University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Reading Martial's Rome

(USC Thesis Other)

Reading Martial's Rome

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UM I a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these w ill be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UM I directly to order. Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. READING MARTIAL'S ROME by Hannah Louise Feamley A Dissertation submitted to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Classics) December 1998 © Hannah Louise Feamley Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 9930494 Copyright 1999 by Feamley, Hannah Louise All rights reserved. UMI Microform 9930494 Copyright 1999, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SC H O O L UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90007 This dissertation, written by .......................... under the direction of h.e/7....... Dissertation Committee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School in partial fulfillm ent of re quirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PH ILOSOPH Y Dean of Graduate Studies Date S e p te m b e r , 25. .1998 DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Chairperson Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Acknowledgem ents The present stu d y is an interdisciplinary exam ination of M artiaTs text. T his approach ow es m u ch to the program m e at the U niversity of S o u th e rn California w hich allow ed m e to take classes in bo th Classics and the School of Fine Arts. I am sincerely grateful to the C hair of m y D issertation C om m ittee, Professor A n th o n y Boyle, w hose guidance w as superb at every stage. I w o u ld also like to th a n k Professor A m y Richlin and Professor John Pollini w h o offered im p o rtan t insights before and during the dissertation w riting. T his dissertation w o u ld n o t have been com pleted as quickly w ithout a D issertation Fellow ship from the U niversity of Southern C alifornia and tw o travel grants (N elson A w ard and L em m erm ann F oundation Scholarship). I am greatly appreciative for them . M y deepest thanks to Tobe for bearing w ith m e for th e last five years. M ay the com pletion of this dissertation give us m ore tim e together. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table o f Contents Introduction: The R om an R e ad e r.............................................................................. 1 P art O ne: A perture and C losure in M artial Epigrams...1 ................................... 13 1. Epigrams 2: The Program m atic U nit....................................................................13 In tro d u ctio n.......................................................................................................... 13 (i) From De Spectaculis to Epigrams 1........................................................ 15 (ii) The Program m atic U nit............................................................................29 2. R eading Through: Cycles and Motifs in Epigrams 1...................................57 Introduction: C om piling E pigram s............................................................. 57 (i) The M artial 'S ta m p '.................................................................................... 62 (ii) The Lion and H are C ycle..........................................................................69 (iii) M artial the Poet-CZzens............................................................................ 82 3. M aking an End: C losure in Epigrams 1 ............................................................. 93 P art Two: M artial's R om e.......................................................................................... 110 1. Palaces and Panegyrics: A rchitecture, Portraiture an d M eaning in Epigrams 9 .................................................................................. 110 In tro d u ctio n........................................................................................................110 (i) Topographical T ours..................................................................................112 (ii) D om itian's Rome: A rt and A rchitecture......................................... 116 (iii) M artial's R epresentation of D om itian's R o m e............................. 138 2. R eading the Im perial Revolution: M artial Epigrams 10 ............................ 160 A ppendix: M artial an d the Prose Preface in L atin L itera tu re ........................189 In tro d u ctio n ........................................................................................................189 (i) Epigrams 1: M artial and Pre-Existing Prose Prefaces (Sallust, Livy, a n d Pliny the E lder)....................................................... 192 (ii) M etaprefaces: Epigrams 2 and Q uintilian's Institntio Oratoria 1.........................................................................................197 (iii) Preface Rivalry: M artial and S tatius................................................ 202 B ibliography.................................................................................................................... 215 iii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. List of Illustrations Figure 1: Tomb of the H aterii, tom b-crane relief, used by perm ission of the V atican m useum s, Rom e...........................115 Figure 2: Flavian palace, plan of the u p p e r level, Frank Sear (1992), used by perm ission of the publisher, Cornell U niversity P re ss................................................... 120 Figure 3: Flavian palace, plan of the low er level, Frank Sear (1992), used by perm ission of the publisher, Cornell U niversity P re ss................................................... 121 Figure 4: Plan of Forum T ransitorium ................................................................. 128 Figure 5: The Im perial Fora, Frank Sear (1992), used by perm ission of the publisher, Cornell U niversity P ress................................................................................ 130 Figure 6: Attic relief and frieze of 'Le Colonnacce' in the Forum Transitorium , used by perm ission of the D A I......................... 132 Figure 7: 'Cancelleria Reliefs', used by perm ission of the V atican m useum s, R om e.............................................................................. 135 Figure 8: Tem plum Gentis Flaviae, reconstruction draw ing of precinct w ith m ale caryatids, used by perm ission of the Kelsey M useum of A rchaeology, A nn A rbor, M I......................146 Figure 9: Dom itianic sestertius w ith possible representation of the Tem plum Gentis Flaviae, used by perm ission of the Kelsey M useum of A rchaeology, A nn A rbor, M I..........................147 iv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Introduction: T he R om an R eader loculare tibi videmur: et sane levi, dum nil habemus maius, calamo ludimus. sed diligenter intuere has nenias; quantam in pusillis utiiitatem reperies! non semper ea sunt quae videntur: dedpit irons prima multos, rara m ens intellegit quod interiore condidit cura angulo. (Fhaedrus, Fab. 4.2.1 -7) I seem to you to be joking around: sure, I play around with fickle pen, while I've no greater material. But look carefully inside these trifles; how much profit you w ill find in tiny things! Things are not always as they seem: the exterior deceives many; the rare m ind understands what the artist has hidden in the farthest comer.1 Reading is a complex process. R eader-response criticism, by focusing o n the reading process, investigates h o w a n d w here m eaning is constructed in the relationship betw een reader an d text. By re-exam ining reading as a p h e n o m e n o n which is often taken for granted, reception theory attem pts to 'm ak e the implicit features of "reading" explicit.'2 W olfgang Iser, in his sem in al w ork on reader-response criticism , attem pts to construct a 1 A ll translations, unless otherwise indicated, are m y own. Latin and Greek texts are translated line by line and are intended primarily to be of critical help to the reader. 2 Freund (1987: 6 ). Freund gives a useful overview of reader-response critics. The central part of her book examines the contributions of Jonathan Culler, Stanley Fish, Norman H olland and W olfgang Iser. Part One considers the role of N ew Criticism (1987: 40-66) in th e emergence of reader-response criticism. N ew Criticism, with its focus on the text's objectivity and self-sufficiency, marginalises the reader and yet by suppressing the reader's role provoked analysis among literary critics not just of the author-text relationship but th e reader-text relationship. 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. com prehensive theory ('a total interpretation') of reading.3 Iser, w h o is associated w ith the school of R ezeptionsasthetik, is prim arily in terested in the 'aesthetics of recep tio n '.4 In his study of the pheno m en o lo g y of re a d in g / Iser (1978) highlights the reader's role in m aking the text m e a n . Iser argues that the text does n o t provide m eaning for the reader explicitly b u t provides a set of instructions w hereby the reader assem bles th e m ean in g of the text for him self. R eading is not a one-w ay process b u t 'a dynam ic interaction b etw een text and reader' (1978: 107). The rea d er's interest necessarily involves him in the text; to be interested is to be inter- esse, 'inbetw een', and it is in this 'inbetw een' space that m eanings can be construed:6 Textual structures an d stru ctu red acts of c o m p reh en sio n are therefore the tw o poles in the act of co m m u n icatio n , w hose success w ill d epend on the degree in w hich the text establishes itself as a correlative in the reader's consciousness. This 'transfer' of text to reader is often regarded as being b ro u g h t about solely by the text. A ny successful transfer ho w ev er— th o u g h initiated by the text— depends on the extent to w hich this text can activate the in d iv id u al read er's faculties of perceiving an d 3 Iser's two major works are The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett (1974) and The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (197S). 4 Iser's word Wirkung, though it incorporates the idea of both effect and response, is translated as 'response'. The duality of the term (i.e. effect and response) should be kept in mind; Iser underlines the importance of the text-reader relationship as one of interaction. s Husserl, the founder of the school of phenomenology, is Iser's philosophical influence, but more immediate as an influence is his disciple and friend Roman Ingarden (1973). For Ingarden's philosophy, see Freund (1987:139-41). 6 John Crowe Ransom, the staunch N ew Critic, in his search for a universal 'truth' draw s attention to the literal meaning of the reader's interest in the text: 'Interests must be interests in external reality. Inter-esse means to be environed, and interest means sensitiveness to environment.' (1938:155). 2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. processing...In other w ords, it (the text) offers guidance as to w h a t is to be produced, and therefore cannot itself be the product. (Iser, 1978:107) T he read er is able to participate actively in assem bling the literary m ean in g because the text posits a set of instructions. The idea that language is a sy ste m of signs and that all thinking and com m unication requires in te rp re ta tio n w as expounded by I.A. Richards, the literary critic and sch o lar w ho pioneered the critical stu d y of literary texts at the beginning of the tw e n tie th century.7 For exam ple, a picture or poem does not exist (or m ean ) in an d of itself, but causes a certain experience in the re a d e r/o b se rv e r w hich in turn provokes a reaction.8 But the set of in stru ctio n s w hich Iser argues for is not a sim ple code to be deciphered; the in stru ctio n s are full of gaps w hich need to be filled by the reader. Because 'th e text represents a potential effect that is realised in the reading process' (1978: ix) a different result (or 'effect') is produced in each reader. The text's p o te n tia l is infinite~ it is richer th an any single interpretation by any o n e re a d e r an d w ill vary from person to person: The tru est respect w hich you can pay to the reader's u n d erstan d in g , is to halve this m atter amicably, and leave h im som ething to im agine in his turn...For m y ow n part, I a m eternally paying him com plim ents of this kind, and do all th a t is in m y pow er to keep his im agination as busy as m y own. (Laurence Sterne, Tristram Shandy)9 7 Cf. 'The M eaning of Meaning' (1923), written in collaboration with C.K. Ogden. 8 Cf. Richards (1924: 20-21). 9 Stem e (1956: 79), as quoted by Iser (1978:108). 3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. R eading is a game of the im agination (Iser, 1978: 108), and the reader's enjoym ent is greatest w h en h e becomes productive.1 0 How ever, balance is n eed ed if the reader is to enjoy the game; if the rules are too cryptic or too easy the reader becom es b o red or overstrained. Different m eanings em erge as the reader m oves th ro u g h the text because each sentence is a correlate, a n d w ith each new sentence n ew connections are possible (1978: 111). It is th e constant dialectic betw een expectation ('protension', that w hich is about to be read) and m em ory ('retension', that w hich has already been read) w h ich Iser calls the 'w a n d e rin g view point' (1978: 118). The 'w an d erin g v iew point' perm its the read er to travel through! the text, unfolding the m ultiplicity of interconnecting perspectives. The netw ork of possible connections w hich th en em erges underlines the basic h erm en eu tic structure of reading. Finally, for Iser, this space in w hich the reader and text interact can n o t be detached from the socio-political context in w hich the text is produced. W hen w e do n o t share in the code of the text, we m u st be conditioned by the text an d n o t by our ow n disposition w hen assem bling m eaning. Each text m u st be read in its historical context: 10 Compare Richards (1924: 26) w ho urges the reader to welcome the instability of meaning w hich the text provokes. Culler also asserts that the text is not inherently meaningful. H owever, he does not play up the reader's active role in making the text mean: 'The reader becom es the name of the place where the various codes can be located: a virtual site' (1981: 38). Instead, the reader is an agent or 'function' of the text. The ability to decipher a text's m eaning is dependent on the reader's competence. 4 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. No text could possibly incorporate all the possible n o rm s an d values of all its possible readers, an d w hen a text does p red eterm in e the read er's view point by anticipating th e existing norm s an d values of the intended public— as for instance in the revel plays of the late M iddle Ages and in the socialist songs of to d a y -it creates problem s of com p reh en sio n for those who do not share in th a t particular code. W ith such texts, w here the reader's view p o in t is shaped by the given view s of a particular historical public, the view point can only be brought back to life by a historical reconstruction of the then p rev ailin g v alu es. (1978: 152) H istoricising M artial's fifteen books of epigram s, com piled b e tw ee n 80 an d 101CE, is th u s essential to the com prehension of his w ork. B ut w h a t appears clear im m ediately even to the m ost casual observer of im p e ria l Rome is that the interconnective principle is both fundam ental a n d o v e rt in ancient reading practice. It is enshrined in R om e's m o n u m e n ts , em bedded in its literary texts, im m anent in its language. Latin w o rd o rd er forces the reader to generate m ean in g from the conjunction of sep arated signs. Q uintilian, at the beginning of his tw elve books on how to be a n orator, quite positively stresses the interconnective principle in re a d in g even as he underlines its fundam ental role in a boy's prim ary education: Tunc ipsis syllabis verba com plecti et his se rm o n e m connectere incipiat. Incredibile est, quantum m o rae lectioni festinatione adiidatur...C erta sit ergo in p rim is lectio, deinde coniuncta et d iu lentior, donee exercitatione contingat em endata velocitas. N am prospicere in d ex tru m (quod om nes praecipiunt) e t providere, n o n rationis m odo Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sed usus quoque est; quoniam sequentia intuenti. priora dicenda sunt, et, quod difficillim um . est, dividenda intentio anim i, u t aliud voce aliud oculis agatur. (Inst. Or. 1.1.31-4) T hen he can begin to construct w ords w ith these syllables a n d to string together sentences w ith these w ords. It is am azing how m uch reading is delayed w hen it is hurried... Therefore, reading should be su re in the beginning, then connected, and slow for a long time u n til speed is achieved th ro u g h practice and correcting one's m istakes. For to look to the right ( as all are taught) and to look ahead, depends n o t so m uch o n logic as practice. Since the first things are read out w hile looking at the follow ing w ords, w h at is difficult is th at the m ind's focus is divided, so that the voice is led by one thing, the eyes by an o th er. The process of selection an d synthesis (complecti, coniunzta, connectere), is b u ilt into the Rom an act of reading.1 1 The Latin verb for reading, legere, necessarily involves the selection and com pilation of words; the n o u n , lectio, reflects a sim ilar intellectual involvem ent on the reader's part. Once the p rim a ry task of learning to read has been m astered, a grammaticus is necessary to teach how to interpret poets: H aec igitur professio, cum brevissim e in duas partes dividatur, recte loquendi scientiam et p o etarum enarrationem , p lu s h ab et in recessu quam fronte prom ittit. N a m et scribendi ratio coniuncta cum loquendo est, et 11 John Lanchester (1996:122) compares this process of selection and synthesis with a menu's culinary ingredients: ‘This section w ill not consist of rigidly articulated menus as such. Rather, if the menu can be compared to a sentence— in w hich the individual syntactic units, nodes of energy, sabre thrusts, are connected by grammatical principles which link the units together, order and control the energy, choreograph and coordinate the individual moments of expression into a cohesive expression— then this chapter more closely resembles the individual lumps of psychic matter that precede the finished sentence. Instead of recipes and m enus per se the reader w ill find suggestions for recipes, sparks flung from the wheel.' 6 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. enarrationem praecedit em endata lectio, et m ixtum his om nibus iudicium est; (Inst. Or. 1.4.2-3) Therefore this profession, w hich can be m ost concisely split into tw o p arts (the art of speaking properly and th e interpretation of poets), has more beneath the surface th a n appears on the outside. For the art of w riting is connected to the art of speaking, and correct reading precedes interpretation, b u t in volved in all of these disciplines is critical judgem ent. There is a clear progression in learning how to m ake texts m ean; first, syllables are learnt, th en w ords are form ed, next sentences are com piled, and finally the text is interpreted. Reading is interdisciplinary in th at it cannot be separated from w riting and speaking, and all three disciplines require intellectual d iscernm ent (iudicium est).1 2 W hen Q u in tilia n discusses w hich authors sh o u ld be read first, the m ost im portant sk ill required of boys is good ju d g em en t (iudiciis, 2.5.23; iudicium, 2.5.26). T he g rammaticus' role is m ore im p o rtan t than at first m eets the eye (plus habet in recessu quam fronte prom ittit); he m ust teach the pupil ho w to internalise rules for reading so th at he becom es a com petent reader.1 3 The art of good reading requires the reader to understand a text o n m ore than one level. M ost of Book 9 of Q uintilian's Inst. Or. is devoted to 12 These skills, once leam t, remain fundamental to a Roman throughout his life: Verum priora ilia ad pueros magis, haec sequentia ad robnstiores pertinebunt, a m gram m atices amor et itsns lectionis non scholarum temporibus, sed vitae spatio terminentur (Inst. Or. 1.8.12), 'But while the earlier remarks were more pertinent for boys, the following comments w ill be for the more mature, since the love of writing and the value of reading do not end w ith one's schooling but at the end of one's life. 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. tropes and figiirae which enable the author to w rite in a 'layered' way. T he reader, w ho is is taught to read parts of a text n o t in isolation but in term s of its w h o le,1 4 is alert to a m ultiplicity of m eanings. The figura w hich Q u intilian says is m ost popular at his tim e (the tim e at which M artial is w riting) is emphasis:1 5 Est em phasis etiam inter figuras, cum ex aliquo dicto latens aliquid eruitur...H uic vel confinis vel eadem est, qua n unc utim ur plurim um . Iam enim a d id genus, quod et frequentissim um est et exspectari m axim e credo, v e n ie n d u m est, in quo per quandam suspicionem quod non dicim us accipi volum us, non u tiq u e contrarium , ut in eipcovEi'a sed aliud latens et auditori quasi in v e n ie n d u m . (Inst. Or. 5.2.64...65) Indeed emphasis is am ong the figiirae w h e n som ething hid d en is dug up from some phrase...S im ilar if not identical to this is a figura w hich is n o w very popular. N ow I com e to that kind of figura w h ic h I th in k is m ost popular, o n which I think m y co m m en ts are greatly aw aited, th at is the one in w hich w e w ish to incite a certain suspicion w ithout actually say in g it, not the opposite of w hat we w ant to say, as in the case of irony, but som ething hidden w hich is left to be discovered by the h earer. 13 Culler's theory of reading (1975) is based on a basic notion of the reader's 'competence'. H e stresses the reader's role in deciphering textual codes to m ake the text mean: 'Man is not just homo sapiens but homo significans: a creature who gives sense to things' (1975: 264). w Inst. Or. 10.1.20: nec per partes modo scnitanda omnia, sed perlectus liber utique ex integro resumendus, 'Not only should each part be scrutinised, but the whole book should be read through as if taken up afresh once more.' 1 5 Emphasis and 'figured' speech in Greek and Roman writers have been expertly and extensively dealt w ith by Ahl (1984a; 1984b). Ahl, follow ing Iser's precept to read a text w ithin its context, concludes: 'If we were to read Greek and Roman literature of im perial times in terms of the techniques according to which it was com posed, we would have a much better understanding— and higher opinion— of it.' (1984b: 204). I discuss the particular application of emphasis to Martial's text in Part Two, 2. 8 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Emphasis draw s the rea d er's attention to w h at is said implicitly; the rea d er m u st dig (em itur) to find som ething h id d en (aiiud latens) in the text. Such m eans of w riting w as particularly useful for writers living u n d e r a tyrannical regim e (see P art Two, 2). Q uintilian's work closes w ith a n address to the careful, conscientious reader (siudiosis iuvenibus, Inst. Or. 12.11.31).1 6 It seem s no accident that Q uintilian and Martial, both w ritin g u n d e r D om itian, an em p ero r renow ned for his control of the w ritte n w o rd ,1 7 call for careful readers (cf. lector stndiosns, Martial, Ep. 1.1.4). L atin texts presum e perceptive readers and reading rules. M artial him self sets o u t rules for reading. H e makes this explicit in the preface to his first book and then allow s the reader to engage w ith th e text and m ake connections for h im self.1 8 Each of M artial's books is m a d e up of a hun d red or so epigram s. The overarching design of M artial's books is sim ultaneously a co n tro llin g structure w hich influences the read er's u n d erstan d in g of in d iv id u al poem s, and a fluid structure w hich provides a plu rality of m eanings for the reader m oving through the text. Epigrams 1 begins w ith the poet's central preoccupation of the book; the rela tio n sh ip betw een poet, reader, text, an d context (Part One, 1 (ii)). Cycles an d m o tifs introduced in this 'p ro g ram m atic u n it' are reiterated, reinforced a n d 16 The importance of re-reading and digesting what has been read is discussed at Inst. Or. 10.1.19. 17 See Part One, 1 (ii). 18 For the relationship between author, preface, text and context, see the Appendix. 9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. enlarged upon th ro u g h o u t the rest of the book (P art O ne, 2). Epigrams 1 is n o t an open-ended collection— rather it is cyclical; m otifs introduced at th e beginning of the book are reiterated at the e n d (Part One, 3). Such a n approach to M artial's text is necessary; in d iv id u a l epigram s are often quoted, either as evidence for the existence of m onum ents by archaeologists an d a rt historians, or as exam ples o f p u n s and obscenities, by scholars on R om an h u m o u r. My w ork on M artial re-evaluates the book in its entirety, in its context. But the R om an read er was also an in ter-tex tu al reader; he read both literary text against literary text, but also literary text against physical m o num ent and political act. The m onum ents of im p erial Rome p resu m e a herm eneutic sensibility; R om an architecture, relief w ork and portraiture require the observer to synthesise distactic im ages an d symbols, and to construct a n arrativ e from them . The exam ple par excellence is the F o ru m of A u g u stu s,1 9 an iconographical justification of A u g u stu s' right to rule. The forum is stru ctu red th rough a carefully co n stru cted system of im ages w h ich invites the observer to m ake connections betw een the statues flanking the fo ru m (A eneas and the Julian fam ily o n the left, R o m u lu s a n d the kings of R om e o n the right) and the e m p e ro r Augustus. T he forum is an ideological representation of pow er: th e four-horse triu m p h al ch ariot at the fo ru m 's centre, given to A ugustus by the Senate along w ith 1 9 On the Forum of Augustus, see Von Blanckenhagen (1954: 22); Anderson (1984: 65-100); Zanker (1988: 79-89). 10 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the title of pater patriae in 2BCE, is em blem atic of A ugustus' attem pt to locate him self at the centre of R om an m yth, religion, and history. The m assive scale of D om itian's equestrian statue, erected in the F o ru m R om anum , is em blem atic of the extent to w hich political pow er a n d propaganda m anifests itself in Flavian R om e.:c W hen confronted by D o m itian 's palace on the Palatine, the R om an observer realised that this w as n o t m erely a house on a hill b u t a statem ent of im perial power. W h e n he w alked through the Forum T ransitorium , the topographical layout of the im perial fora forced him to m ake connections betw een D om itian, A u g u stu s, and Julius Caesar.2 1 M artial's text needs to be read as an integral p a rt of Flavian Rome; in Part Two I exam ine the poet's relationship w ith R om e, both its m onum ents (Part Two, 1) an d its politics (Part Two, 2). I am in terested not only in how M artial uses in d iv id u al structures to create his o w n poetic m o n u m en t (such as his first book, De Spectaculis, w hich com m em orates the opening of the C olosseum in 80CE), but how F lavian architectural m otifs contribute to M artial's ideological representation of R om e. The R om an observer did not only focus on individual structures ju st as the Rom an reader did not read a text in isolation. A n interdisciplinary approach to Classical texts is im perative if an cien t texts are to be und ersto o d in their cultural context. In F lavian 20 The statue, the topic of Statius' Silv. 1.1, is discussed by Ahl (1984a: 91-6). The statue m ay be represented on a sestertius of 95CE. See H ill (1989: 66-71). 21 On the relationship between the fora of Augustus and Domitian, see Von Blanckenhagen (1954: 21-6); Anderson (1982:101-12); D'Ambra (1993: 33-5). 11 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. literature and art w e see a n intense passion for im itation an d innovation; a desire to rew rite th e past, an d yet a desperate attem pt to create so m e th in g new from that past. T he Flavian period produced a considerable n u m b e r of authors, extensively an d expertly critiquing their ow n culture in a variety of genres; epic (such as Statius7 Thebaid, V alerius Flaccus7 Argonautica, Silius Italicus7 Punica), occasional verse (Statius7 Silvae), epigram (M artial's Epigrams), the epistolary form (Pliny the Y ounger's Episticlae), rhetoric (Q uintilian's Insiiiutio Oratoria) a n d satire (Juvenal's Satires). All of these au thors attem pt to generate m eaning by self consciously rew riting the w ork of their predecessors. I hope to go so m e w ay tow ards dem o n stratin g through exam ination of text and text, text an d tradition, and text an d m o n u m en t, the im portance o f M artial as a self- conscious, artful m an ip u lato r of complex cultural and poetic m eaning, and to explore, using an in tertex tu al and culturally analytic m ethod, th e relationship betw een au th o r, political context, physical en v iro n m en t, and literary work. M artial helps us to read Flavian Rome. 12 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. P art One: A perture and C losure in M artial Epigrams 1 1. Epigrams 2: T he Program m atic U nit In tro d u c tio n M artial is a self-conscious poet. F rom the com pletion of De Spectaculis in 80CE to the publication of Epigrams 1 in 86CE M artial's increased self-reflection is evident in the ev o lv in g relationship b etw een poet, read er an d text.2 2 The introductions of De Spectaculis, Xenia a n d Apophoreta show a gradual increase in M artial's concern to structure th e reader's response at the opening of the book. The extensive prose preface of Epigrams 1 serves as an elaborate m etatext on how to read epigram; th e relatio n sh ip betw een author, reader and text is m astered so that m otifs established a t the beginning are reiterated a n d expanded upon th ro u g h o u t the book. M artial's self-consciousness is displayed now here so extensively as in the o p en in g of Epigrams I.2 3 I refer th ro u g h o u t to this unit (Preface a n d Ep. 1.1-1.4) as the program m atic unit. In d ealin g w ith his ow n pose as au thor, the reader, the book as m ediator, his literary predecessors, th e m odes an d n atu re of the transm ission of his po etry , the subject m atter, a n d — For publication dates for Martial's books, see Citroni (1975; 1994). 23 Until 1975 the most extensive commentary on Epigrams 1 was Citroni (1975). Since then H ow ell (1980) has published a commentary on the sam e Book. Richlin (1992: 6-7) discusses Martial's apologia in the preface within the context o f 'Roman Concepts of Obscenity.' T he most recent and comprehensive work on Martial has been done by Sullivan (1991). On Epigrams 1, especially, see Sullivan (1991: 15-30). 13 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the socio-political e n v iro n m e n t of Flavian Rome, this u n it is overtly program m atic. It is here th at M artial first uses a prose preface, particularly p o p u lar in verse of the F lavian period.2 4 The m ain purpose of M artial's prose prefaces (five in total) is m etatextual; they give the reader rules for reading and u n d erstan d in g the text. An outline illustrates how the preface structures Ep. 1.1.1-4: Preface: a u th o r reader text context 1: a u th o r 2: reader 3: text 4: context The diagram is n o t an attem pt to reduce the program m atic unit to these motifs alone b u t to show how they are a central structuring p rinciple of the unit and deliberately developed here as a kind of instruction booklet o n how to approach M artial's text. To understand the preface as in tro d u ctio n to the prog ram m atic unit is to u n d erstan d M artial's skill as architect and his m eticu lo u s attention to the fabric of the text, intricately b ound. But this self-consciousness is one w hich grew slowly. T he 24 The five books of Statius' S ilva e have prefaces. Statius' Thebaid may have had a preface, now lost; see Janson (1964:109). The tradition of prose prefaces was long (see Janson 14 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in troductions to De Spectacidis, Xenia, a n d Apophoreta to som e extent anticipate the literary manifesto in the program m atic unit of Epigrams 1. (i) From De Spectacidis to Epigrams 1 In De Spectacidis, M artial's first pu b lish ed w ork,2 5 M artial is eager to latch onto T itus' inaugural celebrations for the opening of the u n fin ish e d Flavian A m p h ith eatre in 80CE.2 6 At this point, M artial's greatest hope of renow n is to glorify Titus' achievement by praising Caesar: B arbara pvram idum sileat m iracula M em phis, Assyrius iactet nec Babylona labor; nec Triviae tem plo molles la u d e n tu r Iones, dissim ulet Delon com ibus ara frequens; aere nec vacuo pendentia M ausolea laudibus immodicis Cares in astra ferant. om nis Caesareo cedit labor A m phitheatro, u n u m pro cunctis Fama lo q u etu r opus. (De Sp. 1) Let barbarous Memphis be silen t about the marvels of the pyram ids, let Assyrian toil not boast of Babylon; let the effeminate Ionians n o t be praised for the tem ple of T rivia, let the altar full w ith horns d e n y know ledge of Delos; let the Carians not bear to the stars w ith excessive praise the M ausoleum looming in th in air. All toil gives w ay to Caesar's A m phitheatre, Fam e w ill speak of one w ork in place of all. [1964: 7-26]). Th» significance of the popularity of prose prefaces in collections of verse of the Flavian period is discussed in the Appendix. 25 The MSS provides no ancient title for the book; De Spectacidis is used for convenience. See Sullivan (1991: 6 n.13). On the date of publication o f De Spectacidis, see Boethius (1952). 26 The opening of the Amphitheatre is celebrated on coins of 80CE. See Kent (1973: plate 239); H ill (1989: 40-8); Sutherland (1974). 15 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The epigram is m odeled on the G reek epigram by A ntipater of T hessalonica w hich celebrates the tem ple of A rtem is at Ephesus and com pares it to the seven w onders of the w o rld .2 7 This kind of epigram follow s in the tradition of epigram s w hich celebrate architecture, sculpture an d painting,2 3 b u t the last tw o lines p u t the poem in a specific R o m an historical context. The epigram celebrates the dedication of the F lavian A m phitheatre in 80CE, an d provides a good illustration of how M artial m akes a standard m otif of G reek epigram specific to Flavian im perial ideology.2 9 The epigram is also program m atic. It introduces the A m phitheatre w hich is to be the subject of the whole book; the grandeur of the physical building anticipates the m arvellous spectacles of w hich the book consists. It is not M artiaTs p rim ary focus here to expound on th e n a tu re of epigram , or to detail the poet's relationship to his w ork or his reader, yet he goes som e w ay to conveying his skill as poet; the toil (labor) in v o lv ed in creating these spectacular structures frames the poem (labor, 2 7 Kai Kpauadj Ba(3 uAcbvo9 ETuSpopov ap p aai teT xos/ k c i t o v ett’ ’A A <pE icp Zava K a T T i u y a a d p r i v . / k & ttcov t ’ aicbpripa. kcci ’HeAioio KoAoaaov,/ Kai pdyav' aiTrEivav TR/papiScov K dparov./ pvapd t e MaucrcoAoTo TTEAcbptov- aAA’ o x ’ ecjeiS o v / 'ApxEpiSoj V E <pE cov axpi S e o v t c c 5opov,/ keTvcc pev ripaupcofo t 8 ek t)V [8 e t vocxpiv ’OAupirou/ "AA10 5 o u 8 e v ttco t o To v E T r n v / d a a T o (PA 9.58), 'I have looked upon the w all of lofty Babylon which provides a w ay for chariots, and the statue of Zeus by the Alpheus, and the hanging gardens, and the Colossus of the Sun, and the huge toil of the pyramids, and the huge tomb of Mausolus, but when I saw the house of Artemis reaching up to the clouds, it outshone a ll those others and, apart from Olym pos, the Sun never looked upon any such thing/ 28 See, for example, PA 9.576. Most of these Greek epigrams are collected in the P alatine Anthology, especially Book 9. 29 For Martial's representation of the ideology of the arena, see Newmyer (1984). On th e social significance of the arena, see Hopkins (1983), Plass (1995), Gunderson (1996). 16 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. De Sp. 1.2, m irrors labor, 1.7). The reader may notice n o t only the labour involved in building these structures but M artial's labour in stru ctu rin g the epigram .3 0 Such a reading is reinforced by M artial's use of opus as the final w ord of the program m atic poem , recalling other poets w ho define their poetry as an opus at the beginning of their w ork; Virgil and O vid use the w ord in prefatory positions to identify them selves w ith the w o rk they h ave w ritten.3 1 M artial m ay here be making a h o p efu l statem ent th a t n o t only w U l/am a speak of one building in place of all, b u t that his literary 'w o rk ' will be attached to th at fama. The opening of the Xenia reflects a w riter m ore self-consciously inscribing him self into his w ork. The m anuscripts for the first th ree epigram s of this book do not accord. As a result, the tradition has been to read the first two epigram s as fragm entary pieces w hich do not belong to the original book.3 2 Ker (1950: 23-4) has no problem accounting for Xen. 3 as a prefatory epigram b u t dism isses the possibility of m ore than o ne introductory epigram . A lthough the three epigram s m ay not have h ad titles in the original source, this does not prevent them from in tro d u cin g 30 Martial also talks about the labour of writing at Ep. 1.107.8: iuvat ipse labor. 31 Cf. mains opus, Virgil Aen. 7.44; hoc illi praetulit auctor opus, O vid Am. 1 praef. 2; opus, Ex P. 1.2; opus, Fast. 1.4. The Ovid references are in introductory positions. The V irgil reference is prefatory in that it is positioned at the beginning of the second half of the epic. 32 I here disagree with Ker (1950: 23-4) and Shackleton Bailey (1993: Vol.3: 172), who think that Xenia 3 must stand first in the book. Ker's reasoning seems illogical; he reads the first two epigrams as fragmentary; he sees Xen. 3 as 'evidently the dedicatory poem'; and he uses the chaos of the manuscripts to hypothesise that these epigrams originally had no titles and were therefore not part of the book. It is here my aim to show that Xen. 1 and 2 are not fragmentary, and that Xen. 3, as a dedicatory poem, is the last of three dedicatory poems. 17 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the collection of titled 'tags'.3 3 I w ant rather to read Xen. 1, 2, an d 3 as a coherent u n it of opening epigram s. These three opening epigram s sh o w M artial dealing w ith three issues: the context of his poetry; his use of specific value-term s to define his poetry; and the relationship betw een the reader and the text.3 4 The level of self-definition in Xenia and A pophoreta illustrates a dram atic leap from M artial's w ork of 80CE.3 5 M artial establishes his w ork in the tradition of S a tu rn a lia n literatu re.3 6 The setting sym bolises freedom and frivolity, an d enables M artial to reject serious them es and serious poetry. Yet the extent to w h ic h he goes to establish a context, to define his w ork, and to address the reader, undercuts his claim to be w riting trivial poetry (nugae, Xen. 2.4). E voking the atm osphere of the Saturnalia, M artial constructs an analogy betw een his verse and the games played during the festival.3 7 In the second half of This hypothesis is supported by m y reading of the prefatory poems of Apophoreta (1 and 2), the first of which recalls Xen. 1. 33 The headings for Xen. 1 and 2 differ in each manuscript: for Xen. 1, A a has AD LECTOREM, BA has DE DELECTATIONE SCMPTURAE, CA has none; for Xen. 2, A A has none, BA has AD LECTOREM, CA has XENIA. On ancient editions of Martial, see Lindsay (1903). ^Compare Fowler (1996: 223-4), who reads the final epigram of Xenia and A poph oreta m etap oetically. 35 Friedlaender (1886: 50-67) dates the publication of Xenia and Apophoreta to December 85 or 8 6 CE. Sullivan (1991: 12) agrees with Martin (1980: 61) on 85CE. Pitcher (1985: 330) and Citroni (1988: 11) dispute a date of 84 or 85CE. For a review of the evidence for dating Apophoreta, see Leary (1996: 9-13). 36 Cf. Sullivan (1991: 14); Citroni (1989). Gowers (1993: 24-32) discusses the transference of the Saturnalian license to the literary text in the context of the dinner party and the festival. Leary (1996: 1-9) details die origins of the festival and the features of its celebration. 37 Gaming was a liberty allowed only during the Saturnalia; games of chance were prohibited according to the Lex Titia et Publicia et Cornelia, except during the Saturnalia. Kay (1985: 72) cites the literary evidence for extant laws against gambling: Dig. 11.5.2ff; Cicero Phil. 2.56; Horace Carm. 3.24.58; Ovid Tr. 2.472. Discussing the Saturnalian context 18 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the poem,.3 8 M artial uses a gaining analogy to associate specific term s w ith his verse:3 9 non m ea m agnanim o depugnat tessera talo, senio nec nostrum cum cane quassat ebur: haec m ihi charta nuces, haec est m ihi charta fritillus: alea nec dam num nec facit ista lucrum . (Xen. 1.5-8) M y dice do n o t compete w ith great-m inded knucklebones, nor does a six and a one shake m y ivory: This paper is m y nuts, this paper is m y nut-box: this gam ble effects neither loss nor gain. M artial substitutes the S aturnalian dice gam bling for a gam e at w hich h e says he can 't lose; nam ely, his poetry.4 0 M artial's definition of his w ork as in literature, Gowers (1993: 31-2) says: 'Even the table-talk or quiz-games that were substituted for food descriptions had the same marginal or miscellaneous quality: superfluous material which had no proper place in more serious literature.' She continues to say that convivial works are worth taking seriously because they show the Romans 'at ease, sharing off-guard confidences, playing at new ways of organizing society or language, or storing up extra repositories of material, all of which challenge the accepted view of w h at was normally considered worth recording.' I am not here trying to establish any kind of realism in Martial; he takes gam es, literary terms, scrap food— anything low in a hierarchy of things— and integrates them into a value system which turns the more traditional system on its head. 38 Ker (1950: 23) argues that this epigram is two four-lined fragments. I do not see any reason for this; in both halves M artial discusses the quality of his work, and what gain (or loss [danma, 1.3; damnum, 1.8]) is to be had from writing epigrams. 39 Martial loves to use several different words where one could easily be repeated, as here with the different terms for gambling. It is no accident that Martial, in using these gambling terms to describe his writing, is anticipating the value-terms for his work in Epigrams 1. 40 Ovid, discussing the kind of verse written an the Saturnalia, characterises it as playfu l and harmless: talia luduntur fumoso mense Decembri,/ quae damno nulli composuisse f u it (Tr. 2.491-2), 'Such things are playfully composed in the smoky month of December, but there was no loss for anyone w ho composed such things'. For the connection between the Saturnalia and the mock-didactic tradition, see Citroni (1989). Here, Martial's epigrams are a kind of game (nuces refers to the dice used in the game) but the epigrams are not just associated with the game pieces, the 'nuts', but the box (fritillus) in which the 'nuts' would be shaken. The implication is that not only are the epigrams like dice with various outcomes, but that the dice box, which produces the outcome, represents the epigrams too. 19 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. trivial is taken to its furthest extrem e in the opening lines of the book (Xen. 1.1-4), w here M artial asks the M uses to destroy his verse, w hich is only good en o u g h for w rappin g fish and olives, or p ro v id in g food for m oths. The address to the M uses is un d ercu t by M artial's reversal of the standard poetic invocation. M artial asks the M uses not to inspire b u t to destroy his inadequate verse (perdite Niliacas, Musae, mea damna, papyros, Xen. 1.3). The poet's m ock lack of interest in his w ork acts as c o n v en ien t protection against accusations from others. In Xen. 2, M artial's definition of his epigram s as w orthless pieces is reflected in his address to the critic: non potes in nugas dicere plura m eas ipse ego quam dixi... ...qui se m irantur, in illos virus habe... (Xen. 2.4-5; 7-8) You can 't say m ore against my trifles than I said myself... H ave venom for those w ho adm ire them selves. Self-deprecation m akes criticism futile; the critic can n o t criticise a w ork th at has already been criticised by its author. It is ironic, how ever, that in the opening epigram s, though M artial defines his w o rk as disposable ephem era, he sim ultaneously strives to establish a context in w hich his w ork can be read. H e says that his epigram s are useful only for w rapping up fish and olives, and yet they are clearly being w ritten for readers, n o t fishm ongers. H ere, in Xen. 2, he says that he has n o reason to attract 20 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. criticism for his trivial efforts, and yet he addresses the critic's a rg u m e n t (nos haec novimus esse nihil./ non tamen hoc nimium nihil est, si candidus auref nec matutina si mihi fronte venis [Xen. 2.8-10], 'I know th a t these things of m in e are nothing. A nd yet not com pletely nothing, if you com e to me w ith open ear and jaded face'). M artial's epigram s are n o t com pletely 'n o th in g ' if they provoke such a strong reaction. A concern w ith epigram s' w orth is continued in Xen. 3 w h e n M artial engages in dialogue w ith the potential buyer w ho disputes the price of his Book: O m nis in hoc gracili Xeniorum turba iibello constabit num m is quattuor em pta tibi. q u a ttu o r est nim ium ? poterit constare duobus, et faciet lucrum bybhopola Tryphon. haec licet hospitibus pro m unere disticha m ittas, si tibi tarn rarus quam m ihi num m us erit. ad d ita per titulos sua nom ina rebus habebis: praetereas, si quid non facit ad stom achum . (Xen. 3) The w hole b an d of Xenia in this slender libellus w ill cost y ou four sesterces to buy. Is four too m uch? It could cost two, and the bookseller Tryphon w ould still m ake a profit. You m ay b u y these couplets for your guests instead of a gift, if y o u 're as short of m oney as I am. You w ill see the nam es attached to the things by title: You m ay pass by w hatever you can't stom ach. This epigram is highly self-referential; it begins w ith a discussion of the book (Iibello, Xen. 3.1) and its title (X eniorum , Xen. 3.1), continues w ith 21 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. w here to buy the book and at w hat cost, and ends w ith how the buyer should approach the text (or avoid it). M artial places in antithesis the fact th at the epigram s are m ere accom panim ents or 'tags' to gifts, in d iv id u al couplets (disticha, Xen. 3.5), yet a collection of epigram s (turbo. X eniorum ) w hich form a book.4 1 This apparent contradiction is reinforced by the description of the book as a gracilis libellus; it is a th in book because it is com prised of tw o-lined, 'th in ' epigrams, yet it is a collection in the sam e w ay that any book of poetry is a collection. The focus on the epigram s as w orthless in Xen. 1, 2, and 3, is sim ultaneously u n dercut by the preoccupation w ith m oney. The gam bling im agery in the opening poem ends w ith M artial's com m ent that his verse w ill bring him neither loss nor gain (nec damnum...nec lucrum , Xen. 1.8), yet the epigram ends on the w ord for profit (lucrum). A n equation is being m ade here betw een literary and m onetary w orth. In Xen. 3 the cost of the book is debated an d M artial says that even if the book costs tw o sesterces the bookseller w ould m ake a profit (lucrum, Xen. 3.6). W e are constantly rem inded that these epigram s, despite being labelled as w orthless, function as an econom ical transaction betw een poet and patron, and that their 41 Cf. Gowers (1993: 247): 'It is characteristic of Martial to be alternately boastful and self- deprecating.' Gowers (1993: 248) accounts for this by Martial's fondness for varietas: 'V arietas is promoted as a virtue at all costs'. I would rather read this characteristic as Martial's self-conscious effort to make these apparent contradictions happen simultaneously; it is Martial's boasting of his worthlessness that itself undercuts the statement of worthlessness and questions the position of epigram in the literary hierarchy. This would seem to be contra Gowers (1993: 245): 'Martial is happy to stay at the bottom of the literary hierarchy.' This is qualified somewhat by the statement: 'Yet he also redeems the form with generous and inventive representations of meanness.' 22 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. m onetary w o rth is a factor in their value.4 2 The epigram is, of course, a tag w hich accom panies a gift; it functions as one half of a reciprocal gesture. The introductory epigram s of Xenia are also im plicitly or m etaphorically program m atic in a m anner sim ilar to th at of the first epigram of De Spectaculis. Just as the introduction to the A m p h ith e atre m ay have verbal resonances for M artial's literary w ork (opus, labor), so in Xenia the culinary them e of the book is w ritten into M artial's definition of his work. It is no accident that in these opening epigram s literature is discussed as food, by w ay of introduction to a book of food 'tags'. In the first line of Xen. 1 M artial tells us that the paper on w hich the epigram s are w ritten is good w rapping paper for tunny fish fry and olives (ne toga cordylis et paenula desit olivis, Xen. 1.1); in Xen. 2, w h en M artial tells the critic that there is no point criticising epigram s because M artial does so him self, he says th at epigram s are not m eaty enough to satisfy the critic's anger (came opus est, si satur esse velis, Xen. 2.6); in the last line of Xen. 3 M artial discusses literature in term s of how m uch the reader can stom ach (si quid non facit ad stomachum). The food m etaphors are thus tailored to Xen. 1, 2, and 3, to create a fluid transition to a book w hich w ill be full of 'tags' to accom pany foodstuffs.4 3 4 2 Sullivan (1991: 13) discusses gift-giving within the conventions of patronage. 4 3 For the analogy between food and literature, see Gowers (1993: 249). Gowers, in her examination of M artial's invitation poems, says: "The explicit analogies between food and different types of poetry suggest that the three invitation poems (Ep. 10.59, 7.25, 9.26) can also be read as literary programmes.' Gowers does not discuss Xen. 1, 2, and 3, but the analogy between food and epigram here suggests a kind of 'literary programme'. 23 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The beginning of the Apophoreta can be read in a sim ilar fashion to th at of the Xenia: as m etatextual com m ent on the book w hich the reader is about to begin. Ap. 1 an d 2, just as in the case of Xen. 1, 2 an d 3, are the only tw o epigram s in the book w hich have m ore th an tw o lines.4 4 Apophoreta begins w ith M artial's preoccupation w ith the reader and the text. As in Xen. 2, he engages in dialogue w ith a critic about the n atu re of his verse and the appropriate occasion for it: Synthesibus d u m gaudet eques dom inusque senator d um q u e decent nostrum pillea sum pta Iovem; nec tim et aedilem m oto spectare fritillo, cum v id eat gelidos tarn prope v em a lacus: divitis altem as et pauperis accipe sortes: praem ia convivae det sua quisquis suo. 'su n t apinae tricaeque et si quid vilius istis.' quis nescit? vel quis tarn m anifesta negat? sed quid agam potius m adidis, Satum e, diebus, quos tibi pro caelo filius ipse dedit? vis scribam Thebas Troiam ve m alasve M ycenas? 'lu d e' inquis 'nucibus': perdere nolo nuces. (Ap. 1) W hile the equestrian an d the ruling senator rejoice in their dinner suits, w hile it befits our Jupiter to w ear a freedom cap, the slave isn 't afraid, once he's shaken the dice-box, to look at the aedile, though he sees the freezing lake so close by. Accept alternate lots for the rich an d for the poor, let each perso n give his ow n rew ard to his guest. 'They are trifles, nonsense, and anything trashier than th a t' W ho d o e sn 't know this? O r w ould deny w h at's obvious? But w h a t w o u ld I rather do, Saturn, on those d runken days w hich y o u r son gave you in retu rn for the sky? 4 4 Leary's commentary (1996) on the first two epigrams of Apophoreta is the most detailed (see especially, pp.51-8). Leary does not, however, discuss these epigrams as prefatory or programmatic. 24 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Do you w an t m e to w rite of Thebes or Troy or evil M ycenae? T lay w ith n u ts' you say: I d o n 't w ant to lose m y nuts. The epigram is program m atic in that M artial indicates to the reader th a t the book is com prised of alternating epigram s describing a gift given by a rich m an followed by one given by a poor m an (divitis alternas et pauperis accipe sortes, Ap. 1.5).4 5 As Leary (1996: 54) observes, M artial gives us a kind of recusatio, defending his choice of genre against tedious m ythological narratives (sed quid agam...vis scribam Thebas Troiamve m alasve Mycenas?, Ap. 1.9...11). The sam e Saturnalian context is established here as in Xenia; the day is characterised by drunkenness (madidis diebus recalls ebria bruma, Xen. 1.4), the dice-box (fritillus, here as at Xen. 1.7) signifies gam ing and leisure (as do the references to nuts and play), and th e o p p o rtu n ity for gift-giving (praemia convivae det sua quisquis suo, Ap. 1.6) justifies M artial's com position of gift 'tags'.4 6 So, too, the superficial w orthlessness of the epigram s, established in Xenia, is here reinforced by reference to them as trash (apinae tricaeque, Ap. 1.7). W ith the sam e m ock lack of interest in his readership, M artial addresses the reader, as in Xen. 3, a n d tells him he can read the titles alone if he wishes:4 7 4 5 Leary (1996: 13-21) illustrates and explains this arrangement of epigrams in pairs. 4 6 The freedom here is also expressed by relaxing the distinction between those of different status and the clothes that they wear at the festival. For the period of the Saturnalia, master and slave reversed roles. Here the intermingling of people of d ifferen t status (eques, senator, dominus, aedilem , verna) blurs the boundaries between classes. They wear th e synthesis, and the pillea, a symbol of freedom, and lay aside the toga w hich symbolised everyday business. Cf. Leary (1996: 51). 4 7 A s a prefatory comment, this is similar to prefaces of prose works where the reader is told that, if he wishes, he can read the contents page and then flick to the page he wants to read. 25 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Q uo vis cum que loco potes hunc finire libellum: versibus explicitum est om ne duobus opus, lem m ata si quaeris ctur sint ascripta, docebo: ut, si m alueris, lem m ata sola legas. (Ap. 2) You can finish this book at w hatever point you wish: every w ork is arranged in tw o lines. If you ask w hy titles are added, I'll tell you: so that, if you prefer, you m ay pick out the titles alone. It is ironic that M artial claims not to care how m uch of his book is read, in an epigram w here he asks the reader for intellectual discernm ent (legas, Ap. 2.4).4 8 In Xen. 1 M artial tells the reader that if he does not w ant to read an epigram he can pass it by (praetereas, Xen. 1.8); M artial here addresses the reader, telling him he can read as m uch (or as little) as he likes. M artial's reference to his w ork as an opns recalls the opening poem of De Spectaculis: M artial's poetic opns has now replaced the m onum ental opus. This contrast points up the hum orous context here; M artial attaches th e w ord opus to w hat m ust be the shortest literary effort possible— a two lin ed 'tag' to accom pany a gift. Yet M artial's opus is a libellus, the term w h ic h M artial had established for his verse in the Xenia (gracili Iibello, Xen. 3.1), See, for example, Pliny (Nat. hist. 1 praef. 