Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:50:32.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Characterization of Ofellus in Horace Satires 2.2 and a Note on v. 123

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

R. P. Bond
R. P. Bond*
Affiliation:
University of Canterbury
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Critical assessments of the effectiveness of the characterization of Ofellus in Horace, Satires 2.2 have varied from time to time. However, there has been something of a consensus on the question of Horace’s attitude towards Ofellus. It has generally been believed that Ofellus is intended to be the mouthpiece of admirable sentiments. I believe, however, that a reassessment of Ofellus’ character is overdue and may facilitate a correct re-evaluation of Ofellus’ role within the poem and, thereby, of the meaning of the poem itself.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 14 , 1980 , pp. 112 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This paper is a modification of one read originally to the Classics section of AULLA 20 at the University of Newcastle (N.S. W.) on 31 January 1980.I have taken account of as many as possible of the useful suggestions and comments made on that occasion.

2 Lejay, P.Horace, Satires (Paris1911), 311–27.Google Scholar

3 Rudd, N.The Satires of Horace (Cambridge 1966), 171.Google Scholar

4 Fiske, G.C.Lucilius and Horace (Madison 1920), 156.Google Scholar

5 Ibid. 379 f..

6 Coffey, M.Roman Satire (London 1976), 83.Google Scholar

7 Bovie, S.P.The Satires and Epistles of Horace (Chicago 1959), 85.Google Scholar

8 Horace, Ep. 1. 1. 14.

9 Cf. Rudd 170.

10 Lejay’s references are to Plautus, Capt. 954; Cas. 725 and Pseud. 1145: also to Terence, Ad. 556 f. an Andr. 616.

11 See my article ‘A Discussion of Various Tensions in Horace, Satires 2. 7’, Prudentia (Nov. 1978), 85–98.

12 E.g. Hdt. 1.30; Thuc. 8. 48; Xen. Hell. 5. 3. 9 and Cyr. 4. 4. 23.

13 N.E. 2. 9. 2 etc..

14 See, for example, Cicero, Fin. 4. 68.

15 Lejay however, thinks otherwise: ‘Hor. s’excuse aussitôt d’émettre cette banalité’, n. ad loc. p. 328.

16 Ofellus is dealt with more gently, however, than Davus in 2. 7 and Damasippus in 2. 3, perhaps because he reflected attitudes dear to the heart of Horace’s father as they are described in 1. 6.

17 E.g. Sat. 1. 10. 10

18 Lejay (n. ad loc.) lists Eur. Melanippe fr. 484 (Nauck) and Helen 513: λόγοςγάρ έστιν ούκ έμός, σοφών δ’ επος, which may be related to the sapiens of v. 3.

19 Fraenkel, Horace (Oxford 1957), 136Google Scholar states that Horace is ‘echoing the beginning of Eryximachus’ speech in Plato, Symp. (177 a)’. Fraenkel is unwilling to accept the Euripidean reference in this ‘dialogic satire’. This view seems unnecessarily blinkered.

20 See Callimachus, Hymns 5. 56,Google Scholar μϋθος δ’ ούκ έμός, άλλ’ έτέρων. It does not seem unlikely to me that Horace is well aware of the multiple reference of his allusion and that this suits his purpose as I describe it.

21 Ofellus’ very name, meaning ‘tit-bit’ (see Rudd 144) may suggest a certain lack of reverence on Horace’s part. This would be in keeping with elements of his attitude to provincials in Sat. 1. 5, e.g. Messi clarum genus Osci (54).

22 rideri possit eo quod

rusticius tonso toga defluii et male laxus

in pede calceus haeret: at est bonus … (Sat. 1 3. 30–2)

23 E.g. Sat. 2. 7. 47 and 83.

24 Palmer cites Virg. Aen. 8. 409; Ovid, Met. 4. 33 and Prop. 2. 9. 5.

25 Occasionally the Stoics themselves identified Athena with wisdom in much the same way; e.g. D.L. 7. 147: Άθηνάν δέ (sc. φασι) κατά την είς αιθέρα διώτασιν του ηγεμονικού αύτοϋ, and also S.V.F. 3. 235. 1 where the comment is made in Philodemos, de Mus. 4 p. 105 Kembe that Αθηνά = φρόνησις.

26 On the nature, role and rationality of the Stoic logos, see Hunt, H.A.K.A Physical Interpretation of the Universe: The Doctrines of Zeno the Stoic (Melbourne 1976), 26–„44.Google Scholar

27 E.g. D.L. 7. 157; cf. Lact. Div. Inst. 7. 20.

28 See also Fiske (379) on abnormis.

29 Rudd, The Satires of Horace and Persius (Harmondsworth 1973), 77.Google Scholar

30 See, of course, Empson, W.Seven Types of Ambiguity (London 1930).Google Scholar

31 E.g. esp. v. 371.

32 Plato, Rep. 507–514;Google Scholar one of the more persuasive interpretations of this vexed passage is that of Raven, J.E.Plato’s Thought in the Making (Cambridge 1965)Google Scholar which pays special attention to the role played by the visible world as a ‘model’ for the sphere of the intelligible.

33 Lejay illustrates from Plautus, Trin. and Cicero, Mil. 85: one should also note Horace, Odes 1. 34. 2 where there is an ironical reference to the Epicureans.

34 E.g. D.L. 7. 123: ετι γε τον σοφόν οϋδεν θαυμάζειν των δοκούντων παραδόξων.

35 Rudd (note 29 above) 77.

36 Lejay’s references are to Virg. Aen. 10. 835 and, more relevantly, to Livy 48. 9: ‘adclinaturos se ad causam senatus’.

37 See Stob. Ecl. 2. 93. 1.

38 These are cuppa by Lambin, cupa or nulla by Bentley, pulpa by Heinsius and nupta (sic) by Peerlkamp.

39 Lejay, n. ad loc. p. 353: ‘au contraire dans la coutume grecque décrite dans les Odes… Odes 1. 4. 18 et 2. 7. 25’.

40 Cf. Cic. Fam. 7. 3. 4; Sen. Phaed. 163 and Juv. 1. 167.