Satires by Persius

First published:Saturae, first century c.e. (English translation, 1616)

Type of work: Poetry

The Work:

The Satires of Persius belong to a rich tradition in Roman literature. According to an ancient biography attached to the manuscripts of the Satires, Persius was born into an affluent family associated with Rome. His short life spanned the reigns of Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, a time characterized by increasing constraints on literary and personal freedom. Although Persius preferred a quiet domestic life to the busyness of urban literary and intellectual circles, he nevertheless shared friendships with many influential writers of his day, including the epic poet Lucan, the lyric poet Caesius Bassus, and, to some degree, the philosopher and politician Seneca.

It is impossible to understand Persius’s intent in composing the Satires without a proper understanding of the philosophy of Stoicism, which so influenced his opinions. When sixteen years of age, Persius became the student of Lucius Annaeus Cornutus, an important Stoic philosopher and a freedman of Seneca’s family. Stoicism was the preeminent philosophy among Roman writers and intellectuals, and its proponents were often at odds with the mechanisms of the imperial political regime. The basic tenet of Stoicism is that one should live a virtuous life with the soul in accord with the principle of divine reason; denial of passions that disrupt the soul and living free from extremes are of fundamental importance. Thus Persius, combining a philosophical conviction with poetic skills in satire, sought to expose and criticize those vices rampant in his own society.

In the first satire, Persius diagnoses the decay of Roman literary tastes concurrent with a decline in morality. He presents this satire as a dialogue between himself and a friend. The argument ensues after Persius recites a line of “superior” poetry, probably from Gaius Lucilius (a founder of Roman satire), and his friend remarks that too few people in Rome would spend time reading such fine literature. Persius responds that he is not concerned with the tastes of most Romans and initiates his critique along Stoic lines.

To his friend’s argument that one should be recognized for one’s learning, Persius promptly suggests that the real benefit of knowledge is private, by which he implies that improvement of the soul is the goal. Persius notes that praise is most often mere remembrance in gossip. The friend accuses Persius of being prudish, but Persius responds that he is desirous of honest praise only, not that secured by favor or bribery.

Persius then sharpens his criticism of the writing produced in his own time. He complains that it is artificial and obsessed with rhetoric as a justified end, and that grandiose heroic acts are composed by writers who could not muster the attention to describe a mere grove in fine detail. The criticism of rhetoric—which succeeds only when passions are inflamed and people are dragged along—is especially important, because rhetorical precision was of fundamental importance for public life under the emperors. Although Persius does not—and could not—criticize the increasing constraints on freedom of speech, he does manage to criticize their outcome.

Persius argues against other literary habits in vogue at that time, which he believed threatened direct and honest writing. Eventually he agrees to keep quiet, but only after he recalls Gaius Lucilius’s observation that humanity has a great propensity for foolishness. This satire concludes with a petition from Persius for his readers to join him in celebration of superior writers and abandon the poor tastes of their society. The first satire is thus marked by the nostalgia common when a person attempts to distinguish good literature from inane competition, but it further carries the serious conviction of Stoic philosophy.

The second satire is critical of the hidden intentions behind most prayers. Persius wrote it to commemorate the birthday of a friend, Plotius Macrinus, and immediately names Macrinus as one who offers genuine prayers. Most men, Persius argues, offer the most selfless prayers in public and in private wish for the opposite: A man may publicly petition for his uncle’s good health while he privately waits for the uncle’s death and the inheritance. Persius insists that Jupiter (the king of the gods in the Roman pantheon) finds no pleasure in these petitions or in the scant offerings traditionally made to secure the god’s favor.

Persius turns his criticism from this depravity of saying one thing and intending another to human inconsistencies. He strikes quickly at superstitious beliefs and, in a superbly constructed point, takes aim at the person who eats lavishly but prays for health and at the man who makes expensive sacrifices but prays for wealth. Finally, he attacks the belief that the gods are subject to the same desires as humanity and may thus be bribed accordingly. The second satire closes with a recommendation that the individual cultivate a soul of noble generosity and integrity and not offer vain sacrifices with petitions for shallow gain.

The third satire condemns living without the benefits of a philosophical attitude and restraint, and reveals the appalling consequences of such a life. The poet seems to include himself among those who live poorly when they know better, but such self-criticism is typical of Stoic ethics. The poem begins with a call to awaken from sleep, a metaphor that must not be overlooked. Persius notes all the common excuses given for procrastination, but his interlocutor reprimands such inactivity as mere childishness, which is not suitable as one matures. He warns that to continue on a path of indolence is to spoil one’s opportunity to achieve a virtuous life. It is especially wicked for the person who encounters philosophy and learns to distinguish proper living from poor to neglect such duties. Thus one must construct a plan for one’s life and not live subject to the whims of each day.

From line 63 to the end, the third satire turns to those people who have not yet enjoyed the benefits of a philosophical life, and Persius makes a conservative and dire observation regarding their imminent eternal slavery to ignorance. He insists that one must learn the general issues at stake in philosophy as soon as possible and dedicate one’s life to them. The list of issues Persius provides reveals his own conviction regarding Stoicism’s necessity, and he reflects on the ill treatment a philosopher receives from the common people. Persius does not offer a solution to this ridicule or criticize the foolishness of the crowd, but he implies that the lives of such people are deprived of true virtue and joy.

