[16] The origin of this word is now acknowledged to be Roman. Scaliger derived it from σατυρος (_satyrus_), but Casaubon, Dacier, and others, more reasonably, from _satura_ (fem. of _satur_), rich, abounding, full of variety. In this sense it was applied to the lanx or charger, in which the various productions of the soil were offered up to the gods; and thus came to be used for any miscellaneous collection in general. _Satura olla_, a hotch-potch; _saturæ leges_, laws comprehending a multitude of regulations, etc. This deduction of the name may serve to explain, in some measure, the nature of the first Satires, which treated of various subjects, and were full of various matters: but enough on this trite topic.
[17] It should be observed, however, that the idea was obvious, and the work itself highly necessary. The old Satire, amid much coarse ribaldry, frequently attacked the follies and vices of the day. This could not be done by the comedy which superseded it, and which, by a strange perversity of taste, was never rendered national. Its customs, manners, nay, its very plots, were Grecian; and scarcely more applicable to the Romans than to us.
[18] To extend this to Lucilius, as is sometimes done, is absurd, since he evidently had in view the old comedy of the Greeks, of which his Satires, according to Horace, were rigid imitations:
"Eupolis atque Cratinus, Aristophanesque poëtæ Atque alii, quorum comœdia prisca virorum est; Si quia erat dignus describi, quod malus, aut fur, Quod mœchus foret, aut sicarius, aut alioqui Famosus, multa cum libertate notabant. HINC omnis pendet Lucilius, hosce secutus, Mutatis tantum pedibus, numerisque."
Here the matter would seem to be at once determined by a very competent judge. Strip the old Greek comedy of its action, and change the metre from Iambic to Heroic, and you have the Roman Satire! It is evident from this, that, unless two things be granted, first, that the actors in those ancient Satires were ignorant of the existence of the Greek comedy; and, secondly, that Ennius, who knew it well, passed it by for a ruder model; the Romans can have no pretensions to the honor they claim.
And even if this be granted, the honor appears to be scarcely worth the claiming; for the Greeks had not only Dramatic, but Lyric and Heroic Satire. To pass by the Margites, what were the Iambics of Archilochus, and the Scazons of Hipponax, but Satires? nay, what were the Silli? Casaubon derives them απο του σιλλαινειν, to scoff, to treat petulantly; and there is no doubt of the justness of his derivation. These little pieces were made up of passages from various poems, which by slight alterations were humorously or satirically applied at will. The Satires of Ennius were probably little more; indeed, we have the express authority of Diomedes the grammarian for it. After speaking of Lucilius, whose writings he derives, with Horace, from the old comedy, he adds, "et olim carmen, quod ex variis poematibus constabat, satira vocabatur; quale scripserunt Pacuvius et Ennius." Modern critics agree in understanding "ex variis poematibus," of various kinds of metre; but I do not see why it may not mean, as I have rendered it, "of various poems;" unless we choose to compliment the Romans, by supposing that what was in the Greeks a mere cento, was in them an original composition.