Horace: Epistles Book I 0521258987, 9780521258982

This volume comprises an edition, with introduction and commentary, of the first book of Horace's Epistles. These a

442 140 4MB

English Pages 299 [296] Year 1994

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Horace: Epistles Book I
 0521258987, 9780521258982

Citation preview

HORACE

EPISTLES BOOK I EDITED

BY

ROLAND MAYER Senior Lecturer in the Department of Classics, King’s College London

Cambridge UNIVERSITY PRESS

Published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 ir p 40 West 20th Street, New York, ny iooi 1-4211, USA 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia © Cambridge University Press 1994 First published 1994 Printed in Great Britain at the University Press, Cambridge A catalogue recordfor this book is availablefrom the British Library Library of Congress cataloguing in publication data Horace. [Epistulae] Epistles/Horace; edited by Roland Mayer, v. cm. - (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics! Latin text, commentary in English. Includes indexes. ISBN O-52I-25898-7. - ISBN O-52I-27754-X (pbk.' I. Rome -- Politics and government - Poetry. 2. Epistolary poetry, Latin. 3. Political poetry, Latin. I. Mayer, R. (Roland) II. Title. III. Series. PA6393.E8H67 1994 871'.01 - dc20 93-42188 CIP isbn o 521 25898 7 hardback ISBN o 521 27754 x paperback

AO

CONTENTS Preface

Introduction 1 The Epistle as a literary form 2 Horace’s career 3 The addressees and the date o f composition 4 Poetic style (i) The hexameter (ii) Diction and word order (iii) Poetic syntax (iv) Compositio (v) The verse period and verse paragraph (vi) The layout o f the poems (vii) Poetic tone 5 Themes 6 The organization o f the book 7 The transmission o f the text Q.

H O R A T I FLA C C I EPIST V L A R V M LIBER PR IM V S

C om m entary Abbreviations and references Indexes 1 Latin words 2 General

page vii

i i 5 8 11 13 16 21 23 30 32 36 39 48 52

55

87 277 283 283 284

PREFACE A co m m en tary on a stan d ard classical au th o r is a dialogue with the dead. T h e co m m en tato r engages not ju st w ith the ancient text but also w ith the long exegetical trad itio n th a t has accum ulated around it. O ne starts by asking the a u th o r w h at he m eant, or why he said it one way ra th e r th an an o th er, b u t soon one’s predecessors are asked why they understood a passage thus, and not thus, w hy they an n o tated this, and not th at; a note m ay tu rn out to be less concerned w ith the au th o r than w ith how he has, in the latest co m m en tato r’s view, been m isunder­ stood (lest he be m isunderstood again). T hus the learned sixteenthcentury bishop o f A ntw erp, Laevinus T orrentius, m ust often set straig h t (as he believes) the m isapprehensions o f Dionysius Lam binus; later, A ndre D acier is m uch occupied w ith the errors o f Torrentius. M ost n in eteen th -cen tu ry G erm an com m entators felt called upon to grapple w ith the subtle explanations o f the poems offered by C. M. W ieland, whose long-influential translation w ith notes has deservedly been rep rin ted (to it is devoted D r J . V. C u rra n ’s doctoral dissertation for the U niversity o f Newcastle upon T yne (1991): Horace’s Epistles, Wieland and the reader: a three-way translation). An intricate dialogue of the living took place betw een Schm id and O b b ar, who published com ­ m en t in several form ats in the first h a lf o f th a t century. (O b b a r’s, indeed, is the last com prehensive treatm en t o f the poem s — he offers eight in terp retatio n s o f adrasum a t 7.50!) L ater, A dolf Kiessling in the earliest editions o f his com m entary h ad his eye on the recent work (adm irable it is, too) o f Schütz. By accident or design, however, K iessling’s work achieved its own classic status, thanks to frequent revisions by H einze, and so the original response o f Kiessling to Schütz becam e fainter, even as Kiessling’s own voice was often silenced by H einze after two re-editions. T h e latecom er overhears these discourses and willy-nilly joins in the debate. T h e re ad er o f any one com m entary, however, m ay not be aw are of the existence o f a subtext (or ra th e r subtexts) and m ay fail to detect the subm erged voices. C om m entators on a large scale, say Brink or N isbet an d H u b b a rd , try fairly to air alternative views. T he form at o f the present work, how ever, precludes such evenhandedness. This is the m ore to be reg retted since the first book o f Epistles, for all its excellence, vii

viii

PREFACE

has yet to find its Lejay, to w hom constant reference for the balancing of opinions m ight be m ade. Instead, a brisker ap proach: explication from the ed ito r’s p o in t o f view alone, w ith only infrequent reference to alternative in terp retations. But the reader should be aw are th a t there lies ju st b eneath the surface a silenced m ajority, some nodding agree­ m ent, others crying for equal time to state their case. Predecessors a p a rt, advice from a nu m b er o f friends an d colleagues is recorded in the notes, w here ap p ro p riate, an d gratefully acknow l­ edged here. I t is a p artic u la r pleasure to record th a t m ost o f the in ­ troduction was w ritten a t the F ondation H a rd t in V andoeuvres; the British A cadem y and the Fonds N ational Suisse de la R echerche Scientifique m ade the visit possible. M y greatest debt, now as always, is to the series editor, Professor E. J . K enney. R.G.M .

INTRODUCTION 1. T H E E P I S T L E A S A L I T E R A R Y F O R M In his earlier works H orace honoured the R om an literary tradition and trod the highw ay of im itation. For each form he chose an exem ­ plary m odel to follow. In his Sermones he took Lucilius for a guide (S. 2.1.34 sequor hunc), in his Epodes A rchilochus (19.23-40.*); the lyric Odes w ere m odelled on various Greek m asters, especially Alcaeus (19.32—311.). T h e one elem ent com m on to all these poetic kinds is the expression o f a personal point o f view (unlike epic and dram a); in form al term s, there is usually a direct address to someone im agined as being present (even in the second book o f Sermones, which is m ade up of dialogues, the poet is one of the interlocutors, except in the fifth satire). T his restless exploitation of the inherited genres of personal poetry did not co ntent H orace. At the height of his creative powers he him self becam e the ‘discoverer’ of a new verse form, the epistle. T he novelty is to be seen in the synthesis of the conversational hexam eter of his Sermones and of the m ore personal addresses found in the lyric odes.2 Like all letters, the poetic epistle presents one h a lf of a dialogue, since the addressee is by definition absent; the themes are chosen as being of interest to both correspondents, usually avoiding the generalized topics o f the Sermones. O rig in al as the Epistles are, they nevertheless h ad an ancestor in the personal letter. Its uses influenced H orace in his choice o f topics an d p resen tatio n .3 Personal letters dup licate m any of the face-to-face verbal exchanges of daily life b u t also, thanks to the form ality of w riting, m ay perform them in som ew hat elevated tones. H orace uses the letter to invite peo­ ple to visit him or to come to a p arty (IV and V ), to recom m end one friend to the notice o f an o th er (X II), an d to provide a character refer­ ence for one seeking a post (IX ), all the sort o f thing we still find ourselves w riting. (O n the o ther hand, there are here no love letters or

1 References given in this form refer the reader to the Commentary ad loc. References to whole poems within the first book are in Roman numerals. 2 So Campbell 257. 3 See W. Allen J r et al., C.J. 68 (1978) 119-33·1 1

INTRODUCTION consolations.) B ut the personal letter in prose h ad also been developed as a vehicle o f instruction, above all by philosophers.4 E picurus, for instance, h ad used the letter to clarify his doctrine and exhort his followers; so end u rin g is the appeal of the personal note th a t these are now all th a t survive o f his original w ritings. Even a philosopher’s letter will be tailored to some p a rtic u la r an d pressing need o f the recipient th at gives an urgency to the presentation. T his comes across still in the letters o f St P aul.5 T h ere were even verse letters before H o race’s.67His m odel for satire, Lucilius, h ad com posed a letter to a friend who h ad failed to pay him a visit d u rin g an illness; it was a longish piece an d occupied the fifth book o f his collection. C atullus too jo tte d dow n a note to a friend (35; cf. 8.2η.) and perhaps a d in n er invitation too (13); some o f his poem s look like d edicatory letters (65, 6 8 a ). T h e existence o f these pieces establishes the verse epistle as a literary form distinct from those letters o f every d ay th at are actually delivered to their addressees. B ut H orace m ight still claim the distinction o f having invented a new poetic genre, in th a t he first p u t together a whole collection o f verse letters. It is how ever crucial to the un d erstan d in g o f his m oral position at the tim e o f w riting th a t he regards his letters as a b ran ch o f satura, an d so not true poems. T h ey are ra th e r com positions o f a poetically in d eterm i­ n ate character, like the earlier Sermones? T h e novelty of his u n d e rta k ­ ing has produced a special issue for academ ic debate, the fictionality o f the letters. It used som etimes to be held th a t H orace intended his letters in the first place as personal com m unications betw een him self an d his ad4 For general discussions and illustrations see K. Dziatzko, RE in 836-43, esp. 842; Sykutris, RE Suppl. iv 185-220; F. Susemihl, Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit (Leipzig 1892) π 579-601 (forgeries); J. Schnei­ der, RAC π 564-85, esp. 571 ‘Lehrbriefe’; H. Peter, Der Brief in der römischen Literatur (Leipzig 1901) esp. 181-2. For Horace in particular see W. Y. Sellar, The Roman poets of the Augustan age: Horace and the elegiac poets (Oxford 1891) 87- 8; O. A. W. Dilke, ‘Horace and the verse letter’ in C. D. N. Costa (ed.), Horace (London and Boston 1973) 94-112. 5 See J. Schneider, RAC 11 574-6; E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa (Leipzig and Berlin 1909) 11 492- 510. 6 See E. H. Haight, S.Ph. 45 (1948) 525-40. 7 See Ep. 2. i . 111 ipse ego, qui nullos me adfirmo scribere uersus, AP 306 nil scribens ipse.

1. T H E ‘E P I S T L E ’ AS A L I T E R A R Y F O R M

3

dressees.8 E d u a rd F raenkel, following E dm ond C ourbaud, stuck to this belief th ro u g h thick and thin, and even X IV was in his view ‘a genuine letter, spontaneously w ritten ’ (311). T h e general weaknesses in this position were ably exposed by G ordon W illiam s,9 though the fictional ch a rac te r o f a n u m b er o f pieces had long been accepted by some. T h a t the whole collection was m ade up o f ‘p re te n d ’ letters was argued in a fine essay by E. P. M orris,10 w ho p u t his finger on the crucial point th at the Epistles are in essence no different from the Odes, or indeed from any poem w hich im itates reality. I f H o race’s verse letters were genuine an d spontaneous they w ould cease to be im itations and, in ancient eyes, lose their status as literature. As in the Odes the addressee is not necessarily a convention, for the chosen them e m ay reflect his personal interests an d preoccupations, b u t none o f the letters is m erely occa­ sional. E ven an in v itation to a p arty (V) blossoms into larger issues th a t leave the guest, T o rq u a tu s, m om entarily in the background.11 A p a rt from the challenge of a new form, the letter offered H orace the chance to signalize a change of direction both in his life and in his art. Since this point is som etimes blunted, it deserves special notice here. In the first epistle he says th a t he renounces ‘et uersus et cetera lu d ic ra ’ (10) because o f advancing years and a change of h eart (‘non eadem est aetas, non m ens’ 4). T h e repetition et . . . et binds uersus closely to ludicra so th a t H orace m ay once again exploit an am biguity of co n tem p o rary literary theory, as he h ad done w hen ascribing to his Sermones a doubtfully poetic statu s.12 (C om edy too seemed to some theorists insufficiently poetic, an d H orace h ad already m ade it clear th a t he saw com edy as the rem ote ancestor of Lucilian satire.)13 T he epistles are deem ed to continue the ‘u npoetic’ tradition of the Sermones, an d so to m ark a b reak w ith the genuine poetry of the Odes, celebra­ tions o f the life o f pleasure w hich the poet now relinquishes. T h e fiction th a t the letters are n o t poem s is sustained at A P 306 ‘nil scribens ipse’

8 K. Dziatzko, RE hi 842.54-9, with special reference to XIII and 20.5 non ita nutritus. He seems to have ignored the implications of 20.4 paucis ostendi gemis. 9 Tradition and originality in Roman poetry (Oxford 1968) 7—24· 10 Y.C.S. 2 (1931) 81-114. 11 See Williams (n. 9) 9—10. 12 See S. 1.4.39-40. 13 See S. 1.4.45-6, then 1-6 and cf. Cic. Or. 67.

4

INTRODUCTION

(by contrast, w hen Statius im itates H orace an d w rites a poetic epistle, Siluae 4.4, he draw s atten tio n to the fact th a t it is in verse: ‘inclusa modis haec . . . u e rb a ’ (11)). Indeed this fiction decides the issue in X I I I of w hat V innius is delivering to A ugustus: carmina (17) can only refer to w hat m en call poem s and m ust exclude the present ‘u n p o etic’ collection; M . L. Clarke believed th at there could be no difficulty about the use o f carmina to describe the Epistles.1* Every difficulty, in fact. T hus the letter, a docum ent but conversational in tone, offers fresh strategies for dealing w ith old issues. T h e cen tral issue rem ains H orace himself. T his is o f course ap p ro p riate to a letter; o u r friends w an t to know w h at we are up to. But m ore to the point is the R o m an trad itio n o f seeing oneself as setting an exam ple.1415 O ne of the qualities H orace had adm ired in Lucilius was the exposure of a whole life in poetry (S. 2 .1 .3 0 -4 ), whole in the sense th a t we learn from him both good and bad, we see him ‘w arts and all’. C learly, H orace did not feel th at he had yet done w ith him self as a them e an d the letter offered a fresh form in which to pursue a program m e of self-revelation.16 T h e trad itio n al situations found in lyric had not allowed him the fullest exploitation of this ever fascinating m atter, b u t he could no t sim ply produce a third book of satires to round out the picture of himself. M ocking vice, even in his own person, was played out; a m ore positive note was w anted. M oreover, his own position in R o m an society was m ore conspicuous th an ever; he was a public figure and his friendship h ad been sought by the greatest in the lan d .17 H e had m oved high up the social lad d er and o f course h ad a ttra cted criticism , w hich he sought to answ er in S. 1.6. His ap p ro ach there had been defensive, bu t now, endorsing his view th at the poet should in stru ct as well as en tertain , he adopts a m ore positive and self-confident tone. W h a t is m ore surprising, indeed 14 See C.R. 22 (1972) 157-9, esP- 158· His point that there is an apparent delay between the publication of the Odes in 23 b . c . and their (Active) delivery to Augustus rests on the unnecessary assumption that no epistle can have a Active date earlier than the late 20s; see §3 below. 15 See R. G. Mayer, ‘Roman historical exempla in Seneca’ in P. Grimal (ed.), Seneque et la prose latine, Entretiens sur l’antiquite classique 36 (Vandoeuvres Geneve 1989) 168-9. 16 As Quintus said to Marcus Cicero, ‘te totum in litteris uidi’ {Fam. 16.16.2). 17 Cf. C. 2.18.10-11 pauperemque Hues \ me petit; 4.3.22 quod monstror digito praetereuntium; S'. 2.1.75—7 me \ cum magms uixisse inuitafatebitur usque \ inuidia\ 6.52 deos (i.e. the chief men of Rome) quoniam propius contingas.

2. H O R A C E ’S C A R E E R

5

so surprising th a t m any decline to focus upon it, is th a t in addition to the sort o f m oral im provem ent he had encouraged in the satires H orace now defends and advises upon the life of the dependant in R o m an society. T h e Epistles thus become his m ost essentially R om an pro d u ctio n (ju st as the letter was to prove a most fertile genre in R o m an h an d s generally). T h ey prosecute a dual program m e centred on spiritual an d social self-im provem ent. A glance at the poet’s own social rise will help to account for this unusual feature.

2. H O R A C E ’ S C A R E E R 18 H o ra ce’s father was a libertus, a form er slave who had obtained his freedom p erhaps th ro u g h a com bination of talent and hard work. His son was b o rn ingenuus, a gentlem an, b u t of indeterm inate grade. W hen he was o f an age for serious schooling, it was clear th at the local educa­ tion in V enusia was in ad eq u ate, so H orace was taken to R om e for the sort of in struction a sen ato r’s son m ight receive despite his father’s poverty (S. 1.6.71-82, esp. 71 macro pauper agello; 20.20). After Rom e, A thens, w here, am o n g the sons o f the nobility, for instance C icero’s own M arcus, he studied philosophy an d rhetoric. From all this it is clear th a t H o ra c e ’s fath er h ad am bitions for his son’s im provem ent, w hich was not to be purely intellectual, but social as well. In fact, the two were h a rd to keep ap a rt. In a city like R om e, w ith no institutions of h ig h er learn in g and no consistent state patronage for the arts, a life ded icated to poetry and study was only possible w ithin the ranks of the highest society. W ealth alone facilitated scholarly leisure for a V arro or an A tticus; others needed patronage. H orace, w hatever his father’s inten d ed provision for his financial security, would only be able to m ake his w ay in such a society thanks to his personal address. A nd it is clear th at his father was fitting him to take some place in th a t society at its h ig h er levels. Such an am bition was honourable, in the eyes of his son an d of R om e generally. T h e son did not throw aw ay his chances, though he cam e close to doing so th ro u g h m iscalculation. In 43 b . c . he joined the m ilitary staff

18 For a fuller discussion of the issues raised in this section see R. Mayer, ‘Horace’s moyen de parvemr’ in S. J. Harrison (ed.), A ere perennius: celebrations of Horace (Oxford 1995)·

6

INTRODUCTION

of M. Brutus, who was recruiting for his cam paigns against A ntony, as a tribunus militum. Since H orace h ad no m ilitary train in g a n d the post was often som ething o f a staff ap p o in tm en t, B rutus m ay have chosen H orace for his character. H ow ever th a t m ay be, this proved an essen­ tial step in his social rise, for it gu aran teed his equestrian status and unim peachable respectability.19 H orace u n fo rtu n ately picked the loser and after B rutus’ defeat at P hilippi in 42 b . c . his chances, like his fortune, took a nose-dive. N ot th a t he was destitute; some p ro p e rty he lost (E p. 2.2.50-1 inopemquepaterni \ et laris etfundi), b u t he h ad enough m oney (and presum ably influential support) to buy a treasury secre­ taryship. This post, w hich there is no reason to suppose he ever relin­ quished, provided a fair incom e.20 His social relations at this tim e are altogether obscure b u t he clearly m oved am id the vie mondaine o f R om e (indeed, if the Epodes are to be believed, he was som ething o f a toy-boy (Epod. 12.2, 21—2)); it was presum ably in such a milieu th a t he m et two rising poets, V arius an d V irgil. T h ey liked him (as B rutus, p er­ haps, h ad liked him ) and in troduced him to M aecenas, who also cam e to like him very m uch. So m uch so in fact th a t at the very end o f his life in 8 b .c . w hen he was hastily m aking a will in w hich to leave all of his estate to A ugustus, he did not forget his poet: ‘H o ra ti Flacci u t mei esto m em o r’.21 T h ro u g h M aecenas he cam e to the notice o f O ctav ian , an association not at first close, b u t developing to a point w here the princeps w anted the poet for his personal secretary (a post he knew was not for him , and so declined on grounds o f h e a lth 22). So even the m ost powerful m an in the w orld cam e to like the freedm an’s son. S om ething ab o u t him appealed to all o f these very different m en an d no t u n re a ­ sonably he was im pressed by his social rise: ‘non ego, p au p e ru m |

19 See L. R. Taylor, A.J.P. 46 (1925) 161—70 and Rostagni’s note on the Suetonian uita 6. 20 Fraenkel 15—16 and see A. Η. M. Jones, Studies in Roman government and law (Oxford i960) 154 and 156 for discussion of the equestrian status of scribae and the purchase of the office. Both Suetonius and Porphyrio assumed that this was the implication of the scene in S. 2.6.36; their sense of the meaning is preferable to that of C. Ampolo, P.P. 39 (1984) 193-6, who believes it refers to the colle­ gium poetarum. 21 Suet, uita Hor. 17 Rostagni. 22 Suet, uita Hor. 29 Rostagni.

2. H O R A C E ’S C A R E E R

7

sanguis p aren tu m , non ego, quem uocas, | dilecte M aecenas, obibo’ (C. 2 .2 0 .5 -7 ). M ore th an th at, he reflected upon how he had achieved it an d identified its key elem ent in the pow er of pleasing: ‘me primis V rbis belli placuisse d o m iq u e’.23 This was also the very elem ent that m ade for his success in poetry too: ‘quod spiro et placeo, si placeo, tuum est’.24 So once again poetry and life cam e into close contact for H orace, and the w orld o f his im agination is founded upon his experience (in­ deed th eir relationship is the underlying issue in X IX ). To succeed in both p o etry an d in society, giving pleasure counts. In the case of poetry we agree th a t this is so, b u t the social aspects of pleasing are trickier and need justification. Success owed to w ealth or pow er or inherited social connections is easy to un d erstan d and approve (these were R o ­ m an values). B ut a social success owed entirely to agreeable character was perhaps a difficult concept for a R om an; it sm acked of the pliancy o f the Greek, suggesting a w ant of firmness in the character. It is therefore to ju s t this issue th a t H orace addresses him self in a num ber o f the Epistles. H ow does a m an m ake his way in R om e by arts purely social, w ith o u t (or in spite of) the adventitious attractions o f m oney or fam ily nam e? H ow does he keep his self-respect and confirm his inde­ pendence in a society founded upon patronage? H ow, am id o ther aspi­ rants, does he h o n o u rab ly distinguish himself? How, after all, does he learn when to call a halt? These issues H orace h ad reflected upon and the Epistles represent the literary m ould in w hich his views were cast. No o th er poetry is so in tim ately bound up w ith the workings o f R om an social life. F o r th a t reason alone H orace needed a new literary form, since the available ones, even satire, could no t be used as vehicles for reflection u p o n the use to be m ade o f society as it is (satire must criti­ cize). H orace, an o utsider whose talents and personality brought him to the very solium Iouis (17.34), charted the social adventure in an original poetic form. T o give his inventions due plausibility he chose his addressees carefully; they are alm ost invariably young m en of good, b u t not especially rem arkable, fam ily on the way u p in R om e s m eritocracy.

23 20.23; cf. 17.35 and ?>· 1-6-63 placui tibi (Maecenas). 24 C. 4.3.24; cf. 19.2 and AP 365 haec placuit semel, haec dedens repetita placebit.

8

INTRODUCTION 3. T H E A D D R E S S E E S A N D T H E D A T E O F COM POSITION

A p a rt from M aecenas, to w hom three letters are addressed, H o ra c e ’s correspondents all ap p e ar to be young w ith th eir careers in full flood.25 It is w orth noting th a t there are only two aristocrats o f ancient nam e in the whole collection, T o rq u a tu s (V) and T iberius C laudius N ero (IX ). T h e bulk of the rest are presum ably equestrians pursuing upw ard m obility by attac h in g themselves to the em inent. T h u s I I I abounds in the nam es of a b u d d in g elite, the cohors amicorum o f T ib ­ erius. (Even the unidentifiable T itius (3.9; some think he was a friend of O v id ’s [Pont. 4.16.28)) and M unatius (3.31) have nam es suggestive of the new aristocracy.)26 Septim ius in IX w ould like to jo in their com pany. Iccius in X I I has also found a good billet (not th a t he fully appreciates this) in the service o f A grippa, the em p ero r’s son-in-law . W e cannot say an y th in g certain ab o u t Albius (IV ), N um icius (V I), Bullatius (X I), V ala (X V ) or Scaeva (X V II). Q uinctius (X V I), it has been speculated, m ay com e from a new ly p ro m in en t fam ily.27 O f course the nam e of H o ra ce’s bailiff (X IV ) can n o t be know n, b u t even he fits the general p a tte rn of u pw ard m obility. H e started life as a d ru d g e in his m aster’s tow n house (mediastinus 14.14); his aspirations to g reater responsibilities and rew ards were realized.28 O f Ju liu s Florus (I II), to w hom Ep. 2.2 is also w ritten, we know only w h a t P orphyrio tells us, nam ely th a t he was a scriba (8.2η.) and w rote satires. P erhaps the m ost tantalizing figure is Lollius, because he receives two letters, II and X V I II, both p rom inently placed in the collection. I t used to be assum ed th a t he was a son of M . Lollius, consul in 21 B.c., a nouus homo, and the addressee of C. 4.9. But the argum ents o f E. G roag against this, founded upon no m ore th an the tone o f address in X V I I I and a belief th a t a rich young m an needs no advice on dealing 25 See in general W. Allen J r et al., S.Ph. 67 (1970) 253-66 and F. M. A. Jones, L.C.M. 18 (1993) 7 -1 1. 26 L. Munatius Plancus, cos. 42 b . c . , the addressee of C. 1.7, was the uncle of M. Titius, cos. 31 b . c . ; Munatius certainly and Titius possibly had a son. 27 See N -H on C. 2.11, p. 168 and Syme, AA 386. 28 It would be a mistake to agree with P. Guthrie, C.P. 46 (1951) 116-17, that Horace blundered in promoting the man; the letter nowhere suggests that the bailiff failed to give satisfaction in his new post.

3. T H E A D D R E S S E E S A N D D A T E OF C O M P O S I T I O N

9

w ith the rich, have som ew hat surprisingly obtained a m easure of as­ sent;29 we m ust, how ever, always be w ary w hen the character, pursuits and social status of a recipient are to be inferred from the language.30 I t m ight have been th o u g h t th a t a young m an of a very recently ‘enno­ b led ’ fam ily m ig h t well stand in need o f guidance in negotiating the treacherous w aters o f high society, indeed of court life. T h e Lollii were rich an d famous, b u t h ad no smoky busts in their entrance hall to valid ate th eir pretensions (if any). H o race’s advice now here suggests a m ercenary m otive in the young m a n ’s attach m en t to an unnam ed g reat person (though he p ru d e n tly hints at the acceptance of w orth­ while gifts (75), it h ard ly seems fair of N isb e t-H u b b a rd to call Lollius a social-clim ber (Odes 2, p. 67)). Lollius served under Augustus in S pain and is p re p arin g him self for public life. T here is no evidence th at com pels a belief th a t he is not a son or other close relation of the consul o f 2 1 b . c . S peculation ab o u t the identity of his im p o rtan t friend is also tem pting. T ib eriu s figures considerably in the collection. It m ay not be wholly accidental th a t Lollius is urged in II to learn lessons from the Odyssey, a poem w hich provided T iberius him self w ith sculp­ tu ral motifs for his g rotto dining-room at S perlonga.31 H orace is cer­ tainly aw are th a t the m ost significant p atronage now flows from but one household, th a t o f A ugustus, an d th a t R om e has in effect a m o n ar­ chical court. T his sense w ould give a special edge to his advice to Lollius, since there is a greater need th a n ever to preserve the old R o m an v irtue o f independence o f m anner. T he risks of toadying are g reater w here the social hierarchy rises to a point; for everyone will feel a sense of inferiority to those at the apex. This w ould also have a b earin g on the ju x tap o sitio n of X V I I I and X IX , which are related in them e. These, like m an y o ther letters, are designed to help young m en negotiate the pitfalls o f R o m an high society. M aecenas too deserves a w ord here, not th a t any of the three letters to him (I, V II, X IX ) co ncentrate upon his cu rren t activities. For in 22 b .c . his friendship w ith A ugustus was dented by the ugly and confusing

29 See RE xm 1387.30-42; R. Syme, J.R.S. 56 (1966) 59, History in Ovid (Oxford 1978) 185 n. 4 and AA 396. 30 So Syme himself, AA 390. 31 See A. F. Stewart, J.R.S. 67 (1977) 76-90.

INTRODUCTION conspiracy of V arro M u re n a.32 T h e opening line of the w hole collec­ tion is therefore the very balm of friendship to one cast dow n. H orace leaves no d o u b t ab o u t his devotion and M aecenas is alone the object of his w arm est feelings (dulcis amice, 7·12)· His interest in the rising young is keen, b u t his old friend, albeit now p erhaps in a conceded retirem en t,33 still has his fullest atten tio n . T h ere m ay even be a spe­ cially personal note attac h in g to the expression uates tuus (7.11). F or Augustus h ad, as m entioned above, tried to secure H o ra ce’s service as personal secretary;34 he failed, because H orace, w ho knew w hen to call a h alt to am bition, declined. T hus he rem ained M aecenas’ own poet and did not hesitate to advertise the strength of his continued a tta c h ­ m ent to the form er favourite. Since the Epistles im itate personal correspondence H orace n atu ra lly conform ed w hat he says or how he says it to the interests (so far as they m ay be know n) of his recipients. T hus, for exam ple, the wine offered T o rq u atu s at the p arty in his h o n o u r w ould be redolent of his fam ily’s history (5.5η.); likewise, the language in w hich the letter is com posed parodies the legalisms he was used to as a b arrister (5.14, 15, 2 inn.). T h ere m ay be a glance at Fuscus’ profession (10.45η.) and there is certainly some p u n im plied in the reference to V innius’ nam e (1 3 .8 -9 0 .). T h e com position o f the Epistles is generally reckoned to have begun shortly after the publication o f the Odes in late 2 3 B.c. Epistle X I I I can n o t have been w ritten very long after th at. Few o th er letters can be d ated. A t the close o f X X H orace refers to his age in the year 21 B.c. A n u m b er o f others relate or refer to the em bassy of T ib eriu s in the East and the recovery of the R o m an stan d ard s ( I II, V II I, X II , X V III); X I I also refers to the success o f A grippa in Spain. T hese all fall in 2 0 b.c. N o letter contains a clear reference to a later d ate. T h u s 32 See Syme, AA 387-9; the rift, however, may not have been so complete as Syme believed: see G. Williams, ‘Did Maecenas “fall from favour”? Augustan literary patronage’ in K. A. Raaflaub and M. Toher (edd.), Between Republic and Empire: interpretations of Augustus and his principale (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1990) 258-75, and P. White, C.P. 86 (1991) 130-8. 33 Cf. Tac. Ann. 14.53.2. 34 Suet, uita Hor. 18-23 Rostagni; this is usually dated to the mid- to late 20s, but the precise date is not known.

4. P O E T I C S T Y L E the book is generally believed to have been published in either 20 or 19 B.C.

4. P O E T I C S T Y L E In retu rn in g to the dactylic hexam eter H orace resum ed w hat m ay be called the plain style, as distinct from the m ore elaborated m anner of the lyric poems. T h e difference betw een them can be illustrated by com p arin g the trea tm e n t o f sim ilar themes in the two genres (as is done briefly for instance by N isb e t-H u b b a rd in their note to C. 2.7.28). T w o b rief exam ples and one m ore extended m ust suffice. H orace illustrates the in evitability o f d eath by an appeal to historical exempla in a late ode thus: ‘nos ubi decidim us | quo pius Aeneas, quo T ullus diues et Ancus, | puluis et u m b ra sum us’ (C. 4.7.14-16), and in an epistle thus: ‘cum bene notum | porticus A grippae, uia te con­ spexerit A ppi, I ire tam en restat N u m a quo deuenit et A ncus’ (6.25—7). T h e ode em ploys the p ath etic a n a p h o ra o f quo and the ornam ental (b u t h ard ly superfluous) epithets, chiastically ordered; these are absent from the epistolary style, as too is the tragic note o f puluis et umbra.35 In the epistle, on the o ther han d , the references to everyday localities, A g rip p a’s p o rtico an d the A ppian way, drive hom e the o rd in ary truth o f the p o e t’s claim . Sim ilarly at 2 .4 7 -9 he says sim ply and w ithout o rn a m e n t th a t n eith er domus nor fundus nor aeris aceruus et auri will cure a sick m an; in an ode he m ore elaborately says th at Phrygian stone, the w earing o f star-b rig h t purple, F alernian wine and Assyrian n ard will not alleviate p ain (3 .1 .4 1 -4 ). T h e tho u g h t is the same b u t the m anner o f its presen tatio n could no t be m ore different in the two genres, as the third exam ple will show. T h e praise o f w ine’s beneficial pow er is com m on to Ep. 1.5.16—20 an d C. 3 .2 1.14-20: tu lene to rm en tu m ingenio adm oues p leru m q u e duro; tu sapientium curas et arcan u m iocoso consilium retegis Lyaeo; 35 Cf. Soph. EI. 1159, Eur. Mei. 536 N.

INTRODUCTION tu spem reducis m entibus anxiis uirisque et addis cornua pauperi post te neque iratos trem enti regum apices neque m ilitum arm a. Again, orn am en tal epithets distinguish the ode (the a n a p h o ra of tu should perhaps be disregarded, since it is characteristic o f the hym n form into w hich the ode is cast, ra th e r th an o f the lyric style in gen­ eral). O ne clause is em braced by epithets o f opposite sense (lene )( duro), and there is an oxym oron in lene tormentum. A nother epithet, iratos, is transferred from regum to apices, itself rem arkably concrete. T h e transitive use of trementi is confined at this d ate still to poetry. T h e im age of the horns of courage is perhaps proverbial, b u t no less striking for that. In the epistle five cola in asyndeton m ake u p the sentence.36 T h e first four limbs increase in length; the two w ords o f the last recall the shape of the first. T he language is brisk and businesslike w ith little concrete im agery and no ornam ent, unlike the ode, b u t contrasting words, contracta and solutum, as in the ode, enclose a line. T h e a n a p h o ra of quem non (19-20) em phasizes w ine’s universal efficacy; 19 refers to a new skill, 20 to the loss o f a burden, bo th thus tied in to w h a t has preceded. T h e lyric style of course would hardly do for a letter, w hich is gener­ ally a plain-style docum ent, b u t H orace h ad also to decide w hether to recast his hexam eter verse style after a pause o f some ten years in its use. I f we are to believe P orphyrio, a second- or th ird -cen tu ry com ­ m en tato r, the Epistles differ from the Sermones in n o th in g b u t title; the m etre, subject m atter and language rem ain the sam e in his opin io n .37 It is useful for purposes of the following analysis to keep to his identifi­ cation of topics. W e do not have to hold w ith his opinion.38 L et us begin w ith the hexam eter itself.

36 Cf. the asyndeton in the similar praise of wine at Aristoph. Equit. 92-4. 37 The text at this point of his note seems garbled, but he clearly isolates these three points. 38 The first to make an attempt to distinguish between Horace’s satiric and epistolary mode was C. Morgenstern in an agreeable pamphlet, De satirae atque epistolae Horatianae discrimine (Leipzig 1801); he rightly drew attention to metri­ cal differences (28-30), and to the change of tone, especially the greater in­ volvement of the addressee in the epistle.

