31 PROSE SATIRE I. «,POCOLOCYNTOSIS DIVI CLAUDII” and malicious wit few works of Latin literature can match the only For iP satire which has survived," a skit upon the life and death comp Caesar ascribed in manuscripts which transmit it to Seneca. It is ly identified with a piece about Claudius which Cassius Dio tells us wrote under the title apocolocyntosis. This word, though hardly trans- 2 clearly involves allusion to a pumpkin, colocynta, perhaps as a symbol of supiaity, and may well involve, as Dio supposed, parody of the idea of deification. But how does it relate to the actual work, in which Claudius ither a pumpkin nor a god? No one has yet explained. We have either t0 contend that the joke is limited to the title itself or, if we feel that a work and its title ought to have some discernible connexion, admit that a very red problem remains with us. As to authorship, Seneca could certainly have written the satire. There is nothing surprising in the contradiction here of all the earlier adulation of the Ad Polybium (even if that had been sincere, his exile gave Seneca reason enough to detest Claudius) or in the satire’s liveliness and scurrility (Seneca was versatile and not lacking in wit). Nero himself derided the dead Claudius and presumably allowed his courtiers to do the same. If Seneca wrote his skit shortly after Nero’s accession he would have found an appreciative audience. But, though Seneca possessed the talent, motive, and opportunity to produce the work, so too did others, and famous names attract attributions. It is not absurd to retain some doubts. ‘After protestations of truthfulness (1-2), sure token of a tall story, the satirist narrates the death of Claudius (3~4), his ascent to Olympus and vain attempt to be enrolled as a god (5-11), and his descent via Rome, where he witnesses his own obsequies, to Hades and final damnation (12-15). The narrative varies in tempo, but is usually brisk and not overburdened with detail. Transition from prose to verse, a distinctive feature of the Menippean 3A Passes of some size is lost in a lacuna at 7.5- none cogent, we cannot with assurance settle for any one. 633PROSE SATIRE genre, is aptly and amusingly contrived. In general frivolity prevails, but the praise of Nero (4,1) can be taken seriously and, of course, many of the chatges against Claudius, made by Augustus (10) and elsewhere, are in themselves Btave enough. One must hesitate, however, to impute any of the views expressed to the author. For instance, the sneer at Claudius’ extension of the citizenshj, (333) tells us nothing about the real opinions of Seneca or any other individual ‘The satirist adopts a stance, that of the plain and forthright man in the street, much as Aristophanes had done long before. His satire is political in that it concerned with a political figure, but not because he says anything of political moment. ‘The work's prosimetric form links it most obviously with Varro's Menjp. peans, and, though nothing closely comparable in theme appears amongst ‘Varro’s fragments, a considerable debt is likely. Something too may be owed directly to Menippus: similarities to Lucian, notably his Zearomenippus and Deorum concilium, could indicate Menippus as a common source. And one need hardly doubt that Lucilius’ council of the gods hovered somewhere in our author’s mind. In Lucilius the gods pass judgement on the deceased Cornelius Lentulus Lupus, as they do here on the deceased Claudius. To these literary influences, readily absorbed and exploited by a fertile imagination, we may add the effects of a long Roman tradition of political abuse and invective. The special circumstances of the time of composition allowed that tradition, having long run underground, to surface again. Modern critics may take exception to the treatment of Claudius’ personal deformities as being in bad taste. It would not have seemed objectionable to Catullus or Cicero. ‘The greatest of the many delights which this minor masterpiece affords lies in the way hits are scored in every quarter. Historians, for instance, are mocked for their claims to impartiality (1.1) and avoidance of quotations (9.2). Augustus is made to talk like an animated inscription (10.2). The formalities of sena- torial debate are playfully caricatured (9.5, 11.5). So too are poetic conventions and poetic language, not excluding that of Seneca’s tragedies. Irony, bathos, and all sorts of comic incongruity abound. The Latin is light and racy when necessary, and witticisms flow with effortless ease. Proverbs and colloquialisms lend the work almost a plebeian air, and issue rather charmingly from the mouths of the gods. Olympus indeed seems as motley and clamorous as the streets of Rome. The satire is utterly disrespectful (save, of course, towards Nero), a fitting entertainment for the Saturnalia. Its unsparing derision of Claudius and uproarious laughter do not, as some suspect, betoken hysteria, but rather the healthy exuberance of a man at last pleased with himself and the world around him. 634