There is something highly elusive in Horace’s accounts of his genre – a lack of explicit comment, and a tendency to deceive the reader with ironic and elliptical half-truth: this is poetry, not methodical literary theory.11 But amidst the subtleties and evasions two salient elements emerge – treatment of the satirist’s moral mission to society, and of matters appertaining to style. However we find no prolonged correspondence or parallelism, owing, no doubt, to the special nature of Horace’s concerns. Unlike Persius, he is not motivated to criticise literature which is downright corrupt: consequently there is no question of relating literary decadence to the prevalent morality. His stylistic pre-occupation is with the manner of satire and the position of Lucilius. The fautores Lucili,12 ignorant of true Callimachean ideals, must be defeated, in a battle fought with their own metaphors. By calling Lucilius’ verse careless and muddy, Horace worsts his opponents in the terms of their own professions.13 But Lucilius the inventor must survive for reinterpretation in the work of his only legitimate successor. Absorbed in this precarious task, Horace never had occasion to correlate style with the vices and follies which, as moralist, he felt moved to expose. But even though Lucilius’ morals had to be preserved intact, he might have cast aspersions, pertinent to their peculiar stylistic aberrations, on the characters of his own literary opponents: for example, Crispinus and Fannius, Sat. I. 4.14 f., 21–2, might have been indicted as criminals, to give a double edge to his criticisms. Likewise, the epithets turgidus and pulcher, used respectively of the bloated epicist Furius and the precious Hermogenes at Sat. I. 10.17 and 36, might have become full-scale evocations of gluttony and effeminacy. But as they stand, they are only the merest insinuation of the possibility that there may be some flaw in their characters. There is just conceivably a moral note at Sat. I. 10.60–1, amet scripsisse ducentos / ante cibum versus, totidem cenatus, where Horace directs attention to the dinner perhaps in order to condemn Lucilius’ prolixity by association with the insensitive process of eating. In this case we would have an instance of the alimentary metaphor. But Lucilius composes before eating as well as after; and at Sat. II. 1.73–4 his food is the modestly respectable vegetable, which would hardly lead to an ‘undigested’ style. Of course there is the possibility that these times of day were particularly suitable for literary composition, in which case cibus would not in itself be especially significant. Apart from one occasion when he seems to be voicing moral objections to the epic – and these objections are rather playful14 – the only time we see any kind of liaison between vita and oratio is during his treatment of the style appropriate to the satirist’s βíος, or persona. And here he is very allusive: Sat. I. 4.13 f., haec ego mecum / compressis agito labris; ubi quid datur oti, / illudo chartis, implies that his virtuous self-questioning leaves a desirable mark on his style; again, II. 1.73–4, nugari cum illo et discincti ludere, donec / decoqueretur holus, soliti (if indeed the allusion is to composition), perhaps suggests that the virtues of vegetarianism are carried over into style. Finally, at II. 6.1 ff., the satirist’s modest Callimachean professions are matched by similarly modest social and economic ambitions: modus agri non ita magnus.15
The method of Persius is distinctive, independent of anything in the literary-critical or programmatic satires of Horace. The types of metaphor deployed were not original creations; literary theory explains their pedigree. But what does appear to be original is the way in which he consistently accommodated these metaphors to moralistic ends.
Excursus
Literature as a revelation of life
M. Puelma Piwonka, Lucilius und Kallimachos,16 and M. H. Abrams, The Mirror and the Lamp,17 have discussed ancient and modern manifestations of the fundamental concept behind Seneca’s one hundred and fourteenth letter and Persius’ first satire. Plato presents us with a version of the idea that literature reflects life at Rep. III. 11, 400 d: Taken over by New Comedy – Menander, fr. 143 K, and Terence, Heaut. 384, nam mihi quale ingenium haberes fuit indicio oratio: pointers to some form of characterisation through style, albeit at a typical level – the concept is transmitted to Cicero, who writes of the Gracchan orator Q. Aelius Tubero, Brut. 117, sed ut vita sic oratione durus incultus horridus, expressing the analogy in more formulaic form at T.D. V. 47, qualis … ipse homo esset talem esse eius orationem, and recoursing to the personal level at Rep. II. I, of the elder Cato, orationi vita admodum congruens. Other biographical instances of the idea appear at, e.g., Plut. Dem. et Cic. 1 and Cat. Mai. 7, while Juv. IV. 82 employs it in a sinister fashion: cuius erant mores qualis facundia.