4. P O E T I C S T Y L E

13

(i) The hexameter T h e epistolary h ex am eter recalls its satiric predecessor, bu t with some significant differences. In the Satires H orace claim ed to reproduce the rhythm s o f speech: ‘serm oni p ro p io ra’ (S . 1.4.42). T o achieve this he dism antled the form al patterns th at were being imposed upon the hexa­ m eter by Lucretius, C atullus and the young Virgil and recomposed the verse so as to reflect b etter the lively turns of phrase in spoken L atin. His m odel for this was Lucilius, whose hexam eters are clearly suppler th a n those o f Ennius, except w hen he tries to be serious and im pressive. But the influence of the comedies o f T erence ought to have been considerable too, for his iam bic dialogue shows far greater fluid­ ity from line to line th a n th at o f Plautus. W hatever H orace learned from his m odels was transform ed and elaborated to a degree well be­ yond earlier experim ents. T his is m ost evident in his handling o f a crucial p a rt o f the verse, the last two feet. T h e form al h ex am eter o f heroic and didactic epos restricted the norm al p a tte rn at the end of a line to little m ore than two sorts o f word length. T h e last foot m ight be a w ord of two syllables (includere ludo, 1.3) or consist o f two m onosyllables (omnis in hoc sum, i . n ) ; it m ight also be the end of a three-syllable w ord (dicende Camena, 1.1). It is som etim es assum ed th a t these p atterns grew in favour because they secured exact coincidence o f w ord accent and verse ictus and so as­ serted the m etrical shape o f the line at the close. W h at is m ore, there was a tendency eith er to keep units o f sense enclosed w ithin the con­ fines o f a single line or, if enjam bm ent was em ployed, to term inate the clause ju st after the beginning of the next line (e.g., 1.54—5 haec Ianus summus ab imo \ prodocet).39 These were the established patterns which H o race deconstructed in his Sermones. T h e w ord shapes he adm itted into the last two feet were very various.3940 M ore audaciously still, he em ployed unusual sense pauses before the end o f the line in the fifth an d sixth feet. Above all, he favoured beginning new clauses in the

39 Winbolt §8. 40 He allows five-syllable words to occupy the whole of the last two feet, as at 5.8 and 26; he specially favours the pattern found at 1.13 quo lare tuter, where the first word of the fifth foot is a monosyllable (cf. 32, 106, 2.51, 62, 3.6, 21, 30, 31, 4.6, 14.26, 18.88). More rarely, he ends a word in the longum of the fifth foot, e.g. 2.40, 56, 14.22, 16.10. See Waltz 225.

INTRODUCTION sixth foot itself, sometimes even w ith a final m onosyllable startin g the clause. These practices he continues into the Epistles.*1 T h e ir effect is to create a deliberate inconcinnity betw een verse period an d the ru n of the sentence w hich is bound to w eaken the re a d e r’s (and above all the h ea rer’s) sense o f the traditional m etrical shape o f the heroic line.4142 This, as H orace says, keeps his satiric verses creeping along the ground, ra th e r th an soaring aw ay.43 In addition to the unusual p atterns o f w ord-length and sense pause at the end of the line, the m ain caesura too undergoes some alteratio n from the heroic norm to produce a sense o f inform ality. T h e favoured rh y th m h ad from the first been a strong caesura in the th ird foot. N ext in preference was a strong caesura in the fourth foot following a weak (or trochaic) caesura in the third. Now these are the norm al patterns in H orace too, b u t he was p rep ared to a b a n d o n them quite often to give an im pression o f nonchalance.44 B ut there is a difference betw een the earlier and later hexam eters. T h e Epistles are m ore strict;45 the reason for this ou g h t to be th at letters, as w ritten docum ents, are al­ ways m ore form al in presentation th a n speech, especially am ong the educated. T h e pen in the h an d produces verbal p attern s different from the loose rhythm s o f speech, how ever choice. T his form ality H orace aims at rep roducing in his own verse letters, w ith o u t the reg u larity of heroic epos. T h u s he shows a special fondness for the w eak caesura in the third foot, which he does no t always sup p o rt w ith a strong one in the fourth. T his sometimes produces a rh y th m avoided by V irgil, a false line end w ithin the verse.46 H orace strews ju st enough deviations from the norm into his letters to create a distance betw een the very irreg u lar p attern s found in his conversational poem s on the one h an d and the strictly regulated scansion o f the co n tem p o rary heroic epos on the o th er.47 Yet even the irregularities follow certain p attern s. F or instance, in the case o f the false line ends ju st m entioned it is notew or­ thy th at H orace has a clever w ay o f evoking the norm by creating the weak caesura w ith -que o r some o th er enclitic th a t m ight at a pinch be 41 See 1.8 ne, 23 quae sperm, 24 id quod, 36 quae te, 80 uerum, 2.33 atqui, 3.25 quodsi. There is a discussion by Brink on Ep. 2.1.241. 42 Nilsson 151. 43 Ep. 2.1.251. 44 Waltz 219. 45 Waltz239. 46 E.g. 1.24, 2.25, 3.3, 4.12, 5.11, 7.89, 14.30, 16.42, 18.88, 19.47. 47 The hexameter in Horace’s lyrics is pretty carefully restricted, as is the hexameter of contemporary elegy.

4. P O E T I C S T Y L E

15

regarded as separable for m etrical purposes.48 H orace bows in the di­ rection o f the established norm , b u t the epistolary hexam eter goes its own w ay and w ith a kind o f sprezzatura creates its own standard of refinem ent. T h e move aw ay from freedom is also found in the use o f elision and o f prosodical licences generally. T he m ajor differences between Sermones and Epistulae are listed by the stan d ard authorities.49 For ex­ am ple, short final syllables are no longer lengthened before a double consonant beginning w ith s (called sigm atism ). In the Sermones they are also lengthened in arsi, an artificial practice found in the Odes as well, b u t now d ro p p e d .50 In the Epistles there are no instances o f prosodic hiatu s,51 o f h y perm etric lines, or o f the correption (‘shortening’) of final o in w ords either o f cretic or o f iam bic value.52 Elision in general is less com m on a n d m ore strictly handled; for instance, elisions o f a long syllable by a following short vowel are ra re.53 M onosyllables are less frequently elided, and this elision is confined to pronouns.545An indicatio n o f the nice refinem ent o f the epistolary hexam eter is to be found at 6.26 (quoted above, p. 11), w here Agripp(ae) et, if correctly tran sm itted , w ould be the only instance in the collection o f the elision o f the d ip h th o n g ae; for this reason and since et is om itted from some M SS, the elision is felt to be inauthentic. H orace can thus be detected following the grow ing fashion for avoiding elision o f long syllables, especially ae.bb T h e tren d o f all these details is plain: the freedoms o f the spoken w ord an d some artificial m etrical practices give w ay to the m ore strictly m easured rhythm s o f the w ritten language. 48 E.g., 3.3, 4.12, 5.15 (not a false ending; but the prefix of the word in the fourth foot in- might also be felt to be metrically separable), 7.89, 16.42; Waltz 202. This particular phenomenon is also discussed by W. Meyer, Sitzungsb. der bayer. Akad. der Wissen. (1884) 1045-6. 49 Waltz 160-80; Bo Index', Klingner Index. 50 Klingner Index 325; Bo Index 88; L. on S. 1.4.82; N—H on C. 2.13.16. 51 Hence Shackleton Bailey (100) was rightly hesitant in proposing to read nam at 15.13. 52 This is not uncommon in the Sermones; see Klingner Index 325 (nescio quod Ep. 2.2.35 is the sole exception). 53 So at 7.24 and 18.104 (pronouns), 1.r r and 39. 54 See L. on S. 1.1.52 and the table in E. Norden’s edition of Virg. A. 6, P· 457· 55 See Leo (1912) 357-8.

INTRODUCTION (ii) Diction and word order T h e choice o f language too is chastened in the Epistles. T h ey n atu ra lly welcome colloquial or conversational idiom ,5657yet some words or phrases found in the Sermones are absent, perhaps by design. Before describing the diction of the letters in detail, it will help to explain w hy the term ‘prosaic’ is here repudiated. T h ere are two reasons. First, prosaic now suggests not so m uch language specially suited to the form al style of orato ry or history, b u t ra th e r a use o f language flat, tam e or pedes­ trian. Secondly, the ancient term s for prosaic (πεζός, pedestris) chiefly referred to the absence o f music an d m etre, no t to an undistinguished level o f diction. In fact, the bulk o f all L atin poetry was com posed w ith words th a t w ere on the lips of m en, at any ra te of m en w ho cared to choose how they spoke or w rote (cf. A P 95 et tragicus plerumque dolet sermone pedestri).57 I t is fairer then to notice th a t some w ords are absent from the work o f certain poets who felt them insufficiently ap p ro p riate to the m atter in han d. L et the case o f the adverb eo, m eaning ‘for this reason’, illustrate the point. T h e Sermones and Epistulae ad m it the w ord readily enough and the com m entators call it prosaic (so L. on S. 1.1.56 an d B. on A P 222). T h a t description is p artly justified by the w o rd ’s absence from the lyrics. B ut on the o ther h an d eo appears in the cultivated dialogue of Terence; it is w h at R om ans actually said, and therefore ap p ro p ria te to a conversational and epistolary style. T h e reason it is no t used in the lyrics (or by Virgil and the elegists) is perhaps ra th e r th a t its logical function was too precise, insufficiently suggestive; some poets scout words th a t give a rigorous connection to their thoughts an d it is for th at reason, not for any ‘prosaic’ quality th a t eo an d w ords o f sim ilar sense are avoided. By the sam e token, some w ords in everyday use m ay have been felt to lack distinction w ith o u t being flat, for instance pecunia (w hich anyw ay is in ap p ro p ria te to the heroic societies o f epos and tragedy). In the discussion th a t follows an d in the com m entary, there56 Cicero said that the language of every day was the most appropriate to a letter (Fam. 9.21.1 epistolas ... quotidianis uerbis texere solemus). Italicized English words henceforth direct the reader to the Index for specific examples. 57 Williams (n. 9) 745 reckons that there was no lexicographical boundary in Latin between prose and poetry; for further doubts about the validity of the distinction modern scholars employ between prosaic and poetic diction see also D. T. Benediktson, Phoenix 31 (1977) 345-7.

4. P O E T I C S T Y L E

17

fore, w ords an d phrases will be described as colloquial rath er than as prosaic. First, then, words th a t do not re ap p ea r from the Sermones. T he collo­ quial use of ac or atque after a com parative and hoc in the sense o f idea are not to be found in the letters.58 O thers w hich fail to reappear are ast, nequeo?9 nihilum, num/numquid (introducing direct questions), quin and sicut (taken as one w ord). M oreover, the forms of the words allowed adm ission are now m ore restricted th an in the Sermones. Some forms found there are either abandoned altogether or m uch reduced in use in the Epistles. T h e ir archaic or colloquial tone m ay have rendered them less fit to H o ra ce’s ear for inclusion in a docum entary style.60 Form s th a t fall out of use are adjectives or adverbs com pounded with per (‘v ery’),61 quis (the dative and ablative plural of the relative pro­ n ou n ), the old (and literary) passive infinitive ending in -ier, 62 the syncopated forms o f the perfect system, the suffixes -n, -met, and -ne (join ed to an in terro g ative w ord), the dative mi. Form s of the pronoun is are reduced in frequency.6364*O n the other hand, the by now m ore literary ending o f the third person plural of the perfect indicative active in -ere becomes com m oner in the Epistles?* In m ost o f his p o etry H orace dealt w ith everday m atters. T he lyric poem s exploited a certain elevation of diction as ap p ro p riate to the genre, b u t in the h exam eter poem s som ething m ore in keeping with the subject m a tte r was w anted. T h e challenge therefore was to distin­ guish his style from th a t o f even the best conversation w ithout sound-

58 See L. on S. 1.1.46. 59 See 12.ion. on nescit. 60 A useful test of the tone of a word or construction is to see if it is used in a speech rather than in the narrative of the Aeneid or Metamorphoses, for both Virgil and Ovid admit usages to their speeches that are absent from the more formal narrative. For example, Virgil uses queo twice, but only in speeches (A. 6.463, 10.19). 61 See B. on AP 349; in fact they are unusual as early as the second book of Sermones, where only perraro is found at 5.50. 62 The passive infinitives in -ier, however, reappear in the second book of Epistles, a warning against confident claims about the tone of the different collections; see Roby 1§614 for the form. 63 L. provides references on S. 1.4.80. 64 Jocelyn on Enn. seen. 71 reckons the stylistic level of the termination in -ere is obscure (in the time of Ennius); it is, however, rare in late Republican prose (Roby i §578).

INTRODUCTION ing far-fetched. O ne of his m ost subtle devices for achieving this was the invention of new words or phrases w hich evoke from a slight dis­ tance a com m on expression of daily life (the practice was as old as E nnius65). W hen, for exam ple, a R o m an w anted to say ‘in (to ) the op en ’ he m ight use the phrases in apertum or in aperto\ b u t w hen H orace w ants this idea at 6.24 he invents the unusual an d m ore suggestive expression, in aprico. O r again, the com m on L atin for ‘at last’ is ad extremum; we find it at 1.9. B ut at 18.35 we m eet instead the phrase ad imum\ com m entators assume th a t this m eans basically the sam e thing as ad extremum though in the context it also suggests a m oral n a d ir.66 Such novelties give distinction to th eir sentences by m oving a step aw ay from the everyday expressions w hich they recall. Som ew hat sim ilarly at 15.29 w here H orace refers to a m an distin ­ guishing betw een friend and foe he could easily have w ritten the com ­ m on verb discerneret, b u t instead he prefered a coinage, dinosceret. T h e first readers h ad no trouble, b u t were surely aw are th a t this was not the run-of-the-m ill w ord. In an opposite direction to coinage, H orace will take already available verbs, say elimino a t 5.25 or limo at 14.38, and endow them w ith a sense different from w h a t they h ad in o rd in ­ ary usage, b u t still reasonable, given the etym ology o f the words; the reader recognizes the verb well enough but has to think about its etym ol­ ogy and the context for the m eaning to becom e clear. A t 20.26 he uses percontor for the first tim e in L atin w ith a com m on noun (instead o f a pronoun) as direct object; a prose w riter w ould presum ably have used de aeuo w here H orace m ore crisply writes aeuum. T h ere is no am biguity, b u t a clear little b reak w ith stan d ard practice. A sim ilar sort of break w ith usage is seen at 8.4, w here a rejected reason is in troduced w ith the phrase haud quia. Cicero h ad developed the form ulae for co ntrasting a rejected w ith a true reason, an d it seems th a t he rarely used quia for the rejected one and never introduced it w ith haud; he preferred non quo, which, it should be noted, is the exact m etrical equivalent o f haud quia (at least at the beginning of a line). H o ra ce’s reform ulation is in fact unique and perhaps therefore w ould have struck his first readers as 66 See Jocelyn on Ennius, p. 39 n. 7. 66 So Kiessling, followed in TLL vn 1.1403.47-50: Tere i. q. imo gradu'. For ad extremum see TLL v 2.2008.28-44.

4. P O E T I C S T Y L E

19

unusual, b u t yet perfectly clear.67 Sim ilarly at 19.43 ait is used instead of inquit w hen no definite speaker is in m ind; it m ay seem an insignifi­ can t enough change, b u t the fact is th a t we encounter it now here else in L atin , n o t even in poetry. Som etim es we find him endow ing com m on words w ith new m ean­ ings, for in stan ce,fluito (18.1 ion.); or he will venture an unusual form, such as imperor (5.21m ). M any m ore such small points of usage are clear divergences from the prose (and, it is assum ed, the spoken) norm ; in this w ay H orace, w ith out using an obviously poetic diction, creates his ow n idiom , a language th a t moves alongside th at of the prosespeakers, evoking their idiom b u t not reproducing it. A sim ilar feature of H o ra ce’s poetic style (one not confined to his hexam eters) is the avoidance o f technical terminology,68 It m ight have been expected th a t in poem s w hich refer to daily life it w ould be possi­ ble to refer blu n tly to, say, the m ag istrate’s seat, b u t th a t becomes in his u rb a n e idiom ‘the curule ivory’ (6.54η.). H orace seems to antici­ pate the objection of D r Jo h n so n to the graceless ped an try o f M ilton, who did not hesitate to o b tru d e technical jarg o n into his epos.69 O n the other h an d , H orace is ready enough to em ploy legal or medical term i­ nology w here it m akes its p o in t.70 O th e r strategies for distinguishing his diction from everyday usage are his coinages and lexical Grecisms. It is im p o rtan t to appreciate th at he in ten d ed the p ro ced u re to benefit speakers of L atin generally; H orace did n o t w a n t to create a m erely poetic diction. As usual, he has his eye on serving the R o m an people as a whole. H e sees coinages particularly as enriching L atiu m , n o t ju st her poets.71 So his new words are not m ean t to sound highfalutin; his first readers were being im plicitly invited to m ake use o f the novelties in their own daily lives. O nce 67 For Cicero’s practice see H -S 588, for haud quia TLL vi 3.2564.1-2 and for Horace’s use of haud generally L. on S. 1.1.35. 68 Cf. Jocelyn on Enn. seen. 2, 39, 127, 232. 69 See S. Johnson, Life of Milton 110 (Everyman edn). 70 Dr D. R. Langslow drew my attention to Horace’s medical vocabulary. Legalisms came naturally to Romans; cf. Jocelyn on Ennius, Index s.v. legal language. 71 Ep. 2.2.119—21 adsciscet noua, quae genitor produxerit usus ... Latiumque beabit diuite lingua.

INTRODUCTION again, it is p art o f H o ra ce’s belief th a t the poet has his use in the com m unity. T h e M use is not a specim en in a zoological g ard en b u t a valued m em ber o f society. T h e two practices of coining an d of borrow ing usages from G reek are com bined at times to produce the L atin equivalent o f G reek words, caiques. H orace him self gives advice on the principle to follow at A P 52 “ 3 :

et noua fictaque n u p e r h a b e b u n t u erb a fidem , si G raeco fonte cadent parce deto rta. A considerable n u m b er o f words are form ed in this w ay.72 T h e practice goes back to C icero and confirm s the R o m a n receptivity to foreign influences th at im prove an d enrich. H o ra ce’s o th er coinages tend to follow certain trad itio n al lines, such as the use o f the prefix in w ith adjectives (2.22η.) or o f new prefixes on com m on verbs ie.g., adcredo, addoceo, prodoceo). W altz (64) reckoned th a t H orace ven tu red m ore new words in his later poetry, once he was sure o f his audience’s willingness to countenance the innovations and o f his own tact. But coinages were not the only or even chief w ay of enriching the language from ab ro ad . H orace also regularly em ployed loan-shifts, the tran slated im itatio n of a m eaning.73 At need he will even go so far as to give an entirely G reek w ord like hydropicus the freedom o f L atin verse (2.34η.). In th a t case his reason m ay be guessed. L atin could only express the idea ‘dropsical’ by m eans of a periphrasis, w hich conflicted w ith H o ra c e ’s love o f brevity. B etter one loan-w ord th a n a clause, how ever Latin! T h e word o rd er o f the Epistles is in general far m ore straightforw ard th a n th a t o f the Sermones. W e no longer disentangle rem ark ab le sen­ tences such as th a t found at S. 1.5.71-2 sedulus hospes | paene, macros, arsit, dum turdos uersat in igni,74 T w o o th er m ore or less relinquished oddities deserve a w ord here. O ne was the fashion, borrow ed first by C atullus and his contem poraries from G reek poetry, o f postponing a co-ordinating conjunction o r particle. T h o u g h noth in g could be fu r­ th er from n o rm al speech pattern s (P lautus, T erence an d L ucretius 72 See Index s.v. coinages modelled on Greek, and Waltz 84-5. 73 See Index s.v. Grecism, lexical. 71 Others in the Sermones are found at 2.1.60, 3.133, 211; there is a convenient list from many poets in Housman 1 140-1; Ep. 2.2.21-2 should be noted.

4. P O E T I C S T Y L E

21

know n o th in g o f the p ractice), H orace nevertheless adopted the artifi­ ciality into his verse conversations and em ployed it often w ith a variety o f w ords.75 H e ventures on some highly artificial patterns, e.g. captiuus ut (S. 1.3.89 - a borrow ing from G reek poetry?) or aulaea ruant si (S. 2.8.71). T hese all b u t disappear later (this is especially true of the use o f the άττό κοινού construction discussed below). In the first book of Epistles there are b u t two instances: 15.35 et and 18.37 neque- Licence has been curbed. A fu rth er reinstatem ent o f the norm is seen in the placing o f the preposition. In the Sermones there were some rem arkable dislocations thanks to inversion or separation,76 bu t in the letters we en co u n ter only three, all of w hich conform to a com m on enough use of disyllabic prepositions.77 In his earlier conversation pieces we see a tiro eager to p u t his technique through its paces; the late m aster has n o th ­ ing to prove on th a t score. In his epistolary hexam eters H orace dis­ pensed w ith purely literary refinem ents o f w ord order and recovered the m ore n a tu ra l w ord o rder o f spoken and w ritten Latin. Still, app earan ces can be deceiving and the poet him self ironically tries to m islead us. O f his own an d Lucilius’ style he had said th at, if you alter its artificial w ord order, you get a different effect from a norm alized passage o f E nnius.78 T his self-disparagem ent has a grain, b u t p erh ap s no m ore, o f tru th in it. W hat really strikes the attentive re ad er is th at H o ra ce’s syntax favours constructions found in his own day only in the poets. T o th a t m atter we m ay now turn.

(iii) Poetic syntax H orace works w ith available syntax m uch as we find him exploiting the everyday w ords o f his language. As with the words, so w ith their syntactical relations he has a way o f extending their range w ithout d ep a rtin g far from the norm . It was, for instance, com m on to om it a preposition w ith the w ord rus, in the singular, w hen one w anted to speak o f going ‘to the c o u n try ’; but at 7.76 we find the wholly unusual

75 For nam see L. on S. 2.3.20, for atque S. 1.5.4η., for et S. 1.5.86η. (a most remarkable case) and 1.6.3 m. See also Klingner’s index, pp. 337— to his examples add namque at S. 1.6.57 (cf. Norden on Virg. A. 6, p. 4°3)· 76 See L. on S. 1.2.40, 3.68, 70, 6.58; 2.4.84 ‘et Tyrias dare circum illuta toralia uestes’. 77 2.6, 3.4, 4.4. 78 S. 1.4.57-63, quoted below, 30.

22

INTRODUCTION

use o f the p lural rura in the sam e construction. T h e norm lies behind this, b u t the novelty should pro b ab ly be regarded as a poeticism , som e­ thing not available to the speaker or prose w riter. W e find the sam e principle of econom y at 17.52 Surrentum amoenum; prose w ould use an appositional expression, Surrentum, oppidum amoenum. T h e a ttrib u te a t­ tached directly to the town nam e is unusual, thrifty of words, perhaps poetic. Poets usually prefer to pare dow n their language an d so dispense with prepositions and conjunctions. T o com pensate, they work the simple cases h ard , often w ith an eye on Greek usage.79 H orace puts all the oblique cases into harness. T h e genitive, especially w ith adjectives, is an area of in novation in A ugustan verse generally, w hich he is not slow to exploit.80 M an y of his uses o f the dative case on its own are borrow ed from Greek, for instance its governm ent by words suggesting difference or conflict. T h e ablative he likes to use after a com parative because it is m ore econom ical th an the prose construction w ith quam. It m ust be stressed th a t such constructions can n o t be norm alized by a m ere change o f w ord order, as H orace him self im plied. C om plete re­ w riting would be needed if they were really to reflect ‘serm o m erus’; the R o m an read er will have felt the divergence from the spoken or prose norm at every tu rn , for he was in fact regu larly confronted by a discreetly poetic syntax, a fresh concretion of language. T h e late R ep u b lic saw the g ra d u al establishm ent of g ram m atical norm s for prose style, above all in the su b o rd in atio n o f ideas. F rom the p o et’s p o in t of view, the difficulty w ith this periodic style, as we call it, was th a t clarity was purchased at the price of a certain wordiness. O ne has b u t to think of L ucretius’ use o f correlatives like propterea . . . quia to see th a t such m eans o f a rtic u la tin g the th o u g h t take up a lot o f space in a verse. So too do the variety of subordinate clauses in tro d u ced by ut. H orace like o th er poets o f his generation tries to evade these con­ structions an d to introduce g re ater flexibility into his syntax. O ne of his com m onest devices for achieving this is the use o f the complementary infinitive,81 A t b o tto m this kind of infinitive is native to L atin , b u t its

79 See R. Coleman, Trans. Philol. Soc. igyj (1977) 101—56 for an up-to-date account of many of the syntactical usages discussed here and in the commen­ tary. 80 See C. Wagener, N. Ph. R. 22 (1902) 1-3. 81 See also Waltz 115, 125-32; N -H on C. 1.1.8 tollere.

4. P O E T I C S T Y L E

23

early use h ad been considerably restricted. Lucretius was the first to attac h it to adjectives an d H orace greatly extends the range o f possi­ bilities; for this they h ad a w a rra n t in the G reek poets, and are in effect n atu ralizin g an exotic.82 T h e success o f such experim ents is seen by contrast w hen we com pare the Latinism s o f our own M ilton; they rem ained intrusive and have never been dom esticated, a ground for censure.83 H orace, how ever, showed greater tact in borrow ing unusual syntax by keeping to lines either already laid dow n or being actively pursu ed by V irgil (though it should be rem em bered th at he too was faulted for subtly deform ing L atin usage84). H o race’s success is en­ dorsed by the praises o f his style found in later writers; Suetonius observed th a t he is never obscure and Petronius adm ired his painstak­ ing aptness.85 T h e a rt lay in choosing such features o f G reek as seemed to have alread y some footing in L atin, for instance the dative o f the agent. W hat an im ated these novelties was not a desire to be different. It will be noticed th at in general the poetic syntax is crisper than its prose equiva­ lent. T h e agent dative dispenses w ith the preposition ab. By the same token, the infinitive is b u t a single word (often o f h an d y m etrical shape as well) an d m ay replace a cum bersom e construction with ut. It is surely som ething o f a tease on H o ra ce’s p a rt th at his most poeticized syntax is occasionally to be found in snatches o f direct speech (where V irgil on the o th er h an d ad m itte d colloquialisms) or w here som ething as m u n d an e as, say, a h airc u t is being described.86

(iv) Compositio W hen we tu rn to consider how H orace puts his thoughts together, w h a t the R om ans called compositio, it again proves useful to contrast

82 See C. Wagener, N. Ph. R. 22 (1902) 4-9; he collects sixty-five instances and notes the metrical advantages of the practice, perhaps underestimating the Greek influence. 83 See again Johnson (n. 69). 84 One Vipsanius criticized Virgil for being a ‘nouae kakozeliae repertor, non tumidae nec exilis, sed ex communibus uerbis atque ideo latentis ; Suet, uita Verg. 205-7 Rostagni. 85 Suet, uita Hor. 69-70 Rostagni, Petr. Sat. 118.5 Horatii curiosafelicitas. 86 See 1.94, 16.61, ΐ7·47ηη. and cf. N -H on C. 2.7.25.

INTRODUCTION the practice o f the Sermones. W e have already looked at some o f the sim pler units o f w ord o rd er (e.g., the prepositional phrase) an d seen th at the Epistles re-establish the norm . O n a larg er scale too the letters ab an d o n some of the freedom s of the conversations. T his is specially seen in the use o f enjam bm ent. E n jam b m en t has already been glanced at in the discussion of the rhythm s used at the end of the hexam eter line. N ow it will be consid­ ered in its m ost im p o rtan t role, as the m eans of continuing the tho u g h t betw een lines. As noted above, whilst the norm was to ru n the sense over only as far as the beginning o f the following line, H orace preferred to start a new sense-unit n ear the end o f a line, often by m eans of two m onosyllables, pronouns, conjunctions an d even the preposition inter.87 Sometim es there is a particu larly strong break p roduced by placing an adversative or the logical particle ergo in the last foot.88 In the Sermones he showed considerable freedom , an d a variety o f words or phrases used to in troduce new ideas is found in the sixth foot, b u t they disap ­ p ear from the Epistles. W e no longer find adde, an, aut, cur non, ecce, eheu, nam, non, num si, si, sicut, unde, utque at the end of the line or as last w ord. N or in the Epistles does H orace allow a d em onstrative w ord to begin a new th o u g h t in the last foot. T h e only m onosyllabic co-ordinating conjunctions he sets there now are et (w hich he uses as last w ord of the line m ore frequently now th an in the Sermones) an d nec;89 once at th a t position he begins an indirect question (1.70 cur), once a negative purpose clause (1.8 ne), once a new th o u g h t (7.60 die), once a m ain clause (12.5 nil). M onosyllabic relative pronouns occupy the last posi­ tion only at 16.67 and 18.81. M ost rem arkable is a new ly im posed restrain t in the use of atque as last w ord in the line. C learly in th at position the u n em p h atic conjunction overrides the verse and achieves conversational fluidity; it is no surprise th a t T erence in tro d u ced the practice.90 H orace liked it well enough in the Sermones b u t reduced the 87 See Brink on Ep. 2.1.84 et cf. 1.23, 36, 2.24, 3.32, 4.9, 5.21, 7.63, 11.12, 12.8, 17.3; for inter sec 14.18 and cf. S. 1.3.82, 7.11; 2.2.92, B. on Ep. 2.1.36. 88 So at 1.80 uerum, 2.33 atqui, 3.25 quodsi, 7.2, 9.11, 17.38, 19.17; 6.46, 7.70, 16.31 nempe, 18.78. 89 For et: 2.30, 6.31, 34, 7.27, 14.2, 16.76, 17.19, 18.15, 50 (in the Sermones: 9·6'2; 2·2·58 and 8.92); for nec 7.35. 90 See TLL 11 1049.56-69; Virgil comes to use it towards the end of the Aeneid.

4. P O E T I C S T Y L E

25

usage in the Epistles.91 T h e overall effect, com pared to the Sermones, is one o f m easured pace. T h e lively changes o f direction in the conversa­ tions give w ay to a m ore deliberate ordering o f the sentences. H orace is chastening his style to ap proxim ate it to the m ore form al tone of a w ritten docum ent. A passage like 2 .3 3 -9 , w here five clauses begin in the sixth foot w ith conjunctions o r particles o f transition, is exceptional in the collection.92 O n e o f the m ost ch aracteristic features o f H orace’s poetic com posi­ tion o f sentences is his fondness for parataxis, the co-ordination of the elem ents o f a com plex th o u g h t.93 Prose writers, following Greek m od­ els, h ad elab o rated a system o f logical subordination, called hypotaxis; o f course, the h y p o tactic style is found in poetry too, especially where the poet wishes to em phasize cool and rational analysis (e.g., at 8.4—8). S u b o rd in ate conditional, tem poral and concessive clauses are not ab an d o n ed . B ut for all th a t the h ypotactic style is essentially logical an d associated w ith form al prose; its very regularity differentiates it from speech and the m ore casual kind o f docum ent. So H orace tries to copy the looser connection o f thought found in daily life by co­ o rd in atin g ra th e r th a n su bordinating his ideas.94 I f we pay close atten ­ tion to the im plicit logic o f his verse sentences we often find th a t one of two co -o rd in ated clauses m ay be regarded as being in a logically sub­ o rd in ate relationship to its p a rtn e r o f cause (2.55, 50nn.) or com pari­ son (2 ·33-7η.) or concession (1.57η.) or condition (1.33η.). I t m ay seem at first w earisom e to be invited to analyse the thought in this way. B ut it is only after dogged observation of such phenom ena th at one comes to ap p reciate a style whose subtleties and flexibility were cre­ ated o u t o f such p attern s o f thought. T o ignore these technicalities is to miss the essentially poetic c h a rac te r o f the style, w hich is designed not to sound like form al prose. T h e p aratactic style is nevertheless suffi­ ciently lively to be felt by any reader, and th a t effect is w hat H orace inten d ed . Analysis is always possible at later readings o f this inexhaust­ ible text. O n e com positional feature th a t removes H orace s verse style some w ay from even the w ritten norm m ay be generally called ellipse, the 91 In S. I it is found twelve times, in S. II thirteen times, but in Ep. I only six times: 7.83, 10.40, 11.7, 28, 18.3,41. 92 For similar sentences in S. see 1.1.46-51; 2.2.40-2; 5.103—9. 93 L. on S. 1.3.57. 94 Ruckdeschel 132-3.

26

INTRODUCTION

omission o f v erbal elem ents th a t are deem ed unnecessary for full com ­ prehension.95 T o be sure, nothing is com m oner in everyday speech th an ellipse, b u t context always provides helpful clues. Ellipse in w rit­ ten docum ents has to be m ore carefully controlled if a re ad er is to grasp the point. H o race therefore favours certain trad itio n al p attern s o f ellipse w hich the R o m an read er m ight be expected to be ac q u ain ted with. T h e m ost p re g n an t of these devices is the d istrib u tio n al figure, recognized by com m entators in an tiq u ity , th a t still goes u n d e r the nam e o f άττό κοινοΰ (‘in com m on’);96 by m eans o f this figure single words or phrases are a ttac h ed to m ore th a n one point o f reference in the sentence. T h e chief benefit o f this construction is, once again, econ­ omy: it says once w h a t m ay be understood twice or even m ore times. B ut it can also b ind the clauses o f a com plex sentence m ore tightly together, since the read er understands the whole idea only once the sentence is finished; then alone can all the elem ents be recom bined in their correct relation. T h e p attern s taken by the άττό KOtvoO construction are very various. Some are simple, requiring noth in g m ore th a n th a t one ad v erb or epithet or verb be understood ‘in com m on’ w ith o th er parts of the sentence. W h at m akes the figure h a rd for us to grasp is th a t the com ­ m on w ord does not always come early in its sentence, b u t m ay be, indeed usually is, reserved to a later position. F or exam ple, in their translations o f 1.17 custos rigidusque satelles W ickham a n d F airclough (b u t n o t Villeneuve) agreed w ith G esner th a t rigidus belongs to b o th nouns.97 In the sam e spirit D illenburger a n d Lejay applied uetus at 6.17

95 A peculiar form of ellipsis has been recently analysed and named by E. A. Schmidt, ‘Σχήμα Horatianum’, ΙΚ.ά. 103 (iggo) 57~g8; see notes, to 4.8-11, 7.35, 36, 83. It is worth pointing out that Lambinus long ago observed the principle, but his choice of example, 1.3g, was rightly impugned by Torrentius. 96 See Index s.v. 97 Dillenburger has a handy collection of examples from the Odes of this most straightforward kind of άττό κοινού on C. 1.2.1-2 niuis atque dirae | grandinis. Wickham discusses the figure on C. 4-g.2g. See G. Ziindel, Historia structurae quae dicitur άττό κοινοΰ eiusquefigurae usus Horatianus (Diss. Vienna 1914) (a copy of this useful essay was procured for me by Miss A. Huber of the Institut für klassische Philologie der Universität Wien and is now deposited in the Uni­ versity Library, Cambridge); J. C. M. Grimm, The construction άττό κοινοΰ in the works of Horace (Diss. University of Pennsylvania ig28). Ribbeck catego­ rizes some examples in his edn of Epp., pp. 225-6.

