Four notes on Martial* T. J. Leary 1. Mart. 1.941 cantasti male, dum fututa es, Aegle.iam cantas bene; basianda non es. You sang badly, Aegle, as long as you were fucked. Now you sing well, but you shouldn't be kissed. Howell 1980 ad loc. begins 'This epigram has always puzzled commentators'. He continues: 'The explanation is probably related to the widespread belief that women's voices change after they lose their virginity', before considering several possibilities, for instance, that Aegle used to sing in a hoarse voice but now, having given up vaginal intercourse, sings better after switching to fellatio (the reason why she shouldn't be kissed).2 As he concedes, though, abstinence cannot make a good voice out of a bad one. It seems to me that fellatio is definitely in question, but that the explanations of the poem have so far missed the mark. Could not the point be this, that Aegle has a bad singing-voice but that, once she has turned to fellation, she cannot sing at all since her mouth is full and so she sings 'well' (line 2)? In contrast (line 1), while she practised vaginal intercourse, her mouth was free and so she was able to indulge her lack of vocal talent. Compare Adams 1982: 126–27: 'It was a standard joke to speak of irrumatio [i.e mentulam in os [End Page 297] inserere] as a means of silencing someone', noting especially his explanation (cf. Leary 1996 ad loc.) of Mart. 14.74 Corvus, which varies the theme: corve salutator, quare fellator haberis? in caput intravit mentula nulla tuum. Welcoming crow, why are you considered a cock-sucker? No penis has entered your head. Although the crow was popularly believed ore coire, he cannot be a fellator (i.e. irrumatus) because he is so noisy.3 The logical extension of this explanation is that Aegle used to sing at the same time as engaging in vaginal sex, just as she wasn't able to sing while she was busy fellating someone; but perhaps, for the sake of the joke, one is not meant to push logic as far as this.4 2. Mart. 2.48 coponem laniumque balneumque,tonsorem tabulamque calculosqueet paucos, sed ut eligam, libellos;unum non nimium rudem sodalemet grandem puerum diuque levem 5et caram puero meo puellam:haec praesta mihi, Rufe, vel Butuntis,et thermas tibi habe Neronianas. An inn-keeper, a butcher, a bath, a barber, a games board and counters, a few books, but of my choice, a friend, just one, of some cultivation, a boy, full-grown and smooth-cheeked for a while to come, and a girl dear to my boy: supply me with these, Rufus, even at Butinti, and you can keep the Baths of Nero. [End Page 298] The puer in line 5 has generally been interpreted as being a slave-boy and potential sexual partner for Martial, but questions have then been prompted by the following line: why does Martial see, as a requisite for the ideal life, having a slave-girl who is dear to his slave-boy? Surely she too is a potential sexual partner, and, while a threesome is not impossible, it seems unlikely that Martial would consider sharing her favours a life-enhancing prospect. Compare Williams 2004 ad loc., who also lists some of the other scenarios suggested to explain the perceived difficulty;5 but the possibility of textual corruption is not raised. Puero, in line 6, seems suspect after puerum in line 5. Might it be an intrusion, prompted by it and replacing something like cubitu? Compare, for example, [Sen.] Oct. 853 nostris coniugem caram toris. For cubitus to mean 'bed' (cubile), see TLL 4.1276.74−82 s.v. cubitus (Lambertz). 3. Mart. 3.92 ut patiar moechum rogat uxor, Galle, sed unum. huic ego non oculos eruo, Galle, duos? My wife asks that I tolerate a lover, Gallus, just one. Shall I not gouge out his eyes, Gallus, both of them? Shackleton Bailey 1993 wonders ad loc. whether oculos refers to the testicles, but adds that 'oculi does not seem to be so used elsewhere.' His suspicion...