No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2016
Of the surviving Roman satirists, Juvenal is the one we know least about. Whereas for Horace and Persius we have ancient biographies which are of early date and seem generally reliable, the biographies of Juvenal are of later date and essentially contain only ‘information’ drawn from the Satires. Failure to appreciate Juvenal’s use of a satiric persona renders these biographies worthless.
Thus there is little to be said about the life and circumstances of Decimus Iunius Iuuenalis. He is the addressee of three epigrams of Martial, his younger contemporary, who calls him ‘eloquent’; certainly the Satires reflect the rhetorical training received by the Roman élite. The fact that his Satires are not dedicated to any patron may indicate that he was of relatively high social status, rather like Lucilius and Persius and in contrast with Horace. His sixteen Satires, of which the last breaks off in a patently unfinished state, are arranged in five books and it seems certain that they were published thus. The few datable references in the Satires suggest that the first two books were written in the second decade of the second century A.D., either towards the end of Trajan’s reign (A.D. 98–117) or, possibly, not until Hadrian’s accession. The third book appears to have been written early in Hadrian’s reign (A.D. 117–138) and the fifth book dates from after A.D. 127. It seems, then, that he was writing his Satires at about the same time as Tacitus was writing his Annals, which strike the modern reader as so alike in their biting tone.
1. Syme (1984), pp. 1120-34 is eminently judicious in his assessment of the evidence.
2. facundus, Mart. 7.91; see also 7.24, 12.18.
3. On the rhetorical background to the Satires see Kenney (1963), e.g. 707 ‘declamatory rhetoric, the rhetoric of the schools, is Juvenal’s idiom’; Anderson (1982), pp. 396-486; and in great detail De Decker (1913).
4. The manuscripts divide the poems into five books and ancient sources who quote from the Satires use the same book division.
The best text ofjuvenal, after the ground-breaking work of Housman (1905, second edition 1931) is Clausen’s OCT (revised 1966); see now Martyn (1987). Mayor’s (1886–9) and Courtney’s (1980) commentaries contain a wealth of highly detailed information; more useful for the undergraduate is Ferguson (1979). None of the numerous available translations can be recommended unequivocally; Robinson (1983) sacrifices intelligibility in his faithfulness to the Latin and Rudd (1991), while a terrific improvement upon Green’s widely-used Penguin, yet does not capture the rhetorical sparkle of Juvenal’s Latin. Nevertheless, most of the citations included are from Rudd (1991). A useful recent publication is Ferguson’s prosopography to the poems ofjuvenal (1987).
All the general books on Roman satire devote substantial sections to Juvenal and provide a useful introduction to the Satires: Ramage, Sigsbee & Fredericks (1974), pp. 136-69; Knoche (1975), pp. 143-57; Coffey (1989), pp. 119-46 emphasizes the rhetorical elements. Mason (1963) urges that Juvenal is a poet rather than a moralist or social historian. Of the books devoted to Juvenal, Romano (1979) reflects the importance of irony as a satiric device in Juvenal’s poems and Braund (1988) offers an overview of Juvenal’s development of his satiric persona in Chapters 1 and 5. Fredericks (1979) and Bramble (1982) provide good introductions to Juvenal’s most important satiric techniques, exaggeration and wit.
For further bibliography see Coffey (1963), Gérard (1976), pp. 482-510, Braund (1988), pp. 278-97.
5. Thus Waters (1970), Syme (1984), pp. 1135-57.
6. See Syme (1958), pp. 499-500, Appendices 74, 75.
7. See Braund (1988), pp. 1-23. Crucial reading on Book I is Anderson (1982), pp. 197-254, particularly on Juvenal’s structural technique. On Book II see notes 37-42 below.
8. On the likely political significance of Juvenal’s indignatio see Ramage (1989), summarized pp. 705-7.
9. Particularly Anderson (1982), pp. 293-339.
10. See previous note.
11. Only apparent; for an indication of the structure see Cloud & Braund (1982), 78-9 and below.
12. Implicit in all the cum clauses 22-78, in quando 87-9, and in nil ml ulterius 147.
13. On the programme presented in Salire 1 see Cloud & Braund (1982), 79-81.
14. On the ‘Grand Style’ in Juvenal’s Satires see Scott (1927) esp. chapter 2.
15. On this theme in Juvenal Book I see LaFleur (1979).
16. Thus Kenney (1962), Griffith (1970); cf. Chapter IV note 48.
17. Thus Henderson (1989a), pp. 116-18. On deviations from the ‘norm’ in Satire 1 see Richlin (1983), pp. 195-200.
18. On Laronia’s role in the poem see Braund (1988), pp. 9-11.
19. On the themes and structure of Satire 2 see Braund & Cloud (1981), 203-8, Wiesen (1989), 714-23.
20. On the military imagery in the poem see Anderson (1982), pp. 209-19.
21. On the relative length of the poems in Book I see Cloud & Braund (1982), 79.
22. Fredericks (1973).
23. On the symbolism of his withdrawal see Motto & Clarke (1965).
24. On the ambivalence of Umbricius see Winkler (1983), pp. 220-3, LaFleur (1976).
25. On Juvenal’s theatricality here see Braund (1988), p. 15.
26. On the indignation see Sweet (1979), p. 292.
27. Editors are unanimously mistaken in their view that the mock-epic begins at 36; it clearly begins at 34 with the invocation of the muse.