Returning to the theorists we find Demetrius de Eloc. 114, and several Senecan variations on the subject: Ep. XL. 6, quid de eorum animo iudicet quorum oratio perturbata et immissa est nec potest reprimi; XL. 2, pronuntiatio sicut vita debet esse composita; LXXV. 4, haec sit propositi nostri summa: quod sentimus loquamur, quod loquimur sentiamus: concordet sermo cum vita; CVII. 12, sic vivamus sic loquamur; CXV. 2, cuiuscumque orationem videris sollicitam et politam, scito animum quoque non minus esse pusillis occupatam. A close parallel to the wording of the hundred and fourteenth letter – talis hominibus fuit oratio qualis vita – is found at Aristides Or. 45, vol. II. 133 Dind., οoς τóπος τοιοτον εναι τòν λóγον, a later instance of the formula advanced at Quint. XI. 1.30, profert enim mores oratio et animi secreta detegit. nec sine causa Graeci prodiderunt, ut vivat, quemque etiam dicere.18 From the written or spoken word we can come to large conclusions about character. Exterior mirrors interior. Similarly, clothes can signify a mental state,19 as the face reveals thoughts.20
But in the defence of epigram or elegy, literature ceases to reflect life: e.g. Cat. XVI. 5–6, Ov. Tr. II. 353–60, Mart. I. 4.8,21 Plin. Ep. VII. 9 (cf. Mart. VIII, praef.), Apul. Apol. 11, Auson. Eidyll. 360 f. The poet’s reputation stands intact, his compositions dissociated from personal life, and therefore no evidence against him. Strato’s disclaimer of sincerity, Anth. Pal. XII. 258, warns future generations against finding autobiography in his poetry. Allied to this convention is Callim. Aet. praef. 21 ff.,
Implied here, and in its Latin counterparts, Virg. Ecl. VI. 1–5 (pingues … oves, / deductum … carmen), and Hor. Sat. II. 6.14–15 (pingue pecus domino facias et cetera praeter / ingenium), is a denial of the principle of reflection: letters and life must be kept far apart. Literary style is one thing, modus vivendi quite another. Callimachus’ humorous rejection of the rule of correspondence indicates its commonplace status: Virgilian and Horatian reminiscence show that it had become nationalised – and a little banal.
In Lucilius, mainly in the first satire, we catch an occasional glimpse of what seem to be correlations between literature and life: e.g. 84–5 M, quam lepide lexis conpostae ut tesserulae omnes / arte pavimento atque emblemate vermiculato, where pedantic style is associated with a complicated mosaic.22 Similarly, at 15–16, ‘porro “clinopodas” “lychnos” – que ut diximus semnos / anti “pedes lecti” atque “lucernas”’, the pretensions of a ponderous style are criticised not only by the formal ridicule of the Graecisms, but also perhaps by the luxurious connotations of clinopodas lychnosque. The demand for simple Latinitas may contain another demand – for directness in our ethical outlook. Other possible examples of parallelism are 12, praetextae ac tunicae Lydorum opus sordidulum omne; 13, psilae atque amphitaphi villis ingentibus molles; and 17, chirodyti aurati, ricae, toracia, mitrae, where allusion to luxuriant oriental dress and appurtenances may extend to criticism of Asianic bombast.
Notes
1 ‘The Satirist’s Apologia’, Univ. Wisconsin Stud. Lang. Lit. XV (1922), 148 ff., esp. 163.
2 PCPhS ns VIII (1962), 36.
3 Cf. W. S. Anderson, quoted below.
4 ‘Lucilius, the Ars Poetica of Horace, and Persius’, HSCPh XXIV (1913), 19–20.
5 The ‘debasement’ extends past line 21.
6 Op. cit. p. 159 n. 13, apparently appended as an afterthought. At least, it contradicts his option (p. 148) for a predominantly literary-c
ritical theme: ‘The greater part of Persius’ satire is devoted to discussion of literary ideals and to detailed literary criticism; and Juvenal’s satire is mainly a succession of vivid sketches of contemporary follies.’ The antithesis is misleading.
7 The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library XLIV (1961–2), 163; cf. G. L. Hendrickson, CPh XXIII (1928), 99–112, observing that vice explains incompetence of taste.
