Notes to chapter 3 (Ennius)
1 The standard reference text for all of Ennius’ works is that of J. Vahlen, Ennianae Poesis Reliquiae (Leipzig, 19283); saturae and varia will be found on pp. 204–29. Also useful is the edition by E. H. Warmington, vol. I of Remains of Old Latin (Loeb Classical Library, 1956), 382–447. On Ennius’ satires in general see particularly the full and judicious discussion by Waszink, Entr. Fond. Hardt 17 (1972), 99–137, the chapter by Van Rooy, Studies in Classical Satire and Related Literary Theory (Leiden, 1965), 30–49, and U. Knoche, Die Römischse Satire (Göttingen, 19713), 11–20.
2 Sec chapter 1, n. 28.
3 Quint. 10,1,93 and 95.
4 Pacuvius lived until c. 130 B.C. (see Schanz-Hosius I4, 100).
5 On Rudiae see Strabo 6,3,3; Cic. de Or. 3,168; on Ennius and Calabria Hor. C. 4,8,20. On the year of his birth Gell. 17,21,43 (quoting Varro de poetis), Cic. Brut. 72, Schanz-Hosius I4 87. On the historical background Leo, Gesch. 154 and Scullard, Hist. Rom. World 753–146 B.C., 124 and 159ff.
6 Serv. on Aen. 7,691; Sil. It. 12,393ff.; Suda s.v. ‘’Έννιος’; Leo, Gesch. 150ff.
7 On the Iapygian and Messapian allies of Rome see Polybius 2,24,11 and Walbank a.l., and Leo, Gesch. 155. On Cato’s quaestorship see Nepos, Cato 1,4 and Scullard 111 n. 4.
8 For Ennius’ rank and a fictitious account of his prowess (Sil. It. I2,393ff.) see Leo 151 n. 1; and for a sceptical examination of the tradition concerning Ennius’ army career and his meeting Cato see E. Badian, Entr. Fond. Hardt 17 (1972), 155–63.
9 Suet. Gramm. 1. Cic. Sen. 14. Leo, Gesch. 157 n. 2. The Aventine was the quarter for craftsmen and merchants (Badian 168).
10 Cic. Tusc. 1,3; Scullard 184; on Fulvius Nobilior’s imperium M.R.R. I, 360 and 366.
11 Cic. Brut. 79; on the colonies see Scullard 167ff. However, Cicero’s testimony that Nobilior’s son was Ennius’ benefactor has been discredited by Badian, op. cit. (n. 8) 183–8.
12 Sat. 64 V; Hoar. Epp. 1,19,7.
13 On the date of Ennius’ death see Cic. Brut. 78 and Scullard 223 n. 2; on the cause Jerome on 1849 = 168 B.C. (Jerome gives 168 B.C. wrongly).
14 Gell. 17,17,1 on Ennius’ tria corda. On Messapian influences see Leo 153 and F. Skutsch, R.E. s.v. ‘Ennius’ 2589, 68. See also O. Skutsch, B.I.C.S. 21 (1974), 75–80.
15 H. Thesleff, Introduction to the Pythagorean writings of the Hellenistic period (Abo, 1961), 97f., who stresses the increasing importance of Sicily.
16 Liv. 27,37,7. Cichorius, Röm. Stud. 7.
17 201 B.C. was probably the year of Naevius’ death Cic. Brut. 60; E. Fraenkel, R.E. Supplbd 6 (1935) s.v. ‘Naevius’, 625. He had been exiled shortly after his release from prison for attacking the Metelli, whose political ally Scipio Africanus was also lampooned (Jerome on 1816 = 201 B.C., Gell. 3,3,15 and 7,8,5). On the circumstances of Naevius’ imprisonment see Momigliano, J.R.S. 32 (1942), 120ff. and Scullard 254. If Scullard’s view is tight, the means used by the Scipionic parry to silence Naevius were unscrupulous as well as drastic.
