SA´TIRA
SA´TIRA or
SA´TURA. The
word, it would appear, originally meant a mixture or medley. Varro, quoted
by Diomedes, p. 486 (Keil), defined
satura as a
dish or compound of various ingredients: “satura est uva passa et
polenta et nuclei pinei mulso conspersi; farcimen . . . multis rebus
refertum saturam dicit Varro vocitatum.” Festus, p. 314 (Muller),
and Isidore,
Orig. 20.2, 8, say much the same thing. The
phrase
per saturam thus meant
“promiscuously,”
“without distinction,”
“in no definite order:” thus Lactantius says
(
Inst. 1.21, 13), “Pescennius Festus in libris
historiarum per saturam refert,” ( “he says, among a number
of other things, that,” &c.); Charisius, p. 194 (Keil),
“adverbium . . . omnia in se capit quasi collata per
saturam” ( “the adverb contains everything in a miscellaneous
collection” ). As a technical term of law,
per
saturam or
in saturam denoted a
bill the various provisions of which were proposed and voted on, not
separately, but in a lump. Thus at the close of a
lex the words were added, “neve per saturam abrogato aut
[p. 2.598]derogato” (Festus, p. 314); Fronto
says (p. 212, Naber), “non sparsa nec sine discrimine aggerata, ut
quae per saturam feruntur.” As applied to voting,
per saturam seems to have meant
“promiscuously;” in other words, that the voting was taken
not individually, but by show of hands, acclamation, or some other rough and
ready method. C. Laelius, quoted by Festus, p. 314, says, “quasi per
saturam sententiis exquisitis.” A number of other passages might
be quoted to the same effect.
In literature,
satura perhaps meant
satura fabula, a story or piece of writing of
miscellaneous contents. If we may trust Livy, who is probably merely
reproducing and abridging information derived from some older authority, the
word was originally applied to a rude form of drama (perhaps merely a scene)
without a plot, which dealt with a miscellaneous variety of subjects. When
Livy describes the origin of dramatic performances at Rome (7.2, 4), he
seems here to have meant by
satura a simple
scene without a plot, acted at first without, but afterwards (under Etruscan
influence) with, a regular musical accompaniment and corresponding gestures.
This scene or dialogue with musical accompaniment never developed into a
play with a regular plot. Livius Andronicus was the first artist who gave up
saturae, and, under Greek influence,
introduced a regular drama: “ab saturis ausus est argumento fabulam
serere.”
The
fabula, or regular play, drove the
satura from the sphere of acted drama, and the word
was then applied to a literary composition not written for acting, dealing
with a miscellaneous variety of subjects or characters, and composed
sometimes in prose and verse, sometimes in verse only, but verse in a
variety of metres. (Diomedes, p. 485, “olim carmen quod ex variis
poematibus constabat satura vocabatur, quale scripserunt Pacuvius et
Ennius;” cf. Isid.
Orig. 5.16, 1, “saturas
scribere est poemata varia condere.” )
History of the literary Satura.--Ennius (born 239 B.C.) is
mentioned by Horace as the founder of this form of composition (
Sat. 1.10, 66, “rudis et Graecis intacti
carminis auctor” ). He wrote several books of
saturae. Six are mentioned by the ancient grammarians, but in
all probability there were more, as some are quoted not by their numbers but
by their titles. Of the subjects of the first and second books nothing is
known; of the fragments of the second, one is written in trochaic, the other
in hexameter verse. The third book, entitled
Scipio, may have been dedicated to the achievements of the
younger Africanus. Some fragments of it remain, written in hexameters,
iambics, and trochaics. The titles and fragments of some of the other
saturae may give some clue to their
contents. The
Hedyphagetica must have treated of gastronomy;
the
Epicharmus and
Euhemerus of philosophy and mythology. Aulus Gellius (
Noctes Atticae, 2.29, 3) preserves a notice that
Ennius, in one of his
saturae, versified, with
great success, the fable of the lark and its young ones; but in which book
he did this is unknown. Scanty as they are, these fragments clearly show
what the
satura was in the hands of Ennius. It
was a literary conversation composed in various metres, the epic hexameter
as well as the ordinary metres of the comic drama--whether with an admixture
of prose, we do not know. Its subjects might be serious or otherwise,
according to the author's fancy. It was, in short, a talk with cultivated
society at Rome on the topics of the hour. Pacuvius (about 220-132 B.C.)
wrote
saturae of which nothing remains, and we
therefore pass on to the author whose name was inseparably associated with
this form of composition, and who was generally accounted, in Latin
antiquity, its greatest master. Lucilius (180 or 167-103 B.C.) appears to
have devoted himself exclusively to the
satura.
