CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
Catullus and Martial
One of the most famous pieces written by the first-century epigrammatist Martial is the thirty-second poem in his first book of epigrams, the model for the popular “I do not love thee, Doctor Fell” (cf. Howell 1980: 176–8):
Non amo te, Sabidi, nec possum dicere quare:
hoc tantum possum dicere, non amo te.
I don’t like you, Sabidius, and I can’t tell you why. All I can tell is: I don’t like you.1
Below I discuss the question of why the speaker of this epigram does not like the Sabidius who is addressed in 1.32. For now it will suffice to point out that the epigram is probably indebted to another, even more popular poem: Catullus’ c. 85:
Odi et amo. quare id faciam, fortasse requiris?
nescio, sed fieri sentio et excrucior.
I hate and I love. Perhaps you ask why I do this? I don’t know, but I feel it happening and it tortures me.2
Martial repeats Catullus’ verb amo (“like,” “love”), the interrogative quare (“why”), and the idea that the reason why cannot be given. In addition, both poems consist of two lines in the meter of the elegiac distich. For these reasons, many scholars have concluded that Martial deliberately imitated Catullus (Paukstadt 1876: 19; Ferguson 1963: 10f.; Citroni 1975: 109). Furthermore, Howell (1980: 176; cf. Friedlaender 1886: I.185) has pointed out that “the repetition of the opening words at the end is Catullan.”
In Martial’s “books of epigrams” we come across numerous pieces which betray Catullan influence on Martial’s choice of words or meter, on his themes or the structure of his poems. In addition, most of Catullus’ carmina are, like Martial’s epigrams, rather short and many of Martial’s meters are also used by Catullus, so that their respective works bear a strong formal resemblance (Holzberg 2002b: 33–4). Furthermore, many poems show obvious structural parallels. Catullus may also have been an important forerunner of Martial’s practice of assembling short poems on different topics and in different meters in books, instead of simply composing monothematic books of epigrams (Holzberg 2002b: 40–1, 47–8; Lorenz 2002: 64–5, 2004b: 255–6). And at least some parts of Catullus’ and Martial’s collections are similar in their compositional structures: some groups of poems are arranged in cycles and there are also extensive passages composed for linear reading (Barwick 1958; Scherf 2001; Claes 2002; Holzberg 2002b: 135–52; Lorenz 2004b). Finally, Martial mentions Catullus more often than any other poetic predecessor (cf. Swann 1994: 33–8). In an epigram from Book 10, Catullus is even granted a more prominent place in literary history than Martial himself (10.78.14–16):
sic inter ueteres legar poetas,
nec multos mihi praeferas priores,
uno sed tibi sim minor Catullo.
Thus may I be read among the old poets, and may you not prefer many earlier poets to me, but for you may I be less than Catullus only.
There can be no doubt that Martial cherished Catullus’ works and imitated his predecessor from Republican Rome in many of his own epigrams. This, however, is not the whole truth. In 1.32, for example, Martial turns Catullus’ expression of unfulfilled love into an aggressive invective. Paukstadt (1876: 19) was the first to point out that Martial wanted the readers of 1.32 to remember Catullus’ c. 85 – even though, as Paukstadt admitted, Martial’s poem was “less weighty” (“quamquam non tam graue”) than its Catullan model. But other scholars (Friedlaender 1886: I.185; Howell 1980: 175–6) denied that Martial 1.32 was a deliberate reminiscence of Catullus 85. Apparently, they would not accept that Martial could show so little respect for Catullus that he would turn c. 85 into a bad joke. Given the verbal and structural parallels between the two poems, however, Sullivan (1991: 96) is certainly right when he cites 1.32 in order to show that “Martial is quite capable of parodying Catullus and using some of his most elevated thoughts and phrases in banal or comic contexts.”
Martial’s usage of Catullan influences in his epigrams was obviously more complex than the mere imitation of a poetic idol. For this reason, there is no point in trying to find out who is the better poet – or, for that matter, whether Martial or Catullus is the better Catullus – as has been attempted, for example, by Offermann (1980; cf., on that doubtful practice, Swann 1994: 4 and Grewing 1996: 333). Neither do I want to offer exhaustive lists of passages from the two poets’ works and analyze in what way Martial in each case made use of the Catullan model. Instead, I shall examine in what way Martial presents himself as Catullus’ successor and to what extent he puts his own metapoetic statements – i.e., statements concerning his own poetry – into poetic practice: what aspects of Catullus’ poetry are of primary importance for Martial’s own poems?
The passage in Martial’s works where his readers learn the most about this poet and his poetry is, of course, the beginning of his first book of epigrams (ca. ad 85), and this text will be the focus of my attention. A close look at the beginning of Book 1 will reveal that, in order to characterize himself and his epigrams, Martial explicitly states his debt to Catullus, and at the same time tries to turn his Catullan influence into something new. Let us start by looking at the prose epistle that serves as a preface to Book 1:
Spero me secutum in libellis meis tale temperamentum ut de illis queri non possit quisquis de se bene senserit, cum salua infimarum quoque personarum reuerentia ludant; quae adeo antiquis auctoribus defuit ut nominibus non tantum ueris abusi sint sed et magnis, mihi fama uilius constet et probetur in me nouissimum ingenium. absit a iocorum nostrorum simplicitate malignus interpres nec epigrammata mea scribat:3 improbe facit qui in alieno libro ingeniosus est. lasciuam uerborum ueritatem, id est epigrammaton linguam, excusarem, si meum esset exemplum: sic scribit Catullus, sic Marsus, sic Pedo, sic Gaetulicus, sic quicumque perlegitur. si quis tamen tam ambitiose tristis est ut apud illum in nulla pagina latine loqui fas sit, potest epistula uel potius titulo contentus esse. epigrammata illis scribuntur qui solent spectare Florales. non intret Cato theatrum meum, aut si intrauerit, spectet. uideor mihi meo iure facturus si epistulam uersibus clusero:
Nosses iocosae dulce cum sacrum Florae
festosque lusus et licentiam uulgi,
cur in theatrum. Cato seuere, uenisti?
an ideo tantum ueneras, ut exires?
I hope to have achieved such a balance in my little books that nobody who thinks well of himself can complain about them, because they joke while preserving respect for persons, even of the lowest order. This respect was so lacking in older writers that they abused not only real names, but even great ones. Such a price I would not pay for fame and for that kind of cleverness I do not want to be praised. Let the malicious interpreter keep his distance from the harmlessness of my jokes and not rewrite my epigrams. It is not right to be clever with somebody else’s book. I follow reality in using lascivious words – that is the language of epigram – and I would apologize for that if I were the first to do so: Catullus writes like that, and Marsus, and Pedo, and Gaetulicus, and everybody who is read all the way through. But, if somebody should be so keen on being prudish that one cannot speak plain Latin on any page in his presence, he can content himself with this letter, or better, with the title. Epigrams are written for those people who are accustomed to watch the games of Flora. Let Cato not enter my theater, or if he enters, let him watch. I consider myself acting within my rights if I finish this letter in verse:
Since you knew the sweet ritual of humorous Flora
and the jokes of that celebration and the people’s license,
why, strict Cato, did you come to the theater?
Or did you just enter in order to leave?
