The approach to the Satires of Juvenal via the persona theory is well-known and has been productive. Somewhat less notice has been given to the fact that a considerable number of the satires have their persona moulded around another character, an addressee or an interlocutor, or sometimes an important narrative figure. Such characters ‘justify’ the persona, which can now be seen as a kind of ad hominem irony. This matter is intricately linked with the role of indignatio. Thus indignation, programmed in the first satire, becomes a little suspect in Laronia's mouth in the second. Laronia is a small scale character, but the techniques used in her regard appear again in the third satire, where the difference between Juvenal and Umbricius reveals the inadequacy of indignatio a little more clearly. The difference between the treatment of Crispinus and of Domitian in the fourth satire carries this process further. In the fifth, Juvenal tries to rouse the abject Trebius, but in his own apostrophe to Virro (Sat. 5.107f.) shows that indignatio is not, perhaps, appropriate at all. The role of indignatio diminishes further in the later satires, noticeably in the ninth, where Juvenal's tone is one of banter and Naevolus reveals his own unpleasantness. Much of this process has been charted by S. Braund in a book on the seventh, eighth, and ninth satires. The argument can be resumed with the eleventh satire where there is a further development. In the earlier satires which use address or dialogue there is an impressive realism in dramatic terms about the confrontation and psychology. In the eleventh (and even more, the twelfth) the development of the techniques of irony begins to intrude on the dramatic plausibility: the voice assumed in the poem becomes more aware of the audience as well as the addressee. As the beginning of a demonstration of this change I now provide an analysis of the use of Persicus in the eleventh satire.
Fellow Feelings: Fraternity, Equality and the Origin and Stability of Justice