33): libris huic epistnlae subiunxi, sammaque cura ne/ legendos eos haberes operam dedi. See the Appendix. 4 8 Cf. Leary (1996: 21): 'The presents described in Book 14, like those in Book 13, are all such as could actually have been given to people. But had Martial intended these books as nothing more than directories to help the unimaginative when choosing presents, one h a s immediately to ask w hy he went to such lengths in ordering the poems they contain. An obvious explanation for his considered organisation of Books 13-14 is that he was not producing mere lists of presents, but works with literary claim s/ 26 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and one w hich draw s o u r attention to the careful arrangem ent of th e collection. Ap. 1 a n d 2 are them atically program m atic. Just as the praise of th e A m p h ith eatre in De Sp. 1 introduces the subject of the book, and the food im agery in the opening epigram s of Xenia introduces a book of tags for foodstuffs, so here the first two epigram s of Apophoreta serve as a good introduction to the opening epigram s of the book. Ap. 3 to 11 are 'tags' for kinds of p ap er an d w riting tablets (3—pugillares citrei, 4,— quinquiplices, 5— pugillares eborei, 6--triplices, 7—pugillares m em branei, 8—Vitelliani, 9— idem, 10—chartae maiores, 11—chartae epistulares). These are the v ery m aterials on w hich M artial's epigram s are w ritten: the gift is p ap er and th e label th at conveys the gift is paper too.4 9 This cluster is. followed by a group of epigram s associated w ith board gam es, w here the language of the titles (tali eborei, 14; tesserae, 15; tabula lusoria, 17; nuces, 19) reinforces M artial's gam ing analogy in the opening epigram . These tw o clusters (3-11; 14-9) are appropriately bridged by two epigram s (12 and 13) on cashboxes (loculi eborei; loculi lignea). Three m otifs introduced in the opening tw o epigram s— the value of M artial's epigram s, their function w ith in th e patronage system , and the gam ing analogy— are 'played' o u t in th e follow ing epigram s. 4 9 This contrasts w ith Martial's description of his poetry paper as good only for wrapping fish and olives in Xen. 1. 27 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In underlining the superficial w orthlessness of his epigram s, M artial exploits the epitaphic origins of the genre. Inherent in the genre is the idea th a t epigram s are of secondary im portance as they w ere originally 'th in g s w ritte n o n ' objects such as dedications, epitaphs, an d inscriptions on tom bs. They are by their very nature accom panim ents to som ething else.5 0 M artial explicitly exploits these origins in Xenia and Apophoreta, books of epigram s w hich are supposed to be 'tags' attached to gifts to take to a cena or gifts to take hom e after. The irony of Xenia and Apophoreta, of course, is th a t the epigram s which are to accom pany gifts are gifts in them selves an d therefore have their ow n w orth. 5 0 For the nature, function, and development of early Greek epigram, see Cameron (1993: 1- 14). 28 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (ii) T he Program m atic U nit In the program m atic u nit of Epigrams 1, the four m otifs (author, reader, text, context) are introduced in the preface and then highlighted and enlarged upon in the follow ing epigram s. The author expounds his poetic project in the preface and then nam es him self directly in Ep. 1.1 (Martialis, Ep. 1.1.2). M artial's insistence that the reader m ust read thoroughly and at m ore th an one level is established in the preface {perlegitur, 1 praef. 12); this is then reinforced by the direct address to the reader in Ep. 1.1 (lector studiose, Ep. 1.1.4) and M artial's directions to the reader in Ep. 1.2 as to w here to buy his books. The book, w hose content and language are defined in the preface, is addressed in Ep. 1.3 as it ventures off from its m aster. T he socio-political context and the issue of poetic restraint is introduced in th e preface {tale temper amentum, 1 praef. 1; Cato, 16; Cato severe, 20) an d th e n developed in Ep. 1.4, the epigram addressed to Caesar. These issues are by no m eans restricted to the program m atic unit but are here inextricably in terw o v en : 29 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Preface M A R T I A L Spero me/mihifama iocorum/epigrammata/libellis/iocorum perlegitur tale temperamentum/Cato 1 Hie est, Martialis --------- epigrammaton libellis legis, lector studiose 2 Quis .. cupis (reader) libellos/membrana me duce/sim venalis/forum --------- 3 domini (Martial) ______ liber/lusus/lascive martia turba (readers) dominae Romae/Argiletum Caesar/dominum/ducem libellus/iocos nostra carmina legas R B E O A O D K E R 30 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The preface to Epigrams 1 introduces and structures th e program m atic u n it and is M artial's m ost extensive self-conscious interaction w ith his audience.3 1 This is not a personal letter or a d ed icatio n to an addressee b u t a literary m anifesto.5 2 The w riting is u n u su al in that it is n o t directed at an individual, nor is it a dedication to a friend, p atro n , or e m p e ro r.5 3 The preface is not a letter separate from the book; m otifs in tro d u ced here will be reiterated, reinforced and enlarged u p o n in th e epigram s of the program m atic unit: Spero m e secutum in libellis m eis tale te m p e ra m e n tu m u t de illis queri non possit quisquis de se bene senserit, cum salva infim arum quoque personarum rev eren tia ludant; quae adeo antiquis auctoribus defuit u t no m in ib u s n o n tan tu m veris abusi sint sed et m agnis. m ihi fam a vilius constet et probetur in m e novissim um in g en iu m . absit a iocorum nostrorum sim plicitate m alignus interpres nec epigram m ata m ea scribat: im probe facit qui in alieno libro ingeniosus est. lascivam verborum veritatem , id est epigram m aton linguam , excusarem , si m eum esset exem plum : sic scribit C atullus, sic M arsus, sic Pedo, sic G aetuhcus, sic quicum que perlegitur. si quis tam en tarn am bitiose tristis est u t ap u d ilium in nulla pagina latin e loqui fas sit, potest epistula vel potius titulo co n ten tu s esse, epigram m ata illis scribuntur qui solent spectare Florales. non intret Cato theatrum m eum , au t si intraverit, spectet. videor m ihi m eo iure facturus si epistulam versibus clusero: Nosses iocosae dulce cum sacrum Florae festosque lusus et licentiam vulgi. cur in theatrum , Cato severe, venisti? 5 1 Twenty one lines of prose and verse in the OCT. 5 2 I take the term 'literary manifesto' from Janson (1964). 5 3 M artial's preface to Epigrams 1 stands in contrast to that of his contemporary, Statius, w ho uses the preface as a personal letter to the dedicatee to accompany the book. M artial's relationship to other writers of prose prefaces w ill be discussed in the Appendix. 31 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. an ideo tantum veneras, u t exires? (1 praef.) I hope that I have show ed in m y libelli such restraint, so th a t anyone w ho thinks w ell of him self can't c o m p lain ab o u t them , since they are playful, w ith reverence tow ards even the low liest people— a reverence w hich was so absent in ancient w riters that they abused n o t only real nam es b u t great ones. Let fam e be dow n-graded in m y value-system , an d let talent be the last thing I'm praised for. M ay the evil- m in d ed interpreter be far from the sim plicity of m y books an d not plagiarise them: sham eless is he w ho is in g en io u s w ith another m an's book. I w ould excuse the lascivious honesty of the vocabulary, I m ean the epigram m atic lingo, if m ine w ere the precedent: in this w ay w rites C atullus, M arsus, Pedo, and G aetulicus, so too anyone w ho is read right through. If anyone, how ever, is so overtly som bre th at in his com pany it is n o t right to speak Latin on any page, he can be content w ith the epistle, or rather w ith th e title. Epigram s are w ritten for those w ho are used to w atching the Floralia G am es. Let Cato not enter m y theatre, or, if he does enter, let him w atch. I think I will be w ith in m y rights if I close this epistle w ith som e lines of verse: Since you knew of the sw eet ritual of jocular Flora and the festive games and the licentious crow d, w hy did you enter the theatre, strict Cato, or did you come in, so that you could go out? The preface provides M artial w ith the o pportunity to establish and define his role as epigram m atist. His central concern is to identify him self as an in h erito r and populariser of a R om an genre.5 4 This self-exhibition is 5 4 It is significant that Martial never acknowledges the Greek epigrammatic tradition, despite using the Greek word, E T T t 'y p a m u a T a , to define the genre. By naming Catullus, Marsus, Pedo and Gaetulicus, Martial is foremostly interested in asserting him self as the inheritor of a Roman genre. The prefaces of the Garland of M eleager and the Garland o f Philip were known to Martial (see, for example, the first epigram of De Spectaculis w hich rewrites Antipater of Thessalonica PA 9.58). For the history of Greek epigram, see Cameron (1993). 32 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. e v id e n t from the extent to w hich he refers directly to him self (Spero m e secutum , 1; meis libellis, l;m ihi fam a, 5; probetur in me, 6; epigrammata mea, 8; meum exem plum , 11; meum theatrum, 16; videor m ihi, 17; m eo here, 17) and uses verbs in the first person singular (spero, 1; excusarem, 10; videor, 17; clusero, 18). The culm ination of M artial's self-referentiality is w h e n he nam es him self in Ep. l .l .5 5 M artial uses a plurality of value-term s which are deliberately self- deprecating (libellus, Insns, iocus) to associate him self w ith the epigram m atic genre (epigrammata, 1 praef. 7; 8; 10; 1.1.3). H ow ever, this superficial w orthlessness is u ndercut by their presence in a preface w h ere M artial expounds his m ost extensive literary manifesto. M artial draw s atten tio n to the frivolous nature of epigram ,5 6 yet his integrated system of term s establishes a fram ew ork w ith in w hich the epigram s can be read (perlegitur, 1 praef. 12) in reference to one another. M artial's reader is told to approach the epigram m atic text in the sam e way that Phaedrus asks his reader to approach his fables; there the reader is also asked to cooperate in the p o et's project and to m ake sense of it by reading carefully.5 7 E lsew here, 5 5 H ow ell (1980: 95), discusses the possibility of there being a title at the beginning of the preface, in which case Martial's name w ould have been the first thing w e read. 5 6 See Sullivan (1991: 60) on epigrams as n a iy via , 'playthings'. 5 7 Phaedrus, writing fables in the Aesopic tradition, similarly attaches self-deprecating terms to his genre (libellus, Fab. 4.7.3; neniae, Fab. 4.2.3; iocanim, Fab. 4.7.2), yet demands that his fables be read through (legere, Fab. 4.7.2; perleges, prologus Fab. 4.14). Phaedrus' influence on Martial has been seriously under-rated. Cf. Perry (1965): "The unfavourable reception to his work at the start may partly account for the fact that Phaedrus as a fabulist seem s to have been ignored by Roman critics and writers up to the time of Avian us (ca. A .D . 400), w ith the doubtful exception of Martial, who calls him improbus.' If we read iocos for Aoyous at Ep. 3.20.5 (so, an aemulatur improbi iocos Phaedri?), Martial refers to Phaedrus 33 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. M artial is the first to adm it th a t his epigram s are m ore than gam es an d jests: Nescit, crede me, quid sint epigrammata, Flacce, /qui tantum lusus ilia iocosque vocat (Ep. 4.49.1-2), 'Believe me, he know s not w h at epigram s are, w ho calls them only gam es and jests/ H e adm its th a t th o u g h m ythological narratives m ight be praised, his w ork w ill be read: confiteor: laudant ilia, sed ista legunt (Ep. 4.49.10). M artial asserts his originality by ap p ro p riatin g individual term s from his ow n earlier w orks and from o th e r authors, integrating them w ith his ow n value-system . For exam ple, h e describes his collection in the first line as a libellus, im m ediately recalling his previous libelli (Xen. 3.1; Ap. 2.1), b u t also C atullus' first line (Cui dono lepidum novum libellum, 1.1; a n d also libelli, 1.8; omnibus libellis, 55.4), P h aed ru s' definition of his collection of fables (libelli, Fab. 4.7.3), a n d o th e r authors w ho collate books of m aterial, such as Pliny the Elder (Nat. Fiist. 1 praef. 12). But M artial m akes this value-term specific to ep ig ram (epigrammata), and integrates w o rd s w hich had been used in isolation in to a netw ork of definitive terms. C onsonant w ith M artial's self-deprecatory labels for his genre, are his proclam ations that his fame a n d talent are also of little w orth; fam e is do w n -g rad ed in his value-system (constet vilius, 1 praef. 5) and his talen t is the last thing he is to be p raised for (probetur in me n o v is s im u m ingenium , 1 praef. 6). The contradiction betw een M artial's p ro cla m a tio n w ith a term that Phaedrus uses of his ow n verse at Fab. 4.7.2. For the manuscript readings on this line, see Shackleton-Bailey (1993. Vol 1: 214-5). On what we know of Phaedrus' life , 34 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that his epigram s are cheap and his concern to p u t a price on them (as in Xenia [lucrum, Xen. 1.8; constabit, 3.2; constare, 3.3, lucrum , 3.4; n u m m u s, 3.6] and A pophoreta [praemia, Ap. 1.6; vilius, 1.7]) is here extended to his fam e an d talent. His talent (ingenium , 1 praef. 6), for w hich he claims w orld-w ide renow n in Ep. 1.1, is here the last thing (n o v issim u m ) he says he is to be p raised for.5 8 Yet vilius constet and novissimum ingenium are deliberately am biguous phrases: vilius constet could also m ean, T e t fame cost less', in the sense T e t it require less w o rk ' in retu rn for the reward. Sim ilarly, novissimum ingenium could im ply a talent w hich is the 'latest, m ost recent', and that this is w hat M artial is to be praised for, hence his p roclam ation of w orld-w ide fam e in Ep. 1.1. By building a plurality of m eanings into these term s M artial undercuts his self-deprecation as he constructs it. The value-system is constructed w ith in a particular social context, the Floralia, sim ilar to that of the Saturnalia in Xenia and Apophoreta. The em phasis here, how ever, is M artial's work; in Xenia and Apophoreta the S aturnalian context is established before the gam e analogy is m ade w ith M artial's w ork. In Epigrams 1 the approach is reversed and M artial's priority is to define his w ork before introducing the festival analogy. In this book M artial uses the gam e analogy m ore extensively to define his see Perry (1965: Ixxiii-c). 5 8 H owell (1980: 97) takes ingenium 'in a bad sense' as 'cleverness' and novissimun adverbally as 'in the last place'. Richlin (1992: 6) translates the phrase as 'Let fame be cheaper for me, and may m y m odem cleverness win favour.' 35 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. w ork (ludant, 1 praef 3; 23; elsewhere in the program m atic unit, lusus, Ep. 1.3.10; 4.7).5 9 The analogy w ith the Floralia Gam es is both intra- and in ter- textual; intra-textual in that the gam e m etaphor recalls the gam ing of his ow n earlier w ork (for example, hide, Ap. 1.12), and inter-textual in th a t it cites the ludic language of Catullus (multum lusimus in meis tabellis, 50.2) and, m ore specifically, Ovid. As p art of his description of the Floralia, O v id asks the goddess Flora about the festival's origins, function, and audience.6 0 O vid refrains from asking her about the nature and content of the F loralia, and in so doing defines the festival in term s of its games: quaerere conabar, quare lascivia m aior his foret in ludis liberiorque iocus. (Fast. 5.331) I w as about to ask w hy there w as greater naughtiness and freer revelry in these Games. M artial p rim arily uses the Floralia description to appropriate O vid's term s (lascivia, Indus, iocus) to define his genre.6 1 The licentious jests of the 5 9 Tacitus says that ludicity is a feature specific to epigram (epigrammaton lusus. D ia l. 10.4). “ After Flora has spoken, she tells Ovid that he is free to ask her questions and he first asks her about the origin of the festival: "die, dea," respondi ludorum quae sit origo' (Fast. 5.277). In her second speech, Flora explains how people honour the god at the festival and atone for their sins (Fast. 5.297ff). The Floralia's audience is comprised of all common folk: volt sua plebeio sacra patere choro (Fast. 5.352). 6 1 Martial's rewriting of Ovid's description of the festival puts epigram within the context of the literary, social and political world in which it is produced. Martial needs to justfy the obscenity o f his verse and does so by giving it a demarcated, sacred space. The th eatre analogy puts risque epigram in a demarcated area with fixed boundaries where obscene language is permitted. See Richlin (1992: 1-13). By comparing his verse to theatre, and 36 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. festival becom e the epigram s them selves (iocorum nostrorum simplicitate, praef. 7; iocos, Ep. 1.4.3), the Games (ludis) of the festival becom e both th e epigram s them selves {lusus, 1 praef. 20; Ep. 1.3.10) and the gam es w h ich M artial plays w ith the epigram m atic genre {ludant, 1 praef. 4). T he lascivious n atu re of the festival now refers to the language of epigram (lascivam verborum veritatem, 1 praef. 9) and its d a rin g nature {lascive, Ep. 1.3.11).6 2 In establishing these param eters for the genre, M artial plays w ith the reader, in v itin g him to play w ith the text a n d m ake connections; h e m ay find them , he m ay not. The context of the Floralia enables M artial to define his audience: the desired audience consists of those accustom ed to w atching the F loralia {epigrammata illis scribuntur qui solent spectare Florales, 1 praef. 15), th a t is, people w ho are not prudish or easily shocked.6 3 The undesired audience is represented by the stock figure of Cato {non intret Cato theatrum m e u m , aut si intraverit, spectet, 1 praef. 16), notorious for being a censor an d theatre at its most exuberant, Martial indicates the institutionalised freedom with w h ich he speaks. “ Petronius has Eumolpus set up a similar list of criteria for his work at Sat. 132.15. H e defines his work {novae sim plicitatis opus, 'a work of novel sim plicity'), its speech (sermonis puri non tristis gratia ridet, 'a happy kindness sm iles through pure conversation'), its subject matter {quodque facit populus, 'whatever people do'), and its language {Candida lingua, 'frank speech'). Richlin (1992: 5) comments that the poem 'applies not only to th e words Eumolpus has just spoken in his own defense but, of course, much more to the work Petronius is writing.' Sullivan also has this view but this reading is too crude; th e circumstances of the speech are ironic. 6 3 Female mimes, who were prostitutes, danced naked at the festival. For the licentious character of the Floralia, see Val. Max. 2.10.8. Ovid is ambiguous as to whether it is th e audience or actresses who are a crowd of whores {turba m eretricia, Fast. 5.349). M artial's desired audience contrasts with that of Ovid's Floralia w hich is open to all common folk: volt sua plebeio sacra patere choro {Fast. 5.349). In Petronius, Eumolpus imagines th e 37 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. m oralist, an d a hater of all things new .6 4 M artial's d esired /u n d esire d reader separates the conflated reader/critic of Phaedrus: Tu qui nasute scripta destringis m ea, et hoc iocorum legere fastidis genus, p arv a iibellum sustine patientia, severitatem frontis dum placo tuae et in cotum is prodit A esopus novis... q u id ergo possum facere tibi, lector Cato, si nec fabellae te iuvant nec fabulae? (Fab. 4.7.1-5; 21-2) You w ho tu rn up your nose at m y w ritings a n d disdain to read these kind of jokes have a little patience w ith m y book w hile I soften the stem look on your face an d bring forth Aesop in new tragic gear... So w hat can I do for you, reader Cato, if neither fables nor the fabulous please you? Both P h aed ru s and M artial are highly self-conscious about their choice of genre and the projected reader response.6 5 P haedrus prefaces each of h is four books w ith a prologue and a poet's statem ent, uses value term s for h is fables (iocorum , Fab. 4.7.2, Iibellum, Fab. 4.7.3) and inscribes anxiety ab o u t their reception. The im agined disapproval of P haedrus' critic is conveyed Catonians w atching him (quid m e.spectatis constricta fronte Catones? [Sflf. 132.15], "W hy, Catos, do you look at me with tense brow?'). 6 4 Marcus Porcius Cato (234-149BCE), censor in 184BCE. Also his grandson of the same name (95-46BCE), a Stoic w ho committed suicide. See Juvenal Sat. 2.40 for Domitian as the tertiu s Cato. For a discussion of Cato as the stem moralist, see Richlin (1992: 5-13). 6 5 Cf. Perry (1965: xii): 'Phaedrus and Babrius were the first writers to bring a disconnected series of Aesopic fables an to that avowedly artistic plane of literature, as an independent form of writing; but necessarily in verse, in order to sanction it as poetic composition.' It is significant that, apart from the choliambic metre of Babrius' verse. Martial shows lit t le debt to Greek fables. As in the preface to Epigrams I, Martial acknowledges his Roman models but not his Greek. For Martial's reference to Phaedrus see n.57 above. 38 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. th rough unfavourable facial expressions.6 6 Sim ilarly in Ep. 1.4, M artial asks D om itian to p u t aside his frow n if he happens to com e across his verse (contigeris nostros, Caesar, si forte libellos, Ep. 1.4.1). The address to th e critic by both poets is, in part, a declaration of the p o et's fame. M artial's plea in the preface th at no-one copy his w ork (nec epigrammata me a inscribat: improbe facit qui in alieno libro ingeniosus est, 1 praef. 9-10) is as m uch a profession th at his epigram s are w orth copying as a fear of plagiarism .6 7 P haedrus m akes this explicit: m ihi p a rta laus est quod tu, quod sim iles tui vestras in chartas verba transfertis m ea, dig num que longa iudicatis m em oria. (prologus, Fab. 4.17-9) M y praise has already been achieved, w h en you and others like you, transcribe m y w ords onto your paper, and judge them to be w orthy of long com m em oration. M artial's Cato has a specific social and political context. The poet addresses the stem critic (Cato severe, 1 praef. 20) in reference to the theatrical nature of his verse (meum theatrum, 1 praef. 16). For M artial's audience, the theatre analogy w ould have particular resonances: th e Flavian A m phitheatre, begun by Vespasian, w as being com pleted by D om itian at this tim e. M ost relevant too is that in 85CE, the year before the publication of Epigrams 1, D om itian took the title censor in c o n ju n ctio n 6 6 Poets demand that their audience have a specific facial expression when listening to obscenities. See Richlin (1992: 10). 39 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. w ith his attem pts to revive the m oral legislation of A ugustus.6 8 C om m entators have noted th at D om itian is now here overtly m e n tio n e d in this preface— surprising considering that the em peror w ould h a v e provided M artial w ith the greatest opportunity for patronage. W ould it be so difficult for M artial's audience to m ake the connection betw een the censor in M artial's poetic theatre and the censor of the F lav ian A m phitheatre? M artial does n o t appeal to D om itian as a benefactor in th e program m atic unit, only pleads that he avoid his censorship (censura, Ep. 1.4.7). By telling the censor to stay away from his verse if he is going to be critical, M artial uses the choliam bic m etre, the venom ous m eter of H ipponax's invective and the acidic verse of Persius' prologue.6 9 M artial's choice of m etre illustrates th at he can retaliate w ith his poetry to the h a rsh treatm ent he m ay suffer from the stem critic. It is thus at the end of M artial's first preface, having detailed his relationship w ith his w ork and 6 7 This may account for the fact that plagiarism is a recurrent theme in Epigrams 1. See Part One, 1 (i) and (iii). “ It is not until 89CE that Domitian renews Augustus' law against adultery {Lex Iiclia d e adulteriis coercendiis). On this law, see Treggiari (1991); Jones (1992: 35; 39; 76; 107). Domitian's law against castration (Suet. Dom. 7; Dio Cass. 67.23), first mentioned by Martial in Ep. 2.60, dates to 81 or 82CE (cf. Easebi Chroniconim Canonum). Suetonius {Dom. 8) refers to Domitian's condemnation of citizens on the basis of the lex Scantinia. On the lex Scantinia, see Fantham (1991), Jones (1992: 76; 107), Richlin (1993: 554-5). Domitian's severe punishment of the Vestals is recorded at Suet. Dom. 8.3-4; Dio Cass. 67.3.3. For a discussion of these laws within the context of Epigrams 6 and 9, see Garthwaite (1990; 1993 respectively). On Roman law, see Crook (1967), Gamsey (1970). The need for obedience and moral rectitude is particularly w ell illustrated on the Domitianic frieze of Minerva in th e Forum Transitorium. See my discussion of it in Part Two, 1 (ii). For a detailed description of the frieze, see D'Ambra (1993). 6 9 For satire's power to harm and the influence of Hipponax on the polemic nature of Roman satire, see Eliot (1960). 40 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. audience, that the precarious relationship betw een poetry and political pow er is introduced. The preface is not a detached piece of w ork b u t fluid in that it connects the exposition of M artial's poetic project w ith the poetry itself.7 0 The recurrence of the Cato figure in the prose and the verse of the preface m akes the distinction betw een M artial-the-poet and M artial-th e-m an unclear.7 1 The prose leads the reader into the choliam bic verse w hich th e n leads us into Ep. 1.1. These fluid boundaries are a recurrent feature of M artial's style and sm ooth the transitions betw een epigram s in th e program m atic unit. Ep. 1.1 is the first in the program m atic u n it to develop ideas introduced in the preface and is an im agined response to his fans asking, 'W here are you, M artial?'. His reply that his libelli are read th e w orld over, reflects a poet self-confident in his fam e.7 2 M artial h a d 7 0 This is a device used by Phaedrus at the beginning of Book 4; he tells the reader to look carefully into his trifles because they are not what they seem to be. H aving told the reader this, he connects his prefatory remarks to a fable, without marking it with its usual title: sed diligenter intuere has nenias;/ quantam in pusillis utiiitatem reperieslf non semper ea sunt quae videntur: decipit/ frons prima multos, rara mens intellegit/ quod interiore condidit cur a angido./ hoc ne locutus sine mercede existimer,! fabellam adiciam de mustela e t minibus (Fab. 4.2.3-9), 'But look carefully inside these trifles;/ how much profit you w ill find in tiny things!/ Things are not always as they seem:/ the exterior deceives many, the rare mind understands what the artist has hidden in the farthest com er./ But lest I be thought to have spoken without a reward, I'll add a fable about a weasel and some mice.' 7 1 See discussion below on Ep. 1.4 where Martial rewrites Catullus and Ovid's statements about the distinction between life and work. On the need for M artial to do this because of the obscene content of his work, see Richlin (1992: 6-7). 7 2 Citroni argues that, for this reason, this epigram is part of a later edition. S im ilarly, Martial boasts of being read all over the world at Ep. 5.13.3; 6.64.25; 8.61.3. 41 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. tentatively associated fam a w ith his ow n literary opus in De Spectaculis,7 3 b u t th at fam e is n o w directly associated w ith his nomen: Hie est quem legis ille, quem requiris, to to notus in orbe M artialis a rg u tis epigram m aton libellis: cui, lector studiose, quod dedisti viv en ti decus atque sentienti, rari p o st cineres habent poetae. (Epigrams 1.1) H ere is he w hom you read, w hom y o u search for M artial, know n throughout the w h o le w orld for his w itty libelli of epigram s; to w h o m you have given glory, conscientious reader, w hile he is still alive and kicking, a glory w hich few poets have after their death. In asserting his fam e, M artial uses m otifs an d sentim ents of his literary predecessors, w h ilst exploiting the epitaphic origins of epigram . H e conveys his po p u larity and im m ortality by in v ertin g the custom ary desire of poets for p erp etu al fame after death. Instead, M artial uses the conventions of d eath to convey the vitality a n d popularity of epigram .7 4 The desire for verse to live on after a poet's d eath is a com m on trope; resonant in Ep. 1.1 is the im m ortality w hich P ropertius strives for (post cineres, 3.1), the fam e w hich Ovid proclaim s (v iv a m , Met. 15.879; in toto plurimus orbe legor, Tr. 4.10.128), and the association of the nom en w ith 7 3 In the first epigram of De Spectaculis Martial says that fame w ill speak of the F lavian Amphitheatre (unum pro cunctis Fama loquetur opus, De Sp. 1.8); Martial contributes to th e glorification of the theatre through his own poetic opus. See Part One, 1 (i). 7 4 Martial has a similar approach at the end of the book. See m y reading of Ep. 1.117 in Part One, 3. 42 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. th at fam e (Naso, Fast. 5.377; Tr. 5.1.35; Ex P. 1.1.1). The idea of poetry as an everlasting m onum ent had been m ade fam ous by Horace (Carm. 3.30), b u t there the fam e com es from being talked of (dicar, Carm. 3.30.10), n o t read. H orace uses his poetry to perpetuate his fam e after death; he w ill n o t die altogether (omnis, Carm. 3.30.6) because his verse will im m ortalise his nomen. M artial exploits the epitaphic origins of the epigram m atic genre to m ake his claim to w orld-w ide popularity while he is still alive; hie est (Ep. 1.1.1) as w ell as being a phrase one w ould use to point out a m an in th e street ('H ere he is!'), was also the form ulaic opening on a to m b sto n e inscription ('H ere lies...').7 5 H ow ell (1980: 102) disputes Citroni's (1975: 14-5) brilliant observation that the form at of this epigram closely resem bles epitaphs, saying: 'M. is concerned to praise him self, not to bury h im self.' H ow ell m isunderstands M artial's conflation of the boundaries betw een life and death; he uses the language of death and burial to convey his vitality and popularity. The criteria for fam e have changed; for M artial, the h o p e for im m ortal fam e that other poets express (the aere perennius of H orace [Carm. 3.30.1], the pins uno maneat perenne saeclo of C atullus [1.10], th e maior fama post cineres of O vid [Tr. 4.16.3]) is not so im portant as being read by every m an w hile he is still alive. This sentim ent is fu rth e r underscored by its position w ithin the book; M artial uses the m ed iu m of d eath at the very beginning of the book as opposed to at the end, w here th e 7 5 Hie est is used to point out a man in Persius (1.28) and Juvenal (Sat. 1.161). Citroni (1975: 14-15) states that more than two hundred and eighty epitaphs in the Carmina Latina 43 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. idea of death functions as a 'natural' form of closure (as in H orace Carm. 3.30).7 6 For M artial, closure and death are here inverted to convey ap ertu re and life. Furtherm ore, the structure of the poem reinforces the p rev alen ce of d eath as the m eans to convey life; the first and last line resound w ith death (the epitaphic inscription in the first line, the ashes in the last) and encapsulate the fam ous, living poet (Martialis, Ep. 1.1.2; viventi...sentienti, Ep. 1.1.5) and his vibrant w ork (argutis epigrammaton libellis, Ep. 1.1.3)7 7 at the epigram 's centre.7 8 This epigram is an excellent exam ple of h o w M artial establishes him self firmly w ithin a literary tradition b u t in d o in g so lays claim to originality. The focus on reading in this epigram (legis, lector studiose) reinforces the sentim ent of the preface (perlegitur, 1 praef. 12) and is rem iniscent of O vid's em phasis on reading in his exile poetry. In Tr. 4.10, O vid's m ost 'autobiographical' poem, the reader is addressed: Epigraphica begin with hie est. 7 6 See m y reading of the Antulla epigrams (Ep. 1.114; 116) in Part One, 3. 7 7 Citroni (1975: 15) translates argiitis as 'pieno di spirito.' This reinforces my point; not only the author, but the work, is alive at the poem's centre. 7 8 A similar parallel can be seen in the Fasti where Ovid exploits the Floralia context in an attempt to establish his own fame: volt sua plebeio sacra patere choro,/ et monet a e ta tis specie, dum floreat, uti;/ ...floreat ut toto carmen Nasonis in aevo,l sparge, precor, donis pectora nostra tnis. (Fast. 5.352-3, 377-8), 'She wants her rites to be open to oammcn folk and warns them to enjoy youth's beauty while it flowers...So that the song of Naso flow er for a ll time, sprinkle, I pray, my heart with your gifts'. Flora's encouragement to people to enjoy life w hile it still flowers (floreat) coincides with Ovid's hope that his carmen flow er (floreat) for ever. Both Martial and Ovid associate the values of the Floralia w ith their own claim to fame (Floralia, 1 praef. 16; M artialis, 1.1.2; in Ovid cf. the F loralia description at Fast. 5.183-378 and Ovid's name [Nasonis] at Fast. 5.377). 44 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ille ego qui fuerim , tenorum lusor a m o n im , quem legis, u t noris, accipe posteritas.... sive favore tuli, sive hanc ego carm ine fam am , iure grates, candide lector, ago. (Tr. 4.10.1-2,131-2) So that you know who I was, that p lay er of 'G entle Loves', h ear of him w hom you read, posterity... W hether I have acquired this fam e th ro u g h favour or poetry, rightly I give thanks to you, frank reader. The address to the reader begins and ends the poem , an d provides a sim ila r fram ew ork to th at of Ep. 1.1. M artial bridges the e n d of one O vid poem an d the beginning of the next (Tr. 4.10.132 and 5.1.1) by conflating tw o addressees into one; O vid's candide lector and nostri studiose becom e M artial's lector studiose.7 9 For M artial, studiose underscores the a tten tiv e reader called for in the preface {perlegitur, 1 praef. 12). In both O vid a n d M artial, the reader is connected to the author (quem legis, Tr. 4.10.2; q u e m legis, Ep. 1.1.1) and the w ork or genre for w hich the author is fam ous (tenorum lusor am o ru m in Ovid, argutis epigrammaton libellis in M artial). The reader and the text are inextricably b o u n d to the fam e w h ic h each author celebrates. Both O vid an d M artial are keen to stand a p a rt from the clique of poets. In Ep. 1.1, despite the em phatic end on the w o rd poetae, M artial says that, as an epigram m atist, he has acquired the fam e th at poets rarely a ttain ^Qn studiosns, see Boyle (1995): 'a word itself derived from Tristia 5.1.1 and one of extraordinary ambivalence: "eager", "friendly", "devoted", "scholarly", "learned", "expert"/ 45 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. after their death. O vid, though striving to be reinstated in Rom e, says th a t he should not be counted am ong Rom an poets because he lives in banishm ent on the Getic shore.8 0 Persius should also be m entioned here, w hose prologue expresses a sim ilar desire to be counted ap art from poets:8 1 Nec fonte labra prolui caballino nec bicipiti som niasse Pam aso m em ini, u t repente sic poeta prodirem . H eliconidasque pallidam que Pirenen illis rem itto quo ru m im agines lam bunt hederae sequaces; ipse sem ipaganus ad sacra v atu m carm en adfero nostrum . (Prologue, 1-7) I have not w ashed m y lips in the Nag's Spring nor do I rem em ber sleeping on tw in-peaked Parnassus so that, suddenly, I m ight turn out in this w ay as a poet. I leave the H eliconiads and pale Pirene to those w hose busts are licked by sycophantic ivy: I myself, a half-countrym an, bring o u r song to the rites of the bard. As Barr (1987: 63) notes: 'The first half of the Prologue...is clearly a declaration of P.'s literary intent.' Persius hum orously dism isses the class of 'inspired poets' w ith derogatory colloquial language, in favour of a unique title of self-definition (semipaganus, Prologue, 6). M artial, O vid and Persius im ply th at they are m em bers of a unique group and in so doing lay claim to originality: O vid's banishm ent to Tomis results in w ork w h ich 8 0 As an exile, Ovid no longer considers him self a Roman poet: nec me Roma snis debet conferre poetis:/ inter Sauromatas ingeniosus eram. (Tr. 5.1.73-4), "Rome ought not compare me with her poets:/ I am talented am ong the Sauromatians.' 8 1 For a commentary on Persius' prologue, see Lee and Barr (1987: 63-6). On Persius, see Bramble (1974); Reckford (1962). 46 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. proclaim s itself autobiographical;8 2 Persius, as hybrid, invents a group for him self alone because no one else is likely to read his w ork ('quis leget haec?' min tu istud ais? nemo hercule. 'nemo?'/ vel duo vel nem o, Sat. 1.2-3); and M artial, by declaring him self a succesful epigram m atist during his lifetim e, provides his ow n innovative claim to fame. In Ep. 1.2 we m ove from M artial's preoccupation w ith his fam e to a response to the reader asking w here he can buy the book. Just as M artial had responded to the im plied question, 'W here are you, M artial?' in Ep. 1.1, he now replies to the im agined reader asking, 'M artial, w here can I buy y o u r books?'. As in Ep. 1.1, the reader is addressed. Here, he is persuaded th at the sm allness of the book m akes it less cum bersom e for the buyer to carry: Q ui tecum cupis esse m eos ubicum que libellos et comites longae quaeris habere viae, hos erne, quos artat brevibus m em brana tabellis: scrinia da magnis, m e m anus una capit. ne tam en ignores ubi sim venalis et erres urbe vagus tota, me duce certus eris: libertum docti Lucensis quaere Secundum lim ina post P ads Palladium que forum (Ep. 1.2) You w ho long for m y libelli to be w ith you everyw here and w an t to have them as com panions on a long journey, buy these, that parchm ent squeezes into small pages: give book boxes to the lofty, one hand holds me. Lest you be unaw are of w here I am on sale and you w an d er 8 2 Cf. Boyle (1991: 4) cn Ovid's Tristia: 'Firstly, he chose to make poetry out of his own biographical experience in a way he had never done before.' 47 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. aim lessly through the w hole city, be sure if I lead the way: Look for Secundus, freedm an of learned Lucensis behind the entrance of Peace an d the Palladium forum . M artial conveys his relationship to his book by playing w ith language of slavery and freedom .8 3 E quality in status betw een the book an d th e potential buyer is im plied by reference to the books as c o m p a n io n s (comites, Ep. 1.2.2).8 4 M artial tells the reader th at he w ill show him w h e re he can buy his books and he w ill be their guide and leader (me duce, Ep. 1.2.6). A deliberate juxtaposition is established betw een slave an d free w h en M artial tells the reader w here he is for sale (sim venalis, Ep. 1.2.6); this can, of course, refer to w here the book is for sale b u t the use of the first person singular also im plies th at M artial him self, like a slave, is for sale. The polarity betw een slave and free is bridged by nam ing the fre e d m a n bookseller (libertum, Ep. 1.2.7), a person w ho w as a slave b u t is n o w free. The freedm an is appropriately called Secundus; M artial hopes th at th e bookseller w ill give the book a propitious (cf. secundus, 'favourable') sen d off and that the rew ards will be equally good for M artial. In Ep. 1.2 and 1.3, the civic space of Rom e defines and controls th e relationship betw een the poet, reader and book. M artial's self-positioning w ith in Dom itianic Rome in 86CE contrasts w ith his later detachm ent fro m 8 3 This continues throughout Epigrams 1 in the epigrams concerning Martial's relation sh ip with his book. See below Part One, 2 (i). 8 4 A book of Cicero is imagined to be a travelling companion cm a long journey in Ap. 188: S i comes ista tibi fuerit membrana, putato/ carpere te longas cum Cicerone vias. Comes appears of books also at Horace Serm. 2.3.11-2. 48 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. th e city.8 5 Ep. 1.2 m oves from a non-specific area to a destination particularly p ertin en t for a poet. The epigram show s the m ovem ent of the reader from travelling along long roads (longae viae, Ep. 1.2.2), to w andering around Rom e (urbe vagus tota, [1.2.6]), to finally arriving a t a specific location, D om itian's forum . The epigram ends on the P alladium Forum , so called because of the friezes there depicting M inerva. The location is significant for M artial for tw o reasons. Firstly, th e A rgiletum , w hich ran th rough the forum , w as the booksellers' district.8 6 M artial is thus keen to direct his readers to an area w here they can buy his books. Secondly, M artial's reference to M inerva draw s our attention to th e friezew ork in the F orum T ransitorium , instigated by D om itian. From th e surviving panels, a hierarchy can be seen along a vertical axis; the huge solitary figure of M inerva presides over the horizontal line of w eaving w om en below. In the low er scene, M inerva appears again w here she is seen punishing A rachne am idst her team of w eavers.8 7 That w eaving a n d bookselling occur in the sam e location is no coincidence; the analogy of w eaving w ith p o etry is a com m on one in R om an literature.8 8 T hat M artial ends the epigram in an area w hich explicitly show s the need for people to know their place, locates issues of poetic freedom in the figure of Domitian. 8 5 See Part Two, 2. 8 6 See Anderson (1984) for the topography of the imperial fora. For the layout of the Argiletum district in the time of Domitian, see Anderson (1982). For the evidence of booksellers in the Argiletum district, see Cic. Phil, n.9.21; Gell. XVHL4.1; Galen XIX, p.8. 8 7 For a detailed description of the friezework, see D'Ambra (1993). For discussion of the context of the frieze, see Part Two, 1 (ii). 49 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. These tw o m otifs (the booksellers' location and the concern for poetic freedom ) are continued in Ep. 1.3 and 1.4, w here M artial com m ents fu rth er on the A rgiletum (in Ep. 1.3) and D om itian's control of the w ritten w ord (in Ep. 1.4). The concern for freedom of speech, introduced in the last line, provides a link, them atically and structurally, w ith the follow ing epigram w here the book's safety is the issue. T opographical continuity links Ep. 1.2 and 1.3; 1.2 ends at th e bookstore betw een the T em plum P ads and the Forum Palladium and 1.3 begins in the A rgiletum , the booksellers' district: A rgiletanas m avis habitare tabem as, cum tibi, parve liber, scrinia nostra vacent? nesds, heu, nesd s dom inae fastidia Romae: crede m ihi, nim ium M artia turba sapit. m aiores nusquam rhonchi: iuvenesque senesque et pueri nasum rhinocerotis habent. audieris cum grande sophos, dum basia iactas, ibis ab excusso m issus in astra sago, sed tu, ne totiens dom ini patiare lituras neve notet lusus tristis harundo tuos, aetherias, lascive, cupis volitare per auras: i, fuge; sed poteras tutior esse dom i. (Ep. 1.3) W ould you prefer to live in the A rgiletum shops, w hen for you, little book, m y book boxes are empty? You do not know, alas, you do not know the disdainful w ays of m istress Rome: Believe me, the M artial crow d is so wise. N ow here are there greater snouts: young m en and old, even boys, have the nose of a rhino. W hen you hear the great 'bravo', w hile you throw kisses, you will go to the stars, tossed up in a blanket. 8 8 On weaving and poetry, see Part One, 2 (Introduction). 50 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. But you, lest you suffer your m aster's constant erasures, lest the severe p en m ark your jests, you long to fly, naughty one, through the heavenly breezes. Go, flee! But you w ould have been safer at hom e. The im agined criticism of the people an d the book's interaction w ith th e public and private spheres reflect M artial's concern for the reception of the text. M artial's anticipation of critical response, both good and bad, is evident from the num ber of term s used for literary criticism an d intellectual discernm ent (fastidia, Martia turba, sap it, rhonchi, n a su m rhinocerotis, grande sophos, basia iactas). It is no accident th at the crow d {turba.) w hich has discernm ent (sapit) is described as Martia-, a certain clique, the M artial clique, m ay understand M artial's game {lusus).S 9 C itroni (1970), thinking that these term s reflect M artial's apprehension for th e book's success, concludes that this epigram m ust have originally been first in the book.9 0 I w ould rather read this epigram as M artial's attem pt, after connecting w ith his reader in Ep. 1.1 and 1.2, to distance him self from th e book and its lascivious n atu re (lascive) before his address to Caesar an d apologia {lasciva pagina, 1.4.8) in Ep. 1.4. The distinction betw een the private and public spheres, in w hich th e book m ust interact, anticipates Ep. 1.4 w here the public context is explicit in 8 9 See Boyle (1995: 250-69). 9 0 Citroni (1970) thinks that this epigram is not an integral part of the opening unit but that this was the original opening poem of Epigrams 1. His main justification for this is that Martial is not fully confident of his reader's support. It should be clear that M artial's address to the critic, direct or indirect, is a customary part of his prefatory remarks (see Xen. 2, Ap. 1). 51 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the address to Caesar. M artial vacillates betw een the public an d p riv a te sphere in Ep. 1.3. In line 1 the book w ould rather be in the A rg ile tu m (public) though M artial's bookshelves are available at hom e (private). Lines 3-9, anticipating the public response to M artial's book, balance lines 9- 10 w here M artial contem plates changes to the text at hom e. W ith in this private sphere M artial's text is defined w ith the same value-term s already established for his w ork (lusus), a n d M artial, as its author, is m aste r (d o m in u s ) of it. The last two lines juxtapose public and private; line 11 describes the book flying through th e air, an d line 12 states th at th e book w ould have been safer (tutior) if it h a d stayed at home. The p u b lic /p riv a te contrast is further accentuated by topographical framing; the A rg ile tu m begins the epigram (Argiletanas, Ep. 1.3.1), M artial's hom e ends it (dom i, Ep. 1.3.12). This contrast betw een the public and private sphere is reinforced by the status term s in the epigram. T he book is addressed (parve liber, Ep. I.3.2) for the first tim e, enabling M artial to exploit both m eanings of liber as 'free' an d 'book', according to the q u an tity of the z.9 1 T hough M artial takes the address from Catullus (papyre, Cat. 35.2) and Horace (liber, Ep. 1.20.1), his debt is first and foremost to O vid. R elegated to the fu rth erm o st b o u n d s of civilisation, O vid addresses his book (parve liber, Tr. 1.1) as it em barks 9 1 Martial addresses his book at Ep. 1.70; 2.1; 3.2; 4; 5; 4.86; 89; 7.84; 97; 8.1; 72; 9.99; 10.104; I I .1; 12.2. Varro takes it for granted that different quantities of the same word do not im pede word play. See Ahl (1985: 56-7). On the liber pun in Tr. 1.1, see Hinds (1985: 13); on Martial's rewriting of Ovid, see Boyle (1995: 262-4). 52 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. on a voyage back to Rom e. That M artial rew rites the address from O vid's exile poetry, draw s o ur attention to the distinction betw een the author a n d the w ork. M artial's reason for this becom es evident in the last line w h e re he questions the safety of w h a t is w ritten .9 2 If the book is free (liber), w hy, then, is safety an issue? Is it significant th a t Rom e is set up as a m istress (dom inae, Ep. 1.3.3) an d M artial as a m aster (dom ini, Ep. 1.3.9)? T h e repetition of dom inus throw s into h ig h relief the question of w h ere control lies. W ho is the dominus here? Ep. 1.4 provides som e answ ers. Ep. 1.4 begins w ith a reiteration of M artial's concern for the safety of the book: Contigeris nostros, Caesar, si forte libellos, terraru m dom inum pone supercilium . consuevere iocos vestri quoque ferre trium phi, m ateriam dictis nec p u d e t esse ducem . qua T hym elen spectas derisorem que Latinum , ilia fronte precor carm ina n o stra legas. innocuos censura potest p erm ittere lusus: lasciva est nobis pagina, vita proba. (Ep. 1.4) If, Caesar, y o u should chance u p o n m y libelli, p u t aside the frow n that is m aster of the world. Even y o u r trium phs usually tolerate jests and it does n o t sham e the leader to be m aterial for such jokes. I beg that you read m y verses w ith the sam e expression as the one w ith which y o u w atch Thym ele and the m im e Latinus. A censor is able to p erm it harm less games: M y page is lascivious, m y life is righteous. 9 2 This is particularly explicit in Horace Serm. 2.1. For the precarious situation of poets writing in a genre which does not glorify the emperor and reflect imperial ideology, see A h l (1984a). 53 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. M istress Rom e and M aster M artial of Ep. 1.3 now give w ay to D om itan, m aster of the w orld (terrarum d o m in u m , Ep. 1.4.2).9 3 As dom inus, D om itian is characterised by his scornful facial expressions (supercilium , Ep. 1.4.2) an d his pow er to censure (censura, Ep. 1.4.7).9 4 Sim ilarly, M artial, w ho had been the leader (me duce, Ep. 1.2.6) of the book buyer in Ep. 1.2, also yields this position to D om itian (ducem , Ep. 1.4.4). It is w ith in the context of D om itian's w orld d o m in atio n and leadership th at M artial overtly distinguishes his w ork from his life. M artial's phrase rew rites tw o of his m ost influential m odels, C atullus (nam castum esse decet p iu m poetam/ ipsum, versiculos nihil necesse est, 16.5-6) an d O vid (vita verecunda est, Musa iocosa mea, Tr. 2.354). For Catullus the circum stances of the defence are ironic.9 5 For O vid, the distinction betw een life and w ork has a m ore empirical purpose; O vid pleads that his life is verecunda in an attem pt to persuade Caesar th at the carmen for which he w as exiled does not reflect his true character. For the first tim e here M artial uses the w ord carmen to describe his verse. It is no accident that this w ord is used in a n epigram w hich overtly juxtaposes the w orld of poetics (lusus) and of politics (censura). In D om itian's Rome M artial has a serious need, not only to defend the obscene nature of his w ork, but to m ake sure that h e 93 Martial's bookseller is the dominus at Ep. 1.117.14. 94 Cf. Petronius Sat. 113.10: nec domini supercilium induebat. 95 See Richlin (1992: 12-3) on Catullus 16: 'The distinction between the castum...{et} pium poetam and his obscene work is a paradox and a joke.' 54 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. conform s w ith w h a t is perm itted (permittere, Ep. 1.4.7) and, at least on o n e level, to prove th a t his w ork is innocent (innocuos, Ep. 1.4.7). As the final epigram of the program m atic unit, this epigram reiterates m any of the m otifs introduced in the preface. The v alu e-term s introduced in th e preface (libelli, iocos, lusus, lascivia) are repeated, th o u g h here they are p u t directly in the context of D om itian's Rome. M artial's request that his w ork be read (legas, Ep. 1.4.6) here brings us back to th e focus on reading a t the beginning of the program m atic unit. The context of the m im e as p a rt of M artial's defence for the subject m atter of his w ork raises the issue of w hat is right (proba, Ep. 1.4.8), recalling both the theatre analogy in the preface, and the need for a w riter to be probus, or im probus (1 praef. 8), as the case m ay be. The censorious w atcher, introduced in th e preface through the figure of Cato the censor, is here specifically nam ed as Dom itian, in his capacity to censure the w ritten w ord. M artial invites us to read each epigram in term s of the others, to m ake connections, to cooperate in his poetic project. The critical reading dem anded of the reader is not an absolute theory w hich has the sam e results each tim e; the style is not intended to be like an equation w hich, once deduced, provides an answ er, b u t one w hich enables an interplay of them es and ideas, and results in a plurality of codes. To say that the text has a code is to restrict the potential for m ean in g — M artial opens up th e text, exploiting every possible allusion. The intended reader is one w ho 55 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. can m ake these connections and is rew arded for involving him self in the text and m aking sense of it.9 6 T hus, M artial presents us w ith a read er w h o m u st engage in a dialogue w ith the author, a reader w ho m u st synthesise the sem iotics in order to u n d erstan d the text better. The p ro g ram m atic u n it helps u s to read Epigrams 1. 96 A n obvious comparison here is with portraiture; see Nodelman's (1993) reading of portraits as a collection of signs which need to be synthesised by the intellectual cooperation of the reader. The view er must have some understanding of those signs within the history of portraits and the socio-political context of which they are a product, hi the same way, the reader of Martial must understand the text in the context of his literary, predecessors and the social, moral and political world in w hich the poet writes. 56 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2. Reading Through: Cycles and M otifs in Epigrams 1 Introduction: C om piling Epigrams As is already apparent from the program m atic unit, m ean in g fu l patterns structure M artial's books. I do not intend here to reduce the w hole of Epigrams 1 to precise com positional schem atisations or rigidly stratified u n its,9 7 but to show how cycles of them es and m otifs contextualise (and texturise) these epigram s. A possible influence on the design and texture of M artial's book is the Garland of Philip, a collection of G reek epigram s com piled in the N eronian period. The Garland of Philip provides o n e exam ple of h o w epigram s w ere com piled in the first century CE.9 8 Originally, the content of Philip's Garland was them atically undifferentiated (until the tenth century w hen C ephalas divided it in to categories9 9 ). Philip arranged the epigram s alphabetically in letter groups according to the initial letter of the first w ord of the epigram . For exam ple, all the alphas w ere together b u t there w as no alphabetisation (beyond the initial letter) w ith in the a letter group. The collection, then, was m ade u p of units (each letter group) w hich provided an external fram ew ork. But at ^This has been a popular approach recently in Catullan studies. See CW 81.5 (1988), especially Dettmer (1988: 371-381). 98 For the dating of the Garland of Philip, see Cameron (1980). 