The interpretation of both the sulphur offered by the ambulator in line 3 and the glass he collects in exchange has long been a problem. Post′s opinion, offered in 1908, that broken glass could be, and was, mended with a sulphur glue has been subsequently eclipsed by scholars such as Leon and Smyth. They correctly discerned that Pliny, in HN 29.11.51 and 36.67.199, adduced by Post, does not refer to a sulphur-based adhesive, nor does Pliny suggest sulphur has any such property. Basic problems pe…
Read moreThe interpretation of both the sulphur offered by the ambulator in line 3 and the glass he collects in exchange has long been a problem. Post′s opinion, offered in 1908, that broken glass could be, and was, mended with a sulphur glue has been subsequently eclipsed by scholars such as Leon and Smyth. They correctly discerned that Pliny, in HN 29.11.51 and 36.67.199, adduced by Post, does not refer to a sulphur-based adhesive, nor does Pliny suggest sulphur has any such property. Basic problems persist, however, which have not been properly resolved by recent commentators on Martial, regarding the form and function of sulphur as well as technical and cultural changes which would have bestowed some value on broken glass. New evidence and rarely cited evidence can be brought to bear on the earlier suppositions, which Citroni and Howell repeat, in order to solve the riddle of Martial 1.41 and add to our knowledge of ancient society