4. P O E T I C S T Y L E

27

to all the nouns in the vicinity. W h at encourages this com m on practice (perhaps m ore com m on in poetry) is the general m ode o f connected expression in L atin , w h ether prose or verse; this was neatly described by J . P. Postgate as arran g e m e n t w ithin a circle.98 W hereas English syntactical o rd er m ust be linear, the R o m an w rote sentences in which the th o u g h t and stru ctu re were often coterm inous. This was achieved notoriously in form al prose by delaying the m ain verb until the end of the sentence, so th a t the th o u g h t and the sentence are com pleted in the sam e m om ent. In verse p articu larly the άττό κοινού construc­ tion achieves a sim ilarly circular arrangem ent. Postgate pointed out th a t at T er. Hec. 160 the w ord order o f ‘m aligna m ulto et magis p ro cax ’ is not, as h ad been claim ed in A shm ore’s com m entary, capricious. T h e English reader is doubtless h ap p ier w ith ‘m ulto magis m alig n a et p ro cax ’, b u t, as Lejay said on S. 1.3.63, L atin by synthesis creates a u n it w here o u r m odern logical analysis distinguishes two propositions. T h e R o m an knew to take the phrase or sentence as a whole an d to w ait u n til the end before recom bining the elem ents to supplem ent the expression. A p a rt from the m ultiple reapplication o f a single w ord, the figure appears in alto g eth er m ore elaborate guises, for instance at 1.77-9: sunt qui crustis et pomis uiduas u en en tu r auaras ex cipiantque senes quos in u iu aria m ittant. T his w ould construe in prose as follows: ‘sunt qui crustis et pomis uiduas au aras et senes { a u a ro s) u en e n tu r excipiantque quos [includes the fem inine] in u iu aria m itta n t’, for it is plain th a t the cakes and apples are m ean t for the equally greedy old m en and wom en who are alike to go in to the gam e preserves. This com plex idea is analysed into m ore m an ag eab le elem ents w ith the figure όπτο κοινού. A nother instance o f this an aly tic usage of the figure is found at 16.50-1: cautus enim m etu it foueam lupus accipiterque suspectos laqueos et op ertu m m iluus ham um .

P.B.A. 3 (1908) 6-7, a stimulating discussion.

INTRODUCTION cautus, suspectos, and opertum should all be taken crrro κοινού th ro u g h o u t the sentence since all the anim als are cautious and all the snares, though hidden, are suspect. T h e figure illustrates H o ra ce’s ability to express in clear and sim ple syntax a com plex id e a ." Before leaving discussion o f this figure of th o u g h t, it is w o rth observ­ ing th a t H orace now restricts its form er com plexity an d variety. W e will no longer find prepositions, su bordinating conjunctions or in te r­ rogative pronouns deployed α π ό κοινού, as for instance at S. 1.2.62—3 ‘q uid in ter | est in m atro n a, ancilla peccesne to g ata?’, 1.9.50-1 ‘nil mi officit, in q u am , | d itior hic a u t est quia d o ctio r’, 1.4.17-18 ‘di bene fecerunt, inopis m e quodque pusilli | finxerunt an im i’ and 1.4.115 ‘u itatu quidque p e titu ’. M oreover, one of his m ost characteristic earlier uses o f the construction takes the p a tte rn o f the last tw o exam ­ ples, especially if the w ord connected by -que is the m ain verb, as found, for instance, at C. 1.30.5—6 ‘feruidus tecum p u er et solutis G ra tia e zonis I properentque N y m p h ae’. T his p a tte rn too appears now here in Epistles I .99100 T h e stylistic point is the m ore rem ark ab le since it is found in the earlier Sermones (there are striking exam ples at 1.6.43—4 con~ currantque . . . uincatque). P erhaps he now regards this p a rtic u la r form of the device as m an n ered (and it is striking th a t m ost o f the experim ents are found in the first book of Sermones), and so in a p p ro p ria te to the ‘depoeticized’ style o f his epistolary hexam eters, in w hich ά π ό κοινού is p re tty m uch confined to nouns, adjectives a n d verbs w ith o u t com pli­ cations o f w ord o rd er (an observation in keeping w ith w h a t was noted above, p. 15). O n e o f his m ost favoured forms o f com pressed th o u g h t an d expres­ sion occurs in his similes, w hich ab a n d o n the usually clear d e m a rc a ­ tion found in epic poem s. H o race tends so to b lu r his similes into m etaphors th at th e subject is bo th com pared to an d becomes identified w ith the object o f com parison. T h e form o f im plicit com parison thus stands som ew here betw een a fully articu lated simile and a p u re m e ta ­ phor. (T o be sure, the phenom enon is found in earlier w riters, espe-

99 See also 1.25-6, 5.7, 25-6, 6.25-6, ig.i6nn. S. 1.5.49 namque pila lippis inimicum et ludere crudis is the same. 100 The pattern is illustrated by Orelli ad loc. and noted by F. Leo, Ausge­ wählte kleine Schriften (Rome i960) i 104-5.

4. P O E T I C S T Y L E

29

d a lly G reek .)101 T h e practice was noted and approved by his ancient com m entators, who often p arap h rase the pure m etaphors w ith the ad d itio n of the co m p arative w ord, ut. So Aero on S. 1.7.29-31 says ‘bene perseu erau it in m etap h o ra . . . m odo illum duro com parat uind em iato ri’, on Ep. 1.2.41-2 ‘rustico similis est . . . ’, 7.74 ‘quasi pisds. m etap h o ra est’, 10.10-11 ‘allegoricos: urbem fastidio’; so too P orphy­ rio on Ep. 1.7.74 says ‘allegoricos’ an d on 10.10-11 he offers a very full p a rap h ra se glossing the slave’s liba as duitatem and saying th at the whole is to be taken allegorice. M odern com m entators too have not failed to note the practice. T h u s Kiessling says on S. 1.7.29: ‘the two halves o f w h a t was originally intended as a com parison (uelut uindemiator) are, in H o ra ce’s w ay, condensed into a single im age’ and he refers to 2.5.83 as an ‘ab b rev iated com parison’. (H e gives still fuller descrip­ tions o f the p h enom enon in his notes to 2.42 and A P 348.) Lejay says o f the sam e passage in the Sermones: ‘H orace emm ele la com paraison et la realite . . . L a com paraison devient m etap h o re’ (but he finds this p a rtic u la r instance aw kw ard). M ost recently the practice has been fully discussed by Brink, w ho notes the com plete identification rath er th a n com parison at A P 357 fit Choerilus; on A P 476 he observes th at H orace has m oved from com parison (uelut ursus, 472) to apposition. O n Ep. 2.1.100 he says th a t ‘the gram m atical subject is Graeda not puella. B ut . . . this verse is n o t wholly distinct in thought from the one im ­ m ediately preceding. T h u s . . . the two are ru n together into one com ­ posite notion. W hen an explicit com parison is w anting, this device obtrudes, as a t A P 4 7 5 -6 , Ep. 1.7.74, b u t it also occurs w ith uelut or ut, as in this passage and Ep. 1 .1 0 .4 2 -3 .’ W e m ight com pare the shift from 101 See A. S. F. Gow on Theocr. 3.54: ‘the simile is of that type in which there is used of the object compared language appropriate only to that with which it is compared’ (he cites Theogn. 458 and some examples drawn from J. Vahlen, Opuscula Academica (Leipzig 1907) 301; he has similar observations on 12.8 and 25.201). Further discussions by A. E. Housman on Manil. 1.704—6 and on Lucan 7.125; M. Davies on Soph. Trach. 31 ff.: ‘two constituent parts of a simile, illustrans and illustrandum, become fused or interwoven’ (129, 147, [537—8], 770—1, 1261—2nn.; see also L. Campbell, Essay on the language of Sophocles §§35> 42: ‘the thing compared is expressed in terms suggested by the comparison’); E. Fraenkel on Aesch. Agam. 966: ‘the image assimilates elements characteristic of the thing compared’ (also nn. on 732fr., 1005fr., ι οι ι , 1182) and Elementi Plautini in Plauto (Florence i960) 161-9.

30

INTRODUCTION

simile to m etap h o r in S hakespeare’s Sonnet 29.10—12: ‘H a p ly I think on thee, an d then m y state | (Like to the lark a t break o f day arising | F rom sullen earth) sings hym ns a t h eav en ’s g ate.’102

(v) The verse period and verse paragraph W e come now to the larger structures, w here, as before, a contrast w ith the Sermones is instructive, since in them we find sentence structures unknow n to the Epistles. In S. 1.4 for instance we en counter this at 5 6 -6 2 : his, ego q u ae nunc, olim q uae scripsit Lucilius, eripias si tem p o ra certa m odosque et q u o d prius ordine u erb u m est posterius facias, praeponens u ltim a prim is, non, u t si soluas . . . inuenias etiam disiecti m em b ra poetae. Perhaps the w ord o rder parodies the p oint a t issue. B ut the m odern reader has to refashion the sentence to m ake it com prehensible, scribo needs to be supplied for ego quae nunc from the following scripsit; eripias si has to be reversed. A sim ilar inversion is found la te r in the sam e poem at 107-8: cum me h o rta re tu r parce frugaliter atq u e uiuerem uti contentus eo quod mi ipse parasset w here again the su bordinating conjunction (uti) follows its verb, b u t on top o f th a t the noun clause uiuerem uti is considerably separated from hortaretur w hich governs it. In fact, even the an cien t re ad er seem ed to need help w ith this sort o f structure, as the scholiasts felt w hen they p arap h rased the lines in clearer prose. Such p otentially baffling sen­ tences are avoided in the Epistles. I t m ay be suggested th at, as re­ presentations of the often w ayw ard-seem ing structures of the spoken language, the com plex arran g em en ts found in the Sermones are a suc­ cess (they can, after all, be analysed). B ut a letter, unless dashed off, is

102 The chief passages of note, additional to any mentioned above, are 1.2 (where Obbar notices the mira ars of the practice); 2.28; 3.19; 6.63; 15.37; ' 9-37 ■

4. P O E T I C S T Y L E

31

the p ro d u c t o f reflection, and the tho u g h t can be m ore carefully orga­ nized; there is n o t the sam e justification for intricacy. T h e different tone of the two collections is set by the opening sen­ tences o f their first poem s. These justify a com parative scrutiny, since they are b o th questions three lines long and addressed to the same dedicatee. qui fit, M aecenas, u t nem o q u am sibi sortem , seu ratio ded erit seu fors obiecerit, illa contentus uiu at, lau d et diuersa sequentis? p rim a dicte m ihi, sum m a dicende C am ena sp ectatu m satis et d o n atu m iam rude quaeris, M aecenas, iteru m an tiq u o me includere ludo?103 T h e first satire opens ab ru p tly , w ithout cerem ony, w ithout ornam ent. M aecenas is no m ore th a n nam ed, for he has no obvious interest in the p oint at issue. T h e them e is p rom ptly b ro u g h t to our attention, sortem, ‘w ay o f life, v o catio n ’, b u t the syntax has been inverted to effect this prom inence a n d the an teced en t has been set into the relative clause. T his m ay be in im itatio n of conversational style, w hich often brings a leadin g idea into focus as soon as possible. W ithin this relative clause there is a carefully signposted alternative, seu . . . seu. ilia is needed to pick up the an teced en t as the sentence proceeds, and it forms an enja m b m e n t by its close connection w ith contentus. T he verbs o f the ut clause are ju x tap o sed to enhance the contrast of ideas (an instance of adversative asyndeton), b u t to com e at the subject of laudet the reader has to ex tract from nemo a positive w ord, quisque (a feat the R om an read er took in his stride). So the them e is enunciated and all H orace goes on to do for the next ten lines is illustrate it w ith examples. T h e first letter on the other h an d opens w ith careful form ality. A balanced eulogistic form ula, like th a t in the first ode of the first book, is distinct from the rest o f the thought; it identifies the as yet unnam ed addressee in tim ately w ith H o ra ce’s poetic production. (The opening of the first epode stresses friendship pure and simple, th at o f the first ode em phasizes the addressee’s genealogy and the support he gives the

103 Some editors print this as a statement; a question, however, would be more urgent and bewildered (K—S n 501).

32

INTRODUCTION

poet.) T h eir relationship spans past an d future (dicende is in effect a future passive participle). T h e second an d third line, as M ü ller thought, m ight for the sake o f clarity be transposed; th a t w ould brin g M aecenas’ nam e closer to the opening address. B ut the tran sm itted o rd er o f the lines is subtler and forms a sm oother transition o f ideas. In the second line the poet him self is introduced in a m etap h o r, th a t of the glad iato r (though we do not know th a t it applies to him u ntil we reach me in the third line); the participles focus on his past to date (■iam). T h e single m ain verb quaeris shows th a t M aecenas is very m uch interested in the them e o f the letter, indeed he has occasioned it, as the w ithholding u n til this m om ent of his nam e, w hich is spoken w ith a hint o f surprise (‘you, o f all people!’), m akes clear. W hen the crucial p ro ­ noun me appears it is artfully sandw iched w ithin the antiquo . . . ludo (an instance o f ‘concrete’ poetry) and elided alm ost ou t o f existence. In fact, each line contains some reference to the speaker o r to his a d ­ dressee; th eir relationship and its foundation —H o ra ce’s poetry —is the focus o f atten tio n th roughout. A nd yet, unlike the opening o f the sat­ ire, the p oint at issue is not com pletely stated; the gladiatorial m e ta ­ p h o r conceals its secret. T h e re ad er is draw n on by the desire to have the in d eterm inacy clarified. In the satire the arg u m en t does not at once advance; in the epistle it does w ith every sentence, so th a t we have a sense o f genuine conclusion a t the itaque o f line io. W e see H orace here exploiting the po ten tial o f the verse p a ra g ra p h by not laying all his cards on the table at once. H e plays them out carefully because each subtly announces a them e to be developed la te r in the collection. T h e first letter is thus p ro g ram m atic, unlike the first satire. But this care and foresight is ap p ro p riate to the new literary form. A letter m ay be the fruit o f reflection, and its style deliberate; its read er can be d raw n by easier stages to the points at issue. T his brings us to a consideration o f the disposition or layout o f the poem s.

(vi) The layout o f the poems T h e Epistles are n eith er treatises controlled by the logic o f an arg u m en t based u p o n first principles (like L ucretius’ De rerum natura) n o r n a r r a ­ tives driven by the chain o f causality; the progression o f th eir thoughts has to be excogitated by the poet. T h e reason for this is th a t the m oral topics o u t o f w hich the poem is m ade all exist a t the sam e tim e and in

4. P O E T I C S T Y L E

33

no p a rtic u la r or necessary relation w ith one another. It is the p oet’s jo b to create and im pose a design upon scattered and loosely intercon­ nected them es w hich he w ants his readers to reflect upon w ith him . His design will be for the m ost p art urbanely concealed, since a letter is an inform al co m m unication betw een friends in w hich hints suffice. H elp tow ards an u n d erstan d in g o f H o ra ce’s m an n er of proceeding is offered by Geoffrey T illotson in a study o f the designing o f the sense in some English poem s, especially P ope’s, w hich w ere indeed m odelled upon H o race’s.104 T illotson stresses th a t carefully com posed non-narrative poem s should be read slowly w ith a sharp eye to the quality o f their sense o f order, w hich defies reduction to argum ent (a point some logi­ cally m inded editors o f the last century, R ibbeck for instance, failed to ap preciate). T h e re exists a pull in one direction tow ards continuity a n d in an o th er tow ards design. To achieve continuity th e. gliding transi­ tion betw een p arag ra p h s m ay be so carefully m anaged as to be quite unobtrusive; on the o th er han d , to produce a conviction in the reader of design th ere m ay be a b ru p t changes o f direction (the only letter som ew hat m echanically organized is V I). Some m odern editions of H o race eschew p arag ra p h in g altogether and p rin t the poems as con­ tinuous; this is m ean t to be com plim entary, bu t it obscures the fact th a t th ere are focal points in the arg u m en t th a t can be isolated by p a ra g ra p h in g .105 H o race proceeds above all by indirection. T ypically he begins some­ w h a t o ff the p o in t an d sidles u p to it. This is best seen in X IX , where it seems at th e start th a t we are to be treated to a discourse upon the tru e n a tu re o f artistic inspiration. It turns out, however, th a t H orace is m ore interested in the p o e t’s independence w ithin a literary tradition. I t seems at one p o in t as if he m ay give w ay to anger {bilem, 20) b u t by the end he can n o t be b othered w ith the p lagiarist’s objections. Them es m ove to the front an d then slip into the background to rhythm s other

104 ‘The manner of proceeding in certain eighteenth- and early nineteenthcentury poems’ in Augustan studies (London 196t) l i t - 4^> esP· χ30—6· This essay also has valuable observations on word order in verse. 105 Fraenkel desiderated a return to the use of paragraphs in the longer poems (139η., 384). The compilation by R. E. Watkins, A history of paragraph divisions in Horace’s Epistles (Iowa studies in classical philology x 194°) ls useful, his own suggested divisions are offered on p. 123.

34

INTRODUCTION

th a n logical or narrative. I t is equally instructive to com pare the a rg u ­ m entative and n arrativ e sections o f the seventh letter. I t will be found th at the n arrativ e o f the friendship o f Philippus an d M en a is plain sailing; the causal chain o f events has its own easy inevitability. O n the o ther han d , the five lines from 20 to 24 place ex tra o rd in ary dem ands upon the read er and have occasioned m uch scholarly d eb a te (the sam e m ay be said o f 19.23-34). T h e read er is in this w ay induced to reflect upon the m eaning, w hich is tied to the context m ore by im plication and the use o f balanced phraseology th a n by logical or causal sign­ posts. W e w onder how we got to this point and so try to absorb the full force o f the idea. H o race’s characteristic m an n er was well understood by A. Y. C am pbell, w ho offered a crisp analysis of the opening section of the seventh epistle.106 H e found it to be the best exam ple o f the p o e t’s m atu re h ex am eter style: terse, elliptical, not easy reading, yet w orth the trouble o f thinking out; it is m arked by a b ru p t transitions w here the connection w ith w h at has preceded can only be m ade ou t by re a d ­ ing on for some distance. T h e abruptness o f the transitions, how ever, is m ore ap p a re n t th an real, for w h a t H orace leaves out, as we have seen in discussing his sentence structure, are the b latan tly logical signposts. T h e arg u m en t works as the clauses a n d sentences w ork, by co -o rd in a­ tion ra th e r th a n by subordination. T h e alert an d reflective re ad er m ay detect the subtler logical connection, b u t the poet prefers to subm erge it at a level o f im plication. Still, the poem s are n o t easy read in g an d this m akes H o race one w ith the poets o f the eighteenth cen tu ry w ho believed th a t verse h ad the dignity to be a vehicle o f expository th o u g h t or o f ratio n al discourse ab o u t serious concerns. T illotson also pointed out th a t m en used to believe th a t every th o u g h t th a t was w o rth thinking (those w ere the only thoughts m an needed to concern him self w ith) h ad already been th o u g h t;107 H orace is o f th eir tribe, for he never offers a m oral idea th a t is no t p a rt o f the great trad itio n o f ancient thinking ab o u t how a free m an should be­ have in the w orld. His special d u ty as poet is to present these received

106 265-6; in η. i he draws attention to 17.39-42. 107 Tillotson (n. 104) 131. Professor Kenney draws attention to the opinion of Walter Headlam, to the effect that the motto of Greek lyric would have been τά κοινά kcüvws (Walter Headlam: his letters and poems (London 1910) 53).

4. P O E T I C S T Y L E

35

notions in new an d attra ctiv e forms; his appeal is as m uch to the m ind as to the em otions or im agination, b u t it is an appeal of a specially poetic kind in the design o f the argum ent. R hetoric and the m ore obvious m usical qualities o f verse are subordinated to this design (it is instructive to see how J u v e n a l reverses the balance). T h e reader, who feels com plim ented by the expectation th a t he will prove equal to the ‘violent lab o u r o f excogitation’, collaborates w ith the poet far m ore in this sort o f w riting th an in n arrativ e (which can be gulped down) or in philosophical exposition (w here the clear steps o f the argum ent lead us gently on). In m oral discourse the poet has far greater control of the p a tte rn o f the arg u m en t an d he guides o u r thoughts. H e becomes quintessendaily the ‘m ak er’ in giving shape to the ideas which in tu rn shape o u r lives. T o conclude, it is only a p p ro p riate to notice how H orace ends his letters.108 C onclusions characteristic o f the epistolary kind are necessar­ ily few (he m ust not overdo it). H e twice bids farewell (6.67, 13.19); he refers to the place from w hich the letter is sent at 10.49-50.109 T w o end w ith requests for reply: 3.30, 5.30; sim ilar is 6.67—8 in offering the recipient th e chance to give his own opinion. H e ends his letter of reco m m en d atio n w ith the actual request (9.13), th a t to Albius with a teasing in v itatio n (4.15—16), and th a t to Celsus w ith a line o f advice (8.17). T h e usual closural techniques are sim ilar to ones found in his earlier poetry (though he could o f course cleverly refer to the end o f the sheet o f p a p e r only once a t S. 1.5.104). A general reflection sums up the arg u m e n t a t 7 .9 6 -8 , 14.44, 16.79 (where the reference to d eath is in line w ith a n u m b er o f sim ilar endings in the Odes110) and 19.48-9. In th e first epistle the end is announced w ith ad summam (106) and reinforced w ith th e em phatic praecipue (108), b u t a jest concludes the letter, a p a tte rn H o race specially favours;111 there is also a joke to conclude at 13.19. Som etim es a m ore purely personal reflection is

108 Schütz is helpful in this matter. For the devices which conclude the Odes see P. H. Schrijvers, Mnem. 26 (1973) 140-59, an referring to S. 2.2.103-4. 119 See 2.4m.

40

INTRODUCTION

interests, despite the absence o f clear pointers in the context. This com m on opinion can only be endorsed w ith reservations.120 T h e m odern use o f the w ord philosophy to m ean a serious ap p ro ach to ethical (and other) issues was no t unknow n in H o ra ce’s day. Cicero, for exam ple, can say th a t a passage from T eren ce’s Phormio is d ra w n from philosophy, even though it appears to be little m ore th a n p ra c ti­ cal w isdom .121 O n a stricter understanding, philosophy (like C h ristian ­ ity still) was parcelled out am ong fiercely rival schools w hich eagerly sought converts. H orace expressly holds aloof from them (1.14) nor does he ever encourage a correspondent to betake him self to a p hilo­ sophical teacher, though in X I I he advises Iccius, a com m itted stu d en t of philosophy, to redirect his researches from physics to ethics. A t most, he recom m ends unspecified reading, consultation w ith the inform ed and an awareness o f the sorts o f questions philosophers ask (18.96— 103). I t is ju st here th at philosophy takes its due place in the life o f a m atu re and cultivated m an. It is not the tru th o f any answ er provided by this or th a t school w hich counts, b u t philosophy’s im plicit assum p­ tion th at to discuss am ong friends im p o rta n t issues ab o u t life is a p ­ propriate. I t is not always to be a question o f how best to succeed in society; o th er m atters deserve o u r atten tio n . Such questions, rightly posed, b ear upon the w ay we conceive an d execute o u r lives; they w aken us to o u r cap acity to reflect ab o u t w h a t m atters m ost to us a n d to construct o u r lives in accordance w ith w h a t we think is best for us as individuals.122 W e are no t m em bers of a tribe whose views we are

120 Obbar spoke the truth long ago: ‘At poetae non includendi sunt arte factis philosophorum cancellis’ (ed., p. 25). For a fuller account of what follows see R. G. Mayer, A .f.P . 107 (1986) 55-73; the position set out there is broadly endorsed and very fully reviewed by Niall Rudd, ‘Horace as a moralist’ in N. Rudd (ed.), Horace 2000: a celebration (Essays for the bimillennium) (London 1993) 64-88, esp. 85 n. 2. A level-headed approach is still to be found in W. S. Maguinness, Hermathena 52 (1938) 27-46. There is, however, a much stronger belief in the philosophical character of the collection to be found in the work of C. Becker, Das Spätwerk des Horaz (Heidelberg 1963), G. Maurach, A.C.D. 11 (1968) 73-124, McGann, C. Macleod, J.R.S. 69 (1979) 16-27 = Collected essays (Oxford 1983) 280-91, J. Moles, P.L.L.S. 5 (1985-6) 33-60, F. della Corte, Maia 43 (1991) 67-81 and F. M. A. Jones, L.C.M. 18 (1993) 7-11. 121 Tusc. 3.31. 122 See the excellent essay on Horace by R. A. Brower in Alexander Pope: the poetry of allusion (Oxford 1959) 163-87, esp. 173.

5. T H E M E S

41

bound to share. Philosophy is always inviting us to ask questions, to m ake u p o u r own m inds, and to build o u r lives afresh. N one the less, so far as explicit reference to philosophers goes, H orace belittles them in preference to H om er at a suggestively early p o in t in the collection (2.4). O n balance, then, his position is hardly likely to have struck his contem poraries as philosophical, for they ex­ pected co m m itm en t to one o f the w ell-know n sects, usually either the Stoic or the E p icu rean . T o R o m an eyes philosophy was an im port, and m ig h t be regarded w ith suspicion for m any reasons; Cicero, for one, was well aw are th a t a good n u m b er of R om ans did not like it.123 I f H orace h ad been convinced o f the practical value o f philosophy he m ight have spent m ore tim e rem oving objections to its pursuit. Y et we find him n eith er defending nor enjoining a life lived in accordance w ith any philosophical principles. B ut principles o f behaviour there m ust be an d for these he tu rn ed to poetry as a guide. H om er is singled out pro m in en tly in II an d the p ractical m oral guidance to be extracted from his text is found also at 7 .4 0 -4 . T h e collection as a whole exploits the w ork o f a n u m b er o f o th er poets. A scene from E uripides’ Bacchae, as we have seen, provides a picture o f the uir bonus who is the object of investigation in X V I, and there are reminiscences o f Ennius, Hesiod, P in d ar, M im nerm us and Sophocles to rem ind us th at poetry offers sufficiently varied lights to guide us through life. T h e co n tem p o rary p resentation o f philosophy nevertheless offered H orace a n u m b e r o f lively strategies th a t could be em ployed in woo­ ing the u n reg en erate from the paths o f vice and in encouraging the thoughtful to take stock.124 His use o f fable and anecdote, the analogy betw een physical an d m oral h ea lth ,125 even the m oral interp retatio n of literary texts m ay all be a reflection o f the p o p u lar m oralizing of the day. I t is also clear th a t H orace was ready to plu n d er R om e’s own philosophical literatu re, recently created by such m asters as Lucretius and C icero,126 for use in his own satura. G oing back further still, Plato

123 See Luc. 5 sunt enim multi qui omnino Graecas non ament litteras, plures qux philosophiam·, H. D. Jocelyn, B.R.L. 59 (1977) 323~66. 124 T h i s i s demonstrated in A. Oltramare, Les origines de la diatribe romaine (Lausanne 1926). 125 See ι.2δ-32η. 126 See T. Zielinski, Cicero im Wandel der Jahrhunderte (Leipzig and Berlin 1908) 107.

42

INTRODUCTION

and, som ew hat unexpectedly, A ristotle he regards as classics o f lite ra ­ ture, whose work will be know n to his readers; they too m ake a signifi­ can t co n trib u tio n to the m oral texture o f his poem s an d v alid ate w ith their intellectual au th o rity notions like th a t o f the m ean or o f being a friend to oneself,127 w hich his own experience h ad b ro u g h t him to endorse. Philosophy is not therefore ignored, b u t its p artisan and exclusive claims are m uch reduced, so as to give the collection a w ider appeal th an it w ould have h ad if its m oral horizons w ere confined to school dogm atics. H o race’s object is, after all, the young m an o f general cul­ tu re in good society: his addressees w rite poetry an d serve the state abro ad , they play gam es, adm inister the p ro p erty of others an d in te r­ est themselves in the m ysteries o f n a tu ra l science. H o ra ce assumes th at, in addition to all this, they w an t to un d erstan d how to live (sapere, sapientia) .128 R om e certainly provided h er m ale citizens w ith guidance on this point in the trad itio n al mos maiorum, w hich H o ra ce’s own father encouraged his son to follow (or so he says at S. 1.4.117). H e sees, however, th at this really only deals w ith m en as public figures (X V I). A change h ad com e over R o m an society and there w ere now legiti­ m ate attractio n s in retirem ent and self-appraisal to w hich H orace draw s his read ers’ atten tio n at the beginning o f X V I I and the end of X V III. B ut this m ust be balanced against the claim s o f society. So H orace m ay rem ind his young friends th a t achievem ent takes various forms, n o t all of them public; there is no disgrace in taking a back seat. B ut how ever m uch you w an t to succeed, it is still necessary to keep an eye on how to live aright. This involves a m an in m aking choices; it is above all the pow er to m ake choices w hich interests the H o race o f the Epistles.129* Choice, the privilege of independence, can only be exercised by free men. C hoice m ay a p p e a r in the guise o f m aking the m ost o f the o p p o r­ tunities life offers (IV , V) o r as independence and self-reliance (X IX ). T hese them es are p erhaps the m ost p ro m in en t in the collection an d can be used to show how ethics is subsum ed in the p o et’s ow n experi127 See 18.9, ioinn. 128 See U. Klima, Untersuchungen zu dem Begriff Sapientia (Diss. Bonn 1971) >45~59> M· Massaro, S.I.F.C. 46 (1974) 85-128. 129 ‘The themes of personal ethos and choice reach their culmination in the first book of Epistles', says Brink in Horace on poetry (Cambridge 1982) 111 539.

5. T H E M E S

43

ence. O n e o f the basic tenets o f the ancient m oralist was th at the p o p u la r view o f correct b ehaviour was a distortion from which the m an who w ould live well m ust free him self in order to arrive at a correct o p in io n .130 H orace em braces this notion not because he is now a stu d en t of philosophy b u t because he has always been a poet. In o rd er to realize the law o f his being -poeta nascitur, non fit - he h ad had to set him self ap art: ‘me gelidum nem us | N y m p h aru m q u e leues cum Satyris chori | secernunt po p u lo ’ (C. 1.1.30-2); ‘odi profanum uulgus et arceo ’ (C. 3 .1.1).131 H e h ad only to apply his experience o f being a poet to th a t o f being a m oral agent in society; th a t he agrees w ith the philosophers is helpful, for their position authenticates his own. This is true too o f his insistence upon the need for self-reliance. T he philoso­ phers agreed u p o n the need for autarkeia, b u t the poet who w ants to m ake his m ark w ithin a trad itio n th a t is essentially im itative arrives by his ow n road at the sam e assurance; thus H orace com bines his experi­ ence as a poet w ith his m oral outlook to endorse the need for selfreliance in II I , X V I an d X IX . T h e neatest instance o f the harm ony betw een poet an d m oralist is seen in his use of the phrase ultra quam satis est; at 6.16 it is applied m orally to the pursuit of goodness and at 7 .8 2 -3 it serves to m ake the aesthetic point th a t brevity is best when telling a story. T h a t his ow n point o f view can be, should be, more widely applied only goes to d em onstrate the value of the p oet’s experi­ ence to his fellow m en. T h e b eau ty of the freedom to choose for oneself also explains H o ra ce’s em an cip atio n from the philosophical schools, for once com ­ m itted to one of them you autom atically restricted the exercise of choice, your answers w ere provided for you and the chief issue becam e their im p lem en tatio n . B ut in the second letter to Lollius (X V III) we find H orace inviting the young m an to construct and execute his own way of life, while the closing scene shows the poet still at work building his ow n peace of m ind. T h e invitation poems m ay also be seen as rem inding th eir recipients and us of the availability of choices. Albius need n o t w a n d er alone in the woods, T o rq u a tu s does not have to work him self to d eath ; they have b u t to exercise the independence their m eans an d social position have conferred. O f course, we can m ake bad choices, as M en a and the bailiff do in m istakenly taking up the coun130 See 1.70η.

131 See N -H ’s note on C. 1.1.30-2.

44

INTRODUCTION

try life. Still, M ena, a free m an, h ad the choice an d exercised it; the form er tow n slave had his silent p ra y er realized. O r, like Iccius’, o u r choice m ay prove a m ixture o f good and less good. T h en it is a m a t­ ter o f tu rn in g circum stances to o u r own advantage. F or this we need ad a p ta b ility (1.20) and a philosopher at last em erges as o u r m odel, Aristippus. T h e engaging figure o f A ristippus appealed to H orace first an d fore­ m ost because, o f all the philosophers o f G reece, he advertised his will­ ingness to associate w ith the rich an d powerful, and so could best serve as a role m odel for the young careerists o f the Epistles.132 I f he left a doctrine and a school they h ad ceased to be a force in H o ra c e ’s day. His friendship on in d ep en d en t term s w ith the leaders o f society vali­ d ated H o race’s own w ay o f life and th a t o f those am ong his correspon­ dents (Septim ius, Celsus, Florus, Scaeva, even Lollius) w ho associated or aspired to associate w ith m en like T iberius. A ristippus h ad em ­ bodied his teaching in his life, an o th er attra c tio n for H orace, who regularly uses him self as an exam ple. His chief an d en d u rin g doctrine was the value o f ad ap tab ility . A ristippus’ a d a p ta b ility was not u n ­ dignified; ‘he was capable of a d a p tin g him self to situation and occasion and role, appropriately perform ing his p a rt in every circum stance’.133 A d ap tab ility , so long as it was becom ing, h ad long been encouraged in the p o p u lar m o rality found in early po etry ,134 an d was accorded philo­ sophical respectability by Aristo o f Chios and M arcus A urelius.135 Its em bodim ent in A ristippus’ w ay o f life was cen tral to H o ra c e ’s p ro ­ gram m e in the Epistles, so he is the one philosopher whose practice is held up for approval. T h e issues th at H orace focusses upon help in the construction o f a 132 This point is stressed in the admirable essay by A. Traina, R.d.F. 119 (1991) 285-305, esp. 302; for Aristippus generally see R. Goulet (ed.), Dictionnaire desphilosophes antiques (Paris 1989) 1 370-5. His appeal was long-lived; the second-century philosopher Demonax is said to have revered Socrates, mar­ velled at Diogenes and loved Aristippus (Luc. Demon. 62). 133 Diog. Laert. 2.66. 134 See Theognis 213-8 (a famous comparison to the polypus, which changes colour, see Campbell’s note ad loc. for the later tradition) and Eur. Hipp. 111519 (the chorus deplore intransigence). 135 See Diog. Laert. 7.160 for Aristo’s view that one should be ready to play either Thersites or Agamemnon; for Marcus’ approval of ττΕριτροττή see 4.1, 5.20.

