Conversations_about_Sermo_MS.docx

7/26/2019 Conversations_about_Sermo_MS.docx

1/27

1

Conversations about Sermo

To become the inventor of satire, Lucilius made much use of his external circumstances:

spectacles of political and forensic competition, social posturing of the wealthy, powerful, and

ambitious, and Romes developing literary and scholarly culture. 1 To become the inventor of one

of the genres signature elements, the defense of satire now nown as the apologia , Lucilius also

drew on the poetic world he was creating. The topos of the apologia is not traditionally

highlighted in discussions of Lucilius accomplishments, but it merits consideration as an

element of the new genre. This chapter will examine the apologia as an integrated part of the

Satires, attempting to trace how the poet contextuali!ed it in his first publication: the five boo s

that came to be numbered "# through $%. & will argue that Lucilius too care to ma e both satire

and satires defense appear as natural phenomena, so to spea , in the world that the Satires

depicted. 'lthough the relevant group of fragments has been examined numerous times, " & hope

that this study, by treating the apologia as something more than a commentary on the text, will

do its part to (capture the novelty of Lucilius wor for its original audience) *+uec e "%1$,

" #-.

&n one of the poems of oo $%, Lucilius staged a conversation with a critic or critics of

his satiric verses *called sermones at 1% /0# 21%1/01#+3-. The conversation attaches certain

ethical and4or legal problems to satire. &n one fragment, a spea er appears to address the poet

with a complaint that he has been a target of satire: (now, 5aius, since with your rebu ing you

in6ure us in turn) * nunc, Gai, quoniam incilans nos laedis vicissim, 1%7/ 21%$/+3-. &n others,

there are accusations of slander, malice, and verbal violence8 for example, (and slandering in

1 9ee, e.g., 5ruen 1 ", "7"0$178 +anuwald "%%18 5oldberg "%%/, 1;;0778 ren el 1 7% "./ "0 % *with some differences from +arxs text-, and5riffith 1 7%, #707%8 ?ichorius 1 % , 1 10"% 8 and ?hristes 1 71, 1;;0 /.


2/27

"

many @chats you tear 2somebody4me4usA3 up) *et maledicendo in multis sermonibus differs,

1% # 21%1#+3-. There is also what loo s li e a retort to this, perhaps beginning a

rationali!ation of satire: (dont believe that & have the power to slander you) * nolito tibi me male

dicere posse putare, 1%# + 21%$% 3-. These fragments and the others that represent the

remains of Lucilius apologia *1%#10 " , roughly eBuivalent to 1%% 0$ +- show stri ing

thematic and formal correspondences with the later satirists programmatic dialogues *+arx

1 %;0/, ".""%018 5riffith 1 7%8 raund 1 #, 11701 -. oo $% may have been a favorite of

imperial0era readers, as it is the source of nearly 1% percent of the surviving lines of Lucilius. 't

any rate, the boo represents a ma6or turning point for the formal development of the Romansatiric genre, as it was the first one written entirely in the meter that would become standard for

Lucilius and his successors. $ ut before this was nown, Lucilius had to define what he had

begun.

Apologia and plot

Lucilius dialogue about satire would have differed from the later examples it inspired in

one obvious way: there was no prior (Lucilius) to cite as precedent. ut another stri ing

difference, visible even in the fragments, is its position in the text. Cirtually all of the later

apologiae are placed at the beginning of a boo of poems.


3/27

$

eane "%%#, /0#-.

; &n +arxs conservative restructuring, these amount to about a do!en poems./ Gn the effects of unmar ed, ordinary speech in some Lucilian verses, achieved by the poetsmanipulation of diction and structure, see ?hahoud, (Cerbal +osaics.)


4/27

;

The discussion in a satiric apologia has a crucial basic function: regardless of the external

reality, it creates the fiction that satire is being tal ed about (out there) even before the reader

has finished the text. The same fiction is seen later in


5/27

/

his ability to please large and fic le audiences8 the viewer or reader who was not already

thin ing along these lines is li ely to begin doing so. The prologues also assert that Terence has

both !ealous critics *particularly the (ill0willed old poet) Luscius Lanuvinus- and influential

friends. Terence crafts these monologues in such a convincingly authentic way that his claims of

a hostile reception were long ta en at face value. Ket there is every reason to read them as

programmatic posturing aimed at strategically shaping reception *Ear er 1 #-.

