Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:19:12.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MARTIAL ‘IN CALLIMACHVM’ (10.4)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2018

Ben Cartlidge
Ben Cartlidge*
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
*
benjamin.cartlidge@liverpool.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article has the aim of bringing some fresh observations to the interpretation of a Martial epigram. Beyond the individual poem, it seeks to read Martial's poetics more broadly, particularly with regard to the presence of Greek avatars, of various kinds, in his poetic production. The strategy will be an exact reading of the literary avatars in 10.4, with an attempt to specify the tone with which individual writers are associated. Once this strategy is developed in the case of well-recognized intertextual models, it will be used to explore an underrated intertext in 10.4.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , December 2018 , pp. 603 - 611
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

I am grateful to Wolfgang de Melo, Sam Hayes, Leslie Watson, the editor and an anonymous reviewer for constructive criticism of this little article; remaining errors are entirely my own.

References

2 The fullest appreciation of this poem is in Watson, L. and Watson, P., Martial. Select Epigrams (Cambridge, 2003), 95–9Google Scholar; see also Citroni, M., ‘Motivi di polemica letteraria negli epigrammi di Marziale’, DialArch 2 (1968), 259–301, at 280–1Google Scholar; Sergi, E., ‘Marziale ed i temi mitologici nella poesia epica e tragica dell’ età argentea (Ep. 10,4)’, GIF 41 (1989), 53–64Google Scholar; Spisak, A.L., ‘Martial 6.61: Callimachean poetics revalued’, TAPhA 124 (1994), 291–308, at 304–5Google Scholar; Walter, U., Epigramme (Paderborn, 1996), 216–20Google Scholar; Damschen, G. and Heil, A., Epigrammaton liber decimus = Das zehnte Epigrammbuch: Text Übersetzung Interpretation (Frankfurt am Main, 2004), 49–53Google Scholar; Neger, M., ‘“‘Graece numquid’ ait ‘poeta nescis?’” Martial and the Greek epigrammatic tradition’, in Augoustakis, A. (ed.), Flavian Poetry and its Greek Past (Leiden and Boston, 2014), 327–44, at 334–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cowan, R., ‘Fingering Cestos: Martial's Catullus’ Callimachus’, in Augoustakis, A. (ed.), Flavian Poetry and its Greek Past (Leiden and Boston, 2014), 345–72, at 351–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 On Martial's poetics in general, see further P. Dams, ‘Dichtungskritik bei nachaugusteischen Dichtern’ (Diss., Marburg, 1970), 175–210, with a useful catalogue of relevant epigrams at 196 n. 1; Neger, M., Martials Dichtergedichte. Das Epigramm als Medium der poetischen Selbstreflexion (Tübingen, 2012)Google Scholar; and Mindt, N., Martials ‘epigrammatischer Kanon’ (Munich, 2013)Google Scholar; further references in Lorenz, S., ‘Martial 1970–2003’, Lustrum 45 (2003), 167–284, at 195–202Google Scholar and Lustrum 48 (2006), 109–223, at 114Google Scholar.

4 Watson and Watson (n. 2), 96; for a similar ‘coding’ of intertextuality in 7.19 (again with grand epic, this time Valerius Flaccus), see Vioque, G. Galán, Martial, Book VII. A Commentary. Translated by J.J. Zoltowski (Leiden, 2017), on Mart. 7.19Google Scholar, Zissos, A. ‘Navigating genres: Martial 7.19 and the Argonautica of Valerius Flaccus’, CJ 99 (2004), 405–22, at 409–15Google Scholar.

5 See Friedländer, L., M. Valerius Martialis (Leipzig, 1886), 1.361Google Scholar; Heuvel, H. ‘De inimicitiarum, quae inter Martialem et Statium fuisse dicuntur, indiciis’, Mnemosyne 4 (1937), 299–330Google Scholar.

6 Henriksén, C., ‘Martial and Statius’, in Grewing, F. (ed.), Toto notus in orbe: Perspektiven der Martial-Interpretation (Stuttgart, 1998), 77–118Google Scholar. Further bibliography on the question can be found in Lorenz (n. 3 [2003]), 260–1.