5. T H E M E S

45

life at a p a rtic u la r level o f R o m an society (about which he is not inclined to generalize). H e begins w ith the need for sound education, and the im agery o f the school is prom inent. T h e literary text th at forms the basis o f this ed ucation is an inexhaustible resource, H om er. T h e aim o f this ed u catio n is the acquisition o f uirtus and sapientia, m oral excellence and p ractical w isdom , both o f w hich can only be exercised by a n in d ep en d e n t m an. Independence is a them e to be approached by a v ariety o f avenues: the relationship to a p atro n (V II, X V III) or to a literary trad itio n (I II, X IX ). O n e ’s independence is never abso­ lute; as social creatures we need one an o th er by definition. Friendship becomes the d o m in an t relationship,136 b u t its aspects are various and h ard to define. T h e letter offers H orace the chance, not to theorize, bu t to show friendship in characteristic activities, m ediating betw een the estranged ( I I I ) , soliciting a place for a deserving ju n io r (IX ), effecting intro d u ctio n s (X II), or inviting the hard-w orked to take an agreeable and w ell-earned rest (V). Above all, H orace advises upon behaviour, especially u p o n the b earing o f inferiors tow ards the great ones of the land (V III, X I I I , X V II, X V I I I ) .137 O n e them e largely ignored in the collection is th a t o f love. It is rem ark ab le th a t th o u g h his addressees are in the m ain young m en H orace has little advice for them on their sexual appetencies, beyond a cu rt reference to the passion a t 1.38 amator, a general w arning at 2.37 th a t lovesickness m ay keep you aw ake, an d at 18.72-5 a p ru d en t ob­ servation th a t falling for your p a tro n ’s slave will give him a chance to gratify you at little cost to himself. This gap in his coverage o f the troubles to w hich his addressees m ay be prone is the m ore striking w hen the strictures o f Cicero an d L ucretius are borne in m ind.138 It is alm ost as if he were trying to m arginalize the contem porary poetic fashion for grands amours. O n the o th er h an d , H orace him self never m a rrie d ,139 an d it should be borne in m ind th a t his call to retirem ent an d self-determ ination only works for the solitary. H o ra ce’s addressees are, so far as we can tell, m en on the w ay up. H e for his p a rt has arrived at the goal they aspire to, financial indepen-

136 R. S. Kilpatrick, The poetry of friendship: Horace, Epistles 1 (Edmonton 1986). 137 This is discussed at more length in R. Mayer, P.C.P.S. n . s . 31 (1985) 33-46. 138 Tusc. 4.68-76; D R N 1058-1191. 139 See 5.13η.

46

INTRODUCTION

dence and public esteem. W hat is the view like from up there? T h e read er is in for a surprise. O u r poet is no t co n ten t an d , like m any successful m en in m iddle life, he shows him self the prey o f boredom and m alaise.140 T h e first avow al o f this is found in the attack o f D avus upon his m aster’s inconstancy a t S. 2.7.111-15; it is perhaps significant th at m alaise does not ap p e ar in the first book, in w hich we see H orace still bustling forw ard; by the second book, how ever, his position is m ore secure and so he falls victim to indifference. In the Epistles this comes out m ost clearly in V I I I , w here he diagnoses his m alady as a deadly lethargy, the sort o f thing th a t drives some m en to pointless travel (X I). In d eed , H orace too, whose physical w ell-being causes him some concern (V II), journeys for the sake o f h ealth (X V ); it is in this letter th a t he fleetingly voices a p oet’s w orst nig h tm are, a failure of the springs o f lan g u ag e.141 T h ere is after all no specific against this b o re­ dom , though retirem ent to the countryside is certainly an alleviation (X, X IV , X V I). B ut he knows th a t the only cure lies in the achieve­ m ent o f aequanimitas, a notion em phasized in the last lines o f X I and X V I II (where he does not claim to have succeeded). T h e countryside forms an im p o rta n t elem ent in all o f H o ra c e ’s po­ etry. It usually provides a re treat from the fray, a notion found in the opening lines o f the first poem (1.5 ‘la te t abditus ag ro ’). H orace fre­ qu en tly m akes it plain th a t he is w riting from the co u n try (2.1, 7.1, 10.2, X II I) o r finds him self relu ctan tly in the city (X IV ). H e lovingly describes the setting o f his estate in the S abine co u n try (X V I), and does not miss details o f n a tu ra l beauty, like the sheen an d fragrance o f grass (10.19; an observation w orthy of V irgil in the Georgies). Y et for all his devotion to his life in the co u n try it is h a rd to im agine him expressing V irgil’s wish a t Georgic 2.485—6 ‘ru ra m ihi et rigui p lacean t in uallibus am nes, | flum ina am em siluasque inglorius’. Such ard o u r is not to be sought in H orace, for the countryside did not feed his im agi­ n atio n as it did V irgil’s. O n the o th er h a n d , his feeling for it is genuine enough an d perhaps closer to w h a t m any o f his readers felt, nam ely th a t it provided a ‘n ot-quite-absolute re tre a t’142 from the cares o f busi-

140 See L.’s edition of Sermones p. 555 and A. La Penna, Orazio e la morale mondana europea (Florence 1968) 135-42. 141 See 15.20η. 142 The phrase is Brower’s; his discussion of Horace’s feel for the countryside is ably balanced (176, n. 122 above).

5. T H E M E S

47

ness and so gave a m an the chance, if he would b u t take it, to be more truly himself, a concept neatly expressed at 14.1 ‘m ihi me reddentis agelli’. It m ay also be noticed th a t the ethos of the countryside is m arkedly different from th a t found in the Odes and even in the Sermones. In the Odes above all the countryside provided a re treat for H orace the poet and he placed him self in a landscape pre-em inently poetic.143 This is even to an ex ten t true o f the second book of Sermones in which he describes him self as a w riter (or a w ould-be w riter) when he is in the co u n try .144 In the first epistle, as we have seen, he claims to have put poetry aside; in line w ith this new direction, the countryside no longer serves to p rom ote poetic com position. Almost as if to draw attention to the change, the only w riter and poet set in the countryside is Albius. It seems therefore a m isjudgem ent w hen Schütz, for instance, says th at the praise o f a nemus at 10.7 has regard to H o race’s poetic calling; th at is true o f C. 1.1.30 an d 4.2.30, b u t he now here refers to his ‘form er’ vocation in the letter to Fuscus. By the sam e token, R. F. T hom as overstates his case w hen he finds the epistolary landscape in X V I an ‘ideal poetic setting’.145 R a th e r H orace, his true poetry now behind him , finds in the countryside advantages exclusively m oral, above all th a t in d ep en d en ce w hich is given its most resonant statem ent at 10.8 ‘uiuo et reg n o ’, w here each verb is a distillation o f themes developed m ore fully elsewhere. T h e solitude o f the country proves m ore gener­ ally beneficial. T h ere we m ay read m orally im proving literature (7.12), H o m er say; there we m ay learn independence and balance of m ind so as to live to ourselves: ‘m ihi u iu a m ’ (18.107). This aspect of the countryside has the m erit o f being m ore widely available to his readers, who, after all, are not all poets. B ut we all w ant to run our ow n lives in o u r ow n way, and H orace, by reshaping his landscape so as to rem ove a purely personal and poetic advantage, opens it to all of

143 See I. Troxler-Keller, Die Dichterlandschaft des Horaz (Heidelberg 1964). 144 So, e.g., at S. 2.3.4-12 and 6.16-17 ergo ubi me in montis et in arcem ex urbe remoui \ quid prius illustrem satiris musaque pedestri? 145 R. F. Thomas, Lands and peoples in Roman poetry: the ethnographical tradition (Cambridge Philological Society Supplement q, Cambridge 1982) 17; he als° detects suggestions of the secluded world of the poet in the word latebrae (16.15). The need however to observe generic distinction is rightly stressed by E. W. Leach in A.J.P. 114 (1993) 275.

INTRODUCTION

48

6. T H E O R G A N I Z A T I O N O F T H E B O O K Poets in R om e first ‘published’ their poem s by d istrib u tin g them am ong friends for their am usem ent, b u t also for com m ent an d criti­ cism; H orace, for instance, gave his to Q uintilius for his advice (AP 4 3 8 -9 ). I t is clear from this practice th a t each poem h ad to m ake sense purely in term s o f itself. O nce the individual pieces w ere collected into a book, however, it was possible to m ake cross-references to earlier, ex tan t poems. C atullus, for instance, replies to critics o f his ‘kissing’ poems (5 and 7) in a later piece (16); his practice in the la tte r poem is instructive, for even if the earlier ones were lost we should still know w h a t the p o in t at issue was. V irgil works sim ilarly w hen, a t the end of his fifth Eclogue, he quotes p a rt o f the opening lines o f the second and third. H orace follows this trad itio n in the first book o f Sermones. H e criticized Lucilius in w h at is now the fourth poem o f the collection. T h a t piece m ust have circulated independently for a while since it a ttra cted adverse com m ent which H orace tries to mollify w ith a fuller account o f his a ttitu d e to his m odel in w h at is now the ten th an d last piece in the collection. T h e relationship betw een poet an d audience was a lively p a rt o f the literary life o f the d ay th a t the book could reflect. T h e practice o f publishing one’s ow n poem s in book form suggested a new artistic strategy, the arran g e m e n t o f the individual pieces in a satisfying order. I t is a pity th a t we ca n n o t be sure o f having the first poetry book in R om e, C atu llu s’ Carmina, in the exact form w hich he intended. V irgil’s Eclogues by default offer the starting-place for the reliable study o f the p o et’s interest in the design o f his collection.146 W h at strikes all students o f late R ep u b lican lite ratu re is the poets’ fondness for collections founded upon a m ultiple o f five:147 the Eclogues, the first book o f Sermones, the first book of T ibullus all have ten poems; the second and third books o f Odes have tw enty an d th irty respectively, the fourth fifteen. T h e tw enty epistles thus m ain tain an established tradition.

146 Various theories are discussed by N. Rudd in Lines of enquiry (Cambridge 1976) 1 19- 4 4 ·

147 Indeed, not just poets, for Livy used pentads and decades of books to organize his history.

6. T H E O R G A N I Z A T I O N O F T H E B O O K

49

N um bers a p a rt, the form at o f the book offered the poet a chance to fix the o rd er o f his pieces an d at least invite the read er to adhere to it (browsers will always subvert design). M oreover, it is clear th at the ability to fix the form at encouraged the com position o f some poems to occupy a p a rtic u la r place, usually at the beginning or end, poems o f d ed icatio n and epilogues. These poems often cam e to serve a func­ tion o f general in tro d u ctio n or conclusion, standing as they do in the privileged position o f doorkeepers. T hey advertise the poet’s wares, his them es and literary principles. L ast poem s m ay offer a sum m ing up, w ith some b io graphical inform ation as in the last epigram in P ro p ertiu s’ first book.148 By the tim e he cam e to collect together his verse letters, H orace had h ad considerable experience in the arran g in g o f his books and it is not unreaso n ab le to detect his artistry in this as in every other aspect o f his w ork.149 T h e first letter is clearly an advertisem ent o f the poet’s new spiritual direction, an account o f its origin and the effect it has upon his w riting. T h e addressee is M aecenas, who is also therefore the dedi­ catee o f the book. B ut there is a difference from o ther such dedications. U sually the poet says th a t the dedicatee has prom pted or encouraged the poem s now offered to the public. H ere, however, H orace explains w hy he can n o t produce the sort o f poems his old friend would like to have. T his novel u n d ed icatio n prepares us for the novelty o f the collec­ tion o f verse epistles itself. A t the o th er end o f the book stands the one outsider. T he scholiasts were rig h t to see th a t the address to the slave/book is not epistolary because the rep ro b ate is p re tty clearly in his m aster’s presence. This has im plications for the supposed p a tte rn o f arran g em en t o f the rest of the collection. T h e tw entieth poem is designed to be last, like V irgil’s ten th Eclogue. H o race takes adv an tag e o f the trad itio n o f offering p er­ sonal details at the close and he even gives his age. I f this piece is rightly set a p a rt from its fellows, some design for the rest leaps to the eye. 148 For Horace’s lyric epilogues see Fraenkel 297—3°7 an(l I°r the tradition of personal statement at the end of a long poem or collection see N—H on C. 2.20 p. 335, where the whimsicality of the last epistle is noted. 149 See G. Kettner, Die Episteln des Horaz (Berlin 1900) 33-8; Fraenkel 31415; La Penna (n. 140) 155; Maurach (n. 120); L. Herrmann, Lat. 28 (1969) 372-7; O. A. W. Dilke, A.N.R.W . 11 31.3.1839-42.

50

INTRODUCTION

T h e n in eteen th letter is, like the first, addressed to M aecenas and again its them e is literatu re, especially th a t lyric poetry of w hich he w anted m ore. B ut th a t is m erged in the central idea o f true in d ep en ­ dence of spirit, here set against the traditions o f poetic im itation. T hus H orace blends to g eth er his them es to produce a credo bo th artistic an d m oral: ‘qui sibi fidet, dux reget exam en’. M aecenas is an ap p ro p ria te recipient of such reflections, for, as docte in the opening line hints, he symbolizes H o ra ce’s ideal audience, the only one who really knows and understands, the true connoisseur. T h e placem ent o f this poem gives prom inence to the p o e t’s personal ideals. T h e n in eteenth letter, m oreover, is so placed before the epilogue as to rep eat the th em atic arran g e m e n t o f the last tw o poem s o f the second book o f Odes. T h ere too the pen u ltim ate poem focussed on H orace as poet, b u t it stressed, ap p ro p riately to the lyric genre, his inspiration; the m ore m u n d an e letter treats o f his place in the literary trad itio n and the right use o f im itation. T h e last poem o f each book dwells upon fame a n d success, b u t the ode still deals w ith H orace the p oet an d his success as a w riter, w hereas the epistle, conform ably to the ch a ra c te r o f the whole collection, em phasizes the position he has achieved in R o m an society. M oreover, if the p en u ltim ate epistle is taken together w ith the epilogue, an odd detail will be noticed. In his biographical sketch (2 0 .2 0 -8 ), there is no reference to his poetic achievem ent, as there had been in the last ode o f the second book. T his w ould be strange h ad n o t the preceding epistle focussed u p o n th a t very issue; the p oint does not need to be m ade again. In a sense then, the epilogue takes its predecessor as read. M oving inw ards from beginning an d end, we find th a t the second and eighteenth poem s are bo th dedicated to the sam e m an, Lollius; he is only a little less privileged th a n M aecenas. T h e placem ent ju st w ith ­ in the fram e o f these pieces strikes no one as accidental, for once again the them es seem to have a p a rtic u la r prom inence, m oral edu catio n in II an d the best choices in the conduct o f o n e’s life in X V I II. M oreover the second letter seems to take up a line o f th o u g h t only ad u m b ra ted in the first.150 A t the o th er end of the collection X V I I I is obviously sim ilar in them e to its predecessor; now some m ight have expected 150 See the end note to II.

6. T H E O R G A N I Z A T I O N O F T H E B O O K

51

poems on related topics to be kept ap a rt on the principle o f uariatio, but the ju x tap o sitio n , w hich m ust be deliberate, encourages the reader to take the poem s as com plem entary (indeed Porphyrio ran the two to­ g eth er in his com m en tary). Epistle X V II offers the fundam ental justifi­ cation for the role o f the client w hich X V I II pursues into the grey area w here tensions arise betw een friends of roughly equal social status. H orace binds these two poem s even m ore closely together by rem ind­ ing Scaeva at the beginning o f his letter and Lollius at the end o f his of the attractio n s o f a retired life. So far so good. A m easure o f agreem ent will be found supporting the account o f the p lacem ent o f the poems ju st discussed. F u rth er pursuit o f p attern s com m ands less assent, not least because it always seems to exact a terrible cost in reducing poems to their p arap h rasab le content; the Odes have suffered a good deal from this sort o f trea tm e n t.151 A n o th er ap p ro ach to the organization of the collection has sought ra th e r for a lin ear progression o f the th o u g h t.152 It is undeniable th at the closing lines o f X V I II enunciate a m oral program m e, an u n d er­ taking to pursue aequanimitas. W h at precedes can be regarded as the stages, not w ith o u t backslidings, by w hich H orace makes his way to this now clarified goal. So long as no scheme is applied too rigidly, it is not im possible to en tertain a variety o f p atterns and interpretations at the sam e time. T h u s X seems to some to be given special prom inence in th a t it closes the first half, and so H orace dedicates it to a favoured them e, the im p o rtan ce to him o f the life in the country. O n the other h an d , as E. J . K enney has argued, Epistles X to X IV form a group in w hich the chief em phasis lies on the issue o f w hether or not place contributes to happiness; the seem ing consistency o f H orace’s view in these letters is then dem olished in X V .153 As in the assessment o f the shape o f ind ividual poem s, so in the search for the arrangem ent of the collection, it is p erhaps safest to look not only for continuity b u t for design as well. T h e logic o f a predeterm ined argum ent w ould be pro­ foundly u n H o ra tia n .

151 See A. Minarini, Lucidus ordo (Bologna 1989) reviewed in C.R. 42 (1992) 44-5· 152 So Maurach (n. 120), McGann. 153 I.C.S. 2 (1977) 237-9.

52

INTRODUCTION 7. T H E T R A N S M I S S I O N O F T H E T E X T 154

H o race’s rise to the status o f a classic a u th o r appears to have been g rad u al. T h e first-century a .d . scholar M . V alerius P robus w orked on the text, b u t it goes beyond the evidence - all trace o f his H o ra tia n scholarship has vanished - to say th a t he produced an edition for gen­ eral consum ption. C om m entaries were w ritten to elucidate the p o e t’s text, w hich in J u v e n a l’s tim e is a school book (7.227; cf. 20.17 f°r H o race’s d read o f this fate).155 In spite o f this, there is no M S o f his poem s earlier th an the n in th century and by then num erous errors h ad entered the trad itio n . F rom th a t tim e on the n u m b er o f copies o f his works increased and new com m entaries for a new readership were p ro d u ced .156 Scribal errors w ere shared a n d tran sm itted bo th v erti­ cally and horizontally. A ttem pts used to be m ade to try to g roup the large n u m b er o f M S witnesses into classes, b u t such endeavours now find little su p p o rt am ong textual critics, who prefer to base their texts u p o n a n u m b er o f M SS deem ed to offer v a ria n t readings w orthy of consideration (Brink believes th a t it is the variants, no t the M SS th a t fall into classes157). T h e text o f the present edition reproduces none of the cu rren tly available texts in all details, b u t is founded upon the O xford edition o f W ickham —G a rro d and the T e u b n e r edition o f D. R . Shackleton Bailey. T h e la tte r has the add itio n al m erit o f reinstating p arag rap h s in the hexam eter poems. 154 See R. J. T arrant’s account in L. D. Reynolds (ed.), Texts and transmission (Oxford 1983) 182-6. 155 The tradition of ancient comment is preserved in the dilapidated remains of Porphyrio and pseudo-Acro. 156 There are a number of mediaeval commentaries only now in the process of being edited and published. 157 See his edition of AP, p. 20.

Q. H O R A T I F L A C C I E P I S T V L A R V M LIBER PRI MVS

Q, H O R A T I F L A C C I E P I S T V L A R V M LIBER PRI MVS i

Prim a dicte mihi, sum m a dicende Cam ena, spectatum satis et donatum iam rude quaeris, M aecenas, iterum antiquo me includere ludo? non eadem est aetas, non mens. Veianius armis Herculis ad postem fixis latet abditus agro, ne populum extrem a totiens exoret harena. est mihi purgatam crebro qui personet aurem: ‘solue senescentem m ature sanus equum, ne peccet ad extrem um ridendus et ilia ducat.’ nunc itaque et uersus et cetera ludicra pono: quid uerum atque decens, curo et rogo et omnis in hoc sum: condo et compono quae mox deprom ere possim, ac ne forte roges, quo me duce, quo lare tuter: nullius addictus iurare in uerba magistri, quo me cum que rapit tempestas, deferor hospes. nunc agilis fio et mersor ciuilibus undis uirtutis uerae custos rigidusque satelles, nunc in Aristippi furtim praecepta relabor et mihi res, non me rebus, subiungere conor. V t nox longa quibus m entitur amica diesque lenta uidetur opus debentibus, ut piger annus pupillis quos dura prem it custodia m atrum , sic mihi tard a fluunt ingrataque tem pora quae spem consiliumque m orantur agendi nauiter id quod aeque pauperibus prodest, locupletibus aeque, aeque neglectum pueris senibusque nocebit, restat ut his ego me ipse regam solerque elementis.

55

5

10

15

20

25

56

Q. H O R A T I F L A C C I

Non possis oculo quantum contendere Lynceus: non tam en idcirco contem nas lippus inungi; nec, quia desperes inuicti m em bra Glyconis, nodosa corpus nolis prohibere cheragra, est quadam prodire tenus, si non d a tu r ultra. Feruet auaritia miseroque cupidine pectus: sunt uerba et uoces, quibus hunc lenire dolorem possis et m agnam morbi deponere partem , laudis amore tumes: sunt certa piacula, quae te ter pure lecto poterunt recreare libello, inuidus, iracundus, iners, uinosus, am ator, nemo adeo ferus est, ut non mitescere possit, si modo culturae patientem commodet aurem . Virtus est uitium fugere et sapientia prim a stultitia caruisse. uides, quae m axim a credis esse mala, exiguum censum turpem que repulsam, quanto deuites anim i capitisque labore: impiger extremos curris m ercator ad Indos, per m are pauperiem fugiens, per saxa, per ignes: ne cures ea quae stulte miraris et optas, discere et audire et meliori credere non uis? quis circum pagos et circum com pita pugnax m agna coronari contem nat O lym pia, cui spes, cui sit condicio dulcis sine puluere palmae? uilius argentum est auro, uirtutibus aurum . Ό ciues, ciues, quaerenda pecunia prim um est; uirtus post num m os’: haec Ianus summus ab imo prodocet, haec recinunt iuuenes dictata senesque. [laeuo suspensi loculos tabulam que lacerto] est animus tibi, sunt mores, est lingua fidesque, sed quadringentis sex septem milia desunt: plebs eris, at pueri ludentes ‘rex eris’ aiunt ‘si recte facies’, hic murus aeneus esto: nil conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa. Roscia, dic sodes, melior lex an puerorum est

EP IS T V L A R V M LIBER PRIMVS

nenia, quae regnum recte facientibus offert, et m aribus Curiis et decantata Camillis? isne tibi melius suadet, qui, rem facias, rem, si possis, recte, si non, quocum que modo, rem, ut propius spectes lacrimosa poem ata Pupi, an qui Fortunae te responsare superbae liberum et erectum praesens ho rtatu r et aptat? Quodsi me populus R om anus forte roget, cur non ut porticibus sic iudiciis fruar isdem nec sequar aut fugiam quae diligit ipse uel odit: olim quod uolpes aegroto cauta leoni respondit, referam: ‘quia me uestigia terrent, om nia te aduersum spectantia, nulla retrorsum .’ belua m ultorum est capitum , nam quid sequar aut quem? pars hom inum gestit conducere publica; sunt qui crustis et pomis uiduas uenentur auaras excipiantque senes, quos in uiuaria m ittant; multis occulto crescit res fenore, uerum esto aliis alios rebus studiisque teneri: idem eadem possunt horam durare probantes? ‘nullus in orbe sinus Bais praelucet amoenis’ si dixit diues, lacus et m are sentit amorem festinantis eri; cui si uitiosa libido fecerit auspicium, cras ferram enta T eanum tolletis, fabri, lectus genialis in aula est: nil ait esse prius, melius nil caelibe uita; si non est, iurat bene solis esse maritis. quo teneam uoltus m utantem Protea nodo? quid pauper? ride: m u tat cenacula, lectos, balnea, tonsores, conducto nauigio aeque nauseat ac locuples, quem ducit priua triremis. Si curatus inaequali tonsore capillos occurri, rides; si forte subucula pexae trita subest tunicae uel si toga dissidet im par, rides: quid? mea cum pugnat sententia secum,

57

65

70

75

80

85



95

Q, H O R A T I F L A C C I

quod petiit spernit, repetit quod nuper omisit, aestuat et uitae disconuenit ordine toto, diruit, aedificat, m utat q u ad rata rotundis? insanire putas sollemnia me neque rides nec medici credis nec curatoris egere a praetore dati, rerum tutela m earum cum sis et praue sectum stomacheris ob unguem de te pendentis, te respicientis amici. Ad summam: sapiens uno m inor est Ioue, diues, liber, honoratus, pulcher, rex denique regum, praecipue sanus, nisi cum pituita molesta est.

ioo

105

II T roiani belli scriptorem, M axim e Lolli, dum tu declamas Romae, Praeneste relegi; qui, quid sit pulchrum , quid turpe, quid utile, quid non, planius ac melius Chrysippo et C rantore dicit. cur ita crediderim, nisi quid te detinet, audi. Fabula qua Paridis propter n a rra tu r amorem G raecia barbariae lento collisa duello, stultorum regum et populorum continet aestus. A ntenor censet belli praecidere causam: quid Paris? ut saluus regnet uiuatque beatus, cogi posse negat. Nestor componere lites inter Peliden festinat et inter Atriden: hunc amor, ira quidem com m uniter urit utrum que. quidquid delirant reges, plectuntur Achiui. seditione, dolis, scelere atque libidine et ira Iliacos intra muros peccatur et extra. Rursus, quid uirtus et quid sapientia possit, utile proposuit nobis exem plar Vlixem, qui dom itor Troiae m ultorum prouidus urbes et mores hom inum inspexit latum que per aequor,

5

IO

!5

20

E P IS T V L A R V M LIBER PRIMVS

dum sibi, dum sociis reditum parat, aspera m ulta pertulit, aduersis rerum immersabilis undis. Sirenum uoces et Circae pocula nosti; quae si cum sociis stultus cupidusque bibisset, sub dom ina m eretrice fuisset turpis et excors; uixisset canis im m undus uel amica luto sus. nos num erus sumus et fruges consumere nati, sponsi Penelopae nebulones Alcinoique in cute curanda plus aequo operata iuuentus, cui pulchrum fuit in medios dorm ire dies et ad strepitum citharae cessantem ducere somnum. V t iugulent hominem, surgunt de nocte latrones: ut te ipsum serues, non expergisceris? atqui si noles sanus, curres hydropicus; et ni posces ante diem librum cum lumine, si non intendes anim um studiis et rebus honestis, inuidia uel am ore uigil torquebere. nam cur quae laedunt oculum, festinas demere, siquid est anim um , differs curandi tempus in annum? dim idium facti, qui coepit, habet: sapere aude, incipe, uiuendi qui recte prorogat horam, rusticus exspectat, dum defluat amnis; at ille lab itu r et labetur in omne uolubilis aeuum. Q u aeritur argentum puerisque beata creandis uxor et incultae pacan tu r uomere siluae: quod satis est cui contingit, nihil amplius optet, non domus et fundus, non aeris aceruus et auri aegroto domini deduxit corpore febres, non anim o curas; ualeat possessor oportet, si com portatis rebus bene cogitat uti. qui cupit aut m etuit, iuuat illum sic domus et res ut lippum pictae tabulae, fomenta podagram , auriculas citharae collecta sorde dolentis, sincerum est nisi uas, quodcum que infundis acescit.

60

Q.. H O R A T I F L A C C I

Sperne uoluptates: nocet em pta dolore uoluptas. semper auarus eget: certum uoto pete finem, inuidus alterius macrescit rebus opimis; inuidia Siculi non inuenere tyranni maius torm entum , qui non m oderabitur irae, infectum uolet esse, dolor quod suaserit et mens, dum poenas odio per uim festinat inulto, ira furor breuis est: anim um rege; qui nisi paret, im perat; hunc frenis, hunc tu compesce catena. Fingit equum tenera docilem ceruice magister ire uiam, qua m onstret eques; uenaticus, ex quo tempore ceruinam pellem latrauit in aula, m ilitat in siluis catulus, nunc adbibe puro pectore uera puer, nunc te melioribus offer, quo semel est im buta recens seruabit odorem testa diu. quodsi cessas aut strenuus anteis, nec tardum opperior nec praecedentibus insto.

55

60

65

70

III Iuli Flore, quibus terrarum militet oris Claudius Augusti priuignus, scire laboro. T hracane uos H ebrusque niuali compede uinctus an freta uicinas inter currentia turres an pingues Asiae campi collesque m orantur? Q uid studiosa cohors operum struit? hoc quoque curo, quis sibi res gestas Augusti scribere sumit, bella quis et paces longum diffundit in aeuum? quid Titius, R om ana breui uenturus in ora, Pindarici fontis qui non expalluit haustus, fastidire lacus et riuos ausus apertos? ut ualet? ut m em init nostri? fidibusne Latinis Thebanos aptare modos studet auspice M usa, an tragica desaeuit et am pullatur in arte? quid mihi Celsus agit, monitus m ultum que monendus,

5

10

J5

E PIS TVLARVM LIBER PRIMVS

priuatas ut quaerat opes et tangere uitet scripta, Palatinus quaecum que recepit Apollo, ne, si forte suas repetitum uenerit olim grex auium plumas, m oueat cornicula risum furtiuis n u d ata coloribus? ipse quid audes? quae circumuolitas agilis thyma? non tibi paruum ingenium, non incultum est et turpiter hirtum: seu linguam causis acuis seu ciuica iura respondere paras seu condis am abile carmen, prim a feres hederae uictricis praem ia, quodsi frigida curarum fomenta relinquere posses, quo te caelestis sapientia duceret, ires, hoc opus, hoc studium parui properemus et ampli, si patriae uolumus, si nobis uiuere cari. Debes hoc etiam rescribere, sit tibi curae quantae conueniat M unatius, an male sarta gratia nequiquam coit et rescinditur ac uos seu calidus sanguis seu rerum inscitia uexat indom ita ceruice feros? ubicum que locorum uiuitis, indigni fraternum rum pere foedus, pascitur in uestrum reditum uotiua iuuenca. IV Albi, nostrorum sermonum candide iudex, quid nunc te dicam facere in regione Pedana? scribere quod Cassi Parmensis opuscula uincat an tacitum siluas inter reptare salubres curantem quidquid dignum sapiente bonoque est? Non tu corpus eras sine pectore: di tibi formam, di tibi diuitias dederunt artem que fruendi. quid uoueat dulci nutricula maius alumno, qui sapere et fari possit quae sentiat et cui gratia fama ualetudo contingat abunde et m undus uictus non deficiente crumina?

62

Q.. H O R A T I F L A C C I

inter spem curam que, timores inter et iras omnem crede diem tibi diluxisse supremum: grata superueniet quae non sperabitur hora. Me pinguem et nitidum bene curata cute uises, cum ridere uoles Epicuri de grege porcum. V Si potes Archiacis conuiua recum bere lectis nec modica cenare times holus omne patella, supremo te sole domi, T orquate, manebo, uina bibes iterum T auro diffusa palustres inter M inturnas Sinuessanumque Petrinum , si melius quid habes, arcesse, uel im perium fer. iam dudum splendet focus et tibi m unda supellex: mitte leuis spes et certam ina diuitiarum et Moschi causam: cras nato Caesare festus dat ueniam som num que dies; im pune licebit aestiuam sermone benigno tendere noctem. Q uo mihi fortunam , si non conceditur uti? parcus ob heredis curam nim ium que seuerus adsidet insano: potare et spargere flores incipiam patiarque uel inconsultus haberi, quid non ebrietas dissignat? operta recludit, spes iubet esse ratas, ad proelia trudit inertem , sollicitis animis onus eximit, addocet artes, fecundi calices quem non fecere disertum, contracta quem non in paupertate solutum? Haec ego procurare et idoneus im peror et non inuitus, ne turpe toral, ne sordida m appa corruget nares, ne non et cantharus et lanx ostendat tibi te, ne fidos inter amicos sit qui dicta foras eliminet, ut coeat par iungaturque pari: Butram tibi Septiciumque et nisi cena prior potiorque puella Sabinum

E P IS T V L A R V M LIBER PRIMVS

detinet adsum am ; locus est et pluribus umbris; sed nimis a rta prem unt olidae conuiuia caprae. T u quotus esse uelis rescribe et rebus omissis atria seruantem postico falle clientem.

