Table Of ContentTHEMES 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
