Selected Epigrams

by Martial

  Domitian was the first Roman emperor who allegedly insisted that he should be addressed as Lord and God (dominus et deus), which ancient authors and modern scholars identify as an important reason for his growing unpopularity in the final years of his reign.79 In his Life of Domitian, Suetonius (13.1–2) lists a number of incidents illustrating the emperor’s arrogance and here we find the evidence for his alleged belief in his divinity. On one occasion the emperor was delighted to hear the crowd in the Colosseum greet him and his wife as Lord and Lady (domino et dominae). He further points to a letter that the emperor sent to his procurators insisting that he be addressed (in writing) as Lord and God. Suetonius stresses that this then became the customary address of the emperor, both in writing and in conversation (13.2). Suetonius’ reference to this instruction cannot be dated, but in his discussion of the same events the historian Dio Cassius (67.4.7) places it very close to the death of Cornelius Fuscus, whose armies were routed by the Dacians in 86. Procurators were middle-level administrators of equestrian rank who directly served the emperor, and it is perhaps unnecessary to assume that what was applied to these officials was imposed on all subjects of the Roman Empire. The tradition that Domitian insisted on being worshipped as a god is late and influenced by strong anti-Domitianic sentiments. The first poem by Martial in which Domitian is addressed as Lord and God was published as part of book 5 (5.8.1). The most likely date of publication of this book of epigrams is toward the end of the year 90. Other poems in which Martial uses this form of address are 7.34.8–9, 8.2.6, and 9.66.3 (page 74). In an epigram published after Domitian’s assassination (10.72), Martial finally distances himself from his obsequiousness. The poem is addressed to a group of “Flatteries” that have come to visit the poet to be used in another epigram, but Martial states that there is no place for them in Rome anymore and sends them to the Parthian Empire.80 In the end Martial’s apology for his obsequiousness also serves to promote the idea that praise for Domitian’s successor took place in an environment that is sincere.

  Throughout Domitian’s reign his relationship with the Senate was difficult, but it is generally agreed that the relationship was at its lowest ebb during the final part of his rule. It used to be convention to refer to the period from 93 onward as a reign of terror, but more recently scholars have suggested dates earlier in the reign as the start of more serious conflict.81 Domitian’s rule ended on 18 September 96 when the emperor succumbed to a palace conspiracy. The Greek historian Dio Cassius and the Roman biographer Suetonius provide a list of conspirators and a number of reasons that encouraged them to act. There are slight discrepancies between the two lists, but in essence the two can be said to agree on the fact that Domitian was murdered by freedmen in the imperial administration, perhaps with the tacit support of the emperor’s wife, Domitia Longina (Dio Cassius, Roman History 67.15.2; Suetonius, Life of Domitian 14.1).82 The main conspirators are identified as Parthenius, Domitian’s chamberlain and the addressee of a number of Martial’s epigrams, and Stephanus, the freedman and accountant of Domitian’s niece Domitilla (Suetonius, Life of Domitian 14.1; Dio Cassius, Roman History 67.15.1). They decided to kill Domitian because of his growing arrogance and for the execution of two courtiers, Epaphroditus (Suetonius, Life of Domitian 14.4; allegedly on the grounds that he was thought to have assisted in the killing of Nero, close to thirty years before) and Domitian’s cousin Flavius Clemens (15.1; on a slight suspicion). At an arranged meeting Stephanus stabbed the emperor in the groin, after which additional muscle was provided by three low-ranking palace officials and a gladiator from the imperial school (Suetonius, Life of Domitian 17.1). After his death the senate met to condemn Domitian’s memory by having his name erased from all public inscriptions and to have his sculpture and portraits defaced (Suetonius, Life of Domitian 23.1; Pliny the Younger, Panegyricus 52). If we may believe Suetonius, the senators had ladders brought into the meeting hall to take down the emperor’s portraits and the shields inscribed with his virtues and applauded the spectacle of seeing them being smashed to pieces on the floor (23.1). This was the second occasion, after Nero, on which an emperor suffered the systematic erasing of his existence, a process known as damnatio memoriae. 83 The consequences for Martial cannot be spelled out in detail, but the joyful reaction to the toppling of Domitian by the senators suggests that literary patrons may no longer have been forthcoming for one who over the years had lent his voice to the emperor’s policies and had consistently praised his military successes.

  Martial published book 10 at the beginning of 96 but decided to withdraw it, presumably immediately after Domitian’s assassination, and published book 11 in December of 96 (Sullivan, Martial 46). Book 10 was reissued in a second version in 98 (see discussion above). This means that from the start of Nerva’s reign in September of 96 Martial made two attempts to adjust to the new political climate, the one premeditated, the other one imposed or self-imposed. The process of withdrawing a book from circulation and replacing it with a less offensive edition must have been a humiliating experience for the poet. He decided to return to Bilbilis. There are two schools of thought on this issue. One is represented by Howell (“Martial’s Return”) and believes that dissatisfaction with the life of a client in Rome (see 10.70 and 10.74 [page 84]) was the reason for his retirement. The other one is supported by Sullivan (Martial 47) and argues that Martial could not make the transition to the new set of emperors. The second option seems to have the most supporters.84

