Lat 264: ROMAN VERSE SATIRE: TR 2:35 – 3:50
Dr. Daniel Solomon
daniel.p.solomon@vanderbilt.edu.
Office hours: W, 10-11 a.m., T, 4-5 p.m., or by appointment, in Cohen 303 (tel.: 2-3303).
Required texts:
1) Paul Allen Miller, Latin Verse Satire An Anthology and Critical Reader (Routledge, 2005)
2) Niall Rudd, The Satires of Horace and Persius (Penguin Classics, 2005)
3) Niall Rudd, Juvenal: the Satires (Oxford University Press, 2008)
4) An Intermediate or Advanced Latin-English dictionary.
Objectives: In this course we will ask what satire meant to the ancient Romans, comparing and contrasting with our own
norms of 1) what we expect to find in a satire and 2) what we think is the point of the satire, i.e. what effect the satire is
supposed to have both upon its immediate audience and upon the society it represents. We will read the satirical hexameter
poems of Horace, Persius, and Juvenal, for these are the only extant classical works that Romans themselves would define as
purely “satirical.” Romans recognized these poems as a specific and distinct literary genre, with its own rules, expectations,
and even language. We will then be able to better grasp why Quintilian, the first State Professor of Rhetoric in Imperial Rome,
wrote that all other kinds of Latin literature ultimately derived from the Greeks, but satura quidem tota nostra est, “at least
satire is entirely ours.”
Paradoxically, we will see that at first sight, Roman verse satire is unlike any other work of public Roman literature you have
ever read. Whereas Romans generally prided themselves on their sense of honesty, dignity, and self-control, Roman satirists
always depict themselves as inconsistent, rambling, vulgar – all traits that seem designed to frustrate and annoy a distinctly
Roman audience. While each satirist seems to endorse the traditional, ancestral values of the ruling class, he himself speaks
with the voice of an outsider, who is marginalized from Roman society and unlikely to have much influence with them. Why
is it that conservative Romans, particularly from the aristocratic and intellectual elite, chose to read and compare Horace,
Persius, and Juvenal as it gradually dawned on them that the Republic was being replaced by Empire? Roman verse satire
consistently complicates the relationship between the preachy (and deliberately obnoxious!) author and the squeamish and
rebellious reader; we will examine how those who identified with the aristocratic, intellectual elites of Rome could read these
tensions as representative of their own struggle to come to terms with their own loss of power under the Principate. Sure, most
Romans eventually came to see that emperors were necessary to keep Rome and Her empire intact; but it took many
generations for Romans to say good-bye to what they saw as five hundred years of independence and self-determination – and
many never did. Roman verse satire allows Romans to vent against everyone and everything that represents the New Order –
women, foreigners, society at large – while at the same time they may be implicitly reassuring the present Emperor that they
are not planning an imminent revolution. Indeed, we will ask whether this kind of literature is more of a threat or a support to
the status quo: does Roman satire keep alive the spirit of the Republic by resurrecting tensions that Emperors would rather
sweep under the carpet? Or does it ultimately help the Emperors by encouraging their most prominent opposition to resign
themselves to their fate?
Lesson format: After a brief summary of the previous session's material, a student will often read aloud selections from the
assigned poems. We will then translate, examine noteworthy grammar, and analyze. At home you may consult English
translations for reference purposes, but copying anything more than a few phrases constitutes plagiarism. All translation in
class must be directly from the original text: written cribs are forbidden.
Requirements:
- Participation: this grade indicates primarily the EFFORT you put into this course; it thus reflects the extent to which you
come to class prepared to translate, to comment on assigned modern scholarship, and to contribute (10%).
-THREE short Review quizzes (15 minutes): translation and grammar, but quiz 2 will be a commentary of ten lines taken from
Horace, Sat., 1.9.1-25, in order to prepare you for the First Review Exam (5% each).
- TWO assigned recitations (about ten verses each): these do not have to be memorized, but they must respect pronunciation,
meter, and above all feeling. I will assign these after week 2, and I expect you to meet with me before each (5% combined).
- TWO Review Exams, Feb. 12 and Mar 21: translation, scansion, grammar, commentary (15% each).
- Term project; a first draft or outline is due April 2, the final product is due the last day of class (in both cases, three points
will be docked for each day late, up to a maximum of ten) (20%):
EITHER a Research Paper (10-12 pages; the choice of topic is up to you, but you should confirm it with me beforehand.
You could focus on a poem, a theme, or a comparison; whatever your topic, you must show mastery of our course materials),
OR the composition of a Roman verse satire of your own, in 10 Latin hexameters, consciously adopting the style of Horace,
Persius, or Juvenal, accompanied by a 4-5 page commentary that relates the style and content of your poem to those of your
Roman model.
- Final Exam: translation and grammar of Juvenal, and short essays comparing him to the other two satirists (20%):
Tuesday, April 30, 9 am. An alternate exam will be offered on Wednesday, April 24 at noon.
