Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-72kh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-05T09:59:50.691Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Three Women in Martial*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

L. C. Wartson
L. C. Wartson
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘Ein vÖllig unverständliches Wortspiel’, said Friedlander. There have been many attempts to solve the riddle. The older commentators, following Domizio Calderini, offered a fantastic solution: Athenagoras was a doctor specializing in leprosy (⋯λφ⋯ς): ‘porro ducta uxore coepit lingere cunnum…unde factus est olficius, hoc est olfacit cunnum’! H. C. Schnur emended to Olbius (ὅλβιος): Albius Athenagoras (Greek cognomen with Roman nomen gentilicium), by marrying a rich wife, became Olbius. This explanation deprives the name ‘Albius’ of any point; nor is it particularly witty to say that Albius married money. The most popular solution points to the biblical ⋯γώ εἰμι τ⋯ Ἄλφα κα⋯ τἈ 'Σ [sc. ⋯ πρ⋯τος κα⋯ ⋯ ἔσ×ατος] it can be shown with some plausibility that the expression was known to the Romans of Martial's time – and to Martial's phrases ‘alpha paenulatorum’ (2. 57. 4, 5. 26. 1) and ‘beta togatorum’ (5. 26. 4). Before marriage Athenagoras was A in his house; now he is last, in other words, henpecked. ‘Paenulatorum’ and ‘togatorum’, however, give ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’ a context which plain Alphius and Olphius do not possess. Moreover, in all the other passages which scholars quote in support of the A–Σ hypothesis,9 a letter of the alphabet becomes a byname for an individual, and is not incorporated in another name, as would be the case with Alphius and Σlphius. The presence of two names points to an etymological, not alphabetical, jeu des mots.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , January 1983 , pp. 258 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 It must be stated at the outset that I regard 9. 95 and 95 b. as separate poems (they were first divided by Scriverius in 1618), in contrast to Mussehl, J., ‘Martial ix 95’, Hermes 58 (1923), 238 fGoogle Scholar., and Dornseiff, F., ‘Martialis IX 95 und Rotas-Opera-Quadrat’, Rh. Mus. 96 (1953), 373–8Google Scholar, who view them as one, and interpret accordingly. There is a clear break in sense between lines 2 and 3 (= 95b. 1). Also, Martial is fond of placing one after the other two poems on the same subject (some examples in Schulze, K. P., ‘Martialis Catullstudien’, Neue Jahrb. 135 (1887), 640)Google Scholar: this appears to have been the original situation here. An exact parallel is furnished by 2. 21–3. Poems 21–2 attack Postumus and his basia, poem 23 begins ‘Non dicam, licet usque me rogetis, qui sit Postumus in meo libello”, cf. 95b.

2 M. Valerii Martialis epigrammaton libri (Leipzig, 1886)Google Scholar, ad loc. Likewise Farnaby, T., M. Val. Martialis Epigrammaton libr2 (London, 1633)Google Scholar, Heraeus, W. in the critical appendix to the Teubner edition (Lipsiae, 1925: editio correctior by Borovskij, I., 1976)Google Scholar, ad loc., and Izaac, H. J., Martial: Épigrammes II (Paris, 1930–1933), p. 272Google Scholar.

3 M. Val. Martialis Epigram. Libri…adiectis…commentariis Domitii Chalderini atque Georgii Merulae (Lugduni, 1522)Google Scholar, ad loc.; cf. also Renn, E., Die griechischen Eigennamen bei Martial (Diss. Landshut, 1889), pp. 56 fGoogle Scholar.

4 Other unlikely explanations have come from Nencini, F., ‘Su due Epigrammi di Marziale’, RIFC 44 (1916), 285 ffGoogle Scholar., and Dornseiff, op. cit.

5 ‘On a Crux in Martial (9. 95)’, CW 48 (1955), 51Google Scholar.

