae (Scaliger: terra V) Wat, hoc mare’ dixit: erat. 10

The paradox is more striking in Martial because one spot undergoes a double conversion, from land to sea and back again, neatly expressed by the anaphora modo . . . modo (4–6). In his account of the inaugural spectacles Dio speciWcally distinguishes a naval engagement that was staged in the Flavian amphitheatre (ŁÆæ ½Œı ª
ØŒ ) from one that was staged on Augustus’ stagnum; the preceding section in his narrative ends with a sentence attesting the ‘Xooding’ of the arena, and describes domestic animals performing dressage in the water (Dio 66. 25. 2–3): e ªaæ ŁÆæ ÆPe KŒ
E oÆ KÆ  º æ Æ K ªÆª
b ŒÆd ¥ı ŒÆd Ææı ŒÆd ¼ººÆ Øa 
ØæŁ , 
ØƪÆ Ł ‹ Æ Kd B ªB æ
Ø ŒÆd K fiH ªæfiH, K ªÆª
b ŒÆd IŁæı Kd ºø. (3) ŒÆd yØ b KŒ
E, ‰ ƒ b ˚
æŒıæÆEØ ƒ b ˚æŁØØ Z
, KÆı

Æ, ¼ººØ b ø K fiH ¼º
Ø fiH F ˆÆı F 
¸ıŒı, ‹ 
› `hªı  K ÆPe F TæÆ. Titus had suddenly Wlled this same theatre with water, and he had brought in horses and bulls and other domesticated animals that had been taught to do in water everything that they could do on land. He also brought in people on ships; (3) they engaged in a naval battle there representing the Corcyreans and the Corinthians. Others gave a similar display outside the city in the grove of Gaius and Lucius, which Augustus had once excavated for this purpose.

Since KŒ
E at the beginning of section 3 refers to the amphitheatre, the naval battle between Corcyra and Corinth that Dio says was enacted there could be the engagement that Martial alludes to as naualis Enyo in our epigram (l. 3).2 In conformity with the Roman practice of re-enacting naval battles from the Greek world that are either historically attested or historically plausible,3 Titus’ display in the amphitheatre evidently replicated an event that precipitated the Peloponnesian War, the battle between Corcyra and Corinth in 435 2 So Coleman (1993: 60–1), on the assumption that the entire collection celebrates the inauguration under Titus. 3 Coleman (1993: 69).

Epigram 27

197

bc: see General Introduction, Section 6. But Domitian also held a naval battle in the amphitheatre (Suet. Dom. 4. 1 ‘at in amphitheatro nauale [proelium] quoque’), and so we cannot be sure which one Martial is describing. The nature of this event must have been determined by the limitations imposed by the structure of the amphitheatre. On the probable conWguration of the hypogeum when the building was inaugurated, and its capacity for staging aquatic displays, see General Introduction, Section 7. But for our epigram other considerations are also pertinent. First of all, a full-size trireme, 35 m long and nearly 5 m wide, would not have Wtted through any of the entrances.4 Nor is it likely that triremes could have been constructed in the arena itself, since this would have interrupted the sequence of performances that apparently took place there continuously. In any case, action involving full-scale triremes would have comprised a very limited spectacle. A trireme with its oars extended occupied a space 10 m wide, and so in an elliptical arena whose axes measured 54.3  87.3 m there would hardly have been room for more than two triremes to manoeuvre simultaneously. Such an engagement would have constituted no more than a symbolic battle, whereas the Romans’ taste for realism would seem to have demanded something more vigorous. Hence it seems far more likely that miniature triremes were employed, manned (obviously) by smaller crews than full-scale craft, but nevertheless aVording real Wghting-power and deadly combat. In this epigram Martial adopts the perspective of a member of the audience. He imagines a latecomer arriving at an aquatic spectacle in the Flavian amphitheatre, and oVers some information about it that the foreigner refuses to believe. In response he predicts that soon the foreigner will be asserting a claim that vindicates Martial’s own position. The epigram therefore employs an anonymous interlocutor as a catalyst for the point that Martial wants to make. The anonymous addressee is a familiar strategy in funerary epigram, applicable also in other contexts. Catullus, for example, addresses his anonymous readers in the three surviving hendecasyllables of what looks like an introductory poem (14b): ‘Si qui forte mearum ineptiarum j lectores eritis manusque uestras j non horrebitis admouere nobis’. The anonymous addressee is less frequent in Martial than a named interlocutor. An example from a funerary context occurs in an epitaph for the pantomime Paris; here, as in our epigram, the interlocutor is warned oV a particular action or assumption (11. 13. 1–3, 7): ‘Quisquis Flaminiam teris, uiator, j noli nobile praeterire marmor. j urbis deliciae salesque Nili . . . hoc sunt condita, quo Paris, sepulchro.’ For further examples in Martial cf. 1. 2 (to a potential

4 For a scale model see Morrison–Coates–Rankov (2000: 208 Wg. 61).

198

Liber Spectaculorum

reader), 1. 40 (to a detractor), 7. 63 (to a reader of Silius’ Punica), 11. 16 (to a prudish reader), Siedschlag (1977: 16). Direct speech is a familiar technique of closure in Greek epigram: among many famous examples cf. Callim. Epigr. 28 PfeiVer (¼ HE Callim. 2). 5–6 ¸ı Æ , f b ÆØd ŒÆºe ŒÆºe------Iººa æd
N
E j F ÆH ˙ , 

 Ø ‘‘¼ºº 
Ø:’’ This technique is only occasionally employed by Martial’s predecessors writing in Latin: cf. Cat. 53 (approval of Calvus’ oratory is attributed to a member of the audience), Priap. 43 (Priapus puts words into the mouth of a female devotee), 45 (criticism of a catamite is put into Priapus’ mouth), Sen. Epigr. 9 (¼ Anth. Lat. 399 R ¼ 395 SB). 4–8 (Cato, to his suicidal hand), 24 (¼ Anth. Lat. 415 R ¼ 413 SB). 63–6 (Spes, addressing a clashing army), 68 (¼ Anth. Lat. 461 R ¼ 459 SB). 10 (Xerxes, cit. above; see also on l. 6, below). For a comparison of this technique in Greek epigram and in Martial see Siedschlag (1977: 106–10). For instances in Martial where the closing remark is given to an anonymous interlocutor cf. 2. 75. 9–10 (anonymous comment on the lion that mauled two slaves raking sand in the arena), 10. 31. 5–6 (a particularly sophisticated example, in that the anonymous comment criticizes the addressee of the epigram, Calliodorus, who sells a slave to buy extravagant fare for a dinner-party). Sometimes direct speech at the close of an epigram is ascribed to a named individual who is introduced for that purpose and is therefore tantamount to an anonymous interlocutor: cf. 5. 4. 6 (‘Paulus’ sees through Myrtale’s attempts to disguise her hangover with breath-freshener). In our epigram the anonymity of the addressee reinforces the impression that the aquatic installation in the arena looks so natural as to deceive onlookers; a named addressee could not convey this impression of a widespread reaction. Here Martial extends this technique of closure to construct a dialogue with the interlocutor who will utter the closing remark. He employs the same technique at 4. 42, listing the features he looks for in young boys: the reiterated vocative Flacce (2, 8) creates the impression that Martial and his addressee are engaged in a conversation, and the epigram culminates in a prediction (dices) of the exact words that Flaccus will utter to endorse Martial’s views (15–16). In our epigram the concluding quotation itself quotes Martial’s own statement two lines earlier, with the crucial substitution of the sea for the land, thereby conveying the doubly deceptive nature of the installations in the arena: when it is Xooded it is impossible to believe that it was previously terra Wrma, and vice versa.5 For closure by means of direct speech that quotes an 5 This rhetorical Xourish, naturally, glosses over the practical diVerences between a spectacle performed on the arena Xoor (i.e. immediately below the podium wall, and hence fully visible to virtually all the spectators) and one performed in the depths of the hypogeum (when the view, at

Epigram 27

199

earlier authorial statement cf. 4. 89. 1–2, 8–9 (ring-composition eVecting closure for a whole book) ‘Ohe, iam satis est, ohe, libelle, j iam peruenimus usque ad umbilicos . . . iam librarius hoc et ipse dicit j ‘‘ohe, iam satis est, ohe, libelle. ’’ ’ Detailed discussion: Moretti (1992: 60), Coleman (1993: 60–2)

1. Si quis ades longis serus spectator ab oris: in this formulation (si quis þ a verb in the second person) the indeWnite pronoun is in apposition to the subject expressed within the verb: cf. Anth. Lat. 500 R ‘Si quis habens nummos uenies, exibis inanis’, H–Sz 412. For similar vocabulary to express a late arrival from distant regions cf. Val. Fl. 2. 561–4 (Laomedon claiming kinship with Hercules, who has reached Troy on the Argo) ‘sator unus et idem j stirpis honos, quamquam longis disiungimur oris. j quot mihi post lacrimas, post quanta piacula patrum j serus ades’. Martial’s hyperbaton suggests vast distance and epic toil: cf. Cat. 101. 1 (the pilgrimage to his brother’s tomb) ‘Multas per gentes et multa per aequora uectus’, with Virgil’s imitation at A. 6. 692–3 (Anchises to Aeneas) ‘quas ego te terras et quanta per aequora uectum j accipio!’ 2. lux prima sacri muneris: for lux ¼ ‘day’ cf. 9. 52. 4–5 (Martial’s own birthday and that of his friend Q. Ovidius) ‘felix utraque lux diesque nobis j signandi melioribus lapillis!’, TLL vii/2. 1911. 51–1912. 11 (Ehlers). As with numen (see on Spect. 33. 7), sacer, ‘under divine protection’, is Wrst associated with the emperor by Ovid (with reference to the imperial domus: F. 6. 810, Pont. 4. 6. 20). It is used frequently by Martial and Statius as an epithet for Domitian; whether Martial uses it also of Titus depends upon the date of those epigrams in Spect. in which it appears (i.e. this one and 33), a question that currently admits no deWnitive answer. It is applied to: physical attributes of the emperor, e.g. pectus (7. 1. 4); abstract qualities associated with him, e.g. numen and potestas (Spect. 33. 7), nomen (Epigr. 8 praef. 15); and manifestations of his wealth and patronage, e.g. domus (5. 1. 85–6). In this last category belong muniWcent events of god-like generosity, including gladiatorial displays (our example) and banquets. Compare Statius’ allusions to the cena hosted by Domitian at which he was present: Silu. 4 praef. 5–6 ‘primo autem septimum decimum Germanici nostri consulatum adoraui; secundo gratias egi sacratissimis eius epulis honoratus’ (with Coleman’s n.), 4. 2. 5 ‘sacrae . . . noua gaudia cenae’, Sauter (1934: 105–16, on sacer/sanctus), Scho¨Vel (2002: 75 n. 5).

least for the spectators at the front, would probably have been somewhat compromised): see General Introduction, n. 151

200

Liber Spectaculorum

3. naualis Enyo: by a common metonymy the name of the god stands for the concept associated with that deity: cf. Anth. Lat. 461 R ¼ 459 SB, l. 3 (quoted in the Introduction, above: Nereus ¼ ‘the sea’), Haupt (1876: 173). At Il. 5. 592 Enyo ( ¯ı) is an attendant accompanying Ares. In Greek literature she is regularly associated with him in various capacities, as mother, daughter, or nurse. The Greeks identiWed Bellona with her, so that Dio refers to the temple of Bellona in Rome as  ¯ı
E (42. 26). In pictorial representations she blends indistinguishably with Athena, Bellona, and the Anatolian goddess Ma: see Roscher i. 251–2 s.v. Enyo (Schultz), RE v/2. 2654–5 s.v. Enyo I (O. Waser), LIMC iii/1. 746–7 s.v. Enyo I (Ruth Michael Gais). 4. fretis: fretum, strictly a narrow strait, hence denotes the churning sea: cf. the paronomasia at Apul. Apol. 31 (marine deities) ‘ab aestibus fretorum ad aestus amorum transferentur’, TLL vi/1. 1314. 66–1315. 26 (Rubenbauer). The ancient etymologists connected the word with feruere: cf. Varr. LL 7. 22 ‘dictum fretum ab similitudine feruentis aquae, quod in fretum saepe concurrat aestus atque eVeruescat’, Suet. Prata fr. (p. 304 l. 36–p. 305 l. 1 Roth ¼ Isid. De natura rerum 44. 2) ‘fretum angustum, quasi feruens mare, ut Siculum et Gaditanum’, Porph. on Hor. O. 2. 13. 14 ‘freta a feruore dicta existimantur’, Serv. on Aen. 1. 557 ‘freta autem quia freto a Sicilia diuiditur Italia; sane quidam a feruore dici putant’, 607 ‘proprie fretum est mare naturaliter mobile ab undarum feruore nominatum.’ It is the right word to evoke the conWned waters where ancient naval battles usually took place. hic modo terra fuit: Nero had been admired for the rapidity with which he ‘Xooded’ and ‘drained’ his amphitheatre: for a re-enactment of the battle of Salamis it was ‘suddenly’ Wlled with water (KÆ ), and then after the performance it was ‘immediately’ drained (
PŁ), so as to stage a massed gladiatorial engagement (Dio 61. 9. 5); the same speed is attested when Nero ‘Xooded’ and ‘drained’ the amphitheatre in 64 for a naumachia and subsequent gladiatorial display (Dio 62. 15. 1): see Coleman (1993: 56–7). modo Xags the context of metamorphosis: see Bo¨mer on Ov. Met. 5. 569, Hinds (1987: 93–4). Here the reiterated modo (cf. l. 6) signals a further Ovidian cast to the miraculous change of ‘land’ into ‘sea’ and back again, echoing two famous contexts from the Metamorphoses, Deucalion’s Xood (Met. 1. 314–15 ‘terra ferax dum terra fuit, sed tempore in illo j pars maris et latus subitarum campus aquarum’) and the evaporation of the sea in the conXagration caused by Phaethon’s accident (Met. 2. 262–3 ‘et mare contrahitur siccaeque est campus harenae, j quod modo pontus erat ’). These allusions can be interpreted as part of the appropriation of grand mythological dimensions by imperial spectacle and the facilities of the amphitheatre: see Hinds (2007).

Epigram 27

201

5–6. For the punctuation (a colon at the end of l. 5 and a comma after ‘parua mora est’, instead of the other way round) see Gilbert (1883: 13). 5. lassant aequora Martem: apart from a dubious attestation among the fragments of early tragedy (trag. inc. 241 Ribbeck ‘diui potentes, ferte lassatis opem’), lassare is Wrst favoured in the Augustan age, viz. by the elegists, by Ovid (including instances in the Metamorphoses), and by the elder Seneca. It remains largely conWned to poetry of the higher registers, including epic. Virgil, however, does not use it, although he does use lassus, which is similarly avoided in classical prose: see Axelson (1945: 29–30). The eVect of lassant here, combined with the metonymy (see below), is elevated. Similarly grandiose is its occurrence in an epigram by Martial complimenting Domitian on his exploits in the frozen North: cf. 4. 3. 5 ‘sidus Hyperborei solitus lassare Bootae’. For lassare in the context of the exhausting eVects of toiling at sea, cf. Stat. Theb. 6. 799 ‘longa uagos lassarunt aequora nautas.’ Martem balances Enyo (3), although the Wgure here is not personiWcation but a type of metonymy: Mars ¼ ‘warriors’ (i.e. those taking part in the mock battle). On a literal level it is a nice conceit that the god of war is exhausted; normally it is the protagonists who are worn out by warfare. 6. parua mora est, dices: the asyndeton reXects the speed with which the water disappears. Martial makes no overt allusion to the emperor, but his agency is implied in the reversal of nature and in the superhuman eYciency with which this is accomplished. Compare the admiration for the fabled celeritas of Julius Caesar, who brooked no delay from rivers (Suet. Iul. 57): ‘longissimas uias incredibili celeritate confecit . . . si Xumina morarentur, nando traiciens uel innixus inXatis utribus, ut persaepe nuntios de se praeuenerit.’ Hinds (2007) suggests that dices does double duty here, not only introducing the closural feature of direct speech (see Introduction, above) but hinting also at the Ovidian quotation that is put into the mouth of the astonished latecomer (see on 4 ‘hic modo terra fuit’).

28 (25) Quod nocturna tibi, Leandre, pepercerit unda, desine mirari: Caesaris unda fuit. HRK cum sequenti in HR coniunctum sep. K 1 nocturna HRW Bonon. : nocitura Vindob. 3

Tit. De Leandro HRK

Stop marvelling that the night’s wave spared you, Leander: it was Caesar’s wave. Introduction: The story of Hero and Leander, Wrst attested in Latin at Virg. G. 3. 258–63, is probably derived from a Hellenistic original that is believed to be preserved in the recently discovered fragments of a papyrus from Hermopolis dating from the fourth or Wfth century ad (Suppl. Hell. 901A): see Maehler (1986). Until Hero’s role was emphasized by Ovid (Her. 18–19), it was Leander who—as here—received the focus of attention: see Kenney (1998: 69–71). Details vary, but the kernel of the story is that Leander swam secretly across the Hellespont from Abydos to Sestos every night to visit Hero in deWance of her father’s opposition, only to be drowned one night in a storm. In our epigram and its companion-piece (Spect. 29) the story is pared down to these essentials. The myth is embroidered in a late antique ‘epyllion’ by Musaeus running to 343 hexameters. Comparison of the independent versions of the myth by Virgil and Musaeus demonstrates that the storm that drowned Leander was present in their common source. This was probably the Hellenistic poem mentioned above: the surviving fragments include the phrase Y Æ

EÆ ŁÆº

, i.e. (if ŁÆº

 is an objective genitive with 
EÆ) ‘terrors of the sea’—surely an allusion to the storm. For further discussion see Kenney (1998: 68–9). The myth is also treated in Greek epigram, although not as economically as in Martial. In some instances it is recounted in greater circumstantial detail: cf. AP 7. 666 ¼ GP Antipater of Thessalonica 11, AP 9. 381 (a Homeric cento). In others it is cited as an exemplum for rhetorical eVect: cf. AP 5. 263 Agathias (on the erotic signiWcance of a lamp), 5. 293 Paulus Silentiarius (to Agathias, studying law on the other side of the Bosphorus), 9. 215 Antipater of Macedonia (on a woman who drowns in the Hellespont en route to meet her Wance´). For more detail see Roscher ii. 1919–20 s.v. Leandros (Weizsa¨cker), and for the iconography LIMC viii/1. 619–23 s.v. Hero et Leander (Anneliese Kossatz-Deissmann). This epigram and the next one form a thematic pair comparable to Spect. 4–5 (the parade of the delatores), 18–19 (the ‘Xying’ bull), and 24–5 (the fate

Epigram 28

203

of ‘Orpheus’). Just as the manuscript tradition conXates Spect. 4 and 5, so 28 and 29 are joined together in H and R, although the witnesses to K separate them. But, as with the other thematic pairs, the terminal sententia in each epigram makes it clear that they are independent poems. The Ovidian reminiscences in both these sententiae (see ad loc.) have been interpreted as a signal that the epigrams are to be read together, thereby endorsing the antithetical relationship of the unconventional performance of the myth on the one hand (Spect. 28) and the traditional narrative version on the other (Spect. 29): see Weinreich (1928: 50). To make this relationship clear, the structure and purpose of Spect. 29 will be discussed here rather than in the Introduction to that poem. Spect. 29 makes no explicit reference to a performance. Furthermore, it bears a marked similarity to an epigram in the Apophoreta (14. 181) on a Leandros marmoreus: see Introduction ad loc. Because of this similarity, and because Spect. 29 makes no reference to a spectacle, Friedla¨nder (1886: i. 136) argued that 29 was inserted into an enlarged edition of the Liber spectaculorum later on.1 In response Prinz (1926–7: 97–8) argued that such an insertion could not have been an authorial intervention, since Spect. 29 does not mention a spectacle; he suggested instead that either (i) 29 was a youthful composition later included in the collection by Q. Pollius Valerianus, the person said to have collected Martial’s juvenilia (1. 113. 5–6), or (ii) it is an anonymous reworking of 14. 181 on the Leander statue that was copied into an exemplar of the Liber spectaculorum as a parallel to illustrate the theme of Leander’s swim and then became conXated with Spect. 28. The absence of explicit reference to a spectacle in Spect. 29, however, does not prove that it could not have been juxtaposed by Martial with an epigram (28) that explicitly refers to a performance of Leander’s swim, since in other pairs the context of a spectacle is only made explicit in the Wrst element in the pair: cf. Spect. 4–5, on the parade of delatores in the arena.2 The second epigram is appended to the Wrst, not as a description of the spectacle, but as a comment upon the circumstances. The similarity between Spect. 29 and 14. 181, however, could suggest that the pair in Spect. is contemporary with the epigram in the Apophoreta, in which case ‘Leander’ must have performed his swim during the reign of Domitian; still, verbal echoes in Martial’s epigrams, as observed by Friedla¨nder (1886: i. 137), can occur at intervals of several years, so that simultaneous composition is not an inevitable deduction. 1 For a similar argument based upon another poem in the Apophoreta (14. 53, on a Xask of rhinoceros horn) see General Introduction, Section 6, and Spect. 11, Introduction. 2 Friedla¨nder (1886: i. 137) concedes that sequences of epigrams could just as well be original elements composed to honour ‘Caesar’.

204

Liber Spectaculorum

Herrmann (1962: 500), followed by Salanitro (1983: 66–8), suggested that Spect. 28 and 29 be reversed and joined together as one epigram to follow the chronological sequence of the scenario, i.e. although ‘Leander’ was prepared to drown on his return journey (Spect. 29), the magnanimity of the emperor saved him (Spect. 28). We have already seen (General Introduction, Section 5) that the juxtaposition of separate epigrams on a single theme is an epigrammatic feature that is employed several times in this collection; the variatio displayed in such treatment would be lost if the epigrams were collapsed into one. The order of Spect. 28–9 could, however, be reversed without joining them together; this would conform to Martial’s practice of following a longer and more explicit epigram with a cryptic couplet that depends for its impact upon information conveyed in its companion-piece: cf. Spect. 4–5, Lausberg (1982: 372). But it seems to me that such an inversion here would destroy the sequence whereby the narrative of the unconventional spectacle is followed by a commentary in the form of the traditional version of the myth, and so the transmitted order should be retained.3 The reference to Caesaris unda (2) in our epigram makes it incontestable that Leander’s swim was staged as a spectacle, although it is not easy to see how such a display could have matched the suspense and thrill associated with the other displays in the series. In conformity with the myth, it may have been staged after dark. It is suggested by Prinz (1926–7: 94 n. 1) that the venue was Augustus’ stagnum, which was 532 m long, nearly seven times the length of the major axis of the Flavian amphitheatre (86 m). Two lengths of the stagnum would approach the distance from Sestos to Abydos (7 stades, i.e. 1,300 m) and hence correspond to Leander’s fabled swim. This explanation is predicated on the assumption that the key element in the enactment was the distance covered. Such an endurance test, however, would seem to lack spectacular appeal, and the distances involved would have made it diYcult for the spectators to see Leander’s progress, especially if the enactment were staged at night in a pool where the only illumination was around the edge. Although it is possible to envisage Xoating buoys supporting Xares, torches consisting of containers of pitch attached to brackets around the podium wall may have been more practicable. This is presumably how we are to interpret the evidence for amphitheatres that could host nocturnal displays: cf. CIL x. 854–7 ¼ ILS 5653a–e (Wve examples from the podium wall in the amphitheatre at Pompeii) ‘pro lud(is) lum(inibus)’. At Lanuvium, probably no later 3 Inversion of the order, but retention of the two elements as separate epigrams, was advocated (mistakenly, as I now think) by Coleman (1993: 62). Carratello (1989: 288) protests strongly against interfering with the order as preserved in the manuscripts.

Epigram 28

205

than the age of Augustus, a certain M. Valerius staged illuminated games in an unspeciWed venue (possibly the forum): cf. CIL xiv. 2121 ¼ ILS 5683 ¼ EAOR iv, no. 27 (Lanuvium) ‘gladiatores dedit, lumina ludos . . . solus fecit’, Ville (1981: 202–3). On the island of Ebusus (modern Ibiza) a legacy provided for annual ludi . . . cum uas(is) lum(inum) on the benefactor’s birthday (CIL ii. 3664 ¼ ILS 6960); in the extant portion of the inscription no venue is named. Caligula had reputedly illuminated the whole city for the scaenici ludi that he put on by night (Suet. Calig. 18. 2), and it must have been in the Flavian amphitheatre that Domitian hosted gladiatorial displays and uenationes by artiWcial light (‘noctibus ad lychnuchos’, Suet. Dom. 4. 1) and the cena that Statius says continued in brightly illuminated darkness (‘uixdum caerula nox subibat orbem . . . conlucet polus ignibus nihilque j obscurae patitur licere nocti’, Silu 1. 6. 85–90).4 On nocturnal displays see the general discussion in SG ii. 15–16. Are we to envisage ‘Leander’ swimming in Augustus’ stagnum or the Flavian amphitheatre? Visibility, especially in the dark, seems to argue for the amphitheatre; the oblique sight-lines into the hypogeum5 might even have increased the suspense, as ‘Leander’ disappeared from sight or came into view, depending upon where a spectator was sitting. If the venue for the display described in Spect. 30 were not so uncertain (see Introduction ad loc.), we could argue that our epigram and its companion are transmitted between Martial’s account of two displays for which the amphitheatre would seem to be the best venue (i.e. Spect. 27 and 30). But, still, the sequence comprising Spect. 27–30 seems to be set apart from the one epigram that is speciWcally associated with Augustus’ stagnum (Spect. 34), and this may tell in favour of the amphitheatre as the venue for Leander’s swim: see General Introduction, Section 5. It has been suggested that, in order to lend suspense to Leander’s swim in such comparatively cramped quarters, either he was furnished with a handicap by having weights attached to his body, or else a hazard such as a crocodile might have been introduced: see Coleman (1993: 63). But the clemency ascribed to Caesaris unda (2) perhaps suggests, rather, that the dramatic suspense was created by the simulation of a storm whipping up the water. The bouleversement of a standard feature in the received tradition is exploited in some of the other mythological spectacles in the series: see Carratello (1965a: 132), Coleman (1990: 65). Here Martial makes panegyric capital out of this astonishing reversal by ascribing it to the emperor’s miraculous 4 Hence Dau (1887: 24–5) suggests that our epigram is to be dated to the reign of Domitian: see General Introduction, Section 6. 5 See General Introduction, Section 7.

206

Liber Spectaculorum

power over nature.6 Not merely humans and animals, but even the ‘sea’ (artiWcial as it is) succumbs to the emperor’s clementia: see Moretti (1992: 62). This imperial power over nature is a conceit that Martial employs periodically to flatter the emperor (securely identified in the numbered books with Domitian): cf. 1. 14. 5–6 ‘unde potest auidus captae leo parcere praedae? j sed tamen esse tuus dicitur: ergo potest’, 4. 74. 4 ‘uis, Caesar, dammis parcere? mitte canes’, Weinreich (1928: 48). As in Spect. 7 and 18, the structure of this epigram conforms to the quod— non—sed type, which Martial in a tour de force compresses into a single couplet. The negative element that sets up the denouement is here replaced by the expression of incredulity, desine mirari (2): see Siedschlag (1977: 69). Detailed discussion: Prinz (1926–7: 94–8), Weinreich (1928: 48–51), Salanitro (1983: 65–8), Carratello (1989: 287–8), Moretti (1992: 62), Coleman (1993: 62–3)

1. nocturna . . . unda: the use of the adjective with adverbial force evokes the style of high poetry: see Lo¨fstedt (1956: 368–70). Its position is normal for an emphatic adjective used in place of an adverb: cf. Virg. A. 5. 868 ‘ipse ratem nocturnis rexit in undis’. Leandre: on Martial’s adoption of the Greek inXection -æ for Leander’s name see on Spect. 29. 1 ‘audax Leandros’. In our instance the vocative termination -er would be metrically impossible. Hence the necessity of using the vocative form Leandre here may have inXuenced the use of the nominative at 29. 1, where Leander would have Wtted the metre just as well.7 The length of the Wrst syllable requires comment. Le¯andros in Latin apparently corresponds to ¸
Ææ at AP 5. 263 (Agathias Scholasticus), 293 (Paulus Silentiarius), 7. 666 (¼ GP Antip. Thess. 11). The name is spelt ¸Ææ at AP 5. 232 (Paulus Silentiarius), and in the heading to AP 9. 381. Musaeus uses both forms. At Suppl. Hell. 951 he is ¸
ÆÆæ; both ¸Ææ and ¸Ææ are attested as real names, according as the word for ‘people’ is epichorically ºÆ  or º
. Leofranc Holford-Strevens suggests that ¸
Ææ looks like an artiWcial form created to enlarge the metrical possibilities of the name; since in Hellenistic Greek antevocalic
Ø is often written , perhaps there was a pseudo-Ionic ¸Ææ extracted from ¸Ææ. 6 The agency ascribed to unda as the subject of pepercerit in the hexameter prepares for the revelation in the pentameter that the emperor is behind this reversal of the expected pattern: see Lausberg (1982: 370). 7 Note Martial’s preference for Greek inXections even in non-Greek names: cf. Bilbilin (at line-end at 1. 49. 3; before a vowel at 4. 55. 11, 10. 104. 6), Peterin (4. 55. 18). Renn (1889: 64–5) argues unconvincingly in support of Peterim, contrasting ‘das weicher klingende Bilbilis’ with ‘das rauhere Peteris’.

Epigram 28

207

pepercerit: cf. parcite in the corresponding epigram describing the conventional version of the myth (Spect. 29. 4). The concept of a provisional reprieve that becomes permanent through the emperor’s agency is the motif that links the two epigrams: see Weinreich (1928: 50). 2. desine mirari: an imperative of desino þ inWnitive is a common periphrasis for a prohibition (H–Sz 337), especially—but not exclusively— in poetry: cf. the pseudo-sollemnity of Hor. Serm. 1. 2. 78 ‘desine matronas sectarier’. The locution is common on tombstones in injunctions to cease mourning: see Grewing on Mart. 6. 89. 8. Given the context here, an echo of a funerary phrase would add a piquant Xavour, although desine (ad)mirari is such a familiar phrase in its own right that it is hard to tell whether the funerary echo would be audible to a contemporary audience. In combination with (ad)mirari the formulation is found in both prose and verse (including epigram) from the late Republic down to late Antiquity: cf. Mart. 6. 89. 8 (same position in pentameter and epigram), CLE 1049. 2, TLL v/1. 726. 57–61 (Tafel). Once again, the Ovidian colouring is strong: of all the instances in Augustan poetry of a quod clause with mirari or a cognate word, two come from Propertius and seven from Ovid: cf. Prop. 2. 3. 35–6 ‘mirabar quod’, 2. 26B. 21–2 ‘admirentur quod’, Ov. Am. 1. 4. 7–8 ‘desine mirari . . . quod’ (with McKeown’s n.), F. 3. 503 ‘quod . . . mirum facis’, Her. 16. 153 ‘miror quod’, Met. 2. 858–9 ‘miratur . . . quod’, 12. 165–6 ‘mirabile . . . quod’, 13. 913–15 ‘admiratur . . . quod’, Tr. 1. 1. 45 ‘quod . . . mirabitur’. For a comparable couplet addressing the protagonist of a myth that is enacted contrary to the story cf. Spect. 10 (to Daedalus, pursued by a bear). Caesaris unda fuit: cf. Ov. F. 3. 702 (second hemiepes) ‘Caesaris umbra fuit’, also in a context involving rescue from death (Vesta is describing how she saved Julius Caesar from his assassins’ weapons by putting in his place ‘simulacra . . . nuda’).

2 9 ( 2 5b ) Cum peteret dulces audax Leandros amores et fessus tumidis iam premeretur aquis, sic miser instantes adfatus dicitur undas: ‘parcite dum propero, mergite dum redeo.’ HRK cum praecedenti in HR coniunctum sep. K Tit. De eodem Bonon. Vindob. 3 : om. W 1 Leandros H: Leandrus RK 2 om. W 4 dum redeo RK: cum redeo H

When Leander in his daring was on the way to his sweetheart and, in his exhaustion, was already being overwhelmed by the swelling waters, the poor fellow is said to have addressed the towering waves as follows: ‘Spare me while I am on the way there, drown me on the way back.’ Introduction: For the relationship between this epigram and the preceding couplet see Spect. 28, Introduction. This poem furnishes an interesting contrast with its condensed version at 14. 181 Leandros marmoreus:1 Clamabat tumidis audax Leandros in undis: ‘mergite me, Xuctus, cum rediturus ero.’ These two poems share similar epigrammatic features.2 In both versions the quotation of Leander’s words conveys the two essential elements of his role in the myth: his infatuation with Hero and his reckless disregard for his own life. Quotation of the protagonist is a natural technique of closure in a mythological narrative: see Siedschlag (1977: 108–9).3 The reference to the direction of Leander’s journey, which is explicit in our epigram, has to be inferred from his words in the condensed version; but, of course, the reader’s general 1 No statue of Leander is known to have existed and, given the diYculty of portraying a swimmer in free-standing sculpture, this rendering is assumed to have been a sculptural relief: see Weinreich (1928: 49), Lehmann (1945: 265), LIMC viii/1. 621 s.v. Hero et Leander nos. 12– 14, with plates of nos. 13–14 at viii/2. 383–4 (Anneliese Kossatz-Deissmann). (Lehmann’s assumption that the sequence 14. 170–82 describes art-works in a museum is at variance with the stated purpose of Books 13 and 14 as tags describing gifts.) There is, however, no need to suppose that Spect. 29, too, was describing a work of art; rather, as argued in the Introduction to Spect. 28, our epigram appends a conventional version of the myth to the commemoration of a spectacle in which the outcome is given an unexpected twist (Spect. 28). 2 For a detailed comparison see Lausberg (1982: 205). 3 More mannered is the technique of quoting a divinity or personiWcation to supply the climax to an encomiastic epigram: cf. Epigr. 9. 34 (Jupiter declares the Templum Gentis Flaviae superior to his tomb in Crete), 12. 8 (Rome invites her barbarian enemies to admire Trajan). On direct quotation to eVect closure see the Introduction to Spect. 27, above.

Epigram 29

209

acquaintance with the myth would provide that assumption anyway, thereby facilitating epigrammatic brevity. The circumstances of the storm, evoked twice in our poem (‘tumidis . . . aquis’, 2; ‘instantes . . . undas’, 3), are to be inferred from a single detail in the previous epigram (‘tumidis . . . in undis’, Spect. 28. 2). Both in our poem and at 14. 181 the direct speech occupies a single pentameter. At 14. 181 the absence of Leander’s request for mercy on the outward journey has to be inferred from the second half of the line (‘cum rediturus ero’, 2), which explains the apparently paradoxical request expressed in the Wrst half (‘mergite me, Xuctus’, 2). But our epigram achieves a diVerent terminal eVect: Martial exploits the plea for clemency to construct an exact symmetry between the two halves of Leander’s quotation (4). Detailed discussion: Prinz (1926–7: 94–8), Weinreich (1928: 48–51), Salanitro (1983: 65–8), Moretti (1992: 62), Coleman (1993: 62–3), Carratello (1989: 287–8)

1. dulces . . . amores: the personal use of the plural amores, ‘beloved’ (though not necessarily in the erotic sense), is attested from Plautus onwards: cf. Plaut. Mil. 1376–7 (Pyrgopolinices) ‘ibo hinc intro nunciam j ad amores meos’, Cat. 10. 1–2 ‘Varus me meus ad suos amores j uisum duxerat’ (with Fordyce’s n.), Cic. Phil. 13. 26 ‘deliciae atque amores populi Romani L. Antonius’, TLL i. 1970. 9–26 (Vollmer). dulcis is not erotic but sentimental, usually applied to friends and relatives and very common in epitaphs: see TLL v. 2194. 34–2195. 6 (Lackenbacher). The sentimental tone makes a pathetic contrast with Leander’s heroic deWance. audax Leandros: the same spelling of Leander’s name is preserved in T at 14. 181. 1 and in the titulus to that epigram (cit. Introduction, above). Greek names ending in two consonants þ -æ normally yield the termination -er in Latin. Sometimes, however, and quite independent of any metrical constraint, Latin authors employ the termination -ros/rus for these words, e.g.  `ºÆæ/Alexander/Alexandrus: see N–W i. 123–4, Leumann (1977: 456), Bo¨mer on Ov. Met. 8. 162–3 ‘non secus ac liquidis Phrygius Maeandrus in undis j ludit’. Possibly the choice here is determined by the desire for consistency with the vocative form in the previous epigram, where the vocative Leander would have been metrically impossible: see on Spect. 28. 1 ‘Leandre’. That argument, however, would hardly apply to 14. 181. 1. In our passage we also have to decide between -ros and -rus. On the evidence of the manuscripts Martial also retains the Greek -os/-on for Cypros, Cypron, Ephesos, Tyros, but uses the Latin termination -us for Hermaphroditus, Parthenopaeus, Phoebus, Priapus: see Lindsay (1903c: 29).4 Martial’s preferred form is evidently Leandros. 4 As well as observing the evidence of the manuscripts, to allow Martial to employ preferred endings for certain names seems psychologically more plausible than the approach of Renn

210

Liber Spectaculorum

The epithet audax corresponds to the entire corpus of known depictions of the myth, which contains no rendering of either the death of Leander or the extinguishing of Hero’s torch and her plunge from her vantage-point onto the rocks below. In almost every depiction Leander is shown swimming to his beloved, so that the emphasis is on his bravery rather than their joint tragedy: see LIMC viii/1. 622 s.v. Hero et Leander (Anneliese Kossatz-Deissmann). 2. tumidis . . . premeretur aquis: tumidus is the word for seas whipped up by storms, or rivers swollen by rain: cf. Virg. A. 1. 142–3 (Neptune quelling Aeolus’ storm) ‘tumida aequora placat j collectasque fugat nubes solemque reducit’, Hor. O. 3. 3. 48 ‘qua tumidus rigat arua Nilus’ (with N–R’s n.), Val. Fl. 6. 328–9 ‘imus equis qua uel medio riget aequore pontus j uel tumida fremit Hister aqua’, OLD s.v. 3. Its threatening character matches the risk Leander is taking. premo, denoting motion from above that causes the object to be engulfed, is attested in contexts that include drowning: cf. Ov. Am. 2. 11. 5–6 ‘o utinam . . . Argo funestas pressa bibisset aquas!’, Tr. 2. 101–2 ‘omnes j pressere hoc Xuctus Oceanusque caput’, TLL x/2. 1174. 46–58 (Pade). 3. instantes . . . undas: the waves are instantes both by virtue of their position above Leander’s head and because they are threatening his safety. Compare the raincloud at Plaut. Merc. 879 ‘nubis ater imberque instat— aspicin?—ad sinisteram.’ The verb is commonly used of waves and torrents that form a wall of water: cf. Germ. Arat. 302 ‘exanimat pauidos instantis aquae mons’, Stat. Theb. 9. 487–8 (the battle between the river Ismenos and Hippomedon) ‘instant undae sequiturque labantem j amnis ouans’, TLL vii/1. 1999. 60–77 (Kro¨ner). 4. ‘parcite dum propero, mergite dum redeo’: Leander’s bargaining plea to have his fate deferred until he has visited Hero has no parallel in Greek epigram. It seems to have been suggested in the words attributed to him at Ov. Her. 18. 119–22 ‘si qua Wdes uero est [ueniens huc esse natator, j cum redeo, uideor naufragus esse mihi. j hoc quoque si credis], ad te uia prona uidetur, j a te cum redeo, cliuus inertis aquae.’ Even without the phrases in brackets, which were deleted by Housman on grounds of sense, style, and prosody (1897: 427 ¼ 1972: i. 414–15), Ovid’s contrast between the easy outward journey and the diYculty of returning home is clear. For the parallel structure of this line, compare the similar (but not identical) pattern at Spect. 15. 6 ‘quaque soluta parens quaque perempta fera est’. parcite corresponds to Spect. 28. 1 ‘pepercerit’ (see n.). The inevitability of fate is uncompromisingly expressed by the Sibyl to Palinurus in a ‘terrible (1889: 53–6), who argues that, in distinction to Ovid and other poets, Martial Latinizes Greek second-declension nouns in -; Renn therefore rejects the form Leandros, arguing for Leandrus as Martial’s preferred form, with the possibility of Leander as an alternative.

Epigram 29

211

line’ (Austin on A. 6. 376) that becomes a slogan of Stoic teaching: cf. Sen. Epist. 77. 12 ‘quid Xes? quod optas? perdis operam. ‘‘desine fata deum Xecti sperare precando.’’ rata et Wxa sunt et magna atque aeterna necessitate ducuntur: eo ibis quo omnia eunt.’ At best, fate can be postponed, as was famously recognized by the younger P. Decius Mus before his own devotio in 295 bc (Liv. 10. 28. 12): ‘ ‘‘quid ultra moror’’ inquit ‘‘familiare fatum? datum hoc nostro generi est ut luendis periculis publicis piacula simus.’’ ’ Leander asks for a reprieve, but not a miracle. propero: the lover’s proverbial haste: cf. Cat. 32. 9 (to Ipsitilla) ‘uerum si quid ages, statim iubeto.’ The topos is inverted at Ov. AA 1. 701 (Deidamia trying to prevent her lover from hastening away) ‘saepe ‘‘mane’’ dixit, cum iam properaret Achilles’.