7 Catull. 41.4, 43.5, 114, 115; cf. also Hor. Sat. 1.5.37.

8 Catull. 29.13; 57; 94; 115.8.

9 Catull. 105. For what is known of Mamurra's biography, see Neudling, C.L., A Prosopography to Catullus (Oxford, 1955), 112–15Google Scholar.

10 Martial's use of Catullus’ Mamurra: Henriksén, C., A Commentary on Martial Epigrams Book 9 (Oxford, 2012), 249Google Scholar; ‘willkürlich gewählt’: RE 14.1 (1928), s.v. ‘Mamurra’ fin.

11 On Martial's use of Catullus after Paukstadt, R., De Martiale Catulli imitatore (Halle, 1876)Google Scholar, see Swann, B.W., Martial's Catullus. The Reception of an Epigrammatic Rival (Hildesheim, 1994)Google Scholar, Fitzgerald, W., Martial: The World of Epigram (Chicago, 2007), 167–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Lorenz, S., ‘Catullus and Martial’, in Skinner, M.B. (ed.), A Companion to Catullus (New York / Oxford, 2007), 418–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Neger (n. 3), 54–73, Mindt (n. 3), 131–61 and the further references in Lorenz (n. 3 [2003]), 253–5 and id. (n. 3 [2006]), 114. For ways in which Martial activates readings of Catullus through his critical reception of Callimachus in 1.92, see Cowan (n. 2).

12 Wimmel, W., Kallimachos in Rom. Die Nachfolge seines apologetischen Dichtens in der Augusteerzeit (Wiesbaden, 1960)Google Scholar, Hunter, R.L., The Shadow of Callimachus. Studies in the Reception of Hellenistic Poetry at Rome (Cambridge, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Sergi (n. 2), 63 terms the appearance of Callimachus ἀπροσδόκητον, Neger (n. 2), 336 a para prosdokian; see also Dams (n. 3), for whom Callimachus’ appearance here is ‘erstaunlich’ (204), and Spisak (n. 2), 304 n. 48, who documents Martial's relationship with Callimachus and the Neoterics. For Callimachus’ reception in the Neronian period, see Sullivan, J.P., Literature and Politics in the Age of Nero (Ithaca and London, 1985), 74–114, esp. 79–80 on Martial 10.4.9–12Google Scholar (‘the nadir of [Callimachus’] reputation’). For Martial's less specific attacks on mythological epic, see 5.53, 8.3 and 9.50.

14 Sergi (n. 2), 60; a character in the Poiēsis of Antiphanes (fr. 189) famously made a rather similar point.

15 Scherf, J., ‘Zur Komposition von Martials Gedichtbüchern 1–12’, in Grewing, F. (ed.), Toto notus in orbe: Perspektiven der Martial-Interpretation (Stuttgart, 1998), 119–38Google Scholar; Lorenz, S., Erotik und Panegyrik. Martials epigrammatische Kaiser (Tübingen, 2002), 8 n. 20Google Scholar; Fitzgerald (n. 11), 68–105.

16 On this poem, Sergi (n. 2), 63; Neger (n. 3), 77–8; Hutchinson, G.O., Greek to Latin. Frameworks and Contexts for Intertextuality (Oxford, 2013), 143CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Sullivan, J.P., Martial: The Unexpected Classic. A Literary and Historical Study (Cambridge, 1991), 74 cites 4.23.4CrossRefGoogle Scholar to show that Martial considered Callimachus ‘the victorious doyen of epigrammatists’; likewise, Nauta, R.R., ‘The recusatio in Flavian poetry’, in Nauta, R.R., van Dam, H.-J. and Smolenaars, J.J.L. (edd.), Flavian Poetry (Leiden, 2006), 21–40, at 40 n. 53Google Scholar; this seems diametrically opposed to the implication of the text, that Callimachus has been made to yield.