99 They are divided into the following categories: epitaphs (emTugPia), amatory and pederastic (EpcoTiicd, rraiSiKd), epideictic (e t t iSeik tikcc) including ecphrastic (E«ppdaeis), reflections and advice on life (TrpoTpe-rrriKd), convivial (ouuTTOTiKd), abusive and satirical (aK C O TTTiicd). For details of Cephalas' divisions, see Cameron (1993). 57 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the sam e time, each letter group had a cross-section of them es and Philip had the freedom to em ploy an internal system based on principles such as sim ilar or contrasting them es, verbal parallels and p u n s.1 0 0 W hilst this gave the collection structure, it avoided m onotony of content. A sim ilar parallel can be found in M artial's books w here cycles, juxtapositions, them es and motifs provide variety but are also structured through patterns of recurring m otifs.1 0 1 It is this overarching structure and the central them es governed by that structure that will be m y focus here. Philip both com piles and contributes to the Garland and lists its contributors in the preface to the collection; he has arranged the poets into a kind of poetic garland, in w hich different poem s by different poets are interw oven. Philip indicates to the reader that he has created an intratextual anthology (the w ord literally m eans 'a collection of flowers'): Av0ecc a o i SpEtpa s ' EAiKcbvia, k c c i K A uxoSevSpou TTiepiris KEipas npcoT ocpuroug k c cAukccs, kcci aeAiSog v e a p fjs Q epiaag a x a x u v , d u r a v e ir A e ^ a xoTs M eA E ayp eloij cos T keAov a x E 9 a v o is . aA A a TrccAaioxepcov eiScos kAeos, eo0Ae K dpiAAs, YVCO01 KCCI OTTAOTEpCOV XT]V o A iy O O T lX lT lV . ’A vxrrraxpos TrpspEi axE9avcp a x a x u s - cog 8e Kopuppos K pivccyopas' Aapvpsi 8 ’ cog ( 3oxp u s ’AVX191A05, TuAXios c o s peAiAcoxov, ap ap aK ov cos OiAoBrjpos- p u p xa 8 ’ o TTappEvicov cos p o8ov ’A v x i9 dvr)s. Kiaaos 8 ’ AuxopEbcov- Zcov&s Kpiva- 5pus 8 e Biavcop- ’Avxiyovos 8 ’ eAari, kcci AioScopos iov Eurivou od9 vi^, auveTmrAeKxous 8 e Trepiaaous 100 This contrasts with the Garland compiled by Meleager in the first century BCE w hich was grouped thematically and then alphabetically, ensuring that all epigrams an the same theme were grouped together. See Cameron (1993). 101 As Sullivan (1993: 84-93) notes, Martial is less indebted to Philip's Garland for verbal parallels than the extensive range of themes. 58 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sikccoov otg eQeAei^ av0Eaiv apTicpurots. (PA 4.2) Plucking flow ers of H elicon for you, and cu ttin g first-born bloom s from Pieria's fam ous forest, reaping a harvest from recent pages, I in tu rn have w oven a garland like to that of Meleager. You know the fam e of older poets, noble C am illus; learn also the brief poem s of later m en. A ntipater w ill adorn the w reath as does a h e ad of com , C rinagoras as ivy-berries; A ntiphilus w ill be b rig h t as a grape-cluster, T ullius like m elilot, Philodem us like m arjoram , Parm enion m yrtle, A ntiphanes like a rose. A utom edon is as ivy, Zonas lilies, Bianor the oak-leaf, A ntigonus the olive and D iodorus the violet. Liken E uenus to bay, and the rest w hom I have interw oven to w hat fresh-born flow ers you w ill. Philip's position as both a selector (Speipag, k X uroSevSpou, Qepiaag ) and a com piler (avTccvenXega) is m ade clear here. T he connection betw een poetry and flora is m ade th ro u g h the m etaphor o f poetry as so m eth in g interw oven. The idea of w riting as som ething w o v en (ouvennrXeKToug) is em phasised and is particularly pertinent in a collection called a stephanos, a garland of various vegetable life.1 0 2 The preface functions as an elaborate contents page, listing thirteen of the contributors to the collection. T h o u g h the contributors are only m entioned briefly,1 0 3 the list in itself is im p o rtan t 102 See especially, Virgil's Eclogues where weaving is a metaphor for poetic composition: 'pastorem, Tityre, pinguisf pascere oportet ovis, deductum dicere carmen,' Ec. 6.4-5, 'A shepherd, Tityrus, should feed his sheep fat and sing his song lean-spun'; Haec sat e rit, divae, vestm m cecinisse poetam ,/ dum sedet et gracili fiscellam texit hibisco, Ec. 10.70-71, 'These verses w ill be enough, goddesses, for your poet to have sung, while he sits and w eaves a basket from thin hibiscus.' 103 As Gow and Page comment (1968: Vol 2: 328): 'Philip's list of poets and w reath- components is reduced almost to the minimum possible number of words.' 59 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. because it establishes Philip's role first and forem ost as a com piler and only im plicitly as a co n trib u tin g poet (he does not m en tio n his ow n poetry in the preface). Yet th e preface stands apart from the epigram s in that it has an addressee, C am illus, and it com m ents, though briefly and vaguely, o n the com position of the collection. Philip's assim ilation of each au th o r's contribution to a fruit, herb, flower or plant show s the sim ilarity betw een them b u t show s also that each au th o r has the opp o rtu n ity to convey individuality. The im pression w e get of the collection as a w hole is a sense of variation. W hat is also im portant for our read in g of M artial is th at som e of the authors of Philip's Garland are them selves likened to clusters; C rinagoras' collection is com pared to ivy-berries (Kopuufiof), and A ntip h ilu s' to a grape-cluster ( f i o T p u f ) . A sim ilar analogy w ould be appropriate to M artial w here pairs, clusters, and cycles structure each book. But M artial, as com piler and contributor, not only takes on Philip's role and that of, say, C rinagoras, but the roles of all au th o rs in Philip's Garland. M artial's com plete au th o rial control em phasises the im portance of the book, the com pleted interw oven product, as w ell as the discrete units of individual epigram s. The variatio of the Garland of Philip h ad an added advantage for M artial~as a poet in the Rom an patronage system , M artial could com pose and com pile epigram s in the garland style a n d circulate them to 60 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. prospective patrons, or to friends for criticism and feedback. These cycles, or libelli as M artial often refers to them ,1 0 4 are less easily decipherable n ow , because they have been incorporated into w hole books. For Philip th e Garland existed only in its entirety, he constructed it to his required len g th from earlier collections of epigram s. But for M artial, the garland-style serves as an advertisem ent for w hat is to come, a selection box and sn eak preview . This form of prelim inary publication afforded M artial th e o pportunity to circulate a collection of various epigram s to a single p a tro n or prospective purchaser, epigram s w hich w ould later form p a rt of a w h o le book. M artial, in content, num ber of addressees, and m ode of publication, exploits Philip's idea of variety to a m uch fuller potential. Cycles in Martial Epigrams 1 I intend to focus on three inter-related cycles w hich are in tro d u ced in the program m atic unit an d w hich pervade Epigrams 1. They concern three fundam ental aspects of M artial's w ork; the poetic, the political an d the social. The three cycles for consideration are: (i) M artial's establishm ent of a poetic identity; (ii) His self-positioning w ithin th e political system of Flavian Rome (the lion and hare cycle); (iii) H is status as cliens w ithin the patronage system . These three cycles differentiate M artial 104 Martial often tells the reader that he can make a book as long or as short as he likes, and refers to abridged versions of books. See, for example, Ep. 1.44; 10.1. On the debate over 61 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. from the G reek epigram m atists who, for the m ost part, hover in tim e an d space; they define M artial in a specific R om an socio-political context.1 0 5 Of these three cycles, only the lion and hare cycle is particular to Epigrams 1, th o u g h the other two are striking because they are prolific in Epigrams 1 and are related to M artial's proclam ation of new -found fame. These cycles show how M artial responds to the Rom e of his day: to literature (in all its m anifestations: com position, transm ission, perform ance, plagiarism , literary predecessors, im m ortal fame); to the patronage system ; to autocracy, as sym bolised by the ruler of Rome a n d the R om an w orld, D om itian. (i) T he M artial Stamp: The Poetic Cycle M artial's authorial identity, established in the program m atic unit, is a controlling principle in Epigrams 1 and is the pivotal point on w hich h is individuality and originality depend. Possession is a n im portant factor in the construction of this authorial identity; the audience m ust know th a t whether Martial's references to the size of his books are literary fiction or reality, see White (1978) and Fowler (1995). 105 In the Garland of Philip few authors make reference to social, political or architectural events of their day. For what little we do know about these authors and their literary environment, see Gow and Page's extensive commentary (1968), also Bowersock (1965). W hite (1993), disagreeing with their opinion, believes that the imperial family is better represented in these epigrams than in contemporary Roman poetry. There are a few panegyrics of the imperial family in the Garland of P hilip (eg. Crinagoras celebrates Marcellus' return from the Cantabrian War [PA 6.61], Antipater of Thessalonica addresses Gaius, adopted son of Augustus [PA 9.59], and, most interestingly, Antipater dedicates a group [PA 9.428; 541; 552] to Calpumius Piso who may have been his patron) but I think White overstresses this point. 62 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. these epigram s belong to M artial. The n um ber of epigram s dealing w ith plagiarism in this book (Ep. 1.29; 38; 52; 53; 63; 66; 72; 91) goes som e w ay tow ards explaining this concern. The recurrence of this m otif, in tro d u c ed in the program m atic u n it (improbe facit qui in alieno libro ingeniosus est, 1 praef. 8-9), constantly rem inds the reader that M artial is now so fa m o u s that people w ant to copy his epigram s.1 0 6 Of course, this concern is also a profession of fam e and popularity; nobody w ould be copying and reciting a M artial epigram unless it were advantageous for him to do so. This cycle of epigram s w orks as deterrent and as proclam ation; M artial can attack plagiarists b u t is also able to express him self as a cut above the rest~a good poet and a genuine one. M artial m akes clear that his w o rk has an indelible poetic stam p a n d he w ill h o ld anyone up to scorn w ho attem pts to m ake this stam p th e ir ow n .1 0 7 M artial's m etaphors bring to m ind, am ongst other social a n d political issues, num ism atic iconography. This im agery was p articu larly p ertin en t in 86CE, w hen coinage becam e stam ped w ith cens. p. (censor perpetuus), the title D om itian had taken at the end of 85CE.1 0 8 A co in 's 'stam p' (used by M artial of his epigram s, signata, Ep. 1.53.2) m arked its authenticity and M artial presents a plagiarised epigram as akin to a 106 There is no m ention of plagiarism in Xenia, Apophoreta, and De Spectaculis. 107 Particularly problematic for Martial, of course, was the fact that epigrams were short and therefore easy to plagiarise. 108 See Buttrey (1975) for specific dates of the change in Domitian's coinage in 85CE. 63 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. co u n terfeit coin.1 0 9 Ep. 1.52 and 53, a distinctive pair, illustrate the im portance of a poetic 'stam p' and the danger of counterfeiting it. M otifs a n d m etap h o rs introduced in the first are sustained in the second. L anguage of social status defines the rights of authorial possession: C om m endo tibi, Q uintiane, nostros— nostros dicere si tam en libellos possum , quos recitat tuus poeta: si de servitio gravi queruntur, assertor venias satisque praestes, et, cum se dom inum vocabit ille, dicas esse meos m anuque missos. hoc si terque quaterque clam itaris, im p ones plagiario pudorem . (Ep. 1.52) I com m end to you, Q uintianus, m y libelli— that is, if I can call them m ine, w h en yo u r poet recites them . If they com plain of h arsh servitude, give them freedom and offer them bail, and, w h en he calls him self their m aster, say they're m ine and w ere m anum itted by m y hand. If you shout this three or four times, You w ill p u t sham e on the plagiarist. M artial's representation of social status inform s his presentation of a u th o rial possession.1 1 0 M artial asserts that he is the only person to h a v e 1 0 9 Signata is used of a stamped as at Fast. 1.229-30: sed ciir navalis in aere/ altera signata est, altera forma biceps?, 'But why is a ship stamped on one side of the copper coin, and a two-headed figure on the other?' 110 An epigram similarly concerned with status and ownership is Ep. 1.66 where Martial tells a plagiarist that it takes more than an ability to copy out words to become an epigram m atist. A well-known book, he says, cannot change its author/master (m utare dominum non potest liber notus, Ep. 1.66.9). The connection between free (liber) and freedman (libertus) m ay be alluded to here; a freedman cannot escape his former master just as a book 64 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. been dom in us of these epigram s. A nyone who claim s such a title for the sam e epigram s is a legal fraud. He alone has the right to m a n u m it.1 1 1 M artial uses technical language of slave m anum ission to convey ideas about rights of authorial possession; M artial says that he h ad freed the book, literally th at he 'sent it forth from the h an d ' (manu missos), and in so doing uses a technical expression for freeing a slave.1 1 2 M artial tells Q uintianus th at he should act on the book's behalf, as its assertor libertatis, the person w ho had to take up a slave's claim for freedom . Once Q uintianus, as assertor libertatis, has agreed to act for the slave-book, he should give him a guarantee (satiscjue praestes) so that the book rem ains free until the case is settled. The culm ination of M artial's appropriation of legal language is in the last line w here he uses for his book a term (plagiarium, Ep. 1.52.9) only ever used w hen defining social status. cannot change its author. For the phrase mutare dominum, see TLL V13I.1725.83f. On Martial's poetic play on the word liber, see Part One, 1 (ii). 111 Martial's use of status terms for the book is modelled on his representation of social status in Flavian Rome. This is made explicit in epigrams where Martial satirises ex-slaves for trying to rid themselves of the stigma of slavery. See especially the epigrams on Zoilus (Ep. 2.16; 19; 42; 58; 81; 3.29; 82; 4.77; 5.79; 6.91; 11.12; 30; 37; 54; 85; 92; 12.54). For the stigmatism associated w ith slavery, see Joshel (1992); Duff (1958). Martial's book, like a Roman slave, shows clear signs of whom it belongs to; that position cannot change. In Ep. 1.81, similar language of possession and enslavement is used when Martial addresses Sosibianus, a freed slave: A servo scis te genitum blandeque fateris,/ aim dicis dominum, Sosibiane, patrem (Ep. 1.81), 'You know that you were bom from a slave and you hap p ily confess it when you, Sosibianus, call your master "father".' A contrast between the vocabulary used by a son for his father and that used by a slave for his master reminds the slave that he can only ever have an ex-master, not a father. Sosibianus' name, surrounded by status terms in emphatic positions (servo, dominum, patrem ), makes poignant M artial's stigmatisation of the freedman. 112 For explanations of the legal terms used here, see Howell (1980: 229-30). A slave who claimed that he w as really free had to find a Roman citizen to act as his assertor libertatis, 65 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Plagium refers literally to the stealing of som eone else's slave, or th e forcing of a free m an into slavery. This is the only tim e in Classical L atin th at plagiarium is used to describe literary theft, an d probably provides us w ith the origin of o u r w ord 'plagiarism '.1 1 3 Legal language reinforces M artial's claim over his epigram s and illustrates the potential danger for those plagiarising his work: the im plication is th at literary theft is akin to com m itting an illegal act. The social status m etaphor continues in Ep. 1.53 w here Fidentius, a person to w h o m four (Ep. 1.29, 38, 53, 72) of the eight epigram s o n plagiarism are addressed, is attacked: U na est in nostris tua, Fidentine, libellis pagina, sed certa dom ini signata figura, qu ae tu a traducit m anifesto carm ina furto. sic interpositus villo contam inat uncto urbica Ligonicus Tyrianthina bardocucullus, sic A rretinae violant crystallina testae, sic, niger in ripis errat cum forte C aystri, in ter Ledaeos ridetur corvus olores, sic, ubi m ultisona fervet sacer A tthide lucus, im proba Cecropias offendit pica querelas, indice n on opus est nostris nec iudice libris: stat contra dicitque tibi tua pagina 'fu r es.' (Ep. 1.53) T here is one of your pages, Fidentius, in m y libelli, b u t it is stam ped w ith a sure likeness of its m aster, a n d brings your poem s to light as clear robbery. So a Ligonian coat p u t w ith u rb an T yrianthian ones contam inates them w ith its greasy w ool. since a slave could not appear in person. Once this was arranged, a trial, by index, follow ed. On social status and legal priviledge in imperial Rome, see G am sey (1970); Joshel (1992). 113 For later usage of the word plagiarium, see H owell (1980: 230). 66 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. So too A rretine crockery spoils crystal, so too a black crow , w hen he w anders perchance on C ayster's banks am ong Ledean sw ans, is laughed at, so too, w h e n a sacred grove seethes w ith polytonal n ig h tin g ales a w retched m agpie offends the Cecropian lam ents. M y libelli n eed no inform er or judge: your page confronts you and says 'You are a th ief/ F identius has been trying to steal M artial's epigram s an d pass them off as his ow n. There is one problem ; they stick out like a sore th u m b .1 1 4 T he epigram s them selves, signed (signata, Ep. 1.53.1) w ith M artial's in d iv id u a l stam p ,1 1 5 detect the plagiarist. This contrasts w ith the im plied black m ark of sham e (impones plagiario pudorem , Ep. 1.52.9) im posed on the plagiarist. Language of status (dom ini, Ep. 1.53.2) reinforces the idea of possession; M artial is the m aster of the epigram s and theft of them w ould be akin to stealing a slave. The disparity betw een the g enuine article and a fake copy is conveyed th ro u g h polarised imagery; M artial's epigram s are associated w ith T yrianthian purple clothes, crystal glasses, w hite swans, 114 A t Ep. 1.72 Martial tells Fidentius that he can no more say he is a poet than a bald person say he has hair, or a person w ith false teeth say they have real teeth, or a black person think they are white. 115 The issue of authorial identity and Martial's work having its own particular 'stamp' becomes especially important in Epigrams 12 when Martial must send his epigrams from Spain to Rome. See Part Two, 2. Though the book has no title, the reader w ill know it from its typical Martial character: quid titulum poscis? versus duo tresve legantur,/ clamabunt omnes te, liber, esse meum {Ep. 12.2.17-8), 'Why do you ask the title? Let two or three verses be read, and everyone w ill shout out that you, book, are mine.' H owever, M artial's hom eland does feature in Epigrams 1 and these epigrams stand in contrast to the social grounding of the other epigrams of poetic identity. Rather, they em phasise ties with other poets bom outside of Rome and the idyllic, status-free lifestyle there. Two epigrams in Epigrams 1 deal with Martial as a Spaniard, one in reference to his literary status {Ep. 1.61) 67 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. polytonal nightingales w hereas Fidentius' plagiarism s are likened to greasy overcoats, cheap crockery, a black crow and a w retched m agpie. M artial's genuine verse is clean, bright, w hite and w orthy; F identius' fake verses are greasy, black, cheap and im proper (improba, Ep. 1.53.10). The verbs used to illustrate the effect of Fidentius' counterfeits are negative: they contam inate (contam inat, Ep. 1.53.4), and violate (zriolant, Ep. 1.53.6), they are laughable (ridetur, Ep. 1.53.8), and offensive (offendit, Ep. 1.53.10). T he religious vocabulary (contaminat, violant, offendit) attributed to F id en tiu s' m isconduct indicates that his verses have transgressed p ro p er practice, a n d one central to the notion of Romanitas. In contrast, M artial locates h im se lf w ith in the sacred grove (sacer Incus, Ep. 1.53.9), and aligns him self in particular w ith a polytonal nightingale (multisona Atthide, Ep. 1.53.9). T he m usical range of the bird, w ith all its nuances, serves as appropriate index of M artial's polyvalency as a poet. The epigram concludes w ith th e culm ination of the legal process of freeing a slave, as presented in Ep. 1.52; once the assertor had agreed to act for the slave, the case w ould be b ro u g h t before a judge. H ere, how ever, no judge (indice, Ep. 1.53.11) is needed; th e epigram itself is evidence and witness to the fact that Fidentius is a th ie f (fnr, Ep. 1.53.12). The judge is appropriately replaced w ith M artial's o w n poetic page. and the other (Ep. 1.49), the longest in the book, concerned w ith the relaxation and contentment that Bilbilis, his hom e town, provides. 68 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (ii) The Lion and the Hare Cycle: The Political Cycle There are seven epigram s (Ep. 1.16,14, 22, 48, 51, 60, 104) on th e lio n and hare m otif in Epigrams 1 and one (Ep. 1.44) in w hich M artial com m ents on the repetition of the motif. All seven describe the n a tu re of the relationship betw een the lion and hare and provide an analogy for the un eq u al relationship betw een ruler (lion) and subject (hare). M ost critics read these epigram s as overt im perial flattery. I do not w ant to reject this as a possible interpretation. Rather, I w ish to argue that M artial in ten d ed th e cycle to be read on m ore than one level and is concerned to d raw th e reader's attention to the dangers of im perial pow er. The cycle so far has produced rather shallow responses.1 1 5 My aim here is to show h o w the lion and hare epigram s have particular pertinence to D om itian's R om e in 86CE, the year in w hich the book was published, and are not left-overs from the epigram s w ritten in 80CE in celebration of the opening of the Flavian am phitheatre.1 1 7 I read this cycle less in term s of fact than in term s 116 H ow ell (1995: 4) comments cm the cycle: 'The book contains a "cycle" of seven poems dealing with a spectacle put on by the emperor, at which a lion allowed a hare to jump in and out of its jaws: this is the occasion for flattery of Domitian which (as often) compares him to Jupiter.' In his discussion of recent scholarship, he says that the thesis th a t 'Martial's apparent flattery of the emperor actually conceals criticism...lacks a ll plau sib ility'. 117 Games involving animals in De Spectaculis include bulls (6 , 18,19, 22), boars (9, 17), bears (10,13,24, 25, 26), rhinoceroses (11, 26), lions (12, 26), sows (14, 15, 16), an elephant (20), a tigress (21), and a hind (33). No doubt the animal epigrams in De Spectaculis influenced Martial's composition of this cycle, but the purpose here is to show how Martial uses the cycle to put his work in its socio-political context, and to explore why the cycle occurs in th is book and not another. 69 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of fable,1 1 8 and th e potential for epigram to m ean. For instance, in Ep. 1.22, w h en the h a re 's flight from the lion's m o uth is com pared w ith a D acian boy's escape from C aesar's w eapons we are explicitly told that one th in g represents som ething else. M artial is not m erely describing a p o p u la r spectacle here. T hroughout this cycle, a direct parallel is m ade bew een th e n atu re of beasts and the nature of m an. A ppearing in a book published a year after D om itian took the title censor perpetuus, the cycle functions as a com m entary on the n atu re of im perial pow er. The lion an d hare epigram s are neatly stru ctu red .1 1 9 Because I a m interested in w here M artial locates him self w ith in the lion and hare cycle, w h at he m akes the cycle m ean, m y reading of the cycle is organised a ro u n d the addressees. The addressees form a cyclical structure: 6: general reader 14: Caesar 22: hare 48: hare 51: hare 60: hare 104: general reader 118 For Phaedrus' influence on Martial, see Part One, 1 (ii). The lion and hare cycle is particularly sim ilar to Babrius 107 cn The Lion and the Mouse. The moralising tale w as particularly common in Roman satire. See especially Horace {Semi. 2.6) on the country mouse and the city mouse. For the opposition established between city and country in th is fable, see Braund (1989). 119 Barwick (1958) divides the epigrams into two sets of three (6 , 14, 22, and 48, 51, 60) and 104. According to his divisions, in the first set, each epigram is compiled of three couplets and ends with flattery of the emperor. In the second set, in w hich two of the three epigram s are compiled of three couplets, the epigrams end with the miraculous nature of the show . 104, the last epigram of the cycle, combines both the flattery of the emperor and th e miraculous aspect, and is com piled of twenty two hendecasyllables. 70 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The first an d last epigram (Ep. 1.6 and 104) address the reader at large, p roviding a fram ew ork w ithin w hich the whole cycle can be read. The first is program m atic in that it establishes the relationship betw een the lion an d hare and draw s the parallel w ith Dom itian and his subjects. The last is the longest and provides the m o st extensive narrative on the n atu re of the relationship betw een the lio n an d the hare. The second epigram of the cycle (Ep. 1.14) is the only one to address Caesar, and the language an d sen tim en t recall the first epigram to address Caesar in the program m atic u n it (Ep. 1.4). The central and largest cluster of the cycle, the re m a in in g four epigram s (Ep. 1.22; 48; 51; 60), address the hare and are concerned w ith the hare's behaviour in the presence of the lion. Of the seven epigram s w hich m ake up the cycle, only the first three directly nam e Caesar, b u t the analogy established in the opening epigram of the cycle indicates the term s in w hich the rest of the cycle m ay be read. The repetition of the lion and hare epigram s in Epigrams 1 is described by M artial as a sequence, a cursus: Lascivos leporum cursus lususque leonum quod m aior nobis charta m inorque gerit et bis idem facim us... (Ep. 1.44.1-3) T hat m y bigger an d sm aller page contains the naughty runs of hares and the gam es of lions and I repeat the sam e thing... 71 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The com m ent illustrates how M artial self-consciously com poses these epigram s as a cycle. M artial's m eaning of cursus is twofold; it refers to the gam bols, the ludic nature of the hare, b u t it also im plies that the epigram s on this m otif form a 'ru n ', a cycle, of inter-related epigram s on the lion an d hare m otif. In addition, M artial's assim ilation to the hare evokes a th ird m eaning; th e lascivi cursus are also the gam es that M artial him self plays w ith the reader. M artial's identification w ith the hare and its b e h a v io u r becom es particularly apparent in the epigram s (four o u t of seven) w h ic h address the hare. The game m otif, introduced in the program m atic u n it, becom es the central vehicle for M artial to convey the m echanics of pow er betw een people of unequal status. A hierarchy is established according to how pow erful or v u ln e ra b le the anim als are. The criteria for status depend on w hether one is th e hunter or the hunted, the consum er or the consum ed. The lion is the m o st pow erful, the hare the least. Bulls and dogs fall som ew here in betw een; in Ep. 1.22 the hare is the prey for dogs, not lions, and in Ep. 1.51 it is said th a t the lion w ould n o t lower itself from bulls to break a hare's neck. T he central characteristics of lion and hare and the relationship betw een the two are introduced in the first epigram of the cycle: A etherias aquila puerum portante per auras illaesum tim idis unguibus haesit onus: 72 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. nunc sua Caesareos exorat praeda leones tutus et ingenti ludit in ore lepus. quae m aiora p u tas m iracula? sum m us utrisque auctor adest: haec su n t Caesaris, ilia Iovis. (Ep. 1.6) As the eagle carried the boy through the heavenly breezes, the load clung on, u n h u rt by the tim id talons: N ow the prey w ins over C aesarean lions and the hare plays safely in the huge mouth. W hich do you think is the greater marvel? The greatest controller is present at both: this one is C aesar's, that one is Jove's. The epigram introduces m any m otifs w hich ru n through the cycle; th e association of the lion w ith Caesar (Caesareos leones, Ep. 1.6.3), th e characterisation of the lion as a beast w ith a huge m outh and appetite (ingenti ore), the definition of the hare as prey (praeda) and its co n cern w ith safety (tutus). That the hare can enter the lion's m o u th u n n o tic e d introduces a characteristic particular to the hare; his cunning ability to avoid the lion because of his size and his astuteness. The hare is safe because he plays (ludit, Ep. 1.6.4) w ith the lion and is able to w in him o v e r (exorat, Ep. 1.6.3). A direct parallel is m ade betw een the lion an d D o m itian , as both reign suprem e in their spheres. D om itian's position as auctor o n earth is paralleled w ith Jupiter's position as auctor of the heavens (Ep. 1.6.6).1 2 0 In Ep. 1.60, the lion is in a sim ilar position of authority; the lion is the lord an d king of the forests (nemorum dominum regemque, Ep. 1.60.5). 120 The term has associations w ith H ellenistic monarchs; see Spengel (1894: 377) on Menander, ha Suetonius (Tiberius 27), Tiberius rejects the statement that he h a d 73 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. M artial's representation of the lion is am biguous because it is o ften presented in oxym ora and sharply antithetical vocabulary. Because of th e association of the lion w ith Caesar (Caesareos leones, Ep. 1.6.3, for exam ple), the lion is necessarily kind and m erciful tow ards the hare. Yet M artial pays m ore attention to the depiction of the lion as savage (saevos leones, Ep. 1.51.1). The preoccupation w ith the lion's jaw s (ore, Ep. 1.6.4, blando dente, 1.14.3, aperta ora, Ep. 1.14.4, saeva ora, Ep. 1.22.1, vastos hiatus, Ep. 1.22.5, rictibus, Ep. 1.48.1, ora, Ep. 1.48.8, dentes, Ep. 1.51.2, am p la ora, Ep. 1.60.1, vacuo dente, Ep. 1.60.2, ore, Ep. 1.104.16, laxos perviosque rictus, Ep. 1.104.17, timidos dentes, Ep. 1.104.18) a n d claw s (tim idis unguibus, Ep. 1.6.2, ungues, Ep. 1.22.3) establishes him as the aggressor w ith the potential to d evour and destroy. H e is characterised in term s of appetite, hunger (avidus, Ep. 1.14.5), and a large thirst for blood (sanguine tanta sitis, Ep. 1.22.4). In contrast, the hare is always labelled as the prey (praeda, Ep. 1.6.3, 1.14.5, 1.22.5, 1.48.2, 1.51.6, 1.104.16; mollem rapinam, Ep. 1.104.19); it is th e consum ed, the h unted. Yet it is considered too sm all to be w orthy of th e atten tio n of the lion, an d can not be killed by it (non poles hoc tenuis praeda sub hoste mori, Ep. 1.51.6). So disparate in status are the lion a n d hare th at the hare can ru n in and out of the lion's jaw s and re m a in 'approached the Senate as an auctor' and made them change these words to Tiis ad vice' (suasoria). The implications of the term here are dictatorial. Also, Virgil uses auctor of 74 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. u n h a rm e d (itque reditque lepus, Ep. 1.48.2). If this is so, w hy then is safety a concern for the hare? The hare plays safely in the huge m o u th (tutus et ingenti ludit in ore lepus, Ep. 1.6.4), the hare could be no safer (tutior, Ep. 1.48.5) run n in g along deserted sands or better protected (tanta conditur ille fide, Ep. 1.48.6) in a cage than it is ru n n in g in and out of the lion's jaw s (rictibus, Ep. 1.48.1). In fact the prey is supposed to be safer in the lio n 's m o u th th an anyw here else (securior est in ore praeda, Ep. 1.104.16). T he h are's safety is problem atised by the fact that it is often running an d trying to flee the lion (curreret, Ep. 1.14.4, fugis, Ep. 1.22.1, fugax, Ep. 1.48.2). E v en the h are's fear is sw ift (velox timor, Ep. 1.104.14) in the presence of the lion. Fear reflects the precarious relationship betw een the lion and h a re — the h a re 's sw iftness illustrates how quickly and unpredictably it can be seized b y fear. M artial's representation of the hare's position is a telling c o m m e n t o n the freedom the hare supposedly represents. The hare's status is am biguous because of its precarious rela tio n sh ip w ith the lion. If the hare is safe, th en its safety does not seem to coincide w ith its freedom . Though the hare is supposedly free, M artial asks w h y the greedy lion spares the captive prey (unde potest avidus captae leo parcere praedael, Ep. 1.14.5). M artial, in refering to its captivity, points u p the fact th at the hare is dependent on the lion's capricious nature. The reason the lion can play this torturous gam e is revealed in the next line: sed tam en Caesar in the prologue to Book 1 of the Georgies (Georg. 1.27), where the word is sim ilarly 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. esse tuus dicitur: ergo potest, 'But, how ever, he is said to be yours: therefore he can' (Ep. 1.14.6). The lion, as lord and king of the forests, just as D om itian, as lord and god of the people, has ultim ate control over h is subjects. The im plication is th at the hare, even w hen set free, still belongs to the lion, and so is not free at all. That there are rules for the hare to abide by is im plied from licet in Ep. 1.60 (Intres ampla licet torvi, lepus, ora leonis,/ esse tamen vacuo se leo dente putat, 'T hough it is perm itted th a t yo u enter the huge m outh of the grim lion, the lion thinks that his fangs are em pty', Ep. 1.60.1-2). The description is som ew hat contradictory; licet im plies that there are rules for the hare, yet the fact that the lion thinks h is m o u th is em pty illustrates that the hare is not a concern for the lion. It is an im p o rtan t point, and one bound up w ith the status system of R o m a n society: no prestige or pow er is obtained from the destruction of one so low . The final epigram on the lion and hare m otif enlarges upon th e analogy and provides poignant closure to the cycle: Picto quod iuga deligata collo pardus sustinet im probaeque tigres indulgent patientiam flagello, m ordent aurea quod lupata cervi, quod frenis Libyci dom antur ursi et, quantum C alydon tulisse fertur, paret purpureis aper capistris, turpes esseda quod trahunt visontes positioned at the beginning of the line. 76 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. et molles dare iussa quod choreas nigro belua non n eg at m agistro: quis spectacula n o n p u te t deorum ? haec transit tam en, u t m inora, quisquis venatus hum iles v id et leonum , quos velox leporum tim or fatigat. dim ittunt, rep etu n t, am antque captos, et securior est in ore praeda, laxos cui dare perviosque rictus gaudent et tim idos tenere dentes, m ollem frangere d u m p u d e t rapinam , stratis cum m odo venerint iuvencis. haec dem entia n o n p a ra tu r arte, sed norunt cui serv ian t leones. (Ep. 1.104) The fact that the leopard bears a yoke hung from his spotted neck an d the w retched tigers endure patience from the w hip, that stags bite at gold bits, and Libyan bears are controlled by reins, that the boar, as b ig as they say Calydon endured, is obedient to its p u rp le halters, that dirty bisons d rag diariots, that the beast, ordered to dance soft steps does not refuse his black m aster: w ho w ould not th in k these spectacles of the gods? Yet w hoever sees the hum ble huntings of lions— those w hich the sw ift fear of hares tires out— passes over all these things as m inor. They let them go, seek them again, love them captured, and the p rey is safer in the m outh, for w hom they are hap p y to offer loose, pervious jaws, happy to hold back fearful teeth, as long as it sham es them to crush tender prey w hen they have ju st retu rn ed from laying steers low. A rt does not generate this clemency, for the lions know w hom they serve. 77 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. T he epigram, is the longest of the cycle (tw enty two lines) and is sym m etrical around its centre; the first half lists anim als either enslaved or suffering, the second half discusses the m ercy the lion show s tow ards th e hare. The poem revolves around the notion of obedience; the anim als in the first half do n o t know w hom they serve an d m u st be lashed and yoked an d reined, b u t the lions, in the second half, know that they serve Caesar a n d do n o t need to inflict pain or punishm ent on the hares. The poem sets in antithesis enslavem ent through disobedience and freedom th rough obedience. The em phatic ending of the poem o n the lions (leones, Ep. 1.104.22) serves to rem ind the reader of the focus of the poem , the lions and those w ho are subservient to them . But the po em 's culm ination w ith th e lion, after a long list of anim als w ho suffer from being controlled a n d tem pered (sustinet, indulgent patientiam, dom antur , paret, iussa), m akes us re-evaluate the position of the lions in this anim al hierarchy. Are these lions n atu rally m erciful or are they inherently tyrannical? Is the lion th e ultim ate paradigm of the kind anim al, or is it the exam ple par excellence of pow er and control, an anim al capable of inflicting the enslavem ent an d suffering expounded in the first half of the poem ? The concluding tw o lines p ro v id e som e answ ers. The epigram 's end and the cycle's finale resound w ith political im plications and recap issues introduced in the first epigram of the cycle. 78 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The epigram 's m etre is im portant; hendecasyllables th ro u g h th e ir association w ith C atullus perhaps signify the political n a tu re of th e epigram 's content and m ea n in g .1 2 1 The reference to dem entia aligns th is epigram w ith a body of texts concerned w ith dem entia as a sym bol of m onarchical pow er.1 2 2 The term is often used in an ironic context; in Tacitus the em peror's dem entia either reflects the tyranny of m o n arch y (such as w hen C laudius show s dementia in allow ing a defendant to choose the m anner of his ow n death, [Ann. 11.3]) or is often exercised in the case of trivial offences w hich w ould not require a pardon were they n o t directed against a despotic tyrant. Burgess (1972: 339) argues that Statius tu rn e d dementia into 'a respectable, adm irable quality in an em peror' an d that th e Ara Clementiae of Thebaid 12 represents not tyrannical pow er b u t im p erial protection and help. H e is right, I think, in redefining the relatio n sh ip betw een ruler and ruled under D om itian, but w rong in his red e fin itio n .1 2 3 121 Compare m y reading of Ep. 12.72 in Part Two, 2. 122 Such as Seneca's De Clem., Tacitus' Ann., the Ara Clementiae in Statius' T hebaid (12.488). On the political dimensions of dem entia and, more specifically, an Statius' A ra C lem entiae, see Burgess (1972). On the pursuit and abuse of monarchical power in th e Thebaid, see Dominik (1990), especially pp.130-81 on the Thebaid's political relevance to contemporary Rome. On dem entia, see Plass (1995), especially pp. 116-34, 'P olitical Anom aly and Suicide'. Plass presents dementia as power veiled as mercy and quotes Seneca, 'The man who owes his life to another has lost it'. Clementia is presented by Plass as a defensive move, a sign of the emperor's weakness in response to a threat. I suggest here th a t Martial is pointing up the futility of such a gesture. See also Plass' Addendum 6 (1995: 163- 7) on clemency. Plass comments that both gift-giving and dem entia are ways of exercising power. 123 Dietrich (1997: 85) convincingly elucidates the irony in Statius: 'Burgess seems to think that the emperor is represented by the figure of dem entia in Statius' model, but fails to see that the emperor is also the agent of oppression— Statius' model of Clem entia acts both as model for Domitian's behaviour concerning justice, and as critique of the emperor's oppression.' 79 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Suetonius discusses D om itian's clementia w hen highlighting the em p ero r's m alevolence: Sed neque in clem entiae neque in abstinentiae tenore perm ansit, et tam en aliquanto celerius ad saevitiam descivit quam ad cupiditatem . (Dom. 10) But neither his clementia n o r his self-restraint continued for long, and he fell rath er m ore quickly to cruelty than to avarice. Suetonius continues to illustrate D om itian's saevitia by listing people th a t he arbitrarily killed; Paris' pupil because he happened to look like his teacher, H erm ogenes Tarsus because of certain figures of speech in a historical work, a list of senators p u t to d eath on trivial charges. S u eto n iu s sets up a sim ilar juxtaposition of clementia a n d cruelty to that of M artial in Ep. 1.104: clementia is associated w ith a n em peror's self-restraint, but D om itian's lack of clementia is reflected by his capricious nature and su d d en degeneration into cruelty. M artial sim ilarly points up v o latile relationships w ithin the anim al hierarchy; the proxim ity of the a n im als' cruelty in the first half of the poem to the lion's clementia in the second half only serves to underline the system in w hich one is either the h u n te r or the hunted. The em peror's clementia, here alluded to by the lion w ho 80 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. serves him , is best translated as 'kindness', b u t a kindness to be read in a layered tone, a kindness w hich characterises the action as h ollow gesture. The epigram s on the lion and the hare are alm ost com pletely confined to Epigrams 1 an d reflect the n atu re of im perial p o w er in D om itianic Rome in 86CE.1 2 4 The cycle begins w ith the b lu rrin g of th e term s used for positions of control am ong m en, gods and anim als (auctor for Ju p iter and Dom itian, rex an d dom inus for the lion). It ends w ith a co m m en t on the absolute n atu re of im perial pow er. M artial invites us to m ake connections betw een the w orld of the lion and the w o rld of Caesar. The differentiation in status of the lion and the hare m ay be read in conjunction w ith the political an d social hierarchy of Flavian R om e. T h e transferred m eaning of the cycle is reinforced by the fact th at M artial does n o t address the em peror as D om itian but Caesar; M artial com m ents o n political pow er, on the position any Caesar holds, the ways in w hich any C aesar w ields power. D om itian has m onarchical control over his subjects an d the pow er to censor. But M artial, as poet an d as wit, can go som e w ay to achieving freedom of speech by highlighting the dictatorial n a tu re of C aesar through this subtle b u t pow erful analogy. M artial's association w ith the hare, m ade poignant by the proxim ity of lepus, hare, to lepos, charm or w it, m akes the connection betw een the ludic nature of the hare an d M artial's poetics. 124 The other epigrams are De Sp. 10; Ep. 2.75; 9.71. 81 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (iii) Martial the Poet-Cliens: The Social Cycle E pigram s on patrons and patronage are a central stru ctu rin g principle in Epigrams 1. M artial claims to d ep en d on patronage though th e extent to w hich this is a fiction has been m u ch discussed.1 2 5 M artial and Statius pro v id e m ore evidence on patronage in Flavian Rom e than any other a u th o rs,1 2 6 and M artial's representation of the system in Epigrams 1 reflects the im portance of the system for its econom ical, m oral, personal, and satiric potential. Sailer (1983) defines the relationship betw een amici in Im perial Rom e as 'a continuing reciprocal b u t asym m etrical exchange relationship betw een m en of unequal social statu s', b u t adds that there was no clearly defined procedure by w hich each person benefited. The status of p atro n a n d client varied. U sually the relationship was betw een those of unequal status, b u t M artial show s evidence that the system of exchange w orked sim ilarly betw een 'friends', or th a t the boundary betw een p atro n and friend w as blurred. M artial's represented needs are both poetic (acknow ledgem ent of his talent) and econom ic (M artial is dependent o n the exchange system for his livelihood). M artial's gesture of a poem is 125 It has been disputed whether Martial was really dependent an patrons for financial support. White (1978) argues that, as an eques, Martial had to show a worth of at least four hundred thousand sesterces. Sailer (1983) questions whether this amount, established in the Republic, would have been enough for a person to live an a century later. As Sailer also points out, W hite puts too much value on monetary income; Roman society worked on a different system of exchange. 82 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. either reciprocated by a patron— in w hich case M artial eulogises him an d rew ards him w ith im m ortal fam e th ro u g h poetry; or it is not reciprocated by a patron— in w hich case M artial rebukes and satirises him . The epigram s w hich illustrate M artial's ability to praise or blam e are purposefully positioned in Epigrams 1, an d seem intended to encourage p o ten tial patrons to be forthcoming. O ne of the m ost strategically positioned cycles is the cluster of epigram s (Ep. 1.107-113) on patronage at the end of Epigrams 1. A n exam ination of this cycle w ill bridge both this section and the fin al section of P art One (M aking an End: Closure in Epigrams 1). The cycle plays a large role in bringing this book to a close and gives w eight to th e argum ent that M artial paid close attention to the endings of his books. E pigram s on patronage range from pleas for patronage to reproaches for stinginess, to gratitude expressed for favours granted. The patron th u s has various potential slots to fill, and M artial's harsh juxtapositions m ak e evident his desire to m ake patrons realise this.1 2 7 As benefactors, M artial w ill eulogise their deeds; as m alefactors, they w ill be satirised, snubbed an d sneered at. In Epigrams I this is m ost extensively illustrated in the u n it 126 Statius' Silvae, contemporary with Martial's Epigrams, give us information an im perial patronage, publication and presentation. See White (1974). 127 A similar arrangement and desired effect seems to be evident in Ovid's Tristia 1, where poems on loyalty seem intended to encourage people to work for Ovid's return from ex ile. The book has a concentric structure: the w itty prologue (1) is balanced by the serious epilogue (11), statements on exile are sim ilarly balanced (2, 3, and 4 mirror 9), the poems an friendship (5, 8 , 9) surround the central poems on Ovid's wife (6 ) and Ovid's im m ortality through verse (7). This structure is detailed by Boyle (1991). The positioning of th e friendship poems implies that Ovid's friends must work for the poet's recall and O vid in 83 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. from Ep. 1.107 to 113, b u t there are a num ber of sm aller clusters of epigram s w hich reflect the sam e intention. Before looking at those cycles, it is im p o rtan t to establish w h at M artial has to offer a patron and w hat he w ants in return. M artial w ants recognition as a p o e t-cliens and is keen to d istin g u ish him self from th e m otley crew of clientes w ho throng m ost p atro n s' doors. As a poet, M artial has a special quality as a cliens and has som ething unique to offer a patron: im m o rtal fame th ro u g h poetry. This is conveyed in part by M artial's substitution of the book for him self, a m otif introduced in the program m atic u n it.1 2 8 In Ep. 1.70, M artial gives instructions to his book w hich m ust v en tu re from M artial's hom e o n the Q uirinal to Proculus' house on the Palatine. The epigram locates P roculus' house am ongst som e of the m ost m agnificent buildings of Rome (the tem ple of Castor, the tem ple of Vesta, the palace on the Palatine) and thus, by association, im plies that Proculus is a m arvellous patron, w o rth y of m ention am ongst such splendours.1 2 9 It is the fact that no o th er cliens could eulogise Proculus in the sam e way, that m akes M artial stand apart from other clientes, as he tells u s in the final lines: si dicet 'quare non tam en ipse venit?' sic licet excuses: 'quia qualiacum que leguntur return w ill immortalise him through his poetry. If the friend is not agreeable, he w ill be the subject of invective like the false friend of Tr. 1.8. 128 See above Part One, 1 (ii). 129 These buildings are discussed in Part Two, 1 (i). 84 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ista, salutator scribere non p o tu it/ (Ep. 1.70.16-8) If he should say, 'B ut w hy does he him self n o t com e?' You m ay m ake this excuse: 'Because w hatever these things that are read are w orth, a m orning caller could not have w ritten them .' M artial is keen to differentiate him self from the flock of clientes w ho arrive a t Proculus' door each m o rn in g for a sportula. M artial, as poet, has m ore to offer Proculus th an the average cliens, despite his characteristically C atu llan self-deprecation.1 3 0 Sim ilarly, in Ep. 1.108, M artial tells G allus that he w ill call in the evening for d in n er b u t the book will go in his stead in the m orning: ipse salutabo decim a te saepius hora: m ane tibi p ro m e dicet havere liber. (Ep. 1.108.9-10) I m yself w ill often greet you at the tenth hour: in the m orning m y book w ill say 'G ood D ay' to you on m y behalf. M artial's substitution of the book for him self is intended to indicate to the p a tro n that the book, in greeting the patron, will be nam in g him and glorifying him (if, that is, the p atro n responds in kind). The book's greeting conveniently leaves open the p atro n 's reply. The im plication is 'H ow , 130 quia qualiacumque...echoes Catullus; quare habe tibi quidquid hoc libelli/ qualecumque, 1.8-9. 85 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. p atron, w ill you respond to this greeting?' The patron know s that his reply w ill determ ine M artial's next epigram for or against him . The intim acy betw een M artial, the book and the patron w orks both w ays; the poet can reproach som eone for not reciprocating a plea for patronage just as easily as he can praise a patron. Patrons are a m eans to a n end, and if M artial cannot benefit from praising them , then he w ill satirise them , an d w arn others not do the sam e. The situation is not dissim ilar to Peter A ckroyd's presentation (1985) of the struggling poet T h o m as C h atterto n (1752-70). For C hatterton each p atro n provides a n u m b er of poetic posibilities and the poet utilises each situation to his advantage: T hen he (Chatterton) rem em bers that, last night in the coffee house, he heard of the death of A lderm an Lee w ho w as set fair to become one of his patrons. Well, w hat of it? O ne p atro n dead, but m ore to fill his place. H e takes u p the paper and lead pencil w hich he always leaves by his bed before he sleeps (for his poetry often comes to him in dream s), and writes: In M artial's case, the poetic possibilities provided by patrons are illustrated thro u g h juxtaposed epigram s of praise and blam e. T hese juxtapositions point up how easily one can becom e the other. Ep. 1.39 and Lost by A lderm an Lee's death in prom ised w ork . . £1.11.6 W ill gain in elegies for Lee . . W ill gain in satires against Lee £2. 2.0 £3. 3.0 £5. 5.0 £3.13.6 Thus So am glad he is dead by 86 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1.40 illustrate this. In Ep. 1.39 M artial addresses his friend and p a tro n , D ecianus, and praises him for his honesty and virtue. The epigram falls easily into the praise category. The epigram is followed by a two line attack on anyone w ho is envious of such praise: Q ui ducis vultus et non legis ista lib enter, om nibus invideas, livide, nem o tibi. (Ep. 1.40) You w ho pull a face and do not read those things gladly, M ay you envy all, jealous one, and m ay no one envy you. A m ore explicit cluster of praise and blam e epigram s is Ep. 1.23-26 w h e re the central tw o epigram s praising patrons are surrounded by two w h ic h condem n patrons. The two central epigram s address Decianus a n d Faustinus, both popular patronal figures (Decianus appears at Ep. 1.8, 39, 61, Faustinus at Ep. 1.114; 3.2; 25; 39; 47; 58; 4.10; 57; 5.32; 36; 71; 6.7; 53; 61; 7.12; 80; 8.41; 10.51). These tw o epigrams of praise are surrounded by Ep. 1.23 a n d 26 w hich satirise C otta and Sextilianus as selfish patrons. Cotta o n ly invites people to dinner whom he finds attractive naked, and S extilianus drinks excessive am ounts of wine alone. These four epigram s show tw o clear paradigm s; the good and like-m inded patron w orthy of praise, and the selfish patron, w orthy of satire. The longest u nit of epigram s on patronage and the m o s t em phatically positioned in Epigrams 1 is the sequence from 107 to 113. T h e 87 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. u n it reflects the im portance of the patronage system for M artial's poetic achievem ent an d the need for M artial to v alid ate his w ork in the search for patronage. This u n it is m ade up of epigram s connected by them e as well as position. For exam ple, Ep. 1.110, a response to V elox (appropriately n am ed Speedy for his love of short poems), w ho has accused M artial of w riting epigram s th a t are too long, follows the tw en ty three lined Ep. 1.109, th e second longest epigram in Epigrams I.1 3 1 The u n it is introduced by a bitter com m ent o n the lack of literary patronage in Flavian Rome. M artial, responding to an accusation of laziness fro m his close friend, Julius M artialis, nostalgically looks back to w h en M aecenas readily provided patronage for w o rth y poets: Saepe m ihi dicis, Luci carissim e Iuli, 'scribe aliquid m agnum : desidiosus hom o es.' otia da nobis, sed qualia fecerat olim M aecenas Flacco Vergilioque suo: condere victuras tem ptem per saecula curas et nom en flam m is eripuisse m eum . in steriles nolunt cam pos iuga ferre iuvenci: pingue solum lassat, sed iuvat ipse labor. (Ep. 1.107) O ften y ou say to me, dearest Lucius Julius, 'W rite som ething big: you are a lazy m an.' G ive m e the leisure, the sort that once M aecenas gave his Flaccus and Virgil: T hen I'd try to w rite verses to co n q u er tim e an d snatch m y nam e from the fu n eral flames. Bulls dont w ant to carry yokes into b arren fields; Rich soil gets tired, but the toil itself is pleasing. 131 The longest is Ep. 1.49 on Bilbilis. 