30 (26) Lusit Nereı¨dum docilis chorus aequore toto et uario faciles ordine pinxit aquas. fuscina dente minax recto fuit, ancora curuo: credidimus remum credidimusque ratem, et gratum nautis sidus fulgere Laconas lataque perspicuo uela tumere sinu. quis tantas liquidis artes inuenit in undis? aut docuit lusus hos Thetis aut didicit.

5

HTK Tit. De natatoribus HTK 3 recto Rooy : nectho T : nachto H : nexu K 5 gratum HT Bonon. Vindob. 3 : racum W nautis HTW Vindob. 3 : nautas Bonon. Laconas Heinsius : Laconum HTK 6 sinu TK : sinum H 7 quis HTK : qui Heinsius in om. T : add. H 8 hos HTK : hunc Heinsius

A well-trained troupe of Nereids was frolicking all over the surface and decorating the compliant water with various formations. The menacing trident had a straight prong, and the anchor a curved one: we believed in the oar and we believed in the ship, and the star—the Dioscuri—shining its welcome to sailors, and the broad sails billowing in distinctive folds. Who designed such amazing tricks in the limpid waves? Either Thetis taught these feats, or else she learnt them. Introduction: In the arrangement of the epigrams as transmitted, Leander’s solo display (Spect. 28–9) is followed by a group display of a troupe of Nereids. It took place on water by night (‘aequore toto’, 1; ‘sidus fulgere’, 5); on illumination for spectacles after dark see Introduction to Spect. 28. Since the Nereids were sea-nymphs, we can deduce that the performers were female. The alternate possibility, raised by Mehl (1927: 87), is that they were men dressed up as nymphs; but Nereids should have been naked and, furthermore, a titillating display of female sexuality was at home in mime and pantomime. Dancing and swimming are two of the occupations most commonly associated with Nereids in Greek mythology. For representations in archaic and classical Greek art see Barringer (1995). The emperor’s ‘Nereids’ performed a type of aquatic mime or water-ballet in which they mimed the progress of a water-borne craft by describing patterns on the water (see on ll. 3–6, below).1 A bird’s-eye view would have helped the spectators to appreciate

1 From the reference to Thetis in the last line of this epigram the term ‘tetimimo’ has been coined for this type of display: see Traversari (1960), EAA vii. 779 s.v. Tetimimo (Traversari).

Epigram 30

213

the full eVect (other than, perhaps, the titillating aspect of the performers’ nudity, on which see below). If the display was performed in the Flavian amphitheatre, the important spectators at the front would—paradoxically— have been least able to appreciate a bird’s-eye view, and their ability to see down into the hypogeum might have been somewhat compromised by the podium wall, but the spectators higher up would probably have been able to see quite well.2 The alternative is to imagine this display being mounted on Augustus’ stagnum in Transtiberim (see Introduction to Spect. 34). We do not know what accommodation was provided for spectators at the stagnum, but the steep slope of the Janiculum in the area of the modern Viale Glorioso could have supplied an ideal vantage point, just as the spectators at Claudius’ display on the Fucine Lake sat on the surrounding hillsides (Tac. Ann. 12. 56. 3). Yet the group of epigrams on aquatic themes to which this poem belongs (Spect. 27–30) is separated from the one epigram that is speciWcally associated with the stagnum (Spect. 34), and this may indicate that the discrete series is to be associated with the Flavian amphitheatre: see General Introduction, Section 5. Ironically, although spectacle is the raison d’eˆtre of the collection, and the Nereids’ spectacle in particular seems to have depended upon visual eVects, we should perhaps accept that perfect visibility was not the be-all and end-all for Roman spectators. Women normally wore a modesty garment (subligar) for mixed bathing (Mart. 3. 87. 3–4).3 But in this context mythological veracity, if it were observed, would seem to have required that the performers be naked. Theatrical convention permitted nudity in certain contexts, such as mimes at the Floralia: see RE vi/2. 2751 s.v. Floralia (Wissowa). Virtual nudity was Xaunted in pantomime: cf. Apul. Met. 10. 31. 1 (‘Venus’ in the tableau of the Judgement of Paris) ‘nudo et intecto corpore perfectam formositatem professa, nisi quod tenui pallio bombycino inumbrabat spectabilem pubem.’ The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, albeit Wctitious, give us a Xavour of what could plausibly be composed about the saints and their world. When St Thecla, condemned ad bestias, was exposed naked to the beasts, she is said to have jumped into a pool

The term ‘idromimo’ or ‘mimo acquatico’ is preferred by D’Ippolito (1962). Pace Herrmann (1962: 500), there is no reason to suppose that this spectacle was a re-enactment of the battle of Actium; indeed, there is no Wrm evidence that the Romans used battles from their own naval history as the context for staging a naumachia: see Coleman (1993: 70–1). 2 See General Introduction, n. 151. My earlier hypothesis, that the Flavian amphitheatre would have aVorded a perfect view for everybody, was predicated on the assumption that for the inauguration it was furnished with a very shallow hypogeum: see Coleman (1993: 60, 64). 3 Literary and artistic testimony to women swimming in Antiquity is conveniently collected in RE Suppl. v. 862. 37–60 s.v. Schwimmen (Mehl).

214

Liber Spectaculorum

of seals in the amphitheatre to baptize herself; a heavenly Wre protected both her person and her reputation by keeping the seals away and hiding her nudity: cf. AThe 34, Lavagnini (1963), Bremmer (1996: 54). For the erotic combination of water and nakedness see J. GriYn (1985: 85–111). Theatrical displays featuring naked women swimming in a ‘sea of licentiousness’ (ºÆª I
ºª
Æ) were a beˆte noire of John Chrysostom, who lamented at Antioch in 390 that the spectators, evidently diverted from church-attendance, thereby suVered ‘shipwreck of the soul’ (ÆıªØ łıB): cf. In Matt. Hom. 7. 6, Pasquato (1976).4 The waterprooWng of the orchestra in many Greek theatres under the Roman Empire was presumably intended to facilitate such displays: for details see Traversari (1960). Detailed discussion: Coleman (1993: 63–5)

1. Lusit . . . docilis chorus: docilis here ¼ ‘well-trained’. This usage is mainly restricted to poetry: cf. Hor. O. 3. 11. 1 ‘Mercuri—nam te docilis magistro j mouit Amphion lapides canendo’, Stat. Silu. 5. 1. 1–2 ‘Si manus aut similes docilis mihi Wngere ceras j aut ebur impressis aurumue animare Wguris’, Juv. 6. O25–6 (the actor who reveals his true colours in exchanging a female role for that of an experienced seducer) ‘hic erit in lecto fortissimus; exuit illic j personam docili Thais saltata Triphallo’, TLL v/1. 1768. 72–1769. 5 (Bulhart). There is a neat antithesis between lusit and the root meaning of docilis: normally, play does not need to be taught. chorus (a group of persons dancing or singing) is regularly applied to Nereids: cf. Virg. A. 5. 240 ‘audit omnis Nereidum Phorcique chorus Panopeaque uirgo’, 816 ‘tum uariae comitum facies, immania cete et senior Glauci chorus Inousque Palaemon’, Sen. Oed. 446 ‘Nereidumque choris Cadmeia cingitur Ino’, Stat. Silu. 2. 2. 19–20 (divinities whose medium is the sea are attracted by the amenities of Pollius’ baths) ‘leuis hic Phorci chorus udaque crines j Cymodoce uiridisque cupit Galatea lauari’, TLL iii. 1023. 77–81 (Reisch). 2. uario . . . ordine: cf. Manil. 1. 112 (on the varying formations of the stars) ‘sideribus uario (Scaliger: uariis .) mutantibus ordine fata’. faciles . . . aquas: the water oVers no obstacle and yields to the performers describing patterns on its surface: cf. Lygd. 3. 5. 30 ‘facilis lenta pellitur unda manu’, Prop. 1. 20. 45–7 (the nymphs abduct Hylas) ‘cuius ut accensae

4 A recent metaphorical reading of the aquatic imagery in this homily argues that the corrupting spectacle consists of mime-actresses appearing on stage, and that the water is purely metaphorical: see RetzleV (2003). But, for Chrysostom’s contrast between underwater swimmers and shipwrecked souls to work (P ÆÆ ØF æØÆ, Iººa łıH ÆıªØÆ KæªÆ 
), the Wrst element surely needs to be literal, so as to oVset the metaphor in the second element.

Epigram 30

215

Dryades candore puellae j miratae solitos destituere choros j prolapsum et leuiter facili traxere liquore’, TLL vi/1. 57. 65–7 (Bannier). pinxit: pingere ¼ ‘represent pictorially with the pencil or the needle’ (L–S), i.e. ‘paint, embroider’, hence ‘decorate (a surface with patterns)’: cf. Sen. Med. 309–11 ‘nondum quisquam sidera norat, j stellisque quibus pingitur aether j non erat usus’, Stat. Silu. 1. 3. 55–6 (the marble Xoors in Manilius Vopiscus’ villa at Tibur) ‘uarias ubi picta per artes j gaudet humus superatque nouis asarota Wguris’. 3. fuscina dente minax recto fuit, ancora curuo: Poseidon’s trident seems originally to have been associated with a bolt of lightning that he wielded in exercising his power: see KlP iv. 1076–9 s.v. Poseidon (W[alter] P[o¨tscher]). Hence minax sits well with the trident as an instrument of control. But it is hard to see how an anchor could be said to be ‘menacing’, and so minax must be appositive and the ablative predicative. Friedla¨nder (ad loc.) notes that this line might refer to real tridents and anchors brandished by the performers rather than their shapes mimed in the water, but this interpretation would disrupt the train of thought between the reference to mimed patterns in the previous and following lines (2, 4). Rather, Martial is referring to the speed and skill with which the dancers mimed Wrst one shape and then the other. 4. credidimus remum credidimusque ratem: two interpretations are possible. (i) The ‘Nereids’ swam in formations that looked like the outline of a boat manned by oars, i.e. they were performing the ancient equivalent of ‘synchronized swimming’ (a modern Olympic sport, no less): see Coleman (1993: 64). (ii) They mimed oarsmen in such a way that the spectators felt as though they could see the oars and the boat: see Friedla¨nder ad loc. The latter explanation, which gives proper weight to credidimus (emphasized through anaphora), would imply that the women had their arms free to simulate rowing-strokes, i.e. instead of swimming they must have been dancing in shallow water. We do not know the depth of Augustus’ stagnum, but the ‘Xooding’ of the hypogeum in the amphitheatre would have probably been shallow enough for dancing, even though at such a depth the view for spectators at the bottom of the cauea might have been compromised. For parallel half-lines in the pentameter in Greek and Latin authors, and examples of Martial’s use of this feature as a closural device, see Spect. 15. 6 n. As here, Martial’s use of this device is not restricted to the end of a poem: cf. 2. 7. 6 ‘bellus es arte lyrae, bellus es arte pilae’, 3. 26. 2 ‘aurea solus habes, murrina solus habes’, 11. 73. 2 ‘constituisque horam constituisque locum.’ Here the collective singular remum contributes to the balance and euphony (remum . . . ratem). 5. gratum nautis sidus . . . Laconas: the constellation Gemini (i.e. Castor and Pollux). The Dioscuri were believed to aid sailors in storms by manifesting

216

Liber Spectaculorum

themselves on the masts and rigging in the electric discharge known as St Elmo’s Wre, which was taken as a propitious omen: cf. Hom. Hymn 33. 12–14 ƒ  KÆ  K

Æ j ıŁfi B Ø 
æª


Ø Ø ÆNŁæ IÆ
 j ÆPŒÆ  IæªÆºø Iø ŒÆÆı Æ IººÆ, N–H on Hor. O. 1. 3. 2. As the sons of the Spartan Leda, the Dioscuri are sometimes called ‘the Spartan ones’, especially by Martial: cf. 1. 36. 2 ‘qualia Ledaei fata Lacones habent’, 9. 3. 11 ‘quid loquar Alciden Phoebumque piosque Laconas?’, Claud. Carm. min. 17 (¼ De piis fratribus) l. 37 ‘quod si notus amor prouexit in astra Laconas’. Heinsius’ elegant emendation provides an appositive key (Laconas) to the allusion (gratum nautis sidus). The notion that the amphitheatre is lit by the constellation implies that the spectacle was staged at night (see Introduction to Spect. 28), and the syntax of ll. 4–6 and the train of thought started in l. 2 suggest that the performers somehow mimed the constellation, perhaps by posing in formation on an elevated platform and brandishing Xares. The alternative explanation, adopted by Friedla¨nder (ad loc.), is that Martial is equating the artiWcial lighting with the constellation that is associated with sea-borne commerce, and that this aspect of the scene was not conveyed by mime. 6. perspicuo . . . sinu: although Roman sailcloth was suYciently transparent to allow light to shine through it (cf. Lucr. 4. 75–80, of the colours of the theatre-awning playing on the audience below), perspicuus here does not seem to mean ‘see-through’ but ‘distinctive’: Martial is stressing that the patterns were so suggestive that the spectators could truly ‘see’ the scenes that were being mimed. For perspicuus in this sense see TLL x/1. 1748. 48–65 (Spoth). It is hard to see how mime could suggest the eVect of sails billowing in the wind. Friedla¨nder (ad loc.) suggests that the performers waved cloths above their heads in the manner frequently depicted in representations of Niobe and the Niobids on sarcophagi: cf. EAA vii s.v. sarcofago Wg. 17 (Ch. Belting-Ihm), LIMC vi/1. 910 s.v. Niobe no. 9 (Margot Schmidt), 921 s.v. Niobidae no. 32c (Wilfred Geominy), Zanker–Ewald (2004: 76–7 Wgs. 59–60). But this seems to be a gesture of grief and despair unsuited to the context of our Nereids. Perhaps they all leaned in the same direction at once, as though their craft were in full sail. 7. A question seeking the identity of a æH
æ
 or the origin of something is usually a strategy for Martial to convey a compliment as a technique of closure: cf. 1. 6. 5–6 (the lion and the hare) ‘quae maiora putas miracula? summus utrisque j auctor adest: haec sunt Caesaris, illa Iouis’ (with Citroni’s n.), 1. 14. 5–6 (the lion and the hare again) ‘unde potest auidus captae leo parcere praedae? j sed tamen esse tuus dicitur: ergo potest’, 4. 3. 7–8 (who is causing freezing rain?—it must be Domitian’s deceased child playing with water in heaven), 8. 53(55). 15–16 (an alternative answer to the

Epigram 30

217

provenance of an outstanding lion in the arena is itself phrased as a question) ‘an magis Herculeo, Germanice, misit ab astro j hanc tibi uel frater uel pater ipse feram?’ This technique is attested in Greek epigram, if rarely: cf. AP 5. 73 ¼ RuWnus 27 Page, ll. 5–6 (on a girl whom the poet mistakes for Aphrodite)
r Æ e Œºº j F  Ł
; , ŒH, c Ł
e KŒıŒÆ, Siedschlag (1977: 27). Heinsius’ rewriting of our couplet would eliminate this trope. liquidis . . . in undis: liquidus is not a redundant epithet; the point is that this spectacle was no sleight of hand, but (l. 8) a divinely inspired marvel. 8. aut docuit lusus hos Thetis aut didicit: Thetis was the most outstanding of the Nereids: cf. Alcaeus 111. 11 Page ˝ æ ø Iæ Æ, Eur. IA 1078 ˝ æfi ø æÆ, Roscher v. 785. 25–31 s.v. Thetis (Roscher). She is the appropriate candidate to play the role of æH
æ  in this context. The climax to the epigram comprises a sophisticated compliment to the emperor in his role as editor responsible for this display: if Thetis did not have the skill to teach the Nereids how to perform like this, she must have learnt it; and since she is divine, it is only a superior divinity who could teach her anything; hence the emperor’s divinity is proven. The ‘either/or’ explanation for a remarkable creation, ‘dilemme admiratif ’ in the words of Laurens (1965: 330), is an encomiastic motif that Martial adopts from Greek epigram. An anonymous (and undatable) example sets up the same polarity between human and divine that Martial constructs in our epigram, and—like Martial—puts the weight on the second alternative: AP 9. 608 (from a bath-building) 3 ˙ E ˚ıŁæ
ØÆ oøæ Œ
, j ˚ıŁæ
ØÆ j E 
F
 oøæ, n æ Æ ºı Æ , Busch (1999: 290). Myron’s cow provokes similar treatment: cf. AP 9. 793 and 795 (Iulianus), 9. 717 ¼ GP Euenus 8 (an epigram described by the editors as ‘one of the most futile of its kind’) 3 ˙ e æÆ ºŒ
Ø ‹º U fi A KŒ
ØÆØ j ŒŁ
, j łıc  › ƺŒe 
Ø. On paired alternatives as a technique of closure see Siedschlag (1977: 80–2).

3 1 ( 2 9 S , L; 2 7 H ) Cum traheret Priscus, traheret certamina Verus, esset et aequalis Mars utriusque diu, missio saepe uiris magno clamore petita est; sed Caesar legi paruit ipse suae (lex erat ad digitum posita concurrere palma): quod licuit, lances donaque saepe dedit. inuentus tamen est Wnis discriminis aequi: pugnauere pares, succubuere pares. misit utrique rudes et palmas Caesar utrique: hoc pretium uirtus ingeniosa tulit. contigit hoc nullo nisi te sub principe, Caesar: cum duo pugnarent, uictor uterque fuit.

5

10

HR : deest in TK Tit. De Prisco et Vero HR 11–12 sep. cum tit. Idem H, Item R : corr. Scaliger 1 Priscus R : priscos H Verus Scaliger : ueris H : uersus R 5 possita H : positam R palma H : palmam R : parma Wagner 9 misit utrique Scaliger : misit utrisque H : misit utriusque R 11 te sub Scaliger : tibi HR

While Priscus continued to draw out the contest, and Verus likewise, and for a long time the struggle was evenly balanced on both sides, discharge was demanded for the stout Wghters with loud and frequent shouting; but Caesar obeyed his own law (the law was that once the palm had been set up the Wght had to proceed until a Wnger was raised): he did as he was allowed, making frequent awards of plate. Still, a resolution was found for the deadlocked contest: equal they fought, equal they yielded. To both Caesar awarded the wooden sword and the palm: thus courage and skill received their reward. This has happened under no emperor except you, Caesar: two men fought and two men won. Introduction: This epigram and Spect. 33 are missing from T and from the manuscripts descended from K, and Spect. 32 and 34 are missing from R; hence H is the only manuscript to contain all four epigrams: see General Introduction, Section 2, with Table 1. The sequence of these epigrams is variously represented in modern editions. The order followed here is that of H: see General Introduction, Section 1, and Concordances. The subject of this epigram is the emperor’s generosity in granting a reprieve, missio, to both contestants in a gladiatorial encounter in which there was no clear winner. The Wght was supposed to continue until one of the contestants raised his Wnger to indicate that he acknowledged defeat;

Epigram 31

219

hence the emperor’s role was to reward the victor. This time, however, the outcome favoured both parties. As in Spect. 23, where the emperor satisWes both factions among the spectators by engaging each of their favourites to Wght, the emphasis is upon his even-handedness. The perfect match between the contestants is reXected by successive instances of anaphora: traheret . . . traheret (1), pares . . . pares (8), utrique . . . utrique (9). In conformity with the epigrammatic type in which a comment follows the description of an incident, the description here (1–9) is longer than the comment (10–12). This example is unusual, however, in that the comment includes an apostrophe (11, ‘Caesar’): cf. Epigr. 4. 59, where a description of a viper caught in amber concludes with an apostrophe to Cleopatra, killed by an asp. Two epigrams by Antipater of Sidon are apposite. The Wrst is to a swallow who lost her chicks to a serpent that died by accident before it could kill her too (AP 7. 210 ¼ HE Antip. Sidon. 63). This is somewhat diVerent from the structure of Martial’s epigram, since the apostrophe is introduced in the Wrst line rather than precipitating the comment. But the other epigram by Antipater, on an aged sea-captain who steered his boat safely through a storm only to die of hypothermia on the beach afterwards, is more closely comparable (AP 7. 498 ¼ HE Antip. Sidon. 55); the apostrophe precipitating the comment, however, is addressed to an anonymous  rather than a named individual. In our epigram the apostrophe attached to the comment (11) emphasizes the panegyric focus for which the ‘incident-and-comment’ type of epigram is frequently a vehicle: see Spect. 23, Introduction. 1–6: the Wrst half of this epigram is very artfully constructed. The strong pause in the middle of the second couplet marks the end of the narrative describing the circumstances from the point of view of the combatants and their fans, and underlines the importance of the spectators’ plea on behalf of each gladiator (see on 3 ‘missio’, below). The next three lines (4–6) record the circumstances from the point of view of the emperor. Having disposed of the temporal clauses supplying the background (1–2), Martial balances the tension between spectators and editor with an elegant chiasmus, saepe (3) . . . saepe (6) enclosing legi (4) . . . lex (5), i.e. the spectators’ reiterated request and the emperor’s reiterated action frame the constraint represented by the rules. 1. traheret . . . traheret certamina: traho is used of protracting a period of time or the activity that occupies it: cf. Sall. Jug. 27. 1 ‘saepe gratia, interdum iurgiis trahundo tempus’, Virg. A. 1. 748 ‘uario noctem sermone trahebat’, Liv. 25. 15. 14 ‘Romani . . . tamen aliquamdiu pugnam traxere’, L–S s.v. II. A. 7–8, OLD s.v. 16–17. Besides suggesting the identical capacity of the combatants

220

Liber Spectaculorum

(see Introduction, above), the anaphora of traheret also conveys the protracted and inconclusive nature of the engagement. The usual word to describe an engagement between two gladiators is pugna. In agonistic contexts certamen (here poetic plural) is commonly applied to other types of spectacle (horse-racing, and musical and athletic competitions). Two columns of examples in TLL yield few secure instances in which certamen describes gladiatorial combat, all of them late: cf. Arnob. Nat. 6. 12 ‘pugna sit gladiatorii obeunda certaminis’, SHA Comm. 11. 10 ‘gladiatorium etiam certamen subiit’, Aug. Ciu. 3. 14 ‘nec amphitheatro cingebantur illa certamina, sed uniuerso orbe et tunc uiuis et posteris’, TLL iii. 881. 3–882. 81 (Burger). Quintilian’s phrase certamen armorum may apply rather to a type of weapons-display such as fencing: cf. Inst. 9. 1. 20 ‘ut in armorum certamine aduersos ictus et rectas ac simplices manus cum uidere tum etiam cauere ac propulsare facile est’, 9. 4. 8 ‘in certamine armorum atque in omni palaestra quid satis recte cauetur ac petitur cui non artifex motus et certi quidam pedes adsint?’ With certamina the emphasis in our epigram is placed not upon violent combat but upon the category of result (victory/defeat/draw), so as to illustrate the emperor’s resolution of the contest. Priscus . . . Verus: both Priscus and Verus are attested elsewhere as gladiators’ names. —æ Œ is one of the gladiators commemorated in a Wrstcentury graveyard at Smyrna: CIG 3374 ¼ IGRRP iv. 1457 ¼ Robert (1940), no. 243 —æ Œfiø ¨æfi ÆŒd ¯ ºÆ j ªıc e  E Kj


. In the world of the arena, as in the world of the ancient theatre, the name of a famous namesake is sometimes adopted as a lucky talisman (see Spect. 23, Introduction). It is not impossible that one such name was that of our Priscus, renowned for his prowess in the Flavian amphitheatre. ‘Verus’ is attested as a gladiator’s name on a marble slab from Ferentium, now in the Museo Civico at Viterbo (CIL xi. 7444 ¼ EAOR ii, no. 53). This inscription, albeit badly mutilated, evidently recorded the results of a series of engagements on a speciWc occasion, and the total number of engagements fought by each gladiator to date; unfortunately, nothing survives of Verus’ record except his name. From the letter-forms, and from the absence of statistics for the award of coronae, it may be concluded that the inscription probably dates from the second half of the Wrst century ad, i.e. contemporary with the career of Martial’s Verus. 2. esset et: the inversion of particles is a Hellenistic mannerism that enters Latin poetry with the Neoterics. The Wrst secure example of the displacement of et to second position is from the age of Caesar: cf. CLE 55. 5–6 ‘heic uiridis aetas cum Xoreret artibus j crescente et aeuo gloriam conscenderet’, with discussion at TLL v/2. 897. 55–78 (Hofmann). In post-Augustan poetry it becomes common. Martial postpones et to second position in its clause sixty

Epigram 31

221

times, thirty-three of them after verbs: see Friedla¨nder on 1. 26. 8 ‘egerit et nigros Massica cella cados’. This mannerism is employed both for metrical convenience and to avoid squandering Wrst place in the line on an unimportant word: see Norden (1903: 393–5), and the bibliography cited by Citroni on Mart. 1. 26. 8. Here the postposition puts the normally enclitic esset at the head of the colon, and creates homoeoteleuton reminiscent of a parody of Ennius by Lucilius (1190 Marx ‘horret et alget’), although the homoeoteleuton may not have been present in Ennius’ original line (fr. 33 Courtney ‘sparsis hastis longis campus splende¯t {et} horret’). For avoidance of homoeoteleuton caused by -et et in Virgil, cf. E. 3. 4 ‘fouet ac ne me sibi praeferat illa ueretur’, 4. 9 ‘desinet ac toto surget gens aurea mundo’, Haupt (1875: 110).1 esset . . . aequalis Mars utriusque diu: a striking line: cf. aequo Marte, common in military narratives to describe an evenly matched engagement, (ad)uerso Marte for a defeat, secundo Marte for a victory, etc. Such phrases usually occur in the ablative; but not invariably: cf. Liv. 21. 1. 2 ‘adeo uaria fortuna belli ancepsque Mars fuit ut propius periculum fuerint qui uicerunt’, OLD s. v. Mars 6. Bell (1923: 157) cites this line as an example of the tendency of poetry to give nouns a greater role, resulting in ‘a vague cloud-like grandeur of eVect’. In our instance the personiWcation consorts rather oddly with the personalized attribution (utriusque). The postponement of the adverb until line-end is emphatic. 3. missio: the noun replaces ut þ subjunctive: see Bell (1923: 158), and cf. previous n. missio represents discharge from the authority of the editor who has sponsored the spectacle, so that a gladiator who is missus will return to his barracks to train for future engagements; it does not mean discharge from service as a gladiator. There are two distinct sets of circumstances under which missio is granted. A gladiator who has technically surrendered to his opponent may be awarded a reprieve, if the spectators can convince the editor that his performance has merited it. The status of such a gladiator is described as missus. Alternatively, as is the case here, if two gladiators Wght to a draw they may both be judged worthy of a reprieve; the status of each is described as stans missus. This is illustrated by the epitaph of M. Antonius Exochus, who fought to a draw with his opponent Araxes in the spectacle celebrating Trajan’s posthumous triumph over the Parthians in 117; this outcome makes a clear contrast with his subsequent victory over another opponent, Fimbria, who evidently fought well enough to win a reprieve, here attributed to the agency of Exochus with the phrase missum fecit (CIL vi. 10194 ¼ ILS 5088 ¼ EAOR i, 1 In Martial’s line the following vowel of course excludes the possibility of ac.

222

Liber Spectaculorum

no. 92):2 ‘M(arcus) Antonius Exochus j Thr(aex). j M(arcus) Antonius j Exochus nat(ione) j Alexandrinus: j Rom(ae) ob triump(hum) j Diui Traiani, die II, j tir(o) cum Araxe Cae(saris) (scil. seruo) j st(ans) miss(us); j Rom(ae) mun(eris) eiusd(em) j die VIIII Fimbriam j lib(erum), (pugnarum) VIIII, miss(um) fe(cit); j Rom(ae) mun(eris) eiusd(em) . . .’. The inscription stantes j missi occurs on a terracotta medallion from the Rhoˆne valley, known from several examples, that depicts two gladiators, Xantus and Eros, in combat in the presence of the summa rudis and other attendants: CIL xii. 2747 ¼ ILS 5133 ¼ Wuilleumier–Audin (1952), no. 34. For further examples see CIL vi. 33983 ¼ ILS 5106 ¼ EAOR i, no. 64 (a mutilated epitaph containing the phrase st(ans) exit), CIL xv. 6244a ¼ ILS 5135 (a terracotta lamp depicting a pair of gladiators named Sabinus and Popillius and inscribed s(tantes) miss(i)), Wuilleumier–Audin (1952), no. 111 (a medallion depicting a combat between Theloncus and Sedulus, inscribed missi), no. 112 (a fragmentary medallion inscribed sta(n)t(es) missi). The same gladiator could be granted missio under both sets of circumstances several times in his career: cf. the epitaph of the secutor Flamma from Sicily (CIL x. 7297 ¼ ILS 5113 ¼ EAOR iii, no. 70) ‘Flamma s[e]c(utor) uix(it) an(nis) XXX; j pugnat XXXIIII, uicit XXI, j stans (scil. exit) VIIII, mis(sus) IIII, nat(ione) S[y]rus; j hui Delicatus coarmio merenti fecit.’ On missio in general see TLL viii. 1140. 78–1141. 3 (Fleischer), Ville (1981: 403–6), Mosci Sassi (1992: 139–40), Potter (1999: 307). For stans missus see Meier (1881: 46–51), Lo¨fstedt (1905–6: 40), Robert (1949: 138), Ville (1981: 410–24), Coleman (2000a: 488–91). saepe . . . magno clamore: the collective singular clamore accompanying an action by a crowd of people is regular, far outnumbering the instances of the plural clamoribus: see TLL iii. 1255. 46–1256. 49 (Hoppe). The context here, together with the repetition and volume of the request, suggests a concerted acclamatio from the spectators. On the Roman habit of making demands of the emperor at public spectacles cf. Jos. AJ 19. 24 (cit. on 23. 4 ‘dulce . . . ingenium’, above). Tiberius, who refused to sponsor games himself, so hated the pressure that he would not even attend spectacles sponsored by others: cf. Suet. Tib. 47 ‘rarissime interfuit, ne quid exposceretur.’ Hadrian, at least, felt compelled to explain in writing his reasons for refusing a request to free a charioteer (Dio 69. 16. 3). Evidence for the notion that public spectacle was treated as an insulated context where the people could make demands of the ruler is summarized by Aldrete (1999: 119–27); for a more cynical view, that the emperor’s herald might ‘suggest’ to the crowd demands to which the emperor might ‘accede’, see Potter (1996: 139). Nevertheless, even if the 2 The commentary at EAOR i, no. 92 seems to be mistaken in inferring that Fimbria was stans missus, since that designation is only possible in the case of a draw.

Epigram 31

223

emperor intended to orchestrate the oVering of petitions, he can have had little control over what people ended up shouting at him. uiris implies that Priscus and Verus are men of valour, deemed worthy of a reprieve. Martial’s attitude is rhetorically determined by the emperor’s gesture towards this pair of combatants: see further on 10 ‘uirtus ingeniosa’, below. 4. Caesar legi paruit ipse suae: the interlaced word-order reXects the emperor’s situation, bound by his own rule: suae at line-end is emphatic; the reiteration of lex at the beginning of the next line underlines the rigidity of the rules governing gladiatorial combat. legi . . . suae: cf. ps.-Quint. Decl. mai. 9. 9 (uirtus on the battleWeld is not inhibited by rules of combat) ‘facinus indignum illum animum, illum ardorem non contigisse castris, non bellicis certaminibus, ubi uera uirtus nulla pugnandi lege praescribitur.’ Leges governed participation in theatrical contests. For example, on stage Nero obeyed rules that forbade a musician to clear his throat or use a handkerchief to mop his brow: cf. Suet. Nero 24. 1 ‘in certando uero ita legi oboediebat, ut numquam excreare ausus sudorem quoque frontis brachio detergeret’, Tac. Ann. 16. 4. 2 ‘cunctis citharae legibus obtemperans’. In our instance the emperor himself, presumably in his capacity as editor muneris, has determined the rules of the encounter, i.e. that the Wght will stop when one party surrenders (l. 5). This sounds like a way of announcing in advance that the Wght is not to be sine missione, and it implies that the applicable rule would be announced before each bout, even if it were the regular default position. In the case of Priscus and Verus, ‘Caesar’ gets trapped by his own rule, in that the spectators want a verdict of stantes missi; hence the emphasis on suae. The emperor’s way out is to declare the outcome a victory for both parties, rather than a reprieve. 5. ad digitum . . . concurrere: the rule governing the combat required that it continue until one of the gladiators raise a Wnger to acknowledge defeat. As an example of a bad pun Quintilian quotes a declamation in which a gladiator retorted to his sister, who had cut oV his thumb in an attempt to redeem him from the arena, ‘ad digitum pugnaui’ (Inst. 8. 5. 12, 20). A scholion on Pers. 5. 119 explicitly associates this gesture with gladiatorial combat, ‘digito sublato ostende uictum te esse a uitiis. tractum a gladiatoribus, qui uicti ostensione digiti ueniam a populo postulabant’: see Mosci Sassi (1992: 70–2). Numerous images in a range of media show the defeated gladiator raising the index Wnger of his left hand, his shield lying discarded on the ground. In the case of a retiarius, who holds his dagger in his left hand, the trident is discarded and the gesture of surrender is made with the index Wnger of the right hand. For extensive documentation see Ville (1981: 412 n. 129). Both a retiarius (bleeding from the left calf) and a murmillo (bleeding from the left shoulder) are depicted in surrender on the Zliten mosaic (Pls. 27–8). Note also a terracotta

224 Liber Spectaculorum Pl. 27. Zliten, amphitheatre mosaic, detail: (left) musicians playing two cornua, a hydraulis, and a tuba, (centre) referee staying hand of victorious eques, (right) retiarius with raised finger in surrender to secutor. Probably Wrst half of second century ad. National Museum, Tripoli

Epigram 31 Pl. 28. Zliten, amphitheatre mosaic, detail: (left) thraex in combat with murmillo, (centre) murmillo with raised finger in surrender to hoplomachus in presence of referee, (right) two prouocatores in combat. Probably first half of second century ad. National Museum, Tripoli

225

226

Liber Spectaculorum

beaker from Colchester that preserves a very Wne image of a retiarius performing this gesture with his right hand: see Wiedemann (1992: Wg. 12). For the phrase ÆYæ
Ø=ÆYæ
ŁÆØ Œıº to indicate surrender in the Greek contactsports of wrestling, boxing, and the pancration see Garcı´a Romero (2001: 31–2). concurrere encompasses all types of hostile engagement, i.e. between armies, navies, soldiers, gladiators, and animals, and even metaphorically the clash of the elements (e.g. Virg. G. 1. 318 ‘omnia uentorum concurrere proelia’). For the absolute use, i.e. without an indirect object or a prepositional phrase expressing the target of the hostility, see TLL iv. 108. 77–109. 82 (Burger). posita: H’s possita is a misspelling characteristic of Irish manuscripts. palma: the introduction of a palm into the arena before a victory has been won seems a curious anomaly, and it is not clear to what ceremony the phrase posita . . . palma would refer. As observed by Mosci Sassi (1992: 71 n. 22), no textual or iconographic parallels have yet been identiWed. parma is a conjecture made by Wagner (1843: 573) in his review of Schneidewin’s Wrst edition, taking the Wnal phrase of the epigram (uictor uterque fuit) to mean that, rendered defenceless (posita . . . parma), both gladiators stabbed each other simultaneously and could therefore be said to have ‘both won’. This somewhat cynical interpretation is insupportable, given the conditions necessary for a verdict of a draw (see on 3 ‘missio’, above). Could Wagner’s conjecture support another interpretation? First it is necessary to establish the syntax. Since the ablative absolute has to precede the action described by concurrere, it would mean: the rule was that once they had discarded their shields they were to Wght until one of them raised his Wnger (i.e. removing the gladiators’ shields was an attempt to force a tiebreak). It is surely impossible, with Post (ad loc.) and Mosci Sassi (1992: 72 n. 24), to take the ablative absolute to be co-ordinate with the action conveyed by the phrase ad digitum concurrere, and interpret ‘the rule was that the Wght would continue until one gladiator put his shield down and raised his Wnger to plead for missio.’ Second, does the phrase posita . . . parma Wt the context? There are two diYculties. (i) Is the technical sense of parma (a small shield of variable shape) sustainable in this context? Without citing any comparanda Meier (1881: 48 n. 1) claims that parma here is a poetic usage standing for ‘shield’ in general rather than speciWcally the small shield that the term denotes;3 given the legalistic context and the technical language elsewhere in this epigram (missio, ad digitum), this liberty seems unlikely. It has furthermore 3 This assumption is too hastily adopted by Coleman (2000a: 491 n. 12).

Epigram 31

227

been pointed out by Ville (1981: 405) that the gladiators would have to be armed with identical or equivalent shields, so that one would not be disadvantaged by having learnt to Wght with a larger shield (and hence greater power, both defensive and oVensive) than the other; such pairs would be formed by two equites (small round shield, parma equestris), prouocatores (large oval shield, scutum),4 or essedarii (medium-sized shield with a curved surface, rectangular in shape with rounded corners), or the pair formed by a thraex (small square shield, parm(ul)a) and an hoplomachus (small round shield, parmula). For discussion of these gladiatorial types see Junkelmann (2000: 114–24). Hence, if parma were to have its strict technical sense, Priscus and Verus would have to be equites or, respectively, thraex and hoplomachus. These pairings are possible, but a further diYculty seems insuperable. (ii) While Wghting without a shield would quickly break the impasse, it would also reduce professional combat to the status of a blood-bath; Seneca’s reference to performers appearing without defensive weapons (Epist. 7. 3–4, cited by Friedla¨nder ad loc.) does not refer to gladiators but to prisoners being executed as part of the lunchtime entertainment. Furthermore, as observed by M. Carter (2006) and demonstrated by the experiments of Junkelmann (2000: 46), the shield had an important oVensive function as well, and gladiators without shields would be almost entirely incapacitated, which does not square with the professionalism of gladiatorial combat, nor with the emphasis in this epigram on proper conduct. Granted, palaeographical similarity could account for the corruption of parma to palma, let alone contamination from palmas (9) below. But, as we have seen, this collection is not noteworthy for its lexical variety, and the crucial question is whether the text as transmitted is so objectionable as to justify recourse to Wagner’s conjecture. In other words, what could posita . . . palma mean? To summarize the circumstances: when Priscus and Verus were Wghting to a draw, and the spectators were demanding a verdict of stantes missi, the emperor could not oblige because he was bound by his own rule, i.e. that the Wght was to continue until one combatant signalled defeat by raising his Wnger. The corollary of one party’s acknowledging defeat is that the other party will win. The palm-frond is the symbol of victory. In an amphitheatre that held up to 50,000 spectators an oral declaration would be largely inaudible, and a written statement on a placard largely invisible. It would therefore make sense for the declaration of the rules of combat to be accompanied by some ceremony or gesture that would make it evident to the entire assembled company what the rules were. Hence, although we lack evidence as to the nature of such an action, it seems to be represented by the phrase posita . . . 4 As on the Zliten mosaic: Pls. 27 (equites) and 28 (prouocatores).

228

Liber Spectaculorum

palma, i.e. a palm was placed in a prominent position to symbolize that the Wght had to continue until there was a clear winner. Palm-fronds often accompany gladiatorial images, especially on tombstones, where the gladiator is regularly depicted dans sa gloire, i.e. standing at ease, fully armed, with a palm-frond beside him (for examples see Spect. 36. 2 ‘grauis palma’, n.). But such retrospective references to victory do not help us with the interpretation of posita . . . palma. The depiction of a frond that could be associated with a combat in progress would be more helpful. An Orpheus mosaic from Cos, datable to the third century ad and now on display in the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul, is bordered on two sides by a gladiatorial frieze (1.92 m  0.72 m). Each side originally depicted two pairs of gladiators in combat. Both pairs on the left-hand side, and the righthand pair on the right-hand side, survive intact. All the gladiators are named. Each victor on the right-hand side (Pl. 29) is identified by the abbreviation 
Ø(Œfi A).5 In the case of the retiarius Tydeus, his identification as victor over his opponent, the secutor Leukaspis, seems at first sight to be reinforced by the depiction of a palm-frond standing upright behind him; certainly the frond does not look like a simple space-filler, since elsewhere the mosaicist has been content to leave the background empty. Yet the other pair, the prouocatores Paktolos and Nympheros, is attended by a referee (summa rudis), and so is the surviving pair on the other side (a retiarius, of whose name only the termination -¯0 survives, and a secutor, Perseus), which suggests that the palm-frond should have an equivalent narrative function, rather than merely symbolizing Tydeus’ victorious status, which is already signalled by the inscription.6 There seem to be two possibilities: (i) the palm-frond and the referee are mutually supportive images, representing a composite process of determining the outcome (i.e. the palm is set up, a referee presides over the match, and the gladiators fight to the point of surrender); (ii) the palm-frond and the referee are mutually exclusive images, representing two different processes of determining the outcome (i.e. either the palm is set up and the gladiators fight to the point of surrender, or the gladiators fight under the adjudication of a referee). Both could illustrate the phrase posita . . . palma; the first alternative seems more likely. Hence, albeit conscious that we know 5 Supplemented by Robert (1940: 191, no. 191a), correcting the conjecture 
Ø(Œ) proposed by the excavator, Herzog (1901: 134). The same abbreviation presumably identified the victors on the right-hand side also; for a black-and-white photograph of the surviving portion see Robert (1948: pl. IX/1). For a version of Pl. 29 in full colour see Junkelmann (2000: 38 fig. 51). 6 For the concept of ‘narrative function’ compare the Zliten mosaic, where the depiction of the referee corresponds to the decisive moment when a defeated gladiator is pleading for mercy, whereas no referee is depicted attending the pairs who are still fighting: see Pls. 27–8.