63

30

VI Nil adm irari prope res est una, Numici, solaque, quae possit facere et seruare beatum , hunc solem et stellas et decedentia certis tem pora momentis sunt qui formidine nulla im buti spectent: quid censes m unera terrae, quid maris extremos A rabas ditantis et Indos, ludicra quid, plausus et amici dona Quiritis, quo spectanda modo, quo sensu credis et ore? qui timet his aduersa, fere m iratur eodem quo cupiens pacto; pauor est utrubique molestus, im prouisa simul species exterret utrum que. gaudeat an doleat, cupiat m etuatne, quid ad rem, si, quidquid uidit melius peiusue sua spe, defixis oculis anim oque et corpore torpet? insani sapiens nomen ferat, aequus iniqui, u ltra quam satis est uirtutem si petat ipsam. I nunc, argentum et m arm or uetus aeraque et artes suspice, cum gemmis Tyrios m irare colores; gaude quod spectant oculi te mille loquentem; nauus m ane Forum et uespertinus pete tectum, ne plus frum enti dotalibus em etat agris M utus et - indignum , quod sit peioribus ortus hic tibi sit potius quam tu mirabilis illi, quidquid sub terra est, in apricum proferet aetas, defodiet condetque nitentia, cum bene notum porticus A grippae, uia te conspexerit Appi, ire tam en restat, N um a quo deuenit et Ancus. Si latus aut renes m orbo tem ptantur acuto,

10

15

20

25

64

Q. H O R A T I F L A C C I

quaere fugam morbi, uis recte uiuere —quis non?: si uirtus hoc una potest dare, fortis omissis hoc age deliciis. V irtutem uerba putas et lucum ligna: caue ne portus occupet alter, ne Cibyratica, ne Bithyna negotia perdas; mille talenta rotundentur, totidem altera porro et tertia succedant et quae pars quadret aceruum . scilicet uxorem cum dote fidemque et amicos et genus et formam regina Pecunia donat ac bene num m atum decorat Suadela Venusque. mancupiis locuples eget aeris C appadocum rex: ne fueris hic tu. chlamydes Lucullus, u t aiunt, si posset centum scaenae praebere rogatus, ‘qui possum tot?’ ait; ‘tam en et quaeram et quot habebo m ittam ’; post paulo scribit sibi milia quinque esse domi chlam ydum; partem uel tolleret omnes. exilis domus est, ubi non et m ulta supersunt et dom inum fallunt et prosunt furibus, ergo si res sola potest facere et seruare beatum , hoc primus repetas opus, hoc postremus omittas. Si fortunatum species et gratia praestat, m ercem ur seruum, qui dictet nom ina, laeuum qui fodicet latus et cogat trans pondera dextram porrigere: ‘hic m ultum in Fabia ualet, ille Velina; cui libet hic fasces dabit eripietque curule cui uolet im portunus ebur.’ ‘frater’ ‘p a ter’ adde; ut cuique est aetas, ita quem que facetus adopta. Si bene qui cenat bene uiuit, lucet, eamus quo ducit gula, piscemur, uenem ur, ut olim Gargilius, qui mane plagas, uenabula, seruos differtum transire Forum C am pum que iubebat, unus ut e multis populo spectante referret em ptum mulus aprum , crudi tum idique lauem ur, quid deceat, quid non, obliti, Caerite cera

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

EP IS T V L A R V M LIBER PRIMVS

digni, rem igium uitiosum Ithacensis Vlixei, cui potior p atria fuit interdicta uoluptas. Si, M im nerm us uti censet, sine amore iocisque nil est iucundum , uiuas in amore iocisque. Viue, uale. siquid nouisti rectius istis, candidus imperti; si nil, his utere mecum. V II Q uinque dies tibi pollicitus me rure futurum Sextilem totum m endax desideror, atqui si me uiuere uis sanum recteque ualentem, quam mihi das aegro, dabis aegrotare timenti, M aecenas, ueniam , dum ficus prim a calorque dissignatorem decorat lictoribus atris, dum pueris omnis pater et m atercula pallet officiosaque sedulitas et opella forensis adducit febres et testam enta resignat, quodsi brum a niues Albanis illinet agris, ad m are descendet uates tuus et sibi parcet contractusque leget: te, dulcis amice, reuiset cum Zephyris, si concedes, et hirundine prima. Non quo more piris uesci C alaber iubet hospes tu me fecisti locupletem: ‘uescere sodes.’ ‘iam satis est.’ ‘at tu, quantum uis, tolle.’ ‘benigne.’ ‘non inuisa feres pueris m unuscula paruis.’ ‘tam teneor dono, quam si dim ittar onustus.’ ‘ut libet: haec porcis hodie com edenda relinques.’ prodigus et stultus donat quae spernit et odit: haec seges ingratos tulit et feret omnibus annis, uir bonus et sapiens dignis ait esse paratus, nec tam en ignorat, quid distent aera lupinis: dignum praestabo me etiam pro laude merentis, quodsi me noles usquam discedere, reddes forte latus, nigros angusta fronte capillos,

66

Q. H O R A T I F L A C C I

reddes dulce loqui, reddes ridere decorum et inter uina fugam C inarae m aerere proteruae. Forte per angustam tenuis uulpecula rim am repserat in cum eram frum enti, pastaque rursus ire foras pleno tendebat corpore frustra, cui mustela procul ‘si uis’ ait ‘effugere istinc, m acra cauum repetes artum , quem m acra subisti.’ hac ego si compellor imagine, cuncta resigno: nec somnum plebis laudo satur altilium nec otia diuitiis A rabum liberrim a muto, saepe uerecundum laudasti, rexque paterque audisti coram, nec uerbo parcius absens: inspice, si possum donata reponere laetus. H aud m ale Telemachus, proles sapientis Vlixei: ‘non est aptus equis Ithace locus, ut neque planis porrectus spatiis nec m ultae prodigus herbae: Atride, magis apta tibi tua dona relinquam .’ paruum parua decent: mihi iam non regia Roma, sed uacuum T ibur placet aut imbelle T arentum . Strenuus et fortis causisque Philippus agendis clarus ab officiis octauam circiter horam dum redit atque Foro nim ium distare Carinas iam grandis natu queritur, conspexit, ut aiunt, adrasum quendam uacua tonsoris in um bra cultello proprios purgantem leniter ungues. ‘D em etri’ - puer hic non laeue iussa Philippi accipiebat - ‘abi, quaere et refer, unde domo, quis, cuius fortunae, quo sit patre quoue p atrono.’ it, redit et narrat, Volteium nomine M enam , praeconem, tenui censu, sine crimine, notum et properare loco et cessare et quaerere et uti, gaudentem paruisque sodalibus et lare certo et ludis et post decisa negotia Cam po. ‘scitari libet ex ipso quodcum que refers: dic ad cenam ueniat.’ non sane credere M ena,

30

35

40

45

50

55

EP IS TVLARVM LIBER PRIMVS

m irari secum tacitus, quid multa? ‘benigne’ respondet, ‘neget ille mihi?’ ‘negat improbus et te neglegit aut horret.’ V olteium mane Philippus uilia uendentem tunicato scruta popello occupat et saluere iubet prior; ille Philippo excusare laborem et m ercennaria uincla, quod non m ane dom um uenisset, denique quod non prouidisset eum. ‘sic ignouisse putato me tibi, si cenas hodie m ecum .’ ‘ut libet.’ ‘ergo post nonam uenies; nunc i, rem strenuus auge.’ ut uentum ad cenam est, dicenda tacenda locutus tandem dorm itum dim ittitur, hic ubi saepe occultum uisus decurrere piscis ad ham um , m ane cliens et iam certus conuiua, iubetur ru ra suburbana indictis comes ire Latinis. impositus mannis aruum caelum que Sabinum non cessat laudare, uidet ridetque Philippus, et sibi dum requiem, dum risus undique quaerit, dum septem donat sestertia, m utua septem prom ittit, persuadet uti m ercetur agellum. m ercatur, ne te longis am bagibus ultra quam satis est morer: ex nitido fit rusticus atque sulcos et uineta crepat mera, p raeparat ulmos, im m oritur studiis et am ore senescit habendi. uerum ubi oues furto, m orbo periere capellae, spem m entita seges, bos est enectus arando: offensus dam nis media de nocte caballum arripit iratusque Philippi tendit ad aedes. quem simul adspexit scabrum intonsum que Philippus, ‘du ru s’ ait, ‘Voltei, nimis attentusque uideris esse m ihi.’ ‘pol me miserum, patrone, uocares, si uelles’ inquit ‘uerum mihi ponere nomen, quod te per Genium dextram que deosque Penates obsecro et obtestor, uitae me redde priori.’ Q ui semel agnouit, quantum dimissa petitis

67

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

68

Q.. H O R A T I F L A C C I

praestent, m ature redeat repetatque relicta, metiri se quem que suo modulo ac pede uerum est.

V III

Celso gaudere et bene rem gerere A lbinouano M usa rogata refer, comiti scribaeque Neronis. Si quaeret quid agam, dic m ulta et pulchra m inantem uiuere nec recte nec suauiter, haud quia grando contuderit uites oleamue m om orderit aestus, nec quia longinquis arm entum aegrotet in agris; sed quia mente minus ualidus quam corpore toto nil audire uelim, nil discere quod leuet aegrum, fidis offendar medicis, irascar amicis cur me funesto properent arcere ueterno; quae nocuere sequar, fugiam quae profore credam , Rom ae T ibur amem, uentosus T ibure Rom am . Post haec, ut ualeat, quo pacto rem gerat et se, ut placeat iuueni percontare utque cohorti, si dicet ‘recte’, prim um gaudere, subinde praeceptum auriculis hoc instillare memento: ut tu fortunam , sic nos te, Celse, feremus.

IX

Septimius, Claudi, nim irum intellegit unus, quanti me facias; nam cum rogat et prece cogit scilicet ut tibi se laudare et tradere coner dignum mente dom oque legentis honesta Neronis, m unere cum fungi propioris censet amici, quid possim uidet ac nouit me ualdius ipso, m ulta quidem dixi, cur excusatus abirem, sed timui, mea ne finxisse m inora putarer, dissimulator opis propriae, mihi commodus uni.

5

10

15

EP IS TVLARVM LIBER PRIMVS

69

sic ego maioris fugiens opprobria culpae frontis ad urbanae descendi praem ia, quodsi depositum laudas ob amici iussa pudorem, scribe tui gregis hunc et fortem crede bonumque.

io

X Vrbis am atorem Fuscum saluere iubemus ruris amatores, hac in re scilicet una m ultum dissimiles, at cetera paene gemelli fraternis animis, quidquid negat alter, et alter, adnuim us pariter, uetuli notique columbi tu nidum seruas, ego laudo ruris amoeni riuos et musco circum lita saxa nemusque. quid quaeris? uiuo et regno, simul ista reliqui quae uos ad caelum effertis rum ore secundo, utque sacerdotis fugitiuus liba recuso; pane egeo iam mellitis potiore placentis. Viuere naturae si conuenienter oportet ponendaeque domo quaerenda est area primum: nouistine locum potiorem rure beato? est ubi plus tepeant hiemes, ubi gratior aura leniat et rabiem Canis et m om enta Leonis, cum semel accepit solem furibundus acutum? est ubi diuellat somnos minus inuida cura? deterius Libycis olet aut nitet herba lapillis? purior in uicis aqua tendit rum pere plum bum quam quae per pronum trepidat cum m urm ure riuum? nempe inter uarias n u tritu r silua columnas lau d atu rque domus longos quae prospicit agros: n atu ram expellas furca, tam en usque recurret et m ala perrum pet furtim fastidia uictrix. Non qui Sidonio contendere callidus ostro nescit A quinatem potantia uellera fucum certius accipiet dam num propiusue medullis

5

10

15

20

25

quam qui non poterit uero distinguere falsum, quem res plus nimio delectauere secundae, m utatae quatient, siquid m irabere, pones inuitus. fuge magna: licet sub paupere tecto reges et regum uita praecurrere amicos. Ceruus equum pugna melior comm unibus herbis pellebat, donec m inor in certam ine longo im plorauit opes hominis frenum que recepit, sed postquam uictor uiolens discessit ab hoste, non equitem dorso, non frenum depulit ore. sic, qui pauperiem ueritus potiore metallis libertate caret, dom inum uehit im probus atque seruiet aeternum , quia paruo nesciet uti. cui non conueniet sua res, ut calceus olim, si pede maior erit, subuertet, si minor, uret. Laetus sorte tua uiues sapienter, Aristi, nec me dimittes incastigatum , ubi plura cogere quam satis est ac non cessare uidebor. im perat aut seruit collecta pecunia cuique, tortum digna sequi potius quam ducere funem. H aec tibi dictabam post fanum putre V acunae, excepto quod non simul esses, cetera laetus. XI Q pid tibi uisa Chios, Bullati, notaque Lesbos, quid concinna Samos, quid Croesi regia Sardes, Zm yrna quid et Colophon, m aiora m inorane fama? cunctane prae C am po et Tiberino flumine sordent? an uenit in uotum Attalicis ex urbibus una? an Lebedum laudas odio maris atque uiarum? scis, Lebedus quid sit: Gabiis desertior atque Fidenis uicus; tam en illic uiuere uellem oblitusque meorum, obliuiscendus et illis, N eptunum procul e terra spectare furentem.

EP IS T V L A R V M LIBER PRIMVS

Sed neque qui C apua Rom am pedt, imbre lutoque adspersus uolet in caupona uiuere; nec qui frigus collegit, furnos et balnea laudat ut fortunatam plene praestantia uitam ; nec si te ualidus iactauerit Auster in alto, idcirco nauem trans Aegaeum m are uendas. incolumi Rhodos et M ytilene pulchra facit quod paenula solstitio, campestre niualibus auris, per brum am Tiberis, Sextili mense caminus, dum licet ac uoltum seruat F ortuna benignum, R om ae laudetur Samos et Chios et Rhodos absens. T u quam cum que deus tibi fortunauerit horam grata sume m anu neu dulcia differ in annum , ut, quocum que loco fueris, uixisse libenter te dicas; nam si ratio et prudentia curas, non locus effusi late maris arbiter aufert, caelum, non anim um m utant, qui trans m are currunt, strenua nos exercet inertia; nauibus atque quadrigis petimus bene uiuere. quod petis, hic est, est Vlubris, animus si te non deficit aequus. X II Fructibus A grippae Siculis quos colligis, Icci, si recte frueris, non est ut copia maior ab Ioue donari possit tibi, tolle querelas; pauper enim non est, cui rerum suppetit usus, si uentri bene, si lateri est pedibusque tuis, nil diuitiae poterunt regales addere maius, si forte in medio positorum abstemius herbis uiuis et urtica, sic uiues protinus, ut te confestim liquidus Fortunae riuus inauret, uel quia n aturam m utare pecunia nescit, uel quia cuncta putas una uirtute minora. M iram ur, si Democriti pecus edit agellos

cultaque, dum peregre est animus sine corpore uelox, cum tu inter scabiem tantam et contagia lucri nil paruum sapias et adhuc sublimia cures: quae m are compescant causae, quid tem peret annum , stellae sponte sua iussaene uagentur et errent, quid prem at obscurum lunae, quid proferat orbem, quid uelit et possit rerum concordia discors, Empedocles an Stertinium deliret acumen. V erum seu pisces seu porrum et caepe trucidas, utere Pompeio Grospho et, siquid petet, ultro defer: nil Grosphus nisi uerum orabit et aequum , uilis am icorum est annona, bonis ubi quid deest. Ne tam en ignores quo sit R om ana loco res: C antaber Agrippae, Claudi uirtute Neronis Armenius cecidit; ius im perium que Prahates Caesaris accepit genibus minor; aurea fruges Italiae pleno defudit Copia cornu.

15

20

25

XIII V t proficiscentem docui te saepe diuque, Augusto reddes signata uolum ina, Vinni, si ualidus, si laetus erit, si denique poscet; ne studio nostri pecces odium que libellis sedulus importes opera uehem ente minister. si te forte meae grauis uret sarcina chartae, abicito potius quam quo perferre iuberis clitellas ferus impingas Asinaeque paternum cognomen uertas in risum et fabula fias. Viribus uteris per cliuos flum ina lamas. uictor propositi simul ac perueneris illuc, sic positum seruabis onus, ne forte sub ala fasciculum portes librorum , ut rusticus agnum , ut uinosa glomus furtiuae fP irria t lanae, ut cum pilleolo soleas conuiua tribulis.

5

10

J5

EP IS T V L A R V M LIBER PRIMVS

neu uulgo narres te sudauisse ferendo carm ina quae possint oculos auresque m orari Caesaris, oratus m ulta prece nitere porro, uade, uale, caue ne titubes m andataque frangas. X IV Vilice siluarum et mihi me reddentis agelli, quem tu fastidis, habitatum quinque focis et quinque bonos solitum V ariam dim ittere patres, certemus, spinas anim one ego fortius an tu euellas agro, et melior sit H oratius an rus. Me quam uis Lam iae pietas et cura m oratur fratrem maerentis, rapto de fratre dolentis insolabiliter, tam en istuc mens anim usque fert et auet spatiis obstantia rum pere claustra. R ure ego uiuentem , tu dicis in urbe beatum: cui placet alterius, sua nim irum est odio sors, stultus uterque locum im m eritum causatur inique: in culpa est animus, qui se non effugit um quam . tu mediastinus tacita prece rura petebas, nunc urbem et ludos et balnea uilicus optas: me constare mihi scis et discedere tristem, quandocum que trah u n t inuisa negotia Romam. Non eadem m iram ur; eo disconuenit inter m eque et te; nam quae deserta et inhospita tesqua credis, am oena uocat mecum qui sentit, et odit quae tu pulchra putas, fornix tibi et uncta popina incutiunt urbis desiderium, uideo, et quod angulus iste feret piper et tus ocius uua nec uicina subest uinum praebere taberna quae possit tibi, nec m eretrix tibicina, cuius ad strepitum salias terrae grauis; et tam en urges iam pridem non tacta ligonibus arua bouemque disiunctum curas et strictis frondibus exples;

addit opus pigro riuus, si decidit imber, m ulta mole docendus aprico parcere prato. Nunc age, quid nostrum concentum diuidat audi, quem tenues decuere togae nitidique capilli, quem scis immunem Cinarae placuisse rapaci, quem bibulum liquidi m edia de luce Falerni, cena breuis iuuat et prope riuum somnus in herba. nec lusisse pudet, sed non incidere ludum, non istic obliquo oculo mea commoda quisquam limat, non odio obscuro morsuque uenenat: rident uicini glaebas et saxa mouentem . cum seruis urbana diaria rodere mauis, horum tu in num erum uoto ruis: inuidet usum lignorum et pecoris tibi calo argutus et horti. optat ephippia bos piger optat arare caballus: quam scit uterque, libens, censebo, exerceat artem.

30

35

40

XV Q uae sit hiems Veliae, quod caelum, V ala, Salerni, quorum hom inum regio et qualis uia —nam mihi Baias M usa superuacuas Antonius, et tam en illis me facit inuisum, gelida cum perluor unda per m edium frigus, sane m urteta relinqui dictaque cessantem neruis elidere m orbum sulpura contemni uicus gemit, inuidus aegris qui caput et stom achum supponere fontibus audent Clusinis Gabiosque petunt et frigida rura. m utandus locus est et deuersoria nota praeteragendus equus, ‘quo tendis? non mihi Cumas est iter aut Baias’ laeua stomachosus habena dicet eques; sed equis frenato est auris in ore - ; m aior utrum populum frum enti copia pascat, collectosne bibant imbres puteosne perennes iugis aquae - nam uina nihil m oror illius orae.

5

10

15

EP IS T V L A R V M LIBER PRIMVS

rure meo possum quiduis perferre padque: ad m are cum ueni, generosum et lene requiro, quod curas abigat, quod cum spe diuite m anet in uenas anim um que meum, quod uerba ministret, quod me Lucanae iuuenem com m endet amicae - ; tractus uter pluris lepores, uter educet apros; u tra magis pisces et echinos aequora celent, pinguis ut inde dom um possim Phaeaxque reuerti, scribere te nobis, tibi nos accredere par est. M aenius, ut rebus m aternis atque paternis fortiter absumptis urbanus coepit haberi, scurra uagus, non qui certum praesepe teneret, im pransus non qui ciuem dinosceret hoste, quaelibet in quemuis opprobria fingere saeuus, pernicies et tempestas barathrum que macelli, quidquid quaesierat uentri donabat auaro. hic ubi nequitiae fautoribus et timidis nil aut paulum abstulerat, patinas cenabat omasi uilis et agninae, tribus ursis quod satis esset, scilicet ut uentres lam na candente nepotum diceret urendos, correctus Bestius. idem, quidquid erat nactus praedae maioris, ubi omne uerterat in fumum et cinerem, ‘non hercule m iror’ aiebat ‘siqui com edunt bona, cum sit obeso nil melius turdo, nil uolua pulchrius am pla.’ nim irum hic ego sum; nam tu ta et paruula laudo, cum res deficiunt, satis inter uilia fortis; uerum ubi quid melius contingit et unctius, idem uos sapere et solos aio bene uiuere, quorum conspicitur nitidis fundata pecunia uillis. XVI Ne perconteris, fundus meus, optime Q pincti, aruo pascat erum an bacis opulentet oliuae,

Q. H O R A T I F L A C C I

pomisne an pratis an am icta uitibus ulmo, scribetur tibi forma loquaciter et situs agri. Continui montes, ni dissocientur opaca ualle, sed ut ueniens dextrum latus adspiciat Sol, laeuum discedens curru fugiente uaporet. temperiem laudes, quid si rubicunda benigni corna uepres et pruna ferant, si quercus et ilex m ulta fruge pecus, m ulta dom inum iuuet um bra? dicas adductum propius frondere T arentum , fons etiam riuo dare nomen idoneus, ut nec frigidior T hracam nec purior am biat Hebrus, infirmo capiti fluit utilis, utilis aluo. hae latebrae dulces et, iam si credis, amoenae incolumem tibi me praestant Septem bribus horis. Tu recte uiuis, si curas esse quod audis, iactam us iam pridem omnis te R om a beatum ; sed uereor ne cui de te plus quam tibi credas neue putes alium sapiente bonoque beatum neu, si te populus sanum recteque ualentem dictitet, occultam febrem sub tempus edendi dissimules, donec manibus trem or incidat unctis, stultorum incurata pudor malus ulcera celat. Siquis bella tibi terra pugnata m arique dicat et his uerbis uacuas perm ulceat aures: ‘tene magis saluum populus uelit an populum tu, seruet in am biguo qui consulit et tibi et urbi Iu p p iter’, Augusti laudes agnoscere possis: cum pateris sapiens em endatusque uocari, respondesne tuo, dic sodes, nomine? nempe uir bonus et prudens dici delector ego ac tu. qui dedit hoc hodie, cras, si uolet, auferet, ut, si detulerit fasces indigno, detrahet idem. ‘pone, meum est’ inquit: pono tristisque recedo, idem si clam et furem, neget esse pudicum , contendat laqueo collum pressisse paternum , m ordear opprobriis falsis m utem que colores?

EP IS T V L A R V M LIBER PRIMVS

falsus honor iuuat et m endax infamia terret quem nisi m endosum et medicandum? Vir bonus est quis? ‘qui consulta patrum , qui leges iuraque seruat, quo m ultae m agnaeque secantur iudice lites, quo res sponsore et quo causae teste tenentur.’ sed uidet hunc omnis domus et uicinia tota introrsum turpem , speciosum pelle decora. ‘nec furtum feci nec fugi’ si mihi dicat seruus, ‘habes pretium , loris non ureris’ aio. ‘non hom inem occidi.’ ‘non pasces in cruce coruos.’ ‘sum bonus et frugi.’ renuit negitatque Sabellus. cautus enim m etuit foueam lupus accipiterque suspectos laqueos et opertum miluus ham um : oderunt peccare boni uirtutis amore. tu nihil adm ittes in te formidine poenae: sit spes fallendi, miscebis sacra profanis. nam de mille fabae modiis cum surripis unum, dam num est, non facinus, mihi pacto lenius isto. uir bonus, omne forum quem spectat et omne tribunal, quandocum que deos uel porco uel boue placat, ‘lan e p a ter’ clare, clare cum dixit ‘Apollo’, labra m ouet metuens audiri: ‘pulchra Lauerna, da mihi fallere, da iusto sanctoque uideri, noctem peccatis et fraudibus obice nubem .’ Q ui melior seruo, qui liberior sit auarus, in triuiis fixum cum se dem ittit ob assem, non uideo. nam qui cupiet, m etuet quoque; porro qui metuens uiuet, liber mihi non erit um quam . perdidit arm a, locum uirtutis deseruit, qui semper in augenda festinat et obruitur re. uendere cum possis captiuum , occidere noli: seruiet utiliter; sine pascat durus aretque, nauiget ac mediis hiemet m ercator in undis, annonae prosit, portet frum enta penusque. Vir bonus et sapiens audebit dicere ‘Pentheu,

Q. H O R A T I F L A C C I

rector T hebarum , quid me perferre patique indignum coges?’ ‘adim am bona.’ ‘nempe pecus, rem, lectos, argentum : tollas licet.’ ‘in manicis et compedibus saeuo te sub custode tenebo.’ ‘ipse deus, sim ulatque uolam, me soluet.’ opinor, hoc sentit ‘m oriar’, mors ultim a linea rerum est.

X V II

Q pamuis, Scaeua, satis per te tibi consulis et scis quo tandem pacto deceat maioribus uti, disce, docendus adhuc quae censet amiculus, ut si caecus iter m onstrare uelit; tam en adspice, siquid et nos quod cures proprium fecisse loquam ur. Si te grata quies et prim am somnus in horam delectat, si te puluis strepitusque rotarum , si laedit caupona, Ferentinum ire iubebo; nam neque diuitibus contingunt gaudia solis nec uixit male, qui natus moriensque fefellit, si prodesse tuis pauloque benignius ipsum te tractare uoles, accedes siccus ad unctum . ‘si pranderet holus patienter, regibus uti nollet A ristippus.’ ‘si sciret regibus uti, fastidiret holus, qui me n o tat.’ utrius horum uerba probes et facta, doce, uel iunior audi, cur sit Aristippi potior sententia, nam que m ordacem Cynicum sic eludebat, ut aiunt: ‘scurror ego ipse mihi, populo tu: rectius hoc et splendidius m ulto est. equus ut me portet, alat rex, officium facio: tu poscis uilia rerum , dante m inor, quam uis fers te nullius egentem .’ omnis A ristippum decuit color et status et res, tem ptantem maiora, fere praesentibus aequum , contra, quem duplici panno patientia uelat,

EP IS T V L A R V M LIBER PRIMVS

m irabor, uitae uia si conuersa decebit, alter purpureum non exspectabit amictum, quidlibet indutus celeberrim a per loca uadet personam que feret non inconcinnus utram que; alter M ileti textam cane peius et angui uitabit chlanidem , m orietur frigore, si non rettuleris pannum , refer et sine uiuat ineptus. Res gerere et captos ostendere ciuibus hostes attingit solium Iouis et caelestia tem ptat: principibus placuisse uiris non ultim a laus est. non cuiuis homini contingit adire Corinthum , sedit qui tim uit, ne non succederet, esto, quid? qui peruenit, fecitne uiriliter? atqui hic est aut nusquam , quod quaerimus, hic onus horret ut paruis animis et paruo corpore maius, hic subit et perfert, aut uirtus nomen inane est, au t decus et pretium recte petit experiens uir. Coram rege sua de paupertate tacentes plus poscente ferent, distat, sumasne pudenter an rapias; atqui rerum caput hoc erat, hic fons. ‘in d o tata mihi soror est, paupercula m ater et fundus nec uendibilis nec pascere firmus’ qui dicit, clam at: ‘uictum d ate.’ succinit alter: ‘et m ihi.’ diuiduo findetur m unere quadra. sed tacitus pasci si posset coruus, haberet plus dapis et rixae m ulto minus inuidiaeque. Brundisium comes aut Surrentum ductus amoenum qui q ueritur salebras et acerbum frigus et imbres au t cistam effractam et subducta uiatica plorat, nota refert meretricis acum ina, saepe catellam, saepe periscelidem raptam sibi flentis, uti mox nulla fides dam nis uerisque doloribus adsit, nec semel irrisus triuiis attollere curat fracto crure planum , licet illi plurim a m anet lacrim a, per sanctum iuratus dicat Osirim

79

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

80

Q. H O R A T I F L A C C I

‘credite, non ludo; crudeles, tollite claudum ’, ‘quaere peregrinum ’ uicinia rauca reclamat. XVIII Si bene te noui, metues, liberrime Lolli, scurrantis speciem praebere, professus amicum, ut m atrona meretrici dispar erit atque discolor, infido scurrae distabit amicus, est huic diuersum uitio uitium prope maius, asperitas agrestis et inconcinna grauisque, quae se com m endat tonsa cute, dentibus atris, dum uolt libertas dici m era ueraque uirtus. uirtus est m edium uitiorum et utrim que reductum , alter in obsequium plus aequo pronus et imi derisor lecti sic nutum diuitis horret, sic iterat uoces et uerba cadentia tollit, ut puerum saeuo credas dictata magistro reddere uel partes m im um tractare secundas; alter rixatur de lana saepe caprina et propugnat nugis arm atus: ‘scilicet ut non sit mihi prim a fides?’ et ‘uere quod placet ut non acriter elatrem? pretium aetas altera sordet.’ am bigitur quid enim? Castor sciat an Dolichus plus; Brundisium M inuci melius uia ducat an Appi. Q uem dam nosa uenus, quem praeceps alea nudat, gloria quem supra uires et uestit et unguit, quem tenet argenti sitis im portuna famesque, quem paupertatis pudor et fuga, diues amicus, saepe decem uitiis instructior, odit et horret, aut, si non odit, regit ac ueluti pia m ater plus quam se sapere et uirtutibus esse priorem uolt et ait prope uera: ‘meae - contendere noli stultitiam p atiu n tu r opes, tibi paruula res est:

EP IS T V L A R V M LIBER PRIMVS

arta decet sanum comitem toga: desine mecum certare.’ Eutrapelus cuicum que nocere uolebat uestim enta dabat pretiosa: beatus enim iam cum pulchris tunicis sumet noua consilia et spes, dorm iet in lucem, scorto postponet honestum officium, nummos alienos pascet, ad imum T hraex erit aut holitoris aget mercede caballum. A rcanum neque tu scrutaberis illius um quam , commissumque teges et uino tortus et ira. Nec tua laudabis studia aut aliena reprendes, nec, cum uenari uolet ille, poem ata panges, gratia sic fratrum gem inorum Amphionis atque Zethi dissiluit, donec suspecta seuero conticuit lyra, fraternis cessisse p u tatu r moribus Amphion: tu cede potentis amici lenibus imperiis, quotiensque educet in agros Aeoliis onerata plagis ium enta canesque, surge et inhum anae senium depone Camenae, cenes ut pariter pulm enta laboribus empta: Rom anis sollemne uiris opus, utile famae uitaeque et membris, praesertim cum ualeas et uel cursu superare canem uel uiribus aprum possis, adde, uirilia quod speciosius arm a non est qui tractet: scis, quo clamore coronae proelia sustineas cam pestria, denique saeuam militiam puer et C antabrica bella tulisti sub duce, qui templis Parthorum signa refigit nunc et, siquid abest, Italis adiudicat armis, ac ne te retrahas et inexcusabilis absis: quam uis nil extra num erum fecisse m odum que curas, interdum nugaris rure paterno, p a rtitu r lintres exercitus, Actia pugna te duce per pueros hostili more refertur; aduersarius est frater, lacus H adria, donec

82

Q.. H O R A T I F L A C C I

alterutrum uelox V ictoria fronde coronet. consentire suis studiis qui crediderit te, fautor utroque tuum laudabit pollice ludum. Protinus ut moneam , siquid monitoris eges tu, quid de quoque uiro et cui dicas, saepe uideto. percontatorem fugito; nam garrulus idem est nec retinent patulae commissa fideliter aures et semel emissum uolat irreuocabile uerbum . Non ancilla tuum iecur ulceret ulla puerue intra m arm oreum uenerandi limen amici, ne dominus pueri pulchri caraeue puellae m unere te paruo beet aut incommodus angat. Q ualem commendes, etiam atque etiam aspice, ne mox incutiant aliena tibi peccata pudorem , fallimur et quondam non dignum tradim us; ergo quem sua culpa premet, deceptus om itte tueri, ut penitus notum , si tem ptent crim ina, serues tuterisque tuo fidentem praesidio: qui dente Theonino cum circum roditur, ecquid ad te post paulo uentura pericula sentis? nam tua res agitur, paries cum proximus ardet, et neglecta solent incendia sumere uires. Dulcis inexpertis cultura potentis amici: expertus m etuet, tu, dum tua nauis in alto est, hoc age, ne m utata retrorsum te ferat aura, oderunt hilarem tristes tristem que iocosi, sedatum celeres, agilem nauum que remissi, potores [bibuli m edia de nocte Falerni oderunt] porrecta negantem pocula, quam uis nocturnos iures te form idare tepores, deme supercilio nubem: plerum que modestus occupat obscuri speciem, taciturnus acerbi. In ter cuncta leges et percontabere doctos, qua ratione queas traducere leniter aeuum ,

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

E P IS T V L A R V M LIBER PRIMVS

num te semper inops agitet uexetque cupido, num pauor et rerum mediocriter utilium spes, uirtutem doctrina paret naturane donet, quid m inuat curas, quid te tibi reddat amicum, quid pure tranquillet, honos an dulce lucellum an secretum iter et fallentis semita uitae. Me quotiens reficit gelidus Digentia riuus, quem M andela bibit, rugosus frigore pagus, quid sentire putas, quid credis, amice, precari? ‘sit mihi quod nunc est, etiam minus, et mihi uiuam quod superest aeui, siquid superesse uolunt di; sit bona librorum et prouisae frugis in annum copia neu fluitem dubiae spe pendulus horae.’ sed satis est orare Iouem quae ponit et aufert: det uitam , det opes: aequum mi anim um ipse parabo.

83

ioo

105

I IO

X IX Prisco si credis, M aecenas docte, Cratino, nulla placere diu nec uiuere carm ina possunt, quae scribuntur aquae potoribus, ut male sanos adscripsit Liber Satyris Faunisque poetas, uina fere dulces oluerunt m ane Camenae, laudibus arguitur uini uinosus Homerus; Ennius ipse pater num quam nisi potus ad arm a prosiluit dicenda. ‘Forum putealque Libonis m andabo siccis, adim am cantare seueris’; hoc simul edixi, non cessauere poetae nocturno certare mero, putere diurno, quid? siquis uoltu toruo ferus et pede nudo exiguaeque togae simulet textore Catonem, uirtutem ne repraesentet moresque Catonis? rupit Iarb itam Timagenis aem ula lingua,

5

IO

15

84

Q. H O R A T I F L A C C I

dum studet urbanus tenditque disertus haberi, decipit exem plar uitiis imitabile: quodsi pallerem casu, biberent exsangue cuminum, o imitatores, seruum pecus, ut mihi saepe bilem, saepe iocum uestri mouere tumultus! Libera per uacuum posui uestigia princeps, non aliena meo pressi pede, qui sibi fidet, dux reget examen. Parios ego primus iambos ostendi Latio, numeros animosque secutus Archilochi, non res et agentia uerba Lycamben. ac ne me foliis ideo breuioribus ornes, quod timui m utare modos et carminis artem: tem perat Archilochi musam pede mascula Sappho, tem perat Alcaeus, sed rebus et ordine dispar, nec socerum quaerit, quem uersibus oblinat atris, nec sponsae laqueum famoso carm ine nectit. hunc ego, non alio dictum prius ore, Latinus uulgaui fidicen, iuuat im m em orata ferentem ingenuis oculisque legi m anibusque teneri. Scire uelis, mea cur ingratus opuscula lector laudet am etque domi, prem at extra limen iniquus: non ego uentosae plebis suffragia uenor impensis cenarum et tritae m unere uestis; non ego, nobilium scriptorum auditor et ultor, gram m aticas am bire tribus et pulpita dignor. hinc illae lacrimae, ‘spissis indigna theatris scripta pudet recitare et nugis addere pondus’ si dixi, ‘rides’ ait ‘et Iouis auribus ista seruas; fidis enim m anare poetica mella te s o lu m , tib i p u l c h e r .’ a d h a e c eg o n a r ib u s u ti fo rm id o et, lu c ta n tis a c u to n e se c e r u n g u i,

‘displicet iste locus’ clamo et diludia posco, ludus enim genuit trepidum certam en et iram, ira truces inimicitias et funebre bellum.

20

25

30

35

40

45

EP IS T V L A R V M LIBER PRIMVS

XX V ortum num Ianum que, liber, spectare uideris, scilicet ut prostes Sosiorum pumice mundus; odisti claues et grata sigilla pudico, paucis ostendi gemis et com m unia laudas, non ita nutritus: fuge quo descendere gestis, non erit emisso reditus tibi, ‘quid miser egi? quid uolui?’ dices, ubi quid te laeserit; et scis in breue te cogi, cum plenus languet am ator. Quodsi non odio peccantis desipit augur, carus eris Rom ae, donec te deserat aetas: contrectatus ubi manibus sordescere uulgi coeperis, aut tineas pasces taciturnus inertes au t fugies V ticam aut uinctus mitteris Ilerdam , ridebit m onitor non exauditus, ut ille qui male parentem in rupis protrusit asellum iratus; quis enim inuitum seruare laboret? hoc quoque te m anet, ut pueros elementa docentem occupet extremis in uicis balba senectus. Cum tibi sol tepidus plures adm ouerit aures, me libertino natum patre et in tenui re maiores pennas nido extendisse loqueris, ut, qu an tum generi demas, uirtutibus addas; me primis Vrbis belli placuisse domique, corporis exigui, praecanum , solibus aptum , irasci celerem, tam en ut placabilis essem, forte meum siquis te percontabitur aeuum, me q u ater undenos sciat impleuisse Decembres, collegam Lepidum quo dixit Lollius anno.