88 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This opening epigram of the u n it on patronage is in the form at of a recusatio.1 32 This w as a com m on feature at the beginning of a book, usually accom panied by an apologia, w here poets declare that th ey are inadequate or incapable of w riting in a m ore 'lofty7 genre.1 3 3 Yet M artial does not say th at he is incapable of w riting som ething great (aliquid m agnum , Ep. 1.107.2), b u t that the lack of patronage does n o t give him the leisure to do so. The country proverb of the last two lines serves to highlight the V irgilian poetry that received M aecenas' su p p o rt,1 3 4 a n d to provide an analogy for the patronage system : as in farm ing, patronage m ust be cultivated and nurtured. M artial likens his position to th a t of a bull trying to carry yokes into barren fields. The fields represent th e p atro n w ho has n o th in g m ore to offer. They m ay have been generous in the past but a cliens cannot continue to p lo u g h patrons' pockets because after a tim e the p atro n tires (lassat, Ep. 1.107.8). The epigram ends n o t on a note of disillusionm ent b u t w ith a proclam ation of M artial's enjoym ent of w riting (iuvat ipse labor, Ep. 107.8). The epigram in its position here reads m o re like ah advertisem ent: Good P atron W anted; Will A ccept A ny Offers. T he 132 On the recusatio in Martial, see Citroni (1975: 326-7). 133 Such as Ovid Am. 1.1, Horace Serm. 2.1, Carm. 4.1. On the programmatic poem, see Caims (1972). 134 The lines echo Virg. Georg. 1.4 (pingue solum....fortes invortant tauri) and Aen. 4.202 (pingue solum). 89 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. follow ing six epigram s are a selection on the gratitude or d isg ru n tle m en t th a t defines M artial's response. The structure of the unit is as follows: 107: disappointm ent in patronage system and hope for a benefactor 108: praise of patron, Gallus 109: praise of Publius' dog, Issa 110: response to accusation that M artial's epigram s are too long 111: praise of patron, Regulus 112: com plaint that Priscus is a bad patron 113: M artial tells reader not to read his earlier epigram s T he u n it is structured so as to encourage patrons to be forthcom ing, a particularly appropriate gesture at the end of a book. T hat this u n it is interspersed w ith epigram s that validate M artial as a good poet (Ep. 1.110 justifies the length of M artial's epigram s, Ep. 1.113 dism isses the p o o r quality of M artial's earlier w ork in favour of better current work) is a sign to any potential patron that his support w ould be w orthw hile. T he com plaint about the lack of patronage in Ep. 1.107 is follow ed in 108 by a n address to Gallus telling him how im portant his patronage is: sed tibi non m u ltum est, unum si praesto togatum : m ultum est hunc unum si m ihi, Galle, nego. (Ep. 108.7-8) It is not m uch to you, if I offer you one client: But it is m uch to m e, if I deny you this one, Gallus. This is followed by the epigram on Issa, Publius' dog, w hich serves as a n advertisem ent for M artial that he is w orthy of patronage and his poetry 90 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. rivals C atullus' sparrow poem s (Cat. 2; 3). It is this com bination of pleas for patronage and self-professed talent that connects the epigram s in this u n it. Ep. 1.110 responds to a criticism that M artial's epigram s are too long, appropriately positioned after th e second longest epigram in the book an d then Ep. 1.111 and 112 contrast good and bad patrons. In Ep. 1.111 M artial praises Regulus for his w isd o m (sophia, Ep. 1.111.1), piety (pietas, Ep. 1.111.2) and talent (ingen ium , Ep. 1.111.2), and says th a t he is w orthy of being given a M artial book. T he im plication is that R egulus, having g iv en M artial som e benefaction, is h ere being thanked. This contrasts w ith Ep. 1.112, an epigram to Priscus, w h o has disappointed M artial as a patron: C um te no n nossem , dom inum regem que vocabam : nunc bene te novi: iam m ihi Priscus eris. (Ep. 1.112) W hen I d id n 't k n o w you, I called you 'lo rd ' an d 'king': N ow I know you w ell. From now on, yo u w ill be Priscus to m e. The epigram rings w ith C atu llu s' loathing of Lesbia (nunc te cognovi, Cat. 72.5), and the sentim ent could n o t be further from the gratitude expressed in the previous epigram . The u n it ends at Ep. 1.113 w ith a rem inder to the reader (lector, Ep. 1.113.4) that M artial's prev io u s w o rk is inferior to his c u rre n t talent. H is past w ork is dism issed as rubbish (apinas, Ep. 1.113.2; nugis, Ep. 1.113.6) in 91 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. true C atullan style (nugas, Cat. 1.4), and the epigram encourages p o ten tial patrons to have faith in M artial's new ly-achieved talent. The self- deprecatory com m ents recall Ap. 1 w here M artial is accused of w riting rubbish: 'sunt apinae tricaeque et si quid vilius istis' (Ap. 1.7), 'T hey are trifles a n d nonsense, and anything else that is trashier than that'. T he proxim ity of the cycle to the end of the book is appropriate; M artial ends the book on a note of self-prom otion and self-advertisem ent in the h o p e that p atro n s w ill secure the com position and publication of the next book. 92 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3. M aking an End: Closure in Epigrams 1 C ui legisse satis n o n est epigram m ata centum , nil illi satis est, Caediciane, mali. (.Ep. 1.118) H e for w hom it is n o t enough to have read a h u n d re d epigram s, For him , C aedicianus, no am ount of a bad th in g is enough. This is h ard ly a dynam ic finale to a book of one h u n d re d and eighteen epigram s.1 3 5 Can w e really use this epigram , a short, w itty self-parody o n the tedium of reading epigram s, to talk about M artial's sense of closure? In his discussion of form a n d structure in M artial, S ullivan says: 'For the ending of a book, M artial appears to care rather less...The books w ere, after all, usually open-ended collections, to be added to as circum stances dictated; hence the disregard for ro u n d in g off the num ber of epigram s in m ost books.'1 3 6 In its position as the last in the book, this epigram w ould seem to su p p o rt Sullivan's point. But I w ould tike to suggest th at M artial is interested in a sense of closure in Epigrams 1 and that he uses the final cluster of epigram s to reinforce or re-evaluate m otifs intro d u ced in the program m atic unit. The concluding epigram s, by reconsidering issues 135 Martial often ends a book abruptly with an epigram in which he expresses his amazement (mock, of course) at public interest in his work. Martial responds to Regulus' request for Epigrams 1 at Ep. 2.93 (Primus ubi est, 2.93.1). Self-deprecatory comments occur in final positions at Ep. 3.100, where Martial tells Rufus that the contents of his book are fit only to be washed out. Also at Ep. 4.89, where the copyist and Martial tell the book that enough's enough (Ohe, iam satis est, ohe, libelle, Ep. 4.89.1; 9). At Ep. 11.108 M artial responds to a reader's request for a longer book (lector, adhuc ad me disticha pauca petis, Ep. 11.108.2). 136 Sullivan (1991: 218). Sullivan qualifies this statement by saying that some books have a better sense of an ending than others. 93 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. raised in the opening unit, support a hypothesis that the preface, 1.1 and 1.2 w ere part of the original edition of Epigrams l.1 3 7 M oreover, an exam ination of the epilogue1 3 8 reveals that, to som e extent, it rewrites the program m atic u n it (the preface, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4). The last epigram s of Epigrams 1 reflect M artial's interest in closure, them atic and structural, and give form an d m eaning to the entire M artial book. The brevity of the epigram m atic form m akes it less easy to finish off a book w ith one final, conclusive epigram . D ietrich (1997) shows how R om an poets often use the final poem of a book to achieve form al and them atic closure.1 3 9 A t the culm ination of her exempla, and at the beginning of h er discussion of Statius' Thebaid, she states that 'F lavian authors in h erited this tradition of closure in Latin poetry' (1997: 151). To w h at extent, then, do w e have them atic and form al closure in Epigrams 1? A m ong elem ents of 'form al closure' are those w hich reinforce or re evaluate m otifs introduced at the beginning. Elem ents of 'them atic 137 See Citroni (1975: 12-4) for the evidence that the preface, 1 .1 , and 1.2 were not part of the first collection. The main grounds for this argument is that the preface, 1.1, and 1.2 are more confident in tone and reflect a poet secure in his success and popularity, unlike the tone and sentiment of 1.3. 138 Citroni (1975: xxxviii) labels the last two epigrams as the epilogue: 'L'epilogo e constituito da due epigr. n primo, molto lungo (117) ha carattere giocoso: M. scherza sull'avarizia del compratore e sullo scarso valore della sua poesia, e intanto da l'indicazione del libraio presso cui si puo acquistare il libro. Con l'ultimo epigr. (118) M. conclude alia sua maniera: un distico soltanto, in cui da una brilliante e originale versione epigrammatica del principio callimacheo mega biblion mega kakon.' 139 As examples, Dietrich discusses the endings of the following works: Virgil's Eclogues and A eneid, Horace Odes 3, Propertius 1, Ovid Amoves 1 and M etamorphoses, Lucretius' De Renim Natura, Ennius' Annales, Senecan plays, Calpumius Siculus' Eclogues, Lucan's Bellum Civile. The discussion of these works anticipates Book 12 of Statius' Thebaid. 94 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. closure' are allusions w hich give the book a sense of finality, such as d e a th and the poet's im m ortality through poetry.1 4 0 The discussion w h ic h follows m akes evident that M artial utilises both closural devices. T h e sense of closure in this book is obviously less em phatic than, say, in a collection of ten poem s or an epic of tw elve books w hich have clearly defined structures; to im ply th at a book of one h u n d red and e ig h tee n epigram s com es to a grinding and conclusive halt w ould be m isleading an d wrong. But M artial's closural devices illustrate a poet self-consciously w riting an ending into his beginning.1 4 1 As w e have seen above (Part One, 2 (iii)), the final cycle on p atronage in Epigrams 1 (107-113) is em phatically positioned at the end of the book. These epigram s are not the final epigram s of the book and yet th e ir purpose is closural; to encourage patrons to be forthcom ing and to re m in d them that M artial can im m ortalise them through his poetry. T h e repetition of epigram s on patronage (Ep. 1.107; 108; 111; 112) is a w ay of rounding off.1 4 2 Closure is also signified in the final epigram s by th e repetition of m otifs introduced in the program m atic unit. For exam ple, 1 -1 0 For a summary of the scholarship on closure, see Dietrich (1997), especially pp.121-132. 141 As Dietrich (1997: 135) succinctly comments: 'The assertion of the poet's own attitu d e towards his poetry becomes the virtual signifier of Latin closure.' For Martial, as has been shown in the programmatic unit, this attitude is also present at the opening of the book. As w ill be discussed here, Martial, to some extent, collapses some of the devices of aperture and closure making them almost synonymous. 142 Martial prefers repetition as a closural device to the numerical rounding off of epigrams that Sullivan, above, uses as evidence against Martial's interest in closure. Repetition can also be seen in individual epigrams of the final cluster, such as the repetition of the name Gallus in Ep. 1.108 (Galle, 1.108.5; 8 ). 95 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. C atullus, nam ed in the preface as M artial's predecessor (sic scribit Catullus, 1 praef. 11), again becom es the fram e of reference in Ep. 1.109 w here, in th e first line, Issa the dog is said to be naughtier than C atullus' sparrow (Issa est passere nequior Catulli, Ep. 1.109.1).1 4 3 The poem could not be a greater exam ple of M artial's debt to Catullus; not only does this poem reiterate C atullus' influence established at the beginning of the book b u t it enables M artial to take the beginning of the C atullan corpus, the pair of sp arro w poem s (Cat. 2; 3), and use it for his ow n end. The death m otif in this epigram contributes to the them atic closure of the book; the p o e m com m em orates the death of Issa, not only th ro u g h this poem b u t th ro u g h Publius' painting of the dog: hanc ne lux rapiat suprem a totam , picta Publius exprim it tabella {Ep. 1.109.17-8) So th at her last day does not snatch her aw ay com pletely, Publius is painting her picture. The portrait, in the sam e way as a M artial epigram , goes som e w ay to preserving the m em ory of the dead. The com bination of repetition a n d the com m em oration of the dead through poetry achieves a sense of closure for the book. 143 H ow ell (1980: 333-8) notes that the repetition of Issa est (Ep. 1.109.1; 2; 3; 4; 5) and the description of Issa as deliciae (Ep. 1.109.5) are Catullan cf. Cat. 3.3-4: passer mortiius est meae puellae/ passer, deliciae meae puellae. 96 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. R epetition and the death m otif also function as closural devices in the pair of epigram s on A ntulla's death (Ep. 1.114,116); they are deliberately positioned to coincide w ith the end of the book. This pair provides a n alternative to usual allusions to death w hich occur at the end of books; w e do n o t have here the d eath of a m ythical hero, such as T um us at the end of the A eneid, nor do w e have reflections on the poet's death and im m ortality through poetry, as in H orace Carrn. 3.30. Instead, M artial gives u s tw o epigram s on the death of a 'real' person in w hich he is able to exploit the epitaphic origins of the epigram m atic genre. The epigram th u s doubles as an epitaph and as an illustration of M artial's pow er as a poet to im m ortalise the dead. M artial sim ilarly plays w ith the boundaries of life a n d death at the beginning of the book (in Ep. 1.1 he uses the form at of an ep itap h to convey the vitality of his poetry1 4 4 ) and here coincides w ith th e en d in g of the book. In both instances, death conveys the perm anence of poetry in contrast w ith the transience of life. As in Ep. 1.1, M artial uses d eath to convey the vitality of his poetry; A ntulla, th o u g h dead, is im m ortalised through M artial's epigram s. In both, the com m em oration is achieved in part by the focus on the nam e (Martialis, Ep. 1.1.2; A ntulla, Ep. 1.114.4; 1.116.3; 4). C an w e thus differentiate M artial's approach to a beginning and an ending? C ertainly the boundaries of life an d death are m an ip u lated in both positions. M artial exploits the origins of the 1+4 See Part One, 1 (iii). 97 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. epigram m atic genre: all three epigram s begin in typical epitaphic style (Hie est, Ep. 1.1.1; Hos tibi vicinos, Ep. 1.114.1; Hoc nem us, Ep. 1.116.1). D eath and com m em oration through poetry occur in both: vivat of Ep. 1.114 recalls viventi of Ep. 1.1.5, cineres and ossa of Ep. 1.114, and cinerem of Ep. 1.116 recall post cineres of Ep. 1.1.6, legis and legi of Ep. 1.114 recall legis of Ep. 1.1.1. In Ep. 1.1 death conveys the poet's fam e w hile he is still alive, in Ep. 1.114 death conveys imm ortality through poetry. Its position at the en d of the book m akes its closure m ore emphatic; the cycle o f life ends w ith th e book's cycle. It is m y forem ost concern here to exam ine the epilogue (Ep. 1.117 and 118) as it relates to the program m atic unit. M artial here reconsiders th e relationship betw een author, reader, text and context introduced at th e beginning. Ep. 1.117 begins w ith a sim ilar dialogue to Ep. 1.2 in w h ic h M artial is confronted w ith someone trying to purchase his poetry. H ere, in true satirical style,1 4 5 the dialogue is w ith a specific character, Lupercus: Occurris quotiens, Luperce, nobis, 'vis m ittam puerum ' subinde dicis, 'cui tradas epigram m aton libellum , lectum quern tibi protinus rem ittam ?' non est quod puerum , Luperce, vexes, longum est, si velit ad Pirum venire, et scalis habito tribus, sed altis. quod quaeris propius petas licebit. A rgi nem pe soles subire Letum: contra Caesaris est forum tabem a 145 The dialogue is an inherent part of Roman satire. See, for example, Horace Serm. 1.9; 2.1; 2.5 and Persius Sat. 1 ; 3. 98 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. scriptis postibus hinc e t inde totis, om nis u t cito perlegas poetas. illinc m e pete. + nec t roges A trectum — hoc nom en dom inus g erit tabem ae— de prim o dabit alterove nido rasu m pum ice p u rp u ra q u e cultum denaris tibi quinque M artialem . 'tan ti non es' ais? sapis, Luperce. (Ep. 1.117) W henever you ru n into m e, Lupercus, you say straight aw ay, 'M ay I send a boy for you to give a book of epigram s to? Once I've read it I'll send it straight back7 You need not trouble th e boy, Lupercus. It's a long way, if he w ants to come to Pear Street, an d I live on the th ird floor, and they're high ones. You can find w hat y o u w an t closer by. Surely you go d ow n to the A rgiletum often: opposite the forum of C aesar there's a shop w ith every post covered w ith w riting, so that you can quickly read through every poet. Look for me there. A sk A trectus— th at's the nam e of the shop ow ner— and from the first or second shelf he will give yo u M artial, shaved w ith pum ice and adorned w ith purple, for five denarii. 'Y ou are not w orth so m uch', you say? You are wise, Lupercus. T his epigram s presum e a reader w h o has read the program m atic unit. If the preface, 1.1, and 1.2 are p art of a later edition as Citroni an d others h a v e suggested, then this also m ust h av e been part of that later edition because of verbal allusions and social an d political contextualities. There is n o reason to believe that this epigram is any later than those that precede it. It m akes m ore sense to read this epigram as com plem entary to th e 99 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. program m atic unit. The poem is carefully structured; it begins w ith M artial's response to L upercus asking for a M artial book, and it ends w ith M artial's response to L upercus' im agined com m ent that the book, w h ic h has becom e synonym ous w ith M artial him self, is n o t w orth paying for. L upercus' nam e fram es the poem . Citroni has noted (1975: 356) that, a lth o u g h the epigram addresses Lupercus specifically, the epigram also provides M artial w ith an opportunity for self-advertisem ent, to tell all readers where they can b uy M artial's book. Ep. 1.117 thus reinforces Ep. 1.2, in w hich M artial had told all readers where to find his book. The concern for the book's position w ith in the city's topography is as prom inent as it is in the program m atic unit. Ep. 1.117 brings us back to th e sam e location as Ep. 1.2 and 1.3; the bookstore of the A rgiletum . T his reference, which comes at the en d of Ep. 1.2 and the beginning of Ep. 1.3 is aptly positioned here in the m iddle (line 9) of Ep. 1.117; the m iddle lin e quite literally bridges the references of Ep. 1.2 an d 1.3. The last line of Ep. 1.2 an d the first line of Ep. 1.3 read: lim ina post Pacis Palladium que forum . Argiletanas m avis habitare tabem as, (Ep. 1.2.8,1.3.1) ...behind the entrance of Peace an d the Palladian forum . W ould you prefer to live in the A rgiletum shops... 100 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In Ep. 1.117, both the forum and the A rgiletum are m entioned, though the o rder of the lines is reversed: A rgi nem pe soles subire Letum: contra Caesaris est forum tabem a (Ep. 1.117.9-10) Surely you go dow n to the A rgiletum often: opposite the forum of Caesar there's a shop In 117, how ever, the forum is n o t m entioned in association w ith D om itian (from the reference to M inerva in Palladium1 4 6 ) but w ith Caesar. T his reference is am biguous; it could refer to the F orum T ransitorium , or to Julius C aesar's forum w hich bordered the A rgiletum .1 4 7 M artial's m ean in g depends on our reading of contra w hich can m ean 'opposite, across from ', b u t can also m ean 'against, opposed to'. Language is operating in a layered w ay here; a straightforw ard topographical reference is one m eaning, but another im plication is th at the values associated w ith the A rgiletum , those of crafts and creativity, m ay conflict (be contra) w ith the values associated w ith the Forum T ransitorium (taking forum Caesaris to m ean D om itian's forum ). The friezew ork of the Forum T ransitorium show s M inerva 146 For Domitian's association with Minerva, see Part Two, 1 (ii). 147 On the layout of the imperial fora, and on the location of the Argiletum in particular, see Anderson (1982) and (1984). If, as H ow ell (1980: 350-51) comments, Julius Caesar's forum is referred to here, then the area which would be opposite the forum would be the very sm all space between the Basilica Aemilia and the Forum Transitorium. 101 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. keeping her craftsw om en in place.1 4 8 M artial's false etym ology for th e A rg iletu m 1 4 9 ( 'th e D eath of A rgus') is a good illu stratio n of how M artial likes to play w ith language; besides adding a n additional and u n u s u a l death m otif to the end of the book, the association of the booksellers' district w ith death has a negative resonance in the context of poetic creativity. D om itian's attem pt to control, exem plified by the v isu a l iconography in the Forum T ransitorium , m ay h av e provoked a response from those contra the em peror's ideology. A tension built into the beginning of th e book is the censorious pow ers of the em peror, Domitian. In the program m atic unit, censure a n d safety are obstacles for M artial's poetic expression. In the final epigram s, the prim ary issues are M artial, his book and th e reader. The dom inus of Ep. 1.4, the em peror, is not directly m entioned a t the end of the book. T h e dom inus here is the bookseller, a dom inus w h o ironically undercuts th e control and m ajesty the em peror is supposed to represent.1 5 0 The em peror- dominus has been replaced by the b o o k se lle r-dominus. M artial's interests He not w ith im perial regulations and restrictions b u t w ith the poet's m ea n s 148 For a detailed description and analysis of the frieze, see D'Ambra (1993). See, also, my reading of the frieze in Part Two, 1 (ii). 149 The word Argiletum is probably derived from argilla ('clay') because of the rich soil in the area. Servius (Aen. 8.345) gives various reasons for the Argiletum 's association with the death of someone called Argus. For an inconclusive discussion of the etym ology of A rgiletum and the evidence for a book-trade in this area, see Peck (1914: 77-8). Martial makes th e same pun at Ep. 2.17.3: Argique Letum multus obsidet sutor, 'Many a cobbler crowds th e Death of Argus.' 1 5 0 Dominus is used in a similar context of a perfume seller b y Juvenal (Sat. 2.42). 102 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to fam e. M artial's access to this fam e is n o t th rough the em peror b u t th ro u g h his bookseller. M artial's relationship w ith his book an d bookseller w ithin the p u b lic dom ain is different to that presented in th e program m atic unit. In Ep. 1.3 M artial attem pts to keep his book at hom e, telling it that it w ould be safer there; the book how ever is keen to v e n tu re off to the booksellers' district. In Ep. 117, M artial discourages Lupercus from com ing to his hom e, tellin g him rather to go dow n to the A rgiletum to buy the book there. By Ep. 117, it seem s th at M artial has seem ed his niche at the bookstore (as C itro n i notes, roges A trectum [Ep. 1.117.13], 'A sk A trectus,' im plies that M artial is n o w a Bestseller) and his apprehension ab o u t his m aterial has disappeared. M artial is no longer in the centre of the city, leading the w ay to th e bookseller (me diice, Ep. 1.2.6), b u t at hom e, a long way (longum est, Ep. 1.117.6) from the A rgiletum . In Ep. 1.2 M artial m akes the reader m ake th e connection betw een M artial, the book, an d the bookstore ('I'm M artial a n d th ere's w here you can find m y book!'). In Ep. 1.117 that connection h as been m ade and M artial is not the m id d le-m an betw een the reader an d th e bookseller. M artial no longer has to p ersu ad e people to buy his book (as in Ep. 1.2 w hen he insists, hos eme, 'Buy these!', Ep. 1.2.3), only to p e rsu ad e them to go through the bookseller and n o t the poet him self.1 5 1 M artial's 151 There is no evidence that poets had any financial gain from booksellers but the subsequent fame seems to have been sufficient substitute. On the development of the book trade in Rome, see White (1993: 47-63); Peck (1914: 77-8). 103 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. fam e is now safely secured and self-generating; the advertisem ents attached to the side of the bookstore now do the job for him . M artial's preoccupation w ith his fam e and his audience in Ep. 1.117 reiterates his declaration of w orldw ide renow n in Ep. 1.1. In Ep. 1.1 and 1.117, M artial nam es him self (Martialis, Ep. 1.1.2; Martialem, Ep. 1.117.17); these are th e only places w here M artial does this in Epigrams 1, and the signature m arks the tw o points at w hich the poet m ost self-consciously inscribes h im self into his w ork. Part of this self-definition is the genre w hich he is n o w popularising; as C itroni notes (1975: 357), the phrase epigram m aton libellum occurs in the sam e m etrical position at Ep. 1.1.3 and 1.117.3. M artial's nam e and genre are secured at prim e positions in the book. The self-consciousness of attaching his signature to the epigram m atic genre coincides w ith M artial's attention to the p resen tatio n of the text. M artial's description of the book rew rites O vid and C atullus' references to the appearance of the physical book. M artial's description of his book as polished (rasum pumice purpuraque cu ltum , Ep. 1.117.16) assim ilates him to C atullus w ho also refers to his w ork as polished in justification of his choice of a nugatory genre: C ui dono lep id u m novum libellum arida m odo pum ice expolitum? {Cat. 1.1-2) To w hom shall I give this charm ing new book Recently polished up w ith dry pumice? 104 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. C atullus' reference is deliberately positioned at the beginning of the w ork in order to support his argum ent th at the polished appearance of the book reflects its polished form . M artial makes the statem ent that his book is polished at the end of the book, giving the reader the opportunity to reflect on the w hole book as a polished collection rather than the traditional program m atic poem w hich is keen to assert the book's quality at the start. The positioning of M artial's statem ent reflects not only the im portance of a polished epigram b u t a polished book. M artial's description of a polished collection contrasts w ith O vid's com m ents on the lack of adornm ent for his books from exile; here, the intention is that O vid's conditions for poetic production do not afford h im the opportunity to m ake his books sm art. The shabbiness of appearance is intended to reflect the poor conditions of the poet: Parve— nec invideo— sine me, liber, ibis in urbem . ei m ihi, quod dom ino non licet ire tuo! Vade, sed incultus, qualem decet exulis esse; infelix habitum tem poris huius habe. nec te p u rp u reo velent vaccinia fuco— non est conveniens luctibus ille color— nec titulus m inio, nec cedro charta notetur, Candida nec nigra cornua fronte geras. felices om ent haec instrumenta libellos; fortunae m em orem te decet esse meae. nec fragili gem inae poliantur pum ice frontes, hirsutus sparsis u t videare comis. (Jr. 1.1-12) 105 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Little book, I do not begrudge it that you w ill go to the city w ithout m e. Alas for m e, th at it is not perm itted for yo u r m aster to go. Go, b u t un ad o rn ed , as is appropriate for an exile; unfortunate one, w ear the attire that befits the time. You w ill n o t be covered w ith the purple juice of berries— that colour is n o t appropriate for m ourning. Your title w ill not be m arked in verm ilion, nor your p ap er w ith cedar oil, and you shall w ear no bright bosses on your black edges. Such paraphenalia adorns w ell-om ened books; it is fit th at you rem em ber m y fortune. M ay neither of your edges be polished w ith brittle pu m ice, so that yo u appear rugged w ith dishevelled hair. The poem is a m ock-apology, in part; the book, represented as a dishevelled person, provides a h u m o ro u s variation on the apologia in w hich a poet defends the quality of his w ritin g .1 5 2 M artial's book contrasts w ith O vid's. O vid's book is u n a d o rn ed (incultus, Tr. 1.1.3), has no purple cover (nec te purpureo velent vaccinia fuco, Tr. 1.1.5), and is n o t polished w ith p u m ic e (nec...poliantur pumice, Tr. 1.1.11). M artial's description of the appearance of the book, a description w hich in O vid takes up the first fourteen lines of Tristia 1, is com pressed into one line, and the sentim ent is reversed: rasum pumice purpuraque cultum, (Ep. 1.117.16), 'shaved w ith p u m ice and ad orned w ith p u rp le'. The description, w hich brings us back to descriptions of the appearance of the book in the program m atic u n it,1 5 3 rew rites the beginning of Tristia 1 at the end of Epigrams 1. M artial echoes 152 On Ovid's relationship to his book in Tristia 1, see Hinds (1985). 153 In the programmatic unit, Martial comments on the book's appearance (membrana, Ep. 1.2.3; lituras, 1.3.9), and its size (me mantis una capit, Ep. 1.2.4; parve liber, 1.3.2). 106 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tristia 1 in the program m atic u n it w ith the address to the book (parve liber, Ep. 1.3.2) and here, at the end, concludes his rew riting of the sam e O v id ian poem . M artial's reversal of O vid's sentim ents reflects his relationship to his w ork; O vid m u st distance him self from his b o ok-he is in exile and the book m u st go to Rome w ith o u t its author (sine me, Tr. 1.1.1). The shabbiness of the book's appearance, especially its lack of purple (the 'im perial' colour par excellence), m akes a statem ent about Ovid's estrangem ent from the im perial court. M artial, how ever, has become th e book itself (illinc me pete, Ep. 1.117.14, Martialem, 1.117.17) and he wears the im perial colour (purpuraque cultum , Ep. 1.117.16). If O vid's book reflects a poet despondent in exile, M artial's book reflects a poet secure in his fam e, political in nature, and at the centre of the Rom an w orld. But the book does n o t end at Ep. 1.117. W hat of Ep. 1.118? T he answ er for this m ay n o t be in Epigrams 1 but in the preface to Epigrams 2.1 5 4 It is m ost probable th at Epigrams 1 and 2 w ere published together in 85 or 86CE.1 5 5 I w ould like to suggest that whereas Ep. 1.117 looks back to the o p en in g of the Epigrams 1, Ep. 1.118 anticipates and looks forward to Epigrams 2. Ep. 1.118 functions as a sort of 'tag epigram ' w hich leaves the 154 For a discussion of the preface to Epigrams 2, see Janson (1964: 110-12). Janson uses this preface as evidence that 'epistolary prefaces at that time were spreading to genres in w hich they had previously been absent and that they were often tediously long/ I read the prefaces to Epigrams 1 and 2 as being the antithesis of each other in the Appendix. 155 Citroni (1975: ix), in accordance with Friedlaender's comprehensive work (1888) on the chronology of Martial's books, dates the simultaneous publication of Epigrams 1 and 2 between the end of 85 and the beginning of 8 6 CE. 107 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. book o p en for a subsequent book, providing a link betw een one book an d an o th er. T he them e of Ep. 1.118 is the tedium of reading too m any epigram s; M artial's address to Caedicianus says that he w ho does n o t tire of reading epigram s can n o t have too m uch of a bad thing (nil illi satis est, Caediciane, mali, Ep. 1.118.2). The preface to Epigrams 2, addressed to Decianus, is M artial's response to a com plaint that long prefaces are tedious. T he criticism of the tedium of reading epigram s w ithin the epigram (Ep. 1.118), and the criticism of the tedium of reading prefaces w ith in the preface (2 praef.) are here side by side. A few verbal sim ilarities m ay reinforce m y point. T he preface to Epigrams 2 begins: VALERIUS MARTIALIS DECIANO SUO SAL. 'Q u id nobis' inquis 'cum epistula? parum enim tibi praestam us, si legim us epigram m ata? quid hie porro dicturus es quod non possis versibus dicere? video quare tragoedia aut com oedia epistulam accipiant, quibus pro se loqui non licet: epigram m ata curione non egent et contenta su n t sua, id est m ala, lingua: in quacum que p ag in a visum est, epistulam faciunt. (2 praef. 1-7) VALERIUS MARTIALIS TO HIS FRIEND DECIANUS GREETINGS. W hat's it to us w ith this letter?,' you say, 'Do w e give you too little, if w e read the epigram s? A nd w hat are you going to say here that you're unable to say in verse? I can see w h y tragedy and com edy get a letter, for they can't speak for them selves: epigram s d o n 't need a crier and they are 108 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. content w ith their ow n tongue, that's to say a bad tongue: they ad d a letter on w hatever pag e seem s right to them. Ep. 1.118 ends on the them e of reading epigram s (sz legimus epigrammata), the preface to Epigrams 2 begins w ith the them e of reading epigram s (legisse...epigrammata). Ep. 1.118 ends o n the w ord mali— he for w hom it is n o t enough to read one h u n d red epigram s, cannot have enough of a bad thing. In the preface to Epigrams 2, epigram s are characterised as speaking w ith a bad tongue (mala lingua, 2 praef. 6). Both deal w ith im ag in ed criticism s of M artial's w riting and the p o et's response. In Ep. 1.118 M artial brings the book to a halt because the reader should have had enough; in the preface to Epigrams 2 he cuts short the preface so that he does not w ear the reader out before the book begins (ad primam paginam non lassi pervenient, 2 praef. 15). The fact th a t the sam e sentim ents bridge b o th books illustrates that M artial is not only interested in w riting an e n d in g into its beginning but a new beginning into its ending. 109 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Part Two: Reading Martial's Rome 1. Palaces and Panegyrics: Architecture, Sculpture, and M eaning in Epigrams 9 Introduction A n d H istory, w ith all her volum es vast, H a th b u t one page... W hose arch or pillar m eets me in the face, T itu s' or Trajan's? N o— 'rtis that of Tim e (Byron, Canto IV of Childe Harold, 108...110) P lu rim a et am plissim a opera incendio absum pta restituit, in quis et C apitolium , qu o d rursus arserat: sed om nia sub titulo tantum suo ac sine ulla pristini auctoris m em oria. (Suetonius, Dom. 5) H e restored an im m ense n u m b er of buildings destroyed by fire am ongst w hich w as the Capitol, w h ich had b u rn t dow n again. B ut only his ow n n am e was inscribed on them all, w ith no m e n tio n of the original builder. These are two very different reflections on Rom e's physicality.1 Byron's early n in eteen th century view show s th a t for him there w as little to distinguish th e m onum ents of one R om an em peror from an o th er. S uetonius' com m ent that D om itian recorded only his ow n nam e on th e 1 These two quotes are taken from. Edwards' book (1996) on the relationship between Roman literature and the city's material presence. 110 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. C apitol w h en he restored it after the fire of 80CE, reflects an e m p e ro r's attem p t (if, of course, w e can believe Suetonius) to appropriate all of R om e's m o n u m en tal history. W hat, then, w as the effect of an e m p e ro r restoring a building w ithout acknow ledging its history? M artial cam e to R om e in 64CE and lived through som e of the m ost dram atic changes in R om e's visual landscape. After the erection of the Flavian A m p h ith e atre , he rem arks: hie ubi conspicui venerabilis A m phitheatri erigitur m oles, stagna N eronis erant. (De Sp. 2.5-6) H ere, w here the venerable b u lk of the outstanding A m p h ith e a tre is erected, w as before N ero's lake. Rom e's physical transform ations in the second half of the first century CE w ere dram atic; M artial saw the D om us A urea fall and its lake disappear, h e w atched the Flavian A m phitheatre, the A rch of Titus, the Dom us F lavia, the T em plum P ads, the Forum T ran sito riu m , to nam e but a few, rise. I here relate M artial's epigram s on architecture, sculpture and the d ty 's topography to the physicality of D om itian's Rom e and its c o n stitu tiv e ideology. I l l Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (i)Topographical Tours The voice of M artial's epigram s is firm ly rooted in Flavian R om e. The city7 s topography is often conveyed in an address to the book w h ich m u st journey through the city to reach its destination: V ade salutatum pro me, liber: ire iuberis ad Proculi nitidos, officiose, lares. quaeris iter, dicam. vicinum Castora canae transibis V estae virgineam que dom um ; inde sacro veneranda petes Palatia clivo, plurim a qua sum m i fulget imago ducis. nec te detineat m iri radiata colossi quae R hodium m oles vincere gaudet opus. flecte vias hac qua m adidi sunt tecta Lyaei et Cybeles picto stat Corybante tholus. protinus a laeva clari tibi fronte Penates atriaque excelsae su n t adeunda dom us. hanc pete: ne m etuas fastus lim enque superbum : nulla m agis toto ianua poste patet, nec p roprior quam Phoebus am at doctaeque sorores. si dicet 'quare non tam en ipse venit?' sic licet excuses: 'quia qualiacum que leguntur ista, salutator scribere non potuit.' (Ep. 1.70) Go, give greetings on m y behalf, book: you are ordered to go, dutiful one, to Proculus' gleam ing hearth. You ask the way. I'll tell you. You'll pass the tem ple of Castor, near ancient Vesta and the virginal hom e. From there you'll head for the venerated Palatine on the sacred slope, w here m any an im age of the leader shines. Let not the resplendent bulk of the w ondrous colossus delay you that w hich is happy to outdo the R hodian work. M ake a tu rn at the house of drunken Lyaeus w here the dom e of Cybele stands w ith its painted Corybants. Straight ahead on your left are the Penates w ith distinguished fro n t and the approaches to the halls of the high house. 112 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. H ead in this direction. D on't fear arrogance and a haughty threshold: no doorw ay opens w ider from p o st to post, an d Phoebus and the w ell-versed sisters love no-one dearer. If he should say, 'W hy does he n o t com e him self?' You m ay m ake this excuse: 'Because these poem s, w hatever they are w orth, could n o t have been w ritten by a m orning greeter.' M artial's language is here predom inantly visual; he acts as tour guide as h e m aps o u t the civic space of Rome an d conveys its m o n u m e n talisatio n . D etailed descriptions give the reader the im pression that they are observing a m ap w hile listening to directions on how to get from th e Forum R om anum to a patron's house o n the Palatine.2 O ur tour begins at the Aedes Castoris at the south-eastern end of the Forum R o m a n u m . M artial's reference to the aedes again at Ep. 9.3.11, in addition to the archaeological evidence, gives w eight to the argum ent that D o m itian restored it.3 M artial's next 'signpost' is the Atrium Vestae at the foot of th e Palatine, probably restored and enlarged by D om itian after the fire of 80CE.4 The reader is then told to head up the Sacra Via (sacro...clivo),5 to th e 2 The directions to the book are reminiscent of Ovid; inde petes recalls Tr. 3.1.31 and 4.2.55. The book is told its route in Ex P. 4.5. 3 Livy (ab urb. con. 2.42.5) tells us that the tem ple was originally dedicated in 484BCE. For the archaeological evidence on the aedes, see N ash (1961: 201-11); Anderson (1983: 101); Jones (1992: 91); Richardson (1992: 74-5). 4 On the Aedes Vestae and details of the building's restorations and rebuildings, see H ill (1989: 23-4). A restoration of the aedes is ascribed to Domitian at Chron. 146 where th e temple is called the Templum Castoris et Mineroae. See Richardson (1992: 412-3). 5 The Sacra Via is referred to as the sacer clivus at Epod. 4.78.7 and Horace Carm. 4.2.35. Domitian probably converted some of the arcaded buildings flanking the Sacra Via into th e Horrea Piperataria. See Richardson (1992: 194-5). 113 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Palatine, venerated (veneranda) because of D om itian's transform ation of its w hole eastern ridge into his palace. The m u ltip le references to D om itian's structures here depict Rom e as a com plex of m o n u m e n ta l architecture, an d evoke the vibrant atm osphere of Rome in the 80sCE. The fast succession of M artial's references to structures evokes a city teem ing w ith buildings. M artial draw s a m ap w hereby, w ith each line of the epigram , the reader m oves from one structure or location to the next (lines 3 to 10 introduce a new structure w ith each lin e -lin e 5 alludes to bo th the Sacred W ay an d the Palatine). Buildings function as signposts, structuring the dtyscape of 86CE. A com parable representation of prolific bu ilding in D om itian's Rom e is presented on the reliefs of the Tomb of th e H aterii (fig. I).6 In this (unofficial) bas-relief there is no logical spatial relationship or relative proportions; a sim ilar effect is achieved in M artial's epigram w here the build ings m ove the reader from the Forum to P roculus' house on the Palatine. Both M artial and the relief's artisan are selective in their representation of D om itian's Rom e and convey the proliferation of building work: one th ro u g h the m in u te details of the h ap h azard m a n n e r in w hich buildings w ere erected, the other by connecting one building to another in a kind of dot-to-dot construction scheme. The scene on th e 6 Kleiner (1992: 196) dates the tomb to the late Flavian or early Trajanic period. It is thought that the tomb was commissioned by Q. Haterius, a redem ptor, a public works contractor. For details of the relief work on the Tomb of the Haterii, see Castagnoli (1949: 59-69); Bandinelli (1970: 215-9); Kleiner (1992: 196-9). 114 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. F ig u re 1 ittwwawa) I W t L Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tomb of the H aterii in w hich builders on a crane are show n in the process of com pleting a m ausoleum , and the depiction of the F lavian A m phitheatre (not illustrated in fig. 1) w ith its attic storey still u n fin ish ed , draw our attention to the fact that this period w as characterised by continuous building. As Bandinelli (1970: 215) points out: 'the bas-reliefs have a vibrant sense of atm osphere but one that concentrates on the actual objects p o rtray ed '. Similarly, M artial focuses, as if w ith a zoom lens, on the city as a netw ork of inter-connected buildings. (ii)D om itian's Rome: A rt and Architecture I have focused on the topographical references in Ep. 1.70. But the context of the epigram is the patronage system of D om itian's R om e.7 M artial's representation of the city's landscape is b ound up w ith its social and political ideology: Q ualiter Assyrios renovant incendia nidos, una decern quotiens saecula vixit avis, taliter exuta est veterem nova Rom a senectam et sum psit vultus praesiais ipsa sui. (Ep. 5.7.1-4) 7 Words associated with patronage frame the poem (salutator of the last line echoes salutatum of the first), the book is addressed as officiose, and the reference to the threshold refers to the arrival of clients at Proculus' house. The threshold is mentioned in a sim ilar context at Horace Epod. 2.7-8: forumque vitat et superba civiam / potentiomm limina, 'He avoids the forum and the haughty thresholds of poerful citizens.' A letter is addressed in the same w ay at Tr. 3.7.1 (Vade salutatum) but there the patronage system is not the context. 116 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Just as fire renew s Assyrian nests w hen the only bird has lived ten cycles, so too new Rome has shed her ancient old age an d taken on the face of her ruler. For M artial, D om itian rem aps Rome. M artial's representation of Rom e reflects and critiques D om itian's iconographic building program . Im age and text are illustrations of ideology b u t they also constitute th a t ideology. A rchitecture m akes statem ents ab o u t the em peror, his vision of em pire, and his relationship w ith the d iv in e .8 D om itian's rebuilding a n d reorganisation of Rom e after the fire in 80CE show a concern to join th e past w ith the present--to define the em peror in term s of his ow n fam ily dynasty as w ell as the relationship of that dynasty to the Julio-C laudian dynasty, and prim arily to its founder, A ugustus. But the building pro g ram is also inn o v ativ e and revolutionary. D om itian m agnifies the trend of N ero n ian baroque, particularly evident in the D om us Flavia w here sh eer size is com bined w ith novel forms, spatial illusionism and intricate detail. D om itian's representation of the hum an an d the allegorical m arks a d e p artu re from previous depictions; for the first tim e in State reliefs, su ch 8 Comparable is Price's study (1984) of the interrelation of religion, politics and power as exem plified in the cults of the Roman empire in Asia Minor. Price analyses (1984: 133-45) the significance of imperial religious architecture as an articulation of the ideology of th e im perial cult. 117 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. as the 'Cancelleria reliefs' and the A rch of T itu s / h u m a n and allegorical figures occupy the sam e pictorial space. I am concerned as m uch w ith individual m onum ents as w ith the overall spatial reorganisation of R o m e, the totality of D om itian's iconographic program . It is a program w h ic h M artial regards w ith bitter irony w hen he satirises the stereotypical building fanatics G ellius and Pastor, w ho disregard pleas for patronage as long as they can use the excuse that they are building.1 0 All em perors w ho succeeded A ugustus defined them selves in term s of him . D om itian reshaped Rome after the fire of 80CE an d h ad no o p tio n b u t to build extensively.1 1 D om itian and A ugustus b o th created a u n ifie d visual language an d changed the overall appearance of civic space.1 2 T h e Flavians w ere posed w ith the problem of how to avoid the m ag n ificen t private architecture of N ero and the tyranny it evoked. V espasian a n d Titus attem pted to solve this by m aking N ero's private buildings public; the Flavian A m phitheatre occupied the site of the lake, the T em plum Pacis displayed N ero's sculpture for public view , the Baths of Titus replaced a p a rt of the D om us A urea. V espasian and Titus aim ed to m aintain th e m agnificence of the N eronian building program b u t to devalue the n o n 9 For details of the reliefs, see n.34 below. On the Arch of Titus, see Bonanno (1976: 62-8); H ollow ay (1987: 183-91). For a full bibliography for the 'Cancelleria reliefs' and the Arch of Titus, see Kleiner (1992: 203-4). 1 0 Ep. 9.22; 46 respectively. Ep. 9.46 is quoted and discussed below (pp. 144-5). 1 1 On Flavian art and architecture in general, see Blanckenhagen (1940); MacDonald (1965); Strong (1976); Brown (1971); Ward-Perkins (1981); Kleiner (1992). 118 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. u tilitarian trend of N ero 's architectural extravaganzas. D om itian's architectural m onum ents, influenced by N ero's obsession for the elaborate, the baroque, the illusionistic, m ark a return to architecture as a sym bol of pow er. A fanatical builder in areas public and private, D om itian used architecture to illustrate an d reinforce his (unofficial) im age as dominus et deus.1 3 D om itian's m ost im pressive architectural exploit w as the palace, officially know n as the D om us Flavia, inaugurated in 92CE, and situated on the eastern ridge of the Palatine hill (figs. 2 and 3).1 4 C overing 40,000 square m etres, this was one of the m ost enduring and in flu en tial of all D om itian's buildings, and w as to rem ain the hom e of the em perors for the follow ing three h u n d red years. The palace is both structured and structuring; it is an im pressive exam ple of the m astery of interior space, and, in its position on the Palatine hill, it com m ands the area over w hich it loom s. As the em peror's hom e, it m akes a statem ent ab o u t the locus of pow er. The location associates D om itian's hom e w ith A u g u stu s' h o u se and R om ulus' hut, b u t these abodes, m odest by com parison, stand in stark 1 2 On the unified 'visual language' of Augustan Rome, see Zanker (1988). 1 3 For the ambiguous connotations of this phrase, see Dominik (1994: 58-60). Dominik says that though poets used this phrase it 'did not necessarily imply belief in (such a ridiculous notion as) an emperor's divinity.' Dominik uses as evidence Martial's rejection of the phrase in Ep. 10.72. On the phrase dominus et deus in literature, see also Scott (1936: 102-12). 1 4 Details of the palace can be found in MacDonald (1965: Vol.l); Richardson (1992: 114-7). 119 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. F igu re 3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission contrast to the g ran d eu r and extravagance of the palace.1 5 Sym m etry a n d axiality are central to R om an m onum ents an d structure the view ers' approach, m ovem ent through, and response to, buildings. The stru ctu rin g of interior space h ad reached new levels in N ero's D om us A urea.1 6 B ut there the spraw ling landscape villa, m ade up of odd, discrete spaces, reveals, finally, disjunction rather than an organic structuring of space. D om itian's palace, o n the other hand, has a com pact and system atic structure, w hile show ing, like the N eronian D om us, an obsession w ith th e interrelation of different shapes, w ith the interplay of light and dark, w ith illusion. The effect of the palace is 'surreal'; so carefully constructed are th e divides b etw een room s and units of room s, th at there often seem s to be n o visual conclusion to them . The palace loom s large to one approaching it. There are tw o approaches: an official one on the Via Sacra and one from the fo ru m th ro u g h a m assive vestibule. The palace itself is divided into an official w ing (D om us Flavia [fig. 2]) and a private w ing (Dom us A ugustana [fig. 3]).1 7 The m ajor axis provides a progression from public to private room s, as w as trad itio n al in the planning of dom estic architecture, b u t the sh eer scale of this building, w ith its m eticulous detail and sense of illusion, a n d 1 5 On the sym bolism of the simplicity of Augustus' house and its associations with Romulus' hut, see Edwards (1996: 27-43). 1 6 On the Domus Aurea, see Ward-Perkins (1956); Boethius (1960); Richardson (1992: 119-21). 1 7 For convenience I use the division laid out by Sear (1992: 148-53). 122 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. its com position of public and private, m arks a digression from any previous domus. The palace w as built as an organically structured building com prised of units of interrelated rooms. The D om us Flavia is com prised of several units of room s around a central peristyle. A t the north-east entrance the Aula Regia (fig. 2.3), flanked by the lararium (fig. 2.2) on one side and the basilica (fig. 2.4) on the other, forms the centre of one unit. The A ula Regia was th e largest of these three room s (37 x 30m) and had a w ide shallow apse as its focal point. The room is axial and sym m etrical and focuses the visitor's gaze on the em peror w ho w ould have sat in the apse on a raised platform . M anipulation of spatial height is im portant in the palace; here, the em peror locates him self in a segregated space, above ground level, as a m ark of his superiority. In the A ula Regia, each side of the hall is lined w ith projected colum ns w hich are divided up by alternating round and square niches. Each niche had an aedicule in w hich statues of gods stood. The two huge luxurious green basalt statues of H ercules and Bacchus found here are illustrations of how D om itian used im ages of gods to create his ow n self-im age.1 8 D om itian, su rrounded by these huge basalt statues, evokes the appearance of a hum an living am ongst divine com pany.1 9 The scenic units em phasised the vastness of 1 8 The statues were taken from the palace in the eighteenth century by the Famese fam ily and are now in the Palazzo Famese, Parma. See Kleiner (1992:181-3). 1 9 Compare Price's study (1984:133-55) of the imperial cult in Asia Minor where great effort was made to subordinate the emperor to the gods in architectural terms. 123 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the w hole room an d served to reinforce the em peror as its focal point. T he projected colum ns, characteristic of D om itian's architecture, and sim ilarly used in the Forum T ransitorium , give the illu sio n of greater space a n d control the view er's gaze tow ards m iddle centre. O n passing from the A ida Regia to the triclinium (fig. 2.6), o ne ro unds an octagonal fountain w ithin a peristyle. The peristyle is the central point for the visitor, providing access to the A ula Regia (fig. 2.3), the lararium (fig. 2.4), and the basilica (fig. 2.2) to the north-east, the tric lin iu m to th e south-w est (fig. 2.6), and the octagonal vestibule (fig. 2.5) to the north. There are a num ber of different possible directions; 'surrealism ' an d the elem ent of surprise are central. The surprise w ould n o t only be v isu a l but aural too, if the visitor headed in the direction of a fountain or w ell- pool. The A ula Regia (fig. 2.3) u n it is balanced by another three-room ed unit on the opposite side: the triclinium (fig. 2.6), w hich is flanked by tw o fountain room s. These two units, then, becom e p a rt of a larger cluster of room s w hich su rro u n d the octagonal peristyle. C olum ns betw een room s, such as betw een the triclinium (fig. 2.6) and the peristyle both separate an d link room s; they clearly divide the space but allude to o ther room s and entice the view er's gaze beyond individual room s. The D om us A ugustana (fig. 3) is a split level construction of w hich the u p p er level is poorly preserved and partly unexcavated. The D om us 124 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A ugustana is parallel and adjacent to the D om us Flavia and is approached through som e so rt of vestibule from the north-east. O n entry, one passes into tw o large peristyles (figs. 2.7 and 2.8) w h ich are separated by colu m n s. Beyond these is a m aze of sm all room s, w here experim entation w ith straight an d curved lines and the height of room s provides variety. T he stairw ay to the low er level (at the no rth en d of fig. 3) has a light w ell to a pool at the b ottom w ith polychrom e glass mosaic. The reflection of light on the coloured w ater m ust have m ade the entrance a kaleidoscopic experience. The low er room s, com pletely covered by the level above, sh o w thorough concrete planning, a deft m an ip u latio n of interior space, a n d precocious experim entation of light and dark. The design of the individual room s and the way in w hich these room s are grouped show sim ilar organisation to the Dom us Flavia. The u n it of room s at the bottom of th e stairw ay is encom passed by two wells (figs. 3.2 and 3.3) w hich direct light into pools of w ater, illum inating the su rro u n d in g room s. This cluster of room s is d o m in ated by the triclinium (fig. 3.4) b u t the focal point for the w hole level is the central peristyle. Looking north-east from the peristyle, there is a sim ilar sym m etry of rooms; at either side of the central room (fig. 3.6), possibly another triclinium , doorw ays lead into tw o identical octagonal room s (figs. 3.5 and 3.7). Sym m etrically disposed around th e (probable) central triclinium (fig. 3.6) is a cluster of room s of different 125 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. height and size. The novelty of these room s lies in the fact th at they are n o t self-contained rooms; each room is three-w alled and form s p a rt of a seem ingly endless sequence of spatial experiences. Just as in the A u la Regia (fig. 2.3), the spatial fluidity of the w hole is em phasised th ro u g h connection of a seem ingly boundless continuity of individual units. B ut the focus is on synthesis, the unification of these units into an organic w hole. The palace is also structuring in th at it com m ands the area o v e r w hich it looks; to the south-w est was a tow ering facade w ith a sh allo w concave colum nar screen (fig. 3.8) overlooking the Circus M axim us.2 0 T he balance of curvilinear structure and straight colum ns show s a continuation of the experim entation w ith shapes seen in N ero's D om us A urea. A sequence of room s, sym m etrical around the centre of the screen, is b u ilt into the cu rv atu re of the facade. The colum ns provide a link w ith and a detachm ent from the outside world. A sim ilar effect is created by th e colonnade w hich runs around the no rth east com er of the D om us Flavia. The building is an em bodim ent of pow er; the em peror, looking dow n o n Rome, as represented w ithin the Circus M axim us,2 1 com m ands control. There is controversy as to w hether certain room s of the D om us F lavia 2 0 On the Circus Maximus, see Richardson (1992: 84-7). 