Persona Problems.

The Literary Persona in Antiquity Revisited

Author(s): Roland G. Mayer
Source: Materiali e discussioni per l'analisi dei testi classici , 2003, No. 50 (2003), pp. 55-
80
Published by: Fabrizio Serra Editore

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40236428

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fabrizio Serra Editore is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Materiali e discussioni per l'analisi dei testi classici

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Roland G. Mayer

Persona<l> Problems.
The Literary Persona in Antiquity Revisited*

I am not poetic enough to separate a man's

poetry entirelyfrom his character.
Charlotte Hey wood in Jane Austen, Sanditon

Je est un autre.
Artur Rimbaud, La lettre du voyant

ι. Introductory

A brief preliminary word is necessary, since my topic, the literary

persona in antiquity, has been so recently and so ably handled by
Diskin Clay in this periodical (1998) that it might be thought that lit-
tle new or usefiil could be said on the matter.
Early in 1997 I delivered a seminar paper in London's Institute of
Classical Studies on this very topic. My aim was to establish so far as
possible how Greek and Roman readers, who, significantly, often
comprise writers-as-readers, regarded the literary persona, a strat-
egy of représentation with which they were fuÜy acquainted. My
évidence, which spanned many centuries, suggested that the an-
cient notion of the literary persona was fundamentally différent
from ours. Few if any Greek or Roman readers were capable of con-
ceiving of thè persona in the terms now common to modern critics.
My approach to the issue was thus différent from Clay's: he was
specifically looking for what might be called 'pre-echoes' or ana-
logues of the modern theory of the literary persona - I rely hère on
his résumé at (1998, 18). In thè event, he found virtually none - Pro-
clus was as close as he could identify (1998, 38), and he too concluded
that the ancients did not entertain notions about the persona at ali
similar to ours. So we arrived at the same place by différent routes.
But, as I wish to stress, my concern was to establish, if possible,
what the literary persona was thought to be in antiquity, and for
that reason the évidence I have assembled remains valuable, espe-

* Audiences at the Institute of Classical Studies (London), Heidelberg, Pisa and Rut-
gers, as well as this journal's two anonymous référées, have helped to improve the pré-
sentation of this essay. I am most grateful to Christina Kraus, thè late Hubert Peters-
mann, Gian Biagio Conte and Lowell Edmunds for offering me platforms from which
to set out my views.

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 56 Kolana G. Mayer

cially thè évidence of poets on

was not utilised by Clay, since h
cept similar to ours. Such a con
left the matter, asserting a co
did nonetheless create the sor
modem critics so readily ascri
plain how, as writers, they m
common ancient view of thè p
ten betray. His account, therefo
sidérable aporia.
At this point then I part Compa
so easy to demonstrate, on thè
was interpreted in a fundamen
then to assert, on the other, tha
to exist, albeit largely unreco
were also writers). Granted that
it a useful interpretational exe
upon the ancient writers and tex
understanding of thè use to be
not an issue to be dealt with ax
the course of my discussion of t

2. The Problem

Poets who compose in the pers

do not always address their au
right from thè start in the earli
should more properly cali them
poem, or song, they assumed a
sonality. This technique of sel
recognized by an audience at
of texts in antiquity had no seri
of the mask, as we shall see. It
last Century to «problematize»
for good reason: thè persona
among modernist writers, for
collection of his poems Person
Fernando Pessoa, whose very
lished), weirdly, means 'person
lyric prompted critics during
sonal forms of classical poetry i
mask could be found in them. Su
cause the Greeks and Romans themselves had a notion of the autho-
rial persona and a concept of the use to be made of literary masks.

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Literary Persona in Antiquity 57

There are in particular passages in Catullus, Ovid, and

which seem to anticipate thè modern view, that thè wri
distinguish himself from his work, even when he used thè fi
son singular. But that ancient concept, before Clay, was ne
expounded or analysed. I want in this paper to supplémen
évidence for what thè ancients themselves, as readers, th
about thè literary persona. We shall indeed, like Clay, find th
view is radically différent from thè modern, and this throws
problem I have just enunciated: thè modern concept of t
thè authorial persona was demonstrably unavailable to thè
reader or writer-as-reader, who had his own very différen
about thè use made by thè personal poet of masks. Now si
sona-criticism is an approach to reading texts rather than a th
cal System of literary analysis (like structuralism or deconstr
and since it is agreed by ali that thè persona is a consciousl
élément in a poem (so Clay 1998, 39), it may be urged that
classical poetry is concerned thè modern reading is misapp
at any rate is thè conclusion I am driven to.
Let us begin our investigation of thè ancient view of thè aut
persona with Greek personal poetry.

3. The Greeks' Use ofthe Literary Persona

Archilochus must be our starting place, for he is credited

development of personal lyric into a literary form. Now
cept of «literary form» will be fundamental to an underst
how later Greeks at any rate carne to interpret his poetry, a
haps quite at odds with thè intention ofthe poet and thè perc
of his first audience at a symposium. The classic expositio
problem in reception is Sir Kenneth Dover's 1964 essay, The P
Archilochus (overlooked by Clay 1998, 11 n. 4). In that p
study, Dover argued that Archilochus' lyrics remained true
origin in song, and he observed that songs in many prelite
tures do not necessarily express thè personality and émotions
composer, who may adopt thè character and standpoint of
person, possibly fictional, in what may be an imaginary
(1964, 202). In some such traditions, thè singer might not
ring to himself when he used thè word «I».
Dover then went on to speculate about how Archilochus
have used a persona in his own lyric songs (1964, 206-210).
out a good case that Archilochus' practice may well have b
dose to that of other preliterate singers, and that thè
adopted may have had nothing at ali to do with thè young
of a distinguished family on thè island of Paros who com

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 58 Rohnd G. Mayer

lyrics. It is worth hearing in min

mance of thèse songs, thè sym
sion and ambiguity. If a maie s
for thè purpose of his song th
companions knew what was go
text and was freed from the con
might difficulties arise, a poin
32). In the course of his spécul
Dover was speculating - he ma
hearing on the issue of rece
those earliest Greek lyric poem
the seventh Century «ceased to a
(1964, 208). Over time Archiloc
about himself whenever he use
lar. This is dear from the fam
Archilochus for being very cr
sumed that Archilochus in s
woman, his adultery, lechery,
self. This assumption was foste
ary documents, and were read
cial, just because Archilochus w
uity. Dover may well be right
Greek world lacked the clue to
etry. But that possibly flawed
inant mode of identifying the p
rest of antiquity Archilochus w
his own expériences. That belie
duction of personal poetry the
laid upon the later reading of
cause (on Dover' s hypothesis)
the key to a récognition of thè
A very able discussion of thè
Rosier, who also provides a he
aesthetic of thè persona loquen
(1985, 134-138 with a critique of
makes the salutary point that
within society was not primar
he believes that «prassi di vita
un'unità», in short that there
the poetic «I»). He agrées with
man Archilochus was identified
he adds that Pindar too shared