8 Op. cit. p. 36. Contrast W. C. Korfmacher, CJ XXVIII (1932–3), 276 ff., and A. Cartault, RPh ns XLV (1921), 66 ff., who wrongly interpret the poem only as a criticism of literature.
9 It must be admitted that in the Roman context ‘satire’ and ‘satirist’ do not invariably have predominantly moral connotations. Satura included many types of composition (including literary-critical pieces), but its most pronounced tendency was towards the moral: hence I allow myself the antithesis ‘literary critic’ and ‘satirist’, though the two are in some ways complementary.
10 Mnem. ser. 4, vol. XIII (1960), 30.
11 For full bibliography, v. C. O. Brink, Horace on Poetry, Prolegomena to the Literary Epistles (Cambridge 1963), and The ‘Ars Poetica’ (1971).
12 V. Suet. Gramm. 2 and 14.
13 On this type of water imagery, v. Wimmel pp. 222 ff., probably commonplace by the time of, e.g., Sen. Contr. IV praef. 11, multa erant quae reprehenderes, multa quae suspiceres, cum torrentis modo magnus quidem, sed turbidus flueret.
14 V. Sat. II. 1.7 ff., Trebatius’ recommended cures for Horace’s sleeplessness. A swim, or a bottle of wine, will produce deep sleep: if he must write, why not compose epic? Ideas of mental sluggishness (somno … alto) and drunkenness (irriguum … mero … corpus: cf. irriguo … somno at Pers. V. 56, meaning ‘drunken sleep’. Lucr. IV. 907 and Virg. Aen. III. 511, sometimes adduced, are not to the point) are related to epic. The association of the three adds up to a Callimachean objection to the unwieldy higher genre. Horace’s sleeplessness could be interpreted as a literary virtue: cf. Callimachus’ tribute to the ‘slender’ Aratus at Epigr. XXIX. 4, Deep sleep could result from the pingue ingenium of the uninitiated; and ‘wine-drinking’ is the pursuit of the careless. Trebatius is implicitly disqualified by his vulgar character from recognising Callimachean bona carmina, his crassness having led him to recommend epic, the genre of the turgidi, the moral status of which suffers by association with wine-drinking and sleep.
15 Cf. Virgil’s incorporation of stylistic professions into the situations of his Eclogues:v. W. V. Clausen, ‘Callimachus and Roman Poetry’, GRBS V (1964), 194–5, on the oblique assertion of Callimachean aims at Ecl. I. 2 and VI. 8 with the adjective tenuis, to which add X. 70–I, where gracilis transforms the weaving of the basket into a symbol for ‘slender’ composition (Serv. ad loc., ‘allegoricos … tenuissimo stilo’; cf. T. E. V. Pearce, CQ ns XX (1970), 336 on the rarity of gracilis as a critical term), so creating ring composition with tenuis avena of l. 2.
16 Frankfurt 1947, pp. 28 ff., ‘Die Einheit der Kriterien fur die Formen des Sprachund Lebensstils’.
17 Oxford 1953, ch. ix, ‘Literature as a revelation of personality’.
18 Some of the above are cited by Summers on Sen. Ep. CXLV. 1. I thank Dr A. J. Woodman for the references to Plutarch.
19 Cf. Quint. VIII pr. 20.
20 V. R. G. M. Nisbet on Cic. in Pisonem I. 20, voltus denique totus, qui sermo quidam tacitus mentis est, with references.
21 But Mart. VII. 84 is a counter-example: epigram reflects life, like a picture.
22 A symbol of luxury: cf. pavimentum tesselatum in Fabianus ap. Sen. Contr. II. 1.12, and lacunaria pavimentorum at Sen. Ep. CXIV. 9; perhaps also Hor. Carm. II. 14.27, and Cic. Phil. II. 41, natabant pavimenta, madebant parietes.
INVECTIVE AGAINST WOMEN IN ROMAN SATIRE
Amy Richlin
Nescis … quantum saturam matronae formident.
Fulgentius, Mythologiarum
Discussion of the nature of invective against women in Roman satire begins here from two axioms: that Western published literature has largely been written by and for the benefit of men; and that (perhaps, therefore) much of Western literature concerns tensions between levels in social hierarchies. Satire is a genre intrinsically concerned with power; the satirist writes against those who oppress him or those whom he feels he ought to be able to oppress, depicting himself worsted by plutocrat, general, or noble, or sneering at out-groups (foreigners, “pathic” homosexuals, women, freedmen, and so on). By expressing his hostility, the satirist asserts his own power, and makes himself and his like-minded audience feel better. At the same time, the performance of the satire reinforces the desired social norms. For Roman satire, as for the satire of many other cultures, the satirist himself is a “normal” male.