6 Crusius, O., ‘Alphius-Olphius (Martial IX 95)’ Philologus 19 (1906), 159fGoogle Scholar.; Stowasser, J. M., ‘Etymologica’, WS 31 (1909), 150 fGoogle Scholar; Pertsch, E., De Valerio Martiale Graecorum Poetarum Imitatore (Diss. Berlin, 1911), p. 46Google Scholar; Mussehl, op. cit. (with variations); Smyly, J. G., ‘Martial IX 95’, Hermathena 70 (1947), 81 fGoogle Scholar.; Dornseiff, op. cit.; Carrington, A. G., ‘The Alpha and the Omega: Martial IX 95’, GR ser. 2. 1 (1954), 127 fGoogle Scholar.; Helm, R., ‘Martialis’, Lustrum 1 (1956), 304Google Scholar.

7 Revelation of John 1. 8 with 1. 17; 21. 6; 22. 13.

8 See Dornseiff, op. cit. 376 ff.

9 See conveniently Crusius, op. cit.

10 e.g. β⋯τα for Eratosthenes (Suda – Life of E.), Λ⋯βδα for the θυγ⋯τηρ ×ωλ⋯ of the Bacchiad Amphion (Hdt. 5. 92: from the old Corinthian Lambda with unequal legs).

11 The sole exception is A. P. 11. 15 (Ammianus): Εἰ μἰν τοὺς ⋯π⋯ ἄλφα μ⋯νους κ⋯κρικας κατορ⋯σσειν Λο⋯κιε, βουλευτ⋯ς κα⋯ τ⋯ν ⋯δελφ⋯ν ἔχεις εἰ δ', ὅπερ εὕλεγ⋯ν ⋯στι, κατ⋯ στοιχεῖον ⋯δε⋯εις, ἠδη, σο⋯ προλ⋯γω, Σριγ⋯νης λ⋯γομαι, cited by Mussehl, who explains thus: Lucius is a doctor who, Ammianus pretends, is going to kill off all the A-people – senators (βουλευτ⋯ς), and those whose names begin with a, including his ⋯δελφ⋯ς. To forestall the danger of an alphabetical progression, Ammianus hastily changes his name to 'Σριγ⋯νης. Here, however, the play on the initial letter of 'Σριγ⋯νης is carefully prepared for by τοὺς ⋯π⋯ ἄλφα in the first line.

12 On the question of transmission, see below.

13 That is, ‘gain-seeking'. So this Homeric word seems to have been understood by Aeschylus in a commercial metaphor at Sept. 766 ff.: τ⋯λειαι γ⋯ρ παλαιφ⋯των ⋯ρ⋯ν βαρεῖαι καταλλαγα⋯…πρ⋯πρυμνα δ' ⋯κβολ⋯ν φ⋯ρει ⋯ν'δρ⋯ν ⋯λφηστ⋯ν ὅλβος ὅλβος ἄγαν παχυνθε⋯ς. Modern scholars, however, concur in deriving it from ἄλφι, barley-meal, ἄνδρες ⋯λφηστα⋯ being differentiated from savages, ἄνδρες ὠμηστα⋯ See Butcher, S. H. and Lang, A., The Odyssey of Homer (London, 1906), pp. 410 ffGoogle Scholar., and Chantraine, P., Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue Grecque (Paris, 1968)Google Scholar, s.v.

14 For the suggestion, see Cipriani, G., Letteratura Georgica e Investimento Fondiario alia fine del 1° sec. a.C: Orazio Epod. 2 (Bari, 1980), p. 59Google Scholar, with the references there given.

15 e.g. Hes. Theog. 593, Eur. Hipp. 630 ff., Ar. Nub. 55 and Theophr.De Nuptiis ap. Hieron. Adv. Jovin. 1. 47 (Migne PL 23. 276).

16 Where laments about the high cost of maintaining a female are most frequently heard in extra-marital contexts (e.g. Plaut, . Trin. 242 ffGoogle Scholar. and True. 31 ff., Lucr. 4. 1123 ff, Hor. Sat. 1. 2. 58 ff., Phaedr. 2. 2, Prop. 2. 24. 11 ff., and Ov. Am. 1. 10. 29 ff), but do spill over into marriage.

