1996, pp. 21-23) is actually viewed when you look at the light of a€?catalogue poetry’ (that see furthermore down the page, on item 3.8) and dedicatory epigram. L. justly reiterates their view that Citroni’s comprehension of e-books XIII and XIV as a€?mock-didactic’ (ICS 14 , pp. 207-209) may not be the entire facts. Additionally, the literary closeness for the Xenia (while the Apophoreta) to Symphosius’ riddles however requires more research (see Gnomon 71 , p. 596; Prometheus 25 , pp. 263, 267-269). The Aenigmata, that I could discover one research (p. 40, on drunkenness as a a€?Saturnalian motif’ inside opening poem, 1.4), as well as the riddles of publication XIV in the Greek Anthology, do have more in keeping with Martial than L. try willing to know, although he do mention the reality that many of this products in the Xenia possess as a type of (typically a€?Saturnalian’) riddles, aided by the tituli supplying the solution (p. 57 on item 11; see furthermore p. 8). One may see significantly peculiar the question the reason why a poet a€?should need to writea€? this sort of poetry a€?at alla€? (p. 15); my answer might be a€?why not?’. I can not truly follow L.’s contention that a€?the subject-matter [is] usually unpoetica€? (ibid.) as (a) the word a€?unpoetic’, a prejudiced Romantic stereotype, continues to be utterly unexplained, and (b) this might, after that, also have to become real of numerous poems in Books I-XII and countless other texts, ancient and modern-day; I can not truly read any fantastic distinction between the subject matter of Kallimachos’ a€?salt-cellar epigram’ (epigr. 47 Pf.) in addition to a€?pepper’ of items 5 (and/or chamber cooking pot of , even). Can it be correct that a€?Martial is all also aware in the example of Books 13 and 14 [of] the chance that their visitors might become annoyed or shed determination with very long strings of coupletsa€? (ibid., and p. 16 n. 10)? It ought to be clear your poet’s self-protection against unaware readers with his suggestion to skip poems should they thus longing (13.3.7-8, 14.2) falls under his epigrammatic poetics and interplay with all the audience; 5 a lot more than that: it clearly informs us your range is meant to end up being a complicated organization whoever poetic high quality relies upon being review and appreciated as a coherent little bit of literary artwork.
The collection (like in L
On meter, point (vi), L. may be short. Just two products from 127, that will be 61 (choliambics) and 81 (hendecasyllables) usually do not display elegiac couplets. 6 Interpretive facts include addressed in which they occur, for example a€?interchangeable’ pentameter halves (at 9.2, 84.2), prosodic distinct features of Palatinus (91.2), or other metrical effects (elizabeth.g., in items 72, pp. 129-130).
When it comes to MSS traditions, L
L.’s Latin book (pp. 23-35; read additionally section (vii) of intro.) principally is of Shackleton Bailey’s (SB’s) 1990 Teubner, the only deviation explicitly mentioned being 118.2 (p. 18), in which L. appropriately takes Gilbert’s conjecture Latiis up against the MSS researching Tuscis (cf. p. 185). And so really does SB inside the 1993 Loeb (vol. iii, pp. 321-322). The other discrepancies between L. and the Teubner include unimportant: 7 directly, i favor SB’s gallus over L.’s Gallus from inside the untranslatable pun on cockerels who come to be eunuchs at 63.2 (discover below), also his capitalized monster during the Porphyrion couplet at 78.1 ( nomen magni Gigantis, as at 9.50.6).
favors the advice the best archetype from where the three family members get try a later part of the traditional release (pp. 19-20), whose details will permanently remain in the dark. Nigel Kay’s wild imagine, in the discourse on guide XI, this particular archetype was actually an autograph shouldn’t be thought about likely, regardless of (presumably) insignificant nature associated with problems the three family members share. For this reason, more debate regarding effect of such an assumption regarding textual constitution are pointless. Finally, L. is unquestionably right in rejecting the theory which takes divergent indication become author-variants (p. 21 n. 8). 8 – carefully, L. performed without collating the appropriate manuscripts anew as past efforts have proven not to ever lead to any further awareness. The guy doesn’t bring a critical equipment, either; rather, for the commentary he discusses thoroughly almost all times where in actuality the MSS disagree or appear to provide inaccurate readings. Since SB within his Teubner often by making use of an asterisk refers an individual to Heraeus’ equipment for additional support, which makes their release inconvenient to do business with, it actually was a choice of L.’s to recall and elucidate SB’s resolutions. A good example try 69.2, where domino undoubtedly is actually more advanced than dominae, and L., pace P. Howell, justly defends SB’s decision (p. 125): Pudens’ toy-boy, to whom he delivers gift ideas, is known as dominus, which (as in other places in Martial) has a tendency to invert deliberately the famous servitium amoris of elegy. Other textual discussions consist of 10 breast. [p. 56], 65.2 [p. 120], 68 breast. [p. 123], etc. Because Xenia are often difficult to read, the writing features encountered a lot of efforts by Humanists and later students to boost they: L. appropriately accepts this type of conjectures at, e.g., 2.2 (p. 43), 44.2 (p. 96), 109.2 (p. 174). Additionally, lots of conjectures ended up being unneeded or simply incorrect. Heinsius specifically, to who the text of Martial in general owes a great deal https://datingrating.net/skout-vs-meetme/, quite aggressively cured where there clearly was frequently you don’t need to heal, which is handy having L.’s important talks on 2.9, 7.2, 76.2, 79.2, 98.1, 125.2; the exact same will also apply to anonymous Humanist conjectures (L. on 20.1, 66 tit., and most likely furthermore 91 breast.).