  An event taking place close to one year after Domitian’s assassination may have had a big impact on Martial’s confidence that his career could survive the political turmoil. In 97 the Praetorian Guard was successful in demanding the execution of Parthenius, one of the conspirators against Domitian.85 In December of 96, four months after Domitian’s assassination, Martial had addressed the opening poem of book 11 to Parthenius. At the time of its publication Parthenius had not yet been removed from the imperial household, although it is hard to imagine that he was allowed to continue under Nerva in his position as cubicularius. 86 His execution removed more than an old patron from Martial’s circle; it ended the hope of a successful continuation of his career in Rome.87

  Another way to show that Martial’s discomfort with Rome after 96 was inspired by the political situation is by examining the epigrams addressed to the new emperors Nerva and Trajan. There is no evidence that he was more successful in acquiring the financial support of Nerva and Trajan than he was with Domitian. His persistent attempts to establish a rapport with Domitian’s successors demonstrate to what degree Martial had become accustomed to define his position as a writer within the political environment of Rome. His positive evaluation of his chances to connect with Nerva was aided perhaps by the fact that he had already addressed two epigrams to him before he became emperor and the fact that Nerva was a poet himself (8.70; 9.26). In the first epigram addressed to Nerva as emperor (11.2), Martial immediately defines his reign as one in which the spirit of the Saturnalia—with the emphasis on ordered license— is celebrated, intimating (hoping is a better word) that his poetry would be greeted more favorably by the present emperor than by his predecessor. Three other epigrams identify Nerva by name (11.4; 11.7; 12.5),88 while there are four epigrams addressed to Trajan (10.6, where he is described as “leader”; 10.7; 10.34; 12.8).89 Studies of the poems addressed to Nerva and Trajan generally conclude that these are less committed and less effective than the epigrams he wrote for Domitian. It seems not unjustified to conclude that Martial was unable to make the transition to the new political reality of the post-Domitianic period. Sullivan (Martial 51) rightly emphasizes that Trajan was a military man with very little interest in literature. Martial decided to leave Rome for good and returned to Bilbilis. This is reflected in two epigrams that are significantly placed at the very end of book 10 (10.103; 10.104).

  In 10.103 the matter of Martial’s return has not yet been resolved. Indeed, he threatens to turn around if Bilbilis does not want him back. In b
etween the writing of 103 and 104 Martial must have received some positive feedback because in 104 he sends his tenth book to Bilbilis together with Flavus before embarking on the journey himself. The personified book is instructed to greet some longstanding friends and to find its “parent” ( parentem) a pleasant accommodation at a reasonable price. For Martial, the sending of a book to Bilbilis was an extraordinary reversal from his earlier practice of sending books of epigrams to patrons in Rome or up the Palatine in the hope of acquiring financial support from the imperial administration. The scenario of 104 suggests that Martial returned to Spain after the publication of his revised tenth book.90 The return is anticipated in a number of epigrams, starting with 10.13, addressed to one Manius, and continuing with 10.92, where Martial commends his piece of land in Nomentum to its new owner, Marrius from Atina. The book is usually thought to have been published around the middle of 98. Possibly the latest datable epigram in the book is the birthday epigram in honor of Claudius Restitutus, which is set around the Kalends of October, but may of course have been written in anticipation of the actual event. Publication of the book, therefore, must be situated at the latest in September. It is unlikely, although not impossible, that Martial sailed to Spain in winter when regular shipping was discontinued; it makes more sense to assume that he left in the late spring or early summer of the next year.

  Once reestablished in Bilbilis, Martial produced a final book of epigrams, which he sent from Spain to Rome, perhaps in 101 or 102 (Sullivan, Martial 52). Upon his return Martial received a plot of land from a woman called Marcella (12.21; 12.31 [page 100]). She is obviously someone of high social standing, for Martial addresses her as domina (12.31.7), a term that is also used for Violentilla (6.21.3), the wife of Martial’s patron Arruntius Stella.91 Her evident importance to the poet’s life in Bilbilis did not result in the dedication of the book to her. This honor is reserved for Terentius Priscus (12 epist.; 12.1; 12.3; 12.62), who is explicitly identified as the poet’s Maecenas (12.3.1–4), although it is unclear what Terentius did to earn this accolade.92 Despite the fact that the book was written in Spain, the number of epigrams devoted to Martial’s Spain is not excessively high. The book might as well have been conceived and written in Rome. Even though he is no longer in Rome, Martial seeks out high-ranking Romans, such as Istantius Rufus who became governor of Baetica at the beginning of the second century CE (12.98). The two had already been in contact in Rome (7.68; 8.50.21; 8.73). Like most of Martial’s friends, he was a writer himself and had a certain interest in scabrous poetry. Apart from the epigrams addressed to Trajan, there are other epigrams that cultivate a relationship with an individual in Rome: 12.2 (addressed to his patron L. Arruntius Stella); 12.34 (to his longtime friend Julius Martialis [page 101]). The most famous epigram in this book is addressed to the satirist Juvenal (12.18 [page 99]) and makes the most of the contrast between sweaty, noisy, busy Rome and idle, relaxed, lazy Bilbilis.