Terences patrons and friends later associated with Lucilius, and although the dramatist

wrote for a different venue than the satirist and claimed to desire a wider and positive reception

* populo ut placerent fabulae!, An. $8 cf.


6/27

#

does seem to have found simpler and monologic ways to thrust himself into his poems qua

author, such as in the readership fragment of oo "# and the sphragis" li e passage at 7 10

" # 0 +. The latter fragment represents Lucilius as an author in control, and the reference to

fictis versibus evo es a textual product. ut the fragments of dialogue in oo $% seem to

distribute statements and Buestions between Lucilius and another spea er or spea ers, suggesting

a dynamic of attac and defense. Jor instance, in the first fragment Buoted in this chapter, the

adverb vicissim may be attached to laedis or to the retort that followed, but either way it points to

a general (responsive dynamic between Lucilius and his readership.) 1% ' similar effect is created

with these lines: (nevertheless & will try to write bac briefly in a few words) * summatim tamenexperiar rescribere paucis, 1%#$ 21%"7+3- and (hear also this thing & have to say, for it relates

to this matter) * hoc etiam accipe quod dico, nam pertinent ad rem, 1%# 21%$"+3-. This

spirited exchange is something very different from a proem in which a poet tal s with a guiding

god *cf. Innius Annales and ?allimachus Aetia - or attac s absent critics *?allimachus against

the Telchines-. &ts spea ers also give the impression of being more symmetrically poised than

those in the later satiric apologiae . Trebatius in


7/27

7

Lucilius successors, too, will show how the practice of satire can involve a bit of role0switching8

a notable example is Mavus the slaves lecture to his master


8/27

particular areas of experience and endeavor *friendship, business, love, literature, and so on- that

are suggested by clusters of fragments .1" &t is easy to see what inspires the critical metaphor in

5oldbergs remar *"%%/, 17#07- that (Lucilius (immerse2d3 poetry directly in the cultural life of

its time.) ith the diverse and mundane sub6ects evo ed in the fragments, the Satires can indeed

loo very much li e a ind of textual imprint or run0off of a social life !estfully lived and

flavored with plenty of mischief, moc ery, and criticism. The anecdotes in


9/27

fact that we have been left with so many of these small rhetorical (trees,) even if we cannot see

the (forest) of their larger context.

&n these exchanges of words, there is plenty of room for conflict and drama, both overt

and subtle8 for debate and argument crac ling with wit, rhetorical force, and even emotion. To be

sure, the chats that made up Lucilian satire may have been friendly more often than not. 'nd the

mysterious fragment referring to ludo ac sermonibus nostris *1%$ 21%$ +3-, which is

ostensibly unconnected to the poet * pace +arx 1 %;0/ ".$$"-, associates (chat) with play. ut

play is not immune to little dramas of social or intellectual competition. 1/ 'lthough the most

arrogant and pompous inds of posturing by the traditional (cultivated oligarchy) may have lostits former power by the late second century *5ruen 1 ", "7"-, Lucilius was still acBuainted with

plenty of men who were invested in their status, wealth, or intellectual image. &n his recollections

or imaginings of their conversations, we can be sure that he represented a full range of social

dynamics and moods.

Constructing sermo and its problems

&f the complainant*s- in oo $% is tal ing about this collection of Lucilius poems as his

sermones, there is a paradox to be ac nowledged: the term advertises multi0participant (chats,)

but the complaint imagines these as a monolithic wor coming from a single *and ill0intentioned-

source * sermonibus differs -. This act of interpretation could also carry an accusation in itself, if

the author had previously called his wor by this disarming title8 its use in the fragment would

1/ 9o too,


10/27

1%

then be an ironic Buotation, coming from someone who saw through the ruse. &n fact, Lucilius

has to this point been ma ing it possible to ta e another view of his role in the Satires: he is one

of many participants in this speech world, showing up at least periodically as a discussant or

sub6ect of discussion * 1; 277;+3, " 0$% 2 "10"+3-.

