1. Duff, J. Wight, A Literary History of Rome in the Silver Age (London 1927), 501Google Scholar. For the text of Martial I follow W. M.|Lindsay, M. Val. Martialis Epigrammata (Oxford 1902)Google Scholar.

2. For a recent discussion of the architecture of Hellenistic and Augustan poetry books see Santirocco, M., Unity and Design in Horace’s Odes (Chapel Hill 1986), 313Google Scholar. For Martial cf. Erb, G., Zu Komposition and Aufbau im ersten Buch Martials (Frankfurt am Main 1981)Google Scholar, and the useful survey by Sullivan, J., Martial: The Unexpected Classic (Cambridge 1991), 217–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. As noted by Holzberg, N., Martial (Heidelberg 1988), 37Google Scholar.

4. For variatio as an ordering principle see Santirocco (n.2 above), 6–9.

5. Cf. the analysis of the programmatic opening of Book 11 by Kay, N.M., Martial, Book 11: A Commentary (London 1985), 5fGoogle Scholar. Also Howell, P., A Commentary on Book 1 of the Epigrams of Martial (London 1980), llfGoogle Scholar.

6. Barwick, K., ‘Zyklen bei Martial und in den kleinen Gedichten des Catull’, Philologus 102 (1958), 284–318Google Scholar.

7. White, P., ‘The Presentation and Dedication of the Silvae and the Epigrams’, JRS 64 (1974), 50Google Scholar.

8. For Martial’s offering of various libelli, each dedicated to an individual patron, prior to their compilation with other epigrams to form the larger volume, see White (n.7 above), 40ff.

9. For Domitian’s birthday (October 24, A.D. 51), accession to the throne (September 14, A.D. 81) and renaming of both months see Suet. Dom. 1 and 13; for the Capitoline temple and the Flavian shrine see Suet. Dom. 1.1 and 5.1 and Statius, Silv. 4.3.16–18. For Julia’s burial in the shrine see Suet. Dom. 17.3.

10. For the equation of Domitian with Jupiter in both Martial and Statius see Scott, K., The Imperial Cult under the Flavians (Stuttgart 1936), 133–139Google Scholar.

11. On the long debate about whether Domitian’s building projects actually ruined the treasury see Rogers, P. M., ‘Domitian and the Finances of State’, Historia 33 (1986), 60–78Google Scholar. My concern is not so much with the modern verdict but with the feelings of Martial’s contemporaries; and here the judgements seem unambiguous. Suetonius (Dom. 12.1), for example, insists that the emperor was ‘drained of money by the cost of his buildings and shows’ (exhaustus operum ac munerum impensis), and relates that someone scrawled ARCI on one of Domitian’s many arches, punning on the similarity between arcus (‘arch’) and the Greek arkei (‘enough’). Plutarch (Publ. 15) describes Domitian’s temple–building as a symptom not of piety but of sickness (nosori), and compares his mania for building with Midas’ insatiable craving for gold. Cf. also Pliny, Pan. 51.

12. For an excellent survey of the chronology of Domitian’s building projects see Jones, B.W., The Emperor Domitian (London 1992), 79–98Google Scholar. Martial (9.1) is the first to mention the Flavian shrine; for the dating of Book 9 to A.D. 94 see Friedlaender, L. (ed.), M. Val. Martialis Epigrammaton Libri (Amsterdam 1961), 61Google Scholar. The shrine is also noted by Statius (Silv. 4.3.18) in A.D. 95 (for the date see Vollmer, F. [ed.], P.P. Statii Silvarum Libri [Leipzig 1898], 8f.)Google Scholar.

13. The Capitoline contest was revived in A.D. 86 and celebrated every four years thereafter (cf. RE 3.1528). For the topicality of the contest in the year of the publication of Book 9 cf.also 9.35.9f. and 9.40.

14. My enumeration of the poems which constitute the imperial cycle in Book 9 differs from that suggested by Barwick (n.6 above), 287ff. He lists 1, 3, 5, 7, 18, 20, 34, 36, 39, 64, 65, 79, 83, 91, 93, 101; but this seems rather arbitrary, including, for example, the last epigram in a series dedicated to Earinus (9.36) while omitting its predecessors (9.11–13 and 16–17). Similarly, 9.23 and 24 are excluded even though they honour Domitian no less than Cams, the actual addressee. 9.31 is also omitted, despite addressing the emperor directly in the penultimate line. In contrast, 9.39 is included, though it does not address Domitian, and celebrates Martial’s friend Rufus and his wife no less than the emperor. I prefer to base my analysis on thematic development rather than on the numerical schemes apparently favoured by Barwick.