18 The adjective is applied in Martial to bees and bee-products (for which Attica was famous) four times (9.12.2, 11.42.4, 13.24.1, 13.105.2), to Minerva (1.39.3) and ‘Pandion's citadel’ (1.25.3) once apiece, and to a mountain (6.34.4); it thus has lost none of its specific semantics and cannot be written off as a synonym for ‘Greek’. The editor reminds me of Stat. Silu. 2.6.55 Cecropiamque fidem.

19 The contrast between Callimachus and the ‘Athenian charm’ called for in the epigram is often elided by commentators, as is Martial's positioning of himself over, not equivalent to, Callimachus; see Sullivan (n. 17), 60, Soldevila, R. Moreno, Martial, Book IV (Leiden and Boston, 2006), 227–32, esp. 230CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Cowan (n. 2), 350.

20 ‘Das Dreiecksgefüge der Dichter’ in the words of Wimmel, W., ‘Recusatio-Form und Pindarode’, Philologus 109 (1965), 89–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Cowan (n. 2), 349–50 is sceptical about our ability to identify a unified stance in Martial; this paper takes the line that 4.23 and 10.4 do express the same message. Indeed, Cowan's interpretation of 1.92 in fact tends in the same direction (see 363–4 on Martial's anti-Callimachean use of a Callimachean stance).

22 Sullivan (n. 13); Sullivan (n. 17); Nauta (n. 17).

23 Henriksén (n. 10), 218. See also Nauta (n. 17), 38 and Zissos (n. 4), 416–17 on 7.19.6, in which the single plank—the metapoetic tabella—is sanctior than the whole ship would have been.

24 Cf. 2.77.3 on the beauty of the Colossus, and 6.65 and 1.110 defending Martial's ‘long epigrams’.

25 Dams (n. 3), 203.

26 For the problems in identifying this work, see Henriksén (n. 10), 222–3.

27 Zissos (n. 4), 408.

28 On Martial's reaction against Callimachus, see Spisak (n. 2); Harder, A., Callimachus Aetia (Oxford, 2012), 1.112Google Scholar also cites Anth. Pal. 11.275 (on which, see further Pfeiffer on test. 25). Zissos (n. 4), 405 n. 2 calls Martial ‘a disciple of Callimachus … rejecting large-scale epic’; this overstates the similarity of Martial's stance to Callimachus’ poetological reflections and Martial's concern with size as opposed to stylistic finish. 7.19, Zissos's subject, is indeed contrasted with Valerius’ epic, but it is not clear what is specifically Callimachean about this: poetological metaphor, after all, was older than Callimachus.

29 Lorenz (n. 15), 222.

30 Sergi (n. 2), 56–60 on structural patterns in the epigram; cf. Watson and Watson (n. 2), 96: ‘three beautiful boys are named in one line, followed by three more allotted one line apiece.’

31 Watson and Watson (n. 2), 98.

32 Sergi (n. 2), 61.

33 The metonymic use of uita to refer to the beloved in Roman erotic literature is to be distinguished; the personification of aetas in Hor. Carm. 1.11.7 is rather different (‘lifetime’ perhaps, rather than ‘life’). Martial himself personifies uita in precisely the same context at 8.3.20 adnoscat mores uita legatque suos; this has been seen by Lorenz (n. 15), 175, Nauta (n. 17), 39 n. 51 in the context of Menander; Neger (n. 3), 154–5 n. 82 adds that Martial's own Muse here is described in terms reminiscent of Phaedrus’ depiction of Menander (5.1.12–13).

34 N. Holzberg, Martial und das antike Epigramm (Darmstadt, 2002), 127; the wider literary implications of this are not explored in detail.

35 All translations are the author's.

36 PCG VI.2 (Menander) 25, test. 83.

37 Citroni (n. 2), 267–9, Lorenz (n. 15), 14, Holzberg (n. 34), 127–8.

38 On this program, see Anderson, P.J., ‘Absit malignus interpres: Martial's preface to Book One of the Epigrams and the construction of audience response’, in Munteanu, D.L. (ed.), Emotion, Genre and Gender in Classical Antiquity (London, 2008), 193–220Google Scholar. This paper will return to the explicitly theatrical elements of the preface to Book 1.