1. See Aelian, Var. Hist. x.13 = Critias 88 Β

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Literary Persona in Antiquity 59

incidents related as biographical (cf. Pyth. 2.54-56). This

Rosier' s must be stressed, because Critias and Pindar thus
fresh importance as our first examples of fwriters-as-readers
themselves who might as such hâve been expected to hâve
er's special understanding of how to discount superfìcially
al· Statements. But in fact their view of what Archilochu
himself is exactly the same as that of the everyday reader: th
turn out to be commonplace readers in their belief that Ar
had turned some of his own expériences into the subject m
his lyrics.
Another example of a writer-as-reader who, by modem accounts
at any rate, «misunderstood» the circumstances of archaic poetic
composition, is Herodotus. As Andrew Ford says (2002, 147), «he
tends to regard lyric monodies as records "in song" of the poet's
life». So, for instance, in Histones 5.95, he relates that the poet Al-
caeus «in a battle won by the Athenians [...] took to flight, and saved
himself, but lost his arms [...] he made a poem describing his acci-
dent for his friend Melanippus, and sent it to him at Mytilene».
Herodotus clearly is unaware of a persona here, and he regards the
incident as fact, rather than a literary topos or an invention. Nor
does he acknowledge the probability that this poem was designed to
be sung at a symposium2. His interprétation of song as a documen-
tary text may, as Ford goes on to suggest (2002, 147), owe something
to fifth-century lives of the poets, but presumably the use to which
he put the song would not hâve struck his own audience as inappro-
priate or mistaken. He is thus an important witness, like Critias, of
the established tendency to regard poems as documentary records.
Alcaeus' poem was addressed to his friend, so Herodotus takes it to
hâve been a sort of letter. It is just that tendency which arguably
helped to foster thè treatment of poems as documents giving reli-
able information about their writers.
Let us now turn back to Archilochus to look at the lyrics in which
he overtly assumed a character, or persona, e.g., that of Charon the
carpenter (Fr. 22D. = 19W.), or that of a father speaking about his
daughter (Fr. 74D. = 122W.). Aristotle recognized this device
(Rhetonc 3.1418B 23 ff.), and it is from him that we learn how a Greek,
well-acquainted with the literature of his people, accounted for this
assumption of thè mask. He believed that an author donned the
mask when it would be an error of taste to speak in propria persona,
yet he reckoned nonetheless that the assumed personality generally

2. See the discussion of this passage by Gauthier Liberman in his Budé édition of
Alcaeus (Paris 1999), vol. I, pp. xxvii ff. and then p. 11. Among his testimonia he refers to
Synesius, De Insomniis 20, 156a, p. 188 Terzaghi, from which it is clear that Synesius too
regarded thè personal poetry of Archilochus and Alcaeus as documentary.

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 6o Roland G. Mayer

spoke thè author's own mind (

of a symposium)3. This is a val
tude to thè use of a persona: th
er' s own opinion, only by a tactf
Solon next deserves a moment'
course to not one, but two per
nians had long and indecisivel
sion of Salamis; defeat prompte
ing or writing - those words m
the campaign (according to Plu
his home and gave out that hi
peared suddenly and, wearing a
ness),recited in public an elegy (
ing nor writing), in which he e
Megara. He daimed in the firs
from lovely Salamis (Fr. iW. =
were two personae at work hèr
nian injunction. Solon got away
inviolable herald. The advice w
sonae would hâve afforded him
ans had failed in their fresh atta
they would hâve pardoned Solo
of a deranged herald which ha
other poems too that give eve
himself, for they refer to his
36W.), and they were used by A
nian constitution (Ath. Pol. §12
other historical accounts. There was no doubt in Aristotle's mind
that Solon was referring to his actual arrangements. There was no
place for a persona - in the modem sensé - in poetry of politicai ad-
vice, and attention has been drawn to this feature of Solon's verse
by Bernard Knox5.
Pindar is the last Greek singer who needs brief mention. We hâve
ail encountered the running debate about the identity of the εγώ in
his songs. Is it the chorus, or the singer, or even the victor? If the

3. For the biographical inferences Aristotle was prepared to draw from the poetry of
Solon or Theodorus of Colophon see Pol. 1296a and fr. 515 Rose = Athen. Deip. 14.618. I
believe that Françoise Frontisi-Ducroix, Du masque au visage. Aspects de l'identité en Grèce
ancienne, Paris 1995, does not recognize this 'rhetorical' account of the 'prosopon' in her
otherwise impressive survey and analysis.
4. Another motive for the use of a mask, or an assumed name, might hâve been politi-
cai; I hâve in mind Xenophon's assumption of the nom-de-plume Themistogenes of Syra-
cuse (see Plut., Glor. Ath. 345c).
5. See P.E. Easterling - B.M.W. Knox (eds.), The Cambridge History ofClassical Literature
i: Greek Literature, Cambridge 1981, p. 151.

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Literary Persona in Antiquity 61

singer, is thè singer to be identified with thè writer? To wha

are apparently personal Statements to be regarded as tell
something about thè poet? Some think that thè whole of a
epinikion is a purely rhetorical structure with no personal
This reductive view is gradually being overturned, and G.
has carefully scrutinized thè arguments and offers his ow
ment of thè «communicative strategy involved in thè cons
of thè persona loquens» (1994, 121). He condudes that in th
«thè construction of thè poet's literary persona [...] cann
vorced from thè construction of his social persona» (1994,
points out that Pindar was, for instance, believed in thè l
Century to have had a particularly close relationship with
because that was what he daimed in many of his odes6. On
we are faced with thè audience's assumption that what thè
of himself was rooted in reality (even though here again
made earlier by Rosier could be borne in mind, that Pindar is
dulging in self-revelation for its own sake; thè personal détail
serves a purpose within thè strategy of praise).
Discussion of thè literary persona is almost exdusively co
to poetry. This is to neglect thè important area of thè pe
prose, specifically in thè philosophical dialogue. To put it
whilst Piato never expressed in writing a philosophical opi
is attributable to himself, since ali of his philosophical dis
conducted by personae, that however cüd not deter su
thinkers and writers from identifying a specifically Platonic
bution to philosophical thought. Aristotle, for example, r
Piato behind thè mask of thè Athenian stranger in thè L
2.3.iiO4bi2), and behind Socrates in thè Philebus (EN io.2.
This is not a loose way of talking, but is surely thè more sign
because Aristotle was Plato's pupil: his induction ought
been founded on knowledge rather than on guesswork. In
man world, we find Quintilian saying of thè Gorgias: quae
[...] dieta [...] a Socrate, cuius persona uidetur Piato significare
tiat (Inst. 2.15.26); thè opinions are felt to be Plato's,
through Socrates. In thè next sentence Quintilian begins b
ring to thè view Socrates held of contemporary rhetoric, but
corrects himself: Socrates autem seti Piato. There are undeniab
ances in thè degree to which readers attributed doctrine to
or to Piato (and Aristotle himself attributes notions to Soc
he has found in Piato or in Xenophon), but it is sufficient for
sent purpose to stress that ali of thè later Greek systematic a
of Platonic doctrine are based entirely upon thè assumption th

6. D'Alessio refers to L. Lehnus, L'inno a Pan di Pindaro, Milan 1979.

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 62 Roland G. Mayer

personae are more or less tran

Plato's own thinking.