Epigram 31

229

Pl. 29. Cos, gladiatorial mosaic: Tydeus, victorious over Leukaspis, is flanked by a palm-frond (left); Paktolos, victorious over Nympheros, is attended by a referee (right). Third century ad. Archaeological Museum, Istanbul

very little about the rules of refereeing a gladiatorial contest, I suggest that posita . . . palma describes a formality that finds its distant iconographic echo in the eastern Mediterranean two centuries later.7 6. lances donaque: the customary award to a victorious gladiator was a palm-frond: see further on Spect. 36. 2. The laurel-wreath, originally intended as recognition for an especially distinguished victory, came to be awarded regularly in conjunction with the palm: see Ville (1981: 426). Statius describes as dona the wreaths representing his victories at the Quinquatria held by Domitian in his Alban villa in honour of Minerva and at the Sebasta in Naples: cf. Silu. 3. 5. 28–9 ‘me nitidis Albana ferentem j dona comis’, 5. 3. 226–7 ‘Chalcidicae Cerealia dona coronae . . . tuli.’ For further examples of donum describing an award in a competition see TLL v/1. 2019. 29–41 (Rubenbauer). The lanx is a shallow platter of precious metal in various shapes (round, oval, or oblong), with a pair of handles or a large Xat rim by which it could be held: see Hilgers (1969: 65–7, 206–9, with schematic drawings at pl. 1 s.v. lanx, pl. 3 nos. XXIII–XXV ¼ silver treasure from Hildesheim; pl. 4 nos. 28–43 ¼ silver treasure from the Casa del Menandro in Pompeii). It was a luxury 7 A different interpretation is advanced by M. Carter (2006) to support the paradosis. In the context of the gladiatorial elements in Perpetua’s dream, he draws attention to the ramus uiridis (plural in the Greek recension, Œºı ºøæ) hung with golden apples (mala aurea, BºÆ æı A) that she is to receive if she is victorious over her Egyptian adversary (Pass. Perpet. 10. 8), and he construes this as a reference to a palm-branch that would have been shown to the participants and spectators as a token of victory before a gladiatorial bout began. If he were right, we should have to accept that Perpetua’s dream displays the jumble and conflation characteristic of dreaming, since neither the Latin text nor the Greek employs the word for a palm-branch (palma, EØ).

230

Liber Spectaculorum

object, frequently inscribed with the owner’s name; the ostentatious inscription on the rim of Trimalchio’s lanx included its weight as well, a vulgar touch (Petr. Sat. 31. 10). The famous ‘Corbridge lanx’, dating from the fourth century ad, is an oblong dish of solid silver, 37.8 cm  50.6 cm, with a raised border embossed with a vine scroll, and an elaborate Wgured scene associated with the cult of Apollo on the inner surface; the weight is inscribed (discreetly) on the back: see Toynbee (1963: no. 108, pl. 121), Strong (1969: 198, pl. 61), Leader-Newby (2004: 145–6, pl. 3/12). The ‘Sevso Treasure’ includes two circular lances, also in silver: the ‘Meleager Plate’, decorated with a scene of Meleager and the Calydonian Boarhunt in the central medallion and a sequence of six mythological scenes on the Xat rim, and the ‘Achilles Plate’, decorated with a depiction of Achilles on Scyros in the central medallion and a sequence of six mythological scenes on the rim: see Mango–Bennett (1994: Wgs. 2/1 and 3/1). The lanx was used as an oVering-plate, especially in religious or euergetistic contexts. This is well illustrated on a third-century mosaic from Smirat in Tunisia: an extensive inscription quotes the dialogue between a herald and the spectators regarding the fee to be paid by the editor, Magerius, to the company of uenatores who have provided a contest between bestiarii and four leopards; the herald is holding a two-handled lanx (virtually a tray) on which the bags of money are displayed (Pl. 30): see Beschaouch (1966: 143), Jacques (1984: 400–1). Lances are attested as prizes for theatrical performance at Phaedr. 5. 5. 20–1 (audience approval for a scurra who imitated the squealing of a piglet with astonishing realism) ‘multis onerant lancibus j hominemque plausu prosequuntur maximo’ (where the alternative reading laudibus looks like an attempt to remove a lectio diYcilior), Act. lud. saec. Sept. Sev. 76 ‘lances arge[nteas]’, with Hu¨lsen (1932: 393, supplementing CIL vi. 32323–35). Is Martial’s phrase here hendiadys (‘presents of lances’: cf. Liv. 21. 42. 2 ‘cum ad unum omnes ferrum pugnamque poscerent’), or does dona suggest monetary gifts accompanying the donation of lances? Awards of monetary value are variously attested, as in the ‘Magerius’ mosaic described in the previous paragraph: cf. Suet. Claud. 21. 5 (under the rubric gladiatoria munera) ‘nec ullo spectaculi genere communior aut remissior erat, adeo ut oblatos uictoribus aureos prolata sinistra pariter cum uulgo uoce digitisque numeraret’, Ville (1981: 426–7). The interpretation that in our instance the lances were part of the reward goes back to Friedla¨nder (1884: ad loc.), and is adopted by Post (1908) and Shackleton Bailey (1993). This seems to be right. Although the inscription on the ‘Magerius’ mosaic does not include the lanx as part of the reward to be paid to the Telegenii for their display of leopards, this does not prove that it was a prized possession of Magerius that was brought out on such occasions for ostentatious display; rather, if a lanx were

Epigram 31 231

Pl. 30. Smirat, ‘Magerius’ mosaic, showing herald displaying four money-bags on a lanx. Probably mid-third century ad. Sousse Museum

232

Liber Spectaculorum

regularly donated along with the accompanying cash disbursements that were arranged upon it, there would be no need for Magerius to specify it in the record of the euergetistic challenge. 7. discriminis aequi: for discrimen in the context of the arena see on Spect. 14. 1 ‘discrimina saeua’. 8. succubuere: succumbere ¼ ‘lie down on one’s back’. This becomes a technical term for conceding defeat in war (cf. Nep. Them. 5. 3 ‘Graecia liberata est Europaeque succubuit’), and is transferred to agonistic contexts, including those in which no physical violence is involved: cf. Cic. De Orat. 3. 129 ‘philosopho succubuit orator’. For its use in the context of the arena cf. Suet. Calig. 30. 3 ‘retiari tunicati quinque numero gregatim dimicantes sine certamine ullo totidem secutoribus succubuerant’. 9. misit utrique rudes et palmas Caesar utrique: the distribution of subject and verb between the two halves of the sentence is combined with the chiastic arrangement of indirect and direct objects to convey the emperor’s even-handedness. He solves the impasse of mutual surrender by treating both parties as victor. mittere, ‘get something delivered’, frequently describes the actions ordered by the emperor in the amphitheatre: cf. Suet. Claud. 21. 5 ‘cum essedario . . . magno omnium fauore indulsisset rudem, tabulam ilico misit, admonens populum . . .’. The rudis is the rod carried by the lanista as a symbol of his authority, and is awarded to a victorious gladiator to mark his release from the ludus: see Ville (1981: 326). It is not a wooden sword, despite the old orthodoxy conveyed by Mayor on Juv. 7. 171, D–S ii/2. 1576 s.v. Gladiator (Georges Lafaye). The unconditional release from service as a gladiator that is represented by the award of the rudis is not to be confused with missio (for which see on 3, above). The release from service (liberatio) is made explicit on a stele from Thyateira, SE of Pergamum: cf. Robert (1940), no. 267 ¯hªæÆ j y I
ºŁ j ø ºı. The accompanying relief illustrates the nature of the rudis: a gladiator is dressed in a loin-cloth; his helmet and shield are stacked beside him; and he is holding a wand. The person who has the capacity to grant the award of the rudis is the owner of the ludus, who in our case happens to be the editor as well (i.e. the emperor). In cases where an editor who is not the owner makes the award, he presumably pays the lanista for the gladiator, just as he would do in denying a request for missio: see Ville (1981: 327). As here, the award was regularly made in response to popular request: cf. Suet. Claud. 21. 5 (cit. above), AE 1934, 284. 4–6 ‘retiario qui pietate j populi rude j liberatus est’, Quint. Decl. min. 302 thema ‘quidam ut patrem sepeliret auctorauit se. die muneris productus sub titulo causae rudem postulante populo accepit.’ Tertullian, concerned to emphasize

Epigram 31

233

moral inconsistencies in pagan behaviour, cites as an example the spectator who calls for capital punishment as retribution for a murderer while demanding recompense for the equally murderous Wgure of a gladiator: cf. Tert. Spect. 21 ‘sic ergo euenit ut . . . qui insigniori cuique homicidae leonem poscit, idem gladiatori atroci petat rudem et pilleum praemium conferat.’ The pilleus to which Tertullian refers is awarded to a slave, to represent manumission from servile status; this is required in addition to the release from gladiatorial service that the award of the rudis represents for an auctoratus (a contract gladiator). The award of the rudis was recognized as the crucial step towards release, and it acquired proverbial status as a metaphor for escape from entrapment: see Otto (1890: no. 1557 s.v. rudis). On the award of the rudis see in outline Mosci Sassi (1992: 164–5), in detail Ville (1981: 325–9). 10. uirtus ingeniosa ¼ uiri ingeniosi. The abstract noun draws attention to the gladiator’s fundamental qualiWcation for reward, i.e. his reputation for physical bravery: cf. Mart. 8. 80. 3–4 (Domitian’s reforms to the rules of engagement) ‘cum ueteres Latiae ritus renouantur harenae j et pugnat uirtus simpliciore manu.’ Physical bravery, widely associated with the ambiguous Wgure of the gladiator, is now no longer the exclusive property of those at the top of the social scale: see Eisenhut (1973: 160). For Cicero, the ability of gladiators to face pain and death redeems their status as criminals and barbarians, and vindicates the institution of gladiatorial combat: cf. Tusc. 2. 41 ‘gladiatores, aut perditi homines aut barbari, quas plagas perferunt! . . . quis mediocris gladiator ingemuit, quis uultum mutauit umquam? . . . crudele gladiatorum spectaculum et inhumanum non nullis uideri solet, et haud scio an ita sit, ut nunc Wt. cum uero sontes ferro depugnabant, auribus fortasse multae, oculis quidem nulla poterat esse fortior contra dolorem et mortem disciplina.’ The argument that gladiatorial combat aVords an opportunity for slaves and criminals to redeem themselves by a display of physical courage proves useful also to Pliny, seeking to contrast decadent displays under Domitian with the edifying spectacles provided by Trajan: cf. Pan. 33. 1 ‘uisum est spectaculum inde non enerue nec Xuxum nec quod animos uirorum molliret et frangeret, sed quod ad pulchra uulnera contemptumque mortis accenderet, cum in seruorum etiam noxiorumque corporibus amor laudis et cupido uictoriae cerneretur.’8 Gellius, on the other hand, speciWcally citing an example from the gladiatorial ludus, refuses to classify as ‘brave’ those who put up with pain 8 Seneca’s attitude has to be inferred from his general precepts about the role of suVering in promoting uirtus; his often-quoted Epist. 7, which makes an example of mass executions in the arena during the midday break, does not provide any evidence for his attitude towards gladiatorial combat: see Wistrand (1990: 31–2, 1992: 16–20).

234

Liber Spectaculorum

beyond properly tolerable limits; his argument provides an enlightening contrast to the oft-cited views of Cicero and Pliny, and deserves to be quoted in full (NA 12. 5. 13–14): ‘fortitudo autem non east, quae contra naturam monstri uicem nititur ultraque modum eius egreditur aut stupore animi aut immanitate aut quadam misera et necessaria in perpetiendis doloribus exercitatione, qualem fuisse accepimus ferum quendam in ludo Caesaris gladiatorem, qui, cum uulnera eius a medicis exsecabantur, ridere solitus fuit; sed ea uera et proba fortitudost, quam maiores nostri scientiam esse dixerunt rerum tolerandarum et non tolerandarum. per quod apparet esse quaedam intolerabilia, a quibus fortes uiri aut obeundis abhorreant aut sustinendis.’ For a diVerent strand of popular wisdom concerning uirtus see on Spect. 36. 1 ‘uirtutis’. In conjunction with abstractions, ingeniosus takes on the moral colouring of the quality that it describes (in this case, positive): cf. ps.-Quint. Decl. mai. 6. 3 (of a child with conXicting duties towards both parents) ‘inuenit tamen ingeniosa pietas et utrique subuenit dispendio sui’, Plin. NH 33. 125 ‘quae [fraus] in omni parte uitae ingeniosissima est’, TLL vii/1. 1521. 43–73 (Hofmann). 11. nullo nisi te sub principe, Caesar: princeps, from primus þ capere, is an established Republican locution for leaders in public life, and acquires a technical sense in such phrases as princeps senatus. From the reign of Augustus onwards it was applied to the emperor, most frequently—as here—in conjunction with the appellation Caesar: see TLL x/2. 1283. 40–6, 1284. 4–39 (Schwind). The locution sub principe ¼ sub imperio principis is a development of ‘Silver’ Latin: cf. Frontin. Aq. 7. 6 ‘sub Nerone principe’, Tac. Hist. 3. 24 ‘ut . . . sub Corbulone Armenios . . . pepulissent’, Suet. Calig. 21 ‘opera sub Tiberio semiperfecta’ Claud. 25. 5 ‘Druidarum religionem . . . sub Augusto interdictam’, Wo¨lZin (1902: 449–50), H–Sz 279 (‘nachklassisch’). nisi is common from Early Latin onwards in the sense ‘apart from’ after negatives and virtual negatives (interrogatives, etc.): cf. Cic. Amic. 72 ‘quod non fere contingit nisi eis qui etiam contemnendos se arbitrantur’, H–Sz 668. 12. cum duo pugnarent, uictor uterque fuit: in a context in which the (single) winner potentially holds the life of the loser in his hands, the paradox of this punch-line would be strongly felt: cf. CIL v. 5933 ¼ EAOR ii, no. 50 (epitaph for Urbicus, secutor), ll. 11–12 ‘et moneo ut quis quem uic[e]jrit occidat’. Gladiatorial pairs usually came from the same troupe and would therefore have known each other. For the combination of professional pride and fatalism that enabled them to face potential defeat of—or by—an acquaintance see Coleman (2005a). It is this invidious prospect, and its inherent dilemma, of which the emperor relieves Priscus and Verus on this occasion.

32 (2 7 S , L ; 2 8 H ) Saecula Carpophorum, Caesar, si prisca tulissent, ynon amarathon cumy barbara terra yferay, non Marathon taurum, Nemee frondosa leonem, Arcas Maenalium non timuisset aprum. hoc armante manus Hydrae mors una fuisset, huic percussa foret tota Chimaera semel. igniferos possit sine Colchide iungere tauros, possit utramque feram uincere Pasiphaes. si uetus aequorei reuocetur fabula monstri, Hesionen soluet solus et Andromedan. Herculeae laudis numeretur gloria: plus est bis denas pariter perdomuisse feras.

5

10

HTK : vv. 2, 8–9 desunt in K Tit. De Carpophoro (capororo T ) qui XX irsos (ircos T ) pariter inmissos (inmissus H ) confecit H corr., T : De Carpophoro K 1 carpophorum TK : carporum H 2 non amarathon cum barbara terra fera (ferat T ) HT : non aleret saeuas barbara terra feras Wagner : pauisset nullas barbara terra feras (aut nulla . . . fera) Gilbert (1884) : non Parthaoniam barbara terra feram Bu¨cheler, cit. Friedla¨nder (1886 : ad loc.) : monstra quibus fudit barbara terra fera Heraeus (1925) 3 Marathon K : amarathon HT 5 hoc armante manus hydrae mors una fuisset HTW : hoc armate manus hidre mors sisteret una Bonon. Vindob. 3 6 huic . . . foret . . . semel HTW : hinc . . . semel . . . fuit Bonon. Vindob. 3 7 igniferos HTK : ignipedes ' possit HT : posset K colchide K : cholcide T : cocholcide H iungere Gronovius : uincere HTK 8 utramque H : utrumque T feram Beverland : fera HT 9 uetus Heraeus : situs HT : sit ut Heinsius 10 Hesionen soluet solus et Andromedan Schneidewin : haeson insoluet solus et andromedan HT : solueret esonidem (esoniden W ) solus et andromeden K

If former ages had borne Carpophorus, Caesar, a barbarous land [ . . . ] Marathon would not have feared the bull, nor leafy Nemea the lion, nor the Arcadians the Maenalian boar. If he had taken up his weapons in his hands, the Hydra would have died a single death, the entire Chimaera would have been slaughtered by him in one fell swoop. He would be able to yoke the Wre-bearing bulls without the Colchian’s help, he would be able to overcome both Pasiphae’s beasts. If the old story of the marine monster were summoned up again, he would release Hesione and Andromeda singlehanded. Let the glorious deeds of Hercules be enumerated: it is more to have subdued twice ten savage beasts all at once.

236

Liber Spectaculorum

Introduction: This is the second epigram in the extant collection that is devoted to the exploits of the bestiarius Carpophorus, and yet a third seems to be the source of the interpolated couplet about him at Spect. 26. 7–8: see the Introductions to Spect. 17 and 26. The slaughter of diVerent kinds of animal in the arena naturally suggests a comparison with the exploits of mythological heroes who eliminated the scourge of dangerous beasts in various localities: for the ‘priamel’ form see Spect. 1, Introduction. Martial has already compared Carpophorus’ victory over a lion to Hercules’ Nemean Labour (Spect. 17. 5–6), and he will use this theme again in an epigram praising Domitian for the magniWcence of his uenationes, which by far eclipse the exploits of Hercules (Epigr. 5. 65): see Introduction to Spect. 17, above. The equation of Domitian with Hercules then aVords Martial an entre´e to the serus in caelum redeas theme: whereas his Labours earned Hercules prompt apotheosis, Martial prays that the grant of this reward to Domitian will be delayed (5. 65. 15–16).1 In our epigram the perspective is diVerent: instead of asserting that Carpophorus’ achievements eclipse those of his mythological predecessors, Martial says that if Carpophorus had lived in the heroic past he would himself have accomplished all the feats that are traditionally attributed to various mythological heroes who battled against wild beasts: Theseus (3, 8), Hercules (3–5, 9), Bellerophon (6), Jason (7), Perseus (10). By addressing the epigram to Caesar (1) Martial underlines the association between performer and patron: Carpophorus is one of the stars of the emperor’s series of spectacles, and the mythological aura in the poem aggrandizes the impresario as well as the artiste. The denouement exploits the ‘record-breaking’ instinct that was a key motivation for editores and participants, and accommodates closure via ring-composition: in comparison with the Wnite number of Hercules’ Labours (twelve, performed seriatim), Carpophorus has overcome more than twenty beasts in one go. The comparison of an individual score with the dodecathlos of Hercules is not an exclusively literary conceit. The epitaph of a retiarius named Melanippos from Kemalli (C¸anakkale) near Alexandreia Troas explicitly claims that his thirteen victories outnumber the Labours of Hercules: cf. CIG 3765 ¼ Kaibel no. 350 ¼ IGRRP iii. 43 ¼ Robert (1940), no. 298 ¼ SgO 07/05/01, ll. 5–6 Æ d  &˙æ½ÆŒºÆ  ŒÆd ŒÆ pŁºÆ 
º

½ÆØ• j ½ÆPa  Kªg 
º Æ æØ ŒÆ،ƽ º  . SpeciWc references to the Labours of Hercules are apt in the context of a bestiarius, though less so with respect to 1 A statue of Hercules in the likeness of Domitian prompts another epigram based on a catalogue of the Labours, which Martial compares (to Hercules’ disadvantage) with the achievements of the emperor (Epigr. 9. 101).

Epigram 32

237

a retiarius. They belong to a broader tradition of mythological comparisons based on arithmetic correspondences. Weinreich (1928: 38) notes an epitaph by Antipater (whether of Sidon or of Thessalonica is disputed) in which the lot of a woman called Hermocrateia, survived by her twenty-nine children, is compared to that of Niobe, mourning the loss of her own less numerous oVspring (AP 7. 743 ¼ GP Antip. Thess. 67).2 In his litany of what Carpophorus could have done, Martial avoids monotony by varying the perspective, and hence the syntax, in successive pairs (or trios) of examples that focus increasingly on Carpophorus himself: places would not have feared the local scourge (3–4), the menace would have been eliminated by Carpophorus (5–6, containing further variatio: ablative absolute alternating with dative of the agent), Carpophorus could have eliminated the menace single-handed (7–10). On the restoration of the sequence containing this epigram so as to conform to the order preserved in H (i.e. Spect. 31–4) see General Introduction, Section 1. One might have expected this poem to belong with the major sequence about animal-displays (Spect. 9–26), although in the numbered books of Epigrams too Martial is prone to separate poems on the same theme by inserting other material between them. Possibly the spectacle that this poem commemorates might belong with a sequence performed at Augustus’ stagnum: see General Introduction, Section 5. For the problem of dating Carpophorus’ career see Spect. 17, Introduction. Detailed discussion: Moretti (1992: 58)

Tit. The twenty unspeciWc ferae in the last line of the epigram have become speciWed as ursi. Either this titulus and the scholiast on Isidore (see Spect. 17, Introduction) both derive from the same independent source, or else the scholiast’s knowledge of the Liber spectaculorum was derived from a predecessor of H that already contained this titulus (or from H itself). 2. ynon amarathon cumy barbara terra yferay: the whole of l. 2 is missing from the witnesses to K, in which this epigram is transmitted in a more mutilated state than any other poem: see Carratello (1974a: 12–14). The corruption transmitted by H and T evidently arose from confusion with the

2 At most, Niobe is said to have had twenty children; but elsewhere Antipater (probably the same one, whether of Sidon or Thessalonica) conforms to the number most commonly recorded, i.e. fourteen (APl. 16. 131 ¼ GP Antip. Thess. 86). Aulus Gellius ridicules the discrepancy (NA 20. 7): ‘mira et prope adeo ridicula diuersitas fabulae apud Graecos poetas deprenditur super numero Niobae Wliorum. nam Homerus pueros puellasque eius bis senos dicit fuisse, Euripides bis septenos, Sappho bis nouenos, Bacchylides et Pindarus bis denos, quidam alii scriptores tres fuisse solos dixerunt.’

238

Liber Spectaculorum

beginning of the following line (‘non Marathon taurum’), and may extend to the rest of the line as well. This would be the only pentameter in Martial to end with a bisyllabic epithet in which the second syllable is short, apart from 12. 94. 6 ‘plectra rapis nobis, ambitiose, noua’, where noua carries emphasis (and in any case manuscript authority for fera is not unanimous): see Housman (1925: 201 ¼ 1972: iii. 1101). Gilbert (1884: 512) admits that his eVort to construe fera as ablative would require a less usual construction (‘minder u¨bliche Construction’) with paueo (cf. his conjecture pauisset), and prefers nullas . . . feras. Bu¨cheler conjectured a reference to Meleager’s slaying of the Calydonian boar via an allusion to King Porthaon of Calydon (Latin manuscripts hover between the adjectival forms Porth- and Parth- : cf. Ov. Met. 8. 542, Stat. Theb. 1. 670. Bu¨cheler’s conjecture is printed by Friedla¨nder (1886). But (i) a trio of exempla conWned to the second couplet would be more powerful than a quartet spanning three lines; and (ii) in a list of exempla naming a territory or its people barbara terra would be meaningless, since it does not refer to a speciWc part of Greece: see Housman (1925: 201 ¼ 1972: iii. 1101). barbara terra is a common phrase in Ovid, in whom, as here, it invariably occurs in the second hemiepes of the pentameter: see Siedschlag (1972: 160). But in these instances it either refers to Tomis (Tr. 3. 1. 18, 3. 3. 46, 4. 4. 86) or, imitating the post-Homeric Greek attitude, Troy (Helen to Paris at Her. 17. 64). Ovid does not use the phrase to refer to some indeWnite land in a state of primeval barbarity, far less a speciWc part of Greece, and we therefore cannot defend the usage here as an Ovidian echo. Equally unsatisfactory are attempts at emendation that treat the line as a general exemplum alluding to no speciWc territory or myth, e.g. the conjecture by Wagner (1843: 572) ‘non aleret saeuas barbara terra feras’ (although feras is very likely right). This line should probably be construed as part of the apodosis extending from l. 1. I conclude that the Wrst half of the line is irrecoverable, and that fera is also corrupt. 3–4. non Marathon taurum, Nemee frondosa leonem, j Arcas Maenalium non timuisset aprum: this trio of exempla is patterned along the model of an increasing tricolon: subject/object; subject/subject-qualiWer/object; subject/object-qualiWer/verb/object. The switch from territory (Marathon, Nemea) to inhabitant (the Arcadian) renders the personiWcation of Marathon and Nemea less prominent, because the verb common to all three subjects is conjoined to the person rather than to one of the places (‘Arcas . . . timuisset’). The second and third exempla refer to Labours of Hercules, the strangling of the Nemean lion and the capture of the Erymanthian boar: see RE Suppl. iii. 1028–33, 1044–8 s.v. Herakles (Gruppe), LIMC v/1. 16–34 s.v. Herakles and the Nemean lion (Labour I), 43–8 s.v. Herakles and the Erymanthian Boar

Epigram 32

239

(Labour III) (Wassiliki Felten). It would therefore seem predictable that the Wrst exemplum should also refer to Hercules, so as to unify the initial trio of exempla. From the time of Diodorus Siculus onwards (4. 59. 6), the bull that Hercules captured on Crete and took to Eurystheus at Mycenae is said to have escaped to Attica, thereby accommodating an identiWcation with the bull that terrorized Marathon and was Wnally worsted by Theseus: see RE Suppl. iii. 1051–3 s.v. Herakles (Gruppe), LIMC v/1. 59–67 s.v. Herakles and the Cretan bull (Labour VII) (Luigi Todisco), vii/1. 936–9 s.v. Theseus: VI The bull of Marathon (Jenifer Neils). But Martial’s logic is that the places that he lists in these Wrst three exempla would not have had to fear the animals that were menacing them, because Carpophorus would have performed the feat of riddance that is traditionally attributed to a mythological hero. Hence the reference to the bull of Marathon is meant to evoke its slaughter there by Theseus; its preceding capture on Crete by Hercules is addressed later (l. 8). On the conXation of the two stories see Bo¨mer on Ov. Met. 7. 434. On the Ionic form Nemee see on Spect. 8. 1 ‘Nemees’. The epithet frondosa may allude to an etymology for the name ( ¼ glade): cf. Pind. Isth. 6. 61 I
Pººı ˝
Æ, Stat. Silu. 5. 3. 52 ‘Nemees lucum’, Theb. 4. 826 ‘siluarum, Nemea, longe regina uirentum, RE xvi/2. 2313–14 s.v. Nemea 2 (Ernst Meyer). 5. hoc armante manus: the use of the present participle in an ablative absolute to denote circumstances contemporaneous with the main clause is well represented in early Latin by such phrases as me absente and uobis inspectantibus: see H–Sz 138, Laughton (1964: 106). But its use in an ablative absolute that is strictly antecedent to the action of the main clause is not a mannerism of colloquial speech but a literary development from the time of Cicero onwards, attested in both prose and verse: see Flinck-Linkomies (1929: 211–44). The ablative absolute here stands for a conditional clause, a very rare use. Flinck-Linkomies (1929: 90–1), while accepting that a conditional or concessive sense is an easy extension of the instrumental use of this construction, has apparently overlooked this example. manus armare is the regular expression in verse for ‘to arm oneself ’ (i.e. regularly with shield in one hand and sword in the other): cf. TLL ii. 617. 58– 618. 51 (Vollmer), OLD s.v. armo 1. Hydrae mors una: the number of heads attributed to the Hydra varies from nine in Alcaeus to 100 in Euripides (Herc. 1188). In artistic representations, between three and eleven are usually depicted. She was uulneribus fecunda suis (Ov. Met. 9. 70), in that two heads—or even three—grew to replace each one that was severed (Serv. on Virg. Aen. 6. 287). Iolaos overcame this diYculty by cauterizing each neck in turn: cf. RE ix/1. 46–50 s.v. Hydra (Sittig), Suppl. iii. 1034. 1–1035. 40 s.v. Herakles (Gruppe), LIMC v/1. 34–42 s.v. Herakles and

240

Liber Spectaculorum

the Lernaean Hydra (Labour II) (G. Kokkorou-Alewras). One possible interpretation of Martial’s line is that all the Hydra’s heads had to be cut oV simultaneously to prevent regrowth (so Izaac ad loc.), although this detail does not seem to be preserved in any ancient source.3 Martial seems, rather, to be making a general assertion, in which hoc armante manus supplies the reason for Hydrae mors una fuisset: Carpophorus is so skilled that he would kill the Hydra once and for all. The result would be that that she would be unable to grow new heads to provide fresh targets for fatal (but, paradoxically, regenerative) attacks: cf. Mart. 9. 101. 9 (Hercules) ‘fecundam uetuit reparari mortibus Hydram’. 6. percussa . . . tota Chimaera semel: the Chimaera was a fusion of three animals. It had the head and body of a lion; the head of a goat grew out of the middle of its spine; and its tail ended in the head of a snake: see RE iii/2. 2281–2 s.v. Chimaira (Bethe), LIMC iii/1. 249–59 s.v. Chimaira (Anne Jacquemin). In artistic representations Bellerophon is usually depicted pointing his lance at the head of either the lion or the goat: see LIMC vii/2. 158–68 nos. 152–217. Martial alludes to the diYculty of selecting the target when the prey is tripartite: according to one strand of logic, three separate blows should have been required to kill each of the constituent beasts, but Carpophorus could have killed the whole monster with one blow. 7. igniferos . . . iungere tauros: ploughing with the Wre-breathing, brazenfooted bulls was one of the tasks that King Aeetes required of Jason before he would give him the Golden Fleece: see RE ii/1. 765–8 s.v. Argonautai 17. Kolchis (Jessen), LIMC v/1. 629–38 s.v. Iason (Jenifer Neils). The epithet for ‘Wre-breathing’ in Greek is ıæðÞı: cf. Eur. Med. 476–9 (Medea to Jason)  ø   . . . 
ŁÆ Ææø ıæ ø KØ   j 
ªºÆØ Ø. This is variously conveyed in Latin by Xammifer and ignifer: cf. Val. Fl. 6. 433–5 (Juno) ‘increpat et seris Vulcanum maesta querellis, j cuius Xammiferos uidet inter regia tauros j pascua Tartaream proXantes pectore noctem’, 8. 342 (Medea’s Wance´ Styrus) ‘iungam igniferos sine carmine tauros’. In our passage contamination from the following line (8) has substituted a general verb (uincere) for one speciWc to Jason’s feat with the Colchian bulls, for which iungere (Gronovius) is the mot juste: cf. the second passage from Valerius Flaccus quoted in the previous sentence. Colchide: as a substantive, Colchis ¼ ‘Medea’ in poetry from the Augustan period onwards (and in the plural ‘people like Medea’): see TLL Onomasticon, ii. 530. 3–16 (Reisch). Martial refers to Medea exclusively by this toponymic, whose short second syllable is metrically convenient: cf. 5. 53. 1 ‘Colchida 3 It is classiWed under the rubric ‘purely Wctitious or deWnitely false’ in Housman’s review (1931: 83 ¼ 1972: iii. 1174).

Epigram 32

241

quid scribis, quid scribis, amice, Thyesten?’, 10. 4. 1–2 ‘Qui legis Oedipoden caligantemque Thyesten, j Colchidas et Scyllas, quod nisi monstra legis?’, 10. 35. 5 ‘non haec Colchidos asserit furorem’. 8. utramque feram . . . Pasiphaes: after its congress with Pasiphae, the Cretan bull ran amok and is said to have shaken the walls of the Cretan cities with its bellowing (Claud. DRP 2 praef. 33–4) or scorched the countryside with its Wre-laden breath (Q. Smyrn. 6. 236–7, APl . 92. 8, Serv. on Virg. Aen. 8. 294, [Claud.] Laus Herc. 120–1). For its capture by Hercules see on l. 3, above. The threat posed by the Minotaur was deXected from its immediate surroundings by an annual sacriWce of seven youths and seven maidens from Athens, until it was Wnally eliminated by Theseus: cf. Plut. Thes. 15–19, LIMC vi/1. 574–81 s.v. Minotauros (Susan Woodford). Strictly speaking, neither the bull nor the Minotaur is a wild animal. Ulpian maintains a distinction between bestiae, exempt from charges of pauperies ‘propter naturalem feritatem’, and domestic quadrupeds that may manifest deviant behaviour ‘commota feritate’, and are therefore liable for the charge; he cites the example of an ox that is prone to gore people (Dig. 9. 1. 1. 4, 10). Martial, however, is a poet making a rhetorical point, irrespective of legal distinctions; and the Minotaur, with its hybrid nature and its savage diet, seems ideally qualiWed for treatment as a fera.4 A play on grammatical gender is notoriously hard to determine, but it seems noteworthy that the feminine phrase utramque feram refers to two exemplars of taurine lust and strength. 9. fabula: the singular is used for two myths on similar themes. 10. Hesionen . . . Andromedan: there are strong parallels between the stories of Hesione, daughter of King Laomedon of Troy, and Andromeda, daughter of Cepheus, king of the Cephenes, whose kingdom is identiWed with Ethiopia. In each case the girl’s father was instructed to sacriWce her to a seamonster sent by Poseidon to ravage his kingdom, but she was rescued by a hero—Hesione by Heracles, and Andromeda (at Joppa on the coast of Palestine, now Yafo in Israel) by Perseus: cf. RE i/2. 2154–9 s.v. Andromeda (Wernicke), viii/1. 1240–2 s.v. Hesione 5 (Weicker), LIMC i/1. 774–90 s.v. Andromeda I (Konrad Schauenburg), viii/1. 623–9 s.v. Hesione (John H. Oakley). It is tempting to see this line as an eVort by Martial to reXect the symmetry between the stories via the chiastic arrangement, with the girls’ names framing the paronomasia soluet/solus et that is visible beneath the corruption in H and T. For the termination in -en (Hesionen) see on Spect. 6. 1 ‘Pasiphaen’. 4 In a description that paints her in repulsive terms Statius calls the Sphinx a fera (Theb. 2. 505).

242

Liber Spectaculorum

11. Herculeae laudis . . . gloria: an allusion to the canonical Wgure of twelve for the Labours of Hercules, and perhaps also a play on his Greek name & ˙æÆŒºB, ‘glory of Hera’. For pleonasm with gloria see on Spect. 17. 1 ‘gloria famae’. 12. bis denas . . . feras implies that careful tallies were kept of the successes of individual bestiarii, just like the re´sume´s of gladiators. The total number of beasts killed in a munus was calculated with extreme precision: 2,246 beasts are recorded as having been slaughtered in a munus sponsored by Hadrian between 18 April and 25 May, perhaps in 120 (the record of the consular year has been lost), and a further 443 during a lusio secunda under his auspices that began on 4 June (CIL xiv. 4546 ¼ EAOR iv, no. 11). It has been suggested by Ville (1981: 147) that, if Carpophorus killed twenty beasts at once, the occasion was possibly the enormous uenatio held at Augustus’ stagnum in which 5,000 were reputed to have been killed (Suet. Tit. 7. 3, cit. General Introduction, Section 6). To despatch what amounted to whole herds of animals in one day, however, we should perhaps think of swarms of bestiarii descending upon the arena, rather than circumstances in which a careful tally could have been kept of the number that an individual bestiarius bagged; and for the possibility that Carpophorus pursued his career under Domitian, rather than Titus, see Spect. 17, Introduction. It would seem reasonable to expect that the epitaph of a bestiarius would list the total number of animals that he had despatched during his career, perhaps reckoned according to species, and that details of any outstanding exploits (such as Carpophorus’ here) might be included. A generalizing estimate of the bears killed by a certain Troilus is included in his epitaph at Amasia by his wife Ladice: cf. Robert (1940), no. 77 ¼ IGRRP iii. 1439 #æøº K ÆØ  Æ ¼æŒı Æ j ØŒ Ł
d ıæ
E æe ŒıÆ ŒÆ . But epitaphs for bestiarii are rare, and nothing like the summary of a gladiator’s victories and reprieves appears to survive. Bestiarii apparently enjoyed far less prestige than gladiators. Ville (1981: 335) has suggested that this is because the risks that they took were less, although this seems a questionable assumption, given the dangers involved in exposure to swift and savage animals: see Roueche´ (1993: 78). Alternatively, if a high proportion of bestiarii were natives imported from the regions where the animals were hunted in the wild, their alien status as non-citizens would immediately remove them from the class practising the ‘epigraphic habit’. The intractability of many Latin numerals in dactylic verse challenged the poets to feats of multiplication. The combination of numerical adverb and distributive adjective, common in prose, is favoured by the post-Augustan poets, especially Silius, Statius, and Martial, whereas Virgil and Ovid prefer the combination of numerical adverb and cardinal: see H–Sz 212.

Epigram 32

243

perdomuisse: both the simplex form of the verb and the compound can bear the meaning ‘subjugate thoroughly’, i.e. ‘kill’. With reference to beasts cf. Ov. Met. 1. 446–7 (the founding of the Pythian games by Apollo) ‘instituit sacros celebri certamine ludos, j Pythia perdomitae serpentis nomine dictos’, 7. 372–4 ‘nam Phylius illic j imperio pueri uolucresque ferumque leonem j tradiderat domitos’, Sen. Ag. 835 (Hercules) ‘morte fecundam domuit draconem’, HF 444 ‘post monstra tot perdomita’, TLL v/1. 1947. 55–63 (Bannier), x/1. 1280. 73–1281. 3 (Delhey).

3 3 ( 3 0 S , L; 2 9 H ) Concita ueloces fugeret cum damma Molossos et uaria lentas necteret arte moras, Caesaris ante pedes supplex similisque roganti constitit, et praedam non tetigere canes. * * * * * haec intellecto principe dona tulit. numen habet Caesar: sacra est haec, sacra potestas. credite: mentiri non didicere ferae.

5

HR Tit. De damma quam Caesar dimisit HR 2 lentas R : lentus H : lyncas Scaliger : obliquas Scriverius : longas Schmieder moras HR : mora Scaliger 5 lacunae signum non habent HR : damaque quae rabidis cessisset praeda Molossis suppl. Scriverius 6 haec H : hac (corr. ex hanc) R : uis Scaliger 8 didicere Scaliger : dedicere R : dicere H

When a doe that had been set running was Xeeing from the swift Molossian hounds and by means of various tricks concocting delays that would bog them down, she stopped in supplication before Caesar’s feet, like someone presenting a petition, and the hounds did not touch their quarry. [ . . . ] In recognizing her leader she carried oV this reward. Caesar possesses a divine aura: sacred it is, sacred this power. Believe it: beasts have not learnt how to lie. Introduction: An event in the arena in which animals behave contrary to their instincts is interpreted as proof of the emperor’s divinity: a doe being chased by Molossian hounds falls to her knees in front of him, and yet the hounds do not attack her. The situation, and the conclusion that Martial draws from it, are analogous to his presentation of the episode concerning the lion and the hare in the ‘cycle’ in Book 1. There the lion takes the hare in its jaws without harming it, and Martial treats this ‘miracle’ as proof of the emperor’s divinity.1 In our epigram, the emperor’s power is felt by both categories of animal protagonist: by the doe, who casts herself upon his mercy (Martial implies that she chooses to kneel instead of pursuing her Xight, rather than that she stumbles and collapses); and by the hounds, who refrain from attacking their victim once she is in this vulnerable position. Although the attribution of divinity to the emperor conforms to the treatment of Domitian in our sources (including the rest of Martial’s oeuvre), we cannot rule out the possibility that such sentiments could have been addressed to Titus also (see General Introduction, Section 6), and there can therefore be no certainty as to the date of this epigram. 1 e.g. he equates Domitian with Jupiter, whose eagle did not harm Ganymede: 1. 4. 5–6 ‘quae maiora putas miracula? summus utrisque j auctor adest: haec sunt Caesaris, illa Iouis’.

