1 ACTA CLASSICA LXV (2022) 1–4 ISSN 0065–1141 TWO NOTES ON MARTIAL* T.J. Leary London 1. Mart. 8.35 1 Acrostics are a well-known feature of ancient epigram and, latterly, have received a good deal of attention,2 but they are not commonly associated with Martial and are not in the spirit of Mart. 2.86.1 nec carmine glorior supino, where he rejects things like palindromes.3 Note, however, Mart. 8.35: cum sitis similes paresque vita, uxor pessima, pessimus maritus, miror non bene convenire vobis. Since the two of you are alike and equal in your way of life, a rotten wife and a rotten husband, I am surprised you don’t suit one another. This acrostic does not receive comment by Schöffel 2002 ad loc. Nor is there anything in Siedschlag 1977. Indeed, as far as I can tell, it seems not to have been noted. The acrostic might, of course, be accidental;4 but, given Martial’s penchant for wordplay generally,5 and his careful composition (note here the juxtaposition of similes and pares, and of pessima and pessimus to emphasize * My thanks to Professor Kathleen Coleman for her comments on these notes and for sending me a scan at a time when library access was difficult. Thanks also to the anonymous reader for Acta Classica. I hasten to add that I am fully responsible for any flaws or infelicities that remain in this article. 1 I have reproduced the Teubner text of Shackleton Bailey 1990 and his Loeb translations, 1993 – although I have added one word (‘on’) when rendering pascit in Mart. 9.80.2. 2 See e.g. Hosle 2020, with further bibliography. Generally, and also with further bibliography, see Courtney 1990; Damschen 2004. See also Robinson 2019:290n2. 3 See Williams 2004 ad loc. on the various types of verse which could be read backwards . 4 For ‘accidental acrostics’, see e.g. Katz 2001:5–6. 5 Grewing 1998. T.J. Leary 2 how potentially well-matched the wife and husband are), this seems unlikely.6 Indeed, it possibly reinforces the point of the epigram by emphasizing their marital state through drawing attention to uxor at the start of the line (with maritus giving balance and contrast at the end) and Martial’s surprise (miror) at their incompatibility. 2. Mart. 9.92 quae mala sint domini, quae servi commoda, nescis, Condyle, qui servum te gemis esse diu. dat tibi securos vilis tegeticula somnos, pervigil in pluma Gaius ecce iacet. Gaius a prima tremebundus luce salutat 5 tot dominos, at tu, Condyle, nec dominum. ‘quod debes, Gai, redde’ inquit Phoebus et illinc Cinnamus: hoc dicit, Condyle, nemo tibi. tortorem metuis? podagra cheragraque secatur Gaius et mallet verbera mille pati. 10 quod nec mane vomis nec cunnum, Condyle, lingis, non mavis quam ter Gaius esse tuus? Condylus, you lament that you have been so long a slave; you don’t know a master’s afflictions and a slave’s advantages. A cheap little mat gives you carefree slumbers: there’s Gaius lying awake all night on feathers. From daybreak on Gaius in fear and trembling salutes so many masters: but you, Condylus, do not salute even your own. ‘Gaius, pay me back what you owe,’ says Phoebus, and from yonder so says Cinnamus: nobody says that to you, Condylus. You fear the torturer? Gaius is cut by gout in foot and hand and would rather take a thousand lashes. You don’t vomit of a morning or lick a cunt, Condylus; isn’t that better than being your Gaius three times over? This epigram confronts the discontented slave Condylus, remarking that he is in fact better off than his master.7 Regarding the reference to oral sex in line 11, cunnum … lingis, Henriksén 2012 remarks ad loc. that ‘there seems to be no reason why the rich should be practising oral sex other than as a consequence of general moral depravity that results from a continuous downward spiral.’ Could not the point be, however, that, to succeed in Rome, the 6 Compare the famous two-way (or ‘gamma’) acrostic in Aratus Phaen. 783–11, where line 783 opens with...