4. The Roman Persona

Let us now turn to thè Romans

personal poets. We would not e
of interprétation, for thè Rom
dance with established doctrine e
texts were expounded to them by
amples. In thè Tusculans, 4.71, Ci
this: quid denique homines doct
carminibus edunt et cantibus. d
about themselves; he betrays n
refer to thè amatory verse of
dudes with Ibycus: maxume nero
cum apparet ex sariptis. apparet
position. Personal poetry gives
feelings of thè writer.
A manifest example of Greek
Roman tradition occurs in a sc
Horace's satires to which I shall want to return. Horace states in
Serm. 2.1.30 that Lucilius entrusted some account of himself to his
satires. Porfyrio remarks: Aristoxeni sententia est. Rie enim in suis
scnptis ostendit Saphphonem et Alcaeum uolumina sua loco sodalium
habuisse. That is to say, a view was current that their poems were
what we should now cali confessional.
Even non-personal poetry was reckoned to reveal thè writer's
character: hudibus arguitur uini uinosus Homerus, says Horace (Ep.
1.19.6), using a sort of induction universally favoured in antiquity
even by poets-as-readers7. But thè Romans were of course also
aware of thè assumption of a personality or role, and to describe it
used their word for mask, persona. Let us now see how they used
this important word.
There is a brief psychological analysis of thè classical usage by H.
Rheinfelder8, and thè Oxford Latin Dictionary provides a handy

7. D.R. Stuart, Authors' Lives as Revealed in Their Works: a Cntical Résumé, in G.P. Hadz-
sits (ed.), Classical Studies in Honor of]. C. Rolfe, Philadelphia 1931, pp. 301-304, provides a
crisp discussion and rightly stresses that this practice was endorsed by the philosophers
too; it was not merely the trifling of biographers. It is relevant to my overall project
hère that Stuart notes that antiquity's approach to what we should nowadays repudiate
as a biographical fallacy was pretty uniform; just another instance of how différent their
approach was from ours.
8. Das Wort 'Persona': Geschichte seiner Bedeutungen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Literary Persona in Antiquity 63

overview until thè Thesaurus reaches our word. Niall Ru

177) makes it dear from passages like Lucretius, De Reru
3.58 enpitur persona, manet res and Sen. Ep. 24.13 non homini
sed rebus persona demenda est et reddenda facies sua that thè
be a device with which to conceal thè truth of things (cf.
But that usage is far less common than thè one whereb
refers to one's particular role in life, which circumstances m
The phrases personam suscipere/imponere uel sim. suggest th
character is typical but yet adaptable to circumstance10. Ano
age referred to those essential qualities as human beings
'project* to thè world. Hence thè jurists' use of thè word
legai person, and thè sense we find in thè phrase in propria
Now it is this usage which is important in literary disc
Rome.
Cicero, for instance, recognized thè use of an assumed personality
in verse satire. At De Oratore 3.171 Crassus refers to Lucilius' use of
Scaevola, his father-in-law, as a persona: in quo lepide socen mei per-
sona lusit is qui elegantissime id facere potuit Lucilius (there follows a
verse quotation). Crassus regards thè mask as one through which
Lucilius himself was speaking: in me quidem lusit Me, ut solet; Me
refers to Lucilius, not thè persona of Scaevola.
Cicero's use of masks in his dialogues was of course recognized,
and up to a point discounted, by his readers. Here are some exam-
ples. Crassus, just referred to in thè De Oratore, was seen to be a
mouthpiece for Cicero's opinions: that is how Quintilian read thè
text (Inst. 10.3.1): nec inmento M. Tullius hunc [stilum] «optimum effec-
torem ac magistrum dicendi» uocat, cui sententiae personam L. Crossi [...]
adsignando iudicium suum cum illius auctoritate coniunxit Later in thè
same book Quintilian hints at how he «unmasked» Cicero: at De
Orat. 1.155 Crassus had recommended translation from Greek into
Latin, and, as Quintilian says (Inst. 10.5.2): id Cicero sua ipse persona
frequentùsime praecipit11. Ergo, Crassus = Cicero, with thè additional
weight of his own authority, an interesting sidelight upon another
motive for deploying thè persona. Quintilian, agreeing implicitly
with Aristotle about thè tactfìil use of a mask, assumed too that Ci-

französischen und italienischen Mittelalters, Halle 1928 (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für roma-
nische Philologie, 77), pp. 6-17.
9. Rudd returns to the issue of thè persona in Classical Humanism and its Cntics, «Echos
du Monde Classique /Classical Views» n.s. 40, 15, 1996, 295-296.
10. So Reid on Cic. Pro Sulla 3.8; Ramsay on Pro Clu. 29.78, both cited by Wilkins on De
Orat. 1.169. Cicero's view is also set out in De Off. 1.107, 115, and 3.43. More developed is
Seneca, Ep. 120.22: multiformes sumus. modo frugi tibi uidebimur et graues, modo prodigi et
uani; mutamus subinde personam et contrariam ei sumimus quam exuimus.
11. We lack the passages referred to, but it is a plausible guess that they were in private
letters.

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 64 Roland G. Mayer

cero in his dialogues employed ot

éloquence (Inst 11.1.21)12.
Quintilian's pénétration of th
by Lactantius (Inst. Div. 6.2.15),
mouth of Catulus in the dialogue
Catuli, qui fonasse illud non dixit
So far as he was concerned, Cicer
But Quintilian is not prepared
observed that what Antonius
rhetoric is not set down so that
congruent with the man's char
however. Whilst Antonius' view
resent Cicero's, Cicero himself
quae sunt a me in secundo libro de
de ridiculis (Farn. 7.32.2)14. Th
confusion, since Cicero in intr
clear that hère the views of C
complete coverage for the rea
nothing for them to disagree abo
A final light upon how a Rom
persona is provided by the sch
notorious second Epode; on Unes
finxit haec non de sua persona dict
teïlegi neminem nescire quid iucu
quemquam ab ea in qua consueu
sonalityis a refinement - urbani
two birds with one stone; he p
how hard it is to départ from
the poem as at odds with the
agrées about the charms of t
pointed out however that in h

12. For this tactful form of self-praise w

Callimachus' Iambus 4.64-87 employs th
rout thè laurei.

13. quod non ideo ut pro uero accipiamus est

mulator artisfuit (Inst. 2.17.5-6); he has in
Crassus, who offered a paraphrase of An
book, § 32. Quintilian's view overall is o
Inst. 11; dramatists, historians and advoc
appropriate words into the mouths of t
présentation (see esp. Inst. 11. 1.39). This
on the construction of thè persona loque
we présent ourselves.
14. We can hardly blâme Quintilian for
himself has here slipped; the discussion of
of C. Iulius Caesar Strabo Vopiscus!

