Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T16:04:52.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IV. Horace

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

Get access

Extract

Although Horace’s origins were relatively humble in comparison with those of Lucilius, he rose to high status through wealth and powerful backing. The usual picture of the poor tradesman’s son admitted to aristocratic company for his literary genius should be dismissed, as Armstrong powerfully argues. Quintus Horatius Flaccus was born in 65 b.c. at Venusia in Apulia to a freedman (a former slave). His father was an auctioneer (coactor, that is, in effect, a type of entrepreneur) and, being very wealthy and ambitious for his son, took him to Rome to ensure that he received a good education. Horace completed his education by spending a year or two in Athens, the university for young Romans of the élite and a very costly experience.

Type
Research Article
Information
New Surveys in the Classics , Volume 23: Roman Verse Satire , 1992 , pp. 16 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Notes

1. Armstrong (1986).

2. On Horace and Maecenas see Rudd (1986), pp. 51-62, Armstrong (1970), 91-102.

3. The best text of Horace is that of F. Klingner (5th edition, Leipzig, 1970). There are many studies of Horace. Reckford (1969) and Armstrong (1989) provide a sound orientation, Williams (1972) provides an overview with copious bibliography; and Fraenkel (1957) provides a wealth of scholarship and detailed interpretation. West (1967) offers acute literary criticism of a few poems; Costa (1973) contains a collection of essays of varying quality; Shackleton Bailey (1982) presents his view of the man and his poetry. For a full bibliography see Kissel (1981).

4. Views on the date of Epistles II.1 range from soon after 17 B.C. (Williams (1972), p. 39) to 12 B.C. (Rudd (1989), pp. 1-2); and range even wider on the date of the Ars Poetica, from the period 23-17 B.C. (Williams (1972), pp. 38-9) to the ‘blank’ period in Horace’s output, 13-8 B.C. (e.g. Rudd (1989), pp. 19-21). After a full examination of the evidence, Brink (1963), pp. 239-43 concludes that it is not possible to date the Ars poetica. See now Frischer (1991), pp. 48-9: date 24-20 B.C.

5. Bion represents Hellenistic diatribe, an important influence upon Horace: see above page 18 and note 9. The title of what we usually call the Satires is problematical. It is likely that we should refer to these poems as Sermones rather than Satires and that the term satura designates the genre. For a review of the ancient testimony, including that in Horace, see Rudd (1966), pp. 154-9. On the question of the genre of the Epistles see below notes 61-3.

6. All the general books on Roman satire devote substantial sections to Horace and provide a useful introduction to the poems in the Satires (only Knoche includes the Epistles): Anderson (1982), pp. 13-49 (- Sullivan (1963), pp. 1-37), Witke (1970), pp. 49-78, Ramage, Sigsbee & Fredericks (1974), pp. 64-88, Knoche (1975), pp. 73-98, Coffey (1989), pp. 63-97. More specialized discussions of Horace’s satirical works appear in the notes below; for a full discussion of every poem in Satires I and II Rudd (1966) must be the first resort. Editions of Horace’s satirical works include E. C. Wickham (Oxford, 1891), Palmer, A. 4 (London, 1891: Satires)Google Scholar, Wilkins, A. S. (London, 1896: Epistles)Google Scholar, Lejay, P. (Paris, 1911: Satires)Google Scholar, Kiessling-Heinze, 6 (Berlin, 1957), Brink (1971) and (1982) (Epistles II and Ars poetica)Google Scholar, Rudd (1989) (Epistles II and Ars poetica). The best translation of Horace’s satirical works is that of Rudd (1987).

7. For a general overview of the poems in Satires I see: Ramage, Sigsbee & Fredericks (1974), pp. 65-76; Coffey (1989), pp. 70-81; Anderson (1982), pp. 28-41; Armstrong (1989), pp. 26-48; Williams (1972), pp. 15-20 (on Satires I and II). Fiske (1920), pp. 219-368 combines careful analysis of the poems of Satires I with indications of the influence of Lucilius upon Horace. Rudd (1966) contains analysis of the poems as follows: ‘The Diatribes of Book I’ (1.1, 1.2,1.3), pp. 1-35; ‘Poet and Patron’ (1.6), pp. 36-53; ‘Entertainments’ (1.5,1.7,1.8,1.9), pp. 54-85; ‘Horace and Lucilius’ (1.4,1.10,11.1) 86-131.

8. Cf. Zetzel (1980), pp. 60-2, Anderson (1982), pp. 28-9.

9. Zetzel (1980), esp. pp. 63-4.

10. On diatribe in Horace, see Coffey (1989), pp. 92-3, Morford (1984), pp. 15-17 and more generally OCD 2 Diatribe’, Oltremare (1924).

11. The philosophical flavour can best be described as non-doctrinaire Epicureanism, in accord with Maecenas’ own tendency: DuQuesnay (1984), p. 33.

12. See Bushala (1971) on the theme of the poem, Curran (1970) on the use of obscenity and Richlin (1983), pp. 174-7 on Lucilian and Horatian concerns in the poem.

13. Ennius Ann. 471-2 W - 465-6 V3.

14. McKeown (1979), 73.

15. As Henderson’s reading of the poem (1989a), pp. 104-8 suggests in its explication of the crude fetishization of women. Cf. Bushala (1971).

16. Rudd’s title (1966), pp. 1-35. On these three poems as a triad see Armstrong (1964).

17. See DuQuesnay (1984), pp. 35-6.

18. On lines 63-5 see Shackleton Bailey (1982), pp. 24-5.

19. On the literary principles expressed in this poem, see Brink (1963), pp. 156-64.

20. We should beware of reading this as autobiography and, as in 1.6, should focus upon the literary value of Horace’s father: Anderson (1982), pp. ix-x, Leach (1971).

21. Cf. Dickie (1981), pp. 185-93: ‘it is the moral framework of friendship and its duties within which Horace defends his writing satire’; see Hunter (1985), 486-90, Muecke (1979), LaFleur (1981), 1794-1801; on the importance of frankness throughout Horace’s poetry see DeWitt (1935); on the flexibility of the concept of libertas see Rudd (1957).

22. Fiske (1920), pp. 306-16.

23. Thus Classen (1973).

24. On the political backdrop DuQuesnay (1984), pp. 39-43.

25. The whole of the poem praises Maecenas either directly or subtly: DuQuesnay (1984), pp. 43-52. On Horace’s exaggeration of his poverty see Armstrong (1986).

26. Thus e.g. Armstrong (1989), p. 41.

27. On the political significance of 1.7 and Horace’s subtlety of treatment see DuQuesnay (1984), pp. 36-8.

28. Anderson (1982), p. 80, referring to Buchheit (1968), pp. 542-6 (which is summarized by van Rooy (1971), 70-1); on Sal. 1.7 as a reworking of a satire by Lucilius see van Rooy (1971), 87-90.

29. See Anderson’s excellent discussion of the poem (1982), pp. 74-83 and DuQuesnay (1984), pp. 38-9 on the possible political dimension.

30. A less complimentary view of Priapus and the masculine aggression which he epitomizes is forcefully put by Hallett (1981) and Henderson (1989a), pp. 108-12; the debate centres upon whether or not the fart is involuntary or deliberate.

31. Anderson (1982), pp. 82-3.

32. Line 78. The allusion is to Horn. Il. 20.443, which is quoted by Lucilius 267 W (= 231 M), a fact which Fiske (1920), pp. 330-6 uses to argue for a Lucilian original to Horace’s poem. On the significance of the allusion see Fraenkel (1957), p. 118.

33. Anderson (1982), pp. 84-102.

34. Humour is present too in Horace’s use of law: see Cloud (1989), pp. 65-7.

35. Brink (1963), pp. 165-71. On the shift from 1.4 see LaFleur (1981), 1803-8. On the elements of Callimacheanism here see Scodel (1987).

36. DuQuesnay (1984), pp. 27-32.

37. DuQuesnay (1984), esp. pp. 56-8.

38. Shackleton Bailey (1982), p. 64 rightly labels him ‘an inveterate snob’.

39. Cf. van Rooy (1973), who overstates some of the echoes.

40. Zetzel’s phrase. On the question of the title of these poems see above note 5.

41. E.g. the series of detailed studies of the poems by van Rooy (1968), (1970a), (1970b), (1971), (1972a), (1972b).

42. For a general overview of the poems in Satires II see: Williams (1972), pp. 15-20; Ramage, Sigsbee & Fredericks (1974), pp. 76-84; Coffey (1989), pp. 81-90; Armstrong (1989), pp. 48-55. Anderson (1982), pp. 41-9 provides an important analysis. Fiske (1920), pp. 369-424 discusses the literary background with special reference to Lucilius. Rudd (1966), pp. 86-131 examines II.l in conjunction with 1.4 and 1.10; ‘The Diatribes of Book II’ (II.2, II.3, II.7), pp. 160-201; ‘Food and Drink’ (II.4 and II.8), pp. 202-23; ‘A Consultation’ (II.5), pp. 224-42; ‘Poet and Patron’ (11.6), pp. 243-57.

43. Anderson (1982), pp. 41-9 helpfully contrasts the personae adopted in Books I and II by comparing them with the portrayals of Socrates by Xenophon and Plato respectively. It is a little misleading that he labels the persona of Book I ‘The Socratic Moralist’ ((1982), p. 28) when this label evidently applies to both books.

44. On Horace’s debt in Satires II to Plato in his use of dialogue and character see Fraenkel (1957), pp. 136-7 and Haight (1947).

45. See Boll (1913), Port (1926), pp. 288-91, Ludwig (1968).

46. Actually a parody of a legal consultation: Cloud (1989), p. 67.

47. On the development of Horace’s handling of literary and legal matters in 1.4,1.10 and II.l see Brink (1963), pp. 153-77, LaFleur (1981), esp. 1812-26.

48. For the literature on the ‘pattern of apology’ see LaFleur (1981), 1811 n. 58, esp. Shero (1922), Kenney (1962) and Griffith (1970).

49. On the use of autobiography see the excellent article of Harrison (1987).

50. Rudd (1966), p. 129.

51. See Griffith (1970), 60-1, Coffey (1989), p. 82 with 231 n.83, Cloud (1989) p. 67, Clauss (1985), 205, who indicates the Callimachean elements, including humour, in the poem.

52. See Roberts (1984).

53. See Bond (1987).

54. See Bond (1978).

55. On the cena in Roman Satire see Shero (1923). According to Fiske (1920), p. 420 Lucilius included satires on banquets in Books 4, 5, 13, 20, and 21.

56. See West (1974) for a model example of literary criticism of the fable. Also Witke (1970), pp. 61-76 on the poem as a whole.

57. See Braund (1989), pp. 39-43.

58. On Horace’s relationship with Maecenas and treatment of him as a god in this poem see Bond (1985).

59. Hudson (1989), pp. 80-1. This is particularly entertaining if we accept Classen’s identification of Catius as a (misguided) follower of Epicurus: Classen (1978).

60. Hudson (1989), pp. 83-5. On the superiority shown by the narrator here, reminiscent of 1.5, see McGann (1973), pp. 66-7.

61. At Ep. II.2.59-60, II. 1.4 and II. 1.251 Horace seems to include the Epistles in the designation sermones. Quintilian, writing towards the end of the first century A.D., refers to Horace as a writer of lyric (I.O. 1.8.6), iambic (I.O. 10.1.96) and satirical (I.O. 10.1.94) poetry and makes no separate mention of the Epistles. Suetonius bears out the generic identification in his biography of Horace, written early in the second century A.D., when he adduces passages from the Epistles and locates them ‘in his satires’. The scholiast Porphyrio (third century) regards the Satires and the Epistles as belonging to the genre satura and differing in title (Sermones, Epislulae), the one addressed to someone present and other to someone absent. Pseudo-Acro’s comment (no earlier than the fifth century A.D.) on Ep. 1.1 indicates that the only difference is the presence or absence of addressees: ‘for in letters we speak to those absent, in conversation to those present’ (epistulis enim ad absentes loquimur, sermone cum praesentibus); similar is Demetrius’ remark that ‘a letter is one half of a conversation’ (233 = III p. 311 Sp.). The title of the Epistles was recently debated in the pages of Liverpool Classical Monthly 4 (1979).

62. Fiske (1920), pp. 425-75 offers telling evidence in the form of the influence of Lucilius upon Horace’s Epistles, including the Ars poetica.

63. On the Epistles as a continuation of the Satires see Hendrickson (1897), Williams (1972), p. 36, Rudd (1989), pp. 11-12; for a review of the evidence see Rudd (1966), pp. 154-9; Kilpatrick (1986), p. xiv rightly observes that ‘there is as great a difference between Satires I and II as between Satires II and the Epistles’. For an overview of the Epistles see Williams (1972), pp. 36-41 (Epistles I and II); for a brief orientation Knoche (1975), pp. 89-92, Anderson (1982), pp. 68-73, Armstrong (1989), pp. 117-35 on Epistles I and 153-62 on Epistles II.

64. Fraenkel deems this ‘the most harmonious of Horace’s books’ ((1957) p. 309). We are fortunate to have two good, recent studies of Epistles I, McGann (1969), who focusses upon the philosophical background and literary texture of the poems (see especially his poem-by-poem analysis in Chapter 2, ‘The Texture of Argument’, pp. 33-87), and Kilpatrick (1986), who provides an excellent brief introduction to the book (pp. xiii-xxiv) followed by detailed analysis of the twenty poems with useful bibliography, pp. 157-70 including poem-by-poem bibliography. See also Reckford (1969), pp. 107-118 who highlights the central themes of the book, Dilke (1973) and Williams (1968), pp. 1-30 who clears the ground for literary appreciation of Epistles I.

65. On this question see Williams (1968), pp. 7-24, McGann (1969), pp. 89-100 and Kilpatrick (1986), p. xvii who urges that ‘they are best judged as fictional discourse’.

66. On the philosophical content of Epistles I see McGann (1969), pp. 9-32 and Moles (1985); on the ethical concerns in the book see Macleod (1979); Mayer (1986) and (1985) urges that appropriate conduct or ‘good manners’ and not philosophy is the chief concern of Epistles I.

67. The antithesis between country and city and the connection between this and other themes in the Epistles is emphasized by Hirth (1985).

68. On clients and patrons in Horace Epistles I (7, 17,18) see Morford (1977), 226-9.

69. I have not seen Kilpatrick (1989) on Epistles II.

70. On which see Reckford (1969), pp. 138-45, Fraenkel (1957), pp. 383-99, Rudd (1989), pp. 1-11 for introduction and 75-122 for commentary, Brink (1982), pp. 31-265 for detailed commentary and 464-95 for analysis.

71. On which see Reckford (1969), pp. 119-22, Rudd (1989), pp. 12-19 for introduction and 122-50 for commentary, Brink (1963), pp. 183-90, (1982), pp. 266-412 for detailed commentary and 496-522 for analysis, McGann (1954) and Rutherford (1981) for interpretation.

72. On which see Reckford (1969), pp. 138-45; Rudd (1989), pp. 19-37 for introduction and 150-229 for commentary; Brink (1963), pp. viii-ix, 153-6, 213-38 on the Ars as literary criticism and (1971), pp. 445-523 for an analysis of the poem ‘as Horadan poetry’; and Brink (1971), pp. 73-431 for commentary containing a wealth of useful material.

73. In the manuscript tradition the Ars poética is associated with the lyric poems not the satires; and Quintilian in the first century A.D. (a good deal earlier than the earliest extant manuscript) refers to the poem as ars poetica (I. O., Preface to Trypho 2) and at /. O. 8.3.60 as the liber de arte poetica. However, a fourth-century grammariam Charisius cites a passage from the poem as ‘Horatius in Epistularum’ and there are strong grounds for calling the poem the Epistula ad Pisones (thus Rudd (1989), p. 19). On the Ars poetica as Epistles II.3 see Williams (1972), pp. 38-41, Armstrong (1989), p. 154.

74. For example the influence of Lucilius persists: Fiske (1913), pp. 1-16 and 34-5 demonstrates the influence of Lucilius upon the so-called Ars poetica.