Epigram 33

245

The structure conforms to the pattern of ‘incident-and-comment’ that is frequently used as a vehicle for a tribute to the emperor: see Spect. 12, Introduction. 1. Concita . . . damma: dam(m)a, properly denoting a gazelle or small deer, is also used by poets of the chamois (i.e. wild goat, rupicapra): see Keller (1909: 287, 290, 299), TLL v/1. 8. 11–52 (Lommatzsch). Its use in the masculine by Virgil, attributed by Quintilian to avoidance of homoeoteleuton (Inst. 9. 3. 6, commenting on Virg. E. 8. 28 ‘timidi . . . dammae’), has a recherche´ and poetic ring: see Renehan (1998: 218). From Horace onwards it regularly assumes feminine gender: see Walde–Hofmann (1965: i. 321). These animals are a byword for defencelessness: cf. Mart. 13. 94 Dammae ‘Dente timetur aper, defendunt cornua ceruum: j imbelles dammae quid nisi praeda sumus?’ (Their ferocity towards members of their own species, treated at Mart. 4. 35 and 74, is not relevant here.) Associated with their defencelessness is the timidity that is invariably attributed to them: cf. Ov. Hal. 4 (in a list describing how various animals defend themselves) ‘sic dammae fugiunt, pugnant uirtute leones’. Hence dammae are timidi (Virg. E. 8. 28, G. 3. 539), pauidae (Hor. O. 1. 2. 12), fugaces (Ov. Met. 1. 442), territa (Ov. F. 3. 646), etc. In a list of adynata illustrating the power of Orpheus’ music, dammae are not afraid of wolves ([Sen.] HO 1058 ‘nec dammae trepidant lupos’). The hound is to fear the hare and the deer at Cor. Ioh. 4. 386 ‘canis leporem dammamque pauescat’. A damma and Molossian hounds are cited by Dracontius as an example of natural antipathy: Laud. Dei 1. 277–9 ‘impia terribiles producit terra leones, j simplicitas ouium fraudem passura luporum j et raucos timuit discurrens damma Molossos.’ concitus, ‘roused’, ‘upset’, past participle of conci(e)o, is used more commonly of people than of animals, but there are exceptions: cf. Avian. 7. 6 ‘[canis] concitus audaci uulnera dente dabat’, Anth. Lat. 390 R ¼ 386 SB, ll. 21–2 (the motif of ‘the lion shall lie down with the lamb’) ‘iungatur nunc cerua asino, nun tigris onagro, j iungatur fesso concita damma boui’, TLL iv. 38. 29–37 (Gudeman). ueloces . . . Molossos: named after the Molossians in Epirus, who bore the emblem of a dog’s head on their coins. Properly canes Molossi, they are Wrst designated by the epithet alone at Virg. G. 3. 404–6 (where, however, canes have already been speciWed): ‘ne tibi cura canum fuerit postrema, sed una j uelocis Spartae catulos acremque Molossum j pasce sero pingui’, TLL viii. 1388. 18–44 (Rubenbauer). A local epithet on its own is common in referring to species of fauna or Xora associated with speciWc areas: cf. Damascena (pruna), plums from Damascus (i.e. damsons).

246

Liber Spectaculorum

These hounds were probably Wrst bred to guard the enormous cattle of Epirus: cf. Aristot. HA 3. 21, Keller (1909: 104). Later, in addition to their function as guardians of the herd (cf. Sil. 2. 689 ‘late fusa iacent pecudes custosque Molossus’), they were also kept as watchdogs. Hence their name came to be applied to any large watchdog of the mastiV-type, regardless of the precise origins of the breed, just as ‘Laconian’ became a byword for a huntingdog. Dogs of the Molossian species—either pure-bred or crossed with Laconian hounds—were used for hunting because they were both strong and vicious, so much so that they were even a match for bears and wolves: see RE viii/2. 2548–50 s.v. Hund (Orth). Aristotle (HA 9. 3) distinguishes the type used as a guard-dog from that used in hunting, but they may not have been separate breeds. Speed is the standard attribute of a hunting-dog, while the Molossian hound (understandably, given its original role) is normally associated with aggressive instincts (which in their turn prompt quick reactions): cf. Virgil’s phrase describing Laconian puppies and a Molossian hound (G. 3. 405, cit. in the previous paragraph), Sen. Phaedr. 32–3 ‘teneant acres j lora Molossos’. On the Molossian hound in general see Keller (1909: 103–8, 111), Aymard (1951: 251–4), Hull (1964: 29–30), Toynbee (1973: 103), Mynors on Virg. G. 3. 405 ‘Molossum’. Both uelox (cognate with uolare) and celer are applied to hounds: cf. Ov. Her. 4. 42 ‘celeris . . . canes’, Virg. G. 3. 405 ‘uelocis Spartae catulos’. celer is the more poetic word, absent altogether from some prose authors (Sallust, Curtius) and from Persius, and occurring only twice in the Vulgate as opposed to thirty instances of uelox, whereas in Horace and Ovid celer is twice as common as uelox: see TLL iii. 749. 3–7 (Burger). Martial, composing epigrams and therefore employing a register closer to everyday speech, favours uelox (eleven instances) over celer (Wve). 2. lentas necteret . . . moras: the idiom nectere moras, Wrst attested in Seneca, achieves currency with the Flavian poets and with Tacitus: cf. Sen. Ira 3 (¼ Dial. 5). 39. 3 ‘moras nectet et, dum maiorem poenam quaerit, praesentem diVeret’, Stat. Theb. 4. 677 ‘nectam fraude moras’, Tac. Hist. 4. 68. 3 ‘simul Domitianus Mucianusque accingebantur, dispari animo, ille spe ac iuuenta properus, hic moras nectens, quis Xagrantem retineret.’ This idiom may have developed by analogy with other metaphors in which weaving conveys the notion of subterfuge and deceit (nectere dolum/fraudem/insidias, etc.): cf. Liv. 1. 5. 6 ‘undique regi dolus nectitur’, Sen. Oed. 92 ‘Sphinga caecis uerba nectentem modis’, Stat. Theb. 1. 495 ‘nexis ambagibus’, OLD s.v. nectere 9. The metaphorical use of Þ
Ø from Homer onwards is comparable: cf. Il. 18. 367 ŒÆŒa ÞłÆØ (Þ
, Od. 3. 118), Od. 16. 379 ƒ   ÆNf Kæ
, 421–2 ŁÆ  
 æ 
j Þ
Ø. On the ‘web of deceitful invention’ theme in Plautus and Cicero see Fantham (1972: 105–6).

Epigram 33

247

There seems no reason to doubt lentas (see app. crit.). For the sense of lentas . . . moras (‘delays which slow down the inevitable outcome’) see on Spect. 26. 12 ‘i nunc et lentas corripe, turba, moras!’ uaria . . . arte: uarius with a singular substantive is sometimes used to express the idea of ‘many diVerent kinds’, more commonly conveyed by the plural: cf. Prop. 3. 24. 5 ‘mixtam te uaria laudaui saepe Wgura’, Ov. Met. 10. 375 (Myrrha) ‘sic animus uario labefactus uulnere nutat’, OLD s.v. 4. 3. supplex similisque roganti: for supplex see on Spect. 20. 1 ‘pius et supplex . . . adorat’. The doe must be in the same posture as the elephant, i.e. sunk forward onto her bent forelegs as though kneeling in supplication. The generally defenceless and fragile appearance of deer and gazelles may have contributed to the sympathy that they aroused; Martial records spectators in the amphitheatre requesting the reprieve of a gazelle by Xuttering their togas: 13. 99 Dorcas ‘Delicium paruo donabis dorcada nato: j iactatis solet hanc mittere turba togis.’ As noted by Hinds (2007), Martial’s anthropomorphic phrase alludes to one of the most ‘implicitly amphitheatrical’ scenes in the Metamorphoses, Ovid’s description of the metamorphosed Actaeon cornered by his hounds (Met. 3. 240–1): ‘et genibus pronis supplex similisque roganti j circumfert tacitos tamquam sua bracchia uultus.’ 4. constitit: the enjambement draws attention to the unexpected occurrence. praedam: perhaps related to pre-hendere (Ernout-Meillet s.v. praeda conjecture the form *prai-heda), properly what is captured and kept (e.g. military booty), commonly of the quarry hunted by animals: cf. Ov. Met. 3. 225–7 (Actaeon’s hounds) ‘ea turba cupidine praedae . . . sequuntur’, TLL x/2. 527. 1–43 (Gatti). The notion of seizure and possession associated with praeda gives a special edge to the restraint of the hounds in the arena. This same restraint is implied in the apparent paradox with which Martial pays a compliment to Domitian at 4. 74. 4 (on deer locked in combat) ‘uis, Caesar, dammis parcere? mitte canes.’ 5. What is missing from the transmitted text? In the following line intellecto principe apparently refers to the Wrst miraculous event described in the previous couplet, i.e. l. 6 corresponds to l. 3. Hence Scriverius inferred that the lacuna occupies the space of a single verse (5) referring to the second miracle (4), i.e. he postulated successive couplets paired in chiastic arrangement. 6. intellecto principe: it was by instinct rather than rational deduction that the doe acknowledged Caesar’s authority: cf. Plin. NH 8. 146 (dogs) ‘dominum nouere et ignotum quoque, si repente ueniat, intellegunt.’ The use of princeps here (cf. Spect. 31. 11 n.) evokes a complex of ideas: princeps as the leader of a group, princeps as head of the herd, and Princeps as the emperor: the doe acknowledged as her leader the First Citizen of the state.

248

Liber Spectaculorum

7. numen habet Caesar: just like the epithet sacer (see on Spect. 27. 2 ‘lux prima sacri muneris’), numen is Wrst ascribed to an emperor by Ovid, who uses it of Augustus (especially in contexts emphasizing his solemnity and the power of his wrath) and of members of his immediate family: cf. Tr. 2. 141, 5. 3. 45–6, Pont. 4. 13. 24, Scott (1930: 54, 58 n. 57, 65–7). The emperor’s divine capacity is recognized by the natural world: cf. Epigr. 9. 31 (a goose vowed for Domitian’s safe return from the Sarmatian campaign goes voluntarily to the sacriWce, and miraculously drips coins from its beak instead of blood), Sauter (1934: 45–7), Scott (1936: 120–5). sacra est haec, sacra potestas: the anaphora of the adjective, distributing the subject between two clauses, is a technique of emphasis reminiscent of the word-order favoured by Statius in which it is the predicate which is distributed between two clauses by anaphora of the verb: cf. Silu. 4. 1. 40–1 ‘restat Bactra nouis, restat Babylona tributis j frenari’, 4. 2. 16 ‘datur iuxta, datur ora tueri’. Wills (1996: 73–5) notes that geminated adjectives are very seldom encountered in prose, and that even in poetry the device is rare. He compares the Hellenistic trope at Callim. Epigr. 28 PfeiVer (¼ HE Callim. 2). 5–6, where the repetition of the adjective sets up the word-play that constitutes closure: ¸ı Æ , f b ÆØ ŒÆºe ŒÆº ------Iººa æd
N
E j F ÆH,  ˙ 

 Ø ‘‘¼ºº 
Ø.’’ A famous example in Latin occurs in a markedly Hellenistic context, rendering a lost Callimachean original:2 Cat. 66. 39–40 ‘inuita, o regina, tuo de uertice cessi, j inuita’. Hence it is striking that, given the legacy of Hellenistic epigram, Martial uses this Wgure so seldom. 8. credite: an appeal to the anonymous audience is a technique of closure employed elsewhere in the Liber spectaculorum in connection with the attribution of divinity to the emperor: cf. 20. 4 ‘crede mihi, nostrum sentit et ille deum’, and see General Introduction, Section 11. mentiri non didicere ferae: does this refer to the doe or the hounds, or both? The train of thought seems to be that, if the doe had been able to pretend that she did not recognize the superhuman power of the emperor, she would have kept running away from the hounds instead of collapsing to her knees; but it was precisely her inability to pretend that saved her, since her obeisance before the emperor prevented the hounds from violating what was entrusted to his care. The implicit contrast with mendacious humanity is one of many instances in which the capacities of ferae are distinguished from those of mankind: see TLL vi/1. 607. 60–83 (G. Jachmann). Cynic assertions of the moral superiority of animals may hover in the background: see Dierauer (1977: 180–7). 2 Leofranc Holford-Strevens suggests to me that, if the last self-referential substantive had been  æı (cf. Call. fr. 110. 8 PfeiVer) or º ŒÆ, and if we allow that Callimachus could have used the Attic form, the original might have been ¼Œø t Æ º
ØÆ . . . ¼Œø.

34 (2 8 S , L ; 3 0 H ) Augusti labor hic fuerat committere classes et freta nauali sollicitare tuba. Caesaris haec nostri pars est quota? uidit in undis et Thetis ignotas et Galatea feras; uidit in aequoreo feruentes puluere currus et domini Triton isse putauit equos; dumque parat saeuis ratibus fera proelia Nereus, horruit in liquidis ire pedestris aquis. quidquid et in circo spectatur et amphitheatro, diues Caesarea praestitit unda tuba. Fucinus et Teucri taceantur stagna Neronis: hanc norint unam saecula naumachiam.

5

10

HTK Tit. De naumachia minore HT : om. K 3 quota Bonon. Vindob. 3 : aota H : cata T : et W 4 galatea HTW Bonon. : galeata Vindob. 3 feras om. Vindob. 3 6 et domini W : et domi HT : atque deum Bonon. Vindob 3 isse HTK : ipse ' 7 saeuis . . . fera HW : saeuis . . . ferat T : saeuus . . . fera Bonon. : scaeuus . . . fera Vindob. 3 8 ire K : om. HT 10 diues Caesarea HTK : diues Caesarei Heinsius 1 : diues Caesar io Heinsius 2 : id diues, Caesar Housman (1907) : Caesaris hoc diues Claverius : hic diues, Caesar Delz : peruia Caesarea Saenger tuba Dubielzig privatim : tibi HTK : sali Heinsius : trabe Saenger 11 Fucinus ' : Fucines HTW : Fuces Bonon. Vindob. 3 Teucri Housman (1907) : pigri K : tigri HT : diri Heinsius : duri Friedla¨nder (1884) in app., dubitanter : Phrygii Carratello (1965b) dubitanter : taetri Watt : tetrici R. G. M. Nisbet : turpis Greenwood (1992) : tigris Deroux : fort. domini? 12 hanc HTK : haec Jocelyn privatim norint ': norunt HTK

Here it was the labour of Augustus to pit Xeets against one another and to rouse the waves with naval trumpet. What fraction of our Emperor’s achievement does this amount to? Thetis and Galatea have seen strange beasts among the waves; Triton has seen chariots scorching in the watery dust, and thought his master’s horses had galloped by; and while Nereus was organizing Werce battles for hostile Xeets, he was awestruck at going on foot over the limpid water. Whatever can be seen in both the circus and the amphitheatre the lavish water has provided at a blast of Caesar’s trumpet. Boasting about Fucinus and Trojan Nero’s pools has to stop: posterity is to know just this one naval battle.

250

Liber Spectaculorum

Introduction: This epigram describes a series of spectacles that Martial explicitly locates in the stagnum of Augustus (l. 1).1 This was an enormous basin with axes of 1,800 and 1,200 Roman feet (536 m  357 m) that Augustus excavated in Trastevere (RG 23). It is probably to be located in the area extending from the church of S. Francesco a Ripa in the south-east corner, as far west as the furthest extremity of the monastery of S. Cosimato, and north as far as the church of S. Crisogono. For a plan combining the pattern of the modern streets with the surviving fragments of the Marble Plan see Taylor (1997: 478 Wg. 4). Two other locations have been suggested: (i) to the north in the Xoodplain at the base of the Janiculum, suggested by Hu¨lsen: see van Deman (1934: 181–2); (ii) to the south near the Porta Portuensis: see Coarelli (1992: 46–51). But Taylor (1997: 475) demonstrates that both these locations are too cramped to accommodate a structure of these dimensions. Suetonius mentions events that Titus staged at Augustus’ stagnum (Tit. 7. 3): ‘dedit et nauale proelium in ueteri naumachia, ibidem et gladiatores atque uno die quinque milia omne genus ferarum.’ So does Dio (66. 25. 2–4):2 K ªÆª
b ŒÆd IŁæı Kd ºø:ð3ÞŒÆd yØ b KŒ
E (i.e. in the Flavian amphitheatre), ‰ ƒ b ˚
æŒıæÆEØ ƒ b ˚æŁØØ Z
, KÆı

Æ, ¼ººØ b ø K fiH ¼º
Ø fiH F ˆÆØ¡ ı F 
¸ıŒı, ‹ 
› `hªı  K ÆPe F TæÆ: ŒÆd ªaæ KÆFŁÆ fiB b æfi æfi Æ ÆÆ 
ŒÆd Ł æø ƪ, ŒÆØŒ Ł
  Æ Ø B ŒÆa æ ø H
NŒ ø º  ŒÆd NŒæÆ æØ ºÆ ,ð4ÞfiB b 
ıæfi Æ ƒæÆ ŒÆd fiB æfi ÆıÆÆ æØ غø IæH ŒÆd 
a F ήd 
ÆÆ Kª
: ØŒ Æ
 ªaæ ƒ !Ł ÆEØ f ıæÆŒı ı ðØ ªaæ E O Æ Ø æ


Ø KÆı

ÆÞ K
BºŁ K e 

Ø, ŒÆd æ ƺ 
 

Ø Ød 
æd e  
E 
Ø fiø
xº ÆP . He also brought in people on ships; (3) they engaged in a naval battle there representing the Corcyreans versus the Corinthians. Others gave a similar display outside the city in the grove of Gaius and Lucius, which Augustus had once excavated for this purpose. There, too, on the Wrst day—once the lake in front of the images had been covered with a platform of planks and wooden stands had been erected around it— there was a gladiatorial display and a slaughter of wild beasts; (4) on the second day there was a horse-race, and on the third day a naval battle involving three thousand men, followed by an infantry battle: the ‘Athenians’ conquered the ‘Syracusans’ (these being the designations the men fought under), landed on the island, and stormed and captured a wall that had been built around the monument.

1 For crisp treatment see Ville (1981: 146–7). The discussion by Traversari (1960: 112–15) is vitiated by his assumption that all the events described in this epigram were being staged in the Flavian amphitheatre. 2 For the larger context of both these passages see General Introduction, Section 6, where they are quoted in full.

Epigram 34

251

Suetonius’ notice is disappointingly brief, but in addition to the naval battle it explicitly mentions other types of spectacle at the stagnum, i.e. gladiatorial combat and a display of beasts on an enormous scale (presumably a uenatio). Dio speciWes the context for the naval battle (a re-enactment of the Athenian attack on Syracuse in 414 bc, with an unhistorical outcome), and he corroborates Suetonius’ evidence for the munus and uenatio by explaining that the water was covered with planks for this purpose. He speciWes that the events took place on three successive days; this explains the need for the platform over the water, since it is calculated that the stagnum would have taken at least a fortnight to Wll: see Liberati Silverio (1986: 75–8), Coleman (1993: 53–4), Taylor (1997: 473). Martial does not mention any gladiators, but the rest of his list corresponds to the events enumerated by Dio, and he treats them in the same order (presumably the sequence in which the events were staged), devoting a couplet to each: animal-display (ll. 3–4), chariotracing (ll. 5–6), naval battle (ll. 7–8). Hence it seems likely that Martial and Dio were celebrating the same occasion, an impression reinforced by the topos of ‘outdoing’ in relation to the spectacles of Claudius and Nero at l. 11; if our epigram referred to an occasion staged by Domitian, the comparison with the Julio-Claudians would elide the famous inaugural event under Titus, a rhetorical ploy of such transparency that it is hard to see how Domitian could be Xattered by it. For a comparison of the events ascribed to the inauguration and the spectacles celebrated in our collection see General Introduction, Section 6, with Table 4. The events mentioned by Martial and Dio required more space than was aVorded by the amphitheatre, which must be the main reason why they were staged at the stagnum instead. Far from being strictly a celebration of the amphitheatre, the inaugural ceremony was an opportunity for Titus to display his wealth and resourcefulness across the spectrum of spectacular entertainment. Along the way, he presented himself as a miracle-worker, staging on the water what was usually performed on land. A rhetorical question near the beginning of this epigram introduces the idea that the role of Augustus as eponymous founder is eclipsed by that of ‘Caesar’ as impresario extraordinaire (3): ‘Caesaris haec nostri pars est quota?’ Hence the closing sententia: the naumachia that ‘Caesar’ has staged at the stagnum outdoes all the other naumachiae that have ever been put on by any emperor anywhere: Titus is heir to Augustus’ legacy, and surpasses it. This is the last epigram in the collection as transmitted by the manuscripts, since the two that complete the book in modern printed editions are transmitted independently by the Florilegium Gallicum and were added to this collection by Junius: see General Introduction, Section 2. Why was our epigram apparently separated from the sequence about aquatic displays

252

Liber Spectaculorum

(Spect. 27–30) and placed instead at the end? One possible explanation is that it refers to spectacles in a venue other than the Flavian amphitheatre. This argument would suggest that the amphitheatre was the venue for all the displays described in the sequence 27–30, including Leander’s swim (Spect. 28 and 29). Conceivably, all four concluding epigrams (Spect. 31–4) might treat spectacles that were held at Augustus’ stagnum, as suggested by Ville (1981: 147). This epigram is built upon a contrast between past and present, in which the past (actual rather than mythological) is Wrst described and then proved inferior: cf. Spect. 2 (Nero’s monuments replaced by Flavian amenities), Siedschlag (1977: 61). Detailed discussion: Moretti (1992: 60), Coleman (1993: 65–8)

1. Augusti labor hic fuerat committere classes: Augustus’ labor identiWes the site (hic) as his stagnum, which was built so that he could stage a naumachia there in 2 bc as part of the festivities marking the dedication of the temple of Mars Ultor (Dio 55. 10). Augustus himself records that thirty biremes and triremes participated, as well as a greater number of smaller boats, and 3,000 marines in addition to the oarsmen (RG 23): ‘triginta rostratae naues triremes aut biremes, plures autem minores inter se conXixerunt; quibus in classibus pugnauerunt praeter remiges millia hominum tria circiter.’ The ‘Xeets’ represented the Athenians and the Persians at the battle of Salamis: cf. Ov. AA 1. 171–2 ‘quid, modo cum belli naualis imagine Caesar j Persidas induxit Cecropiasque rates?’, Dio 55. 10. 7 ÆıÆÆ . . . —
æ H ŒÆd !Ł Æø KØŁ : ÆFÆ ªaæ a O ÆÆ E ÆıÆF Ø KŁ , ŒÆd KŒø ŒÆd  
ƒ !Ł ÆEØ, Coleman (1993: 54, 72). As observed by Charlesworth (1937), an Augustan precedent has positive associations. For labor est þ inWnitive þ genitive deWning the agent cf. the incongruous boast of Hercules at Ov. Met. 9. 67 ‘cunarum labor est angues superare mearum’, TLL vii/2. 27–34 (Lumpe). On committere of a third party engaging opposing forces or individual combatants (the latter frequently in the application of a gladiatorial analogy to the contest between poets) cf. Val. Fl. 8. 395–6 ‘nec Marte cruento j Europam atque Asiam prima haec committat Erinys’, Juv. 1. 162–3 ‘securus licet Aenean Rutulumque ferocem j committas’, 6. 436–7 ‘committit uates et comparat, inde Maronem j atque alia parte in trutina suspendit Homerum.’ fuerat ¼ fuit. The substitution of pluperfect for aorist in Martial is frequent with dicere, esse, and facere: see Friedla¨nder on 1. 107. 3. The use of the pluperfect instead of a preterite (aorist or imperfect) is well attested in early Latin. In Plautus and Terence it occurs predominantly in relative clauses, and seems to mark a distinction in importance (preterite for the foreground,

Epigram 34

253

pluperfect for the background) rather than a distinction in temporal sequence: see Lo¨fstedt (1911: 152–6). The dactylic poets extend this use of the pluperfect for its metrical convenience. Martial employs fuerat twice as frequently in main clauses (Spect. 34. 1, Epigr. 1. 30. 1, 2. 64. 4, 7. 57. 2, 7. 94. 1, 11. 37. 3) as in subordinate clauses (Epigr. 3. 70. 2, 7. 61. 4, 11. 5. 2): see Huisintveld (1949: 82–7, with the table on p. 85). 2. freta nauali sollicitare tuba: freta, properly ‘narrows’, is also used of an expanse of sea (often sea that is turbulent): see on Spect. 27. 4 ‘fretis’. Hence, as here, it is sometimes applied to stretches of fresh water that are reminiscent of the sea: cf. Sen. Contr. excerpta 5. 5 ‘nauigabilium piscinarum freta’, TLL vi/1. 1315. 43–53 (Rubenbauer). sollicitare, ‘to disturb’ (see on Spect. 26. 1 ‘sollicitant’), describes the churning of the oars when the signal is given to start the battle. With Martial’s phrase cf. Virg. G. 2. 503 (probably piracy rather than merchant-shipping: see Mynors ad loc.) ‘sollicitant alii remis freta caeca’, and for the trumpet signal rousing the waves cf. Virg. A. 10. 209–10 ‘hunc uehit immanis Triton et caerula concha j exterrens freta’. The conventions of spectacle match the realism of the enactment. Because of the volume it could produce, the Greeks and Romans used the trumpet to give the signal for battle on both land and sea: cf. Luc. 2. 690 ‘neu tuba praemonitos perducat ad aequora nautas’, Behn (1912: 47), Wille (1967: 102), Webster (1969: 141), West (1992: 118–21). Trumpets also signalled the beginning of ludi: cf. Virg. A. 5. 113 ‘et tuba commissos medio canit aggere ludos.’ The naumachia that Claudius staged on the Fucine Lake began with a blast on a bucina (the word for both a ceremonial trumpet and a triton’s shell) that was blown by a silver triton rising from the middle of the lake (Suet. Claud. 21. 6): ‘hoc spectaculo classis Sicula et Rhodia concurrerunt, duodenarum triremium singulae, exciente bucina Tritone argenteo, qui e medio lacu per machinam emerserat.’ Although trumpets were also included among the instruments that accompanied gladiatorial combat and theatrical performances, the analogy with the naval trumpet suggests that Martial here is thinking of the initial trumpet-fanfare rather than sustained musical accompaniment for the duration of the spectacle. 3–8. Martial describes the astonished reactions of sea-divinities to the untoward spectacles performed in their medium. Two female deities, Thetis and Galatea (4), balance two males, Triton (6) and Nereus (7). The evocation of these deities may be a purely literary conceit, or it may reXect a theatrical element in the staging of these spectacles to increase the verisimilitude of a marine setting (see especially on l. 7, below). Arena personnel were sometimes dressed up in appropriate mythological roles. Seneca mentions ‘Laruae’ hounding cowardly recruits (Apocol. 9. 3), and Tertullian describes ‘Mercury’ prodding the corpses of executed criminals to test them for residual signs of

254

Liber Spectaculorum

life and ‘Pluto’ accompanying the bodies of slain gladiators to the mortuary (Tert. Apol. 15. 5, Nat. 1. 10. 47): see Coleman (1990: 67). It is possible to imagine the animal display, chariot-race, and naval battle being staged under the auspices of a mythological character performing the function of a type of compe`re or simply miming a commentary on the spectacle. From our perspective this may sound rather childish; but to the Romans (or at least to some of them) the creatures of the mythological world may have seemed much more real. The elder Pliny records an embassy from Olisipo (Lisbon) that requested an audience with Tiberius expressly to report the sighting of a Triton (NH 9. 9); Mehl (1927: 88) notes that the expense involved testiWes to the credulity with which such reports were received. Pliny also mentions sightings of Nereids in Lusitania and Gaul, and on an island oV the coast of Brittany (NH 9. 9–10). On the other hand, Martial may simply be pushing the aquatic setting to its logical conclusion by imagining how the denizens of the deep would feel at having their space invaded by these alien performances. 3. Caesaris haec nostri pars est quota?: quota pars/portio is common in rhetorical questions and exclamations, implying ‘how small a part’: cf. Ov. Met. 9. 69 (Hercules to the river-god Achelous, changed into a snake) ‘pars quota Lernaeae serpens eris unus echidnae?’, OLD s.v. quotus 1b. In another epigram of this type (see Introduction, above) Martial uses the same formula to introduce the contrast between past and present (5. 65. 7): ‘iste tuae, Caesar, quota pars spectatur harenae?’ 3–4. uidit in undis j et Thetis ignotas et Galatea feras: although all the Nereids appear to have been individually named, Thetis (Spect. 30. 8 n.) and Galatea are prominent representatives of the Nereid world, each having her own myth and cult: see KlP iv. 68 s.v. Nereı¨den (H. v[on] G[eisau]). Beasts that were unknown to Nereids must have been terrestrial species that were hunted in Titus’ uenatio (cf. Suet. Tit. 7. 3 and Dio 66. 25. 3, quoted in the Introduction, above). Dio explicitly mentions a platform constructed over the water ‘in front of the images’ (of Gaius and Lucius?) for staging both the munus and the uenatio, i.e. this platform covered only part of the enormous expanse of water in the stagnum. If some of the animals were driven oV the platform into the water, that would explain why Thetis and Galatea are conceived as seeing alien species in undis: see Coleman (1993: 66). Line 4 is not isocolic, but it displays the type of artful symmetry that is facilitated by the shape of the pentameter: both halves introduced by the copula et, followed by the name of a Nereid, and concluding with the divided elements of the noun–adjective phrase that constitutes the object. 5. in aequoreo feruentes puluere currus: the chariot-race on the second day is mentioned by Dio 66. 25. 4 (quoted in the Introduction, above). feruens

Epigram 34

255

describes the heat generated by the friction of the wheels: cf. Ov. AA 3. 395–6 ‘spectentur tepido maculosae sanguine harenae j metaque feruenti circumeunda rota’, Pont. 1. 8. 67–8 ‘Albana petentem j Appia feruenti ducit in arua rota’, TLL vi/1. 595. 5–8 (Rubenbauer). Normally the friction would throw up dust; but because the chariots are racing in water they throw up spray, hence the paradox of ‘watery dust’. 6. domini Triton isse putauit equos: at Hes. Theog. 930–1 Triton is the son of Poseidon and Amphitrite. He is regularly depicted in the thiasos accompanying Poseidon/Neptune and plays the role of his assistant (hence domini). Poseidon’s epithet ¥ Ø attests his close association with horses. As one of Triton’s functions Lucian, Dial. mar. 8(6) envisages him hitching his master’s horses to his chariot—or, as he irreverently suggests, saving time by fetching Poseidon’s fastest dolphin, since time is of the essence when Poseidon is on his way to the site of a planned seduction. For the range of functions that Triton performs for Poseidon see Roscher v. 1158–9 s.v. Triton (Dreßler). If the role of Triton here is not a literary conceit contributed by Martial’s imagination, but rather a feature of the enactment (see on ll. 3–8, above), we may get a sense of the gusto with which the role could be performed by comparing L. Munatius Plancus dancing the role of Glaucus at Cleopatra’s court (Vell. Pat. 2. 83. 2): ‘cum caeruleatus et nudus caputque redimitus harundine et caudam trahens genibus innixus Glaucum saltasset in conuiuio’. isse is not a substitute for the metrically identical ire, but implies that the horses had Xashed past before Triton could work out what they were. 7. parat . . . proelia Nereus: the ancient sea-god Nereus, originally depicted with the body of a Wsh or a snake, was already shown in fully human form by the early classical phase of Greek art: see LIMC vi/1. 824– 37 s.v. Nereus (Maria Pipili). In mythology he does not have the reputation of provoking hostility from humans; indeed, he is celebrated rather for his wisdom. His role here seems, therefore, to be a conceit inspired by the practical circumstances of the naumachia: for a naval spectacle on this scale, what more appropriate impresario than a venerable sea-god? This could be a purely literary joke out of Martial’s imagination, or else a piece of theatrical ‘business’ that converted the preliminaries into a spectacle in its own right. For the ‘mythologizing’ of arena personnel see on ll. 3–8, above. 8. horruit in liquidis ire pedestris aquis: pedestris is emphatic, since Nereus is used to swimming in the water; hence the paradox of his reaction (horruit). As Shackleton Bailey says (n. to the Loeb edition): ‘Just what is described here is doubtful.’ If the platform of planks still covered part of the water, and ‘Nereus’ were supervising arrangements from there, he could be said to be walking ‘on the water’ (in . . . aquis), but liquidis would then seem to be an

256

Liber Spectaculorum

entirely mechanical epithet. If the platform were slightly submerged, however, as suggested by Coleman (1993: 67), liquidis would have some point, i.e. ‘Nereus’ would quite clearly and visibly be walking in the water. By omitting all mention of the platform, Martial sustains the illusion that everything is happening on the water. Alternatively, it has been suggested by Eden (1997: 485) that the sides of the lake shelved, and that Nereus was therefore surprised to Wnd himself still standing on the bottom when he was used to swimming in the deep sea. If the stagnum was a modiWed orthogonal shape, as argued by Taylor (1997: 480), its sides seem more likely to have been vertical than sloping. But if the average depth was only 1.5 m, as calculated by Taylor (1997: 481), ‘Nereus’ could indeed have walked where he might have expected to swim, although it is hard to see that the spectators would have derived much of a thrill from the sight of his head and shoulders rising out of the water. This is the only pre-Christian citation in TLL for pedester (-stris) applied to men or gods (as opposed to statues) outside the military context. But, apart from mistaking the stagnum for the amphitheatre, the gloss ‘sc. aquis ex arena subito emissis’ seems to imply that in liquidis ire pedestris aquis means ‘to go on foot where clear water used to be’: see TLL x/1. 970. 71–3 (Stewart). This would be very strained, and it would destroy the conceit of a sea-god not liking to walk in the medium in which he was perfectly at home swimming. For horrere þ inf. see Austin on Virg. A. 2. 12 ‘animus meminisse horret’. In the cycle of poems from the Codex Salmasianus celebrating the baths of the Vandal king Thrasamundus, the Wrst poem in particular exhibits a cluster of reminiscences of Spect. 2 (see ad loc.); it therefore seems likely that the closing conceit of the god awestruck by the king’s construction is predicated upon Martial’s motif here (Anth. Lat. 210 R ¼ 201 SB, ll. 11–12): ‘expauit subitas Vulcanus surgere thermas j et trepida Xammas subdidit ipse manu’; the Vandal poet even goes one better by co-opting the god’s co-operation. 9. quidquid in circo spectatur et amphitheatro: the circus was associated with chariot-racing and uenationes, the amphitheatre with munera, uenationes, and naumachiae; the spectacle on Augustus’ stagnum has combined on water all the spectacle-types normally displayed on terra firma. Some editors print circo and amphitheatro with a capital letter, perhaps rightly (i.e. the Circus Maximus and the Flavian amphitheatre). But the more inclusive the repertoire that is replicated in the stagnum, the more imperial the compliment. 10. diues Caesarea praestitit unda tuba: as transmitted in the manuscripts (diues Caesarea praestitit unda tibi) this line presents two problems: (i) tibi lacks a referent (pace Friedla¨nder, who incorrectly posits a spectator through comparison with Spect. 27, where an anonymous spectator is speciWcally introduced); (ii) the last syllable of Caesarea (nom.) would have to be

Epigram 34

257

lengthened in front of the consonantal combination mute þ liquid. Friedla¨nder (ad loc.) and Carratello (1965b: 322) object that there are only four instances of vocalic lengthening in Martial, each of a Wnal syllable that ends in a consonant, but in fact of these four instances only two are true lengthening (of the second syllable of tuus: 7. 44. 1 ‘Maximus ille tuus, Ovidi, Caesonius hic est’, 10. 89. 1 ‘Iuno labor, Polyclite, tuus et gloria felix’), since the other two instances revert—rather surprisingly—to the prosody of Ennius and Plautus, lengthening syllables that had once been long by nature (domueit, ploraba¯t: 9. 101. 4 ‘disce: Libyn domuit, aurea poma tulit’, 14. 77. 2 ‘Lesbia plorabat, hic habitare potest’). Most attempts at emendation have focused on Caesarea, although a few people have tried to emend tibi. Heinsius’ initial suggestion, diues Caesarei praestitit unda sali, involves emendations in both places; he later discarded it in favour of diues Caesar, io, praestitit unda tibi, but io, normally pointed in Martial, would seem to lack any purpose here, as observed by Housman (1907: 231 ¼ 1972: ii. 712–13). Housman suggested id diues, Caesar on the analogy of the resumptive id after quidquid at 7. 31. 9–12 ‘quidquid uilicus Vmber . . . aut Tusci tibi Tusculiue mittunt, j id tota mihi nascitur Subura’; this may very well be right. If, however, tibi were a corruption of an instrumental ablative in the feminine singular, Caesarea would naturally have a long Wnal syllable. Hence the suggestion trabe by Saenger (1910: 553), i.e. metonymy for ‘Xeet’. This gives good sense, but so does the palaeographically satisfactory tuba, suggested to me by Uwe Dubielzig: see Coleman (1993: 66, 1998: 27 n. 39). The reiteration of tuba from l. 2 is not problematic in a collection that does not display much lexical variety, and it knits the argument together via a type of ring-composition. 11. Fucinus et Teucri taceantur stagna Neronis: Fucinus and stagna Neronis are balancing one another, so that—pace Friedla¨nder (ad loc.), followed by Carratello (1965b: 324)—the reference to Nero’s stagna cannot refer to the banquet that he held on Augustus’ stagnum during the Iuvenalia of 59 (Dio 61. 20. 5). Martial personiWes the locations where two of the most famous naumachiae had been staged, in order to claim that these spectacles pale into insigniWcance beside Titus’ naumachia on the stagnum. Fucinus refers to the Fucine Lake in the Marsic region of central Italy south of Alba Fucens. In 52, before completing his project to drain it, Claudius used the lake to stage a naumachia on an unprecedented scale, in which 19,000 prisoners of war represented, respectively, ‘Sicilians’ and ‘Rhodians’: cf. Tac. Ann. 12. 56. 1, Suet. Claud. 21. 6, Coleman (1993: 56). stagna Neronis might be a slighting way of referring to the aquatic installations in a ŁÆæ (presumably his wooden amphitheatre) that enabled Nero to stage at least two naumachiae (at speed: see on Spect. 27. 4 ‘modo’): he re-enacted the battle

258

Liber Spectaculorum

of Salamis amid waters stocked with Wsh and other marine creatures, perhaps for the dedicatory ceremony in 57 (Suet. Nero 12. 1, Dio 61. 9. 5), and he staged another naumachia in the same venue in 64 (Dio 62. 15. 1). But stagna would more easily refer to an aquatic feature than to a convertible theatre; possibly the stagnum of the Domus Aurea on the site of the future Flavian amphitheatre is meant. For the belittling tone of stagna cf. Juv. 12. 79–81 (Trajan’s magniWcent inner basin at Ostia, as smooth as a millpond, is reduced to the status of ‘pools’, stagna), Coleman (1994: 557). For the notion of a place boasting of a person associated with it, cf. Mart. 1. 49. 1 ‘Vir Celtiberis non tacende gentibus’, 1. 61. 11–12 ‘te, Liciniane, gloriabitur nostra j nec me tacebit Bilbilis.’ Both these instances are expressed by the litotes ‘not keeping silent’. Hence in our case the injunction to be silent is a variation on the topos of ‘outdoing’: Fucinus and Nero’s ‘pools’ have nothing to boast about now that their spectacles have been eclipsed by Titus’ naumachia. The fact that in the meantime the Fucine Lake had been drained and Nero’s venue (whether it was his amphitheatre or his stagnum) had disappeared creates a nice tension between the personiWcation and the notion of posterity. For the injunction to ‘be quiet’ in another epigram of the type contrasting past and present (see Introduction, above), cf. Spect. 8. 3 ‘prisca Fides taceat’. The corruption in this line in T and H seems to hide an epithet qualifying Neronis. K’s pigri would have to contrast Nero with Titus, not with Claudius as supposed by Delz (1971: 58). Carratello defends pigri with reference to Nero’s alleged slothfulness (desidia, Þfi Æ  ): cf. Suet. Nero 42. 2, Dio 61. 4. 1, Carratello (1965b: 323, 1981a: 62–4, 1997: 241). But piger is neither a regular epithet for Nero nor does it sit well in the context, since Nero was nothing if not an energetic showman and inveterate theatre-goer (which indeed is the point of the complaints by Suetonius and Dio). The suggestion of Salemme (1981: 254), that the phrase is a type of enallage (pigri stagna Neronis ¼ pigra stagna Neronis), does not sit well with the panegyric context, where an epithet attached to the denigrated predecessor begs to be taken at face-value. Conceivably, the sense of pigri could be particular to this context, i.e. meant to suggest that the enterprising Nero was a slouch by comparison with Titus; but this seems rather a lot to read into a word that is far more likely to have been a deliberate change to restore superWcial sense in place of tigri, which is manifestly corrupt. What could have been corrupted into tigri?3 Metrically, a word of either spondaic or anapaestic shape would Wt in.4 Admittedly, a derogatory epithet 3 Deroux’s tigris, invoking the topos ‘tyran—beˆte fe´roce’ (1990: 281, 287), would convert a familiar simile into an unprecedented metaphor that would sit freakishly in this context. 4 The latter would create a sequence of three successive dactyls at the beginning of the hexameter, which is far from unusual in this collection alone: cf. 1. 1, 2. 1, 2. 5, 5. 1, 9. 1, 14. 5, 17. 1, 18. 1, 26. 9, 31. 5, 32. 9.

