Juvenal's Global Awareness: Circulation, Connectivity, and Empire (Routledge Monographs in Classical Studies) [1 ed.] 9781138125308, 9781315647609, 113812530X

Citation preview

Juvenal’s Global Awareness

In Juvenal’s Global Awareness Osman Umurhan applies theories of globalization to an investigation of Juvenal’s articulation and understanding of empire, imperialism, and identity. Umurhan explains how the increased interconnectivity between different localities, ethnic and political, shapes Juvenal’s view of Rome as in constant flux and motion. Theoretical and sociological notions of deterritorialization, time–space compression, and the rhizome inform the satirist’s language of mobility and his construction of space and place within second century Rome and its empire. The circulation of people, goods, and ideas generated by processes of globalization facilitates Juvenal’s negotiation of threats and changes to Roman institutions that include a wide array of topics, from representations of the army and food to discussions of cannibalism and language. Umurhan’s analysis stresses that Juvenalian satire itself is a rhizome in both function and form. This study is designed for audiences interested in Juvenal, empire, and globalization under Rome. Osman Umurhan is Assistant Professor of Classics at the University of New Mexico, USA.

Routledge Monographs in Classical Studies

Titles include: Translating Classical Plays: The Collected Papers J. Michael Walton Athens: The City as University Niall Livingstone Resemblance and Reality in Greek Thought Edited by Arum Park An Ancient Theory of Religion: Euhemerism from Antiquity to the Present Nickolas P. Roubekas Attic Oratory and Performance Andreas Serafim Forthcoming: TransAntiquity: Cross-Dressing and Transgender Dynamics in the Ancient World Edited by Domitilla Campanile, Filippo Carlà-Uhink, and Margherita Facella Aeschylus and War: Comparative Perspectives on ‘Seven Against Thebes’ Edited by Isabelle Torrance The Etruscans and the History of Dentistry: The Golden Smile through the Ages Marshall J. Becker and Jean MacIntosh Turfa Masculinity and Dress in Roman Antiquity Kelly Olson

Juvenal’s Global Awareness Circulation, Connectivity, and Empire Osman Umurhan

First published 2018 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 Osman Umurhan The right of Osman Umurhan to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-1-138-12530-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-64760-9 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Book Now Ltd, London

Contents

Acknowledgments 1

Introduction: Geography, empire, and globalization

vii 1

Globalization, its theories, and second century Rome: Interconnection, time–space compression, and deterritorialization  4 Interconnection 6 Time–space compression and deterritorialization  8 Empire and territorial space  10 Consciousness and reflexivity  12 Satire 1 and the coordination of location  14 Juvenal’s world of circulation and global awareness  18 2

Culture and globalization: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9

37

To Rome all circulates  41 Lucilius and the geographic construction of place  44 To Rome, the hub of interconnectivity and global flows  46 Global flow and deterritorialization  52 Results 60 3

Food and globalization: Satires 4, 5, and 11

71

Reading globalization in objects  73 Satire 4: The rhombus and a consciousness of the world at large  75 Vivaria and piscinae: The local and global  79 Rome’s unstable periphery  83 Deterritorialization and reterritorialization: Satires 5 and 11  85 4

Globalization and the periphery: Satire 15 Satire 15: A prelude to cannibalism (15.1–32)  106 The challenge of the chew  110

103

vi Contents Metaphoric cannibalism  112 Decentering on the periphery  118 Rome’s increasing multiplicity  123 5

Globalization and the army’s circulation of empire: Satire 16

133

Back where we began?  135 History of violence: The military  137 Juvenal’s soldiers and the circulation of violence  141 The emperor and his troops  145 Juvenal’s satiric salvo  146 The satirist soldier to the rescue  148 Felix: The insurance for military success  151 Political instability from the Year of the Four Emperors to Trajan  153 Trajan (98–117 ce) 155 Aftermath 159 6

Epilogue: The rhizome satirist

173

Rhizome 175 Rhizomatic satire  177 Index locorum General index

183 186

Acknowledgments

This book has come a long way since its initial, unrefined musings in a doctoral thesis and owes a debt of immense gratitude to all who have crossed its path and helped polish it by way of conversation, research, inspiration, and friendship. Its blueprint first developed under the tutelage of my wise advisor and colleague, Joy Connolly, whose continued support over the years has made this journey so fruitful. The magnanimous support of Bob Cape at Austin College and Leah Kronenberg at Rutgers University helped keep this project viable during my demanding and meandering tour as a young scholar. By Providence the University of New Mexico’s Monica Cyrino and Lorenzo F. Garcia Jr. extended this itinerant soul a line to join their ranks of collegiality and intellectual rigor where my ideas about the globalizing and transforming world of ancient Rome were permitted to take firm root. This current project could not have been realized without the support and encouragement of Antony Augoustakis, Philip de Souza, K.F.B. Fletcher, Kirk Freudenburg, Laurel Fulkerson, Robert Gurval, David Levene, John Marincola, Jim McGlew, Phillip Mitsis, Michael Peachin, Jay Reed, C. Michael Sampson, Alden Smith, Heather Vincent, and Craig Williams. The University of New Mexico’s Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures and the Research Allocations Committee made possible by their generous support the opportunity to conduct research and compose various stages of the manuscript at a variety of research libraries from the University of California, Los Angeles and University of Colorado, Boulder, to University College Dublin and Trinity College, Dublin. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my colleague and friend Monica Cyrino, whose endless tenacity and loyal determination helped kick start this project in its present form; to Lorenzo F. Garcia Jr. for his ceaseless generosity, feedback, and willingness to act as a critical sounding board at every twist and turn. Many thanks also to the anonymous readers whose crucial and thought-provoking feedback enriched my investigation beyond its initial scope. Amy Davis-Poynter and Elizabeth Thomasson at Routledge have offered tireless technical support, and just as importantly a level of professionalism and patience that has made for a most enjoyable process. All remaining errors are my own and ought not to reflect poorly upon all who have offered their expertise and support. Last, but not least, I extend the laurel to my family—especially to Susan, whose ears I battered with excitement about the manuscript at ungodly hours and most likely to the detriment of her mental health, and to Una, whose joie de vivre always serves a welcome reminder about the virtues of perspective. Without them all this project would not exist.

Client kingdom New province Legion (after ILS 2288)

be El r s We

e Rh i n

GERMANIA

e

Po D

0

300 mi

0

500 km

Figure 1  The Roman empire, 117 ce.

B a nu b e

ERMANIA

ALANI D

BOSPORUS IBERIA

a nu b e

ARMENIA

M

ES

O

PO

TA Tigr M is A SS IA YR IA Eup hr

a te s

CHARAX

Nile

1 Introduction Geography, empire, and globalization

This monograph argues that Juvenal’s Satires uses the landscape of Rome and the geography of its empire to reflect upon the shifting correspondences between geographical boundaries and those of cultural and political identity in second century ce Rome. A majority of the collection (satires 1–16) focuses on the narrator’s observations about Rome—its urban landscape, monuments, and natural topography—and the geography and location of areas outside Rome’s city space. Many scholars of Juvenal and Roman satire have emphasized the paramount importance of the cityscape as the main source for Juvenal’s discontent, namely as the locus where luxury and excess permeate the longstanding fabric of upright Roman morality identified by the emblematic Roman institutions of the patron–client relationship (amicitia), the military council (concilium principis), and the dinner party (cena).1 This monograph, however, considers the effects on these institutions not merely as evidence for corrupt morality, but as specific symptoms of Rome as an empire and its territorial extent. For Juvenal (ca. 55–ca. 138 ce),2 people, goods, and information represent a wide variety of metaphors that help describe empire.3 They are in constant motion; their mobility demarcates the space of empire, between its center, Rome, and its outlying areas of influence along its periphery, and their movement constitutes one indicator of Rome’s growth into a larger political and cultural power. These networks of movement facilitate the exposure of core urban (inter-city) spaces and the symbolic areas of the Roman institutions of amicitia and the cena to the passage of food, customs, ornaments, and peoples imported from the imperial periphery. The passage of people and customs penetrates not only city spaces such as street corners (and villas) and physical landmarks (the Forum, Campus Martius, Esquiline Hill, etc.), but also households of the elite where the confluence of the local and foreign often takes place. These areas feature the effects of cultural and social change amidst the higher frequency of commerce and exchange and, thereby, attract the major attention of Juvenal and fuel his social commentary. This circulation of objects by land, river, and sea also signifies a dangerous ethical fluidity that threatens Rome in both its importation and circulation of the foreign,

2 Introduction contagion, and/or corruption from the center of its empire to its peripheries, and vice versa. Although many have considered the prevalence of vice and corrupt morality in Juvenal’s Satires,4 this book concentrates on the role of circulation (importation and exportation) in the destabilization of Rome and its empire. This project, then, aims to illuminate how the movement of people, goods, and ideas in the Satires is inextricable from the experience of empire. Juvenal’s narrative(s) can be explained as a series of psychological responses activated by these mechanisms of empire and an awareness of the shrinking world of second century Rome. Detailed analysis of these descriptions of and focus on motion, geography, and empire, reveal a heightened awareness of individual and political connectivity, as well as a larger global consciousness, and how this greater interconnectivity is triggered in large part by Rome’s magnitude as the space of a large territorial empire.5 Modern theories of globalization serve as a fitting analogue for Juvenal’s general awareness of what it means to live in an empire traced through the circulation of its products. For example, globalization theories treat many processes by which localities (in space) become increasingly interconnected and interdependent. One socio-cultural definition of globalization that offers a fresh perspective on Juvenal’s Rome and its empire states that “globalization as a concept refers to the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole.”6 Consciousness, moreover, does not imply a consensus, but merely a shared sense of the world as a whole.7 These studies offer a theoretical complement to Juvenal’s use of the space of empire— the exchange of information, ideas, and people within it—to identify, negotiate, and articulate the ever-shifting boundaries of Roman identity amidst these pressures of globalization. Recent work on globalization shows that its theories are just as relevant and informative about social and cultural processes in antiquity as they are to modernity.8 In fact, globalization studies has traditionally been limited to the field of sociology and international studies within the twentieth and twentyfirst century contexts, but has recently been applied to processes that inform ancient9 and classical archeology.10 However, this study is less concerned with material culture and its physical impressions on Rome’s landscape than in the application of globalization processes and its value in illuminating Juvenal’s literary representation of empire and its effects. These socio-cultural approaches of globalization nicely complement recent work in Classics that demonstrate that starting in the age of Augustus there is an increased awareness about Rome as a growing physical space of empire and its subsequent challenges or virtues.11 Juvenal’s Satires, like the works of Martial, Tacitus, Strabo and Pliny the Elder and Younger, represent individuals coming to grips with an ever-changing—whether increasing or shrinking, depending on the author’s perspective—political and cultural landscape of their day. Like Tacitus, however, Juvenal articulates a rather cynical view of empire, but with a particular emphasis on empire as an area of indiscriminate circulation. Whereas Martial, Pliny the Elder, and Strabo are generally more favorable toward the princeps

Introduction  3 and his established rule, Juvenal is not only scarcely celebratory, yet more enigmatic about directing criticism of the ad hominem variety,12 but also—perhaps seemingly contradictorily—more reactionary and emotional in his articulation of the effects of empire.13 Juvenal’s experience of daily life at Rome sees a fuller maturation of the mechanisms of empire that other writers before him were just beginning to observe in its nascent stages. Ultimately, Juvenal’s Global Awareness: Circulation, Connectivity, and Empire endeavors to integrate Juvenal’s understanding and articulation of empire, imperialism, and identity with theories of globalization, to explain how the increased interconnectivity between different ethnic and political localities shapes Juvenal’s view of Rome and its empire as a metaphorical body in constant flux and motion and to investigate how this circulation informs his foresight of the collapse of empire. The unstable state of empire also informs the psychology of the speaker frequently depicted as emotionally charged and angry as he becomes conscious of a new world of increased spatial dimensions and accelerated pace of life. Furthermore, this charged combination of globalizing world and human emotion is highly reminiscent of contemporary reactionary politics generated by mass migration and political instability. The growing political upheaval of the Middle East, for example, has led, among many other things (i.e., rise of fundamentalist armies), to the recent mass migration of Syrian citizens and other asylum seekers to the Western world seeking better economic and personal prosperity. Some scholars have noted how US and British (“Western powers”) involvement in the region reaching back to the twentieth century brought about the international effects of Mideast turmoil, suggesting that the source of instability cannot be easily identified as originating from one particular area, but from various circumstances and complicated issues.14 Continental harmony, too, has been at stake with the seeming fracture of the European Union (EU) with Britain’s recent withdrawal from the EU.15 Some, too, have argued for the mass migration of Middle Easterners into Europe as a contributing factor in Britain’s decision to leave the EU in its Brexit vote, which US President Barack Obama claimed reflects some fears of globalization such as rattling world markets and the fear of the EU breaking apart.16 The United States, too, has not been immune to general fears of economic and political uncertainty as a result of increased migration and connectivity. A notable reactionary figure has been Donald Trump, the current President of the United States, who has argued publically at state conventions for the protection of national borders—i.e., building a border wall with Mexico—for the preservation of economic opportunity for US citizens. These are just a few examples. Ultimately, discussions of national borders, immigration, war, armies, economic opportunity, food, cultural identity, (in)stability, and (dis)unity are all the stuff of globalization that resonate equally in Juvenal’s world. Like Roman satire, globalization also represents a mixture and the confluence of disparate elements informed by a greater consciousness of the world. With this greater consciousness come dialectical forces of appropriation and denunciation that are facilitated by the growth and territorial space of empire building.17

4 Introduction

Globalization, its theories, and second century Rome: Interconnection, time–space compression, and deterritorialization Juvenal’s geographic frame articulates an awareness of contemporary Rome’s unprecedented territorial extent and conveys a heightened cognizance of individual and political interconnectivity, as well as a larger global consciousness. What happens at Rome as observed by Juvenal has far-reaching consequences and effects on its periphery, and vice versa. This understanding of geographic breadth is a distinct function of Rome’s empire that colors the author’s portraiture of Rome as an organism subject to the circulation of goods and people. I argue both that Juvenal’s worldly cognizance is in part drawn from Greek and Roman historiographers, and that this consciousness can be enriched by correlations with many current theories of globalization. And, so, I make the case for how and why several processes of globalization, many of which are rooted in antiquity, are useful for the study of Juvenal and his views of Rome. A careful application of some of these theories show that Juvenal’s focus on the numerous threats to Rome’s military, social, and political institutions at home and abroad are not merely evidence for Rome’s corrupt morality, but symptomatic of Rome’s empire and its territorial expansion. Before turning to specific elaborations of space and movement from Juvenal’s collection (Chapter 2), it will be useful to understand the applicability of theories of globalization to the reading of Juvenal. According to many social and psychoanalytic theorists, globalization began around the 1970s and 80s with the increase of corporate and other market forces, including the rise of technology and local–international communication and via the Internet.18 Mass consumerism and free-market capitalism are two of the most significant features of current globalization theories that include the branding of American hegemonic identities upon the rest of the world. One clear process of globalization that features in broad terms the impact of the economic and political on the cultural, and vice versa, is “McDonaldization,” a term coined by sociologist George Ritzer in his landmark study The McDonaldization of Society.19 “McDonaldization” defines the fast-food restaurant—a modern American institution—as one model for the growing homogenization of world cultures.20 However, recent studies have also argued against the chain’s homogenizing affects to show that McDonaldization has furthered heterogeneity with the reinvention of the global (that which has had a global reach) at the local level.21 Examples include East Asian cities’ reinvention of McDonald’s to suit local appetites or others where the local industry, such as the falafel industry in Israel, has co-existed and coopted the industrial standard of McDonald’s.22 Instead of a one-way imposition of the global on the local, there appears a more complicated and diverse direction of influence where the local and the global interact to create hybridity or even greater diversity. This process of two-way interaction is sometimes referred to as “glocalization.”23 Ultimately, McDonaldization is one process of globalization that demonstrates how the flow of goods and ideas crosses national boundaries and in doing so

Introduction  5 shapes both local and foreign cultures in a variety of unpredictable ways. Such an interaction beyond the local level is the direct function of the mobility and consumption of these products on a global scale. Since so many explanations for globalization and its processes in the modern world are both rooted in and help to articulate the everyday experience of cultural, economic, and social interaction, it is no surprise that there has been a growing trend among sociologists, archeologists, and classicists, who argue that the chronology of globalization predates the twentieth century and era of the Industrial Revolution and reaches as far back as the third millennium bce.24 These recent studies show that a deep historical perspective is essential to the appropriate characterization of conditions of connectivity in any given era, modern or ancient. Since the 1990s, explanations for globalization have fractured into several specialized processes, including what John Tomlinson defines as “cultural globalization” in his book Globalization and Culture, namely a dense network of intense interaction and interdependencies between different people in different parts of the world generated by a significant increase in the flow of information, goods, and people across cultural and geographic boundaries.25 The following are some definitions of globalization: 1 “Globalization as a concept refers to the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole” (Robertson 1992: 8). 2 “A world of disjunctive flows that produce problems that manifest themselves in intensely local forms but have contexts that are anything but local” (Appadurai 2001: 6). 3 “The intensified movement of goods, money, technology, information, people, ideas and cultural practices across political and cultural boundaries. Such movements combine cause and effect” (Holton 2005: 14–15). A striking feature of these select definitions is how they overlap. Generally speaking, fundamental features of globalization theories include: interconnection, consciousness, and reflexivity, all three of which I explain in further detail in following sections. Furthermore, processes behind globalization are deeply embedded in constructions of space and culture. Tomlinson has noted that globalization “disturbs the way we conceptualise ‘culture.’ For culture has long had connotations tying it to the idea of a fixed locality.”26 I follow Tomlinson’s definition for culture as “the order of life in which human beings construct meaning through practices of symbolic representation.”27 The equivalent to “practices” in the Roman world are those habits and behaviors that constitute the Roman institutions and the customs of the patron–client relationship, the dinner party/dining, and the military. The proper observance of these institutions is predicated on the notion of exchange, either by way of material goods and their consumption, or the distribution of power, ideas, and meaningful communication between individuals and groups. No one convention is mutually exclusive to the others. Given the current multitude of socio-cultural and economic analyses, it is best to view globalization not as one principal process, but as a series of processes that may

6 Introduction overlap with one another.28 Justin Jennings (2011) identifies eight trends associated with the creation of a global culture in an ancient and modern context, several of which will be discussed in greater detail in this chapter: time–space compression, deterritorialization, standardization, unevenness, homogenization, cultural heterogeneity, re-embedding of local culture, and vulnerability.29

Interconnection Although understanding globalization as one principal process can simplify the complex connectivity and interaction motivated by trade, transport, and the flow of ideas, it is premature to claim that it is exclusively the result of modernity. Moreover, scholarship on globalization in antiquity has been almost exclusively historical rather than literary in focus. The recent works by Hingley (2005), Jennings (2011), Collar (2014) and Pitts and Versluys (2015), have made great strides in the applicability and pitfalls of globalization theories upon pre-industrial societies, including the archeology and history of the Roman world.30 Much work on globalization is predicated on the notion of “network(s)” and is fundamental for understanding the perception of a larger global consciousness in Juvenal’s collection. Barrie Axford (2012) has recently described a network as an arrangement of nodes tied together by relationships—some instrumental, others affective—that serve as channels of communication, resource pools and coordinating mechanisms, where networks are seen as exemplars of the current global political and cultural economies because they are both mobile and mutable. [. . .] In short, networks offer alternate topologies of the global, characterized not by fixity and or closure [as by borders], but by movement.31 A network strives for communication and, at times, cooperation between various groups of people. By virtue of this exchange, or attempts thereof, sociality is a prime element of this process. This sociality, in turn, is just as germane to the importance of social relations in the ancient world. Ultimately, exchange— commercial and socio-cultural—is vital for a “network” to succeed. Collar, in her application of network theoretical methods to understand the spread of religious ideas in the Roman Empire, has argued how social networks facilitate the spread of ideas by way of technology, ideology, and/or religion.32 One key facilitator of such movement of ideas has been the Roman military.33 With the increased networks accelerated by military movement comes a series of challenges to the status quo that are at the root of Juvenal’s Satires. The Roman army represents just one Roman institution that exemplifies mobility and its role in generating the very networks that represent one process of globalization (Chapter 5). In addition to the military, other processes of globalization are apparent in the economic (Chapter 3) and cultural (Chapter 2) spheres of Juvenal’s landscape. Interconnection, or interconnectivity, is another fundamental notion of networks and exchange that permeates Roman culture of the late Republic and early Imperial era. Morley has recently applied some processes of globalization to

Introduction  7 explain the source and various manifestations of Roman imperialism.34 Though a critic of the applicability of certain globalization theories on Roman antiquity, he has aptly articulated the usefulness of interconnection in understanding some mechanisms of Roman imperialism: The security of the Empire depended on connectivity, the (relatively) rapid and reliable movement of goods, people, information and money across a wide area; it thus used its resources to create conditions that then enhanced the connectivity of the Mediterranean for all its inhabitants. The result of these developments and of the creation of new centres of demand was a dramatic expansion in the volume of goods being moved around the Empire from the second century bce onwards.35 Morley recognizes that the circulation and distribution of goods throughout the Empire was one that transpired over a long period of time, since the second century bce. Though a much slower process than twentieth and twenty-first century modernity, it is important to recognize that the effects that Juvenal reflects upon in his collection are a result of a deep and long historical process that had been transpiring for centuries since the Bronze Age. By Juvenal’s era there was an increased rate of change and range that accompanied the territorial extent of the Empire. Some effects of imperial expansion include the economic impact of increased demand for goods and supplies, such as by the military and the exhaustion of local supplies, production, and environmental devastation.36 Ultimately, the rate of economic growth was generally erratic and slow in this time period; but, because of increased demand, new nodes of demand (Morley’s “centres”) led to an increase in the level of connectivity between Rome, the city, and its outliers. Coupled with this increase in demand is the creation of new centers to satisfy these needs, thereby diffusing the impact of Rome as the sole node of consumption and activity. Juvenal’s Rome articulates these very processes in their challenge of Rome as the privileged center of a growing geographic expanse. The expanding networks of activity also threaten, in essence, to de-privilege the center, which is very much in the spirit of globalization processes, unlike theories of Romanization.37 Romanization represents a theoretical model that views the appropriation of cultural models in one direction, namely from center to periphery, whereas from the perspective of globalization theory, there is inherent a dialectical flow between center and peripheral areas that not only features exportation, but importation as well. Such a multi-directional current results in diminishing the center’s authority. In his examination of the social changes associated with the spread of Uruk, Mississippian, and Wari civilizations, Jennings has argued how a network reaches complex connectivity when “it triggers the array of social changes that are associated with the formulation of global culture,” but not a growing homogenization implied by the McDonaldization process, but a global culture that is “a fractured, hybrid, and often contentious amalgamation of people who know that they are stuck together whether they like it or not” that is also reminiscent of glocalization.38 Like those civilizations considered by Jennings, the same holds

8 Introduction for Roman civilization in the period of the second century. For Juvenal, in particular, the concurrence of diversity is the very essence of Rome that also threatens to diffuse ethnic and cultural boundaries. Though the networks of information and material exchange do not span the globe as twenty-first century globalization, Rome’s networks fundamentally transformed the perception of the world’s expanse and its inhabitants. For Juvenal that perception of the world is a function of its expansion into a larger territorial space of empire (Chapter 4). The awareness of Rome’s geography of empire begins to take root in the mid to late Republic, beginning with Polybius (more pp. 12–13) and Cicero.39 By Juvenal’s era, Rome’s global scale has a tangible psychological effect on the satirist as he attempts to negotiate his place as a poet in an ever-changing social and political scene.

Time–space compression and deterritorialization Another feature of globalization that is germane to Juvenal is the concept of time–space compression, which is a contributing effect to the growing intensification of social and economic relationships in the modern era. This idea proposed by Marxist geographer David Harvey views the circulation of capital and the speeding-up of social relations as a result of developments in capitalism that, in turn, also reduce the significance of place.40 Like network theory discussed in the previous section, time–space compression also features the effects of increased activity, or “flows,” where places, even hubs, become absorbed by the network, thereby changing the nature of place.41 This notion is important for understanding many mechanisms of social, economic, and cultural change in both the modern and pre-modern eras.42 Morley, however, has noted how in the economic sphere of activity in the Roman world “the persistence of decentered and small-scale production also reflects the very limited command of space and time of any of the dominant forces in Roman society.”43 Perception, again, I would argue, is the key to the application of globalization processes here. Though in real time the compression of spaces is much less pronounced than that of modern era technology and internet networks, the satirist’s reaction to perceived challenges to Roman institutions offers evidence that some nascent processes of globalization are taking shape. Alongside networks (and flows) and time–space compression, there exists another effect of the globalizing process entitled “deterritorialization.”44 Because culture connects meaning construction with particularity and location,45 increased physical mobility can challenge or even transform specific localities in and of themselves. Tomlinson explains, “Deterritorialization is the weakening or dissolution of connection between everyday lived cultural and territorial location.”46 The movement of goods and people toward and out of Rome renders the city highly permeable to infiltration and transformation. In Juvenal, mobility and circulation are inextricable from the forces of empire and its territorial expansion. With this movement generated by empire comes a general sense and the reality of economic, social, and political displacement, a key feature of deterritorialization. Sociologists have adopted this notion to explain some

Introduction  9 of the effects of time–space compression upon fixed localities. Specifically, it “involves reach of global connectivity into localities. This involves the simultaneous penetration of local worlds by distant forces and the dislodging of everyday cultural meanings from their ‘anchors’ in local cultural contexts.”47 In a follow-up to their critique of capitalism in Capitalisme et Schizophrénie. L’anti-Œdipe (1972), and the discussion of deterritorialization, Deleuze and Guattari in Mille Plateaux (1980) introduce the concept of the “rhizome” that is applicable to an understanding of many of the forces of globalization expressed in Juvenal’s collection.48 Some theories of the rhizome—based on and defined against the image of the tree, with its trunk and branches that spread outward— liken the forces of connectivity to a subterranean stem, like that of a potato that has no dominant root, but whose structure is connected at various locations. As a result, the rhizome resists any dominant authority, like its antithesis the trunk of a tree but, instead, serves to illuminate the heterogeneity and multiplicity of globalizing processes at hand. Interconnectivity, time–space compression, the space of flows, deterritorialization, etc., all represent an ongoing process of globalization that is not at its beginning or end, but in the middle, or milieu.49 The rhizome acts as a metaphor for the middle, which represents the multiplicity of these processes to epitomize the meandering nature of networks; and, so, in this way Juvenal’s metaphorical language of mobility anticipates the nature of globalization in the Satires. Deleuze and Guattari’s two-volume study serves specifically as critiques of capitalism as the major force of globalization; hence, their theories of the rhizome and of being situated in the middle are specifically applicable to the Roman Empire already shaped by the nascent forces described in their analysis. This novel cognitive view not only informs the satirist’s mental framework (see Chapter 6), but also allows for a greater appreciation of the network processes that shape the lived experience of empire in Juvenal’s era. Such connectivity generated by the movement of peoples and goods into Rome and its empire creates similar effects on the Roman world of Juvenal’s Satires, especially in the context of foreign upstarts (Chapter 2) and foreign food cultures (Chapter 3). There is, however, a key difference of degree in the articulation of deterritorialization between the modern context of capitalist culture and economics and the ancient. Deterritorialization argues that as distant forces penetrate localities, globalized culture becomes less and less determined by geographic place or, as Tomlinson proposes, it generates an “attenuation of the hold that local particularities have on our cultures.”50 In essence, increased connectivity weakens the links between geographic place and resources through which meaning is constructed. An effect of this increased connectivity is a sense of displacement and alienation, which in modernity is almost a foregone conclusion of globalizing culture; however, for Juvenal this is not the case. The increase in connectivity—by way of increased circulation of people and goods—serves to displace Juvenal both as an individual who feels a specific connection to Rome and its representation of its Republican morals and as a poet attempting to convey his voice in the changing landscape of literary patronage. The manifestation of globalization in the process of deterritorialization is discussed further in the

10 Introduction satirist’s expression of physical and literary alienation in satires 1, 7, and 8 (Chapter 2).Satire 1 finds the satirist at odds with the nouveau-riche foreigner who seeks to prevent the satirist from receiving the daily handout of the sportula. Satire 7 features the poet bewailing his exclusion from, if not the transformation of, the Republican established tradition of literary patronage. Satire 8 explores another facet of cultural identity shaped by globalizing forces, namely the attenuation of meaning attached to family lineage and nobility.

Empire and territorial space Integral to the globalizing trends of deterritorialization, interconnection and time–space compression are the critical formulations and representations of physical space, like borders and territory. Borders in both their physical and metaphorical manifestations may be seen as an opposing force to networks. Where borders in the modern context of globalization are seen as a means of delimiting social or political systems by means of states or “nation-states,”51 networks (including deterritorialization and interconnection) act to diffuse them.52 As physical borders become more permeable to the transportation of goods, technology, and people, there exists both a psychological and cultural sense that identities become less distinct.53 This is the case, too, in Juvenal. I have argued elsewhere for the pertinence of borders to the formulation of and challenges to poetic and cultural identity in Juvenal.54 The increase of circulation and mobility in Juvenal’s pre-industrial world are just as significant in creating the sense that the world is compressing, and with it a preponderance of new customs and peoples in Rome. The heightened perception of this increase stimulates the desire to (re-)establish both physical and cultural borders of identity. The engine of empire building, moreover, further frustrates this desire and in Juvenal would appear to be a function of Rome’s now established political hegemony over the Mediterranean world in the early second century ce. Hardt and Negri (2000) in their work Empire argue that modern political domination has at its core globalization. Whereas they view “imperialism” as the sovereign extension of nation-states (particularly European) beyond their borders, they refer to “Empire” in contrast, which they state: establishes no territorial center of power and does not rely on fixed boundaries or barriers. It is a decentered and deterritorialized apparatus of rule that progressively incorporates the entire global realm within its open, expanding frontiers. Empire manages hybrid identities, flexible hierarchies, and plural exchanges through modulating networks of command.55 Since territorial gain is a function of Rome’s growth into an empire—especially from the onset of the Punic Wars (264–146 bce)—the fluctuation of physical boundaries (and cultural ones) is an inevitable effect. Where Hardt and Negri view “Empire” as emerging from the twilight of modern sovereignty, I would argue that for Juvenal the effects of “imperialism” generate similar deterritorializing

Introduction  11 effects. In other words, it would be useful to consider Hardt and Negri’s definition of “Empire” as the cause and “imperialism” its effect in the Roman context of the late Republic and Imperial era.56 Roman imperialism may be defined as a central authority, which exerts political and military influence upon its subjects. This central exertion facilitated by territorial acquisitions in the Roman desire for glory, then, generates processes of globalization, like deterritorialization and time–space compression, which act to diffuse the exertion of that center. As Rome inflates it not only expands its frontiers and “incorporates the entire global realm,” but also insures the platform by which increased regional exchanges of goods and identities circulate and shift. The relationship between Roman imperialism and geography is also crucial for literary articulations of globalization processes. Many modern scholars, like Edward Said, have defined nineteenth and twentieth century imperialism in a manner highly reminiscent of Romanization, where the center exerts sovereignty over its surroundings and its territorial periphery.57 However, this notion of imperialism as an extension of some central authority harkens back to Roman conceptions of imperium that are rooted in some Republican era literature.58 In short, imperium is the authority granted to a Roman magistrate over his territorial province (provincia) and one who wields military power on behalf of the Roman state.59 Over time, as Rome shifts to the rule of the princeps under the emperor Augustus, the once-Republican powers of imperium shared among many senatorial elites become restricted to the princeps and his family. The single ruler who ostensibly wields imperium alone has in his possession all the territorial provinces (provincia) under Roman authority, which collectively constitute the entire world. It is from this Augustan era on that the term imperium Romanum constitutes all the territory under Roman sway.60 Parallel to this development in meaning, the phrases orbis terrarum and orbis Romanus also appear in greater frequency to signify the physical and territorial extent of Roman sovereignty.61 By the beginning of the Roman Imperial age it is fairly entrenched in Roman literary perceptions that Rome represents a political and military powerhouse in possession of a large territorial body on a worldwide scale. Furthermore, it is the newly established institution of rule by one, the princeps, that helps solidify the perception of unification under this sovereign body. Where globalization processes see the growing interconnectedness and interdependencies of the world, the Roman general (and/or its emperor) and his military may be viewed as reinforcing this global connection in a way comparable to the effects of modern technological communication via satellite and the Internet.62 It is by way, for example, of the Imperial cult and pubic munificence and infrastructure—roads, markers, temples, public inscriptions, et al.—that information can be circulated around the empire. Clifford Ando (2000), Myles Lavan (2013), and Anna Collar (2014) have demonstrated the significance of the ruler (especially emperors) and his army in the circulation of imperial virtues around the Empire in their linguistic and material manifestations.63 For Juvenal this itinerant imperial image functions not only to map the geographic extent of

12 Introduction Rome’s empire, but also to highlight a consciousness that what moves does not do so just locally, but abroad and indiscriminately. By the turn of the second century ce, Rome is much larger than it has ever been before and has achieved global status. Its global reach, however, initiates a series of globalization trends, like deterritorialization, that threaten to diffuse the integrity and sovereignty of the political core. The growing interconnectedness of Rome and its surrounding areas has generated in Juvenal a consciousness sensitive to these contradictory forces. In conjunction with this awareness comes a certain sensibility that the author is just one among many in a global environment.

Consciousness and reflexivity Juvenal owes a debt to several forerunners who have viewed the world in more empirical terms, beginning with the historian Polybius. A series of studies by the sociologists Inglis and Robertson have offered a key bridge between select current globalization theories and an ecumenical analytic evident in ancient literature, namely Greek historiography.64 In their analysis of select Greek and Roman authors, they have argued strongly for notions of global sensibility, or “global animus,” that have otherwise been restricted to nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first century notions of globalization.65 A prime example is the Hellenistic historian, Polybius, whose history of the rise of Rome between the mid third and second centuries bce conveys an ecumenical66 sensibility, or a particular stress on the notion that the oikoumene (the world under Roman sway) was in his day portrayed as a locale where all the affairs of all the parts of the world are interrelated in increasingly complicated ways. Polybius’ key innovation was to designate the somatoeides oikoumene, or the global unit, the central object of historiographical analysis and scrutiny.67 In addition to this global unit, Polybius, too, suggests interconnection (συμπλέκεσθαί)68 as a basic foundation for a larger global unity that both links and maps the geographic extent of Roman influence (Italy, Libya, Greece and Asia) revealing a perception of the world as ever more intimate and connected. ἐν μὲν οὖν τοῖς πρὸ τούτων χρόνοις ὡς ἂν εἰ σποράδας εἶναι συνέβαινε τὰς τῆς οἰκουμένης πράξεις, διὰ τὸ καὶ κατὰ τὰς ἐπιβολάς, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὰς συντελείας αὐτῶν ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ κατὰ τοὺς τόπους διαφέρειν ἕκαστα τῶν πεπραγμένων. ἀπὸ δὲ τούτων τῶν καιρῶν οἷον εἰ σωματοειδῆ συμβαίνει γίνεσθαι τὴν ἱστορίαν, συμπλέκεσθαί τε τὰς Ἰταλικὰς καὶ Λιβυκὰς πράξεις ταῖς τε κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν καὶ ταῖς Ἑλληνικαῖς καὶ πρὸς ἓν γίνεσθαι τέλος τὴν ἀναφορὰν ἁπάντων. At an earlier time the activities of the world had been, so to say, dispersed, since each of the events, with regard to their initiatives, results, and localities were still far apart; but ever since this date [220 bce] history has been an organic whole, and the affairs of Italy and Libya have been interconnected with those of Greece and Asia, all rising up to one result. (Polybius, Histories 1.3.3–5)69

Introduction  13 Although the parameters of this Hellenistic scrutiny are multifaceted and beyond the current study, it is well worth noting that the shifting sociopolitical conditions of this ecumenical consciousness can be seen as generating a sense that old certainties as to borders, territories and relations between places are breaking down, and that a new order that seems to be truly world-spanning in scope is in the making, often at a very rapid and thus unsettling pace.70 With this ecumenical sensibility comes a heightened sense of global awareness that Polybius views as inextricable from the Roman experience of territorial expansion and political unity among disparate nation states.71 With the Roman presence comes a shift from disorganized and disconnected actions (ἔτι . . . διαφέρειν ἕκαστα τῶν πεπραγμένων) to greater cohesion (συμπλέκεσθαί). Ultimately, the movement of goods and people has the effect of shrinking relative distances between places to create a sense of increased connectedness and unity.72 Where this global consciousness begins to find expression in Polybius as far back as the second century bce, Rome as a global player appears fully realized in the centuries following by authors like Pliny the Elder, Tacitus, and Seneca, to name just a few.73 Recent scholarship has expressed a variant of this global consciousness in terms of authorial perceptions of the Roman Empire, especially with regard to geographic space, topography, cartography, and time.74 Roman theories of ethnocentrism have figured largely in the discussion of geography, space, and political and imperial aspirations.75 Such theories have also generated important discussions about Roman formulations of cultural identity.76 For example, Rome during the reign of Augustus experiences a pronounced articulation of the use of geography and of the space of empire that conveys an astute understanding of a larger, global world. Geography, empire, and politics align more seamlessly than ever before under a unified code under Augustus, primarily via his building program which includes Agrippa’s map and Augustus’ forum complex, Horologium, and mausoleum complexes.77 The Campus Martius, too, functions as a significant location where its accumulation of monuments and structures and areas for human interaction serve as a marker of imperial expansion shaping cultural identity (more in the next section). Having determined an ecumenical blueprint, Pliny the Elder under Vespasian and Titus (69–81 ce) would strive to outline the extent of territorial holdings under Roman control in his Naturalis Historia. Pliny in his encyclopedic work offers a reinforcement and complement to the Augustan regime of authority and awareness of space. Trevor Murphy has argued how the geography and foreign places that Pliny maps construct a cultural map of the world.78 Places symbolize individual qualities and people and, thereby, assist in the celebration of Roman authority over its vanquished subjects, while, at the same time, the copious amounts of information also help assimilate the unfamiliar aspects of empire to its new operating system.79 Pliny’s encyclopedic portrait of Rome, focusing as it does on aspects of Rome’s spatial expanse, natural environment,

14 Introduction and inhabitants, thus serves both as a cultural map of Rome at its territorial apex under the emperor Vespasian and as a testament to Rome’s authority and power. Pliny the Elder, then, serves as another step or precursor to Juvenal in the growing progression of Roman awareness of the larger space of empire and those things and peoples that constitute its area. There is also a shared sense of global awareness with Juvenal’s contemporary, Tacitus. The historian begins his Histories with an historical account of Rome— from the civil war of 68–69 ce to the death of Domitian—with a requisite preface that sets out his applied analytical method. His process seeks to take account of contemporary historical events in a holistic manner reminiscent of a globalized approach not unlike Polybius and Pliny the Elder before him. Ceterum antequam destinata componam, repetendum videtur qualis status urbis, quae mens exercituum, quis habitus provinciarum, quid in toto terrarum orbe validum, quid aegrum fuerit, ut non modo casus eventusque rerum, qui plerumque fortuiti sunt, sed ratio etiam causaeque noscantur. But, before I begin my planned task, I think that we should turn back and consider the state of the city, the disposition of the armies, the manner of the provinces, that which is robust and delicate in the entire world, to understand not only the incidents and the matters of events, which for the most part are fortuitous, but also the reason and their causes. (Tacitus, Histories 1.4)80 Key words and phrases above offer a key platform for globalizing processes that not only inform Tacitus’ purview of human behavior, but also Juvenal’s as well.81 Here Tacitus expresses a desire to recall, or reflect upon (repetendum), the condition of the city (status urbis) as it relates to the empire’s army (exercituum), provinces (provinciarum), and the rest of the world (in toto terrarum orbe). His desire reflects a global sensibility, increased consciousness and overall reflexivity that can be seen as not only deriving from the very globalizing conditions of the material world, but also are expressive of a transformed mode of consciousness in the direction of ever more “ecumenical” forms of perception and expression. The phrase orbis terrarum, moreover, is especially marked, too, to reflect a strong cartographic and literary sensibility of the orbs as the physical world at large that reaches back to Cicero, then taking root with the Res Gestae of Augustus and Ovid’s poetry from exile (see Chapter 5). It can be argued, then, that much of Greek and Roman historiography professes a self-conscious awareness of the increasing interconnections between different parts of the world and ways of thinking that have been made possible by the very world condition historians seek to analyze.82

Satire 1 and the coordination of location The opening, satire 1, is loaded with programmatic meaning; as such the satirist strives to establish the purpose and meaning of his collection with a series of

Introduction  15 themes and images that will guide his reader through his colorful narrative of life at Rome. These thematic issues include and relate to circulation, mobility, space, and place, all of which represent the basic features of connectivity and interconnectedness in the cosmopolitan city of Rome and its environs. In the opening eighteen lines of the collection, Juvenal begins with his trademark vociferation against the multiplicity of literary genres that crowd the poetic scene. Later in the satire and collection, the satirist himself will take his satiric contribution to various locations around Rome, such as at street-corners and other venues in and around the city.83 Initially, however, he not only reacts angrily to his poetic competition, but also figures his reaction to them as an intrusion on his intellectual abilities as one (albeit, better) poet lost among (too) many.84 Thereupon, the frenetic voice railing at the poetic establishment acquires physical relief with the mention of the Campus Martius (campo, 1.19), once strictly the military exercise grounds of Rome, but now littered with public monuments and the effects of urban sprawl.85 Cur tamen hoc potius libeat decurrere campo, per quem magnus equos Auruncae flexit alumnus, si vacat ac placidi rationem admittitis, edam.

20

I will explain why, nevertheless, I prefer to tear across the plain where the great guru of Aurunca guided his chariot, if there is space and you allow the reasoning of a calm fellow. (Satire 1.19–21)86 Whereas the opening eighteen lines determine the satirist’s attempt to establish his poetic voice among many, the particular words and phrases decurrere (1.19), campo (1.19), and vacat (1.21) take his definition of satire to the next, physical level: they coordinate place and space, as well as motion inside and out, as a direct function of his writing project. The multiplicity of poetic voices suggests a claustrophobic effect upon the satirist to which he responds and asks for space (vacat) to speak his mind, if (si) there is any to be found—a question that suggests the monumental clutter of the area. The request, moreover, follows the desire to move—tear through the center of Rome to the Campus Martius area (decurrere campo). Campus and vacat acquire deeper generic meaning when also read against the reference to Lucilius (Auruncae . . . alumnus), the founder of the Roman genre of verse satire.87 In associating this physical area with Lucilius, Juvenal establishes the Campus space and the surrounding area of the city as a site for generic criticism to tackle the effects of time–space compression and increased interconnectedness of his period. Whereas Lucilius only offers a smattering of discussion about foreign influence on Rome (87–93W), for Juvenal the globalizing qualities and effect of empire are thrust into the forefront of his discussion by virtue of an environment much different from Lucilius’ own several hundred years before Juvenal.88 Despite this seeming difference, a few fragments of Lucilius (1145–1151W) still emphasize the hustle and bustle and the

16 Introduction convergence of various social classes at the Roman Forum space. These various fragments suggest some Roman globalizing processes at their nascent stage at least in late second century bce representations of Rome. The trajectory of these globalizing activities as represented by other verse satirists, like Lucilius and Horace, will be investigated further in Chapter 2. Nevertheless, by Juvenal’s era the Campus space would carry with it some heavy ideological weight, from its relation to the religious boundary of the pomerium to the monuments and people who both littered and frequented it. The Campus Martius, or the Field of Mars, is located just north of the Capitoline Hill and east of the Tiber River, outside of the proper city limit (i.e. the Forum space and seven hills of Rome) delineated by the pomerium, or the sacred boundary that delimited particular activities.89 From the foundation of Rome (753 bce) to around the turn of the second century bce, monuments and monumental architecture sparsely populated it. In fact, the area in the era of Juvenal was unlike the bygone days of Lucilius’ Republic (180–103/2 bce). By about 146 bce the Campus area boasted no more than approximately twenty monuments, from an Altar of Dis Pater to particular sacred areas featuring temples to Juno Regina and Apollo Medicus.90 Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus’ dedication of a permanent theater complex in 55 bce would signal a significant transformation of the space of the Campus Martius, which through the middle of the first century bce was a place for military gatherings, training and festivals.91 From a topographic standpoint the Campus Martius showcased both the military—its exploits and success(es)—and entertainment for the masses. As Jacobs II and Conlin have noted the “extrapomerial location of the Campus Martius allowed this sector to serve first as Rome’s premier military assembly area and parade ground, space essential for a city-state that honored success in battle as the highest societal value.”92 Over time it was clear that “the scale and cultural importance of the Campus Martius made it an ideal location for the conspicuous and tangible display of political ambition.”93 As the city crowds and the space of empire expands, so too the pomerium.94 Both its expansion and permeability also signal the satirist’s larger concern for ethical and cultural fluidity, notions of which are the subject of Chapter 2 along with the role of circulation in the construction of Roman and non-Roman identities. By the Imperial era, the Field of Mars had been completely transformed from the more accessible open space for military exercise to an area devoted to public munificence and the grandeur of successful generals and emperors.95 Nevertheless, despite the increasing emphasis on the political ambition of Roman individuals, the field’s association with its original functions would not be lost. In addition to the Theaters of Pompey and Marcellus, the Pantheon, and Augustus’ Mausoleum complex, the Campus featured additional monuments in the time of Juvenal, including the Porticus Argonautaurum, the Iseum and Aedes Herculis Musarum.96 Where Lucilius seemingly traversed the Campus space with ease, Juvenal would do so with difficulty, which makes the latter’s claim to tear down through the Campus Martius (decurrere campo) all the more a bold statement.

Introduction  17 There is no doubt Juvenal would not be able to traverse a straight course without bumping into a few landmarks along the way. Where campus locates the physical space of Rome with Juvenal’s practice of satire and establishes a generic link between Lucilius, the founder of Roman satire, and Juvenal, decurrere (to tear through) introduces the importance of movement and circulation to the satirist’s portrait of Rome. Decurrere underlines the motion required to execute satire: he travels from an area outside into, or more peripheral to his endpoint, the Campus Martius.97 The inward motion suggests an endpoint that is, if not the source of Rome’s ills, somewhere that offers a suitable area from which to identify and tackle the city’s various problems. In terms of its martial resonance, too, decurrere connotes the execution of military exercises or maneuvers that emphasizes the area’s original function as a military training ground.98 It will be this area, a fairly centralized space in Rome in the time of Juvenal, which will then serve as his base of operations as he records and decries human behavior. His literary travel into the city of Rome has several implications on the significance of circulation in Juvenal’s portrait of Rome, not just as a local space, but one that has a direct effect on the larger territory of Rome’s empire in the Imperial era. For the Juvenalian context, social displacement and exclusion— the manifestations of deterritorialization and time–space compression—are primary anxieties of the satirist. Juvenal’s very desire to enter the city of Rome by way of the Campus Martius serves as one of many expressions of his self-professed marginalization. The combination of population flows and the compression of place by means of monumentalization all act to articulate this sense of interconnectivity and compression perceived by the satirist. No one sphere of activity is immune to the increased flow of information and goods into Rome and other areas under its sphere of influence. Chapter 5, specifically, explores further the martial resonance of Juvenal’s initial movement into Rome in greater detail and as it relates to the role of the military in demarcating the larger geography of empire. Furthermore, where movement helps explain Juvenal’s understanding of Rome’s fluctuation as a space of empire, it also helps illuminate the generic construction of Juvenal as a writer of satire on the move (see Chapter 6). Juvenal’s narrative landscape mimics the very movement of Rome’s global presence, from core urban spaces, doorways, gates and temples to its very limits and boundaries at the Orkneys or Egypt. Where decurrere campo signals within the collection the prevalence of movement to and from a physical landmark or space, vacat offers another play on space and location. Specifically, it indicates the satirist’s desire to occupy an already cramped, occupied location in Rome at the start of the second century ce. In its immediate context the yearning to occupy the Field of Mars like Lucilius is predicated on the condition that there is available space and that the addressee accepts the reasoning of a calm man (si vacat ac placidi rationem admittitis, edam; 1.21). On the one hand, the satirist’s wish is one immediate response to the multitude of poetic genres he decries at the outset

18 Introduction of the satire (1.1–18).99 However, on the other, I argue that the satirist’s plea for room (vacat) is a direct response to the claustrophobia experienced in the initial lines where the surfeit of poets in Rome has generated the satirist’s psychological sense of exclusion. Among these opening lines, Juvenal relates the overcrowding of epic genres to writing that cannot fit on one page, but spills over to its reverse side.100 Where the satirist must contend to express his poetic voice among too many, vacat not only reiterates the lack of both poetic and physical space at Rome, but also his personal plea for his own space in an already crowded area in Rome. Once the satirist in a sense burrows himself in Rome (decurrere campo), he then can decry the mass of moral depravity that threatens Rome as he does from a street corner at a crossroads (nonne libet medio ceras implere capaces/quadrivio; 1.63–64). Once entrenched, the satirist, too, like Mars Ultor, can begin to mete out punishment to his victims from the very area named after the god of war. In this way, Juvenal immediately figures his practice of satire as physically entrenched in an urban area of Rome, and one that serves both the generic function of paying homage to his literary predecessor, Lucilius, the founder of satire. In doing so, he also casts himself as a stalwart Roman warrior ready to wage multiple raids against all (the remaining material of the Satires) from his poetic base of operations. In essence, the warrior has returned on behalf of Rome to thwart the vice that endangers the city and its identity. However, the Rome Juvenal faces has transformed and is filled with increased public and private infrastructure since the Augustan era (i.e., baths of Titus, Trajan, the stadium Domitiani; Trajan’s Forum and Markets, Temple of the Deified Vespasian, the Flavian Amphitheater, et al.) that demonstrates an effect of empire—namely, that as the empire’s physical boundaries expand, so too do the ambitions and careers of politicians, their wealth and estates, and the number of nouveaux riches. This argument, alongside the discussion of the army, is developed further as a major facilitator of globalization in Chapter 5 (“Globalization and the army’s circulation of empire: Satire 16”).

Juvenal’s world of circulation and global awareness In like manner, Juvenal conceives the condition of Rome and its environs as a product of increased interregional activity and produced by the very forces that enabled Rome’s growth into an empire in the first place. People, goods, and information represent these globalizing mechanisms at work and whose mobility delineates the area of empire in seeming flux. As information and people travel from areas within to the periphery, there appears a sense of augmentation or expansion, whereas, as people and goods travel from areas without to within, the sense of personal and territorial space contracts. And, so, for the remainder of this chapter, I will show by way of a couple of examples how increased connectivity with the world at large determines the author’s use of a geographic framework to illuminate his perceived threats to Rome’s storied institutions. Furthermore, I will illuminate how circulation acts as the key to

Introduction  19 Juvenal’s expanding world. The indiscriminate flow of people, goods, and information across cultural and geographic boundaries facilitates several processes of globalization that trigger a “world of hybrid, fractured and often contentious amalgamation of people who know that they are stuck together whether they wish it or not.”101 I would argue, too, that Juvenal’s response is not an expression of Romanization, which privileges the center over the periphery, but more a dialectic that attempts to come to terms with the nature of social, political, and economic change.102 Such a dialectic achieves a progressive diffusion of the center; that is, the greater the interconnectivity between center (and central areas of production) and outliers, the higher the frequency physical borders and cultural distinctiveness become permeable. Another concrete manifestation of circulation in Imperial Rome is migration. With migration come various impacts on Rome and mainland Italy including food distribution, changes to labor and rural–urban mobility and the demographics of urban areas, as well as army recruitment and human mobility in general. For example, in a serious of papers, Walter Scheidel has demonstrated how the transfer of slaves to Italy was significantly greater in the eras of the Late Republic and early Imperial than any other time before it. He has attributed this greater frequency to military operations and the accumulation of capital at Rome, both of which represent functions of Roman imperialism.103 Human mobility and migration also permeate numerous other facets of Roman life that left a distinct imprint on the early Imperial era. Peregrene Horden and Nicholas Purcell have explored notions of connectivity in terms of social interactions and economic exchange.104 Only recently has the issue of connectivity and mobility begun to be examined beyond its metaphorical use to be more quantifiable and include specific measurability. These attempts, moreover, have demonstrated some quantifiable corroboration of literary responses to increased connectivity in the time of the Imperial era.105 The literary representation of the globalizing world for Juvenal is undoubtedly also rooted in historical reality as much as literary constructs and traditions. Nowhere is the movement of peoples into Rome felt more so than when a citizen client is both physically and socially removed from receiving his handout (Chapter 2). In satire 1 a client somewhere in Rome struggles to receive his sportula as those around him make a bum-rush for a share at the patron’s threshold. . . . nunc sportula primo limine parva sedet turbae rapienda togatae. . . . . . . iubet a praecone vocari ipsos Troiugenas, nam vexant limen et ipsi nobiscum. ‘da praetori; da deinde tribuno!’ sed libertinus prior est: ‘prior’ inquit ‘ego adsum. cur timeam dubitemve locum defendere, quamvis natus ad Euphraten, molli quod in aure fenestrae arguerint, licet ipse negem?

96

101

20 Introduction . . . Now the little basket awaits the threshold to be snatched up by the toga-clad throng. . . . . . . the herald is ordered to call forth the Trojan families. For they also bum-rush the threshold beside us. “Offer it to the praetor, then the tribune.” But, a freedman is first. He says “I’m first. Why should I fear or hesitate to defend my spot, although born near the Euphrates, a fact that the earrings in my tender ear would prove, but I deny nonetheless?” (1.95–96; 99–105) The institutional standard of this ritual, the satirist decries, is broken in several ways. First, the sportula intended for the lowlier client instead is offered here to the tribune before the praetor, thereby undermining the order of the cursus honorum. And, those of eastern heritage insure their share by lining up in position before other local Romans, including those of Trojan-blood and a freedman from the Euphrates river region. The convergence of the foreign upon an established local custom makes for a contentious arena that exacerbates social, cultural, and ethnic anxieties. The scene overall articulates another effect of empire by displacing the disenfranchised client from participation in the expected practice. This dislocation is akin to the process of deterritorialization (pp. 8–9), which refers to the reach of global connectivity into localities. The material conditions in this vignette, for example, act to dislodge everyday experience and meaning from their traditional anchors in the local cultural contexts. This is not only applicable to the sportula scene above, but also elsewhere in the author’s collection, including the rise of freedman, foreign upstarts, and the foreign food cultures. However, where modern theorists suggest that deterritorialization weakens the links between geographical location and resources through which meaning is constructed, in Juvenal’s day such weakening is perhaps just in its nascent stages. For there still remains an authoritative voice in the collection that suggests that cultural place can and must be contained before the penetrating forces of connectivity impinge upon Rome. In satire 5, for example, Juvenal uses the cena, or dinner party, to highlight the perversion of the patron–client relationship, one of Rome’s most basic institutions threatened by globalizing forces (see further my discussion in Chapter 3). These forces take on multiple dimensions, from the cultural to the economic. The patron receives higher quality produce to enjoy, while he offers his client thirdrate fare. At a particular juncture in the narrative the satirist describes not only the inequity of the offerings, but also the resulting negative environmental effects of over-harvesting natural resources to supply the patron’s over-indulged gullet. mullus erit domini quem misit Corsica vel quem Tauromenitanae rupes, quando omne peractum est et iam defecit nostrum mare, dum gula saevit,

Introduction  21 retibus assiduis penitus scrutante macello proxima, nec patimur Tyrrhenum crescere piscem. instruit ergo focum provincia: sumitur illinc quod captator emat Laenas, Aurelia vendat.

95

The patron will have a mullet, which Corsica or the Tauromenian cliffs have sent, since everything is exhausted and even our sea is barren. So long as his gullet rages, while the market probes deeply neighboring areas with its continual trawling nets, we do not allow our local Tyrrhenian fish to mature. For this reason the province supplies our hearth from where the legacy-hunter Laenas can buy and Aurelia sells. (5.92–98) Rather than simply characterizing the inequity between patron and client as an angry rant with little or no substance beyond the knee-jerk emotional response, Juvenal here highlights the cause and effect of such behavior, which here leads to environmental devastation. Global-reaching appetites have global consequences, including overuse (peractum est) and depletion (defecit). The sea, referred to as “our Roman sea” (nostrum mare), is entirely exhausted due to the increasing appetite for luxury and exotic foods, so much so that the greedy patron must seek produce from areas further and further outside mainland Italy, including Corsica and Tauromenium in Sicily. The patron’s appetite so far exceeds local supply that outlying provinces must supply the produce local mainland Tyrrhenian waters can no longer sustain. The demand for increased consumption here has economic implications. The desire for foodstuffs causes the relative distances between these geographic nodes to contract, making those places grow much closer due to the increased connectivity by way of trade on sea or by land. This process can be understood in terms of globalization’s time–space compression, which determines that increased interregional activity is part and parcel of capitalist commodity production and accumulation. Consumption in this pre-industrial context and throughout the Satires exhibits similar tendencies, if only by offering a simple prototype for the circulation of goods facilitated by a form of consumer commodity accumulation. I examine the economic effects of globalization further in Chapter 3, with a particular look at satires 4, 5, and 11. In doing so, I examine how the transportation and adaptation of foods—in and of themselves a product of mobility and mixing—belie the sense of a true national food. Following the work of Bell and Valentine (1997)106 and Tomlinson (1999), I show how Juvenal’s treatment of food both in the dining and cultural context reveals a complex heritage of cultural exchange rooted in the processes of globalization. In addition to changes in consumption practices, another effect of increased connectivity in Juvenal’s Rome is the heightened awareness of cultural displacement generated both by the military and commerce (Chapters 2, 4, and 5).

22 Introduction In satire 2, Juvenal describes the effects of commerce on both local Roman culture and its subjects: . . . arma quidem ultra litora Iuvernae promovimus et modo captas Orcadas ac minima contentos nocte Britannos; sed quae nunc populi fiunt victoris in urbe non faciunt illi quos vicimus—et tamen unus Armenius Zalaces cunctis narratur ephebis mollior ardenti sese indulsisse tribuno. aspice quid faciant commercia: venerat obses; hic fiunt homines. nam si mora longior Urbem induerit pueris, non umquam derit amator. mittentur bracae, cultelli, frena, flagellum: sic praetextatos referent Artaxata mores.

161

166

. . . Indeed, we have advanced ahead beyond the shores of Ireland and the recently captured Orkneys and the Britains content with the shortest night; but these things which now happen in the City of the conqueror the conquered do not do. And, nevertheless, one Armenian, Zalaces, who is more effeminate than all ephebes, is said to have submitted himself to a passionate tribune. You see what commerce does: he had arrived as a hostage here where men are made. For if a longer delay puts the city on the boys, then they will never lack a lover. Their trousers, small knives, harnesses and whip will be abandoned: in this way, they will carry back to Artaxata cloaked Roman ways. (2.159–170) Rome’s expanse by way of its military expansion, or promovimus, has expedited various networks of exchange expressed in the Latin commercia on line 166. Territorial expansion has enabled all manners of commercia—from exchange and trade to sexual intercourse—to permit the circulation of Rome’s negative influence on its defeated. An Armenian’s prolonged stay under the influence of Roman immorality (2.166–168), however, ensures his return to his capital Artaxata in a more corrupt state than when he was originally extracted. Susanna Braund has argued that Juvenal’s statement that the hostage will be clothed by Roman immorality, “conveys graphically the process of acculturation of foreign ‘hostages’ and has induerit (‘putting on the clothes’) akin to their ‘Romanisation.’”107 While this acculturation is very much in line with some of the processes implied by globalization, this theoretical model of a uni-directional influence is not a desirable outcome for the acculturated party as Romanization implies. Instead, the implication here is that exchange has left both parties for the worse. With this integration of foreign territory, goods, and population, comes the potential side-effects that

Introduction  23 the satirist views as dangerous not just to Rome, but those areas that are in the sphere of its direct influence. This monograph aims to illuminate how an interpretation of the effects of empire in Juvenal’s Satires can be enhanced some by social and cultural theories of globalization that emphasize a heightened awareness of the world as both a whole and an expansive space. Some processes I have considered in brief include: increased connectivity, interregional interaction, time–space compression, and deterritorialization. Though these theories have gained the most traction in our contemporary context of global markets and communications, global consciousness did not escape thinkers of the pre-industrial age, including Polybius, Tacitus, Juvenal, and others. In Juvenal’s case specifically, theories of globalization help to explain how increased connectivity between different localities illuminates the inextricable processes of empire formation and Roman cultural identity with the compression of the world as a whole. It becomes evident that Juvenal not only works within an existing literary tradition invested in the visual representation of Rome and its monuments, but also that his innovation lies precisely in his establishment of this framework of movement (especially as seen and described in the opening lines of satire 1). In this way, Juvenal prepares his reader for how to read the remainder of the collection through this geographic lens. It is within this spatial element that the reader is encouraged to read the many metaphors for empire—goods, people, ideas— that are in constant circulation.

Notes 1 See, for instance, Freudenburg 2001, Umurhan 2008, 2011, 2013, Moodie 2014, Tovar 2014, and Larmour 2016. 2 Dates for Juvenal are still merely speculative and cannot be supported by existing evidence. There has been no real consensus on the publication date of the first book of Satires. Courtney 1980 and Braund 1996: 16 follow Syme 1984: 112–134 that all five books were published sometime within the second and third decades (between 110 and 130 ce), though Syme contends that nothing by Juvenal could have been published before 115. Uden 2015: 219–226 proposes sometime between 100 and 101 CE based on comparanda with Martial. 3 These ideas were first explored in Umurhan 2008, but strictly in terms of notions of luxury and lax morality. Jenkyns 2013: 143–193 offers a useful survey of primary sources—from Lucretius to Ovid—that illuminate Roman impressions of movement, flows, like running and walking, etc.: “it is fair to say that movement in the city is especially prominent in the Romans’ conceiving of their social, moral, political, and religious identity” (143). Lavan’s 2013 study offers a more comprehensive parallel approach than Jenkyns 2013, with a look at language and how the Romans conceptualized their empire and themselves. Östenberg, Malmberg, and Bjørnebye 2015 (esp. pp. 73–122) offer a series of essays on the literary manifestations of movement in some Republican and Imperial era authors. See also Clarke 1999, Hall 2002, Dench 2005, and Richardson 2008. Umurhan 2011 offers an initial investigation of physical location and movement in terms of authorial self-identification in Juvenal. Chapter 2 in this monograph investigates further Juvenal’s construction of Roman identity within the Roman global scale of movements and flows.