Persius concludes the third satire with a story of a man who falls ill after returning to his poor habits, once cured by his doctor, and dies indulging in his lavish behavior. The third satire closes by arguing that those base impulses that stir one to indulge in desires are a clear sign that although perhaps one is not yet gravely ill, symptoms do exist that only the sober life may rectify.

The fourth satire is the shortest, fifty-two lines. In it, Persius turns his attention to self-examination and opens with a criticism of those who put more stock in public affairs than in the virtuous improvement of their own lives. He initially addresses the poem to Alcibiades, the Athenian statesman, playboy, and maverick student of the philosopher Socrates. Alcibiades, the ward of the Athenian statesman Pericles, was blessed with an excellent upbringing and skill in speaking, but he never knew his own psychological pitfalls. Persius’s criticism is directed at both this type of person and the multitude who ignorantly follow such a person, passionately stirred up by his charms.

The poem then turns to a more general lament over the human habit of criticizing and gossiping about others while knowing so little of oneself, along with the fault that Persius terms “covering a secret wound behind a golden belt,” the confusion of the public opinion of a person with the real person. The fourth satire closes with advice to shun the opinions of the crowd and hold oneself accountable to high personal standards. The final image is succinct and compelling: One should tend to one’s own house, having realized how empty it is.

The fifth satire is the longest, at 191 lines. As does the second satire, it closely imitates Horace with respect to style and theme. The poem is dedicated to Persius’s friend and mentor Lucius Annaeus Cornutus, whose influence the poet joyfully recognizes in all aspects of his life. Persius first recalls his study under Cornutus at sixteen years of age, when he performed his coming-of-age ceremony and found himself at the mercy of adolescent temperament. He credits Cornutus’s teaching with saving his soul and setting straight his ethical standards. Persius respectfully suggests that the two were fated to meet each other.

The remainder of the fifth satire turns with a critical eye to the vices of other people. Persius argues that each person is distinguished by his or her particular desires and laments that so few follow the proper path of the Stoic’s life, as Cornutus did. He offers that all people seek liberty, but few understand the genuine object of freedom; therefore, most people are slaves to their passions. The Stoic knows the best remedy: One must dedicate oneself to proper living, distinguish truth, and employ reason to live a moderate and self-controlled life, freed from inane desires that weaken the soul, especially the vices of avarice and lust. Persius satirizes those people whom he is accustomed to criticize: candidates for office who seduce the mob, the superstitious, and, finally, ignorant soldiers. The poem closes abruptly, following a list of senseless activities that bind the soul into some form of slavery.

The sixth satire is addressed to the lyric poet Caesius Bassus. In it, Persius assesses the virtues of moderate living and the difficulty such a life may cause for those not so inclined. Persius remarks that he has a good life, keeps at his estate away from the crowd, and meets his daily needs without great concern for hoarding wealth or, conversely, indulgence in trivial expenditures. He then turns his criticism toward common arguments against his way of life, most notably those offered by the fault-finding troublemaker (he uses the name Bestius, taken from Horace) or the heir who threatens to neglect proper funeral rites—which the Romans perceived as a dishonor and threat to the deceased’s final rest—unless his avarice is fed. To this heir, Persius offers a discussion that meanders in presentation but essentially argues that he would not starve himself in the present so that someone in the future may grow fat. In this way, Persius presents the Stoic emphasis on moderation. The poem closes with a satiric encouragement of vice, by which he emphasizes the imminent danger of such a life.

Persius’s style is difficult and, as mentioned before, often imitates Horace. His moderate lifestyle, distant from the rigors of urban demands, helped to establish a secure, if not grand, reputation for him. Persius’s contributions are important to the legacy of Roman satire and reveal much about his society and the nature of philosophical and literary protest in imperial Rome. They further present a fine study of Stoicism’s potential influence on the young, and their insistence on moderation attracted many subsequent writers, most notably the seventeenth century English poet John Dryden, who made one of the earliest translations.

Bibliography

Coffey, Michael. Roman Satire. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1976. Introduces the basic issues of classical scholarship at stake in Persius’s work and places Persius within his literary and historical context. Chapter 6 offers a particularly thorough summary of the Satires.

Dessen, Cynthia S. The Satires of Persius: Iunctura callidus acri. 2d ed. London: Bristol Classical Press, 1996. Demonstrates how Persius’s satires are unified and understandable through his use of controlling metaphors, imagery, and word repetition.

Freudenburg, Kirk. Satires of Rome: Threatening Poses from Lucilius to Juvenal. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Analyzes Persius’s Satires and the work’s relationship to other satirical writings by Horace, Juvenal, and Lucilius. Describes the audience for the work of these ancient Roman satirists.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Roman Satire. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Collection of essays provides wide-ranging discussion of the satire of ancient Rome. “Speaking from Silence: The Stoic Paradoxes of Persius,” by Andrea Cucchiarelli, provides an analysis of the Satires.

Morford, Mark. Persius. Boston: Twayne, 1984. Presents a superbly detailed explanation of the Satires and discussion of Persius’s style and influence. Includes a copious bibliography of primary and secondary sources, interesting notes, a chronology, and an index. One of the best books for a beginner’s study of Persius.

Nisket, R. G. M. “Persius.” In Satire: Critical Essays on Roman Literature, edited by J. P. Sullivan. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968. Places Persius and the Satires within their literary context. Thought-provoking source for a thorough introduction to Persius.

Rudd, Niall, trans. The Satires of Horace and Persius. New York: Penguin Books, 1973. Superior translation of the Satires in blank verse is preceded by an introduction that provides useful information about Persius’s life and craft.