2 1 Domitian w ould look down, either from the pulvinar within the Circus Maximus or from his lofty balcony in the Domus Flavia (fig. 3.8), an the urban population gathered for th e races. 126 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. w ere vaulted;2 2 if so, the dom es m ay represent the heavens, and th e em peror m ay be assim ilated to a divinity of those h eav en s.2 3 The b u ild in g itself sym bolises D om itian's authority, its position on the hill affords a view of the sphere over w hich he exerts his authority. As a sym bol of pow er, the palace looks both inw ard and outw ard (on the side of the Circus M axim us). A hierarchy is established w hereby D om itian on high looks d o w n upon the people below him . The approaches to the palace fro m g ro u n d level sym bolise this transition, and the distance in space and height reflects differences in status. The highly structured palace signifies D om itian's control of Rom e's structure. H ierarchy and m astery of space can also be seen in the F o ru m T ransitorium , dedicated by N erva in early 97CE, but built by D om itian.2 4 The forum show s careful planning of a long, narrow area (160x46m) betw een the Tem plum Pacis and the Forum of A ugustus.2 5 The forum (fig. 4) is dom inated by a temple of M inerva, D om itian's patron deity, of w h ic h only the concrete core of the p o d iu m rem ain s.2 5 The forum is th u s traditional in that it is a rectangular open space dom inated by a tem ple, a n d 2 2 Sear (1992:151) discusses literary references to the palace's roof (aurati...laquearia caeli, Statius Silv. 4.2; apex and vertex. Martial Ep. 8.36.8; 11). 2 3 Cf. Statius Silv. 4.2 and Martial Ep. 8.36. 2 4 See Richardson (1992: 167-9). 2 5 Qn the layout and location of the forum, see Von Blanckenhagen (1954); Anderson (1982; 1984); Richardson (1992: 167-9); D'Ambra (1993: 19-46). 2 6 For Domitian's association with Minerva, see Scott (1936: 166-88); Girard (1981). A sestertius from 81CE shows Domitian holding the palladium. 127 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. F ig u re 4 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. is b u ilt on an axial sym m etry. By tu rn in g the A rgiletum in to a m o n u m en talised thoroughfare,2 7 D om itian n o t only connected h im s e lf w ith the tem ple of his father, the forum of A ugustus and of Julius Caesar (the fagade runs along the outside w all of the T em plum P ad s to the F o ru m Iulium , and w as possibly m atched by a sim ilar facade on the o u ter w all of the Forum of A ugustus on the opposite side), b u t he joined the T e m p lu m P ad s, w hich had previously b een a separate entity, architecturally an d topographically, to the other fora, unifying the fora in one architecturally e n d o sed unit (see fig. 5). The forum reflects D om itian's preoccupation w ith spatial illu sio n , elaborate detail, w ith architectural im aging of pow er. Its arch itectu ral features are sim ilar to those of the palace and it is probable that b o th the palace and the forum w ere assigned to the sam e architect, R abirius.2 S A series of shallow bays line the perim eter walls of the forum , rather th a n the traditional colonnaded w alkw ays. Each colum n stood only 1.75m fro m the perim eter w all so that, w hile actually p ro tru d in g only a short distance, the bays gave the illusion of greater spatial depth th an that w hich existed. W e here see the influence of interior design; the projected colum ns are sim ila r 2 7 The imperial fora gradually absorbed portions of the Argiletum (see Richardson [1992: 39]). 2 8 See Martial Ep. 7.56.1-2: Astra polumque pia cepisti mente, RabiriJ Parrhasiam mira qui stm is arte domum, 'Rabirius, you have captured the stars and the heavens with your pious mind, you who have built the Parrhasian palace with amazing skill.' Rabirius is also m entioned at Ep. 10.71.3. 129 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. F igure 5 □ 0 0 ° D 0 0 = O D D I D O D ! 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 1 000 & I I .......................* c % r 130 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to those of the Aula Regia (fig. 2.3), and are sim ilarly em ployed to give a n illusion of spatial depth. H ere, the perim eter w all is broken up into u n its and leads the view er's gaze to the Tem ple of M inerva. In the A ula Regia, a sim ilar sequence of units leads the view er's gaze tow ard the em peror. In both circum stances, the focus is on o rnam ental rather than fu n ctio n al architecture. Originally relief panels su rro u n d ed the perim eter w all b u t only one and a half bays (eight sections) of the frieze are extant on 'Le C olonnacce'.2 9 In this extant section, the frieze explicitly illustrates th e hierarchy of gods and m ortals (fig. 6). M inerva stands in the centre of th e attic dom inating the area below in w hich the A rachne scene is depicted. M inerva is trium phant; she w ears a crested helm et, holds a shield in h e r left h an d , and, presum ably, th ough it is n o w m issing, a spear in h er right. The fram e around the figure of M inerva heightens her com m and of th e space. As D 'A m bra (1993: 47) points out: 'W ithout a continuous n a rra tiv e or a p attern of clearly repeated decorations, the frieze instead depends o n the arrangem ent of figures along the vertical axis to em phasise the th e m e of M inerva's ascendancy.' The scene depicted is the p u n ish m en t of A rachne, as told by Ovid (Met. 6.1-145), of w hich this is the only k n o w n visual representation. Ovid tells the story of how A rachne, fam ed for h e r skill in w eaving and spinning, com petes w ith M inerva in a w eav in g 2 9 See D'Ambra (1993) for a detailed description of the relief work and illustrations. 131 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. F ig u re 6 132 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. contest. M inerva is outraged at A rachne's hubris and tu rn s her into a spider. A rachne provides a m oral tale; everyone needs to know their place, to respect and honour the divine. O vid's story begins w ith in the context of divine authority and pun ish m en t for those who do n o t respect it: Praebuerat dictis Tritonia talibus aures carm inaque A onidum iustam que probaverat iram ; turn secum: 'lau d are p a ru m est, laudem ur et ipsae num ina nec sp em i sine p o en a nostra sinam us.' M aeoniaeque anim um fatis intendit A rachnes, quam sibi lanificae non cedere laudibus artis audierat. (Met. 6.1-7) Tritonia h ad offered her ears to these w ords, and praised the A onid song and just anger, then to herself said: T o praise is not enough. Let me m yself be praised and let m y divinity not be sp u m ed w ithout p u n ish m en t/ Then she tu rn ed her m ind to the fate of M aeonian Arachne, w hom she h ad heard w ould not yield to her renow n in the art of wool m aking. The central m otif of the frieze illustrates the conclusion to O vid's story; M inerva punishes A rachne by tu rn in g her into a spider. O vid's story illustrates the gods' ability to punish (poena, Met. 6.4) and the need for those at the gods' m ercy to yield (cedere, Met. 6.6). The frieze, w ith the solitary, dom inant M inerva figure at the top, shows the need for everyone to respect authority. M inerva, in h e r role as goddess of virtue an d obedience, is a p ertin en t m odel for D om itian w ho w as reviving the A u g u stan laws against adultery and attem pting to revive the m o ral 133 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. rectitude prescribed by the lex Inlia.3 0 But O vid's story and the M in erv a frieze are p oignant not only for their m oral dicta; the fact that O vid's M inerva bridges the A rachne story and the preceding story about p u n ish m en t given after a song com petition (carmina, Met. 6.2) draw s o u r attention to the connection betw een singing and w eaving.3 1 The w eaving m etaphor w as not uncom m on for poetic com position.3 2 W eaving and song are connected in the story w hich inspired the frieze; it w as the w o v e n {texitur, Met. 6.62) thread w hich created the story (vetus in tela deducitur a rgu m entum [Met. 6.69], 'A n old story is w oven in the work.') th a t provokes A rachne's punishm ent. These two motifs, w eaving and song, are sym bolically com bined in the Forum T ransitorium , the booksellers' district, w here 'w oven' carmina w ere sold. The authoritative M inerva figure, loom ing large over the A rgiletum , reflects an attem pt not only to preside over people's m orals but to preside also over the w ritten word. D om itian's assim ilation to M in erv a,3 3 im plicit in the F o ru m T ransitorium , is m ade explicit in the 'Cancelleria reliefs' (fig. 7) w here the 3 0 See n.68 in Part One. 3 1 Ovid (Fast. 3.833) makes the connection between Minerva as goddess of arts and of song: mille dea est operum: certe dea carminis ilia est, 'She (Minerva) is the goddess of a thousand tasks: certainly she is the goddess of song.' 3 2 See Boyle (1976: 11); also n.102 in Part One. 3 3 On the nature of divine assimilation in the late republic and early principate, see P ollini (1990). In defining divine imitation Pollini stresses the importance of (a) distinguishing official and unofficial art, (b) considering the piece of work as created during the lifetime of the individual or after, and (c) accounting for changes in political situations and ideologies. 134 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. h u m an a n d the divine occupy the sam e space.3 4 The m ingling of h u m a n figures w ith allegorical personifications h ad figured in art from the tim e of the R epublic. But it w as a new p h en o m en o n for allegories to appear as comites of the em peror, and it is first illustrated in the early D om itianic relief w o rk on the A rch of T itus.3 5 There, on the south panel, T itus is accom panied by the personified People an d Senate. O n the 'Cancelleria reliefs', later D om itianic pieces (around 93-5),3 6 O lym pian gods and m e n now m ix freely. The two reliefs that survive have been m uch debated for their style, content and intended purpose. O n frieze B (fig. 7.1) D om itian, standing betw een the personified Senate and the Genius Populi Romani, is greeted by his father, V espasian.3 7 They are accom panied by at least five Vestal V irgins, tw o lictors and a personified Rom a (or Virtus). On frieze A (fig. 7.2) D om itian, w hose face is recut into the likeness of Nerva, is 3 4 For details of the reliefs, see Magi (1945; 1973); Toynbee (1957); Bonanno (1976: 52-61); Koeppel (1969, 1984); McCann (1972); Kleiner (1992: 191-2). 3 5 On the Arch of Titus, see n.9 above. 3 6 These panels are traditionally referred to as frieze A and B; see Magi (1945), K leiner (1992: 191). The dating of these pieces is controversial; some think that the profectio scene on frieze A refers to Domitian's triumph over the Chatti in 83CE, others date the pieces to the early Trajanic period. It is not known for what purpose the reliefs were intended. See Kleiner (1992: 191). 3 7 This has been traditionally interpreted as Vespasian's return to Rome (adventus) in 70CE after his C ivil War victory. More recently it has been argued that both figures of Vespasian and Dom itian on frieze B have been recut (Kleiner [1992: 192]). The hypothesis is that th e figure of Vespasian was recut from a figure of Domitian and the current figure of D om itian was originally a priestly figure. It would make sense that Nerva would want to id en tify Domitian w ith the founder of the Flavian dynasty as opposed to aligning himself w ith Dom itian after his damnatio memoriae. 136 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. beckoned on by M inerva, M ars and a personified V irtus (or R om a).3 8 To th e far left of frieze A (fig. 7.2), appears the w ing of a Victoria, in itiatin g m o v em en t from right to left. The figure of V irtus carries a shield w h ich bears a M edusa head, em blem of M inerva. M inerva, w earing the crested h elm et and accom panying M ars, is present in her role as D om itian's g u ard ian of m ilitary affairs. A n ow l supports the crest of her helm et, a p ran cin g griffin occupies its cap, and a h u m an head and a ram 's head decorate its visor. D om itian uses M inerva to legitim ise his m ilitary exploits and here M inerva beckons him on. D om itian used visual im ages to enhance his m ilitary exploits in the eyes of R om ans~so crude is the juxtaposition of m an and god that D om itian transgresses the boundaries of p rev io u s im perial friezes. The contrasting horizontal and vertical alignm ent apparent on the frieze of the Forum Transitorium (fig. 6), an d in the layout and position of the D om us Flavia (figs. 2 and 3), contrast w ith the strong focus here on the horizontal alignm ent of figures. The line of figures creates the effect that D om itian's status is equal to that of the gods.3 9 A sense of m ovem ent from right to left is created by the stance of the figures and gestures, but the heights of the heads are roughly the sam e 3 8 This is m ost often interpreted as Domitian's departure (profectio) for his Sarmatian W ar in 92-3CE. 3 9 Domitian's head is slightly smaller than the other figures but Domitian's position am ongst the gods and his interaction with Minerva (they gaze at each other and Domitian's right arm is aligned with Minerva's right arm) do not seem to suggest the emperor's subordination. 137 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (isocephalism ), creating a static rigidity. A sim ilar scene is depicted in Petronius (Sat. 29), w here a picture is described in w hich 'M inerva h eld him by the h an d and w as leading him into Rom e'. C ould D om itian be draw ing on a N eronian m odel here? In the later years of Flavian R om e, the visual distinction betw een m an and god becomes blurred. D om itian's association w ith the gods in the 'Cancelleria reliefs', possibly later pieces than the Forum T ransitorium an d the Dom us Flavia, reflect an increasing trend in Flavian art to portray Dom itian like a god. The focus o n D om itian's alignm ent w ith the gods (as in the 'Cancelleria reliefs') and th e subordination of the people (as exem plified by the Palace and in the F o ru m T ransitorium ) illustrate the integral contribution of Flavian art an d architecture to im perial ideology. (iii) M artial's R epresentation of D om itian's Rom e M artial m akes his feelings clear on D om itian's architectural extravaganzas after the em peror's death: Q uidquid Parrhasia nitebat aula donatum est oculis deisque nostris. m iratur Scythicas virentis auri flam m as Iuppiter et stupet superbi regis delicias gravesque luxus. (Ep. 12.15.1-5) W hatever used to shine in the Parrhasian hall has been given to o u r eyes and our gods. 138 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Jupiter m arvels at the Scythian rays of virescent gold a n d is astounded at the delights a n d oppressive luxuries of an arrogant king. The im plication is that D om itian's private art w ork has now been p u t o n public display. M artial's association of Dom itian w ith kingship and w ealth depict him m ore like an eastern king (rex) than a R om an em peror.4 0 W ritten in the tim e of Trajan, this epigram is a clear illu stratio n that a change in em peror requires a change in discourse.4 1 But M artial's representation of D om itian's visual arts program is also given a devastating critique before the em peror's death. D om itian's connection w ith the palace, w ith gold, w ith Jupiter and w ith pow er, is m o st extensively detailed du rin g D om itian's lifetime.4 2 One of M artial's m ajor criticism s of D om itian's fanaticism for building relates to the statues of D om itian h im s e lf4 3 Before M artial 4 0 There seems to be a lack of Romarmess associated with Domitian, evident in the first poem of Epigrams 9 where Martial has ample room to recreate the Romanness of Horace Carm. 3.30. Domitian was out of Rome on five occasions during his fifteen year reign for a considerable amount of time. It seems that this detachment from Rome is evident in Martial's epigrams and there may be ironic undertones in Domitian's title, parens orbis: though Domitian's authority was felt in Rome, he spent much time away. Also to be noted is that Domitian was reputed to have spent long periods of time at his Alban villa. See Jones (1992: 96-8). 4 1 See m y reading of Epigrams 10 (Part Two, 2). 4 2 I w ill focus primarily on Epigrams 9 here though examples from other books are at times essential for understanding Martial's representation of Domitian's Rome. 4 3 On Flavian portraiture in general, see Hinks (1935); Breckenridge (1968; 1981: 492-4); Daltrop, Hausmann, and Wegner (1966); Bonanno (1976). For the association of portraiture and political ideology, see Pollini (1990). To be noted is that Domitian's hairstyle shows closer resemblance to that of Nero than to those of Vespasian or Titus. See Kleiner (1992: 172-77). For a bibliography on the portraiture of Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian, see Kleiner (1992: 203). 139 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. critiques the portraiture of the em peror, he indicates to the reader of w hat a good statue consists. First and forem ost is the bu st of him self in the preface to Epigrams 9 (imago, 9 praef. 3; 9) w hich is set up as the paragon of portraits. The imago consists n o t only of a b u st b u t a plaque telling the o b serv er/read er about the deceased. M artial is com m em orated w ith an imago an d a verse w hich proclaim s him as the m ost distinguished w riter of migae. T hrough bust and poem , im age and text, M artial claim s his im m ortal fame: hoc tibi sub nostra breve carm en im agine vivat, quam non obscuris iungis, A vite, viris: (9 praef. 9-10) Let this brief verse live u n d e r m y bust, w hich you, Avitus, are adding to distinguished men. M artial's self-glorifying verse follow s.4 4 The w ords attributed to the figure give him a personal identity, they m ake him real and 'alive.' The interplay betw een literary and physical m o n u m en ts enables M artial to use art as a m etaphor for the vitality of his poetry. W hen being attacked for the brevity of his epigram s, he exclaims: nos facim us Bruti p u eru m , nos L angona vivum : tu m agnus luteum , G aure, G iganta facis. (Ep. 9.50.5-6) 4 4 Cf. 9 praef. 5-8. 140 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I m ake a Brutus boy live, a Langon live: You, Gaurus, a great m an, m ake a Giant of clay. It is this 'liv e' quality of M artial's epigram s that enables him to paint a fuller picture, he claims, through verse th an through sculpture.4 5 T he need for im age and text is reinforced in Ep. 9.74 and 9.76 w here the portrait alone is said to be inadequate. The child of C am onius has died; Ep. 9.74 tells us th at C am onius had a portrait painted of his son as a baby, but did n o t have one painted as a m an for fear th at his lips w ould not seem to speak (dum timet ora pins muta videre pater, Ep. 9.74.4). The uneasiness tow ard the silent portrait is apparent. L iterature's com pensation for th e inadequacies of pictorial representation is m ade m anifest in the second epigram addressed to Cam onius w here M artial tells him th at his verse w ill enhance the picture and give a greater imago of the boy: sed ne sola tam en puerum pictura loquatur, haec erit in chartis m aior im ago meis. (Ep. 9.76.9-10) But not alone shall the picture speak of the boy, this will be a greater image in m y pages. 4 5 The key word here is vivum, a quality which Martial praises in the statue of Julia: Quis te Phidiaco formatam, hdia, caelo,/ vel quis Palladiae non putet artis opus?/ Candida non tacita respondet imagine lygdos/ et placido fulget vivus in ore decor. (Ep. 6.13.1-4) 'W ho would not think you, Julia, to be shaped by Phidias' chisel, or a work of Pallas' artistry? The white lygdus corresponds to a speaking likeness, and living beauty shines in your calm face.' 141 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The gap betw een image and reality is sim ilarly reflected in th e p o rtraitu re of D om itian w hich M artial com pares to Jupiter and H ercules. M artial paints D om itian's portrait as the Palatini vultus (Ep. 9.24.1), and as the G reater H ercules (Ep. 9.64; 9.65), perhaps w ith reference to the h u g e basalt statue of H ercules found in D om itian's palace.4 6 The imago of D om itian w hich belongs to Carus is described as Palatini vultus (Ep. 9.24.1), facies m u n d i (Ep. 9.24.3) and effigies d o m in i (Ep. 9.24.6), draw ing o u r attention to the external features, the effigies, the imago. A statue w ith o u t any indication of the true nature of the p erso n is no m ore than an em p ty vessel.4 7 Ep. 9.64 and 9.65 portray D om itian as 'The Greater H ercules', w ith reference perhaps to the tem ple w hich D om itian is said to have dedicated to H ercules w ith a statue bearing his ow n features.4 8 H ow ever, in Ep. 9.101, H ercules is rejected as the appropriate imago for D om itian because H ercules' exploits do not m atch the em peror's: H erculeum tantis num en non sufficit actis: Tarpeio deus hie com m odet ora patri. (Ep. 9.101.23-4) H ercules' divinity does not m atch such great deeds: let this god lend his face to the T arpeian father. 4 6 See n.18 above. 4 7 This is nicely captured by the image of Domitian wearing Minerva's aegis at Ep. 7.7.11 and 7.2.1. Attention is drawn to Domitian's accoutrements, his exterior. 4 8 This is comparable with the statue of Augustus in the Library of Augustus on the P alatin e hill which supposedly had Apollo's features. See Kleiner (1992: 82). 1 4 2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. N o appropriate imago can be found for D om itian. In contrast, M artial's statue is identified by his w ords, the relationship betw een the m an h im self a n d the statue. M artial does not lend his features to anyone (as does D om itian, commodabit Ep. 9.1.2, com m odet Ep. 9.101.24); the features rep resen t the m an. The disparity betw een im age and reality is sustained in M artial's presen tatio n of D om itian's building program . H aving in tro d u ced the conflict betw een im age an d reality in the preface, M artial begins the book w ith a poem on the T em plum Gentis F laviae.4 9 Epigrams 9, published in 95CE, a year before the assassination of D om itian, begins w ith an epigram w hich is program m atic for the book as a w hole:5 0 D um Ianus hiem es, D om itianus autum nos, A ugustus annis com m odabit aestates, d u m grande fam uli nom en asseret Rheni G erm anicarum m agna lux K alendarum , Tarpeia sum m i saxa dum patris stabunt, d u m voce supplex dum que ture placabit m atrona divae dulce Iuliae num en: m anebit altum Flaviae decus gentis cum sole astris cum que luce Rom ana. invicta quidquid condidit m anus, caeli est. (Ep. 9.1) As long as Janus lends w inters to the years, D om itian autum ns, and A ugustus sum m ers, 49 The Templum is mentioned again at Ep. 9.3.12 and Ep. 9.34.2. Statius mentions it at S ilv. 4.3.18. The m ost extensive and exciting work on this Templum has been done by Paris (1994) and, more recently, in English, by Gazda and Haeckl (1996). 50 Garthwaite's work (1993) on the imperial and Earinus series in Epigrams 9 shows how epigrams w hich at first seem to praise the emperor are undercut by the epigrams w ith w hich they are juxtaposed. 143 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As long as the great light of the K alends of Germ anicus claims the great nam e of the Rhine slaves, As long as the Tarpeian rock of the great father stands, As long as the suppliant matrona appeases the sw eet spirit of the divine Julia w ith voice an d incense: So the lofty glory of the Flavian race w ill rem ain w ith the su n and w ith the stars and w ith the Rom an light. W hatever his unconquered hand has founded is of the sky. The epigram begins w ith D om itian's appropriation of tim e (he gives h is nam e to tw o m onths, Septem ber and October),5 1 it ends w ith h is ap p ro p riatio n of space (invicta quidquid condidit manus, caeli est).5 1 In th e centre, the epigram celebrates the T em plum built by D om itian in h o n o u r of the G ens Flavia (altum Flaviae decus gentis, Ep. 9.1.8), a m agnificent m au so leu m to hold the ashes of the Flavian dead. The T em plum w as p resum ed to be dom e-shaped5 3 u n til Paris (1994) reconstructed th e structure as a building of pentelic m arble w ith the sam e quadrangular layout as the A ra Pacis an d Ara Pietatis. Paris developed a hypothesis th a t fifteen fragm ents form ed part of two panels of w hat was probably a 51 For Domitian's renaming of September and October, see Suet. Dom. 1; 13. 52 The dramatic change in appearance of the location of the temple is conveyed in Ep. 9.20.1- 2: Haec, quae tota patet tegiturque et marmore et auro,/ infantis domini conscia terra fu it. 'This land, which opens up everything and is covered with marble and gold, was witness to our dominus' infancy.' In Ep. 9.34 not even Jupiter can believe the size of the temple: Iuppiter Idaei risit mendacia b a s tij dum videt Augusti Flavia templa poli (Ep. 9.34.1-2), 'Juppiter laughed at the falsehood of the Idaean tomb, when he saw the Flavian Temple of the Augustan sky.' The temple is mentioned again at Ep. 9.93.6 as the sacrae nobile gentis opus, 'the noble monument of the sacred family.' 33 See Richardson (1992: 181). The mausoleum is thought by some (cf. H ill [1989: 18]) to be depicted cn an aureus from 95/6CE; it is a round building flanked by Victories with two columns at the front and five behind. A seated cult statue can be seen inside. But if Paris' hypothesis is right, the aureus cannot represent this temple. 1 4 4 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. processional frieze. D om itian's appropriation of A ugustan motifs is suggested by the m ale caryatid figures su rro u n d in g the structure,5 4 rem iniscent of those in the Forum of A ugustus (see fig. 8). Yet the building has a dual purpose; it is not only a dynastic tem ple b u t a fam ily tomb; D om itian has therefore com bined the ideology an d iconography as represented in both A ugustus' Ara Pads and his m ausoleum . The coin w hich, according to Paris, depicts the tem plum reinforces this (see fig. 9); the three-tiered tem plum is rem iniscent of A ugustus' three-tiered m ausoleum . The hypothesised location of the tem ple w as the Q uirinal hill, a site w hich enabled D om itian to exploit his fam ily's Sabine origins and his ow n birth. W ith the palace on the Palatine, the m ausoleum on the Q uirinal, and the restored tem ple on the Capitol, D om itian has successfully outdone A ugustus, w ho had appropriated the Palatine for the tem ple of Apollo, by claim ing three hills. Fragm ents from the hypothesised tem ple reflect a sim ilar attem pt to link the em peror w ith R om an religion, m yth and history, as w ith the Ara Pads.5 5 The A ugustan im aging seen in 54 Paris (1996: 30) discusses the male caryatids as symbols of m a s c u lin ity and servitude. 55 Fragments show an idealised Vespasian, a soldier, and a flam en (Domitian had established the Sodales Flaviales Titiales) in a sacrificial scene in front of the temple of Quirinus. In the pediment of this temple, the figure of Aeneas, in the company of other Roman m ythological figures, is reminiscent of figures on the Ara Pacis. Another fragment shows a procession, similar in its rigidity to the 'Cancelleria reliefs', moving from left to right in front of a temple. This would be further supported by Gazda's suggestion (1977) that one of the figures in the procession may have been Domitian cut into the likeness of Trajan. The pediment of this temple, depicting a wolf, Mars and Rhea Silvia evokes the external eastern panel of the Ara Pacis. Details of these fragments are discussed by Gazda (1977); Gazda and Haeckl (1996). 145 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 8 arcfi. Glona Marcom 146 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 9 147 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. D om itian's tem ple correlates well w ith M artial's representation of the Tem plum in Ep. 9.1; as the first epigram in the book, M artial's com parison of D om itian and A ugustus in the first two lines underscores D om itian's attem pts to be a new A ugustus through overt architectural sem iotics. The idea of death and perpetual fame, em bodied in both the T em plum G entis Flaviae and M artial's poem , are rem iniscent of Carm. 3.30 w here H orace secures his im m ortal fam e as poet: Exegi m onum entum aere perennius regali situ pyram idum altius... ...usque ego postera crescam laude recens, dum Capitolium scandet cum tacita virgine pontifex. (Horace Carm. 3.30.1-2, 7-9) I have built a m onum ent m ore lasting than bronze H igher than the regal site of the pyram ids... ...My praise will continually grow anew hereafter, as long as the pontifex clim bs the Capitoline w ith the silent Virgin. Horace sings of the restoration of m orality under A ugustus, sym bolised by the Pontifex M axim us and the Vestal Virgins. But the m ost obvious counterpoint for H orace's poem is A ugustus' m ausoleum . The m ausoleum w ill serve as a m em orial for A ugustus just as H orace hopes that his poetry will m em orialise h im .5 6 T hough the form s of Horace and 56 It is characteristic of Martial to put an epigram with an 'epitaphic' theme at the beginning of the book rather than at the end where we might expect it to provide a sense of 148 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. M artial's poem s show resem blances (M artial's dum m anebit echoes H orace's dum scandet) an d a n im perial funerary m o n u m e n t is com m em orated in each, the differences betw een the tw o poem s are striking. In M artial's epigram the Capitoline is not directly m en tio n ed , though D om itian's rebuilding of the tem ple of Iuppiter O ptim us M axim us early in his reign w as one of his m ost m agnificent tasks,57 an d is elsew here m entioned by M artial (Ep. 9.3.7; 13.74.2).5 8 Here, instead, it is referred to as the Tarpeia saxa, a location ren o w n ed for the executions w hich took place there.3 9 M artial's absences are significant; he does not m ention the pontifex or the Vestal Virgin, two im p o rtan t symbols of R om an piety. This is surprising since the tem ple of V esta contained a palladium in h o n o u r of M inerva, D om itian's patron d iv in ity .6 0 Could it be th at D om itian's closure. Here Martial rewrites Horace's last poem of Carm. 3 as the first epigram of Epigrams 9. See Part One, 3. 57 See Richardson (1992: 221-4). Domitian's restoration of the temple supposedly surpassed his predecessors in magnificence: the columns were of pentelic marble (Plutarch, Poplic. 15.4), the doors were plated with gold (Zosimus, 5.38.5), and the tiles an the roof were of gilded bronze (Procopius, BellVand 1.5.4). 58 The temple was burnt down in the fire of 80CE (Dio 66.24.2) and probably dedicated early in Domitian's reign. The temple is mentioned by Statius (Silv. 1.6.102; 3.4.105; 4.3.160) and Silius Italicus (Pun. 3.622). 59 For the derivation of the Tarpeian Rock's name and its negative associations, see Propertius 4.4.95-6: A duce Tarpeium mons est cognomen adeptus:/ o vigil, iniustae praem ia sortis habes, 'From the leader the hill took the name Tarpeian. Oh watcher, you have your reward for this unjust fate.' Also to note is that the palladium in the tem ple of Vesta is mentioned in conjunction with Tarpeia's treachery. 60 Ovid (Tr. 3.1.29) locates the palladium in the shrine of Vesta: hie locus est Vestae, qui Pallada servat et ignem, 'Here is the place of Vesta, which preserves Pallas and the fire.' A t Fast. 4.949-54 Ovid describes Vesta's m ove to the Palatine: aufer, Vesta, diem: cognati Vesta recepta est/ limine; sic iusti constitziere patres./ Phoebus habet partem, Vestae pars altera cessit;/ quod superest illis, tertius ipse tenet./ state Palatinae laurus, preatextaque quercu/ stet domus: aetemos tres habet una deos. 'Take the day, Vesta! Vesta has been 149 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. executions of several Vestals m ade such a com m ent too risky for M artial?6 1 In place of such absences is a reference to Julia, characterised as sw eet a n d d ivine (divae...dulce tinmen). There is little doubt th at the au d ien ce w o u ld have been aw are of the scandal su rro u n d in g D om itian's niece, Julia- -that she allegedly died from an abortion forced u p o n her by D om itian, father of the aborted child.6 2 Suetonius tells us that Julia w as buried in D om itian's m a u so le u m .6 3 By setting Julia am idst such 'praise' of D om itian's m ausoleum , M artial, along w ith the epigram 's matrona, does m ore to com m em orate Julia (as does the matrona w ith her vox) than h e does to h onour the em peror. T hough the them e of m assive structures, introduced in the first epigram , is a central structuring principle of Epigrams 9, it is not confined received at her kinsman's door: so the just Fathers have agreed. Phoebus has one part, th e other part is Vesta's; what space remains is occupied by Him Himself. Long may th e Palatine laurels remain, and the house wreathed w ith oak. One place has three eternal gods.' See also Fast. 6.415. 61 See Jones (1992: 101-2). Domitian is reputed to have found six Vestals guilty at th e beginning of his reign and to have condemned and buried alive another in the m iddle of h is reign. Cf. Dio 67.3.3. 62 As Garthwaite (1990) points out: 'These accusations may, of course, be slanderous, and are a matter of disagreement among m odem scholars. But their accuracy is not the issue here. The essential point is that they are reported in almost every account of Domitian's reign and were undoubtedly w idely known.' Garthwaite, by examining the opening epigrams of Epigrams 6, illustrates Martial's cynicism rather than his flattery of the emperor. For Julia's adultery with her uncle, see Suet. Dom. 22.1; Dio 67.3; Pliny, Pan. 53; Juv. Sat. 2; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 7.7. 63 Suet. Dom. 17. Suetonius may be alluding to the incest between Domitian and his niece when he discusses the mingling of their ashes: sed reliquias templo Flaviae gentis clam intidit, cineribusque luliae Titi filiae, qnam et ipsam educarat, commiscuit, 'She (the nurse) secretly took the ashes (of Domitian) to the Templum Gentis Flaviae and mixed them w ith the ashes of Julia, daughter of Titus, whom she had also reared.' 150 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to this book. D om itian's palace is referred to five times in Epigrams 9 b u t M artial's m ost elaborate description of it is Ep. 8.36:6 4 Regia pyram idum , C aesar, m iracula ride; iam tacet Eoum barbara M em phis opus: pars quota Parrhasiae labor est M areoticus aulae? clarius in toto nil vid et orbe dies, septenos pariter credas assurgere m ontes, Thessalicum brevior Pelion Ossa tuht; aethera sic intrat, nitidis u t conditus astris inferiore tonet n u b e serenus apex et p riu s arcano satietur lum ine Phoebi nascentis Circe quam videt ora patris. haec, A uguste, tam en, quae vertice sidera pulsat, p a r dom us est caelo, sed m inor est dom ino. (Ep. 8.36) Laugh, Caesar, at the royal m arvels of the pyram ids, Barbarian M em phis is now silent about the Eastern w ork: how sm all a part of the Parrhasian palace equals M areotic toil! The d ay sees nothing m ore clearly in the whole w orld. You w ould think the seven hills rose up into one, Ossa, bearing T hessalian Pelion, w as shorter; it enters the heavens, so th at hidden by the bright stars the clear peak th u n d ers above the cloud and it is sated w ith P hoebus' hidden light before Circe sees the face of her rising father. H ow ever, this house, A ugustus, w hose roof beats a t the stars, is on a p ar w ith the sky, though it is inferior to its m aster. M artial's representation of the palace, located in the m ost p ro m in e n t and prestigious position in the city, m akes an explicit statem ent about th e relationship betw een architecture and im perial ideology. D o m itian 's 64 The palace is m entioned at Ep. 9.4.2; 36.10; 86.7; 91.3; 101.13. 151 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. appropriation of the Palatine for his palace reflects an attem pt to control w hat extends beyond the physical landscape (par domus est caelo).6 5 The palace, presented as unnaturally large (its peak rises above the clouds), distorts the contours of Rome so that the seven hills seem to rise as one. The construction of the palace actually did change the natural shape of the Palatine. The eastern ridge of the Palatine sloped steeply to the south-w est and south-east and to overcom e this problem a section w as cut out of the bottom of the south slope and used to create a platform at the higher n o rth end. The epigram is sim ilar to De Sp. 1 in that both the palace and the Flavian A m phitheatre are described as opera {opus, De Sp. 1.8; Ep. 8.36.2) w hose construction required m uch labor {De Sp. 1.2; Ep. 8.36.3). T he enorm ity of both these m onum ents is conveyed by their com parison to the Seven W onders of the W orld. The focus on the building's height {apex, Ep. 8.36.8; vertice, Ep. 8.36.11) utilises the evocative pow er of buildings; the equation betw een the palace's m agnificence and the em peror's is left u n til the end of the epigram {sed minor est domino). The palace's pow er (and by association the em peror's) is aw e-inspiring and potentially dangerous; it thunders {tonet, Ep. 8.36.S).6 6 “ This contrasts with Martial's representation of his own house as tiny: Est m ihi— sitque precor longum te praeside, Caesar— / rus minimum, parvi sunt et in urbe lares (Ep. 9.18.1-2), 'I have— and I pray that it remain mine under your rule, Caesar— the smallest country house and a small hom e in the city/ “ Domitian and Jupiter's thundering may be alluded to at Ep. 9.86.7: aspice Tarpeium Palatinumque Tonantem, 'See the Tarpeian and the Palatine Thunderers.' N ash (1961: 535) 152 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The juxtaposition of em pire's suprem acy w ith Ossa and Pelion in Ep.8.36 recalls O vid's Fasti: sic petitur caelum: non u t ferat O ssan O lym pus, sum m aque Peliacus sidera tangat apex, nos quoque sub ducibus caelum m etabim ur illis ponem usque suos ad vaga signa dies. (Fast. 1.307-10) So the sky is reached: not by O lym pus bearing Ossa, or Pelion's peak touching die high stars. U nder these leaders w e too w ill survey the sky and w ill give w andering stars their ow n days. Boyle (1997: 9), com m enting on the 'astronom ic discursive system ' in th e Fasti, says: 'The star passages function as an editorial tool, a fram ing device w hich sets up its ow n sem iotic signals in respect of the passages fram ed.' This passage is subversive in that it sets u p different m odels of lead ersh ip (duces, Fast. 1.309). The reform ulation of the calendar, the Fasti, fram es th e Julio-A ugustan attem pt to control time, to control Rome, an d ultim ately to control Rom anitas.6 7 In M artial's epigram D om itian's attem pt to exceed the height of any other structure is sim ilarly subversive; it is com parable to the G iants' attem pt to overcom e the gods.6 8 But even the expanse of sky covered by the palace does not m atch the extent of D om itian's pow er (sed argues that the temple of Jupiter Tonans was reconstructed by Domitian after the fire of 80CE and is represented an the Tomb of the Haterii relief. The temple thus reinforces th e connection between Domitian, Jupiter and thunder. 67 See Boyle (1997: 8 ). 153 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. minor est domino, Ep. 8.36.12).6 9 D om itian's control of the R om an w orld, as exem plified here by the palace, is reinforced by verbal counterpoint. T he first w o rd of the epigram is regia, the last is dom ino. Just as D o m itian 's palace beats a t (pulsat, Ep. 8.36.1) the edges of the w orld, so too D o m itian 's pow er pu sh es at the m argins of the poem . It is no surprise th at D o m itia n is here called A ugustus, a title m ost often used in Epigrams 9. M artial's address to D om itian as A ugustus in Epigrams 9 (9.3.13; 9.18.7; 9.34.2; 9.79.3; and also at Ep. 4.27.1; 5.15.1;) recalls the m assiv e building pro g ram of the first princeps of Rome (D om itian is also called princeps; principum princeps, Ep. 6.4.1, pudice princeps, Ep. 9.5.2). Just as the palace seem s to encom pass the seven hills of Rom e, nam es attrib u ted to D om itian infer his control over conquered lands (Germanicus, Dacicus),70 even the w orld. Titles w hich indicate D om itian's global pow er (summe mundi rector, Ep. 7.7.5; parens orbis, Ep. 7.7.5; summe domitor, Ep. 68 See Fast. 3.437-42. 69 In Ep. 9.91 the stars are said to be closer than the palace and the parallel is m ade again w ith Jupiter as thunderer: Ad cenam si me diversa vocaret in astra/ hinc invitator C aesaris, inde lovis,/ astra licet propius, Palaiia longius essent,/ responsa ad superos haec referenda darem:/ 'quaerite qui malit fieri conviva Tonantis:/ me meus in terris luppiter ecce tenet.' 'If both Caesar and Jove's courtier should invite me to dinner in different heavens, though the stars be closer and the palace be farther away, I w ould give this response to the gods above: "Seek another who would want to be the Thunderer's guest: Look! My Jupiter keeps me here on earth."' 70 Cf. the address in the preface to Epigrams 8: IMPERATORI DOMITIANO CAESARI A U G U STO / GERMANICO DACICIO VALERIUS MARTIALIS S. Epigrams 8 was published in 94CE after Domitian's return from the Danube. Martial uses the title Germanicus, taken by Domitian in 83CE (Ep. 5.2.7; 5.3.1; 5.19.17; 7.61.3; praef. 8 ; 8.4.3) w ith reference to his military reputation. The preface to Epigrams 8 is discussed in the Appendix. 154 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9.5.1) accord w ith M artial's representation of the palace.7 1 The phrase dominus et deus, w hich M artial uses in several configurations, im plies th e subservience of the R om an w orld.7 2 D om itian is august (from angeo) in that he has expanded the topographical boundaries of Rom e to such a n extent that not even the sky is the limit. The excessiveness of such building activity, em bedded in the title Augnstics, is satirised in the m iddle of Epigrams 9 through the figure of G ellius: Gellius aedificat sem per: m odo lim ina ponit, nunc foribus claves aptat em itque seras, nunc has, nu n c illas reficit m utatque fenestras: dum tan tu m aedificet, quidlibet ille facit, oranti num m os u t dicere possit amico unum illu d verbum Gellius 'aedifico.' (Ep. 9.46.1-6) Gellius is alw ays building: now he lays out doorw ays now he fits keys to doors and buys bolts, refitting an d changing now these w indow s, now those; as long as h e's building and doing w hatever, so that G ellius can say to an amicus asking for m oney that one w ord, 'B uilding'. 71 Compare Ovid's description {Fast. 2.683-4) of Augustan Rome: gentibus est aliis tellus data limite certo:/ Romanae spatium est urbis et orbis idem, Tor other peoples the world has fixed boundaries: but the space of Rome's city and the world is the same.' For the p la y on the verbal resemblance between arbs and orbis, see Edwards (1996:100-102). 7 2 See n.13 above. 155 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. From the list of buildings begun, finished, and attributed to D o m itian aedificat semper describes him w ell.7 3 A ttention is draw n solely to the act of building; it doesn't m atter w h at he is building as long as he has an excuse for som eone w ith other dem ands. M artial has the sam e co m p lain t of Pastor in Ep. 9.22 where the epigram sim ilarly ends w ith the ring of aedificem (Ep. 9.22.16). The criticism , besides referring to the lack of patronage, is that the builder is obsessed w ith the details of b u ild in g — quite literally the nuts and bolts. The 'R abirian circles', as seen in the F o ru m T ran sito riu m and in the D om us Flavia, are good illustrations of D om itian's obsession w ith fine details. These sm all, ornate arch itrav ed circles w ere so sm all that the view er at ground level could n o t possibly h av e seen them . Similarly, the deep drill work, the chiaroscoro effect, of the M ars head on the 'Cancelleria relief' (fig. 6.2) reflects m eticu lo u s attention to m inute details in the relief w ork of this period. T he fanaticism for such detail comes at a cost. The cost of such a building program is contem plated in Ep. 9.3 w h ere M artial lists som e of Dom itian's outstanding structures: Q uantum iam superis, Caesar, caeloque dedisti si repetas et si creditor esse velis, grandis in aetherio licet auctio fiat Olym po cogantur dei vendere quidquid habent, 73 For such a list, see Jones (1992: 82-4). 156 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. conturbabit A tlans e t n o n erit uncia tota decidat teaim qua p a te r ipse deum . pro Capitolinis q u id enim tibi solvere tem plis, quid pro Tarpeiae frondis honore potest? quid pro culm inibus gem inis m atrona Tonantis? Pallada praetereo: res agit ilia tuas. quid loquar A lciden Phoebum que piosque Laconas? ad d ita quid Latio Flavia tem p la polo? expectes et sustineas, A uguste, necesse est: nam tibi quo solvat n o n habet area lovis. (Ep. 9.3) If now you w ere to claim back the am ount you gave to the gods and to the sky, and y o u w ished to be their creditor, though a great auction w o u ld be allow ed on heavenly O lym pus, an d the gods be forced to sell w hatever they own, Atlas w ould go b a n k ru p t and n o t w ith a full tw elfth could the father of the gods him self m ake a settlem ent w ith you. For w hat can he p a y you for the Capitoline tem ples for the honour of th e T arpeian wreath? O r w h at the T h u n d erer's w ife for the tw in towers? Pallas I'll pass by: sh e m anages your accounts. W hy speak of A lcides an d Phoebus and the dutiful Laconians? O r the Flavian tem ples a d d ed to the Latin sky? You m ust wait, A ugustus, and bear it: Jupiter's treasury h a sn 't got the m oney to pay you. D om itian's global pow er, in tro d u ced in the opening poem of the book (caeli est, Ep. 9.1.10) is sustained here (caelo). The epigram is fram ed a ro u n d the rhetorical question, 'If you w ere to claim back w h a t y o u 'v e sp en t on so m any tem ples, w ho w ould have enough to pay you?' T he im plied answ er is 'N o one'. T he Increaser (Augustus) is told th at he w ill h ave to w ait because the w h o le of heaven does not have en o u g h m o ney. T he epigram is saturated w ith financial language and D o m itian 's 157 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. econom ical transactions w ith the gods (Q uantum , repetas, creditor, a u d io , vendere, conturbabit, uncia tota, decidat, solvere, pro, pro, res agit)?4 M artial's depiction of M inerva as D om itian's Finance M anager recalls th e 'C ancelleria relief' w here M inerva sim ilarly guides D om itian's actions. But M artial's reference to m oney in every line of the epigram does m o re to evoke the extensive cost of these buildings th an to justify their existence.7 5 The irony o f the first line (dedisti) is th a t the em peror's 'takings' h a v e far exceeded his 'givings'. Epigrams 9, w ritten a year before the assassination of the e m p e ro r, reflects the culm ination of D om itian's building mania. Epigrams 1, w h e re topographical tours reflect the visual transform ation of Rom e in 86CE, is grounded in the social and political ideology of D om itian's city. B ut M artial's representation of this ideology in Epigrams 9 is sharper an d m o re system atised; art and architecture are vehicles to convey D o m itia n 's attem pt to control time and space. A fter D om itian's death and official 74 Martial also reflects on the cost of Domitian's building program in Epigrams 12: omnes aim love nunc sumus beati;/ at nuper— pudet, ah pudet fateri— / omnes acm love pauperes eramus. (Ep. 12.15.8-10) 'Now all of us, along with Jove, are wealthy; but recently— it is sham eful, yes shameful to admit— all of us, along with Jove, were paupers.' 75 On the debate about whether Domitian's building program exhausted the im p erial treasury, see Rogers (1986). Suetonius (Dom. 12) is explicit: exhaustus operum ac munerum impensis, 'He exhausted the resources for buildings and for entertainments'. The public response to Dom itian's excessive building is humorously conveyed by Suetonius (Dom. 13): lanos araisque aim quadrigis et insignibus triumphonim per regiones urbis tantos ac to t extruxit, ut cuidam Graece inscriptum sit: arci, 'He built so many arcades and arches w ith chariots and triumphal insignia in so many regions of the city, that someone wrote an one of them in Greek: Enough!'. The pun, of course, is that arci is Latin for 'arches' but Greek (arcei) for, 'Enough!'. 158 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. damnatio memoriae, the face of Rom e changed dram atically again.7 6 T he transition from Epigrams 9 to Epigrams 10 reflects this change; Epigrams 10, w ritten but then rew ritten in 98CE, is rooted m ore firm ly in the w orld of M artial's hom eland, Spain, th an it is in the civic space an d im perial ideology of Rome. 76 Pliny {Pan. 52.5) mentions the recycling of Domitian's statue heads: Tiis baleful, fearsome visage being cast into the fire to be melted down.' 159 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2. Reading the Imperial Revolution: Martial Epigrams 10 M artial is a political poet.7 7 Epigrams 10, initially w ritten early in 96CE b u t hastily w ithdraw n and rew ritten in 98CE after the assassination of D o m itian ,7 8 is an overt exam ple of the precarious relationship of poetry an d political pow er in the first century CE. In its rew ritten form at, Epigrams 10 is a carefully crafted collection, an d one in w hich M artial is highly self-reflective about both the n a tu re of his verse and th e en v iro n m en t in w hich he lives an d w rites. M y purpose is to address M artial's relationship to the political clim ate in the years 96 to 98CE to see w h at can be deduced about the poet's reaction to the political upheaval of the tim e.7 9 M artial uses the book as m ed iu m to express his relatio n sh ip w ith Rom e and political power. It is a relationship w hich has changed by 77Cf. Boyle (1995: 256): 'Martial's poetry is political in the strongest sense: it is both product of, and agent for, very specific forms of social and moral structure.' 78 M artial tells us this at the beginning of Epigrams 10: Festinata prius, decimi mihi cura libelli/ elapsum manibus nunc revocavit opus./ nota leges quaedam sed lima rasa recenti;/ pars nova maior erit (Ep. 10.2.1-4), 'In com posing m y tenth book, the work which slipped too hastily from m y hands earlier has now been recalled. You w ill read some epigrams that you know already, som e polished with a recent file; the greater part w ill be new.' 79 I take my cue from Sullivan's comment (1991: 48) on the political nature of Epigrams 10: 'The political emphasis of the book is to be seen in the reiterated prayers for Trajan's return from the Rhineland and the highly approving comments cn h is actions and behaviour (Ep. 10.6; 7; 34; 72; 101). The underscoring of the poet's ow n reputation is linked to these attem pts to ingratiate him self with the new government.' This seems to me an unsatisfactory explanation. The epigrams on Trajan are few and these do more to stress Trajan's absence from Rome and Martial's dissatisfaction w ith the political scene. The last thing M artial seems to be doing in this book is trying to 'ingratiate him self with the new government.' Rather, the few political poems, combined w ith Martial's increased focus an Spain in th is book, seem to illustrate Martial's attempts to get aw ay from the political scene in Rome. 160 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98CE.8 0 In 98CE M artial's vision is no longer at the centre of Rome, there is little hope of im perial patronage, and the focus shifts to M artial, not as R om an satirist, b u t to M artial the Spaniard, M artial w ho has been away from hom e for a long tim e and is now (alm ost) ready to return. In its form at and sentim ent Epigrams 10 is cyclical; it begins w ith a discussion of the book as a second edition, it ends w ith a farew ell to the book em barking on a boat for Spain. M artial rem ains in Rom e b u t the book looks b o th backwards an d forw ards: back to w hen M artial first cam e to Rome and forw ard to his im m inent departure. This is the on ly M artial book in w hich the poet stops a n d takes stock of his past and his future. It is a book in w hich he defines the n ature of his verse m ost, and in w hich he talks directly about his political environm ent least. This chapter explores h o w the M artial of Epigrams 10 is a poet divided betw een hom e and Rome. M artial w rites through the reigns of T itus, D om itian, N erva and Trajan, and his epigram s resound the political situ atio n w hich produced them . De Spectaculis in 80CE coincides w ith T itus' opening of the F lav ian A m phitheatre; Epigrams 1 to 9 coincide w ith D om itian's cam paigns against the Dacians, Sarm atians, and the Chatti;8 1 Epigrams 11 coincides w ith N erva's accession in 96CE; Epigrams 12 follow s M artial's retirem ent to Spain after 101CE. Epigrams 10 is a m isfit. W ritten in 96CE and th e n 80 M y reading w ill thus incorporate material from Epigrams 9, 10,11, and 12. 161 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. rew ritten in 98CE, we can infer from, his com m ent 'a greater p a rt w ill be new ' (pars nova maior erit, Ep. 10.2.4) that m uch m aterial associated w ith D om itian needed to be replaced. In Ep. 10.72 M artial explicitly states th a t a change in em peror requires a change in discourse, and he talks ab o u t n e w codes of reading and w riting after the assassination and dam natio memoriae of D om itian: Frustra, Blanditiae, venitis ad me attritis m iserabiles labellis: dicturus dom inum d eu m q u e non sum . iam non est locus hac in urbe vobis; ad Parthos procul ite pilleatos et turpes hum ilesque supplicesque pictorum sola basiate regum . n o n est hie dom inus, sed im perator, sed iustissim us om nium senator, p er quern de Stygia dom o reducta est siccis rustica Veritas capillis. hoc sub principe, si sapis, caveto verbis, Roma, prioribus loquaris. (Ep. 10.72) In vain, Flatteries, do y ou come to m e w retched w ith w orn o u t lips: I am not about to speak of the lord and god. N ow there is no place for you in this city; Go off to the liberty-capped Parthians, an d you sham eful, low ly suppliants kiss the soles of painted kings. There is no lord here, b u t an imperator, the m ost just senator of all, th rough w hom rustic T ru th w ith d ry hair 81 For Dom itian's campaigns against the Dacians, Sarmatians and Chatti, see Jones (1992: 126-59). 