39 See Page, D.L., Further Greek Epigrams (Cambridge, 1981), 108Google Scholar, where comment, itself epigrammatic, is restricted to the first line.

40 Most texts punctuate this as a question; it is better understood, as Page suggested, as a wish.

41 This was already seen by Page; on the Menander fragment and on fr. 871, which in earlier Menander editions was frequently joined with it, see Zuntz, G., ‘Interpretation of a Menander fragment (fr. 416 Koerte = 481 Kock)’, PBA 42 (1956), 209–46Google Scholar.

42 For Damschen—in Damschen and Heil (n. 2), 50—10.4 begins a sequence of philosophical poems scattered through Book 10, of which the most famous is 10.47, on which see Damschen and Heil (n. 2), 183–7, Watson and Watson (n. 2), 139–43.

43 For Martial's use of Menander, see Neger (n. 3), 34–42, 95.

44 Cf. Dysk. 153–9 (Perseus), Sam. 495–7 (Oedipus, Tereus), 589–96 (Zeus and Danaë). The last is particularly telling, being coupled with the humorous and homely question of Nicestratus’ leaking roof.

45 In Damschen and Heil (n. 2), 50–3.

46 Gowers, E., The Loaded Table. Representations of Food in Roman Literature (Oxford, 1993), 247–9Google Scholar; Fitzgerald, W., Variety. The Life of a Roman Concept (Chicago, 2016), 158–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Sergi (n. 2), 53: the phrase has a ‘vago sapore terenziano’; see Paratore, E., Storia della letteratura latina (Florence, 1950), 680Google Scholar. The reference is presumably to the famous line at Haut. 77 (homo sum; humani nil a me alienum puto).

48 See Tränkle, H., ‘ΓΝΩΘΙ ΣΕΑΥΤΟΝ: Zu Ursprung und Deutungsgeschichte des delphischen Spruchs’, WJA 11 (1985), 19–32Google Scholar.

49 In addition to the Menander fragments cited in the text, we can add Philemon, fr. 139, but the proverb is not attested elsewhere in comedy; perhaps fr. com. adesp. 1053.13 once had the proverb in it, but there are simply no grounds whatsoever for attributing it to any particular comic writer (pace K.–A. ad loc., not even Gaiser, K., ‘Bemerkungen zur Hydria Menanders’, ZPE 47 [1982], 11–34Google Scholar seriously entertains the possibility of Menandrean authorship).

50 Tränkle (n. 48), 25.

51 For Citroni (n. 2), 280 the moralizing tone of this epigram distinguishes it from Martial's other metaliterary work; however, see Spisak (n. 2), 301–3 on the link made by Roman satire between high poetry and avoidance of the duty to expose vice. On τρόπος in Menander, see Martina, A., Menandrea I (Pisa and Rome, 2016), 37–44Google Scholar.

52 One thinks of Wagner's Wanderer in Siegfried and his criticism that Mime has wasted his chance to acquire knowledge on eitle Fernen—in context, mythological and cosmological questions about the territory of giants, Nibelungs and gods. It is in this sense that the Aetia can be considered ‘mythological’—in its distance from ordinary life—even if not all of the Aetia’s content is strictly speaking ‘myth’.

53 Holzberg (n. 34), 127.

54 Cf. 1 praef. 15–16 theatrum meum; 1.4.5–6 on the connection between spectare and legere; cf. Fitzgerald (n. 11), 71–7, Anderson (n. 38), 208–13, Neger (n. 3), 223–35. A doctorate recently completed at Exeter by Sam Hayes explores the notion of Martial's theatrum in greater depth.

55 Menander's composition process: Plut. De glor. Ath. 347e; Martial's nugae: Swann (n. 11), 47–55. On the question of poetic craft in general, see Spisak (n. 2), 294–300.