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Literary Persona in Antiquity 65

1995, Ρ· 63) David Mankin takes a thoroughly différent, mode

of thè persona of Alfius15.
To dose this section, let us look at a remarkable 'reading'
troversial use of thè persona, Apuleius and his apparent id
tion with thè 'hero' of his novel, Métamorphoses. Lucius, the
of thè tale, becomes an ass; pure fantasy, we should say, and w
try up to a point to keep author and narrator separate. But in
uity it was not so dear-cut an issue. In De Ciuitate Dei 18.1
tine says that the common belief that men can be turned into
is nonsense (though God of course can do that); still, he him
heard in Italy of wicked landladies who could turn men in
of bürden, which retained their human mind; this happe
Apuleius, whom Augustine dearly identifies with the nar
the novel:

si enim dixerimus ea non esse credenda, non desunt etiam nun

modi quaedam uel certissima audisse uel etiam expertos se esse
ent. nam et nos cum essemus in Italia audiebamus talia de quadam
illarum partium, ubi stabularias mulieres inbutas his malis artib
dare solere dicebant quibus uellent seu possent uiatoribus, und
menta ilico uerterentur et necessaria quaeque portarent postque
opera iterum ad se redirent; nee tarnen in eis mentem fieri best
rationalem humanamque seruari, sicut Apuleius in libris, quos a
titillo inscripsit, sibi ipsi accidisse, ut accepto ueneno humano a
manente asinus fieret, aut indicauit aut finxit.

Augustine presumably favours fiction (finxit), but he can

gorically deny the belief in the author's own 'évidence' (in
In other words, there were people who credited the taie a
mentary aecount of a true event, and Augustine is not pr
rule this out categorically.
Let me recapitulate then to this point: in literary contexts p
is used by Romans to refer both to the 'person' who is im
speaking (say, Alfius) and to the writer (say, Horace). How
parate the characters of writer and speaker, nonetheless
mans tended to believe that they could see through the
parody theological terms, they detected only a distinction of
not a distinction of being. Porfyrio therefore was sure that t
eylender Alfius in the second Epode was really voieing Hor
opinion: quod uult intellegi neminem [n.b.] nescire quid iuc
habeat uita rustica. Similarly, a speaker like Crassus in thè De
was feit to be the mouthpiece of Cicero himself. For Cicero th

15. One of the référées of this paper helpfully draws attention also to Don
say, Romantic Irony, in I. de Jong - J.P. Sullivan (eds.), Modern Crìtical Theory
Literature (Mnemosyne Suppl, 130), Leiden 1994, pp. 240-243.

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 66 Roland G. Mayer

sona of Crassus added authority

thè persona of Alfius provided an
praises of thè countryside. Rom
to distinguish sharply between
of his personae (rhetorical ethop

5. Latin Texts ofa Contrary Tende

There are, however, a number

are divorced from their contex
tried to distinguish between
might say about themselves in
be looked at in some détail, and
feature is common to ali thè contexts: thè disdaimers are ali straté-
gies of defence, and thè writers had special reasons to dissociate
themselves more or less from a literal reading of their puma fade
personal writings. They clearly felt that a good number of their
readers would take thè poems to be true Statements about their
own lives, and in Rome that could prove dangerous. Let me illus-
trate thè danger with one example (others will follow later).
The life-style of L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, thè consul of 58
B.C., was apparently described in thè poems of his friend Philode-
mus16. Cicero made great play in a published invective with thè po-
ems' accounts of parties and love-affairs, and he knew they would
help to blacken Piso's character: thè poems mirrored his life, so Ci-
cero daimed (istius tamquam in speculo uitam intuen: In Pisonem 70-
71). As thè poems had been written by someone else, Piso might
have argued that they were distortions, exaggerations, or even out-
right fictions; but Cicero knew how they would be taken by thè av-
erage reader17. Much harder to explain away were thè poems one
wrote about oneself, as Apuleius and Ovid both found. But this is to
anticipate: let us begin with Catullus.
Catullus 16 is a diffidili poem18, and so thè following observations
upon its purpose are offered with some hésitation. Lines 5-6 seem to

16. For thè alleged persona of Philodemus see now David Sider, The Epigrams ofPhilo-
demos, Oxford 1997, pp. 32-39; his position is thè polar opposite of Marcello Gigante's Gli
epigrammi di Filodemo quali testimonianze autobiografiche, in Filodemo in Italia, Florence
1990 (Bibliotechina del Saggiatore, 49).
17. In an essay in D. Obbink (ed.), Philodemus and Poetry: Poetic Theory and Practice in Lu-
cretius, Philodemus, and Horace, New York, Oxford 1995, Diskin Clay speaks of Cicero's
«forensic way» (p. 14) of reading thè poet - a neat phrase, but it is not clear that thè so-
called forensic way was any différent from thè common way. On Clay's own showing
in thè «MD» article of 1998 there was no alternative in fact, and Cicero knew his au-
dience would take thè poems thè way he did.
18. See D. Fehling, «Rhein. Mus.» 117, 1974, 103 η. ι; C.W. MacLeod, «Class. Quart.» 23,

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Literary Persona in Antiquity 67

make a distinction between the poet as a man and his self-

tion in his poems: nam castum esse decet pium poetarti \ ipsum
los nihil necesse est. The lines were often used out of context e
antiquity, and have been taken in our own day, for exam
Robert Elliott, to demonstrate that «classical literary doct
sumed no necessary connection between the most intense
poems and the lives or personalities of their authors»19. But C
is not hère enunciating a generally held «classical literary
about all personal poetry. If we restore the lines to their c
will be found to have quite a différent, and still highly perso
in view that does not necessarily disconnect his life from his
Two men, Furius and Aurelius, have read (legistis, 13) abo
sands of kisses, and drawn their own conclusion from w
dearly regard as a document: the poet is effeminate (
marem, 13). Now the poems they read were probably 5 and 6
some assume, the later ones asking for kisses from Juvent
them, ail Catullus claimed to want was to kiss Lesbia. In
eyes this was namby-pamby, a real man wanted the nouem co
fiitutiones which Catullus himself asked from Ipsitilla, 32.8. P
was designed to correct their misreading, based on a false
from thè poet's desire for kisses. Catullus assured th
nonetheless he was man enough to dominate them sexually
cabo ego uos et irrumabo, 1). But I believe that Catullus is
well, and not for the last time, to redefine the relationsh
marriage between lovers. In 16.5 he speaks of thè pius po
that not chime with his later sensé of his pietas in the love-a
pressed at 76.2 (pium), and 26? A pius amor, such as Virgil giv
for Euryalus (Aen. 5.296), is not founded primarily upon the s
tion of lust; it is an affectionate commitment to anothe
That is something Furius and Aurelius cannot understand;
mere kissing is so much waste of time, a symptom of molliti
Catullus, however, it proves that his feelings are chaste
16.5), like those of thè girl who lets her betrothed's appiè
her lap (cf. 65.20). Kissing for Catullus is symbolic of an
erotic émotion, which he knows he must explain to his ma
ers, as he would try to explain it again in 72.3-4, where thè f

1973, 300-301; V. Buchheit, «Hermes» 104, 1976, 331 ff· and J. Griffin, «Journ.
66, 1976, 97·
19. See Robert C. Elliott, The Literary Persona, Chicago 1982, 43.
20. So G. Williams in «Journ. Rom. Stud.» 52, 1962, 39-40, who tried to relieve Catullus
of thè stigma of homosexuality by claiming that the «autobiographical form in Roman
poetry is a poetic convention». Was that how Roman readers like Furius and Aurelius
took it?
21. For the Roman attitudes to and notions of mollitia see C. Edwards, The Politics of
Immorality in Ancient Rome, Cambridge 1993, eh. 2.