Epigram 34

259

such as diri (Heinsius) or, more forcefully, taetri (Watt 1984: 130) or tetrici (R. G. M. Nisbet 1992: 51; cf. Greenwood 1996, W. J. Schneider 2003),5 would match Martial’s regular hostility towards Nero: cf. Spect. 2. 3 ‘inuidiosa feri radiabant atria regis’, Epigr. 7. 21. 3 ‘Nero crudelis nullaque inuisior umbra’. But in both these cases a negative epithet is a rhetorical necessity, glossing respectively Nero’s tyrannical appropriation of the city-centre for his Domus Aurea and his victimization of Lucan; in our case, on the other hand, it has been argued that Nero should be given a positive spin, so as to increase the kudos accruing to Titus’ naumachia. Hence Housman (1907: 231–2 ¼ 1972: ii. 713) conjectured Teucri , and Carratello (1965b: 323) tentatively revived Phrygii, which had been rejected by Housman on grounds of Martial’s avoidance of genitives in -ii; but Carratello’s parallel from 11. 104. 13 ‘masturbabantur Phrygii post otia serui’ does not meet Housman’s objection, since the phrase is nominative plural. Trojan ancestry was one distinction that the Flavian dynasty lacked, cleverly turned to his advantage by Valerius Flaccus in complimenting Domitian (Arg. 1. 7–9): ‘tuque o, pelagi cui maior aperti j fama, Caledonius postquam tua carbasa uexit j Oceanus Phrygios prius indignatus Iulos.’ Hence Teucri seems the right word. Instead of an epithet, a noun in apposition is also possible, such as domini, used pointedly of Nero at Spect. 2. 12, although its use here would either have to be interpreted as a lame reference to Nero’s ownership of the stagna or else carry the same derogatory overtones as the negative epithets that seem inappropriate in the panegyric context; and the use of the same word in a diVerent sense in l. 6 militates against its repetition here. 12. hanc norint unam saecula naumachiam: hanc or haec (Jocelyn, per litteras)? haec would achieve a characteristic balance and word-order in the pentameter, and convey the eVect of Titus’ spectacle on the present generation (haec . . . saecula). With hanc the line would express an injunction to posterity (saecula ¼ ‘future generations’, OLD s.v. 8). It is characteristic of encomium to keep an eye on the future reputation of the subject, and so we should probably retain the paradosis. unus, ‘only’, dismisses the alternatives: cf. Cic. Verr. 2. 5. 126 ‘hic locus igitur est unus quo perfugiant’, Virg. A. 2. 354 ‘una salus uictis nullam sperare salutem’, OLD s.v. 7a.

5 Greenwood argues in support of Nisbet’s conjecture; Schneider seems unaware that he has been anticipated by either of them (and apparently assumes that the location praised in this epigram is the Flavian amphitheatre).

3 5 ( 3 2 S ; 3 1 L, H ) Da ueniam subitis: non displicuisse meretur, festinat, Caesar, qui placuisse tibi. Ex Florilegio Gallico add. Iunius

lac. ante v. 1 indic. Friedla¨nder

Pardon what is hasty: he does not deserve to displease you, Caesar, who hastens to please you. Introduction: This couplet and the next one were added from the Florilegium Gallicum by Junius (see General Introduction, Section 2). While there is no certainty that they belong in the Liber spectaculorum, it is a plausible context for both of them, since this one is about the need for haste in oVering a tribute to the emperor, and the next one is about combat. The theme of our couplet is appropriate to the collection, since epigrams celebrating a topical occasion would need to be produced quickly while the occasion was still fresh in the public memory. It was a topos for the authors of occasional poetry to provide an apologia for the style of their work on the grounds of their celeritas in composing it: cf. Stat. Silu. 1 praef. 3–4 ‘[libelli] mihi subito calore et quadam festinandi uoluptate Xuxerunt’, 11–13 ‘sed apud ceteros necesse est multum illis [libellis] pereat ex uenia, cum amiserint quam solum habuerunt gratiam celeritatis.’ Epigram in particular is associated with swift production. For his birthday Antipater of Thessalonica sends his patron Piso (L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi, consul 15 bc) a little book that he claims to have written in a single night (AP 9. 93 ¼ GP Antip. Thess. 31): `Ææ —
 øØ ª
ŁºØ þÆ
º ØŒæc; K b ØfiB ıŒd 


. ¥ºÆ Iººa Ø ŒÆd ÆN
Ø
 IØ , ˘
f ªÆ ‰ Oºªfiø 
ØŁ 
 ºØfiø. Martial, asking Domitian for the ius trium liberorum as a reward for his poetry, emphasizes his rush to please (2. 91. 3–4): ‘si festinatis totiens collecta libellis j detinuere oculos carmina nostra tuos’. And when he reissued Book 10 under Trajan, having presumably divested it of excessive Xattery of Domitian, he attributed its previous imperfections to over-hasty publication: cf. 10. 2. 1–2 ‘Festinata prius, decimi mihi cura libelli j elapsum manibus nunc reuocauit opus.’ Such programmatic statements Wt either at the beginning or at the end; for a table showing the combination of references to the emperor and the book at, respectively, the start and Wnish of Martial’s individual books of epigrams see Weinreich (1928: 27). It seems likely that the opening sequence

Epigram 35

261

to the Liber spectaculorum (1–3) has survived intact; so Spect. 35 may belong to the end1—or, if we are indeed dealing with a book composed of shorter sequences celebrating individual series of games, an end (i.e. of one of the original mini-collections) that Martial included in the composite collection, whether right at the end or not. Does our couplet comprise an independent epigram? Weinreich (1928: 24) objects that (i) no context is made explicit, and (ii) these lines are rudely brief by comparison with the trio of epigrams at the beginning: see General Introduction, Section 5. But its independence can be defended: the abrupt imperative matches the thought (the poet does not waste time on elegant formulations), and the brevity of the single couplet points the antithesis between displicuisse and placuisse. (A further objection is countered in the note on 1 ‘subitis’, below.) At the same time, it might be expected that the closing sequence to an entire book would comprise more than a single couplet. Possibly one or two longer epigrams signalled the imminence of closure, and then this one wittily achieved it; or, like the traces of salutatory and valedictory poems from previously circulated imperial sequences in the numbered books of Epigrams, this couplet might survive from just such a libellus (see above), where its very brevity would match the restricted compass of the mini-collection to which it was appended. If this couplet were indeed the last epigram of a composite Liber spectaculorum, how should we account for the fact that the Florilegium Gallicum quotes another one after it? Did the excerptor reverse the order, contrary to the general tendency of medieval excerptors to keep to the order in the collections from which they were making their excerpts (see General Introduction, Section 5)? Or does Spect. 36 not belong in our collection after all? Since it is not certain that either of these epigrams deWnitely forms part of this collection, nor—even if they do—is it clear whether the closural function pertains to the whole collection or to a shorter sequence incorporated within it, I retain the order as conventionally printed nowadays,2 noting that Spect. 35 would eVect more suitable closure than Spect. 36. Detailed discussion: Weinreich (1928: 24–8), Lorenz (2002: 67–8) 1 This is the conclusion of Weinreich (1928: 28), followed by Scherf (2001: 73). Lorenz (2002: 68) is more sceptical, observing that (i) this epigram is absent from the manuscript tradition for the rest of the collection, and (ii) Martial’s emphasis upon watching excludes all reference to the textual medium (see General Introduction, Section 11). 2 Schneidewin and Friedla¨nder print Spect. 36 before Spect. 35; Lindsay (1903a) establishes the order conventionally accepted today: see Concordances. Hunink (2003) omits Spect. 36 without comment; later (2005: 173) he describes Spect. 35 as a probable ‘Schlussgedicht’, comprising an expression of modesty that accommodates ‘einen großen dichterischen Stolz und Ehrgeiz’.

262

Liber Spectaculorum

1. subitis: subitus does not appear as a substantive anywhere else in Martial; hence Weinreich (1928: 24) argued that this distich must belong to a longer epigram from which it could be deduced that subitis [carminibus] is meant. But the use of the neuter plural substantive subita to mean ‘extempore [composition]’, which is the sense required in this distich, is well attested in contexts of rhetorical composition: cf. Quint. Inst. 10. 7. 30 (debating how much of a speech should be delivered from a written text) ‘plerumque autem multa agentibus accidit ut maxima necessaria et utique initia scribant, cetera, quae domo adferunt, cogitatione complectantur, subitis ex tempore occurrant’, Plin. Epist. 1. 16. 2 ‘audiui causas agentem acriter et ardenter, nec minus polite et ornate, siue meditata siue subita proferret.’ Here Martial’s abrupt and elliptical expression wittily reXects the stylistic fault for which he claims to be apologizing; in a comparable sleight of hand he will defend a long epigram in hexameters (6. 64) by composing a reply which itself contains a hexameter composed of no fewer than ten words (6. 65. 3), showing that he can pack a lot into a small compass: if he is not allowed to write a long epigram, he can extend even a single hexameter. 2. festinat . . . placuisse: the use of festinare with the inWnitive is not restricted to verbs of motion: cf. 3. 2. 2 ‘festina tibi uindicem parare’, 12. 28(29). 17 ‘festinant trepidi substringere carbasa nautae’, TLL vi. 619. 32–64 (Lackenbacher).

36 (3 1 S ; 3 2 L , H ) * * * * * cedere maiori uirtutis fama secunda est: illa grauis palma est, quam minor hostis habet. Ex Florilegio Gallico add. Iunius lac. indic. Friedla¨nder Flor. Gall. secunda Flor. Gall. : secundae Heinsius

1 uirtutis ' : uirtuti

. . . To give way to a superior opponent is the consolation prize for bravery: heavy is the palm that the lesser opponent wins. Introduction: This is the second of the pair of epigrams from the Florilegium Gallicum that Junius attached to the Liber spectaculorum. Is it an independent poem or simply a fragment? Rutgersius, cit. Schneidewin (1842), rearranged this couplet after the epigram about a bull defeated by an elephant: see Spect. 22, Introduction. But the mention of uirtus and palma suggests, rather, a human context. Granted, the lack of context is more disturbing than in the previous epigram, where it is obvious that literary apologia is the topic. It is possible, however, to regard these lines as a generalized comment about the sort of gladiatorial Wght in which, unexpectedly, the lesser opponent wins; as with the antithesis displicuisse . . . placuisse in the previous epigram, here the antithesis maiori . . . minor supplies a frame for a pithy and independent sententia. If the couplet were indeed an independent aphorism, it would sit ill in the Liber spectaculorum, where even the epigrams that comprise independent couplets are clearly tied to a speciWc display. If, however, it were the concluding couplet of a longer epigram in which the previous couplet(s) described a speciWc encounter between two gladiators, as Friedla¨nder (1886: i. 140) supposed, it would Wt into the Liber spectaculorum quite comfortably. Otherwise, we should have to conclude that it is a moral saw from another poem, or a self-contained paraenesis of the type amply illustrated in medieval literature: see on l. 1 ‘uirtutis’. On the possibility that the previous epigram performs a closural function see Introduction to Spect. 35. 1. uirtutis: uirtuti is an easy corruption after maiori. The climax of the epigram requires minor hostis at the end of the couplet to complete the sense of maiori [hosti] at the beginning. In any case, Martial, like all classical poets, avoids the jingle that would have resulted from the juxtaposition of words of the same declension in the same case (maiori/uirtuti); moreover, uirtutis makes fama more speciWc.

264

Liber Spectaculorum

For the thought cf. Dicta Catonis, sent. 10 ‘maiori concede’ (although this may mean ‘yield to your senior’ rather than ‘yield to your better’), Eisenhut (1973: 161). This line, without the pentameter, need not imply an agonistic context, as is illustrated by the comparanda collected by Otto (1890: no. 427): cf. Cic. Cluent. 84 ‘sapientissimum esse dicunt eum, cui, quod opus sit, ipsi ueniat in mentem; proxime accedere illum, qui alterius bene inuentis obtemperet, in stultitia contra est’, Liv. 22. 29. 9 ‘saepe ego inquit, audiui, milites, eum primum uirum, qui ipse consulat, quod in rem sit, secundum eum, qui bene monenti oboediat; qui nec ipse consulere, nec alteri parere sciat, eum extremi ingenii est.’ The thought goes back to Hes. Op. 293–5 y b ÆæØ ; n ÆPfiH Æ 
Ø j æÆ


 . . . j K Łºe  Æs ŒIŒ
E n
s
N Ø Ł ÆØ. Our line is included by Walther in his vast compendium of proverbial sayings from the Latin Middle Ages (1963: no. 2586). For a close parallel cf. no. 2585 ‘cedere maiori non est pudor inferiori.’ 2. grauis palma: the palm-branch was the symbol of victory in a physical contest: cf. Sen. Ben. 5. 2. 2 ‘in certaminibus . . . meliorem palma declarat.’1 Hence, in artistic representations of the outcome of various types of contest, it is standard for the victor to be shown brandishing a palm-frond.2 On gladiators’ tombstones the deceased is frequently depicted in this pose: for the thraex Satornilos from Smyrna, c.ad 300, commemorated by the troupe to which he had belonged, see Wiedemann (1992: Wg. 17), Junkelmann (2000: 29 Wg. 33); for the retiarius Julius Balerianus (¼ Valerianus), commemorated by his sodalitas, see EAOR i, no. 115, pl. XXIX/3, Junkelmann (2000: 30 Wg. 39), Coleman (2005a: 16–17 and fig. 8); for the prouocator Diodoros from Amisus, c.ad 300, standing over his defeated opponent, see Junkelmann (2000: 31 Wg. 40); and for the thraex Antonius Exochus, victorious in the spectacles to celebrate Trajan’s posthumous triumph over the Parthians, see EAOR i, no. 92, pl. XX/2, Junkelmann (2000: 67 Wg. 93). Hence Nemesis, accoutred as a gladiator on a second-century relief from Andautonia (Sˇcˇitarjevo in modern Croatia), is depicted holding a palm-frond as well as her weapons: see Junkelmann (2000: 19 Wg. 18). The representations on gladiatorial monuments correspond to the pinnate leaves of the North African date-palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.), which was 1 Gellius, referring to Aristotle (fr. 229 Rose ¼ 733 Gignon) and Plutarch (Quaest. conu. 8. 4. 5 ¼ 724 e–f), explains that palm is a symbol of athletic victory because the resilience of palmwood under pressure is analogous to the resilience of the athlete in overcoming his competitors (NA 3. 6). For a history of the fortunes of Gellius’ passage in Christian Europe see HolfordStrevens (2004). 2 On the mould from Salona discussed above (Spect. 17. 8 n., with Pl. 24) the gladiators are depicted in fighting stance, so that the symbolism of the palm-fronds there seems to be proleptic.

Epigram 36

265

common in the ancient Mediterranean world: see Pl. 24, KlP iv. 801–2 s.v. Phoinix 8 (K[onrat] Z[iegler]). Palm-fronds of course vary considerably in size, but the texture of palms is very dense and fibrous, so that it may be no coincidence that the victor is often depicted resting the end of his frond on the ground (the winner on the ‘bikini girls’ mosaic from Piazza Armerina is cradling a smaller, more ladylike version in her left arm). Hence perhaps the literal meaning of grauis (and minor) gives a slight edge to the metaphorical sense here. hostis: although this usage sounds as though it may belong to the jargon of the ludus, the use of hostis to describe the opponent in a contest between matched pairs (e.g. of boxers or gladiators) is attested only in poetry: cf. Hor. Epist. 2. 2. 97–8 (reciting poets likened to duelling gladiators) ‘caedimur et totidem plagis consumimus hostem j lento Samnites ad lumina prima duello’, TLL vi/3. 3061. 62–9 (Ehlers). In gladiatorial epitaphs from the east, mention is commonly made of an ‘opponent’ (Iƺ, or, more rarely, IØŒ or I=KÆ): see Robert (1940: 282). But ‘enemy’ (KŁæ ) does not belong to this register. In gladiatorial epitaphs in Latin, not only is no mention made of hostis or inimicus, but the designation of the other combatant as an opponent seems to be avoided altogether.

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX

The Source of the Nile The source of the Nile was a notorious conundrum much debated in Antiquity, and bedevilled by erroneous geographical theories and by the belief that the Nile was the only river in which crocodiles and hippopotami were to be found. Various theories attributed the source to points east, west, and south of its course through Egypt.1 Some of these theories involved ‘antichthonian’ elements, such as the claim of Juba II (fr. 38a, repeated in Latin translation at Plin. NH 5. 51–4) that the Nile rose in the Atlas Mountains beyond a lake called Nilides, and Xowed alternately through a series of lakes and underground channels before re-emerging in upper Egypt. This theory was perhaps developed to link the native land of Juba’s wife, Cleopatra Selene, with her adoptive home in Mauretania.2 In evaluating the state of knowledge achieved through journeys of exploration down to the Flavian era, we can probably discount the investigations overland from Dar-es-Salaam by an explorer called Diogenes that are reported in the Antonine period by Ptolemy in his Geography (1. 9. 3–4, 4. 7. 23–4, 4. 8. 3–6). Ptolemy was relying in turn on Marinos of Tyre, who compiled his work during the reign of Trajan. We do not know the date of Diogenes’ journeys, but they cannot be shown to have had any impact on the expedition sponsored by Nero, which was one of two major expeditions conducted by the Roman administration. It is therefore highly unlikely that Diogenes’ claims were known in Martial’s Rome. In 25 bc the governor of Egypt, P. (or C.) Petronius, launched a punitive expedition to avenge an attack by Queen Candace of Aethiopia on Syene and its environs, 964 km south of Cairo: see Fig. 2. In a major show of strength and a questing spirit he pressed on to sack Napata, and eventually penetrated 870 Roman miles (1,288 km) beyond Syene (Strabo 17. 1. 54, Plin. NH 6. 181–2, Dio 54. 5. 5). Since Napata is already 430 Roman miles (636 km) past Syene, Petronius evidently went twice as far from Syene as that and pressed on towards Meroe before the arid conditions forced him to turn back. Whether or not Augustus had aspired to annex Aethiopia it is impossible to say; but Petronius’ mission, and the more or less simultaneous expedition to the Red Sea by his contemporary, Aelius Gallus, provided a major boost to the trade-route between Rome and India.3 According to Seneca, it was in a spirit of pure enquiry (‘ueritatis in primis amantissimus’, NQ 6. 8. 3) that Nero launched an expedition under two centurions to investigate the source of the Nile. Others alleged military expansionism and vague 1 Lloyd on Hdt. 2. 28–34, RE xvii/1. 555–66 s.v. Nil (E. Honigmann), Postl (1970: 11–36). 2 Roller (2003: 181–2, 184 [map], 192–6). 3 Desanges (1978: 314).

268

Appendix

N

Mediterranean Sea Alexandria

Modern city Ancient city

0

200 km

0

200 m.p.

Cairo

SAUDI ARABIA

N

LIBYA

ile

EGYPT Tropic of Cance

r

Re

e

d

N

il

Syene

Se a

CHAD

Napata Meroe

ERITREA

Khartoum

ue

Nile

Lake Tana

B

Wh

ite Nile

Bl

SUDAN

r el ah

Ghaza

B ah r

DEM. REP. Lake OF THE CONGO Albert Equator

Fig. 2. The course of the Nile

ETHIOPIA

l

El Sudd

ebe el J

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Kampala

UGANDA

Lake Turkana

Lake Kyoga Lake Victoria

KENYA

The Source of the Nile

269

territorial ambitions on Nero’s part (Plin. NH 6. 181, 12. 19, Dio 63. 8. 1); Pliny mentions a detachment of praetorians under the command of a tribune. Despite these apparent discrepancies, a single expedition must be involved, to be dated between 61 and 63.4 Seneca quotes verbatim from the centurions’ description of the impasse that they reached (NQ 6. 8. 4): ‘peruenimus ad inmensas paludes, quarum exitum nec incolae nouerant nec sperare quisquam potest: ita implicatae aquis herbae sunt et aquae, nec pediti eluctabiles nec nauigio, quod nisi paruum et unius capax limosa et obsita palus non fert.’ This description matches the swamps in southern Sudan in the general area known as El Sudd, which is the Arabic word for the decayed plant-material that chokes the water south of the conXuence of the Bahr el Ghazal with the White Nile (especially along the upper reaches known as Bahr el Jebel).5 Nero’s oYcers had advanced nearly 900 km south of Khartoum. When they presented their report, it included a map (Plin. NH 12. 19): ‘cognita Aethiopiae forma, ut diximus, nuper allata Neroni principi raram arborem Meroen usque a Syene Wne imperii per DCCCCLXXXXVI m.p. nullamque nisi palmarum generis esse docuit.’ It has been suggested that this map was inscribed on bronze and lodged in the archives at Rome.6 But there was apparently no consensus that the members of Nero’s expedition had indeed found the source of the Nile. A vague phrase in Pliny may reXect a belief that they had (NH 6. 188): ‘inter paludis ex quibus Nilus oriretur’. But Seneca puts forward three possibilities, phrased as two pairs of alternatives (NQ 6. 8. 5): ‘sed siue caput illa, siue accessio est Nili, siue tunc nascitur, siue in terras ex priore recepta cursu redit’. It is at any rate clear from Claudian’s Xattering prediction about Honorius (quoted in the note on Spect. 3. 5) that in the fourth century the source was still regarded as an unsolved mystery (even by a man from Alexandria), and Martial’s reference to ‘deprensi . . . Nili’ should be taken as hyperbole evoking an exceedingly distant people rather than endorsing the success of Nero’s mission. Implicit is the connection between exploration and empire.7

4 5 6 7

Ibid. 323–5. RE xvii/1. 560, Cary–Warmington (1929: 165–78). Sherk (1974: 559–60). Nicolet (1991: 85–94), Romm (1992: 149–56).

This page intentionally left blank

Concordances Note : The following concordances compare the numeration in Schneidewin (1842, 18532), Lindsay (1903a, 19292), Heraeus (1925), and Carratello (1981a); this last is followed by Shackleton Bailey (1990, 1993) and in the present edition.

272

Concordances

Concordance 1 Schneidewin 1 2 3 4 4b 5 6 6b 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16b 17 18 19 20 21 21b 22 23 24 25 25b 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Lindsay 1 2 3 4. 1–4 4. 5–6 5 6 6b 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16b 17 18 19 20 21 21b 22. 1–6 22. 7–12 24 25 25b 26 27 28 29 30 32 31 33

Heraeus 1 2 3 4. 1–4 4. 5–6 5 6 6b 7 8 9 10 11 12. 1–6, 13. 1–2 13. 3–8 14 15 16 16b 17 18 19 20 21 21b 22. 1–6 22. 7–12 24 25 25b 26 28 30 27 29 32 31 33

Carratello 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26. 1–6 26. 7–12 27 28 29 30 32 34 31 33 36 35 —

Concordances

273

Concordance 2 Lindsay

Heraeus

1 2 3 4. 1–4 4. 5–6 5 6 6b 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16b 17 18 19 20 21 21b 22. 1–6 22. 7–12 24 25 25b 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

1 2 3 4. 1–4 4. 5–6 5 6 6b 7 8 9 10 11 12. 1–6, 13. 1–2 13. 3–8 14 15 16 16b 17 18 19 20 21 21b 22. 1–6 22. 7–12 24 25 25b 26 28 30 27 29 31 32 33

Carratello 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26. 1–6 26. 7–12 27 28 29 30 32 34 31 33 35 36 —

Schneidewin 1 2 3 4 4b 5 6 6b 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16b 17 18 19 20 21 21b 22 23 24 25 25b 26 27 28 29 30 32 31 33

274

Concordances

Concordance 3 Heraeus 1 2 3 4. 1–4 4. 5–6 5 6 6b 7 8 9 10 11 12. 1–6, 13. 1–2 13. 3–8 14 15 16 16b 17 18 19 20 21 21b 22. 1–6 22. 7–12 24 25 25b 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Carratello 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26. 1–6 26. 7–12 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 —

Schneidewin 1 2 3 4 4b 5 6 6b 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16b 17 18 19 20 21 21b 22 23 24 25 25b 26 29 27 30 28 32 31 33

Lindsay 1 2 3 4. 1–4 4. 5–6 5 6 6b 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16b 17 18 19 20 21 21b 22. 1–6 22. 7–10 24 25 25b 26 29 27 30 28 31 32 33

Concordances

275

Concordance 4 Carratello

Schneidewin

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26. 1–6 26. 7–12 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 —

1 2 3 4 4b 5 6 6b 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16b 17 18 19 20 21 21b 22 23 24 25 25b 26 29 27 30 28 32 31 33

Lindsay 1 2 3 4. 1–4 4. 5–6 5 6 6b 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16b 17 18 19 20 21 21b 22. 1–6 22. 7–12 24 25 25b 26 29 27 30 28 31 32 33

Heraeus 1 2 3 4. 1–4 4. 5–6 5 6 6b 7 8 9 10 11 12. 1–6, 13. 1–2 13. 3–8 14 15 16 16b 17 18 19 20 21 21b 22. 1–6 22. 7–12 24 25 25b 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

This page intentionally left blank

Bibliography Acosta-Hughes, B., Kosmetatou, E., and Baumbach, M. (eds.) (2004), Labored in Papyrus Leaves. Perspectives on an Epigram Collection Attributed to Posidippus (P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309) (Hellenic Studies, 2; Washington, DC). Adam, J.-P. (1994), Roman Building: Materials and Techniques, trans. A. Mathews (London). Adams, J. N. (1982), The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (London). —— (1992), ‘Iteration of Compound Verb with Simplex in Latin Prose’, Eikasmos, 3: 295–8. —— (2003), ‘ ‘‘Romanitas’’ and the Latin Language’, Classical Quarterly, ns 53: 184–205. Ahl, F. M. (1984), ‘The Rider and the Horse: Politics and Power in Roman Poetry from Horace to Statius’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der ro¨mischen Welt, II. 32. 1 (Berlin and New York), 40–110. Aldrete, G. S. (1999), Gestures and Acclamations in Ancient Rome (Baltimore and London). Alfo¨ldy, G. (1974), Noricum (London and Boston). —— (1995), ‘Eine Bauinschrift aus dem Colosseum’, Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 109: 195–216. Allen, D. (2000), ‘Envisaging the Body of the Condemned: The Power of Platonic Symbols’, Classical Philology, 95: 133–50. Anderson, J. G. C. (ed.) (1938), Cornelii Taciti de origine et situ Germanorum (Oxford). Andre´, J. (1949), E´tude sur les termes de couleur dans la langue latine (E´tudes et commentaires, 7; Paris). —— (1991), Le Vocabulaire latin de l’anatomie (Collection d’e´tudes anciennes, 59; Paris). —— and Baslez, M.-F. (1993), Voyager dans l’Antiquite´ (Paris). Anspach, A. E. (1913), review of W. M. Lindsay, Sexti Pompei Festi de uerborum signiWcatu (1913), in Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 34/48 (29 Nov.), 3040–3. Argentieri, L. (1998), ‘Epigramma e libro: morfologia delle raccolte epigrammatiche premeleagree’, Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 121: 1–20. Augenti, D. (2001), Spettacoli del Colosseo nelle cronache degli antichi (Rome). Aurigemma, S. (1963), The Baths of Diocletian and the Museo Nazionale Romano (Itineraries of the Museums, Galleries and Monuments in Italy, 78; Rome). Austin, R. G. (1927), ‘Virgil and the Sibyl’, Classical Quarterly, 21: 100–5. Axelson, B. (1945), Unpoetische Wo¨rter: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der lateinischen Dichtersprache (Skrifter utgivna av Vetenskapssocieteten i Lund, 29; Lund). Aymard, J. (1938), ‘Les Vicennalia d’Antonin sur une mosaı¨que du Muse´e des Thermes’, Me´langes d’arche´ologie et d’histoire de l’E´cole franc¸aise de Rome, 55: 42–55.

278

Bibliography

Aymard, J. (1951), Essai sur les chasses romaines (Bibliothe`que des E´coles franc¸aises d’Athe`nes et de Rome, 171; Paris). Bailey, D. M. (1980), A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum, ii: Roman Lamps Made in Italy (London). —— (1988), A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum, iii: Roman Provincial Lamps (London). Baldus, H. R. (1990), ‘Eine antike Elefanten-Dressur: Zu einem Mu¨nzbild Ko¨nig Jubas II.’, Chiron, 20: 217–20. Ball, L. F. (2003), The Domus Aurea and the Roman Architectural Revolution (Cambridge). Bammer, A., and Muss, U. (1996), Das Artemision von Ephesos: Das Weltwunder Ioniens in archaischer und klassischer Zeit (Zaberns Bildba¨nde zur Archa¨ologie, 20; Mainz). Barbarino, J. L. (1978), The Evolution of the Latin /b/-/u/ Merger: A Quantitative and Comparative Analysis of the B–V Alternation in LatinÐ Inscriptions (North Carolina Studies in the Romance Languages and Literatures, 203; Chapel Hill). Barchiesi, A. (2005), ‘The Search for the Perfect Book: A PS to the New Posidippus’, in Gutzwiller (2005a), 320–42. Bardon, H. (1956), La Litte´rature latine inconnue, ii: L’e´poque impe´riale (Paris). Barringer, J. M. (1995), Divine Escorts: Nereids in Archaic and Classical Greek Art (Ann Arbor). Barwick, K. (1958), ‘Zyklen bei Martial und in den kleinen Gedichten des Catull’, Philologus, 102: 284–318. Bauman, R. A. (1974), Impietas in Principem: A Study of Treason against the Roman Emperor with Special Reference to the First Century a.d. (Mu¨nchener Beitra¨ge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, 67; Munich). Beacham, R. C. (1991), The Roman Theatre and its Audience (London and New York). Bean, G. E. (1965), Side Kitabeleri. The Inscriptions of Side (Researches in the Region of Antalya, 5; Ankara). Bedini, S. A. (1997), The Pope’s Elephant (Manchester). Bednara, E. (1905–6), ‘De sermone dactylicorum Latinorum quaestiones’, Archiv fu¨r lateinische Lexikographie, 14: 317–60, 532–604. Behn, F. (1912), ‘Die Musik im ro¨mischen Heere’, Mainzer Zeitschrift, 7: 36–47. Bell, A. J. (1923), The Latin Dual and Poetic Diction: Studies in Numbers and Figures (London and Toronto). Bendinelli, G. (1941), Le pitture del colombario di Villa Pamphili (Monumenti della pittura antica scoperti in Italia, iii/5; Rome). BeneWel, R. R. (2005), Litora mundi hospita: Mobility and Social Interaction in Roman Campania (diss. Harvard). Benveniste, E. (1932), ‘Le sens du mot ˚ˇ¸ˇˇ et les noms grecs de la statue’, Revue de philologie, 58: 118–35. Bergmann, M. (1993), Der Koloß Neros, die Domus Aurea und der Mentalita¨tswandel in Rom der fru¨hen Kaiserzeit (Trierer Winckelmannsprogramme, 13; Mainz). Beschaouch, A. (1966), ‘La mosaı¨que de chasse a` l’amphithe´aˆtre de´couverte a` Smirat en Tunisie’, Comptes rendus de l’Acade´mie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 134–57.

Bibliography

279

Bing, P. (1995), ‘Erga¨nzungsspiel in the Epigrams of Callimachus’, Antike und Abendland, 41: 115–31. —— (2002), ‘Posidippus on Stones: The First Section of the New Posidippus Papyrus (P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309, col. I–IV 6’, http://www.apaclassics.org/Publications/ Posidippus/posidippus.html. —— (2005), ‘The Politics and Poetics of Geography in the Milan Posidippus Section One: On Stones (AB 1–20)’, in Gutzwiller (2005a), 119–40. Birt, Th. (1930), ‘Martiallesungen’, Rheinisches Museum, nf 79: 303–13. Blackburn, B. J., and Holford-Strevens, L. A. (eds.) (1999), The Oxford Companion to the Year (Oxford). Blake, M. E. (1936), ‘Roman Mosaics of the Second Century in Italy’, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 13: 67–214. —— (1940), ‘Mosaics of the Late Empire in Rome and Vicinity’, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 17: 81–130. —— (1959), Roman Construction in Italy from Tiberius through the Flavians (Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 616; Washington). Blanchet, A. (1941), ‘Le rhinoce´ros de l’empereur Domitien’, Revue numismatique 5 , 5: 5–10. Blu¨mner, H. (1911), Die ro¨mischen Privataltertu¨mer (Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, 4. 2. 2; Munich). —— (1918), Fahrendes Volk im Altertum ¼ Sitzungsberichte der Ko¨niglich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse, Heft 6. Boatwright, M. T. (1987), Hadrian and the City of Rome (Princeton). Boe¨thius, A. (1952), ‘Et crescunt media pegmata celsa uia (Martial’s De spectaculis 2, 2)’, Eranos, 50: 129–37. —— (1954), ‘Invidiosa feri atria regis (Martial, De spectaculis 2)’, in R. Lullies (ed.), Neue Beitra¨ge zur klassischen Altertumswissenschaft: Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Bernhard Schweizer (Stuttgart), 358–60. —— (1960), The Golden House of Nero: Some Aspects of Roman Architecture (Jerome Lectures, 5; Ann Arbor). Bonaria, M. (1959), ‘Dinastie di pantomimi latini’, Maia, 11: 224–42. Bonfante, G. (1999), The Origin of the Romance Languages: Stages in the Development of Latin (Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften2 , nf 100; Heidelberg). Bonner, S. F. (1949), Roman Declamation in the Late Republic and Early Empire (Liverpool). Bowersock, G. W. (1983), Roman Arabia (Cambridge, MA, and London). Bradley, K. R. (1978), Suetonius’ Life of Nero. An Historical Commentary (Collection Latomus, 157; Brussels). —— (1981), ‘The SigniWcance of the Spectacula in Suetonius’ Caesares’, Rivista storica dell’antichita`, 11: 129–37. Braund, D. (1986), ‘The Caucasian Frontier: Myth, Exploration and the Dynamics of Imperialism’, in P. Freeman and D. Kennedy (eds.), The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at the University of SheYeld in

280

Bibliography

1986, Part 1 (BAR International Series, 297 ¼ British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 8; Oxford), 31–49. Braund, D. (1996), Ruling Roman Britain: Kings, Queens, Governors and Emperors from Julius Caesar to Agricola (London and New York). Bre´guet, E. (1969), ‘Urbi et orbi: un cliche´ et un the`me’, in J. Bibauw (ed.), Hommages a` Marcel Renard, 3 vols. (Collection Latomus, 101–3; Brussels), i. 140–52. Bremmer, J. (1996), ‘Magic, Martyrdom and Women’s Liberation in the Acts of Paul and Thecla’, in id. (ed.), The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, 2; Kampen), 36–59. Briquel, D. (1992), ‘Les Femmes gladiateurs: examen du dossier’, Kte`ma, 17: 47–53. Brodersen, K. (2004), Die sieben Weltwunder: Legenda¨re Kunst- und Bauwerke der Antike 6 (Beck’sche Reihe, 2029; Munich). ¨ brige Helden Brommer, F. (1976), Denkma¨lerlisten zur griechischen Heldensage, iii: U (Marburg). Broneer, O. (1930), Corinth IV/2: Terracotta Lamps (American School of Classical Studies at Athens; Cambridge, MA). ˆ ne de Lucien’, Bulletin de Bruneau, Ph. (1965), ‘Illustrations antiques du Coq et de l’A correspondance helle´nique, 89: 349–57. Brunet, S. (2004), ‘Female and Dwarf Gladiators’, Mouseion3, 4: 145–70. Buljevic´, Z. (2004), ‘Salonitanski kalup s prikazom gladijatora/Salona Mold with Image of Gladiators’, Opuscula Archaeologica, 28: 193–202. Burnikel, W. (1980), Untersuchungen zur Struktur des Witzepigramms bei Lukillios und Martial (Palingenesia, 15; Wiesbaden). Burton, R. (1983), Classical Poets in the ‘Florilegium Gallicum’ (Lateinische Sprache und Literatur des Mittelalters, 14; Frankfurt am Main). Busch, S. (1999), Versus balnearum: Die antike Dichtung u¨ber Ba¨der und Baden im ro¨mischen Reich (Stuttgart and Leipzig). Buttrey, T. V. (1980), Documentary Evidence for the Chronology of the Flavian Titulature (Beitra¨ge zur klassischen Philologie, 112; Meisenheim am Glan). —— (2007), ‘Domitian, the Rhinoceros, and the Date of Martial’s Liber de Spectaculis’ , Journal of Roman Studies, 97 [forthcoming]. Caerols Pe´rez, J. J. (1995), Sacra vı´a (I a.C.– I d.C.). Estudio de las fuentes escritas (Madrid). Caldelli, M. L. (2004), ‘Le e´lites locali fanno spettacolo negli ediWci di spettacolo’, in M. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, L. Lamoine, and F. Tre´ment (eds.), Autoce´le´bration des e´lites locales dans le monde romain: Contextes, images, textes (II e s. av. J.-C. / III e s. ap. J.-C.) (Collection Erga, 7; Clermont-Ferrand), 129–55. —— (2005), ‘Eusebeia e dintorni: su alcune nuove iscrizioni puteolane’, Epigraphica, 67: 63–83. Calderini, D. (1474), Commentarium in Martialem (Venice). Cameron, A. (1973), Porphyrius the Charioteer (Oxford). —— (1976), Circus Factions: Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium (Oxford). —— (1982), ‘Strato and RuWnus’, Classical Quarterly, ns 32: 162–73. —— (1993), The Greek Anthology from Meleager to Planudes (Oxford).

Bibliography

281

Campbell, B. (1969), ‘Martial’s Slain Sow Poems: An Esthetic Analysis’, Classica et Mediaevalia, 30: 347–82. Canobbio, A. (2002), La lex Roscia theatralis e Marziale: il ciclo del libro V. Introduzione, edizione critica, traduzione e commento (Bibliotheca di Athenaeum, 49; Como). Canter, H. V. (1930), ‘The Venerable Bede and the Colosseum’, Transactions of the American Philological Association, 61: 150–64. Carandini, A., Ricci, A., and Vos, M. de (1982), FilosoWana: The Villa of Piazza Armerina. The Image of a Roman Aristocrat at the Time of Constantine (Palermo). Carratello, U. (1965a), ‘Orfeo e l’orsa (nota a Marziale spect. 21–21b)’, Giornale italiano di Wlologia, 18: 131–44. —— (1965b), ‘Omnis Caesareo cedit labor amphitheatro! (note a Mart. spect. lib.)’, Giornale italiano di Wlologia, 18: 294–324. —— (1973), ‘L’‘‘editio princeps’’ di Valerio Marziale e l’incunabulo ferrarese di Leida’, Giornale italiano di Wlologia, 25: 295–9. —— (1974a), ‘L’‘‘Epigrammaton liber’’ di Marziale nella tradizione tardo-medievale e umanistica’, Giornale italiano di Wlologia, 26: 1–17. —— (1974b), ‘ ‘‘Florilegia quaedam’’ di Valerio Marziale (per una nuova edizione dell’‘‘Epigrammaton liber’’)’, Giornale italiano di Wlologia, 26: 142–58. —— (1975), ‘Noterelle Wlologiche su Valerio Marziale ed Apuleio’, Giornale italiano di Wlologia, 27: 218–26. —— (1981a), M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Liber. Introduzione e testo critico (Rome). —— (1981b), ‘Un nuovo codice di Valerio Marziale’, Giornale italiano di Wlologia, 33: 235–46. —— (1989), ‘Riesame di questioni sull’‘‘Epigrammaton liber’’ di Marziale’, Giornale italiano di Wlologia, 41: 273–89. —— (1991), ‘Dell’‘‘Epigrammaton liber’’ di Marziale e dei suoi editori’, Giornale italiano di Wlologia, 43: 315–28. —— (1994), ‘L’‘‘Epigrammaton liber’’ di Marziale e il Lindsay’, in C. Curti and C. Crimi (eds.), Scritti classici e cristiani oVerti a Francesco Corsaro, 2 vols. (Catania), i. 147–54. —— (1997), ‘Noterelle sull’Epigrammaton liber di Marziale’, Giornale italiano di Wlologia, 49: 237–41. —— (1998), ‘Ancora sull’Epigrammaton liber di Marziale’, Giornale italiano di Wlologia, 50: 143–8. —— (2001), ‘Postille su Catullo e Marziale’, Giornale italiano di Wlologia, 53: 73–83. Carter, J. B. (1902), Epitheta deorum quae apud poetas Latinos leguntur (¼ supplement to Roscher; Leipzig). Carter, M. (2006), ‘Palms for the Gladiators: Martial, Spect. 31 (27 [29])’, Latomus, 65 [forthcoming]. Cary, M., and Warmington, E. H. (1929), The Ancient Explorers (London). Casciano, P., et al. (eds.) (1980), Scrittura, biblioteche e stampa a Roma nel Quattrocento: aspetti e problemi. Atti del seminario 1–2 giugno 1979. Indice delle edizioni romane a stampa (1467–1500) (Littera Antiqua, 1/2; Vatican City).