The poets participation in the apologia is an extension of this. hile the (readership

manifesto) and other genre0related fragments in oo "# set Lucilius up as a writer of texts, and

the literary discussions that follow sustain that image, this part of oo $% has a different

function: it puts Lucilius on display as a spea er of words. +ore specifically, it portrays him as a

participant in speech contexts a in to the storytelling, advice, and debate sessions that pac the previous boo s. The apologia itself is one such context, and it ma es reference to others in the

past. Lucilius personal connection with his interlocutor*s- is indicated by references to intimate

nowledge relayed to the public: (and slandering in many chats you tear 2somebody3 up) * et

maledicendo in multis sermonibus differs, 1% # 21%1#+3-8 cf. (you get pleasure from sharing

those things about me around in your chats) * gaudes cum de me ista foris sermonibus differs,

1% / 21%1/+3-. 'nd the use of Lucilius praenomen in the nunc, Gai line has been ta en as

evidence that in the original poem, (the debate was carried on at a personal level, with the parties

specified by name) *5riffith 1 7%, ##0#7-. Iven if the participants were not close friends to

begin with, the victim turns satire into a personal matter. 'gain, none of the later satirists will

stage such intimate conversations about satire. Gn the other hand, here too the prologues of

Terence create a ind of precedent. Jor all its very public setting and cagey refusal to name

names, Terences programmatic discourse is intimate, sympathetically delivered by a member of

the company and alluding meaningfully to the authors rivals *see above- and friends *e.g.,

amicum ingenio fretum, &aut. ";8 homines nobiles/ hunc adiutare, Ad. 1/01#-.


11/27

11

The potentially intimate setting does not soften the criticism of Lucilius wor , but

creates a stri ing frame for it. The poets critic*s- may be truly unhappy or 6o ing8 either way, the

accusations are vivid and energetically delivered. They play at representing satire as

metaphorical violence, a staple of later satiric programmatic discourse *>eane "%%#, ;/0#-. The

(5aius) fragment con6ures the metaphor with laedis$


12/27

1"

divergence of views, or competition. Jriends help friends as a rule, but amicitia is hardly as

simple as that.


13/27

1$

between men of Lucilius social standing and culture. 1# The point of the ethical principle is to

clear the way for speech that aims to help but is capable of offending8 cf. Eersius (scrap2ing3

tender ears with biting truth,) Sat. 1.1%70 . hen friends formally advise friends, they may

explicitly lay claim to the right to fran speech. This may be happening in the declaration (& have

to spea out) * mihi necesse est eloqui - in Lucilius # #07 2 /70 +3. &f this and the nearby

fragments Buoted above do represent a (literary advice) dialogue, the statement seems to predict

the addressees poor public reception8 this is one explanation for its air of defensiveness. 'nother

fragment reads similarly: (and furthermore a friends 6ob is to give advice well8 it is a Tuscan

priests to deliver a good prophecy) * porro amici est bene praecipere, 'usci bene praedicere,# ; 2#11+3-. &n still another, someone asserts (it is not my way to lie to a friend and

associate) * homini amico et familiari non est mentiri meum, # / 2 /$+3-. This would ma e a

perfect preface to a harsh home truth or revelation to someone who valued his role as homo

amicus et familiaris. ()

Jran advice need not be brusBue8 it can be clothed in smooth and complimentary

language. ' metaphor of beneficial irrigation ornaments this gentle address: (if you are willing

for your heart to be watered with these words through your ears) * haec tu si voles per auris

pectus inrigarier, # % 2#1%+3-. &n the same spirit are a group of fragments from oo "7 with

singular forms that suggest a one0on0one chat and a relationship of trust: ( ut if youd be willing

to ta e up and loo at this for a little while) * quod si paulisper captare atque observare haec

volueris, 7# 2# #+3-8 (& as you to investigate this matter with me and train your mind on my

1# 9ee ?ic. Amic. 10" , 9en. *p. $, Elut. &o+ to 'ell a latterer from a riend, and


14/27

1;

words) * rem cognoscas simul, et dictis animum attendas postulo, 77% 2# $+3- 1 8 (and if, as &

especially hope, you return this favor to me) * et si, maxime quod spero, mutuum hoc mecum

facis, 771 2# "+3-. Fudging from some nearby references to the variability of human fortune