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 68 Roland G. Mayer

likened to a father's love for his

that of the herd for their girlfr
divorce the poet frorn his presu
the conventionally-minded. Af
nies thè relationship or its specia
describe it in an arousing way, b
derstand the essential quality o
his expérience and its représen
here22.
Ovid, however, provides our most suggestive case of the déniai of
a connection between his life and his poetry. It is highly significant
that the déniais are only to be found in his poetry written in exile:
Tristia 2.353-546 and 3.2.5-623. Now once again in thèse passages we
are dealing with an individuars self-defence in a particular situation.
Ovid suffered because a significant reader, Augustus, failed to dis-
connect the writer's life from his poetry. And who can blame that
reader, or any other, when in Amores 2.1.2 Ovid had announced him-
self as nequitiae [...] poeta meati Or similarly, in Amores 3.1.17-22,
where Tragoedia is trying to win him away from Elegia she remarks
that everyone is talking about his nequitia, and people even point at
thè bard in thè Street as someone singed by cruel love? Ovid must
try to establish a discontinuity, which did not already exist in the
generai mind of the Roman reader. His procedure is all thè more in-
teresting in that he himself shows the same bias as the common
reader in dealing with the erotic poems of his predecessors. He lists
those who did not pay a penalty for their love songs in Tr. 2.363-466,
and in a number of cases he uses language which plainly imputes to
them the activities they describe. So of Callimachus (367-368): deli-
cias uersu fassus es ipse tuas, of some female writers: quae concubitus
non tacuere suos, of Catullus (429-430): multos uulgauit amores / in
quibus ipse suum fassus adultenum esf4, of Calvus (432): detexit uanis
qui sua furia modis, of Varrò of Atax (440): non potuit Veneris furta
tacere suae. Each line contains a reflexive possessive pronoun. Ovid,
like everyone eise, took the poems to reflect the poets' lives25, even

22. For a modern appraisal of Catullus' persona see Niklas Holzberg, Catull Der Dichter
und sein erotisches Werk, Munich 2002.
23. I accept Ovid's description of his relegation to Tomis as fact, though aware that
some do not. Their agnosticism is invincible because they can say that any later Roman
who refers to Ovid's sojourn on the Black Sea, for instance the Eider Pliny (Ν. Η.
32.152), has been taken in by the poet. But for my purposes here such a successali fraud
would only go to prove that the Roman reader accepted thè poetic persona as gospel.
That Ovid shows first-hand knowledge of the Black Sea is argued by R.H. Batty On Getic
and Sarmatian Shores: Ovid's Account ofthe Danube Lands, «Historia» 43, 1994, 88-111; Batty
notes that Ovid's account is frequently far from conventional.
24. Adultenum here means «love-affair» rather than 'adultery'.
25. Exactly the same sort of induction is employed when Quintilian censured the plays

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Literary Persona in Antiquity 69

though such a reading is prejudicial to and inconsistent with a

of his Unes of argument. For he had stressed at the outset
love-affair described in his poetry was imaginary: falso [.
(340), magnaque pars mendax operum est etficta meorum (355),
his actual way of life bore no relation to what was describ
Amores (353-354). This daim too is part of his defence strateg
was not the personal love poetry of the Amores for which Ov
the price of exile. It was the Ars Amatoria, as he réitérâtes (3
his list of his predecessors among love poets he uses tend
language to suggest that they were teachers also (364, 365,
461 and 465), and that they got away with their instruction (3
415, 417, 443, 463, 466). Now it is significant that Ovid never
suggest that his rôle of teacher in the Ars was a pose, or
that naturally imposed itself along with the didactic genre. H
perhaps hâve done this, though he had somewhat spoiled h
by twice saying in the Ars (2.744, 3812) Naso magister eratt a p
picks up at 347 me magistro (and cf. Pont. 3.3.47-48). Such a U
fence, however, would hâve broken with the tradition of
poetry, which derived its authority from the writer's daims
personal knowledge of what he was talking about; as Rud
174-175) points out, Ovid had indeed daimed that ex
prompted his work at AA 1.29. In fact Ovid's chief defence of
in Tristia Book 2 is that its doctrine was not intended to
clearly a controvertible point, though earUer he had urged
own way of life was very différent (cf. Tr. 1.9.59-60 uita tarn
nota mea est. sas artibus Ulis / auctoris mores abstinuisse sut).
On balance then we must see the often-cited Unes of Ovi
of his personal apologià. When he says that his mores are
ected in his poetry, he is trying out a Une of defence (an
trained in rhetoric with a view to acting as an advocate,
4.10.14), not reiterating a commonly held view of the rela
between poetry and the Ufe of the poet. So far as we know h
returned to Rome. His defence faüed, and people, indudi
went on reading personal poetry as documentary.
A very similar defence to Ovid's has been universally ove
and I want to draw it out of the shadows now. In his Controuersiae
6.8 thè Elder Seneca recalls the 'case' (imaginary, of course) of the
Vestal Virgin accused of unchastity on the grounds of her self-in-
criminating erotic verses. Like Ovid she tries to urge as one Une of
defence that a personal poem is not a document: quid, tu putas poetas
quae sentiunt scriberei. The obvious reply was unfortunately, yes,

of Afranius; by induding in his farces paederasty Quintilian says that he gives himself
away: mores suos fassus (Inst. io.i.ioo).

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 70 Rohnd G. Mayer

most people do think just that

pared herseif for burial alive!
Martial too feit that he must d
11.15; readers are warned not t
way of life. Again the wider con
these disdaimers. The first of th
spects, but more important is
who liked the poetry of Marti
of the book's publication, 85,
claimer of line 8 lascitia est nobi
to exonerate the imperiai
favouritism and hypocrisy (an
poem, 11.15, is also programm
saucier collection of poems to
points out in his commentary on
a literary convention, since on
advertizing one's bad habits, a
poems to be confessional, and
minious behaviour. Martial tries
he has a reason to do so, he is
tion of the Separation of life and
Let me dose this section with
we are dealing literally with a
him by Sicinius Aemilianus w
This triai again demonstrates th
sional writer might actually e
as évidence of his character to
the attack. His argument is int
tent as Ovid's had been, as Ru
Starts enumerating those who
their poems as personal docum
the love poets that he takes, in A
that it is crude to see in playf
quotes Catullus 16.5-6. But he d
necessary connection with the
tion of Plato's erotic verse which follows indicates that he took it to
be documentary. He urges that in such matters it is better to be
frank and open. Concealment is a sign of bad conscience, admission
is playfulness (profiten et promulgare ludentis est). This language is de-
signedly ambiguous; it is not an outright déniai of the reality of the

26. For modern appraisals of the literary persona in Martial see now Sven Lorenz, Ero-
tik und Panegyrik: Martiab epigrammatische Kaiser, Tübingen 2002 (Classica Monacensia,
23), and Niklas Holzberg, Martial und das antike Epigram, Darmstadt 2002.

