Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T16:57:06.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE MONKEY'S OFF OUR BACK: AN ALTERNATIVE READING OF JUVENAL 5.153–5

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2020

Ryan M. Pasco
Ryan M. Pasco*
Affiliation:
Boston University
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Readers have struggled to interpret an image from the end of Juvenal's fifth satire, a poem which focusses upon the poor hospitality shown to a dinner guest, Trebius, at the hands of his host, Virro. After repeatedly juxtaposing the luxurious food served to Virro with the scant fare served to Trebius, Juvenal describes the final course of the cena. He again contrasts the host's hyper-abundance with his guest's mere scraps (5.149–55):

      Virro sibi et reliquis Virronibus illa iubebit
      poma dari, quorum solo pascaris odore,
      qualia perpetuus Phaeacum autumnus habebat,
      credere quae possis subrepta sororibus Afris:
      tu scabie frueris mali, quod in aggere rodit
      qui tegitur parma et galea, metuensque flagelli
      discit ab hirsuta iaculum torquere capella.

Virro will demand that he and the rest of his entourage receive these apples—though you'll dine on their smell alone—like those the endless autumn of the Phaeacians used to yield, which you could believe stolen away from the African sisters: you will enjoy the scab of an apple, which, on the Embankment, is gnawed by someone who is protected by a buckler and helm and who, fearing a whipping, learns to hurl a javelin from atop a shaggy goat.

While the core contrast between the quality of each type of fare is clear, the concluding qui-clause is less intelligible. Who could this entity be? On line 153, the scholiast comments: quale simia manducat. While quale could refer to the object being eaten (scabie mali quod) rather than to the qui-antecedent, it is clear in any case that the ancient reader felt that 5.153–5 evoked the image of an ape. Recent commentaries on Juvenal's fifth satire reflect a scholarly consensus: J.D. Duff, Edward Courtney, Susanna Braund and Biagio Santorelli all follow the scholiast's suggestion and believe that the passage describes a trained ape, as do recent readers of the poem.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 70 , Issue 1 , May 2020 , pp. 347 - 355
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank my graduate colleagues in the Roman Satire seminar for encouraging this idea at its earliest stages, James Uden for his enthusiastic mentorship and insightful comments, Antonino Pittà for sharing his thoughts on Statius’ Siluae, Bruce Gibson and CQ's anonymous reader for their valuable criticism. Any errors that remain are strictly my own.

References

1 The agger was an embankment between the Porta Esquilina and the Porta Collina built to fortify the city. For accounts of its construction, see Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 9.68.2–4; Strabo 5.3.7; Plin. HN 3.9. In the Early Imperial period, at least, the agger attracted a variety of entertainers, although nothing resembling Juv. 5.153–5. Quint. Inst. 12.10.74 describes orators performing for small groups; Juv. 6.588 claims that fortune-tellers gathered there. For an account of the agger and its surroundings, see Wiseman, T.P., ‘A stroll on the rampart’, in Cima, M. and Rocca, E. La (edd.), Horti Romani: Atti del Convegno Internazionale: Roma, 4–6 Maggio 1995 (Rome, 1995), 13–22Google Scholar.

2 All translations are my own.

3 Wessner, P., Scholia in Iuuenalem Vetustiora (Leipzig, 1931), 75Google Scholar.

4 Duff, J.D., Saturae XIV: Fourteen Satires of Juvenal (Cambridge, 1898), 209Google Scholar; Courtney, E., A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London, 1980), 249Google Scholar; Braund, S., Juvenal: Satires Book One (Cambridge, 1996), 300–1Google Scholar; Santorelli, B., Giovenale, «Satira» V: Introduzione, Traduzione e Commento (Berlin, 2013), 180–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Recent interpreters of 5.153–5 that read ‘monkey’ include Freudenburg, K., Satires of Rome: Threatening Poses from Lucilius to Juvenal (Cambridge, 2001), 274–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Keane, C., Figuring Genre in Roman Satire (New York, 2006), 30Google Scholar.

5 Strabo 15.29 tells of monkeys in Asia that are keen to imitate human actions. Plin. HN 8.215–16 describes their overall similarity to humans. For monkeys in the ancient world, see McDermott, W., The Ape in Antiquity (Baltimore, 1938)Google Scholar; Toynbee, J.M.C., Animals in Roman Life and Art (New York, 1973), 55–60Google Scholar; Connors, C., ‘Monkey business: imitation, authenticity, and identity from Pithekoussai to Plautus’, ClAnt 23 (2004), 179–207Google Scholar.

6 Mayor, J.E.B., Thirteen Satires of Juvenal (London, 1853), 268Google Scholar. See Gusman, P., Pompei: La Ville, les Mouers, les Arts (Paris, 1862), 285–6Google Scholar for an early drawing and discussion. For a recent discussion, see Thomas, E., ‘Urban geographies of human-animal relations in classical antiquity’, in Fögen, T. and Thomas, E. (edd.), Interactions between Animals and Humans in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (Boston, 2017), 339–68, at 360–1Google Scholar.

7 See Petron. Sat. 69.5 of mules; see Mart. 14.55 of horses.

8 See e.g. Sen. Controu. 2.7.5; Sen. De Ira 3.35.1; Petron. Sat. 126.10; Juv. 6.479.

9 Lemaire, N.E., D. Junius Juvenalis sexdecim satirae (Paris, 1823), 292–3Google Scholar. The argument takes capella as a nickname for the commander of qui, and hirsuta as a mark of severity. As Santorelli (n. 4), 184 suggests, this explanation is unconvincing.

