1996, pp. 21-23) is actually viewed into the light of a€?catalogue poetry’ (which is why discover additionally lower, on item 3.8) and dedicatory epigram. L. justly reiterates their view that Citroni’s understanding of e-books XIII and XIV as a€?mock-didactic’ (ICS 14 , pp. 207-209) is not your whole facts. In addition, the literary closeness in the Xenia (as well as the Apophoreta) to Symphosius’ riddles nonetheless requires further research (read Gnomon 71 , p. 596; Prometheus 25 , pp. 263, 267-269). The Aenigmata, that i really could get a hold of only one guide (p. 40, on drunkenness as a a€?Saturnalian motif’ during the opening poem, 1.4), as well as the riddles of guide XIV with the Greek Anthology, have significantly more in keeping with Martial than L. was happy to recognize, although the guy does discuss the truth that a number of in the products in the Xenia have the type of (typically a€?Saturnalian’) riddles, using tituli providing the solution (p https://www.datingrating.net/hinge-vs-coffee-meets-bagel. 57 on product 11; discover also p. 8). It’s possible to see significantly strange issue precisely why a poet a€?should wish writea€? this poetry a€?at alla€? (p. 15); my answer might possibly be a€?why maybe not?’. I can not truly follow L.’s assertion that a€?the content [is] usually unpoetica€? (ibid.) as (a) the term a€?unpoetic’, a prejudiced enchanting label, continues to be entirely unexplained, and (b) this could, next, also have to become correct of several poems in e-books I-XII and numerous different texts, old and modern-day; I cannot really read any fantastic difference in the niche matter-of Kallimachos’ a€?salt-cellar epigram’ (epigr. 47 Pf.) additionally the a€?pepper’ of item 5 (or even the chamber cooking pot of , for that matter). Will it be true that a€?Martial got all also aware in the case of courses 13 and 14 [of] the possibility that his customers might be bored or lose patience with longer chain of coupletsa€? (ibid., and p. 16 n. 10)? It ought to be clear that poet’s self-protection against unaware visitors along with his recommendation to miss poems should they so craving (13.3.7-8, 14.2) falls under his epigrammatic poetics and interplay with the audience; 5 over that: they clearly tells us the range is meant to feel an intricate entity whose poetic high quality is based on getting study and valued as a coherent piece of literary art.
The range (like in L
On meter, area (vi), L. may be quick. Best two products from 127, that will be 61 (choliambics) and 81 (hendecasyllables) dont display elegiac couplets. 6 Interpretive facts become managed where they occur, such as a€?interchangeable’ pentameter halves (at 9.2, 84.2), prosodic peculiarities of Palatinus (91.2), or other metrical issues (e.g., in items 72, pp. 129-130).
As for the MSS practice, L
L.’s Latin text (pp. 23-35; read also area (vii) of intro.) principally is that of Shackleton Bailey’s (SB’s) 1990 Teubner, the only deviation explicitly pointed out becoming 118.2 (p. 18), in which L. rightly allows Gilbert’s supposition Latiis against the MSS researching Tuscis (cf. p. 185). Therefore does SB inside the 1993 Loeb (vol. iii, pp. 321-322). Others discrepancies between L. together with Teubner tend to be insignificant: 7 Personally, I like SB’s gallus over L.’s Gallus during the untranslatable pun on cockerels who being eunuchs at 63.2 (discover below), along with their capitalized large for the Porphyrion couplet at 78.1 ( nomen magni Gigantis, as at 9.50.6).
favors the suggestion your finest archetype from where the 3 households derive is a belated traditional version (pp. 19-20), whose details will forever remain in the deep. Nigel Kay’s crazy imagine, in his commentary on Book XI, that archetype was actually an autograph shouldn’t be regarded likely, whatever the (allegedly) unimportant nature with the mistakes the three groups express. Hence, more conversation regarding the effects of such an assumption throughout the textual structure try unnecessary. Eventually, L. is inside rejecting the idea which takes divergent readings to get author-variants (p. 21 n. 8). 8 – Wisely, L. performed without collating the appropriate manuscripts anew as previous efforts have proven not to induce any more insight. He does not bring a vital equipment, either; alternatively, when you look at the commentary the guy talks about thoroughly virtually all times where MSS disagree or apparently offer incorrect indication. Since SB inside the Teubner quite frequently through the help of an asterisk relates the reader to Heraeus’ device for additional help, which makes his edition inconvenient to work well with, it absolutely was an effective choice of L.’s to recall and elucidate SB’s resolutions. A good example was 69.2, where domino undoubtedly is actually more advanced than dominae, and L., pace P. Howell, justly defends SB’s choice (p. 125): Pudens’ toy-boy, to whom he sends gift suggestions, is named dominus, which (as elsewhere in Martial) has a tendency to invert intentionally the popular servitium amoris of elegy. Different textual conversations include 10 breast. [p. 56], 65.2 [p. 120], 68 tit. [p. 123], etc. Since Xenia are often difficult understand, the written text features encountered a considerable amount of efforts by Humanists and soon after students to enhance it: L. rightly accepts such conjectures at, e.g., 2.2 (p. 43), 44.2 (p. 96), 109.2 (p. 174). At exactly the same time, many conjectures ended up being unnecessary or simply just incorrect. Heinsius specifically, to whom our text of Martial overall owes a great deal, fairly aggressively recovered where there was clearly frequently you should not cure, and is useful for L.’s valuable talks on 2.9, 7.2, 76.2, 79.2, 98.1, 125.2; exactly the same will also apply to anonymous Humanist conjectures (L. on 20.1, 66 tit., and most likely additionally 91 tit.).