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Literary Persona in Antiquity 71

situation described in thè verse. Such composition is fon

necessarily or obviously fictitious.
These passages do not substantially alter what we know ab
normal mode of reading personal poetry in Rome. The wr
cussed above are ali for some reason or other on thè defen
try out a line of argument which is dearly at odds with thè c
perception of their readers, a perception they themselve
readily share. Their claim that one's poems do not reflect
of life served a restricted, locai need; it was not a generai
thè use of thè persona27.

6. Persona in Satire

Let us finally turn to a particular genre, Roman satire, that has been
for some time now regarded as deploying a generic persona, to see
to what extent thè ancient view of that genre matches thè approach
now dominant among anglophone critics28.
The contemporary approach to thè reading of Roman satire has
its origin in several essays of thè early 1960s by W.S. Anderson29. He
virtuaUy eliminated thè writer from satire by postulating thè per-
petuai présence of a persona or mask, behind which thè writer faded
out. He was avowedly trying to do for Latin satire what Alvin Ker-
nan in The Cankered Muse (New Haven 1959) had done for thè Eng-
lish satirical tradition. Kernan had aimed to reestablish thè English
verse satire of thè seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as a literary
form, and to rescue it from thè historical, biographical, and cultural
approaches which had virtually denied English verse satire its artis-
tic status as poetry. Kernan sought a new définition of thè «aes-
thetic» of verse satire, and one of his hypothèses was a figure he
called «thè satirist», who was not to be identified with thè writer of

27. For thè sake of completeness it is worth recalling that Ausonius brought a good
deal of this information to bear in defence of his Cento Nuptialis (see thè concluding de-
dicatory letter). Odd, since it could hardly hâve been taken as an autobiographical
document.

28. Dominant, but not unquestioned: for criticism of thè approach as applied most re-
cently to Juvenal see J.G.F. Powell in «Class. Rev.» 47, 1997, 304 and F. Beîlandi in «Rev.
Filol. Istr. Class.» 126, 1998, 100-102. Other voices hâve been raised against the over-use
of this reading, e.g., M. Citroni, L'autobiografia nella satira e nell'epigramma latino, in G.
Arrighetti - F. Montanari (eds.), La componente autobiografica nella poesia greca e latina fra
realtà e artificio letterario, Atti del Convegno, Pisa, 16-17 maggio 1991, pp. 275-292, esp. 281
on Horace; and most recently C. Nappa, Praetextati Mores: Juvenal's Second Satire, in
«Hermes» 126, 1998, 90-108, esp. p. 90.
29. The Roman Socrates: Horace and his Satires (= 1982, 13-49, esp. 28 ff.), Roman Satirists
and Literary Criticism (1982, 3-10) and Anger in Juvenal and Seneca (= 1982, 293-339); see also
the index of 1982, 492, s.v. persona.

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 72 Roland G. Mayer

the poems, thus freeing them

quiries which were undeniab
scholars as among their Latinis
as Susanna Morton Braund p
adoption of the persona-read
Gilbert Highet's autobiographi
(Oxford 1954). (And it should b
biographical reading was his ow
thy for Juvenal, who for much
been dismissed as a mere rhetori
To return to Anderson: for him
satirist» was an invention of th
venal's satires «the writer's créat
has [...] created a complex char
thè hypothesis: thè satirical pe
product of artistic craft as th
poem. Anderson moreover said
poetry the poet assumes a mas
Braund on Juvenal and on satire
Horace30, likewise allow no dropp
It may easily be guessed why th
it is once admitted that thè pe
with, by what means can a rea
the writer? Let Juvenal's sixth s
agreed with Anderson that the
création31; she found nothing
On the other hand, in his 1980
had already noticed the unfor
451-456, and he drew particular a
tenet antiquaria uersus. A run-of
troubled personally by a wom
mar or of old Latin poetry, exce
But thè word mihi especially g
référence, which is most natu
writer himself: as a poet he f
more about early Latin verse t
not in this satire? It is by no me
an alternative «satirist» who
women32.

30. See (1988), (1992), (1996a) and (1996b);

31. Juvenal - Misogynist orMisogamist?, «Jo
32. A similar problem anses in the mono
Approaches to Horace's Ars Poetica, Atlant
ver makes it dear how a reader would d

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Literary Persona in Antiquity 73

The premise has to be emphasized that thè persona must

be in piace. Anderson, however, though insisting that it
writer' s création, offered no évidence that poets or readers i
uity actually noticed its existence. And we might reasonab
expected that so important an aspect of thè satirical writer' s
would have been noticed and openly commented upon,
above ali in those defences of satire which we encounter in Horace
(Sermones 1.4 and 2.1) and Juvenal (his first satire). Recently Susanna
Morton Braund has shown an awareness of this gap in Anderson's
argument, which she closes with thè daim that thè «view of thè
voices of Roman satire as a séries ofpersonae would not have been
alien or difficult for thè original Roman audiences» (1996, 2); she
reckons that this role-playing was most visible in thè rhetorical édu-
cation of thè Roman élite (1996, 3). To be sure an orator might find
himself 'acting a part' in defence of his client, but it is worth remem-
bering what Antonius was made to say in Cicero's De Oratore 2.194:
neque actor essem alienae personae, sed auctor meae, «I am not perform-
ing someone else's rôle, but sustaining my own». But whatever thè
case with thè rhetoric of thè forum, thè case has not been made out
for satire specifically, or indeed for any literary kind which is puma
facie personal. It can, on thè other hand, be shown that readers, and
particularly poets-as-readers of satire, did not detect writers of satire
creating masks. That is evident from thè remarks of thè satirists -
however we understand that term - about their predecessors. Let
us look first at Horace.
After having criticized Lucilius in Serm. 1.4 for inartistic writing, he
revised his opinion more favourably at thè beginning of thè second
book, when he said that Lucilius gave satire its characteristic point
of view, namely thè personal voice. Satire thus became in Lucilius'
hands a form of self-presentation in verse:

ille uelut fidis arcana sodalibus olim

credebat libris neque, si male cesserat, usquam
decurrens alio neque, si bene; quo fit ut omnis
uotiua pateat ueluti descripta tabella
uita senis.
(Serm. 2.1.30-34)

Horace - whether we take him here to be thè writer or in Ander-

son's sense «thè satirist» - plainly did not distinguish between Lucil-
ius as writer and his satirical persona. The simile in line 33 uotiua [...]
ueluti descripta tabella is of particular importance, since a votive
tablet depicted an actual event in thè dedicatori life, and was proba-

and he ignores lines 55-56, where thè speaker associâtes himself with Virgil and Varius -
see my review in «Class. Rev.» 42, 1992, p. 442.