18 Cic. Arch. 22; de Or. 2,276 (on the identity of Nasica see Badian, op. cit. (n. 8 above) 170ff.; Livy 38,56,4).
19 Ps. Aur. Vict. vir. ill. 52,3. On the rivalry between the Fulvii and the Scipios see Scullard 141ff. On the poet in the retinue see Cic. Tusc. 3,3 and Leo, Gesch. 158.
20 Cic. Ac. 2,51. Galba was praetor in 187 B.C. (M.R.R. I 368); on his political affiliations see Scullard 143 n. 1.
21 Ann. 234–51 from Gell. 12,4,1; O. Skutsch, C.Q. 13 (1963), 94–6 (= Studia Enniana (London, 1968), 92–4) sees here a blend of literary precedent (G.L.P. 111) and personal experience. There are autobiographical references in Ann. e.g. 377.
22 F. Skutsch, R.E. 5,2602,51ff. On the Annals see O. Skutsch, The Annals of Quintus Ennius (London, 1953) = Studia Enniana, 1–17.
23 On the tragedies see Leo, Gesch. 1 87ff. and the edition by H. D. Jocelyn (Cambridge, 1969).
24 For Ennius as disciple of the Muses see Varro, Men. 356 (compare Posidippus, P. Brit. Mus. Inv. 589,10); for his dream see O. Skutsch, op. cit. (n. 22 above), 9f.
25 On this see O. Skutsch, C.Q. 42 (1948), 99 (= Studia Enniana 38f.).
26 Cic. Brut. 78. The tradition (Gell. 17,21,43) that he wrote the 12th book of the Annals when he was sixty-seven years old is rejected by F. Skutsch, R.E. 5,2608.
27 It has been argued that Hedyphagetica is later than 189 B.C.; see O. Skutsch, C.Q. 42 (1948), 99 (= Studia Enniana, 38f.).
28 On the founding of Luna see Liv. 41,13,4; Scullard, 167.
29 Porph. on Hor. Sat. 1,10,46.
30 Don. on Ter. Phorm. 339 (= Sat. 14–19V): e sexto satyrarum Ennii was conjectured by Stephanus on the basis of de sexto salis …. of dett. The Vatican manuscript reads de cen, which might suggest the beginning, of such a title as Laberius’ Centonarius, but any conjectural restoration is problematical. Vahlen and Leo are sceptical about the inclusion of these lines in Ennius’ Saturae.
31 E.g. frg. 65. 64 may safely be assigned to Ennius’ literary procedure on external evidence (see n. 12 above) and to one of the saturae on the grounds that he would have been unlikely to assert in high poetry a necessary connection between drink and poetic composition.
32 See e.g. Cratinus’ self-justification in Πυτíνη, ‘The Bottle’. There is a full discussion of this fragment by Waszink, op. cit. (n. l above) 113–19.
33 In a fragment of dubious attestation (n. 30 above) a parasite exults in his brief and carefree eagerness for food (14–19). The parasite’s apologia is found throughout the tradition of Greek comedy and also in Roman adaptation. For the parasite in Epicharmus see 349ff. C.G.F. (Kaibel) and Pickard-Cambridge rev. Webster, Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy (Oxford, 19622), 273f., in New Comedy Webster, Studies in Later Greek Comedy (Manchester, 1970 2), 5f. and in Rome, Duckworth, The Nature of Roman Comedy (Princeton, 1952), 265ff.
34 Scen. 234–41, on which see O. Skutsch, Rh.M. 96 (1953), 193–201. There is a similar word play in Philemon C.A.F. (Kock) frg. 23. There is artifice in such verbal jingles but nothing in the variegated fragments that is firmly to be associated with the high style. There is likewise variety in the metrical forms used (cf. ch. 1, n. 28), for the fable of the lark the so-called versus quadratus, trochaic septenarii, such as were used in both drama and popular songs; cf. Gell. 2,29,20 and E. Fraenkel, Hermes 62 (1927), 357–70 (= Kl. Beitr. II 11–24). Other fragments are in hexameters, iambic metres and (59–62) Sotadeans; on 59–62, which cannot be the accentual Saturnian metre, as in Warmington (R.O.L. I, 393), see Vahlen ccxi.