162 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. has been led back from the hom e of the Styx. U nder this princeps, if you are wise, bew are of speaking w ith form er language. I will retu rn to this epigram below. Since there are only four epigram s w hich address T rajan in the b o o k ,8 2 it becom es less easy to read Epigrams 10 as a m anifestation of and com m ent u p o n the political situation of any one year. As a result, this book has been m uch neglected and M artial's silence about the political change in 98CE reflects the silence in scholarship w hich the book has received.8 3 It is im p o rtan t that we understand the im plications of the rew riting of Epigrams 10 and read the books not in the order in w hich they are now, b u t Epigrams 9, then 22, then 10, then 22. In this order, after the prom inence of D om itian in Epigrams 9 and the extensive treatm ent of N erva in the opening cycle of Epigrams 11, M artial's silence about Trajan in Epigrams 10 is deafening. In o rd er to understand better the treatm ent of Trajan and Trajanic Rome in Epigrams 10, it is necessary to exam ine M artial's preceding treatm ent of em peror and city. The m ajority of M artial's epigram m atic com position took place during Dom itian's reign and M artial's treatm ent of 82 Trajan is referred to in Ep. 10.6; 7; 34; 72. Sullivan (1994: 98) includes Ep. 10.101 (quoted below, pp. 161) but the reference to Caesar is deliberately ambiguous here. “ Sullivan (1991:44-52) provides the most detailed discussion of this Book. He acknowledges that Epigrams 10 is 'one of the best of Martial's books...and carefully crafted'. He discusses the most salient themes of the book and gives details on the political background from 96 to 98CE. 163 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the lord and god becomes m ost extensive an d overt in Epigrams 9.8 4 Cycles o n D om itian's revival of legal, m oral an d religious reform s, a n d h is extensive architectural projects ground the book in the city of Rom e. A n appreciation of these cycles w ith in the context of the book better in fo rm s M artial's representation of D o m itian .8 5 The n atu re of absolute pow er m akes subversive literature and anti-establishm ent com m ent dan g ero u s, and 'figured' speech becomes im perative if a w riter is to survive his o w n w riting. Q uintilian discusses the p o p u larity (nunc utimur plurimum, Inst. Or. 9.2.65) of emphasis at this tim e and A hl (1984a, 1984b) has stressed th e im portance of m aking sense of w hat is n o t said, that w hich m ay be deliberately om itted, as w ell as w h at is explicitly stated or subtly a llu d ed to.8 6 Epigram is a particularly appropriate genre for emphasis, as it enables the a u th o r to juxtapose epigram s w hich m ay seem to have contradictory m eaning, or allow one epigram to be underm ined by the next. E xploitation of the epigram m atic form in this w ay enables M artial to encode the book as a w h o le.8 7 W hat at first sight had seem ed like panegyric is revealed as bitter criticism , at least heavy irony. 84 See n.13 in Part Two. 85 Garthwaite (1990; 1993), Fowler (1995), Boyle (1995), and H ow ell (1980; 1995) stress the importance of reading each Martial book as an intratextual unit. 86 For a more general analysis of ancient and modem approaches to reading, see the Introduction. 87 On the reader's role in interpreting the text and understanding its 'code', see the Introduction. 164 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Encoding functions prom inently in tw o areas in Epigrams 9: D om itian's m oral legislation and his building program . G arthw aite's w o rk (1993) on this book show s how the superficially serious epigram s o n D om itian's m oral legislation are u n d ercu t by the poem s w ith w hich they are juxtaposed, and w hich reveal the hypocrisy of the em p ero r.8 8 In isolation, the epigram s w hich treat D om itian's im plem entation of th e castration law (Ep. 9.5; 7) praise the legislation of the em peror. H ow ever, these are follow ed by a cycle (Ep. 9.11; 12; 13; 16; 17; 36) on E arinus, D om itian's boy-lover, w ho is specifically characterised as a castrated catam ite. D om itian clearly does not abide by his ow n rules.8 9 The o th er area in w hich M artial's encoding reveals D om itian's hypocrisy, is building. Epigrams 9 is firm ly rooted in the architectural ideology of D om itianic R om e and celebrates m any of D om itian's m onum ents; the tem ple in h o n o u r of the Gens Flavia (Ep. 9.1; 34; 93), the tem ple of Iuppiter O p tim u s M axim us (Ep. 9.3), the tem ple of H ercules (Ep. 9.64), and the e n o rm o u s palace on the Palatine (Ep. 9.91).9 0 The fanatical excessiveness of su ch b u ild in g activity, indicated by M artial's frequent references to D om itian as 88 Garthwaite (1990) approaches Epigrams 6 in a similar way; there the reading of cycles and juxtaposed poems reflect the hypocrisy of Domitian's moral censorship. 89 For a fuller analysis of this cycle, see Garthwaite (1993). 90 On the architectural semiotics in Martial, see Part Two, 1 (iii). For a list of buildings erected, restored, completed by, and attributed to Domitian, see Jones (1992: 79-98). 165 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A ugustus 'the Increaser' (Ep. 4.27; 5.15; 9.3; 9.18; 9.34; 9.79), is satirised in Epigrams 9 through the figures of Gellius and Pastor:9 1 Credis ob haec me, Pastor, opes fortasse rogare propter quae populus crassaque turba rogat... est nihil ex istis: superos et sidera testor. ergo quid? u t donem , Pastor, et aedificem. (Ep. 9.22.1-2; 15-6) Perhaps you think, Pastor, that I ask for w ealth for the sam e reasons as the crow d and m ass mob... No, for none of these reasons: the gods and stars are w itnesses. W hat then? That I m ight give and build. M artial's criticism of Pastor is that he uses the excuse th at he is always building w hen asked for m oney by a client, a com plaint th at M artial could easily have of the em peror. M artial makes his feelings about D om itian's hypocrisy explicit in Epigrams 12, calling his architectural extravaganzas snperbi regis delicias gravesque luxus (Ep. 12.15.4-5), 'th e delights and oppressive luxuries of a haughty m onarch'— a phrase w hich rew rites M artial's earlier panegyric of Titus' colossal am phitheatre, the deliciae popnli, (De Sp. 2.12), 'delights of the people'. The recontextualisation of the w o rd deliciae points up the instability and slippage inherent in all im perial discourse. If, as Ep. 10.72 suggests, w hen the em peror dies, language inverts, w hat truth-value does language possess w hen the em peror lives? 91 Ep. 9.46 on Gellius is quoted in Part Two, 1 (iii). 166 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A new ly perm itted freedom u n d e r the new em peror, N erva, is expressed in Epigrams l l ? 2 The initial u n it (1-6) of Epigrams 11 is overtly political and M artial establishes him self im m ediately w ithin the social and topographical space of N e rv a l R om e.9 3 The dedicatory address to Parthenius in Ep. 11.1 is a declaration of allegiance; P arthenius was alm ost certainly involved in the plot to kill D om itian and so by addressing h im here at the beginning of the book M artial associates him self w ith the new regim e. Parthenius was M artial's link w ith the im perial court; he had often been asked to function as a go-betw een under D om itian and is n o w M artial's hope of access to N erva, rem aining so until his death in 97CE.9 4 M artial's hope for im perial patronage has clearly not dim inished, in fact he m ay have thought that N erva w ould be especially favourable to poets since he w as a poet him self, addressed by M artial as the T ibullus of the tim e.9 5 This hope is m ade explicit in Ep. 11.3, w here M artial refers to N erva as 9 2 As Kay notes (1983: 1), Epigrams 11 can be fairly precisely dated to December 96CE: Martial exploits the fact that the book was issued at the time of the Saturnalia (w hich started on December 17th); Martial praises the accession of Nerva (September 18th, 96CE); and addresses Parthenius in Ep. 11.1.1 (who was dead by the middle of 97CE). 93 Kay (1983: 5) points out that the book has a well-defined beginning and ending, and labels the first unit of six epigrams as 'opening epigrams.' 94 Parthenius is addressed at Ep. 4.45; 5.6; 8.28; 11.1; 12.11. As Kay rightly states (1983: 53): 'For Martial to address a poem to him (Parthenius), hardly six months after Domitian's death, is a political act, a sign of his allegiance to the new regime.' Jones (1992: 193-6) speculates on the involvement of Parthenius and others in Domitian's assassination. 9 5 Ep. 8.70.1...7-8: Quanta quies placidi tanta est facundia Neruae...sed tamen hunc nostri scit temporis esse Tibullum/ carmina qui docti nota Neronis habet, 'M ellow Nerva is as eloquent as he is peaceful...Whoever knows the songs of learned Nero knows that Nerva is the Tibullus of our time.' His fondness for poetry is alluded to at Ep. 9.26.1-2: Audet facundo qui carmina mittere Nervae,/ pallida donabit glaucina, Cosme, tibi. T ie who dares to send 167 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A ugustus, invoking the official title of A ugustus w hich N erva took (Front. de Aq. 93; CIL 6.95f), an d hoping that, just as in the G olden Age, th ere m ight be a new M aecenas to provide patronage for poets. The freedom of N erva's reign is evoked by the carefree setting of th e Saturnalia, during w hich the book w as intended to be p u b lish ed .9 6 Ideas of freedom are evoked th ro u g h the book w hich is on holiday (otiosus, Ep. 11.1.1), its otiosi audience (Ep. 11.1.10), and the city of Rom e w hich is itself a m an u m itted slave (pilleata, Ep. 11.6.4). Poetic license justifies an increase of obscenity in this book: clam ant ecce m ei To Saturnalia' versus: et licet et sub te praeside, N erva, libet. (Ep. 11.2.5-6) Look, m y verses shout, To Saturnalia': It is b o th perm itted under your rule, N erva, and a pleasure. The idea of liberty is fu rth er reinforced by the structure of the line w h ere verbs of poetic freedom and contentm ent surround the nam e of th e songs to eloquent Nerva, w ill give you pale glaucine, Cosmus.' Pliny (Ep 5.3.5), in defence of his ow n less serious writing says that Nerva liked obscene poetry and wrote it himself. 96 On the bawdy nature of the Saturnalia, which lasted for five days by Nerva's time, see Kay (1983: 71). Richlin (1992: 2) analyses Martial's use of the Saturnalia (quoting Ep. 11.15.11-3: versus hos tamen esse til memento/ Satumalicios, Apollinaris:/ mores non h a b et hie meos libellus, 'Remember, Apollinaris, that these are Satumalian verses: this libellu s does not have my morals.') in the context of the apologia; the setting allows Martial to dissociate himself from the obscene subject matter of his work. Her analysis ignores the fact that the Satumalian context typifies the whole book and is particularly resonant in th is book because of the political propaganda associated with Nerva's accession. 168 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. em peror. The libertas of Epigrams 11 is exem plified by the p red o m in an ce of sexual hum our, w hich varies w idely in tone from the erotic to the satiric to invective. In this book, M artial gives a representative list of topics typical of satire: adultery, pederasty, circum cision, m astu rb atio n , im potence, oral sex, ugly w om en, foul genitalia, frigidity, p ro stitu tio n , nights of d ru n k en revelry. M artial's contem plation of a 'loose7 w om an in Ep. 11.21 exem plifies this: Lydia tarn laxa est equitis quam cuius aeni, quam celer arguto qui sonat aere trochus, quam rota transm isso totiens intacta petauro, quam vetus a crassa calceus udus aqua, quam quae rara vagos expectant retia turdos, quam Pom peiano vela negata N oto, quam quae de pthisico lapsa est arm illa cinaedo, culcita Leuconico quam viduata suo, quam veteres bracae Brittonis pauperis, et quam turpe Ravennatis g u ttu r onocrotali. hanc in piscina dicor futuisse m arina, nescio; piscinam m e futuisse puto. Lydia is as w ide an d slack As a bronze horse's cul-de-sac, O r sounding hoop w ith copper rings, O r board from w hich an athlete springs, O r sw ollen shoe from m u d d y puddle, O r net of thrushes in a huddle, O r aw ning that w o n 't stay outspread, In Pom pey's theatre, overhead, O r bracelet that, a t every cough, From a consum ptive poof slips off, French cushion, w here the stuffing leaks, Poor Breton's knackered, baggy breeks, Foul pelican-crop, Ravenna-bred! N ow there's a rum our-he w ho said I h ad her in the fish-pond joked; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. It w as the pond itself I poked. (Ep. 11.21, translated by Olive Pitt-Kethley) The libertas expressed by the im plied Satum alian setting of the book is reinforced by the political freedom exhibited on the coins of 96CE by th e m otto 'Libertas Publica' and by the fam ous inscription, 'Libertas Restituta' (ILS 274), erected on the Capitol by S.P.Q.R. and dated to Septem ber 18th 96CE, the day of N erva's accession.9 7 The liberty associated w ith N erva in historical sources is recorded not only in M artial, w here N erva is associated w ith the libertas of Camillus (Ep. 11.5.7), b u t in other literary w orks such as P lin y 's Epistulae (Ac primis quidem diebus redditae libertatis [Ep. 9.13.4], 'In the early days of restored liberty/ and Tacitus' Agricola (Nunc demum redit animus; et quamquam primo statim beatissimi saeculi ortu Nerva Caesar res olim dissociabiles miscuerit, principatum ac libertatem, 'N ow at last, sp irit returns; from the beginning of his m ost happy age, N erva Caesar has im m ediately m erged things once incom patible, the principate an d liberty,'A g. 3.1), w here the return to liberty m arks the beginning of h is reign.9 8 M artial's labeling of N erva as dux and princeps in Ep. 11.4 stands ^Waters (1969: 394) stresses a definite break between Nerva's coinage and that of Dom itian and Trajan. He argues that Nerva's coinage urged public support through types such as LIBERTAS PUBLICA, ROMA RENASCENS, FORTUNA P.R., AEQUITAS and IUSTITIA. For the coinage of Nerva's reign, see Sutherland (1974). 98 An interesting contrast is with Pliny's description of libertas under Trajan: lubes esse liberos, erimus; iubes quae sentimus promere in medium, proferemus (Pan. 66.4). In evoking the freedom associated with Trajan's reign, Plinv draws attention to the fact that libertas is 170 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in contrast w ith his labeling of D om itian as dominus and dens th ro u g h o u t the earlier books. Just as Ep. 10.72 com pares the D om itianic a n d T rajanic reigns, a deliberate antithesis is expressed in Epigrams 12 betw een th e autocracy w hich D om itian represented and the freedom of N erva's reign: contigit A usoniae procerum m itissim us aulae N erva: licet tuto nunc Helicone frui: recta fides, hilaris dem entia, cauta potestas iam redeunt; longi terga dedere m etus. (Ep. 12.5.3-6) N ow the m ost gentle of leaders has reached the A usonian palace— N erva: now it is perm itted to enjoy H elicon in safety: True loyalty, sm iling clemency, and cautious pow er N ow return; the Reign of Terror has gone. Licet again evokes the freedom of N erva's reign. The faith, clem ency and cautious pow er contrast w ith the fearful nature of D om itian's reign and the latter's im plied lack of tyranny. The poetic freedom assodated w ith N erva's reign is carefully balanced by the depiction of N erva as a traditional leader of a d ty rooted firm ly in traditional R om an values. In Ep. 11.4 N erva is addressed as a second A eneas w ho has erected a golden statue of Jupiter an d paid enjoyed at the emperor's ordering. As Wirszubski (1968: 171) remarks: 'It would take more than Pliny's rhetoric to conceal the fact that his Panegyric marked the surrender of constitutional freedom.' 171 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. reverence to the lares and sacred artefacts of T roy." In Ep. 11.5 he is placed alongside N um a, C am illus, Fabricius, Sulla, Pom pey, Caesar, Crassus an d Cato for his reverence. M artial establishes him self w ith in the topography of this city; the otiosi can find him in the Portico of Q uirinus (Ep. 11.1.9).1 0 0 This is a significant location for tw o reasons. The Portico of Q uirinus is near M artial's h ouse an d so he locates his p oetry read in g in his ow n part of tow n; b u t also, the reference to Q uirinus, the deified founder of the R o m an race, supports M artial's representation of N erva as a traditional leader. M artial thus aligns him self and his poetry w ith the ideology of N erv a's reign. Ep. 10.72, therefore, needs to be considered in the context of Epigrams 10 and as sequel to Epigrams 11. M artial says th a t no longer w ill he speak w ith verba priora, 'a form er language' (Ep. 10.72.13) an d that discernm ent is now needed (si sapis, Ep. 10.72.12) w hen articulating im perial pow er. F rom Epigrams 9 and 11 w e can see that he certainly changed the language w ith w hich he spoke, evoking the freedom of speech w hich he claim s was absent u n d er D om itian. But w hat does it m ean th at M artial m akes this statem ent in 98CE, an d w hat is the language he uses to speak of Trajan? H e "Ep. 11.4.1-2: Sacra lares Phrygian quos Troiae maluit heres/ quam rapere arsuras Laomedontis opes, 'The rites and the Phrygian lares w hich the Trojan heir preferred to rescue as Laomedon's w ealth was about to go up in flames.' As Kay notes (1983: 6 6 ), th e rhythm suggests the first line of the Aeneid. 172 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. does not define the kind of language w ith w hich he w ill now speak; if anything, the change of dominus et dens to imperator and senator draw s attention, as I suggested earlier, to im perial discourse as unstable, e v en em pty verbiage. He tells the Blanditiae to go off to the pilleati Parthi, the freed Parthians, yet he h a d called Rom e pilleata in Epigrams 11 (Ep. 11.6.4) W hy is it that the Parthians, w ho had for so long been the only substantial pow er anyw here in the w orld threatening Rome, are n o w called pilleati, and does this im ply that Rom e is no longer free? The fact th at this epigram is w ritten in hendecasyllabics, the quintessential m ode of the politically irrev eren t C atullus, m ight itself suggest that this w riting is coded. A nd th en there is the 'rusticity' of truth. M artial says th at 'rustic T ruth' (Ep. 10.72.11) has returned from the Styx. 'Rusticus' is an adjective usually used in antithesis to urbanus and can m ean 'of the countryside, sim ple' in a good sense, or 'clow nish', 'sim ple' in an unsophisticated way.1 0 1 In Ep. 10.101, M artial addresses G abba, A ugustus' court jester, as 'rustice': 1 0 0 The portions Quirini was on. the north side of the Alta Semita on the Quirinal (Platner- Ashby [1929: 438]). Martial mentions this area as his neighbourhood at Ep. 10.53.10: vicinosque tibi, sancte Quirine, lares. 101 The adjective rusticus occurs three times in Epigrams 10; here, in Ep. 10.72 and Ep. 10.101, and in its diminutive form, rusticulus, at Ep. 10.20.2: Nec doctum satis et parum severum ,/ sed non rusticulum tamen libellum/ facundo mea Plinio Thalia/ i perfer (Ep. 10.20.1-4), 'Go, m y Thalia, take to eloquent Pliny a libellus, not very learned and not very serious, but s till not countrified.' Here, Martial seem s to be implying that his book is not yet associated w ith the world of the rus, but perhaps anticipates its journey to the rus at the end of the book. 173 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Elysio redeat si forte rem issus ab agro ille suo felix Caesare Gabba vetus, qui C apitolinum pariter G abbam que iocantes audierit, dicet: 'rustice Gabba, tace/ (Ep. 10.101) If that old Gabba, happy in his Caesar, should by chance come back from the Elysium field, anyone w ho heard Capitolinus an d Gabba joking together w ould say, 'Rustic Gabba, keep q u iet/ Here, M artial seem s to m ean both senses; Gabba is 'clow nish' but also 'country-like', possessing values associated w ith the w orld of the rus. In Trajan's Rom e, Gabba, and by im plication that w orld, m ust now be silent. If truth is rusticus as Ep. 10.72 proclaim s, how compatible can it be w ith th e new im perial urbsl W hat both rusticus and the Gabba paradigm suggest, is that truth and Trajanic Rome m ay be incom patible. W ith T rajan declared em peror w hile in Cologne an d Epigrams 10 reissued in the sam e year, M artial had little hope of w inning favour w ith the em peror. In Ep. 10.34 M artial addresses Trajan and praises him for returning a p a tro n 's rights to him while still in exile: Di tibi d en t quidquid, Caesar Traiane, mereris et rata perpetuo quae tribuere velint: qui su a restituis spoliato iura patrono — libertis exul non erit ille suis— , dignus es u t populum possis servare clientem, u t— liceat tantum vera probare— potes. (Ep. 10.34) 174 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. M ay the gods give you, Caesar Trajan, w hatever you deserve a n d m ay they w ish their gifts to be ratified eternally: You, w ho restore his rights to the despoiled patron — he w ill not be an exile to his o w n freedm en— yo u are w orthy of being able to keep the people as your client, — as— m ay it be perm itted only to ap p ro v e the tru th — you're able. The vocabulary, syntax and sentim ent of this epigram are com plex an d aw kw ard; the hierarchy is set up w hereby the gods g ran t the em peror w h at he deserves an d in tu rn the em peror is w o rth y of being p atron to th e people of Rom e. In his role as patron, T rajan has restored an exiled patron's rights over his freedm en. This m eans that, though the p atro n is exiled from R om e, he w ill still have control over his ex-slaves. But th e attention to the language of exile and free, d espoilm ent and restoration, serves only to rem ind us that Trajan is n o t freeing the exiles, ie. restoring them to Rom e, he's m erely restoring their p a tro n a l rights and leaving th e patroni them selves in exile. Vitellius had b o th restored the exiles to R o m e and returned their rights over their freed m en ,1 0 2 b u t to restore these rights w hile still in exile, seem s a hollow , even cynical political gesture. T he language of panegyric seem s problem atised by the behaviour praised. Sim ilarly, w hile the epigram prays that T rajan be a deserving e m p e ro r (Tvtfay the gods give Trajan whatever he deserves...) and resounds w ith 102 See Tacitus H ist. 2.92: Gratum primoribus civitatis etiam plebs adprobavit, quod reversis ab exilio iura libertorum concessisset, 'What was pleasing to the highest citizens, and of which even the plebs approved, was that which gave those who returned from exile rights over their freedmen.' 175 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Trajanic potential (dignus es, possis, potes), the final statement, 'M ay it be perm itted only to approve the tru th ', rings w ith uncertainty. This m ay be du e to T rajan's absence from Rom e and M artial's apprehension of a n em peror feared to be a continuation of D o m itian .1 0 3 In Ep. 10.72 M artial had declared th at 'rustic T ru th ' had returned b u t here liceat (Ep. 10.34.6), 'm ay it be p erm itted', im plies th at freedom to speak the truth is still h o p e d for, an d contrasts w ith the repetition of licet, 'it is perm itted', w hich h ad characterised the epigram s of N erva. The other two epigrams w h ic h ad dress Trajan, Ep. 10.6 and Ep. 10.7, stress Trajan's absence from Rom e; in Ep. 10.6 the repetition of qnando ('W hen, w hen, when, w ill T rajan return?') only reinforces his absence, and sim ilarly, in Ep. 10.7, the prayer is for T rajan's re tu rn from the R hine (Traianum populis sins et urbi/ Thi/bris te dominus rogat, remittas, Ep. 10.7.8-9). In M artial, Trajan's only presence is an absence, and an im perial absence w hich controls the p resen t discourse. O ne poetic consequence of this absent presence is M artial's silence about Trajanic Rome. A nd silence can be a token of oppression. M artial 103 Waters convincingly argues that Trajan and Domitian were committed to an alm ost identical policy. That policy was one of increased autocracy.' (1969: 1). H is evidence illustrates continuity and similarity in many areas of each emperor's activity: continuity in the sphere of imperial advisers and public administrators; a similar pattern of abstract images on coinage and assim ilation of the emperor to a god; similar military and foreign policies, exem plified by the Dacian campaigns; continuity of self-advertisement through great building projects; similar interest in agriculture, especially in Italy. This fear of Trajan's continuation of autocracy may be reflected in Dio Cassius' comment (LXV111.3.21) 176 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. proclaim s that 'Silence is free7 (constare gratis...silentium) at Ep. 10.3.12. Is to speak then costly, or unsafe? The issue of the conditions for safe speech com es into prom inence after D om itian7 s death, and Tacitus7 Agricola, contem porary w ith the publication of the second edition of Epigrams 10, expressly notes how philosophers had to keep silent through the reign of terro r.1 0 4 M artial claims th at his silence is for fear of earn in g a bad rep u tatio n for himself. It w as, perhaps, futile for M artial to address a n absent em peror. But silence m ay also have m ore pro fo u n d political m eaning. A hl (1984b: 182) exam ines Aeschylus7 use of C assandra's silence for dram atic effect: that Calpumius conspired against Nerva. The reason for this is given in Zonaras (XI.20); the adoption of Trajan was seen as a return to the military despotism of Domitian. 104 For the dating of Tacitus' A gricola, see Ogilvie and Richmond (1967: 10): "That the Agricola was written shortly after Domitian's death is plain from its w hole character. A more exact date can be obtained only from references in it to Nerva and Trajan. In Ag. 3.1 Nerva is mentioned as Nerva Caesar without being called divus while Trajan, called N erva Traianus, is described as "daily increasing the happiness of our times"; whence it has been inferred that Tacitus was writing w hen Nerva was still alive but after he had adopted Trajan as his son and made him socius im perii, ie. between October 97CE and 28 January 98CE, when Nerva died. On the other hand, in 44.5 Trajan is spoken of as princeps, w h ich shows that he was already emperor and that Nerva was dead. It is possible that in the former passage Tacitus has merely omitted to style Nerva divus and that the inference th a t Nerva was still alive is false, but it is perhaps more likely that the work was begun in the late autumn of 97CE, and not completed until the spring of 98CE.' The Agricola is important in discussing the political conditions in which it is safe to speak. The eulogies written by Arulenus Rusticus and Herennius Senecio were burnt in the Forum. Tacitus conveys how Dom itian attempted to rob authors of their voice (vox): dedimus profecto grande p a tie n tia e documentum; et sicut vetus aetas vidit quid ultimum in libertate esset, ita nos quid in servitute, adempto per inquisitiones etiam loquendi audiendique commercio. memoriam quoque ipsam cum voce perdidissemus, si tarn in nostra potestate esset oblivisci quam tacere. (Agricola 2.3), 'Certainly we have given great proof of submissiveness; and just as an olden age saw extreme liberty, so we see extreme slavery, deprived even, through espionage, of the intercourse of speech and hearing. We would have lost memory as w ell as voice, i f forgetfulness was in our power as much as silence.' For a discussion of Thrasea Paetus and H elvidius Priscus as assertors of libertas, see Wirszubski (1968: 138-50). 177 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. H er silence becomes an issue in the play. H er failure to respond both vocally or physically n o w appears to be a statem ent in itself, an act of defiance... Aeschylus' w atch m an and his Cassandra, not to m ention the m yth of Procne and Philom ela, are rem in d ers that fear does n o t suppress com m unication. R ather it lim its and redefines com m unication. M artial's silence also tells us so m ething political. There are only fo u r epigram s in the tenth book w hich address Trajan and none of these are at the opening of the book. But M artial's silence is not just a rejection o f th e em peror; it is a rejection of the city's im perial ideology of w hich he h ad been the exem plary com m entator in previous books. It is no accident, for exam ple, th a t M artial's detachm ent from th e u rb an scene coincides w ith his decision to return to Spain. T his m o v em en t from Rome to Spain is heightened w ith the progression of Epigrams 10 as M artial becomes increasingly preoccupied w ith him self as a Spaniard in Rome, w ith his friends w h o are leaving Rome, and finally w ith his ow n decision to leave. Of course there rem ain m any of th e stan d ard satirical them es in this book, but this does not detract fro m M artial's increased focus on Spain.1 0 5 In th e first third of the book M artial 105 Weinrib (1990: 163) states that, 'Arriving at a late hour in the fortunes of the younger Seneca, M. Valerius Martialis from Bilbilis quickly established contact with the illustrious literary family from Corduba. After the eclipse of the Annaei the ties persisted: Q. Ovidius and Argentaria Polla continued to be counted among his friends and benefactors.' 178 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. details the draining effect of Rom e and the fact that the city does n o t afford tim e for pleasure, especially w ith friends in the countryside; M artial tells D om itius that he will be handsom e as long as he is absent from the 'u rb a n yoke' of Rom e b u t that the p allid th ro n g w ill rob him of his colour w h e n he re tu rn s.1 0 6 M artial longs to revisit a Spanish friend from his y o u th in Salo, com m enting that 'R om e can be anyw here for tw o friends' (in quocumque loco Roma duobus erit, Ep. 10.13.10). Rome is th e tow n of ste m M ars (oppidum severi Martis, Ep. 10.30.2) and th o u g h A p o llin aris desires to go to Formiae, M artial asks w hen Rom e perm its this (frui sed istis qnando, Roma, permittis?, Ep. 10.30.25). The im plied an sw er 'N e v e r' contrasts sharply w ith the sense of freedom evoked in Epigrams 11. In the m iddle third of the book M artial reflects on w hether the bu stle of the city m erits living there: in Ep. 10.51 it is debated w hether F au stin u s' hectic life am ong the theatres, tem ples a n d baths of Rome is better than the tunic-clad repose afforded by Faustinus' hom etow n (the city is told to keep to itself);1 0 7 Yet Martial only mentions the Annaei with a sense of nostalgia, with the sense that life for a Spaniard is no longer as good as in times past, cf. Ep. 4.40.2: docti Senecae ter numeranda domus, 'the trebly notched up house of learned Seneca'; 12.36.8-9: Pisones Senecasque Memmiosque/ et Crispos mihi redde, sen priores, 'Give me back the Pisos, the Senecas, the M emmiuses and the Crispuses, or their predecessors.' Epigrams 10 illustrates that M artial's attachment in 98CE is to Spain itself, not to Spanish friends in Rome. 106 o quam formosus, dum peregrinus erisl/ ...sed via quern dederit rapiet cito Roma colorem ,/ Niliaco redeas tu licet ore niger (Ep. 10.12.8; 11-12), 'Oh how beautiful you w ill be, as long as you stay abroad...But Rome w ill quickly rob you of the colour that the road has given you, though you m ay return a black man from the Nile.' 107 dicere te lassum quotiens ego credo Quirino:/ 'quae tua sunt, tibi liabe: quae mea, redde mihi.' (Ep. 10.51.15-6), 'How often I believe you to say to Quirinus in your weariness: "Keep what is yours, return what is mine."' 179 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in Ep. 10.58 M artial com plains that the city tires the w eary client. N oticeably, the praise of the happy life in Ep. 10.47 is n o t located in R o m e b u t in som e idyllic landscape. In the final third of th e book M artial m akes plans to leave Rom e an d return to Spain: in Ep. 10.78, on M acer's d ep artu re to Salonae, M artial announces his d ep artu re for the Celts;1 0 8 in Ep. 10.92 M artial is m aking plans to leave for Spain and en tru sts his N o m e n tu m farm to M arrius; in Ep. 10.96 M artial com pares Rom e and Spain; and the last tw o epigram s deal w ith M artial's im m inent d ep artu re and his Spanish destination. This desire to leave Rome and detachm ent from the dtyscape coincide w ith M artial's m ost introspective definition of him self as m a n and as epigram m atist. T hroughout the tenth book there are sev eral reflective poem s about M artial and his life: in Ep. 10.24 M artial a n n o u n c e s his fifty-seventh birthday and reflects upon his age: in Ep. 10.65 M artial defines him self as a hairy Spaniard in contrast to a sm ooth s h a v e n effem inate: in Ep. 10.13 and Ep. 10.104 he focuses on childhood friends. To define his w ork he now m oves from physical m onum ents to his o w n literary m onum ent: solaque non nornnt haec monumenta mori (Ep. 10.2.12), 'T hese are the only m onum ents that do n o t know how to d ie',1 0 9 108 nos Celtas, Macer, et tmces Hiberos/ aim desiderio tni petemus. (Ep. 10.78.9-10), T w ill make for the Celts and the fierce Iberians, missing you, Macer.' 109 Ovid, dictating his ow n tombstone inscription to his wife, makes a similar statement th a t his books are a greater and more enduring memorial than a physical monument H aving 180 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and casts aside tedious m ythological narratives in favour of life's nitty- gritty (vita, mores, hom o, Ep. 10.4).1 1 0 H e inscribes him self as a w riter of elegiacs and hendecasyllables and claim s w orldw ide fame for his w it,1 1 1 cites his readers as his source of incom e (lector, opes nostrae, Ep. 10.2.5), and establishes him self in relation to the tradition as second only in renow n to C atullus.1 1 2 Such acute articulation of his personal and poetic identity seem s no accident. It is a response to the changed conditions of poetic speech. M uch of Epigrams 10 invites com parison w ith Epigrams 1 as this w as a book in w hich M artial w as striving to establish him self w ith in th e socio-political scene in Rom e in 86CE. In Ep. 1.2 M artial plays w ith dictated the inscription he says: hoc satis in titulo est. etenim maiora libelli/ et diutum a tnagis snnt monimenta mihi (Tr. 3.3.77-8), "This is enough for an inscription. My lib elli are a greater and more lasting m onum ent/ 110 See Boyle (1995: 256): 'What Martial gives us through the medium of the epigram is a fresh utilisation of the poetic resources of the Latin language to scrutinise Roman behaviour not metaphorically through the medium of m yth but paradigmatically, head-on (in so far as language is ever head-on), at the same time expounding and promoting some of the main ideological substructures of Flavian Rome.' 111 Undenis pedibusque syllabisque/ et midto sale nec tamen protervo/ notns gentibus ille M artialis/ et notns populis— quid invidetis?— / non sum Andraemone notior caballo (Ep. 10.9), 'I, Martial, known to nations for m y eleven feet and eleven syllables and for my great w it (though it is not too rash). Why do you envy me? I am no better known than the horse Andraemon.' 112 sic inter veteres legar poetas,/ nec multos mihi praeferas priores,/ imo sed tibi sim minor Catullo (Ep. 10.78.14-6), 'So may I be read among the old poets, and may you not prefer many of m y predecessors to me, but rank m e lower than Catullus.' The epigram ends em p h atically on Catullus' name, stressing how important a paradigm Catullus is for Martial. M artial again compares his fame with Catullus' at Ep. 10.103.4-6: nam decus et nomen fam aque vestra sumus,/ nec sua plus debet tenui Verona Catullo/ meqiie velit d id non minus ilia suum, 'For I am your glory and name and fame, nor does Verona owe more to her thin Catullus or would want me to be called hers any less.' Noticeably here, the poet's fame gives pride to each poet's home town rather than locating each Roman poet's achievement in Rome. 181 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. language o f freedom and slavery; the books are com panions (comites, Ep. 1.2.2) to those buying them , M artial is the leader (me duce, Ep. 1.2.6) as h e show s the custom er w here to buy a book, yet, paradoxically, as a u th o r of the book, he is for sale.1 1 3 In term s of physical space, the epigram m o v e s tow ards a specific locale; the reader is travelling on a long road (longa via, Ep. 1.2.2) at the beginning, then is w an d erin g around the city (urbe vagus tota, Ep. 1.2.6), and finally ends up in D om itian's forum . This ep ig ram contrasts w ith the last poem in Epigrams 10 w here the journey is fro m Rome to Spain: I nostro comes, i, libelle, Flavo longum per m are, sed faventis undae, et cursu facili tuisque ventis H ispanae pete Tarraconis arces: illinc te rota toilet et citatus altam Bilbilin et tuum Salonem quinto forsitan essedo videbis. quid m andem tibi quaeris? u t sodales paucos, sed veteres et ante brum as triginta m ihi quattuorque visos ipsa protinus a via salutes, et nostrum adm oneas su b in d e Flavum iucundos m ihi nec laboriosos secessus pretio paret salubri, qui pigrum faciant tuum parentem . haec sunt, iam tum idus vocat m agister castigatque m oras, et aura p o rtu m laxavit m elior, vale, libelle: navem , scis, puto, non m o ratu r unus. (Ep. 10.104) 113 This epigram (Ep. 1.2) is discussed in Part One, 1 (ii). 1 8 2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. G o, little book, go, as com panion to o u r Flavus, over the great sea, b u t w ith favourable tide a n d easy journey on follow ing w inds, h e ad for the heights of Spanish Tarraco: from there w heels w ill lift you sw iftly and y o u w ill see perhaps high Bilbilis an d your Salo a t the fifth leg. D o yo u ask w hy I send you? So that a few friends, o ld friends, not seen for thirty-four w inters, y ou m ight greet straight from the road, so th at you m ay w arn our Flavus to find m e a p leasan t retreat not requiring m uch w ork an d at a reasonable price, an d one w hich w ill m ake your father lazy. T hat's it. N ow the arrogant skipper chastises those delaying, and a kinder breeze h as opened the harbour. Farew ell, libellus: Y ou know , I think, that no-one delays the boat. Equality in status is apparent betw een the book and the reader {comes, Ep. 10.104.1) and the book is to go to greet other friends (sodales, Ep. 10.104.8). Language of u n eq u al status is avoided, the book is called libellus not liber; the w orld of S pain is free from slavery. The relationship betw een M artial and his book has changed; he has now becom e the father (parentem , Ep. 10.104.15) of his text, recalling the separation of the exiled O vid from his books in R o m e.1 1 4 The separation of father and son provokes the sam e 114 orba parente suo quicumque volumina tangis,/ bis saltern vestra detur in urbe locus (Tr. 1.7.35-6), 'All w ho touch these books bereft of a parent, let, at least, a place be given to them in the city'; saepe per extemas profugus pater exulat oras,/ urbe tamen natis exulis esse licet. Palladis exemplo de me sine matre creata/ carmina sunt; stirps haec progeniesque mea est (Tr. 3.14.11-4), 'Often a father is exiled to the furthermost shores and his children are permitted to live in the city. These verses were bom from me in Pallas-fashion without a mother; they are m y offspring and m y children.' One Book, a brother of the Tristia, regrets 183 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. lam en t in the poets' readers.1 1 5 This relationship is m aintained at th e beginning of Epigrams 12 w here M artial addresses the Book's fellow books as brothers (fratres, Ep. 12.2.6), though the different circum stances of O v id a n d M artial are reflected; O vid, through the analogy w ith O edipus, portrays him self as a father w ho has been killed by his sons.1 1 6 M artial presents a sim ilar relationship betw een author and book as O vid in Tristia 1, b u t M artial has voluntarily chosen an exile w hich w as forced upon Ovid. The m ovem ent to a specific location is the sam e as in Ep. 1.2, b u t h ere the destination is not Caesar's forum b u t M artial's hom e town, Bilbilis in S pain.1 1 7 In Epigrams 1 M artial is a new ly-established Spanish poet in Rom e. In Epigrams 10 he is a R om an poet trying to re-establish h is S panish roots; in Ep. 10.104, it is not D om itian, N erva or Trajan w ho is 'A u g u stan ', b u t Bilbilis (Augusta Bilbilis, Ep. 10.103.1). In term s of physical space, the epigram begins on the big blue (longum mare), then m oves to the heights of Spanish Tarraco, from there to high Bilbilis, and then to a m o d est retreat (secessus). The urgent desire to leave Rom e becomes a the birth of the books for which their father was exiled; quaerebam fratres, exceptis scilicet illis,/ quos suus optaret non genuisse pater (Tr. 3.1.65-6), 1 looked for my brothers, except, of course, those which m y father wished he'd never begot.' 115 Stella w ill weep on reading Martial's poetry (nec nimium siccis perleget ipse genis, Ep. 12.2.16), as w ill Ovid's reader (carmina nec siccis perlegat ista genis, Tr. 1.1.28). 116 H inds (1985) traces this analogy through Tristia 1. 117 A sim ilar detachment from Rome's cityscape is reflected in Ovid's Tristia where th e book, now a foreigner (peregrinus, Tr. 1.1.59), needs to ask for directions in the city (d ic ite , lectores, si non grave, qua sit eundum,/ quasque petam sedes hospes in urbe liber, Tr. 3.1.19-20, 'Tell me, readers, if it is not too much trouble, where I ought to go, what place in the city I, a guest-book, should seek'). 184 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. standard them e of Juvenal, and is comically expressed in Satires 3 w h e n U m bricius decides to go and live w ith the Sibyl at C um ae in a quiet secessus.1 1 8 M artial, too, often com plains of the tedium of the city and finds his m aterial in the daily grind, b u t here M artial writes his life experience into his w ork and reflects u p o n his thirty years in R om e.1 1 9 A sim ilar sentim ent is expressed in Silvae 3.5 w here Statius tries to convince his wife to retu rn to his hom e tow n of N aples. There, how ever, the poet defines his hom e in term s of tem ples, theatres, and colonnades, w hereas, for M artial, hom e is a secessus, a retreat, som ew here to escape the m ayhem of R o m e.1 2 0 Ep. 10.104 ends on the im age of the boat w hich w ill m ake th e journey, rem inding us of the transition betw een Rome an d Spain. T he prayer for kind w inds and calm w aters acts as a m etaphor for M artial's n8Quamvis digressu veteris confiisus amicif laudo tamen, vacnis quod sedem figere C um isl destinet atque imum civem donare Sibyllae./ ianua Baiarum est et gratum litus am oen i/ secessus. (Juv. Sat. 3.1-5), 'Although I'm upset b y the departure of my old friend, I laud h im because he has found a home in empty Cumae— that doorway to Baiae and lovely shore at a pleasant retreat— and has chosen to give one citizen to the Sibyl.' U 9 Martial reflects cn his thirtieth year in Rome in the penultimate epigram of the book quattuor accessit tricesima messibus a e sta sj ut sine me Cereri ntstica liba datis,/ moenia dum colimus dominae pulcherrima Romae (Ep. 10.103.7-9), 'A thirtieth summer has joined three harvests since you gave rustic cakes to Ceres without me, while I have lived among the beautiful walls of mistress Rome.' Here, the poet's age acts as a structural device. 120 quid nunc magnificas species cultusque locorum/ templaque et innumeris spatia interstincta columnis,/ et geminam molem nudi tectique theatri/ et Capitolinis quinquennia proxim a lustris (Silv. 3.5.89-92), 'Why should I now praise the magnificent scenes and th e adornments of the place, the temples and halls separated by countless colonnades, the two m assive theatres, one open-air and one covered, and the quinquennial contests that rival th e Capitoline festivals?' Statius, too, expresses a desire to escape the mayhem of Rome: nulla foro rabies aut strictae in iurgia leges:/ morum iura viris solum et sine fascibus aequum (S ilv . 3.5.87-8), 'No madness of the forum, no laws drawn in quarrels. Custom alone is law for our citizens, and justice is done without the fasces.' 18 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. h o p e th a t the transition to Spain w ill be a sm ooth o n e.1 2 1 N ot accidentally, the m etap h o r w as used earlier in the book of the urban storm of M artial's life: hie m ihi quando dies m eus est? iactam ur in alto urbis, et in sterili vita labore perit. (Ep. 10.58.7-8) W hen do I have a day to m yself here? W e are tossed on the deep of the city, an d life w astes aw ay in sterile labour. Epigrams 10 is a book of transition. The boat's journey at the end of the book sym bolises M artial's spiritual retu rn to his hom eland. T h e silence about Trajan, the topographical dislocation and M artial's estran g em en t from political discourse contrast and coincide w ith M artial's poetic security. The price of that security as of the im perial revolution is the rem oval of Flavian Rom e's m ost incisive com m entator and its greatest w it. But one poet's detachm ent from the city is another's em broilm ent. M artial w as m ore acutely aware of this th an anyone else: 1 2 1 Statius also uses the calmness of the sea as metaphor for the peaceful life which N ap les provides: Has ego te sedes— nam nec mihi barbara Thrace/ nec Libye natale solum— transferre laboro,/ quas et mollis hiems et frigida temperat aestas,/ quas imbelle fretum torpentibus adluit undis./ pax secura locis et desidis otia vitae/ et numquam turbata quies somnique peracti (Silv. 3.5.81-6), T struggle to bring you to this spot— for neither barbarous Thrace or Libya are m y native lands— where m ild winter and cool summer tempers the land, 186 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. D um te forsitan inquietus erras clam osa, Iuvenalis, in Subura au t collem dom inae teris Dianae; dum p er lim ina te potentiorum sudatrix toga ventilat vagum que m aior Caelius et m inor fatigant: me m ultos repetita post D ecem bres accepit m ea rusticum que fecit auro Bilbilis et superba ferro... sic m e vivere, sic iuvat perire. (Ep. 12.18.1-9; 26) W hile you, perhaps, w ander restlessly in the noisy Subura, Juvenal, or trudge up the hill of m istress Diana; and as you cross the doorw ays of the pow erful your sw eating gown airs you and the G reater and Lesser Caelian tire the w anderer. As for me, m y Bilbilis, revisited after m any Decembers, proud of her gold and iron, has m ade m e rustic... Thus it pleases me to live, thus to die. The detachm ent from Rom e which M artial so vehem ently sought in Epigrams 10 is accom plished w hen he retires to his Spanish h o m elan d . H is reflection on the m ayhem of the d ty anticipates Juvenal's o w n rep resen tatio n of R om e.1 2 2 In Epigrams 1 M artial h a d referred to his o w n where the land is washed by the calm waters of a peaceful sea. There is sure peace in th a t place and a leisurely life, never is the quiet disturbed or the sleep broken/ 122 Juvenal's first Book was probably published around 110CE, about seven or eight years after Martial's Epigrams 12. See Colton (1991: 1-16). The language of this epigram is resonant in Juvenal: the hectic life of Juvenal's city is conveyed by the adjective clamosus (Sat. 8.186; 9.144; 10.53); the Subura is central to Juvenal's representation of the city's seediness (Sat. 3.5; 5.106; 11.51,141); and sweat (Sat. 1.28, 167; 2.126; 3.103; 4.108; 6.259, 420; 187 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. poetry as meiim theatnim (1, praef. 16) 'm y theatre'; by the tim e of w ritin g Epigrams 12 M artial may have left the theatre b u t there w as another to take his place. Juvenal, M artial's friend and satirist,1 2 3 was to publish his first Book of satires a few years later. W ith his tirades on the social an d econom ic injustices of Rom e, his loathing of D om itian, his hatred of m ythological narratives, and his m icroscopic details of the dtyscape, w h a t better parad ig m could Juvenal have th an M artial? 10.4), doorways (Sat. 1.96, 100; 2.88; 6.47, 52; 11.190; 14.44, 220), and togas (Sat. 1.119; 2.70; 3.149,172; 8.240; 9.29; 10.8,39; 11.204) abound. 1 2 3 I presume that the three epigrams that mention Juvenal (Ep. 7.24; 91; 12.18) refer to th e satirist. In Ep. 7.24 Martial gives an indignant reply to someone attempting to destroy h is friendship with Juvenal and and in Ep. 7.91 he calls Juvenal facundus ('eloquent'), the same epithet he had used of Nerva's literary talent at Ep. 8.70.1 and Ep. 5.3.5. 188 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A ppendix: M artial and the Prose Preface in L atin Literature In tro d u ctio n 'N ot a few readers w ill notice v a rio u s transgressions of literary convention here...T he subtitle, A Model Kit, m ight lead one to believe that the different parts of the tale, separated by blank spaces, are p u t forth as interchangeable elem ents. If som e of them are, the fram ew ork referred to is of a different n a tu re — sensitive som etim es on the w riting level, w h ere recurrences and displacem ents try to be free of all causal fixedness, b u t especially on the level of m eaning, w here the opening for com binatory art is m ore insistent and im perative. The reader's option, his personal m ontage of the elem ents in the tale, w ill in each case be the book he has chosen to read.' Julio Cortazar, from the preface to 62: A Model Kit, translated from the Spanish by Gregory Rabassa. M artial's prefaces transgress literary conventions. Cortazar's preface to 62: A Model Kit is com parable w ith the preface to Epigrams 1 w here th e reader is addressed an d told how to approach the book.1 M artial is less explicit about his book's 'level of m eaning', b u t his collections of short, disjointed poetic units enable the reader to create 'a personal m ontage of the elem ents' w ithin a 'fram ew ork...of a different nature.' But M artial's prose prefaces do not have a single purpose; there are five prose prefaces 1 See Part One, 1 (ii). 189 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (Epigrams 1, 2, 8, 9, 12) in his corpus and each has its ow n relationship to the book which it prefaces. M artial questions and critiques the L atin prose prefaces which he inherits; his five prefaces provide a range of responses to the literary tradition.2 His prefaces (especially those to Epigrams 1 and 2) respond to pre-existing prefatory m odels b u t also need to be read in th e context of contem porary practice. M artial's experim entation w ith the prose preface w as am ong the things w hich ensured its survival. In the preface to Epigrams 8 M artial inform s us about the com pilation of the book: minus itaque ingenio laborandum fuit, in cuius locum materia successerat: quam quidem subinde aliqua iocorum m ixtura variare tem ptavim us, (Ep. 8 praef. 5-8) 1 have struggled less w ith talent, since contents have taken its place. H ow ever, I've tried to vary som e of it by m ixing in jokes...' Variare describes M artial's approach to Epigrams 8 b u t could equally apply to the style of each of his prefaces; all have different addressees, different contexts, and different applications to the prefaced book. The level of experim entation seen in M artial's prefaces explodes the potential of the preface, a potential w hich is further explored by M artial's Flavian contem poraries and successors w ho preface their w ork (such as 2 The only substantial work done an Latin prose prefaces (Janson: 1964) is a 'com parative study' of prefatory conventions in Greek and Latin literature. The problem w ith Janson's approach is that it focuses on common motifs in prefaces but tends to ignore innovations. For example, Janson states (1964: 107) that the 'normal' function of an epistolary preface was to dedicate the work to someone but M artial's first preface, which is epistolary (ep is tola, 1 190 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Statius, Q uintilian, an d Tacitus). M artial redefines the content a n d function of a literary form w hich was in danger of becom ing confined to rhetorical principles an d banal conventions.3 H e has the freedom to adapt the conventions of his predecessors to his ow n purpose because he is n o t w riting w ith in a genre w hich has a trad itio n of prose prefaces.4 T h is purpose is determ ined by the place and tim e of M artial's composition: 'M ais que font les prefaces?' C 'est a cette question diaboliquem ent sim ple que nous allons m ain ten a n t tenter de repondre. U n enquete prealable, do n t j'epargnerai au lecteur les m eandres et les hesitations, m 'a convaincu de ce point, d 'ailleu rs hautem ent previsible, que toutes les prefaces ne 'font' pas la m em e chose— a u tre m e n t dit que les fonctions prefacielles different selon les types de preface. Ces types fonctionnels me sem blent pour l'essential determ ines a la fois par des considerations de lieu, de m om ent, et de la n atu re d u destinateur. Genette (1987: 182) As exem plified by m y reading of the preface to Epigrams 1 (Part One, 1 (ii)) an d Epigrams 9 (Part Two, 2 (iii)), M artial's prefaces need to be read in th e praef. 17), has no specific addressee. This contrasts w ith Statius' epistolary prefaces in th e Silvae, each of w hich has a specific addressee. 3Martial's first prose preface is clearly indebted to the tradition of Latin prose prefaces, but it is the differences, such as the fact that Martial is the first to preface poetry with prose, w hich invite us to reevaluate the purpose of this preface. Cf. Ogilvie (1967: 23) cm L ivy, w ho remarks that it is the novelties in Livy's preface which 'tell us most about h is intentions.' 4 On Martial's debt to the preface of the Garland of Philip, see Part One, 2 (Introduction). 191 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. context of Flavian Rome.5 For particular focus here are the prefaces w hich adopt an d critique the literary tradition (Epigrams 1 and 2) an d those w hich have a n im pact on contem porary practice (Epigrams 2 and 8). M artial's experim entation w ith this literary form provokes som e fierce com petition. (i)Epigrams 1: Martial and Pre-Existing Prose Prefaces (Sallust, Livy and Pliny the Elder) In the preface to Epigrams 2, M artial draws on different pre-existing literary m odels to establish the relationship betw een author, reader and text. T he topoi established in M artial's first prose prefaces are com parable w ith those of historical works, w hich have w ell-defined prefatorial topoi.6 For Sallust, Livy and Pliny the Elder, the preface functions as a pre-text, a point at w hich the author is able to define his authorial position, his 5 Janson (1964: 112) gives three reasons for the popularity of prose prefaces to collections of verse in the Flavian period: l)the poet's necessity to praise the emperor; 2) the poet's necessity to distinguish himself from his work; and 3)its being a general trend. The first two reasons, though valid, do not help to explain why a prose preface facilitates such needs or why the trend is so popular in this period. Many poets manage to praise the emperor and distinguish them selves from their work in verse as does Horace, for example, in Serm. 2.1. That the prose preface became a trend is surely an unsatisfactory explanation in itse lf—the trend did not come out of nowhere. Martial, in essence, creates this trend. 6 The 'usual' themes of the preface in Latin literature are outlined by Janson in her discussion of the prefaces to rhetorical, historical, and agricultural works. Janson (1964: 66-7) divides the topoi of historical works into three broad categories: 1 ) the laudatio historiae, in which the author praises his subject and asserts the excellence of history; 2 ) the reason for choosing this subject and a description of the particular field for consideration; and 3) the historian's attitude to his work and assertion of his impartiality. It is not so much these categories that are important but that common themes are dealt with by the historian before beginning the subject of the work. Martial, defining his relationship with his reader, text and context, establishes similar themes to illustrate his purpose: to imitate and to innovate. 