  In a letter (Ep. 3.21) dated to 104 CE the Roman senator Pliny the Younger reports to his friend Cornelius Priscus that the poet Martial had passed away. Pliny’s comments read as a ringing endorsement of Martial’s serious commitment to literature. His well-earned reputation as a poet is only undone by the low status of epigram in the Roman world. In other words, Martial was a talented poet, but in the eyes of some he did not qualify as a great one because the genre in which he decided to write was ranked very low in terms of literary respectability. Pliny and his correspondent agree that Martial’s epigrams will not survive his death for very long. Since Pliny was not in the habit of expressing a judgment that was destined to go against the opinions of other members of his class, it must be assumed that his assessment of Martial’s epigrams was shared by many (other) members of the sophisticated elite. Notwithstanding this, modern critics triumphantly point out that Pliny was hopelessly wrong in his assessment of the chances for survival of Martial’s work.93 Pliny reveals that Martial made the return journey to Spain thanks to a subvention that he provided in gratitude for an epigram by the poet, something that is not recorded by the poet. For the contents of the epigram he refers Cornelius Priscus to Martial’s published work, but it just happens that he knows some of the lines by heart. He summarizes the first eleven lines and quotes the final ten lines of the epigram in full. The letter is the only external source of information on the poet; as such it is ideally placed to produce a perspective on Martial and his poetry that is based on a reader’s response, not on the signposts left behind by the poet.

  Martial’s epigram (10.20) is framed as a road map for Thalia, the Muse of Epigram, to make the trip from the poet’s house on the Quirinal to Pliny’s residence on the Esquiline (Ep. 3.21.5).94 Once Thalia has arrived at her destination she is given further details about how to approach Pliny: with circumspection. The man is a workaholic who spends all his time writing speeches for delivery in the centumviral court, speeches that future generations will compare to those of Cicero. Because of his commitment to his work he should only be visited when the hour is late (implying that he is unavailable for the morning salutatio), when Lyaeus (the “deliverer of cares”; another name for the god Bacchus) runs wild and people let their hair hang down. In the evening even stiff Catos read Martial’s poetry. Cato the Younger, who committed suicide rather than receive Julius Caesar’s pardon, serves as the proverbial blocking reader in Martial’s poetry (1 epist.; 1.8; 9.28; 11.2; 11.15; 11.39; 12.3). He is a spoilsport who needs to be removed from the book and from the theater that he inadvertently enters (1 epist. 18, where the theater stands for Martial’s book of epigrams).95 The epigram addressed to Pliny the Younger is the only poem in Martial’s collection in which Cato is represented as a reader of epigrams. I cannot escape the feeling that Martial’s epigram is written in jest as a comical exaggeration of Pliny’s character. If Martial’s epigram was a mixture of praise and (light) jest, Pliny’s text is perhaps a layered response to this.96

  Pliny’s description of Martial’s personality and poetry is commonly translated in glowing terms, as the following example demonstrates: “he was a man of great gifts, with a mind both subtle and penetrating, and his writings are remarkable for their combination of sincerity with pungency and wit.”97 The words selected to describe Martial (ingeniosus; acutus; acer) are the very same ones with which Cicero characterizes ne’er do wells and other annoying opponents (ingeniosissimus in pro Murena 48 and acutissimus in pro Cluentio 67). Moreover, ingeniosus denotes the irritatingly clever speaker rather than the man of subtle brilliance, while acutus suggests a scheming individual. Acer, finally, denotes keen ruthlessness. In conclusion, “By calling Martial homo ingeniosus, acutus, acer, Pliny has strung the poet up with the noose of that ingeniosissimus orator, M. Tullius Cicero.”98 The use of Ciceronian rhetorical terms is made more compelling by the fact that Martial compares Pliny’s qualities as an orator with those of Cicero. It can further be shown that Pliny’s words present a sequence of increasingly negative sentiments, even though the second string of labels is presented in a different order, with the least hostile sentiment (candor) standing in last place (although modified by “no less”). The climactic labels in each sequence are the adjective acer (“sharp”; “stinging”) and the noun fel (“bitter gall,” and hence “hatefulness”; “poison”). Both fel and acer are used by Martial to characterize his poetry (but not his personality). Epigram 7.25 (page 58) is a defense of his version of epigram against a rival whose poetry is described as squeaky clean and syrupy. Martial’s poetry is characterized by a high level of acidity, with copious amounts of salt, bitter gall, and vinegar (acetum). Pliny’s obituary of Martial could then also be translated as: “he was a smart-ass, a schemer, and a bitterly cruel man. In his writing he injected a lack of respect and hatefulness, all wrapped in frankness.” It is an appropriate response to an epigram (10.20) that comically misrepresents Pliny on essential points, and it is a tribute of which Martial would have been proud.

  Abbreviations

  AE L’Année �
�pigraphique; annual publication of the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) in Paris. Each volume presents newly discovered and revised Latin inscriptions published in scholarly books, museum collections, and journals for a particular year.