35 5. On the servus currens see e.g. Plaut. Curc. 280ff. and Men. Dysk. 81ff.
36 Cic. N.D. 2,101; cf. Zeno, S.V.F. I 115. Similar words in Ennius’ Euhemerus describe the man Jupiter gazing up at the sky (var. 100). Astronomical passages are common in the tragedies, e.g. Iph. 215–8, 242–4.
37 69; see Cic. ND. 1,97.
38 Mortem ac Vitam, quas contendentes in satura tradit Ennius (Quint. 9,2,36). M. L. West, H.S.C.Ph. 73 (1969), 120, offers as parallel a Sumerian debate between Winter and Spring.
39 The personification of Death alone is found in Eur. Alc. 28ff. and Ennius scen. 245. Epicharmus’ titles include Land and Sea (23–32 Kaibel) and Hope or Wealth (34–40 Kaibel).
40 Ar. Nub. 889–1104 and Dover’s commentary. Xen. Mem. 2,1,21–34 (= DKV II 313ff.); W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy III (Cambridge, 1969), 277f.
41 Novius frg 63 Frassinetti (= 63R3) from Nonius 768 L.
42 Sat. 65; Hdt. 1,141.
43 Sat. 21–58 (Gell. 2,29,3ff.). Vahlen, ccxii, Ribbeck, Rh.M. 10 (1856), 290ff., Norden, Agn. Th. 379 n. 2.
44 Call. Iamb. 4. Contrast also Ennius’ simplicity with the satirical reference in Callimachus’ fable in Iamb. 2 based on Aesop 383 Halm (see Dieg., an ancient commentary on Callimachus, 6,30f.). For Plato see e.g. Phaedr. 237B.
45 A. E. Housman, C.R. 48 (1934), 50f. (= Coll. Papers III, 1232–3); O. Skutsch, C.Q. 38 (1944), 85f. (= Studia Enniana, 25ff.). See Cic. Acad. 2,51
for Ennius’ walk with Sulpicius Galba.
46 For a history and a refutation of the view that all the minor poems were included among the saturae, see Waszink, op. cit. (n. l above) 106f. The miscellaneous poems are grouped together by Vahlen under varia; see Warmington, R.O.L. 1,394ff.
47 That Scip. 8 is similar in language to Sat. 10f. is not good evidence for assuming that they belong to the same poem. The exact genre of Scipio and Ambracia, both of which contain more than one metrical form, is uncertain: F. Skutsch, R.E. 5, 2399, 20.
48 Sotades, notorious for his attack on the incestuous marriage of Ptolemy Philadelphus (Athen. 14,621A), wrote in various genres (Suda); Susemihl I 243ff. For the form of Ennius’ title see F. Skutsch, R.E. 3, 2602, l.
49 Fragments of Archestratus are preserved by Athenaeus (3,92D; 7,300D; 3I8F; 320A). The possibly broken quotation by Apuleius, Apol. 39 suggests that Ennius adapted freely; see F. Skutsch R.E. 5, 2602, 30, and further E. Fraenkel, Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes (Rome, 1962), 123ff. on stylization in Ennius’ translations. The comment by Apuleius that Ennius’ discussion of fish could not be faulted by connoisseurs suggests that the subject was treated neither flippantly nor, as an attack on extravagance, censoriously.
50 On Call. and Ennius’ Annals see O. Skutsch, op. cit. (n. 25 above) 8ff.; on Callimachus’, πολυεíδεια (multiplicity of forms) and criticisms of it Iamb. 13, where he refers to Ion of Chios as a precedent (Dieg. 9,32–8). The artificial style seems to belie the programmatic profession (frg 112, 4ff.) of seeking a πεζòν νομóν (mundane pasturage), and has with justification been called eine dichterische Umgangssprache by Page, Entr. Fond. Hardt 10 (1964), 249. Iamb. 4,13 was an example of disingenuous disclaimer (στεïσμóς) according to Trypho πεì τóπων 24, Rhet. Gr. 3,206,15 Sp., and Iamb. 5 of λληγοíα (Rhet. Gr. 3,245,6 Sp.).