No addressee is explicitly mentioned and that is why in some manuscripts the title Ad lectorem (“to the reader”) has been added. Obviously this letter serves as an address to Martial’s readership in general, but the first actual name that we read in Book 1 is Catullus. Martial mentions this predecessor as a precedent for a poet who wrote obscene poetry. But between the lines, Catullus is present much earlier than that. Some readers may note that the term libellus (“little book”), which both Martial (cf. Citroni 1975: 6–7) and Catullus (1.8, 14.12, 55.4) frequently use for their own works, is the fifth word in the text. It was also the fifth word in the first line of the first poem of Catullus’ collection:
Quoi dono lepidum nouum libellum
To whom shall I give my elegant new little book?
At first we learn that Martial tends to criticize or, at least, make fun of others in his poems, but does not neglect the reuerentia personarum (“respect of persons”). In addition he points out that he does not attack anyone by using their real names (nomina uera), and he certainly does not attack any great names (nomina magna). Martial thus distances himself from poets who did not refrain from such personal attacks; i.e., he reflects on his role in comparison with the works of poetic predecessors and “consciously assumes a place within a tradition” (Newman 1990: 99). And many of Martial’s contemporary readers will have thought of Catullus in particular. In fact, Catullus points out that his poems have the power to hurt his personal enemies (cf. below) and he does not refrain from attacking such powerful contemporaries as Caesar, Pompey, or Mamurra (Sullivan 1991: 97).
However, Martial does not say that he is not going to hurt anybody, but that only those who have a good opinion of themselves have nothing to fear from the epigrams – i.e., others may well have good reasons to fear this poetry. Especially when we have reached the end of the epistle and the appended epigram, it becomes obvious that the doubts concerning Martial’s harmlessness have been justified. Here he uses a “real and great name”: Cato, who is being ridiculed for his prudish comportment (Beck 2002: 197–8). Cato, of course, had died a long time ago, but it is worth noting that Martial (unlike Juvenal in his first satire: 1.170–1) does not emphasize that he refrains from attacking VIPs who are still alive.
Martial’s next point is that he is going to talk about sexual matters and use an adequate language – i.e., we can deduce, obscene vocabulary. Martial gives three reasons why he writes obscene poetry.
First, he mentions ueritas (“truth,” “realism”) and the need to speak plain Latin (latine loqui). Martial claims that a realistic description of his world would not be possible without obscene terms (Banta 1998: 219). It is worth noting that Martial almost contradicts what he said before: having just distanced himself from using nomina uera (“real names”), he now presents ueritas as the ideal of his own poetry. Martial, in fact, contradicts himself so often that his contradictory manner is one of the key characteristics of his epigrams.
The second reason why obscene words must be used becomes clear when Martial mentions the epigrammaton lingua (“the language of epigram”). According to him, the rules of the epigrammatic genre dictate the use of obscenities. Here Martial also mentions Catullus and three other poets as epigrammatic predecessors.4
Having cited those precedents for obscene literature, Martial finally comes up with his third argument: those authors have a wide and eager readership. He thus tells us that literary fame is one of the goals he pursues with his poetry and implies that fame can only be obtained when one employs obscene language (Banta 1998: 220).
But Catullus is important not only because he wrote obscene poetry, for he also preceded Martial in justifying obscenities in his literary corpus. Many readers of Martial’s prose epistle will have been reminded of Catullus’ c. 16:
Pedicabo ego uos et irrumabo,
Aureli pathice et cinaede Furi,
qui me ex uersiculis meis putastis,
quod sunt molliculi, parum pudicum.
nam castum esse decet pium poetam
ipsum, uersiculos nihil necesse est;
qui tum denique habent salem ac leporem,
si sunt molliculi ac parum pudici,
et quod pruriat incitare possunt,
non dico pueris, sed his pilosis
qui duros nequeunt mouere lumbos.
uos, quod milia multa basiorum
legistis, male me marem putatis?
pedicabo ego uos et irrumabo.
I will fuck you in your ass and in your mouth, pathic Aurelius and Furius the sodomite, who think, because my verses are soft, that I am shameless. For a decent poet must be chaste himself, but for his verses that is not necessary. These, in a word, will have spice and wit, if they are soft and shameless, and if they can arouse something to itch – I don’t say in boys – but in those bearded men who find it hard to move their hardened loins. Because you have read of many thousand kisses, do you therefore think that I am less a man? I will fuck you in your ass and in your mouth!
Unlike Martial, Catullus does not clearly refer to the language of his poetry, i.e., the usage of obscene words (lasciuia uerborum). He generally admits that his verses are “soft” (molliculi) and in particular alludes to the kiss-poems 5 and 7. But his claim that his poetry should arouse the readers sexually (9) is a clear indication that Catullus – like Martial – has the use of actual obscenities in mind. For obscene language was supposed to be titillating (cf. below on Martial 1.35). Considering that, it is quite naughty of Catullus to react to criticism of his obscene verses – be that criticism real or fictional – by justifying the use of obscenities in a poem which is itself obscene.
The epistle and the appended epigram finish with Martial’s definition of his adequate readership – albeit an ex negatiuo definition. Prudish people – such as Cato Uticensis, who couldn’t even bear to watch a public stage show that included nude dancing (Val. Max. 2.10.8) – should keep their distance from Martial’s epigrams. Again, the description of an unsuitable recipient reminds us of Catullus – this time of his first kiss-poem, c. 5. There “old men who are too severe” (senes seueriores, 2) are presented as the opponents of joyful love and, we can deduce, love poetry. And Martial also uses Catullus’ adjective seuerus. In addition, the verb ludere (“play”), from which Martial’s noun lusus (“jests”) is derived, frequently comes up in Catullus’ poems (50.2, 61.126, 68.17, 68.156; cf. Swann 1994: 55–9). Furthermore, the readers of Martial’s joke at Cato’s expense may have thought of Catullus’ c. 56, which begins as follows (1–4):
O rem ridiculam, Cato, et iocosam,
dignamque auribus et tuo cachinno!
ride quidquid amas, Cato, Catullum:
res est ridicula et nimis iocosa.
Oh, what a ridiculous and funny thing, Cato, and worthy of your ears and your laughter. Laugh, Cato – your Catullus, whom you love, asks you to do so.5 It is ridiculous and just too funny.
What follows is the description of a sexual encounter, and therefore many scholars have assumed that Catullus’ poem cannot be addressed to the proverbially severe Cato Uticensis (Kroll 1968: 100; Thomson 1997: 339). However, some have also adduced convincing arguments in favor of the identification of the Cato in c. 56 with Cato of Utica (Buchheit 1961a: 353–6; Skinner 1982b). If this is correct, then Martial’s prose preface with the epigram on Cato betrays another connection to Catullus’ works: both poets address Cato in an erotic context even though – or, rather, because – this stern man does not fit erotic poetry at all (Beck 2002: 184). Even if Catullus and Martial did not refer to the same Cato, community of name nevertheless is a sufficient bridge from Martial’s to Catullus’ poem. Both Catullus and Martial adopt a deliberately provocative stance. Both are so bold that they only pretend to apologize for their obscene and aggressive poetry, but in fact make clear that they want to write obscene poems.6
Of course, in the epistle we do learn not only a lot about the kind of poetry that is going to follow in this book, but also about its author, or rather a certain representation of the poet. I have dealt with the characterization of Martial’s literary persona (“mask”) elsewhere (Lorenz 2002: 4–42; cf. Holzberg 2002b: 13–18), so I will not go into that in great detail here. But some of this speaker’s character traits have already become obvious: the Martial whom we encounter in this epistle is very interested in erotic and obscene poetry (and in many poems that follow he will show too his enormous interest in sexual encounters). He also lacks respect for people of high rank or reputation and is presented as a rather naughty character. It is obvious that this fictional, or at least fictionalized, speaker is heavily indebted to the rules of the epigrammatic genre, e.g., that it is imperative for an epigrammatist to write obscene poetry. And in these traits he strongly resembles the personae of many other poets of the lower genres of erotic poetry (Lorenz 2004a: 119–21), especially the Catullan speaker, whose strong interest in sexual matters and often desperate attempts to fulfill his desires contribute to his presentation of an effeminate uir mollis (“soft man;” cf., e.g., Skinner 1993; Holzberg 2000, 2002a; Nappa 2001).7
Given all that, it comes as quite a surprise that the epigrams that immediately follow in Book 1 do not contain any obscene words whatsoever. Since Martial in Book 3 (and elsewhere) characterizes his readers as people who enjoy obscene poems and lose interest in a book that is not obscene (Lorenz 2002: 23–8), it seems as if the poet deliberately whets the readers’ appetite for obscenities in order to disappoint them. But even though Martial does not indulge in Catullus’ practice of using obscenities yet, other elements of the Catullan oeuvre are already present. This is obvious, for example, in epigram 1.1, which follows the epistle:
Hic est quem legis ille, quem requiris,
toto notus in orbe Martialis
argutis epigrammaton libellis:
cui, lector studiose, quod dedisti
uiuenti decus atque sentienti,
rari post cineres habent poetae.