*777 27%1+3, 77 2# +3, 7 ;07 / 2# 7 and 7%"+3-, we may be loo ing at the remains

of a particular genre of compassionate but (pushy) address: a consolatio, a type of address that

Fuvenal would also find ripe for satiric exploitation. The imperial satirist sub6ects his suffering

addressee to moc ing abuse, though it should be pointed out that even a (straight) consolatio can

read li e a dogmatists harsh exploitation of a vulnerable friend. 1 'lthough a pleasing symmetry

of service and interests is evo ed in the above series, a nearby fragment contains this lessfriendly command: (so then at last let your order admit to the crimes it has committed) * proferat/

ergo iamiam vester ordo scelera quae in se admiserit, 77"0$ 2# %+3-. &f this is the same

spea er who gently appeals to his companions critical s ills and sense of duty, we may be right

to doubt that he is spea ing as his addressees social peer *than s to vester ordo$ cf. Rasch e

1 7, $1101"-, but he is still exploiting a personal relationship to expose misdeeds. "% ehind this

consolation there is confrontation and revelation, also ingredients of the sermones that end up

causing offense. &n this light, it appears possible that any number of the commands to da, dic,

perge, and the li e came from exchanges on similarly touchy sub6ects.

1 ?f. the similar captatio benevolentiae at 1%011 2 /10"+3: (moreover, that youll be willing to direct andapply your mind to what & say,) praeterea ut nostris animos adtendere dictis/ atque adhibere velis -.1 Gn the parodic consolatio in Fuvenals thirteenth Satire see Eryor 1 #" and raund 1 7. Gn

philosophical consolations see, e.g., ilson 1 7. ilcox "%%/ uncovers the competitive andevaluative tones of consolation discourse in the republican political realm."% 'nother case of (intimate confrontation) might be represented in this line: (believe that & amyour admirer, friend, and lover) * favitorem tibi me, amicum, amatorem putes, 7; 2 %"+3-.

as there a (butD) after these wordsA


15/27

1/

's it is represented in oo $%, Lucilius wor exists on a continuum with scenarios li e

these, rather than representing a ind of outlier, antisocial sermo .


16/27

1#

hich came first, the signature themes of Terences career, or those he wove into his inherited

generic materialA The answer may be unrecoverable, but the effect of the parallelism on

Terences image is significant: through the voice of his actor0spo esman, the brilliant young

writer begins to loo li e a sharer in the struggles that define his characters world.

Jor Lucilius, building a reception narrative from sub6ect matter obviously meant 6umping

a much narrower divide than Terence had to. The (5aius) of oo $%, although he seems to

become the center of attention there, has much in common with the characters that populate the

whole first collection. This should ma e the sermones on which the apologia focuses appear less

(mar ed) as a special case of transgressive or disruptive speech. e might put it this way:having no literary tradition to call on for his articulation of Roman satires principles and

problems, no prior cases of a satirist, at least, being punished or critici!ed for his wor , Lucilius

wrote his own, intra0textual history of satiric speech.

Practicing for the apologia

oo $% establishes that part of satires business is to tal about satire. ut 6ust as the

apologia is far from the first conversation in the collection, it is also far from its first

conversation about speech or specifically problematic speech.


17/27

17

&n many fragments, it is possible to detect themes that come up in Lucilius apologia .

These examples do as much to reveal the formation of the category of satiric speech as do

fragments that are more obviously programmatic. &ndeed, in the first four boo s of this

collection, it is difficult to find what loo s li e explicit commentary on satire on the order of the

oo $% fragments with their references to sermones. Two possible exceptions are worth loo ing

at, though for different reasons than one might expect. This 6uicy fragment from oo "#

concerns betrayal of a sort also highlighted in oo $%: (but suppose you say @the thing that was

entrusted to you in private, you shouldnt have muttered anything about it, nor brought forth

sacred secrets to public view) * at enim dicis clandestino tibi quod commissum foret,/ neumuttires quidquam neu m0steria ecferres foras,1 #7"0$ 2#/10"+3-.