This content downloaded from

:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 74 Kolana G. Mayer

bly painted by himself, witho

may be having another sly di
then thè life depicted in the p
commenting on this passage (1
ately confused the two foncti
that Horace was aware of the ex
postulating33; he assumed that
cilius the man from his generic
be urged that Horace, in fact,
because he never made the mod
ers he read satire as the expre
have already seen above that t
of an obvious persona). Horace
books as the expériences of an
with this line in Lucilius: ego ub
(670-671W. = 590-591M.), what
the expressions in the poems w
Lucilius' first poem in his first
a sort of programme poem, in w
tory). Given this Lucilian trad
of verse satire he too ought to h
own expériences, especially wh
sequor hunc, which means lite
implies 'take as my literary mod
line 29, that he wrote satire L
to agree with Braund when sh
proach to reading satire is pos
every reason to suppose that
selves read it.

33. Cynthia S. Dessen claimed that th

prove that the poets, induding the satir
single instance: The Satires ofPersius. Iun
20. The study by W.T. Wehrle, The Satin
sius andjuvenal, pp. 39-70, assumes that t
34. It weakens fatally in my view the
Freudenburg (1993) that he makes an im
length this passage, which is merely note
difficulty with this passage: «But there
and this is Horatian, not in what Horace
in the practice of the personae Horac
explicitly say one thing and adopt anoth
satisfactory is J.G.E. Zetzel, Horace' s Lib
thusa» 13, 1980, p. 74 n. 9: he says that
thè use Lucilius made of his satires litera
'necessary' persona of the satirist.
35. Juvenal never claims so close an aff
either (cf. 2.51); not surprisingly theref
has often been observed.

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Literary Persona in Antiquity 75

One of thè reasons that thè ancient reader of satire mi

«confuseci» (Anderson's word) thè satirist with thè writer is
thè satirist daims so often to be himself a writer of vers
Now this was an unnecessary and indeed 'confusing* dé
persona of «thè satirist»; «thè satirist» need not have been
himself as a writer at ali. Horace, for instance, did not prése
self as a 'writer' in his lyrics, where he is always a «singer»,
Epistles he no longer présents himself as a writer of verse at
création of a «satirist» who wrote his satires in verse was bound to
fuse thè poet with thè alleged persona.
It seems that Horace too, like Lucilius, succeeded in giving the im-
pression to his readers that he was personally involved in his satires.
This is indicated by what his successor Persius had to say about him.
In his first satire, Persius set out the tradition in which he meant to
write (again, if this is only «the satirist» speaking, it is confusing that
he too is a writer). He referred to the ruthless tone of Lucilius
(1.114), secuit Ludlius Vrbem, whilst Horace, on thè other hand, he
found more ingratiating:

omne uafer uitium ridenti Flaccus amico

tangit, et admissus circum praecordia ludit.
(1.116-117)

Again, there is hère no suggestion that Persius thought that he was

reading not about Horace himself, but about some generic mask
created for satirical présentation37. The juxtaposed words «Flaccus
amico» seem to forge an intimate relationship between poet and
reader, without the interposition of a persona, «the satirist».
From thèse passages it should be clear that the Romans had a way
of reading satire, a fundamental élément of which Anderson failed
to recognize, namely, that satire, as personal poetry, expressed the
poet's own views and might use his own expérience as subject mat-
ter.

Το what the poets said as readers of satire we may add what the
scholiasts said about them in their verse satires. They indeed refer
to thè persona of the poet, by which they mean his own self, as dis-
tinct from any other character who may speak in a poem. It is for in-

36. E.g., in Horace 1.4.138-139, and 10.46-48, 92 libello, 2.1. 1, and 3.1-4, 7.117; in Persius the
Prologue and 1.120 libelle; in Juvenal 1. 17-18, 30 difficile est saturant non scnbere, 79, 152,
3.321-332.

37. It is interesting to see that in her récent pamphlet on thè persona in satire Susanna
M. Braund twice quotes thèse Unes; on their first appearance she says that Persius is re-
ferring to «Horace» (1996b, 29), and on the second to Horace (1996b, 55). Why are the
quotes dropped the second time, and why weren't they put round Persius' name at
ail?

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 76 Roland G. Mayer

stance a useful means wherewit

matic satires, in which the wr
someone eise38. But its usage n
the modern one. When a schol
sona poetae» he conformed t
meant by it the person of the w
son, real or imagined. Porfyrio,
views on the use of a persona t
Senn. 2.2.1: in hac edoga sub pers
cism is no less Horace's for bein
acter gives it a special authori
view, not just when he was in
scholia known as Probus Valla o
consuetudinem detestatur sub per
was feit to be Juvenal's, and U
tended departure from thè cit
indictment.
The satires just referred to pr
but the ancient reader did not ap
tries to do, the writer from h
reading from the passage in Ci
in which Lucilius used thè pe
There is another, but bizarre, dé
in Pliny the Eider; he noted th
long eggs were superior in flavou
gratioris sapons putat Horatius
2.4.12-13, where it was not Horac
and even he was only reportin
lecture by somebody eise40. So d
to disentangle the poet from eve
That the readers of satire cou
writer and satirist is shown by
race offers in Serm. 1.4.78, where
and 2.1.1, where he says: in satur
ond and first person Singulars re
to his persona, «the satirist», w

38. See Porfyrio on Serm. 1.2.58-59, 3.126,

sius 1.29.
39. There are always problems in accepting these scholia, but hère the notice is confir-
med as ancient by its roughly similar appearance in the Leiden MS, which reads conuer-
sationem for consuetudinem.

40. Partly what lies behind his use of Horace here is the quasi-didactic form of the sa-
tire. Now in generai Pliny treats didactic poets as authorities; he regularly refers to He-
siod and Virgü for agricultural matters (see thè index of the Mayhoff-Jahn édition). See
Mynors on Virg. G. 1.216.