Here he is whom you read and ask for: Martial, known all over the world for his funny little books of epigrams. The glory that you have given him while he is still alive and feels it comes to few poets after death.
Again we come across Catullus’ term libelli (“little books”). It is interesting that Martial uses this diminutive in a claim to everlasting fame all over the world – and that in the first poem of his first book.8 Catullus, in his first poem, discusses the same topic. But he seems to be much more careful than Martial: Catullus’ only hope is that his book will last for a century, whereas Martial seems to take his immortal glory for granted. And while Martial addresses an anonymous readership from all over the world and claims that they enjoy his works, Catullus mentions only one specific addressee: he appeals to Cornelius Nepos’ open mind. He even compares his own libellus to Nepos’ massive literary oeuvre (cf. Skinner 1987; Feeney 1999: 13–14; Hutchinson 2003: 209). Catullus thus presents his little book as if it were a rather paltry piece of work – a stance which, of course, at the same time implies a clear statement in favor of the minor literary genres as opposed to really “great” literature (Summers 2001: 148).
The differences between Martial’s epigram 1.1 and Catullus’ introductory poem may result from the fact that Martial, who had more of a literary tradition to cling to, was in a more comfortable position than his predecessor, who made a strong point of presenting a “new” kind of book of poetry (nouum libellum, Catull. 1.1). However, Martial also tends to downgrade his own works in comparison with the greater genres. This aspect, in fact, is one of the key elements of Martial’s metapoetic poems (Banta 1998). But in the case of epigram 1.1, it seems as if Martial wanted to surpass Catullus in his boldness to claim extensive fame for a book of mainly erotic poems of a low genre.
That Martial had Catullus in mind when he wrote the beginning of Book 1 is even more apparent in 1.4, where the emperor Domitian is mentioned for the first time. The poem ends with the line lasciua est nobis pagina, uita proba (“My page is immoral, my life is virtuous,” 8), and this, of course, alludes to Catullus’ c. 16. Unlike Catullus, however, Martial still has not used a single primary obscenity in his book.
Catullus is mentioned again in 1.7:
Stellae delicium mei columba,
Verona licet audiente dicam,
uicit, Maxime, passerem Catulli.
tanto Stella meus tuo Catullo
quanto passere maior est columba.
My Stella’s pet, his Dove (I may say it, even if Verona hears it), has surpassed Catullus’ Sparrow, Maximus. My Stella is as much greater than your Catullus as a dove is greater than a sparrow.
Even though, for example, Ovid’s works are also conspicuously present at the beginning of Martial’s Book 1 (Lorenz 2002: 18–19), Catullus, whose name comes up again, is presented as Martial’s primary model. And this is also true despite the fact that Martial’s friend and patron Stella is praised for his poem Columba (“Dove”), which is said to be greater than Catullus’ Passer (“Sparrow”). The first word from Catullus’ second poem here denotes Catullus’ poetry in general or is used as the title of the Catullan collection (Nauta 2002: 156–8 with n. 40).
But there is more to 1.7 than praise for a contemporary poet. It has been widely debated whether Catullus’ poems 2 and 3 only lament the death of Lesbia’s pet sparrow or whether this bird is a metaphor for the poet’s often dysfunctional penis (see also Dyson Hejduk and Gaisser, this volume, pp. 257, 443–5). But Martial’s poem with its rather ridiculous comparison between the size of Stella’s dove and Catullus’ sparrow is a clear hint that Martial did interpret his predecessor’s verses in an obscene way:9 not only does he use the comparative form maior (“bigger”), but also emphasizes the issue of size by addressing somebody named Maximus (“biggest”).10
There are further epigrams in Martial’s oeuvre where Catullus’ “sparrow” is mentioned that also hint in the direction that Martial understood Catullus’ sparrow as an image for the poet’s penis. The most obvious case is epigram 7.14:
Accidit infandum nostrae scelus, Aule, puellae;
amisit lusus deliciasque suas:
non quales teneri plorauit amica Catulli
Lesbia, nequitiis passeris orba sui,
uel Stellae cantata meo quas fleuit Ianthis,
cuius in Elysio nigra columba uolat:
lux mea non capitur nugis neque amoribus istis
nec dominae pectus talia damna mouent:
bis denos puerum numerantem perdidit annos,
mentula cui nondum sesquipedalis erat.
An unspeakable crime has happened to my girl, Aulus. She has lost her plaything and pleasure: not like the one that tender Catullus’ girlfriend Lesbia wept for, when she had lost her sparrow’s naughty tricks, and unlike the one that Ianthis, sung by my Stella, cried for, whose dove flies, now black, in Elysium. My darling is not impressed by trifles or by those loves, nor can such losses move my mistress’ heart. She has lost a boy of twice ten years,11 whose cock was not yet eighteen inches long.
The size of the dead boy’s penis is grotesque and it may not be by accident that Catullus also used the numeral sesquipedalis in one of his poems (97.5). The punch-line of Martial’s poem creates the impression that the poet wanted to make clear what Catullus’ lament (and also Stella’s lament for his beloved Ianthis’ pigeon) are really about.
The same is probably true of epigram 11.6 (cf. Obermayer 1998: 71–3). Following the description of a Saturnalian feast, Martial addresses a boy (14–16):
da nunc basia, sed Catulliana:
quae si tot fuerint quot ille dixit,
donabo tibi Passerem Catulli.
Now, give me kisses, but Catullan kisses. If they shall be as many as he said, I will give you Catullus’ Sparrow.
Of course, the primary meaning of Passer Catulli in this poem is that it is the title of Catullus’ book, which contains two poems about counting kisses (5 and 7). In the erotic atmosphere depicted in this epigram, however, it makes sense that the speaker of the poem also offers the addressee some sexual favor rather than just the present of a book of poetry or even a pet bird (cf. Kay 1985: 75–6).
As Garthwaite (1978: 72) rightly puts it: “Whatever Catullus himself may have been suggesting in his sparrow poems is, of course, irrelevant here. Suffice it to note that Martial invariably uses passer Catulli in the sense of membrum virile [male member].” And this is, of course, also true of 1.7. Some will not find it easy to accept that Martial made a joke like this at the expense of his great predecessor Catullus and his powerful contemporary Stella. But we must not forget that boldness is an important characteristic of Martial’s (and also Catullus’) poetry in general. And again we must take into account that it is not the real Martial who speaks in the epigrams, but a fictional, typically epigrammatic persona that has to follow the rules of the genre. Stella, who himself seems to have been the author of erotic verse (P. Watson 1999), would certainly have understood that such jokes were an integral part of epigrammatic poetry.
