In the two loci classici about Roman satire, Quintilian and Diomedes famously draw a bifurcation of the history of the genre into two strands, which often comes in handy for modern scholars. This chapter argues that this bifurcation is the result of a stratification of, and compromise between, at least two different views: a communis opinio held by most authors of satire of the Republican period and their readers, and the single but ‘authoritative’ view of Horace, who established meter as a formal criterion to define satire. This chapter traces the origins of both views by discussing the relevant sources, and shows how Horace’s Satires appropriated pre-existing ideas about the nature and history of the genre, innovated on key aspects of them, and became a source of original ideas in turn. A similar scheme applies to Quintilian and Diomedes too: their perspective combines previous stances, but this combination itself represents an innovation which influences our own view of Roman satire in turn. Thus, while focusing on Roman satire, this chapter discusses a more general dynamic in the creation of literary histories.

In two letters addressed to a certain Montanus, Pliny’s focus is on the once powerful imperial freedman Pallas. In his first letter (7.29) Pliny tells how he accidentally came across Pallas’ tomb and read an inscription engraved on it, which he now quotes as a particularly blatant example of the freedman’s arrogance and hypocrisy. Pliny’s feelings about Pallas are those of indignatio mitigated by risus; both words evoke satire and in fact references to satire and other literary genres (paradoxography, antiquarian literature and the palliata) are scattered throughout this short letter. In the second letter of this pair (8.6), we are told that Pliny, now took the trouble to trace the senatorial decree referred to in the inscription. Thus for a moment we encounter Pliny the historian, or rather Pliny the antiquarian – but he is quickly replaced by Pliny the political moralist. Pliny voices his indignation at the senators’ debasement but, crucially, does not give any details about the reasons for honouring Pallas or the circumstances behind it. Evidently Pliny did not deem it advisable to consult available historical accounts of the event and to learn more about its context (see Tac. Ann. 12.53 and cf. Plin. HN 35.201).