17 ‘nullam invenies quae parcat amanti. ardeat ipsa licet, tormentis gaudet amantis et spoliis’.

18 Thus Bücheler, persuasively. Other explanations, some yielding the same general sense, in Burman and Friedländer, ad loc.

19 See 67.7 for complaints in much the same vein by Trimalchio to Fortunata.

20 cf. Mart. 11. 49. 1 ff. ‘Nulla est hora tibi qua non me, Phylli, furentem despolies: tanta calliditate rapis. nunc plorat speculo fallax ancilla relicto…’, 4. 29. 5, or the use of ‘nudus’ at 4. 28. 8 and Juv. 6. 232.

21 That the ancilla's speech from 815 ff. humorously inverts the advice which was typically given to a Roman bride is shown by Williams, G., ‘Some Aspects of Roman Marriage Ceremonies and Ideals’, JRS 48 (1958), 17 ffGoogle Scholar.

22 See further Lucil. 682 ff. M. on the wife who is bent on consuming her husband's money, the furore over the repeal of the Oppian law (Liv. 34. 1–8), and Schütze, R., Juvenalis ethicus (Diss. Greifswald, 1905), pp. 38 fGoogle Scholar.

23 For the background to such etymological jokes on names, see Siedschlag, E., Zur Form von Martiak Epigrammen (Berlin, 1977), pp. 90 ffGoogle Scholar., and Buchheit, V., Studien zum Corpus Priapeorum (Munchen, 1962), pp. 82 ffGoogle Scholar.

24 Olphius T Olfris R (= A family), Olfius L Colphius P Coalfius Q (= B), Olficius EXAG (=C).

25 See recently Citroni, M., M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Liber Primus (Firenze, 1975), pp. lxxi fGoogle Scholar., and Howell, P., A Commentary on Book One of the Epigrams of Martial (London, 1980), p. 13Google Scholar. The case is summarised by Pasquali, G., Storia della Tradizione e Critica del Testo2 (Firenze, 1952), p. 418Google Scholar.

26 See Heraeus, W., ‘Zur neueren Martialkritik’, Rh. Mus. 74 (1925), 323 fGoogle Scholar.

27 Thus Raderus, M., Martialis Epigrammaton Libri omnes2 (Ingolstadt, 1611)Google Scholar, and Farnaby (⋯προσδοκ⋯τως…neque enim alterum habet'), ad loc.

28 That her one-eyedness is of a fairly drastic variety is suggested by 12. 22: ‘Quam sit lusca Philaenis indecenter vis dicam breviter tibi, Fabulle? Esset caeca decentior Philaenis’.

29 Cels. 1. 9. 5 and 6. 6. 1 passim, Marcell. Med. 8. 20 and 199 Helmreich, Veget. Mulom. 2. 112. 3 Lommatzsch; cf. Cic. An. 10. 14. 1, Romul. Fab. 77 Thiele.

30 I have found no other cases where ‘plorare’ is employed of ‘lacrimae’ which are not those of emotion. However ‘ploratus’ at Plin. HN 12. 54.116 describes the discharge from a tree, while ‘flere’ on occasion = not ‘weep’ but, in a transferred sense, ‘stillare'; see TLL 6. 900. 65 ff.