18/27

1

These lines from oo " have also been ta en as referring to the satirists wor : (he

swears he hasnt written it and wont write it8 return to fellowship) * deierat se non scripsisse et

post non scripturum$ redi/ in consortionem , %01 2 1 01 +3-. &n +arxs view *1 %;0/,

"." #-, the spea er is discussing Lucilius, writer of offensive words, with an estranged friend of

the poets. 's in the previous case, however, we have no obviously similarly themed fragments

nearby to help reconstruct the context. &t is possible that +arx and others are simply tempted to

read Lucilian satire into this piece of a conversation about other inflammatory writing. The

utterance could belong in plenty of other possible contexts, and the same is true of the m0steria

fragment.That is not to say that these fragments do not illuminate, if read without the

preconception that they concern our poet. oth patently come from dialogues. Gne Buotes *or

anticipatesA- the speech of his interlocutor * dicis -8 the other (Buotes) *indirectly- another

character who seems to be absent * deierat - and who was himself tal ing about a piece of writing

that may or may not ever have been produced. The m0steria fragment is particularly enigmatic,

and becomes still more interesting once we scratch the surface. hat has happenedA The spea er

may be doing one of any number of things: responding to an accusation leveled at himself, with

contrition or with scornful mimicry8 "; alternatively, he could be pre0empting such an accusation,

using dicis loosely with future sense. &t is also not impossible that he is offering his interlocutor

some friendly coaching for a future confrontation of a third party. Gr he could be see ing to win

an argument, to assert his rights, to establish himself as an authority, or to moc anothers views

or language. *Then too, he may be in the middle of more or less re0committing a prior crime by

spea ing about his interlocutors m0steria2 - &n any of these cases, the betrayed partys big speech

"; Jor the interpretation of m0steria as a moc ing Buote of the accuser, who was aiming forsolemnity, see +ariotti 1 /;: $7/8 ?hristes 1 71, 1%;8 and aier "%%1, ;10".


19/27

1

to the betrayer is the primary ob6ect of attention. e can be grateful to Ponius for excerpting not

6ust the Buote, but also its introduction8 this carries not 6ust a strong indication of conflict, but

also suggestions of 6oc eying for authority and the right to mimic and moc . &f the discussion in

the poem had nothing explicit to do with Lucilian satire, it most certainly grappled with some of

the issues that became attached to the genre. 'nd elsewhere in the remains of oo s "#0$%, there

is other evidence that the spotlight shed on (5aius) is not unprecedented.

+eta0 sermo evidently too various forms and pursued various agendas. These are

scarcely recoverable now, but the complete (chats,) in their variety of meters, must have beeninteresting to read as poetic compositions, not 6ust as social commentary. The fragments afford us

only a glimpse of what must have been a colorful poetic world driven by many different inds of

relationships, friendly and other. ?ritical or offensive speech would have been one of the most

important ingredients that dynamically generated the (plots) of poems. 9uch speech could have

an active role *creating or resolving conflict, casting 6udgment, hurting feelings- but it could also

be the ob6ect of scrutiny N be reported, discussed, dissected, contested, approved, or moc ed.

5limpses of such tal can be seen in these examples: (you, too, insult poor me) * insulta miserum

tu quoque in me, #/ 2 1;+3-8 ( hy notA Iven you would then be calling me uneducated and

ignorant) * quidni# et tu idem inlitteratum me atque idiotam diceres, #7; 2#; +3-8 (the man

they see gets called @sloppy and @feminine, they call cra!y) * insanum vocant quem maltam ac

feminam dici vident , 7;; 27$"+3-. These are all moments of defiance, 6udgment, and even

meta06udgment. e have no grounds to read them as explicit commentary on the poets wor *cf.

5ruen 1 ", $11-. ut they do have a potentially programmatic analogue in the apologia , in this

dubious representation of others moral 6udgment: (to you theyre all @lovely, theyre all


20/27

"%

@valiant, while &m a @rogue N fine) *omnes formonsi, fortes tibi, ego inprobus, esto, 1%77

21%"#+3-.