51 The Greek commentaries of the 1st C. A.D. were no doubt the successors of an older tradition of exegesis: see R. Pfeiffer, Callimachus II (Oxford, 1953), xxviii and cii and also Susemihl I 369f. The influence of Callimachus’ Iambi on Ennius’ saturae is overestimated by Deubner, Rh.M. 96 (1953), 289ff.
52 Gell. 18,5,11. On the whole process of the transmission and Nachleben of Ennius see Vahlen’s full treatment, xxiv–cxxxi.
53 saturarum scriptor, cuius sunt electae ex Ennio Lucilio Varrone saturae: Porph. on Hor. Epp. 1,3,1; F. Skutsch, R.E. 5,2616,62.
54 See Sen. Epp. 58,5 for a characteristically unfavourable judgement; for enthusiasm, Fronto 4,2 (61N); Gell. 13,20,1; cf. 18,9,5; 18,5,11. Vahlen lxxxiiiff.
55 Vahlen lxxxix; W. M. Lindsay, Nonius Marcellus’ Dictionary of Republican Latin, (Oxford, 1901), 5. On the ancient transmission of archaic Roman poetry see H. D. Jocelyn, The Tragedies of Ennius, 54ff.
56 Stylistic uncouthness is a matter of degree: to Ennius Naevius was a crude old-timer (Cic. Brut. 76).
ROMAN SATIRISTS AND LITERARY CRITICISM
W. S. Anderson
On April 9, 1778, Boswell dined with Samuel Johnson at the home of Sir Joshua Reynolds, in the august company of such people as Bishop Shipley, the painter Allan Ramsay, and Edward Gibbon. With Johnson present, it was inevitable that any dinner would develop into a symposium and that the conversation would range over the widest spaces. On this occasion, the diners began to discuss Horace. I now quote Boswell: “The Bishop said, it appeared from Horace’s writings that he was a cheerful contented man. Johnson: ‘We have no reason to believe that, my Lord. Are we to think Pope was happy, because he says so in his writings? We see in his writings what he wished the state of his mind to appear.’”
Johnson rightly drew a distinction between the poet’s state of mind and the attitude which he chose to present in the first person in any particular personal poem. Moreover, he chose for analogy Alexander Pope, that misshapen genius, whose body would seem to be the archetype for that of the so-called twisted satirist imagined by the romantic mind, whose poems, however, run the gamut of attitudes from Horatian wit to Juvenalian indignation. This kind of distinction, which is reflected today in the critical terminology adopted by students of English literature especially, in the much-used word persona, has unfortunately not percolated down to many readers of classical literature. One of the most patient sufferers from our ignorance is Roman poetic satire. Too many, it seems to me, ignore the fact that Lucilius, Horace, Persius, and Juvenal were poets first and foremost.
From the first satires written by Lucilius, it was conventional for the persona to disclaim poetic ability, especially in contrast to the writers of epic and tragedy, and instead to place his emphasis on the down-to-earth, truthful qualities of his material. Let us see how these ideas were expressed in the works of Lucilius, Horace, Persius, and Juvenal, then how expert Latinists have dealt with them.
The voice cries out in Lucilius: “I utter spontaneously whatever comes into my head according to the promptings of my heart, according to the immediate occasion, whether it be my state of health, my passion or anger against my concubine, my partisan political feelings, or what have you. Secondly, I am no poet like Ennius. I dabble at verse for the entertainment of the uncritical. I prefer to call my products plays (ludos) or mere conversation-like prose (sermonem). I can write so freely that I dash off 200 verses an hour, indeed 200 verses after a good dinner.”
A proper critic today might be on his guard against such claims; the average Latinist has not been. The latter seems to use the following reasoning. “These words are spoken by Lucilius and must be sincere confessions on his part. Now, since he denies to himself poetic ability, we may ignore all poetic considerations that would, of course, be relevant to a talented writer like Vergil, and instead we should concentrate our scholarship on what is after all more reliable factual material: namely, what the Satires of Lucilius tell us about his biography, the social practices and historical situation of his day.” As a result of such reasoning much excellent matter has been deduced from the Satires, matter, however, that is peripheral to the purposes of the poet; and, on the other hand, many mistakes have been committed by those who pursue a biography of Lucilius in the behavior of the persona.