31 On this poem, see Flach, J., M. Valer. Martialis Epigrammaton Liber Primus (Tübingen, 1881)Google Scholar, ad loc.; Gilbert, W., ‘Zur Erklärung von Martialis Epigrammen’, Neue Jahrb. 135 (1887), 143Google Scholar; Friedrich, G., ‘Zu Martial’, Rh. Mus. 62 (1907), 366 fGoogle Scholar.; Housman, A. E., ‘Notes on Martial’, CQ 13 (1919), 68 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. (=Cl. Papers 982 f.); Schuster, M., ‘Zur Erklärung und Komposition von Martial 1 68’, WS 44 (1924–1925), 120 ffGoogle Scholar.; Helm, op. cit. 309; Carratello, U., ‘Un Folle Amore in Marziale’, in Studi Classici in onore di Q. Cataudella III (Catania, 1972), pp. 391 ffGoogle Scholar; Bailey, D. R. Shackleton, ‘Corrections and Explanations of Martial’ CP 73 (1978), 274Google Scholar

32 cf. Ov. Pont. 4. 1. 11–12 ‘O quotiens, alii cum vellem scribere, nomen rettulit in ceras inscia F dextra tuum’.

33 The letter (so most interpreters), or the anecdote related in lines 1–6 (Friedländer ad loc., Housman 68, Carratello 392)?

34 See the discussion of the phrase below.

35 (a) ‘There are plenty of girls like Naevia’. (b) ‘There is more than one Naevia’ i.e. ‘I may J, mean another’ (Friedländer, Housman). (c) ‘Naevia is not alone’ i.e. has other lovers apart from Y Rufus (the early commentators: some details in Carratello 396 f.). (d) ‘una’ = ‘unā’ sc. ‘simul’! (e) Rufus, having read the epigram, becomes angry. Martial calms him down with ‘my epigram, like you, makes constant mention [“non una”] of Naevia’ (Carratello 393).

36 ‘Fellow’ (plerique); ‘husband’ (V/ Collesson in the Delphin ed. (1720), ad loc., Flach, and Housman).

37 (a) ‘amore insanis’ (b) ‘stulstissimus es, qui talema ames’ (c) ‘irasceris’.

38 Izaac op.cit. j. 244, Citroni and Howell ad loc. and Helm loc. cit.; cf. also Carratello 392.

39 Commentators cite Theoer. 11. 75 f. and Virg. Ecl. 2. 73 ‘invenies alium, si te hic fastidit, Alexin'.

40 ‘cum quodam prologo pudoris vultum modeste demissus inrubuit’.

41 See further n. 49 below.

42 Nor are the synonymous ‘deicere vultum, lumina’, or ‘oculos’ (TLL 5. 396. 46 ff., F. Bömer on Ov. Fast. 2. 756).

43 See Mackail on Virg. Aen. 1. 561 ‘Dido vultum demissa’ (probably modelled on Hypsipyle and Medea in Ap. Rhod. 1. 790 and 3. 1008 ⋯ δ' ⋯γκλιδ⋯ν Ὀσσε βαλο⋯σα), ‘not “with downcast face” the Latin for which would be vultum summissa, as in 12. 807 summisso Saturnia vultu; but “loweri9ng her eyes”, from the throne on which (1.506) she sat’. Further examples are Sen. Thy. 635–6 ‘haeret in vultu trucis imago facti’; ibidem. 950 ‘imber vultu nolente cadit’.

44 In any case, is lowering one's countenacne the natural way to conceal a laugh?

45 op. cit. 367, cf. Howell ad loc.: after the misdirected salutation, Rufus can no longer send the note t o his father (why no t simply erase the error?). Instead he shows it t o Naevia, expecting her t o be touched. She laughs.

46 This solution was already arrived at by Flach on line 5 and Schuster 121, who however take ‘patri’ to mean Naevia's father.

47 It may be objected that 1. 106. 4–5 ‘numquid pollicita est tibi beatam noctem Naevia?’ suggests that N. is a meretrix. Consider, however, the case of Lesbia, who although a matrona makes brief nocturnal assignations with her lover:’ sed furti va dedit mira munuscula nocte, j ipsius ex ipso dempta viri gremio. quare illud satis est, si nobis is datur unis quern lapide ilia dies candidiore notat', Catull. 68.145–8; on such amateur wantons, see Lyne, R. O. A. M., The Latin Love Poets (Oxford, 1980), pp. 13 ffGoogle Scholar.

