THEMES IN ROMAN SATIRE THEMES IN ROMAN SATIRE Niall Rudd University of Oklahoma Press Norman and London © 1986 by Niall Rudd. All rights reserved. Published in the United States by University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Publishing Division of the University of Oklahoma. Manufactured in Great Britain. First edition, 1986. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Rudd, Niall. Themes in Roman satire. Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Satire, Latin—History and criticism. 2. Satire, Latin—Themes, motives. 3. Latin literature—History and criticism. 4. Rome in literature. I. Title. PA6095.R83 1986 877'.01'09 85-29544 ISBN 0-8061-1994-2 To my wife Nancy sine qua non Contents Preface ix 1. Aims and Motives 1 2. Freedom and Authority 40 3. Style and Public 82 4. Class and Patronage 126 5. Greek and the Greeks 162 6. Women and Sex 193 Appendix 226 Abbreviations 227 Bibliography 228 Index of names 236 Index of passages quoted 240 Preface After talking of Greek antecedents and the original meaning of satura, books on Roman satire go on to describe the various writers and their work - first Ennius, then Lucilius, and so on. That is the most natural and straightforward way of proceeding, and it has produced at least two learned and comprehensive descriptions of the genre.1 The same method has been followed in two useful collections of essays;2 and, in addition, there has been a handful of books on the individual satirists.3 I have thought for some time, however, that there was need for a different kind of book - one which, instead of treating the satirists vertically, man by man, studied them in a series of horizontal bands, each band representing a particular theme or topic. That, in effect, is what the present book does. The method has entailed certain limitations. I have said nothing on the writings of Varro, Seneca, and Petronius. Even within the Lucilian tradition I have not attempted to give a full account of each poet’s work; nor have I repeated the story of its transmission and influence. But there have, I believe, been certain gains. It has been possible to pay more attention to the satirists’ historical environment, to offer more in the way of quotation and illustration, and by setting out what each writer says on a particular subject to provide the reader with a more solid basis for comparative comment. A little thought will show that the six themes I have chosen overlap. So it was necessary to make certain decisions of a somewhat arbitrary kind. In the first chapter, under ‘Aims and Motives’, I have described the satirists’ areas of attack, but personal details have been reserved for Chapter Two (‘Freedom and Authority’). In that second chapter I have also discussed, where relevant, the poet’s position vis-à-uis his patron, in so far as that related to political power. Other aspects of patronage are examined in Chapter Four (‘Class and Patronage’). In Chapter Three (‘Style and Public’) I talk about the poets’ own style, whereas in Chapter One I indicate the kinds of style which they satirised. The only exception to this has to do with neoteric or neo-Callimachean material, which 'Those by U. Knoche and M. Coffey (for these and other references see the Bibliography). 3 Those edited by J.P. Sullivan and by E.S. Ramage, D.L. Sigsbee, and S.C. Fredericks. • E.g. N. Terzaghi’s Lucilio, my own The Satires of Horace, G. Highet’s Juvenal the Satirist, and J. Gérard’s Juvénal et la réalité contemporaine. A new book, by M. Morford, on Persius has been recently announced. X Preface appears under the heading ‘Greece and the Greeks’. That material could, indeed, have gone elsewhere, but it seemed to provide the best balance when placed in Chapter Five. As for the opening chapter, that is meant to offer a way of orienting oneself to the genre as a whole. Before beginning it, readers might be wise to cover, say, a quarter of Horace, Persius, and Juvenal in translation, a task which could be completed in two or three evenings. Having done so, they will be less likely to feel that they have been thrown in at the deep end. Quis leget haec? ‘Who is going to read this?’ That very pertinent question was put to Persius by a speaker in Satire 1. The reply was short and unambitious: nemo ‘No one’. I am a little more optimistic, but it would be well to indicate whom I have in mind. As the last paragraph implied, the book is meant primarily for students; but I hope it may also be of some use to teachers of Latin who are not specialists in satire, and to others who take a literary interest in the genre. Those who have made a study of Roman satire will find various defects, and no doubt will say so; but although the book owes a debt to their work, it is not really meant for them {Persium non curo legere). For reasons of space I have not printed Latin quotations, except in the case of very short extracts. This has favoured Lucilius, since he exists only in that form. But as readers are less likely to have their own copies of his text, perhaps the advantage is not unfair. The rule I have just mentioned is relaxed in Chapter Three, because it did not seem sensible to suppress the Latin in a chapter largely devoted to style. The translations of Lucilius and Juvenal are new; those of Horace and Persius are based on the Penguin Translation (1979), but differ in numerous points of detail. Most of these points have to do with rhythm, but in a few instances I have introduced corrections. Except in the case of Persius’ Prologue, a few verses of Horace’s Epodes and Odes, and some fragments of early Lucilius, the lines contain six stresses and are intended to recall the movement of the Latin hexameter. Needless to say, I am aware of their shortcomings and offer them with the usual reservations. The texts employed are, in the main, those of Warmington (ROL, vol. 3) for Lucilius, Klingner (Teubner 1959) for Horace, and Clausen (Oxford 1959) for Persius and Juvenal. In the case of Lucilius the textual difficulties are severe. But, although I have been conscious of specific problems and have occasionally preferred the reading of Terzaghi / Mariotti (Florence 1966) to that of Warmington, I have not as a rule presented any discussion. This refusal may be put down to lack of time, space, and competence, and to the unlikelihood of any significant progress. I can only hope that the literary points which I have tried to make would not be seriously affected by adopting different readings. As Housman said, ‘Cautious men do not edit Lucilius’, and even writing about him as a satirist is a risky undertaking. But the alternative is to ignore one of the most distinctive and arresting