24 Introduction 4 Anderson 1982, Gowers 1993, Braund 1996, Freudenburg 2001, Keane 2006, Jones 2007, Umurhan 2008, Umurhan and Penner 2013, Tovar 2014, Keane 2015, Uden 2015, and Larmour 2016. 5 Rimell 2015 offers a dense and provocative look at the construction of spaces in Roman literary thought that ends chronologically with a discussion of Ovid Tristia 3.11, especially in terms of the “improper trouncing of boundaries” and poet’s negotiation of poetic “secure interiors” and an “openness” to empire (276). Rimell 2015: 276–322 explores the conditions of enclosure and exposure, especially the “relationship between exile and enclosure, or rather between the condition of exile and the loss of the ideal of safe enclosure” (276). For a provocative discussion of the exilic condition of the Ovidian poet throughout his literary output, see Fulkerson 2016. The basis for Juvenal’s sense of exile from Roman literary and social institutions, or what I define in sociological terms as “deterritorialization,” I discuss in greater depth (see the section “Time–space compression and deterritorialization” in this chapter, and Chapter 2). 6 Robertson 1992: 8. 7 Robertson and White 2007: 64. 8 Robertson and Inglis 2004, Inglis and Robertson 2004, Jennings 2011 and Pitts and Versluys 2015. 9 LaBianca and Scham 2006. 10 Jennings 2011 and Pitts and Versluys 2015. 11 Such work includes Clarke 1999, Murphy 2004, Rimell 2008, and Russell 2015. 12 Uden 2015 argues cogently for the elusive nature of the satirist, but an invisibility that speaks to the changing sense of Rome’s identity amidst the trends of empire. 13 Keane 2015 discusses comprehensively the semantic range of emotion expressed in the Satires, from anger (ira) to joy and tranquility (tranquilitas). See also Chapter 4. 14 See Kissinger 2014 who offers a historical treatment of growing globalism of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries based on his experience as an international statesman. See also Kissinger’s WSJ article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/henry-kissinger-on-the-assembly-of-a-new-world-order-1409328075. 15 Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union is otherwise known as “Brexit.” Britain is not the only member of the EU that has been subject to talks of withdrawal. Although Britain has voted to voluntarily withdraw, other European nations such as Greece and Spain have been threatened with expulsion. 16 See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/24/obama-brexit-vote-reflectsfears-globalization/ 17 See Chapter 6 for a more in-depth discussion of globalization and Roman satire in terms of the notion of the rhizome as theorized by Deleuze and Guattari 1972 and 1980. 18 Robertson 1992, Jameson and Miyoshi 1998, Boudreaux 2008, and Nederveen Pieterse 2009. 19 Ritzer 2008 (5th edition). “McDonaldization” is not a sole concept. There are other processes of globalization that highlight the long-term mechanization of production and social operation that mirror “McDonaldization,” such as the brand-name terms Starbuckization, Ikeaization, Coca-Colaization, and Disneyfication (see Foster 2008). McDonaldization has come to acquire several meanings along three sociological perspectives: “a Weberian approach, which pivots around rationalization; a Durkheimian approach, which pivots around collective symbols; and a Marxian approach, which pivots around capitalism, exploitation, and alienation” (Ram 2012, s.v. “McDonaldization”). 20 For some comprehensive introductions to globalization studies, see Giddens 1990, Robertson 1992, Waters 2001 (2nd edition), Ritzer 2007, Boudreaux 2008, Ritzer and Atalay 2010, and Ritzer 2012. 21 See most notably, Appadurai 1996, Waters 2001 (2nd edition), Watson 2006 (2nd edition), and Ram 2008.

Introduction  25 22 Ritzer states: So, much of the falafel industry in Israel has been transformed structurally into an industrial standardized system—a McDonaldized system. Symbolically, a twoway system is operant, with the falafel and the McDonald’s hamburger coexisting and mutually affecting one another. Thus, although Israel is characterized by considerable structural uniformity, symbolically Israel remains internally differentiated as well as different from other societies, including the US. (Ritzer and Atalay 2010: 382) 23 See Curran 2012 (s.v. “McWorld”). “Glocalization” is a term coined by Robertson 1995 to describe how the local and global elements interact in different societies to create various hybrids. 24 Robbie Robertson 2003, Robertson and Inglis 2004, Inglis and Robertson 2004, Nederveen Pieterse 2009, and Jennings 2011. 25 Tomlinson 1999. For more on cultural globalization from a sociological perspective, see Harvey 1990, Giddens 1990, Morley and Robins 1995, Appadurai 1996, Sklair 2006, Wise 2008, Norris and Inglehart 2009, Nederveen Pieterse 2009, and Castells 2010 (2nd edition repr.). 26 Tomlinson 1999: 27. 27 Tomlinson 1999: 18. 28 Jameson 2000 in New Left Review argues the seeming difficulties in defining globalization as “mere ideological associations” that have a tendency to describe descriptions, or processes, without relating them to each other. See also Hitchner 2008. 29 Jennings 2011: 30–31. 30 Pitts and Versluys’ timely Globalisation and the Roman World is the first volume of essays dedicated solely to theories of globalization and the Roman world by Roman archeologists and classicists. For and overview of theories of globalization outside the classical context, see Robinson in Ritzer 2007. 31 Axford 2012 (s.v. “Networks”). See also Castells 2010 on networks and network society as the product of the modern information age and Grewal 2008:18–43. 32 Collar 2014: 3. Her study applies network theory by way of archeological methods and data. 33 Collar 2014 acknowledges substantively the role of the Roman military in the circulation of the Imperial cult. 34 Morley 2010. See also Woolf 1990, Hingley 2005, and Gardner 2013. 35 Morley 2010: 85. His claim is further substantiated by the archeological evidence of shipwrecks and distribution of amphorae hundreds of miles away from their origin of manufacture. 36 See Horden and Purcell 2000, Morley 2007, and Hughes 2014 on the economic and environmental impact of trade and production in Rome. 37 The literature on Romanization and its cultural conception is vast. For some definitive works see Millett 1990, Woolf 1998, Mattingly 2004, Hingley 2005, and Collar 2014. 38 Jennings 2011: 2–3. According to Ritzer and Dean 2015: 215, glocalization may be defined as “the interpenetration of the global and the local resulting in unique outcomes in different geographic areas” and the sense that “the world is growing more pluralistic.” 39 See Vasaly 1993. 40 Harvey 1990. See also Kivisto’s “time–space compression” entry in Ritzer 2012. 41 Kivisto 2012. There exists another variant on time–space compression entitled “time– space distanciation” suggested by sociologist Anthony Giddens (1990). Time–space distanciation also seeks to explain the growing complexity of social relations whereby relations between local and distant social forms and events become “stretched” (Giddens 1990: 64). Giddens writes, “Globalisation can thus be defined as the intensification

26 Introduction of world-wide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa” (64). 42 See Robbie Robertson 2003, Nederveen Pieterse 2009, and Jennings 2011. 43 Morley 2015: 58. Morley continues to point out that because travel and transport were slow there was no real economic incentive to organize sites of production on a larger inter-regional scale or basis. He admits that the empire saw a significant increase in inter-regional activity, but that this development worked against time and space. 44 The term “deterritorialization” was proposed by French psychoanalytic theorists Deleuze and Guattari in Capitalisme et Schizophrénie. L’anti-Œdipe and Mille Plateaux. This work (in 2 volumes: 1972 and 1980) investigates the nature of human psychology (namely desire) in contemporary capitalist cultures, but derives from the original context of philosophy and psychoanalysis to studies of anthropology, sociology, and globalization. 45 Tomlinson 1999: 27–28. 46 Tomlinson 1999: 128. 47 See Tomlinson 2012 (s.v. “Deterritorialization”). 48 Theories of the rhizome and rhizomatic thinking as they pertain to the satirist himself will be discussed in greater depth in Chapter 6. 49 Deleuze and Guattari 1980: 31 (in English translation 1987: 21). 50 Tomlinson 2012. For more on deterritorialization see Basch, Schiller and Blanc 1994, Appadurai 1996, Giddens 2000 and Tomlinson 2007: 359–363. 51 Paasi 2012 (s.v. “Borders”). 52 “Whereas borders speak to territoriality (place), fixity, and ontological thickness, networks speak of interconnection and fluidity” (Axford 2012). 53 Tomlinson 2003. See also Giddens 1990, Smith 2003, Norris 2003, Holton 2005: 105–131, Norris and Inglehart 2009, and Nederveen Pieterse 2009. The cultural impact of globalization will be discussed in greater depth in Chapter 2. 54 See Umurhan 2008 and 2011 for an investigation of physical borders such as city gates in Rome as a location for the satirist’s negotiation of poetic identity in terms of corporeal permeability to outside or “foreign” influences. See also Larmour 2016. 55 Hardt and Negri 2000: xii-xiii (italics in original). On the contrast between “Empire” and imperialism see also Hardt and Negri 2003: 116–119. 56 See Morley 2015: 58, who calls the challenge of identifying precisely what initiates globalization in the Roman context, whether the processes themselves or territorial gain, “a chicken-and-egg” scenario. 57 Said 1993:9 states: “‘imperialism’ means the practice, the theory, and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan center ruling a distant territory.” See also Gallagher and Robinson 1953 for a similar definition applied in the context of the nineteenth century British Empire. For a brief, but salient overview of the modern theories of Roman imperialism see Hoyos 2013: 1–19; for a more extensive one see Harris 1979, who is a major advocate of the “defensive imperialism” argument for Rome’s growth into an empire. 58 For the consideration of imperium and its definitions, see Richardson 1991, Champion 2004, Richardson 2008, Erskine 2010, Edwell 2013, and Hoyos 2013. Definitions of Roman imperialism should not be restricted strictly to the semantic field of imperium, but be more elastic to consider Rome’s formation of interstate relations with its neighbors beginning as far back as the fifth century bce. See Cornell 1995 and Stone 2013. Stone 2013, for example, believes that the appeal of Capua in 343 bce sets in motion Roman imperialism. 59 Richardson 2008: 145 and Edwell 2013: 44. 60 An explicit articulation of this connection between authority and physical space/ territory dating to the time of Augustus is Jupiter’s declaration to Juno in Vergil’s Aeneid 1.278–279: His ego nec metas rerum nec tempora pono; / imperium sine fine dedi (“I set neither limits to their affairs nor time. I grant them [Romans] an empire without a [physical] boundary”).

Introduction  27 61 See especially Ando 2000: 327 who notes that orbis Romanus designates a region and area of political domination. See also Umurhan 2008. I explore similar Latin phrases in Chapter 5. 62 See Chapter 5 for more on the role of the emperor (or, princeps) and the Roman army as facilitators of circulation and globalization processes. 63 See also Master 2016. 64 Robertson and Inglis 2004, Inglis and Robertson 2004 and 2005. Inglis and Robertson have sought to reconfigure modern sociological thought to consider how the modern concept of “society” has its roots in the conception of the ancient Greek city-state and serves as a precursor to the modern notion of “global sociology.” See especially Inglis and Robertson 2004. For the significance of “reflexivity” in modern sociology see Giddens 1990. 65 Robertson and Inglis 2004: 47: [W]e have argued that ideas and attitudes that are in many ways closely analogous to modern notions of ‘globality’—where the world is taken ‘as a whole’, where all parts of the globe are seen to be increasingly connected, and where individual experience is connected to worldwide forces and processes—were relatively common sentiments amongst Greco-Roman social elites from the Hellenistic period onwards through to the height of Roman imperial power. [. . .] Such ‘global’ ways of thinking were not just speculative, philosophical and theological in form, but informed Greco-Roman conceptualisations of empirical, social, political, economic, geographical and historical reality. 66 Following Polybius’ formulation below I use the term “ecumenical” to mean “global” and, therefore, my use of the term is not meant to imply any religious connotations. See also Lavan 2016. 67 See also Inglis and Robertson 2006. 68 See Walbank 1985 and Robertson and Inglis 2004 for a consideration of συμπλοκή. 69 Greek text from Büttner-Wobst’s 1905 (rev. 1962–1967) Teubner edition. 70 Inglis and Robertson 2005: 118. 71 Clarke 1999: 193–336 investigates the intersections between geography and historiography in Polybius and Strabo’s Geography. Her specific focus is on representations of space and time as they relate to Roman politics. 72 Morley 2015 views the Roman world of the Imperial not as “shrinking” due to globalization, but as changing due to becoming significantly larger. 73 Livy in his preface most certainly identifies Rome’s growth into an empire as the object of his study, but is beyond the scope of this study. On Livy’s use of topography as a signifier of Rome’s historical past and trajectory, see Kraus 1994 and Jaeger 1997. 74 See Umurhan 2008: 1–17 and Umurhan and Penner 2013 (esp. 170–174) for a recent detailed overview of the scholarship on cartographic and other literary representations of space and geography. Umurhan and Penner 2013 also explores the resonance and discourse of mobility in the Acts as a response to the Roman Empire’s territorial growth as empire. See also Nasrallah 2010: 51–118 and Chapter 2 in this monograph for more discussion along these lines. 75 For a brief, but comprehensive survey of ancient geography see Dilke 1985, Molina Marín 2010, and Dueck and Brodersen 2012. See Romm 1992 for Greek literary and cartographic formulations of geography, Brodersen 2003, Hutton 2005. For Roman geography and ethnography in general see Thomas 1982, Mayer 1986, Nicolet 1991, Adams and Laurence 2001, Talbert and Brodersen 2004, Raaflaub and Talbert 2010, Woolf 2011 (esp. 59–88), Irby 2012, Geus and Thiering 2014. On the intersections between geography and historiography see Clarke 1999, Engels 2007: 541–552. 76 The scholarship on this topic is vast. Some notables include Thomas 1982, Gruen 1992, O’Gorman 1993, Woolf 1994, Habinek and Schiesaro 1997, Rives 1999, Shaw

28 Introduction 2000, Goldhill 2001, Habinek 1998, Evans 2003, Dench 2005 Hingley 2005, and Augoustakis 2010. 77 See especially Nicolet 1991 and Favro 1996. 78 Murphy 2004: 129–164. See also Carey 2003: 41–74 who argues for the text as representative of a physical monument to Roman geographic achievements. 79 Murphy 2004: 15. See also Umurhan and Penner 2013. 80 Latin text is from Fischer 1911. 81 For a stylistic and historical treatment of this Tacitean preface, see Chilver 1979 and Damon 2003. 82 This awareness, however, is not restricted to one particular literary genre. It is clear that this sensibility also informs literary genres outside historiography around the time of Juvenal and Tacitus including, for example, the tragedies of Seneca the Younger. See Umurhan and Penner 2013 for further discussion. 83 For some studies on the importance of monuments in Juvenal, see Larmour 2007, Umurhan 2008, 2011, Moodie 2014, and Larmour 2016. 84 Henderson 1999 offers the most detailed analysis of these initial lines that describe the process of antimetathesis whereby the narrator constructs a personal voice that enables the reader/audience to view as he sees. For more on the satirist’s strategy of self-representation see Freudenburg 2001: 209–277, Keane 2006, Umurhan 2008 and 2011. Ferriss-Hill 2015 (esp. in her chapter “Poets in Tension”) offers a provocative analysis of poetic self-representation between the Roman satirists Lucilius, Horace, and Persius, that derives from Greek Old Comedy, and Juvenal’s (from tragedy). 85 Campi in satire 2.132 offers a parallel use of campus with the specific sense of the Campus Martius. See also Courtney 1980: 145. 86 Unless noted otherwise, the text of Juvenal is from Willis 1997. 87 Umurhan 2008: 177–178 discusses the generic resonance of the chariot imagery (equos) in 1.19–21 that helps Lucilius define his satire against the genre of epic and the image’s Callimachean undertones. See especially Umurhan 2008: 178n32. 88 Fragments of Lucilius are notated according to Warmington 1979. For a discussion of Juvenal on Lucilius, see Freudenburg 2001: 242–248. See also Goldberg 2005: 173–177 and Keane 2006. 89 On the ritual significance of the pomerium see Andreussi 1999, Varro De Lingua Latina 5.143, Plutarch Romulus 11.1–4. According to Tacitus, the emperor Claudius connects the territorial expansion of the empire and its city with the pomerium (Annals 12.23–24). Drogula 2007 argues that imperium as military command was banned inside of the pomerium. On the pomerium in general see Rüpke 1990: 30–41, Beard, North, and Price 1998: 1.177–181, Andreussi 1999, Rehak 2006, Goodman 2007: 42–46, and Jacobs II and Conlin 2014: 187n6. 90 For a plan of the area dating to 146 BCE, see the Ancient World Mapping Center © 2013 (http://awmc.unc.edu). See also Richardson 1992: 65–67 and Jacobs II and Conlin 2014: xiv. 91 Jacobs II and Conlin 2014: 4. 92 Jacobs II and Conlin 2014: 5. 93 Jacobs II and Conlin 2014: 3. 94 Goodman 2007. 95 Nicolet 1991 describes in detail the political function of monumental architecture in Rome, with special attention to architectural planning and construction in the time of Caesar Augustus (see also Russell 2015). See also Favro 1996 and Rehak 2006: 9–30 for the transformation of the northern Campus Martius area under Augustus. 96 See Wiseman, “Campus Martius” in LTUR 1.221 and Richardson 1992: 65–67. See Jacobs II and Conlin 2014 for an extensive history of the Campus Martius space. 97 See TLL entry decurro B (de qualibet motione) 1 as a form of motion; see also OLD entry 5c for the meaning “to run one’s course or race.” Ernout and Meillet 1951: 287 dēcurrō, M.L. 2509; dēcursus, dēcursiō: “action de descendre en courant; marche

Introduction  29 militaire, défilé.” De Vaan 2008: 157 dēcurrere “‘to run down; travel’ (Lucr.+).” Decurrere here obliquely echoes Horace Sermones 2.1.32 (see Braund 1996: 80). 98 See Tacitus Annals 2.7. 99 Courtney 1980: 89 and Braund 1996: 80. 100 Impune diem consumpserit ingens / Telephus aut summi plena iam margine libri / scriptus et in tergo necdum finitus Orestes? (“Without punishment will the immense / Telephus have consumed my day, or a thus far unfinished Orestes even / written on the back on an already filled margin of a full book?”; 1.4–6). See also Umurhan 2011 and Chapter 3 in this monograph for further discussion of this passage. 101 Jennings 2011: 3. 102 The following ideas regarding movement were first explored in Umurhan 2008 and Umurhan and Penner 2013. These initial explorations concentrated mainly on the articulation of moral decay. 103 Scheidel 2004 and 2005. 104 Horden and Purcell 2000. 105 See especially Ligt and Tacoma 2016 who attempt to delineate more precisely definitions for mobility and movement. The collection of papers investigates a variety of themes including “rural-urban migration, labour mobility, relationships between forced and voluntary mobility, military recruitment and state-organised movements of military units, and familial and female mobility” (21). 106 See also Chapter 3. 107 Braund 1996: 166–167. Braund goes on to state that Urbem suggests urbanitas or Roman “sophistication,” a definition that most certainly is clothed in irony. (See Chapter 5 in this monograph for further discussion of 2.159–170.)

References Adams, Colin and Ray Laurence, eds. (2001) Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire. London: Routledge. Anderson, W. S. (1982) Essays on Roman Satire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ando, Clifford. (2000) Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press. Andreussi, M. (1999) “Pomerium.” In E. M. Steinby, ed. Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, vol. Quarto, P-S: 96–105. Roma: Edizioni Quasar. Appadurai, Arjun. (1996) Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Appadurai, Arjun. (2001) “Grassroots Globalization and the Research Imagination.” In A. Appadurai (ed.). Globalization. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 1–21. Augoustakis, Antony. (2010) Motherhood and the Other: Fashioning Female Power in Flavian Epic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Axford, Barrie. (2012) “Networks.” In George Ritzer, ed. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Basch, Linda, Nina Glick Schiller, and Christina Szanton Blanc, eds. (1994) Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorialized Nation-States. London: Routledge. Beard, Mary, John North, and Simon Price. (1998) Religions of Rome. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bell, David and Gil Valentine. (1997) Consuming Geographies: We Are Where We Eat. London: Routledge. Boudreaux, Donald J. (2008) Globalization. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

30 Introduction Bowman, A. K., P. Garnsey, and D. Rathbone, eds. (2000) The High Empire, ad 70–192. Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Braund, Susanna. (1996) Juvenal: Satires, Book 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brodersen, Kai. (2003; 2nd edition) Terra Cognita: Studien zur römischen Raumerfassung. Hildesheim: G. Olms. Büttner-Wobst, T., ed. (1905; rev. 1962–1967) Polybii Historiae, Vols. 1–4. Leipzig: Teubner. Carey, Sorcha. (2003) Pliny’s Catalogue of Culture: Art and Empire in the Natural History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Castells, Manuel. (2010) The Power of Identity. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Champion, Craige. (2004) Roman Imperialism: Readings and Sources. Oxford: Blackwell. Chilver, Guy Edward Farquhar. (1979) A Historical Commentary on Tacitus’ Histories I and II. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Clarke, Katherine. (1999) Between Geography and History. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Collar, Anna. (2014) Religious Networks in the Roman Empire: The Spread of New Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cornell, T. J. (1995) The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000–264 bc). London: Routledge. Courtney, Edward. (1980) A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal. London: The Athlone Press. Curran, Dean. (2012) “McWorld.” In George Ritzer, ed. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Damon, Cynthia. (2003) Tacitus, Book 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. (1972) Capitalisme et Schizophrénie. L’anti-Œdipe. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. (1980) Mille Plateaux. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. (1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translated by Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Dench, Emma. (2005) Romulus’ Asylum: Roman Identities from the Age of Alexander to the Age of Hadrian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Vaan, M. (2008) Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden: Brill. Dilke, O. A. W. (1985) Greek and Roman Maps. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Drogula, Fred. (2007) “Imperium, Potestas, and the Pomerium in the Roman Republic.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 56: 419–452. Dueck, Daniela and Kai Brodersen. (2012) Geography in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edwell, Peter. (2013) “Definitions of Roman Imperialism.” In Dexter Hoyos, ed. A Companion to Roman Imperialism. Leiden: Brill. 39–52. Engels, Johannes. (2007) “Geography and History.” In John Marincola, ed. A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Oxford: Blackwell. 541–552. Ernout, A and A. Meillet. (1951) Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Paris: C. Klincksieck. Erskine, Andrew. (2010) Roman Imperialism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Evans, Rhiannon. (2003) “Containment and Corruption: The Discourse of Flavian Empire.” In A. J. Boyle and William J. Dominik, eds. Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text. Leiden: Brill. 255–276.

Introduction  31 Favro, Diane. (1996) The Urban Image of Augustan Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferriss-Hill, Jennifer L. (2015) Roman Satire and the Old Comic Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fischer, C. D., ed. (1911) Cornelii Taciti Historiarum Libri. Oxonii: Typographeo Clarendonian. Foster, Robert J. (2008) Coca-Globalization: Following Soft Drinks from New York to New Guinea. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Freudenburg, Kirk. (2001) Satires of Rome: Threatening Poses from Lucilius to Juvenal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fulkerson, Laurel. (2016) Ovid: A Poet on the Margins. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Gallagher, John and Ronald Robinson. (1953) “The Imperialism of Free Trade.” The Economic History Review 6: 1–15. Gardner, A. (2013) “Thinking about Roman Imperialism: Postcolonialism, Globalisation and Beyond?” Britannia 44: 1–25. Geus, Klaus and Martin Thiering, eds. (2012) Features of Common Sense Geography: Implicit Knowledge Structures in Ancient Geographical Texts. Zürich: Lit. Giddens, Anthony. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Goldberg, Sander. (2005) Constructing Literature in the Roman Republic: Poetry and Its Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goldhill, Simon, ed. (2001) Being Greek Under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodman, Penelope. (2007) The Roman City and Its Periphery: from Rome to Gaul. London: Routledge. Gowers, Emily. (1993) The Loaded Table. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Grewal, David Singh. (2008) Network Power: The Social Dynamics of Globalization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Gruen, Erich. (1992) Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Habinek, Thomas. (1998) The Politics of Latin Literature: Writing, Identity, and Empire in Ancient Rome. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Habinek, Thomas and Alessandro Schiesaro, eds. (1997) The Roman Cultural Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hall, Jonathan. (2002) Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. (2000) Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. (2003) “Globalization as Empire.” In David Held and Anthony McGrew, eds. The Global Transformations Reader. Malden, MA: Polity Press. 116–119. Harris, William V. (1979) War and Imperialism in Republican Rome, 327–70 B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Harvey, David. (1990) The Condition of Post-Modernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell. Henderson, John. (1999) Writing Down Rome: Satire, Comedy, and Other Offences in Latin Poetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hingley, Richard. (2005) Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, Diversity and Empire. London: Routledge.

32 Introduction Holton, Robert J. (2005) Making Globalization. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Horden, Peregrine and Nicholas Purcell, eds. (2000) The Corrupting Sea. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Hoyos, Dexter. (2013) A Companion to Roman Imperialism. Leiden: Brill. Hughes, J. Donald. (2014) Environmental Problems of the Greeks and Romans: Ecology in the Ancient Mediterranean. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hutton, William. (2005) Describing Greece: Landscape and Literature in the Periegesis of Pausanias. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Inglis, David and Roland Robertson. (2004) “Beyond the Gates of the Polis.” Journal of Classical Sociology 4(2): 165–189. Inglis, David and Roland Robertson. (2005) “The Ecumenical Analytic: ‘Globalization’, Reflexivity and the Revolution in Greek Historiography.” European Journal of Social Theory 8(2): 99–122. Inglis, David and Roland Robertson. (2006) “From Republican Virtue to Global Imaginary: Changing Visions of the Historian Polybius.” History of the Human Sciences 19: 1–18. Irby, G. L. (2012) “Mapping the World: Greek Initiatives from Homer to Eratosthenes.” In R. J. A. Talbert, ed. Maps and Their Place in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 81–107. Jacobs II, Paul W. and Diane Atnally Conlin. (2014) Campus Martius: The Field of Mars in the Life of Ancient Rome. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Jaeger, Mary. (1997) Livy’s Written Rome. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Jameson, Fredric. (2000) “Globalization and Political Strategy.” New Left Review 4: 49–68. Jameson, Fredric and Masao Miyoshi. (1998) The Cultures of Globalization. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Jenkyns, Richard. (2013) God, Space, and City in the Roman Imagination. Corby: Oxford University Press. Jennings, Justin. (2011) Globalizations and the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jones, F. M. A. (2007) Juvenal and the Satiric Genre. London: Duckworth. Keane, Catherine. (2006) Figuring Genre in Roman Satire (American Classical Studies Series Vol. 5). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Keane, Catherine. (2015) Juvenal and the Satiric Emotions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kissinger, Henry. (2014) World Order. New York: Penguin Press. Kivisto, Peter. (2012) “Time–space Compression.” In George Ritzer, ed. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Kraus, Christina. (1994) Ab urbe condita. Book VI. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. LaBianca, Øystein Sakala and Sandra Arnold Scham, eds. (2006) Connectivity in Antiquity: Globalization as a Long-term Historical Process. London: Equinox Pub. Larmour, David. (2007) “Holes in the Body: Sites of Abjection in Juvenal’s Rome.” In David Larmour and Diana Spencer, eds. The Sites of Rome: Time, Space, and Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 168–211. Larmour, David. (2016) The Arena of Satire: Juvenal’s Search for Rome. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Lavan, Myles. (2013) Slaves to Rome: Paradigms of Empire in Roman Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lavan, Myles. (2016) “‘Father of the Whole Human Race’: Ecumenical Language and the Limits of Elite Integration in the Early Roman Empire.” In Myles Lavan,

Introduction  33 Richard E. Payne and John Weisweiler, eds. Cosmopolitanism and Empire: Universal Rulers, Local Elites, and Cultural Integration in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 153–168. Ligt, Luuk de and Laurens E. Tacoma. (2016) “Approaching Migration in the Early Roman Empire.” In Luuk de Ligt and Laurens E. Tacoma, eds. Migration and Mobility in the Early Roman Empire. Leiden: Brill. 1–22. Master, Jonathan. (2016) Provincial Soldiers and Imperial Instability in the Histories of Tacitus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Mattingly, David. (2004) “Being Roman: Expressing Identity in a Provincial Setting.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 17: 5–25. Mayer, Roland. (1986) “Geography and Roman Poets.” Greece & Rome 33: 47–54. Millett, M. (1990) “Romanization: Historical Issues and Archaeological Interpretation.” In T. Blagg and M. Millett, eds. The Early Roman Empire in the West. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 35–41. Molina Marín, Antonio Ignacio. (2010) Geographica: ciencia del espacio y tradición narrativa de Homero a Cosmas Indicopleustes. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia. Moodie, Erin. (2014) “Umbricius’ Farewell Tour.” Classical World 108: 27–44. Morley, Neville. (2007) Trade in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morley, Neville. (2010) The Roman Empire: Roots of Imperialism. London: Pluto Press. Morley, Neville. (2015) “Globalisation and the Roman Economy.” In Martin Pitts and Miguel John Versluys, eds. Globalisation and the Roman World: World History, Connectivity and Material Culture. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. 49–68. Murphy, Trevor. (2004) Pliny the Elder’s Natural History. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Nasrallah, Laura Salah. (2010) Christian Responses to Roman Art and Architecture: The Second-century Church amid the Spaces of Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nederveen Pieterse, Jan. (2009, 2nd ed.) Globalization and Culture: Global Mélange. Plymouth, UK: Rowman Littlefield. Nicolet, Claude. (1991) Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Norris, Pippa. (2003) “Global Governance and Cosmopolitan Citizens.” In David Held and Anthony McGrew, eds. The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate. Malden, MA: Polity Press. 287–297. Norris, Pippa and Ronald Inglehart. (2009) Cosmopolitan Communications: Cultural Diversity in a Globalized World. New York: Cambridge University Press. O’Gorman, E. C. (1993) “No Place Like Rome: Identity and Difference in the Germania of Tacitus.” Ramus 22: 135–154. OLD = Glare, P. G. W., ed. (2012, 2nd ed.) Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Östenberg, Ida, Simon Malmberg, and Jonas Bjørnebye, eds. (2015) The Moving City: Processions, Passages and Promenades in Ancient Rome. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Paasi, Anssi. (2012) “Borders.” In George Ritzer, ed. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Pitts, Martin and Miguel John Versluys, eds. (2015) Globalisation and the Roman World: World History, Connectivity and Material Culture. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

34 Introduction Raaflaub, Kurt A. and Richard J. A. Talbert, eds. (2010) Geography and Ethnography: Perceptions of the World in Pre-modern Societies. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Ram, Uri. (2008) The Globalization of Israel: McWorld in Tel-Aviv, Jihad in Jerusalem. London: Routledge. Ram, Uri. (2012) “McDonalidization.” In George Ritzer, ed. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Rehak, Paul. (2006) Imperium and Cosmos: Augustus and the Northern Campus Martius. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Richardson, J. S. (1991) “Imperium Romanum: Empire and the Language of Power.” Journal of Roman Studies 81: 1–9. Richardson, J. S. (2008) The Language of Empire: Rome and the Idea of Empire from the Third Century bc to the Second Century ad. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richardson, L. (1992) A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rimell, Victoria. (2008) Martial’s Rome: Empire and the Ideology of Epigram. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Rimell, Victoria. (2015) The Closure of Space in Roman Poetics: Empire’s Inward Turn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ritzer, George. (2007) The Blackwell Companion to Globalization. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Ritzer, George. (2008) The McDonaldization of Society 5. Los Angeles: Pine Forge Press. Ritzer, George. (2012) The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Ritzer, George and Zeynep Atalay, eds. (2010) Readings in Globalization: Key Concepts and Major Debates. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Ritzer, George and Paul Dean. (2015). Globalization: A Basic Text. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons. Rives, James B. (1999) Tacitus, Germania. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Robertson, Robbie. (2003) The Three Waves of Globalization: A History of a Developing Global Consciousness. New York: Zed Books. Robertson, Roland. (1992) Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage Publications. Robertson, Roland and David Inglis. (2004) “The Global Animus: In the Tracks of World Consciousness.” Globalizations 1: 38–49. Robertson, Roland and Kathleen E. White. (2007) “What is Globalization?” In George Ritzer, ed. The Blackwell Companion to Globalization. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 54–66. Robinson, William I. (2007) “Theories of Globalization.” In George Ritzer, ed. The Blackwell Companion to Globalization. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 125–143. Romm, James. (1992) The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought: Geography, Exploration, and Fiction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rüpke, Jörg. (1990) Domi Militiae: die religiöse Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. Russell, Amy. (2015) The Politics of Public Space in Republican Rome. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Said, Edward W. (1993) Culture and Imperialism. New York: Random House. Scheidel, Walter. (2004) “Human Mobility in Roman Italy, I: The Free Population.” Journal of Roman Studies 94: 1–27. Scheidel, Walter. (2005) “Human Mobility in Roman Italy, II: The Slave Population.” Journal of Roman Studies 95: 64–79.

Introduction  35 Shaw, Brent. (2000) “Rebels and Outsiders.” In A. K. Bowman, P. Garnsey, and D. Rathbone, eds. The High Empire, ad 70–192. Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 361–404. Sklair, Leslie. (2006) “Iconic Architecture and Capitalist Globalization.” City 10: 21–47. Smith, Anthony D. (2003) “Towards a Global Culture?” In David Held and Anthony McGrew, eds. The Global Transformations Reader. Malden, MA: Polity Press. 278–286. Stone, Martin. (2013) “The Genesis of Roman Imperialism.” In Dexter Hoyos, ed. A Companion to Roman Imperialism. Leiden: Brill. 23–38. Syme, Ronald (edited by Anthony Birley). (1984) Roman Papers, Vol. 3. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Talbert, Richard J. A. and Kai Brodersen, eds. (2004) Space in the Roman World: Its Perception and Presentation. Münster: Lit Verlag. Thomas, Richard. (1982) Lands and Peoples in Roman Poetry: The Ethnographical Tradition. Cambridge: The Cambridge Philological Society. TLL = Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. (1900–). Leipzig: Teubner. Tomlinson, John. (1999) Globalization and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tomlinson, John. (2003) “Globalization and Cultural Identity.” In David Held and Anthony McGrew, eds. The Global Transformations Reader. Cambridge: Polity Press. 269–277. Tomlinson, John. (2007) “Cultural Globalization.” In George Ritzer, ed. The Blackwell Companion to Globalization. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 352–366. Tomlinson, John. (2012) “Deterritorialization.” In George Ritzer, ed. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Tovar, Rosario Cortés. (2014) “La Vrbs y el Espacio del Imperio en Marcial y Juvenal.” Revista de Estudios Clásicos 41: 73–93. Uden, James. (2015) The Invisible Satirist: Juvenal and Second-Century Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Umurhan, Osman. (2008) Spatial Representation in Juvenal’s “Satires”: Rome and the Satirist. Ph.D. thesis, Classics: New York University. Umurhan, Osman. (2011) “Poetic Projection in Juvenal’s Satires.” Arethusa 44: 221–243. Umurhan, Osman and Todd Penner. (2013) “Luke and Juvenal at the Crossroads: Space, Movement, and Morality in the Roman Empire.” In Stanley E. Porter and Wendy J. Porter, eds. Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament. Leiden: Brill. 165–193. Vasaly, Ann. (1993) Representations: Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory. Berkeley: University of California Press. Walbank, F. W. (1985) Selected Papers: Studies in Greek and Roman History and Historiography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Warmington, E. H. (1979) Remains of Old Latin. London: W. Heinemann. Waters, Malcolm, ed. (2001, 2nd ed.) Globalization (Key Ideas). New York: Routledge. Watson, James L., ed. (2006, 2nd ed.) Golden Arches East: McDonald’s in East Asia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Willis, Jacob. ed. (1997) D. Iunii Iuuenalis Saturae Sedecim. Stuttgart: Teubner. Wise, J. Macgregor. (2008) Cultural Globalization: A User’s Guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Wiseman, T. P. (1993–2000) “Campus Martius.” In Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae. 1.220–221. Woolf, Greg. (1990) “World-systems Analysis and the Roman Empire.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 3: 44–58.

36 Introduction Woolf, Greg. (1994) “Becoming Roman, Staying Greek: Culture, Identity and the Civilizing Process in the Roman East.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 40: 116–143. Woolf, Greg. (1998) Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woolf, Greg. (2011) Tales of the Barbarians: Ethnography and Empire in the Roman West. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

2 Culture and globalization Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9

Where Juvenal’s representation of geography, culture, politics, mobility, and migration all intersect to illuminate the nature of human interaction, we find several processes of globalization in action. As Holton and Nederveen Pieterse suggest in their respective modern case studies, notions of geography and cultural variance are at the root of globalization: Geography, in short, is cultural as much as political. Many key geographical distinctions are, in other words, matters of cultural discourse raising fundamental questions about the values that are embedded in spatial distinctions within which the world’s peoples are located.1 Growing awareness of cultural difference is a function of globalization. Increasing cross-cultural communication, mobility, migration, trade, investment, tourism, all generate awareness of cultural difference.2 In fact, in the previous chapter I outlined several of these processes at work in the ancient context to emphasize their applicability to the study of Rome in Juvenal’s portrait of the empire. Perceptions of geography—spaces, places, and the territory of Rome and its environs—and the flow of people, goods, and ideas within these spaces contribute to the satirist’s landscape of a civilization that is seemingly accelerating and in constant flux. This fluidity of mobility calls into question the very composition and practice of Roman institutions, from the patron–client relationship to dining practices. Juvenal’s portrait of Rome in flux initiates a series of negotiations about cultural distinctions and how particular trends of globalization, such as migration and deterritorialization, articulate the parameters of ethnic and institutional identity. As Holton notes, geography is a matter of cultural discourse, which helps explain the high frequency of geographical and ethnic distinctions in Juvenal’s narrative.3 In particular, the language of movement offers a key articulation of geographical distinctions and globalization processes at work. These activities, in turn, generate a consciousness of the world as a whole, but one that in Juvenal’s mind is rife with sores and institutional challenges. Although definitions for “cultural identity” are vast, if not for the variety of lived experience in cultures from antiquity to the present, as a starting point

38  Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9 I have used John Tomlinson’s definition for culture as “the order of life in which human beings construct meaning through practices of symbolic representation.”4 Furthermore, by considering some trends of globalization such as interconnectivity, deterritorialization, and time–space compression as a preliminary step we can begin to reify certain features of cultural identity and construction that are applicable to a reading of Juvenal’s text. The impact of globalization in our contemporary era has generally elicited two responses: one, its link to the impairment of cultural identities in the form of homogenization (i.e., threatening localitydefined cultures), consumer, capitalist culture, and a general Westernized way of life; or, two, that “globalization actually proliferates rather than destroys identities.”5 So far, I have argued for how globalizing tendencies underline so much of Juvenal’s discussion of life at Rome, including the effects and quality of increased interconnectivity in the form of mobility and immigration (pp. 21–22) and the transport of goods and ideas. In one study, sociologist John Tomlinson conveys the issue of cultural identity and globalization in terms of the destruction of identities. In the process, he defines the modern era (circa 1980s and on) as a turning point from relative general cultural stability to its instability: Once upon a time, before the era of globalization, there existed local, autonomous, distinct and well-defined, robust and culturally sustaining connections between geographical place and cultural experience. These connections constituted one’s—and one’s community’s—‘cultural identity’. This identity was something people simply ‘had’ as an undisturbed existential possession, an inheritance, a benefit of traditional long dwelling, of continuity with the past. . . . But it was also discovered to be something fragile that needed protecting and preserving, that could be lost. (Tomlinson 2003: 269) Tomlinson proposes many characteristics of globalization that I suggest are applicable to Juvenal’s understanding of human interaction and experience. First, he understands cultural interaction and identity as a function of “geographical space and cultural experience” and as existing before or after the “era of globalization.” Cultural identity, furthermore, constitutes both a physical and fixed presence as he qualifies as “an undisturbed existential possession” and “a traditional long dwelling” that is permeable to something external that renders it “fragile” and in need of “protecting and preserving.” The parameters set here by Tomlinson are very much in line with Juvenal’s construction of life at Rome. Identity is deeply rooted in the fixity and permanence of place, but that cultural identity is multi-dimensional for the satirist. As people, goods, and ideas ebb and flow at an increased rate of connectivity—via commerce and transport—that stability is undermined. It is this tension between the desire for physical and cultural endurance and the opposing force of globalizing tendencies, like mobility and circulation, that informs the process of cultural formation in Juvenal’s portrait of lived experience in Rome. It is also this very negotiation of permanence and transience that is at the heart of cultural identity in the satirist’s portrayal of

Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9  39 human interaction. And it is precisely Juvenal’s language of movement and use of geography that serve to substantiate and illuminate this tension in the Satires. Although I argue for the deconstruction of Juvenal’s literary representation of Rome and its empire subject to forces of motion, it would be remiss not to substantiate the author’s views, however distorted that may seem, with some realities of mobility that were a feature of Roman life. Peregrine Horden and Nicholas Purcell’s landmark The Corrupting Sea (2000) has set one benchmark for the study of the Mediterranean as a series of “micro-regions” that function in an intricate web of relations between people of various regions connected by networks of exchange facilitated by (the) seaborne communication.6 Ultimately, mobility, rather than fixity, serves as the common denominator for all exchange, including that of peoples and goods, in the Mediterranean basin. While Horden and Purcell have articulated clearly the metaphoric notion of connectivity, William Harris has pushed for greater quantification of these conceptions.7 Although the ability to quantify “connectivity” and “exchange” has been difficult, a series of more recent studies has aimed for measurability that corroborates in large part the various literary snapshots of exchange in the Roman world, including studies of demography (births, deaths, free and slave populations, disease, income).8 Furthermore, a series of studies regarding migration, mobility, and demography in Luuk De Ligt and Laurens E. Tacoma’s Migration and Mobility in the Early Roman Empire (2016) represents one fresh culmination of these efforts to corroborate, alongside the literary (and metaphoric), the measurability of the various manifestations of connectivity, from the evidence of funerary inscriptions, labor force mobility, and epigrams to actual graveyard remains.9 Barker, Bouzarovski, Pelling, and Isaksen’s New Worlds from Old Texts (2016) and its contributors have applied digital media, in particular the Hestia project, as a means of reassessing texts, maps, ideas, methodologies, and theories.10 It is by way of these more quantifiable efforts and additional resources that we may be able more confidently substantiate Juvenal’s landscape of globalizing tendencies in his descriptions of Rome and its empire. Following Woolf’s analysis, it is fruitful to investigate “how” and “in what ways” not only people and goods move, but also how that movement shapes ideas about culture, ethnicity, and politics. This chapter then explores how certain trends in globalization studies inform an analysis of cultural formation and identity in Juvenal, with a close look at several uses of space and movement in books 1 (satires 1–3), 2 (satire 6) and 3 (satire 7) where Rome features as the physical and cultural locus of circulation in the empire. The aim here is not to reconstruct a historical reality,11 but to analyze the text to reveal the interactions that help shape Juvenal’s cultural imagination, from the frequency of place names to people’s relationship to them.12 Various grievances about these issues are conveyed by the language of travel and movement (summoveo, (ad)veho, deveho) to and from these spaces inside and outside Rome. This language of movement speaks to one of the processes behind globalization, the “time–space compression,”13 where the world as perceived and represented by the observer/author becomes smaller as a result of economic and technological development.14 Juvenal’s observation and description of exotic

40  Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9 imports into Rome communicates a language of metaphors that professes the primacy of Rome over its conquered subjects. In doing so, however, Juvenal articulates generally a less than favorable outlook about the circulation of goods and customs into Rome (e.g. 3.62–65), and one that foresees the destruction of Roman institutions and its identity as a result of Rome’s connectedness to areas outside of Rome (2.166–170, 6.292–300, and 9.130–134). The author’s conspicuous use of metaphorical language derives in large part from his experience of time–space compression and the growing process of integration. Juvenal often demarcates the geographic extent and edges of empire by way of metonyms, or (more broadly) metaphors, and synecdoche. Such metaphorical language helps generate a series of tropes that allow for distinctions between ethnicities and cultures—though not exclusively— in binary pairs or center–periphery relations, such as between Romans and others, or Italians and provincials. Examples include soldiers transported to Rome (2.166–170; see further Chapter 5), natural resources, and exotic foods. Furthermore, the discussion of specific metonyms for the foreign, Roman, etc., and subsequent dichotomies, such as provincia (1.50) for Africa, Niliaca plebs (1.25) for Egypt, Aventinus (3.85) for “Roman” (et al.) represents examples of cultural self-definition. The author, too, plays a significant role in the movement of images and ideas in the form of the versatile rhizome (discussed in the Epilogue, Chapter 6). A discussion of this metaphorical language of movement and related processes builds upon the studies of cultural self-definition and post-colonialism described by Dauge (1981), Said (1993), Dench (2005), and Lavan (2013), but this chapter ventures further to illustrate that Juvenal’s distinctions suggest a new focus on geography, ethnicity, and culture that would not be possible without the consequences of territorial acquisition and increased connectivity between them and Rome due to the improved infrastructure brought by roads, trade, and transport. As a result of this flow of goods in and out of Rome, the parameters for identity play a crucial role in the narrator’s discussion of Roman institutions and their destabilization. A globalizing process that illuminates this displacement is deterritorialization. One example, which will be discussed in further detail (pp. 55–56), includes the fight for position in line among clients to receive the sportula from a patron (1.99–105). Here a foreign freedman (natus ad Euphraten, 1.104) receives initial preference for the handout over the narrator, who claims priority because of his native descent from the Trojans (Troiugenas, 1.100), the ancestors of Rome. Yet, this very argument and interplay between the native and the local is problematic, because of the experience of empire that complicates and continues to muddle distinctions and undermines the claim of native vs. foreign, if the native is himself of immigrant stock (Trojan-born). Here, the effects of globalization inform the satirist’s language and desire to reassert difference, although quite frequently such formulations and terms are subject to slippage. This slippage, in turn, is another consequence of interconnectivity that will also be considered in the Epilogue’s conversation about rhizomatic thinking and the rhizome.

Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9  41

To Rome all circulates As I argued in the previous chapter, globalization is often understood as the process of circulation and interconnectedness, and in the pre-modern context transpires in an area that serves as an urban center, like Rome, or an economic hub for the import and export of products.15 The inherent motion implied by the process of circulation has contributed to literary notions of Rome’s geographic place, for example, as the center of a larger world by authors such as Polybius and Livy to Aelius Aristides.16 Furthermore, it is not surprising that this thought does not only inform such articulations in historiography, but also in tragedy, like Seneca, and verse satire as well.17 As I stated earlier there have been some exciting and innovative technological and literary advancements in the study of geography in Greek texts.18 Prior to this recent development, however, there has been a similar preoccupation with questions of geography, topography, and movement and their literary manifestations in Roman era texts.19 Emily Gowers (1995), for example, has argued for the central importance of the Cloaca Maxima, the Great Sewer in Rome, as both a physical and symbolic area for the centrality of Rome’s vices and moral indecencies in Juvenal.20 In their discussion of late Republican and early Imperial thought, Mary Jaeger (1997), Ann Vasaly (1993), Catharine Edwards (1996), Katherine Clarke (1999), Emma Dench (2005), and Victoria Rimell (2015) have argued for the centrality of Rome and its impulse to exert its political and cultural authority outward.21 At the same time, there is a real sense that Rome, too, attracts that which it has consumed by way of territorial conquest, but the impact of this multi-directional influence is not merely symptomatic of moral decay, but involves Juvenal’s concern for his and his compatriots’ survival in a world of accelerating interactions. Such representations of Rome across genres and time surely are a testament to processes of globalization itself, namely the growing and intensifying sense of the world as a whole, whether united or disjointed, and generated in large part by the territorial growth of Rome’s empire.22 Such evocations of fluidity and movement are entrenched in the notion of interconnectivity, which for Juvenal acquires full expression in the language of motion (more pp. 6–8).23 The semantic field for Latin expressions of mobility is rather vast and beyond the scope of this current study. Nevertheless, there exists a rich Roman literary tradition that perceives Rome as not only the hub of commerce, but also subject to external influence, which is undoubtedly one circumstance of lived experience. As a result, much discussion of mobility and fluidity is subject to discussions of morality. In some of the attestations predating the early second century ce, authors have noted how the social and cultural interactions that Rome brings to the Mediterranean brings are critical to its own civic identity and formation as a city center. One gauge of Roman perceptions of connectivity and a larger global consciousness can be found in Cicero’s De Republica 2 that offers one significant example of the inextricable connection between Rome’s rise in prominence and its physical location.24 In this dialogue set dramatically in 129 bce, a Laelius and Scipio, the legendary figure and

42  Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9 representative of stalwart Republican mores, discuss the reasons for Romulus’, the founder of Rome, decision, namely to regulate the influence of maritime commerce and cultural exchange (De Republica 2.5–11). In Scipio’s account “there is a significant focus on purity and containment in the conceptual representation of the physicality of Roman space.”25 Ultimately, the foundation narrative of Rome offered by Cicero focuses more on constitutional and institutional matters to offer a superior contrast to Greece and Plato’s Laws.26 Yet, the discussion about cultural and moral regulation is immediately undermined by the admission that bodies of water such as rivers and the sea enable the transport of luxury and other enticements. 8. multa etiam ad luxuriam invitamenta perniciosa civitatibus subpeditantur mari, quae vel capiuntur vel inportantur; atque habet etiam amoenitas ipsa vel sumptuosas vel desidiosas inlecebras multas cupiditatum . . . 9. sed tamen in his vitiis inest illa magna commoditas, et quod ubique gentium est ut ad eam urbem quam incolas possit adnare, et rursus ut id quod agri efferant sui, quascumque velint in terras portare possint ac mittere.27 8. Indeed, many of these dangers to cities, which serve as inducements toward luxury and are either snatched or imported, are supplied by the sea; and even this very comfort contains many incitements, either costly or lazy, to immoderate desires . . . 9. But, nevertheless, there lies that great advantage in these vices—anything in the world can be brought by sea into the city that you live and, in turn, they can export or send what their fields send forth into whichever lands they wish. (Cicero, Rep. 2.8–9) Such exposure to bodies of water, then, is portrayed as a necessary risk, if not the basis for general interconnectivity and the facilitation of goods into and out of a particular location. What is of particular note beyond the sentiment of the threat of moral decay is the frequency and variation of movement that the dramatic Scipio uses to convey the activity. Here, he marks motion with a series of five verbs, the last four of which act as binary pairs expressing “import/export,” or motion in and out: inportantur, 2.8; adnare, 2.9; efferant 2.9; portare, 2.9, mittere, 2.9. The first pair clearly articulates motion in and out with its prefixes in ad-nare and ef-ferant, and the last pair in terras portare/mittere where ex terris is ellipsed. The series of motions that describe this overall connectivity expresses an inherent tension that also underlines the seeming contradictory notion that vices (vitia, 2.9) are both the source of greed (cupiditas, 2.9) and an advantage (commoditas, 2.9). Furthermore, what travels is qualified by the rather broad phrase: quod ubique gentium est (“anything in the world,” 2.9), akin in sense to the phrase orbis terrarum, which also equates to the world at large.28 Though idiomatic, the genitive plural of gens in the phrase signifies either people themselves or that which relates to human affairs, which includes languages, customs, merchandise, etc. (see Rep. 2.7 below).

Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9  43 The ultimate result of this indiscriminate flow of goods and people is its threat to ancestral institutions. In fact, Scipio states explicitly that the mechanisms of connectivity account for an undesirable effect on Roman traditions: Est autem maritimis urbibus etiam quaedam corruptela ac demutatio morum; admiscentur enim novis sermonibus ac disciplinis et inportantur non merces solum adventiciae, sed etiam mores, ut nihil possit in patriis institutis manere integrum. Nevertheless, there exists a certain corruption and deterioration of morals among maritime cities; for they become familiar with new languages and customs and import not only foreign goods, but also customs, so that none of their ancestral institutions can remain unimpaired. (Rep. 2.7) These institutions (patria instituta), which represent amicitia and other Roman Republican customs, are the same that Juvenal later will attest to as experiencing the same intrusions by circulation and forcing actual displacement of citizens or other individuals. In fact, as Scipio continues to lecture to his interlocutor, Laelius, he goes on to suggest that this interconnectivity compels the city’s inhabitants also to travel, and far from their homes (exulant et vagantur; 2.7). The overall mechanisms described in 2.7–9 indicate that the integrity (integrum, 2.7) of the city is a function of the protection of its ancestral institutions. But, circulation by way of commerce only threatens to diffuse their stability by motivating the movement of goods and people. The stability of these traditions, in turn, seems to be predicated on the fixity and presence of its inhabitants (qui incolunt eas urbes, 2.7) but, who once removed from their city space are like exiles (exulant, 2.7) and must wander (vagantur, 2.7) without the security of their patria.29 Ultimately, it is the individual’s attachment or location in space—here, the city—and commitment to its civic and ancestral traditions that determines the construction of his identity. Conversely, his separation from that very location accounts for a certain level of displacement that, like deterritorialization, dissolves or weakens the connections between his cultural and territorial location. Cicero’s Scipio, then, offers an early Roman perception of civic identity construction that structures its discussion around increased connectivity and geography. Coupled with this increased connectivity is the notion of commerce whose very mobile nature has been both a detriment and boon to early eighth century Italian settlements since Rome’s foundation in 753 bce. Over time, too, the discussion of commerce becomes an inextricable mechanism of empire growth in the Late Republican period in which Cicero publishes the dialogue (read by Atticus, ca. 51 bce). This diachronic view demonstrates an enduring preoccupation about Rome’s relationship with the rest of the Mediterranean that revolves

44  Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9 around this tension that I argue is the root of Roman identity construction. This circulation, in turn, intimates that Rome’s growth into a larger territorial space of empire—as Cicero undoubtedly experienced in his own lived experience and claims Scipio before him—is predicated on the mechanisms of trade and commerce, and facilitated by easy access to the sea.

Lucilius and the geographic construction of place Cicero’s De Republica 2.4–20 offers one moment in the diachronic trajectory of Roman literary thought regarding the notion of place and identity construction. In Scipio’s view of Rome, the city is construed as an area under the pressures of inward and outbound movement generated by seaborne trade that threaten both to physically and mentally dislodge its inhabitants from its ancestral connections and institutions. If we transfer the investigation to a look at Lucilius, the founder of Roman satire, similar concerns about mobility and fixity, as well as identity, emerge from some of his extant fragments. In the process, the fears of deterritorialization generated by time–space compression materialize, however fragmented Lucilius’ fragments may be. Lucilius (ca. 180–102/1 bce) was born in Suessa Aurunca in the southwestern region of Italy in Campania and flourished in the latter half of the first century bce. As a member of the Roman aristocracy he confirms elite views of multicultural and multi-lingual learnedness that was concomitant with Greek education in the early second century bce. How much of this knowledge was based on substantive engagement with Greek texts is up for debate.30 Nevertheless, Greek and other non-native Roman literature constituted the groundwork for basic Roman elite education and shaped a basic sense of Latinitas that was wrapped up in Hellenic ideals.31 Some of Lucilius’ fragments (87–93W and 1145–1151W) attest to this cultural multivalence and locates its confluence to a specific urban site, Rome. Below, Lucilius portrays business pursuits (and shady ones at that!) in the Roman forum in a way that looks forward not only to Juvenal’s initial reference to Lucilius in 1.19–21 (discussed in Chapter 1), but also serves as a teaser to much of the urban life featured in Juvenal’s portrait of Rome several centuries later. nunc uero a mani ad noctem, festo atque profesto totus item pariterque die populusque patresque iactare indu foro se omnes, decedere nusquam, uni se atque eidem studio omnes dedere et arti, uerba dare ut caute possint, pugnare dolose, blanditia certare, bonum simulare uirum se, insidias facere, ut si hostes sint omnibus omnes. But now, from dusk to dawn, on holiday and workday the entire population and likewise senators, too, all bustle about in the forum and never depart. To one and the same endeavor and skill they devote themselves:

Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9  45 to be able to cheat without getting caught, to fight deceitfully, to struggle charmingly, to pretend to be a nobleman, to set traps, as though everyone were everyone’s enemies. (1145–1151W)32 Notable in the passage above are both the verbs of motion (iactare, decedere) and the physical landmark, the Roman forum (foro). Like coordinates on a plot, the verbs demonstrate their variable relation to an endpoint, the forum. The sense of interconnection is further heightened by the temporal frames (mani ad noctem, festo atque profesto) to suggest non-stop activity and the frequentative iacto, which denotes the repeated movements of individuals in and around the forum.33 However, unlike later literary representations of bilateral movement through Rome as in Juvenal, Lucilius represents Rome as a collection point where no one departs (decedere nusquam). Decurrere in Juvenal 1.19 offers an interesting counterpoint, or counter-movement, to Lucilius’ description of human activity. In the main, there is no immediate indication that human activity at the urban core (iactare indu foro) has any consequences or influence upon areas outside it.34 Whereas, several centuries later it is as though Juvenal wishes to tear through central Rome (campo decurrere, 1.19), via the Campus Martius, to finish what Lucilius could not. What emerges then in Lucilius’ account above is a prototype to the more explicit globalizing effects noted by Juvenal: the convergence of people, both senatorial (patres) and the rest of the population (populus), upon one particular urban site. The resulting effect is the preponderance of swindlers and the obfuscation of any virtuous behavior that pits individuals against one another as though they are foreign, hostile combatants (hostes).35 Instead of recognizing and reinforcing common bonds of citizenship, they are threatened, revealing an early effect of deterritorialization. Lucilius, then, begins to offer a scenario where, as the urban site becomes a platform for the mixing of social classes, their distinctions begin to muddle. The bustling activity within Lucilius’ Rome paints a proto-portrait of increased connectivity that has a deep bearing on the perception of place. Some conceptual formulations of geographical place “associate it with stasis and nostalgia, and an enclosed security” that have come to be described as the features of the sociological concept of time–space compression, where spatial and temporal distances are seemingly condensed.36 One effect of this compression can be a reactionary response, or the desire to reassert the meaning of a place (its associations with language and customs) in counter position against an “other.” In the following fragment, we observe a reactionary response that assists in the discussion of cultural differentiation: Graecum te, Albuci, quam Romanum atque Sabinum, municipem Ponti, Tritani, centurionum, praeclarorum hominum ac primorum signiferumque, maluisti dici. Graece ergo praetor Athenis, id quod maluisti, te, cum ad me accedis, saluto: chaere, inquam, Tite. lictores, turma omnis chorusque: “chaere, Tite”. hinc hostis mi Albucius, hinc inimicus.’

46  Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9 A Greek, Albucius, rather than a Roman or a Sabine, fellow-citizen of the centurions Pontus, Tritanus, eminent, leading men and standard-bearers, you have preferred to be called. So, in Greek as praetor at Athens (which you preferred), I greet you when you approach me: “Chaere,” I say, “Titus.” The lictors, the entire company and chorus: “Chaere, Titus.” So, Albucius is my enemy, my nemesis. (87–93W) These fragments from Book 2 of Lucilius’ satires constitute a parody of a trial dated to 119 bce where a T. Albucius charges Q. Mucius Scaevola, a governor of Asia, with de repetundis, or charges of provincial extortion.37 In response to the charge, Scaevola pokes fun at his philhellenism, or for “going Greek,” ostensibly setting the issue of cultural distinction at the forefront.38 Scaevola appears to attack Albucius on the grounds that he wishes to be Greek, which is tantamount to his rejection of Romanness.39 When read against 1145–1151W discussed above, a more comprehensive picture emerges that suggest the effects of a larger global consciousness generated by time–space compression. The rapid growth of time–space compression merges cultures and communities to transform the idea of what a place ought to be. Like Scipio’s fear of interconnectivity and its temptation to send men’s minds adrift (cf. exulant, vagantur, Rep. 2.7 on p. 43) from their native land, here, too, we find its physical realization in the example of T. Albucius—presumably a Roman—who by the mechanism of Roman aristocratic aspirations, finds himself not at Rome, but in Greece (Athenis), having appropriated one form of Greek culture by speaking Greek (Graece), not Latin as should two colleagues on business.40 In the process the proper observance of one feature of the ancestral institution amicitia has been broken.41 In rejecting his Latinity, Albucius assumes the affectation of Greek, which for Scaevola qualifies as the grounds for the disavowal of their friendship (inimicus) and now akin to an enemy combatant (hostes).42 However playful or satirically scathing the accusation may be and the portrait of heterogeneity, there appears in both fragments an implied connection between place and cultural expectations. Both convey the interplay between geographical place and the construction of identity; however, where there appears social miscegenation in the Roman forum (1145–1151W) which points to signs of urban decay, the charge of philhellenism in the latter set demonstrates a reactionary response located at a territorial fringe of Roman hegemony in Athens. In Lucilius’ portrait of Rome the desire to exert a particularly ethnic or cultural identity appears absent, whereas in Athens the need to preserve Romanness is at the forefront.

To Rome, the hub of interconnectivity and global flows Although just a small representative sample, the historical range of the texts in question reveals a central preoccupation with Rome as the epicenter of commercial and cultural exchange. Cicero’s account and Lucilius are especially

Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9  47 useful for a reading of globalization processes in Juvenal in that they offer a “proto”-version of increased interconnection and time–space compression from the Roman regal period and the early Republic.43 And, thus far we have observed the historical extent to which the connections between geographical space and its associations with the construction of identity have been rooted in perceptions of Rome’s early existence. In the process of plotting geographic and cultural difference in their respective discussions, there also emerges a language of movement that accompanies the sense of Rome’s growing interconnectivity within the space of the Mediterranean. This rising space of flows and time–space compression, in turn, initiates a series of discussions about fixity and static identities that, as Rome progresses from the age of Romulus to the Late Republic, also becomes more pronounced as a function of Rome’s territorial growth into a larger empire. Enter the Imperial period of Juvenal’s floruit (second century ce) and there is certainly no coincidence that the language of mobility and travel is all the more prominent due to increased local and global flows of commerce and the circulation of people. Juvenal’s language of movement not only describes the variety and distance of circulation in Rome and abroad, but also plots the coordinates of its geographic extent and the peripheries of its empire. Juvenal’s metaphorical language draws strong distinctions among ethnicities and cultures, such as between Romans and others, or Italians and provincials. I have argued how Satire 1.19–21 (see Chapter 1) initiates a programmatic move by Juvenal to establish the significance of mobility behind his portrait of Rome. In short, we observed how, like Lucilius, he chooses to descend into a central space of Rome, the Campus Martius (decurrere campo, 1.19), which from the time of Lucilius and earlier becomes an increasingly concentrated area of human activity and monumental architecture. Thereupon (1.22–80), the satirist explains his reasons for tearing through the area conveyed in terms of foreign infiltration and physical movement. Where Scipio warns of commercial dangers to Rome and Lucilius the hustle and bustle in the forum, Juvenal’s Rome exhibits a series of individuals and behaviors that defy the practice of ancestral and cultural institutions to reveal the heightened effects of global connectivity. Furthermore, Juvenal’s sense of “existential possession” is interrupted and accounts for a reactionary response by several examples and the proclamation for why he writes satire (difficile est saturam non scribere).44 cum pars Niliacae plebis, cum verna Canopi Crispinus, Tyrias umero revocante lacernas, ventilet aestivum digitis sudantibus aurum, nec sufferre queat maioris pondera gemmae diffcile est saturam non scribere. nam quis iniquae tam patiens urbis, tam ferreus, ut teneat se, . . . When part of the Nile people, when a slave of Canopus, Crispinus—while his shoulder hitches his Tyrian cloak— airs out the summery gold on his sweaty fingers

27

48  Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9 (nor could he bear the weight of a heavier stone) it is difficult not to write satire. For who is so enduring of an unfair city, so calloused that he can restrain himself, . . . (1.26–31) Prior to the mention of the Egyptian Crispinus above, Juvenal begins his catalogue of misfits with three examples that demonstrate both gender and social violations:45 (1) When a eunuch marries and thereby upturns the institution of marriage; (2) an aristocrat who engages in the activity of the venatio, the beast hunt, when she is expected not to as a woman of noble birth (1.22–23); and (3) a freedman (a barber) whose wealth trumps another’s birth (1.24–25). Following these three examples of institutional violations, Juvenal introduces the collection’s first mention of a non-Roman individual at Rome, the Egyptian Crispinus, who, of the four examples in this opening period (1.22–30), receives the lengthiest treatment.46 He not only represents an institutional aberration, but also one effect of importation to Rome that in Scipio and Horace’s accounts were not as pronounced. However, here Crispinus as the foreigner represents the culmination of violations the first three introduce. He is not only a freedman, like the barber, who is socially inferior, but also manages to upend the minimum wealth requirements to qualify even beyond a noble of native birth. This same Crispinus will even infiltrate the most intimate of imperial circles under the emperor Domitian’s military council in satire 4 (see Chapter 3). The immediate juxtaposition of Crispinus (1.26–29) and Juvenal’s reference to Rome (1.30–31) highlight an explicit consciousness of Rome as a hub of international influence. In addition to the examples of institutional violation in this opening period, Juvenal introduces the Egyptian according to his region of origin (Canopi, 1.26), his local river (Niliacae, 1.26), and his sartorial accoutrement, the Tyrian purple (Tyrias, 1.27). These foreign markers not only map the extent of the empire’s territorial plot, but also, in the process, illuminate the compression of geographic space into one area, the urbs (1.31). Their metaphorical convergence upon the physical area of Rome (urbs, 1.31) is what seemingly drives Juvenal to his tipping point to write satire (1.30).47 In this manner, Juvenal’s presentation of these foreign features in geographic, ethnic, and sartorial terms reflect the effects of time–space compression generated by increased circulation of fringe elements into Rome. This presence of the non-local at Rome demonstrates the beginning of the disruption of mundane cultural experience. Like modern globalizing media (the Internet, mobile phones, email, etc.), the satirist’s representation of foreign peoples and their unique custom(s)—their eating habits, dress, experiences—inevitably transforms the routine of everyday cultural experience as they increasingly penetrate localities and shorten distances.48 Elsewhere in the collection there are manifestations of increasing penetration and compression by way of flows, or the idea of liquidity. Whereas satire 1.19–80 introduces geographic and ethnic signifiers as one means of plotting Rome’s larger consciousness, in others Juvenal reifies this increased

Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9  49 connectivity within the language of mobility. Juvenal’s distinct articulation of connectivity in terms of the ebb and flow of goods, people, and ideas, further sharpens his geographic plot. A key concept in thinking about globalization is the notion of flows.49 It is these flows that create the sense of an interconnected world and in many ways can be seen in antithesis to the notion of boundaries and borders, which become increasingly porous. The subsequent permeability of spaces can create a mixture of both cultural diversity and clash. It is this very language of liquidity in Juvenal that highlights the growing ethnic and cultural hybridity at Rome. The satirist’s discussions in terms of fluidity have everything to do with perception (and realities) of social and political displacement (deterritorialization), as well in advancing the construction of Romanness, no matter how contrived they may be. It is perhaps no surprise then that so much of Juvenal’s landscape of mobility is entrenched in discussions of cultural exchange that either empower or dislodge individuals who constitute these exchanges at Rome. It is useful first to examine how Juvenal exactly expresses fluidity and mobility, since it assists in the satirist’s expression of deterritorialization at Rome. Satire 3, for example, features the city, Rome. It not only illuminates the human activity that pervades it, but also a series of flows that demonstrate the level of enhanced connectivity experienced in the urban center. Umbricius, its main speaker, delivers a series of rants that highlight the inequities of living at Rome, including threats by foreigners (Greeks and Jews) to the institutional status quo and the dangers of living in shoddy dilapidated tenements. The satire begins with familiar references to landmarks in the city (Subura, 3.5; Porta Capena, 3.10; valles Egeriae, 3.17) and Umbricius’ preference for Prochyta, a small island near Baiae (a Greek colony), over Rome’s Subura area.50 Upon bewailing the lack of honest opportunity at Rome (3.21–22, 3.41), he conveys explicitly Rome’s level of connectivity as a series of flows into the city: non possum ferre, Quirites, Graecam urbem—quamvis quota portio faecis Achaei? iam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes et linguam et mores et cum tibicine chordas obliquas nec non gentilia tympana secum vexit et ad circum iussas prostare puellas.

