Reading Journal #7

Juvenal develops wealth as a factor that is leading to the deterioration of the very fabric of society that Juvenal is a part of. He introduces it as a contrast to the honor and glory of the past heroes of Rome. He never goes out and says that the rich are ridiculous or greedy or hypocritical, but he ridicules the way they interact with other people and the fact that they have “degenerated” from their glorious ancestors. This is similar to Twain, because he never goes out to say that the rich are anything in particular, but he ridicules them through their interactions on a societal level. However, he never addresses them as directly as Juvenal does. Juvenal’s attacks are quite obviously addressed at the rich while Twain disguises his more as a story about a traveler, who happens to make certain remarks tat criticize people in an unnoticeable way. In Juvenal’s works hypocrisy does not play nearly as large of a role as it does in Twain’s works. In Twain that seems to be the author’s primary complaint- the Church s wealth and hypocritical about its wealth. This is demonstrated in all of his snide remarks about the ranks of fat friars and priests and the starving masses outside the church doors. Juvenal, on the other hand, seems to attack the rich more for their lack of honor and virtue and their attempts to cover their disgusting habits behind their quickly tarnishing family names. However in his rant about the rich man and the poor man at the table I see him angry, at least in part, at the hypocrisy in the fact that the rich man says he is feeding the poor man but really he is giving him scraps. Yet even in that rant it seemed that the author was more upset by the fact that the poor man puts up with the treatment and that the rich man is so greedy, not hypocritical but merely without and redeeming virtue at all. Twain criticized the Italian’s lack of free speech by comparing it to the American’s use of such, but Juvenal merely states that if the people did have free speech they would dethrone those in power. Twain seems to think that free speech is a beneficial right that will eventually improve the lot of the people, but Juvenal sees it merely as a way to warn the rich. He does not seem concerned at all with the quality of life of the plebs, but he does worry about the moral honor of the rich and only uses the threat of the power of the people as that- a threat. Juvenal portrays artists and poets as occasionally honorable, but more often full of themselves and indebted to and pawns of their patrons. He believes that patrons are really the ones true muse inspired artists must beware of, for they believe that they are wonderful artists in tier own right, and this is hard to compete with. Twain sees them as ancient bores and creators of glorified junk (such as dried out fire screens). He also thinks that tour guides are way too focused on “famous” painters such as Michelangelo, and he gets bored with the obsession with them. Juvenal believes the honor means that someone is upright and honest, that they are active (involved militarily or work their own land), that they are eloquent and well educated. He does not think that they should be as concerned with their aesthetic image (he denounces shaving backs and butts) or with the quality of their food (in terms of their excessive gourmet banquets for themselves), he denounces their greed and their occupation with frivolities (such as different places to eat depending on whether it is raining or sunny out so your horses don’t have to get wet).
I honestly was not very amused by any of Juvenal’s satires. There was one line that was relatively amusing, and that was in the eighth satire, and it was “the chests of his forbearers were hairy; Look at him, though, with his butt all smoothed by Catanian pumice!” I found that line funny because it seemed like such a ridiculous thing to object to. That of all the things that the author could have compared or complained about he chose a smooth butt seems very strange to me. However, for the rest of the satires I was not amused. I believe that for satire to be funny you have to understand the political and social contrivances that are under critique, and I did not understand those which he was critiquing enough to find the humor in them. I did not understand the significance of the little barbs that were probably being thrown, and because we read a translation I also missed any play on words that the author might have originally employed. I don’t know enough to understand why litters and slaves are a joke, or why being fed and eel might be amusing or even insulting. There is too much distance in between me and what he is critiquing for me to understand the humor without much more study of the time period.