Satire often attacks by means of a stereotype, and it is too often assumed that such stereotypes constitute exaggerated but basically realistic versions of their prototypes.1 This assumption directs attention toward the chimerical figures of the victims of satire and away from the one set of people for whom the stereotypes constitute evidence – the “normal” males themselves. For any stereotype surely must encode a statement about the writer’s and audience’s feelings about the real people satirized; invective against women can best be understood as the concrete manifestation of a societal notion of women. The hugely exaggerated and emphasized features in the stereotype tell us nothing (directly) about Roman women, but plenty about the fears and preoccupations of Roman society with regard to women, as enunciated by male satirists.
The body of ancient literature that contains invective against women, or comic stereotypes of women, is enormous; in Latin, a list of only the most notable sources would include the comedies of Plautus and Terence, some of Catullus, Horace Epod. 8 and 12 and S. 1.2, Ovid Ars Amatoria, Petronius Satyricon, the carmina Priapea, Martial, Juvenal 6, and Apuleius Metamorphoses, especially Book 9. The purpose of the present study is only to bring forward the most striking and idiosyncratic features of Roman invective against women, and so no chronological examination of the sources will be made. It is enough to note here that their picture of women is entirely consistent, and shares many features with the Greek comic stereotype of women. But while a great number of the particulars of the Roman stereotype are traditional2 and conventional,3 the prominent and large space allotted to misogynistic invective in Latin literature and the freedom and variety of the use of stock motifs suggest that the material is not just there pro forma. In addition, misogynistic invective is the same at all levels, from graffiti to formal verse satire. If a genre of literature can be viewed as anthropological artifact, the nature of Roman invective against women has clear implications for the function of Roman satire within Roman society.4
To begin with, the Roman satiric stereotype of women can be broken down into three gross categories: young women (attractive), young women (repulsive), and old women (repulsive). This definition depends entirely on sexual and physical qualities. Social status – married, unmarried, or divorced; slave, freed, or freeborn; prostitute or not – often plays a part, but the frequent lack of specification of such status is only too well-known a problem.5 Status is clearly only an incidental feature.
Satire depicts some women as attractive, some as repulsive. In all cases the poet, a male narrator, defines what attracts and what repels. Attractive women – young wives and mistresses – are typified as promiscuous6 and drunken,7 sometimes as jealous8 or mercenary.9 This stereotype reflects the same concerns evinced by the Roman laws on marriage, divorce, and adultery, especially the early law, which placed wine-bibbing on a level with adultery as cause for divorce.10 The obsession with adulterous behavior in wives can easily be understood in an ancestor-worshiping society; the reasons for the assimilation of adultery with drunkenness are less obvious.11 Though drunkenness is occasionally connected with promiscuity (Juv. 6.300–345), it can stand alone to typify misbehavior by a woman – she makes a spectacle of herself at a dinner party (Juv. 6.425–33). The early sources indicate that the hu
sband and agnates wished to prevent (or detect) secret drinking. The situation must stem from the structure of the early Roman household, in which the husband would often be away from the house and the wife would be left in control of it; ideal behavior is manifested by Lucretia, who spins late into the night with her maids while her misbehaving counterparts spend the evening drinking and carousing (in convivio luxuque, Livy 1.57.9), like men. Both sets of women are available for discovery; a wife’s behavior then is always potentially a source of help or detriment to her husband’s dignitas. The attractive woman must be safely incorporated into her husband’s persona.
Repulsive women populate the pages of satire: why? The poet and audience must be taking pleasure in examining them and proclaiming their disgust. One whole class of such women differ from the attractive ones only in their physical form; they are would-be wives and mistresses, promiscuous and drunken like the rest, but depicted by the writer as so hideously ugly that he must refuse them when they pursue him.12 The other class of repulsive women are old; their age and decrepitude are enormously exaggerated, they too like to drink, and, though they often offer the narrator money or a large dowry to marry or service them, he usually resists, with loathing.13 The interest of Roman satire in graphic descriptions of this repulsive stereotype seems much more difficult to understand than the interest in the attractive stereotype; the reasons for it may perhaps be sought in the peculiar features of Roman invective against women.
Latin Verse Satire Page 51