61

I cannot endure, Senators, A Greek Rome—although what portion of the dregs is Achaean? For a long time now the Syrian Orontes has poured into the Tiber its language, ways (customs), slanted strings, accompanied by a piper, and native tambourines and has carried girls ordered to prostitute themselves at the Circus. (3.60–65) The brief passage is abundant with metonyms that coordinate the geographic and literal extent of global flows into Rome. Some geographic nodes include

50  Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9 Achaei (3.61) for Greece, and the cultural implications of which will be described in greater detail (see p. 53 ff.). The Orontes river, a metonym for Syria, denotes a geographical plot on an eastern periphery of the Empire, whereas the Tiber denotes the Empire’s center, Rome. Movement in between these plots explicitly qualifies their relationship. Defluxit (3.62) describes the movement as “pouring” or “flowing” just as does vexit (3.65) the act of “carrying” by transport; the prefix -de also indicates the importation of foreign goods and origin into Rome.51 Furthermore, with that flow travels language, customs, and foreign (here gentilia) musical instruments. The larger geographic scope suggests a unidirectional flow, as though a tributary from a peripheral point of Empire to Rome’s Tiber and the Circus (circus, 3.65). Like the forum featured in Lucilius’ description of Republican Rome, Rome’s central areas feature some form of increased interaction. However, in Juvenal’s portrait foreign elements not only pervade, but flow to collect in one central area. This area or space of flows helps inform the satirist’s and other surrogate speakers’, like Umbricius, desire to leave the city, as though expressive of a counter, outward flow. It is this constant tension of inward and outward flow that helps construct the narrative along the way and determines the decision of the interlocutor to leave Rome after all at the satire’s conclusion. Evocations of fluidity, movement, and the foreign are not restricted to the first book of Juvenal’s collection. With every reiteration of interconnectivity on the global scale comes a slight variation and a more substantial picture. In book 2, or satire 6, Juvenal presents an apotreptic against marriage that features male and female perversions of established social and sexual hierarchies.52 In the midst of these illustrations of institutional practices and their decay, Juvenal interjects with a sweeping statement about how Rome got to this nadir in the first place. Here, Juvenal attributes conquest to the influx of Greek foreign elements into Rome that, in the process, interjects an ecumenical analytic that illustrates a consciousness of the world as a whole. nunc patimur longae pacis mala. saevior armis luxuria incubuit victumque ulciscitur orbem. nullum crimen abest facinusque libidinis ex quo paupertas Romana perit. hinc fluxit ad istos et Sybaris colles, hinc et Rhodos et Miletos atque coronatum et petulans madidumque Tarentum. prima peregrinos obscena pecunia mores intulit, et turpi fregerunt saecula luxu divitiae molles.

294

Now we endure the evils of a long peace. Luxury more savage than war has set in and avenges the conquered world. No crime and deed of lust is absent as a result of which Roman poverty has perished. Into this place [Rome] and its hills have flowed Sybaris, Rhodes and Miletus, and the garlanded, drunk, and shameless Tarentum.

Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9  51 Filthy cash was the first to bring in foreign morals; the effeminate wealth has broken our era with its base luxury.

(6.292–300)

Although the mechanisms of conquest are discussed further in Chapters 4 and 5, its reference here deserves brief mention. The reference to arms (armis, 6.292) and that of the space of empire (orbem, 6.293) illuminates the broader spectrum of flows on a global scale. All three areas—the gulf of Tarentum (Sybaris and Tarentum), Miletus, and Rhodes—establish a network of travel originating from outside Rome leading into Rome itself.53 They all flow into Rome ( fluxit, 6.295) and, in its run off, filthy cash transports (intulit, 6.299) foreign customs. Furthermore, the phrase victum . . . orbem (conquered world) presupposes an area already under Roman political or military influence, which in this case is pretty self-evident; however, this global sensibility only acquires poignant resonance when read against other metonymic markers, which here include areas from the Italian mainland to the Greek Aegean. There is the expression of both an outward and return flow. Juvenal’s account suggests that the outward movement implied by territorial expansion (victum . . . orbem) accounts for a responding reverse flow. In Arjun Appadurai’s Modernity at Large (1996), a seminal text on globalization trends, he acknowledges the role of conquest as one of the primary forms of interconnectivity predating the twentieth century era when he states: The two main forces for sustained cultural interaction before this century have been warfare (and the large-scale political systems sometimes generated by it) and religions of conversion, which have sometimes, as in the case of Islam, taken warfare as one of the legitimate instruments of their expansion. (Appadurai 1996: 27) Cultural exchange is viewed as an inevitable outcome of expansion. Though Appadurai, like most globalization scholars, believes that most signs of modern globalization take root after 1500 ce, recently there have been a number of archeological and sociological studies that have demonstrated how trends in globalization in fact predate this period and are applicable to a study of Roman culture.54 Given the applicability of these conditions, it is well worth noting that 6.292–300 articulates a reverse flow, if not a “boomerang effect,” where “processes flowing in one direction act back on their source (and much else).”55 The conquered world, or area that constitutes Rome’s territorial sway, represents one flow, and that of foreign customs represented by markers that denote a particular place beyond the space of the city Rome the other. The initiator of flows here is luxuria and is undoubtedly initiated by the senatorial desire for gloria through territorial and material acquisition that stretches back to Roman accounts that associate material gain—and many times by conquest—with the threat of moral and institutional decay.56

52  Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9 Nevertheless, what bearing does a longa pax (6.292) have on interregional activity and the space of flows? The “long peace,” guaranteed no less than by military conquest, ultimately, suggests an increased frequency of material goods and people that forces their interaction at both the local and global levels not experienced before. In line with these expressions of connectivity, the fluidity of human interaction continues to emerge at certain junctures throughout the collection. In satire 9, for example, Juvenal substantiates his view of Rome as a locus and attractor of flows that recalls both the Scipionic view of Rome offered by Cicero in his De Republica and Juvenal’s overall view of circulation in the Satires: Ne trepida: nunquam pathicus tibi derit amicus stantibus et salvis his collibus. undique ad illos conveniunt et carpentis et navibus omnes qui digito scalpunt uno caput. 133

130

Fear not! You will never lack a pathic friend so long as these hills remain and are safe. From every end of the world all converge on them [hills] by land and by sea, those who scratch their head with one finger. (9.130–133) In an effort to cheer up a downtrodden gigolo, Naevolus, the interlocutor reminds him that despite all his misfortunes future clients will continue to converge (conveniunt, 9.132) upon Rome.57 The threat of client dislocation is further articulated by Juvenal’s geographic plot and language of mobility. The hills (colles, 9.131) represent Rome and its seven hills, not unlike the Orontes, Syria, and the Tiber Rome observed in 3.62 and 6.295. The ecumenical consciousness is so extensive that points of reference outside Rome are now mentioned indiscriminately (undique, 9.131) as is the form of mobility and flow into the city, both by vehicular and maritime means (et carpentis et navibus, 9.132). It is this manner of global interconnectivity that assists in and generates the satirist’s discussion of cultural practices at Rome. Whatever the source of institutional dysfunction, the common denominator is global fluidity (undique, 9.131).

Global flow and deterritorialization Thus far I have demonstrated how Juvenal’s language of fluidity reveals a global sensibility, or ecumenical analytic, that views Rome not just as a selfcontained, self-sufficient community, but one that is in increasing engagement with the world at large. Earlier thought on the matter—as in the example of Cicero’s Scipio and the Republican era satirist, Lucilius—demonstrates a gradual, yet heightened awareness of Rome’s growing role over time (from Rome’s foundation) as a global participant in various other networks of interaction with city-states, kingdoms, and peoples. This global animus, moreover, is expressed

Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9  53 by the frequent use of metonyms and geographic place names to demarcate the extent of Roman knowledge of the world that is undoubtedly entrenched in the satirist’s lived experience of the second century ce. Juvenal’s world, furthermore, is characterized by interconnectivity by means of human mobility, commerce, and the exchange of goods and ideas. It is this perception of the world, in turn, that informs the satirist’s discussion of Rome’s relationship to the world and the consequences of mobility on the preservation of its storied institutions. If, as Nederveen Pieterse has noted, the “growing awareness of cultural difference is a function of globalization,”58 then it holds that a globalizing trend expressed by the confluence and effluence of flows into and out of Rome also act in a similar manner in Juvenal’s narrative. Intermingling flows not only succeed in bringing ethnic and cultural difference to the forefront, but also in describing their subsequent effects on the institutions of amicitia and the dinner party. For example, in 3.60–65 (discussed pp. 49–50) the network of global movements is initially framed as a question about ethnic differentiation which, if it were not for globalizing trends, would not necessarily be a topic worthy of the satirist’s purview: . . . non possum ferre, Quirites, Graecam urbem—quamvis quota portio faecis Achaei? . . . I cannot endure, my countrymen, A Greek Rome—although what portion of the dregs is Achaean? (3.60–61) The increased frequency of flows into Rome (3.62–65) generates a reactionary response by the satirist, which serves as the basis for cultural differentiation throughout. In the satirist’s eye it is a foregone conclusion that the city is so overrun with Greeks (Graecam urbem, 3.61), if not a hackneyed observation. Instead, in true satiric manner even the significant number of Greeks in town has been diffused by an even greater influx of ethnic groups such as the Syrians (3.62; see p. 50).59 In this regard when at one time the Greeks represent(ed) a known quantity, now they are indistinguishable from other incoming groups. Increased migration or connectivity only serves to highlight cultural diversity, yet, simultaneously, achieves an opposite effect. Because it renders more difficult the ability to distinguish one from others, the metonymic discourse of the author experiences a certain level of slippage. Expressions of ethnic diversity are not restricted to Rome itself. As we have observed in satires 1, 3, 6, and 9, the purview of human interaction extends beyond Rome to include other areas that happen also to coincide with Rome’s territorial expanse in the early Imperial era. In satire 15, the last complete satire of the collection, we find that the satirist’s discussion takes its reader to the edges of empire, to Egypt.60 The narrative features cannibalistic behavior among two warring factions to highlight their barbarism against the virtues of a Greco-Roman philosophical life. The narrator’s response to the ghastly behavior

54  Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9 illuminates some assumptions about the so-called civilizing effects of Roman influence and education: nunc totus Graias nostrasque habet orbis Athenas, Gallia causidicos docuit facunda Britannos, de conducendo loquitur iam rhetore Thyle.61 Now the entire world has its Greek culture and our Athens; eloquent Gaul has taught British lawyers, and even Thule talks of hiring a rhetor. (15.110–112) The influence of Greco-Roman culture is rather self-evident. However, by satire 15 the satirist’s focus demonstrates a global consciousness that has spanned from observations of fluidity on the street corners of Rome in satire 1 to a periphery of the Roman Empire, and even beyond in Thule, in satire 15. Network activity and global flows are multi-directional: “our entire world,” which here is synonymous for Rome and its empire, has exerted its outward influence upon its conquered. But, there is also the expression of independent flow of activity as in Gaul training British lawyers. Whereas it may appear that the warring Egyptian tribes are immune to Roman influences, the rest of the world (Gaul, Britain, Thule) has fully realized and experienced the globalizing effects of Roman domination. Cultural differentiation in this vignette is not expressed as a form of pure homogeneity, but as Hardt and Negri (2004) claim, a multitude that represents a diversity of these cultural singular differences.62 However, if this amounts to the large-scale, global effects of interconnectivity and globalization, then how does the onset of cultural clash manifest itself at the local level? The indiscriminate, reverse, multi-directional and “boomerang” flows of interconnectivity insure some contestation of established institutions. Giddens (1990) has argued how modernity not only institutionalizes and regulates cultural institutions and their practices, but also an imagined sense of attachment to a particular place or community.63 As Tomlinson, too, has noted, this “imagined sense” takes on many modes that constitute “cultural identity,” including “self and communal definitions based around specific, usually politically inflected, differentiations: gender, sexuality, class, religion, race and ethnicity, nationality.”64 This is not, however, to say that such differentiations did not exist before “modernity” and, therefore, are not applicable to a reading of Juvenal’s text. Perhaps with the exception of nationality, all other distinctions clearly exist in the Roman context.65 It is the very act of interconnectivity and its growing frequency that brings the satirist’s discussion of institutional practice to the forefront. With the clash of cultures and differing ideologies, the satirist takes as a personal slight the effects of external intrusion and often feels displaced. Such fears of physical and cultural displacement are reflective of another effect of globalization in modernity—deterritorialization—that is just as resonant in second century ce Rome. Increasing flow of people and migrants

Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9  55 to Rome increases the probability of challenges to established traditions, such as receiving the sportula, the daily handout, as part of the daily exercise of the patron–client relationship. Since globalization has local effects, we come back to Rome itself. Juvenal’s indiscriminate world of travel and connectivity has severe consequences for clients at Rome who depend on the daily institutional routine of the sportula for their well-being. Nowhere is the movement of peoples into Rome felt more than when a citizen client is both physically and socially removed from receiving his handout. . . . nunc sportula primo limine parva sedet turbae rapienda togatae. 96 . . . . . . iubet a praecone vocari ipsos Troiugenas, nam vexant limen et ipsi nobiscum. ‘da praetori, da deinde tribuno.’ 101 sed libertinus prior est. ‘prior’ inquit ‘ego adsum. cur timeam dubitemve locum defendere, quamuis natus ad Euphraten, molles quod in aure fenestrae arguerint, licet ipse negem? . . . Now the little basket awaits the threshold to be snatched up by the toga-clad throng. . . . . . . the herald is ordered to call forth the Trojan families. For they also bum-rush the threshold beside us. ‘Offer it to the praetor, then the tribune.’ But, a freedman is first. He says ‘I’m first. Why should I fear or hesitate to defend my spot, although born near the Euphrates, a fact that my effeminate earrings would prove, but I deny nonetheless? (1.95–96; 99–105) The vignette expresses the frenetic chase (vexant, 1.100) by clients and others alike to participate in the tradition of receiving their share (sportula, 1.95) at the patron’s threshold (limen, 1.96, 100). A physical location, the threshold, plays a crucial role in determining the construction of meaning through one practice of symbolic representation. Clients approach the patron’s doorway to signal their participation in the Roman institutional practice of greeting their patron and in return political and social favors that cement the patron–client bond. The significance of the cultural practice is all the more impressed by the foreigner’s insistence on defending the physical spot (locum defendere, 1.103) from where he expects to participate in the receiving the handout. In this instance we observe the significance of socio-geographical space and location (locus and limen) to the construction of cultural practice and meaning. It is the connectivity of global

56  Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9 flows that threaten to disrupt this Roman tradition by dislodging its participants from the expected anchors of participation. However, the institutional standard of this ritual, the satirist decries, is broken in several ways. The client’s dislocation from the ritual resonates on several levels to demonstrate exponential consequences for amicitia itself. First, the sportula intended for the lowlier client instead is offered here to the tribune before the praetor, thereby undermining the order of the cursus honorum. And, those of eastern heritage insure their share by lining in position before other local Romans, including those of Trojan-blood and a freedman from the Euphrates river region. Juvenal’s pairing of the epic-historical past, the Trojans of epic poetry (Troiugenae, 1.100), with the present demographic of foreign and other freedmen (libertinus) expresses time–space compression in the form of simultaneous flows both in historical and contemporary time. The convergence of the foreign upon an established local custom makes for a contentious arena that highlights social, cultural, and ethnic anxieties. But, it also marks the opportunity for the reassertion of “tradition” when in outlining the deviations from receiving the handout, the satirist delineates what, in fact, is the expected course of ritual practice. The Syrian freedman (natus ad Euphraten, 1.104) goes so far as to hide his true ethnic origin in order to partake in the Roman custom. Sociologist Arjun Appadurai notes how interconnectivity can frustrate “points of reference” for those subject to its effects: What is new is that this is a world in which both points of departure and points of arrival are in cultural flux, and thus the search for steady points of reference, as critical life choices are made, can be very difficult. It is in this atmosphere that the invention of tradition (and of ethnicity, kinship, and other identity markers) can become slippery, as the search for certainties is regularly frustrated by the fluidities of transnational communication. (Appadurai 1996: 44) Where in Appadurai’s modern context cultural markers of ethnicity, race, and/ or gender can become diffuse, or “slippery,” for Juvenal the outcomes are similarly generated by the mechanisms of globalization through empire building and annexation of the conquered’s identity, whether deliberately or not. The vignette, then, articulates another effect of empire by displacing the disenfranchised client from participation in the expected practice. This dislocation is akin to the effects of deterritorialization, which refers to the reach of global connectivity into localities. The material conditions in this vignette, for example, act to dislodge everyday experience and meaning construction from their traditional anchors in the local cultural contexts. This is not only applicable to the sportula scene (pp. 55–56), but also elsewhere in the author’s collection, including the rise of freedmen, foreign upstarts, and the foreign food cultures. In Chapter 1, I quoted this Latin passage to highlight the effects of deterritorialization on geographic location and meaning construction. However, here the significance of location acquires greater resonance with its particular focus on a specific place

Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9  57 (locus and limen) where the client–patron relationship is negotiated. The vignette expresses the inextricable threads of location and one’s engagement in Roman institutions—as in the sportula—to the construction of cultural meaning. However, that meaning is obfuscated, if not diffused, by a seeming dislocation attributed to the challenge of a freedman who is without the credentials of some autochthonous tie to Rome.66 Thus far, I have argued how globalizing flows disrupt the association of an individual’s physical location to his practice of a particular institution, and how such an association is vital for one’s lived cultural experience in Rome of the secondary century ce. Another institutional practice that suffers the effects of deterritorialization by globalization is literary patronage. Patronage in general is vital to the construction of cultural, social, and political meaning in Rome, as we have observed in the example of the sportula episode and amicitia. Although some debate still lingers as to whether literary patronage is different from other forms of social patronage, the important distinction to be drawn here again is the poet’s perception of that lived experience in historical reality.67 Barbara Gold in a recent study on the role of poet and patron in Roman love elegy argues how literary patronage is just one subset of the larger code of conduct expected in the patron–client relationship:68 To reconcile the two points of view [whether or not there existed a Roman code of literary patronage], we need to see Roman patronage or amicitia as a vast social network that bound one person to another (or to many others) in a variety of ways; everyone in Rome was somehow involved in this network . . . Amicitia was an elaborate network or code that enveloped everyone in one way or another. Writers exemplify just one way in which amicitia operated, based on their own kinds of gifts exchanged with their patrons. (Gold 2012: 307) Gold, furthermore, defines Roman patronage “as a vast social network that bound one person to another” that is highly reminiscent of the very flows of communication and interaction that accompany the effects of globalization. If like human (migrant or native) mobility, the transport of goods and the communication of ideas can act both to imbue and dislodge routine behavior from a particular place and location so, too, can these very forces of interconnectivity interrupt a poet or writer’s desire to engage in the pursuit of letters by patronal support. Although literary patronage as a cultural practice is more abstract than the more concrete processes of human mobility, Juvenal in satire 7 manages to articulate the challenges to his and other writers’ literary craft in terms of fluidity and displacement. Satire 7, the opening of the third book of the collection, casts a pall over the state of literary patronage at Rome. The satire begins expressing the hope that the recent accession of Hadrian (or, Trajan) will restore an overall interest in culture and the literary arts.69 In true Juvenalian manner, however, the narrative resumes with, not a celebration of literary patronage at Rome, but all the challenges to its

58  Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9 proper code of participation. Poets and writers are not the only sufferers, but historians and lawyers, too. Like the satirist’s claim elsewhere that no reputable skills can be located (or, practiced) at Rome, the same holds true for studia, the writing arts, described in satire 7.70 The rules of conduct for social patronage began to transform several generations before the time of Juvenal under the emperor Augustus and patron of the arts, Maecenas, when the structure of the patron– client relationship underwent a major reconfiguration and the princeps assumed the role of sole patron, unlike the senators of the Republic.71 Consequently, the now emperor patron’s network of clients expands as much as his influence over the greater provinces of the empire at large. In other words, as the empire expands, so too does Augustus’ social networks of interconnectivity. Literary patronage is subject to the same globalizing forces and, therefore, worthy of discussion. Satire 7 showcases an array of individuals of letters—poets, historians, barristers, teachers of rhetoric—vying for the emperor’s patronal support. Where satire 1 opens the first book with a catalogue of individuals that represent all that is wrong with Rome, here Juvenal opens Book 3 with a parallel catalogue, not of reprobates, but victims of patronal greed and wealth that permeate the Roman city space. The diversity of strategies employed by qualified and non-qualified writers to ingratiate themselves testifies not only to the increased connectivity within the new globalized Rome, but to its pitfalls as well.72 Increased human mobility and subsequent changes to patronal rules of conduct reveal a distinct sense that the demand far exceeds the supply for literary patronage.73 Not surprisingly, the same flows of migration that dislocate individuals from their sense of belonging or participation in Roman institutions also describe the satire’s initial illustration of poor patronage as a series of displacements and movements in space: Et spes et ratio studiorum in Caesare tantum; solus enim tristes hac tempestate Camenas respexit, cum iam celebres notique poetae balneolum Gabiis, Romae conducere furnos temptarent, nec foedum alii nec turpe putarent praecones fieri, cum desertis Aganippes vallibus esuriens migraret in atria Clio.

5

Both hope and the inducements to writing rest solely upon Caesar. For he alone at this current time favors the downtrodden Camenae, when in the past well-known and distinguished poets were forced to rent out a little bath-room at Gabii or a bakehouse at Rome, while others thought it neither shameful or a disgrace to become auctioneers, after Clio left Aganippe’s valleys and immigrated to the auction-rooms out of hunger. (7.1–7) The picture of literary patronage above describes a process in cultural and physical flux. Deterritorialization here takes the form of “the loss of the ‘natural’ relation of culture to geographical and social territories.”74 Well-known and

Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9  59 reputable poets are forced to rent out some dingy bath-house (or, -room) or bakehouse instead of the decent lodgings or conditions (tolerabile . . . hospitium) that allowed the poet, Vergil, to compose a scene with the Fury Allecto from Aeneid 7.75 The disruption of routine practice and sense of place even extends to the poet’s immortal inspiration, namely Clio, one of the Muses. She must emigrate from the springs on Mt. Helicon to Roman auction-houses to look for food. In this manner, Juvenal sets the stage for a discussion of literary patronage in terms of multiple flows of movement—from within Rome, to Rome from Greece—and the poet’s (and Muse’s, too) dislodgement from his physical anchor; that is, the poet’s inability to practice his skill in the prescribed physical location, not a bath-room, bakery or auction-house.76 A source of this upheaval is later expressed in terms familiar to Juvenal’s language of fluidity and foreign presence in Rome. Where Lucilius experienced the press of the hustle and bustle in the forum space so, too, a certain Tongilius, a man with no aristocratic status,77 makes his way through the forum space. In the process, and if we are safely to assume Tongilius is Roman, his presence and manner is much like the foreign upstarts that Juvenal often targets as not only signifiers of depravity, but also the result of global import and export into Rome: sic Pedo conturbat, Matho deficit, exitus hic est Tongilii, magno cum rhinocerote lavari 130 qui solet et vexat lutulenta balnea turba perque forum iuvenes longo premit assere Maedos empturus pueros, argentum, murrina, villas; spondet enim Tyrio stlattaria purpura filo. In this way Pedo goes bankrupt, Matho fails, this is the end for Tongilius who, with a great rhinoceros flask, is accustomed to clean himself and disrupts the bath with his muddied mob. He presses through the Forum on a long litter with his Thracian boys hoping to purchase slave-boys, silver, fluorspar trinkets, and villas. His seaborne purple, with its Tyrian thread, pledges his worth. (7.129–134) Tongilius’ conveyance upon a litter and across the forum space at once localizes his position at Rome and signals the new code of conduct for professional recognition. These codes include sexual depravity as denoted by his oil-flask in the shape of a bulging, curved phallus (magno rhinocerote, 7.130), his preference for foreign Thracian boys (iuvenes Maedos, 7.132) as litter bearers, and the desire for material wealth and human property (pueros, argentum, murrina, villas; 7.134). What before Juvenal illuminates as distinctly foreign versus local qualities and behavior (or, even foreign intruding on the native) are here a seeming diversity, or hybridity, of local and foreign exotic markers. Tongilius in essence has assumed the very qualities and behaviors that in other contexts have assisted in the satirist’s evocations of cultural difference (see satires 1 and 3, especially).78 It is the fluidity of wealth and material goods to Rome that appear

60  Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9 to be the major culprit as they act to dislodge professionals and overturn writers’ expectations of literary and social patronage. Following the vignette of Tongilius, the narrator asks fidimus eloquio? Not even Cicero in his day would be rewarded for his talent, unless he wore a huge gleaming rock on his finger, just like Crispinus the Egyptian who flashes an enormous gem on his sweaty fingers.79 Money, not local tradition, dictates the new mode of literary patronage. No other cause is more accountable than the exchange of people and goods generated by Rome’s growing global consciousness since its foundation.

Results In this chapter we have observed how Juvenal conveys the construction of meaning through practices of symbolic representation and how the “growing awareness of cultural difference is a function of globalization.”80 A prominent function of globalization in Juvenal’s portrait is interconnectivity expressed by the language of movement, fluidity, and flows, trends which are noticeable as far back as Scipio’s portrait of a commercially influenced Rome at its foundation and Lucilius’ space of the forum as a mélange of social classes. Intermingling flows, in turn, not only succeed in bringing ethnic and cultural difference to the forefront, but also describe their subsequent effects on the institutions of amicitia, especially the sportula episode of satire 1. This example, as I argue, highlights the confluence of population flows (Egyptian, Syrian, etc.) into one location, Rome, and demonstrates how this convergence determines significance of location by the authority and weight behind the ritual of the sportula. Participation in the institution of amicitia guarantees social and political inclusion in the ritual of everyday life. In other words, ritual determines a sense of cultural and physical place. However, rituals, codes of conduct and expectations are disrupted by these flows and time–space compression, all which amount to another function of increased flows, or deterritorialization. The individual, which in this case is a long-term, native resident of the city of Rome, is dislodged or physically extracted from the physical location (i.e. limen of the patron) and his ability to participate. These examples of patronage demonstrate the “transformation in our routine pattern of cultural existence which brings globalized influences, forces, experiences and outlooks into the core of our [or, Juvenal’s] locally situated lifeworld.”81 Ultimately, it this fluidity of information, goods, and people—identified by synecdoche, ethnic, and geographic markers—that helps illuminate the cultural, or institutional practices in question in the Satires. The increased interconnectivity, global consciousness, and the narrator’s reactionary response to changing global forces are all seemingly generated by commerce and empire that, in turn, forces negotiation, if not the (re)formulation of local Roman institutions. The results culminate in a culturally diffused community where Rome features as the location for the contestation of cultural and literary values in the face of increasing global forces.

Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9  61

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6

Holton 2005: 106. Nederveen Pieterse 2009: 59–60. See also Chapter 1 for definitions and a discussion of cultural globalization. Tomlinson 1999: 18. See also Chapter 1. Tomlinson 2003: 271. Horden and Purcell 2000 (see especially ch. 2 and 9). See also Braudel 1972–73. Both volumes suggest the primacy of mobility in their conception of exchange in the ancient world; however, Horden and Purcell propose the importance of exchanges between communities as networks. Chapter 3 of this monograph explores in greater depth the role of the sea and fish in the satirist’s notion of connectivity and globalization. 7 See especially Harris 1999, 2005, and 2013. 8 For general studies focusing on the Roman world see Corvisier and Suder 2000, Scheidel 2001, 2004, and 2005, de Ligt and Northwood 2008, Holleran and Pudsey 2011, Launaro 2011, Stangeland 2006, Hin 2013, and Hin 2015. 9 See also Moatti 2013 who claims that the very idea of circulation and mobility of people from classical antiquity onward no longer needs to be proven and that mobility is the structural basis of a Mediterranean network. See also Woolf 2016 who notes that it is not enough to declare that ancient populations were mobile, but that scholars must investigate how and in what ways people moved. 10 Herodotus’ Histories Book 5, the literary text, serves as a primary platform for many of the contributions in the volume. 11 Nicolet 1991: 3 notes how the poet’s language and illustrations of the Augustan era reflect a body of knowledge that is imperfect, but that is more or less accepted by society. Network theory, on the other hand, does make a concerted effort to reconstruct certain facets of historical reality based on empirical data. 12 See also Bouzarovski and Barker 2016 who employ a similar tact when reading Herodotus’ Histories. 13 Harvey 1990: 240. 14 In this regard, the satirist works within an existing tradition that employs the rich trope of the effects of a changing—both expanding and contracting—world (Sallust Bellum Catilinae 10–13; Cicero De Republica 2.5–11, Res Gestae divi Augusti 10.2; Livy Ab Urbe Condita 39.6.7–8). See Umurhan 2008 for a discussion of this literary trope from the Republican era. 15 For Rome as an economic center, see Horden and Purcell 2000, Harris 2011, and Morley 2015. See also Chapter 3. 16 See Chapter 1 for an in depth discussion of Polybius. For Rome as the physical and moral hub of empire, see Edwards 1996: 69–95, Vasaly 1993, and Dench 2005: 18–25. See also Jaeger 1997 and Clarke 1999 that argue for Livy and Polybius’ portrayal of Rome as a physical hub or “drain” for foreign and external elements. Clarke 1999: 210–228 describes Strabo’s impression of the world as “that of a constant deluge of resources towards its capital” (219). These resources include people, consumables, and even cultural ideas. She suggests that Strabo illuminates the “various lines of movement of goods, people, and ideas” interacting with Rome (223). On the traditions pertaining to Aelius Aristides, see Harris and Holmes 2008. 17 Benton 2003. 18 Notably Barker, Bouzarovski, Pelling, and Isaksen 2016. 19 See Chapter 1 for extended discussion. 20 In this 1995 study and Gowers 1993 food prefigures some activities akin to economic processes of globalization. I explore food, namely fish, as a metaphor for empire and results of globalization in Chapter 3. 21 See also Umurhan and Penner 2013 for a discussion of this Roman literary tradition.

62  Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9 22 Treatments of globalizing tendencies also extend to Roman love elegy. Harrison 2013 contextualizes Latin love elegy in terms of “the unprecedented globalization of Roman culture in terms of conquest and military enterprise, and extended contact with and absorption of Greek and other non-Italian cultural influences” (133). See also Raaflaub, Toher, and Bowersock 1990, Habinek and Schiesaro 1997, Murphy 2004, Edwards and Woolf 2003, and Fulkerson 2016. 23 Some of the following ideas, especially with regard to manifestations of vice in motion, have been examined in Umurhan 2008: 32–90, 2011 and Umurhan and Penner 2013. 24 Umurhan and Penner 2013 considers Cicero’s De Republica in its specific relation to the discussion of moral degeneracy and without specific attention to the language of mobility. 25 Umurhan and Penner 2013: 176. 26 See Zetzel 1995: 160ff. for discussion about the parallels between Cicero’s and Livy’s account of Romulus (De Republica 2.4–20), as well as features of the Platonic model in the De Republica. See also Cornell 2001. 27 Text of Cicero from Mueller 1890. 28 See Chapter 5 for further analysis of the phrase orbis terrarum and other variations as they relate specifically to the territorial space of empire. Cf. Ando 2000. 29 Dench 2013 explores Cicero’s formulation of Roman identity as it relates to the concept of the mos maiorum and the meaning of citizenship as determined by an era of increasing mobility. 30 Notably Goldberg 2005: 164 remarks that Roman familiarity with Greek Old Comedy, for example, was more with its clichés than its texts. He cites not only Cicero as an example, but also satirists such as Lucilius and Horace. 31 See Habinek 1998: 1–69 for a more in depth discussion about the Greek literary and cultural influence on the invention of Latin literature. See also Feeney 2016. 32 Text of Lucilius is from Warmington 1979. Warmington does not assign these fragments to any particular book of satires. 33 Goldberg 2005: 156–157 discusses these fragments in terms of their satiric and epic registers. 34 Whereas, in Juvenal 1.128–130 the presence of the foreign (an Egyptian official) is physically entrenched in the Roman forum in the form of a statue. 35 This is not unlike the Lucilian sentiment regarding the veneer of surface appearances in 36–37W; see Juvenal 2.8. This portrait of urban swindling and deceitful appearances is a hallmark of human behavior in Juvenal, especially in satire 3. 36 Massey 1994: 167. The association between place and security (and bounded enclosure) has its roots in Marx’s belief that capitalism (defined as in motion and without place) annihilates space by time and Heidegger’s (1971) that this subsequent shrinkage of distance dislodges one’s identity from a physical place. Heidegger terms this sense of identity rooted to a specific place (and all its particularities) “the locale of the Truth of Being.” For more on the contemporary sociological debate and reformulations of time– space compression, see Malpas 2006 (esp. ch. 5), Aho 2007a and 2007b, Malpas 2012, and Kivisto 2012. 37 The few fragments that constitute Book 2 suggest a narrative about a feud between the two individuals. 38 See Goldberg 2005: 160–162 (esp. 160n40). The quoted phrase is from Dench 1995: 92. Rosen 2012: 26 singles out these fragments as emblematic of Lucilian mockery (though oblique) and mockery of the Greeks. 39 Caston 2016: 446. Caston also notes (446n37) that is it not the Greek itself that is the problem, but its use in an inappropriate context of official business rather than private. 40 This specific suspicion of Greek custom and language recalls Juvenal 6.184–199 and 11.148. Language (formation) is also affected by global migratory flows. Blommaert 2010 discusses the sociolinguistic effects of migration generated by globalization processes with, in one example (6–20), an examination of foreign diasporas in Antwerp,

Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9  63 Belgium. She proposes a sociolinguistics of globalization that falls into two categories: the “sociolinguistics of distribution” and the “sociolinguistics of mobility,” with the latter’s focus on language-in-motion, with various spatiotemporal frames interacting with one another. Such spatiotemporal frames can be described as ‘scales’, and the assumption is that in an age of globalization, language patterns must be understood as patterns that are organized on different, layered (i.e. vertical rather than horizontal) scale-levels. (5) 41 On Roman friendship and its multiple and substantive facets see Williams 2012. 42 Albucius’ use of Greek on official Roman business may not be so much a rejection of Latinity as an example of what Blommaert 2010: 8 defines as a “multilingual repertoire and super diversity.” She argues that the language repertoires of new migrants—such as West-African migrants, Turks, Moroccans, Indians, and Pakistanis in the Berchem district of Antwerp, Belgium—can be “truncated,” or, in other words, reveal “bits” of language that reflect “the fragmented and highly diverse life-trajectories and environments” of immigrants. Particular varieties of English or local vernacular Dutch, for example, may be used to engage in basic communication and interaction, such as a Nigerian purchasing bread at a Turkish-owned bakery. The resulting spoken repertoire is not standard or sufficient for communication in an institutional setting or encounter. 43 For a consideration of Rome’s social, political, and economic conditions post-dating the time of Lucilius such as authors, like Horace, Pliny the Elder, and Ovid, see note 22 above. 44 Braund 1996: 81 states that 1.22–80 represent a “a catalogue of wickedness . . . ‘a Gallery of Rogues’, supposedly prevalent in Rome.” See also Miller 2005: 236. 45 An alternate explanation for dysfunctional institutional behavior has been expressed in terms of “boundary transgressions.” See Miller 1998, 2005, Umurhan 2008, and Larmour 2016. 46 Juvenal reveals these examples (eunuch, Mevia the aristocrat, the barber, and Crispinus) in ascending cola. See Braund 1996: 81 and Miller 2005: 236–237. 47 Later in the same catalogue (1.63–64), Juvenal reasserts his physical entrenchment at a crossroads in the city as a function of detailing all the institutional transgressions: “nonne libet medio ceras implere capaces / quadrivio, . . .” (“Is it not pleasing to fill my spacious tablets in the middle / of the crossroads?”). 48 As a counterpoint Tomlinson 2003: 272 notes that “Modern culture is less determined by location because location is increasingly penetrated by ‘distance.’” 49 On its contemporary formulation and application see Inda 2012. For its definition see Ritzer 2012: 7–9. Similar in notion to Deleuze and Guattari’s 1972 rhizome, Bloomaert 2010 argues for the polycentricity of culture and language that sees the formation of culture and language as a “circle of flows” and “sociolinguistic globalization as a chequered, layered complex of processes evolving simultaneously at a variety of scales and in reference to a variety of centres” (20). 50 See Moodie 2014 for in depth discussion of the physical landmarks in the city of Rome itself as outlined by Juvenal’s narrative. She argues that Juvenal’s use of urban topography and allusions to the city’s seven hills “is disjointed, but nevertheless complete” (33). Such a fragmented view of the physical city, nevertheless, is vital to Juvenal’s construction of his persona, the genre of satire itself and the construction of ethnic identity. See also Edwards 1996, Freudenburg 2001, Keane 2003, Larmour 2007, Miller 2007, Umurhan 2008, 2011, Ferriss-Hill 2015, and Uden 2015. 51 The verb adveho is used in a similar context at 3.83: me prior ille / signabit fultusque toro meliore recumbet, / advectus Romam quo pruna et cottana vento? (“Will that man / affix his seal first before me and propped on a better couch will he recline at the table, / [that man] having been carried to Rome by the wind [that carried] plums and figs?”).

64  Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9 52 For a discussion of satire 6 see Anderson 1956, Courtney 1980: 252–347, Winkler 1983: 146–192, Richlin 1992: 202–207, Gold 1998, Keane 2002, Allen Miller 2005: 271–296, Williams 2005, Watson 2007 and 2008, Umurhan 2011, and Watson and Watson 2014. 53 Umurhan and Penner 2013: 181. 54 See Chapter 1 for a discussion of some of these debates. Some notables include Robertson and Inglis 2004, Hingley 2005, Killgrove 2010, Jennings 2011, Collar 2014, Pitts and Versluys 2015, and Barker et al. 2016. 55 Ritzer 2010: 9. The “boomerang effect” is a phrase coined by Ulrich Beck 1992. Modern pollution serves as one example of this effect whereby air pollution originating in one area (from an industrial smokestack), travels elsewhere due to prevailing winds, but then due to a shift in the winds, returns to its source (Ritzer 2010: 9–10). See also Juvenal 2.159–170, discussed in Chapters 1 and 5, for an example of the “boomerang effect,” where an Armenian hostage brought to Rome transports Rome’s so-called perverted customs back to the hostage’s native source, the capital, Artaxata. 56 Again, much of this topos of financial and material gain as the generator of subsequent moral decline stems from the Roman Republican literary tradition. See note 14 above. See also Umurhan 2008. 57 Satire 9 also reasserts the convergence of human traffic among street corners in Rome (compita, 9.112), not unlike other topographical references throughout the collection. See Umurhan 2008: 243–244. 58 Nederveen Pieterse 2009: 59–60. 59 For a discussion of the slippage between Greek and Syrian and the destabilization of ethnic categories in satire 3, see Uden 2015: 86–116. 60 Satire 15 is discussed in more depth in Chapter 4. 61 See Chapter 4 for additional discussion of this passage. 62 For a more in depth discussion of Hardt and Negri’s Multitude (2004) and satire 15, see Chapter 4 in this monograph, especially pp. 105–106, 112. 63 Giddens 1990 defines “modernity” as the modes of social life or organisation which emerged in Europe from about the seventeenth century onwards and which subsequently became more or less worldwide in their influence. This associates modernity with a time period and with an initial geographical location, but for the moment leaves its major characteristics safely stowed away in a black box. (1) 64 Tomlinson 2003: 272. 65 Tomlinson 2003: 273 acknowledges that many differentiations existed before “modernity.” However, what time period exactly constitutes “pre-modernity” is not specified. 66 In yet another instance where a verb of motion (here adveho) indicates foreign movement into Rome, the interlocutor responds to an Eastern immigrant’s arrival at Rome with the call to his authority by autochthony due to having been raised and reared at Rome. In other words, the interlocutor ought to be viewed as more deserving and worthy of a better position at a dinner party than a literal “blown-in”: me prior ille signabit fultusque toro meliore recumbet, advectus Romam quo pruna et cottana vento? usque adeo nihil est quod nostra infantia caelum hausit Aventini baca nutrita Sabina? Will that man affix his seal first before me and propped on a better couch will he recline at the table,

Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9  65 [that man] having been carried to Rome by the wind [that carried] plums and figs? Does it count for nothing that that my childhood, nurtured on the Sabine berry, drank in the air of the Aventine? (3.81–85) See Umurhan 2008: 69–70 for discussion. See also Moodie 2014. 67 See White 1978 for a seminal study of literary patronage at Rome. White is much more critical about the existence of a code of conduct like that with Rome’s social institutions. 68 The scholarship on amicitia is vast. Some notables are White 1978, Wallace-Hadrill 1982, Gold 1987, and Williams 2012. 69 7.1: Et spes et ratio studiorum in Caesare tantum (“Both the hope and inducement to writing lies solely on Caesar”). Although the emperor is nameless, this interest in culture and the literary arts is highly reminiscent of the emperor Hadrian. See Scriptores Historiae Augustae 1.16.8–10. Hadrian’s interest in these pursuits coincides with the era of the Second Sophistic, with its writers’ renewed emphasis on rhetoric and oratory, while paying homage to their traditions rooted in Athens and other Greek cities. See Uden 2015 on Juvenal’s engagement with Sophism and the Second Sophistic movement and the generic strategies behind the construction of an elusive, slippery satirist. If we are to accept Uden’s earlier publication date of 100 or 101 ce for the first book of satires, then the emperor Trajan, too, a man of Greek letters and cultural sophistication, could also be the “Caesar” in question. 70 3.21–22: ‘quando artibus’ inquit ‘honestis / nullus in urbe locus, . . .’ (“[Umbricius] says ‘since no spot in the city / exists for adequate skills . . .’”). 71 See especially Wallace-Hadrill 1982 for the implications of this reconfiguration under Augustus. 72 The writer as potential confidant of the inner imperial circle goes back to Horace Sermones 1.9, where Horace is pestered by a bore not only for information about what has been happening around the world because of Augustus’ conquests, but also because he desires some special privilege from Augustus that will determine his self-worth. 73 Juvenal, of course, is prone to exaggeration. Contemporary writers, like Martial, Pliny, and Suetonius, describe a more favorable picture of patronage in general. According to White 1978 one major difference in the structure of patronage between Augustus and Hadrian is that writers did not expect to receive support from one major source, like many did with Maecenas, but from multiple ones. 74 Canclini 1995: 229. 75 Satire 7.66–71: magnae mentis opus nec de lodice paranda attonitae currus et equos faciesque deorum aspicere et qualis Rutulum confundat Erinys. nam si Vergilio puer et tolerabile deesset hospitium, caderent omnes a crinibus hydri, surda nihil gemeret grave bucina. There is a need for a great mind, not distressed by the cost of a blanket, to behold chariots and horses and the appearance of the gods the like of which the Fury disturbed the Rutulian. For if Vergil had lacked a slave boy and decent lodgings, all the snakes would have fallen out of her hair, and nothing hostile would have roared from her silent trumpet. See Aeneid 7.445 for reference to and appearance of the Fury. 76 The effects of global interconnectivity seem to contribute to the diminishing returns or rewards for aspiring and talented lawyers. In 7.119–121 a lawyer’s reward for an

66  Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9 effective job is not a stronger patronal tie, but, among others, five jars of plank delivered downstream along the Tiber (aut vinum Tiberi devectum, quinque lagonae, 7.121). Note here the use of deveho to the detriment of the barrister. 77 Ferguson 1987: 230 also notes that the name appears in Martial 2.30 and refers to an unscrupulous and greedy man who enjoyed the baths. 78 The appropriation of another’s culture resonates with the notion of “mimicry” proffered by Bhabha 1994 (esp. 83–95) regarding strategies of colonial power and discourse: “Mimicry is, thus the sign of a double articulation; a complex strategy of reform, regulation and discipline, which ‘appropriates’ the Other as it visualizes power” (86). See also Eco 1986. 79 7.139–140: fidimus eloquio? Ciceroni nemo ducentos / nunc dederit nummos, nisi fulserit anulus ingens (“Are we to trust in eloquence? These days no one would hand over two hundred to Cicero, / unless he were flashing a large ring”). Cf. 1.28–29 for parallel behavior by Crispinus, the rich Egyptian upstart: ventilet aestivum digitis sudantibus aurum, / nec sufferre queat maioris pondera gemmae (“In the summer he fans his golden rock on his sweaty fingers, / nor can he support the weight of a greater gem”). 80 Nederveen Pieterse 2009: 59–60.  81 Tomlinson 2003: 273.

References Aho, Kevin A. (2007a) “Acceleration and Time Pathologies: The Critique of Psychology in Heidegger’s Beiträge.” Time & Society 16: 25–42. Aho, Kevin A. (2007b) “Simmel on Acceleration, Boredom, and Extreme Aesthesia.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 37(4): 447–462. Anderson, W. S. (1956) “Recent Work in Roman Satire.” Classical World 50: 33–40. Ando, Clifford. (2000) Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press. Appadurai, Arjun. (1996) Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Barker, Elton, Stefan Bouzarovski, Christopher Pelling, and Leif Isaksen, eds. (2016) New Words from Old Texts: Revisiting Ancient Space and Place. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beck, Ulrich. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Translated by Mark Ritter. London: Sage Publications. Benton, Cindy. (2003) “Bringing the Other to Center Stage: Seneca’s Medea and the Anxieties of Imperialism.” Arethusa 36: 271–284. Bhabha, Homi. (1994) The Location of Culture. London: Routledge. Blommaert, Jan. (2010) The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bouzarovski, Stefan and Elton Barker. (2016) “Between East and West: Movements and Transformations in Herodotean Topology.” In Elton Barker, Stefan Bouzarovski, Christopher Pelling, and Leif Isaksen, eds. New Words from Old Texts: Revisiting Ancient Space and Place. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 155–180. Braudel, Fernand. (1972–73) The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. New York: Harper & Row. Braund, Susanna. (1996) Juvenal: Satires, Book 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Canclini, Néstor Garcia. (1995) Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving Modernity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Caston, Ruth. (2016) “Terence and Satire.” In Stavros Frangoulidis, Stephen J. Harrison, and Gesine Manuwald, eds. Roman Drama and its Contexts. Berlin: de Gruyter. 435–452.

Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9  67 Clarke, Katherine. (1999) Between Geography and History. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Collar, Anna. (2014) Religious Networks in the Roman Empire: The Spread of New Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cornell, T. J. (2001) “Cicero on the Origins of Rome.” In J. G. F. Powell and J. A. North, eds. Cicero’s Republic. London: Institute of Classical Studies. 41–57. Corvisier, Jean-Nicolas and Wieslaw Suder. (2000) La population de l’antiquité classique. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Courtney, Edward. (1980) A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal. London: The Athlone Press. de Ligt, Luuk and Simon Northwood. (2008) People, Land, and Politics: Demographic Developments and the Transformation of Roman Italy 300 bc–ad 14. Leiden: Brill. Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. (1972) Capitalisme et Schizophrénie. L’anti-Œdipe. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. Dench, Emma. (1995) From Barbarians to New Men: Greek, Roman, and Modern Perceptions of Peoples of the Central Apennines. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dench, Emma. (2005) Romulus’ Asylum: Roman Identities from the Age of Alexander to the Age of Hadrian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dench, Emma. (2013) “Cicero and Roman Identity.” In Catherine Steel, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Cicero. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 122–140. Eco, Umberto. (1986) Travels in Hyper Reality: Essays. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Edwards, Catharine. (1996) Writing Rome: Textual Approaches to the City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edwards, Catharine and Greg Woolf, eds. (2003) Rome the Cosmopolis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Feeney, Denis. (2016) Beyond Greek: The Beginnings of Latin Literature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ferguson, John. (1987) A Prosopography to the Poems of Juvenal. Brussels: Latomus. Ferriss-Hill, Jennifer L. (2015) Roman Satire and the Old Comic Tradition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Freudenburg, Kirk. (2001) Satires of Rome: Threatening Poses from Lucilius to Juvenal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fulkerson, Laurel. (2016) Ovid: A Poet on the Margins. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Giddens, Anthony. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Gold, Barbara. (1987) Literary Patronage in Greece and Rome. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Gold, Barbara. (1998) “The House I Live in is Not My Own: Women’s Bodies in Juvenal’s Satires.” Arethusa 31: 369–386. Gold, Barbara. (2012) “Patronage and the Elegists: Social Reality or Literary Construction.” In Barbara Gold, ed. A Companion to Roman Love Elegy. 303–317. Goldberg, Sander. (2005) Constructing Literature in the Roman Republic: Poetry and Its Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gowers, Emily. (1993) The Loaded Table. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gowers, Emily. (1995) “The Anatomy of Rome from Capitol to Cloaca.” Journal of Roman Studies 85: 23–32. Habinek, Thomas. (1998) The Politics of Latin Literature: Writing, Identity, and Empire in Ancient Rome. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Habinek, Thomas and Alessandro Schiesaro, eds. (1997) The Roman Cultural Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

68  Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9 Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. (2004) Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. New York: The Penguin Press. Harris, William V., ed. (1999) The Transformations of Urbs Roma in Late Antiquity (Supplementary vol. 33 of the Journal of Roman Archaeology). Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Harris, William V. (2005) Rethinking the Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harris, William V. (2011) Rome’s Imperial Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harris, William V. (2013) The Ancient Mediterranean Environment between Science and History. Leiden: Brill. Harris, William V. and Brooke Holmes, eds. (2008) Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome, and the Gods. Leiden: Brill. Harrison, Stephen. (2013) “Time, Place, and Political Background.” In Thea S. Thorston, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Latin Love Elegy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harvey, David. (1990). The Condition of Post-Modernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell. Heidegger, Martin. (1971) Poetry, Language, Thought. New York: Harper & Row. Hin, Saskia. (2013) The Demography of Roman Italy: Population Dynamics in an Ancient Conquest Society, 201 bce–14 ce. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hin, Saskia. (2015) “Ancient Statistics and the Rise of Demography: A Historiography of Demographic Debate on Roman Italy.” In M. Haake and A. C. Harders, eds. Die politische Kultur und soziale Struktur der römischen Republik: Beiträge einer internationalen Konferenz aus Anlaß des 70. Todestages von Friedrich Münzer, Münster, 20–22. Oktober 2012. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Hingley, Richard. (2005) Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, Diversity and Empire. London: Routledge. Holleran, Claire and April Pudsey, eds. (2011) Demography and the Graeco-Roman World: New Insights and Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holton, Robert J. (2005) Making Globalization. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Horden, Peregrine and Nicholas Purcell, eds. (2000) The Corrupting Sea. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Inda, Jonathan Xavier. (2012) “Flows.” In George Ritzer, ed. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Jaeger, Mary. (1997) Livy’s Written Rome. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Jennings, Justin. (2011) Globalizations and the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keane, Catherine. (2002) “Juvenal’s Cave-Woman and the Programmatics of Satire.” Classical Bulletin 78: 5–20. Keane, Catherine. (2003) “Theatre, Spectacle, and the Satirist in Juvenal.” Phoenix 57: 257–275. Killgrove, Kristina. (2010) Migration and Mobility in Imperial Rome. Ph.D. thesis, Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Kivisto, Peter. (2012) “Time–space Compression.” In George Ritzer, ed. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Larmour, David. (2007) “Holes in the Body: Sites of Abjection in Juvenal’s Rome.” In David Larmour and Diana Spencer, eds. The Sites of Rome: Time, Space, and Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 168–211. Larmour, David. (2016) The Arena of Satire: Juvenal’s Search for Rome. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Launaro, Alessandro. (2011) Peasants and Slaves: The Rural Population of Roman Italy (200 bc to ad 100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9  69 Malpas, Jeff. (2006) Heidegger’s Topology: Being, Place World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Malpas, Jeff. (2012) Heidegger and the Thinking of Place: Explorations in the Topology of Being. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Marx, K., F. Engels, S. Moore, & D. McLellan (1992) The Communist Manifesto. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Massey, Doreen B. (1994) Space, Place, and Gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Miller, Paul Allen. (1998) “The Bodily Grotesque in Roman Satire: Images of Sterility.” Arethusa 31(3): 257–284. Miller, Paul Allen. (2005) Latin Verse Satire: An Anthology and Reader. London: Routledge. Miller, Paul Allen. (2007) “‘I Get Around’: Sadism, Desire, and Metonymy on the Streets of Rome with Horace, Ovid, and Juvenal.” In David Larmour and Diana Spencer, eds. The Sites of Rome: Time, Space, and Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 138–167. Moatti, Claudia. (2013) “Immigration and Cosmopolitanization.” In Paul Erdkamp, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 77–92. Moodie, Erin. (2014) “Umbricius’ Farewell Tour.” Classical World 108: 27–44. Morley, Neville. (2015) “Globalisation and the Roman Economy.” In Martin Pitts and Miguel John Versluys, eds. Globalisation and the Roman World: World History, Connectivity and Material Culture. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. 49–68. Mueller, C. F. W. (1890) M. Tulli Ciceronis, Scripta quae manserunt omnia. Leipzig: Teubner. Murphy, Trevor. (2004) Pliny the Elder’s Natural History. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Nederveen Pieterse, Jan. (2009, 2nd ed.) Globalization and Culture: Global Mélange. Plymouth, UK: Rowman Littlefield. Nicolet, Claude. (1991) Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Pitts, Martin and Miguel John Versluys, eds. (2015) Globalisation and the Roman World: World History, Connectivity and Material Culture. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Raaflaub, Kurt A., Mark Toher, and G. W. Bowersock, eds. (1990) Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate. Berkeley: University of California Press. Richlin, Amy. (1992, rev. ed.) The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor. New York: Oxford University Press. Rimell, Victoria. (2015) The Closure of Space in Roman Poetics: Empire’s Inward Turn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ritzer, George. (2010) Globalization: A Basic Text. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Ritzer, George. (2012) The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Robertson, Roland and David Inglis. (2004) “The Global Animus: In the Tracks of World Consciousness.” Globalizations 1: 38–49. Rosen, Ralph M. (2012) “Satire in the Republic: From Lucilius to Horace.” In Susanna M. Braund and Josiah Osgood, eds. A Companion to Persius and Juvenal. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 19–40.

70  Culture: Satires 1, 3, 6–7, and 9 Said, Edward W. (1993) Culture and Imperialism. New York: Random House. Scheidel, Walter. (2001) Death on the Nile: Disease and the Demography of Roman Egypt. Brill: Leiden. Scheidel, Walter. (2004) “Human Mobility in Roman Italy, 1: The Free Population.” Journal of Roman Studies 94: 1–27. Scheidel, Walter. (2005) “Human Mobility in Roman Italy, II: The Slave Population.” Journal of Roman Studies 95: 64–79. Stangeland, Charles E. (2006) Pre-Malthusian Doctrines of Population: A Study in the History of Economic Theory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library. Tomlinson, John. (1999) Globalization and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tomlinson, John. (2003) “Globalization and Cultural Identity.” In David Held and Anthony McGrew, eds. The Global Transformations Reader. Cambridge: Polity Press. 269–277. Uden, James. (2015) The Invisible Satirist: Juvenal and Second-Century Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Umurhan, Osman. (2008) Spatial Representation in Juvenal’s “Satires”: Rome and the Satirist. Ph.D. thesis, Classics: New York University. Umurhan, Osman. (2011) “Poetic Projection in Juvenal’s Satires.” Arethusa 44: 221–243. Umurhan, Osman and Todd Penner. (2013) “Luke and Juvenal at the Crossroads: Space, Movement, and Morality in the Roman Empire.” In Stanley E. Porter and Wendy J. Porter, eds. Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament. Leiden: Brill. 165–193. Vasaly, Ann. (1993) Representations: Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. (1982) “Civilis Princeps: Between Citizen and King.” Journal of Roman Studies 72: 32–48. Warmington, E. H. (1979) Remains of Old Latin. London: W. Heinemann. Watson, Lindsay. (2008) “Juvenal Satire 6: Misogyny or Misogamy? The Evidence of Protreptics on Marriage.” Papers of the Langford Latin Seminar 13: 269–296. Watson, Lindsay and Patricia A. Watson. (2014) Juvenal, Satire 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watson, Patricia A. (2007) “Juvenal’s Scripta Matrona: Elegiac Resonances in Satire 6.” Mnemosyne 60: 628–640. White, Peter. (1978) “Amicitia and the Profession of Poetry in Early Imperial Rome.” Journal of Roman Studies 68: 74–92. Williams, Craig. (2012) Reading Roman Friendship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, F. (2005) “Problems of Text and Interpretation in Juvenal Satire 6.” Papers of the Langford Latin Seminar 12: 197–206. Winkler, Martin. (1983) The Persona in Three Satires of Juvenal. Hildesheim: Olms. Woolf, Greg. (2016) “Movers and Stayers.” In Luuk de Ligt and Laurens E. Tacoma, eds. Migration and Mobility in the Early Roman Empire. Leiden: Brill. 438–462. Zetzel, James E. G. (1995) De re publica: Selections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

3 Food and globalization Satires 4, 5, and 11

This chapter shifts from the discussion of cultural globalization as illuminated by Juvenal’s portrait of circulation and movement (Chapters 1 and 2) to the effects of globalization inherent in the satirist’s literary formulation and handling of food. For Juvenal, food serves a multi-dimensional purpose: like people and ideas, it is bound up in the networks of globalization that add or subtract meaning from the satirist’s formulation of space, place, and identity.1 The increasing forces of economic supply and demand and connectivity under globalization also play a significant role in the increased awareness of food, especially exotic foods, or those not readily available in Rome and its immediate environs, if not for access to major roadways and sea access across the Mediterranean. In the modern context of the nation, Bell and Valentine have suggested that a certain food’s history may obfuscate its true source of origin or production: Like a language, food articulates notions of inclusion and exclusion, of national pride and xenophobia, . . . mapping episodes of colonialism and migration, trade and exploration, cultural exchange and boundarymarking . . . there is no national food; the food which we think of as characterizing a particular place always tells stories of movement and mixing.2 In Juvenal, similar forces of movement and mixing highlight similar anxieties not only about the identification of origins and place, but also the exercise and stability of the Roman institutions of the cena and concilium principis wherein the preparation, presentation, and consumption of food figure so significantly.3 Foodstuffs abound in Juvenal’s portrait of Rome and its greater empire.4 Subject to the same effects of circulation, their movement(s) reveals a lot about the range of mobility generated by globalizing processes and the effects of time– space compression. Foodstuffs in this chapter are broadly construed as fish, grains, and drink that are subject not only to motion, but also to transformation due to increased connectivity and interregional interaction. In addition to their mobility under the forces of globalization, some foodstuffs in and of themselves serve both to mirror and exemplify the problematic nature of globalization and its territorial extent of empire: comestibles, too, act as metaphors for circulation and diffusion that come with the increased heterogeneity of cultural globalizing trends

72  Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11 (Chapter 2). Given the multidimensional nature of globalization, it is perhaps no surprise that food, though in one basic aspect an economic commodity, is just as much a product of cultural meaning. Where I have argued that geographical concepts of place and location have contributed to meaning construction behind Rome’s institutions of amicitia, the sportula, and literary patronage, food, too, facilitates the satirist’s discourse of increased connectivity and time–space compression on other facets of Roman life, such as dining and military affairs. In addition to foodstuffs as markers of mobility in a globalizing world, many foods in Juvenal’s collection signify and help demarcate by metonymy or synecdoche the geographic expanse of the empire. Alongside these corporeal qualities, often their very mobility mimics the processes of expansion and contraction that accompany the nature of increased connectivity. And, since food is subject to transport in an expansive world of Imperial era Rome, foodstuffs, too, participate in the satirist’s negotiation and formulation of Roman cultural identity as with the movement of peoples and ideas discussed earlier. Food assists in the perception of both the local and the global: Regions have made food, and food has made regions; foods can also regenerate regions. Food has an enormous range of attributes—colour, texture, shape, taste, history, tradition, name—that along with the attributed of its packaging and presentation can be linked innumerous ways to a particular locale.5 As in the perception of place in Rome, food, too, communicates tradition and the various forms of institutional behavior exercised in dining, military councils, and patron–client relations. However, what transpires in a localized and institutional context, such as those institutions above, also has a larger impact on our understanding of the Roman economy at large and its global effects. A subset of the consideration of economic factors lies in ecology, which emphasizes the ways in which human activities such as trade and the environment interact in both positive and negative ways.6 The manner in which Romans manipulated rivers7 and waterways8 signify expressions of culture and power and also undoubtedly underlie the political institutions of the concilium principis and the cenae, but are beyond the scope of my literary analysis of foodstuffs. Furthermore, in Juvenal’s collection, fish, in particular, assume a rather provocative position when thinking about geography, the empire, and globalization. Fish not only represent mobility, but also the fluidity and flows of the sea that are also inherent in most processes of globalization that facilitate the transport of goods. They are subject to the effects of interconnection9 and time–space compression that have enabled the growth of empire, but simultaneously pinch Roman nerves about the sea from which they derive, including the dangers of sea-faring that can potentially destroy a merchant’s livelihood, if not his life. They often represent a desirable, exotic resource that in much literature represents the food habits and preferences of the aristocracy, from kings to emperors. Frequently, fish and other exotic food resources, like peacock, truffles, or ice, are

Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11  73 subject to long-distance transport which, thereby, help map the extent of Rome’s sphere of economic influence and knowledge of the world at large. Appetites and consumption of foodstuffs come also to represent metaphorically the forces of political and territorial domination in Juvenal’s time.10 And, in terms of the figurative, fish characterize fullness and richness, which, on the one hand, align with the satirist’s representation of Rome as overly saturated, but on the other, contribute to the satirist’s discourse of globalizing movements that threaten the ritual practice and observance of Roman institutions. In addition to the globalizing resonance of fish in satire 4, the cenae that feature in satires 5 and 11 demonstrate the consequences of circulation by trade and transport on the exercise of the patron–client relationship and its depleting effects on local environments. In the process, however, they also exemplify the processes of deterritorialization and reterritorialization; that is, as individuals, including the satirist, experience physical and cultural displacement, or deterritorialization, there sometimes emerges a counter movement, or reterritorialization, that seeks to reclaim a notion of integrity, simplicity, and inclusion that presumably existed before the effects of the former.11 Juvenal offers many expressions of these processes at play. For example, a squilla (lobster) and Tiberinus fish are offered to the patron and client, respectively. The former is a delicacy and the latter contaminated by the fecal run-off of Rome’s Cloaca Maxima. In addition to highlighting the gross disparity of the menu and a breakdown of the main principle of the cena, the Tiberinus from the local banks of the Tiber River and the lobster from Sicily generate the physical coordinates of the spatial framework within which Juvenal offers his commentary on the breakdown of this traditional institution. In this chapter I argue how this lack of self-containment functions as a mirror of the unethical behavior of their patrons. However, in satire 11 the author invites an individual by the name of Persicus to enjoy his feast at his Tiburtine villa (ironically, a reference to the emperor Hadrian’s own, and poignantly situated outside of Rome). The menu offerings act as a rejoinder to the local devastation of the Tiber River, with a specific focus on the virtues of local produce from Rome and its immediate environs that thereby suggest a smaller and tighter geographic network facilitated by a desire to restrict the long-ranging effects of interconnectivity. This counter-menu, in turn, acts as the satirist’s response in the form of reterritorialization that seeks to reign in socio-political influence and, perhaps, rehabilitate local economies adversely affected by globalization.