21/27

"1

(to threaten openly that he will present an accusation on a capital charge) * minitari aperte

capitis dicturum diem -. hether these pronouncements were met with support or ridicule in the

sermo being staged is impossible to now, but they are clearly being put on display. This is

certainly true of the comparatively lengthy fragment on Lupus court preserved by Erobus * %/0

11 27 ;0 %+3-, which is thought to be connected to the comic0style home brea 0in narrative in

oo " . There, the poet or the spea ing character ma es the 6udges formal speech into a show

in its own right, imagining a future verdict that deprives the offender of (first elements and

primary matterD.fire and water) and possibly even (air and earth.) Lucilius moc ery of Lupus

in the later Satires is well nown, but this passage may have concentrated on moc ing thedoomed defendant and underscoring the authority of his 6udges verbal pronouncements. "7 Legal

pronouncements are a species of public exposure8 this is not satires realm alone. "

&n the full apologia of oo $%, one argument (5aius) could have made is that hurtful

speech should arouse no more suspicion or resentment than speech that aims to flatter. There is

evidence in the early Satires of a cynical interest in the latter type. +anipulative, wheedling

words are represented almost as a form of assault: (let him give the man what he wants and calm

him down, spoil him completely, and pluc away all his vigor) * concedat homini id quod velit,

deleniat, /corrumpat prorsum ac nervos omnes eligat, #%01 2 1 01 +3-. Iven in this short

fragment, the metaphors build up, con6uring speech with an invasive, violating power. "

Ilsewhere, there is a warning about the dangers of flattery: (the more fawning this woman is, the

more fiercely she bites) * quanto blandior haec, tanto vehementius mordet, 1%7$ 21%"/+3-8

"7 &n the view of 5oldberg *"%%/, 1#%-, the 5ree terms for the elements may indicate that thedefendant had philosophical pretensions N no help to him now." ?f. the possible consolator 0cum0muc ra er spea ing at 77"0$ 2# %+3. (?haracter slurs andcalumnies seem common in Roman intellectual society) *5ruen 1 ", " #-." %;0/ 2 "0$+3 may describe a similar scene of flattery, though not according to +arx1 %;0/, " .


22/27

""

note also the (trouble2ma erA3, fawning and tric y) * mite malum, blande atque dolosum - at

1%%$ 21% 7+3. 9imilar in sense, perhaps, is this description: (thus his mind was caught in nets,

manacles, foot0fetters) * sic laqueis manicis pedicis mens inretita est, 11%7 2 %+3-. Iven

poetic speech can enthrall its audience, not always for the good: cf. the (dolt enchanted by shrill

singing) * acri/inductum cantu stolidum, 11"7 21%%/+3-.

These lost discussions represented a world of constant social performance and exchange,

in which no one can spea up or spea out without that speech attracting attention to itself. They

thus built up a context for the readers processing of the speech of (5aius,) which was incubated

in the same world. Li e sub6ects, li e satirist. This is not to say that Lucilius meant to 6ustifyliterary sermo by melting into this sermo" filled bac ground or by explicitly appealing to it as a

precedent, only that he created an overwhelming impression of precedent that could not have

been lost on his readers. &t does not even matter if (5aius) was represented as winning the

argument in oo $% *nor can we now whether the confrontations in earlier poems had clear

winners and losers-. ith its many disguises and names, its exploitation of intimacy and conflict,

its potentially troubling mixture of pain and pleasure, and its fascination with itself and its own

powers, literary satire is at home in this world. 9o is the critical speech about satire that arises in

oo $%.

A satiric epilogue?

Lucilius composed twenty0five more boo s of satire after this collection, but what

happened in the (plot) of oo $% after the apologia A hether or not he represented himself as

triumphing in the argument, Lucilius followed this interlude up with one or more poems. &n other

words, he represented the criticism and defense of his sermones not as the final word, but as a


23/27

"$

prelude to and even generator of more sermo , on the spot. hile the original content of this

aftermath or dQnouement is as difficult to decipher as the rest of the Satires, there is some

evidence that Lucilius here too the opportunity to stage his own clever response to criticism,

adding another chapter to his history of satire in real time.

&n armingtons arrangement, the fifth and final poem of oo $% contains an animal

fable, based on the fragments that evo e the tale of the sic lion and the cautious fox *11110"%

2 %0 +3-. This may have been a surprise move from readers perspective: for what it is worth,

no other fragments in oo s "#0$% suggest that Lucilius had employed the fable genre before

this point, and fables certainly had a more popular than a literary pedigree at this time.$%

utanimal fables would appear throughout


24/27

";

move (underground,) the coded satire he produces, with its (hissings of compliance,) spea s

volumes about the conditions that prompted its creation *Jreudenburg "%%1, 1% 0";-.