He wrote at least thirty books of
saturae, each
of which, probably, contained several pieces. Of these books the first seems
to have been written in hexameters, the rest partly in hexameters or
elegiacs, partly in iambics or trochaics. Thus, in external form, the
satura of Lucilius did not differ much, if
at all, from that of Ennius. It was still a brief narrative or picture of
life, with an element of dialogue. So much is clear, if only from the
remains of the third book, from which Horace copies his
Journey from
Rome to Brundisium; from the scene in the fourth book between
Aeserninus and Pacideianus, the rustic supper in the fifth book, and the
convivial scenes of the fourteenth and twentieth. The range of his subjects
is a very wide one: philosophy, philology, literary criticism, war,
contemporary life in all its phases--all find a place in his
saturae. But an important point of difference must
be noticed between Lucilius and his predecessors, which had not escaped the
notice of the ancients. Diomedes (p. 485) speaks of the
satira which was “carmen maledicum et ad carpenda hominum
vitia archaeae comoediae charactere compositum, quale scripserunt
Lucilius et Horatius et Persius.” Lucilius was the first writer
who impressed on the
satura the character of
invective which it to a great extent preserved in the hands of Albucius (
“cuius Luciliano charactere sunt libelli,” as Varro says,
L. L. 3.2, 17), Horace, Persius, and Juvenal. With
Lucilius the
satura underwent a new Greek
influence, that of the Old Attic Comedy, and became the instrument not only
of personal reflection or advice or expostulation, but also of personal
attack. The reason of this must be sought, no doubt, partly in the character
of Lucilius himself, partly in the circumstances of his age. The period of
corruption among the ruling classes at Rome had begun, and was to continue
until the end of the Republic. There was plenty of room for a preacher or a
satirist or a comedian; but Roman feeling would not allow the stage to be
used for political attack, and the Roman Aristophanes was driven back to his
ink and paper.
The remains of Lucilius's
saturae, whatever else
they bear witness to, attest beyond doubt an extraordinary vigour, which
breathes in almost every surviving line. This was, probably, the main source
of his popularity, which never waned so long as Latin literature was alive.
Even in the time of Tacitus (
Dial. de Orat. 23) there were
readers who preferred him to Horace. He makes strong protestations of
sincerity, nor does there seem any reason to doubt that he was sincere.
Horace, in the fourth and tenth satires of his first book, finds
[p. 2.599]fault with his style as slovenly and careless. But
this defect was either not discovered or was passed over, not only by Cicero
and Varro, but by Quintilian. To Cicero Lucilius is
doctus and
perurbanus (
de Orat. 1.72); to Varro he was
gracilis, or elegant (Aulus Gellius,
Noctes Atticae, 6.14, 6). Quintilian altogether refuses to
subscribe to the censures passed upon him by Horace (
Inst.
Or. 10.1, 93). Fronto (p. 62, Naber) calls him “elegans in
cuiusque artis ac negotii propriis.” It is probable, then, that
the hastiness and imperfection of his workmanship, which are undeniable,
blinded Horace to his merits.
The original form of
satura was adopted by
Marcus Terentius Varro (116-27 B.C.) in his
saturae
Menippeae, or
saturae in the style of
the Cynic philosopher Menippus. Quintilian (10.1, 95) says, “alterum
illud etiam prius saturae genus, sed non sola carminum varietate mixtum
condidit Terentius Varro;” Probus, on
Verg. Ecl. 6.31, “Varro . . . Menippeus, non a magistro .
. . nominatus, sed a societate ingenii, quod in quoque omnigeno carmine
saturas suas expoliverat.” Of the
saturae there was a very large number, as Quintilian says (
l.c.), “plurimos hic libros (i.e.
saturarum) et doctissimos composuit,
peritissimus linguae Latinae et omnis antiquitatis et rerum Graecarum
nostrarumque.” To judge from the scanty fragments which remain,
Varro's
saturae seem to have been pictures of
life and society, tinged with a dash of common-sense philosophy, and
embracing almost every conceivable point of social, moral, religious, or
literary interest. For the ninety titles which have survived, see the
edition by Riese, or that by Bücheler, at the end of his Petronius.