Reading globalization in objects Whereas thus far I have argued for how Juvenal articulates the role of location and place to the construction of institutional identity (Chapters 1 and 2), the fish and food of satires 4, 5, and 11 refine the discussion further, with attention to how forces of globalization may interfere with the literal and metaphorical integrity of these very spaces. Juvenal’s narrative on fish is one part of a larger narrative regarding the transgression of boundaries that signals the loss of traditional

74  Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11 Roman identity.12 In addition, the effects of globalization on institutional behavior touch upon existing cultural associations and beliefs about material solidity, integrity, and consistency versus fluidity, vulnerability, and penetrability.13 Often Juvenal articulates excess as a loss of control, a quality that authors like Seneca and Persius use to criticize prominent individuals, including emperors,14 but often with a view toward some form of libelous corrective.15 The connection Romans drew between one’s personal and bodily comportment and its salubrious or damaging effects on the state finds a fitting analogue in the descriptions of foodstuffs. The fish of satires 4 and 5 articulate a broader ideological function. They, alongside images of the book page, litters, and people exemplify the expanding the contracting flows of globalization inherent in the increased movement of goods, ideas, and people. Just as Juvenal establishes the importance of space and location to cultural identity (see Chapter 1) in his first programmatic satire, so too he introduces the function of flows, both metaphorical and literal, within physical spaces and objects that further illuminate the penetrating effects of globalization on Rome and its storied institutions. Initially, Juvenal establishes the city of Rome and its multitude of vice as his target. The satirist opens his collection with a series of rhetorical questions that articulate his frustration with the contemporary literary scene at Rome (1.1–13) that he links with the oversaturation of the poetic page. The concern for inundation will then acquire deeper topological meaning in his subsequent claim to occupying some physical space of his own in Rome (1.19–21).16 However, in the following preamble, the words liber and plenus describe the metaphorical function of plentitude that is a function of globalizing flows. In the process, the satirist frames the space of flows on the object of a poetic page to the same forces of saturation that characterize the city Rome’s higher incidence of human migration into the city as expressed in the satirist’s general frustration with foreign upstarts.17 Semper ego auditor tantum? numquamne reponam vexatus toties rauci Theseide Cordi? impune ergo mihi recitaverit ille togatas, hic elegos? impune diem consumpserit ingens Telephus aut summi plena iam margine libri scriptus et in tergo necdum finitus Orestes?

5

Will I always only be the listener? Will I never retaliate for all those times I was harried by rough Cordus’ Theseid? Without punishment, therefore, will one have recited Roman comedies and the other elegies to me? Without punishment will the immense Telephus have consumed my day, or a thus far unfinished Orestes even written on the back on an already filled margin of a full book? (1.1–6) The satirist portrays two tragedies based on the original Greek mythological topics, the Telephus and Orestes, as consuming both time (diem consumpserit, 1.4)

Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11  75 and space. Specifically, the space in question is the margin (margine, 1.5) located at the very end of the papyrus roll (summi libri, 1.5). Although the margin is filled to its capacity (plena, 1.5) and its content is written on its reverse side (scriptus . . . in tergo, 1.6), the Orestes still remains unfinished (necdum finitus, 1.6). This imagery of over-abundance complements Juvenal’s illustrations of globalizing flows and the general institutional dysfunction that characterizes Rome; the existing material at hand does not fit the prescribed written medium in just the same manner time–space compression will effect deterritorialization in the dislodging of individuals from everyday rituals of the sportula. In other words, the demand for room in the participation of Roman institutional ritual far exceeds its supply. Words will spill off the page and displaced individuals, like the satirist, will be excluded from their everyday participation in the generation of personal cultural meaning. Juvenal’s preoccupation with excess in terms of physical space and its violation also correlate to concerns about improper conduct within social spaces. Reading excess in this manner establishes a precedent for reading fish metaphorically as illustrative of global flows and globalizing processes. Following his disgruntled view of the contemporary literary scene at Rome (1.1–18) and literary excess (1.1–6 above), Juvenal turns to other examples of threats to institutional spaces and ritual in 1.22–30. The following may equally be viewed as violations of proper and established behavior at Rome. These violations include a eunuch, who by marrying taints the institution of marriage defined by the union of a man and woman (1.22);18 next, Mevia, a woman of an aristocratic family, sullies the reputation of her ancestors by engaging in the spectacles of the arena, a predominantly male domain (1.22–23); a barber manages to join the rank of nobles (patricios, 1.24) by his acquisition of wealth; Crispinus, an Egyptian immigrant, makes a public spectacle of his wealth with his flashy ring (aestivum . . . aurum, 1.28) and gaudy Tyrian cloak (Tyrias . . . lacernas, 1.27). This initial catalogue contributes to the satirist’s overall effects of time–space compression on social and economic boundaries. A eunuch undermines the normativity of marriage, Mevia intrudes upon the arena of male entertainment in her participation of the beast-hunt (venatio), and an immigrant, the Egyptian Crispinus, achieves economic and social status reserved for the Roman citizen. The effects of globalization here are felt across the board: increased interconnectivity contributes not only to the rise of the foreign (i.e. eunuch) nouveaux riches (i.e. Crispinus), but also a general social and economic class instability (i.e. the barber) presumably not felt to the extreme degree portrayed by the satirist’s initial catalogue.

Satire 4: The rhombus and a consciousness of the world at large Fish and other foodstuffs also partake in the formulation of cultural meaning in Juvenal’s narrative. Specifically, the fish equates to a rebuke of the emperor Domitian and his abuse of the concilium principis. Violations of physical and ethical space abound, from the area of the fish itself to instability on Rome’s

76  Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11 geographic periphery. Juvenal’s satire 4 recounts the appearance of an enormous rhombus fish (spatium admirabile rhombi, 4.39) filling the entire bay off Ancona, a seaport on the Adriatic coast. The ensuing events set the stage for a comedy of epic proportions: a fisherman chances upon the fish, considers it an inexplicable omen, then immediately has it delivered to the emperor Domitian’s villa outside Rome in Alba Longa. The fish arrives greeted by magnificent pomp and circumstance worthy of a general’s triumph; the hubbub inspires the emperor to summon a concilium principis (4.130–end), a military council, to address the situation. While in session the emperor’s cabinet members do not discuss serious political matters of state typical for such assemblies, but deliberate on the trivial matter of the rhombus’ presentation and consumption. Juvenal draws our attention to specific attributes of the fish: it is massive and tricky to handle. The rhombus is placed on a plate upon which it overflows (4.130–133) offering a visual incongruity that warrants the grounds for some ethical corrective. Furthermore, the fish’s size (spatium admirabile rhombi, 4.39) and transport illuminate some fundamental features of globalization processes that are entrenched in the satirist’s portraiture of Roman ethical excess and vice. Its transport from the Adriatic port of Ancona to the emperor Domitian’s Alba Longa retreat demonstrates the relative ease in transport flow of goods, at least for the imperial circle. Recent scholarship has shown how several images of “fullness” in Juvenal’s collection serve as metaphors for Rome’s moral decay such as overweight men, gaping purses, bulging litters, and milk-filled breasts.19 Furthermore, there exists a certain code of conduct in general patron–client relations that, as a result of the appearance of the fish, falls into complete disarray. The arrival of the fish within this political backdrop suggests broader metaphorical implications that address Rome as a larger space of empire. The rhombus fish not only brings Domitian’s threat to Rome’s core institutions into sharper focus, but also suggests a more serious critique of empire. Juvenal’s descriptions of expanded space, in both physical and bodily terms, find an analogue in Domitian’s (and Trajan’s) frontier management.20 The territorial space of empire, like the fish, also overflows its borders, illustrating some pervasive features of increased interconnection at home and abroad. Rome’s vice, in Juvenal’s words, is on the brink (of ruin): omne in praecipiti vitium stetit (“all vice stands on the edge,” 1.149). In this regard, vice as expressed in Juvenal’s collection may be read as one unavoidable cost of an intensified consciousness of the world as a whole. Given the parameters observed above, we can observe how satire 4 participates in Juvenal’s discourse on space and his appeal for its containment and control before the growing interconnectedness of global networks.21 Increased connectedness has facilitated the very transport of the rhombus from an outlying region of Ancona inland to Alba Longa, the site of Domitian’s military council. Upon the rhombus’ arrival to Domitian’s Alban residence, the gaping crowd (miratrix turba, 4.62) witnesses its procession into his villa. The satirist later in the satire addresses the issues of extension and contraction with the example of the fish’s preparation and presentation:

Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11  77 ‘quidnam igitur censes? conciditur?’ ‘absit ab illo dedecus hoc’, Montanus ait, ‘testa alta paretur quae tenui muro spatiosum colligat orbem. debetur magnus patinae subitusque Prometheus.’

130

“So what do you recommend? Cut it up into pieces?” “Let’s spare [the fish] this disgrace,” Montanus says, “let a deep vessel be prepared to restrain its spacious circumference with its slender wall. A great and sudden potter is required for the plate.” (4.130–133) Certain words and phrases in 4.130–133 call attention to the configuration of a physical area, especially the enormity of space that, on the one hand, point to Rome’s expansive empire and, on the other, inform the emperor Domitian’s excessive behavior as antithetical to the imperial ideal of the civilis princeps.22 In short, emperors were expected to represent gravitas, the epitome of order, authority, and self-control, but for Domitian in Juvenal’s narrative, that virtue is ostensibly in short supply. This resulting excess, in turn, signals the breakdown of amicitia and the concilium principis, both of which are vital components of Rome’s institutional identity. Satire 4.130–133 aligns the physical dimensions of the fish with the space of empire (orbis) and martial imagery, the very institution that has facilitated the territorial growth of Rome’s empire.23 Yet, each aspect signals metaphorically the breakdown of Rome and its institutions under Domitian. First, the phrase spatiosum colligat orbem (“to restrain its spacious circumference,” 4.132) and patinae (“plate,” 4.133) introduces the idea of containment with reference to the fish on the most literal level. The adjective spatiosus (4.132) figures the description of the fish in terms of its size and occupation of physical space. Colligat (4.132) underscores Montanus’ suggestion to handle and contain the fish because of its enormity. Third, orbem (4.132) recalls the word urbs, which resonates strongly with the satirist’s poetic topic, and refers to the shape of the fish.24 In other words, orbis and urbs almost become commensurate with one another. In addition, the epic imagery Juvenal employs to characterize the container’s edges evokes military language that serves to criticize the emperor Domitian’s administrative and military policies. Ultimately, the deliberations that take place center on the ways in which one might go about containing an object that is too large for any existing plate, or template. Upon the fish’s arrival at Domitian’s Alban villa and near the conclusion of the catalogue of cabinet advisors (4.72–144), Montanus calls for the rhombus’ restraint (4.130–132). Montanus’ suggestion can also be viewed as a challenge to Domitian’s authority and the other cabinet members’ flattery of him. He requests a tall vessel (testa alta, 4.131; patinae, 4.133) for the fish. His proposal in these spatial terms, however, is not new.25 Earlier, when the rhombus is first brought to Domitian’s villa, the rhombus’ enormity initiates the gathering of the concilium: sed deerat pisci patinae mensura. vocantur / ergo in consilium

78  Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11 proceres (“But, the fish was too big for the plate. Therefore, the leading cabinet members were called into session,” 4.72–73). In this way, Montanus’ similar request revisits the issue of the rhombus’ enormity in terms of its inability to fit any existing serving plate. The fish’s description in these terms suggests its inability to be contained and, consequently, its unmanageability. On the other hand, his suggestion to have it contained signals a call for restraint that contrasts with the satire’s general demonstration of lack of self-control. This notion of manageability resonates with a final point (4.150–154) that is aimed at Domitian’s ineptitude with the council and his inability to deal with military matters appropriate for it. The rhombus fish also has globalizing significance in its portrayal as physically bloated and of foreign origin. Geographic references to areas outside Rome as far as the Black Sea (Maeotica) also serve to map the extent of Rome’s network of communication and transport on a global level, specifically between mainland Italy (Alba Longa) and the Black Sea. Cum iam semianimum laceraret Flavius orbem ultimus, et calvo serviret Roma Neroni, incidit Hadriaci spatium admirabile rhombi ante domum Veneris, quam Dorica sustinet Ancon, implevitque sinus; neque enim minor haeserat illis quos operit glacies Maeotica ruptaque tandem solibus effundit torrentis ad ostia Ponti desidia tardos et longo frigore pingues.

40

Since the last Flavian was already punishing the half-living world, and Rome was subservient to a bald Nero, the astonishing circumference of an Adriatic rhombus appeared before the temple of Venus, which Doric Ancona maintains, and filled the bay’s mouth. For it clung there no smaller than those which the frigid Maeotic (sea of Azov) covers and, at length, when it is ruptured by the sun’s warmth, it carries forth toward the bay of the rapid Pontus [those fish] slow from their idleness and plump from the long freeze. (4.37–44) Juvenal first introduces the rhombus in terms of scale and area. The fish’s (rhombus, 4.39) size is articulated not by means of an adjectival qualifier such as magnus, but by an epic periphrasis (spatium admirabile rhombi, 4.39), which, in turn, serves to place added emphasis on the magnitude of the object.26 Its magnitude also “fills” the bay at Ancona where it appears (implevitque sinus, 4.41) to stress the “fullness” of the area occupied. This notion of scale and spatial area harkens back to Juvenal’s programmatic statement about the magnitude and richness of vice; specifically, where sinus (“bay,” or “hollow”) signifies the large area required to recount and engage with Rome’s vices (quando / maior avaritiae patuit sinus, 1.88; utere velis / totos pande sinus, 1.150).27 Juvenal

Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11  79 portrays the rhombus’ large scale in terms not unlike Matho “filling” his litter at 1.32–33. The satirist also adds a rich detail that recalls the corpulent and lazy characters of satire 1. Juvenal compares the rhombus to those that are found in the cold waters of the Black Sea region (glacies Maeotica, 4.42), which are plump (pingues, 4.44) and slow due to idleness (desidia tardos, 4.44).28 By comparison to the eastern fish, the rhombus found off Ancona recalls the corpulent Matho, the turgid patron who perishes in the bath (1.143–144) and looks forward to Montanus’ own excess by way of his distended bodily space (4.107).29 Accordingly, the rhombus, in its magnitude, area, and “richness” resonates with Juvenal’s programmatic images of excess that are a result of increased trade and connectivity.

Vivaria and piscinae: The local and global During the narrative sequence that explains the catch and transportation of the rhombus to Domitian’s villa (4.37–64), Juvenal further illuminates some anxieties about globalization in the perception of the empire’s expansive area. Specifically, he represents the empire’s territorial space as though it were Domitian’s own private aquatic-park to signal the abusive behavior of the emperor at the imperial council meeting. Formulations of ethical behavior and land–sea management, however, are not new. One treatise by Columella and another by Varro indicate a like awareness and growing consciousness of the aristocrat’s increasing global participation (see pp. 80–82). Likewise, Juvenal portrays Domitian and his imperial circle in their attempts to reconcile the magnitude of the fish. The description demonstrates an assimilation of the fish and its magnitude within an existing imperial economic construct (the fiscus) and an aquatic space of aristocratic leisure, the vivarium: non dubitaturi fugitivum dicere piscem 50 depastumque diu vivaria Caesaris, inde elapsum veterem ad dominum debere reverti. si quid Palfurio, si credimus Armillato, quicquid conspicuum pulchrumque est aequore toto res fisci est, ubicunque natat. 55 Nor were they [inspectors] about to hesitate to say that the fish was a runaway and for a long time was reared in the fishponds of Caesar. Upon escaping from there it ought to have been returned to its original owner. If we trust any [opinion] of Palfurius or Armillato’s, whatever visible and beautiful thing in the entire sea is the emperor’s property, wherever it swims. (4.50–55) The vivarium was typically a physical enclosure for game, wild animals, or fish. Enclosures for fish were known specifically as piscinae, or fishponds. They,

80  Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11 alongside other vivaria, may represent a form of excess and vice. Elsewhere, for example, Juvenal likens the city of Rome to a vivarium. In 3.308, he portrays Rome’s inhabitants as at risk to the dangers of injury or death at the hands of thugs driven out by armed patrols in areas adjacent to Rome.30 The city and its limits have become a target for violence and a sporting area for villains. In 4.50–55 above, Juvenal transfers the notion of a smaller, centralized space that is Rome to the empire’s territorial vastness (aequore toto, 4.54). Not only is Rome a target for crime, but also its entire empire and, more disturbingly, at the hands of the emperor Domitian’s devious machinations. Ultimately, Domitian’s Alban villa figures as one area within the greater piscina that is the Roman Empire, and articulates how Rome’s institutions have gone awry under Domitian’s discretion. Domitian’s abuse of the empire as his personal fishpond acquires additional resonance in light of the archeological and literary record. In addition to its architectural form as a space of enclosure, piscinae were also synonymous with luxury and legacy-hunters in their communication of wealth and status. The possession of a fishpond represented control over a scarce and valued resource, which was managed both for personal needs and to further the competitive ambitions of fishpond owners.31 Juvenal appears to underscore this fact to its geographic extreme when he ironically makes the case for the emperor’s treatment of the entire sea as his treasury (res fisci est, 4.55). The piscina could help, or in other cases damage, the reputation of prominent officials electioneering for office. However, according to the archeological evidence and extant literary sources, piscinae were most prominent in the first century bce, whereas, after the first century ce, they experienced more reconstruction, or restoration, than new construction.32 Some late Republican literary accounts of piscinae also provide a deeper understanding of Juvenal’s criticism of Domitian and his abuse of the empire.33 The agricultural treatises of Varro’s De Re Rustica and Columella’s Res Rusticae articulate a literary movement that identifies fishponds as markers of cultivation and luxury, and a desire to control the natural environment for personal use. When read against these Republican accounts, the later Imperial perspective of Juvenal illuminates the growing effects of globalization over time. The increase of importation generated by increased interconnectivity transforms the elite’s view of their local space as a potential resource, either for increased importation of their own or as a means of maintaining new exotic diets. The disuse of Republican era fishponds appears to correlate with a drop in their use for personal consumption in favor of increased exotic importation in the time of the empire. Fishponds not only figure as a form of ownership—as does Domitian in his view of the entire Mediterranean as his own (4.55)—but also mark a shifting economy in favor of the exotic over local-reared resources. The increased dependence on exotic foods and their acquisition cost contributes to overall local devastation and the economic crisis that clients, like Trebius, in satire 5 must suffer with, such as low-grade fare reared locally (a Tiberinus fish), as opposed to his patron, Virro, who enjoys the exotic foodstuffs imported from abroad (more discussion pp. 85–86).

Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11  81 Both Varro and Columella ascribe the growth of fishponds through the early Imperial era to the elite’s desire for profit.34 Varro underlines his discussion of fishponds by their exorbitant expense and effect on the behavior of select Roman aristocrats.35 Even his prose serves to highlight the gross expenditure of fishponds with the anaphora of magnus, a technique that recalls Horace’s use of grandis to highlight the luxuriousness of fish.36 As a side note, moreover, he relates how Quintus Hortensius takes so much more care to feed his mullet fish by hand than Varro himself cares for his pack animals, i.e. mules and donkeys (3.17.6). Fishponds also inflate surrounding real-estate and property values. In another anecdote, Varro relates how Hirrus derived a wealth of income from his piscinae, a total of 12,000 sesterces from surrounding buildings. Despite the exorbitance, however, all proceeds were necessary just to sustain food for his fish alone (3.17.3). Even Caesar borrowed 2,000 muraenae in weight from Hirrus alone, an amount that would later guarantee the selling price of his villa for 4,000,000 sesterces.37 Later, Varro claims the superiority of fresh-water fishponds over salt-water on the basis of their mass expenditure—sea-water ponds tend to deplete the purses of the aristocracy (3.17.4 ff.).38 Here, Varro expresses a clear social distinction between the common folk and the aristocracy in terms of fresh and salt-water fishponds. The excess associated with the construction and maintenance of sea-water fishponds resonates with Juvenal’s general imagery of extension and its negative effects. Varro appears to favor the smaller and more financially manageable expense and area of an inland fresh-water pond than the construction and maintenance of more extravagant sea-water piscinae. Columella’s Res Rusticae 8 also conveys the notion of vivaria as architecturally contained spaces. Columella opens Book 8—an instructional treatise on the rearing of fowl and fish—with a brief definition of vivaria as an enclosure not just for fish, but also fowl and bees—a metaphoric and microcosmic containment of the wild, unconquered, and non-demarcated regions within which these animals dwell.39 Like Varro before him, Columella similarly devotes a full book to the care of fowl (8.2–15) and fish (8.16–17) to which, similarly, he concludes with the rearing of the latter demonstrating a strong dependence on Varro as a resource. Columella provides a more sympathetic view of fish and piscinae providing the right conditions. The right conditions demand the exercise of moderation, one that serves as a complete contrast to Juvenal’s portrayal of Domitian’s behavior in satire 4. Columella, like Varro, acknowledges the profitability (reditus) of rearing fish, but regards its practice as far removed from the business of land farmers. In fact, he perceives the care of fish by a farmer as indicative of a conflict measured on a natural and scientific scale when he states parenthetically quid enim tam contrarium est, quam terrenum fluvido? (“What matter is so contrary to the other as earth is to water?” 8.16.1). Nor, however, does Columella condemn the practice of the fishpond business so long as one’s existing estate cannot supply food from its soil (8.16.6). Despite his conjecture on the disparate nature of these basic elements, Columella assigns credit to the land farmers

82  Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11 for their moderate undertaking and regulation of fresh and salt-water fishponds when he harkens to the Roman past. The past is evoked by the reference to these farmers as “the rustic descendants of Romulus and Numa” who, furthermore, were driven to rear fish not by luxurious ambition, but simply as a means to vie with the city in its supply (copia) of edible resources.40 Columella implies that the aspirations of “old” Roman land farmers were humble and “contained” as opposed to those of his day. Columella draws a correlation between the growth in size and popularity of fishponds and Roman aspirations for the confinement of the entire sea. Luxury tightens its grip as a result of Romans stocking their fishponds and local lakes with fish from the sea: Mox istam curam sequens aetas abolevit, et lautitiae locupletium maria ipsa Neptunumque clauserunt iam tum avorum memoria cum circumferretur Marcii Philippi velut urbanissimum, quod erat luxuriose factum atque dictum. Soon the following age abandoned this very method [of rearing fish] and the luxuries of the wealthy enclosed the very seas and Neptune himself, so that even then within the memory of our ancestors the [deed and speech] of Marcus Philippus was spread around as the wittiest thing, namely that which was [actually] done and said luxuriously. (8.16.3) Columella continues to explain the deed and speech of Marcus Philippus as defining the precedent for luxurious behavior, refining Roman elite palates toward gluttony and the subtle distinction in taste between river and fishpond pisces. Columella relates this “luxurious deed” through an anecdote: while dining at a friend’s house at Casinum, Marcus Phillipus, upon tasting a morsel of fish, spat it out exclaiming “Let me die if I do not think it was a fish” (peream, inquit, nisi piscem putavi, 8.16.3). It was this very action that Columella ascribes to the Roman refinement of gluttony and the precedent for detesting river fish.41 Furthermore, in the passage above, by describing luxury as the impetus for enclosing the entire Mediterranean (Neptunus, 8.16.3), Columella transfers a Roman manifestation of conquest from a localized setting to the broader geographic expanse, and figures it within the context of Roman territorial sway. He suggests a direct correlation between the growth of fishponds in the Republic and aspirations for confining the entire Mediterranean. The vivarium/piscina imagery of Juvenal’s satire 4.50–55 underscores the emperor Domitian’s abuse of his imperial powers, namely in his attempt to control a vast geographic area as if it were his own and to the growing detriment of local economies in favor of exotic fare. We have observed how the literary tradition on vivaria and piscinae suggests an artificial containment of the natural landscape. Despite the landscape’s containment, however, authors such as Columella have stated that their drop in popularity through the early Imperial era was due, in large part, to their extravagance and the gross expenditure needed to

Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11  83 maintain them. Domitian’s treatment of the empire as a vivarium, an enclosed space, underscores his ambitions to control Rome’s vast imperial space. Yet these aspirations are portrayed as a form of Domitian’s abuse—he wounds an already injured Rome (semianimum laceraret Flavius orbem, 4.37) and all those advisors who collude with his mistreatment of the council over the trivial matter of a fish. Juvenal charges Domitian with others’ desire to regard the entire expanse of the empire as his personal and financial domain (res fisci est, 4.55). Furthermore, he criticizes the emperor for upsetting the traditional procedure of the concilium principis, which, under normal circumstances, meets to discuss the interests of Rome’s political matters. Proper modes of conduct and procedure are ignored and inverted leaving the boundaries of ethical behavior blurred. In the process, the satirist also lays blame on the cabinet members for their complicity in Domitian’s abuse of power and their contribution to the distortion of conduct in the practice of amicitia. Juvenal addresses these issues of extravagance, i.e. the vivaria, and the violations of ethical behavior, which in tandem undermine the integrity of Rome’s institutions.

Rome’s unstable periphery Where the discussion of space management at Domitian’s Alban villa articulates some effects of time–space compression and the growing awareness of the world at large, the military context of the concilium principis also points to a discussion of Rome’s fluidity as a larger territorial body in its frontier challenges on the Danubian front during the Dacian Wars (84–89 ce). The council’s ineptitude over the rhombus fish mirrors Domitian and his advisors’ inability to undertake border operations against invading tribes on Rome’s periphery. The threat of foreign infiltration due to the emperor’s incompetence substantiates the portrayal of Rome’s vulnerability, that, in turn, signals another potential negative side-effect of increased interconnection facilitated by military expansion. The satirist further signals the fish’s symbolic importance to the space of empire when he dresses his description of it in martial terms. Montanus, another portly advisor of the emperor, states: testa alta paretur / quae tenui muro spatiosum colligat orbem (“let a tall vessel be prepared to restrain its spacious circumference with its slender wall,” 4.131–132).42 The language suggests that the fish be barricaded as in a siege or with a battlement or palisade (muro, 4.132).43 Its epic tones are also in keeping with the satire’s burlesque of the concilium principis.44 The military metaphor, I argue, underscores Domitian’s own inability to face and control military threats to Rome and its periphery. The violation of its territorial border signifies a breach of its territorial integrity and, therefore, triggers the satirist’s criticism of Domitian. Juvenal offers additional instances where the behavior of Domitian and his councilors has compromised Rome’s geographic periphery. Rome under Domitian experiences several military trials that test the empire’s territorial stability. One such threat to Rome’s body is Juvenal’s reference to the Dacian expedition of 86 ce (4.112). The satirist mentions Cornelius Fuscus who was

84  Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11 defeated and killed with his army by the Dacians. Juvenal attributes his defeat to lazy generalship.45 This detail recalls the failure of one of Domitian’s leading senators to confront the Dacian threat firmly. This, in turn, is emblematic of the general breakdown of proper conduct between the emperor and his subjects at the concilium. This breakdown also demonstrates how actions at the core—the concilium at Alba Longa—have implications on the territorial integrity of the periphery. Fuscus’ failed military expedition against the Dacians is matched by Domitian’s failure to uphold the fundamental rules of conduct and interaction at the council. Nowhere is this sentiment more explicitly stated than near the conclusion of the satire. At the council’s adjournment, Juvenal explains what should have been the true program of the meeting: attention to trouble located on the military’s periphery: surgitur et misso proceres exire iubentur consilio, quos Albanam dux magnus in arcem traxerat attonitos et festinare coactos, tanquam de Chattis aliquid torvisque Sygambris dicturus, tanquam ex diversis partibus orbis anxia praecipiti venisset epistula pinna.

144

Everyone arose and after the meeting was dismissed they were ordered to leave, those whom the great leader had dragged to his Alban citadel, terrified and compelled to hasten as if he were about to say something about the Chatti and the fierce Sygambri, as if from far parts of the world an anxious letter had arrived on a sudden wing. (4.144–149) The Chatti and Sygambri represent two German tribes that occupied an area north of the Danube River, along the Rhine and also near a Roman provincial boundary. The reference to the Chatti may refer to Domitian’s campaign in 83/84 ce after which he celebrated a triumph and assumed the name Germanicus.46 However, the exact circumstances and details of Domitian’s participation in this campaign have been cast into some doubt according to some literary sources.47 The conflicting sources may nonetheless point to Juvenal’s use of irony, especially in the reference to the Sygambri, a German tribe that was subdued during Augustus’ reign a century before. In other words, even if Domitian were to convene the meeting to discuss military matters, it might be just as farcical and delusional as the charade behind the rhombus. Juvenal earlier also suggests the fantastic element between Domitian’s engagement of the enemy on its frontier. In 4.123–127, another advisor, Veiento, claims the significance of the fish prophesizes Domitian’s success in Britain. The advisor is driven into a Bacchic frenzy underscoring his loss of control.48 In all his rapture, he claims the rhombus predicts Domitian’s conquest of the British kingdom and the subsequent triumph for his achievement.49 Although Domitian’s involvement in such an expedition in Britain cannot be substantiated in the literary sources, Veiento’s prediction, nonetheless, highlights the open flattery

Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11  85 of the emperor and underscores the delusional nature of both Domitian and his advisors.50 Satire 4 teems with epic and military undertones, where my targeted analysis above only attempts to demonstrate those instances where Juvenal’s use of military language intersects with the image of the rhombus fish.51 Where they do, I have argued that the ethical transgressions at Domitian’s Alban fortress have an adverse affect on Rome by way of undermining social codes of conduct and military procedure. Domitian is unable to attend to the military matters intended for the concilium and, therefore, potentially puts Rome’s periphery at risk to foreign infiltration. The satirist’s portrayal of the fish in martial terms highlights the efforts of both Domitian and his advisors to house the fish behind some form of enclosure depicted as a palisade, or defense wall (murus, 4.132). In doing so, the satirist equates the fish’s threat of its defense wall to Domitian and his councilors’ breach of the empire’s integrity.

Deterritorialization and reterritorialization: Satires 5 and 11 Satires 5 and 11 offer two of Juvenal’s most extensive accounts of a Roman meal that illuminate the importance of the cena to Roman perceptions of cultural and physical belonging. However, like the institutional dysfunction featured in satire 4, the dinner party serves as another platform to illuminate the perversion of the patron–client relationship. Globalizing processes are further illuminated by the distance, quality, and exotic nature of foods that feature at the meals in satires 5 and 11. Where forces of deterritorialization resonate strongly to highlight the abuse and displacement of clients in satire, satire 11 offers a response in which the satirist aims to counter the growing economic trade for foodstuffs generated by the increasing reach of globalization. When read as a pair, these food satires offer an illuminating instance of cultural negotiation in an institutional setting amidst the forces of globalization. The food served or abused at these meals assumes distinct meanings as a result of their movement and mixing. Satire 5 features a large feast hosted by the patron, Virro, for his clients, with special attention to one client, Trebius.52 The patron receives higher quality produce to enjoy, while his client has third-rate offerings. The inequity in food offerings effects deterritorialization as it excludes the diner from the convivial experience, while simultaneously participating in it. It is also a fish that, like the rhombus in satire 4, both signals and initiates the impending breach of etiquette as it also spills over its prescribed edges of its serving plate: Aspice quam longo distinguat pectore lancem 80 quae fertur domino squilla, et quibus undique saepta asparagis, qua despiciat convivia cauda, dum venit excelsi manibus sublata ministri! sed tibi dimidio constrictus cammarus ovo ponitur exigua feralis cena patella. 85

86  Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11 Notice how the lobster offered to the master demarcates the plate with its long frame and is hemmed in on all sides with asparagi, how its tail looks down upon the banquet guests, while borne aloft on the lofty attendant’s hands it arrives! But a shrimp hemmed in by half an egg is offered to you, a funereal meal on a tiny plate. (5.80–85) Furthermore, specific verbs emphasizing position refine the satirist’s language of motion that illuminate the nature of interconnectedness. These include despiciat (5.82), sublata (5.83), and the adjective excelsi (5.83), all of which both convey the lobster’s distance from the client banqueters, but also highlight the exclusion of those very clients, like the satirist and other citizens from the sportula (satire 1), literary patronage (satire 7) and those at Domitian’s council (4.64).53 In fact, the lobster’s very conveyance (dum venit, 5.83) to the central eating area where the guests have gathered enacts in microform the global flows of food transport from a region outside in. Nevertheless, the client enjoys no share in the feast but, instead, a paltry poor man’s version in the offering of a shrimp on a little plate (note the diminutive patella, 5.85). Juvenal further highlights the economic disparity and exclusion of the client within military terms similar to that of the rhombus in satire 4. The description of the lobster is couched in similar terms that recall the penetrability of Rome and its military on its territorial periphery. The lobster is surrounded (saepta, 5.81) by a military garrison, a series of palisades (asparagis, 5.82) and a wall that acts as a defense barrier against invading enemy (quibus undique saepta asparagis, 5.81–82). Trebius’ paltry offering, too, is garnished with military language, but to emphasize its diminished effectiveness as a military barrier. His shrimp, hemmed in by half an egg, suggests an openness or vulnerability to enemy forces (dimidio constrictus cammarus ovo, 5.84). The military dressing used to describe each marine serving reveals a tension between vulnerability and penetrability that metaphorically speaks to the issue of imperial intimacy and access to the emperor and patron, alike. The behavior that leads to immediate exclusion of dinner guests and the select council of advisors to Domitian (satire 4) perhaps, ironically, overlooks the bigger global consequences on the local and institutional level. Dacians threaten the Danube, while a contaminated eco-system pollutes river fish at Rome (see passage below). Any recognition of penetrability achieved by interconnection escapes those in authorial positions, further threatening the integrity of existing institutional behavior. This metaphorical play on territorial integrity achieves additional resonance in the satirist’s description of the lobster that does not simply lie or rest on its serving plate, but delimits it: aspice quam longo distinguat pectore lancem / quae fertur domino squilla (5.80–81). Distinguo means to “demarcate,” “distinguish,” or “adorn.”54 In the context of its passage, however, the φ manuscript tradition offers the alternate reading distendat, which suggests the notion of “stretching” a delimited boundary, which in this case is the border of the plate (lanx, 5.81).55

Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11  87 Accordingly, both readings suggest an alignment between physical violation and ethical transgressions that ensue in the satire. The bloated lobster that also spills over its plate offers a fitting analogue to the patron’s extreme abuse of his clients at his dinner party. Fish, then, not only emerge as symbols for perverted ritual and behavior within key Roman institutions, but also represent the effects of time–space compression. In cataloguing the breakdown of the cena, Juvenal introduces yet another fish, the mullet (5.92), to signify the ease by which interconnectivity achieves negative environmental outcomes to the local economy. In Chapter 1, I described how the behavior of the overindulgent patron in 5.92–98 facilitates the depletion of local Mediterranean marine resources and, thereby, demonstrates the globalizing process of time–space compression at work.56 Juvenal sustains this globalizing impact further in satire 5. No better example highlights the outcome of negative environmental effects facilitated by globalization than the appearance of a fecal fish fed on the run-off of the contaminated Tiber River. The fish’s girth represents both the metaphorical decay of patron–client relations and signals the literal contamination of Rome itself. 57 Virroni muraena datur quae maxima venit gurgite de Siculo; nam dum se continet Auster, dum sedet et siccat madidas in carcere pinnas, contemnunt mediam temeraria lina Charybdin; vos anguilla manet longae cognata colubrae aut glaucis sparsus maculis Tiberinus, et ipse vernula riparum, pinguis torrente cloaca et solitus mediae cryptam penetrare Suburae.

101

105

A muraena is given to Virro, the greatest of which has come from the Sicilian eddy; for while the South Wind restrains itself, sits back and dries his moistened wings in his prison, the nets heedlessly outrage the middle of Charybdis. An eel awaits you, a relative of the long snake or the Tiberinus, freckled with grayish spots, himself a home-born slave raised on the banks, distended from the flowing sewer and accustomed to penetrate the drain in the middle of the Subura. (5.99–106) As in 5.92–98, Juvenal figures his description of the muraena fish in terms of its geographic origins and subsequent movement to Rome. In the process, the fish’s movement (venit gurgite de Siculo, 5.99–100) highlights the notion of geographic differentiation enabled by increased interconnectivity. The idea of marine depletion is further emphasized in the description of fishing nets that not only catch the fish, but also devastate the Sicilian waters from whence the muraena came (contemnunt mediam temeraria lina Charybdin, 5.102).58 Following a similar sentiment expressed in 5.92–98 about the depletion of marine resources, it is clear

88  Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11 that as local resources, like the Tiberinus fish that feeds on the Subura’s fecal runoff, grow increasingly contaminated, the further the patron’s gastronomic range must extend to acquire digestible fish from the local Tyrrhenian waters to the Sicilian straights. As Marzano states, “Fishing played an important role in the local economy of many coastal settlements in antiquity and was a resource that, even if located at some distance, could entice the interest of Roman colonists.”59 While Virro dines on imported food fit for human consumption, Trebius, the lowly client, must settle for a native (vernula riparum, 5.105) toilet trout reared on the banks of Rome’s local river. With geographic differentiation also enters considerations of the cultural in the following manner. We have observed the importance of space and location to the satirist’s figuration and negotiation of cultural identity (Chapters 1 and 2) and its deterritorializing effects on the exercise of particular and fundamental institutions. In an effort to maintain cultural identity in the midst of globalizing change, Juvenal and his fellow critics have attempted to reassert their participation in rituals that determine traditional Roman mores, including the practice of the sportula. In likewise manner, the client of satire 5 experiences exclusion, or a dis-location, by way of disparate food offerings, but with the further implication that even the local fare cannot be reclaimed without the threat of subsequent contamination if consumed. Globalization, furthermore, ensures that a considerable number of individuals without access to wealth cannot acquire such costly imports and, so, are left with the contaminated products of their own depleted and exhausted local economy. The reality of Juvenal’s scenario suggests that the local is too polluted and beyond repair, so there is no choice but for the lowly Roman client to enjoy infected fare, while the patron enjoys the advantages of increasing economic globalization that permits the import of more exotic and edible marine life from increasingly distant locations from Rome where the very dinner takes place. As the wealth gap between the social classes increases, the customs of amicitia suffer. Consequently, marine depletion and concomitant globalizing processes continue to stick a wedge between the patron and client, further impeding the exercise of proper modes of conduct within the dinner-party setting. Where satire 5 demonstrates the negative effects of globalization on local economies at the expense of proper conduct in the cena, Juvenal offers a rejoinder that seeks to counter the effects of deterritorialization, with a dinner invitation to a friend, Persicus, in satire 11.60 The dinner invitation and proposed menu items constitute the basis for the satirist’s general call for gastronomic moderation61 before the globalized market of an increasingly exotic and high volume of comestibles for wealthy patrons.62 Furthermore, the satirist’s call for moderation at key junctures in this satire demonstrates the illumination and some culmination to his discourse of place, language, and identity explored thus far (Chapters 1 and 2), specifically, a desire to re-establish the sense of a stable cultural place before the metaphorical and literal threats of dislocation generated by deterritorialization. This countervailing desire, or reterritorialization, is a process whereby an individual or individuals seeks to rearticulate existing “cultural symbols that are in place, using them in different ways.”63 The narrator’s attention,

Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11  89 specifically, to the simplicity of food items and the location of the feast— presumably at Rome—assists in his desire to re-establish the institutional integrity of the Roman dinner party. Perhaps, ironically, the satirist determines that the source of the menu’s food originates from an area outside Rome, or Tivoli: fercula nunc audi nullis ornata macellis. de Tiburtino veniet pinguissimus agro haedulus et toto grege mollior . . .

65

Now, listen to my menu supplied by none of the [City] markets. From my Tiburtine farm will come the juiciest and most docile kid from the entire herd . . . (11.64–66) The means by which the plump kid arrives is cast within the familiar language of mobility that here signals a motion down, from an area somewhere else (de . . . veniet, 11.65), into Rome (see pp. 15–18, 148–149). The arrival of the kid is described as a countervailing response to food that is generally supplied by the markets (macella, 11.64). Furthermore, the difference in fare acquires deeper symbolic significance in that it is marked by the suggestion that the food of the markets are embellished or exotic (ornata, 11.64) in contrast to food of the Tiburtine farm that is both locally raised and flavorful (pinguissimus, 11.65). There exists an inherent irony here in the distinction between local and foreign: the food of the markets in Rome is marked as “foreign,” whereas that of the Tiburtine farm outside Rome local. Local economy and demand is so tainted by the exotic that one must venture outside Rome to acquire that which is local. Furthermore, the geographic distinctions of Rome for local and outside areas for exotic have, in essence, flipped. So, at an early stage of the satire’s narrative, the satirist both establishes and marks the importance of a food’s geographic origin and its movement to his discourse of re-establishing the integrity of the humble feast he proposes to offer to Persicus. Near the latter half of his disquisition to Persicus on humble dining, the narrator impresses further the desire to re-establish the integrity of the meal experience before the external threats of globalization. He does so specifically by juxtaposing two extreme menus that feature the importance of ethnic, linguistic, and geographic origins: sed nec structor erit cui cedere debeat omnis pergula, discipulus Trypheri doctoris, apud quem sumine cum magno lepus atque aper et pygargus et Scythicae volucres et phoenicopterus ingens et Gaetulus oryx hebeti lautissima ferro 140 caeditur et tota sonat ulmea cena Subura. nec frustum capreae subducere nec latus Afrae novit avis noster, tirunculus ac rudis omni tempore et exiguae furtis inbutus ofellae.

90  Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11 plebeios calices et paucis assibus emptos 145 porriget incultus puer atque a frigore tutus, non Phryx aut Lycius [non a mangone petitus quisquam erit et magno]: cum posces, posce Latine. idem habitus cunctis, tonsi rectique capilli atque hodie tantum propter convivia pexi: 150 pastoris duri hic filius, ille bubulci. suspirat longo non visam tempore matrem et casulam et notos tristis desiderat haedos ingenui vultus puer ingenuique pudoris, quales esse decet quos ardens purpura vestit, 155 nec pupillares defert in balnea raucus testiculos, nec vellendas iam praebuit alas, crassa nec opposito pavidus tegit inguina gutto. hic tibi vina dabit diffusum in montibus illis a quibus ipse venit, quorum sub vertice lusit. 160 But, there will not be a carver to whom the entire workforce ought to defer, the disciple of teacher “Effeminate,” at whose home both a hare and wild boar (alongside a great sow), antelope, Scythian pheasants, a huge flamingo and the Gaetulian roebuck—a most sumptuous feast made of elmwood— are carved up with a blunt blade and resounds throughout the entire Subura. My servant knows not how to whisk away a piece of roebuck nor the flank of the African guinea-fowl; he, a beginner and tender in all his years, has tasted the secrets of a tiny pork cutlet. The uncultured boy, but well-clothed from the cold, offers plebeian chalices bought with little money, who is nether Phrygian, Lycian [nor bought from a slave dealer for a great price]: when you ask for something, do so in Latin. Everyone’s clothing is the same, their hair is trimmed and straight, and combed only today for the special occasion. One is the son of a tough shepherd, the other of a ploughman. He sighs over the mother he has not seen for a long time; sad he desires both his cottage and his well-known kids, a boy with an indigenous expression and modesty, the sort which becomes those whom the blazing stripe adorns; neither does the shrill one cart his orphaned testes into the baths, nor does he even offer his armpits to be plucked nor embarrassed does he shield his stout schlong with the barrier of an oil-flask. The wine for you will be bottled there on those very mountains from whence he sprung, under whose peak he plays. (11.136–160) Despite the earlier suggestion that the invitation to Persicus might be to the actual Tiburtine farm (11.64–66), it becomes clearer that the actual meal is to

Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11  91 be held somewhere in Rome (Subura, 11.141).64 The topographical marker, Subura, then not only reasserts the centrality of the dining event at Rome, but also reasserts by way of contrast the exotic and distant geography of the foodstuffs that describe the extent of Rome’s gastronomic trade networks (Scythicae volucres, 11.139; phoenicopterus, 11.139; Gaetulus oryx, 11.140). The prevalence of distant, exotic foods in Rome helps generate the groundwork for the satirist’s desire to reterritorialize, that is to make use of the existing products generated by increasing economic activity to help re-establish his sense of institutional place and belonging. In this spirit, the narrator claims that in his menu for Persicus such foodstuffs just mentioned will be absent and defined more by the ethos, composure and autochthony of the servant at the meal. The servant is neither an excessive eater (11.144), nor burdened with excessive culture (incultus puer, 11.146); he is well kept and groomed (11.148), but is not a foreign Lycian or Phrygian (11.147); he speaks no other language than that which represents the place from whence he sprung (11.159–160),65 Latin (cum posces, posce Latine, “when you [Persicus] ask for something, do so in Latin,” 11.148). He is the antithesis of Juvenal’s contemporary world, if not the symbol of a proto-Rome before the onset of globalization and greater territorial global aspirations that would obscure the very ethical and cultural distinctions the narrator and satirist elsewhere in the collections aims to impress. In fact, elsewhere the satirist conjures the hyperbolized image of the rustic Roman soldier of yesteryear indulging in very simple fare on Tuscan terracotta (11.100–119). Yet, what bearing does reference to a rustic, unattainable, and idealized past have on the satirist’s contemporary world and his ability to cope with contemporary dislocation and the effects of deterritorialization? As we have observed in the contexts of satires 4, 5, and 11, food offers another manifestation of the processes of globalization at work. With the increased movement and mixing of foods in and out of Rome, there is a sense that the very anchors of everyday experience are being transformed continually. Certain foods and their presentation come to signify certain behaviors, i.e. moderation or excess, but also their origins, geographic regions and locales (Tibur, Scythia, Lycia, Subura, etc.). Patrons (and emperor, alike) abuse clients with inedible food, while wealthy and greedy patrons indulge in more excessive consumption and exotic goods that due to the increase in commerce and trade have facilitated the transport of these goods to the patron’s gullet. Abuse of local produce on sea and land has led to increased ecological devastation as the toilet trout of satire 5 exemplifies. Generally speaking, these effects of globalization are viewed as negative outcomes in the satirist’s narrative. The satirist, however, does offer us another glimpse of his negotiation of de-localizing effects that demonstrates a reformulation of existing cultural symbols that epitomize the process of reterritorialization. Following the detail about the origin of foodstuffs from his Tiburtine farm (11.64–66, p. 89), he goes on to catalogue additional menu items from that very same farm that he hopes to feature for his guest, Persicus:

92  Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11 et servatae parte anni quales fuerant in vitibus uvae; Signinum Syriumque pirum, de corbibus isdem aemula Picenis et odoris mala recentis nec metuenda tibi, siccatum frigore postquam auctumnum et crudi posuere pericula suci.

71

75

and grapes preserved for part of the year from the vines, a pear from Signia, Syria, and out of those same baskets apples rivaling those from Picenum and their fresh smell; have no worries, when the winter has dried up the autumnal sap and cast aside the dangers of unripeness. (11.71–76) Despite efforts to reiterate the distinction between the local and foreign and the present with the past (i.e. 1.100–119), Juvenal reveals details here about the farm goods that lump the local with the foreign, thereby collapsing the binary frame. Not only will a plump kid (11.65–66) be delivered to the feast at Rome, but also fruit, but not raised at the local farm, but imported from abroad (Signinum, Syrium, Picenis, 11.73–74). The almost nonchalant inclusion of geographically foreign marked items with his local fare suggests one opportunity where the narrator may be appropriating the culturally diverse. In some manner, the satirist appears to embrace some middle ground along the multiple axes of the idealized past and decadent present, and the local and foreign, whereby he has assimilated a foreign food item in the service of reviving a broken institution. There is simply no return to the rustic roots of Roman culture and the notion of its self-reliance. When considered in its totality, the narrator’s full menu offers a platter of disparate foodstuffs signified both geographically and metaphorically with the past, present, indigenous, and exotic. Like the rhizome, Juvenal’s repackaging of the cena constitutes a reterritorialization that does not explicitly reject the unfamiliar, but seeks to occupy a middle position that embraces a combination of what are seemingly disparate elements. The repackaged menu is by itself one manner of negotiating the general dislocation and exclusion experienced by clients at dinner parties. Contrary to Weisinger who views the poet’s in-between position as signaling an attitude of resignation and pessimism,66 I believe that these details of global confluence articulate the satirist’s awareness that to effect any institutional change requires the careful negotiation and reformulation of existing cultural symbols, like food, in his world that has globalized for better or worse. In fact, the very act of reterritorialization in the appropriation of disparate menu items is a more accurate reflection of the very processes of change generated by the mixing and movement of globalization: they—food, people, or ideas—are rooted in the past no more than they are in the present. Juvenal’s invitation to Persicus, then, is not a withdrawal from his current reality, but a direct participation in the very flow of goods and ideas that are transforming one of the institutions he and fellow Romans participate in.

Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11  93 By the satire’s conclusion, however, it becomes clear that the actual meal is never realized. Although the narrator invites Persicus to cast aside all his troubles before joining him (11.183–192), he nevertheless advises his guest to indulge in the baths at Rome, but not for too many successive days. And, in a satire that champions the virtue of moderation and the relativity of moral values, the host’s final suggestion to enjoy the baths might appear ironic, if not even undermine the narrator’s own moral standing. However, no matter this playful outcome, the host’s extensive menu—whether realized or not—indicates some true processes of globalization (time–space compression, deterritorialization) at work and some steps taken actively to engage with and counteract them (reterritorialization). Yet, when viewed as a pair, satires 5 and 11 demonstrate a tough negotiation by the satirist to balance what appear to be two extreme circumstances. These variant dinner conditions, which are seemingly contradictory, constitute one manifestation of his personal circumstances or lived experience; namely that such conditions are symptomatic of globalization.

Notes 1 See Chapter 2 for a discussion of cultural globalization and its applicability to a reading of Juvenal’s perception of geographic space and cultural identity. 2 Bell and Valentine 1997: 168–169. 3 Bell and Valentine 1997 explore the multiple ways in which modern Western cultures, for the most part, use food to fashion individual and collective identities. Ritzer’s 2008 McDonaldization of Society offers another study of the pervasive effects of globalization on the fast-food food industry, with a specific look at the chain McDonald’s™ influence on global food markets around the globe. Ritzer shows how the chain’s near global omnipresence has affected local food menus and cultures, and vice versa. See also Chapter 1 for more discussion. 4 There is no one detailed study that compiles the incidence and significance of food exclusively in Juvenal’s Satires. For a discussion of food in Roman satire generally, see Hudson 1989, Hudson 1991, Gowers 1993, and Bartsch 2015. 5 Shaw 2014: 63. Her study explores the origins and sources of contemporary Western culture’s disengagement from food in light of the obesity epidemic and the crisis of sustainability of food supplies. 6 Hughes 2014. 7 Campbell 2012. 8 Purcell 1996, Horden and Purcell 2000, Purcell 2003, and Woolf 2005. 9 Drawing on the work of Braudel 1972, Horden and Purcell 2000 have paved the way for the analysis of ancient perceptions of the sea predicated on the notion of its “centrality of the sea to communications” (11). Purcell 2003 resumes the discussion further to propose a more refined definition for the Mediterranean that involves notions of connectivity that do not rely solely on those of center and periphery. 10 See especially Chapter 4’s discussion of cannibalism and its metaphorical alignment with Rome’s territory of empire. 11 On reterritorialization see Deleuze and Guattari 1980/1987, Tomlinson 2005, and Ritzer 2012. 12 Raschke 2009: 147. See also Umurhan 2011 and Larmour 2016. 13 See Braund and Gold 1998 on the corporeal manifestations of unethical behavior. Miller 1998 explores the significance of grotesque body imagery and Bakhtin to a reading of Juvenal. Like Edwards 1993: 63–97, Miller shows how the satirist despises that which

94  Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11 is unbounded, simply leaky, as in the Persian image of the leaky vas in satire 3. See also Reckford 1998: 340. Gunderson 2005 explores what he terms “the bodily rhetoric of satire” and how representations of passivity in the examples of effeminate, castrated men and of women inform the reader’s process of reading satire. Of course, this is not limited to the genre of satire. See Augoustakis 2010 for an authoritative and gendered reading of Flavian epic in terms of center and periphery, with particular attention to Statius’ Thebaid and Silius Italicus’ Punica. Dinter 2012, for example, explores in part the analogy between the body with Rome in Lucan’s Bellum Civile wherein Rome’s many institutions form all parts of a human and state body. Lucan uses body metaphors to describe a Roman Republic as a collection of “bodies suffering the pains of civil war” (27). 14 On Persius and how the body’s state reflects Stoic notions of morality and physical health, see most recently Bartsch 2015. See also Reckford 1998. For a discussion of Seneca and his Apocolocyntosis see Braund and James 1998. For other related sociological, (neuro)psychological, feminist and philosophical approaches to the body, see Umurhan 2008: 101–108. 15 Edwards 1993: 91–92 argues how prominent individuals hurled abuse upon one another as a means to contain, or check, each other’s power with a specific look at Caesar and Curio in Suetonius’ life of Julius Caesar 52.3. 16 See Chapters 1 and 5 for a discussion of 1.19–21 and this very articulation of space and location. 17 Other examples of plentitude, i.e., plenus, that signal the effects of increased flows at Rome and subsequent institutional breakdown include objects, like the litter, and overweight patrons. See 1.32–33: causidici nova cum veniat lectica Mathonis / plena ipso, post hunc . . . (“when a new litter of Matho the advocate arrives / filled with himself, after him . . .”). For a discussion of this passage see Miller 2005: 237. Duff 1898: 108 claims the lectica was constructed to carry two, but Matho is so fat he needs it for himself. See also Courtney 1980: 92 and Braund 1996: 84. In 1.120–122, Juvenal offers another image of the lectica qualified as densissima (1.120) where although there is no implication these litters are filled to capacity as in 1.32–33, their mass quantity implies a “filling” of space. A fat man (turgidus, 1.143) also recalls the image of the portly advocate in his litter (1.32–33) further aligning physical and corporeal excess with institutional breakdown. 18 Juvenal picks up the theme of the violation of the marital institution in 2.132–138 and, most notably, in satire 6. 19 Keane 2002 and Miller 2005. See also Umurhan 2011. 20 For more on the imperial management of Roman frontiers see Millar 1982, Drummond and Nelson 1994, Cherry 1998, Goodman 2007, Chappell 2010, and Luttwak 1976 (repr. 2016). 21 Santorelli 2012 offers the most comprehensive and up to date commentary on this particular satire, and one that argues for the subtle reading of Trajan for Domitian at many junctures (see esp. 24–28), which also builds upon Freudenburg 2001 and Uden 2011. See also 167–181 for a comprehensive and exhaustive list of bibliographical references to satire 4. 22 On the general principle of amicitia and the emperor’s role, beginning with the emperor Augustus, see Wallace-Hadrill 1982. LaFleur 1979 was the first to make such inroads into Juvenal’s representation of amicitia in his first book of Satires. See also Braund 1993: 65–68 for a list of imperial virtues attributed to emperors. 23 See Chapter 5 for a more in depth discussion of the soldier and Roman army in relation to processes of globalization. 24 For another discussion of orbis and its indication of the space of empire, see Chapter 5. Gowers 1993: 204 argues convincingly that orbis symbolizes both the round platter for the fish and the whole world itself. I would argue that orbis in 4.37 strongly reinforces my claim that orbis evokes urbs. See also Winkler 1995 with reference to a globe-fish (Pliny 32.53) and its synonymy with the world.

Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11  95 25 See also Martial Epigrams 13.81: Rhombi: Quamvis lata gerat patella rhombum, / rhombus latior est tamen patella (“Rhombuses: However wide the plate that bears the rhombus, / Even so the rhombus is wider than the plate.”). Horace, for example, equates both rhombi and plates with scandal and loss in his treatise on frugal living in Sermones 2.2.95–96: grandes rhombi patinaeque / grande ferunt una cum damno dedecus (“great rhombi-fish and plates together / bring a great ruin with a loss”). The repetition of grandis in these lines is highly reminiscent of Varro’s use of magnus to highlight the notion of luxury and excess, see note 36 below. The general conceit is in line with views of luxury and ruin associated with fish in Roman literature: see Davidson 1997, Horden and Purcell 2000, Olson and Sens 2000, and Wilkins 2003 present informative surveys on the significance and use of fish in the ancient literary tradition. Bordieu 1984 and Corbier 1999 offer various discussions of food as markers of class distinction. 26 According to Pliny Naturalis Historia (NH) 9.169, the best rhombi came from this very area around present-day Ravenna. Rimell 2005: 87–88 explores briefly the vocabulary of magnitude in her discussion of satire 4. 27 Cf. OLD sinus 7, 8, and 9. 28 Seneca Naturales Quaestiones 3.17–19 provides a striking parallel with Juvenal’s description of the rhombus’ corpulence, sluggishness, and inactivity (cf. Ovid Tristia 3.10.49–51; cf. Luisi 1998: 114–115). Ovid also attributes these qualities to the East, particularly Caria and Idymus (Tristia 3.19.1–3). As an example of Rome’s extreme luxury, Seneca also equates Romans’ appetite for fish with the viewing pleasure of witnessing a mullet’s death firsthand (oculis quoque gulosi sunt, “they are even gluttonous with their eyes,” 3.18.7). Mullets served as spectacle for consumers. He describes how mullets, once captured, were kept alive until brought before its consumer, then deprived of air so the onlooker could witness a change in their color (3.17.2). 29 Midway through the catalogue of advisors, Montanus is introduced in terms of his bodily space: Montani quoque venter adest abdomine tardus (“Montanus’ stomach was also present, slowed by his belly,” 4.107). Like the turgid patron in 1.143 or the fat Matho of 1.32–33, the satirist portrays Montanus as a portly fellow whose gastronomic extravagance (later detailed in 4.139–142) has led to his own corpulence. The periphrasis literally appends an additional dimension to his bodily space. Luisi 1998: 139 states that the abdomen signals Montanus’ gastronomic excess since this area represented the contents of the stomach and the venter, the exterior of the belly: La sinonimia tra venter e abdomen, divisi da adest, rivela due condizioni diverse: il venter e la parte esteriore, quella che adest, funge da contenente, mentre l’abdomen rappresenta il contenuto, quella che è dentro, il cibo che rallenta la marcia della persona. See Courtney 1980: 220 and Braund 1996: 259 for the line’s epic-style periphrasis. 30 Armato quoties tutae custode tenentur / et Pomptina palus et Gallinaria pinus, / sic inde huc omnes tanquam ad vivaria currunt (“Whenever both the Pontine marsh and Gallinarian forest / are made safe with an armed guard, / they all run from there to this place [Rome] as if towards game reserves,” 3.306–308). 31 See Higginbotham 1997: 57, 69–226 for an exhaustive survey of extant architectural remains of piscinae in central mainland Italy, from north of Cosa to as far south as Paestum. Higginbotham in general argues for how the display and maintenance of fishponds play an integral part in the politics of late Republican Rome. A fishpond may have value in terms of commercial profit. 32 Higginbotham 1997: 58. 33 See Higginbotham 1997: 3–40 for a much welcomed and revised look at the technical details surrounding the construction of fishponds, i.e. site selection (inland and seaside), hydraulics, interior arrangements and their setting. Higginbotham also intermittently provides throughout his study the accounts of Varro, Columella, and the Elder Pliny.

96  Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11 34 Varro refers to fishponds as piscinae, whereas Columella uses vivaria, with no apparent semantic difference; both words suggest an architectural enclosure for fish. Varro in De Re Rustica 3.16.32, in a discussion preceding the discussion on fish, frames his closing argument on the care of apiaries on their source as profit (fructus); 3.17.2 claims that fresh-water piscinae are also profitable (non sine fructu). 35 In 3.17.2 Varro classifies fishponds into two groups, the fresh-water (dulcis) and the sea-water (salsa), where the former is open to the common people and the saltwater are restricted to the nobility by virtue of their expense. For a more detailed look into Varro’s account of fishponds, with a particular look at the historical figure Sergius Orata, see Bannon 2014, where she ultimately argues for how “a man’s attitudes towards fish and fishponds served as a proxy for social identity in elite moralizing” (182). 36 Varro 3.17.2 (ed. Goetz 1929): Primum enim aedificantur magno, secundo implentur magno, tertio aluntur magno (“First of all they are built at a great price, second, they are supplied at a great price and, third, maintained at a great price”). Guirard 1997: 113 notes other instances of anaphora in Varro. See Horace Sermones 2.2.94–95. 37 See also Pliny NH 9.171, who relates the same story, but inflates the weight of the muraenae offered to commemorate Caesar’s triumph to six thousand. 38 Nelsestuen 2015 offers a fresh reading of Varro that reads the author primarily as a political satirist who uses the discussion of agriculture in the service of evaluating the social and political behaviors of the Roman elite. 39 See Columella Res Rusticae 8.1.4. 40 Magni enim aestimabat vetus illa Romuli et Numae rustica progenies, si urbanae vitae comparetur villatica, nulla parte copiarum defici (“The country descendants of the aged Romulus and Numa considered of great importance, if farm life was compared to city life, that in no manner was deficient in supply”; Columella, Res Rusticae 8.16.2). 41 Even Cato, a figure of austerity and moderation, is portrayed as participating in this trend toward luxury for having benefited in the sale of his ward’s fishponds for a grand total of 400,000 sesterces (8.16.5). Portrayals of Cato in later literature vacillate between the stern moralist and the entertainer and high-interest moneylender. Plutarch’s Cato Maior 21.5–7, for example, describes Cato’s efforts to acquire the most land and other amenities with it (ponds, hot baths, etc.) in order to accrue the greatest profit. Some considered his methods of money lending as dishonest (21.6). In my discussion of satire 5 and the Tiberinus fish (pp. 87–88), it is the river-fish that is marked as repulsive and, therefore, appropriate for a client, whereas a fish from the open seas is portrayed as the most desirable and succulent, and reserved for the patron. 42 The remainder of his speech also employs martial language: properate (4.134) and castra (4.135). 43 See Alföldi 1965: 31–32, Sweet 1979: 287–8, Jones 1990a: 50–51, Stewart 1994, and Hardie 1997–98: 137. Courtney 1980: 225 and Braund 1996: 264 cite Pliny’s NH 35.161 to signal that the “delicate wall” of the dish is of fine workmanship quality. They do not suggest any militaristic implications behind the murus. 44 For a discussion of parody in satire 4 see Alföldi 1965, Romano 1979: 98–108, Stewart 1994, Adamietz 1993, and Winkler 1995. Satire 4 derives from a similar tradition of council meetings found in Lucilius’ concilium Deorum, Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis and Statius’ now lost epic poem De Bello Germanico. For a more detailed account of the literary influences on Juvenal’s satire 4, see Sweet 1979, Courtney 1980: 195–200, Ramage 1989: 701–704, Braund 1996: 269–275, Hardie 1997–98, Luisi 1998, Freudenburg 2001: 258–264, and Santorelli 2012. 45 According to Tacitus’ fuller account of Fuscus (Historiae 2.86.3), he was more competent than Juvenal makes him out to be. See Courtney 1980: 221.

Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11  97 46 Furthermore, the scholiast Valla makes the claim that satire 4 parodies Statius’ De Bello Germanico. Santorelli 2012: 9–13 treats in depth the literary correspondences between the two texts. See also Courtney 1980: 195–197, 227–228 and Braund 1996: 267. 47 Tacitus’ Agricola 39 is hesitant to give Domitian any credit for this campaign. Cf. Courtney 1980: 228 for additional primary references. The fear of imperial punishment may also have influenced writers such as Pliny or Tacitus to exercise caution when (dis)crediting a ruler’s military campaigns. On the other hand, Wheeler 2011 has suggested that Roman involvement in the Danubian region was fairly consistent during the campaigns of Domitian (84–89 ce), Trajan (101–102,105–106 ce) and during Hadrian’s reign (117–138 ce). The Romans acknowledged a perpetual frontier problem with Dacia as the frequent involvement of the aforementioned emperors suggest. However, there is little evidence to suggest that Domitian was necessarily any less competent or “successful” than Trajan or Hadrian after him, save for Trajan’s triumphal column celebrating his victories in 101–102 and 105–106 ce. 48 Non cedit Veiento, sed ut fanaticus oestro / percussus, Bellona, tuo divinat (“Nor did Veiento cease, but as a devotee, / Bellona, goaded by your frenzy, divines,” 4.123–124). 49 Divinat et ‘ingens / omen habes’ inquit, ‘magni clarique triumphi. / regem aliquem capies, aut de temone Britanno / excidet Arviragus.’ ( “[Veiento] proclaims / ‘You possess a blatant sign for a great and famous triumph. / You will capture some king, or Arviragus will fall from his British chariot pole.’” 4.124–127.) 50 Outside Tacitus’ Agricola it is difficult to gauge the level of Domitian’s personal involvement in Britain aside from, of course, Domitian’s connection to Britain via Agricola’s command in Britain during Domitian’s reign (81–96 ce). 51 For more extensive discussions of the epic and military language and symbolism of satire 4 beyond the issue of the fish, see Griffith 1969, Sweet 1979, Ramage 1989, Winkler 1989, 1995, Braund 1996, Hardie 1997–98, Luisi 1998, and Santorelli 2013. 52 For more recent general treatments on Roman dining in satire see Cuccioli 1990, Donahue 2004, Gold and Donahue 2005, Rimell in Freudenburg 2005, and Roller 2006. For the discussion of food in Roman satire, see note 4 above. On general treatments of satire 5 see Morford 1977, Courtney 1980, Cuccioli 1990, Gowers 1993: 211–219, Hudson 1989, Braund 1996, Freudenburg 2001: 269–277, Nadeau 2013, and Santorelli 2013. 53 The vocabulary of exclusion also precedes the grand entrance of the rhombus fish and other side dishes at 4.64: exclusi spectant admissa obsonia patres (“the excluded senators watch agape the arriving dishes”). 54 OLD distinguo 1b and 1c, TLL I B: i.q. definire, explicare, significare, and II A2: i.q. interrumpere, intersecare. 55 For distendo see TLL I i.q. tendere, extendere, A 1. de rebus corporis; see also OLD distendo 1c and 2a; Clausen 1959, Braund 1996, and Willis 1997 maintain distinguat that favors manuscripts P1, R, and V (Willis 1997: 51). Distendat reflects the φ manuscript tradition, and violates the metrical integrity of the hexameter line. Nevertheless, distendo elicits the imagery of swelling and richness that complements the satirist’s descriptions of excess elsewhere. 56 mullus erit domini quem misit Corsica vel quem Tauromenitanae rupes, quando omne peractum est et iam defecit nostrum mare, dum gula saevit, retibus assiduis penitus scrutante macello proxima, nec patimur Tyrrhenum crescere piscem. instruit ergo focum provincia: sumitur illinc quod captator emat Laenas, Aurelia vendat. The patron will have a mullet, which Corsica or the Tauromenian cliffs have sent, since everything is exhausted and even our sea is barren.

98  Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11 So long as his gullet rages, while the market probes deeply neighboring areas with its continual trawling nets, we do not allow our local Tyrrhenian fish to mature. For this reason the province supplies our hearth from where the legacy-hunter Laenas can buy and Aurelia sells.

(5.92–98)

See Chapter 1 (see pp. 20–21) for further discussion of this passage. 57 For a discussion of the Tiberinus fish and issues of contamination and decay see Gowers 1993 and 1995. 58 Marzano 2013: 79–88 traces the cost of fishing and the mobility of fishermen in Greek and Roman antiquity. Marzano argues that “epigraphic documents from Cyzicus and Parium suggest that in the Roman era [of the first two centuries of the empire] the scale of [fishing] operations intensified notably” (87). The greater mobility of fishermen in the Mediterranean is directly proportionate to their wealth. See also Horden and Purcell 2000: 192–194 and Harris 2011: 155–222. 59 Marzano 2013: 87–88. 60 The name Persicus may also express a tinge of irony, if the name represents not a particular person, but generalizes a foreign ethnic group. For the various possibilities, see Ferguson 1987: 176–177 who suggests, among others, that it may be an invented name that “is redolent of ostentatious luxury (cf. Hor., Od. 1,38,1 Persicus odi, puer, apparatus)” (177). 61 This call to moderation is also figured in familiar terms, a fish: noscenda est mensura sui spectandaque rebus / in summis minimisque, etiam cum piscis emetur (“One’s measure must be recognized and understood / in all things great and small, even when purchasing a fish,” 11.35–36). 62 For a discussion of moderation and the satirist’s use of irony in this satire see Weisinger 1972, Courtney 1980: 489–492, Edmunds 1980, Jones 1983 and 1990b. Weisinger 1972 offers the most recent and thorough examination of the satire’s themes and structure. 63 Wise 2008: 16. Tomlinson 1999: 148 notes “reterritorialization can thus be seen in various attempts to re-establish a cultural ‘home.’” Wise considers the contemporary global music scene as one arena for the contestation of de- and reterritorialization processes, and one that highlights the predominance of the mixing and movement of musical styles and genres across international borders. Canclini 1995 considers contemporary Tijuanans’ desires to “want to fix signs of identification and rituals that differentiate them from those who are just passing through, who are tourists, or [. . .] anthropologists curious to understand intercultural crossings to cultural ownership of their own city” (239). 64 See Jones 1990b: 163. Jones 1990b: 167n15 also claims 11.193–206 makes the location clearer, with its references to the games at the Circus and the suggestion that Persicus indulge in the pleasures of a bath(house) early in the day. 65 The sentiment expressed in these lines resonates with a like figuration of one’s origin and that of the local wine at 3.84–85: usque adeo nihil est quod nostra infantia caelum / hausit Aventini baca nutrita Sabina? (“Does it count for nothing at all that my infancy, / nurtured on that Sabine berry, drank up the Aventine air?”). 66 Weisinger 1972 states: By insisting on his position somewhere between both periods of history, the poet is attempting to escape from either historical context [the past and present]. The attitude of resignation and pessimism characteristic of satire 11 is possible only in a poet who has seen that the course of history is inevitable and wishes to withdraw himself from that progress rather than rage at it. The invitation is not merely to a dinner, it is an invitation to join the poet in escaping from this historical process for a short while. (237; italics expressed in text)

Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11  99

References Adamietz, Joachim. (1993) “Zur Frage der Parodie in Juvenals 4. Satire.” Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 19: 185–200. Alföldi, A. (1965) Early Rome and the Latins. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Augoustakis, Antony. (2010) Motherhood and the Other: Fashioning Female Power in Flavian Epic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bannon, C. (2014) “C. Sergius Orata and the Rhetoric of Fishponds.” Classical Quarterly 64: 166–182. Bartsch, Shadi. (2015) Persius. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bell, David and Gill Valentine. (1997) Consuming Geographies: We Are Where We Eat. London: Routledge. Bourdieu, Pierre. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Richard Nice (trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Braudel, Fernand. (1972–73) The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. New York: Harper & Row. Braund, Susanna. (1993) “Paradigms of Power: Roman Emperors in Roman Satire.” In Keith Cameron, ed. Humour and History. Oxford: Intellect. 56–69. Braund, Susanna. (1996) Juvenal: Satires, Book 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Braund, Susanna and Barbara Gold eds. (1998) Vile Bodies: Roman Satire and Corporeal Discourse. Arethusa 31.3. Braund, Susanna and Paula James. (1998) “Quasi Homo: Distortion and Contortion in Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis.” Arethusa 31(3): 285–311. Campbell, Brian. (2012) Rivers and the Power of Ancient Rome. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Canclini, Néstor Garcia. (1995) Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving Modernity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Chappell, Stephen. (2010) “Auxiliary Regiments and New Cultural Formation in Imperial Dacia, 106–274 C.E.” Classical World 104: 89–106. Cherry, David. (1998) Frontier and Society in Roman North Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Clausen, W. V. (1959) A Persi Flacci et D. Iuni Iuuenalis Saturae. Oxford Classical Text. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Corbier, M. (1999) “The Broad Bean and the Moray.” In Jean Flandrin, Jean Louis and Massimo Montanari, eds. Food: A Culinary History from Antiquity to the Present. New York: Columbia University Press. 128–140. Courtney, Edward. (1980) A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal. London: The Athlone Press. Cuccioli, R. (1990) “The ‘Banquet’ in Juvenal Satire 5.” In Francis Cairns and Malcolm Heath, eds. Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar Sixth Vol. Melksham. 139–143. Davidson, J. (1997) Courtesans and Fishcakes. London: HarperCollins. Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. (1980) Mille Plateaux. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. (1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translated by Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Dinter, Martin. (2012) Anatomizing Civil War: Studies in Lucan’s Epic Technique. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

100  Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11 Donahue, John. (2004) The Roman Community at Table During the Principate. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Drummond, Stephen K. and Lynn H. Nelson. (1994) The Western Frontiers of Imperial Rome Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Duff, J. D. (1898; repr. 1970) D. Ivnii Ivvenalis satvrae XIV. London: Cambridge University Press. Edmunds, Lowell. (1980) “Ancient Roman and Modern American Food: A Comparative Sketch of Two Semiological Systems.” Comparative Civilizations Review 5: 52–69. Edwards, Catharine. (1993) The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferguson, John. (1987) A Prosopography to the Poems of Juvenal. Brussels: Latomus. Freudenburg, Kirk. (2001) Satires of Rome: Threatening Poses from Lucilius to Juvenal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goetz, Georg. (1929) M. Terenti Varronis. Rerum rusticarum libri tres. Lipsiae: Teubner. Gold, Barbara and John Donahue, eds. (2005) Roman Dining. A Special Issue of the American Journal of Philology. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Goodman, Penelope. (2007) The Roman City and its Periphery: From Rome to Gaul. London: Routledge. Gowers, Emily. (1993) The Loaded Table. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gowers, Emily. (1995) “The Anatomy of Rome from Capitol to Cloaca.” Journal of Roman Studies 85: 23–32. Griffith, J. (1969) “Juvenal, Statius and the Flavian Establishment.” Greece & Rome 16: 134–150. Guirard, C. (1997) Varron Economie Rurale, Livre IV. Paris: Bude. Gunderson, Erik. (2005) “The Libidinal Rhetoric of Satire.” In Kirk Freudenburg, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Roman Satire. Cambridge University Press. 224–240. Hardie, Alex. (1997–1998) “Juvenal, Domitian and the Accession of Hadrian (Sat. 4).” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 42: 117–144. Harris, William. (2011) Rome’s Imperial Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Higginbotham, J. A. (1997) Piscinae: Artificial Fishponds in Roman Italy. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Horden, Peregrine and Nicholas Purcell. eds. (2000) The Corrupting Sea. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Hudson, N. (1989) “Food in Roman Satire.” In Susanna Braund, ed. Satire and Society in Ancient Rome. Exeter: Exeter University Publishing. 69–87. Hudson, N. (1991) Food: A Suitable Subject for Roman Verse Satire. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Leicester. Hughes, J. Donald. (2014) Environmental Problems of the Greeks and Romans: Ecology in the Ancient Mediterranean. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Jones, F. (1983) “Towards an Interpretation of Juvenal Satire 11.” Acta Classica 26: 104–107. Jones F. M. A. (1990a) “The Persona and the Dramatis Personae in Juvenal Satire Four.” Eranos LXXXVIII: 47–59. Jones, F. M. A. (1990b) “The Persona and the Addressee in Juvenal Satire 11.” Ramus 19: 160–168. Keane, Catherine. (2002) “Juvenal’s Cave-Woman and the Programmatics of Satire.” Classical Bulletin 78: 5–20. LaFleur, R. (1979) “Amicitia and the Unity of Juvenal’s First Book.” Illinois Classical Studies 4: 158–177. Larmour, D. (2016) The Arena of Satire: Juvenal’s Search for Rome. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11  101 Luisi, Aldo. (1998) Il Rombo e la Vestale: Giovenale, Satira IV. Bari: Epiduglia. Luttwak, Edward N. (1976; reprint 2016) The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire from the First Century ce to the Third. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Marzano, Annalisa. (2013) Harvesting the Sea: The Exploitation of Marine Resources in the Roman Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Millar, Fergus. (1982) “Emperors, Frontiers, and Foreign Relations 31 bc to ad 378.” Britannia 13: 1–23. Miller, P. A. M. (1998) “The Bodily Grotesque in Roman Satire: Images of Sterility.” Arethusa 31(3): 257–284. Miller, P. A. M. (2005) Latin Verse Satire. New York: Routledge. Morford, M. (1977) “Juvenal’s Fifth Satire.” American Journal of Philology 98: 219–245. Nadeau, Yvan. (2013) Dog Bites Caesar!: A Reading of Juvenal’s Satire 5 (with Horace’s Satires I.5; II. 5; II. 6; Epistles I.1; I.16; I.17). Brussels: Éditions Latomus. Nelsestuen, Grant A. (2015) Varro the Agronomist: Political Philosophy, Satire, and Agriculture in the Late Republic. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. OLD = Glare, P. G. W., ed. (2012, 2nd ed.) Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Olson, Douglas S. and Alexander Sens, eds. (2000) Archestratos of Gela: Greek Culture and Cuisine in the Fourth Century bce. New York: Oxford University Press. Purcell, N. (1996) “Rome and the Management of Water: Environment, Culture and Power.” In Graham Shipley and John Salmon, eds. Human Landscapes in Classical Antiquity. New York: Routledge. 180–212. Purcell, N. (2003) “The Boundless Sea of Unlikeness? On Defining the Mediterranean.” Mediterranean Historical Review 18: 9–29. Ramage, E. S. (1989) “Juvenal and the Establishment: Denigration of Predecessor in the “Satires.” ANRW II 33(1): 640–707. Raschke, Wendy J. (2009) “Imperium sine fine: Boundaries in Juvenal.” In Fritz Felgentreu, Felix Mundt, and Nils Rücker, eds. Per attentam Caesaris aurem: Satire— die unpolitische Gattung? Tübingen: G. Narr. 131–147. Reckford, Kenneth J. (1998) “Reading the Sick Body: Decomposition and Morality in Persius’ Third Satire.” Arethusa 31: 337–355. Rimell, Victoria. (2005) “The Poor Man’s Feast: Juvenal.” In Kirk Freudenburg, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Roman Satire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 81–94. Ritzer, G. (2008) The McDonaldization of Society 5. Los Angeles: Pine Forge Press. Ritzer, G. (2012) The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Roller, M. (2006) Dining Posture in Ancient Rome: Bodies, Values, and Status. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Romano, A. C. (1979) Irony in Juvenal. Hildesheim: Olms. Santorelli, Biagio. (2012) Giovenale, Satira IV: Introduzione, Traduzione e Commento. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Santorelli, Biagio. (2013) Giovenale, “Satira” V: Introduzione, Traduzione e Commento. Berlin: De Gruyter. Shaw, Hillary J. (2014) The Consuming Geographies of Food: Diet, Food Deserts and Obesity. London: Routledge. Stewart, R. (1994) “Domitian and Roman Religion: Juvenal, Satires Two and Four.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 124: 309–332. Sweet, D. (1979) “Juvenal’s Satire IV: Poetic Use of Indirection.” California Studies in Classical Antiquity 12: 283–303.

102  Food: Satires 4, 5, and 11 TLL = Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. (1900–). Leipzig: Teubner. Tomlinson, John. (1999) Globalization and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tomlinson, J. (2005) “Globalization and Cultural Identity.” In David Held and Anthony McGrew, eds. The Global Transformations Reader. Cambridge: Polity Press. 269–277. Uden, James. (2011) The Invisibility of Juvenal. Ph.D. Thesis, Classics: Columbia University. Umurhan, Osman. (2008) Spatial Representation in Juvenal’s “Satires”: Rome and the Satirist. Ph.D. Thesis, New York University. Umurhan, Osman. (2011) “Poetic Projection in Juvenal’s Satires.” Arethusa 44: 221–243. Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1982) “Civilis Princeps: Between Citizen and King.” Journal of Roman Studies 72: 32–48. Weisinger, Kenneth. (1972) “Irony and Moderation in Juvenal XI.” California Studies in Classical Antiquity 5: 227–240. Wheeler, Everett L. (2011) “Rome’s Dacian Wars: Domitian, Trajan, and Strategy on the Danube, Part II.” The Journal of Military History 75: 191–219. Wilkins, J. (2003) “Land and Sea: Italy and the Mediterranean in the Roman Discourse of Dining.” American Journal of Philology 124(3): 359–375. (Special Issue: Roman Dining, B. Gold and J. Donahue, eds.) Willis, Jacob. ed. (1997) D. Iunii Iuuenalis Saturae Sedecim. Stuttgart: Teubner. Winkler, Martin M. (1989) “The Function of Epic in Juvenal’s Satires.” In Carl Deroux, ed. Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, V. Brussels: Soc. Latomus. 414–443. Winkler, M. (1995) “Alogia and Emphasis in Juvenal’s Fourth Satire.” Ramus 24: 59–81. Wise, J. Macgregor. (2008) Cultural Globalization: A User’s Guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Woolf, Greg. (2005) “A Sea of Faith?” In Irad Malkin, ed. Mediterranean Paradigms and Classical Antiquity. London and New York: Routledge. 126–143.

4 Globalization and the periphery Satire 15

Satire 15, the last complete satire of the collection, moves the discussion of Rome at its geographic center to its territorial fringe in Upper Egypt to feature an instance of cannibalism.1 Features of globalization processes such as the consumption of goods and natural resources that figure in and around Rome from the first programmatic satire on (Chapters 1–3) now assume a new flavor with the ingestion of humans by two warring Egyptian tribes on the empire’s periphery. Evocations of consumption and circulation assume a new paradigm that suggests larger, global consequences, and the effects of time–space compression and global flows on the territorial periphery of empire. The satirist’s shift in narrative from Rome in the early books to Egypt in satire 15 can be explained by the same mechanisms of circulation facilitated by globalizing activities between core and periphery that have demarcated Juvenal’s literary landscape in the earlier books, 1–4. Thus far in this study we have observed how the satirist’s discursive attention to detail around the space of Rome and its environs serves to illuminate the spatial pervasiveness of globalization processes within and facilitated by Rome’s territorial reach. It is now clear by satire 15 that no area within the space of empire is spared the effects of Rome’s increased network activity, including two Egyptian tribes that engage in cannibalism on the empire’s fringes. What bearing, then, does Rome’s globalizing influence have on savage behavior on its geographic periphery? The act of cannibalism, I argue in this chapter, represents the epitome of globalization in its deterritorializing and decentering of Rome, the result of which seemingly continues to collapse the very ethnic and cultural differentiation the satirist has sought throughout the collection to distinguish from globalization’s fostering of multiplicity. In Hardt and Negri’s analysis of globalization processes within contemporary modes of capitalist production in Empire (2000), their argument for a deterritorialized Empire offers a rather salient parallel to Juvenal’s discussion of globalizing flows on the empire’s periphery. As noted in the Introduction, “Empire” (with a capital “e”) represents a ruling apparatus, such as the US, that manages cultural and economic exchange and networks on a larger global scale.2 However, as networks pluralize and multiply, the ruling apparatus may not only lose its control of these exchanges, but also begin to decenter and deterritorialize. Sociologist George Ritzer defines Hardt and Negri’s definition

104  The periphery: Satire 15 as a “postmodernist move” wherein the effects of deterritorialization are cast in terms of the diffusion of the notion of place where authority exists, “but without any single nation (or any other entity) at its center.”3 We observed the results of marginalization in Juvenal’s attempts to negotiate social and cultural ritual and behavior (Chapter 2). As the narrative progresses the Satires conveys rather explicitly that as networks of flows, information and people increase so, too, does Rome, as geographic place and authorial node where culture and authority exists, threaten to decline in significance (Chapter 2). The resulting circulation and increased time–space compression suggests that “the spectacle and the reality of Empire is everywhere; it is omnipresent.”4 I contend that Juvenal’s discussion of cannibalism at the fringes of its empire represents the vehicle by which he articulates the threat and fear of a deterritorialized Rome nearing its authorial and cultural obsolescence.5 Such distress, in turn, manifests itself in the satirist’s renewed expression of angst and ira, the intensity of which has not been articulated with such vigor since Book 1.6 Juvenal’s criticism of Rome and its globalizing tendencies felt as far as Egypt brings to bear that that which happens at Rome also happens elsewhere. Furthermore, the satirist places the root of such behavior directly on Rome’s shoulders and at the very cosmopolitan location of Rome beginning as early as the first programmatic satire 1. Travel beyond Rome in the earlier satires to satire 15 and the narrator and reader find that what Rome and its imperium purport to be—the provider of civilization to its vanquished—turns out to be the opposite. Civilization, as portrayed by Juvenal, is simply a façade for Rome’s own form of cannibalism in its adoption and appropriation of multiple ethnicities and ideas. Once it has appropriated all, where else will Rome’s dendritic network activity turn? Perhaps back on itself, with a turn back towards the center, with the metaphorical implication of self-consumption. Consequently, the act of selfconsumption may not only signal a contraction of the empire’s territorial extent, but also suggests the downfall and end to Rome itself.7 Herein, the image of cannibalism proves one productive means of reading Rome’s globalizing tendencies in its political and cultural consumption of its subjects. The cannibalism on Rome’s fringes simply reflects one culmination of Rome’s excessive consumption and subsequent deterritorialization and disenfranchisement experienced at its center making its way outward. Further, increasing globalization triggers a heightened sense of deterritorialization that threatens to dismantle and disperse further the means by which Juvenal seeks to distinguish the Romans from the rest of the world. The tale of cannibalism, then, serves as the vehicle that articulates the multiplicity that threatens to muddle distinctions and decenter Rome as a central authority rooted in a geographic place. As Umurhan (2008) and Uden (2015) have noted about satire 15, what is the center is the periphery and distinctions between Romans and others simply collapse.8 However, I would venture further to contend that this is only one of several outcomes in a globalized world of increased interconnectivity. Although Juvenal most certainly articulates the fear of institutional and ritual breakdown, such a collapse in distinction does

The periphery: Satire 15  105 not necessarily engender wholesale the loss of heterogeneity, but may signify other possible outcomes of globalization, such as the increasing multiplicity reminiscent of the rhizome.9 Although the fear of homogenization before globalizing forces exists, this only scratches the surface of a rather complex and more substantive web of interconnection among localities in the Roman world that suggests conversely the proliferation of distinct identities. It may be useful to consider Hardt and Negri’s follow-up to Empire (2000) in Multitude (2004) with their definition for multitude, informed by a postmodern Marxian approach to globalization, that embodies the innumerable forces of globalization informed by the satirist’s own—and those like him—lived experience: the multitude, in contrast [to the people], is many. The multitude is composed of innumerable internal differences that can never be reduced to a unity or a single identity—different cultures, races, ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations; different forms of labor; different ways of living; different views of the world; and different desires. The multitude is a multiplicity of all these singular differences.10 It is these very competing forces that define multitude—homogeneity, heterogeneity, etc.—that not only are synonymous with the globalization processes conveyed in the Satires, but also inform the multiple voices and perspectives of the satirist that seemingly frustrate the reader’s aims to identify one clear and consistent cause for the degeneration of Rome’s empire. Reading satire 15 against the rest of the Juvenalian corpus illuminates strong connections with Book 1 that encourage the reader to re-evaluate the satirist’s claims about Roman globalization in the last complete (15) and incomplete satires (16; see Chapter 5) of the collection. Where time–space compression, the circulation of goods, ritual, people and ideas have featured strongly in the satirist’s discourse of globalizing tendencies in earlier satires, this last complete satire 15 also implicates the satirist’s role in disseminating the very processes he decries. Not coincidentally, at Rome in satire 1 Juvenal gnomically acknowledges a city on the brink in terms of location when he declares “all (every) vice stands on the ledge” (omne in praecipiti vitium stetit, 1.149), following a patron’s depletion of his entire patrimony (1.138). How do the deleterious effects of globalization and time–space compression felt at Rome’s core—the recurrent behavior surrounding excess, luxury, mass consumption, and environmental devastation—figure come satire 15? What might be beyond that “edge” where he suspects Rome and its questionable morality precariously teeters as a result of increasing time– space compression and network activity? This metaphorical “edge” in satire 1 assumes a more literal dimension in satire 15, where this edge represents Egypt, or Rome’s imperial presence on a provincial fringe. However, what may constitute the fringe from the perspective of the dominant ruling apparatus, in terms of multivalent network activity and interconnection, is more attune with Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizome, wherein any one location, regardless of relative distances to each other, may suffice as the new center or an ever-shifting boundary, with

106  The periphery: Satire 15 no immediate beginning, middle, or end.11 Like Hardt and Negri’s “Empire,” too, looking beyond both time and space, Rome will lack any territorial or geographic boundaries, since its globalizing processes presuppose that its empire, now decentered, may have entered a new state of formation. Like the dendritic impulses of increased network exchange, the space of empire may also veer forwards, back, or sideways along innumerable paths and so, too, will the satirist’s narrative gaze follow in his objective to document globalization phenomena. The networks of exchange and identity have become so complex and deep-rooted that any desire to cut them off at this point of globalization may be impossible. In addition to the globalizing exigencies that underline a majority of activity in Juvenal’s collection, the distinct act of cannibalism in Egypt is all the more curious because of its ritual connections with that of a Roman cena, the same Roman institution where transgressions of disproportionate consumption also reflect upon the consumer of Rome in satires 1, 4–6, 9, and 14. Although the detail situates the act of human consumption far from Rome, the satirist, nevertheless, draws the reader’s geographic reference back to Rome by contextualizing the act within the cultural and ritual framework of the feast. In this way, the narrative focus presupposes Roman conceptions and standards of the cena that are evaluated against the abominable act of cannibalism. Moreover, the act of cannibalism affords the satirist an opportunity for self-reflection amidst the circumstances of his world, namely to re-evaluate the question of authorial intent and reliability.12 These issues, however, do not problematize, but corroborate the satirist’s illustration of a rhizomatic world where the ever-expanding networks of communication make it increasingly difficult to distinguish and reassert the authorial supremacy of Rome over its subjects. The poet’s seeming poetic indirection is merely an expression of the rhizome whose root-like networks become progressively more complex and diverse to reveal a world of multiplicity.

Satire 15: A prelude to cannibalism (15.1–32) The anger expressed at and about the center of empire, Rome, now features at its southern periphery in Upper Egypt. Juvenal opens satire 15 with a renewed sense of indignation not seen since the first book.13 His rhetorical flourish adheres to the same formula that opens his collection with a rhetorical question that begins Quis nescit . . . ? (“Who doesn’t know . . . ?”; 15.1) and a series of observations that constitute a catalogue of taboo behavior not unlike the speaker’s exasperated exclamations at the start of satire 1 (1.1–13):14 Quis nescit, Volusi Bithynice, qualia demens Aegyptos portenta colat? crocodilon adorat pars haec, illa pavet saturam serpentibus ibin. effigies sacri nitet aurea cercopitheci, dimidio magicae resonant ubi Memnone chordae atque vetus Thebe centum iacet obruta portis. illic aeluros, hic piscem fluminis, illic

5

The periphery: Satire 15  107 oppida tota canem venerantur, nemo Dianam. porrum et caepe nefas violare et frangere morsu (o sanctas gentes, quibus haec nascuntur in hortis numina!), lanatis animalibus abstinet omnis mensa, nefas illic fetum iugulare capellae: carnibus humanis vesci licet.

10

Who doesn’t know, Bithynian Volusius, what portents the nutty Egyptian worships? One part pays homage to the crocodile, the other shudders at the ibis filled with snakes. The gilded statue of a long-tailed monkey shines where magical strings resonant from a broken statue of Memnon, and the ancient city of Thebes with its hundred gates lies in ruin. In one region cats, in another the river fish, and in another an entire town reveres the dog, but no one Diana. It is divine violation to puncture and break with a bite leek and onion (O divine races in whose gardens these divine spirits are born!); every dinner table keeps clear from wooly animals; it is divine violation there to slit the offspring of a she-goat. Eating human flesh is lawful. (Satire 15.1–13) The introductory catalogue ostensibly and rhetorically aligns the spatial with the temporal axes wherein the taboo behavior on the periphery brings the material of the mythological and chronological past to the present, or a constriction of which is not unlike time–space compression. Furthermore, its list of people, animals, and other imagery is not without its loaded symbolism and communication with earlier satires to illustrate the culminating effect of Juvenal’s concern about increasing global flows inside and outside of Rome. First, and foremost, the object of attack is the familiar foreign pariah, the Egyptian, who here assumes the unflattering epithet “reckless, nutty Egyptian” (demens Aegyptos, 15.1–2), and unfavorable description that conveys the satirist’s fear of deterritorialization with the onset of immigration. One cannot but recall the foreign, glad-handing upstart Crispinus featured in satires 1 (1.27) and 4 (4.1, 14, 24, 108) infecting the Roman urban city space with his aims to climb the Roman senatorial ladder and serve as special advisor to the emperor Domitian’s cabinet of military advisors. Here, Crispinus serves as the satirist’s target on his home turf and ostensibly the Egyptian’s origin point that without the globalizing effects of time–space compression and increased circulation might not have enabled his travel to Rome (satire 1) and its immediate environs (satire 4). Qualifying the Egyptian’s person are his religious beliefs, which include the worship of the crocodile (crocodilon adorat . . . , 15.2), the gilded statue of a gilded long-tailed monkey (15.3) and the worship of an array of animals, like cats (aeluros), fish, and dogs. With the crocodile also comes some loaded associations: it conjures the Augustan ideological program aimed at debasing

108  The periphery: Satire 15 the efforts of his rival Marcus Antonius and his Egyptian concubine, Cleopatra. Some claim that this campaign served as a major rallying cry against Cleopatra, whose defeat at the battle of Actium, and Egypt’s annexation, would be commemorated in various architectural displays at Rome, including the Horologium complex, as well as through the circulation of coinage depicting either, or both, Gaius Octavius and Marcus Agrippa accompanied by the image of a chained crocodile on the obverse with the phrase aegypta capta (“Egypt captured”).15 The negative overtones gain increased traction. Following this reference to Rome’s political conflict with Egypt is that of the gilded long-tailed monkey, another object of Egyptian worship. One significant instance where we observe a monkey occurs in satire 5.153–155, where the performing monkey warrior found situated along the embankment (the Servian agger) in Rome marks the ultimate degree to which the patron–client relationship is perverted in the service of showmanship at the client’s expense. The monkey, furthermore, serves as a surrogate for the foreigner and an index of Rome’s own authority as colonial masters that, in the words of Homi Bhabha (1984), functions as a form of mimicry, whereby colonial mimicry is the desire for a reformed, recognizable Other, as a subject of a difference that is almost the same, but not quite. Which is to say, that the discourse of mimicry is constructed around an ambivalence; in order to be effective, mimicry must continually produce its slippage, its excess, its difference.16 When read against the image of the monkey in satire 5 we observe the satirist’s desire in some form to reproduce in his Egyptian “Other” the expectation of proper Roman behavior, or mores. Moreover, in satire 5, the speaker compares the offering Virro, the client, might receive to what a monkey straddling a hair-goat might toss, namely a mere rotten, half-eaten apple. It is perhaps no surprise that the invective geared at Egypt also includes this monkey figure, who like Virro, qua-monkey, is akin to a foreigner who, like the Egyptian, is subject to the patron’s and satirist’s attack. The mimicry draws the comparison of the Egyptian and Roman Virro into sharper focus, but one whose mimicry, in the words of Bhabha, constructs an “ambivalence” that here is comically elevated into an object of divine worship, or a comic reversal of fortune. Ultimately, the equation of monkey to belittled Roman client and despicable foreign Egyptian articulates another fear of a deterritorialized Rome: increased networks and circulation of peoples continue to diffuse the central ruling apparatus and the satirist’s means by which to negotiate ethnic distinctions among globalization’s production of increasing multiplicity. The next items in the catalogue describe a statue of Memnon and the ancient site of Thebes in Egypt (15.5–6). Both are essentially in neglect and in ruins. Both sculpture and site not only position the topographic coordinates beyond Rome, but also represent the divine and the past of a far-removed era. Their destruction generates the image of a now extinct Egyptian empire, if not a prescient view to a not too distant future for Rome, while their neglect also suggests

The periphery: Satire 15  109 local disregard for religion and a storied past in favor of the worship of plants and animals. Furthermore, their metaphorical implications stretch further when the audience recalls the satirist’s opening foray against those amateur authors whose tiresome recitations shake an aristocratic host’s statues.17 Here, the marble statues and columns of the host are portrayed as physically assaulted by the reverberation of voices. In a similar fashion, magical lyre-strings echo off (magicae resonant . . . chordae, 15.5) Memnon’s statue, but not because of any recitation, but rather from pure neglect. The statue’s corrosion is a sign of the general deterioration of virtue and religious values.18 Ultimately, both the sculpture of satire 15 and the architectural columns of satire 1 represent places of abandon, the former of ancient religious practice, the latter of worthwhile literary pursuit. The statue’s corrosion and its emblem of Egyptian decline functions as a kind of mirror for the potential of Rome’s own before the increasing forces of interconnection. In other words, this decay of statues that signals a rejection of traditional Roman authority also serves as a warning of foreign rejection of Rome’s own imposition of morals, and such that Roman influence upon colonials will one day deteriorate as well. As much as this satire’s introductory catalogue adopts the rhetorical flair of satire 1 with its expression of anger, it also serves to ground the discussion about depravity in Rome’s periphery. It also reintroduces the implications of consumption couched within the imagery of satire prevalent throughout the collection as a byproduct of globalizing forces. Before Juvenal describes the gory details of cannibalism, he coordinates the discussion of religious practices with habits of consumption among Egyptians. One section of the population (pars, 15.3) worships the crocodile, but another (illa, 15.3) the ibis. What is particularly striking here is the adjectival phrase describing it where the crocodile receives no such qualification: the ibis is “filled/stuffed with snakes” (saturam serpentibus, 15.3), where the adjective satura calls attention to the material itself and the stuff(ing) of satire. The reader, in fact, has only come across some variation of this form on seven occasions and, here, is the last instance of the collection.19 Though not explicitly cited as a foodstuff for consumption, the ibis has had its fill, suggesting parallel imagery of distended bodies at their corporeal limit, such as the overstuffed greedy patron of satire 1 (1.142–143). Here, like the crocodile, the bird serves as an object of Egyptian reverence and one that serves later in the narrative to highlight the ironic discrepancy between the non-consumption of animals but that of human beings. Juvenal appears to conflate the religious with eating habits to create a comic yet discordant effect on the reader’s expectations.20 This is further explored in the addition of fish (piscem, 15.7) as another object of worship among many. In satires 4 and 5, we have observed how fish play a predominant role in marking the circulation of contaminants and military incompetence within the space of empire.21 Like in the military council of satire 4, the fish acts as an object of reverence, which, ostensibly, aligns the emperor, Domitian, and the Egyptians. There the immense fish is presented to the emperor Domitian where his exclusive military cabinet debates the fate of the catch. One advisor, Veiento, insinuates the fish’s religious

110  The periphery: Satire 15 significance (4.123–129). The religious undertones of the fish near the center of empire at Alba Longa (the location of Domitian’s council) in satire 4 and its worship by the Egyptians on Rome’s periphery suggests the rather pervasive effects of the bizarre practice across a wide physical landscape. Furthermore, the appearance of the fish in both contexts evokes scenes of discordant behavior whereby the audience is encouraged to align behavior of the Roman senatorial elite with its social and foreign inferiors, further highlighting the predominant effects of increased interconnection on Roman and Egyptian, alike.

The challenge of the chew The imagery of tumescence associated with the word satura continues to escalate near the end of the catalogue (15.1–13) and further encourages the audience to recall events at Rome with those transpiring at its periphery. Furthermore, in evoking the imagery and consumption of food alongside satura, Juvenal generates another familiar frame of reference to facilitate comparison between Roman and foreign rituals of dining. In Egypt, and in the simplest terms, it is a sin (nefas) to eat vegetables and four-legged animals. However, the satirist declares this fact in terms that cause the reader to recall the context of dining and the caustic wit of satire. Earlier in satires 4 and 5 the rhombus fish and tainted corpulent fecal fish of the Tiber signal the extreme extent of patron abuse of the client and the ecological side-effects of globalizing phenomena on the natural environment.22 Here consumption is figured both by the enjambment of mensa (table, 15.12) and the infinitives violare and frangere. The Egyptian dining table refrains from meat offerings that on the surface might align itself with the trope of simple fare associated with Roman rusticity, a call to a simpler past that Juvenal often pines for in the face of contemporary ills (esp. satire 11; see discussion in Chapter 3). This notion, however, is immediately dispelled by the sin of eating leek or onion. One imagines the various offerings at the dinner parties of satires 5 and 14, where both meat (animal and fish) and vegetable offerings are innumerable. The differences in offering in these earlier satires serve as the platform for the speaker’s illustration of the social inequities between patron and client or, as in satire 14, food as a means of bridging social disparity. The Egyptian table, however, acts as a counterexample of sorts in that it dispenses with any social or moralistic undertone that the prior satires interject within their discussion of food. Instead, the repetition of nefas (15.9, 13) and the religious language (sanctas . . . numima) elevates the staple food’s religious implications and importance. Juvenal adds the most substantive bite of this opening catalogue when he figures the act of (non-)consumption with the language of satire; and, in doing so, figures the multiplicity of globalization processes as a determinant for the negotiation of his own poetic authority. Despite the resurgence of his passionate ira, it remains less clear to what extent its strength can articulate or tackle the consequences of globalization removed from the context of the empire’s physical core, Rome, featured in the first five satires of Book 1. To begin, the phrase nefas et frangere morsu (15.9) coordinates the act of chewing with the sting that

The periphery: Satire 15  111 satire produces. Read against satires 5 and 9 and Persius, the language suggests the slow, degenerative process of satire’s power from the time of Lucilius down through Juvenal. Earlier in satire 5 the patron offers the client some bread that is so hard that it is nearly unbreakable (panem / vix fractum, 5.67–68) and prevents any attempt at comfortable chewing (non admittentia morsum, 5.69). The client’s inability literally to chew unbreakable bread contributes to the metaphorical significance of satire 5, wherein the client is too weak and demoralized to counteract the level of abuse hurled upon him by the patron. In this regard, satire as an act of criticism against abuse gains no strength at the hands of the client, Trebius. In satire 9, the act of chewing on an aphrodisiac (erucis imprime dentem, 9.134) signals a means to win the favor of someone (most likely a widow) other than the shiploads of pathics converging on Rome. This act of chewing as a metaphor for the tone of satire goes back even further to the Neronian satirist, Persius, who likens the strength of the Republican era satirist, Lucilius, to one’s ability to cut and chew. Persius states that Lucilius was able to cleave (secuit, 1.114) the city (and all of its vice) and smash his molar (genuinum, 1.115) on his political opponents without any serious threat of retribution that the Republican libertas of Lucilius’ era guaranteed. By the Neronian age, satire’s inability to exercise ad hominem attacks becomes more explicit and reaches its conclusion in Juvenal’s declaration at the end of his first satire that he will only attack dead people.23 Attacking the dead is perhaps a testament to Juvenal’s own extension of his brand of satire, that is, not only to include targets located on the empire’s periphery, but also those beyond the living. In essence, his directing his ire against the dead is itself a kind of metaphoric cannibalism that is at once both spatially and temporally holistic, like the extent of globalizing networks. From Lucilius, who can freely exercise the chew of satire on his opponents, to Persius, who must refigure a new way of articulating criticism under a more scrutinizing Neronian regime, we now observe its transfigured state in the buildup to the climactic statement about human consumption in satire 15.13. Here, the language used to describe the effectiveness and strength of satire intersects with criticism of the eating habits of these peripheral Egyptians. Where earlier, Juvenal’s censure of dinner-party antics in Book 1 and its proposed remedy in satire 11 suggested concrete outcomes—i.e., the death of an overstuffed patron at the bath (1.142–143) and the rustic meal of satire 11—here no such explicit remedies are offered to counteract the act of cannibalism. The discussion of food in the context of and on the periphery of Rome suggests satire’s ineffectualness and, perhaps, that of the waning power of satire nearing the end of Juvenal’s collection. Foods naturally consumed by people, as highlighted in the previous satires, are not consumed at all, such as the leek, onion, and animal flesh, and therefore this discussion removes the consumption of such foodstuffs outside the usual platform upon which the speaker has used to discuss social inequities. Satire and its metaphorical puns on the filling and stuffing of food are minimal, if not absent at the satire’s opening: vegetables are not consumed (or, at any rate, do not experience the bite of satire), nor can the pregnant she-goat (the fetum, whose name is also another pun on a filled corporeal body) be eaten. Without the description

112  The periphery: Satire 15 of actual consumption of foodstuffs, the discussion of any inequities familiar to readers from satires 1, 4, 5, and 11 undergoes a shift. The satirist thrusts us into a realm beyond the stated paradigm of Roman consumption, since the Egyptians themselves do not subscribe to the normative behavior of Roman dining practices. How and why rail against a paradigm entirely different from Juvenal’s Roman frame of reference? Herein arises a complication for the satirist that is also a circumstance of multiplicity inherent within globalization; or, in Hardt and Negri’s words “The multitude is a multiplicity of all these singular differences.”24 Herein represents the basis of authorial tension as Juvenal contends both with forces that imply cultural and social homogenization, as well as diversity. In the opening catalogue about Egypt, its habits of consumption (or lack thereof), and the puns on satire, illustrate Juvenal’s attempts to map the practice of his satire onto a peripheral area subject to globalizing processes of the dominant ruling apparatus. While sticking to his trademark anger and xenophobia, the speaker also offers a nuanced picture about consumption and satire not observed in the earlier satires that also brings into sharper relief earlier discussions about the force and strength of satire among the canonical Roman satirists. The culminating effect reveals Juvenal’s satire in satire 15 is in the midst of negotiating some effects of globalization not experienced at Rome, mainly the practice of consuming human flesh, the habit considered to be the epitome of barbaric nonGreek and non-Roman behavior. What proved effective in singling out unethical behavior as a result of globalization in earlier satires, now becomes all the more challenging to negotiate, as though to suggest that the more unfamiliar the satirist’s targets of criticism become, the weaker his ability to combat what to him is dystopian and beyond his institutional reference. And, so, the opening catalogue (15.1–13) suggests that satire’s gravitational pull weakens the further from the core it drifts and, ultimately, a movement that functions as a commentary on the challenges of growing multiplicity on the satirist’s exercise of satire. Juvenal transports his rhetorical range to new horizons when he showcases perhaps the two most extreme behaviors along the consumption register, from the Egyptian’s lack of any consumption (neither vegetable nor animal flesh) to the ingestion of human flesh: carnibus humanis vesci licet (“Eating human flesh is lawful” 15.13). The discussion of this shocking episode, however, does not resume until after a brief, but important aside on the poet’s authorial voice and reliability as storyteller, which again rests upon the discussion of satire first introduced in the satire’s opening thirteen lines. In a world where cultural and social paradigms continue to shift as a result of time–space compression and global flows, those same effects undoubtedly compel the satirist to re-evaluate his own craft amidst the same shifting globalizing landscape.

Metaphoric cannibalism Metaphors for satire abound in the collection. Both Emily Gowers (1993) and Maria Plaza (2006) have keenly observed that the link between satire and food is unmistakable, if not by the etymological suggestion of the lanx satura.25

The periphery: Satire 15  113 If food serves as a marker of satire, then the extreme act of cannibalistic consumption, humans eating humans, brings to mind a satiric genre that also partakes in a metaphorical cannibalism of itself.26 The increased circulation inherent in globalization further enables the all-inclusive quality of Juvenal’s satire, with its increased spatial (of empire) and temporal (individuals dead and alive) ranges. The genre of satire, too, after all, is parasitic with its various appropriations of the form and function of epic, comedy, and other, minor genres. This is just one manner in which Juvenal stretches the metaphor to its limit. As one who revels in extreme demonstrations of passion and content, this is nothing novel. Such metaphorical implications, however, could be expanded to address the resulting effects of multiplicity within the Roman imperial project of empire. What transpires on the periphery—i.e., the extreme of human behavior and the limits of the application of satire—shares a strong affinity with its center and to such a degree that by the satire’s end the forces of network connectivity bring Juvenal’s own formulation of satire to a generic brink as much as it has the space of empire. Naturally, then, Juvenal uses one fundamental aspect of his craft, storytelling, to address the consequences of globalization on his own satiric method and authority. Before engaging in the gory details of cannibalism, the satirist first clears the record about his role as an effective storyteller. The satirist’s discussion of the epic past (the age of Homer) to address the present elides spatial and temporal distances not unlike the effects of time–space compression that have generated Juvenal’s other discussions of increased global flows of capital, ideas, and people in second century ce Rome.27 First, Juvenal uses the Homeric figure Odysseus and his famed storytelling (15.13–28) from the Odyssey as a platform to comment on the reliability of his own narrative. The satirist appears to disabuse any critics of the assumption that he, like Odysseus, speaks fantastic tales in his story about the warring man-eating Ombi and Tentyrites. Certain vocabulary, however, suggests otherwise with the continuation of imagery about satire and consumption, and in the context of authorial reliability. It is perhaps no surprise as well that the words cena (15.14), bilis28 (15.15) and risus29 (15.15) represent the material of Juvenal’s Satires. In this instance, they also offer a key to interpreting the relationship that Juvenal creates between himself and Odysseus and how Juvenal represents his own credibility as a narrator. The satirist aligns himself with the character of Odysseus, a tactic Juvenal uses to question the integrity of Odysseus and—by extension—the satirist’s own storytelling: carnibus humanis vesci licet. attonito cum tale super cenam facinus narraret Ulixes Alcinoo, bilem aut risum fortasse quibusdam moverat ut mendax aretalogus. . . . solus enim haec Ithacus nullo sub teste canebat. nos miranda quidem sed nuper consule Iunco gesta super calidae referemus moenia Copti;

16 26

114  The periphery: Satire 15 Eating human flesh is lawful! When over dinner Odysseus related such a deed to a shocked Alcinoös, perhaps he inspired disgust or a smirk among certain men [inhabitants of Scheria] as a lying professional storyteller. . . . Indeed the Ithacan sang these tales alone with no one to confirm it. But I will relate events to be marveled at, indeed fantastic that recently happened during Iuncus’ consulship beyond the walls of scorching Coptus; (15.13–16; 26–28) What appears to be a peculiar aside functions rhetorically to coordinate an epic past with the present in much the same way the core seemingly compressed with the periphery; despite the prior suggestion to satire’s ineffectiveness (15.9–13 discussed p. 110), this renewed charge with the claim to Egyptian cannibalism reflects the satirist’s attempt to refigure satire to suit his own lived experience of increased global flows. The shift from the opening catalogue about Egyptian practices to that of Odysseus appears jarring and has been the subject of some debate.30 However, what appears to be a disjointed shift from the opening catalogue to a discussion of authorial reliability (truth versus fiction), can, in fact, be reconciled by the key word attonito that is also metrically marked by a bucolic diaresis (15.13). The diaresis generates a pause that draws particular attention not only to the claim of cannibalism but also the following attonito. Though it modifies Alcinoös (Alcinoo, 15.15) by hyperbaton several lines later, its placement just after the statement about human consumption (15.13) proclaims in reply to the divine right to eat flesh: shocking! The playful word placement injects comic and dramatic flair and simultaneously signals a smoother and pertinent shift to the discussion of Odysseus. The ensuing narrative is as follows: the satirist mocks the Phaiakians for their gullibility and even suggests that Odysseus be thrown into the sea (15.16–17, 24–25). In addition, Juvenal maintains that Odysseus had no one to witness the accounts he relates because all his companions were killed on the journey. An Homeric equivalent of the cena serves as the setting for Odysseus’ tale of Polyphemus’ cannibalism, while Juvenal’s own tale of Ombi and Tentyrite mutual consumption (later in the satire) perverts the cena to the degree where the feasters become food for a feast. The cena in both the ancient and contemporary context serves as the locale for something perverse and, thereby, subject to some form of deterritorialization that either false tales or consumption threatens to dislodge from Roman social and cultural norms. Additionally, issues of consumption and satire link the opening catalogue with the discussion of speaker reliability. Bilis (15.15) and risus (15.15) link the characters of Odysseus and the speaker on several levels. The satirist introduces his tale along the same parameters as Odysseus to suggest that his listeners will produce one of two reactions. He, too, prompts and challenges the reader to react with laughter or anger at his “fantastic” (miranda, 15.27)

The periphery: Satire 15  115 tale in the same way as Juvenal imagines certain listeners (quibusdam, 15.15) to have reacted to Odysseus’.31 By mocking the Phaiakians for their gullibility (15.16–17, 24–25), he too invites his listeners to exact a similar punishment on the satirist. If his story of cannibalism is untrue, perhaps Juvenal, too, deserves to be thrown into the sea. The satirist may also very well be suggesting that it is the duty of his audience not to take him seriously, and to discount his account, despite his claim to the contrary. Whether or not the story is true is moot. In referring to his own tale as fantastic (miranda, 15.27) as he does Odysseus’, the satirist is more concerned about eliciting a reaction from his audience. The audience, however, like the Phaiakians, are also implicated in the satirist’s storytelling. Furthermore, Juvenal and his audience’s participation in the act of storytelling—the storyteller and the listener—coordinate eating with this very act of satire. The audience is now in the position to eat up his tale and sate their ravenous curiosity for the macabre. Though the act of cannibalism is shocking indeed, the very subject matter allows Juvenal an apt platform for a discussion of the operation of satire as one predicated on criticism levied against both target and “targeter.” And, here, presumably, the audience’s desire to listen to the tale of extreme behavior on the fringes of empire transports the articulation of satire to its limit. Having embedded the discussion of storytelling in the epic past, Juvenal now transfers the argument to the present. In this manner, the satirist himself becomes a testament to the effects of globalization in his elision of the spatial and temporal to articulate the interaction of societies. The limits of satire are now located at the fringes of Roman geographic sway somewhere beyond the walls of Coptus (super calidae . . . moenia Copti;, 15.28) in Upper Egypt and during the consulship of Iuncus (127 ce; nuper consule Iunco, 15.27). In this manner, Juvenal effects a full rhetorical sweep that spans and encapsulates both the epic (and) past with the (satiric) present.32 The bite and chew of Juvenal’s satire assumes a new flavor, one that will not target any overtly political opponent, but will justify his genre’s pertinence in light of the epic past. The seeming indirection with Odysseus and the epic past, however, gains even more resonance when read against the following comparison the satirist makes with other literary genres. Genre, not coincidentally, is the final topic before the narrative proper about human consumption begins. We have observed how Juvenal’s discussion of genre and satire’s effectiveness permeates many of the satires throughout the collection, and especially the programmatic ones. In the first programmatic satire, 1, Juvenal first physically locates his position and the inspiration for his material at a crossroads in Rome, with particular nods to Lucilius and Horace (see Chapters 2 and 5). In satire 6, for example, the satirist again mentions genre when he suggests that murders by regular citizens on the streets of Rome surpass any brutal characters of tragedy, like Clytemnestra (6.656). Following the mention of Coptus the satirist revisits the issue of genre, which offers him another opportunity to reframe his exercise of satire as an elision of temporal distance:

116  The periphery: Satire 15 nos vulgi scelus et cunctis graviora coturnis. nam scelus, a Pyrrha quanquam omnia syrmata volvas, nullus apud tragicos populus facit. accipe nostro dira quod exemplum feritas produxerit aevo.

30

My story is a shared one and is more grotesque than all tragedies. For this wickedness, from Pyrrha on you may unroll all tragic themes, No people has produced among tragic poets. Now listen to this example of intense savagery which has been produced in our present time. (15.29–32) In an attempt to be distinct from Odysseus’ tale, the speaker suggests that his tale about the Egyptians, which transpires in the present day, can be confirmed by more than just the storyteller (vulgi, 15.29). The move sets in deep contrast Juvenal’s vulgus, the common, from Odysseus’ solus Ithacus, the exclusive. Presumably, if the Phaiakians were willing to reward Odysseus’ storytelling with spoils and a ship back home to Ithaca regardless of the authenticity of his tale, imagine the rewards the satirist expects for his reliable contemporary account. Juvenal further highlights the shift in time from the epic past (Pyrrha, 15.30) to the present when he insists that the current account of brutality (nostro . . . feritas . . . aevo, 15.31–32) outmatches even the famous tragedians.33 Satire now finally delivers the flavor, if not the clothing, of tragedy, the tragic buskins (coturnis, 15.29) and the tragic robes (syrmata, 15.30). This declaration, however, that satire embodies the themes of tragedy is not new but, in fact, may be read as developing an earlier claim about the limits of Juvenal’s brand of satire in satire 6. In Chapters 1 and 2, I discuss how Juvenal establishes the importance of space and place to his construction of cultural identity, with particular attention to the satirist’s vocabulary of movement that structure his portrait of an interconnected Roman world. Not surprisingly, perhaps, these same cultural parameters inform the speaker’s concern for the poetic along the same notions of place in the following as well: fingimus haec altum Satura sumente coturnum scilicet, et finem egressi legemque priorum grande Sophocleo carmen bacchamur hiatu, montibus ignotum Rutulis caeloque Latino? nos utinam vani! Have I fabricated these things while my satire dons the theatrical buskin, and have I transgressed the boundary and law of our ancestors while in Sophocles’ grandiloquent style I cry out a lofty song unknown to the Rutulian hills and Latin sky? If only it were a lie! (6.634–638)

634 637

The periphery: Satire 15  117 In a near mirror image to the Odysseus passage in satire 15, the satirist here as well raises the issue of the satirist’s veracity (fingimus, 6.634), which in satire 6 involves the longest treatment of sexually and socially deviant female behavior in the collection. In both a rhetorical question and grandiloquent language, Juvenal elevates his material to a tragic register. The satirist personifies satire as an actor who assumes all the representative accoutrement to perform his role, including the lofty buskin (altum coturnum, 6.634, and the dramatic mask (Sophocleo hiatu, 6.636), the latter of which has become synonymous with persona theory and one way of reading the satirist’s innumerable voices.34 The main targets or examples of brutality in both satires 6 and 15 are the marginalized female and Egyptian out-groups, respectively. In fact, both targets are characterized as committing wicked deeds (scelus ingens / . . . facit, 6.651–2; scelus 15.29, 30). In this respect, Juvenal aligns the material of his satire with the content of tragedy rather well when one considers examples such as Euripides’ female outcast Medea in the distant land of Colchis or the setting of other Greek tragedies set in areas far from or peripheral to the center of empire (i.e. Seven Against Thebes, Philoctetes, etc.). And, now that Juvenal in satire 6 determines the pervasiveness of moral decay (of tragic proportions!) within the physical and metonymical confines of Rome (montibus . . . Rutulis caeloque Latino, 6.637), it only seems fitting to the material of tragedy that brutal behavior can also be witnessed among areas on the edge of Roman domination.35 Like the language of movement that has characterized Juvenal’s world of interconnection elsewhere, here, too, the knowledge of older Greek poetic traditions is figured in like manner as having been imported and appropriated from outside Rome. From Rome in satire 1 to Coptus in 15, then, the implications are that the forces of network activity and the hastening of global flows generated by increasing time– space compression succeed in circulating brutal behavior throughout the Roman Empire. The satiric frame shifts from the physical locale at Rome to an area on Rome’s periphery, accompanied by a general restlessness and fear about decentering and deterritorialization accelerated by a sense of increasing flows. The shift, moreover, gives the satirist an opportunity to re-evaluate the operation of his satire in a new area and, thus, to expand the metaphorical implications of Rome’s imperial reach beyond its center. In the introductory lines, Juvenal rhetorically aligns two seemingly disparate issues—Egyptian religious and gastronomic practices and the debate about author reliability—along a spatial trajectory that mimics one direction of globalizing influence, namely that which leads from the geographic center to Rome’s periphery. By satire 15, all the satirist’s fears of deterritorialization appear to converge in Egypt and help constitute a renewed attack on the effects of increased interconnectivity on its larger territorial space. In the course of narrating the Egyptian case of cannibalism, Juvenal illustrates how the spread of Rome’s decay to the periphery has more serious implications on its center than physical distance may suggest. The main narrative of satire 15 draws on this store of metaphors, including consumption and writing, to illustrate the Roman project of empire and, ultimately, how the Roman imperial way is not what it purports to be.

118  The periphery: Satire 15

Decentering on the periphery Now that Juvenal has established the several metaphors of empire through the discussion of consumption and his writing project at the beginning of satire 15, he then builds upon them throughout the remainder of the satire to demonstrate some effects of Rome’s global circulation and time–space compression. Like the opening thirty-three lines of the satire, many details of the ensuing main narrative are in conversation with many of the programmatic features of Juvenal’s satiric project: demonstrations of anger and conflict resume where they were left behind at the end of satire 1; religion, or non-Roman conventional worship thereof, is again questioned; and, ultimately, the fragmenting nature of violence and human consumption speaks to the satirist’s concerns about physical and bodily integrity and its metaphorical implications on the space of empire itself. Where the first book of satires (satires 1–5) focuses on the threat of monetary, food, and natural resource consumption in and around Rome, by the end of the collection we observe the metaphorical transform into the literal. In other words, the impending threat becomes reality through the description of Egyptian brutal violence. Moreover, the details of Egyptian barbarity recall the same fervor and anger Juvenal directs at his targets in satire 1. The description of ruthlessness in Egypt picks up where Juvenal’s premature act of violence through his words against his targets at the end of satire 1 had left off. Anger once again illustrates the satirist’s fear of and the psychological response to a deterritorialized empire. At the end of satire 1, Juvenal pronounces his indebtedness to Lucilius and his trademark use of anger against his targets of satire (1.165–171). Juvenal vicariously conjures Lucilius’ libertas to exercise his displeasure against his opponents and to experience firsthand their reaction of fear and guilt.36 The vocabulary of anger strongly marks the conclusion to the satire (ardens, 1.165; infremuit, rubet, 1.166; irae, 1.168). The satirist, however, advises his audience in the language of military battle to think twice about engaging their targets in any overt fashion considering the harsh and litigious climate of his time (tecum prius ergo voluta / haec animo ante tubas. galeatum sero duelli / paenitet. “Consider these things first in your mind before the call for charge. It’s too late once you’ve gotten battle-ready”; 1.168–170). Instead, the satirist opts in his elusive manner to attack only the dead to escape any blame, but as stated earlier, by targeting the dead, Juvenal also offers a demonstrative alignment between the exhaustive quality of his satire and the expansive nature of globalizing forces. This declaration proves fundamental to the operation of Juvenal’s satire throughout the remainder of the collection, if only to provide an interpretive roadmap for his audience to decipher the nature of his attack on his victims. He will refrain from any overt and explicit ad hominem attack of his immediate contemporaries, since his rhetorical cover suggests a lot of unfinished excoriation of the past generation of reprobates. In satire 15 the satirist casts the description of the conflict between the two tribes in martial terms reminiscent of satire 1. With the martial setting comes the language of anger that has defined Juvenal’s own programmatic claims to writing satire in Book 1.

The periphery: Satire 15  119 Inter finitimos vetus atque antiqua simultas, immortale odium et numquam sanabile vulnus, ardet adhuc Ombos et Tentura. summus utrimque inde furor vulgo, quod numina vicinorum odit uterque locus, cum solos credat habendos esse deos quos ipse colit.

35

Among these neighbors there is a long-standing and ancient feud, an immortal hatred and a wound that never heals blazes between the Ombi and Tentyrites to this day. There is the utmost hatred on both sides because each place hates the deities of their neighbor, since each believes the gods he worships ought to be the only ones revered. (15.33–38) The claim is rather straightforward with the declaration that both the Ombi and Tentyrites harbor a deep-seated hatred (furor, 15.36) for one another that seethes (ardet, 15.35) and acts as a painful corporeal reminder like an open wound that never heals (numquam sanabile vulnus, 15.34). Furthermore, the madness (furor) is extreme (summus) and, presumably, powerful enough to keep the mutual metaphorical wound of hatred fresh. The extreme expression of anger and hatred is in alignment not only with the same deflating martial spirit of satire 1’s conclusion, but also with that of the satirist who rages so much that he threatens to lose control of his own body (quis . . . tam ferreus, ut teneat se, 1.13) when witnessing and describing behavior he observes in and around Rome. The charge that each hates the other on the ground of disparate religious beliefs not only reminds the audience of the satirist’s initial dispute against taboo Egyptian beliefs, but also recalls similar charges Juvenal levies against fellow Romans in satire 1 for their worship of money at the expense of other great virtues, such as Pax, etc. (1.112–116). As a result of these parallels, it is no surprise how suspect the author’s claim to any measure of moral superiority of Romans over the Egyptians actually is. The set-up is more for humorous indirection than any direct blame on the Egyptians themselves. Beyond the expressions of anger littered with high frequency in 15.33–54, Juvenal offers additional programmatic glimpses that encourage the reader to read the details of satire 15 against his proclamations from Book 1 to paint more clearly the picture of a deterritorializing Rome. Whereas the mention of a feast shared by Odysseus and the Phaiaikians situates the discussion within the context of the cena, its mention in the context of the festive meal among the Egyptian tribes also sets itself in contrast to Juvenal’s declarations about where he practices satire, namely at street corners (medio . . . quadrivio, 1.63–64) and other areas around Rome (in trivio, 6.412). Ironically, what have been two independent exercises among the depraved Romans of Juvenal’s landscape—dining and community— are here conflated in the following way. Initially, the suggestion is one of virtue as the Egyptians appear to be preparing for a communal public feast (positis ad templa et compita mensis, 15.42), one set in deep contrast to the greedy patrons

120  The periphery: Satire 15 of satires 1, 4, and 5, who either feast alone or defy the spirit of conviviality when they consume the best portions at the expense of poorer lowly clients. The brief glimpse of Egyptian virtue is quickly undercut with the familiar detail of Egyptians drunk (mero, 15.48), in revelry, and perfumed (de madidis et / blaesis atque mero titubantibis . . . unguenta . . . in fronte, 15.47–50) as the audience first recalls Crispinus and other foreign upstarts from Book 1. As the points for comparison multiply, there is also the sense of a growing multiplicity of singular differences that threaten to destabilize Rome and Juvenal’s sense of authorial stability. The details of extravagant behavior—the intoxication and revelry—and mutual religious intolerance serve as the final tipping point. Unchecked aggression leads to battle, since their hatred becomes an appetite for mutual destruction. hinc ieiunum odium. sed iurgia prima sonare incipiunt: animis ardentibus haec tuba rixae. dein clamore pari concurritur, et vice teli saevit nuda manus. paucae sine vulnere malae, On the other hand, starving hatred. So, first insults begin to sound: when tempers seethe, these are the signal to fight. With a common cry they charge and in place of a weapon the bare fist blows. Few cheeks were unwounded, (15.51–54) In satire 1, Juvenal assumes the spirit of a battle-clad Lucilius who rages through the heart of Rome (the Campus Martius) to battle and to rid the city of its teeming vice (discussed in Chapters 1 and 5). His desire to rage (ardens, 1.165), like Lucilius, is merely an indirection that affords him the opportunity to emote vicariously and with impunity through his literary hero. Where the satirist ostensibly restrains himself from engagement in battle there, here the Egyptians have ostensibly succumbed to their passionate impulse, by putting on their helmet and sounding the battle cry in the very fashion the satirist strongly urged to avoid at the beginning of his collection (1.168–170). This resonance with the start of the collection has greater implications on understanding the satirist’s fears about Rome’s deterritorializing empire on one’s psychological and physiological state. We have observed how the circulation of goods, ideas, and people exemplifies one of the larger consequences of the Roman project of empire. Behavioral and ritual dysfunction accelerated by the effects of time–space compression also affects the psychological response of the individual to the given threat. Treatises by the philosophers Aristotle and Seneca and medical writers have made clear the deleterious effects of anger on one’s mental state and how this ira signals a mental or physical compromise.37 Anger, or any other human behavior as we have observed, including the consumption of goods, expressed in excess, indicates a flaw in and more so a threat to old Roman virtue. This compromise in virtue is at least the established trope among Latin writers. However, physical integrity has also come to exemplify

The periphery: Satire 15  121 the virtue of control, which in satire 1 Juvenal flirts with defying in his expressions of frustration. To act otherwise would signal a breach of this integrity, both mentally and physically, as we soon observe with the warring Egyptian tribes. In documenting the cannibalism of the Egyptians, Juvenal aims to enhance Rome’s growing global awareness of an empire decentering as a direct result of the multiplicity of increasing globalizing forces on Rome’s periphery. Immediately following the signal to mingle, Juvenal characterizes the battle as a series of bodily disfigurements characterized by the process of fragmentation.38 The act of violence guarantees a visceral dismemberment of both parties. paucae sine vulnere malae vix cuiquam aut nulli toto certamine nasus integer: aspiceres iam cuncta per agmina vultus dimidios, alias facies, et hiantia ruptis ossa genis, plenos oculorum sanguine pugnos. ludere se credunt ipsi tamen et pueriles exercere acies, quod nulla cadavera calcent.