Grading scale: Points are scored out of a total of 100: the top ten constitute the "A" range, the next ten the "B" range,
and so forth. The letter is accompanied by "+" or "-" if your score falls within the top or bottom 3 points of each
range. Thus, e.g., 87-89= B+ ; 83-86 = B ; 80-82 = B-
1. Tue, Jan 8
Introduction to satire, for us and for them
Thu, Jan 10
Latin: Horace, 1.1.1-25
English: Satire handouts; Gold, pp. 161-68 [skim the rest]
2. Tue, Jan 15
Latin: Horace, 1.1.61-85; 101-121
English: Horace, rest of 1.1; DuFallo
Thu, Jan 17
Latin: Latin: Horace, 1.4.1-13; 103-43
English: Horace, 1.2; 1.3; Leach (skip pp. 621-29)
3. Tue, Jan 22
First Review Quiz
Latin: Horace, 1.5.1-10; 27-49
English: Horace, 1.5.14-26; Reckford (pp. 525-532); Gowers (pp. 54-58)
Thu, Jan 24
Latin: Horace, 1.5.50-104
English: Gowers (pp. 59-61); Reckford (pp. 538-51)
4. Tue, Jan 29
Latin: Horace, 1.6.1-22; 45-64
English: Horace, 1.6.23-44; 65-131; Schlegel
Thu, Jan 31
Second Review Quiz
Latin: Horace, 1.9.1-34
English: Horace, 1.7; 1.8
5. Tue, Feb 5
Latin: Horace, 1.9.35-75; 1.10.1-15
English: Horace, 1.10.16-71; Freudenburg, pp. 63-71
Thu, Feb 7
Latin: Horace, 1.10.72-92
English: DuQuesnay, only pp. 49-62; skim Zetzel
6. Tue, Feb 12
First Review Exam
Thu, Feb 14
Latin: Horace, 2.1.1-19; 56-86
English: Horace, 2.1.20-55; 2.2; Oliensis, pp. 40-46; Muecke
7. Tue, Feb 19
Latin: Horace, 2.6.1-46
English: Horace, 2.3 [skim!]; 2.4; 2.5; 2.6.47-116; Oliensis, pp. 46-54.
Thu, Feb 21
Latin: Horace, 2.8.1-5, 15-53
English: Horace, 2.8.6-14; 2.7; Oliensis, pp. 54-58.
8. Tue, Feb 26
Latin: Horace, 2.8.54-95
English: Caston [skip pp. 243-250]; Oliensis, pp. 58-63.
Thu, Feb 28
Third Review Quiz
Latin: Persius, prologue; 1.1-12
English: Vita handout; Hooley, pp. 87-92
Mar 2-Mar 10
SPRING BREAK!
9. Tue, Mar 12
Latin: Persius, 1.13-62
English: Morford; Seneca handout
Thu, Mar 14
Latin: Persius, 1.63-106
English: Persius, 2, 3, 4; Hooley, pp. 92-111
10. Tue, Mar 19
Latin: Persius, 1.107-34
English: Persius, 5; Reckford
Thu, Mar 21
Second Review Exam
11. Tue, Mar 26
Latin: Juvenal, 1.1-30, 63-80
English: Juvenal, 1.30-62, 69-72; Coffey; Braund_Juv
Thu, Mar 28
Latin: Juvenal, 1.81-126, 147-50, 162-171
English: Juvenal, 1.127-61; 2; Freudenburg, pp. 209-15, 234-48; Braund_Juv_1
12. Tue, Apr 2
First draft due
Latin: Juvenal, 3.21-57
English: Juvenal, 3.1-20; Cloud
Thu, Apr 4
Latin: Juvenal, 3.58-103; 171-183
English: Juvenal, 3.104-170; Braund_Juv_3
13. Tue, Apr 9
Latin: Juvenal, 3.268-301, 315-322
English: Juvenal, 3.184-267, 302-314; 6; Anderson
Thu, Apr 11
Latin: Juvenal, 10.1-14, 114-126; 346-66
English: Juvenal, 10.15-113, 127-345; Fishelov
14. Tue Apr 16
English: Juvenal, 11-16; Keane
Thu, Apr 18
Project due
Recap
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY (*ASTERISKED ITEMS ARE ON OAK OR AVAILABLE ONLINE)
*Anderson, W. S. Essays on Roman Satire. Princeton, 1982.
Bramble, J. Persius and the Programmatic Satire.. Cambridge, 1974.
Braund, S. H. Beyond Anger: A Study of Juvenal's Third Book of Satires. Cambridge, 1988
*--------------- Satire and Society in Ancient Rome. Exeter. 1989
---------------- Roman Verse Satire. Oxford, 1992
---------------- Juvenal: Satires, Book 1, Cambridge. 1996
*Caston, R. R., “The Fall of the Curtain (Horace S. 2.8),” in Transactions of the American Philological Association 127 (1997):
233-256
*Coffey, M. Roman Satire. Cromwell, 1989, 2nd ed.
Connor, P. "The Satires of Persius: A Stretch of the Imagination," in Ramus 16 (1987): 55-77.
*Dufallo, B. “Satis/Satura: Reconsidering the ‘Programmatic Intent’ of Horace, Satires 1.1,” in Classical World 93 (2000): 579-90.
*DuQuesnay, I. M. “Horace and Maecenas: The Propaganda Value of Sermones I,” in Poetry and Politics in the Age of Augustus,
A. J. Woodman and David West (eds.). Cambridge, 1984: 19-58
Edwards, C.. The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge, 1993.
*Fishelov, D. “The Vanity of the Reader’s Wishes: Reading Juvenal’s Satire 10,” in American Journal of Philology 111 (1990):
370–82.
*Freudenburg, K. --------------- Satires of Rome: Threatening Poses from Lucilius to Juvenal. Cambridge, 2001.
*---------------, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Roman Satire, Cambridge, 2005.
Gold, B.K, Literary Patronage in Greece and Rome. Chapel Hill. 1987
*------------"Openings in Horace's Satires and Odes: Poet, Patron, and Audience," in Yale Classical Studies, 29 (1992): 161-86.
Gowers, E. The Loaded Table: Representations of Food in Roman Literature. Oxford, 1993
*-------``Horace, Satires 1.5: An Inconsequential Journey,'' in Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 39 (1993): 48-66
--------------- ``Persius and the Decoction of Nero,'' in J. Elsner and J. Masters (eds.), Reflections of Nero, Chapel Hill, 1994.
--------------- Horace: Satires Book 1. Cambridge, 2012.
*Gunderson, E. Staging Masculinity: The Rhetoric of Performance in the Roman World. Ann Arbor, 2000.
Hooley, D.M., The Knotted Thong: Structures of Mimesis in Persius. Ann Arbor, 1997.
*--------------- Roman Satire. Blackwell, 2007.
Jones, F. Juvenal and the Satiric Genre. Duckworth, 2007
*Keane, C. "Theatre, Spectacle, and the Satirist in Juvenal," in Phoenix 57 (2003): 257-75.
----------------- Figuring Genre in Roman Satire. Oxford, 2006.
*--------------- “Philosophy into Satire: The Program of Juvenal's Fifth Book,” in American Journal of Philology 128 (2007): 27-57
*Leach, E. W. “Horace’s Pater Optimus and Terence’s Demea: Autobiographical Fiction and Comedy in Sermo 1.4,”
in American Journal of Philology 92 (1971): 616–32.
*Mazurek, T. ``Self-Parody and the Law in Horace's Satires 1.9,'' in Classical Journal 93 (1997): 1-17
*Miller, P., “Persius, Irony, and Truth,” in American Journal of Philology 131 (2010), pp. 233-258.
Morford, M. Per “sius. Boston, 1984.
Muecke, F. Horace Satires II. Warminster, 1993.
------------ “Law, Rhetoric, and Genre in Horace, Satires 2.1,” in S.J. Harrison, ed., Homage to Horace: A Bimillenary
Celebration. Oxford, 1995.
*Oliensis, E. “Ut arte emendaturus fortunam,” in T. Habinek and A. Schiesaro, eds., The Roman Cultural Revolution, Cambridge,
1998: 90-104
* ----------------- Horace and the Rhetoric of Authority. Cambridge, 1998.
*Plaza, M. The Function of Humour in Roman Verse Satire: Laughing and Lying. Oxford, 2006.
----------- Persius and Juvenal. Oxford, 2009
*Reckford, K. “Horace and Maecenas,” in Transactions of the American Philological Association 90 (1959): 195-208.
*-----------------“Only a Wet Dream? Hope and Scepticism in Horace, Satire 1.5,” in American Journal of Philology 120 (1999): 525–54.
*----------------- Recognizing Persius. Princeton, 2009.
*Relihan, J.C.. "The Confessions of Persius," in Illinois Classical Studies 14 (1989): 145-67.
Richlin, A. The Garden of Priapus. Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor. Oxford, 1992; 2nd ed..
Rudd, N. Themes in Roman Satire. London, 1986.
*Schlegel, C. “Horace and his Fathers: Satires 1.4 and 1.6,” in American Journal of Philology 121 (2000): 93–119.
*------------- Satire and the Threat of Speech in Horace’s Satires, Book I. Madison, 2005.
Turpin, W. “The Epicurean Parasite: Horace, Satires, 1,1-3” in Ramus 27 (1998): 127-140.
*Welch, T., “Horace in Arcadia,” in Transactions of the American Philological Association 138 (2008): 48-74.
*Witke, E. C.. The Function of Persius' Choliambics," in Mnemosyne 15 (1962): 153-158.
---- "Persius and the Neronian Institution of Literature," in Latomus 43 (1984): 802-12.
*Woodman, A. J. “Juvenal 1 and Horace,” Greece & Rome 30 (1983): 81–84.
*Zetzel, J. E. G. “Horace’s Liber Sermonum: the Structure of Ambiguity,” in Arethusa 13 (1980): 59–77.
*—— “Dreaming about Quirinus: Horace’s Satires and the development of Augustan poetry,” in T. Woodman and D. Feeney
(eds.), Traditions and Contexts in the Poetry of Horace, Cambridge, 2002: 38-52.