They give a striking idea of the variety of subjects over which Varro
ranged. These pieces are mixtures of prose and verse. The fragments are very
brief and inadequate, having been in most cases only preserved by
grammarians as giving instances of rare words or forms of words; but, even
so, they give a vivid idea of the immense loss which Latin literature has
sustained in the disappearance of Varro's
saturae.
Between Marcus Varro and Horace comes Publius Varro of Atax, whose works are
lost, but who, according to Horace, attempted something in the same style as
himself, but did not succeed (
Sat. 1.10, 46,
“hoc erat, experto frustra Varrone Atacino Atque quibusdam allis,
melius quod scribere possem” ).
The
satura or
sermo
(for so he calls it) is treated by Horace in a way of his own. He does not
like the rudeness, as he thinks it, of Lucilius; he looks for more polish of
style, more flexibility, more softness of tone, to suit the complexity of
life. But, like Lucilius, he writes in hexameters, though often preserving
the form of a dialogue. This, so far as it goes, is a mistake, for the
hexameter is the metre least of all suited to dialogue. In all other
respects the
satura or
sermo of Horace seems to be true to the sound tradition; it is a
conversation with the age on the topics that interest it.
We now come to the age of Nero, in which the
satura is represented by two writers of a very different
character, Persius (34-62 A.D.) and Petronius (died perhaps 66 A.D.).
Persius is a devoted admirer of Horace, but he has not Horace's geniality or
lightness of hand. Like his master, he attempts to write
saturae in hexameters; but he only succeeds in making his
natural slowness and obscurity of utterance still more conspicuous. His
subjects, too, are exclusively serious: he is not at home out of the region
of philosophy and religion; and he is a young student, ignorant of the
world. Petronius is a man of the world and a writer of genius. His
satura, of which unfortunately only fragments
remain, is constructed in the manner of Varro, and is a narrative of
adventures in a town of Southern Italy, so contrived as to introduce a
number of leading types of character--a poet, a freedman, a ship's captain,
and others. Each character is so conceived, and represented in a manner so
lifelike, as to make Petronius's book something unique of its kind in
classical literature. The
dramatis personae all
speak in appropriate style and idiom. The body of the narrative is in prose,
but it is interspersed with verse, put mainly into the mouth of the poet
Eumolpus, and intended, it is nearly certain, as a parody of Lucan and
Seneca.
In the hands of Juvenal (about 47-130 A.D.) the
satura almost loses its original character; indeed, his satires
might with more propriety be called epistles, as the element of dialogue has
vanished except in. the third and ninth satires. Juvenal. writes in
hexameters of the most conventional form, and treats his themes in the stone
of rhetorical invective. He is entirely dominated by the angry spirit of
Lucilius, and in the monotony of indignation forgets that humour and play of
sympathy were an essential element of the genuine
satura; yet, far as he is removed from Ennius, Varro, and
Petronius, nay even from Horace, his moral force and mastery of his chosen
style are so commanding that he has come to be regarded in literature as the
prince of Roman satirists; and it is no doubt largely owing to his influence
that the words
satire and
satirical have come in English to imply severe, if not illnatured
raillery.
The proper form of the
satura, a mixture of
prose and verse, was adopted in the 4th century by Martianus Capella and in
the 6th by Boetius (died 525 A.D.) in his
de Consolatione
Philosophiae, of which an ancient biography (p. xxxi., Peiper)
says: “Hos libros per saturam edidit, imitatus scilicet Martianum
Capellam, qui prius libros de Nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii eadem
specie poematis conscripserat.”
(See Anton Funck,
Satur und die davon abgeleiteten
Wörter, Kiel, 1888; H. Nettleship,
The
Roman Satura, Oxford, 1878; Leo,
Varro und die
Satire, in the
Hermes, Berlin, 1889.
The author of the latter essay is very sceptical as to the independent value
of the evidence given by Livy and the Latin authorities.)
[
H.N]