55

Few cheeks were left unwounded, hardly anyone’s, if no one’s nose was left unbroken during the entire skirmish. You could even behold across the entire crowd mutilated faces, other permutations, and bones protruding from cheeks split open, fists filled with the blood of eyes. Nevertheless, they think they are messing around and that they are engaging in child’s play because they do not stomp on any corpses. (15.54–60) The description highlights the assault on various body parts, and specifically their corporeal integrity in the one moment, then the lack thereof following their disfigurement. Noses are not just broken, but characterized as not intact (vix integer, 15.55–56); faces across the entire (cuncta, 15.56) crowd are mutilated, or halved (dimidios, 15.57).39 The facial bones protrude from or puncture the skin of the gashed cheeks. To top off the gory description, Juvenal embellishes the final detail with the statement of fists filled (plenos . . . pugnos, 15.58) with blood, a programmatic nod to the weight and saturation of satura. Like the satirist’s notebooks filled with vice (satire 1), here, too, the Egyptians’ fists, but with the blood of fellow humans. The satirist’s anxiety about physical integrity is further punctuated by the playful interchange of words and images that express integrity and fracture (integer, dimidios, facies, ruptis). The description elucidates the satirist’s revulsion, but what of the Egyptians? Juvenal’s depiction of the Egyptians’ puerile reaction to bodily mutilation does not simply produce a deflationary and comic tone, but also signals a larger indifference to their actions that suggests something more menacing. Just when the audience may think matters could not get any worse or more severe, in the spirit of amplification and excess, it does (ergo acrior impetus, “and so the charge was fiercer,” 15.62)

122  The periphery: Satire 15 when the account of human consumption begins. Juvenal continues to trace the irrepressible urge of anger by conveying the escalation of this behavior. The discourse of fragmentation, not coincidentally, continues to inform the first description of Egyptian human consumption. This human ingestion again figures mastication in a manner that recalls the satirist’s earlier and other discussions about consumption. ast illum in plurima sectum frusta et particulas, ut multis mortuus unus sufficeret, totum corrosis ossibus edit victrix turba, . . . . . . , contenta cadavere crudo. . . . sed qui mordere cadaver sustinuit, nil unquam hac carne libentius edit;

79 83 87

But he [a Tentyrite] was chopped into many pieces and tidbits so that one corpse would be enough for many and the triumphant horde ate him up completely with bones chewed up . . . . . . the [horde] was content to eat raw flesh . . . But he who could take a bite never did he eat this flesh more contentedly. (15.78–81; 83; 87–88) A Tentyrite has fallen victim to the pursuit of an Ombos who kills him straightaway, but dispenses with his victim as if he were food. With this detail comes a catch: for once, we observe an individual sharing food and not entirely consuming it for himself in the way we have observed with patrons at Rome. In contrast, one suffices for many (multis unus, 15.79). The victim is not immediately consumed, but as though prepared for communal distribution and enjoyment (in plurima sectum / frusta et particulas, 15.78–79). The crowd is delighted to eat raw flesh (contenta cadaver crudo, 15.83), the same undigested state in which we find a peacock conveyed to the baths by a bather’s bloated belly in satire 1.142–143. This results in that patron’s death, but not the Egyptians’. The detail about human consumption is further marked by additional meanings and points of comparison that increase the multiple points of reference between Egyptian and Roman behavior. Cannibalism again, as earlier in the satire, encourages the alignment of greedy patrons with the offending Egyptians. On the one hand, it offers the slight glimpse of the desired social etiquette Juvenal often bewails has been lost in dining situations at Rome. On the other, this instance of human consumption serves as a misapplication of the desired outcome in a manner that is reminiscent of the many indigestible and contaminated foods offered to clients at the dinner table. Ultimately, we are left with a general incongruity

The periphery: Satire 15  123 that cannot seem to produce the correct combination of virtuous acts, namely sharing (and consuming) desirable and uncontaminated food. The tongue-incheek comic flavor offers a landscape of absurdity to these scenarios. Juvenal’s sense of loss is something that cannot be recuperated, accounting for a nostalgia not unlike Odysseus. However, unlike Odysseus, Juvenal’s nostalgia or nostos cannot be realized, casting the tale of Odysseus’ storytelling earlier in the satire all the more ironic near the end of satire 15.

Rome’s increasing multiplicity Midway through satire 15, Juvenal revisits several issues of satire that have informed many of the earlier books. Concerns about and imagery of consumption, narrative authority, and religious intolerance all triangulate to facilitate a larger discussion about the effects of global circulation on human behavior at the fringe of empire. Indeed, we have observed how the satirist uses his familiar cultural experience as the paradigm for and basis of comparison with fringe groups. In tracing the multiplicity of behavior both at Rome’s core and its periphery, it becomes rather clear that examples of virtue and model behavior are absent at the heart, the very core that serves as the foundation for Juvenal’s writing satire. Perhaps areas beyond the environs of Rome might offer a positive rejoinder, or areas not subject to the imposition of behavior by the dominant ruling apparatus. However, we have observed that this is not so. Unruly behavior continues in the military council in satire 4 located in Alba Longa; irony heavily undercuts the discussion of a modest feast at the satirist’s country villa in Tivoli (satire 11); and the dangers at sea guarantee the loss of any fortune in satire 12. The further away from Rome the satirist’s gaze ventures, the more pervasive global flows become. Nowhere is this more apparent in the satire than when Juvenal employs a list of geographic place names that map the extent and movement of Rome’s global influence. Following the feast on human meat, Juvenal considers another context where set in the recent past a Spaniard people, the Vascones, also engaged in the act of cannibalism, but under the circumstances of intense siege (15.95–96). They, too, endure the effects of madness or delirium, but driven on by starvation (quicquid / cogebat acui ventris furor, “the delirium of sharp hunger compelled them,” 15.99–100) unlike the emotional hatred that the Ombi and Tentyrite share for each other. The contrast, then, in the source of madness (furor) appears to suggest a tone of sympathy for a fringe group that Juvenal does not typically express. The Vascones only resort to eating their own upon consuming all existing foodstuffs (post omnes herbas, post cuncta animalia, “after all plants and every animal,” 15.99) that are considered taboo among the Egyptian tribes in question. The pledge of sympathy, however, only serves a larger rhetorical purpose and should not be read as an exclusive endorsement of some moral superiority. Juvenal swiftly undercuts any such suggestion, since, one, he refers to the incident as a mere report (ut fama est, 15.93) in a manner reminiscent of Odysseus’ tale at the outset and, two, he distances the incident to a time in the recent past. The Vascones are excused for their inability to avoid

124  The periphery: Satire 15 human consumption because they were not educated by the religious belief system of Zeno, or under general Greco-Roman influence. Beyond the moral and religious implications of their behavior, it is useful to read the geographical significance of the Vascones in light of the author’s construction of the larger Roman space of territory. If the Ombi and Tentyrites represent a southern cardinal point from Rome, the Vascones do so the western. Following the mention of Spain in this oblique light, the satirist introduces fifteen ethnic and geographic markers in as many lines (15.110–125), the highest frequency of such markers in the entire satire.40 Furthermore, the majority of names represent areas on the fringe of Rome. And, so, Juvenal constructs both a mental and physical map that indicates the extent of Roman influence on the global community at large and in light of the satire’s concluding remark on the state of peace and tranquility in a world influenced by Greek and Roman values. The narrative thus far then builds up to a rhetorical question: if cannibalism represents the epitome of uncivilized behavior, and one that Greeks and Romans do not condone, then there could not be anything worse, could there? Such a rhetorical suggestion amounts to a signature move by the satirist, one whereby which he will pull the rug out from underneath his unsuspecting audience, or manipulate the paradigm so that Rome is the source and target of extreme behavior. To understand the full effect of undermining audience expectation, we need to consider some of the satirist’s remarks and observations near the satire’s conclusion. Here Juvenal demonstrates a world whose very existence is defined by its relationship to the ruling apparatus and further hastened by the flows of time– space compression. Within a philosophical discussion on the difference between animals and men (15.131–158), the satirist distinguishes man and animal by their ability to reason or not, the former possessing intellect (animum, 15.149) and the latter only the breath of life (animas, 15.149). Juvenal inverts the paradigm he has presented in the concluding lines of the satire to argue that wild animals, in fact, maintain more peace and civility than cannibals (15.159–164). Earlier in the satire, the satirist reinforces this sentiment about the superiority of animals over humans when he makes a peculiar statement about Rome’s geographic sphere of influence: nunc totus Graias nostrasque habet orbis Athenas, Gallia causidicos docuit facunda Britannos, de conducendo loquitur iam rhetore Thyle.

110

Now the entire world has its Greek culture and our Athens; eloquent Gaul has taught British lawyers, and even Thule talks of hiring a rhetor. (15.110–112) Due to Rome’s territorial domination the whole world now shares its Greco-Roman culture (15.110–112). The statement is also strongly ironic as it also illustrates the process of domination, the spread of its own and Greek culture to its conquered subjects. Other areas subject to Roman encroachment and influence include those mentioned through line 125: Egypt (15.116), Taurus (15.116), the Cimbri (15.124),

The periphery: Satire 15  125 the Bistones (15.124), the Sauromatae (15.125), et al. In Chapter 2, I discuss this passage in the context of network activity and global flows, namely in its illumination of cultural differentiation, with its demonstration of interconnectivity and also the threat of multi-directional, or “boomerang” flows.41 However, whereas the rest of the world (Gaul, Black Sea region, Britain, and Thule) has been subject to the globalizing effects of Roman domination, it appears that the warring Egyptian tribes either are immune to or on the brink of appropriating Roman influence. Whatever the case may be, Rome’s potential globalizing effect on Egypt continues to fuel the satirist’s fear of a deterritorializing empire, especially an anxiety about the potential effects of behavior that do not conform to the satirist’s cultural paradigm where other subject nations have demonstrated some signs of appropriating Roman institutions. Another implication is that if and when Rome expands beyond Egypt, the non-assimilated Ombi and Tentyrites are liable to spread and infect others with their practice of cannibalism. The dangerous consequences are even beyond the satirist’s exercise of satire. As observed earlier in the satire, Juvenal’s caustic bite of the earlier books is considerably refashioned in satire 15. Even the satirist appears to be at a loss and unable to fashion a suitable punishment to match the offense since the Egyptians conflate anger (ira) and hunger (fames), two features that the satirist tries hard to keep distinct.42 Nec poenam sceleri invenies nec digna parabis supplicia his populis, in quorum mente pares sunt et similes ira atque fames.

130

Neither will you find retribution for their wicked deed nor prepare punishments worthy of these people, in whose mind both anger and hunger are equal and the same. (15.129–131) The vocabulary also revisits major programmatic issues and aims: poena, supplicium, and ira. They represent trademark characteristics that not only define the satirist, but also his caustic arsenal when directing criticism at patrons, foreigners, and abusive emperors. However, in the context of the Ombi and Tentyrites—who at this juncture of the narrative are now generalized into any ordinary despicable Egyptian—the punishment for their behavior is ineffective. The Egyptians blur the distinction between anger and hunger to such an extent that the satirist’s critical bite is compromised. Furthermore, the reprise of these satiric features revisits Juvenal’s target, boundary violation. Where earlier in the collection the satirist is able to exercise his fury on violators—patrons, emperors, fish, et al.—here the satirist explicitly claims an inability to do so (Nec poenam sceleri invenies nec digna parabis / supplicia, 15.129–130). If the Egyptians exercise behavior that is more extreme than other fringe groups (Sauromatae, Cimbri, Bistones, etc.) and are impervious to Rome’s so-called civilizing effects accelerated by global flows of time–space compression, what then is the outcome? Cannibalism on the fringe threatens the core of the Roman

126  The periphery: Satire 15 space of empire. Extreme behavior will circulate from the periphery to the core, exposing Rome to behavior that may overwhelm a space that is already inundated with vice. This likelihood is not unlike the reality of moral decay’s circulation from the core to its periphery, the movement of which we have observed in the outward traffic of an Armenian youth brought to Rome as a hostage then sent back to the empire’s fringe newly packaged with Rome’s sexual depravity (2.162–170). The movement and source of moral depravity by satire 15 becomes so indiscriminate and pervasive that Roman attempts to civilize not only the Ombi and Tentyrites, but also the rest of the world at large, have failed, even at the core.43 The disregard for Roman customs is not limited to the Egyptians. Another fringe group, the Jews, are targeted in satire 14.96–106. The Jews have managed to maintain their religious and dietary practices despite their residence, for one example, in the Egerian grove, at the heart of Rome.44 Juvenal suggests that Jewish wealth drives out the grove’s inhabitants and displaces one form of traditional Roman religion, the Latin Muses, or the Camenae (3.16).45 The Ombi and Tentyrites also resist assimilation and, therefore, threaten to maintain their custom of cannibalism that, along the same lines of Jews displacing Roman religion, may also at some point pervert the Roman custom of proper dining. The excessive behavior of these Egyptians, however, is only one threat to Rome. The other still remains: the outcome of the gluttonous patron whose excessive behavior at Rome also threatens to compound the threats of indiscriminate flows throughout the empire. The Egyptian perversion of dining in satire 15 also parallels the patron’s excessive behavior. The source of vice is indiscriminate—they are found both at the center and the periphery of the empire. If the spread of vice is as indiscriminate as the satirist portrays with the examples of the patron and the transportation of luxury to Rome, then the standard modes of proper behavior are further challenged. Juvenal implies that his readers must therefore look to the examples of animals pursuing peace and harmony (15.159ff.) rather than to humans, Romans and cannibals alike. Herein lies the satire’s punch line. Civilization and its trappings are exposed as a mere façade, like the very trappings of the Armenian ephebe of satire 2 who, in a reverse “boomerang” direction, delivers Rome’s sexually perverse manners back to Armenia’s native capital on the fringe of empire. Another consequence of this network activity and subsequent decentering of Rome, I suggest, is the danger that arises when, at some point, the patron’s—and, by extension, Rome’s—consumption in geographic terms from Rome intersects with Egyptian ingestion of humans. Another variant consequence of globalization might be that Rome’s appetite for territorial triumph is just one step removed from cannibalism after all natural resources have been exhausted by the patron’s insatiable appetite. There is the danger that as the patron’s range of consumption reaches Egypt, Rome will attract and assimilate the habit of human consumption, as it has all other kinds of vice. The portrait may conclude in the most perverse conglomeration of disparate, but equally perverse, elements of consumption—Rome would simply eat itself, its institutions and empire alike, out of existence. In this way, Juvenal effects the inversion of man and animals, and includes Rome in the

The periphery: Satire 15  127 category of cannibals in satire 15. While this suggests that distinct boundaries of identification between the Roman and Egyptian blur, this is just one psychological response to the various ways in which Rome’s dominant authority may be diffused. In satire 15, Juvenal demonstrates two forms of consumption that mirror behavior at the core and periphery: Rome’s excessive appetite for natural and cultural resources and the Ombi and Tentyrite habit for human consumption. Both indicate the pervasive influence of network flows that, on the one hand, suggest a fear of homogenization, but on the other, a fear of growing multiplicity of distinct singular differences that complicate the satirist’s satiric program invested in the identification and isolation of the various flows of goods, ideas, and people circulating in the empire. The combination of the feast’s perversion, the questionable reliability of the satirist’s tale, via the comparison with Odysseus, and the final switch between man and animal effect the satirist’s upside down canvas of Rome. On another substantial level, this larger scenario allows Juvenal to reassess his role as satirist in satire 15’s recall of vocabulary surrounding anger and the force of satire. In the process, the audience discovers a level of emotional detachment by Juvenal from his subjects unlike those he rants against in the first book of satires. However, the sentiment about Rome’s failure abroad is just as strong, but seemingly out of reach and control of the author’s attempts to correct and effectively battle. The narrative suggests that Rome’s appetite for territorial expansion and natural resources runs the risk of appropriating equally excessive habits of consumption that increase the empire’s chaotic state. Perhaps taken a step further, once Rome and Egypt’s cannibals have consumed all and everyone, empire, as Juvenal conceives of it, will take one or several unexpected turns that promise to continue deterritorializing Rome and diffusing its authority as rooted in one geographic place. In the final and incomplete satire 16, Juvenal offers one last example that epitomizes the deleterious effects of indiscriminate circulation, that of the Roman soldier. The satirist ironically recounts the advantages of being a Roman soldier, which includes the arbitrary use of assault and battery against unsuspecting individuals and the favor of a corrupt judicial system for personal gain. The soldier in essence functions as the facilitator of Roman territorial aspiration in his desire for profit at the cost of abusing his fellow citizen and the military bureaucracy. What was once the bastion of Roman virtue and simplicity has now become as corrupt as those foreign and fringe groups that Juvenal lashes out against at the start of his collection. The collection comes to an ironic and satiric close in the representation of the unscrupulous Imperial era soldier who now embraces the very decay that Juvenal opens up the collection with and as the Republican era warrior Lucilius who strives to battle the vice that infects Rome.

Notes 1 For general studies on satire 15 see Highet 1972, Fredericks 1976, Singleton 1983, McCabe 1986, McKim 1986, Green 1989, Rives 1995, Tennant 1995, Braund and Gilbert 2003, Shumate 2006: 129–158, Vincent 2011, Ehrhardt 2014, Keane 2015: 192–205, and Uden 2015: 203–217.

128  The periphery: Satire 15 2 Hardt and Negri 2000: 17–18. 3 Ritzer and Dean 2015: 105. To put this argument another way, modern sovereignty can be traced to a place, but in its postmodern form as Empire sovereignty exists in a non-place. Sovereignty exists in a non-place because there is no center, it is deterritorialized, it is virtual in the form of communication (especially through the media) and, as a result, the spectacle and the reality of Empire is everywhere; it is omnipresent. (105) On deterritorialization in twentieth and twenty-first century global contexts, see also Tomlinson 1999 and 2005. 4 Ritzer and Dean 2015: 105. 5 Weaver-Hightower 2007 views the castaway narratives of Robinson Crusoe (1719) to American TV series Gilligan’s Island and the film The Beach (2000), et al., as expressive of historically dominant British and American powers’ “fears [of] losing its hegemony through its own global capitalistic excesses” (214; italics in text). Her study explores the trajectory of European and American castaway narratives to illuminate how those narratives act as a form of imperial aggression that “enabled the expansion and maintenance of European empire” (ix). See especially pages 91–127 for the discussion of how cannibalism narratives in European and American thought articulate both a general fear and fantasy of castaway colonist of incorporation by cannibals. 6 For a discussion of anger in satire 15, see most recently Keane 2015: 197–205. 7 Plaza 2006 mentions the metaphorical implications of satire “devouring itself ” but does not explore this idea of consumption as a way of reading Rome as empire. 8 Boundary transgression and muddling of distinctions in Juvenal is well discussed. See Miller 2005, Keane 2006, Umurhan 2008: 78–86, Raschke 2009, Uden 2015: 203–217, and Larmour 2016; see also Chapter 3 in this monograph, note 12. In addition to Keane (2015) and Uden (2015), Heather Vincent (2011) and Kristen Ehrhardt (2014) have also offered fresh strategies to reading satire 15, with a particular focus on humor and allusion. Vincent 2011 argues how the motif of “truth” and storytelling (concerning Odysseus) enable humor in satire 15. Ehrhardt 2014 concentrates mainly on the implications of being a storyteller and its intertextual relationship to Ovid. 9 For discussion of the rhizome see Deleuze and Guattari 1972 and 1980. 10 Hardt and Negri 2004: xvi. 11  For more on the image of the rhizome as it pertains to reading the satirist, see Chapter 6. 12 I examine the issue of poetic authority, specifically, the satirist’s various personae, or projections, in greater depth in Umurhan 2011, with the more recent development of satirist as rhizome discussed in Chapter 6 of this monograph. 13 Keane 2015: 192–205 offers a welcome treatment of Juvenal’s ira in satire 15, with particular focus on its resonance among other passions in the poem. In other words, she recommends ira not be read as the satirist’s predominant target of attack: In sum, it is the satirist who weaves ira into this story about religion and cannibalism. Yet anger itself is not the target. It is specifically anger that blurs into cannibalism that is so offensive; Juvenal’s climactic conclusion is this: ‘in the minds of [the offending villagers], anger and hunger are equal and alike’ (in quorum mente pares sunt / et similes ira atque fames, 130–31). (197) 14 Satire 1 opens with a series of rhetorical questions that articulates and sets the tone for the speaker’s indignatio (1.1–6). Elsewhere in satire 1 the use of quis and quid conveys the same sense of frustration (1.30, 45, 48, 52, 94, 119, 139, 156, 158).

The periphery: Satire 15  129 15 See Zanker 1988: 101–166, “The Augustan Program of Renewal” for a detailed discussion of the full complex and its symbolic program. 16 Bhabha 1984: 126. Italics emphasized in text. 17 Frontonis platani convulsaque marmora clamant / semper et assiduo ruptae lectore columnae (“Fronto’s plane-trees, statues and columns always wail / battered and shattered by incessant readings.” 1.12–13). 18 Gellerfi 2012 examines how Juvenal’s portrayal of statues serves to represent moral decadence in the Satires. Memnon’s statue, however, does not figure in his investigation. On the destruction of statues as a symbol for decay see also Larmour 2016: 231–294. 19 And, outside of satire 14, not since the third book. Satura is entirely absent from Book 4 (satires 10–13). Other occurrences: 1.30 (saturam), 3.321 (saturam), 4.106 (saturam), 6.634 (satura), 7.62 (satur), 8.118 (saturant), 14.166 (saturabat). 20 For one way of reading Juvenal’s construction of these effects, see Plaza 2006: 105–166 in the section entitled “Object-oriented humor.” 21 Details of which are explained in Chapter 3. 22 See also Hughes 2014 for an influential study highlighting how the Greek and Roman mental constructions of nature—i.e. deforestation, overgrazing, wildlife depletion, industrial technology, et al.—helped determine their relationship with the natural environment. 23 Horace, of course, retains a position along this trajectory of extant and canonical Roman satirists. There is a change in tone between Books 1 and 2 of his Sermones that suggests a less overt criticism of key political players of the contemporary scene, including Augustus. 24 Hardt and Negri 2004: xvi. 25 Gowers 1993 and Plaza 2006. 26 Plaza 2006: 338–341. 27 See Giddens 1990, Harvey 1990, and Kivisto 2012. See also my discussion in Chapter 1. 28 For other occurrences of bilis see 5.159, 6.443, 11.187, 13.143. 29 For other occurrences of risus, see 6.71, 6.212, 10.35, 10.47, 13.35, 13.172. 30 Ehrhardt 2014 reads this passage, as well as satire 15 as a whole, as an example of “narrative deceit in the guise of literary cannibalism” (482) that draws on an allusive reading with Ovid’s Metamorphoses. See also Ferguson 1979 and Courtney 1980. 31 Umurhan 2011 discusses in detail Juvenal’s tactic of self-effacement in satire 6. Here, as in satire 15, the satirist obliquely calls attention to himself to encourage the reader to evaluate his role as satirist along the same parameters as he targets others. 32 The satirist’s knowledge of exact distances and places is inexact, but he should not be held to such a strict standard. Actual geography indicates that while travelling south along the Nile, one encounters Tentyra, Coptus, then the region of the Ombi, the Ombi located the most distant and furthest south from the other two locations. On the geography, see Talbert 2000: 80. Like modern scholarly debates surrounding Herodotus, Juvenal’s use of distant geography and place names is more likely informed by the fantastic and exotic flavor it affords rather than an actual firsthand experience of the region. 33 The self-referential nod resonates strongly with 1.83–87 where Juvenal frames the subject matter of his little book (libelli, 1.86) with the same extensive and sweeping timeframe, i.e. Pyrrha, “from the dawn of man.” The satirist describes the extensiveness of his book in terms of time, whereas in satire 15, in terms of Rome’s space. Therefore, by satire 15, both time and space converge in a way that heightens the effect of Rome’s pervasive influence on its world. 34 On persona theory and its application to reading Roman satire, as well as general strategies for reading Juvenal, see Highet 1954, Anderson 1982, Larmour 1991, Winkler 1983, Miller 1994, Braund 1988, Wehrle 1992, Braund 1996a and 1996b, Freudenburg 2001, Iddeng 2000, Schmitz 2000, Mayer 2003, Iddeng 2005, Hooley 2007, Jones 2007, Keane 2010, and Ferriss-Hill 2015.

130  The periphery: Satire 15 35 The spatial pervasiveness of Rome’s influence is not limited to a discussion of tragedy alone. Elsewhere the corruption of Rome’s core by its fringe is mapped in similar terms. See satire 13.157–173. 36 Freudenburg 2001: 209–215 argues for Juvenal’s decision to place more focus on the previous generation of individuals such as Domitian. Since others of the emperor’s generation were not afforded the opportunity to excoriate him, Juvenal now wishes to do so and fill the void. 37 Anger in Juvenal equates to a failure of self-containment, the overflow of emotion, or response without restraint. Scholarly treatments on the passions in Juvenal are vast. See Keane 2015 for a most recent and up-to-date treatment. 38 On the discourse of fragmentation, see Uden 2015 who states that the Egyptians “epitomize fragmentation and fracture at every level” (210). 39 The language of fragmentation is not unique to this passage. Later in the narrative Juvenal discusses the effects of hunger brought on by starvation from a military siege. Those under siege are driven to shred their human victims into pieces (lacerabant, 15.102). 40 Graias (15.110), Athenas (15.110), Gallia (15.111), Britannos (15.111), Thyle (15.112), Zacynthos (15.114), Maeotide (15.115), Aegyptos (15.116), Taurica (15.116), Memphitide (15.122), Nilo (15.123), Cimbri (15.124), Bistones (15.124), Sauromatae (15.125), Agathyrsi (15.125). 41 See my discussion in Chapter 1. 42 See Keane 2015: 197, quoted above in note 13. 43 Montaigne’s essay “On Cannibals” offers a useful parallel to Juvenal’s criticism of Roman barbarity, but in the form of the “civilized” contemporary Frenchmen. 44 See satire 3.13–14 on Jewish customs that are antithetical to Roman habits. 45 Braund 1996a: 176.

References Anderson, W. S. (1982) Essays on Roman Satire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bhabha, Homi. (1984) “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse.” October 28: 125–133. Braund, Susanna. (1988) Beyond Anger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Braund, Susanna. (1996a) Juvenal: Satires, Book 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Braund, Susanna, M. (1996b) The Roman Satirists and Their Masks. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. Braund, Susanna and Giles Gilbert. (2003) “An ABC of Epic Ira: Anger, Beasts, and Cannibalism.” In Susanna Braund and Glenn W. Most, eds. Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to Galen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 250–287. Courtney, Edward. (1980) A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal. London: The Athlone Press. Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. (1972) Capitalisme et Schizophrénie. L’anti-Œdipe. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. (1980) Mille Plateaux. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. Ehrhardt, Kristen. (2014) “Cannibalizing Ovid: Allusion, Storytelling and Deception in Juvenal 15.” Classical Journal 109: 481–499. Ferguson, John. (1987) A Prosopography to the Poems of Juvenal. Brussels: Latomus. Ferriss-Hill, Jennifer L. (2015) Roman Satire and the Old Comic Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The periphery: Satire 15  131 Fredericks, S. C. (1976) “Juvenal’s Fifteenth Satire.” Illinois Classical Studies 1: 174–189. Freudenburg, Kirk. (2001) Satires of Rome: Threatening Poses from Lucilius to Juvenal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gellerfi, Gergo. (2012) “The Use of Statues to Represent Moral Decay in Juvenal’s Satires.” Acta Classica Universitatis Scientaiarum Debreceniensis 48: 117–124. Giddens, Anthony. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Gowers, Emily. (1993) The Loaded Table. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Green, Peter. (1989) “Juvenal Revisited.” Classical Bearings: Interpreting Ancient History and Culture. New York: Thames & Hudson. 240–255. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. (2000) Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. (2004) Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. New York: The Penguin Press. Harvey, David. (1990) The Condition of Post-Modernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell. Highet, Gilbert. (1954) Juvenal the Satirist, A Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Highet, Gilbert. (1972) “Masks and Faces in Satire.” Hermes 102: 321–327. Hooley, D. M. (2007) Roman Satire. Oxford: Blackwell. Hughes, J. Donald. (2014) Environmental Problems of the Greeks and Romans: Ecology in the Ancient Mediterranean. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Iddeng, Jon W. (2000) “Juvenal, Satire and the Persona Theory: Some Critical Remarks.” Symbolae Osloensis 75: 107–129. Iddeng, Jon W. (2005) “How Shall We Comprehend the Roman I-Poet? A Reassessment of the Persona-Theory.” Classica et Mediaevalia 56: 185–205. Jones, F. M. A. (2007) Juvenal and the Satiric Genre. London: Duckworth. Keane, Catherine. (2006) Figuring Genre in Roman Satire (American Classical Studies Series Vol. 5). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Keane, Catherine. (2010) “Persona and Satiric Career in Juvenal.” In P. Hardie and H. Moore, eds. Classical Literary Careers and Their Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 105–117. Keane, Catherine. (2015) Juvenal and the Satiric Emotions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kivisto, Peter. (2012) “Time–space Compression.” In George Ritzer, ed. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Larmour, David. (1991) “Juvenal, Ideology and the Critics: A Plan for Resisting Readers.” Pacific Coast Philology 26: 41–50. Larmour, David. (2016) The Arena of Satire: Juvenal’s Search for Rome. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Mayer, Roland. (2003) “Persona Problems.” Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 50: 55–80. McCabe, Kevin. (1986) “Was Juvenal a Structuralist? A Look at Anachronisms in Literary Criticism.” Greece and Rome 33: 78–84. McKim, Richard. (1986) “Philosophers and Cannibals: Juvenal’s Fifteenth Satire.” Phoenix 40: 58–71. Miller, Paul Allen. (1994) Lyric Texts and Lyric Consciousness. London: Routledge. Miller, Paul Allen. (2005) Latin Verse Satire: An Anthology and Reader. London: Routledge. Plaza, Maria. (2006) The Function of Humour in Roman Verse Satire: Laughing and Lying. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

132  The periphery: Satire 15 Raschke, Wendy J. (2009) “Imperium sine fine: Boundaries in Juvenal.” In Fritz Felgentreu, Felix Mundt and Nils Rücker, eds. Per attentam Caesaris aurem: Satire—die unpolitische Gattung? Tübingen: G. Narr. 131–147. Ritzer, George and Paul Dean. (2015). Globalization: A Basic Text. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons. Rives, James B. (1995) “Human Sacrifice Among Pagans and Christians.” Journal of Roman Studies 85: 65–85. Schmitz, C. (2000) Das Satirische in Juvenals Satiren. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Shumate, N. (2006) Nation, Empire, Decline: Studies in Rhetorical Continuity from the Romans to the Modern Era. London: Gerald Duckworth and Co. Singleton, D. (1983) “Juvenal’s Fifteenth Satire: A Reading.” Greece & Rome 30: 198–207. Talbert, Richard J. A. (2000) Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Tennant, P. M. W. (1995) “Biting Off More Than One Can Chew: A Recent Trend in the Interpretation of Juvenal’s 15th Satire.” Akroterion 40: 120–134. Tomlinson, John. (1999) Globalization and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tomlinson, John. (2005) “Globalization and Cultural Identity.” In David Held and Anthony McGrew, eds. The Global Transformations Reader. Cambridge: Polity Press. 269–277. Uden, James. (2015) The Invisible Satirist: Juvenal and Second-century Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Umurhan, Osman. (2008) Spatial Representation in Juvenal’s “Satires”: Rome and the Satirist. Ph.D. thesis, Classics: New York University. Umurhan, Osman. (2011) “Poetic Projection in Juvenal’s Satires.” Arethusa 44: 221–243. Vincent, Heather. (2011) “Narrative Strategy and Humor in Juvenal Satire 15.” New England Classical Journal 38.4: 239–266. Weaver-Hightower, Rebecca. (2007) Empire Islands: Castaways, Cannibals, and Fantasies of Conquest. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Wehrle, William Thomas. (1992) The Satiric Voice: Program, Form and Meaning in Persius and Juvenal. New York: Olms-Weidmann. Winkler, Martin. (1983) The Persona in Three Satires of Juvenal. Hildesheim: Olms. Zanker, Paul. (1988) The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

5 Globalization and the army’s circulation of empire Satire 16

Florus (74–130 ce) begins his Epitome, an historical discourse that details the history of Rome based on Livy, from the time of its founder, Romulus, to its zenith under Augustus in 29 bce when the princeps shuts the doors of Janus (Epitome 2.64) to signal a worldwide peace under Roman rule. Furthermore, and rather poignantly, the historian’s opening statement suggests how entrenched notions of political sovereignty and territory have become in Roman literary thought at the turn of the second century ce: [1] Populus Romanus a rege Romulo in Caesarem Augustum septingentos per annos tantum operum pace belloque gessit, ut, si quis magnitudinem imperii cum annis conferat, aetatem ultra putet. [2] Ita late per orbem terrarum arma circumtulit, ut qui res illius egunt non unius populi, sed generis humani facta condiscant. [1] The Roman people, from King Romulus to Caesar Augustus, for seven hundred years, accomplished so much in war and peace that if anyone should compare the magnitude of its empire with its years, he would consider its size beyond its age. [2] So far and wide has the military circulated throughout the world, that those who read about its [Rome’s] affairs learn not about the achievements of a single people, but of the human race. (Florus, Preface 1–2)1 Rome’s size (magnitudo) is such that it has become synonymous with the larger physical world (orbis terrarum) as we also observed in Juvenal’s formulation of Domitian’s handling of Rome in satire 4.2 However, to take the correspondence between physical space and Rome further, it is significant that Florus opens his history in a similar vein, but one that also figures the military (arma) as part of this equation of the space of empire. According to his formulation, it is not an explicit individual or political entity that achieves this feat, but the populus Romanus that introduces the historical account. In the next sentence, however, some ambiguity arises: who, or what, exactly circulates (or, surrounds) throughout the entire world (per orbem terrarum arma circumtulit)? In this instance both arma (the military) and populus Romanus may act as subjects, but the immediate placement of arma beside its verb encourages an amphibolous reading, and one that serves

134  The army’s circulation: Satire 16 to highlight how the Roman army, qua its population, functions as guardian and facilitator of Rome’s growth into an empire. Another historian, Appian, in his Proemium, too, discloses a similar sentiment as he takes initial stock of Rome’s legacy through the second century ce. The empire of Rome no longer constitutes the localized space of its urbs, but the greater orbs that it has acquired: τήν τε ἀρχὴν ἐν κύκλῳ περικάθηνται μεγάλοις στρατοπέδοις καὶ φυλάσσουσι τὴν τοσήνδε γῆν καὶ θάλασσαν ὥσπερ χωρίον. They [the Romans] both encircle their empire with great armies and look over that very land and sea as if their own estate. (Pr. 28) Appian also configures Rome’s empire (τήν . . . ἀρχὴν) in terms of space and its guardians (φυλάσσουσι), the army (στρατοπέδοις). The Roman army, in fact, encircles its larger expanse of empire by means of its great armies (ἐν κύκλῳ περικάθηνται μεγάλοις στρατοπέδοις) to emphasize how the army itself is the very means by which the empire is surrounded.3 The soldiers, therefore, who constitute these armies on the empire’s fringe, act as its boundary as well. It is from these edges the stationed armies patrol and maintain the empire’s territorial integrity and safety. It is perhaps no surprise, then, that Rome’s growth was not only achieved by the efforts of the army over several centuries, but also that the army would become synonymous with its maintenance and longevity as well. Ultimately, the power invested in or acquired by the army had proven the ability to tip the political scales at Rome for better or worse. Where Florus, Appian, and others equate the empire with the army and mark this union as felicitous, Juvenal views such an association as more problematic. In satire 15 (as discussed in Chapter 4), we observed how the globalizing process has failed at the fringes of Rome’s territorial presence in Egypt. Men consume men. Animals are more worthy of worship than the pantheon of Roman gods. However, those very objects of the satirist’s derision also signify the complications that accompany Rome’s project of empire. The reach of empire has enabled the “Romanizing” of the entire world in its dispensation of Greek culture to the world (orbis) only to fall short in Egypt, where cannibalism abounds. Animals, instead, bereft of the so-called advantages of what Rome brings, now shine as exempla for true civilized behavior in their ability to do the opposite of behavior practiced under Roman influence, that is, to foster and not attack one’s own species. In this chapter I continue to explore another feature of the effects of globalization by way of the Roman army and its main agent, the soldier.4 The Roman army, moreover, represents one of the greatest facilitators of Rome’s project of empire and represents the strongest presence of Rome on the global scale, which includes most areas under Roman control in the early second century ce. We have observed how Juvenal frequently frames his discourse on institutional inequities in terms of their practice at the core (Rome) and the areas outside Rome, and, ultimately, how

The army’s circulation: Satire 16  135 this behavior at Rome has implications on areas outside Rome, and vice versa. As the author toggles between the core and its peripheries, the reader becomes more aware of the network of interaction such circulation of behavior enables. One case in point is the Roman army and its fundamental components, namely the soldier and his relationship with Roman law that is generally privileged over other classes of Roman citizen. The soldier not only illuminates the broader implications behind the effects of globalization, but also deepens our understanding of the literary voice of the author. It is perhaps not so unusual that a soldier also features at the start of Juvenal’s collection (see Chapter 1). The soldier we face there is the satirist in the guise of the Republican satirist, Lucilius. Among other targets, he seeks to combat depravity at Rome in an aggressive and militaristic stance that recalls more favorable and the bygone times of freedom of expression. Yet, in Juvenal the soldier is a complicated figure that places his positive qualities as nationalist symbol of authority and Roman dominance at continual odds with his seeming legal imperviousness to litigation within the very system his charge requires to maintain. In many satires the satirist is subject to scrutiny by the author for excessive behavior and violent tendencies. By the end of Juvenal’s collection, then, the reader is faced with opposing portraits of the soldier, qua satirist, and as Roman official who stands above the law. I attempt to reconcile this seeming contradiction with a reassessment of satire 16, the final incomplete satire, in light of the representations of the Roman army and soldier before and leading up to it. Satire 16, then, however incomplete, still offers much closure on the topic of empire, globalization, and the author’s authorial voice that informs so much of the collection.

Back where we began? Juvenal’s collection ends with satire 16, which examines the so-called advantages of army life at Rome. Sixty lines in, however, the satire abruptly ends and so does the full collection of Satires. Yet, beyond the frustration of this premature conclusion, which was due most likely to some apparent manuscript mutilation, it is still worthwhile to consider why the satirist, in these extant lines, might have chosen to end his Satires with a discussion of Roman military service, especially against Juvenal’s cynical portrayal of a city that has gone bad in his day.5 A discussion of the Roman military is a fruitful topic for the satirist not only because it resonates with the satirist’s exclusive claims to writing satire at the outset of his work, but also because the Roman military establishment informs, if not problematizes, the satirist’s self-posturing as a warrior. Yet, it is this very military establishment that has seemingly expedited Rome’s state of moral depravity and brought the image of the warrior that began the collection to its conclusion in satire 16. In this manner, the army operates as thematic bookends to the collection and more broadly, with regard to the space of its territory during the second century ad. The soldier, in essence, may be credited with both the rise of Rome and its eventual demise as one of the prime facilitators of globalization throughout the empire.

136  The army’s circulation: Satire 16 Furthermore, the programmatic themes and symbols of satire 1 never fade from the author’s purview in the Satires, and so the content of satire 16 acquires deeper resonance when read against some trademark Juvenalian markers introduced in satire 1 and explored throughout the collection. These correspondences include a sense of heightened emotion (never too far from anger), rhetorical flourishes, and a general displeasure with the some inequity, either to his person or on behalf of other disenfranchised individuals. So, with renewed vigor not unlike the opening to satire 15 and satire 1 explored earlier, Juvenal begins his discussion of the army with a series of rhetorical statements that remind the audience the author has maintained his programmatic promises and rhetorical flair: Quis numerare queat felicis praemia, Galli,6 militiae? nam si subeuntur prospera castra7 * * * me pavidum excipiat tironem porta secundo sidere. plus etenim fati valet hora benigni quam si nos Veneris commendet epistula Marti et Samia genetrix quae delectatur harena.

2a 5

Gallius, who can enumerate the advantages of a favorable career in the army? If military service is profitable, I hope the camp gates *** welcome me, though a terrified recruit, under an auspicious star. Indeed an hour of good fortune offers more benefit than a letter of Venus that recommends us to Mars 5 or his mother Juno, who delights in the shore of Samos. (16.1–6) The opening six lines offer a road map for the topic at hand not unlike previous satires. At the outset, these lines exhibit the same use of ascending cola introduced by the three-word phrase quis numerare queat that are reminiscent of Juvenal’s opening statements in satire 1 that in that context cast him as a disenfranchised citizen-poet-author at odds with his literary competition.8 The rhetorical questions that open satire 1 punctuate the author’s frustration by their increasing length, anaphora, and crescendo, as the oral delivery of these lines by public recitation would only heighten their effect. In likewise manner, in the opening verses of satire 16, each colon corresponds to some aspect or another of Juvenal’s rhetorical style. For example, quis and other interrogative pronouns (quid, quae) are frequently employed to introduce the topic at hand;9 second, queat evokes the satirist’s language of ability and endurance expressed elsewhere, such as in the verbs patior, possum, fero, and the like;10 and, third, numerare, essentially meaning “to catalogue,” is an explicit reflection of the multitude of examples Juvenal offers in his collection for Rome’s ethical decay. Therefore, satire 16 conveys strong correspondences in presentation, language,

The army’s circulation: Satire 16  137 and style to satire 1 that also carry through its remaining extant lines. In this manner, as well, the satire promises to fulfill the author’s aims to illustrate the multitude of Rome’s deficiencies with continued vigor. Given these initial stylistic strokes in verses 16.1–6, let’s now turn to the general topic of satire 16, the army. The so-called advantages11 of the army life may be divided into four distinct sections. Each outlines in detail specific incentives to serve, which include the ability to strike other citizens with impunity, to have your case heard by trial or the emperor before others, and the right to execute a will while the soldier’s father is still alive.12 Of course, such advantages are supposed to be read with a generous dose of irony and criticism as the satirist’s style often dictates. Careful attention to these qualities and their resonance with earlier books of satires has been noted, as well as a continuation of philosophical diatribe as a form of inquiry employed in satires 13 through 15.13 Another reason the army begs exploration in the context of globalization is its wide and diffuse distribution around the periphery of empire. It is also no coincidence that the location of the bulk of Rome’s legionary forces were located on the fringes of Roman territory to react quickly and effectively to border disputes and to maintain the empire’s limes. However, as we shall examine in this chapter, many legionary forces were not used for this purpose, but rather to direct forces from the periphery to its center at Rome to quell competing factions for imperial authority, beginning with Sulla’s march on Rome at the turn of the first century bce. Following the trauma of numerous civil wars, including the Year of the Four Emperors (68–69 ce), many legions would be disbanded, while others formed in their place or consolidated. Between 70 ce and 165 ce there were about thirty legions comprising about just under half a million men, including some semi-irregular units or numeri.14 By the mid second century ce, after Juvenal’s lifetime, the Danube and eastern provinces would experience a greater concentration of forces.15

History of violence: The military Among the numerous elements that constitute the author’s narrative farrago, one features prominently in verses 16.7–34, namely the fear and violence that accompanies the military profession.16 This violence, moreover, is explored in the context of the extra-urban arena of the military camp where the rights of a Roman citizen could become less defined and those of the soldier privileged under imperial protection and above provincial law.17 Fears of beating by soldiers on Rome’s streets are just as prevalent in areas where the Roman army is stationed outside Rome: Commoda tractemus primum communia, quorum haud minimum illud erit, ne te pulsare togatus audeat—immo, etsi pulsetur, dissimulet nec audeat excussos praetori ostendere dentes et nigram in facie tumidis livoribus offam atque oculum medico nil promittente relictum.

10

138  The army’s circulation: Satire 16 Let’s first consider the advantages all soldiers share, of which not the least is that no citizen would dare strike you— in fact, if he were struck, he would pretend it did not happen and not dare reveal his broken teeth to the praetor and the bruise on his face swollen with black and blue spots and the remaining eye that no doctor promises to save. (16.7–12) This correlation between the army and violence is not new.18 The semantic field for physical violence is rather extensive, but in a brief sketch of comedy and some literary contemporaries of Juvenal I demonstrate the range of which army violence both informs and pervades ideas of conquest and subjugation associated with empire. Ultimately, the justification for violence upon another person is perceived in terms of one’s social status.19 The exercise of violence in the domestic arena of the household to venues abroad demonstrates the pervasiveness of social realities on the local and global scale. Juvenal’s claim to violence above is portrayed as endemic at Rome and abroad both in a strict military and other contexts.20 A significant marker for aggression is the verb pulso: to strike or beat another.21 In the above passage the soldier acquires—and by prime position in the author’s catalogue—the chief benefit of striking citizens without too much fear of reprisal (ne te pulsare togatus / audeat— immo, etsi pulsetur, 16.8–9). Moreover, there is the suggestion that the soldier maintains legal immunity if indeed he decides to strike a citizen (nec / audeat excussos praetori ostendere dentes, 16.9–10), a point which will be discussed further (see p. 141 ff.). The repetition of audeat implies that such behavior is a faux pas and one that marks a decisive threshold of acceptable behavior not unlike Juvenal’s larger exploration of deviant behavior elsewhere.22 Violence is, in fact, one of the initial platforms upon which the narrator of the collection promises revenge for endless recitation, signaled by numquam reponam vexatus (“although battered, am I never to repay”; 1.1–2)23 and by the repetition of impune (“without punishment”; 1.3, 4).24 Later in the same satire the satirist likens gamblers in Rome to armed military servicemen about to engage in pitched battles.25 It is not, however, until satire 3 that the reader is first introduced to an encounter between a soldier and a citizen and the exercise of force. In satire 3 Juvenal explores the multitude of dangers that haunt the passer by at night in the streets of Rome (3.268–301). The dangers outlined in this minicatalogue feature physical dangers to one’s body that include potsherds (at times filled with bodily fluids) flung from tenements that crash to the pavement below (3.269–277) to randomly bumping into an aggressive drunk (3.276–301) that culminates in the passerby’s beating, not unlike the behavior of the soldier in 16.7–12.26 Furthermore, the precedent for physical violence and the soldier is established earlier in the satire when a soldier tramples on an unsuspecting individual’s foot with his hobnail boot (calcor, et in digito clavus mihi militis haeret, 3.248).27 Later, when the individual comes across the aggressive drunk (ebrius ac petulans, 3.278) he is determined to exact a penalty with the threat of

The army’s circulation: Satire 16  139 violence (dat poenas, 3.279). In the following narrative both the exchange and key words signal a situation not unlike the soldier of satire 16 and some other portraits of soldiers of the Imperial era, with all the perks of violence at the ready. In a brief aside, the satirist states that if there is a fight, where you might do the punching, only he (the narrator) is beaten (si rixa est, ubi tu pulsas, ego vapulo tantum, 289–290). The verb pulso appears once again, but suggests an outcome for the narrator that is reminiscent of Latin comedy, where instead of putting up a fight, he is simply beaten (vapulo).28 Ultimately, we observe at various junctures in the Satires a consistent pattern of presenting the satirist as a victim of violence. Once aligned with humor, the portrayal evokes the stereotype of the comic slave. Nowhere is physical and sexual violence more explicit than in the context of Roman comedy from the turn of the second century bce.29 There is also little doubt that the portrayal of violence performed by soldiers and mercenaries was informed by recent Roman conflict with the Carthaginians (Punic Wars, 264–146 bce) and Macedonians (214–148 bce) in a series of wars during this period. Roman comedy would subsequently serve to establish as a Roman literary topos and persona the aggressive soldier, who beginning with the comedies of Plautus and Terence would articulate the public’s fear, mockery, and negotiation of military violence synonymous with citizen soldiers and mercenaries. Furthermore, as in Juvenal’s portrayals, such depictions of violence are not exclusive to Rome itself, but feature in regions beyond the city in the Italian peninsula and even in the dramatic settings of Roman comedies. Physical and verbal abuse is prominent in Roman comedy, especially Plautus, where slavery and subordination seem to come hand in hand.30 But, where the military is involved, violence, too, plays a significant role with imminent threats by soldiers, like the miles gloriosus. Despite these soldiers cast as foreign (e.g., Stratophanes of Truculentus is Babylonian), their reputations as both greedy and violent precede them. Often the soldier exaggerates his accomplishments on the battlefield, but when returned home does not realize that the rules of engagement in war do not necessarily apply to the domestic front. It is not brawn alone, but cunning that must be used to acquire his love interest, hence the prevalence of the servus callidus character who often facilitates the soldier’s desire to obtain his love interest. Nevertheless, the threats continue. In the Curculio Therapontigonus threatens violence upon discovering that his money has been stolen. He uses his track record on the battlefield as evidence for how he will exercise violence upon those who have swindled him. Unless his girlfriend is returned to him, he threatens to catapult the pimp.31 As though suffering from post-traumatic distress disorder,32 many soldiers in Plautus’ plays suffer from the inability to transition from the experience of violence on the battlefield to life in a domestic setting. Consequently, the soldier often becomes the object of derision by other characters for his disconnect from the realities of domestic life and love at hand. It also perhaps no surprise that with the advent of comedy at Rome the intensity of Rome’s growth as a territorial body would also increase during the series of Punic Wars (264–146 bce) and, thereby, raise the general awareness and need for soldiers for the empire’s maintenance.

140  The army’s circulation: Satire 16 The literary representation of violence by soldiers continues through the period of the Empire in which Juvenal was writing. The episodes of soldiers’ aggression are just as rampant and, presumably, more geographically widespread throughout the space of empire that has enjoyed expansion since the time of Augustus. In Petronius’ Satyricon dating to the period of Nero’s rule (54–68 ce), the main hero, Encolpius, while in the Roman town of Puteoli, randomly bumps into a soldier while in search of his lover, Giton. The soldier, upon asking what legion and century he belongs to, orders Encolpius to hand over his sword unless he wishes to be beaten. Encolpius’ fear, moreover, betrays his fabricated tale about a solid connection to a particular legion or centurion.33 Though a freedman turned Roman citizen, Encolpius still suffers the indignity of having his sword (arma) stripped and must resume his quest for Giton ungirded. Nevertheless, the short encounter with the soldier inspires fear in Encolpius, who resumes his search with no intention of bumping into another soldier who may fulfill the promise of physical violence. Elsewhere, the philosopher Epictetus (ca. 55–ca. 135 ce) on his discourse on the body and the means by which to handle its material possessions suggests that one liken the capacity of the human body to a donkey that can endure the weight of luggage.34 Like Petronius’ account, the individual fears a soldier’s physical assault and so is advised not even to put up any resistance, unless both he and his donkey wish to receive a beating. Though fleeting, the reference not only to the soldier, but also his ability to exact physical punishment, is rather acute in its demonstration of the military institution’s pervasive influence even within a philosophical discourse on the nature of the body. Epictetus, too, was a near contemporary of Juvenal and so may have been drawing on like experience and accounts of the military at the turn of the second century ce. Where Petronius relates the threat of violence by a soldier in a town just outside Rome, Apuleius, too, offers an extensive account of provincial fears of military brutality and violence, but located in Macedonia and Achaea where much of his Metamorphoses takes place. Apuleius’ account may also well reflect the realities of provincial life and hardship from the middle of the second century ce. Book 9.39–42 offers us one of the fuller literary accounts of an encounter with a soldier that also reveals the legal advantage afforded to the soldier.35 Here, the main character, Lucius, once transformed into an ass falls in the service of a vegetable grower. The soldier requests use of the ass, to which the gardener does not reply due to his ignorance of the Latin language. The soldier, realizing this, repeats his request in Greek upon striking the gardener off the ass’s back, and then proceeds to wallop the fallen gardener repeatedly until he bleeds profusely despite his pleas to desist.36 During the course of the scuffle the tables are turned and the gardener manages to exact his revenge on the Roman soldier. The assaulted soldier confides in his fellow soldiers about this misfortune, and consults magistrates and lictors who assist in the eventual capture of the gardener and his ass, who have sought refuge in a friend’s house. As in other literary accounts, the soldier ultimately achieves the upper hand. Where literary accounts convey a mentality among soldiers that they were of a privileged class apart from ordinary citizens so, too, do various petitions and

The army’s circulation: Satire 16  141 correspondence that date approximately to Juvenal’s lifetime.37 Emperors, such as Trajan (98–117 ce), and governors, like Pliny the Younger, often fielded special requests and petitions from soldiers on various matters, from the promise of appointments to the request of citizenship for family members.38 In a correspondence between Pliny the Younger and a friend, Falco, the governor requests the bestowal of a military tribunate upon a good friend, Cornelius Minicianus.39 Examples of extortion are also offered by personal financial accounts from Egypt dating to the second century ce that suggest that citizens would often have to offer sizeable sums of money to demanding soldiers.40 Soldiers or centurions, instead of judges, might have also sat informally as judges, further suggesting an additional avenue by which the soldier could abuse authority over other citizen litigants.41 Ultimately, there was a general belief that a soldier’s privilege over ordinary citizens could result in the citizen’s abuse as well.

Juvenal’s soldiers and the circulation of violence Juvenal’s soldiers in 16.8–12 and 3.288–301 articulate a similar process described by Apuleius that substantiates the claim to the army’s pervasive and often threatening presence around the empire. In combination these vignettes convey a picture of soldiers whose exercise of violence upon unsuspecting individuals and citizens warrants special legal prosecution. The author suggests that our soldier in satire 16 enjoys legal immunity, even if he strikes an individual who is ostensibly his social equal (togatus, 16.8): . . . immo, etsi pulsetur, dissimulet nec audeat excussos praetori ostendere dentes et nigram in facie tumidis livoribus offam atque oculum medico nil promittente relictum.

10

. . . in fact, if he did, he would pretend it did not happen and not dare reveal his broken teeth to the praetor and the bruise on his face swollen with black and blue spots and the remaining eye that no doctor promises to save. (16.9–12) Furthermore, the beaten individual maintains no legal recourse for the soldier’s actions or, at least, the prospects of an outcome in his favor were pretty bleak. The forecast is so bleak that the satirist states later in no uncertain terms that it would be quicker to offer a witness to perjure himself against a civilian than someone speak the truth against the honor and fortune of a soldier.42 The aggrieved cannot even ostensibly consult the praetor—here the praetor urbanus—to whom civilians could lodge complaints to begin the process of civil action.43 It is the assaulted party who must hide his wounds and broken teeth, not unlike another poor citizen in satire 3 who can only wish for a few teeth to remain in his mouth after being pummeled (pulsatus, 3.300) by the aggressive drunk.44 The violent

142  The army’s circulation: Satire 16 outcome is again reminiscent of the soldier’s threat to kick the poor individual if he does not answer his questions; yet, immediately after, the narrator remarks that the choice to speak or remain silent offers the same outcomes: beatings.45 Likewise, the aggrieved party in satire 16 would not dare bring suit against his military aggressor since the ominous threat of reprisal looms just as strongly.46 Ultimately, there exists no clear incentive for the aggrieved to pursue litigation, without the threat of subsequent violence as the narrative in 16.17–25 continues to reinforce.47 In fact, later in the satire, Juvenal in all his sarcasm goes so far as to suggest how the mere gear of army personnel grants him legal privileges; conversely, being stripped of one’s gear signals a mark of shame.48 Location also plays a significant role in assessing the distribution of military violence in the Roman Empire and for the globalizing process. Ostensibly, wherever military personnel are found, there exists the potential for assaults and subsequent suits. However, when bringing legal action against another, one would have to bring suit in the forum of the defendant, or his residence.49 In the usual context, this might mean Rome as it certainly would for the aggrieved party in satire 3 described above. However, according to Juvenal’s reminder, the forum for the soldier abroad would be his military camp as was established by tradition since the time of Camillus (446 bce–335 bce): legibus antiquis castrorum et more Camilli servato, miles ne vallum litiget extra et procul a signis . . .

15

The ancient laws of the military camp and Camillus’ tradition are preserved that does not allow a soldier to stand trial outside the rampart and far from the standards . . . (16.15–17)50 The implications for legionary distribution are clear. Both vallum51 (16.16) and signis (16.17) represent any Roman military camp located anywhere around Rome or abroad. Moreover, Rome in the period of the early second century ce maintained around thirty legions throughout the empire, the majority of which were scattered along several peripheral areas of Roman territory (as discussed on p. 145 ff.). Such a distribution over so vast an area would have made summoning soldiers across wide areas back to Rome, or other areas, impractical. In fact, according to a rescript by the emperor Hadrian (117–138 ce) recorded in the Digest, he seems to confirm some reservations about allowing soldiers to be summoned “hastily” (non temere) from a long distance and away from the standards (a signis)52 to offer evidence or other material necessary for a suit, except in rarer cases where the presiding judge deemed otherwise.53 Long distances and their travel would probably be more time consuming than preferred and a drain on local transport that could otherwise be utilized for other local purposes. Therefore, given these general restrictions on travel for military personnel, the civilian plaintiff might have to carry the burden of distance and face the greater challenge of

The army’s circulation: Satire 16  143 bringing a soldier to court, especially if that meant the plaintiff needed to confront that soldier in his forum, or military camp. Ultimately, the odds are drawn in the favor of military convenience, and borne with such knowledge, the soldier could presumably exercise behavior that without such a traditional provision, might not consider otherwise. Following the reference to a civil suit within any existing Roman camp (16.13–17) and the potential fallout in violence, Juvenal continues the discussion with the mention of urbs (16.25). Urbs, the City, is generally marked throughout the collection as synonymous with the City of Rome.54 Despite the restrictions on soldiers bearing arms in Rome during Republican times, such as primarily in the case of the triumph or other special occasions, from the era of Augustus through the fourth century there was a considerable Roman military presence in its streets.55 The military’s duties ranged anywhere from quelling public riots, running errands, making arrests and administering punishments to burning publicly accounts of public debts, the latter of which was a highlight of Trajan and Hadrian’s reigns.56 Some ornamental duties, and perhaps more explicit to public view, included accompanying the emperor upon entrance or exit of the City, as well as the Praetorian Guard’s close protection of the Imperial family and its retinue. The day-to-day presence of the military coupled with monumental depictions on the army on landmarks such as Trajan’s column made the military and its various constituents in Rome fairly ubiquitous. The exchange of personnel between the Praetorian Guard and frontier legions, and between the equites singulares Augusti and provincial auxilia also determined that military life and practice was not necessarily restricted to a specific area, either in Rome or its provinces. Circulation of personnel would also suggest more extensive networks of the military and its practice beyond Rome itself. Given the circulation and extent of Rome’s military personnel, the use of urbs in satire 16.25 may assume added meaning in terms of distance to other outlying military camps along its periphery. What applies to a Praetorian military camp at Rome should function no differently than any other Roman military fort or base outside it: quis tam procul adsit ab urbe praeterea, quis tam Pylades, molem aggeris ultra ut veniat? Besides, who [as witness] would be present from so far out of the city, who would be such a Pylades to arrive through the massive rampart? (16.25–27) Courtney suggests that Juvenal’s readers will have laughed at this, since it refers to the Praetorian camp located just outside the city walls of Rome, as it was only about 500 meters outside the city (1980: 617). Specifically, aggeris (16.26) refers to the location of the Praetorian camp near part of the Servian wall erected between the Porta Collina and Viminalis in the time of Servius Tullius.57 Agger

144  The army’s circulation: Satire 16 could also be the description for a defensive earthwork or rampart that was a feature of most Roman camps and forts, and was constructed such that penetration by outsiders or the enemy could be impeded. However, given the context of the satire’s general discussion of army life, there is no strong indication to exclude the phrase molem aggeris (massive rampart, 16.26) and its applicability as a description for the defensive structure or wall built on the outside of a military camp. Its applicability beyond the reference to the praetorian camp at Rome lies in the reference to Pylades (16.26) whose example speaks to the bravery and determination needed to penetrate such a daunting earthwork.58 Moreover, since the praetorian camp is not the only forum where a soldier’s case might be heard, the probability that a witness would wish to venture just to Rome’s praetorian camp, let alone others as far as Britain or Dacia, is pretty slim. The great distance from Rome to these peripheral camps was just as much a deterrent, if the witness were only to feel too threatened to offer true testimony before a military tribunal (16.29–34). In fact, several verses later, Juvenal explicitly figures the threat of violence at a trial to an actual battle,59 which ostensibly muddles legal boundaries in just the same way sacral boundaries marked by the pomerium are by Augustus in the favor of the emperor’s security. Thus far the satire has articulated the advantages held by the Roman soldier over the common citizen, including the ever-present reminders of the disadvantages to litigation involving members of the military. One of the main disadvantages has been the threat of violence of which the literary tradition—as far back to Roman comedy through Apuleius—has reinforced the far-reaching presence beyond the city of Rome into areas where a Roman military presence is felt either by way of individual soldiers or in Roman camps. The wide distribution of Roman camps in the Imperial era further indicates the facilitation of military malfeasance throughout areas under Roman administrative control. Picking up from where Juvenal’s narrative leaves off in satire 15 and the practice of cannibalism in Upper Egypt, the geographic scope of Juvenal’s discourse in satire 16 suggests a similar diffusion of violence both at the center and fringes of Roman control. Where there is potential legal and physical misconduct at Rome at the hands of soldiers, so, too, does that potential and realization travel with the soldier and the advantages in camps throughout the empire. And, perhaps most concerning to Juvenal is the symbolic and practical capital of the Roman army and soldier, which is the foundation for Rome’s military greatness and often cited as the source of upright Roman morality from the early days of the Republic. By satire 16, the satirist has not only maintained the loss of Roman morality, but also punctuates that loss with the army’s circulation of such extreme behavior, from Rome’s praetorian camp to, ostensibly, all other Roman camps and their legions throughout the space of its empire. And, if the Roman army is both synonymous with the area of empire and its guards as expressed by Florus and Appian in the respective prefaces to their histories, then the trajectory of Rome appears rather bleak. In Juvenal’s account the corruption at the core and its periphery is only facilitated by behavior that undermines Roman citizen rights and the expectation of trust that the empire’s inhabitants seemingly have for its

The army’s circulation: Satire 16  145 protective force. A Roman military force can only continue to circulate Rome’s contagion at the core to its outlying areas. Written accounts, like Apuleius and his literary depictions of military corruption and violence, or Hadrian’s rescripts and Trajan’s correspondence about soldier’s requests for favors, only reinforce the favors soldiers were afforded by their commanders and camp law. Given the connectivity upon which the security of the empire depended, the circulation of the army would have great implications on the nature of globalizing forces in this period which Juvenal considered to be bad for the Roman fabric. Ultimately, the skepticism and cynicism speaks directly to Juvenal’s sentiment earlier in satire 6 about controlling the actions of people wielding power: sed quis custodiet ipsos / custodes . . . (6.347–348).60

The emperor and his troops One must also not forget that the common Roman soldier in theory did not wield ultimate authority in military matters. That person was the emperor, or commander in chief, at least since the time of the Principate, from whom the ultimate authority was issued, and then circulated to its legions throughout the empire. One of the striking differences between the armies of the Imperial period from the pre-Augustan age was that in the former, senior officers were centrally appointed, and, as Potter notes, subaltern officers traveled between units throughout the course of their careers.61 This desire to centralize authority in the post-Augustan era, however, also met with the gradual regional identities that many a legion assumed as they adjusted to their quarters outside Rome and its immediate environs—in Britain, the Rhine, the Balkans, Syria, et al.62 After the third century, disorganization would lead to a gradual faction between the western and eastern armies. But, in the meanwhile, at least through the age of Trajan and Hadrian, the imperial and military bureaucracy were committed to the premise of some unity between emperor and various legions stationed throughout the empire, despite the imminent process of regionalism that would come with more permanent stations on the peripheries of Rome.63 The Roman army and its constituents were keepers of the emperor’s reputation and his clients.64 Since the time of Augustus, armies generally served their emperor without the constant fear of division among the loyalty of troops that plagued preAugustan commanders (of course, exceptions would include instances of civil war in 69 and 193 ce.). The relationship between commander and troops could be seen as paramount to the safety of the state as a whole, and this healthy relationship could also extend to between soldier and citizen. The phrase: Si tu exercitusque valetis, bene est (“If you and the army are in good health, [all] is well”) is a testament to this relationship and was a traditional opening in correspondence found in many places from Cicero to documents in the theater at Aphrodisias.65 However, where most of the literary and documentary evidence highlights army abuse of locals, not all emperors necessarily approved, let alone mandated such behavior. In Pliny’s correspondence with the emperor Trajan, we are offered a firsthand glimpse of the emperor’s attitude towards the maintenance of stable relationships

146  The army’s circulation: Satire 16 involving soldiers and locals.66 Trajan makes clear to Pliny that he does not condone the maltreatment of locals by soldiers, although not necessarily out of any personal concern for locals other than the risk to his personal reputation as a respectable optimus princeps dispensing with necessary administrative duties.67 In a series of two letters, Epistles 10.77–78, Pliny and Trajan discuss the possible dispatch of a legionary centurion to protect civilian rights in Juliopolis following the example of one sent to Byzantium.68 In Epistle 10.77, Pliny thanks the emperor for dispatching a centurion to Byzantium, and then requests the same for Juliopolis under the pretext of its location at the extremity of the province of Bithynia and given the number of people who journey through it. High traffic necessitates a need for greater policing and protection along this peripheral town and area that was a major trade center. In response to this request, Trajan responds in the next epistle that Byzantium’s high traffic on all sides warranted such a dispatch;69 however, arguing Juliopolis’ “weaker” status, the emperor entrusts the governor with the responsibility to police the city. Part of this responsibility includes that Pliny see to it that any individuals (citizens included) who act contrary to the emperor’s discipline (contra disciplinam) be punished, but that soldiers should be reported to their commanders, even the emperor himself, upon their return to Rome.70 Although there is no explicit attention paid to particular hardships or incidents between citizen(s) and soldier(s), punishment for misbehavior did not exclude instances of extortion (as noted on p. 141 about Egyptian locals at the hands of Roman soldiers).71 Some of the correspondence between emperor and governor touts the unity celebrated among emperor, his soldiers, and the army. In a series of four letters between Trajan and Pliny (Ep. 10.100–103), Pliny begins the series marking the annual celebration of the emperor’s ascendancy and the devotion offered by the soldiers and the provincials alike.72 The words commilitiones (fellow soldier) and provinciales (provincials) are repeated three times each and in close proximity to one another as though an inextricable pair in their devotion to the emperor.73 This is clearly a desire not only to express unity among ranks, but also to emphasize the centrality of the emperor figure. Outside this private correspondence, the most monumental and public articulation of devotion between solider and emperor can be seen in Trajan’s column celebrating the defeat of the Dacians.74 Not coincidentally, this monument in Trajan’s forum at Rome features a colorful account of the Danubian campaigns that has been transported from the periphery to Rome itself, not unlike the celebratory triumph from a now bygone Republican era.