48 So the phrase was interpreted by Housman 68 f., who explained as follows: ‘vir’ is any husband who happens to be married to a lady called Naevia. Such individuals are assumed to be angered by the suggestion of involvement with Rufus. Martial replies pacifically that there is more than one Naevia in the world: ‘why assuriie that the Naevia to whom I refer is the same as yours?’

49 For the phrase referring to maidenly embarrassment, see the examples cited p. 261 supra. Note that the gesture – 1 am not speaking of cases involving ‘demittere’ only – is a characteristically female one, signifying pudor in various aspects: the natural verecundia of a woman in the presence of men (Ov. Am. 3. 6. 67, Sen. Contr. exc. 2. 7, Sen. Tro. 1137–8), the blushing bashfulness of a bride (Stat. Silv. 1. 2. 12, Luc. 2. 361), the false modesty of the elegiac puella (Ov. Am. 1.8.37) or – as here – the shame felt by a woman who has been erotically compromised, cf. ‘erubui [sc. Canace], gremioque pudor deiecit ocellos’ Ov. Her. 11. 35, Met. 2. 448, 6. 605–6, 10. 389. See further Köves, T. – Zulauf, (Gymnasium 85 (1978), 202 fGoogle Scholar.), Bömer, loc. cit.

50 Donatus ad loc. comments ‘non solum propter femineam verecundiam…verum etiam propter obiecta [lines 539–41]’. That Dido feels embarrassment at her people's harsh reception of the Trojans is shown by her next words ‘Solvite corde metum, Teucri… res dura et regni novitas me talia cogunt moliri'. Henry, J. (Philologus 11 (1856), 519)CrossRefGoogle Scholar wrongly attributes Dido's gesture to ‘Mitleid’.

51 Compare Aen. 3. 320 ‘deiecit vultum et demissa voce locuta est’ (Andromache's sorrow, and shame at having been Pyrrhus' concubine) and Q. Curt. 6. 2. 6.

52 This is not to say that ‘vir’ cannot = ‘homo’. See Citroni ad loc. (whose examples are not all well chosen, however), Plaut. Rud. 1112 ‘quid ais, vir venefice?’, ibid, 1058–9 Da. ‘quid fecit tibivir scelestus?’ Tr. ‘homini ego isti talos subfringi volo’, Ov. Fast. 2. 688, Sen. Thy. 211.

53 See Wehrli, F., Motivstudien zur griechischen Komödie (Zürich, 1936), pp. 56 ffGoogle Scholar., and, for a possible pictorial representation of the situation, Bieber, M., History of the Greek and Roman Theater2 (Princeton, 1961), p. 138Google Scholar.

54 On these lines, see Giangrande, G., ‘The Stepmother-motif in Catullus', Eranos 73 (1975), 109 ffGoogle Scholar.

55 According to the interpretation of Giangrande, ‘Catullus 67’, Quad. Urbin. 9 (1970), 84 ffGoogle Scholar.

56 For Rufus in Catullus, see poems 69, 71 and 77 (also 58 and 100). Catull. 69. 1–2 ‘noli admirari…Rufe’ reappears in Martial 6. 89. 8 as ‘desine mirari, Rufe’. The clearest case of name-borrowing from Catullus is Martial's ‘Lesbia’ (1. 34; 2. 50; 5. 68; 6. 23; 10. 39; 11. 62; 11. 99).

57 See Paukstadt, R., De Martiale Catulli imitatore (Diss. Halle, 1876)Google Scholar, Schulze op. cit. 637 ff., Ferguson, J., ‘Catullus and Martial', PACA 6 (1963), 3 ffGoogle Scholar.

58 Rankin, H., ‘Catullus and Incest’, Eranos 74 (1976), 113 ffGoogle Scholar.

59 The repetition of key words and names in both 4. 16 and 2. 4 is very typical of Catullus: compare e.g. poems 82 or 112. With 2.4.6 cf. perhaps Catull. 12.4, and, for the theme of motherson love, see C. 64. 403–4, 88–90, and 91. 5.