15. For Domitian’s patronage of Minerva and the Alban games in her honour cf. Suet. Dom. 4.4.

16. 9.83, on the splendour of Domitian’s games, addresses the emperor directly and is thus also clearly part of the book’s imperial cycle. Martial jokes that Rome owes a debt of thanks not only for the spectacles themselves but also for the fact that even those poets who are otherwise always giving recitations are now attending the games, and so giving everyone’s ears a rest. The topic is not specifically introduced in 9.1 or 9.3, but the praise of Domitian’s munificence and the wonders of the shows (here said to excel those of previous emperors, 83.2) obviously fits comfortably into the themes established by the introductory poems.

17. Besides the links between 9.27 and 9.28 cf. also 9.27.7f. with 9.47.2f.; 9.27.9 with 9.70.1 and 5; 9.70.7–9 with 9.79.5f.

18. On the presumed frequency of the topic see Anderson, W. S., ‘Lascivia vs. Ira: Martial and Juvenal’, in Essays on Roman Satire (Princeton 1982), 367CrossRefGoogle Scholar n.8: ‘Parallels in Martial are common.’ But outside Book 9 cf. only 1.24; 1.96; 2.36; 7.58; 12.42.

19. Admittedly, Martial does not say whether Earinus had been emasculated on Domitian’s orders. Statius, however, reveals that the boy had suffered castration after his acquisition by the emperor and his arrival in the palace (Silv. 3.4.65ff.).

20. Cf. Statius Silv. 3 pref.

21. For the dating of the edict to A.D. 81–82 see Schoene, A. (ed.), Eusebi Chronicorum Canonum vol.2 (Frankfurt 1967), 160fGoogle Scholar. Martial first mentions the law in 2.60 (published A.D. 85–86).

22. Dom. 7–8. See also Dio 67.212, Statius Silv. 4.3.10ff.

23. See n.14 above.

24. E.g. Sullivan (n.2 above), 43 and 145.

25. For Attis as a castratus cf. 5.41.2f.; 8.46.4. For Ganymede as an exemplar of the deli–catus cf. 5.55; 2.43.13f.; 3.39; 10.98.1f.; 11.104.19f.

26. Cf. 9.25.3 and 9.55.3 (mollis); 3.58.32 (delicatus).

27. See Giangrande, G., ‘Catullus’ Lyrics on the Passer’, MPhL 1 (1976), 137–146Google Scholar; Nadeau, Y., ‘Catullus’ Sparrow, Martial, Juvenal and Ovid’, Latomus 43 (1984), 861–868Google Scholar; also Howell (n.5 above), 122ff., on the passer Catulli in Martial’s poems to Stella. Against the argument see Jocelyn, H. D., ‘On Some Unnecessarily Indecent Interpretations of Catullus 2 and 3’, Latomus 43 (1982), 97–103Google Scholar. Other than the reference to Earinus, Martial uses Veneres Cupidinesque only in the epitaph for the actor Paris (11.13). In language evocative of Catullus’ sparrow poem, Martial notes that the delight of the city, its playfulness and passion, and all the Venuses and Cupids are buried with Paris (11.13.3–6). The characterisation reflects, of course, the popularity and licentiousness of Roman farce in which Paris had been a leading player. But considering that Paris had been put to death for his adultery with Domitian’s wife (cf. Suet. Dom. 3), we might also sense a sly sexual innuendo.

28. For the ‘marriage’ of Nero and Pythagoras see Tacitus Ann. 15.37.

29. Pitcher, R. A., ‘Passer Catulli: The Evidence of Martial’, Antichthon 16 (1982), 100CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30. E.g. 4.66.9; 9.25.9.

