Everyone thinks they know what satire is, or, at least, what is meant by ‘satire’. But this knowledge is a dangerous thing. It conceals the fact that the term ‘satire’ has two meanings. For us, it denotes a tone of voice which may occur in virtually any form – a novel, a letter, a play, a cartoon, a comic sketch. But for the Romans it denoted a specific form of literature, the two literary genres of satire, Roman verse satire and prose ‘Menippean’ satire. Strict rules governed the form and content of these literary genres; these rules emerge from the study of the satires which survive. Yet both genres are recognizable as satire and it is clear that modern theories about the origin and nature of satire apply with equal validity to Roman satire. In this introduction I shall attempt to present a few of the most significant of the modern approaches to satire.

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.

Gaius Lucilius died at Naples in 102/1 B.C. as an old man. He was born probably in 180 B.C., or possibly 168/7 B.C., into an eminent, rich family of the Latin aristocracy in Campania. Lucilius was almost certainly educated at Rome and owned large estates in southern Italy and Sicily and an important house in Rome. He was an eques (cavalryman: the second highest social class), a friend of the great general and politician Scipio Aemilianus, a patron of the arts around whom gathered a group of intellectuals, including poets and philosophers. From about 130 B.C. onwards Lucilius wrote his Satires, in a total of thirty books of which only 1300 fragments survive. Most of these are very brief and can hardly be considered a representative sample, since the vast majority were preserved by later grammarians as examples of oddities of Latin linguistic usage.

Although Horace’s origins were relatively humble in comparison with those of Lucilius, he rose to high status through wealth and powerful backing. The usual picture of the poor tradesman’s son admitted to aristocratic company for his literary genius should be dismissed, as Armstrong powerfully argues. Quintus Horatius Flaccus was born in 65 b.c. at Venusia in Apulia to a freedman (a former slave). His father was an auctioneer (coactor, that is, in effect, a type of entrepreneur) and, being very wealthy and ambitious for his son, took him to Rome to ensure that he received a good education. Horace completed his education by spending a year or two in Athens, the university for young Romans of the élite and a very costly experience.

The next satirist whose work survives is Persius, whose brief book of Satires was acclaimed during his lifetime and after his death. Aulus Persius Flaccus, A.D. 34–62, was born at Volaterrae in Etruria into an important family of equestrian status. He was educated at Rome as a pupil of Cornutus, a Stoic who was a freedman of Seneca, and was associated with the group of Stoic politicians which wielded considerable power at Rome, including the senator Thrasea Paetus whose wife, Arria, was a relative of Persius and who wrote a biography of the Stoic hero Cato the Younger. Persius evidently did not participate in politics but seems to have moved in high circles, given his acquaintance with the poet Lucan, five years younger.

Of the surviving Roman satirists, Juvenal is the one we know least about. Whereas for Horace and Persius we have ancient biographies which are of early date and seem generally reliable, the biographies of Juvenal are of later date and essentially contain only ‘information’ drawn from the Satires. Failure to appreciate Juvenal’s use of a satiric persona renders these biographies worthless.

Thus there is little to be said about the life and circumstances of Decimus Iunius Iuuenalis. He is the addressee of three epigrams of Martial, his younger contemporary, who calls him ‘eloquent’; certainly the Satires reflect the rhetorical training received by the Roman élite. The fact that his Satires are not dedicated to any patron may indicate that he was of relatively high social status, rather like Lucilius and Persius and in contrast with Horace. His sixteen Satires, of which the last breaks off in a patently unfinished state, are arranged in five books and it seems certain that they were published thus. The few datable references in the Satires suggest that the first two books were written in the second decade of the second century A.D., either towards the end of Trajan’s reign (A.D. 98–117) or, possibly, not until Hadrian’s accession. The third book appears to have been written early in Hadrian’s reign (A.D. 117–138) and the fifth book dates from after A.D. 127. It seems, then, that he was writing his Satires at about the same time as Tacitus was writing his Annals, which strike the modern reader as so alike in their biting tone.

This final section offers a brief overview of the development of the genre of Roman verse satire from its origins to Juvenal and beyond with an indication of its influence on later satire. Of course, with so much of the genre missing any overview can only be provisional. I refer not only to the fragmentary preservation of the Satires of Ennius and Lucilius but also to the non-survival of the Satires of Ennius’ nephew Pacuvius and, more importantly, of Turnus. Turnus was evidently a prominent satirist writing when Domitian was emperor. He is quite possibly one of those referred to obliquely by Quintilian in his praise of contemporary satirists and may have been a precursor to and influence upon Juvenal in adopting a declamatory mode for his satire. What other losses and absences there are from the genre of Roman verse satire can only be guessed at.