Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:16:19.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Martial 14.100: Panaca

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

T. J. Leary
T. J. Leary
Affiliation:
Hampton School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The wine referred to in the second line of the epigram was produced near Verona, at the foot of the Rhaetian Alps. It was well regarded by most and was a favourite of the Emperor Augustus: for references see Mynors at Verg. G. 2.96 and my note at Mart. 14.100.2. It appears, however, to have undue prominence in this poem, supposedly about the earthenware drinking vessels which, presumably, were manufactured in the same area.

There is also the question of why Martial refers to Verona in such a circumlocutory way. Is he merely following a well established elegiac/epigrammatic convention in associating Verona with Catullus (cf. e.g. Ovid, Am. 3.15.7 and Mart. 1.7.2), or does his circumlocution here have any particular point?

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , May 1997 , pp. 322 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Poetry or prose? For the latter possibility, see Wiseman, T. P.Catullus and his World (Cambridge 1985), p. 196, following Baehrens, Catulli Veronensis liber II(Leipzig, 1885), p. 613f. Baehren's suggestion that Catullus′ friend Calvus also wrote in prose can be compared with my note on Mart. 14.196.le.Google Scholar

2 My thanks to Prof. K. M. Coleman and Dr S. J. Heyworth for their comments regarding this note. Although it is not of specific relevance to the note's concerns, Dr Heyworth observes that the phrasing of Mart. 14.100.1 might draw on Prop. 1.22.3—something I miss in my commentary