However, people who read Martial’s first book for the first time may still be surprised that so far no obscene term has been used, that there only have been obscenities hidden beneath the wording of the epigrams. They have to wait until they get to epigram 1.34, where we finally come across the kind of language that Martial justified in the epistle and poem 1.4. In 1.34 Martial addresses a woman (it may not be by accident that she bears the name of Catullus’ beloved Lesbia) who enjoys having sex in the presence of people watching. He therefore offers the following piece of advice: deprendi ueto te, Lesbia, non futui (“I forbid you to get caught, Lesbia, not to get fucked,” 10).12 The last word of the poem is the first obscene term in the book.
But again Martial surprises his readers. For that initial obscene word is followed by yet another apologetic justification of obscene poetry in general. This is 1.35:
Versus scribere me parum seueros
nec quos praelegat in schola magister,
Corneli, quereris: sed hi libelli,
tamquam coniugibus suis mariti,
non possunt sine mentula placere.
quid si me iubeas thalassionem
uerbis dicere non thalassionis?
quis Floralia uestit et stolatum
permittit meretricibus pudorem?
lex haec carminibus data est iocosis,
ne possint, nisi pruriant, iuuare.
quare deposita seueritate
parcas lusibus et iocis rogamus,
nec castrare uelis meos libellos.
Gallo turpius est nihil Priapo.
Cornelius, you complain that I write verses that are immoral and that a teacher cannot read out in class. But these little books – like husbands with their wives – can’t please without a cock. Would you request me to sing a wedding-song with words that are not adequate for wedding-songs? Who clothes Flora’s games or allows whores the modesty of the matron’s stole? This law has been laid down for humorous poems: they cannot be enjoyable unless they arouse. That’s why I ask you to put prudery aside and leave my jests and jokes alone, and not wish to castrate my little books. Nothing is uglier than a Priapus who is a eunuch.
Banta (1998: 230) points out that “Martial…employs obscenity here primarily as a vehicle for the continuation of his apologia, rather than the apologia as an ex post facto means of justifying his use of obscenity.” It is indeed obvious that Martial has turned Catullus’ topic “justification of obscene poetry” into a complex game he plays with his readers – a game that he started with the apologies expressed in the epistle and which he now continues. Again, Martial uses Catullan vocabulary, such as the term seuerus (“severe”), and it may not be by accident that 1.35, like Catullus 1, is addressed to a Cornelius (Beck 1996: 268–9; Summers 2001: 148). In addition, Martial alludes to Catullus 16 when his poem also expresses the idea that erotic poetry can serve as a sexual stimulant (Obermayer 1998: 260–1).
Whereas Catullus dedicated only one poem to the justification of obscene poetry, Martial deals with this issue in many poems and his first epistle. Thus he can play with the readers’ expectations and make his collection as a whole much more intriguing. And the one primary source for all these metapoetic epigrams about the use of obscenity may well be Catullus’ c. 16.
But Martial does surpass Catullus not only in the number and complexity of his apologetic pieces but also in the intensity of his obscenities. Catullus’ boldness at justifying obscenities in the obscene poem 16 is just the starting point for Martial’s moves – to make the readers wait for obscenities, then give them the verb futuere (“fuck”), then apologize for that again, but in a poem that contains the obscene word mentula (“cock”). Furthermore, Martial makes quite clear that using obscenities is a must for an epigrammatist and his derogatory remark about verses that “a schoolmaster would dictate in class” (1–2) leaves no doubt that he is quite happy to obey the “law of epigram” rather than compose verses fit for schoolchildren. Finally, it is worth noting that Martial illustrates his point with the highly provocative image of the married Roman lady who is pleased with her husband’s penis. Holzberg (2006: 151–2) therefore concludes:
[T]he later poet is already indicating in 1.34 that he wishes on the one hand to carry on in the tradition of the earlier poet, but that he plans, on the other, to outstrip him with the frankness of his obscenities. He then declares in the poetological epigram 1.35 – explicitly and much more emphatically than Catullus in c. 16 – that his verses are meant to be suggestive and arousing.
Martial thus presents himself as a new – and even naughtier – Catullus. It is remarkable how easily Martial makes use of his Republican predecessor and it has often been pointed out that Martial in his use of Catullus tends to blur the differences between the two poets’ works and times. Swann (1994: 81) is surprised “that Martial so consistently attempted to transcend these differences in order to align himself with one whom he perceived chiefly to be another epigrammatist.” For Martial, it is, in fact, crucial to emphasize the similarities between himself and Catullus. Martial’s use of Catullus’ poems works best when our attention is directed to the subtle differences between the two. We can only see what is typical of Martial when he slightly changes the Catullan pattern. Martial’s more elaborated treatment of the topic “justification of obscene poetry” is a case in point.
It is therefore not surprising that Martial does not seem to be particularly interested in the Catullus who wrote the carmina maiora in the middle of the Catullan collection and that the “Alexandrian works of Catullus” are hardly mentioned at all (cf. Sullivan 1991: 96). In fact, Martial may even criticize Catullus’ longer poems (2.86.4–5). However, in 1.35, Martial does mention thalassiones (“wedding-songs”) and may thus allude to Catullus’ long and learned wedding-songs, where the term Talasius is actually used (61.134; cf. Citroni 1975: 117; Thomson 1997: 349). Catullus’ wedding-songs, however, do not contain any explicitly obscene vocabulary – no doubt unlike other ancient specimens of that genre. It is therefore possible that Martial actually wanted to indicate that he himself could only have written obscene thalassiones. So, again we get the impression that Martial presents himself as a poet who is more inclined to use obscene words than Catullus.
Banta (1998: 217 n. 81) is probably right to conclude that Martial’s justifications of obscene poetry served the purpose of directing his readers’ attention to it. As a result, Martial has obtained the reputation as the writer of obscene poetry, whereas Catullus, who apologized only once, has even been claimed to be a romantic poet (cf. Swann 1994: 5). This is even more surprising when we take into account that statistically Catullus’ book contains a higher frequency of obscene terms than Martial’s works.
In this context we must also take a further look at epigram 1.32, which I quoted at the beginning of this chapter. As I hope to have made clear, the fact that Martial admired Catullus does not exclude the possibility that he turned his model into the pretext for a joke. In fact, being too respectful of Catullus would have come close to violating the rules of their common genre. Furthermore, there are good reasons to believe that the poem expresses much more than “simply unanalysable dislike,” as Howell (1980: 175) suggests. Jocelyn (1981: 278–9) points to epigram 3.17, where a Sabidius is criticized for his stinking breath – a vice that is usually associated with oral sexual practices, and not only in Martial (Obermayer 1998: 214–31; cf. Holzberg 2002b: 98–9). Another reader who believed that Martial in 1.32 was alluding to a predilection for oral sexual practices on Sabidius’ part was Ben Jonson (Boehrer 1998: 373–4).
Of course, the first readers of Book 1 could not have known about Martial’s criticism of Sabidius’ stinking breath in Book 3. It is, in fact, the key feature of 1.32 that we are never explicitly told what is wrong with Sabidius. Martial thus makes his first-time readers wonder why he dislikes the man. And after those readers have come to 1.34 and 1.35 the suspicion of an obscene meaning may finally dawn – in retrospect. Considering that Martial has already apologized for obscene poetry, it is even more likely that he wants us to conclude that there is a hidden obscenity in 1.32. Martial not only parodies Catullus’ famous poem on unhappy love, but also creates some space for obscene double-entendres between the lines of his epigram. Again, Martial implies his own preference for obscene jokes.