282

Bibliography

Ceccarelli, P. (1998), La pirrica nell’antichita` greco romana: studi sulla danza armata (Filologia e critica, Universita` degli studi di Urbino, 83; Pisa and Rome). Cerulli Irelli, G., et al. (eds.) (1990), Pompejanische Wandmalerei (Stuttgart and Zurich). Champlin, E. (2003), Nero (Cambridge, MA). Chandler, H. W. (1881), A Practical Introduction to Greek Accentuation2 (Oxford; repr. New York, 1983). Charlesworth, M. P. (1937), ‘The Virtues of a Roman Emperor: Propaganda and the Creation of Belief ’, Proceedings of the British Academy, 23: 105–33. Charlet, J.-L. (1987), ‘Un humaniste trop peu connu, Niccolo` Perotti: prole´gome`nes a` une nouvelle e´dition du Cornu copiae’, Revue des e´tudes latines, 65: 210–27. —— (1997), ‘Perotti (Niccolo`) (1429 ou 30–1480)’, in C. Nativel (ed.), Centuriae Latinae: cent une Wgures humanistes de la Renaissance aux Lumie`res oVertes a` Jacques Chomarat (Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance, 314; Geneva), 601–5. —— et al. (eds.) (1989–2001), Nicolai Perotti: Cornu copiae seu linguae Latinae commentarii, 8 vols. (Sassoferrato). Chastagnol, A. (1966), Le Se´nat romain sous le re`gne d’Odoacre: recherches sur l’e´pigraphie du Colise´e au V e sie`cle (Antiquitas, 3/3; Bonn). Cichorius, C. (1922), Ro¨mische Studien (Leipzig and Berlin). Citroni, M. (1975), M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Liber Primus: Introduzione, testo, apparato critico e commento (Biblioteca di studi superiori, 61; Florence). —— (1989), ‘Marziale e la Letteratura per i Saturnali (poetica dell’intrattenimento e cronologia della pubblicazione dei libri’, Illinois Classical Studies, 14: 201–26. Claridge, A. (1998), Rome: An Oxford Archaeological Guide (Oxford). Clarke, J. R. (1979), Roman Black-and-White Figural Mosaics (Monographs on Archaeology and the Fine Arts, 35; New York). —— (1996), ‘Hypersexual Black Men in Augustan Baths: Ideal Somatotypes and Apotropaic Magic’, in N. B. Kampen (ed.), Sexuality in Ancient Art: Near East, Egypt, Greece, and Italy (Cambridge), 184–98. Classen, C. J. (1980), Die Stadt im Spiegel der Descriptiones und Laudes Urbium in der antiken und mittelalterlichen Literatur bis zum Ende des zwo¨lften Jahrhunderts (Beitra¨ge zur Altertumswissenschaft, 2; Hildesheim and New York). Clausen, W. V. (1955), ‘Silua coniecturarum’, American Journal of Philology, 76: 49–51. —— (1965), review of P. J. Enk (ed.) (1962), Sex. Propertii Elegiarum Liber Secundus, in American Journal of Philology, 86: 95–101. Clayton, P. A. (1988), ‘The Great Pyramid of Giza’, in Clayton–Price, 13–37. —— and Price, M. J. (eds.) (1988), The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (London and New York). Cloud, J. D. (1971), ‘Parricidium: From the Lex Numae to the Lex Pompeia de parricidiis’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fu¨r Rechtsgeschichte, romanistische Abteilung, 88: 1–66. Coarelli, F. (1980), Roma (Guide archeologiche Laterza, 6; Bari). —— (1983), Il Foro Romano: periodo arcaico (Rome).

Bibliography

283

—— (1992), ‘Aedes Fortis Fortunae, Naumachia Augusti, Castra Ravennatium: la via Campana Portuensis e alcuni ediWci adiacenti nella pianta marmorea severiana’, Ostraka, 1: 39–54. —— (2001), ‘Gli anWteatri a Roma prima del Colosseo’, in La Regina, 43–7. Coleman, K. M. (1986), ‘The Emperor Domitian and Literature’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der ro¨mischen Welt, II. 32. 5 (Berlin and New York), 3087–115. —— (1990), ‘Fatal Charades: Roman Executions Staged as Mythological Enactments’, Journal of Roman Studies, 80: 44–73. —— (1993), ‘Launching into History: Aquatic Displays in the Early Empire’, Journal of Roman Studies, 83: 48–74. —— (1994), ‘The Lucrine Lake at Juvenal 4. 141’, Classical Quarterly, ns 44: 554–7. —— (1998), ‘The Liber spectaculorum: Perpetuating the Ephemeral’, in F. Grewing (ed.), Toto Notus in Orbe: Perspektiven der Martial-Interpretation (Palingenesia, 65; Stuttgart), 15–36. —— (1999), ‘ ‘‘Informers’’ on Parade’, in B. Bergmann and C. Kondoleon (eds.), The Art of Ancient Spectacle (Studies in the History of Art, 56 ¼ Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts Symposium Papers, 34; Washington, DC), 231–45. —— (2000a), ‘Missio at Halicarnassus’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 100: 487–500. —— (2000b), ‘Entertaining Rome’, in J. Coulston and H. Dodge (eds.), Ancient Rome: The Archaeology of the Eternal City (Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph 54; Oxford), 210–58. —— (2003), ‘Euergetism in its Place: Where Was the Amphitheatre in Augustan Rome?’, in K. Lomas and T. Cornell (eds.), ‘Bread and Circuses’: Euergetism and Municipal Patronage in Roman Italy (London and New York), 61–88. —— (2005a), Bonds of Danger: Communal Life in the Gladiatorial Barracks of Ancient Rome (The Todd Memorial Lectures, 15; Sydney). —— (2005b), ‘Martial, Book 6: A Gift for the Matronalia?’, Acta Classica, 48: 23–35. Colin, J. (1956), ‘AYches et invitations pour les spectacles de gladiateurs’, Pallas, 4: 51–7. Contino, S. (2000), Iscrizioni latine volgari (Palermo). ¨ ber Aussprache, Vokalismus und Betonung der lateinischen Corssen, W. (1868, 1870), U Sprache2, 2 vols. (Leipzig). Courtney, E. (1995), Musa Lapidaria: A Selection of Latin Verse Inscriptions (American Classical Studies, 36; Atlanta). Dalley, S. (1994), ‘Nineveh, Babylon and the Hanging Gardens: Cuneiform and Classical Sources Reconciled’, Iraq, 56: 45–58. —— (2002), ‘More About the Hanging Gardens’, in L. al-Gailani Werr et al. (eds.), Of Pots and Plans. Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria Presented to David Oates in Honour of his 75th Birthday (London), 67–73. —— (2006), ‘The Hanging Gardens of ‘‘Babylon’’: a World Wonder Rediscovered’, Minerva, 17/1: 33–5. Dalmasso, L. (1906), La grammatica di C. Suetonio Tranquillo (Turin). Dames, M. L. (1918), The Book of Duarte Barbosa: An Account of the Countries Bordering on the Indian Ocean and their Inhabitants, Written By Duarte Barbosa,

284

Bibliography

and Completed about the Year 1518 a.d., i (The Hakluyt Society, ser.2, 44; London; repr. New Delhi and Madras, 1989). Damschen, G., and Heil, A. (eds.) (2004), Marcus Valerius Martialis: Epigrammaton ¨ bersetzung, Interpretationen. Mit liber decimus. Das zehnte Epigrammbuch. Text, U einer Einleitung, Martial-Bibliographie und einem rezeptionsgeschichtlichen Anhang (Studien zur klassischen Philologie, 148; Frankfurt am Main). Darwall-Smith, R. H. (1996), Emperors and Architecture: A Study of Flavian Rome (Collection Latomus, 231; Brussels). Dau, A. (1887), De Valerii Martialis libellorum ratione temporibusque, pars I (diss. Rostock). Della Corte, F. (1986), ‘Gli spettacoli’ di Marziale tradotti e commentati, edn.3 (Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto di Filologia Classica e Medievale dell’Universita` di Genova, 90; Genoa) (edn.1 ¼ 1946; edn.2 ¼ 1969). Delz, J. (1971), ‘Kritische Bemerkungen zu Tibull, Ovid und Martial’, Museum Helveticum, 28: 49–59. Deman, E. B. van (1912), ‘The Methods of Determining the Date of Ancient Roman Concrete Construction’, American Journal of Archaeology, 16: 230–41, 387–432. —— (1934), The Building of the Roman Aqueducts (Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 423; Washington, DC). Deroux, C. (1990), ‘De la calvitie de Domitien a` la chevelure d’Alexandre: propositions sur Juve´nal, Sat., IV, 37–38’, in J.-M. Croisille (ed.), Neronia IV: Alejandro Magno, modelo de los emperadores romanos. Actes du IV e Colloque international de la SIEN (Collection Latomus, 209; Brussels), 277–88. Desanges, J. (1978), Recherches sur l’activite´ des Me´diterrane´ens aux conWns de l’Afrique (VI e sie`cle avant J.-C.–IV e sie`cle apre`s J.-C.) (Collection de l’E´cole franc¸aise de Rome, 38; Rome). Deschamps, L. (1983), ‘Il ritratto di Tito nell’opera di Marziale’, in Riposati, i. 69–84. Dewar, M. (1994), ‘Laying it on with a Trowel: The Proem to Lucan and Related Texts’, Classical Quarterly, ns 44: 199–211. Dickey, E. (2002), Latin Forms of Address from Plautus to Apuleius (Oxford). Dickie, M. W. (1996), ‘What is a kolossos and How were kolossoi Made in the Hellenistic Period?’, Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies, 37: 237–57. Diels, H. (1904), ‘Laterculi Alexandrini aus einem Papyrus ptolema¨ischer Zeit’, Abhandlungen der Ko¨niglich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Philosophisch-historische Abhandlungen, 1904/2), 1–16. Dierauer, U. (1977), Tier und Mensch im Denken der Antike: Studien zur Tierpsychologie, Anthropologie und Ethik (Studien zur antiken Philosophie, 6; Amsterdam). Dillon, M. (1997), Pilgrims and Pilgrimage in Ancient Greece (London and New York). Di Marco, M. (1989), ‘ 4 ˇłØ nella Poetica di Aristotele e nel Tractatus Coislinianus’, in L. De Finis (ed.), Scena e spettacolo nell’antichita`: Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studio, Trento, 28–30 marzo 1988 (Teatro studi e testi, 7; Florence), 129–48. D’Ippolito, G. (1962), ‘Draconzio, Nonno e gli ‘‘idromimi’’ ’, Atene e Roma, ns 7: 1–14. Dixon, S. (1988), The Roman Mother (Norman, OK).

Bibliography

285

Domergue, C., Landes, C., and Pailler, J.-M. (eds.) (1990), Spectacula I: Gladiateurs et amphithe´aˆtres (Lattes). DuV, J. D. (1903), ‘Lindsay’s Martial’, Classical Review, 17: 220–3. —— (1905), ‘M. Valeri Martialis Epigrammata’, in J. P. Postgate (ed.), Corpus Poetarum Latinorum, ii (London), 434–531. Dunbabin, K. M. D. (1978), The Mosaics of Roman North Africa: Studies in Iconography and Patronage (Oxford). Dunkle, J. R. (1971–2), ‘The Rhetorical Tyrant in Roman Historiography: Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus’, Classical World, 65: 12–20. Eden, P. T. (1997), ‘Three Notes on Martial’s Liber de spectaculis’, Mnemosyne 4, 50: 484–5. Edmondson, J. C. (1996), ‘Dynamic Arenas: Gladiatorial Presentations in the City of Rome and the Construction of Roman Society during the Early Empire’, in Slater (1996), 69–112. Ehrman, R. K. (1987), ‘Martial, De Spectaculis 8: Gladiator or Criminal?’, Mnemosyne 4, 40: 422–5. Eisenhut, W. (1973), Virtus Romana: Ihre Stellung im ro¨mischen Wertsystem (Studia et testimonia antiqua, 13; Munich). Elkins, N. T. (2004), ‘Locating the Imperial Box in the Flavian Amphitheatre: The Numismatic Evidence’, Numismatic Chronicle, 164: 147–57. Ellis, R. (1885), ‘Adversaria’, Journal of Philology, 14: 78–92. Elphinston, J. (1782), The Epigrams of M. Val. Martial, in Twelve Books: with a Comment (London). Engels, D. W. (1978), Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London). English, P. R., Smith, W. J., and MacLean, A. (1982), The Sow: Improving her EYciency 2 (Ipswich). Epplett, C. (2001), ‘The Capture of Animals by the Roman Military’, Greece & Rome2, 48: 210–22. Essen, C. C. van (1954), ‘La topographie de la Domus Aurea Neronis’, Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeling Letterkunde, ns 17/12: 371–98. E´tienne, R. (1965), ‘La naissance de l’amphithe´aˆtre: le mot et la chose’, Revue des e´tudes latines, 43: 213–20. Fabbri, R. (1979–80), ‘Mart. spect. 21b’, Atti dell’Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 138: 591–7. Fantham, E. (1972), Comparative Studies in Republican Latin Imagery (Phoenix supplementary volume 10; Toronto). —— (1989), ‘Mime: The Missing Link in Roman Literary History’, Classical World, 82: 153–63. Fantuzzi, M. (2004), ‘The Structure of the hippika in P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309’, in AcostaHughes, et al., 212–24. —— (2005), ‘Posidippus at Court: the Contribution of the & +ØŒ of P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309 to the Ideology of Ptolemaic Kingship’, in Gutzwiller (2005a), 249–68. —— and Hunter, R. (2004), Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry (Cambridge).

286

Bibliography

Fenger, R. (1906), De metonymiae in epigrammatis Martialis usu (diss. Jena). Flemberg, J. (1991), Venus Armata: Studien zur bewaVneten Aphrodite in der griechischro¨mischen Kunst (Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae, Series in 88, 10; Stockholm). Flinck-Linkomies, E. (1929), De ablativo absoluto quaestiones ¼ Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Ser. B, 20/1 (Helsinki). Floriani Squarciapino, M. (1986–7), ‘Un altro mosaico Ostiense con atleti’, Atti della PontiWcia Accademia Romana di Archeologia. Rendiconti3, 59: 161–79. Floridi, L. (forthcoming), Gli epigrammi di Stratone di Sardi. Testo critico, traduzione e commento (Quaderni dei seminari romani di cultura greca; Rome). Forbes, R. J. (1964), Studies in Ancient Technology, ix (Leiden). Fortuny Previ, F. (1983), Marcial, Libro de especta´culos: texto, traduccio´n y notas (Murcia). Fossing, P. (1929), The Thorvaldsen Museum: Catalogue of the Antique Engraved Gems and Cameos (Copenhagen). Fowler, D. P. (1985), ‘New Directions’, Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 59: 45–6. —— (1995), ‘Martial and the Book’, Ramus, 24: 31–58. Fraenkel, E. (1964), Kleine Beitra¨ge zur klassischen Philologie, 2 vols. (Storia e letteratura, 95; Rome). Fre´caut, J. M. (1972), L’Esprit et l’humour chez Ovide (Grenoble). Friedla¨nder, L. (1884), ‘Martialis Liber Spectaculorum cum Adnotationibus’, in Index lectionum in Academia Albertina habendarum 1884/85 (Ko¨nigsberg). —— (1886), M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Libri, 2 vols. (Leipzig). Friedrich, G. (1907), ‘Zu Martial’, Rheinisches Museum, nf 62: 366–79. Frier, B. W. (1980), Landlords and Tenants in Imperial Rome (Princeton). Fulda, H. (1878), Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung: Eine antiquarische Untersuchung nebst Nachweis der vielen seit Lipsius verbreiteten Irrthu¨mer, zugleich vier Exkurse u¨ber verwandte Gegensta¨nde (Breslau). Furno, M. (1995), Le Cornu copiae de Niccolo` Perotti: culture et me´thode d’un humaniste qui aimait les mots (Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance, 294; Geneva). Furtwa¨ngler, A. (1896), Ko¨nigliche Museen zu Berlin: Beschreibung der geschnittenen Steine im Antiquarium (Berlin). Gabucci, A. (ed.) (2001), The Colosseum, trans. M. Becker (Los Angeles) ¼ (1999), Il Colosseo (Milan). Gaggiotti, M., Manconi, D., Mercando, L., and Verza´r, M. (1980), Umbria, Marche (Guide archeologiche Laterza, 4; Bari). Gallivan, P. A. (1981), ‘The Fasti for a.d. 70–96’, Classical Quarterly, ns 31: 186–220. Garcı´a Romero, F. (2001), El deporte en los proverbios griegos antiguos (Nikephoros Beihefte, 7; Hildesheim). Gardiner, E. N. (1907), ‘Throwing the Javelin’, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 27: 249–73. Garello, F. (2004), ‘Sport or Showbiz? The Naumachiae in the Flavian Amphitheatre’, in S. Bell and G. Davies (eds.), Games and Festivals in Classical Antiquity:

Bibliography

287

Proceedings of the Conference held in Edinburgh 10–12 July 2000 (BAR International Series, 1220; Oxford), 115–24. Garnsey, P. (1970), Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (Oxford). —— (1999), Food and Society in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge). Ge´ly, S. (1983), ‘Nationalisme et cosmopolitisme dans la pense´e romaine a` l’e´poque de Titus’, in Riposati, ii. 313–23. Gerkan, A. von (1925), ‘Das Obergeschoss des Xavischen Amphitheaters’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts (Ro¨mische Abteilung), 40: 11–50 ¼ E. Boehringer (ed.), Von antiker Architektur und Topographie. Gesammelte Aufsa¨tze von Arnim von Gerkan (Stuttgart, 1959), 29–43. Ghedini, F. (1991), ‘IconograWe urbane e maestranze africane nel mosaico della Piccola Caccia di Piazza Armerina’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts (Ro¨mische Abteilung), 98: 323–35. Gialanella, C. (1996), ‘Echoes of the Barbaricum in Recent Finds at Pozzuoli’, in Roman Reflections in Scandinavia (Rome), 89–90. Gilbert, W. (1883), Ad Martialem quaestiones criticae (Dresden). —— (1884), ‘Beitra¨ge zur Textkritik des Martial’, Rheinisches Museum, nf 39: 511–20. —— (1886), M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Libri (Biblioteca Teubneriana; Leipzig). Gnecchi, F. (1916), ‘La fauna e la Xora nei tipi monetali’, Rivista italiana di numismatica, 29: 11–82, 160–208. Goldman, N. (1982), ‘Reconstructing the Roman Colosseum Awning’, Archaeology, 35: 57–65. Golvin, J.-C. (1988), L’Amphithe´aˆtre romain: essai sur la the´orisation de sa forme et de ses fonctions (Publications du Centre Pierre Paris (UA 991), 18; Paris). —— and Landes, C. (1990), Amphithe´aˆtres et gladiateurs (Paris). Gordon, A. E. (1986), ‘The Latin Epigram at Corinth’, in M. A. Del Chiaro (ed.), Corinthiaca: Studies in Honor of Darrell A. Amyx (Columbia, MO), 50–3. Gow, A. S. F. (1958), The Greek Anthology. Sources and Ascriptions (Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies Supplementary Paper 9; London). Gowers, W. (1950), ‘The Classical Rhinoceros’, Antiquity, 24: 61–71. Graefe, R. (1979), Vela erunt: Die Zeltda¨cher der ro¨mischen Theater und a¨hnlicher Anlagen (Mainz). Grandgent, C. H. (1907), An Introduction to Vulgar Latin (Boston). Greenwood, M. A. (1992), ‘Martial de spect. 28. 11: Another Conjecture’, Liverpool Classical Monthly, 17: 133. —— (1996), ‘Martial, Spect. 34,11’, Latomus, 55: 656–7. Grewing, F. (1997), Martial, Buch VI (Ein Kommentar) (Hypomnemata, 115; Go¨ttingen). GriYn, J. (1985), Latin Poets and Roman Life (London). GriYn, M. (1984), Nero: The End of a Dynasty (London). —— (2000), ‘The Flavians’, in A. K. Bowman, P. Garnsey, and D. Rathbone (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History 2, xi: The High Empire, ad 70–192 (Cambridge), 1–83. GriYth, J. G. (1962), ‘Juvenal and Stage-Struck Patricians’, Mnemosyne 4, 15: 256–61.

288

Bibliography

Grzimek, B. (1990), Grzimek’s Encyclopedia of Mammals, iv (New York). Guey, J. (1947), ‘Les e´le´phants de Caracalla (216 apre`s J.-C.)’, Revue des e´tudes anciennes, 49: 248–73. Gunderson, E. (2003), ‘The Flavian Amphitheatre: All the World as Stage’, in A. J. Boyle and W. J. Dominik (eds.), Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text (Leiden and Boston), 637–58. Gutzwiller, K. J. (1998), Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context (Hellenistic Culture and Society, 28; Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London). —— (2002), ‘Posidippus on Statuary’, in G. Bastianini and A. Casanova (eds.), Il Papiro di Posidippo un anno dopo: Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Firenze, 13–14 giugno 2002 (Studi e Testi di Papirologia, ns 4; Florence), 41–60. —— (2004), ‘A New Hellenistic Poetry Book: P. Mil. Vogl. VIII 309’, in AcostaHughes et al., 84–93. —— (ed.) (2005a), The New Posidippus (Oxford). —— (2005b), ‘Introduction’, in Gutzwiller (2005a), 1–16. —— (2005c), ‘The Literariness of the Milan Papyrus, or ‘‘What DiVerence a Book?’’ ’, in Gutzwiller (2005a), 287–319. Hafez, E. S. E. (1968), ‘Sexual Behavior’, in id. (ed.), Reproduction in Farm Animals2 (Philadelphia), 155–72. Hamacher, J. (1975), Florilegium Gallicum. Prolegomena und Edition der Exzerpte von Petron bis Cicero, De Oratore (Lateinische Sprache und Literatur des Mittelalters, 5; Frankfurt am Main). Harder, M. A., Regtuit, R. F., and Wakker, G. C. (eds.) (2002), Hellenistic Epigrams (Hellenistica Groningana, 6; Leuven). Harrison, T. (1995–6), ‘The Kaisers of Carnuntum’, Arion3, 3/2–3: 191–235. —— (2001), ‘The Tears and the Trumpets’, Arion3, 9/2: 1–22. Hartenberger, R. (1911), De o Wnali apud poetas latinos ab Ennio usque ad Iuvenalem (diss. Bonn). Hartigan, K. (1979), The Poets and the Cities: Selections from the Anthology about Greek Cities (Beitra¨ge zur klassischen Philologie, 87; Meisenheim am Glan). Hartman, J. J. (1906), ‘De porticu Claudia’, Mnemosyne 2, 34: 83–4. Hasluck, F. W. (1903), ‘Inscriptions from Cyzicus’, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 23: 75–91. Haupt, M. (1875, 1876), Opuscula, i–ii (Leipzig; repr. Hildesheim, 1967). Healy, J. F. (1978), Mining and Metallurgy in the Greek and Roman World (Aspects of Greek and Roman Life; London). Heironimus, J. P. (1937), ‘Animals on Trial’, Classical Journal, 32: 297. Helm, R. (1929), review of Weinreich (1928), in Philologische Wochenschrift, 49: 807–10. —— (1956), ‘Nachaugusteische nichtchristliche Dichter. I. Ro¨mische Dichtung von Tiberius bis Trajan: Bericht u¨ber das Schrifttum der Jahre 1925–1942. Martialis’, Lustrum, 1: 299–318. Hengel, M. (1977), CruciWxion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (London). Henrikse´n, C. (1998–9), Martial, Book IX: A Commentary, 2 vols. (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Latina Upsaliensia, 24; Uppsala). Heraeus, W. (1915), ‘—æ
E’, Rheinisches Museum, nf 70: 1–41.

Bibliography

289

—— (1925), M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Libri (Biblioteca Teubneriana; Leipzig). Herman, J. (2000) Vulgar Latin, trans. R. Wright (University Park, PA). Herrmann, L. (1962), ‘Le ‘‘livre des spectacles’’ de Martial’, Latomus, 21: 494–504. —— (1985), ‘Laureolus’, in M. Renard and P. Laurens (eds.), Hommages a` Henry Bardon (Collection Latomus, 187: Brussels), 225–34. Herzog, R. (1901), ‘Bericht u¨ber eine epigraphisch-archa¨ologische Expedition auf der Insel Kos im Sommer 1900’, Archa¨ologischer Anzeiger, 131–40. Hilgers, W. (1969), Lateinische Gefa¨ßnamen: Bezeichnungen, Funktion und Form ro¨mischer Gefa¨ße nach den antiken Schriftquellen (Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbu¨cher, 31; Du¨sseldorf). Hinds, S. (1987), The Metamorphosis of Persephone: Ovid and the Self-Conscious Muse (Cambridge Classical Studies; Cambridge). —— (2007), ‘Martial’s Ovid/Ovid’s Martial’, Journal of Roman Studies, 97 [forthcoming]. Hoek, A. van den, and Herrmann, J. J., Jr. (2001), ‘Thecla the Beast Fighter: A Female Emblem of Deliverance in Early Christian Popular Art’, in D. T. Runia and G. E. Sterling (eds.), In the Spirit of Faith: Studies in Philo and Early Christianity in Honor of David Hay (Providence, RI) ¼ Studia Philonica Annual, 13: 212–49. Ho¨nle, A., and Henze, A. (1981), Ro¨mische Amphitheater und Stadien (Feldmeilen). Hofmann, J. B. (1926), review of Heraeus (1925), in Gnomon, 2: 249–54. Holder, P. A. (1977), ‘Domitian and the Title Germanicus’, Liverpool Classical Monthly, 2: 151. Holford-Strevens, L. A. (2003), Aulus Gellius: An Antonine Scholar and his Achievement 2 (Oxford). —— (2004), ‘Recht as een Palmen-Bohm and Other Facets of Gellius’ Medieval and Humanistic Reception’, in L. A. Holford-Strevens and A. Vardi (eds.), The Worlds of Aulus Gellius (Oxford), 249–81. Holzberg, N. (2002), Martial und das antike Epigramm (Darmstadt). —— (2004), ‘Impersonating the Banished Philosopher: Pseudo-Seneca’s liber epigrammaton’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 102: 423–44. Horsfall, N. (1989), ‘Barbara tegmina crurum’, Maia, ns 41: 251–4. —— (1997), ‘Criteria for the Dating of Calpurnius Siculus’, Rivista di Wlologia e di istruzione classica, 125: 166–96. Hornblower, S. (1982), Mausolus (Oxford). Housman, A. E. (1894), ‘A Note on Virgil’, Transactions of the Cambridge Philological Society, 3: 239–41 ¼ Housman (1972), i. 348–50. —— (1897), ‘Ovid’s Heroides’, Classical Review, 11: 425–31 ¼ Housman (1972), i. 412–21. —— (1901), ‘Two Epigrams of Martial’, Classical Review, 15: 154–5 ¼ Housman (1972), ii. 536–8. —— (1903), ‘On Manilius i 423’, Classical Review, 17: 343 ¼ Housman (1972), ii. 597. —— (1907), ‘Corrections and Explanations of Martial’, Journal of Philology, 30: 229–65 ¼ Housman (1972), ii. 711–39.

290

Bibliography

Housman, A. E. (1910), ‘Greek Nouns in Latin Poetry from Lucretius to Juvenal’, Journal of Philology, 31: 236–66 ¼ Housman (1972), ii. 817–39. —— (1925), review of Heraeus (1925), in Classical Review, 39: 199–203 ¼ Housman (1972), iii. 1099–104. —— (1931), review of Izaac (1930), in Classical Review, 45: 81–3 ¼ Housman (1972), iii. 1172–4. —— (1972), The Classical Papers of A. E. Housman, ed. J. Diggle and F. R. D. Goodyear, 3 vols. (Cambridge). Howell, P. (1968), ‘The Colossus of Nero’, Athenaeum, ns 46: 292–9. Hudson-Williams, A. (1954), ‘Martial, Spect. 4. 1–4’, Classical Quarterly, ns 4: 170. Huisintveld, H. (1949), De populaire elementen in de taal van M. Valerius Martialis (diss. Nijmegen; Roermond). Hull, D. B. (1964), Hounds and Hunting in Ancient Greece (Chicago and London). Hu¨lsen, C. (1932), ‘Neue Fragmente der Acta Ludorum Saecularium von 204 nach Chr.’, Rheinisches Museum, nf 81: 366–94. —— and Jordan, H. (1907), Topographie der Stadt Rom im Alterthum 1/3 (Berlin; repr. Rome, 1970). Hunink, V. (2003), Martialis: Spektakel in het Colosseum (Leuven). —— (2005), ‘Mit Martial ins Amphitheater’, !æØ , 11: 165–79. Hunter, R. (1992), ‘Callimachus and Heraclitus’, Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici, 28: 113–23. —— (2004), ‘Notes on the Lithika of Posidippus’, in Acosta-Hughes et al., 94–104. Hutchinson, G. O. (2002), ‘The New Posidippus and Latin Poetry’, Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 138: 1–10. Hyde, W. W. (1917–18), ‘The Curious Animals of the Hercynian Forest’, Classical Journal, 13: 231–45. Ivo, O. da Silva (1966–72), ‘Marcial: Um processo formal no livro dos Espeta´culos’, Kriterion, 19: 345–55. Izaac, H. J. (1930, 1933), Martial, E´pigrammes, 2 vols. (Bude´; Paris). Jacques, F. (1984), Le Privile`ge de liberte´: politique impe´riale et autonomie municipale dans les cite´s de l’Occident romain (161–244) (Collection de l’E´cole franc¸aise de Rome, 76; Rome). Janssen, H. H. (1980), ‘Le caratteristiche della lingua poetica romana’, in Lunelli, 69–130; trans. of De kenmerken der Romeinsche dichtertaal (Nijmegen and Utrecht, 1941). Jarrard, A. (2003), Architecture as Performance in Seventeenth-Century Europe: Court Ritual in Modena, Rome, and Paris (Cambridge). Jennison, G. (1937), Animals for Show and Pleasure in Ancient Rome (Publications of the University of Manchester, 258; Manchester; repr. Philadelphia, 2005). Jocelyn, H. D. (1973), ‘Greek Poetry in Cicero’s Writings’, Yale Classical Studies, 23: 61–111. —— (1985), ‘The Annotations of M. Valerius Probus (II)’, Classical Quarterly, ns 35: 149–61. —— (1999), ‘Catullus, Mamurra and Romulus cinaedus’, Sileno, 25: 97–113.

Bibliography

291

Johnson, W. A. (2005), ‘The Posidippus Papyrus: Bookroll and Reader’, in Gutzwiller (2005a), 70–80. Jones, B. W. (1984), The Emperor Titus (London, Sydney, and New York). Jones, D. M. (1979), ‘The Husbandry and Veterinary Care of Captive Rhinoceroses’, International Zoo Yearbook, 19: 239–52. Junkelmann, M. (2000), Das Spiel mit dem Tod: So ka¨mpften Roms Gladiatoren (Zaberns Bildba¨nde zur Archa¨ologie; Mainz). Kajanto, I. (1980), ‘Minderheiten und ihre Sprachen in der Hauptstadt Rom’, in Neumann–Untermann, 83–101. Kehrein, J. (1836), ‘Ueber das sogenannte liber spectaculorum Martialis’, Neue Jahrbu¨cher fu¨r Philologie und Paedagogie, 4 Suppl., 541–53. Keller, O. (1909), Die antike Tierwelt, i (Leipzig; repr. Hildesheim and New York, 1980). Kenney, E. J. (1998), ‘The Metamorphosis of Hero’, in Knox–Foss, 55–71. Kirstein, R. (2002), ‘Companion Pieces in the Hellenistic Epigram (Call. 21 and 35 Pf.; Theoc. 7 and 15 Gow; Mart. 2. 91 and 2. 92; Ammianos AP 11. 230 and 11. 231)’, in Harder–Regtuit–Wakker, 113–35. Kloft, H. (1970), Liberalitas Principis: Herkunft und Bedeutung. Studien zur Prinzipatsideologie (Ko¨lner historische Abhandlungen, 18; Cologne). KnoepXer, D. (1999), ‘Pausanias a` Rome en l’an 148?’, Revue des e´tudes grecques, 112: 485–509. Knox, P., and Foss, C. (eds.) (1998), Style and Tradition: Studies in Honor of Wendell Clausen (Beitra¨ge zur Altertumskunde, 92; Stuttgart and Leipzig). Kolendo, J. (1969), ‘E´pigraphie et arche´ologie: le praepositus camellorum dans une inscription d’Ostie’, Klio, 51: 287–98. Kosmetatou, E., and Papalexandrou, N. (2003), ‘Size Matters: Poseidippos and the Colossi’, Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 143: 53–8. Krevans, N. (2005). ‘The Editor’s Toolbox: Strategies for Selection and Presentation in the Milan Epigram Papyrus’, in Gutzwiller (2005a), 81–96. Kuijper, D. (1964), ‘Non falsa’, Mnemosyne 4, 17: 148–55. Kuttner, A. (2005), ‘Cabinet Fit for a Queen: The ¸ØŁØŒ as Posidippus’ Gem Museum’, in Gutzwiller (2005a), 141–63. Lancaster, L. C. (2005), ‘The Process of Building the Colosseum: the Site, Materials, and Construction Techniques’, Journal of Roman Archaeology, 18: 57–82. ¨ ber das Alter der Martial-Lemmata in den Handschriften der Landgraf, G. (1902), ‘U Familie B’, Archiv fu¨r lateinische Lexikographie, 12: 455–63. —— (1905–6), ‘Bemerkungen zum sog. poetischen Plural in der lateinischen Prosa’, Archiv fu¨r lateinische Lexikographie, 14: 63–74. Langner, M. (2001), Antike GraYtizeichnungen: Motive, Gestaltung und Bedeutung (Palilia, 11; Wiesbaden). La Regina, A. (ed.) (2001), Sangue e arena (Rome). Laughton, E. (1964), The Participle in Cicero (Oxford). Laurens, P. (1965), ‘Martial et l’e´pigramme grecque du ier sie`cle apre`s J.-C.’, Revue des e´tudes latines, 43: 315–41.

292

Bibliography

Lausberg, M. (1982), Das Einzeldistichon: Studien zum antiken Epigramm (Studia et testimonia antiqua, 19; Munich). Lavagnini, B. (1963), ‘Tecla nella vasca delle foche e gli spettacoli in acqua’, Byzantion, 33: 185–90. Leader-Newby, R. E. (2004), Silver and Society in Late Antiquity: Functions and Meanings of Silver Plate in the Fourth to Seventh Centuries (Aldershot, Hants, and Burlington, VT). Leary, T. J. (1996), Martial Book XIV: The Apophoreta. Text with Introduction and Commentary (London). —— (2001), Martial Book XIII: The Xenia. Text with Introduction and Commentary (London). Leberl, J. (2004), Domitian und die Dichter. Poesie als Medium der Herrschaftsdarstellung (Hypomnemata, 154; Go¨ttingen). Lega, C. (1989–90), ‘Il Colosso di Nerone’, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica comunale di Roma, 93: 339–78. Le Glay, M. (1990), ‘Les amphithe´aˆtres: loci religiosi?’, in Domergue–Landes–Pailler, 217–29. Lehmann, K. (1945), ‘A Roman Poet Visits a Museum’, Hesperia, 14: 259–69. Lepper, F., and Frere, S. (1988), Trajan’s Column: A New Edition of the Cichorius Plates (Gloucester, UK, and Wolfboro, NH). Leumann, M. (1977), Lateinische Grammatik, i: Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre (Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, 2. 2. 1; Munich). —— (1980), ‘La lingua poetica latina’, in Lunelli, 133–78; trans. of ‘Die lateinische Dichtersprache’, Museum Helveticum, 4 (1947), 116–39 ¼ Kleine Schriften (Zurich and Stuttgart, 1959), 131–56. Liberati Silverio, A. (1986), ‘Aqua Alsietina’, in G. Pisani Sartorio and A. Liberati Silverio (eds.), Il Trionfo dell’acqua: acque e acquedotti a Roma, IV sec. a. C.–XX sec.: mostra 31 ottobre 1986—15 gennaio 1987, Museo della civilta` romana, Roma (Rome), 72–9. Lilja, S. (1972), The Treatment of Odours in the Poetry of Antiquity (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum, 49; Helsinki). Lindner, K. (1973), Beitra¨ge zu Vogelfang und Falknerei im Altertum (Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Jagd, 12; Berlin and New York). Lindsay, W. M. (1901), Nonius Marcellus’ Dictionary of Republican Latin (Oxford). —— (1903a), M. Val. Martialis Epigrammata (Oxford Classical Texts; Oxford). —— (1903b), The Ancient Editions of Martial, with Collations of the Berlin and Edinburgh Mss. (St. Andrews University Publications, 11; Oxford). —— (1903c), ‘The Orthography of Martial’s Epigrams’, Journal of Philology, 29: 24–60. —— (1903d), ‘Notes on the Text of Martial’, Classical Review, 17: 48–52. —— (1905), review of R. Sabbadini, Spogli ambrosiani latini (Florence, 1903), in Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 26/2 (14 Jan.), 88–9. —— (1916), ‘New Evidence for the Text of Festus’, Classical Quarterly, 10: 106–15. —— (1929), M. Val. Martialis Epigrammata2 (Oxford Classical Texts; Oxford). Ling, R. (1991), Roman Painting (Cambridge).

Bibliography

293

Lipsius, J. (1584), De Amphitheatro Liber (Antwerp). Lloyd-Jones, H. (2003), ‘All by Posidippus?’, in D. Accorinti and P. Chuvin (eds.), Des Ge´ants a` Dionysos: me´langes de mythologie et de poe´sie grecques oVerts a` Francis Vian (Hellenica: Testi e strumenti di letteratura greca antica, medievale e umanistica, 10; Alessandria), 277–80 ¼ Further Academic Papers (Oxford, 2005), 246–9. Lo¨fstedt, E. (1905–6), ‘Stantes missi’, Archiv fu¨r lateinische Lexikographie, 14: 40. —— (1911), Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae (Arbeten utgifna med understo¨d af Vilhelm Ekmans universitetsfond, Uppsala, 9; Uppsala). —— (1942), Syntactica. Studien und Beitra¨ge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. ¨ ber einige Grundfragen der lateinischen Nominalsyntax2 (Acta Regiae Erster Teil: U Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis, 10/1; Lund). —— (1956), Syntactica. Studien und Beitra¨ge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. Zweiter Teil: Syntaktisch-stilistische Gesichtspunkte und Probleme2 (Acta Regiae Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis, 10/2; Lund). Lorenz, S. (2002), Erotik und Panegyrik: Martials epigrammatische Kaiser (Classica Monacensia, 23; Tu¨bingen). —— (2003), ‘Martial 1970–2003: 1. Teil’, Lustrum, 45: 167–284. ¨ ber Suetons ‘‘Divus Titus’’ ’, Rheinisches Museum, nf 107: Luck, G. (1964), ‘U 63–75. Ludwig, W. (1968), ‘Die Kunst der Variation im hellenistischen Liebesepigramm’, in L’E´pigramme grecque (Fondation Hardt pour l’e´tude de l’antiquite´ classique. Entretiens, 14; Geneva), 297–348. Lunelli, A. (ed.) (1980), La lingua poetica latina (Testi e manuali per l’insegnamento universitario del latino, 12; Bologna). Maas, P. (1900–2), ‘Studien zum poetischen Plural bei den Ro¨mern’, Archiv fu¨r lateinische Lexikographie, 12: 479–550. MacCormack, G. (1972), ‘Criminal Liability for Fire in Early and Classical Roman Law’, Index. Quaderni camerti di studi romanistici, 3: 382–96. Maehler, H. (1986), ‘Ein Fragment eines hellenistischen Epos’, Museum Philologum Londiniense, 7: 109–18. Mango, M. M., and Bennett, A. (1994), The Sevso Treasure Part One (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series 12/1; Ann Arbor). Martin, A. (1986), ‘Princeps, dominus, dux: les de´nominations impe´riales dans les poe`mes de Martial’, in F. Decreus and C. Deroux (eds.), Hommages a` Jozef Veremans (Collection Latomus, 193; Brussels), 201–7. Martinet, H. (1981), C. Suetonius Tranquillus Divus Titus Kommentar (Beitra¨ge zur klassischen Philologie, 123; Ko¨nigstein/Ts.). Marx, A. (1889), Griechische Ma¨rchen von dankbaren Tieren und Verwandtes (Stuttgart). McFayden, D. (1915–16), ‘The Date of the Arch of Titus’, Classical Journal, 11: 131–41. Medri, M. (1996), ‘Suet., Nero, 31.1: elementi e proposte per la ricostruzione del progetto della Domus Aurea’, in C. Panella (ed.), Meta Sudans I. Un’area sacra in Palatio e la valle del Colosseo prima e dopo Nerone (Archeologia di Roma; Rome), 165–88. Mehl, E. (1927), Antike Schwimmkunst (Munich).