10 There is, however, evidence of monkeys wearing other clothing. Apul. Met. 11.8 imagines a procession for Isis which features an ape that wears a Phrygian cap and a saffron-coloured robe in imitation of Ganymede; Lucian, Pisc. 36 describes monkeys wearing purple robes and masks; Lucian, Apol. 5 tells of a monkey dancing while in costume.

11 Mayor (n. 6), 269; see also Santorelli (n. 4), 181; Courtney (n. 4), 249.

12 McDermott (n. 5), 131.

13 Braund (n. 4), 300.

14 Braund (n. 4), 300.

15 Santorelli (n. 4), 182–3.

16 Freudenburg (n. 4), 269–77. For the relationship between epic and the programmatics of satire, see Connors, C., ‘Epic allusion in Roman satire’, in Freudenburg, K. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Satire (Cambridge, 2005), 123–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Freudenburg (n. 4), 275.

18 See Garland, R., Eye of the Beholder (Ithaca, New York, 1995), 73–86Google Scholar, who argues that the Romans found persons with physical differences inherently laughable, often for apotropaic purposes. Trentin, L., ‘The “other” Romans: deformed bodies in the visual arts of Rome’, in Laes, C. (ed.), Disability in Antiquity (New York, 2017), 233–47Google Scholar examines the Roman fascination with ‘other’ bodies ‘to highlight normative values associated with physical appearance and social status’ (at 247). M. Garmaise, ‘Studies in the representation of dwarfs in Hellenistic and Roman art’ (Diss., McMaster University, 1996), 28–33 surveys the literary evidence of dwarfs as objects of humour in Hellenistic and Roman contexts.

19 For visual representations of dwarfs in armour, see the examination of terracotta and bronze figurines in Garmaise (n. 18), 94–108.

20 See the discussion in Colton, R.E., Juvenal's Use of Martial's Epigrams: A Study of Literary Influence (Amsterdam, 1991), 266–8Google Scholar.

21 The battle between cranes and Pygmies is first attested in Hom. Il. 3.3–7. For a survey of its subsequent appearances in Graeco-Roman literature, see Dasen, V., Dwarfs in Ancient Egypt and Greece (New York, 1993), 175–82Google Scholar.

22 See Dasen (n. 21), 187–8 for the parodic element of Pygmy iconography in Greek contexts. See Clarke, J.R., Looking at Laughter: Humor, Power, and Transgression in Roman Visual Culture, 100 b.c. – a.d. 250 (Berkeley, 2007), 87–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar for humorous depictions of Pygmies in Roman art.

23 For an account of dwarfs in the arena, see Ville, G., La Gladiature en Occident des Origines à la Mort de Domitien (Rome, 1981), 151–2, 172, 264 n. 76, 456CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 The precise meaning of line 63, and in particular the obscure phrase uagis … rapinis, is open to debate. Malamud, M., ‘That's entertainment! Dining with Domitian in Statius’ Siluae’, Ramus 30 (2001), 23–45, at 31CrossRefGoogle Scholar acknowledges two possibilities: either the birds are about to descend upon their foes (the dwarf performers) in a mock geranomachy or the cranes will fall as part of scattered plunder for the guests. For an argument on the logistics of the former, see Brunet, S., ‘Dwarf athletes in the Roman empire’, AHB 17 (2003), 17–32, at 27Google Scholar, who imagines cranes suspended in cages above the dwarf combatants. In support of the former, A. Pittà, ‘Il Prefetto risanato e i Saturnali. Stazio, Siluae 1,4 e 1,6. Testo, traduzione e commento’ (Diss., Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, 2016), 292–3 convincingly argues that the image anticipates the cloud of birds that falls upon the guests at lines 75–80.

25 Brunet (n. 24), 27–32.

26 Cameron, Alan, ‘The date of the scholia uetustiora on Juvenal’, CQ 60 (2010), 569–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Dasen (n. 21), 187. The comparison is natural, given frequent depictions of Pygmies wearing skins and clubs—the normal accoutrements of Heracles—as well as the hero's encounter with man-eating birds of his own, the Stymphalian birds: Apollod. Bibl. 2.6; Diod. Sic. 4.13.2; Paus. 8.22.4; Ap. Rhod. Argon. 2.1052–7. Whereas Hercules’ battle ends in his victory, the Pygmies never attain decisive victory over their own winged foes.

28 Other (late) attestation for this myth may come in Amm. Marc. 22.12.4, which refers to the Pygmies insulting Hercules.

29 Florence: Museo Archeologico Nazionale 4209; Beazley, J.D., Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters (Oxford, 1956), 76.1Google Scholar; Beazley, J.D., Paralipomena (Oxford, 1971), 29Google Scholar; Beazley Archive Database 300000.

30 Newlands, C.E., Statius’ Silvae and the Poetics of Empire (Cambridge, 2002), 244CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘the mixing of ranks at the banquet … only temporarily occludes the real hierarchical structuring of the amphitheatre, where the marginalisation of weaker social groups acts as a covert form of social control, uniting the Roman people with their leader in a reaffirmation of the dominant ideology of Empire. Dwarves, fighting women, criminals—these represent the aberrant elements of society and are chaotic forces whose subjugation metaphorically holds down Roman supremacy.’

31 Newlands (n. 30), 238–52. See also Malamud (n. 24), 37, who stresses the poem's ending, which suggests this ‘Saturnalian’ rule will continue in perpetuity.

32 Braund (n. 4), 306: ‘host is portrayed behaving like a petty tyrant, a miniature Domitian … lording it over his helpless and humiliated guests’.