Thus, the scholarship on Lucilius is remarkably unbalanced. On the one hand, there are elaborate analyses of his political thought and his place in the party politics of the Second Century B.C. On the other, scholars have permitted the most uninformed generalizations on literary matters to escape their lips, as, for example, that Lucilius is prosaic in all but meter or that his poetry is formless. When they compound their error by making guesses about the poet from the words spoken by the persona in a specially designed dramatic context, they radically distort the true proportions of Lucilius’s poetry. Lucilius is a libertine, says one eminent Italian, because his Satires talk so much about affairs with prostitutes. Lucilius exhibits the mentality of an old soldier, says another scholar, because he again and again discusses military matters. In the midst of this, nobody cares to grapple with the problem of the poetic purpose of satire. It does not seem to cross the mind of serious scholars that, had Lucilius desired merely to express the socio-political ideas that interest modern critics, then he would have done so quite frankly in prose. Instead of identifying the persona with Lucilius, we should be studying the processes by which this persona is effectively created and the novelty that the poet achieved in producing the first extensive personal verse in Latin literature. The question to ask is not: What can we learn about the biography of Lucilius? The question to ask is: What does this speaker, this persona, with his wild invective, his frank eroticism, his witty anecdotes, and his serious moral judgments, accomplish for the poem? It is no accident, therefore, that some recent studies in Germany and Italy have demonstrated that, far from being a clumsy versifier, Lucilius was a sophisticated poet, closer to the polished Alexandrians than many a contemporary writer.
When we proceed to Horace, we find him deploying the same conventional argument in the mouth of his persona. “I have a compulsion,” says that character, “to speak out, to t
ell the truth with a smile (ridentem dicere verum), at least in the intimate company of my confidential friends. On the other hand, I lack the talent to produce genuine poetry, epic or tragedy, so I play at this (haec ego ludo).” If all things were equal, we should expect critics to treat Horace in the same cavalier fashion which has marked their handling of Lucilius. Fortunately, a number of new factors introduce differences that avert the worst errors of Lucilian analysis. In the first place, a good biography of Horace has come down to us from Suetonius and rendered otiose much biographical conjecture. Second, Horace’s Satires survive complete, whereas Lucilius’s poems are entirely fragmentary and so seem to encourage extravagant hypotheses and reconstructions. Finally, there are other quite different poems of the same poet, iambic vituperation, lyrics of the most diverse tones, and literary epistles, to warn us that Horace could don almost any mask at will, in order to show us, as Johnson long ago noted, the attitude which he chose to manifest. I do not think that anyone has actually said it, but the fact is, that Horace’s persona as satirist acts a great deal older and more serious morally than his persona as lyric lover, drinker, and advocate of carpe diem; and yet the external evidence unanimously proves that he wrote and published the Satires ten or more years before the lyric Odes!
I should say, then, that Horace is the most adequately appreciated verse satirist of Rome. Not that a few critics do not pursue the old will-o-the-wisps. Did Horace really take that trip to Brundisium? Did he really have that conversation with the bore? On the whole, though, knowing that Horace boasts a great reputation in lyric, they somewhat mystifiedly accept the fact that his Satires are poetry and talk very learnedly of his superiority to Lucilius. If here and there an incautious word escapes them and they call the contents of Serm.1.5 (the trip to Brundisium) a versified diary and make of Serm. 1.7 a rather unnecessary anecdote, they nevertheless will fight anyone who denies Horace’s rank as a poet. Almost no one would follow that misbegotten Crocean, Durand, who recently argued that, because not only the Satires but the Odes were earthbound, devoid of soaring lyric sentiments, Horace must not be called a “poet” at all—no one, that is, except the distinguished Italian academy that awarded one of its most coveted prizes to Durand. But despite such absurdities in Horace’s homeland, Horace can defend himself. His successors are in a far worse plight.
Latin Verse Satire Page 49