Eerhaps Lucilius, after his own apologia , played the cautious, chastened author by

trotting out his animal fable in lieu of a story about real people. &f so, the sic lion fable was an

interesting choice. &n the version related in abrius *1%$-, the sic lion pretends to be wea er

than he really is, and lures prey into his lair by using a subdued voice */- and friendly words *1$0

1#-. The fox, of course, detects his ruse: the trac s of other beasts all lead into the cave, but none

lead out *1 -. ut before that happens, the lions ambiguous condition would seem to ma e an

apt symbol of the ostensibly chastened satirist who is now using (tempered4wea ened voice) oreven (subtle style) * deducta tunc voce leo, Lucilius 111#017 2 /0#+3-. 'ny profession of

lessons learned in the apologia itself could be a trap8 the satirist can find other tric s, and his

career is only beginning. $"

Works Cited

'stbury, Raymond. M. 'erentii 5arronis saturarum Menippearum fragmenta . *Leip!ig: Teubner,1 /-.

'uhagen, lri e. (Lucilius und die >omSdie.) &n +anuwald "%%1: 0"$.

aier, Thomas. (Lucilius und die grieschischen Srter.) &n +anuwald "%%1: $70/%.

ogel, Jredric C. 'he 6ifference Satire Ma7es: 3hetoric and 3eading from 8ohnson to 90ron *&thaca: ?ornell niversity Eress, "%%1-.

raund, 9usanna +orton. 8uvenal: Satires 9oo7 *?ambridge: ?ambridge niversity Eress,1 #-.

raund, 9usanna +orton. (' Eassion nconsoledA 5rief and 'nger in Fuvenal @9atire 1$.) &nraund and 5ill 1 7: # 0 .

$" & am grateful to the three editors for their suggestions on drafts of this chapter.


25/27

"/

raund, 9usanna +orton and ?hristopher 5ill, eds. 'he -assions in 3oman 'hought and %iterature *?ambridge and Pew Kor : ?ambridge niversity Eress, 1 7-.

?avar!ere, 'lberto. ( *go -olivi 5ersibus Senariis: Ehaedrus and &ambic Eoetry.) &n ambic deas: *ssa0s on a -oetic 'radition from Archaic Greece to the %ate 3oman *mpire, edited by

'lberto ?avar!ere, 'ntonio 'loni, and 'lessandro archiesi, "%/017 *Lanham, +M: Rowman Littlefield, "%%1-.

?hahoud, 'nna. (The Language of Latin Cerse 9atire.) &n A ;ompanion to the %atin %anguage,edited by Fames ?lac son, $#70 $ *?hichester, "%11-.

?hristes, Fohannes. 6er r


26/27

"#

eane, ?atherine. (The ?ritical ?ontexts of 9atiric Miscourse.) ;M% "" *"%%"-: 70$1.

>eane, ?atherine. iguring Genre in 3oman Satire *Pew Kor : Gxford, "%%#-.

>eane, ?atherine. (Mefining the 'rt of lame.) &n A ;ompanion to Satire: Ancient and Modern,edited by Ruben Vuintero, $10/" *+alden, +' and Gxford: lac well, "%%7-.

>ren el, erner. %ucilius: Satiren, " vols. *Leiden: rill, 1 7%-.

+anuwald, 5esine, ed. 6er Satiri7er %ucilius und seine Beit *+unich: ec , "%%1-.+archesi, &laria. (Traces of a Jreed Language:


27/27

"7

9chlegel, ?atherine. Satire and the 'hreat of Speech in &orace 9atires 9oo7 ( *+adison:niversity of isconsin Eress, "%%/-.

9varlien, Fohn. ( %ucilianus ;haracter. ) A8- 11/." *1 ;-, "/$0#7.

Cahlen, F. *nnianae -oesis 3eliquiae *Leip!ig: Teubner, 1 " -.

armington, I.

Conversations_about_Sermo_MS.docx

Documents

Transcript of Conversations_about_Sermo_MS.docx