Furthermore, Sullivan (1991: 97) points out that Martial “could make a Catullan conceit prompted by an immediate situation into a universal witticism.” This is certainly true of 1.32. The context of Catullus’ c. 85 is quite clear because it fits perfectly with the other poems in the collection. As a result, most readers will assume that the person addressed by Catullus is his beloved Lesbia (on the absence of the name in c. 85, cf. Skinner 2003: 80), who features in many of his poems. Martial’s Sabidius, on the other hand, is a rather flat character. There is nothing that we know about him for sure – we can only assume that he indulges in oral sexual practices.
The same is true of most of the characters that are presented in Martial’s invectives – the other aspect of his oeuvre mentioned in the epistle at the beginning of Book 1. For example, a Postumus, who is addressed in many poems of Book 2, also seems to be depicted as an adherent of oral sexual practices (C. A. Williams 2004: 54–5). Likewise, a Zoilus is criticized for his sexual practices and as a nouveau riche with a tendency to show off his wealth (C. A. Williams 2004: 78–9). We do not learn much more about these characters, which are obviously not supposed to be more than the type of the sexual pervert or parvenu.
In many of his aggressive poems Catullus paints much more detailed pictures of his victims. When he attacked such VIPs as Caesar or Mamurra, his contemporaries were familiar with those people anyway. And other victims of Catullus’ invectives, such as Furius and Aurelius, are described in greater detail than Martial’s characters. Of course, there are exceptions, but even the Egnatius who is presented in a rather superficial way in cc. 37 and 39 is more than just a pervert who washes his mouth with urine – probably an allusion to fellatio (Nappa 2001: 69–70; Holzberg 2002a: 81). We also learn that he is a Spaniard and one of Lesbia’s former lovers. All in all, in Catullus’ oeuvre we read of fewer characters than in Martial, most of whom are in some way or another connected with Lesbia or Juventius. They are therefore integrated in some kind of ongoing plot and are thus characterized in a much more detailed manner than the many characters we encounter in Martial’s epigrams.
Martial’s frequently quoted statement that he wanted to “spare people and to speak of vices” (10.33.10: parcere personis dicere de uitiis) is obviously true to his poetic practice. In most of his poems, Martial does not even attempt to create full characters. Usually he limits himself to the depiction of a conspicuous vice. The more difficult it is to identify and describe the addressee of an invective, the less harmful is the attack (cf. Hickson-Hahn 1998: 29). Therefore, our first impression is that many of Martial’s invectives are less aggressive than Catullus’. And the same impression is conveyed in Catullus’ and Martial’s metapoetic statements. For, as is the case with the obscene poems, Catullus not only writes invective poetry but also composes metapoetic poems about this poetic practice. One famous example is c. 40:
Quaenam te mala mens, miselle Rauide,
agit praecipitem in meos iambos?
quis deus tibi non bene aduocatus
uecordem parat excitare rixam?
an ut peruenias in ora uulgi?
quid uis? qualubet esse notus optas?
eris, quandoquidem meos amores
cum longa uoluisti amare poena.
What insane mind, pathetic Ravidus, drives you headlong into my iambics? What god – not a good choice to ask for help – plans to arouse a mad quarrel for you? Is it your aim to be in the people’s mouth? What do you want? Do you wish to be well known, no matter in what way? That you will be, since you wanted to love my lover – but with a long-lasting punishment.
As in many other carmina where Catullus talks about his poems’ aggressive power, he uses the generic term iambi (40.2; cf. 36.5, 54.6, fr. 3). Heyworth (2001) points out that Catullus is rather flexible in his use of different generic influences (cf. Holzberg 2002a: 44–57), with the tradition of iambic poetry playing a prominent role in the invectives. Even though not all Catullus’ poems in iambic meters are aggressive, the terms iambi and hendecasyllabi (the latter also explicitly refers to meter) usually denote aggressive poetry.
It is not easy to define clearly what is typical of the tradition(s) of iambic poetry and it is obvious that Catullus was influenced by many aspects of that tradition – not only the aggressive nature of the iambus. Furthermore, it is hard to differentiate to what extent the old iambic poetry of, among others, Archilochus and Hellenistic iambi, written for example by Callimachus, influenced Roman poets such as Catullus or Horace (cf. L. C. Watson 2003: 4–18). But one thing is certain: Catullus’ way of using the generic terms iambi and hendecasyllabi makes clear that he viewed the aggressive element of iambic poetry as its key feature – a feature that he frequently took over into his own poems. A term that does not come up in Catullus is epigramma, even though Hellenistic epigrams certainly had an influence on the Catullan carmina (Holzberg 2000: 30–32, 2002a: 45; Hutchinson 2003).
Martial, however, never speaks of iambi or hendecasyllabi, even though Catullus’ iambic poems had a strong influence on his use of meter (Ferguson 1963: 7–8). For him epigrammata is the primary generic term. When Martial’s contemporary Pliny the Younger mentions that he has written a book of hendecasyllabi which could also be called epigrammata (Ep. 4.14.8–9), it is obvious that, at the time of the early Empire, those two terms were used to denote something very similar. Pliny wrote his verses in the tradition of both Catullus, whom he quotes (5), and Martial (Sherwin White 1966: 290). And Martial’s term epigrammata seems to denote something very similar to Catullus’ hendecasyllabi: it is worth remembering that in the epistle at the beginning of Book 1, Martial claims that obscene language and an aggressive stance are key features of the epigrammatic genre. One could say that Martial has replaced Catullus’ terms iambi and hendecasyllabi with epigrammata, a more universal term that not only denotes aggressive poetry, but also encompasses other aspects of style and contents – as Martial’s books of epigrams are more diverse in style and content than the Catullan collection.
But in the epistle Martial’s invectives are presented as less harmful than the ones written by Catullus. The same notion is advanced in epigram 7.12, where Martial again asks for Domitian’s favor and points out that his poems are completely harmless. As a starting point, he distances himself from an anonymous rival who is said to have written and published personal invectives under Martial’s name:
Sic me fronte legat dominus, Faustine, serena
excipiatque meos qua solet aure iocos,
ut mea nec iuste quos odit pagina laesit
et mihi de nullo fama rubore placet.
quid prodest, cupiant cum quidam nostra uideri,
si qua Lycambeo sanguine tela madent,
uipereumque uomat nostro sub nomine uirus,
qui Phoebi radios ferre diemque negat?
ludimus innocui: scis hoc bene: iuro potentis
per genium Famae Castaliumque gregem
perque tuas aures, magni mihi numinis instar,
lector inhumana liber ab inuidia.
So may our Lord read me with a content face, Faustinus, and listen to my jokes the way he usually does, as my page has not insulted even those that it justly hates, nor do I enjoy fame because somebody blushes. But what’s the use, when certain people want that any weapons that drip with Lycambes’ blood are thought to be mine, and someone who refuses to tolerate Phoebus’ rays and the day vomits his snake venom under my name? I play harmlessly: you know that well. I swear it by the genius of mighty Fame and the Castalian group and by your ears, reader free from cruel jealousy – to me you are equal to a great divinity.