294

Bibliography

Meier, P. J. (1881), De Gladiatura romana quaestiones selectae (Bonn). Merguet, H. (1880), Lexikon zu den Reden des Cicero, mit Angabe sa¨mmtlicher Stellen, ii (Jena). Meyboom, P. G. P. (1995), The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina: Early Evidence of Egyptian Religion in Italy (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 121; Leiden, New York, and Cologne). Michel, J. (1962), Gratuite´ en droit romain (Brussels). Mielsch, H. (1989), ‘Realita¨t und Imagination im ‘‘Großen Jagdmosaik’’ von Piazza Armerina’, in H.-U. Cain, H. Gabelmann, and D. Salzmann (eds.), Festschrift fu¨r Nikolaus Himmelmann: Beitra¨ge zur Ikonographie und Hermeneutik (Beiheft der Bonner Jahrbu¨cher, 47; Mainz), 459–66. Millar, F. (1977), The Emperor in the Roman World (31 bc – ad 337) (London; repr. with a new afterword, 1992). —— (1981), ‘The World of the Golden Ass’, Journal of Roman Studies, 71: 63–75. —— (1984), ‘Condemnation to Hard Labour in the Roman Empire, from the JulioClaudians to Constantine’, Papers of the British School at Rome, 52: 124–47. —— (1993), The Roman Near East 31 bc – ad 337 (Cambridge, MA, and London). —— (2005), ‘Last Year in Jerusalem: Monuments of the Jewish War in Rome’, in J. Edmondson, S. Mason, and J. Rives (eds.), Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (Oxford), 101–28. Moeller, W. O. (1966–7), ‘Juvenal 3 and Martial De Spectaculis 8’, Classical Journal, 62: 369–70. Moreno Soldevila, R. (intro.), Ferna´ndez Valverde, J. (ed.), Montero Cartelle, E. (trans.) (2004), Marco Valerio Marcial, Epigramas: Volumen I (Libros 1–7) (Alma Mater, Coleccio´n de autores griegos y latinos; Madrid). Moretti, G. (1992), ‘L’arena, Cesare e il mito: appunti sul De Spectaculis di Marziale’, Maia, ns 44: 55–63. —— (1997), ‘Due note al De spectaculis di Marziale’, in A. Degl’Innocenti and G. Moretti (eds.), Miscillo Xamine: studi in onore di Carmelo Rapisarda (Labirinti, 25; Trento), 231–41. Morford, M. P. O. (1968), ‘The Distortion of the Domus Aurea Tradition’, Eranos, 66: 158–79. Morrison, J. S., Coates, J. F., and Rankov, N. B. (2000), The Athenian Trireme: The History and Reconstruction of an Ancient Greek Warship2 (Cambridge). Mosci Sassi, M. G. (1992), Il linguaggio gladiatorio (Testi e manuali per l’insegnamento universitario del latino, 36; Bologna). Mullin, D., and Bell, J. M. (1986), ‘The Problem with Pollux’, Theatre Notebook, 40: 9–22. Nash, E. (1968), Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome 2, 2 vols. (London). Nauta, R. R. (2002), Poetry for Patrons: Literary Communication in the Age of Domitian (Mnemosyne Supplement 206; Leiden, Boston, and Cologne). Neumann, G., and Untermann, J. (eds.) (1980), Die Sprachen im ro¨mischen Reich der Kaiserzeit: Kolloquium vom 8.–10. April 1974 (Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbu¨cher, 40; Cologne and Bonn).

Bibliography

295

Newbold, R. F. (1974), ‘Some Social and Economic Consequences of the a.d. 64 Fire at Rome’, Latomus, 33: 858–69. Newman, J. K. (1967), The Concept of Vates in Augustan Poetry (Collection Latomus, 89; Brussels). Nicolet, C. (1980), The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome, trans. P. S. Falla (Berkeley and Los Angeles). —— (1991), Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire, trans. H. Leclerc (Jerome Lectures, 19; Ann Arbor). Nightingale, A. W. (2001), ‘On Wandering and Wondering: Theoˆria in Greek Philosophy and Culture’, Arion3 , 9: 23–58. Nisbet, G. (2003), Greek Epigram in the Roman Empire: Martial’s Forgotten Rivals (Oxford Classical Monographs; Oxford). Nisbet, R. G. M. (1992), ‘A New Teubner of Martial’, Classical Review, ns 42: 50–1. Nolle´, J. (2001), Side im Altertum: Geschichte und Zeugnisse, ii (Inschriften griechischer Sta¨dte aus Kleinasien, 44; Bonn). Norden, E. (1903), P. Vergilius Maro Aeneis Buch VI (Leipzig). Nowak, R. M. (ed.) (1999), Walker’s Mammals of the World 6 , ii (Baltimore and London). Nutton, V. (1978), ‘The BeneWcial Ideology’, in P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker (eds.), Imperialism in the Ancient World: The Cambridge University Research Seminar in Ancient History (Cambridge), 209–21. Obbink, D. (2004), ‘ ‘‘Tropoi’’ (Posidippus AB 102–103)’, in Acosta-Hughes et al., 292–301. Oliver, R. P. (1966), ‘Apex and Sicilicus’, American Journal of Philology, 87: 129–70. ¨ nal, M. (2002), Mosaics of Zeugma (Istanbul). O Otto, A. (1890), Die Sprichwo¨rter und sprichwo¨rtlichen Redensarten der Ro¨mer (Leipzig). Page, D. L. (1978), The Epigrams of RuWnus (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, 21; Cambridge). Pailler, J.-M. (1990), ‘Le poe`te, le prince et l’are`ne: a` propos du ‘‘Livre des Spectacles’’ de Martial’, in Domergue–Landes–Pailler, 179–83. Parente, F. (1979), ‘Patibulum, crux, furca: alcune osservazioni a proposito di un libro recente’, Rivista di Wlologia e istruzione classica, 107: 369–78. Parker, R., and Obbink, D. (2001), ‘Aus der Arbeit der ‘‘Inscriptiones Graecae’’ VIII. Three Further Inscriptions Concerning Coan Cults’, Chiron, 31: 253–75. Parlasca, K. (1959), Die ro¨mischen Mosaiken in Deutschland (Ro¨misch-Germanische Kommission des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts zu Frankfurt a. M., Ro¨misch-Germanische Forschungen, 23; Berlin). Pasquato, O. (1976), Gli spettacoli in S. Giovanni Crisostomo: paganesimo e cristianesimo ad Antiochia e Costantinopoli nel IV secolo (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 201; Rome). Passerini, A. (1933), ‘L’origine della tradizione sul culto degli elefanti per la luna’, Athenaeum, ns 11: 142–9. Pepe, L. (1950), Marziale (Biblioteca del ‘Giornale italiano di Wlologia’, 1; Naples). Perotti, N. (1489), Cornu copiae (Venice).

296

Bibliography

Perpillou-Thomas, F. (1995), ‘Artistes et athle`tes dans les papyrus grecs d’E´gypte’, Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 108: 225–51. Peters, J. P., and Thiersch, H. (1905), Painted Tombs in the Necropolis of Marissa (Mareˆshah) (London). Petersen, H. (1986), ‘Wo¨rter zusammengesetzt mit ` 1+’, Glotta, 64: 193–213. Pfanner, M. (1983), Der Titusbogen (Beitra¨ge zur Erschließung hellenistischer und kaiserzeitlicher Skulptur und Architektur, 2; Mainz). Pirri, P. (1960), L’Abbazia di Sant’Eutizio in Val Castoriana presso Norcia e le chiese dipendenti (Studia Anselmiana, 45; Rome). Pitschchadse, M. (1985), ‘Prometheus in der ro¨mischen Poesie der Augusteischen Zeit’, Klio, 67: 258–64. Platnauer, M. (1951), Latin Elegiac Verse: A Study of the Metrical Usages of Tibullus, Propertius and Ovid (Cambridge). Platner, S. B., and Ashby, T. (1929), A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (London). Pollard, J. (1977), Birds in Greek Life and Myth (London). Polome´, E. C. (1983), ‘The Linguistic Situation in the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der ro¨mischen Welt, II 29. 2 (Berlin and New York), 509–53. Posner, R. (1996), The Romance Languages (Cambridge). Post, E. (1908), Selected Epigrams of Martial, Edited, with an Introduction and Notes (Boston; reissued Norman, OK, 1967). Postl, B. (1970), Die Bedeutung des Nil in der ro¨mischen Literatur (Dissertationen der Universita¨t Wien, 40; Vienna). Potter, D. S. (1996), ‘Performance, Power, and Justice in the High Empire’, in Slater (1996), 129–59. —— (1999), ‘Entertainers in the Roman Empire’, in D. S. Potter and D. J. Mattingly (eds.), Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire (Ann Arbor), 256–325. Pratesi, R. (1990), ‘Gli spettacoli anWteatrali nelle rappresentazioni musive di Roma e dintorni’, Archivio della Societa` Romana di Storia Patria, 113: 5–30. Prinz, K. (1910), ‘Zu Martial Spect. XXI 8’, Wiener Studien, 32: 323–4. —— (1926–7), ‘Martialerkla¨rungen I’, Wiener Studien, 45: 88–101. —— (1929), ‘Martialerkla¨rungen II’, Wiener Studien, 47: 109–16. Probert, P. (2003), A New Short Guide to the Accentuation of Ancient Greek (BCP Advanced Language Series; London). Puelma, M. (1996), ‘ ¯ ªæÆÆ—epigramma: Aspekte einer Wortgeschichte’, Museum Helveticum, 53: 123–39. Purnelle, G. (1993), ‘Le nom du bison en grec et en latin’, Latomus, 52: 567–80. Race, W. H. (1982), The Classical Priamel from Homer to Boethius (Mnemosyne Supplement 74; Leiden). Radke, G. (1965), Die Go¨tter Altitaliens (Fontes et commentationes, 3; Mu¨nster). Rajak, T. (2002), Josephus: The Historian and his Society 2 (London). Rawson, E. (1987), ‘Discrimina ordinum: The Lex Julia theatralis’, Papers of the British School at Rome, 55: 83–114 ¼ Roman Culture and Society: Collected Papers (Oxford and New York, 1991), 508–45.

Bibliography

297

Rea, R. (1988), ‘Le antiche raYgurazioni dell’anWteatro’, in A. M. Reggiani (ed.), AnWteatro Flavio: immagine, testimonianze, spettacoli (Rome), 23–46. —— Beste, H.-J., Campagna, P., and Del Vecchio, F. (2000), ‘Sotterranei del Colosseo. Ricerca preliminare al progetto di ricostruzione del piano dell’arena’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts (Ro¨mische Abteilung), 107: 311–39. Reeve, M. D. (1980), ‘Two Notes on the Medieval Tradition of Martial’, Prometheus, 6: 193–200. —— (1983), ‘Martial’, in Reynolds, L. D. (ed.), Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford), 239–44. Reich, H. (1903), Der Mimus: Ein litterar-entwickelungsgeschichtlicher Versuch (Berlin; repr. Hildesheim and New York, 1974). Renehan, R. (1977), ‘Compound–Simplex Verbal Iteration in Plautus’, Classical Philology, 72: 243–8. —— (1998), ‘On Gender Switching as a Literary Device in Latin Poetry’, in Knox– Foss, 212–29. Renn, E. (1889), Die griechischen Eigennamen bei Martial: Grammatisch-kritische Untersuchung (Programm der Ko¨niglich Bayerischen Studienanstalt Landshut fu¨r das Schuljahr 1888/89; Landshut). RetzleV, A. (2003), ‘John Chrysostom’s Sex Aquarium: Aquatic Metaphors for Theater in Homily 7 on Matthew’, Journal of Early Christian Studies, 11: 195–207. Rice, E. E. (1983), The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus (Oxford). Richard, P. (1931), Les E´pigrammes de Martial, 2 vols. (Classiques Garnier; Paris). Richardson, L., jr (1992), A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Baltimore and London). Richmond, J. (1998), ‘The Relationship of Vindob. 277 and Paris. lat. 8071’, Philologus, 142: 80–93. Riposati, B. (ed.) (1983), Atti del Congresso Internazionale di Studi Flaviani, Rieti 1981, 2 vols. (Pubblicazioni del ‘Centro di Studi Varroniani’, 7; Rieti). Robert, L. (1930), ‘Pantomimen im griechischen Orient’, Hermes, 65: 106–22 ¼ (1969), Opera Minora Selecta, i (Amsterdam), 654–70. —— (1940), Les Gladiateurs dans l’orient grec (Bibliothe`que de l’E´cole des Hautes E´tudes: Sciences historiques et philologiques, 278; Paris). —— (1948), ‘Monuments de gladiateurs dans l’orient grec’, Hellenica, 5: 77–99. —— (1949), ‘Monuments de gladiateurs dans l’orient grec’, Hellenica, 7: 126–51. —— (1960), ‘Sur un papyrus de Paris glossaire latin-grec’, Hellenica, 11–12: 5–15. —— (1968), ‘Les e´pigrammes satiriques de Lucillius sur les athle`tes: parodie et re´alite´s’, L’E´pigramme grecque (Entretiens sur l’antiquite´ classique, 14; Geneva), 181–295 ¼ Opera Minora Selecta, vi (Amsterdam, 1989), 317–432. —— (1982), ‘La date de l’e´pigrammatiste RuWnus: Philologie et re´alite´’, Comptes rendus de l’Acade´mie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 50–63 ¼ Opera Minora Selecta, v (Amsterdam, 1989), 777–90. Rodenwaldt, G. (1936), ‘Ro¨mische Lo¨wen’, La critica d’arte, 1: 225–8. Rodrı´guez Almeida, E. (1981), Forma Urbis Marmorea. Aggiornamento generale 1980 (Rome).

298

Bibliography

Rodrı´guez Almeida, E. (1994), ‘Marziale in marmo’, Me´langes de l’E´cole franc¸aise de Rome: Antiquite´, 106: 197–217. Roller, D. W. (2003), The World of Juba II and Kleopatra Selene: Royal Scholarship on Rome’s African Frontier (New York and London). Romm, J. S. (1992), The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought: Geography, Exploration, and Fiction (Princeton). ¨ rzte Roscher, W. H. (1906), Die Hebdomadenlehren der griechischen Philosophen und A (Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Klasse der Ko¨niglich Sa¨chsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 24/6; Berlin). Roueche´, C. (1993), Performers and Partisans at Aphrodisias in the Roman and Late Roman Periods (Journal of Roman Studies Monographs, 6; London). Rouse, R. H. (1979), ‘Florilegia and Latin Classical Authors in Twelfth- and ThirteenthCentury Orle´ans’, Viator, 10: 131–60 ¼ M. A. Rouse and R. H. Rouse, Authentic Witnesses: Approaches to Medieval Texts and Manuscripts (Publications in Medieval Studies, 27; Notre Dame, 1991), 153–88. Rutledge, S. H. (2001), Imperial Inquisitions: Prosecutors and Informants from Tiberius to Domitian (London and New York). Sabbadini, R. (1905), Le scoperte dei codici latini e greci ne’ secoli XIV e XV, i (Biblioteca storica del rinascimento, 2; Florence). Sabbatini Tumolesi, P. (1970), ‘Pyrricharii’, La parola del passato, 25: 328–38. —— (1980), Gladiatorum Paria: annunci di spettacoli gladiatorii a Pompei (Tituli, 1; Rome). Saenger, G. (1910), ‘Notes on Latin Texts’, Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosvieshcheniia, ns 30 (December), 523–69 [in Russian]. Salanitro, M. (1983), ‘Sull’interpretazione di alcuni epigrammi di Marziale’, Cultura e scuola, 86: 64–76. —— (1984), ‘Una variante del mimo di Orfeo non prevista dal copione (Mart., De spect. 21–21b)’, in V. Tandoi (ed.), Disiecti membra poetae: studi di poesia latina in frammenti, i (Foggia), 146–55. Salemme, C. (1981), review of Carratello (1981a), in Bollettino di studi latini, 11: 254. Saller, R. P. (1982), Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge). Salomonson, J. W. (1979), Voluptatem spectandi non perdat sed mutet: Observations sur l’Iconographie du martyre en Afrique romaine (Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Verhandelingen Afdeling Letterkunde, ns 98; Amsterdam, Oxford, and New York). Sauter, F. (1934), Die ro¨mische Kaiserkult bei Martial und Statius (Tu¨binger Beitra¨ge zur Altertumswissenschaft, 21; Stuttgart and Berlin). Scha¨fer, D. (2001), ‘Frauen in der Arena’, in H. Bellen and H. Heinen (eds.), Fu¨nfzig Jahre Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei an der Mainzer Akademie 1950–2000. Miscellanea zum Jubila¨um (Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei, 35; Stuttgart), 243–68. Schefold, K. (1972), La Peinture pompe´ienne: essai sur l’e´volution de sa signiWcation, trans. J.-M. Croisille (Collection Latomus, 108; Brussels).

Bibliography

299

Scheithauer, A. (2000), Kaiserliche Bauta¨tigkeit in Rom. Das Echo in der antiken Literatur (Heidelberger Althistorische Beitra¨ge und Epigraphische Studien, 32; Stuttgart). Scherer, B. (2002), ‘Der Tod des Zauberers: Die Orpheus-Epigramme in der Anthologia Palatina’, in Harder–Regtuit–Wakker, 175–200. Scherf, J. (2001), Untersuchungen zur Buchgestaltung Martials (Beitra¨ge zur Altertumskunde, 142; Munich and Leipzig). Schmidt, V. (1983), ‘La ruina du mime Mnester: a` propos de Sue´tone, Cal., 57,4’, Latomus, 42: 156–60. Schmieder, F. (1837), M. Val. Martialis de spectaculis libellus (Brieg). Schmitt, R. (1983), ‘Die Sprachverha¨ltnisse in den o¨stlichen Provinzen des ro¨mischen Reiches’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der ro¨mischen Welt, II 29. 2 (Berlin and New York), 554–86. Schmoll, U. (1958), Die vorgriechischen Sprachen Siziliens (Wiesbaden). Schneider, R. M. (1986), Bunte Barbaren: Orientalenstatuen aus farbigem Marmor in der ro¨mischen Repra¨sentationskunst (Worms). Schneider, W. J. (2003), ‘Nero und das Kolosseum. Martial Lib. spect. 28 (Lindsay ¼ 34 Shackleton Bailey), 11’, Museum Helveticum, 60: 175–8. Schneidewin, F. G. (1842), M. Val. Martialis Epigrammaton Libri (Grimma). —— (1853), M. Val. Martialis Epigrammaton Libri 2 (Leipzig). ¨ bersetzung, Kommentar (PalinScho¨Vel, C. (2002), Martial, Buch 8: Einleitung, Text, U genesia, 77; Stuttgart). Schro¨der, B.-J. (1999), Titel und Text: Zur Entwicklung lateinischer Gedichtu¨berschriften. Mit Untersuchungen zu lateinischen Buchtiteln, Inhaltsverzeichnissen und anderen Gliederungsmitteln (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte, 54; Berlin and New York). Schuster, M. (1926), ‘Kritische und erkla¨rende Beitra¨ge zu Martial’, Rheinisches Museum, nf 75: 341–52. Schwind, J. (1993), ‘Beitra¨ge aus der Thesaurus-Arbeit XXVI: penna und pinna’, Museum Helveticum, 50: 170–7. Scott, K. (1930), ‘Emperor Worship in Ovid’, Transactions of the American Philological Association, 61: 43–69. —— (1936), The Imperial Cult under the Flavians (Stuttgart and Berlin). Scullard, H. H. (1974), The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World (Aspects of Greek and Roman Life; London). Segala, E., and Sciortino, I. (1999), Domus Aurea (Rome). Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (1956), Propertiana (Cambridge). —— (1978), ‘Corrections and Explanations of Martial’, Classical Philology, 73: 273–96. —— (1989), ‘More Corrections and Explanations of Martial’, American Journal of Philology, 110: 131–50. —— (1990), M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammata (Biblioteca Teubneriana; Stuttgart). —— (1993), Martial. Epigrams, 3 vols. (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge, MA, and London). Schanz, M., and Hosius, C. (1935), Geschichte der ro¨mischen Literatur bis zum Gesetzgebungswerk des Kaisers Justinian. Zweiter Teil. Die ro¨mische Literatur in der

300

Bibliography

Zeit der Monarchie bis auf Hadrian 4 (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 8. 2; Munich, 1935). Shaw, B. D. (1982–3), ‘ ‘‘Eaters of Flesh, Drinkers of Milk’’: The Ancient Mediterranean Ideology of the Pastoral Nomad’, Ancient Society, 13/14: 5–31. Shelton, J.-A. (1999), ‘Elephants, Pompey, and the Reports of Popular Displeasure in 55 bc’, in S. N. Byrne and E. P. Cueva (eds.), Veritatis Amicitiaeque Causa: Essays in Honor of Anna Lydia Motto and John R. Clark (Wauconda, IL), 231–71. Sherk, R. K. (1974), ‘Roman Geographical Exploration and Military Maps’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der ro¨mischen Welt, II 1 (Berlin and New York), 534–62. Shipp, G. P. (1944), ‘A Latin Idiom at Pliny Ep. iv. 2. 2’, Classical Philology, 39: 117–18. Sider, D. (2004), ‘Posidippus Old and New’, in Acosta-Hughes et al., 29–41. Siedschlag, E. (1972), ‘Ovidisches bei Martial’, Rivista di Wlologia e istruzione classica, 100: 156–61. —— (1977), Zur Form von Martials Epigrammen (Berlin). Sinclair, A. R. E. (1977), The African BuValo. A Study of Resource Limitation of Populations (Wildlife Behavior and Ecology; Chicago and London). Sittl, C. (1890), Die Geba¨rden der Griechen und Ro¨mer (Leipzig; repr. Hildesheim and New York, 1970). Slater, W. J. (1993), ‘Three Problems in the History of Drama. II. The Bacchic pyrriche’, Phoenix, 47: 200–5. —— (ed.) (1996), Roman Theater and Society (E. Togo Salmon Papers, 1; Ann Arbor). —— (2002), ‘Mime Problems: Cicero Ad fam. 7. 1 and Martial 9. 38’, Phoenix, 56: 315–29. —— (2004), ‘Where are the Actors?’, in C. Hugoniot, F. Hurlet, and S. Milanezi (eds.), Le Statut de l’acteur dans l’Antiquite´ grecque et romaine: Actes du colloque qui s’est tenu a` Tours les 3 et 4 mai 2002 (Collection Perspectives Historiques, 9; Tours), 161–81. Smallwood, E. M. (1962), ‘Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica I, 5–21’, Mnemosyne 4 , 15: 170–2. Snowden, F. M., Jr. (1976), ‘Iconographical Evidence on the Black Populations in Greco-Roman Antiquity’, in L. Bugner (ed.), The Image of the Black in Western Art, i (New York), 133–245. Solin, H. (1973), review of CIL iv. Suppl. 3, fasc. 3–4, in Gnomon, 45: 258–77. —— (1999), ‘Zum Problem der sog. nomina artis im antiken Rom’, in F. Debus and D. Kremer (eds.), Onomastik: Akten des 18. Internationalen Kongresses fu¨r Namenforschung, Trier, 12.–17. April 1993, iii: Namensoziologie (Patronymica Romanica, 16; Tu¨bingen), 15–23. Solodow, J. B. (1986), ‘Raucae, tua cura, palumbes: Study of a Poetic Word Order’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 90: 129–53. Sorabji, R. (1993), Animal Minds and Human Morals: The Origins of the Western Debate (London). Sperlich, M. (1961), ‘Eine Tierplastik des Thermenmuseums in Rom’, Archa¨ologischer Anzeiger, 137–45. Stanford, W. B. (1983), Greek Tragedy and the Emotions: An Introductory Study (London and Boston).

Bibliography

301

Steinmeyer-Schareika, A. (1978), Das Nilmosaik von Palestrina und eine ptolema¨ische ¨ thiopien (Habelts Dissertationsdrucke, Reihe klassische Expedition nach A Archa¨ologie, 10; Bonn). Stephens, S., and Obbink, D. (2004), ‘The Manuscript’, in Acosta-Hughes et al., 9–15. Stietzel, W. (1907), De Synecdocha eiusque in Martialis Epigrammatis Usu (diss. Jena). Stiles, P. V. (2004), ‘Consumer Issues: Beowulf 3115a and Germanic ‘‘Bison’’ ’, in J. H. W. Penney (ed.), Indo-European Perspectives: Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies (Oxford), 461–73. Strasser, J.-Y. (2001), ‘E´tudes sur les concours d’Occident’, Nikephoros, 14: 109–55. Strong, D. E. (1969), Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate (London). Sullivan, J. P. (1991), Martial, the Unexpected Classic: A Literary and Historical study (Cambridge). Syme, R. (1974), ‘The Crisis of 2 b.c.’, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte Heft 7: 3–34 ¼ (1984), Roman Papers, iii (Oxford), 912–36. Szelest, H. (1986), ‘Martial—eigentlicher Scho¨pfer und hervorragendster Vertreter des ro¨mischen Epigramms’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der ro¨mischen Welt, II 35. 4 (Berlin), 2563–623. Szo¨ve´rVy, J. (1971), ‘A` la source de l’humanisme chre´tien me´die´val: ‘‘Romanus’’ et ‘‘barbarus’’ chez Ve´nance Fortunat’, Aevum, 45: 77–86. Tamm, B. (1963), Auditorium und Palatium: A Study on [sic] Assembly-Rooms in Roman Palaces during the 1st Century b.c. and the 1st Century a.d. (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Stockholm Studies in Classical Archaeology, 2; Stockholm). Taylor, R. (1997), ‘Torrent or Trickle? The Aqua Alsietina, the Naumachia Augusti, and the Transtiberim’, American Journal of Archaeology, 101: 465–92. —— (2003), Roman Builders: A Study in Architectural Process (Cambridge). Terian, A. (1981), Philonis Alexandrini de animalibus: The Armenian Text with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, 1; Chico, CA). Thompson, D. J. (1988), Memphis under the Ptolemies (Princeton). —— (2000), ‘Philadelphus’ Procession: Power in a Mediterranean Context’, in L. Mooren (ed.), Politics, Administration and Society in the Hellenistic and Roman World: Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Bertinoro 19–24 July 1997 (Studia Hellenistica, 36; Leuven), 365–88. —— (2005), ‘Posidippus, Poet of the Ptolemies’, in Gutzwiller (2005a), 269–83. Thompson, L. A. (1989), Romans and Blacks (London and New York). Thuillier, J.-P. (1998), ‘Le cirrus et la barbe. Questions d’iconographie athle´tique romaine’, Me´langes de l’E´cole franc¸aise de Rome: Antiquite´, 110: 351–80. Toynbee, J. M. C. (1947), review of F. Magi, I rilievi Xavi dal Palazzo della Cancelleria (Rome, 1945), in Journal of Roman Studies, 37: 187–91. —— (1948), ‘Beasts and their Names in the Roman Empire’, Papers of the British School at Rome, 16 (¼ ns 3): 24–37. —— (1963), Art in Roman Britain2 (London). —— (1973), Animals in Roman Life and Art (Aspects of Greek and Roman Life; London).

302

Bibliography

Traversari, G. (1960), Gli spettacoli in acqua nel teatro tardo-antico (Rome). Trell, B. (1988), ‘The Temple of Artemis at Ephesos’, in Clayton–Price, 78–99. Tremoli, P. (1983), ‘Marziale, adulatore di Tito’, in Riposati, ii. 383–91. Ullman, B. L. (1932), ‘Classical Authors in Certain Mediaeval Florilegia’, Classical Philology, 27: 1–42. Va¨a¨na¨nen, V. (1981), Introduction au latin vulgaire 3 (Bibliothe`que franc¸aise et romane, se´rie A: manuels et e´tudes linguistiques, 6; Paris). Velkov, V., and Alexandrov, G. (1988), ‘ ‘‘Venatio Caesariana’’: Eine neue Inschrift aus Montana (Moesia Inferior)’, Chiron, 18: 271–7. Vigneron, P. (1968), Le Cheval dans l’antiquite´ gre´co-romaine (Annales de l’Est, Me´moire 35; Nancy). Ville, G. (1981), La Gladiature en Occident des origines a` la mort de Domitien (Bibliothe`que des e´coles franc¸aises d’Athe`nes et de Rome, 245; Rome). Visconti, P. E. (1883), Catalogue of the Torlonia Museum of Ancient Sculpture (Rome). Vismara, C. (1990), Il supplizio come spettacolo (Vita e costumi dei Romani antichi, 11; Rome). Vivolo, F. P. M. (1993), Pompei: i graYti Wgurati (Foggia). Wackernagel, J. (1924), Vorlesungen u¨ber Syntax mit besonderer Beru¨cksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch2 , ii (Basel). Wagner, P. (1843), review of Schneidewin (1842), in Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, 71–3: 561–6, 569–84. Walde, A., and Hofmann, J. B. (1965), Lateinisches etymologisches Wo¨rterbuch4, 3 vols. (Heidelberg). Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1982), ‘Civilis Princeps: Between Citizen and King’, Journal of Roman Studies, 72: 32–48. Walther, H. (1963), Proverbia Sententiaeque Latinitatis Medii Aevi ¼ Lateinische Sprichwo¨rter und Sentenzen des Mittelalters in alphabetischer Anordnung, ii (Go¨ttingen). Waters, K. H. (1964), ‘The Character of Domitian’, Phoenix, 18: 49–77. Watkins, C. (1966), ‘An Indo-European Construction in Greek and Latin’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 71: 115–19. Watson, L., and Watson, P. (2003), Martial: Select Epigrams (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics; Cambridge). Watt, W. S. (1955), ‘Fabam mimum’, Hermes, 83: 496–500. —— (1984), ‘Notes on Martial’, Liverpool Classical Monthly, 9: 130–2. —— (1994), ‘Notes on Martial’, L’Antiquite´ classique, 63: 275–7. Waywell, G. B. (1988), ‘The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus’, in Clayton–Price, 100–23. Webster, G. (1969), The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries a.d. (London). Weinreich, O. (1928), Studien zu Martial (Tu¨binger Beitra¨ge zur Altertumswissenschaft, 4; Stuttgart). Welch, K. (1991), ‘Roman Amphitheaters Revived’, Journal of Roman Archaeology, 4: 272–81. West, M. L. (1992), Ancient Greek Music (Oxford).

Bibliography

303

Whatmough, J. (1925–6), ‘Scholia in Isidori Etymologias Vallicelliana’, Bulletin Du Cange. Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi, 57–75, 134–69. White, P. (1974), ‘The Presentation and Dedication of the Silvae and the Epigrams’, Journal of Roman Studies, 64: 40–61. —— (1996), ‘Martial and Pre-Publication Texts’, E´chos du Monde Classique/Classical Views, n.s. 15: 397–412. Wiedemann, T. (1992), Emperors and Gladiators (London and New York). Wilkes, J. J. (1983), ‘Romans, Dacians and Sarmatians in the First and Early Second Centuries’, in B. Hartley and J. Wacher (eds.), Rome and her Northern Provinces. Papers Presented to Sheppard Frere (Gloucester), 255–89. Wilkinson, G. A. (1948), ‘The Trisyllabic Ending of the Pentameter: Its Treatment by Tibullus, Propertius, and Martial’, Classical Quarterly, 42: 68–75. Wille, G. (1967), Musica Romana: Die Bedeutung der Musik im Leben der Ro¨mer (Amsterdam). Williams, C. A. (2004), Martial: Epigrams Book Two, Edited with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (New York). Williams, F. (1994), ‘Polar Bears and Neronian Propaganda’, Liverpool Classical Monthly, 19: 2–5. Williger, E. (1931), review of Weinreich (1928), in Gnomon, 7: 423–9. Wills, J. (1996), Repetition in Latin Poetry: Figures of Allusion (Oxford). Wilson, R. J. A. (2006), ‘A Life of Luxury in Late Roman Sicily: the Villa of Piazza Armerina’, Minerva, 17/1: 40–3. Wiseman, T. P. (1985), Catullus and his World: A Reappraisal (Cambridge). Wistrand, M. (1990), ‘Violence and Entertainment in Seneca the Younger’, Eranos, 88: 31–46. —— (1992), Entertainment and Violence in Ancient Rome (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, 56; Go¨teborg). Wo¨lZin, E. (1902), ‘Zur Latinita¨t der Epitome Caesarum’, Archiv fu¨r lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik, 12: 445–53. Woodcock, E. C. (1959), A New Latin Syntax (London). Wray, D. (2003), ‘What Poets Do: Tibullus on ‘‘Easy’’ Hands’, Classical Philology, 98: 217–50. Wuilleumier, P., and Audin, A. (1952), Les Me´daillons d’applique gallo-romains de la valle´e du Rhoˆne (Annales de l’Universite´ de Lyon, 3e se´r., Lettres, 22; Paris). Zaganiaris, N. J. (1977), ‘Le roi des animaux dans la tradition classique’, —ºø, 29: 26–49. Zanker, P., and Ewald, B. C. (2004), Mit Mythen leben: Die Bilderwelt der ro¨mischen Sarkophage (Munich). Zingerle, A. (1877), Martial’s Ovid-Studien (Innsbruck).

This page intentionally left blank

Index Verborum With some exceptions, verbs are listed in their infinitive form, nouns in the nominative singular, and adjectives in the nominative singular masculine. Latin words are listed first. Note: for subjects designated by Greek and Latin terms see Index Nominum et Rerum. abeo 152 adorare 157 adsiduus 86 altus 164 amores 209 amphitheatrum lxx, 11 Arctous 144 ars 152 artus 92 Assyria 6 astra 22 atria 27 auceps 125 audax 210 aurum 94 axis 144 barbara terra 238 bestiarius xxxvii n. 56 bos Aegyptius 110 bubalus 191 bucina 253 Caesar(eus) xlv, lxxi, 11, 36 capto 125 celer 33, 246 certamen 220 ceruix 191 charta maior/minor lxi chorus 214 Colchis 240–1 colossus 20 committere 252 concitus 245 concurrere 226 conspicuus 31 (con)temerare 117 corripere moras 193–4 crinis 48 cultor 44

dam(m)a 245 deficere 34 deliciae 36 densus (þ abl.) 9 depre(he)ndere 45 derigo 190 desino (þ infin.) 207 dext(e)ra [manu] 136 discrimen 131 dissimulare 8 diuersus 52 docilis 214 dominus xlv, 36 donum 229 dulcis 172, 209 ecfero 189 elepha(n)s 159 emitto 185 et (postponed) 220–1 Europa/-e 154 ex manubIs lxvi (ex)ardere in (þ acc.) 109 excutio 124 exhibere 107 ex(s)ilio 131 facem subdere 95 facilis 191 ferio 46 feruens 254–5 ferus 30, 118 festinare lxi, 262 fides 66 finire 172 flumen 45–6 frequens 9 fretum/freta 200, 253 frondosa 239

306 gloria (þ gen.) 143, 242 grauida 131 grauis 138, 265 harena 59 horrere (þ infin.) 256 hostis 265 i nunc 194 ignifer 240 immodicus 10 impositus 189 in ¼ ‘in the case of ’ 95 in caelum ferre/tollere 10 ingeniosus 234 ingenium 118–19, 139, 152 instare 210 inuictus liii, 77, 173 iocosus 172 irae 110 iste 155 iugulum 94 iungere 65 labor est (þ infin. þ gen.) 252 lacer (us)/lacerare 92, 99, 180 lassare 201 laudare (þ abl.) 7 Le¯andros 206 lentus 194 leopardus 145 liber (þ gen.) xxviii liber de (þ abl.) xxviii libro 136 liquidus 255–6 lis 172 longaeuus 67 loquor 12 Luca bos 110, 151 Lucina 131–2 lux 199 machina 23 madere 48 maeniana lxxii magister 115 manus 158 manus armare 239 maturus 138 minax 215 minor 265 miraculum (þ gen.) 5 mirari quod 207

Index Verborum miser 34 mitis 118 mittere 232 modo 200 moles 30, 144 mollis 8 munus legitimum lxxiii nauale proelium xxxviii n. 59 naumachia xxxviii n. 59 nectere moras 246 Nemee 80 nimbus 48 nimius 86 nisi 234 nobilis 80 numen 248 o 109, 136, 139 optero 168 Orphe¯us 176 panthera 145 pardus 145 pariter 171 pasco 87 pascor 44 paueo 238 pax 58 pectus 86 pecus 178 pedester (-stris) 255, 256 pegma 22–3 pendeo 10 pendo 179 penna/pinna 99–100 pennas habere 100 pennas sumere 99 perdomuisse 243 perspicuus 216 peto 168, 171 p[h]alango lxxxvi n. 195 pietas 149 pietatis opus 152 piger 258 pila 111 pingere 215 plicare 122 portio est 143 praebere 90 praeceps 121, 143 praeda 247 praeses 35–6

Index Verborum praestare 107 premo 210 primus esse 144 princeps 234, 247 priscus 67 proelia 109 promittere 109, 171 pronus 110 prope/propius 22 prosternere 79 qualiter 85 quam 109 quanta (¼ quantula) 143 quota pars/portio 254 rabidus 163 radiare 28 rex 29 sacer 199 saecula 259 sanguineus 121–2 satus 133–4 sepono 42 si quis 199 sidus 10 sollicitare 189, 253 spectare 176 spectator 42 stagnum nauale xxxviii n. 59 stans missus 222 statua 19 stillare 92–3 stimulare 166 sub principe 234 subitus 262 succumbere 232 superbus 34 supplex 157 supremus 46 sus 130 tollo 166 torqueo 48, 125 traho 219 Triuia 7

tumidus 210 turba 58, 194 uarius 247 uastus 79–80 uates 178 uelox 33, 246 uenator xxxvii n. 56 uenerabilis 31 uestibulum 27 uison 191 unus 30, 52, 259 urus 191 uterque 136 utraque manu 171–2 uulnus 135 ÆYæ
Ø=ÆYæ
ŁÆØ Œıº 226 ÆNHæÆØ 151 ª
Ø 128 n. 2 KƪªººÆØ 171 KŁæ  265 & ˙æÆŒºB 242 N
ıæ 122 ŒÆŁ  ƒ æ  175, 180, 184 ˚Ææ æ 141 ŒÆÆæ 151 n. 6 Œº

 19–20 ºÆæØŁ 41 n. 3 ƺƌ  8 
ØðŒfi AÞ 228 Ææ ƒ æ  175, 180, 181, 184 —Æ Ø
Œ  171 n. 2 #æØEØ 7 æ Ø xxxix n. 68

307

Index Nominum et Rerum Note: subjects designated by Greek and Latin terms are included here; for linguistic entries see Index Verborum. ab urbe condita construction 143 Abbey of S. Eutizio 142 n. 4 ablative: absolute 41 n. 3, 226, 239 adnominal 163 predicative 215 accidents xliv, lxxx, 121, 174, 180, 183 acclamatio 222 address: to anonymous interlocutor lxxxii, 197–8 to collective public lxxxii, 67, 248 to emperor xlv, lxxxii, 36, 42, 67, 120, 159 to Fama 155 via generalizing second person singular lxxxii, 159–60 from inferiors to superiors 159 to personifications lxxxii to protagonist of myth lxxxii, 207 see also apostrophe; injunction; and under closure adjectives: with adverbial force 206 derived from personal name 80–1 geminated 248 in -eus 11, 21 instead of possessive genitive 81, 155 predicative use 58, 177 three juxtaposed before caesura 163 adverb, function of 47 adynaton (IÆ) 45, 125, 161, 195, 245 Aethiops, somatic traits 49–51 Agatharchides see under Pliny Agon Capitolinus: popularity of 40–1 see also under Domitian Agricola liii, 88–9, 90 Albuquerque, Afonso (governor of the Portuguese Indies) 106 n. 3 Alcides see Hercules and under mythological enactments alliteration 118 Altar of Horn 9

alternatives, triple 93 amphitheatre: as locus for expression of opinion 56 at Lugdunum (Lyons) 38 at Nemausus (Nıˆmes) 39 size and shape 30 of Statilius Taurus lxv unspecified 256 see also Flavian amphitheatre; Julius Caesar: temporary amphitheatre; Nero: wooden amphitheatre; seating anacoluthon lviii n. 119 anadiplosis 93 anaphora 19, 42, 43, 94, 193, 196, 219, 220, 248 anastrophe 128 n. 2 Androclus/-cles 66, 113 Andromeda 241 animals: anthropomorphization 114, 132, 135 behaviour predictable 113 coerced by starvation 118 controlled by man 150 dominated by passions 164 don’t lie 164, 248 instinctive recognition of emperor’s authority 247 licking humans 162 loyalty towards trainer 116 maternal devotion 132 moral responsibility 113 moral superiority 248 named on mosaics 130, Pl. 30 natural ferocity reasserted 116 savagery curbed under good government 112 show more savagery in captivity 161 slaughtered, statistics for xlviii n. 93 spontaneous co-operation deserves emperor’s respect 159 see also Androclus/-cles; aurochs; bear; big cats; bison; boar; bull; bullocks;

Index Nominum et Rerum dammae; elephant; leopard; lion; Molossian hounds; panthers; rhinoceros; tiger; and under Hercules Annaba 166 n. 2 see also under mosaics Antipater of Sidon and Thessalonica, difficulty of distinguishing between 3 n. 6 antithesis lxxix, 30, 59, 96, 118, 138, 214, 263 Antoninus Pius, emperor 192 antonyms 118 Apollodorus (architect under Hadrian) 26 apostrophe lxxv, lxxxii, 13, 78, 95, 98, 141, 146, 219 see also address apotheosis see under Hercules apposition 215, 216 see also under pronoun Arabia 47 Archimedes’ Screw 7 Arcus Titi 24–6, Fig. 1, Pl. 11 Ardalion (mime-actor) 90 aretalogy 139, 141 Artemidorus Capito (doctor) xxxiv n. 47 Artemis 7 Artemision 7 asyndeton 201 athletes xxxiii n. 46, 72 athletic victory 264 n. 1 Augustus, emperor: aspired to annex Aethiopia? 267 intended to build amphitheatre? lxv naumachia 252 numen 248 provision of spectacles lxxiii–lxxiv Res Gestae lxxiii–lxxiv, 41–2, 252 rhinoceros 103 stagnum xxxvii–xxxviii, xlvi, xlviii, 204, 213, 250, 255–6 tiger 161 aurochs 191 Auson 60 Ausonia 60–1 Ausonius (poet) lxxxiv authorial persona effaced lxxxi–lxxxii autopsy, appeal to (ÆPØŒ ) 66 Babylon 4–5, 6 hanging gardens 7 Bacchus 126, 129, 133, 145 Baronius, cardinal 91