COMMENTARY E p i s t le I 1 -1 9 M aecenas is supposed to have invited H. to resum e lyric poetry ( i —3)· Itt declining (4—9), H . explains w h at now occupies him ( ι ο ­ ί 9). T h e im ag in ary request is cast in a m etap h o r (Intro d u ctio n pp. 2 8 -3 0 ) th a t hints at some leading them es. A gladiator, if not already a slave o r condem ned crim inal, virtually enslaved him self to the train er by o ath (S. 2 .7 .5 8 -9 uri uirgis ferroque necari \ auctoratus; and cf. 14). Success m ig h t lead to retirem ent and even m anum ission; the them e of release from o b lig atio n is to be developed in V II. So the m etaphor suggests re-enslavem ent and the loss of independence, at the same time in tro d u cin g the m ajo r them e of train in g and learning. M üller noted th a t i - 15 consist o f five thoughts, each three lines long. 1 P r i m a . . . s u m m a : an encom iastic form ula (Gow on Theocr. 17. if.), though the first book of Sermones, Epodes and Odes had all borne M aecen as’ nam e. T h e respectful opening adm its a gratitu d e unfail­ ingly acknow ledged; its w arm th is recalled at the end. W ith prima u n d ersta n d Camena άττό κοινού. d i c t e ‘sung o f ’ (OLD 7b; N - H on C. 1.21.1). T he polyptoton (see 8 in .) o f dicte . . . dicende has sacral overtones, cf. CS 2 -3 0 colendi \ semper et culti. m i h i: the ag en t d at. o f personal pronouns is com m on w ith the past p art. pass, an d the gerundive (with which mihi should here be taken άττό κοινού); w ith the finite verb or o f n oun agents it is poetic syntax ( G - L §§354 n i , 355). C a m e n a : p erhaps originally a w ater-spirit, b u t early identified with the G reek M use. 2 s p e c t a t u m s a t i s ‘sufficiently p ro v en ’ (OLD spectatus) is often found in T eren ce (M cG lynn s.v. specto in), satis strikes a keynote (Epod. i .31—2 satis superque me benignitas tua \ ditauit, C. 2.18.14 satis beatus (of him self), 3.1.25 desiderantem quod satis est; 3.16.44 (quoted at 8 9 η .)). r u d e : a w ooden b ato n was presented to gladiators on their retire­ m en t (hence rudiarius); the m etap h o r becam e p o p u lar am ong later poets (O vid, Tr. 4.8.24 (he h ad also ju st used the im age o f the aged racehorse, 19—20), M artial, Ju v en a l; O tto §1557). 87

C O M M E N T A R Y : Ep. 1.2-6 2-3 quaeris .. . includere: poetic syntax (L. on S. 1.9.8); the infin., m etrically h an d y and syntactically crisp, is attach ed to verbs, past participles (14η.), an d adjectives (2.64η.) which do not usually have it in prose. G ram m arians call this infin. com plem entary, epexegetic or prolative ( N L S $ 2 2 -3 , 26; W ickham ’s edn 3 of the Odes (O xford 1896) 4 0 6 -9 ). 3 includere . . . ludo: assonance em phasizes ludo, echoed by ludicra 10. T h e invitation is u nintentionally the reverse of kind, for the com ­ passionate redeem ed gladiators (Sen. Clem. 2.6.2 ludo eximet). 4 non .. . non: an a p h o ra drives hom e the reply, which is a v a ria n t of the device now adays called recusatio, in th a t the poet declines to tackle a proposed them e or genre. T h e them e of change of a ttitu d e (OLD mens 8) is elsewhere linked by H. to th a t of behaviour ap p ro p ria te to a p artic u la r age, cf. 7.25-8, 14.32-6 and C. 3.15, 4.13. 4-6 T h e exam ple of Veianius, a contem porary g ladiator, now re­ tired, prolongs the m etap h o r and introduces the them e o f re tre a t to the countryside (X; X IV ); it also hints at the dangers of trying to m ain tain pre-em inence. 4-5 arm is ... fixis: tools o f a trad e were dedicated on retirem en t to an ap p ro p riate god; cf. C. 3 .2 6 .3 -6 nunc arma defunctumque bello \ barbiton hic paries habebit, \ laeuum marinae qui Veneris latus \ custodit. 5 latet: cf. 16.15 latebrae, used of H .’s farm , abditus agro < Virg. G. 3.95—6 hunc [an aged stallion] . . . abde domo, also referring to retirem ent. 6 extrema . .. harena ‘at the end of the m atch ’ (so T o rren tiu s, cf. OLD harena 3b); b u t pseudo-A cro took it to m ean ‘at the edge o f the san d ’, i.e. n ea r the platform on w hich the p atro n o f the m atch sat. exoret: pseudo-A cro rightly assum ed th at the g lad iato r begs for discharge. T his alone gives point to totiens·, the fans are lo ath to p a rt w ith a favourite, who m ust then repeatedly ap p eal for perm ission to retire. Cicero supports such an in terp re tatio n w hen he asks how A ntonius, so good a gladiator, was retired so soon (Phil. 2.74). M an y believe, how ever, th a t the g lad iato r seeks missio ‘a rep riev e’. If the co m b atan ts were so w ounded or w earied th a t they could not fight on, reprieve h ad to be requested; such a g lad iato r was styled stans missus or, if defeated, missus. Inscriptions record both victories and num erous reprieves o f b oth sorts (R E Suppl. hi 782). M üller argued for an in terp retatio n still less suited to the context: the suc­ cessful g lad iato r begs the audience for applause, m oney etc. At any

C O M M E N T A R Y : Ep. 1.6-10

89

rate, like the g lad iato r, the poet too needs to court po pular favour {Ep. 2.2.103 supplex populi suffragia capto). 7 T h e first allusion in the collection to a philosopher is to Socrates, by com m on consent the father o f all ethical thought (Cic. Tusc. 5.1 0 -1 1 ). Like Socrates (Plat. Ap. 31D2—4), H . heeds a sort of d eterren t voice w ith cleansed ears, i.e. attentively (a colloquial phrase, cf. Pi. M il. 774 perpurgatis . . . auribus and The academic papers o f Sir Hugh Lloyd-Jones: Greek comedy, Hellenistic literature, Greek religion, and miscellanea (Oxford iggo) 16g on the phrase καθαροΐς οΰασιν). This introduces the them e of receptivity to advice (40, 48; contrast 2.53). p e r s o n e t ‘to m ake rin g ’ (OLD 2); the potential subjunc. is com m on b u t not in v ariab le in sentences o f this kind (G - L §631.2; N L S §158; K —S ii 3 0 3 -5 ; B. on Ep. 2.2.182). 8 s a n u s "ifyou are reasonable’ (OLD 3; L. on S. 1.5.44); a conditional idea should be understood. e q u u m : Ibycus, a sixth-century G reek lyric poet, had com pared him self to a su p eran n u ated racehorse driven back into com petition by the boy-rider, Love (P M G 287); his poem was famous —cited by Plato (Parm. 137A) an d exploited by E nnius {Ann. 5 2 2 -3 Sk., with w hich cf. C atull. 4.26). H . recalls it at C. 4.1.1 (for the m etapho r cf. Ep. 2.1.2178). A gain there is a laten t sense of constraint; the horse runs o u t of hab it. Age is em phasized (senescentem) because the racehorse often ex­ em plified the contrast betw een b rillian t youth and dreary retirem ent (Sm ith on T ibull. 1.4.31-2). T h e principle o f right tim e appears {mature). F ailu re provokes m ockery {ridendus), like th at heaped by the young m en on the veteran meretrix Lyce, C. 4.13.27. For the enjam bm ent effected by ne see In tro d u ctio n p. 24. g p e c c e t ‘stu m b le’ m ay be the sense here - it is undeniably m ore im aginative, if H. believed the verb to be derived from *peccus ‘lam e a n im al’ (L. R. Palm er, The Latin language (London ig54) 71; cf. 13.4). ilia ducat ‘w heeze’ {OLD duco 22b). 10—12 In obedience to this voice H . refuses the request and also introduces his new interests. 10 i t a q u e adm its the force of the advice im plied in the com parisons to g lad iato r and horse; logical adverbs are unusual even in conversa­ tional poem s (2g an d ig.26nn.; B. on Ep. 2.2.145); yet its position as second w ord is poetic w ord order, inherited from L ucretius (K - S 11 I 3°)· l u d i c r a ‘trifles’ colours the m eaning of uersus. L iterary doctrine

C O M M E N T A R Y : Ep. 1. 10-13 deem ed some lyric slight (nugis 19.42; C. 1.32.1 lusimus) because its them es are transient (C. 1.6.17 conuiuia', proelia uirginum). In giving up youthful pleasure H. also puts aw ay the poetry celebrating it; cf. Ep. 2.2.56—7 [anni] eripuere iocos, Venerem, conuiuia, ludum; \ tendunt extorquere poemata; 141—4 sapere est abiectis utile nugis | et tempestiuum pueris concedere ludum I ac non uerba sequi fidibus modulanda Latinis, \ sed uerae numerosque modosque ediscere uitae. p o n o = depono (OLD 10); poets prefer the crisper uncom pounded verbs (Bo 3 8 7 -9 ). 11 q u id : supply sit, indirect qu. uerum ‘rig h t’ (OLD 9); decens ‘ap p ro p ria te ’, a concept central to H .’s code o f behaviour (cf. 6.62; 7.44). T h e neuter sing, of adjectives (usually of the second declension) is com m only tu rn ed into a no u n to provide philosophical technical terms. But the only present p art, so used before H . is consequens (K - S i 228); it m ay be th a t he devised the present usage to avoid the already available decorum, which h ad a pronounced Stoic colour. e u r o implies m oral reflection (4.5), rogo advice to be sought, the receptivity them e (18.96). omnis .. . sum « 5. 1.9.2 totus in illis o f absorb­ ing thoughts. 12 c o n d o . . . c o m p o n o : m etaphors for poetic com position (3.24; Ep. 2.2.91 carmina compono) elegantly revert to m ore basic senses, which suggest a new m etaphor, ‘psychic stew ardship’; for the lan g u ag e of dom estic econom y applied to m orals cf. Sen. Ep. 94.53 possimus felici­ tatem domo promere. H . adm ired the p ru d e n t an t (S. 1.1.32-8) and the co u n try m ouse (S. 2.6.79-83). F or compono ‘organize’ cf. C. 3 .2 9 .3 2 -3 quod adest memento | componere aequus. m o x ‘by an d b y ’, cf. Sen. Ep. 108.35 captemus . . . profutura praecepta . . . quae mox in rem transferantur. p o s s i m : final subjunc. in a relative clause ( G - L §630, N L S § 147). 1 3 -1 5 an ticip ate the presupposition th a t the search for a m oral code m ust lead to an established system. T h e new them e of self-reliance is announced; H. depends on himself. 13 n e . . . r o g e s ‘to prevent your asking . . . ’ (OLD 13, G - L §545 R3); me is obj. of tuter. q u o . . . d u c e , q u o la r e : in stru m en tal abl. dux has m ilitary over­ tones th a t p repare for the oath o f 14; lar suggests the household in which devotees o f a sect m et (C. 1.29.14 Socraticam . . . domum; OLD domus 6b).

C O M M E N T A R Y : Ep. 1.14-17

91

14 n u l l i u s · . . m a g i s t r i : em phatic enclosing w ord order; the nega­ tive is p ro m in en t. (T he m otto o f the R oyal Society of London, nullius in uerba, derives from this line.) addictus ‘b o u n d ’ keeps up the m etaphor o f the g lad iato r, w ho enslaved him self by oath to his magister, cf. Petr. 117-5 legitimi gladiatores domino corpora animasque religiosissime addicimus. For the infin. iurare see 2—3η. in u e r b a : cf. Epod. 15.4 in uerba iurabas mea (OLD in 18b). Soldiers swore oaths o f loyalty (Livy 28.29.12) and, am ong philosophical sects, the E picureans a p p e ar to have exacted an oath (Philodem us, Lib. 4 5 .9 -1 1 ). H ence Seneca’s disdain, Ep. 12.11 in uerba iurant, nec quid dicatur aestimant, sed a quo, and Q u in tilia n ’s disparagem ent, 10 12.2.6 uelut sacramento rogati uel etiam superstitione constricti nefas ducunt a suscepta semel persuasione discedere', cf. his earlier assertion o f independence, 3.1.22 neque enim me cuiusquam sectae uelut quadam superstitione imbutus addixi. 15 q u o · · · c u m q u e : a com m on instance o f tmesis, the separation for m etrical convenience o f (here) the universal relative from its suffix (W inbolt §181). t e m p e s t a s ‘the w e ath er’ (OLD 2) m ay change travel plans, b u t the hospes proceeds w hen he can; the m etap h o r was used o f philosophical choice by Cicero, Acad. 2.8 ad quamcumque sunt disciplinam quasi tempestate delati (a book he tried to suppress, so perhaps not know n to H .) an d Earn. 7.30.2 philosophiae portus, b u t here it suggests inconstancy (16—19), the them es o f V II I and X V . h o s p e s m ay h in t at the saying o f A ristippus th a t he was everywhere a guest: ξένος π α ν τ α χ ο ϋ είμί (X en. Mem. 2.2.13). 16 n u n c . . . 18 n u n c : a poetic altern ativ e for alias . . . alias or modo . . . modo ( K —S π 70). a g ilis ‘active’ in public life (OLD 3). Since one can only become w h at one is n o t alre ad y ,7Ϊ0 suggests th a t H. m ust give up his preferred otium. T h e Stoics, hinted at in 16-17, approved o f p articipation in civic life (L -S i 423 §66B; 1 433 §67W); X V I takes u p the them e. c i u i l ib u s u n d is : m etaphorical for the hectic life o f the citizen, cf. Ep. 2.2.84—5 rerum \fluctibus in mediis et tempestatibus urbis. 17 u i r t u t i s u e r a e : ‘the alliterative phrase was a cliche o f R om an public m oralising’: Jo celyn on Enn. seen. 254, a passage from the Phoe­ nix also in H .’s m ind at 2 .6 7 -8 (cf. 18.8; C. 3.5.29-30). H ere as at 17.41 uirtus is less philosophical th an R om an in sense, and refers to a m a n ’s physical pow er in public life.

COMMENTARY:

E p.

1. 17-22

rigidus ‘unw av ering’ goes άττό κοινού w ith c u s to s , w hich has a Stoic flavour (Sen. D i a l . 12.12.4). u ir tu s is seen as a m onarch atten d ed by bodyguards (at 16.67 in charge o f an arm y; cf. 6.37 re g in a P e c u n ia ); at E p . 2.1.229-31 she is a goddess w ith atten d a n ts { a e d i t u i ) . 18-19 A n unexpected alternative, for reference to the arch-rivals o f Stoicism, the Epicureans, m ight have been m ade (4.15—16). A ristippus of C yrene, E p icu ru s’ forerunner in m aking pleasure the goal o f life (J. C. B. Gosling and C. C. W. T aylor, T h e G r e e k s on p le a s u r e (O xford 1982) 4 0 -3 ), is not here cited as a hedonist, b u t for his attitu d e to circum stances { r e s ) , a pre-echo o f X V II. 18 furtim ‘unconsciously’ { O L D 2). T h e prefix re- hints th a t this is the m ore congenial alternative; cf. Cic. A c a d . 2.139 u id e o q u a m s u a u ite r u o lu p ta s s e n s ib u s n o s tr is b l a n d ia tu r : la b o r eo u t a d s e n tia r E p ic u r o a u t A r i s t i p p o ,

a passage th a t dem onstrates how far H . him self is from hedonism here. 19 r e s ‘circum stances’ { O L D 17b). subiungere ‘place un d er co n tro l’; the yoking m etap h o r contrasts w ith 8 -9 ; cf. 10.42-3. A ristippus controlled circum stances by willingly using w hatever cam e to han d , not by insisting on one and only one course of action as right (an a ttitu d e H . adopts in V I and X V ). conor suggests th at the process is as yet incom plete, cf. 18.112η. 20— 7 H. has h ard ly started his personal reform ation and is eager to proceed. T h ree illustrations, 2 0 -2 (as at 2 .5 2 -3 , 11.11 —i 6 a n d 13.1315), em phasize im patience w ith his slow progress. Still, he has laid some secure foundations of principle. T h e m ain sentence, four lines long, 2 3 -6 , preserves the them e o f tim e’s slow passage, w ith the hint o f dependence: the cheated lover, the labourer and the u n der-aged boy are all subject to others. 20 nox longa: supply u id e tu r άττό κοινού from 21. 21 lenta ‘p ro tra c te d ’, a sense com m oner in poetry th an in prose { O L D 5); the reading, found in inferior M SS, is preferred to lo n g a o f the m ain trad itio n , a rhetorically pointless repetition from 20 (16.14 and 17.40 show how H. repeats epithets for em phasis). opus debentibus: e.g. hired farm workers, cf. S . 2.2.115 m erced e c o lo n u m , 2.6.11 m erce n n a riu s. 22 custodia ‘oversight’ generally; not legal tu te la , w hich only a m an could exercise { O C D s.v. G uardianship; c u s to d ia has a different sense ‘safekeeping’ in legal contexts, R E iv 1896-7). T h e im plication is th at the fath er is dead and so the boy is legally in d ep en d en t { s u i iu r is ) though restricted in some respects.

C O M M E N T A R Y : Ep. 1.23-8

93

23 tarda . . . ingrata: predicative, mihi is dat. of disadvantage (JVLS §64). H . is still to some extent caught up in the affairs and duties o f life in R om e. 23— 4 spem consiliumque: spes looks to the h eart, consilium to the m ind, cf. 18.33, T er. Eun. 1025, Cic. Inu. 2.45; the intention is stated at i i - 12 an d the need to have done w ith delay is stressed at 2.32—43. 24 T h e caesura after a trochee in both the second and the th ird feet is un u su al (Nilsson 75) and perhaps expressive of a certain agitation; cf. In tro d u c tio n pp. 14-15. 25— 6 aeque: an a p h o ra stresses the universal application o f H .’s plan, an d binds together the three p o lar expressions, the first of which is disposed chiastically: rich/poor (3.28), young/old, help/harm . A sin­ gle idea is presented analytically by άττό κοινού in two clauses, for of course young an d old as well as rich and poor will be helped and harm ed (In tro d u ctio n p. 28). prodest . . . nocebit: the help is im m ediate, the harm m ay be de­ layed (the verbs re ap p ea r together at 8.11); the fut. m ight also be taken as ‘gnom ic’ (ι8 ·3 -4 η .). 26 neglectum '’but, i f neglected’; antithetical ideas are juxtaposed w ithout a connective, w hat gram m arians call adversative asyndeton (K - S i 15 6 -7 ). T h e protasis o f a condition m ay be contained in a particip le ( G - L §593.2). 27 his . . . elementis ‘these simple lessons’ refer to H .’s m oral reflec­ tions to d a te (1 1 -1 2 ), which he is eager to put into practice (24); the m e ta p h o r of train in g and learning is resum ed. T o philosophers elementa were fu n d a m e n tal principles, b u t H. here has som ething m ore straig h tfo rw ard an d generally ap pealing in m ind. ego m e ipse: the answ er to the anticipated question of 13; H . will rely on him self alone for guidance — regam ) ( duce 13 — in prosperity and for consolation in adversity. N o r does he impose his view on any­ one else. T h e em p h atic grouping of pronouns forges a subtle link with H .’s own role m odel, A ristippus at 17.19. soler: the sim ple form o f the verb is ‘elevated, archaic, poetic’ (B. on # • 2 .1 .1 3 1 ) . 28— 32 Im p ro v em en t, not perfection, is the goal; this, the leading tho u g h t o f the sententia in 32, is characteristically postponed until after two illustrations of it are given. T h e same argum ent and one o f the illustrations are found in the first-century a .d . Stoic Epictetus: T shall not be M ilo, either, an d yet I do not neglect my body . . . there is no

C O M M E N T A R Y : Ep. 1.28-32 field in w hich we give u p the ap p ro p riate discipline m erely from de­ spair o f attain in g the highest’ (A rr. Epict. 1.2.37). An analogy betw een physical and m oral well-being, com m only em ployed by Cynics and Stoics, is introduced (Cic. Tusc. 3.1; L. on S. 1.6.30 morbo·, N - H on C. 2.2.13). 28— 9 form a p aratactic concessive sentence, i.e. w hat is logically the su b ordinate clause is not introduced w ith an adv. m eaning ‘alth o u g h ’; cf. Ep. 2.2.201-2 non . . . non tamen (Bo 295). 28 possis: in m oral discourse the second pers., either subjunc. (28, 30, 35) or indie. (36, 42, 44, 45, 59), addresses the w orld at large (H - S §222(c), N - H on C. 2.2.9 ar*d on 2.18, p. 290, B. on Ep. 2.2.145); M aecenas comes to the fore again at 91. T he verb is pointedly em p h a­ sized in this section (35, 37, 39). oculo . . . contendere ‘strive w ith the eye’ (OLD 4); take b o th άττό κοινοϋ: non J u v . 11.38). crumina is used by the figure m etonym y to m ean ‘m oney’ for the first tim e here. 12—14 A fter the en u m eration of A lbius’ blessings H. obliquely ex­ horts him to m ake the most o f them . T he sentence forms a p aratactic condition. 12 timores inter et iras: the w ord order is characteristic of poetry ( T L L vii 1.2147.28-34). These em otions need not describe Albius, they are com m on to all m en (cf. inter 12.14). 13 diluxisse, as distinct from the com m oner illuxisse, suggests the light of d aw n breaking through darkness or clouds, which well suits the context o f encouragem ent to Albius. supremum: take predicatively, ‘each d ay th a t daw ns is the last’. T h e sentim ent is a m oralist’s com m onplace (Sum m ers on Sen. Ep. 12.8). 14 grata: take predicatively, ‘the unhoped for hour will com e in additio n , and welcome too’. F or the fut. sperabitur see 2.34η. 1 5 -1 6 H . offers Albius a standing invitation. T he reference to E p icu ­ reanism hints th at H. at any rate practises w hat he has just preached. 15 M e co u nterbalances te (2); pinguem et nitidum is attached to it some­ w h at elliptically, for L atin, unlike Greek, h ad no present part, o f esse (cf. 5.12η.). A prose w riter w ould p robably have used an appositional phrase: ‘me, uirum pinguem et n itid u m ’ (cf. K - S 1 226-8). bene curata cute: causal abl. H . looks after himself, as he encour­ ages Albius to do, b u t unlike the P haeacians, not plus aequo (2.29η.).

C O M M E N T A R Y : Ep. 4.15- 5.1 uises ‘be sure to come and see’; the fut. often conveys an u rb a n e com m and or ex h o rtation (G —L §243, R oby §§1466, 1589, Bo 260—1), b u t it can also generalize: ‘you will com e w henever you w a n t to laugh a t . . . ’ (H - S 6 2 1 -2 ). 16 ridere m ay recall th at H .’s S e rm o n e s, w hich Albius enjoyed, used lau g h ter to expose folly and reveal tru th (cf. S . 1.1.24—5, 10.14-15; J . den Boeft in J . den Boeft and A. Η. M . Kessels (edd.), A c tu s : S tu d ie s in h o n o u r o f H . L . W . N e l s o n (U trech t 1982) 21—41); he should th ere­ fore be able to see the joke in H .’s overstated self-portrait. F or u o les see 2.34η. porcum is the object of r id e r e , and not in apposition to m e . F o r H. as a figure o f fun cf. 14.39. Because o f their reputed hedonism the E picureans were b ran d ed as swinish (N isbet on Cic. P i s . 37 E p ic u r e n o s te r , ex h a r a p r o d u c te , non ex sc h o la )', g r e x puns on this, since it m eans both ‘h e rd ’ and ‘philosophical school’ (S . 2.3.44 C h r y s ip p i . . . g r e x ) . In substantial (but not com plete) contrast to the preceding epistles, we are presented here w ith a solitary friend w ho has no public am bitions (though he clearly aims to shine in his chosen line). Like the m en o f II I, he is a poet. A nd once again poetry is seen not to be altogether enough for happiness. A right disposition is w anted, so th a t the good things o f life do not go unenjoyed. H. takes it upon him self to rem ind his young friend of his blessings an d to encourage him —if necessary by ocu lar dem onstration - o f the need to m ake m uch o f them . In effect the epistle is an invitation (u ise s 15), w hich links it to the next letter, w ritten to one w ho is very m uch in the thick o f things. H. also opens up for the first tim e in the collection the notion o f him self as the m odel o f one w ho uses his opportunities.

Epistle V ι- ii An in v itation to T o rq u a tu s to enjoy a sim ple d in n er w ith H. T h e wine, how ever, will be special. All is ready if only the guest will oblige; he has no excuse since the next d ay will be a holiday. T o r­ q u atu s was a m em ber o f the p atric ia n family o f the M anlii T o rq u a ti; he was clearly a hard-w orking b arrister (9). Both details recur at C . 4.7.23 n o n , T o r q u a te , g e n u s , non te f a c u n d i a .

COMMENTARY:

E p.

5.1-6

137

1 potes ‘can bring yourself to ’ ( O L D 3), a polite form ula in in v ita­ tions, cf. PI. S t . 619 s i p o t e r i s a c c u b a re , M art. 5.62.2 s i p o t e s in n u do p o n e re m e m b r a s o lo . A rchias was presum ably a m aker o f simple furniture. c o m m a ‘as a guest’, predicative. 2 modica i.e. not gold, reinforces A r c h i a c is ; the sim plicity o f H .’s own dom estic econom y often points a m oral (C. 1.20.1 m o d ic is . . . c a n th a r is ), tim e s ‘disdain, refuse’ (cf. m e tu e s 18. in .); the acc. h o lu s w ith cen are is archaic an d perhaps colloquial (B. on E p . 2.2.168). omne ‘n o th in g b u t’, a sense unknow n to lexicography, is illustrated by Sonnenschein on PI. R u d . 500 o m n e s tu i s i m i l i s h o s p ite s h a b e a s t i b i ; it is usually taken to m ean ‘all kinds o f’. T h e salad dinner is typical o f H. ( N - H on C . 1.3 1.15) and again has em blem atic status (cf. 17.13-15; S . 2.2.70 on the value of u ic tu s te n u is ): sim ple fare suits him. 3 supremo . . . sole ‘at the end of the d ay ’ ( O L D s u p re m u s 3, s o l 2c, poetic), a latish tim e for a R om an d inner (7.47η.), and so chosen out o f courtesy to T o rq u a tu s, since it leaves him time to com plete his plead in g a n d have a b ath . M oreover, since the guest o f h onour could h ard ly be expected to travel for several hours after his d ay ’s work, the m eal will be given in H .’s town house (d o m i ). manebo ‘w ait for’ w ith a personal object is colloquial ( O L D 3b). 4 uina: poetic plur. ite ru m T a u r o , w ithout c o n su le , appears to be uniq u e in literatu re an d so avoids the norm al expression. T . Statilius T a u ru s was consul for the second tim e in 26 b.c. diffusa ‘racked o ff’ from the d o liu m into the c a d u s in which it was sealed; this was only done for good wine th a t would keep. T he nam es o f the consuls were p ain ted on the sides o f the ja rs to indicate the year o f the vintage. 5 T h e w ine seems to be M assic from C am p an ia (Paget 2 3 3 -5 ). In this sam e co u n try in 340 b.c. T . M anlius, cos. 347 b .c., defeated the Latins; if the addressee belongs to th a t family then the wine is a com ­ plim en t to him (N - H on C. 1.20, p. 245). P etrinum is h ard to place; P orphyrio says it was a village in the F alernian plain. 6 si ‘b u t i f ’ taking up s i (1) by adversative asyndeton (K - S 11 431 -2 ) . H . avoids s in , even in the conversational hexam eters, whereas Virgil uses it in th e G e o r g ie s and in the speeches o f the A e n e id , b u t not in the E c lo g u e s (yet B. on A P 125 calls it ‘prosaic’). arcesse ‘have it sent’, a causative use.

C O M M E N T A R Y : Ep. 5.6-11 imperium: the im m ediate reference is to H . as ‘m aster o f the feast’, b u t it m ay also refer to the cognom en I m p e r io s u s bestowed on the sam e T . M anlius. It is picked up at 21. f e r ‘p u t up w ith ’ ( O L D 20). T h e closing rh y th m is not unusual in H .’s hexam eters, cf. 6.39, 16.6, 68 (B. on A P 139). 7 C onstrue αϊτό κοινού: ia m d u d u m t i b i ζ m u n d u s ) f o c u s e t m u n d a s u p e lle x s p l e n d e ( n ) t . T h e h earth is clean in case the late S eptem ber even­ ing (9η.) prove cool, t i b i , dat. o f advantage, hints at the trouble H. has taken for T o rq u atu s. T h e them e o f preparations, com m on in in v itatio n poems, recurs at 21—4 (cf. C . 1.36, 4.11 and above all 3-29)· 8 m itte ‘d ro p ’ ( O L D 4); cf. C . 3.8.17 m itte c iu ile s s u p e r u r b e c u ra s , 3.29.5 e rip e te m o ra e after an n ouncing th a t all is ready to receive M aecenas. T h e ‘trifling’ ( O L D le u is 13) hopes m ay be his own or those his clients repose in him . T h e struggle for w ealth (c e r ta m in a d iu itia r u m ) is T o rq u a tu s’ (but not his alone); cf. C . 4 .12.25 p o n e m o r a s e t s tu d iu m lu c r i in an invitation to V ergilius. Barristers could not legally take fees or gifts thanks to the le x C in c ia o f 204 b.c. ( O C D s.v. A d u o c a tu s ) . 9 Moschi causam: Volcacius Moschus, a rhetorician of P ergam um , though defended by Asinius Pollio as well as T o rq u a tu s, was con­ dem ned for poisoning and fled to M arseilles to teach; he becam e a citizen there an d left his estate to the city in a .d . 25 (Sen. C o n . 2 ·5 (Ι 3 )·Ι 3; T ac. A n n . 4.43.5). T his trial is referred to not to fix the d ate (which is now unknow n) b u t to com plim ent T o rq u a tu s for the gran d cases he has to deal w ith. nato Caesare ‘by reason of C aesar’s b irth ’; causal abl. w ith f e s t u s ; for th e ab stract form of expression see 2.7η. T h e b irth d ay of A ugustus fell on eith er 21 o r 22 or 23 S eptem ber (H ousm an on M anilius v, p. 112); Suetonius, A u g . 57, m entions celebrations, b u t this is the only reference to a legal holiday. T h e m onth w ould suggest th a t H . is in the co u n try (16.16), b ut see d o m i 3η. 9~io festus ... dies: a sensible m an enjoys a holiday a n d a pro p er R o m an respects the civil ca le n d ar w hen it enjoins a cessation o f legal business (N - H on C . 2.3.6). 10 ueniam somnumque ‘perm ission to lie in ’, hendiadys, impune licebit parodies legal language and leaves T o rq u a tu s w ith no excuse for refusal. 11 benigno ‘friendly’ ( O L D 1, cf. Livy 28.6.6 b e n ig n o u o ltu a c s e r m o n e )

C O M M E N T A R Y : £/>.5.11-16

139

confirm s H .’s disinclination to gossip (S . 2.6.70-2); it could also m ean ‘a b u n d a n t’, ten d ere ‘p ro long’ ( = e x te n d e re , O L D 2). 12-20 H. anticipates a charge of im prudence and praises insobriety; the u n d erly in g lesson applies to T o rq u a tu s too. 12 Quo m ihi fortunam ‘w h a t’s the use of w ealth to m e’; the idiom ­ atic ellipse o f a verb is com m on in prose and poetry ( O L D q u o 1 2, H - S 424, H einsius on O v. E p . 2.53). F or u t i cf. 2.50. 13 parcus: u n d erstan d n im iu m άττό κοινού; the qualification is neces­ sary, since it is n o t frugality itself b u t an excess of it th a t H . faults (cf. S. 1.4.107—8, q u o ted at In tro d u ctio n p. 30). heredis: objective gen. w ith c u ra m . T he alien heir is prom inent in H .’s p o etry , n o t least perhaps because he appears to have h ad no legal relatives him self (N - H on C . 2.14.25); cf. Sen. E p . 123.11 q u a n ta d e m e n ­ tia e st h e r e d is s u i r e s p r o c u r a r e et s i b i n e g a re o m n ia .

14 adsidet ‘resem bles’, a novel sense (O L D 5), perhaps encouraged by d is s id e o ‘differ’; to am use T o rq u atu s, H. plays w ith legal concepts, here the c u ra f u r i o s i an d the c u ra p r o d i g i (1.102η.). potare im plies serious drinking (N —H on C . 2.11.17); garlands and scattered flowers (s p a r g e r e f l o r e s ) , esp. roses ( C . 3.19.22 s p a r g e r o s a s ) , were an essential ingredient of the after d in n er symposium. 15 patiar . . . haberi ‘I shall allow m yself to be regarded ( O L D 24) as being .. . ’ T h e infin. w ith p a t i o r is com plem entary, not a Grecism (so N —H on C . 1 .2 .43-4). T h e predicate of the infin. n aturally has the sam e case as the subj., hence the nom . in c o n su ltu s (R oby x x ii-xxiii and §1350, K —S i 702, with ref. to 679). in c o n s u ltu s ‘reckless’ again evokes legal term inology; cf. f u r e r e , in s a n ir e in the less restrained O d e s (N —H on C . 2.7.28). 16-20 H .’s self-defence is generalized. T he praises o f drink were a prov erb ial them e o f sym posiastic song; cf. esp. Bacchylides, fr. 20b S - M and P in d ar, fr. i2 4 a - b S - M (O tto §1899). But philosophy had to take a m ore judicious stand on the issue: Does the good life ad m it of relaxation? Seneca offered a cautious answ er at D i a l . 9.17.8-9. (At E p . 89.16 he hints th a t this was a them e for declam ation too.) H .’s position is clear: d u lc e e s t d e s ip e r e in loco (C . 4.12.28), w here em phasis falls on the last words o f the poem , ‘on the right occasion’ (cf. 15.18-21). T h a t such an occasion exists now is clear from 9 -1 1 . T h e style o f the lines is discussed a t In tro d u c tio n p. 12. 16 dissignat ‘m an ag e’. Editors p rin t this verb, lexicographers are

C O M M E N T A R Y : Ep. 5.16-22 relu ctan t to allow its existence (see M cG lynn s.v., and M a rtin on T er. A d e l. 87). O n e o f its radical senses is ‘unseal’ so there m ay perhaps be a p u n on the sig n u m ‘seal’ set on the j a r (E p . 2.2.134). recludit ‘lays b are’ ( O L D 5), in the sense o f confiding secrets, not betray in g them (25); a poetic verb (B. on E p . 2.1.103). Cf. S . 1.4.89 c o n d ita cu m u e ra x a p e r it p r a e c o r d ia L ib e r .

17 Cf. 15.19-20, C . 4.12.19 s p e s d o n a r e n o u a s la r g u s of w ine jars; the hopes of 8 are now confirm ed, in e rte m ‘cow ard’; cf. Bacchyl. fr. 20b. 7 ‘straightw ay he is stripping cities o f their diadem of tow ers’. 18 animis ... eximit: cf. 15.19, C . 1.18.4 m o rd a c e s . . . d iffu g iu n t s o l l i ­ c itu d in e s (with the n. of N - H ) , 2.11.17-18 d i s s i p a t E u h iu s | c u r a s e d a ces. addocet: a coinage, encouraged by a d d is c o ; the prefix im plies in ­ crease or progress (R oby §1833). 20 solutum puns on a G reek title for Dionysus, Lyaeus ‘the releaser’ (whence L i b e r ) , cf. E p o d . 9.37—8 c u ra m m e tu m q u e C a e s a r is re ru m iu u a t | d u lc i L y a e o so lu e re . T h e th o u g h t again is a com m onplace: cf. Bacchyl. and Pind. (16—20η.), A ristoph. E q u i t . 93. T h e struggle for w ealth (8) is satisfied, for a time. 21— 9 T h e wine will do its job, I have m ine. N otice o f p rep aratio n s is resum ed from 7 and H. offers T o rq u a tu s final inducem ents to accept. 21 Haec points forw ard to the final clauses, 2 2 -6 ; cf. S . 2 .5 .3 6 -7 h aec m e a c u r a e s t, | ne . . . procurare suggests official oversight, like th at of an aedile (H einze). T h e infin. depends on im p e r o r ‘I am u n d er o rd ers’, a rare passive (used here reflexively: G - L §218) o f an intrans, verb, perhaps m odelled upon iu b e o r (B. on A P 56 in u id e o r ) or even upon Greek, έττιτάττομαι + infin. T h e elision at the m ain caesura is rem arkable; there are m any instances in the S e rm o n e s, b u t only one m ore in this book a t 11.9 (Nilsson 9 4 -5 ). idoneus ‘co m p eten t’ m ay also h in t at a legal sense, ‘solvent’ ( O L D 2), an d so pick up H .’s reference to his prosperity (12) in a w ay to tease his legal friend. T h e litotes non in u itu s precludes any sense o f constraint in im p e ro r . 2 2 - 6 H. ticks off his check-list o f chores w ith a host’s atten tio n to detail for a special guest. T h e four clauses are carefully balanced by pairs. T h e first p air concern the furnishings, the second the com pany. N egative and positive clauses altern ate. 22 toral.. . mappa: their function is unclear b u t the first is taken to

C O M M E N T A R Y : Ep. 5.22-9

141

be a coverlet for the couch, the second a napkin. T he em phasis on cleanliness is not only characteristic o f H. b u t perhaps of symposiastic verse, cf. X eno p h an es 1.1—2 ‘for now the floor is clean and everyone’s han d s an d the cups’. 23 corruget ‘m ak e jo « w rinkle’; for the sense see i.io o n .; the verb m ay be a coinage, as Q u in tilian seems to suggest at 10 11.3.80. 24 ostendat tibi te: for silver polishing cf. C. 4.11.6 ridet argento domus (for M aecenas’ b irthday). fidos inter amicos: take w ith dicta 25 and cf. S. 2.1.30 fidis . . . sodalibus, fidus, not a w ord of com m on speech, belonged m ore to the elevated style o f high poetry (J. N. Adam s, B.I.C.S. 20 (1973) 139 n. 22 ). H. now moves from the furnishings to the com pany, a m ore im p o rtan t attra ctio n . 25 eliminet ‘b ro ad cast’, a unique sense of an archaic verb; for the subjunc. cf. personet 1.7η. 25—6 C onstrue άττό κοινού ut par pari coeat iungaturqur, coeat refers to the in v itatio n , iungatur to the place on the couch. It was a rule o f the sym posium th a t all were equals ro u n d the m ixing bowl; there is also a clear allusion to the proverbial fondness of like for like (O tto §1335). 26 tibi, as in 7, em phasizes the guest’s pleasure. B utra, Septicius and Sabinus ca n n o t now be identified. Is it possible th at even the first readers w ould not have know n w ho they were? In th at case, the im pression is enhanced of a p arty o f close friends, ra th e r th a n of celebrities. 27 prior ‘earlier’ (tem poral) ra th e r than ‘preferable’ (qualitative); it was socially acceptable to go from one p arty to another on the same evening, -que ‘o r’, disjunctive (OLD 7). 28 adsumam: u n d erstand Sabinum from the rel. clause, umbris: com panions brought by a guest, though not directly in ­ vited by the host (S. 2.8.22 quos Maecenas adduxerat umbras). A further courtesy an d inducem ent, T o rq u a tu s m ay bring some cronies. 29 nim is arta . .. conuiuia resumes the m odest note of the opening; H .’s d in in g room is as sm all as its furniture, premunt ‘oppress’ (OLD 8); H. offers a tactful cau tio n in a sententious line, so th a t his friend does not pack in too m an y extras. olidae, first here, p erhaps as m etrically h an d ier th an olens or foetidus, is not u n com m on in later prose so m ay have h ad colloquial tone, caprae ‘ran k sm ell’, a u n ique m etaphorical use of the fern., encouraged by the

C O M M E N T A R Y : Ep. 5.29-31 use o f c a p e r an d h ir c u s ( T L L vi 3 .1 9 -2 3 ). D espite p re -d in n er bathing, perfum e and the a l i p i l u s , sw eaty arm pits rem ained a nuisance, esp. noticeable since R om ans shared the couches on which they reclined (cf. iu n g a tu r 26). 30-1 T o rq u a tu s has so m uch less to do th an his host, how can he refuse? 30 Tu )( ego 21. quotus: lit. ‘the how m anyeth’ as in S . 2.6.44 k o r a q u o ta est? ; to w hich the answ er will be an ordinal, e.g., ‘it is the fifth (h o u r)’. T h e slave who delivers this note will w ait for T o rq u a tu s to pen an answ er, hence re sc rib e .

rebus om issis ‘dropping ( O L D 5) everything else’ varies the collo­ quial expression, r e lic tis r. ‘in stan tly ’ (M cG lynn s.v. re lin q u o v; Lucr. 3.1071; cf. D u ff on Sen. D i a l . 10.7.4), perhaps in o rder to recall m it t e 8. 31 seruantem ‘occupying’, a poetic sense (cf. 10.6, O L D 3). Clients assembled in the a tr iu m (here in poetic plur., cf. i.88n.) to consult their p a tro n at his convenience in the m orning; evening was not the pro p er tim e to p ay a call. postico falle ‘elude ( O L D 7) by the backdoor’, in stru m en tal abl.; cf. Sen. D i a l . 10.14.4 q u a m m u l ti p e r r e fe r tu m c lie n tib u s a tr iu m p r o d i r e u ita b u n t e t p e r o b sc u r o s a e d iu m

a d i tu s p r o f u g ie n t , q u a s i n on in h u m a n iu s s i t

But there is also a hum orous sense to f a l l e , ‘de­ ceive’, the last thing, o f course, th a t a w orthy b arriste r like T o rq u a tu s w ould consider doing (cf. N - H on C. 2.18.24, p. 305).

d e c ip e r e q u a m e x clu d e re .

Epistles IV and V are ju x tap o sed in o rder to cast different lights on a sim ilar them e (cf. the placing of X V II and X V I II) . B oth are in v ita­ tions, a p o p u lar form of poem in h erited chiefly from the H ellenistic epigram ( N - H on C. 1.20, pp. 2 4 4 -5 ). Y et the ap p ro ach in each is subtly different. Albius is w ell-to-do, a literary figure who does not neglect m oral reflections w hen alone in the country. W h a t he appears to neglect and H . is not crudely explicit - is the use o f his m any blessings. H. rem inds him o f these, and offers a picture o f him self as E p icurean hedonist to serve as a m odel. N ow a fu rth er point is th a t the E picu­ reans set g reat store by friendship and the sharing o f pleasure. I t is th at above all w hich H . offers Albius w hen he gives him a standing in v ita­ tion to visit.

C O M M E N T A R Y : Ep. 6.1

143

T o rq u a tu s is different. A patrician o f ancient family, he is actively pursuing an ho n o u rab le career at the b a r in R om e, engrossed in the w o rld ’s affairs. H . like a good friend w ants him to relax and so o rg a­ nizes a d in n e r p arty ju st for T o rq u atu s. Every detail, especially the wine, conspires to allure him . H . stresses the sim plicity of his arran g e­ m ents, a com m onplace in some invitations from social inferiors, most no tab ly C. 3 . 2 9 to M aecenas —a poem w hich opens w ith language very sim ilar to this (N —H on C. 1.20, p. 245). O nce again H. him self serves as a m odel w hen he insists th a t his prosperity is pointless if unused. T he praises o f w ine reinforce the message. (J. C. Scaliger faulted these lines as irrelev an t 1praeter propositum’ in his Poetices libri septem (Lyons 1561) 3 3 7 D ; m ore drastically R ibbeck deem ed them an interpolation.) T he cycle o f w ork an d business m ust be broken, and it is a friend’s d u ty to act. But pleasure is not in its tu rn to becom e a round. So the p arty is to be an in terru p tio n only, justified by the celebration of the em peror’s b irth d a y (a patrio tic note is struck, as in III). H. has done all he can, all T o rq u a tu s has to do is accept; indeed, he is offered no alternative. M an y o f the details o f H .’s preparations suggest the literature of etiqu ette, especially for parties, w hich was p re tty extensive. W e know th at V arro , for instance, gave advice on the most suitable n u m b er of guests a t parties (Gellius 13.11). M uch later P lutarch p u t together some sim ilar reflections in his Quaestiones conuiuales. It seems th at once again H . presents m odel behaviour in his own activities.

Epistle VI 1 -2 7 H. offers N um icius, a now unknow n addressee, a m otto to guide him to happiness. O riginally applied to rem ove the fear o f n a tu ­ ral p h en o m en a (3—5), it works equally well on the objects of desire (5 -8 ) and o f d read (9 -11). All unreasonable em otions and pursuits (even th a t o f virtue) are based on a spiritual paralysis (12-16). O u r aspirations (17-23) end after all in death (24-7). i Nil admirari ‘idolize n o th in g ’: the m otto is as old as P ythagoras’ μηδέν θαυμάζειν (Plut. Moral. 44B). D em ocritus took up the them e (.athambia), w hich then found its w ay u n d er various nam es into the m ajo r schools: E p icu rean im p ertu rb ab ility (ataraxia) and the Stoic’s lack o f em otion (apatheia). H . is not urging indifferentism , but self-

C O M M E N T A R Y : Ep. 6.1-6 relian t com posure; the them e recurs frequently: 1.47 m ir a r i s , 10.31 14.18 m ir a m u r . prope: u rb an e qualification, cf. 9 (B. on A P 432); the lack o f it is significant at u n a 30, s o la 47. res . . . una ‘the one th in g ’ (1.106η.; O L D re s 3); separation from s o la q u e by the line end and the insertion of the voc. give ad d itio n al force (W ickham ). 2 possit: cf. p e r s o n e t 1.7 η. f a c e r e e t s e ru a re b e a tu m is echoed ironically at 47; cf. M ilton P R 4.362 ‘W h at m akes a N ation h appy, and keeps it so.’ 3-16 back up the opinion ju st enunciated and unpack the sense H. gives to a d m ir a r i. H e o f course assumes th a t m en covet (c u p ie n s 10) w hat they idolize. Lines 3 - 5 form the protasis of a p a ra ta c tic condition; 5 - 8 the apodosis. T h e arg u m en t moves from g reater to lesser, from our a ttitu d e to the g rand spectacle o f heaven to the m u n d an e w orld aro u n d us. 3 hunc ‘y o n d er’, deictic; D illenburger com pared Cic. T u s c . 1.60 h oc n e b u lo so e t c a lig in o s o c a e lo , w here the w eather is not the issue, though the conversation is held out o f doors, d e c e d e n tia ‘passing’ (Ellis on C atull. 66.4 u t c e d a n t c e r tis s id e r a te m p o r ib u s ) goes w ith so le m e t s t e l l a s άττό κοινού. 4 tempora ‘seasons’ (O L D 3); m o m e n tis ‘degrees’ (O L D 4d). T h e philosophical study o f n a tu ra l p henom ena freed m en from d re a d (f o r ­ m id in e n u l la ) by establishing the fixed (c e r tis 3) laws w hich govern them . 5 spectent strikes a keynote, viewing, cf. 8, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 24, 26, 49, 60. F o r the subjunc. see p e r s o n e t 1.7η. 5-8 quid censes . . . quo spectanda modo: the kernel o f the ques­ tion is q u o m o d o s p e c ta n d a [m e] cen ses. B ut q u id cen ses was itself so com m on ( O L D cen seo 4c) th a t it becam e idiom atic to a tta c h to it an acc. and infin. giving the substance of the question, which q u id m erely served to introduce; cf. Cic. 5. R o s e . 49 q u i d cen ses h u n c ip s u m S e x . R o s c iu m , qu o s tu d io e t q u a in te lle g e n tia esse in r u s tic is r e b u s ? (H olden on Cic. O ff. 2.25). So prolonged is the present sentence th a t c r e d is 8 is inserted to resum e

m ir a b e r e ,

cen ses.

5 munera terrae: developed a t 17-18, 2 4 -5 . 6 maris: sc. m u n e ra άττό κοιυοϋ; e x tr e m o s goes άττό κοινού w ith I n d o s (cf. 1.45). Arabas: G reek acc. plur., obj. of d i t a n t i s ‘enriching’, gen. sing, w ith m a r is , an expressive verb, h ard ly found outside poetry before Livy (B.

C O M M E N T A R Y : £/>.6.6-11

145

on A P 57). H. has in m ind the pearls th a t proved a m ania am ong R om ans (M ay er on Sen. Phaed. 391—2 niueus lapis | . . . Indici donum mans). T h e notion o f foreign trade is developed at 32—5. 7 ludicra quid ‘w h at o f the shows’; for the w ord order cf. 11.3. T o gain p o p u larity R om ans spent huge sums on the provision o f public spectacles (plays, gladiators, beast fights); cf. the anecdote o f Lucullus, 4 0 -4 . T h e p o p u lar an d successful were greeted at the theatre w ith spontaneous applause, plausus (N —H on C. 1.20.3—4 datus in theatro \ cum tibi plausus); M arcus A urelius also used applause as a symbol o f faulty h u m an values (6.16.2 τι ούν τίμιον; τό κροτεΐσθαι; οΰχί). dona refers to public office, a them e developed at 4 9 -5 5 . Both forms o f am bition, as P reau x noted, are in Seneca’s m ind at Ep. 94.60 non est quod tibi com­ positae mentis habitum et sanitatem plausus excutiat, non est quod tibi tranquilli­ tatis tuae fastidium faciat ille sub illis fascibus purpura cultus. Quiritis: the sing., here used collectively, is poetic diction ( O L D Quirites 2, N - H on C. 2.7.3). 8 sensu . . . et ore: in ternal and external m anifestations o f interest, cf. 14. 9—16 In stead o f answ ering the question, H. moves to a further defini­ tion o f his u n d erstan d in g o f admirari, and asserts th a t dread (of the loss o f w h a t we idolize) is like desire; b o th em otions produce a paralysing fixation. S uch fixation is bad how ever w orthy its object. 9—10 tim et .. . cupiens: 2 .5 m .fere offers a necessary qualification: d read ‘overvalues’ in ‘m uch the sam e w ay’ as desire certain conditions w hich it is anxious to avoid (cf. 1.43). miratur picks up the m otto, b u t m ay here have the sense ‘gaze at in w o n d e r’ ( O L D 3), as at 18; thus it includes the keynote them e o f ‘view ing’. eodem quo . . . pacto < S. 1.4.55—6; phrases built w ith pactum are com m on in prose an d in the argum entative style o f L ucretius (L. on S. 1.4.99). 10 pauor ‘th rill’ ( O L D 2c) is elevated an d archaic; found in tragedy (Jocelyn on E nn. seen. 17 J .) and in history, elsewhere too it m aintains its distinction, e.g. PI. Epid. 530 paupertas, pauor territat mentem animi; S. 2.7.57 tremis ossa pauore, Epod. 5.96 (in an u n earth ly im precation). 11 improuisa: em phatic by position. T h e Stoics especially enjoined a m ental p re p a ra tio n for events, cf. Cic. Tusc. 3.30 ergo id quidem non dubium, quin omnia, quae mala putentur, sint improuisa grauiora. itaque quam-

C O M M E N T A R Y : £/>.6.11-17 q u a m n on h a ec u n a re s efficit m a x im a m a e g r itu d in e m , ta m e n , q u o n ia m m u ltu m p o t e s t p r o u is io a n im i e t p r a e p a r a t i o a d m in u e n d u m d o lo r e m , s i n t s e m p e r o m n ia h o m in i h u m a n a m e d ita ta , e t n im ir u m h a e c e s t i l l a p r a e s t a n s e t d iu in a s a p i e n t ia , e t p e r c e p ta s p e n itu s e t p e r t r a c ta t a s re s h u m a n a s h a b e r e , n ih il a d m ir a r i , cu m a c c i­ d e r it, n i h il , a n te q u a m e u e n e rit, n on e u e n ir e p o s s e a r b i t r a r i

( N - H on

C.

2. io. 14

ben e p r a e p a r a t u m ) .

simul — s im u la e ( O L D 11); e x te r r e t ‘dism ays’, as at L ucr. 2.1040 v 2027.31). 12 gaudeat . . . metuatne: an altern ativ e indir. qu. com m only re­ quires no in tro d u cto ry particle, e.g. u tru m (K - S 11 528); for -n e see O L D 5c. T h e subj. is supplied from u tr u m q u e 11. T h e fourfold division of the irratio n al em otions was developed by the Stoics (L -S §65), but h ad p ro b ab ly becom e a com m onplace, cf. Virg. A . 6.733 h in c m e tu u n t (TLL

c u p iu n tq u e , d o le n t g a u d e n tq u e .

quid ad rem: understand in te r e s t ( O L D re s 12b). 13 melius peiusue sua spe: prose prefers o p in io n e , w hich does not fit the hex am eter ( O L D o p in io 2); H. picks up the h a n d ie r s p e from the historians, Sallust and Livy ( K - S 11 470, L. on S . 1.10.89); th e m ono­ syllabic ending is softened by the close adherence o f the possessive pronoun. 14 animoque et corpore torpet: cf. 8; paralysis o f m ind an d body (a p o lar expression) betokens the com plete loss o f independence in those who idolize, -q u e e t, an archaic equivalent to τε καί, is found in com edy, in C atullus (28.5, 44.15, (?) 76.11; D. O. Ross, S t y le a n d t r a d i ­ tio n in C a tu llu s (C am bridge, M ass., 1969) 6 5 -7 ), and in historians { T L L v 2.887.36-80); one m etrical ad v antage is the avoidance of h ia ­ tus, as here (B. on A P 196, 444). 15-16 An extrem e, even p aradoxical instance o f crucial im portance (resum ed at 2 9 -3 1 ) concludes this section and introduces the next (concerned w ith lesser objects o f aspiration). N ot ju st external goods, b u t even u ir tu s as an object o f p ursuit can prove dam aging. M o d era­ tion is the w atchw ord; cf. Cic. T u s c . 4.62 e ti a m s i u i r t u ti s i p s i u s u e h e m e n tio r a d p e titu s s i t , e a d e m s i t o m n ib u s a d d e te r r e n d u m a d h ib e n d a o r a tio .

15 ferat: apodosis to s i p e ta t . W ith in iq u i understand n om en οπτό κοινού. ι6 F o r u ltr a q u a m s a t i s e s t see In tro d u c tio n p. 43. 17-27 Possessions, prestige, w ealth - the o rd er o f the list recalls the opening, 5 - 7 - all the objects we desire and perhaps overvalue will not free us from death .

C O M M E N T A R Y : Ep. 6.17-22

147

17 I nunc, a com m on ironical exhortation, sets the tone of the rest o f the epistle (OLD eo1 10b). As elsewhere the addressee fades out to be replaced by an indefinite second pers. argentum ‘silver p late’ (OLD 2). uetus belongs to all the nouns α πό κοινού (In tro d u ctio n p. 26); aera ‘bronze sta tu a ry ’ (OLD 7); artes ‘works o f a r t ’ (OLD 8b). F or the list cf. 1.38η. 18 suspice ‘esteem ’ (OLD 2), b u t the radical sense of looking up in w onder is reinforced by mirare, the topical w ord. Tyrios: T y re an d Sidon (cf. 10.26) in the L ebanon were the sources of the best p u rp le dye used on luxurious dress (there were m any co u n t­ erfeits o f w hich H . nam es a surprising num ber: African C. 2.16.35, L aco n ian C. 2.18.8, C oan C. 4.13.3, A q u in ate 10.26 below, T aren tin e Ep. 2.1.207, G aetu lian Ep. 2.2.81; R E xxm 2008). These item s recall the munera terrae et maris, 5—6. 19 spectant: 1.2η. mille serves as an indefinite num ber (L. on S. 1.6.111). loquentem ‘c h a ttin g ’; loquor, never used o f formal public speaking ( T L L vii 2.1673.39-49, 6 3 -7 4 ), here evokes a p rom inent citizen whose lightest w ord is o f general interest, cf. Sen. Con. 5.2 tot serui sequuntur, tot liberti, tot clientes ut quidquid dixerit rumor sit. (It is hardly likely th a t it forms a co ntrast w ith M utus; the proper nam e should have preceded.) 20 nauus: adverbial (cf. 1.24). uespertinus is also adverbial; this use of an adj. o f tim e is chiefly poetic, a syntactical Grecism = έσπέριο«; (Eden on V irg. A. 8.30). Since the R o m an business d ay ended in the early afternoon (cf. 7.46 and M a rtia l 4.8.3 in quintam \horam\ uarios extendit Roma labores), not to leave the F orum until evening showed ruthless ind u stry . T h e F orum was the h eart of R om e’s business and legal life, cf. 7.48, 16.57, ΐ9·8· T h e m an works in town to earn enough to b uy the sort of co u n try estate th a t M utus (a κωφόν π ρ ό σ ω π ο ν) acquired easily as p a rt of his wife’s dow ry. 21 emetat ‘re ap o ff’, ap p a ren tly a coinage = έκθερίζω, έξαμάω (the last a poetic verb). 22 et continues the negation (K —S 11 211, cf. 18.58). indignum: acc. of exclam ation ( G —L §343)1 i n apposition to the th o u g h t o f 23; quod ‘seeing th a t . . . ’ (OLD 10); sit is a subjunc. of reported reason (G —L § 5 4 i, R oby §1740). peioribus: sc. quam tu, abl. of origin (G - L §395).

23 tibi .. . illi: d at. o f agent, mirabilis strikes the keynote an d denotes the stan d ard m en set for their self-esteem, the ad m iratio n o f others. 24- 5 form a p aratactic com parison: just as tim e . . . , so will it b u ry . . . ’ O n ly the grave is certain. T h e proverbial sentim ent recalls Soph. Aj. 6 4 6 -7 ‘all things the long an d countless years first d raw from d a rk ­ ness, then bu ry from lig h t’ (O tto §1756). As J e b b observed, the em p h a­ sis there as here is on tim e’s destructive pow er, which the first clause only serves to bring into relief. T h e m etaphorical language recalls the shining m etals an d stones, all products o f the earth, listed at 17—18. 24 apricum ‘the light o f d a y ’, an unusual sense (O LD 2 ) , b u t ad o p ted to fit in w ith the notion o f viewing (spectent 5 η . ) . 25- 6 C onstrue άττό κοινού: cum te bene notum porticus Agrippae ( e t ) uia Appi conspexeri(ri)t. 26 porticus: b uilt in 2 5 b . c . , decorated w ith paintings o f the ad v en ­ tures o f the A rgonauts, it becam e a p o p u lar resort (R ichardson 312); since its usual nam e was either p. Argonautarum or p. Neptuni H . not only avoids a precise term b u t obliquely flatters the builder, M . A grippa. T h e uia Appi — the expression deliberately avoids u. Appia — h a d been built by A ppius C laudius Caecus in 3 1 2 b . c . A s the m ain road to C am p an ia an d the resorts aro u n d the bay o f N aples, it evokes the life o f success an d pleasure. But the highw ay was lined w ith the tom bs o f the rich, so we are p repared for the th o u g h t o f 2 7 . conspexerit: fut. perf. indie.; for the sing, see 1 . 8 4 η . 27 ire .. . restat: the infin. as subject is poetic syntax (T er. Ph. 85, Lucr. 1.1005, 5.227, O v. F. 5.369); the prose construction is found at 1.27. N u m a Pom pilius, the second king o f R om e, was credited w ith founding the city’s religious institutions (Ogilvie on Livy 1.18-21). A ncus M arcius was the fourth king (Ogilivie on Livy 1 .3 2 -4 ). (T heir heads ap p e a r to gether on coins o f c. 86 b .c.) It was a com m onplace of the lite ratu re o f consolation in a n tiq u ity to rem ind the bereaved or those upset a t the prospect o f d e a th th a t b e tte r m en in the past h ad h ad to die ( N - H on C. 1.28.7; ^ *s by design th a t in an epistle R o m an ra th e r th an m ythological exempla are chosen). Ancus is first referred to as a type o f the good king w ho died none the less a t L ucr. 3.1025 lumina sis [ = jmzT] oculis etiam bonus Ancu’ reliquit; cf. C. 4 .7 .1 4 -1 5 (discussed at In tro d u c tio n p. 11). 28-66 T h e inevitability o f d e a th does not, how ever, rule o u t a tte n ­ tion to physical health; ju st as we look after o u r m ortal bodies, so we

C O M M E N T A R Y : £/».6.28-31

149

m ust seek h ealth for o u r spirit. B ut w here does it lie? T he traditional analogy betw een physical and spiritual health helps to advance the arg u m e n t in a new direction, the rehearsal o f various other views of w h at constitutes the summum bonum. 28 temptantur ‘are afflicted’, m edical term inology (OLD 10). 29 uis . . . non? H f you wish to be h ap p y —well, who doesn’t?’ forms the protasis o f an in terru p te d p aratactic condition. (T he belief th a t uis alone introduces a simple qu. (so, e.g., H - S 461) is not supported by Livy 3 9 .4 2 .11 or Petr. 111.12, for they begin uis tu, a different idiom , illustrated by Bentley on S. 2.6.92; cf. OLD 8.) T h e suppressed apodosis m ig h t have been a piece o f practical wisdom, expressed by an im perativ e to m atch quaere. B ut H. has already given his view at 1-2, so here he changes tack. H e acknowledges th a t the desire for happiness is universal (quis non?) and goes on to show th a t it has generated a bew ildering diversity o f opinion a b o u t how to secure it. Behind his illustrations lies a long tradition o f m oral th o u g h t th a t had neatly divided m e n ’s pursuits in to life-styles, be it w ealth (31-48) or prestige (4 9 -5 5 ) o r pleasure (5 6 -66) (see N - H on C. 1.1, p. 2). Each proposed ideal is an n o u n ced conditionally: si uirtus 30, si res 47 (the proposition concludes ra th e r th an initiates the argum ent), si . . . species et gratia 49, si bene qui cenat 56, s i . . . sine amore 65. recte ‘in a desirable m a n n e r’ (OL D 9), not ‘w ith m oral re ctitu d e’ [OLD 6, w here this passage is cited; see 2 .4 m .); the focus th roughout this section is on the h u m an craving for happiness ra th e r th an on goodness; cf. 47, 49, 56, 66. 30-1 A p arad o x ical start. V irtue m ight well be thought likely to produce happiness (and some com m entators believe th a t it is not one o f the im plicitly rejected options), b u t H . sows doubt, following Aris­ totle; cf. EJV 1 . 5, 1 0 9 5 B 3 0 - 1 0 9 6 A 2 . T h e section is not as fully devel­ oped as the la te r ones, because virtue is itself a good; H. focusses ra th e r upon the m o n o m an iac’s pursuit o f it. 30 una echoes 1 b u t the lack o f qualification is too dogm atic for H. (cf. prope i an d 47); the u n b ending Stoics are in his m ind, fortis is adverb ial (cf. 15.27). om issis . · · deliciis: too uncom prom ising, if the doctrine o f IV and V is heeded. T h e ideal o f pleasure will close H .’s list. 31 hoc age ‘get on with it’ (OLD 22). This w ay o f getting at h a p p i­ ness th ro u g h virtu e alone runs foul o f the w arning at 15-16.

C O M M E N T A R Y : Ep. 6.31-7 31-48 T he longest section is devoted to the belief th a t w ealth brings happiness (hence the am biguous b e a tu m 47). 31— 2 V i r tu te m : repetition forms a transition to the topic o f w ealth. T h e sentence u irtu te m . . . lig n a is itself a p a ratactic com parison, in tro ­ ducing a p aratactic condition: ‘i f j u s t as you think a sacred grove m ere firewood ( T L L vn 2.1385.78-80), so you regard virtue as em pty words ( O L D 11), th en . . . ’. (Indeed u t replaced et in some M SS.) 31 uirtutem uerba: the sarcasm , pointed by the alliteration here and w ith lu cu m lig n a , was proverbial, cf. 17.41 (O tto §i9°9)> B rutus as he was dying at Philippi (where H . fought) quoted a line from a now unidentifiable Greek tragedy ab o u t Hercules: ‘o m iserable virtue, you were b u t a w ord all along, yet I respected you as a re ality ’ ( T G F 2 374 = (!) Diogenes Sinop. fr. 3 S n e ll-K a n n ic h t). 32- 3 F or the traditional figure of the m erch an t cf. 1.45η. 33 C ibyra, a P hrygian town, exported iron ore and ham s ( R E xi 1.374—7). Bithynia, a province o f Asia M in o r on the Black Sea, h ad considerable trade; cf. C . 3.7.3 T h y n a m erce b e a tu m . 34 rotundentur ‘round off the sum ’, ap p aren tly a colloquial expres­ sion (or founded on one), cf. P etr. 76.8 c e n tie s s e s te r tiu m c o r r o tu n d a u i (T rim alchio is speaking). totidem altera ‘as m any a g a in ’, cf. C atull. 5.8 m ille a l te r a . F or the enjam bm ent with e t see In tro d u ctio n p. 24; it goes closely w ith et in 35 ‘both . .. a n d ’. 35 e t . . . : construe: et Suet. V e s p . 21), th a t is to say, at the right time; for the idiom see 2.7η. an d cf. E p . 2 .1.140 c o n d i ta p o s t f r u m e n t a , C . 1.3.29—3 0 p o s t ig n e m . . . s u b d u c tu m . In the afternoon R om ans resorted to the open spaces of the C am pus M artius for exercise or am usem ent (1 8 .5 2 -4 , R ich ard so n 6 5 -7 ). 60 Again direct speech appears w ith o u t introduction. scitari ‘enquire a b o u t’ appears in P lautus, C a p t. 263, and then in Virgil, A . 2.105, 114 (in the speech o f A eneas); perhaps it h a d a place in conversational use, though it is never found in classical prose. die governs the indir. com m and u e n ia t ( O L D 2c); for the enjam bm ent see In tro d u ctio n p. 24. 61 sane intensifies the negative, and reproduces M e n a ’s actu al thought: ‘non sane credo’ (15.5; B. on E p . 2.1.206). 61-2 credere .. . mirari: the historic infin., used in excited n a r r a ­ tive, is com m on in S ., b u t only found here in E p . (Bo 2 6 9 -7 0 , N L S

§21). 62

quid multa? ‘in sh o rt’ (O L D

m u ltu s

3b). For

b e n ig n e

see 16.

COM M ENTARY:

Ep.

7.63-72

169

63 neget ‘can he refuse my invitation?’ (OLD 3b); ille mihi are em ­ phatic; for the subjunc. in an in d ig n an t qu. cf. 1 .4 9 -5 in . {LS §84). improbus ‘the inconsiderate fellow’ (S . 1.9.73); the slave takes his cue from his m aster’s tone. 63-4 te neglegit - C. 3.21.10. 65 tunicato . . . popello ‘the rabble in w orking dress’ ( > T ac. Dial. 7 tunicatus . . . populus) h ad no p a tro n to visit and so no need to w ear the toga. T h e tone o f the dim inutive (first found here, Bo 218) is h ard to pin dow n; it m ay be either contem ptuous or sym pathetic. 66 occupat ‘catches unaw ares’ (OLD 11). Philippus puts M en a in an aw k w ard position, since etiquette required th a t an inferior be the first to greet (OLD salue1 2, iubeo 7b) his social superior (see M artial 3-95)· 67 excusare ‘allege as a reason’ (OLD 2); for the historic infin. see 6 i-2 n . mercennaria uincla: i.e. M ena is constrained to earn his fee (merces); cf. S. 1.6.86-7 si praeco paruas . . . mercedes sequerer. 68— 9 uenisset .. . prouidisset: subjunc. because the verbs are vir­ tual indir. speech. M en a ought to have attended the early m orning salutatio a t P h ilippus’ house. 69 sic ‘on this one condition’ anticipates the .re-clause, a colloquial­ ism ap p ro p ria te to d irect speech (OLD 8c, G - L §590 n i) . putato: the fut. im perative is norm al w hen the action is determ ined by a subord. clause referring to the fut. (R oby §1603). 70 ut libet: the ungracious tone hints at em barrassm ent (Fraenkel 338); as a t 19, the speaker m erely falls in w ith an o th er’s wishes. ergo ‘well, th e n ’, a colloquial sense w ith the fut. or im perative ( T L L v 2 .7 6 8 .5 -2 4 ); for the enjam bm ent see In tro d u ctio n p. 24. 71 post nonam: m id-afternoon, the usual time (47n ·) F or the fut. uenies see 4 .15η. nunc i 7ί i nunc (6.17η.). rem . . . auge: cf. 16.68; Philippus approves o f M en a’s industry. strenuus is adverbial; strenue w ould not fit an hexam eter. 72 dicenda tacenda, i.e. ‘an y th in g th a t cam e into his head, w h eth ­ er w o rth saying or n o t’, a polar form o f proverbial expression (O tto §642); M en a is a chatterbox, not perhaps fit for an aristocratic dinner table. T h e p airin g o f contrasted words in asyndeton is com m on in early L atin ( N - H on C. 2.3.26), b u t the use o f the gerundive as a noun

170

COM M ENTARY:

E p . 7.72-80

is chiefly poetic at this time and confined to the n eu ter pi. ( K - S i 229, H - S 3 71) ·

73 tandem . . . dimittitur: Philippus could not bring him self to dismiss the engaging M ena. F or d o r m itu m see r e p e titu m 3.18η. 74 uisus ‘was seen to ’, sc. e st (the ellipse in a subord. clause is rare except in Virgil, cf. Leo (1878) 188—9). piscis 7 ik e a fish’, a m etap h o r instead o f simile (6.63η., In tro d u c ­ tion p. 29), alluding to the proverbial ‘hook’ (O tto §781). As Bentley noted (on 96) the im age points up P hilippus’ aw areness of the effect he is having on the dazzled freedm an. 75 iam ‘by now ’ ( O L D 3). In the sam e way H. becam e the c o n u ic to r of M aecenas, cf. S . 1.6.47. 75-6 iubetur .. . comes ire: the nom . is here a p red icate referring back to the subj. (5.15η.). It was usual for a client to be invited on a jo u rn ey to relieve its tedium and to show the p a tro n ’s prestige (1 7 .7 -8 , 52, S . 1.6.101—3 d u cen d u s e t u n u s | et c o m e s a l te r , u ti ne s o lu s ru su e p e r e g r e u e \ e x ire m and 2 .6.41-6); th a t is the situation in S . 1.5 (H .’s jo u rn e y to B rundisium ). 76 rura ‘estates’ (O L D 2); the bare acc. is a poetic extension of the usage with ru s (K —S 1 486). indictis ... Latinis ‘w hen the religious festival o f the L atins had been ap p o in ted ’. T h e f e r i a e L a ti n a e (or sim ply L a ti n a e ) were celebrated at th e A lban M o u n t every spring, once the consuls h a d ap p o in ted the d ate {in d ic e r e ), which was not fixed ( O C D s.v. J u p i t e r §5); the S enate atten d ed and public business in R om e was suspended. 77 impositus: i.e. in the carriage draw n by the ponies, m a n n is (a w ord M unro believed was owed to Lucr. 3.1063 c u r r it a g e n s m a n n o s a d u illa m , 3.937η.). caelum ‘clim ate, a ir’, esp. w ith reference to change of scene { O L D 7, N —H on C . 2.7.4). Like m any less w ell-to-do citizens M en a h ad pro b ab ly never been out of Rom e. 79 sibi: Philippus is not interested, as a friend should be, in M e n a ’s welfare (H eitland 234 speaks of his ‘scurvy trick’); he m ay be r e x , he is clearly not p a t e r (37). dum . . . dum: 2.2 in.; d u m (80) has gerundial force, ‘by giving . . . ’ ‘am usem ent’ { O L D 3). 80 mutua ‘on lo an ’, sc. s e s te r tia . P hilippus was not as generous as M aecenas, who gave H. his S a b in u m as an o u trig h t gift. T h e sum apre q u ie m

COM M ENTARY:

Ep.

7.80-7

171

p aren tly w ould have secured only a fairly small property. W h at is worse, no provision is being m ade for labour. O n top o f th at the Sabine co u n try was n o t specially fertile (cf. 14.23 and 16.8-11); th at m attered less to H . : his larg er estate was chiefly a retreat and he had other sources o f incom e. 82-3 ne ... morer: a transitional form ula (B. on Ep. 2.1.4, P· 39)> for ultra quam satis est see In tro d u c tio n p. 43. 83 ex nitido ‘from being stylish’ (OLD ex 13, nitidus 6b); the expres­ sion ap p ears to com press a fuller thought: ex nitido (et urbano) fit rusticus (et horridus) (In tro d u ctio n p. 26 η. 95)· F or the enjam bm ent w ith atque see In tro d u c tio n p. 24. 84 crepat ‘harp s o n ’ (OLD 4); its internal acc. obj. is poetic syntax an d com m on in Η. (K —S 1 278, R oby §1123, B. on A P 247). mera ‘n o th in g b u t’, to be understood άττό κοινού w ith sulcos, has a colloquial tone ( O LD 2; T L L v i i i 846.35). praeparat ulmos: until their recent adoption o f French or mixed techniques o f viticulture, central Italian s used to train vines u p into elm trees, which were p runed into tiers, tabulata (16.3; cf. V irg. G. 2.361 summasque sequi tabulata per ulmos\ K. D. W hite, Roman farming (C am b rid g e 1970) 2 3 2 -6 , N. Beifrage, Life beyond Lambrusco (London 1985) 9 “ 11)· 85 immoritur: a coinage along G reek lines = έναποθνήισκω (ένθνήισκω is used m etaphorically at E ur. Hec. 246). It governs the dat. studiis (B. on Ep. 2.2.82). T h e hyperbole makes a contrast w ith his form er life, esp. cessare (57). senescit: first here in the m etaphorical sense (OLD ib). habendi ‘g ain ’, cf. Virg. G. 4.177 innatus apes amor urget habendi, A. 8.327, Ο ν. A A 3.541, M et. 1.131. No one denies th at a farm er works for gain (T ibull. 1 .9 .7 -8 lucra petens habili tauros adiungit aratro \ et durum terrae rusticus urget opus). But, as pseudo-A cro noted, M ena had never been interested in gain before now, so ‘possession’ m ight be the sense (Shackleton Bailey 58 n. 31, cf. T L L vi 2.2401.1-5). 86-7 M e n a ’s efforts com e to nought; for the sake of variety there is no fu rth er reference to the vineyard, b u t disaster doubtless struck there too. 86 periere goes άττό κοινοΰ with oues, b u t in a slightly different sense, ‘v an ish ed ’. T his and the next clause are arranged chiastically. 87 mentita ‘falsely prom ised’ is used transitively in poetry (OLD 2);

COM M ENTARY:

E p . 7.87-94

supply e st ά π ό κοινού. H arvests are o f course unreliable, hence C . 3.1.30 f u n d u s m e n d a x . 88 offensus ‘troubled by’ ( O L D offen do 4). media de nocte, cf. 2.32η., suggests first th a t M ena, u n ab le to sleep for worry, decided to throw in the towel at dead o f night, and secondly th a t he set off so as to catch P hilippus at his s a lu ta tio . caballum ‘riding horse’ is colloquial (L. on S . 1.6.59). 89 arripit: the diaeresis and slight pause after the first dacty l (W inbolt §8) depict M en a’s urgency. iratus: H. leaves it open w hether the rage is directed at himself, at Philippus, or at both. 90 simul: 6 .1 in. scabrum intonsumque: a b itte r contrast w ith the first sight P hil­ ippus ever h ad o f him , a d r a s u m (50) and n itid o (83); M en a has had neither tim e nor perhaps m oney for barbering. His condition is the m ore striking since ap pearance at the s a l u t a t io dem anded a form al neatness. 9 1 - 5 T h e use o f direct speech indicates th a t the anecdote is draw ing to a close. 91 durus: 16.70. V o lte i scans as two syllables by synizesis (cf. P o m p e i at C . 2.7.5 ar*d 2.70η.); n im is belongs w ith a tte n tu s ‘frugal’ ( O L D 3) όητό κοινού. 92- 3 M en a’s tone has the pathos o f tragedy (Leo (1912) 135 n. 3); cf. E ur. I T 4 9 9 -5 0 0 ‘W h a t nam e did your father give you? :: W e m ight fairly be called “ W retch ” ’ and S iegm und’s reply to Sieglinde in Act 1 Scene 11 o f W ag n er’s D i e W a l k ü r e : T c a n ’t call m yself “ P eaceful” ; I wish I were called “ C heerful” ; b u t “ W oeful” has to be m y n a m e .’ T h o u g h no R o m an bore the cognom en M i s e r , M ena, as a Greek, m ight have been punning on the p ro p er nam e Άθλιας > άθλιος ‘w retch ed ’ (this nam e is attested along w ith the p u n in Diog. L aert. 6.44). 93

ponere =

im p o n e r e

(O L D 16b, Bo 388); cf. O v.

T r.

3.6.36

n o m in a

s i f a c t o re d d e re u era u e lis .

94 quod ‘w herefore’ introduces a wish or ad ju ra tio n (O L D tb , K - S π 321), esp. in poetry, so the p ath etic tone is sustained. T h e list after p e r , alliteration, and the synonym ous verbs o f beseeching also enhance the urgency o f his prayer. For G e n iu m see g e n i a li s 1.87—80.; for sim ilar requests in its nam e see PI. C a p t. 977, T e r. A n . 289, [T ibull.] 4.5.7; for

COM M ENTARY:

Ep.

7.94-8

173

requests by the right h an d (symbol o f honour) see PI. A m . 923, Virg. 4.314; for an oath by the Penates see C I L 1 582. 95 obsecro et obtestor: paired also in PI. A u l . 716, Cic. Q u in c t. 91 and F a m . 2.1.2. Elision o f final δ in a w ord o f cretic shape ( —u —) before et is strictly confined by A ugustan poets to the first foot (cf. Virg. E e l. 4.12 P o ll i o e t, A . 1.391 n u n tio e t, 11.503 a u d eo e t) . uitae ‘w ay o f life’ ( O L D 7a). redde echoes 25, 27. O nly Philippus can waive the loan w ith which the farm was bought. 96-8 T h e m oral is d raw n in two stages, which relate back to the whole o f the epistle, r e p e ta t recalls the advice to the vixen at 33, and m e t i r i em braces all references to size, w hether physical (te n u is 29, m a cra 33) o r m etap h o rical (p a r u u m 44, te n u i 56, p a r u is 58). 96 sem el agnouit: H o ld er’s em endation a g n o u it (later w ithdraw n) is accepted e x e m p li g r a t i a . T h e m ain M S tradition offers s im u l a s p e x it, an in ad v erten t recollection o f 90; all editors ad o p t se m e l from the recentio r e s . T h e w ord a s p e x it ousted m ay be beyond recovery. dim issa = r e lic ta (97). petitis: the objects o f our striving can prove unsatisfying. 97 mature ‘speedily’. T h e triple repetition o f the prefix re is excep­ tional an d drives hom e the advice. 9 » A p ro verbial s e n te n tia concludes the poetic argum ent (O tto §1107). T h e view was also given philosophical sanction by Panaetius, a second-century Stoic who lived for a tim e in Rom e. His w ork on p ro p er b eh av io u r is the basis o f C icero’s D e officiis. In discussing deco­ ru m , w h a t is ap p ro p riate for a m an, Cicero says: s ic e n im e st f a c ie n d u m , A.

u t c o n tra u n iu e rsa m n a tu r a m n ih il c o n te n d a m u s, ea ta m e n c o n se ru a ta p r o p r ia m n o s tr a m s e q u a m u r , u t, e tia m s i s in t a l ia g r a u io r a a tq u e m e lio r a , ta m e n n o s s tu d ia

1.110, cf. L —S 1 4 2 7 -8 , 11 420). Even the E picureans held th a t am bitious m en m ust follow their n a ­ tures if they were to achieve happiness (Plut. M o r a l . 4 6 5 F ) . se quemque suo: em phasizes personal responsibility in the con­ n o s tr a n o s tr a e n a tu r a e r e g u la m e tia m u r { O f f .

d u ct o f life. pede ‘fo o trule’ ap p aren tly , a unique usage ( O L D 9). uerum est = d e c e t, cf. S . 2.3.312, quoted in 18.28η. ( i . n n . ) . J u s t as V I gave a fuller justification for H .’s refusal to toe a system atic philosophical line in his search for happiness, so this epistle starts by

COM M ENTARY:

Ep.

3.1

elab o ratin g an issue laten t in the refusal in the first epistle to com pose m ore lyric poetry. W h at th at entailed was also ab a n d o n in g the life of pleasure th a t he had enjoyed w ith M aecenas. H e begins this letter by pursuing the m a tte r and accounting m ore fully for the change o f h ea rt th a t the years have brought. B ut from this opens out an altogether m ore pressing issue, the rig h t relation betw een p a tro n and client, fo­ cussed above all on the p a tro n ’s obligation to keep an eye on the client’s best interests and so respect his aspiration tow ards in d ep en ­ dence and self-determ ination. B ut the b u rden o f striking a b alance falls above all upon H. himself, as three o f the four illustrative passages show by focussing upon the recipient (if the vixen m ay be included) o f benefits, real or im agined. I t is rem arkable th a t pseudo-A cro finds the tone o f this letter harsh and severe. H e introduces the poem thus: h a c e p is to la a s p e r iu s a c d e s ­ tr ic tiu s [more uncom prom isingly] M a e c e n a ti p r a e s c r i b i t l ib e r ta te m se o p ib u s non u e n d ere ; and on 37 he says n u n c p a u l o a s p e r io r e st. T his view Shackleton Bailey is inclined to share — he speaks o f the abrasiveness of 2 9 -3 9 (55) and the aggressive assertion o f independence (56), a mes­ sage n o t com prom ised to spare M aecenas’ feelings. It m ay be th a t the original a u th o r o f the scholia lived, like Suetonius, at a tim e w hen the relations between friends o f u n eq u al financial m eans required g reater servility on the p a rt o f the inferior (cf. F raenkel 15-16). F u r th e r r e a d in g :

T . Berres, ‘ “ Erlebnis und K u n stg estalt” im 7. B rief des H o ra z’, H e r m e s 120 (1992) 216 -3 7 ; N icholas H orsfall, L a v i l l a s a b in a d i O r a z i o : i l g a la te o d e lla g r a titu d in e . U n a r ile ttu r a d e lla s e ttim a e p is to la d e l p r i m o lib r o

(Venosa 1993).

Epistle VIII 1-2 H . asks the M use to carry greetings an d a m essage to A lbi­ novanus Celsus, now unknow n, though his poetic aspirations (w hich here p ro m p t invocation o f the M use) are clear from 3.15—20. His u n ­ usual ( a g ) n o m en m ay link him to A lbinovanus Pedo, the poet and friend of O vid (and perhaps p r a e f e c tu s e q u itu m u n d e r G erm anicus, so R E 1 IS M ·1 2 -2 0 )· H e m ay also be the Celsus, friend o f C o tta M axim us, whose d ea th O vid m ourns a t P o n t. 1.9. i

Celso is d at. w ith

re fe r ,

w hich governs the infinitives ( K - S 1 683);

COM M ENTARY:

Ep.

8.1-3

175

b u t beside g a u d e r e it suggests a p arody o f a G reek epistolary greeting, Κελσωι χαίρειν (as pseudo-A cro noted; R om an salutations differed: see io. i). T h a t w ould be an ap p ro p riate form o f salutation from a M u s a (rath er th a n a C a m e n a ). T h e parts o f his nam e are reversed to suggest a verbal po in t (17η., cf. 2.1η.) and belong together άττό κοινού. bene rem gerere ‘to fare prosperously’, a com m on greeting ( T L L vi 2 .1 9 4 3 .6 6 -7 1 ), here perhaps chosen for a m oral colour to be applied to both correspondents. 2 rogata ‘at m y request’; cf. C atull. 35.2 u e lim C a e c ilio , p a p y r e , d ic a s for a sim ilar use o f an interm ediary. refer ‘d u ly tell h im ’ ( O L D 5); re often implies th a t the action is a p p ro p ria te or expected (Page on V irg. E e l. 3.21), though some as­ sum e Celsus h ad w ritten to H. and th a t this is his reply. comiti scribaeque: the pairing m ay reflect his official titles; C. C ichorius, R ö m is c h e S tu d ie n (Leipzig and Berlin 1922) 387 com pares the reference o f G erm anicus to Baebius as his ‘friend and secretary’ (§320.11 in V. E h ren b erg and A. Η. M . Jones (edd.), D o c u m e n ts i l l u ­ s t r a t i n g th e r e ig n s o f A u g u s tu s a n d T ib e r i u s (Oxford 1976)). Like Florus in I I I , Celsus has a place in the co h ors o f T iberius. W h a t is more, he has secured a staff ap p o in tm en t ( R E iv 1.623.24-5). T h e s c r ib a was a p er­ sonal secretary w ith charge also o f accounts and records; he was of equestrian rank, b u t n o t so elevated th a t he should expect to rise m uch furth er (S. D em ougin, L ’o rd r e e q u e stre so u s les ju l io - c l a u d i e n s (Collection de l’ecole f r a ^ a is e de R om e 108, 1988) 710-12). This has a bearing on the advice a t the end; nor should it be forgotten th a t H. him self was a s c r ib a q u a e s to r iu s (B. on E p . 2 .2 .5 1 -2 ), w hom A ugustus w anted for personal correspondence (In tro d u ctio n p. 6). 3-12 H. gives some account o f himself, by way o f p reparing the ground for his advice to Celsus. H e is not well in spirit, but at least he can analyse the grounds for his indisposition. This sets up a contrast betw een him self an d Celsus (n ec recte ) ( r e c te ), and softens the im plied w arning th a t tru e self-knowledge m ust back up o u r assessment o f our situation. 3 quid agam both ‘how I a m ’ and ‘w hat I ’m up to’ ( O L D 2 if. and see 3.15η.). multa et pulchra minantem ''though prom ising m any fine things’ ( O L D m in o r 1 3; cf. p o l l i c i t u s 7.1η.) < S . 2.3.9 m u lta e t p r a e c la r a m in a n tis (for both cf. Patrocles fr. 1.3 N. τι δ ή τα θνητοί ττόλλ’ άπειλούμεν

COM M ENTARY:

Ep.

8.3-9

μ άτηυ). T h e language sounds doubly Greek, and so again is a p p ro p ri­ ate to the M use’s way of speaking. First, et is superfluous in L atin, since m u lta is here used as a noun (cf. 2.21 a s p e r a m u l t a ) , b u t the expression evokes π ο λλά και καλά. Secondly, the sense o f m in o r is unusual (Servius noted this on A. 2.96); it is an o th er caique, on άπειλέω (as C ruquius saw), which m eans either ‘prom ise’ or ‘th re a te n ’, b u t usually the latter. (In the satire from which this phrase is recalled, the speaker is a Greek, D am asippus.) F or the m oral colour of p u lc h r a see 2.3η. 4 uiuere: sc. m e (2.1 in .), recte refers to m oral ideals (6.29η.), s u a u ite r ‘agreeably’ to inclinations (cf. S . 1.6.130 u iu ere s u a u i u s ) . 4-7 baud quia .. . nec quia .. . sed quia: the carefully repeated articu latio n o f the colloquial q u ia suits the arg u m en tativ e style (12. ιο ­ ί 1, B. on E p . 2 . 1 . 7 6 - 7 ) . F or h a u d see 7 . 4 0 η . and In tro d u c tio n pp. 1 8 - 1 9 . T h e subjunc. (c o n tu d e r it, m o m o r d e r it, a e g r o te t) is reg u lar in re­ jected reasons (G - L § 5 4 1 N2 , N L S § 2 4 3 ) . 4 grando: cf. C . 3.1.29 u e r b e r a ta e g r a n d in e u in ea e . H .’s farm did not produce wine (14.23); this and the following disasters have n othing to do w ith him b u t perhaps recall M e n a ’s m isfortunes (7 .8 6 -7 ). 5 momorderit ‘n ip p ed ’ (OLD 6b), cf. C. 3 .1 .3 0 -2 a r b o r e . . . c u lp a n te nunc to r r e n tia a g r o s s id e r a .

6

A reference to transhum ance, the p astu rin g o f herds in different places at different seasons; lo n g in q u is suggests th a t the beasts are too far aw ay to be easily tended. 7—ii sed quia .. . uelim etc.: all the verbs in the clause giving the real reasons are also p a rt of the indir. speech begun w ith d ie (3), hence the subjunc. (6.22η.). corpore toto answers obliquely the question of 3: H .’s health is com pletely (to to ) sound. His suffering is not financial o r physical, b u t spiritual { m e n te ), a m alaise o f aimless dissatisfaction, not uncom m on am ong the successful m iddle-aged. This them e will be developed later. T h e th o u g h t and even perhaps expression echo L ucr. 3.109 cu m m is e r ex a n im o l a e ta tu r c o rp o re to to .

8 nil ... nil: 1,88n. a u d ir e and d isc e r e are keyw ords picked up from i .48. H . refuses to be receptive to w ell-intended advice, a n o th e r p allia­ tive for the w arning he is ab o u t to offer Celsus. leuet ‘alleviate’ (B. on E p . 2.2.212); s e e p o s s im 1.12η. 9 fidis .. . medicis: to be understood literally, not figuratively of philosophical texts (cf. S . 2.3.147 m e d ic u s . . . f id e lis ·, f i d o s 5.24η.); the

C O M M E N T A R Y : E p . 8.9-15

177

restless an d discontented rail at ( O L D offen do 7b) their unnecessary doctors (Plut. M o r a l . 466c τον ιατρόν α ΐτιώ ντα ι). For the com bined interest o f doctors and friends in a person’s well-being cf. C atull. 41.5— 6 p r o p i n q u i , q u ib u s e st p u e l la c u ra e , | a m ic o s m ed ic o sq u e con u ocate. f i d i s goes w ith a m ic is οπτό κοινού. 10 cur suggests reproach, ra th e r th an a genuine question; cf. C. 1.8 .2 -3 S y b a r in c u r p r o p e r e s a m a n d o \ p e r d e r e ( T L L i v 1451.61-8). me . . . arcere ueterno: cf. A P 64 c la s s e s A q u ilo n ib u s a rc e t, (1.31η.). u e tern u s = λ η θ α ρ γία (S . 2.3.145) ‘co m a’, a term o f wide m eaning, but a poten tially fatal sym ptom , hence f u n e s t o (Cels. 3.20). H. need not be ex ag g eratin g the seriousness o f his listlessness; a letter from Augustus refers to his u n certain health (Suet, u ita H o r . 29 R ostagni), and active m en find depression h a rd e r to deal with. 11 nocuere: the indie, is retained in a subord. clause in 0 .0 . w hen it is a circum locution for w h at m ight have been expressed s u b s ta n tia lly , here, e.g., res in iu r io s a s (N L S §§286—8, esp. 287). T he sentim ent is a pre-echo o f O v. M e t . 7.20 u id e o m e lio r a p r o b o q u e , d e te r io r a se q u o r. ia uentosus: inconstancy o f purpose clearly lies at the h eart o f H .’s m alaise, cf. S . 2.7.28—9 R o m a e ru s o p ta s , a b se n te m r u stic u s u rb em \ t o ll i s a d a s tr a le u is . T ib u r e is locative (B. on E p . 2.2.3); see 7-45n · 13-17 H. now turns to Celsus, w ith a w arning about the dangers of com placency am id success. 13 ut ualeat: cf. 3 . 1 2 n . F o r qu o p a c to s e e 6 . i o n . rem g e r a t p i c k s u p t h e o p e n i n g g r e e t i n g , b u t t h e a d d i t i o n o f se ( ‘h o w h e c o n d u c t s h i m s e l f ’, O L D g e r o 7 ) m a k e s a t r a n s i t i o n t o H . ’s r e a l c o n c e r n .

14 iuueni: T iberius was in his early twenties. percontare: cf. u te re 6.68n. T h a t Celsus has found favour with T iberius is clear from his appointm ent. His standing w ith the other a m ic i m ig h t well prove h a rd e r to be sure of; from I I I we see the tensions th at exist am ong them . Celsus’ new position opens him up to envy and even slander. 15 recte: a reasonable enough answ er to the questions about his health an d personal affairs, but u n ce rtain ty w ould be a m ore p ru d en t response concerning his relations w ith T iberius and the rest o f the c o h o rs.

gaudere ‘to display your d elight’, alm ost ‘co n g ratu late’ depends on άττό κοινού. T h e M use is told to be pleased on Celsus’ behalf, to soften h er friendly w arning. m e m e n to

COM M ENTARY:

Ep.

8.16-9.1

16 instillare: the w arning is to be as g rad u al as the infusion o f oil into clogged ears (for the m etap h o r cf. 2.53), so th a t Celsus m ay come to un derstan d the real pitfalls o f his situation (esp. since he should try to hear w hat will from now on be said o f him ). memento ‘be sure to ’ ( O L D 4a), a colloquial usage, p o p u lar with poets ( T L L viii 653.64-78; N - H w rongly regard it as form al at C . 2.1 7.31). O f course, as a d au g h ter o f M nem osyne (Greek for m em ory), the M use will have no difficulty. 17 fortunam sc. f e r e s , cf. C . 3.2 7 .7 4 -5 ben e f e r r e m a g n a m | d isc e fo r tu n a m .

Celse: the unusual repetition o f the nam e in an em p h atic position points to the d an g er to which the addressee is now exposed. H e is indeed ‘exalted’, b u t it w ould not do to ru b his friends’ noses in his own success. H. likes to play w ith the m eaning o f nam es, e.g., p a u p e r O p im iu s S . 2.3.142, i m m i ti s G ly c e r a e C . 1.33.2, S c a e u a 17.1η. T h e advice to use self-restraint in prosperity recalls C . 2.10.23—5 s a p ie n te r id e m | c o n tra h e s uento n im iu m secu n d o \ tu r g id a u ela .

H. returns to society in general, w ith his eye again on the circle of T iberius, introduced in II I. H a v in g introduced the them e o f the right relationship between p atro n and client in V II, he can focus on an o th er aspect o f it here and in the next epistle. In b oth he is concerned for young m en who are m aking their w ay upw ards in R om an society. Gelsus has arrived, b u t needs to be m ade aw are o f the dangers of com placency both tow ards his p a tro n and o th er aspirants. M ü ller sug­ gested th a t the letter was placed here because it too develops the them e o f H .’s unreliable m ood, which was p u t dow n to fears o f sickness in V II, b u t now seems due to spiritual malaise.

Epistle IX i “ 9 H. explains to T iberius w hy Septim ius has chosen him to w rite this letter o f recom m endation. T h e em phasis is clearly laid up o n S epti­ mius appraisal o f H .: i n t e l l i g i t , c e n se t, u id e t, n o u it (1—6). H .’s ow n self­ ap praisal is less assured (7—9)· Septim ius is p ro b a b ly the addressee of C . 2.6, and m ay also be the S e p tim iu s n o s te r m entioned in a letter from A ugustus to H. (Suet, u ita H o r . 31 R ostagni). N othing is know n of his background, b u t from this epistle it is clear th a t he aim ed to im prove

C O M M E N T A R Y : Ep. 9.1-7

179

his status, an d th a t H . thought well enough o f him to lend a hand. Its pub licatio n shows th a t H. secured his wish. 1 C la u d i: the R om ans at this tim e h ad no formal address equivalent to o u r ‘sir’; the son o f a freedm an uses the noblem an’s given nam e. n i m i r u m . . . u n u s ‘b etter th an anyone else, it w ould seem ’ ( OLD unus 8; L. on S. 2.2.106); nimirum, a colloquial w ord (and so found only in a speech in Virg. A. 3.558), is here ironical. 2 q u a n t i : gen. o f v a l u e ; facias ‘esteem ’ (OLD 18c). c u m ‘in th a t’ (OLD 9); the apodosis is in 6. r o g a t e t p r e c e c o g it: cf. Plin. Ep. 9 .2 1.4 uereor ne uidear non rogare sed cogere, si precibus eius meas iunxero. cogit shows th at H. acts under com pul­ sion. T h e abl. sing, o fprex, rarely encountered outside poetry, is com ­ m on in H . to w hom its two short syllables recom m end it; the usual plur. serves for o th er cases. 3 s c il i c e t ‘ac tu a lly ’ (OLD 2) goes w ith cogit, tradere ‘recom m end’ {OLD 7). c o n e r : a qualification; H. should m ake the attem p t at least and leave the decision to Tiberius; cf. experiar S. 2.6.39. 4 ‘as being a man w orthy o f the ch aracter and household o f a Nero, w ho selects only w h at is h o n o u rab le’ (OL D mens 4ε, domus 6, lego2 6). For the atta c h m e n t o f the attributes to se see 4.15η. L atin often does not express the idea o f ‘only’ (K enney on Lucr. 3.144 w ith addenda). F or the th o u g h t see S. 1.6.62-3 magnum hoc ego duco, \ quod placui tibi [M aecenas], qui turpi secernis honestum. T h e rhythm o f the line is note­ w orth y for the com plete harm ony o f w ord accent and verse ictus (cf. 2.43, 14.30; W altz 2 1 8 -9 ) and for four successive trochaic caesurae (generally avoided: W altz 214, W inbolt §70). C om m entators fancy a variety o f reasons for these unusual features. h o n e s t a : generalizing neuter plur. as at C. 1.34.14 obscura promens. 5 C onstrue: cum fungi munere propioris amici censet; cum ‘because’ (OLD 6); me is to be supplied from coner. W ith propioris cf. S. 2.6.52 deos quoniam propius contingis, censet ‘supposes’ carries the nuance o f holding possibly m istaken views (OLD 2). 6 p o s s i m ‘am cap ab le o f ’ (2.17η.). For the abl. o f com parison me . . . ipso see 1.106η. u a l d i u s , colloquial and com m on in C icero’s letters, is unusual in poetry (B. on A P 321). 7 q u i d e m ‘to be sure’ {OLD 3a). F or cur see 8. ion. excusatus ‘released

COMMENTARY:

E p . 9 .7 - 1 3

from the d u ty ’ (OLD 3), abirem ‘I m ight get off w ith im p u n ity ’, a judicial m etap h o r (OLD 7b, L. on S. 2.3.246). 8 m e a ‘w h at is in my pow er’ (OLD 7). p u t a r e r : it is n o t suggested th a t the notion h ad occurred to Sep­ timius. A t S. 2 .6 .3 8 -9 H . depicts him self as not being believed w hen he fails to guaran tee th a t he can secure M aecenas’ agreem ent to a docum ent. 9 d i s s i m u l a t o r = είρων: ‘the m ock-m odest m an . . . disclaim s w hat he has or belittles it’ (Arist. E M 4 . 7 . 3 . 1 1 2 7 A 2 2 ) . B ut since to belittle one’s capacities m ay be polite (as it is for A ristotle; cf. S. 1 . 1 0 . 1 3 — 1 4 urbani parcentis uiribus atque | extenuantis eas consulto), H . adds a phrase th at leaves no doubt. c o m m o d u s ‘obliging’ ( OLD 5b); uni ‘alone’ (i.io 6 n .). 1 0 - 11 His effort to be let off having failed, H . is reduced to w h a t he regards as a lesser evil th an failing a friend, effrontery. 11 ‘I have stooped to the privileges of tow n-bred assurance’ (OLD descendo 8 b , frons2 3). M odesty has long been a ttrib u te d to country-folk (Cic. Fam. 5.12.1); the tow n dw eller exercises a breezy inform ality. 1 1 - 13 H. at last makes his request briskly. F or the en jam b m en t with quodsi see In tro d u ction p. 24. 12 d e p o s i t u m . . . p u d o r e m ‘the laying aside o f m y m odesty’ (2.7η.). la u d a s : H. leaves it to T iberius to decide w hether his recom m end­ ing Septim ius is after all acceptable. o b a m i c i iu s s a : the request o f a friend brooked no refusal, unless it was m orally reprehensible (cf. 18.45 imperiis and the com m onplace of literary exordia in antiquity, th a t com position and p u b licatio n have been ordered by a friend; E. R . C urtius, European literature and the Latin Middle Ages (Eng. trans. L ondon 1954) 85). T his phrase explains and justifies H .’s suppression of scruple, b u t does no t force T ib eriu s’ deci­ sion one way or the other. 13 s c r ib e ‘enroll’ (OLD 7); tui gregis ‘as one o f your set (OLD 3 )’, a partitiv e gen. used poetically w ith the verb (K - S 1 453). Septim ius w ants to be m ore th an ju st a m em ber o f the cohors w hich w ould dis­ ban d when its business was com pleted. f o r t e m . . . b o n u m q u e : the only words in praise o f Septim ius are purely conventional; cf. Cic. Fam. 13.77.2 M . Bolanum, uirum bonum et

COMMENTARY:

E p . 9 . 1 3 - 10.1

181

fortem et omnibus rebus ornatum meumque ueterem amicum, tibi magno opere commendo', C. 4 .4 .2 9fortes creanturfortibus et bonis ( T L L vi 1.1150.3-4). It m ay be th a t here and in the ode ju st cited (it is dedicated to Nero D rusus) H . alludes to the m eaning o f nero in the Sabine dialect, viz. fortis (Suet. Tib. 1.2; so O b b a r). crede ‘regard him as’ (OLD 6 w ith pred. acc.). O ne o f the com m onest kinds of friendly patrocinium ‘brokerage’ in an ­ tiqu ity entailed the w riting of letters o f introduction. Cicero collected a whole book o f them , A d fam . X I I I (H. C otton, Documentary letters o f recommendation, B eiträge zur klassische Philologie 132 (Königstein 1981) an d A .J .P . 106 (1985) 3 2 8 -3 4 ). N ow a Cicero h ad no doubt, given his status, th a t he could effect introductions and th a t his recom ­ m endations w ould be acted upon. T h e parvenu H . is in quite a different position, n o t least because only his talents have brought him into con­ tact w ith the highest in the land. O n the one h an d it is his d uty to do som ething for a w orthy aspirant who is attached to him (17.11 tuis n.), on the o th er he m ust n o t seem to presum e on his acquaintance w ith the great. W ith reserved affability he leaves the issue fairly in the hands of the aristo crat to decide, a classic m om ent in his intercourse w ith the g reat. T his letter thus opens up the them e of associating w ith the socially superior, to be justified in X V II. Professor K enney further observes th a t there is also an im plicit message for young m en on the w ay u p like Septim ius; they m ust for their p a rt be realistic in w hat they expect o f th eir seniors.

Epistle X i —11 H . writes from the country to Fuscus at Rom e; his desire to express his happiness in his choice o f residence introduces the deeper contrast betw een city and country th a t makes up the bulk o f the epistle. 1-2 Vrbis )( ruris: a contrast enhanced by the placing of the words at the h ead of each line. M . Aristius Fuscus, mihi carus in S. 1.9.61 (though he lets H. dow n maliciously) an d one of H .’s preferred readers a t S. 1.10.83, is the dedicatee o f C. 1.22. H e is said by the scholiasts to have been a no tab le schoolm aster (45), and to have been a poet (not a

COM M ENTARY:

Ep.

10.1-10

point ever noticed by H. him self); it has been suggested th a t he in ­ clined to Stoicism (S. J . H arrison, C.Q,· 42 (1992) 5 4 3 -7 ). F or saluere iubemus see 7.66η. 2 - 5 T h e p u n ctu atio n o f these lines diffidently follows K lin g n er and Shackleton Bailey; num erous variations have been proposed by editors (interpolation or the loss o f a line does not seem to explain the difficulty). 3 m u l t u m , adverbial (3.15η.), is com m on w ith words expressing difference, e.g. Ep. 2.2.62 multum diuersa. cetera ‘in other respects’ (OLD 4) is adverbial acc. w ith gemelli. 4 a n i m i s ‘feelings’ (OLD 10b), causal abl. et ‘too’, sc. negat. 5 a d n u i m u s , the sign of assent, paves the w ay to the m etap h o rical doves, birds proverbial for shared affection (O tto §414)· T h e d im in u ­ tive uetuli conveys a note of affection; the apposition o f columbi produces m etap h o r instead o f com parison (In tro d u ctio n pp. 28—30). 6 n i d u m preserves the m etaphor; for seruas cf. 5 .3 m . 7 c i r c u m l i t a ‘bestrew n’; H. crisply enum erates the most agreeable features o f the countryside, w ater and shade. F or mossy rocks cf. Lucr. 5.951 umida saxa, super uiridi stillantia musco, C atuli. 68.58 muscoso . . . e lapide. 8 q u i d q u a e r i s ? ‘in sh o rt’ (OLD 8c); a colloquial form ula, com m on in C icero’s letters, for intro d u cin g a general statem ent. u iu o ‘I really live’ (OLD 7 (in em phatic sense)), regno associates the independence them e w ith life in the country (contrast 33, 4 0 -1 and 7.44η.); cf. 1.107η. and OLD id . F or simul see 6.1 in . 9 u o s ‘you, Aristius and other cityfolk’; L atin alm ost never uses the second pers. plur. o f one person (R oby §2297). a d c a e lu m e f f e r tis ‘extol’ (OLD caelum 3d, T L L v 2.149.79). M an y editors p rin t fertis ( T L L m 9 1 .1 0 -2 2 ), b u t this is likely to be an ancient em endation designed to provide the line w ith a n o rm al cae­ sura; effertis, however, produces a ‘quasi-caesura’ (2.20η.). r u m o r e s e c u n d o ‘with cries o f ap p ro v al’, a stereotyped phrase (Skutsch on E nn. Ann. 244 Sk.), b u t L am binus detected a reference to p o p u lar opinion (‘ex opinione et consensu uulgi’), in w hich case H . is as usual asserting his independence. 10 H . rejects