Juvenal’s satiric salvo The remainder of satire 16 continues to discuss the advantages of the soldier, namely the soldier’s right to have his case heard relatively quickly (16.31–50) and his right to peculium castrense (16.51–60), before it ends abruptly. One can only suggest the numerous ways in which the satire may have concluded. If the pattern of previous satires permits a conjecture, satire 16 may reasonably have offered several more examples in catalogue form of the soldier and the army enjoying benefits beyond other citizens and residents of the empire and, therefore, like

The army’s circulation: Satire 16  147 so many of Juvenal’s earlier satires, enumerate by variation the satire’s major theme(s). Although conjectures on non-extant lines are pretty fruitless, since anything beyond line 60 of satire 16 is now lost, reflection upon the satirist’s literary trail can nonetheless offer us valuable opportunity to understand the full extent of the many manifestations of globalization and connectivity articulated in his collection. I conjecture a look not ahead, but back on the collection itself as a means of understanding why an extensive discussion about the army might only appear at the very end of the collection. The last sustained imagery of a soldier occurs in satire 1 where the satiric speaker famously fashions himself the soldier-warrior-satirist Lucilius of a bygone Republican era. The fact that the collection begins with an image of the soldier, then ostensibly concludes with a full satire devoted to the soldier’s questionable behavior has several implications on how to situate this final satire within the rest of the collection. Juvenal has already established how the initial satire of each book offers a preview of images and themes that are generally treated in greater length, either within the same satire or later within the same book.75 Where deviant men, women, poor housing conditions, the nouveaux-riches, legacy hunters, lack of literary patronage, et al., receive considerable treatment, the soldier does not until ostensibly the end in satire 16. The significance of its placement at the end of the collection may be reconciled in terms of Rome’s geography and the indiscriminate movement of Roman soldiers in the empire. The reader is first introduced to the soldier-satirist of satire 1 tearing through Rome, thus preparing the reader for future images through the remainder of the collection. As the collection proceeds, so, too, does the narrative scope of places and areas outside Rome under the satirist’s treatment that illuminates a movement from the core to the city’s environs to as far as the empire’s peripheries. By the final satire, 16, Juvenal’s portrait of Rome demonstrates the full and indiscriminate spread of vice capped by its main facilitator the soldier, which poses some difficulty for how one might read the narrator-as-soldier in satire 1. Has the satirist soldier, then, implicated himself in Rome’s problems, or is he the resolution of its ills? Ultimately, how is one to reconcile the seemingly incompatible representations of the satirist soldier fighting depravity at Rome, while the soldier in satire 16 insures its continued diffusion? As the narrative voice moves to the periphery of Rome in satires 15 and 16, Juvenal abandons the explicit persona of the soldier of satire 1 who is invested in righting the wrongs of Rome. The further away from the symbolic and administrative core, Rome, the more problematic and unstable Roman authority and examples of virtue become. It is no surprise then that by satire 16 the satirist offers no indication of playing the Republican era soldier assumed in satire 1. It is clear in the evaluation of literary narratives and correspondence concerning the relationship between emperor, soldiers, citizens, and provincials that together they offer conflicting portraits. Also, since the days of the Republic, the consul or general was ostensibly a soldier himself, who by the time of Principate would assume the title princeps. Any soldier, with the right combination of influence and connections, could now aspire to the post of commander in chief, or be emperor, such as evidenced by the failed attempt of the Praetorian Prefect, Sejanus.

148  The army’s circulation: Satire 16 How then did Juvenal reconcile this portrait of the soldier, who was both the representative of the emperor and his policies, yet also the source of citizen and provincial fear in his use of force and extortion? Why would he choose to begin the collection with himself as the embodiment of a soldier, who then becomes the object of much scrutiny at the end of the collection as we have observed in satire 16? In the remainder of the chapter I evaluate how the issues of circulation and connectivity that have informed the narrative frame of the collection, alongside the literal and metaphorical plays on territorial core and periphery, figure in the satirist’s choice to fashion himself as a soldier in satire 1. From the indiscriminate nature of the Roman army discussed in satire 16, we now move back to the heart of empire, Rome, in satire 1. In light of the collection as a whole, it seems rather problematic that Juvenal would choose to assume the figure of a soldier to open his discussion. The most popular explanation among scholars of Juvenalian satire has been that of genre, namely that the warrior hearkens back to the freedom of speech his generic predecessor-founder, Lucilius, enjoyed in the time of the Republic.76 However, I would like to suggest an added dimension to this portrait that speaks to the issue of globalization and the military, and that is the precedent set by the commander in chief of the army to march on the city of Rome, begun in the late Republic by the consuls Marius and Sulla at the turn of the first century bce, and maintained up through the time of Trajan and Hadrian.

The satirist soldier to the rescue A key link between satires 1 and 16 emerges with martial imagery. In the midst of establishing his program of satire as a full-fledged attack on the hypocrisies of Rome, the Juvenalian speaker employs the martial imagery of a soldier modeled on the spirit and aggression of the Latin satiric genre’s grandfather, Lucilius, here referred to as the “guru of Aurunca”: Cur tamen hoc potius libeat decurrere campo, per quem magnus equos Auruncae flexit alumnus, si vacat ac placidi rationem admittitis, edam.

20

I will explain why, nevertheless, I prefer to tear across the plain where the great guru of Aurunca guided his chariot, if there is space and you allow the reasoning of a calm fellow. (1.19–21) Here, the speaker fashions himself as a Republican era cavalryman or warrior maneuvering (decurrere) not towards an enemy combatant, but the multitude of vice situated inside Rome, namely, the Campus Martius (campo).77 The campus was an area situated just north of the Capitoline Hill and outside the Republican era Servian Walls. It was also known as the Field of Mars, the god of war, and was the traditional exercise grounds for the military, but it also maintained strong electoral significance, especially in the time of Augustus where it received significant

The army’s circulation: Satire 16  149 attention with the construction of the Saepta Julia, the Pantheon, the Horologium complex, and Mausoleum.78 The campus also lies, in the main, just outside the pomerium, the religious boundary within which no citizen or soldier, let alone consul or emperor, was allowed to bear arms.79 Although the occurrence of arms was typical in the campus area for military exercise, it was not for actual combat or engagement in the manner which Juvenal here “tears across the plain” (decurrere campo, 1.19). The threat of violence is ever present and gradually builds through the narrative. Following the catalogue of those he targets, the combative speaker amplifies his militaristic persona with the display of extreme emotion of anger and hostility (ira and ardeat).80 His threat of violence against targets of vice is sustained throughout and up to the satire’s conclusion when as Lucilius he draws his sword: ense velut stricto quotiens Lucilius ardens / infremuit (“Whenever blazing Lucilius, / as if with sword drawn, seethes”; 1.165–166). Here, too, the soldiersatirist burns with aggression and rages forth only to hold back just short of actual slaughter, with the reminder that once committed to an actual engagement in battle, there is no turning back (1.168–170). The militaristic foray, then, culminates, as does the satire, in the surprising statement that he will only attack those who are dead and buried along Rome’s major arteries, the via Flaminia and Latina (1.170–171). It is perhaps no coincidence, then, that in satire 16 the satirist’s description of an actual trial figures the combination of violence, adjudication, military defendant, and plaintiff as though in battle. Another advantage for the army career includes countless delays with the execution of suits involving military men (16.35–50). Juvenal brings the description of trial preparations to a climax with a comparison to courtroom spectacle, not unlike the arena: . . . iam facundo ponente lacernas Caedicio et Fusco iam micturiente parati digredimur81 lentaque fori pugnamus harena ast illis, quos arma tegunt et balteus ambit,

46

. . . while the eloquent Caedicius is taking off his cloak, but Fuscus is having a piss, although all is ready, the case is adjourned. We fight in the muddy sand of the arena; but, for those whom arms cover and the sword belt girds, (16.45–48) The explanation goes on to claim that military men, unlike other citizens, will have their cases heard without delay. However, the striking imagery of sand (harena,82 16.47) and battle (pugnamus,83 16.48) suggests a courtroom battle that might be otherwise reserved for the violence of the arena such as the Colosseum or in earlier days in the forum itself.84 The distinctions between the courtroom, reserved for forensic oratory, and the battlefield, reserved for military personnel, become indistinguishable, if not one and the same. Here, the accouterment (arma, 16.48;

150  The army’s circulation: Satire 16 balteus, 16.48) signals the legal privileges the military personnel were entitled to in just the same way the satirist’s perception of himself girt with drawn sword (ense . . . stricto, 1.165) motivates his tearing forth upon Rome’s urban landscape to combat vice. The military, in essence, has brought the battle to a forensic space, the trial, intended to be a site where violence is tempered in favor of non-violent litigation. By the final satire 16 the Roman army has infiltrated the forensic, political, and social arenas and, ostensibly and indiscriminately spread throughout the space of Rome’s territorial empire. In this manner the imagery of the military is strikingly pervasive both at the start and end of the collection. For Juvenal, I argue, the military marks Rome’s rise as a great superpower, but also its demise. So, we notice significant trends and imagery that resonate in both the first and last satires: for one, martial imagery; two, the satirist as soldier; three, distinct landmarks in Rome; and, last, but not least, the so-called advantages of being a soldier. All of these qualities suggest two larger implications: one, on Juvenal as a writer of satire and, two, the satirist’s representation and state of moral decay at Rome that underlines the whole collection. As a result of this, some questions arise: if the collection ends with the enumeration of all the advantages of the army life that are also presumably unethical and “bad for Rome,” then why might the satirist have employed this very profession as his figure of authority in satire 1? The use of surrogates, or personae, as many have shown, is a critical strategy the satirist employs to expose a behavioral failing or institutional shortcoming. This exposure of a specified target of criticism, however, is not always directed upon a third party, but may also reflect upon the flaws of the satiric speaker himself.85 However, before an examination of the author’s posturing, it is necessary to trace the significance behind the choice for a warrior and its bearing on the final satire and collection as a whole. The posturing as a satiric warrior has its roots in the tendency among Romans, since Sulla and Marius of the Late Republic, to march on the City of Rome. After Augustus and the end of civil war, such behavior was ideologically problematic and many emperors, or principes, would choose to negotiate the celebration of their rule based on the decision to march on Rome. Such an act was both considered illegal and a violation of Rome’s sacred space within the pomerium, which though not exactly aligned with the physical city limit of Rome, was nevertheless a symbolic demarcation of space that was both ancient and inviolable, especially to arms and violence.86 Furthermore, fresh off the civil conflict quenched by Augustus, any military installations or troops within the pomerium thereafter would have undoubtedly recalled troubling memories of an unstable past. Nevertheless, later in Juvenal’s lifetime the emperor Trajan did march on Rome, but what made his gesture so different from those before him was his decision to do so not armed, but in civilian dress. Trajan in this contrived manner set his example apart from others as a gesture of goodwill towards the Senate and the Roman people that a new establishment would not require the bloodshed of competing aristocratic families. Although problematic, marching on Rome had become its own established mode of behavior for individuals seeking to pronounce and legitimize their authority.

The army’s circulation: Satire 16  151

Felix: The insurance for military success The basic theme of satire 16 and some of its specific language suggest a code for this practice of military intervention. The satire’s beginning asks the rhetorical question about the benefits of a successful career in the army, which is worth recapitulation here: Quis numerare queat felicis praemia, Galli, militiae? nam si subeuntur prospera castra * * * me pavidum excipiat tironem porta secundo sidere.

2a

Gallius, who can enumerate the advantages of a favorable career in the army? If military service is profitable, I hope the camp gates *** welcome me, though a terrified recruit, under an auspicious star. (16.1–4) The word felix here is repeated in its superlative form near the very end of the extant satire (felicissimus, 16.59). Both instances suggest one of the end games to holding this post; Clark has suggested that felix in its first appearance indicates the military is lucky and enlistment in it speaks of a favorable fortune, which is ultimately tied to larger notions of fortune and astrology.87 I would also suggest that one need not venture beyond the martial context to appreciate the inference behind felix than to consider its prevalence as the general Sulla’s nickname.88 The successful career in the army is an allusion, albeit ironic, to one of the first Roman generals to march on Rome. One of its immediate “benefits,” outside the rewards of plunder and booty, was land resettlement for his veterans. Sulla was the first recorded Roman general to advance on the city of Rome, in 85 bce, then again in 83, amidst the feuding optimates and populares of the senatorial order. This would happen several more times leading up to the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian in the early second century ad, under both of whom Juvenal composed a good deal of his Satires. Nevertheless, it was no less for this unprecedented action and the subsequent land settlement deal for his veterans that Sulla earned the nickname epaphroditos in Greek and Felix in Latin, the beloved of Venus. In fact there is evidence for the nickname Felix gaining traction as early as his capture of Jugurtha in 106 bc. Later in 56 bc, Sulla’s son, Faustus, would mint a Roman denarius upon which there is depicted the goddess Diana and on the reverse a seated Sulla accepting an olive branch from Bocchus, with a kneeling and bound Jugurtha behind Sulla capped with the legend FELIX.89 By the time of Trajan’s (98–117 ce) and Hadrian’s (117–138 ce) reigns, felix and felicitas represented a key imperial virtue emperors advertised to the public.90 Good fortune becomes synonymous with auspicious rule and part and parcel with

152  The army’s circulation: Satire 16 much of the imagery on Roman imperial coinage. As early as Trajan’s first year as Augustus there are coins minted with Trajan’s bust on the obverse and on the reverse Felicitas standing upright bearing a caduceus and cornucopia.91 In others the anthropomorphized figure is flanked by the legend FELICITAS and date to around the Parthian campaigns (112–114 ce).92 Similarly, some coinage under Hadrian conveys imagery of this imperial virtue in the context of recent military victories, but exhibiting more variation than Trajan before him. In many there are representations of Felicitas bearing the caduceus and cornucopia, which appear to follow in the example of Trajan’s before him.93 More coins represent a standing Felicitas flanked on either side by the legend FEL-AUG, or “to the good fortune of Augustus.”94 A few others depict the goddess Roma on a throne flanked by the legend ROMA FELIX.95 The variations of Felicitas depicted on the coins of Trajan and Hadrian continue to link favorably the acquisition of imperial authority with military conquest first conveyed in the coinage of Sulla. Even in the era of Trajan and Hadrian some two hundred years later, the rewards for a military venture are considered rather favorable (felicis praemia . . . militiae, Sat. 16.1–2) and fairly ingrained, too, as an imperial virtue. The remaining oblique references to the Republican tradition of marching on Rome acquire sharper relief. The opening of satire 16 also refers to Venus, the one who also insures a favorable outcome for soldiers: plus etenim fati valet hora benigni quam si nos Veneris commendet epistula Marti et Samia genetrix quae delectatur harena.

5

Indeed an hour of good fortune offers more benefit than a letter of Venus that recommends us to Mars or his mother Juno, who delights in the shore of Samos. (16.4–6) Even back in satire 1.13–15, Sulla’s name is explicitly mentioned as the object of a suasoria whose topic recommends the general’s retirement into private life.96 Interestingly, the satirist’s choice of topic, Sulla, is couched within the satirist’s opening rhetorical barrage and declaration of his tearing into the campus area (Field of Mars), reminiscent of a similar action by Sulla to enter the greater area of the city through the Colline Gate in 82 bce after securing a victory over his civil rivals. The suasoria’s advice for Sulla’s retirement in 1.13–15 may signal Juvenal’s opportunity, albeit in a literary manner, to continue the tradition first begun by Sulla, if not a replacement of the general himself. Furthermore, the argument in satire 1.1–21 essentially declares that if others have covered the same poetic ground ad nauseam, why can the satirist not do the same and in the same manner as a soldier tearing into Rome as Sulla before him once did? Beyond the text, additionally, Venus also features in monumental architecture and coinage since the time of Sulla’s civil campaigns, further linking military success with the goddess. Sulla’s monumental theater-complex structure dedicated in the year 85 bce first links his political success to his patroness, Venus, on a

The army’s circulation: Satire 16  153 monumental scale. The city of Rome at this time acquired its first permanent theater dedicated to the goddess Venus Victrix, the Conqueress, and, no less, erected within the Campus Martius space, the area traditionally dedicated to military exercise and drills. This connection between Sulla, too, would mark the first in a series of commanders, including Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus, who would promote their ancestral connections to Venus both in literature and monumental art.97 Trajan in 113 ad would restore and rededicate the temple of Venus Genetrix first dedicated by Julius Caesar in 46 bce, further solidifying the link between successful military campaigns and the goddess.98 Hadrian continues the tradition of patronage with the construction of the Temple of Venus and Roma dedicated to the goddesses Venus Felix and Roma Aeterna, whose construction began early in his reign in 121 ce. Alongside this project were in circulation a series of coins attributing felix to both goddesses.99 In this way, references to the army life by way of Venus, Mars, and fortune (felix) reveal an institutional tradition that has become ingrained in the pursuit of authority at Rome. Sheer physical violence and the blessing of the gods serve hand in hand to insure the rule of Rome. Given the intimate connection Roman generals and emperors forged with Venus and in the context of military pursuits, Juvenal’s statement about the greater benefit of good fortune rather than the blessings of the gods Venus, Mars, and Juno (16.4–6) offers a stark and ironic contrast to this tradition. The intimation suggests that even the gods—the very ones who have insured Rome’s military prowess— have lost their ability to influence military matters in Juvenal’s day. The satirist appears to suggest that admission to one of Rome’s most storied institutions is now even further out of reach from the already disenfranchised citizen. Yet, the satirist, despite all his misgivings about opportunities for citizens and as a disenfranchised individual himself, opens the collection as a soldier with every intention of exacting violence upon the depraved by marching upon the plain of Mars at Rome (decurrere campo, 1.19). Although the blessings of Venus and Mars are presumably absent, why Juvenal wishes to tear across the urban plain has a more immediate connection to civil conflict when several would-be emperors sought to march on Rome to establish their authority over Rome during the Year of the Four Emperors (68–69 ce).

Political instability from the Year of the Four Emperors to Trajan Despite the actions of the commanders Sulla, Julius Caesar, and Caesar Augustus that highlighted the trauma of the Republican civil wars, the Year of the Four Emperors (68–69 ce) proved that civil war and military action upon Rome and its environs was never far off. Although Augustus would restore military discipline enough to safeguard against another civil war for about 50 years, threats upon Rome and its princeps seemed imminent. Following the accession of the emperor Tiberius in 14 ce, for example, the troops under Germanicus on the German frontier refused to accept Tiberius as their new commander in chief and promoted their general, Germanicus, to be the successor of Augustus. In fact, if their demands were not met, the soldiers threatened to assemble en masse

154  The army’s circulation: Satire 16 to march on Rome.100 In anticipation of such a potential upheaval, Augustus would have Germanicus reappointed to the eastern provinces further away from Rome and in the process help extinguish Germanicus’ remaining aspirations on Rome. At least in the case of Tiberius the emperor’s authority and Rome were inseparable. To wrest control from the princeps would necessitate a march on Rome or, simply, a revolution. This would become all the more of a reality thirty years prior to the publication of Juvenal’s Satires during the disorder characterized as the Year of the Four Emperors (68–69 ce). But, the satirist, too, would wish vicariously to do the same—in essence, to articulate with poetic fervor the desire to overthrow the symbolic core of Roman authority with his charge on Rome as a soldier in satire 1. Yet, Juvenal’s contemporary Tacitus in relating the events of Nero’s tumultuous end in 68 ce illuminates the circumstances behind increased military presence and threat at Rome, including the Pisonian conspiracy of 65 ce wherein scores of leading Roman senators would be implicated and executed. It became clear that central authority at Rome was thin and ripe for the picking, and no less from forces outside Rome as Tacitus would remark that the secret of empire was that an emperor could be made elsewhere than Rome.101 Juvenal’s portrayal of soldiers throughout this collection owes much to the tradition of political violence at Rome and its psychological imprint on its citizens and non-citizens. Unlike Tacitus, however, Juvenal as a writer seemingly exercises the bold move to challenge the status quo by adopting the problematic figure of the soldier to highlight the military institution’s inefficiency to resolve political and military instability without violence. The instability at the core of the empire following the demise of Nero encouraged a series of generals inside and outside Rome to claim themselves heirs apparent to the throne in the Year of the Four Emperors (68–69 ce)—Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian. The conflict would culminate in the proclamation of Vespasian as emperor in July 69. However, an officer of the Pannonian legion, Antonius Primus, around this time set out on a march for Rome with about fifty thousand men, storming the Capitol and praetorian camp with his Danubian forces, striking uncertainty among Roman camps. Soon thereafter, Vespasian’s arrival to Rome in the summer of 70 quelled matters once and for all. Not only would Rome revisit the days of terror under Marius and Sulla, but also the City would experience the greatest threat of legionary forces converging on Rome from several distant areas of the empire. To effect change at the center of empire would necessitate a transformation not from within, but outside Rome, again amplifying Tactius’ observation of an emperor made outside the City. Furthermore, whenever the Roman army declared a would-be emperor, the Roman frontiers would be thrown into disarray, as foreign border tribes would take their chance to attack newly depleted Roman garrisons. Its already unstable boundaries would feel just as vulnerable and permeable to Cheruscan (Arminius), Batavian (Civilis), Gallic (Classicus) or Dacian (Decebalus) insurgency. Vespasian would seek to counter the threat of continued civil war by reshuffling frontier defenses with legions drawn from other parts of the empire.

The army’s circulation: Satire 16  155

Trajan (98–117 ce) In the time of Juvenal’s collection, at least when Book 1 (satires 1–5) was published (101), this was no less the case with Trajan and his accession to the throne. However, where Juvenal begins the collection as the aggressive solitary soldier challenging the moral decay at Rome, the emperors Trajan and Hadrian offered artistic and political messages that convey the opposite persona of the threatening and authoritative emperor figure we have observed with prior generals. Following the Flavian succession of emperors (Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian), Nerva assumes control, but unlike his predecessors, especially Galba, ensures military support from frontier forces with the adoption of Marcus Ulpius Traianus, who in 98 ce is in charge of four legions in Pannonia. Like Augustus and Vespasian before him, Nerva would see to it that Trajan assume tribunician power, proconsular maius imperium, and the title of Caesar as a smoother means of transition.102 Upon Nerva’s death in 98 ce, however, Trajan does not immediately return to Rome, but sees to the reorganization of the Rhine frontier. According to Pliny the Younger, when he returns to Rome the following year in 99 ce, he enters the city on foot to emphasize his status as citizen, with less emphasis on his military accouterment: Ac primum qui dies ille, quo exspectatus desideratusque urbem tuam ingressus es! Iam hoc ipsum, quod ingressus es, quam mirum laetumque! Nam priores invehi et importari solebant, non dico quadriiugo curru et albentibus equis sed umeris hominum, quod adrogantius erat . . . In the first place what a day that was when so anticipated and desired you entered the city! The very manner of your entry was a wonder and joyful! For your predecessors were accustomed to be borne or carried in, not gratified even to be drawn by four white horses in a triumphal carriage, but lifted up on human shoulders so presumptuously . . . (Panegyricus 22.1, 22.5)103 Chapters 22–24 of Pliny’s Panegyricus detail Trajan’s entry into Rome as a marvel unlike his predecessors. The description begins with the specific detail of his manner as a citizen, on foot (ingressus es) and not conveyed on a litter or chair (invehi et importari solebant). This detail and the language articulate specific meaning that both corroborate Juvenal’s criticism of the military and reinforce the disenfranchised citizen’s view of social upstarts. As the verb ingredior suggests he enters Rome on foot, a gesture that conveys a peaceful transition of authority unlike the military standoffs of prior generals assuming authority in unstable and tense political transitions. What makes Trajan an even more laudable princeps is his ability to mingle with the public and on even footing in the most literal sense.104 His not being conveyed on a litter or chair recalls one of Juvenal’s prime discomforts with the nouveaux riches, foreign upstarts, or scoundrels in Book 1 who, in place of any virtue established by family legacy, use the trappings of the social elite to signal their superiority over other individuals.

156  The army’s circulation: Satire 16 In this manner, Trajan sees his fellow citizen not as an individual with special privilege looking down upon his inferiors from a lofty position, but eye to eye as equals. The vocabulary of movement and the expression of physical position (invehi et importari) are parallel to Juvenal’s disdain for the flow of vice and the exotic into Rome discussed earlier.105 Herein lies the “wonder” and the joy experienced by Pliny before Trajan’s entry to Rome not as a military threat, but an individual invested with special political and military privileges to safeguard his fellow citizen. And, in this portrait the military, or his troops, seemingly blends in with the rest of the crowd both accompanying and witnessing the emperor’s entrance into the city. Pliny, furthermore, offers a more sympathetic portrait of the military that contrasts generally with Juvenal’s portrayal of the surly soldier at odds with his fellow citizen or foreigner. Despite the surface difference, however, Pliny’s portrait of Trajan offers a panacea to the military corruption characterized in satire 16. Like Juvenal’s entrance into Rome in satire 1 so, too, Trajan’s march, though peaceful, demonstrates a movement from the outside in. Violence is not required, suggesting that a great military leader could initiate change and in a way that might combat the forces of depravity circulated by corrupt soldiers. Alongside Trajan in his procession into the city are his troops (Panegyricus 23). However, Pliny points out that the military is not distinguished by its sartorial trappings, but by its ability to mingle with the others as the joyous crowd throngs about the new emperor. The emperor’s retinue of lictors respectfully clear the path for Trajan and the military does not appear threatening.106 Furthermore, the lack of any overt force exercised by the lictors (i.e. use of fasces to strike citizens) signals a cooperative environment wherein both the imperial entourage and citizens are in social harmony. Ultimately, Trajan’s arrival into Rome with a seemingly nonthreatening military body promises to usher in a new age of stability at Rome. In Pliny’s account the new emperor, Rome’s citizens, and military body seemingly mingle in concert. Although the speech’s tone strikes the reader as both effusive and perhaps hyperbolic (as the genre dictates), Pliny undoubtedly seeks to set a stark contrast with qualities of previous rulers that have either plunged or brought Rome into full and violent civil conflict. It is clear that Juvenal’s poetic discussion of the army and empire is operating within an extensive tradition of military behavior and expectations. Couched between the so-called realities and the various literary and epigraphic vignettes of army life, Juvenal carves his own niche in making a bold claim to march on Rome as he does in his first satire to attack his literary competition and other figures of depravity in a way that recalls the aggressive maneuvering of contentious generals. However, Pliny, a contemporary of our satirist, offers a more sympathetic view that belies the longer tradition of military aggression. Furthermore, such an unfavorable representation by Juvenal appears to be contradictory when we encounter the attack on the army and all of its advantages in satire 16. At first glance this is hard to reconcile, but there are potential explanations for the satirist’s choice. One key to reconciling these contradictory postures lies in Juvenal’s use of a rhetorical framework throughout the Satires that illuminates

The army’s circulation: Satire 16  157 relationships between the center and periphery of Rome’s empire. Ultimately, a military presence at the center of Rome and its periphery indicates its pervasiveness on a global, topographical scale. Earlier I mentioned that the satirist’s claims to address Roman vice were centered on Rome itself; specifically, how the phrase decurrere campo coordinates the satiric soldier’s initial foray into the Roman city space that will determine Rome as the physical location of his attacks. This Rome-centric focus predominates in the first five satires in the collection. In satire 2, for example, references to the urban space of Rome feature as a locus for continued sexual deviance. Next, satire 3 exclusively showcases the hardships of gainful employment and lack of desirable living conditions in Rome. Dilapidated buildings, the falling contents of chamber pots, and the bloody blows of a soldier’s hobnail boots feature as the more common opportunities for bodily injury. Come satire 4, the location slightly shifts to the emperor Domitian’s military council in Alba Longa just outside Rome, only to return in satire 5 to a dinner party located somewhere within Rome. The remainder of the satires, however, places less emphasis on Rome itself and more on their distance from it, and by the time we reach satire 16, the discussion of the army suggests anywhere the Roman military presence is felt, from the Barracks of the Praetorian Guard just outside Rome to any legionary outpost or base stationed on the fringes of empire, which in the time of Juvenal spread as far North as Britain and to Cappadocia in the East. The implication here is that examples of moral decay can be found both at the center and periphery of empire, with the example of Roman army life as no mere exception. The Roman soldier, in fact, represents the vehicle for its indiscriminate spread beyond Rome with a threat of severe consequences. The soldier, too, represents the vehicle for Rome’s territorial expansion. The subjugation of new peoples and regions only accelerates indiscriminate spread of vice between Rome and its periphery, and the satirist has made this explicit at various junctures in the collection. Among others the satirist makes this very explicit near the end of satire 2 with the example of Republican era war heroes in the Underworld (2.149–159), followed by a reflection upon the military and its accomplishments behind Rome’s territorial expansion (2.159–163). . . . arma quidem ultra litora Iuvernae promovimus et modo captas Orcadas ac minima contentos nocte Britannos; 161 sed quae nunc populi fiunt victoris in urbe non faciunt illi quos vicimus—et tamen unus Armenius Zalaces cunctis narratur ephebis mollior ardenti sese indulsisse tribuno. aspice quid faciant commercia: venerat obses; 166 hic fiunt homines. nam si mora longior Urbem induerit pueris, non umquam derit amator. mittentur bracae, cultelli, frena, flagellum: sic praetextatos referent Artaxata mores.

158  The army’s circulation: Satire 16 Indeed, we have advanced ahead beyond the shores of Ireland and the recently captured Orkneys and the Britains content with the shortest night; but these things which now happen in the City of the conqueror the conquered do not do. And, nevertheless, one Armenian, Zalaces, who is more effeminate than all ephebes, is said to have indulged himself in a passionate tribune. You see what commerce does: he had arrived as a hostage where men are made. For if a longer delay puts the City on the boys, then they will never lack a lover. Their trousers, small knives, harnesses and whip will be abandoned: in this way, they will carry back to Artaxata cloaked Roman ways. (2.159–170) As I noted in Chapter 1, Juvenal demonstrates the globalizing effects of commerce (commercia, 2.166) in its conveyance of people, goods, and ideas. But, in the process of his concluding excursus the satirist also maps the extent of Roman influence on the conquered (promovimus, 2.160), as far north as Ireland and the Orkneys and east to the province of Armenia. To conclude the discussion of the devastating effects of Rome’s military tradition, Juvenal offers the example of an Armenian hostage transported to Rome as a prisoner of war and who, subsequently, assumes (induerit, ‘putting on the clothes,’ 2.168) the mores of Rome’s local culture.107 In fact, Juvenal playfully characterizes Rome’s influence upon its vanquished as one dressing an individual, just like the Plautine comic stock character, the Pimp, might deck out his merchandise, or prostitute, for sexual commerce.108 Hence, at the core of empire that is Rome there is no deficit of eligible lovers for interested individuals (2.168). Yet, the core’s permeability to external influences only enables the effects of his circulation between Rome and its fringes to such a degree that that, like some dormant infection, he and his newly inculcated Roman ways threaten to metastasize and spread along Rome’s periphery when he returns to Artaxata (2.170). Thus, military expansion vis-à-vis the soldier represents one facilitator of this indiscriminate movement between the core and its margins. And, as Morley has aptly argued, globalization and imperialism can generate cultural change in the form of integration.109 However, with this integration of foreign territory, goods, and population comes the potential sideeffects that the satirist views as dangerous not just to Rome, but those areas that are in the sphere of its direct influence. And, so, by the time the reader has reached the end of the collection the spread of Roman decay to its periphery is indubitable. The advantages of Roman military service apply to areas outside the jurisdiction of Rome’s city space and in a more efficient manner as the satire outlines. These legionary outposts, we discover in satire 16, function just like our modern day embassies or consulates wherein soldiers are granted immunity from local custom and laws but, nevertheless, enjoy all the advantages of Roman law, and without the delays and other excessive conveniences that come with the city of Rome itself. Moreover, there is an added

The army’s circulation: Satire 16  159 convenience for the soldier when the satirist exclaims at one point in satire 16, “what witness would dare to come so far from the City . . . or enter the military camp?” (16.25–27). So, whether in Armenia, or Theveste in Africa, Raphaneae in Syria, or Viroconium in Brittania, the Roman soldier enjoys the ability to beat civilians with impunity, to have easy and quick access to court, to enjoy the guarantee of a military judge and jurors to protect against any redress, and to execute a will while his father is still alive. Such conveniences for the soldier would appear to be available at any number of places along Rome’s territorial periphery as the distribution of troops illustrates (see frontispiece map on pages viii–ix).

Aftermath To conclude, it appears that the satirist’s collection advances both literary and practical applications of the military in his day, both of which seem to procure specific advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, it proves a literary advantage for the satirist to combat Rome’s vice as the aggressive soldier in the guise of Lucilius, although such characterization is in deep contrast to the Roman soldier of satire 16. But, on the other, though a clear advantage to the serving soldier, Juvenal views the actual soldier’s legal and monetary perks as a clear disadvantage to the disenfranchised citizens he wishes to represent. So, to revisit a question teased out throughout this chapter: how does the satirist reconcile his characterization as soldier satirist in satire 1 come satire 16, the end of the collection? It appears that by satire 16, the satirist has abandoned the persona initially used to begin his collection. On the one hand, the author may have implicated himself in the crimes of the Roman military institution. But, on the other, it is clear that he has deserted the soldier as surrogate for his revolutionary claims by the last and final satire of the collection, a tactic that conveys the failure of the military project as an effective tool for social and political change. The diffusion of decay facilitated by military mobility has come to permeate the empire as a whole, ensuring a monoculture predicated on broken Roman institutions. Juvenal, too, has not been able to restrain its spread despite his best efforts to combat and contain. The military, then, like the satirist, struggles to effect change; instead, both manage to be instruments of the globalizing forces of circulation. Diffusion and circulation, furthermore, suggest the larger implications of unification behind the processes of globalization. As this book has argued, the Satires offers an illuminating example of several processes of globalization at work at the pre-industrial level. For one, increased connectivity is inextricable with the Roman project of empire characterized by territorial expansion. Heightened awareness has intensified the satirist’s consciousness of the world by its seeming compression of space and time (Robertson 1992). Adherence to the mos maiorum was a major driving force in dictating the Roman’s acquisition of wealth and glory from military participation in foreign wars. In fact, by Juvenal’s lifetime Rome had enjoyed its greatest geographic extent and the culmination of enlargement over an approximate 300-year span. And, the satirist’s collection articulates loudly the effects of compression, namely how the exchange and flow

160  The army’s circulation: Satire 16 of information creates new interdependencies between local (Rome) and global contexts (other) that not only inform the expectations and rules for the operation of Roman social and political institutions, like amicitia, its economy, and the military, but also problematize their traditional functions in the face of a perceived change and threat to the status quo of Roman social existence. So, where modern globalization theories (post-industrial era) argue for and discuss the dialectical nature of the appropriation of cultural values, ideas, and goods (Tomlinson 2012), Juvenal’s portrait of Rome most certainly illuminates a pre-industrial prototype. Juvenal’s Rome experiences not appropriation, but both a depletion and diffusion of its own cultural values as its imperial geography expands. Space, furthermore, informs a major mode by which Juvenal conceptualizes Roman culture as constructed by way of practices of symbolic representation. For Juvenal, Rome’s traditions and institutional practices are rooted in the fixed locality of Rome and its environs as the birthplace of its civilization. The process of globalization behind empire building, however, challenges, if not disturbs the construction of cultural meaning tied to a fixed locality, with the threat of foreign influence that dislodges everyday meanings from anchors in the environment. This dislocation, otherwise known as deterritorialization, results from increased connectivity induced by challenges to the status quo that weaken the ties of culture to a physical location, whether rooted in reality or national myth. This sense of displacement may then be viewed as another major impact of global connectivity on Rome sparked by an intensified awareness of its expanding world as in the cases of culinary excess, the depletion of natural resources, and threats to the daily routines attached to amicitia, as I have argued in previous chapters. Roman soldiers, too, come to represent the antithesis of the anchored cultural station attached to a fixed location. The post’s very nature demands mobility, and the military’s movement only insures continued participation in global flows of culture. Herein lies the ultimate paradox of the Roman imperial project: the acquisition of wealth and territory is predicated upon the consumption of resources beyond one’s locality, without which the space of empire cannot increase. The construction of empire undoubtedly demands widespread collateral damage on both its conquerors and its subjects. One clear testament of Juvenal’s increased awareness lies in his narrative range and trajectory that determine a gradual movement from geographic center to periphery. Such a movement, however, is not always unidirectional. As I have demonstrated, topics of discourse often refer back to Rome, the city itself, or to Roman institutional practices as a natural point of comparison. But, as its discursive launching pad the Satires locates us first at the core of empire, Rome, and the Italian mainland (Book 1), to Egypt and the military’s presence on the peripheries of empire by satires 15 and 16 (Book 5), the end of the collection. The narrative focus from center to periphery both illuminates and mimics the process of increased connectivity and the new flows of cultural transmission between new peoples and practices. “The rapidly developing and ever-densening network of interconnections and interdependencies”110 sparked by the subjugation of new people and territories, reshapes Roman social life. In exploring and exporting the

The army’s circulation: Satire 16  161 daily life of Rome, the author reveals many sources of complex connectivity in his satiric, yet penetrating, interpretations across various spheres of social and political existence. If the end of the collection leaves us with some troubling consequences of globalization on Roman social and political existence, the question remains where the satirist locates his satire among the emerging global flows of communication and heightened consciousness. As an epilogue, in the final chapter I propose that the satirist’s own view as a writer of satire from both a privileged and marginalized perspective finds a fitting analogue in the image and botanical metaphor of the rhizome. The satirist’s discourse of movement, then, is emblematic of globalization processes that affect the wide geographic range of Rome’s empire, from the local to the global.

Notes 1 Text of Florus from Malcovati 1972. 2 See Chapter 3. For further discussion of Rome’s size and the larger physical world see Ando 2000: 277–335. 3 The phrase ἐν . . . μεγάλοις στρατοπέδοις more strictly equates to a dative of means thereby indicating not only the armies’ physical location, but also its physical ability and strength to enforce the empire’s territorial cohesion before any opposing challenges or threats. 4 For general studies on the Roman army and soldier, see Watson 1969, Webster 1969, Campbell 1984, Roth 1999, Campbell 2002, Goldsworthy 2003, de Blois and Lo Cascio 2007, Erdkamp 2007, Fields and Anderson 2009, and Goldsworthy 2016. 5 Satire 16 has not enjoyed the same examination as the rest of the satires most likely due to its incomplete state. However, there are a few recent discussions that have begun to buck the trend; see Clark 1988, Keane 2007, Stramaglia 2008 (esp. pp. 291–317), and Keane 2015: 206–212. 6 It is rather peculiar that this satire is addressed to an individual by the name of Gallius about whom nothing is known (see Ferguson 1987: 102). Perhaps it recalls the Gallic territory conquered by Rome. 7 See “castra” in LTUR 1: 246–256. 8 Semper ego auditor tantum? numquamne reponam vexatus toties rauci Theseide Cordi? impune ergo mihi recitaverit ille togatas, hic elegos? impune diem consumpserit ingens Telephus aut summi plena iam margine libri scriptus et in tergo necdum finitus Orestes? Will I always only the listener? Will I never retaliate for all those times I was harassed by rough Cordus’ Theseid? Without punishment, therefore, will one have recited Roman comedies and the other elegies to me? Without punishment will the immense Telephus have consumed my day, or a thus far unfinished Orestes even written on the back on an already filled margin of a full book? (Sat. 1.1–5) See also Chapters 1 and 3 for further discussion of this passage. See also Courtney 1980, Braund 1996, and Henderson 1999. For similar uses of the interrogative to introduce the satire’s main themes, see also 15.1–2, 14.23–24, 13.5–6, 11.2–3, 10.4–5, 9.3–4, 8.1–9, 4.5–7, 3.6–9, 41, and 2.4–9.

162  The army’s circulation: Satire 16 9 Such examples are rather numerous in the collection, but when they appear, often signal the introduction or change in theme or topic. An exceptional example is Juvenal’s declaration about writing satire: difficile est saturam non scribere. nam quis iniquae tam patiens urbis, tam ferreus, ut teneat se, causidici nova cum . . . it is difficult not to write satire. For who is so enduring of an unfair city, so calloused that he can restrain himself, when . . . (1.30–32) See Chapter 2 for additional discussion of this passage. 10 S.v. patior in Kelling and Suskin 1977: 89; possum (Kelling and Suskin 1977: 95); fero (Kelling and Suskin 1977: 46). 11 Contra nulla emolumenta with regard to honest citizens in Rome, like Umbricius (3.21–22), cf. emolumenta at 16.35. 12 (1) 16.1–6 (Proemium): statement of satire’s topic, the rewards of service/army; (2) 16.7–34: ability to attack others (citizens, too) with impunity; (3) 16.35–50: soldiers have the fast track to having cases heard in court; (4) 16.51–60: soldier’s right of peculium castrense (property acquired during duty) over which he had complete control and not subject to the power (potestas) of his living father. Most commentators and scholars are in agreement with this enumeration of sections. See Courtney 1980: 613, Clark 1988, Willis 1997: 210–213 (by paragraph indentation of the Latin), Stramaglia 2008, and Keane 2015: 206–212. 13 See Clark 1988 and Keane 2007. 14 Hassall 2000: 320–321. Without guards, paramilitary police and other auxiliary units, the Roman army totaled around 380,000. 15 Of around the thirty legions in the time of Juvenal, about one third of them were located along the Danubian frontier, specifically on the river bank itself. Three were located in Pannonia Superior, one in Pannonia Inferior, two in Moesia Superior, three in Moesia Inferior, and one beyond the river in Dacia (Wilkes 1999: 95). ILS 2288 offers a province-by-province distribution of legions (Hassall 2000: 322n6). 16 The mention of fear harkens back to Juvenal’s tagline for the content of his collection: quicquid agunt homines, votum, timor, ira, voluptas, / gaudia, discursus, nostri farrago libelli (“Whatever men do—prayer, fear, anger, desire, / joy, bustling activity—is the multiplicity of my little book”; 1.85–86). See Chapter 6 (“Epilogue”) for a discussion of these lines with regard to the notion of the rhizome. 17 Campbell 1984: 243–299. 18 See Campbell 1984: 243–254, Alston 1999, and Krychenko 2014: 46–90 for an overview of the image of the Roman soldier in Greco-Roman literature beginning with Polybius and concluding with Apuleius. Phang 2008 offers a most sophisticated analysis of Roman soldiery, with the argument that ancient literary authors construct their accounts of military practice from exempla, which serve as models of morals and behaviors to be emulated or avoided. 19 See Murnaghan and Joshel 1998, esp. Saller 1998 and Rei 1998. See also Garnsey and Saller 1987: 112ff. Phang 2008: 7 notes that for the Romans “commanding an army was not a technical task; it was conceived of in moral and societal terms.” 20 The following discussion of violence should not be confused with the scholarship on the satirist’s articulation of anger, or ira (see Anderson 1982 and Braund 1996); however, this does not necessarily preclude the emotion from the satirist’s discussion of the army. An exceptional example is the satirist as soldier who, among other qualities and emotions, does express anger in satire 1. See discussion pp. 147–150.

The army’s circulation: Satire 16  163 21 See OLD s.v. pulso 5: To assail (a person, his body, etc.) with blows, beat, assault. In a strict militaristic context, it can mean to lay siege, assail, or bombard the opposing force (s.v. pulso 6). 22 There are 27 uses of audeo and its various forms in the collection, many which Juvenal employs to signal problematic behavior (see esp. 1.53 (author’s exercise of παρρησία), 2.2 (on hypocrites), 15.74 (on cannibalism), et al.). 23 OLD s.v. repono 5: to pay back in the same coin. Though the word itself does not imply any physical action or violation, what the narrator wishes “to pay back in the same coin” is the repeated battering (vexatus) he has received by the endless recitation. 24 The implications behind the satirist’s own violent acts and as a warrior will be discussed further (pp. 146–150). 25 Proelia quanta illic dispensatore videbis / armigero! (“What great battles you will witness there / with an armed attendant nearby!”; 1.91–92). 26 Stramaglia 2008: 301 observes, “Per i pochi scrupoli dei soldati nel colpire I civili per strada cf. 3, 247–248 (cit. ad. 14; e vd. 3, 297–301) per la reazione sottomessa del più debole malmenato dal più potente” (“For unscrupulous soldiers striking citizens on the street, cf. 3.247–248 (cited at 14; and see 3.297–301) [and] for the subdued reaction of the weaker beaten by the stronger”). Courtney 1980: 190, on the other hand, does not suggest any resonance with a soldier, though he does claim a run-in with such an individual might remind the reader of “Nero’s escapades.” Nero as an emperor was considered the commander in chief. 27 In addition to the reference to a soldier (militis), calcor, “to trample on (bodies, etc., esp. in battle;” s.v. OLD entry 6) suggests a militaristic context as in a pitched battle. See also 15.59–60: ludere se credunt ipsi tamen et puerlies / exercere acies, quod nulla cadavera calcent (“Yet they think they are playing, like boys / waging war, because there are no bodies to trample on”). 28 Plautus is especially fond of onstage violence between dramatic characters, human and gods alike in disguise, but most often against slaves (cf. Stewart 2012: 80–116). One prominent term for beating in Plautus is the verb vapulo and its various adjectival and noun forms, which occur forty times. 29 Brown 2004 seeks to establish the stereotype of the soldier as an outsider, but whose status as outsider does not necessarily indicate his status as foreign but as mercenary For a discussion of the literary stereotypes of soldiers in Greek and Roman antiquity, see Alston 1999, Blume 2001, Brown 2004, and Leigh 2004. Brink 2014: 42–90 and Kyrychenko 2014: 46–89 frame their treatments of the soldier in the service of early Christian narratives, including Luke-Acts and the Gospel, respectively. 30 Lilja 1965, Rei 1998, Stewart 2012, Gunderson 2015. On slavery and violence see Finley 1980: 161–164 and Stewart 2012. On slavery and the master see Patterson 1982: 77–101. 31 Plautus Curculio 689–690 (ed. Leo 1895). Elsewhere, especially 566–576, Therapontigonus threatens the pimp Cappadox with physical violence in a manner a soldier would inflict violence upon his enemy in the battlefield: Thera.:  Reddin an non virginem,

prius quam te huic meae machaerae obicio, mastigia?

Cappa.: Vapulare ego te vehementer iubeo: ne me territes . . . Thera.: iam ego te faciam ut hic formicae frustillatim differant. Thera:  Are you returning the maiden to me, or not,

before I toss you in front of this sword, you rogue?

Cappa.: I’ll order you to get a beating if you scare me . . . Thera.: I’ll see to it that ants carry you away here in fragments.

(566–567, 576)

In true Plautine spirit, the pimp orders himself to beat (vapulare) the soldier. Soon the exchange escalates to threats from both parties, but with the soldier having initiated

164  The army’s circulation: Satire 16 the first threat. The verb minor (to threaten) is spoken three times in the span of two verse lines (571–572), twice by the soldier and once by the pimp. 32 Manifestations and the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in antiquity is a growing area of interest, especially in regard to war and its psychological trauma on soldiers and combat veterans. See the work of clinical psychologist Jonathan Shay 1995 and 2002; see also Cosmopoulos 2007, Melchior 2011, and Meineck and Konstan 2014. 33 Cum deinde vultu atque ipsa trepidatione mendacium prodidissem, ponere iussit arma et malo cavere (“And since I had revealed myself a liar by my expression and that very fear, he ordered me to hand over my weapon and to beware of a beating”; Satyricon 82). 34 ὅλον τὸ σῶμα οὕτως ἔχειν σε δεῖ ὡς ὀνάριον ἐπισεσαγμένον, ἐφ᾿ ὅσον ἂν οἷόν τε ᾖ, ἐφ᾿ ὅσον ἂν διδῶται· ἂν δ᾿ ἀγγαρεία ᾖ καὶ στρατιώτης ἐπιλάβηται, ἄφες, μὴ ἀντίτεινε μηδὲ γόγγυζε. εἰ δὲ μή, πληγὰς λαβὼν οὐδὲν ἧττον ἀπολεῖς καὶ τὸ ὀνάριον. (“You ought to treat your whole body like a poor loaded-down donkey, as long as it is possible, as long as it is allowed; and if it be commandeered and a soldier lay hold of it, let it go, do not resist nor grumble. If you do, you will get a beating and lose your little donkey just the same.” Epictetus 4.1.79. Translation Oldfather 1926–1928.) 35 For correspondences in the exercise of violence between the Roman army and bandits and robbers in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, see Garraffoni 2004 with bibliography on additional non-Anglophone sources on the army. 36 The conversation between the soldier and the gardener follows a similar formula to the one between the soldier and his victim in 3.292–296. Both narrators convey the exchange via a series of spoken exchanges expressed in direct discourse. Like the soldier in Apuleius who does not respond verbally to the soldier’s request, so too the poor citizen in satire 3.295 to which the soldier says: nil mihi respondes? aut dic aut accipe calcem (“Are you not answering me? Either speak up or receive a boot [to the body]”). 37 See Campbell 1984: 248–249 with special attention to P. Oxy 240 (ed. Grenfell and Hunt 1898, rpt. 2008), Isaac 1990: 86 and Potter 2011: 526–529. 38 For petitions to soldiers and adjudication by soldiers in Egyptian papyrological evidence, see also Peachin 2007. 39 Pliny Ep. 7.22. In another request to the emperor Trajan, Pliny requests the status of a special petition to the emperor regarding the status of citizenship for the daughter of a centurion P. Accius Aquila, to which Trajan grants citizenship (Ep. 10.106–107). 40 See Campbell 1984: 248–249n16. 41 See Peachin 2007 for further evidence of judicial activity on the part of centurions. 42 16.32–34. Here paganus stands for citizen. 43 See Courtney 1980: 615nn10sqq. See Brennan 2000 for a most extensive account of the development of the office through 50 bce. See also Ulpian’s Digest 22, 5, 3, 6 (ed. Mommsen, Krüger, and Watson 1985). 44 Libertas pauperis haec est: / pulsatus rogat et pugnis concisus adorat / ut liceat paucis cum dentibus inde reverti (“This is a poor man’s freedom: / once pummeled and punched he asks and begs / that its alright that he return home with some of his teeth”; 3.299–301). 45 Dicere si temptes aliquid tacitusve recedes, / tantundem est: feriunt (“if you should try to speak up or retreat quietly, / it’s all the same: they strike you”; 3.297–298). Prior to this violent punch line, the aggressive drunk questions the passerby (pauperis, 3.299). 46 Dignum erit ergo / declamatoris mulino corde Vagelli, / cum duo crura habeas, offendere tot caligas, tot / milia clavorum (“It’s worthy of the declaimer Vagellius and his jackass brain, although you [the aggrieved] have your knees, to provoke so many boots and thousands of hobnails”; 16.22–25). 47 According to Juvenal, even if the plaintiff should bring about a charge in all his “naïve optimism” (Courtney 1980: 616), the entire cohort—never mind the soldier charged—will see that any damages the plaintiff wins in court will be more painful than the original assault (16.20–22).

The army’s circulation: Satire 16  165 48 16.45–50. See Haynes 1999: 10n3. 49 This according to the Digest 5.1.19.2 (ed. Mommsen, Krüger, and Watson 1985). See Campbell 1984: 257n15. 50 Phang 2008: 114n9 cites these lines as further evidence of provincials’ grievances of military abuse of citizens and citizen resentment of soldiers’ legal privileges. 51 According to Stramaglia 2008: 304: “vallum: propriamente, la palizzata che circondiva ogni accampamento romano” (“vallum: specifically, the palisade that encircled every Roman camp”). The reference to a Roman camp’s structure, i.e., its rampart, does not suggest any particular camp and, therefore, confirms one quality shared by many camps, if not most. 52 The concern about absence from the standards is not restricted to matters of the law. Some correspondence between the emperor Trajan and the governor of BithyniaPontus, Pliny the Younger, indicate a general uneasiness about soldiers’ absence from the camp area itself to tend to matters such as to guard duties over prisons (Ep. 10.20) or to fulfill the request for additional troops by other prefects, like here, Gavius Bassius, prefect of Pontus (Ep. 10.21–22). 53 See Campbell 1984: 257. For the rescript see D 22.5.3.6. Section 5 (De testibus) cites three rescripts from the emperor Hadrian regarding the handling of witnesses and evidence. 54 For all (thirty-four) instances of urbs in the collection, see Kelling and Suskin 1977: 132 s.v. urbs. 55 It appears that Augustus ignored the restriction of soldiery within the sacred space of the pomerium (see Rüpke 1990). In fact, as many as forty thousand soldiers were in Rome according to Busch 2007: 315. Busch offers a chart (315–316) that suggests the empire’s capital had as many as five thousand cohortes praetoriae and three hundred speculatores Augusti. See also Coulston 2000: 76–118, esp. pp. 76–81 and Christ 1988: 108ff. Coulston identifies twenty-eight military installations and other related sites in and around the city of Rome (cf. 77) and suggests there may have been thirteen or twenty thousand troops stationed at Rome during Trajan’s reign. 56 Coulston 2000: 88n69. 57 This, too, according to the scholia (Σ) 10.95: Iuxta aggerem primus posuit castra Seianus, quae dicta sunt castra praetoria. Cf. OLD s.v. agger 2c. For its use with specific reference to the praetorian camp and the embankment alongside the Servian Wall at Rome, see 5.153, 6.588, and 8.43. 58 The bravery that only the closest of friends would choose to exercise in the face of danger as did Pylades for Orestes. According to Courtney 1980: 618 “Tam Pylades = tam amicus.” This sentiment of friendship is expressed by Ovid in Remedia Amoris 589: “semper habe Pyladem aliquem, qui curet Oresten.” 59 16.45–48. See my discussion of these verses (pp. 149–150). 60 Although the original context involves marital fidelity and satire 6, treating the vices of women in general, the sentiment is applicable to corruption and the abuse of power in general. 61 Potter 2011: 517. 62 See Wheeler 2010, 2011 and Chappell 2010. 63 See Pliny Ep. 10.100–102, dated circa 112 ce. 64 For the nuances of patronage as it was reorganized to align directly with the princeps as sole patron see Wallace-Hadrill 1982. See also Hekster 2007: 92n5. 65 See Hekster 2007: 91n1. Other means by which the emperor announced his intimacy and centrality with his troops included portraiture, coinage, and monumental architecture (such as triumphal arches), as well as by public works (see note 90). 66 An actual address (the Lambaesis inscription), or adlocutio, from the emperor Hadrian to his troops (Legion III Augusta) in 128 ce survives, preserved on the base of an honorific column in Numidia (Algeria), an outlying province (ILS 2487; 9133–5; see Campbell 1994: 18–20). Its contents, however, only detail Hadrian’s praise for the

166  The army’s circulation: Satire 16 training regimen and responsibilities of the Roman army, with no particular attention to Hadrian himself as a leader. 67 In his reply to Pliny’s concern about the Christian problem addressed initially in Epistle 10.96, Trajan replies in Epistle 10.97 that the Christians (ostensibly some being Roman citizens) should not be subject to the anonymous accusations of documents, since such behavior would be of the worst example and poor reflection of his rule (Nam et pessimi exempli nec nostri saeculi est, “For the documents are the worst example, and are not of our age [my reign]”; 10.97.2). 68 Quidquid autem Iuliopolitanis praestiteris, id etiam toti provinciae proderit (“Whatever benefit you offer the citizens of Juliopolis will, nevertheless, be a benefit to the entire province”; 77.2). Centurions were often seen to represent the army and the state (Alston 1999: 187). 69 Ea condicio est civitatis Byzantiorum confluente undique in eam commeantium turba (“That situation of the city of Byzantium, into which a mob of travelers flows from all sides”; 10.78.1). The language of circulation (confluo) and movement (commeans) signals the desire for increased patrol of the area. 70 Sherwin-White 1966: 668 notes that Pliny could not deal with serious offences because he had no capital jurisdiction over Roman citizens. 71 Sherwin-White 1966: 668 notes that an inscription from Euhippe in Caria appealed to the emperor Caracalla “for protection from the exactions of soldiers and officiales straying from the ‘imperial and public routes.’” 72 Vota, domine, priore anno nuncupata alacres laetique persolvimus novaque rursus certante commilitonum et provincialium pietate suscepimus (“The vows, my lord, which we offered you in the previous year with such alacrity and joy, we have again publicly renewed, with our fellow soldiers and provincials competing with one another in their devotion”; Ep. 100). 73 See Ep. 100–101 and 103. 74 Scholarship on Trajan’s column is fairly extensive: Cichorius 1896 and 1900, Rossi 1971, Lepper and Frere 1988, Jones 1993, Davies 1997, and Coulston 2003. 75 Satire 1 for Book 1 (satires 1–5), satire 7 for Book 3 (satires 7–9), satire 10 for Book 4 (satires 10–12) and satire 13 for Book 5 (13–16). This, of course, does not preclude much overlap. For example, women feature as objects of satire throughout the collection and are not limited to discussion in any single satire. 76 See esp. Freudenburg 2001. 77 This passage is also discussed in Chapter 1, but with particular attention to how the verb decurrere and the location campus help establish Juvenal’s use of motion within the general framework of globalizing tendencies. 78 For both the religious and political significance of building projects on the Campus Martius area, see Zanker 1988, Nicolet 1991, Favro 1996, Rehak 2006, and Jacobs II and Conlin 2014. See Chapter 1 for further discussion of the Campus Martius and Juvenal’s poetic procedure behind the use of inner-city Roman structures and topography. 79 This was generally the case except perhaps for more ceremonial purposes, like the triumph, where the triumphator may have been exempt and, therefore, allowed the right to wield a weapon during his ceremonial parade through the inner area of Rome, including the Roman forum. 80 Quid referam quanta siccum iecur ardeat ira . . . (“For what reason shall I relate with what anger my dry liver burns . . .?”; 1.45). According to Braund 1996: 87, “The liver was regarded as the seat of the strongest passions, including anger,” citing Horace Sat. 1.9.66 and Juvenal Sat. 6.648; see also Courtney 1980: 95n45 and Anderson 1982: 293–362. 81     Parati digredimur in this context suggests an abrupt adjournment. For the comparandum, cf. Pliny Ep. 5.9. See also Courtney 1980: 621. 82 Harena has been used as a gladiatorial metaphor for orators (Courtney 1980: 621n47 for additional references). The word is also used in the description of a violent death at 1.157.