309

Basil I, emperor 91 Basilica Aemilia lviii bear: as agent of damnatio ad bestias 88, Pl. 18 vs. bull 188 Caledonian 89 constellation 144 
æ  88 depiction 87, Pls. 17, 18 Lucanian 99 in mime 88 polar 89 n. 8 vs. rhinoceros 188 roles in arena 84, 87–8, 97–8, 120, 121, 174, 179, 184, Pls. 17, 18 size of female 185 trained 88 trapped in ‘birdlime’ 121 Bede see pseudo-Bede Belfort, Andre´ xxiii n. 18 Bellerophon 236, 240 bestial intercourse 62–5 depicted on lamps 63 bestiariae : armour and fighting-style 70–1, 81 disputed representation 71–5, Pl. 13 literary attestations 71 bestiarii: careers little known 141 depiction (disputed) 72 n. 8, 87, Pls. 13, 17, (secure) 87, 105, Pl. 21 identification disputed 169 in role of Hercules? 153 role allegedly less demanding than gladiator 99 tallies of beasts killed 242 see also Carpophorus; Index Verborum s.v. bestiarius big cats: feritas 164 speed 145 see also leopard; lion Bilbilis xix n. 2, 2, 190 birdlime, bird-liming 120, 121–4, Pl. 23 birds: methods of catching 122 see also birdlime, birdliming; parrot; and under Orpheus bison 191–3 blood: drinking of 44 dripping 93 vomiting of 83, 84

310

Index Nominum et Rerum

boar: in arena 72, 130, Pl. 16 Calydonian 90, 238 see also under Hercules breasts, depiction of 71 buffalo 191 bull: Aberdeen Angus 149 n. 2 vs. bear 188 depicted Pl. 9 vs. elephant 165, Pl. 9 elevated in arena 148–9, 153–4 fire-breathing 240 lifted by a man 187 n. 2 mating-habits 64–5 provoked by pilae 111 tractability 149–50, 153 see also under Hercules; Theseus bullocks, impossibility of lifting two 187 n. 2 Calderini, Domizio xlv n. 91, lxxxv–lxxxvi, 32, 33, 129 Caledonia 88–90 see also Scotland Caligula, emperor: assassination 83 encouraged proskynesis 158 illuminated Rome for scaenici ludi 205 provision of spectacle lxxiv sadistic behaviour lxxiv Callimachus, Coma Berenices 248 n. 2 Calpurnius Siculus, date 85 n. 5 calumnia 56 Canace 175 Candace, queen of Aethiopia 267 Caracalla, emperor 157 Carpophorus (bestiarius) xlii n. 81, li, liii, lxxx, 105, 140, 187, 190, 236 carrion 90, 91 Cassiano dal Pozzo 116 n. 2 catasterism 149 Catullus (mimographer) 83 Caucasus 85 ceiling-decoration 152 ‘charades’ see mythological enactments Charibert (German chieftain) 52 chiasmus 43, 48, 57, 68, 96, 118, 219, 232, 241, 247 Chimaera 240 Christ, role of in mime 90–1 Chronographer (of 354) lviii, 26 Chrysostom, John 214

cinaedi 8 Circus Maximus 57, 256 civilization, Roman: effect on barbarians 161 effect on savage beasts 164 Claudius, emperor: naumachia on Fucine Lake 253, 257 politeness towards spectators 172 provision of spectacles lxxiv tigers 161 triumph over Britain celebrated in epigram lxxviii see also Porticus Claudia closure, means of: apologia xxxv appeal to anonymous audience 248 compliment 216 exclamation xliv exhortation xliv ironical operation of chance 139 ‘isocolic’ pentameters 137 obscured by lacuna 146 paired alternatives 217 paradox 57, 61 pointed structure 148 question 130 quotation xliv, 198–9, 201, 208 ring-composition 236 topos 112 see also structural patterns in individual epigrams: terminal sententia Clovis I, king of the Francs 49 cochlea 87 coin-types: aureus (elephant) liv n. 107 denarius (elephant) liv n. 107 dupondii (Nero, radiate) 21 quadrans (rhinoceros) liv–lvi, 101, 110, Pl. 4 sestertii (Flavian amphitheatre) lxxii, 26, Pls. 2, 3 colloquialism 155, 194 Colosseum see Flavian amphitheatre Colosseum Valley 14, Fig. 1, Pl. 10 Colossus of Rhodes 20 Colossus (statue of Nero) lxviii, 20–2, 27, Pl. 10 alterations by Vespasian 20, 21, 23 Commodus, emperor 21, 39, 55 comparison, triple 91 conditional clause: ablative absolute instead of 239 apodosis 238

Index Nominum et Rerum Constantius II, emperor 40 consulships, suffect see under date Cornu copiae see under Perotti correlative construction 85 corruption, textual 238 confusion between Greek and Latin script 180 of date xxxi, 75–7 in descendants of lost archetype K xxiii n. 16 difficilior lectio potior 8, 230 of epithet? 258 of future participle? 175 n. 3, 184 of inflection 263 through marginal gloss 168 superficially healed? 184 induced by tense 100 unmetrical 58, 145 see also interpolation; lacuna crane 152 n. 8 crematio 90 crime: arson 94, 95 homicide 94 interpreted as madness 94–5 parricide 93 sacrilege (sacrilegium) 94 servile 93 see also under punishment Crinagoras see parrot crucifixion 83 n. 2, 90–2, 93 crux 91 ‘cycles’ xli, lxi, lxxix Cerdo (cobbler) lxxix Claudius’ triumph over Britain lxxviii Domitian’s edict regulating theatrical seating xli, lxxxi Domitian’s return from Sarmatian campaign lxii, lxxix lion and hare xli, lxi, lxii, lxxix, 115, 126, 127, 161, 182, 216, 244 Postumus (fellator) xli sow and piglet 126–30, 135, 138 Thrasamundus’ baths 18, 27, 28, 33, 36, 256 Daedalus see under mythological enactments dammae: defencelessness 245 posture of supplication 247 damnati: depiction, disputed 87, Pl. 17 depiction, secure 91, Pls. 16, 18

311

damnatio ad bestias xxxvii, 84, 87–8, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 98, 107, 174, 175 n. 3, 183, Pls. 16, 18 damnatio memoriae 21 Daniel, Pierre xxv date: of Arcus Titi 25–6 of Crucifixion 83 n. 2 of Floralia 75 n. 10 formulation of 75 of Liber spectaculorum xlv–lxiv, 23, 32, 90, 101, 105–6, 120 n. 1, 160, 171, 173, 199, 203, 244, 251 of suffect consulships 75 n. 10 see also under Calpurnius Siculus; corruption, textual delatores lviii, 54–8 Delos see Altar of Horn Diana 7, 126, 132, 136, 192 Diogenes (explorer) 267 Dioscuri 215–16 Domitian, emperor: arrogantia at Agon Capitolinus 173 attitude towards delatores lviii, 55 attitude towards Titus lxiii–lxiv candidate for identification as ‘Caesar’ li–lix clementia li and construction of Flavian amphitheatre lviii, lxviii construction of stagnum lxviii denigrated by Pliny 15 n. 1, 233 displays lxiii n. 132 divinity recognized by natural world 248 as dominus et deus 160 edict regulating theatrical seating lxxxi as Germanicus liv equated with Hercules 236 as literary patron lxxxiv menagerie at Alban Villa? lvi moral legislation lxxxi naval battle in Flavian amphitheatre lviii, 197 nocturnal displays 205 quadrans depicting rhinoceros liv–lvi return from Sarmatian campaign 161, 173 n. 4 rudeness towards spectators 172 sentimental about tame lion lvi subject of scurrilous epigram xx and Templum Divi Vespasiani 106 and tigers 161

312

Index Nominum et Rerum

Domus Aurea: baths 33 criticism 28–9, 30 decoration 28 extent 28–9 name 28 site 14–15, 24, Fig. 1 stagnum (lake) lxv, 31–2, 258 water as landscaping feature 31–2 drinking: horses’ blood 44 milk 44 rivers 45 effeminacy 8 Elagabalus, emperor 64, 115 elephant: associated with imperial cult 157 balancing on a stand 156 n. 1 vs. bull 165, Pl. 9 depicted Pl. 9 dexterity with trunk 158 Hanno, property of Leo X 107 n. 3 imperial herd 157 nomenclature in Sanskrit 158 at opening of Pompey’s theatre 156, 158–9 performing dressage 156 performing proskynesis liii, 149, 157, 158 practising by moonlight 156 religiosity 157–8 vs. rhinoceros 107 n. 3, 188 walking the tightrope 150–1 see also Index Verborum s.v. Luca bos Elphinston, James xlv n. 91 emperor, qualities ascribed to: accessibility 172 beneficent influence 113 ciuilitas 172, 173 compassion li, 120 n. 1, 206–7 divinity 68, 149, 244, 248 liberalitas 11 power over nature liii, lxxv, 112, 201, 206 prouidentia lxxiv speed 33, 201 superhuman efficiency 201 sympathy 172 enallage 168, 258 Kæª
ØÆ lxxv Enyo 200 Ephesus see Artemision

epigrams: on animals lxxvii on athletes lxxvii circulation in libelli lx–lxii commemorating an occasion lxxviii, lxxxiii dedicatory lxxvi dinner-parties lxxix, Table 5 dissemination lx–lxii dynastic emphasis lxxvii encomiastic function xliii, lxxvii, lxxix, lxxxiii on engineering lxxvi ‘Erga¨nzungsspiel’ xlv n. 89 erotic xxxiii eulogistic conventions 160 generic associations 93 Greek vocabulary 181 imperial flattery lxxix, Table 5 on monuments lxxvi, lxxxiv obscene lxxix, Table 5 pederastic xxxiii satiric xxxiii on spectacle lxxix, lxxxi, Table 5 standard categories xxxix topicality lx see also isopsephic couplets; structural features of epigram-collections; structural patterns in individual epigrams euergetism 39 euphemism 114, 132–3 Europa 149, 151 Eurydice see under Orpheus exclamation lxxxii, 109, 136, 138, 139 exemplum, tripartite 143, 146, 238 Fama 3, 155 see also under personification Federico of Urbino lxxxv Felix (author of epigrams) see ‘cycles’: Thrasamundus’ baths figura etymologica 139 fire: in cities 95 Great Fire (ad 64) lxv see also under Flavian amphitheatre Flavian amphitheatre: ancient representations li, lxxii, Pls. 2, 3, 9 awning lxviii capacity lxx construction lviii, lxv

Index Nominum et Rerum dedicatory inscription lxv–lxviii, Pl. 5 depictions 26, Pls. 2, 3, 9 dimensions lxviii, 197 emperor’s box lxxii fire (ad 217) 41 hypogeum lxviii–lxx, 32 n. 7, 183, 184, Pl. 8 identification uncertain 256 inauguration xxxv, xlvi–l, liv n. 107, lviii, 71, 196, 242, 250–1, Table 4 model lxviii, Pl. 7 name lxvi–lxviii as public benefaction lxvi, 35 ruin lxviii, Pl. 6 scenery lxviii, 97–8, and see stageequipment seating lxx, 40–1, 75 n. 10 sight-lines lxx, 198–9 n. 5, 205, 212–13, 215 site lxv, 258 and Statius lix n. 120 and Vespasian lxv Flavian dynasty: and Danube frontier 44 lacked Trojan ancestry 259 ‘Flehmen’ 65 Floralia: date of 75 n. 10 mimes at 213 flying-machines 152 food 44 Fucine Lake 257, 258 see also under Claudius furca, furciferi 56 Gaius, emperor see Caligula Galatea 253, 254 Gemini 215 gender: changed for grammatical expediency 184 changed metri causa 185 consistency inconsequential? 180 of dam(m)a 245 determined by genre 162 grammatical 241 genitive absolute 41 n. 3 Gennadius, Torquatus xxxi Germanicus 46 gesture: accompanying declaration of rules 227 acknowledging surrender 223–6, Pls. 27, 28 vehicle for communication in arena 172 Gismondi, Italo Pl. 10

313

gladiators: auctoratus 233 bravery 233–4 depicted dans sa gloire 228 fatalism 234 female 70, 71 identification as 87 n. 6, 169 paegniarii 70 pride 234 types 227 Glaucus see under mythological enactments Godfrey of Winchester xxii Gordian III, emperor, medallion of 21, 165, Pl. 9 Graus(o), bishop of Ceneda 142 Gregory of Tours 48–9 Grzimek, Bernhard (naturalist) 102 n. 1 Hadrian, emperor 20, 21, 26, 33, 172, 222, 242 Haemus 43 hairstyle: cirrus 72–5, Pls. 13, 15, 16 Germanic knot 48–9, Pl. 12 and see under Aethiops, somatic traits Halicarnassus see gladiators: female; Mausoleum Hanno see under elephant Harrison, Tony see Kaisers of Carnuntum headings: to books xxi n. 6, xxii to poems (tituli) xxix–xxxiii, xxxix, 75–7, 78–9, 148 n. 1, 187, 237, Table 3 see also titles of books Hecate 7 Heinsius, Nicolaus 13, 80, 92, 155, 216, 217, 257, 259 helmets 98 hendiadys 144, 230 Hercules: apotheosis 149, 154, 236 canonical figure of Labours 242 vs. Cretan bull 153–4, 239, 241 vs. Erymanthian boar 238 vs. Hydra 239–40 Labours outnumbered 236 Labours surpassed 141 vs. Nemean lion 78, 79, 80, 144, 238 possible play on name 242 synkrisis with Sandon 154 see also mythological enactments: ‘Alcides’ Hero 202, 208, 210 Hesione 241

314

Index Nominum et Rerum

Hesperides 177–8 ‘hippopotamus’, etymology of 110 homoeoteleuton 221, 245 humiliation 56, 57 hunters’ taboo 191 Hydra see under Hercules hypallage 94 hyperbole 22, 86, 163, 269 see also rhetorical exaggeration Hyrcania 162 ‘Icarus’ see under mythological enactments imperative: admonitory 67 see also Index Verborum s.v. desino imprisonment 86 incunabula xxiii, xxvi and n. 28 influence of Martial’s oeuvre lxxxiv ingratitude 114 injunction: to ‘be quiet’ 258 to posterity 259 see also address interpolation lix, 186 n. 1, 190–1 Ionia, conceptual entity 7–8 Ionians, reputation 8 iron 189–90 Isidore, Etymologiae, scholion li, 142, 143, 237 isopsephic couplets xliii Isthmus: of Corinth lxxviii, 90 Forth–Clyde 88 ius trium liberorum lx n. 124, lxxxiv Jason 236, 240 Jerusalem: linguistic diversity in 51 sack of lxvi, lxxiv Jewish War, commemoration at Rome lxvi n. 144 Josephus: dedication of Bellum Iudaicum xxviii portrayal of Titus li relationship with Flavians lxxxiv n. 186 Juba II, king of Mauretania 157, 267 Julius Caesar: celeritas 201 provision of spectacles lxxiii temporary amphitheatre 24 Junius, Hadrianus (Adriaen De Jonghe) xxiv, 166, 181 n. 6

Jupiter 149 juxtaposition: words of same declension/case 263 words from same root 136 see also under adjectives Kaisers of Carnuntum (play by Tony Harrison) 181 labyrinth 97–8 see also Index Verborum s.v. ºÆæØŁ Lacanian optics lxxxii n. 180 lacuna xx, xliv, 59, 93, 145–6, 247 lagynos Pl. 18 lanx 146, 229–30, Pl. 30 Laterculi Alexandrini 3–4 Latin, status of 52 laurel-wreath 229 Laureolus see under mythological enactments Leander (mythological hero) 202, 208–10 bargaining plea 210–11 bravery 210 depictions 210 drowned in storm 202 Hellenistic version of myth 202 treatment in Apophoreta 203 treatment in Greek epigram 202 see also under mythological enactments Leo X, pope 107 n. 3 Leonides of Alexandria (epigrammatist) xliii, lxxxiii leopard 105, 230, Pl. 30 Leukimme, battle of xlviii lexicography lxxxv–lxxxvi libellus lx–lxiii, 261 libraries holding manuscripts and incunabula: Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna (cod. 2221) xxiii Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek (Leidensis Vossianus Lat. Q 86) xxii, (Ferrara incunabulum) xxvi London, Library of the Dean and Chapter, Westminster Abbey (cod. 15) xxii, Pl. 1 Oxford, Bodleian Library (MS. Auct. F. 4. 33) 180 Paris, Bibliothe`que nationale de France (ms. lat. 8071) xxi, (ms. lat. 7647) xxv Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana (A 18) 142, (T 1) 142 n. 4 ¨ sterreichische Nationalbibliothek Vienna, O (Vindobonensis Lat. 277) xxi, (Vindobonensis Lat. 316) xxiii

Index Nominum et Rerum Wolfenbu¨ttel, Herzog August Bibliothek (codices annotated by Panormita) xxiii n. 19 lime see birdlime linguistic diversity: in the east 51 in Rome 52 lion: agent of damnatio ad bestias 87 bites trainer 112 characterized by rage 163 depictions 87, 105, 116–17, Pl. 21, 22 exhibited at games 116 laying low of 79 performs tricks 115 shows ingratitude 114 see also under ‘cycles’; Hercules Lipsius, Justus xlv n. 91 litotes 258 local epithet 245 local languages, traces of 51 Lucania 99, 110 Lucillius (epigrammatist) xxxiii, 175 Lucina 131–2, 136 Luxeuil xxi n. 7 Macrinus, emperor 41 Magerius see mosaics: Smirat magistri (animal-handlers) 104, 114–17 depiction (disputed) 72 n. 8, 87 n. 6, Pl. 13, (secure) Pl. 16, 22 maiestas 55 Mali, formerly Soudan 49 Manuel I, king of Portugal 106–7 n. 3 manuscripts: as artefact xxxiii Codex Salmasianus see ‘cycles’: Thrasamundus’ baths confusion between de- and di- 190 distribution Table 1 Florilegium Gallicum xxiii–xxv, xxxvi n. 53, 166, 261 fragmentum Perusinum Wittii xxii n. 12 inscriptiones xxvi n. 28 Insular script 184 n. 1 Irish exemplar of H? xxi of Liber spectaculorum xxi–xxv lost archetype K xx, xxiii Martial’s tripartite tradition xxi order of excerpts in florilegia xxxvi principles of excerption xxv n. 27, xxxiv–xxxvi, 261 subscriptiones xxiii, xxxi

315

see also corruption, textual; headings; libraries holding manuscripts; and under spelling map 269 see also under themes and motifs Mark Antony (grandfather of triumvir) lxxviii mask: of ape 87 n. 6 of German Pl. 12 Mausoleum 9–10 mausoleum at Cillium (Kasserine, Tunisia) 10 Mausolus, satrap of Caria 9 Maximian, emperor 90 Medea 240–1 Meleager, Garland xxxix Meleager (mythological hero) 141 Memphis 5 Menologion 90 Merula, Giorgio lxxxv–lxxxvi, 187 Meta Sudans 21, 26, Fig. 1, Pl. 10 metamorphosis 200 metaphors: convey to the stars 10 heartless as a Hyrcanian tiger 162 shipwreck of the soul 214 weaving 9, 246 metonymy 12, 36, 46, 58, 66, 92, 131, 189, 200, 201, 257 metre: metrical convenience 99, 125, 155, 178, 185, 188, 193, 221, 240–1, 253 distribution in Martial xxxvi double anapaest rhythm 36 enjambement 135, 247 intractable words 7, 27, 122, 171, 206, 242 invariable in Liber spectaculorum xliv ‘isocolic’ pentameter 137 pause 219 pentameter ending 103, 139, 207, 238, (parallel halves) 210, (symmetrical halves) 215, 254 metrical periphrasis 6 single couplets xliii spondaic effects 177, 189 successive dactyls 258 n. 4 tractable words 9, 31 transposition for the sake of xxiii n. 16 see also corruption, textual: unmetrical Miletus, Q. Iulius 41 n. 3 milk, drinking of 44 Milo of Croton 187 n. 2

316

Index Nominum et Rerum

mime: aquatic 212, 215 on bandit Laureolus 82–4 featuring mock-crucifixion 90 featuring trained animals 88 at Floralia 213 see also Catullus (mimographer); mythological enactments: ‘Laureolus’ Minotaur 241 missio 218, 221–2, 223, 232 Molossian hounds 245–6 Montana: depot for captured bears and bison 192, 193 history of name 192 n. 3 mosaics: Annaba/Hippo Regius (hunt) 166, Pl. 25 Cos (beasts) 130, (gladiators) 228–9, Pl. 29 Maxula Rates (bears) 88 n. 7 Nennig (amphitheatre) 116 Ostia, Caseggiato di Bacco e Arianna (Bacchus and Ariadne) 71–2, Pl. 14, Caseggiato del Cane Monnus 72 n. 7, Caupona di Alexander Helix 72 n. 7, Terme di Buticosus 72 n. 7, Terme di Nettuno 72 n. 7, Terme di Porta Marina (athletes) 72, Pl. 15 Palestrina (Nile) 104 Perugia (Orpheus) 104, 178, Pl. 19 Piazza Armerina (Great Hunt) 104, 192, Pl. 20, (Labours of Hercules) 79, (Small Hunt) 123, Pl. 23 Rome, S. Anselmo on the Aventine (Orpheus) 178–9, Pl. 26, Aventine (elephant and bull) 165, Castra Praetoria (tiger and magistri) 71–2, Pl. 13 ‘saw-tooth silhouette’ 50–1 Smirat (‘Magerius’) 230–2, Pl. 30 Tor Marancia, Villa of Munatia Procula (Scylla) 72 n. 7 Zeugma (Pasiphae) 98 n. 3 Zliten (amphitheatre) 72–5, 91, 223, 227 n. 4, Pls. 16, 27, 28 mould 147, 264 n. 2, Pl. 24 Mucius Scaevola see under mythological enactments museums holding artefacts: Athens, National Archaeological Museum (lamp) 87 Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Antikensammlung (gem) 104

Boston, Museum of Fine Arts (figurine) 130 Copenhagen, Thorvaldsen Museum (gem) 104 Istanbul, Archaeological Museum (mosaic) Pl. 29 London, British Museum (sestertius) Pl. 2, (mask) 49, Pl. 12 Mainz, Ro¨misch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum (lagynos) Pl. 18 Milan, Museo Teatrale alla Scala (Campana plaque) 70 Rome, Museo della Civilta` Romana (model) Pls. 7, 10, Museo Nazionale Romano (mosaic) 71, Pl. 13, Torlonia Collection (sarcophagus) 116, Pl. 22 Schleswig, Schleswig-Holsteinisches Landesmuseum (human head) 49 Sofia, National Archaeological Museum (relief) Pl. 17 Sousse Museum (mosaic) 231 Split, National Archaeological Museum (mould) Pl. 24 Tripoli, National Museum (mosaic) Pls. 16, 27, 28 Viterbo, Museo Civico (marble slab) 220 musicians Pl. 27 Mussolini, Benito 21 Muzaffar II, sultan of Gujarat 106 n. 3 Myrinus (gladiator) liii, 169 namesake under Trajan 170 mythological enactments: ‘Alcides’ 148–9, 153 ‘Daedalus’ 97–9, 120 n. 1 deviations from canonical version 97, 154, 203, 205, 207 ‘Glaucus’ 255 ‘Icarus’ lxxiv ‘Laureolus’ 82–5, 90–2 ‘Leander’ 98, 204–6, see also Leander (mythological hero) ‘Mucius Scaevola’ lxxxi, 82, 98 narrative thread? 98–9 ‘Orpheus’ 174–5, see also Orpheus (mythological hero) ‘Pasiphae’ 62–5, see also Pasiphae (mythological heroine) roles attributed to arena personnel 253 mythological creatures, sightings reported 254 names: of animals, exotic 110–11 of gladiators 171, 220

Index Nominum et Rerum Greek and Roman borne by foreigners 52 of illustrious predecessors 170 local epithets 245 non-Greek with Greek inflections 206 n. 7 see also animals: named on mosaics; Annaba; Flavian amphitheatre; Hercules; Montana; rhinoceros: nomenclature; stage-names narrative function 228 naumachiae (naval battles) xxxvii–xxxviii, 196, 200, 251, 252, 253, 255, 256, 257–8, 259 see also Flavian amphitheatre: inauguration; Index Verborum s.v. naumachia Navigius (potter) Pl. 18 Nebuchadnezzar II 6–7 Nemea 79, 239 Nereids 212, 214, 215, 216, 254 Nereus 253, 255–6 Nero, emperor: aspirations to monarchy 29 expedition to investigate source of Nile 267–9 ferocity inherited from Ahenobarbi 30 Frisian embassy 40 love of water 32 Martial’s hostility towards 259 obeyed rules in theatrical contests 223 political wit directed at xxxiii n. 46 provision of spectacle lxv, lxxiv, 63, 150, 257 public lotteries 115 radiate portraiture 21 refusal of adoratio 158 reputation as irrational monster 34 scandalous stage-appearances 39 selfishness lxv, 35 slothfulness 258 synkrisis (comparison) li, 25 n. 4 tiger 161 tyrannical appropriation of citycentre 259 victimization of Lucan 259 whim for rus in urbe 34 wooden amphitheatre lxv, 257, (awning) 152, (flooding) 200 see also Colossus; Domus Aurea; Thermae Neronis Nile, river 5, 45, 104, 267–9, Fig. 2 see also mosaics: Palestrina Nineveh 7 Niobe 175, 216, 237 nocturnal displays see under spectacles

317

Nonius Marcellus xxxvi n. 53, lxxxv–lxxxvi Noricum 189 North Pole 144 North Sea 46 nouns: abstract 233 role in poetry 221 nudity 213–14 numbering: of books xxii, xxvi of poems xx–xxi numbers, playing with lxxv numerals 242 Orpheus (mythological hero): death 174, 176 depictions 104, 178–9, 228, Pls. 19, 26 epithet Rhodopeius 176 and Eurydice 182–4 game-keeper dressed as 178 power over birds 178–9, rivers 176 see also under mythological enactments Ovid, reminiscence of 117–18, 139, 163, 176, 201, 207, 247 oxymoron 93, 172 Palladio, Andrea 33 palm 147, 227–9, 264–5 panegyric see under epigrams: encomiastic function; themes and motifs Pannartz, Arnold xxiii n. 18, lxxxv Panormita (Antonio Beccadelli) xxiii n. 19 panthers 145 Ææa æ ŒÆ 34 paradox: birth from death 126, 127–8, 131, 133, 135, 136 as compliment 247 contact with civilization makes savage beasts more savage 164 everyday object employed to unusual ends 129 as feature of Hellenistic epigram xliv ‘how are the mighty fallen’ lxxvi n. 163 land changed into water 195–6 loser wins 234 request for death 209 saeuitia turned into clementia lxxx watery dust 255 see also under closure parataxis 118, 129 Paris (pantomimus) 170 parma 226–7

318

Index Nominum et Rerum

paronomasia 45, 200, 241 see also pun parrot xliii, 113, 160 particles, inverted 220–1 Pasiphae (mythological heroine): in art 63 myth 62, 66, 241 see also under mythological enactments pater patriae 42, 52–3 patera 146–7 pathetic fallacy 80, 174 patibulum 91 pegmata 22–7, 151–2 Pentecost 51 periphrasis 45, 61 Perotti, Niccolo` xlv n. 91 Cornu copiae lxxxv–lxxxvi Perpetua, dream of 229 n. 7 Perseus 236, 241 personifications: apostrophized lxxxii Fama 12–13 Fucine Lake 258 Marathon 238 Mars 221 Nemea 238 Nero’s ‘pools’ 258 Vetustas 67–8 Petronius, P. (or C.) (governor of Egypt) 267 Philip of Thessalonica, Garland xxxix Phraates of Parthia, sons of lxxiv pilae (stuffed dummies) 111, 189 pirates (expedition against, 102–100 bc) lxxviii Plancus, L. Munatius 255 Plautus, Aulus (commander under Claudius in Britain) 90 pleonasm 143, 159, 164, 242 see also tautology Pliny, elder: copied Agatharchides 102–3 tension between nationalism and cosmopolitanism 43 treats rhinoceros as three different animals 111 plural: of abstracts and masses 110 in apposition to singular 138 ‘poetic’ 27, 46, 110, 143 and see Index Verborum s.v. amores Poggio (Poggio Bracciolini) xxii n. 15 polyptoton 43, 93 pompa 54, 56

Pompeii: advertisements for spectacles 38, 54, 92 depictions of Pasiphae 63 frequency of spectacles at lviii popular register 193 Pompey see Theatre of Pompey pontifex maximus 52 popes lxiv n. 137 see also Leo X Porthaon, king of Calydon 238 Porticus Claudia 34, Pl. 10 Poseidon 215, 255 Posidippus, ‘Milan’ papyrus: on aesthetics of size in sculpture 20 authorship disputed xxxix–xl contiguous pairs of epigrams xlii ƒØŒ (dynastic emphasis) lxxvii, (spotlight on individual display) lxxvii ºØŁØŒ, arrangement of xl–xli marked up for excerption? xxv on Ptolemaic monuments lxxvi repetitive vocabulary xliv n. 88 section-headings xxix n. 36 thematic categories xxxix on victories at Panhellenic Games lxxvi priamel 2–3, 236 Priapea lxxxiv n. 191, 2 Priscus (gladiator) 220 prizes 146–7, 229–32 prohibition, periphrastic 207 Prometheus: dismemberment 86, 91 posture of restraint 92 site of punishment 85 pronoun: indefinite, in apposition to subject within verb 199 proximal demonstrative in Romance 155 shift of 187–8, 193 pronunciation see under spelling prophetic utterance 43 proskynesis see elephant prosody see vocalic quantity æH
æ
 lxxiii, 216 proverbial sayings 264 pseudo-Bede, Collectanea lxviii Ptolemy Philadelphus lxxviii, 102 publication: of Liber spectaculorum lvii–lxiv, 103 of the rest of Martial’s oeuvre Table 2 pun 48 see also paronomasia punctuation 133, 201

Index Nominum et Rerum punishment: dual-penalty system 5 penalty matches gravity of crime 118 see also talio pygmies 87 n. 6 Pylades (pantomimus) 170 pyramids 5–6, 104 pyrrichae 63–4 Pythius of Priene (architect of Mausoleum) 10 questions: precipitating closure 130 rhetorical lxxxii, 254 readership lxiv, lxxxi referee 228, Pls. 27, 28, 29 Res Gestae see under Augustus relief, sculptural: Rome (amphitheatre) 23–4 Serdica (bears) 87, Pl. 17 Remigius, bishop 48–9 rhetorical exaggeration 139 rhinoceros: associated with Nile 104 vs. bear 188 Black 101–2, 104, 111 vs. bull 105, Pl. 21 depictions 102–4, 105–6, Pls. 4a, 19, 20, 21 docility deceptive 107–9, 186 vs. elephant 107 n. 3, 188 hindlegs ‘graviportal’ 102 history of display at Rome lvi n. 113, 102–3 Indian 101 Javan 101 life-expectancy in captivity lvi n. 112 nomenclature 110–11 on quadrans liv–lvi, 101, 102, 110 posture when alarmed 102 n. 1 posture when charging 191 presented to King Manuel I of Portugal 106–7 n. 3 reputation for ferocity 189 Sumatran 101 treatment in epigram 103 wallows in mud 101 White 101–2, 103, 104, 109, 110, 111 Rhodope 43, 176 riddling style 45 rivers: drinking of 45 see also Nile and under Orpheus

319

Rome as emperor’s domain 43 rudis 232–3 Rufinus (epigrammatist) xxxiii saffron 47–8 sailcloth 216 St Elmo’s fire 216 Sandon 154 Sannazaro, Jacopo xxi sarcophagus 116–17, Pl. 22 Sarmatae 44 Satyrus (court sculptor of Mausolus) 10 scaffolding 23–7 scenery 98 n. 2, 177, 179 see also stage-equipment Schadenfreude xliii scholion see Isidore, Etymologiae Scotland liii, 46 see also Caledonia Scriverius, Petrus xx, 247 seating: of embassies 40 in provincial amphitheatres 38–9 at Rome 39 as status-symbol 21 see also under Flavian amphitheatre Semele 126, 133 Seneca, epigrammatist posing as lxxviii Sennacherib 7 Septimius Severus 40 servile crimes 93 shade 34 shield: of Aeneas 46, 52 as architectural feature lviii types 227 see also parma sibling rivalry lxiii similes 85, 123, 132, 176 singular: collective 178, 215, 222, 241 generalizing second-person 159–60 Soros (øæ ) xxxix–xl sound effects see homoeoteleuton sow see under ‘cycles’ spectacles: aquatic 195, 212–14 chariot-race 254 communication at 172, 222 commemorated in Greek epigram lxxvii midday break 233 n. 8 nocturnal liii, 204–5, 216 order of events xxxvii n. 57

320

Index Nominum et Rerum

spectacles: (cont.) see also mythological enactments; naumachiae; uenationes spelling: b-/v- distinction in Spanish 193 n. 4 Greek nouns in Latin 66, 80, 140, 154, 159, 209, 241 reflecting shift in pronunciation 192–3 tall I lxv typical of Irish manuscripts 226 see also Sugambri Spira, Vindelino da xxiii n. 18 stage-equipment 26, 151–2 see also scenery stage-names 141 statue: of Leander 208 n. 1 of Myron’s cow xli see also Colossus; Index Verborum s.vv. colossus, Œº

 Strato of Sardis (epigrammatist) xxxiii structural features of epigram-collections: alphabetical arrangement xxxix alternating categories xxxviii, 103 artistic juxtaposition xl–xli ‘Fortsetzungsepigramme’ xlii n. 83 independent couplets xlii–xliii ‘Parallelepigramme’ xlii n. 83 thematic arrangement xxxix ‘variations on a theme’ xli, lxi, lxxix structural features in Martial’s numbered books: authorial selection lxii n. 131 contiguous pairs xlii distribution of spectacle-poems lxxix n. 173 programmatic statements 260 ‘sting in the tail’ xliii structural features of Liber spectaculorum: closing sequence xxxv, 261 consecutive pairs xx, xlii, 57, 60, 69–70, 148, 154 n. 3, 161, 182–3, 202–4, 207 editorial arrangement in defiance of manuscript tradition lxxix n. 173 general principles of arrangement xxxvi–xliii, 99, 237, 251–2 increasing brevity 126 introductory sequence xxxv, xxxvi, xxxvii n. 55, xliv, xlv–xlvi, lxiii n. 133, 1, 37, 260–1 length xxxiv ring-composition xxxv n. 50 triplets xlii and nn. 81–2 ‘variations on a theme’ 126, 182

structural patterns in individual epigrams: average length 146 n. 8 catalogue technique lxxx, 2, 141 focus on ruler xli generalizing statement þ accumulation of detail 175 incident-and-comment 57, 60, 113, 120, 129, 135, 138, 161, 166, 170, 187, 219, 245 past vs. present (then/now) 15–18, 67, 78, 84, 96, 141, 153, 252, 254, 258 question and implied negative response 41 quod—non—sed 69, 148, 156, 206 riddle and solution xxix n. 35, 103, 183 ring-composition 257 rule and exception 175 Synkrisis-Epigramm 78 terminal sententia 41, 183, 203 tripartite 135, 143 see also anaphora; isopsephic couplets; priamel Suebi 49 Sugambri 48 suicide on the stage 175 Sweynheym, Conrad xxiii n. 18, lxxxv swimming: synchronized 215 by women 213 see also mythological enactments: ‘Leander’ synecdoche 45, 48 synizesis 59 synkrisis: emperor and Jupiter 4 n. 11 Hercules and Sandon 154 past and present 141, 155 see also under Nero; structural patterns in individual epigrams Tabularium 105 talio 59, 118 taste for the bizarre 133 ÆıæØÆÆ 150 ÆıæŒÆŁÆłÆ lxxvii tautology 34–5, 92 see also pleonasm temple treasure 94 Templum Divi Claudii see Porticus Claudia Templum Divi Vespasiani 105–6, 141, Pl. 21 tense: contracted perfect 152 contrast in 96 future in prophetic utterance 43

Index Nominum et Rerum imperfect 75 perfect infinitive 99, 100, 132, 255 pluperfect 114, 252 Tethys 46 Theatre of Pompey: inauguration 102–3, 156, 158–9 as tourist-attraction 40 Thecla 87–8, 213–14 themes and motifs: apologia 262, 263 arena ‘offers’ spectacle to emperor 68 arena vindicates myth 96 blows of fate come unexpectedly 139 corrupting effect of Rome 164 ‘dilemme admiratif ’ 217 empty air 10 forces and emotions gain strength when checked 189 god serving emperor 77 grand houses arouse envy 28 incredulity 184, 206 inevitability of fate 210–11 laus urbis 15 locus communis de fortuna 15 lover’s proverbial haste 211 luxury, attack on 30 ‘map’ in verse 18 marvels of the city 38 neque te silebo 6 outdoing 68, 251, 258 place boasts of famous inhabitant 258 pre-eminence 11–12 present outdoes past 67, 155 pride of community 162 ranking equal to the best 6 rape of the countryside 33–4 reductio ad absurdum 125 restoring land to the people 35 seeing is believing 144 speed (of benefaction) 33, (of composition) 260 steady hand guiding weapon 136 surpassing Augustus xxxv n. 50 textual medium, absence of reference to lxxxi–lxxxii ‘Tower of Babel’ 41 transience of civilization lxxvi twist of fate 128 ‘web of deceitful invention’ 246 see also under animals; paradox; structural patterns in individual epigrams Thermae Agrippae 32–3 Thermae Neronis 32–3

321

Thermae Titi lviii, 26, 32–3, Pl. 10 Theseus 236 vs. bull of Marathon 239 vs. Minotaur 241 Thetis 131, 217, 253, 254 Thou, Jacques-Auguste de xxi Thrace, route from to Rome 43–4 Thrasamundus, king of the Vandals see under ‘cycles’ Tiberius, emperor: attitude towards spectacles lxxiv, 222 declined title inuictus 173 tiger 71, 161, 162, Pl. 13 tightrope-walking 150–1 titles of books xxv–xxviii tituli see headings to poems Titus, emperor: addressed in religious language 160 attitude towards delatores 54–5 candidate for identification as ‘Caesar’ xlv–li, lviii–lix mercy towards conspirators l paraded delatores in amphitheatre l promise before a gladiatorial show l, 171, 173 reputation for saeuitia 113 n. 1 and Templum Divi Vespasiani 106 wept openly l see also Arcus Titi; Flavian amphitheatre: ancient representations, construction, dedicatory inscription, inauguration; Thermae Titi tourism 38 tournaments in 17th-c. Italy lxii n. 130 Trajan, emperor: attitude towards delatores 55 displays of animals 156 edifying nature of spectacles 233 generosity towards spectators l transferred epithet 114 tricolon crescens 47, 238 trident 215 tripartite exemplum 143, 146 trireme 197 Triton 253, 254, 255 Triumphus (gladiator) 169 namesake under Tiberius 170 trumpet 253 tyrant, qualities ascribed to: bestial ferocity 258 n. 3 cruelty 30 selfishness 259 wickedness 95

322

Index Nominum et Rerum

uenationes lxxii–lxxiii, lxxvii–lxxviii, 71, 75, 84, 176, 192, 205, 236, 242, 251, 254, 256 uentilatores 150 Underworld 182, 185 urbi et orbi 43 urceus 105 Valerianus, Q. Pollius 203 variatio 41, 57, 188, 193, 204, 237 Venantius Fortunatus (poet) 52 Venus armata/uictrix 69–70 verbs: compound/simplex repetition 190–1 parataxis 118 same, paired 47 Verus (gladiator) 220 Vespasian, emperor: construction of Flavian amphitheatre lxv credited with annexation of Britain 90 death 52 measures against delatores 54 patron of poets and artists lxxxiv n. 187 reputation for meanness lxxiv role in conquest of Britain 90 see also Colossus: alterations by Vespasian; Templum Divi Vespasiani Vetustas, appeal to 67 Via Sacra 22, 24–5

Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India lxxviii n. 169 vocabulary, lack of variety in xliv vocalic quantity 90, 114, 206, 257 Voss, Isaac xxii, xxvi waves, pounding of 46 water: metaphorical? 214 and nakedness 214 see also under Domus Aurea; Nero waterproofing: in hypogeum of Flavian amphitheatre lxx of orchestra in Greek theatres 214 weaving see under metaphors Wonders of the World 1–5, 38 see also Altar of Horn; Artemision; Babylon; Mausoleum; pyramids word-order 12, 33, 42, 59, 66, 91, 93, 118, 155, 177, 199, 221, 223, 232, 248, 259 see also anaphora; chiasmus; juxtaposition; parataxis Xerxes 112, 195 Zenodorus (sculptor under Nero) 21