28. The parody is well analysed by Anderson (1982), pp. 237-43 and Sweet (1979), esp. 288, 296.
29. On the members of the consilium see Highet (1954), pp. 259-61 and Vassileiou (1984), 48-59. On Juvenal’s liking for such catalogues or processions, possibly inspired by Lucilius, see Griffith (1969), 147-8.
30. On the relationship between the two parts of the poem see Stegemann (1913), pp. 30-6, Helmbold & O’Neil (1956) with Kenney’s strictures (1962), 30-1; Anderson (1982), pp. 232-44; Kilpatrick (1973), 230-5; Jones (1990).
31. They are preserved in Valla’s note derived from the scholia now lost; cited conveniently by Highet (1954), pp. 258-9, Griffith (1969), 138, Courtney (1980), p. 195.
32. On the political overtones in Satire 4 see Ramage (1989), 692-704.
33. On the parallel with Satire 4 see Jones (1987). On the poem as a whole see Adamietz (1972), pp. 78-116, Morford (1977). Morford (1977), esp. 233-7 and 245 and Anderson (1982), pp. 244-50 provide acute analyses of the connotations of the two menus in Satire 5.
34. On this progressive disengagement from the client’s viewpoint see Cloud & Braund (1982), 83.
35. On the structure, patterns, thematic and verbal links in the Book, including the chronological progression from Satire 1 to Satire 5, see Heilmann (1967), 366-70, Morford (1977), Cloud & Braund (1982).
36. On the highly sophisticated nature of the literary background to the Satires see e.g. Witke (1970), pp. 113-28 on Satire 1, 128-36 and Braund (1989), pp. 34-6 on Satire 3.
37. Thus Anderson (1982), pp. 273-4, 284, Braund (1988), p. 18.
38. On Satire 6 see Winkler (1983), pp. 146-206, Smith (1980). Henderson (1989a), pp. 118-22 well conveys the misogyny of the poem. On the ironic prologue to the poem see Singleton (1972).
39. On the marks of indignation and impression of incoherence see Braund (1988), pp. 18-22.
40. Most of the ‘plot’ of Satire 6 is well described by Smith (1980) who halts before the murder of the husband.
41. For arguments supporting the authenticity of the ‘Oxford fragment’ see Courtney (1962), Griffith (1963), Luck (1972), Martyn (1980).
42. See Bramble (1974), p. 165 and, more fully, Smith (1989). On the ‘literariness’ of Salire 6 see Wiesen (1989), 723-33.
43. On the change from Books I and II see Lindo (1974), Anderson (1982), pp. 277-92. On the invitation to reject the persona of Books I and II see Fredericks (1979), 185.
44. Braund (1988), p. 25. For excellent analysis of the tone of the opening 100 lines see Rudd (1976), pp. 84-118, Wiesen (1973); on the entire poem in greater detail, see Braund (1988), pp. 24-68 and, now, Hardie (1990).
45. For summary and critique of views on the opening lines see Vioni (1972-73), 242-8.
46. On the double point of view see Wiesen (1973).
47. Thus White (1978).
48. See Townend (1973), 152.
49. For an excellent introduction to the poem see Fredericks (1971a) and for detailed analysis see Braund (1988), pp. 69-129.
50. Because of its subject-matter, there is very little written specifically on Satire 9, despite Mason’s judgement that the poem exhibits Juvenal’s art ‘in the purest, most concentrated form’ (Mason (1963), p. 96). See Bellandi (1974); Winkler (1983), pp. 107-29; Braund (1988), pp. 130-77 for a detailed reading; Henderson (1989a), pp. 122-4 for a challenging overview. On Trebius as an intermediary stage between Umbricius and Naevolus see Bellandi (1974), 289-90; on Satire 5 as a forerunner to Satire 9 see Jensen (1981-2), 159-60; see Martyn (1970), 61 on Satire 9 as the climax of the themes of sexual and clientela perversion.
51. On the unity and structure of Book III see Braund (1988), pp. 178-83.
52. See Dick (1969), Anderson (1982), pp. 340-61; on the symbolic value of the figure of Democritus see e.g. Eichholz (1956), 65 n. 2.
53. On moderation as a theme in Satire 11 see Weisinger (1972); also Felton & Lee (1972).
54. For reminiscences of Horace Epistles 1.5 see Braund (1988), p. 187. For some salutary doubts about the degree of ‘friendship’ between Persicus and the speaker and observations of Persicus’ luxurious tastes see Jones (1983).
55. On the paradox of the country meal in the city setting see Braund (1989), pp. 46-7.
56. See Ramage (1978).
57. Thus Courtney (1980), p. 517.
58. A figure often used in satire, for example Swift’s Gulliver.
59. On these features of Book IV see Braund (1988), pp. 184-9.
60. Thus Pryor (1962), Fredericks (1971b), Edmunds (1972), Morford (1973).
61. On the development from Book I see Anderson (1982), pp. 277-92.
62. See Stein (1970).
63. On the modulation between ira and humanitas in the poem see Fredericks (1976). On the speaker’s unconscious betrayal of faults see McKim (1986); Anderson (1988). On the sophistication of the poem see Singleton (1983).
64. On Book V see Braund (1988), pp. 189-96.