192 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. readership and his subject m atter. Sallust m akes it clear that h is introduction is separate from the body of the text: de cuius ho m in is moribus pauca prius explananda sunt, quam initium narrandi faciam (Bell. Cat. 4.5), 1 m u st explain a few things about the m an 's character before I begin m y n arrativ e'.7 In the prefaces to Sallust's Bellum Catilinae and th e first book of Livy's Ab Urbe Condita the authors identify them selves in th e first perso n singular and define the genre in w hich they have chosen to w rite.8 H aving given up a public career,9 Sallust justifies his decision to w rite history and discusses its difficulties: Ac mihi quidem, tametsi h and quaquam par gloria sequitur scriptorem et actorem rerum, tamen in prim is arduum videtur res gestas scribere (Bell. Cat. 3.2), 'A n d so for m e, a lth o u g h the sam e glory is not attached to the w riter as to the doer, yet the w riting of history seem s to be one of the m ost difficult tasks.' Livy is sim ilarly self- conscious of his decision to write history; he defines him self as a n inheritor of the historical tradition (praef. 2), is specific about the area in w hich he w ill w rite and the purpose of th at w riting. Livy struggles to 7 Sallust's introduction to his first work, Bellum Catilinae, was published som etim e between the death of Caesar and 40BCE. On the problem of dating the work, see Rolfe (1947: x ii- iii). 8 In the first four chapters Sallust refers to him self sixteen times (m ihi, 1.3; aestumo, 2.8; m ihi, 3.2; ego, latus sum, 3.3; me, dissentirem, 3.5; m ihi, decrevi, 4.1; statui, m ihi, 4.2; potero, absolvam , 4.3; ego, existim o, 4.4; faciam , 4.5); in his preface Livy refers to h im self eighteen times (twelve first person verbs, six first person personal adjectives or pronouns). 9 In discussing his reasons for writing history, Sallust details his rejection of a p o litica l career at the beginning of the Bellum Catilinae (Bell. Cat. 4) and the Bellum Jugurthinum (Bell. Jug. 3-4). Sallust started his political career as tribune in 52BCE. On Sallust's career, see Syme (1964: 29-42). 193 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. attain the audience's attention (anim adversa, praef. 8) for fear of readers w ho w ill have no interest in non-contem porary subject m atter (praef. 4). Sallust, Livy and M artial are m ore interested in defining their position in relation to a w ide readership than in eulogising an addressee.1 0 In contrast, Pliny the Elder attem pts to create a balance betw een self definition and praise for the addressee. The preface to his first book of the Naturalis Historia, published in 77CE an d dedicated to Titus, begins thus: Libros N aturalis H istoriae, novicum C am enis Q uiritum tu o ru m opus, natos apud me proxim a fetura licentiore ep is tula narrare constitui tibi, iucundissim e im perator— sit enim haec tu i praefatio, verissim a, d u m m axim i consenescit in patre— nam que tu solebas nugas esse aliquid m eas putare (Nat. Hist. 1 praef. 1) These books of N atu ral H istory, a new task for your R om an M uses, b o m from m y last brood, I have decided to recount to you, m ost w onderful em peror (let this address be yours, a m ost tru e one, w hile 'The G reatest' grow s old w ith your father) in a rather licentious letter, 10 This contrasts with many prefaces where the addressee is the author's primary concern. For example, the preface of Vitruvius' first book (de arch. 1 praef. 1) is a dedication to and eulogy of Augustus: Cum divina tua mens et numen, imperator Caesar, imperio potiretur orbis terrarum invictaque virtute cunctis hostibus stratis triumpho victoriaque tua cives gloriarentur et gentes omnes subactae tnum spectarent nutum..., 'When your divine mind and spirit, emperor Caesar, acquired control of the world, all the people gloried in your triumph and victory-enemies were crushed by your unconquerable virtue. Everybody obeyed you...' There is little self-definition in Vitruvius' preface; he is eager rather to praise the achievements and benevolence of the emperor. The shift of emphasis from the author to the addressee is evident from the twelve second person singular personal adjectives or pronouns. 194 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. For you w ere accustom ed to think m y trifles to be som ething. Pliny begins by n am in g his w ork and claims to be w riting som ething n o v e l (novicum , cf. a t 1 praef. 14 w here he claims to be w alking an 'u n b eaten path'). He is keen to locate his genre w ithin a R om an tradition and claim s to be inspired by the Cam enae (Camenis Quiritum tuorum , Nat. Hist. 1 praef. 1). Pliny is m odest about the standard of his w ork, w hich, w ritten in a 'lighter vein' (quod levioris operae, Nat. Hist. 1 praef. 12), show s lim ited talent (nam nec ingenii sunt capaces, Nat. Hist. 1 praef. 12). This m ock- m odesty is reinforced by the butchered C atullus quote in w hich he labels his w ork as 'trifles' (nugae). M uch of this prefigures M artial, w ho directly associates him self w ith the R om an literary trad itio n ,1 1 and dicusses the extent of his poetic talent (ingenium , 1 praef. 6). Both Pliny and M artial use analogies for their work; for M artial, the G am es of the Floralia are m etaphor for th e epigram s them selves (iocus, Indus); for Pliny, the production of the books is com pared to child-bearing and the Natural 11 Martial directly associates himself with four writers of Latin epigram; Catullus, Marsus, Pedo, and Gaetulicus. Domitius Marsus wrote an epigram on the deaths of Virgil and Tibullus as w ell as an epic Amazonis, which Martial mentions at Ep. 4.29, a M elaenis, Fabellae and a prose work De Urbanitate. Maecenas was his patron and Ovid speaks of him as a contemporary (Ex P. 4.16.5). Albinovanus Pedo wrote an epic on Germanicus' campaign of which twenty three hexameters survive. Martial mentions him in Ep. 2.77, 5.5, 10.20.10 and Seneca calls him fabulator elegantissimus (Ep. 122.15). Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Gaetulicus may be the Gaetulicus in the Greek Anthology (see Gow and Page (1968: xlviii)). He is mentioned by Pliny at Ep. 5.3 as an erotic poet and three hexameters of De Britannis are preserved by Probus. H e may have written an historical work (Suet. Cat. 8.1). For other Martial epigrams in w hich these authors are mentioned, see Citroni (1975: 10). 195 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. History is his latest baby. Pliny's m ock-m odesty is com parable w ith M artial's self-deprecating value-term s (and ad o p tio n of C atu llan vocabulary). H ow ever, in M artial these term s becom e integrated into a netw ork of descriptive labels w hich the author uses to define his w o rk th ro u g h o u t. Pliny's preface is a form al dedication to Titus a n d one w hich h e claims (however ironically) is not intended for mass publication (Nat. Hist. 1 praef. 6, 12). H e acknow ledges that his readers w ill n o t find his w o rk pleasurable (neque...legentibus blanda, 1 praef. 13) and does n o th in g to persuade them otherw ise. At the end of the preface, he inform s us th at h e has appended his preface w ith a table of contents so that th e reader, sh o u ld he wish, does not have to read the entire work: quia occupationibus tuis publico b o n o parcendum erat, quid singulis contineretur libris huic epistulae subiunxi, sum m aque cura n e legendos eos haberes operam dedi. tu per hoc et aliis praestabis ne perlegant, sed u t quisque desiderabit aliquid id tantum quaerat, et sciat quo loco inveniat. hoc ante me fecit in litteris n o stris V alerius Soranus in libris quos siroTrrlScov inscripsit. (Nat. Hist. 1 praef. 33) For the public good and not to be taxing on y o u r time, I have added to this letter a list of w h at is in each book and I have taken the utm ost p ain s so that y o u d o n 't have to read them . By doing th is, you w ill m ake it possible for others not to h a v e 196 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to read them right through, so th at each person h a s only to look for w hat he w ants, and know s w h e re he can find it. V alerius Soranus did this before m e in o u r literature, in the books w h ich he called 'Initiates'. T hough the b o o k is dedicated to Titus, Pliny has the public good (publico bono) in m in d an d intends his book to be accessible to a w ide audience. Pliny's directions to the reader are here the opposite of M artial's; P lin y intends his H istory as a reference w ork~ the reader can check the table of contents at the beginning and then flick to the appropriate page. By draw ing a tten tio n to the contents' page (quid singulis contineretur libris hnic epistulae subiunxi, T have appended w h at is in each book to th is letter'), Pliny p ro v id es the reader w ith the freedom to select w h a te v e r m aterial he w ishes and to read discretely. The reader does not have to be M artial's lector stndiosus (Ep. 1.1.4) nor does he have to read all the w ay th rough (ne perlegant, Nat. Hist. 1 praef. 33). M artial's sem iotic preface, unlike Pliny's them atically categorised preface, requires the reader to engage w ith the text, in C ortazar fashion, and to m ake connections. (ii)M etaprefaces: Epigrams 2 and Q uintilian's Institutio Oratoria 1 Just as M artial experim ents w ith the conventions of th e epigram m atic trad itio n , so too he experim ents w ith the form ulae of p ro se prefaces. H is ex p erim en tatio n w ith prefatorial conventions is best seen in 197 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the prefaces to Epigrams 1 and 2, w hich, published at the sam e tim e,1 2 are the antithesis of each other. The first, steeped in the conventions of L atin prose prefaces, pro v id es a fram ew ork for u n d erstan d in g the relatio n sh ip betw een author, reader, and text, w hereas the second rejects th e convention of a preface as tedious and red u n d an t. These opposite approaches are a reaction to an increased tren d in prefaces either to eulogise the em p ero r or patron or to com pile a tedious list of a book's contents. M artial does neither in the prefaces to Epigrams 1 or 2. H aving ex p o u n d ed the relationship betw een author, reader, and text in the preface to Epigrams 1, in Epigrams 2 M artial critiques an d responds to the tradition h e inherits. By undercutting the im portance of the preface in Epigrams 2, M artial derides the p h e n o m e n o n of the prose preface as a tedious obstacle to the w ork itself.1 3 H e explicitly questions the purpose of a preface: VALERIUS MARTIALIS DECIANO SUO SAL. 'Q u id nobis' inquis 'cum epistula? p aru m e n im tibi praestam us, si legim us epigram m ata? quid hie p o rro dicturus es quod non possis versibus dicere? video quare tragoedia aut com oedia e p istu lam 12 On the joint publication of Epigrams 1 and 2, see n.155 in Part One. 13 The introduction to Montesquieu's The Persian Letters (1964: 8 ) ends an a similar note: TJsage permits every translator, and even the most barbarous commentator, to adorn th e head of his version or his commentary with a panegyric cn the original, and to extol its utility, merit, and excellence. I have not done so; it should be easy to guess my reasons. One of the best is that it would be a most tedious thing, put in a place which is already quite tedious itself, nam ely, a preface.' 198 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. accipiant, quibus pro se loqui non licet: epigram m ata curione n o n egent et contenta su n t sua, id est m ala, lingua: in quacum que pagina visum est, epistulam faciunt. noli ergo, si tibi v idetur, rem facere ridiculam et in toga saltantis inducere personam , denique videris an te delectat contra retiarum ferula, ego inter illos sedeo qui protinus reclam ant/ pu to m e hercules, Deciane, v eru m dicis. quid si scias cum qua et quam longa epistula negotium fueris habiturus? itaque quod exigis fiat, debebunt tibi si qui in hunc lib ru m inciderint quod ad p rim am paginam non lassi p erv en ien t. (Ep. 2 praef.) VALERIUS MARTIALIS TO HIS FRIEND DECIANUS GREETINGS. 'W hat's it to us w ith this letter?,' you say, 'Do w e give you too little, if w e read the epigram s? A n d w hat are you going to say here that you're unable to say in verse? I can see w hy tragedy and com edy get a letter, for they can't speak for them selves: epigram s d o n 't need a crier — they are content w ith their o w n tongue, that's to say a bad tongue: they add a letter on w hatever page seem s right to them . So if you d o n 't m ind, d o n 't be ridiculous by bringing on stage a togate dancing character. Does it really please you to bring a stick against a N etsm an. I am sat am ongst people w ho are protesting im m ediately.' By H ercules, Decianus, I th in k you speak the tru th . W hat if you knew w h at sort and how long a letter you w ould have had to deal w ith? So, it is as you wish. A ny w ho come across this book will owe it to you that they don't arrive at the first page tired out. This critique of prefaces w ithin the preface results in a m etapreface. M artial addresses the purpose of a preface (Quid nobis...cum epistula?) an d questions w hether it provides the au th o r w ith an opportunity to say w h a t Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. he is unable to say in the body of the text (quid hie porro dicturus es quod non possis versibus dicere?). The inclusion of a preface is associated w ith the genre of the w ork (video quare tragoedia aut comoedia epistulam accipiant...), and the interlocutor says th at prefaces are not n eed ed in epigram because they speak w ith their 'ow n tongue'. A sim ilar b lu rrin g betw een the pre-text and text has been seen in Epigrams 1 w here M artial ends the preface w ith four lines of verse to sm ooth the transition from th e preface to Ep. 1.1. In the preface to Epigrams 2 the interlocutor explicitly states th at in epigram there is no distinction betw een the preface an d th e text (in quacumque pagina visum est, epistulam faciunt). M artial agrees w ith D ecianus and cuts the preface short. But M artial's response to D ecianus' criticism can be read n o t ju st against M artial's ow n approach to prefaces b u t against Latin prose prefaces in general. The im agined situation is one in w hich M artial has a n n o u n c e d his decision to w rite a preface and the crow d has protested (protinus reclamant, 2 praef. 11). The reader is surely not reacting to the prospect of another M artial preface (at this point he can only boast of one!) b u t to an increased trend to preface a work. M artial is elusive about the content of such prefaces b u t is clear about their length (quid si scias cum qua et quam longa epistula negotium fueris habiturus?, 2 praef. 12-4). For exam ple, Pliny the E lder's preface consists of ten pages w hich list the contents of the 200 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. book. It is left to our im aginations how tedious M artial's preface w o u ld be, and ho w tired the readers (lassi), if he chose to list the contents of a book consisting of ninety three epigram s. The im pact of M artial's m etapreface is w ell illustrated at the o p e n in g of the Institutio Oratoria w h e re Q uintilian prefaces the preface. T he preface, in w hich Q uintilian dedicates the book and outlines its contents, is preceded by a letter to T rypho, his bookseller.1 4 The letter enables Q uintilian to express anxiety about the publication of the text at th e sam e tim e as prom oting it: M. FABIUS QUINTILIANUS TRYPHONI SUO SALUTEM Efflagitasti cotidiano convicio u t libros, quos ad M arcellum m eum de Institutione oratoria scripseram iam em ittere inciperem . N am ipse eos n o n d u m opinabar satis m aturisse, quibus com ponendis, u t scis, paulo plus q u am biennium tot alioqui negotiis districtus im pendi; quod tem pus non tarn stilo quam in q u isitio n i instituti operis p ro p e infiniti et legendis auctoribus, qui su n t innum erabiles, datu m est. (Epistula 1.1) QUINTILIAN TO HIS BOOKSELLER TRYPHO GREETINGS Every day you d em an d th at I start to publish th e books w hich I have w ritten for M arcellus o n 14 It is surely no coincidence that Martial mentions a bookseller Tryphon in a prefatory position at Xert. 3.4 and addresses booksellers at the beginning (Secundus, Ep. 1.2.7) and end (Atrectus, Ep. 1.117.13) of Epigrams 1. Tryphon is also mentioned at Ep. 4.72.2 where Quintus is told to go to the bookseller, not Martial, for a copy of his book. 201 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 'Educating the O ra to r/ I m yself feel that they are not yet ready; I have only been p utting th e m together for a little over two years, d uring w h ic h time I've been distracted by m uch other business. This tim e has been devoted not so m u ch to w riting as to the research of an alm ost endless task and to the reading of countless authors. Q uintilian detaches from the preface and the book itself all in fo rm atio n about com position, publication and the title of the w ork. Yet the letter reads like one of M artial's prefatory epigram s; Q u in tilian nam es the publisher (cf. Secundus, Ep. 1.2.7; Tryphon, Xen. 3.4) an d the title of the w ork (cf. Xeniorum, Xen. 3.1), and establishes the w ork w ith in the context of his literary predecessors. Q uintilian m arginalises further m aterial w hich M artial (and Statius) place in a prefatory position. This is obviously n o t a personal letter to the publisher; it serves as an in tro d u ctio n for the general reader, as a dedication for M arcellus, and as an apologia ('The w ork w as com pleted faster th an I w anted it to be'). W hat looks like a flippant 'tag', akin to one of M artial's Xenia or Apophoreta, is actually an innovative device to preface the w ork before the preface begins. (iii)Preface Rivalry: M artial and Statius M artial's relationship to his contem porary Statius m erits particular attention because both authors, w ho were w riting prose prefaces to collections of verse in the m id 90sCE, use the literary form to explore the 202 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. relationship betw een author, text and power. Statius' Silvae, published at least five years after the publication of Epigrams 1 and 2, are m o re consistent than M artial's prefaces. Each book of the Silvae has a prose preface w hich reads like an abbreviated Pliny preface; each has a specific addressee and outlines the subject of each poem in the book. Silvae 2, 2, and 3 w ere probably published together after the publication of Epigrams 1 an d 2 and the preface to Silvae 4 w as published at the end of 94/beginning of 95CE betw een publication of M artial's Epigrams 8 and 9. Statius' preoccupation w ith the form and content of his text in the preface to Silvae 1 is sim ilar to M artial's first preface whereas the prefaces to Epigrams 8 and Silvae 4 com m ent m ore sharply on the interrelation of poetry and pow er in D om itian's Rome of 94/5CE. In the preface to Silvae 1, Statius establishes his authorial pose an d justifies his decision to w rite the Silvae. He refers to him self extensively (eight first person singular verbs, nine personal pronouns) in a preface w hich reads like an apologia; he justifies his reason for w riting 'occasional' poetry by defining him self prim arily as an epic poet and by citing the Thebaid. The Silvae, w hich give the poet the opportunity to w rite in a lighter vein (stilo remissore praeluserit, 1 praef. 11), are m entioned in conjunction w ith m inor w orks (Culex, Batrachomachia) of the tw o exem plary epic poets, Virgil and H om er. Statius assures the reader that the 203 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Silvae fit w ith his persona as an epic poet, but this com parison is ironic: V irgil and H om er w rote their m in o r w orks before they w rote epics. S tatius sets up a code in w hich he claim s to be follow ing in the footsteps of his predecessors, only to invert it. R eaders cannot help but read S tatius as a n epic p oet just as they cannot rea d the Silvae w ithout reading them th ro u g h the T hebaid.1 5 The ludicity of S tatius' prefatorial approach is c ap tu red by praeluserit: authorial 'prefacing' an d 'playing' are collapsed into one. In justifying their choice of genre, both M artial and S tatius exploit the tension betw een the fact th a t these poem s are short and yet a re p a rt of an organised collection. Statius claim s to be scared (tim eo, 1 praef. 8) about the publication of pieces w hich w ere com posed so hastily: D iu m ultum que dubitavi, Stella, iuvenis optim e e t in studiis nostris em inentissim e, qua parte v o lu isti, an hos libellos, qui m ih i subito calore et q u ad am festinandi v o lu p tate fluxerunt, cum singuli de s in u m eo prodierint, congregatos ipse dim itterem . (1 praef 1-5) I have debated long an d hard, Stella— you excellent m an and o u tstan d in g in your prefered area of o u r hobby— about these libelli, w hich w ere produced in a su d d en fervour a n d joy in hurrying, w hether I should send them o u t as a collection, since I'v e already sent them forth one by one from m y breast. 1 5 On Statius' evaluation and critique of the Thebaid within the Silvae, see M alam ud (1995: 169-98). 204 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Statius posits a sim ilar irony to M artial; he tells us that these are im p ro m p tu pieces, none of w hich took m ore th an two days to w rite (nullum enim ex illis biduo longius tractum , 1 praef. 16), yet he is gathering th em together to be published as a collection w hich is w ell- c o n tem p lated (Diu multumque dubitavi) an d w hich p u ts the au th o r u n d e r presssure (onerari). The irony is further m ain tain ed in the second half of the preface w h ere Statius lists the contents of each poem in the book. T his is, as H ardie (1983: 65) and Colem an (1988: 53-55) have noted, m ore of a ploy for Statius to advertise him self than to give us a two lined synopsis of each poem . For w hose benefit is this preface? Statius uses the preface to capitalise on the size and form at of his collection;1 6 he, like M artial, has already published individual pieces, or libelli com prised of a selection of poem s, and utilises the preface to advertise his poetry and to expand his audience by reiterating its contents. The contents list not only draw s attention to his poetry as a self-contained collection but also gives the addressee of each poem pride of place in the preface. For exam ple, at least one poem of each of the Silvae concerns the em peror (S ilv . 1.1 o n D om itian's equestrian statue; Silv. 2.5 on D om itian's tam e lion; Silv. 3.4 o n D om itian's boy, Earinus; Silv. 4.1 on D om itian's seventeenth consulship; Silv. 3.2 on D om itian's banquet; Silv. 3.3 on D om itian's new road) b u t the 1 5 This is unique to Statius' collections; Martial could not have possibly attempted to give a synopsis of about one hundred epigrams. 205 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. poem is not the first of the collection in each case. The preface, how ever, enables Statius to acknow ledge the em peror at the beginning of each book w ithout dedicating every poem or every preface to him . This intention is m ade clear at the beginning of the preface to Silvae 4 w hen Statius reflects: Reor equidem aliter quam invocato numine m axim i imperatoris n u llu m opusculum meum coepisse (4 praef. 2-4), T am aw are th at none of m y little w orks have begun in any way other than w ith an invocation of the divinity of our greatest em p ero r/ Silvae 4, published in 95CE,1 7 and Epigrams 8, published in Decem ber 94CE, and Epigrams 9, published in the beginning of 95CE,1 8 are rem arkable for their extensive treatm ent of the em peror. It has been presum ed that Statius' treatm ent of the em peror in Silvae 4 is because the po et 'once again found him self the recipient of D om itian's favour' (Hardie, 1983: 65).1 9 Though Silv. 4.2 thanks the em peror for a specific invitation to dinner, I w ould argue that the series of poem s to D om itian (Silv. 4.1-3) reflects Statius' increased anxiety about m aintaining connections w ith the em peror after his m ove to Naples. W hen read in conjunction w ith Epigrams 8, Silvae 4 reflects a poet's grow ing concern w ith poetry's w o rth u n d er an autocrat. The preface to Epigrams 8 is the only preface w hich is a 1 7 On the publication of Silvae 4, see Hardie (1983: 65). 1 8 On the publication of Epigrams 8 and 9, see Sullivan (1991:40-42). 206 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. form al dedication and is M artial's m ost extensive address to the em peror. H ow ever, in both M artial and Statius' case, the treatm en t of the em peror is inextricably bound up w ith the poet's concern for his w ork. The beginning and end of the preface to Epigrams 8 illustrate m y point: IMPERATORI DOMITIANO CAESARI AUGUSTO GERMANICO DACICO VALERIUS MARTIALIS S. Om nes quidem libelli mei, dom ine, quibus tu fam am , id est vitam , dedisti, tibi supplicant; et, puto, propter hoc legentur. Hie tam en, qui operis nostri octavus inscribitur, occasione pietatis frequentius fruitur...cum pars libri et m aior et m elior ad m aiestatem sacri n o m in is tui alligata sit, m em inerit non nisi religiosa purificatione lustratos accedere ad tem pla deb ere. quod u t custoditurum me lecturi sciant, in ipso libelli huius lim ine profiteri brevissim o placuit epigram m ate. (8 praef. 1-5; 14-20) TO THE EMPEROR DOM ITIANUS CAESAR AUGUSTUS GERMANICUS DACICUS, VALERIUS MARTIALIS SENDS GREETINGS. All of m y libelli, master, to w h ich you h a v e given fame, that is to say life, supplicate you; because of this I think they'll be read. But this one, w hich is entitled the eighth of m y w orks m ore frequently enjoys the o p p o rtu n ity for reverence.-.Since the greater and b e tter p a rt of the book is bound up w ith the m ajesty o f your sacred nam e, rem em ber that no-one sh o u ld approach tem ples unless they're cleansed by religious 1 9 I agree with Ritchie (1971: 92). He argues that Statius gained little in terms of direct imperial favour, and that Statius' dinner invitation w as of no particular distinction i f thousands were invited. 20 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. purification. So that prospective readers k now that I'll observe this, I tho u g h t it best to announce it on the threshold of the libellns in the shortest of epigram s. The juxtaposition of the em peror and M artial's poetry occurs at strategic p o in ts of the preface; D om itian's title is next to M artial's nam e in th e dedication, and the concern w ith em peror and text is ev id en t in th e fram ing of the w hole preface (it begins w ith IM PERATO RI, it ends w ith epigrammate). In the first line of the preface the em peror and M artial's text are juxtaposed (libelli mei, dom ine) and this positioning is m aintained in the first line of the first epigram of the book (domini, liber, Ep. 8.1.1). M artial's concern for the book's reception is m ade evident in his general ad d ress to prospective readers (lecturi); this preface is clearly an attem pt to su stain his readership. A n im precation to one m ay facilitate the other; th e books supplicate D om itian, and in tu rn w ill be read (legentur) by M artial's readers. Several epigram s in Epigrams 8 sustain the them e of im p erial patronage and epigram 's w orth: in Ep. 8.24, M artial, requests th at at least the em peror let a favour be asked of him ; in Ep. 8.55, he com plains th a t there is no longer the patronage th at existed in V irgil's day; this is follow ed in Ep. 8.56 by an address to D om itian in his capacity as a giver (m agna tribuas, Ep. 8.56.1). The intim ate relationship betw een em peror and text conclusively ends the book: dante tibi turba querulos, Auguste, lib e llo s/ 208 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. nos quoque qnod domino carmina parva d a m n s (Ep. 8.82.1-2), 'W hile th e crow d gives you querellous petitions, A ugustus, w e also give sm all poem s to o u r m a ste r/ The focus on giving (dante, dam us) underlines th e reciprocity w hich M artial urges of the em p ero r and is again reinforced by the juxtaposition of D om itian and M artial's p o etry (domino carmina). A sim ilar juxtaposition of em peror a n d text is evident in the preface to Silvae 4. The beginning and end of the preface reveal a sim ilar preoccupation w ith em peror and text as w e have seen in M artial's eig h th preface: STATIUS MARCELLO SUO SALUTEM Inveni librum , Marcelle carissim e, quern pietati tuae dedicarem . Reor eq u id em aliter quam invocato n u m in e m axim i im peratoris n u llu m opusculum m eum coepisse; sed hie liber tres habet...2 0 se quam quod quarta a d honorem tu u m pertinet. Prim o autem sep tim u m decim um G erm anici nostri consulatum adoravi; secundo gratias egi sacratissim is eius epulis ho n o ratu s; tertio viam D om itianam m iratu s sum , qua gravissim am harenarum m o ram exem it... ...Quare ergo plura in quarto silv aru m quam in prioribus? ne se p u ten t aliquid egisse, qui rep reh en d eru n t, u t audio, quod hoc stili genus edidissem . Prim um supervacuum est dissuadere rem factam; deinde m ulta ex illis iam d o m ino C aesari dederam , et quanto hoc plus est quam edere? exercere autem ioco n o n licet? "secreto" inquit. Sed et sphaerom achias spectam us et palaris lusio adm ittit. N ovissim e: quisquis ex “There is a lacuna recognised by Hahn here, though it is not in the MSS. See M ozley (1928: 202). 209 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. meis invitus aliquid legit, statim se p ro fitetu r adversum . Ita, quare consilio eius accedam? In sum m am , n em p e ego sum qui traducor; taceat et gaudeat. H unc tam en lib rum tu, M arcelle, defendes, et si videtur, hactenus, sin m in u s, reprehendem ur. Vale. (Silv. 4 praef. 1-10; 30-43) I have found a book, dearest Marcellus, that I can dedicate in your honour. I am aware that n o n e of m y little w orks have begun in any w ay o th er than w ith an invocation of the divinity of o u r greatest em peror. But this book has three...and it is the fourth w hich does you honour. In the first I have h o n o u red the seventeenth consulship of our G erm anicus; in the second I have g iv en thanks for the honour of his m ost sacred banquet; in the third I have m arvelled at th e D om itian R oad, by w hich he has ended th e terrible delay on the sandy path... ...Why then do I have m ore in the fourth book of Silvae than in those before? So that they w ho have criticised m e, so I hear, for producing this kind of verse, m ay think th at they have achieved nothing. Firstly, it is pointless to dissuade a d o n e deed, secondly, I h ad already given m any of them to m aster Caesar, and how m uch m o re im portant is th at than publishing?! Is it n o t perm itted to w rite playfully? "Secretly," he says. But w e w atch ball games an d fencing-m atches let people in. Finally, w hoever reads anything of m ine unw illingly, at once proclaim s him self a n enemy. So w h y should I take his advice? In the end, it's only m e w ho is abused: let him be silen t and rejoice. But you, M arcellus, will defend this book if it seem s right, if not I m ust be criticised. Farewell. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Statius is the first to tell us that this book treats D om itian m ore extensively th an any other. Both M artial and Statius are reflective about the n a tu re and extent of their w ork, as they had been in the prefaces to Epigrams 1 an d Silvae 1, b u t here, at the alm ost sim ultaneous publication of Epigrams 8 an d Silvae 4, both authors m ake a sharper connection betw een their w o rk and the em peror. Statius tells the reader th at this is the fourth book of h is Silvae (quarto silvarum) and that it's the longest and M artial, in the preface to Epigrams 8, tells the reader that this is his eighth book (operis nostri octavus) and one m ore reverent than the others. In his last preface,2 1 Statius evaluates him self as both an epic poet (he m entions the p u b licatio n of the Thebaid and a letter w hich prefaced it: epistola, quam ad ilium de editione Thebaidos meae publicavi, Silv. 4 praef. 20-21), and an 'occasional' poet, as he h ad done at the outset of the Silvae. H e defines his w ork as playful (ioco, Silv. 4 praef. 36) and defends his choice of genre (stili g e n u s, Silv. 4 praef. 32), as he h ad in his first preface (stilo remissore, Silv. 1 praef. 11). M aintaining the level of self-referentiality, Statius nam es the title of his w ork (silvarum , Silv. 4 praef. 30; also in the preface at Silv. 3.1), defines its context (Saturnalibus, Silv. 4 praef. 28) and specifies m etres {hendecasyllasbos, Silv. 4 praef. 28). These com m ents not only recycle Statius' definition of his w ork in his first preface (the ludic language of ioco 2 1 The preface to Silv. 5 is only a preface to the first poem of the book. Most of the poems in Silv. 5 were posthum ously edited into the present book. See Bright (1980: 52). 211 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. recalls praeluserit, Silv. 1 praef. 11) b u t align the type of poetry he is w ritin g w ith M artial's.2 2 The title of the w ork, silvae, derived form the G reek uXt]P draw s our attention to the collection as a mass; the title fu rth e r exploits the tension betw een these books as heaps of m aterial an d yet system atically structured collections. The definition of poetry as a iocas, the festive setting, the hendecasyllabic m etre all recall M artial's 'p ro g ram m atic u n it'.2 4 In defending his choice of poetry (exercere a u te m ioco non licet?) Statius is concerned w ith w hat he is perm itted to w rite. D espite his statem ent th at the em peror has already read the poem s ad d ressed to him , Statius' defence an d justification of his verse coincides w ith his excessive praise (adoravi, Silv. 4 praef. 7; gratias egi, 4 praef. 7; m iratus su m , 4 praef. 9) of the em peror's achievem ents (his se v e n te e n th co n su lsh ip , his banquet, his n ew road) at the opening of the preface. T he ad d ress to M arcellus at the beginning an d end (Silv. 4 praef. 1; 42) n o t only fram es the preface b u t binds S tatius' justification of his verse a t the end of the preface to the treatm ent of the em peror at the beginning. “M artial and Statius never mention each other. Rivalry between the two seems likely from Statius' com m ent in the preface to Silv. 2 that a few of his shorter, 'lighter' poems are like epigrams: In arborem certe tuam, Melior, et psittacum scis a me leves libellos quasi epigrammatis loco scriptos (Silv. 2 praef. 17-9), 'Certainly you know that the lighter poems on your tree, Melior, and the parrot, were written in place of an epigram.' 2 3 Both silvae and u \ t) commonly mean 'trees' or 'forest', but both words can more generally m ean 'mass' or 'matter'. 2 4 The Saturnalia is the setting for the prefaces of Xenia and Apophoreta, the Floralia is the context for the preface to Epigrams 1. Martial defines his verse as a iocus at 1 praef. 7; Ep. 1.4.3. The first epigram of Epigrams 1 is in hendecasyllables and M artial defines him self as a writer of hendecasyllables at Ep. 10.9.1. 212 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. M artial's prefaces to Epigrams 1 and 2 exploit the possibilities for a preface to m ean. The preface to Epigrams 8 exposes the relatio n sh ip betw een text and political power. The prefaces to Epigrams 9 and 12 are different again; the preface to Epigrams 9 sets up a m odel for the ideal relationship betw een im age and text, a them e w hich is played out th ro u g h the book.2 5 The preface to Epigrams 12 details the changed relatio n sh ip betw een M artial and his book; after the m ove to Spain, M artial is regretful that Bilbilis does not provide the sam e subject m atter as Rome. M artial's experim entation w ith the way a preface connects w ith a w ork opened u p the potential for authors to adapt a preface to their ow n purposes. It is n o accident that the relationship betw een author, text and political pow er, is stated explicitly in the preface to Tacitus' Agricola after the assassination of D om itian. The preface integrates the custom ary them es of prefaces to historical w orks w ithin a personal and political context.2 6 Tacitus' preface, w hich celebrates the intellectual freedom absent from D om itian's reign,2 7 differentiates clearly betw een present liberality an d form er tyranny: 2 5 See Part Two, 1 (iii). 2 6 For a commentary on the preface to the Agricola, see Ogilvie and Richmond (1987: 125-40). See also Tacitus Hist. 1.1: 'Modem times are indeed happy as few other have been, for w e can think as w e please, and speak as we think.' 2 7 The preface to the H istoriae is different again; here, Tacitus gives us a synopsis of h is book's contents but does not categorise the material (as Pliny had done), but rather provides the reader with a general introduction. 213 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dedim us profecto grande patientae docum entum ; et sicut vetus aetas vidit quid ultim um in libertate esset, ita nos quid in servitute, adem pto per inquisitiones etiam loquendi au d ien d iq u e comm ercio. m em oriam quoque ipsam cum voce perdidissem us, si tam in nostra potestate esset oblivisci quam tacere. N unc dem um redit anim us... (Ag. 2.3-3.1) C ertainly w e have a given great proof of subm issiveness; and just as the olden age saw extrem e liberty,, so w e see extreme slavery, d eprived even, through espionage, of the intercourse of speech and hearing. W e w ould have lost m em o ry as well as voice, if forgetfulness was in our pow er as m uch as silence. N ow finally spirit returns... The transition from M artial and Statius' com m ents on the em peror in the prefaces to Epigrams 8 and Silvae 4 to Tacitus' com m ents on the sam e em peror in the preface to the Agricola w ould take just over a year. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Bibliography A ckroyd, Peter. 1985. Chatterton. L ondon. A dam s, A.J. 1975. The Nature o f M artial's Epigrams. PhD D issertation (U niversity of Indiana). A dam s, J.N. 1982. The Latin Sexual Vocabulary. Baltimore, MY. Ahl, F.M. 1984a. "The Rider and the H orse: Politics an d Power in R o m a n P oetry from H orace to Statius," A N R W 2.32.1: 40-110. . 1984b. "The A rt of Safe C riticism in Greece an d Rome," AJP 105: 174-208. . 1985. Metaformations: Soundplay and Wordplay in Ovid a n d Other Classical Poets. N ew York. A hleid, Frans. 1983. Quintilian: The Preface to Book XIII and Com parable Passages in the Institutio Oratoria. A m sterdam . A nderson, Jam es C. Jnr. 1984. The Historical Topography of the Im perial Fora. Brussels. . 1982. "D om itian, the A rgiletum and the Tem ple of Peace," A J A 86: 101- 12. A ustin, R.G. 1934. "Rom an Board G am es I," G&R 4: 24-34. . 1935. "Rom an Board Gam es II," G&R 4: 76-82. Ball, A.P. 1907. "A Forerunner of the A dvertising A gent," CJ 2: 165-70. Balsdon, J.P.V.D. 1969. Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome. London. B andinelli, R.B. 1970. Rome the Centre o f Power 500BC to A D 200. T ranslated by Peter Green. N ew York. B artsch, Shadi. 1994. Actors in the Audience: Theatricality and Doublespeak from Nero to Hadrian. C am bridge, MA. Barton, C. 1993. The Sorrows of the A ncient Romans. Princeton, NJ. 215 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Barwick, K. 1958. Zyklen bei Martial and in den kleinen Gedichten des Catnll. Philologus 102: 284-93. Boethius, A. 1960. The Golden House of Nero. A nn A rbor, MI. Bonanno, A. 1976. Portraits and Other Heads on Roman Historical R eliefs up to the Age of Septimius Severus. Oxford. Boyle, A.J. 1976. The Eclogues of Virgil. M elbourne, A ustralia. . 1986. The Chaonian Dove: Studies in the Eclogues, Georgies, a nd Aeneid o f Virgil. Leiden. . (ed.) 1988. The Imperial Muse: To Juvenal through O vid. V ictoria, A ustralia. . (ed.) 1990. The Imperial Muse, Vol.2: Flavian Epicist to Claudian. V ictoria, A ustralia. and Sullivan, J.P. (eds.) 1991. Roman Poets of the Early Em pire. L ondon. . (ed.) 1995a. Roman Literature and Ideology. Victoria, A ustralia. . 1995b. "E valuating the Unexpected Classic," in Boyle (1995a: 250- 69). an d Sullivan, J.P. (eds.) 1996. Martial in English. London. ______ . 1997. "Postscripts from the Edge: Exilic Fasti and Im perialised Rom e," Ramus 26: 7-28. Bowersock, G.W. 1965. Augustus and the Greek World. Oxford. Bram ble, J C. 1974. Persius and the Programmatic Satire. C am bridge. ______ . 1982. "M artial and Juvenal," in The Cambridge History o f Latin Literature, pp. 597-623. Cambridge. B raund, S.H. (ed.) 1988. Satire and Society in A ncient R om e. Exeter Studies in H istory, no. 3. Exeter. Breckenridge, J.D. 1968. Likeness: A Conceptual History of A n c ie n t Portraiture. Evanston. 216 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. . 1981. "R om an Im perial P ortraiture from A ugustus to G allienus," A N R W 2.12.2: 475-512. Bright, D.F. 1980. Elaborate Disarray, the Nature of Statius' Silvae. (Beitrage z u r Klassischen Philologie 108) M eisenheim am Gian. Brilliant, R. 1984. Visual Narratives: Storytelling in Etruscan and R o m a n A rt. N ew York. Brown, F. 1961. Roman Architecture. N ew York. Burgess, J.F. 1972. "Statius' Altar of M ercy," CQ 22: 339-49. Buttrey, T.V. 1975. "Dom itian's perpetual censorship and the n u m ism a tic evidence," C f 71: 26-34. Cairns, Francis. 1972. Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry. E dinburgh. C am eron, Alan. 1980. "The G arland of Philip," GRBS 21: 43-62. .1993. The Greek Anthology from Meleager to Planudes. Oxford. Castagnoli, F. 1941. "Gli edifici rappresentari in u n rilevo del sepulcro degli H aterii," BullCom 69: 59-69. Citroni, M ario. 1970. "Un Proem io di M arziale," Studia F lorentina Alexandro Ronconi Oblata: 81-91. .1975. M .Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Liber Primus. F irenze. . 1989. "M arziale e la Letteratura per i Satum ali," ICS 14: 201-26. C olem an, K.M. 1986. "The Em peror D om itian and Literature," A N R W 2.32.1: 3087-3115. . (ed.) 1988. Statius Silvae 4. Oxford. . 1990. "Fatal Charades: R om an Executions Staged as M ythological Enactm ents," JRS 80: 44-73. Colton, R.E. 1991. Juvenal's Use of Martial's Epigrams: A Study of Literary Influence. A m sterd am . 217 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cortazar, Julio. 62: A M odel Kit. Translated by G regory Rabassa. N ew York. Crook, J. 1967. Law and Life of Rome. N ew York. Culler, Jonathan. 1975. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism , Linguistics and the Study of Literature. N ew York. D altrop, G. w ith H ausm ann, U. and W egner, M. 1966. Die Flavier. Berlin. D 'A m bra, E. 1993. Private Lives, Imperial Virtues: The Frieze of th e Forum Transitorium in Rome. Princeton, NJ. De Laclos, Choderlos. 1782. Les Liaisons Dangereuses. Translated by Douglas Parm ee. O xford, 1995. Dessen, C.S. 1968. Iunctura callidus acri: a study o f Persius' Satires. U rbana. Dietrich, J.S. 1997. Thebais rescriptrix: Rewriting and Closure in Statius' Thebaid 12. PhD D issertation (University of Southern California). Dom inik, W.J. 1990. "M onarchical Power and Im perial Politics in Statius' Thebaid," in Boyle 1990: 74-97. . 1994. The M ythic Voice of Statius: Power and Politics in th e Thebaid. Leiden. Duff, A.M. 1928. Freedmen in the early Roman Empire. Oxford. E dw ards, C. 1993. The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cam bridge. . 1996. W riting Rome: Textual Approaches to the City. C am bridge. Elliott, R obert C. 1960. The Power of Satire: Magic, Ritual, A rt. Princeton, N.J. Fantham , E. "Stuprum : Public Attitudes and Penalties for Sexual Offences in R epublican R om e," 'Echos du Monde Classique/Classical Views 35, n.s. 10: 267-91. 218 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fears, J.R. 1981. "Jupiter and Rom an im perial ideology: the role of D om itian," A N R W 2.17.1: 233. Fow ler, D.P. 1989. "First Thoughts on Closure: Problem s and Prospects," MD 22: 75-122. .1995. "M artial and the Book," in Boyle (1995a). Freud, Sigm und. 1960. Jokes and Their Relation to the U nconscious. T ranslated by James Strachey. N ew York. Freund, Elizabeth. 1987. The Return of the Reader: R eader-R esponse Criticism. N ew York. Friedlander, L. 1886. M artial's epigrammaton libri m it erklarenden A nm erkungen. Leipzig. Friesen, S.J. 1993. Twice Neokoros. Ephesus, Asia & the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family. L eid en . G am sey, P. 1970. Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire. Oxford. G arthw aite, J. 1978. "D om itian and the C o u rt Poets M artial and Statius," PhD D issertation (Cornell University). . 1990. "M artial, Book 6, on D om itian's M oral C ensorship," Prudentia 22: 13-22. . 1993. "The Panegyrics of Dom itian in M artial Book 9," R am us 22: 78-101. Gazda, E.K. (ed.) 1977. Roman Portraiture: A ncient and M odern Revivals. Kelsey M useum of A rchaeology. A nn A rbor, MI. ______ and H aeckl, A.E.. 1996. Images of Empire: Flavian Fragments in Rome and A nn Arbor R ejoined. Kelsey M useum of Archaeology. A nn A rbor, MI. Genette, G erard. 1987. Seuils. Paris. . 1992. The Architect: A n Introduction. T ranslated by Jane E. Lewin. Berkeley, CA. 219 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. G iangrande, G. 1968. "Sym potic Literature and E pigram ," in L'Epigram m e Grecque, Fondation H ardt. Geneva. G irard, Jean-Louis. 1981. "D om itian et M inerve: une predilection im periale," A N R W 2.17.1: 233-45. Berlin. Gow , A.S.F., and Page, D.L. (eds.) 1968. The Greek Anthology: T h e Garland of Philip and Some Contemporary Epigrams. C am bridge. G ow ers, E. 1993. The Loaded Table: Representations o f Food in R o m a n Literature. Oxford. G rim al, Pierre. 1989. "M artial et la pensee de Seneque," ICS 14: 175-83. G ross, H. (ed) 1979. The Structure of Verse. N ew York. G underson, E. A pril 1996. "R eading the Arena," CA Vol.15, N o.l: 113-51. H ardie, A. 1983. Statius and the Silvae: poets, patrons and epideixis in the Graeco-Roman world. Liverpool. H arrison, George W.M. 1980. "Som e Xenia and A pophoreta from M artial ju st in tim e for C hristm as," CB 56: 43-44. . 1990. Books 13 and 14: A Key to U nderstanding. PhD D issertation (U niversity of Xavier). H endrickson, G.L. 1929. "A ncient Reading," CJ 25: 182-96. H inks, R.P. 1935. Greek and Roman Portrait-Sculpture. London B ritish M u seu m . H inds, Stephen. 1985. "Booking the return trip: O vid and Tristia 1," Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 31: 13-32. H ill, P.V. 1979. "B uildings and M onum ents of Rom e on Flavian C oins," N u m A n tC l 8: 205-23. ______ .1989. The M onum ents of Ancient Rome as Coin Types. London. H ollow ay, R.R. 1987. "Som e Rem arks on the Arch of Titus," A ntC l 56: 183-91. H opkins, Keith. 1983. Death and Renewal. Cam bridge. 220 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Howell, P. 1980. A Commentary on Book One of the Epigrams of M artial. L ondon. .1995. A Commentary on Book Five of the Epigrams of M artial. W arm in ster. Ingarden, R om an. 1973. The Literary Work o f Art: A Investigation on the Borderlines o f Ontology, Logic and Theory of Literature. Evanston. Iser, W. 1974. The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltim ore, MY. . 1980. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic R esponse. Baltim ore, MY. Janson, Tore. 1964. Latin Prose Prefaces: Studies in Literary C onventions. S tockholm . Jones, Brian, W. 1992. The Emperor Domitian. London. Joshel, Sandra. 1992. Work, Identity and Legal Status at Rome: a study o f the occupational inscriptions. London. Kay, Nigel. 1985. Martial Book XI: A Commentary. London. Kelling, L. a n d Suskin, A. 1977. Index Verborum Iuvenalis. H ildesheim . Kent, J.P.C. 1973. Roman Coins. New York. Ker, A. 1950. "Som e Explanations and E m endations in M artial," CQ 44:12-24. Kleiner, D iana E.E. 1992. Roman Sculpture. N ew Haven. Knox, Bernard M.W. 1968. "Silent Reading in A ntiquity," Greek, R o m a n and Byzantine Studies 9: 421-35. Koeppel, G. 1969. "Profectio und A dventus," Bonnjb 169: 130-94. . 1984. "Die historischen Reliefs der rom ischen Kaiserzeit II: Stadtrom ische D enkm aler unbekannter Bauzugehorigkeit aus flavischer Zeit," Bonnjbb 184: 5-9; 28-34. 221 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. La Fontaine. 1755-59. The Fables of La F ontaine. T ranslated by M arian n e Moore. N ew York, 1954. Lanchester, John. 1996. The Debt to Pleasure. London. Lattim ore, R. 1962. Themes in Greek and Latin Epigraphs. U rbana. Laurens, P. 1965. "M artial et Tepigram m e greque d u Ier siecle apres J.-C.," REL 43: 315-41. Leary, T.J. 1990. "Some Rom an Board G am es," Akroterion 35: 123-5. . 1996. Martial Book XIV. London. M acDonald. W.L. 1965. The Architecture of the Roman Empire 1: A n Introductory Study. N ew Haven. M agi, Filippo. 1945. I rilievi flavi del Palazzo della Cancelleria. Rome. . 1973. "Brevi osservazione su di u n a nuova datazione dei rilie v i della Cancelleria," R M 80: 289-91. M alam ud, M artha A. 1995. "(P)raising the Dead in Silvae 2.7" in Boyle (1995a). M archand, Leslie A. (ed.). 1967. Selected Poetry of Lord Byron. N ew York. M attingly, H. 1923-94. The Roman Imperial Coinage. London. M cCann, A.M. 1972. "A Re-dating of the Reliefs from the Palazzo della Cancelleria," R M 79: 249-76. M cDonald, I.R. 1971. The Flavian Epic Poets as Political and Social Critics. PhD D issertation (University of N o rth C arolina at C hapel Hill). M cG ushin, Patrick. 1987. Sallust: The Conspiracy of Catiline. A Companion to the Penguin Translation. L ondon. M illar, F. 1977. The Emperor in the Roman World. N ew York. M ontesquieu. 1721. The Persian Letters. T ranslated by George R. H ealy in 1964. London. 222 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. M orawiecki, L. 1977. "T he sym bolism of M inerva o n th e coins of D om itianus," Klio 59: 185-93. M ozley, J.H. 1982. Statius (Vol. 1). Cam bridge, MA. N ew m yer, S. 1984. "The T riu m p h of A rt over N ature: M artial an d Statius on Flavian A esthetics," Helios 11: 1-7. N odelm an, S. 1993. "H ow to Read a R om an Portrait," A rt in A m erica 63: 26-33. O gilvie, R.M. and R ichm ond, I. 1967. Cornelii Taciti De Vita Agricolae. Oxford. .1970. A Commentary on Livy Books 1-5. Oxford. Paris, R. (ed.) 1994. Dono Hartwig: Originali ricongiunti e co-pie tra A n n Arbor e Roma. Ipotesi per il Templum Gentis Flaviae. Rom e. Peck, T. 1914. "The A rgiletum an d the Roman Book-Trade," CP 9: 77-8. Perry, B.E. (ed) 1965. Babrius and Phaedrus. Cam bridge, MA. Plass, Paul. 1985. "A n A spect of Epigram m atic W it in M artial and Tacitus," Arethusa 18: 187-210. . 1995. The Game o f Death in Ancient Rome: Arena Sport and Political Suicide. M adison. Platner, S.B. and A shby, T. 1929. A Topographical Dictionary o f A n c ie n t Rome. O xford. Pleket, H.W. 1961. "D om itian, the Senate and the Provinces," M nem osyne Series 4, Vol. 14: 296-315. Pollini, J. 1978. "Studies in A ugustan 'H istorical' Reliefs." PhD D issertation (U niversity of California, Berkeley). ______ . 1984. "Damnatio M em oriae in Stone: Two P ortraits of N ero Recut to V espasian in A m erican M useum s," AJA 88: 547-55. ______ . 1987. The Portraiture of Gains and Lucius Caesar. N ew York. 223 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. . 1990a. Roman Portraiture: Images of Character and Virtue: selections from the J.P. Getty Museum. Los A ngeles, CA. . 1990b. "M an or God: Divine A ssim ilation an d Im itation in the Late Republic and Early Principate" in Raaflaub, K.A. and Toher, M. (eds.) Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of A ugustus and His Principate. Berkeley, CA. Preston, K. 1920. "M artial and Formal Literary Criticism ," CP 15: 340-52. Price, S. 1984. Rituals and Power: The Imperial Cult in Asia M inor. Cam bridge. Racine, Jean. 1677. Phedre. Translated by R.C. Knight. A ustin, 1971. Raaflaub, K.A. an d Toher, M. (eds.) 1990. Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations o f A ugustus and His Principate. Berkeley, CA. Reckford, K enneth. 1962. "Studies in Persius," Hermes 90: 476-504. Richards, I.A. a n d O gden, C.K. 1923. The M eaning of M eaning. London. . 1924. Principles of Literary Criticism. London. . 1929. Practical Criticism. N ew York. R ichardson, L. 1992. A New Topographical Dictionary O f Ancient R om e. Baltimore, MY. Richlin, A. 1992. The Garden of Priapus. Oxford. . 1993. "N o t Before Homosexuality: The M ateriality of the Cinaedus and the R om an Law against Love Between M en," JHS Vol.3. No.4: 523-73. Rolfe, J.C. 1931. Sallust. Cam bridge, MA. Sailer, R.P. 1982. Personal Patronage Under the Early Empire. Cam bridge. .1983. "M artial on Patronage and Literature," CQ33: 246-57. Schoene, A. (ed.). 1967. Eusebi Chronicorum Canonum Vol.2. Frankfurt. Scott, K. 1936. The Imperial Cult under the Flavians. Berlin. 224 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sear, F. 1992. Roman Architecture. N ew York. Seel, Otto. 1961. "A nsatz zu einer M artial-Interpretation," in Antike u n d Abendlang 10: 53-76. Excerpts translated in Sullivan (1993). Shackleton-Bailey, D.R. 1993. M artial's E pigram s (Vol.1,2,3). Cam bridge, M A. Sherw in-W hite, A.N. 1966. The Letters o f Pliny. Oxford. Skeat, T.C. and Roberts, C.H. 1983. The Birth of the Codex. London. Spengel, L. 1894. Rhetores graeci: ex recognitione Leonardi Spengel. Leipzig. Sterne, Laurence. 1956. Tristram Shandy II. London. Strong, D. 1976. Roman Art. London. Sullivan, J.P. (ed.) 1963. Critical Essays on Roman Literature: Satire. L ondon. and W higham (eds.). 1987. Epigrams of Martial Englished by Divers Hands. Berkeley, CA. . 1991. Martial: The Unexpected Classic. Cam bridge. . (ed.) 1993. The Classical Heritage: M artial. N ew York. Sutherland, C.H.V. 1935. "The State of the Im perial Treasury at the D eath of Dom itian," JRS 25: 150-62. Sw ann, B.W. 1994. Martial's Catullus: The Reception of an Epigram m atic Revival. N ew York. Syme, R. 1930. "The Im perial Finances u n d er D om itian, N erva a n d Trajan," JRS 20: 55-70. . 1964. Sallust. Cambridge. . 1983. "Dom itian, the last years," Chiron 13: 121. 225 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Taylor, L.R. 1931. The D ivinity of the Roman Em peror. M iddletow n, C onnecticut. Tom pkins, J.P. (ed.) 1980. Reader-Response Criticism from Formalism to Structuralism . B altim ore, MY. Toynbee, J.M.C. 1957. The Flavian Reliefs from the Palazzo della Cancelleria in Rome. Oxford. . 1971. Death and Burial in the Roman World. L ondon. Treggiari, Susan. 1969. Roman Freedmen During the Late Republic. Oxford. . 1991. Roman Marriage: iusti coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time o f Ulpian. Oxford. Ullm an, B.L. 1941. "Apophoreta in Petronius and M artial," CPh 36: 346-55. Vessey. 1973. Statius and the Thebaid. C am bridge. Veyne, P. 1990. Bread and Circuses. T ranslated b y B. Pearce. London. V on B lanckenhagen, P.H . 1940. Flavische Architektur und ihre Dekoration: Untersucht am Nervaforum. Berlin. . 1954. "The Im perial Fora," JSAH 13: 21-6. W ard-Perkins, J.B. 1956. 'N ero's Golden H o u se / A ntiquity 30: 209-19. . 1981. Roman Imperial Architecture. L ondon. W aters, K.H. 1963. "The Second Dynasty of Rom e," Phoenix 17: 198-218. . 1964. "The C haracter of Dom itian," Phoenix 18: 49-77. . 1969. "Traianus Domitiani Continuator," AJP 90: 385-405. W einrib, E.J. 1990. The Spaniards in Rome From M arius to D om itian. N ew York. W hite, P. 1978. "Amicitia an d the Profession of Poetry in Im perial R om e," JRS 68: 74-92. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ______ . 1974. "The Presentation an d D edication of the Silvae an d the Epigrams/'JRS 64: 40-61. . 1993. Promised Verse. C am bridge, M A W irzubski, Ch. 1950. Libertas as a Political Ideal at Rome during the Late Republic and Early Principate. C am bridge. W isem an, T.P. 1978. "Flavians o n the C apitol," A JA H 3: 163-78. W oodm an, T. and W est, D. (eds.) 1974. Quality and Pleasure in Latin Poetry. London. Yavetz, Z. 1969. Plebs and Princeps. Oxford. Z anker, Paul. 1988. The Power of Images in the Age o f A u g u stu s. T ranslated by A lan Shapiro. A nn A rbor, MI. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Reflexive politics: Cicero's relationship with the Roman voters