The army’s circulation: Satire 16  167 83 Juvenal uses pugno in the context of a forensic battle at 7.173. See Stramaglia 2008: 313. 84 Lenta, meaning “muddy,” which in this passage modifies harena, the sand (of the arena), recalls the image of the blood of gladiators and animals mixed in the sand of the Colosseum. Unlike the gladiatorial arena, however, the fight that ensues in the arena of the courtroom suggests the sand (harena) is muddied (lenta) not by the blood of its participants, but by the urine of its judges. Such a reading is in line with Juvenal’s bathetic style of deflation. I thank Lorenzo F. Garcia Jr. for pointing this out. 85 On persona see note 34 of Chapter 4. 86 On the ritual and general significance of the pomerium, see note 89 of Chapter 1. 87 Clark 1988: 115. 88 Balsdon 1951: 9 claims that Sulla was “obsessed by the notion of his luck” as early as early as his capture of Jugurtha in 106 bce. This notion of his luck so permeated his life that following a series of dreams, he also named his two children Faustus and Fausta, or “favorable,” since these names, too, were generally associated with felix (Keaveney 2005: 199n27). Keaveney 2005 argues that Sulla believed he possessed felicitas because he also possessed virtus, which the Romans believed one could only receive by blessing of the gods. The gods conferred their blessing upon an individual in the form of bona fortuna (good fortune), which would be communicated by prophecy. If the individual’s chosen venture was successful (i.e., Sulla’s military campaigns), he possessed felicitas and, therefore, was recognized as felix, or “fortunate” (33–34). 89 Denarius (Faustus, from Crawford 1974, entry 426/1). 90 See Fears 1981 and Braund 1993, both of whom trace the development of imperial virtues and their advertisement to the general public via monumental architecture, coinage, and literature. 91 Mattingly and Sydenham 1926: 13; Other coins bearing similar imagery with Felicitas include RIC (Roman Imperial Coinage) 56, 56B, 120, 120v, 121, 172, 174, 175, 271, 272, 301, 332, 332v, 333v, 343, 345, 346, 499, 634, 635, 671, 672, 672v, 673v, 674. 92 RIC 625, 625v, 625 As, 626. 93 Just a few examples include RIC 83, 120–RSC600a, 120. For further discussion of Hadrian as travelling emperor and other cultural representations of his travels see discussion in Uden 2015: 205–217. 94 Examples are fairly exhaustive, but some include RIC 40 and 50. Other variations include FELIC-AUG (RIC 119, 119b); others show FELICITAS AUG (233a, 233d, 234a and 234d). On a few Felicitas and Hadrian face each other and clasp hands in a gesture of union (237–RSC630, 237 (Sear 3488), 754e, 755, and 805). 95 RIC 220, 264, 264 (RSC 1306). 96 Et nos ergo manum ferulae subduximus, et nos / consilium dedimus Sullae, privatus ut altum / dormiret (“And I, too, have removed my hand from the cane, and I, / have given advice to Sulla to sleep deeply as a private citizen”; 1.15–17). 97 See Zanker 1988. 98 Bennet 1997: 145 and 193. 99 Two coins (RIC 280c (Aureus) and RIC 280d (Denarius)) celebrate Hadrian’s third consulship, with his bust on the obverse and on the reverse a diademed and mantled Venus holding a scepter in one hand and Cupid on the other flanked by the legend VENERIS FELICIS. The attribute FELIX also appears on a series of coins representing the goddess Roma seated in a curule chair holding a scepter and branch flanked by ROMA FELIX (RIC 220, 264 and 264 (= RSC 1306)). Both series date approximately to 134–138 ce. 100 Carey and Scullard 1975: 402; Cassius Dio 57.4.2 (text from Boissevain 1895–1931): τό τε σύμπαν οὔθ᾿ ὑπὲρ ἑκκαίδεκα ἔτη στρατεύεσθαι ἤθελον, καὶ δραχμὴν ἡμερησίαν φέρειν τά τε ἆθλα εὐθὺς αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ στρατοπέδῳ λαμβάνειν ἠξίουν, ἀπειλοῦντες, ἂν μὴ τύχωσιν αὐτῶν, τό τε ἔθνος ἀποστήσειν καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν Ῥώμην ἐλάσειν. Suetonius Life of Tiberius 25.2: Germaniciani . . . ad capessendam rem publicam urgebant (“The

168  The army’s circulation: Satire 16 soldiers . . . under the command of Germanicus urged him to take hold of the state”); Life of Caligula 1.1 (ed. Ihm 1967): excessu Augusti nuntiato, legiones universas imperatorem Tiberium pertinacissime recusantis et sibi summam rei p. deferentis incertum pietate an constantia maiore compescuit atque hoste mox devicto triumphavit (“When the death of Augustus was announced, [Germanicus], whether out of piety or greater courage, silenced all the legions that most vehemently refused to accept the authority of Tiberius and rather defer the state to him and, soon after he conquered the enemy, celebrated a triumph”). 101 Tacitus Histories 1.4: evulgato imperii arcano posse principem alibi quam Romae fieri (“the secret of empire was made public, that an emperor could be made elsewhere than at Rome”). Latin text is from Fischer 1911. 102 The transferal of legal powers upon an intended successor began with Augustus and his conferral of supreme powers upon Tiberius. However, this procedure would become legal later under Vespasian as set out on the lex de imperio Vespasiani in 69/70 ce. For Nerva’s transferal of imperial powers upon Trajan, see Bennet 1997: 49n27. 103 Latin from Sherwin-White 1969. 104 Incedebas pedibus, incedis (“You used to go on foot, and you still do so”; Paneg. 24.2). For more on the significance of walking and running in the Roman imagination, see Jenkyns 2013: 143–193. 105 See Chapters 1 and 2 on the vocabulary of transportation (veho, deveho, et al.) that figures predominantly in the satirist’s code of social and ethnic differentiation. 106 nam milites nihil a plebe habitu tranquillitate modestia differebant (“For the soldiers in no way differed from the people either in dress, civility or discipline”; Paneg. 23.3) 107 Hostages were demanded from frontier peoples of the East (Courtney 1980: 149). 108 Sartorial trappings act as one code for sexual deviance and social hypocrisy in Satire 2. See Nappa 1998 for more on Juvenal’s construction of sexual mores in this satire. For additional discussion of satire 2, see Chapter 1. 109 Morley 2010: 115, 126–127. 110 Tomlinson 2007: 352.

References Alston, R. (1999) “The Ties that Bind: Soldiers and Societies.” In Adrian Goldsworthy and Ian P. Haynes, eds. The Roman Army as a Community. JRA Supplement Series 34. Portsmouth. 175–195. Anderson, W. S. (1982) Essays on Roman Satire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ando, Clifford. (2000) Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press. Balsdon, J. P. V. D. (1951) “Sulla Felix.” Journal of Roman Studies 41:1–10. Bennet, Julian. (1997) Trajan: Optimus Princeps: A Life and Times. London: Routledge. Blume, H-D. (2001) “Komische Soldaten. Entwicklung und Wandel einer typischen Bühnenfigur in der Antike.” In B. Zimmerman, ed. Rezeption des antiken Dramas auf der Bühne und in der Literatur. Stuttgart: Metzler. 175–195. Boissevain, U. P. (1895–1931) Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiarum Romanarum quae supersunt. Berolini: Weidmann. Braund, Susanna M. (1993) “Paradigms of Power: Roman Emperors in Roman Satire.” In Keith Cameron, ed. Humor and History. Oxford: Intellect. 56–69. Braund, Susanna. (1996) Juvenal: Satires, Book 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brennan, T. Corey. (2000) The Praetorship in the Roman Republic. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The army’s circulation: Satire 16  169 Brink, Laurie. (2014) Soldiers in Luke-Acts: Engaging, Contradicting, and Transcending the Stereotypes. Ph.D. Thesis, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Brown, Peter. (2004) “Soldiers in New Comedy: Insiders and Outsiders.” Leeds International Classical Studies 3(8): 1–16. Busch, Alexandra. (2007) “‘Militia in urbe’: The Military Presence in Rome.” In Lukas de Blois and Elio Lo Cascio, eds. The Impact of the Roman Army (200 bc–ad 476): Economic, Social, Political, Religious, and Cultural Aspects. Leiden: Brill. 315–342. Campbell, J. B. (1984) The Emperor and the Roman Army, 31 bc–ad 235. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Campbell, J. B. (1994) The Roman Army, 31 bc–ad 337: A Sourcebook. London: Routledge. Campbell, J. B. (2002) War and Society in Imperial Rome, 31 bc–ad 284. London: Routledge. Carey, M. and H. H. Scullard. (1975) A History of Rome Down to the Reign of Constantine. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Chappell, Stephen (2010) “Auxiliary Regiments and New Cultural Formation in Imperial Dacia, 106–274 ce.” Classical World 104: 89–106. Christ, K. (1988) Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit von Augustus bis Konstantin. München: C.H. Beck. Cichorius, Conrad. (1896) Die Reliefs der Traianssäule. Erster Tafelband: “Die Reliefs des Ersten Dakischen Krieges,” Tafeln 1–57. Berlin: Verlag von Georg Reimer. Cichorius, Conrad. (1900) Die Reliefs der Traianssäule. Zweiter Tafelband: “Die Reliefs des Zweiten Dakischen Krieges,” Tafeln 58–113. Berlin: Verlag von Georg Reimer. Clark, Mark. (1988) “Juvenal, ‘Satire’ 16: Fragmentary Justice.” Illinois Classical Studies 13:113–125. Cosmopoulos, Michael B., ed. (2007) Experiencing War: Trauma and Society from Ancient Greece to the Iraq War. Chicago: Ares Publishers. Coulston, J. C. N. (2000) “Armed and Belted Men: The Soldiery in Imperial Rome.” In J. C. N. Coulston and Hazel Dodge, eds. Ancient Rome: The Archaeology of the Eternal City. Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology. 76–118 Coulston, J. C. N. (2003) “Overcoming the Barbarian: Depictions of Rome’s Enemies in Trajanic Monumental Art.” In de Blois, et al. The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power: Proceedings of the Third Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Roman Empire, c. 200 bc–ad 476). Amsterdam: Gieben. 389–424. Courtney, Edward. (1980) A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal. London: The Athlone Press. Crawford, Michael H. (1974) Roman Republican Coinage. New York: Cambridge University Press. Davies, Penelope J. E. (1997) “The Politics of Perpetuation: Trajan’s Column and the Art of Commemoration.” American Journal of Archaeology 101(1): 47–48. de Blois, Lukas and Elio Lo Cascio, eds. (2007) The Impact of the Roman Army (200 bc–ad 476): Economic, Social, Political, Religious, and Cultural Aspects. Leiden: Brill. Erdkamp, Paul. (2007) A Companion to the Roman Army. Oxford: Blackwell. Favro, Diane. (1996) The Urban Image of Augustan Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fears, R. (1981) “The Cult of Virtue and Roman Imperial Ideology.” ANRW II 17(2): 827–948. Ferguson, John. (1987) A Prosopography to the Poems of Juvenal. Brussels: Latomus. Fields, Nic and Duncan Anderson. (2009) The Roman Army of the Principate, 27 bc–ad 117. Oxford: Osprey.

170  The army’s circulation: Satire 16 Finley, M. I. (1980) Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology. New York: Viking Press. Fischer, C. D., ed. (1911) Cornelii Taciti Historiarum Libri. Oxonii: Typographeo Clarendonian. Freudenburg, Kirk. (2001) Satires of Rome: Threatening Poses from Lucilius to Juvenal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Garnsey, Peter and Richard Saller. (1987) The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press. Garraffoni, R. (2004) “Robbers and Soldiers: Criminality and Roman Army in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses.” Gerión 22: 367–377. Goldsworthy, Adrian Keith. (2003) The Complete Roman Army. New York: Thames & Hudson. Goldsworthy, Adrian Keith. (2016) Pax Romana: War, Peace, and Conquest in the Roman World. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Grenfell, Bernard P. and Arthur S. Hunt, eds. (1898; repr. 2008) The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. Gunderson, Erik. (2015) Laughing Awry: Plautus and Tragicomedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hassall, Mark. (2000) “The Army.” In Alan K. Bowman, Peter Garnsey, and Dominic Rathbone, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 11, High Empire, ad 70–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 320–343. Haynes, Ian P. (1999) “Military Service and Cultural Identity in the Auxilia.” In Adrian Goldsworthy and Ian P. Haynes, eds. The Roman Army as a Community. JRA Supplement Series 34. Portsmouth. 165–174. Hekster, Olivier. (2007) “Fighting for Rome: The Emperor as a Military Leader.” In Lukas de Blois and Elio Lo Cascio, eds. The Impact of the Roman Army (200 bc–ad 476): Economic, Social, Political, Religious, and Cultural Aspects. Leiden: Brill. 91–106. Henderson, John. (1999) Writing Down Rome: Satire, Comedy, and Other Offences in Latin Poetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ihm, Maximilian, ed. (1967) C. Suetoni Tranquilli Opera. Vol. 1. De vita Caesarum libri VIII. Leipzig: Teubner. ILS = Dessau, Hermann, ed. (1892) Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, Vol. 1. Berlin: Weidmann. Isaac, Benjamin H. (1990) The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Jacobs II, Paul W. and Diane Atnally Conlin. (2014) Campus Martius: The Field of Mars in the Life of Ancient Rome. New York: Cambridge University Press. Jenkyns, Richard. (2013) God, Space, and City in the Roman Imagination. Corby: Oxford University Press. Jones, Mark Wilson. (1993) “One Hundred Feet and a Spiral Stair: The Problem of Designing Trajan’s Column.” Journal of Roman Studies 6: 23–38. Keane, Catherine. (2007) “Defining the Art of Blame: Classical Satire.” In R. Quintero, ed. A Companion to Satire: Ancient and Modern. Oxford: Blackwell. 31–52. Keane, Catherine. (2015) Juvenal and the Satiric Emotions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Keaveney, Arthur. (2005) Sulla, the Last Republican. London: Routledge. Kelling, Lucile and Albert Irving Suskin. (1977) Index Verborum Iuvenalis. Hildesheim: G. Olms Verlag. Krychenko, Alexander. (2014) The Roman Army and the Expansion of the Gospel: The Role of the Centurion in Luke-Acts. Berlin: De Gruyter.

The army’s circulation: Satire 16  171 Leigh, Matthew. (2004) Comedy and the Rise of Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leo, F., ed. (1895) T. Maccius Plautus. Plauti Comoediae. Berlin: Weidmann. Lepper, Frank and Sheppard Frere. (1988) Trajan’s Column. A New Edition of the Cichorius Plates. Introduction, Commentary and Notes, Gloucester: Alan Sutton Publishing. Lilja, Saara. (1965) Terms of Abuse in Roman Comedy. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. LTUR = Steinby, Eva Margareta. (1993–2000) Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae. Roma: Edizioni Quasar. Malcovati, Enrique. (1972) L. Annaei Flori quae exstant. Romae: Off. Polygr. Mattingly, Harold and Edward A. Sydenham. (1926) The Roman Imperial Coinage: Volume 2: Vespasian–Hadrian (69–138). London: Spink and Son. Meineck, Peter and David Konstan, eds. (2014) Combat Trauma and the Ancient Greeks. The New Antiquity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Melchior, Aislinn. (2011) “Caesar in Vietnam.” Greece & Rome 58(2): 209–223. Mommsen, Theodor, Paul Krüger and Alan Watson, eds. (1985) The Digest of Justinian. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Morley, Neville. (2010) The Roman Empire: Roots of Imperialism. London: Pluto Press. Murnaghan, Sheila and Sandra R. Joshel, eds. (1998) Women and Slaves in Greco-Roman Culture. New York: Routledge. Nappa, Christopher. (1998) “‘Praetextati Mores’: Juvenal’s Second Satire.” Hermes 126: 90–108. Nicolet, Claude. (1991) Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. OLD = Glare, P. G. W., ed. (2012, 2nd ed.) Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oldfather, W. A. (1926–1928) Epictetus: The Discourses as Reported by Arrian, the Manual, and Fragments. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons. Patterson, Orlando. (1982) Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Peachin, Michael. (2007) “Petition to a Centurion from the NYU Papyrus Collection and the Question of Informal Adjudication Performed by Centurions.” In A. J. B. Sirks and K. Worp, eds. In Papyri in Memory of P. J. Sijpesteijn (P.Sijp.). American Studies in Papyrology 40. Oakville, CT: American Society of Papyrologists. 79–97. Phang, Sara Elise. (2008) Roman Military Service: Ideologies of Discipline in the Late Republic and Early Principate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Potter, David. (2011) “The Roman Army.” In Michael Peachin, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World. New York: Oxford University Press. 516–534. Rehak, Paul. (2006) Imperium and Cosmos: Augustus and the Northern Campus Martius. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Rei, Annalisa. (1998) “Villains, Wives, and Slaves in the Comedies of Plautus.” In Sheila Murnaghan and Sandra R. Joshel, eds. Women and Slaves in Greco-Roman Culture. New York: Routledge. 92–108. Robertson, Roland. (1992) Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage Publications. Rossi, Lino. (1971) Trajan’s Column and the Dacian Wars. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Roth, Jonathan P. (1999) The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 bc–ad 235). Leiden: Brill. Rüpke, Jörg. (1990) Domi Militiae: die religiöse Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom. Stuttgart: F. Steiner.

172  The army’s circulation: Satire 16 Saller, Richard. (1998) “Symbols of Gender and Status Hierarchies in the Roman Household.” In Sheila Murnaghan and Sandra R. Joshel, eds. Women and Slaves in Greco-Roman Culture. New York: Routledge. 85–91. Shay, Jonathan. (1995) Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character. New York: Atheneum. Shay, Jonathan. (2002) Odysseus in America: Combat Trauma and the Trials of Homecoming. New York: Scribner. Sherwin-White, A. N. (1966) The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sherwin-White, A. N. (1969) Fifty Letters of Pliny. London: Oxford University Press. Stewart, Michael Edward. (2012) The Soldier’s Life: Martial Virtues and Hegemonic Masculinity in the Early Byzantine Empire. Ph.D. Thesis, School of History, Philosophy, Religion, and Classics; University of Queensland. Stramaglia, Antonio. (2008) Giovenale, Satire 1, 7, 12, 16: Storia di un Poeta. Granarolo dell’ Emilia (Bologna): Pàtron. Tomlinson, John. (2007) “Cultural Globalization.” In George Ritzer, ed. The Blackwell Companion to Globalization. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 352–366. Tomlinson, John. (2012) “Deterritorialization.” In George Ritzer, ed. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Uden, James. (2015) The Invisible Satirist: Juvenal and Second-Century Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. (1982) “Civilis Princeps: Between Citizen and King.” Journal of Roman Studies 72: 32–48. Watson, G. R. (1969) The Roman Soldier. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Webster, Graham. (1969) The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries A.D. London: A. and C. Black. Wheeler, E. (2010) “Rome’s Dacian Wars: Domitian, Trajan and Strategy on the Danube.” Journal of Military History 74: 1185–1227. Wheeler, E. (2011) “Rome’s Dacian Wars: Domitian, Trajan and Strategy on the Danube, Part II.” Journal of Military History 75: 191–219. Wilkes, J. J. (1999) “The Roman Army as a Community in the Danube Lands: The Case of the Seventh Legion.” In Adrian Goldsworthy and Ian P. Haynes, eds. The Roman Army as a Community. JRA Supplement Series 34. Portsmouth. 95–104. Willis, Jacob., ed. (1997) D. Iunii Iuuenalis Saturae Sedecim. Stuttgart: Teubner. Zanker, Paul. (1988) The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

6 Epilogue The rhizome satirist

This study has ventured to illuminate how Juvenal’s Rome operates within and responds to the mobility and fluid dynamics of empire. Globalization theories— their trends and processes—have proven a useful tool for understanding the mechanisms of cultural change felt by the satirist in an age of emergent and fluctuating flows of capital and commerce. The satirist’s focus on events centering on the city of Rome to the margins of empire not only delimits its territorial expanse, but also seeks to explain those conditions that emerge as a result of Roman conquest through its army and its soldiers. Such a purview that accounts for these various effects, I have argued, is emblematic of an ecumenical sensibility. Increased connectivity, time–space compression, deterritorialization, and, in some cases, reterritorialization, are all indicative of a global animus, or an increasing consciousness of the world as a whole, where local and global customs and traditions are in continual conversation and reformulation. Juvenal’s Satires reveals an acute sensitivity to the empire’s network of multidirectional flows that compel its participants to (re)define what is Roman (Chapter 2), the performance of institutional rituals (Chapters 2–5), and/or the status of contemporary ethical behavior (Chapters 3–5) whether they wish to or not. Interconnectivity also informs the central importance of space and place to the satirist’s notion of tradition, or the mos mairoum. We have observed, too, that notions of space and place take on both literal and metaphorical dimensions, but meanings that also intersect to convey how deeply entrenched perceptions and experiences of mobility are to the satirist’s sense of institutional stability and routine. The satirist’s feeling of displacement from the patron–client routine of the sportula (satire 1) or literary patronage (satire 7), his sense of displacement within the city of Rome (satire 3), and the mobility and rootlessness expressed by the soldier’s tour of duty (satire 16) are just a few examples examined in this study and littered throughout the collection that highlight people, ideas, and goods in perpetual motion. Storied institutions of the dinner party and dining etiquette, amicitia, the Roman army/soldier, and the concilium principis are simultaneously threatened and redefined; they must fluctuate in order to accommodate and not collapse under the pressure of multidirectional forces. Furthermore, the extent of these flows and pressures on Rome’s institutions are especially felt in the later satires 15 and 16 where discussions of Egyptian tribes and soldiers bring the

174 Epilogue scope of globalizing trends to the limits of empire. The end of the collection, which finds us at the margins, reveals the full breadth of mobility: the effects of deterritorialization and the boomerang effect are felt both at Rome, and from the Campus Martius to Egypt. Globalization has ensured a fairly thorough circulation of people, goods, and ideas that not only diminishes a stable sense of place, but also, simultaneously, generates additional channels of interaction between localities that would not have existed without the territorial growth of Rome’s empire. To fully understand the effects of globalization in Juvenal also requires a shift in our cognitive map or theoretical paradigm. Indiscriminate flows and fluidity belie the categorization of cultural and ethnic identities as simple binaries or models of thought based on center–periphery schemes. This is not to claim that such thinking is not useful or operative in ancient thought. However, I propose that such a paradigm is restrictive and ought not to be construed as the prevailing construct of Juvenal’s design. Instead, these binary or post-structural paradigms should be understood more as the consequences of mobility and transport, not a full cognitive end. If we expand our critical perspective, therefore, another outcome of Rome’s expanding geographic horizons may be viewed as the diffusion of what is ideologically and topographically central in the Mediterranean due to the multiplication and convergence of ethnicities, commerce, commodities, and ideas. However, Irad Malkin (2003), who argues for similar network tendencies in the formulation of a “Greek Wide Web of identities,” suggests that in the era of Greek city-state colonization predating Rome the distance created by expanding horizons strengthens, not diffuses, the virtual center.1 Where pan-Hellenism serves as a coalescing force among these city-states to reinforce cultural centers, like Athens or the oracle at Delphi, the rise of the Second Sophistic movement (perhaps, ironically) in Juvenal’s lifetime only continues to decenter Rome from its geographic pre-eminence and ideological authority.2 Literary tastes of the elite did (re)turn to Athens, especially expressed by the examples of the emperors Trajan and Hadrian. Such a shift represents both a sociological and geographical drift from any one particular locus of authority or position that, in Juvenal’s narrative is the result of increased connectivity and human interaction. Ultimately, Juvenal’s world of interregional activity is one of rootlessness, a seeming nomadism. Such were the qualities discussed in the metaphorical significance, for example, of fish (Chapter 3) and the role of maritime connectivity. The satirist, too, is in for the long, itinerant haul and is just as bound up in the network of local and global movements as others he depicts. Although rather elusive, we observe the satirist in fractured states (or, fractals3) and with minimal glances, either in the form of the first-person narrator as the disenfranchised client in satire 1 or as an advocate for the citizen abused by a soldier’s misbehavior in satire 16. The satirist’s elusiveness is just one effect of his nomadic nature. Many scholars have discussed the relationship between the text and the figure of the satirist, but the satirist’s hallmark slipperiness has generally evaded any definitive, stable identification in a way that the subjectivity of Lucilius or Horace has otherwise afforded its readers.4 I have argued how Juvenal uses surrogates to mimic his practice of writing satire at crossroads and as gathering information

Epilogue  175 at city gates and thresholds.5 Such evocations find the satirist at the same locations and participating in the same network of flows that epitomize processes of globalization. He acts as a bud of information collection (at the crossroads: 1.63–64), but one who is not always static as his observations of people at street corners and city walls (6.398–412) attest. His narrative breadth and extent of coverage are reflective of global network activity, both of which are predicated on human interaction as he so aptly defines at the start of the collection (1.85–86): quicquid agunt homines, votum, timor, ira, voluptas gaudia, discursus, nostri farrago libelli. Whatever men do—prayer, fear, anger, desire, joy, bustling activity—is the multiplicity of my little book. (1.85–86) Juvenal’s discursus (verb of motion, curro + prefix dis-, indiscriminate direction) is human interaction, specifically, the activity of running in every available direction.6 This multi-directional activity is the stuff of globalization and all its flows of interconnectivity, like similar manifestations of movement expressed by deveho, decurro, fluo, infero, veho, et al., throughout the collection. And, that movement, in turn, constitutes the farrago, or the expression of multiplicity that is his text. No other idea better articulates interconnectivity and the notion of multiplicity than the notion of the “rhizome” proffered by the French philosopher, Gilles Deleuze and French psychiatrist, Félix Guattari (1980).

Rhizome To conclude this study, then, I would like to extend another facet of connectivity and global network structures that is parallel and evocative of the satirist’s craft and world of multiplicity, otherwise known as the “rhizome.” The same proponents behind the concept of deterritorialization discussed in this monograph, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari in Mille Plateaux (1980), argue for a postmodern view of the world based on networks, where points of human interaction and contact—at sea, on coastlines or land—facilitate communication and exchange in many directions and unlimited ways. They define the rhizome using the botanical metaphor of the tree (its roots and stem(s)): Le rhizome en lui-même a des formes très diverses, depuis son extension superficielle ramifiée en tous sens jusqu’à ses concrétions en bulbes et tubercules. . . . [N’]importe quel point d’un rhizome peut être connecté avec n’importe quel autre, et doit l’être. C’est très différent de l’arbre ou de la racine qui fixent un point, un ordre. The rhizome itself assumes very diverse forms, from ramified surface extension in all directions to concretion into bulbs and tubers. . . . [A]ny point of a rhizome can be connected to anything other, and must be. This is very different from the tree or root, which plots a point, fixes an order.7

176 Epilogue Developing the vegetal image further, the rhizome is in direct contrast to the tree, which has a distinct root and, therefore, is genealogical.8 It is this very arboresence, or arborism, that has defined historical studies “with its implied spatial hierarchies of centres and peripheries and temporal hierarchies of ‘origins.’”9 Furthermore, as a subterranean stem, like that of ginger or crabgrass, it is a structure that, although having components that are connected to each other below ground, and where no location may represent a beginning or an end, is nevertheless heterogeneous. This heterogeneity Deleuze and Guattari define as “multiplicity” (“la multiple”)10 and captures well the embodiment of ethnicities, ideas, and goods expressed in the Satires: Le rhizome ne se laisse ramener ni à l’Un ni au multiple. Il n’est pas l’Un qui devient deux, ni même qui devien­drait directement trois, quatre ou cinq, etc. Il n’est pas un multiple qui dérive de l’Un, ni auquel l’Un s’ajouterait (n + 1). Il n’est pas fait d’unités, mais de dimensions, ou plutôt de directions mouvantes. Il n’a pas de commencement ni de fin, mais toujours un milieu, par lequel il pousse et déborde. The rhizome is reducible neither to the One nor the multiple. It is not the One that becomes two or even directly three, four, five, etc. It is not a multiple derived from the One, or to which One is added (n + 1). It is composed not of units but of dimensions, or rather directions in motion. It has neither beginning nor end, but always a middle (milieu) from which it grows and which it overspills.11 The basis of “multiplicity” here is the collection, or collective, of “directions in motion,” which are sharply representative of network flows in Juvenal’s collection and those representations of the satirist as both physically movable and institutionally removed. In other words, the satirist as rhizome captures an ongoing process expressed in the Satires—a satirist and his literary world not at any particular beginning or end, but in between, in flux. The text and satirist within it exemplify the rhizome: they occupy both a teleological and spatial middle as they grapple with the origins of institutional conflict and also look ahead as the effects of globalization forebodes the end of the empire. In this regard, rhizomatic thinking best encapsulates the cognitive processes mirrored in globalization trends. The rhizome is a process, not what was or what is, but what will become. It is precisely the satirist’s occupation of the “middle” (milieu), like the rhizome, which enables a perspective and awareness of the multiplicity of globalization processes that an arboreal or genealogical view would otherwise inhibit. Furthermore, the satirist’s persona may function similarly. Like a nomad or wanderer, Juvenal is always on the move, assuming multiple dramatic identities, breaking and severing connections along the way and never settling precisely because the conditions in which he lives prevents permanence (see Chapter 4). It is these very contradictory states—permanence, instability—that bring coherence to his and Rome’s identity. To participate in a global consciousness, then, requires the same itinerant nature that facilitates the satirist’s experience of topography and mobility in order to illuminate, react to, and engage with those

Epilogue  177 effects of empire that accompany globalization. Juvenal’s narrative mirrors this rhizomatic process where he experiences and articulates every confluence of globalizing trends—time–space compression, deterritorialization, space of flows, etc.—that in and of themselves are the state of multiplicity as expressed by Deleuze and Guattari. The satirist’s attempts to identify the origins of things, or the “beginnings” and “ends,” like Rome’s unadulterated native state (of ethnicity, city space, or food) are continually obscured by the rhizome. If anything, an arboreal, or geneaological, view of Rome’s past, present, and future is often overturned or collapsed as observed, for example, in the premise of city-building and civilization in satire 15.12 Here, too, the language of motion informs the necessary foundational processes: dispersos trahere in populum, migrare vetusto de nemore et proavis habitatas linquere silvas . . . to gather scattered people into a community, to move out of the ancient grove and leave behind the forest where our ancestors lived . . . (15.151–152) Despite Rome’s efforts to civilize in some bygone era, it appears that civilization under Rome’s watch has reverted to the nature of animals (see more in Chapter 4). Rome in its so-called veneer of civilization has only managed to recreate the state of population diffusion (dispersos) that existed in a world before Rome’s application of civilization that, not coincidentally, mirrors the very effects of globalization in Juvenal’s era. The desired end of civilizing processes has only managed to resemble its “beginning” where men first began to migrate and coalesce in ways that reflect the spirit of foundation. Ultimately, Juvenal’s perception of a pre-Rome and Rome of his day presents a confluence of behavior and activity that opposes a neat chronological or arboreal framework. Instead, Rome and Juvenal represent true products of time–space compression. But, Juvenal’s rhizomatic activity is not limited to his own literary perceptions of the world at large.

Rhizomatic satire Where rhizomatic thinking helps both to illuminate and mirror the cognitive processes at play in the Satires and describes Juvenal’s persona, Martial, a contemporary of Juvenal, offers corroboration of this characterization and a world of networks. The few references to Juvenal in Martial’s Epigrams suggest a substantive bond of friendship between the two, and whose friendship may have stretched as far back as their place of origin in Spain.13 Operating in a similar era (end of the first century ce), it is perhaps no surprise that Martial, like Juvenal, conveys a heightened sense of Rome’s global consciousness.14 Like Juvenal, Martial’s text writes the experiences of empire onto the cityscape, with similar preoccupations about Roman economic sustainability and the threat of political collapse. Furthermore, in one particular epigram, 12.18, Martial addresses his friend,

178 Epilogue Juvenal, about his decision to spend the waning years of his life in retirement and on his country farm back in Spain. Martial’s description of the satirist confirms the satirist’s own representation of himself as a man on the move, bouncing between Rome’s landmarks: Dum tu forsitan inquietus erras Clamosa, Iuvenalis, in Subura, Aut collem dominae teris Dianae; Dum per limina te potentiorum Sudatrix toga ventilat vagumque Maior Caelius et minor fatigant: Me multos repetita post Decembres Accepit mea rusticumque fecit Auro Bilbilis et superba ferro. Hic pigri colimus labore dulci Boterdum Plateamque — Celtiberis Haec sunt nomina crassiora terris — : Ingenti fruor inproboque somno, Quem nec tertia saepe rumpit hora, Et totum mihi nunc repono, quidquid Ter denos vigilaveram per annos. Ignota est toga, sed datur petenti Rupta proxima vestis a cathedra. Surgentem focus excipit superba Vicini strue cultus iliceti, Multa vilica quem coronat olla. Venator sequitur, sed ille quem tu Secreta cupias habere silva; Dispensat pueris rogatque longos Levis ponere vilicus capillos. Sic me vivere, sic iuvat perire.15 While you perchance rove restlessly in the raucous Subura, Juvenal, or frequent Diana’s hill; while across the thresholds of influential men your sweaty toga cools you and the Greater and Lesser Caelian hills wear you out, the drifter: Revisited after many Decembers My Bilbilis, magnificent in her gold and iron, Has taken me in and made a rustic. Here in idleness I exert myself pleasantly to visit Boterdus and Platea (such are the crude names in Celtiberian lands). I enjoy a huge, perverse quantity of sleep,

5

10

15

20

25

Epilogue  179 often unbroken till past the third hour, and pay myself back in full now for my vigils of thirty years. The toga is unknown, but when I ask the closest attire from a broken chair is given to me. When I rise, the hearth accepts me neat with its proud heap of logs from a neighboring oak and which the bailiff’s wife crowns with many a jar. The huntsman follows, but one you would like to have with you in a secret wood. The hairless bailiff dispenses rations for my boys and asks to keep his long hair. So happily would I live, so happily would I die. (Martial Epigram 12.18) Martial’s epigram sets a stark contrast between his and Juvenal’s lifestyles and one that seemingly marks different periods of their career. Juvenal’s hustle in the city (12.18.1–6) suggests a satirist at his professional prime and is evocative of his own discursus (1.86), while Martial’s idleness on his farm signals his retirement (12.18.7–26). In fact, the pastoral setting looks forward to Juvenal’s own attempts at reterritorialization discussed earlier in Chapter 3, where the country retreat in satire 11 offers the satirist an opportunity to fantasize about a scenario or lived experience immune to exotic commercial flows. Yet, this fantasy, like others expressed in the collection (i.e., a desire to flee Rome, recapture institutional stability, and so on) are merely fleeting. Martial’s description of the satirist typifies the rhizome. Juvenal is in constant motion (inquietus erras, 12.18.1), a man without a particular, stationary location (vagum, 12.18.5), despite efforts to acquire one (per limina, 12.18.4), just like many disenfranchised clients throughout Juvenal’s collection.16 He bounces between monuments, districts, and areas within Rome (Subura, collem Dianae, maior Caelius et minor) that, ultimately, exhaust him (fatigant, 12.18.6) in the process. Juvenal’s activity reflects the rhizome which has no particular root, yet simultaneously sprouts at various locations inside and outside of Rome, offering some commentary on globalizing trends as felt there. On the other hand, Martial has revisited a margin of empire only to retire back in Bilbilis. He, too, has engaged in similar rhizomatic activity (Ter denos vigilaveram per annos, 12.18.16), but has since hung up his toga (Ignota est toga, 12.18.17) for the sedentary life. In essence, Martial has surrendered his itinerant days and handed off the rhizomatic baton to Juvenal and, perhaps, even sloughed his Roman identity for the native. The satirist will now begin to engage in the very movement of images and ideas that inform globalizing trends. However, where Martial’s activities stretched over a tour of thirty-year duty after which he chooses to remain stationary at his farm, no such indication in Juvenal’s collection emerges. If the last poem of the collection, satire 16, might suggest the rhizomatic satirist coming to rest as in the manner Martial does in 12.18, then Juvenal is certainly as

180 Epilogue restless and emotional as he was upon starting the collection. He certainly exhibits no signs of slowing down in his final unfinished poem (Chapter 5). Where we find the satirist tearing into the heart of Rome (satire 1) to start the collection, near its end we find his narrative voice musing about the fringes of empire (satires 15 and 16) with the same emotional fervor and righteous indignation. Arboreal thinking might also suggest that the geographic bounds of empire signals the end of his collection, but the activity of the rhizome suggests otherwise. The satirist is most likely riding one of many globalizing waves that will only break into any other variety of directions: backwards, forwards, sideways, or wherever else the developing trends of a globalizing world will flow. Such is the multiplicity (farrago) that comes with Rome’s empire and his consciousness of the world as a whole. And, so, it is best to view Juvenal’s last unfinished satire not as the end, but just as a mere interval in medias res. Satire, then, is globalization; globalization is satire. Since satura evokes the image of fullness and variety, Juvenal’s Satires figures as an appropriate analogue, with its saturation of flows. In an era of development unlike any time before the author, satire’s generic and thematic flexibility serves as the most appropriate platform to illuminate the multiple causes and effects of globalizing processes that apply pressure on Rome’s storied institutions while, simultaneously, Rome’s extensive space of empire both facilitates and grapples with the flow of new peoples, customs, and ideas. Because the satirist is so invested in the illumination of network activity across both local and global levels, it only seems fitting that he, too, must embrace the middle way (milieu) that is so emblematic of the comprehensive nature of rhizomatic activity. It’s this sensitive and sophisticated ability to distinguish the various flows of interconnectivity that not only binds and bounds the space of empire, but also informs Juvenal’s global awareness and his growing consciousness of the Roman world at large.

Notes 1 Malkin 2003: 60. 2 See most recently Uden 2015. 3 Malkin 2003: 57 suggests “fractal” for “network,” borrowing the term from fractal physics and chaos theory where “each microregion is also a fractal of the Mediterranean as a whole.” 4 For the case of Horace, see Freudenburg 1993. For Juvenal see Freudenburg 2001, Keane 2015, and Uden 2015. Uden argues for the satirist’s calculated evasiveness in a literary arena engaged with Second Sophistic literature. Keane 2015 argues for the dimensions of the satiric self through an analysis of the emotions and all of its permutations in the collection. See also Larmour 2016. 5 Umurhan 2011, with particular attention to 6.398–412. 6 OLD s.v. discursus 1, 2. 7 Deleuze and Guattari 1980: 13 (translation, Deleuze and Guattari 1987: 6–7). Their principal object of application is in understanding and the structure of the book itself: “le livre n’est pas image du monde, suivant une croyance enracinée. Il fait rhizome avec le monde, il y a évolution aparallèle du livre et du monde” (“the book is not an image of the world. It forms a rhizome with the world, there is an aparallel evolution of the book and the world”; 1980: 18; translation, 1987: 10). This model,

Epilogue  181 or cognitive map, referred to as “rhizomorphism” is further applied to a study of linguistics and politics. 8 “Le rhizome est une antigénéalogie. C’est une mémoire courte, ou une antimémoire. Le rhizome procède par variation, expansion, conquête, capture, piqûre” (“The rhizome is an antigenealogy. It is a short-term memory, or antimemory. The rhizome operates by variation, expansion, conquest, capture, offshoots”; Deleuze and Guattari 1980: 32; translation, 1987: 21). 9 Malkin 2003: 57. 10 Deleuze and Guattari 1980: 31; translation, 1987: 21. 11 Deleuze and Guattari 1980: 31; translation, 1987: 21. Their “multiplicity” evokes Robertson’s 1992 compression of the world into a “single space” (6). Tomlinson 1999 in clarifying Robertson 1992 states that “global unicity does not imply a simplistic uniformity—something like a ‘world culture’. Rather, it is a complex social and phenomenological condition—the ‘global-human condition’—in which different orders of human life are brought into articulation with one another” (11). 12  The collapse of arboreal schemes, or another effect of the rhizome, also extends to the afterlife, specifically, the Underworld scene in 2.149–158. Here Roman heroes of the Republican past confront an effeminate ghost of the present in the Underworld—another case of time– space compression—where any sense of historical and spatial integrity is confused. 13 Martial Epigrams 7.24 (see Galán Vioque 2002: 180–184), 7.91 (see Galán Vioque 2002: 484–486) and 12.18. On the relationship between the two see Salanitro 1948, Highet 1951, and Colton 1991: 6–8. 14 This is what Rimell 2008: 181 refers to Martial’s text as his “poetic global vision.” However, Rimell describes Martial’s construction of poetic and textual identity on an arboreal model of inside/outside and center/periphery. 15 Text is from Lindsay 1977. 16 Santorelli 2013: 17 draws upon Martial’s epigram to illuminate similar disturbances in the patron–client relationship expressed in Juvenal 1, 3, and 5. See also Jenkyns 2013: 146 who considers this Martial passage to argue for the act of walking as a necessity of life so emphasized earlier by Cicero. The image of the client in his sweaty toga frequenting thresholds resonates strongly with the description of Crispinus and other clients in satire 1. See also Keane 2016.

References Colton, Robert E. (1991) Juvenal’s Use of Martial’s Epigrams: A Study of Literary Influence. Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert. Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. (1980) Mille Plateaux. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuet. Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. (1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Freudenburg, Kirk. (1993) The Walking Muse: Horace on the Theory of Satire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Freudenburg, Kirk. (2001) Satires of Rome: Threatening Poses from Lucilius to Juvenal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Galán Vioque, Guillermo. (2002) Martial, Book VII: A Commentary. Leiden: Brill. Highet, Gilbert. (1951) “Juvenal’s Bookcase.” American Journal of Philology 72: 369–394. Jenkyns, Richard. (2013) God, Space, and City in the Roman Imagination. Corby: Oxford University Press. Keane, Catherine. (2015) Juvenal and the Satiric Emotions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Keane, Catherine. (2016, March) “Intertextuality between Friends: Martial and Juvenal in Epigram 12.18.” Paper presented at the Classical Association of the Middle West and South, Williamsburg, VA.

182 Epilogue Larmour, David. (2016) The Arena of Satire: Juvenal’s Search for Rome. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Lindsay, W. M. M. (1977) Val. Martialis Epigrammata. Oxonii: E typographeo Clarendoniano. Malkin, Irad. (2003) “Networks and the Emergence of Greek Identity.” Mediterranean Historical Review 18: 56–74. OLD = Glare, P. G. W, ed. (2012, 2nd ed.) Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rimell, Victoria. (2008) Martial’s Rome: Empire and the Ideology of Epigram. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Robertson, Roland. (1992) Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage Publications. Salanitro, Nino. (1948) Gli epigrammi di Marziale a Giovenale. Napoli: A. Morano. Santorelli, Biagio. (2013) Giovenale, “Satira” V: Introduzione, Traduzione e Commento. Berlin: De Gruyter. Tomlinson, John. (1999) Globalization and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Uden, James. (2015) The Invisible Satirist: Juvenal and Second-century Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Umurhan, Osman. (2011) “Poetic Projection in Juvenal’s Satires.” Arethusa 44: 221–243.

Index locorum

Appian Proemium 28

134

Cassius Dio Historia Romana 57.4.2 167n100 Cicero De Republica 2.4–20 2.5–11 2.7 2.8–9

44, 62n26 61n14 43 42

Columella Res Rusticae 8 8.16.1 8.16.2 8.16.3

81 81 96n40 82

Epictetus Discourses

164n34

4.1.79

Florus Epitome Preface 1–2

133

Horace Odes 1.38 Sermones 2.2.95–96

98n60 95n25

Juvenal Satire 1.1–5 61n8 1.1–6 74 1.4–6 29n100 1.12–13 129n17 1.13 119 1.15–17 167n96 1.19 15, 45, 47, 149, 153



1.19–21 1.22–30 1.26–31 1.28–29 1.30 1.30–32 1.32–33 1.45 1.63–64 1.85–86 1.86 1.91–92 1.95–96 1.99–105 1.120 1.143 1.149 1.165–71 1.165–66 1.168–70 1.170–71

15, 148 75 47–48 66n79 129n19 162n9 94n17 166n80 18, 63n47, 119 162n16, 175 129n33 163n25 19–20, 55 40 94n17 94n17 76, 105 118 149 118 149



2.159–70

22, 157–58



3.16 3.21–22 3.60–61 3.60–65 3.81–83 3.81–85 3.83 3.84–85 3.295 3.297–98 3.299 3.299–301 3.306–08 3.321

126 65n70, 162n11 53 49 64n51 64n66 64n51 98n65 164n36 164n45 164n45 164n44 95n30 129n19

4.37 4.37–44

94n24 78–79

184  Index locorum

4.39 4.42 4.44 4.50–55 4.64 4.106 4.107 4.123–24 4.124–27 4.131–32 4.130–33 4.134 4.135 4.144–49

76, 78 79 79 79–80 97n53 129n19 95n29 97n48 97n49 83 77 96n42 96n42 84



5.67–68 5.69 5.80–85 5.92–98 5.99–106 5.159

111 111 85–86 20–1, 97n56 87 129n28



6.71 6.212 6.292–300 6.347–48 6.412 6.443 6.634 6.634–38 6.651–52

129n29 129n29 50–51 145 119 129n28 129n19 116 117



7.1 7.1–7 7.62 7.66–71 7.121 7.129–34 7.139–40 7.173

65n69 58 129n19 65n75 65n76 59 66n79 167n83

8.118

129n19

9.112 9.130–33 9.134

64n57 52 111

10.35 10.47

129n29 129n29



98n61 89 92 90 129n28

11.35–36 11.64–66 11.71–76 11.136–60 11.187



13.35 13.143 13.172

129n29 129n28 129n29

14.166

129n19



15.1–13 106–07 15.3 107, 109 15.5 109 15.7 109 15.13–16 113–14 15.14 113 15.15 113 15.29–32 116 15.33–38 119 15.34 119 15.35 119 15.36 119 15.42 119 15.47–50 120 15.51–54 120 15.54–60 121 15.59–60 163n27 15.62 121–22 15.78–81 122 15.83 122 15.87–88 122 15.99–100 123 15.102 130n39 15.110 130n40 15.110–12 54, 124 15.111 130n40 15.112 130n40 15.114 130n40 15.115 130n40 15.116 130n40 15.122 130n40 15.123 130n40 15.124 130n40 15.125 130n40 15.129–31 125 15.130–31 128n13 15.149 124 15.151–52 177



16.1–4 16.4–6 16.1–6 16.7–12 16.9–12 16.15–17 16.22–25 16.25–27 16.35

151 152–53 136–37 137–38 141 142 164n46 143–44 162n11

Index locorum  185 16.45–48 16.59

149 151

Lucilius, Gaius 87–93W 1145–151W

45–46 44–45

Martial Epigrams 12.18 13.81

177–79 95n25

Ovid Remedia Amoris 589

165n58

Persius Satire 1.114 1.115

111 111

Petronius Satyricon 82

164n33

Plautus Curculio 566–67 576

163n31 163n31

Pliny (the Younger) Epistles 10.77 166n68 10.78 166n69 10.97 166n67 10.100 166n72 Panegyricus 22.1 155–56 22.5 155–56 23.3 168n106 Polybius Histories 1.3.3–5

12–13

Seneca (the Younger) Naturales Quaestiones 3.18.7  95n28 Suetonius Life of Caligula 1.1 Life of Tiberius 25.2

168n100 167n100

Tacitus Histories 1.4

14, 168n101

Varro De Re Rustica 3.16.32 96n34 3.17.2 96n34–36

Pliny (the Elder) Naturalis Historia 9.1.69  95n26 32.53  94n24 Vergil Aeneid 1.278–79 35.161  96n43

26n60

General index

adno 42 adveho 63n51, 64n66 Alba Longa 76, 78, 84, 110, 123, 157 amicitia 1, 43, 57, 65n68, 72, 94n22; cultural and ethnic differentiation 53; defined 57; threats to 46, 56–7, 60, 77, 83, 88, 160, 173; see also patron–client relationship anger 106, 109, 112, 114–15, 120; and deterritorialization 118–20; and human consumption 122, 125; and satire 127, 128n13 Appadurai, A. 5, 51, 56 appetite 4, 21, 73, 127 Apuleius 140–1, 144–5, 164n35–6 arborism (arboreal) 177, 180, 181n12, 181n14; defined 176; see also rhizome aristocracy 44, 59, 72, 79, 81 ἀρχή 134 army 6, 11, 14, 142–3, 173; and emperor’s reputation 145–6; as empire 134, 144, 157; legal perks 149–50; and violence 137–8; see also soldier Augustus Caesar 28n95, 133, 153 authorial reliability 113–14 bees 81 Bhabha, H. 66n78, 108 bilis 113–14, 129n28 bite 110–11, 115, 125; see also chew Black Sea 78–9, 125 bodily disfigurement (mutilation) 121; see also fragmentation boomerang effect 51, 64n55, 174 borders 3, 6, 19, 76, 83, 86; antithesis to flows 49; defined 10 boundary: physical 84, 86, 105, 134; pomerium 16; of satire 116–17; see also borders Brexit 3, 24n15

cammarus 85–6 campus see Campus Martius; see also decurrere (decurrere campo) Campus Martius 1, 13, 15–17, 28n95–6, 45, 47, 120, 148, 153, 174 cannibalism 103–4, 106, 109, 134, 144; Egyptians 121–6; and satire 111–17 cena 1, 20, 71–3, 85–7, 87–9, 92, 106, 113–14, 119 chew: metaphor of satire 110–11, 115, 122 Cicero (De Republica 2) 8, 14, 41–4, 52, 60, 145 circulation 1–2; and culture 38–9; empire 3, 8, 17, 22; and feature of connectivity 15, 41; of food 71, 73; global awareness 10, 18–19, 123; and globalization 159–161, 174; of goods and people 7–9, 21, 23, 40, 43, 47–8, 105, 108–9; and identity 16; and migration 19; of moral decay 157–9; into Rome 52; of the soldier/military 127, 141–5; see also ἐν κύκλῳ; circumfero circumfero (circumtulit) 133 citizen 19, 46, 166n67–8; displacement 43, 55, 75, 86, 136, 153, 159; as emperor 154–6; litigation 141, 144, 149; modern 3; relationship with emperor 145–6; violence 127, 137–41, 154, 163n26, 165n50, 174 client see also amicitia; patron–client relationship Cloaca Maxima 41, 73, 87 Columella 79–82 commerce 1, 21–2, and cultural exchange 6, 41–4, 46; of goods 91; and interconnectivity 38, 53, 60, 173–4; sexual 158 commercia 22, 157–8 concilium principis (military council) 1, 48, 71–2, 75–7, 83, 123, 157, 173

General index  187 confluo 166n69 consumption 5, 7, 21, 160; and circulation 123–4; of food 71, 73, 76, 80, 88, 91; and geography 126–8; of humans 109–15, 122; and the periphery 103–6; and satire 117–18 containment 42, 73, 76–7, 81–2, 130n37 contamination 87–8, 98n57 contraction 72, 76, 104 correspondence: between Trajan and Pliny 141, 145–7, 165n52 Crispinus, the Egyptian 47–8, 60, 66n79, 75, 107, 120, 181n16 crocodile 107–9 crossroads (quadrivium) 18, 115, 174–5 cultural globalization 5; see also Tomlinson, J. cultural identity 8, 10, 12, 23, 54, 72, 116; defined 37–9 culture 22, 46–7, 54, 91–2, 105, 158; defined 5, 38; food 9, 20, 56; global culture 6–9, 51; Greek 124, 134; and location 160; and power 72, 104 decentering 8, 10, 103–4, 106, 118–22, 174 decurrere (decurrere campo) 15–18, 45, 47, 148–9, 157 defluo 49–50 Deleuze and Guattari 9, 105, 176 deterritorialization: defined 8–9, 160; and dining 85–93, 114; dislocation and displacement 17, 20, 40, 43–5, 49, 54, 56, 60, 160; function of mobility 44, 49, 174; and global animus 173; globalizing process 6, 8, 12; and identity construction 37–8, 45, 56, 104; and immigration 107; and literary patronage 57–60; in modern global context 26n50, 54–5, 128n3; and multiplicity 177; opposed to reterritorialization 85, 88; result of increasing flows 117; and rhizome 175; sociological notion of 4, 6, 8–9, 104–5; and sportula 75 deveho 39, 65n76, 168n105 diffusion 19, 71, 104, 144, 147, 159–60, 174, 177 displacement (dislocation): and deterritorialization 8–9, 17, 40, 49, 54, 73, 75, 85, 88, 91–2, 126; effect of connectivity 21, 43, 57–8, 160, 173 Domitian, emperor 14, 18, 48, 75–86, 107, 109–10, 122, 130, 155, 157

ecology 72 economy 72, 80, 87–9, 160 ecumenical analytic 12, 50, 52 ecumenical sensibility 12–14, 52, 173 effero 42 Egypt (Egyptians) 17; and cannibalism 103–6, 117–27, 144; and deterritorialization 108, 117; and dining 110–12; and extortion 141, 146; as foreign 40, 48, 60, 62n34, 66n79, 75, 107; and Rome; 53–4, 108, 110, 134, 160; and satire 115 emperor 11; criticism of Domitian 74–85; as patron 58–9; and his troops 145–6 empire see orbis terrarum ἐν κύκλῳ (Appian) 134 encyclopedia 13 environmental depletion 21, 87–8, 129n22, 160 epic 18, 28n87, 56, 62n33, 78, 83, 113; past 113–16 ethnicity 39–40, 54, 56, 176–7; see also identity EU (European Union) 3 excess: of Egyptians 121, 126–7; ethical 76–7; and fishponds 80–1; of food 91, 120, 160; and globalization 74–5; and luxury 1, 95n25; and mimicry 108; physical 79, 95n29 exchange see network(s) exclusion 10, 17–18, 71, 86, 88, 92, 97n53 expansion: military 22, 83, 127, 158; territorial 4, 7, 8, 13, 22n89, 51, 140, 157, 159 felicitas 151–2, 167n88, 167n90, 167n94 felix 151–3, 167n88, 167n99 fish 71–3; effect of time–space compression 87–8; and Egypt 107–10; as foreign 78–9; and globalization 73–5; military language 83–5; and space of empire 76–9, 83; see also fishponds; mullet; muraena(e); piscis (pisces); rhombus; squilla; Tiberinus fishponds 79–82, 95n31, 95n33–5, 96n42; see also piscinae Florus 133–4, 144 flow(s) see global flows fluo 50–1, 175 food 9, 19–21, 71; cultural meaning 75; defined 71; exotic 40, 56, 71, 80, 89, 91–3; and globalization 73; local 89, 91–3; and satire 112–14; see also cannibalism

188  General index foreigner 10, 48–9, 55, 108, 125, 156 forum 1, 16, 44–7, 50, 59–60, 142–4, 149 fowl 81, 90 fractured states (“fractals”) 174 fragmentation: bodily 121–3 frontier(s) 10–11, 153–5; and Domitian 76, 83–4 fullness see plenus furor 119, 123 Galba, emperor 154–5 gender as cultural marker 54, 56, 93n13; as multitude 105; violation 48 geography 1–2, 129n32; ancient perceptions 8, 13–14, 27n71, 27n74–5, 41; and connectivity 43, 72; of empire 17, 147, 160; modern definition 37 Germanicus 153–4; title of Domitian 84 Giddens, A. 25n41, 54; modernity defined 64n63 global animus 12, 52, 173 global consciousness 2, 4, 6, 13, 23, 41, 46, 54, 60, 176–7; see also global animus; global sensibility global flows 46–9, 54, 75, 86, 103, 107, 112–14, 117, 123, 125, 160–1 globalization: definitions 2–6; see also circulation; deterritorialization; global animus; global consciousness; global flows; heterogeneity; homogenization; interconnection; mobility; multiplicity; network(s); reflexivity; reterritorialization; rhizome; time–space compression glocalization 4, 7, 25n23, 25n38 Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus 16 Hadrian 57, 73, 142–3, 145, 148, 151–3, 155, 165n66, 174 Hardt and Negri 10–11, 54, 64n62, 105, 112 heterogeneity: global culture 4, 6, 105; as multiplicity 9, 46, 105, 176 hills 50, 52, 116, 148, 178–9 Holton, J. 5, 37 homogenization 4, 6, 7, 38, 54, 105, 112 Horace 16, 48, 81, 95n25, 174 identity: institutional 37, 41, 43, 73, 77; Roman 2, 23n3, 44, 62n29, 73–4, 179; see also cultural identity immigration 3, 38, 107

imperialism, Roman 10–11, 19; defined 7; and geography 11; modern 10; theories of 26n57; see also imperium imperium 11–12, 26n58 importation 1–2, 7, 48, 50, 80 infero 175 inporto 42–3, 155–6 interconnection (interconnectivity) 6–7, 12, 45, 72, 76, 83, 86, 105, 109, 160 inveho 155–6 ira 104, 110, 118, 120, 125, 128n13, 149, 175; see also anger Julius Caesar 153 law (litigation) 54, 58, 116, 124, 135, 145, 158; and the military 137, 142–4, 149–50 limen (limina) 19, 55–7, 60 limes 137; see also boundary literary excess 75 literary genre 15, 115 Lucilius: and construction of place 44–7, 59–60; fishponds 80–2, 95n28, 96n41; and Juvenal 118–20, 127; network activity 50, 52; in Rome 15–18; and satire 96n44, 111–12; as soldier 135, 147–9, 159 luxury 1, 21, 50–1, 105; transportation of 42, 126 magnitude 2, 78–9, 133 Malkin, I. 174, 180n3 map: cognitive 174, 181n7; cultural 13–14, 71, 112, 124; physical 13, 28n90, 39, 124 march, on Rome 137, 148, 150–4, 156 market 18, 21, 23, 88–9, 93, 98n56 Mars 16–18, 136, 148, 152–3 Martial 2, 66n77, 95n25, 177–9, 181n14, 181n16 McDonaldization 4–5, 7, 24n19, 93n3; see also Ritzer, G. Memnon 106–9 micro-region 39 migration 3, 19, 37, 39, 53, 74; and food 71 milieu (“middle”) 9, 106, 176, 180; see also Deleuze and Guattari military 11, 16; and circulation 5–6, 17, 19, 52, 133–4, 158–60; expansion 22, 83–5, 158–60; on the periphery 84–5; language 77–8, 86–7, 97n51, 118;

General index  189 see also correspondence; felicitas; felix; law (litigation); soldier; violence military camp 137, 142–4, 159 mobility 6, 8, 10, 15, 39, 52, 173–4; amicitia 57–8; cultural exchange 49, 53; of food 21, 71–2, 89; military 159–60; of people, goods and ideas 1, 5, 18 monkey 107–8 moral decay 41–2, 46, 50–1, 76, 87, 109, 117, 126–7, 136, 150, 155, 157–9 morality 1, 23n3, 41, 144; corrupt 1–2, 4, 22, 105 mores 22, 42–3, 49–50, 88, 108, 157–58, 168n108 mullet 21, 81, 87, 95n28, 97n56 multiplicity and cannibalism 123–7; of globalizing processes 9, 103–6, 108, 113, 121; of poetic voice 15, 110, 112, 120, 162n16; of the Satires 175–80; see also multitude multitude defined 105, 112; of decay and dangers 136–8; see also Hardt and Negri muraena(e) 81, 87, 96n37 natural environment 13, 80, 82, 110, 129n22 natural resources 20, 40, 103, 118, 126–7, 160 Nero 78, 111, 140, 154, 163n26 Nerva 155, 168n102 network(s) 1, 5; activity 54, 103–6, 117, 125–6, 175; defined 6; global 76, 78, 103, 111, 125–7, 174–5, 177, 180; movement 51–4, 176; opposing force to borders 10; social 57–8; theory 6–8, 25n32; trade 91 nomad (nomadism) 174, 176 Odysseus 113–17, 119, 123, 127 oikoumene 12 Ombi 113–14, 119; cannibalism 123–7 orbis 11, 27n61, 54, 77, 94n24, 124, 134; see also orbis terrarum orbis terrarum 11, 14, 42, 133 Orontes 49–50, 52; see also Syria Otho 154 page (poetic) 18, 74–5 patronage (literary) 9–10, 57–60, 72, 86, 147, 173 patron–client relationship 1, 20, 37, 55, 57–8, 72–3, 76, 173; perversion of 85,

87, 108; see also amicitia; concilium principis; sportula peculium castrense 146, 162n12 periphery 1, 4, 11, 18, 50, 76, 137; and center 7, 9, 40, 103–4, 113–14, 123, 126, 174; and food 111; military camps 143–5, 157; military threats to 83–6; moral decay 157–8, satiric frame 117, 148, 156–7, 160 Persius 74, 94n14, 111 persona 63n50, 117, 128n12, 129n34, 139, 147, 149–50, 155, 159, 176–7 Petronius 140 philhellenism 46 physical integrity 74, 120–1 piscina(e) 79–82, 95n31, 96n34 piscis (pisces) 82, 98n61 Pisonian conspiracy 154 place construction of 44–6, 62n36; and culture 20–1, 37–9, 56, 60; and deterritorialization 52–60; foreign 13; and geography 9, 37–9, 104; and satire 116–17; and non-place 128n3; and tradition 173–4; see also displacement (dislocation); Rome; space Plautus 139, 163n28, 163n31 plenus 74, 94n17; see also satura Pliny the Elder 2, 13–14 Pliny the Younger 141, 165n52; and Trajan 145–6, 155–6, 164n39, 166n67 Plutarch 28n89, 96n41 pollution 64n55; see also environmental depletion pomerium 16, 28n89, 144, 149–50 promoveo 22, 157–8 pulso 138–9, 163n21 reflexivity 5, 12, 14, 27n64 reterritorialization 73, 85, 88, 91–3, 98n63, 173, 179 rhizome 9, 161; defined 175–7; multiplicity 105–6, as satirist 40, 92, 179–80, 180n7, 181n8; see also arborism (arboreal) rhombus 76–9, 83–6, 95n25 risus 113–14, 129n29 Ritzer, G. 4, 24n19, 103; see also McDonaldization Robertson, R. 5, 12, 24, 25n23, 159, 181n11 Romanization 7, 11, 19, 22, 25n37 Rome: and circulation 41–4, 46–52; and deterritorialization 52–60; hub of flows

190  General index 52–60; and its periphery 83–5, 118–23; and multiplicity 123–7; space of empire 1–6, 10–12 satire: composition of 47–8, 135; as consumption 112–116; at crossroads 119–20, 174; genre 109–12; as globalization 3, 9–10, 23, 109, 118, 161, 180; and location 14–18; and tragedy 116–17; see also multiplicity; rhizome; rhizomatic satire satura 109–10, 112, 121, 129n19, 180; lanx 86–7, 112 scale: defined 64n40; global 5, 8, 11, 50–1, 103, 134, 138; magnitude 16, 78–9, 81, 152–3, 157 self-control 77–8 sociology 2, 27n64 soldier 40, 91; agent of globalization 134–5; and circulation 127, 156; and emperor 145–6; legal advantages 141–4; literary representation 139–40; on periphery 141–2; as satirist 135; territorial expansion 157–9; violence 135–7, 140; see also soldier-satirist soldier-satirist (satirist-soldier) 148–50, 152–5, 157 space bodily 79, 95n29; breach of 75–9; and campus 15–17, 47; and Cicero 41–4; of empire 1–3, 10–13, 23, 50–1, 109; of flows 9, 47, 50–2, 74, 177; and food 70–2; forensic 150; forum 59; of geography 37–9; and identity 45–9; literary constructions of 24n5, 27n74; and military 133–5, 144, 157–8; and rhizome 177–80; and the sea 79–80; of satire 18, 74–5; see also displacement (dislocation); fishponds; place; Rome; soldier; time–space compression spectacle 75, 95n28, 104, 149 sportula 10, 19–20, 40, 55–7, 60, 72, 75, 86, 88, 173 squilla 73, 85–6 statue 62n34, 107–9, 129n18 storytelling 113, 115–16, 123, 128n8 Subura 49, 87–91, 178–9 Sulla 137, 148, 150–4 summoveo 39 Syria 3, 49–50, 52–3, 56, 92, 145, 159

Tentyrites (Tentyra) 113, 114, 119; human consumption 122–5, 127; lack of assimilation 126 Tiberinus 73, 80, 87–8, 98n57 Tiberius 153–4, 167n100 time–space compression 6, 8–11, 15, 17, 21, 38–40, 44–8, 56, 60, 71–2, 75, 83, 87, 93, 103–5, 107, 112–13, 117–18, 120, 124–5, 173, 177, 181n12 time–space distanciation 25n41; see also time–space compression Titus, emperor 13, 18, 155 Tivoli 89, 123 Tomlinson, J.: cultural globalization 5, 9, 21, 25n25, 38; “cultural identity” 54; deterritorialization 8 Tongilius 59–60 tragedy 41, 115–17 Trajan, emperor 18, 57, 141, 143, 148, 150, 174; on coinage 151–2; entry to Rome 155–6; see also Pliny the Younger and Trajan transportation 10, 21, 79, 126 Umbricius 49–50, 65n70 urbs 48, 77, 94n24, 134, 143, 165n54 value 124; cultural 160; moral 93; property 81; religious 109 Varro 79–81, 95n25, 96n34–6 veho 39, 49–50, 63n51, 175 Venus 78, 136, 151–3; Genetrix 153; on coinage 167n99; Victrix 153 verbs of motion 6–8, 28n97, 42, 45, 64n66, 86, 166n77, see decurrere (decurrere campo); see also adno; adveho; confluo; defluo; deveho; effero; fluo; inporto; infero; inveho; promoveo; summoveo; veho Vespasian, emperor 13–14, 18, 154–5, 168n102 via: Flaminia and Latina 149 vice 18, 41–2, 74, 76, 78, 80, 105, 121; circulation 126–7, 147–8, 156–8 violence 80, 118, 121, 153–4; literary representations 142–5; physical 137–41; at trial 149–50 Vitellius 154 vivarium (game reserve) 79–80, 82–3