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Literary Persona in Antiquity 77

and défend himself as writer on thè ground that it was not h

thè generic persona speaking? Or, to look at thè matter f
point of view of thè audience, why did people get upset with
lay-figure in the first place? The ans wer is piain: even if the
was a fiction, the writer had put the wounding words
mouth, and, as we have seen, the common view was that
sona expressed the opinion of the writer.
In this context it is worth returning to the issue with w
previous section opened, namely the dangers run by tho
were deemed to describe their own bad behaviour. What h
to those who were deemed to be criticizing others in their
sons, for instance, the composers of lampoons in the earl
pate? C. Cominius, an eques, was condemned for a lampoon
Tiberius; his brother, a Senator, managed to get him off (
4.31. 1). Sextus Vestilius committed suicide after losing T
favour for an attack upon Gaius as a pervert (Tac. Ann. 6.
tius Paconianus, a praetor and henchman of Sejanus, was i
for plotting against Gaius; there he composed carmin
Tiberius, and for that he was strangled (Tac. Ann. 6.39.1).
praetor, Antistius, composed probrosa carmina against Ner
cited them at a dinner party; he was arraigned for maiestas, a
debate about the penalty is described by Tacitus at some l
Ann. 14.48-49. Fabricius Veiento got into trouble for his attac
may not have been in verse) on the Senate and priesth
Ann. 14.50). It is noteworthy that in none of thèse trials is it
a plea was entered on behalf of the writer that he had used a
persona (that of invective now, similar to the one Horac
posed to have used in his Epodes, not satire). Clearly that p
if available, would have eut no ice with the offended prineeps
day. Suppose a persona was used, it would still have been
that the writer created it and put thè abusive language i
mouth. It is for this reason that the literary (as opposed to po
satirists were so careful. The persona really offered no p
tion41.
This prédisposition of readers of satire persisted into late antiq-
uity, as we learn from Sidonius Apollinaris in a fascinating letter (Ep.

41. It might be worth mentioning in passing in this respect that Galileo, despite using
the dialogue form, and keeping himself out of the conversation, was nevertheless
charged with establishing the Copernican System in his Dialogo of 1632. The use of a per-
sona did not save him from condemnation. The problem is still with us. «The Daily Te-
legraph» for May 1, 1999, p. 20, reported that the white American rapper, Eminem, rela-
ted in one of his hit songs «I just found out my mom does more dope than I do». She
threatened to sue him! One would have thought the generic persona of the rapper to be
one of thè more obviously fictionalized, but where money and réputation are at stake
artistic stratégies offer no defence.

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 78 Roland G. Mayer

i.ii) about the dangers he ran w

prominent people were attack
The worthies of fifth-century A
satirical persona, they want
dreaded him ut satirographum
one had proved he was the write
a generic persona. One thing is c
the persona of the satirist or iam
economical ploy, since very litt
ployment. The writer of satire
fiised with his persona, and so m
attached to calumniators42.

7. Conclusions and Implications

The past is a foreign country: th

L.P. Hartley, The G

The chief stumbling-block to

criticism to Greek and Latin te
tional stratégies, deconstructio
antiquity. Greek and Roman w
nized the masking of the auth
dealing with it. Where they we
character who was plainly not
take the character's words as re
it was otherwise clear that the
Clay demonstrated, and as I hop
firmed, there is little or nothi
was in a position to recognize t
critic postulâtes as a matter of c
or mistress, the didactic writer,
readings that deploy our mode
of irrelevance. Let me try to just
pointing to two other cultural
stood very differently from us,
On July 24 1895, whilst walki
Vienna, Dr. Sigmund Freud ha
and true interprétation of drea
good number of people that his t

42. See Paul Lejay's discussion in his édit

287 with référence to Serm. 2.1.82-83 si
iudiciumque.

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Literary Persona in Antiquity 79

or biblical scholar would readily point out, dreams were fe

peoples of antiquity to play a very différent rôle in their live
as Julius Caesar or thè wife of Pontius Piiate were con
dreams were sent to them by superhuman powers to warn
or predici. There is no évidence that anyone in antiquity t
dream revealed something significant about thè dreamer
Plato's Socrates, to be sure, maintained that dreams reveal
sires of thè «beastly and savage» part of thè soûl, but that is
différent matter (Resp. 9S7ic-d). To interpret ancient dre
Freudian way might be interesting, but it would tell us
about thè sensibilities of Greeks and Romans and of their con
since a modern psychological 'reading' was entirely unava
them, owing to their lack of thè concept of thè subconscious.
Secondly, sexuality, a hot topic in thè academy nowaday
have recently become much more cautious about mapping
concepts like homosexuality upon thè terrain of gender in ant
We appreciate that, though that condition almost certainly
it was quite simply not recognized. And that fact ha
prompted carenai scholars to refrain from imposing our own
nology and thè thinking that goes with it upon thè sexual exp
of antiquity. It is appreciated that we simply distort thè p
doing that, and obstruct our own chance of understanding
ent past.
It may therefore be urged that we look upon modern persona crit-
icism with scepticism. It undeniably fits much of thè expérimental
literature of thè previous Century (e.g., Pound and Pessoa), but its
applicability to thè literature of antiquity is questionable, given thè
manifest ignorance of its opération not only among readers, but,
more significantly, among writers-as-readers. If thè persona (as
nowadays understood) were, as Clay, among others, believes (1998,
39), a deliberate construct of thè writer, it is very odd that poets like
Horace and Ovid persisted in treating thè works of their predeces-
sors as documentary. Their own alleged practice of assuming a per-
sona ought surely to have immunized them against such a gross
misreading. And yet consistently they are at one with non-poetic
readers (for example, Herodotus and Quintilian) in their assump-
tion that, to use Horace's words of Lucilius, thè life of thè man is to
be found in his writings. On this matter we ought, I suggest, as with
dreams and sexuality, to do antiquity thè favour of respecting its
own vie ws.

King's College London

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 8o Roiana G. Mayer

Bibliography

Anderson 1982: William Anderson,

don.
Braund 1988: Susanna H. Braund, (= Susanna Morton Braund), Beyond Anger,
Cambridge.
Braund 1992: Susanna H. Braund, Roman Verse Satire, Oxford.
Braund 1996a: Susanna H. Braund, Juvenal, Satires I Cambridge (Cambridge
Greek and Latin Classics).
Braund 1996b: Susanna H. Braund, The Roman Satirists and their Masks, Bris-
tol.
Clay 1998: Diskin Clay, The Theory ofthe Literary Persona in Antiquity, «MD» 40,
9-40.
D'Alessio 1994: G.B. D'Alessio, First Person Problems in Pinaar, «Bull. Inst. Class.
Stud.» 39, 117-139.
Dover 1964: Kenneth Dover, The Poetry of Archilochus, in Archiloque, Vandceu-
vres-Geneva, Fondation Hardt (Entretiens sur l'Antiquité Classique, 10),
181-222.

Ford 2002: Andrew Ford, The Ongins ofCnticism. Literary Culture and Poetic The-
ory in Classical Greece, Princeton and Oxford.
Freudenburg 1993: Kirk Freudenburg, The Walking Muse. Horace on thè Theory of
Satire, Princeton and London.
Rösler 1985: Wolfgang Rösler, Persona reale 0 persona poetica? Uinterpretazione
dell'Ho' nella lirica greca arcaica, «Quad. urb. cult, class.» 48, n.s. 19, 131-144.
Rudd 1976: Niall Rudd: Lines ofEnquiry. Studies in Latin Poetry, Cambridge.

This content downloaded from

46.84.20.137 on Sat, 02 Jan 2021 08:49:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms