represents another mood of ancient Rome, the mood natural to her before she was humanized by the lessons of Greek art and thought. If we could imagine the elder Cato living under Domitian, cut off from all share in public life, and finding no outlet for his combative energy except in literature, we should perhaps understand the motives of Juvenal’s satire and the place which is his due as a representative of the genius of his country. As a man he shows many of the strong qualities of the old Roman plebeian—the aggressive boldness, the intolerance of superiority and privilege, which animated the tribunes in their opposition to the senatorian rule. Even where we least like him we find nothing small or mean to alienate our respect from him. Though he loses no opportunity of being coarse, he is not licentious; though he is often truculent, he cannot be called malignant. It is, indeed, impossible to say what motives of personal chagrin, of love of detraction, of the mere literary passion for effective writing, may have contributed to the indignation which inspired his verse. But the prevailing impression we carry away after reading him is that in all his early satires he was animated by a sincere and manly detestation of the tyranny and cruelty, the debauchery and luxury, the levity and effeminacy, the crimes and frauds, which we know from other sources were then rife in Rome, and that a more serene wisdom and a happier frame of mind were attained by him when old age had somewhat allayed the fierce rage which vexed his manhood.
Authorities.—The remarkable statements in a “life” found in a late Italian MS. (Barberini, viii. 18), “Iunius Iuvenalis Aquinas Iunio Iuvenale patre matre vero Septumuleia ex Aquinati municipio Claudio Nerone et L. Antistio consulibus (55) natus est, sororem habuit Septumuleiam quae Fuscino (Sat. xiv. 1) nupsit,” though not necessarily false, cannot be accepted without confirmation.
The earliest evidence for the banishment of Juvenal is that of Sidonius Apollinaris (c. 480), Carm. ix. 269, “Non qui tempore Caesaris secundi | Aeterno coluit Tomos reatu | Nec qui consimili deinde casu | Ad vulgi tenuem strepentis auram | Irati fuit histrionis exul,” lines which by the exact parallel drawn between Ovid’s fate and Juvenal’s imply the belief that Juvenal died in exile. The banishment is also mentioned by J. Malalas, a Greek historian subsequent to Justinian, who gives the place as Pentapolis in Africa, Chron. x. 262, Dindorf. The inscription (on a stone now lost) is as follows, the words and letters in brackets being the conjectural restorations of scholars:—“[Cere] ri sacrum | [D. Iu] nius Iuvenalis | trib. coh. [I] Delmatarum | II vir quinq. flamen | divi Vespasiani | vovit dedicav[it] que | sua pec.,” Corp. inscr. lat. X. 5382, xiii. 201 sqq. The best of the known manuscripts of Juvenal (P) is at Montpellier (125); but there are several others which cannot be neglected. Amongst these may be specially mentioned the Bodleian MS. (Canon. Lat. 41), which contains a portion of Satire vi., the existence of which was unknown until E. O. Winstedt published it in the Classical Review (1899), pp. 201 seq. Another fragment in the Bibliothèque Nationale was described by C. E. Stuart in the Classical Quarterly (Jan. 1909). Numerous scholia and glossaries attest the interest taken in Juvenal in post-classical times and the middle ages. There are two classes of scholia—the older or “Pithoeana,” first published by P. Pithoeus, and the “Cornutus scholia” of less value, specimens of which have been published by various scholars. The earliest edition which need now be mentioned is that of P. Pithoeus, 1585, in which P was first used for the text. Amongst later ones we may mention the commentaries of Ruperti (1819) and C. F. Heinrich (1839, with the old scholia), O. Jahn (1851, critical with the old scholia), A. Weidner (1889), L. Friedländer (1895, with a full verbal index). The most useful English commentaries are those of J. E. B. Mayor (a voluminous and learned commentary on thirteen of the Satires, ii., vi. and ix. being omitted), J. D. Lewis (1882, with a prose translation) and J. D. Duff (1898, expurgated, and ii. and ix. being omitted). There are recent critical texts: conservative and chiefly based on P, by F. Buecheler (1893, with selections from the scholia) and S. G. Owen (in the Oxford Series of Texts); on the other side, by A. E. Housman (1905) and by the same, but with fewer innovations, in the new Corpus poetarum latinorum, fasc. v. The two last-named editors alone give the newly discovered lines of Satire vi. There are no recent translations of Juvenal into English verse. Dryden translated i., iii., vi., x. and xvi., the others being committed to inferior hands. Other versions are Gifford’s (1802), of some merit, and C. Badham’s (1814). Johnson’s imitations of Satires iii. and x. are well known. For the numerous articles and contributions to the criticism and elucidation of the Satires, reference should be made to Teuffel’s Geschichte der römischen Litteratur (Eng. trans. by Warre), § 331, and Schanz, ditto (1901, ii. § 2, § 420a). (W. Y. S.; J. P. P.)
JUVENCUS, GAIUS VETTIUS AQUILINUS, Christian poet, flourished during the reign of Constantine the Great. Nothing is known of him except that he was a Spanish presbyter of distinguished family. About 330 he published his Libri evangeliorum IV., each book containing about 800 hexameters. The division into books is possibly a reminiscence of the number of the Gospels. The work itself, written with the idea of ousting the absurdities of Pagan mythology and replacing them by the truths of Christianity, may be called the first Christian epic. In the Praefatio the author expresses the hope that the sacredness of his subject may procure him safety at the final conflagration of the world and admission into heaven. The whole is, in the main, a poetical version of the Gospel of Matthew, the other evangelists only being used for supplementary details. It is founded upon a pre-vulgate Latin translation, although there is evidence that Juvencus also consulted the Greek. In spite of metrical irregularities, the language and style are simple and show good taste, being free from the artificiality of other Christian poets and prose writers, and the author has made excellent use of Virgil (his chief model) and other classical writers. Juvencus set the fashion of verse translations of the Bible, and the large number of MSS. of his poem mentioned in lists and still extant are sufficient evidence of its great popularity. According to Jerome, he was also the author of some poems on the sacraments, but no trace of these has survived. The Latin Heptateuch, a hexameter version of the first seven books of the Old Testament, has been attributed to Juvencus amongst others; but it is now generally supposed to be the work of a certain Cyprianus, a Gaul who lived in the 6th century, possibly a bishop of Toulon, author of the Life of Caesarius, bishop of Arelate (Arles).
See M. Manitius, Geschichte der christlich-lateinischen Poesie (1891); A. Ebert, Allgemeine Geschichte der Literatur des Mittelalters, vol. i. (1889); editions of Juvencus by C. Marold (1886); J. Hümer in Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, vol. xxiv. (Vienna, 1891); J. T. Hatfield, A Study of Juvencus (1890), dealing with syntax, metre and language; editions of the Heptateuch by J. E. B. Mayor (1889; reviewed by W. Sanday in Classical Review, October 1889, and by J. T. Hatfield in American Journal of Philology, vol. xi., 1890), and R. Peiper, vol. xxiii. of the Vienna series above.
JUVENILE OFFENDERS. In modern social science the
question of the proper penal treatment of juvenile (i.e. non-adult)
offenders has been increasingly discussed; and the
reformatory principle, first applied in the case of children, has
even been extended to reclaimable adult offenders (juveniles in
crime, if not in age) in a way which brings them sufficiently
within the same category to be noticed in this article. In the
old days the main idea in England was to use the same penal
methods for all criminals, young and old; when the child broke
the law he was sent to prison like his elders. It was only in comparatively
recent times that it was realized that child criminals
were too often the victims to circumstances beyond their own
control. They were cursed with inherited taint; they were
brought up among evil surroundings; they suffered from the
culpable neglect of vicious parents, and still more from bad
example and pernicious promptings. They were rather potential
than actual criminals, calling for rescue and regeneration
rather than vindictive reprisals. Under the old system a
painstaking English gaol chaplain calculated that 58% of
all criminals had made their first lapse at fifteen. Boys
and girls laughed at imprisonment. Striplings of thirteen and
fourteen had been committed ten, twelve, sixteen or seventeen
times. Religion and moral improvement were little regarded in
prisons, industrial and technical training were impossible. The
chief lesson learnt was an intimate and contemptuous acquaintance
with the demoralizing interior of a gaol. There were at
one time in London 200 “flash houses” frequented by 6000
boys trained and proficient in thieving and depredation.
The substantial movement for reform dates from the protests of Charles Dickens, who roused public opinion to such an extent that the first Reformatory School Act was passed in 1854. Sporadic efforts to meet the evil had indeed been made earlier. In 1756 the Marine Society established a school for the reception and reform of younger criminals; in 1788 the City of London formed a similar institution, which grew much later into
