The charge of ‘loose construction’ is frequently leveled at Juvenal. This is a largely defensible point of view, but it should not be permitted to obscure instances where the satirist may be aiming at a higher degree of cohesion between the parts of a satire, nor preclude our seeking them out. The clearest instances of this kind of criticism of Juvenal are directed against Satires 4 and 7, the two most frequently cited for lack of unity and coherence. Sat. 4, it is true, has had a number of defenders since Nägelsbach (1848), including most recently Helmbold and O'Neil, and Anderson who have suggested new approaches to its thematic unity. But the pessimistic estimate of Kenney finds support from Coffey: ‘the fourth satire remains obstinately in two parts.’

The most useful approach now remaining to a clearer view of these particular poems is to try to determine what the poet's intentions were with regard to their basic designs. If this is possible, it should eventually give perspective to the detailed thematic studies already done; for the purposes of this paper, however, discussion of these other studies will be omitted except where obviously pertinent.