The terms that Martial uses to denote his poetry, ioci (“jokes,” 2) and the verb ludere (“play,” 9), are typical of the small poetic genres and are frequently employed by both Catullus and Martial. In this poem, they may also be used to underline the harmlessness of the epigrams. Furthermore, pagina (“page,” 3) is a widely used neutral term for poetry in general (Galán Vioque 2002: 107). These words are contrasted with the images of “weapons that drip with Lycambes’ blood” (6) and “snake venom” (7), phrases that hint at the iambic poetry of Archilochus, who was said to have driven Lycambes, his former betrothed’s father, to death by composing aggressive verses. As a result, the name Lycambes became “an automatic reference to abusive poetry” (Galán Vioque 2002: 108; cf. Hor. Ep. 1.19.25). Martial makes clear that he wants to have nothing to do with that kind of poetry and he confirms this in epigram 7.72.
Here we detect a striking difference from Catullus’ metapoetic statements. Catullus is ready to use his poetry as a weapon, for example in c. 40 and also in the final poem of his collection, c. 116, where he calls his poems tela, “weapons” (cf. Catull. fr. 3) – a word also used by Martial in 7.12.6. Martial, on the other hand, not only avoids addressing people by their real names – as he points out in the epistle – but also claims to refrain from excessively aggressive poetry in general.
Some readers of 7.12, however, may be surprised by this claim, if they remember epigram 6.64. That poem, a furious attack on a critic, bears the influence of not only iambic poetry but also the Roman flagitatio, the public denunciation of delinquents, which likewise influenced some of Catullus’ invectives, most notably c. 42 (Fabbrini 2002: 551–2). In addition, in 6.64, Martial explicitly claims that his poem is able to stigmatize his victim (25–6) and in that respect, it is strongly reminiscent of Catullus’ invectives, too (Grewing 1997: 422). So the two poets do not seem to be so different after all in their choice of weapons. Furthermore, one may guess that Martial’s criticism of a woman’s poppysmata cunni (“clamors of the cunt,” i.e., noises audible during sexual intercourse), in epigram 7.18.11, which follows only shortly after 7.12, may have made some readers doubt that he is as harmless as he pretends to be.
And that is also the case with the beginning of Martial’s tenth book. In 10.3, Martial distances himself from the nigra fama (“black fame,” 9) of poems falsely published under his name. Poem 10.5 is then another attack on aggressive invectives. Probably both poems, like 7.12, are to be read as Martial’s reactions to epigrams which were wrongly attributed to him (L. C. Watson 1991: 148; cf. Barwick 1958: 309–10). 10.5 reads as follows (cf. L. C. Watson and Watson 2003):
Quisquis stolaeue purpuraeue contemptor
quos colere debet laesit impio uersu,
erret per urbem pontis exul et cliui,
interque raucos ultimus rogatores
oret caninas panis inprobi buccas.
illi December longus et madens bruma
clususque fornix triste frigus extendat:
uocet beatos clamitetque felices
Orciniana qui feruntur in sponda.
at cum supremae fila uenerint horae
diesque tardus, sentiat canum litem
abigatque moto noxias aues panno.
nec finiantur morte simplici poenae,
sed modo seueri sectus Aeaci loris,
nunc inquieti monte Sisyphi pressus,
nunc inter undas garruli senis siccus
delasset omnis fabulas poetarum:
et cum fateri Furia iusserit uerum,
prodente clamet conscientia ‘scripsi.’
Anyone who, showing contempt for the stole or the purple,13 has offended those whom he should respect with impious verses – let him walk through the city, an exile from the bridge and the slope. And let him, the last one among hoarse beggars, ask for mouthfuls of inferior bread fit for the dogs. For him let a long December, a wet winter and a closed archway make the miserable cold last longer. May he call them happy and proclaim that they are fortunate who are carried in a pauper’s bier.14 But when the threads of his final hour and the day of his death have come – but too late! – let him hear the fighting of dogs and use his rags to drive off harmful birds. And let his punishments not end with a simple death: now cut by the whip of strict Aeacus, now pressed by the mountain of restless Sisyphus, now thirsty in the waters of the garrulous old man [Tantalus], let him go through all the stories from the works of the poets. And when the Fury orders that he confesses the truth, let him, his conscience betraying him, shout: “I wrote it.”
At first glance, in 10.5 – as in 7.12 – Martial distances himself from aggressive invective poetry. L. C. Watson (1991: 148) concludes that “10.5 can be read as a warning that [Martial] could write such poetry if sufficiently provoked.” But Martial has already been “sufficiently provoked” and has already written such poetry. For 10.5 is an aggressive attack on aggressive invective poetry, or as Jenkins (1981: 5) puts it, “The fact that he himself does exactly the same thing to his own enemy is ironic” (cf. Banta 1998: 183–8; Lorenz 2002: 222). L. C. Watson (1991: 147–9) also shows that the epigram bears the influence of Hellenistic curse poetry. And that genre was influenced by early iambic poets such as Archilochus (L. C. Watson 1991: 56–62). It is therefore not true that Martial kept his distance from aggressive iambic poetry, as it was also written by Catullus. Again, it is obvious that Martial contradicts himself, i.e., his actual poetic practice does not fit his metapoetic statements.15 The following example, 12.61, makes that even clearer:
Versus et breue uiuidumque carmen
in te ne faciam times, Ligurra,
et dignus cupis hoc metu uideri.
sed frustra metuis cupisque frustra.
in tauros Libyci ruunt leones,
non sunt papilionibus molesti.
quaeras censeo, si legi laboras,
nigri fornicis ebrium poetam,
qui carbone rudi putrique creta
scribit carmina quae legunt cacantes.
frons haec stigmate non meo notanda est.
You fear, Ligurra, that I am going to write verses and a short, lively poem against you, and you wish to seem worthy of your own worries. But in vain you fear and you wish in vain. Libyan lions rush at bulls, they do not attack butterflies. I advise you, if you worry about being read of, to find a drunk poet from a dark archway who writes poems with rough charcoal or crumbling chalk which people read while they shit. This forehead is not to be marked with my brand.
It is obvious that this epigram alludes to Catullus’ c. 40, which I quoted above. Both poets claim that their poetry has the power to dishonor people and both seem ready to make use of this power. And this is what both Catullus and Martial do at the end of their respective poems. A humorous twist in Martial’s epigram, however, is that he claims to attack the victim of his invective by refusing to attack him (Németh 1974: 238), or as Bowie (1988: 294) puts it, “the main joke is that Ligurra is getting what he wants, although not in quite the way that he might have chosen.”
It is worth noting that Martial, who more than once distances himself from aggressive iambic poetry, here seems to have no doubt that his epigrams, like Catullus’ iambi, can hurt others. That Martial ridicules Ligurra by declaring him unworthy of a real invective does not change the fact that he takes the aggressive power of his epigrams for granted. If he did not think of his epigrams as invectives in the Catullan sense, the humorous variation of the invective theme in 12.61 would not work.
But again Martial does not use Catullus’ term iambi, but refers to his poem as uersus et breue uiuidumque carmen (“verses and a short, lively poem,” 2). Németh (1974: 239) points out that this is an apt description of Martial’s diverse oeuvre, but could nevertheless also be used for Catullus’ carmina. Again, Martial makes use of certain aspects of Catullus’ poems, and employs those elements in a slightly altered fashion. He claims that what Catullus did also fits into his epigrams and he even uses Catullus’ metapoetic statements as inspiration for his own poems about his poetry. Like Catullus, Martial writes obscene and aggressive poems. But Martial’s justifications of this poetic practice are so complex that they are at least as important for his oeuvre as the obscene and aggressive poems themselves.