PDF

Removing the body: Representations of animal skins on Greek vases

PDF

Love's economy: Aesthetics, exchange and youthful poetics in Roman elegy

PDF

Forma orbis: Geography, ethnography and shaping the Roman Empire

PDF

The translation of tragedy into imperial Rome: A study of Seneca's "Hercules" and "Oedipus"

PDF

Countercultural responses to the crisis of masculinity in late republican Rome

PDF

Women and the unspeakable: Rape in Ovid's "Metamorphoses"

PDF

The 'Diegeseis' of Konon: a commentary with an English translation

PDF

The centrality of the peripheral: Illuminating borders and the topography of space in medieval narrative and art, 1066-1400

PDF

The legislation of Lucius Appuleius Saturninus and Gaius Servilius Glaucia

PDF

Thebais rescriptrix: Rewriting and closure in Statius' "Thebaid" 12

PDF

Sophocles' "Elektra" and "Philoktetes": Knowledge, plot, and self-reference

PDF

She's nothing: Gender and representation in Catullus and elegy

PDF

Religion and politics in Aristophanes' "Clouds"

PDF

The Mercury-Augustus identification.

PDF

The liberal muse: Juvenal's sexual persona and the purpose of satire

PDF

The syntax of the Chinese BA-constructions and verb compounds: A morphosyntactic analysis

PDF

The syntax of clitic doubling in modern Greek

PDF

On the status of possessives

PDF

Antigone: A study in critical method

Asset Metadata

Creator Fearnley, Hannah Louise (author)

Core Title Reading Martial's Rome

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Classics

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Art History,Language, Ancient,literature, classical,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-405248

Unique identifier UC11350787

Identifier 9930494.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-405248 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 9930494.pdf

Dmrecord 405248

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Fearnley, Hannah Louise

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA