Juvenal's tenth Satire is concerned with prayer, and has a simple and clear structure. In the introduction, at 1–55, comes the main thesis (because humans cannot distinguish between true blessings and their opposite they pray for pointless, excessive and harmful things) with a few short examples (such as petitions for wealth) by way of illustration. The ‘proof’ of that thesis comes in the main part of the poem, which provides much longer examples of such misguided prayers – for political power (56–113), eloquence (114–32), military glory (133–87), a long life (188–288) and beauty (289–345). Finally, the conclusion (346–66) rounds off the satire by telling us what we can pray for (the genuine blessings of 356–62), but adds that we don't need to pray for them (we can acquire them by our own efforts), mocks the process of sacrifice and questions the whole concept of prayer (and divinity). This piece also addresses the whole concept of individual aspiration, and the value systems of individualism in and aside from society.

This is one of the most famous and fascinating of J.'s Satires, one which raises several major issues still very pertinent to us today (see below). It is a poem which had a definite contemporary relevance (for example, the lines on political power and military glory had an obvious bearing on the imperial court and the imperial generals Trajan and Hadrian), but there is also a universality to what J. wrote here. It is a rich and exciting read, packed with ideas and problems. It both stimulates and infuriates, with its various possible shades of sincerity, and its perplexing and involving blend of seriousness and humour, common sense and cynicism, perceptiveness and blinkered bigotry. It has a long reception history and has been translated and adapted by many writers, most notably by Samuel Johnson in his Vanity of Human Wishes (some of the more notable versions will be touched on in later chapters).

The poem has also attracted a lot of scholarly attention down the years. In more recent times there have been some interesting developments in criticism of it and it has evoked a wide range of reactions, interpretations and evaluations. Coffey (131f.) sees the piece as a straightforward expatiation on the futility of most prayers, combining grave nobility and cynical wit.