Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T09:12:56.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II. Origins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

Get access

Extract

The Romans themselves had theories about the origins of the genre of satire and the significance of its name, satura. Probably the most famous statement is Quintilian’s: ‘Satire is entirely our own.’ What he meant by that is open to debate; we will return to it at the end of this section.

Apart from Quintilian’s comments, we find theory about the genre of satura appearing incidentally in the historian Livy’s discussion of the history of Roman drama and directly in the writings of Diomedes, a fourth century grammarian. Livy’s elaborate theory of the development of Roman drama including a dramatic satura is unconvincing and it appears that he is attempting to find a similar pattern of development in Roman drama as existed for Greek drama. Yet we should not overlook one highly significant aspect of his theory. He regards satura as an early dramatic form. Not only does this bear out the comments made above concerning the affinity of satire and drama. It also helps explain the links drawn by the satirists themselves between satire and Old Greek Comedy. That satire and drama, in particular comedy, were regarded as closely related genres will prove an important element in the understanding of individual poems.

Type
Research Article
Information
New Surveys in the Classics , Volume 23: Roman Verse Satire , 1992 , pp. 6 - 9
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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.)

References

Notes

1. For modern discussions see van Rooy (1965), pp. 1-29, Knoche (1975), pp. 3-16, Coffey (1989), pp. 3-23.

2. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 10.1.93: satura quidem tota nostra est.

3. Into his account of the development of Roman drama Livy incorporates a dramatic form which he names satura, which designates a musical stageshow without an organized plot. See Coffey (1989), pp. 18-22 and 274 for quotation and discussion of the passage (Livy 7.2.4-10); both Coffey and Gratwick (1982), pp. 160-2 reject the hypothesis of a dramatic satura.

4. Horace Satires 1.4.1-5, 1.10.16, Persius 1.123-4.

5. Marcus Terentius Varro, 116-27 B.C. It is a great regret that neither his De compositione saturarum nor his four books of Saturae survive. On the likely influence of Varro on Diomedes see van Rooy (1965), pp. 1-4 and notes for further bibliography.

6. See van Rooy (1965), pp. 1-29 and Coffey (1989), pp. 11-18 for a fuller treatment of Diomedes’ discussion of satura.

7. satura dicitur carmen apud Romanos nunc quidem maledicum et ad carpenda hominum uitia archaeae comoediae charactere compositum, quale scripserunt Lucilius et Horatius et Persius; sed olim carmen quod ex uariis poematibus constabat satura uocabatur, quale scripserunt Pacuuius et Ennius.

8. His statement that he had ‘three hearts’ (tria corda) probably means that he was fluent in Greek, Latin, and Oscan, the language of southern Italy at that time. On Ennius’ multiculturalism see Coffey (1989), pp. 25-7.

9. The standard text of Ennius is that of Vahlen (1963). The fragments of the Satires are most readily available in Warmington (1956) (Remains of Old Latin Vol. 1, Loeb Classical Library) on pages 384-95.

For a brief overview see Gratwick (1982), pp. 158-60; for fuller discussion see van Rooy (1965), pp. 30-49, Ramage, Sigsbee & Fredericks (1974), pp. 12-21, Knoche (1975), pp. 17-30 and Coffey (1989), pp. 24-32 with notes for further bibliography.

10. Whereas Ennius is described by Horace as ‘the author of a crude verse never handled by the Greeks’ (Satires 1.10.66).

11. The line of Horace where he calls satire ‘verse never handled by the Greeks’ (Satires 1.10.66 Graecis intacti carminis) seems to support Quintilian’s view.

12. See Gratwick (1982), pp. 160-2 for a succinct summary of the debate and van Rooy (1965), pp. 117-23 for a fuller discussion, including helpful tabulation of material in Quintilian I.O. 10.1.

13. Closest is iambic poetry, such as that of Archilochus, Hipponax and Callimachus. For surveys of some satiric elements in Greek literature see van Rooy (1965), pp. 90-116, Witke (1970), pp. 21-48 and on Callimachus’ Iambs Dawson (1950).