It is, of course, likely that some of the differences between the two poets’ works result from the different times and political systems in which they lived (cf. Swann 1994: 10–9). In his life of Domitian, the biographer Suetonius (8.3; cf. Nauta 2002: 43–4) mentions that the emperor forbade the denunciation of leading citizens. We can thus assume that Martial was not allowed to write about his contemporaries as freely as Catullus did.
This may be one of the reasons why Martial’s poems are more general and less linked to actual personages, or – as Gaisser (1993: 210) puts it – Martial substitutes “the abstract and impersonal for the emotional and subjective” (cf. Ferguson 1963: 4; Sullivan 1991: 97). I do not think that Offermann (1980: 115) is right to criticize Martial for being an imitator who misused Catullus’ highly emotional poems merely to entertain his audience. But it is certainly true that Martial used Catullus in order to create something highly entertaining. This he achieved by not just imitating Catullus, but also explicitly comparing himself to Catullus and then intensifying and in a way surpassing his predecessor. In order to make this achievement clearly visible to his audience, Martial at first had to point out the similarities between himself and Catullus. Thus, he turned Catullus into an epigrammatist and himself into the new Catullus – albeit a new Catullus who was much more than a mere imitator.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank Leofranc Holford-Strevens for his comments on this chapter.
NOTES
1 All passages from Martial’s works are from Shackleton Bailey’s (1990) edition.
2 All passages from Catullus’ works are from Mynors’s (1958) edition.
3 I retain the manuscript reading scribat, rather than printing Heinsius’ conjecture inscribat.
4 From Domitius Marsus, Albinovanus Pedo, and Cornelius Lentulus Gaetulicus no obscene poetry has been preserved (Banta 1998: 219 n. 83; cf. Sullivan 1991: 97–100), but given the very low number of extant texts from those authors, this can hardly be surprising. Thus there is no reason for Newman (1990: 81) to wonder why Martial puts Catullus “in such professionally detached company.” If from Catullus’ works only the poem on Attis (c. 63) had survived, we should be quite surprised to find him here.
5 Cf. Kroll (1968: 100).
6 It is worth noting that Martial’s Books 5 and 8 do not contain any obscene words – a move that Martial explains with his wish to please the emperor Domitian. In the context of Martial’s complete works, however, these two books only emphasize his general attraction to using obscenity; cf. Lorenz (2002: 143–4).
7 As is common practice, I nevertheless use the names “Catullus” and “Martial” for the speakers of the poems.
8 The boldness of this statement has led many scholars to believe that the poem had been a later addition to a revised edition of the book. However, the introductory passage from Book 1 is a coherent piece of work, where Martial – as in many other passages in his oeuvre – tends to contradict himself; cf. Lorenz (2002: 18–19 with n. 62).
9 Cf., for a summary of the discussions on this topic, Gaisser (1993: 236–43); Obermayer (1998: 71–2 with n. 239, older literature there); furthermore Jones (1998); Holzberg (2002a: 61–7).
10 It does not make a big difference whether this Maximus is a real person or a fictional character; cf. Citroni (1975: 40–1); Nauta (2002: 66 n. 92).
11 In line 9, I prefer the manuscript reading denos over senos, which has been adopted by Shackleton Bailey; cf. the arguments put forward by Howell (1993: 277, 1996: 37) and Galán Vioque’s (2002: 127–8) summary of the discussion on this line.
12 In addition, the poem also alludes to Ovid; cf. Giordano (1996).
13 Cf. Shackleton Bailey’s note (1993: II.329), “I.e. of married ladies or magistrates or senators.”
14 Cf. Shackleton Bailey’s note (1993: II.329) and Jenkins (1981: ad loc.).
15 Cf. Lorenz (2002: 222–3) on other poems at the beginning of Book 10, where the contradictory nature of the epigrams is especially conspicuous.
GUIDE TO FURTHER READING
The first extensive treatment of Catullus’ influence on Martial is Paukstadt’s (1876) dissertation. Paukstadt provides a wealth of relevant passages and offers some very useful interpretations. His findings had a strong influence on the annotations in Friedlaender’s (1886) commentary, and also on all subsequent commentaries on Martial’s books of epigrams. A list of further passages from Martial (and others) which betray Catullan influence has been provided by Schulze (1887). Barwick (1958; cf. Beck 1996) offers a contrastive analysis of Catullus’ and Martial’s book structure. Ferguson (1970) concentrates on the two poets’ respective use of meter.
Most modern publications on Catullus and Martial mainly present passages from the two poets in order to point out similarities and differences. Nowadays, Ferguson’s (1963) and Offermann’s (1980) approach of analyzing the two poets’ characters and motivations to write poetry feels rather outdated. Swann (1994; cf. his short article from 1998) examines Martial’s reception of Catullus within the wider spectrum of the two poets’ Nachleben. When Swann analyzes the poems with regard to the times Catullus and Martial lived in, his interpretations often add up to little more than cataloguing parallels. On the two poets’ fate in the Renaissance, Gaisser (1993) offers much deeper analyses. Some ideas on the history of epigram in general are also offered in Summers’s (2001) short article.
There is some interesting work on single instances of Catullan influences on Martial. Németh’s (1974) contrastive analyses of Catullus 40 and Martial 12.61 discusses many aspects of the two pieces. Grewing (1996) compares Catullus’ Lesbia poems with Martial’s epigrams on his beloved boy Diadumenos (cf. Obermayer 1998: 66–9). Offermann (1986) discusses how Martial’s adaptations of Catullus’ poems could be used in the classroom.
A list of further publications referring to parallels between the two poets is provided by Lorenz (2003: 253–5). In order to point out Martial’s debt to Catullus as well as his originality, Fedeli (2004) examines various epigrams that betray Catullan influence.
WORKS CITED
Banta, D. S. 1998. “Literary Apology and Literary Genre in Martial.” Dissertation. Duke University.
Barwick, K. 1958. “Zyklen bei Martial und in den kleinen Gedichten des Catull.” Philologus 102: 284–318.
Beck, J.-W. 1996. “Lesbia” und “Juventius”: Zwei libelli im Corpus Catullianum. Untersuchungen zur Publikationsform und Authentizität der überlieferten Gedichtfolge. Göttingen.
Beck, J.-W. 2002. Quid nobis cum epistula? Zum Anfang von Martials erstem Epigrammbuch. Göttingen.
Boehrer, B. T. 1998. “Renaissance Classicism and Roman Sexuality: Ben Jonson’s Marginalia and the Trope of os impurum.” International Journal of the Classical Tradition 4: 364–80.
Bowie, M. N. R. 1988. “Martial Book XII: A Commentary.” Dissertation. Oxford University.
Buchheit, V. 1961a. “Catull and Cato von Utica (c. 56).” Hermes 89: 345–56.
Citroni, M. 1975. M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Liber Primus. Florence.
Claes, P. 2002. Concatenatio Catulliana: A New Reading of the Carmina. Amsterdam.
Fabbrini, D. 2002. “Mart. VI 64, 25 toto orbe o tota urbe? Considerazioni sull’ambito di destinatzione della poesia diffamatoria.” Maia 54: 543–56.
Fedeli, P. 2004. “Marziale Catulliano.” Humanitas 56: 161–89.
Feeney, D. 1999. “Mea tempora: Patterning of Time in the Metamorphoses.” In P. Hardie, A. Barchiesi, and S. Hinds, eds., Ovidian Transformations: Essays on Ovid’s Metamorphoses and its Reception. Cambridge. 13–30.
Ferguson, J. 1963. “Catullus and Martial.” Proceedings of the African Classical Associations 6: 3–15.
