{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03826955074875208, 'fraction_numerical': 0.026622296173044926, 'mean_word_length': 4.418918918918919, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Passer Catulli: The Evidence of Martial

Six epigrams of Martial are relevant to the question of his interpretation of passer in Catullus 2 and 3. Five of these, 1.7 and 109; 4.14; 7.14 and 11.6 are mentioned by Howell in his discussion of the problem in A Commentary on Book One of the Epigrams of Martial (London 1980), 122; to these must be added 14.77 which, although it does not specifically mention passer, certainly refers to it in the words qualem, dilecta Catullo, Lesbia plorabat. One of these epigrams, 11.6, is cited by Giangrande to support his argument that passer in Catullus is an equivalent for mentula on the grounds that Martial also used passer with the same meaning. On this point Howell comments: ‘if one accepts the interpretation of the passer poems recently persuasively reargued by G. Giangrande. . . then one must reinterpret not only this epigram [1.7], but the other four . . . in which M. refers to Catullus’ passer,’ and then proceeds to interpret Martial accordingly. A reading of the epigrams in question, however, reveals that such blanket reinterpretation is not only unnecessary, but also does grave injustice to the subtle ambiguity of Martial’s epigrammatic style.