31. E.g. 1.41.2; 6.29.1.

32. Lloyd, L.J., ‘Erotion: a Note on Martial’, G&R 22 (1953), 40Google Scholar. Note also Watson, P., ‘Erotion: Puella Delicata?’, CQ 42 (1992), 257CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘To the reader approaching the poem (i.e. 5.37) for the first time, the language appears unequivocally erotic’ Compare the description of Erotion at 5.37.4 (more lovely than Indian pearls) with 9.12.5; 5.37.10 (smelling of Attic honey) with 9.11.3 and 9.12.2; 5.37.11 (smelling of amber) with 9.12.6; 5.37.13 (rarer than the phoenix) with 9.11.4.

33. E.g. 1.31; 4.7; 5.48; 11.78.3f.; 12.18.24f.

34. For the association of felix with Venus and fertility, see Ahl, F.M., Lucan: An Introduction (Ithaca 1976), 287ffGoogle Scholar.

35. See the discussion by Sullivan (n.2 above), 117ff.

36. For the epigrams as nugae (trifles) see e.g. 2.1.6; 4.10; 4.72.3. For an excellent account of Martial’s assessment of the durability of his work see Sullivan (n.2 above), 56ff.

37. Statius made a similar request of Domitian and was granted it (Silv. 3.1.61ff.).

38. See Sailer, R., Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge 1982), 35CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Martial’s publication of the request but not of any subsequent thanks surely indicates that his plea was ignored, especially since he must have known of of Statius’ public thanksgiving for the grant of a similar request. For another of Martial’s petitions to Domitian, followed immediately by a public expression of gratitude for the granting of it cf. 2.91 and 92.

39. Cf. 2.43; 6.11; 10.13; 10.98.

40. Sullivan (n.2 above), 121. In contrast, Szelest, H., ‘Domitian und Martial’, Eos 62 (1974), 105ffGoogle Scholar., argues that Martial was bitter at the lack of imperial support. For further examinations of the forms and amounts of imperial and other patronage which Martial expected see Sailer, R., ‘Martial on Patronage and Literature’, CQ 33 (1983), 246–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and White, P., ‘Amicitia and the Profession of Poetry’, JRS 68 (1978), 74–92Google Scholar.

41. Apart from the petitions, already noted, at 2.91, 5.19, 6.10, 8.24 and 9.18, see also 6.87 for Martial’s prayer for the gods and the emperor to give him what he wants if he has deserved it (followed by 6.88 in which a haughty patron denies the poet the dole for failing to salute him with due formality); also Martial’s reminder to Domitian at 8.82 of the need to support his poets. Of these epigrams it is worth noting that only the earliest, 2.91, is followed by an acknowledgement of the granting of a request. Similarly, Statius notes at Silv. 4.1.63 the long hiatus in marks of recognition from the emperor.

42. ‘Martial, Book 6, on Domitian’s Moral Censorship’, Prudentia 22 (1990), 13–22Google Scholar.

43. For example, I would suggest tentatively that 9.2 (on which, however, see further below) and 9.4 are linked by their explicit obscenity (n.b. futuente, 9.2.10; futui, 9.4.1 and 2) and by the fact that both concern payment for sex. Further, like 9.2, both 9.6 (on the disdainful refusal of a patron to acknowledge Martial’s morning call) and 9.8 (on Bithynicus’ omission from the will of Fabius to whom he had given annual gifts) both involve the selfishness and arrogance of the wealthy. I would note also that 9.11–13 (on Earinus) are framed by two pairs of epigrams balanced in both length and theme—9.9 and 9.14 on contrasting attitudes of clients as dinner guests, and the misogynistic pair 9.10 and 9.15 about women as marriage partners.

44. 9.2 is the model for Juvenal, Sat. 7.74–78 in which the rich miser Numitor (ironically described as down on his luck [infelix]) has no gifts for his client but plenty for his mistress. It is worth noting that the client here is a poet (7.78); see Colton, R., Juvenal’s Use of Martial’s Epigrams (Amsterdam 1991), 297fGoogle Scholar.

45. In 5.56, 10.40 and 10.48, Lupus appears to be a real person and a friend of Martial. But the Lupus of 7.10 is deeply in debt, while in 11.55 he is a greedy legacy–hunter. In 11.108 he is a money–lender, and in 11.18 a wealthy patron who gives Martial a ‘farm’ smaller than a window–box.