Ferguson, J. 1970. “A Note on Catullus’ Hendecasyllabics.” Classical Philology 65: 173–5.
Friedlaender, L. 1886. M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Libri mit erklärenden Anmerkungen versehen. 2 vols. Leipzig. Rpt. Amsterdam 1961.
Gaisser, J. H. 1993. Catullus and His Renaissance Readers. Oxford.
Galán Vioque, G. 2002. Martial, Book VII: A Commentary. Trans. J. J. Zoltowski. Leiden, Boston, and Cologne.
Garthwaite, J. 1978. “Domitian and the Court Poets Martial and Statius.” Dissertation. Cornell University.
Giordano, F. 1996. “Ricontestualizzazioni ovidiane in Mart. I 34.” In G. Germano, ed., Classicità, medioevo e umanesimo: studi in onore di Salvatore Monti. Naples. 203–14.
Grewing, F. 1996. “Möglichkeit und Grenzen des Vergleichs: Martials Diadumenos und Catulls Lesbia.” Hermes 124: 333–54.
Grewing, F. 1997. Martial, Buch VI: Ein Kommentar. Göttingen.
Heyworth, S. J. 2001. “Catullian Iambics, Catullian iambi.” In A. Cavarzere, A. Aloni, and A. Barchiesi, eds., Iambic Ideas: Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to the Late Roman Empire. Lanham, MD, Boulder, New York, and Oxford. 117–40.
Hickson-Hahn, F. 1998. “What’s so Funny? Laughter and Incest in Invective Humor.” Syllecta Classica 9: 1–36.
Holzberg, N. 2000. “Lesbia, the Poet, and the Two Faces of Sappho: ‘Womanufacture’ and Gender Discourse in Catullus.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society n.s. 46: 28–44.
Holzberg, N. 2002a. Catull: Der Dichter und sein erotisches Werk. Munich.
Holzberg, N. 2002b. Martial und das antike Epigramm. Darmstadt.
Holzberg, N. 2006. “Onomato-Poetics: A Linear Reading of 7.67–70.” In J. Booth and R. Maltby, eds., What’s in a Name? The Significance of Proper Names in Classical Latin Literature. Swansea. 145–58.
Howell, P. 1980. A Commentary on Book One of the Epigrams of Martial. London.
Howell, P. 1993. Review of Sullivan 1991. Classical Review 43: 275–8.
Howell, P. 1996. Review of Shackleton Bailey 1993. Classical Review 46: 36–8.
Hutchinson, G. O. 2003. “The Catullan Corpus, Greek Epigram, and the Poetry of Objects.” Classical Quarterly n.s. 53.1: 206–21.
Jenkins, J. 1981. “A Commentary on Selected Epigrams from Martial Book 10.” Dissertation. Cambridge University.
Jocelyn, H. D. 1981. “Difficulties in Martial, Book 1.” Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar 3: 277–84.
Jones, J. W. 1998. “Catullus’ passer as passer.” Greece & Rome 45: 188–94.
Kay, N. M. 1985. Martial Book XI: A Commentary. London.
Kroll, W. 1968 [1923]. C. Valerius Catullus, herausgegeben und erklärt. 5th edn. Stuttgart. (1st edn. Leipzig.)
Lorenz, S. 2002. Erotik und Panegyrik: Martials epigrammatische Kaiser. Tübingen.
Lorenz, S. 2003. “Martial: 1970–2003. 1. Teil.” Lustrum 45: 167–277.
Lorenz, S. 2004a. “Nulla virtus dulcior esse potest: ‘Mannestum’ und ‘Männlichkeit’ in der erotischen Kleindichtung.” In G. Partoens, G. Roskam, and T. Van Houdt, eds., Virtutis imago: Studies on the Conceptualisation and Transformation of an Ancient Ideal. Louvain. 117–43.
Lorenz, S. 2004b. “Waterscape with Black and White: Epigrams, Cycles, and Webs in Martial’s Epigrammaton liber quartus.” American Journal of Philology 125: 255–78.
Mynors, R. A. B., ed. 1958 (rev. 1960). C. Valerii Catulli Carmina recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit. Oxford.
Nappa, C. 2001. Aspects of Catullus’ Social Fiction. Frankfurt.
Nauta, R. R. 2002. Poetry for Patrons: Literary Communication in the Age of Domitian. Leiden, Boston, and Cologne.
Németh, B. 1974. “Zur Analyse von Catull, c. 40.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Rostock 23.3: 237–43.
Newman, J. K. 1990. Roman Catullus and the Modification of the Alexandrian Sensibility. Hildesheim.
Obermayer, H. P. 1998. Martial und der Diskurs über männliche “Homosexualität” in der Literatur der frühen Kaiserzeit. Tübingen.
Offermann, H. 1980. “Uno sim tibi minor Catullo.” Quaderni urbinati della cultura classica 5: 107–39.
Offermann, H. 1986. “Catull-Martial: Dichtung im Vergleich.” Anregung 32: 226–35, 316–25.
Paukstadt, R. 1876. “De Martiale Catulli imitatore.” Dissertation. Halle.
Scherf. J. 2001. Untersuchungen zur Buchgestaltung Martials. Munich.
Schulze, K. P. 1887. “Martials Catullstudien.” Jahrbücher für Classische Philologie 33: 637–40.
Shackleton Bailey, D. R. 1990. M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammata. Post W. Heraeum edidit D. R. S. B. Stuttgart.
Shackleton Bailey, D. R. 1993. Martial: Epigrams. Edited and Translated. 3 vols. Cambridge, MA, and London.
Sherwin White, A. N. 1966. The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary. Oxford.
Skinner, M. B. 1982b. “Supplementary Note on the Latin Sexual Language: Catullus 56.5–6.” Liverpool Classical Monthly 7: 140.
Skinner, M. B. 1987. “Cornelius Nepos and Xenomedes of Ceos: A Callimachean Allusion in Catullus 1.” Liverpool Classical Monthly 12: 22.
Skinner, M. B. 1993b. “Ego mulier: The Construction of Male Sexuality in Catullus.” Helios 20: 107–30 (= J. P. Hallett and M. B. Skinner, eds., Roman Sexualities. Princeton, NJ, 1997: 129–50).
Skinner, M. B. 2003. Catullus in Verona: A Reading of the Elegiac Libellus, Poems 65–116. Columbus, OH.
Sullivan, J. P. 1991. Martial: The Unexpected Classic. A Literary and Historical Study. Cambridge.
Summers, K. 2001. “Catullus’ Program in the Imagination of Later Epigrammatists.” Classical Bulletin 77: 147–60.
Swann, B. W. 1994. Martial’s Catullus: The Reception of an Epigrammatic Rival. Hildesheim.
Swann, B. W. 1998. “Sic scribit Catullus: The Importance of Catullus for Martial’s Epigrams.” In F. Grewing, ed., Toto notus in orbe: Perspektiven der Martial-Interpretation. Stuttgart. 48–58.
Thomson, D. F. S. 1997. Catullus, Edited with a Textual and Interpretative Commentary. Toronto.
Watson, L. C. 1991. Arae: The Curse Poetry of Antiquity. Leeds.
Watson, L. C. 2003. A Commentary on Horace’s Epodes. Oxford.
Watson, L. C, and P. Watson. 2003. Martial: Select Epigrams. Cambridge.
Watson, P. 1999. “Martial on the Wedding of Stella and Violentilla.” Latomus 58: 348–56.
Williams, C. A., ed. 2004. Martial, Epigrams: Book 2. Oxford.